Assessment Of The Toxicity Of Arsenic, Cadmium, Lead And Zinc In Soil, Plants, And Livestock In The Helena Valley For East Helena Site (Asarco), East Helena, Montana.


REM IV
Remedial Planning Activities
at Selected Uncontrolled
Hazardous Waste Sites-Zone II
Environmental Protection Agency
Hazardous Site Control Division
Contract No. 68-01-7251
[ASSESSMENT OF T"E toxicity of arsenic,
CADMIUM, LEAD AND ZINC IN SOIL, PLANTS,
AND LIVESTOCK IN THE HELENA VALLEY
OF MONTANA
for
EAST HELENA SITE (ASARCO)
EAST HELENA, MONTANA
EPA Work Assignment No. 68-8L30.0

-------
ASSESSMENT OF THE TOXICITY OF ARSENIC,
CADMIUM, LEAD AND ZINC IN SOIL, PLANTS,
AND LIVESTOCK IN THE HELENA VALLEY
OF MONTANA
for
EAST HELENA SITE (ASARCO)
EAST HELENA, MONTANA
EPA Work Assignment No. 68-8L30.0
MAY 1987

-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Table of Contents	ii
List of Tables	iv
Glossary of units, symbols, acronyms and terms	vi
1.0 Introduction	1
1.1	Purpose	1
1.2	Scope	1
1.3	Methods	1
1.4	Site Description	3
2.0 Literature Review and Hazard Levels for Livestock	5
2.1	Arsenic	5
2.1.1	Arsenic literature review	5
2.1.2	Livestock arsenic hazard levels	16
2.1.2.1	Toxic arsenic hazard levels for cattle	17
2.1.2.2	Toxic arsenic hazard levels for horses	19
2.1.2.3	Toxic arsenic hazard levels for sheep	21
2.1.2.4	Toxic arsenic hazard levels for goats	21
2.2	Cadmium	21
2.2.1	Cadmium literature review	21
2.2.2	Livestock cadmium hazard levels	33
2.2.2.1 Toxic cadmium hazard levels for cattle	33
2.2.2.2. Toxic cadmium hazard levels for horses	36
2.2.2.3 Toxic cadmium hazard levels for sheep	36
2.3	Lead	39
2.3.1	Lead literature review	39
2.3.2	Livestock lead hazard levels	50
2.3.2.1 Toxic lead hazard levels for cattle	50
2.3.2.2. Toxic lead hazard levels for horses	53
2.3.2.3 Toxic lead hazard levels for sheep	55
2.4	Zinc	56
2.4.1	Zinc literature review	56
2.4.2	Livestock zinc hazard levels	66
2.4.2.1	Toxic zinc hazard levels for cattle	66
2.4.2.2	Toxic zinc hazard levels for horses	69
2.4.2.3	Toxic zinc hazard levels for sheep and
goats	69
3.0 Literature Review and Hazard Levels for Soils and Plants	74
3.1 Arsenic in soils and plants	75
3.1.1	Arsenic literature review	75
3.1.2	Arsenic in soils	84
3.1.2.1	Total arsenic in soils	84
3.1.2.2	Extractable soil arsenic	87
3.1.3	Arsenic in plants	87
i i

-------
3.2	Cadmium in soils and plants	88
3.2.1	Cadmium literature review	88
3.2.2	Cadmium in soils	90
3.2.2.1	Total cadmium in soils	90
3.2.2.2	Extractable soil cadmium	109
3.3.3	Cadmium in plants	109
3.3	Lead in soils and plants	110
3.3.1	Lead literature review	110
3.3.2	Lead in soils	111
3.3.2.1	Total lead in soils	111
3.3.2.2	Extractable soil lead	116
3.3.3	Lead in plants	117
3.4	Zinc in soils and plants	118
3.4.1	Zinc literature review	118
3.4.2	Zinc in soils	228
3.4.2.1	Total zinc in soils	118
3.4.2.2	Extractable soil zinc	131
3.4.3	Zinc in plants	132
4.0 Hazard Levels for Water	134
4.1	Water Quality Levels for Livestock	134
4.2	Water Quality Levels for Irrigation	136
5.0 Regulatory Criteria From Other Technologies	138
5.1	Criteria from Land Application of Sewage Sludge	138
5.2	Criteria from Coal Overburden Suitability for Root
Zone Material	143
5.3	Criteria for Defining Hazardous Wastes	143
5.4	Criteria for Metal Contaminants Based on Land Use 143
5.5	Summary	143
6.0 Appendix	151
6.1	Toxicology Mechanisms of Metals for Livestock	151
6.1.1	Arsenic toxicology	151
6.1.2	Cadmium toxicology	153
6.1.3	Lead toxicology	156
6.1.4	Zinc toxicology	159
6.2	Toxicology Mechanisms of Metals for Plants	161
6.2.1	Arsenic toxicology	161
6.2.2	Cadmium toxicology	163
6.2.3	Lead toxicology	165
6.2.4	Zinc toxicology	166
6.3	Computerized Data Base Utilized	168
7.0 References Cited	174
111

-------
LIST OF TABLES
Number	Page
1	Background arsenic levels in livestock fluids and hair	7
2	Background arsenic levels in livestock tissues	8
3	Elevated arsenic levels in livestock fluids and hair	9
4	Elevated arsenic levels in livestock tissues	11
5	Diagnostic levels of arsenic in cattle	18
6	Diagnostic levels of arsenic in horses	20
7	Diagnostic levels of arsenic in sheep and goats	22
8	Background cadmium levels in livestock fluids and hair	24
9	Background cadmium levels in livestock tissues	25
10	Elevated cadmium levels in livestock fluids and hair	27
11	Elevated cadmium levels in livestock tissues	29
12	Diagnostic levels of cadmium in cattle	34
13	Diagnostic levels of cadmium in horses	37
14	Diagnostic levels of cadmiun in sheep and goats	38
15	Background lead levels in livestock fluids and hair	40
16	Background lead levels in livestock tissues	42
17	Elevated lead levels in livestock fluids and hair	43
18	Elevated lead levels in livestock tissues	45
19	Diagnostic levels of lead in cattle	51
20	Diagnostic levels of lead in horses	54
21	Diagnostic levels of lead in sheep and goats	57
22	Background zinc levels in livestock fluids and hair	59
23	Background zinc levels in livestock tissues	60
24	Elevated zinc levels in livestock fluids and hair	61
25	Elevated zinc levels in livestock tissues	63
26	Diagnostic levels of zinc in cattle	67
27	Diagnostic levels of zinc in horses	70
28	Diagnostic levels of zinc in sheep	71
29	Diagnostic levels of zinc in goats	73
30	Phytotoxicity of total arsenic in soils	76
31	Phytotoxicity of extractable arsenic in soils	78
32	Phytotoxicity of arsenic in vegetation	80
33	Comparison between concentrated HC1 and NaHCC>3 for
determination of extractable soil arsenic (ppm)	83
34	Interpretive guide for concentrated HC1 soil extractable
arsenic	85
35	Relative tolerance of crops to arsenic	86
36	Phytotoxicity of total cadmium in soils	91
37	Phytotoxicity of extractable cadmium in soils	96
38	Phytotoxicity of cadmium in vegetation	99
39	Phytotoxicity of total lead in soils	112
40	Phytotoxicity of extractable lead in soils	114
41	Phytotoxicity of lead in vegetation	115
42	Phytotoxicity of total zinc in soils	119
43	Phytotoxicity of extractable zinc in soils	122
44	Phytotoxicity of zinc in vegetation	124
45	Water quality criteria for arsenic, cadmium, lead, and
2inc	13 5
46	Irrigation water criteria for arsenic, cadmium, lead,
and zinc	137
47	Maximum permissible cumulative metal loadings from sewage
sludge to agricultural lands	139
iv

-------
48
Suitability criteria for soil overburden used as
materials.

49
EP toxicity testing for hazardous materials
145
50
Identification of hazardous wastes (California)
146
51
Acceptable concentration of contaminants in soils


(United Kingdom)
14 7
52
Suggested hazarad criteria for soil ba.sed on regulatory


agency data
150
V

-------
Glossary of Units, Symbols, Acronyms and Terms
Units
kg	kilogram; kg = 103 g
g	gram - 10-3 kg
mg	milligram; mg = 10-3 g
ug	microgram; ug = 10-3 mg
ng	nanogram; ng = 10-3 Ug
L	liter; L = 1 dm3
ml	milliliter; ml = 10-3 l
Symbols
ppm	parts per million = ug/g = mg/kg
ppb	parts per billion = 10-3 ppm, ng/g = ug/kg
ug/g	microgram/gram
mg/kg	milligram/kilogram
mg/L	milligram/liter
ug/L	microgram/1 iter
ug/ml	microgram/milliliter
ng/ml	nanogram/milliliter
Acronyms
AA	Arsanilic acid
ALA-D	Delta aminolevulinic dehydratase
AAS	Atomic absorption spectrophotometry
AOAC	Association of Official Agricultural Chemists
AWT	Ash weight basis
CCM	Copper carbonate method
CEC	Cation exchange capacity
d	Day
DTPA	Diethylenetriaminepentaacetic acid
DW	Dry weight basis
EDTA	Ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid
EPA	Environmental Protection Agency
EPA CV	Environmental Protection Agency cold vapor method
ES	Emission spectrographic
FEP	Blood-free erthrotyte porphyrins
FLAAS	Flameless atomic absorption spectrophotometry
GLC	Gas liquid chromatography
INAA	Instrumental neutron activation analysis
IPAA	Instrumental photon activation analysis
LD20	A dose which is lethal for 20 percent of the test
subjects
MMC	Methyl mercuric chloride
MMH	Methyl mercuric hydroxide
Mo	Month
MSMA	Monosodium acid methanearsonate
MW	Mining waste
MYC	Mycorrhiza
ND	Not determined
v i

-------
NOAA	National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
NR	Not reported
NRC	National Research Council
NS	Not significant
OM	Organic Matter Content
pH	Negative logarithm, base 10, of H+ concentration
PMA	Phenyl mercuric acetate
RNAA	Radiochemical neutron activation analysis
SCS	U.S. Soil Conservation Service
SSMS	Spark source mass spectrometry
USDA	United States Department of Agriculture
USGS	United States Geological Survey
WW	Wet weight basis
Wks	Weeks
XRFL	X-ray fluorescence
YR	Yield reduction
Terms
acute -	Sharp; poignant. Having a short and relatively
severe course.
chronic -	Persisting over a long period of time.
phytotoxic - Pertaining to a phytotoxin. Inhibiting the growth
of plants.
toxicosis	- Any disease condition due to poisoning,
criterion	- A standard by which something may be judged.
v i i

-------
1.0 INTRODUCTION
This document consists of a literature review and presents
candidate hazard levels for assessment of selected environmental
hazards associated with the East Helena smelter complex. A
substantial amount of material was reviewed but additional
material will no doubt be added to these data as the study
progresses. This document has been prepared specifically for the
Helena Valley, Montana area and use of this document for evalua-
tion of other sites should be done only after appropriate consid-
eration of site specific conditions.
1.1	Purpose
This document is a literature review from which hazard levels
were developed to assess potential risk to plants and livestock
from chemical element levels found in soil, plants, livestock and
water present in the vicinity of the East"Helena smelter. These
hazard levels will enable determination of the potential danger to
these agricultural resources. It is the intent of this review to
assess only the potential risk to agricultural production. This
document does not address any subsequent risk to the human
population from consumption of these agricultural products.
1.2	Scope
The scope of this document (Volume 1) is confined to the
metals arsenic, cadmium, lead and zinc present in soil, water,
plants and livestock and their toxic affects to plants and
livestock. In addition, a brief discussion on the toxicology
mechanisms of these four metals to livestock and vegetation is
included. Volume 2 presents similar data for plants and soils for
the metals copper, mercury, selenium, silver and thallium.
1.3	Methods
Portions of the literature presented in this document were
procured through the use of a computer search utilizing numerous
data bases. Data bases utilized included AGRICOLA, BIOSIS, CAB
1

-------
Abstracts, CRIS-USDA, ENVIROLINE, MEDLINE, NTIS, Pollution
Abstracts, SCISEARCH and Water Resources Abstracts. A brief
description of these data bases is included in section 6.3.
Conventional library methods were also employed for researching
abstracts, periodicals and other materials. No attempt was made
to determine the relative importance of field studies versus
greenhouse studies, but study settings are given in appropriate
tables to enable the reader to evaluate this variable. No attempt
was made to evaluate synergistic or antagonistic effects of these
metals although some of these mechanisms are documented in the
text. Levels of impact or an evaluation of an acceptable impact
have not been determined but this data is included in appropriate
tables when reported in the referenced literature.
The authors conducted a meeting to establish normal, tolera-
ble, uncertain and toxic levels of metals in soils, plants, and
livestock. At this meeting all literature was discussed followed
by establishment of hazard levels based on the reviewed litera-
ture.
Background values for all parameters were generally derived
directly from data in the reviewed literature and are the minimum
and maximum or only value reported for normal or control parame-
ters. The background range will no doubt expand as. more data
become available.
The tolerable level represent the maximum concentrations at
which no toxicity has been noted. These levels were not available
for many parameters.
The uncertain range represents the chemical level at which
both nontoxic and toxic results have been reported by various
studies. This result stems from variations in individual animal
tolerances, variations in experimental designs, and by synergistic
or antagonistic effects of other constituents.
Toxic concentrations have been derived from two major
sources: 1) the results of individual studies and 2) criteria
reported as toxic in toxicology manuals, texts, and special
publications.
2

-------
Data derived under conditions similar to those found in the
Helena Valley merited greater consideration than other data. For
example, a toxic soil level for wheat on calcareous loamy soils
was more applicable than a toxic soil level for cabbage on sandy
acid soils. The hazard levels presented in this document are thus
site specific for crops and conditions present in the Helena
Valley as much as allowed by the reviewed literature. In some
cases, a site specific evaluation was not possible. Site specific
conditions for the Helena Valley are presented in the following
section (1.4). Once hazard levels were developed they were
compared to means and ranges of soil/plant chemical levels
measured in the Helena Valley and control sites.
1.4 Site Description
The Helena Valley is located in west central Montana and
trends in a west northwest direction. It is 35.4 km (22.1 mi)
long and 17.1 km (10.7 mi) wide. The valley is bounded on the
northeast by the Big Belt Mountains, on the south by the Elkhorn
Mountains and the Boulder Batholith, and on the west by mountains
forming the continental divide. Lower portions of the valley are
occupied by Lake Helena and Hauser Lake formed by dams on Prickly
Pear Creek and the Missouri River. Elevations range from 1,113 m
(3650 ft) mean sea level at Hauser Lake to 2,560 m (8,400 ft) in
the surrounding mountains. Geological materials on the valley
floor consist of quaternary and tertiary sediments that are
consolidated or poorly consolidated. Soils are moderately
calcareous and composed of silt and clay (Miesch and Huffman
1969). Typical soil series mapped in portions of the Helena
Valley are the Hilger, Martinsdale, Musselshell, and Sappington
series all of which contain horizons that are "strongly to
violently" effervescent (Soil Conservation Service 1977b). Except
for an area in the immediate vicinity of East Helena surficial
soil pH values range from about 7.1 to 8.6 (EPA, 1986) Soil
profiles are poorly to moderately developed on both quaternary and
tertiary parent materials. The Helena Valley is semi-arid and
receives less than 25.4 cm (10 in) of annual precipitation. The
3

-------
adjacent mountains receive up to 76.2 cm (30 in) of annual
precipitation (Soil Conservation Service 1977). The climate is
modified continental with an average annual temperature of 6.3°C
(43.3°F) (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
1983). Average January and July temperatures at Helena are -8°C
(18.1°f) and 20°C (67.9°F) respectively (NOAA 1983). Agricultural
crops in the Valley are alfalfa, small grains (usually wheat,
barley and some oats) and range land.
The Helena Valley is the site for two incorporated cities:
Helena and East Helena with approximate populations of 23,900 and
2,400 respectively (1980 census). The two cities are located 6.4
(4 mi) and 1 km (0.6 mi) from the smelter complex, respectively.
The valley has been the site of a lead smelter since the
Helena and Livingston facility was built in East Helena in 1888.
The smelter was purchased by its present owner (American Smelting
and Refining Company) in 1899. The Anaconda Company built a zinc
plant adjacent to the smelter in 1927 to recover zinc from waste
products. In 1955 the American Chemet Company constructed a paint
pigment plant utilizing zinc oxide from the zinc facility.
it

-------
2.0 LITERATURE REVIEW AND HAZARD LEVELS FOR LIVESTOCK
There are three general approaches to determining the body
burden of heavy metals in livestock. These are: 1) analyzing
internal organ tissues; 2) analyzing accessible body fluids and
materials; and 3) the iji vivo determination of heavy metals
utilizing radiometric analyses. A considerable amount of data has
been published on background and elevated heavy metal levels in
livestock organs. In most situations these organs are not
available for large scale studies. Liver and bone samples may be
procured through biopsy procedures. Data on blood, milk, hair,
feces and urine are more limited, but sufficient in some parame-
ters to allow their use in a livestock survey for some heavy
metals. The third method offers much promise in future studies
but facilities for radiometric determinations are few at this
time. The following sections outline documented levels of
selected heavy metals in various animal substances and their sig-
nificance in determining toxicosis. All values are reported on a
wet weight basis unless noted.
2.1 Arsenic
2.1.1 Arsenic literature review
Arsenic poisoning is the second most common metaloid toxin.
The element is ubiquitous and has been found in all plant and
animal tissues under normal background conditions (Schroeder and
Balassa 1966). Several forms: arsanilic acid; sodium arsanilate;
3-nitro-4-hydroxyphenylarsonic acid, have been used as feed addi-
tives to increase weight gain and feed efficiency and to control
disease in swine, poultry and other livestock.
Most documented cases of arsenic poisoning in livestock have
been acute or subacute, usually from ingesting treated forage
(Edwards and Clay 1979, Weaver 1962, McCulloch and St. John 1940,
Selby et al. 1974, Selby et al. 1977), contaminated feed
(Beregland et al. 1976, Selby et al. 1977), dipping powder and
herbicides (Moxham and Coup 1968) and various refuse (McParland
5

-------
and Thompson 1971, Selby et al. 1977). Very few cases of natural
arsenic poisoning have been reported. Fitch et al. (1939) studied
the poisoning of livestock in the Waiotapu Valley in New Zealand
and attributed it to arsenic from geothermal sources. Many cases
of chronic arsenic poisoning may be partially masked by the
effects of other heavy metal poisoning (especially lead, copper,
cadmium and zinc) usually associated with arsenic in metallurgical
mining, smelting and refining industries. It has been suggested
that some tolerance to arsenic is acquired by livestock with
chronic exposure (McCulloch and St. John 1940).
A considerable difference exists between the effective
toxicity of various forms of arsenic. Levels of total arsenic
found in marine invertebrates and fish have been found to be toxic
to aquatic organisms and fish when the arsenic was present as
arsenic trioxide (Schroeder and Balassa 1966). Bucy et al. (1955)
found differences in the toxicity of organic arsenic compounds to
sheep, with 3-nitro-4-hydroxyphenylarsonic acid the least toxic.
The study found arsanilic acid to be less toxic than potassium,
arsenite and that the latter was not very palatable to lambs. All
arsenic concentrations in livestock substances have been reported
as total arsenic. The arsenic hazard levels presented in this
document are thus based on total arsenic.
Tables 1-4 list background and elevated arsenic levels in
livestock fluids, hair and tissues. The highest concentration of
arsenic in tissues has been found in the spleen, liver and kidneys
(Peoples 1964, Edwards and Clay 1979, Rosiles 1977, Knapp et al.
1977). Cattle that have not been exposed to arsenic have kidney
levels from 0.0 (Peoples 1964) to 0.25 ppm (wet weight) (Dickinson
1972). Doyle and Spaulding (1978) reported a value of 0.06 ppm
for 100 cattle tested by the National Bureau of Standards. One
hundred and ninety Australian cattle tested by Flanjak and Lee
(1979) had a mean value of 0.018 ppm for kidney tissue. Normal
arsenic levels in cattle kidney have been given as less than 0.5
and 0.15 to 0.4 ppm by the National Research Council (NRC, 1977)
and Puis (1981), respectively. Mean background levels for sheep
kidney (n=440) were found to be 0.03 ppm by Spaulding (1975) and
6

-------
Table 1. Background arsenic levels in Livestock
fluids and
ha i t .



Diet Blood Urine
Milk
Ha i r
n
Notes
Reference

ppm (net wei
-------
Table 2. Background arsenic levels in livestock tissues.
Diet
K ldnev
Liver
Spleen Heart Brain
Pancreas Bone
n
Notes
Reference



ppm (wet weight)
ppm (dry wt.)



CATTLE

0.08
0.09


21

USDA (1975)

0.0X8
0.013


190
Austra-







1 ian
Flanjak and Lee (1979)

0.04
0.06


8

Edwards and Dooley (1980)

<0.5
<0.5




NRC (1977)


0.06




NRC (1977)


0.15




NRC (1977)

0.25
0.82
0.05
0.03(rib)
1

Oickinson (1972)

1.1
0.7


1

Dickinson (1972)
SHEEP

0.15
0.15 »
X

6
Lambs
Bucy et al. (1955)

0.09-0.
26 0.05-0
.21

6

Bucy et al. (19S5)

<0.1
0.0




Landcaster et al. (1971)


0.48


3

Bennett and Schwartz (1971)

0.03
0.03


440

Spaulding (1975)
-------
Table 3. Elevated arsenic levels in livestock fluids and hair.
Diet Blood
Urine Milk
Hair
n
Agent
Notes/
Reference
ppm
(wet weight)
ppm (dry wt
>

Response

CATTLE

0.07-1.5


Ind. Exp.
Chronic Tox






N. Zealand
Underwood (1977)


3.7-19.0
10
Ind. Exp.
Not Noted, Smelter





Polut.
Orheim et al. (1974)


8.9
10
Ind. Exp.
Not Noted Smelter






Polut.
Orheim et al. (1974)
J 40ppn>

16.0
1
kwf
Subacute Emaciated
Bergeland et al. (1976)
140ppm

11 .0
1
MM
Subacute Emaciated
Bergeland et al. (1976)
149ppm

6.3
1
MW
Subacute Emaciated
Bergeland et al. (1976)
140ppm

21.0
1
MW
Subacute Emaciated
Bergeland et al. (1976)


4.0
1
MW
Unthri fty
Bergeland et al. (1976)


5.0
1
MW
Unthr i fty
Bergeland et al. (1976)


2.4
1
HW
Unthr i f ty
Bergeland et al. (1976)
AAD0.05 mg/kg

4 .0
1
HW
Unthr i f ty
Bergeland et al. (1976)
0.75

3
As acid
Non Toxic
Peoples (1964)
AA 0.25 mg/kg
2.S

3
As acid
Non Toxic
Peoples (1964)
AA 1.25 mg/kg
7.95

3
As acid
Non Toxic
Peoples (1964)
5.5ppra
0
.80-3.40
4

Acute Tox
Riviere et al. (1981)
Forage Cont.
0-0.015

7
Na arsenite
Subclinical
Weaver (1962)
2.75mg/kg Na arsenate
2.45-4.86

4
Na arsenate
Non Toxic
Lakso and Peoples (1975)
1.57mg/kg KASO2
6.35

4
KAso->
Non Toxic
Lakso and Peoples (1975)
10mg/kg bwt/d, 10d

3.3
1
msmac
Fatal
Dickinson (1972)
10mg/kg bwt/d, 10d

1.4
1
MSMAC
Fatal
Dickinson (1972)

16.0

1
Na arsenite
Fatal (Calf)
Weaver (1962)
HORSES


0-7.5
3
Ind. Exp.*-
1 mi from smelter





Response Not Noted
Lewis (1972)


0-4.5
3
Ind. Exp.
1 mi from smelter





"smoked"
Lewis (1972)


0-4.4
11
Ind. Exp.
2.9 mi from smelter






1 fatality
Lewis (1972)


0-2.3
5
Ind. Exp.
5.3 mi from smelter






Response Not Noted
Lewis (1972)
SHEEP
Sngl dose






10mg As/





Shariatpanahi and Anderson
kg bwt 14.5 *
0.18

2
HSHAC
Diarrhea
(1984a)
lflmg As/kg





Shariatpanahi and Anderson
bwt/day 24 B
341.3 0.0-0.
07
2
HSHA
Diarrhea
(1984b)
1.4mg As/kg






bwt/day
12.6

3
MS MA
Heal thy
Lancaster et al. (1971)
-------
Table 3.
Elevated arsenic levels in livestock fluids and hair, continued.
Diet
Blood
Urine Milk
Ha i r
n
Agent
Notes/
Reference



ppm
(wet weight)
ppm (dry wt.)


Response



GOATS
Single Oose
10 rag As/
kg bwt
10 rag As/kg
bwt/day
17.2 *
16
0.16
218.5 0.0-0
.06
2
2
MSMA
MSMA
Diarrhea
Diarrhea
Shar iatpanahl
(1984a)
Shariatpanahl
(1984b)
and
and
Anderson
Anderson
*/
0/
Reported in ug/ml
Arsanilic Acid £/
B/ Reported in mg/kg
Industrial Exposure
c/ Monosodium acid methanearsonate (MSMA)
*"/ Mining waste
-------
Table 4. Elevated arsenic levels in livestock tissues.
Diet
K idnev
Liver
Spleen Heart
Brain Pancreas Bone
n
Agent

Motes/

Sefetenca


ppm (wet weight)
ppm (dry wt.)



Response


CATTLE

4.38
2.0



As Herbicide

Acute
Edwards
and Clay (1979)

3.5-5.0




As Herbicide

Acute
Edwards
and Clay (1979)

13.2
14 .3





Acute
Ros l les
(l'J77)

5-35
5-29





Acute
Rosilea
( 1977)

15.6
2.3



Wood Preserv.

Fata 1
Knapp et al. (1977)

13.3
14.0


1


Fatal
Hatch and Funnell (1969)

1.5-37
2.1-38


1


Fata 1
Hatch and Funnell (1969)
Contaminated










Feed & Water
7.0
3.0





Fata 1
Berieland et al. (1976)
AA^0.05mg/kg
0.0
0.25
0.2 0.1
0.2 0.0

A

Nontox ic
Peoples
(1964)
AA 0.25mg/kg
0.0
0.5
0.8 0.2
0.0 0.0

A

Nontoxic
Peoples
(1964)
AA 1.25mg/kg
0.35
1.2
2.0 0.1
0.25 0.2

A

Nontox ic
Peoples
(1964)
5. 5ppm
4 .85
3.78





Acute
R iviere
et al. (1981)
Forage Cont.
2.6-12
6



Na Arsenite

Fata I
Riviere
et al. (1981)


9.3

1



Fatal
Riviere
et al. (1981)

3 . 2






Fatal
Weaver
(1962)
Poisoned
18.5
15.7



Lead Arsenate

Fata 1
McParland and Thompson (1971)
Poisoned
31 .1




Lead Arsenate

Fata 1
McParland and Thompson (1971)
10mg/kgMSMAD
64 . 2
24.9

1.7 4.9(rib)

D

Fata 1
Dick3on
(1972)
l0rag/kgMSMAD
23.2
30.3

1.7 2. 5(rib)

D

Fata 1
Dickson
(1972)
10tng/kgMSMA°
45.8
17.7



D

Fata I
Dickson
(1972)
10mg/kgMSMA
3.5
1.6



0

Fata I
Dickson
(1972)
10mg/kgMSMAD'

7.2



0

Acute
Dickson
(1972)
SHEEP
1.4ing/kg lw
3.28
2.53



Aquatic Veg

Hea1 thy
Lancaster et al. (1971)
1.4mg/kg 2w
3.68
3.38



Aquatic Veg

Healthy
Lancaster et al. (1971)
1.4mg/kg 3w
2.76
3.07

2.21 (hoof)

Aquatic Veg

Healthy
Lancaster et al. (1971)
22mg/kg/roo

1.33



Pb Arsenate 11
mo
Nontox ic
Bennett
and Schwartz (1971)
4 4mg/kg/mo

3.57



Pb Arsenate 11
mo
Nontox ic
Bennett
and Schwartz (1971)
88mg/kg/mo

20.71



Pb Arsenate 11
mo
Tox ic
Bennett
and Schwartz (1971)
3N B 0.05%
7.8
6.8



B

Tox ic
Bucy et
al. (1955)
0.1%
7.9
13.3



B

Tox ic
Bucy et
al. (1955)
0.2%
9.8
13.3



B

Tox ic
Bucy et
al. (1955)
0.4%
10.5
9.3



B

Toxic
Bucy et
al. (1955)
AA A 0.05%
13.5
12. 3



A

Tox ic
Bucy et
al. (1955)
0.1%
7.5
9.3



A

Tox ic
Bucy et
al. (1955)
0.2%
8.4
12.3



A

Tox ic/Fata1
Bucy et
al. (1955)
0.4%
7.1
8.3



A

Tox ic/Fatal
Bucy et
al. (1955)
KA c 0.05%
7.7
10.0



C

Toxic
Bucy et
al. (1955)
0.1%
9.8
9.0



C

Tox i c
Bucy et
al. (1955)
0.2%
13.5
12. 3



c

Tox ic
Bucy et
al. (1955)
0.4%
5.9
8.5



C

Feed Refusal










Toxic
Bucy et
al. (1955)
'/Acsanilic Acid ®/3N-3-Nitro-4-Hydroxyphenylarsonic Acid c/KA-Potass1 urn Arsenite
"/Honosodium Acid Methanearsonate, 10 Day Treatment
-------
ranged from 0.09 to 0.26 ppm (mean 0.15) in six lambs analyzed by
Bucy et al. (1955). Puis (1981, 1985) has given a range of 0.01 to
0.3 ppm for normal arsenic levels in sheep kidney tissue.
Arsenic levels in normal liver tissue from cattle have been
reported as 0.013 ppm (n = 190) and 0.06 ppm (n = 100) by Flanjak
and Lee (1979) and Doyle and Spaulding (1978), respectively.
Normal ranges for cattle liver have been given as 0.03-0.40 ppm
(Puis 1981) and less than 0.5 ppm (NRC 1977). Buck et al. (1976)
has stated normal levels are usually less than 0.5 ppm. Background
arsenic levels in sheep liver have been reported as 0.03 ppm for
440 animals tested by Spaulding (1975), and 0.05 to 0.21 ppm (mean
0.15 ppm) for six lambs studied by Bucy et al. (1955). Normal
sheep liver levels given by Puis (1981) are 0.03 to 0.20 ppm.
Horse liver and kidney background levels of less than 0.4 ppm have
been reported by Puis (1981).
Insufficient data exist to determine background levels of
arsenic in spleen tissue, but limited data suggest that in some
cases elevated arsenic concentrations in the spleen may be higher
than in liver or kidney tissue (Table 4).
Elevated arsenic levels in kidney, liver and spleen have been
demonstrated in a number of experimental and accidental situa-
tions. Peoples (1964) found concentrations greatest in the spleen
(2.0 ppm) and liver (1.2 ppm) of cattle fed 1.25 mg/kg arsenic
acid for eight weeks. Bucy et al. (1955) found arsenic concentra-
tions nearly equal in the kidneys and liver of lambs fed up to 0.4
percent of their diet as organic arsenic compounds. Levels were
sharply elevated from background concentrations with diets of 500
ppm organic arsenic content. Cattle kidney levels as high as 53
ppm have been reported by Underwood (1977).
The level at which chronic poisoning occurs has not been well
documented. Reduced weight gains, which are only rarely noticed,
are generally the first signs of chronic arsenic poisoning.
Increasing levels to 1000 ppm arsanilic acid in the diet of swine
produced posterior paresis or quadriplegia in 15 days (Ledet et
al. 1973). Levels of 7.5 to 7.8 and 6.8 to 12.3 ppm (wet weight)
for kidneys and liver, respectively, were noted in sheep fed 0.05
12
-------
percent organic arsenic compounds compared to 0.15 ppm found in
the same organs of controls (Bucy et al. 1955). Buck et al.
(1976) cited a level of 10 ppm in kidney and liver tissues as
diagnostic of arsenic poisoning. Peoples (1964) found 0.35 ppm
arsenic in the kidneys of cows receiving up to 1.25 ppm arsanilic
acid diet and noted no toxic effects. A study by Bennett and
Schwartz (1971) found sheep liver arsenic levels equal to or
greater than 10.6 ppm in all experimental sheep that died from
lead arsenate poisoning. The same study also revealed that all
surviving sheep had liver concentrations of less than 3.8 ppm
arsenic. Kidney and liver tissue arsenic levels associated with
chronic arsenic poisoning in cattle were reported as 5.0 to 53 ppm
and 7.0 to 70 ppm, respectively (Puis 1981). It should be noted
however that under acute conditions, clinical toxicity has been
reported in cattle exhibiting liver arsenic concentrations as low
as 1.6 ppm (Dickinson 1972) and numerous clinical toxicity cases
have been documented in the 1.6 to 5 ppm range (Edwards and Clay
1979, Rosiles 1977, Knapp et al. 1977, Hatch and Funnell 1969,
Bergeland et al. 1976, Riviere et al. 1981). Puis (1981) reported
toxic levels in horse kidney at 10.0 ppm and 7.0 to 15 ppm in
liver. Bucy et al. (1955) noted arsenic levels in sheep kidney
tissue decreased rapidly following removal of arsenic from the
diet. Dickinson (1972) has suggested that cattle could deplete an
elevated kidney arsenic content to a value less than that of
diagnostic significance but still succumb to irreversible tubular
damage.
The affinity of arsenic for sulfhydryl groups results in high
arsenic concentrations in sulfhydryl rich keratinized tissues such
as skin and hair (Riviere et al. 1981). The arsenic content of
hair has been used to determine exposure of humans to this element
(Bencko and Symon 1977). Normal levels found in cattle hair have
been published by Riviere et al. (1981), Dickinson (1972) and
Orheim et al. (1974) at values of 0.09 to 0.10 ppm 0.81 to 2.7 ppm
and 0.13 to 0.84 ppm, respectively. The publication of Dickinson
(1972) is not clear with respect to the sampling time for "before
treatment" results which would appear to be anomalously high at
13
-------
1.1 to 2.7 ppm arsenic, compared to the control animal at 0.81 ppm
arsenic, therefore the 2.7 ppm value has not been included in the
background range. Edwards and Clay (1979) found a range of 0.11
to 0.55 ppm (mean .36 ppm) in 10 control cows they sampled. Lewis
(1972) found no arsenic in the hair of nonexposed horses he
studied. Puis (1981) has reported a normal range of arsenic
concentration in cattle hair of 0.5 to 3.0 ppm.
Cattle and horses exposed to industrial pollution have been
found to have elevated arsenic levels in the hair. Orheim et al.
(1974) reported values of 3.7 to 19.0 ppm arsenic in cattle
exposed to smelter emissions. Cattle poisoned from arsenic in
feed and water (mining waste) exhibited hair arsenic values of 6.3
to 21.0 ppm with a mean of 13.6 ppm (Bergeland et al. 1976).
Cattle consuming 5.5 ppm arsenic in feed suffered acute toxicosis
and were found to have 0.80 to 3.40 ppm arsenic in their hair
(Riviere et al. 1981). Bergeland et al. (1976) reported
subclinical poisoning ("unthrifty") in cattle exhibiting hair
arsenic concentrations as low as 2.4 ppm.
Insufficient data exist on normal arsenic levels in wool or
horse hair to properly interpret concentrations produced by
chronic low level arsenic exposure. It has been shown that the
amount of arsenic in human hair increases with age and that sex
may have some influence on concentrations observed (Ohmori et al.
1975). To what degree these parameters affect arsenic in live-
stock hair is not well documented. The literature suggests that
arsenic levels in hair above 3.5 ppm may indicate exposure to some
arsenic source and that levels above 2 ppm are suspect. An
investigation by Edwards and Clay (1979) indicated that arsenic
levels in cattle hair can be expected to return to normal levels
one year after exposure has ceased. Individual variations among
animals may make large group analyses necessary if one assumes
that the variations in arsenic levels in livestock hair are
similar to those observed in humans (Bencko and Symon 1977).
Urine, blood and milk arsenic data for livestock are not
commonly found in the literature. Peoples (1964) found arsenic
acid was eliminated in the urine of dairy cattle in proportion to
1i»
-------
intake. Lakso and Peoples (1975) noted both trivalent and
pentavalent .forms of arsenic were methylated in the body and
largely excreted via the urine. Urinary excretion in cattle is
rapid with 54 to 98 percent of the daily intake eliminated in the
urine (Peoples 1964). Normal urine arsenic levels for cattle and
horses are reported as 0.5 and 0.4 ppm, respectively (Puis 1981).
Lakso and Peoples (1975) found a range of 0.17 to 0.31 ppm arsenic
in urine of control cattle that they tested. Selby and Dorn (1974)
found 1400 ug/100 ml of arsenic in the urine of acutely poisoned
steers. Puis (1981) noted urine levels of 2 to 14 ppm and 100 to
150 ppm as indicative of acute toxicosis in cattle and sheep,
respectively.
Background arsenic concentrations in cattle blood have been
reported as 0.03 to 0.07 ppm (Edwards and Clay 1979). Blood
arsenic levels may be more insensitive to intake at low levels
than are arsenic levels in urine. Peoples (1964) found no change
in arsenic blood levels among cattle fed 0.0 to 1.25 mg/kg body
weight arsenic acid. Shariatpanahi and Anderson (1984a, 1984b)
found blood arsenic levels increased rapidly following ingestion
of monosodium methanearsonate in sheep and goats. A near steady
state approximately 3 orders of magnitude above background levels
was observed within 10 days under daily ingestion of 10 mg/kg body
weight of arsenic. These authors also reported a rapid decline in
blood arsenic levels following removal of arsenic from the diet.
Edwards and Clay (1979) found low concentrations of arsenic (0.03
to 0.12 ppm) in the blood of cattle exposed to toxic concentra-
tions of arsenic in contaminated forage one year prior to sam-
pling. The concentration range was not significantly different
from non-exposed cattle. Puis (1981) has given normal blood
arsenic levels as 0.05 and 0.01 ppm for cattle and swine, respec-
tively. High blood levels for sheep were reported as 0.04 to 0.08
ppm and toxic levels were given as 0.17 to 1.0 and 5.0 ppm for
cattle and sheep, respectively (Puis 1981).
Levels of arsenic in normal milk have been reported to range
from 0.0005 to 0.17 ppm (NRC 1977, Iyengar 1982). Peoples (1964)
found no significant correlation between arsenic in milk and
15
-------
arsenic in the diet of cattle. Weaver (1962) found no significant
arsenic in the milk from a cow showing symptoms of arsenic
poisoning. Calvert and Smith (1972) found arsenic in cattle milk
increased from 0.015 to 0.026 ppm only at the highest diet level
fed (3.2 mg As/kg body weight). Lesser amounts produced no
increase in milk arsenic levels. Underwood (1977) has reported
milk arsenic levels of 0.07 to 1.5 ppm in chronically poisoned
cattle. The literature suggests that while small quantities of
arsenic may appear in milk of exposed individuals, it is doubtful
that any significance with respect to arsenic exposure can be
attached to it.
In conclusion, arsenic concentration of the kidney, liver and
possibly the spleen have been shown to correlate with arsenic
intake. Elevated levels of arsenic in hair, urine and blood have
also been shown to occur in exposed individuals. Due to individ-
ual variations, large groups of subjects should be used to
determine the significance of hair and blood arsenic levels. Both
blood and urine arsenic levels have been shown to fluctuate
quickly in response to arsenic intake. Urine levels are generally
about one order of magnitude greater than those found in blood and
are therefore subject to less sampling and analytical error than
the lower levels found in blood. It is the opinion of the authors
that exposure to arsenic can be adequately determined through the
use of hair and blood samples providing appropriate analytical
methods can be developed for the latter. The additional accuracy
provided by urine analysis would be unlikely to justify the
additional expense of sample collection and urine analysis for an
initial livestock survey but could be very useful for more
detailed studies. The utility of milk may be of questionable
value.
2.1.2 Livestock arsenic hazard levels
Background and elevated levels of arsenic have been docu-
mented in many studies (Tables 1, 2, 3 and 4). This data base has
been used to select arsenic hazard levels documented in the
following sections.
16
-------
2.1.2.1 Toxic arsenic hazard levels for cattle
the toxic concentration of arsenic in cattle blood was
reported as 0.17 - 1.0 ppm by Puis (1981) (Table 5). No other
data were found in the reviewed literature on elevated arsenic
levels in cattle blood. Puis (1981) reported arsenic concentra-
tions of 2-14 ppm in cattle urine was indicative of arsenic
toxicosis. Peoples (1964) found up to 7.95 ppm in the urine of
cows which consumed a diet of 1.25 mg/kg "arsenic acid" without
apparent toxicity. Lakso and Peoples (1975) reported total
arsenic in cattle urine of 4.86 and 6.35 ppm for cows fed 2.75
mg/kg sodium arsenate and 1.75 mg/kg potassium arsenite respec-
tively without any toxicity symptoms. The lack of cases of
documented toxicity in the 2 to 8 ppm urine arsenic range suggests
that a toxic hazard level of 8 to 14 ppm arsenic in cattle urine
may be more appropriate but, due to the limited data base, Puis'
(1981) range of 2 to 14 ppm has been recommended for this parame-
ter .
Toxic arsenic levels 1.5 and 5 ppm in cattle kidney and liver
tissue respectively have been recommended (Table 5) . All kidney
arsenic levels above 1.5 ppm found in the reviewed literature were
associated with toxicity. In most of these cases, poisoning was
acute and therefore observed concentrations were relatively low.
Kidney concentration criteria for chronic arsenic poisoning in
cattle was reported as 5.0 to 53 ppm (Puis 1981). Few data were
found in the review to determine the accuracy of this range. Acute
arsenic toxicity was reported for cattle with liver arsenic levels
as low as 1.6 ppm (Dickinson 1972), and toxicity was common in the
2 to 5 ppm range (Table 4). The highest nontoxic value for cattle
liver arsenic content found in the literature was 1.2 ppm (Peoples
1964). The range from 1.6 to 5 ppm represents the range in which
acute poisoning has been documented (Dickinson 1972, Rosiles 1977)
but is below typical values reported for chronic poisoning (Puis
1981). Puis (1981) reported toxic cattle liver concentration
ranges of 2.0 to 15 and 7.0 - 70 ppm for acute and chronic
poisoning, respectively. The higher animal tissue concentrations
17
-------
Taole 5. Diagnostic Levels of Arsenic in Cattle,
Blocd Hazard
Leve is/Source
Background
Tolerable Uncertain
	(ppm. wet weight)	
To* ic
Edwards and Clay'(1979)
0.17 - 1.0
Puis (1981)
ucine Hazard
Levels/Source
0.17 - 0.5
Lakso and Peoples (1975) - Puis (1981)
2-14
Puis (1981)
Kidney Hazard
Levels/Source
0.018 - 1.1
Flanjak and Lee (1979) - Dickinson (1972)
0.35
Peoples (1964)
>1.5 and >5
Hatch and Funnell (1969)
Puis (1981)
Liver Hazard
Levels/Source
0.013 - 0.82
Flanjak and Lee (1979) - Dickinson (1972)
1.6 - 5.
Dickinson (1972)
Rosiles (1977)
>5 7 and 10
Rosiles (1977) Puis (1981)
and Buck et al. (1976)
Hair Hazard
Levels/Source
Milk Hazard
Levels/Source
0.09 - 1.1
Riviere et al . (1981) - Dickinson (1972)
0 0005 » 0 17
NRC (1977) - Schroeder and Vinton (1962)
Iyengar (1982)
1.4 - 3.
Dickinson (1972),
Bergeland et al. (1976)
>3.0
Bergeland et al. (1976)
Orheim et al. (1974)
1.5
Underwood (1977)
-------
found for many metals under chronic exposure conditions as opposed
to acute poisoning are due to the fact that in acute poisoning,
the animal usually dies before a large tissue metal accumulation
can occur. Buck et al. (1976) suggested 10 ppm in liver and
kidney tissue as diagnostic of arsenic poisoning. The 5 ppm cattle
liver arsenic hazard level recommended for the Helena Valley is
therefore most applicable to chronic arsenic poisoning.
The toxic hazard level for cattle hair (Table 5) was selected
based on: 1) the maximum normal or background concentration
reported in the reviewed literature (2.7 ppm arsenic), and 2)
toxicity was observed at concentrations as low as 0.8 ppm (Riviere
et al. 1981). Toxic arsenic concentrations in cattle hair tended
to be low (1-3 ppm) in acute poisoning and higher (2.4 - 21.0 ppm)
in prolonged or chronic exposure (Table 3). The differences in
hair arsenic accumulation between acute and chronic cases has
resulted in a range of values (1.4 to 3 ppm) which may be toxic in
acute cases but not toxic in chronic cases. The toxic hazard
level of >3 ppm in cattle hair, if statistically significant,
should be an indication of excessive exposure to this element.
Milk arsenic levels remained low (<1 ppm) even under moderate
exposure to arsenic (Peoples 1964). The toxic hazard level for
cattle milk (1.5 ppm) was based on this level observed in a
chronic toxicity case reported by Underwood (1977).
2.1.2.2 Toxic arsenic hazard levels for horses
Few arsenic toxicity data for horses were found in the
literature. The toxic hazard levels for horse kidney and liver
tissues, 10 ppm and 7-15 ppm respectively, were concentrations
reported by Puis (1981) (Table 6). The toxic level for arsenic in
horse hair, 4 ppm, was based on a study by Lewis (1972) of horses
in the Helena Valley. Arsenic content of mane hair in affected
horses ranged from 0 to 4.5 ppm. The mane hair of one horse that
died of the "smoked syndrome" contained 4.4 ppm arsenic. Two out
of the three affected animals had mane hair arsenic levels greater
than 4 ppm. No subclinical evaluation was attempted in this study
and the affected animals also exhibited high concentrations of
19
-------
Table 6. Diagnostic Levels of Arsenic in Horses.
Background
Tolerable Uncertain
	(ppnt. wet weight)	
Blood Hazard
LevaIs/Source
To* ic
Urine Hazard
Levels/Source
Kidney Hazard
Levels/Source
<•4
Puis (1981)
10
Puis (1981)
Liver Hazard
Levels/Source
N
O Hair Hazard
Levels/Source
< . 4
Puis (1981)
1.0 - 5.0 ("High")
Puis (1981)
7-15
Puis (1981)
«.c
Lewis (1972)
Milk Hazard
Levels/Source
-------
lead and cadmium. Thus, the suggested horse hair arsenic hazard
level represents a level of excessive exposure based on a very
limited amount of data. It should be used with caution.
2.1.2.3	Toxic arsenic hazard levels for sheep
The toxic blood and urine arsenic concentrations for sheep
were reported as >5 ppm and >100 ppm, respectively (Puis 1981)
(Table 7). Values for blood and urine (14.5 ppm and 341 ppm) in
two related studies by Shariatpanahi and Anderson (1984a, 1984b)
generally supported the toxic concentrations reported by Puis
(1981). No additional support was found in the literature.
Sheep kidney and liver toxic arsenic concentrations of >7 ppm
and >8 ppm, respectively were based on data from Bucy et al.
(1955). They found similar toxic effects produced by arsanilic
acid, 3N-3-Nitro-4-Hydroxyphenylarsonic acid and potassium
arsenite at these levels. These hazard levels were in general
agreement with the toxic level of >10 ppm for both organs reported
by Puis (1981).
The toxic hazard level of 0.18 ppm arsenic in sheep milk was
based on one study (Shariatpanahi and Anderson 1984a). Animals in
this study exhibited mild clinical symptoms of arsenic poisoning
(Anderson 1985). The hazard level should be used with caution
until additional data are available.
2.1.2.4	Toxic arsenic hazard levels for goats
All toxic hazard levels for goats were based on the study of
Shariatpanahi and Anderson (1984b) (Table 7). These values should
be used with caution until additional data are available.
2.2 Cadmium
2.2.1 Cadmium Literature Review
Most experimental data regarding cadmium toxicity have
utilized dietary cadmium levels far exceeding those commonly found
in nature (Hinesly et al. 1985). Hinesly et al. (1985) concluded
1 ppm (dry weight) of biologically incorporated dietary cadmium
21
-------
Table 7. Diagnostic Levels of Arsenic in Sheep and Goacs.
Background
Tolerable Uncertain
	(ppm. wet weight)	
Tox lc
SHEEP
Blood Hazard
Levels/Source
Urine Hazard
Levels/Source
0.02 - 0.04
Anderson (1985)
0.00 - 0.07
Shariatpanahi and Anderson (1984b)
0.04 - 0.08 ("high")	> 5 and 14.5
Puis (1981)	Puis (1981), Shariatpan-
ahi and Anderson (1984a)
>100 and 341
Puis (1981), Shariatpan-
ahl and Anderson (1984b)
rs>
N>
Kidney Hazard
Levels/Source
Liver Hazard
Levels/Source
0.03 - 0.26
Spaulding (1975) - Bucy et al. (1955)
0.0 - 0.48
Lancaster et al. (1971) - Bennett and
Schwartz (1971)
3.6
Lancaster et al. (1971)
3.5
Bennett and Schwartz (1971)
4-8 ("High")
Puis (1981)
>7 and > 10
Bucy et al. (1955),
Puis (1981)
>8 and >10
Bucy et al. (1955),
Puis (1981)
Hair Hazard
Levels/Source
Milk Hazard
Levels/Source
0.00 - 0.04
Shariatpanahi and Anderson (1984b)
0.13
Shariatpanahi and
Anderson (1984a)
COATS
Blood Hazard	0.02 - 0.04	>16
Levels/Source	Anderson (1985)					Shariatpanahi and
Anderson (1984b)
Urine Hazard	0.00 - 0.04	219
Levels/Source	Shariatpanahi and Anderson (1984b)					Shariatpanahi and
Anderson (1984b)
Milk Hazard	0.00 - 0.04	0. - 0.16
Levels/Source	Shariaptanahi and Anderson (1984b)					Shariatpanahi and
Anderson (1984b)
-------
"will have little if any effect on the health and performance of
poultry." Exposure of livestock to excessive cadmium may result
more from ingesting contaminated soils than from contaminated
forage.
The liver and kidneys are the main reservoirs of cadmium in
vertebrates (Tables 8-11). Concentrations in muscle tissue are
always quite low (Doyle et al. 1974, Osuna et al. 1981, Mills and
Dalgarno 1972), but elevated forage cadmium levels will cause
slight increases in muscle concentrations as well as significant
increases in liver and kidney cadmium levels (Johnson et al.
1981). All studies of elevated cadmium in diet or water refer-
enced in Table 11 produced increased cadmium levels in liver and
kidneys. Other pathogenic states or abnormalities were produced by
varying additions of dietary cadmium. In studies of lambs and the
Long Evans strain of laboratory rats, 5 mg/kg in the diet or
drinking water caused reduced growth or hypertension (Doyle et al.
1974, Schroeder and Vinton 1962). The experimental periods were
long in both examples, 163 days for lambs and 1 year for rats.
Production of metallothionein by internal organs protects the
animal from damage by the elevated concentration of the toxic
metal until this protective mechanism is thwarted by prolonged
overexposure. This mechanism is discussed more fully in Appendix
section 6.1.2.
The determination of the exposure of livestock to cadmium is
difficult because of the scarcity of data on cadmium in readily
available samples such as hair, blood or urine. The few documents
available indicate that animal hair is a controversial tool for
this assessment. Limited data suggest the background range for
cattle hair cadmium concentrations will be 0.6 ppm or less (Powell
et al. 1964, Wright et al. 1977). Available data suggest that
cadmium in animal hair will likely be significantly correlated to
dietary intake at diet levels above 50 ppm. Interpretation of
hair data from lower diet levels may be difficult. Hammer et al.
(1971) showed a relationship between cadmium in human hair and the
exposure ranking of the samples. He also found a similar rela-
tionship in East Helena, Montana (Hammer et al. 1972). The work
23
-------
Table 8. Background cadmium levels in livestock fluids and hair.
Diet	Blood	Urine	Hilk	Hair		n	Notes	Reference
ppm (wet weight)	ppm (dry wt.)
		unless noted	 	
CATTLE
<0.01


48

Bertrand et al. 1981)


0.006
315
CA Milk
Bruhn and Franke (1976)
.32 ppai <0.05

0.5
1
Calf .
Powell et al. (1964)

0.012-0.020


Kubota et al. (1968)


0.017-0.030

U.S. Cities
Murthy and Rhea (1968)


0.026

U.S. Average
Murthy and Rhea (1968)


0.020-0.037
32
Cincinnati Area
Murthy and Rhea (1968)


0.0001-0.004
18 samples

Cornell and Pallansch (1973)


0.004
4

Dorn et al. (1975)


0.003
5

Dorn et al. (1975)


0.003 A
7

Casey (1976)


<0.15 0.6ppm
12

Wright et al. (1977)


(rib area)



0.005


91

Penumarthy et al. (1980)
0.01 .


2

Lynch et al. (1976b)
HORSES
0.006-
-0.
012
20

Penumarthy et al. (1980)


0.003-0.213 A
43

Elinder et al. (1981)


0.0015
43

Elinder et al. (1981)


0.2-0.6
4

Lewis (1972)
SHEEP
0.7ppm 0.17


4

Mills and Dalgarno (1972)
0.02

<0.01-0.03 <1.0
2

Wright et al . (1977)
0.007
B
0.55-0.83
6

Doyle et al. (1974)
0. 005
B
0.94
6

Doyle et al. (1974)
0.004
B
0.74
6

Doyle et al. (1974)
0.006
B
0.87
6

Doyle et al. (1974)
0.006
B
0.79
6

Doyle et al. (1974)
0.003
B

6

Doyle et al. (1974)
GOATS


0.006-0.024 dw
11

Telford et al. (1994a)


0.011-0.017 dw
2

Telford et al. (1984b)
0.011-
-0.
.36 dw <0.005-0.013 dw
7-9

Dowdy et al. (1983)
A/Reported in ug/liter B/Reported in ng/ml
-------
Table 9. Background cadmium levels In livestock tissues.
Diet
KIdnev
Liver
Spleen	Heart
Brain
Pancreas
Muscle
Bone
ppm (wet weight)
unless noted	
pom (dry we.)
Notes
Reference
CATTLE

0.27
0.04
8


0.29
0.18
2
After 6 mo
0. 18ppm

0.06
4

0.18ppm
0.74
0.41
4


0.55
0.21
2153


0.34
0.10
14 9

0.07 ppm
0.22
0.06
6

0.15ppm
0.27
0.04
0.27 dw*
<0.01 a
>100
168 Days
0. 3 2 ppm
<2.00 dw
4.00 dw
L

1.58ppm
1.40 Cortex
0.24
1


0.48
0.24
-


1.50 Cortex
0; 50
1

0.lppm
7 .4 dw
1.2 dw
3
Hereford Cows
0. lppra
3.5 dw
0.9 dw
8
Hereford Steers
0.32ppm
<2. dw
4. dw <1 dw
0.3

0.075-2.500
0.034-0.430
0.006 85-92


13.4 dw
1.06 dw
29
Range Cattle

2.8 dw
0.7 4 dw
15
Dairy Cattle

1.36 dw
0.43 dw

Angus Cows/Steers

7.4 dw

8
Hereford Cows

3.5 dw

8
Herefore Steers
3ec:rand et al. (1981)
Sharma et al. (1982)
Sharma et al. (1979)
Verma et al. (1978)
USDA (1975)
Kreuzer et al. (1975)
Munshower (1977)
Bertrand et al. (1981)
Doyle and Spaulding (1978)
Doyle and Spaulding (1978)
Doyle and Spaulding (1978)
Ooyle and Spaulding (1978)
Doyle and Spaulding (1978)
Baxter et al. (1982)
Baxter et al. (1982)
Powell et al. (1964)
Penumarthy et al. (1980)
Baxter et al. (1983)
Baxter et al. (1983)
Decker et al. (1980)
Baxter et al.- (1983)
Baxter et al. (1981)
HORSES
11-186 Cortex
11.9	Cortex
2.5
0..840-5.000
31.9 Cortex
49.2	Cortex
61.8	Cortex
75.9	Cortex
72.3	Cortex
3.45
0.830-4.
100
0.110
0.060-
0.300
69	Some His to-
Pathological
Changes
I	Ho Pathologi-
cal Changes
20-21 Mean
20-21 Range
5	0-4 Years old
13	5-9 Years old
16	10-14 Years old
15	15-19 Years old
18	20 * Years old
Blinder et al. (1981)
Blinder et al. (1981)
Penumarthy et al. (1980)
Blinder et al.
Blinder et al.
Blinder et al.
Elinder et al.
Elinder et al.
Elinder et al.
(1981)
(1981)
(1981)
(1981)
(1981)
(1981)
SHEEP
0.29ppm
0.2ppm
0.7ppm
0.06ppm
0.06ppm
0.16ppm
2.91	dw
4.42	dw
0.32	dw
0.28	dw
4.42	dw
4.30
0.30 dw
1.69 dw
0.95 dw
0.09 dw
0.09 dw
1.69 dw
2.00
0.09 dw
0.14 dw
0.06 dw
0 .02
0.025
10
Tel ford et al. (1982)
6
Doyle et al. (1974)
4
Mills and Dalgarno (1972)
5
Telford et al. (1984a)
5
Telford et al. (1984a)
6
Doyle and Pfander (1975)
I
Wright et al. (1977)
1
Ooyle and Pfander (19751
-------
Table 9. Background cadmium levels In livestock tissues, continued.
Diet
K idnev
Liver
Spleen Brain Pancreas Muscle Bone
n
Notes
Reference




ppm (w-t w»iuhti ppm (dry wt.)
unless noted




0.BSppra
0.31 ppm
0. 3lppm
5 . 4 dw
1.02-2.77dw
1.76 dw
1.2 dw
0.-0.323 dw
0.119 dw
0.04 dw 0.01 dw 0.01 dw 0.001-0.005 0.01
<0.012
5
10
10
Range
Mean
Hefferon et al. (1980)
Dalgarno (1980)
Dalgarno (1980)

GOATS
0.14ppm
0. 14ppm
1.06 dw
0.03 dw
0.10 dw
0.05 dw

5
2
Adults
Kids
Telford et al. (1984b)
Telford et al. (1984b)

SWINE

0.01-1.00
0.39
0.01-0.30
0.14

21
14

USDA (197S)
Munshower (1977)

*/ Dry weight basis
K>
o\
-------
Table 10.
Elevated cadmium levels
in livestock fluids and
hair.



Diet
Blood
Urine
Hi lk
Ha i r
n
Agent
Notes/
Reference


ppm
(wet weight)

ppm (dry wt.)


Response


CATTLE
40.3ppm









V2w




4
CdClj
Depressed Pert.
Powell et
al. (1964)
160.3ppm







12w




4
CdCl2
Depressed Perf.
Powell et
al. (1964)
64 0.3ppm








i2w
<0.05


9-11
3
CdClj
Toxic
Powell et
al. (1964)
2560ppm
<0.100







12w


9-13
4
CdCl 2
Fatal
Powe11 e t
al. (1964)
300-








500ppm
0.04
0.7


2
Cadminate
Fatal
Wright et
al. (1977)
50ppm



IS rib




100ppn



aiea
2
Codminate
Inhibited Reproduction
Wright et
al. (1977)



21 rib



200ppa



area
2
Cadminate
Reproduction Failure
Wright et
al. (1977)



57 lib







area
2
Cadrai nate
Tox ic
Wright et
al. (1977)
300ppm



63 rib




S00ppn



area
2
Cadminate
To* ic/Fata1
Wright et
al. (1977)



B8 rib








area
2
Cadminate
Toxic/Fatal
Wright et
al. (1977)
HORSES




1.0
1
Ind. Exp.
Fatal
Lewis (1972)
SHEEP
3. Sppm
0.17 B



4
CdS04
Hot Noted
Hills and
Dalgarno (1972)
7.lppm
0.17 B



4
Decreased

12.3ppm
0.19 B




CdS04
Blood Zn.Cu
Hills and
Dalgarno (1972)



4
Decreased


Sppm





CdSO<
Blood Zn,Cu
Hills and
Dalgarno (1972)








163d
0.004 *


1.20
6
CdCl2
Reduced Growth
Doyle et
al. (1974)
1 Sppm








163d
0.003 A


0.84
6
CdCl 2
Reduced Growth
Doyle et
al. (1974)
30ppm








163d
8.008 *


1.22
6
CdCl 2
Reduced Growth
Doyle et
al. (1974)
60 ppm








163d
9.025 A
26-47 ug/da
y
0. 70
6
CdCl 2
Reduced Growth
Doyle et
al. (1974)
50-S00ppm
e. i



10
Cadminate
(Jot NOtflil
Wright et
al. (1977)
S00pptn
0.2-2.0
1.0

>20 . 0
2
Cadminate
To>:i c/l~aia)
Mright et
al. (1977)
-------
Table 10.
Elevated cadmium levels in livestock fluids and hair, continued
Diet
Blood Urine Milk
ppra (wet weight)
Hair
ppm (dry wt.)
n Agent
Notes
Response
Reference
GOATS
3.01ppm
0.008-1
0.052
19
Not Noted
Telford et al. (1984b)
SWINE
83ppm
No Sig.
Increase
0.0


Lowered Feed
Effic.
Osuna et al. (1981)
A/Reported in ng/ml ^/Reported in ug/nl
ho
00
-------
r.ible 11.
Elevated cadmium levels in livestock tissues.
—'1 ^n"y		Sp 1 o-jn Hoa11	nrai n	Pancreas Muscle 	Bono	 n Agent Notes/	ercnce
ppn (wot weight)	ppm (dry wt.)	Response
unless noted
CATTLE
Kl
~o
0 .484





mg/kg/bwt
19.25
3.33



2.4Sppm

0.07

0.45
A
11.29ppm

2.1


%
2.40ppra
3.58
0.73


%
11.29
8.83
3.21


4
1. 0 2ppm
1.59
0.51


4




15
1.02ppm







0-09 0.05-0.09
0.32
5
1.7 ppm
1.67
0.34



0. 36ppm
0.28
0.06
<0.01

9
0 .7 8ppm
0. 24
0.07

8
11. 5ppm(9no)
54 dwB
19.4 dw
<0.01
0.27 dw

8
8
10.7ppm(9mo)
57 dw
19.9 dw
0.43 dw





8
640ppm 12w
479-
137- 11-29 dw



2 560ppm 12w
1035 dw
1023 dw

2-5
3
146-
116- 9-62 dw



SBppm
718 dw
858 dw

1-4
4
117.0- A
18.0-



100ppm
228.3
34.0


2
210.0- A
58.8-




218.5 *
61.3


2
200ppra
160.0- A
61 .3-




232.5 *
97.5


2
308ppm
170.0- A
41.8-




227.5
85.0


2
S00ppn
115.0-
35.5-




200.0
160.0


2
Sludge
CdCl 2
CdClj
Hot Noted
Nontoxic over
12 wks.
Nontoxic over
12 wks.
12 wks.
12 wks.
Nontox ic
423-451 days
Nontoxic
423-451 days
Polluted Aces
168 Days
168 Days
Nonlox ic
Cows
Nontoxic
Caws
Toxic
fatal
Cadminate Reproduction
inhibited
Cadminate Reproduction
Prevented
Cadminate Toxic
Sharma et al. (1982)
Sharma et al. (1979)
Sharma et al. (1979)
Varna et al. (1978)
Vertna et al. (1978)
Rundle et al . (1984 )
Rundle et al. (1984)
Hunshower (1977)
Bertrand et al. (1981)
Bertrand et al. (1981)
Baxter et al. (1982)
Baxter et al. (1982)
Powell et al. (1964)
Powell et al. (1964)
Wright et al. (1977)
Wright et al. (1977)
Wright et al. (1977)
Wright et al. (1977)
Wright et al. (1977)
HORSES
Contain.
228-410
80. 4.1









Forage




3.9
1.0
1
Ind. Exp.
Fatal
Lewis (1972)

SHEEP
3.88 ppm
17.84 dw
3.19 dw


0.02






S0ppn>




10
Sludge
Slight Liver
Telford et al
. (1982)
139.0-
39.5






Damage

100ppm
227.5
147.5




2
Cadminate
Reduced Peed
Wright et al.
(1977)
207.5-
107.5-






Ef f iciency
2 00 ppm
209.0
145.0




2
Cadminate
Reduced Feed
Wright et al.
(1977)
236.5-
170-





Cadminate
Ef f iciency



389.0
240.0




2
Reduced Feed
Wright et al.
(1977)









Ef ficiency


-------
Table 11
Elevated cadni-j- levels in livestock tissues, continued.
Diet
K idnev
L i ver
Spleen
Heart
Brain Pancre
as Muscle
Bone
n
Agent
Notes

Reference



ppm
(wet weight)
ppm
(dry wt .)


