Contaminant Analysis of
1981 Fall Run Coho Salmon
(One (Orhynchus Kisutch)
     Do not WEED. This document
     should be retained in the EPA
     Region 5 Library Collection.
                          ii!nirpM!Fii'i|'ii!i'ii!i!iiin1i|i||iniiiir w ' irr

-------
 Contaminant  Analysis  of  1981  Fall  Run

   Coho Salmon  (Oncorhynchus  kisutch)
                   by

            David S.  DeVault
  U.S.  Environmental  Protection Agency
  Great Lakes National  Program Office
    536 South Clark Street,  Room 102
        Chicago,  Illinois 60605
                  and

           Joseph A.  Weishaar
   U. S. Food and Drug Administration
Department of Health and Human Services
          240 Hennepin Avenue
     Minneapolis, Minnesota  55401
             December 1982

-------
                                   DISCLAIMER







     This report has been reviewed by the Great Lakes National  Program Office,



U.S. Environmental Protection Aqency (USEPA), and approved for publication.



Approval  does not signify that the contents necessarily reflect the views and



policies of the USEPA, nor does mention of trade names or commercial  products



constitute endorsement or recommendation for use.
                       Environments! fraction Agency
                                    11

-------
                                  FOREWORD

     The Great Lakes National Program Office (GLNPO) of the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency was established in Region V, Chicago to focus attention on
the significant and complex natural  resource represented by the Great Lakes.

     GLNPO implements a multi-media environmental management program drawing on
a wide range of expertise represented by Universities, private firms, State,
Federal and Canadian governmental agencies and the International Joint Com-
mission.  The goal of the GLNPO program is to develop programs, practices and
technology necessary for a better understanding of the Great Lakes system and
to eliminate or reduce to the maximum extent practicable the discharge of
pollutants into the Great Lakes system.  The GLNPO also coordinates U.S.
actions in fulfillment of the Agreement between Canada and the United States
of America on Great Lakes Water Quality of 1978.

     This study was carried out under a cooperative agreement between GLNPO,
US Food and Drug Administration (USFDA) and the States of Ohio, Michigan,
New York, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Indiana and Wisconsin.  The samples were
collected by state personnel  and analyzed by USFDA.  Data analysis and program
coordination was provided by  GLNPO.
                                   111

-------
                                  ABSTRACT





     The comprehensive analysis of coho salmon from each of the Great Lakes by



a single laboratory has, for the second year, produced a set of tissue residue



data on environmental contaminants whose use has been banned or severely



restricted.  Coho salmon from Lake Superior contained only trace amounts or



low levels of most toxic substances quantified.   Lake Erie fish were contami-



nated with low levels of a number of pesticides and industrial cornpounds^with



relatively hiqher residue levels in coho from Lake Huron and Lake Michiqan.



The highest residue levels for a number of compounds were found in coho from



Lake Ontario.  Because of their open water habitat preferences, the contaminant



levels in coho salmon demonstrate open lake contaminant problems rather than



point source or nearshore conditions.  The data  reported in our study generally



agrees with recent findings from individual state contaminant monitoring pro-



qrans although problems with varying analytical  and sampling techniques pre-



clude direct comparisons.  However, current tissue residue levels are usually



less than those previously reported and are lower than USFDA action levels



which are used by many agencies in assessing the severity of fish contaminant



problems.  The major exception being the levels  of mi rex in fish collected from



Lake Ontario which exceeded the 0.1 uq/g action  level.
                                     IV

-------
                               Contents
Foreward    ____________________________  iii



Abstract  ------------------------_-___   iv



Figures and Tables  -----------^- ------------   vi



Acknowledqments   _---------------_________  vii



Introduction    __________________________     i



Methods  ------------ 	 - 	 ____    2



Results and Discussion -----------------------    6



References   -----_----_-____-___________   14

-------
                                 Figures
Figure 1    Tributary Locations  for  1981  Coho  Salmon Collections
                                                             Page

                                                               3
                                  Tables
Table 1     Coho Salmon Sample Data  -  1981  Collections
Table 2

Table 3


Table 4



Table 5
Contaminant Data from the 1981  Coho Salmon  Collections   -  -

Mean Contaminant Concentrations in  3 Year Old  Coho
Salmon Composites 1981  ------------------
Correlation Matrix of Total  PCB,  Total  DDT,  "Apparent
Toxaphene" and Mercury Concentration in 1981  Coho
Salmon Collections   ___-_--------_--.
Comparison of 1980 and 1981  Levels of Major Contaminates
in 3 Year Old Coho Salmon  ---------------
 4


 7


10



10


14

-------
                              Acknowledgments
    We thank the many people in the Fisheries and Natural  Resources  Departments



of the States of Wisconsin, Illinois,  Indiana, Michigan,  Ohio,  Pennsylvania and



New York who collected samples for this program.   We also thank Mr.  Vacys  Saulys



and Mr. David Rockwell of USEPA's Great Lakes National  Program  Office;  Dr.  James



Clark, USEPA, Environmental Research Laboratory Gulf Breeze,  Florida;  Dr.  Ronald



Sloan, New York Department of Environmental  Conservation;  and Dr.  Ronald



Rossmann, University of Michigan for reviewing and commenting on the report.



