OCLC19016504
FINAL DATA REPORT TO
Great Lakes National Program Office
United States Environmental Protection Agency
230 Dearborn Street
Chicago, IL 60604
David Rockwell. Project 0-f-ficer
DATA REPORT ON TRACE ELEMENTS IN THE WATERS OF LAKE ONTARIO DURING AUGUST 1985
Prepared by
Ronald Rossmann and James A. Barres
Great Lakes Research Division
Great Lakes and Marine Waters Center
The University of Michigan
Ann Arbor, MI 48109
DISCLAIMER: The information in this document has been -funded wholly or in part
by the United States Environmental Protection Agencx under assistance agreement
number R005850-01 to the University of Michigan, it has been subject to the
Agency's peer and administrative reviews, and it has been approved for
publication. The mention of trade names or commercial products does not
constitute endorsement or recommendation for use.
September 1987
-------
INTRODUCTION
Between 1980 and 1985, the epi limn ion o-f each of the Great Lakes was
sampled during the period o-f summer thermal stratification or, in the case o-f
Lake Erie, just a-fter the -fall return to isothermal conditions. As part o-f the
United States Environmental Protection Agency, Great Lakes National Program
0-f-f ice's desire to develop a data base -for the Great Lakes, samples were
analyzed for trace elements. As part o-f the development o-f this data base,
assessments o-f the quality o-f historical trace element data were made -for each
lake. For Lakes Superior, Huron, Erie, and Michigan, results are reported in
Rossmann (1982), Rossmann <1984), and Rossmann (1984).
During 1985, water and particulate samples were collected -from the
epilimnion <1 m water depth) of Lake Ontario using the sampler described by
Rossmann (1982, 1984, 1986). A total of 20 stations were sampled between August
9 and August 11
-------
TORONTO
HAMILTON
OSWEGO
4- 43° 30'
O1
43*00'
KILOMETERS
0 20 40
Figure 1. Lake Ontario stations sampled for water during 1985.
-------
METHODS
COLLECTION
Samples were collected -from a water depth of 1 m using a trace elementfree
polyethylene sampling system. The system used was capable of being rinsed with
lake water at the sampling depth prior to collection of the sample. Details of
the sampling procedure and sampler used are described in Rossmann (1982, 1984).
Sampling was replicated at two o-f the twenty stations.
All samples to be filtered were passed through Millipore Fluoropore -filters
(FEP teflon) having a pore size of 0.5 urn. One-liter filtered and total element
samples were stored in precleaned polyethylene bottles containing 5 mL of
concentrated Ultrex nitric acid as a preservative. Filtered and total mercury
samples were stored in one-liter precleaned glass bottles containing 10 mL of
concentrated sulfuric acid and 10 mL of 5X potassium dichromate as a
preservative. Filters containing particulate matter were stored in precleaned
polyethylene vials in a freezer until extraction with Ultrex nitric acid and
hydrogen peroxide. Details of the extraction procedure are discussed by
Rossmann (1982).
ANALYSES
All element analyses, excluding mercury and strontium, were done by
flameless atomic absorption spectrophyotometry using a graphite furnace (Perkin-
Elmer 1977, Rossmann 1982). For most elements, the sample was injected into the
furnace. For many of the elements, the method of standard additions was used.
Unlike samples from the other Great Lakes (Rossmann 1982, 1984, 1986), a
considerable matrix effect was noted. Elements for which the method of standard
additions was used included strontium, etc. Mercury analyses were done using
the gold-amalgam technique (Perkin-Elmer 1981). Quantitation was with a
-------
standard curve. All concentrations were calculated in the same manner as
described by Rossmann (1982).
Limi t of Detection
For each run consisting of standards, blanks, and samples, the limit o-f
detection (minimum instrument response level) was determined by calculating the
standard deviation o-f readings -for multiple atomizations o-f air or distilled-
de ionized water. The standard deviations obtained -from each o-f these blanks
were then averaged, multiplied by 1.96 to provide -for the 95X level o-f
con-fidence (Hoel 1947), and divided by the slope o-f the regression line -for the
standards to convert to a concentration. Elements with a concentration below
the limit o-f detection (U) are identified in the Appendices. At the 95X. level
o-f confidence, the average limits o-f detection -for all runs o-f each element are
1isted in Table 1.
Cr i ter ion o-f Detect ion
For all water analyses, a criterion o-f detection, minimum concentration
that can be detected as being significantly different from a blank, was
calculated for each element. The criterion of detection was obtained by
calculating the standard deviation of the appropriate field blank concentrations
and then multiplying by 1.96 to provide for the 95X level of confidence (Hoel
1967). The criterion of detection for each element is listed in Table 1.
Results below the criterion of detection (T) are identified in the Appendices.
Blanks
For each element analyzed, sample blanks were analyzed. The total element
blank consisted of a bottle containing the appropriate preservative, to which
-------
Table 1. Limits
-------
one liter of di st i 11 ed-de ion i zed water was added. The -filtered element blank
consisted of a bottle containing the appropriate preservative, into which one
liter of dist i 1 led-de ion ized water was -filtered. This served not only to
provide a blank but also -further to clean the -filter prior to -filtration o-f the
lake water sample. Total and filtered element blanks were collected at every
station. Because both the sampler bottle and storage bottles were polyethylene
and cleaned in the same manner, the blanks represented not only handling and
storage contamination but also sampler contamination. If any median blank
concentration was appreciably large relative to measured sample concentrations,
sub-samples of the disti1led-deionized water transported to the ship and
utilized to prepare the blanks were analyzed. After correction for the
distilled-deionized water blanks, medians of the total and dissolved blanks were
used to correct sample results. Medians were used as representative of the most
likely blank concentration to occur for the period of sample collection. Even
blanks can become contaminated and often the blank concentrations for a station
were greater than the measured sample concentrations. Thus median blank
concentrations were used so that each station's data could be corrected. The
blank corrections used are listed in Table 2.
Quali ty Control Samples
In addition to our normal quality control procedures (Rossmann 1982),
samples provided by the Data Quality Work Group of the International Joint
Commission
-------
Table 2.
(ppb).
Blank corrections applied
to the .analyses o-f 1985 Lake Ontario water
Element
Ag
A1
As
B
Ba
Be
Bi
Cd
Co
Cr
Cu
Fe
Hg
Li
Mn
Mo
Ni
Pb
Sb
Se
Sn
Sr
V
Zn
Fi 1 tered
0.0012
1.32
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.026
0.0
0.0
0.062
0.36
0.023
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.056
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.17
Particulate Total
0.0
0.62
0.0
4.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.020
0.0
0.0058
0.012
0.35
0.022
0.0
0.0
0.0058
0.0
0.035
0.0036
0.0
3.0
0.024
0.0
0.088
-------
Table 3. Results of Great Lakes Research Division (GLRD) trace netal laboratory results for
Interlaboratory Conparability Study No. 46 administered by the Data Quality Uork Group oi the International
Joint Comission (IJC). Results are conpared to GLRD previous results (Rossnann 1986) and 1JC reported
medians (concentrations in ppb). Samples land 2 were taken fron the sane bulk, unaltered Lake Superior
water sample.
Metal
A)
Cd
Co
Cr
Cu
Fe
Mn
Ho
Ni
Pb
g
Zn
Previous
GLRD GLRD
9.2
0.034
0.020U
0.31
3.8
6.5
0.24
0.47
0.33
2.4
5.8
0.026
0.21U
0.38
)1.5
4.1
0.24
0.20
0.14
0.52
0.62
....
Median
6.6
0.15
0.50
0.50
4.0
8.2
0.34
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.26
3.0
Previous
GLRD GLRD
7.5
0.036
-0.0021U
0.22
3.9 :
5.8
0.22
0.22
0.44
0.33
2.0
5.9
0.029
0.21U
0.31
U.5
4.1
0.25
0.16
0.056
0.49
0.33
....
Median
7.0
0.10
0.50
0.70
4.6
6.0
0.50
0.20
0.95
1.0
0.30
2.5
GLRD
13.
0.12
0.24
1.3
3.2
11.
