1 Calhoun, Johnson

Toxic Metal Levels in Sea Girt, New Jersey’s Army National Guard

Devon Calhoun, Ciara Johnson

ENVL 3241

Tait Chirenje

Stockton University
 2 Calhoun, Johnson

Table of Contents

Abstract……………………………………………………………………………………...….2

Introduction……………………………………………………………………………………..3

Methods………………………………………………………………………………..……….4

Results……………………………………………………………………………….………….5

Discussion………………………………………………………………………………………6

Conclusion………………………………………………………………………………………7

References……………………………………………………………………………………..10

Abstract

The Sea Girt Army National Guard Facility once held a lead shot shooting range on site

at the premises. Since its redevelopment over the land, the lead shot continued to overlay the

soil. Potential soil lead contamination is a serious concern as lead poisoning poses a variety of

serious health risks especially among children, and pregnant women. Therefore, the presence of

contaminated soil must be promptly addressed to prevent the risk of seeping into groundwater

regions and making its way into the surrounding Stockton Lake region due to its close proximity.

By radial sampling the grounds, the surface and subsurface soil samples were then further

prepared and analyzed using a graphite furnace atomic absorption spectrophotometer. Despite

technical issues during subsurface soil analysis, surface samples were properly run and tested.

Areas within the expected concentrated zone marked extremely high on concentration levels

despite being 60x diluted before analysis. Results ranged from 8.87-147.23 µg/l throughout the

19 sampled locations. This indicates that further testing is necessary to mark out specific

concentrated regions to treat areas that are highly polluted. Various in-situ and ex-situ methods
 3 Calhoun, Johnson

can be utilized during the remediation process such as surface capping, vitrification,

immobilization, bioremediation, landfilling, soil washing, and more depending on feasibility and

severity of the contamination.

Introduction

Toxic metals such as lead and arsenic can be extremely dangerous to people as

concentrations create the poison. Lead poisoning in adults can affect a variety of critical organs

within the body including the brain, digestive system, nervous system, kidneys, reproductive

system, and cardiovascular. Adults can experience irritability, constipation, numbness, fatigue,

high blood pressure, organ damage, miscarriages, or lower sperm counts. In children this can

show up in the brain, blood, kidneys, and nervous system (Chirenje). Children are especially at

risk due to their low blood volume and immature immune systems. Symptoms among children

can observe behavioral issues, mental incapacities, anemia, stunted growth, abnormal or even

organ damage. The synergistic effects of lead combined with other underlying factors especially

could wreak catastrophic effects

on susceptibility rates.

The New Jersey National

Guard located in Sea Girt, NJ is

a current site used for training

for both the army as well as state

troopers. However, at one

particular location, the site was

used as an old trap field for clay

shooting ranges. Since being

 4 Calhoun, Johnson

redeveloped overtop of it, many of the lead pellets have continued to persist within the ground.

The skeet field operated for about 50 years between 1935-1985 before being transformed into

new buildings or covered with soil according to historical aerial photographs (Chirenje). Since

skeet holds low arsenic percentages as well as lead, this toxic metal will be tested for its

concentrations as well. The predicted lead shot-fall areas according to Figure 1 are depicted in

yellow cross hatching. These regions are where most of the lead shot is likely to have landed

with some expected variability. Considering skeet fields tend to be released in an 180 degrees

radial position, the chosen samples will come from both Stockton Lake as well as the land.

Methods

While on site at the Sea Girt facility, the samples were collected, bagged, and labeled for

both the surface and subsurface soil that received hits from the XRF gun. These samples were

initially prepped for analysis by drying out and sifting each of the samples transferring them into

vials. For every sample, 0.5 grams of the soil was measured out and placed into an elongated

digestion tube. 10 mL of 1:1 nitric acid was added to each tube and then placed into a sample

holder. A blank, acid reagent, and a duplicate sample also joined placement on the sample holder

during the following steps as well. The plant samples sat overnight before setting them into the

