Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Mercury


                United States
                Environmental Protection
                Agency
                Office of Water
                Regulations and Standards
                Criteria and Standards Division
                Washington DC 20460
EPA 440/5-80-058
October 1980
oEPA
Ambient
Water  Quality
Criteria for
Mercury

-------
      AMBIENT WATER QUALITY CRITERIA FOR

                 MERCURY
                 Prepared By
    U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

  Office of Water Regulations and Standards
       Criteria and Standards Division
              Washington, D.C.

    Office of Research and Development
Environmental Criteria and Assessment Office
              Cincinnati, Ohio

        Carcinogen Assessment Group
             Washington, D.C.

    Environmental Research Laboratories
             Corvalis, Oregon
             Duluth, Minnesota
           Gulf Breeze, Florida
        Narragansett, Rhode Island

-------
                              DISCLAIMER
     This  report  has  been reviewed by the  Environmental  Criteria and
Assessment Office,  U.S.  Environmental  Protection  Agency,  and approved
for publication.  Mention of trade names or commercial products does not
constitute endorsement or recommendation for use.
                          AVAILABILITY  NOTICE
      This  document  is available  to  the public through  the National
Technical Information Service, (NTIS), Springfield, Virginia  22161.
                                   11

-------
                               FOREWORD

    Section 304  (a)(l)  of  the Clean Water Act  of  1977  (P.L.  95-217),
requires the Administrator  of the Environmental Protection Agency  to
publish criteria  for water  quality  accurately reflecting  the  latest
scientific knowledge on  the  kind  and extent of all identifiable effects
on  health  and  welfare  which  may be  expected from  the presence  of
pollutants in any body of water, including ground water.  Proposed water
quality criteria  for the 65  toxic  pollutants  listed  under  section 307
(a)(l) of  the  Clean Water  Act  were  developed  and  a notice  of  their
availability was published for public comment on March 15,  1979 (44  FR
15926), July 25,  1979 (44 FR  43660), and October 1,  1979  (44 FR 56628).
This document  is  a revision  of  those  proposed criteria based  upon  a
consideration of  comments received from  other  Federal Agencies,  State
agencies,   special  interest  groups,  and  individual  scientists.   The
criteria contained in this document replace any previously published EPA
criteria for  the  65 pollutants.   This  criterion  document  is  also
published  in satisifaction of paragraph 11 of the Settlement Agreement
in Natural  Resources  Defense Council,  et.  al.  vs. Train.  8  ERC  2120
(D.D.C. 1976),  modified, 12 ERC 1833 (D.D.C.  1979).

    The term "water  quality criteria"  is used  in  two sections  of the
Clean Water Act, section  304  (a)(l)  and section 303 (c)(2).  The term has
a different program impact  in each section.   In section  304,  the  term
represents a non-regulatory,  scientific  assessment of ecological ef-
fects. The criteria presented  in  this  publication  are such  scientific
assessments.   Such water  quality criteria  associated  with  specific
stream uses when  adopted as  State water quality standards under section
303 become  enforceable  maximum  acceptable  levels  of  a pollutant  in
ambient waters.  The water quality criteria adopted in the  State water
quality standards could  have the same numerical limits as the  criteria
developed  under section  304.  However, in many situations States may want
to adjust  water quality  criteria  developed under section 304 to reflect
local   environmental  conditions  and human exposure  patterns  before
incorporation  into  water  quality  standards.    It  is not until  their
adoption as part of the  State water quality standards that the  criteria
become regulatory.

    Guidelines  to assist  the  States  in  the modification of  criteria
presented   in   this  document,  in  the  development  of  water   quality
standards, and  in  other water-related programs of this Agency, are being
developed  by EPA.
                                    STEVEN SCHATZOW
                                    Deputy Assistant Administrator
                                    Office of Water Regulations and Standards
                                   111

-------
                                 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Aquatic Life Toxicology:

    Charles E. Stephan, ERL-Duluth
    U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
John H. Gentile, ERL-Narragansett
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Mammalian Toxicology and Human Health Effects:
    Tom Clarkson (author)
    University of Rochester

    Christopher T.  DeRosa (doc. mgr.)
    ECAO-Cin
    U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

    Si Duk Lee (doc. mgr.) ECAO-Cin
    U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

    Patrick Durkin
    Syracuse Research Corporation

    James P. Kariya, OTS
    U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
    Leonard T. Kurland
    Mayo Clinic

    Paul Mushak
    University of North Carolina

    H. Schumacher
    National Center for Toxicological
       Research

    Samuel Shibko
    U.S. Food and Drug Administration

    Robert Tardiff
    National Academy of Science
Edward Calabrese
University of Massachusetts

Richard Carchman
Medical College of Virginia
Joan Cranmer
University of Arkansas

Dr. Frank D. Itri
Michigan State University

Dinko Kello
Institute for Medical Rese^ch
Zagreb, Yugoslavia

Steven D. Lutkenhoff, ECAO-Cin
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Rudy J. Richardson
University of Michigan

Ray Shapiro
National Institute for Environmental
   Health Sciences

Jerry F. Stara, ECAO-Cin
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Norman Trieff
University of Texas Medical Branch
Technical Support Services Staff:  D.J. Reisman, M.A. Garlough, 8.L. Zwayer,
P.A. Daunt, K.S. Edwards, T.A. Scandura, A.T. Pressley, C.A. Cooper,
M.M. Denessen.

Clerical Staff:  C.A. Haynes, S.J. Fashr, L.A. Wade, D. Jones, B.J. Borcicks,
B.J. Quesnell, P. Gray,  B. Gardiner.
                                     IV

-------
                                TABLE OF CONTENTS

                                                                    Page

Criteria Summary

Introduction                                                        A-l

Aquatic Life Toxicology                                             B-l
     Introduction                                                   B-l
     Effects                                                        B-4
          Acute Toxicity                                            B-4
          Chronic Toxicity                                          B-6
          Plant Values                                              B-7
          Residues                                                  B-7
          Miscellaneous                                             B-12
          Summary                                                   B-13
     Criteria                                                       B-15
     References                                                     B-56

Mammalian Toxicology and Human Health Effects                       C-l
     Introduction                                                   C-3
     Exposure                                                       C-16
          Ingestion from Water                                      C-16
          Ingestion from Food                                       C-18
          Inhalation                                                C-28
          Dermal                                                    C-30
     Pharmacokinetics                                               C-30
          Absorption                                                C-32
          Distribution and Metabolism                               C-36
          Excretion                                                 C-48
     Effects                                                        C-61
          Acute, Subacute, and Chronic Toxicity                     C-61
          Teratogenicity                                            C-90
          Mutagenicity                                              C-91
          Carcinogenicity                                           C-92
     Criterion Formulation                                          C-93
          Existing Guidelines and Standards                         C-93
          Current Levels of Exposure                                C-93
          Special Groups at Risk                                    C-94
          Basis and Derivation of Criterion                         C-94
          Calculation of Criteria in Natural Waters                 C-99
          Comment on Criteria                                       C-106
     References                                                     C-107

-------
                              CRITERIA DOCUMENT
                                   MERCURY
CRITERIA
                                 Acuatic  Life
    For total recoverable mercury the criterion to protect freshwater  aouat-
ic life as derived using the  Guidelines  is  0.00057 ug/1  as  a 24-hour average
and the concentration should not exceed 0.0017 ug/1 at any time.
    For total recoverable mercury the criterion to protect  saltwater aauatic
life as derived using the Guidelines  is  0.025 ug/1  as a  24-hour  average  and
the concentration should not exceed  3.7 ug/1 at any time.