Response





unless noted







3 0flppx
52.5-
462.5-






2
Cadminate Reproduction
Wright et
al. 11977)
118.0
492.5








Prevented

SBBppm
96. S-
550.0-






2
Cadminate Fatal
Wright et
al. (1977)
184.5
600.0










3.5ppn

2.01 dw






4
CdS0<
Not Noted
Mills a nd
Dalgarno (1972)
7.lppo

3.50 dw






4
CdSOj
Decreased
Mills and
Dalgarno (1972)











Blood Zn,Cu


12.3cpn

11.20 dw






4
CdS04
Decreased
Mills a nd
Dalgarno (1972)










Blood Zn,Cu


5pp:a 191d
58.85 dw
14.92 dw
0. 36
dw
0.24
dw


6
CdCl 2
Increased organ Cd
Doyle and
Pfander (1975)
lSppn 191d
187.62 dw
51.72 dw
2.15
dw
0.43
dw


6
CdCl j
Increased organ Cd
Doyle and
Pfander (1975)
3?pp= 191d
426.81 dw
62.73 dw
7.14
dw
1.28
dw


6
CdCl 2
Reduced Growth
Doyle and
Pfander (1975)
60ppr 191d
768.84 dw
275.94 dw
13.34
dw
2.66
dw


6
CdCl 2
Reduced Growth
Doyle and
Pfander (1975)
0 ."I??™ Cd
1 . 22 dw
0.46 dw




0.02 dw

5

Nontoxic Rams
Telford et al. (1984a)
8."Ippm Cd
0.94 dw
0.38 dw




0.02 dw

5

Nontoxic Ewes
Telford et al. (1984a)
3.4ppx 280d
10.59-
2. 27-




<0.012 dw

11
CdS04
Nontoxic Lambs
Dalgarno
(1980)

34.09 dw
7.58 dw









6.4pps 280d
32.6-
5.04-




<0.012 dw

11
CdSOj
Nontoxic Lambs
Dalgarno
(19B0)

60.1 dw
16.89 dw









1,-?pa 27 4d
18. 5 dw
5. B dw
0.23
dw
0.03
dw 0.02 dw
0.01 dw
0.02 dw

C
Nontoxic Lambs
Hef feron
et al. (1980)
GOATS
3. £•-??-
1.65 dw
0.39 dw




0.04 dw

3
Nontoxic Adults
Telford et al. (1984a)
3. b :??.•=
0.05 dw
0.07 dw




0.03 dw

3
Nontoxic Kids
Telford et al. (1984a)
SHINE
B3?p=
61 .95
12.98






12
Sludge
Depressed Growth
Osuna et
al. (1981)
0.99
0. 24






6
pollution Not Noted
Munshower
(1977)
*/ Ccrtes ®/Dry weight basis C/Sludge Grown Fozage
-------
of Dorn et al. (1974) in Missouri revealed seasonal variation of
cadmium concentrations in cattle hair. Elevated levels of cadmium
in hair have been detected in animals exposed to dust from lead
ore trucks and smelter emissions. Wright et al. (1977) found a
good correlation between cadmium in cattle hair and cadmium (as
cadminate) in feed for the range of 0 to 500 ppm. These authors
found subclinical toxicosis associated with 15 to 21 ppm cadmium
in hair resulted in reproduction problems (abnormal or dead
calves). Lewis (1972) found an association between cadmium levels
in horse mane hair with distance from a primary lead smelter.
Diets containing 5 to 60 ppm cadmium did not produce any signifi-
cant differences in cadmium levels found in sheep wool (Doyle et
al. 1974). Combs et al. (1983) found cadmium in rat and goat hair
was not significantly correlated to dietary cadmium at levels up
to 15.9 and 18.5 mg/kg.
Typical background concentrations of cadmium in the urine of
livestock are less than 0.15 ppm for cattle (Wright et al. 1977)
0.0003 to 0.0213 ppm for horses (Elinder et al. 1981) and 0.01 to
0.03 ppm for sheep (Wright et al. 1977). . Urinary excretion of
cadmium does not appear to increase significantly in animals until
proteinuria occurs, at which time cadmium excretion increases
dramatically (Friberg 1952). Thus, increased urinary cadmium is
an indication of kidney damage probably caused by the metal and
does not indicate the extent of subclinical cadmium exposure.
However, Roels et al. (1981) found a significant relationship
between the total body burden of cadmium and urine cadmium levels
in humans that lacked any renal dysfunction. Background cadmium
concentrations in livestock blood are 0.005 to <0.05, <0.006 to
0.012 and 0.003 to 0.17 for cattle, horses, and sheep respectively
(Penumarthy et al. 1980, Powell et al. 1964, Doyle et al. 1974,
Mills and Dalgarno 1972) . Roels et al. (1981) found a relation-
ship between blood cadmium levels and total body burden but the
correlation coefficient was 0.45. Doyle et al. (1972) reported
increased blood cadmium when lambs were fed a diet containing 60
ppm; no significant blood effects were observed at lower dietary
levels. Osuna et al. (1981) found no significant increase in the
31
-------
blood cadmium level in swine fed 83 ppm cadmium in the diet. There
were no significant differences in blood cadmium levels of lambs
fed diets containing 0.7, 3.5 and 7.1 ppm cadmium (Mills and
Dalgarno 1972). Similar results were obtained for goats that were
fed 5.3 ppm cadmium (Dowdy et al. 1983). Cousins et al. (1973)
reported that reduced hematocrit, due to induced iron deficiency,
was the most sensitive indicator of cadmium toxicity in swine.
Few data were found in the literature for hematocrit values and
cadmium exposure relationships for other livestock species. Wright
et al. (1977) reported little difference between blood cadmium
concentrations in controls and cattle feed diets up to 500 ppm
cadmium (clinical toxicosis). These authors found blood cadmium
concentrations averaged 0.04 for all 12 of their test animals on
diets of 0 to 500 ppm cadmium. Puis (1981) also reported that
blood cadmium levels are not diagnostically elevated even in toxic
environments. The cadmium content of cattle milk has been found
to vary seasonally, generally being highest during the spring and
summer (Murthy and Rhea 1968). Market milk tested by the same
authors ranged from 0.017 to 0.030 ppm (mean of 0.026 ppm) and
they found a range of 0.020 to 0.037 ppm in 32 individual animals
tested in the Cincinnati area. Typical background values found in
the literature ranged from 0.0001 ppm (Cornell and Pallansch 1973)
to the 0.037 found by Murthy and Rhea (1968). Sharma et al. (1979)
found no significant increase in milk cadmium levels from cattle
fed up to 11.3 ppm cadmium in the diet. Levels of cadmium milk
from three Holstein cows that were kept on a diet of 250-300 ppm
cadmium for 2 weeks remained below the 0.1 ppm detection limit
(Miller et al. 1967). Similarly, a study by Dowdy et al. (1983)
found no increase in the cadmium levels in milk from goats that
were fed up to 5.3 ppm cadmium.
The most reliable indicator of cadmium exposure in livestock
is the determination of metal levels in the liver and/or kidney.
Mean cadmium concentrations in these organs from two-year-old
slaughter cattle from non-polluted areas of the Northern Great
Plains were reported to be 0.06 and 0.22 ppm (wet weight), respec-
tively (Munshower 1977) . These values were lower than the levels
32
-------
reported by Kreuzer et al. (1975) or the U.S. Department of
Agriculture (USDA 1975), but these later surveys included older
animals of uncertain age and background. The maximum ranges found
in the literature for cattle kidney and liver tissue were 0.075 to
4 ppm (Penumarthy et al. 1980, Baxter et al. 1983) and 0.034 to
0.84 ppm (Penumarthy et al. 1980, Doyle and Spaulding 1978) re-
spectively. It should be noted that both maximums were converted
from the reported dry weight figures using the conversions found
by Munshower and Neuman (1979). The highest apparently nontoxic
concentration of cadmium in cattle kidney tissue found in the
reviewed literature is the 57 ppm (dry weight basis) found by
Baxter et al. (1982). The effect of 19 ppm cadmium in cattle
kidney tissue (Sharma et al. 1982) was not clearly stated.
Penumarthy et al. (1980) found cattle background kidney and liver
cadmium levels of 0.075 to 2.500 ppm and 0.034 to 0.430 ppm, re-
spectively. Similar values for horses were given as 0.840 to
5.000 ppm and 0.830 to 4.100 ppm. Because of the difficulty and
expense involved in the acquisition of liver or kidney samples
from animals in the field, a survey of animal hair may be a more
realistic approach to determining cadmium exposure in a large
group of animals. Urine may have some future potential, but
little background data are available for interpretation. Cadmium
in feces may provide an estimate of dietary intake (Chaney 1980).
2.2.2 Livestock cadmium hazard levels
Documented cadmium levels in livestock fluids, tissues and
hair are presented in Table 8, 9, 10 and 11. Cadmium hazard
levels were derived from this data base.
2.2.2.1 Toxic cadmium hazard levels for cattle
Cadmium levels in cattle blood are not a good diagnostic
indicator of cadmium toxicity (Puis 1981) (Table 12). Powell et
al. (1964) found the blood cadmium level in bull calves on a diet
of 2560 ppm cadmium (toxic) to be <0.10 ppm. This value was
within the same order of magnitude as most background blood
-------
Table 12. Diagnostic Levels of i;.i4l
9
		Powell et al. (1964),
A There is genecilly a poor cot i-*! at ion hetv*»>»n -T
-------
cadmium concentrations (0.005 to <0.05 ppm) (Table 8). The
diagnostic use of cadmium in blood is not recommended.
Cadmium concentrations in cattle urine are also of limited
diagnositc use. The narrow range between background values (<0.15
ppm) and the only toxic concentration reported in the reviewed
literature (0.7 ppm, Wright et al. 1977) (Table 10) suggests urine
may not be a reliable indicator of cadmium toxicity.
Toxic hazard levels selected for cadmium levels in cattle
kidneys and liver are 44 ppm and 25 ppm respectively. The kidney
hazard level is based on studies by Powell et al. (1964) and
Wright et al. (1977) in which all concentrations equal or greater
than 44 ppm cadmium in cattle kidneys were associated with toxico-
sis. Similar results were obtained by these authors for cadmium
concentrations in cattle liver, meaning all values in excess of
24.4 ppm were associated with toxicity. Puis (1981) reported
values of 100 to 250 ppm and 50 to 160 ppm cadmium in cattle
kidneys and liver, respectively, as toxic under chronic condi-
tions.
The recommended toxic hazard level for cadmium concentrations
in cattle hair is >9 ppm cadmium. This hazard level was derived
from the work of Powell et al. (1964) who found cadmium concentra-
tions from 9 to 13 ppm in cattle hair to be associated with
toxicosis. Wright et al. (1977) found levels of 15 to 21 ppm to
be associated with subclinical toxicosis and levels of 57 to 88
ppm to be associated with clinical toxicosis. These authors found
cadmium concentrations in cattle hair usually reached 100 ppm
before death. Puis (1981) reported 40 to 100 ppm cadmium in
cattle hair as toxic. The >9 ppm toxic cadmium hazard level
should be an indication of possible subclinical toxicosis and
should only be applied to large herds of cattle where statistical-
ly valid and representative data can be obtained. Large varia-
tions in hair cadmium concentrations between individual animals
make an absolute application of this hazard level meaningless.
-------
2.2.2.2	Toxic cadmium hazard levels for horses
Data for toxic cadmium concentrations in the tissues of
horses were very limited (Table 13). The recommended toxic
cadmium hazard level for horse kidneys (75 ppm) is based on the
results of Elinder et al. (1981). These authors found a signifi-
cant (<0.05) relationship between cadmium concentration and
histopathological changes in horse kidney cortex, and noted an
increase in the frequency of the histopathological changes at
cortex concentrations exceeding 75 ppm.
The 80 ppm toxic hazard level for horse liver cadmium concen-
tration is based on one sample from a horse that died from
apparently being "smoked" from smelter emissions (Lewis 1972). To
what extent other metals may have affected this animals is
unknown. This hazard level should be used with extreme caution
until additional data are obtained.
The hazard level for toxic concentrations of cadmium in horse
hair is also based on the very limited data of Lewis (1972). This
author reported a poor correlation between mane hair cadmium
concentrations and cadmium concentrations in liver and kidney
tissues. The use of this parameter is not recommended until
additional support data are obtained.
2.2.2.3	Toxic cadmium hazard levels for sheep
The toxic hazard level reported for cadmium in sheep blood is
0.1 to 0.2 ppm (Puis 1981) (Table 14). This range overlaped the
background range for this parameter and is not considered diagnos-
tic .
The diagnostic level for toxic concentrations of cadmium in
sheep kidney tissue (53 ppm) is based on the study of Wright et
al. (1977) who found this level was associated with reproductive
failure in sheep. With one exception, all sheep kidney tissue
levels in excess of 53 ppm were associated with a degree of
toxicity, where as all levels less than 53 ppm, with one excep-
tion, were not associated with toxicity. The 53 ppm hazard level
agrees well with the 50 to 400 ppm criteria reported by Puis
(1981) for toxic concentration of cadmium in sheep kidney tissue.
-------
Table 1]. Diagnostic Levels oC Cadmium in llotses.
Background
Blood Hazard
Levels/Source
Urine Hazard
Levels/Source
Kidney Hazard
Levels/Source
Liver Hazard
Levels/Source
Hair Hazard
Levels/Source
Milk Hazard
Levels/source
Tolerable Uncertain
	pom wet weight	
Tox ic
<0.006 - 0.012
Penumarthy et al. (1980)
0.0003 - 0.0213
Gl i nder et a 1. (1981)
0.84 - 5.00
Penumarthy et al. (1980)
0.83 - 4.100
Penumarthy et al. (1980)
0.2 - 0.6
Lewis (1972)
4.2 - 23
Puis (1981)
22
Puis (1981)
75 (Cortex), >200
Elinder et al. (1981*
Puis (1981)
8 0
Lewis (1972)
0.9 - 1.0 *
Lewis (1972)
* Not diagnostic
-------
Table 14 . Diagnostic Levels of Cadmium in Sheep and Goats.
Blood Hazard
Levels/Source
Ucine Hazard
Levels/Source
Kidney Hazard
Levels/Sou rce
Liver Hazard
LeveIs/Sou rce
Hair Criteria
Levels/Source
ro
Blood Hazard
Levels/Source
Kidney Hazard
Levels/Source
Liver Hazard
Levels/Source
Milk Hazard
Levels/Source
* Not diagnostic
Backg round
Tolerable Uncertain
	ppm wet weight	
Tox ic
SHEEP
0.003 - 0.17
Doyle et al. (1974) - Mills and
Dalgarno (1972)
0.01 - 0.03
Wright et al. (1977)
0.084 - 4.30
Telford et al. (1982) - Wright et al. (1977)
0.019 - 2.00
Telford et al . (1984a) - Wright et al. (1977)
0.55 - 0.94
Doyle et al. (1974)
0.1 - 0.2
Puis (1981)
4-50
Puis (1981)
53 and 50
Wright et al. (1977)
and Puis (1981)
13 and 50
Doyle and Peander (1975)
and Puis (1981)
>20
Weight et al. (1977)
and Puis (1981)
GOATS
0.011 - 0.036 dw
Dowdy et al. (1983)
0.01 - 0.32
Telford et al. (1984b)
0.01 - 0.02
Telford et al. (1984b)
<0.005 - 0.024 dw
Dowdy et al. (1983), Telford et al.
0.50
Telford et al. (1984b)
0.08
Telford et al. (1984b)
0.008 - 0.052
(1984b) Telford et al. (1984b)
-------
A sheep liver concentration of 13 ppm cadmium was selected
based on the study of Doyle and Pfander (1975). These authors
have reported reduced growth in lambs was associated with 13.2 ppm
cadmium in liver tissue. Reduced feed efficiency and reduced
growth were reported for sheep with liver cadmium concentrations
in the 40 to 60 ppm range (Table 12), and Puis (1981) reported a
toxic concentration of cadmium in sheep liver to be 50 to 600 ppm.
The 13 ppm hazard level for this parameter should be used with
caution until additional data are obtained.
The toxic hazard level (>20 ppm) of cadmium in sheep wool
(hair) is based on the >20 ppm cadmium Wright et al. (1977) found
in the wool of sheep fed toxic levels of cadmium (as cadminate)
over a 49 week period. Doyle and Pfander (1975) noted cadmium
levels of 0.7 to 1.22 ppm in the wool of sheep fed 5 to 60 ppm
cadmium (as CdCl2) over a 163 day period, but these levels also
overlap typical background values (Table 9).
2.3 Lead
2.3.1 Lead literature review
The literature search revealed a considerable amount of data
on lead levels in various animal tissues and other substances
(Tables 15-18) . These data suggest that lead levels in kidney and
liver, which accumulate lead, and blood are good indicators of
lead toxicosis. Concentrations of lead in these three tissues are
elevated in all documented cases of lead toxicity. Furthermore, a
considerable volume of data on background or control levels is
also available (Ruhr 1984, Doyle and Younger 1984, Zmudski et al.
1983, Burrows and Borchard 1982, Schmitt et al. 1971, Dollahite et
al. 1978, Buck et al. 1976). Fewer data are available on lead
levels in spleen, heart, brain, pancreas, bone and hair (Tables
15-18).
Blood lead levels appear to be a good indicator of chronic
toxicosis but are not as dependable for diagnosis in acute or
subacute cases. This lack of diagnostic accuracy may result from
an initial rapid rise of blood lead following metal ingestion and
39
-------
Table IS. Background lead levels in livestock fluids and hair.
Diet*	Blood	Ur ine	Milk	Ha ir	Feces	n	Notes	Reference
pom (wet weight)	com (drv wt. )	
*
CATTLE
19.002


4 samoi.es

Sharrsa et al. (1982)
01-0.2
1

104

Ruhr (1984)
0.077


130

Blaklev and Stockman (1976)
0. 16


:o

Edwards and Clay (1977)
0 .10


92

Buck et al. (1976)
0.069
-0.2263

•»

Locner et al. (1984)
0. 127

5
Calves
Lynch et al. (1976b)


0.040, 0.2 aai
270
Marker Milk
Mitchell and Aldous (1974)


0 .030-0.050
13

Lakso and Peoples (1975)


0.4 20
33
Cincinati
Murthv (1974)

B
0.130
8
Winter
Dorn et al. (1975)
0. 10

1
Calf
Allcroft (1951)
0.08
3

1
Calf
Allcroft (1951)


0.391
350
CA Milk
Bruhn and Frsnice (1976)


0.02-3.04
3

Kehoe et al. (1940)


0.023-0.079
59

Murthy ec al. (1967)


0.047
76

Murthy et al. (1967)
0.02


85

Penumarthy et al. (1980)


5.03
50
Near L.A.
USDA (1975)
0.03


5
Calves
Zmudski et al. (1983)
0.20
B

8
Calves
Edwards and Dooley (1980)
0.129

30
Calves
Allcroft (1950)
0.38-
0.22

13
Ca1ves
Al lccof t (1950)
0.15


2

Lynch et al. (1976b)
0.065
w

12
Calves
George and Duncan (1981)
<0.10

10.7
48
Beltsville MO
Bertrand et al. (1981)
Chaney (1983)


3.028-0.030
3
Near Washington D.C.
'White et al. (1943)
0.008
0-3.0584
0.3-0.12
12
6
Calves
Logner et al (1984)
Schmitt et al. (1971)
HORSES
8.32-0.10
0.04
0.04
0. 26
0.23
0. 14
0. 18
0.051 C
0.045-0.57
0.119 C
0.06-0.21
<0.05
0.140 9
1.4
0.290 A
0.0015
20
20
20
1
1
1
4
2
25
25
40
40
6
2
43
Mean
Creston BC
Mean
Ottawa
Sweden
Penumar
Pen u:nar
Penumar
Dollahi
Dollahi
Dollahi
Lew i s (
Buck et
Schmi tt
Schm
Schm
Schm
Schmi 11
A1lcrof
Eli nder
thy et al. (1980)
thy et al. (1980)
thy et al. (1980)
te et al . (1978)
te et al. (1978)
te et al . (1978)
1972)
al. (1976)
et al. (1971)
et al. (1971)
et al. (1971)
et al. (1971)
et al. (1971)
t (1950)
et al. (1981)
-------
Table 15. Background lead levels in livestock fluids and hair, continued.
Diet*	Blood	Urine	Milk	Hair Feces	n	Notes	Reference
		 ppm (wet weight)		ppm (dry wt ¦) 				
SHEEP


0.003-0.023
8
Naplatarova et al. (1968)


0.130
2
Blaxter (1950a}
0.09 E


7
Pearl et al. (1983)
0.09


2
Buck et al. (1976)
0.19


4
Fick et al. (1976)

0.07 B

6
Blaxter (1950a)

0.04-0.09

Range(6)
Blaxter (1950a)

0.04-0.06
0.11-0.15 B
2
Blaxter (1950a)
0.139 B


12
Allcroft (1950)
0.0B-0.20


4 samples
Blaxter (1950a)
1.8-2.1 mg/day
0.07-0.09

4
Blaxter (1950a)
0 .05-0.09

1,6 samples
Blaxter (1950a)
0. 19
0.0S-0.12

1,4 samples
Blaxter (1950a)
0.15-0.20
0.04-0.05

3
Knight and Burau (1973)
GOATS
0.130 B	4	Allcroft (1950)
* ing/Kg body weight ^/Reported as ug/liter B/Reported in mg/Kg ^/Reported as mg/100g
°/Reported as ug/100ml E/Reported as ug/ml
-------
Table 16.
Background lead
levels in
livestock tissues.



Diet"
K idnev
Liver
Soleen
Heart Brain Pancreas Bene
n
)
Notes
Reference



ppm (wet
weignt) ppm (dry wt.
CATTLE
<
1.83
< 0.32


8
Steers
Bertrand et al. (1981)

1.21
I. 12


92

Bock et al. (1976)

0.63
0. 54


2145,2156

USDA (1975)

9. 36


0.72
130

31akley and Brockaan (1976)
<3.
05-2.29
<0.05-0.
85

190

Flanjak and Lee (1979)
.157
0.62-0.
71


4
2 Animals
Sharna et al. (1982)

3.6 cw
1.8 dw


29
Range Cattle
3ax:er et al. (1983)

1.9 cu
1.0 dw


15
Dairy Cattle
Baxter et al. (1983)

3. 19
0. li


85 ,92

?enuraa:thy et al. (1980)
3.
67-1.77
'J . 4E-1.
14

52,54

?rirr I19T6)

0. 11
0. 13
0.08
0.07 0.05-0.10 0.07 2.22
5
Calves
Zmudski et al ( 1983)
0.39
i-0. 13
0 .39-0.18
0.35-0.10
0.35-0.10 0.35-0.09 0.1E-0.32
5
Calves
Zraucski et al (1983)

0. 50
0.58


8
Calves
Edwards and Oooley (1980)
1. 42pptr,
3.46 dw
0.17 dw

0.57 dw 0.55
4

Logner et al. (1984)
L . 8ppin
1.1 dw
<0.5 cw


8
Steers
Baxter et al. (1982)

0.4-1.0
0.4-1.0


10
Calves
Allcroft (1950)

0.3-1.5
C.3-1.5


13
Cows/Kei fers
Allcroft (1950)
1.3 ppm
1.4 cw
3.6 dw


8
Cows
Baxter et al. (1982)

3.6 dw
1.9 3W



Angus Cows/







S teers
Decker et al. (1980)
HORSES

0.05
0.42




20

?enuraarthy et al. (1980)

0.93
0.82




2

Buck et al. (1976)

1.3
1.4

1.1 1.08
0 .
.6
1

Dollahite et al. (1978)

0.1
0 . 3



3.0-3.6
6

Scnnitt et al. (1971)


0.4



38.8
3
Pony
Burrows and Bocchard (1982)

5.6
1.3



1.5
3
Pony
Burrows and Botchard (1982)

1.0
0.8




20

Eamens et al. (1984)
; =ora
<1.5 iCsrt
ex)




45
Sweden
Elmder et al. (1981)
;=Dm
0.5









(Meaulla)
1.0



e.o
1

Willouohbv et al . (1972b)
ippm
1.0 (Cort
ex)




1

Willouchby et al. (1972b)
SHEEP

0.72
0.72




2

Buck et al. (1976)

0.21
0.39
0.7 dw
0.2 aw
1.0 dw
9.6
4

Fick et al. (1976)

0.3-3.8
0.6-1.2




5

Allcroft (1950)

<1.0
<1.0




3
Lambs
Allcroft (1950)


0.18




3

Bennett and Schwartz (1971)
SWINE

m
CD
CD
0.73




49 , 51

Prior (1976)
* rag/k; Body weight/Day Unless Noted
-------
Table 17. Elevated lead levels in livestock fluids and hair.
Diet*	Blood	Urine Milk Hair Feces	n	Agent	Notes/	Reference
ppm (wet weight)	(dry wt.)	Response
CATTLE
1.35
0. 29
A


4
Pb Acetate
Not Noted
Sharma et al . ( 1982)
0.195
0.06




Pb Acetate
Not Noted
Sharma et al. (1982)
S01ppra
0. 54
A


4
PbS04
Not Noted
Logner et al. (1984)
1501ppm
0.66
A


4
PbS04
Clin Tox
Logner et al. (198 4)
60, 000ppro
1.



1
Pa int
Fatal
Every (1981)

0.98



90

Fatal
Blakley and Brockman (1976)

0.83



12
Ind. ExpD
Not Noted
Edwards and Clay ( 1977)

0.81




Clin Tox
Buck et al. (1976)
507


2.26

1
PbjO«
Tox ic
White et al. (194 3)
507


0.15

1
Pbj04
Mild Symptoms







of Pb poisoning
White et al. (1943)



0.028-0.030

3
Pb304
16 mo.







following








poisoning
White et al. (1943)

0.59



1
Galena
Tox ic
Wardrope and Graham (1982)

1.89



1
Calena
Fatal
Wardrope and Graham (1982)

1.93



1
Calena
Toxic
Wardrope and Graham (1982)

2.00



1
Galena
Fatal
Wardrope and Graham (1982)
2.7
0.47



5

LD 20 9








7 Days Calves
Zmudski et al. (1983)
5.0
1.57



11

LD 36 9








7 Days Calves
Zmudski et al . (1983)
20.0
2.41



1

Fatal Calves
Zmudski et al. (1983)

1.0



5

Clin Tox Calves
Buck et al. (1976)

1.11



1

Fatal
Wardrope and Graham (1982)

0.94



1

Clin Tox
Wardrope and Graham (1982)

0.88



1

Clin Tox
Wardrope and Graham (1982)
1.5, 9.6wE
0.91
C


5
PbC03
Decreased







Cains Calves
Lynch et al. (1976a)
3.0, 9.0V
1.36
C


5
PbC03
Decreased







Gains Calves
Lynch et al. (1976a)
6.0, 10.8w
1.69
c


5
PbCOj
Decreased
Lynch et al. (1976a)






Gains Calves

0.44-
1.16 C


24

Tox i c
Osweiler and Ruhr (1978)




40.7


Ind Exp
Chaney (1983)




28.6


Ind Exp
Chaney ( 1983)
Accidental

1.4


1

Acute Tox
Christian and Tryphonas (1971)
3g total







Christian and Tryphonas (1971)
over 12 days

0.7


1

Toxic
20 . 48ppm

<•10


48

Nontox ic
Bertrand et al. (1981)
HORSES
108 mg/kg body
wt
.92


1
PbCOj
Clin Tox
Willoughby et al. (1972b)
108 mg/kg body
wt
.75


1
PbCOj
Clin Tox
willouqhby et al. (1972b)


. 39


6
Clin Tox
Buck et al (1976)
2884

1.27-1.28


2
Pb Ace
LO50 9
Dollahite et al. (1978)







190 Days
1526

1.04


1
Pb Ace
Fata 1
Dollahite et al. (1978)
34 3

1.26


I
Pb Ace
Fata 1
Dollahite et al. (1978)
2122

1.77


I
Pb Ace
Clin Tox
Dollahite et al. (1978)
3099

1.B9


I
Pb Ace
Fata 1
Dollahite et al. (1978)
2444

2.18


I
Pb Ace
Clin Tox
Dollahite et al. (1978)
1699

1.48


I
Pb Ace
Clin To x
Dollahite et al. (1978)
-------
Table 17 Elevated lead levels in livestock fluids and hair, continued.
Diet*	Blood	Urine H i lk Hair Feces	n	Agent	Notes/	Reference
ppm (wet weight)	(dry wt.)	Response
1 mi -
smelter	8.1
2.9 mi -
smelter	5.2
2.6	mi -
smelter	18.2
5.3	mi -
smelter	®.®
2.9 mi -
smelter	35.1
1.9 mi -
smelter	10.4
1.0 mi -
smelter	7.4
0.0111
0.0210
1.4	mi -
smelter	11.8
2.3 mi -
smelter	3-4
7.t mi -
sme1te r	1.0
3.0 mi -
smeltet	<•1
4.7	mi -
smeltet	3-2
0.S6 B 2.380
0.35	0.340
0.25	0.140
0.34	1.100
0.20	2.100
¦El	0- 75
0.16-0.15
423 ppm	13.4
423ppm	12.2
Ind
E*pD
LD33
Lewis
<1972)

Ind
Exp
Not Noted
Lewis
(1972)

Ind
Exp
Not Noted
Lewis
(1972)

Ind
Exp
Not Noted
Lewis
(1972)

Ind
Exp
Not Noted
Lewi 8
(1972)

Ind
Exp
"Smoked"
Lewis
(1972)

ind
Exp
Not Noted
Lewis
(1972)

Env
Exp
Histopathological
Elinder et al.
(1981
Env
Exp
Changes
Elinder et al.
(1981
Ind
ExpD
"Stifled"
Lewis
(1972)

Ind
Exp
Not Noted
Lewis
(1972)

Ind
Exp
Not Noted
Lewis
(1972)

Ind
Exp
Not Noted
Lewis
(1972)

Ind
Exp
Not Noted
Lewis
(1972)

Ind
Exp
Fatal Foal
Schmitt et al.
(1971
Ind
Exp
Clin Tox Foal
Schmitt et al.
(1971
Ind
Exp
Clin Tox Foal
Schmitt et al.
(1971
Ind
Exp
Clin Tox
Schmitt et al.
(1971
Ind
Exp
Clin Tox Yearling
Schmitt et al.
(1971
Ind
Exp
Clin Tox
Schmitt et al.
(1971
Ind
Exp
Partial Clin Tox
Schrai tt et al.
(1971
pb Ace
Fatal Pony
Burrows and Borchard
Contaminated




Hay	Fatal Pony	Burrows and Borchard (1982)
SHEEP
13.4 ppm
103.4 ppm
50 3. 4 ppm
1003.4 ppm
1000.0 ppm
150 mg
0.18
0. 22
0.24
0.28
1.42 *
0.45-30.9 0.13-5.15
4
Pb
Acetate
Non Toxic
Fick et
al. (1976)
4
Pb
Acetate
Non Toxic
Pick et
al. (197S)
4
Pb
Acetate
Non Toxic
Fick et
al. (1976)
4
Pb
Acetate
Toxic
Fick et
al. (1976)
6
Pb
Acetate
Not Noted
Pearl et al. (1983)
1
Pb
Acetate
Fatal
Blaxter
(1950a)
tog/Kg Body Height/day
E/W » week
A/Reported in ug/ml B/Reported in ug/100g
c/Reported in ug/ D
100ml unless noted
Ind. Exp • Industrial exposure
-------
Table 18. Elevated lead levels in livestock tissues.
Diet*	Kidney	Liver	Spleen	Heat t	Brai n	Pancreas
ppm (wet weight)
	unless noted	
CATTLE
0. 395
1 . 24



I. 348
4.04



501ppm
7. 27 dw
6.68
dwA

150lppm
21.28 dw
16.68
dw
IL .
6.3
97.5 dw
320.0
dw
7.8
211.9 dw
728 .8
dw
27 .
9.8
135.8 dw
396.7
dw
20.
12.2
121 .9 dw
361.9
dw
25.
60,800
351.



ppm

12.8


60,000
31.3


ppm




60,000
12.



ppm





88.6
17.3



50.3
26.4




43



137



50 ppm




9 mo
4.3 dw
4.9
dw

50 ppm




9 mo
5. 2 dw
4. 1
dw

Galena
18.6
32.9


Ga1ena
34.1
32.5


Galena
16.5,
12.3
0

Galena
22.4
8.9


2.7
49. 49
19 . 0

0
5.0
88.0
30.51
1
20.0
82.92
37.11
2
Galena
10. 2
12 . 1


11.03
< 1.39
<0.31

20.48ppm
< 0.76
<0. 49

1.13 dw
4.28 dw
9 dw 3.38 dw 3.65 dw
5 dw	2.6 3 dw 2.6 3 dw
8 dw 2 . 92 dw 2.27 dw
0 dw 3.96 dw 2.94 du
1.03
.73	0.33	0.38-0.89 3.14
.67	0.59	0.41-1. 18 6. 11
.52	1.64	1.41-1.43 5.66
HORSES
28 8 4ppn
•S3 .4
11.4
2884ppm
107 .5
9) .5
1526ppm
104.4
45.8
34 3ppm
168. n
58 .6
2l22ppm
188 . 0
7 0
309Vppn
151 .4
6 2.')
2 4 A 4 ;orr.
13 e. \%
7 ^ . '.1
1 69'ipoin
')? .
f.. .!
\ H . 0
1H . 0

4 . 5
I 6 . 2

S. 1
0.6

20. o
9.0

7.7
9. f

13.2
15.2
4 5-3S0ppm

11.8-17.2
7.9
0.7
4 .6
4.7
3.7
18.0
17.1
5 .2
13.9
34.5
2.2
14 .0
12 .ft
2 . 7
1 6 .0
29 .«
CJ. 6
24 .0
n r>. 5
7 . 7
3S .0
V, . 3
5. 1
7.0
1.6
7 . i
11.4
10 . (1
27 . (1
1 1 . •!
14.2
11.4
in focaqe
Bone	n Agent
ppm (dry wt.)
Notes/
Response
Reference
0.77
3.53
49.02
54 .92
108.52
4
4
4
4
4
4
3
4
1
I
1
90
170
158
8
8
PbAcetate
PbAcetate
PbS04
PbS04
PcAcetate
PbAcetate
PbAcetate
PbAcetate
Pa int
Oust
Pa int
Oust
Pa int
Dust
Sludge
Sludge
PbAcetate
PbAcetate
PbAcetate
Sludge/
Forage
Siudge/
Forage
Nontoxic Dairy Cows
Nontoxic Dairy Cows
NS Gain Reduction
Acute Toxicity/Fata1
Fatal
Fata 1
Fatal
Fatal
Fatal
Fatal
Fatal
Fatal
Clin Tox
Clin Tox
Clin Tox
Nontoxic
Nontoxic
Fatal
Fata 1
Fatal
Fata 1
LD20?7 days
LO]g97 days
Fatal
Fatal
Nontoxic
Nontox ic
Sharraa et
SharT.i <>t
Loc r ».• r e t
Logr-?r ct
Doy 1 o i nd
Doyle and
Doyle and
Doyle and
al. (19821
*1. (I '> H 2 )
al. (1984)
.il . ( 1984 )
Younger (1984|
/oungtrr (1934)
Younger (1984)
Younger (1984)
Cows
Steers
Calves
Calves
Calves
He i fer
Every (1981)
Every (1981)
Every (1981)
Blakley and Brockman (1976)
Buck et al. (1976)
Buck et al. (1976)
Buck et al. (1976)
Baxter et al. (1982)
Baster et al. (1982)
Warcrope and Graham (1982)
Wat-irooe and Graham ( 19821
Mirir.T?-; and Graham (1S<>2)
Wardrope and Graham (1982)
Znudski et al. (1983)
Zrauisn
Ind Exp
Ind Exp
Ind Exp
Ind Exp
Ind Exp
Ind Exp
Nontox ic
Fata 1
Fata 1
Fata 1
Clin Tox
F.it 11
Clin To*
C1i n Tox
Fata I
CI in Tox
Clin Tox
Clin Tox
CI in Tox
Clin Tox
Clin Tox
Do i 1 ah i to
;t al
F -.11
Foal
Foa 1
3oll3h:cu et al
>¦> 11
"¦o .. ? - . te
et a I
et a 1
-,-t j I
-t i
3o 1 . i	
-------
Table 18. Elevated lead levels in livestock tissues, continued.
Diet *
Kldney
Li vet
Spleen Heart
Beam
Pancreas
Bone
n
Agon t
Notes/
Reference



ppra (wet weight)
unless noted


ppm (dry wt.]
i

Response






HORSES
- Continued




423ppm
35. 3
50. 2
6 0.
2.6
63. 2
4
Contaminated









Peed
Fata 1
Ponies
Burrows and Borchard (1982)
4 2 3ppm
21.7
82 . 2
17.7
4 .6
202
4
PbAcetate
Fa ta I
Pon ies
Burrows and Borchard (1982)
8.0
10.0



1
Ind Exp
Clin Tox

Eamens et al. (1984)
800ppro
20-25
20-33


200-210
2
PbCO 3
Tata 1

Willoughby et al . <1972b>
400mg
118.0
75.6


2.0

1
4 0 mg
195.8
37.9


2.1

" 1
22cng/







Kg/mo

1.62




5
44mg/







r- Kg/mo

2.62




5
r^88mg/







kg/mo

4. 20




4
13.4ppm
2.0
1.8
0.7
0.1
1.3
15.4
4
103.4ppm
9.4
5.3
1.0
0. 2
2.0
3 3.6
4
50 3.4ppm
2 5.1
11.6
1 .9
0.4
4.1
89.6
4
1003.4ppre
230.6
14 . 4
2.6
0.8
5.4
121,3-
4
PbAcetate Fatal
PbAcetate Fatal
Pb Arsenate Nontoxic
Pb Arsenate Nontoxic
Pb Arsenate Not Noted
PbAcetate Nontoxic
PbAcetate Nontoxic
PbAcetate Nontoxic
al .
PbAcetate Reduced Feed Intake Fick et al .
Blaxter (1950a)
Blaxter (1950a)
Bennett and Schwartz (1971)
Bennett and Schwartz (1971)
Bennett and Schwartz (1971)
Fick et al .
Pick et al.
Fick et
(1976)
(1976)
(1976)
(1976)
* ng/kg Body Weight/Day Unless Noted
V dw -
dry weight basis
B/ industrial exposure
-------
a moderate decline within a few hours. Allcroft (1951) found
blood lead levels in calves up to 4 ppm within 12 hours of
ingestion, a value which fell to 1 to 1.5 ppm in the following 48
to 72 hours, but remained elevated above background levels for one
to two months. Zmudski et al. (1983) found that maximum blood
lead levels in calves occurred six hours after intake of the
metal. After 12 hours only about one half of the peak concentra-
tion remained, but this level was still in excess of 10 times
background. Sheep blood lead levels were shown to peak 4 hours
following ingestion of lead acetate (Blaxter, 1950b). Buck et al.
(1976) suggested that bovine blood levels from 0.10 to 0.35 ppm
were significant as a primary etiological agent or as a predis-
posing or contributory factor in lead toxicity. Background blood
lead levels up to 0.21 ppm in cattle have been reported by Ruhr
(1984). Similar background levels for horses range from 0.04 to
0.26 ppm. These values compare favorably with those reported for
cattle (0.02 to 0.20 ppm), horses (0.04 to 0.25 ppm) and sheep
(0.02 to 0.25 ppm) by Puis (1981).
Burrows et al. (1981) found blood lead concentrations of 0.35
ppm or greater in nine percent of 118 horses and ponies he sampled
in the North Idaho silver/lead belt. Two of these horses had
blood lead levels of 0.7 ppm, but none of the horses exhibited
signs of clinical toxicosis. It has been shown that high to toxic
levels of zinc intake will prevent clinical signs of lead toxico-
sis in horses. This may help explain observed cases of high blood
lead levels where no signs of clinical toxicosis were observed
(Willoughby et al. 1972b). Several horses investigated by Schmitt
et al. (1971) displayed symptoms of advanced lead toxicosis at
blood lead levels ranging from 0.20 to 0.34 ppm. It is evident
from the literature that a great deal of variation exists in indi-
vidual animal absorption, excretion or metabolism of lead
(Dollahite et al. 1978, Zmudski et al. 1983). Attempts to use
more specific blood parameters such as delta-aminolevulinic
dehydratase (ALA-D) and blood-free erythrocyte porphyrins (FEP) to
determine the level of blood lead' have met with limited success.
Osweiler and Ruhr (1978) found a good correlation (r = 0.9) of FEP
h7
-------
with blood lead levels in calves, but poor correlation of ALA-D
with blood lead or with FEP. A study by George and Duncan (1981)
found levels of FEP in blood of experimental calves to be more
uniform than blood lead levels and that FEP levels continued to
rise 3 months following deletion of lead from the diet. These
authors suggested the FEP test could be more sensitive than blood
lead levels for subclinical lead exposure. Ruhr (1984) found no
significant correlation of FEP or ALA-D with blood lead levels in
normal cattle. This may have been due to the low blood lead
levels in the nonexposed cattle he sampled. Blumenthal et al.
1972 found a correlation coefficient (r) of 0.11 between the ALA-D
test and blood lead levels in children. These authors calculated
that the ALA-D test would miss 33 percent of the positive cases.
Furthermore, there are too few data to establish lead dose and
ALA-D response in cattle (Bratton and Zmudski 1984).
Lead levels in kidney and liver tissues, both background and
elevated levels, are well defined for most livestock. Background
levels for cattle kidneys range from 0.11 ppm (calves) to 1.77 ppm
(Zmudski et al. 1983, Prior 1976). Similar levels for cattle
liver range from 0.11 ppm (Penumarthy et al. 1980) to 1.44 ppm
(Prior. 1976) . Background levels reported for horses range from
0.03 ppm to 1.3 ppm and 0.08 ppm to 1.4 ppm (Penumarthy et al.
1980) for kidney and liver tissues, respectively (Table 16). Puis
(1981) has reported normal lead levels for horse kidney and liver
at 0.5 ppm (wet weight). The tissue lead levels which are diag-
nostically significant for lead poisoning have been reported by
numerous authors. Fenstermacher et al. (1946) concluded that 10
ppm (dry weight) in liver tissue was a likely indication of lead
toxicosis. Buck et al. (1976) stated that kidney or liver levels
equal to or greater than 10 ppm (wet weight) were diagnostically
significant for ruminants. Lead levels of 3.0 to 5.0 ppm and 5.0
to 140 ppm (wet weight) in kidney tissue have been considered an
indication of lead exposure or chronic lead toxicity, respec-
tively, in horses (Puis 1981). Acute lead poisoning has been
characterized in cattle by kidney cortex levels above 25 ppm (dry
weight) (Todd 1962, Garner and Papworth 1967), whole kidney levels
i»8
-------
of 10 to 700 ppm (wet weight) (Puis 1981) and liver levels of 5 to
300 ppm (wet weight) (Puis 1981). Chronic lead exposure may
produce kidney and liver lead levels 50 ppm (wet weight) (Table
18). Kidney tissues with 12 ppm lead have been reported in cattle
killed from lead toxicosis (Every 1981) and levels as low as 4.5
ppm in foal kidney have been associated with chronic lead poison-
ing (Schmitt et al. 1971). Levels of lead have been reported for
spleen, heart, brain, bone, pancreas, hair and milk for several
species (Tables 15-18). These values are generally an order of
magnitude less than corresponding levels in kidney and liver
tissues and are thus, subject to greater analytical error in de-
termining the degree of lead toxicosis. Elevated lead levels in
hair have been associated with chronic lead toxicosis in horses
(Lewis 1972). A study of elements in cattle hair has determined
that there are large variations in elemental concentrations among
individuals within the same group and that lead levels in cattle
hair show only a slight correlation to other metals (Ronneau et
al. 1983). Significant correlations (p = 0.01) between hair and
liver concentrations of cattle were found by Russell and Schoberl
(1970). Dorn et al. (1974) found one to two orders of magnitude
increase in lead concentrations in hair of cows exposed to
industrial pollution when compared to controls.
Levels of lead in milk are generally low, but have been used
to estimate the degree of chronic lead poisoning. Milk lead
levels are usually about two orders of magnitude less than kidney
and liver samples and thus milk samples are less sensitive and
more prone to contamination. Murthy et al. (1967) reported
background levels of lead in milk from cattle ranged from 0.023 to
0.079 ppm with a mean of 0.047 ppm. Hammond and Aronson (1964)
reported a mean and range of 0.009 and 0.006 to 0.013, respec-
tively, in 8 animals. Lead levels in cattle milk indicative of
toxicosis have been given as 0.10 to 0.25 ppm (Puis 1981). This
author also indicated that a dietary intake of 100 ppm lead was
associated with lead toxicosis.
In summary, it appears that kidney and liver tissues offer
the best indication of lead toxicosis. Because of the expense and
-------
limited opportunity to obtain these samples, the analysis of blood
may provide a good alternative. Blood lead levels are moderately
well defined in the literature and sampling and analysis are
relatively simple. The specific blood parameters of ALA-D and FEP
may provide a means of determining lead intoxication in the
future, but at the present, insufficient data exist to fully
utilize these parameters for livestock toxicological evaluation.
Hair samples may be used to indicate long term chronic lead
exposure if a sufficiently large sample base is obtained. A hair
lead content of 10 ppm has been reported as indicative of exces-
sive lead exposure (Puis 1981). More detailed studies could make
use of biopsy tissues of liver and bone, and feces can be analyzed
t0.35 ppm in cattle should be
considered as evidence of unusual exposure." That statement was
based on the observation of 142 animals, of which 52 exhibited
symptoms of clinical lead toxicosis and had blood lead levels
ranging from 0.19 to 3.80 ppm, with a mean of 0.81 ppm lead.
Hammond and Aronson (1964) observed that, in acute lead poisoning
in cattle, blood lead levels were never less than 0.35 mg/1. The
0.35 ppm blood lead concentration was reported by Puis (1981) as
indicative of toxicosis in cattle. The value is supported by
other data from the reviewed literature (Tables 15 and 17). The
highest concentration of lead in cattle blood at which toxicosis
has not been noted is the 0.29 ppm reported by Sharma et al.
(1982) .
-------
Table 19. Diagnostic Levels of Lead in Cattle.
Blood Hazard
Levels/Source
Urine Hazard
Levels/Source
Kidney Hazard
Levels/Source
Liver Hazard
Levels/Source
Hair Hazard
Levels/Source
Milk Hazard
Levels/Source
Background
Tolerable Uncertain
	ppm wet weight	
Toxic
0.002 - 0.21
Sharma et al. (1982) - Ruhr (1984)
0.29
Sharma et al. (1982)
0.35
Buck (1975), Buck (1976
Puis (1981), Hammond an
Aronson (1964)
< 0.05 - 2.29
Flanjak and Lee (1979)
< 0.05 - 1.44
Flanjak and Lee (1979) - Prior (1976)
0.5 - 5.0
Puis (1981)
4 .04
Sharma et al.
(1982)
3.5a - 5
Logner et al. (1984)
5.00
USDA (1975)
6-13
Logner et al. (1984), Sharm
et al. (1982), Buck et al.
(1976) and Puis (1981)
5-12
Puis (1981), Zmudski et a
(1983), Buck et al. (1976)
Wardrope and Grahm (1982)
and Every (1981)
10
Puis (1981)
0.02 - 0.420
Kehoe et al. (1940) - Murthy (1974)
0.15 and 0.10 - 0.25
White et al. (1943)
Puis (1981)
A Value converted from dry weight basis utilizing conversion factor reported by Munshower and Neuman (1979).
-------
Background concentrations for lead in cattle kidney tissue
range from <0.05 ppm to 2.29 ppm (Flanjak and Lee 1979). The
highest nontoxic value reported for this parameter was 4.04 ppm
found in the kidneys of dairy cattle fed lead acetate (Sharma et
al. 1982). The toxic lead hazard level of 6 ppm for cattle kidney
tissue is based on the study of Logner et al. (1984). These
authors fed elevated lead (as lead sulfate) to calves for 7 weeks
and noted acute toxicity symptoms and one fatality in the 4 calves
receiving a diet with 1501 ppm lead. The surviving calves
exhibited a mean kidney lead concentration of 6.38 ppm. This
level agrees with other data in the reviewed literature in that
all levels >6 ppm were associated with toxicity and all levels <6
ppm were nontoxic. A 10 ppm lead concentration in cattle kidney
tissue was reported as toxic by Puis (1981) and Buck (1976) .
Background lead concentrations in cattle liver tissue range
from <0.05 to 1.44 ppm (Flanjak and Lee 1979, Prior 1976). The
toxic lead hazard level for liver tissue of 5-12 ppm is based on
the 5 to 300 ppm criteria reported by Puis (1981). All cattle
liver lead levels in excess of 5 ppm reported in the reviewed
literature were associated with toxicosis. All values less than
the 5 ppm, with the exception of a 3.5 ppm value reported by
Logner et al. (1984), were nontoxic. Buck et al. (1976) stated
that liver levels >10 ppm lead were diagnostically significant for
ruminants.
The typical background range for lead in cattle hair has been
reported as 0.5 to 5.0 ppm (Puis 1981) and apparently may average
close to 5 ppm near highly developed areas such as Los Angeles
(USDA 1975). The toxic hazard level of 10 ppm lead in cattle hair
is the value given by Puis (1981). No other data were found in
the reviewed literature to substantiate this hazard level.
Background values for lead in cattle milk range from 0.02 to
0.420 ppm (Keheo et al. 1940, Murthy 1974). The toxic hazard
level for cattle milk (0.15 ppm) is based on the work of White et
al. (1943) who noted mild lead poisoning symptoms associated with
this level. The 0.15 ppm level is in agreement with the toxic
CO
-------
level of 0.10 to 0.25 ppm lead reported by Puis (1981) for cattle
milk.
2.3.2.2 Toxic lead hazard level for horses
The basis of the toxic hazard level for lead in horse blood
(>0.34 ppm) is, in part, the report of Schmitt et al. (1971)
(Table 20). These authors found toxicosis in horses with blood
lead levels that ranged from 0.20 to 0.75 ppm. Some of the
observed toxicity symptoms in this study were likely due to zinc
contamination. Burrows and Borchard (1982) noted that after
feeding contaminated hay containing lead acetate (423 ppm) for 5
to 6 weeks, ponies exhibited blood levels consistently >0.3 ppm.
These authors found that blood lead concentrations "did not
increase consistently at onset of clinical toxicologic signs or
just before death". Blood lead levels in four ponies fed lead
acetate did not decrease below 0.39 ppm after clinical toxicosis
was noted and most concentrations were >0.5 ppm (Burrows and
Borchard, 1982). The 0.34 ppm level is the lowest toxic value
found in the reviewed literature that is still above maximum
background values. Puis (1981) reported a toxic range of 0.33 to
0.50 ppm for this parameter.
The toxic hazard level for lead in horse urine (0.50-5.0 ppm)
is the range noted by Puis (1981) . Few data were found from the
literature to substantiate this range but it was generally
supported by the report of Schmitt et al. (1971).
The selected lead hazard value of 10 ppm for horse kidney
tissue is based on the findings of Buck et al. (1976) and Schmitt
et al. (1971). Schmitt et al. (1971) observed toxicity in foals
with kidney levels ranging from 4.5 to 20 ppm. The apparent
toxicity in this study was likely due in part to high levels of
zinc. Eamens et al. (1984) reported one case of clinical toxicity
with a kidney tissue level of 8 ppm lead. Puis (1981) noted
toxicity ranges for horse kidney tissue of 5.0 to 140 ppm and 20
to 200 ppm for chronic and acute poisoning, respectively. Buck et
al. (1976) suggested 10 ppm in kidney tissue as diagnostic
criteria for lead poisoning.
-------
Table 20 , Diagnostic Levels of Lead in noises.
Background
Blood Hazard
Leve1s/Soucce
Urine Hazard
Levels/Source
Kidney Hazard
Levels/Source
Liver Hazard
Levels/Source
Hair Hazard
Levels/Source
Tolerable Uncectain
		pom wet weight	
Tox ic
0.02 - 0.26
Penuina rthy et a 1 . (1980) - Do 11 ah i t e
et al. (1978)
0.04 - 0.20
Puis (1981)
0 . 20 - 0.26
Schmitt et al. (1971)
Dollahite et al. (1978)
>0.34
Schmitt et al. (1971)
0.29
Schmitt et al.
(1971)
0.03 - 1.3
Penumarthy et al. (1980)
et al. (1971)
Schtr.i tt
0.OB - 1.4
Penumarthy et al. (1980) - Schmitt
et al. (1971)
0.07 - 2!5
Lewis (1972)
0.50 - 5.0
Puis (1981)
10, 5.0 - 140
Schmitt et al. (1971) Buck
et al. (1976) Puis (1981)
10, 4.0 - 50
Eamens et al. (1984) Buck
et al. (1976) Puis (1981)
10 - 12
Lewis (1972), Burrows and
Boarchacd (1982)
Milk Hazard
Levels/Source.
0.006 - 0.0L3
Puis (1981)
0.28 - 0.54
Puis (1981)
-------
The 10 ppm toxic hazard level for horse liver tissue is
based on Schmitt et al. (1971), Eamens et al. (1984) and Buck et
al. (1976). Schmitt et al. (1971) found a range of 9.0 to 48 ppm
lead in horse liver tissue of animals exposed to industrial
pollution near Trail, British Columbia. Eamens et al. (1984)
found 10.0 ppm lead in liver tissue of a horse exhibiting
clinical toxicity symptoms. Similar levels (11.8-17.2 ppm) were
found associated with clinical toxicity by Knight and Burau
(1973). With the exception of one horse with a liver tissue lead
concentration of 11.4 ppm (Dollahite et al. 1978), all horse
liver tissue samples with >10 ppm lead were associated with
toxicity. Puis (1981) gave ranges of 4 to 50 ppm and 10 to 500
ppm in horse liver tissue as indicative of chronic and acute
toxicosis, respectively Buck et al. (1976) indicated that the 10
ppm lead concentration in liver tissues was diagnostic of lead
poisoning.
The reports of Lewis (1972) and Burrows and Borchard (1982)
are the basis of the toxic hazard level for horse hair. Lewis
(1972) found elevated lead concentrations (9.6 to 25.8 ppm) in 3
of 4 affected horses studied in the Helena Valley. The effects
of the interaction of elevated levels of other metals on the
apparent toxicity noted in this study were not documented.
Burrows and Borchard (1982) studied ponies on diets of contami-
nated hay (from the Coeur d'Alene River Basin, Idaho) and on
diets with added lead acetate and found hair lead concentrations
of 12.2 and 13.4 ppm for the two groups respectively. These
authors suggested that the interaction of cadmium in the contami-
nated hay "markedly increased...the severity and rapidity of
development of the clinical toxicologic signs and hematologic
changes".
No elevated horse milk data were found in the reviewed
literature (Table 17). The toxic hazard level is the level
published by Puis (1981).
2.3.2.3 Toxic lead hazard levels for sheep
Fick et al. (1976) found concentrations of lead in sheep
blood from 0.18 to 0.28 were nontoxic. Blaxter (1950a) noted
sheep blood lead levels of 0.45 ppm were associated with
toxicosis, which was the basis of the toxic hazard level for this
55
-------
parameter (Table 21). Puis (1981) reported sheep blood lead
levels in the range of 1.0 to 5.0 ppm were toxic.
Toxic lead concentrations in sheep urine were noted by
Blaxter (1950a) and ranged from 0.28 to 0.81 ppm. The 0.28 to
0.32 ppm toxic hazard level for lead in sheep urine should be used
with caution until more data are available.
Toxic lead levels in sheep kidney and liver tissues were
reported as 5 to 200 ppm and 10 to 100 ppm respectively (Puis
1981). With minor exceptions, data in the reviewed literature
tended to support these ranges.
The toxic hazard level for lead concentrations in sheep wool
(25 ppm) was reported by Puis (1981). No data were found in this
review to substantiate this value.
2.4 Zinc
2.4.1 Zinc literature review
Zinc is an essential element and most animals can tolerate
relatively high dietary levels. Few cases of natural zinc
poisoning of livestock have been reported in the literature. Most
episodes of poisoning involve contamination of livestock feed
(Allen 1968, Grimmett et al. 1937, Sampson et al. 1942, Davies et
al. 1977). Experimental zinc toxicosis in livestock has been
studied and described in several reports and much of these data
are reviewed here.
The uptake of toxic amounts of zinc affects many organs
directly or interferes with the metabolism of several other
elements, notably iron, copper, calcium and cadmium. Cadmium acts
synergisticly with high levels of zinc, enhancing the toxic
effects of zinc (Thawley et al. 1977). Cadmium also tends to
reduce the absorption and retention of zinc (Miller 1969) . Zinc
absorption is higher in young animals than in older animals,
making them more susceptible to zinc poisoning (Davies et al.
1977). The degree to which the diet composition affects this re-
lationship remains unresolved. Diets containing 200-400 ppm zinc
have been shown to produce clinical copper deficiency in diets
-------
Table 21 . Diagnostic levels of Lead in Sheep and Goats.
Background Tolerable Uncertain Toxic
	pom wet weight	
	SHEEP	
Blood Hazard	0.00 - 0.20	0.45
Levels/Source	Blaxter (1950a)					Blaxtec (1950$)
Urine Hazard 0.04 - 0.12 0.20 - 0.32
Levels/Source	Blaxter (1950a)					Blaxter (19S0a)
Kidney Hazard	9.21 - 1.0	5 - 200 and 231
Levels/Source	Fick et al. (1976) - Allcroft ( 1950)					Puis (1981) and Fick
'	et al. (1976)
Liver Hazard	0.10 - 1.2	11.6	10 - 100 and 14
Levels /Source	Bennett and Schwartz (1971) - Allcroft (1950) Fick et al. (1976)			Puis (1981) and Fick
et al. (1976)
Hair Hazard 4-7 12-18	25
Levels/Source	Puis (1981)			Puis (1981)	Puis (1981)
Milk Hazard	0.003 - 0.15
Levels/Source	Naplatarova et al. (1968) - Blaxter (1950a)						
GOATS
Blood Hazard
Levels/Source
0.130
Allcroft (1950)
-------
with low copper content (Hill and Matrone 1970). Campbell and
Mills (1979) produced a severe copper deficiency in pregnant ewes
on diets of 750 ppm zinc.
The form of zinc is another important factor in zinc toxic-
ity. Smith (1977) found that zinc sulfate was more rapidly
excreted in the urine of sheep than was zinc oxide. Zinc sulfate
has also been shown to accumulate less in tissues when given at
the same concentration as zinc oxide (Miller et al. 1970). The
sex of beef cattle has been shown to affect the amount of zinc ac-
cumulated in tissues, but the threshold level of zinc (900 ppm Zn
diet) necessary to produce toxicosis was found to be similar for
both heifers and steers (Ott et al. 1966b).
It is apparent from this discussion that a given amount of
zinc, within limits, may or may not produce toxicosis. Many
studies have attempted to determine threshold toxic levels of zinc
in various animals. These studies are summarized in Tables 22-25.
Excessive absorption of zinc is controlled up to a certain
dietary level by the body's homeostatic mechanisms. In lambs,
this system is effective up to a dietary concentraction of ap-
proximately 1000 ppm (Ott et al. 1966c). For calves, the level is
somewhat lower, as large increases in tissue zinc content have
been observed at dietary levels of 638 ppm (Miller et al. 1971).
Higher levels of zinc overwhelm the homeostatic mechanisms and
significant increases of zinc have been observed in liver, kidney,
pancreas and blood serum (Tables 24 and 25). Miller et al. (1971)
found that zinc levels in whole blood did not correlate with
dietary zinc levels up to 638 ppm. Similarly, normal skeletal
muscle has been shown to be highly insensitive to dietary zinc.
These two livestock tissues would be of little use in monitoring
zinc exposure. Zinc levels in blood serum, liver, kidney and
pancreas have been shown to correlate with dietary levels of the
element. These three organs tend to accumulate similar metal
levels and are about two orders of magnitude greater than levels
found in serum. Allen et al. (1983) found that the pancreas is
the only organ consistently affected by zinc toxicosis and
suggested that pathological changes observed in the pancreas could
58
-------
Table 22. Background zinc levels in livestock fluids and hair.
Diet
Serum
Urine
ppm(wet weight)
Milk
Hair	
ppm (dry wt.)
Notes/
Response
Reference
CATTLE
18.0-20.9
0.98-1.93


122-220
150
Hereford Steers
Beeson et al. (1977)
4 4 ppm
Plasma 2.1
4.2


6
Dairy Cows
Miller et al. (1965a)



79.2-135.5
5-24
Calves
Ml I let et al. ( 1965b)
3 3 ppm
1.47


116.4
4
Calves
Miller et al. (1970)
100ppm S wks
1.9



4
Calves
Ott et al. (1966d)
10Oppm 5 wks
1.2-1.7


137-142
10
Heifers and Steers
Ott et al. (1966d)

3.840
B

18

Parkash and Jenness (1967)


4 . 780
B

14

Parkash and Jenness (1967)


3.438


8

Dorn et al. (1975)


2.800


8

Dorn et al. (1975)


3.980
B

7

Casey (1976)
27.49 ppm
3.74 whole blood



48

Bertrand et al. (1981)
.lg/kg°100ppm
1.02-2.32 whole blood





Miller et al. (1968)
mean 1.63



4
Cal ves

0.67-1.51 Plasma







mean 1.26



4
Calves
Miller et al. (1968)
VJ1
VX>
HORSES
Norma 1
Plasma 1.08
140-230
3.500
2. 4 00
6.400
3.600
4
10
10
8
10
16
Colostrum
Transit!ona1
Lewis (1972)
Ullrey et al.
Ullrey et al.
U1lrey et al.
Ullrey et al.
Eamens et a 1.
(1974)
(1974)
(1974)
(1974)
(19B4 )
SHEEP
4 3ppm
0.95
1.36
1.11-1.24
97
110
7 . 2 P
7 . 5 R l»
P ,93?-l .y.H)
6
10
8
6
6
8
Lambs
Lambs
UK
UK
nu:.
Ott et al. (1966c)
Ott et al. (1966c)
Bremner et al . (1976)
Ashton et al . (197 7)
,\i>hton ot al . (1977)
Naplatarova et al. (1968)
COATS
0.46-1.00 ( x - 0 . f> 6 )
, 1.25-2.16 (» = 1.76)
(whole blood)
22.0
3 .0
4.01
5
1(>
3
I n:! l .1
N i ::<»r i a
mttrich ( 1974)
lland.i .ind Johri ( 197 2)
Akinsoyinu <»t al. ( 1979)
Miller et al . (1968)
Mi 1 ler et al . ( 1968)
A/Reported in iig/ml B/Reported in ug/liter
-------
Table
23. Background zinc levels
in livestock tissues






Diet
K i dney
Li vet
Spleen Heart
Brain
Pancreas
Bono
n
Notes
Reference



ppn {wet weight)


ppm (dry wt.
)




unless
noted






CATTLE

12.9-31.6
13.4-99.2




190
New South Wales
Flanjak and Lee









(1979)
4 4ppm
5-6 no 73 dw^
187 dw


146 dw
69-85
-
Calves
Mi I let et al .









(1969)
3 8 ppm
21d 73 dw
101 dw



71-85
-
Ca1ves
"
3 3ppra
15d 92.1 dw
118.4 dw
79.4 dw

100.8 dw
69.2-7 3.5
4
Calves
Hi 1 ler et al .









(1970)
38 ppm
2Id 61.8 dw
88.2 dw


71.9 dw

3
Calves
»
lBOppm
S wks 22.-24
41.
24.-25 20.-21

4S.
78.-74
4
Calves
Ott et al .









(1966d)

88.4 dw
132 dw




29
Range Cattle
Baxter et al.









(1983)

96. dw
118 dw




15
Dairy Cattle
"

22. 08
38.48




B
Steers
Bertrand et al.









(1981)

76. dw
99 dw





Angus Cows/Steers
Oecker et al.









(1980)
lflBppm
5 wks
48




2
Steer Calves
Ott et al.








(1966d)
100ppm
5 wks
35




2
Heifer Calves
«

82.2 dw
102.2 dw
63.8 dw 69.5 dw
41.5 dw


4
2-3 Yr Old Cows
Doyle and








and 1 Steer
Younger (1984)
HORSES

0.45
0.88




49

Eamens et al.









(1984)

35.7 (Cortex)




5
B-4 Years Old
Clinder et al.









<19811

45.4 (Cortex)




13
5-9 Years Old
-

46.9 (Cortex)




16
10-14 Years Old


50.0 (Cortex)




15
15-19 Years Old
N

49.3 (Coctex)




18
20 + Years Old
M
SHEEP

1.93 dw
0.35 dw





Lambs
Lee and Jones









(1976)

17
15
24 17
11
15
75
6
Lambs
Ott et al.









(1966c)

136 dw







Davies et al.

Cortex





i
Lambs
(1977)

123-
159-






Allen et al .

167 dw
176 dw


84-97 dw

3

11981)


31.3




a

r* oi ri 1 .









( i"7o>


148. dw






h L 1 CI", rtlld


128. dw


74 . dw

A

mstot'i (19S3)

3271 dw
1523 dw
102 dw 54 dw
53 dw

625
5

Hot f tion '* i .









(I'lH-.t;,
19ppm
111.8 dw
125 .0 dw
113.75 dw 69.83 dw



6
Male Lambs
Doyle iin.i









lJf niioi t (19 7 b )
*/ Dry weight basis
-------
Table 24. Eleva
ted zinc levels in livestock fluids and hair.
Diet
372 ppm
319.4 ppra
639.4ppm
69 2ppm
1279ppm
2 3 3ppm


633ppm


633ppm


2 3 8 ppm


6 38ppra


1100ppn>
5
wks.
2100ppm
5
wks.
3100ppm
5
wks.
500ppm
5
wks.
900ppm
5
wks.
1300ppm
5
wks.
1700ppm
5
wks.
2100ppn>
5
wks.
Contaminated
Foeage
Serum
Urine
ppre (wet weight!
Milk Hail
	ppra (dry wt.)
Agent
Notes/
Response
Reference
Plasma
3.2
Serum
1.93-2.57
Serum
4.77-4.03
PIasma
4.0
Plasma
7.5
1.89
3.61
3.59
1.26
2.42
15.6
14.7
15.4
3.8
7.6
12.7
14.1
14.6
CATTLE
6.7
8.0
8.4
154-176
195-199
6
8
8
6
6
134 .0
157.9
149.8
156
158
154
162
173
Zn Oxide
Zn Oxide
Zn Oxide
Zn Oxide
Zn Oxide
Zn Oxide
Zn Oxide
Zn Sulfate
Zn Oxide
Zn Oxide
Zn Oxide
Zn Oxide
Zn Oxide
Zn Oxide
Zn Oxide
Zn Oxide
Zn Oxide
Zn Oxide
HORSES
230
280
300
190
200
210
220
220
200
230
210
220
Ind. Exp.B
Plasma
1.759 2
Ind.	Exp.0
Ind.	Exp.
Ind.	Exp.
Ind.	Exp.
Ind.	Exp.
SHEEP
S00ppm
6-10 wks.
1000ppm
6-10 wks.
2000ppm
6-10 wks.
4000pp
-------
Table 2V Elevated zinc levels in livestock fluids and hair, continued.
Diet	Serum	Urine	Milk	Hair		n	Agent	Notes/	Reference
ppm (wet weight)	ppm (dry wt.)	Response
500ppm 7 wks
1.41
115
1000ppm 7 wks
2.B7
126
lSfl0ppn 7 wks
5.24
122
2000ppm 7 wks
7.97
152
2500ppm 7 wks
6.54
132
3000ppm 7 wks
8.40
145
3500ppm 7 wks
8.67
134
1000ppm lid
1.7

1000ppm+2g/d
3.9

1000ppm*4g/d
27.8

1000ppn+ 6g/d
43.8

220ppm 24w
1.13 A

4 40ppm 24w
1.29 A

A/Reported in ug/ol "/Industrial Exposure
10
Zn
Ox ide
Not Noted
Ott
et
al.
(1966c)
10
Zn
Oxide
Not Noted
Ott
et
al.
(1966c)
10
Zn
Ox ide
Red. Feed. Ef.
Ott
et
al.
(1966c)
10
Zn
Oxide
Red. Feed. Ef.
Ott
et
al •
(1966c)
10
Zn
Oxide
Red. Feed. Ef.
Ott
et
al •
(1966c)
10
Zn
Ox ide
Toxic/Fatal
Ott
et
al.
(1966c)
10
Zn
Oxide
Toxic/Fatal
Ott
et
al.
(1966c)
2
ZnSO* >71*20
Not Noted
ott
et
al.
(1966c)
2

«
bed. Feed. Ef.
ott
et
al •
(1966c)
2

m
Red. Feed. Ef.
ott
et
al.
(1966c)
2

«
Fatal/Toxic
ott
et
al.
(1966c)
8

t*
29ppm cu diet







Nontox ic
Brenner et
al. (1976)
8

n
29ppm cu diet




Nontoxic	Bcemner et al. (1976)
o\
K>
-------
Table 25. Elevated zinc levels in livestock tissues.
Diet	Kidney	Liver	Spleen	Heart	Brain	Pancreas	Bone	 n Agent	Notes/	Reference
ppm (wet weight)	ppm (dry wt.)	Response
	unless noted
CATTLE
2 33ppm
104.8
dw1*
212.7
dw

81.4
dw
228 .1
dw
76.8-
4
Zn Oxide
Calves





15d









97.2


Nontoxic
Miller
et
al.
(1970)
6 33ppm
614.6
dw
870.5
dw

88.4
dw
1887.2
dw
84 .0-
4
Zn Oxide
Calves





15d









125.2


Nontox ic
Miller
et
al .
(1970)
633pDm
648 . 4
dw
887 .4
dw

91.7
dw
1084.8
dw
83.0-
4
Zn Sulfate
Calves





15d









119.0


Nontoxic
Mil ler
et
a 1.
(1970)
238ppm
79. 1
dw
163.1
dw



139.9
dw

3
Zn Oxide'
Calves





21d












Nontoxic
Miller
et
al .
(1971)
638ppm
725.8
dw
735. 1
dw



1424.8
dw

3
Zn Oxide
Calves





2 Id












Nontox ic
Miller
et
al.
(1971)

140

410-660



74 5


1-3
Nat. Zn
Calves


















Fatal
Allen et
al.
(1983)
500ppm
76

86

26
21

186

72
4
Zn Oxide
Calves





5 wks.












