I EPA 903/9-76-023
I
U.S.E. P. A. RegionFII
informalion Resource Center
I
I
June 1976
Technical Report No. 61
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
DISTRIBUTION OF METALS IN
ELIZABETH RIVER SEDIMENTS
Annapolis Field Office
Region III
Environmental Protection Agency
-------
I
I
This report has been reviewed by EPA and approved for I
publication. Approval does not signify that the contents
necessarily reflect the views and policies of the Environmental
Protection Agency, nor does the mention of trade names or
commercial products constitute endorsement or recommendation
for use.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
EPA 903/9-76-023
Annapolis Field Office
Region III
Environmental Protection Agency
DISTRIBUTION OF METALS IN ELIZABETH RIVER SEDIMENTS
Technical Report
Patricia G. Johnson
Orterio Villa, Jr.
Annapolis Field Office Staff
Maryann Bonning Sigrid R. Kayser
Tangie Brown Donald W. Lear, Jr.
Leo Clark _ James W. Marks
Gerald W. Crutchley Margaret S. Mason
Daniel K. Donnelly Evelyn P. McPherson
Gerald R. Donovan, Jr. Margaret B. Munro
Margaret E. Fanning Maria L. 0'Malley
Bettina B. Fletcher Thomas H. Pheiffer
Norman E. Fritsche Susan K. Smith
Victor Guide Earl C. Staton
George Houghton William M. Thomas, Jr.
Ronald Jones Robert L. Vallandingham
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
VIII. Appendix III - Description of Sediment Samples VIII-1
IX. Appendix IV - Toxicity of Metals to Marine Life ... IX-1
I
I
I
I
I. Introduction ., 1-1
II. Summary and Conclusions II-l
III. Geographical Description III-l *
IV. Experimental IV-1
V. Results and Discussion V-l
VI. Appendix I - Data Tables and Figures VI-1
VTI. Appendix II - Frequency Distribution Histograms ... VTI-1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
FIGURES
Page
1. Vicinity Map III-2
2. Sewage Treatment Plant Location Map III-6
3. Industrial Discharges 111-10
k. Sampling Stations III-5
5. Distribution of Cadmium V-3
6. Distribution of Copper V-4
7. Distribution of Chromium V-5
8. Distribution of Mercury V-6
9. Distribution of Lead V-7
10. Distribution of Zinc V-8
11. Distribution of Iron V-9
12. Distribution of Aluminum V-10
13 Frequency Distribution - Cadmium VII-1
Ik. Frequency Distribution - Copper VTI-1
15 Frequency Distribution - Chromium VII-2
16. Frequency Distribution - Mercury VII-2
17. Frequency Distribution - Lead VII-3
18. Frequency Distribution - Zinc VII-3
19 Frequency Distribution - Iron . VII-4
20. Frequency Distribution - Aluminum VII-4
21. Water Content Correlation - Entire Area V-15
22. Water Content Correlation - Eastern Branch V-15
23. Water Content Correlation - Southern Branch V-15
2k. Water Content Correlation - Main Branch V-15
25. Bottom Sediment Classification V-19
26. Organic Sediment Index V-21
27. Sampling Locations at or near STP Locations V-2^
-------
TABLES
Page
I
1. Municipal Wastewater Loadings - 1971 III-7
2. Industrial Discharges (including Mass Emission Rates)...111-8
3. Operating Parameters TV-3
4. Distribution by Geographical Area V-2 «
5. Cadmium Concentrations at Sampling Locations VI-1
6. Copper Concentrations at Sampling Locations VI-2
7. Chromium Concentrations at Sampling Locations VI-3
8. Mercury Concentrations at Sampling Locations VI-4
9. Lead Concentrations at Sampling Locations VI-5 I
10. Zinc Concentratiors at Sampling Locations VI-6
11. Iron Concentrations at Sampling Locations VI-7
12. Aluminum Concentrations at Sampling Locations VI-8
13. Skewness Values V-12 M
14. Water Content - % at Sampling Locations VI-9 I
15. Concentration Ratios between Elizabeth River Sediments _
and Chesapeake Bay Sediments V-17
16. COD Concentrations at Sampling Locations VI-10
17. Metals in Elizabeth River and Baltimore Harbor
Sediments V-26
18. Metals in Elizabeth River and Chesapeake Bay Sediments . V-28
19. Metals in Elizabeth River, Delaware River, Potomac |
and James River Sediments V-29
21. Toxicity of Metals to Marine Life IX-1
22. Trace Metals - uses and Hazards DC-2
23. % Organic Carbon at Sampling Locations VI-11
20. Metals in the Earth's Crust V-31
I
24. % Organic Nitrogen (TKN) at Sampling Locations VI-12
25. Organic Sediment Index at Sampling Locations VI-13 |
26. Elizabeth River Bottom Sediment Classification V-20
27. Organic Sediment Index as a Description of Elizabeth I
River Bottom Deposits V-23
28. Total Volatile Solids Concentrations at Sampling
Locations VI-14 |
29. Oil and Grease Concentrations at Sampling Locations .... VI-15
I
I
-------
I
I
I
ABSTRACT
In order to develop a current inventory of metals contamination
of the Elizabeth River, sediment samples were collected at ninety-six
(96) stations in February of 197^ and analyzed for Cd, Cu, Cr, Hg,
Fb, Zn, Al and Fe using atomic absorption spectrophotometry.
Concentration levels were compared with levels found in another highly
industrialized harbor complex, other estuarine systems and in
Chesapeake Bay sediments geographically removed from the study area.
Distribution patterns of various metals are outlined for reference
to various inputs. Possible mechanisms for transport and distribution
| are discussed.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-------
1-1
I
I
I
INTRODUCTION
The Elizabeth River is a tributary of the James River located
in Virginia. The river is largely estuarine in nature and as such is flj
a physical and chemical mixing zone. A major physical characteristic
of any estuary is that its volume and comparatively sluggish tidal
cycles slows the inflow of fresh water. As a result of this _
decreased velocity the load of suspended matter introduced into the
system settles to the bottom, rendering the sediment a reservoir for B
a diverse and heterogeneous accumulation of material, much of
which may have potential toxic properties (l). This natural condition
tends to create a "sink" for many metallic compounds due to their
reactions with particulate matter. Heavy industrial loadings
increase the potential toxlcity of the bottom sediments to aquatic
life.
The Elizabeth River is an example of an excessively utilized
I
waterway in regard to waste assimilation. Due to its relatively
shallow nature, the low dispersion and transport characteristics
mentioned above, accompanied by low freshwater flow rates, and its
intensified industrial, commercial and domestic development, the
Elizabeth River's ability to assimilate the diverse waste input
from these sources is severely limited. These inputs from other
than natural sources take many forms. Discharges from primary
treatment plants contribute to the widespread water quality problems
associated with this area. The overflow of pumping stations
I
I
-------
I
I
has contributed to the high coliform levels in the receiving waters.
| Progressive stream fertilization by domestic and industrial waste
inputs , primarily from nitrogen and phosphorus , has contributed
to recurring eutrophication problems . Industrial and commercial
I inputs from varied chemical and domestic processes add further
to the burden of the river. Fish kills, frequent reports of oil
| spills, and other accidents associated with shipping lanes further
M characterize the pollution problems in the Elizabeth River (2).
Richardson (1971), in a study of the benthic community of the
I Elizabeth River, found the dominant organisms to be those types
that are pollution tolerant, with wide geographic range, and
which rarely dominant other communities except under stress
_ conditions. "Non-selective deposit feeders were found in low
numbers because of the lack of oxygen and high concentration of
hydrogen sulfide found in the deposits below 1 cm. Suspension
feeders and selective deposit feeders were favored because of the
good supply of well aerated detrital material in the sediment
surface and trapped in abundant oyster shells." (46) A similar
study by Boesch (47) reported the same result - the Elizabeth River
is characterized by the presence of pollution tolerant species.
Although it is not the intent of this effort to deal with
toxicological effects in any detail, it should be noted that the
State of Virginia has found some areas of the bottom toxic to
I fish (1), the Virginia Institute of Marine Science has reported high
01 Pb (550 ppm) , Hg (3 ppm) , Zn (1200 ppm), and Cu (300 ppm)
I
-------
I
I
in bottom sediments (2), and the Bureau of Shellfish Sanitation
has designated the Elizabeth River a "condemned area" for the direct |
marketing of shellfish (16). The oysters must be placed in a im
cleansing area for a fifteen (15) day period prior to sale. Zn
(» 2000 ppm), Cu (25-100), and Cd (1.0 - 2.0 ppm) values have
been found in Elizabeth River oysters (36). Although it is not
necessarily unusual to-find such elevated levels (levels of |
20,000 ppm have been found near outfalls disposing zinc (50)), M
inputs manifested in the oiota to such a degree may be of public
health significance. Certainly the ability of the oyster to I
concentrate metals is well documented (50, 51). What remains
unclear is the mechanisms of transfer from the sediment or water
phase to the biological phase, and since little information exists
on the bioavaliability of these elements, it is difficult to
correlate a given, measured concentration of a metal with a specific
toxic level. Considerations such as chemical bonding of the
metallic species (11), particle size of the substrate (12), valence
state and humic acid availability (13), synergistic and antag-
onistic mechanisms all relate to the reactivity of a given metal. H
The toxicity in terms of 1,050 of various metals has been well
documented (3, 4, 5) and large scale outbreaks of metal poisoning
(6, 7, 8, 9, 10) illustrate the potential health hazard of these I
substances. The relationship between acute high level doses to
test organisms under laboratory conditions versus chronic low
level, long term effects in the environment remains a question.
I
I
-------
I
I
Even though the mechanism of exchange from the physical to the
biological is unclear there can be no doubt that such a mechanism
exists. The implications of this exchange is important as it relates
to the impact of dredging and open water disposal of dredged spoil.
At present, all dredged spoil from the Southern Branch of the
Elizabeth River is disposed of in a specially constructed dyked area -
Craney Island (36) . Drifmeyer and Odum (1975) investigated dredge
spoil as a possible source of metals uptake by salt marsh biota
B using Craney Island as one of the study areas. The spoil itself
was classified as polluted, highly organic (9-6 % loss on ignition)
and as a silt-clay complex (^5). Marsh grasses showed significantly
higher levels of Pb and Zn in the spoil area compared to the control
area. Pb and Mn were also higher in grass shrimp from the spoil
area. Fb values in fish were higher in the spoil ponds. Drifmeyer
j concluded that dredge spoil, even though disposed of in a contained
area, may act as a source of certain heavy metals that are potentially
toxic to the biota (^5).
For reference purposes the toxicity of some heavy metals is
| presented in Appendix IV, Tables 21 and 22.
mm Sampling programs spanning several years have been carried out
by various private and public institutions. Each of these studies
has provided valuable data for the area studied. This study is an
effort to provide a synoptic picture of the metals accumulation in the
Elizabeth River sediments .
I
I
-------
II-l
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
I
I
I
I
1. This report provides an inventory of present conditions relating
to metals contamination of Elizabeth River sediments.
2. Concentrations of all metals analyzed in the Elizabeth River
sediments were two (2) to ten (10) times greater than sediments
from the mid-Chesapee.ke Bay.
3 . Distribution of metals generally reflected the inputs from
heavy industrial, commercial and domestic sources which the
Elizabeth River receives.
. Metal concentration ratios between the Elizabeth River sediments
and Chesapeake Bay sediments follow a pattern (Cu > Fb > Cd > Zn) m
suggesting that in black colored sediments from the Eastern and
Southern Branches, Cu, Fb, Cd, and Zn may exist as sulfides since
the order for solubilities of divalent sulfides exhibits the
same pattern. In the Main Branch the ratio pattern in black
sediments suggests that these metals are probably present in
forms other than sulfides . Provided the metal sulfide solubilities
are low, the deposition as a sulfide would be one mechanism of
the sediment acting as a "sink". Additionally, so long as the
metals are tightly bound in the sink, their bioavailability would
be lessened and the metals would therefore be unavailable for
introduction into the biological segment assuming that the system
is not disturbed.