                                 Human Health
    For the  protection  of  human health  from  the toxic properties  of mercury
ingested through water  and contaminated  aauatic organisms, the ambient  water
criterion is determined to  be 144 ng/1.
    For the  protection  of  human health  from  the toxic properties  of mercury
ingested  through  contaminated  acuatic  organisms alone,  the  ambient  water
criterion is determined to  be 146 ng/1.

    Note:  Criteria reflect  ingestion  of marine organisms  as well  as  fresh-
          water and estuarine fish and shellfish.
                                    VI

-------
                                  INTRODUCTION

    Mercury, a silver-white metal which  is  a liauid at room temperature, can
exist  in  three  oxidation states: elemental, mercurous,  and  mercuric;  it can
be part of both inorganic and organic compounds.
    Mercury  is a  silver-white metal,  atomic weight 200.59.   A liquid at room
temperature, its  melting point  is -38.87°C  and  its boiling  point ranges from
356 to 358*C.   The  metal  is insoluble  and is  not attacked by  water.   At
20°C, the specific gravity is 13.546  (Stecher,  1968),  and the vapor pressure
is 0.0012 mm Hg (Stecher, 1968).
    Mercury  exists  in a number  of  forms in the  environment.  The  more com-
monly  found mercuric  salts   (with  their  solubilities  in  water)  are  HgClo
                            2
(lg/13.5  ml  water),  Hg(N03)   (soluble  in  a "small  amount" of  water),  and
Hg(CHjCOO)2  (1.0  g/2.5  ml  water).   Mercurous  salts  are much  less  soluble
in water.   HgN03  will  solubilize only  in  13  parts water containing  1  per-
cent   HN03.    Hg2Cl2   is  practically   insoluble  in   water.    Because  of
this, mercurous salts  are  much  less toxic  than  the mercuric forms  (Stecher,
1968).
    The Department  of the Interior carried out  a  nationwide reconnaissance
of mercury  in  U.S.  water in the  summer  and fall of 1970 (Jenne, 1972).   Of
the samples  from the industrial wastewater  category,  30  percent  contained
mercury at  greater  than 10 yg/1; nearly 0.5 percent  of the  samples  in  this
group  contained more than 1,000  wg/1.   Only 4 percent  of  the surface  water
samples contained more than  1,000  wg/1.   The  higher  mercury concentrations
were  generally  found  in  small  streams.   About  half  of the  43  samples  from
the Mississippi River  contained  less  than  0.1  ug/1.   The mercury content of
lakes and reservoirs was between  0.1  and 1.8 pg/1.   With few exceptions, the
mercury content of groundwater samples was  below detection (0.1 ug/1).
                                     A-l

-------
    In  a  survey  by the  Environmental  Protection Agency  (EPA) Division  of
Water  Hygiene,  273  community,  recreation,  and  Federal  installation  water
supplies were examined.   Of  these,  261  or  95.5  percent,  showed either no de-
tectable  mercury  or  less than  1.0  yg/1   in  the  raw  and  finished  water.
Eleven of the supplies  had mercury  concentrations  of  1.0 to  4.8 yg/1  and one
supply exceeded 5.0 wg/1.  When  this one  supply  was  extensively reexamined,
the mercury  concentration was found  to  be less than  0.8  yg/1  (Hammerstrom,
et al. 1972).
    Seawater contains  0.03  to 2.0  wg/1,  depending on the sampled  area,  the
depth, and  the  analyst.  In  a study of  Pacific  waters, mercury  concentra-
tions were found  to  increase  from surface  values  of  about  0.10 yg/1 to 0.15,
to 0.27 ng/1 at greater depths.   In an area seriously affected by pollution
(Minamata Bay, Japan),  values  ranged  from  1.6 to  3.6  yg/1.   The National  Re-
search Council  (1977)  has shown typical  oceanic  values for  mercury to  be
0.01 to 0.03  wg/1.   Oceanic  mercury is generally  present  as  an anionic  com-
plex  (HgCO~),  which  does  not  have  as  pronounced   a  tendency to bind  to
particulate substances  and then  settle  out as  do mercury compounds found  in
freshwater (Wallace, et al.  1971).
    A major use of  mercury has been as  a  cathode  in  the  electrolytic  prepar-
ation of  chlorine and caustic soda; this  accounted for  33 percent of  total
demand in the United  States  in 1968.   Electrical  apparatus  (lamps,  arc  rect-
ifiers, and mercury battery  cells)  accounted for 27  percent,  industrial  and
control  instruments  (switches,  thermometers,  and  barometers), and  general
laboratory applications  accounted for  14 percent  of demand.   Use  of  mercury
in antifouling and  mildew proofing  paints  (12  percent)  and mercury formula-
tions used to control  fungal  diseases of seeds, bulbs,  plants,  and vegteta-
tion (5 percent) were other major utilizations, however, mercury is no  long-
er registered by the EPA for use in antifouling paints or for  the  control  of
                                     A-2

-------
fungal  diseases  of bulbs.   The remainder  (9  percent)  was for  dental  amal-
aams, catalysts, pulp and  paper manufacture,  Pharmaceuticals,  and metallurgy
and mining.
    Several forms  of  mercury, ranging from elemental to  dissolved inorganic
and organic species,  are  expected  to occur in the  environment.   The  finding
that certain microorganisms have the  ability  to  convert  inorganic and organ-
ic forms of mercury to  the highly  toxic  methyl or  dimethyl mercury has  made
any form  of  mercury highly hazardous  to the environment  (Jensen and Jerne-
lov, 1969).   In  water,  under naturally  occurring  conditions  of  pH and  tem-
perature,  inorganic  mercury can   be  coverted  readily  to  methyl   mercury
(Bisogni and Lawrence, 1973).
    Mercury is able to  form a series  of  organometallic  compounds with alkyl,
phenyl, and methoxyethyl  radicals.   Short-chained  alkyl  mercurials are  tox-
icologically  important  because  the  carbon-mercury bond  can  be broken  _iji
vivo, with the subseauent disappearance of the organic  radical.
                                     A-3

-------
                                  REFERENCES

Bisogni,  J.J.  and A.W. Lawrence.   1973.   Methylation of mercury  in  aerobic
and  anaerobic  environments.   Tech.  Rep.  63.   Resour.  Mar.  Sci.  Center,
Ithaca, New York.

Hammerstrom,  R.J.,  et  al.  1972.   Mercury  in drinking water  supplies.   Am.
Water Works Assoc.  64: 60.

Jenne, E.A.   1972.  Mercury in waters of  the  United States,  1970-1971.  Open
file rep.  U.S. Oep. Inter. Geol. Surv.  Menlo Park, California.

Jensen,  S.  and  A. Jernelov.    1969.    Biological  methylation  of  Nature.
223: 753.

National  Research Council.  1977.   An  assessment of mercury  in  the  environ-
ment.  Nat. Acad. Sci., Washington, D.C.

Stecher,  P.G.  (ed.)  1968.  The  Merck  Index.  8th ed., Merck and  Co.,  Rah-
way, New Jersey.

