1U8WUOJIAU3/A6J8U3
S|8pO|/\|
uo
09^02 30 uoi6u!L)se/\A
lu9ux)o|8A9Q poe ipjeasay
AoueBy
OfrO-t'8-Z./009~Vd3
0999E1VSIBOMS apsni/\|
-------
Chlorine Effects on Aquatic Organisms
Evaluation of Selected Toxicity Models
by
Sylvia A. Murray, Colette G. Burton, and Anthony H. Rhodes
Division of Water Resources
Fisheries and Aquatic Ecology Branch
Tennessee Valley Authority
Muscle Shoals, Alabama 35660
and
Robert W. Aldred
Energy Demonstration and Technology Division
Operations Branch
Tennessee Valley Authority
Chattanooga, Tennessee
Interagency Agreement No. EPA-IAG-82-D-X0511
Project No. E-AP 82 BDW
Program Element No. INE- CC2N1A
Project Officer
Alfred Galli
Office of Environmental Protection Agency
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, DC 20460
Prepared for
Office of Environmental Processes and Effects Research
Office of Research and Development
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region 5, Library (5PL-16)
£30 S. Dearborn Street, Room 1670
Chicago, -IL 60604
-------
DISCLAIMER
This report was prepared by the Tennessee Valley Authority and
has been reviewed by the Office of Research and Development, Energy and
Air Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and approved for
publication. Although the research described in this document has been
funded wholly or in part by the United States Environmental Protection
Agency through Interagency Agreement No. EPA-IAG-82-D-X0511 with TVA,
it has not been subject to Agency policy and peer review and therefore
does not necessarily reflect the views of the agency or the Tennessee
Valley Authority and no official endorsement should be inferred.
11
-------
ABSTRACT
Three toxicity models were examined and modified with respect to
organisms associated with chlorinating power plants of the Tennessee
Valley Authority. The three models examined were the Mattice-Zittel,
Turner-Thayer, and Chen-Selleck. Results of the first two were
prediction lines based on concentration and exposure duration of
chlorine, whereas results of the latter were threshold concentrations for
individual species. Because of differences in model formulations and
objectives, as well as in biological responses used to test the models,
it was only possible to generalize about the potential biological safety
of the receiving waters.
Although the Mattice-Zittel model was very conservative and
indicated potential biologically unsafe conditions with respect to
chlorine for invertebrates at most of the power plants examined, the more
statistically robust model of Turner-Thayer indicated biological safety
for invertebrates at all but one of the power plants examined. Results
were similar for both models for fish safety at the power plants. More
data were available for invertebrate species than vertebrate species.
The models predicted that invertebrates were more sensitive to chlorine
than vertebrates. According to both the Turner-Thayer and Chen-Selleck
models, the most sensitive invertebrate species included mayfly nymphs,
particularly Isonychia sp., and scuds, Gammarus sp.
Indicator analysis, i.e. a modification of the Turner-Thayer model,
was constructed to provide a predictive time/toxicity model for chlorine
which would assure protection of a striped bass population at a designated
power plant (Appendix D). The analysis proved insensitive and inconclusive.
However, if the required adjustments are made for the Turner-Thayer model
(Appendix C), all of the data points used for Appendix D fall inside the
limiting curve produced by the Turner-Thayer model. Appendix C confirms
that the Turner-Thayer model, when correctly and completely applied to
species specific data, produces adequately protective results and provides
a reasonably accurate prediction of chlorine toxicity at intermittent
exposures.
111
-------
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
We gratefully acknowledge Billy G. Isom and R. J. Ruane for making
this work possible. We especially thank D. M. Opresko for helping us
with the literature survey, W. C. Barr for providing fisheries data,
H. B. Flora II for providing power plant data, and Alta Turner for
contractual services, in providing us with the Turner-Thayer model.
IV
-------
CONTENTS
Abstract iii
Acknowledgments iv
Contents v
Section 1. Introduction 1
Section 2. Conclusions 2
Section 3. Recommendations 3
Section 4. Methods 4
Section 5. Results and Discussion 5
References 7
Appendices
A. Construction and evaluation of Mattice-Zittel type models, by
Colette G. Burton 8
B. Selected invertebrate and fish chlorine bioassays: their
application to a kinetic model, by Anthony H. Rhodes .... 46
C. Site-specific consideration of chlorine effluent limitations,
by Alta Turner and Sylvia A. Murray 88
D. Analysis of chlorine toxicity for several fish species with
potential application to fish mortality at a power plant,
by Robert W. Aldred 124
v
-------
SECTION 1
INTRODUCTION
The potential environmental impact of chlorine during water
treatment continues to be a subject of public concern and scientific
research (Jolley et al. 1980; Opresko 1980; Costle et al. 1980;
Hall et al. 1981). An active area of scientific research is development
of a toxicity model that can be used to aid in predicting environmentally
acceptable chlorine levels in receiving waters. The ability to predict
biological "safety" from chlorine levels in receiving waters should allow
more diverse biological tests without a major field test program. This
report presents and examines three toxicity models with special interest
to the chlorinating power plants operated by the Tennessee Valley
Authority (TVA). The models presented in this report were developed by
Mattice and Zittel (1976), Chen and Selleck (1969), and Turner and Thayer
(1980). Modifications and evaluations of these models are presented in
Appendices A, B, C, and D, respectively.
-------
SECTION 2
CONCLUSIONS
The toxicity models examined in this report, viz. the Mattice-Zittel,
Chen-Selleck, and Turner-Thayer models, had different objectives and
formulations. The Mattice-Zittel model was proposed to demonstrate a
relationship between chlorine concentration and exposure time. The
Chen-Selleck model was hypothesized to demonstrate a kinetic relationship
between toxication and detoxication processes in individual species. The
Turner-Thayer model was formulated to evaluate biological safety in the
mixing zone. Because of the statistical robustness of the Turner-Thayer
methods, this model was preferred to the others to project biological
safety at the TVA chlorinating power plants. However, it is noteworthy
to state that model reliability is limited by the data base used. Data
are lacking with regard to vertebrate species, water quality character-
istics, and life stages of the test organisms. This information needs to
be factored in the model when it becomes available. Results of the
analyses indicated that invertebrate species are more sensitive than
vertebrate species. Biological safety was indicated for vertebrates at
all chlorinating power plants and for invertebrates at all but one of the
chlorinating power plants. Because of the precision and sensitivity of
the Turner-Thayer model as well as its statistical robustness, it is
concluded that this model provides a reasonably accurate prediction of
chlorine toxicity at intermittent exposures.
-------
SECTION 3
RECOMMENDATIONS
For the purposes of modeling, more data are needed using the same
response criteria. In addition, more information needs to be supplied on
acute chlorine toxicity effects with respect to water quality character-
istics and life stage of the test organisms. The recommended model is
the Turner-Thayer model. The Turner-Thayer model is designed to predict
chlorine concentrations which adequately protect all species represented
in the data base for a given exposure duration. It is statistically
robust, sensitive and precise, and provides a reasonably accurate predic-
tion of chlorine toxicity at intermittent exposures.
-------
SECTION 4
METHODS
Mattice-Zittel model. The literature was examined with respect to
chlorine toxicity effects on fish and invertebrates in the Tennessee
Valley. This was done for the purpose of adding these additional data
and deleting inappropriate data in the Mattice and Zittel report. This
product was used to modify the model and apply the newly formed
regression lines to representative organisms found in the TVA area. Each
TVA chlorinating power plant was analyzed from this perspective in an
effort to determine which combination of environmental conditions might
be viewed as toxic to the organisms.
Turner-Thayer model. The data compiled from above were provided to
Envirosphere Company, New York, New York, under subcontract to run the
regression analyses for fish and/or zooplankton and benthic organisms
associated with TVA and/or all available locations. Residual analyses
were run to indicate sensitive species. Regression lines were generated
from the model; toxicity effects were analyzed with respect to power
plant conditions.
Chen-Selleck model. The Chen-Selleck model is based on
least-squares analysis. However, the threshold concentration of the
toxicant is determined by solving simultaneous equations. The principles
of the Chen-Selleck model were used to predict threshold concentrations
of chlorine for fish and invertebrates. The information resulted in a
list of species ranging from sensitive to resistant species for any one
TVA power plant site.
-------
SECTION 5
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
The Mattice-Zittel model (1976) was developed to demonstrate the
general relationship between exposure time and chlorine concentration.
Shortly after its publication, it was adapted for establishing regulatory
criteria (Hall et al. 1980; Turner and Thayer 1980). Examination of the
model shows it to be conservative and overly restrictive (Turner and
Thayer 1980). A modification of the data base used to develop this model
using data from only those species that have been found near the
chlorinating TVA power plants is given in Appendix A. Based on available
data from the literature, the model predicts biological safety for fish
at most of these power plants but not for invertebrates at any of the
plants. These predicted conclusions were not found at the plants.
Because data are lacking for many important species as well as for more
life stages, chlorine cannot be eliminated as a factor for the disap-
pearance of fish species such as sauger and paddlefish at some power
plant sites. Because of lacking available data and because the
predictability of the Mattice-Zittel model was neither validated nor
invalidated, in situ studies need to be performed on those species
potentially impacted by chlorine for assessment of biological safety
under appropriate environmental conditions of the power plants. A
detailed analysis of the Mattice-Zittel model is given in Appendix A.
The Turner-Thayer model (1980) was proposed as an alternate model to
the Mattice-Zittel model. Several improvements were implemented, such as
selecting data with a common biological response (e.g., LC5o) and using
more statistically based modeling techniques than those methods used by
Mattice and Zittel. Turner and Thayer recognized that site-specific
factors, such as sensitivity of resident species and water quality
characteristics, may influence the toxicity of chlorine-induced oxidants.
However, the current data base is lamentably insufficient to allow for
the formulation of these factors in their general models. The
Turner-Thayer model was used to determine relative chlorine sensitivities
between fish and invertebrates for all available data as well as for
species resident at TVA sites. The analysis is detailed in Appendix C.
Results showed (1) that partitioning data on the basis of species
residence at TVA sites did not substantially modify the results of the
regression analysis, (2) invertebrate species exhibited greater
variability and were more sensitive than vertebrate species, and (3) most
of the data available were for invertebrate species, so that the inverte-
brate component tended to dominate the analytical results. According to
the model, biological safety occurred at all TVA sites for fish and all
but one TVA site for invertebrates. The most sensitive species to
chlorine at the TVA sites was Isonychia sp. compared with Iron humeralis
for all available data. These mayflies may be important indicator
organisms for future work. Although the model predicts that fish were
considered to be biologically safe, Notropis atherinoides showed the most
sensitivity to chlorine exposure.
-------
The Chen-Selleck model (1969) is a steady-state model based on the
concept of a biochemical rate balance between toxication and detoxication
processes. Because the two processes occur simultaneously, Chen and
Selleck postulated that toxication processes will not produce mortality
when the rates of toxication and detoxication are equal. Kinetic rates
of toxication and detoxication reactions were formulated as a function of
measurable parameters in a standard bioassay test resulting in the computa-
tion of the threshold concentration, i.e., the maximum concentration of
toxicant that allows survival of all test organisms during infinite
exposure time. This model allows for the prediction of safe toxicant
concentrations for individual species. However, Chen and Selleck pointed
out that other factors than the toxicant may either contribute to or
cause the organism's death in the bioassay. They also noted that other
factors need to be considered for predicting estimates of safe toxicant
concentrations in receiving waters. This model was used to test chlorine
toxicity in invertebrates and vertebrates using the data base given in
Appendix A. Application of this model for chlorine toxicity is given in
Appendix B. The model predicted that chlorine concentrations at all the
power plants would probably be biologically unsafe for most invertebrates
and fish associated with the power plants. Because these species do
exist at the power plants, results from the Chen-Selleck model are too
conservative because other factors, such as water dilution, water quality
characteristics, etc., were not factored into the model. The biological
sensitivity to chlorine shows three species of mayfly nymphs, and some
other invertebrate genera to be indicator organisms for chlorine toxicity.
Juvenile fish were also sensitive to chlorine. Discrepancies in biological
sensitivity to chlorine between the Chen-Selleck and Turner-Thayer methods
are probably due to differences in the data bases as well as methods
used. Threshold concentrations were based on a very small amount of data
in the Chen-Selleck method and were calculated individually for each
species, whereas data were used for all species collectively for the
residual analyses of the Turner-Thayer method.
Indicator analysis, i.e. a modification of the Turner-Thayer model,
was constructed to provide a predictive time/toxicity model for chlorine
which would assure protection of a striped bass population at a designated
power plant. However, since data for striped bass are not available,
data from the Turner-Thayer data base for the emerald shiner, bluegill,
and channel catfish were used for the study presented in Appendix D. The
analyses indicated that the three species do not exhibit the same expected
toxicity reaction to various concentrations of chlorine. The analyses,
therefore, proved insensitive and were inconclusive. However, if the
required adjustments are made for the Turner-Thayer model (cf. Appendix C),
none of the data points used in Appendix D fall outside the limiting
curve produced by the Turner-Thayer model. Since the Turner-Thayer model
is designed to predict chlorine concentrations which adequately protect
all species represented in the data base (and probably some species not
included) for a given exposure duration, the model may adequately show
protection of a given species without predicting the exact time/toxicity
relationship for that species.
Because of the robust statistical methods used to develop the Turner-
Thayer model and the use of mean residuals to indicate chlorine sensitivity
in the regression equation, this model seems to be credible and acceptable,
-------
provided a sufficient data base, which incidentally, is not available.
This model seems to have more strengths than either the Mattice-Zittel or
Chen-Selleck models for predicting potential biological safety in the
mixing zone where chlorine is the only toxicant.
6a
-------
REFERENCES
1. Chen, C. W. and R. E. Selleck. 1969. A kinetic model of fish toxicity
threshold. Journ. Wat. Poll. Contr. Fed. 41:R294-R308.
2. Costie, D. M., R. B. Schaffer, J. Lum, and T. Wright. 1980. Development
Document fr Effluent Limitation Guidelines and Standards for Steam
Electric Point Source Category. EPA 440/1-80-029-B.
Washington, DC: United Sl;it<-s Knv i romnent ;i 1 Protection Agency.
3. Hall, C. W., Jr., G. R. Helz, and D. T. Beaton. 1981. Power Plant
Chlorination: A Biological and Chemical Assessment. Ann Arbor
Science Publishers, Inc., Ann Arbor, MI.
4. Jolley, R. L., W. A. Brungs, and R. B. Cummings. 1980. Water
Chlorination: Environmental Impact and Health Effects.
Vol. 3. Ann Arbor Science Publishers, Inc., Ann Arbor, MI.
5. Mattice, J. S., and H. E. Zittel. 1976. Site specific evaluation and
power plant Chlorination: a proposal. Journ. Wat. Poll. Fed.
48:2284-2307.
6. Opre.sko, D. M. 1080. Rov i <-w of open I i tf rnt tin- on efiects o f chlorine
on aquatic organisms. KPR1 EA-1491. Electric Power Research
Institute, Palo Alto, CA.
7. Turner, A. and T. A. Thayer. 1980. Chlorine toxicity in aquatic
ecosystems. In: Water Chlorination: Environmental Impact and
Health Effects. Ed. R. L. Jolley, W. A. Brungs, R. B. Cummings,
and V. A. Jacobs. Ann Arbor Science Publishers, Inc., Vol. 3,
pp. 607-630.
-------
Appendix A
CONSTRUCTION AND EVALUATION OF
MATTICE-ZITTEL TYPE MODELS
Prepared by
Colette G. Burton
-------
-------
CONSTRUCTION AND EVALUATION OF
MATTICE-ZITTEL TYPE MODELS
By Colette G. Burton
INTRODUCTION
Chlorination is commonly used to prevent biofouling in the condenser
cooling and service water systems of power plants within the USA. Since
chlorine is an effective biocide, scientists have been concerned with the
impact of chlorinated effluents on aquatic organisms.66 73* Several studies
have examined the tolerance levels of aquatic organisms to different forms of
chlorine residuals (free, combined, or total). In addition, some studies have
investigated sublethal physiological and biochemical responses to chlorine
exposure.
The current EPA guidelines are an average discharge of 0.2 mg/1 free
residual chlorine with an instantaneous maximum concentration of 0.5 mg/1 free
residual chlorine for a maximum discharge period of two hours (end of the
pipe).82 However, there has been some controversy regarding whether these
levels are too lenient or too stringent.
In an attempt to predict levels of chlorine exposure which would not
adversely impact freshwater organisms, some chlorine toxicity models have been
developed. One such model was developed by Mattice and Zittel as a predictive
tool for the assessment of site-specific chlorination levels.66, 74 76 In
this model, the acute and chronic toxicity threshold levels were determined
using existing chlorine toxicity information on freshwater organisms.
The Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) is interested in examining models to
aid in predicting environmentally acceptable chlorination levels at TVA power
plants. Since the Mattice and Zittel freshwater model utilized data from a
variety of organisms, some of which are not present near TVA power generation
facilities, these data needed to be deleted from the model and new data added
to it. The purposes of this study are: to review chlorine toxicity
information, to construct modified Mattice-Zittel type models for fish and
invertebrates present in the TVA area, to apply these models to TVA power
plants, and to report on the significance of these models to TVA.
* It was necessary to construct tables 1 and 2 prior to writing this
text; therefore, sequence of references cited follows these tables,
the text does not.
-------
LITERATURE SURVEY
The available literature on the impact of chlorination on fish and
invertebrates was reviewed (table 1 and 2). All fish species taken in cove
rotenone samples of TVA reservoirs77 and located near power plants are listed
in table 1. However, because of the large number of aquatic invertebrate
genera present in the TVA area,78 table 2 lists only the genera for which
chlorine toxicity information was available.
The format of the tables is a modification of that of Mattice and
Zittel.66 Toxicity data for organisms exposed to either exposure type, viz.
intermittent or continuous, are listed in the tables. Generally, the data
point numbers were not assigned to data from intermittent chlorination
studies. A different data point number was assigned to each species (table 1)
or genus (table 2) exposed to a different experimental condition (such as
chlorine concentration, chlorine form, and/or temperature) in each study. The
concentration represents the chlorine levels, irrespective of chlorine form
examined in these studies. The biological response or end-point found during
the experimental or observational period is indicated under the "Effect"
column. The biological responses were limited to changes in reproduction,
spawning, or mortality, with 50 percent mortality being the most common
response reported. Waste water chlorination studies are also indicated in the
same column. The other categories are self-explanatory.
When these tables are examined, it is apparent that more information was
available for fish than for invertebrates. In addition, within either fish or
invertebrates there is an apparent paucity of information available for some
species or genera, while there is an abundance of information available for
others. It is also clear that there has been a recent trend towards examining
intermittent chlorination effects. In addition, more attention has been
focused on examining the effects of chlorine in conjunction with temperature.
CONSTRUCTION OF CHLORINE TOXICITY MODELS
The modified chlorine toxicity models, which were constructed using
methods similar to those of Mattice and Zittel,66, 74-76 are shown in
figures 1 and 2 for fish and invertebrates, respectively. The data from
intermittent chlorination studies generally were not incorporated into these
models. The data point numbers in figures 1 and 2 correspond with the numbers
in tables 1 and 2, respectively. The concentration and exposure duration of
each data point were plotted on the respective log-log graphs. In cases where
a single biological response was observed over a range of chlorine
concentrations or exposure times, the combination of the lowest concentration
and lowest exposure duration was plotted on the graph.
After all of the data were plotted, the acute and chronic toxicity
thresholds were determined. The assumption that the relationship between log
concentration-log exposure duration is inversely linear over a broad range was
essential to the placement of the acute toxicity threshold.66
10
-------
The major assumption in placing the chronic toxicity threshold was that
it represents the maximum concentration below which no effect will occur
regardless of the exposure duration.66
Several steps were involved in setting the acute toxicity thresholds.
Initially, the data were enclosed between two intersecting lines. The
log concentration-log exposure duration data within these lines usually
were measured for median mortality, although the biological end-point
ranged from sublethal effects to 100 percent mortality. Since the
threshold represents the maximal time-concentration level below which no
effect will occur,66 the data needed to be converted, when possible, to
reflect 0 percent mortality levels. Because of lack of data, the equation
of Mattice and Zittel, y = 0.37x, was used in converting the time required
to obtain 50 percent mortality (x) into the time required to obtain
0 percent mortality (y) for any given concentration.66 After these
conversions were completed, the top line was adjusted toward the left to
enclose all converted data points. The slope of the original top line
was retained.
The placement of the chronic toxicity threshold was somewhat arbi-
trary, since Mattice and Zittel did not disclose their methods.66 To
protect the most sensitive organisms represented in each model, the
chronic toxicity threshold of the model was obtained by adjusting the
initial bottom line to approximately three-quarters of the lowest
concentration eliciting a biological response (see data points 34 and 9
in figures 1 and 2, respectively).
Upon close examination of the models, some differences were observed
between the fish and invertebrate toxicity models. The chronic toxicity
threshold of fish (0.015 mg/1) was approximately 10 times that of inverte-
brates (0.0015 mg/1). The models also revealed that the acute toxicity
threshold of fish (which represents the line connecting 5.4 mg/l--0.12 min
with 0.015 mg/l--3,800 min) was much greater than that of invertebrates
(which represents the line connecting 0.07 mg/l--5.0 min with 0.015 mg/1--
8,400 min).
APPLICATIONS OF THESE MODELS
General
This type of toxicity model is relatively easy to interpret.66 To
determine whether a chlorine concentration-exposure time is potentially
harmful to fish or invertebrates, the combination may be compared to the
acute and chronic toxicity thresholds of the respective graph. If the
combination is below or to the left of the toxicity thresholds, it
theoretically will not be harmful to the organisms. If it
falls to the right or above these thresholds, the combination may be
potentially injurious to the organisms.
These models should not be used to try to identify the "sensitive"
species or genera, which might be impacted by the proposed chlorination
practices for reasons discussed below. One limitation of this model is
11
-------
that, due to the variability in techniques and biological end-points, an
organism may appear to be "sensitive" in some studies, but "tolerant" in
other studies. This, in fact, does appear to be the case for some of the
species and genera having low data points on the graphs (figures 1 and 2).
In spite of the fact that intermittent chlorination studies were not
used to construct the models, the potential effects of intermittent
chlorination on fish and invertebrates can be assessed using these models,
although the models may be somewhat conservative.80 To determine whether
the intermittent chlorination practice may be potentially harmful the
combination of chlorine concentration-total chlorination exposure time
daily is compared with the graphs as above. The total chlorination
exposure time daily is equal to the number of chlorine pulses per day
times the average duration of each pulse.
Specifics
Theoretically, models of this type may be useful in specific site-
assessment of environmentally acceptable chlorination schedules, if the
chlorine concentrations and dilution dynamics of a particular site are
known.66 Thus, since these models are based on data from the organisms
present in the TVA area, it would seem that the toxicity models would be
useful to TVA for assessing the impact of chlorination practices at TVA
power plants, assuming that chlorination schedules and plume dynamics are
known for the plants. Since the dilution dynamics of these power plants
are not known, an in-depth analysis of the impact of the chlorine plume
on aquatic organisms was not possible. However, given the chlorination
levels and exposure times at the power plants, an alternative method was
used to estimate the impact of the chlorine plume near the mouth of the
discharge canal on aquatic organisms. The pertinent chlorination informa-
tion for each power plant is listed in table 3. The following assumptions
were made in estimating the average free and total residual chlorine
concentrations at the mouth of the discharge canal: (a) there is no
chlorine demand, (b) mixing is uniform in the discharge canal, (c) only
one unit chlorinates at any one time, (d) dilution is attained solely by
the addition of water at the same rate and at all times during chlorina-
tion, (e) all units are pumping water at the same rate and at all times
during chlorination, and (f) the background chlorine levels of non-
chlorinating units are 0.00 mg/1 of chlorine. The estimated average
total residual chlorine concentrations at the mouth of the discharge
canal for each power plant, determined by dividing the concentration at
the outlet by the number of units, are compared with the chlorine toxicity
thresholds for fish and invertebrates in figures 3 and 4, respectively.
As can be seen in figure 3, no effect would be expected for fish species,
in the vicinity of the discharge canal, except for those at
power plant B. However, invertebrate genera present near the mouth of the
discharge canal would probably be impacted by the chlorination practices
at all four power plants (figure 4).
12
-------
EVALUATION OF THESE MODELS
One way of evaluating the use of these models in adequately assessing the
impact of chlorination practices at TVA power plants on aquatic organisms is
to examine power plant effects on the organisms present in the vicinity of
these power plants. Theoretically, 3l6(a) reports could be used to document
any power plant impact on these organisms. However, the 3l6(a) reports for
power plants A and B, which are the only two chlorinating TVA power plants
requiring these reports, were prepared from data accumulated during 1973 to
1975. Since the chlorine practices at the plants during this period83' 84
were evidently different from those summarized in table 3, the 316(a) reports
could neither substantiate nor negate the predictability of these models.
ATTRIBUTES AND CRITICISMS OF THESE MODELS
Since the models presented in this paper were developed using procedures
similar to those of Mattice and Zittel, the same attributes and criticisms
that apply to the Mattice-Zittel models also apply to the models prepared for
this study. This method is one of the few available for assessing
site-specific sublethal effects of chlorine exposure on aquatic organisms.
The procedure using chlorine concentration and exposure time to assess these
effects is still a valid approach. In addition, this procedure results in
models that are probably conservative and, therefore, probably offer some
degree of environmental protection beyond predictions. However, this
procedure has been open to the following criticisms: (a) data were included
from studies using inadequate experimental designs and/or inadequate or
undisclosed methods of measuring chlorine concentrations; (b) chlorine
concentrations used in preparing these models were not limited to one chlorine
form; (c) information from observational, nonquantitative studies were not
excluded from these models; (d) information was obtained from studies
exhibiting a variety of biological end-points, rather than from studies
exhibiting a specific biological response; (e) information usually was not
included from studies on intermittent chlorination; (f) the toxicity
thresholds were determined mainly by the lowest points on the graph (rather
than the whole data set), which means that the validity of the model depends
on relatively few data points; (g) the method of establishing the chronic
toxicity threshold was somewhat arbitrary; and (h) the assumption that the
chronic and acute toxicity thresholds are two distinct lines may not be valid,
since it has been suggested that these lines actually represent parts of the
same curve.80' 81
For the above reasons, the use of the toxicity models presented in this
paper are somewhat limited. Recently some new procedures have been outlined
by Ttlffter and Thayer to assess lethal effects of chlorine exposure on aquatic
organisms.80 Perhaps these more refined procedures should be examined for
developing assessments of potential chlorination effects on organisms located
near TVA power plants. Until these new methods are examined, the models
presented in this report offer the best available approach, representing a
conservative site-specific estimate of potential sublethal effects of
chlorination practices on aquatic organisms.
13
-------
RECOMMENDATIONS ON CHLORINATION PRACTICES AT TVA POWER PLANTS
It is difficult to recommend any alterations in chlorination practices at
TVA power plants, since the predictability of the Mattice-Zittel models was
neither validated nor invalidated. Although application of the models predict
mortality for invertebrates at all plants and for fish at power plant B, it
should be remembered that the models are probably somewhat conservative and,
therefore, the expected impacts at these plants may not occur. However,
chlorine minimization studies by TVA have indicated efficient operations at
lower chlorination levels than those existing for the 1973-1975 period used
for this report. It is my recommendation that in situ studies be performed to
assess chlorination effects on the organisms at each power plant or that
laboratory studies be performed to substantiate or negate the adequacy of
these models for predicting chlorination effects on aquatic organisms.
14
-------
REFERENCES
1. Truchan, J. C. and R. E. Basch. "A Survey of Chlorine
Concentrations in the Weadock Power Plant Discharge
Channel." Processed report (Oct. 1971).
2. Hubbs, C. L. "The High Toxicity of Nascent Oxygen." Physiol.
Zoo].. , 3, 441 (1930).
3. Zimmerman, P. W. and R. 0. Berg. "Effects of Chlorinated Water on
Land Plants, Aquatic Plants, and Goldfish." Contrib.
Boyce Thompson Inst., 6, 39 (1934).
4. McCauley, R. W. and D. P. Scott. "Removal of Free Chlorine from
Running Water by Sodium Thiosulphate." Jour. Fish. Res.
Bd. Can., 17, 601 (1960).
5. Tsai, C. and J. A. McKee. "The Toxicity to Goldfish of Mixtures of
Chloramines, LAS, and Copper (Toxic Constituents and Gross
Toxicity of Waste Treatment Effluent to Fishes)." Rept. No.
OWRT A-029 MD(1), U.S. Dept. Commerce, NTIS, Springfield,
Virginia (1978).
6. Ward, R. W. and G. M. Degraeve. "Residual Toxicity of Several
Disinfectants in Domestic Wastewater." Jour. Water
Poll. Control Fed., 50, 46 (1978).