We also thank Ms. Jean Sharp for typing the  manuscript  and tables.
                                    VI 1

-------
                             INTRODUCTION





     Fish contaminant monitoring programs have been implemented by state and



federal agencies throughout the Great Lakes Basin with varying levels of in-



tensity to address several  toxic substance problems.   The Great Lakes Fish



Monitoring Strategy (GLNPO 1981) was designed and implemented to provide inter-



agency coordination and cooperation for gathering information on the toxic



substance problem in the Great Lakes.  In an effort to address the potential



public health concerns associated with contaminants in major game fish



from each of the Great Lakes, one element of the Great Lakes Fish Monitoring



Strategy calls for the collection and analysis of fall run coho salmon



(Oncorhyrchus kisutch).





   Coho salmon were chosen for contaminant monitoring because of their popu-



larity as a sport fish, rapid growth rates and migratory behavior.  Coho move



about the nearshore and open water areas of a lake while maturing and are



exposed to contaminants from numerous sources.  As a fast growing, terminal



predator in the Great Lakes, coho salmon consume large quantities of alewife



and other forage fish.  They may, therefore, accumulate chlorinated organics



and other contaminants through -direct absorption and the food chain.  Numer-



ous coho salmon of a uniform age group can be sampled relatively easily as



mature fish return to tributaries to spawn at the end of their three year life



cycle.  Also, their three year life span provides an indication of contaminant



problems over the recent past, as opposed to the extended picture given by



more long lived species such as lake trout (Salvelinus namaycush).

-------
                                METHODS





     State agency personnel  collected adult coho salmon using nets and other



conventional  equipment as the fish began  their fall,  upstream migrations  in



1981.  Where sufficient fish were available, 15 adult coho salmon were col-



lected at each site (Figure  1) and composited 5 fillets per sample.   Two  year



old fish supplemented the Pine Creek (Lake Superior), Kellog Creek (Lake



Michigan), Chagrin River and Huron River  (Lake Erie)  collections.  Only 4



fish were collected at Pine  Creek and 6 at the Shebo.ygan River site.   The



age, mean lengths, weights and ranges for fish yielding fillets are listed in



Table 1.  The collecting agency froze the fish samples and shipped them to the



U.S. Food and Drug Administration's (USFDA) Laboratory in Minneapolis,



Minnesota for analysis.





     The fillets in each sample were ground into a uniform tissue homogenate.



An aliquot of this honogenate was weighed and analyzed for contaminant



residues according to the USFDA Pesticide Analytical  Manual (USFDA 1980).  Con-



taminants were triple extracted from the  fish tissue  in petroleum ether and



fats separated from the sample using petroleum ether/acetonitrile partitioning.



The sample preparations were then added to an activated Florisil  column.



Three solutions of increasing polarity were put through the column providing



distinct preparations for analysis with interferences due only to interactions



of individual and rnultipeak  contaminants  within each  extract.





     Mi rex and 8-monohydromirex (photornirex) were determined by a combination



of official and collaborated methods.  This involved  the triple extraction of



the contaminants from the fish tissue in  petroleum ether with fats separated

-------
                                        Figure 1
                                        Tributary locations for 1981 coho salmon collections
                LAKE SUPERIOR
Pine Creek
Wisconsin
S 1
        Sheboygan River
             Wisconsin
                   M 1

           Kellog Creek
                Illinois
                   M 2
                               ail Creek
                              Indiana
                              M 3
Huron River
Ohio
E 2
            Trout Run Trib
            Pennsylvania
            E4
Chargrin River
Ohio
E 3
                                                  Springbrook
                                                  N.ew York
                                                  O 1

-------
                                                      Table  1

                                     Coho Salmon  Sample  Data  -  1981  Collections
Col lection
Site and Date

Lake Superior
Pine Creek - SI
Bayfield Co, WI
9/30/81

Lake Michigan
Sheboygan River - Ml
Kiwanis Park, WI
9/29/81

Trail Creek - M3
Michigan County, IN
10/22/81

Kelloqg Creek - M2
Waukeqan, IL
1981

Platt River - M5
Beuleh, MI
9/28/81

Lake Huron
Tawas River-Hi
Tawas City, MI
9/24/81
Sample      Number of
Number    Fish Composited
12
22
12
22
32

