So here is a little update about my Strontium research project. Below you can see a map of the area I've been studying and then a table with Strontium concentrations,87Sr/ 86Sr ratios, and elevation.


The story behind this is that a graduate student here at UNC did a Master's Thesis where she took a core of the peat (soil with a high concentration of plant matter) and studied its chemistry. One of the things she found was that the peat had a high 87Sr/ 86Sr ratio. 87Sr is the daughter isotope of 87Rb, which means that over time 87Sr increases because 87Rb is decaying. So older rocks will have high 87Sr/ 86Sr ratios, and younger rocks will have low 87Sr/ 86Sr ratios. The interesting thing is that the place where she sampled is close to the East coast, and the rocks and sediment there should be young. You would expect them to have 87Sr/ 86Sr ratios similar to modern sea water (0.70918) or else the groundwater (0.708104-0.709006). Instead she found that the peat had values of 0.71361± 0.00047. My project, which I started last fall, has been to explore why that value is so high.
Last fall I collected the first ten water samples in the table. What I found was that the water from the center (GL, CF-L, and HC) had the highest values (greater than 0.710). The samples from the east side (BC, TR-Y, and NR) had values similar to sea water. The samples from the west side (TR-P, WO-M, WO-L, and WO-H) had values similar to the local groundwater. At the time I concluded that there was something happening at the center of the Croatan National Forest that was causing the values to be high there, and I expected that there would be a radial pattern where values decreased gradually as you move out from the center of the forest towards the Neuse River, the Trent River, and the White Oak River. Since the forest is on a plateau, I also wondered if 87Sr/ 86Sr ratios would be related to elevation. So this semester I collected thirteen more samples, because I needed more data to be able to test my hypothesis. My focus was to get more samples from inside the forest, and also more samples in the area between the forest and the major rivers.
My results were not what I expected. Initially when I got the data back and compared it to my map, I was afraid I had done something wrong and contaminated my samples. But then I used Google Maps to figure out where the water was flowing, it made a lot more sense.
The place that worried me the most was the area in the north (samples CL-1, AR, NF1, and NF2). CL-1 was so close to the Neuse River that I was sure it would have a similar 87Sr/ 86Sr ratio. Since the Neuse River has a higher concentration of Sr than the other rivers in the region, even a little bit of mixing would make that creek have the same 87Sr/ 86Sr ratio as the Neuse River. Instead, CL-1 had a 87Sr/ 86Sr ratio of 0.710241, higher than the Neuse River's ratio, which is 0.709172. I know that doesn't look like much of a difference, but it's fairly significant. So CL-1 had values similar to samples closer to the center of the forest. The same was the case for AR, NF1, and NF2. Then I looked at Google Maps and realized that all of these samples are on the same creek, Brice Creek, and the creek actually meanders quite a bit before it joins the Trent River, which then joins the Neuse River. So at the location of CL-1, even though geographically it is close to the Neuse River, the water there actually doesn't reach the Neuse River until after going west and then north, and meandering a lot. If you follow Brice Creek from CL-1 to the Trent River, the 87Sr/ 86Sr ratio decreases as more mixing takes place between Brice Creek and the Trent River. So the values of those samples actually do make sense.
As I looked at all of the other samples it seemed clear that this is mainly a story of mixing. If the water is mixing pretty directly with the Neuse, Trent, or White Oak rivers, the 87Sr/ 86Sr ratios will be lower, but if there is more meandering or the location is farther from those rivers, then the 87Sr/ 86Sr tends to be higher.
I also plotted all of the samples on a topographic map, and there was no correlation between elevation and 87Sr/ 86Sr ratios.
This doesn't really tell what is causing the ratios to be high in the area, but it changes how we view what's going on. The next thing I want to do is test the Strontium in rainwater in the area to see if storms from inland are bringing in 87Sr and raising the 87Sr/ 86Sr ratios. I also want to study the soil in the area. While I was talking to one professor here, he said that it's possible the geologic map of UNC isn't accurate and that the rock in the area is older than was thought.
Hopefully this was interesting to some people and not too hard to follow. It makes sense to me because I've spent so much time staring at the numbers, but maybe it won't make as much sense to other people who aren't so familiar with it.