A Comparison of Environmental Sample Methods for Estimating Soil Lead at Trap Shooting Ranges: The Effects of Pellet and Nonpellet Lead

Abstract

Lead contamination of soil is a potential problem at trap shooting ranges. Established soil sampling methods currently used may not accurately estimate the average soil lead concentration or the contribution of pelletized lead. A primary concern is whether or not a solid lead pellet finds its way into the representative sample analyzed by the laboratory. This study was conducted to quantify the distribution of pellet and nonpellet soil lead at a trap shooting range and to compare two soil sample preparation methods. The test site consisted of a trap range that has been in use for 40 years with average soil pH of 6.4. Sixty-six composite soil samples were taken at 5-m intervals along a traverse of one trap house. All samples were screened to remove large rocks and plant material, then split. One split, representing current U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) soil sampling methods, was sent directly to a laboratory for lead analysis. The other split was screened to separate lead pellets from the soil. Both the lead pellet and the soil fraction were sent separately to the laboratory for lead analysis. Elevated total lead levels were found within 25 and 100 to 300 m from the shooting pad. Approximately 96 percent of lead pellets were recovered in the samples taken from 100 to 300 m. Screening the samples to separate lead pellets showed less variability and overall greater average soil lead levels than the HUD method. It appears the HUD method should not be applied to situations where lead exists in pellet form due to the potential variation in results.