1              5
25
35

1              5
25
35

1              5
25
35
1              5
25
35
                               3
                               2
                               2
                               2
                               3

                               3
                               3
                               3

                               2
                               3
                               3

                               3
                               3
                               3
                               3
                               3
                               3
                                     Mean  Length
                                    (mm)  (Range)
 489(457-521 )
 363(356-371)
 356(328-384)
 404(393-415)
 598(570-625)

 674(650-782)
 622(595-635)
 640(613-657)

 No length
data recorded
 695(610-759)
 714(690-720)
 740(710-750)
 680(655-741)
 695(686-699)
 686(663-741)
                  Mean Weight     %
                  (kg) (Range)  Lipid
1.2 (1-1.3)     2.6
 .48{.451-.50)   3.5
 .75(.6-.9)     4.4
1.0 (1.0-1.0)   5.6
2.95(2.3-3.6)   2.0

3.2(2.7-4.2)    2.3
2.3(2.1-2.4)    2.4
2.5(2.4-2.7)    2.3

 .65(.45-.30)   0.8
2.02(.95-2.6)   1.1
3.2(2.8-3.7)    1.2

3.3(2.3-4.7)    1.3
3.3(3.1-3.4)    3.9
3.9(3.5-4.7)    3.0
3.4(2.6-4.7)    3.9
3.7(3.2-3.5)    4.6
4.1(3.6-4.7)    3.1

-------
Collection
Site and Date
Lake Erie
Chagrin River
East Lake, OH
9/16/81
-E3
        Sample
        Number
1
2
3
Trib. to Trout Run-E4    1
Erie County, PA          2
10/5/81                  3

Huron River - E2         1
Monroeville Dam          2
10/21/81                 3

Lake Ontario - 01
Salmon River             1
Springbrook, NY          2
                         3
          Number  of
        Fish Composited
5
5
5

5
5
5

5
5
5
                         5
                         5
                         5
             Table 1  (Continued)


             Age
      Mean Length
      (mm) (Range)
 3      631(546-665)
 3      576(545-585)
 2      340(49 -432

 3      515(480-560)
 3      576(570-590)
 3      617(620-640)

 2      416(406-432)
2&3     566(445-635)
 3      635(585-698)
                             3       786(771-786)
                             3       798(784-818)
                             3       826(814-837)
Mean Weight       %
(kg) (Range)    Lipid
 3.1(2.4-3.8)    5.8
 2.1(1.8-2.3)    6.9
  .95(.84-1.12   6.1

 1.4(1.1-1.6)    5.5
 1.8(1.6-1.9)    4.6
 2.2(2.1-2.3)    2.9

  .95(.79-1.13)  2.7
 2.1 (1.1-2.9)   3.4
 2.8(2.0-3.9)    2.0
                                      3.9(3.7-4.2)    2.0
                                      4.6(4.4-4.8)    2.0
                                      5.4(4.9-5.7)    2.8

-------
from the samples using an unactivated Florisil  column.   The mirex and 8-mono-



hydromirex were partially separated from the other contaminants using an



activated Florisil column.  Additional  clean up was by  a nitration process fol-



lowed by an alumina column as described by Norstrom et  a]_.  (1980).





     Organochlorine residues were quantified on a Hewlett-Packard gas-liquid



chromatograph using a Nickel-63 electron capture detector.   Total  mercury was



determined through flame!ess atomic absorption  spectroscopy.





     Analytical grade standards arid pesticide grade solvents were used in the



analysis.  Analytical quantification limits were 0.005  ug/g for DDT and mirex,



and 0.10 ug/g for PCB.  A series of chlorinated chemicals resembling toxaphene



were quantified when present at 0.25 ug/g or greater using  a toxaphene standard.



Several  pesticides and industrial compounds which were  present at low levels



were not quantified unless present at concentrations above  0.05 ug/g although



detection limits were 0.005 ug/g or less.  Total mercury was quantified at



0.05 ug/g or greater concentrations.  All fish  tissue levels were computed on



a ug/g wet weight basis and not corrected for extraction or recovery efficiency.





     For purposes of graphical  display  and numerical calculations, concentra-



tions below quantisation limits and above detection limits  were assumed to be



1/2 the quantitation limits.  Concentrations below the  instrument detection



linit were calculated as 0.