Wallace,  R.A.,  et  al.   1971.   Mercury in the  environment:  the human  ele-
ment.  Oak Ridge, Tennessee.
                                     A-4

-------
Aquatic Life Toxicology*
                                 INTRODUCTION
    Mercury  has long  been  recognized  as  one of  the  more toxic  metals  but
only recently was  it  identified  as a serious pollutant  ir\  the  aauatic envi-
ronment.   Elemental  mercury, which  is  a  heavy  liauid  at  room temperature,
was considered  relatively  inert.   It was thought  that  it  would auickly set-
tle  to the  bottom of a  body  of  water  and remain  there in  an innocuous
state.  However,  elemental  mercury  can  be oxidized in  sediment  to divalent
mercury (Wood,  1974).   Furthermore,  both aerobic and anaerobic  bacteria have
been found capable of  methylating  divalent mercury in  sediments (The Nation-
al Research  Council,   1978)  and  estuarine  areas  (Jernelov, 1971).   This  me-
thylated form  is  more  water soluble  and  more biologically active  than ele-
mental  and  inorganic  divalent  mercury  (Fromrn,   1977;  Armstrong  and  Scott
1979;  Jernelov,  et al.  1975).   Largely because  of bacterial  methylation,
mercury is much more of a  serious  threat to the  aauatic environment than  was
suspected.  Mercury  is one  of  the  few  pollutants that,  at  about the  same
concentrations  in  water,   adversely affects aauatic   life  through  direct
toxicity and  affects  uses  of aauatic  life through  bioaccumulation.   Bioac-
cumulation has  received more attention  because of potential  adverse  effects
to humans.  Methylmercury is more toxic  than  inorganic  mercury  to mammals as
well  as aauatic life,  and  mercury has no known physiological function.
    The toxicological   data  base  and  environmental  chemistry of  mercury sug-
gest that divalent inorganic mercury (inorganic  mercury) and  monomethyl mer-
cury  (methylmercury)   are  the forms that  are  most directly  hazardous  to
*The reader  is  referred  to the Guidelines for  Deriving  Water Quality Crite-
ria for the  Protection  of  Aauatic Life and  Its  Uses  in  order to better  un-
derstand the  following  discussion and recommendation.   The  following tables
contain the  appropriate  data  that were found in  the  literature,  and  at  the
bottom of each  table  are calculations for deriving various  measures  of  tox-
icity as described in the Guidelines.
                                     8-1

-------
aquatic systems.   Even  in situations  in  which no organic mercury  was  known
to have been discharged, methylmercury was the dominant  form  in  tissue  resi-
dues  (Jernelov  and Lann, 1971).The methylated form  is  of great  concern  be-
cause it comprises most  of the  mercury residue in tissues of  anuatic  organ-
isms  (Hattula,  et  al.  1978;  Cappon and Smith, 1979)  and tissue  residues  are
a potential hazard to  consumers of aquatic  life.   Defining  the  toxicity  of
mercury residues to humans, and probably  other consumers of  aouatic life,  is
complicated by the effect of  selenium  on  the toxicity of mercury  (Strom,  et
al. 1979;  Friedman, et  al.  1979;  Cappon  and  Smith,  1979;  Speyer,  1980; Gan-
ther,  et al. 1972a, 1972b,; Luten,  et  al. 1980,  and  Rudd, et  al.  1980),  es-
pecially when it is known that  aauatic  organisms  from different  sources have
substantially different  selenium to mercury  ratios.   The FDA  action level  of
1.0 rug/kg  based  on saltwater  fish may be too  high for freshwater fish  which
have significantly different  selenium to mercury  ratios.
    Once methylation takes place, uotake  by  aouatic  life is  extremely  rapid,
and demethylation is a very slow process  (McKim et al.  1976).  Deouration  by
excretion  through  the  kidney reportedly  reouires demethylation  (Burrows  and
Krenkel, 1973).   Apparently  the  slow  rate  of  demethylation  is  responsible
for mercury's biological  half-life  of  approximately  2 to  3  years  (Lockhart,
et al. 1972; McKim, et al. 1976).   In  freshwater  fishes, initial  elimination
of  mercury just  after  the   end  of  exposure is  relatively  rapid,  due  to
sluffing of the slime coat  (Burrows  and  Krenkel, 1973) and  elimination  of
non-methylated mercury.   Once methylmercury becomes   securely  bound to  sulf-
hydryl groups in muscle  proteins, subsequent  loss proceeds at  a  much reduced
rate.   In  fact,  long  term reduction of the  concentration  of  mercury in fish
tissue is  largely  due  to dilution  by  tissue addition resulting  from  growth
(Lockhart,  et al. 1972; McKim, et al.  1976).
                                     8-2

-------
    Methylation of  inorganic mercury  has  been demonstrated in  the  environ-
ment, in the  slime coat  of  fishes,  and in the intestines of fish  (Jernelov,
1968),  but  has not been  demonstrated  to occur once the mercury is  absorbed
into  tissues  of fish (Pennarcchioni,  et  al.  1976;  Huckabee,  et  al.  1978).
High mercury  concentrations  in slimy freshwater fishes  such  as  burbot,  eels,
and northern  pike,  and  in  the  skin of  acutely-exposed fishes  are  believed
due  to  the methylating  activity of  bacteria prevalent  in  the mucous  coat
(Jernelov,  1968).   Acutely  toxic  concentrations   of  mercury  have been  re-
ported  to stimulate mucous  secretion (McKone,  et  al.  1971;  Baker,  1973), re-
sulting in the  belief by some that  the skin and its mucous coat are  propor-
tionately  greater  mercury  sinks  than   other fish tissues  (Burrows,  et  al.
1974).  However, these are the layers  of the fish  that  are  first encountered
as  mercury  moves  from the  environment into  a fish,  and in acute exposures
the mercury does  not have  time  to  be  transported  to  the final sink -  the
proteins whose greatest mass are in the axial muscle (McKim,  et al. 1976).
    Numerous data are available concerning  the effect of  phenylmercuric  ace-
tate  (PMA)  on anuatic organisms, because  of its  use as a fungicide  and its
use to treat fish diseases.  Many tests have been  conducted on  different PMA
formulations  which  contain  various  percentages of  active  ingredient.   The
percentages of  active  ingredient  given by  the authors  were used  to  convert
to  concentrations of  mercury.   When the percentage of  active  ingredient was
not given, 80 percent PMA was assumed (Allison, 1957).
    Of  the  analytical measurements  currently available, water  duality crite-
ria for mercury are probably best  stated  in terms of total recoverable  mer-
cury, because of the  variety of  forms  of  mercury  than can exist in bodies of
water and the  various  chemical  and toxicological  properties of  these forms.
The forms of  mercury  that are commonly found  in bodies of water and  are not
                                     B-3

-------
measured  by  the total recoverable  procedure,  such as the mercury that  is  a
part of minerals, clays  and  sand,  probably  are forms that are  less  toxic  to
aauatic  life  and probably will  not be  readily  converted to the more  toxic
forms under  natural  conditions.   On  the other  hand,  forms  of mercury  that
are commonly found in  bodies  of  water and are measured by the total  recover-
able procedure, such  as  the  free ion, the  hydroxide,  carbonate,  and sulfate
salts, and the  organic compounds,  probably are  forms  that  are  more  toxic  to
aauatic life or can be converted to the  more toxic forms under  natural  con-
ditions.  Because the  criteria for  mercury  are  derived on the basis  of tests
conducted on soluble  inorganic salts  of  divalent inorganic  mercury  and  mono-
methylmercuric  chloride,  the total  and  total recoverable  concentrations  in
the test  should be about  the same.   Except as noted,  all concentrations  re-
ported herein are expected to be essentially  equivalent  to  total  recoverable
mercury.  All concentrations  are expressed as mercury, not as the compound.
                                    EFFECTS