>0.80
1.7
)1.0
0.87
2.6
Previous
GLRD Median
7.0
0.12
0.24
>1.0
M.5
>5.0
>0.40
1.4
0.33
1.3
1.4
..**
12.
0.15
0.37
1.0
2.8
13.
1.3
1.2
1.0
2.0
1.0
3.6
GLRD
13.
0.51
3.4
9.8
2.8
>1.0
3.4
Previous
GLRD Median
9.5
0.39
>1.5
)5.0
0.38
1.7
....
16.
1.2
....
3.4
13.
2.0
1.0
3.0
3.7
Table 3. Continued.
8
Previous Previous Previous Previous
Metal GLRD GLRD Median GLRD GLRD Median GLRD GLRD Median GLRD GLRD Median
Al
Co
Cr
Cu
re
Mn
Mo
Ni
Pb
V
0.93
1.6
1.2
0.92
1.5
1.3
1.2 4.4 4.9 4.9
2.0 5.4 4.8 6.0 3.7 3.6 4.2 2.3 2.1 2.7
i j ____ ____ ____ __ ____ -_ _
Zn
-------
and with the medians -for the IJC Inter 1 aboratory Studx. With the exception o-f
nickel and zinc, all results obtained during analysis o-f the Lake Ontario water
samples were satisfactory. For these, a low bias may exist; however, no
individual analysis for nickel and zinc or any of the other elements was at a
concentration that would have been flagged as being either low or high.
Coeffic ient of lariat ion (Relative Deviation)
Samples were collected in replicate at two stations to provide an estimate
of the coefficient of variation of the sampling and analysis of Lake Ontario
waters
-------
Table 4. Coe-f-f ic i ent o-f variation -for sampling and analysis o-f water samples
collected from Lake Ontario during 1985.
Coe-f-f i cent o-f Variation (X)
Element Dissolved Particulatett Totals
Ag
Al
As
B
Ba
Be
Bi
Cd
Co
Cr
Cu
Fe
Hg
Li
Mn
Mo
Ni
Pb
Sb
Se
Sn
Sr
V
Zn
12
6
12
54
9
13
52
**
7
9
4
66*
**
4
5
8
11
**
7
19
65*
5
11
58*
12
11
**
42
31
**
*#
28
1*
**
30
8
9
7
**
4
**
**
**
**
9
**
59
13
10
12
46
9
14
33
39
9
9
2
9
**
4
8
8
11
7
20
65
4
12
45
# Participate mercury is calculated -from total and dissolved concentrations. All
but total mercury are calculated -from particulate and dissolved concentrations.
* Only one o-f two replicated samples used due to one or both o-f the replicates
for one sample being below the limit or criterion o-f detection.
**Both replicated samples had one or both o-f its replicates below the limit or
criterion o-f detection.
11
-------
historical data represent samples taken at di-f-ferent times o-f the xear, in
di-f-ferent places, and analyzed or collected by di-f-ferent procedures, trends
in-ferred -from use o-f the historical data must be used with caution. The trends
are presented to illustrate what can be done with the available data. For quite
a -few o-f the elements, many o-f 1985 data were below the limit o-f detection
(Table 5). The very low concentrations o-f these elements are hypothesized to be
related to the time o-f the year the samples were collected. For dissolved
element concentrations, this was a severe problem -for silver, mercury, and lead.
It was less o-f a problem -for beryllium, cadmium, iron, and zinc. For
particulate element concentrations the 1985, a high -fraction o-f the results for
arsenic, beryllium, bismuth, chromium, lead, molybdenum, selenium, tin, and
vanadium were below the criterion or limit o-f detection.
SILVER
-------
Table 5. Percent o-f analyses below the limit or criterion of detection -for
samples collected -from Lake Ontario.
Element
Ag
Al
As
B
Ba
Be
Bi
Cd
Co
Cr
Cu
Fe
Hg
Li
Mn
Mo
Ni
Pb
Sb
Se
Sn
Sr
V
Zn
Dissol ved
64
4
9
36
0
32
9
41
0
0
0
32
96
0
0
0
0
91
4
0
18
0
27
41
1985 (n=22)
Part i culate
0
0
86
0
14
96
100
0
9
77
0
0
9
0
46
0
41
100
100
100
0
59
0
Total
73
13
-------
Table 6. Statistical summary of dissolved silver data bx xear -for Lake Ontario
epi limnetic water
-------
Table 9. Statistical summary o-f dissolved aluminum data by year for Lake
Ontario epilimnetic water (ppb). Unless noted, all data are -from STORET.
Number o-f
Year Cases Minimum
Max imum
Mean
Standard
Dev i at i on
Median
1
1985 22
0.40
19.
5.4
4.2
4.1
1
This study.
Table 10. Statistical summary o-f part icul ate aluminum data by year -for Lake
Ontario epilimnetic water (ppb). Unless noted, all data are -from STORET.
Number o-f
Year Cases Minimum
Max imum
Mean
Standard
Devi at ion
Median
1
1985 22
1.4
62.
9.6
14.
4.3
1
This study.
Table 11. Statistical summary o-f total aluminum data by year -for Lake Ontario
epilimnetic water (ppb). Unless noted, all data are -from STORET.
Number o-f
Year Cases Minimum
Max imum
Mean
Standard
Dev i at i on
Medi an
1979
1981
15
6
1
1985 22
2.0
12.
1.9
110.
36.
73.
22.
20.
15.
34.
8.4
17.
6.0
18.
8.1
1
This study.
15
-------
ARSENIC (As)
No historical dissolved and participate data were -found. The 1985 data are
summarized in Tables 12-13. For the 1985 participate data. 86X of the results
were below the limit of detection (Table 5). Total arsenic data are available
for four years (Table 14). The 1974 and 1981 concentrations are higher than
those of 1979 and 1985. No trends could be calculated for the few data
avai1able .
BORON (B)
No dissolved and particulate boron data were found. Dissolved and
particulate concentrations for 1985 are summarized in Tables 15 and 16,
respectively. 36X of the dissolved concentrations were below the limit or
criterion of detection (Table 5).
One year of historical total boron data was found (Table 17). The 1985
data are skewed to the high side: 1985 concentrations are higher than those of
1972.
BARIUM
-------
Table 12. Statistical summary o-f dissolved arsenic data by year -for Lake Ontario
epilimnetic water
-------
Table 15. Statistical summary of dissolved boron data by year for Lake Ontario
epilimnetic water (ppb). Unless noted, all data are from STORET.
Number of
Year Cases Minimum
Max imum
Mean
Standard
Dev i at ion
Medi an
1
1985 22
5.4
210.
72.
55.
47.
1
This study.
Table 16. Statistical summary of particulate boron data by year for Lake
Ontario epilimnetic water (ppb). Unless noted, all data are from STORET.
Number of
Year Cases Minimum
Max imum
Mean
Standard
Dev i at ion
Median
1
1985 22
0.94
22.
7.5
5.3
5.5
1
This study.
Table 17. Statistical summary of total boron data by year for Lake Ontario
epilimnetic water (ppb). Unless noted, all data are from STORET.
Number of
Year Cases Minimum
Max imum
Mean
Standard
Dev iat ion
Medi an
1972 13
1
1985 22
14.
9.8
23.
213.
20.
80.
2.9
54.
19.
58.
1
This study.
18
-------
Table 18. Statistical summary of dissolved barium data by year for Lake Ontario
epilimnetic water (ppb). Unless noted, all data are from STORET.
Number of
Year Cases Minimum
Max imum
Mean
Standard
Dev i at i on
Medi an
1
1985 22
16.
20.
18.
1.0
18.
1
This study.
Table 19. Statistical summary of particulate barium data by year for Lake
Ontario epilimnetic water (ppb). Unless noted, all data are from STORET.
Number of
Year Cases Minimum
Max imum
Mean
Standard
Dev i at ion
Medi an
1
1985 22
-0.0040
0.52
0.24
0.14
0.22
1
This study.
Table 20. Statistical summary of total barium data by year for Lake Ontario
epilimnetic water
-------
Table 21. Statistical summarx o-f dissolved beryllium data by year -for Lake
Ontario epi limnetic water
-------
BISMUTH
-------
Table 24. Statistical summary of dissolved bismuth data by year -for Lake
Ontario epilimnetic water
-------
Table 27. Statistical summary o-f dissolved cadmium data by year -for Lake
Ontario ep(limnetic water (ppb). Unless noted, all data are -from STORET.
