vvEPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of
Solid Waste and
Emergency Response
Publication 9345.0-12FSI
EPA 540/F-95/038
PB95-963324
January 1996
ECO Update
Office of Emergency and Remedial Response
Intermittent Bulletin
Volume 3, Number 2
Ecotox Thresholds
This Bulletin provides an overview
of the development and use of Ecotox
Threshold (ET) benchmark values in
Superfund ecological risk assessments
(ERAs). ETs are defined as media-specific
contaminant concentrations above which
there is sufficient concern regarding
adverse ecological effects to warrant
further site investigation. The bulletin
describes how ETs are to be used for
screening purposes in the Superfund ERA
process, and summarizes the
methodologies used to calculate ETs for
each medium.
IN THIS BULLETIN
Introduction 1
Format of ETs 2
Using ETs in the Superfund ERA Process . . 2
Limitations of ETs 3
Media-Specific Methods for Calculating ETs . 4
References 8
INTRODUCTION
The ecological risk assessments (ERAs)
performed in the Superfund program often
include a procedure to determine which, if any,
of the contaminants found at a site are present in
concentrations that may be harmful to ecological
receptors. In this step, the maximum measured
contaminant concentration at a site is compared
to an ecotoxicologically-based benchmark; if the
concentration exceeds the benchmark, further
assessment is warranted to determine the
ecological risk posed by the contaminant. This
screening step is often useful at Superfund sites,
where a large number of contaminants may be
ECO Update is a Bulletin series on ecological risk assessment of Superfund sites. These Bulletins serve as supplements to
Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund, Volume II: Environmental Evaluation Manual (EPA/540-1-89/001). The
information presented is intended to provide technical information to EPA and other government employees. It does not
constitute rulemaking by the Agency, and may not be relied on to create a substantive or procedural right enforceable by any
other person. The Government may take action that is at variance with these Bulletins.
-------
detected. While exceeding the benchmark does
not indicate the level or type of risk involved,
concentrations below the benchmark should not
result in significant adverse effects to ecological
receptors when appropriately conservative
benchmarks are used.
The Superfund program has initiated a project
to develop media-specific benchmark values for
those chemicals commonly found in surface
water, sediment, or soil samples at sites. The
values are referred to as Ecotox Thresholds
(ETs), and are defined as media-specific
contaminant concentrations above which there is
sufficient concern regarding adverse ecological
effects to warrant further site investigation. ETs
are designed to provide Superfund site managers
with a tool to efficiently identify contaminants
that may pose a threat to ecological receptors
and focus further site activities on those
contaminants and the media in which they are
found. ETs are meant to be used for screening
purposes only; they are not regulatory criteria,
site-specific cleanup standards, or remediation
goals.
FORMAT OF ETs
The list of ET values and the equations used
to calculate them will also soon be available
electronically as computer application software,
via the Internet at HTTP://WWW.EPA.GOV.
As data on more contaminants become
available, and as new methods are included, the
number of ETs will grow and some values will
change. Having the list available electronically
will allow EPA to make regular updates while
minimizing the expense of generating and
distributing hard copies.
The toxicity of many contaminants is
dependent upon some physical property of the
medium (e.g., hardness and pH of water, organic
carbon content of sediment). The application
software permits the user to supply site-specific
values for these parameters, and then calculates
site-specific ETs.
If site-specific values are not available, the
ETs presented in Table 2 of this Bulletin should
be used. These values are based on standard
default values of 100 mg/L hardness as CaCO3,
a pH of 7.8, and a sediment organic carbon
content of 1 percent.
USING ETs IN THE SUPERFUND
ERA PROCESS
ETs were developed for use as benchmark
screening values in the first step of the baseline
risk assessment. However, ETs may be useful for
decisions aking earlier in the Superfund process,
such as during the Preliminary Assessment/Site
Investigation (PA/SI) or in the Superfund
Accelerated Cleanup Model (SACM) integrated
site assessment. If early analytical results
indicate that a contaminant exceeds its ET value
for a medium, future site activities can be
focused to gather information sufficient to assess
the ecological risk, if any, posed by that
contaminant.
