Figure 12 - uploaded by Jay Clausen
Content may be subject to copyright.
Source publication
Pyrotechnic devices used at military installations as part of routine training activities contain metals such
as aluminum, antimony, barium, boron, cerium, chromium, copper, iron, lead, magnesium, manganese,
potassium, sodium, strontium, titanium, tungsten, zirconium, and zinc. The US Armys Military Munitions
Response Program (MMRP) is responsible...
Similar publications
Pyrotechnic devices used at military installations as part of routine training activities contain metals such
as aluminum, antimony, barium, boron, cerium, chromium, copper, iron, lead, magnesium, manganese,
potassium, sodium, strontium, titanium, tungsten, zirconium, and zinc. The US Armys Military Munitions
Response Program (MMRP) is responsible...
Citations
... The authors found that in terms of metal input into the environment, there remains a limited number of extensive studies that pertain specifically to larger caliber artillery and mortar ranges in literature with the majority of studies focusing on energetic compounds from such activities (Brannon et al., 2000;Jenkins et al., 2001Jenkins et al., , 2006Pennington et al., 2008;Thiboutot et al., 2012). More recently, Clausen et al. (2012) conducted a study of four Army pyrotechnic devices heavily used during range training to assess the metal deposition rate. The study concluded salts of Ba, Cu, Mn, K, and Sr were introduced into the environment. ...
The deposition of metals into the environment as a result of military training activities remains a longterm concern for Defense organizations across the globe. Of particular concern for deposition and potential mobilization are antimony (Sb), arsenic (As), copper (Cu), lead (Pb), and tungsten (W), which are the focus of this review article. The fate, transport, and mobilization of these metals are complicated and depend on a variety of environmental factors that are often convoluted, heterogeneous, and site dependent.
While there have been many studies investigating contaminant mobilization on military
training lands there exists a lack of cohesiveness surrounding the current state of knowledge for these five metals. The focus of this review article is to compile the current knowledge of the fate, transport, and ultimate risks presented by metals associated with different military training activities particularly as a result of small arms training activities, artillery/mortar ranges, battle runs, rocket ranges, and grenade courts. From there, we discuss emerging research results and finish with suggestions of where future
research efforts and training range designs could be focused toward further reducing the deposition, limiting the migration, and decreasing risks presented by metals in the environment. Additionally, information presented here may offer insights into Sb, As, Cu, Pb, and W in other environmental settings.
... The authors found that in terms of metal input into the environment, there remains a limited number of extensive studies that pertain specifically to larger caliber artillery and mortar ranges in literature with the majority of studies focusing on energetic compounds from such activities (Brannon et al., 2000;Jenkins et al., 2001Jenkins et al., , 2006Pennington et al., 2008;Thiboutot et al., 2012). More recently, Clausen et al. (2012) conducted a study of four Army pyrotechnic devices heavily used during range training to assess the metal deposition rate. The study concluded salts of Ba, Cu, Mn, K, and Sr were introduced into the environment. ...
The deposition of metals into the environment as a result of military training activities remains a long-term concern for Defense organizations across the globe. Of particular concern for deposition and potential mobilization are antimony (Sb), arsenic (As), copper (Cu), lead (Pb), and tungsten (W), which are the focus of this review article. The fate, transport, and mobilization of these metals are complicated and depend on a variety of environmental factors that are often convoluted, heterogeneous, and site-dependent. While there have been many studies investigating contaminant mobilization on military training lands there exists a lack of cohesiveness surrounding the current state of knowledge for these five metals. The focus of this review article is to compile the current knowledge of the fate, transport, and ultimate risks presented by metals associated with different military training activities particularly as a result of small arms training activities, artillery/mortar ranges, battleruns, rocket ranges, and grenade courts. From there, we discuss emerging research results and finish with suggestions of where future research efforts and training range designs could be focused toward further reducing the deposition, limiting the migration, and decreasing risks presented by metals in the environment. Additionally, information presented here may offer insights into Sb, As, Cu, Pb, and W in other environmental settings.
... After the release of USEPA Method 8330B, a growing concern within the United States Department of Defense (DoD) and in Federal and State agencies has been that similar protocols should be adopted for the characterization of metals on training ranges and at other locations. A variety of metals are used in military munitions (Clausen et al. 2012aClausen et al. , 2010Clausen et al. , 2007 Clausen and Korte 2009a,b). As munitions containing metals are frequently used on Army training lands, metals deposited by rounds can accumulate in soils. ...
... At military installations , this could include impact areas where artillery, mortar, or anti-tank rockets were fired as these munitions contain metals in the ordnance casing . In addition, many pyrotechnic devices contain metallic salts (Clausen et al. 2012a); so if training or maneuver areas are being sampled where these devices have been used, then ISM is appropriate. The protocol outlined in Clausen et al. (2013b) was successfully used for sampling metallic residues derived from pyrotechnic training (Clausen et al. 2012a). ...