Year
1
1969
1969
1971
1972
1973
2
1984
3
1985
1
Chau
2
Lum
3
This
Table
On tar
Number o-f Standard
Cases Minimum Maximum Mean Deviation
0.09
1 1.0 1.0 1.0
14 0.10 0.50 0.21 0.12
17 0.20 1.4 0.39 0.31
14 0.20 0.40 0.26 0.065
57 - 0.010 0.005
22 -0.0030 0.47 0.053 0.099
et al . 1970.
and Callaghan 1986 and Lum 1987.
study.
28. Statistical summary o-f particulate cadmium data by year
io epilimnetic water (ppb).
Medi an
-
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.024
for Lake
Number o-f Standard
Year
1
1978
2
1985
Cases Minimum Maximum Mean Deviation
6 0.0086 0.0038
22 0.033 0.25 0.092 0.055
Medi an
_.._
0.069
1
Nriagu et al. 1981.
This study.
23
-------
Table 29. Statistical summary o-f total cadmium data by year -for Lake Ontario
epi limnetic water
-------
Table 31. Statistical summary o-f part icul ate cobalt data bx year -for Lake
Ontario epi limnetic water (ppb). Unless noted, all data are -from STORET.
Number o-f
Year Cases Minimum
Max imum
Mean
Standard
Dev i at i on
Medi an
1
1985 22
0.00045
0.018
0.0054
0.0044
0.0037
1
This study.
Table 32. Statistical summary o-f total cobalt data by year for Lake Ontario
epi limnetic water (ppb). Unless noted, all data are -from STORET.
Number o-f
Year Cases Minimum
Max imum
Mean
Standard
Dev i at ion
Medi an
1981 7 0.040
1
1985 22 0.011
0.16
0.051
0.12
0.027
0.041
0.0094
0.12
0.025
1
This study.
25
-------
quality (Table 33). Median and mean concentrations range between 0.5 and 0.77
ug/L. There is no trend in element concentration for the period of 1968 through
1985.
No historical particulate chromium data were found. The 1985 data are
summarized in Table 34. 77% of these data were below the limit or criterion of
detect i on.
Two years of historical total chromium data were found (Table 35). The
1972 concentrations are much too high. The mean and median concentrations for
1981 and 1985 are very similar.
COPPER (Cu)
Most of the historical dissolved copper data appear to be of poor quality
(Table 36). The best of the pre-1984 data are those of 1972.
One year of historical particulate copper data was found (Table 37). The
1985 mean is almost twice that of 1978; however the 1978 mean is within the
range of concentrations observed for 1985.
Five years of historical total copper data were found (Table 38). The
1967, 1972, and 1973 mean and median concentrations all appear to be much too
high compared to those of 1978, 1981, and 1985. The 1985 median concentration
is the lowest of the three years. No trend was found.
IRON (Fe)
Four years of historical dissolved iron data were found (Table 39). Mean
and median concentrations appear to be slightly high for 1969, 1971, and 1972,
though not unreasonably high. The 1973 mean concentration appears to be skewed
to the high side. The 1985 median concentration is the lowest. No trend was
found.
26
-------
Table 33. Statistical summary o-f dissolved chromium data by year -for Lake
Ontario epi limnetic water . Unless noted, all data are -from STORET.
Number o-f
Year
i
1968
2
1969
1949
1971
1972
1973
3
1985
Cases
38
26
37
18
15
22
Mi n imum
0.0
1.0
0.10
0.20
0.10
0.38
Max imum
12.
3.0
2.0
2.4
1.3
1.0
Mean
___
0.74
1.2
0.69
0.67
0.64
0.75
Standard
Devi at i on
0.51
0.37
0.54
0.36
0.14
Medi an
0.7
1.0
0.70
0.50
0.50
0.77
1
Weiler and Chawla 1969; all results -for dissolved and total -for various depths
were combined.
2
Chau et al. 1970.
3
This study.
Table 34. Statistical summary o-f particulate chromium data by year -for Lake
Ontario epilimnetic water (ppb). Unless noted, all data are -from STORET.
Number o-f Standard
Year Cases Minimum Maximum Mean Deviation Median
-
1985 22 0.0056 0.18 0.041 0.041 0.025
1
This study.
27
-------
Table 35. Statistical summary of total chromium data by year -for Lake Ontario
epilimnetic water (ppb). Unless noted, all data are from STORET.
Number of
Year
1972
1981
1
1985
Cases
8
7
22
Hi n imum
1 .5
0.50
0.49
Max imum
45.
1 .8
1 .0
Mean
17.
0.88
0.79
Standard
Dev i at i on
18.
0.45
0.12
Medi an
7.5
0.87
0.82
1
This study.
Table 36. Statistical summary of dissolved copper data by year for Lake Ontario
epilimnetic water (ppb). Unless noted, all data are from STORET.
Number of
Year
1
1968
2
1969
1969
1971
1972
1973
3
1984
3
1984
4
1985
Cases
38
51
40
15
18
22
Mi n imum
5.0
1.0
1.8
0.20
1 .5
0.62
Max imum
175.
13.
18.
10.
5.0
0.94
Mean
___
6.4
3.3
4.6
2.0
2.6
0.48
0.45
0.75
Standard
Dev i at i on
^
2.4
3.2
2.4
0.89
0.24
0.24
0.098
Medi an
60.
3.0
3.5
1.6
2.5
0.75
1
Weiler and Chawla 1969: all results for dissolved and total for various depths
were combined.
2
Chau
-------
Table 37. Statistical summary of particulate copper data by year for Lake
Ontario epilimnetic water (ppb).
Number of
Year Cases Minimum
Max imum
Mean
Standard
Dev iat i on
Median
1
1978 6
2
1985 22
0.13
1.3
0.14
0.24
0.043
0.24
0.17
1
Nriagu et al. 1981.
2
This study.
Table 38. Statistical summary of total copper data by year for Lake Ontario
epilimnetic water
-------
Table 39. Statistical summary of dissolved iron data by year for Lake Ontario
epilimnetic water (ppb). Unless noted, all data are from STORET.
Number of
Year
1
1969
1969
1971
1972
1973
2
1985
Cases
__
54
40
18
18
22
Hi n imum
___
1.0
0.60
1.2
1.0
-0.040
Max imum
_m T
30.
4.1
12.
180.
4.4
Mean
5.1
4.6
1.6
4.3
36.
0.74
Standard
Devi at ion
4.6
0.94
2.7
58.
0.96
Medi an
3.0
1.2
4.0
4.0
0.45
1
Chau et al. 1970.
This study.
Table 40. Statistical summary of particulate iron data by year for Lake Ontario
epilimnetic water
-------
Historical particulate iron data were found for onlx one year (Table 40).
The 1978 and 1985 concentrations are the same within the variability of results
observed.
Seven years of historical total iron data were found (Table 41). Of these
the concentrations for 1967, the second 1968 entry, 1969, 1972, and 1973 are
suspiciously high compared to those for the first 1968 entry, 1979, 1981, and
1985. The 1985 mean and median concentrations are lowest. No trend was found.
MERCURY
-------
Table 41. Statistical summary of total iron data by year -for Lake Ontario
epilimnetic water (ppb). Unless noted, all data are -from STORE!.'
Number o-f
Year
1967
1
1968
1968
1969
1972
1973
1979
1981
2
1985
Cases
5
38
14
14
95
82
15
7
22
Mi n imum
30.
4.0
20.
20.
1.5
0.070
1 .5
3.6
2.6
Max imum
300.
500.
80.
120.
1100.
780.
300.
76.
66.
Mean
140.
56.
48.
87.
84.
57.
22.
12.
Standard
Dev i at ion
110.
17.
27.
160.
120.
100.
24.
15.
Medi an
120.
8.
60.
40.
33.
37.
13.
14.
5.7
1
Weiler and Chawla 1969; all results -for various depths were combined.
2
This study.
