UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
GEOLOGICAL SURVEY
Radium and uranium data for mineral springs
in eight Western States
By
J. Karen Felmlee and Robert A. Cadigan
Open-File Report 78- 561
1978
Contents
Page
Abstract
1
Measurements and analytical procedures
9
Presentation of data
10
Analysis and interpretation of data
25
Conclusion
40
References
44
Illustrations
Figure 1.
Index map of sample localities and physiographic
provinces
2.
2
Graph showing comparison of uranium data on duplicate samples for two methods of sample treatment
and analysis
3-7.
8.
9-21.
12
Maps showing values for:
3.
Radium
13
4.
Uranium
14
5.
Specific conductance
15
6.
Temperature
16
7.
pH
17
Frequency diagrams for the five measured parameters 24
Graphs showing relationships between:
9.
10.
Radium and uranium
27
Radium and specific conductance
28
11.
Radium and temperature
29
12.
Radium and pH
30
13.
Uranium and specific conductance
31
14.
Uranium and temperature
32
15.
Uranium and pH
33
16.
Specific conductance and temperature
34
17.
Specific conductance and pH
35
18.
Temperature and pH
36
19.
REF and specific conductance
41
20.
REF and temperature
42
21.
REF and pH
43
Tables
Page
Table 1.
2.
Sample localities
3
Comparison of uranium data on duplicate samples
for two laboratories methods of sample
treatment
11
3.
Radium, uranium, and field data
4.
Correlation coefficients for the five measured
parameters
18
26
M
Radium and uranium data for mineral springs in eight Western States
by J. Karen Felmlee and Robert A. Cadigan
Abstract
Data for 116 mineral springs in eight Western States show a
wide range of values.
Specific conductance, temperature, and pH
were measured at the sites between 1975 and 1977, and samples for
radium and uranium analysis were collected.
Correlation and
regression analyses among the five measured parameters indicate
that a positive correlation exists between radium and specific
conductance and that negative correlations exist between radium and
pH, specific conductance and pH, and uranium and temperature.
Sample localities
Between 1975 and 1977 we collected data and(or) water samples
at 116 mineral springs in eight Western States.
Sample localities
are shown on figure 1 and listed in table 1; two of the sites (one
in Idaho and one in Nevada) are not shown on the map because the
samples were taken with the permission of the property owners on
the condition that the sample locations be considered confidental.
Sample distribution by State is as follows:
State
Number
of samples
Arizona
California
Colorado
Idaho
Nevada
New Mexico
utah"""""""~""""""""""~"~""*""""~""""
Wyoming
10
2
27
6
27
5
2,0
11
4
i.
In^-jx nnp or sample localities c.n:i phys icorarri tc
!08
104
Table 1. Sample localities
LOG.
no.
Locality name
Latitude
Longitude
36°29 ' 57"
Arizona
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Vasey ' s Paradise spr ing
Spring
Spring at Fern Glen Canyon
36 20 44
36 15 43
lll^l^B 1
111 50 42
112 43 29
112 40 15
112 55 03
Lava Warm Springs
Pumpkin Spring
Salt Banks springs
Clifton Hot Spring
Indian Hot Springs
36
35
33
33
32
113
113
110
109
109
CT^K i r»n- .
__ _
OT-IK -J t-i<~i___
__ _
__ __ __
_____ __
____
_
"3fi
__ ___Q£
OQ ^"7
OI7I
11
54
49
04
49
AT
39
59
56
48
59
04
19
35
18
48
59
59
49
11
53
California
1
2
r d-Ltro nuu >D|JL niyo
oo /.J. >o±
Travertine Hot Springs at Bridgeport
38 14 47
119°24 I 00"
119 12 12
Colorado
1
2
3
4
5
106°15 I 50"
106 06 44
107 19 15
105 37 47
105 47 41
Sulfur Springs near Kremmling
Hot Sulfur Springs
Glenwood Hot Springs
Springs at Sulfur Mountain
40°06 I 01"
40 04 31
39 33 01
39 01 27
Lla.L LocrJ. nut DJJ.L lliyo
J-7 v±.
Yj 1
"5ft
jo
38
38
38
^Q
^Q
oy
57
50
47
^Q
A9
ftz
11
22
21
-^
105
105
107
107
107
57
56
38
50
56
30
08
32
32
14
6
7
8
9
10
Calf- opring
Cr\v i rw~i _
oaiu
Antero Salt Works spring
Colonel Chinn artesian well
Sulfur Gulch spring
Husuin springs
__ __ __
11
12
13
14
15
Fish hatchery adit spring
Doughty springs
Doughty springs
Yellow Soda Spring near Guffey
Taylor Soda Spring
38
38
38
38
38
46
46
46
44
36
22
12
12
20
08
107
107
107
105
105
46
45
45
31
33
10
32
34
50
00
16
17
18
19
20
Waunita Hot Springs
Poncha Hot Springs
Poncha Hot Springs
Mineral Hot Springs
Mineral Hot Springs
38
38
38
38
38
30
29
29
10
10
53
45
43
07
07
106
106
106
105
105
30
04
04
55
55
26
30
20
05
05
_-.___
Table 1. Sample localities continued
Loc.
no.