... In addition, many pyrotechnic devices contain metallic salts (Clausen et al. 2012a); so if training or maneuver areas are being sampled where these devices have been used, then ISM is appropriate. The protocol outlined in Clausen et al. (2013b) was successfully used for sampling metallic residues derived from pyrotechnic training (Clausen et al. 2012a). ...
Objectives of this project were to demonstrate improved data quality for metal constituents in surface soils on military training ranges and to de-velop a methodology that would result in the same or lower cost. The demonstration was conducted at two inactive small-arms ranges at Fort Eustis, VA, and Kimama Training Site (TS), ID, and at one active small-arms range at Fort Wainwright, AK. The samples included 63 Incremental Sampling Methodology (ISM) and 50 conventional grab from FortWain-wright, 18 ISM and 30 grab from Kimama TS, and 27 ISM and 33 grab from Fort Eustis. The variability in metal concentrations as measured with replicate samples and evaluated using percent relative standard deviation (RSD) were less than 10% for all metals using ISM. In contrasts, RSDs were often greater than 50% for conventional replicate grab samples. Calculated mean ISM metal concentrations were statistically greater than the mean for conventional grab samples.
... The metals of interest at small-arms ranges are primarily antimony (Sb); copper (Cu); lead (Pb); zinc (Zn) (Clausen and Korte 2009a); and in some situations, tungsten (W) (Clausen and Korte 2009b; Clausen et al. 2010a Clausen et al. , 2007). Pyrotechnic devices contain metal constituents, such as Al, Sb, barium (Ba), boron (B), cerium (Ce), chromium (Cr), Cu, Fe, Pb, magnesium (Mg), Mn, potassium (K), sodium (Na), strontium (Sr), titanium (Ti), W, zirconium (Zr), and Zn (Clausen et al. 2012a ). As munitions containing metals are frequently used on Army training ranges, metallic residues deposited by munitions can accumulate in soils. ...
... As munitions containing metals are frequently used on Army training ranges, metallic residues deposited by munitions can accumulate in soils. Although the deposition of metallic residues at military ranges has only been studied on a limited basis, like explosives, metallic residue deposition is largely spatially heterogeneous (Clausen and Korte 2009a; Clausen et al. 2013 Clausen et al. , 2012a Clausen et al. ,b, 2007). Anthropogenic metallic residues are heterogeneously distributed at training ranges as particles of various sizes, shapes, and compositions (Fig. 1 and 2 ). ...
... The protocol is based on a series of studies conducted from 2009 to 2011 at small-arms ranges. These studies systematically tested and evaluated different aspects of ISM for improvements to total measurement precision and documented the findings in Clausen et al. (2012a). Following the development of an apparently acceptable ISM protocol, the studies demonstrated the process at three different military installations and compared the results to the conventional grab sampling methodology, documenting the results in Clausen et al. (2013). ...
Heterogeneous distribution of metallic residues in surface soils creates unique challenges for collecting soil samples that provide representative and reproducible results. In particular, soils containing metal fragments at military training ranges, such as small-arms ranges, are especially prob-lematic to analyze owing to their large compositional and distributional (i.e., spatial) heterogeneities. The recognition of the heterogeneous nature of energetic residues in surface soils at military training ranges resulted in significant changes to the field sampling and sample processing proce-dures for energetics as described in United States Environmental Protec-tion Agency (USPEA) SW-846 Method 8330B. The incremental sampling methodology (ISM) of Method 8330B for energetics was modified to de-velop a similar approach for metals. The approach has been successfully implemented to analyze surface soils with metallic residues at several ac-tive and inactive military training ranges. In most cases, ISM produced re-sults more representative and reproducible than results from conventional grab (i.e., discrete) sampling and analysis procedures for surface soils col-lected from small-arms ranges containing metallic residues.
Military ranges are unlike many waste sites because the contaminants, both energetics and metals, are heterogeneously distributed in soil during explosive detonation or ballistic impact and cannot be readily characterized using conventional grab sampling. The Incremental Sampling Methodology (ISM) has been successful for characterization of energetic contamination in soils, but no published ISM processing studies for soils with small arms range metals such as Pb, Cu, Sb, and Zn exists. This study evaluated several ISM sample-processing steps: (1) field splitting to reduce the sample mass shipped to the analytical laboratory, (2) necessity of milling, and (3) processing a larger subsample mass for digestion in lieu of milling. Cone-and-quartering and rotary sectorial splitting techniques yielded poor precision and positively skewed distributions. Hence, an increase in digestion mass from 2 to 10 g was evaluated with milled and unmilled samples. Unmilled samples yielded results with the largest variability regardless of aliquot mass.