5. Non-linear relationships between metal and aluminum/metal ratios
suggest that Cu, Cr, Pb and Fe are not associated with the clay
I
I
I
-------
I
I
mineral portion of the sediment.
6. No black sediment was found in the Western Branch. Being the
least industrialized of the various branches it does not receive
the quantities of organic materials, sulfides, etc. to which
II-2
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
the other branches are exposed. The black color has been related
to hydrotrolite which depends on the presence of sulfide and
poorly oxygenated water for its formation (23). Such conditions
apparently do not exist in the Western Branch.
I
7- Better than half of the total number of black sediments found in
the study area had distinct "air" pockets in the core when the
sample arrived at the laboratory for analysis. No gray samples
showed this phenomenon. It is possible that the black sediments
were evolving HpS which is characteristic of hydrotrolite. The
absence of gas in gray samples, the sulfide solubility pattern
and the correlation between water content and color support
this conclusion.
8. A pronounced difference in water content between the black and
gray sediments was evident. The correlation exists for the
entire study area, excluding the Western Branch which had no
black sediments, and is very pronounced in the Southern and
Eastern Branches. No explanation is offered for this phenomenon
I although some references indicate that the presence of hydrotrolite
I in some way contributes to the high water content found in
,'
black sediments (23).
-------
H-3
9- Particle size can play a significant role in adsorption reactions
I
I
of metallic species. The appearance of the sediments was recorded
as the sample was removed from the core. The sediments of the
Elizabeth River appear to be of a silt-clay nature and were
uniform in appearance throughout the study area in terms of
size. Differences in color were noted and recorded.
10. Examination of the four major river divisions revealed the
following:
a. The entrance of the Elizabeth River at Craney Island
shows high concentrations of Cr, Fe, and Al, with lesser amounts |
of Zn. Pb, Cu, Cd and Hg increase in concentration moving in jm
a southerly direction as the branches are approached.
b. The Eastern Branch has very high concentrations of I
Cu, Pb and Fe, with slightly lesser, but still high concentrations
of Zn, Cr, Cd, and Al. |
c. The western side of the Southern Branch showed very «
high concentrations of Fb and Cu, with Cr, Zn and Cd also high.
The eastern side showed lesser amounts of a.1 J metals except
Cd and Hg which are equally distributed on both sides .
d. The Western Branch had several areas that were very |
high in Al, Fe, Fb, Zn, Cd, Cu and Cr. _
11. Comparison of the Elizabeth River with other estuaries revealed
the following: fl
a. Concentrations of all metals analyzed from the Elizabeth
I
I
-------
I
I
River were two (2) to ten (10) times greater than concentrations
found in the Chesapeake Bay.
b. The Elizabeth River showed three (3) times the Fb and Zn
« concentrations found in the James River (river miles 0 - 84),
but slightly less Hg was found in the Elizabeth. The James River
shows little accumulation of Fb and Zn compared to the Chesapeake
Bay, although Hg was five (5) times greater than in Bay sediments.
c. The Elizabeth River concentrations for metals analyzed
were from two (2) to ten (10) times the concentrations reported
for the Potomac River.
d. The Delaware estuary shows consistently higher than
ambient levels that are similar to the levels found in the
Elizabeth River.
9 e. Average Zn and Cd concentrations in Baltimore Harbor
were twice (2) the levels found in the Elizabeth River. Baltimore
Harbor showed four (4), five (5) and eleven (ll) times the
concentrations of Fb, Cu and Cr, respectively, found in the
I
I
I
I
I
I
Il-k
Elizabeth River.
-------
III-l
GEOGRAPHICAL DESCRIPTION
Principal Exports - Norfolk Harbor -
Commodity
Coal and lignite
Corn
Grain mill products
Wheat
Coke, petroleum products,
asphalts , s olvents
Tobacco
Iron and Steel Scrap
All others
Short Tons
25,0^7,03*4-
875,7^8
28k, kko
135,981
122,205
101,856
96,911
989,678
19711
% of Total
90.60
3-16
1.02
0.^9
o.kk
0.36
0.35
3-58
"Waterborne Commerce of the U.S.," Calendar Year 1971, Part 1,
Waterways and Harbors of the Atlantic Coast, Department of the
Army, Corps of Engineers, 266 p.
I
I
I
The Port of Hampton Roads, Virginia, including the cities of
Norfolk, Portsmouth, Chesapeake, Newport News, and Hampton, is the
largest port complex in Virginia, in fact, one of the finest natural
harbors in the world. The combined population of the cities located
around Hampton Roads was 725,62k in 1970 (lU). Hampton Roads is
located at the southern end of the Chesapeake Bay, approximately
in the middle of the Atlantic seaboard, 300 miles south of New York, |
180 miles southeast of Washington, B.C., and 20 miles west of the M
entrance of Chesapeake Bay (Figure l).
Hampton Roads is the laxgest bulk cargo exporting port in the
United States, with bituminous coal being the principal export.
Tobacco and grain exports are also among the world's largest. The J|
following table lists the most common items exported from Norfolk
Harbor in 1971.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
III-.
ANNAPOLIS MD.
WASHINGTON D.C.
NEWPORT NEWS
HAMPTON ROADS
CRANEY ISLAND
STUDY AREA
PORTSMOUTH
-------
III-3
I
There are natural depths of 20 to 80 feet in the main part of _
Hampton Roads, "but the harbor shoals to less than 10 feet toward the *
shores . Dredged channels lead to the principal ports . Federal
project depth is kO feet in the two main channels in Hampton Roads (15)
One leads southward along the waterfronts of Norfolk,, Portsmouth,
and Chesapeake, following the Elizabeth River, and the other leads west-
ward to the waterfront of Newport News at the entrance to the James River .
The climate throughout the James River Basin, of which the
Elizabeth River is a part, is temperate, as determined by the latitude,
prevailing westerly winds, the influence of the Atlantic Ocean, and its
overall topography. The terrain is low-lying and flat with a maximum
elevation of 25 feet, except for isolated sand dunes along beach
areas (l^-) . Average annual weather factors are:
Precipits.tion: U2.5 inches
Snowfall: 17 inches (about 1.7 inches of precipitation)
Temperature: 57° F
The eastern portion of the basin is sometimes subjected to the effects B
of hurricanes in the summer and early fall. Average annual temperature
is generally higher near the ocean - 6l.7°F. The average velocity of
the wind is 8 to 10 MPH, but winds of 80 MPH may occur in storms (16) . _
The currents in this area are influenced considerably by the *
winds. The current velocity is 1.1 knots in Hampton Roads and .6 knots ft
in the Elizabeth River (15) . Tides in the vicinity of Craney Island
(on the flats opposite the entrance of the Lafayette River which bisects
Norfolk from east to west) a.re primarily semi-diurnal with a mean
range of 2.6 feet and a spring range of 3-1 feet (lU) .
I
-------
III-4
I
The Elizabeth River study area, a tributary of the James River
I just above the Hampton Roads Tunnel, is formed by three main branches;
the Eastern Branch, the Western Branch, and the Southern Branch. Sampling
stations are shown in Figure h. A map indicating the location of the
various sewage treatment plants in given in Figure 2. Municipal
wastewater loadings for 1971 are presented in Table 1 and major
industrial dischargers and associated average wastewater flows are
given in Table 2 (52). In addition, the largest or most significant
m&3,-: emission rates (ibs/day) are also given in Table 2. The inputs
of the various industrial dischargers are graphically presented
in Figure 3 (52). The three branches of the Elizabeth are characterized
B by heavy industrial, commercial and domestic facilities with their
m inherent problems. In addition to domestic waste discharged by
primary sewage treatment plants and toxic wastes discharged by a variety
of industrial concerns, the area is plagued by frequent oil spills
and waste discharges from the extensive shipyard and docking facilities.
B The Eastern Branch has shipbuilding and drydock facilities,
an automobile assembly plant, an electric power plant, and several
shipping docks which contribute to the waste input of the river. The
Southern Branch, the most industrialized and longest branch of the
Elizabeth River, is characterized by a variety of industrial and
B commercial concerns: cement plants, creosote treatment plants, ship-
^ building and drydock facilities, food processing plants, power plants,
" chemical plants and U.S. Navy shipyards. On the Western Branch,
B the least industrialized branch of the Elizabeth River, are located a
I
-------
III
WESTERN
BRANCH
EASTERN
BRANCH
22 SOUTHERN
BRANCH
FIGURE 4
ELIZABETH RIVER SEDIMENTS
SAMPLING STATIONS
NAUTICAL MILES
^^^*^^*^^m
I 2
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-------
Hampton
Roads
Lafayette
River
Western
Branch STPi
Sewell s
Point
Army Base
STP
M 2
Western Branch
Pinner Pt.
STP 11
Southern Branch
Deep Creek
STP
X Washington
STP
Hreat Bridge STP
1
Eastern
Branch
2 Sewage Treatment Plant Locations (kk)
-------
111-7
H
^^
ON
_^-
*~*
rH
t
ON
i-l
l
CO
M
d
H
T)
o3
o
^
£_i
0)
-p
03
CD
-p
CQ
eg
ts
d
P4
H
O
H
d
-p
d
0)
fj
'^"^s rH
-3-03 > SH
O o3 CH
CQ -d pq
CQ
CQ ,Q -P
2 R d
CQ CD
£j
31 j
^M
d
O H
EH
d
0
Ift!
^ pip
P CQ
O ,Q
W H +3
(D
r^S
d
H
~TD
M ^ ^r.
o5 H > P
?H -H O Ci
CD rf H S
|> P PC,
»
-p
H
O
L/N
00
l/N
ON
^_
L/N
OJ
LTN
OO
OJ
_-j.
OO
-*
o
o
1 j
H
OO
o
-3-
H
H
H
-8
d
05
£_j
PQ
d
£_l
CD
-p
CQ
CD
£g
P
ffi
O
t-
H
OJ
O
o
OJ
o
H
L/N
VD
O
oo
OJ
O
O
vS
H
O
0
OJ
ON
oo
0
o
OO
H
L/N
-3"
PO
ON
00
OJ
-p
d
H
O
CQ
-P
£_l
0)
l_3
P
P|
^j"
£-.._
ON
0
00
o
H
O
OJ
ON
OJ
o
l/N
OJ
00
0
o
t-
L/N
8
^j-
_^j-
H
o
0
L/N
H
O
o
pi
H
ON
ON
OJ
H
CD
CQ
JS
m
^
H
^j
-------
"o?
LTN
CQ
0)
bO
OJ 3
(H
A-*
pr"] O
1-3 CQ
pq tj
»
ri cd
CQ
fe
<;
M
CD
bO
SH
3
s
CO
£
1 1
=«=
S
S-t
-p
CQ
r^
T3
«
H
a
f.
f-t
K
B
»\
LPv Tj S3
H O tsl
LA
oj vo
*>H OO
p
O -v -s
pq -*ri
0 &
8W^
O O OO
-^Om
\
\co ^
P co bO
O H K
0
^J-
O cq t
0^0
^-
^^^
t <
^iP
*r-\ R
g^^
LTN
§S- H
LT\
«\
> > M
LTN H O
00 Ft,
O LTN
s LTS
H LTNCO
OOO O
OOO 0
OOO 0
LT\ O O CO
OJ OJ O M3
VO
»\
J-
0 H
H
'S
f>5 cd
-P 0
.__J P.