7. Dickson, K. L. and J. Cairns, Jr. "Effects of Intermittent Chlorina-
tion on Aquatic Organisms and Communities." Presented at the
48th Annual Conference of the Water Pollution Control
Federation, October 5-10, Miami Beach, Florida (1975).
8. Dickson, K. L., e_t al. "Effects of Intermittent Chlorination on
Aquatic Organisms and Communities." Jour. Water Poll.
Control Fed., 49, 35 (1977).
9. Marking, L. L. and T. D. Bills. "Chlorine: Its Toxicity to Fish
and Detoxification of Antimycin." Investigations in Fish
Control No. 74, U.S. Dept. Int., Fish and Wildlife Serv.,
Washington, D.C. (1977).
10. Ellis, M. M. "Detection and Measurement of Stream Pollution."
Bull Bur. Fish., 48, 365 (1937).
11. Panikkar, B. M. "Low Concentrations of Calcium Hypochlorite as a
Fish and Tadpole Poison Applicable for Use in Partly Drained
Ponds and Other Small Bodies of Water." Progressive
Fish Culturist, 22, 117 (1960).
15
-------
12. Brooks, A. S. and G. L. Seegert. "The Effects of Intermittent
Chlorination on Ten Species of Warmwater Fish." Special Report
No. 35, Center for Great Lakes Studies, The University of
Wisconsin - Milwaukee, Milwaukee (1978).
13. Heath, A. G. "Toxicity of Intermittent Chlorination to Rainbow
Trout, Coho Salmon, and Carp." Assn. S.E. Biol. Bull., 23, 65
(1976).
14. Brooks, A. S. and G. L. Seegert. "A Preliminary Look at the Effects
of Intermittent Chlorination on Selected Warmwater Fishes." In
"Water Chlorination Environmental Impact and Health Effects."
(R. L. Jolley, H. Gorchev, and D. H. Hamilton, Jr., editors),
Volume 2. Proceedings of the Second Conference on the
Environmental Impact of Water Chlorination at Gatlinburg,
Tennessee, October 31-November 4, 1977. Ann Arbor Science
Publishers, Ann Arbor, Michigan (1978).
15. Heath, A. G. "Toxicity of Intermittent Chlorination to Freshwater
Fish: Influence of Temperature and Chemical Form."
Hydrobiologia, 56, 39 (1977).
16. Ebeling, G. "The Influence of Sewage on Streams Containing Fish."
Vom Wasser, 5, 201 (1931).
17. Esvelt, L. A. "Toxicity Assessment of Treated Municipal Waste
Waters." Jour. Water Poll. Control Fed., 45, 1558 (1973).
18. Heath, A. G. "Influence of Chlorine Form and Ambient Temperature on
the Toxicity of Intermittent Chlorination to Freshwater Fish."
In "Water Chlorination Environmental Impact and Health
Effects." (R. L. Jolley, H. Grochev, and D. H. Hamilton, Jr.,
editors), Volume 2. Proceedings of the Second Conference on
the Environmental Impact of Water Chlorination at Gatlinburg,
Tennessee, October 31-November 4, 1977. Ann Arbor Science
Publishers, Ann Arbor, Michigan (1978).
19. Lewis, W. M. and M. G. Ulrich. "Chlorine as a Quick-Dip Treatment
for the Control of Gyrodactylids on the Golden Shiner."
Progressive Fish Culturist, 30, 229 (1967).
20. Collins, H. L. "Personal Communication to W. A. Brungs (1976)."
Department of Biology, University of Minnesota, Duluth (1976).
21. Fandrei, G. L. "Total Residual Chlorine: Its Effect on the Emerald
Shiner Notropis atherinoides (Rafinesque)." M.S. Thesis,
University of Minnesota, Duluth (1977).
22. Arthur, J. W. and J. G. Eatson. "Chloramine Toxicity Lo the
Amphipod (Gammarus pseudolimnaeus) and the Fathead Minnow
(Pimephales promelas). Jour. Fish. Res. Bd. Can., 28, 184 (1971).
23. Tompkins, J. A. and C. Tsai. "Survival Time and Lethal Exposure
Time for the Blacknose Dace Exposed to Free Chlorine and Chloramines."
Trans. Amer. Fish. Soc., 105, 313 (1976).
16
-------
24. Arthur, J. W., ej, al. "Comparative Toxicity of Sewage-Effluent
Disinfection to Freshwater Aquatic Life." EPA 60/3-75-012,
Environmental Research Laboratories, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Duluth, Minnesota (1975).
25. Arthur, J. W. Progress Reports, National Water Quality Lab., U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Duluth, Minnesota (1971-1972).
26. Zillich, J. A. "The Toxic Effects of the Grandville Wastewater
Treatment Plant Effluent to the Fathead Minnow, Pimephales
promelas, November 17-21, 1969." Michigan Department of
Natural Resources, Lansing (1969).
27. Zillich, J. A. "The Toxicity of the Wyoming Wastewater Treatment
Plant Effluent to the Fathead Minnow, December 8-12, 1969."
Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Lansing (1969).
28. Basch, R. E., et al. "Chlorinated Municipal Waste Toxicities to
Rainbow Trout and Fathead Minnows." Water Poll. Control Res.
Ser. No. 18050 GZZ 10/71 (1971).
29. DeGraeve, G. M. and R. W. Ward. "Acclimation of Fathead Minnows and
Lake Trout to Residual Chlorine and Bromine Chloride."
Jour. Water Poll. Control Fed., 49, 2172 (1977).
30. Tsai, C. and J. A. Tompkins. "Survival Time and Lethal Exposure
Time for the Blacknose Dace Exposed to Free Chlorine and
Chloramine Solutions." Tech. Report No. 30, Center for
Environmental and Estaurine Studies, University of Maryland,
College Park, Maryland (1974).
31. Forbes, R. L. "Chlorine Toxicity and Its Effect on Gill Tissue
Respiration of the White Sucker (Catostomus commersoni L.)."
M.S. Thesis, Michigan State Univ., Lansing (1971).
32. Roseboom, D. P. and D. L. Richey. "Acute Residual Chlorine Toxicity
of Bluegill and Channel Catfish." Trans. 111. State
Acad. Sci., 69, 230 (1976).
33. Dent, R. J. "Effects Upon Fishes of a Periodic Flushing of
Electrical Power Plants Boiler Tubes with Chlorine." M.S. Thesis.
Southern Illinois University, Edwardsville, Illinois (1974).
34. Gromov, A. S. "Some Data on the Survival of Gambusia in Sewage
Matters." Med. Parasitol. and Parasit. Pis. (USSR), 13, 89
(1944).
35. Katz, B. M. and G. M. Cohen. "The Toxicity of Chlorine on the
Minnow Gambusia affinis." Fla. Sci., 38, 12 (1975).
36. Hughes, J. S. "Tolerance of Striped Bass, Morone saxatilis (Walbaum),
Larvae and Fingerlings to Nine Chemicals Used in Pond Culture."
Proc. 24th Ann. Conf. S.E. Assn. Game & Fish Comm., 431 (1970).
17
-------
37. Morgan, R. P., II and R. D. Prince. "Chlorine Toxicity to Eggs and
Larvae of Five Chesapeake Bay Fishes." Trans. Amer. Fish Soc.,
106, 380 (1977).
38. Middaugh, D. P., et al. "Responses of Early Life History Stages of
the Striped Bass, Morone saxatilis to Chlorination."
Chesapeake Sci., 18, 141 (1977).
39. Coventry, F. L., et al. "The Conditioning of a Chloramine Treated
Water Supply for Biological Purposes." Ecology, 16, 60 (1935).
40. Brooks, A. S. and G. L. Seegert. "The Effects of Intermittent
Chlorination on the Biota of Lake Michigan." Special Report
No. 31, Center for Great Lakes Studies. The University of
Wisconsin - Milwaukee, Milwaukee (1977).
41. Bass, M. L. and A. G. Heath. "Toxicity of Intermittent Chlorination
to Bluegill (Lepomis macrochirus): Interaction with
Temperature." Bull. Environ. Contam. Toxicol., 17, 416 (1977).
42. Bass, M. L., et al. "Histopathological Effects of Intermittent
Chlorine Exposure on Bluegill (Lepomis macrochirus) and Rainbow
Trout (Salmo gairdneri)." Water Res. (G.B.) 11, 731 (1977).
43. Bass, M. L. "A Study of Lethality and Toxic Mechanisms of Inter-
mittent Chlorination to Freshwater Fish." Dissertation Abs.,
36, 76-11, 259 (1976).
44. Pyle, E. A. "Neutralizing Chlorine in City Water for Use in Fish-
Distribution Tanks." Progressive Fish Culturist, 22, 30
(1960).
45. Seegert, G. L., et al. "The Effects of a 30-Minute Exposure of
Selected Lake Michigan Fishes and Invertebrates to Residual
Chlorine." In "Technology and Ecological Effects of Biofouling
Control Procedures at Thermal Power Plant Cooling Water Systems
(Loren D. Jensen, editor)." Proceedings of a Workshop held at
the Johns Hopkins University, June 16-17, 1975. Ecological
Analysts, Inc., Wantagh, New York (1976).
46. Ward, R. W., et al. "Disinfection Efficiency and Residual Toxicity
of Several Wastewater Disinfectants. Vol. I - Grandville,
Michigan." Ecological Research Series, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio (1976).
47. Adams, B. A. "The Lethal Effect of Various Chemicals on Cyclops and
Daphnia." Water and Waste Eng., 29, 36 (1927).
48. Brungs, W. A. "Effects of Residual Chlorine on Aquatic Life."
Jour. Water Poll. Control Fed., 45, 2180 (1973).
49. Bringman, G. and R. Kunh. "The Toxic Effects of Waste Water on
Aquatic Bacteria, Algae, and Small Crustaceans." Gesundh.
Ingr. (Ger.), 80, 115 (1959).
18
-------
50. Buchman, W. "Chironomus Control in Bathing Establishments, Swimming
Pools, and Water Supplies by Means of Chlorine and Copper."
Jour. Amer. Water Works Assn., 25, 1317 (1933).
51. Beeton, A. M., et al. "Effects of Residual Chlorine and Sulfitp
Reduction on Lake Michigan Invertebrates." Kl'A-6()()/3-76-0:)6 ,
Kcological Research Series, U.S. Knvirorimcnt.ii] Protection
Agency, Duluth, Minnesota (1976).
52. Mathews, R. C., et al. "Mortality Curves of Blind Cabe Crayfish
(Orconectes australis australis) Exposed to Chlorinated Stream
Water."Hydrobiol^gTa (Den.), 53, 107 (1977).
53. Collins, J. S. "Some Experiences with Nais and Nematodes in the
Public Water Supply of Norwich." Proc. Soc. Water Trt. Exam.,
7, 157 (1958).
54. Dickson, K. L., et al. "Effects of Intermittently Chlorinated
Cooling Tower Blowdown on Fish and Invertebrates." Environ.
Sci. & Technol., 8, 845 (1974).
55. Roberts, M. H., et al. "Acute Toxicity of Chlorine to Selected
Estuarine Species." Jour. Fish Res. Bd. Can., 32, 2525 (1975).
56. Gregg, B. C. "The Effects of Chlorine and Heat on Selected Stream
Invertebrates." Ph.D. Thesis, Virginia Polytechnic Inst. and
State Univ., Blacksburg (1974).
57. Gentile, J. H., et al. "Power Plants, Chlorine, and Estuaries."
EPA-600/3-76-055, Environmental Research Laboratories, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Narragansett, Rhode Island
(1976).
58. Goldman, J. C. and J. H. Ryther. "Combined Toxicity Effects of
Chlorine, Ammonia, and Temperature on Marine Plankton." ERDA
Research Progress Report (1976).
59. Grossnickle, N. E. "The Acute Toxicity of Residual Chloramine to
Rotifer Keratella cochlearis (Gosse) and the Effect of
Dechlorination with Sodium Sulfite." M.S. Thesis, University
of Wisconsin, Milwaukee (1974).
60. Hart, K. M. "Living Organisms in Public Water Mains." Jour. Inst.
Munic. Engr., 83, 324 (1957).
61. Holland, G. J. "The Eradication of Asellus aquaticus from Water
Supply Mains." Jour. Inst. Water Eng., 10, 221 (1956).
62. Latimer, D. L. "The Toxicity of 30-Minute Exposures of Residual
Chlorine to the Copepods Limnocalanus macrurus and Cyclops
bicuspidatus thomasi." Ph.D. Thesis, University of Wisconsin,
Milwaukee (1975).
19
-------
63. Latimer, D. L. , et al. "Toxicity of 30-Minute Exposures to the
Copepods Limnocalanus macrurus and Cyclops bicupidatus
thomasi." Jour. Fish. Res. Bd. Can., 32, 2495 (1975).
64. Learner, M. A. and R. W. Edwards. "The Toxicity of Some Substances
to Nais (Oligochaeta)." Proc. Soc. Water Trt. Exam., 12, 161
(1963).
65. McLean, R. I. "Chlorine and Temperature Stress on Estuarine Inverte-
brates." Jour. Water Poll. Control Fed., 45, 837 (1973).
66. Mattice, J. S. and H. E. Zittel. "Site-Specific Evaluation of Power
Plant Chlorination." Jour. Water Poll. Control Fed., 48, 2284
(1976).
67. Opresko, D. M. "The Effects of Chlorine on Aquatic Organisms."
Ecological Sciences Information Center, Oak Ridge National
Laboratory, Oak Ridge, Tennessee (In press).
68. Spehar, R. L., et al. "Effects of Pollution on Freshwater Fish."
Jour. Water Poll. Control Fed., 51, 1616 (1979).
69. Brooks, A. S. and G. L. Seegert. "The Toxicity of Chlorine to
Freshwater Organisms under Varying Environmental Conditions."
Proceedings of the Conference on the Environmental Impact of
Water Chlorination at Oak Ridge, Tennessee, October
22-24, 1975, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge (1976).
70. Brungs, W. A. "Effects of Wastewater and Cooling Water Chlorination
on Aquatic Life." EPA 600/3-76-098, Environmental Research
Laboratory, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Duluth,
Minnesota (1976).
71. Brungs, W. A., et. al. "Effects of Pollution on Freshwater Fish."
Jour. Water Poll. Control Fed., 50, 1582 (1978).
72. Brungs, W. A., et al. "Effects of Pollution on Freshwater Fish."
Jour. Water~Poll. Control Fed., 49, 1425 (1978).
73. Buikema, A. L., Jr. and E. F. Benfield. "Effects of Pollution on
Freshwater Invertebrates." Jour. Water Poll. Control Fed., 51,
1708 (1979).
74. Mattice, J. S. "A Method for Estimating the Toxicity of Chlorinated
Discharges." Presented at a Workshop on Impact of Power Plants
on Aquatic Systems, at Pacific Grove, California, September 28
(1975).
75. Mattice, J. S. "Assessing Toxic Effects of Chlorinated Effluents on
Aquatic Organisms. A Predictive Tool." In "The Environmental
Impact of Water ChLorination" (R. L. Jolley, editor),
Proceedings of the Conference on the Environmental Impact of
Water Chlorination, at Oak Ridge, Tennessee, October 22-24,
1975, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge (1976).
20
-------
76. Mattice, J. S. "Power Plant Discharges: Toward More Reasonable
Effluent Limits on Chlorine." Nuclear Safety, 18, 802 (1977).
77. Barr, W. C. Personal communication (1979).
78. Grossman, J. S., et al. "Synoptic Catalog of Algae and Aquatic
Invertebrates for the Tennessee Valley." TVA Report, Division
of Environmental Planning, Muscle Shoals, Alabama (1977).
79. Plumb, R. H., Jr., L. L. Simmons, and M. Collins. "Assessment of
Intermittently Chlorinated Discharges Using Chlorine
Half-Life." In "Water Chlorination Environmental Impact and
Health Effects." (R. L. Jolley, editor). Volume 3.
Ann Arbor Sciences Publishers, Ann Arbor, Michigan.
pp. 435-443 (1980).
80. Turner, A. and T. A. Thayer. "Chlorine Toxicity in Freshwater
Ecosystems." In "Water Chlorination Environmental Impact and
Health Effects" (R. L. Jolley, editor). Ann Arbor Sciences
Publishers, Ann Arbor, Michigan. pp. 607-630 (1980).
81. Seegert, G., R. B. Bogardus, and F. Horvath. "Review of the Mattice
and Zittel Paper Site-Specific Evaluation of Power Plant
Chlorination." Edison Electric Institute, Washington, D.C.
(1978).
82. Federal Register, 39 (196), pp. 36185-36207.
83. Personal communication with Ed Pace of John Sevier Steam Plant on
April 2, 1980.
84. Personal communication with Alex Ridings of Kingston Steam Plant on
April 2, 1980.
21
-------
TABLE 1. EFFECTS OF CHLORINE ON FISH SPECIES PRESENT WITHIN THE TVA WATERSHED
I). !..
I'ollii
1
T
3
;
.;
6
7
8
9
ID
11
12
13
JK unnfic Name
IV;^.-. -..v^Le
K IK'". ro:'on castaneus
1', :\d, ..:id.ie
IVi\ i j .:. s:\ahula
1 -'.sis! 1 1 > ^
1 cpi-i. s-.c.is , .i.l.aus
1 •-", -Ax" - X 'X> IS
1 sj~isv sis. is rl..tusti.:;ius
\ .1.. C. ....
AIV^ -^:
\K.S.. u-.. \soj.i. ,.s
IV ,- • . ,. ..:,. ,".,u
n. r,_s, •••:>-. -.•>:
UK J, . ..K
1 IM i • " - '^is
I inbac../ ~"
I n.bra li.;u
1 SOCiJ..s
1 so\ \cr.Viiculatas
1 .ss,\ nrcr
( \ prinKiuC
Cuinpobii ..1.1 aiioniahim
No; jr.sii
Nut uwn
Carassuis .-.iir.iius
C.irjssKis juratus
Car..ssi.!s . i.r.itus
C.ir.issK.s .,.:;_;us
Carassi.is .;..:.r,us
Carassiiis a'.iratus
C.irassijs jiiraius
Carass'ms aviratus
Carassi.is juratus
dr^ssus ^..r..nis
C\l-,u...s c..r,^n
Dcscri|itive Name
Chestnut lamprey
I'addlefish
Spotted par
LO11..HOSC (-.tir
Shoitno.sc gar
Bo\\iin
American eel
Skipjack hening
Gi/./aid shad
Threadfm sliad
Goldeje
Mooneye
Mudminnow
Grass pickerel
Chain pickerel
Stoncroller
Goldfish
Goldfish
Goldfish
Goldfish
Goldfish
Goldfish
Goldfish
Goldfish
Goldfish
Goldfish
Goldfish
Goldfish
Carp
Life Stage Concentration
(If not adult) (my/1)
062
1.0
1.0
0.3
0.49
0.38
0.35
0.35
0.153-0.210
0.27
0.44-15.85
1.18
1.0
1.6
1.85
Exposure
Type
Continuous
Intermittent
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Intermittent
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Intermittent
Intermittent Test
Pulses Duration
Characteristics (min.)
10
1 pulse of 60 min. 1,440
480
1,440
1,440
2,880
4,320
5,760
5,760
1,440
1-8 pulses of 15480 1,440
min.
5,760
5,760
240
4 pulses of 40 min. at 4,32(1
5 hr. intervals
Temperature
( C) Fffect
Some moitality
100%, mortality
Some mortality
100% mortality
20-22.5 50% mortality
20-22.5 50%. mortality
20-22.5 50% mortality
20-22.5 50%. mortality
25 50% mortality
50% mortality
50% mortality
50% mortality
100% mortality
100% mortality
10 0%. moitality
Reference
Number
1
2
3
4
5
5
5
5
6
7,8
8
9
10
11
12
(continued)
-------
TABLE 1. (continued)
Data
Point Scientific Name
Cyprinus carpio
14 Cyprinus carpio
Cyprinus carpio
Cyprinus carpio
15 Cyprinus carpio
Cyprinus carpio
Cyprinus caipio
C> putuis carpio
C> primis carpio
( ypiinus caipio
-
Cyprinus cat pio
Cyprinus carpio
Cyprinus carpio
Cyprinus caipio
Cyprinus caipio
Cvpnnus carpio
Cyprinus carpio
Cyprinus carpio
Cyprinus carpio
Cyprinus carpio
Cyprinus carpio
Life Stage Concentration
Descriptive Name (If not adult) (nm/D
Carp
Carp
Carp
Carp
Carp
Carp
Carp
Carp
Carp
Carp
Caip
Carp
Carp
Carp
Carp
Carp
Carp
Carp
Carp
Carp
Carp
Juvenile
Juvenile
Juvenile
Juvenile
Jmenile
Juvenile
Juvenile
Juvenile
Juvenile
Juvenile
Juvenile
Juvenile
Juvenile
1.25
0.72
1.72
0.2
0.800
2.37
1.82
1.50
0.403b
0.278b
0.219b
0.5 3 8b
0.2 19b
0.400b
0.219b
0.331b
0.283b
0.245b
0.219b
1.72b
1.60b
Exposure
Type
Intermittent
Continuous
Intermittent
Intermittent
Continuous
Intermittent
Intermittent
Intermittent
Intermittent
Intermittent
Intermittent
Intermittent
Intermittent
Intermittent
Intermittent
Intermittent
Intermittent
Intermittent
Intermittent
Intermittent
Intermittent
Intermittent Test
Pulses Duration
Characteristics (min.)
4 pulses of 40 min. at
5 hr. inteivals
3 pulses daily of 200
min.
3 pulses daily of 200
min.
4 pulses of 40 min. at
5 hr. intervals
4 pulses of 40 min. at
5 hr. intervals
4 pulses of 40 min. at
5 hr. intervals
3 pulses daily of 200
min.
3 pulses daily of 200
min.
3 pulses daily of 200
mill.
3 pulses daily of 200
min.
3 pulses daily of 200
min.
3 pulses daily of 200
min.
3 pulses dail> of 200
min.
3 pulses daily of 200
min.
3 pulses daily of 200
min.
3 pulses daily of 200
min.
3 pulses daily of 200
min.
3 pulses daily of 200
min.
3 pulses daily of 200
min.
4,320
65
5,760
5,760
2,880
4,320
4,320
4,320
1,440
2,880
4,320
5,760
5,760
7,200
7,200
8,640
9,120
9,960
9,960
5,760
7,200
Temperature Reference
( C) Effect Number
30
12
10
20
30
24
24
24
6
24
6
24
6
6
6
24
6
6
0% mortality
Some mortality
50% mortality
50% mortality
50% mortality
50% mortality
50% mortality
50% mortality
50% mortality
50% mortality
50% mortality
50% mortality
50% mortality
50% mortality
50%' mortality
50%. mortality
50% mortality
50% mortality
50% mortality
50% mortality
50%. mortality
12
1
13
13
9
12,14
12,14
12,14
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
(continued)
-------
TABLE 1. (continued)
Data
Point Scientific Name
C> pnnus cojpio
C'yprinus carpio
CNprmus carpio
C'i pnnus caipki
<"jp,i,,U-Ca',,o
( \ primis i. at ,MI I
II', bopsis di-.su,'.,li:s
1 Ij bopsis aniblops
l!\ bopsis stolen., i,a
Nocot.'is n.Kirfi . i>:i
Nutcm uonus ci\s<, auas
Notcnn.'onus cr\-o ^u^as
Notcini'^onus en v> eucas
Notcmi;:onus LF\ so ciicas
Hi Notcnikionus cr\so cucas
17 Notemuionus cr\ so cucas
Notemijonus cr\ so eucas
NotemL'onus crj soleucas
Kotemi'jonus cr\'soleucas
Notemkionus cr> soleucas
Noteini'jonus cr\ soleucas
N'otcmi^onus crj splciicos
Notemuionus en solcucas
NotcmuKmus cri soleucas
Notentit'onus cr\ solcucas
Descriptive Name
Carp
Carp
Carp
Carp
Carp
Carp
Sticainlme chub
Bi_c\ e cluib
Siher Jtub
Rncr chub
Golden shmer
Golden sinner
Golden shiner
Golden shiner
Golden shiner
Golden shiner
Golden shiner
Golden shiner
Golden shiner
Golden shiner
Golden shiner
Golden shiner
Golden shiner
Golden shiner
Golden shiner
Life Sta^e Concentration
(If not adult) (in.u/1)
Juvenile
Juvenile
Juvenile
Juvenile
Juvenile
Juvenile
Juvenile
Juvenile
Juvenile
Juvenile
Juvenile
Juvenile
Juvenile
Juvenile
Juvenile
1.40b
1.19b
0.70
3.24
2.38
1.96
0.84
0.257
0.162
0.177
0.040
0.2
0.84b
0.26b
0.55b
0.22b
0.39b
0.21b
0.27b
0.19b
0.21b
F,\posure
Type
IntcrmittJiit
Intermittent
Intermittent
Intermittent
Intermittent
Intermittent
Intermittent
Intermittent
Intermittent
Intermittent
Continuous
Continuous
Intermittent
Intermittent
Intermittent
Intermittent
Intermittent
Intermittent
Intermittent
Intermittent
Intermittent
Intermittent Test
Pulses Duration
Characteristics (min.)
3 pulses dail> of 200
mm.
3 pulses dailj of 200
min.
3 pulses daily of 200
min.
4 pulses of 40 min. at
5 hr. intervals
4 pulses of 40 min. at
5 hr intervals
4 pulses of 40 min. at
5 hr. inteivals
3 pulses of 200 min.
3 pulses of 200 min.
3 pulses of 200 min.
3 pulses of 200 min.
3 pulses daily of 200
min.
3 pulses daily of 200
min
3 pulses daily of 200
min.
3 pulses daily of 200
min.
3 pulses daily of 200
min.
3 pulses daily of 200
min.
3 pulses daily of 200
min.
3 pulses daily of 200
mm.
3 pulses daily of 200
mm.
8,640
9,960
6,000
4,320
4,320
4,320
1,800
1,800
10,080
10,080
5,760
5,760
1,800
1,800
2,880
2,880
4,320
4,320
5,760
5,760
7,200
Temperature Reference
( C) Effect Number
6
6
10
20
30
5
24
5
24
25
25
5
24
5
24
5
24
5
24
5
50% mortality
50% mortality
80%, mortality
100%, mortality
100% mortality
100%; moitality
50% mortality
50%, mortality
50% mortality
50% mortality
50%, mortality
50%, mortality
50%, mortality
50% mortality
50%, mortality
50% mortality
50%, mortality
50%) mortality
50%, mortality
509o mortality
50% mortality
15
15
16
12
12
12
15
15
15
15
6
17
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
(continued)
-------
TABLE 1. (continued)
Point
Scientific Name
Noteniigoiius crysolcucas
Notcmigonus crysoleucas
No tern bonus crysoleucas
No (cm bonus crysoleuc.is
Notcmigonus crj solcucas
Nil teni bonus crysoleucas
Notenibonus crysolcucas
Noteniigoiius ciysolcuc.is
NuteniboiHis t lysoluuuis
No leimu onus crvsoleuuis
Notcmigonus crysolcucas
No tern igo mis cr> soleucas
Nolcmigoiius ciysoleucas
Not cm bonus crysolcucas
Notemigonus crysoleucas
Notemigonus crysoleucas
Notemigonus crysoleucas
. N.qtemjsiorujs cry soleucas
^Notcmigonus crvsoleucas
Notembonus crysoleucas
Descriptive Name
Golden shiner
Golden shiner
Golden shiner
Golden shiner
Golden shiner
Golden shiner
Golden shiner
Golden shiner
Golden shiner
Golden shiner
Golden shiner
Golden shiner
Golden shiner
Golden shiner
Golden shiner
Golden shiner
Golden shiner
Golden shiner
Golden shiner
Golden shiner
Life Stage Concentration
(If not adult) (mg/1)
Juvem'le
Juvenile
Juvenile
Juvenile
Juvenile
Juvenile
Juvenile
Juvenile
Juvenile
Juvenile
J uvenile
Juvenile
Juvenile
Juvenile
J uvenile
Juvenile
Juvenile
Juvenile
Juvenile
Juvenile
0.1 8b
0.1 8b
0.1 8b
0.99b
1.09b
0.72b
0.93b
0.6 7b
0.92b
0.64b
0.92b
0.84b
0.257b
0.550b
0.222b
0.502b
0.2 12b
0.3 88b
0.212b
0.269b
Exposure
Type
Intermittent
Intermittent
Intermittent
Intermittent
Intermittent
Intermittent
Intermittent
Intermittent
Intermittent
Intermittent
Intermittent
Intermittent
Intermittent
Intermittent
Intermittent
Intermittent
Intermittent
Intermittent
Intermittent
Intermittent
Intermittent Test
Pulses Duration
Characteristics (min.)