Acute Toxicity
    Table  1  contains   the  primary  acute   toxicity  data for three classes  of
mercury compounds:  inorganic mercuric salts, methylmercuric compounds,  and
other  mercury  compounds,  chiefly  organic.   The  latter information  exists
principally  because  many  of these  compounds  have  been used  for  disease
treatment  and  parasite  control   in  fish cultural  practices,  though  their
source for  environmental  concern  is  from  industrial  and agricultural  uses
for  fungus  control.    A  striking feature of the  freshwater acute  toxicity
values is that  the difference  in sensitivity between different types of  or-
ganisms to a  particular  mercury  compound is far greater than the difference
in  sensitivity  of a  particular  species   to  various  mercury  compounds.   For
                                     8-4

-------
inorganic  mercury,  the  reported 96-hour  LC5Q  values  range  from  0.02  yq/1
for male crayfish to  2,000  yq/1  for larvae of a caddisfly, with  a continual
gradation  in  sensitivity  among  species  with  intermediate  sensitivities
(Table  3).   Data are  insufficient  to  make  such comparisons  for  other  two
classes of mercury  compounds.   Rainbow trout are the  most  acutely sensitive
of  the tested  fish species  to  all  three  kinds  of  mercury compounds  and
methylmercuric  chloride is  about ten  times more  acutely  toxic  to  rainbow
trout than is mercuric chloride.
    MacLeod and  Pessah  (1973)  studied  the  effect  of temperature  on the acute
toxicity of  mercuric chloride  to rainbow trout.   At  5, 10,  and  15*C,  the
LC50  values  were 400,  280, and  220  yg/1, respectively.  Clemens  and Sneed
(1958) found similar temperature  effects with mercury  exposures  at 10, 16.5,
and  24°C   (Table  6).   Their  acute  values for  phenylmercuric  acetate  were
1,960, 1,360, and 233 yg/1, respectively, with juvenile channel  catfish.
    A freshwater Final  Acute Value  of  0.0017 ug/1 was  obtained  for inorganic
mercury using the  species  mean acute values  in  Table  3 and  the  calculation
procedures described in  the Guidelines.  This value should  be useful  because
it  is based on  data for  eleven species,  even though  acute data are  not
available for any non-salmonid fish.
    Acute values for mercuric  chloride  are available for 26 species of salt-
water animals from  5 phyla  (Table 1).   Species  mean acute values  in Table  3
show  that  winter  flounder  is  the  most  resistant  species  tested (LC,-Q  =
1,680  yg/1)  and  the mysid shrimp   the most  sensitive (LC5Q  =  3.5  yg/1).
Fishes were  generally  more resistant to mercuric  chloride  than  the crusta-
ceans and molluscs.   The saltwater  Final Acute Value  for inorganic mercury,
derived from the species mean  acute  values in Table 3  using  the  calculation
procedures described  in  the Guidelines is  3.7 uq/1.   Only  one test with  me-
                                     B-5

-------
thylmercuric chloride has  been  reported with an acute  value  of  150 ug/1  for
the amphipod, Gammarus duebeni.
Chronic Toxicity
    Chronic  toxicity  tests with Daohnia magna  have been conducted  on  three
different kinds of mercury compounds and the  chronic  values were all between
1.0 and  2.47 ug/1 (Table  2).   In  addition,  a chronic  test with brook  trout
yielded  a  value  of  0.52  ug/1  for methylmercuric  chloride.   Of the  three
available acute-chronic ratios, values  of  2.7 and  3.9 were  obtained for mer-
curic chloride with  Daphm'a  magna,  whereas 140 was found for methylmercuric
chloride with brook trout.
    A chronic  value  of 1.2  ug/1 has  been  determined  (Table  2)  from a  flow-
through  life-cycle exposure  of the mysid  shrimp  to mercuric  chloride  (U.S.
EPA,  1980).   Grouos  of 30 juvenile shrimp were reared in each  of  5 concen-
trations for 36  days  as 2l"C and 30  g/kg  salinity.  Responses  examined  in-
cluded time  of appearance  of first brood, time of first spawn,  and produc-
tivity (total  number  of young/number of  available  female spawning  days  and
total number of  spawns/number of available female  spawning  days).  No spawn-
ing occurred at 2.51 ug/1.   Time to spawn  and productivity  were  significant-
ly  (P<0.05)  different  at  1.66  ug/1 compared  to controls.  The  highest con-
centration at which no  adverse  effect on reproductive processes  was detected
was 0.82 ug/1.  The chronic  limits  are 0.82  and  1.66 ug/1  and  the chronic
value  is 1.2  ug/1.   The  96-hour  LC,-g for  this  species  in  the same  study
was 3.5 ug/1 giving an acute-chronic ratio  of 2.0.
    The  species  mean  acute-chronic  ratio  for Daphnia magna  is  3.2,  whereas
that for mysid shrimp is 2.9, and  these are both  sensitive soecies  in  fresh
and saltwater,  respectively.   All  of  the  reported  acutely  sensitive species
in  both  waters  are  invertebrate species.   Thus  the   absence of an  acute-
                                     B-6

-------
chronic  ratio  for a fish species  should  not  be too serious, and  3.0  can be
used  as  the Final  Acute-Chronic  Ratio  (Table  3).   Division  of  the  Final
Acute  Values by 3 results  in  freshwater  and  saltwater  Final  Chronic  Values
of 0.00057 and 1.2 uq/1, respectively.
Plant Values
    Data concerning  the toxicity of mercury compounds to  freshwater aauatic
plants are  contained in  Table 4  with  some additional  results  in  Table  6.
Whereas  plant  values for inorganic mercury range from 80 to 2,600  uq/1  ef-
fects  due  to  methylmercury occur at  concentrations  as  low  as  4.8  wg/1.
Another form of methylated  mercury cause  effects  at  concentrations less than
0.3 uq/1  (Table  6).  Although freshwater  plants are  relatively  insensitive
to inorqanic mercury and  sensitive to  some of  the methylated forms, they do
not appear to  be more sensitive  to the  respective forms  of mercury  than  are
freshwater animals.
    Data describing  the  toxicity  of mercuric  chloride  to saltwater  plants
are from two studies with seven species of  algae.  In  both cases,  growth  was
the  response  parameter  investigated.    The  EC5Q concentrations  (Table  4)
indicate reduction in growth at  concentrations ranging from  10 to  160  wg/1.
No data  were  found concerning the toxicity of organic mercury compounds  to
saltwater plant life.
Residues
    Bioconcentration  is a  function of  uptake  rate  relative to  depuration
rate.   The  bioconcentration factor  for  mercury  is  high  because  uptake  is
fast  and elimination is very  slow.  Temperature accelerates  uptake of mer-
cury  by  increasing  the  metabolic  rate and  the respiratory volume.   Because
the gills are  the primary surface  for absorption  of  waterborne  substances  by
freshwater  aouatic  organisms,  uptake  increases  as  respiratory  volume  in-
                                     B-7