H 3
bQ -ri -ri
n o o cd
3 & 8 w
ri fl
tin H CQ }-,
fe
h
pq -4- o -* s-
fl O co -4- _t
ri
crt
1
CQ CQ
EH EH
OO CO
MD
H CO
O O OOO
O O O O VO
O O O ON t
CO CO t OJ ON
3- 00 -4- MD
H
vrT
-Hh
CO 00 t CO
0
0
1
bO >j
(H p .
H M
3 «
-p 08 >
ri a
05 ^ -ri
H H ^3
O O -ri CQ
O O S O
1 fi OH
°8 cd ft cd
o -H S t>
co O fi 3 cd
CD O CQ CO S
H ft
H AJ ,X bO P> Ai
S H H fT C? H
O O -ri O
S
t -4- O -4- CO
LO \O CO CO CO
^
N
H -4-
fe cd O
S CQ
CO
UT\ -4- CO C
H O OJ H
» CQ m LT\
rH
O * ^
» O _4" CQ
t! ON O EH
O > CQ
H O
OJ ^- O
OS . LTN O
OJ H H ON
CQ 0 H
CQ *> »
EH co on O CQ -.
EH OJ H OJ O
r>3 CO H H LT\ O
SB O H -4- LT\
O u~\ »s ^ H
-4- CQ CQ > -*
CO EH EH CQ O -V
» EH P
^ P O O CQ 08 H O 00
POOO OEH OOO
O 0 O O O O CQ
pq ~ -N H -4- O MD
O LTN t ^ CO LTN OJ LTN
OJOJOJH H -4- MD LA OJ OO
O O O M3 O O O
8O O ON O O O
O O H O O O
O O O O O LTN
H ir\ OJ VO -4- LT\
H H
-4- H H
a
cd
if
ri
O CQ t-j O
O CQ H O
CQ 0) -H O
o bD o S o bo
ri a o a
fn -ri £n T3 bO -ri
-p -p ffi on -p
MOO CQ
o O o5 O O
£3£-|CUOS>CQp4OCU
OH(UMs3-riH M
0 -POHPH^JHO
^H CO 'ri -P *ri
HcS^iO -Nbpspioo
ri -P O *ri rH G O -H
O CQ W -P r-| -H TJ S OH
fl iH d 0) CO O J2
Via) -c(5bD-ri-ri-Pa5p
H dCQH -jCHr-H JH Kpn
PO P3
-------
o
H
CQ
ra
d
S
CQ
s
-p
C3
go
H CO
MH ^
"H ^**->»
Cl CQ
t^O rQ
H H
CQ ^ '
-P CD
CQ -P
^>] ftj
O
-p
CQ
0)
tjfl
o5
CD
-P
05
CD tj
-P PH
13^
£?£
CQ
0)
bO
o
CQ
P
>,
CQ
I
H
9
rl
K
CQ
EH
8
o
H
oo
»\
.4
0
CO
o
0
CO
vo
s
H
o
OJ
vo
8
o
Lf\
H
1 (
CD
CQ
1
08
CD
H
PH
oo
^
0
s
OO
fl
O
H
-p
-P
CQ
a
o
[s
1
LTN
^'
fl
to
CO
VO
H"
PC) *x
H
ON ^
ON
c5 *
08 ^
0 M
OJ CO
ON oo
s
P -X
o 3
o o
VO^
ON H
X ^
CO -H;
EH 0
° H
C-H
0
O
O
oo
vo
oo
PH
0
- o
CQ
"ccl
O
g
CD
fi
0
gri culture
<;
fi
H
£
H
OJ
H
ft
O
O
§
j j
i [
^
CQ
EH
8
&
-*
^
o
H
H
H
-p
&H
CQ
o5
H
=?
A
fi
4J
1
vo
01
H
fl
E o
O CM
CM -v
CQ*
EH u"N
O OJ
0
0 ^
VO H
00 P-H
OJ
EH H
O »
OO CO
OO CQ
EH
^ O
EH 0
LTN
OJ VO
VO H
O
O
t-
ir\
s
H
O
O
Fertilizer
Weaver
ON
"
%
8
o
o
oo
N
P
O fn
O O
O LTN
O
O H
ITN LT\
VO
O -N
H CQ
EH
p"o
0 0
pq 0
O
O O
o o
O.d/
OO (\l
-4"
o
PH
^
03
a Electric
H
H
bO
OO (DO
oo CQ ro
H ra3 h
pq pq
-d
o
CQ
fl
Kl O\
t
ON
H <
CQ
- CO EH
O O
t- 0
OO OO C
-=t Lf\ VO
o o o
O 0 O
o t o
O H LT\
O OJ LTN
o
«
CM
t^ |j"N
^
o
O 0
O Tj
?H ^
0> P
0 08
PH
bp CQ
08 fl CD
H -H
a Electric
Shipbuild
ar Indus tr
H A; -P
fl H CQ
H O
bD tH 0>
H O O
£> ^j j_i]
t O H
0 H H
CQ
H
C
OJ
P"
O
pq
H
0
o
o
ur\
t
H
" CQ
&
0
CQ
CD
pq
-P
fl
pq
w
H
OJ
.
^
OJ
X
fi
ro
H
OJ
LTN
^
CO
EH
O
o
p-J
p"
o
0
o
H
0 0
0 0
0 0
o vo
H ON
LTN
CM
O
O
-p
O a!
° -a
fH CQ
-p
O fl
& jj
fo o
OJ H (DO
OJ OO CQ n5
CQ
EH
o
vo
OJ
p"
o
0
0
OJ
§ §
VO OJ
H oo
.
o
o
fl°
H
H
-p
H -P
CD O
CQ pq
(1)
Branch Dii
Coca-Cola
fl M
CD O
-O fj_i
CQ f-l
CD O
O LT\
O OO
HI-9
I
-------
A HUMBLE OIL 8 REFIN'NG CO
B USN-CRANEY IS PjEL FAC.
C VIRGINIA CHEMICALS INC
0 NORFOLK COCA COLA
D WESTERN BRANCH DIESEL
E N.8W RR
F J H. MILES S CO
G NORFOLK COCA COLA
H CHEVRON ASPHALT CO
H FORD MOTOR CO
H H.B HUNTER CO
H SOUTHERN/NORFOLK SB 8D.D.
H CPC INTERNATIONAL
H LONE STAR IND
H BRAMBLETON/NORFOLKSBaOC
I BERKELEY/NORFOLK SB 80 Q
JUS GYPSUM CO
K NORFOLK NAVAL SHIPYARD
L PROCTOR a GAMBLE
M GULF OIL CO
N LONE STAR IND
,0 FS ROYSTER.CO
LEGE.ND
P ATLA'.-C CSEC
0 CARO'LL. '>C
R ALLIE3 FEtD MILLS
S PCfTS'.CLTK PAVING
T TEXACO :v,C
U RE=^2L/C CfiiGSGT \G C
V EPP:,S3£S 8 R-JSSr C
W USN-W£i=C».tS STATC\
X SWiFT O-iV.CALS
Y SViTH-EO'JSLAS Cl-Ev
Z WEAVER rtS7!LI2E3 CC
Figure 3
111-10
Industrial Discharges
(52)
NOTES
CUMULATIVE DISCHARGES DO NOT
INCLUDE THOSE Or V£=CO
ta DISCHARGE CONSTITlizf
-------
LEGEND
Figure 3 Con't. HI-11
ZINC (Zn)
CfAMDE (CO _
r-WESTERN BRANCH
/L rEASTERN BRANCH
LSS./DAY
P.E.
- 6.0CD.OCO -- .=
8 C 0 E F G' H l'J'K'L M N 0 P 0 R S T U V WX
YZ
LEGEND
NICKEL (NIJ
h>--ft. pEASTERN BRANCH
,//,//ii'\\\ NXXXN^xX
BCDEFGHIJ KLM.NOPORSTUVWXY2
pWESTERN BRANCH
r--EASTERiM BRANCH
LSS./DAV P. E.
C'j
ABCDEFGHlVKL^W^^oVsNVv
-------
I
I
111-12
chemical manufacturing plant and shipyards. The Main Branch houses
shipping terminals, coal loading yards, an oil terminal, and sewage
treatment plants (2), The navigable portion of the three branches
of the river is located within the boundaries of the cities of
| Portsmouth and Norfolk (l).
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-------
IV-1
Any volume between 20 and 25 mis can be used, the volume used
here was delivered from a dispenser with a fixed volume delivery head
that happened to deliver 21.5 mis. and was used for convenience sake.
I
I
EXPERIMENTAL
Samples were taken with a Phelger corer. The top five centimeters
representing substantial sediment-water interface were discarded and
the sediment between five and fifteen centimeters was taken as the |
sample to be analyzed.
A portion of the well-mixed sediment was spread to dry at room
temperature for 48 hours. After drying, the sample was pulverized
using an agate mortar and pestle and again spread to dry for an
I
glass-stoppered erlenmeyer to which 25-50 ml of deionized-
distilled water and 21.5 ml concentrated HNO- were added. The samples
were then heated at 48-50°C (17) for k-6 hours in a shaking I
hot water bath. After digestion, the samples were cooled to room
temperature and filtered through a 0.^5 micron membrane filter and |
the volume adjusted to 100 mis. Blank solutions were run throughout «
the same extraction procedure (l8, 19) This acid extraction
procedure is believed to be 80 - 90 % efficient in the removal of
sorbed and bound metals (ko, ^5, 5^)
The filtered acid extracts were analyzed for Cd, Cr, Cu, Fb, |
Zn, Al and Fe, using a Varian Techtron AA-6 absorption spectrophotometer
equipped with a standard pre-mix burner. Air and acetylene were used *
for all flame techniques, except for Al for which nitrous-oxide and
acetylene were used. The flame stoichiometry was established
I
I
I
-------
I IV-2
I
as per manufacturers instructions for optimum working conditions.
Standard operating parameters are shown in Table 3
_ Mercury was analyzed using an automated flameless atomic
* absorption technique (20, 21, 22). Mercury analysis was performed
I by a cold vapor technique employing the Coleman Mercury Analyzer
MA.S-50 and a Technicon AutoAnalyzer. Concentrated sulfuric acid
and potassium permanganate were added to oxidize the sample. Further
_ oxidation of organomercury compounds was assured through the
addition of potassium persulfate. Samples were then heated to 105°C
I in a closed system. Hydroxylamine sulfate-sodium chloride was used
to reduce the excess permanganate. The mercury in the sample was
then reduced to the elemental state through the addition of excess
_ stannous sulfate and a large amount of air. The gaseous phase was
then analyzed in the MA.S-50.
I Other paramteres used in the interpretation and examination
of the metals results were determined as follows:
1. Water content - determined as per cent weight lost
after samples were dried (l8, 19);
2. COD - dichromate reflux (18, 19);
3- Total volatile solids - weight loss associated with
ignition of sample in muffle furnace (18, 19);
k. Oil and grease - as hexane extractables (l8, 19); and,
5. TKN - semi-automated phenolate method (l8, 19).
B In general, for all parameters including metals, precision
of analysis was checked by duplication of 10 % or more of the samples.
I
-------
IV-3
TABLE 3
OPEFATING PARAMETERS
Metal
Cd
Cr
Cu
Pb
Zn
Al
Fe
Wavelength
228.8
357-9
324.7
217.0
213.9
309.3
248.3
Slit
.5 nm
.2
5
1.0
.5
5
.2
Lamp Current
3 ma
5
3
5
5
5
5
AA - Air/Acetylene
Flame
AA
AA
AA
AA
AA
NA
AA
Stoichiometry
Oxidizing
Reducing
Oxidizing
Oxidizing
Oxidizing
Reducing
Oxidizing
HA - Nitrous Oxide/Acetylene
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-------
IV-
I
I
« Accuracy was checked by periodically spiking samples and calculating
$ recovery.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-------
V-l
I
I
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
The purpose of this study was to assemble an up-to-date inventory
of metals accumulation in the Elizabeth River. Ninety-six stations
(Figure 2) were sampled in February of 197-4 and the surfaces (5-15 cm)
analyzed for Cd, Cu, Cr, Pb, Zn, Hg, Al and Fe.