                          Results and Discussion





      Laboratory analyses indicated the presence of 25  pesticides  and indus-



trial chemicals in the 29 coho  salmon samples analyzed  (Table 2).   These

-------
                                                  Table 2
                               Contaminant Data From the 1981  Coho Salmon  Collections
Sample Number

Aroclor  1260 (PCB)
Aroclor  1254 (PCB)
Aroclor  1248 (PCB)
Aroclor  1242 (PCB)
Total PCBs

P,P,-DDE
P,P,-DDD
P,P,-DDT
Total DDT

"Apparent Toxaphene"

Dieldrin
Endrin
cis-Chlordane
trans-Chlordane
cis-Nonachlor
trans-Nonachlor

Hexachlorobenzene
Octachlor epoxide
Heptachlor
Heptachlor epoxide
Alpha-BHC
Lindane  (Gamma-BHC)
Dacthal
pentachlorophenyl
   methyl ether
8, Monohydrornirex
    (Photornirex)
Mi rex
Mercury  (total)

Age of Fish (years)
 Lake Superior
 Pine Creek.  WI
ND
ND
  T
  T
  T
  T
  T
  T

  T
  T
  T
  T
  T
 ND
 ND
  T
 .05
         ND
         ND
   .1,    .1

  .02,    .03
  ND     ND
<.005,  <.005
 .02,    .03

<.25,   <.25
       T
       T
       T
       T
       T
       T

       T
       T
       T
       T
       T
      ND
      ND
       T
      .10
                                                                        Lake  Michigan
Sheboyqan R.,WI.
<•!,
o!l9,
ND
.24,
.48,
.05,
<.005
<.005
.05,
<.25,
T,
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
ND
T
T
ND
T-
T
T
2
.15,
0.59,
ND
.46,
1.2,
.23,
, .01,
, .02,
.26,
.6,
.05,
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
ND
T
T
ND
T
T
.08,
2
.25
.99
ND
.39
1.63
.53
.02
.04
.59
1.0
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
ND
T
T
ND
T
T
.24
3
Trail Cr.,IN
.20
.80
.22
ND
1.22
.56
.03
.05
.64
1.5,
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
ND
ND
T
ND
T
T
.12
3
, .24,
, .98,
, .27,
ND
,1.49,
, .48,
, .04,
, .05,
, .57,
1.8,
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
ND
ND
T
ND
T
T
.13
3
.29
1.16
.32
ND
1.77
.63
.04
.06
.73
1.9
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
ND
ND
T
ND
T
T
.15
3
Kel
<-l.
!l7
<.l,
ND
.27
.07
.01
.01
.09
.3,
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
ND
ND
T
ND
T
T
T
2
logg
.14
, .58
.16
ND
, .88
, .28
, .01
, .03
, .32
1.0,
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
ND
ND
T
ND
T
T
.15
3
Cr.,IL
, .17
, .70
.19
ND
,1.06
, .33
, .01
, .03
, .37
1.1
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
ND
ND
T
ND
T
T
.14
3
Platte R,
.19,
.77,
.21,
ND
1.17,
.33,
<.005
.03,
.36,
0.9,
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
ND
T
T
ND
T
T
.20,
3
* 5
.90,
.24,
ND
1.36,
.43,
,.02,
.04,
.49,
1.1,
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
ND
T
T
ND
T
T
.16,
3
. Ml
.33
1.3
.36
ND
1.99
.69
.02
.05
.76
1.6
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
ND
T
T
ND
T
T
.19
3
     T = Compound present at level less than  0.05  ug/g
    ND = Compounds not detected.

-------
                                                 Table 2 (Cont.)

                              Contaminant  Data  From  the 1981  Coho  Salmon  Collections

                           Lake Huron
Aroclor 1260 (PCB)
Aroclor 1245 (PCB)
Aroclor 1248 (PCB)
Aroclor 1242 (PCB)
Total PCBs

P,P,-DDE
P,P,-DDD
P,P,-DDT
Total DDT
    Tawas  R.,MI

 .16,  .24,   .17
 .65,  .95,   .70
 .18,  .26,   .19
 ND    ND     ND
 .99, 1.45,  1.06
 .25,   .36,   .29    .09,  .09,  .07
<.005,<.005,<.005,  .02,  .02,  .01
 .03,   .05,   .04    .02,  .02,  .01
 .28,   .41,   .33    .13,  .13,  .29



Chagrin R.,OH
.14,
.56,
.15,
ND
.85,
.15,
.62,
.17,
ND
.94,
.11
.44
.12
ND
.67
Lake
Huron
<.l,
.38,
.10,
ND
.53,
Erie
R.,OH
.12,
.50,
.13,
ND
.75,


.10
.43
.11
ND
.64

Trout
.16,
.65,
.18,
ND
.99,


Run T.,PA
.17,
.70,
.19
ND
1.06,
.13
.51
.14
ND
.78
                 .03,  .05,   .05   .09,  .09,  .06
                <.005,<.005,  .04   .02,  .02,  .02
                 ND   <.005, <.005  .02,  .02,  .01
                 .032, .055,  .092  .13,  .13  .09
"Apparent Toxaphene"   1.1,  1.6,   1.4,    .6,   .6,   .4     <.25,  <.25,   <.25    .5,   .6,   .4