-------
creases.  Increased metabolic rate also  increases energy  demand  and  thus  in-
creases food consumption.  With  greater  rates of food cornsumption,  exposure
to  mercury  through  the food  chain  is  accelerated  (Sharpe,  et al.  1977).
Studies have  shown  that  uptake through  both the  gills  and  the digestive
tract  are significant  for fish, and  some data suggest that tissue  residues
are higher  in  organisms exposed via  both  routes  than via either  separately
(Boudou, et  al. 1979; Phillips and  Butler, 1978).
    Because  metabolic rate is  important  in mercury uptake, dissolved  oxygen
concentration could  also be  expected  to  influence uptake  by increasing  res-
piratory volume.   In a  recent  study,  low dissolved oxygen concentration  in
an eutrophic lake forced fishes  into  warmer  surface  water to  secure  adeouate
oxygen.  In the warmer  surface  water  the  stimulated  metabolic  rate apparent-
ly increased mercury uptake (Larson, 1976).
    Temperature may  significantly affect uptake during episodic  exposures  to
mercury in  which  steady-state  is  not reached  in  the organism.   Under  such
conditions tissue residues are  directly  related  to temperature  (Reinert,  et
al. 1974).   In addition,  a  direct  relationship  seems to  exist  between  tem-
perature and tissue  residues after steady-state has  been  reached (Cember  and
Curtis 1978; Boudou, et al.  1972).  The  latter  is  difficult  to understand  if
steady-state occurs at  saturation of  available bonding sites,  but  empirical-
ly is  does  seem to be the case  (Murray,.  1978).  Apparently not  only are  up-
take and depuration  accelerated  by termperature but,  because of  the  dispari-
ty in  rates  between the two  processes, higher tissue  residues accumulate  at
higher temperature.
    The differences in  bioconcentration  between  different  species  of  fish
are thought  to result from  a  number  of  causes:  concentration  in  the  food
(Phillips  and  Buhler, 1978);  the ouantity of food consumed; the temperature
                                     B-8

-------
at  which the  fish  is  living;  and  the  differences  in  the  mucous  coat  of
different  species  (Jernelov,  1968).    However  within  a  given  environment,
bioconcentration  factors  for both forage and game  fish  tend to  be  similar
(Huckabee, et al. 1974).
    Distribution  of  mercury  within  a  fish can conceptually be considered  as
a flowing system  in which the flow pattern moves  from the absorbing surfaces
(the  qills,  skin, and gastrointestinal  tract),  into the blood, then to  the
internal organs and  eventually  either  to the kidney  or bile  for  elimination
or  to  the  muscle  for  long-term  storage.   The  later storage  site  can  be
considered  to  have  a   small   leak  whereby  mercury,  after  demethylation,
re-cycles back to the kidney for excretion  (Burrows  and Krenke,  1973).  This
leak  appears  to  be responsive  to  internal  mercury  "pressure"  because,  as
steady-state is approached,  accumulation rate  is slowed  either by a  reduced
uptake  rate or an increased  discharge  rate.   Internal "pressure"  may inhibit
membrane transport  rates  or, for  a  lack of storage  sites, shunt  mercury  to
elimination.
    At  steady-state, when tissue  residues are  relatively  stable  in the vari-
ous organs, muscle mass composes  such  an  important portion of  the  total  fish
mass  that mercury concentrations in  the portion of  the total  fish mass  that
mercury concentrations in the whole fish  are similar  to those  in  edible  por-
tions alone (McKim,  et al. 1976;  Huckabee, et  al.  1974).   However, acute  ex-
posures result in disproportionately  high levels of  mercury  in  the  skin  of
fishes.  This is  probably due at least in part  to the large  amount of mucous
which  is  secreted during acute  exposures.   In  addition,  in  acute exposures
the mercury is not  given sufficient time to  move  from the absorbing surfaces
to the muscle depot, as would be  the case in most naturally occurring situa-
tions.  When the  acutely exposed fish are  moved to  mercury-free  water,  the
                                     B-9

-------
skin auickly  loses  mercury (Burrows, et  al.  1974) probably because most  of
the mercury  associated  with the  tissue  is  being  sluffed  off,  metabolically
eliminated, or moved to a more enduring destination in protein  storage.
    The available freshwater bioconcentration factors  (BCF) are  contained  in
Tables  5  and  6.   Table  5  contains BCF  values only  from those  studies  in
which  the  exposure  concentrations were  measured  and the  tissue  residues
reached steady-state.   The  BCF data presented  in  Table 6 do not  meet  these
stringent conditions but  are  used to provide  information  on  BCF  values  for
plants  and to  illustrate  the  very important  influence  of  temperature  on
uptake and bioconcentration factors.
    With brook  trout the BCF  for muscle  is  about the  same  or higher  than
that for whole body (McKim,  et al. 1976).  The  BCF  for muscle of brook  trout
at  273 days  is the  geometric mean  of  three  values,  17,000,  21,000,  and
33,000  at  water concentrations of 0.29,  0.09,  and 0.03  ug/1  respectively.
Those  derived  at concentrations  of 0.93 ug/1  and  above were omitted  because
the fish were  adversely  affected.   The  decrease in BCF as the  concentration
in water increases may be largely an artifact of  the  mathematical  derivation
of the BCF.  If the protein binding sites are saturated at all  three  concen-
trations,  as  would  be  expected  at steady-state  (Cember  and  Curtis,  1978),
then the concentration of mercury  in the tissue would  be same at all  concen-
trations of mercury  in  water.   In this situation  the  BCF  would  be inversely
proportional  to the concentration in water.
    Olson, et  al.  (1975) obtained a BCF of  63,000 with  fathead  minnows  at
25*C.  The contrast  between fathead minnows (Olson,  et  al.  1975)   and  brook
trout  (McKim, et al. 1976)  is  one of considerable  interest and  potential  im-
portance.  The  trout were  fed pelleted feed, and  so  little opportunity  ex-
isted  for food  chain input  to  the trout.   In  contrast, the fathead minnow is
                                     B-10

-------
a  browser  and had  the  opportunity not only  to  feed on the  introduced  food
but  also on  the  Aufwuchs growing within the  mercury-enriched  environment of
the  exposure  chamber.   The  higher bioconcentration factor of  63,000  for the
fathead minnows may be more  representative  of field  situations in which  fish
are  exposed  to  mercury via  both the  water  and  food  routes  (Phillips  and
Buhler, 1978; Phillips and Gregory,  1979).  Furthermore, the  fathead  minnows
were  exposed  at  a  temperature  that  would  provide uptake  and  tissue  residue
values representative of  the higher range  of  temperatures for fish commonly
consumed by  people.  On the  other hand,  if the concentration  of mercury in
fish  tissue  at steady-state  is solely  dependent  on  the number  of available
binding sites, then such things as temperature should not affect the BCF.
    Boudou et  al.   1979,  also provide  data demonstrating  the  importance  of
both  routes  of  exposure  on  resulting  BCF values  (Table  6).   In addition,
they  studied  the influence  of  temperature on  uptake when both  respiratory
and  feeding  rates  are  accelerated by increased metabolism.  Reinert,  et al.
(1974) reported  84-day BCF  values  of  4,530, 6,620,  and 8,049  in  rainbow
trout  exposed  to virtually  eoual concentrations  of  methylmercury at 5,  10
and  15"C,  respectively,  although  residue  concentrations were  still  increas-
ing  at the end of  the test.  Cember  and Curtis,  (1978)  obtained similar ef-
fects  when bluegills  were exposed for  28.5 days.  BCF  values of  373,  921,
and  2,400  were obtained  at  9, 21,  and 33*C, respectively.   They suggested
that a 010 relationship exists between temperature and BCF.
    The  FOA  action level for  mercury in  fish and  shellfish is  1.0 mg/kg
(Table 5).   According  to the Guidelines  for  freshwater organisms the  only
appropriate BCF available for use with this maximum  permissible  tissue  con-
centration is  the   value  of  23,000  for muscle of  brook  trout.  Thus  the
freshwater Final  Residue Value  is  (1.0 mg/kg)/23,000  =  0.000043 mg/kg  or
0.043  yq/1.    This   value,   however,  probably  should  be  lower.   At  this
                                     B-ll