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
pulses daily of 200
min.
pulses daily of 200
min.
pulses daily of 200
min.
pulses daily of 200
min.
pulses daily of 200
min.
pulses daily of 200
min.
pulses daily of 200
min.
pulses daily of 200
min.
pulses daily of 200
min.
pulses daily of 200
min.
pulses daily of 200
min.
pulses daily of 200
min.
pulses daily of 200
min.
pulses daily of 200
min.
pulses daily of 200
min.
pulses daily of 200
min.
pulses daily of 200
min.
pulses daily of 200
min.
pulses daily of 200
min.
3 pulses daily of 200
min.
7,200
8,640
8,640
2,880
2,880
5,760
5,760
7,200
7,200
8,640
8,640
1,800
1,800
2,880
2,880
3,360
3,360
4,320
4,320
5,760
Temperature Reference
( C) Effect Number
24
5
24
5
24
5
24
5
24
5
24
5
24
5
24
5
24
5
24
5
50%
50%
50%
50%
50%
50',;
50%
50%
50',;
50%.
50%.
50%
50%
50%
50%
50%
50%
50%
50%
50%
mortality
mortality
mortality
mortality
mortality
mortality
mortality
mortality
mortality
mortality
mortality
mortality
mortality
mortality
mortality
mortality
mortality
mortality
mortality
mortality
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
(continued)
-------
TABLE !. (continued)
Data
Point
Scientific Name
Descriptive Name
Life Stage
(If not adult)
Concentration F.xposurc
(mg/l) Type
Intermittent
Pulses
Characteristics
lest
Duration Temperature
Reference
Number
18
Notcmi.gonus crysolcucas
Notcimgonus crvspleiic_as_
Notemigonus crysoK'iicas
Notcmkonus crysolcucas
Notcmigoruis crysoleucas
Notemigonus crysoleucas
Notemigonus crysoleucas
Noteinigonus crysoleucas
N_i1i£i11!;;9r!Es cr> solcucas
Notciniyomi-. en soleucas
Noteinigonus en soleucas
N°J^l'li=i'JLLs crysolcucas
Notemkonus cr> soleucas
Notcmigonns en soleucas
Notcmigonus cry soleucas
NoteniKonus ci> soleucas
Noteinigonus cr\ soleucas
Nojernuionus crysolcucas
Notcnii"omis crysolcucas
Notcmisomis cry soleucas
Golden shiner Juvenile 0.193 Intermittent
Golden shiner Juvenile 0.205 Intermittent
Golden shiner Juvenile 0.182 Intermittent
Golden shiner Juvenile 0.181 Intermittent
Golden shiner Juvenile 0.177 Intermittent
Golden shiner Juvenile 0.162 Intermittent
Golden shiner Juvenile 0.177 Intermittent
Golden shiner Juvenile 0.993 Intermittent
Golden shiner Juvenile 1.094 Intermittent
Golden shiner Juvenile 0.871 Intermittent
Golden shiner Juvenile 0979' Intermittent
Golden shiner Juvenile 0.724 ' Intermittent
Golden shiner Juvenile 0.930 Intermittent
Golden shiner Juvenile 0.763 Intermittent
Golden shiner Juvenile 0.921 ' Intermittent
Golden shinet Jvwem'le 0.644 Intermittent
Golden shiner Juvenile 0.921 Intermittent
Golden shiner Juvenile 0.533 Intermittent
Golden sliiner Juvenile 0.921 Intermittent
Golden shiner >3,000 Continuous
(continued)
3 pulses daily of 200
min.
3 pulses daily of 200
ruin.
3 pulses daily of 200
min.
3 pulses daily of 200
min.
3 pulses daily of 200
min.
3 pulses daily of 200
min.
3 pulses daily of 200
min.
3 pulses daily of 200
min.
3 pulses daily of 200
min.
3 pulses daily of 200
min.
3 pulses daily of 200
min.
3 pulses daily of 200
min.
3 pulses daily of 200
min.
3 pulses daily of 200
min.
3 pulses daily of 200
min.
3 pulses daily of 200
min.
3 pulses daily of 200
min.
3 pulses daily of 200
min.
3 pulses daily of 200
min.
5,760
7,200
7,200
8,640
8,640
10,080
10,080
2,880
2,880
4,320
4,320
5,760
5,760
7,200
7,200
8,640
8,640
10,080
10,080
0.17
24
5
24
5
24
5
24
5
24
5
24
5
24
5
24
5
24
5
24
50"' mortality
507; mortality
50r' mortality
50',"" mortality
50'? mortality
507; mortality
50% mortality
50'; mortality
50',' mortality
50',' mortality
50'; mortality
50',;, mortality
50'7 mortality
SO',', m<>it ilily
50'^ mortality
50'V uiorUililv
50','r mortality
50'; moi tality
50'; mortalil}
Death
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
IS
15
I s
!<;
1 i
1 i
15
15
15
15
19
-------
TABLE 1. (continued)
Data
Point Scientific Name
19 Notcminonus crysoleucas
Notropis anlcns
Notropis athcrinoidcs
Notropis atherinoidcs
Life Stage Concentration
Descriptive Name (If not adult) (nic/1)
Golden shiner
Roscfin shiner
Emerald shiner
Emerald shiner
0.8
0.46
0.40
Exposure
Type
Continuous
Intermittent
Intermittent
Intermittent Test
Pulses Duration Temperature
Characteristics (min.) ( C) I
4
pulses of 40 min. at
5 hr. intervals
4 pulses of 40 min. at
4.
4,
240
320
320
10
20
100:;
Reference
•"ffcct Number
• mortality
O^r mortality
Orr mortality
11
12
12
5 lir. intervals
Notropis athcrinoidcs
Emerald shiner
0.21
Intermittent
4
pulses of 40 min. at
4,
320
30
0~ mortality
12
5 hr. intervals
Notropis athcrinoidcs
Emerald shiner
0.63
Intermittent
4
pulses of 40 min. at
4.
320
10
50rr
mortality
12.14
5 hr. intervals
Notropis athcrinoides
Emerald shiner
0.51
Intermittent
4
pulses of 40 min. at
4,
320
20
50^r
mortality
12.14
~~ ' 5 hr. intervals
Notropis athcrinoides
Notropis atherinoidcs
Notropis athcrinoides
Notropis athcrinoidcs
Notropis atlicrinoides
Notropis bnchanani
Notropis coccogcnis
Notropis galacturus
Notropis Icuciodus
Notropis pliotogcnis
20 Notropis ruhcllus
21 Notropis rubcllus
Notropis spiloptcrus
Notropis spiloptcrus
Notropis spiloptcrus
Notropis spiloptcrus
Notropis spiloptcrus
Notropis spiloptcrus
Emerald shiner
Emerald shiner Juvenile
Emerald shiner Juvenile
Emcrnld shiner
Emerald shiner
Ghost shiner
Warpaint shiner
Whitctail shiner
Tennessee shiner
Silvcrshiner
Rosy face shiner
Rosyface shiner
Spotfin shiner
Spotfin shiner
Spotfin shiner
Spotfin shiner
Spotfin shiner
Spotfin shiner
0.35
1.4
0.3
0.85
0.28
0.97
0.59
0.07
0.7
0.52
0.45
0.65
0.59
0.41
0.90
Intermittent
Intermittent
Intermittent
Intermittent
Intermittent
Intermittent
Intermittent
Continuous
Continuous
intermittent
Intermittent
Intermittent
Intermittent
Intermittent
Intermittent
4
1
1
1
1
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
pulses of 40 min. at
5 hr. intervals
pulse of 30 min.
pulse of 30 min.
pulse of 30 min.
pulse of 30 min.
pulses of 40 min. at
5 hr. intervals
pulses of 40 min. at
5 hr. intervals
pulses of 40 min. at
5 hr. intervals
pulses of 40 min. at
5 hr. intervals
pulses of 40 min. at
5 hr. intervals
pulses of 40 min. at
5 hr. intervals
pulses of 40 min. at
5 hr. intervals
pulses of 40 min. at
5 hr. intervals
4,
2,
2.
2.
2.
,320
,880
,880
,880
,880
4,320
4.320
1
4
4
4
4
4
4
.180
79
.320
,320
,320
,320
,320
.320
30
10
25
10
25
10
30
10
20
10
20
30
10
50'"^
50^
50C:
50'T
50 ;
100'
100'
100'
100'
mortality
mortality
mortality
mortality
mort.iliU
' mort,'lil>
',' mort.ilit;
mort ili'y
mortality
0 ' mortality
0" mortality
507;
sor;
so:;
100'
mortality
mortality
mortality
c mortality
12.14
21)
11
t 2
12
-
*)
12
12
12.14
12.11
12,14
12
(continued)
-------
TABLE 1. (continued)
Data
Point
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
Scientific Name
Notropis spilopterus
Notropis spilopterus
Notropis volucellus
Notropis whippcli
Notropis chrysocepholus
Notropis telescopus
Opsopocodus emiliae
Phcnacobius mirabilis
Phenacobius uranops
Pimcphales notatus
Pimcphalcs promelas
Pimephalcs promelas
Pimephalcs promclas
Pimephalcs promelas
Pimcphalcs promclas
Pimephales promelas
Pimepjialcs promelas
Pimephalcs promelas
Pimcphales promelas
Pimephalcs promclas
Pimcphalcs promclas
Pimcphalcs promelas
Pimcphalcs promclas
Pimcphales promclas
Pimcphalcs promelas
Pimephales promelas
Pimcphales promclas
Pimephalcs pranelas
Pimcphales promclas
Pimcphales promelas
Pimephalcs promelas
Pimcphalcs promelas
Pimcphalcs pjomelas
Pimcphalcs promclas
Pimephalcs promclas
Pimcphalcs promclas
Pimephales promelas
Life Stage
Descriptive Name (If not adult)
Spotfin shiner
Spotfin shiner
Mimic shiner
Steclcolor shiner
Striped shiner
Telescope shiner
Pugnose minnow
Suckermouth minnow
Stargazing minnow
Bluntnose minnow
Fathead minnow
Fathead minnnow Larvae
Fathead minnow
Fathead minnow
7athcad minnow
?athead minnow
•athcad minnow
''athcad minnow
•'athcad minnow
7athcad minnow
Tathcad minnow
7athcad minnow
athead minnow
Fathead minnow^
Fathead minnow
Fathead minnow
Fathead minnow
Fathead minnow
Fathead minnow
Fathead minnow
Fathead minnow
''athcad minnow
"athcad minnow
"athcad minnow
7athcad minnow
athcad minnow
"athead minnow
Concentration
(mg/1)
0.75
0.54
0.045
0.7
0.033-0.034
0.108
0.085
0.043
0.110
0.110
0.0165
0.05
0.086-0.130
0.082-0.095
0.08-0.19
0.082-0.115
0.05-0.16
0.02
0.185
>0.79
0.26
0.998
0.504
0.113
0.512
0.116
0.306
0.318
0.241
0.224
0.359
Exposure
Type
Intermittent
Intermittent
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Intermittent Test
Pulses Duration Temperature Reference
Characteristics (min.) ( C) Effect Number
4 pulses of 40 min. at 4,320 20
5 hr. intervals
4 pulses of 40 min. at 4,320 30
5 hr. intervals
5,760 25
61
NG
43,200
NG
10,800
433.440
100.800
211,680
5,760
5.760
7,200 25
7.200
10,080
5,760
7,200
720
60
720
5,760 12
66
840
84
3.390
216
156
126
180
78
100% mortality
100% mortality
50% mortality
100% mortality
Retarded grouth
687? reduced growth
•»
Reduced spawning
507" decreased
spawning
No spawning
Na
o ^.pavvnin^
Safe concentration
'1 lircsholcl mortalih
507? mortality
507? mortality'1
50% mortality
507? mortality
50% mortaltiy 26
50',? mortality
50% mortality11
507?' mortality
507? mortality
50',! mortality3
50% mortality"
50% mortality'1
50% mortality3
50% mortality'
50% mortality3
50% mortality'1
50% mortality3
50% mortality3
50% mortality'1
12
6
2
6
22
22
22
24
24
22
26
24
6
I'-,
2^
27
28
21
2s
25
0
29
29
29
29
20
29
29
29
29
(continued)
-------
TABLE 1. (continued)
Data
Point
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
Scientific Name
Pimcphales promelas
Pimcphales promclas
Pimephales promclas
Pimephales promelas
Pimephales promelas
Pimephales promelas
Pimephales pjomclas
Pimcpliales promclas
Pimcphales promclas
Pimephales promclas
Pimephales promclas
Pimephales promelas
Pimcphales promclas
Pimephales promelas
Rhinichthycs atratulus
Rhinichthyes atratulus
Rhinichthyes atratulus
Rhinichthycs atratulus
Rhinichthyes atratulus
Rhinichthyes atratulus
Rhinichthyes atratulus
Rhinichthyes atratulus
Rhinichthycs atralulus
Rhinichthycs atratulus
Calostomidac
Carpiodcs carpjo
Cjirjnodcs cyprinus
Carpiodes velifcr
Catostomus commcrsoni
Catostomus commcrsoni
Catostomus commersoni
Catostomus commcrsoni
Catostomus commcrsoni
Catostomus commcrsoni
Catostomus commcrsoni
Life Stage
Descriptive Name (If not adult)
Fathead minnow
Fathead minnow
Fathead minnow
Fathead minnow
Fathead minnow
Fathead minnow
Fathead minnow
Fathead minnow
Fathead minnow
Fathead minnow
Fathead minnow
Fathead minnow
Fathead minnow
Fathead minnow Larvae
Blacknose dace
Blacknose dace
Blacknose dace
Blacknose dace
Blacknose dace
Blacknose dace
Blacknose dace
Blacknose dace
Blacknose dace
Blacknose dace
River carpsucker
Quillback carpsucker
Highfin carpsucker
White sucker
White sucker
White sucker
White sucker
White sucker
White sucker
White sucker
Concentration
(mg/l)
0.332
0.262
0.315
0.233
0.268
0.185
0.195
0.239
0.239
0.268
0.246
0.166
0.166
0.108
0.74
0.15
6.6
0.15
5.25
0.19
1.35
0.74
0.15
6.6
0.24
0.379
0.132
0.248
1.09
0.73
0.36
Exposure
Type
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Intermittent
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Intermittent
Intermittent
Intermittent
Intermittent Test
Pulses Duration Temperature Reference
Characteristics (min.) ( C) Effect Number
90
222
162
258
222
126
126
402
372
222
258
210
240
43,200
15
360
17
684
1 1
1,148
40
60
720
8
4 pulses of 40 min. at 4,320 27
5 hr. intervals
5,760 12
10,080
720
4 pulses of 40 min. at 4,320 10
5 hr. intervals
4 pulses of 40 min. at 4,3 20 20
5 hr. intervals
4 pulses of 40 min. at 4,320 27
5 hr. intervals
50% mortality3
50% mortality3
50% mortality3
50% mortality3
50% mortality3
50% mortality3
50% mortality3
50% mortality3
50% mortality3
50% mortality3
50% mortality3
50% mortality3
50% mortality
60% mortality
4% mortality
10% mortality
50% mortality
50% mortality
50%' mortality
50% mortality
65% mort.ilit)
72% mortaliu
83% mortality
100% mortality
O''' mortality
50% mortality
50% mortality
50% mortality
50% mortality
50% mortalitj
50% mortality
29
29
29
29
29
29
29
29
29
29
29
29
29
22
30
30
1 "I
23
21
23
30
30
30
30
12
9
25
24
12
12
12
(continued)
-------
TABLE 1. (continued)
Data
Point
75
76
77
78
79
O
80
81
82
83
84
85
Scientific Name
Catostomus commersoni
Catostomus commersoni
Catostomus commersoni
Catostomus commersoni
Catostomus conimcrsoni
Catostomus commersoni
Catostomus commersoni
HypentcUum nicricans
Ictiobus bubalus
Ictiobus cyprinellus
Ictiobus nicer
Minytreina mclanops
Moxosloma anisunim
Moxostoma macrolepidotum
Moxostoma carin.itum
Moxostoma dmuic"md_
Moxostoma en, tlmirum
Ictaiuridae
Ictalurus furcatus
Ictalurus niclas
Ictalurus melas
Ictalurus melas
Ictalurus melas
Ictalurus natalis
Ictalurus iiebiilpsiis
Ictalurus punctatus
Ictalurus punctatus
Ictalurus punctatus
Ictalurus punctatus
Ictalurus punctatus
Ictalurus punctatus
Ictalurus punctatus
Ictalurus punctatus
Life Stage Concentration
Descriptive Name (If not adult) (mg/1)
White sucker
White sucker
\\Viite suckei
White sucker
White sucker
White sucker
White sucker
Not them hogsucker
Smallmouth buffalo
Bigmouth buffalo
Black buffalo
Spotted sucker
Sihcr rcdhorse
Short head rcdhorse
River rcdhorse
Black rcdhorse
Golden redhorse
Blue catfish
Black bullhead
Black bullhead
Black bullhead
Black bullhead
Yellow bullhead
Brown bullhead
Channel catfish
Cliannd catfish
Channel catfish
Channel catfish
Channel catfish
Channel catfish
Channel catfish
Channel catfish
>0.560
0.245
0.138
0.132
1.0
1.52
0.51
1.36
~4.5
0.099
1.41
0.49
0.53
0.78
0.65
0.67
0 156
0.09
1.1
F.xposure
Type
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Intermittent
Intermittent
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Intermittent
Intermittent
Intermittent
Intermittent
Intermittent
Continuous
Continuous
Intermittent
Intermittent
Pulses
Characteristics
4 pulses of 40 min.
5 hr. intervals
4 pulses of 40 min.
5 hr. intervals
4 pulses of 40 min.
5 hr. intervals
4 pulses of 40 min.
5 hr. intervals
4 pulses of 40 min.
5 hr. intervals
4 pulses of 40 min.
5 hr. intervals
4 pulses of 40 min.
5 hr. intervals
6 pulses of 20-30
min.
Test
Duration
(min.)
60
720
5,760
10,080
60
at 4,320
at 4,320
25
1,440
5,760
5,760
at 4,320
at 4,320
at 4,320
at 4,320
at 4,320
5,760
5.760
2,880
Temperature Reference
( C) Effect Number
16
16
16
16
10
27
12
20
30
10
20
30
50?r mortality
50?' mortality
50?f mortality
50?fc mortality
1007r mortality
100?; mortality
1007 mortality
Some mortality
50',? mortality
507r mortality
50" mortality
0',' mortality
0'; mortality
50?; mortality
50?; mortality
50" mortality
50?? mortality
50r; mortality
50?; mortality
24
24
24
24
31
12
12
1
11
;s
0
12
i:
12
12
12
9
32
33
(continued)
-------
TABLE 1. (continued)
Data
Point
Scientific Name
Descriptive Name
Life Stage
(If not adult)
Concentration Exposure
(ing/1) Type
Intermittent
Pulses
Characteristics
Test
Duration
(min.)
Temperature
(V)
Effect
Reference
Number
86
87
Ictalurus punctatus
Ictalurus punctatus
Ictalurus punctatus
Ictalurus punctatus
Ictalurus punctatus
Ictalurus punctatus
Ictalurus punctatus
Ictalunis punctatus
Ictalurus punctatus
Ictalurus punctatus
Ictalurus punctatus
Iclalurus punctatus
Ictalunis punctatus
Ictalurus punctatus
Ictalurus punctatus
Ictalurus punctatus
flctaluruslacustris)
Ictalunis punctatus
(Ictalunis lacustris)
Ictalunis punctatus
(Ictalurus lacustris)
Ictalurus punctatus
(Ictalurus lacustris)
Channel catfish
Channel catfish
Channel catfish
Channel catfish
Channel catfish
Channel catfish
Channel catfish
Channel catfish
Channel catfish
Channel catfish
Channel catfish
Channel catfish
Channel catfish
Channel catfish
Channel catfish
Channel catfish
Channel catfish
Channel catfish
Channel catfish
Channel catfish
Channel catfish
Juvenile
Juvenile
Juvenile
Juvenile
Juvenile
Juvenile
Juvenile
Juvenile
Juvenile
Juvenile
Juvenile
Juvenile
Juvenile
Juvenile
Juvenile
Juvenile
Juvenile
Juvenile
Juvenile
0.082
0.064
0.20b
0.14U
0.12b
0.09b
0.08b
0.06b
0.05b
0.05b
0.45b
0.28b
0.33b
0.23b
0.26b
0.21b
0.25b
0.143b
0.200b
0.152b
0.120b
Continuous
Continuous
Intermittent
Intermittent
Intermittent
Intermittent
Intermittent
Intermittent
Intermittent
Intermittent
Intermittent
Intermittent
Intermittent
Intermittent
Intermittent
Intermittent
Intermittent
Intermittent
Intermittent
Intermittent
3 pulses daily of
200 min.
3 pulses daily of
200 min.
3 pulses daily of
200 min.
3 pulses daily of
200 min.
3 pulses daily of
200 min.
3 pulses daily of
200 min.
3 pulses daily of
200 min.
3 pulses daily of
200 min.
3 pulses daily of
200 min.
3 pulses daily of
200 min.
3 pulses daily of
200 min.
3 pulses daily of
200 mill.
3 pulses daily of
200 min.
3 pulses daily of
200 min.
3 pulses daily of
200 min.
3 pulses daily of
200 min.
3 pulses daily of
200 min.
3 pulses daily of
200 min.
3 pulses daily of
200 min.
5,760
5,760
2,880
2,880
4,320
4,320
5,760
5,760
7,200
7,200
2,880
4,320
4,320
5,760
5,760
7,200
7,200
1,800
2,800
3,360
4,320
5
24
5
24
5
24
5
24
24
6
24
6
24
6
24
24
5
5
5
50" mortality
50% mortality
50% mortality
50% mortality
50% mortality
50% mortality
50% mortality
50% mortality
50% mortality
50% mortality
50% mort.ilit}
50'" mortality
50% mortality
50'"'' mort.ilitx
50" morttli!>
50% mortality,
50% mortalit)
50%' mortality
50% mortality
50% mortality
50% mortality
6
6
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
IS
IS
is
IS
IS
IS
IS
18
15
15
15
15
(continued)
-------
TABLE 1. (continued)
Data
Point Scientific Name
Ictalurus punctatus
(Ictalurus lacustris)
Ictalurus punctatus
(Ictalurus lacustris)
Ictalurus punctatus
(Ictalurus lacustris)
Ictalunis punctatus
(Ictalurus lacustris)
Ictalurus punctatus
(Ictalunis lacustris)
Ictalurus punctatus
(Ictalurus lacustris)
Ictalurus punctatus
(Ictalurus lacustris)
Ictalurus gunctatus
(Ictalunis lacustris)
U> Ictalurus punctatus
^ (Ictalurus lacustris)
Ictalurus punctatus
(Ictalurus lacustris)
Ictalurus jumctatus
(Ictalurus lacustris)
Ictalurus punctatus
(Ictalurus lacustris)
Ictalurus jMinctatus
(Ictalurus lacustris)
Ictalunis punctate
(Ictalurus lacustris)
Ictalunis punctatus
(Ictalurus lacustris)
Ictalurus punctatus
(Ictalurus lacustris)
Ictalunis punctatus
(Ictalurus lacustris)
Ictalurus punctatus
(Ictalurus lacustris)
.l£l3ll!IiLS punctatus
(Ictalurus lacustris)
Ictalurus punctatus
(Ictalurus lacustris)
Descriptive Name
Channel catfish
Channel catfish
Channel catfish
Channel
Channel
Channel
catfish
catfish
catfish
Channel catfish
Channel
Channel
Channel
Channel
Channel
Channel
Channel
Channel
Channel
Channel
catfish
catfish
catfish
catfish
catfish
catfish
catfish
catfish
catfish
catfish
Channel catfish
Channel
catfish
Channel catfish
I ire Stage Concentration
(If not adult) (mg/l)
Juvenile
Juvenile
Juvenile
Juvenile
Juvenile
Juvenile
Juvenile
Juvenile
Juvenile
Juvenile
Juvenile
Juvenile
Juvenile
Juvenile
Juvenile
Jmcnilc
Juvenile
Juvenile
Juvenile
Juvenile
0.093b
0.082b
0.064b
0.050b
0.051b
0.033b
0.032b
0.033b
0.030b
0.025b
0.447b
0.328b
0.313b
0.275b
0.260b
0.234b
0.246b
0.213b
0.246b
0.208b
Exposure
Type
Intermittent
Intermittent
Intermittent
Intermittent
Intermittent
Intermittent
Intermittent
Intermittent
Intermittent
Intermittent
Intermittent
Intermittent
Intermittent
Intermittent
Intermittent
Intermittent
Intermittent
Intermittent
Intermittent
Intermittent
Intermittent
Pulses
Characteristics
3 pulses daily of
200 min.
3 pulses daily of
200 min.
3 pulses daily of
200 min.
3 pulses daily of
200 min.
3 pulses daily of
200 min.
3 pulses daily of
200 min.
3 pulses daily of
200 min.
3 pulses daily of
200 min.
3 pulses daily of
200 min.
3 pulses daily of
200 min.
3 pulses daily of
200 min.
3 pulses daily of
200 min.
3 pulses daily of
200 min.
3 pulses daily of
200 min.
3 pulses daily of
200 min.
3 pulses daily of
200 min.
3 pulses daily of
200 min.
3 pulses daily of
200 min.
3 pulses daily of
200 min.
3 pulses daily of
200 min.
Test
Duration
(min.)
4,320
5,760
5,760
7.200
7,200
8,640
8,640
9.120
9,120
10,080
2,880
4,320
4,800
5,760
5.760
7,200
7,200
8,640
8,640
10,080
Temperature
<°0
24
5
24
5
24
5
24
5
24
24
24
24
5
5
24
5
24
5
24
5
50%
Reference
l-ffcct Number
mortality
50% mortality
50% mortality
50%
50%
50%'
50',?
50%
50%
50%
50%
50',,'
50%
50%
50"
50%.
50%
50%
SO'/,
50%
mortality
mortality
mortality
mortality
mortality
mortality
mortality
mortality
mortality
mortality
mortality
mortality
mortality
mortality
mortality
mortality
mortality
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
1 '
15
15
15
15
15
(continued)
-------
TABLE 1. (continued)
Data
Point
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
Scientific Name
Ictalurus punctatus
(Ictalurus lacustris)
Noturus gynnus_
Pylodictis oliyaris_
Aphredoderidae
Aphrcdoderus sayanus
Cyprinodontidae
Fundulus catenatus
Fundulus nofatus
Fundulus olivaccus
Poeciliidae
Gambusia affinis
Gambusia affinis
Atherinidae
Labidcsthcs sicculus
Cottidac
Cottus carolinac
Scrranidae
Morone chrysops
Morone chrysops
Morone chrysops
Morone chrysops
Morone chrysops
Morone chrysops
Morone chrysops
Morone mississippiensis
Morone saxatiiis
Morone saxatiiis
Morone saxatiiis
Morone saxatiiis
Morone saxatiiis
Morone saxatiiis
Morone saxatiiis
Life Stage
Descriptive Name (If not adult)
Channel catfish Juvenile
Tadpole madtom
Flathead catfish
Pirate perch
Northern studfish
Blackstrip topminnow
Blackspotted topminnow
Mosquito fish
Mosquito fish
Brook silverside
Banded sculpin
White bass
White bass
White bass
White bass
White bass
White bass
White bass
Yellow bass
Striped bass
Striped bass
Striped bass Larvae
Striped bass Juvenile
Striped bass Uirvac
Striped bass Kmbryo
Striped bass Prolarvae
Concentration
Oiig/I)
0.241b
0.5-1.0
0.5
1.45
0.78
2.87
1.80
1.15
2.08
1.47
0.30
0.25
0.5
0.25
0.19-0.20
0.20-0.22
0.04
Exposure
Type
Intermittent
Continuous
Continuous
Intermittent
Intermittent
Intermittent
Intermittent
Intermittent
Intermittent
Intermittent
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Intermittent
Pulses
Characteristics
3 pulses daily of
200 min.