Locality name
Latitude
Longitude
38°08 I 00"
38 01 08
37 45 00
37 45 00
37 27 41
107°44 I 00"
107 40 27
23
24
25
Orvis Hot Spring
Our ay hot springs
Wagon Wheel Gap hot springs
Wagon Wheel Gap hot springs
Sulfur Springs near La Veta
26
27
Sulfur Springs near La Veta
Baker Bridge hot springs
37 27 41
37 26 58
105 05 55
107 48 23
43O38'34"
43 25 25
42 39 25
42 37 11
42 09 18
111041'15"
111 24 51
111 34 46
112 00 18
112 20 53
Color ado cont inued
21
22
106 49 45
106 49 45
105 05 55
Idaho
1
2
3
4
5
6
Heise Hot Springs
Fall Creek Mineral Springs
Geyser at Soda Springs
Lava Hot Springs
Pleasantview Warm Springs
Spring
Confidential,
Nevada
1
2
3
4
5
Baltazor Hot Spring
Virgin Valley Warm Spring
Howard Hot Spring
Threemile Sulfur Spring
Golconda Hot Springs
41°55'19"
41 47 25
41 43 17
41 09 13
40 57 44
118°42'34 M
119 06 46
118 30 17
114 59 06
117 29 26
6
7
8
9
10
Golconda Hot Springs
Plank Spring
Brooks Spring
Great Boiling Spring at Gerlach
The Geysers at Beowawe
40
40
40
40
40
57
50
49
39
33
41
34
44
41
59
117
117
117
119
116
29
11
18
22
35
35
58
20
03
20
11
12
13
14
15
Sulfur Hot Springs in Ruby Valley
Kyle Hot Springs
Hot Springs Point
Buffalo Valley Hot Springs
Sou Hot Springs
40
40
40
40
40
33
24
24
22
05
13
25
03
02
14
115
117
116
117
117
17
52
31
19
43
07
59
07
46
28
Table 1. Sample localities continued
LOG.
no.
Locality name
Latitude
Longitude
39°39 I 33"
Nevada con t inued
16
17
18
19
20
Nevada Hot Springs
Nevada Hot Springs
38 53 59
38 53 59
114°48 I 17"
116 21 32
116 50 58
119 24 38
119 24 38
21
22
23
24
25
Bar rough Hot Springs
Grant View hot springs
Soda Springs at Sodaville
Gap Spring
Alkali Hot Spring
38
38
38
37
37
49
29
20
58
49
18
24
32
46
29
117
118
118
117
117
26
27
O -L J. V<_L ^Jt-Cirv
~> I
"U
t*\J
O^/L xi iy
Monte Neva Hot Springs
R-jv-4- i no H/^f- Ci-»r"! rvte _____________ ______ "3 Q
oj*/!. -Lir^
"3"3
"3ffi
11
58
06
59
20
00
34
11
31
13
117 37 48
Confidential
New Mexico
1
2
3
4
5
Soda Dam Hot Springs
San Francisco Hot Springs
/"" i 1 o Hi^4-
35°47 I 28"
33 14 40
Cr-vr-i »i/~ccr_ ___ _________________'3'3
Mimbres Hot Springs
Faywood Hot Springs
11
C\C;
32 44 54
32 33 17
106041'09"
108 52 53
108 12 11
107 50 08
107 59 42
Utah
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Crystal Springs
41 39 35
112°09 I 25"
112 06 20
112 55 37
112 13 40
112 05 14
Crystal Springs
Poison Spring
Painted Rock Spring
Little Mountain hot spring
Stinking Hot Springs
41
41
41
41
41
112
112
112
112
112
TT/^tr Ui^4-
Cr-vr- ! >->/-« o__ ____ ________________ /1 1 Ocn ITOI'I
Garland Springs
Locomotive Springs
O-sl4-
Cv^v-ir-w^
41 43 45
41 43 05
_________ __________________ A 1
A9
39
37
37
34
34
A9
34
40
15
49
38
05
16
16
15
13
13
01
03
11
55
Table 1. Sample localities continued
LOG.
no.
Locality name
Latitude
Longitude
Utah continued
11
12
13
14
15
Stinking Hot Springs
Stinking Hot Springs
Utah Hot Springs
Ogden hot spring
Hooper Hot Springs
41°34 1 38"
41 34 38
41 20 20
41 14 09
41 08 13
112°13 1 55"
112 13 55
112 01 44
111 55 16
112 10 33
16
17
18
19
20
Grantsville Warm Springs
Midway Hot Springs
Morgan Ranch Warm Spring
Wilson Health Springs
40
40
40
39
38
31
23
54
47
35
45
30
TS »!»*»«<
"1O
~) (^
Af\
112
111
112
113
112
31
29
25
25
43
20
13
20
35
49
21
22
23
24
25
Stinking springs
Stinking springs
Stinking springs
Fayette Springs
Ninemile cold spring
39
39
39
39
39
14
14
14
13
10
19
19
19
40
20
111
111
111
111
111
39
39
39
50
42
17
19
19
37
10
26
27
28
Monroe Hot Springs
Thermo Hot Springs
Dixie Hot Springs
38 38 26
38 12 34
37 11 24
112 05 53
113 13 11
113 16 16
Taylor artesian well
Ulcer spring
Big Spring at Thermopolis
Wedding of the Waters Spring
Granite Hot Spring
43°39 1 55"
43 39 19
43 39 16
43 34 55
43 22 11
108°11 1 40"
108 11 52
108 11 36
108 12 45
110 26 42
Astoria Mineral Hot Springs
Stinking Springs in Hoback Canyon
Washakie Warm Springs
Auburn Sulfur Springs
Sulfur Springs at Doty Mountain
Sulfur Springs at Doty Mountain
43
43
43
42
41
41
110
110
108
110
107
107
u«-vi- o^o .i _x-.»
Wyoming
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
18
17
00
49
29
29
01
20
28
51
34
34
46
38
50
59
33
33
28
06
07
56
24
24
Specific conductance, temperature, and pH were measured in the
field, and radium and uranium concentrations were determined by
laboratories of the U.S. Geological Survey.