-------
concentration  half  of  the  exposed  brook  trout  would have  concentrations
which  would  exceed the FDA  action level.  Also  the BCF  of 63,000 for  the
fathead  minnow is  cause  for concern.   McKim et  al.  (1976) found  that  the
concentration  of  mercury  in muscle was  eoual to  or  greater than  the  whole
body concentration.   Also,  Huckabee,  et  al.  (1974) found  that  all  fishes in
a particular  environment  acouired about  the  same concentrations of mercury
in  both  whole body  and muscle  tissue when they  were chronically  exposed to
low concentrations  of mercury.  Thus  the BCF  for the edible portion of some
consumed species may be eoual to or higher than 63,000.
    Information  on  the  bioconcentration  of   various  mercury  compounds  by
saltwater animals  is  included  in  Table  5 and  by  saltwater plankton in  Table
6.   For mercuric   chloride,  bioconcentration  factors   ranged  from  853  to
10,420 for aloae.   For  the same compound the  BCF values with  animals  ranged
from  3.5 for  the  bloodworm  to  10,000  for  the  oyster.   In  contrast,  BCF
values  of  2,800,   40,000,  and  40,000  were  obtained  with the  oyster  for
mercuric  acetate,  methylmercuric  chloride   and  phenylmercuric   chloride,
respectively.
    To  protect the marketability  of  shellfish for human  consumption,  Final
Residue  Values can  be calculated  based on  the BCF values for the  oyster  and
the FDA  action level of  1.0 mg/kg.   Accordingly,  the  Final Residue  Values
for mercury,  based  on data for mercuric chloride, mercuric  acetate, methyl-
mercuric  chloride,  and ohenylmercuric  chloride  are  0.10,  0.36, 0.025,  and
0.025  ug/1 resoectively.   However,  at these concentrations fifty percent  of
the exposed oysters would probably exceed the  FDA action level.
Miscellaneous
    Most of the significant freshwater and  saltwater  results  in  Table  6 have
already  been  discussed in connection  with data  in Tables 1-5,  but  a few  ad-
                                     B-12

-------
ditional  items  deserve special mention.   The  data of Birge  and  Just (1973)
illustrate  life  stage   influences  on   sensitivity   with   four   orders  of
magnitude  difference  in  sensitivity between  the embryonic and  adult stages
of the frog, Rana pipiens.
    Another  point  of  interest and possible  considerable importance  is  the
work of Heinz (1976)  in  which  mallard  ducks were fed  food  contaminated  with
methylmercuric  dicyandiamide.   These  feeding studies  extended over  two  gen-
erations  and  demonstrated  reduced  fertility and  inhibited food  conversion
efficiency at a mercury  concentration  that was  estimated  to be eauivalent to
0.1 mq/kg in the natural succulent food  of the  wild duck.   These  results
were not  used  to estimate  a Final  Residue Value based on  food  for  wildlife
because  the  dicyandiamide  compound   may  not  represent  the  toxicity  of
methylmercury alone.
Summary
    Freshwater  acute  data for  divalent  inorganic mercury  span  nine taxonomic
orders from rotifers  to  fish.   These  acute  values  range  from 0.02  to  2,000
ug/1 and  the Final  Acute Value is 0.0017  ug/1.  Acute values  for methylmer-
cury and other mercury compounds are only  available for fishes;  conseauently
an estimate  of  the  range of species  sensitivity for  these compounds  is  not
possible.   However,  methylmercuric chloride  is about ten  times more  toxic to
rainbow trout than mercuric chloride.
    Available chronic data indicate  that  the methylmercury is  the  most
chronically toxic of  the tested mercury  compounds,  with  the chronic  values
for Daphnia  maqna  and brook  trout being  1.00  and 0.52  yg/1,  respectively.
For inorganic  mercury  the  chronic value  obtained  with   Daphnia  magna  was
about  1.6  and the acute-chronic ratio was  3.2.
                                     B-13

-------
    Plant  values  indicate  that  they  should  be  adequately  protected  by
criteria derived to protect aquatic animals.
    Based on  the FDA action  level  of 1 mg/kg and  a  bioconcentration  factor
of 23,000 the  Freshwater Final   Residue  Value  is  0.043 ug/1.   However,  this
concentration  may not  adequately  protect  the marketability of  freshwater
fish because,  on the average, half of  the  individuals  in  a  species such  as
brook  trout  will exceed  the  limit.   In  addition,  data suggest  that  higher
bioconcentration  factors  may be  obtained  with the  edible  portion of  other
consumed species.
    Data  on  the  acute  toxicity  of  mercuric chloride  are  available for  26
species  of   saltwater animals   including  annelids,  molluscs,  crustaceans,
echinodemis, and  fishes.   Species mean acute values range  from  3.5  to  1,680
ug/1.  Fishes  are more  resistant than average, whereas molluscs  and crusta-
ceans  are  more  sensitive  than  average  to  the acute  toxic effects of  mer-
cury.  Concentrations of mercury  that  affected growth  and photosynthetic ac-
tivity of one  saltwater  diatom  and six  species of  brown algae  range from  10
to 160 gg/1.
    Results  of  a life-cycle  exposure  with the mysid shrimp  show  that  an in-
organic mercury  at a  concentration of  1.6 ug/1 significantly influenced  time
of appearance  of first  brood, time of first spawn,  and productivity and the
resulting acute-chronce ratio was 2.9.
    A bioconcentration factor of  40,000  has  been  obtained for methylmercuric
chloride with  an oyster,  which  results in  a  Final Residue  Value of  0.025
ug/1  when used with  the  FDA  action  level.  At  this concentration, half  of
the oysters  would exceed the action level.
    For  both  freshwater and  saltwater  species many acute  tests have  been
conducted on  inorganic  mercuric  salts,  but  few  acute  tests  have been  con-
ducted on  other  compounds  of mercury.  Although  methylmercury  is  probably
                                     B-14

-------
more acutely toxic  than  inorganic  mercuric salts, few acute  or  chronic  tox-
icity tests  have  been conducted on  methylmercury and it  apparently is  re-
moved from  water  rapidly.   On the  other hand,  inorganic mercury  is  readily
converted  to methylmercury  which   can   become  a  major  residue  problem  in
aouatic organisms.
                                   CRITERIA
    For  total   recoverable  mercury  the  criterion   to  protect  freshwater
aouatic  life  as derived using  the Guidelines is  0.00057  ug/1  as a  24-hour
average, and the concentration should not exceed  0.0017 ug/1  at  any time.
    For total recoverable mercury the criterion to protect saltwater  aauatic
life as derived using the Guidelines is 0.025 ug/1 as  a  24-hour  average,  and
the concentration should not exceed 3.7  ug/1  at  any time.
                                     B-15