Table 42. Statistical summary o-f dissolved mercury data by year -for Lake
Ontario epilimnetic water (ppb). Unless noted, all data are from STORET.
Number of
Year Cases Minimum Maximum Mean
1971 39 0.050 0.60 0.16
1
1985 22 0.001 0.019 0.010
Standard
Deviation Median
0.098 0.15
0.0053 0.011
1
This study.
32
-------
Table 43. Statistical summary of part icul ate mercury data by year -for Lake
Ontario epilimnetic water 5m.
2
This study.
Table 45. Statistical summary o-f dissolved lithium data by year -for Lake
Ontario epilimnetic water
-------
Table 46. Only one year o-f historical total lithium data could be -found (Table
47). The 1967 and 1985 medians are equal.
MANGANESE (Mn)
Including 1985, dissolved manganese data were -found -for 6 years (Table 48).
The 1968 and second entry -for 1969 represent concentrations at or near the limit
o-f detection. The 1973 data are too high and should be ignored. The 1974 mean
concentration is skewed to the very high side. The mean concentrations -for the
second entry o-f 1969, 1971, and 1985 and the median concentrations -for 1971,
1972, 1985 are very similar to one another. There is no apparent trend in
dissolved manganese concentrations between 1969 and 1985.
Only one year of historical part icul ate manganese data was -found (Table
49). The mean -for 1978 is lower than that -for 1985. Both sets o-f data are
considered to be o-f high quality.
Five years o-f historical total manganese data were -found (Table 50). All
historical data are suspiciously high compared to the 1985 data. They should be
used with caution. The 1967 maximum is extremely high, and the 1973 minimum is
very low. The 1973 minimum concentration is probably a STORET data entry error.
MOLYBDENUM (Mo)
Four years o-f historical dissolved molybdenum data were -found (Table 51).
No particulate or total historical molybdenum data were -found. All historical
data appear to be o-f high quality. Though the regression line is not
statistically significant at the 0.05 level o-f significance, molybdenum
increased between 1969 and 1985. The 1985 particulate and total data are
summarized in Tables 52 and 53, respectively.
34
-------
Table 46. Statistical summary o-f part icul ate lithium data by year for Lake
Ontario epilimnetic water
-------
Table 48. Statistical summary of dissolved manganese data by year for Lake
Ontario epilimnetic water _^
0.47
1.2
0.32
14.
3.2
0.33
Standard
Dev i at i on
.__
0.63
0.28
56.
4.6
0.32
Medi an
<1.
1.0
0.20
0.40
1.5
0.22
1
Ueiler and Chawla 1969; all results for dissolved and total for various depths
were combined.
2
Chau et al. 1970.
3
This study.
Table 49. Statistical summary of particulate manganese data by year for Lake
Ontario epilimnetic water (ppb).
Number of
Year Cases Minimum
Max imum
Mean
Standard
Dev i at i on
Medi an
1
1978 6
2
1985 22
0.22
3.3
0.27
1.0
0.10
0.79
0.68
1
Nriaqu et al. 1981 .
2
This study.
36
-------
Table 50. Statistical summary o-f total manganese data by year -for Lake Ontario
epi limnetic water
-------
Table 52. Statistical summary of part icul ate molybdenum data by year -for Lake
Ontario epi limnetic water
-------
NICKEL (Ni)
The majority of the historical dissolved nickel data are of poor quality
(Table 54). Only the 1973 mean and median concentrations are comparable to
those o-f 1985.
Only one year o-f historical participate nickel data were -found
-------
Table 54. Statistical summary of dissolved nickel data by year -for Lake Ontario
epi limnetic water (ppb). Unless noted, all data are -from STORET.
Number of
Year
1
1968
2
1969
1969
1971
1972
1973
3
1985
Cases
38
53
40
18
11
22
Min imum
2.
1.0
0.20
1.5
0.10
0.35
Maximum
16.
5.0
12.
6.5
2.2
0.93
Mean
im
2.3
2.0
2.4
4.0
0.94
0.63
Standard
Dev i at i on
...
0.90
2.3
1.7
0.57
0.17
Medi an
5.6
2.0
2.0
4.0
0.80
0.61
1
Weiler and Chawla 1969; all results -for dissolved and total -for various depths
were combined.
2
Chau et al. 1970.
3
This study.
Table 55. Statistical summary o-f particulate nickel data by year for Lake
Ontario epilimnetic water (ppb).
Number of Standard
Year Cases Minimum Maximum Mean Deviation Median
-
1978 5 0.044 0.024
2
1985 22 0.054 0.30 0.095 0.052 0.082
_
Nriagu et al. 1981.
2
This study.
40
-------
Table 56. Statistical summary o-f total nickel data by year -for Lake Ontario
epi limnetic water (ppb). Unless noted, all data are -from STORET.
Number o-f
Year
1967
1972
1973
1
1978
1979
1981
2
1985
Cases
14
74
81
6
15
6
22
Mi n imum
1 .0
4.0
0.015
1.0
1 .3
0.46
Max imum
4.0
50.
28.
2.0
3.1
1 .0
Mean
2.4
16.
11.
1 .0
1.3
2.0
0.72
Standard
Dev i at i on
0.85
8.8
6.0
0.11
0.36
0.82
0.18
Medi an
2.0
13.
11 .
1.5
1 .5
0.71
1
Nriaqu et al. 1981.
2
This study.
Table 57. Statistical summary o-f dissolved lead data by year -for Lake Ontario
epilimnetic water
-------
Table 58. Statistical summary of particulate lead data by year for Lake Ontario
epilimnetic water (ppb).
Number of
Year Cases Minimum
Max imum
Mean
Standard
Dev i at i on
Median
1
1978
1985 22
-0.018
0.15
0.13
0.040
0.042
0.048
0.021
1
Nriagu et al. 1981.
2
This study.
Table 59. Statistical summary of total lead data by year for Lake Ontario
epilimnetic water (ppb). Unless noted, all data are from STQRET.
Number of
Year
19<47
1972
1
1973
1973
2
1978
1981
3
1985
Cases
14
4
1
1
4
7
22
Mi n imum
2.0
1 .0
1 .6
17.
0.070
-0.036
Max imum
48.
58.
1.6
17.
0.79
0.29
Mean
10.
25.
1.6
17.
<0.41
0.41
0.080
Standard
Dev i at i on Medi an
13. 4.0
28. 3.0
0.23 0.44
0.095 0.042
1
Elzerman and Armstrong 1979.
2
Nriagu et al. 1981.
This study.
42
-------
much lower than those for the other years. No trend was calculated because of
the poor quality of the historical data.
ANTIMONY (Sb)
No historical dissolved, particulate, and total antimony data could be
found. The 1985 data are summarized in Tables 60-62.
SELENIUM (Se)
No historical dissolved and particulate selenium data were found. The 1985
data are summarized in Tables 63 and 64, respectively. 100X of the 1985
particulate results were below the limit or criterion of detection (Table 5).
Three years of historical total selenium data were found (Table 65). The
historical concentrations all appear to be too low. They could be too low if
selenium was analyzed by the hydride technique. If selenium (VI) was not
completely reduced to selenium (IV) prior to analysis, low results would be
obtained (Sinemus et al. 1981). Thus the 1974, 1979, and 1981 results are
either erroneously low or there was a drastic increase in selenium between 1981
and 1985. I believe the former to be the correct interpretation.
TIN (Sn)
No historical tin data could be found. The 1985 dissolved, particulate,
and calculated total tin results are summarized in Tables 66-68, respectively.
100% of the particulate results were below the limit or criterion of detection
(Table 5).
STRONTIUM (Sr)
Five years of historical dissolved strontium data were found (Table 69).
All historical data are of high quality. For the period of 1968 to 1985, mean
43
-------
Table 60. Statistical summary o-f dissolved antimonx data by year -for Lake
Ontario epi limnetic water (ppb). Unless noted, all data are -from STORET.
Number o-f
Year Cases Minimum
Max imum
Mean
Standard
Dev i at ion
Medi an
1
1985 22
0.040
0.24
0.17
0.051
0.16
1
This study.
Table 61. Statistical summary o-f particulate antimony data by year for Lake
Ontario epi limnetic water (ppb). Unless noted, all data are -from STORET.