Nontox ic
Ott
et
al
. (I966d)
900ppm
291

159

27
30

249

108
4
Zn Oxide
Calves





5 wks.












Nontoxic
Ott
et
al
. (1966d)
I300ppm
470

298

27
45

181

150
4
Zn Oxide
Calves





5 wks.












Toxic
Ott
et
a 1
. (I966d)
1700ppm
412

136

30
42

381

172
4
Zn Oxide
Calves





5 wks .












Toxic
Ott
et
al
. (1966d)
2100ppm
479

326

29
55

249

198
4
Zn Oxide
Calves


















Toxic
Ott
et
al
. (1966d)
HORSES

652

6687







1

Clin Tox
Eamens
et
al.
(1984)

598

5716







1

Clin Tox
Earaens
et
al.
(1984)
SHEEP
S00ppm 24
38
24
17
11
18
39
6
Zn
Oxide
Lambs
Not Noted
Ott
et
al. (1966c)
6-10 wks.














1000ppm 71
91
23
16
12
41
96
6
Zn
Oxide
Lambs
Not Noted
Ott
et
al. (1966c)
6-10 wks.














2000ppm ' 448
427
25
18
12
333
199
6
Zn
Ox ide
Lambs
Toxic
Ott
et
al. (1966c)
6-10 wks














4 000ppm 325
398
24
18
19
518
158
6
Zn
Ox ide
Lambs
Toxic
Ott
et
al. (1966c)
6-10 wk3.














500ppm 25
7 w Ic s
45
23
19
14
26
117
10
Zn
Ox ide
Lambs
Not Noted
Ott
et
al. (1966c)
1000ppm 154
120
24
18
16
147
113
10
Zn
Ox ide
Lamb 3
Not Noted
ott
efc
al. (1966c)
7 wks.














1500ppm S96
268
26
22
16
361
182
10
Zn
Ox ide
Lambs
Reduced Feed
ott
et
al. (1966c)
7 wks.










Efficiency


al. (1966c)
2000ppm 642
418
26
19
15
38 2
162
10
Zn
Ox ide
Lambs
Reduced Feed
ott
et
7 wks.










Ef f iciency



2500ppra 491
442
28
20
16
238
168
10
Zn
Ox ide
Lambs
Reduced Feed
ott
et
al. (1966c)
7 wks.










Efficiency


al. (1966c)
3000ppm 407
440
24
18
16
483
166
10
Zn
Ox ide
Lambs
Toxic/Fatal
ott
et
7 wks.














-------
T*bi<	£ I
in livestock (iftuet. conc
lid












7000ppa
185
325
55
41
24
616
166
2
-
Lamos
fatal
Ote at al. (1966ci
lid
4750 dw*











940ppa
2664 dw





1
-
Lamb
Toxic
Oalgacno (1973)
3 3d
Medulla











84Jppa
3220 dw
2133 dw





1
-
Laao
Toxic
Dalqacno (1978)
33d
4790 dw*











840ppa
2)11 dw





1
ZnS04-7HjO
Leaa
Tox ic
Oa-/i«« «c al. (1977

145-469
60-750



135-1565

1-19
Natutsl

Toxic
Allen et al. (1983)
220ppa
24w
4 20ppa
24w
2q/d 13d
1.	2«|/d
49-72d
t.»s/a
2.®g/d
7 29?po,
2 2Sd
7)Sppa,
2J5d
2099- dw
3223
11)0- dw
3111
2151 dw
2155 dw
38.7-43.4
42.1-52.7
1090- dw
1205
1550 dw
1792
349 dw
510 dw
729 dw
832 dw
1090- dw
2795
1121- dw
1760
339 dw
833 dw
3
2
4
4
10
ZniOj - 7HjO
ZniOj.7H20
ZnSOf . 7rljO
Zn Oxide
2nS04«7HjO
ZnS04.7H20
Silage from
Sludge
Noncsnc
Noneaxic
Mild Clin Tox
Mild Clin To*
Tojiic
Toxic
NOHC3XIC
Bonn#: ec al. (1976)
Scotanec «c il. (19T6)
Allen «c Jl. (1983)
Al len it il, ( 1993)
Allen end Masters (1930)
Allen end Masters (1983)
TeLfacd et el. (1982)
Telfocd ec «1. (1982)
*/ oty weignt basis
-------
be of use in determining the period of exposure. Very high levels
of pancreatic zinc (1887 and 2795 ppm dry weight) have been
observed by Allen et al. (1983) and Miller et al. (1970). Maximum
levels for kidney accumulation of zinc appear to be in the 2000 to
3000 ppm (dry weight) range with liver levels usually somewhat
less. Insufficient data exist to compare organ accumulation among
different species at high intake levels. Although the pancreas,
liver and kidney of livestock provide an excellent means of
determining zinc exposure, they are rarely available on a large
scale. Blood serum levels provide an alternative and have shown a
good correlation to dietary zinc up to 1500 to 2000 ppm. Zinc
intake above this level does not produce corresponding increases
in serum zinc (Ott et al. 1966c, 1966d).
Zinc levels in hair have been used with some success for
determining zinc exposure. A number of factors, including age,
species, color and sex may affect the zinc content of hair (Miller
et al. 1965b). These investigators also found considerable varia-
tion in hair zinc content among animals otherwise similar in age,
color, breed and sex. Ronneau et al. (1983) found that the
concentrations of the essential elements Na, K, Se, and Zn in
hair were nearly constant with age but the accumulation of certain
metals was primarily a characteristic of each individual. Elemen-
tal concentrations in cattle hair studied by Ronneau et al. (1983)
also demonstrated a good correlation (r = 0.69) of inter-elemental
ratios such as iron to zinc. These authors suggested that such
ratios may be more useful as a "fingerprint" of contamination.
A study of horse mane hair in an area with heavy metal
contamination found that high zinc levels were associated with the
highest concentrations of lead and cadmium (Lewis 1972). Individ-
ual variations at some sites studied by Lewis (1972) were also
large, but there was no attempt to compensate for age, color of
hair or other factors. Ronneau et al. (1983) concluded that
absolute concentrations of heavy metals in hair are of limited
usefulness but they may be useful for large-scale determination of
pollution.
65
-------
The zinc content of milk may indicate relative dietary zinc
exposure. Miller et al. (1965a) found a good correlation of blood
serum zinc and zinc levels in milk up to 1000 ppm dietary zinc.
Diet levels above 1000 ppm did not produce any significant
increase in milk zinc concentrations. The mammary glands appar-
ently selectively exclude zinc at higher levels. Puis (1981) has
reported criteria on zinc levels in milk for cattle, horses and
pigs. Few studies have been completed on the effects of varying
amount of heavy metals in diets on metal concentrations in milk
for horses, swine or sheep.
In summary, both milk and hair may give a gross, regional
indication of zinc exposure. More specific information may be
obtained through analyses of pancreas, kidney, liver and blood
serum, the latter being the most available and probably the
easiest to obtain. Existing experimental data should be suffi-
cient to interpret the significance of observed zinc levels in
serum.
2.4.2 Livestock zinc hazard levels
Studies reporting zinc concentrations in livestock fluids,
tissue and hair are listed in Tables 22, 23, 24 and 25. This data
base was used to determine zinc hazard levels in the following
sections.
2.4.2.1 Toxic zinc hazard levels for cattle
Background cattle serum zinc levels range from the 0.7 to 1.4
ppm reported as normal by Puis (1981) up to the 1.9 ppm reported
by Ott et al. (1966d). There is apparently a range (5.2 to 7.6
ppm) which may be both toxic and nontoxic or in which toxicosis
may be subclinical such as the slight reduction in milk production
observed by Miller et al. (1965a). The toxic level of zinc in the
blood serum of cattle was reported as 5.2 to 7.5 ppm (Puis 1981)
(Table 26). Data found in the reviewed literature generally
support this range. All values <7.6 ppm zinc in cattle blood
serum were reported to be nontoxic (Table 24). All values in
excess of 7.6 ppm were associated with toxicity. Background
66
-------
Table 26. Diagnostic Levels of zinc in Cattle.
Serum Hazard
Levels/Source
Background
Tolerable
Uncertain
Toxic
ppm wet weight
0.7 - 1.9
Puis (1981) - Ott et al. (1966d)
5.2 - 7.6
Puis (1981)
Ott et al. (1966d)
5.2 - 7.5 and 12.7
Puis (1981) and Ott
et al. (1966d)
Blood Hazard
Levels/Source
Kidney Hazard
Levels/Source
1.02 - 3.74
Miller et al. (1968) - Bertrand et al. (1981)
12.9-31.6
Flanjak and Lee (1979)
76
Ott et al. (1966d)
130 and 14 0'
Puis (1981) and Allen
et al. (1983)
Liver Hazard
Levels/Source
13.4 - 99.2
Flanjak and Lee (1979)
86
Ott et al. (1966d)
136
300
300
Ott et al. (1966d) Ott et al. (1966d)
Miller et al. (1971)
Miller et al. (1970)
Hair Hazard
Levels/Source
Milk Hazard
Levels/Source
79 - 142
Miller et al. (1965b) - Ott et al. (1966d)
2.8 - 4.780
Dorn et al. (1975) - Parkash and
Jenness (1967)
154
Ott et al. (1966d)
8.4
Puis (1981)
-------
values for zinc in whole blood are apparently slightly higher than
respective values for serum. The background range for zinc in
whole blood is 1.02 to 3.74 ppm (Miller et al. 1968, Bertrand et
al. 1981).
The background range for zinc in cattle kidney tissue
reported by Flanjak and Lee (1979) (12.9 to 31.6 ppm) encompasses
all other background values found in the literature. The highest
reported nontoxic value for this parameter was 76 ppm (Ott et al.
1966d). The toxic hazard level suggested for zinc concentrations
in cattle kidney tissue is 130 to 140 ppm. This range is based on
the 130 ppm level reported to be toxic by Puis (1981) and the 140
ppm found to be toxic by Allen et al. (1983).
Flanjak and Lee (1979) reported the maximum background range
(13.4 to 99.2 ppm) of zinc in cattle liver tissue and Ott et al.
(1966d) noted that 86 and 159 ppm in calf liver tissue were
nontoxic but also noted that 136 ppm was toxic. The 86 ppm
tolerable level for this parameter is thus based on the highest
nontoxic value below the lowest reported toxic value. The toxic
hazard level of 300 ppm for cattle liver tissue is based on the
work of Ott et al. (1966d). These authors reported toxicity at
liver zinc concentrations of 136 to 326 ppm. Several authors
reported nontoxic liver zinc levels in the interval of 136 to 186
ppm. All values derived from the literature which exceeded 300
ppm were associated with zinc toxicity. Puis (1981) reported a
value of >500 ppm as the toxic concentration of zinc in cattle
liver tissue.
Background values of zinc in cattle hair have been reported
to range from 79.2 ppm (Miller et al. 1965b) to 142 ppm (Ott et
al. 1966d). Zinc concentrations in cattle hair associated with
toxicity ranged from 154 to 173 ppm (Table 24). With one excep-
tion (158 ppm), all values which exceeded the suggested 154 ppm
hazard level were toxic. Puis (1981) reported a range of 100 to
150 ppm zinc in cattle hair as high ("levels elevated well above
normal but not necessarily toxic"). No other data were found in
the reviewed literature for this parameter.
68
-------
The range of background concentrations of zinc in cattle milk
is 2.8 to 4.780 ppm (Dorn et al. 1975, Parkash and Jenness 1967).
The toxic hazard level of 8.4 ppm zinc in cattle milk is the level
reported by Puis (1981) as indicative of toxicosis. This value
was derived from Miller et al. (1965a) who noted a slight reduc-
tion in milk production at that level but no other apparent
toxicity to the 24 dairy cows used in the study.
2.4.2.2	Toxic zinc hazard levels for horses
The hazard level for toxic zinc concentrations in horse blood
is based on only one study provided by Eamens et al. (1984) (Table
27). This hazard level should be used with care. The suggested
hazard level for toxic concentrations of zinc in whole blood of
horses (5-15 ppm) is the range reported by Puis (1981) . No
additibnal support data were found in the reviewed literature.
Diagnostic levels for zinc in horse kidney and liver tissues
were reported between 295 to 580 ppm and 1300 to 1900 ppm,
respectively (Puis 1981). The limited data of Eamens et al.
(1984) suggested ranges of 180 to 580 ppm and 1200 to 1900 ppm
zinc in horse kidney and liver tissue respectively may be more ap-
propriate.
The hazard level for the toxic concentration of zinc in horse
hair (280 ppm) is based on the very limited data of Lewis (1972).
The 280 ppm level was the concentration found in a single horse
that subsequently died. The hair of other horses in the study
ranged from 140 to 430 ppm zinc. Toxicity was not noted in a
number of horses with hair zinc levels above 280 ppm. This level
should best be considered as an indication of possible excessive
exposure to zinc and as with most hair data, sufficient numbers of
animals should be sampled to provide a meaningful statistical
confidence.
2.4.2.3	Toxic zinc hazard levels for sheep and goats
The toxic hazard level reported for zinc in sheep serum is
7.1 to 44 ppm (Table 28). This range was derived from data
reported by Ott et al. (1966c). These authors reported reduced
69
-------
Table 27 . Diagnostic Levels of zinc in Horses.
Background
Tolerable Uncertain
	oom wet weight	
Toxic
Serum Hazard
Levels/Source
Blood Hazard
Levels/Source
Kidney Hazard
Levelsy/Source
Liver Hazard
Levels/Source
Hair Hazard
Levels/Source
Milk Hazard
Levels/Source
1.38 (Plasma)
Eamens et al. (1984)
2. - 5.
Puis (1981)
20 -45
Puis (1981) - Eamens et al. (1984)
40 - 88
Puis (1981) - Eamens et al. (1984)
140 - 230
Lewis (1972)
2.4 - 3.5
Ullrey et al. (1974)
210 - 280
Lewis (1972)
1.76
Eamens et al. (1984)
6-15
Puis (1981)
180 and 295 - 580
Eamens et al. (1984)
Puis (1980)
1300 - 1900
Puis (1981)
280
Lewis (1972)
-------
Table 28 Diagnostic Levels of Zinc in Slipup.
Serum Hazard
Levels/Source
Blood Hazard
Levels/Source
Kidney Hazard
Levels/Source
Liver Hazard
Levels /Source
Hair Hazard
Levels/Soorce
Milk Hazard
Levels/Source
Background Tolec*ble Uncertain Toxic
	ppm we<: weight	
0.95 - 1.36	4-5 ("High")	7.1 - 44 and 30 - 50
Ott et al. (1966c)			Ott et al . (1966c), Ott et al. (1966c)
Puis (1981)	and Puis (1981)
17 - 50
Ott et al. (1966c) - Allen et al.
(1983)
28 - 75
Allen et al. (1980) - Puis (1981)
<110
Ott et a 1 . ( 1966c)
0.9 - 7.5
Naplatarova et al. (1968)
et al. (1977)
Ashton
145 - 645
Allen et al. (198 3 ) ,
Telford et al. (1982)
73 - 175
Allen and Masters (1980),
Telford et al. (1982)
135 - 325
Ott et al. (1966c)
400
Ott et al. (1966c)
102 - 115
Ott et al. (1966c)
-------
feed efficiency in sheep with serum zinc concentrations as low as
5.24 ppm. All serum values in excess of 7.1 ppm, found in the
reviewed literature, were associated with severe toxicity. Puis
(1981) reported a 30 to 50 ppm toxic range for this parameter.
The toxic hazard level for zinc concentrations in sheep
kidney, 185 to 325 ppm, is based in part on the publication of Ott
et al. (1966c). Data for sheep liver zinc concentrations indi-
cated most values above 185 ppm were associated with toxicity
(Table 25). The only exception was a value of 2153 ppm (dry
weight) reported by Telford et al. (1982). Puis (1981) reported a
toxic concentration for zinc in sheep kidney tissue as 1000 ppm.
This concentration would appear too high based on the reviewed
1iterature.
The 400 ppm toxic hazard level for zinc in sheep liver tissue
has been derived largely from the work of Ott et al. (1966c) who
found that concentrations near or above this level were associated
with toxicosis. Data from the reviewed literature suggest
toxicity is not uncommon in the 200 to 400 ppm range for this
parameter. All sheep liver zinc levels in excess of 400 ppm, were
toxic. No zinc toxicity data for goats were found in the litera-
ture reviewed (Table 29).
72
-------
Table 29 . Diagnostic Levels of Zinc in Coats.
Background
Tolerable Uncertain
	ppm wet weight	
Toxic
Serum Hazard
Levels/Source
Blood Hazard
Levels/Source
Kidney Hazard
Levels/Source
Liver Hazard
Levels ^/Source
Hair Hazard
Levels/Source
Milk Hazard
Levels /Source
0.46 - 1.00
Miller et al. (1968)
1.25 - 2.16
Miller et al. (1968)
23.4
Miller et al. (1968)
19.3
Miller et al. (1968)
3.0 - 22.0
Handa and Johri (1972) - Dittrich (1974)
-------
3.0 LITERATURE REVIEW AND HAZARD LEVELS FOR SOILS AND PLANTS
Heavy metal levels in soils and plants are of concern for two
primary reasons: 1) decreased crop and livestock production; and
2) the introduction of certain toxic metals into the food chain
and their consumption by humans. The "soil-plant barrier" (Chaney
1983) reduces the risk from exposure to certain elements which are
either not translocated to plant foliage (lead) or produce
phytotoxicity in the plant at concentrations safe for animals
(zinc, arsenic). Of the selected four metals evaluated in this
manuscript (arsenic, cadmium, lead and zinc) only cadmium readily
passes the soil-plant barrier. It should be noted, that ingestion
of soil and dust by livestock or humans bypasses the soil plant
barrier and increases the risk of exposure to toxic concentrations
of all pollutants.
It has been shown that extractable soil levels of lead,
cadmium and zinc generally show better correlations with plant
uptake than do total soil levels (Neuman and Gavlak, 1984).
Chelating agents such as EDTA and DTPA have been extensively used
to evaluate agronomic characteristics of soils and overburden
materials in western states. The correlation of total or extrac-
table arsenic levels with vegetation uptake has been more diffi-
cult to define and a special discussion has been included for a
review of this problem.
Numerous technical problems present themselves when universal
phytotoxic hazard levels for soils and plants are to be defined.
Some of the more important of these are: the toxic element, soil
pH, soil organic matter content, soil cation exchange capacity
(CEC), soil texture and the plant species involved. In general,
there is an inverse relationship between microelement availability
to plants and the soil pH (Logan and Chaney 1983). Molybdenum and
selenium are the only notable exceptions, both of which become
more available at higher pH. The Soil Survey of Broadwater County
Area, Montana includes a portion of the Helena Valley study area
and all background sites. All mapped soil units, except small
areas which are poorly drained, exhibit calcareous to strongly
V*
-------
calcareous conditions (U.S. Soil Conservation Service, 1977). Mean
pH values of surface soils (0-4 inch) for the background sites and
the project area are 8.0 and 7.2 respectively. The pH values in
the project area ranged from 4.7 to 8.2 and, except for an area in
and near the City of East Helena, were generally >6.5 (EPA, 1986).
A pH level of >6.5 is considered to be effective in reducing the
availability of metals (Chaney 1973, CAST 1976). The selected
phytotoxic soil criteria are generally based on soil pH levels
greater than 6.5 when these data were available. Other parameters
are discussed in the following sections on specific element
levels.
All elemental levels for plants and soils are reported in
parts per million (ppm) dry weight basis unless otherwise noted.
3.1 Arsenic in soils and plants
3.1.1 Arsenic literature review
Arsenic is present in all soils, with typical values ranging
from 0.1 to 40 ppm total arsenic. In plants, background concen-
trations vary from 0.01 to 5 ppm (Kabata-Pendias and Pendias
1984). Natural elevated soil values of up to 8000 ppm have been
noted in a few rare cases (Kabata-Pendias and Pendias 1984).
However, such excessive levels are usually due to soil application
of arsenic-containing pesticides, or less frequently, from
smelting operations. Inorganic arsenate of low solubility makes up
the largest fraction of soil arsenic. The availability of this
arsenic to plants and the potential for plant toxicity is depend-
ent upon many factors, some of the major ones being: soil pH,
texture, and fertility level; and plant species (Wauchope 1983).
The interactions possible from these factors complicate the
interpretation of phytotoxic soil and plant arsenic levels. In
general, soils with higher levels of easily soluble arsenic will
increase the risk of reducing plant growth (Walsh et al. 1977).
The results of a number of studies regarding toxic levels of
arsenic in soils and plants are summarized in Tables 30, 31 and
32.
75
-------
Table 30. Phytotoxlcity of total arsenic in soils.
Soil Tvoe
SoTI
Concentration
	i£S£}	
Soil
PH
Chemical
Porn
Applied
Type of Experiment
a*
Hagerstown Silty Clay
Loam
1809

5.5
NS2HASO4
Creanhoose/Soi1
Pots
Hagerstown Silty Clay
Loam
1880

5.5
Na2HAs04
Greenhouse/Soi1
Pots
Lakeland Loamy Sand

1808

6.2
Na2HAs04
Greenhouse/Soi1
Pots
Lakeland Loamy Sand

1888

6.2
NajHJtsOj
Greenhouse/Soi1
Pots
Burnt Fork Cobbly Loam
315

6.1
Smelter







Contamination
Field

Hagerstown Silty Clay
¦
•
3
100

5.5
Na2HAa04
Greenhouse/Soil
Pots
Lakelano Loamy Sand

100

6.2
Ne2HAs04
Greenhouse/Soi1
Pots
Hagerstown Silty Clay
Lomm
100

5.5
Na2HAs04
Greenhouse/Soil
Pots
Lakeland Loamy Sand

100

6.2
Na2HAsC>4
Greenhouse/Soi1
Pots
Plainfield Sand

100

5.5
NaAs02
Field

Plainfield Sand

100

5.5
NaAsOj
Field

Houston Black Clay

90

7.6
As203
Field Pots

Weswood Black Clay

90

7.7
As203
Field Pots

Arenosa Pine Sand

90

4.7
a.2o3
Field Pots

Avg. 13 Soils

05

MR
NR
NR

Plainfield Loamy Sand

68

NR
NR
NR

Plainfield Loamy Sand

68

NR
NR
NR

Plainfield Sand

45
0
5.5
NaAsOj
Field

Plainfield Sand

45
0
5.5
NaAs<>2
Field

Houston Black Clay

45

7.6
*82°3
Field pots

Weswood Silt Loam

45

7.7
As203
Field pots

Arenosa Pine Sand

45

4.7
*®2°3
Field Pots

Colton Loamy Sand

44

NR
NR
NR

Plainfield Sand

27

5.5
NaAsOj
Field

Plainfield Sand

27

5.5
NaAsO?
Field

Plainfield Loamy Sand

25

NR
NR
NR

Plainfield Sand

14
1
5.5
NaAs02
Field

Plainfield Sand

14
1
5.5
NaAs02
Field

Hagerstown Silty Clay
Loan
10

5.5
Na2HASC>4
Greenhouse/Soi1
Pots
Lakeland Loamy Sand

18

6. 2
Na 2HASO4
Greenhouse/Soi1
Pots
-aaerstown Silty Clay
Lsarr
10

5.5
Na2HAs04
Greenhouse/Soi1
Pots
Laiceland Loamy Sand

10

6.2
Na2HA804
Greenhouse/Soi1
Pots
Plant Species/
Part	
Hazard
Response
Significance
Level
Reference
Oats/Shoots
100 1 YR
8. 85
Corn/Shoots
90 1 YR
0. 85
Corn/Shoots
100 % YR
0.05
Oats/Shoots
100 % YR
0. 95
Corn/Shoots
28 1 YR
NR
Corn/Shoots
4 « YR (N.S.)
0.85
Corn/Shoots
45 1 YR
0.05
Oats/Shoots
81 1 YR
0.05
Oats/Shoots
98 1 YR
0. 05
Peas/Seeds
94.9 1 YR
0.01
Potatoes/Tubers
75.2 1 YR
0.01
Bermuda Grass/Leaves
Sig. Growth Reduction


(58 1)
NR
Bermuda Grass/Leaves
Growth Prevented
NR
Bermuda Grass/Leaves
Growth Prevented
NR
Corn
Level of Si9 YR
NR
Potato
Level of Sig YR
NR
Sweet Corn
Level of Sig YR
NR
Peas/Seed
39.9 1 YR
0.10
Potatoes/Tubers
17.1 % YR
0. 10
Bermuda Grass/Leaves
Slight YR (18 1)
NR
Bermuda Grass/Leaves
88 1 YR
NR
Bermuda Grass/Leaves
NO YR
NR
Blueberry
Level of S19 YR
NR
Peas/Seed
2.B % Yield increase
0.19
(M.S.)
Potatoes/Tuber
8.6 « YR (N.S.)
0. 10
Snap Beans and Peas
Level of Sig YR
NR
Peas/Seed
15.9 1 Yield increase


(N.S.)
0. 10
Potatoes/Tubers
1.7 % YR (N.S.)
0.10
Corn/Shoots
Yield increase (U.S.)
8 .85
Corn/Shoots
3 I YR (N.S.)
0.35
Oats/Shoots
22 1 YR
8.85
Oats/Shoots
6 1 YR
8.35
Woolson et al.	(1973)
WooIson	et	al.	(1973)
Woolson et	al.	(19731
Woolson et	al.	(1973)
Woolson et al. (1911)
Woolson et al. (1973)
woolson et al. (1973)
woolsoo et al. (1973)
Woolson et al. (1973)
Steepens et al. (1972)
Steevens et al. (1972)
Weaver et al. (1984)
Weaver et al. (1984)
Weaver et al. (1984)
Walsh et al. (1977)
Walsh et al. (1977)
Walsh et al. (1977)
Steevens et al. (1972)
Steevens et si. (1972)
Weaver et al. (1984)
Weaver et al. (1984)
Weaver et al. (1984)
Walsh et al. (1977)
Steevens et al. (1972)
Steevens et al. (1972)
Walsh et al. (1977)
Steevens et al. (1972)
Steevens et al. (1972)
woolson et si. (1973)
Woolson et al. (1973)
Woolson e: al. (1973)
Woolson et al. (1973)
-------
Table 30. Phytotoxlcfty of total arsenic In soils, continued.
Soil Tvpe
Houston Black Clay
Weswood Silt Loam
Atenosa Tine Sand
Helena Valley
HA
Helena Vallsy
Wesvood Silt Loam
Houston Black Clay
plainfiald Sand
Atenosa Fine Sand
—I MR
Soil
Concentration
	lp°»)	
Soil
IB
IS
10
6
5.8
S.6
4.0
3.6
1.2
1.82 ~ 0.5
wet Height
1.6
7.7
4.7
MR
MR
8.0
7.7
7.6
5.5
4.7
NR
Chemical
Form
Applied
*®2°3
ASJO3
*»2°3
Hone
MR
NA
Hons
None
None
None
None
Type of Experiment,
Plant Species/
Par t		
Field Pott
Field Pots
Field Pott
Field
Field
Field
Field
Field
Field
Field
Field
Bernuda Cease
Bermuda Grass
Bermuda Gcaea
NA
NA
HA
NA
HA
NA
NA
Vegetables
Hazard
Response
Signi ficance
Level
Reference
No YH
No YR
NO YR
Background
Backacouod
Background
Background
Background
Background
Background
Background
NR
NR
NR
NA
NA
Nft
NA
NA
NA
NA
Weaver et al. (1984)
Weaver et al. (1984)
Weaver et al• (1904)
Hlesch and Huffman (1972)
Shacklette and Boerngen (1984)
CPA fl9B6t	__
Weaver et «&• (1984)
weaver et al. (1984)
Steevens et al. (1972)
weaver et al. (1984)
Anderson et al. (1978)
-------
Table 31. Phytotoxlcity of extractable arsenic In soils.
Soil Type
Soil
Concentrat ion
#u:dv
68
S3
S3
53
48.3
28
25.4
25.0
23
22
22
29
20
20
19
12
10 .9
10 .6
10
10
10
9
3
6.22
4.4-6.2
NR
4.4-6.2
NR
5.5
NR
NR
5.5
5.5
5.5
4.4-6.2
NR
4.4-6.2
4.4-6.2
NR
5.5
5.5
•JR
•JP
•:r
Na Acsenite	Field
Na Arsenite	Field
Na Acsenite	Field
Na Acsenite	Field
NajHAsOj
NR
NajHAaOj
*®2°3
NaAs02
NR
NR
NaAS02
NaAs02
NaASO2
Na 2HASO4
NR
NajHAsO^
Na2HAs<>4
NR
NaASO2
NaASO2
NR
Arsenical
ii prays
NR
None
Gceenhouse/Soi1 Pots
NR
Gceenhouse/Soi1 Pots
Greenhouse/Soi1 Pots
Field
NR
NR
Fie Id
Field
Field
Greenhouse/Soil Pots
NR
Gceenhouse/Soi1 Pots
Gceenhouse/Soi1 Pots
NR
Field
Field
NR
•j.-
Field
Potatoes/Tubers
Peas/Seed
Sweet Corn/Ears
Snap Beans/Pods-Seed
Caobage/Heads
Cotton
Toraato/Fcui t
Barley
Potatoes/Tubers
Sweet Coin
Potato
Peas/Seed
Sweet Corn/Cars
Snap Beans/Pods-Seed
Rad1sh/Tubecs
Soybean
Lima Beans/Seed-Pods
Spi nach/Leaves
Corn
Snap Beans/Pods-Seed
Teas/Seed
Pea s-Beans
"• 1 ! a i
Co t v cm
RA:i<]e/f'ot
75.6 % YR
94.9 % YR
100 I YR
100 I YR
50 I YR (Calc)
S ig YR
50 % YR (Calc)
"Plant Barley
Sur v i ved"
21 .3 I YR (N.S.)
Sig YR
Sig YR
54.1 \ YR
53.5 % YR
78.4 % YR
S0 I YR (Calc)
Sig YR
50 \ YR (Calc)
50 % YR (Calc)
Sig YR
S4 . 4 I YR (N.S.)
9. I \ VP IN . S.>
"N^cessatv tc
i'aus'? Injury"
r'a< irniiu"
8ra> P-l*
Bra> P-l
Bra> P-l
Bra\ P-L
0.05N N2SO4 and
0.025N HC1 r
H20
0.05N H2 and
0.025N HCl
0. 10
0.10
0.10
0.10
• 0.80
NR
0. IN NH4AC
Bcay P-l
Bray P-l
Bray P-l
Bray P-l
Bra/ P-l
Bray P-l
0.05N Hj and
0.025N HCl
H20
0.05N H2 and
0.025N HCl
0.05N H2 and
0.025N HCl
0.05r.' h-» and
0.O25S HCl
Bcay P-l
Brav P-l
. JH HCl
Jacobs et al.
Jacobs et al.
Jacobs et al .
Jacobs et al.
(1970)
(1979)
(1970)
( 1970)
Woolson (1973)
Walsh et al . (1977)
r • 0.87 woolson
(1973)
NR
0.10
NR
NR
0.10
0. 10
0. 10
r - 0.81
NR
r - 0.83
r - 0.91
NR
3. 10
0. 10
NR
NR
N.~»
NA
Vandecaveye et.al (1936)
Jacobs et al. (1979;
Walsh and Keeney (1975)
Walsh and Keene/ (1975)
Jacobs et al. (19701
Jacobs et al. (1978:
Jacobs oi al. (1976:
Woolson (1973)
walsh et al. (19771
Woolson (19 7 3)
Woolson (1973)
Ualsh and Keoney (1975)
Jacobs et a\. '(1973'
Jacobs el al. (197U)
'-'atscn ( 1974)
Vandccflvj/e • t. !l')36)
Wa1s a vt a I . ( 19 77)
CPA (1906)
-------
Table 31. Phytotoxicity of extractable arsenic in soils, continued.
Soil Tvo*
SoTT
Concentration
(pom)	
So 11
DH
Chemical
Form
Apolled
Clay Loan to Loamy Sand
Col ton Loaay Sand
Silt Loan To Fine Sandy
Loan
Plaintield Loamy Sand
Plainfield Loany Sand
Plainfield Loamy Sand
Amatillo Fine Sandy Clay
Silt Loan to fina Sandy
Loan
NR
6.2
4.9
4.9
4.9
Silt Loam - Fine sandy Loam
Silt Loam - Fine Sandy Loam
Silt Loam - Fine Sandy Loam
Silt Loam - Fine Sandy Loam 9.1-1.1
Silt Loam ~ Fine Sandy Loam Trace
1.9
1.5
0.6
4.4-6.2 Na2HAe<>4
lift	MR
MR
5.5
5.5
S.S
MR
MR
MR
MR
MR
NR
MR
MR
Tvoe of E*o«timant
Plant Species/
Part	
Hazard
Response
Extractaot
Signtficanca
Level
Reference
*»2°3
NaksOj
NaAsOj
NaAsOj
MR
Arsenical
Sprays
MR
Arsenical
Sprays
Arsenical
Sprays
Arsenical
Sprays
Arsenical
Sprays
Arsenical
Soravs
Greenhouse/Soil pots
MR
Greenhouse/5oi1 Pota
Field
Field
Field
MR
Field
MR
Field
Field
Field
Field
Field	
Green Beans
Blueberry
Bar ley
Peas/Seed
Snap Beans/Pods-
Sweet Corn/Ear*
Soybean
Barley/Alfalfa
Barley
Alfalfa
Barley/Alfalfa
Barley/Alfalfa
Alfalfa
Barlev/Alfalfa
Seed
59 % YR (Calc)
Sig TR
Stunted Growth
9.5 % YR (M.S.)
11.1 I YR (M.S.)
Yield increase
sig YR
Severe Injny
and Death
"Necessary to
Cauae lojuiy*
Good Condition
Fait Condition
Good Condition
Good Condition
9.95N Hj and
0.025N HC1
HjO
0.1N NH4AC
Bray P-l
Bcay P-l
Bcay P-l
H20
0 . 1M(MH4)2CO3
NR
a.lM(MH4)2C°3
•.IB(MH4)2CO3
9.1M(MH4)2C03
0.IN(NH4)2CO3
t • 9.89 Woolson c1973)
Very Good Condition 9.lN(NH4)3C0i
MR
MR
9.19
9.19
9.19
MR
MR
MR
MR
MR
NR
NR
MR
Walsh et al. (1977)
Vandecaveye et.al (1936)
Jacobs et al. (1979)
Jacob* et al. (1970)
Jacobs et al. (1979)
Walsh et al. (1977)
Vandecaveye et.al (1936)
Ratseh (1974)
Vandecaveye et.al	(1936)
Vandecaveye et.al	(1936)
Vandecaveye et.al	(1936)
Vandecaveye et.al	(1936)
Vandecaveye et.al	(1936)
Bray P-l • 0.25N HCl ~ 9»3N NH,F
-------
Table 32. Phytotoxlclty of arsenic in vegetation.
Plant/Tissue
Tissue
Concentration
Type of
Exper iment
Chemical Form
Appli ed	
Hazard Signi Eicance
Response	Level	
Reference
Cotton/Plant
Radish/Tuber
Radish/Whole Plant
Bermuda Grass/Leaves
Barley/Shoots
Bar ley/Shoots
Spinach/Whole Plant
Bermuda Grass/Whole
Plant
Tomato/Whole Plant
Cotton
Green Bean/Whole Plant
Cabbage/Whole Plant
Lima Beans/Whole Plant
Soybean/Plant
Tomato/Frui t
Wheat
81
Greenhouse/Solution Culture
As2°3

Phytotoxic


76.0
Greenhouse/Soil
Pots
Na2HAsC>4
7H20
50 ft YR (Calc)
r
= 0.90
43.8
Greenhouse/Soil
Pots
Na2HAs04
7H20
50 ft YR (Calc)
r
= 0.88
20
Field/Soil Pots

AS2O3
Reduced Growth
NR

20
Greenhouse/Sand
Culture
Na2HAsC>4
7H20
10 ft YR
0.
05
11-26
Greenhouse/Sand
Culture
Na2HAsC>4
7H20
10 ft YR
0.
05
10
Greenhouse/Soi1
Pots
Na2HAsC>4
7H20
50 ft YR (Calc)


10
Field/Soil Pots

As203
No
YR in Clay Soil
NR

4.5
Greenhouse/Soi1
Pots
Na2HAs04
7H20
50 ft YR (Calc)
r
° 0.80
4.4


As2OJ

Sig YR


3.7
Greenhouse/Soi1
Pots
Na2HAs04
7H20
50 ft YR (Calc)
r
= 0.93
3.4
Greenhouse/Soi1
Pots
Na2HAs04
7H20
50 ft YR (Calc t
r
= 0.77
1.7
Greenhouse/Soi1
Pots
Na2HAsC>4
7H20
50 ft YR (Calc)
r
= 0.49
1


As2C>3
Sig YR
-

0.7
Greenhouse/Soi1
Pots
Na2HAs04
7H20
50 ft YR (Calc)
r
= 0. 29
0.05
NR

None
Background
NA

Marcus - Wyner and
Rains (1982)
Woolson (1973
Woolson (1973)
Weaver et al. (1984)
Davis et al. (1978)
Davis et al. (1978)
Woolson (1973)
Weaver et al. (1984)
Woolson (1973)
Deuel and Swoboda
(1972)
Woolson (1973)
Woolson (1973)
Woolson (1973)
Deuel and Swoboda
(1972)
Woolson (1973)
Kabata - Pendias and
Pendias (1984)
-------
It has been noted by investigators that chemical analysis of
the total soil arsenic is not a reliable indicator of potentially
phytotoxic levels in vegetation (Albert and Arndt 1931,
Vandecaveye et al. 1936, Woolson et al. 1971b). This has led to
attempts to develop soil tests for plant-available soil arsenic
that can be correlated with symptoms of plant toxicity. A
greenhouse study by Benson and Reisenauer (1951) found no satis-
factory correlation between soil extractable arsenic and plant
growth by four different extracting solutions (NaCl, NaOAc +
CH3COOH, H2SO4, NH4F+HCL) Vandecaveye et al. (1936) believed that
the condition of field crops in the state of Washington was
closely related to the amount of readily soluble arsenic. However,
others have noted that such easily soluble arsenic is best used as
an indicator only for those soils that have had recent arsenic
applications (Carrow et al. 1975, Jacobs et al. 1970).
Johnston and Barnard (1979) evaluated 14 different arsenic
extracting solutions on four New York soils. The arsenic extrac-
tion ability for the 14 solutions was (in increasing order): water
= IN NH4CI = 0.5M CH3COONH4 = 0.5M NH4NO3 < 0.5M (NH4)2S04 < 0.5N
NH4F = 0.5M NaHC03 < 0.5M (NH4)2C03 < 0.5N HC1 + .025N H2S04 <
0.5N HC1 = 0.5M Na2C03 = 0.5M KH2PO4 < 0.5N H2SO4 = 0.1N NaOH.
They made no specific recommendations for the use of any particu-
lar solution, but noted that basic solutions were more effective
in arsenic extraction than were neutral solutions, and that phos-
phorus and arsenic reacted similarly to solutions containing
bicarbonate or hydrogen ions.
The soil chemistry of arsenic is similar to that of phospho-
rus; its principle chemical form is that of arsenate (As04~3)
which has been occluded or adsorbed on hydrous aluminum and iron
oxides (Ganje and Rains 1982). Like phosphorus, it is also often
present as precipitates of slightly soluble compounds of Al, Fe,
Ca and Mg. Lesser amounts of arsenic are associated with soil
clays and organic matter. This similarity between arsenic and
phosphorus has led to the use of phosphorus extracting solutions
for the determination of plant-available arsenic. Perhaps the two
most commonly used extractants for phosphorus that have been sub-
81
-------
sequently applied to arsenic extraction are: NaHC03 (developed
for use primarily on alkaline soils); and a mixture of 0.05N HC1
and 0.025N H2SO4 (used for neutral and acidic soils).
In a study by Woolson et al. (1971a) these two methods
(NaHC03, HCI+H2SO4) and four others were evaluated for determining
arsenic availability to corn on 28 different soils from different
areas of the United States. Most of the soils were from the east
and only five had an alkaline pH, the highest being 7.50. The
NaHCC>3 and mixed dilute acid solutions were both recommended for
use, because of their relative simplicity and for their good
correlations of available arsenic with reduced plant growth.
A later study by these same researchers (Woolson et al. 1973)
revealed the complexity of determining plant-available arsenic in
the soil. They found that plants growing on different soils that
contained the same extractable arsenic levels experienced varying
degrees of arsenic toxicity. This was attributed to the variabil-
ity in the chemical and physical properties of the soils (texture,
organic matter and pH). Jacobs and Keeney (1970) also noted the
influence of soil texture on arsenic phytotoxicity, with arsenic
being more toxic on sandy soils than on finer-textured soils.
Such findings suggest that the general application of extractable
soil arsenic levels to estimating phytotoxicity in field situa-
tions is limited. Ganje and Rains (1982), in their review of
methods of analysis for soil-arsenic, state that when selecting an
extracting solution to determine plant-available arsenic, no
single extractant can be used as a universal indicator of arsenic
availability and that each soil type or soil area must be treated
independently.
The literature indicates that the selection of a soil-arsenic
extracting solution is a complicated decision. Present methods
have been shown to have limited applicability to field situations
where an interpretation of phytotoxic levels is desired. For the
Helena Valley study area a decision was made to employ a method
for determination of soil extractable arsenic that has been
developed and applied successfully to problems of arsenic-contami-
nated soils of this region.
82
-------
Heilman and Ekuan (1977) investigated soil extractable
arsenic levels around the ASARCO smelter near Tacoma, Washington.
They extracted soil arsenic with concentrated HCl in a 1:5 soil to
acid ratio; the same method was used for the Helena Valley
investigation. These investigators determined a significant
correlation (r = .625) between extractable soil arsenic and the
arsenic levels present in above ground garden biomass. The
correlation was also significant (r = .475) between extractable
soil arsenic and below ground garden biomass (roots). These
results suggest determination of extractable soil arsenic with
concentrated HCl is indicative of the soil arsenic level that the
plant can absorb. Therefore this method has merit for the deter-
mination of plant available arsenic in soils.
As a check between soil test levels obtained from this method
and the NaHCC>3 method (which may be considered a more standard
method), duplicate samples from two soils (one with high and one
with low arsenic levels) were extracted with both solutions, and
analyzed for arsenic (Table 33). All work was performed by the
Soil, Plant, and Irrigation Water Testing Laboratory at Montana
State University, Bozeman, MT.
Table 33. Comparison between concentrated HCl and NaHC03 for
determination of extractable soil arsenic (ppm).
Concentrated
Sample	HCl	NaHC03
"25l8	40.46	36.34
2518-2	37.31	No Data
STD-C	3.01	2.67
STD-C-2	1.98	1.50
The samples designated STD-C are in-house laboratory stan-
dards used for quality control. The close agreement in soil-
arsenic levels provided by the two extracting solutions suggests
that the concentrated HCl method provides results similar to the
NaHCC>3 method for these soils.
83
-------
The analytical method and accompanying interpretive guide was
developed by N.R. Benson (Benson and Reisenauer 1951, Benson 1968)
primarily through many years of field experience in diagnosing
arsenic toxicity problems in orchard vegetation in central and
eastern Washington (A.R. Halvorson, personal communication 1985).
Soil arsenic is extracted with concentrated HC1 (12.3M) in a 1:5
soil to acid ratio for a period of one hour, and standard instru-
mentation methods are used to determine actual concentrations.
Interpretation of the results of the analysis in terms of poten-
tial phytotoxicity can be made by refering to Table 34.
Benson and Reisenauer (1951) rated the relative tolerance of
crops to arsenic (Table 35). Crops such as those found in the
Helena Valley (e.g. barley, wheat, alfalfa) were considered not
tolerant to soil arsenic. The tolerance of wheat to soil arsenic
was compared to peach and apricot fruit trees. The interpretation
is that grain and forage crops will do poorly when the concen-
trated HC1 extractable soil arsenic exceeds 50 ppm (Tables 34 and
35) .
This result compliments other investigations of the effect of
soil extractable arsenic on crops (Table 32). These investigators
found significant yield reduction of vegetable crop when extract-
able arsenic was in the range of 6 to 48 ppm.
3.1.2 Arsenic in soils
3.1.2.1 Total arsenic in soils
The phytotoxic and tolerable levels of total arsenic in soils
of the Helena Valley are 100 and 25 ppm, respectively (Table 30).
The 100 ppm concentration has been selected primarily based on
data of Woolson et al. (1973) and Steevens et al. (1972) who noted
large yield reductions in oats, corn, peas and potatoes at 100 ppm
total soil arsenic. All total soil arsenic values equal or
greater than 100 ppm in the reviewed literature were associated
with phytotoxicity. Soil characteristics, especially texture and
organic matter content, strongly influence the relative toxicity
of arsenic. Weaver et al. (1984) reported phytotoxicity of
84
-------
Table 3*». Interpretive guide for concentrated HC1 soil ex-
tractable arsenic
Soil Depth
feet
As Level
ppm
Interpretation
0-3
0-1
1-3
0-3
0-1
1-3
5-3
0-1
1-3
Below 25 ppm
25-50 ppm
Below 25 ppm
25-50 ppm
50-100 ppm
Below 25 ppm
50-100 ppm
Above 100 ppm
Above 50 ppm
As is probably not a problem.
May reduce growth of sensitive
trees, such as apricot and
peach. Should not seriously
affect growth of apple, pear,
and cherry.
Symptoms of As toxicity may
appear on apricot and peach
during hot summer. Newly
planted apple, pear, and cherry
may be reduced in growth, but
should still grow well.
Survival of apricot and peach
doubtful unless planted with
As-free soil. Symptoms of As
toxicity should be severe on
established apricot and peach.
May limit growth of newly
planted apple, pear, and
cherry.
Significant reduction in growth
of any newly planted trees
should be anticipated. Avoid
planting stone fruits.
Hazardous to plant any new trees
under these conditions.
A (Washington State Cooperative Extension Service, 1975)
fie
-------
A
Table 35. Relative tolerance of crops to arsenic
Tolerant
Moderately
Tolerant
Not
Tolerant
Apples
Pears
Grapes
Raspberries
Dewberr ies
Rye
Mint
Asparagus
Cabbage
Carrots
Parsnips
Potatoes
Swiss chard
Tomatoes
Bluegrass
Italian rye grass
Kentucky bluegrass
Meadow fescue
Orchard grass
Red Top
Tree Fruit and Berry Crops
Cherries	Peaches
Strawberries	Apricots
Field and Truck Crops
Beets
Corn
Squash
Turnips
Forage Crops
Crested wheat grass
Timothy
Barley
Oats
Wheat
Beans
Cucumbers
Onions
Peas
Alfalfa
Alsike clover
Ladino clover
Strawberry clover
Sweet clover
White clover
Vetch
Smooth brome
Sudan grass
^Benson and Reisenauer, 1951.
86
-------
bermuda grass at concentrations which ranged from 45 to 90 ppm in
sand and clay soils respectively. Phytotoxic criteria reported in
the literature for total arsenic in soils ranged from 15 to 50 ppm
(Kitagishi and Yamane 1981, Kloke 1979, Linzon 1978 and El-Bassam
and Tietjen 1977). Numerous cases of phytotoxicity were reported
in the 45 to 100 ppm range (Table 30). For many situations, a
phytotoxic level of 50 ppm would appear appropriate. A tolerable
level of 25 ppm total soil arsenic is based on the low or no yield
reductions that have been reported at or below this level (Table
30). The only important exception is the 22 percent yield
reduction for oats at a 10 ppm total soil arsenic concentration
that was noted by Woolson et al. (1973).
3.1.2.2 Extractable soil arsenic
It is highly probable that extractable arsenic soil concen-
trations greater than the 50 ppm hazard level suggested for the
Helena Valley will be phytotoxic (Table 31). Jacobs et al. (1970)
reported 100 percent yield reductions (no growth) for snap beans
and peas at the 100 ppm extractable (Bray P-l) arsenic level.
Considerable phytotoxicity was noted at levels less than 50 ppm
extractable (various methods) soil arsenic (Table 31) and a
phytotoxic concentration as low as 10 ppm may be an appropriate
hazard level in some circumstances. It is apparent from the
reviewed data that soil factors have much less influence on
phytotoxic extractable arsenic levels as compared to phytotoxic
total arsenic levels in soils (Tables 30, 31).
The tolerable extractable soil arsenic concentration of 2 ppm
is based on the limited work of Vandecaveye et al. (1936), who
noted no toxicity in barley and alfalfa at or below that level,
and the observations of Walsh et al. (1977), who reported phyto-
toxicity to soybeans at an extractable arsenic level of 3 ppm
(Table 31).
3.1.3 Arsenic in plants
Phytotoxic arsenic levels in plant tissues have been reported
from 5 to 20 ppm (Table 32). The suggested 20 ppm hazard concen-
87
-------
tration is based on two publications, Davis et al. (1978) and
Weaver et al. (1984). Davis et al. (1978) reported arsenic
concentrations in the shoots of barley were toxic in a range of 11
to 26 ppm and determined a level of 20 ppm was the "upper critical
level" at which a 10 percent yield reduction could be expected.
Bermuda grass leaves containing 20 ppm arsenic were associated
with plants exhibiting reduced growth (Weaver et al. 1984). These
authors found bermuda grass leaves, stems and roots often exceeded
15, 25, and 200 ppm respectively in plants grown in soils contain-
ing 45 ppm arsenic. All plant tissue arsenic concentrations >20
ppm found in the reviewed literature were associated with phyto-
toxicity. Kabata-Pendias and Pendias (1984) reported a phytotoxic
range of 5 to 20 ppm for arsenic in unspecified plant tissue.
Numerous references reported "intermediate range" arsenic
levels (those values between traces and toxicity). Typical values
for plant tops of alfalfa, red clover, and oats were reported as
0.05, 0.37, and 0.62 ppm respectively (Liebig, 1966). This source
reported high range (elevated but not showing toxicity symptoms)
values for alfalfa, red clover and barley as 3.15 to 14 ppm, 6.26
ppm and 12.3 ppm, respectively. Data from the reviewed literature
indicated that no cereal and forage crops or edible vegetable
portions contained a concentration of arsenic greater than the 3
ppm tolerable level suggested for the Helena Valley. Woolson
(1973) calculated, through the use of regression equations, the
phytotoxic tissue levels producing a yield reduction of 50 percent
in 6 vegetables. This study indicated only lima beans, an arsenic
sensitive crop, had a tolerance level less than 3 ppm for the
calculated yield reductions.
3.2 Cadmium in soils and plants
3.2.1 Cadmium literature review
Cadmium levels in plants and soils rarely exceed 1 ppm
(Kabata-Pendias and Pendias 1984). Areas with naturally occurring
high levels of cadmium in soils have been documented to have up to
22 ppm total cadmium, with soil parent material up to 33 ppm total
88
-------
cadmium (Lund et al. 1981). In areas where soils have been
contaminated, soil concentrations may approach 1000 ppm, and
plants may accumulate cadmium to levels in excess to 200 ppm, (dry
weight), depending on the species (Kabata-Pendias and Pendias
1984). In contaminated soils the highest cadmium concentrations
are found in surface layers and decrease rapidly with depth, due
to the low mobility of this element. Total soil cadmium levels
are not good indices of the availability of the element to the
plant, as much of the total cadmium in soil may be bound in
compounds of low solubility (Pickering 1980).
Cadmium, like many metals, is more mobile and thus more
available to plants in soils of low pH (4.5 to 5.5). Alkaline
soils exhibit low cadmium mobility, and decrease the risk of plant
toxicity even in heavily contaminated soils (Kabata-Pendias and
Pensias 1984). It has been shown, however, that whereas the
availability of cadmium for plant uptake is decreased by liming,
cadmium added to the soil does result in increased uptake by
plants (Baker et al. 1979).
Chang et al. (1982) found that the uptake of cadmium and zinc
in barley cultivars was more influenced by the soil type (and pH)
than by the specific barley cultivar. Similar findings by White
and Chaney (1980) indicated that soil types strongly influence
zinc, cadmium and manganese uptake in soybeans and that organic
matter was more effective than hydrous oxides of iron and manga-
nese in moderating the uptake of excessive soil heavy metals. A
study by Haghiri (1974) suggested that the soil cation exchange
capacity (CEC) largely determined the uptake of cadmium in oat
shoots and that organic matter had little effect on the uptake of
this element other than increasing the CEC. The study found that
the concentration of cadmium in soybean shoots increased with in-
creasing soil temperature. Chaney et al. (1976) revealed that
increased levels of soil zinc increased cadmium uptake by soy-
beans. Boggess et al. (1978) reported that significant differ-
ences existed in the susceptibility of soybeans to cadmium among
several varieties tested. These authors found that the observed
susceptibility was due more to plant uptake characteristics than
-------
to the tolerance of plants to cadmium. Considerable variation in
cadmium accumulation has been demonstrated for many vegetable and
grain crops grown on the same soil (Davis 1984).
In recent years interest in cadmium in soils and plants has
intensified because of its presence in sewage sludge. This aspect
has been the subject of much research and several reviews (Hansen
and Chaney 1984, Logan and Chaney 1983, Sonuners 1980, Singh 1981,
Standish 1981, Webber et al. 1983, Williams 1982, Rundle et al.
1984, Page 1974, Page et al. 1983, and Lutrick et al. 1982). Land
application of sludge may potentially cause phytotoxicity pro-
blems, but of greater concern is the high potential for introduc-
tion of cadmium into the food chain, where it may create health
hazards (Nriagu 1980). A summary of many scientific studies of
plant uptake of soil cadmium is presented in Tables 36, 37 and 38.
3.2.2 Cadmium in soils
3.2.2.1 Total cadmium in soil
A total soil cadmium hazard level of 100 ppm was selected for
the Helena Valley based on two major factors: 1) all total soil
cadmium concentrations greater than 100 ppm found in the reviewed
literature were associated with yield reductions regardless of
plant type, and 2) the lack of and variability of data, especially
with respect to higher pH levels (6-7), in the total soil cadmium
range of 40 to 100 ppm (Table 36). Other phytotoxic total soil
cadmium criteria reported in the literature ranged from 3 to 8 ppm
(Melsted 1973, Linzon 1978). However, nonsignificant or no yield
reductions were reported for several plant species at 40 ppm total
soil cadmium (John 1973). Data of Khan and Frankland (1984)
suggested highly significant yield reductions occur in the biomass
of wheat, oat and radish roots at 50 ppm total soil cadmium.
Available data may support a lower (50 ppm) total soil
cadmium phytotoxic hazard level than the 100 ppm level selected
for the Helena Valley (Table 36). It is imperative that persons
applying this hazard level be cognizant of the high concentrations
90
-------
Table 36. Phytotoxicity of total cadmium in soils.

Soil


Chemical


Concent ration

Soi 1
Form


Soi1 Tvoe
(ppm)

PH
Applled
Tvoe of Cxper ment
Domino Si1t Loam
>640
7.
5-7.8
Sludge/CdSO<
Creenhouse/Soi1
Pots
Merrimac Fine Sandy Loam
250

6.9
Cd(NO 3) 2 4H20
Greenhouse/So 11
Po;s
Merrin.ic Fine Sandy Loam
250

6.9
Cd (NO3)2 4HJO
Greenhouse/So 11
Pots
Paxton Fine Sandy Loam
250

6.9
CdS04
f.reennouse/So» i
Pots
s.iody Loam
250

6.9
CdS04
Greenhouse/Soil
Pots
Paxton Fine Sandy Loam
250

6.9
OISO4
Grccnhoose/Soi1
Pots
merrimac Fine Sandy Loam
253

6. 9
CdSOj
Greenhouse/Soi1
Pots
Hazelwood Silt Loam
200

5. 1
CdCl 2
Greenhouse/So 11
Pots
Hazelwood Silt Loam
200

S. 1
CdCl 2
Greenhouse/Soil
Pots
Hazelwood Silt Loam
200

5. 1
CdCl 2
Greenhouse/Soi1
Pots
Hazelwood Silt Loam
200

5. 1
CdCl 2
Greenhouse/Soi1
pots
Hazelwood Silt Loam
200

5.1
CdCl 2
Greenhouse/So 11
Pots
Hazelwood silt Loam
200

5.1
CdCl 2
Greenhouse/Soi1
Pots
Hazelwood Silt Loam
200

S. 1
CdCl 2
Greenhouse/Soi1
Pots
Hazelwood Silt Loam
200

5.1
CdCl 2
Greenhouse/Soi1
Pots
Hazelwood Silt Loam
200

5.1
CdCl 2
Greenhouse/SoI1
Pots
Hazelwood Silt Loam
200

5.1
CdCl 2
Greenhouse/SoiI
Pots
Hazelwood Silt Loam
200

5.1
CdCl 2
Greenhouse/Soi1
Pots
Domino Silt Loam
170
7.
.5-7.8
Sludge/CdS04
Greenhouse/Soi1
Pots
Domino Silt Loam
160

7.5
Sludge/CdS04
Greenhouse/Soi1
Pots
Domino Silt Loam
160
7.
.5-7.8
Sludge/CdS04
Greenhouse/So LI
Pots
Domino Silt Loam
160
7,
.5-7.8
Sludge/CdS04
Greenhouse/Soi1
Pots
Domino Silt Loam
160

7.5
Sludge/Cdso4
Greenhouse/So i1
Pots
Domino S:lt Loam
160

7.5
Sludge/CdSO.
Greenhouse/Soi1
Pots
Donino S.1t Loam
160

7.5
Sludge/CdS0<
Greenhouse/Soi 1
Pots
Domino S"»» t !.oan>
160

7.5
Sludge/CaS04
Creenhouse/Soil
Pots
3ac Fine Sandy Loam
125

6.9
Cd(NO3)2 4 HjO
Greenhouse/So 11
Pots
Merriir.ac Fine Sandy Loam
125

6.9
Cd(NO])2 4H2O
Greenhouse/So 11
Pots
Paxton Fine Sandy Loam
125

6.9
CdS04
Creenhouse/Soil
Pots
ie:ri~ac Fine Sandy Loam
125

6.9
CdS04
Greenhouse/Soi1
Pots
?;»x;on Fine Sandy Loam
125

6.9
CdS04
Greenhouse/Soil
Pots
x'?rr:~jc :;'io Snnn-. \.r3h~.
I2rj
; c " :

6. H
OiS.14
jroennouse/So11
Pets
CI.1 ;• Loorr
j i • . i
ion

e. 7
CcC 1 2
">o' '
r,0 IS
v ^ Cl?y [,U37\
U*G

6.7
CdC 1 2
7 : i'i'i'n 0 jso ' So. 1
'ots
¦3 ~ *" • ; • ^ \ ~ - r»



Ci: ri
" r ¦ ,iso ' c^ • 5
¦),< ~ -

• ' '



. * * " ,.jC > 0 j 1
- -
.'s'.C .•:?».! I'ar;n
10 0

Ni<
CtiSu-
r ~»o:i".ou Jo/So 1 L
Pot a
i.ea!.: I'Tk ?ioun Eatlh
100

NR
CdCl 2
Clrecniiocso/Soi I
Pots
.yea Id Far% Orown Earth
100

NR
CdCl 2
Greenhouse/Soi1
HO t.?
Dytchie.s 5rown EorLh
inn

NR
CdC 1 2
Creenhouse/Soi1
Pots
Domini Silt. Loa-h
96
7
.5-7 .8
Sludge/CdSO;
C:ei.'nnouso/So: 1
Pot-i
Dom l no ; : ; Loan
80

7. S
Sludge/CdSQ.
Greonhouso/Soi1
Pot s
Doni nc flit ;.ojm
an

7.5
Sludge/CdSC^
Greenhouiie/Iioil
Pots
Don l no Silt Lo.im
80

7.5
Sludge/CdSO^
Creenhouse/Soi1
Pots
Domino Silt Loam
80

7.5
Sludge/CdS04
Cr eenhouse/So11
Pots
Domino Silt Loam
80

7.5
Sludge/CdS04
Creenhouse/Soi1
Pots
Plant Species/
Part	
Hazard
Response
Siqnificance
Level	
Reference
Rice/Grai n
25 *
VR

NR
A1 fa I fa/Tops
4C.S
* YR
iti.s.;
0.01
Alfalfa/Tops




- 2nd cutting
71 .9
\ YR

0.C1
Alfa I fa/Tops
21 \
YR

NR
Alfalfa/Tops
62. 1
1 YR

NR
Al fa 1 fa/Tops




- 2nd cutting
29.0
fc £ H

NR
Alfa I fa/Tops




- 2nd cutting
67 . 4
1 YR

MR
Oats/Grain
56.8
I YR

0.05
Oa ts/Leaves
10. 2
% YR
(N.S.)
0.05
Oats/Stalks
22.1
t YR
(N.S.)
0.05
Carrots/Tubers
96.4
I YR
0.0S
Radish/Tubers
93.2
% YR

0.05
Peas/Pods
92.1
1 YR

0.05
Peas/Seed
99. 2
1 YR

0.05
Cauli flower/Leaves
96.9
\ YR

0.05
Bcoccoli/Leaves
63.3
1 YR

0.05
Spinach/Leaves
9B.5
t YR

0.05
Leaf Lettuce/Leaves
91.1
% YR

0.05
Cabbage/Head
25 %
YR

NR
Bermuda Grass/Tops
25 \
YR

NR
Tomato/Ripe Fruit
25 1
YR

NR
Zucchini/Frui t
25 \
YR

NR
Sudan Grass/Tops
90 1
YR

NR
White Clover/Tops
59 1
YR

NR
A1 fa 1 fa/Tops
56 \
YR

NR
Tall Fescue/Tops
30 t
YR

NR
Lettuce/Shoots
25 %
YR

0.05
Alfa 1 fa/Tops
15.8
I YR
(N.S.)
0.01
Alfalfa/Tops <



- 2nd cutting
56.2
1 YR

0.01
Al falfa/Tops
0.7 1
i Yield increase
NR
Al fa I fa/Tops
23.6
I YR

NR
Al falfa/Tops




- 2nd cutting
13 .0
I YR

NR
M f a I t .1 '?n




- 2nd i'jI 11 ri9
31 . 2
t :R

NR
7 5 n»-, . . • ?
Almost ?otal

I'i.mtii
Mortal 1c

SR
tihea:/7i;ps
73.0
V . ^

NR
Sovooans/?ops
95.6
< k

NR
::
: 7.:


i«. n:
iv'-iCtl I ' . >1 ¦»
n .n


cl. 0 S
i.'noac 'i;ngham et al . (1975)
"i/io- and A)11nson (1981)
Taylor and AMinson (1981)
Tivlor and Allinson {1931}
Taylor and Allinson (1981)
".or .v\J lir.son (198V;
T-."'.or and Allinson (1981)
John (1973)
John (1973)
John (1973)
John (1973)
John (1973)
John (1973)
John (1973)
John (1973)
John 11973)
John (1973)
John (1973)
Bingham et al. (1975)
Bingham et al . (1976)
Bingham et al. (197S)
Bingham et al. (197$)
Bingham et al. (1976)
Bingham et al. (1976)
Bingham et al. (1976)
Bingham et al. (1976)
Mitchell et al. (1978)
Taylor and Allinson (1981)
Taylor and Allinson (1981)
Taylor and Allinson (1981)
Taylor and Allinson (1981)
Taylor and Allinson (1981)
Taylor ana Allinson (1981)
i ! viJ "'»:%#r (I 97«#)
sianh in IL V«T 2 >
.~ic*1 iri ( I Q ~ 1 ¦
Knan ntic t	'.1984)
K-idM ind Flunk.and (l<»84)
Khan and Frank.and (1984)
Khan and Frankland (1934)
Khan and Frankland (1964)
Khan and Fcankland (1964)
Bingham et al. (1975)
Bingham et al. (1976)
Bingham et al . (1976)
Bingham et al. (1976)
Bingham et al. (1976)
Bingham et al. (1976)
-------
Table 36. Phytotoxicity of total cadmium in soils, continued.
'	"	»©>I	Chaaical
Conc	PH	ADQliod	Typo ot CKporlaont	Part
Roddmg Fin# tiixiy Lea*
40