The distribution of metals by geographical area is presented in I
Table 4. The average concentrations of Cr, Cd, Al and Fe were
similar in all four divisions indicating that these metals are
fairly evenly distributed throughout the entire area with some
localized high spots. The Eastern Branch is highly contaminated
with Cu, Pb, and Zn; the Southern and Western Branches also exhibit I
high levels of these metals. The Main Branch has somewhat less of
all the metals analyzed, with localized high concentrations along its |
western side. The entire area is contaminated with Zn, Cr, and Cu
but the concentrations in the Southern and Eastern Branches are
greatest. High levels of Al and Fe found in the study area are
normal estuarine concentrations and represent natural levels due
to the relative abundance of both metals and the chemistry of the |
estuarine system. The remaining metals are expected to show the «
impact of man through waste discharges into the river. Figures 5
through 12 graphically depict the distribution pattern of metals I
in the Elizabeth River. Appendix I, Tables 5 through 12, lists the
concentration of each metal found at the sampling stations. The p
concentrations for the remairing parameters are also listed in _
Appendix I, Tables H, 16, 2;-, 24, 28 and 29.
The data has also been compiled as frequency distributions to
illustrate the relative occurences for a given concentration range.
I
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
V-2
Table
GEOGRAPHICAL
Metal
Cadmium, mg/kg
Low
Average
High
Chromium, mg/kg
Low
Average
High
Copper, mg/kg
Low
Average
High
Lead, mg/kg
Low
Average
High
Zinc, mg/kg
Low
Average
High
Mercury, mg/kg
Low
Average
High
Aluminum, mg/kg
Low
Average
High
Iron, mg/kg
Low
Average
High
DISTRIBUTION
Main
Branch
< 1
1*.0-1*.2
26
9
1*7
95
< 2
36.6-36.7
2^6
< 3
61*. 5-61*. 8
21*2
65
388
1690
< .01
.10
.65
1*790
13180
17990
10180
2871*9
3681*0
OF METALS
Eastern
Branch
< 1
2.9-3.0
6
17
1*3
7!*
27
11*0
221
35
179
280
73
1*22
81*1
< .01
.37
2.73
9600
13539
16980
20560
26235
35330
IN ELIZABETH RIVER
Western
Branch
< 1
3-8-1*.!
22
19
1*1
110
10
70
233
< 3
79.8-80.1
366
80
1*51*
2380
.10
.21*
M
10960
1560U
17920
21670
33521*
1*01*1*0
Southern
Branch
< 1
1.8-2.0
6
10
38
109
< 2
7^.8-7^.9
395
< 3
96.2-96.3
382
38
271*
1016
< .01
38
1.1*9
3980
10656
11*290
7970
263^8
375^0
-------
V-j
WESTERN
BRANCH
EASTERN
BRANCH
SOUTHERN
BRANCH
FIGURE 5
ELIZABETH RIVER SEDIMENTS
CADMIUM MG/KG DRY
< I
I - 5
5-10
> 10
NAUTICAL MILES
3?
I
-------
WESTERN
BRANCH
EASTERN
BRANCH
FIGURE 6
ELIZABETH RIVER SEDIMENTS
COPPER MG/KG DRY
SOUTHERN
BRANCH
NAUTICAL MILES
c
2
-------
v-s
WESTERN
BRANCH
EASTERN
BRANCH
FIGURE 7
ELIZABETH RIVER SEDIMENTS
CHROMIUM MG/KG DRY
SOUTHERN
BRANCH
NAUTICAL MILES
!5
2
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
V-6
WESTERN
BRANCH
EASTERN
BRANCH
FIGURE 8
ELIZABETH RIVER SEDIMENTS
MERCURY MG/KG DRY
SOUTHERN
BRANCH
NAUTICAL MILES
~~Z
l
-------
V-7
WESTERN
BRANCH
3. EASTERN
BRANCH
FIGURE 9
ELIZABETH RIVER SEDIMENTS
LEAD MG/KG DRY
SOUTHERN
BRANCH
NAUTICAL MILES
2
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
V-8
WESTERN
BRANCH
EASTERN
BRANCH
SOUTHERN
BRANCH
FIGURE 10
ELIZABETH RIVER SEDIMENTS
ZINC
I - 50
50 - 250
250- 1,000
> 1,000
MG/KG .DRY
_NAUTICAL MILES
I
-------
V-9
WESTERN
BRANCH
EASTERN
BRANCH
SOUTHERN
BRANCH
FIGURE 11
ELIZABETH RIVER SEDIMENTS
IRON MG/KG DRY
0 - 10,000
10,000 - 20,000
20,000 - 30,000
> 30.000
NAUTICAL MILES
2
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
V-10
WESTERN
BRANCH
EASTERN
BRANCH
SOUTHERN
BRANCH
FIGURE 12
ELIZABETH RIVER SEDIMENTS
ALUMINUM MG/KG DRY
0 - 10,000
10,000 - 15.000
> 15,000
NAUTICAL MILES
Hi
2
-------
v-n
I
I
This information is presented in histogram form in Appendix II, _
Figures 13 through 20. It is interesting to note that all the metals
exhibit frequency distribution patterns that are skewed to the right
with the exception of Al and Fe which are skewed to the left. A skew-
ness value, "k", has been calculated for each distribution (Table 13), |
and as expected only Al and Fe show negative skewness (37)- As _
mentioned above, Al and Fe represent naturally occuring levels
which may account for the different distribution which they exhibit.
This difference in distribution pattern may be of use in
evaluating metal-sediment associations. Sommer (197^-) has discussed
the use of metal versus aluminum/metal concentration ratios as an _
aid for just this purpose (38). Aluminum was used as an indicator
of clay mineral concentration in Sommers* Chesapeake Bay work since
aluminum is associated with clay minerals in Bay sediments. The
linear relationships found in his work for Cu and Al/Cu, Pb and Al/Pb, I
Cr and Al/Cr, and Mn and Al/Mn suggested that the metals were associated
with the clay mineral portion of the sediment. Fe did not show a B
linear relationship. Sommers suggested sulfides as a possible
alternate distribution mechanism for Fe. The occurences of high
carbon concentrations also suggested the importance of possible I
organic matrices in which the metals might be held. The Elizabeth
River data was examined in a like manner to see if the relationships B
exist in a similar manner for a highly industrialized estuary, as
compared to the Chesapeake Bay. No linear relationships were found
for any of the metals tested: Fe, Cr, Pb and Cu. Either Al is not I
I
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
V-12
Table 13
"k" Values for Skewness
Metal
Fe
Hg
Al
Zn
Fb
Cu
Cr
Cd
- 1-77
5.08
- 0.82
2.16
1.19
1.79
0.60
-------
V-13
I
I
associated with clay minerals in the Elizabeth River as it is in _
Bay sediments or non-linear relationships are indicative of man-made
sources rather than naturally occuring levels. Metallic speciation
may depend on the availability of anions such as sulfide or organic
complexes which are not normally encountered in great abundance in
non-industrial areas.
Changes in color from black to gray were noted in many of the
core samples. An attempt was made to describe the color and texture
of each sample as it was removed from the core for analysis. These
descriptions are presented in Appendix III. Aside from the organic
contribution to color, Biggs (23) and others (24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29)
have attributed the color of black sediments to hydrotrolite
(FeS'nHgO), an amorphous ferrous sulfide. Black sediments will
evolve BUS when treated with acid if soluble sulfides are present,
gray sediments evolve no E^S. Sixteen (l6) of the thirty (30) I
black sediments taken from the study area had "air" pockets which
may have been HpS and would indicate the presence of hydrotrolite.
Van Straaten (26) found that the monosulfide (hydrotrolite) converts
to the bisulfide (pyrite) with time. This conversion alters the
color from black to gray. During the drying process the color of I
all samples that were black initially had changed to gray at the
end of the drying period. I
It has been suggested (23) that the ability of the hydrotrolite
to precipitate is due to the condition of the overlying water: when
there is no oxygen, hydrotrolite precipitates, and conversely, when
the water oxygenated, it does not. The observed banding of black and
I
-------
I
I
V-lk
gray could be the result of deposition in alternating oxygen-
deprived and oxygenated waters combined with the time dependent
I conversion of hydrotrolite to pyrite. This banding phenomenon
was observed in 15 cores. Weilson (M^) has observed periods of
| stratification in the Elizabeth River that would tend to produce
periods with resultant oxygen deficient waters that would favor the
formation of hydrotrolite and thus account for the observed color
changes and banding.
Biggs (23) also found a marked correlation between water content
and sediment color. The samples analyzed in this study showed such
a relationship except in the Western Branch where no black sediments
were found. The relationship is particularly pronounced in the
I Eastern and Southern Branches (Figures 21 through 2^). The more
separation that exists between the white and black areas on the
| graphs, the greater the correlation to water content; the striped
m area represents overlap. The actual water content at each station
is presented in Appendix I, Table 14.
The suspected evolution of E^S, the change in color from black
to gray on drying, the banding phenomenon, and the correlation between
| water content and color certainly suggest the possible presence of
_ hydrotrolite and, therefore, a "sulfide-precipitation" mechanism
of metallic deposition in the Elizabeth River. Since the order
of solubilities for divalent sulfides is Hg < Cu < Fb < Cd < Ni < Zn,
Biggs (30) postulated that in black sediment the least soluble
| sulfides would show the highest ratio in the Elizabeth River relative
I
-------
Figure 21
w
0)
03
30 -
CQ
a)
CQ
20
0)
,3
10 -
0
0
40-,
123^5678 9 lo xio
$ Water Content
Entire Area - 96 Samples
Figure 22
30-
CQ
20-
10-
Water Content
Southern Branch - 21 Samples
Figure 23
V-15
Black
Gray
123456789 10 xlO
% Water Content
Eastern Branch - 14 Samples
Figure 24
10 xlO
Water Content
Main' Branch - 49 Samples
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-------
V-16
I
I
to their abundance in the Chesapeake Bay. If there'is a greater
concentration of the element in the Elizabeth River and if the sulfide
is the least soluble chemical form which that element can be present
as, then the elements should be present in the following ratio:
I Hg > Cu > Pb > Cd > Nl > Zn
Table 15 shows the order of the ratios between the Elizabeth River and
the Chesapeake Bay sediments.
Only one sample in the Main Branch exhibits the expected ratio,
exclusive of Hg. One of the criteria given above was that the Elizabeth
River value must exceed the Bay value in order for it to be used, since
this is not the case with the Elizabeth River, the mercury values
B may be dropped from consideration. The metals in the Main Branch,
then, probably exist in some form other than the sulfide. All six
samples from the Eastern Branch follow the expected pattern. A
similar situation exists in the Southern Branch: all but one sample
conform to the pattern except for several inverted Zn and Cd values.
In general the metals seem to exhibit the pattern given above and
probably exist as sulfide in the Eastern and Southern Branches.
Using a technique developed by Ballinger and McKee (1971) to
I characterize bottom sediments using organic carbon and organic
nitrogen data, the values from the Elizabeth River were tabulated
(Appendix I, Table 23 - $ TKN, Table 2k - % Organic Carbon).