Number o-f
Year Cases Minimum
Max imum
Mean
Standard
Dev i at ion
Medi an
1
1985 22
-0.053
0.0091
-0.013
0.014
-0.010
1
This study.
Table 62. Statistical summary o-f total antimony data by year -for Lake Ontario
epi limnetic water
-------
Table 63. Statistical summary of dissolved selenium data by year -for Lake
Ontario epi limnetic water
-------
Table 66. Statistical summary of dissolved tin data by year for Lake Ontario
epi limnetic water (ppb). Unless noted, all data are -from STORET.
Number of
Year Cases Minimum
Max imum
Mean
Standard
Dev iat i on
Medi an
1
1985 22
0.040
1.1
0.41
0.32
0.23
1
This study.
Table 67. Statistical summary of particulate tin data by year for Lake Ontario
epilimnetic water
-------
Table 69. Statistical summary oi dissolved strontium data by year -for Lake
Ontario epi limnetic water (ppb). Unless noted, all data are -from STORET.
Number o-f
Year
1
1968
2
1969
1969
1971
1972
1973
3
1985
Cases
38
54
60
18
18
22
Mi n imum
180.
150.
170.
150.
140.
140.
Max imum
200.
200.
200.
180.
170.
200.
Mean
»«.«.
180.
180.
180.
160.
160.
180.
Standard
Dev i at ion
___
12.
6.7
12.
9.0
16.
Median
190.
180.
180.
170.
160.
180.
1
Weiler and Chawla 1969; all results for dissolved and total -for various depths
were combined.
2
Chau et al. 1970.
3
This study.
Table 70. Statistical summary o-f particulate strontium data by year -for Lake
Ontario epilimnetic water (ppb). Unless noted, all data are from STORET.
Number o-f Standard
Year Cases Minimum Maximum Mean Deviation Median
.
1985 22 0.22 0.96 0.56 0.20 0.50
1
This study.
47
-------
concentrations varied between 160 and 180 ug/L, and median concentrations varied
between 160 and 190 ug/L. There is no trend in concentration with time.
No historical particulate strontium data could be -found. The 1985 data are
summarized in Table 70.
One xear o-f historical total strontium data were -found (Table 71). The
mean and median concentrations o-f 1967 and 1985 are equal.
VANADIUM (V)
Only one year o-f historical dissolved vanadium data was found (Table 72).
The 1973 mean is an order o-f magnitude less than that -for 1985.
No historical particulate vanadium data could be -found. The 1985 data are
summarized in Table 73. 59X o-f the particulate results were below the limit or
criterion o-f detection (Table 5).
Three years o-f historical total vanadium data were -found (Table 74). The
1969 and 1981 mean and median concentrations are much too high and should not be
used -for describing concentrations in Lake Ontario water. The 1985 mean and
median concentrations are higher than those -for 1971; however standard
deviations are large enough to make the di-f-ference observed statistically
insign if icant.
ZINC (Zn)
Six years o-f historical dissolved zinc data were -found (Table 75). All
historical means and medians are much too high compared to the 1985 results.
The pre-1984 data should not be used to describe the lake. 41% o-f the 1985 data
were below the limit or criterion o-f detection (Table 5).
Only one year o-f historical particulate zinc data was -found (Table 76).
The 1985 mean and median concentrations are higher than the mean -for 1978.
48
-------
Table 71. Statistical summary o-f total strontium data bx year -for Lake Ontario
epilimnetic water
-------
Table 74. Statistical summary o-f total vanadium data by year for Lake Ontario
epilimnetic water (ppb). Unless noted, all data are from STORE!.
Number o-f
Year
1969
1971
1981
1
1985
Cases
1
3
7
22
Min imum
1.0
0.10
0.11
0.091
Max imum
1.0
0.40
4.9
0.70
Mean
1.0
0.20
2.2
0.34
Standard
Dev i at ion
_«*
0.17
2.2
0.17
Median
_M_
0.10
1.1
0.33
1
This study.
Table 75. Statistical summary of dissolved zinc data by year for Lake Ontario
epilimnetic water (ppb). Unless noted, all data are from STORET.
Number of
Year
1
1948
2
1969
1969
1971
1972
1973
3
1984
4
1985
Cases
38
44
40
17
18
22
Mini mum
18.
1.0
2.5
0.50
0.50
-0.040
Max imum
115.
44.
54.
56.
13.
1.5
Mean
___
7.8
9.6
12.
8.4
4.5
0.82
0.27
Standard
Dev i at ion
_
-------
Table 76. Statistical summary o-f participate zinc data by year -for Lake Ontario
epi1imnetic water
-------
There is no statistically significant difference between the means -for the two
years.
Four years of historical total zinc data were found (Table 77). All the
historical data are suspiciously high compared to those of 1985.
SIM1ARY
Between 1980 and 1985, each of the Great Lakes was sampled either during
summer thermal stratification or just after a return to isothermal conditions
in early fall. With completion of the Lake Ontario work, the development of a
new trace metal data base for each of the lakes is complete. Twenty Lake
Ontario stations were occupied during 1985 for the collection of water samples
from a depth of 1 m. Samples were analyzed for dissolved and particulated
concentrations of Ag, Al, As, B, Ba, Be, Bi, Cd, Co, Cr, Cu, Fe, Li, Mn, Mo, Ni ,
Pb, Sb, Se, Sn, Sr, V, and Zn and total and dissolved Hg. Dissolved and
participate concentrat ions were summed to obtain total concentrations.
Historical data were summarized for each element analyzed. In general,
historical data are of poor quality and are not useful for predicting trends or
i ntercompar i ng concentrations -for various years of collection. The historical
data should be used with extreme caution or not used at all. Because of the
sampling for the current work being confined to one cruise during summer thermal
stratification and the poor quality of historical data, it is impossible to draw
conclusions concerning seasonal and vertical variations of trace elements in the
Great Lakes.
52
-------
LITERATURE CITED
American Society for Testino Materials. 1980. Standard practice -for
interlaboratory control procedures and a discussion on reporting low level
data. ASTM:D4210.
Chau. Y. K.. V. K. Chawla. H. F. Nicholson, and R. A. Vollenweider. 1970.
Distribution of trace elements and chlorophyll a in Lake Ontario, pp. 659-
672. Ijn Proc. 13th Conf. Great Lakes Res.. Internat. Assoc. Great Lakes
Res.
Chau. Y. K.. and H. Saitoh. 1973. Mercury in the international Great Lakes.
pp. 221-232. LD. Proc. 16th Con-f. Great Lakes Res.. Internat. Assoc. Great
Lakes Res.
Elzerman. A. W.. and D. E. Armstrong. 1979. Enrichment o-f Zn, Cd, Pb, and Cu,
in the sur-face microlayer o-f Lakes Michigan. Ontario, and Mendota. Limnol .
Oceanogr. 24:133-144.
Hoel, P. G. 1967. Elementary statistics. New York. John Wiley & Sons. 351
pp.
International Joint Commission. 1984. Lake Ontario surveillance plan.
Prepared by the Lake Ontario Task Force -for the Surveillance Work Group o-f
the Great Lakes Water Quality Board. Dra-ft 1984.09.28.
Lum. K. R. 1987. Cadmium in -fresh waters: the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence
River, pp. 35-50. j_n Nr i agu, J. R. and J. B. Sprague
-------
Rossmann, R. 1984. Trace metal concentrations in the o-f-fshore waters o-f Lakes
Erie and Michigan. Spec. Rep. No. 108. Great Lakes Res. Div., The
University o-f Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, 170 pp.
Rossmann. R. 1986. Trace metal concentrations in the o-f-fshore waters and
sediments o-f Lake Superior. Spec. Rep. No. 121, Great Lakes Res. Dig., The
University o-f Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, 122 pp.
Sinemus, H. U., M. Melcher, and B. Welz. 1981. In-fluence o-f valence state on
the determination o-f antimony, arsenic, bismuth, selenium and tellurium in
lake water using the hydride AA technique. Atomic Spectroscopy 2:81-86.