Die! drin
Endri n
cis-Chlordane
trans-Chlordane
cis-Nonachlor
trans-Nonachlor

Hexachlorobenzene
Octoachldr epoxide
Heptachl or
Heptachlor epoxide
Alpha-BHC
Lindane (Gamma-BHC)
Dacthal
pentachlorophenyl
   methyl ether
8, Monohydromirex
   (Photomirex)
Mi rex
Mercury

Age of fish
 .24,   .26,   .24
.11,  .12,  .07

332
.06,   .11,

2      3
.12   .11,  .13,  .12

 2/33    3    3
                                      Lake Ontario
                                     Springbrook,  NY

                                      .41, .21,   .51
                                     1.81, .93,  2.23
                                     0.45, .23,   .56
                                      ND   ND    ND
                                     2.67,1.37,  3.30

                                      .54, .50,   .58
                                      .08, .06,   .07
                                      .05, .04,   .06
                                      .67, .60,   .71

                                     0.7,  0.6,   0.9
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
ND
T
T
ND
T
ND
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
ND
T
T
ND
T
ND
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
ND
T
T
ND
T
ND
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
ND
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
ND
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
ND
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
ND
ND
ND
T
ND
ND
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
ND
ND
ND
T
ND
ND
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
ND
ND
ND
T
ND
ND
T
T
T
T
T
.05,
T
T
T
ND
T
T
ND
.09,
T
T
T
T
T
.05,
T
T
T
ND
T
T
ND
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
ND
T
T
ND
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
ND
T
T
ND
ND
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
ND
T
T
ND
ND
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
ND
T
T
ND
ND
T
0.08, .08,   .09

 .12, .20,   .23
 .24, .25,   .24
     T = Compound present at level  less than 0.05 ug/g
    ND = Compounds not detected.

-------
included pesticides currently in use in the Great  Lakes  Basin  and  substances



whose use has been banned or severely restricted.   Table 2  includes  data  on



both two and three year old fish, while Table 3 and the  following  discussion



focus only on three year old coho as these are more comparable from  lake  to



lake and represent the highest concentrations.





    Although concentrations did not  approach the USFDA action  level  of  5  ug/g,



PCB was the most prominent contaminant found (Table 2).   PCBs  were highest



in three year old coho (Table 3) from Lake Ontario, with an average  of  2.45



u9/9» while only traces were detected in Lake Superior coho.   Lake Erie fish



averaged 0.87 ug/q, while coho from  Lakes Michigan and Huron were  intermedi-



ate, with means of 1.40 ug/g and 1.67 ug/g respectively. Aroclor  1242  was



found at the Sheboygan River site.   This is near the PCB contaminated Sheboygan,



Wisconsin area where Aroclor 1242 has been a contributing pollutant.





     None of the individual composite samples equaled or exceeded  the US  Food



and Drug Administration action limit of 5 ug/g for PCBs. However, one  5



fillet composite from Lake Ontario reached 3.3 ug/g leaving open the possi-



bility that some of the individual  fillets in the  composite equaled  or



exceeded 5 ug/g and were diluted by  other less contaminated fillets.







       Total p,p-DDT concentrations  varied widely  between lakes with 3  year



old coho (Table 3) from Lake Superior averaging 0.03 ug/g and  Lake Ontario



0.66 ug/g.  Concentrations in Lake Erie averaged only 0.12  ug/g while Lake



Huron and Lake Michigan coho were intermediate with means of 0.34  ug/g  and



0.54 ug/q respectively.  The p,p-DDE isomer was the predominant isomer  com-



prising between 56 and 100 percent of the total p,p-DDT. The  ratio  of  p,p-DDD

-------
                                 Table 3
Mean Contaminant Concentrations in 3 Year Old Coho Salmon Composites - 1981
                      Mean (Standard error) in ug/g
Lake
Superior
Huron
Michigan
Erie
Ontario
Number of
Samples
1
3
9
6
3
Total PCBs
0.1
1.67(0.25)
1.40(0.36)
0.87(0.15)
2.45(0.98)
Total DDT
0.03
0.34(0.01)
0.54(0.16)
0.12(0.02)
0.66(0.06)
"Apparent
Toxaphene"
0.125
1.37(0.25)
1.32(0.38)
0.47(0.19)
0.73(0.15)
Mercury
0.10
0.25(0.01)
0.16(0.04)
0.12(0.01)
0.24(0.01)
                                 Table 4
   Correlation Matrix of Total  PCB,  Total  DDT,  "Apparent Toxaphene"  and
          Mercury Concentrations in  1981  Coho Salmon Collections
                       Total  PCBs
Total DDT    "Apparent Toxaphene"
Total DDT                0.84

"Apparent Toxaphene"     0.55               0.78

Mercury                  0.69               0.66

N = 29

(All are significant at the 99% confidence level.)
                   0.56
                                      10

-------
to p,p-DDT varied throughout the Basin.   None of the total  p,p-DDT  concentra-



tions approached the USFDA action limit  of 5.0 ug/g.