S.7

Sludge/CdSOj

Pota
wheat/L««*ee
Paiton fin# Sandy Loir
SO


0.9

CdSO{
Greenhouae/Soi
Pot*
Alfalfa/Tops
Neiiioie Dm Sandy Loa*
St


6.9

CdSO<
Greenhouae/Soi
Pot*
M(ala/Topa
Paiton Firv« Sandy Loan
50


6.9

CdSO<
Creonhouee/So i
Poca
Alfat fa/Tope







- 2nd cutt ir>9
Kcrciaac Fine Sandy Loaa
SI


(.9

CdS04
Greenhouae/Soi
Pots
Alfalfa/Tope








- 2nd cuttmij
woald Park tiovn Rarth
30


NR

CdCl 2
Cit«ahoui«/So1
Pota
Radlsb/Roets
Woald Park Brown Carch
SO


m

CdCI2
6r««nhovie/l0l
Pota
wheat/Boots
Oytchloya Biown esuh
SO


MO

CdC 1 2
Creenhouea/Roi
Pota
teti/KMti
Doaino Silt L>u>
41

7
S-7
0
Sludgo/CdS04
Greenhouse/Sol
Pota
Wheat/Grain ¦
NtidMC rjno *andy t.oan
S3




Cd(MOj)2 4 H}0
Greenhouse/Soi
Pota
Altai la/Tope
norriaac rmi Sandy toao
SO


6.9

Cd
H*so 1wood Silt Loaa
40


S. 1

CdCl 2
Greenhouae/Soi
Pota
Oadlah/Tebara
N«i«luood Silt Loaa
40


S.l

CdClj
Greenhouae/Soi
Pota
Poaa/Poda
Hit»lwood Silt
49


S.l

CdCl 2
Greenhouae/Soi
Pota
P«as/S*«d
Hazelwood Silt Loaa
40


S.l

CdCl 2
G(t«nhoui«/loi
Pota
Caul 11 iotftf/Utvai
Haaelvood Silt Loaa
40


S. 1

CdCl 2
Greenhouae/Soi
Pota
Broceoli/Uav«i
Nutlwood Silt Loaa
40


S. 1

CdCl 2
Creenhouee/Sol
Pota
Spi IMCb/U«V«l
Ntttlwood Silt Loaa
40


S.l

CdC 12
Creenhouee/Sol
Pota
L*a( uttBe*/Ut««a
Doaino Silt Loaa
40

7
S-7
•
Sludge/CdS<>4
Creenhouse/Sol
Pota
Fiold 0«aa/0ry B«an
Do* I no Silt Loaa
40


7. S

Sludge/CdSOj
Creenhouse/Sol
Pota
Sudan ccaaa/Topa
Doaino Silt Loaa
40


7.S

Slud9«/CdSO|
Creenhouee/Sol
POtB
AlfaUa/Topa
Doaino Silt Loaa
40


7. S

Slodge/CdSOj
Greenhouae/Soi
Pota
Mil to Cle*«r/Topo
Donino Silt Loaa
40


7.5

Sludge/CdS04
Creenhouse/Sol
Pota
Toll raacoa/Topa
Doaino Silt Loaa
40


7 S

Slud9«/CdSO|
Creenhouse/Soi
Pota
Oocavda Craaa/Topa
Marengo Silty Clay Loaa
40


6.7

CdCl 2
Greenhouse/Sol
Pota
uhoatAop*
fiarengo Silty Clay Lo«a
40


6.7

CdCl 2
Creenhouae/So i
Pota
Soyb««n»Aopa
Plalnfield Sand
30
J

4.0

CdCl2
Creenhouse/Soi
Pota
Mntoelf Blwfraaa/
PUintlild Sand
30
3

4.0

CdCl 2
Creenhouee/Sol
Pots
Littlo BlatatM/









Shoota
Plainfield sand
30
3

4.0

CdCl 2
Creenhouee/Sol
Pota
Ooogli Hating Star/









Sboota
Plain!ield Sand
JO
3

4.0

CdCl 2
Creenhouse/Sol
Pot*
Poiaon ivy/tboota
Plainfield Sand
30
3

4.1

CdCl 2
Greenhouae/Soi
Pota
BlKk-tyid Susan/









Shoota
Plainfield Sand
)•
3

4.0

CdCl 2
Creenhouee/Sol
Pota
Wild N(9aMt/Sliooti
Plain(i«ld Sow)
30
3

4.0

CdCl 2
Greenhouae/Soi
Pota
Long-Fruitod Thiabl*









Waod/Shoota
Hartnfo Silty Clay Loaa
30


6.7

CdCl 2
Creenhouee/Sol
Pota
Whoat/topa
Rarengo Silty Clay Loaa
30


6.7

CdCl 2
Creenhouse/Sol
Pota
Soyboaoa/Topa
Ooaino Silt Loaa
20

7
S-7
«
Sludgo/CdS04
Creenhouse/Soi
Pota
Tacnlp/Tubor
Flanagan Silt Lo/T.jt>or
Ntiird
Itiponu
Signj|ic«nc*
l.o »il	
»Ur«nc«
2S t YB
o.is
nitcholl ot al
(1970)
9.0 % Yialtf inccoaae
NR
Taylor and Mlinaon (19011
3.6 1 YH
NR
Taylor and Allmson (1961)
3.S 1 Yiold Incroaao
NR
Taylor and Allinaon (19011
4.3 % Yl#ld tncroaa*
NR
Taylor and Allinaon (1901)
31.9 1 YD
0.01
Khan and Franfcland (19a«|
61.3 l yo
0.01
Khan and Pranhland (1904)
44.S 1 YR
0.01
Khan and Prankland (1904)
2S % YR
NR
Binghaa ot al.
(197S)
1 % viald Incioaac (M.S.;
O.tfl
Taylor and Allmaon (1901)
27.3 % YR
0.01
Taylor and Allinaon (1901)
9.1 t YR
0.01
Bog?*** mt al.
(1970)
49.9 % YR
NR
tughlrl (1973)

OS.3 % YR
NR
Ha9hlrl (19731

36.3 1 YR
o.os
John (197 31

NO YR
o.os
John (1973)

ttO YR
o.os
John (19731

0.3 « YR U.S.)
o.os
John (1973)

>7.9 % YR (M.S.I
o.os
John (1973)

19.7 1 YR (M.S.I
o.os
John (19731

11. 1 % YR
o.is
John (1973)

2.7 I YR (N.S.I
o.os
John (1973)

NO Yft
o.os
John (1973)

96 1 YR
o.os
John (1973)

No YR
o.os
John (1973)

2S t YR
NR
Binshan ot al.
(I97S)
43 % YR
NR
Blo9haa ot al.
(1976)
29 % YR
NR
Binghaa ot al.
(1976)
21 t YR
NR
Binghaa ot al.
(1976)
19 1 YR
NR
Birvghaa ot al.
(1976)
12 t YR
NR
Binghaa ot al.
(1976)
49.0 t YR
NR
Naghirt (197))

M.I % YR
NR
Naghi r1 (1973)

90.1 t YR
MR
niloa and Patkor (19791
10.1 % YR
NR
Hllta and Parkor (1971)

NR
ttlloa and Parkor (1979)
*3.3 % YR
NR
Nil*a and Patkor 11979)

NR
Mlloa and Parkor (1979)
67.9 t YR
MR
Hlloa and Parkor (1979)

NR
Hiloa and Parkor (1979)

NR
Naghi r t (1973)


NR
Naghirl (1973)

IS 1 YR
NR
Binghaa ot a) .
(197S)
9.0 t TR
0.01
Bo99««a ot »l.
(1970)
2S % YR
fa
Btn^haa ot al.
(197S)
S4.7 % YR
0.1*1
Khan and TrankJand (1904)
f.K
Haghifi (1973)


NR
Naghirl (1973)

2S t YR
NR
Binghaa ot al .
(19751
34.0 % YR
NR
Naghirl (1973)

65.2 % \*
SK
Ha^hiri (* 3 »

25 1 YN

Hlitohiir, ot al
(l«7S»
"^.i11 k(.ici ury Yio
:.'K
CNuwI.J.y ..»•)
i.-x* IIMO'I
-------
Table 36. Phytoto*icity of total cadmium in soils, continued.
JO l T«
0*
Conctnc cat
on
S011
OH
fot«
Anolltd
"*«• of Cim( ka«nt
Plant Spocioa/
Pact
?Ijintlaid
Sand

it. J

i . B
CdCI}
Cr«nnhouja/Ko 11
Pnta
Kentucy Bluogca**/









Shoots

Sand

19.1

4.4
CdCI}
Cc«anteu>t/Soll
pota
LIttla siutataa/









Shoot*
Plaintlaid
Sand

19.1

4.4
CdC 1 2
Ccaonhouaa/Sol 1
Pota
lou4
Ct«enhOtt«a/SaiI
fota
Whit* Clo»*r/Tapa
Doaino Silt Loan

19

T.S
Sludga/CdSOj
Crannhouaa/Soi1
Pota
Sudan Ctaa*/Topo
Ooaino Silt l«ao

19

T.S
Slodga/CdSOj
Ccannhouca/Soil
Pot*
Alfalfa/Topa
Dos 1 no Silt Uaa

19

T.S
Sludga/CdSO^
Ccannhouaa/Soll
pota
Satnuda Ckaas/Top*
Donino Silt Loan

19

T.S
Sludga/CdSOj
Ciannhowaa/So i t
Pota
Ta 11 P«aciM/f«pa
Flanagan Silt Loan

19

7.1
CdCI}
Cranntiouao/lo 11
Pota
Soybaan/Sboota
Macango Sllty Clay Loan
IB

4.7
CdC IJ
Gcanntoouaa/Soi t
Pota
Whaat/Tops
narango Stlty Clay
Loan
IS

4.7
CdCI]
Gra«nboua*/SolI
rota
Soybaan*/Topa
Loan*


9.1
S
-4.1
Sludgo
riald

Spring C(NM/U«r«a
Loans


T. 8
s
• 9.1
Sludg*
rkaid

Lattoca/Loal
Loaaa


?.•
5
-4.1
Slitdga
V laid

Sweat Cocn/Ccain
Loama


4.S
s
-9.1
Slodga
riald

Baat lootAuMi
Gcanvilla
Loan 4«1S
cn
5.4

4.4
CdCl}
Craanhoota/SoiI
Pota
Latioca/Topa
Cranvl11*
Loan 0-13
aa
S.(

4. S
CdCI j
Ccannhovihau*a/So ( 1
Pota
Latcuca/Tapa
Upland* Sand IS*)9
ca
S. 19

4.4
CdCI)
Cr«anhou»)0 Silty Clay
Loan
S

4.7
CdCI}
Cceanhoua«/Soil
Pota
Soybaana/Top*
naccinac rma Sandy
Loan
9

4.7
Cd(NOj)} 4HjO
Crncnhouaa/Soil
Pota
Alfa 1 fa/Top*
n«([|H«c Pm« S-tndy
Loan
9

4.9
Cd(HO)|j 
Chuablay and linwin 11992)
Chu^lay and unvin 11912)
Chunblay and Unwin (1941)
ChuvbUy and Unwin lilt!)
Singh (19BI)
Singh (1911)
Singh 11941)
Singh <19411
Singh (1941)
Singh (1941)
Sing* fl»4l)
Singh (1941)
Singh (19411
Singh 11941)
Singh (1941)
Singh (1941)
Singh (1941)
Singh (1941)
Singh (19411
Singh (1941)
flacLoan (1974)
Chang at al. 11992)
Chang at al. HMD
Chang at al. (19*3)
Chang at al. Illlll
HacLaan (|974k
nacLaan (1974)
Nacl.aart
tacL+.m ; 1 g ? 6 1
lacLaan i;9?i*
nwl.un | 19711
luijhici 11 ** ? ))
Taylor anJ
T.yl ot anJ nil inarm
-------
Table 36- Phytotoxocity of total cadmium in soils, continued.
Soil	Chemcal

Concanttat1 on

Sot 1
Fori*


pl*~~o j 1 <;s '
%Iaza: -1
jiqiiiicanci

So i 1 Tvoe

Inoai

PH
Apoll#d
Tvoc of . 1 r m«

n.i: t
?e«"»o
Level
Reference
Domino Silt Loaa

5
?.
5-7.0
Sludqe/CdSOj
CterfH t-o. ..»/So 1 1

Soy:»oan S'jr y Bean
J5

Binghaa at al. (1975)
Binghaa et *1. (1976)
Binghaa et al. (19761
Binghaa et al. (1976)
Binghaa et si. (1976)
Binghaa et al. (1976)
Taylor and Mlmaon (1981)
Taylor and Allinson (1981)
Doaino Silt {.04a

5

7.5
Sludge/CdS04
Greenhousc-'Soj I
dots
Sudan Grssft'Tops
10 \
NR
Doaino Silt loaa

5

7.5
Slud9e/CdSO<
Greenhouse/So11
Pots
AlJalfa/Tops
B % YR
NR
Doaino Silt lo«*

5

7.5
Slodge/CdSO*
Greenhouse/Soi1
Pots
Tall Peecue/Tops
6 % YR
NR
Doaino Silt loia

s

7.5
Sludqe/Caa
s

€.9
cdso4
Greenhouse/Sot 1
Pots
Altalfa/Tops
20.3 1 Yield Increase
NR
ftetrlaac Pint Sandy
Loaa
5

6.9
CdSOj
Gteenhouae/Soi1
Pott
Alfalfa/Tops
13.6 1 YR
NR
Peiton Pine Sandy Lmb
s

1.9
CdSO|
Gvaenhouae/Soi1
Pott
Alfalfa/Tops


Taylor and Allinaon 11981)






• 2nd cutting
3 % Yield increase
NR
Ntitiuc Fin* Sandy
Loaa
5

6.9
CdS04
Greenhouse/Soi1
Pott
Alfalfa/tops
- 2nd cutting
1.4 I YR
NR
Taylor and Allinaon (1981)
Blooafield Loaay Sac
id
s

6.9
CdS04
Gceenhouae/Soi1
Pott
Corn/Shoots
46.8 % YR
9.91
nlilec «t al. (1977)
Chuabley and Onwin (1982)
Lorn

«.•
s.
.-•.1
Sludfe
Pield

Salad Onions/Bulb
"Satisfactory Yields"
MR
Loaai

4.1
s.
.-8.1
Sledge
Pield

Spi nacb/Leavea
"Satisfactory Yields"
UR
Chuabley and Unwin (1982)
LOMI

4.4
s.
.-0.1
Stodge
field

Cabbage/Meads
"Satisfactory Yields"
MR
Chuabley and Onwin (1982)
Binghaa et al• (1975)
Doaino Slit Lom

4
7.
.5-7.•
Sludge/CdSO*
Cceenhouse/Soil
Pots
Spinacb/Shoot
'5 1 YR
MR
Loans

3.S
5.
.-8.1
Sludge
Pield

Cauliflower
"Satisfactory Yield"
MR
C hurley and Onwin (1982)
Granville Loaa 8-15
c»
3.1

6.5
CdCl 2
Greenhouse/Soi1
Pots
Lettuce/Tops
20.5 1 YR
9.95 •
Singh (1981)
CtmvllU Loaa 0-15
cm
3.1

6.6
CdCl2
G r ee nho u a e/ So 11
Pots
Lettuce/Tops
1 % YR (M.S.)
9.9S
Singh (1981)
Grenville Loaa 0-15
CB
3.1

6.6
fa Precip CdClj
Gceenhouae/SoiI
Pots
Lettuce/Tops
1 1 YR (N.S.I
0.05
Singh (1981)
CitnvllU Loaa 6-15
cm
3.1

6.6
Pa Precip CdCl)
Greenhouse/Soi1
Pots
Lettuce/Tops
23.2 ( YR
9.95
Singh (1981)
Grenville Loaa 0-15
cm
3.1

6.6
Jtl Precip CdCl 2
Greenhouse/Soil
Pott
Lettuce/Tops
5.7 % YR (H.S.I
9.95
Singh (1981)
Grenville Loaa I-1S
cm
3.1

6.5
A1 Precip CdClj
Greenhouse/Soil
pots
Lettuce/Tops
11.9 % YR (U.S.)
9.95
Singh (1981)
Ccenville Loaa MS
cm
3.1

6.5
Mn Precip CdCl}
Gceenhouae/Soi1
pots
Lettuce/Tops
0.6 % YR (U.S.)
9.95
Singh (1981)
Granville Loaa 0-15
cm
3.1

6.6
Hn Pcacip CdCl}
Greenhouse/Soi ft
Pots
Lettuce/Tops
3.3 1 YS (M.S.)
9.95
Singh (1981)
Granvill* Loaa 1-19
cm
3.1

7.0
CaOOj ~ CdClj
Greenhouse/Soil
pots
Lettuce/tops
1.9 % YR (M.S.)
9.95
Singh (1981)
Grenville Loan 0-15
cm
3.1

7.1
CaCO) ~ CdCl]
Gceenhouae/Soi1
pots
Lettuce/Tops
17.2 t YR
9.95
Singh (1981)
Ccenville Loaa 1-15
cm
3.1

7.9
CdCl] ~ CaCO)
Gceenhouse/Soi1
Pots
Lettuce/Tops
4.4 t YR (M.S.)
9.95
Singh (1981)
Ccenville Loaa 0-15
cm
3.1

7.0
CdCl] ~ CaCO}
Greenhouse/So i1
Pott
Lettuce/Tops
21.2 % YR
9.95
Singh (1981)
Grtnvillt Loaa 0-15
cm
3.1

6.7
$}udge
Gceenhouae/Soi 1
Pots
Le 11uce/Tops
24.2 Yield Increase
9.95
Singh (1981)
Ccenville Loaa I-IS
cm
3.1

6.6
Sludge
Greenhouse/Soil
Pots
Lettuce/Tops
11.9 % YR (M.S.)
9.95
Singh (1981)
Ccenville Loaa B-15
cm
3.1

6.9
Slod9*
Graenhouae/Soil
pots
Lettuce/Tops
10.2 % Yield IncreeselM
.S.) 9.95
Singh (1981)
GiertvilU Loaa 0-15
cm
3.1

6.9
Sludge
Gceenhouse/Soi1
pots
Lettuce/Tops
3.3 % Yield Increase










(M.S.)
9.95
Singh (1981)
Loams

3.1
5
.>6.1
Sludge
Pield

Leeks/Bulb
"Satisfactory Yield"
NR
Chuabley and Onwin (1982)
Lotas

2.7
5
.-8.1
Slodge
Pield

Radish/Tuber
"Satisfactory Yield"
NR
Chuabley and Unwin (1962)
Hacengo Sllty Clay Loaa
2. S

6.7
CdCl}
Greanhouse/Soil
Pots
wheat/Tops
19.1 % YR
MR
Naghiri (1973)
Haitnijo Sllty Clay Loaa
2.5

6.7
CdCI2
Greenhouse/Soi1
Pots
Soybeans/Tops
10.6 t YR
NR
Haghiri (1973)
Ooaino Silt Loan

2. S

7.5
Sludge/CdS04
Cceanhouse/Soil
pots
White Clovec/Tops
11 % YR
NR
Binghaa et al. (1976)
Doaino Silt Loan

2.3

7.5
Slud9«/CdS04
Creenhouae/Soil
Pots
Sudan Gcaas/Top8
6 t YR
NR
Binghaa et al. (1976)
Domino Silt Loan

2.5

7.5
Slu-------
Table 36. Phytotoxicity of total cadmium In soils, continued.
Conc«ntc«tion Soil	Foia	Plant Spacias/	Haiacd	Siqnltic.nc*
Soil Tvoe
Bloonfield Lo«>y S«nd
-------
Table 37. Phytotoxiclty of extractable cadmium In soils.
Soil TvP»
Redding Fine Sandy Loan
Redding Fin* Sandy Loan
Oomino Silt Loam
Domino Silt Loam
Domino Silt Loan
Domino Silt Loam
Redding Fine Sandy Loam
Redding Fine Sandy Loam
Redding Fine Sandy Loan
Redding Fine Sandy Loam
Oomino Silt Loan
Domino Silt Loan
Domino Silt Loan
Domino Silt Loan
Oomino Silt Loan
Domino Silt Loan
jDomino Silt Loam
Redding Fine Sandy Loam
Redding Fine Sandy Loam
Domino Silt Loam
Domino Silt Loan
Domino Silt Loam
Redding Fine Sandy Loam
Redding Fine Sandy Loam
Domino Silt Loam
Domino Silt Loam
Domino Silt Loam
Domino Silt Loam
Domino Silt Loam
Domino Silt Loam
Redding Fine Sandy Loam
Redding Fine Sandy Loam
Domino Silt Loam
Domino Silt Loam
Domino Silt Loam
Domino Silt Loam
Domino Silt Loam
Domino Silt Loam
Soi 1

Chemical
Concent rat ion
Soil
Form
(ppm)
on
Apolied
524
5.7
Sludge/CdS(>4
524
5.7
Sludge/CdS04
416
7.5
Sludge/CdS(>4
>384.8
7.5-7.8
Sludge/CdSOj
208
7.5
Sludge/CdS04
298
7.5
Sludge/CdSOj
168
5.7
8ludge/CdSC>4
168
5.7
81udge/CdS04
122
5.7
Sludge/CdS<>4
122
5.7
Sludge/Cd8C>4
117
7.5
Sludge/CdS<>4
182.1
7.5-7.8
Sludge/CdS04
96.•
7.5-7.8
Slodge/CdSC>4
96.8
7.5-7.8
81odge/CdS<>4
96.8
7.5
Sludge/CdS<>4
96.0
7.5
Sludge/CdS04
71
7.5
Slodge/CdS<>4
58
5.7
Sludge/Cds<>4
58
5.7
Sludge/CdS04
57.6
7.5-7.8
Sludge/CdS04
49
7.5
Sludge/CdSOf
49
7.5
Sludge/CdS<>4
31
5.7
Sludge/CdS<>4
31
5.7
Sludge/CdS04
38.8
7.5-7.8
Sludge/CdSO*
29
7.5
• Sludge/CdS<>4
24.0
7.5-7.8
Sludge/CdS<>4
23
7.5
Sludge/CdSO4
23
7.5
Sludge/CdS04
22
7.5
Sludge/CdS04
i 17
5.7
Sludge/CdS04
i 17
5.7
Sludge/CdS04
16.8
7.5-7.8
Sludge/CdSC>4
13
7.5
Sludge/CdS<>4
13
7.5
Sludge/CdS04
12.0
7.5-7.8
Sludge/CdSO^
11
7.5
Sludge/CdS04
10.8
7.5-7.8
Sludge/CdS<>4
Type of Emoeriment
Plant Species/
Part		
Greenhouse/Soi1 pots
Greenhouse/Soil pots
Greenhouse/Soil pots
Greenhouse/Soil Pots
Greenhouse/Soil Pots
Cze*nhous«/Soil< pots
Creenhouse/Soil Pots
Greenhouse/Soil Pots
Greenhoose/Soil pots
Greenhouse/Soil Pots
Greenhouse/Soil Pots
Greenhouse/Soil Pots
Grsenhoose/soil pots
Grsenhogse/Soil Pots
Greenhouae/soil Pots
Greenhouse/Soil Pots
Greenhouse/Soil pots
Greenhoose/soil pots
Greenhouae/soil Pots
Greenhouse/Soil Pots
Greenhouse/Soil Pots
Greenhouse/Soil Pots
Greenhouae/soil Pots
Greenhouse/Soil Pots
Greenhouse/Soi1 pots
Creenhouse/Soil pots
Greenhouse/Soil Pots
Greenhouse/Soil Pots
Greenhouse/Soil Pots
Greenhouse/Soi1 Pots
Greenhouse/Soi1 Pots
Greenhouse/Soil Pots
Greenhouse/Soil pots
Gceenhouae/Soil Pots
Greenhouse/SoiI Pots
Greenhouse/Soil pots
Greenhouse/Soi1 Pots
Greenhouse/Soil Pots
Wheat/Grain
Lettuce/Tops
Wheat/Grain
Rice/Grain
Mhest/Grain
Lettuce/Tops
Wheat/Grain
Lettuce/Tops
Wheat/Grain
Lettuce/Tops
Bermuda Crass/Tops
Cabbage/Head
Succhini/Frui t
Tomato/Ripe Fruit
Wheat/Grain
Lettuce/Tops
Tall Fescue/Tops
wheat/Grain
Lettuce/Tops
Rad i ah/Tuber
Wheat/Grain
Lettuce/Tops
Wheat/Gra in
Lettuce/Tops
Wheat/Grain
White Clover
Field Bean/Dry Bean
Wheat/Grain
Lettuce/Tops
Alfalta/Tops
Wheat/Grain
Lettuce/Tops
Turnip/Tuber
Wheat/Grain
Lettuce/Tops
Carrot/Tuber
Sudan Grass/Tops
Corn/Kernal
Haaard

Signi fleant
Response
Extractant
Level
94 % YD
DTPA-TEA
8.05
97 % TP
DTPA-TEA
0.05
95 % YR
DTPA-TEA
0.05
25 % YR
DTPA
MR
91 % YR
DTPA-TEA
0.05
82 % YR
DTPA-TEA
0.05
82 1 YR
DTPA-TEA
0.05
60 % YR
OTPA-TEA
0.05
66 « YR
OTPA-TEA
0.05
50 % YR
DTPA-TBA
0.05
25 1 YR
DTPA
MR
25 I YR
DTPA
BR
25 1 YR
DTPA
MR
25 % YR
DTPA
MR
70 % YR
DTPA-TEA
0.05
64 % YR
DTPA-TEA
0.05
25 % YR
DTPA
MR
42 % YR
OTPA-TEA
0.05
20 1 YR
DTPA-TEA
0.05
25 1 YR
DTPA
MR
61 % YR
OTPA-TEA
0.05
61 % YR
DTPA-TBA
0.05
18 \ YR
DTPA-TEA
0.05
16 % YR
DTPA-TEA
0.05
25 % YR
DTPA
MR
25 % YR
DTPA
MR
25 % YR
DTPA
MR
22 % YR
OTPA-TEA
0.05
49 % YR
DTPA-TEA
0.05
25 % YR
DTPA
MR
5 % Yield
Increase
0.05
(N.S.)
DTPA-TEA
7 % YR 
-------
Table 37. Phytotoxicity of extractable cadmium In soils, continued.





Soi 1


Chenical










Concentration

Soi 1
Forn


Plant Species/
Haxard

Siqnificance
Soil Type


(PDA)

PH
Apolied
TvPt of Cxotr>n«nt
Pact
Response Exttaetant
Level
Donino
Silt Loan

7.8
7
5-7. B
5ludqe/Cd504
Greenhouae/Soi1
Pots
Lettuce/Head
2S X YR
DTP A
NR
Donjno
Silt Loan

1.8
7
5-7. B
Sludo«/CdS04
Greenhouse/Soi1
Pots '
Curly Cress/Shoots
25 X 1R
DTPA
MR
Market
Garden Soil

4.6

7.0
Sludge
Field/nini Plots

Linseed/Tops
No YR
BD1A
MR
Market
Garden Soil

4.6

7.0
Sludge
Field/Mini Plota

Rapeaeed/Tops
NO YR
CDTA
MR
Market
Garden Soil

4.6

7.0
Sludge
Field/nini Plots

SaCflowec/Tops
NO YR
COT A
MR
Market
Garden
Boil

4.6

7.0
Sludge
Field/Mini Plots

Radish/Roots
NO YR
EOTA
MR
Market
Garden Soil

4.6

7.0
Sludqe
riald/nini Plots

Carrot/Roots
NO YR
COTA
MR
Market
Garden Soil

4.6

1.0
Sludge
Field/Mini Plots

Silverbeet/Roots
NO YR
EOTA
MR
Grenvi
le
Loan
0-15
cn
3.76

6.7
Al Precip CdCl?
Greenhooae/Soll
Pots
Lettuce/Tops
12.7 8 YS (M.S.)
DTPA
0.05
Grenvi
le
Loan
8-15
a
3.60

6.6
CdCl2
Greenhouae/Soi1
Pots
Lettuce/Tops
7.5 t YR (M.S.)
DTPA
0.05
Czenvi
le
Loan
•-IS
Oft
3.54

7.1
CaCO) ~ CdCl 2
Greenhouse/Soil
Pota
Lettuce/Tops
16*6 % IS
DTPA
9.05
Cxenvi
le
Loan
8-15
cm
3.44

7.0
CdCla ~ CaCDi
Graenhouae/Soll
Pots
Lettuce/Tops
14.6 8 YS
DTPA
0.05
Grenvi
le
Loan
8-15
cm
3.32

6.6
Al Precip CdCl 2 Greenhouse/Soil
Pots
Lettuce/Tops
15.2 1 YS
DTPA
0.05
Grenvi
le
Loan
9-15
cm
3.36

6.5
CdCl2
Greenhouse/Soil
Tots
Lettuce/Tops
13.9 8 YS (M.S.)
DTPA
0.05
Grenvi
le
Loan
0-15
cm
3.22

6.5
re Precip CdCl) Greenhouae/Soi1
Pots
Lettuce/Tops
8.9 % YR (M.S.)
DTPA
0*05
Grenvi
le
Loan
0-15
CM
3.15

7.1
CaOOj -» CdClj
Greenhouae/Soi1
Pota
Lettuce/Tops
27.2 8 YS
DTPA
0.05
Grenvi
le
Loan
0-15
cm
3.06

6.9
CdClj ~ CaCOj
Greenhouee/S'ol 1
Pots
Lettuce/Tops
23.2 t IS
DTPA
0.05
Doni no
Silt Loan

3.00
7
.5-7.8
Sludge/CdSO*
Hn Precip CdCl 2
Greenhooae/Soi1
Pots
Soybean/Dry Bean
25 t YR
DTPA
MR
Grenvi
le
Loan
0-15
ca
2.98

6.6
Greenhouae/Soi]
Pots
Lettuce/Tops
5.7 8 YR (M.S.)
DTPA
0.05
Grenvi
le
Loan
0-15
as
2.92

6.5
re Precip CdClj
Greenhouae/Soi1
Pots
Lettuce/Tops
21.9 8 YR
DTPA
0.05
Grenvi
le
Loan
0-15
cm
2.09

6.7
Hn Precip CdCl? Gtaenhouae/Sol1
Pots
Lettuce/Tops
18.5 8 YR
DTPA
0.05
10 Grenvi
le
Loan
0-15
cn
2.60

6.0
Sludge
Greenhouse/Soil
Pota
Lettuce/Tope
29.3 8 Yield Increase
DTPA
0.05
^Grenvi
le
Loan
0-15
CM
2.59

6.7
Sludge
Greenhouae/So11
Pots
Lettuce/Top's
52.3 8 Yield Increase
DTPA
0.05
Donino
Silt Loan

2.40
7
.5-7.8
Sludge/CdSO|
Greenhouae/Soi1
Pots
Spinach/Shoot
25 8 YR
DTPA
MS
Grenvi
le
Loan
0-15
C*
2.33

7.0
Sludqe
Greenhouse/So i1
Pots
Lettuce/tops
19 % Yield Inccaase
QTPA
0.05
Grenvi
le
Loan
0-15
CJD
2.22

7.0
Sludge
Greenhoase/So i1
Pots
Lettuce/Tops
55 % Yield Increase
DTPA
0.05
Grenvi
le
Loan
0-15
en
2.00

6.6
CdC 12
Greenhouse/Soi1
Pots
Lettoee/Tops
1 % YR (M.S.)
DTPA
0.05
Grenvi
le
Loam
9-15
cn
1.88

7.8
CaCOj ~ CdClj
Greenhouae/Soi1
Pota
Lettuce/Tops
1.9 % YS (M.S.)
DTPA
0.05
Grenvi
le
Loan
0-15
an
1.76

6.6
Al Precip CdCl2
Greenhouse/Soi1
Pots
Lettuce/Tops
5.7 1 YS (M.S.)
DTPA
0.05
Grenvi
le
Loan
0-15
ca
1.75

7.0
CdCl 2 ~ CeCO*
re Precip CdCl 2
Greenhouse/Soil
Pots
Lettuce/Tops
4.4 t YR (M.S.)
DTPA
0.05
Grenvi
le
Loan
0-15
cn
1.66

6.6
Greenhouse/Soi1
Pots
Lettuce/Tops
1 1 YS (M.S.)
DTPA
0.05
Grenvi
le
Loan
0-15
cn
1.63

6.5
Al Precip CdCl2
Greenhouse/Soi1
Pots
Lettuce/Tops
11.9 t YR IW.S.)
DTPA
0.05
Grenvi
le
Loan
0-15
cn
1.60

6.5
Hn Precip CdCl2
Greenhouse/Soi1
Pots
Lettuce/Tops
0.6 1 YS (M.S.)
DTPA
0.05
Grenvi
le
Loan
0-15
cn
1.60

6.5
CdCl 2
Greenhouse/Soi1
Pots
Lettuce/Tope
20.5 8 YR
DTPA
0.05
Grenvi
le
Loan
0-15
cn
1.60

7.1
CaC03 ~ CdCl2
Greenhouae/Soi1
Pots
Lettoee/Yops
17.2 8 YS
DTPA
0.05
Grenvi
le
Loan
0-15
cn
1.60

7.0
CdCl 2 ~ CaC03
Greenhouse/Soi1
Pots
Lettuce/Tops
21.2 8 YR
DTPA
0.05
Crenvi
le
Loan
0-15
cn
1.52

6.6
Sludge
Greenhouse/Soil
Pots
Lettuce/Tops
11.9 8 YR (M.S.)
DTPA
0.05
Grenvi
le
Loan
0-15
cm
1.46

6.6
Pe Precip CdCl2
Greenhouse/Soi1
Pots
Lettuce/Tops
23.2 I YR
DTPA
0.05
Grenvi
le
Loam
0-15
eta
1.46

6.6
Mn Precip CdCl2
Greenhouse/Soi1
Pots
Lettuce/Tops
3.3 1 YR (N.S.J
DTPA
0.05
Gcenvi
le
Loan
0-15
cm
1.18

6.7
SIudge
Greenhouse/Soi1
Pots
Lettuce/Tops
24.2 % Yield Increase
DTPA
0.05
Grenvi
le
Loan
0-15
cn
1.32

6.9
Sludge
Greenhouse/Soi1
Pots
Lettuce/Tope
10.2 X Yield Increase













(N.sa
DTPA
O.0S
Grenvl1le
Loan
c-:s
cn
1.32

6.9
Sludge
Greenhouse/Soil
Pots
Lettuce/Tops
3.3 t Yield Increase


BinqhaB et el. <19751
Binqhan et #1. <19751
OtVrUi »nd Harry (1980)
OeVriea and Harry (1980)
OtVci«f and Ntccy (1988)
OtVtits and N«rcy (198>)
MViki and rurty (198*1
OtVciti and Mercy (1900)
Sinqh (1981)
Sinqh (1981
Sinqh (1981
Sinqh (1981
Sinqh (1981
81(t9h (1981
Sinqh (198!
Sinqh (1981
Singh (1981.
Bln^hu efc al. (1975ft
Sinqh (1981*
Singh (1981
Sinqh (1981
Sinqh (1981
Sinqh (1981
BlnqhaA et
Sinqh (1981
Sinqh (1981
Singh (1981
Singh (1981
Singh (1981
Sinqh (1981
Sinqh (1981
Sinqh (1981
Sinqh (1981
Sinqh (1981
Sinqh (1981
Sinqh (1981
Sinqh (1981
Sinqh (1981
3inon 11981
Singh (1981
Sinqh (1981
Singh U9B1
-------
Table 37. Phytotoxlcity of extractable cadmium In soils, continued.
Htttefiit
Significance
Ltttil	
139S M. Ireland soil
Samples
Piston Fine Sandy Loaa
Nttciuc Pine Sandy Loan
Dooino Silt Loaa
Redding Pine Sandy Loan
A - Hotiton HOP*
A - Horison NGP
Grenville Loaa 9-1S en
Grenville Loan 8-15 en
Sattafrat Silt Loam
Helena valley Soils
C - Horison HOP
A - Horlxon NGP
C - Horison NGP
C - Horison NGP
Pocoaoke Silt Loaa	
Northern Great Plaint
9.17
HP
None
<9.1
6.9
None
<8.1
6.9
None
<0.1
7.5
None
<9.1
S.7
None
9.1
6.2-8.2
None
9.1
6.2-8.2
None
9.19
6.6
None
9.97
6.5
None
8.97
5.4
None
9.92
8.9
None
9.9)
7.9-8.9
None
9.03
6.2-8.2
None
9.92
7.9-8.9
None
9.91
7.8-8.9
Hone
9.91
4.3
None
Field
Greenhoute/Soil pott
Gre«nhouse/S©l1 Pota
Greenhoote/Soil Pott
Greenhoute/Soil Pott
Field
Field
Gteenhoute/Soll Pott
Greenhoute/Soil Pott
Field
Field
Field
Field
Field
Field
Field
NR
Altai fa/Tops
Alfalfa/Tope
Lettuce-wheat/Leavet
Lettuce-Wheat/Leavet
Native Vegetation
Native vegetation
Lettuce/Topa
L«ttuce/Topt
Uncultivated Field
Forage/Range
Native Vegetation
Native Vegetation
Native Vegetation
Native vegetation
Forett
Background
Background
Background
Background
Background
Background
Background
Background
Background
Background
Background
Background
Background
Background
Background
Background
8DTA, p«
NH4OAC-PH 4.S
NH4OAC-PH 4.8
DTP*
OTP*
EDTA
OTPA
DTPK
OTPA
OTPA
OTPA
BOTA
NH4OAC
OTPA
NH4OAC
OTPA
NR	Qlckaon and Stevena (199))
NR	Taylor and Allinton (1941)
NR	Taylor and Allinton (1981)
HA	Mitchell et al. (197B)
HA	Hltchell et al.
NR	Severaon et al.
NR	Severaon et al.
9.9$	Singh (1981)
«.«5 Singh (1981)
NR	White and Chaney (1989)
MR EPA (1986)
NR Severaon et al.
NR Severaon et al.
HR Severaon et al.
NR Severaon et al.
MR	White and Cheney
(197B)
(1977)
(1977)
(1977)
(1977)
(1977)
(1977)
(1989)
-------
Table 38 Phytotoxicity of cadmium in vegetation.
Ti ssue
Concentration Chemical Form
Plant/Tissue		(ppa)	Tvpe og Experiment	Applied	
Alfalfa/Tops
3378.2
Alfalfa/tops
1960.•
Alfalfa/tops
1813.5
Lettuce/Roots
1628
Cabbage/Leaf
• 88
Lettuce/Shoots
695
Lett uce/Leare*
667 .7
Lettuce/Sboots
$93
Tom*to/Leaf
570
Turnip/Leaf
469
Lettuce/Sboot*
413
Radish/Tops
398
Turnip/Leaf
394
Lettuce/Leaf
384
Alfalfa/Tops
365
Plantain/Shoots
350
Lettuce/Sboots
343
Beet/Leaf
326
Beet/Leaf
321
Lettuce/Leaf
320
Beet/Leaf
295
Carrot/Tops
294.4
Red Beet/Leaf
290
Red Beet/Leaf
288
Alfalfa/Tops
279.1
Turnip/Leaf
278
Broccoli/Leaves
268.5
Radish/Tops
264.7
Corn/Shoots
264
Lettuce/Sboots
240
Spinach/Leaves
239.3
Sweet Corn/t^af
234
Sweet Corn/Leaf
230
Sweet Corn/Leaf
227
Lettuce/Shoots
226
Cabbage/Leaf
212
Spinach/Leaves
207.5
Caul i f lower/U#»e«
198 .6
Oats/Stalks
177
Tomato/Leaf
174
XI fa 1 fa/Tops
171.6
Sweet Corn/Leaf
165
Cabbage/Host accent

Enclosed Leaf
160
Greenhouse/Soil Pots	CdSOj
Greenhouse/Soil Pot#	CdSOj
Crt«nhou
Greenhouse/Soi1 Pots	CdClj
Greenhouse/Solution Culture CdSO|
Greenhouse/Soil pots	CdSOi/Sludge
Greenhouse/Soil Pots	CdCl2
Greenhouse/Soil Pots	CdSO^/Sludge
Greenhouse/Solution Cultuce CdSO|
Greenhouse/Solution Culture CdS04
Greenhouse/Soil pots	CdS04/Slud9«
Greenhouse/Soil Pots	CdClj
Greenhouse/Solution Culture CdS04
Greenhouse/Solution Culture CdSOj
Greenhouse/Soil Pots	CdS<>4
Greenhouse/Soil Pots	Cd Salts
Greenhouse/Soil Pots	cdSC^/Sludge
Greenhouse/Solution Culture CdS04
Greenhouse/Solution Culture CdS04
Greenhouse/Solution Culture CdS<>4
Greenhouse/Solution Cultuce CdS04
Greenhouse/Soil Pots	CdClj
Greenhouse/Solution Culture CdS04
Greenhouse/Solution Culture CdSC>4
Greenhouse/SoiI Pots	Cd(NO3)2*
Greenhouse/Solution Culture CdS04
Greenhouse/Soil Pots	CdCl2
Greenhouse/Soil Pots	CdCl2
Greenhouse/Solution Culture CdCl2
Greenhouse/Soil Pots	CdSO^/Sludge
Greenhouse/Soil Pots	CdCl2
Graenhouse/Solution Culture CdS04
Greenhouse/Solution Culture CdS04
Greenhouse/Solution Culture CdSO^
Greenhouse/Soil Pots	CdSOi/Sludge .
Greenhouse/Solution Culture CdS04
Greenhouse/Soil Pots	CdClj
Greenhouse/Soi1 Pots	CdClj
Creenhouse/Soi1 Pots	CdCl2
Greenhouse/Solution Cultuce CdSO<
Greenhouse/Soil Pots	Cd (NOj'4H20
Greenhouse/Solution Culture CdS(>4
Greenhouse/Soil Pots	sludge/CdSO^
Hazard
Response
Soil Significant
pH	Level
Reference
291
YR
6.9
NR
Taylor and Allinson (1981)
21 .
0
X YR
6.9
NR
Taylor and Allinson (1981,
46.
5
1 YR (N.S.)
6.9
0.01
Taylor and Allinson (1981)
60
I
YR
5.1
0.05
John (1973)
S0
%
YR
5.0-5.5
NR
Page et al. (1972)
96
%
YR
5.7
0.05
Mitchell et al. (1978)
91
%
VR
5.1
0.05
John (1973)
50
%
YR
5.7
0.05
Mitchell et al. (1978)
50
%
VR
5.0-5.5
NR
Page et al. (1972)
73
t
YR
5.0*5.5
NR
Page et al. (1972)
02
\
YR
7.5
0.05
Mitchell et al. (1978)
82
%
YR
5.1
0.05
John (1973)
71
%
YR
5.0-5.5
NR
Page et al. (1972)
84
%
YR
5.0-5.5
NR
Page et al. (1972)
62.
1
% YR
6.9
NR
Taylor and Allinson (1981)
50
%
YR
4.4
NR
Dijkshoorn et al. (1979)
64
%
YR
7.5
0.05
Mitchell et al. (1978)
76
%
YR
5.0-5.5
NR
Fag* et al. (1972)
62
%
YR
5.0-5.5
NR
Page et al. (1972)
50
%
YR
5.0-5.5
NR
Page et al. (1972)
73
%
YR
5.0-5.5
NR
Page et al. (1972)
92
%
YR
5,1
0.05
John (1973)
50
%
YR
5.0-5.5
NR
Page et al. (1972)
45.
.5
% YR
5.0-5.5
NR
Page et al. (1972)
71.
.9
1 YR
6.9
0.01
Taylor and Allinson (1981)
56
t
YR
5.0-5.5
NR
Page et al. (1972)
63
t
YR
5. 1
0.05
John (1973)
24
%
YR
5.1
0.05
John (1973)
66
%
YR
5.5
NR
Iwai et al. (1975)
18
%
YR
5.7
0.05
Mitchell et al. (1978)
99
%
YR
5.1
0.05
John (1973)
17
t
YR
5.0-5.5
NR
Page et a I. (1972)
50
%
YR
5.0-5.5
NR
Page et al. (1972)
45.
.5
1 VR
5.0-5.5
NR
Paoe ec al. (1972)
61
%
YR
7.5
0.05
Mitchell et al. ( 1978)
53,
.5
1 YR
5.0-5.5
NR
Page et a 1. (1972)
96
%
YR
5.1
0. OS
John (1973)
97
\
YR
5. I
0.05
John (1973)
10
\
YR (M.S.)
5. 1
0.05
John (1973)
63
\
YR
5.0-5.5
NR
Page et al. (1972)
15
.8
% YR (N.S.)
6.9
0.01
Taylor and Allinson (1981)
33
.5
\ YR
5.0-5.5
NR
Page et al. ( 1972)
25
%
YR
7.5-7.3
N3
ai.-vjham (1^79)
-------
Table 38.
7:ssue
Cancentra::on
an - ¦ 7: ssue		1 oom>
Pepper/Leaf
Turnip/Leaf
Lettuce/Shoots
Swiss Chard/Leaves
Swiss Chard/Shoots
Lettuce/Shoots
Tomato/Leaf
Toaato/Leaf
Radish/Tubers
Turnip/Leaf
Barley/Leaf
Lettuce/Shoots
Peas-Perf/Vine
Oats/Stalk
Corn/Lowet Leaves
Tonato/Leaf
Green Pepper/Leaf
— Corn/Upper Leaves
Q Wheat/Grain
Sweet Corn/Leaf
Wheat/Grain
Corn/Shoots
Cut1yetess/Edible
Carrot/Tops
Bat ley/Leaf
Radish/Leaf
Spinach/Shoot
CutIyeress/Leaf
Lettuce/Head
Zucchini/Leaf
Lettuce/Shoots
Bermuda Grass/Tops
Corn/Lower Leaves
Tomato/Leaf
Alfa 1 fa/Tops
Rad i sh/Tubers
Lettuce/Tops
Lettuce/Tops
Lettuce/Leaves
Let tuce/'fops
Lettuce/Tops
Lettuce/Leaf
160
160
153
153
150
147
138
125
123.3
121
120
118
116.9
116.5
116
115
104
99
95
90
87
85
80
79.3
75
75
75
70
70
68
68
67
60
58
57.6
54.6
52.0
51.5
51.1
49.7
48.7
48
Greenhouse/Solution Culture
Greenhouse/Solution Culture
Greenhouse/Soil Pots
Greenhouse/Soil Pots
Greenhouse/Soil Pots
Greenhouse/Soil Pots
Gre«nhouse/Solution Culture
Greenhouse/Soil Pots
Greenhouse/Soil Pots
Greenhouse/Soil Pots
Greenhouse/Solution Culture
Greenhouse/Soil Pots
Greenhouse/Soil .Pots
Greenhouse/Soil Pots
Greenhouse/Solution Culture
Greenhouse/Solution Culture
Greenhouse/Solution Culture
Greenhouse/Solution Culture
Gzeenhouse/Soil Pots
Greenhouse/Solution Culture
Greenhouse/Soil Pots
Greenhouse/Solution Culture
Greenhouse/Soi1 Pots
Greenhouse/Soil pots
Greenhouse/Solution Culture
Greenhouse/Soil Pots
Greenhouse/Soil Pots
Greenhouse/Soil Pots
Greenhouse/Soil Pots
Greenhouse/Soil Pots
Greenhouse/Soil Pots
Greenhouse/Soil Pots
Greenhouse/Solution culture
Greenhouse/Solution Culture
Greenhouse/Soil pots
Greenhouse/Soil Pots
Greenhouse/Soil Pots
Greenhouse/Soil Pots
Greenhouse/Soil Pots
Greenhouse/Soil Pots
Gceenhouse/Soi1 Pots
Gteenhouse/SoiI Pots
CdS04
CdS04
CdS04/Sludge
Sludge/CdS04
CdS04/Sludge
CdS04/Sludge
CdS04
Sludge/CdSOi
CdCl2
Sludge/CdS04
CdS04
CdS04/Sludge
Cdci2
CdClj
CdClj
CdS04
CdS04
CdCl2
CdS04/Sludge
CdS04
CdS04/Sludge
CdCl2
Sludge/CdS04
CdCl2
CdS04
Sludge/CdS04
Sludge/CdS04
Sludge/CdS04
Sludge/CdS04
Sludge/CdS04
CdS04/Sludge
Sludge/CdS04
CdCl2
CdS04
CdS04
CdCl2
Al Precip/CdCl2
CaCOj ~ CdC12
CdCl2
Fe Precip/CdCl2
CdCl2 + CaCOj
S ludge/CdS04
-aiacd
Response
Soil Significant
sH	Leve i
Reference
50 % YR
5.0-5.5
NR
Page et al. (1972)
22 % YR
5.0-5.5
NR
Page et al. (1972)
49 t YR
7.5
0.05
Mitchell et al. (1978)
56.7 * YR
7.5
NR
Hahler et al. (1980)
25 « YR
7.5-7.8
NR
Bingham et al. (197$)
18 % YR
5.7
0.05
Mitchell et al. (1978)
50 « YR
5.0-5.5
NR
Page et al. (1972)
25 t YR
7.5-7.8
NR
Bingham et al. I197S)
93 % YR
5.1
0.05
John (1973)
25 t YR
7.5-7.8
NR
Bingham et al. (1975)
50 t YR
5.0-5.5
NR
Page et al. (1972)
45 % YR
7.5
0.05
Mitchell et al. (1978)
87 t YR
5.1
0.05
John (1973)
22 t YR (N.S.)
5.1
0.05
John (1973)
41 t YR
5.0
NR
Iwai et al. (1975)
41 % YR
5.0-5.5
NR
page et al. (1972)
58 t YR
5.0-5.5
NR
Page et al. (1972)
41 t YR
5.0
NR
Iwai et al. (1975)
82 t YR
5.7
0.05
Mitchell et al. (1978)
6.5 1 YR
5.0-5.5
NR
Page et al. (1972)
66 t YR
5.7
0.05
Mitchell et al. (1978)
23 * YR
5.5
NR
Iwai et al. (1975)
25 » YR
7.5-7.8
NR
Bingham et al. (1975)
11 % YR (N.S.)
5.1
0.05
John (1973)
68.5 % YR
5.0-5.5
NR
Page et al. (1972)
2S 1 YR
7.5-7.8
NR
Bingham et al. (1975)
25 t YR
7.5-7.8
NR
Bingham et al. (1975)
25 » YR
7.5-7.8
NR
Bingham et al. (1975)
25 t YR
7.5-7.8
NR
Bingham et al. (1975)
25 % YR
7.5-7.8
NR
Bingham et al. (1975)
23 I YR (N.S.)
7.5
0.05
Mitchell et al. (1976)
68 t YR
7.5
NR
Bingham et al. (1976)
18 % YR
5.0
NR
Iwai et al. (1975)
28 I YR
5.0-5.5
NR
Page et al. (1972)
0.7 % Yield Increase
6.9
NR
Taylor and Allinson (1981)
28 t YR (N.S.)
5.1
0.05
John (1973)
12.7 * YR (N.S.)
6.7
0.05
Singh (1981)
16.6 t YR
7.1
0.05
Singn (1981)
7.5 % Yield Increase



8.9 \ YR (N.S.)
6.5
0.05
Singh (1981)
14.6 t YR
7.0
0.05
Singh (1981)
25 \ YR
7.5-7.8
NR
Bingham et al. (1975)
-------
Table 38. Phytotoxicity of cadmium in vegetation, continued.
?lenr/Tissuft
T(Sftu#
Ccnr-snt riticn
	4
Cd(NO j)2 *4H]0
Sludge/CdSOj
Cd Salts
Cdsc>4/siud9e
CdCl2
Hn Precip/CdCl2
CdCl2
Sludge/CdSOj
CdCl2
Sludge/Cd£04
CdS04
CdClj
Cd Salts
Sludge/CdS04
Sludge/CdSOj
CdS04
CdS04
Sludge
CdSOj
CdCl2
Sludge/CdS04
Sludge/CdS04
CdS04/Sludge
CaCOj ~ CdClj
Sludge/CdS04
CdClj
CdS04
CdS04/Sludge
CdCl2 ~ CaCOj
.CaCOj + CdCl2
CdCl2
Sludge/CdS04
CdS04/Sludge
Al Precio/CdCl2
Al Preci?/CdCl2
Sluoge/CcJSO.}
n'aia cd
Seioonsff
So i1
OH
S:cni iicj.T.
Lc - el
Reference
31 % Yield Increase



(N.S.)
.1
0.05
John (1973)
7. S 1 YD (N.S.)
.6
0.05
Singh (1981)
3.1 1 Yft (N.S.)
.1
0.05
John (1973)
56 % YR
.5
NR
Bingham et al. (1976)
16 % YR
.4
0.05
Hinealy et al. (1982)
25 1 YR
.5
NR
Bingham et al. (1976)
30 t YR
.5
NR.
Bingham et al. (1976)
1 % Yield Increase



(N.S.)
.9
0.01
Taylor and Allinson (1981)
24 % YR
.5
NR
Bingham et al. (1976)
50 % YR
.4
NR
Dijkshoorn et al. (1979)
42 « YR
.7
0.05
Mitchell et al. (1978)
10 % YR
.5
NR
Iwai et al. (1975)
$.7 % YR (N.S.)
.6
0.05
Singh (1981)
27 % YR (N.S.)
.1
0.05
John (1973)
25 % YR
.5
NR
Bingham et al. (1976)
IB % YR

NR
Iwai et al. (1975)
12 1 YR
!s
NR
Bingham et al. (1976)
23.6 1 YR
.9
NR
Taylor and Allinson (1981)
28 % Yield Increase



(N.S.)
.1
0.05
John (1973)
50 1 YR
.54
NR
Dijkshoorn et al. (1979)
40 1 YR
.5
NR
Bingham et al. (1976)
25 % YR
.5-7.8
NR
Bingham et al. (1975)
85 1 YR
.0*5.5
NR
Page et al. (1972)
67.4 % YR
.9
NR
Taylor and Allinson (1981)
10.6 % Yield Increase



(N.S.)
.4
0.05
Hinesly et al. (1982)
79 1 YR
.0-5.5
NR
Page et al. (1972)
57 t YR
. 1
0.05
John (1973)
25 % VR
.5-7.8
NR
Bingham et al. (1975)
25 % YR
.5-7.8
NR
Bingham et al. (1975)
95 % YR
.5
0.05
Mitchell et al. (1978)
27.2 1 YR
.1
0.05
Singh (1981)
19 1 YR
.5
NR
Bingham et al. (1976)
96 t YR
.1
0.05
John (1973)
31 . 2 1 YR
.9
0.01
Taylor and Allinson (1981)
91 % YR
.5
0.05
Mitchell ec al. (1978)
23.2 1 YR
.9
0.05
Singh (1981)
2 % YR (N.S.)

0.05
Singh (1981)
92 1 VR
. 1
0.05
Jonn (1973)
12 % YR
.5
NR
Bingham et al. (1976)
70 I YR
.5
0.05
Mitchell ec al. (1978)
6 1 YR (N.S.)

0.05
Singh (1981)
15.2 % YR
.6
0.05
Singh (1981)
28 1 YR
.5
NR
Bingham et al. (1976)
-------
Table 38- phytotoxicity of cadmium in vegetation, continued.
o
N)

T:*»-~
Concen::a t.cr
izzrs.
Tvdc of £».oarir
i?Tt
Field Btin/L««(
27
Greenhouse/Solut ion Culture
Carrot/Tubers
26.6
Greenhouse/Soi1
Pots
Tell Fescue/Topa
26
Creenhouse/Soi1
Pots
Lettuce/Tops
25.7
Greenhouse/Soi1
Pots
Lettuce/Tops
25.6
Greenhouae/Soi1
Pots
Lettuce/Tops
2S.4
Greenhouse/SoiI
Pots
Mh«at/G(«in
2S
Greenhouse/Soi1
Pots
Corn-High Aceun/Stover
24.9
Field

Corn-High Accua/Stover
24.6
Field

Lettuce/Tops
24.6
Greenhouse/Soi1
Pots
Lettuce/Tops
24.4
Greenhouse/Soi1
Pots
Alfalfa/Tops
24
Greenhouae/Soi1
Pots
Corn-High Accua/Stover
23.9
Field

Lettuce/Tops
23.6
Greenhouse/Soi1
Pots
Nhiti Clover/Tops
22.S
Greenhouse/So i1
Pots
Field Beans/Leaf
22
Greenhouse/Solution Culture
Corn/Lover Leaves
22
Greenhouse/Solu
tion Culture
Alfalfa/Tops
21.7
Greenhouse/So i1
Pots
White Clovet/Top*
21.S
Greenhouse/Soi1
Pots
R»di sh/Tuber
21
Greenhouse/So i1
Pots
Oats/Grain
20.8
Greenhouse/Soi1
Pots
Lettuce/Tops
20.«
Greenhouse/Soi1
Pots
Bermuda Grass/Tops
29
Greenhouse/So i1
Pots
Corn/Leaf - Shoot
20
Creenhouse/Solution Culture
Alfalfa/Topa
19.9
Greenhouse/Soi1
Pots
Peas-Perf/Seed
19.7
Greenhouse/Soi1
Pots
Corn/Retnal
19
Greenhouse/Soi1
Pots
Carrot/Tuber
19
Greenhouse/So i1
Pots
Wheat/Grain
19
Greenhouse/Soi1
Pots
Caul if lower/Leavet
16.5
Greenhouse/Soi1
Pots
Sudan Crass/Tops
18
Greenhouse/So i1
Pots
Cocn/Upper Leaves
17
Greenhouse/Solution Culture
White Clover/Leaf
17
Greenhouse/Soi1
Pots
Alfalfa/Tops
17
Greenhouse/SoiI
Pots
Alfalfa/Tops
16.1
Greenhouse/SoiI
Pots
Corn/Shoots
16
Gr?enhouse/Solu
tion Culture
Lettuce/Tops
15.5
Greenhouse/Soi1
Pots
Turnip/Tuber
15
Greenhouse/Soi1
Pots
Tall Fescue/Tops
15
Greenhouse/SoiI
Pots
Field Bean/Leaf
15
Greenhouse/SoiI
Pots
Lettuce/Tops
15
Greenhouse/SoiI
Pots
Barley-Julia/Shoota
15
Greenhouse/Sand
Culture
Corn-High Accua/Stover
14.2
Field

Lettuce/Tops
:;.i
C:*ennouse/So:L
Pots
Wheat/Grain
1 4
Greenhouse/Soii
?or. s
Tomato/Tops
: 2.6
Ci eenhcu s»>. ? ; :!
0.;t S
Tomato/Tops
:3.<
Greenhouso/Sc i 1
?CCi
CKtnukt Tom
ftpp *1eH 	
CdS04
CdC 12
Sludge/CdS04
Fe Precip/CdClj
CdCl 2
To Ptecip/CdCl2
CdS04/Sludge
Sludge
Sludge
CdClj
CdCl 2 ~ C3
Sludge/CdS04
Sludge
Mn Pteclp/CdCl2
Sludge/CdS04
CdS04
CdCl2
Cd(NOj)2"4H20
Sludge/CdS04
Sludce/CctS04
CdC 12
Mn Precip/CdCl2
Sludge/CdS04
CdCl2
CdS04
CdCl 2
Sludge/CdS04
Sludge/CdS04
CdS04/Sludge
CdCl2
Sludge/CdS04
CdCl 2
Sludge/CdS04
Sludge/CdS04
CdS04
CdCl j
C«COj * CdC".j
S1udge/CdS04
Sludge/CdS04
Sludge/CdS04
CdCl2 ~ C.COj
CdS04
SIudae
S1ucqe
CdSO-./Siudce
H:cn	S^ud
Hioti Mec.ii S'.t-j
HAllttd
R t S
Soi'. Significant
oH	Levi	Btf«:enc8
66 \ YR
5.0-
5.5
NR
8.2 \ YR (N.S.)
5. 1

0.05
2 1 YR
7.5

NR
1.3 1 YR (N.S.)
6.6

0.05
1.3 1 YR (N.S.)
6.6

0.05
21.9 % YR
6.5

0.95
18 I YR
5.7

0.05
2? t YR
7.4

0.05
9.8 % YR (N.S.)
7.4

0.05
13.9 % YR (N.S.)
6.5

0.05
4.4 % YR (N.S.)
7.0

0.05
25 1 YR
7.5

MR
5.6 * YR (N.S.)
7.4

0.0S
1 1 YR (N.S.)
6.5

0.05
58 1 YR
7.5

NR
50 1 YR
5.0-
5.5
NR
2 % YR
5.0

tip
56.2 1 YR
6.9

0.01
44 % YR
7.5

NR
25 t YR
7. 5-
7.8
NR
36 % YR
5.1

0.05
18.5 % YR
6.7

0.05
5 % YR
7.5

NR
Onset YR
5. 5

NR
3.6 % YR
6.9

NR
99 % YR
5.1

0.05
25 % YR
7.5-
7.8
NR
25 1 YR
7.5-
7.8
NR
61 % YR
7.5

0.05
2.7 % YR (N.S.)
5.1

0.05
58 1 YR
7.5

NR
2 1 YR
5.0

NR
25 % YR
7.5

NR
20 % YR
7.5

NR
13.0 I YR
6.9

NR
10 1 YR
5.5

NR
17.2 i YR
7.1

0.05
25 % YR
7.5-
7.3
NR
1 1 YR
7.5

NR
25 % YR
7.5-
7.8
NR
21.2 % YR
7.0

0.05
10 4 YR
NR

NR
32 \ YR
7.4

0.05
29.3 * YR
6.8

0.05
2 2 \ YR
7.5

0.05
e 8; * yp
6 . 2

0.01
« 6«i \ VR
6.2

0.31
Page et al. (1972)
John (1973)
Bingham et al. (1976)
Singh (1981)
Singh (1981)
Singh (1981)
Mitchell et al. (1978)
Hinealy et al. (1982)
Hinealy et al. (1982)
Singh (1981)
Singh (1981)
Binghan et al. (1976)
Hinealy et al. (1982)
Singh (1981)
Binohaa at al. (1976)
Page et al. (1972)
Iwai et al. (1975)
Taylor and Allinson (1981
Binghan et al. (1976)
Binghaa et al. (1975)
John (1971)
Singh (1981)
Binghan et al. (1976)
Iwai et al. (1975)
Tayloc and Allinson (1981
John (1971)
Binghan (1979)
Binghaa et al. (197S)
Mitchell et al. (1978)
John (1971)
Binghan et al. (1976)
Ivai et al. (197S)
Binghan et al. (1976)
Binghan et al. (1976)
Tayloc and Allinson (1981
Iwai et al. (1975)
Singh (1981)
Binghan et al. (1975)
Bingham et al. (197o)
Binghan et al. (1975)
Singh (1981)
Davis et al. (1978)
Hinesly et al. (1982)
Singh (1981)
.iitchell et al. (1978)
Sticcett et al. 11982)
Seertett et al. (1982)
-------
Table 38. Phytotoxlcity of cadmium in vegetation, continued.
r.:nn:r,-ti op.
? I ant/?: s si-e
*oe:iwent
Chemcal Poem
Appl\«d	
id:aic
?esocns*
So: 1
o.-.
Sign:*leant
	Level

Corn-Low Accun/Stover	13.2
Sudan Grass/Tops	12.5
Lettuce/Tops	12.5
Lettuce/Tops	11.6
Corn-Low Accun/Stover	11.5
Wheat/Grain	11.5
Cabbage/Head	11
Lettuce/Tops	11
Corn-High lecua/Stovtr	10.B
Alfalfa/Tops	19.4
Corn-High Accoa/Stover	19.3
Alfalfa/Tops	19.3
Peas-Ferf/Seed	19.1
Wbite Clover/Tops	19
Alfalfa/Topa	19
Zucchini/Fruit	19
Peas-Perf/Pod	9.5
Sudan Grass/Tops	9
Sudan Grass/Leaf	9
Bermuda Grass/Tops	9
Bean/Leaf	9
Alfalfa/Topa	8.5
Corn-Low Accun/Stover	8.48
Barley-Julia/Shoots	8
Alfalfa/Topa	8
Cabbaga/Tops	7.18
Cabbage/Topa	7.17
Alfalfa/Tops	7.1
Toaato/Ripe Fruit	7
Soybean/Leaf	7
Tall Fescue/Tops	7
Soybean/Dry Bean	7
Lettuce/Tops	7
Lettuce/Tops	6.6
Sudan Crass/Tops	6
Tall Fescue/Tops	6
Alfalfa/Tops	5.9
Corn-High Accum/Stover	5.78
White Clover/Tope	5.5
Lettuce/Tops	5.3
Alfalfa/Tops	5
Field
Greenhouse/Soil Pots
Greenhouse/Soil Pota
Greenhouse/Soil Pota
rield
Greenhouse/Soil pots
Greenhouse/Soil pots
Greenhouse/Soil Pots
Field
Greenhouse/Soil Pots
Field
Greenhouse/Soi1 Pots
Greenhouse/Soil Pots
Greenhouse/Soi1 Pots
Greenhouae/Soil Pots
Greenhouse/Soil Pots
Greenhouae/Soil Pots
Greenhouse/Soi1 Pots
Greenhouse/Soil Pots
Greenhouse/So i1 Pots
Greenhouse/Solution Culture
Greenhouse/Soil Pots
Field
Greenhouse/Sand Culture
Greenhouse/Soil Pots
Greenhouaa/Soil Pota
Greenhouaa/Soil Pots
Greenhouse/Soi1 Pots
Greenhouse/Soil Pots
Greenhouae/Soi1 pots
Greenhouse/Soi1 Pots
Greenhouse/Soil Pots
Greenhouse/Soil Pots
Greenhouse/SoiI Pots
Greenhouse/Soil Pots
Greenhouse/Soil Pots
Greenhouse/Soil Pots
Field
Greenhouse/SoiI Pots
Creenhouae/Soi1 Pota
Greenhouse/Soil Pots
Sludge
Sludge/CdSO*
Fe Precip/CoCl]
Al Precip/CdCl2
Sludge
Sludge/CdSC>4
Sludge/CdS04
CdCl2
Sludge
Hq Percip/CdClj
Sludge
td(H03)2 4H20
CdClj
Sludge/CdS04
CdS04
Sludqe/CdSO*
CdCl2
Sludge/CdS04
Sludge/CdSt>4
Sludge/CdS04
CdS04
CdS04
Sludge
CdS04
Sludge/CdS04
High Metal Sludge
High Hetal Sludge
CdS04
Sludge/CdS04
Sludge/CdS04
Sludge/CdS04
Sludge/CdS04
Sludge
Sludge
Sludge/CoSO^
Sludge/CdS04
CdSC>4
Sludge
Sludge/CdS04
S1 udge
Sludge/CdS04
3.9 % Yield Increase
(N.S.)
43 % YB
23.2	« YB
11.9 % YB (N.S.)
9 % Yield Increase
(M.S.)
25 t YB
25 % YR
29.5 I YB
39 % YB (M.S.)
3.3 I YB (M.S.)
11.9 % YB (U.S.)
27.3	I YB
19.1 % YB
15	t YB
9.8 I Yield Increase
25 « YB
39 I YB (M.S.)
39 I YB
25 % YB
4 % YR
27.5 % YB
4.3 I Yield Increase
9.7 I YR (M.S.)
Upper Critical Level
16	% YR
65 % YR
67 % YR
3.5 I Yield increase
25 t YR
25 I YR
6 « YR
25 I YR
19 % YR
52.3 % Yield Increase
18 « YR
1 % YR
20.3 I Yield Increase
22 % YR (N.S.)
29 I YR
24 I Yield Increase 6
8 I YR	7
7.8
-7.9
-7.8
-5.5
•7.8
-7.8
9.95
MR
9.95
9.95
9.95
NR
MB
9.95
9.95
9.95
9.95
9.91
9.95
MB
NR
MB
9.95
MB
MR
NR
MR
NR
9.95
MR
MR
9.91
9.91
MR
MR
MR
MR
NR
9.95
0.95
NR
NR
NR
0.0S
NR
0.95
MR
Hinesly et al. (1992)
Binghaa et al. (1976)
Singh (1981)
Singh (1981)
(1992)
(1975)
(1975)
(1991)
(1976)
(1976)
(1976)
Hinesly et al.
Binghaa et al.
Binghaa et al.
Singh (1981)
Hinesly et al. (1992)
Singh (1981)
Hinesly et al. (1992)
Taylor and Allinson
John (1973)
Binghaa et al. (1976)
Taylor and Allinson (1991)
Binghea et al. (197S)
John (1973)
B inghata et al.
Binghaa et al.
Binghaa et al.
Page et al. (1972)
Taylor and Allinson (1981)
Hinesly et al. (1982)
Beckett and David (1977)
Binghaa et al. (1976)
Stercett et al. (1982)
Sterrett et al. (1982)
Taylor and Allinson (1981)
Binghaa et al. (1975)
Binghaa et al.
Binghaa et al.
9inghaa et al.
Singh (1981)
Singh (1981)
Binghaa et al.
Binghaa et al .
Taylor and Allinson :i98l)
Hinesly ec al. (1982;
Binghaa et al. (1976)
Singh (1981)
Binghaa et al. (1975)
(1979)
(1976)
(1975)
(1976)
(1976>
-------
Table 38. Phytotoxicity of cadmium in vegetation, continued.
7:ssce
Conc*r>-r/i: jor Crenucal Fsrir.
Plant/Ti »iue	t pprr>	Typo oi	;~f»c	^c»l
Barley-Larker/Straw
4.57
Greenhouse/Soi1
Pots
Sludge
Coin-Low Accun/Stova:
«.1S
Field