To the extent practicable, established, peer-
reviewed EPA protocols and verified data have
been used to develop ETs, and are listed as the
"preferred methods" for calculating ETs later in
this Bulletin. However, due to resource
constraints and/or insufficient data, EPA has not
used these protocols to develop formal "criteria"
for many of the contaminants found at Superfund
sites. These available protocols are not
appropriate for all situations. To fill this void,
methods developed by other federal agencies to
calculate screening values have been included.
For some contaminants, values are available
from both a preferred EPA protocol and an
alternative source (e.g., EPA's Sediment Quality
Criteria [EPA, 1993a; 1993b; 1993c; 1993d;
1993e] and Long et al. [1995] Effects Range ~
Low [ERLs] for sediment contaminants). In
instances where multiple benchmark values are
available for a specific contaminant, the ET
derived by EPA protocol is preferred for use,
January 1996 • Vol. 3, No. 2
ECO Update
-------
regardless of whether it is higher or lower than
the alternative value.
Because ETs are to be used for screening
purposes, the maximum site concentration of
each contaminant in each medium should be
compared to its medium-specific ET value. If
the maximum site concentration of a contaminant
is less than its ET, the contaminant is not an
ecological contaminant of concern, and further
assessment for the contaminant for the purposes
of the ERA is generally not warranted unless
additional site information suggests otherwise.
If the maximum site concentration exceeds the
ET, further investigation is warranted. The
nature and scope of this investigatory work is a
site-specific decision to be made by the site
manager in consultation with the Regional
Biological Technical Assistance Group (BTAG).
For instance, the spatial distribution of measured
concentrations can be examined to determine if
contamination is widespread across the site or
limited to discrete "hot spots," and further
investigation can be planned accordingly.
While ETs will help focus future site
activities on the potential contaminants of
concern, they should be used in conjunction with
any other information about the site to assess the
ecological risks posed by contaminants. Risk
assessors should consider site-specific physical
and chemical conditions that may influence the
bioavailability (and thus, the site-specific
toxicity) of a contaminant, as the protocols used
to develop ETs may not be protective of all plant
and animal species at all sites under all
circumstances. Site conditions that may affect
the bioavailability of contaminants at a site, or
the degree of protectiveness of ETs, include the
following:
• For surface water: hardness, pH,
suspended/dissolved organic matter, salinity,
flow rate, and temperature
• For sediment: pH, organic matter content
(i.e., total organic carbon), clay content and
clay type, grain size, and redox potential
• Surface water/groundwater hydrology patterns
• Presence of:
- Endangered, threatened, or rare species
- Species particularly sensitive to the
contaminants detected at a site
- Species of economic or recreational
importance
- Critical or sensitive habitats
The Superfund site manager should also
review the site analytical data used in the
screening process to ensure that: 1) the number
of samples taken is sufficient to characterize site
contamination, and 2) analytical detection limits
are below the ET value.
At some Superfund sites, the naturally-
occurring background concentrations of metals
may exceed calculated ETs. However, due to
physiological adaptations of resident biota or
reduced bioavailability due to physical or
chemical conditions, the naturally-occurring
concentrations may not result in adverse
toxicological effects. In these instances, it is
suggested that a statistical comparison between
the background concentrations (reported from
unimpacted reference locations) and the
maximum measured site concentrations be
completed. The results of the comparison would
provide the site manager with the information
needed to make decisions regarding the need for
additional site investigation.
LIMITATIONS OF ETs
The limitations of using ETs as benchmark
values are summarized below.
1) The ETs represent a measure of direct
toxicity to exposed organisms, based upon
studies reported in the scientific literature. The
endpoints that form the basis for these values
typically are limited to reductions in survival,
growth, or reproduction of the tested organisms
ECO Update
January 1996 • Vol. 3, No. 2
-------
in either laboratory single-species or small-scale
mesocosm studies, or small-scale field studies.
Indirect adverse effects to wildlife species via
bioaccumulation/biomagnification through food
chains are not addressed in this project.
While Superfund recognizes that failure to
address adverse effects to wildlife is a serious
shortcoming for this project, established, national
methods to address this issue are not currently
available. These ETs may not be low enough
for those chemicals (e.g., methyl mercury, PCBs,
DDT, dioxins) where significant bioaccumulation
in the food chain may occur at the site.
2) Although there is substantial interest in
integrating the human health risk assessment and
ERA processes, ETs were developed to address
toxicity to ecological receptors only, and are not
intended to be protective of human health.