The sampling was directed toward mineral springs as opposed to
ordinary freshwater springs.
By definition, a mineral spring is a
spring whose water contains enough dissolved minerals or gases to
give it a definite taste, "especially if the taste is unpleasant or
if the water is regarded as having therapeutic value" (Gary and
others, 1974).
The minimum amount of mineral matter necessary to
impart a taste is not stated, presumably because the amount is
variable and depends on the ions or gases involved.
According to
Hem (1970, p. 219) water containing more than 1,000 mg/1 total
dissolved solids is saline, and saline water is usually considered
undesirable for drinking.
Many mineral waters are saline by this
definition, but some are not.
Thermal springs are commonly used as
health spas and are considered to be mineral water even though the
total dissolved-solids content may be less than 1,000 mg/1.
Therefore, in order to examine all possible mineral springs, we
searched the literature and maps for references to hot springs,
salt springs, soda springs, or sulfur springs.
We visited mineral
springs having a wide range of properties dissolved-solids
contents of 130 to 28,000 mg/1 (specific conductances of 130 to
55,000 ymhos/cm) and temperatures of 7°c to 94°c.
Measurements and analytical procedures
Temperature and pH were measured in the field.
Temperature
was measured at the surface as near the source of each spring as
7
possible and was recorded to the nearest degree Celsius.
The pH
was measured at the site by means of a combination glass electrode
using a Ag/AgCl solution as reference and was recorded to the
nearest tenth of a pH unit.
Specific conductance is a measure of the ability of a water to
conduct an electrical current.
It was measured in the field using
standard instrumentation of the U.S. Geological Survey that
compensates for temperature and standardizes the reading to 25°C.
The conductance is directly related to the total ion concentration,
and approximate dissolved-solids contents can be calculated from
conductance values by the relationship:
KA = S,
where K is specific conductance in micromhos per centimeter, S is
dissolved solids in milligrams per liter, and A is the conversion
factor (Hem, 1970, p. 96-102).
The value of A can range from 0.54
to 0.96, but for most waters, A is between 0.55 and 0.75, making
the dissolved solids roughly two thirds the conductance.
The
relationship between conductance and a single dissolved salt is a
simple linear one, but the occurrence of many salts in varying
proportions in natural waters causes the relationship to be less
straightforward.
Radium analyses were done by radiochemical carrier-precipitation methods.
A 1-liter sample of untreated water was collected
at each site, and most of these were analyzed by the radon
emanation method.
The radium is coprecipitated with barium
sulfate, the precipitate is then dissolved, and the solution is
8
bubbled with helium to flush out existing radon. The bubbler is
allowed to equilibrate for 2-20 days before an alpha count is taken
on the ingrown radon-22 and the radium-226 is calculated.
Because the U.S. Geological Survey changed its sample
submittal and accounting procedure while this study was in
progress, some of the samples were analyzed by the precipitation
method.
In this method the radium is coprecipitated with barium
sulfate, and the precipitate is collected on a filter, or planchet.
The planchet is allowed to equilibrate for at least 15 days before
an alpha count is taken.
Both of the above methods are discussed
in Thatcher, Janzer, and Edwards (1977).
Uranium analyses were done by fluorometric methods. A 1-liter
sample of untreated water was taken at all sites except those in
Nevada and part of Utah, where filtered and acidified samples were
taken, as discussed below.
The untreated samples were analyzed by
direct fluorometry and then, if necessary, by extraction
fluorometry; those samples showing less than 30 percent quenching
or those having uranium contents above 0.3 yg/1 by the direct
method did not require further analysis by the extraction method.
The direct method involves evaporating a water sample to dryness
and then fusing the residue with a fluoride-carbonate flux.
The
fluorescence of the fused disk is determined under ultraviolet
light in a reflection-type fluorometer.
The extraction method
involves preconcentrating the uranium by coprecipitation with
aluminum phosphate.
The precipitate is then dissolved in dilute
nitric acid, the uranium is extracted with ethyl acetate or ethyl
ether, and the solution is then evaporated, fused, and fluoresced.
Both the direct and the extraction methods are discussed in
Thatcher, Janzer, and Edwards (1977).
Samples collected in Nevada
and part of Utah were analyzed by extraction fluorometry only.
These 1-liter samples were filtered through 0.45-ym filter paper
and acidified with 2 ml of 6N_ nitric acid in the field.
Duplicate
samples were taken at seven sites for comparison of analytical
results from the two sample sets.
The results are the same
magnitude and have a correlation coefficient of 0.97, which is
significant at the 99-percent level; they are therefore comparable
(fig. 2 and table 2).
Presentation of data
Values of radium, uranium, specific conductance, pH, and
temperature for the 116 sample localities are listed in table 3 and
shown diagrammatically on figures 3-7.
We did not take samples at
every site, choosing to/rely on data already available for some
sites in Colorado, New Mexico, and Utah.
these data in table 3.
References are given for
A few measurements were inadvertently not
made; data from references were used to fill these holes where
possible.
Frequency distributions and chi square tests indicate that the
best fit to a normal distribution is achieved by using log values
for radium, uranium, conductance, and temperature and nonlog values
for pH.
Frequency diagrams (fig. 8) show that values for most
parameters have multimodal distributions.
