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 element—free




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

-------