3) For Superfund sites located in states where
state-mandated screening guidelines are
available, the state guidelines will generally
supersede the ETs recommended in this Bulletin.
MEDIA-SPECIFIC METHODS FOR
CALCULATING ETs
Surface Water
Preferred Method - Ambient Water Quality
Criteria
The preferred surface water ETs are the
chronic Ambient Water Quality Criteria
(AWQC), developed by EPA's Office of Water
(OW). AWQC are developed under the Clean
Water Act Section 304 (EPA, 1986a, 1986b,
1987, 40 CFR 131) for the protection of aquatic
life for both freshwater and saltwater
environments. Development of a criterion for a
chemical in either fresh or salt water requires
results of at least eight acute toxicity tests from
eight different families and three chronic tests.
Freshwater AWQC are applicable in waters with
salinity less than or equal to 1 part per thousand
(ppt), 95 percent or more of the time. Saltwater
AWQC are to be used in waters with salinity
greater than or equal to 10 ppt, 95 percent or
more of the time. For waters with salinity
between 1 and 10 ppt, the more stringent of the
freshwater or saltwater AWQC is used, unless
site-specific information on species inhabiting
the water body indicates a different preference.
According to OW policy (October 1, 1993,
memorandum on Office of Water Policy and
Technical Guidance on Interpretation and
Implementation of Aquatic Life Metals Criteria
[EPA, 1993fJ; and Revised Aquatic Life Metals
Criteria in EPA's National Toxics Rule [EPA,
1995a]), concentrations of dissolved metal, rather
than total metal, should be used to set and
measure compliance with water quality
standards, because dissolved metal
concentrations more closely approximate the
bioavailable fraction of metal in the water
column. For this reason, the surface water ETs
for metals are expressed as dissolved
concentrations, and many of them are slightly
different than the published AWQC.
Freshwater AWQC for many metals are
dependent on water hardness. For these criteria,
the ETs shown in Tables 1 and 2 correspond to
a total hardness of 100 mg/L as CaCO3. The
following equation is to be used with site-
specific hardness data to calculate a site-specific
ET criterion for the six metals shown in Table 1:
.-, ., . (mJ\a.(hardness)] +/)„) .-,,-,
Cntenon=e c c *CF
where:
m =
b =
slope
y intercept
January 1996 • Vol. 3, No. 2
ECO Update
-------
Table 1: Calculation of Freshwater ETs for Metals
Chemical
Cadmium
Copper
Chromium III
Lead
Nickel
Zinc
Slope (m)
0.7852
0.8545
0.8190
1.273
0.8460
0.8473
y Intercept (b)
-3.490
-1.465
1.561
-4.705
1.1645
0.7614
Criterion (ET)1
1.0
11
180
2.5
160
100
Conversion
Factor
0.909
0.960
0.860
0.791
0.997
0.986
1Assumes hardness of 100 mg/L as CaCO3.
CF = conversion factor, ratio of total
recoverable concentration to
dissolved concentration
Allowable hardness values (expressed as
mg/L CaCO3) must fall within the range of 25
mg/L - 400 mg/L. If the actual measured
hardness value falls outside this range, the
respective minimum or maximum allowable
value is used in the calculation.
The freshwater AWQC for pentachloro-
phenol is pH-dependent; the default ET criterion
was calculated to correspond with a pH of 7.8.
The equation for calculation of a site-specific ET
criterion for pentachlorophenol is:
Criterion=e[LQ05(pH)-5.29Q]
For several of the contaminants reported in
Table 2 (i.e., DDT, dieldrin, endrin, heptachlor,
methyl mercury, and PCBs), the AWQC were
based on levels that would result in an
exceedance of a Food and Drug Administration
action level for fish consumed by humans.
Since ETs are based solely on direct ecotoxicity
effects, the use of these values is not appropriate.
Consequently, the final chronic values (FCVs)
reported by OW are used for these chemicals.
When there are no human fish consumption
concerns and there is no final residue value, the
FCV is the AWQC. The inorganic mercury
FCV is reported in the AWQC document for
mercury, while the dieldrin and endrin FCVs are
reported in the subsequent Proposed Sediment
Quality Criteria documents (EPA, 1993b; 1993c).