This implies that in
some sense we are dealing with more than one population of
10
Table 2.--Comparison of uranium data on duplicate samples for
two methods of sample treatment and analysis
Uranium (ug/L)
Direct and(or)
extraction
fluorometry on
untreated
samples
Extraction
fluorometry
on filteredacidified
s amp 1e s
Gap Spring, Nev-------------------
4.5
6.8
Fales Hot Springs, Gal------------
1.9
2.2
Locality
Wilson Health Springs, Utah---- -
.13
.09
Golconda Hot Springs, Nev---------
.09
.11
Buffalo Valley Hot Springs, Nev---
.04
<. 01
Monte Neva Hot Springs, Nev-------
.03
.02
Golconda Hot Springs, Nev---------
.02
.03
ie -3
t-l
ie
-a
Figure 2.
M
r
x
ui
tr
o
M
o
or
o
or
iUJ
j.
O
M
U
tu
Ul
M
U
M
O
t-t
U
<
I
O
o
6T
ilj
tr-
f
I
I
I
I
5678
I
i i i r~
6789
URANIUM CUG/L) BY DIRECT ANDCOR3 EXTRACTION FLUOROMETRY ON UNTREATED SAMPLES
-f
Comparison of uranium data on duplicate samples for two methods of sample treatment and
analysis.
-f
-f
values
_. .' <A i i '
Ura,n"u;n yr, fu-is.
108
104
Fiqur:-. ?
o values
IZU
100
104
00
18
18
20
19
17
26
25
21
56
44
63
68
28
45
46
50
15
48
4-29-76
4-29-76
5-07-76
5-07-76
5-08-76
5-09-76
5-11-76
2-07-76
2-06-76
2-06-76
5-10-77
5-11-77
6-21-76
6-21-76
9-16-74
9-21-76
9-25-76
9-25-76
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1
2
1
2
20
3
4
5
6.6
6.4
7.1
7.0
7.7
7.5
7.3
7.4
6.7
7.3
7.5
8.2
8.2
8.0
8.3
8.3
8.1
Temper Loc. Date
pH
ature
no. (mo-dy-yr) (C)
23
120
14
.82
.36
0.15
.17
.66
.36
.10
16
3.3
3.2
24
2.6
5.1
Colorado
15
2.3
California
35000
6300
3800
2650
2020
2600
4600
1340
11900
40000
18000
5000
340
360
2130
1350
1830
Radium
(pCi per
liter)
Arizona
Specific
conductance
(umhos per
cm at 25C)
0.06
.OIL
.12
.07
.30
.20
2.2
.64
3.5
7.1
13
.80
1.0
0.5
.50
8.5
6.4
3.6
Uranium
(ug per
liter)
1000
25
75
780
970G
20
11
.30
9.5
27
51
2.4
0.88
1.0
.23
.17
.082
REF
(x 1000)
.69
.41
1.3
6.0
1.6
5.8
.50
.27
1.9
3.0
.78
.16
0.44
.47
.31
.27
.055
Radium
specific
conductance
[0, data from O'Connell and Kaufmann, 1976; M, data from Mallory and Barnett, 1973,
and V. J. Janzer, unpub.; S, data from Scott and Voegeli, 1961. REF, radium enrichment factor, or measured radium divided by radium in equilibrium with measured
uranium. L, less than; G, greater than;
, no data]
Table 3. Radium, uranium, and field data
5.4
5.6
4.7
34G
790
820
34
.4L
.01
.01
2.4
4.6
2.7
2.8
2180
500
498
6000
5930
7.0
7.5
7.2
7.2
6.7
68
55
59
58
62
52
45
50
50
56
57
7
7
30
33
9-18-68
9-18-68
5-16-75
9-18-68
9-18-68
7-08-77
5-19-75
7-26-75
9-19-68
7-26-75
21
22
23
23M
24
24 M 9-19-68
7-26-75
25
25M 6-30-69
6-30-69
26
7-26-75
27
10-26-59
27S
6.7
6.8
7.9
7.5
7.7
6.9
7.2
7.2
2900
1920
2420
2290
2440
965
977
1000
980
979
.57
.31
.11
28
1.9
32G
.4L
4.3
2.1
1.1
2.7
75
500
6.5
6.1
19
.13
.03
47G
44 G
4G
2.2G
1.1
8.1
2.1
3.3
5.1
.4L
.4L
6.4
6.0
.22
.4L
.4L
95
.55
.30
.08
260
__
14000
750
1.1
.17
.58
.58
17M
18M
19
19M
20M
6.7
6.8
8.1
7.7
43
3.4
14
.98
13
9
69
79
64
16
7500
.45
.59
4.5
.044
.091
2.8
.78
.20
5-14-75
9-09-69
5-17-75
9-19-74
5-16-75
.55
2.9
1.5
3300
5000
2600
.31
35
890
8.5
.48
15
15M
16
160
17
6.3
6.5
2.9
6.5
6.7
1.9
.20
.03
3.1
16
13
15
14
9
10
.20
2.4
9.1
9
2.6
5-20-75
5-20-75
5-20-75
5-13-75
9-09-69
4500
26400
3200
11500
13800
11
12
13
14
14M
8.1
7.2
6.6
7.4
6.3
8
8
41
22
16
9-25-76
9-25-76
5-21-75
7-08-77
9-23-76
6
7
8
9
10
45
17
41
42
24
75
88
22
54
35
60
33
15
34
92
90
93
66
27
66
51
6-28-76
6-28-76
6-29-76
6-29-76
6-30-76
5-06-77
5-07-77
5-07-77
5-18-77
5-05-77
5-05-77
5-05-77
5-05-77
5-08-77
5-04-77
5-17-77
5-08-77
5-04-77
5-06-77
5-06-77
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
Temper Loc. Date
ature
no. ( mo-dy-yr ) (C)
7.1
7.8
8.4
6.9
._
7.0
7.1
8.0
9.4
7.9
7.9
8.7
6.6
7.0
7.1
7.1
7.0
6.8
7.3
7.2
pH
630
3500
570
1480
1430
850