Organic nitrogen and organic carbon have been shown to correlate
well with known sources and permit the classification of deposits
into four general types (53). The four types are:
I
-------
V-IT
Table 15
Metals Concentration Ratios Between Elizabeth
Bay Sediments
Station Branch
C-l Main
D-l
D-2
E-l
P-2
F-3
G-2
H-3
1-4
J-5
M-2
N-2
N-3
EB-2 Eastern
EB-3
EB-4
EB-7
EB-8
EB-10
SB- 5 Southern
SB-6
SB- 7
SB- 9
SB-10
SB-12
SB-13
SB-15
SB-18
SB-19
SB-20
Order of
Cu ^
Cu ^
Cu >
Zn >
Cu i
Cu ;
Cu ^
Cu 2
Cu ^
Cd >
cu ;
Cu i
Cu ^
Cu -
Cu -
Cu ;
cu ;
cu ;
cu ;
cu ;
cu :
cu ;
Cu ;
c:u ;
cu ;
Cu :
Cu ;
Cu :
Cu ;
Cu ;
> Zn ^
> Zn ^
> Zn ^
> Cu 2
> Zn ^
> Zn ^
> Cd -
> Fb ;
= Cd :
> Zn ^
> Cd ;
> Cd ;
> Cd :
> Fb ^
> Fb ^
> Fb ;
> Fb ;
> Fb ^
> Fb i
> Fb ;
> Zn ;
> Fb ;
> Fb ;
> Fb ;
> Fb ;
> Fb ;
> Fb ;
> Fb :
> Fb ;
> Fb ;
River and Chesapeake
Decreasing Ratio
> Cd >
> Cd ^
> Cd >
> Cd >
> Cd "
> Fb 2
> Zn ;
> Cd ?
> Zn ^
> Cu ^
> Zn ^
> Fb 2
> Fb 5
> Cd >
> Zn ^
> Cd ^
> Zn ;
> Zn 2
> Zn >
> Zn ;
> Fb :
> Zn ;
> Zn ;
> Zn ;
> Zn ;
> Zn ^
> cd ;
> cd ;
> Zn ;
> Zn :
> Cr ;
> Cr ;
> Cr ;
> Fb :
> Fb :
> Cd :
> Fb ;
> Cr ;
> Fb ;
> Fb 5
> Fb ;
> Zn :
> Zn ;
> Zn ;
> cd ;
> Zn :
> Cr ;
> Cr :
> cd :
> cd :
> cd ;
> cd :
> cd ;
> cd ;
> cd ;
> cd :
> Cr :
> Zn :
> Cr ;
> cd ;
> Fb
> Fb
> Fb
> Cr
> Cr
> Cr
> Cr
> Zn
> Cr
> Cr
> Cr
> Cr
> Cr
> Cr
> Cr
> Cr
> Cd
> Cd
> Cr
> Cr
> Cr
> Cr
> Cr
> Cr
> Cr
> Cr
> Zn
> Cr
> Cd
> Cr
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-------
I
I
I
I
I
V-18
I. Inorganic or aged, stabilized organic deposits;
I
II. High carbon, little N? contribution, slow 02 demand;
III. Nitrogenous, substantial Np contribution, further
stabilization likely, and;
IIV. Actively decomposing sediments, high potential Np
release and high Op demand.
Figure 25 shows the plotted Elizabeth River data. The type
of bottom sediment associated with each station is presented in Table
26. The Main Branch is predominantly Types I and II; the Eastern
Branch appears to have equal amounts of all four types; the Western
Branch is predominantly Type I, as is the Southern Branch. It is
interesting to note that the Western Branch had no Type IV sediments,
which may explain the absence of black sediment noted earlier. The
Western Branch has little industry and would appear to be relatively
stabilized.
A further extension of this work is the product of organic
nitrogen times organic carbon or OSI (Organic Sediment Index), which
has been used to classify the bottom sediments into four categories
I which are:
I. OSI (0.0 - O.U8) - sand, clay, old stable sludge;
I II. OSI (O.kQ - 1.0) - organic detritus, peat, partially
stabilized sludge;
III. OSI (l.O - 5.0) - sewage sludge, decaying vegetation,
pulp and paper wastes, sugar beet wastes, and;
IV. OSI (5.0 - > 10.0) - actively decomposing sludge,
fresh sewage, matted algae, packinghouse wastes.
The numeric OSI values for the Elizabeth River are depicted
graphically in Figure 26, and are presented by type of sediment in
I
-------
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
V.-20
TABLE 26
BOTTOM SEDIMENT CLASSIFICATION.
Location
A 1
2
3
4
B 1
2
3
4
C 1.
2
3
4
D 1
2
3
4
E 1
2
3
4
F 1
2
3
G 1
2
3
H 1
2
3
I 1
2
3
4
J 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Type
I
I
I
I
II
II
I
I
II
I
I
I
IV
III
I
I
II
I
NS
I
I
II
IV
I
II
I
II
I
I
I
II
I
II
I
I
II
II
II
I
I
Location
K 1
2
L 1
2
3
M 1
2
N 1
2
3
EB 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
WB 1
2
3
4 i
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Type
II
I
II
II
I
I
II
I
IV
II
II
IV
IV
II
III
II
I
IV
I
IV
IV
I
III
III
I
I
I
I
III
I
I
II
I
II
III
I
Location
SB 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
'
Type
I
I
I
I
III
I
IV
NS
III
I
I
IV
I
I
III
I
I
I
III
IV
I
III
NS - No Sample
-------
V-21
-------
I
V-22
Table 27. It is interesting to note that the sharp peaks in Figure
26 (which represent high OSI values in Table 27) are in many cases at
I or near the location of a sewage treatment plant (by superimposing
Figures 2 and 4, the following sampling stations are at or near
STPs: D 1-4, E 1-4, G 1-3, J 1-7, and SB 15-22 - see Figure 27).
I As expected from the calculated OSI values, the bottom at these
locations shows some impact from the presence of the sewage treatment
| plants .
The bottom sediment classification and OSI values are useful
tools for examining the nature of the sediments from the Elizabeth
River and have shown the possibility of an "organic matrix
mechanism" of deposit and exchange, as an alternate or co-mechanism
| to sulfide precipitation and other forms of deposition and transport.
. Another factor in evaluating the concentrations of metals in
addition to their distribution and the form in which they may exist,
is the particle size of the sediment. High surface area and adsorption
capacity make clays a perfect scavenger for metallic substances.
| Given the absence of other contributing causes, particle size can
_ be indicative of the metallic concentration of sediments (12) .
* Before comparing one system to another, the particle size differences
or similarities between the two should be accounted for so that particle
size does not distort the interpretation of the data. No actual
determination of particle size was possible in this study, however,
the texture of each sample was recorded as the core was prepared for
analysis. The sediments for the most part resembled those taken from
I
-------
V-23
TABLE 27
OSI CLASSIFICATION
Location
A 1
2
3
k
B 1
2
3
l^
C 1
2
3
, k
D 1
2
3
h
E 1
2
3
h
F 1
2
3
G 1
2
3
H 1
2
3
I 1
2
3
h
J 1
2
3
^
5
6
T
Class
I
II
I
I
I
III
I
I
III
I
I
I
III
III
I
I
II
II
NS
I
I
II
III
I
III
I
III
I
II
I
II
I
III
I
I
III
I
II
I
I
Location
K 1
2
L 1
2
3
M 1
2
N 1
2
3
EB 1
2
3
h
5
6
1
8
9
10
n
12
13
Ik
W3 1
2
3
If
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Class
II
II
III
II
I
II
III
I
III
II
III
III
III
III
II
III
II
III
I
III
III
II
III
II
I
I
I
II
II
II
I
III
I
II
II
I
Location
SB 1
2
3
k
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
1^
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
-
Class
I
I
I
I
III
I
III
NS
II
II
I
III
II
I
III
I
I
I
III
III
II
III
NS - No Sample
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Figure 27 Sampling Locations at or near STPs
Hampton
Roads
Lafayette
River
Western
Branch STP
Oreat Bridge STP
Eastern
Branch
-------
V-25
I
I
the Baltimore Harbor in an earlier study (31), being of a silt or
clay nature with no large sand particles or pebbles. In addition,
Drifmeyer (1975) has indicated that Elizabeth River sediment is
primarily a silt-clay complex and highly organic (45). Because the I
comparisons to follow are based on fairly large numbers of determinations
that have been converted to overall averages for each system, it is felt I
that particle size is not lixely to be a contributing factor in
evaluating the distribution patters between one area and another.
Assuming that particle size will not bias the comparison of the
Elizabeth River to other systems, (This assumption is based on 1) visual
observations, 2) Drifmeyer's findings (45), 3) the averaging procedure I
used, and 4) comparisons are made between estuarines in fairly close
geographic proximity.) an attempt has been made to define the degree of
metallic pollution in the Elizabeth River. In attempting to evaluate
the degree of metals contamination in the Elizabeth River, comparisons
of concentrations found in the Elizabeth River were made to those found in: I
1) the Patapsco River (Baltimore Harbor), a tributary of H
Chesapeake Bay in Maryland, representing another highly industri-
alized estuary (Table 17);
2) the open regions of the mid-Chesapeake Bay (Table 18);
3) other estuarine environments, in this case, the |
Delaware, Potomac, and James River estuaries (Table 19); and,
4) the earth's crust (average values at best) (Table 20). *
The Elizabeth River is similar to the Baltimore Harbor in that it,
too, supports a highly industrialized port facility. Table 17 provides
a comparison of Cd, Cr, Cu, Pb, Zn and Hg levels in these two harbors. I
I
-------
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
METALS IN ELIZABETH
Metal
Copper, mg/kg
Low
Average
High
Lead, mg/kg
Low
Average
High
Zinc, mg/kg
Low
Average
High
Cadmium, mg/kg
Low
Average
High
Chromium, mg/kg
Low
Average
High
Mercury, mg/kg
Low
Average
High
"Villa, 0. and P.G.
Harbor Sediments,"
Table 17
RIVER AND BALTIMORE HARBOR
Elizabeth River
< 2
65.1-65.2
395
< 3
91.0-91.2
382
38
379.1
2380
< l
3.3-3-5
26
9
44.4
110
< .01
.22
2.73
Johnson, "Distribution of
Environmental Protection
V-26
SEDIMENTS
Baltimore Harbor
< 1
342
2926
< 1
341
13890
31
888
6040
< 1
6.3-6.6
654
10
492
5745
< .01
1.17
12.20
.
Metals in Baltimore
Agency Region III
Technical Report No. 59, Annapolis Field Office, (Jan. 1974).
-------
V-27
I
Average Zn and Cd concentrations in Baltimore Harbor were _
twice the levels found in the Elizabeth River. Baltimore Harbor I
showed four, five and eleven times the concentrations of Pb, Cu and
Cr, respectively, found in the Elizabeth River. For all the
metals compared, Baltimore Harbor had considerably higher "high" I
values than the Elizabeth River.
Table 18 is a comparison of Elizabeth River values with those |
found in the open Chesapeake Bay (approximately five miles from the
Magothy River, in mid-bay, to Cove Point). For all metals compared
the average and "high" values found in the Elizabeth River exceeded I
the open Bay values. The Hg, Cd, Cr, Pb, and Zn were two to four
times the average in the Bay; while the average Cu value was ten |
times the Bay value. '
The Delaware, Potomac e.nd James estuaries provide additional
opportunities to evaluate the Elizabeth River data. While none of
these three estuaries have the concentrated industrial complex to
the extent that Baltimore Harbor and the Elizabeth River do, they |
provide for comparisons primarily with an industrialized tidal .
system (Delaware), an estuary with mainly municipal inputs (Potomac),
and a third system with a lesser degree of both municipal and industrial I
inputs (James). The James River, being physically adjacent to the
Elizabeth River, provides an interesting contrast: the sediments
of the James contain the least amount of Zn and Pb, and in fact, _
the average values of the James (Table 19) are similar to the Bay *
values (Table 18). Potomac estuary sediments exhibit greater ranges
of values than the James but are no more than two times greater than
Bay concentrations.