A Itemative Method - Great Lakes Water Quality
Initiative (GL WQI) Tier I and Tier II
Because non-residue based AWQC have been
developed only for a limited number of
contaminants, ETs are also calculated using the
methodology presented in the Great Lakes Water
Quality Initiative (GLWQI) (40 CFR 122 et al.).
The GLWQI Tier I method is identical to the
national AWQC method when final residue
values are not used, and is used where enough
data are now available (e.g., diazinon), but where
AWQC have not been formally produced.
Using the Tier II methodology, ETs can be
calculated with less than the complete minimum
data (e.g., tests for species from eight families of
aquatic organisms) required for a Tier I
calculation. The Tier II methodology uses
statistically derived "adjustment factors"
described by Host et al. (1991) to calculate a
ECO Update
January 1996 • Vol. 3, No. 2
-------
Tier II value. The adjustment factor decreases
as the number of representative families
increases. The methodology is described in 40
CFR 132, Appendix A. The data set used in the
calculation must include a daphnid test and
must meet the acceptability criteria outlined in
Appendix C of the revised aquatic life guidelines
(EPA, 1994).
To date, OW has calculated GLWQI Tier II
water quality values and prepared support
documents for seven chemicals, four of which
are on the ET list: DDT, heptachlor, lead, and
toxaphene (EPA, 1992a). Because a chronic
AWQC value is available for lead, its GLWQI
value is not used. The GLWQI values for DDT,
heptachlor, and toxaphene values are used.
OW has also used the GLWQI Tier II method
to calculate 18 additional values for ETs,
including three chemicals for which AWQC had
been published: endosulfan, malathion, and
methoxychlor. OW believed that these new Tier
II values, based on more recent toxicity data, are
more appropriate than the older AWQC values.
Technical support documents have not been
prepared for these chemicals.
The 34 remaining values used are taken from
Suter and Mabrey (1994). These benchmarks
were developed using the GLWQI Tier II
method, and were reviewed by EPA to verify
their accuracy. A copy of the procedure used to
conduct the accuracy review is available from
EPA OW by request. EPA will not present an
ET value based upon data that do not meet
existing standards for use in developing criteria.
Tier II values for marine surface waters have
not been calculated. While Superfund may elect
to develop such values using the Great Lakes
Tier II methodology and appropriate marine
species in the future, the current procedure is to
accept the freshwater ETs as being appropriate
for use in a saltwater environment. Using
AWQC as a model, the ETs for salt water are
higher than the freshwater ETs for nine
chemicals, and lower than the freshwater ETs for
seven chemicals. For each chemical except
selenium, the difference between the saltwater
and freshwater value is less than an order of
magnitude.
Sediment
Preferred Method - Sediment Quality Criteria
Proposed Sediment Quality Criteria (SQC)
have been published by OW (Federal Register,
Jan 18, 1994) for acenaphthene, dieldrin, endrin
fluoranthene, and phenanthrene (EPA, 1993a;
1993b; 1993c; 1993d; 1993e). These values
were derived using the equilibrium partitioning
(EqP) method, as described in Technical Basis
for Deriving Sediment Quality Criteria for
Nonionic Organic Contaminants for the
Protection of Benthic Organisms by Using
Equilibrium Partitioning (EPA, 1993g). The EqP
method quantifies the hydrophobicity of the
chemical by using the octanol/water partition
coefficient, Kow, and determines the sorption
capacity of the sediment by the mass fraction of
organic carbon for the sediment, /oc. The
relationship between Kow and the sediment
organic carbon partitioning coefficient, Koc, is
described by the following equation (Di Toro,
1985):
log10Koc = 0.00028 + 0.983 log10Kow
Thus, the equation for the SQC is:
SQC=foc*Koc*FCV
where:
foc = mass fraction of organic carbon for
the sediment
Koc = organic carbon partition coefficient
FCV = final chronic value, from chronic
AWQC
The sediment values used in the ETs are
normalized to 1 percent organic carbon.
Superfund has elected to use the lower limit
of the 95 percent confidence interval presented
January 1996 • Vol. 3, No. 2
ECO Update
-------
in the criteria documents as the ET, rather than
the central tendency value. This step was taken
to maintain an appropriate level of conservatism
for screening purposes.