Traversy, W. J.. P. D. Goulden, Y. M. Sheikh, and J. R. Leacock. 1975. Levels
o-f arsenic and selenium in the Great Lakes region. Scienti-fic Series No.
58, Inland Waters Directorate, Ontario Region, Water Quality Branch.
Weiler, R. R., and V. K. Chawla. 1969. Di ssol ved mi neral quality o-f Great
Lakes waters, pp. 801-818. In_ Proc. 12th Con-f. Great Lakes Res., Internat.
Assoc. Great Lakes Res.
54
-------
Appendix 1. Measured dissolved eleraent concentrations (ppb) in 1985 Lake Ontario waters.
Station
LO-85-1
LO-85-8
LO-85-12
LO-85-23
LO-85-33
LO-85-37
LO-85-39
LQ-85-41 #1
LO-85-41 *2
LO-85-44
LO-85-49
LO-85-55 HI
LO-85-55 12
10-85-57
LO-85-63
LO-85-65
LO-85-71
LO-85-76
LO-85-81
LO-85-86
LO-85-89
10-85-90
Depth
n
1. 0
1. 0
i. 0
1. 0
1. -0
1. -0
i. 0
1. 0
1. 0
1. 0
1. 0
1. 0
1. 0
1. 0
1. 0
i. o
1. 0
i. 0
1. -0
1. 0
1. -0
1. 0
Ag
.00044U
.D0055U
.00051U
.0017W
.00032U
.00055U
.0015
.0013
.0016
.0017
.000644
.0016
.0014U
.0016U
.0018
.0015
.0019
.00040U
.00054U
.000030U
.000030U
.00072U
Al
7.4
19.
3.6
11.
4.1
10.
5.6
3.8
4.3
1.1
1.5
3.2
3.3
3.2
0.40T
1.9
2.9
9.3
4.7
9.3
4.3
5.1
As
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.55
.39
.13U
.59
.19T
.27
.47
.55
.71
.79
.41
.50
.46
.89
.49
.24
.35
.57
.82
.47
.66
.69
B
47.
9.9T
21 .T
30 .T
130.
76.
65.
37.T
5.3T
18.T
76.
170.
160.
210.
37 .T
47.
47.
30 .T
110.
74.
110.
89.
Ba
20.
18.
19.
20.
19.
19.
17.
16.
19.
18.
18.
19.
17.
17.
18.
18.
20.
17.
17.
18.
18.
18.
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
D
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Be
.0033
.0037
.0038
.00137
.0039
.0059
.0030
.0041
.0040
.0050
.0070
.0076
.0054
.00247
.00287
.0036
.00247
.0038
.00197
.00257
.00277
.0065
Bi
0.45
0.34
0.0357
0.38
0.32
0.48
0.45
0.26
0.12
0.71
0.14
0.57
0.27
0.28
0.13
0.12
0.45
0.27
0.12
0.0627
0.17
0.11
Cd
0.094
0.035
0.11
0.037
0.031
0.0147
0.0107
-0.00307
0.024
0.044
0.0167
0.031
0.00307
0.0177
0.032
0.00407
0.7
0.00307
0.47
0.072
0.023
0.094
U=beloM limit of detection.
7=below criterion of detection.
-O.=not analyzed.
55
-------
Appendix 1. Continued.
Station De
r
LO-85-1
10-85-8
LO-85-1 2
LO-85-23
LO-85-33
LO-85-37
LO-85-39
LO-85-41 111
LO-85-41 *2
LQ-85-44
LO-85-49
LO-85-55 111
LO-85-55 12
LO-85-57
10-85-63
LO-85-65
LO-85-71
LO-85-76
LO-85-81
LO-85-86
LO-85-89
LO-85-90
)th Co
i
1. 0.022
I. 0.037
1. 0.013
1. 0.020
1. 0.012
0.030
1. 0.030
0.023
1. 0.021
0.024
0.0087
0.017
0.015
0.031
0.021
0.019
0.021
0.027
0.023
0.015
0.016
0.025
Cr
0.77
0.77
0.65
0.38
0.69
0.53
0.65
0.69
0.74
0.66
0.90
1.0
0.87
0.80
0.81
0.80
0.81
0.70
0.87
0.79
0.83
0.69
Cu
0.94
0.94
0.81
0.75
0.68
0.80
0.84
0.76
0.84
0.73
0.77
0.75
0.76
0.69
0.62
0.66
0.90
0.66
0.63
0.65
0.64
0.83
Fe
0.94
4.4
0.19T
1.9
0.38
0.45
0.32T
0.45
0.23T
0.45
-0.040U
1.0
0.38
0.84
0.16T
0.51
0.46
0.63
-0.020U
1.7
0.54
0.28T
Hg
0.013T
0.014T
0.0090T
0.016T
0.014T
0.019
0.0090T
0.0010T
0.011T
0.0060T
0.014T
0.0070T
0.001QT
0.0020T
0.015T
Q.017T
0.011T
0.010T
0.016T
0.0080T
0.013T
0.0030T
Li
2.1
2.1
1.8
1.6
1.8
2.0
2.1
1.8
1.8
2.1
2.1
2.1
2.0
1.7
1.6
1.7
1.8
1.4
2.7
2.4
2.5
2.2
Mn
0.22
0.57
0.14
1.3
0.30
1.2
0.55
0.30
0.27
0.087
0.12
0.24
0.25
0.23
0.10
0.13
0.15
0.22
0.12
0.38
0.19
0.21
Ho
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.4
1.5
.4
.3
.3
.6
.7
.6
1.6
1.6
1.5
1.8
1.8
1.9
1.6
1.6
1.6
1.5
1.4
W=below linit of detection.
T=below criterion oi detection.
-O.=not analyzed.
56
-------
Appendix 1. Continued.
Station De|
B
LO-85-1
LO-85-8
LO-85-1 2
LO-85-23
LO-85-33
LO-85-37
LO-85-39
LO-85-41 ftl
LO-85-41 »2
LO-85-44
LO-85-49
LO-85-55 111
LO-85-55 *2
LO-85-57
LO-85-63
LO-85-65
LO-85-71
10-85-76 ]
LO-85-81
LO-85-86 1
LO-85-89
LO-85-90 1
>th Ni
i
1. 0.73
1. 0.82
1. 0.82
0.40
I. 0,60
0.76
0.60
0.44
0.44
0.35
0.42
0.48
0.47
0.74
0.68
0.66
0.76
0.53
0.45
0.61
0.93
0.93
0
0
-0
-0
-0
0
0
-0
-0
-0
-0
-0
0
0
-0
-0
-0
-0
0
-0
-0
-0
Pb
.095
.14
,038U
.019U
.052U
.039T
.031T
.015U
.043U
.0019U
.026U
.044U
.0207
,019T
.0093U
.034U
.038U
.0038U
.010T
.043U
.010U
.0053U
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Sb
.14
.15
.24
.24
.24
.22
.14
.24
.20
.15
.20
.12
.13
.19
.19
.10
.16
.21
.15
.15
.17
.040T
Se
1.4
.3
.5
.4
.9
.1
.3
0.96
0.62
1.0
0.83
0.98
0.88
0.56
0.69
0.58
0.56
0.68
1.1
0.97
0.90
1.0
Sn
0.60
1.1
0.99
0.10
0.31
0.18U
0.23
0.23
0.63
0.040T
0.30
0.21W
0.22U
0.23
0.90
0.80
0.82
0.47
0.11
0.32
0.17
0.12
Sr
190.
180.
170.
180.
170.
170.
170.
170.
160.
140.
140.
190.
190.
160.
170.
200.
200.
190.
190.
200.
180.
190.
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
V
.20U
.131
.25
.26
.45
.157
.147
.54
.65
.23
.34
.40
.35
.45
.28
.69
.56
.36
.29
.072W
.0927
.32
Zn
0.16
0.60
0.117
1.5
-0.040W
0.63
0.0507
0.24
0.58
0.33
0.0407
0.19
0.107
0.18
O.U
0.0207
0.17
0.14
0.39
0.107
0.42
0.0707
W=below limit of detection.
7=below criterion oi detection.
-O.=not analyzed.
57
-------
Appendix 2. Measured participate elenent concentrations (ppb) in 1985 Lake Ontario Maters.