     A series of chlorinated chemicals with chromatographic characteristics



similar to toxaphene were found in all samples.   While toxaphene standards



were used for quantitation, several  of the peaks in the standards were con-



sistently absent from the sample chromatograms.   Concentrations  of  "apparent



toxaphene" in 3 year old coho (Table 3)  were highest in Lakes Michigan and



Huron with average concentrations of 1.32 ug/g and 1.37 ug/g respectively.



Adult coho in Lakes Ontario and Erie averaged 0.73 ug/g and 0.47 ug/g while



Lake Superior coho averaged 0.125 ug/g.





     As the pesticide mi rex has not routinely been found in Great Lakes'  fish



outside the Lake Ontario Basin (Veith et aj_. 1979, Clark et aj_.  1982) only



the  Lake Ontario samples were analyzed for Mi rex and its degradation product



8-monohydromirex.  Mi rex concentrations in Lake Ontario coho ranged from



0.12 ug/g to 0.23 ug/g.  Photomirex (8-monohydromirex) concentrations ranged



from 0.08 ug/g to 0.09 ug/q.  The sum of rni rex and photonirex was substantially



above the USFDA action level of 0.1 ug/g.  Mi rex levels previously have been



reported to exceed USFDA action levels in Lake Ontario salmonids and other



game fish (Armstrong and Sloan  1980,  NYDEC 1982, Clark, et al.  1982).





     Several pesticides occurred  at low levels throughout the Basin (Table 2).



These  include dieldrin, endrin, chlordane, nonachlor,  BHC.   A  few other



organo  chlorines were detected  in samples at individual sites.  These include



heptachlor at the Pine Creek  (Lake  Superior) and  lindane at  the Chagrin River



(Lake  Erie)  site.
                                     11

-------
     Mercury concentrations were well  below the USFDA action limit of 1.0 ug/g.
Concentrations were highest (Table 3)  in coho from Lake Ontario and Lake Huron,
averaging 0.24 ug/g and 0.25 ug/g respectively.  Lake Michigan coho averaged
0.16 ug/g while three year old coho from Lake Erie averaged 0.12 ug/g and
those from Lake Superior contained 0.10 ug/g.

    Significant correlations were observed between total  PCBs, total  DDT,
"apparent toxaphene" and mercury concentrations (Table 4).   These were partic-
ularly strong between total PCBs and total DDT, where similar molecular size,
structure and partition coefficient lead to similar bioaccumulation dynamics.
This was also observed by Rohrer et^ aj_. (1982) in coho and  chinook salmon.
Mercury and the chloronated camphenes  comprising "apparent  toxaphene" were
less strongly correlated.

    Regression analysis indicated no statistically significant relationship
between lipid content and total PCBs,  total DDTs, or "apparent toxaphene"
Armstrong and Sloan (1980) also observed no correlation between lipid content
and contaminant concentration within a single collection of fish.  However,
they did report a strong correlation between contaminants and mean lipid
content over several species.
     Highest mean concentrations of DDT, PCB, and Mercury were observed in
three year old coho from Lake Ontario  and the lowest in Lake Superior.  How-
ever, comparisons of the relative concentrations of contaminants found at
various sites must be tempered by the  fact that neither the size, age or the
sexual composition of our samples were held constant.  Contaminant levels are
known to increase with size and exposure period-(age) and recent information
indicates that in the fall, male coho  may exhibit higher contaminant  levels than
females (NYDEC 1982).  While the effects of age have been eliminated  by
                                    12

-------
comparing only three year old fish,  the size of the fish  and  sexual  composi-



tion of our composite samples varies from site  to  site.   The  smallest  coho



were obtained from Lake Superior and the largest from Lake Ontario (Table



1).  The relatively low contaminant  levels in coho salmon from Lake  Superior



probably reflect the low levels of contaminant  inputs from the water shed,



as well as the lower productivity and the colder water temperatures  which



reduce growth and metabalism and thus the potential rate  of contaminant



uptake.  This is reflected in the smaller size  of the Lake Superior  fish.



The high level of productivity and sedimentation in Lake  Erie may bind up



hydrophobic contaminants and remove them from the system  before they find



their way into the top carnivore fishes.  Lakes Huron, Michigan and Ontario,



with their more intermediate levels of production and high levels of contami-



nant inputs, appear to have more significant fish contaminant problems.