Block Digester under the fume hood and cooking them for approximately 2 hours. Depending on

the coloration of the soil within the tubes post baking, 5 mL of nitric acid was added and they

were left to cook for additional time within the Block. Once removed, the samples were left to

cool down and then 0.5 mL of 30% hydrogen peroxide was added to react with the soil and

lighten the samples. They were placed back into the Block Digester for 15 more minutes until the

samples reached a desirable lightened hue. The samples were then diluted with distilled water up

to the 50 mL mark on the tube. Following, a glass fiber filter cartridge combined with a plunger
 5 Calhoun, Johnson

was inserted and pushed into the digestion tube until it can be pushed no further. The plunger

was removed, tossed, and the digestion tubes

were capped and ready for further analysis

using the graphite furnace atomic absorption

spectrophotometer (GFAAR). Each of the

samples were diluted 60x before analysis in the

GFAAR. Certain samples were further diluted

during processing due to exceeding the 50 ppb

calibration range.

Results

The results showed that the samples were taken

in various spots of the shooting range. The

latitudes and longitudes were generally found

within the same vicinity but showed a large

range in lead contamination rate. The samples with

the lower concentrations were all found in the same

area which was the shallower section of shooting

range. The larger concentrations were found in the

farther section of the range; there is a cluster of higher

values that can be seen in Figure 1 near the parking lot.

 6 Calhoun, Johnson

Discussion

The results

showed that the

highest amount of

contamination was in

sample SA 13 which

was 147.23 (ug/L).

This is in comparison to

the lowest sample was

SA 9 with a value of 9.56 (ug/L). The two samples have a difference of 137.67 (ug/L), which is a

very high difference considering the proximity between each point. Figure 3 shows the variation

in the point’s lead contamination in relation to the GPS coordinates. The lead concentrations vary

at each spot but there are spikes in the data that occur, which can be seen by the graph Figure 4.

The high amounts of lead were found near an area of a shooting range that has become a parking

lot. Its proximity to the shooting range used to be, the shooting range used to be in the area that

now has the parking lot on it. That area had high levels of lead which would suggest that the lead

shells fell within that region. The low levels of lead concentration were found in the same zone

in the shallow area of the shooting range. The samples that we had were very high, when the

dilution was originally conducted the samples were diluted 10 times but found that the lead

samples were too high for the machine to measure. We took the samples and diluted it again but

increased it 50 times so that the dilution would be 60 times overall.

 7 Calhoun, Johnson

Conclusion

Due to the determined lead contamination found within the soil according to our results,

it is pertinent to attempt to remediate this area. Its proximity to Stockton Lake, the Atlantic

Ocean, as well as surrounding residential areas poses certain risks for both human health as well

as the environment. Further testing may have to be conducted in order to pinpoint the extent of

lead presence within the soil. Before the creation of

imminent problems develops, certain remediatory

techniques can be introduced to mitigate the effects or

resolve the issue as a whole. There is a range of

methods that can be utilized to rectify the soil both in

and ex situ covering physical, chemical, thermal, and

biological parameters. However, it is critical to

incorporate general practicality yet long-term

effectiveness especially with cost consideration.

The following options range from relatively

inexpensive in-situ to more invasive and costly ex-situ.

For this region, in situ physical options include encapsulation or surface capping areas of

lead contamination (Liu et al., 2018). Depending on the sheer size that the polluted soil covers

according to future research, soil capping may not be a fathomable option. Soil capping uses a

physical seal that is placed overtop of the soil to prevent airborne exposure (“A Citizen’s Guide

to Capping”, 2012). Encapsulation involved mixing the polluted soil with another medium such

as lime, or cement to prevent the contaminated soil from further seeping out (“Types of Soil
 8 Calhoun, Johnson

Remediation”). Electrical remediatory options involve electrokinetics and vitrification.

Electrokinetics can remove metal contaminants with the help of electrical absorption. Inserted

electrodes allow cations and anions to be pulled to a respective direction through electroosmosis.

Overtime and accumulation these pollutants can then be removed through electroplating. This

method is heavily dependent on the soil type, pH, organic content, pollutant concentration, and

even time constraints as this method can take months to years to complete (Liu et al., 2018).