740
1020
7300
1170
970
130
420
1730
870
9500
4350
" 4100
1430
2200
3150
.1L
8.4
.1L
7.1
3.1
.40
.20
2.3
.10
13
0.20
.1L
.1L
14
3.8
Nevada
28
2.3
1.4
.71
.53
8.0
Radium
(pCi per
liter)
Idaho
Specific
conductance
(umhos per
cm at 25C)
.OIL
, .OIL
3.6
.OIL
.OIL
.11
.16
1.2
.OIL
.OIL
0.01L
.90
.OIL
.13
.03
0.04
.20
.01
.30
.40
.05
Uranium
(ug per
liter)
2500G
.08L
2100G
910G
350
7.4
.49
680G
29G
320
370
59 G
.33L
2100
34
410
7.0
3.9
470
REF
(x 1000)
Table 3. Radium, uranium, and field data Continued
.54
.20
.32
.086
.16L
2.4
.18L
4.8
2.2
15
.21
.77L
.24L
8.1
4.4
2.9
.53
.34
.50
.24
2.5
Radium
specific
conductance
94
53
33
14
48
17
56
29
20
35
68
64
59
61
52
55
5-14-77
5-11-77
5-12-77
5-13-77
5-14-77
5-13-77
-
6-08-75
2-05-76
12-05-74
2-05-76
12-05-74
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
2-05-76
4
12-05-74
40
2-05-76
5
12-05-74
50
7.0
8.4
8.8
7.3
8.1
8.6
:
6.7
8.0
7.7
7.2
8.5
7.9
7.4
7.2
7.9
7.5
7.6
9.0
9.0
.20
4 .5
.1L
7 .3
.20
11
.90
110
12
5 .6
.1L
.1L
560
__ _
20
16
.48
.29
3 .4
230
New Mexico
425
650
6000
1360
2900
720
530
1090
1570
4300
1700
540
600
1210
520
540
Part of sample spilled in transport from field,
remaining sample.
1
2
20
3
30
78
42
72
61
63
5-16-77
5-15-77
5-14-77
5-10-77
5-10-77
16
17
18
19
20
.04
1
~"
1500
_
-
1100
330
.36
.057
.71
.042
9 .8L
24
59 G
4 .8
130
.47L
1 ,6L
16000
880
410
"
.
1 .1
36
.45
2 .5
38
.069
6 .3
.19L
6 .7
.13
2 .6
.53
200
20
4 .6
.19L
.19L
Analysis believed valid on
_
3.9
.04
3L
15
14
0.60
14
.03
.90
.OIL
6.8
.02
.02
.04
.04
.62
.18
51
13
15
16
15
56
20
16
43
45
43
43
54
56
53
17
33
25
61
78
14
11
14
18
12
4-29-76
4-29-76
4-20-76
4-19-76
5-18-77
4-29-76
4-30-76
4-30-76
4-28-76
7-18-75
4-28-76
4-28-76
5-01-76
7-18-75
7-19-75
5-02-76
7-20-75
5-02-76
5-19-77
7-20-75
7-21-75
5-03-76
5-03-76
5-03-76
5-03-76
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
7.7
7.8
7.2
7.6
7.8
7.9
6.8
8.0
7.5
7.1
6.6
6.6
7.4
7.0
7.6
6.2
7.8
7.4
6.8
6.7
7.5
7.8
8.1
7.6
7.7
Temper Loc. Date
ature pH
no. (mo-dy-yr) (C)
6000
5600
3100
1030
1490
30000
2050
1430
27000
5800
35000
35000
30000
15000
16000
52000
22000
13000
45000
55000
14000
990
3500
2150
' 1730
Specific
conductance
(umhos per
cm at 25C)
32
4.2
.09
.30
2
36
38
4.0
.49
.22
5.0
.20
.26
130
3.5
75
120
66
21
74
220
3.1
2.9
53
76
Utah
Radium
(pCi per
liter)
.05
.07
.10
1.6
4.7
1.4
.89
.50
.09
.05
.OIL
.06
.04
.28
.08
1.5
1.7
2.0
1.5
.10
0.80
1.9
2.7
1.9
2.3
Uranium
(ug per
liter)
220
1600
120
.90
.14
.66
1.5
4200
210
11
22000G
5900
4900
220
2700
430
5.4
4.3
100
2200
.
120
6.5
.098
.46
2.6
REF
(x 1000)
Table 3. Radium, uranium, and field data Continued
6.2
6.8
1.3
.48
.15
.17
.098
.18
4.8
.60
2.1
3.4
2.2
1.4
4.6
4.2
.14
.22
1.2
1.4
2.3
4.2
.026
.14
1.2
Radium
specific
conductance
74
59
73
42
53
34
30
18
35
41
8
38
62
12
10
7-21-75
26
7-23-75
27
270 9-18-75
7-23-75
28
6-25-76
6-25-76
6-25-76
6-15-76
6-27-76
6-27-76
6-26-76
6-23-76
6-27-76
6-22-76
6-22-76
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
7.2
7.5
7.9
7.0
8.0
7.1
6.4
7.6
6.3
7.1
7.9
6.8
8.0
7.3
6.6
1620
1630
1120
7700
2080
1560
3050
3200
3000
1800
930
15000
3800
2200
3.1
.34
61
31
.47
.36
15
18
15
3.5
1.8
.20
.80
.03
.04
.10
.07
0.10
.05
.10
2.8
.10
.5L
.60
7.5
41
Wyoming
.03
6.3
46
1.3
6000
2300
14
15
1.9
.21
54
4.0
.23
.23
4.9
5.6
5.0
1.9
1.9
3.4
2.7
44G
200
440
1100
440
3.7
53
1.7
620
rs)
30
in
-
CpCI/L)
° i urn
Specific conductance
Temper atur-3-
IUM
Pararnt^r
XX
p'^c i ,' ic
(u,rif,o5/c;
Fr-jquency diagram
Uren iuni
(uc/L)
Number
of samp Ios
500
xxx
xxx
xxx
y. v
XXX
7.4
springs for example, hot ones (>33°C) and cold ones (<33°C) or,
possibly, ones showing low contents of radium (<2.2 pCi/1) or
uranium (<0.47 yg/1) and ones showing high contents of radium (>2.2
pCi/1) or uranium (>0.47 yg/1).