     Comparison of 3 year old coho collected in 1981 with those collected  in



1980 indicates that, although statistically significant changes were not de-



tectable between the two years, PCB  and DDT concentrations were generally



lower  in 1981 (Table 5).  No assessment of trends  in contaminant levels



prior  to 1980 was attempted.  However, the contemporary residue levels are



generally less than those reported  in the 1960's and early 1970's (IOC 1978),



Subsequent coho salmon collections, as part of the continued monitoring



effort for our program, will allow  us to  perform limited trend analyses.



Other  fish collections have been designed to specifically address trends of



residue  levels  in open lake  fish  (lake trout and smelt, whole fish  prepara



tions) as part of the  Great Lakes Fish Monitoring  Program.  These results



will  be  reported  at  a  later  date.






                                     13

-------
                                                              Table 5

                                      Comparison of 1980 and 1981  Levels  of  Major  Contaminates
                                                    in 3 Years Old Coho Salmon
Lake Erie


Total PCBs
(Range)
Total DDT
(Range)
"Apparent
Toxaphene"
(Range)
Length (mm)
(Range)
Weight (kg)

Number of
Composites
Number of
Fish Per
Composite
Chagrin
1980
1.07
(1.05-T.10)
0.16
(0.15-0.18)

<.25
(<.25-<.25)
610
(599-627)
3.0
(2.8-3.1)

3

5

River
1981
0.895
(0.85-0.94)
0.13
(0.13-0.13)

0.6
(0.60-0.60)
603.5
(576-631)
2.6
(2.1-3.1)

2

5

Trout
1980
1.17
NA
0.17
NA

ND
NA
606
NA
2.1
NA

1

5

Run Trib.
1981 1
0.94
Huron River
980 1981
.00 0.75
(0.78-1.06) (0.73-1.38)
0.12 0.14 0.055
(0.09-0.13) (0.13-0.14 NA

0.50

<.25 <.25
(0.40-0.60) (<.25-<.25) NA
569.3
635 635
(515-610) (620-658) NA
1.8
2.9 2.8
(1.4-2.2) (2.6-3.1) NA

3

5


3 1

5 5

Lake Ontario
SpringbrookjNY
T9SO
2.90
(2.43-3.64)
0.80
(0.56-0.94)

0.77
(0.50-1.00)
773
(731-800)
4.7
(3.88-5.3)

3

5

1981
2.45
(1.37-3.30)
0.66 ,
(0.60-0.90)

0.73
(0.60-0.90)
803
(786-826)
4.6
(3.9-5.4)

3

5

Lake Huron
Tawas River
1980
1.95
(1.89-2.0)
0.41
(0.36-0.45)

1.5
(1.4-1.6)
719
(701-729)
4.05
(3.5-4.4)

3

5

1981
1.17
(1.37-3.30)
0.34
(0.28-0.41)

1.37
(1.10-1.60)
687
(680-695)
3.7
(3.4-4.1)

3

5

NA = not available

-------
                                                              Table  5  (Continued)

                                            Comparison of  1980 and  1981 Levels of Major Contaminates
                                                           in 3 Years Old Coho Salmon
Lake Superior
Pine Creek, WI
Total PCS
(Range)
Total DDT
(Range)
"Apparent
Toxaphene"
(Range)
Length (mm)
(Range)
Weight (kg)
(Range)
Number of
composites
1980
0.10
(<.!-<.!)
0.03
(.02-. 04)
0.375
(<.25-Q.60)
529
(487-561)
1.24
(1.1-1.75)

3
1981
0.10
NA
0.03
NA
0.125
NA
489
NA
1.2
NA

1
Sheboygan
1980
1.90
(1.51-2.
0.54
(0.45-0.
1.43
(1.2-1.

35)
66)
7')
644
(606-671)
2.45
(1.88-3.

3
01)


River
1981
1.63
NA
0.59
NA
1.0
NA
598
NA
2.95
NA

1
Trail
1980
2.01
(1.69-2.36)
0.71
(0.49-1.03)
1.5
(1.4-1.7)
676
(629-710)
3.46
(2.74-4.15)

3
Lake Michigan
Creek
1981
1.49
(1.22-1.77)
0.65
(0.57-0.73)
1.73
(1.5-1.9)
645.3
(622-674)
2.7
(2.3-3.2)

3
Kellog Creek
1980
1.80
(1.46-2.31)
0.62
(0.51-0.70)
0.87
(0.8-1.0)
676
(660-695)
3.51
(3.38-3.67)

3
1981
0.97
(0.88-1.06)
0.345
(0.32-0.37)
1.05
(1.00-1.10)
NA
NA
2.6
(2.0-3.2)

2
Platt
1980
1.89
(1.53-2.59)
0.55
(0.43-0.76)
1.33
(1.0-1.6)
675
(640-714)
3.24
(2.73-4.13)

3
River
1981
1.51
(1.17-1.99)
0.54
(0.36-0.76)
1.20
(0.9-1.6)
716.3
(695-740)
3.5
(3.3-3.9)

3
Number of fish
  per composite
                                                                                                                  4,4,3
                  NA  =  not  available

-------
                              References

Armstrong, R. W. and R. J. Sloan.   1980- Trends in levels of several  known
     chemical contaminants in fish from New York State Waters.  New York
     State Department of Environmental  Conservation.  Albany, New York
     June 1980.  77 p.