4 pulses of 40 min.
at 5 hr. intervals
4 pulses of 40 min.
at 5 hr. intervals
4 pulses of 40 min.
at 5 hr. intervals
4 pulses of 40 min.
at 5 hr. intervals
4 pulses of 40 rnin.
at 5 hr. intervals
4 pulses of 40 min.
at 5 hr. intervals
4 pulses of 40 min.
at 5 hr. intervals
Test
Duration Temperature Reference
(min.) ( C) Effect NumK-r
10,080 24
4,320
8,640
4,320 20
4.320 30
4,320 10
4,320 20
4,320 30
4,320 20
4,320 30
1,440
2.880
5,760
5,760
1,440
2,880
2,880
50% mortality
Mortality threshold
50% mortalit;
0',.' mortalit;
0'" mortality
50%. mortality
50',,' mort.ilii;
50'" mortality
100%- mortality
100% mortality
50% mortality
50% mortality
50% mortality
50% mortality
50% mortality
50% mortality
50% mortality
15
34
-55
12
12
12
\2
i:
i:
12
36
36
36
36
37
37
38
(continued)
-------
TABLE 1. (continued)
I'. lint Scientific Name
y? .\loioncsa\atilis
98 Morone sa\atilis
Centrarehidae
Ambloplitcs rupcstris
Lepomis gibbosis
Lcpomis trulosu^
Lcpomis auritus
I_c])omis cyancllus
Lcpomis c\ ancllus
i , i Lcpomis cyancllus
Lcpomis humilis
Lcpomis macrochirus
Lcpoinis macrochirus
Lcpomis macrochirus
Lcpoinis maciocliirus
Lcpomis macrochirus
Lcpomis macrochirus
Lepomis macrochirus
Lepomis macrochims
Lepomis macrochirus
Lepomis macrochirus
Lepomis macrochirus
Lepomis macrochirus
Lepomis macrochims
Lepomis macrochirus
Lepomis macrochirus
Life Stage Concentration
Descriptive Name (If not adult) (mg/1)
Striped bass Larvae 0.07
Stripped bass Juvenile 0.07
Rock bass
Pumpkijisccd
Warm ou tli
Redbreast
Green sunfish 0.04
Green sunfish 1.28
Green sunfish 2.0
Orange spotted sunfish
Blucgill 2.35
Blucgill 1.35
Blucgill 1.07
Bluegill
Bluegill
Bluegill
Blucgill
Bluegill
Bluegill
Blucgill
Bluegill
Bluegill
Bluegill
Blucgill
Bluegill
3.00
1.72
1.23
3.00
1.72
1.23
Juvenile 0.54b
Juvenile 0.4 7b
Juvenile 0.53b
Juvenile 0.4 lb
Juvenile 0.4 7b
Juvenile 0.4 5b
Exposure
Type
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Intermittent
Intermittent
Intermittent
Intermittent
Intermittent
Intermittent
Intermittent
Intermittent
Intermittent
Intermittent
Intermittent
Intermittent
Intermittent
Intermittent
Intermittent
Intermittent Test
Pulses Duration
Characteristics (min.)
2,880
2,880
NG
5,760
1,440
4 pulses daily of 40 4,320
min. at 5 hr. intervals
4 pulses daily of 40 4,320
min. at 5 hr. intervals
4 pulses daily of 40 4,320
min. at 5 hr. intervals
4 pulses daily of 40 4,320
min. at 5 hr. intervals
4 pulses daily of 40 4,320
min. at 5 hr. intervals
4 pulses daily of 40 4,320
min. at 5 hr. intervals
4 pulses daily of 40 1,440
min. at 5 hr. intervals
4 pulses daily of 40 1,440
min. at 5 hr. intervals
4 pulses daily of 40 1,440
min. at 5 hr. intervals
3 pulses daily of 45 2,880
min.
3 pulses daily of 45 2,880
min.
3 pulses daily of 45 4,320
min.
3 pulses daily of 45 4,320
min.
3 pulses daily of 45 4,320
min.
3 pulses daily of 45 5,760
Temperature
< 0) Effect
12
10
20
30
10
20
30
10
20
30
25
32
6
25
32
6
Reference
Number
50% mortality 38
50% mortality 38
Eventual mortality 39
50%, mortality 9
60%' mortality 1 1
0%, mortality 12
0% mortality 12
0% mortality 12
SOW mortality
50% mortality
50% mortality
50% mortality
50%- mortality
50% mortality
50% mortality
50% mortality
50% mortality
50% mortality
50% mortality
50% mortality
12,14
12,14
12,14
40
40
40
41
41
41
41
41
41
(continued)
-------
TABLE 1. (continued)
Data
Point
lni
102
103
u>
Ln
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
Scientific Name
l.cpomis macrochirus
I cpoinis niacrochirus
Leponris niacrocliirus
1 I'polliis mudCiclliHIS
I.epomis macrochiius
I epomis nucrochirus
I eponiis inacrochirus
Lepomis maciociiiius
l-oponiis macrocliirus
I e| uKiis ni.uTcvliinis
I cpoiiiii macioj.iius
Lcponiii maciochirus
1 cpoinis macruchinis
Lcpoiiiis macrochiriis
Lcponiis macrocliirus
Lcpoiiiis mcgalotis
Lcpoiiiis microlopluis
Micropteriis dolomicui
Microptcrus punctulatus
Micrqptcrus salinoides
Micropjerus salmoidcs
Microptcrus salmoides
Microptcrus salmoides
Micropterus salmoides
Microptenis salmoides
Microptcrus salmoidcs
Micropterus salmoides
Pomoxis annularis
Pomoxis nijrromaculalus
Pcrcidae
Etheostoma asprigene
Etheostoma blcnnoides
Etheostoma caenileum
Life Stage
Descriptive Name (If not adult)
Blucgill Juvenile
Bluegill Juvenile
Bluegill Juvenile
Bluegill Juvenile
Bluegill Juvenile
Bluegill Juvenile
Bluegill
Bluegill
Bluegill
lilucgili
Bluegill
Bluegill
Bluegill
Bluegill
Bluegill
Longcar sunfish
Redear sunfish
Sniallmouth bass
Spotted bass
Largemouth bass
Largemoutli bass
Largemouth bass
Largemoutli bass
Largemouth bass
Largemouth bass
Largcmou th bass
Largemouth bass
White crappie
Black crappie
Mud darter
Greenside darter
Rainbow darter
Concentration
(mg/1)
0.44b
0.39b
0.455b
0.33b
0.4 lb
0.37b
0.33
0.18
0.555
0.52
0.43-0.47
0.44
0.52
3.73
2.24
0.5
0.494
0.261
>0.74
0.365
> 0.574
0.295
0.261
0.241
1.36
Exposure
Type
Intermittent
Intermittent
Intermittent
Intermittent
Intermittent
Intermittent
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Intermittent
Intermittent
Intermittent
Intermittent
Intermittent
Intermittent
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Intermittent
Pulses
Characteristics
3 pulses daily of 45
min.
3 pulses daily of 45
min.
3 pulses daily of 45
min.
3 pulses daily of 45
min.
3 pulses daily of 45
min.
3 pulses daily of 45
min.
3 pulses daily
3 pulses daily
3 pulses daily
3 pulses daily
4 pulses of 40 min.
at 5 hr. intervals
4 pulses of 40 min.
at 5 hr. intervals
Test
Duration Temperature Reference
(min.) ( Q Effect Number
5,760
5,760
5,760
10,080
10,080
10,080
5,760
5,760
5,760
1,194-4,440
5,760
5,760
4,320
4,320
4,320
900
1,440
10,080
60
720
60
5,760
10,080
5,760
25
15
25
32
6
15
25
20
30
12
6-32
6-32
15-32
10
20
17
17
17
25
50% mortality
509r mortality
50T mortalitv
509c mortality
50fc mortality
50Ti mortality
50Ci' mortality
50" mortality
50% mortality
507f mortality
50% mortality
50Ci morulit>
50«'> mortality
1007; mortality
100% mortality
50<7c mortality
50rc mortatin
50',T mortality
509c mortality
50% mortality
50% mortality
50% mortality
50% mortality
50% mortality
Some mortality
41
41
41
41
41
41
32
32
9
41
41
42
43
12
12
44
24
25
25
25
24
24
24
6
1
(continued)
-------
TABLE 1. (continued)
Data
i In*. ^
icntitie Name
nom , flubellare
Life Stage Concentration
Descriptive Name (If not adult) (mg/1)
(•'antail darter
Exposure
Type
Intermittent
Pulses
Characteristics
Test
Duration Temperature Reference
(min.) ( O Effect Number
Etheostoma kennicolli Stripetail darter
1 thcostonia nigruni Johnny darter
Fiheostomj nmlineatuni Redlinc darter
Fthcostonia simoteruin Tennessee snubnose darter
FtlKO
IV re.,
1'crca
Pcrca
PC i ca
Pcrca
Perca
1 i i Pcrca
1 1 " IVrca
lit. P.rca
17 I'UCa
K. IVica
19 IVrca
21) Pcrca
21 Perca
Perca
Perca
Perca
Pcrca
Perca
Pcrca
Percj
Perca
Pcrca
Pcrca
Pcrca
Pcrca
Pcrca
Pcrca
P,
c rca
Pcrca
stonia spectabilc
fl.nc-.cens
fla\ escens
llav escens
!la\ escens
ilav escens
fiavcnscens
flavemcens
flavesccns
Ila\ escens
fLvescu.s
flavcMens
tla\ escens
flavesccns
flavescens
fla\ escens
flavescens
flavescens
flavesccns
flav escens
flav escens
flavescens
flavescens
flavescens
flav escens
flavescens
flavescens
flavescens
flavescens
flavescens
flavescens
Percina caprodcs
Orange throat darter
Yellow perch
Yellow perch
Yellow perch
Yellow perch
Yellow perch
Yellow perch
Yellow perch
Yellow perch
Yellow perch
Yellow perch
Yellow perch
Yellow perch
Yellow perch
Yellow perch
Yellow perch
Yellow perch
Yellow perch
Yellow perch
Yellow perch
Yellow perch
Yellow perch
Yellow perch
Yellow perch
Yellow perch
Yellow perch
Yellow perch
Yellow perch
Yellow perch
Yellow perch
Yellow perch
Logperch
5.1
1.9
0.53
0.68
0.48
1.7
0.72
0.365
0.205
>0.88
0.464
0.558
7.7
1.0
7.7
4.0
1.1
8.0
3.9
1.11
0.97
0.70
22.6
9.0
37.0
15.0
7.1
2.1
1.6
0.95
Intermittent
Intermittent
Intermittent
Intermittent
Intermittent
Intermittent
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Intermittent
Intermittent
Intermittent
Intermittent
Intermittent
Intermittent
Intermittent
Intermittent
Intermittent
Intermittent
Intermittent
Intermittent
Intermittent
Intermittent
Intermittent
Intermittent
1
1
1
pulse of 30 min.
pulse of 30 min.
pulse of 30 min.
pulse of 30 min.
pulse of 30 min.
3 pulses of 5 min.
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
3
3
at 3 lir. intervals
pulse of 30 min.
pulse of 30 min.
pulse of 30 min.
pulse of 30 min.
pulse of 30 min.
pulse of 30 min.
pulse of 30 min.
pulse of 30 min.
pulses of 5 min.
at 3 hr. intervals
pulses of 5 min.
at 3 hr. intervals
pulses of 5 min.
at 3 hr. intervals
pulse of 30 min.
pulse of 30 min.
pulse of 30 min.
pulse of 30 min.
pulse of 30 min.
1,440-2,880
1,440-2,880
1,440-2,880
1,440-2,880
1,440-2,880
1,440-2,880
65
720
10,080
60
720
5,760
30
30
2,880
2,880
2,880
1,440-2,880
1,440-2,880
1,440-2,880
1,440-2,880
1,440-2,880
1,440-2,880
1,440-2,880
1,440-2,880
1,440-2,880
1,440-2,880
1,440-2,880
1,440-2,880
1,440-2,880
10
15
20
25
30
10
17
17
12
10
25
10
15
20
10
15
20
25
30
10
20
10
10
15
20
25
30
0% mortality
0',?. mortality
0% mortality
0% mortality
0% mortality
0%> mortality
Some mortality
50% mortality3
50% mortality3
509! mortality3
50%, mortality3
50% mortality3
50% mortality
50% mortality
50% mortality
50% mortality
50%. mortality
50% mortality
50% mortality
50%. mortality
50% mortality
50% mortality
50% mortality
50%. mortality
100%- mortality
100% mortality
100%. mortality
100%. mortality
100%) mortality
100% mortality
40
40
40
40
40
40
1
24
25
25
25
9
45
45
45
45
45
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
(continued)
-------
TABLE 1. (continued)
DJ|.I
Point
Scientific Name
Descriptive Name
Life Stage Concentration Exposure
(If not adult) (ing/1) Type
Intermittent
Pulses
Characteristics
Test
Duration Temperature
(min.)
( C)
Effect
Reference
Number
CO
•vl
124
Pcrcina macrocephala
Percina schumardi
Percina squaniala
Stizostcdian canadense_
Sli/ostcdiaii canadi'Usc
Sti/iisledi.iii canaJensc
Slizosledian canadcnsc
.•iii/Q'itedian caaadcn.se
Sti^ostcdan canadcnie
Sli/ostedhn laiudi'nso
Sti/ostcdian canadcnsc
Sti/.ostedian canadcnsc
Stizqstcdmij canadcnsc
JStizqstcdiaji ranadense
Sciaenidae
Apoldinotus grunniens
Aglodinotus gjrunniens
Apoldinotus grunniens
Aplodinotus grunniens
Aplodinotus grunniens
Aplodinotus grunniens
Longhead darter
River darter
Olive darter
Saugcr
Sauger
Sauger
Sauger
Sauger
Sauger
Sauger
Sauger
Sauger
Sauger
Sauger
Sauger
Freshwater drum
Freshwater drum
Freshwater drum
Freshwater drum
Freshwater duim
Freshwater drum
0.75
0.49
0.53
1.14
0.68
0.71
0.267
0.150
0.108
1.54
1.15
0.98
1.73
1.48
2.45
1.75
2.84
1.94
Intermittent
Intermittent
Intermittent
Intermittent
Intermittent
Intermittent
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Intermittent
Intermittent
Intermittent
Intermittent
Intermittent
Intermittent
Intermittent
Intermittent
Intermittent
4 pulses of 40 min.
at 5 hr. intervals
4 pulses of 40 min.
at 5 hr. intervals
4 pulses of 40 min.
at 5 hr. intervals
4 pulses of 40 min.
at 5 hr. intervals
4 pulses of 40 min.
at 5 hr. intervals
4 pulses of 40 min.
at 5 hr. intervals
4 pulses of 40 min.
at 5 hr. intervals
4 pulses of 40 min.
at 5 hr. intervals
4 pulses of 40 min.
at 5 hr. intervals
4 pulses of 40 min.
at 5 lir. intervals
4 pulses of 40 min.
at 5 hr. intcrvlas
4 pulses of 40 min.
at 5 hr. intervals
4 pulses of 40 min.
at 5 hr. intervals
4 pulses of 40 min.
at 5 hr. intervals
4 pulses of 40 min.
at 5 hr. intervals
4 pulses of 40 min.
at 5 hr. intervals
4 pulses of 40 min.
at 5 hr. intervals
4 pulses of 40 min,
at 5 hr. intervals
4,320
4,320
4,320
4,320
4,320
4,320
720
10,080
5,760
4,320
4,320
4,320
4,320
4,320
4,320
4,320
4,320
4,320
10
20
30
10
20
30
10
20
30
10
20
10
20
10
20
0% mortality
0% mortality
0% mortality
50% motality
50% mortality
50% mortality
50% mortality11
50% mortality3
50% mortality
100% mortality
100%> mortality
100% mortality
0% mortality
0% mortality
50% mortality
50% mortality
100% mortality
100% mortality
12
12
12
12
12
12
24
25
6
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
a Wastcwater chlorination
b Concentration is reported as peak value of the pulse.
-------
TABLE 2. EFFECTS OF CHLORINE ON INVERTEBRATES PRESENT WITHIN THE TVA AREA
Data
I'on.t
1
0
3
1 1
W l -
co '-
1 '
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
23
24
26
27
28
29
Vicmifk Njine Descriptive Name
\i il'iopx'Ja - Crustacea
.Wllus sp
\sclhls sp.
Wllussp.
\Sclills sp
W'lKls sp
C \Jops sp
f\,ir^sp
tei^v
C\ J.-ps sp
( V Jops V
CV J' j's-.'
D.ipl'll!.. -p
Daplim.. s]-,
Daplima v
Diph'lla sp
Daplniu sp.
1 ur\ Umora sp.
I ur\ tcmora sp
Gammarus sp.
Gammarus sp
Gamrnu'Us sp
Gammarus sp.
Gjninuriis sp.
Gammarus sp
Gammarus sp
Gammarus sp.
Gammarus sp
Gammarus sp
Gai.iiii jius *p
Ganimams sp
Gammarus sp
Gammarus sp
(
-------
TABLE 2. (continued)
Data
Point
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
3S
39
40
41
42
43
44
4(,
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
Scientific Name Descriptive Name
Orconectes sp.
Oiconcctcs sp.
Palucmonotes sp.
Palaemonetcs sp.
I'al.iemonctcs sp.
Palaemonetcs sp.
PalaemoncK's sp.
Artliropoda - insccta
Centroptilium sp.
Cluronomus sp.
Ephemcrella sp.
I'phcmcrella sp.
l-'phemerelij sp.
Kphemcrclla sp
llydropsyclie sp.
llydropsyclie sp.
Ilydropsythe sp.
llydropsychi. sp
llydropsyclie sp
Ilydropsyehe sp.
Isonychia sp.
Isonychia sp.
Peltopcrla sp.
Peltoperla sp.
Psephenus sp.
Pscphcnus sp.
Pteronarcys sp.
Pteronarcys sp.
Pteronarcys sp.
Pteronarcys sp.
Stenonema sp.
Stenonema sp.
Stenonema sp.
Stenonema sp.
Annelida
Nais sp.
Nais sp.
Nais sp.
Nais sp.
Nais sp
Crayfish
Crayfish
Shrimp
Shrimp
Shrimp
Shrimp
Shrimp
Mayfly
Midge
Mayflj
Mayfly
Mayfly
Mayfly
Caddisfly
Caddisfly
Caddisfly
Caddisfly
Caddisfly
Caddislly
Mayfly
Mayfly
Stoncfly
Stonefly
Water pennies
Water pennies
Stoncfly
Stonefly
Stonefly
Stoncfly
Mayfly
Mayfly
Mayfly
Mayfly
Oligochaete worm
Oligochaete worm
Oligochaete worm
Oligochaete worm
Oligochaete worm
Concentration
(mg/1)
0.780
2.70
2.5
0.38
0.22
2.5
2.5
0.071
7.0
0.027
5.67
1.33-1.38
0.02-0.08
0.03
0.05
0.396
>0.28
>0.74
>0.55
0.0093
0.08-0.3
0.5-0.7
0.020
0.256
0.089
>0.780
0.480
0.400
0.195
0.502
0.5-0.6
0.3-4.8
0.016-0.10
1.0
1.0
3.5
5.0
1.2
Intermittent Test
Pulses Duration Temperature
Exposure Type Characteristics (min.) ( C) Effect
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
10,080
1,440
180
1,440
5,760
2,880
5,760
1,440
1,440
2,880
480
720
2,880
5,760
10,080
480
480-10,080
8,640
10,080
2,880
480
720
2,880
2,880
10,080
2,880
4,320
5,760
10,080
480
480
720
5,760
35
34
25
17
10
17
12
12
12
6
15
6
6,15
6,15
32
32
25
25,32
18
18
6
6-32
6-25
15
18
18
18
18
25
25,32
6-32
6-32
50% mortality3
50% mortality
2% mortality
50% mortality
50% mortality
72% mortality
98% mortality
50% mortality
80% mortality
50% mortality
50% mortality
50% mortality
50% mortality
50% mortality
50% mortality
50% mortality
50% mortality
50% mortality3
50% mortality3
50% mortality
50% mortality
50% mortality
50% mortality
50% mortality
50%. mortality
50% mortality3
50% mortality3
50% mortality3
50% mortality3
50% mortality
50% mortality
50% mortality
50% mortality
95% mortality
100%. mortality
100% mortality
100% mortality
100% mortality
Reference
Number
24
52
65
55
55
65
56
50
56
56
56
56
56
56
56
56
24
24
56
56
56
56
56
56
24
24
24
24
56
56
56
56
64
53
53
53
53
(continued)
-------
TABLE 2. (continued)
IJaia
K,n,
(,»
69
, 1
, 1
, ?
, ,
/ i
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
H4
S^kniil'ic Name
iY,,,>p.
Nais sp.
KotiRia
Hranchionus sp.
Branchionus sp.
Kcratclla sp.
Kcratclla sp.
Kcratclla sp.
Keratella sp.
Molhisca
Anculosa sp
Campeloma sp.
Goniobasis sp.
Goniobasis sp.
Goniobasis sp.
Goniobasis sp.
Goniobasis sp.
Goniobasis sp.
Nitocris sp.
Nilocris sp.
Nitocris sp.
Nitocris sp.
Nitocris sp.
Physa sp.
Pliysa sp.
Physa sp.
Pliysa sp.
Physa sp.
Ph>sa sp.
Descriptive Name
Oligochaete worm
Oligochaete worm
Rotifer
Rotifer
Rotifer
Rotifer
Rotifer
Rotifer
Operculule snail
Operculate snail
Operculate snail
Opereulate snail
Operculate snail
Operculate snail
Operculate snail
Operculate snail
Operculate snail
Operculate snail
Operculate snail
Operculate snail
Operculate snail
Pulmonate snail
Pulmonate snail
Pulmonate snail
Pulmonate snail
Pulmonate snail
Pulmonate snail
Concentration
(nig/l)
2.0
0.5
<1.0
>0.2
0.032
0.027
0.0135
0.019
<0.04b
>0.810
0.144b
2.55b
0.367b
0.044
0.014
0.006
0.086
0.370
0.023
216.5b
0.043b
0.258
0.436
0.131
0.425b
0.413b
>0.810
Exposure Type
Continuous
Continuous
Intermittent
Intermittent
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Intermittent
Continuous
Intermittent
Intermittent
Intermittent
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Intermittent
Intermittent
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Intermittent
Intermittent
Continuous
Intermittent
Pulses
Characteristics
1 pulse of 30 min.
1 pulse of 30 min.
2 hrs. per day
3 pulses daily of
45 min.
3 pulses daily of
45 min.
3 pulses daily of
45 min.
3 pulses daily of
45 min.
3 pulses daily of
45 min.
3 pulses daily of
45 min.
3 pulses daily of
45 min.
3 pulses daily of
45 min.
Test
Duration Temperature
(min.) (°C) Effect
15
30
2,880
2,880
60
240
1,440
240
4,320
20,160
10,080
10,080
10,080
5,760
10,080
10,080
5,760
10,080
10,080
10,080
10,080
5,760
10,080
10,080
10,080
10,080
20,160
20
20
15
15
15
6
15
25
25
6
32
25
6
32
6
32
25
6
32
25
32
100% mortality
Disintegration
< 50% mortality
> 50% mortality
50% mortality
50% mortality
50% mortality
50% mortality
50% mortality
50% mortality3
50%> mortality
50% mortality
50% mortality
50% mortality
50% mortality
50% mortality
50% mortality
50% mortality
50% mortality
50% mortality
50% mortality
50% mortality
50% mortality
50% mortality
50% mortality
50% mortality
50% mortality3
Reference
Number
64
60
58
58
59
59
59
51
54
24
56
56
56
56
56
56
56
56
56
56
56
56
56
56
56
56
24
a Wastuwutcr chlorination
b Conccnlialiun is KpoittJ j:> pv.uk value of the pulse
-------
TABLE 3. AVERAGE CHLORINE CONCENTRATION AND EXPOSURE TIMES FOR TVA POWER PLANTS
Chlorination
Power Plant1
A
B
C
D
Number
of
Units
9
4
3
10
Number
of
Pulses
Daily
1
3
1
1
Pulse
Time
(min)
30
20
30
45
Regime
Total
Exposure
Time
Daily
(min)
30
60
30
45
Average Chlorine
Free
Estimated
Levels in.
Inlet Outlet Discharge
0.313 0.324 0.036
0.360 0.295 0.074
0.173 0.134 0.045
0.35 0.28 0.028
Residuals (mg/1)
Total
Estimated
Levels in
Inlet Outlet Discharge
0.461 0.484 0.054
0.856 0.816 0.204
0.425 0.333 0.111
0.54 0.48 0.048
1. Power plants, which reflect the estimated average residual chlorine in the discharge, were plotted
in figures 3 and 4.
2. These levels reflect the estimated average concentrations at the mouth of the discharge canal. All
other data was calculated from information supplied by Hollis B. Flora II, of the Office of Power.
The chlorine levels were measured during February 1978 to December 1978, for power
-------
10,000 -
5.00O -
2.0CO -
1,000
500
200
100 -
u 5
5
005
ao, ii3. .M /
''1 I'^V/M6!^ 19 '3
i^- ^ .62 69''°^>X.2i
'^ty-x' ?M^. .41 ne .""
^ 'JX ?5/X M «47 44 .108.115
*M>6, ,27 ,-,6
97.98- '^ST^31'"
•-28,33
96. 22-; .»
16
^~\^ .34
CHRONIC TOXICITY THRESHOLD
I III III II
2,000 5,000 10,000 20.OOO 50,000 100.000 200.COO SOO.OOD I.OC
DURATION OF EXPOSURE (mln)
FIGURE I
TOXICITY OF CHLORINE: TO FISH SPECKS PRESENT WITHIN THE TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY WATERSHED
-------
p
b
o
o
8
CHLORINE CONCENTRATION I rr.g / I ;
o
o
o
o
o
o
in
O
X
O
X
2:
m
m
CD
f\)
H
$
o
c
33
O _
m
x
T)
O
1/1
C
33
m
x
m
m
-j
il
> ro CD
C/5
rn
m
31
i
o
en
8
-------
-------
-p-
Ul
c
t-
cr
o
05
005
8 002
001
0005
0002
0.0 01
I
TOXICITY THRESHOLD
| I
10 20 50 100 200 500 1,000 2,000 5,000
DURATION OF EXPOSURE (mm)
10,000 20,000 50,000 100,000 200,000 500,000 1,000,000
Figure 4. Comparison of estimated chlorine concentrations-exposure times in the discharge area
of TVA power plants with the toxicity thresholds of invertehrates within the TVA area.
-------
Appendix B
SELECTED INVERTEBRATE AND FISH CHLORINE BIOASSAYS;
THEIR APPLICATION TO A KINETIC MODEL
Prepared by
Anthony H. Rhodes
-------
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This work was conducted as part of the Federal Interagency Energy/
Environmental Research and Development Program with funds administered
through the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA Contract No. EPA-IAG-
D9-E721-DR, TVA Contract No. TV-41967A).
The author is glad to acknowledge Billy G. Isom and Richard J.
Ruane for making this study possible. I am especially grateful to
Sylvia A. Murray, for her constant encouragement and advice throughout
the study. Thanks are also expressed to Suzanne R. Hunter, and Neil E.
Carriker for their mathematical understanding and help. I am very
grateful to Gregory T. Miles and Lanny McCaig for their enthusiastic
and valuable assistance throughout the project.
Special thanks are extended to Dr. Kenneth J. Tennessen and
Johnny L. Miller for their help in the collection of the mayflies.
I also acknowledge Thomas W. Toole and Hollis E. Lindley for their
efforts in converting the Chen-Selleck Program to SAS.
-------
SELECTED INVERTEBRATE AND FISH CHLORINE BIOASSAYS:
THEIR APPLICATION TO A KINETIC MODEL
By Anthony H. Rhodes
SECTION I
INTRODUCTION
I. RATIONALE
Chlorine is an effective biocide that is widely used in many power
plants. Operators of these chlorinating power facilities must be able to
predict safe levels of chlorine to avoid detrimental effects on aquatic
organisms in the ecosystem.
Current Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) discharge limits on
chlorine levels in power plant effluents require that free available
chlorine shall not exceed an average concentration of 0.2 mg/1 and a
maximum instantaneous concentration of 0.5 mg/1 for a maximum of two
hours (39 Fed. Reg., p. 36185) or 0.01 mg/S. continuous concentration at
the edge of the mixing ^one. The predictions of environmentally safe
concentrations of residual chlorine discharged from power plants are
currently based on the work of Mattice (1976), and Mattice and Zittel
(1976). In their models the mortality threshold levels were based on the
data for which the chlorine concentration did not result in death. The
Mattice-Zittel model is based on the regression equation, Y = 0.37X, to
convert the time required to obtain 50-percent mortality (X) into the
time required to obtain 0-percent mortality (Y) for any given
concentration. However, duration of chlorine exposure was not integrated
into the model when measuring the threshold concentration.
The Chen-Selleck kinetic toxicity model (1969) does utilize duration
in the integration. It is based on the survival versus exposure time in
proportion to the toxicant concentration and induction period. The
Chen-Selleck toxicity model is based on the following general
observations: (1) percent survival versus exposure time yields a straight
line relationship when plotted on semi-log paper, (2) there is an initial
period of exposure (induction period) during which no mortality is
manifested. The equation is as follows:
^ = 0; 0
-------
and (3) the slope of the survival-exposure time curves are proportional
to the toxicant concentration where N is the number of fish surviving at
exposure time such as:
^ = (-KC1^ + HN); t>t±
where t, K, and H are rate coefficients, and n is the order of reaction.
