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
------- |