-------
                                     Table t.  Acute values for Mercury
Species
                           Method*
Chemical
                                                                        Species Mean
                                                          LC50/EC50**    Acute Value**
                                                                                         Reference
Rotifer,
Ph 1 1 od 1 na acut 1 cor n 1 s
Rotifer,
Phllodlna acut 1 corn Is
Brlstleworm,
Nals sp.
Cladoceran,
Oaphnla magna
Scud,
Gaimarus sp.
Crayfish (males only,
mixed ages),
Faxonotla cylpeatus
Crayfish,
Orconectes llmosas
Stonef ly,
Acroneurla lycorlus
Mayfly,
Ephemeral la subvarla
CaddlsNy,
Hydropsycho better 1
Coho salmon (juvenile),
Oncorhynchus klsutsch
Rainbow trout (juvanl le)
Sa Imo qalrdner 1
Rainbow trout (juvenile).
s.
s,
s,
R.
s,
R,
s,
s,
s,
s,
s,
FT.
FT,
U
U
M
U
M
M
M
U
U
U
M
U
U
Salmo gairdnerl
FRESHWATER SPECIES
Inorganic
Mercuric
ch lorlde
Mercuric
ch lorlde
Mercuric
nitrate
Mercuric
ch lorlde
Mercuric
nitrate
Mercuric
chloride
Mercuric
chloride
Mercuric
ch lorlde
Mercuric
chloride
Mercuric
chloride
Mercuric
chloride
Mercuric
ch lorlde
Mercuric
chloride
Mercuric Salts
518
1,185
1,000
5
10
0.02
50
2,000
2,000
2,000
240
400
280
-
784
1,000
5
10
0.02
50
2,000
2,000
2,000
240
-
-
Bulkema, et al. 1974
Bulkema, et al. 1974
Rehwoldt, et al. 1973
Bleslnger &
Chrlstensen, 1972
Rehwoldt, et al. 1973
Halt 4 Flngerman,
1977
boutet &
Chalsemartln, 1973
Warnick & Bel 1, 1969
Warnlck & Bel 1, 1969
Warnick & Bel 1, 1969
Lor/, et al. 1978
MacLeod 4 Pessah,
1973
Macleod 4 Pessah,
1973
                                                    B-16

-------
Table 1.   (Continued)
Species
Method*
                                        Chemical
             Species Mean
LC50/EC50"    Acute Value"
 (ug/l)           (ug/l)
                                                              Reference
Rainbow trout (juvenile).
Sal mo gairdnerl
Rainbow trout (juvenile).
Sal mo gairdnerl
Rainbow trout (larva).
Sal mo gairdnerl
Rainbow trout (juvenile).
Sal mo gairdnerl
Rainbow trout (juvenile),
Sal mo gairdneri
Brook trout (juvenile),
Sa 1 ve 1 1 nus font I na 1 is
Drook trout (yearling),
Sa 1 ve 1 1 nus font 1 na 1 1 s
Rainbow trout (juvenile),
Salmo gairdnerl
Goldfish,
Carasslus auratus
Fathead minnow
Pimep hales promelas
Fathead minnow
Plmephales promelas
Channel catfish (juvenile),
Ictalurus punctalus
FT, U
R, U
R, U
R. U
R, U
FT, M
FT, M
R, U
S, U
R, M
R, M
S. U
Mercuric
ch lorlde
Mercuric
ch lorlde
Methy Imercurlc Compounds
Methy Imercurlc
chloride
Methy Imercurlc
ch lorlde
Methy Imercurlc
ch lorlde
Methy 1 mercuric
ch loride
Methy Imercurlc
ch loride
Other Mercury Compounds
Pheny (mercuric
acetate
Pheny [mercuric
lactate
Mercuric
acetate
Mercuric
th iocyanate
Ethy Imercurlc
phosphate
220
155
24
42
25
84
65
5
82
190
150
48***
Mac 1 eod
1973
249 Matida,
Wobeser
Wobeser
29 Matida,
McK 1 m,
74 McKIm,
5 Matida,
82 Ellis,
190 Curtis,
150 Curtis,
48 Clemens
4 Pessah,
et al. 1971
, 1973
, 1973
et al. 1971
et al. 1976
et al. 1976
et al. 1971
1947
et al. 1979
et al. 1979
& Sneed, 19!
                                                   B-17

-------
Table I.   (Continued)
Species
Method*
Chemical
             Species Mean
LC50/EC50"    Acute Value"
 (yg/l)           (yg/l)
Reference
Channel catfish (juvenile), S, U
Ictalurus punctatus
Channel catfish (juvenile), S, U
Ictalurus punctatus
Channel catfish (juvenile), S, U
Ictalurus punctatus
Channel catfish (juvenile), S, U
Ictalurus punctatus
Polychaete (larva), S, U
Cap 1 te 1 1 a cap 1 tata
Polychaete (adult), S, U
Neanthes arenaceodentata
Polychaote (Juvenile), S, U
Neanthos arenaceodentata
Sandworm (adult), S, U
Nereis vlrens
Bay scallop (juvenile), S, U
Argopecten Irradlans
Oyster, S, U
Crassostrea virgin lea
Oyster, S, U
Crassostrea virgin lea
Oyster, S, M
Crassostrea glgas
Ethy (mercuric 51***
p-toluene
su 1 fonanl 1 Ide
Pheny (mercuric 35***
acetate
Pheny (mercuric 1,158****
acetate
Pheny (mercuric <176***"
acetate
SALTWATER SPECIES
1 nor panic Mercuric Salts
Mercuric 14
chloride
Mercuric 96
ch lorldo
Mercuric 100
ch lor ide
Mercuric 70
ch lor ide
Mercuric 89
ch lorlde
Mercuric 5.6
ch lor ide
Mercuric 10.2
ch lorlde
Mercuric 5.7
ch lor ide
51 Clemens & Sneed, 1959
Clemens & Sneed, 1959
201 Clemens & Sneed, 1958
Clemens & Sneed, 1958
14 Reish, et al. 1976
Relsh, et al. 1976
98 Reish, et al. 1976
70 Elsler & Hennekey,
1977
89 Nelson, et al. 1976
Calabrese, et al.
1977
7.6 Maclnnes & Calabrese,
1978
Glicksteln, 1978
                                                    B-18

-------
Table 1.   (Continued)
Species
Oyster,
Crassostrea glgas
Soft-she 1 1 clam (adult).
My a arenarla
Hard-she! 1 clam,
Mercenarla mercenaria
Clam (adult).
Rang la cuneata
Clam (adult).
Rang la cuneata
Copepod (adult),
Acartia tonsa
Copopod (adult),
Acartia tonsa
Copepod (adult),
Acartia tonsa
Copepod (aduH ),
Acartia tonsa
Copepod,
Acartia clausl
Copepod,
Eurytemora affinis
Copepod,
Nltocra splnlpes
Copepod,
Pseudod laptomus coronatus
Method*
S. M
S, U
S. U
S, M
S. M
S, U
S, U
S, U
S, U
S, U
S, U
S, U
S, U
Chemical
Mercur 1 c
nitrate
Mercuric
ch lorlde
Mercuric
ch lorlde
Mercuric
ch lorlde
Mercur 1 c
ch loride
Mercuric
ch lorlde
Mercuric
chloride
Mercuric
ch lorlde
Mercuric
ch lorlde
Mercuric
ch loride
Mercuric
ch loride
Mercuric
ch loride
Mercur I c
ch lorlde
                                                                      Species Mean
                                                         LC50/EC50**    Acute Value**
                                                                                        Reference
5.5
400
4.8
58
122
10
14
15
20
10
158
230
79
5.6 Gllcksteln, 1978
400 Elsler A
1977
4.8 Calabrese
1977
Hennekey,
, et al.
Dl 1 Ion, 1977
84 Dillon, 1977
Sosnowski
1978
Sosnowsk i
1978
Sosnowski
1978
14 U.S. EPA,
10 U.S. EPA,
156 U.S. EPA,
230 Bengtsson
79 U.S. EPA,
& Gentl le.
& Gentile,
& Genti le.
1980
1980
1980
, 1978
1980
                                                 B-19