Integrating the above equation, the threshold concentration (C ) of
chlorine toxicity is then defined by the following relationships:
't = (H/K) , where H represents the rate of detoxication, K represents
the rate of toxication, and n is the order of the reaction. Because of
the first observation above, where the test results were linear when
plotted, the reaction is first order and n equals unity.
II. OBJECTIVES
The purposes of this study are as follows:
1. Determine chlorine toxicity and LC5O values from bioassays
using daphnids (Daphnia pulex), mayflies (Hexagenia bilineata),
and channel catfish (Ictalurus punctatus).
2. Establish chlorine toxicity threshold values by using the
Chen-Selleck model on bioassay data from this laboratory and
from the literature.
3. Evaluate the model as it applies to TVA power plant conditions.
49
-------
SECTION II
MATERIALS AND METHODS
I. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN
These experiments were designed to determine the median lethal
concentration (LC5O) and empirical threshold concentrations of chlorine
for Daphnia instars, mayfly nymphs, and channel catfish larvae. Test
results from the studies and the literature data were applied to a
kinetic model. Most of the literature data came from reports on chlorine
toxicity for aquatic organisms (Mattice 1976, Mattice and Zittel 1976,
and Opresko 1980). Current literature was also reviewed to include the
latest data.
II. TEST ORGANISMS
A. Description and Key Role
Daphnids, Daphnia nulex Leydig, and mayfly nymphs, Hexagenia
bilineata (Say) were used as the representative invertebrates found in
the TVA area. The channel catfish, Ictalurus punctatus (Rafinesque) was
the representative fish. Daphnids are macroscopic organisms that can
easily be identified by their helmet-shaped head. The ephippium in the
gravid female is also a good means for identification (Pennak 1978).
Mayfly nymphs, which vary in size, are familiar aquatic insects found
only in freshwater. Mayfly nymphs play an important role in the aquatic
ecosystem by transforming plant tissues into animal tissues (Usinger
1963). These common aquatic invertebrates are important in the food
chain because they utilize microscopic particles which larger aquatic
animals cannot use (Kaestner 1970).
Channel catfish are important food and game fish, commonly found in
TVA reservoirs. They can be identified by their barbels, smooth
scaleless skin, and spiney fins (Jones et al. 1978). Catfish complete a
link in the aquatic food chain between the invertebrates and humans.
B. Collection and Acclimation
Daphnia were collected with a plankton net, No. 20 mesh (80 pm) ,
from a local pond and acclimated at 21 C for 24 hours. Mayflies were
50
-------
collected at night, after their nuptial flight, by the light attraction
method. Gravid females were placed in a container of dechlorinated tap
water to deposit their eggs. After oviposition, the eggs were
transferred, via pipette, to specimen dishes (100 x 15 mm) and incubated
at 28 C for 17 hours. The catfish were obtained from a local commercial
o
fish pond and acclimated for 48 hours at 27 C.
III. EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES
The organisms were tested in chlorine concentrations ranging from
0.025 to 1.0 mg/1 and compared to controls with no chlorine. A 12-hour
photoperiod was maintained for the catfish and daphnids, but not for the
mayfly nymphs because they burrow into the substrate. The number of dead
organisms was determined by teasing with a dissecting needle for a
response, then counted and percent survival calculated for each of the
four replicates at 24, 48, and 96 hours.
A. Daphnia Bioassay
The procedure for this invertebrate was as follows: Thirty
organisms were placed in each 250 ml beaker of dechlorinated tap water by
pipette. Chlorine was added daily, via pipette, to each beaker and
dispersed by swirling with a glass rod. This swirling also enhanced
dissolved oxygen (DO) saturation. Only juvenile instars were used in the
bioassays, daphnids with ephippia were rejected.
B. Mayfly Nymph Bioassay
Thirty nymphs were placed in each petri dish filled with dechlo-
rinated water. Following static renewal of chlorine each day, samples
were returned to an environmental chamber where the temperature was a
constant 28 C.
C. Fish Bioassay
Twenty fish larvae were placed in each of the 30 flow-through
containers (modified milk jugs with 4-inch x 4-inch, 1-mm mesh fiberglass
screens in each 757-liter galvanized-steel (epoxy coated) tank. A
continuous flow with a turnover rate of 12 hours (1 Jfc/min) was main-
tained. Charcoal filter cartridges were placed in each tank to aid in
waste and chlorine removal.
51
-------
IV. WATER QUALITY MEASUREMENTS
Alkalinity, DO, pH, hardness, carbon dioxide (C02), and temperature
were monitored daily before, during, and after chlorination. Ammonia
nitrogen, acidity, conductivity, and salinity were measured twice during
each experiment. Chlorine was measured by the DPD ferrous and
colormetric methods (Standard Methods 1976), and DO and alkalinity were
determined titrimetrically. The Hach water chemistry tests were used to
determine hardness, C02, and ammonia nitrogen. Hydrogen ion concentra-
tion was measured with an Orion pH meter, and temperature with a mercury
bulb Celsius (Centigrade) hand thermometer.
V. STATISTICAL METHODS
Linear and family regression analyses were used to determine the
best (of eight) regression models for describing the net mortality rate
coefficients and induction periods. The assay data were calculated and
plotted with an HP 9825® computer. The rate of detoxication (H), and
rate of toxication (K) were determined by solving simultaneous equations.
The estimation of LC5O (median lethal concentration) were made by
the probit analysis method. Probit analysis calculates the maximum
likelihood estimates of the intercept, slope, and natural (threshold)
response rate for biological assay data (Finney 1971).
52
-------
SECTION III
RESULTS
I. APPLICATION OF THE CHEN-SELLECK MODEL
The kinetic toxicity model as developed by Chen and Selleck (1969)
was based on the concept of physiological balance between the rate of
toxication and the rate of detoxication in the organism. The rate
balance was derived from knowledge of the induction period of the
toxicant, the survival ratio of the organisms to the toxicant, and the
net mortality rate coefficients. The threshold concentration of the
toxicant could be determined from the above knowledge.
A. Induction Period (t.)
The induction period is the initial period after application of the
toxicant during which no mortality occurs and is expressed mathematically
as follows:
f = 0; 0
-------
C. Net Mortality Rate Coefficient (-KCn + H)
The net mortality rate coefficient or NMRC calculation was based on
the following relationship:
dN/dt = -KC + HN; t>t . .
Integration of this relationship yields:
£n N/N = (-KCn +• H) t + Tc
o
Tc is constant for a given bioassay. The terms K and H are determined by
simultaneous equations from the coefficient (-KCn + H) , where K
approximates the rate of toxication and H approximates the rate of
detoxication.
D. Threshold Concentration (C )
The threshold concentration is the maximum toxicant concentration
which will kill none of the organisms during an infinite exposure time,
and is determined by the following relationship:
Ct = (H/K)1/n
where n is the order of the reaction. Since the percent survival vs
exposure time yields a straight line when plotted on semi-log paper, the
reaction is first order.
II. BIOASSAYS AND LC5O DETERMINATIONS
The bioassay data collected on the fish, mayflies, and daphnids were
calculated and plotted by computer. All the principles of the
Chen-Selleck model as outlined above were used. Standard bioassay
techniques were employed for testing to determine LC5O values. The
resulting LCSO values or percent mortalities (inverse of percent
survival) were used to determine the induction periods, survival ratios,
net mortality rate coefficients, and threshold concentrations for these
aquatic animals .
A. Fish Larvae
Table 4 indicates the analysis of variance results (ANOVA) . The
exposure and concentration were significant, but the interaction was not.
The rate of detoxication and rate of toxication (derived from Figure 1)
were 0.00069 hr and 0.03263 (mg/£ hr) , respectively, with a threshold
concentration of 0.021 mg/£. The survival rates for all concentrations,
and for the control, decreased uniformly (in time) and linearly.
Although the percent survival for 0.1 mg/Jfc was lower than that for 0.5
mg/£ at 96 hours, there was no significant difference • in their
54
-------
averages (Table 5). This table also shows that no catfish survived
beyond 48 hours at 1.0 mg/£. However, the catfish still had the best
survival of all the organisms tested, 38 percent of the fish survived
beyond 96 hours.
The calculated LC5O (by probit analysis) for the fish was 0.53 mg/£
(Table 6). Figure 2 shows a linear decrease in the survival ratio, based
on the least squares fit.
B. Daphnids
The ANOVA data for these invertebrates are found in Table 7, where
the exposure and concentration were significant, but the interaction was
not. The daphnids rate of detoxication was 0.03964 hr and rate of
toxication was 0.27119 (mg/£ hr) , with a threshold concentration of
0.15 mg/£. The detoxication and toxication rates were derived from
Figure 3. Figure 4 shows the decrease in the survival ratios, based on
the least squares fit. Table 8 shows no survival for 0.5 (except at 48
hours) and 1.0 mg/£. Also, that there was a significant difference, an
average of 88 percent, in the control and lowest treatment (0.5 mg/£)
survival rates. However, there was no significant difference in
exposure, especially for 24 and 48 hours (20.14 and 19.18 percent,
respectively), and very little for 96 hours (15.97 percent). All
concentrations, including control, decreased linearly, and only the
control had more than 50-percent survival for all three exposure times.
The LCBO for the daphnids was 0.032 mg/£ based on the probit analysis
(Table 9).
C. Mayfly Nymphs
The NMRC values (derived from Figure 5) for the mayflies were
0.00360 hr for the rate of detoxication and 0.18400 (mg/£ hr) for the
rate of toxication, resulting in a threshold concentration of 0.020 mg/£.
Table 10 contains the ANOVA data for the mayfly nymphs, where the
concentration, exposure, and their interactions were significant. The
survival ratio of this invertebrate (Figure 6) decreased less gradually
than that for the Daphnia. Table 11 shows that the average survival for
24 hours was near 50 percent (53.19). Also, that 0.025 mg/£ at 48 hours
had less survival than 0.05, and was the same as 0.1 mg/£ at 48 hours.
All test concentrations survival rate decreased linearly, with less than
50 percent survival after 48 hours. However, the ambient or control,
survival rate was curvilinear, where 62 percent survived at 96 hours.
55
-------
III. CHLORINE TOXICITY THRESHOLD CONCENTRATIONS BASED ON LITERATURE
Results in Tables 13, 14, and 15 are based on data compiled from
available literature on aquatic species which occur within the TVA area.
The detoxication and toxication rates, and threshold concentrations in
these tables were calculated according to the principles of the
Chen-Selleck model as outlined above.
A. Invertebrate Data
All the data compiled for the invertebrates, except for the one
genus of operculate snail, were for continuous chlorine exposure (Table
13). The operculate snail, Goniobasis, had the lowest threshold concen-
tration at 0.008 mg/£, which was 0.293 mg/£ less than its counterpart in
intermittent chlorine. This snail also had the lowest rate of
detoxication at 0.00016 hr . The pulmonate snail, Physa, had the
highest threshold concentration at 0.432 mg/£, and the lowest rate of
toxication, which was shared with two genera of operculate snails, at
0.00595 (mg/Jfc hr) . Rotifers had the highest rate of toxication at
17.29322 (mg/£ hr) , and rate of detoxication at 0.22035 hr
B. Vertebrate Data
The vertebrate data were compiled for both continuous and inter-
mittent chlorination. For continuous exposure (Table 14) the general
observations were as follows:
1. The blacl bullhead catfish had the highest threshold
concentration at 0.861 mg/£, and the lowest rate of
toxication at 0.00468 (mg/£ hr)
2. Larval striped bass had the lowest threshold concentration
and rate of detoxication at 0.006 mg/£ and 0.00065 hr ,
respectively.
3. The blacknose dace had the highest rate of toxication and
rate of detoxication at 21.39216 (mg/A hr) and 3.16768
hr , respectively.
Highlights of the intermittent chlorine (Table 15) data collected
are as follows:
1. The highest and lowest chlorine toxicity threshold con-
centrations were 2.343 mg/fi for the freshwater drum and
0.028 mg/£ for the juvenile channel catfish, respectively.
2. The juvenile bluegill had the lowest rate of toxication at
0.01042 (mg/A hr) and the juvenile catfish had the
lowest rate of detoxication at 0.00102 hr
3. The adult emerald shiner had the highest rate of toxi-
cation and rate of detoxication at 20.00000 (mg/£ hr)
and 6.02060 hr , respectively.
56
-------
DISCUSSION
Chen and Selleck (1969) plotted the net mortality rate coefficients
for their test data and subjectively fit a straight line through the
points by eye. This gave values of H and K equal to 0.00796 hr and
0.0236.(mg/£ hr) , respectively. Using these values in Equation 3, C =
(H/K) , from their model they got a threshold concentration of 0.33
mg/Jfc zinc. When their data were calculated and plotted (Figure 7)
according to a linear regression model, the H (detoxication) and K
(toxication) values were 0.0166 hr and 0.00312 (mg/£ hr) , respec-
tively, with a threshold concentration of 0.19 mg/Jd zinc. The linear
model Y = A + BX was the best fit, having the highest F value. The
second-best model^ with the next highest F value, was a curvilinear model
(Y = A + B^X). Both models were significant. Therefore, one would
expect some variance of the calculated threshold toxicity value,
depending on the regression line used.
The bioassay data collected on the fish, mayflies, and daphnids were
also calculated and plotted using family regression. The linear model
was the best fit for the fish, and significant for all the organisms.
Even though the curvilinear models were the best fit for the
invertebrates, the straight regression line was valid, and for simplicity
was used to obtain the NMR coefficients for C calculations.
The survival ratios for the Tennessee Valley organisms were plotted
on semi-logarithmic paper. In each case, except for the fish, the
survival was greater at the lowest concentrations. This exception for
the fish could be attributed to either the biochemical action of the
toxicant and/or the stress tolerance of the organisms tested.
The comparisons of the detoxication and toxication rates and
threshold concentrations (Table 16) for the literature and bioassay data
are as follows: (1) Daphnia detoxication and toxication rates from the
bioassay values were 0.04 percent and 0.2 percent, respectively, greater
than for the literature. The threshold concentration calculated from the
literature, viz 0.011 percent, was greater than that from the bioassay
threshold concentration; (2) Mayfly detoxication and toxication rates
from the bioassay values were also greater, by 0.0003 percent and
0.05 percent, respectively, than the literature. There was only a
0.005 percent difference in threshold concentration between the
literature and bioassay data; and (3) catfish rate of detoxication for
the literature was 0.0003 percent greater than assayed detoxication
rates. The rate of toxication was also greater, 0.004 percent, for the
literature data. The threshold concentration from the literature,
0.007 percent, was also greater than the bioassay threshold concentration.
57
-------
The fish literature data were based on the juvenile fish because there
were insufficient data found on the larval fish to calculate toxication
and detoxication rates, or the threshold concentration.
The LC50's were 0.53 mg/£ for the fish, 0.032 mg/£ for the Daphnia,
and 0.022 mg/£ for the mayflies. The calculated C and LC5O values are
shown in Table 17, and as expected, the LC5O's were nigher. However, for
the Daphnia the threshold concentration was higher, and this exception
could be attributed to the test results, viz more than 50 percent of the
population died at the lowest concentration (0.05 rng/A) tested.
Table 18 indicates chlorine sensitivity for selected invertebrates
and fish at chlorinating power plants. Power plant B, with the highest
total residual chlorine at 0.204 mg/£, would have the greatest impact on
the aquatic organisms. However, power plant D, with the lowest threshold
concentration (0.048 mg/£), would still impact enough aquatic organisms
to be of concern.
For the organisms with a threshold concentration above 0.204 mg/A
two general observations were noted:
1. The majority of the fish and invertebrates with a high
threshold concentration were adult.
2. Most of the fish data were for intermittent exposure instead of
continuous exposure to chlorine. This included the hardy
freshwater drum with a threshold concentration of 2.343 mg/A.
According to Table 18, most of the aquatic organisms would be
impacted by the power plant's chlorination. However, report data
indicated that many of the organisms would not be impacted by chlor-
ination (TVA 1977 and 1979). The data showed that even at power plant B
(highest threshold concentration) many of the aquatic organisms were
present in the plant's vicinity (discharge, intake, etc.). Most of the
sensitive fish, except the larval striped bass (Moroue saxatilis), the
sauger (Stizostedian canadense), and yellow perch (Perca flavescens),
were found at power plant B. Also, all of the invertebrates, except the
shrimp (Palaemonetes), the snail (Goniobasis), two genera of mayflies
(Ephemerella and Isonychia), and two genera of stoneflies (Peltoperla and
Pteronarcys), were found at the plant. The absence of the organisms
listed was not due to chlorination. The striped bass larvae and sauger
are no longer found there, and the yellow perch and the invertebrates
were never present. The absence or presence of aquatic organisms in the
area of a plant, particularly the discharge, could depend on whether or
not it is a suitable habitat, or on the organism's ability to avoid
chlorine. Also, elevated temperature, which could act synergistically
with chlorine to cause both acute and chronic effects on the organisms
(Rhodes 1980), may be a determining factor for their presence or absence.
Table 18 may not be a true representation for some of the aquatic
organisms' sensitivity to chlorine because continuous chlorination would
58
-------
be required to impact most of the organism, while the four TVA steam
plants' chlorination regimes are intermittent. Therefore, at power plant
B, of the fish present, only the adult white sucker Catostomus
commersoni, the juvenile golden shiner Notemigonus crysoleucas, and the
larvae (bioassay data) and juvenile channel catfish Ictalurus punctatus
should be impacted according to Table 18. Only the invertebrates from
the bioassay, the waterflea Daphnia pulex, and the mayfly Hexagenia
bilineata, should be impacted according to Table 18. Based on the above
facts, the model appears to be too restrictive in establishing chlorine
toxicity thresholds. Therefore, more studies are needed on the species
in question for intermittent exposure to chlorine.
59
-------
CONCLUSIONS
The Chen-Selleck model may be applied to measure toxicity thresholds
for aquatic organisms. The incorporation of exposure time, induction
period, and concentration is very advantageous for determining threshold
concentration. This helps to account for some of the most important
factors, excluding life stage, health, etc., which contribute to the
organism's death while testing.
The larval catfish had a better survival ratio than the aquatic
invertebrates tested in the laboratory. The threshold concentrations
based on the literature and bioassays data were similar. In general, the
rate of detoxication was less than the rate of toxication. The mayflies
were more sensitive (22 percent) to chlorine than the Daphnia (32 percent)
or fish (53 percent).
Based on the bioassay results from this study, TVA power plants
utilizing chlorine as biocide may have an adverse impact on aquatic
organisms. This is especially true for total residual chlorine where the
lowest level discharged by any plant was 0.048 mg/£. However, since many
of the chlorine-sensitive species were present in the vicinity of these
chlorinating plants, the model may be too restrictive.
60
-------
REFERENCES
1. American Public Health Association. 1971. Standard Methods for the
Examination of Water and Wastewater, 13th ed. APHA 874 pp.
2. Chen, C.W. and R.E. Selleck. 1969. A kinetic model of fish toxicity
threshold. J. Wat. Poll. Contr. Fed. 41:R294:R308.
3. Federal Register, July 1974. 39(196). pp. 36185-36207.
4. Finney, D. J. 1971. Statistical Methods In Biological Assay, Second
Edition. Griffin Press, London.
5. Jones, P.W., F.D. Martin, and J.D. Hardy, Jr. 1978. Development of
fishes of the Mid-Atlantic Blight: An atlas of eggs, larval and
juvenile stages. VOIT. U.S. Fish. Wildl. Serv. FWS/OB5-78/12.
365 pp.
6. Kaestner, A. 1970. Invertebrate Zoology: Crustacea. Volume III.
John Wiley and Sons. New York. 523 pp.
7. Mattice, J. S. 1976. Assessing toxic effects of chlorinated effluents
on aquatic organisms. A predictive tool. In: The Environmental
Impact of Water Chlorination. R.L. Jolly, ed. CONF-751096. Oak
Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, Tennessee, pp. 403-422.
8. and H.E. Zittel. 1976. Site specific evaluation and
power plant Chlorination: A proposal. J. Wat. Poll. Fed.
48:2284:2307.
9. Opresko, D. M. 1980. Review of open literature on effects of chlorine
on aquatic organisms, EPRI EA-1491. Electric Power Research
Institute, Palo Alto, Calif.
10. Pennak, R. W. 1978. Fresh-water invertebrates of the United States.
Second Edition. John Wiley and Sons. New York. 803 pp.
11. Rhodes, A.H. 1980. Chlorine and thermal effects on fish larval develop-
ment. TVA Technical Report. Tennessee Valley Authority. Division
of Water Resources, Muscle Shoals, Alabama. 59 pp.
61
-------
12. Tennessee Valley Authority. 1977. 316(a) and 316(b) demonstration.
John Sevier Steam Plant. Vol. 3. Response of biological communities
of Holston River to thermal effluents from John Sevier Steam
Plant. Part I. TVA, Div. of Env. Pin. Muscle Shoals, Alabama.
408 pp.
13. 1977. 3l6(a) and 316(b) demonstration. John
Sevier Steam Plant. Vol. 4. Effects of thermal discharges from
John Sevier Steam Plant on fish populations of Cherokee Reservoir.
TVA, Div. of For., Fish, and Wildl. Dev., Norris, Tennessee. 212
pp.
14. . 1979. Supplemental information to the technical
report: Response of biological communities of the Holston River to
thermal effluents from John Sevier Steam Plant. TVA, Div. of Env.
Pin. Muscle Shoals, Alabama. 336 pp.
15. Usinger, R. C., Ed. 1963. Aquatic Insects of California. University
of California Press, Berkeley. 508 pp.
62
-------
TABLE 1. CHLORINE TOXICITY TO DAPHNIDS (DAPHNIA PULIX)
" - ~
Chlorine
Concentration
(mg/1)
1 .00
0.50
0.30
0.10
0.05
Statistical Information
Number of
Data Points
11
12
12
12
12
Correlation
Coefficient
0.920421
0.730796
0.824601
0.875113
0.892868
Standard Error
of Estimate
0.133349
0.498824
0.285440
0.181378
0.152153
-KCn + H
(hr"1)
-0.009925
-0.016287
-0.012689
-0.010003
-0.009200
Bioassay Information
Standard Error
of -KCn + H
0.001405
0.004811
0.002753
0.001749
0.001467
Induction
Period t . (hr)
13.3
21.2
18.4
15.4
15.0
ON
OJ
-------
TABLE 2. CHLORINE TOXICITY TO MAYFLY NYMPHS (HEXAGENIA BILINEATA)
Chlorine
Concentration
(mg/1)
1.000
0.500
0.100
0.050
0.025
Statistical Information
Number of
Data Points
11
11
12
12
12
Correlation
Coefficient
0.920421
0.920421
0.919645
0.911438
0.918411
Standard Error
of
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
Estimate
133349
133349
059368
050071
054556
-KCn + H
(hr"1)
-0.
-0.
-0.
-0.
-0.
009925
009925
004239
003383
003862
Bioassay Information
Standard Error
of
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
-KCn + H
001405
001405
000573
000483
000526
Induction
Period
13
13
18
18
20
t.
i
.3
.3
.8
.9
.2
(hr)
-------
TABLE 3. CHLORINE TOXICITY TO CHANNEL CATFISH (ICTALURUS PUNCTATUS)
Chlorine
Concentration
1.000
0.500
0.100
0.050
0.025
Statistical Information
Bioassay Information
Number of
Data Points
12
12
12
12
12
Correlation
Coefficient
0.802152
0.832291
0.375387
0.749015
0.566735
Standard Error
of Estimate
0.331673
0.036244
0.003498
0.006197
0.012382
-KCn t H
(hr )
-0.013588
-0.001659
-0.000043
-0.000214
-0.000260
Standard Error
of -KCn + H
0.003199
0.000350
0.000034
0.000060
0.000119
Induction
Period t.(hr)
19.2
24.2
10.3
33.6
25.9
-------
TABLE 4. ANOVA: CHLORINE TOXICITY TO CHANNEL CATFISH
(ICTALURUS PUNCTATUS)
Variance
Source (VS)
Degrees of
freedom (df)
Sum of
Square (SS)
Mean
Square (MS)
Exposure (E) 2
Concentration (C) 5
Interaction (C X E) 10
Error 54
9377.78
84027.78
9359.72
16200.00
4688.89**
16805.56**
935.97
300.00
** F > 0.01
66
-------
TABLE 5. PERCENT SURVIVAL OF CHANNEL CATFISH (ICTALURUS PUNCTATUS)
TO CHLORINE
Chlorine
Concentration Exposure (Hours)
(mg/£)
0.00
0.025
0.05
0.1
0.5
1.0
24
100.00
98.75
100.00
98.75
91.23
3.75
48
100.00
98.75
100.00
100.00
83.75
0
96
77.50
68.75
82.50
0.0125
1.50
0
Average
92. 5a
88.75a
94.17a
66.25b
58.83b
1.25c
Average 82.08a 80.42a 38.38b
Similar letters on the marginal means indicate no difference between those
means as determined by the 95 percent least significant difference test.
67
-------
TABLE 6. LC5Q PROSIT VALUES FOR CHLORINE TOXICITY TO
CHANNEL CATFISH (ICTALURUS PIMCTATUS)
Chlorine
Concentration*
(Log Scale
-1.6021
-1.3010
-1.0000
-0.3010
0.0000
N
240
240
240
240
240
Number
Alive
213
226
238
152
3
Number
Dead
27
14
2
88
237
Proportion
Dead
0.11
0.06
0.008
0.37
0.99
Probit
Value
3.77
3.46
2.59
4.67
7.33
^Consecutive listing of 0.025, 0.05, 0.1, 0.5, and 1.0 mg/£.
68
-------
TABLE 7. ANOVA: CHLORINE TOXICITY TO DAPHNIDS (DAPHNIA PULEX)
Variance
Source (VS)
Degrees of
freedom (df)
Sum of
Square (SS)
Mean
Square (MS)
Exposure (E) 2
Concentration (C) 5
Interaction (C X E) 10
Error 54
205.86
85437.57
158.64
555.25
102.93**
17087.51**
15.86
10.26
** F > 0.01
69
-------
TABLE 8. PERCENT SURVIVAL OF DAPHNIDS (DAPHNIA PULEX) TO CHLORINE
Chlorine
Concentration Exposure (Hours)
(mg/2)
0.00
0.05
0.1
0.3
0.5
1.0
24
97.50
12.50
7.50
3.33
0
0
48
97.50
8.33
6.67
2.50
0.083
0
96
90.83
1.67
3.33
0
0
0
Average
95.28a
7.50b
5.83b
1.94c
0.028c
Oc
Average 20.l4a 19.18a 15.97b
Similar letters on the marginal means indicate no difference between those
means as determined by the 95 percent least significant difference test.
70
-------
TABLE 9. LC,n PROBIT VALUES FOR CHLORINE TOXICITY TO DAPHNIDS (DAPHNIA PULEX)
Chlorine
Concentration*
(Log Scale)
-1.3010
-1.0000
-0.5299
-0.3010
0.0000
N
360
360
360
360
360
Number
Alive
29
21
7
1
0
Number
Dead
331
339
353
359
360
Proportion
Dead
0.92
0.94
0.98
0.99
100.00
Probit
Value
6.41
6.56
7.05
7.33
—
-"Consecutive listing of 0.05, 0.1, 0.3, 0.5, and 1.0 mg/£.
71
-------
TABLE 10. ANOVA: CHLORINE TOXICITY TO MAYFLY NYMPHS (HEXAGENIA BILINEATA)
Variance
Source (VS)
Degrees of
freedom (df)
Sum of
Square (SS)
Mean
Square (MS)
Exposure (E) 2
Concentration (C) 5
Interaction (C X E) 10
Error 54
21086.86
51353.74
15180.14
3059.25
10543.43**
10270.75**
1518.01**
56.65
F > 0.01
72
-------
TABLE 11. PERCENT SURVIVAL OF MAYFLY NYMPHS (HEXAGENIA BILINEATA)
TO CHLORINE
Chlorine
Concentration Exposure (Hours
(»g/A)
0.00
0.025
0.05
0.1
0.5
1.0
24
91.66
81.66
75.00
70.83
0
0
48
73.33
34.16
46.67
34.16
0
0
96
62.50
0.0083
0
0.167
0
0
Average
75.83a
38.61b
40.56b
35.05b
Oc
Oc
Average 53.19a 31.39b 10.45c
Similar letters on the marginal means indicate no difference between those
means as determined by the 95 percent least significant difference test.
73
-------
TABLE 12. LC5Q PROBIT VALUES FOR CHLORINE TOXICITY TO MAYFLY NYMPHS
(HEXAGENIA BILINEATA)
Chlorine
Concentration*
(Log Scale)
-1.6021
-1.3010
-1.0000
-0.3010
0.0000
N
360
360
360
360
360
Number
Alive
141
146
127
0
0
Number
Dead
219
214
233
360
360
Proportion
Dead
0.61
0.59
0.65
100.00
100.00
Probit
Value
5.25
5.23
5.39
-
"~
-Consecutive listing of 0.025, 0.05, 0.1, 0.3, 0.5 and 1.0 mg/1.