Alternative Method 1 - Sediment Quality
Benchmarks
While the SQC for the five chemicals
discussed above have been published in draft
form, EPA has also derived Sediment Quality
Benchmarks (SQBs) using the same EqP
approach as a joint effort between OW and the
Office of Solid Waste (OSW). SQBs are being
used for OW's National Sediment Inventory and
OSW's Hazardous Waste Identification Rule as
well as this project. The SQB is calculated in
the same manner as the SQC except that a Tier
II surface water ET is substituted for the AWQC
or FCV in the calculation.
The SQB method is appropriate for nonionic
organic compounds with log Kow values between
2.0 and 5.5. The log Kow values used to
calculate SQBs were supplied by Samuel
Karickhoff and J. MacArthur Long of the EPA
Environmental Research Laboratory - Athens,
GA as an unpublished internal report (EPA,
1995b). Karickhoff and Long reviewed available
literature Kow values from a variety of methods,
including shake flask, slow stir, reverse-phase
high performance liquid chromatography, and
generator column, as well as estimated values
generated by the SPARC and CLOGP models.
Generally, data from a slow-stir test were
preferable, followed by estimation by SPARC,
and others. For Kow values less than 4, the shake
flask method was preferable. In most cases, an
average value was calculated from a variety of
acceptable methods.
All sediment ETs presented in Table 2 are
normalized to 1 percent organic carbon in
sediment.
Alternative Method 2 - ERL Values
If neither an SQC nor an SQB has been
calculated, the Effects Range Low value (ERL)
will be used as the sediment ET. ERLs are
included in the "effects range approach" initially
developed for the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration's (NQAA's)National
Status and Trends Program, by Long and
Morgan (1990). The Long and Morgan method
was revised by MacDonald (1992) and the
values shown in Table 2 are from Long et al.
(1995), using the revised method.
The Long and Morgan (1990) values were
based on data from freshwater, estuarine, and
marine sediments. Long et al. (1995) derived
values on data from estuarine and marine
sediments using modeling techniques, as well as
laboratory and field studies. Trace metals data
were taken only from studies in which a strong
acid digestion method was used.
The procedures used to produce the ERLs are
described by Long and Morgan (1990; EPA,
1992b). For each chemical, the ranges of
chemical concentrations associated with observed
adverse biological effects were determined and
ordered by weight of evidence. The data were
used to develop no-effects, possible-effects, and
probable-effects ranges. The ERL value
represents the lower lOth-percentile
concentration associated with observation of
biological effects. According to this method,
concentrations below the ERL should rarely be
associated with adverse effects.
It should be noted that there is a relatively
low correlation, and consequently low accuracy,
between the incidence of effects and the
concentrations of mercury, nickel, total PCBs,
and DDT (Long et al., 1995). The sediment ETs
for these four chemicals should be used
cautiously.
ECO Update
January 1996 • Vol. 3, No. 2
-------
Soil
Methods to address toxicity in soils have not
been sufficiently developed to include them in
this document. The Superfund program is
currently evaluating options in this area and will
produce soil ETs when appropriate methods and
necessary resources are available.
REFERENCES
40 CFR 9, 122, 123, 131, and 132. Tuesday,
March 23, 1995. Final Water Quality
Guidance for the Great Lakes System', Final
Rule.
Di Toro, D.M., 1985. A particle interaction
model of reversible organic chemical
sorption. Chemosphere 14 (10): 1503-1538.
Host, G.E., R.R. Regal and C.E. Stephan. 1991.
A nalyses of A cute and Chronic Data for
Aquatic Life. Office of Environmental
Processes and Effects Research, Office of
Research and Development, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency. PB93-
154714.
Long, E.R., D.D. MacDonald, S.L. Smith and
F.D. Calder. 1995. Incidence of Adverse
Biological Effects Within Ranges of
Chemical Concentrations in Marine and
Estuarine Sediments. Environmental
Management 19 (1): 81-97.
Long, E.R. and L.G. Morgan. 1990. The
Potential for Biological Effects of Sediment-
Sorbed Contaminants Tested in the National
Status and Trends Program. NOAA Tech.
Memo. NOS OMA 62. National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration, Seattle, WA.