Clark, J. R., D. DeVault., R. J. Bowden,-and J. A. Weishaar.  1982.  Contami-
     nant analysis of fall run coho salmon.  Submitted to Journal  of Great
     Lakes Research.

Great Lakes National Program Office.  1981.  A strategy for fish contaminant
     monitoring in the Great Lakes.  USEPA, GLNPO, Chicago, Illinois.

IJC. 1978. Great Lakes water quality status report, Appendix E. Great  Lakes
     Water Quality Board. Windsor, Ontario, Canada.

New York Department of Environmental Conservation (NYDEC).  1982.   Toxic
     substances in fish and wildlife.    November 1, 1981  to April  30,  1982.
     Technical Report 82-2 (BEP) June 1982.  NYDEC. Albany, New York.

Norstrom, R.J., H.T. Won, M.O.H. Holdrin, P.G. Calway and C.D. Naftel. 1980.
     Gas liquid chromatographic determination of Mi rex and Photornirex  in the
     presence of Polychlorinated biphenyls. J. Association Off. Analy  Chem.
     63:53-59

Ohio Department of Natural Resources.   1980.  1979 status of PCB's in  Lake
     Erie fishes.  ODNR Communication,  Columbus, Ohio.

Rohrer, T. K., J. C. Forney and J. H.  Hartig. 1982.  Organochlorine and heavy
     metal residues in standard fillets of coho and chinook salmon of  the
     Great Lakes - 1980.  Journal  of Great Lakes Research 8:623-634.

U.S. Food and Drug Administration  (USFDA) 1980.  USFDA Pesticide Analytical
     Manual.  U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Washington, D. C.

Veith, G. D., D.W. Kuehl, E. N. Leonard, K. Welch and G.  Pratt.  1981.
     Polychlorinated biphenyls and other organic chemical residues in  fish
     from major watersheds near the Great Lakes, 1978.  Pesticide Monitoring
     Journal.
                               16

-------
                                 TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
                          (Please read Instructions on the reverse before completing)
 REPORT NO.
 EPA 905/3-83-001
                            2.
                                                         3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION NO.
 TITLE AND SUBTITLE
                                                          .REPORT DATE
  Contaminant Analysis of 1981 Fall  Run  Coho
   Salmon   (Oncorhynchus Kistuch)
            6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
 AUTHOR(S)
 David  S.  DeVault III, U.S. Environmental  Protection
 Joseph A.  Weishaar, U.S. Food and Drug  Admini strati oil
                                                          8. PERFORMING ORGAN1ZATI
 PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
 U.S.  Environmental Protection Agency
 Great Lakes  National Program Office
 536  South Clark Street
 Chicago,  Illinois 60605	
                                                          10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
            11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
2. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
 See  #9
            13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
                Final
                                                          14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
5. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
 6. ABSTRACT

 The comprehensive analysis  of coho salmon from each of  the  Great Lakes by a single
 laboratory has, for the  second year, produced a set of  tissue  residue data on environ
 mental  contaminants whose use has been banned or severly  restricted.   Coho salmon
 from Lake Superior contained  only trace amounts or low  levels  of most toxic sub-
 stances quantified.  Lake Erie fish were contaminated with  low levels of a number
 of pesticides and industrial  compounds with relatively  higher  residue levels for
 a number of compounds  in coho from Lake Ontario.  Because of their open water
 habitat preferences, the contaminant levels in coho salmon  demonstrate open lake
 contaminant problems rather than point source or nearshore  conditions.  The data
 reported in our study  generally agrees with recent findings from individual state
 contaminant monitoring programs although problems with  varying analytical and
 sampling techniques preclude  direct comparisons.  However,  current tissue residue
 levels  are usually less  than  those previously reported  and  are lower than USFDA
 action  levels which are  used  by many agencies in assessing  the severity of fish
 contaminant problems.  The  major exception being the levels of mi rex in fish
 collected from Lake Ontario which exceeded the 0.1 ug/g action level.
17.
                               KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
                  DESCRIPTORS
                                             b.lDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS  C. COS AT I Field/Group
  PCB, DDT Contaminants
    Fish  contaminants
13. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
                                              19
                                                          SS (This Report)
  Limited copies free of  charge  at GLNPO
  Otherwise available through  NTIS
20. SECURITY CLASS (Thispage)

  Unclassified
                           22. PRICE
EPA Form 2220-1 (9-73)
                                                  •dUJS. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1983-655-890

-------