74
-------
TABLE 13. CHLORINE THRESHOLD DATA FOR INVERTEBRATES PRESENT WITHIN TVA AREA
Species
Arthropoda - Crustacea
Asellus sp. Sow-bug
Cyclops sp. Copepod
Daphnia sp. Waterflea
Gammarus sp. Scud
Orconectes sp. Crayfish
Palaemonetes sp. Shrimp
Arthropoda - Insecta
Ephemerella sp. Mayfly
Hydropsyche sp. Caddisfly
Isonychia sp. Mayfly
Peltoperla sp. Stonefly
Psephenus sp. Water penny
Pteronarcys sp. Stonefly
Stenonema sp. Mayfly
Rotifers
Keratella sp. Rotifer
Mollusca
Goniobasis sp. Operculate snail
Goniobasis sp. Operculate snail
Nitocris sp. Operculate snail
Physa sp. Pulmonate snail
Life Stage
Adult
Adult
Instar
Adult
Adult
Adult
Nymph
Adult
Nymph
Nymph
Adult
Nymph
Nymph
Adult
Adult
Adult
Adult
Adult
(mg/£ hr)"1
0.35012
1.00000
0.02541
1.34583
0.01042
0.35726
0.13106
0.22864
0.64294
0.11554
0.34301
0.02770
0.24045
17.29322
0.01974
0.00595
0.00595
0.00595
(hr"1)
0.03654
0.03103
0.00399
0.01021
0.00314
0.05689
0.00330
0.00341
0.02608
0.00287
0.02821
0.00245
0.02038
0.22035
0.00016
0.00179
0.00179
0.00258
(mg/£)
0.104
0.031
0.157
0.008
0.301
0.159
0.025
0.015
0.041
0.025
0.082
0.088
0.085
0.013
0.008
0.301
0.301
0.434
a. Intermittent exposure.
75
-------
TABLE 14. CHLORINE TOXICITY THRESHOLD DATA FOR FISH PRESENT
WITHIN TVA AREA (CONTINUOUS EXPOSURE)
Chlorine
K
Species
Cyprinidae
Carassius auratus (Goldfish)
Cyprinus carpio (Carp)
Pimephales promelas (Fathead minnow)
Rhinichthys atratulus (Blacknose dace)
Catostomidae
Catostomus commersoni (White sucker)
Ictaluridae
Ictalurus melas (Black bullhead)
Poeciliidae
Gambusia affinis (Mosquito fish)
Percichthyidae
Morone chrysops (White bass)
Morone saxatilis (Striped bass)
H
Life Stage (mg/2 hr)"1 (hr"1)
Adult
Adult
Larvae
Adult
Adult
Adult
Adult
Adult
Larvae
Micropterus salmoides (Largemouth bass)Adult
Percidae
Perca flavescens (Yellow perch)
Stizostedian canadense (Sauger)
Adult
Adult
0
0
0
21
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
.04167
.01469
.01110
.39216
.37726
.00468
.02167
.01389
.10113
.83328
.00793
.27091
0
0
0
3
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
.00165
.00228
.00245
.16768
.04722
.00403
.50165
.00416
.00065
.28159
.00139
.02410
Chlorine
Ct
(mg/£)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.040
.155
.221
.148
.125
.861
.743
.299
.006
.338
.175
.089
76
-------
TABLE 15. CHLORINE TOXICITY THRESHOLD DATA FOR FISH PRESENT WITHIN TVA AREA
(INTERMITTENT EXPOSURE)
Chlorine
K
H
Chlorine
Ct
Species
Life Stage (mg/£ hr)
Cyprinidae
Cyprinus carpio (Carp) Juvenile
Notemigonus crysoleucas (Golden shiner)Juvenile
Notropis atherinoides (Emerald shiner) Adult
Notropis atherinoides (Emerald shiner) Juvenile
Notropis spilopterus (Spotfin shiner,) Adult
Catostomidae
Catostomus commersoni (White sucker)
Ictaluridae
Ictalurus punctatus (Channel catfish)
Ictalurus punctatus (Channel catfish)
Ictalurus punctatus (Channel catfish)
(I. lacustris)
Centrarchidae
Lepomis macrochirus (Bluegill)
Lepomis macrochirus (Bluegill)
Percidae
Perca flavescens (Yellow perch)
Stizostedian canadense (Sauger)
Adult
Adult
Juvenile
Juvenile
Adult
Juvenile
Adult
-1
Sciaenidae
Aplodinotus grunniens (Freshwater drum)Adult
0.04153
0.03426
20.00000
0.02083
0.01389
0.01389
0.03551
0.03875
0.03701
0.04214
0.01042
0.02083
0.01389
2.00000
(hr
-1,
0.01260
0.00283
6.02060
0.00627
0.00418
0.00240
0.00987
0.00229
0.00102
(mg/JR)
0.303
0.083
0.301
0.301
0.301
0.173
0.278
0.059
0.028
0.06380 1.514
0.00314 0.301
0.00627 0.301
0.00482 0.347
4.68573 2.343
77
-------
TABLE 16. COMPARISON OF K, H, AND C VALUES FOR CHLORINE BIOASSAY
AND LITERATURE DATA
Source of
Chlorine Data
Name of Organism
Ictalurus gunctatus
(Channel catfish)
Daphnia pulex
(Waterflea)
Hexagenia bilineata
(Mayflies)
Calculated Values
K
H
Ct
K
H
Ct
K
H
Ct
Bioassay
0.03263
0.00069
0.021
0.27119
0.03964
0.146
0.18400
0.00360
0.020
Literature
0.03701
0.00102
0.028
0.02541
0.00399
0.157
0.13106
0.00330
0.025
a. K = (mg/£ hr)'1, H = hr"1, and C = (mg/A)
b. Bioassay data were based on larval fish while literature data were based
on juvenile fish.
78
-------
TABLE 17. THRESHOLD CONCENTRATION (Ct) AND MEDIAN LETHAL CONCENTRATION
(LC50) VALUES FOR CHLORINE BIOASSAY DATA
Chlorine
Organism Life Stage C
Ictalurus punctatus
(Channel Catfish) Larval 0.021 0.53
Daphnia pulex
(waterflea) Instar (Juvenile) 0.146C 0.032
Hexagenia bilineata
(Mayflies) Nymph 0.020 0.022
a. C = the minimum concentration which kills none of the organisms
b. LC_n = the minimum concentration which will kill 50 percent of the
population.
c. Due to the high mortality rates (over 50 percent) at the lower
concentrations.
79
-------
TABLE 18. CHLORINE SENSITIVITY FOR SELECTED INVERTEBRATES AND FISH
AT CHLORINATING POWER PLANTS
Fish
(Species)
Morone saxatilisa (Larvae)
Ictalurus punctatus (Larvae)
Ictalurus punctatus (Juvenile)
(I. lacustris)
Carassius auratus3
Ictalurus punctatus (Juvenile)
Notemigonus crysoleucas (Juvenile)
Stizostedian cartadense3
Catostomus commersoni2
Rhinichthys atratulusa
Cyprinus carpio3
Catostomus commersoni
Perca flavescens3
Pimephales promelas3 (Larvae)
Ictalurus punctatus
Morone chrysops3
Notropis spilopterus0
Lepomis macrochirus0 (Juvenile)
Notropis atherinoidesc
Perca flavescens0
Cyprinus carpio
Micropterus salmoides3
Stizstedian canadense
Gambusia affinis3
Ictalurus melas3
Lepomis macrochirus
Aplodinotus grunniens0
Cj Chlorinating
(mg/£) Power Hants
0.006
0.021
0.028
0.040
Q Q4g £)
0 (T54. A
V.W-J^ .rt.
0.059
0.083
0.089
0.111 C
0.125
0.148
0.155
0.173
0.175
0 904 R
0.221
0.278
0.299
0.301
0.301
0.301
0.301
0.303
0.338
0.347
0.743
0.861
1.514
2.343
(mg/S)
0.008
0.008
0.013
0.015
0.020
r\ me
U.Uzj
0.025
0.031
0.041
—0.048
— -0.054
0.082
0.085
0.088
0.104
— 0.111
0.146
0.157
0.159
— 0 904
0.301
0.301
0.301
0.434
Invertebrates
(Species)
Gammarus sp.
Goniobasis sp.
Keratella sp.
Hy dropsy che sp.
Hexagenia bilineata (Nymph)
Ephemerella sp. (Nymph)
Peltoperla sp. (Nymph)
Cyclops sp.
Isonychia sp. (Nymph)
Psephenussp.
Stenonema sp. (Nymph)
Pteronarcys sp. (Nymph)
Asellus sp.
Daphnia pulex (Instar)
Daphnia sp. (Instar)
Palaemonetessp.
Goniobasis sp.
Nitocris sp.
Orconectes sp.
Physa sp.
All species are adult except when indicated.
a. Continuous exposure
b. Intermittent exposure
c. Threshold concentration (intermittent exposure) was the same for the adult and juvenile.
d. Bioassay data (intermittent exposure)
80
-------
oo
o
o
o
T—
X
X
c
O
Q)
'o
H—
t+—
CD
O
O
0)
+-•
CO
rr
2.70
2.40
2.10
1.80
1.50
1.20
0.90
0.60
0.30
LO
q
d
o
T-
d
o
-------
o
o
o
T—
X
o
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
w
*-
(D
o
L_
0)
0.
20
10
8
C = 0.1mg/l
Cs0.05mg/l
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
TIME OF EXPOSURE (HOURS)
Figure 2. Percent Survival of Channel Catfish Larvae to Chlorine Based on Least Squares Fit.
-fr=0.025mg/l; O=0.05mg/l; D = 0.1mg/l; O = 0.5mg/l ; 9= 0.1mg/f
82
-------
00
w
o
o
*" 16.00
x
O
o
O
CD
•4—*
CO
cc
-4— '
L_
O
14.00
12.00
| 10.00
'o
8.00
6.00
£ 4.00
2.00
o
i
i
CO
q
d
LO 00 O CO U)
0 0 r- T-; r-
6 o ci d 6
o oo
CM CM
d d
CHLORINE CONCENTRATION (mg/l)
10
CM
d
CO
CM
d
o
CO
d
Figure 3. Linear Regression of Chlorine Toxicity Data for Daphnia pulex
(Daphnids)
-------
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
o
o
X
o
~»
5
'
_
OT
0>
O
10
9
8
7
6
O
at
O
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
TIME OF EXPOSURE (HOURS)
70
80
90
100
Figure 4. Percent Survival of Daphnids to Chlorine Based on Least Squares Fit.
•&= 0.05mg/l ; C=0.1mg/l; u=0.3mg/l; •= 0.5mg/l
-------
o
o
X
-4-
O
*
I
3.00
2.50
c
;
0>
o
o
o
^-*
03
DC
00
-------
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
n
n
10 -20 30 40 50 60
TIME OF EXPOSURE (HOURS)
70
80
90
100
Figure 6. Percent of Survival of Mayfly Nymphs to Chlorine Based on Least Squares Fit.
; O = 0.05mg/l; ii=0.1mg/l
86
-------
oo
o
o
T—
X
X"N
I
C
O
c
CD
'o
H—
H—
0)
o
o
03
DC
>
-*-•
"o3
•4-"
O
O
2.2
2.0
1.8
1.6
1.4
1.2
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
j i_
10
s.cx^csq^cvjco'*
oooo d
CHLORINE CONCENTRATION (mg/l)
Figure 7. Linear Regression of Chen's Toxicity (Zinc) Data for Poecilia reticulata
(Guppies)
-------
Appendix C
SITE-SPECIFIC CONSIDERATION
OF CHLORINE EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
Prepared by
Alta Turner1
and
Sylvia A. Murray
xAquatic Ecologist, Envirosphere Company, Two World Trade
Center, New York, New York 10048
-------
SITE-SPECIFIC CONSIDERATION
OF CHLORINE EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
By Alta Turner1 and Sylvia A. Murray
INTRODUCTION
In 1978, Envirosphere Company developed a methodology to derive
chlorine discharge limitations from data recording lethal responses
resulting from exposure to chlorinated effluents. This methodology was
applied to a data base representative of all species for which chlorine
sensitivity data were available and resulted in point-of-discharge
limitations (recommended) for chlorine, appropriate to marine-estuarine
or freshwater habitats.
In September 1980, Envirosphere was commissioned to conduct similar
analyses on the available data base representative of species resident at
TVA sites. The following presents the results and interpretation of
these analyses.
DATA BASE
Appendix 1 lists data recording freshwater species' sensitivity to
total residual chlorine (TRC) where chlorine residuals inducing a median
lethal response (LC50) were measured by either the amperometric titration
or ferrous DPD method. The data were consolidated from an extensive
literature review, cumulative through May 1980. Standardization of data
by chlorine form, chemical method, and biological response renders a data
base composed of data which are comparable and conducive to statistical
analysis. Rationale for these criteria are published elsewhere (Turner
and Thayer 1980).
From the standardized freshwater data set, five subsets were
partitioned on the basis of the following species groupings:
Freshwater fish species
Fish species resident at TVA sites
Freshwater invertebrate species
Envirosphere Company, Two World Trade Center, New York, NY 10048
89
-------
Invertebrate species resident at TVA sites
Fish and invertebrate species resident at TVA sites.
Species resident at TVA sites were provided by TVA; those species not
resident at TVA but for which chlorine sensitivity data are available are
designated in appendix 1 by asterisk (*).
The six data sets (the above five subsets plus the entire data base)
were analyzed separately in order to compare effluent limitations
determined by analysis of all available freshwater data to limitations
determined by analysis of TVA-specific data. Secondary comparisons
between vertebrate and invertebrate sensitivity were also made.
STATISTICAL ANALYSES
Concentration and duration variables were normalized to meet one
assumption of regression by applying log transformations to the raw
data, milligrams TRC per liter, and minutes exposure duration.
Regression analyses were performed on each of the six data sets,
utilizing concentration TRC and exposure duration as dependent and
independent variables, respectively. Results are presented in tables 1-6
and graphically displayed in figures 1-6. The integers plotted on the
figures represent the number of observations recorded at that
concentration and exposure duration; asterisks indicate the number of
observations exceeds nine.
The resulting regression equations provide a means of calculating
TRC concentrations for given exposure durations which would induce a
median lethal response in a species with average sensitivity to chlorine.
(This theoretical average species represents no single species in the
data set but, rather, exhibits the biological response intermediate of
all those recorded.) To transform the LC50s to concentrations which
would elicit no mortality, an application factor of 0.59 was applied to
the raw LC50 values. This factor was derived previously (Envirosphere
Company 1979, Turner and Thayer 1980) by averaging the ratio of LC50 to
lethal threshold concentrations where these data represented identical
exposure periods for the same test species. Multiplying LC5Os by 0.59 is
tantamount to reducing the intercept of the original regression equation
(tables 1-6) by 0.23. Either method results in predictive equations
which can be used to calculate concentrations which will induce no
mortality in the "average species" for any given exposure duration.
Because regression determines central tendency through the data set
analyzed, the resulting equation represents the cumulative biological
sensitivity of all species within the data base. To account for the
vulnerability of the most sensitive species represented in each data set,
analysis of residual variance (that variance within the data set not
accounted for by the regression model) was performed. First, the
residual value for each datum was determined by finding the difference
between observed and calculated (based on the regression equation)
concentrations. Residuals were then partitioned by species and averaged.
The lowest mean residual designated the most sensitive species as
indicated in tables 1-6. To assure that the predictive equations
adequately protect the most sensitive species in the data set, that
90
-------
species' mean residual was added to the intercept. (Because the average
residual of the most sensitive species was the greatest negative number,
adding the mean residual to the intercept repositioned the regression
line by lowering it parallel to the original regression line [Turner and
Thayer, 1980]).
RESULTS
Comparison of tables 1-6 and figures 1-6 indicates the following:
Partitioning available data on the basis of species residence
at TVA sites does not substantially modify the results of
regression analysis although the number of observations
represented in these subsets is reduced.
Invertebrate species (within the TVA-resident subset or all
available freshwater invertebrate subset) exhibit greater
variability in response to chlorinated effluents than
vertebrate species in complementary subsets.
Because the number of the data representing invertebrate
species exceeds that representing vertebrate species and
because no "weighting" was applied to adjust for the difference
in number of observations when invertebrate and vertebrate
subsets were pooled, the invertebrate component tended to
dominate the analytical results.
Additional comparisons can be made on the basis of no-mortality
levels for given exposure durations as calculated with the different
regression models. Table 7 exhibits calculated no-mortality concentra-
tions for "average" and most-sensitive species for each data subset at
2- and 24-hour exposure durations. Although no-mortality levels derived
from TVA-resident species subsets analyses are slightly higher than
levels calculated from subsets including additional species which are not
resident at TVA, the differences are not substantial. Conversely,
invertebrate and vertebrate sensitivities differ widely with
invertebrates as a group exhibiting increased sensitivity to chlorinated
effluents.
APPLICATIONS
On the basis of these results, a case can be made for TVA-specific
chlorine effluent limitations. Assuming that the intent of effluent
limitations is to limit toxic discharges to concentrations which will
induce no mortality within the mixing zone, the Envirosphere methodology
applied to the TVA data set is a useful tool to determine nonlethal
discharge concentrations for a wide range of discharge periods. The
regression equation derived from the pooled TVA-resident invertebrate and
vertebrate subsets which accounts for the LC50-LCOO translation
(intercept-- 0.23) and for the most sensitive TVA species
(intercept--0.73) is:
log concentration = 0.07 - (0.59) log duration.
Discharge concentrations calculated on the basis of this equation
should eliminate mortality at the point of discharge throughout the
discharge period. The estimated average total residual chlorine concen-
trations at the mouth of the discharge channel for each chlorinating TVA
power plant are compared with the chlorine toxicity thresholds based on
the regression equations in this report (table 8 and figure 7). As can
91
-------
be seen in figure 7, no effect would be expected for fish species in the
vicinity of the discharge channel except for, perhaps, a marginal one for
fish at power plant B. This effect, however, may be indirectly due
to the expected impact of the invertebrate genera in the discharge
channel. No effect would be expected for the invertebrate genera
associated with the other TVA power plants.
One limitation of this method to determine chlorine discharge
concentrations should be recognized. TVA species represent a substantial
portion of the data within the freshwater data base; e.g., of 27 inverte-
brate species for which chlorine sensitivity data are available,
16 species are resident at TVA sites; similarly, of 32 fish species, 19
are found at TVA. However, considering all species which are recorded as
occurring at TVA sites, chlorine sensitivity data are available for only
16 percent of the 126 fish species, approximately 1 percent of the
288 zooplankton species and less than 1 percent of the 1,302
macroinvertebrate species. Whereas this method adequately represents
even the most sensitive species within the data base, it cannot account
for the possibility that more sensitive species are resident at TVA
sites. It is, therefore, strongly recommended that the data set be
updated on a regular basis as additional chlorine sensitivity data become
available.
92
-------
REFERENCES
1. Turner, A. and T. A. Thayer. 1980. Chlorine toxicity in aquatic
ecosystems. In: Water Chlorination Environmental Impact and
Health Effects. Ed. R. I. Jolley, W. A. Brungs, R. B. Cummings,
and V. A. Jacobs. Ann Arbor Science Publishers, Inc., vol. 3,
pp. 607-630.
2. Envirosphere Company. 1979. Chlorine Toxicity in Freshwater
Ecosystems, Edison Electric Institute.
93
-------
TABLE 1. FRESHWATER SPECIES DATA ANALYSES
10
Regression Analysis
Data Restrictions:
Dependent Variable:
Independent Variable:
Regression Equation:
LC50/TRC/Amperometric Titration-Ferrous DPD
Concentration TRC (mg/1)
Exposure Duration (minutes)
Log Concentration = 0.96 - (0.57) Log Duration
Analysis of Variance for the Regression:
Source
Attributal
Deviation
of Variation
>le to Regression
from Regression
Total
Degrees
of
Freedom
1
436
437
Sum of
Squares
90.7596
232.4375
323.1970
Mean F
Squares Value Probability
90.7596 170.2444 P 0.001
0.5331
Correlation Coefficient: 0.53
Standard Error of Estimate: 0.73
Residual Analysis
Most Sensitive Species:
Mean Residual:
Iron humeralis
-0.95 (n = 22)
-------
TABLE 2. FRESHWATER FISH SPECIES DATA ANALYSES
VO
tn
Regression Analysis
Data Restrictions:
Dependent Variable:
Independent Variable:
Regression Equation:
LC50/TRC/Amperometric Titration-Ferrous DPD/Vertebrate
Concentration TRC (mg/1)
Exposure Duration (minutes)
Log Concentration = 0.75 - (0.43) Log Duration
Analysis of Variance for the Regression:
At
Source of Variation
tribuLable to Regression
Deviation from Regression
Total
Degrees
of
Freedom
1
136
137
Sum of
Squares
26.5513
21.7371
48.2883
Mean
Squares
26.5513
0.1598
F
Value Probability
166.1205 P 0.001
Correlation Coefficient: 0.74
Standard Error of Estimate: 0.40
Residual Analysis
Most Sensitive Species:
Mean Residual:
Notropis atherinoides
-0.39 (n = 14)
-------
TABLE 3. FRESHWATER INVERTEBRATE SPECIES DATA ANALYSES
vo
Regression Analysis
Data Restrictions:
Dependent Variable:
Independent Variable:
Regression Equation:
LC50/TRC/Amperometric Titratiori-Ferrous DPD/Invertebrate
Concentration TRC (mg/1)
Exposure Duration (minutes)
Log Concentration = 1.10 - (0.63) Log Duration
Analysis of Variance for the Regression:
Sour
At t ribu
ce of Variation
table to Regression
Deviation from Regression
Total
Degrees
of
Freedom
1
298
299
Sum of
Squares
30.7391
203.1533
233.8924
Mean
Squares
30.7391
0.6817
F
Value Probability
45.0904 P 0.001
Correlation Coefficient: 0.36
Standard Error of Estimate: 0.83
Residual Analysis
Most Sensitive Species:
Mean Residual:
Iron humeralis
-0.91 (n = 22)
-------
TABLE 4. TVA SPECIES DATA ANALYSES
Regression Analysis
Data Restrictions:
Dependent Variable:
Independent Variable:
Regression Equation:
LC50/TRC/Amperometric Titration-Ferrous DPD/TVA Species
Concentration TRC (mg/1)
Exposure Duration (minutes)
Log Concentration = 1.03 - (0.59) Log Duration
Analysis of Variance for the Regression:
Source
of Variation
Attributable to Regression
Deviation
from Regression
Total
Degrees
of
Freedom
1
263
264
Sum of
Squares
58.7477
149.7673
208.5150
Mean
Squares
58.7477
0.5695
F
Value Probability
103.1644 P 0.001
Correlation Coefficient: 0.53
Standard Error of Estimate: 0.75
Residual Analysis
Most Sensitive Species:
Mean Residual:
Isonychia sp.
-0.73 (n = 58)
-------
TABLE 5. TVA FISH SPECIES DATA ANALYSES
00
Regression Analysis
Data Restrictions:
Dependent Variable:
Independent Variable:
Regression Equation:
LC50/TRC/Amperometric Titration-Ferrous DPD/TVA Species/Vertebrate
Concentration TRC (mg/1)
Exposure Duration (minutes)
Log Concentration = 0.93 - (0.49) Log Duration
Analysis of Variance for the Regression:
Source of Variation
Attributable to Regression
Dev
iation from Regression
Total
Degrees
of
Freedom
1
87
88
Sum of
Squares
19.1374
16.5794
35.7169
Mean
Squares
19.1374
0.1906
F
Value Probability
100.4229 P 0.001
Correlation Coefficient: 0.73
Standard Error of Estimate: 0.44
Residual Analysis
Most Sensitive Species:
Mean Residual:
Notropis atherinoides
-0.46 (n = 14)
-------
TABLE 6. TVA INVERTEBRATE SPECIES DATA ANALYSES
Regression Analysis
Data Restrictions:
Dependent Variable:
Independent Variable:
Regression Equation:
LC50/TRC/Amperometric Titration-Ferrous DPD/TVA Species/Invertebrate
Concentration TRC (mg/1)
Exposure Duration (minutes)
Log Concentration = 0.75 - (0.52) Log Duration
Analysis of Variance for the Regression:
Source
of Variation
Attributable to Regression
Deviation
from Regression
Total
Degrees
of
Freedom
1
174
175
Sum of
Squares
13.4623
129.3940
142.8563
Mean F
Squares Value
13.4623 18.1032
0.7436
Probability
P 0.001
Correlation Coefficient: 0.31
Standard Error of Estimate: 0.86
Residual Analysis
Most Sensitive Species:
Mean Residual:
Isonychia sp.
-0.67 (n = 58)
-------
TABLE 7. COMPARISON OF CONCENTRATIONS TRC (mg/1) INDUCING NO MORTALITY
o
o
Data
Freshwater spp .
F
t
1
'J
1
ivshwater fish spp.
ri_-shwater invertebrate spp.
VA- resident spp.
VA-rtsident fish spp.
VA-resident invertebrate spp.
Average
0.35
0.42
0.36
0.37
0.48
0.27
2-Hour Exposure
1 "°st 2
spp. sensitive spp.
0.04
0.17
0.04
0.07
0.17
0.06
24-Hour
Average spp.
0.09
0.15
0.08
0.09
0.14
0.08
Exposure
Most
sensitive spp.
0.01
0.06
0.01
0.02
0.05
0.02
1. Average species' sensitivity calculated from regression equation to determine concentration
inducing no mortality, is representative of the entire data set.
2. Most sensitive species within each data set, determined by residual analysis, assures
protection of all species represented in the data set.
-------
Table 8. MEAN RESIDUAL FOR SPECIES RESIDENT AT TVA
(IN DECREASING SENSITIVITY)
Mean Residual N Species
-.73
-.38
-.36
-.19
-.01
-.01
.00
.02
.04
.09
.13
.13
.18
.24
.27
.29
.34
.35
.38
.43
.44
.45
.53
.54
.59
1.90
58
14
25
4
5
6
3
16
3
3
6
2
3
22
13
6
12
7
2
12
9
7
3
3
2
10
Isonychia spp.
Notropis atherinoides
Gammarus minus
Centroptilium spp
Notropis hudsonius
Psephemis herricki
Notropis spilopterus
Ephemerella lata
Notropis cornutus
Catastomus commersoni
Ictalurus punctatus
Notemigonus crysoleucas
Stizostedion canadense
Lepomis macrochirus
Perca flavescens
Daphnia pulex
Goniobasis virginica
Hydropsyche bifida
Micropterus salmoides
Nitrocris carinata
Physa heterostropha
Cyclops bicuspidatus thomasi
Morone chrysops
Cyprinus carpio
Aplodinotus grunniens
Nitrocris spp
(-.67)1
(-.46)2
C-.30)1
(-.12)1
(-.06)2
(-.oi)1
(-.12)2
( -08)1
(-.08)2
(-.OS)2
(-.O?)2
(-.OS)2
(-.06)2
( .OO)2
( .21)2
( -32)1
( -34)1
( -38)1
( .1C)2
( -43)1
( -45)1
( -56)1
( .41)2
( -42)2
( -47)2
( 1-95)1
1Mean Residual for Invertebrate TVA Species.
2Mean Residual for Vertebrate TVA Species.
101
-------
2.CO •
1.00 •
-1.00 »
o
to
-2.00
-3.00 •
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1 1
1
1
2
*^
1
1
1
2
2
3
2
2
3
2
6
-4.00 •
"INDICATES THAT N>10 AT THAT CONCENTRATION/DURATION
1.00 1.20 1.40 1.60 1.80 2.00 2.20 2.40 2.50 2.60 3.00 3.20 3.40 3.60 3.80 4.00 4.20 4.40
LOG DURATION (MINUTES)
FIGURE 1. REGRESSION: FRESHWATER SPECIES
-------
v^r*
^UM
-------
2.00 •
1.00 •
.00 *
-1.00 •
-2.00 •
-3.00 •
-4.00 •-
1.00 1.20 1.40 1.60 1.80 2.00 2.20 2.40 2.60 2.80 3.00 3.20 3.40 3.60 3.80 4.00 4.20 4.40
LOG DURATION (MINUTES)
FIGURE 3. REGRESSION: FRESHWATER INVERTEBRATE SPECIES
-------
2.00 •
1
1.00 • 1
.00 •
-1.00 •
-2.00 •
o
fe
o
o
-3.00 •
-4.00 •
?-
i
i
i
i
i
i
4
2
5
9
""* ,
5
2
2
3
3
5
1
2
4
1
4
2
1
"--6.