-------
1
1
1
1
V
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
METALS IN
Metal
Copper, mg/kg
Low
Average
High
Lead, mg/kg
Low
Average
High
Zinc, mg/kg
Low
Average
High
Cadmium, mg/kg
Low
Average
High
Chromium, mg/kg
Low
Average
High
Mercury, mg/kg
Low
Average
High
Annapolis
Table 18
V-2f
ELIZABETH RIVER AND CHESAPEAKE BAY SEDIMENTS
Elizabeth River
< 2
65.1-65.2
395
< 3
91.0-91.2
382
38
379
2380
< 1
3.3-3.5
26
9
kk
110
< .01
.22
2.73
Field Office, unpublished,
Chesapeake Bay
< 1
6.U-7.0
22
9
27
86
33
128
312
< 1
< l
< 1
18
25
42
< .01
.061-. 067
31
1972-1973
-------
V-29
Table 19
METALS IN ELIZABETH RIVER, DELAWARE RIVER,
POTOMAC RIVER AND JAMES RIVER SEDIMENTS
Metal
Copper, mg/kg
Low
Average
High
Lead, mg/kg
Low
Average
High
Zinc, mg/kg
Low
Average
High
Cadmium, mg/kg
Low
Average
High
Chromium, mg/kg
Low
Average
High
Mercury, mg/kg
Low
Average
High
Elizabeth
River
< 2
65.1-65.2
395
< 3
91.0-91.2
382
38
379
2380
< l
3.3-3.5
26
9
44
110
< .01
.22
2.73
Delaware
River -1
4
73
201
26
145
805
137
523
1364
< 1
2.9-3.1
17
8
58
172
< .01
1.99
6.97
Potomac
River 2
10
--
60
20
--
100
125
--
1000
< 1
.60
20
--
80
.01
--
.03
James
River
NO
DATA
4
27
55
10
131
708
NO
DATA
NO
--
DATA
.
.
1.
3
02
32
00
1
"Annapolis Field Office, unpublished, 1972-1973-
~Houser, M.E., and M.I. Fauth, "Potomac River Sediment Study,"
Naval Ordnance Station, Indian Head, Maryland (1972).
Pheiffer, T.H., et al., "Water Quality Conditions in the
Cheaspeake Bay System," Environmental Protection Agency Region III
Technical Report No. 55, Annapolis Field Office (August 1972).
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-------
I
I
I The Delaware estuary shows consistently higher levels than the
James or Potomac and is quite similar to the Elizabeth River values.
Table 20 shows average concentrations of heavy metals in the
_ earth's crust. As can be seen these concentration ranges are far
* less than those found in the Elizabeth River. Those values from
I the Chesapeake Bay and the James River are just slightly higher than
the values in Table 20. For the Potomac sediments, Pb, Zn and Cd
are in excess of the averages, while Cr, Cu and Hg are within the
_ specified ranges.
' An inventory of existing metals concentrations in Elizabeth
River sediments has been presented and evaluated in terms of
distribution. Factors such as sulfide precipitation and organic
matrices and others have been addressed as possible mechanisms of
transport and distribution.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
V-30
-------
V-31
Table 20
CONCENTRATION OF HEAVY METALS IN EARTH'S CRUST, AVG. RANGE '
I
I
I
Metal Range, rag/kg
Chromium .10 - 100 1 00 |
Copper 1^-. 00 - 55.00
Lead 7.00 - 20.00
Zinc 16.00 - 95-00 I
Cadmium .05 - 0.30
Nickel 2.00-75-00 |
Manganese 50.00 - 1100.00 _
Mercury .03-0.40
I
"Bowen, H.J.M., Trace Elements in Biochemistry, Academic
Press, N.Y. (l9
-------
APPENDIX I
-------
VI-1
TABLE 5
Location
A 1
2
3
k
B 1
2
3
k
C 1
2
3
h
D 1
2
3
k
E 1
2
3
1+
F 1
2
3
G 1
2
3
H 1
2
3
I 1
2
3
Ij.
J 1
2
3
U
5
6
T
CAEMIUM
ELIZABETH
mg/kg Location
< 1
< 1
< 1
< 1
< 1
< 1
< 1
< 1
3
< l
< 1
< 1
k
3
< 1
1
7
1
NS
< 1
1
2
2
1
7
1
U
1
1
3
4
3
10
k
3
3
23
26
9
7
K 1
2
L 1
2
3
M 1
2
N 1
2
3
EB 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
Ik
WE 1
2
3
1+
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
RIVER SEDIMENT
mg/kg
4
k
7
6
2
3
9
3
9
11
4
6
6
5
4
1+
1
1
< 1
4
3
1
l
l
2
5
1
5
22
< 1
2
5
< 1
< 1
3
1
STUDY
Location
SB 1
2
3
1*
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
ll+
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
mg/kg
1
2
< 1
< 1
h
3
6
NS
1
2
1
u
u
1
u
1
2
< 1
1
< 1
1
1
ES - No Sample
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-------
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
TABLE
Location
A 1
2
3
4
B 1
2
3
i
4
C 1
2
3
4
D 1
2
3
4
E 1
2
3
4
F 1
2
3
G 1
2
3
H 1
2
3
I 1
2
3
4
J 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
NS - No
6 COPPER
mg/kg
13
4
2
3
19
J
< 2
4o
3
< 2
12
40
4
4
50
46
NS
13
28
56
65
3
52
7
30
13
41
43
71
18
7
11
60
66
25
22
Sample
ELIZABETH
Location
K 1
2
L 1
2
3
M 1
2
N 1
2
3
EB 1
2
3
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
WB 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
RIVER SEDIMENT
mg/kg
32
40
246
90
15
49
87
3
112
128
137
169
204
141
192
112
189
195
27
221
198
74
30
74
15
32
13
212
232
18
27
130
16
18
122
10
STUDY
Location
SB 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
VI -2
mg/kg
6
83
55
3
192
395
NS
30
91
< 2
165
149
24
112
27
9
24
96
52
27
32
-------
VI-3
TABLE 7
Location
A 1
2
3
4
B 1
2
3
4
C 1
2
3
I
4
D 1
2
3
\
4
E 1
2
3
4
F 1
2
3
G 1
2
3
H 1
2
3
I 1
2
3
4
J 1
2
3
1+
5
6
T
CHROMIUM
mg/kg
39
44
58
40
60
46
50
25
75
45
29
12
86
75
35
9
82
40
NS
10
39
23
51
23
82
9
43
25
25
40
44
32
81
32
32
26
88
92
2k
20
ELIZABETH RIVER
Location
K 1
2
L 1
2
3
M 1
2
N 1
2
3
EB 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
WE 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
SEDIMENT
mg/kg
48
41
81
72
19
39
94
40
95
95
26
55
67
32
20
17
53
53
30
74
73
27
41
40
39
51
35
19
110
32
36
40
30
35
39
31
STUDY
Location
SB 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
mg/kg
18
23
17
10
78
^5
109
WS
30
48
25
99
77
23
71
36
11
16
43
24
13
26
NS - Wo sample
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
VT-U
TABLE 8
MERCURY ELIZABETH RIVER SEDIMENT STUDY
Location
A 1
2
3
k
B 1
2
3
k
C 1
2
3
k
D 1
2
3
if
E 1
2
3
k
F 1
2
3
G 1
2
3
H 1
2
3
I 1
2
3
4
J 1
2
3
^
5
6
7
mg/kg
.60
.18
< .01
< .01
< .01
< .01
< .01
< .01
< .01
Al
< .01
.10
< .01
< .01
< .01
< .01
< .01
.23
ws
.15
< .01
< .01
< .01
.15
.60
< .01
.15
< .01
< .01
< .01
.16
30
.28
.15
.22
< .01
< .01
< .01
< .01
< .01
Location
K 1
2
L 1
2
3
M 1
2
N 1
2
3
EB 1
2
3
k
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
Ik
WB 1
2
3
k
5
6
7
8
9
10
n
12
mg/kg
< .01
< .01
65
< .01
< .01
33
< .01
< .01
.23
< .01
< .01
< .01
< .01
< .01
< .01
< .01
.13
A3
< .01
< .01
2.73
.52
.85
A3
.10
.25
.23
.2k
.25
.10
A5
A7
.23
.11
30
.11
Location
SB 1
2
3
k
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
Ik
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
mg/kg
.07
33
.15
< .01
57
-31
.9k
NS
.13
1A9
< .01
A6
52
.2k
52
.17
< .01
.05
.2k
.73
.22
.80
NS - No Sample
-------
VI-5
TABLE 9
Location
A 1
2
3
4
B 1
2
3
4
C 1
2
3
4
D 1
2
3
4
E 1
2
3
4
F 1
2
3
G 1
2
3
H 1
2
3
I 1
2
3
4
J 1
2
3
1*
5
6
7
mg/kg
35
3
2
3
41
3
< 3
< 3
76
6
3
32
9
8
6
10
153
67
NS
6
29
48
70
130
130
< 3
86
22
60
35
80
89
156
44
16
2
226
191
35
51
LEAD ELIZABETH
Location
K 1
2
L 1
2
3
M 1
2
. N 1
2
3
EB 1
2
3
1+
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
Ik
WE 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
RIVER SEDIMENT
mg/kg
67
64
194
162
< 3
100
162
13
194
242
275
251
242
188
280
181
183
169
41
235
207
99
35
118
10
64
< 3
143
366
10
35
156
6
13
145
10
STUDY
Location
SB 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
mg/kg
41
92
102
< 3
382
108
344
NS
51
150
6
184
165
60
114
51
3
29
86
56
48
44
NS - No Sample
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
vi-6
TABLE 10
ZINC ELIZABETH RIVER SEDIMENT STUDY
Location
A 1
2
3
4
B 1
2
3
4
C 1
2
3
4
D 1
2
3
4
E 1
2
3
4
F 1
2
3
G 1
2
3
H 1
2
3
I 1
2
3
4
J 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
mg/kg
249
80
86
71
237
87
72
53
564
83
68
271
541
^55
120
155
961
427
NS
65
230
441
373
198
885
39
367
73
107
212
217
186
1023
161
87
95
1660
1690
314
153
Location
K 1
2
L 1
2
3
M 1
2
N 1
2
3
EB 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
WB 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
mg/kg
440
476
999
747
122
197
93^
80
920
934
456
674
841
402
289
240
402
377
73
776
801
207
145
230
94
397
91
470
2380
105
334
841
103
80
467
83
Location
SB 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
mg/kg
38
349
179
132
747
532
1016
NS
168
255
60
665
507
122
337
120
54
80
255
152
108
159
NS - No Sample
-------
VI-7
TABLE 11
IRON ELIZABETH RIVER SEDIMENT STUDY
Location
A 1
2
3
4
B 1
2
3
4
C 1
2
3
4
D 1
2
3
4
E 1
2
3
4
F 1
2
3
G 1
2
3
H 1
2
3
I 1
2
3
4
J 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
mg/kg
24020
33460
35460
27390
33120
35520
36690
16240
34440
35960
28420
11710
34390
35320
28520
10420
36840
27200
NS
10180
31940
17520
29910
31600
31060
14630
33270
28770
30580
31850
35080
31600
33220
28670
34240
27200
30320
35220
22700
31HO
Location
K Z.
2
L Z.
2
")
J
M :.
2
N :.
2
3
EB :.
2.
3
4
5
6
Y
8
9
10
II-
IS
13
14
WB :.
2
3
4
5
6
V
8
9
10
r.