Station
LO-85-1
LO-85-8
LO-85-1 2
LO-85-23
LO-85-33
LO-85-37
LO-85-39
LO-85-41 HI
LO-85-41 *2
LO-85-44
LO-85-49
LO-85-55 »1
LO-85-55 *2
LO-85-57
LO-85-63
LO-85-65
LO-85-71
LO-85-76
LO-85-81
LO-85-86
LO-85-89
LO-85-90
Depth
n
1. 0
1. 0
1. 0
1. 0
1. 0
1. 0
1. 0
1. 0
1. 0
1. 0
1. 0
1. 0
1. 0
1. 0
1. 0
1. 0
1. 0
1. 0
1. 0
1. 0
1. 0
1. 0
Ag
.0015
.0039
.0012
.0015
.0010
.0015
.0011
.00067
.00074
.00073
.0014
.0015
.0012
.0017
.0013
.0015
.0015
.0021
.0011
.0015
.0013
.0011
A1
11.
27.
5.1
62.
4.3
21.
2.0
1.3
1.4
1.7
3.7
3.3
4.3
12.
1.5
3.5
7.9
12.
3.4
13.
2.0
6.2
As
Q.034U
0.035U
0.024U
0.066
0.045U
0.036U
0.029U
0.0085U
0.0014U
0.016U
0.0042U
0.0347
0.035
0.028U
-0.015U
-0.013U
0.023U
0.038U
0.023U
0.0028U
0.015U
0.035U
B
4.7
5.5
11.
8.0
3.6
5.5
13.
7.4
4.5
3.2
2.4
0.94
2.0
7.2
5.8
11.
11.
16.
2.2
22.
13.
4.2
Ba
0.063
0.32
0.22
0.50
0.27
0.27
0.10
0.31
0.17
0.52
0.48
0.19
0.26
0.19
0.072U
0.20
0.42
0.23
0.14
0.097W
-0.0040
0.36
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-0
0
0
0
-0
-0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Be
.00045U
.0010T
.0000747
.0024
.OQ016U
.000877
.0000217
.000021U
.00025U
.000005U
.0000477
, 00000 iU
.OOOOOdU
.000287
.000007U
.00011U
.00020U
.000287
.000061U
.000487
.000007U
.0000897
0
-0
-0
-0
-0
-0
-0
-0
0
-0
-0
-0
0
-0
-0
-0
0
0
-0
-0
-0
-0
Bi
.00247
.0060U
.011U
.0089U
.0007U
.057U
.0018U
.012U
.082W
.007BU
.014U
.0067U
.0011U
.0080U
.0065W
.0086U
.0003U
.0021U
.014U
.010U
.0033U
,OHU
Cd
0.25
0.059
0.14
0.059
0.080
0.056
0.033
0.033
0.051
0.064
0.080
0.035
0.050
0.069
0.16
0.10
0.066
0.12
0.19
0.12
0.12
0.080
U=below limit o-f detection.
T=below criterion o-f detection.
-O.=not analyzed.
58
-------
Appendix 2. Continued.
Station
LO-85-1
LO-85-8
LO-85-1 2
LO-85-23
LO-85-33
LO-85-37
LO-85-39
LO-85-41 HI
LO-85-41 12
LO-85-44
LO-85-49
LO-85-55 HI
LO-85-55 12
10-85-57
LO-85-63
LO-85-65
LO-85-71
LO-85-76
LO-85-81
LO-85-86
LO-85-89
LQ-85-90
Depth
n
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
3.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1,
1.
Co
0.014
0.014
0.0043
0.018
0.0018
0.0080
0.0035
0.0023
0.0023
0.0055
0.0028
0.001?
0.00045U
0.0036
0.0037
0.00093U
0.0069
0.0058
0.0041
0.0059
0.0035
0.0061
Cr
0.079
0.18
0.047T
0.11
0.0267
0.050T
0.070
0.0117
0.021T
0.065
0.029T
0.0107
0.0187
0.0327
0.0197
0.0197
0.0157
0.0257
0.0157
0.0277
0.00567
0.0227
Cu
0.21
0.22
0.19
0.17
0.17
0.16
0.19
0.28
0.13
1.30
0.38
0.14
0.13
0.13
0.24
0.16
0.19
0.20
0.18
0.16
0.14
0.14
Fe
13.
31.
7.0
64.
5.1
28.
3.7
2.1
2.5
5.3
7.4
4.5
4.2
13.
4.1
4.1
9.8
17.
3.8
16.
3.2
8.5
Hg(l)
0.0090
0.0060
-0.014
-0.0040
0.012
-0.0090
-0.0020
0.020
0.013
-0.0040
-0.0040
0.0050
0.
0.0010
-0.0040
0.0030
-0.0080
-0.0070
-0.0070
0.0070
-0.010
0.0010
Li
0.016
0.024
0.0075
0.066
0.0077
0.023
0.0062
0.0056
0.0047
0.0049
0.0066
0.0061
0.0066
0.014
0.0049
0.0036
0.0067
0.0086
0.00317
0.010
0.00287
0.0046
Hn
1.0
1.8
0.66
2.6
0.53
1.5
0.33
0.22
0.22
0.43
0.64
0.71
0.86
0.88
0.37
0.68
1.5
3.3
0.60
1.0
0.48
1.6
Ho
0.0065
0.00487
0.011
0.029
0.0091
0.022
-0.028W
0.0007U
-0.034U
-0.021W
0.034
-0.017U
-0.068W
-0.064U
0.016
0.0072
-Q.0053W
0.034
0.032
0.017
Q.016W
0.033
W=below limit of detection.
7=below criterion of detection.
-O.=not analyzed.
(1) participate mercury concentration calculated from total and dissolved concentrations; no 7's
or W's inferred.
59
-------
Appendix 2. Continued.
Station Depth
n
LO-85-1 1 .
LO-85-8 1 .
LO-85-1 2 1.
LO-85-23 1.
LO-85-33 1.
LO-85-37 1.
LO-85-39 1.
LO-85-41 111 1.
LO-85-41 *2 1.
LO-85-44 1 .
LO-85-49 1 .
LO-85-55 HI 1 .
LO-85-55 *2 1 .
LO-85-57 1 .
LQ-85-63 1.
LO-85-65 1 .
LO-85-71 1.
LQ-85-76 1 .
LO-85-81 1 .
LQ-85-86 1 .
LO-85-89 1.
LO-85-90 1 .
Ni
0.3D
0.13
0.091
0.14
0.077
0.081
0.060
0.059
0.062
0.11
0.094
0.068
0.075
0.054
0.077
0.068
0.093
0.11
0.084
0.10
0.076
0.088
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-0
0
0
-0
0
0
0
0
0
-0
-0
0
0
0
Pb
.11
.13
.022
.15
.0167
.11
.020
,00187
.0017U
.066
.080
.018U
.017T
.010T
.023
.00817
.024
.0040U
.010U
.077
.021
.035
Sb
-0.028U
-0.038U
-0.020U
-0.053U
-0.0081U
-0.017U
-0.012U
-0.0048U
0.00567
-0.0054U
-0.0049U
0.00317
-0.0078U
-0.019W
-0.0041U
-0.0044U
0.00917
-0.02iy
-0.010U
-0.020U
-0.0027W
-0.017U
0
-0
0
0
0
0
0
-0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-0
0
0
0
0
Se
.0427
.029U
.0167
.0021U
.0827
.0467
.023T
.013U
.0041U
.0207
.0117
.0527
.0079U
.0137
.0417
.0030U
.0089U
.0039U
.0647
.0247
.0907
.0197
Sn
O.U
O.U
O.U
O.U
O.U
O.U
O.U
O.U
O.U
O.U
O.U
O.U
O.U
O.U
O.U
O.U
O.U
O.U
O.U
O.U
O.U
O.U
Sr
0.73
0.78
0.80
0.22
0.75
0.25
0.69
0.58
0.76
0.62
0.36
0.45
0.45
0.50
0.47
0.36
0.45
0.46
0.69
0.57
0.35
0.96
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-0
0
0
-0
-0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
y
.017U
.055
.0015U
.11
.014
.027
.015
.00707
.0060U
.0127
.00787
.0032U
.024U
.026
.00397
.015
.018U
.014U
.012U
.019
.0066U
.017
Zn
0.77
1.3
0.19
1.3
0.25
0.55
0.31
0.25
0.12
0.99
0.56
0.75
0.24
0.50
0.82
0.21
0.44
1.3
0.20
1.3
0.47
0.50
U=below limit of detection.
