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 ------- |