Sludge
Bermuda Grass/Tops
4
Greenhouse/Soi1
Pots
Sludge/CdSC>4
L.ttuce/Tops
3.8
Greenhouse/Soil
Pots
Sludge
Corn-Low Accun/Stov.r
3.53
Field

Sludge
Alfalfa/Tops
3.4
Greenhouaa/So i1
Pots
CdtNO})2 <"2°
Lettuce/Tops
3.2
Greenhouae/Soil
Pots
Sludge
Alfalfa/Topa
3.1
Greenhouae/Soll
Pots
Hone
Rice/Leaf
3
Greenhouae/Soi1
Pots
Sludge/CdS04
Corn-Low Accum/stover
2.83
Field

Sludge
L.ttuc./Topa
2.8
Gr..nhoua./So11
Pots
Sludge
Alfalfa/Tops
2.6
Greenhouae/Soi1
Pots
CdS04
Sudan Grass/Tops
2. 5
Greenhouae/Soi1
Pots
Sludgo/CdS04
Whit* Clov.r/Tops
2. S
Greenhouae/Soi1
Pots
Sludge/CdS04
Barl.y-Barsoy/Straw
2.45
Greenhouae/Soil
Pots
Sludge
Lettuc./Tops
2.4
Greenhouse/Soi1
Pots
Sludge
Alfalfa/Topa
2.4
Greenhouse/Soil
Pots
Cd(NOj)j *^h2®
Barley-Briggs/Straw
2.30
Greenhouae/Soil
Pots
Sludge
Alfalfa/Topa.
2.3
Greenhouae/Soi1
Pots
Hone
Alfalfa/Tops
2.2
Greenhouse/Soi1
Pots
CdS04
Barley-Flor ida/Straw
2.19
Greenhouse/Soil
Pots
Sludge
Alfalfa/Topa
2.1
Greenhouae/Soi1
Pots
CdS04
Rica/Grain
2
Creenhouae/Soi1
Pots
Sludge/CdS04
Corn/Kernal
2
Greenhouse/Soi1
Pots
Sludge/CdSOf
Alfalfa/Topa
2
Greenhouse/Soi1
Pots
Sludge/CdS04
Sudan Graas/Tops
2
Greenhouae/Soi1
Pota
Sludge/CdS04
Corn-Low Accua/stover
1.8?
Field

Sludge
Corn-High Accun/Crain
1.83
Field

Sludge
Corn-Low Accua/stcver
1.82
Field

Sludge
Corn/High Accua/Grain
1.70
Field

Sludge
Field B.an/Dry Bean
1.7
Greenhouse/Soi1
Pota
Sludge/CdS04
Corn-Low Accua/stover
1.66
Field

Sludge
Lettuce/Sboota
l.t
Greenhouse/Soi1
Pota
Hone
Lettuce/Tops
1.6
Greenhouse/Soil
Pota
Hone
Corn-High Accun/Crain
1.48
Field

Sludge
Corn-High Accua/Stov.r
1.45
Field

Hone
Bar ley-Larker/Leaf
1.27
Creenhouse/Soi1
Pots
Sludge
Corn-High Accum/stover
1.22
f ield

None
Lettuce/Leaves cv Eibb
1.18
Field

None
Corn-High Accum/Grain
1.12
Field

Sludge
Toraa co/Foll age
1 .11
Field

None
Hazard s
rlasoonse
1 Significant
Lavel
a.fer.nc.
11 t Yield Increase
.0 9.01
Chang at al. (1902)
11.3 1 Yield Increase



(H.S.)
.4 0.05
Hinesly et al.
(1982)
1 1 Yl
.5 NR
Binghaa et al.
(1976)
11.9 % YR
.6 0.05
Singh (1981)

2.2 1 Yield Increaae



(M.S.I
.4 0.05
Hinesly et al.
(1902)
25.7 t YR (H.S.)
.9 0.01
Taylor and Allinson (1901
10 1 Yield Increase
.9 0.05
Singh (1981)

Background
.9 MR
Taylor and Allinson (1981
25 t YR
.5-7.0 MR
Binghaa et al.
(1975)
2.9 % Yield Increaae



(M.S.)
.4 0.05
Hinesly et al.
(1982)
55 % Yield Increase
.0 0.05
Singh (1981)

13.6 % YR
.9 MR
Taylor and Allinson (1981
a 1 Yl
.5 HR
Binghaa et al.
(1976)
5 1 Yield Increase
.5 MR
Binghaa et al.
(1976)
15 t YR (H.S.)
.9 0*91
Chang at al. (1982)
3.3 1 Yield Increaae



(M.S.)
.9 9.95
Singh (1991)

16.5 t YR
.9 9.91
Taylor and Allinson (1981
27 » YR (H.S.)
.9 9.91
Chang et al. (1982)
.Background
.9. lift
Taylor and Allinaon (1981
1.4 t YR
.9 HR
Taylor and Allinson (1981
14 % Yield Increase
.9 9*91
Chang et al. (1982)
3.0 % Yield Increase
.9 NR
Taylor and Allinaon (1981
25 « YR
.5-7.1 HR
Binghaa et al.
(1975)
25 t YR
.5-7.9 MR
Binghan et al.
(1975)
2 1 YR
.5 MR
Binghaa et al.
(1976)
1 1 Yl
.5 MR
Binghaa et al.
(1976)
16 t YR (M.S.)
.4 9.95
Hinealy et al.
(1982)
14 % YR (N.S.)
.4 9.95
Hinesly et al.
(1982)




(H.S.)
.4 9.95
Hinesly et al.
(1982)
11.5 I YR (N.S.)
.4 9.91
Hinesly et al.
(1982)
25 % YR
.5-7.9 MR
Binghaa et al.
(1975)
11.7 t YR (N.S.)
.4 9.95
Hinesly et al.
(1982)
Background
.7 t 7.5 9.95
.ntchell et al
(1978)
Background
.* 9.95
Singh (1981)

6 I YR (N.S.)
.4 9.95
Hinealy et al.
(1982)
Background
.4 9.91
Hinealy et al.
(1902)
11 1 Yield Increase
.9 9.91
Chang et al. (1982)
Background
.4 9.91
Hinesly et al.
(1982)
Background
.6 NR
Giordano et al
(19 79)
5' t YR (N.S.)
.4 0.05
Hnfiljr et al.
(1*82)
Background
. 7
Giordano ec at
(197.11
-------
Table 38. Phytotoxicity of cadmium in vegetation, continued.
Tit-vut
Conr^n-ir on Chtaicil form
p'.»n-. /? : b»u«		e Id
Hone
Barley/Straw
0.30
Field
done
Silver Sagebrush
0.30
Field
Hone
Lettuce/leaves cv



Crtit Uk*t
0.30
Field
Bone
Sweet Corn/Foliage
0.29
Field
Rone
Bitley-Bartoy/Leaf
0.20

Sludge
Coin-Low Aecua/Stovei
0.271
Field
Hone
Broccoli/Flowers
0.27
Field
Hone
Wheat/Straw
0.26
Field
Hone
Corn-Low Accun/Stover
0.2S0
Field
Hone
Sarley-BrJflga/Strew
0.2S
Greenhouse/Soil Pots
Sludge
wneat/Straw
0.2S
Field
Hone
Barley/Straw
0.2S
Field
Hone
p«pp«t/r(uic
0.25
Field
Hone
?epp«r/Fruit
0.24
Field
Hone
Bcrlcy/Sttiw
0.24
Field
Hone
Barley/Straw
0.22
Field
Hon*
Ktoe«t/Stuv
0.22
Field
Hone
Toaato/Tops
0.21
Gceenhouse/Soil Pots
Hone
Cintiloupt/hftllon
0.21
Field
Hone
Cantaloupe/fit lion
0.21
Field
Hone
wheat Straw
0.21
Field
Hone
Corn-Low Accum/Leaves
0.190
Field
Hone
Cabbage/Headi
0.19
Field
Hone
Pepf.ee/Ftui t
0.19
Field
Hone
Bar ley-Br199a/Leaf
0.19
Greenhouse/Soil Pots
Sludge
Bar lev-Be 199a/Ciain
0.19
CEocahouae/Soil Pots
Sludge
Corn-Low Aceom/Leaves
0.180
Field
Hone
Corn-Low Accum/Stove;
0.16S
Field
None
Caobage/Headt
0.16
Field
Hone
Bean/Foliage
0.16
Field
Hone
Squash/Fruit
0.1S
F veld
Hone
Squash/Foliage
8.15
Field
None
Beans/Pod* Only
0.14
Field
None
Bar ley-Baraoy/Gra)ft
0.14
Greenhouse/Soil Pots
Sludge
Barley-Lark*r/Cra J ft
0.14
Greenhouse/So i1 Pott
Sludge
Corn-Low Accutn/Grain
0.131
Field
Sludge
«hee:/Seed
2. 12C
Field
None
HilarJ
Saaoor.aa
So: :
3H
5ign i:ictn:
Unl
w«fennc«
Background
26	I ra
it % TB
Background
IS % tl la.S.t
11 I Yield Incitait
Qkckfcound
Background
Background
BsckfCMni
Background
Background
IS I (I IB.1.1
Backg round
Background
Background
Background
2 I tield Increase
Background
Background
Background
Background
Background
Background
Background
Background
Background
Background
Background
Background
Background
Background
IS I VB (U.S.)
27	« Tl (U.S.)
Background
Background
Background
Background
Background
Background
Background
4 I TB (U.S.)
11 t Tield Increaae
2.1 \ rB (U.S.)
Background
I.IS	Duda« and Pawluk (1977)
¦.SI	Starrett et al. 11982)
a.al	starrett et al. 11912)
•.•1	Scarratt et al. (19B2)
t.ll	Chang at al. (1962)
a.al	Chang at al. (19*2)
• .as	Dudaa and pawluk (1977)
a.as	Dudaa and Pavluk (1977)
8.as	Dudaa and Pavluk (1977)
HB	Stftiim at al. (1977)
MR	Giordano at al. (1979)
HB	Ciprdano at al. (1979)
•.al	Chang at al. (19S2)
a.al	Hinaaly at al. (1982)
KB	Giordano at al. (1979)
a.as	Oudat and Pawluk (1977)
a.al	Hinaaly at al. (1982)
a.SI	Chang ct al. (19(2)
9.as	Oudai and Pawluk (1977)
a.as	Dudaa and Pawluk (1977)
HB	Giordano at al. (1979)
MB	Giordano at al. (1979)
8.IS	Oudai and Pawluk (1977)
a.as	Oudat and Pawluk (1977)
a.aS	Dudaa and Pawluk (1977)
a.al	Starrett at al. 11912)
HB	Giordano et al. (19791
HB	Giordano at al. 11979)
a.aS	Dudaa and Pawluk (1977)
a.al	Hinaaly at al. (19B2)
MB	Giordano at al. (1979]
N	Giordano at al. (1979)
a.al	Chang at al. (19*2)
a.al	Chang at al. (19*2)
a.11	Hinaaly at al. (19B2)
a.al	Hinaaly at al. <1982)
IIR	Giordano at al. (1979)
MR	Giordano at al. (19791
MR	Giordano at al. (1979)
NR	Giordano at al. (1979)
MR	Giordano at al. (1979)
a.al	Chang at al. (I9«2)
a.al	Chang «t al. (1981)
a.al	-lineal'/ at al. I1S92)
0.35	Dudaa and Pavluk (1977)
-------
Table 38. Phytotoxicity of cadmium in vegetation, continued.
Plant/Tissue
Tioue
Conc.nt :i:ion C^emir-al rrtre
I 3S-.)	Tvr^e o i l .¦ ogr				A or*. ; ei
O
CT\
Corn-High Aeeun/Grain
1.10
Plaid

Sludge

Alfalfa/Tops
1.0
Greenhouse/Sol1
Pots
None

Whitt Clover/Tops
la
Greenhouse/Sol1
Pots
Sludge/CdSO*
Corn-High Accun/Ltavn
9.901
Field

None

Corn-High Accucn/Crain
0.974
riald

Sludge

Carrot/Root
9.96
Field

None

Uttuct/Utvai e« Boston
0.9S
riald

None

Corn-High Aceoa/Grain
0.943
Fiald

Sludge

BatUy-Urktf/Strav
0.94
Greenhouse/Soil
Pots
Sludge

Corn-High Accaa/Leaves
9.927
Fiald

None

Pepper/Foliage
9.90
Fiald

None

Uttttce/ltavii cv Boston
0.90
Field

None

Cabbage/Tops
9.89
Greenhouse/Soi1
Pots
Low Metal
SI
Uttaet/L«sv«i cv Boaaine
9.80
Field

None

Ltttoe«/Lcav«i cv





Great Lakes
9.86
riald

None

Corn-High Accua/Leaves
0.BS2
Field

None
SI
Cabbage/tops
0.85
Greenhouse/Soil
Pots
Low Metal




peat Moas
tggplant/Foli aga
9.01
Field

None

Potato/Poliage
0.80
Field

None

Lettuce/Tops
0.8
Greenhouse/Soil
Pots
None

Uttuec/Uavci c* Rooaine
9.78
Field

None

LettuccAtam cv Bibb
9.70
Field

None

Corn-High Accua/Stover
0.7S3
Field

None

Carrot/Boot
0.71
Field

None

Bar lay/Straw
0.70
Field

None

Bar ley/Straw
0.67
Field

None

Wheat/Straw
0.64
Field

None

Corn/Craln-tfigh Accun
0.626
Field

Sludge

Whaat/Straw
0.62
Field

None

Bar lay-Barsoy/St caw
0.62
Greenhouse/Soil
Pots
Sludge

Barley/Straw
0.61
Field

None

Alfalfa/Tops
0.60
Gceenhouse/Soi1
Pots
None

Corn-High Accun/Grain
0.368
Field

Sludge

Barley>Florid«/Seraw
0.56
Greenhouse/Sol1
Pots
Sludge

Cggplant/Frui t
0.S4
Field

None

Barley-Florida/Grain
0.51
Greenhouse/Soi1
Pots
Sludge

Tomato/Fruit
0.S2
Field

None

Barley-Flor ida/leaf
0 .51
Greenhouse/So i1
Pots
Sludge

Bat ley/Straw
0.51
Field

None

Wheat/Leaves
0 . 50
Gceenhouse/Soi1
Pots
No r e

Wheat/Straw
C. 50
Field

Nor.e

Haiard
Response
Soil Significant
oh	Level
Pefecence
20 % YR
7.4
Background
6.9
10 % YR
7.5
Background
7.4
1 % Yield Increase

(N.S.)
7.4
Background
4.6
Background
4.6
11 % Yield Increase

(N.S.)
7.4
11 1 Yield Increase
6.9
Background
7.4
Background
5.1
Background
6.3
19 % Yield Increase
7.1
Background
4.6
Background
4.7
Background
7.4
9.6 YR
7.1
Background
4.7
Background
4.7
Background
6.5
Background
6.3
Background
6.3
Background
7.4
Background
6.3
Background
6.5
Background
6.4
Background
7.2
24 1 YR
7.4
Background
6.5
4 1 YR (N.S.)
6.9
Background
5.7
Background
6.9
9 % Yield Increase

(N.S.;
7.4
2 % Yield Increase
6.9
Background
4.7
14 X Yield Increase
6.9
Background
4.7
14 1 Yield Increase
6.9
Background
7.2
Backoround
5.7
Background
6.4
•.•1	Hlnaaly at *1. (19871
9.01	Taylor and Mlinson (19(1)
NR	Bingham at al. (1976)
I.I]	Hinaaly et *1. (1981)
g.«S	Hlnaaly at al. (1982)
NR	Giordano at al. (1979)
>1	Glocdano at al. (1979)
a.8S	Hlnaaly at al. (1982)
•.II	Chang at al. (19B2)
•.IS	Hlnaaly at al. (1982)
NR	Giordano at al. (1979)
MR	Giordano at al. (1979)
8.81	Starratt at al. (1982)
NR	Giordano at al. (1979)
NR	Ciordano at al. (1979)
a.ai	Hlnaaly at al. (1982)
a.81	Starratt at al. (19S2)
MR	Giordano at al. (1979)
NR	Giordano at al. (1979)
8.IS	Singh (1981)
MR	Giordano at al. (1979)
MR	Ciordano at al. (1979)
8.91	Hlnetly at al. (1982)
NR	Giordano at al. (1979)
8.as	Oudas and Pawluk (1977)
8.as	Oudas and Pawluk (1977)
8.85	Dudaa and Pawluk (1977)
8.ai	Hlnaaly at al. (1982)
a.aS	Dudas and Pawluk (1977)
a.ai	Chang et al. (19821
8.as	Dudaa and Pawluk (1977)
8.81	Taylor and Allinson (1981
a.ai	Hinaaly at al. (1982)
a.ai	Chang at al. (1982)
NR	Giordano at al. (1979)
a.ai	Chang et al. (1982)
a.OS	Giordano at al. (1979)
'a.01	Chen? et al. (1982)
8.8S	Dudaa and Pawluk (1977)
8.OS	Mitchell et al. (1978)
0.05 Dudas and Pawluk (1977)
-------
Table 38. Phytotoxicity of cadmium in vegetation, continued.
T1ftlLt
C?nc«nc;i:ion Chemical Foe
Plant <:n»ut		ias.-)	Tjae of Inner imenc	Aooi led
Barley-Larker/Straw
0.12
Greenhouae/Soi1
Pots
Hone
Barlay-Larktr/Leaf
9.11
Greenhouae/Soi1
Pots
Sludge
Potato/Tuber
0.11
Field

Hone
8«zl«y-&irioy/Ltif
0.10
Greenhouse/So i1
Pots
Sludge
Sweet Corn/Seed
0.10
Field

None
Corn-Low Accuat/Cciin
0.109
Field

Slud9e
Hhest/Uivti
<0.1
Greenhouse/Soi1
Pots
Hone
Wheat/Grain
<0.1
Greenhouae/Soil
Pots
None
Corn-Low Accuo/Grain
0.09S
Field

Sludge
Corn-High Accun/Gtaio
0.090
Field

None
Barley-FlorIda/Leaf
0.09
Greenhouse/Soi1
Pots
Sludge
Barley-Florida/Grain
0.09
Greenhouse/Soil
Pots
Sludge
Corn-High Accua/Graio
0.064
Field

None
Mrl«y-Ltck«r/Lu(
0.00
Greenhouse/Soil
Pots
None
Wheat/Seed
0.072
Field

None

0.07
Field

None
Barley-Briggs/Straw
0.07
Greenhouse/Soi1
Pots
None
Barley/Seed
0.062
Field

None
Corn-Low Accun/Graio
<0.062
Field

Sludge
Corn-Low Xceua/Criin
<0.062
Field

Sludge
Coin-Low Accuo/Craio
<0.062
Field

Sludge
Corn-Low Accuo/Grain
<0.962
Field

Sludge
Corn-Low Accua/Graio
<0.062
Field

Sludge
Corn-Low Aecus^Grain
<0.062
Field

Sludge
Corn-Low Accua/Grein
<0.062
Field

None
wheat/Seed
0.061
Field

None
Barley-Florida/Straw
0.06
Greenhouse/Soi1
Pots
None
Oats/Seed
0.060
Field

None
Barley-Barsoy/5trav
0.06
Gceenhouse/Soi1
Pots
None
Barlay-Briggs/Grain
0.06
Greenhouse/Soi1
Pots
Sludge
Corn-Low Accun/Leaves
0.059
Field

None
Barley/Seed
o.ose
Field

None
Corn-High Acua/Grain
0.056
Field

None
Barley/Seed
0.OS2
Field

None
Wheat/Seed
0.051
Field

None
Barley-Barsoy/Leaf
0.05
Greenhouse/Soi1
Pots
None
Barley/Seed
0.044
Field

None
Bar ley/Seed
0.044
Field

None
Wheat/Kernel
0.043
Field

None
Oatt/Seed
0.041
Field

None
Barley/Seed
0.041
Field

None
Soil Significant
'eiaor.s-i	OH	Level	R.fotonce
Background
11 I Yield Increase
Background
4 » YR (N.S.)
- Background
IB % Yield Increase
Background
Background
7.9 I YR (N.S.)
Background
2 I Ylald Increase
2 % Yield Increase
Background
Background
Background
Background
Background
Background
38 I YR
24 I YR
C.4 t Yield Increase
(N.S.)
16.5 t Yield Increaae
(N.S.)
1.8 \ YR (N.S.)
6.1 I YR (N.S.)
Background
Background
Background
Background
Background
23 t YR (N.S.)
Background
Background
Background
Background
Background
Background
Background
Background
Background
Background
Background
«.01	Chang et al. (1982)
• .81	Chang et al. (1982)
NR	Giordano et al. (1979)
9.81	Chang et al. (1982)
NR	Giordano et al. (1979)
0.as	Hinesly et al. (1982)
0.«S	Mitchell et al. (1978)
7.S 8.85	Mitchell et al. (1978)
8.85	Hinesly et al. (1982)
8.91	Hlnesly et al. (1982)
8.81	Chang et al. (1982)
8.81	Chang et al. (1982)
8.81	Hlnesly et al. (1982)
8.81	Chang et al. (1982)
8.8S	Dudas and Pawluk (1977)
8.8S	Giordano et al. (1979)
8.ai	Chang et el. (1982)
8.as	Oudas and Pawluk (1977)
8.81	Hlnesly et al. (1982)
8.81	Hinesly et al. (1982)
8.8S	Hlnesly et al. (1982)
8.as	Hinesly et al. (1982)
8.8S	Hinesly et al. (1982)
8.as	Hinesly at al. (1982)
8.81	Hinesly et al. (1982)
a.8S	Dudas and Pawluk (1977)
8.81	Chang et al. (1982)
8.as	Dudas and Pawluk (1977)
8.81	Chang et al. (1982)
8.81	Chang et al. (1912)
8.81	Hinesly et al. (1982)
8.as	Dudas and Pawluk (1977)
B.ai	Hinesly et al. (1982)
8.8S	Dudas and Pawluk (1977)
8.8S	Dudas and Pawluk (1977)
a.81	Chang et al. (1982)
8.85	Dudas and Pawluk (1977)
8.as	Dudas and Pawluk (1977)
NR	Molnlk ec al. (1983)
8.85	Dudas and Pawluk .(1977)
8.as	Dudas and Pawluk (1977)
-------
Table 38. Phytotoicicity of cadmium in vegetation, continued.
7:
r?r.:»nt:.i::or.	Chemical foca	So;l Significant
?.8r.t/Tntm	(oo—^	Tvae of Exoet I'^cut	Aasl icd	^tsaonv^	OH	Level	Rcftctnct
Bat)ey-florIda/Grain
9.e«
Greenhouse/Sol1
Pots
None
Background
(.0 0.01
Chang et al. (1902)
Bar ley*Larher/Grain
9.04
Greenhouse/SoiI
Pots
None
Background
6.0 0.01
Chang et al. (1962)
B«rl»y-Bri99c/Ua/
<0.0<
Cceenhou&e/SoiI
Pots
Slud9<
23 1 YR tH.S.)
6.0 0.01
Chang et al. 119921
Barl»y-rioridi/L«if
<0.04
Cceenhouse/SoiI
Pots
None
Background
6.9 0.01
Chang et al. (19021
Bar«ey-Brl99s/Leaf
<0.94
Gceenhouse/Soi1
Pots
None
Background
6.9 0.91
Chang et el. (19021
Barley-8arsoy/Grain
<9.94
Greenhouse/Soi1
Pots
None
Background
6.0 0.01
Chang et al. (19021
Barley-Brigga/Grain
<0.94
Greenhouse/5oi1
Pots
None
Background
6.0 0.01
Chang et al. (1902)
Barley/Seed
0.0)9
field

None
Background
7.2 0.05
Dudst and Pawink (1977)
Wheat/Seed
0.039
Field

Hone
Background
7.2 0.0S
Oudas and Paviuk (19771
Barley/Seed
0.039
rield

Hone
Background
6.4 9.05
Dudes and Vavlult 119771
Wheat/Seed
0.030
Field

None
Background
6.4 0.0S
Dudas and Pivluk (I97lj
Barley/Seed
0.015
Field

None
Background
6.5 0.05
Dadas and Paviuk (19771
Sliver Sage Brush
0.03
field

None
Background
6.2-6.2 MR
Sevecson et al. (1977)
Western Wheatgrass/Tops
0.03
field

None
Background
6.2-8.2 MR
Severson et el. (1977)
Wheat/Seed
0.030
Pie Ld

None
Background
6.9 0.05
Dudes and Paviuk (1977)
O
00
-------
of cadmium that may enter the food chain at either 100 or 50 ppm
total soil cadmium concentration.
The total soil cadmium tolerable concentration of 4 ppm was
selected for the Helena Valley based on the generally small or
nonsignificant yield reductions reported below this level,
compared to the higher yield reductions (up to 46.8% for corn
shoots) noted at the 5 ppm total soil cadmium level.
3.2.2.2 Extractable soil cadmium
The DTPA extractable soil cadmium phytotoxic and tolerable
concentrations selected for the Helena Valley were 30 and 2 ppm,
respectively (Table 37). All extractable cadmium concentrations,
found in the reviewed literature, that were in excess of 30 ppm
were phytotoxic. The hazard level was based on the 25 percent
yield reductions that were noted for wheat grain, and white clover
at concentrations of 30 and 29 ppm, respectively (Bingham et al.
1975). Numerous occurrences of phytotoxicity were noted for a
number of species in the 4.8 to 30 ppm extractable cadmium range
(Table 37). Of particular interest were the 22 and 25 percent
yield reductions for alfalfa and wheat grain at extractable soil
cadmium levels of 22 and 23 ppm respectively (Bingham et al. 1976,
Mitchell et al. 1978). Extractable soil cadmium concentrations
between 2 and 4.8 ppm were associated with both yield increases
and yield decreases. Concentrations less than the suggested 2 ppm
tolerable level were not generally significantly phytotoxic except
under specific experimental conditions (Table 37).
3.2.3 Cadmium in plants
The phytotoxic concentration of cadmium in plant tissues (50
ppm) selected for the Helena Valley was based on the literature in
which most concentrations greater than 50 ppm were associated with
phytotoxicity. The only exceptions were slight yield increases
noted for lettuce and alfalfa at levels of 51.1 and 57.6 ppm,
respectively (Table 38). Large yield reductions in ryegrass and
wheat grain (50 and 42 percent, respectively) were reported at
tissue cadmium levels at or near 40 ppm, (Dijkshoorn et al. 1979,
i no
-------
Mitchell et al. 1978) and very large yield reductions for field
beans, peas, carrots and wheat grain were noted in the 27 to 40
ppm range (Table 38). Davis et al. (1978) found barley shoot
cadmium concentrations of 14 to 16 ppm to be phytotoxic. These
authors noted that 15 ppm cadmium in barley shoots was associated
with 10 percent yield reduction. It is clear that the 50 ppm
phytotoxic hazard level for cadmium concentrations in plant tissue
will be associated with phytotdxicity in nearly all cases and that
phytotoxicity may occur in many species at notably lower concen-
trations. All of the above cadmium concentrations far exceed
recommended levels for forage and will likely increase the
probability of high levels of cadmium entering the food chain.
A tolerable plant tissue cadmium level of 10 ppm was sug-
gested based on the generally low yield reductions that were noted
in the literature below this concentration (Table 38). The
alfalfa study of Taylor and Allinson (1981) was of particular
importance in that these authors reported several cases of
increased production up to the 10 ppm cadmium concentration in
alfalfa tops. Againr the 10 ppm tolerable level selected for the
Helena Valley will allow much higher cadmium concentrations in
forages than the maximum recommended level (0.5 ppm) (NRC 1980).
3.3 Lead in soils and plants
3.3.1 Lead literature review
Mean values for total lead concentration in soil range from
10 to 67 ppm, while common levels in plants range from 0.5 to 4
ppm (Kabata-Pendias and Pendias 1984). Meyer et al. (1982) found
that background soil lead levels ranged from 3 to 23 ppm (mean of
12 ppm) for 290 locations in the United States. In urban areas
soil lead values may be considerably higher due to contamination
from automobile exhaust and industrial activity. Lead is not an
essential plant element, and is apparently taken up passively from
the soil. While plant toxicity to lead has been noted, it is
extremely rare even when excessive amounts of lead are added to
the soil (Cannon 1976). This is because lead is one of the least
110
-------
mobile of the heavy metals, resulting in generally low lead levels
in the soil solution and minimal plant uptake. Chumbley and Unwin
(1982) determined that there was no significant correlation
between total soil lead and plant lead levels. The low mobility of
lead is governed primarily by soil pH, texture, cation exchange
capacity and organic matter content (Zimdahl and Arvik 1973,
Pepper et al. 1983).
Little specific research has been directed toward the deter-
mination of plant and soil lead toxicity levels. Rather, concern
has centered around the introduction of lead into the human food
chain from plants (either from lead taken up from the soil or from
aerially deposited lead on plant surfaces), or from ingestion of
lead that is in soil or dust. Tables 39, 40 and 41 summarize the
limited number of studies where the phytotoxic concentration of
lead in soil and plant tissue has been documented.
3.3.2 Lead in soils
3.3.2.1 Total lead in soils
The suggested total soil lead hazard concentration for the
Helena Valley is 1000 ppm. Phytotoxic levels of total soil lead
were reported by many authors (Table 39). Values ranged from 100
ppm to 1000 ppm. It must be noted that considerable crop damage
may occur to sensitive crops or other crops grown in soils with
higher available lead content (i.e. lower pH) at levels considera-
bly lower than the selected hazard level (Table 39). The above
problem was exemplified in the following reviewed literature.
McLean et al. (1969) noted significant reductions in alfalfa
yields at total soil lead levels of 100 to 1000 ppm in soils with
a pH range of 4.9 to 5.7. These authors reported nonsignificant
yield reductions at 1000 ppm total soil lead at a pH of 6.3 and no
yield reductions at a pH of 7.5. Similar results were reported by
these authors for oats: the only significant yield reduction
occurred at 1000 ppm total lead at a pH of 5.2. John and VanLaer-
hoven (1972) found, a 30 percent yield reduction in lettuce but no
effect to oat yield at a total soil lead level of 1000 ppm and a
111
-------
Table 39. Phytotoxlclty of total lead In soils.
Soil Tvpe
soTT
Concent rat ion
tppgQ	
iruoMi Silt Loan
Ijorth silty Clay Loan
Ijorth Silty Clay Loan
Ijoith Silty Clay Loam
Ijorth Silty Clay Loam
fjortb Silty Clay Loan
Ijorth Silty Clay Loam
folo Lot*
folo Loan
folo Loan
rolo Loan
>ytcbl«ys Brown Earth
lee Id park Brown Earth
*eaId park Brown Earth
feald Park Brown Earth
(•aid Park Brown Earth
'ytehleya Brown tartn
leaId park Brown Earth
fee Id park Brown Earth
Paiton Fine Sandy Loan
>«iton Tine Sandy Loan
lernmac Fine Sandy Loan
Gaston Pine Sandy Loam
Uooafield Loamy Sand
1490 ICalc)
1990
1900
1000
1000
1999
1990
1990
1900
1990
1999
1999
1999
1000
1099
1999
1999
S99
S90
S99
499
490
499
250
250
250
259
250

Chenical
Soil
Form
PH
Aoolied
5.9
Pb Acetate
3.8
PbCl 2
3.8
Pb(NOj)2
3.8
PbCO)
3.8
PbCl2
3.8
Pb(N03)2
3.8
pbCO}
4.9
Pb(MO3)2
6.0
Pb(NO3)2
7.8
Pb(MOj)2
8.5
pb(MO3)2
MR
PbCl 2
NR
pbO
NR
pbC<>3
NR
PbS04
NR
PbCl 2
NR
PbCl2/PbO
NR
PbCl 2
NR
PbCl 2
MR
pbCl2/P*>0
Tvoe
of Ewoetjwent
Plant Species/
part .
Hazard
Response
Significance
Level
Reference
4.5-6.4	Pb(MOj)j
4.5-6.4 PbtN0j)2
6.9	Pb(NO3)2
6.9	Pb(NO3)2
6.9	PbCl2
Field
Greenhouse/Soi1
Greenhoose/Soil
Greenhouse/Soi1
Greenhouse/Soi1
Gr eenhouse/So i1
Greenhouse/Soil
Greenhouse/Soi1
Greenhouse/Soil
Greenhouse/Soi1
Greenhouse/Soi1
Greenhouse/Soil
Greenhouse/Soil
Greenhouse/Soil
Greenhouse/Soi1
Greenhouse/Soi1
Greenhouse/Soi1
Greenhouse/Soi1
Greenhouse/Soi1
Greenhouse/Soi1
Pots
Pots
Pots
Pots
pots
pots
pots
pots
pots
pots
Pots
Pots
pots
pots
Pots
Pots
pots
pots
Pots
Greenhouse/Soil	Pots
Greenhouse/Soi1	Pots
Greenhouse/Soil	pots
Greenhouse/Soil	pots
Greenhouse/Soi1	Pots
Corn/Stover-Grain
Lettuce/Leaf
Lettuce/Leaf
Lettuce/Leaf
Oats/Tops
Oats/Tops
Oats/Tops
Barley/Tops
Bat Ley/Tops
Barley/Tops
Barley/Tops
Oats/Roots
Wheat/Roots
Wheat/Roots
Wheat/Roots
Wheat Roots
Radi sh/Roots
Oat/Roots
Wheat/Roots
Radish/Roots
Oats
Lettuce
Clover
Ryegrass/Tops
Oats/Seed
Alfalfa/Tops
Alfalfa/Tops
Corn/Shoots
No Effect
35.5 % TR
25.9 I TR
17.1 % TR
no Effect
Mo Effect
Mo Effect
33.3 I TR
17.3 % TR
1.9 I TR (M.S.)
MO Effect
42.9 % TR
6.7 I TR (M.S.)
12.9 % TR
7.4 « TR (M.S.)
33.7	% TR
19.8	% TR
36.g % TR
14 .8 % TR
4.6	% TR (N.S,)
NO TR
NO TR
NO TR
No TR
NO TR
17.9	t TR (N.S.)
6.7	I TR (N.S.)
41.7 % TR
NR
9.95
9.95
9.9S
9.95
9.9S
9.95
9.05
0.95
0.95
0.95
0.01
9.95
9.95
9.95
9.91
9.91
9.91
9.91
0.0$
9.91
9.91
9.91
0.91
9.91
Baunhardt and Welch (1972)
John and Van Laerhoven (1972)
John and Van Laerhoven (1972)
John and Van Laerhoven (1972)
John and van Laerhoven (1972)
John and Van Laerhoven (1972)
John and Van Laerhoven (19721
patel et al. (1977)
patel et el. (1977)
Patel et al. (1977)
Patel et al. (1977)
Khan and Frankland (1994)
Khan and Frankland (1964)
Khan and Frankland (1984)
Khan and Frankland (1984)
Khan and Frankland (1984)
Khan and Frankland (1984)
Khan and Frankland (1984)
Khan and Frankland (1984)
Khan and Frankland (1984)
Pruves (1977)
pruves (1977)
Pruves (1977)
Allinmon and Dtiaco <1981)
Allinton and Dxiaco (1981)
Taylor and Allinson (1981)
Taylor and Allinson (1981)
nillec et al. (1977)
-------
Table 39. Phytotoxicity of total lead In soils, continued.
Soil
Concentxat ion
Soi 1
OH
Chemical
Form
AddIied
iht Textured
star Silt Loaa
rater Silt Loaa
ister Silt Loaa
later Silt Loaa
igo Silt
iht Textured
)ht Textured
214
212
212
212
212
186
176
156
5.-8.1
S. 2
7.2
S. 2
7.2
5.6
5.-8.1
5.-8.1
Sludge
PbCl 2
PbCl 2
PbCl 2
PbCl 2
Sludge
Sludge
Sludge
)ht Textured
155
5.-8.1
Sludge
»oafield Loaay Sand
)ht Textured
later Silt Loaa
aster Silt Loaa
aster Silt Loaa
bow Loaa
125
117
113
113
113
109
6.0
5.-8.1
5.2
7.2
5.2-7.2
7.7
PbCl 2
Sludge
PbCl j
PbCl 2
PbCl2 .
PbCl 2
bow Loaa
itville Loaa
109
108
7.7
6.3
PbCl 2
PbCl 2
quith Fine Sandy Loaa
106
6.6
PbCl 2
quith Fine Sandy Loaa
106
6.6
PbCl3
tchleys Brown Earth
100
NR
PbCl 2
irface Soils fl-10 cm
15
NR
None
rface Soils 0-10 cm
11.6
8.0
None
bow Loan
i itville Loaa
squith Fine Sandy Loan
9
8
6
7.7
6.3
6.6
None
Nora
None
Type of Experiaent
Plant Species/
Part	
Hazard
Response
Significance
Level	
Reference
Field
Greenhouse/Soi1 Pota
Greenhouse/Soil Pots
Greenhouee/Soi1 Pota
Creenhouae/Soil Pota
Field
Field
Field
Field
Greenhouse/Soil
Field
Greenhouse/Soi1
Greenhouse/Soil
Greenbouse/Soi1
Creenhouae/Soi1
Greenhouse/Soil
Greenhouse/Soi1
Greenhouae/Soil
Gieenhouae/Soi1
Creenhouae/Soil
Field
Field
Field
Field
Field
Pete
Pota
Pota
Pota
Pota
Pota
Pota
pota
pota
Pota
Spring Greens
Corn/Tops
Alfalf a/Topa
Alfal{a/Tope
Alfalfa/Tops
Corn/Grain
Potato (Tuber)
Sweet Corn
(Edible POR)
Lettuce
(Sdible POR)
Corn/Shoots
Cabba9e
Corn/Tope
Corn/Tops
Alfalfa/Tope
Bioeegraas/Topi
Alfalfa/Tops
AlCelfa/Tops
Alfalfa/Tops
Btoaegrasa/Topa
Oats/Roots
NR
Range/Forage
NR
MR
nr
Satisfactory Yields
2.1 % YR (M.S.)
12.1 I YR 
-------
Table l«0. Phytotoxicity of extractable lead In soils.
Soil Type
SCI 1
oncentrat >on
ipptO	
—Che»»ca
For®
Apoli»d
wpia^di SAnti 15-35 C""i
.:plA*o*
Uplands Sand 15-30 ca
Crenvitte Sandy Loa»
Ctenwille Sandy Loan
Grenville Sandy Loia
Uplands Sand 0-15 oa
Upland* Sand 1-lS c*
Uplands Sand 9-15 cm
Chtitat Silt (.eaa
Chester Silt Lo ton NOP
n - HOT » IOPl WCP
m«h in«f Film Sandy (,o«*
C - hOI t JOT "C1*
A - Her i ron v.C?
C -	up" lie," 	 _
367
3*7
3(7
356
356
356
213
203
203
212
212
212
212
212
212
2X2
212
124
124
124
4.2
2.
1.09
1.4
1.
0.4
3.5
?. 3
0.1
P . 1
5.2
5.2
5.2
7.4
7.4
7.4
4.9
4.9
4.9
5.2
9.2
9.1
PbC I 2
PbCl 2
PbCl 2
PbCl 2
PbCl 2
pbClj
PbC 1 j
PbCl 2
PbC I 2
PbCl}
PbCl 2
PbCl)
7.1
tbClj
7.2
PbClj
5.1
PbC 12
7.2
PbCl 7
5.0
PbC 12
S.0
PbCl2
5.1
PbC I j
6.1
PbC 1 2
5.2-5.1
PbCl 2
5.2-5.7
PbC 12
6.1
Mone
6.2-0*2
tcone
0.9
none
7.6
None
7.0-0.9
Note
6.2-0.2
None
6.9
tione
7.P-9.9
None
6.2-8.2
None
7.3-0.9
Ncie
Greenhouse/Sot . -*.">ts
Gieenhouse/SoiI Pcrs
Gr*I Pots
Greenhouse/SoiI Pot•
Cceenhouse/SoiI Pots
Ccunhoutt/Soil Pots
G(«*nhoui«/Sei1 Pots
Greenhouse/Soil Pots
Greenhouse/Sol1 Pots
Cr*enhouse/Soi1 Pot*
Grtanbooii/Soil Pots
Creenhoose/Soi1 Pots
Cf«*nhoui#/S9i1 Pot*
Crtanhouif/Stfl1 Pots
Cr««nhouM/{0il Pots
CK««nboust/tAil Pots
Creenhoose/SoiI Pots
C(««nhoust/Soil Pots
Gceenhouae/Soi1 Pots
Greenhouse/Soi1 Pots
Greenhoose/SQi1 Pots
Greenhouse/Soil Pocs
Piald
fie Id
Cceenhouse/Soi1 Pots
Field
Field
Creenhoute/Soii Pots
Field
Field
Field	
s'GtA 1r
Cats 'Shaw
'fop*
«~a;s/Gta 1 n
Cats/Strew
Al fa i fa/Tops
Qats/Grain
Oats/Straw
A)!alf«/Tops
Corn/Tassel
Corn/Leaves
Corn/Stalks
Coin/Tassel
Corn/Leaves
Corn/Stalks
Alfalfs/Tops
Alfalfa/Tops
Oats/Grain
Oats/Strav
A!talfa/tops
Oat/Straw and C«ift
Alfelfa/Tops
Alfa)(a/Tops
Cats/Straw and Gtaia
Oats - Alfalfa
*.ati.c veuetaticr
forage/Range
Oats - Alfalfa
\ati .e Vegetation
seti-J* vogetattor
VI i* i! a
\4tt '« ve.'et.iti'jf!
:."a11.« ve :¦»-.»* is-
ug :.c Viy:?tjt:c*
« Xvcthera Gteat Plains
Massed
S inn 1 ficance
	Level
Rtt^tcncp
Yield
13.1 % rft
71 4 * «t»
Yield Increase
yield !ncre*»e
Mo Effect
Yield Increase
1.1 % TR
42.1 \
yield increase
Yield Increase
12.9 t r» (w.s.j
Yield increase
do Effect
12.1 % VP (N.C.I
2.9 % YR (M.S.)
Yield increase
Yield increase
j.a % 1*
yield increase
Yield Increase
no effect
9,1 % Yield Incte
to 4.1 « YR
Background
Background
Background
Background
Background
Background
Background
Background
Background
Background
'."v-c
IN NM4OAC
J
IN UH4OA;
IN MM4OAC
IN MH4OAC
IN MM4OAC
IN \H|O^C
* *,
IN HCl
IK HCl
IK HCl
IN HCl
IN HCl
IN HCl
IN HCl
IN HCl
IN MM4OAC
IN NH4OAC
IN NH4OAC
IN NH4OAC
IN MM4OAC
ise
IN KM4OAC
IN NH4OAC
CDTA
OTPA
IN NH4OAC
CDTA
OTPA
NH4OAC
OTPA
NH4OAC
NHaOAC
•>
"acl>on it at .
f 1 **>**>
l.P
rartoAn ct al.

I.J'
11 A1.
11*6*'
UP
racLaan et al .
(1569)
Kt>
nacLean *t al.
(1969)
NR
necLean et al.
(19691-
NR
rtacLean et al.
(19691
Kfi
"acLean et al .
C«69l
•4 a
nacLean et al.
(19691
9.95
Legerverff et
al. (1973)
0.05
U^eivstlf et
el. (19711
9.95
Legerwerff et
al. (1973)
9.95
Lagerwerff et
al. (19731
9.95
Lagerwoiff et
al. 11973)
9.95
Lagerwerff et
al. (1971)
9.95
Lagei«#eiff et
al. (1973)
9.95
Lagerwerff et
al. 11971)
MR
rtacLean et al
. (19691
NR
rucLean et al
. (19691
MR
nacLean et al
. (1969)
NR
McLean et el
. 11969)
MR
nacLean et al
. (19691
¦B
necLeen et al
. (1969)
¦1
ReeLeen et el
. (1969)
MR
tevereon et al. <1977»
w	tfA (IMt)
II	HMUaa et el. (It€9)
NK	Mvtrsos et el. 1197?»
n	fewersoo tt el. (19171
NB	Taylor and Allinson (1901)
NR	Sever son et al. (19771
NR	Severson et al. (19771
NR	Severson et al. <1977)
-------
Table 41. Phytotoxicity of lead In vegetation.
Concentration
Type of

Chemical Form
Hazard
Signii1
Plant/T k ssue
(ODA)
Exoerlmenc

Apolies
Response
Leve
Alfa 1 fa/Tops
357.8
Creenhousa/Soi1
Pots
PbCl 2
57.7 % YR
Proa 0.
Oat/Straw
202
Greenhouse/Soi1
Pots
PbCl?
No Effect
Prob 9.
Corn/Middle Leaves
148
Greenhouse/Soi1
Pots
PbCl 2
NO Si9 YR
0.95
Corn/Middle Leaves '
141
Greenhouse/Soi1
Pots
PbCl2
No Sig YR
9.05
Lettuce/Leaves
140.6
Greenhouse/Soil
Pots
Pb(N03)2
25 t YR
9.95
Lettuce/Leaves
138.9
Greenhouse/Soi1
Pots
PbCl 2
36 1 YR
9.05
Lettuce/Leaves
126.0
Greenhouse/Soi1
Pots
PbC03
17 1 YR
9.05
Alfalfa/Tops
6S.0
Greenhouse/Soil
Pots
Pb(NO3)2
No Effect
9.01
Alfalfa/Tops
57.5
Greenhouse/Soi1
Pots
PbSOj
37 % YR
9.01
Alfalfa/Tops
56.8
Greenhouse/Soi1
Pots
PbS04
10 1 YR
9.01
Alfalfa
54 .8
Greenhouse/So iI
Pots
PbCl 2
No Effect
NR
Lettuce/Leaves
50.9
Greenhouse/Soil
Pots
Hone
Background
MA
Alfalfa/Tops
45.2
Greenhouse/Soi1
Pots
PbCl 2
15 1 YR

Corn/Tops
37.8
Field

Pb Acetate
No Effect
9.01
Oat/Tops
37 .1
Greenhouse/Soi1
Pots
PbCl 2
No Effect
9.95
Oat/Tops
35.7
Greenhouse/Soi1
Pots
Pb(NO})j
No Effect
9.0S
Barley Seedlings
35.
Greenhouse/Sand
Culture
Pb(NO})2
10 1 YR
9.95
Oat/Tops
28.6
Greenhouse/Soi1
Pots
PbCOj
No Effect
9.95
Bar ley Seed 1ings/Tops
25
Greenhouse/Sar.d
Culture
Pb(NO3)2
Onset of Growth Reduction

Oat/Grain
23. 1
Greenhouse/Soi1
Pots
PbCl 2
No Sig YR

Oat/Roots
20.3
Greenhouse/Soi 1
Pots

Background

Alfalfa
14-17. 1
Greenhouse/Soi1
Pots
PbCl 2
No Effect
9.05
Alfalfa/Tops
11.8
Greenhouse/Soi1
Pots
PbCl 2
No Sig YR
Alfalfa/Tops
10.8
Greenhouse/Soi!
Pots
PbCl 2
25 % YR

Alfalfa/Tops
a. 1
Greenhouse/Soi2
Pots
PbCl 2
No Sig YR

Oat/Tops
4 .4
Greenhouse/Soi1
Pots


Silver Sagebrush
1.1
Field

None
Background

Western Whcatfjrass
.63
Field

None
Background

Ccrn/Gra in
0.5
Field
Pb
Acetate 3200 kq/ha
NO Siq YR
9.91
Reference
HacLean ec al. (1969)
MacLean et al. (1969)
Lagerwerff et al. (1973)
Lagerwerff et al. (1973)
John and VanLaerhoven (1972)
John and VanLaerhoven (1972)
John and VanLaerhoven (1972)
Taylor and Allinson (1981)
Taylor and Allinson (1981)
Taylor and Allinson (1981)
HacLean et al. (1969)
John and VanLaerhoven (1972)
HacLean et al. (1969)
Baumhardt and Welch (1972)
John and VanLaerhoven (1972)
John and VanLaerhoven (1972)
Davis et al. 11:978)
John and VanLaerhoven (1972)
Davis et al. (1976}
HacLean et al. (1969)
John and VanLaerhoven (1972)
Lagerwerff et al. (1973)
Karamanos et al. (1976)
Karamanos et al. (1976)
Karamanos et al. (1976)
John and VanLaerhoven (1972)
Sevetson et al. (1977)
Severson et al (1977)
Baumhardt and Welch (1972)
-------
pH of 3.8. Total soil lead levels in the range of 250 ppm to 400
ppm had no effect on alfalfa, clover, oats, ryegrass and lettuce
(Allinson and Dzialo 1981, Pruves 1977, Taylor and Allinson 1981).
Miller et al. (1977) reported the stunting of corn seedlings grown
in a silty clay loam with a pH of 6.0 at a total lead level of 125
ppm. The reason for the phytotoxicity of this anomalously low
value was not resolved although this study was designed to
evaluate the interaction of lead on the uptake of cadmium. Yields
of barley grown in loam soil containing 1000 ppm total lead and a
pH range of 4.0 to 8.5 were significantly reduced at pH values of
4.0 and 6.0 and not affected at pH values of 7.8 and 8.5 (Patel et
al. 1977).
The above discussion suggests the 1000 ppm total soil lead
level is a level at which significant yield reductions may occur
in alfalfa, barley and oats in soils with pH values £6.0. It is
also the level at which a 30 percent yield reduction has been
observed in lettuce. The lead content of some vegetation growing
on a soil containing 1000 ppm total lead may exceed the 30 ppm
maximum recommended forage limit (NRC 1980). by a considerable
amount without any apparent toxicity to the plant (John and
VanLaerhoven 1972, Patel et al. 1977).
A tolerable plant lead level of 250 ppm is based on the
observed "no effect" to alfalfa, oats and ryegrass at this level
(Allinson and Dzials 1981, Taylor and Allinson 1979). With the
exception of one publication (Miller et al. 1977) which reported
the stunting of corn seedlings at 125 ppm total soil lead, no
phytotoxicity was noted in the reviewed literature for total soil
lead values less than 250 ppm.
3.3.2.2 Extractable soil lead
Extractable soil lead data were relatively less abundant in
the literature than were data for total soil lead (Table 40). All
elevated extractable soil lead data were derived from the publica-
tions of MacLean et al. (1969) and Lagerwerff et al. (1973). The
500 ppm hazard level concentration has been estimated based on the
mixed experimental results at 367 ppm IN NH4OAC extractable soil
-------
lead (MacLean et al. 1969). These authors noted a 71.4 percent
reduction in alfalfa yield at this level but stated that the
observed yield reduction may have been due to excess chloride
rather than high lead in the soil pots. MacLean et al. (1969)
reported IN NH4OAC extractable soil lead levels were in accord
with concentrations found in plants which suggested extractable
soil lead concentrations reflected soil characteristics. The 200
ppm tolerable extractable lead level has been selected based on
data reported by Lagerwerff et al. (1973) who found no significant
yield reductions for corn and alfalfa at a concentration of 212
ppm IN HC1 extractable soil lead. Only one occurrence of a yield
reduction was noted at levels less than 200 ppm extractable soil
lead (3.8 percent for alfalfa at a concentration of 124 ppm IN
NH4OAC extractable soil lead (Table 40).
3.3.3 Lead in plants
There is a wide range of values, 4 to 300 ppm, reported for
the phytotoxic level of lead in plant tissues (Table 41). Plant
tissues vary considerably in their tendency to accumulate lead.
High lead levels were observed in the roots of many plants.
Alloway (1968) noted 500 ppm lead in the roots of apparently
healthy radish plants, and Keaton (1937) reported 808 ppm lead in
the roots of barley plants which contained only 3.08 ppm lead in
plant tops. Alfalfa plants, grown in pots with 1000 ppm total
soil lead and amended with lime and phosphate, were shown to
accumulate up to 730 ppm in plant top tissue without apparent
phytotoxicity (MacLean et al. 1969). Taylor and Allinson (1981)
noted 65 ppm lead in alfalfa plant tissues without yield reduc-
tions. Davis et al. (1978) found the critical level (10 percent
yield reduction) of lead in barley shoots was 35 ppm. The
tolerable level of 25 ppm lead in vegetative tissue was selected
based on two factors: 1) it was within the range which Davis et
al. (1978) noted the "onset of growth reduction" in barley
seedlings (20 to 35 ppm) and 2) it was below the 35 ppm concentra-
tion these authors found to be associated with a 10 percent yield
reduction.
117
-------
3.4 Zinc in soils and plants
3.4.1	Zinc literature review
Zinc is an essential plant nutrient normally present in soils
at a concentration of 10 to 300 ppm and averages 54 ppm in U.S.
soils (Connor and Shacklette 1975). Typical levels in vegetation
range from 25 to 150 ppm (dry wt.). Most research concerning zinc
in soils and plants has examined the phenomenom of zinc defi-
ciency. Zinc toxicity is rare, usually only occurring in contami-
nated areas or in extremely acid soils. High levels of soil
calcium and phosphorus, and alkaline soil conditions reduce zinc
availability to plants, lowering the risk of plant toxicity even
in zinc-contaminated soils (Kabata-Pendias and Pendias 1984).
Plant uptake of zinc is also influenced by the organic matter
content of the soil, presence of chelating compounds, and overall
soil fertility (Shuman 1980). Plant species vary widely in their
tolerance to zinc which further complicates efforts to determine
specific levels of phytotoxicity (Taylor et al. 1982). Studies
examining the relationship between zinc concentrations in soil and
plant tissue with zinc phytotoxicity are summarized in Tables 42,
43 and 44.
3.4.2	Zinc in soils
3.4.2.1 Total zinc in soils
Total soil zinc concentrations in excess of 600 ppm were
generally associated with yield reductions greater than 25 percent
in most crop species (Table 42). The only exception found in the
reviewed literature was the sludge study by Hinesly et al. (1982)
which noted no yield reductions for corn at a total soil zinc
concentration of 606 ppm. The application of sludge study results
should be used with extreme caution due to the ameliorating effect
of sludge. Yield reductions in the 500 to 600 ppm total soil zinc
range were between 8 percent found for peas and potatoes (Boawn
and Rasmussen 1971) and 72 percent found for soybeans (White and
118
-------
Table 42. Phytotoxlclty
of total zinc in
so i1s.
soTI
Concentration
Chemical
Form
Applied
Soil Type
Soil
P"
Type of Eipti—ot
Hartsells Fin* Sandy Loan
Hartsells Fin* Sandy Loan
Hartsells Fin* Sandy Uac
Hactulls Fin* Sandy Lota
Ooamo Silt Loaa
Doaioo Silt Loaa
Redding Fln« Sandy Loaa
Bedding Fine Sandy Loaa
Blount Silt Loaa
Blount Silt Loaa
Reddiog Fine Sandy Loaa
Sassafcae Silt Loaa
Pocoaoke Silt Loaa
Shano Silt Loaa 15-30 cm
Shaoo Silt Loaa 15-30 ca
Shano Silt Loaa 15-30 ca
Shaoo Silt Loaa 15-30 ca
Shaoo Silt Loaa 15-30 cm
Jr.ano Silt Loam 15-30 cm
Shano silt Loan 15-30 en
Sassafras Silt Loaa
pocoaoke Silt Loam
Doaioo Silt Loaa
Doaioo Silt Loaa
Redding Fin* Sandy Loaa
Redding Fine Sandy Loaa
Lakelaod Sand
Shano Silt
Shano Silt
Sassafras
Pocoaoke S
Hartsells
Hartsells
Hartsells
Hansel Is
hartseils
Shane Silt
Shano Silt
Loaa IS-30 cm
Loaa 15-30 ca
Silt Loaa
ilt Loam
Fine Sandy Loan
Pine Sandy Loan
Fine Sandy Loam
Pine Sandy Loam
Fine Sand/ Loam
Loam 15-30 en
Loan 15-30 ca
960
960
960
960
660
660
660
660
606
606
S8f
524
524
>500
>500
>500
500
500
400
400
393
393
340
340
340
340
300
300
300
262
262
240
240
24 0
240
240
200
200
5.5
6.0
6.5
7.0
7.5
7.5
5.7
5.7
7.4
7.4
5.7
6.3
6.3
7.0
7.0
7.0
7.0
7.0
7.1
7.1
6.3
6.3
7.5
7.5
5.7
5.7
MR
7.3
7.3
6.3
6.3
5.9
5.5
6.0
6.5
7.0
7.5
7.5
ZnSO<
ZnS04
SnS04
ZnSOj
lnSO^/Slud^e
ZnSC^/Sludge
ZnSOt/Sludge
ZnS04/81udga
Sludg*
Sludge
Sludge/XnSOj
ZnSOj 7H20
ZnSOj 7H2<>
Xn(W03)2 bHjO
Zn(MOj)2 6H20
Zn(HO3)2 6H20
Zn(MO3)2 6h2°
Zn(NO3)2 6HjO
Zr» (NO3) 2 6HjO
Z n(NO 3)2 6H2O
ZnSO| 7H20
ZnSO| 7H20
ZnSOj/Sludge
ZnSOj/Sludge
ZnSOj/Sludge
ZnSOj/Sludge
ZnS04
ZMNO3)2 6h2°
Zn3)2 6H2O
ZnS04 7H2O
ZnS04 7H20
Sludge
ZnSO;
ZnS04
ZnS04
2nSO<
Zn
-------
Table U2. PhytotoxicIty of total zinc in soils, continued.

So; I


Chemical



Concentration
Soi 1

Form


Plant Species/
Soil Tvoe
(DOffl)
PH

Applied
Tvoe of tioeriment
Par:
Sassafras Silt Loam
196
5.5

ZnS04 7H20
Greenhouse/Soil
Pott
Soybeans/Leaf
Sassafras Silt Loan
196
6.3

ZnS04 7H20
Greenhouse/Soi1
Pots
Soybeans/Leaf
Pocomoke Silt Loan
196
5.5

ZnS04 7H20
Greenhouse/So i1
Pots
Soybeans/Leaf
Pocomoke Silt Loan
196
6.3

ZnS04 7H2<>
tnS04/Sludge
Greenhouse/So i1
Pots
Soybeans/Leaf
Domino Silt Loam
189
7.5

Greenhouse/Soi1
Pots
Wheat/Grain
Domino Silt Loan
189
7.5

ZnS04/Sludge
Creenhouse/Soi1
Pots
Lettuce/tops
Redding Pine Sandy Loam
189
5.7

znSOj/Sludge
Greenhouse/Soi1
Pots
Wheat/Grain
Redding Fine Sandy Loam
189
5.7

XnS04/Sludge
Greenhouse/Soi1
Pots
Lettuce/Tops
Sassafras Silt Loam
131
5.5

ZnS04 7h20
Greenhouse/Soi1
Pots
Soybeans/Leaf
Sassafras Silt Loam
131
6.3

ZnS04 7H20
Greenhouse/Soil
Pots
Soybeans/Leaf
Pocomoke Silt Loan
131
5.5

ZnS04 7HjO
Greenhouse/Soil
Pots
Soybeans/Leaf
Pocomoke Silt Loam
131
6.3

ZnS04 7H20
Greenhouse/Soi1
Pots
Soybeans/Leaf
Redding Fine Sandy Loam
139
5.7

Sludge/ZnS04
Creenhouse/Soi1
Pots
Lettuce/Shoots
Domino Silt Loam
199
7.5

ZnS04/sludge
Greenhouse/Soi1
Pots
Wheat/Grain
Domino Silt Loam
199
7.5

ZnS04/Sludge
Greenhouse/So i1
Pots
Lettuce/Tops
Redding Fine Sandy Loam
199
5.7

ZnS04/Sludge
Greenhouse/So i1
Pots
Wheat/Grain
Redding Fine Sandy Loam
109
5.7

ZnS04/Sludge
Greenhouse/So iI
Pots
Lettuce/Tops
Sassafras Silt Loam
65
5.5

ZnS04 7H20
Greenhouse/SoiI
Pots
Soybeans/Leaf
Sassafras Silt Loam
65
6.3

ZnS04 7H20
Greenhouse/SoiI
Pots
Soybeans/Leaf
Pocomoke Silt Loan
65
•5. 5

ZnS04 7H20
Greenhouse/So i1
Pots
Soybeans/Leaf
Pocomoke Silt Loam
65
6.3

ZnS04 7h20
Greenhouse/Soi1
Pots
Soybeans/Leaf
16 Minn. Surface Soils
69
5.3-8.
2
None
Field

NR
HartselIs Fine Sandy Loam
69
5.5

Sludge
Greenhouse/Soi1
Pots
Corn/Forage
Hartsells Fine Sandy Loam
69
5.5

ZnS04
Greenhouse/So i1
Pots
Corn/Forage
Hartsells Fine Sandy Loam
69
6.9

ZnS04
Greenhouse/Soi1
Pots
Corn/Forage
Hartsells Fine Sandy Loam
69
6.5

ZnS04
Greenhouse/Soi1
Pots
Corn/Forage
Hartsells Fine Sandy Loam
69
7.9

ZnS04
Greenhouse/Soi1
Pots
Corn/Forage
Lakeland Sand
69
MR

ZnS04
Greenhouse/So i1
Pots
Slash Pine Seedl:






Shoots
Domino Silt Loam
60
7.5

ZnS04/Sludge
Greenhouse/Soi1
Pots'
Wheat/Grain
Domino Silt Loan
69
7.5

ZnS04/Sludge
Greenhouse/Soi1
Pots
Lettoce/Tops
Redding Tine Sandy Loam
60
5.7

ZnS04/Sludae
Greenhouse/Soi1
Pots
wheat/Grain
Redding Fine Sandy Loa"i
6C
5.7

ZnS04/Sludge
Greenhouse/SoiI
Pots
Lettuce/Tops
16 runn. Soils Series -






All Dept ns
54
5.3-0,
.2
None
Field

NR
16 Minn. Soils Parent







Material
52
5.3-8
. 2
None
Field

NR
10 Minn. Subsoils
49
5.3-8
.2
None
Field

NR
Helena Valley Soils
46.9
8.9

None
Field

Forace/Sange
lizard S
isoonte
ignificance
Level
81.6 % YR
NR
9.6 \ YR
NR
6.4 % YR
NR
13.8 1 YR
NR
12 % YR
NR
NO YR
NR
9 % YR
NR
32 % YR
NR
28.1 % YR
NR
19.9 % Yield Increase
NR
19.1 1 YR
NR
9.7 \ YR
NR
25 \ YR
9.95
14 « YR
NR
4 % Yield Increase
NR
3 % YR
NR
13 % YR
NR
8.2 \ Yield Increase
NR
19.3 1 Yield Increase
NR
9.6 % YR
NR
19.3 « YR
NR
Background
NA
Yield Increase
NR
Ho YR
NR
5 % YR
NR
Yield Increase
NR
Yield Increase
NR
42.9 \ YR
NR
6 % YR
NR
10 \ Yield Increase
NR
6 \ field Increase
NR
2 * Y3
N3
9ac
Pierce et al. (1982)
Pierce et al. (1962)
Pierce et al. (19821
-------
Table 42. Phytotoxicity of total zinc in soils, continued*
Soil Chemical]77,
Concentration Soil Form Plant Species/	Hazard	Significance
Soil Tvoe	(pop)	pH	Applied	Tvoe of Experiment	Part	Response	Levi
13 Laden Fine Sandy Loan
41.)
NR
None
Greenhouse/Soil
Pott
Domino Silt Loan
49
7.5
ZnSOf/Sludge
Creenhouse/Soil
Pots
Domino Silt Loam
40
7.5
ZnSOj/Sludge
Cteenhouse/Soi1
Pots
Redding Fine Sandy Loam
40
5.7
ZnSOj/Sludge
Greenhouse/Soi1
Pots
Redding fine Sandy Loaa
40
5.7
ZnSO^/Sludge
Greenhouse/Soi1
Pots
Leon rlne Sand
37.5
NR
Nona
Greenhouse/Soil
Pots
Sassafras Silt Loan
33
5.5
2nSO{ 7H20
Greenhouse/Soi1
Pots
Pocomoke Silt Loaa
33
5.5
ZftS04 7H20
Greenhouse/Soil
Pots
Lakeland Sand
30
HR
ZnS04
Greenhouse/Soi1
Pots
Lakeland Sand
30
NR
None
Greenhouse/Soil
Pots
Slash Pine Seedlings/



Shoots
Background
NR
VanLear and Smith (1972)
Wheat/Grain
6 « YR
NR
Mitchell et al. (1978)
Lettuce/Tops
4 % YR
NR
Mitchell et al. (1978)
Wheat/Grain
2 % YR
NR
Mitchell et el. (1978)
Lettuce/Tops
NO YR
NR
Mitchell et al. (1978)
Slash.Pine Seedlings/



Shoots
Background
NR
VanLear and Smith (1972)
Soybeans/Leaf
9.7 1 Yield Increase
NR
White and Chaney (1980)
Soybeans/Leaf
9.5 % YR
NR
White and Chaney (1980)
Slash Pine Seedlings/



Shoots
11.a \ YR
NR
VanLear and Smith (1972)
Slaah Pine Seedlings/



Shoots
Background
NR
VanLear and Smith (1972)
-------
Table *»3- Phytotoxlclty of extractable zinc In soils.
Soil Type

S011
Concent tat 1 on
(oonl
S01 1
OH
Shano
Silt
Loam
15- 30
cm
246
7 .P
Shano
Slit
Loam
15-30
cm
246
:. a
Shano
Silt
Loam
15- 30
CTI
?46
7. «j
Shano
Silt
Loan
1S-30
cm
?46
7.0
Shano
Silt
Loam
15-30
cr
2 46
7.3
Shano
Silt
Loam
15- 30
cn
246
".(•
Shano
Si It
Loam
15- 30
cm
246
7.3
Sheno
Slit
Loan
15-30
cm
246
7.6
Sheno
Silt
Loam
15- 30
CO
246
7.0
Sheno
Silt
Loea
15- 30
cm
195
7.1
Sheno
Silt
Loam
15-30
ca
195
7.1
Sheno
Silt
Loea
15-30
cm
195
7.1
Sheno
Silt
Loea
15-30
cat
195
7.1
Sheno
Silt
Loan
15-30
ca
195
7.1
Sheno
Silt
Loea
15-30
cm
195
7.1
Sheno
Silt
Loea
15-30
cm
195
7.1
Sheno
silt
Loea
15-30
cm
195
7.1
Sheno
Silt
Loam
15-30
cm
195
7.1
Sheno
Silt
Loam
15-30
cm
146
7.3
Shano
silt
Loam
15-30
cm
146
7.3
Sheno
Silt
Loam
15-30
cm
146
7. 3
Sheno
Silt
Loam
15-30
cm
146
7.3
Shano
Silt
Loam
15-30
cm
146
7.3
Shano
Silt
Loam
15- 30
cm
146
7.3
Sheno
Silt
Loem
15-30
cm
146
7.3
Sheno
Silt
Loan
15-30
cm
146
7. 3
Sheno
Silt
Loan
15-30
C3
146
7. 3
warden
1 Fine Sendy Loam
11B
6. I
warden
1 Fine Sandy Loan
118
6. 1
Werden
1 Fine Sandy Loae
lie
6. 1
Warden
1 Fine Sandy Loeo
118
6.1
Warden
1 Fine Sandy Loan
118
6. 1
Fatepur Loamy Sand

97
NR
Shano
Silt
Loam
IS- 30
cn
68
7.5
Shano
Silt
Loam
15- 30
en
83
7.5
Shano
Silt
Loam
15-30
cn
88
7.5
Shano
S lit
Loan
15-31)
CP
88
7.5
Shano
Silt
Loan
15-20
c-

". 5
jnjne
j:1c
Lo.VTl
w - ;

31
7 _ :
Shano
Silt
Loa.-n
15-30

V8
7. 5
Shano
jilt
Loan
13 -: .•}

;?
7 . 5
Shano
Silt
t oar»
15- U
7-
?-
¦». «>
...ir !--n r 1 rs *» j.n.
J • •_ ; ¦


« ;
rh:r'


' • - -

u _ J
« # -
sr irr
a: : t

- . 1.