MacDonald, D.D. 1992. Development of an
Integrated Approach to the Assessment of
Sediment Quality in Florida. Prepared for
Florida Department of Environmental
Regulation. MacDonald Environmental
Services, Ltd. Ladysmith, British Columbia.
Suter, G.W., II and J.B. Mabrey. 1994.
Toxicological Benchmarks for Screening
Potential Contaminants of Concern for Effects
on Aquatic Biota: 1994 Revision. Oak
Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN.
ES/ER/TM-96/R1.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
1986a. Quality Criteria for Water.
EPA440/5-86-001.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
1986b. Update #1 to Quality Criteria for
Water.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
1987. Update #2 to Quality Criteria for
Water.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
1992a. Great Lakes Water Quality Initiative
Tier II Water Quality Values for Protection of
Aquatic Life in Ambient Water: Support
Documents. November 23, 1992.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
1992b. Sediment Classification Methods
Compendium. EPA 823-R-92-006.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
1993a. Sediment Quality Criteria for the
Protection of Benthic Organisms:
Acenaphthene. September 1993.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
1993b. Sediment Quality Criteria for the
Protection of Benthic Organisms: Dieldrin.
September 1993.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
1993c. Sediment Quality Criteria for the
January 1996 • Vol. 3, No. 2
ECO Update
-------
Protection of Benthic Organisms:
September 1993.
Endrin.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
1993d. Sediment Quality Criteria for the
Protection of Benthic Organisms:
Fluoranthene. September 1993.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
1993e. Sediment Quality Criteria for the
Protection of Benthic Organisms:
Phenanthrene. September 1993.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
1993f. Office of Water Policy and Technical
Guidance on Interpretation and
Implementation of Aquatic Life Metals
Criteria. Memorandum from M.G. Prothro to
Water Management Division Directors, ESD
Directors, Regions I-X. October 1.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
1993g. Technical Basis for Deriving
Sediment Quality Criteria for Nonionic
Organic Contaminants for the Protection of
Benthic Organisms by Using Equilibrium
Partitioning. EPA-822-R-93-011.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
1994. Guidelines for Deriving Water Quality
Criteria for the Protection of Aquatic Life and
Its Uses - Revised. Internal draft.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
1995a. Revised Aquatic Life Metals Criteria
in EPA 's National Toxics Rule. EPA-822-F-
95-001. April 1995.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
1995b. OW/OSWER Joint Work Group,
internal working document.
ECO Update
January 1996 • Vol. 3, No. 2
-------
Table 2: Ecotox Thresholds for 67 Chemicals Commonly Found At Superfund Sites
CAS
Number
Chemical
Surface Water (ug/L)
Freshwater
AWQC or
FCV1
Tier II2
Marine
AWQC
or FCV1
Sediment (mg/kg)
EPASQC3
Fresh-
water
Marine
EPA
SQB4
ERL5
Metals (20)
22569728
17428410
7440393
7440417
7440439
1308141
18540299
7440484
7440508
7439896
7439921
7439965
7439976
22967926
7439987
7440020
7782492
7440622
7440666
57125
Arsenic III
Arsenic V
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium III
Chromium VI
Cobalt
Copper
Iron
Lead
Manganese
Mercury, inorganic
Mercury, methyl
Molybdenum
Nickel
Selenium
Vanadium
Zinc
Cyanide
190
1.0 h
180 h
10