However, a lack of correlation
between parameters such as radium and uranium (fig. 9) indicates
that a division into two groups of springs would not be a simple
one and would involve different sets of springs for each pair of
parameters.
Therefore, all of the data shall be regarded as coming
from one overall population.
Analysis and interpretation of data
Linear regression analyses were run to determine the
relationships among the five measured parameters radium, uranium,
specific conductance, temperature, and pH.
Graphs are shown on
figures 9-18, and correlation coefficients are given in table 4. A
positive correlation (0.65), significant at the 99-percent level,
is apparent between radium and specific conductance.
Negative
correlations, significant at the 99-percent level, are present for
radium and pH (-0.54), specific conductance and pH (-0.48), and
uranium and temperature (-0.46).
There is no significant
correlation between radium and uranium, radium and temperature,
uranium and conductance, uranium and pH, conductance and
temperature, or temperature and pH.
The presence of a correlation
does not necessarily indicate a cause-and-effect relationship; it
is merely a statistical measure of the degree to which two
variables fit a straight line.
reasoned on other grounds.
Why the correlation exists must be
(See Rickmers and Todd, 1967, for
25
Table 4. Correlation coefficients for the five measured parameters
Specific
Radium Uranium conductance Temperature
Radium
1.00
Uranium
pH
0.07
0.65
0.11
-0.54
1.00
.18
-.46
-.03
1.00
-.05
-.48
Specific conductance
26
o:
ie'2
-f-
45678^-2
4-
+
4-
*
2
-*-
3
-f
+
4-
45678^-1
f
4-
^
+
-f
-f-
4- 4
+
+
3456789^
+
URANIUM CUG/L)
2
4-
4-
^.
4-
Relationship between radium and uranium concentrations,
10 -323
2-
43-
543
2-
4
3-
432-
Figure 9,
M
O
D.
o
10-
2
4
f
4-
3
*
"f
^
456789j'e
1-
4"
4-
t
f
2
3
i
45678^
Correlation coefficient is 0.07.
*
+
CJ
or
.3
M
Cl
x;
a
v<
4-
iec
-f
Figure 10.
»-2
a-
3-
4-
5-
ief
24
3-
4-
Q«
,
4
H-f-
4-
4-
+
-f
+
n
4
I
i i i i r
56789,
4-
SPECIFIC CONDUCTANCE (UMHOS/CM AT 25C)
4-
-f-
,-f-
-f-
is 0.65.
Relationship between radium concentration and specific conductance.
~i i i i i r
4
56789,
4- 4K4-4-
-f
-i
4
4-
S
i
6
i i r »
7 H :?.
Correlation coefficient
-f-
4-
-H-H
o
or
""2
Figure 11,
!
2^
3-
2
3
SH
2-
3
4
a-
3-
4-
lo35-
^
-t-
-f
Relationship between radium concentration and temperature.
TEMPERATURE CO
-456789 10
-f-
f
-f
f
-fl
5
~ 7"
i
6789 J«'
-H-
f
Correlation coefficient is 0.11,
-4
-f
4-
ec
Q
Figure 12.
32-
3
2
3
2
43
2-
ie-2
ie
3
2-
4
PH
-f
Relationship between radium concentration and pH.
-f-
-t-
-f
-f
4-
,4-
+
-f
I .
8
-I-
i
4
i
4-
.
I .
9
.
Correlation coefficient is -0.54,
,4- -f
4-
-*
19C
a-
4
3-
a-
3-
10 -a
-i
ie
3-
a-
Figure 13.
or
ie
2-
43-
1=
I
I
I
I
I
-f
5678 9
~T
4
4-
4-
4-
4-f +
444-
4-
4-
+
4- 4- 414-
4-
-h
4-
441-
4-
-f 4-
4-
4-
4-
-»-
i i i i
5678
4-
4-
-f
4-
Correlation coefficient
4-
SPECIFIC CONDUCTANCE CUMHOS/CM AT P^C)
4-
4-
-ff
-f
4-
4-
Relationship between uranium concentration and specific conductance.
is 0.18.
+f
-f
+
4-
u
cr
M
S
<
4-
-a
3-
a-
Figure 14.
10 -3
10
le2^
fi-
3
TEMPERATURE CO
6789
-I- 44
-f
4-
4-
4-.4- 4
++
-f
++ +4-
Relationship between uranium concentration and temperature.
5
II~~ITi
-f
-f
4-
4-
4-
-f
4
4-
4H- -i
4
4- H
}
567
4-
4- '
4Hh
44- 41-
+n
4-
4-
4
4-
4-
S
9
Correlation coefficient is -0.46,
-f'
44-
4-
4-
x
<
or
.
M
o
2
4-
Figure 15.
»-3
a-
I
3-
»-i
a-
4
3-
a-
43-
a-
3-
a-
3-
i!