Vitrification uses electricity to heat the contaminated soil and produce a glass like product.

Organic contaminants are either burned off or stripped and trapped by an off-gas treatment

system. Inorganic components essentially become stuck in the vitrified zone where they can be

pulsed with electricity through graphite-molybdenum electrodes and formed into the durable

obsidian-similar structure (Byers et al. 1991). This method is most useful however, in small cross

sections rather than larger regions. Chemical remediation covers both soil-flushing as well as

lead immobilization. Soil-flushing incorporates sending extraction fluid through the

contaminated region, and then recovering and disposing of this fluid. This method primarily has

been known to excel in areas with loamy sand texture, due to its high permeability, homogony,

and course structure (Liu et al., 2018). Biological remediation can be successful through

phytoremediation and bioremediation. Phytoremediation notably does not remove soil

contaminants, but rather prevents them from affecting their transport to other areas. Adding

compost introduces a wide range of microorganisms which can bind lead to other contaminants

to drastically reduce its mobility within the soil (“Lead Remediation”). Providing phosphorus

through fish bones, bone meal, or chicken manure can help to prevent plant uptake of lead within

the soil, however, phosphorus acts as an amplifier with the presence of arsenic. In this case, the

addition of iron can help to bind both arsenic and lead in the soil (“Lead Remediation”). Rather
 9 Calhoun, Johnson

than using a binding technique, simple extraction can be done also with lead hyperaccumulating

plants. This method works best with more acidic soils or with the addition of acidic materials

such as pine needles, leaf mold, or coffee grounds to formulate this. Plants that thrive in acidic

soils and are able to extract lead include corn, spinach, geranium, brown mustard, sunflower, and

alpine pennycress (“Lead Remediation”). Instead of using plants, bioremediation uses

microorganisms to decontaminate soil. These organisms can detoxify heavy metals by valence

transformation, biosorption, extracellular chemical precipitation, and volatilization. By spray

application or injection wells depending on depth, microorganisms can solubilize contaminants

within the soil (Liu et al., 2018).

A physical ex-situ option landfills the area which essentially excavates contaminated soil

and then backfills it with cleaner soil. The polluted soil is then transported to a RCRA supported

facility where it can be properly disposed of. This is primarily used for hotspot areas with the

highest concentrations and becomes costly for larger regions (“Lead Remediation”). Chemical

processes such as soil-washing and solidification can also be used. Soil-washing removes heavy

metals through excavation and special solution washing. After screening processes, contaminants

can be removed and the cleaned soil can be replaced back to its original location (“Lead

Remediation”). Similarly, solidification removes contaminated soil and transports it to a

treatment facility where a binder is added to entrap the contaminants (“Lead Remediation”). The

final ex-situ thermal technique is vitrification as previously described can both be considered in

and ex-situ but is more often utilized in ex-situ remediation options. Once the demarcation of

highly concentrated areas is determined along with depth of contamination, remediation can then

be followed through. Any of these processes can be considered for use in Sea Girt, providing

various options will allow cost comparisons and ultimately a feasible decision.
 10 Calhoun, Johnson

References

Byers et al. (1991). Site Remediation by In Situ Vitrification. Transportation Research Board.

https://onlinepubs.trb.org/Onlinepubs/trr/1991/1312/1312-020.pdf

Chirenje, T. (n.d.). Stockton Lead Lake Project.https://envl3241.weebly.com/lead-pb-project.html

Environmental Works. (2021). Types of soil remediation. Environmental Works.

https://www.environmentalworks.com/types-of-soil-remediation/#:~:text=Where%20som

e%20types%20of%20remediation,from%20touching%20any%20additional%20soil.

Lead remediation. Earth Repair. (2018, December 2).

https://earthrepair.ca/resources/scenarios/lead-remediation/

Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response. (2012). A citizen's guide to capping - US EPA.

EPA.https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2015-04/documents/a_citizens_guide_to_cap

ping.

Liu et al. (2018). Remediation techniques for heavy metal-contaminated soils: Principles and

applicability. Science of The Total Environment.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0048969718309215