2
1
2
1
1
1
1.00 1.20 1.40 1.60 1.80 2.00 2.20 2.40 2.60 2,80 3.00 3.20 3.40 3.60 3.80 4.00 4.20 4.40
LOG DURATION (MINUTES)
FIGURE 4. REGRESSION: SPECIES RESIDENT AT TVA SITES
-------
2.00
1.00 •
.00 •
-1.03 •
-2.00 •
O
O
-3.00 •
-4.00 •-
1.00 1.20 1.40 1.60 1.80 2.00 2.20 2.40 2.60 2.80 3.00 3.20 3.40 3.60 3.80 4.00 4.20 4.40
LOG DURATION (MINUTES)
FIGURE 5. RECESSION: TVA FISH SPECIES
-------
LOl
LOG CONCENTRATION TRC (ng/1
o
o
o
o
-------
0.5-
o
00
0.4-
S 0.3
cc
QJ
o
z
o
o
LU
0.2
tr
3 0.1
x
o
0.0
0
10
20 30 40
DURATION OF EXPOSURE (MIN)
50
e "/. Tcxicity thresholds of chlorine to fish and invertebrate species present
hin the Tennessee Valley Authority watershed.
60
-------
APPENDIX 1: FRESHWATER DATA LIMITED TO
Species
*Aeolosoma headly
*Alosa pseudoharengus
Anculosa so.
Aplodinotus grunniens
*Asellus racovitzai
Carrassius auratus
Catastomus commersoni
Centroptlllum sp.
Cyclops bicuspidatus thomasi
Cyprinus carpio
LC50/TRC/AMPEROMETRIC TITRATION-FERROUS DPD
Assay
Intermittent
Intermittent
Intermittent
Intermittent
Intermittent
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Intermittent
Static
Static
Static
Static
Static
Static
Static
Static
Static
Static
Static
Static
Static
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Static
Static
Static
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Static
Static
Concent
2.6000
2.3000
2.0000
1.8000
1.7000
2.1500
2.2700
1.7000
0.9600
0.3000
0.0400
2.4500
1.7500
1.3300
3.8700
0.1200
0.0850
0.8380
0.0020
0.0320
0.2120
0.3130
0.0160
0.1410
0.0440
6.2800
1.4600
1.2600
0.6130
0.7520
0.3540
0.1360
0.0870
0.0920
0.1530
1.0900
0.7300
0.3600
0.2780
0.1700
0.0700
0.0480
0.0840
14.6800
15.6100
5.7600
3.1500
0.0690
0.0720
2.3700
1.8200
109
Duration
2,880.00
2,880.00
2,880.00
2,880.00
2,880.00
30.00
30.00
30.00
30.00
30.00
4,320.00
160.00
160.00
720.00
1,440.00
1,440.00
2,880.00
2,880.00
2,880.00
5,760.00
5,760.00
5,760.00
10,080.00
10,080.00
480.00
720.00
720.00
720.00
1,440.00
2,880.00
2,880.00
2,880.00
5,760.00
5,760.00
5,760.00
160.00
160.00
160.00
480.00
720.00
1,440.00
2,880.00
5,760.00
30.00
30.00
30.00
30.00
5,760.00
5,760.00
160.00
160.00
Source
Cairns 1978
Cairns 1978
Cairns 1978
Cairns 1978
Cairns 1978
Seegert- Brooks 1978
Seegert-Brooks 1978
Seegert - Brooks 1978
Seegert - Brooks 1978
Seegert • Brooks 1978
Dicksonetal. 1974
Brooks-Seegert 1978
Brooks-Seegert 1978
Gregg 1974
Gregg 1974
Gregg 1974
Gregg 1974
Gregg 19 74
Gregg 1974
Gregg 1974
Gregg 1974
Gregg 1974
Gregg 1974
Gregg 1974
Gregg 1974
Gregg 1974
Gregg 1974
Gregg 1974
Gregg 1974
Gregg 1974
Gregg 1974
Gregg 1974
Gregg 1974
Gregg 1974
Ward & Oegraeve
Brooks - Seegert 1978
Brooks - Seegert 1978
Brooks-Seegert 1978
Gregg 1974
Gregg 1974
Gregg 1974
Gregg 1974
Beetonetal. 1976
Latimeretal. 1975
Latimeretal. 1975
Latimeretal. 1975
Latimeretal. 1975
Beetonetal. 1976
Beeton et. al. 1976
Brooks-Seegert 1978
Brooks-Seegert 1978
-------
APPENDIX 1 (continued)
Species
Cyprinus carpio
*Daphnia maqna
Daphnia pulex
Ephemerella lata
Gammarus minus
Assay
Static
Intermittent
Intermittent
Intermittent
Intermittent
Intermittent
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Intermittent
Intermittent
Intermittent
Intermittent
Intermittent
Static
Static
Static
Static
Static
Static
Static
Static
Static
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Static
Static
Static
Static
Static
Static
Static
Static
Static
Static
Static
Static
Static
Static
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Concent
1 .5000
0.1500
0.1300
0.1200
0.1200
0.0800
0.0170
0.2200
0.0700
31.6000
0.1100
0.0900
0.0800
0.0400
0.0300
2.4900
0.1230
0.2150
0.0850
0.0180
0.0330
0.0130
0.0140
0.0110
5.6700
1.3800
1.3300
0.5760
0.1830
0.0840
0.0270
0.7170
1.0400
0.0760
0.1470
0.2720
0.0310
0.0820
0.0670
0.0190
0.0420
0.0180
0.0100
0.0100
0.0030
0.9600
0.2020
0.1910
0.1560
0.0750
0.1020
Duration
160.00
2,880.00
2,880.00
2,880.00
2,880.00
2,880.00
2,880.00
2,880.00
2,880.00
5,760.00
2,880.00
2,880.00
2,880.00
2,880.00
2,880.00
480.00
720.00
1,440.00
1,440.00
2,880.00
2,880.00
5,760.00
5,760.00
10,080.00
480.00
720.00
720.00
1,440.00
1,440.00
2,880.00
2,880.00
480.00
480.00
480.00
720.00
720.00
720.00
1,440.00
1,440.00
1,440.00
2,880.00
2,880.00
2,880.00
5,760.00
5,760.00
480.00
480.00
720.00
720.00
1,440.00
1,440.00
Source
Brooks - Seegert 1978
Cairns 1978
Cairns 1978
Cairns 1978
Cairns 1978
Cairns 1978
Ward & Degraeve
Ward & Degraeve
Ward & Degraeve
Clark et al. 1977
Cairns 1978
Cairns 1978
Cairns 1978
Cairns 1978
Cairns 1978
Gregg 1974
Gregg 1974
Gregg 1974
Gregg 1974
Gregg 1974
Gregg 1974
Gregg 1974
Gregg 1974
Gregg 1974
Gregg 1974
Gregg 1974
Gregg 1974
Gregg 1974
Gregg 1974
Gregg 1974
Gregg 1974
Gregg 1974
Gregg 1974
Gregg 1974
Gregg 1974
Gregg 1974
Gregg 1974
Gregg 1974
Gregg 1974
Gregg 1974
Gregg 1974
Gregg 1974
Gregg 1974
Gregg 1974
Gregg 1974
Gregg 1974
Gregg 1974
Gregg 1974
Gregg 1974
Gregg 1974
Gregg 1974
110
-------
APPENDIX 1 (continued)
Species
Gammarus minus
Goniobasis virqinica
Hyalella azteca
Hydropsyche bifida
Ictaluras melas
Ictalurus nebulosus
Ictalurus punctatus
'Iron humeralis
Assay
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Static
Static
Static
Static
Static
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Static
Static
Static
Static
Static
Static
Static
Static
Static
Static
Static
Static
Static
Static
Static
Static
Static
Static
Static
Continuous
Continuous
Concent
0.0520
0.0660
0.0230
0.0340
0.0140
2.7900
0.1440
0.1440
2.5500
0.3670
0.1100
0.0440
0.0090
0.1360
0.0800
0.0420
0.0060
0.7400
0.3960
0.5250
0.3960
0.2830
0.0500
0.3850
0.0340
0.4400
4.1000
0.0900
0.0900
0.0900
0.7800
0.6500
0.6700
0.0080
0.0230
0.0150
0.0080
0.0110
0.0070
0.0060
0.0040
0.0100
0.0010
0.0600
0.0440
0.0330
0.0310
0.0180
0.0100
0.0690
0.0460
Duration Source
1,440.00 Gregg 1974
2,880.00 Gregg 1974
2,880.00 Gregg 1974
2,880.00 Gregg 1974
5,760.00 Gregg 1974
5,760.00 Gregg 1974
5,760.00 Gregg 1974
10,080.00 Gregg 1974
10,080.00 Gregg 1974
10,080.00 Gregg 1974
5,760.00 Gregg 1974
5,760.00 Gregg 1974
5,760.00 Gregg 1974
10,080.00 Gregg 1974
10,080.00 Gregg 1974
10,080.00 Gregg 1974
10,080.00 Gregg 1974
5,760.00 Clark etal. 1977
480.00 Gregg 1974
720.00 Gregg 1974
2,880.00 Gregg 1974
5,760.00 Gregg 1974
5,760.00 Gregg 1974
10,080.00 Gregg 1974
10,080.00 Gregg 1974
5,760.00 Clark etal. 1977
5,760.00 Larson &Schlesinger 1977
5,760.00 Roseboom - Richey 1977
5,760.00 Roseboom - Richey 1977
5,760.00 Roseboom- Richey 1977
160.00 Brooks - Seegert 1978
160.00 Brooks - Seegert 1978
160.00 Broo ks - Seegert 1978
720.00 Gregg 1974
720.00 Gregg 1974
1,440.00 Gregg 1974
1,440.00 Gregg 1974
1,440.00 Gregg 1974
2,880.00 Gregg 1974
2,880.00 Gregg 1974
2,880.00 Gregg 1974
5,760.00 Gregg 1974
5,760.00 Gregg 1974
480.00 Gregg 1974
480.00 Gregg 1974
480.00 Gregg 1974
480.00 Gregg 1974
720.00 Gregg 1974
720.00 Gregg 1974
480.00 Gregg 1974
480.00 Gregg 1974
111
-------
APPENDIX 1 (continued)
Species
'Iron humeralis
Assay
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Static
Static
Static
Static
Static
Static
Static
Static
Static
Static
Static
Static
Static
Static
Static
Static
Static
Static
Static
Static
Static
Static
Static
Static
Static
Static
Static
Static
Static
Static
Static
Static
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Concent
0.1000
0.0510
0.0580
0.0230
0.0810
0.0290
0.0440
0.0230
0.0230
0.0150
0.0170
0.0140
0.0100
0.0110
0.0100
0.0070
0.0030
0.0020
0.0010
0.0380
0.0300
0.0290
0.0280
0.0150
0.0170
0.0120
0.0130
0.0040
0.0080
0.0040
0.0886
0.0235
0.0402
0.0179
0.0241
0.0108
0.1230
0.1020
0.1350
0.2030
0.0700
0.0940
0.1000
0.1080
0.0090
0.0590
0.0440
0.0500
0.0520
0.0300
0.0180
Duration
Source
480.00
720.00
2,880.00
5,760.00
480.00
480.00
720.00
720.00
1,440.00
1,440.00
2,880.00
2,880.00
2,880.00
2,880.00
5,760.00
5,760.00
5,760.00
10,080.00
10,080.00
480.00
480.00
720.00
720.00
1,440.00
1,440.00
2,880.00
2,880.00
5,760.00
5,760.00
10,080.00
480.00
480.00
720.00
720.00
1,440.00
1,440.00
480.00
480.00
480.00
480.00
720.00
720.00
720.00
720.00
1,440.00
1,440.00
1,440.00
1,440.00
2,880.00
2,880.00
2,880.00
Gregg 1974
Gregg 1974
Gregg 1974
Gregg 1974
Gregg 1974
Gregg 1974
Gregg 1974
Gr«iS 1874
Gregg 1974
Gregg 1974
Gregg 1974
Gregg 1974
Gregg 1974
Gregg 1974
Gregg 1974
Gregg 1974
Gregg 1974
Gregg 1974
Gregg 1974
Gregg 1974
Gregg 1974
Gregg 1974
Gregg 1974
Gregg 1974
Gregg 1974
Gregg 1974
Gregg 1974
Gregg 1974
Gregg 1974
Gregg 1974
Gregg 1974
Gregg 1974
Gregg 1974
Gregg 1974
Gregg 1974
Gregg 1974
Gregg 1974
Gregg 1974
Gregg 1974
Gregg 1974
Gregg 1974
Gregg 1974
Gregg 1974
Gregg 1974
Gregg 1974
Gregg 1974
Gregg 1974
Gregg 1974
Gregg 1974
Gregg 1974
Gregg 1974
112
-------
APPENDIX 1 (continued)
Karatella cochlearis
Lepomis macrochirus
*Lepomissp.
*Limnocalanus macrurus
Micropterus salmoides
Morone chrysopi
Nltrocris carlnatl
Assay
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous .
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Static
Static
Static
Static
Static
Static
Static
Static
Static
Static
Static
Static
Static
Static
Static
Static
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Static
Static
Static
Static
Static
Static
Static
Static
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Concent
0.0300
0.0080
0.2210
0.2060
0.1070
0.2060
0.0570
0.0540
0.0480
0.0160
0.0070
0.0190
0.7900
0.4900
0.3300
0.2500
0.1800
3.0000
1.7200
1.2300
0.0640
0.0480
0.0600
0.0760
0.0590
0.0570
0.0540
0.0710
0.0670
0.0670
0.0650
0.0750
0.0630
2.3200
0.2780
1.5400
0.1000
0.2410
2.8700
1.8000
1.1500
4.2200
0.0080
2.1170
2.7900
0.0070
0.1410
0.0860
0.0420
0.3700
0.1280
Duration Source
5,760.00 Gregg 1974
5,760.00 Gregg 1974
480.00 Gregg 1974
480.00 Gregg 1974
720.00 Gregg 1974
720.00 Gregg 1974
1,440.00 Gregg 1974
1,440.00 Gregg 1974
2,880.00 Gregg 1974
2,880.00 Gregg 1974
5,760.00 Gregg 1974
240.00 Beetonetal. 1976
460.00 Roseboom - Richey 1977
1,650.00 Roseboom - Richey 1977
5,760.00 Roseboom - Richey 1977
5,760.00 Roseboom - Richey 1977
5,760.00 Roseboom - Richey 1977
160.00 Brooks - Seegert 1978
160.00 Brooks-Seegert 1978
160.00 Brooks - Seegert 1978
5,760.00 Bass-Heath 1977
10,080.00 Bass-Heath 1977
10,080.00 Bass-Heath 1977
2,880.00 Bass-Heath 1977
4,320.00 Bass-Heath 1977
5,760.00 Bass-Heath 1977
10,080.00 Bass-Heath 1977
1,440.00 Bass-Heath 1977
2,880.00 Bass-Heath 1977
4,320.00 Bass-Heath 1977
5,760.00 Bass-Heath 1977
4,320.00 Bass-Heath 1977
5,760.00 Bass-Heath 1977
5,760.00 Larson & Schlesinger 1977
5,760.00 Ward & Degraeve
30.00 Latimer et al. 1975
5,760.00 Larson & Schlesinger 1977
5,760.00 Ward & Degraeve
160.00 Brooks - Seegert 1978
160.00 Brooks - Seegert 1978
160.00 Brooks-Seegert 1978
5,760.00 Gregg 1974
5,760.00 Gregg 1974
10,080.00 Gregg 1974
10,080.00 Gregg 1974
10,080.00 Gregg 1974
5,760.00 Gregg 1974
5,760.00 Gregg 1974
5,760.00 Gregg 1974
10,080.00 Gregg 1974
10,080.00 Gregg 1974
113
-------
APPENDIX 1 (continued)
Species
Nitocris carinata
Nitocris sp.
Notemigonus crysoleucas
Notropis atherinoides
Notropis cornutus
Notropis hudsonius
Notropis rubellus
Notropis spilopterus
"Oncorhvnchus kisutch
Orconectes virilus
*0ronectes australis australis
*0smerus mordax
Assay
Continuous
Continuous
Intermittent
Intermittent
Intermittent
Intermittent
Intermittent
Intermittent
Intermittent
Intermittent
Intermittent
Intermittent
Intermittent
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Static
Static
Static
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Static
Static
Static
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Static
Static
Static
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Intermittent
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Concent
0.0880
0.0230
15.6000
14.0000
11.9000
9.6000
8.3000
12.8000
10.0000
7.7000
6.0000
5.3000
3.3700
0.0510
0.7100
0.2300
0.4500
0.2800
0.6300
0.5100
0.3500
1.3200
0.7100
0.8700
0.3300
0.2300
0.2800
0.0450
0.7800
0.5900
0.4500
2.4100
1.0000
0.5300
3.2100
1.3800
0.0400
0.6500
0.5900
0.4100
1.2600
0.5600
1.3800
0.9000
0.2900
1.2500
0.6800
0.0590
1.0800
2.7000
1.2700
Duration Source
10,080.00 Gregg 1974
10,080.00 Gregg 1974
1,440.00 Cairns etal. 1978
1,440.00 Cairns etal. 1978
1,440.00 Cairns et ai. 1978
1,440.00 Cairns etal. 1978
1,440.00 Cairns etal. 1978
2,880.00 Calrni etal. 1978
2,880.00 Cairns etal. 1978
2,880.00 Cairns etal. 1978
2,880.00 Cairns etal. 1978
2,880.00 Cairns etal. 1978
30.00 Spieler & Noeske 1977
5,760.00 Ward & Degraeve
30.00 Fandrei 1977
30.00 Fandrei 1977
30.00 Fandrei 1977
30.00 Fandrei 1977
160.00 Brooks - Seegert 1978
160.00 Brooks - Seegert 1978
160.00 Brooks - Seegert 1978
30.00 Fandrei & Collins 1979
30.00 Fandrei & Collins 1979
30.00 Fandrei & Collins 1979
30.00 Fandrei & Collins 1979
30.00 Fandrei & Collins 1979
30.00 Fandrei & Collins 1979
5,760.00 Ward & Degraeve
160.00 Brooks - Seegert 1978
160.00 Brooks-Seegert 1978
160.00 Brooks-Seegert 1978
30.00 Seegert - Brooks 1978
30.00 Seegert-Brooks 1978
30.00 Seegert-Brooks 1978
30.00 Brooks-Seegert 1977
30.00 Brooks - Seegert 1977
5,760.00 Ward & Degraeve
160.00 Brooks - Seegert 1978
160.00 Brooks - Seegert 1978
160.00 Brooks - Seegert 1978
30.00 Seegert-Brooks 1978
30.00 Seegert - Brooks 1978
30.00 Seegert-Brooks 1978
30.00 Seegert-Brooks 1978
30.00 Seegert-Brooks 1978
30.00 Seegert et at. 1977
5,760.00 Larson & Schlesinger 1977
5,760.00 Ward & Degraeve
5,760.00 Clark etal. 1977
1,440.00 Mathews el al. 1977
30.00 Seegert-Brooks 1978
-------
APPENDIX 1 (continued)
Species
"Osmerus mordax
'Pacifasticus trowbridgi
'Peltoperla maria
Perca flavescens
Phvsa heterostropha
Pimepheles promeias
*Pomoxissp.
Assay
Static
Continuous
Static
Static
Static
Static
Static
Static
Static
Static
Static
Static
Static
Static
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Static
Static
Intermittent
Intermittent
Intermittent
Intermittent
Intermittent
Continuous
Intermittent
Intermittent
Intermittent
Intermittent
Intermittent
Static
Static
Static
Static
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Concent
3.3000
0.9000
0.6420
0.0410
0.6810
0.1570
0.0350
0.0590
0.1000
0.0350
0.0320
0.0490
0.0320
0.0110
8.4900
0.7100
0.6900
0.5050
0.1310
0.3380
0.1490
0.0200
8.0000
3.9000
1.1100
0.9700
0.7000
22.6000
9.0000
7.7000
4.0000
1.1000
1.1000
2.2500
0.1080
0.1000
0.0800
0.0700
0.0500
0.0500
0.0890
0.1550
0.0590
0.0610
0.2580
0.2210
0.4360
0.2180
0.1310
0.0950
0.1270
Duration
15.00
5,760.00
480.00
480.00
720.00
720.00
720.00
1,440.00
1,440.00
1,440.00
2,880.00
2,880.00
2,880.00
5,760.00
480.00
480.00
720.00
720.00
1,440.00
1,440.00
1,440.00
2,880.00
30.00
30.00
30.00
30.00
30.00
15.00
15.00
30.00
30.00
30.00
30.00
30.00
5,760.00
2,880.00
2,880.00
2,880.00
2,880.00
2,880.00
5,760.00
5,760.00
10,080.00
10,080.00
5,760.00
5,760.00
10,080.00
10,080.00
10,080.00
5,760.00
5,760.00
Source
Brooks - Seegert 1977
Larsenetal. 1978
Gregg 1974
Gregg 1974
Gregg 1974
Gregg 1974
Gregg 1974
Gregg 1974
Gregg 1974
Gregg 1974
Gregg 1974
Gregg 1974
Gregg 1974
Gregg 1974
Gregg 1974
Gregg 1974
Gregg 1974
Gregg 1974
Gregg 1974
Gregg 1974
Gregg 1974
Gregg 1974
Brooks - Seegert 1977
Brooks-Seegert 1977
Brooks - Seegert 1977
Brooks-Seegert 1977
Brooks - Seegert 1977
Brooks-Seegert 1977
Brooks-Seegert 1977
Seegert etal. 1977
Seegert etal. 1977
Seegert etal. 1977
Seegert etal. 1977
Seegert etal. 1977
Ward & Oegraeve
Cairns 1978
Cairns 1978
Cairns 1978
Cairns 1978
Cairns 1978
Gregg 1974
Gregg 1974
Gregg 19 74
Gregg 1974
Gregg 1974
Gregg 1974
Gregg 1974
Gregg 1974
Gregg 1974
Ward & Degraeve
Ward & Degraeve
115
-------
APPENDIX 1 (continued)
Species
*Pontoporeia affinjs^
Psephemis derrick!
*Rhinichthvsosculus
'Richardsonius balcatus
*Salmo clarkl
*Salmo gairdnerii
*Salmo trutta
'Salvelinus fontinalis
'Salvelinus namaycush
*Stenonema ithaca
Assay
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Static
Static
Static
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Static
Static
Continuous
Intermittent
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Static
Static
Static
Static
Static
Static
Static
Static
Static
Italic
Concent
10.6000
3.2000
20.0000
0.1000
0.0270
0.0090
0.2560
0.1440
0.0900
0.7000
1.6000
0.0840
0.9900
0.9400
0.4300
0.6000
2.8700
1.6500
0.2200
2.0000
0.0690
0.9900
0.6700
0.5600
0.9900
1.1900
0.5600
0.1500
0.1300
0.1800
0.1500
0.1600
0.1600
0.1500
0.1500
0.1300
0.1100
0.1200
0.1000
0.0960
0.0600
0.7920
0.0480
0.0210
0.0600
0.2630
0.0730
0.0240
0.0150
0.0240
0.0150
Duration Source
120.00 Brooks - Seegert 1977
120.00 Brooks • Seegert 1977
30.00 Brooks - Seegert 1977
2,880.00 Gregg 1974
5,760.00 Gregg 1974
10,080.00 Gregg 1974
2,880.00 Gregg 1974
5,760.00 Gregg 1974
10,080.00 Gregg 1974
5,760,00 Larson & Schlesinger 1977
5,760.00 Larson & Schlesinger 1977
5,760.00 Larson & Schlesinger 1977
30.00 Brooks - Seegert 1977
30.00 Brooks - Seegert 1977
30.00 Brooks - Seegert 1977
30.00 Brooks-Seegert 1977
15.00 Brooks-Seegert 1977
15.00 Brooks-Seegert 1977
5,760.00 Clark etal. 1977
30.00 Seegert etal. 1977
5,760.00 Ward & Degraeve
30.00 Basch - Truchan 1976
30.00 Basch -Truchan 1976
30.00 Basch-Truchan 1976
30.00 Basch-Truchan 1976
30.00 Basch-Truchan 1976
30.00 Basch-Truchan 1976
5,760.00 Schneider etal. 1975
5,760.00 Schneider etal. 1975
5,760.00 Schneider etal. 1975
5,760.00 Schneider et al. 1975
5,760.00 Schneider et al. 1975
5,760.00 Schneider etal. 1975
5,760.00 Schneider et al. 1975
5,760.00 Schneider etal. 1975
5,760.00 Schneider et al. 1975
5,760.00 Schneider etal. 1975
5,760.00 Schneider etal. 1975
5,760.00 Schneider et al. 1975
5,760.00 LarsonS Schlesinger 1977
5,760.00 Ward & Degraeve
1,440.00 Gregg 1974
1,440.00 Gregg 1974
1,440.00 Gregg 1974
5,760.00 Gregg 1974
2,880.00 Gregg 1974
2,880.00 Gregg 1974
2,880.00 Gregg 1974
2,R80.00 Gregg 1974
5,760.00 Gregg 1974
5,760.00 Gregg 1974
116
-------
APPENDIX 1 (continued)
Species
*Stenonema Ithaca
Stizostedion canadense
Assay
Static
Static
Static
Static
Static
Static
Static
Static
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Static
Static
Static
Concent
0.0070
0.0110
0.0090
0.0010
0.2690
0.0600
0.0820
0.0390
0.0376
0.1020
0.0510
0.0770
0.0160
0.0360
0.5020
0.6700
1.6100
4.8600
0.4750
0.3300
0.9530
2.0700
0.2800
0.1220
0.2780
0.2060
0.1200
1.1400
0.6800
0.7100
Duration
5,760.00
10,080.00
10,080.00
10,080.00
480.00
480.00
720.00
720.00
2,880.00
5,760.00
5,760.00
5,760.00
5,760.00
10,080.00
480.00
480.00
720.00
720.00
720.00
720.00
1,440.00
1,440.00
1,440.00
1,440.00
2,880.00
2,880.00
2,880.00
160.00
160.00
160.00
Source
Gregg 1974
Gregg 1974
Gregg 1974
Gregg 1974
Gregg 1974
Gregg 1974
Gregg 1974
Gregg 1974
Gregg 1974
Gregg 1974
Gregg 1974
Gregg 1974
Gregg 1974
Gregg 1974
Gregg 1974
Gregg 1974
Gregg 1974
Gregg 1974
Gregg 1974
Gregg 1974
Gregg 1974
Gregg 1974
Gregg 1974
Gregg 1974
Gregg 1974
Gregg 1974
Gregg 1974
Brooks • Seegert 1978
Brooks-Seegert 1978
Brooks-Seegert 1978
117
-------
Appendix 2: Mean residuals.
a
UJ
fe-
at
c <
-I a.
IT CC
C I-
-i Z
U V.
_J LJ
«. a.
i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i I i t i i i I i i i i i i i i i ill i i i i i i i i
r^cco^a occ
-,1 — 1—11111111 — 1111111
ill i
Z
c
0
<
a.
•> PM
*— <
C
B -I
C —I
VD
•^
•
fj
V.
a
Z
C-
in
118
-------
PAGf
RfilOUALS FOR TVAALL
-------
PAGE
MEAN RESIDUALS FOR TVAALL
TALLDA?
RESIDUAL SPECIES
-..If, f.AI'MARUS MINUS
-. 19 CIN1ROPTILlUf ST.
-.ni NOTROPIS Huosnnius
-.01 PSFPHEM1S HERRICKI
.00 rCIKOPIS SPILOPTFRUS
.112 EPMFHERELLA LATA
CORKUTUS
fATASTOMUS rOHMFRSONl
1? TCTALURUS PUUCT4TUS
li KCT^IMOONUS CHrruttUCAS
TOTAL
RESiniJAL
-fl.B-J
-.75
-.01
-.03
.01
,5H
.13
.27
' .TT
.?7
CALCULATED
FTSIOUAL
-.67
-.00
-.11
-.32
-.31
.ti
-.16
-.13
.35
-.02
.01
-.^fl
-.71
.12
.35
.?•*
.on
.C1
-.12
.95
-.?fi
.17
-.21
-.73
-.17
-.70
-.f,7
-.63
1 .31
.flO
.7fl
.51
.10
-.06
-.fifr
.16
.01
-.on
.31
.1 1
-.1 7
.11
.11
.11
.lf>
.nfi
.1U
..'. 7
LOG
CONCENTRATION
-1.H5
-.56
-.77
-1.15
-1.32
.38
.00
-.2P
.51
.11
-1 .00
-1.57
-3.05
-.59
-.B1
-1.05
-.19
-.?3
-.^9
.10
-.•»]
-.67
- .C7
- .71
- .18
- .89
- .B5
-l.«?6
.75
.11
.12
-.21
-.71
-l.Ofl
-1 .57
-.11
-.23
-.35
.01
-. 11
-.11
-1.05
-1 .05
-i.r-s
-.11
-.1"
-.17
" " ,~M "
LOG
nUPftTIOM
3.76
?.f>P
2 . 11 f-
3. If
3.16
1.18
1.1B
1.1P
1 .1R
1.18
3.16^
3.76
i.no
3.16
3.76
1.0H
2.20
2.20
2.?0
2.68
2.86
3. If
3. If,
3.16
3.16
3.76
3.76
1.00
2.f,R
2.86
2.86
3.16
3.16
3.16'
?. If.