7=below criterion of detection.
-O.=not analyzed.
60
-------
Appendix 3. Calculated total element concentrations (ppb) in 1983 Lake Ontario waters.(1)
Station
LO-85-1
LO-85-8
LO-85-1 2
LO-85-23
LO-85-33
LO-85-37
LO-85-39
LO-85-41 HI
LO-85-41 »2
LO-85-44
LO-85-49
LO-85-55 HI
LO-85-55 112
LO-85-57
LO-85-63
LO-85-65
LO-85-71
LO-85-76
LO-85-81
LO-85-86
LO-85-89
LO-85-90
Depth
n
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
Ag
0.0019
0.0044
0.0017
0.0032
0.00068
0.00094
0.0026
0.0020
0.0023
0.0025
0.0021
0.0031
0.0025
0.0034
0.0031
0.0030
0.0034
0.0025
0.00057
0.0016
0.0013
0.0018
Al
19.
47.
8.8
73.
8.4
31.
7.6
5.1
5.7
2.8
5.2
6.5
7.6
15.0
1.9
5.4
11.
21.
8.1
23.
6.3
11.
As
0.58
0.43
0.16
0.66
0.23
0.31
0.50
0.56
0.72
0.81
0.42
0.54
0.49
0.92
0.47
0.22
0.37
0.61
0.84
0.47
0.67
0.72
B
52.
15.
32.
38.
130.
81.
78.
44.
9.8
21.
79.
170.
160.
210.
43.
58.
58.
46.
110.
96.
130.
93.
Ba
20.
19.
19.
21.
20.
19.
17.
17.
19.
19.
19.
19.
17.
17.
18.
18.
20.
17.
17.
18.
18.
19.
Be
0.0038
0.0047
0.0039
0.0037
0.0041
0.0068
0.0031
0.0041
0.0042
0.0050
0.0070
0.0076
0.0054
0.0026
0.0028
0.0037
.0.0026
0.0041
0.0019
0.0029
0.0027
0.0066
Bi
0.45
0.33
0.024
0.37
0.32
0.43
0.45
0.25
0.20
0.71
0.12
0.57
0.27
0.27
0.12
0.11
0.45
0.28
0.10
0.052
0.17
0.10
Cd
0.34
0.094
0.25
0.096
0.11
0.070
0.043
0.030
0.075
0.11
0.096
0.066
0.053
0.086
0.190
0.10
0.066
0.12
0.66
0.19
0.14
0.17
-O.=not analyzed.
(l)no T's or U's inferred for calculated rtetal concentrations.
61
-------
Appendix 3. Continued.(1)
Station Depth
n
LO-85-1 1 .
LO-85-8 1 .
LO-85-1 2 1.
LO-85-23 1 .
LO-85-33 1 .
LO-85-37 1 .
LO-85-39 1 .
LO-85-41 »1 1.
LO-85-41 »2 1.
LO-85-44 1 .
LO-85-49 1 .
LO-85-55 «1 1 .
LO-85-55 *2 1 .
LO-85-57 1 .
LO-85-63 1.
LQ-85-65 1 .
LO-85-71 1.
LO-85-76 1 .
LO-85-81 1 .
LO-85-86 i .
LO-85-89 1 .
LO-85-90 1 .
Co
0.035
0.051
0.018
0.038
0.014
0.038
0.033
0.025
0.024
0.030
0.011
0.019
0.016
0.035
0.025
0.020
0.028
0.033
0.027
0.021
0.020
0.031
Cr
0.85
0.95
0.70
0.49
0.71
0.58
0.72
0.70
0.76
0.73
0.93
1.1
0.88
0.83
0.83
0.82
0.82
0.72
0.89
0.82
0.83
0.71
Cu
1.2
1.2
1.0
0.92
0.85
0.96
1.0
1.0
0.97
2.0
1.1
0.89
0.89
0.81
0.86
0.82
1.1
0.86
0.80
0.81
0.78
0.97
ft
14.
36.
7.2
66.
5.5
28.
4.0
2.6
2.7
5.7
7.4
5.5
4.5
14.
4.3
4.6
10.
18.
3.8
18.
3.7
8.8
Hg<2)
0.022
0.020
-0.00 SOU
0.012T
0.026
0.010T
0.0070T
0.021
0.024
0.0020T
0.010T
0.012T
0.0010T
0.0030T
0.011T
0.020
0.0030T
0.0030T
O.OQ90T
0.015T
0.0030T
0.0040T
Li
2.1
2.2
1.8
1.7
1.8
2.0
2.1
1.8
1.9
2.1
2.1
2.1
2.0
1.8
1.6
1.7
1.8
1.4
2.7
2.5
2.5
2.2
Mn
1.2
2.4
0.79
3.9
0.83
2.7
0.88
0.52
0.49
0.51
0.76
0.96
1.1
1.1
0.47
0.81
1.7
3.5
0.72
1.4
0.67
1.8
Mo
.3
.3
.3
.4
.5
.4
.3
.3
1.6
1.6
1.7
1.6
1.6
1.4
1.8
1.8
1.9
1.7
1.6
1.6
1.5
1.5
limit of detection.
T=below criterion oi detection.
-O.=not analyzed.
U)no T's or U's inferred for calculated netal concentrations.
(2)neasured total mercury concentration.
62
-------
Appendix 3. Continued.(1)
Station
LO-85-1
LO-85-8
LO-85-1 2
LO-85-23
LO-85-33
LO-85-37
LO-85-39
LO-85-41 «
LO-85-41 12
LQ-85-44
LO-85-49
LO-85-55 SI
LO-85-55 *2
LO-85-57
LQ-85-63
LO-85-65
LO-85-71
LO-85-76
LO-85-81
LO-85-86
LO-85-89
LO-85-90
Depth
n
1.
1.
1.
1.
i.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
t
t
t
.
t
t
,
1,
1.
1.
1.
Ni
1.0
0.95
0.91
0.54
0.68
0.84
0.66
0.50
0.50
0.46
0.52
0.55
0.74
0.79
0.75
0.73
0.85
0.63
0.53
0.71
1.0
1.0
Pb
.0.22
0.25
0.044
0.29
0.031
0.22
0.041
0.0036
-0.0034
0.13
0.16
-0.036
0.033
0.020
0.047
0.016
0.048
-0.0080
-0.021
0.15
0.042
0.070
Sb
0.11
0.11
0.22
0.19
0.23
0.20
0.13
0.23
0.20
0.14
0.20
0.13
0.12
0.17
0.19
0.10
0.17
0.19
0.14
0.13
0.17
0.023
Se
1.5
1.3
1.6
1.4
2.0
1.2
1.3
0.95
0.62
1.0
0.84
1.0
0.89
0.58
0.73
0.58
0.56
0.68
1.20
0.99
0.99
1.0
Sn
0.60
1.1
0.99
0.10
0.31
0.18
0.23
0.23
0.63
0.040
0.30
0.21
0.22
0.23
0.90
0.80
0.82
0.47
0.11
0.32
0.17
0.12
Sr
190.
180.
170.
180.
170.
170.
170.
170.
160.
140.
140.
190.
190.
160.
170.
200.
200.
190.
190.
200.
180.
190.
V
0.21
0.19
0.26
0.37
0.46
0.18
0.16
0.54
0.64
0.24
0.35
0.40
0.33
0.47
0.29
0.70
0.58
0.37
0.30
0.091
0.099
0.33
Zn
0.93
1.9
0.30
2.6
0.21
1.2
0.36
0.49
0.70
1.3
0.60
0.94
0.34
0.68
0.32
0.23
0.61
1.4
0.59
1.4
0.89
0.57
-O.=not analyzed.
(l)no T's OP U's inferred -for calculated netal concentrations.
63
-------
|