• . ?
S.1IT"
It

.1 - * t1

!•>
~ . *
Shano
bllt
Loun
!^-315
cn
46
;. v
Sheno
Si It
Loam
15- 30
cm
46
7.5
Shano
Silt
Loan
15- 30
cn
16
7.5
Shano
Si It
Loam
15-30
cm
46
7.5
Shano
S i It
Loam
15-30
cn
46
7.5
Shano
S lit
Loam
I1)- Jtf
cr.
4b
/. 5
Shano
Si it
Loan
15-30
cx
46
7.5
Plaint 10 Id
Loamy Sand

3 3. B
6.7
Pla1nf1e Id
Loair
y Sand

29 . 2
6. 7
Chemical
Torn
Appl>ed
Typo of rupee>oent
Plant Species/
	 Pei t
Hazard
Response
Ertractant
Siqmficjoi
l.rvel
ZntNO))1 f>M20
Zn(NO))} 6MjO
2a(NO j)j 6HjO
Zn (NO))j 6 H20
ZntNO)^ 6m20
ZniNOjij 6M2O
Zn(NOj)2 6H2O
ZnttfO)}; 6H30
ZnINO))2 6h2°
Zn(NO))2 6h20
to(NO]|2 6H2O
tnlNOjlj 6HjO
So(NO))2 *H20
*n(MOj)2 6H20
In(NO))j 6h20
In(MOj)2 6hj0
In INO))2 tH;0
Inuso/Soi 1
Gr«-onhou«e/3fM I
S:t
Crf.jnhoisc, 1
lit eonhcisso/'ci I
Or '"inhousn 'Soil
Pots
Pots
Pots
Pots
Pots
Pots
Pots
Pots
Pots
Pots
Pots
Pots
Pots
Pots
Pots
Pots
Pots
Pots
Pots
Pots
Pots
Pots
Pots
Pots
Pots
Pots
Pots
Pots
Pots
Pots
Pots
Pots
Pots
Potfl
wots
•	« s-j 1 I	if i->
•	o '""*» '•
I'-nnouso'joi 1	Pots
eenhouse/Soi1	Pots
eenhousc/So»1	Pot s
«;enhouse/So 1 I	Pots
s
Lettucw/?ops
Spi na.:h/Tops
Torrato/Tops
13 i.e»(v •
Sr,.»r	P- o
...>s
".I'll f.J, ?opr.
Bat ley/Top*.
Wheat/Tops
Field Beans/Tops
Pea-Alaska/Tops
Lettuce/Tops
Spinach/Tops
t o/Topa
Cucunbc rs/Fcu11
Corn/Gc a 1n
I?.. S. 1
9 * YR (N.S.)
22 I YR
» YR
\ YR
I YR
I YR
I Y?
% Yt>
I YR
YR
% YR
\ VR
I YR
Y8
* TR (M.S.)
76
45
10
39
31
)2
26
No
17
S9
11
19
ie
it
11
% YR (N.S.)
I YR
t YR (N.S.)
7	% YR (N.S.)
NO YR
42 I YR
11	I YR
NO YR
9 % YR (M.S.)
21 \ TR (N.S.)
12	t YR
8	I YR (N.S.)
Noraa1
•Stunted"
"Stunted*
Normal
Nornal
Tone Synptotas
2	* VR (K.s.l
3	t YR (S.S .)
16 I YR
* 3 * .'O (S. s.»
NO ?-
! ^
-
!!•. S.)
1 \ Yl
Ko YR
No
18 \ YR (N.S.)
NO YR
NO
» * Y? C..S.J
4 * Yield increase
OTP*
OTP*
D7
DTP*
DTP*
DTPA
DTPA
DTPA
OTPA
OTPA
OTPA
DTPA
DTPA
DTPA
OTPA
OTPA
DTPA
OTPA
OTPA
DTPA
DTPA
OTPA
DTPA
DTPA
DTPA
DTPA
OTPA
OTPA
DTPA
DPTA
OPTA
OPTA
DTPA
OTPA
DTPA
0?Pi»
OTPA
0TP-
rTPi
DT^A
DTPA
DTPA
DTPA
OTPA
OTPA
DTPA
DTPA
DTPA
0.IN HCl
9.IN HCl
0 . US,
0. 0^
u.as
a in
H.
fl.C5
0.0)
0.0s
0 .OS
0.0s
0.05
0.85
• .OS
«.»5
0.OS
0.05
0.85
0.05
0.0S
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
C.?5
0. OS
::p
0.10
? cs
0.
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0. 10
0. 10
:"»*wn
Ili-own
ncaipn
Bo»wn
Ro«wn
Botwn
Boewn
Boewn
Boewn
Bo«wn
Boewn
Boewn
Boewn
Boewn
Boewn
Boewn
Boewn
Boewn
Boewn
Boewn
Boewn
Boewn
fioevn
Boewn
Boewn
Boewn
Boewn
Tekkar
Boewn
Boewn
Boewn
Boewn
Roa^n
Boewn
Roawn
'C>WT
Boawn
Dr-awn
*. s\
lice^n
Hctun
Boewn
Boewn
Boawn
Boewn
Boawn
Boawn
Pcawn
Walsh
welsh
<»•-
•S' -»
tnd •if
hnA -as^.-.se^
..-,.1 - 4«, -
¦<-•3 "*<-.»»-•
e- 7 i
«*en (
ssc
l-7|
. "71
l«»7l
! *> 7 I
1 i* 7 1
iv:
19 71
1971
1971
1971
1971
1971
1971
1971
1971
1971
1971
1971
1971
1971
1971
1971
1971
1971
1971
1971
1971)
1971)
1971)
1971)
1971)
1971)
1971)
I97|)
1971 )

a-d
»rd »«s;	.
and Resaussen
•nd Resaussen	(
and Resaussen	(
•nd Resaussen	(
*nd Rataussen	(
• rd Rasa.ssert	(
and ^asrutsen	(
al. (1972)
«1. C972I
I 'i 7 I )
19/1)
1971)
1971)
1971)
197))
1971 )
1971)
1971)
N)
ro
-------
Table *»3. Phytotoxlclty of extractahle zinc In soils, continued,
Soil Tvp«
SOI 1
Concentr at ion
(ppa)

SOI 1
PN
Cheaical
Form
Appl1ed

Type of Eiperment
Plant Species/
Part
Hazard
(ItiPfinta
A Ib«r ca G:J. *c 11











(Poor Iy ' : a:ned1

26


4
None

Field

Gt it 1 n/seed
Backer ound
.lonino > 1 . *. lit'

19


S
None

Ciecnhouse/Soi :
?n;s
'i.'hejt-Lettuce
Background
AI ot 11a So: .











(So i c no: z

19


7
None

Fie Id

Gra in/Seod
Background
A1 ber 13 ? I ar«. io;











1 'OOI 1 .* TZi . -»t»C >

19


9
None

Field

Cra1n/Seed
Background
Recomc F • r.«? 3ar.c; Lean
1 3


T
None

Greenhouse/Soi1
Pots
wheat-Lettuce
Oackqcound
Aluerca 2 .a:<











 -c:

1 .6
6

B.2
Nc.ne

Field

sc 11 •. e vogetit 1 on
Background
Nor:K.er- ;:•?2?:a.n»











lk ¦;

4.6
6

6 . 2
None

Field

S'a11 ve Veqetat 1 on
Background
' Z : r

?. 3
">

? . 9
\?ne

•iclc

•:> r: ? "'r-. *-
Background
:

2


i.-


fi-lC

' - t. r.
RacAqr ound


.1 . ? ;
7

'J . •)
v.-.

. ¦»: j

•."i* •
.-j- :
•ur J
N>
In MCI
OTP A
IN HCl
IN eel
DTPA
IK HCl
IN HCl
IN HCl
DTPA
In -CI
DTPA
IN HCl
DTPA
DTPA
DTPS.
DTPA
DTPA
DT.>*»
DTPA
DTP*
NH4OAC
EDTA
OTPA
EDTA
NH^OAC
SjtjOl f iCani
1.0^*1	
•ik
Duties «nd Pawluk (19 77}
KitchelI et a|. 1197*)
Durtas and Pawluk (1977)
"WJas And lawluk (1977)
'	Kitchen et al . (1978)
NA	Dudas And Fawiuk (1977)
Dudas and Paw!.** (1977)
JJ	Oudd* and pAwluk (1977)
H	Takk»i And Nann (1978)
XA"	Dudas And Pawluk (1977)
;!J	Dudas and Pa.iuk (1977)
Takkar And Hann (1976)
MA
0.9S
u.as
9.05
o.os
0.05
0. a5
P . 0 5
3.05
SR	Severson	et	al.	(1977)
NR	Severson	et	al.	(1977)
MR	Severson	et	al.	11977)
r,R	Severson	et	al.	(1977)
,,R	Severson	et	si .	(1977)
'•K	"*.t-rstn	ot	li	!1977)
Dudas
and
Pawluk (1977)
Boawn
and
Rasaussen
(1971
Boawn
and
Rasnussen
(1971
Boawn
and
Rasaussen
(197)
Doawn
and
Rasaussen
(1971
Boawn
and
Rasaussen
(1971
Boawn
and
P&sau&sen
(197)
r. C a «. n
arte
-isaussen
(1971
EOri-n
and
Pasaussen
11971
Boawn
and
Rasaussen
(1971
-------
Table M». Phytotoxicity of zinc in vegetation.
Plant/Tissue
Tissue
Concentration
(pom)
Type of Experiment
Chemical For to
Applied	
ro
.fc-
Corn/Forage	6624
Corn/Forage	8237
Corn/Forage	5622
Corn/Forage	3067
Corn/Forage	2302
Barley/Tops	2112
Wheat/Straw	1650
Corn/Forage	1640
Wheat/Straw	1600
Lettuce/Shoot	1S8S
Corn/Forage	1575
Lettuce/Shoot	1265
Barley/Tops	1237
Sorghuo/Tops	1140
Sugar Beet/Tops	1067
Lettuce/Shoot	1058
Sorghum/Tops	1029
Corn/Forage	1025
Ryegrass/Shoots	1006
Sorghum	975
Spinach/Tops v	945
Sorghum/Tops *	917
Barley/Tops	910
Wheat/Tops	909
Corn/Focage	884
Corn/Tops	670
Swiss Chard/Plant Tops	662
Plantain/Shoots	800
Spinach/Tops	775
rield Corn/Tops	763
Sorghum/Topt	746
Sweet Corn/Tops	713
Sweet Corn/Tops	695
Wheat/Tops	662
Sugar Beet/Tops	670
Lettuce/Tops	665
Wheat/Leaf	655
Sorghoro/Tops	646
Spinach/Tops	649
Corn/Tops	6e5
Rye/Tops	632
Swiss Chard	6?6
Corn/Tops	5e7
3ush Bean/Vine	5"?
Greenhouse/Soi
Greenhouse/Soi
Greenhouse/Soi
Creenhouse/Soi
Gceenhouse/Soi
Greenhouse/Soi
Soil Pots
Greenhouse/Soi
Soil Pots
Greenhouse/Soi
Greenhouse/Soi
Greenhouse/Soi
Greenhouse/Soi
Greenhouse/Soi
Greenhouse/Soi
Creenhouse/Soi
Greenhouse/Soi
Field
Greenhouse/Soi
Greenhouse/Soi
Greenhouse/Soi
Greenhouse/Soi
Creenhouse/Soi
Greenhouse/Soi
Field
Soil Pots
Field
Greenhouse/soil
Greenhouse/Soi1
Greenhouse/Soi1
Greenhouse/Soi1
Greenhouse/Soi1
Greenhouse/Soi1
Greenhouse/Soi1
Greenhouse/Soi1
Greenhouse/Soi1
Greenhouse/Soi1
Greenhouse/Soi1
Greenhouse/Soi1
Soil Pots
Greenhouse/So i1
Greenhouse/Soi1
Greenhouse/So iI
Fieic
Pot*
ZnS04
Pots
ZnS04
Pots
ZnS04
Pots
ZnS04
Pots
ZnS04
Pots
Zr(NOj)j (H20

ZnS04
Pots
ZnS04

ZnS04
Pots
Sludge/ZnSOf
Pots
ZnS04
Pots
Slud9«/ZnS04
Pots
Zn(NO})2 6H20
Pots
Zn(NO})2 6H20
Pots
Zn
-------
Table 44. PhytotoxicJty of zinc In vegetation, continued.
2 r. - - - s - ?
: ss^e
-:€*::d:ior.
i	
Tvoe o- Etoeri^en-
CheT::i- :
hcd1:ec
eld Corn/Tops	576
rghum/Tops	571
leat-Gaines/Tops	560
lover/Shoots	550
irley-Trai1/Tops	540
irley/Tops	530
ittuce/Shoot	527
leaC/Tops	522
ia-Alaska/Tops	522
imato/Tops	514
urn/Forage	508
srghun/Tops	506
aa-Perf/Tops	489
ield Corn/Tops	484
DrghUB-NK-125/Tops	475
weet Corn/Tops	475
orn/Forage	472
orn/Forage	462
eld Corn/Forage	4£0
pinach/Tops	4 52
omato-Royal Ace/Tops	450
nap Beans/Leaf	444
rsley	4 38
rn/Forage	418
ttuce-liY/Tops	430
~a-Alaska/Tops	420
heat/Leaf	412
heat/Leaf	406
weet Coin/Tops	400
wiss Chard/Tops	£400
ucumbers	—394
ettuce/Tops 390
abDaoe-Chinese/Heads 389
beat'Sra:n 382
oneio Tops 381
ettiice S'r.ict 380
or?njr Tops 380
ea-Alasna'Tops 379
weet Corn/Tops 367
ea-?ei£/Tops 367
ollard/Young Leaves 366
orn,Forage 365
ustarc 364
heat.'Sctaw 36 0
Greenhouse/Soi1
Greenhouse/Soi1
Greenhouse/Soi1
Greenhouse/Soil
Greenhouse/Soi1
Greenhouse/So i1
Greenhouse/Soi1
Greenhouse/Soil
Greenhouse/Soi1
Greenhouse/Soi1
Greenhouse/Soi1
Greenhouse/Soi1
Greenhouse/Soi1
Greenhouse/SoiI
Greenhouse/Soi1
Greenhouse/Soi1
Field
Greenhouse/Soi1
Greenhouse/Soil
Greenhouse/Soi1
Greenhouse/Soi1
Field
Field
Greenhouse/SoiI
Greenhouse/Soi1
Greenhouse/Soi1
Greenhouse/Soi1
Greenhouse/Soi1
Greenhouse/Soi1
Greenhouse/Soi1
Field
Greenhouse/Soi1
Field
Greenhouse/Soi1
Greenhouse/Soi1
Green'noi:se/Soi 1
Greenhouse/Soi 1
Greenhouse/Soi1
Greenhouse/Soi1
Greenhouse/Soi 1
Field
Greenhouse/So 11
Field
Soil Pots
Pots
Pots
Pots
Pots
Pots
Pots
Pots
Pots
Pots
Pots
Pots
Pots
Pots
Pots
Pots
Pots
Pots
Pots
Pots
Pots
Pots
Pots
Pots
Pots
Pots
Pots
Pots
Pots
Pots
Pots
Pots
Pots
Pots
Pots
Pots
Pots
Zn(NO3)2 6H2O
Zn(NO3)2 6H2O
Zn(NO})j 6H20
Zn Salts
Zn(N03)2 6H2O
Zn(NO3)2 6H2O
Sludqe/ZnS04
Zn(NOj)2 6H2O
Zn(NO3)2 6H20
Zn(N03)2 6H20
S1udge
Zn(N03)2 6H2O
Zn(H03)2 6H2O
Zn(K03)2 6H2O
Zn(M0})2 6HjO
Zn(H03)2 6H]0
znS04
ZnS04
Zn(no3)2 6H2O
Zn(NOj)2 6HjO
Zn(N03>2 6H2O
ZnSOj
ZnS04 H20
ZnS04
Zn(N03)2 6H20
Zn(NO3)2 6HjO
Sludge/ZnSO^
Sludge/ZnS04
Zn(N03)2 6H20
SIudge
ZnS0«
Zn(NO3)2 6H20
ZnS04 H2O
SIudge/ZnSO^
Zn(NO3)2 6K20
Sludge/2nS0^
Zn (NO3 i 2 6H->0
Zn (NO3)j 6H2O
Zn(NO3)2 6H20
Zn(NO3)2 6H20
ZnS04 HjO
ZnS04
ZnS04 HjO
ZnS04
- 0 2cZO
?gsoo r.se
Soii
OH
S15r.1i-.car
S e re:e n c e
%
Ho Si
26
11
20
50
20
16
YR
YR
YR (N.S.)
YR
YR
YR
YR
-jg Y
18 t ?R
30 % YR
26 t YR
Ho Sig YR
30 « YR
8 % YR (N.S.)
20 % YR (M.S.)
20 % YR
32 « YR
56 t YR
5 « YR
20 t YR
1 \ YR (N.S.)
20 * YR
S % Yield Increase
No Apparent YR
No Sig YR
20 » YR
20 % YR
85 t YR
No Sig YR
20 t YR
No Sig YR
9 t YR (N.S.)
18 t YR (N.S.)
No Apparent YR
30
18
15
10
ie
12
YR
YR
YR
YR
YR
YR
(N.S.)
IK.S.'
(N.S.)
(N.S.)
7	% YR (N-S.)
No Apparent YR
8	* YR
No Apparent 'ifl
45 » YR
-7.2
NR
0.05
0 .05
0.0S
NR
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.10
NR
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.0S
0.05
0.001
0.10
0.05
NR
0.35
a.as
3.35
0 . ?5
0.35
0.05
0.05
NR
0 .35
NK
NR
Boawn and Rasmussen (1971)
Boawn and Rasmussen (1971)
Boawn and Rasmussen (1971)
Oijkshoorn et al. (1979)
Boawn and Rasmussen (1971)
Boawn and Rasmussen (1971)
Mitchell et al. (1978)
Boawn and Rasmussen (1971)
Boawn and Raseussen (1971)
Boawn and Rasmussen <19711
Mortvedt and Giordano (1975*
Boawn and Rasmussen (1971)
Boawn and Rasmussen (1971)
Boawn and Rasmussen (1971)
Boawn and Rasmussen (1971)
Boawn and Rasmussen (1971)
Giordano et al. (1975)
Mortvedt and Giordano <1975)
Boawn and Rasmussen (1971)
Boawn and Rasmussen (1971)
Boawn and Rasmussen (1971)
Walsh et al. (1972)
Boawn (1971)
Mortvedt and Giordano (1975)
Boawn and RasDussen (1971)
Boawn and Rasmussen (1971)
Mitchell et al. (1978)
Mitchell et al. (1978)
Boawn and Rasmussen (1971)
Valdares et al. (1983)
Walsh et al. (1972)
Boawn and Rasmussen (1971)
Boawn 11971)
Mitchell et al. (1978)
Boawn and Ras.-nussen (1971)
Mitcnell et al. (1978)
3cawn and Rasmussen 11971)
Boawn and Rasmussen (1971)
Boawn and Rasmussen (1971)
Boawn and Rasnussen (1971)
Boawn ; 1971>
Mortvedt and Giordano (19"*^ \
3oaw-.
Tak
-------
Table	Phytotoxicity of zinc in vegetation, continued.
.:ssce
Concentration Cncnica* F
f»lart/T:s&ue	t'opff.)	Tvoe of ;roar>r.enc	-oDlied
Sorghua/Tops
357
Greenhouse/Sol1
Pots
Zn(HO))2 fiH20
Snap Beans/Leaf
350
Field

ZnS04
Wheat/Tops
345
Greenhouse/Soi1
Pots
Zn(NO3)2 6HjO
Alfalfa/Tops
345
Greenhouse/Soi1
Pots
Zn(NOj)2 CHjO
Endive/Plant Top*
343
Field

ZnS04 HjO
Spinach/Plant Tops
340
Field

ZnS04 HjO
Spi nach
338
Greenhouse/Soi1
Pots
Zn(NOj)2 6H2O
Wheat/Grain
325
Soil Pots

ZnS04
Tomato/Tops
316
Greenhouse/Soi1
Pots
Zn(NO3)2 6H20
Field Corn/Tops
314
Greenhouse/Soi1
Pots
Zn(NO})2 6H20
Bush Bean/Vine
305
Field

ZnS04
Altai fa/Tops
295
Greenhouse/Soi1
Pots
Zn(NO))2 *H20
Bar ley-Juli a/Shoots
290
Greenhouse/Sand
Culture
ZnS04
Pea-Perf/Tops
285
Greenhouse/Soi1
Pots
Zn(N0})2 <"2°
Leaf Lettuce/Leaves
269
Field

ZnS04 HjO
Kheat/Grain
266
Greenhouse/Soi1
Pots
Sludge/ZnS04
Kheat/Gra i n
269
Soil Pots

ZnS04
Bush Bean/Vine
259
Field

ZnS04
Field Beans/Tops
257
Greenhouse/Soi1
Pots
ZnlNOj)2 6H2O
Tomato/Tops
257
Greenhouse/Soi1
Pots
Zn(NO3)2 6h2°
Sweet Corn/Tops
255
Greenhouse/Soi1
Pots
Zn(NO3)2 *H20
Clover/Tops
252
Greenhouse/Soi1
Pots
Zn(NO3)2 6H2O
Lettuce/Tops
250
Gceenhouse/Soi1
Pots
In(NO3)2 6H20
Snap Beans/Leaf
249
Field

ZnS04
Head Lettuce/Haads
248
Field

ZnS04 H20
Corn/Forage
241
Field

Sludge •
Peas-Alaska/Tops
236
Greenhouse/Soi1
Pots
Zn(S03)2 6h20
Alfalfa/Tops
232
Greenhouse/Soi1
Pots
Zn(N03)2 6H20
Ryegrass/Seedlingt
221
Greenhouse/Sand
Culture
ZnS04
Bar ley/Tops
220
Greenhouse/Soi1
Pots
Zn(NO3)2 6H20
Corn/Tops
228
Soil Pots

ZnS04
Field Beans/Tops
213
Greenhouse/Soi1
Pots
Zn(NOj)2 6H2O
Snap Beans/Tops
213
Greenhouse/Soi1
Pots
ZnlNOj)2 6H20
Bush Bean/vine
211
Field

Sludge
Barley Seedlings
210
Greenhouse/Sand
Culture
ZnS04
Field Corn/Tops
205
Greenhouse/Soi1
Pots
Zn(NC3)2 6H2O
Bar ley-Bar soy/St raw
204
Greenhouse/So i1
Pots
Sludge
Corn/Stover
204
Field

Sludge
Clover/Tops
202
Greenhouse/Soi1
Pots
Zn(NO3)2 6h20
Bar ley-Julia/Seed 1ings
199
Greenhouse/Sand
Culture
ZnS04
Pea-Perf/Tops
197
Greenhouse/Soi1
Pots
Zn(NO3)2 6H20
Lettuce/Shoot
198
Greenhouse/Soi1
Pots
Sludge/Zn$04
Wheat/Leaf
189
Greenhouse/Soi1
Pots
Si udge/ZnS04
Whea t/Tops
185
Greenhouse/Soi 1
Pots
Zn(N03)2 6H2O
Bar 1ey-Brlggs/Straw
1 6 <
Gceenhouse/Soi1
Pots
S1udge
wheat/Grain
163
Greenhouse/Soi1
Pots
Sludge/ZnS04
Whea t/Cr ain
180
Soil Pots

ZnS04
Ho;a z6
r* 6QC-nS4
Soil
OH
Signi* icant
Reference
7 % YR (N.S.)

7.5
0.05
66 \ YR

6.7
0.10
3 1 YR (N.S.)

7.5
0.05
22 « YR

7.0
0.05
No Apparent YR

6.1
NR
Stunted

6.1
NR
No YR

7.5
0.05
94 t YR

NR
NR
8 1 YR (N.S.)

7.3
0.05
13 % YR (N.S.)

7.5
0.05
55 % YR

4.9
8.05
20 % YR

7.0
0.05
10 % YR

NR
NR
6 % YR (N.S.)

7.3
0.95
No Apparent YR

6.1
NR
No Sig YR

5.7
0.95
76 % YR

NR
NR
23 % YR

4.9
0.95
10 % YR (N.S.)

7.0
0.95
5 % YR (N.S.)

7.5
0.05
8 % YR (N.S.)

7.5
0.95
9 % YR (N.S.)

7.0
0.95
21 % YR (N.S.)

7.3
0.05
24.5 % YR (H.S
~ )
6.7
0.19
No Apparent YR

6.1
NR
No YR

5.3
0.95
9 1 YR (U.S.)

7.3
0.05
17 % YR

7.1
0.05
Upper Critical
Level
NR
NR
10 % YR (N.S.)

7.5
0.05
32 t YR

NR
NR
No YR

7.1
0.95
12 t YR (N.S.)

7.0
0.9S
No Sig YR

5.6
0.05
Upper Critical
Level
NR
NR
No YR

7.5
0.95
15 1 YR (N.S.)

6.0
0.91
No Zn YR

5.5
NR
No YR

7.1
0 .95
NR

NR
NR
4 % 'YR (N.S.)

7.5
0.95
No Sig YR

7.5
0.05
35 % YR

7.5
0.95
1 % YR (N.S.)

7.5
0.05
27 % YR (N.S.)

6.0
0.01
8S % YR

7.5
0.35
74 % YR

NR
NR
Boawn and Rasmussen (1971)
Walsh at al. <1972)
Boawn and Rasmussen (1971)
Boawn and Rasngisen (1971)
Boawn (1971)
Boawn (1971)
Boawn and Rasmussen (1971)
Takkar and Mann (1978)
Boawn and Rasmussen (1971)
Boawn and Rasmussen (1971)
Ciordano et al. (1975)
Boawn and Rasaussen (1971)
Oavis et al. (1978)
Boawn and Rasaussen (1971)
Boawn (1971)
Mitchell et al. (1978)
Takkar and Hann (1978)
Giordano et al. (1975)
Boawn and Rasmussen (1971)
Boawn and Rasaussen (1971)
Boawn and Rasmussen (1971)
Boawn and Rasaussen (1971)
Boawn and Rasaussen (1971)
Walsh ec al. (1972)
Boawn (1971)
Ciordano et al. (1975)
Boawn and Rasausaen (1971)
Boawn and Rasausten (1971)
Oavis and Beckett (1978)
Boawn and Rasmussen (1971)
Takkar and hann (1978)
Boawn and Rasmussen (1971)
Boawn and Rasmussen (1971)
Giordano et al. (1975)
Davis and Beckett (1978)
Boawn and Rasaussen (1971)
Chang et al. (1982)
Hinesly et al. (1982)
Boawn and Rasmussen (1971)
Beckett and Davis (1979)
Boawn and Rasmussen (1971)
Mitchell et al. (1978)
MitcheLl et al. (1978)
Boawn and Rasmussen (1971)
Chang et al. (1982I
Mitchell et *1. (19*81
Takkar and :iar.n (197#)
-------
Table	Phytotoxicity of zinc in vegetation, continued.
Concen-:4c :on	Cienirn* Forrr.
Plant'Ti «iu>	laani	Tvoe oi Exn»?r	Applied
Lettuce/Leaves	1*79
Swiss Chard
Pea-Alaska/Tops	166
Clover/Tops	161
Corn/Grain	169
Lettuce/Tops	152
Tom*to/Tops	1^0
Wheat/Grain	149
Snap Beans/Tops	14 2
Alfalfa/Tops	142
Lettuce/Shoots	139
Peas-Perf/Tops	132
Wheat/Grain	129
Snap Beans/Leaf	129
Bacley-Florida/Straw	126
Bar ley-Larker/Straw	126
Lettuce-Romaine/Heads	122
Barley*Florida/Lea!	121
Wheat/Grain	U?
Cabbage-Chinese/Young Plane 114
Snap Beans/Tops	111
Clovet/Tops	1^9
Vheat/Leaf	198
W Bush Bean/pod	IBS
^ Corn/Forage	104
Peas-Alaska/Tops	194
Bush Bean/Pod	101
Coin/Tops	100
Barley-Bciggs/Gcain	100
Wheat/Grain	100
Ba:ley-Florida/Gra;n 99
Alfalfa/Tops 97
Lettuce/Tops 96
Bar ley-Larkec/Gr a i n 94
Bean/Pod 90
Bush Bean/Pod 90
B:occc11/Flower 6 7
Bush Bean/Pod £7
S-.ap Beans/Leaf 84. 5
Lettuce/Shoots 62
Barley/Leaf 81.9
Clover/Tops 81
Ccrn/Tops 81
•rjsse! Sprouts/Heads 79
Wneat/Cram 75
Field

ZnS04 HjO
Gceenhouse/SoiI
Pots
Sludge
Greenhouse/Soi1
Pots
Zn(NO))j 6H20
Greenhouse/Soil
Pocs
Zn(NO])2 6H2O
Field

ZnS04
Greenhouse/Soi1
Pots
Zn(NO))2 *h2°
Greenhouse/Soi1
Pots
Zn
-------
Table kk. Phytotoxlclty of zinc In vegetation, continued.

7: s sue





Zcr.ce" : :f : 1 or,


J ~ >2 : r a 1
F •- r
?lart'?:s s*je
¦cor.)
7v-?.? :: \
-- -


3arley-Bar soy/Grain
73
Greenhouse/Soil
Pots
Sludge

Cabbage/Heads
73
Field

ZnS04 H2O
Nheat/Gra in
73
Greenhouse/Soil
Pots
None

Bar ley-Larker/Grain
73
Greenhouse/Soi1
Pots
Sludge

Bar ley-Br iggs/Straw
72
Greenhouse/Soil
Pots
Sludge

Ufalfa
71
Greenhouse/So i1
Pots
Zn (NO3) j
6H20
Pepper/Foliage
71
Field

None

Hheat/Straw
70
Soil Pots

ZnSOf

Bar ley/Tops
70
Greenhouse/Soil
Pots
Zn (N03) 2
6H20
Snap Beans/Tops
69
Greenhouse/Soil
Pots
Zn (NO]) 2
6H20
Barley-Florida/Grain
67
Greenhouse/Soil
Pots
Sludge

Barley-Larker/Leaf
67
Greenhouse/Soi1
Pots
Sludge

Wheat/Grain
66
Soil Pots

ZnSOj

Barley-Barsoy/Grain
65
Greenhouse/Soil
Pots
Sludge

Bean/Seed
64
Field

None

Barley-Briggs/Grain
64
Greenhouse/Soil
Pots
Sludge

Wheat/Leaves
63
Greenhouse/Soi1
Pots
None

Bush Bean/Vine
63
Field

Sludge

Wheat/Crain
62
Field

None

Barley-Br iggs/Leaf
61
Greenhouse/Soil
Pots
Sludge

Barley-Julia/Seedlings
60
Greenhouse/Sand
Culture
Z11SO4

Ba r1ey-Ba r soy/S t raw
59
Greenhouse/Soi1
Pots
Sludge

Wheat/Leaves
58
Greenhouse/Soi1
Pots
None

Lettuce/Leaves CV Great
Lakes 54
Field

None

Barley-Barsoy/Leaf
52
Greenhouse/Soi1
Pots
Sludge

Sweet Corn/Foliage
52
Field

None

Barley-Larker/Straw
52
Greenhouse/Soi1
Pots
Sludge

Barley-Florida/Leaf
51
Greenhouse/Soil
Pots
Sludge

Wheat/Tops
51
Greenhou*«/Soi1
Pots
Zn(NO3) j
6H20
Bar1ey-F1or ida/Straw
SU
Greenhouse/Soi1
Pots
Sludge

Ryegrass/Seedlings
50
Greenhouse/Sand
Culture
ZnS04

Hheat/Gra in
49
Field

None

Bar ley-Br iggs/Straw
49
Greenhouse/So i1
Pots
None

Lettuce/Leaves CV Great
Lakes 48
Field

None

Squash/rol1 age
48
Field

None

Cabbage/Heads
48
Field

None

Bar1ey/Gra 1n
48
Field

None

Lettuce/Leaves CV Bibb
46
Field

None

Snap Beans/Tops
46
Greenhouse/Soil
Pots
Zn(NO3)2
6H20
Barley/Grain
45
F ield

None
Wheat/Straw
45
Soil Pots

ZnS04

Barley-Larker/Grain
45
Greenhouse/Soil
Pots
None

Lettuce/Leaves CV Bibb
43
Field

None

ISJ
00
ra la rci
96 soor.se
Sc 1 ;
OH
S ign 1; :cjn:
Level
?eie:ence
15 « YR (N.S.)
6.0
0.01
No Apparent YR
6.1
NR
Background
7.5
0.05
11 t Yield Increase
6.0
0.01
23 t YR (N.S.)
6.0
0.01
No YR
7.5
0.05
Background
5.1
0.05
2? \ YR
NR
NR
No YR
7.5
0.05
8 * YR (N.S.)
7.5
0.05
2 % Yield Increase
6.0
0.01
11 t Yield Increase
6.0
0.01
Maximum Yield
NR
NR
4 t YR (N.S.)
6.0
0.01
Background
5.1
0.05
23 t YR (N.S.)
6.0
0.01
Background
7.5
0.05
No Sig. YR
5.3
0.05
Background
5.7
NR
27 t YR (N.S.)
6.0
0.01
"Normal"
NR
NR
4 1 YR (N.S.)
6.0
0.01
Background
7.5
0.05
Background
5.1
0.05
15 1 YR (N.S.)
6.0
0.01
Background
5.1
0.05
11 t Yield Increase
6.0
0.01
2 % Yield Increase
6.0
0.01
No VR
7.5
0.05
2 t Yield Increase
6.0
0.01
"Normal"
NR
NR
Background
6.5
NR
Background
6.0
0.01
Background
4.7
0.05
Background
5.1
0.05
Background
4.6
0.05
Background
5.7
NR
Background
4.6
0.05
11 I YR (N.S.)
7.5
0.05
Background
6.5
NR
Maximum Yield
NR
NR
Background
6.0
0.01
Background
6.3
0.05
Chang et al. (1982)
Boawn (1971)
Mitchell et al. (1979)
Chang et al. (1982)
Chang et al. (1982)
Boawn and Rasmussen (1971)
Giordano at al. (1979)
Takkar and Hann (1978)
Boawn and Rasmussen (1971)
Boawn and Rasmussen (1971)
Chang et al. (1982)
Chang et al. (1982)
Takkar and Mann (1978)
Chang et al. (1982)
Giordano et al. (1979)
Chang et al. (1982)
Mitchell et al. (1978)
Giordano et al. (1975)
Dudas and Pawluk (1977)
Chang et al. (1982)
Beckett and Davis (1979)
Chang et al. (1982)
Mitchell et al. (1978)
Giordano et al. (1979)
Chang et al. (1982)
Giordano et al. (1979)
Chang et al. (1982)
Chang et al. (1982)
Boawn and Rasmussen (1971)
Chang et al. (1982)
Davis and Beckett (1978)
Dudas and Pawluk (1977)
Chang et al. (1982)
Giordano et al. (1979)
Giordano et al. (1979)
Giordano et al. (19791
Dudas and Pawluk (1977)
Giordano et al. (1975)
Boawn and Rasmussen (1971)
Dudas and pawluk 11977)
Takkar and Mann (1978)
Chang et al. (1982)
Giordano et al. (1975)
-------
Table	Phytotoxicity of zinc in vegetation, continued.
—. '• S ft J ft
Concentration	Chemical ?c;r.
?1 ant •'? i £ sue	Tvoe of Experiment	*»c'.xed
Barley/Crain
27
Field

None
Barley/Grain
27
Field

None
Potato/Foliage
27
Field

None
Tomato/frui t
26
Field

None
Barley-Larker/Leaf
26
Greenhouse/Soil
Pots
None
Sweet Corn/Seed
25
Field

None
Wheat/Grain
25
Pield

None
Oats/Grain
24
Pield

None
Pepper/Pruit
24
Field

None
Barley/Straw
24
Field

None
Barley Briggs/Leaf
24
Greenhouse/Soil
Pots
None
Bar ley-Flor ida/Straw
23
Greenhouse/Soi1
Pots
None
Oats/Grain
22
Field

None
Carrot/Root
22
Field

None
Snap Beans/Tops
21
Greenhouse/Soil
Pots
2n (NOj) 2
Eggplant/Poliagt
21
Pield

None
Squash/Prut t
19
Field

None
Cantaloupe/Fruit
16
Field

None
Cantaloupe/Frui t
18
Pield

None
Potato/Tuber
16
Field

None
Barley/Straw
16
Field

None
Western Wheatgrass
5.7-34 (15)
Field

None
Eggplant/Fruit
15
Field

None
Wheat/Straw
15
Field

None
Wheat/Straw
14
Field

None
Corn/Tops
14
Greenhouse/Soil
Pots
None
Wheat/Straw
9.1
Field

None
Wheat/Straw
8.5
Field

None
Barley/Straw
6.4
Field

None
Barley/Straw
6.3
Field

None
Bar ley/Straw
8.3
Field

None
Bat ley/Straw
6.9
Field

None
Barley/Straw
6.6
Field

None
Barley/Straw
6.4
Field

None
Wheat/Straw
6.3
Field

None
Oats/Straw
6.0
Field

None
Wheat/Straw
5.8
Pield

None
Barley/Straw
5.4
Field

None
Wheat/Straw
5.2
Field

None
Oats/Straw
4.9
Pield

None
Sot I
OH
Significanc
Lava I
3#fetanee
Backsround
Background
Background
Back9XOund
Background
Background
Background
Background
Background
Background
Background
Background
Background
Background
NO Tft
Background
Background
Background
Background
Background
Background
Background
Background
Background
Background
Background
Background
Background
Background
Background
Bac'-c^ round
Bac'«?:£ur.d
Bact? round
Background
Background
Bac'< 9 r cu nd
Bactg round
Background
Background
Bac.-c zz acnd
-8.2
NR
HR
e.es
a.as
9.01
0.05
NR
NR
0.0$
NR
a.91
0.01
NR
0.0S
0.05
0.05
0.0S
0.05
0.05
0.05
NR
NR
0.05
NR
NR
0.05
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
Dudas and Pawluk (1977)
Dudas and Pawluk (1977)
Giordano et al. (1979)
Ciordano «t al. (1979)
Chang et al. (1982)
Ciordano et al. (1979)
Dudas and Pawluk (1977)
Dudas and Pawluk (1977)
Ciordano et al. (1979)
Dudas and Pawluk (1977)
Chang et al. (1982)
Chang et al. (1902)
Dudas and Pawluk (1977)
Ciordano et al. (1979)
Boawn and Rasmussen (1971)
Ciordano et al. (1979)
Giordano et al. (1979)
Giordano et al. 11979)
Giordano et al. (1979)
Giordano et al. (1979)
Dudas and Pawluk (1977)
Severson et al. (1977)
Giordano et al. (1979)
Dudas and Pawluk (1977)
Dudas and Pawluk (1977)
Hortvedt and Ciordano (1975)
Dudas and Pawluk (1977)
Dudas and Pawluk
Dudas and Pawluk
Dudas and Pawluk
Pawluk
Dudas and
Dudas and	Pawluk
Dudas and	Pawlui
Dudas and	Pawluk
Dudas and	Pawluk
Dudas and	Pawluk
Dudas and	Pawluk
Dudas and	Pawluk
Dudas and	Pawluk
Dudas and	Pawluk
(1977)
(1977)
(1977)
(1977)
(1977)
(1977)
(1977)
(1977)
(1977)
(1977)
(1977)
(1977)
(1977)
-------
Table	Phytotoxicity of zinc in vegetation, continued.
-:ss;«
ronc-t;a: ton
Tvot of
Cnemcal Fern
-pa 1 i e<3	
Hazard
?>goonsg
So; :
OH
Sigm1 leant
Level
Peference
Corn/Grain
Barley-Briggs/Graln
Sw««t Corn/Tops
Barley-Bar soy/Leaf
Barley-Florida/Grain
Barley/Grain
Carrot/Root
Wheat/Grain
Tomato/Foliage
Barley-Barsoy/Grain
Field Corn/Tops
Barley/Grain
Bean/Foliage
wheat/Grain
Pepper/Fruit
Barley/Grain
Barley/Grain
Barley-Larker/Leaf
Lettuce/Leaves CV Rovaine
Barley/Grain
Silver Sagebrush
Sorghum/Tops
Lettuce/Tops
Sorghuo/Tops
Wheat/Grain
Barley-Briggs/Leaf
Beans/Pod Only
Lettuce/Leaves CV Romaine
Lettuce/Leaves CV Boston
Wheat/Grain
Bar ley-Larker/Strav
Bar ley.Barsoy/Leaf
Barley-Flor ida/Leaf
lettuce/leaves CV Boston
P»PP«t/Fruit
Cabbage/Heads
Hard Wheat
Bar ley-Barsoy/Straw
Alfalfa/Tops
.8
-64 (34)
Field

Sludge

Greenhouse/Soi1
Pots
None

Greonhouse/Soi1
Pots
Zn(N03)2
6H20
Greenhouse/Soi1
Pots
Sludge

Greenhouse/Soil
Pots
None

Field

None

rield

None

Field

None

Field

None

Greenhouse/Soil
Pots
None

Greenhouse/Soi1
Pots
Zn (NOj)2
6H20
Field

None

Field

None

Field

None

Field

None

Field

None

Field

None

Greenhouse/Soil
Pots
Sludge

Field

None

rield

None

Field

None

Greenhouse/Soil
Pots
2n(NOj)j
6H20
Greenhouse/Soi1
Pots
Zn(NOj)2
6H20
Greennouse/Soil
Pots
2n(NOj)2
6H2O
field

None

Greenhocse/soi1
Pots
Siudge

Field

None

Field

None

Field

None

Field

None

Greenhouse/So:1
Pots
None

Greenhouse 'Soil
Pots
None

Greenhouse 'Soil
Pots
None

Field

None

Field

None

Field

None*

NR

None

Greennouse 'Sc-i 1
Pot s
None

Greenhouse/So:I
Pots
Zn (NOj)2
6HjO
Mo Zn YR
Background
No Y3
4 t YR (N.S.)
Background
Background
Background
Background
Background
Background
No YR
Background
Background
Background
Background
Background
Background
11 t Yield increase
Background
Background
Background
No YR
No YR
NO YR
Background
23 I YR (N.S.)
Background
Background
Background
Background
Background
Background
Background
Background
Background
Background
Background
BacVaround
NO YK
-8.2
0.91	Hinesly et al. (1982)
0.81	Chang et al. (1982)
0.05	Boawn and Rasnussen (1971)
0.01	Chang et el. (1982)
0.01	Chang et al. (1982)
NR	Oudas and Pawluk (1977)
0.0S	Giordano et al. (1979)
NR	Oudas and Pawluk (1977)
0.03	Giordano et al. (1979)
0.01	Chang et al. (1982)
0.05	Boawn and Kainuifen (1971)
NR	Oudas and Pawluk (1977)
0.05	Giordano et al. (1979)
NR	Oudas and Pawluk (1977)
0.05	Giordano et al. (1979)
MR	Oudas and Pawluk (1977)
MR	Oudas and Pawluk (1977)
0.01	Chang et al. (1982)
0.05	Giordano et al• (1979)
NR	Oudas and Pawluk (X977)
NR	Severson et al• (1977)
0.05	Boawn and Rasaussen (1971)
0.05	Boawn and Rasmussen (1971)
0.05	Boawn and Rasmussen (1971)
NR	Oudas and Pawluk (1977)
0.01	Chang et al. (1982)
0.05	Giordano et al. (1979)
0.05	Giordano et al. (1979)
0.0S	Giordano et al. (1979)
NA	Oudas and Pawluk (1977)
0.01	Chang et al. (1982)
0.01	Chang et al. (1982)
0.01	Chang et al. (1982)
0.05	Giordano et al. (1979)
0.05	Giordano et al. (1979)
0.05	Giordano et al. (1979)
NR	Kabata - pendias and Pendias (1904)
0.91	Chang et al. (1982)
0*. 35	Boawn and Rasaussen (1971)
-------
Chaney 1980). Typical phytotoxic criteria for total soil zinc
were reported by various authors as 250 to 500 ppm (Kitagishi and
Yamane 1981, Chapman 1960, El-Bassam and Tietjen 1977, Linzon
1978, Kabata-Pendias 1979, Kloke 1979, Melsted 1973, Chaney et al.
1978). The suggested 500 ppm hazard level for the Helena Valley
is also the level suggested by Chaney et al. (1978) and has been
selected because it best fit data from the reviewed literature
(Table 42).
The tolerable total soil zinc concentration (200 ppm) is
based on the observation that reductions in yields of most
species, with the exception of soybeans, were generally low at
concentrations less than 200 ppm while levels greater than 200 ppm
were shown to result in yield reductions for many crops. Vegeta-
tive yields for two of the specific crops of interest for the
Helena Valley, barley and wheat, were reported to be decreased by
16 percent and 18 percent at total soil zinc concentrations of 200
ppm and 300 ppm respectively (Boawn and Rasmussen 1971). Mitchell
et al. (1978) noted reductions in wheat grain yields of 3 to 14
"percent in the 100 to 180 ppm total soil zinc range and 12 to 29
percent at 340 ppm total soil zinc. No data were found in the
reviewed literature relating alfalfa yields and total soil zinc
levels below 200 ppm.
3.4.2.2 Extractable soil zinc
The 60 ppm phytotoxic extractable soil zinc hazard level has
been selected utilizing data reported by Boawn (1971), Boawn and
Rasmussen (1971) and Walsh et al. (1972) (Table 43). Boawn (1971)
reported normal yields for 12 leafy vegetables at a DTPA extract-
able soil zinc concentration of 55 ppm. Boawn and Rasmussen
(1971)	noted a 16 percent reduction in the vegetative yield of
barley at 88 ppm DTPA extractable soil zinc and Walsh et al.
(1972)	reported a 66 percent yield reduction of snap bean pods at
47 ppm DTPA extractable soil zinc. The 5 ppm DTPA extractable
soil zinc tolerable level is based on the observations of Boawn
and Rasmussen (1971) who noted no yield reductions for a number of
1 O 1
-------
crops, including wheat, barley and alfalfa, at or below this
level.
An argument can be made to revise both the phytotoxic and
tolerable extractable zinc levels upward to 125 ppm and 40 ppm
respectively. The 60 ppm phytotoxic hazard level was selected
based on two phytotoxic occurrences noted above (Table 43).
Significant yield reductions for most crops were rare at DTPA
extractable zinc concentrations less than 146 ppm. The first
significant yield reductions for wheat and alfalfa were reported
at DTPA extractable soil zinc concentrations of 146 ppm and 195
ppm, respectively (Boawn and Rasmussen 1971). Some yield reduc-
tions may occur in barley at DTPA extractable soil zinc concentra-
tions less than 125 ppm but the level appears more appropriate for
wheat, alfalfa and clover which are grown extensively in the
Helena Valley.
No significant yield reductions were noted in the reviewed
literature for any crops at DTPA extractable soil zinc concentra-
tions less than 40 ppm. The maximum background extractable (IN
HC1) zinc concentration found in the reviewed literature was 26
ppm (Dudas and Pawluk 1977) and Walsh et al. (1972) noted a yield
increase for corn grain at.a 29 ppm 0.1 NHC1 extractable soil zinc
concentration. The maximum yield of rye was noted at 40 ppm 0.1N
MgSC>4 extractable zinc (Chapman 1966) .
3.4.3 Zinc in plants
There is a wide range of zinc phytotoxic levels reported
among some plant species, different plant types and for different
parts of plants (Table 44). Reported phytotoxic zinc levels range
from 60 ppm for wheat plants (Takkar and Mann 1978) to values
greater than 800 ppm for swiss chard (Boawn 1971) (Table 44).
Most values for crops of concern (cereal grains and forages) fall
within the range of 189 ppm to 560 ppm (35 and 20 percent yield
reductions, respectively) found by Mitchell et al. (1978) and
Boawn and Rasmussen (1971) . Boawn and Rasmussen (1971) reported
20 percent yield reductions for barley, wheat and alfalfa at above
ground plant tissue levels of 540 ppm, 560 ppm and 295 ppm,
132
-------
respectively. Zinc phytotoxicity to barley seedlings was reported
in the range of 160 to 320 ppm (Davis et al. 1978). It is
apparent that the suggested plant tissue phytotoxic level of 500
ppm zinc will produce phytotoxicity in most plants. Only two
values in excess of the suggested 500 ppm plant tissue phytotoxic
level were found not to be phytotoxic (508 ppm for corn forage and
527 ppm for lettuce shoots) (Mortvedt and Giordano 1975, Mitchell
et al. 1978). Phytotoxic criteria levels reported in the litera-
ture ranged from 100 to 400 ppm zinc (Kabata-Pendias and Pendias
1984).
The suggested 50 ppm tolerable zinc level in vegetation is
based on the lowest phytotoxic tissue level found for crops of
interest (barley, oats, wheat, alfalfa and other forage crops).
The value 51 ppm was reported for a 20 percent yield reduction in
wheat (Boawn and Rasmussen 1971). These authors also reported a
20 percent yield reduction for sweet corn and sorghum at zinc
tissue levels of 41 and 34 ppm respectively. These values were
the only occurrences of phytotoxicity found in the reviewed
literature at levels less than the 50 ppm suggested tolerable
concentration.
-------
4.0 HAZARD LEVELS FOR WATER
A large number of factors influence the suitability of water
for livestock consumption and for irrigation purposes. Some of
these are discussed in the following sections. A computer litera-
ture review was not conducted for this subject.
4.1 Water Quality Levels for Livestock
A number of factors, including animal tolerance, water con-
sumption and forage ingestion, are involved in the determination
of the suitability of a water source for livestock. Water con-
sumption by livestock is influenced by the species, the age, the
condition of the animals and climatic factors. Temperature
changes have been shown to vary water consumption in cattle by a
factor of three (Rittenhouse and Sneva 1973) . The moisture
content of forage affects water consumption and some species such
as sheep have been shown to subsist entirely on dew or snow
(Butcher 1973). Water consumption by domestic livestock varies
between 1 and 4 gallons per day for sheep or goats and 10 to 16
gallons per day for dairy cattle (Federal Water Pollution Control
Administration 1968). It is clear that any given amount of heavy
metal in water will likely affect individual animals in a slightly
different manner.
The heavy metal content of forage and soil is another factor
which influences the allowable amount of heavy metals in livestock
drinking water. Contaminated water will only exacerbate toxicosis
produced from ingesting contaminated forage. Mayland et al.
(1975) estimated cattle ingested soil in the amount of 100 to 1500
g/animal/day. In areas with high levels of heavy metals in soils,
this source may represent a considerable fraction of the total
heavy metal intake in some animals.
Several organizations have established suitability criteria
levels for most constitutents found in water. Criteria for
arsenic, cadmium, lead and zinc are reviewed in Table 45.

-------
Table 45. Water quality criteria for arsenic, cadmium, lead
and zinc.
Use As
Cd	Pb
Z
Zn
Reference
DRINKING
WATER
0.05
0.01 0.05
EPA 1983, USPHS 1962
LIVESTOCK
WATER
0.2
0.05
0.1
25
NRC 1974
LIVESTOCK
WATER
0.5
0.05
0.1
50
Dyer and Johnson 1975
LIVESTOCK
WATER
0.05 0.01
0.05
Federal Water Pollu-
tion Control Adminis-
tration 1968 (FWPCA)
Standards for arsenic have been based on total arsenic and
are usually reported on the toxicity of arsenic trioxide (Peoples
1983). Methylated forms have been shown to be one hundred times
less toxic than inorganic forms. With the exception of rats,
arsenic is rapidly eliminated from the bodies of most animals
(Peoples 1964). Chronic toxicity in livestock has been demon-
strated at levels of 50 mg/kg forage (NRC 1980). Problems may
occur on the most contaminated soils (greater than 100 ppm
arsenic) if livestock ingest considerable quantities of the soil.
A survey of water quality in the Helena Valley in 1972 found no
arsenic values greater than 0.03 mg/L (Soukup 1972). Dyer and
Johnson (1975) suggested 0.5 mg/L may be a more appropriate
maximum level for arsenic in livestock water but, given the
possibility of intake from other sources, the 0.2 mg/L level may
provide a better margin of safety. Arsenic toxicosis may still
occur in very extreme cases in which ingestion of soil by live-
stock is the major contributing factor.
Both lead and cadmium tend to accumulate in animal tissues
and therefore are more prone to cause toxicosis in chronic
poisoning cases. Allcroft (1951) found that both soluble and
insoluble (lead acetate and lead carbonate respectively) forms of
lead were absorbed at about the same rate. Puis (1981) has given
135
-------
dietacy intake levels of >100 ppm lead as toxic to cattle. Soukup
(1972) found a maximum lead value of 0.044 mg/L in Helena Valley
water, well below the permissible criteria of 0.1 mg/L. The
possibility of high levels of lead in forage and soil, suggests
that the drinking water criteria of 0.05 ppm lead may be most ap-
propriate for the Helena Valley.
The most appropriated hazard level for cadmium concentrations
in livestock water of the Helena Valley will depend on cadmium
levels found in forage and soils under background conditions. The
0.5 ppm criteria reported by the NRC (1974) may be the most
applicable. Chaney (1984) and NRC (1980) have given a value of
0.5 mg/kg cadmium in forage as the chronic toxicosis tolerance
level. However data discussed by Hansen and Chaney (1984) showed
that the 0.5 mg/kg cadmium value was based upon conservative
estimates for cadmium accumulation in animal livers. They felt
that when the Cd:Zn ratio is <1.0%, cadmium in feed may reach 5
ppm with little accumulation in liver and kidney tissues of
animals. However, the drinking water standard and the FWPCA
livestock criteria of 0.01 mg/L may be insufficient to prevent
cadmium toxicosis under conditions of heavy contamination.
Zinc tolerence is high in animals and dietary intake exceed-
ing 2000 ppm may be required to produce zinc toxicosis (Puis
1981). The 1972 study of the Helena Valley indicated a maximum
forage content of 232.0 ppm (dry wt.) zinc (Hindawi and Neely
1972). Soils sampled in the same study contained a maximum of
5200 ppm zinc and the mean for sites 0.67 to 10 miles from the
smelter was found to be 79 ppm (Miesch and Huffman 1972). It is
apparent that the recommend zinc limit of 25 mg/L for livestock
water will provide a sufficient margin of safety except in areas
with very high soil contamination.
No data were found that would document the heavy metal
content of snowmelt runoff and its consumption by livestock.
4.2 Water Quality Levels for Irrigation
Water quality criteria for irrigation must take into consid-
eration the nature of the specific water constituent, soil charac-
136
-------
teristics, plant species and climatic variables. Irrigation
methods can also influence the relative toxicity of some elements.
Sprinkler irrigation can result in foliar absorption or adsorption
of minerals at levels detrimental to plant growth if the water
contains excessive levels of some constituents (Federal Water
Pollution Control Administration 1968). Ground application of the
same water may not produce any adverse effects due to soil
chemical and physical properties that may reduce some elements to
insoluble forms and adsorption of elements by soil constituents
with high cation exchange capacity. Helena Valley waters analyzed
by Soukup (1972) contained no levels above the more restrictive
irrigation criteria for all soils for arsenic, cadmium, lead and
zinc (Table 46).
Table 46. Irrigation water criteria for arsenic, cadmium, lead,
and zinc.
Use	As Cd	Pb	Zn	Reference
mg/L
Irrigation
All Soils 0.1 0.01	5	2	NRC 1972
Irrigation
Fine Textured
Soils	2.0	0.05 10	10	NRC 1972
The use of contaminated surface runoff, waters receiving in-
dustrial effluent or polluted ground water could result in waters
exceeding existing irrigation guidelines.
137
-------
5.0 REGULATORY CRITERIA FROM OTHER TECHNOLOGIES
Several state, provincial and national regulatory agencies
have attempted to set limits for metal contaminants in soils
and/or to define metal hazard levels in waste materials. These
hazard levels have been developed from different technologies and
view soils from different perspectives. Much of the criteria come
from four sources: (1) sewage sludge amendment of agricultural
soils; (2) coal overburden materials used as rooting zone material
in revegetation attempts; (3) defining hazardous materials using
various extraction techniques; and (4) setting limits for metal
contaminants in soil based on the intended future use of the soil.
The criteria presented in this section are provided for a compari-
son to hazard levels suggested in this document for the Helena
Valley. These criteria were not used to determine the Helena
Valley hazard levels. Tables 47 to 51 summarize this regulatory
information.
5.1 Criteria from Land Application of Sewage Sludge
Metals commonly present in sludge have been classified (CAST,
1978) as those that are likely to pose little hazard (manganese,
iron, aluminum, chromium, arsenic, selenium, antimony, mercury and
lead) for land application and those which pose significant hazard
(cadmium, copper, molybdenium, nickel and zinc). Many national
regulatory agencies have set maximum cumulative loading levels of
these elements for agricultural lands (Table 47). These loading
levels have been set to prevent toxicity to humans or animals from
crops grown on treated agricultural lands. It is of interest to
note that Norway and Sweden prescribe very low cumulative loading
levels while the United Kindom and United States allow signifi-
cantly higher levels. Cumulative loading levels are given in kg
of metal/ha. Conversion to mg of metal/kg of soil is based on a
one acre furrow slice (6 to 7" depth) weighing two million pounds.
138
-------
Table kl. Maximum permissible cumulative metal loadings from sewage sludge to agricultural lands.
Element Medium
Use
Criteria*	Hazard1 Receptor^ Method Enforcement
Response	Code
Ref.
w
u>
AS
As
As
As
As
Cd
Cd
Cd
Cd
Cd
Cd
Soil
Soi 1
Soil
Soil
Soi 1
Soil
Soil
So i 1
Soil
Soil
Soil
Vegetation;
Crops
Vegetation;
Crops
Vegetation;
Crops
Vegetation;
Crops
Vegetation;
Crops
Vegetation;
Crops
Vegetation;
Crops
Vegetation;
Crops
Vegetat ion;
Crops
Vegetation-
Crops
Vegetat ion;
Crops
15kg/ha 6.7mg/kg
14kg/ha 6.2mg/kg
15kg/ha 6.7rog/kg
2kg/ha 0.9mg/kg
10kg/ha 4.5mg/kg
0.8-1.5 0.4-0.7
kg/ha mg/kg
4kg/ha 1.8mg/kg
1.6kg/ha 0.7mg/kg
4kg/ha 1.8mg/kg
0.2kg/ha 0.09mg/g
0.1kg/ha 0.05mg/kg
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
British Columbia British Columbia
1982, EPS 1984
Ontario
Canada
Netherlands
OMAF/OMOE 1981
EPS 1984, Standish
1981
EPS 1984, Webber et
al. 1983
United Kingdom EPS 1984, Webber et
al. 1983
Alberta
Alberta Environment
1982, EPS 1984
British Columbia British Columbia 1982,
EPS 1984
Ontario
Canada
Denmark
Fi nland
EPS 1984, OMAF/OMOE
1981
EPS 1984, Standish
1981
EPS 1984, Webbe: et
al. 1983
EPS 1984, Webber et
al. 1983
-------
Table 47. Continued.
Element
Med ium
Use
Cr i ter i a
Hazard 4
Response
Receptor^ Method
Enforcement
Code

Ref.

Cd
Soil
Vegetation;
Cr ops
5.4 kg/ha
2.4mg/kg

Total
France
EPS
al.
1984,
1983
Webber et
Cd
So i 1
Vegetation;
Crops
8.4kg/ha
3.7mg/kg

Total
Germany
EPS
al.
1984,
1983
Webber et
Cd
So i 1
Vegetation;
Crops
2.0kg/ha
0.9mg/kg

Total
Netherlands
EPS
al.
1984,
1983
Webber et
Cd
Soi 1
Vegetation;
Crops
0.2kg/ha
0.09mg/kg

Total
Norway
EPS
al.
1984,
1983
Webber et
Cd
Soi 1
Vegetation;
Crops
0.075
kg/ha
0.033
mg/kg

Total
Sweden 2
EPS
al.
1984,
1983
Webber et
Cd
Soil
Vegetation;
Crops
Skg/ha
2.2rog/kg

Total
United Kingdom
EPS
al.
1984,
1983
Webber et
Cd
Soi 1
Vegetation;
Crops
5-203
kg /ha
2.2-8.9
mg/kg

Total
United states
EPS
al.
1984,
1983
Webber et
Pb
Soil
Vegetation;
Crops
50-100
kg/ha
22.3-44.6
mg/kg

Total
Alberta
Alberta Environment
1982, EPS 1984
Pb
Soi 1
Vegetation;
Crops
100kg/ha
4 4.6mg/kg

Total
British Columbia
British Columbia 1982,
EPS 1984
Pb
Soil
Vegetation;
Crops
90kg/ha
40.lmg/kg

Total
Ontario
EPS 1984,
1981
OMAF/OMOE
Pb
Soil
Vegetation;
Crops
100kg/ha
4 4.6mg/kg

Total
Canada
EPS
al.
1984,
1983
Webber et
Pb
Soi 1
Vegetation;
Crops
210kg/ha
93.8mg/kg

Total
France
EPS
al.
1984,
1983
Webber et
Pb
Soil
Vegetation;
Crops
210kg/ha
9 3.8mg/kg

Total
Germany
EPS
al.
1984,
1983
Webber et
-------
Table kj. Continued.
Element
Medi ura
Use
Criteria1 Hazard 4
Response
Receptor^ Method
Enforcement
Code
Ref.


Pb
Soil
Vegeta t ion;
Crops
100kg/ha
4 4.6mg/kg
Total
Netherlands
EPS
al.
1984,
1983
Webber
et
Pb
So i 1
Vegeta t ion;
Crops
6kg/ha
2.7mg/kg
Total
Norway
EPS
al.
1984,
1983
Webber
et
Pb
So i 1
Vegetation;
Crops
1.5kg/ha
0.7mg/kg
Total
Sweden2
EPS
al.
1984,
1983
Webber
et
Pb
Soil
Vegetation;
Crops
1000
kg/ha
4 46.7mg/kg
Total
United Kingdom
EPS
al.
1984,
1983
Webber
et
Pb
So i 1
Vegetat ion;
Crops
500-
2000 ^
kg/ha
223.3-893.3
mg/kg
Total
United States
: E PS
al.
1984 ,
1983
Webber
et
Zn
Soil
Vegetation;
Crops
150-300
kg/ha
67.0-134.0
mg/kg
Total
Alberta
Alberta Environment
1983, EPS 1934
Zn
Soil
Vegetation;
Crops
370kg/ha
165.3mg/kg
Total
British Columbia
1
British Columbia
EPS 1984
1982
Zn
Soil
Vegetation;
Crops
330kg/ha
147.4mg/kg
Total
On tar io
EPS
al.
1984,
1983
Webber
et
Zn
So i 1
Vegetation;
Crops
370kg/ha
165.3mg/kg
Total
Canada
EPS
al.
1984,
1983
Webber
et
Zn
So i 1
Vegetat i on;
Crops
7 50kg/ha
335.0mg/kg
Total
Fr ance
EPS
al.
1984,
1983
Webber
et
Zn
Soil
Vegetat ion;
Crops
7 50kg/ha
3 3 5.0mg/kg
Total
Germany
EPS
al.
1984,
1983
Webber
et
Zn
Soil
Vegetation;
Crops
400kg/ha
178.7mg/kg
Total
Nether lands
EPS
al.
1984,
1983
Webber
et
-------
Table kj. Continued.
Element
Med ium
Use
Criteria^ Hazard 4
Response
Receptor^ Method
Enforcement
Code

Ref.