12
mg/kg
27740
18490
33750
33950
33560
33460
35900
33^60
31010
31600
26300
27430
30040
30430
27820
35330
29960
20560
28450
NSQ
28760
27440
29080
29890
37740
21670
38440
26450
30190
29250
28350
38740
38540
35840
36640
40440
Location
SB 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
mg/kg
27210
16120
10070
7970
33540
36540
37540
NS
25540
35140
29250
29140
28530
18770
29620
27330
21500
13970
26070
27380
22220
23500
NS - No Sample
NSQ- Not sufficient quantity
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-------
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
TABLE 12
ALUMINUM ELIZABETH
Location rag/kg
A 1
2
3
1+
B 1
2
3
k
C 1
2
3
1+
D 1
2
3
1+
E 1
2
3
4
F 1
2
3
G 1
2
3
H 1
2
3
I 1
2
3
k
J 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
WS - Wo
10660
1601+0
15900
13210
121*50
15900
16090
7990
171+20
16900
12120
5170
16370
15710
1091+0
1+790
17530
11290
NS
5800
11+080
6790
13170
13120
13690
6220
13670
12370
1^160
13330
15030
12560
1301+0
11770
13870
1321+0
13VjTO
16730
111+60
13830
Sample
Location
K 1
2
L 1
2
3
M 1
2
N 1
2
3
EB 1
2
3
1+
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
1U
₯B 1
2
3
1+
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
RIVER SEDIMENT
mg/kg
13930
9880
11+880
11+360
13170
15250
17990
15710
16320
1631+0
9600
13670
13180
13280
111+80
13730
12250
13030
13760
16700
ll+61+O
13^30
13820
16980
16720
10960
1651+0
13530
11+500
15390
13700
17010
161+80
18030
17920
161+70
STUDY
Location
SB 1
2
3
1+
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
Ik
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
VI-8
mg/kg
^750
6930
1+7^0
3980
12380
10800
11+290
NS
9980
12820
10770
12930
12080
8120
131+60
111+60
8520
6710
13920
12790
11260
ioi+1+o
-------
vi-9
TABLE 14
WATER CONTENT ELIZABETH RIVER SEDIMENT STUDY
Location
A 1
2
3
4
B 1'
2
3
4
C 1
2
3
4
D 1
2
3
k
E 1
2
3
k
F 1
2
3
G 1
2
3
H i
2
3
I 1
2
3
4
J 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
*
Wet Wt.
45.04
58.89
55-05
51.29
56.06
54.30
53-00
39-40
68.10
53.20
51-30
32.30
71.90
68.00
46.30
30.80
69.4o
56.00
NS
28.70
67.10
48.50
69.4o
57.60
71.80
31.00
64.50
53-90
55-20
61.10
63.80
58.30
66.60
57.60
60.70
56.30
58.40
66.60
52.30
53-80
Location
K 1
2
L 1
2
3
M 1
2
N 1
2
3
EB 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
S
1C'
11
12
13
14
WB 1
/~L
c_
.J
L
5
6
rr
1
8
9
10
11
12
%
Wet Wt.
61.10
49.50
63.80
58.60
50.10
62.30
70.20
49.80
69.40
65.20
56.60
68.70
68.40
66.60
55.90
61.50
66.60
64.40
56.70
71.80
69.80
61.90
62.20
59.80
47-30
45.30
49.80
53-50
59.00
55-40
55-20
60.60
54.00
60.00
60.50
55.20
Location
SB 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
*
Wet Wt.
37.20
56.00
31-50
21.40
66.80
65.10
70.00
NS
63.60
67.50
52.30
71.80
68.40
48.90
70.4o
58.90
39-20
47.60
66.40
67.80
54.00
49.00
WS - No sample
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-------
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
TABLE 16
COD
Location mg/kg
A 1
2
3
B 1
2
3
4
C 1
2
3
4
D 1
2
3
4
E 1
2
3
4
F 1
2
3
G 1
2
3
H 1
2
3
I 1
2
3
4
J 1
2
3
5
6
7
NS - No
86440
126080
98330
89960
210110
209910
69430
85580
225890
58730
62530
38040
404880
119030
110580
64410
134970
121410
NS
18060
116520
206310
194540
107740
294540
9970
209310
66530
86260
114500
134410
95850
303350
127730
120890
263500
168800
155870
120310
107990
Sample
ELIZABETH RIVER SEDIMENT
Location
K 1
2
L 1
2
3
M 1
2
N 1
2
3
EB 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
WB 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
mg/kg
187570
91540
152900
129880
21160
98l4o
268260
61690
153790
136720
173410
175690
175920
240720
82810
158180
126320
228200
80920
128320
172480
111550
106560
106790
35650
56510
58470
123720
91540
73900
61340
152260
64o4o
138320
99490
70830
STUDY
Location
SB 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
VI -10
mg/kg
36390
68040
74130
153000
122860
64610
310430
NS
61510
116950
75350
158650
90440
51960
116300
61290
22720
38470
118510
190370
110230
10494
-------
VI-11
TABLE 23
Location
A 1
2
3
4
B 1
2
3
4
C :1
2
3
; 4
D 1
2
3
4
E 1
2
3
4
F 1
2
3
G 1
2
3
H 1
2
3
I 1
2
3
4
J 1
2
3
4
5
6
T
$ Org. C
3-2
4.6
3-7
3.5
7-9
7.8
2.6
3-2
8.5
2.2
2.3
1.4
15-2
4.4
4.1
2.4
5-0
4.5
WS
7
4.4
7-7
7-3
3-4
11.0
.4
10.9
2-5
3-2
4.3
5.0
3.6
11.4
4.8
4.5
9-9
6.3
5.8
4.5
4.0
% Organic
Location $
K 1
2
L 1
2
3
M 1
2
H 1
2
3
EB 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
3.0
JJL
12
13
14
W3 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
L2
Carbon
Org. C
7-0
3.4
5-7
4.9
.8
3-7
10.0
2.3
5-8
5-1
6.5
6.6
6.6
9-0
3-1
5-9
4.7
8.5
3-0
5-1
6.5
4.2
4.0
4.0
1.3
2.1
2.2
4.6
4.4
2.8
2.3
5.7
2.4
5-2
3.7
2.6
Location
SB 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
,
% Org. C
1.4
2.5
2.8
.6
4.6
2.4
7.0
NS
2.3
4.4
2.8
5-9
3.4
1.9
4.4
2.3
.8
1.4
4.4
7-1
4.1
3-9
NS - No Sample
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
VI-12
TABLE 24
Location
A 1
2
3
4
B 1
2
3
4
C 1.
2
3
) 4
D 1
2
3
4
E 1
2
3
4
F 1
2
3
G 1
2
3
H 1
2
3
I 1
2
3
4
J 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
$ TKN
.087
.146
.064
.074
.050
.142
.068
.048
.159
.057
.151
.051
.246
.231
.054
.049
.193
.129
NS
.030
.074
.068
.269
.110
.188
.033
.096
.078
.188
.086
.131
.078
.136
.026
.057
' .136
.074
.123
.027
.050
%
Location
K 1
2
L 1
2
3
tfl
2
N 1
2
3
EB 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
WB 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
TKN
°lo TKN
.080
.146
.229
.100
.090
.172
.129
.092
.223
.162
.177
295
.247
.190
303
.192
.205
.198
.149
.264
253
.179
.302
.208
.107
.134
.142
.178
.212
.179
.127
.195
.155
.145
.217
.152
Location
SB 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
.
TKN
055
.077
.085
.024
.281
.160
.413
NS
.238
.189
.116
325
.190
.098
.252
.166
.052
.092
.246
.347
.200
.260
WS - No Sample
-------
VI-13
TABLE 25
Location
A 1
2
3
4
B 1
2
3
4
C 1
2
3
4
D 1
2
3
4
E 1
2
3
1).
F 1
2
3
G 1
2
3
H 1
2
3
I 1
2
3
4
J 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Organic Sediment Index
OSI
.28
.67
.24
.26
.40
l.ll
.18
.15
1.35
.12
35
.07
3-74
1.02
.22
.12
96
58
NS
.02
32
52
1.96
37
2.07
.01
1.05
.20
.60
37
.66
.28
1-55
.12
.26
1.35
.47
71
.12
.20
Location
K I.
2
L 1
2
3
M 1
2
N 1
2
3
EB 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
3
9
10
11
12
13
14
W3 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
3.0
11
12
OSI
.56
50
1.30
.49
.07
.64
1.29
.21
1.29
.83
1.15
1.94
1.63
1.71
94
1.13
.96
1.68
45
1-35
1.64
75
1.21
.84
.14
.28
.31
.82
93
50
.29
1.11
.37
75
.80
.40
Location
SB 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
OSI
.08
.19
.24
.01
1.29
.38
2.89
NS
.55
.83
32
1.92
.65
.19
1.11
.38
.04
.13
1.08
2.46
.82
1.01
NS - No Sample
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
TABLE 28 Total Volatile Solids ELIZABETH RIVER SEDIMENT STUDY
Location
A 1
2
3
4
B 1
2
3
1+
C 1
2
3
1+
D 1
2
3
U
E 1
2
3
4
F 1
2
3
G 1
2
3
H 1
2
3
I 1
2
3
4
J 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
mg/kg
38000
54500
50300
51300
54600
54000
50200
27700
85100
52000
44700
27500
95000
891+00
446oo
26000
81700
53100
NS
34500
69400
44500
98000
80600
95500
27300
78800
60900
89500
64200
78600
68800
81100
63300
57100
50000
63300
81800
58600
55500
Location
K 1
2
L 1
2
3
M 1
2
N 1
2
3
EB 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
₯B 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
mg/kg
61400
49900
79600
68700
55500
75100
89400
57200
91700
90100
87500
100500
100500
121100
109200
94700
107900
109200
72400
104300
101400
82300
82200
80500
52400
40000
52600
66700
71800
55900
51500
75600
57000
65600
75600
57000
4680
Location
SB 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
rng/kg
46800
36200
27200
12700
90400
80000
111200
NS
73100
98800
72100
101700
85300
51500
100300
93900
34200
61300
99300
129100
80600
100400
WS - No Sample
-------
TABLE 29
Oil and Grease ELIZABETH RIVER SEDIMENT STUDY
Location
A 1
2
3
4
B 1
2
3
4
C 1
2
3
4
D 1
2
3
4
E 1
2
3
1+
P 1
2
3
G 1
2
3
H 1
2
3
I 1
2
3
4
J 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
mg/kg
8?0
70
110
ND
40
320
50
ED
80
130
200
410
390
90
690
850
3120
1870
NS
410
1330
1190
3220
1370
2840
150
1820
1600
2030
1820
2550
2450
1790
1220
950
250
770
3050
230
1720
Loca.tion
K 1
2
L 1
2
3
M 1
2
N 1
2
3
EB 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
WB 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
mg/kg
3100
3580
3610
3130
1160
1980
4060
520
3560
4710
2260
4460
4670
4400
2560
700
4390
2590
1140
3220
2620
1050
2340
800
1740
630
2290
2180
840
1060
1160
1330
430
1270
1420
890
Location
SB 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
mg/kg
840
370
70
380
7970
5020
8410
ws
2700
7800
1540
7960
4920
530
1580
1210
720
950
2860
8600
1100
1650
NS - Wo Sample
ND - Non-detectable
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-------
APPENDIX II
-------
f as
f as
VII-1
100
90
80
TO
60
50
ho
30
20
10
Figure 13
Cadmium
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
246
10 12
i - i - "F- =S==F=| - 1 - 1 - r
16 18 20 22 2k 26 28 30 32
mg/kg dry
Figure 14
Chromium
t -4- H CO LTNOJOAVQroO
HOJ oj on -^ -4- LT\VD
mg/kg dry
-------
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
I
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
100
90 -
80 -
70 -
60 -
f as 50 '
* uo-
30 -
20 '
10
Figure 15
Copper
' 1 "1 1 I ' ' i r
LT\ O LTNO tr\O UAO LfAO LTNO 'fN O LQ O
mg/kg dry
100 -, Figure lo
90 .