I
[
I
I
I
I
|
I
I
I
I
j
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
l
I
PH
:
I
I
l
|-
44-4
4
-p
8
441-
r
i
4-
4
T
f
9
+
Correlation coefficient is -0.03.
t
-|
4
+
'
^-
*+
44-
.1.
.4-
4
++
^ 4 f ;
.
! 4-
+
'r ,r- uti
334567
Relationship between uranium concentration and pH.
T
4-
+ . + *'*t
-f
4=
4
144
4- f '*
-f-L 4-44 ,
4
+
-f
-f
876
5-
2-
3-
19*9
B
7
6
5
"
3-
98765-
Figure 16.
o
o
u
u
M
u.
M
u
III
(L
(n
O
Ul
z:
o
\
in
o
I
in
LJ
10-
9 10
4-
4-
44-
4.
4
Relationship between specific conductance and temperature.
f-
4-
4- 4- 4
44-
TEMPERATURE CO
8
-f-
4-
-f
4-
'4-
+
4-"*
4- 4-
4-
4-
4:*
4-
4HH
+
f 4
-f
4-
£
-h
f
4
4
-I
Correlation coefficient is -0.05,
4-
4-
4-
-f
n.
en
U
IU
M
u
u
C)
o
p
LJ
111
X
o
W)
m
r\l
+
+
+
+
^
4- 4-
+
+
4-
^
;
4-
4+
4-
4-
4-
4/4 -f
+
4-
4-
4
t
4f
,+
-f
4
I
PH
Correlation coefficient is -0.48.
3456789
i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i ^ i i i i [ t i i i | i i i i p
4-
4-
Relationship between specific conductance and pH.
T i i i I i r
Figure 17.
2-
3-
3
3-
9876
5
4-
O.
or
LU
lu
or
ie
to-
i
I^Iiiiiii^iiiiiiIiir
Relationship between temperature and pH.
PH
+
+
i
4 i
-f-
T
+
+
4-
Correlation coefficient is 0.14.
33456
-1III
Figure 18.
3-\
+
discussion of basic statistics.)
The positive correlation between radium and specific
conductance (fig. 10) may reflect the effect that ionic strength
has on the solubility of didivalent salts.
The ionic strength of a
solution increases as the total number and charge of ions present
increase, and the greater the ionic strength, the greater will be
the solubility of a given salt (Krauskopf, 1967, p. 70-76).
The
amount of radium in solution may depend in part on the amount of
barium and sulfate ions present and on the solubility of barium
sulfate (Cadigan and others, 1976; Gilkeson and others, 1977),
which in turn depends at least in part on the total ionic strength
of the water involved. Therefore, a higher specific conductance
indicates a solution having more dissolved solids, more ions, and
higher ionic strength, and a higher ionic strength means a greater
solubility for barium sulfate and hence more radium that will stay
in solution and not be.coprecipitated out.
A negative correlation (-0.48) exists between specific
conductance and pH (fig. 17).
The pH depends on what salts are
dissolved in the water; some tend to form basic solutions when
dissolved, and others, acidic.
Water whose pH is very high (above
8.5) is usually of the sodium-carbonate-bicarbonate type, and water
having moderately high pH is commonly bicarbonate rich (Davis and
Dewiest, 1966, p. 76).
By inference, then, water having a somewhat
lower pH, perhaps 5 to 7, is likely to be of the sulfate or
chloride type.
Like pH, the specific conductance depends on the
type and amount of ions present in the water (Davis and Dewiest,
37
1966, p. 84).
Fresh water, which has low conductance, commonly
contains dissolved calcium sulfate or bicarbonate as the
predominant consituent, whereas more saline water, which has higher
conductance, contains a larger amount of dissolved sodium chloride.
Therefore, in general, chloride-rich water is likely to have a high
specific conductance and a moderately low pH, and bicarbonate-rich
water is likely to have a low conductance and a moderately high pH;
such relationships lead to an observed negative correlation between
conductance and pH.
The negative correlation between radium and pH (fig. 12) is
probably a result of the relationships described in the above two
paragraphs.
Specific conductance is negatively related to pH, and
radium is positively related to specific conductance.
Therefore,
radium appears to have a negative relation to pH, with a
correlation coefficient of intermediate value, -0.54.
The only significant correlation (-0.46) that uranium has with
any of the other four measured parameters is with temperature (fig.
14).
The reasons for this negative correlation may be related to
carbonate solubility.
Uranium is known to form soluble complexes
with carbonate ions, and carbonates, unlike many salts, are more
soluble in cold water.
Therefore, colder water is likely to have
more dissolved carbonate and to contain more complexed uranium than
warmer water.
The strongest correlation is between radium and specific
conductance (fig. 10).
To gain some insight into which springs may
have a radium concentration that is most strongly influenced by a
38
factor other than ionic strength (as represented by conductance),
we can divide radium by conductance and examine the values (table
3).
This shows that Monte Neva Hot Springs, Nev. (no. 16), with a
value of 200, is the one most affected by other factors.
Other
moderately high values (10-100) are shown by Washakie Warm Springs,
Wyo. (no. 8), Soda Dam Hot Springs, N. Hex. (no. 1), Faywood Hot
Springs, N. Hex. (no. 5), Bartine Hot Springs, Nev. (no. 17),
Taylor Soda Springs, Colo. (no. 15), and Golconda Hot Springs, Nev.
(no. 6).
Uranium concentration in the source rocks is one of the
unmeasured parameters which affects the radium concentration
observed in a spring.
Therefore, it is certainly possible that the
Monte Neva Hot Springs system, for example, is related to uraniumrich rocks.
The lack of correlation between radium and uranium (fig. 9)
indicates that the factors controlling their concentrations in
water are not related./ Radium content may be high in a spring
where uranium content is low, or vice versa, but if the situation
were that simple, a negative correlation would exist.