Zn
Soil
Vegetation;
Crops
60kg/ha 26.8mg/kg
Total
Norway
EPS
al.
1984,
1983
Webber
et
Zn
Soi 1
Vegetat ion;
Crops
50kg/ha 22.3mg/kg
Total
Sweden ?
EPS
al.
1984,
1983
Webber
et
Zn
Soi 1
Vegetation;
Crops
S60kg/ha 2S0.1mg/kg
Total
United Kingdom
EPS
al.
1984 ,
1983
Webber
et
Zn
Soil
Vegetation;
250- 111.7-446.7
10003kg/ha mg/kg
Total
United States
EPS
al.
1984,
1983
Webber
et
1	Criteria is given in Kg/ha. Conversions were made to mg/Kg of soil based on a soil of 2xl0®lbs/acre
furrow slice (plow depth of 6-7").
2	Sweden's values are for a 5 year loading; can be repeated.
^ Levels are related to cation exchange capacity. Low limit given is for soils with a CEC of <5 meg/100g
high limit is for soil with CEC > 15 meg/100g
4	Plant uptake from sludge ammended soil, bioaccumulation.
5	Plants, and bioaccumulation in humans from ingestion of crops.
-------
5.2	Criteria from Coal Overburden Suitability for Root Zone
Material
Because strip mining for coal in the western United States
increased significantly in the 1970s several state regulatory
agencies established guidelines for the analysis of soils and
overburden materials to determine their suitability as root zone
materials in revegetation attempts. Suitability guidelines and
suspect levels were set by some states and are shown in Table 48.
The levels for cadmium, lead and zinc established by Montana as
being suspect, have been rescinded, but not yet replaced. New
proposed guidelines are under consideration.
5.3	Criteria for Defining Hazardous Wastes
The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) set
criteria for determining if a waste is hazardous. Part of this
act defines the EP Toxicity Test (40 CFR) 261.24, 19 May 1980).
The levels of arsenic, cadmium and lead that are defined as the
concentration of contaminants which will produce characteristic EP
Toxicity are shown in Table 49. The state of California has also
taken a similiar approach to defining hazardous materials by using
two criteria; soluble threshold limit concentration (STLC), and
total threshold limit concentraction (TTLC). These criteria are
given in Table 50.
5.4	Criteria for Metal Contaminants Based on Land Use
The British Department of Environment has set draft guide-
lines for the concentration of contaminants in soils based on land
use. These criteria are given in Table 51.
5.5	Summary
Table 52 summarizes the hazard criteria for arsenic, cadmium,
lead and zinc concentrations. These data are a synthesis of
information from state, provincial and national regulatory
agencies. Heavy emphasis is given to maximum cumulative loadings
of sludge to agricultural soils.
U3
-------
Table *»8. Suitability criteria for soli overburden used as root zone materials.
Elenerc Medium
Use
Cc 1 tec i a
Hazard
Response
Exposure
Pa thuay
Receptor Duration Method
Enforcement ReC.
Code
-e-
•c-
Pb
Cd
Zn
Ove:burden
Overburden
Overburden
So 11 s
Overburden
Soi Is
Overburden
Soils
Root Zone
Ma teria I
Root Zone
Material
Root Zone
Material
Root Zone
Material
Root Zone
Material
2.0ppm
10ppm
10-lSppn
(pH <6);
15-20ppro
(PH>6)
Su i tabi11ty
Gu ideline
Uptake from
Soil
Suitability Uptake from
Cuideli ne	So iI
Suspect
Level
0.1-1.0ppm Suspect
Level
40ppra
Suspect
Level
Uptake from
Soil
Uptake from
Soi 1
Uptake from
Sot 1
Plants
Plants
Plants
Plants
PH<6.5,
(. 04N
HCU .025N
H2S04)
PH>6.S,
(. 4N NaHCOj)
PH>6.0,
(DTPA)
pH<6.0,
(. 0 4N HC1&
.025N H2S04)
OTPA
DTPA
OTPA
Draft
Regulation
Draft
Regulation
Wycning Cape, of
¦nv • r onrsen z& -
^ualitv (WCiC)
1393
WDEQ 1932
Guideline1 Montana Department
of State Lands
(MOSL) 1977
Guideline^ MDSL 19<
Guideline^ ^3SL 19.
1 These guidelines have been rescinded* with proposed guidelines under review.
-------
Table	EP toxicity testing for hazardous materials.
Element r.ediun
Ccitecia
Hazard
Respose
LXposuce
Pa chway
Recepcoc
Duration
Method
Enforcement Bef.
Pb
Soil/was:e Removal
Disposal
5. 0mg/L
Soil/Was:e Removal/ 1.0mg/L
disposal
Soil/Watte Removal/ 5.0mg/L
Oisposal
EP Toxicity
EP Toxicity
EP Toxicity
EP Toxicity
Test
EP Toxicity
Test
EP Toxicity
Test
Federal
Standard
Federal
Standard
Federal
Standard
Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act
(3C3A, L983
RC3A 1939
RC3A 1939
\jy
-------
Table 50. Identification of hazardous wastes (California).
Element Medium	Use	Criteria	Hazard	Exposure	Receptor	Duration	Method	Enforcement Ref.
Response Pathway	Code
Soil/Waste Removal/ 5mg/kg
disposal wet weight
Soil/Waste Removal/ 500mg/kg
disposal wet weight
Soil/Waste Removal/ 1.0mg/kg
disposal wet weight
Soil/Waste Removal/ 100mg/kg
Disposal wet weight
Soil/Waste Removal/	5mg/kg
Disposal wet weight
Soil/Waste Removal/ 1000mg/kg
Disposal wet weight
Soil/Waste Removal/ 250mg/kg
Disposal wet weight
Soil/Waste Removal/ 5000mg/kg
Disposal wet weight
Soluble
0.2M Sodium
threshold
ci trate
limit
(pH 5.0)
concentrat ion
extraction
Tota 1
Total
threshold

limit

concentration

Soluble
0.2M Sodium
threshold
citrate
limit
(pH 5.0)
concentration
extract ion
Total
Total
threshold

limit

concentration

Soluble
0.2M Sodium
threshold
citrate
1 imi t
(pH 5.0)
concentrat ion
extract ion
Total
Total
threshold

1 imi t

concentration

Soluble
0.2M Sodium
threshold
c i trate
limit
(pH 5.0)
concent ract ion
extract ion
Total
Total
threshold

1 imi t

concentration

Draft	California
Regulation Administrative
(California) Code (CAC) 1983
Same as
above
Same as
above
Same as
above
Same as
above
Same as
above
Same as
above
Same as
above
CAC 1983
CAC 198 3
CAC 198 3
CAC 1983
CAC 1983
CAC 198 3
CAC 198 3
-------
Table 51. Acceptable concentration of contaminants in soils (United Kingdom).
Element Medium	Use	Criteria	Hazard	Exposure	Receptor	Duration	Method	Enforcement Ref.
Response Pathway	Code
As
AS
Soi 1
Soi 1
Small 1 20mg/kg
gardens dry soil
Large 1 10mg/kg
gardens dry soil
Threshold
for no
signi f icant
hazard
As above
Ingest ion
of soil,
crops;
dermal
contact,
inhalation
Ingestion
of soil,
crops;
dermal
contact
inhalat ion
Humans
Humans
Total As
in top
4S0mm of
soil
As above
Tentative . Smith 1981
guidelines
(UK)
As above
Smith 1981
As
As
Cd
Cd
Cd
Soi 1
Soi 1
Soil
Soi 1
Soil
Ameni tj
Grass -
Public
open
space ^
Large 2
gardens
Ameni t
grass
3
40mg/kg
dry soil
40mg/kg
dry soil
Small 1 5mg/kg
gardens dry soil
3mg/kg
dry soil
12mg/kg
dry soil
As above
As above
As above
As above
As above
Ingestion
of soi1,
dermal
contact,
inhalat ion
As above
Ingest ion
of soil,
crops;
dermal
contact,
inhalation
As above
Ingest ion
of soi1,
dermal
contact,
inhalation
Humans
Humans
Humans
Humans
Human
As above	As above Smith 1981
As above As above Smith 1981
Total Cd	As above Smith 1981
in top 4 50mm
of soil
As above	As above Smith 1981
As above	As above Smith 1981
-------
Table 51. Continued.
Clement Medium	Use	Criteria	Hazard	Exposure
Response	Pathway
Cd
Pb
Pb
-tr-
ee Pb
Pb
Zn
Soi 1
So i X
So i 1
Soil
Soil
Soi 1
Public
open
space ^
15mg/kg
dry soil
Small 1 5 50mg/kg
gardens dry soil
Large 2
gardens
Amenity
grass 3
Public
open
space 4
550mg/kg
1500mg/kg
dry soil
2000mg/kg
dry soil
Zn
Soi 1
Small 1 280mg/kg
gardens dry soil
Large 2 280mg/kg
gardens dry soil
Threshold
for no
significant
hazard
As above
As above
As above
As above
As above
As above
Ingestion
of soi1,
dermal .
contact,
inhalation
Ingestion
of soil,
crops;
dermal
contact,
inhalation
As above
Ingestion
- of soi1;
dermal
contact,
inhalation
As above
Ingest ion
of soil,
crops;
dermal
contact,
i nhalation
As above
Receptor	Duration	Method	Enforcement	Ref.
Code
Humans	Total Cd	Tentative Smith 1981
in top	guidelines
450mm	(UK)
of soil
Humans
Total Pb As above Smith 1981
in top
4 50mtn of
soi 1
Humans
As above As above Smith 1931
Humans
As above As above Smith 1981
Humans
As above As above Smith 1981
Humans
0.05M EDTA As above
extractable
Zn in top
450mm of
soi 1
Smith 1981
Humans
As above As above Smith 1981
-------
Table 51. Continued.
Element
Med i urn
Use
Cr i ter i a
Hazard
Response
Exposure
Pa thway
Receptor
Durat ion
Method
En forcement
Code
Ref.
Zn
Soi 1
Amen ity
grass 3
260-560
rag/kg
dry soil
Threshold
for no
s igni ficant
hazard
Ingestion
of soil,
dermal -
contact,
inhalation
Humans

0.05M EDTA
extractable
Zn in top
4 50mm
Tenta ti ve
Gu ideli nes
(UK)
Smith 1981
Zn
Soi 1
Public
open
space *
280-560
mg/kg
dry soil
As above
As above
Humans

As above
As above
Smith 1981
Zn
Soi 1
Vegeta-
t ion
130mg/kg
dry soil
Phytot i x ic
guideline
Uptake
from soil
Plants

0.05M EDTA
Extractable
Zn
As above
Smith 1981
° 1 Small garden is less than 7Sm2.
2 Large garden >_ 75m2.
^ Amenity grass includes schools, play areas etc.
4 Public open space includes parkland, playing fields.
-------
Table 52. Suggested hazard criteria for soil based on regulatory
agency data.
Arsenic Cadmium Lead	Zinc
mq/*g
Soil, Total level 6-10 1.5-2.0	1000 150-300
Soil, ExtractableA level 2-5 1.0	20 40-130
a/DPTA extractant for Pb, Cd and Zn; HC1 extractant for As.
150
-------
6.1
Toxicology
Mechanisms
6.0 APPENDIX
of Metals for Livestock
6.1.1 Arsenic toxicology
Arsenic is second only to lead for heavy metal poisoning of
domestic livestock (Sahli 1982, Buck et al. 1976). Arsenic
intoxication can occur through inhalation or ingestion of arsenic
bearing compounds. The trivalent forms of arsenic are generally
more toxic than are pentavalent forms (Franke and Moxon 1936) and
inorganic compounds are generally more toxic than organic forms
(Savchuck et al. 1960). The most common means of arsenic poison-
ing is through ingestion of contaminated food and the most
affected livestock are cattle, sheep, and horses (Sahli 1982,
Selby et al. 1977). Arsenic poisoning in livestock by inhalation
of arsenic compounds is not well documented.
Absorption of arsenic is dependent upon the means of exposure
(inhalation or ingestion), the form of arsenic, the species of
animal, and the condition of the animal. Soluble forms such as
sodium arsenite are readily absorbed by all body surfaces but less
soluble forms such as arsenic trioxide are not as well absorbed
and are partially eliminated by excretion in the feces (Buck et
al. 1976). Less than 10 percent of the usually soluble forms
appear in the feces (NRC 1980). Absorbed arsenic is transported
via the blood to most body tissues. In peracute, acute, or
subacute poisoning, arsenic tends to accumulate in the liver and
kidneys, with levels of 2 to 100 ppm (wet weight) found in these
organs in dying animals. High levels have also been observed in
skin tissues, hair, and spleen. Absorbed arsenic compounds are
generally excreted via urine, with lesser amounts in milk and
feces (Peoples 1964, Lakso and Peoples 1975, Shariatpanahi and
Anderson 1984a) . Bennett and Schwartz (1971) found that a
considerable portion of arsenic from lead arsenate fed to sheep
was excreted in feces within 3 to 7 days. Phenylarsonic compounds
are generally excreted rapidly by the urinary system in domestic
animals, with 50 to 75 percent excreted within one day and the
151
-------
remaining 25 percent excreted in 8 to 10 days (NRC 1977).
Shariatpanahi and Anderson (1984a) found that the half life of
arsenic in blood of sheep and goats was 3.2 and 2.1 days, respec-
tively after monosodium methanearsonate was removed from the diet.
Dehydrated animals and those in poor condition are more suscepti-
ble to poisoning, probably due to reduced excretion via the
kidneys. Some ingested inorganic arsenate and arsenite have been
shown to be methylated jji vivo by both ruminants and nonruminants
(Lakso and Peoples 1975, Tsukamoto et al. 1983). The action is
apparently endogenous and the result of intestinal microflora
(Penrose 1975) . This action may reduce the toxicity of these
compounds.
The toxicosis of arsenic is generally attributed to the
trivalent form (Buck et al. 1976). Arsenic reacts with sulfhydryl
groups in cells inhibiting sulfhydryl enzyme systems such as
pyruvate oxidase, which is essential for proper fat and carbohy-
drate metabolism in the cell. Arsenic also uncouples oxidative
phosphorylation by substituting for phosphorus; labile arsenylated
oxidation products are substituted for stable phosphorylated
intermediates (Riviere et al. 1981). Tissues most affected are
the alimentary tract, kidney, liver, lung and epidermis (Buck et
al. 1976). Capillary damage, especially in the splanchnic area,
results in transudation of plasma into the intestinal tract and
sharply reduced blood volume. Blood pressure falls to shock
levels, the heart muscle becomes depressed, and general circula-
tory failure occurs. The capillary transudation of plasma in
vesicles results in edema of the gastrointestinal mucosa, eventu-
ally leading to epithelial sloughing and the discharge of plasma
into the gastrointestinal tract (Radeleff 1970).
Chronic arsenic poisoning through faulty diets containing
phenylarsonic feed additives are well documented (NRC 1977).
Toxicosis by phenylarsonic compounds apparently involves periph-
eral nerve degeneration and symptoms include incoordination,
inability to control body and limb movements, and ataxia. The
condition may progress to quadriplegia (Ledet et al. 1973)
152
-------
The rapid excretion of arsenic from the system in sublethal
doses prevents any large bioaccumulation of arsenic in livestock.
Selby (1974) recommended a 14 day market withholding time for a
single dose of arsenic and a 6 week period for multiple arsenic
exposure. These authors suggested that arsenic intoxicated cattle
"...usually will represent a minimal hazard to man as a food
source."
Although epidemiological studies have implicated arsenic as a
carcinogen in humans, no literature was found indicating similar
implications in domestic livestock. The average elapsed time from
the beginning of skin treatments with arsenic compounds (Fowler's
solution) to the development of ephitheliomatous growth in humans
has averaged 18 years (NRC 1977) . It is thus likely that similar
occurrences in livestock would not have sufficient time to
develop, and possible metabolic differences such as exhibited by
rats, may produce a different syndrome.
6.1.2 Cadmium toxicology
Uptake of cadmium by domestic livestock is generally re-
stricted to ingestion via contaminated food supplies or soil.
Natural inhalation of cadmium at levels necessary to produce
toxicosis in livestock is poorly documented. Cadmium poisoning
through inhalation has been limited to human subjects, usually
associated with industrial exposure. Cadmium contamination of
livestock food sources may occur from airborne fallout, which
accumulates on or in forage, or from excessive levels in forage
grown on contaminated soils. Two of the major sources of cadmium
contamination are from the land disposal of sewage sludge high in
heavy metals and from mining and smelting operations. It is
likely that most instances of cadmium poisoning in domestic
livestock (ruminants and horses) are the result of the ingestion
of contaminated feed.
Absorption of cadmium is apparently not controlled by a
homeostatic mechanism and therefore accumulation of cadmium in the
body will occur regardless of the existing body burden or level of
intake (NRC 1980). Absorption through the gastrointestinal tract
153
-------
has been shown to range from 0.3 percent to 5 percent in various
animals (Doyle et al. 1974, Moore et al. 1973, Miller et al. 1967)
and is similar to the 2.7 percent absorption found for humans
(Newton et al. 1984). Data suggest diets deficient in protein and
calcium may increase cadmium absorption or retention (Larsson and
Piscator 1971, Suzuki et al. 1969). Elevated concentrations of
zinc, copper, iron, selenium or ascorbic acid tend to reduce the
deleterious effects of this element (Pond and Walker 1972, Hill et
al. 1963, Gunn et al. 1968). Cadmium retained by the gastrointes-
tinal tract appears to represent the fraction most rapidly cleared
from the body, usually within 4 to 12 days for cows and goats (NRC
1980). Lesser amounts of absorbed cadmium are excreted via bile,
intestinal tract wall and urine. Very small amounts (.002 ppm) of
cadmium have been detected in milk from Holstein cows which
suggests milk is not an important factor in the excretion of
cadmium from the body (Miller et al. 1967). Excretion of cadmium
via the urine increases markedly following renal damage but prior
to tissue damage, urine is an erratic indicator of cadmium
exposure.
The most common signs of cadmium poisoning in livestock are
reduced growth rates in young animals, anemia, infertility,
abortions and deformed young. Sheep fed cadmium have lost the
crimp in their wool, a characteristic of copper deficiency (NRC
1980) .
The physiological action of cadmium within the body is
intimately associated with zinc metabolism. Cadmium apparently
leaves the blood rapidly following absorption and accumulates to
some extent in most organs in the body. Both zinc and cadmium are
known to induce the synthesis of the protein thionein to which the
metals become bound (Cousins 1979) . Cadmium metallothionein
eventually accumulates in the liver and kidneys; kidneys have the
highest concentration. The degradation of metallothionein has
been shown to follow the order thionein < zinc metallothionein <
cadmium metallothionein. When cadmium metallothionein is de-
graded, the released cadmium ions are quickly incorporated into
nascent chains of thionein and retained within the body (Cousins
15*
-------
1979). The cadmium metallothionein is thus maintained in the
kidneys. Cadmium then interferes with zinc in enzymes necessary
for reabsorption and catabolism of proteins, producing tubular
proteinuria. Development of proteinuria in humans takes a number
of years of chronic exposure (more than 10). High concentrations
of cadmium in kidneys of livestock fed cadmium in their diet
suggests that this condition will occur in domestic animals if the
exposure time is of sufficient duration. However, with the
possible exception of horses, it is unlikely that animals would be
maintained for such long periods, especially in large commercial
operations.
Cadmium has been shown to decrease uptake of calcium by bone
in rats and chronic exposure via water and food in the presence of
a calcium deficient diet has been implicated in the development of
the Itai-Itai disease in humans. Osteoporosis has been observed
in horses and foals near a zinc smelter and has been attributed to
direct cadmium poisoning or "the result of a conditioned copper
deficiency associated with high intakes of zinc and cadmium"
(Gunson et al. 1982).
Studies of the effect of cadmium on the reproduction of
livestock strongly indicate a high incidence of abortions and
deformed offspring. A diet of 50 ppm cadmium succinate produced
dead and abnormal calves and lambs (Wright et al. 1977). Goats on
a diet of 75 ppm experienced 50 percent abortions, with no normal
young (Anke et al. 1970).
The tendency of cadmium to accumulate in the kidney and liver
of livestock and the low rate of elimination from the body make
bioaccumulation of cadmium very important as a means of introduc-
ing this element into the human food chain. There is less danger,
however, from consumption of livestock muscle tissues which
accumulate very little cadmium (Table 12).
Available data strongly suggests carcinogenic effects of
cadmium on humans. Many studies involving subcutaneous injections
of cadmium chloride or other cadmium salts in rats have produced
sarcoma. Similar studies with oral ingestion of cadmium in rats
and mice did not suggest cadmium was carcinogenic in the doses
155
-------
given (Friberg et al. 1974). Only a small amount of literature
exists concerning the long-term carcinogenic effects of low level
chronic cadmium poisoning in domestic livestock.
Zinc is antagonistic to cadmium and the effects of cadmium
poisoning have been somewhat attenuated by increasing zinc in the
diet. The antagonistic nature of zinc has reduced the risk of
exposure to cadmium in some areas polluted by smelters. Simi-
larly, supplemental calcium, iron, copper, selenium and ascorbic
acid in the diet has decreased the effects of cadmium toxicity.
Lead appears to be synergistic and increases cadmium toxicity.
6.1.3 Lead toxicology
Lead poisoning is the most common form of heavy metal
poisoning in livestock and has been the subject of many reports
and literature reviews (Amnerman et al. 1977, Aronson 1972, Buck
1970). Ingestion and subsequent absorption of lead in the
gastrointestinal tract is the primary mode of absorption in
domestic animals although Dogra et al. (1984) found bovine lungs
with lead concentrations up to 4268 ppm in industrial areas.
Sources of lead include contaminated feed, forage, and soils,
along with lead-bearing debris (storage batteries, used crankcase
oil, paint, leaded gasoline, etc.). Lead compounds are generally
insoluble and some soluble forms (lead acetate) develop insoluble
compounds (lead sulfate) in the gastrointestinal tract. Ruminants
and nonruminants absorb less than three percent and about 10
percent of ingested lead, respectively (National Research Council
(NRC) 1972). Research has shown that excessive dietary calcium
and phosphorus decrease lead absorption in rats and lambs (NRC
1980). High zinc intake has a beneficial effect on lead toxicity
in horses (Schmitt et al. 1971, Willoughby et al. 1972) and swine
(Hsu et al. 1975). Horses may be more prone to lead poisoning
than ruminants, but the higher number of incidents reported for
horses may be partially the result of ingestion of higher levels
of contaminated soils (Buck et al. 1976). Swine, sheep, goats,
and chickens are apparently somewhat resistant to lead intoxica-
tion (Damron et al. 1969, Staples 1975, NRC 1980).
156
-------
Excretion of lead occurs through urine, feces, milk, and
hair. Studies with rats (Castellino et al. 1966) and sheep
(Blaxter and Cowie 1946, Pearl et al. 1983, Bennett and Schwartz
1971) suggest that fecal excretion, via bile and by secretion of
lead and epithelial exfoliation in the gastrointestinal tract, may
be greater than or equal to urinary excretion. Fecal excretion of
ingested lead has been reported to range from 82 to 99 percent for
sheep (Bennett and Schwartz 1971, Pearl et al. 1983, Blaxter 1950,
Fick et al 1976) and high lead levels were found in feces of
experimental horses (Willoughby et al. 1972). Chronic exposure to
low levels of lead have been shown to produce a near steady state
in adult humans, sheep (Pearl et al. 1983), and cattle (Allcroft
1951) where metabolic excretion of lead approximately equals lead
absorption.
The estimated minimal cumulative fatal dosage of lead in
cattle is 6 to 7 mg/kg body weight per day (Buck et al. 1976).
Allcroft (1951) fed lead as lead acetate to an experimental steer
at a dose of 5 to 6 mg/kg body weight per day for 33 months before
any signs of clinical toxicosis occurred. Hammond and Aronson
(1964) observed no effects in cattle consuming 3.0 to 3.5 rag
lead/kg body weight per day for several months. Cattle fed 6.25
mg lead/kg body weight lead per day died within 24 days (Doyle and
Younger 1984), and calves on milk diets containing lead levels of
2.7 mg/kg body weight per day died within 20 days (Zmudski et al.
1983). Horses have been reported to be poisoned at lead levels of
1.7 mg/kg body weight per day. Evidence clearly indicates that
livestock can be poisoned by moderately low chronic lead levels.
Clinical signs of lead poisoning include anorexia, excessive
salivation, diarrhea, blindness, muscle twitching, hyperirrita-
bility, depression, convulsions, grinding teeth, ataxia, circling,
bellowing ("roaring in horses") and incoordination. Lack of
muscular control of lips and the rectal sphincter has been
observed in ponies (Burrows and Borchard 1982).
Absorbed lead is initially distributed to soft tissues via
the blood. Some of the lead is later redeposited in bone where it
accumulates and forms the bulk of the body's lead burden. Lead
157
-------
affects all major body organs and has been found concentrated in
kidneys, liver, spleen, heart and brain. Circulating lead
combines with erythrocytes and results in increased fragility of
red blood cells and their subsequent premature destruction. Lead
also depresses bone marrow and as a result fewer red blood cells
are produced. The above effects of blood result in the develop-
ment of microcytic hypochronic anemia in some animals species.
Lead causes rupture of lysosomes and release of acid phosphatase
that is required for energy production and protein synthesis.
Lead disrupts heme synthesis by interfering with several enzymes
and blocks metabolism of aminolevulinic acid which causes abnor-
mally large amounts of deltaminolevulinic acid to appear in plasma
and urine. Chronic lead poisoning causes degeneration of kidney
and liver tissues with necrosis of the renal tubule cells. Acute
poisoning produces necrosis of the gastrointestinal mucosa. The
central nervous system is affected by decreased blood supply due
to capillary damage which produces edema or collapse of small
arteries. Extensive brain lesions have been noted in both chronic
and acute lead poisoning in cattle (Christian and Tryphonas 1971).
These lesions involve the cerebral cortex, thalamus, hypothalamus,
medulla oblongata and proximal cervical spinal cord. Pharyngeal
or buccal paralysis in cattle and laryngeal and pharyngeal
paralysis in horses may be produced by damage to either cranial
nerves or the brain stem nuclei. Incoordination and degeneration
of muscle control occurs through segmental demyelination of
peripheral nerves.
Lead has been shown to adversely affect reproduction in
several animal species, including humans. Sheep grazing in lead
mining areas have exhibited high rates of abortions and failures
to conceive. Pregnant goats on lead-supplemented diets (lead
acetate, 50 to 6,400 mg Pb/kg/day) aborted 6 to 8 days after
starting the lead diets (Dollahite et al. 1975). There is
evidence that lead can cross the placenta and affect fetal
development (Barltrop 1969) .
158
-------
The large accumulation of lead in livestock organs and bone
represents a potentially significant source of lead in the human
diet.
No documentation has been found relating chronic exposure of
livestock to lead and the subsequent development of cancer.
Studies of rats and mice subjected to rather high doses of lead
compounds via oral or parenteral administrations exhibited
malignant and benign renal neoplasms (Environmental Protection
Agency 19 77).
The synergistic effects of lead and cadmium have been
documented for ponies and calves (Burrows and Borchard 1982, Lynch
et al. 1976b). Zinc appears to be antagonistic to lead and
inhibits symptoms of lead toxicity in young horses (Willoughby et
al. 1972b). These authors found that, in the presence of toxic
amounts of lead and zinc, the symptoms and tissue lead accumula-
tion normally associated with lead toxicity were suppressed and
that the clinical symptoms were those associated with zinc
toxicity. Willoughby et al. (1972b) found that dietary doses of
lead and zinc necessary to experimentally produce clinical
toxicity in foals were considerably higher than lead and zinc
levels in diets associated with natural toxicosis, thus suggesting
interaction with unknown additional elements occurred in the
natutal poisoning cases. Lead has been shown to also disrupt
tissue levels of iron, copper and manganese in cattle (Doyle and
Younger 1984). There is conflicting data concerning the effect of
calcium on the absorption and excretion of lead (Pearl et al.
1983, Willoughby et al. 1972).
6.1.4 Zinc toxicology
Animals have high tolerances for zinc, and only under large,
excessive exposures have toxic effects been documented. Diets
with 3,000 ppm have been required to induce zinc toxicosis experi-
mentally, and 1,000 ppm zinc has not produced adverse effects if
there has been an adequate amount of copper and iron in the diet.
Ott et al. (1966a) has shown that 1000 to 2000 ppm zinc is
necessary to adversely affect the performance of lambs. Zinc is
159
-------
an essential element, and all body tissues contain some zinc.
Metabolic problems with zinc generally involve a zinc deficiency.
Although inhalation of industrial dust has resulted in
deposition of up to 13,311 ppm zinc in bovine lungs (Dogra et al.
1984) the normal route of zinc absorption is through the gastroin-
testinal tract. The approximate minimum requirement of zinc in
the diet is 40 to 100 ppm for young domestic animals (NRC 1980).
Absorption of zinc is controlled by homeostatic mechanisms when
zinc ingestion is within normal ranges. These mechanisms have
been shown to become markedly less effective at higher (600 ppm)
levels of zinc intake in calves (Miller et al. 1970, 1971). Zinc
absorption in humans has been reported to range from 16 to 77
percent of the total amount ingested (EPA 1977). Sheep absorbed
13 percent of a 39 mg per day zinc diet (Doyle et al. 1974). Zinc
deficiency and underweight conditions increase absorption while
excessive dietary calcium with phytate decreases zinc absorption.
Zinc is primarily excreted in the feces, with lesser amounts in
urine. Small amounts are also found in milk, saliva, sweat and
hair, the latter is commonly used as an indicator of body zinc
levels (Miller et al. 1965b).
Manifestations of excess dietary zinc include reduced weight
gains, anemia, reduced bone ash, decreased iron, copper and
manganese in tissues, and diminished utilization of calcium and
phosphorus (Ott et al. 1966 c,d). Lameness has been observed in
horses receiving up to 186 mg/kg body weight zinc, and severe bone
and cartilage abnormalities have been observed in swine receiving
268 ppm dietary zinc. Diets with 2,000 to 4,000 ppm zinc have
produced an arthritis-like syndrome, internal hemorrhaging and 33
to 50 percent mortality in swine (Brink 1959).
Absorbed zinc binds to sulfyhdryl, amino, imidazole and
phosphate groups, zinc is necessary for several zinc metal-
loenzyme and metalloprotein systems, including carbonic anhydrase,
carboxypeptidases A and B, alcohol dehydrogenase, glutamic
dehydrogenase, D-glyceraldehyde-3-phosphate dehydrogenase, lactic
dehydrogenase, malic dehydrogenase, alkaline phosphatase, aldo-
lase, superoxide dismutase, rib.onnuclease and DNA polymerase
160
-------
(Riordan and Vallee 1976, Chesters 1978). The toxic effects of
excessive zinc include disrupting bone mineralization (by depress-
ing calcium and phosphorus levels and by decreasing the cal-
ciumrphosphorus ratio), interference with copper metabolism
(lessened activity of cytochrome oxidase and catalase), and
reduced iron concentrations in some tissues (iron deficiency
anemia and reduced hepatic iron stores) (NRC 1979).
Zinc chloride has been shown to induce testicular tumors when
injected into the active gonads of some fowl, but there is no
evidence that zinc is carcinogenic when ingested. Some studies
suggest zinc supplements may inhibit tumor growth.
Zinc is antagonistic to cadmium and can reduce many of the
adverse effects produced by cadmium when the diet is supplemented
with zinc. Animals receiving both zinc and lead exhibit lower
lead in bones but higher levels of lead in kidneys and liver.
The neurologic dysfunction associated with high lead intake has
been absent in the presence of supplemented zinc in the diet.
Zinc is antagonistic to copper and may produce copper deficiencies
at elevated levels (Eamens et al. 1984). Zinc also disrupts
levels of calcium, phosphorus and iron, as indicated above.
6.2 Toxicology Mechanisms of Metals for Plants
The toxicology of metals in plants may involve different
biochemical mechanisms in different species and varieties (Foy et
al. 1978). Numerous other factors also influence the toxicity of
heavy metals. These factors and plant toxicology mechanisms are
presented in the following sections.
6.2.1 Arsenic toxicology
While elemental arsenic is not toxic, many of its compounds
are toxic. Chief among these are arsenate (As04~3) an
-------
of arsenic from soils and the arsenic levels in natural soils are
rarely high enough to cause phytotoxicity. Aerial deposition of
arsenic from smelters, or long-term application of arsenical
pesticides may elevate soil values to phytotoxic levels. Plant
toxicity to arsenic occurs when: 1) abnormally high arsenic
levels are produced in soil, either deliberately or accidentally
by man's activities; 2) a change in soil chemistry increases
arsenic availability; and 3) plant foliage is sprayed with
arsenical compounds (Wauchope 1983). Symptoms of arsenic toxicity
include wilting of new-cycle leaves, followed by retardation of
root and top growth (Liebig 1966).
Arsenite is 4 to 100 times more toxic and its compounds are
more available to plants than arsenate (Wauchope 1983). However,
in most cases arsenite is rapidly oxidized to arsenate in the
soil. Arsenic phytotoxicity is a four-stage process: 1) absorp-
tion onto plant surfaces; 2) movement to the plant interior; 3)
translocation to the site of action; and 4) a bio.chemical reaction
that is toxic (Wauchope 1983). Both arsenate and arsenite are
rapidly and intensely adsorbed to plant roots, resulting in very
high concentrations in the root vicinity (Machlis.1974). Because
of its extremely high toxicity to cell membranes, very limited
translocation of arsenite occurs once the chemical has penetrated
the cuticle and entered the apoplast phase of the plant system.
Membrane degradation is the result of arsenite oxidation by
sulfhydryl groups, causing cessation of root functions and foliar
necrosis upon contact (Speer 1973). Internal injury of this type
is manifested as wilting due to loss of turgor.
Arsenate is less toxic and therefore is more readily trans-
located. If sub-lethal concentrations are present in the soil,
substantial accumulation may occur in foliage (Liebig 1966).
Translocation occurs both intra- and extracellularly, including
xylem and phloem transport. Arsenate does not react with sulfhy-
dryl groups, nor does it degrade cell membranes like arsenite.
Its main toxic effects are apparently due to its disturbance of
phosphorus metabolism in plants. Studies have shown that the
chemistry of arsenate and phosphate is very similar and they tend
162
-------
to replace one another chemically, but not functionally. Such
substitution of arsenate for phosphate may cause decoupling of
oxidative phosphorylation in mitochondria and inhibit leaf uptake
of chemicals. Further, as arsenate is translocated throughout the
plant it may interfere with cell organelles such as chloroplasts
in which phosphorus plays an important role (NRC 1977). Porter
and Sheridan (1981) noted reduction in the nitrogen fixing
activity at low levels (1 mg/L of added arsenic) and inhibition
of photosynthesis and respiration at very high levels (100 mg/L).
6.2.2 Cadmium toxicology
Cadmium is an element serving no apparent essential biologi-
cal function, yet it is often readily taken up, translocated and
accumulated by plants. It is found in very low concentrations in
natural soils and generally only reaches phytotoxic levels due to
anthropogenic activities. Plant uptake occurs both through roots
and leaves. Uptake of soil-cadmium is influenced by several
factors including pH, CEC, plant species and varieties and age
(Jastrow and Koeppe 1980, Boggess et al. 1978). Recently, added
chloride was shown to increase the level of soluble soil-cadmium
(Bingham et al. 1984). A study of cadmium uptake and transloca-
tion from solution has shown most of the cadmium to be retained
in plant roots (Jarvis et al. 1976). Symptoms of cadmium toxicity
include stunting and chlorosis. While much is known about the
toxicological effects of cadmium, little has been discovered con-
cerning the biochemical basis for plant toxicity.
Cadmium is chemically allied with zinc and often substitutes
for zinc in plant metabolic activities; this substitution may be a
reason for its phytotoxicity. Vallee and Ulmer (1972) proposed
that cadmium toxicity is in part due to the replacement of zinc by
cadmium at certain enzyme sites. Root et al. (1975) stated that
excess cadmium may cause chlorosis in corn leaves due to decreased
zinc uptake and subsequent changes in the Fe:Zn ratios. Cadmium
interference with zinc uptake and translocation in beans was
documented by Hawf and Schmid (1967). In contrast, added cadmium
levels significantly increased the zinc concentration of tomato
163
-------
leaf tissue (Smith and Bcennan 1983). Other researchers have
reported both interference and enhancement of zinc uptake by
cadmium in different plants and at varying levels of cadmium
concentration (Hinesly et al. 1982, Pepper et al. 1983, Chaney et
al. 1976). Gerritse et al. (1983) found that increasing zinc in
the soil solution apparently increased cadmium uptake at high
solution concentrations of cadmium and decreased uptake at low
solution concentractions. Air pollution (as ozone) may interact
synergistically with cadmium to reduce crop yields, causing ozone
toxicity symptoms to develop at cadmium levels that normally would
be harmless (Czuba and Ormrod 1974). Hovmand et al. (1983)
reported that atmospheric cadmium accounted for 20 to 60 percent
of the total amount of cadmium in some agricultural crops in
Denmark.
More than 70 percent of the total amount of cadmium in tree
leaves near a zinc smelter was found to be associated with the
cell wall. The remaining cadmium was distributed among the
cytosol, vacuole sap and cell organelles (Ernst, 1980). Such a
compartmentalization of cadmium in cell walls may protect the more
susceptible metabolic sites of the cell. Cadmium content in cell
organelles is related to their function and potential for ion
uptake. For example, chloroplasts will accumulate much more
cadmium than mitochondria.
Lee et al. (1976) found that cadmium may either stimulate or
inhibit a large number of plant enzyme systems, which may cause
subsequent biochemical chain reactions. Enzyme inhibition has
been shown to be the result of cadmium affinity for sulfhydryl
groups. Such disruption of enzyme systems has been shown to
affect nitrate uptake in corn seedlipgs and amino group catalysis
and nitrogen fixation by legumes (Mathys 1975, Volk and Jackson
1973, Huang et al. 1974).
Cadmium may also negatively affect photosynthesis. It has
often been associated with reduced chlorophyll content, possibly
due to interference with the biosynthesis of photosynthetic
pigments and biomembranes. Enzymes needed for catalytic activity
may also be inactivated by cadmium because cadmium will bind with
164
-------
sulfhydryl groups. Reduced carbon dioxide fixation may result
from cadmium substitution for zinc in zinc metalloenzymes and sub-
stitution for manganese may cause inhibition of electron flow in
plant photosystems (Ernst 1980).
Plant respiration may be enhanced or inhibited depending upon
species-specific carbohydrate metabolism. Cadmium has been shown
to cause pronounced swelling of mitochondria, with a resultant
decrease in respiration rate (Bittell and Miller 1974). Like
numerous other metals, cadmium may have a strong effect on the
properties of DNA. It has been demonstrated that cadmium may
decrease cell viability, increase single-strand breakage of DNA
and inhibit cell division (Mitra and Bernstein 1978).
6.2.3 Lead toxicology
Lead is considered a nonessential element for plant growth.
Lead uptake from soils is dependent on many factors, -including
soil pH, cation exchange capacity (CEC), organic matter, calcium
content, plant species and the soluble metal concentration.
Climatic conditions such as precipitation, temperature and the
length of daylight also influence lead uptake.
Lead uptake is enhanced by low pH conditions and by soils
with little organic matter. Organic matter is known to have a
high CEC and tends to adsorb or bind most metal cations. Thus,
high CEC or organic matter content renders soil lead less availa-
ble to plants. Low pH conditions enhance the solubility of most
metals, including lead, making them more available for plant
uptake. The addition of phosphate and liming have been shown to
reduce lead uptake by plants by forming low solubility compounds
such as lead hydroxide, carbonate and phosphate (Demayo et al.
1982) . Plant species also differ in their lead uptake. Lead
tends to collect in the top layer of soil and, therefore, shallow
rooted plants such as annual grasses take up more lead than deep
rooted perennials such as alfalfa.
Absorption of lead by plants is both by root uptake and
absorption through foliage of airborne lead fallout. Most of the
literature indicates that uptake by roots is the primary means of
165
-------
lead absorption (Zimdahl and Arvik, 1973). Translocation of lead
from the root system to other parts of the plant is poor/ with
roots generally accumulating the highest lead concentration. The
translocation is predominantly apoplastic in nature (Holl and
Hampp 1975). Indirect evidence suggests transport is via sieve
tubes which are part of the phloem (food) transport system in
plants. Some lead may be precipitated in root dictyosomes,
possibly due to phosphatase enzymes (Hague and Subramanian 1982).
The dictyosome vesicles contain cell wall precursors and as the
dictyosomes move to the cell walls and fuse to it, the lead may be
bound at that site. Translocation of lead is apparently enhanced
when the soil solution is deficient in other nutrients. Many
researchers have found increased lead levels in all plant tissues
growing in a nutrient solution containing lead. The fruiting and
flowering parts of plants have been found to accumulate the least
amount of lead (NRC 1972).
The toxicosis of lead in plants is expressed by reduced
growth and vital processes such as photosynthesis, mitosis and
water absorption. Lead accumulates in tissues with high mitotic
activity and appears to be bound to polyuronic acids of the cell
walls (Holl and Hampp, 1975). High concentrations of lead are
found in organelles such as mitochondria, chloroplasts and also in
nuclei. The lead is apparently bound to certain phosphate groups
in cells.
Roots that are in contact with lead degenerate because of a
decrease in cell division in root meristems. The photosynthetic
process is hindered by diminished CO2 fixation by chloroplasts and
by the disturbance that lead causes in the transport of electron
between the site of primary electron donor and water oxidation
(Holl and Hampp 1975). The activity of many enzymes is inhibited
due to blocking by lead of sulfhydryl groups in proteins due to
changes in the phosphate levels of living cells.
6.2.4 Zinc toxicology
Zinc is an essential element in plant metabolism. Zinc
deficiency in crops is the most common micronutrient deficiency in
166
-------
the United States (NRC 1979). Zinc phytotoxicity exists naturally
in only isolated instances with most toxicity problems related to
anthropogenic sources such as in metal mining, smelting and
refining.
Zinc uptake by plants is influenced by the soil pH, soil
composition, CEC, organic matter, phosphorus levels, and soluble
zinc concentrations. Uptake is also influenced by the form of
zinc. Zinc oxides, carbonates, phosphates and sulfides are
generally less soluble and therefore less toxic than similar
concentrations of soluble zinc salts. Zinc availability to plants
is enhanced in low pH in soils where the solubility of many metals
is increased. The potential for zinc toxicosis is reduced in
soils high in calcium and magnesium and the increase of soil pH
from the liming of agricultural soils reduced zinc toxicosis (Lee
and Page 1967). The fixation of zinc through microbial activity
also reduces zinc available for plant uptake. Studies suggest
plants remove 1 to 3 percent of the zinc added to a soil (Taylor
et al. 1982) .
Absorption of zinc is influenced by copper, phosphorus, and
iron levels. Copper and zinc are antagonistic and the absorption
of one usually depresses absorption of the other. Phosphorus in
excessive amounts can reduce zinc uptake and, conversely, exces-
sive zinc apparently depresses phosphorus metabolism. Excess iron
tends to intensify a zinc deficiency. Translocation of zinc
occurs through the xylem (water transports system) and a small
amount may be redistributed via the phloem (food transport
system). Normal zinc concentrations in plants range from 15 to
150 ppm (dry matter) with zinc toxicosis commonly occurring at
levels of 400 ppm (dry matter) (Gough et al. 1979). The suscepti-
bility of plants to zinc toxicity varies among species. Boawn and
Rasmussen (1971) have shown that monocotyledonous species (corn,
sorghum, barley and wheat) were more sensitive to excess zinc than
were dicotuledmons species (beans, peas, some leafy vegetables and
clover). Symptoms of zinc toxicity include stunted growth,
reduced yields, reduced size of leaves, necrosis of leaf tips and
167
-------
shoot apices, a reddish tint near the basal part of leaves and
curling and distortion of foliage.
Zinc is an enzyme cofactor and binds pyridine nucleotides to
the protein portion of enzymes. Zinc atoms also stabilize the
structure of yeast alcohol dehydrogenase and are an essential
component in a variety of dehydrogenases, proteinases, peptidases
and zinc metalloenzyme carbonic anhydrase (NRC 1979). Lack of
zinc, therefore, produces a general failure in the metabolic
system; RNA doesn't form, resulting in lowered protein formation,
less total nitrogen and DNA lesions.
6.3 Computerized Data Base Utilized
The following data bases have been computer searched for this
document. Descriptions are quoted directly from Dialog database
catalog for 1985.
AGRICOLA	File 10, 110
1970-present, 2,826,000 records, monthly updates (National
Agricultural Library, Beltsville, MD).
AGRICOLA (formerly CAIN) is the cataloging and indexing
database of the National Agricultural Library (NAL). This massive
file provides comprehensive coverage of worldwide journal and
monographic literature on agriculture and related subjects. Since
AGRICOLA represents the actual holdings of the National Agricul-
tural Library, there is substantial coverage of all subject matter
normally contained in a very large library. File 110 contains the
citations for the years 1980-1978. File 10 contains citations
from 1979 to the present. Both files have similar format and
identical coverage and pricing.
BIOSIS PREVIEWS	Files 5, 55, 255
1969-present, 4,566,000 records, biweekly updates
(Biosciences Information Service, Philadelphia, PA).
BIOSIS PREVIEWS contains citations from both Biological
Abstracts and Biological Abstracts/RRM (formerly entitled Bio-
research Index), the major publications of Biosciences Information
168
-------
Service of Biological Abstracts. Together, these publications
constitute the major English language service providing comprehen-
sive worldwide coverage of research in the life sciences. Over
9,000 primary journals and monographs as well as symposia,
reviews, preliminary reports, semi-popular journals, selected
institutional and government reports, research communications, and
other secondary sources provide citations on all aspects of the
biosciences and medical research. Searchable abstracts are
available for Biological Abstracts records from July 1976 to the
present. File 5 contains all the citations from 1981 through the
present. The citations for the years from 1977 through 1980 are
available in File 55, and citations for the years 1969-1976 are
available in File 255.
CAB ABSTRACTS	File 50
1972-present, 1,760,000 records, monthly updates
(Commonwealth Agricultural Bureaux, Farnham Royal, Slough,
England).
CAB ABSTRACTS is a comprehensive file of agricultural and
biological information containing all records in the 26 main
abstract journals published by Commonwealth Agricultural Bureaux.
Over 8,500 journals in 37 languages are scanned, as well as books,
reports, and other publications. In some instances less accessi-
ble literature is abstracted by scientists working in other
countries. About 130,000 items are selected for publication
yearly; significant papers are abstracted, while less important
works are reported with bibliographic details only.
The following journals are included in CAB ABSTRACTS:
Agricultural Engineering Abstracts; Animals Breeding Abstracts;
Apicultural Abstracts; Arid Lands Abstracts; Dairy Science
Abstracts; Field Crop Abstracts; Forest Products Abstracts;
Forestry Abstracts; Helminthological Abstracts (A & B); Herbage
Abstracts; Horticultural Abstracts; Index Veterinarius; Nutrition
Abstracts and Reviews (A & B); Plant Breeding Abstracts; Proto-
zoological Abstracts; Review of Applied Entomology (A & B); Review
of Medical and Veterinary Mycology; Review of Plant Pathology;
169
-------
Rural Development Abstracts; Rural Extension, Education and
Training Abstracts; Leisure, Recreation and Tourism Abstracts;
Rural Sociology Abstracts; Soils and Fertilizers; Veterinary
Bulletin; Weed Abstracts; and World Agricultural Economics.
CRIS/USDA	File 60
Last two years, 35,700 records, monthly updates (U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Beltsville, MD).
ORIS (Current Research Information System) is a valuable
current-awareness database for agriculturally related research
projects. The projects described in CRIS cover current research
in agriculture and related sciences, sponsored or conducted by
USDA research agencies, state agricultural experiment stations,
state forestry schools, and other cooperating state institutions.
Currently active and recently completed projects within the last
two years are included.
The subject coverage of CRIS encompasses the following
disciplines: biological, physical, social and behavioral sciences
related to agriculture in its broadest applications, including
natural resource conservation and management; marketing and
economics; food and nutrition; consumer health and safety; family
life, housing, and rural development; environmental protection;
forestry; outdoor recreation; and community, area, and regional
development.
ENVIROLINE	File 40
1971-present, 115,500 records, monthly updates (ElC/Intelli-
gence, New York, NY).
ENVIRONLINE, produced by the Environment Information Center,
covers the world's environmental information. Its comprehensive,
interdisciplinary approach provides indexing and abstracting
coverage of more than 5,000 international primary and secondary
source publications reporting on all aspects of the environment.
Included are such fields as: management, technology, planning,
law, political science, economics, geology, biology, and chemistry
as they relate to environmental issues. Literature covered
170
-------
includes periodicals, government documents, industry reports,
proceedings of meetings, newspaper articles, films and monographs.
Also included are rulings from the Federal Register and patents
from the Official Gazette.
MEDLINE	Files 152, 153, 154
1966-present, 4,687,000 records, monthly updates (U.S.
National Library of Medicine, Bethesda, MD).
MEDLINE (MEDLARS onLINE), produced by the U.S. National
Library of Medicine, is one of the major sources for biomedical
literature. MEDLINE corresponds to three printed indexes: Index
Medicus, Index to Dental Literature, and International Nursing
Index. MEDLINE covers virtually every subject in the broad field
of biomedicine. MEDLINE indexes articles from over 3000 interna-
tional journals published in the United States and 70 countries.
Citations to chapters or articles from selected monographs are
also included.
MEDLINE is indexed using NLM's controlled vocabulary MeSH
(Medical Subject Headings). Over 40% of records added since 1975
contain author abstracts taken directly from the published
articles. Over 250,000 records are added per year, of which over
70% are English language.
NTIS	File 6
1964-present, 1,122,000 records, biweekly updates (National
Technical Information Service, [NTIS], U.S. Department of Com-
merce, Springfield, VA).
The NTIS database consists of government-sponsored research,
development, and engineering plus analyses prepared by federal
agencies, their contractors or grantees. It is the means through
which unclassified, publicly available unlimited distribution
reports are made available for sale from such agencies as NASA,
DDC, DOE, HHS (Formerly HEW), HUD, DOT, Department of Commerce,
and some 240 other units. State and local government agencies are
now beginning to contribute their reports to the file.
171
-------
The NTIS database includes material from both the hard and
soft sciences, including substantial materials on technological
applications, business procedures, and regulatory matters. Many
topics of immediate broad interest are included, such as environ-
mental pollution and control, energy conversion, technology
transfer, behavioral/societal problems, urban and regional
planning.
POLLUTION ABSTRACTS	File 41
1970-present, 110,000 records, bimonthly updates (Cambridge
Scientific Abstracts, Bethesda, MD).
POLLUTION ABSTRACTS is a leading resource for references to
environmentally related literature on pollution, its sources, and
its control. The following subjects are covered by the POLLUTION
ABSTRACTS database: Air Pollution, Environmental Quality, Noise
Pollution; Pesticides, Radiation, Solid Wastes, and Water
Pollution.
SCISEARCH	Files 34, 87, 94, 186
1974-present, 6,189,000 records, biweekly updates (Institute
for Sciehtific Information, Philadelphia, PA)
SCISEARCH is a multidisciplinary index to the literature of
Science and technology prepared by the Institute for Scientific
Information (ISI). It contains all the records published in
Science Citation Index (SCI) and additional records from the
Current Contents series of publications that are not included in
the printed version of SCI. SCISEARCH is distinguished by two
important and unique characteristics. First, journals indexed are
carefully selected on the basis of several criteria, including
citation analysis, resulting in the inclusion of 90 percent of the
world's significant scientific and technical literature. Second,
citation indexing is provided, which allows retrieval of newly
published articles through the subject relationships established
by an author's reference to prior articles. SCISEARCH covers
every area of the pure and applied sciences.
172
-------
The ISI staff indexes all significant items (articles,
reports of meetings, letter, editorials, correction notices, etc.)
from about 2600 major scientific and technical journals. In
addition, the SCISEARCH file for 1974-75 includes approximately
38,000 items from Current Contents—Clinical Practice. Beginning
January 1, 1976, all items from Current Contents—Engineering,
Technology, and Applied Science and Current Contents—Agriculture,
Biology, and Environmental Sciences that are not presently covered
in the printed SCI are included each month. This expanded
coverage adds approximately 58,000 items per year to the SCISEARCH
file.
WATER RESOURCES ABSTRACTS	File 117
1968-present, 176,000 records, monthly updates (U.S. Dept. of
the Interior, Washington, D.C.).
Water Resources Abstracts is prepared from materials col-
lected by over 50 water research centers and institutes in the
United States. The file covers a wide range of water resource
topics including water resource economics, ground and surface
water hydrology, metropolitan water resources planning and
management, and water-related aspects of nuclear radiation and
safety. The collection is particularly strong in the literature
on water planning (demand, economics, cost allocations), water
cycle (precipitation, snow, groundwater, lakes, erosion, etc), and
water quality (pollution, waste treatment). WRA covers predomi-
nantly English-language material and includes monographs, journal
articles, reports, patents and conference proceedings.
173
-------
7.0 REFERENCES CITED
Akinsoyinu, 0., 0.0. Tewe and A.U. Mba. 1979. Concen-
tration of trace elements in milk of West African dwarf
goats affected by state of lactation. Journal of Dairy
Science. V.62, pp 921-
Albert, W.B. and C.H. Arndt. 1931. The concentration of
arsenic as an index of arsenic toxicity to plants.
S.C. Agric. Exp. Sta. 44th Ann. Rpt.
Alberta Environment. 1982. Guidelines for the applica-
tion of municipal wastewater sludges to agricultural
lands in Alberta. Standards and Approvals Division.
Earth Sciences Division. Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.
Allcroft, R. 1951. Lead poisoning in cattle and sheep.
The Veterinary Record. V. 63(37), pp. 583-590.
Allcroft, R. 1950. Lead as a nutritional hazard to farm
livestock. IV. Distribution of lead in the tissues of
bovines after ingestion of various lead compounds.
Journal of Comparative Pathology. V. 60. pp. 190-208.
Alien, G.S. 1968. An outbreak of zinc poisoning in cattle.
The Veterinary Record. V. 83, pp. 8-9.
Allen, J.G. and H.G. Masters. 1980. Prevention of ovine
lupinosis by the oral administration of zinc sulphate and
effect of such therapy on liver and pancreas zinc and liver
copper. Australian Veterinary Journal. V. 56. pp. 168-171.
Allen, J.G., H.G. Masters, R.L. Peet, K.R. Mullins, R.D. Lewis,
S.Z. Skirrow and J. Fry. 1983. Zinc toxicity in rumi-
nants. Journal of Comparative Pathology. V. 93(3), pp.
363-377.
Allison, D.W. and C. Dzialo. 1981. The influence of lead,
cadmium, and nickel on the growth of ryegrass and oats.
Plant and Soil. V. 62, pp. 81-89.
Ammerman, C.B., S.M. Miller, K.R. Fick, and S.L. Hansard, III.
1977. Contaminating elements in mineral supplements and
their potential toxicity: A review. Journal of Animal
Science. V. 44, pp. 485-503.
Anderson, A.C. 1985. Personal Communication. Department of
Environmental Health Sciences, Tulane University. New
Orleans, LA.
Anderson, L.W.J., J.C. Pringle and R.W. Raines. 1978. Arsenic
levels in crops irrigated with water containing MSMA. Weed
Science. V. 26(4), pp. 370-373.