2.20'
2.?n'
?.20l
2.20
P.2P
2.20
3.76
7.76
^.76
P. 20
?.20
2.2n
I .m
-------
HAGf
MFAN RtSIOUALS FOR TVAALL
TALLOA7
TAN
HI S1I1UAL
SCEflES
.1*3 NOTrniGONUS CRYSOLEHCAS
.it sn?osrroiow
.?<( LEPOtMS HACROIHIPII*;
PCRCA FLAVESCENS
.,'1 DAHtNIA PULf*
.*<( GCN10RAMS VIRGIMCA
TOTAL
RESIDUAL
.27
.55
5.25
J.57
1.7?
-------
PAGE
MEAN RESIDUALS FOR TV AALL
.90
.44
,?n
-.31
3.96 .14
.JR
.10
.12
.f'Q
.53
.97
.67
.15
3.17 .11
1 .01
1 .03
.60
.34
.OJ
.C*
1.59 .7<
.H3
LOG
CONCrNT'JATIPTJ
.41
-.44
-.if.
-1.36
-2.05
-.B7
-1.10
-1.38
-?.2?
-.40
-.28
-.40
-.55
-1.30
-.41
-1.47
-1.00
-,f,2
.63
-?.1D
.33
.45
-2.15
-.P5
-1 .07
-1 .3B
-.43
-.»9
-1.06
-1.64
-1.05
-.fll
-l.?3
-1.21
-.59
-.66
-.36
-.66
-.P8
-1.08
1.17
1 . IT
.76
.50
-1.16
-1.14
.46
.26
LOG
DURATION
4. on
4.00
S.Tf,
3.76
3.76
4.00
4.00
4.00
4.0C
s.fifr
2.86
^.46
3.76
3.71
4. 00
4.00
i.76"~
?.7f.
3.7£,
3.76
4.00
4.00
4.00
3.7f
3.76
3.76
4. On
4.00
4.00
4.0'!
3.76
3.76
4. HO
4.00
?.7f
3.76
4. on
4 .no
4.00
3.7ft
l.«p
l.*p
1.41
1.4fl
3.76
3.7*
?.?0
2.?0
-------
PAf.r
MEAN RESIDUAI S F 01, T V A ALL < CONVCR T E T >
TALLOA7
f>r AH
RESIDUAL SPECIES
CHRYSOPS
.El CYPRINUS PARPIO
.cr> APLODINOTUS HRUNNIENS
l.TC NITOCKIS SP
TOTAL
RFSIDUAL
1.59
1.62
1 . 1 /
19.03
CALCULATED
Rf «IOUAL
.33
• 65
.53
.15
.66
.51
2.03
1 .98
1.11
1 .82
1 .75
2.12
2.01
1 .90
1.79
1 .71
LOG
CONCENTRATION
.06
.77
.?6
.18
.39
.21
1.19
1.15
l.OR
.98
.92
1.11
1 .00
.89
.78
.72
LOT.
DURATION
2.20
2.20
P.2T
2.20
2.20
2.20
3.16
^•16
3.16
3.16
3.16
3.1f.
3.16
3.16
3.16
3.16
ISJ
-------
Appendix D
ANALYSIS OF CHLORINE TOXICITY FOR SEVERAL FISH SPECIES
WITH POTENTIAL APPLICATION TO FISH MORTALITY AT A POWER PLANT
by
Robert W. Aldred
-------
ANALYSIS OF CHLORINE TOXICITY FOR SEVERAL FISH SPECIES
WITH POTENTIAL APPLICATION TO FISH MORTALITY AT A POWER PLANT
By Robert W. Aldred
SECTION I
INTRODUCTION
As a result of a fish kill in July 1977 involving a large number of
striped bass near power plant B, there is an interest in establishing the
relationship between chlorine concentrations in cooling water and the
mortality of striped bass populations. In response to this goal, the
applicability of the Envirosphere study described in reference 1 is
examined as a first step.
The Envirosphere study provides several analyses of the effect of
chlorinated cooling water on marine and freshwater organisms. The
resulting general models, however, are not directly applicable to the
species present at specific locations largely because of inadequacies in
the available data. Yet despite the inadequacies, the data from
reference 1 constitute the best available data, and the application of
selected subsets of these data to the above objective is attempted in
order to obtain, if possible, an appropriate model for the power plant B
environment. The purpose of this study is to present the results of this
analysis and to offer recommendations based on the results.
SECTION II
SUMMARY OF RESULTS
Since a particular species, striped bass, is of concern at power,
plant B, and since no data pertaining to striped bass are available, the
intent Of this analysis is to derive a single model which adequately
describee the desired relationship for all the fish species in the local
area of the power plant. The results indicate that fish mortality,
related in terms of the maximum duration of time a fish can survive with
negligible ill effects after chlorination, is significantly affected by
the chlorine concentration. Water temperature, however, is not detected
as an important, factor in the chlorine toxicity. Unfortunately the
distinct relationship between survival duration and chlorine
concentration differs among the species analyzed. Therefore, in order to
obtain data to construct an appropriate predictive model for striped bass
at power plant B, it is recommended that experiments with this species be
conducted under conditions suitable for the power plant's environment.
125
-------
SECTION III
METHODS
Data Description
This section describes the available data and discusses the several
problems found in these data. In addition, a number of biological state-
ments are included for completeness.
The Envirosphere data base consists of the results of chlorine
bioassays published through 1980 and is described in detail on page 3 of
reference 1. The data concern experiments involving numerous marine and
freshwater species for the three chlorine residual forms (free residual
chlorine, combined residual chlorine, and total residual chlorine). For
the subject study concerning power plant B, only the total residual
chlorine (TRC) observations are considered, and of the original 438 TRC
observations, only 74 observations representing 19 local fish species are
included in the analysis. These 74 observations exclude all species not
local to the power plant area as well as those invertebrate species which
are local to the area. Also deleted are several outlier observations for
which the chlorine concentrations are unusually large and outside the
range of interest of this study. The final 74 observations are listed in
Appendix A (this report).
Specific Goals and Data Relevance
The specific goal of the study is to model the effects of chlorine
effluents on striped bass populations at power plant B. The desired
model should describe the effect of total residual chlorine on the
expected length of time after exposure that this species can survive with
little or no adverse effect. Such a model would permit prediction of a
maximum length of time that a striped bass could be safely exposed to a
given concentration of TRC.
Unfortunately, striped bass are not included among the 19 species
represented by the data. Hence, supplementary data for this species were
sought through literature searches, but no useable data were found.
Additionally, it is recognized that the experiments yielding the data
were not necessarily conducted under comparable test conditions of
chlorine residual measurement and temperature, nor are the important
characteristics of health, life stage, or subspecies of the tested fish
known. However, even though these data inadequacies limit the
applicability of any modeling results obtained, the goal of determining
what, if any, useful toxicity inferences can be drawn concerning striped
bass is still important.
126
-------
Selected Variables
In this analysis, the dependent (response) variable is the duration
of time which a specimen can survive a given concentration of TRC with
negligible ill effect. However, since the original data base of
reference 1 contains durations required for 50 percent of the specimens
to be killed by the given TRC dosage, a transformation of the data is
necessary. In this case, the concentration independent variable is
multiplied by a conversion factor of 0.59. This factor, which is
explained in Figure 1, page ii of reference 2, converts each
concentration of TRC to a lethal threshold concentration so that the
corresponding duration can be assumed to represent the maximum survival
time for which little adverse effect is experienced by the fish.
Another significant data problem which affects the analysis is
apparent in the duration response values. Of the 74 responses, 69 of
them are observed at only 5 levels, and 51 of them are described by the 2
extremes of 160 and 5760 minutes. This lack of variability in the
responses casts considerable doubt on how accurately each duration
measurement reflects the actual time required for a 50 percent lethal
rate to be obtained.
The remaining independent variable considered in the analysis is the
water temperature at which each experiment was conducted. The metabolism
of an organism is closely tied to temperature. As temperature increases
or decreases, the metabolic rate increases or decreases, respectively.
Metabolic rates approximately double for each 10° Celsius rise in
temperature. Ideally, therefore, the temperature should be controlled
across experiments to a range of a few degrees Celsius, but such control
was not possible under the circumstances of the reference 1 study. Thus,
to evaluate the potential effect of temperature on the toxicity, this
variable is considered.
SECTION IV
RESULTS
Analysis of the Data
The use of exposure duration as the dependent variable in this study
represents a significant change in strategy from the reference 1 analysis
in which TRC concentrations are used as the dependent variable. For the
goals of this study, however, it is felt that duration is the appropriate
response variable.
In this section, the two stages of the regression analysis are
explained. The first discussion covers the search for the most
reasonable model based on the complete data set of 74 observations, and
the second subsection presents a more detailed analysis of some of the
individual species.
127
-------
Analysis of the Full Data Set
The first and most general model considers duration as a function of
the lethal threshold concentrations (hereafter called threshold) and the
test condition temperature. The results of this regression are given in
Appendix B, Table 1 (this report), which provides the estimated
parameters of the regression equation, the p-values resulting from the
t-tests and F-test for parameter significance, and the coefficient of
determination (R2) value adjusted for the number of parameters in the
model. As shown in the table, the temperature variable does not warrant
inclusion in this model based on its insignificant p-value. This same
fact is true for every other model in which temperature is considered,
and this variable is, therefore, not considered in the remaining
analysis.
The next attempted model, duration against threshold, reveals an
extremely low R2 value of 12.49 percent as its most noticeable drawback
despite the strong significance of the independent variable (see Table 2
of Appendix B). A plot of these two variables showing the estimated
regression line is provided in Appendix C, Figure 1 (this report). The
very low R2 appears to result from a relative scaling problem in the two
variables which produces several large positive residuals, and it
suggests two possible transformations. The first of these consists of
inverting the threshold values and regressing duration against the
inverted thresholds. In the second transformation, the log (base 10) of
duration is modeled as a function of the log of threshold concentration.
Both these transformed models exhibit substantial improvement in the
explanatory effectiveness measured by R2 as shown in Tables 3 and 4 of
Appendix B by a value of 53.24 percent for the inverse threshold model
and 41.10 percent for the log model. Analysis of the residuals
(quantities formed by subtracting each dependent variable response from
its model-predicted value) for the duration vs. inverse threshold model
reveals an undesirable pattern which severely affects the predictive
capability of the model. This problem can be seen in the intercept
estimate of approximately 555 minutes. No matter how large the threshold
dosage (i.e., no matter how close the inverted threshold is to zero), the
predicted exposure duration is always above 555 minutes. The
unreasonableness of this limitation is illustrated by Figure 2 of
Appendix C, which shows that 42 of the 74 duration observations in the
data set are less than 555 minutes.
The scatter plot of log of duration against log of threshold with
the estimated regression line is shown in Figure 3 of Appendix C.
Although the R2 value for this model is less than the R2 for the previous
model, the log model is selected as the most appropriate one given that a
general model must be chosen to represent the 19 analyzed species. Its
overall predictive consistency is better than that of any other model
considered. However, for the two most represented species which account
for exactly half the observations in the data base, the residuals from
the log model are almost all positive for one of these species and almost
all negative for the other species.
128
-------
This pattern indicates that significantly different estimates of one
or both parameters might be obtained if the species were analyzed
separately using the log model. In other words, the general log model
already estimated may not be very representative of many of the
individual species and, therefore, may be site-specific like the
Envirosphere models of reference 1. In order to more adequately
determine if this phenomenon is true in this case, a species-specific
regression analysis is presented in the next subsection.
Analysis of Individual Species
This stage of the analysis uses indicator variables which allow for
the possibility that across individual species, the slope and/or
intercept for the log model could have distinctly different values. In
order to control the complexity of this stage of the analysis, only the
three most represented species are included. These three species are
Lepomis macrochirus (22 observations), Notropis atherinoides (15
observations), and Ictalurus punctatus (6 observations). None of the
remaining 16 species contain more than three observations from the
74-observation data base.
For the three species (43 observations) three models are necessary
to test two hypotheses which will be used to determine whether the
74-observation log model is species-dependent or adequately representa-
tive of all species in the data base. The first model contains two
indicator variables for the intercept and two indicator variables for the
slope in addition to log threshold and the usual intercept term. (Only
two indicators each for the slope and intercept are required when three
species are analyzed.) The results of this 5-variable model for 43
observations are provided in Table 5 of Appendix B. The next model
deletes the two slope indicator variables, keeping the two intercept
indicators plus log threshold. The third model uses only log threshold.
Tables 6 and 7 of Appendix B show the results of these models.
The first hypothesis test assumes the 5-variable indicator model and
tests the null hypothesis that all four indicator parameters are zero
(i.e., that the simple regression model with log threshold is sufficient
for all 43 observations). The resulting F-test yields a p-value (the
probability of observing a larger F-statistic when the null hypothesis is
actually true) of less than 0.0001. Thus, as a group, the four indicator
variables appear to be extremely significant. The outcomes of both
hypothesis tests are summarized in Appendix D. The other test is used to
determine if the log threshold effects (slopes) differ among the three
species while allowing for different intercepts for the three species.
This time the F-test is not nearly as conclusive based on a p-value of
approximately 0.04. However, the risk of incorrectly rejecting the three
slopes' equivalence is still only 4 percent. Thus, the 5-variable
indicator model is the most appropriate one for the 43 observations
because the three species clearly do not exhibit the same expected
toxicity reactions to TRC contaminations. The relative results of the
two tests can be seen through an examination of the adjusted R2 values of
42.64 percent, 79.47 percent, and 81.85 percent for the simple log
threshold model, the 3-variable model, and the 5-variable model based on
the three selected species.
129
-------
SECTION V
CONCLUSION
Since the indicator analysis shows that the simple regression model
of log duration against log threshold is not an adequate representation
for all three species examined, it can reasonably be assumed that the
same conclusion applies to the 74-observation model for the same two
variables. Thus, to use this general log model to represent the chlorine
toxicity relationship for striped bass at a steam plant would be
extremely unwise, and it is concluded that no model based on the
available data would be useful. There are other possible models which
this study has not considered, and there are other explanatory variables
such as the water hardness and pH whose effect might be analyzed if
better data were available. However, considering the stated goals of the
study, the best recommendation appears to be to design and conduct
experiments with striped bass under conditions appropriate for the steam
plant's environment. Only then can a useful model be obtained.
130
-------
SECTION VI
REFERENCES
1. Chlorine Toxicity as a Function of Environmental Variables and
Species Tolerance, Edison Electric Institute (Submitted by
Envirosphere Company), November 1981.
2. Chlorine Toxicity in Freshwater Ecosystems, Edison Electric
Institute (Submitted by Envirosphere Company), March 1979.
131
-------
APPENDIX A. LISTING OF DATA BASE (74 OBSERVATIONS)
u>
N3
Duration
(min)
160
160
5,760
160
160
160
160
160
160
5,760
5,760
5,760
5,760
5,760
160
160
160
460
1,650
5,760
5,760
5,760
160
160
160
5,760
10,080
10,080
2,880
4,320
5,760
10,080
1,440
Log of
duration
2.20412
2.20412
3.76042
2.20412
2.24012
2.20412
2.20412
2.20412
2.20412
3.76042
3.76042
3.76042
3.76042
3.76042
2.20412
2.20412
2.20412
2.66276
3.21748
3.76042
3.76042
3.76042
2.20412
2.20412
2.20412
3.76042
4.00345
4.00346
3.45839
3.63548
3.76042
4.00346
3.15836
Threshold
(mg/l)
1 .44550
1.03250
0.09027
0.64310
0.43070
0.21240
1.39830
1.07380
0.88600
0.25960
2.41900
0.05310
0.05310
0.05310
0.46020
0.38350
0.39530
0.46610
0.28910
0.19470
0.14750
0.10620
1.77000
1.01480
0.72570
0.03776
0.02832
0.03540
0.04484
0.03481
0.03363
0.03186
0.04189
Log of
threshold
0.1600
0.0139
-1 .0445
-0.1917
-0.3658
-0.6728
0.1456
0.0309
-0.0531
-0.5857
0.3836
-1 .2749
-1.2749
-1.2749
-0.3371
-0.4162
-0.4031
-0.3315
-0.5390
-0.7106
-0.8312
-0.9739
0.2480
0.0064
-0.1392
-1.4239
-1.5479
-1.4510
-1 .3483
-1 .4583
-1.4733
-1 .4968
-1.3779
I nverse of
threshold
0=6918
0.9685
11.0779
1.5550
2.3218
4.7081
0.7152
0.9313
1.1299
3.8521
0.4134
18.8324
18.8324
18.8324
2.1730
2.6076
2.5297
2.1455
3.4590
5.1351
5.7797
9.4162
0.5650
0.9854
1 .3780
25.4831
35.3107
28.2485
22.3015
28.7274
29.7354
31.3873
23.8720
Temperature
(degrees C)
10.3
20.0
20.0
10.0
20.0
26.7
10.4
19.7
29.3
15.0
19.0
30.0
20.0
30.0
10.2
20.4
29.5
20.0
20.0
20.0
21.0
30.0
10.2
20.1
29.9
5.0
5.0
15.0
25.0
25.0
25.0
25.0
32.0
Species
Aplodinotus grunniens
Aplodinotus grunniens
Carrassius auratus
Catastomus commersoni
Catastomus commersoni
Catastomus commersoni
Cyprinus carpio
Cyprinus carpio
Cyprinus carpio
Ictalurus melas
Ictalurus nebulosus
Ictalurus punctatus
Ictalurus punctatus
Ictalurus punctatus
Ictalurus punctatus
Ictalurus punctatus
Ictalurus punctatus
Lepomis macrochirus
Lepomis macrochirus
Lepomis macrochirus
Lepomis macrochirus
Lepomis macrochirus
Lepomis macrochirus
Lepomis macrochirus
Lepomis macrochirus
Lepomis macrochirus
Lepomis macrochirus
Lepomis macrochirus
Lepomis macrochirus
Lepomis macrochirus
Lepomis macrochirus
Lepomis macrochirus
Lepomis macrochirus
(continued)
-------
APPENDIX A (continued)
w
CJ
Duration
(min)
2,880
4,320
5,760
4,320
5,760
5,760
5,760
5,760
5,760
160
160
160
30
5,760
30
30
30
30
160
160
160
30
30
30
30
30
30
5,760
160
160
160
5,760
160
Log of
duration
3.45939
3.63548
3.76042
3.63548
3.76042
3.76042
3.76042
3.76042
3.76042
2.20412
2.20412
2.20412
1.47712
3.76042
1.47712
1.47712
1.47712
1.47712
2.20412
2.20412
2.20412
1.47712
1.47712
1.47712
1.47712
1.47712
1.47712
3.76042
2.20412
2.20412
2.20412
3.76042
2.20412
Threshold
(mg/l)
0.03953
0.03953
0.03835
0.04425
0.03717
1.36880
0.16402
0.05900
0.14219
1.69330
1.06200
0.67850
1.98830
0.03009
0.41890
0.13570
0.26550
0.16520
0.37170
0.30090
0.20650
0.77880
0.41890
0.51330
0.19470
0.13570
0.16520
0.02655
0.46020
0.34810
0.26550
0.02360
0.38350
Log of
threshold
- .4031
- .4031
- .4168
- .3541
- .4298
0.1363
-0.7851
-1.2291
-0.8471
0.2287
0.0261
-0.1685
0.2985
-1.5216
-0.3779
-0.8674
-0.5759
-0.7820
-0.4298
-0.5216
-0.6851
-0.1086
-0.3779
-0.2896
-0.7106
-0.8674
-0.7820
-1.5759
-0.3371
-0.4583
-0.5759
-1.5271
-0.4162
Inverse of
threshold
25.2972
25.2972
26.0756
22.5989
26.9034
0.7306
5.0958
16.9492
7.0328
0.5906
0.9416
1.4738
0.5029
33.2336
2.3872
7.3692
3.7665
6.0533
2.6903
3.3234
4.8426
1.2840
2.3872
1.9482
5.1361
7.3692
6.0533
37.6648
2.1730
2.8727
3.7655
42.3729
2.6076
Temperature
(degrees C)
32.0
32.0
32.0
5.0
15.0
19.0
20.0
19.0
20.0
9.9
20.4
29.4
10.0
20.0
10.0
25.0
10.0
25.0
10.2
19.9
29.7
10.0
10.0
10.0
25.0
25.0
25.0
20.0
10.5
19.7
29.7
20.0
10.3
Species
Lepomis macrochirus
Lepomis macrochirus
Lepomis macrochirus
Lepomis macrochirus
Lepomis macrochirus
Lepomis macrochirus
Lepomis sp
Micropterus salmoides
Micropterus salmoides
Morone chrysops
Morone chrysops
Morone chrysops
Notemigonus crysoleuc
Notemigonus crysoleuc
Notropis atherinoides
Notropis atherinoides
Notropis atherinoides
Notropis atherinoides
Notropis atherinoides
Notropis atherinoides
Notropis atherinoides
Notropis atherinoides
Notropis atherinoides
Notropis atherinoides
Notropis atherinoides
Notropis atherinoides
Notropis atherinoides
Notropis atherinoides
Notropis comutus
Notropis cornutus
Notropis comutus
Notropis rubellus
Notropis spilopterus
(continued)
-------
APPENDIX A (continued)
Duration
(min)
160
160
5,760
5,760
160
160
160
30
Log of
duration
2.20412
2.20412
3.76042
3.76042
2.20412
2.20412
2.20412
1.47712
Threshold
(mg/l)
0.34810
0.24190
0.05605
0.07493
0.67260
0.40120
0.41890
0.19470
Log of
threshold
-0.4583
-0.6164
-1.2514
-1.1253
-0.1722
-0.3966
-0.3779
-0.7106
1 nverse of
threshold
2.8727
4.1339
17.8412
13.3458
1.4868
2.4925
2.3872
5.1361
Temperature
(degrees C)
20.1
29.7
20.0
20.0
10.2
20.5
29.4
25.0
Species
Notropis spilopterus
Notropis spilopterus
Pimepheles promelas
Pomoxis sp
Stizostedion canadens
Stizostedion canadens
Stizostedion canadens
Notropis atherinoid.es
(Ji
f-
-------
Appendix B
Table 1
Duration vs. Threshold and Temperature
(74 Observations)
Intercept
Threshold
Temperature
Parameter
Estimate
4188.95
-2324.65
- 35.3470
P-Value
0.0003
0.0010 0.0012
0.4471 (F-test)
Adjusted R2
0.1198
Table 2
Duration vs. Threshold
(74 Observations)
Intercept
Threshold
Parameter
Estimate
3412.13
-2156.08
P-Value
0.0001
0.0012
Adjusted R2
0.1249
135
-------
Appendix B
Table 3
Duration vs. (I/Threshold)
(74 Observations)
Intercept
Inverse
Threshold
Parameter
Estimate
554.96
194.10
P-Value
0.0853
0.0001
Adjusted R2
0.5324
Table 4
Log of Duration vs. Log of Threshold
(74 Observations)
Intercept
Log
Threshold
Parameter
Estimate
2.04086
-1.03721
P-Value
0.0001
0.0001
Adjusted Rs
0.4110
136
-------
Appendix B
Table 5
Log of Duration vs. Log of Threshold and 4 Indicators
(43 Observations)
Parameter
Estimate
Intercept 1.53407
Log Threshold -1.74444
Intercept
Indicator 1 1.20570
Intercept
Indicator 2 -0.51212
Slope
Indicator 1 1.04017
Slope
Indicator 2 0.57581
Type I
Sum of Squares
335.357
18.107
10.607
4.585
1.037
0.228
P-Value
0.0002
0.0001
0.0050
0.2469
0.0167
0.2643
Adjusted R2
0.0001
(F-test)
0.8185
Sum of Squares for Error = 6.578
-------
Appendix B
Table 6
Log of Duration vs. Log of Threshold and 2 Indicators
(43 Observations)
Parameter
Estimate
P-Value
Adjusted R2
Intercept
2.24162
0.0001
Log
Threshold
-0.89216
0.0001
Intercept
Indicator
0.31268
0.1402
0.0001
(F-test)
0.7947
Intercept
Indicator
-1.04157
0.0001
Table 7
Log of Duration vs. Log of Threshold
(43 Observations)
Parameter
Estimate
P-Value
Adjusted R2
Intercept
1.74002
0.0001
Log
Threshold
-1.24485
0.0001
0.4264
138
-------
UJ
vo
H000-
9000-
«
8000-
D 70001
U
R 6000-1
A
T 5000-
I
0 4000H
N
30001
•
B000-
1000-
0-
0
APPENDIX C
FIGURE 1
PLOT OF DURATION VS. THRESHOLD
0.5
1.0
1.5
a.0
2.5
THRESHOLD
-------
11000-
10000-
9000-
8000-
D 7000-
U
R 6000-
5000-
T
I
0 4000H
N
3000-
3000-
1000-
0-
0
APPENDIX C
FIGURE 2
PLOT OF DURATION VS. INVERSE OF THRESHOLD
3 6 9 12 15 18 21 34 37 30 33 36 39 42 45
INVERSE OF THRESHOLD
-------
4.0-1
L
0
G 3.5
0
F 3.<
D
U a.!
R
A
T 3.0d
I
0
N 1.5
-a-
APPENDIX C
FIGURE 3
PLOT OF LOG OF DURATION VS. LOG OF THRESHOLD
ooo
O O O
-1.5
-1,0 -0.5
LOG OF THRESHOLD
0.0
0.5
-------
Appendix D
A SUMMARY OF THE INDICATOR MODEL
AND THE RELATED HYPOTHESIS TESTS
Variable Definitions:
= Log of Threshold
X2 = 1, if Lepomis macrochirus
0, otherwise
X3 = 1, if Notropis atherinoides
0, otherwise
X_ Y Y
4 "*™ 12
Y •— Y Y
A5 ~ A1A3
Y = Log of Duration
Model:
Y =
+ p2X2 + p3X3 + p4X4 + p5X5 + e
Hypothesis Tests:
A. H0; p2 = p3 = p4 = p5 = 0
H : At least two parameters unequal
a p-value for F-test: 0.0001
B. H0: p4 = p5 = 0
H : Either p4 f 0 or p5 ^ o (or both)
a p-value for F-test: 0.04
142
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Pkaic read Instructions on the rci crsc before complctinit)
1. REPORT NO.
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
CHLORINE EFFECTS ON AQUATIC ORGANISMS: EVALUATION OF
SELECTED TOXICITY MODELS
5. REPORT DATE
March 1984
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
3 RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION NO.
7. AUTHOR(S)
Sylvia A. Murray, Collette G. Burton, Anthony H. Rhodes,
and Robert W. Aldred
8 PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
Tennessee Valley Authority
Office of Natural Resources
Division of Air and Water Resources
Muscle Shoals, Alabama 35660
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
IAG-82-D-X0511
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
Office of Environmental Processes and Effects Research
Office of Research and Development
Office of Environmental Process and Effects Research
Washington, D.C. 20460
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
Final .
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
EPA/600/16
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
16. ABSTRACT
Three toxicity models were examined and modified with respect to organisms associated
with chlorinating power plants of the Tennessee Valley Authority, viz those of Mattice-
Zittel, Turner-Thayer, and Chen-Selleck. Results of the first two were prediction
lines based on concentration and exposure duration of chlorine, whereas results of the
latter were threshold concentrations for individual species. Because of differences
in model formulations and objectives, it was only possible to generalize about the
potential biological safety of the receiving waters.
The Mattice-Zittel model indicated potential biologically unsafe conditions with
respect to chlorine for invertebrates at most of the power plants examined, whereas
the Turner-Thayer indicated biological safety for invertebrates at all but one of the
power plants examined. Results were similar for both models for fish safety at the
power plants. The models predicted that invertebrates were more sensitive to chlorine
than vertebrates, the most sensitive invertebrate species being Isonychia sp. and
Gammarus sp.
The Turner-Thayer model seems to be the most credible and acceptable approach
because of statistical robustness and the use of mean residuals to indicate chlorine
sensitivity in the regression equation.
17.
KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
DESCRIPTORS
b.IDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDEDTERMS
COSATI I leld/Group
Models
Chlorine Toxicity
Power Plants
Environmental Impact of
Conventional and Advanced
Energy Systems
6F
18. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
RELEASE TO PUBLIC
19. SECURITY CLASS (This Report)
21. NO. OF PAGES
1 A7
20. SECURITY CLASS (This page)
Unclassified
22. PRICE
EPA Form 2220-1 (9-73)
------- |