The fact
that radium and uranium contents can also both be high or both be
low in a given spring, indicates that the situation is more
complex.
As discussed above, high conductance and low pH tend to
favor radium abundance in the water, and low temperature tends to
favor uranium abundance; in addition, unmeasured factors, such as
Eh or ionic composition of the water, undoubtedly also affect the
relative mobility of these two elements and contribute to their
fractionation in the hydrogeologic environment.
39
One way of looking at the relationship between radium and
uranium is to calculate the radium enrichment factor (REF) for each
spring (table 3).
This factor is a measure of the degree of
radioactive disequilibrium between radium and uranium and is
calculated by dividing the measured radium concentration by the
amount of radium that would be in equilibrium with the measured
uranium concentration in the spring.
In this way we can see which
spring systems favor the mobility of radium over uranium.
The
highest REF values (>10,000) are shown by Stinking Hot Springs,
Utah (no. 11), and Monte Neva Hot Springs, Nev. (no. 16).
of other springs show values over 1,000.
A number
Linear regression
analyses of REF on conductance, temperature, and pH (figs. 19-21)
yield correlation coefficients of 0.33, 0.40, and -0.37,
respectively.
These coefficients are statistically significant at
the 99-percent level and indicate that radium mobility relative to
uranium is favored by water with high specific conductance, high
temperature, and low pH.
Conclusion
Linear regression analyses indicate that a significant
positive correlation exists between radium and specific conductance
and that significant negative correlations exist between radium and
pH, specific conductance and pH, and uranium and temperature.
In
other words, radium mobility relative to uranium is favored by
water with high specific conductance, high temperature, and low pH.
The strongest correlation is between radium and specific
conductance.
Examination of the ratio between these two parameters
40
o
<
M
^
v^
or
Ul
Ul
<
Figure 19
»-8.
k-l
38
It2,
38-
38-
38-
4
5
6 7 8
4-
4-
44- 4-
4-
3
4-
4-
45678 9^4
4-
-f
4-
SPECIFIC CONDUCTANCE CUMHOS/CM AT 25CJ
4-
4-
4-
+
3
Relationship between REF (radium enrichment factor) and specific conductance.
coefficient is 0.33.
3
4-
4-
4-
+
+
Correlation
45678
-I-
4-
2-
I
3-
2-
I
Figure 20.
8
0.
o
or
1U
H8
M
or
m
ra
o
r
3>_
-I-
4-
-f- -f
4-
4-
-f
4-
+
-f
4-
Relationship between REF (radium enrichment factor) and temperature.
is 0.40.
4-
± +
*v*
-f
+ ++
TEMPERATURE CO
-j r
8 9 ie
-f
4-I-
5
i
-f
+
f
4-
i r-
4-
678
i
4-
-H
4- -f
N-
4-
4-t
-f
Correlation coefficient
-f
4-
-f
4-
4- +
3H
2
l»od
3
2
Figure 21.
o:
o
I/D/RA
H
801
§
£
M
Relationship between REF (radium enrichment factor) and pH.
PH
f
+
+
4-
'
.
le
Correlation coefficient is -0.37
+***
*
+ %H
+ -H-
-f
shows that Monte Neva Hot Springs, Nev., has a radium concentration
that is affected most by unmeasured parameters, one of which may be
the presence of uranium-rich source rocks.
:
References
Cadigan, R. A., Felmlee, J. K., and Rosholt, J. N., 1976, Radioactive
mineral springs in Delta County, Colorado:
Open-File Rept. 7,6-223, 39 p.
U.S. Geol. Survey
*
Davis, S. N., and Dewiest, J. M., 1966, Hydrogeology:
New York, John
Wiley and Sons, .Inc., 463 p.
Gary, Margaret, McAfee, Robert, Jr., and Wolf, Carol, eds., 1974,
Glossary of geology, with a forward by lan Campbell:
Falls
Church, Va., Am. Geol. Inst., 805 p.
Gilkeson, R. H., Cartwright, Keros, Griffin, R. A., and Specht, S. A.,
1977, Geologic source for elevated levels of radiation and barium
in ground water in northern Illinois [abs.]:
Geol. Soc. America
Abs. with Programs, v. 9, no. 7, p. 989.
Hem, J. D., 1970, Study and interpretation of the chemical
characteristics of natural water:
U.S. Geol. Survey Water-Supply
Paper 1473, 363 p.
Krauskopf, K. B., 1967, Introduction to geochemistry:
New York,
McGraw-Hill Book Co., 721 p.
Mallory, E. C., Jr., and Barnett, P. R., 1973, Chemical and
spectrochemical analyses of selected ground water in Colorado:
U.S. Geol. Survey Open-File Rept., 47 p.
44
O'Connell, M. F., and Kaufmann, R. F., 1976, Radioactivity associated
with geothermal waters in the Western United States Basic data:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Radiation
Programs, Tech. Note ORP/LV-75-8A, 25 p.
Rickmers, A. D., and Todd, N. H., 1967, Statistics An introduction:
New York, McGraw-Hill Book Co., 585 p.
Scott, R. C., and Voegeli, P. T., Sr., 1961, Radiochemical analyses of
ground and surface water in Colorado, 1954-1961:
Colorado Water
Conserv. Board, Basic Data Rept. 7, 27 p.
Thatcher, L. L., Janzer, V. J., and Edwards, K. W., 1977, Methods for
determination of radioactive substances in water and fluvial
sediments:
Techniques of Water-Resources Investigations of the
U.S. Geol. Survey, Book 5, Chap. A5, 95 p.
45