-------
Table 1.  (Continued)
                            Method*       Chemical

Copepod,                     S, U         Mercuric
Tlgriopus Japoriicus                       chloride

Mysld shrimp,               FT, M         Mercuric
Mysldopsls bah I a                          chloride
Crab (larva),                S, U         Mercuric
Carcinus maenas                           chloride

Crab (larva),                S, M         Mercuric
Cancer maglster                           chloride

Hermit crab (adult),         S, U         Mercuric
Paqurus longlcarpus                       chloride

White shrimp (adult),        S, U         Mercuric
Penaeus setlferus                         chloride

Starfish (adult),            S, U         Mercuric
Aster I as forbesl                          chloride

Haddock (larva),             S, U         Mercuric
Melanograrmms aerjleffnus                  chloride

Mummlchog (adult),           S, U         Mercuric
Fundulus heteroclltus                     chloride

Mummichog (adult),           S, U         Mercuric
Fundulus heteroclltus                     chloride

Fourspine stickleback        S, U         Mercuric
(adult),                                  chloride
Apeltos quadracus apeltes

Atlantic silverside          S, U         Mercuric
(I arva),                                  chlorlde
Men Id la menldla

Atlantic sllvorside          S, U         Mercuric
(larva),                                  chloride
Menldia nienidia
                                                                          Species Mean
                                                            LC50/EC50"    Acute Value""
(ug/D
223
3.5
14
6.6
50
17
60
98
800
2,000
315
(ug/l)
223
3.5
14
6.6
50
17
60
98
-
1,260
315
Reference
U.S. EPA, I960
U.S. EPA, 1980
Connor, 1972
Gllcksteln, 1978
Eis ler i Hennekey,
1977
Green, et al. 1976
Els ler & Hennekey,
1977
U.S. EPA, 1980
Els ler & Hennekey,
1977
Klaunig, et al. 19
U.S. EPA, 1980
144
125
U.S. EPA, 1980
                            U.S.  EPA,  1980
                                                    B-20

-------
Table t.   (Continued)
                                                                      Species Mean
                                                        LC50/EC50"   Acute Value"
Species Method*
Atlantic sllverslde S, U
( juvenl le),
Men id la men Id la
Winter flounder (larva), S, U
Pseudop 1 euronectes
amerlcanus
Winter flounder (larva), S, U
Pseudop leuronectos
amerlcanus
Winter flounder (larva), S, U
Pseudop 1 euronectes
amerlcanus
Winter flounder (larva), S, U
Pseudop 1 euronectes
amer icanus
Winter flounder (larva), S, U
Pseudop 1 euronectes
amer icanus
Amphipod (adult), S, U
Ganvnarus duebenl
Grass shrimp (adult), S, M
Pa 1 aemonetes puglo
Grass shrimp (adult), S, M
Pa 1 aemonetes purjlo

Chemical
Mercuric
ch lor 1 do
Mercuric
ch lorlde
Mercuric
ch loride
Mercuric
chloride
Mercuric
ch loride
Mercuric
ch loride
Methy Imercurlc
Methy Imercurlc
chloride
Other Mercury
Mercuric
acetate
Mercuric
th locyanate
(ug/l)
86
1,820
1,560
1,610
1,320
1,960
Compounds
150
Compounds
60
90
(|ig/l) Reference
116 U.S. EPA, 1980
U.S. EPA, 1980
U.S. EPA, 1980
U.S. EPA, 1980
U.S. EPA, 1980
1,680 U.S. EPA, I960
150 Lockwood & Inman,
1975
60 Curtis, et al. 1979
90 Curtis, et al. 1979
                                                 B-21

-------
Table 1.  (Continued)
*    S - static,  R = renewal,  FT  =  flow-through, U » unmeasured,  M - measured.



**   Results are expressed as  mercury, not as the compound.



••»  19-20'C



••*« 10'C



»»»»»I6.5 & 24*C
                                      B-22

-------
Table 2. Chronic values for mercury

Test- Chemical
Limits** Chronic Value**
(yg/D
Reference
Cladoceran.
Daphnla^ magna
Cladoceran,
Daphnl
-------
Table 2. (Continued)
Acute-Chronic Ratio
Species
Cladoceran,
Daphnla magna
Cladoceran,
Daphnla magna
Mysld shrimp,
Mysldopsls bah la

Brook trout
Salvellnus font! nails

Chemical
1 norqan 1 c I
Mercuric
chloride
Mercuric
chloride
Mercuric
chloride
Methyl mercuric
Methy (mercuric
chloride
Acute
Value
-------
Table 3. Speclos mean acute values and acute-chronic ratios for mercury
Rank*

Species
FRESHWATER
Species Mean
Acute Value
(ug/l)
SPECIES
Species Mean
Acute-Chronic
Ratio

Inorganic Mercuric Salts
11
!0
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
Caddisf ly,
Hydropsyche batten i
Stonef !y,
Acroneurla lycorlas
Mayfly,
Ephemeral la subvarla
Brlstleworm,
Nais sp.
Rotifer,
Philodlna acutlcornls
Rainbow trout,
Sal mo gairdneri
Coho saimon,
Oncorhynchus klsutch
Crayf Ish,
Orconectes ! 1 tnosus
Scud,
Gammarus sp.
Cladoceran,
Daphnla magna
Crayfish,
Faxone 1 1 a c 1 ypeata
2,000
2,000
2,000
1,000
784
249
240
50
!0
5
0.02
3.2
B-25
-------
Table 3. (Continued)
Rank*

Species
SALTWATER
Species Mean
Acute Value
<|iq/l)
SPECIES
Species Mean
Acute-Chronic
Ratio

Inorganic Mercuric Salts
26
25
24
23
22
21
20
19
18
17
16
15
14
Winter flounder, 1,680
Pseudopleuronectes amorlcanus
Mummichog,
Fundulus heteroclltus
Soft-shell clam,
Mya arenarla
Foursplne stickleback,
Apeltes quadracus
Copepod,
Nltocra splnlpes
Copepod,
Tlqrlopus japonlcus
Copepod,
Eurytemora afflnls
Atlantic si Iverslde,
Men Id la men Id la
Haddock,
Melanogrammus aeqlefinus
Polychaete,
Neanthes arenaceodentata
Bay seal lop,
Argopecten irradlans
Clam,
Rang I a cuneata
Copepod,
Pseudodi apt onus corona t us
1,260
400
315
230
223
158
116
98
98
89
84
79
-
3-26
-------
Table 3. (Continued)
Rank*
13
12
It
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
Species
Sandworm,
Nereis vlrens
Starfish,
Aster las tor best
Hermit crab,
Papyrus longlcarpus
White shrimp,
Penaeus sotlferus
Copepod,
Acartla tonsa
Polychaete,
Capitel la capltata
Crab,
Carclnus maenas
Copepod ,
Acartla clausl
Oyster,
Crassostrea virgin lea
Crab,
Cancer maglster
Oyster,
Crassostrea glgas
Hard-shell clam,
Mercenaria mercenaria
Mysld shrimp,
Mysldopsls bah la
Species Mean
Acute Value
(liq/l)
70
60
50
17
14
14
14
to
7.6
6.6
5.6
4.8
3.5
Species Mean
Acute-Chronic
Ratio
2.9
B-27
-------
Table 3. (Continued)
* Ranked from least sensitive to most sensitive based on species mean
acute va I tie.

|norqanI c mercurI c SB Its

Freshwater Final Acute Value = 0.0017 vg/l

Saltwater Final Acute Value - 3.71 M9/I

Final Acute-Chronic Ratio a 3.0