11 h
1000
2.5 h
1.3
160 h
5.0
100 h
5.2
8.1 *
3.9 *
5.1 *
3.0 *
80 *
0.003 *
240 *
19 *
36
9.3
50
2.4
8.1
1.1
8.2
71
81
1.0
8.2 t
1.2
81 t
34
47
0.15 t
21
150
Organic Compounds (47)
83329
71432
50328
92524
117817
Acenaphthene
Benzene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Biphenyl
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
23 S
46 *
0.014 *
14#
32 *
40 S
0.62
1.1
0.057
1.1
0.016
0.43
January 1996 • Vol. 3, No. 2
10
ECO Update
-------
Table 2 (continued)
CAS
Number
101553
85687
108907
50293
333415
132649
95501
541731
106467
75343
60571
84662
84742
115297
959988
33213659
72208
100414
206440
86737
76448
67721
58899
121755
72435
91203
608935
87865
Chemical
Bromophenyl phenyl ether, 4-
Butylbenzyl phthalate
Chlorobenzene
DDT
Diazinon
Dibenzofuran
Dichlorobenzene, 1,2-
Dichlorobenzene, 1,3-
Dichlorobenzene, 1,4-
Dichloroethane, 1,1-
Dieldrin
Diethyl phthalate
Di-n-butyl phthalate
Endosulfan, mixed isomers
Endosulfan, alpha
Endosulfan, beta
Endrin
Ethylbenzene
Fluoranthene
Fluorene
Heptachlor
Hexachloroethane
Lindane/Hexachlorocyclohexane
Malathion
Methoxychlor
Naphthalene
Pentachloro benzene
Pentachlorophenol
Surface Water (ug/L)
Freshwater
AWQC or
FCV1
0.043 F
0.062 S
0.061 S
8.1 S
0.08
13 pH
Tier II2
1.5#
19#
130 *
0.013 +
20 *
14#
71 #
15#
47 *
220 *
33 *
0.051 #
0.051 #
0.051 #
290 *
3.9 #
0.0069 +
12 #
0.097
0.019*
24 *
0.47 #
Marine
AWQC
or FCV1
0.11 S
0.01 S
11 S
7.9
Sediment (mg/kg)
EPASQC3
Fresh-
water
0.052
0.02
2.9
Marine
0.095
0.0035
1.4
EPA
SQB4
1.3
11
0.82
0.0019
2.0
0.34
1.7
0.35
0.63
11
0.0054
0.0029
0.014
3.6
0.54
1.0
0.0037
0.00067
0.019
0.48
0.69
ERL5
0.0016
0.6
0.16
ECO Update
11
January 1996 • Vol. 3, No. 2
-------
Table 2 (continued)
CAS
Number
1000
11096825
85018
129000
79345
127184
56235
108883
8001352
75252
120821
71556
79016
108383
Chemical
Polynuclear aromatic
hydrocarbons
Polychlorinated biphenyls
Phenanthrene
Pyrene
Tetrachloroethane, 1,1,2,2-
Tetrachloroethylene
Tetrachloro methane
Toluene
Toxaphene
Tribromomethane
Trichlorobenzene, 1,2,4-
Trichloroethane, 1,1,1-
Trichloroethylene
Xylene, m-
Surface Water (ug/L)
Freshwater
AWQC or
FCV1
6.3 S
Tier II2
0.19 *
420 *
120 *
240 #
130 *
0.011
320 #
110#
62 *
350 *
1.8#
Marine
AWQC
or FCV1
8.3 S
0.21
Sediment (mg/kg)
EPA SQC3
Fresh-
water
0.85
Marine
1.1
EPA
SQB4
0.94
0.53
1.2
0.67
0.028
0.65
9.2
0.17
1.6
0.025
ERL5
4.0
0.023
0.24
0.66
1USEPA chronic ambient water quality criteria (AWQC) or EPA-derived final chronic values (FCVs) (USEPA, 1986a, 1986b, 1987). Metals
concentrations are for total dissolved chemical.
2Values calculated using Great Lakes Water Quality Initiative Tier II methodology (40 CFR 9 et al.).
3USEPA Sediment Quality Criteria (SQC). Assumes 1 percent organic carbon (USEPA, 1993g). Values are lower limit of 95 percent
confidence interval.
4Sediment quality benchmarks (SQBs) by equilibrium partitioning. Assumes 1 percent organic carbon. (USEPA, 1995b).
5ERL = Effects Range - Low (Long et al., 1995).
Notes:
ug/L = micrograms per liter.
mg/kg = micrograms per kilogram.
h = hardness-dependent ambient water quality criterion (100 mg/L as CaCO3 used).
pH = pH-dependent ambient water quality criterion (7.8 pH used).
S = final chronic value derived for EPA Sediment Quality Criteria documents (EPA, 1993a, b, c, d, e).
F = final chronic value calculated using Great Lakes Water Quality Initiative Tier I methodology.
t = value is for total of all chemical forms.
* = value as calculated in Suter and Mabrey, 1994.
+ = value with EPA support documents.
# = value calculated for this project.
January 1996 • Vol. 3, No. 2
12
ECO Update
------- |