-------
Anke, M., A. Henning, H.J. Schneider, H. Ludke, W. Von Gargen
and H. Schlegel. 1970. The interrelations between
cadmium, zinc, copper and iron in metabolism of hens,
ruminants and man. In: C.F. Mills, ed. Trace Element
Metabolism in Animals. E.S. Livingstone, Edinburgh, pp.
317-320.
Aronson, A.L. 1972. Lead poisoning in cattle and horses
following long-term exposure to lead. American Journal of
Veterinary Research. V. 33(3), pp. 627-629.
Ashton, W.M., M. Williams and J. Ingleton. 1977. Studies on
ewe's milk: The content of some trace elements. Journal
of Agricultural Science. V. 88. pp. 529-
Baker, D.E., M.C. Amacher, and R.M. Leach. 1979. Sewage
sludge as a source of cadmium in soil-plant-animal
systems. Environmental Health Perspectives. V. 28, pp.
45-49.
Barltrop, D. 1969. Transfer of lead to the human foetus.
1969. In: Barltrop, D. and W.L. Burland, Eds.
Mineral metabolism in Paedintrics. Philadelphia:
F.A. Davis Co. pp. 135-151.
Baumhardt, G.R. and L.F. Welch. 1972. Lead uptake and corn
growth with soil applied lead. Journal of Environmental
Quality. V. 1(1), pp. 92-95.
Baxter, J.C., D. Johnson, W.D. Burge, E. Kienholz, W.N.
Cramer. 1983. Effects on cattle from exposure to sewage
sludge. Environmental Protection Agency, Project Summary
EPA-600/52-83-012. 6 pp.
Baxter, J.C., B. Barry, D.E. Johnson, E.W. Kienholz. 1982.
Heavy metal retention in cattle tissues from ingestion of
sewage sludge. Journal of Environmental Quality. V. 11
(4), pp. 616-620.
Bazzaz, F.A., R.U. Carlson and G.L. Rolfe. 1974. The
effect of heavy metals on plants. I. Inhibition of gas
exchange in sunflower by Pb, Cd, Ni, and Ti. Environment-
al Pollution (Series A). V. 7, pp. 241-246.
Beckett, P.H.T. and R.D. Davis. 1977. Upper critical
levels of toxic elements in plants. New Phytologist.
V. 79, pp. 95-106.
Beckett, P.H.T., and R.D. Davis, 1978. The additivity of the
toxic effects of Cu, Ni, and Zn in young barley. New
Phytologist. V. 81, pp. 155-173.
175
-------
Beeson, W.M., T.W. Perry and T.D. Zurcher. 1977. Effect of
supplemental zinc on growth and on hair and blood serum levels
of beef cattle. Journal of Animal Science. V. 45(1),
pp. 160-165.
Bencko, V. and K. Symon. 1977. Health aspects of burning
coal with a high arsenic content. I. Arsenic in hair, urine,
and blood in children residing in a polluted area. Environ-
mental Research V. 13, pp. 378-383.
Bennett, D.G. Jr., and T.E. Schwartz. 1971. Cumulative
toxicity of lead arsenate in phenothiazine given to sheep.
American Journal of Veterinary Research. V. 32, pp. 727-
Benson, N.R. 1968. Can profitable orchards be grown on old
orchard soils. Proceedings 1968 Washington State Hort.
Assoc.
Benson, N.R., H.N. Reisenauer, 1951. Use and management of
unproductive "ex-orchard" soils. Washington State
University Experiment Station Circular, Pullman, Washing-
ton. Number 175.
Bergeland, M.E., G.R. Ruth, R.L. Stack and R.J. Emerick.
1976. Arsenic toxicosis in cattle associated with soil and
water contamination from mining operations. Proceedings of
the 19th annual meeting of the American Association of
Veterinary Laboratory Diagnosticians, pp. 311-316.
Bertrand, J.E., M.C. Lutrick, G.T. Edds and R.L. West. 1981.
Metal residues in tissues, animal performance and carcass
quality with beef steers grazing Pensacola bahiagrass
pastures treated with liquid digested sludge. Journal of
Animal Science. V. 53(1), pp. 148-153.
Bingham, F.T. 1979. Bioavailability of cadmium to food crops
in relation to heavy metal content of sludge-amended soil.
Environmental Health Perspectives. V. 28, pp. 39-43.
Bingham, F.T., G. Sposito, and J.E. Strong. 1984. The
effect of chloride on the availability of cadmium.
Journal of Environmental Quality. V. 13, pp. 71-74.
Bingham, F.T., A.L. Page, R.J. Mahler and T.J. Ganje. 1976.
Yield and cadmium accumulation of forage species in
relation to cadmium content of sludge-amended soils.
Journal of Environmental Quality. V. 5, pp. 57-59.
Bingham, F.T., A.L. Page, R.J. Mahler and T.J. Ganje. 1975.
Growth and cadmium accumulation of plants grown on a soil
treated with a cadmium-enriched sewage sludge. Journal of
Environmental Quality V. 4, pp. 207-211.
176
-------
Bittell, J.E. and R.J. Miller. 1974. Lead, cadmium and
calcium selectivity coefficients on a montmorillonite,
illite and kaolinite. Journal of Environmental
Quality. V. 3, pp. 250-253.
Blakley, B.R. and R.P. Brockman. 1976. Lead toxicosis in
cattle in Saskatchewan. Canadian Veterinary Journal.
V. 17(1), pp. 16-18.
Blaxter, K.L. and A.T. Cowie. 1946. Excretion of lead in
the bile. Nature. V. 157, p. 588.
Blaxter, K.L. 1950a. Lead as a nutritional hazard to farm
livestock. III. Factors influencing the distribution of
lead in the tissues. Journal of Comparative Pathology.
V. 60, pp. 177-189.
Blaxter, K.L. 1950b. Lead as a nutritional hazard to farm
livestock. II. The absorption and excretion of lead
by sheep and rabbits. Journal of Comparative Pathol-
ogy. V. 60, pp. 140-159.
Blumenthal, S., D. Davidow, D. Harris and F. Oliver-Smith.
1972. A.comparison between two diagnostic tests for lead
poisoning. Am. J. PH. V. 62(8), pp 1060-1064.
Boawn, L.C. and P.E. Rasmussen. 1971. Crop response to
excessive zinc fertilization of alkaline soil. Agronomy
Journal. V. 63, pp. 874-76.
Boawn, L.C. 1971. Zinc accumulation characteristics of some
leafy vegetables. Soil Science and Plant Analyses. V.
2(1), pp 31-36.
Boggess, S.F., S. Willavize, and D.E. Koeppe. 1978. Differ-
ential response of soybean varieties to soil cadmium.
Agronomy Journal. V 70, pp. 756-760.
Bratton, G.R. and J. Zmudski. 1984. Laboratory diagnosis of
Pb poisoning in cattle: A re-assessment and review. Vet-
erinary and Human Toxicology. V. 26(5), pp. 387-392.
Bremner, I. 1979. The toxicity of cadmium, zinc, and moly-
bdenum and their effects on copper metabolism. Proc.
Nutr. Soc. V. 38, pp. 235-242
Bremner, I., B.W. Young and C.F. Mills. 1976. Protective
effect of zinc supplementation against copper toxicosis
in sheep. British Journal of Nutrition. V. 36, pp.
551-561.
Brink M.F., D.E. Becker, S.W. Terrill and A.H. Jensen.
1959. Zinc toxicity in the weanling pig. Journal of
Animal Science. V. 18, pp. 836-842.
177
-------
British Columbia, 1982. Guidelines for use with the
regulation under the Waste Management Act for control of
the discharge of sludge to land. Prepared by a joint
committee of the British Columbia Ministries of Agri-
culture and Food, Health and Environmental, Victoria,,
British Columbia, Canada (Draft).
Bruhn, J.C. and A.A. Franke, 1976. Lead and cadmium in
California raw milk. Journal of Dairy Science. V.
59(5), pp. 1711.
Buck, W.B. 1985. Personal communication. National Animal
Pollution Control Center. Urbana, 111.
Buck, W.B., G.D. Osweiler and G.A. Van Gelder. 1976. Clinical
and diagnostic veterinary toxicology. 2nd ed. Kendall-
Hunt Publishing Co., Dubuque, IA. p. 380.
Buck, W.B. 1975. Toxic materials and neurologic disease in
cattle. Journal of American Veterinary Medical Associa-
tion. V. 166(3), pp. 222-226.
Buck, W.B. 1970. Lead and organic pesticide poisoning in
cattle. Journal of American Veterinary Medical
Association. V. 156(10), pp. 1468-1472.
Bucy, L.L., U.S. Garrigus, R.M. Forbes, H.W. Norton and W.W.
Moore. 1955. Toxicity of some arsenicals fed to grow-
ing-fattening lambs. Journal of Animal Science V. 14, pp.
435-445.
Burrows, G.E. and R.E. Borchard. 1982. Experimental lead
toxicosis in ponies: Comparison of the effects of smelter
effluent-contaminated hay and lead acetate. American
Journal of Veterinary Research. V. 43(12), pp. 2129-2133.
Burrows, G.E., J.W. Sharp and R.G. Root. 1981. A survey of
blood lead concentrations in horses in the north Idaho
lead/silver belt area. Veterinary and Human Toxicology.
V. 23(5), pp. 328-330.
Butcher, J.E. 1973. Influence of environmental variations on
water requirements of sheep. In: Water-animal relations,
proceedings. A.F. Mayland Ed. Water-animal relations
committee. Kimberly, Idaho, pp. 63-68.
California Administrative Code. 1983. California regulatory
criteria for identification of hazardous and extremely
hazardous water. Draft. Department of Health Services.
California.
Calvert, C.C. and L.W. Smith. 1972. Arsenic in milk and
blood of cows fed organic arsenic compounds. Journal of
Dairy Science. V. 55. pp. 706.
178
-------
Campbell, J.K., and C.F. Mills. 1979. The toxicity of zinc to
pregnant sheep. Environ. Res., V. 20, pp. 1-13.
Cannon, H.L. 1976. Lead in vegetation. In: Lead in the
Environment, T.G. Lovering, Ed. U.S. Geological Survey
Professional Paper 957. U.S. Government Printing Office,
Washington, D.C.
Carrow, R.N., P.E. Rieke and B.G. Ellis. 1975. Growth of
turfgrasses as affected by soil phosphorus and arsenic.
Soil Science Society of America Proceedings. V. 39, pp.
1121-1124.
Casey, C.E. 1976. Concentrations of some trace elements in
human and cow's milk. Proceedings University of Otago
Medical School. V. 54, pp. 7.
CAST - Council for Agricultural Science and Technology. 1976.
Application of sewage sludge to cropland: Appraisal of
potential hazards of heavy metals to plants and animals.
Report No. 64.
Castellino, et al. 1966. Biliary excretion of lead in the
rat. British Journal of Industrial Medicine V. 23,
pp.237-239.
Chaney, R.L. 1984. Potential toxicity to plants and food
chain resulting from land treatment of hazardous
wastes. Proc. Conferences on risk and decision analysis
for hazardous waste disposal. Hazardous Waste Contfol
Research Institute, Silver Springs, MD.
Chaney, R.L. 1983. Potential effects of waste constituents
on the food chain. In: Parr, J.F., P.B. Marsh and J.M.
Kla (Eds). Land treatment of hazardous waste. Noyes
Data Corporation. Park Ridge, NJ. p. 426.
Chaney, R.L. 1983. Letter to Dr. R. Shoop, results of
testing cattle feces soil and forages near the Palmerton
PA smelter. Beltsville Agricultural Research Center,
Beltsville, MD. pp. 1-12.
Chaney, R.L., P.T. Hundemann, W.T. Palmer, R.J. Small, M.C.
White and A.M. Decker. 1978. Plant accumulation of heavy
metals and phytotoxicity resulting from utilization of sewage
sludge and sludge composts on cropland, j^n: Proceedings
National Conference Composting Municipal Residues and Sludges.
Information Transfer Inc. Rockville, MD. pp. 86-97.
Chaney, W.R., R.C. Strickland and R.J. Lamoreaux. 1977.
Phytotoxicity of cadmium inhibited by lime. Plant and
Soil. V. 47, pp. 275-78.
179
-------
Chaney. R.L., M.C. White and M.V. Tienhoven. 1976. Interac-
tion of cadmium and zinc in phytotoxicity to and uptake
by soybean. Agronomy Abstracts. V. 76, pp. 21.
Chaney, R.L. 1973. Crop and food chain effects of toxic elements
in sludges and effluents. Ln: Proceedings Joint Conference
on Recycling Municipal Sludges and Effluents on Land. National
Association of State University and Land Grant Colleges.
Washington, D.C. pp. 129-141.
Chang, A.C., A.L. Page, K.W. Foster and T.E. Jones. 1982. A
comparison of cadmium and zinc accumulation by four
cultivars of barley grown in sludge - amended soils.
Journal of Environmental Quality. V. 11(3), pp.
409-412.
Chapman, H.D. 1966. Zinc. In: Chapman H.D. Ed. Diagnostic
Criteria for Plants and SoTls. University of California,
Riverside.
Chapman, H.D. 1960. Leaf and soil analysis in citrus orchards.
University of California. Division of Agricultural Science
Extension Service Manual 25.
Chesters, J.K. 1978. Biochemical function of zinc in animals.
World Rev. Nutr. Dietet. 32:135.
Christian, R.G. and L. Tryphonas. 1971. Lead poisoning in
cattle: Brain lesions and hemotologic changes. American
Journal of Veterinary Research. V. 32(2), pp.
203-216.
Chumbley, C.G. and R.J. Unwin. 1982. Cadmium and lead
content of vegetable crops grown on land with a history
of sewage sludge application. Environmental Pollution
(Series B) V. 4, pp. 231-237.
Combs, D.K., R.D. Goodrich and J.C. Meiske. 1983.
Influence of dietary zinc or cadmium on hair and tissue
mineral concentrations in rats and goats. Journal of
Animal Science. V. 56(3), pp. 184-193.
Connor, J.J. and H.T. Shacklette. 1975. Background
geochemistry of some rocks, soils, plants, and vegetables
in the conterminous United States. U.S. Geological Survey
Professional Paper 574-F. U.S. Government Printing Office.
Washington, D.C.
Cornell, D.G. and M.J. Pallansch. 1973. Cadmium analysis of
dried milk by pulse polarographic techniques. Journal of
Dairy Science. V. 56. pp. 1479-
Cousins, R.J., A.K. Barber and J.R. Trout. 1973. Cadmium
toxicity in growing swine. Journal of Nutrition. V. 103,
pp. 964.
180
-------
Cousins, R.J. 1979. Metallothione in synthesis and
degradation: Relationship to cadmium metabolism.
Environmental Health Perspectives. V. 28, pp. 131-136.
Cunningham, J.D., J.A. Ryan and D.R. Keeney. 1975a. Phytotoxicity
in and metal uptake from soil treated with metal amended
sewage sludge. Jounal of Environmental Quality. V. 4(4),
pp. 455-460.
Cunningham, J.D., D.R. Keeney and J.A. Ryan. 1975b. Phytotoxicity
and uptake of metals added to soils as inorganic salts or in
sewage sludge. Journal of Environmental Quality. V. 4(4),
pp. 460-462.
Czuba, M. and O.P. Ormrod. 1974. Effects of cadmium and zinc
on ozone-induced phototoxicity in cress and lettuce.
Canadian Journal of Botany. V. 52, pp. 645-649.
Dalgarno, A.C. 1980. The effect of low level exposure to
dietary cadmium, on cadmium, zinc, copper and iron
contents of selected tissues of growing lambs. Journal of
Science of Food Agriculture. 1980. V. 31, pp. 1043-1049.
Damron, B.L., C.F. Simpson and R.H. Harms. 1969. The
effect of feeding various levels of lead on the performance
of broilers. Poultry Science. V. 48, pp. 1507.
Davies, N.T., H.S. Soliman, W. Corrigall and A. Flett. 1977.
The susceptibility of suckling lambs to zinc toxicity.
British Journal of Nutrition. V. 38, pp. 153-156.
Davis, R.D., 1984. Cadmium - A complex environmental problem,
part II, Cadmium in sludges used as fertilizer.
Experientia. V. 40, pp. 117-126.
Davis, R.D. and P.H.T. Beckett. 1978. Upper critical
levels of toxic elements in plants. II. Critical levels of
copper in young barley, wheat, rape, lettuce and ryegrass,
and of nickel and zinc in young barley and ryegrass. New
Phytol. V. 80, pp. 23-32.
Davis, R.D., P.H.T. Beckett and E. Wollan. 1978. Critical
levels of twenty potentially toxic elements in young
barley. Plant and Soil. V. 49, pp. 395-408.
Decker, A.M., J.P. Davidson, R.C. Hammond, S.B. Mohanty,
R.L. Chaney and T.S. Rumsey. 1980. Animal performance
on pastures topdressed with liquid sewage sludge and
sludge compost. In: Proceedings Nationsl Conference
Municipal and IndQstrial Sludge utilization and
Disposal. Information Transfer Inc. Silver Springs,
MD. pp. 37-41.
181
-------
Demayo, A., M.C. Taylor and K.W. Taylor. 1982. Toxic
effects of lead and lead compounds on human health, aquatic
life, wildlife, plants and livestock. Critical Reviews
in Environmental Control. V. 12(4), pp. 257-305.
Deuel, L.E. and A.R. Swoboda. 1972. Arsenic solubility in a
reduced environment. Soil Science Society of America
Proceedings. V. 36, pp. 276-278.
deVries, M.P.C. and R.H. Merry. 1980. Effects of high ap-
plication rates of a dried sludge to a market garden soil
-investigations in mini-plots. Australian Journal of
Experimental Agriculture and Animal Husbandry. V. 20, pp.
470-476.
Dialog. 1985. Database catalog. Dialog Information Services, Inc.
Palo Alto, CA. 63 pp.
Dickinson, E.L. and R.J. Stevens. 1983. Extractable copper,
lead, zinc and cadmium in Northern Ireland Soils. Journal
Science Food Agriculture. V. 34, pp. 1197-1205.
Dickinson, J.O. 1972. Toxicity of the arsenical herbicide
monosodium acid methanearsonate in cattle. American
Journal of Veterinary Research, V. 33(9), pp. 1889-
1892.
Dijkshoorn, W., L.W. Van Broekhoven and J.E.M. Lampe.
1979. Phytotoxicity of zinc, nickel, cadmium, lead,
copper and chromium in three pasture plant species
supplied with graduated amounts from the soil. Neth.
Journal Agricultural Science. V. 27, pp. 241-253.
Dittrich, G. 1974. Ph.d. Thesis, Karl-Marx University,
Leipzig. In: Iyengar, G.V. 1982. Elemental Composition
of Human and Animal milk. International Atomic Energy
Agency, Vienna, Austria, 1AEA-TECDOC-269.
Dogra, R.K.S., R. Shanker, A.K. Saxena, S. Khanna, S.N.
Sriuastava, L.J. Shukla and S.H. Zaidi. 1984. Air
pollution: Significance of pulmonary dust deposits in
bovine species. Environmental Pollution (Series A). V.
36, pp. 109-120.
Dollahite, J.W., R.L. Younger, H.R. Crookshank, L.P. Jones and
H.D. Petersen. 1978. Chronic lead poisoning in
horses. American Journal Veterinary Research. V. 39,
pp. 961-964.
Dollahite, J.W., L.D. Rowe and J.C. Reagor. 1975.
Experimental lead poisoning in horses and Spanish goats.
Southwest Veterinarian. V. 28, pp. 40-45.
182
-------
Dorn, C.R., T.P. Pierce, G.R. Chase and P.E. Phillips. 1975.
Environmental contamination by lead, cadmium, zinc, and
copper in a new lead producing area. Environmental
Research. V. 9, pp. 159-172.
Dorn, C.R., P.E. Philipps, J.O. Pierce and J.R. Chase. 1974.
Cadmium, copper, lead and zinc in bovine hair in the New
Lead Belt of Missouri. Bulletin Environmental Contaminati-
on and Toxicology. V. 12, pp. 626-632.
Dowdy, R.H. B.J. Bray, R.D. Goodrich. 1983. Trace Metal and
mineral composition of milk and blood from goats fed
silage produced on sludge-amended soil. Journal of
Environmental Quality. V. 12(4), pp. 473-478.
Doyle, J.J. and R.L. Younger. 1984. Influence of ingested
lead on the distribution of lead, iron, zinc, copper and
manganese in bovine tissues. Veterinary and Human
Toxicology. V. 26(3), pp. 201-204.
Doyle, J.J. and J.E. Spaulding. 1978. Toxic and essential
trace elements in meat—a review. Journal of Animal Science.
V. 47(2), pp. 398-419.
Doyle, J.J. W.F. Pfander. 1975. Interactions of Cadmium with
copper, iron, zinc and manganese in ovine tissues.
Journal of Nutrition. V. 105, pp. 599-606.
Doyle, J.J., W.H. Pfander, S.E. Grebing and J.O. Pierce, II.
1974. Effect of dietary cadmium on growth, cadmium
absorption and cadmium tissue levels in growing lambs.
Journal of Nutrition. V. 104, pp. 160-166.
Doyle, J.J., W.H. Pfander, S.E. Grebing and J.O. Pierce, II.
1972. Effects of dietary cadmium on growth and tissue
levels in sheep. In: Sixth annual conference on trace
substances in environmental health. D.D. Hemphill Ed.
University of Missouri, Columbia, Missouri.
Dudas, M.J. and S. Pawluk. 1977. Heavy metals in cultivated
soils and in cereal crops in Alberta. Canadian Journal of
Soil Science. V. 57, pp. 329-339.
Dyer, I.A. and R.J. Johnson. 1975. Water quality for
livestock: A review of the CAST task force report.
Veterinary and Human Toxicology. V. 17, pp. 65-70.
Eamens, G.J, J.F. Macadam and E.A. Laing. 1984. Skeletal ab-
normalities in young horses associates with zinc toxicity
and hypocuprosis. Australian Veterinary Journal. V. 61(7),
pp. 205-207.
Edwards, W.C. and B.R. Clay. 1979. An investigation of an
arsenic poisoning case. Veterinary and Human Toxicology.
V. 21, pp. 161-162.
183
-------
Edwards, W.C. and B.R. Clay. 1977. Reclamation of rangeland
following a lead poisoning incident in livestock from
industrial airborne contamination of forage. Veterinary
and Human Toxicology. V. 19, pp. 247-249.
Edwards, W.C. and A.L. Dooley. 1980. Heavy and trace
metal determinations in cattle grazing pastures
fertilized with treated raffinate. Veterinary and Human
Toxicology. V. 22, pp. 309-311.
El-Bassam, N. and C. Teitjen. 1977. Municipal sludge as
organic fertilizer with special reference to the heavy
metals constituents. I_n: Soil Organic Matter Studies, Vol
2, IAEA, Vienna. 253 pp. I_nr Kabata-Pendias, A. and H.
Pendias. 1984.
Elinder, C.G., L. Jonsson, M. Piscator and B. Rahnster.
1981. Histopathological changes in relation to cadmium con-
centration in horse kidneys. Environmental Research. V.
26, pp. 1-21.
Environmental Protection Agency. 1986. Final draft remedial
investigation of soils, vegetation and livestock for ASARCO
East Helena Smelter Site, East Helena, Montana. Prepared by
CH2M Hill, D.J. Dollhopf, D.R. Neuman and R.B. Rennick
Environmental Protection Agency. 1985. Environmental profiles
and hazard indices for constituents of municipal sludge:
zinc. Office of Water Regulations and Standards,
Washington, D.C.
Environmental Protection Agency. 1983. National iterim
drinking water regulations implementation. Code of Federal
Regulations. Title 40, Part 142.
Environmental Protection Agency. 1977. Toxicology of
metals, Volume II. NTIS PB-268 324. p.487.
Environmental Protection Service. 1984. Manual for land
application of treated municipal wastewater and sludge.
Environment Canada, Environmental Protection Service
Report, EPA 6-EP-84-1, Ottawa KlA 1C8. 216 pp.
Ernst, W.H.O. 1980. Biochemical aspects of cadmium in
plants. In: Cadmium in the Environment. Part 1:
Ecological Cycling. J.O. Nriagu, ed. John Wiley and
Sons, New York.
Evans, R.J. and S.L. Bandemer. 1954. Determinations of
arsenic in biological materials. Analytical Chemistry,
V. 26, p. 595.
184
-------
Every, R.R. 1981. Bovine lead poisoning from forage
contaminated by sandblasted paint. Journal American
Veterinary Medical Association. V. 178(12), pp. 1277-1278.
Federal Water Pollution Control Administration, U.S. Dept. of
Interior, 1968. Report of committee on water quality
criteria. U.S. Government Printing Office. Washington,
D.C.
Fenstermacher, R., B.S. Pomeroy, M.H. Roepke and W.L. Boyd.
1946. Lead poisoning of cattle. Journal American Veteri-
nary Medical Association. V. CVIII (826) pp.1-4.
Fick, K.R., C.B. Ammerman, S.M. Miller, C.F. Simpson and P.E.
Loggins. 1976. Effect of dietary lead on performance,
tissue mineral composition and lead absorption in sheep.
Journal of Animal Science. V. 42(2), pp. 515-523.
Fitch, L.W.N., R.E.R. Grimmett and E.M. Wall. 1939. Occur-
rence of arsenic in soils and waters in the Waiotapu
Valley and and its relation to stock health. Part II:
Feeding experiments at Wallacevilie. New Zealand Journal
of Science Tech. 21A, pp. 146-149.
Flanjak, J. and H.Y. Lee. 1979. Trace metal content of
livers and kidneys of cattle. Journal of Science Food
Agric. V. 30, pp. 503-507.
Foy, C.D., R.L. Chaney, M.C. White. 1978. The physiology of
metal toxicity in plants. Annual Review of Plant
Physiology. V. 29, pp 511-566.
Franke, K.W. and A.L. Moxon. 1936. A comparison of the
minimum fatal doses of selenium, tellurium, arsenic and
vanadium, J. Pharmacol. Exp. Ther., V. 58, pp. 454-459.
Friberg, L., M. Piscator, G.F. Nordberg and T. Kjellstrom.
1974. Cadmium in the Environment, Second Edition. CRC
Press. Cleveland, Ohio.
Friberg, L. 1952. Further investigations on chronic
cadmium poisoning; a study on rabbits with radioactive
cadmium. American Medical Association Archives of
Industrial Hygiene and Occupational Medicine. V. 5, p. 30.
Ganje, T.J. and D.W. Rains. 1982. Arsenic. In: Methods
of Soil Analysis, Part 2. Chemical and Microbiological
Properties. Agronomy Monograph No. 9. American Society of
Agronomy, Madison, Wi.
Garner, R.J. and D.S. Papworth. 1967. Garner's Veterinary
Toxicology, 3rd Edition. Williams and Wilkins Company.
Baltimore, Maryland.
185
-------
George, J.W. and J.R. Duncan. 1981. Erythrocyte protoporphyrin
in experimental chronic lead poisoning in calves. American
Journal of Veterinary Research. V. 42, pp. 1630-1637.
Gerritse, R.G., W. VanDriel, K.W. Smilde and B. VanLuit.
1983. Uptake of heavy metals by crops in relation to their
concentration in the soil solution. Plant and Soil. V 75.
pp. 393-404.
Giordano, P.M., D.A. Mays and A.D. Behel, Jr. 1979. Soil
temperature effects on uptake of cadmium and zinc by vege-
tables grown on sludge-amended soil. Journal of Environmental
Quality. V. 8(2), pp. 233-236.
Giordano, P.M., J.J. Mortvedt and D.A. Mays. 1975. Effect of
municipal wastes on crop yields and uptake of heavy metals.
Journal of Environmental Quality. V. 4(3), pp. 394-399.
Gough, L.P., H.T. Shacklette and A.A. Case.	1979. Element
concentrations toxic to plants, animals,	and man. U.S.
Geological Survey Bulletin. 1466. U.S.	Government
Printing Office, Washington, D.C.
Grimmett, R.E.R., I.G. Mcintosh, E.M. Wall and	C.S.M.
Hopkirk. 1937. Chronic zinc poisoning of pigs; results of
experimental feeding of pure zinc lactate. New Zealand
Journal of Agriculture. V. 54, p. 216.
Gunn, S.A., T.C. Gould and W.A.D. Anderson. 1968.
Mechanism of zinc, cysteine and selenium protection
against cadmium-induced vascular injury to mouse
testis. Journal of Reproductive Fertility. V. 15, pp.
65-70.
Gunson, D.E., D.F. Kowalczyk, C.R. Shoop, and C.F. Ramberg,
Jr. 1982. Environmental zinc and cadmium pollution
associated with generalized osteochondrosis,
osteoporosis and neparocalcinosis in horses. Journal
American Veterinary Medical Association. V. 180 (3).
pp. 295-299.
Haghiri, F. 1974. Plant uptake of cadmium as influenced by
cation exchange capacity, organic matter, zinc and soil
temperature. Journal of Environmental Quality. V. 3(2),
pp. 180-183.
Halvorson, A.R. 1985. Personal communication. Washington
State Univ. Extension Soil Scientist, Pullman.
Hamilton, E.I., MT. Minski, T.T. Cleary and V.S. Halsey.
1972. Comments upon the chemical elements present in
evaporated milk for consumption by babies. Science and
Total Environment. V.l, pp. 205.
186
-------
Hammer, D.I., J.F. Finklea, R.H. Hendricks, C.M. Shy and
R.J.N. Norton. 1972. Trace-metal concentrations in human
hair Helena Valley, Montana, area. Environmental
Pollution Study. Office of Air Programs Publication AP-91.
Research Triangle Park, N.C. pp. 125-134.
Hammer, D.I., J.F. Finklea, R.H. Hendricks, C.M. Shy and
R.J.M. Norton. 1971. Hair trace metal levels and
environmental exposure. American Journal of Epidemio-
logy. V. 93(2), pp. 84-92.
Hammond, P.B. and A.L. Aronson. 1964. Lead poisoning in
cattle and horses in the vicinity of a smelter. Annals of
New York Academy of Sciences V. Ill, pp. 595-611.
Handa, A.C. and K.N. Johri. 1972. Ring colorimetric
determination of trace metals in milk. Annuals of
Chim. Acta. V. 59, pp. 156. In: Iyengar, G.V. 1982.
Elemental Composition of Human and Animal Milk.
International Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna, Austria,
IAEA-TECDOC-269
Hansen, L.G and R.L. Chaney. 1984. Environmental and Food
chain effects of the agricultural use of sewage sludges.
In: Reviews in Environmental Toxicology I. pp. 103-172,
Elsevier Sci. Pub. Amsterdam.
Haque, A. and V. Subramanian. 1982. Copper, lead, and zinc
pollution of soil environment. Critical Reviews in
Environmental Control, V. 12(1), pp. 13-68.
Hatch, R.C. and H.S. Funnell. 1969. Inorganic arsenic
levels intissues and ingesta of poisoned cattle: An eight-
year study. Canadian Veterinary Journal. V. 10,
pp. 117-120.
Hawf, L.R. and W.E. Schmid. 1967. Uptake and translocation
of zinc by intact plants. Plant and Soil. V. 27, pp.
249-260.
Heffron, C.C., J.T. Reid, D.C. Elfving, G.S. Stoewsand, W.M.
Haschek. J.N. Telford, A.K. Furr, T.F. Parkinson, C.A.
Bache, W.H. Gutenmann, P.C. Wszolek, D.J. Lisk. 1980.
Cadmium and Zinc in growing sheep fed silage corn grown on
municipal sludge-amended soil. Journal of Agricultural
and Food Chemistry. V. 28, pp. 58-61.
Heilman, P.E. and G.T. Ekuan. 1977. Heavy metals in
gardens near the Asarco Smelter, Tacoma, Washington.
Performed by Washington State Univ., Pullman on
contract with EPA, Rep. No. 68-01-2989.
Hill, C.H. and G. Matrone. 1970. Fedn Proc. Fedn Am. Socs.
Exp. Biol. V. 29, pp. 1474. Quoted in Bremner, I. 1979.
187
-------
Hill, C.H., G. Matrone, W.L. Payne and C.W. Barber. 1963.
In Vivo interactions of cadmium with copper, zinc
and iron. Journal of Nutrition. V. 80, p. 227.
Hindawi, I.J. and G.E. Neely. 1972. Soil and vegetation
study. Helena Valley Montana Area, Environmental Pollution
Study. Office of Air Programs Publication AP-91. Research
Triangle Park, N.C. pp. 81-94.
Hinesly, T.D., L.G. Hansen, D.J. Bray and K.E. Redborg.
1985. Transfer of sludge-borne cadmium through plants
to chickens. J. Agric. Food Chem. 33, 173-180.
Hinesly, T.D., D.E. Alexander, K.E. Redborg, and E.L.
Ziegler. 1982. Differential accumulations of cadmium and
zinc by corn hybrids grown on soil amended with sewage
sludge. Agronomy Journal. V. 74, pp. 469-474.
Holl, W. and R. Hampp. 1975. Lead and plants. Residue
Reviews. V. 54, pp. 79-112.
Hovmand, M.F., J.C. Tjell and J. Mosbaek. 1983. Plant uptake
of airborn cadmium. Environmental Pollution (Series A).
V. 30, pp. 27-38.
Hsu, F.S., L. Krook, W.E. Pond and J.R. Duncan. 1975.
Interactions of dietary calcium with toxic levels of
lead and zinc in pigs. Journal of Nutrition V. 105 (1)
p. 112-118.
Huang, C.Y., F.A. Bazzaz, and L.N. Vanderhoef. 1974. The
inhibition of soybean metabolism by cadmium and lead.
Plant Physiology. V. 54, pp. 122-124.
International Agency for Research on Cancer. 1980.
Arsenic and arsenic compounds. I ARC Monographs on the
Evaluation of the Carcinogenic Risk of Chemicals to
Humans V. 23, pp. 38-141. World Health Organization.
Iwai, I., T. Hara and Y. Sonoda. 1975. Factors affecting
cadmium uptake by the corn plant. Soil Science Plant
Nutrition. V. 21(1), pp. 37-46.
Iyengar, G.V. 1982. Elemental composition of human and
animal milk, International Atomic Energy Agency. IAEA-
TECDOC-269. Vienna, Austria, 186 pp.
Jacobs, L.W. and D.R. Keeney. 1970. Arsenic-phosphorus
interactions on corn. Commun. Soil Sci. Plant Anal.
V. 1, pp. 85-93.
Jacobs, L.W., D.R. Keeney, and L.M. Walsh. 1970. Arsenic
residue toxicity to vegetable crops grown on plainfield
sand. Agronomy Journal. V. 62, pp. 588-591.
188
-------
Jarvis, S.C. L.H.P. Jones and M.J. Hoppec. 1976. Cadmium
uptake from solution by plants and its transport from
roots to shoots. Plant and Soil. V. 44, pp. 179-191.
Jastrow, J.D. and D.E. Koeppe. 1980. Uptake and effects of
cadmium in higher plants. In: Cadmium in the Environment.
Part Is Ecological Cycling. J.O. Nriagu, ed. John Wiley
and Sons, New York. pp. 607-638.
John, M.K. and C. Van Laerhoven. 1972. Pb uptake by lettuce
and oats as affected by lime, N, and sources of Pb.
Journal of Environmental Quality. V. 1, pp. 169-171.
John, M.K., H.H. Chuah and C.J. VanLaerhoven. 197.2. Cadmium
contamination of soil and its uptake by oats. Environmental
Science and Technology. V. 6(6), pp. 555-557.
John, M.K. 1973. Cadmium uptake by eight food crops as influenced
by various soil levels of cadmium. Environmental Pollution.
V. 4, pp. 7-15..
Johnson, D.E., E.W. Kienholz, J.C. Baxter, E. Spanger and
G.M.Ward. 1981. Heavy metal retention in tissues of
cattle fed high cadmium sewage sludge. Journal of Animal
Science. V. 52, pp. 108-114.
Johnston, S.E. and W.M. Barnard 1979. Comparative effec-
tiveness.of fourteen solutions for extracting arsenic from
four western New York soils. Soil Science Society
America Proceedings. V. 43, pp. 304-308.
Kabata-Pendias, A. and H. Pendias. 1984. Trace Elements in
Soils and Plants. CRC Press, Boca Raton, Florida.
Kabata-Pendias, A. 1979. Current problems in chemical degrada-
tion of soils. Paper presented at Conference on Soil and
Plant Analyses in Environmental Protection, Falenty/Warsaw,
October 29. Iris Kabata-Pendias, A. and H. Pendias. 1984.
Karamanos, R.E., J.R. Bettany and J.W.B. Stewart. 1976. The
uptake of native and applied lead by alfalfa and bromegrass
from soil. Canadian Journal of Soil Science. V. 56, pp.
485-494.
Keaton, C.M. 1937. The influence of lead compounds on the
growth of barley. Soil Science. V. 43(6), pp. 401-411.
Kehoe, R.A., J. Cholak and R.V. Story. 1940. A specto-
chemical study of the normal ranges of concentration of
certain trace metals in biological materials. Journal of
Nutrition. V. 19, pp. 579-592.
189
-------
Keisling, T.C., D.A. Laver, M.E. Walker and R.J. Henning.
1977. Visual, tissue and soil factors associated with
Zn toxicity in peanuts. Agronomy Journal. V. 69, pp.
767-769.
Khan, D.H. and B. Frankland. 1984. Cellulolytic activity and
root biomass production in some metal contaminated soils.
Environmental Pollution (Series A). V. 33, pp. 63-74.
Kitagishi, K. and I. Yamane (Eds.) 1981. Heavy Metal Pollution
in Soils of Japan. Japan Scientific Societies Press.
Tokyo. 302 pp.
Knapp, F.W., D.E. Lahore and G.J. MacLean. 1977. Cattle
poisoned after ingestion of ashes from wood treated with
heavy-metal preservative. Veterinary Medicine/Small Animal
Clinician. V. 72, pp. 1883-1884.
Knight, H.D. and R.G. Burau. 1973. Chronic lead poisoning in
horses. Journal American Veterninary Medical Association.
V. 162(9) pp. 781-786.
Kreuzer, W., B. Sansoni, W. Kracke and P. Wi math. 1975.
Cadmium in fleisch und organen von schlachttieren.
Sonderdruck aus "Die Fleischwirtschaft" 55 Jahrgang, Heft 3
Seite 387-396.
Kubota, J., A. Lazer and E. Losee. 1968. Copper, zinc,
cadmium and lead in human blood from 19 locations in the
United States. Archives of Environmental Health. V. 16,
pp. 788-
Lagerwerff, J.V., W.H. Armiger and A.W. Specht. 1973.
Uptake of lead by alfalfa and corn from soil and air.
Soil Science. V. 115(6), pp. 455-460.
Lakso, J.U. and S.A. Peoples. 1975. Methylation of
inorganic arsenic by mammals. Journal of Agricultural
Food Chemists. V. 23(4), pp. 674-676.
Lamm, S., B. Cole, K. Glynn and W. Ullmann. 1973. Lead
content of milk fed to infants - 1971-1972. New England
Journal of Medicine. V. 289, pp. 574-
Lancaster, R.J., M.R. Coup, J.w. Hughes. 1971. Toxicity of
arsenic present in lakeweed. New Zealand Veterinary
Journal. V. 19(7), pp. 141-145.
Larsson, S.E. and M. Piscator. 1971. Effect of cadmium on
skeletal tissue in normal and calcium deficient rats.
Israel Journal of Medical Science. V. 7(3), pp. 495.-498
190
-------
Ledet, A.E., J.R. Duncan, W.B. Buck and F.K. Ramsey. 1973.
Clinical, toxicological, and pathological aspects of
arsonilic acid poisoning in swine. Clinical Toxicology.
V. 6, p. 439.
Lee, K.C., B.A. Cunningham, G.M. Paulsen, G.H. Liang and R.B.
Moore. 1976. Effects of cadmium on respiration rate and
activities of general enzymes in soybean seedlings.
Physiol. Plant. V. 36, pp. 4-6.
Lee, C.R. and N.R. Page. 1967. Soil factors influencing the
growth of cotton following peach orchards. Agronomy
Journal. V. 59, pp. 237-240.
Lewis, T.R. 1972. Effects of air pollution on livestock
and animal products. Helena Valley Montana, Area, En-
vironmental Pollution Study. Office of Air Programs
Publication AP-91. Research Triangle Park, N.C. pp.
113-124.
Liebig, G.F. 1966. Arsenic. In: Diagnostic Criteria for
Plants and Soils, H.D. Chapman, ed. Univ. Calif. Div.
Agric. Sci., Davis, CA. pp. 13-23.
Linzon, S.N. 1978. Phytotoxicology excessive levels for
contaminants in soil and vegetation. Report of Ministry of
the Environment. Ontario, Canada. Iji: Kabata-Pendias, A.
and H. Pendias. 1984. Trace Elements in Soils and Plants.
CRC Press, Inc. Boca Raton, Florida. 315 pp.
Logan, T.J. and R.L. Chaney. 1983. Metals. Page, A.L., T.L.
Gleason III, J.E. Smith Jr., I.K. Iskandar and L.E.
Sommers, editors. Utilization of municipal wastewater and
sludge on land. Workshop Proceedings, California.
Environmental Protection Agency, Army Corps of Engineers,
Department of Agriculture, National Science Foundation,
University of California, pp. 235-323.
Logner, K.R., M.W. Neatherly, W.J. Miller, R.P. Gentry, D.M.
Blackmon, F.D. White. 1984. Lead toxicity and metabolism
from lead sulfate fed to holstein calves. Journal of
Dairy Science. V. 67, pp. 1007-1013.
Lund, L.J., E.E. Betty, A.L. Page and R.A. Elliott. 1981.
Occurrence of naturally high cadmium levels in soils and
its accumulation by vegetation. Journal of Environmental
Quality. V. 10(4), pp. 551-556.
Lutrick, M.C., W.K. Robertson and J.A. Cornell. 1982. Heavy
applications of liquid-digested sludge on three ultisols:
II. Effects on mineral uptake and crop yield. Journal of
environmental quality. V. 11(2), pp. 283-287.
191
-------
Lynch, G.P., E.D. Jackson, C.A. Kiddy and D.F. Smith. 1976a.
Responses of young calves to low doses of lead. Journal
of Dairy Science. V. 59(8), pp. 1490-1494.
Lynch, G.P., D.F. Smith, M. Fisher, T.L. Pike and B.T.
Weinland. 1976b. Physiological responses of calves to
cadmium and lead. Journal of Animal Science. Vol. 42(2),
pp. 410-421.
Machlis, L. 1974. Accumulation of arsenic in the shoots of
Sudan grass and bush beans. Plant Physiology. V. 16, pp.
521-544.
MacLean, A.J. 1976. Cadmium in different plant species
and its availability in soils as influenced by organic
matter and additions of lime, P, Cd, and Zn. Canadian
Journal of Soil Science. V. 56, pp. 129-138.
MacLean, A.J., R.L. Halstead and B.J. Finn. 1969. Extract-
ability of added lead in soils and its concentration in
plants. Canadian Journal of Soil Science. V. 49, pp.
327-334.
MacPhee, A.W., D. Chisholm and C.R. MacEachern. 1960. The
persistence of certain pesticides in the soil and their
effect on crop yields. Canadian Journal of Soil Science.
V. 40, pp. 54-62.
Mahler, R.J., F.T. Bingham, G. Sposito and A.L. Page. 1980.
Cadmium-enriched sewage sludge application to acid and
calcareous soils: Relation between treatment, cadmium in
saturation extracts, and cadmium uptake. Journal of Envirn-
mental Quality. V. 9(3), pp. 359-364.
Marcus-Wyner, L. and D.W. Rains. 1982. Uptake, accumulation,
and translocation or arsenical compounds by cotton. Journal
of Environmental Quality. V. 11, pp. 715.
Mathys, W. 1975. Enzymes of heavy-metal-resistant and non-
resistant populations of Silene cucubalus and their
interaction with some heavy metals ^n vitro and iji vivo.
Physiol. Plant. V. 33, pp. 161-165.
Mayland, H.F., A.R. Florence, R.C. Rosenau, V.A. Lazar and
H.A. Turner. 1975. Soil ingestion by cattle on semiarid
range as reflected by titanium analysis of feces.
Journal of Range Management. V. 28, pp. 448-452.
McCulloch, E.C. and J.L. St. John. 1940. Lead-arsenate
poisoning of sheep and cattle. Journal of American
Veterinary Medical Association. V. 96, pp. 321-326.
McParland, P.J. and R.H. Thompson. 1971. Deaths in cattle
following ingestion of lead arsenate. Veterinary Record.
V. 89(16), pp. 450-451.
-------
Melsted, S.W. 1973. Soil-plant relationship (Some practical
considerations in waste management).	Proceedings of
the Joint Conference on Recycling Municipal Sludges and
Effluents on Land. Champaign, Illinois, pp. 121-128.
Meyer, M.W., F.L. Fricke, G.S. Holmgren, J. Kubota, and R.L.
Chaney. 1982. Cadmium and lead in wheat grain and
associated surface soils of major wheat production areas
of the United States. Agronomy Abstract, pp. 34
Miesch, A.T. and C. Huffman, Jr. 1969. Abundance and
distribution of Pb, Cd, Zn, and As in soils in the
vicinity of a smelter in the Helena Valley, MT. Unpub-
lished report, U.S.G.S., Denver, CO.
Miesch, A.T. and C. Huffman, Jr. 1972. Abundance and
distribution of lead, zinc, cadmium, and arsenic in soils.
Helena Valley Montana Area, Environmental Pollution Study.
Office of Air Programs Publication AP-91, Research Triangle
Park, N.C. pp. 65-80.
Miles, L.J. and G.R. Parker. 1980. Effect of soil cadmium
addition on germination of native plant species. Plant and
Soil. V. 54, pp. 243-247.
Miles, L.J.. and G.R. Parker. 1979. The effect of soil-added
cadmium on several plant species. Journal of Environmental
Quality. V. 8, pp. 229-232.
Miller, J.E., J.J. Hassett and D.E. Koeppe. 1977. Interac-
tion of lead and cadmium on metal uptake and growth of corn
plants. Journal of Environmental Quality. V. 6(1), pp.
18-20.
Miller, W.J., E.S. Wells, R.P. Gentry and M.W. Neathery. 1971.
Endogenous zinc excretion and 65zn metabolism in Holstein
calves fed intermediate to high but nontoxic zinc levels in
practical diets. Journal of Nutrition. V. 101, pp.
1673-1682.
Miller, W.J., D.M. Blackmon, R.P. Gentry and F.M. Pate.
1970. Effects of high but nontoxic levels of zinc in
practical diets on ^Zr\ and zinc metabolism in Holstein
calves. Journal of Nutrition. V. 100, pp. 893-902.
Miller, W.J. 1969. Absorption, tissue distribution, endo-
genous excretion and homeostatic control of zinc in
ruminants. American Journal of Coinical Nutrition.
V. 22(10), pp. 1323-1331.
Miller, W.J., G.W. Powell, D.M. Blackman and R.P. Gentry. 1968.
Zinc and dry matter content of tissues and feces of zinc
deficient and normal ruminants fed ethylenediamine tetraacetate
and cadmium. Journal of Dairy Science. V. 51(1), pp. 82-89.
193
-------
Miller, W.J., B. Lampp, G.W. Powell, C.S. Salotti and D.M.
Blackman. 1967. Influence of a high level of dietary
cadmium on cadmium content in milk, excretion and cow
performance. Journal of Dairy Science. V. 50(9), pp.
1404-1408.
Miller, W.J., C.M. Clifton and P.R. Fowler. 1965a.
Influence of high levels of dietary zinc on zinc in milk,
performance and biochemistry of lactating cows. Journal
of Dairy Science. V. 48, pp. 450-453.
Miller, W.J., G.W. Powell and W.J. Pitts. 1965b. Factors
affecting zinc content of bovine hair. Journal of Dairy
Science. V. 48, pp. 1091-1095.
Mills, C.F. and A.C. Dalgarno. 1972. Copper and zinc status
of ewes and lambs receiving increased dietary concentra-
tions of cadmium. Nature. V. 239. pp. 171-173.
Mitchell, C.D. and J.A. Fretz. 1977. Cd and Zn toxicity in
white pine, red maple and Norway spruce. Journal American
Society of Horticulture Science. V. 102, pp. 81-84.
Mitchell, D.G. and K.M. Aldous. 1974. Lead content of food
stuffs. Environmental Health Perspectives. V. 7, pp. 59-
Mitchell, G.A., F.T. Bingham and A.L. Page. 1978. Yield and
metal composition of lettuce and wheat grown on soils
amended with sewage sludge enriched with cadmium, copper,
nickel and zinc. Journal of Environmental Quality.
V. 7 (2) , pp. 165-171.
Mitra, R.S. and I.A. Bernstein. 1978. Single strand breakage
of DNA of Eschericia coli exposed to cadmium. Journal of
Bacteriology. V. 133, pp. 75-80.
Montana Department of State Lands (MDSL). 1977. Suspect
levels of soil parameters. Memo to interested parties.
Neil Harrington, MDSL. June 30, 1977.
Moore, w. Jr., J.F. Stara and W.C. Crocker. 1973.
Gastrointestinal absorption of different compounds of
cadmium and the effect of different concentrations in
in the rat. Environmental Research. V. 6, p. 159.
Mortvedt, J.J. and P.M. Giordano. 1975. Response of corn to
zinc and chromium in municipal wastes applied to soil.
Journal of Environmental Quality. V. 4(2), pp. 170-174.
Moxham, J.W. and M.R. Coup. 1968. Arsenic poisoning of
cattle and other domestic animals. New Zealand Veterinary
Journal. V. 16, pp. 161-165.
19^
-------
Munshower, F.F. and D.R. Neuman. 1979. Metals in soft tissues
of mule deer and antelope. Bulletin of Environmental
Contamination and Toxicology. V. 22, pp. 827-832.
Munshower, F.F. 1977. Cadmium accumulation in plants and
animals of polluted and nonpolluted grasslands. Journal
of Environmental Quality. V. 6(4), pp. 411-413.
Murthy, G.K. 1974. Trace elements in milk. CRC. Critical
Reviews in Environmental Control. CRC Press. Cleveland,
Ohio.
Murthy, G.K. and U. Rhea. 1968. Cadmium and silver content
of market milk. Journal of Dairy Science. V. 51(4), pp.
611-613.
Murthy, G.K., U. Rhea and J.T. Peeler. 1967. Rubidium and
lead content of market milk. Journal of Dairy Science. V.
50(5), pp. 651-654.
Naplatarova, M., M. Sapkova, and S. Radenkov. 1968. Content
of some microelements in milk. Ser Zootech. Sofia. V.
19. pp. 287. Quoted in Iyengar. G.V., 1982.
National Oceonic and Atmopheric Adminitration. 1983.
CIimatological Data, Annual Summary, Montana. V. 86(13).
National Research Council. 1980. Mineral tolerance of
domestic animals. National Academy of Sciences.
Washington, D.C.
National Research Council. 1979. Zinc. National Academy of
Sciences. University Park Press. Baltimore, Maryland.
National Research Council. 1977. Arsenic. National Academy
of Sciences. Washington, D.C.
National Research Council. 1974. Nutrients and toxic
substances in water for livestock and poultry. National
Academy of Sciences. Washington, D.C. 93 pp.
National Research Council. 1972. Water quality criteria, 1972.
National Academy of Engineering, National Academy of Sciences.
Washington, D.C. EPA-R3-73-033.
National Research Council. 1972. Lead, airborne lead in
perspective. National Academy of Sciences. Washington,
D.C.
Neuman, D.R. and D.J. Dollhopf. 1984. Correspondence to Mr.
D. Lovell, CH2M Hill, Denver, CO. pp. 3-5.
195
-------
Neuman, D.R. and R.G. Gavlak. 1984. Criteria for contami-
nant levels of lead, cadmium, zinc and arsenic in
Helena Valley soils and crops. Initial literature
review. Prepared for CH2M Hill. Montana State
University, Bozeman, Montana.
Newton, D., P. Johnson, A.E. Lally, R.J. Pentreath and D.J.
Swift. 1984. The uptake by man of cadmium ingested in
crab meat. Human Toxicology V. 3. pp. 23-28.
Nriagu, J.O. 1980. Production, uses, and properties of
cadmium. In: Cadmium in the Environment, J.O. Nriagu, Ed.
John Wiley and Sons, New York. pp. 35-70.
Ohmori, S., T. Mitura, Y. Kusaka, H. Tsuji, T. Sagawa, S.
Furuya and Y. Tamari. 1975. Nondestructive multi-
elementary analysis of human hair by neutron activation.
Radioisotopes. V. 24, pp. 396-402.
OMAF/OMOE - Ontario Ministry of Agricultural and Food/Ontario
Ministry of the Environment. 1981. Guidelines for sewage
sludge utilization on agricultural lands. Toronto,
Ontario, Canada.
Orheim, R.M., L. Lippman, C.J. Johnson, and H.H. Bovee.
1974. Lead and arsenic levels of dairy cattle in
proximity to a copper smelter. Environmental Letters.
V. 7(3), pp. 229-236.
Osuna, 0., G.T. Edds and J.A. Popp. 1981. Comparative
toxicity of feeding dried urban sludge and an equivalent
amount of cadmium to swine. American Journal of Veterinary
Research. V. 42(9), pp. 1542-1546.
Osweiler, G.D. and L.P. Ruhr. 1978. Lead poisoning in
feeder calves. Journal of American Veterinary Medical
Association. V. 172(4), pp. 498-500.
Ott, E.A., W.H. Smith, R.B. Harrington and W.M. Beeson.
1966a. Zinc toxicity in ruminants. I. Effect of high
levels dietary zinc on gains, feed consumption and feed
efficiency of lambs, Journal of Animal Science. V. 25,
pp. 414-418.
Ott, E.A., W.H. Smith, R.B. Harrington and W.M. Beeson.
1966b. Zinc toxicity in ruminants. II. Effect of high
levels of dietary zinc on gains, feed consumption and
feed efficiency of beef cattle. Journal of Animal Science.
V. 25, pp. 419-423.
Ott, E.A., W.H. Smith, R.B. Harrington, M. Stob, H.E. Parker
and W.M. Beeson. 1966c. Zinc toxicity in ruminants. III.
Physiological changes in tissues and alterations in rumen
metabolism in lambs. Journal of Animal Science, v. 25,
pp. 424-431.
196
-------
Ott, E.A., W.H. Smith, R.B. Harrington, H.E. Parker and W.M.
Beeson. 1966d. Zinc toxicity in ruminants. IV.
Physiological changes in tissues of beef cattle. Journal
of Animal Science, pp. 432-438.
Page, A.L. 1974. Fate and effects of trace elements in
sewage sludge when applied to agricultural lands. A
literature review study. USEPA Rept. No. EPA-670/2-74-
005. 108 pp.
Page, A.L., T.L. Gleason III, J.E. Smith, Jr., I.K. Iskandar
and L.E. Sommers, Editors. 1983. Utilization of municipal
wastewater and sludge on land. Proceedings of University
of California Workshop sponsored by Environmental Protec-
tion Agency.
Page, A.L., F.T. Bingham and C. Nelson. 1972. Cadmium
absorption and growth of various plant species as
influenced by solution cadmium concentration. Journal of
Environmental Quality. V. 1, pp. 288-291.
Parkash, S. and R. Jenness. 1967. Status of cow's milk in
zinc. Journal of Dairy Science. V. 50, pp. 127-
Patel, P.M., A. Wallace and E.M. Romney. 1977. "Effect of
chelating agents on phytotoxicity of lead and lead transport.
Communications in Soil Science and Plant Analysis. V. 8(9),
pp. 733-740.
Pearl, D.S., C.B. Ammerman, P.R. Henry and R.C. Littrell. 1983.
Influence of dietary lead and calcium on tissue lead
accumulation and depletion, lead metabolism and tissue
mineral composition in sheep. Journal of Animal Science.
V. 56, pp. 1416-
Penrose, W.L. 1975. Organic arsenic compounds in aquatic
organisms. In: International Conference of Heavy Metals
in the Environment. Toronto, Canada, p. C-20.
Penumarthy, L., F.W. Oehme and R.H. Hayes. 1980. Lead,
cadmium and mercury tissue residues in healthy swine,
cattle, dogs and horses from the midwestern United States.
Archives of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. V.
9, pp. 193-206.
Peoples, S.A. 1983. The metabolism of arsenic in man and
animals. In: Arsenic. Lederer, W.H. and R.J.
Fensterheim, Eds. Van Nostrand Reinhold Company. New York,
pp. 125-133.
Peoples, S.A. 1964. Arsenic toxicity in cattle. Annals
New York Academy of Science. V. Ill, pp. 644-649.
197
-------
Pepper, I.L., D.F. Bezdicek, A.S. Baker and J.M. Sims. 1983.
Silage corn uptake of sludge-applied zinc and cadmium as
affected by soil pH. Journal of Environmental Quality.
V. 12(2), pp. 270-275.
Pickering, W.F. 1980. Cadmium retention by clays and
other soil or sediment components. In: Cadmium in the En-
vironment, J.O. Nriagu, Ed. John Wiley and Sons, New
York. pp. 365-397.
Pierce, F.J., R.H. Dowdy and D.F. Grigal. 1982. Concentrations
of six trace metals in some major Minnesota soil series.
Journal of Environmental Quality. V. 11(3), pp. 416-422.
Pond, W.G. and E.F. Walker, Jr. 1972. Cadmium-induced anemia
in growing rats; prevention by oral or parenteral iron.
Nutrition Report Int. V. 5, p. 365.
Porter, J.R. and R.P. Sheridan. 1981. Inhibition of nitrogen
fixation in alfalfa by arsenate, heavy metals, fluoride,
and simulated acid rain. Plant Physiology. V. 68, pp.
143-148.
Powell, G.W., W.J. Miller, J.D. Morton and C.M. Clifton.
1964. Influence of dietary cadmium level and supple-
mental zinc on cadmium toxicity in the bovine. Journal
of Nutrition. V. 84, pp. 205-214.
Prior, M.G. 1976. Lead and mercury residues in kidney and
liver Canadian slaughter animals. Canadian Journal of Com-
paritive Medicine. V. 40, pp. 9-11
Pruves, D. 1977. Fundamental aspects of pollution control
and environmental science. Part I. In: Trace Element
Contamination of the Environment. Elsevier, Amsterdam.
Puis, R. 1981. Veterinary trace mineral deficiency and
toxicity information. Canada Department of Agriculture.
Publicationa 5139. Ottawa, Canada.
Puis, R. 1985. Unpublished data. Aldergrove, B.C. V0X 1A0.
Radeleff, R.D. 1970. Arsenic. In: Veterinary Toxicology
(2nd ed.) Lea and Febiger. Philadelphia, pp. 158-161.
Ratsch, H.C. 1974. Heavy-metal accumulation in soil and
vegetation from smelter emissions. Environmental Protection
Agency. EPA 660/3-74-012.
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. 1980. EPA/Hazardous
waste and consolidated permit regulations. In: Federal
Register. 19 May 1980.
198
-------
Riordan, J.F. and B.L. Vallee. 1976. Structure and function
of zinc metalloenzymes. Trace Elements in Human Health and
Disease, A.S. Prusad Ed. Academic Press, New York. V. 1,
pp. 227-256.
Rittenhouse, L.R. and F.A. Sneva. 1973. The influence of
selected climatological parameters on water intake by
cattle. In: Water-Animal Relations, Proceedings. H.F.
Mayland Ed. Water-Animal Relations Committee. Kimberly,
Idaho, pp. 55-62.
Riviere, J.E., T.R. Boosinger and R.J. Everson. 1981.
Inorganic arsenic toxicosis in cattle. Modern Veteri-
nary Practice. V. 62(3), pp. 209-211.
Roels, H.A., R.R. Lauwerys, J.P. Buchet, A. Bernard, O.C.
Chettle, T.C. Harvey, and I.K. Al-Haddad. 1981. In vivo
measurement of liver and kidney cadmium in workers exposed
to this metal: Its significance with respect to cadmium in
blood and urine. Environmental Research V. 26, pp.
217-240.
Ronneau, C., M. Detry, J.P. Hallet and P. Lardinois. 1983.
Concentration of some elements in the hair of cattle as an
indicator of contamination by air pollutant deposition on
grass. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment. V. 10,
pp. 285-298.
Root, R.A., R.J. Miller and D.E. Koeppe. 1975. Uptake of
cadmium—its toxicity and effect on the iron-to-zinc ratio
in hydroponically grown corn. Journal of Environmental
Quality. V. 4, pp. 473-476.
Rosiles, M.R. 1977. Arsenic levels detected in cattle at
intervals following accidental intoxication. Veterinaria.
V. 8, pp. 119-122.
Ruhr, L.P. 1984. Blood lead, delta-aminolevulinic acid
dehydratase and free erythrocyte porphyrins in normal
cattle. Veterinary and Human Toxicology. V. 26(2), pp.
105-107.
Rundle, H.L., M. Calcroft and C. Holt. 1984. An Assessment
of accumulation of Cd, Cr, Cu, Ni and Zn in the tissues of
British friesian steers fed on the products 01 land which
has received heavy applications of sewage sludge. Journal
of Agricultural Science. V. 106, pp. 1-6.
Russell, H.A. and A. Schoberl. 1970. Ein Bleiablagerung in
Rinderhaaren. Dtsch. Tieraerztl. Wochschr. V. 77, pp.
517-518.
Sahli, B.P. 1982. Arsenic concentrations in cattle liver,
kidney and milk. Veterinary and Human Toxicology. V.
24(3), pp. 173-174.
199
-------
Sampson, J., R. Graham and H.R. Hester. 1942. Studies on
feeding zinc to pigs. The Cornell Veterinarian. V. 32(3),
pp. 225-236.
Savchuck, W.B., et al. 1960. Effect of arsenic on growth of
mammalian cells in vitro. Proceedings Society Experimental
Biologists in Medicine. pp. 543-547
Schilling, R. 1985. Personal Communication. Special Studies
Branch. Center for Disease Control. Atlanta, GA.
Schmitt, N., G. Brown, E.L. Devlin, A.A. Larsen, E.D.
McCausland and J.M. Saville. 1971. Lead poisoning in
horses. Archives Environmental Health. V. 23, pp.
185-195.
Schroeder, H.A. and J.J. Balassa. 1966. Abnormal trace
metals in man: Arsenic. Journal Chronic Diseases.
V. 19, pp. 85-106.
Schroeder, H.A. and W.H. Vinton. 1962. Hypertension
induced in rats by small doses of cadmium. American
Journal of Physiology. V. 202, pp. 515.-517.
Selby, L.A., A.A. Case, G.D. Osweiler and H.M. Hayes. 1977.
Epidemiology and toxicology of arsenic poisoning in
domestic animals. Environmental Health Perspectives.
V. 19, pp. 183-189.
Selby, L.A., A.A. Case, C.R. Dorn and D.J. Wagstaff. 1974.
Public health hazards associated with arsenic poisoning in
cattle. Journal American Veterinary Medical Association.
V. 165 (1), pp. 1010-1014.
Severson, R.C., L.P. Gough, and J.M. McNeal. 1977. Availa-
bility of elements in soils to native plants, Northern Great
Planin. In: Geochemical Survey of the Western Energy
Region. U.S.G.S. Open-file Report 77-872. Denver, CO.
Shacklette, H.T. and J.G. Boerngen. 1984. Element
concentrations in soils and other surficial materials of
the conterminous United States. U.S. Geological Survey Pro-
fesional Paper 1270.
Shariatpanahi, M. and A.C. Anderson. 1984a. Uptake, dis-
tribution and elimination of monosodium methanearsonate
following long term oral administration of the herbi-
cide to sheep and goats. Journal of Environmental
Science and Health. V. 19,(6), pp. 555-564.
200
-------
Shariatpanahi, M., A.C. Anderson. 1984b, Distribution and
toxicity of monosodium methanearsonate following oral
administration of the herbicide to dairy sheep and goats.
Journal of Environmental Science and Health. V. 19(4) and
(5), pp. 427-439.
Sharma, R.P., J.C. Street, J.L. Shupe and D.R. Bourcier.
1982. Accumulation and depletion of cadmium and lead in
tissues and milk of lactating cows fed small amounts of
these metals. Journal of Dairy Science. V. 65, pp.
972-979.
Sharma, R.P. and J.C. Street. 1980. Public health aspects
of toxic heavy metals in animal feeds. Journal American
Veterinary Medical Association. V. 177(2). pp. 149-153.
Sharma, R.P., J.C. Street, M.P. Verma, and J.L. Shupe.
1979. Cadium uptake from feed and its distribution to
food products of livestock. Environmental Health
Perspectives. V. 28, pp. 59-66.
Sharma, R.P., M.P. Verma. 1980. Metal-binding proteins in
bovine and porcine hepatic and renal tissues: Isolation
and characterization. American Journal of Veterinary
Research. V. 41(4), pp. 548-551.
Shuman, L.M. 1980. Zinc in soils. In: Zinc in the Environ-
ment, J.O. Nriagu, Ed. John Wiley and Sons, New York.
Singh, S.S. 1981. Uptake of cadmium by lettuce (lactuca
sativa) as influenced by its addition to a soil as inorganic
or in sewage sludge. Canadian Journal of Soil Science.
V. 61, pp. 19-28.
Smith, G.C. and E.G. Brennan. 1983. Cadmium-zinc interre-
lationships in tomato plants. Phytopathology. V. 73,
pp. 879-882.
Smith, M.A. 1981. Tentative guidelines for acceptable con-
centration of contaminants in soils. Department of the
Environment. Central Directorate on Environmental
Pollution, London, England.
Smith, B.L. 1977. Toxicity of zinc in ruminants in relation
to facial eczema. New Zealand Veterinary Journal. V. 25,
pp. 310-312.
Sommers, L.E. 1980. Toxic metals in agricultural crops. In
G. Bitton et al. (eds.) Sludge — Health Risks of Land
Application. Ann Arbor Science Publishers Inc.,
Ann Arbor, MI. pp. 105-140.
Soil Conservation Service. 1977. Precipitation data for
Montana. Soil Conservation Service, U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Portland, Oregon.
201
-------
Soil Conservation Service. 1977b. Soil Survey of Broadwater
County, Montana.
Soukup, A. V. 1972. Survey of water quality. Helena Valley
Montana Area, Environmental Pollution Study. Office of Air
Programs Publication AP-91, Research Triangle Park, N.C.
pp. 61-63.
Spaulding, J.E. 1975. Unpublished data, USDA-APHIS, Washing-
ton, D.C. In: Doyle and Spaulding. 1978. Toxic and
Essential Trace Elements in Meat: A Review. Journal of
Animal Science. V. 47(2), pp. 398-419.
Spector, W.S. ed. 1956. Handbook of Biological Data. W.B.
Saunders Company. Philadelphia, PA.
Speer, H.L. 1973. The effect of arsenate and other inhibi-
tors on early events during the germination of lettuce
seeds. Plant Physiology. V. 52, pp. 142-146.
Standish, J.F. 1981. Metal concentrations in processed
sewage and by-products, Agriculture Canada, Trade Memo-
randum T-4-93, Ottawa.
Staples, L.J. 1975. Lead poisoning still kills. New
Zealand Journal of Agriculture. V. 130, pp. 21.
Steevens, D.R., L.M. Walsh and D.R. Keeney. 1972. Arsenic
phytotoxicity on a Plainfield sand as affected by ferric
sulfate or aluminum sulfate. Journal of Environmental
Quality. V. 1(3), pp. 301-303.
Sterrett, S.B., R.L. Chaney, C.W. Reynolds, F.D. Schales and
L.w. Douglass. 1982. Transplant quality and metal concen-
trations in vegetable transplants grown in media containing
sewage sludge compost. Hort Science. V. 17(6), pp.
920-922.
Suzuki, S., T. Taguchi and G. Yokohashi. 1969. Dietary
factors influencing upon the retention rate of orally ad-
ministered H5m Cd CI2 in mice with special reference
to calcium and protein concentrations in diet.
Omdistrial Health. V. 7, p. 155.
Takkar, P.N. and M.S. Mann. 1978. Toxic levels of soil and
plant zinc for maize and wheat. Plant and Soil. V. 49,
pp.667-669.
Taylor, M.C., A. Demayo and K.W. Taylor. 1982. Effects of
zinc on humans, laboratory and farm animals, terrestial
plants, and freshwater plants. CRC Critical Reviews in
Environmental Control. April, pp. 113-181.
202
-------
Taylor, R.W. and D.W. Allinson. 1981. Influence of lead,
cadmium and nickel on the growth of medicago sativa. Plant
and Soil. V. 60, pp. 223-236.
Taylor, R.W. and D.W. Allinson. 1979. Cd, Cu, Pb, Ni and Zn
concentrations in alfalfa in Conm. Cem. Agric. Exp. Str.
Res. Rep. 55. 1979.
Telford, J.N., D.E. Hogue, J.R. Stouffer, B.H. Magee, K.W.
Miller, G.S. Stoewsand, J.M.S. Kranz, C.A. Bache and D.J.
Lisk. 1984a. Toxicologic studies with growing sheep fed
grass-legume hay grown on municipal sludge-amended subsoil.
Nutrition Reports International. V. 29(6), pp. 1391-1400.
Telford, J.N., J.G. Babish, B.E. Johnson, M.L. Thonney, W.B.
Currie, C.A. Bache, W.H. Gutenmann and D.J. Lisk. 1984b.
Toxicological studies with pregnant goats fed grass-
legume silage grown on municipal sludge-amended subsoil.
Archives of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. V.
13, pp. 635-640.
Telford, J.N., M.L. Thonney, D.E. Hogue, J.R. Stouffer, C.A.
Bache, W.H. Gutenmann, D.J. Lisk, J.G. Babish, and G.S.
Stoewsand. 1982. Toxicologic studies in growing sheep fed
silage corn cultured on municipal sludge-amended acid
subsoil. Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health.
V. 10, pp. 73-85.
Thawley, D.G., R.A. Willoughby, B.J. McSherry, G.K. MacLeod,
K.H. MacKay and W.R. Mitchell. 1977. Toxic interactions
among Pb, Zn, and Cd with varying levels of dietary Ca and
vitamin D: Hematological system. Environmental Research.
V. 17, pp. 463-475.
Todd, J.R. 1962. A knackery survey of lead poisoning
incidence in cattle in northern Ireland. Veterinary
Record. V. 74 (4), pp. 116-118.
Tremalieres, J. et al. 1975. Present data on the amount of
mineral substances ingested by man through his food. In:
Hardness of Drinking Water and Public Health. Proceedings
of the European Scientific Colloquium, Luxembourg.
Tsukamoto, H., H.R. Parker and S.A. Peoples. 1983.
Metabolism and renal handling of sodium arsenate in dogs.
American Journal of Veterinary Research. V. 44(12), pp.
2321-2335.
Ullrey, D.E., W.T. Ely and R.L. Covert. 1974. Iron, zinc,
and copper in mare's milk. Journal of Animal Science.
V. 38 (6), p. 1276.
Underwood, E.J. 1977. Trace Elements in Human and Animal
Nutrition, 4th ed., Academic Press. New York.
-------
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Meat and Poultry Inspection
Program, Scientific Services, Residue Evaluation and
Planning Staff. 1975. Heavy Metal Survey in Cattle.
Washington, D.C.
U.S. Public Health Service. 1962. Drinking Water Standards.
Publication 956. U.S. Government Printing Office.
Washington, D.C.
Valdares, J.M.A.S, M. Gal, U. Mingelgrin and A.L. Page. 1983.
Some heavy metals in soils treated with sewage sludge,
their effects on yield, and their uptake by plants.
Journal of Environmental Quality. V. 12(1), pp. 49-57.
Vallee, B.L. and D.D. Ulmer. 1972. Biochemical effects of
mercury, cadmium and lead. Annual Reviews in Bio-
chemistry. V. 40, pp. 91-128.
Vandecaveye, S.C., G.M. Horner and C.M. Keaton. 1936.
Unproductiveness of certain orchard soils as related to
lead arsenate spray accumulations. Soil Science. V. 42,
pp. 203-215.
Van Lear, D. and W.H. Smith. 1972. Relationships between
macro and micronutrient mitrition of slash pine on three
coastal plain soils. Plant and Soil. V. 36, pp.
331-347.
Verma, M.P. R.P. Sharma, J.C. Street. 1978. Hepatic and
renal metallothionein concentrations in cows, swine, and
chickens given cadmium and lead in feed. American Journal
of Veterinary Research. V. 39(12), pp. 1911-1915.
Volk, R.J. and W.A. Jackson. 1973. Mercury and cadmium
interaction with nitrate absorption by illuminated corn
seedling. Environmental Health Perspectives. V. 4,
pp.. 103-104.
Walsh, L.M., M.E. Sumner and D.R. Keeney. 1977. Occurrence
and distribution of arsenic in soils and plants.
Environmental Health Perspectives. V. 19, pp. 67-71.
Walsh, L.M. and D.R. Keeney. 1975. Behavior and phytotoxicity
of inorganic arsenicals in soils. In: Arsenical Pesticides.
American Chemical Society Symposium Series No. 7. Washington,
D.C. 3 5.pp.
Walsh, L.M., D.R. Steevens, H.D. Seibel and G.G. Weis. 1972.
Effect of high rates of zinc on several crops grown on an
irrigated plainfield sand. Communications in Soil Science
and Plant Analysis. V. 3(3), pp. 187-195.
Wardrope, D.D., J. Graham. 1982. Lead mine waste:
Hazards to livestock. The Veterinary Record. V. Ill, pp.
457-459.
-------
Washington State University Cooperative Extension Service.
1975. Special Orchard Soil Tests. Reprint FG-28d,
Pullman, Washington.
Wauchope, R.D. 1983. Uptake, translocation, and phyto-
toxicity of arsenic in plants. In: Arsenic: Industrial,
Biomedical, and Environmental Perspectives. W.H. Lederer
and R.J. Fensterheim, Eds. Van Nostrand Reinhold Company,
New York. pp. 348-377.
Weaver, A.D. 1962. Arsenic poisoning in cattle following
pasture contamination by drift of spray. The Veterinary
Record. V. 74(9), pp. 249-251.	v
Weaver, R.W., J.R. Melton, D. Wang and R.L. Duble. 1984.
Uptake of arsenic and mercury from soil by bermudagrass.
Environmental Pollution (Series A). V. 33, pp. 133-142.
Webber, M.D., A. Kloke, J., Ch. Tjell. 1983. A review of
current sludge use guidelines for the control of heavy
metal contamination in soils. In: Proceedings of the EC
Concerted Action Cost 68 ter: Third International Sympo-
sium, Processing and Use of Sewage Sludge. Brighton,
England, September 27-30, 1983.
White, M.C., and R.L. Chaney. 1980. Zinc, cadmium and
manganese uptake by soybean from two zinc-and cadmium-
amended coastal plain soils. Soil Science Society of
America Journal. V. 44, pp. 308-313.
White, M.C., R.L. Chaney and A.M. Decker. 1979. Differen-
tial cultivar tolerance in soybean to phytotoxic levels
of soil Zn. II. Range of Zn additions and the uptake and
translocation of Zn, Mn, Fe, and P. Agronomy Journal.
V. 71, pp. 126-131.
White, W.B., P.A. Clifford and H.O. Calvery. 1943. The
lethal dose of lead for the cow: The elimination of
ingested lead through the milk. Journal American
Veterinary Medical Association. V. 102, pp. 292-293.
Williams, J.H. 1982. Zinc, copper and nickel - safe
limits in sludge treated soils. Working Party 5. Commis-
sion of the European Community's Concuted Action on the
Treatment and Use of Sewage Sludge. Ministry of Agricul-
ture, Fisheries and Food. Stevenage, U.K.
Willoughby, R.A., T. Thirapatsakun and B.J. McSherry. 1972.
Influence of rations low in calcium and phosphorus on blood
and tissue lead concentration in the horses. American
Journal of Veterinary Research. V. 33, pp. 1165-1173.
205
-------
Willoughby, R.A., E. MacDonald, B.J. McSherry and G. Brown.
1972b. Lead and zinc poisoning and the interaction
between Pb and Zn poising in the foal. Canadian Journal
of Comparitive Medicine. V. 36. pp. 348-359.
Wolnik, K.A., F.L. Fricke, S.C. Caper, G.I. Braude, M.W.
Meyer, R.D. Satzger and E. Bonnin. 1983. Elements in
major raw agricultural crops in the United States. L.
Cadmium and lead in lettuce, peanuts, potatoes, soybeans,
sweet corn and wheat. Journal of Agricultural Food
Chemists. V. 31., pp. 1240-1244.
Woolson, E.A. 1973. Arsenic phytotoxicity and uptake in six
vegetable crops. Weed Science V. 21(6), pp. 524-527.
Woolson, E.A., J.H. Axley and P.C. Kearney. 1973. The
chemistry and phytotoxicity of Arsenic in soils: II.
Effects of time and phosphorous. Soil Science Society of
America Proceedings. V. 37, pp. 254-259.
Woolson, E.A., J.H. Axley and P.C. Kearney. 1971a.
Correlation between available soil arsenic, estimated
by six methods, and response to corn (Zea mays L.).
Soil Science Society of America Proceedings. V. 35,
pp. 101-105.
Woolson, E.A., J.H. Axley and P.C. Kearney. 1971b. The
chemistry and phytotoxicity of arsenic in soils: I.
Contaminated field soils. Soil Science Society of America
Proceedings. V. 35, pp. 938-943.
Wright, F.C., J.S. Palmer, J.C. Riner, M. Haufler, J.A. Miller
and C.A. McBeth. 1977. Effects of dietary feeding of
organocadmium to cattle and sheep. Journal of Agricul-
tural Food Chemists. V. 25, pp. 293-297.
Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality. 1983. Soil and
Overburden Guidelines (Guideline 1) Land Quality Division,
Cheyenne, Wyoming.
Zimdahl, R.L. and J.H. Arvik. 1973. Lead in soils and
plants: a literature review. CRC Critical Reviews in
Environmental Control. V. 3, pp. 213-224.
Zmudski, J., G.R. Bratton, C. Womac and L. Rowe. 1983. Lead
poisoning in cattle: Reassessment of the minimum toxic
oral dose. Bulletin Environmental Contamination and
Toxicology. V. 30, pp. 435-441.
206
-------