80 -
70-
60 -
VS 50-
IK> -
30-
20 -
10
Lead
1 1 1 1 1 iii i i i i
1 1 1 1 1 l T 1 1 -I 1 1 1 1 1 r
LPvOLr\OLnOLfNOLTNOlAOLrNOLf\C
OJ LT\t OOJ l-T\tOOJ LT\ r O OJ LTN t C
iHHHrHOJOJOJOJooononoo-4
mg/kg dry
VII-2
-------
vil-3
f as
f as
100 -
90 -
8o -
70 -
60 -
50 -
40 -
30
20
10
100 .
90 .
80 -
70-
60 -
50 -
40 -
30-
20 .
10
Figure 17
Zinc
H r^, H,HHHHOJCMOJ
mg/kg dry
Figure 18
Aluminum
-J ' T r i* 4 "1 ~~ "1 T
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
mg/kg dry
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-------
1
1
1
100 -
190 -
80 -
1 T0"
1 6°
f as 50
| * kO -
30
20
10 -
.J_V^
1
1
100 .
1 9° -
80 -
70-
60 -
i '<" ;::
i "
^H o c\
20 -
10
1
1
1
Figure 19
Mercury
I 1 1 i 1 i i
OJ^KOCOOOJ-^-VQOOOOJ-^tVQCOOCx]
HHHHHOJOJOJOJCMPOrO
mg/kg dry
Figure 20
Iron
-..I... n fc
r*~""i . i '"[ [ \ i
8888888888888888
LTN O LT\ O LT\ O LT\ O L'N O l/N O L^ O '.r\ O
t O CM ITNl^OOJ LC\I>-OCM IJAtOOJ LT\
HHHHOJCMnjojmromro^tJ-^t
mg/kg dry
VLI-k
-------
-------
APPENDIX III
-------
VIII-1
NORFOLK, VIRGINIA DREDGING SITES
Sample
Number
7l|020701
02
03
Ok
05
06
07
08
09
10
11
12
13
Ik
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
2k
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
3k
35
36
37
38
39
Station
Location
A 1
2
3
k
B 1
2
3
li
C 1
2
3
li
D 1
2
3
k
E 1
2
It
F 1
2
3
G 1
2
3
H 1
2
3
I 1
2
3
It
J 1
2
3
It
5
6
7
Core
Description
dark gray
medium gray - slight clay
medium gray clay
medium gray clay
medium/dark gray - dark bands & medium gray bands
medium gray clay - some shells
gray clay - some shells
- light gray - some sand
black - distinct air pockets
medium gray clay - some shells
medium gray clay - some sand
core of 3" - total core - taken as sample
sand, worms, large pieces of shell, pebbles
black - air pockets
black - air pockets
gray clay - small pebbles, shells
core of k" - total core - taken as sample
medium gray, sand
black - dark band & medium gray band - sample taken
from dark band
medium gray/black sand - distinct air pockets
core of k" - total core - taken as sample
light gray clay - very dry, extremely low moisture
median gray
black - some sand - air pockets
black - air pockets
dark gray
black - air pockets
core of 5" - total core - taken as sample
medium gray with sand - hard
medium gray
dark gray - varying shades of gray bands
black with shells - low moisture
medium gray
medium gray
dark gray
black - air pockets
medium gray
medium gray
medium gray - some sand
dark gray with sand
black - air pockets - heavy gray bottom of core
sample contains heavy brown clay - some sand -
medium gray band and dark gray band
medium gray - some sand
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
VIII-2
Sample Station Core
Number Location Description
K 1 dark gray/medium gray/dark gray bands -
core from first dark band
ij.1 2 dark gray with sand - pulverized dry sample
contained fish scales (identity confirmed
by AFO biology section)
i|2 LI dark gray
h3 2 dark gray
ilk 3 core of 6" - total core - taken as sample
medium gray
Ii5 Ml dark gray - alternating medium, dark gray
and black bands, about k" each
1|6 2 black - air pockets
hi N 1 medium gray clay with sand, shells
h$ 2 black/ dark gray/ medium gray bands -
sample taken from black band - air pockets
k9 3 black
-------
VIII-3
NORFOLK, VIRGINIA DREDGING SITES
Sample
Number
7U021U01
02
03
Oli
05
06
07
08
09
10
11
12
13
lli
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
2k
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
3k
Station
Location
EB 1
2
3
k
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
111
WB 1
2
3
k
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
SB 1
2
3
u
5
6
7
9
Core
Description
dark gray, some sand, small pebbles
black, some shell
black/dark gray/light gray bands - sample from
black band - light gray portion has definite
orange streaks
black
dark gray, some sand
dark gray/black bands - sajnple from dark gray band
black
black/dark gray bands - sample from black band
dark gray, some sand and shell
black, air pockets
dark gray, air pockets
dark gray
dark gray, some sand
dark gray, small pebbles
medium gray, very low moisture
medium gray, sand and pebbles
medium gray, low moisture
medium gray, many shells & organic debris, some sand
3" core - total taken as sample - dark gray,
organic debris
medium gray, some sand & shell
3" core - total taken as sample - dark gray,
organic debris
dark gray
medium gray, some sand
medium gray
medium gray
medium gray
medium gray-brown/light brown bands - sample from
medium gray-brown band - difficult to get sample
well.-mixed - extremely hard and brittle - almost
solid clay - yellow-brown sandy center of core
dark gray with lots of sand
1|" core - total core taken as sample - dark gray,
much sand, small pebbles, organic debris
light gray with orange streaks - yellow-brown sandy
center of core - greenish cast when mixed
black
black, center is gray granular
black, air pockets
black mixed with light gray clay
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Sample Station Core
Number Location Description
SB 10 black, air pockets
36 11 medium gray, organic debris (hunk of decaying wood)
some sand
37 12 black
38 13 black, air pockets
39 111 dark gray with sand and shell
1|0 15> black, air pockets
111 16 medium gray/brown with sand
1|2 17 medium gray clay
1|3 18 black, light gray granular center, sand
kk 19 black, air pockets
1|5 20 black/brown, some sand, bottom 2" of core sandy brown
1|6 21 brown with sand, sulfide odor
hi 22 brown, large amount of organic debris, some sand
-------
-------
APPENDIX IV
-------
IX-1
Metal
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Mercury
Lead
Nickel
Zinc
TOXICITY OF
Chemical
Symbol
As
Cd
Cr
Cu
Hg
Pb
Ni
Zn
Tattle 2 11
METALS TO MARINE LIFE
Range of Concentrations that have
Toxic Effects on Marine Life
(mg/1 or ppm)
2.0
0.01 to 10
1.0
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
10.0
"TTational Estuarine Pollution Study, U.S. Dept. of the Interior,
IWPCA, 'oL. II, Page IV, 3^6 (Nov. 3, 1969)
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-------
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
I]
TABLE 22
TRACE METALS - USES AMD HAZARDS
Metals Industrial Use
Arsenic coal, petroleum,, deter-
gents, pesticides, mine
tailings
Barium paints, linoleum, paper,
drilling mud
Cadmium batteries, paints, plas-
tics, coal, zinc mining,
water mains and pipes,
tobacco smoke
Chromium alloys, refractories,
catalysts
Lead batteries, auto exhaust
from gasoline, paints
(prior to 19U8)
Mercury coal, electrical batter-
ies, fungicides, elec-
trical instruments, paper
and pulp, pharmaceuti-
cals
Nickel diesel oil, residual oil,
coal, tobacco smoke, chem-
icals and catalysts,
steel and nonferrous al-
loys, plating
Health Effects
hazard disputed, may cause
cancer
muscular and cardiovascular
disorders, kidney damage
high blood pressure, ster-
ility, flu- like disorders,
cardiovascular disease and
hypertension in humans
suspected, interferes with
zinc and copper metabolism
skin disorders, lung can-
cer, liver damage
colic, brain damage, con-
vulsions, behavioral dis-
orders, death
birth defects, nerve dam-
age, death
dermatitis, lung cancer
(as carbonyl)
-------
I
REFERENCES
1. Blankenship, William M., personal communication, Dec. 20, 1971- I
2. Pheiffer, T.H., D.K. Donnelly, and D.A. Possehl, "Water Quality
Conditions in the Chesapeake Bay System," Environmental Protection
Agency Technical Report No. 55, Annapolis Field Office (August 1972). |
3. Blick, R.A.P., and 3. Wisely, "Mortality of Marine Invertebrate
Larvae in Hg, Cu, arid Zn Solutions," Aust . J . Mar . Freshwat . Res . ,
18(1): 63 (1967). "
k. Browning, E., "Toxicity of Industrial Metals," Butterworths , I
London, England (1961).
5. Corner, E.D.S., and B. W. Sparrows, "The Mode of Action of Toxic
Agents. I. Observations on the Poisoning of Certain Crustaceans |
by Copper and Mercury," Jour . of Mar . Biol . Assoc . , V.K. 35., 531
(1956). -
6. Curley, A., et al . , "Organic Mercury Identified as the Cause of
Poisoning in Humans and Hogs," Science, 172 (1971).
7- Axelson, G., and P. Magnus, "Renal Damage after Prolonged Exposure I
to Cadmium," A.M. A. Archives of Environmental Health, Karolinska
Institutet, Stockholme, Sweden, p. 360 (1966).
8. Irukayama, K.T. Kondo, F. Kai, and M. Fujiki, "Studies on the
origin of the causative agent of Minimata desease. I. Organic _
mercury compounds in the :fish and shellfish from Minimata Bay,"
Kumamoto Med. J., l4(U), pp. 157-169 (1961) . "
9- Schroeder, H.A., "Trace Metals and Chronic Diseases," Metal B
Bindings in Medicine, Lippincott Co., Philadelphia (1960) .
10. Kobayashi, J., "Relation between 'Itai-Itai' Disease and the
Pollution of River Waters by Cadmium from a Mine," presented
at the 5"th International Water Pollution Research Conference,
held in San Francisco, July-August, 1970, 7 p., 2 Ref ., 3 Tab.,
6 Fig., U.S.P.H.S., Grant WP-00359 (1970).
11. Faust, S., and J. Hunter (eds), Organic Compounds in Aquatic
Environments, Marcel Dekker, Inc., N.Y., Chap. 12 (1971)
12. Oliver, B. "Heavy Metals Levels in Ottawa and Rideau River
Sediments," Environmental Science and Technology, 7> Wo. 2,
p. 135 (February 1973T
I
I
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
13. Martin, D., et al., "Distribution of Naturally Occurring
Chelators (Humic Acids) and the Selected Trace Metals in some
West Coast Florida Streams, 1968-1969," Univ. of South, Florida,
Professional Papers Series Number 12, (April 1971)
Ik. U.S. Army Engineer District, Norfolk, Virginia (Sept. 1973).
15. Harvey, H.D., Jr., E.D. Thoerber, and J.A. Gordon, "Radiological
Survey of Hampton Roads, Virginia," Southeastern Radiological
Health Laboratory, U.S. Dept. of Health, Education and Welfare,
Public Health Service, Bureau of Radiological Health, Montgomery,
Alabama (Jan. 1968).
16. Pleasants, J.B., "The Tidal James - A Review," Virginia Institute
of Marine Sciences Report No. 18, Applied Marine Science and
Ocean Engineering of VIMS, Gloucester Point, Virginia (August 1971)
17. Carpenter, J., personal communication, Johns Hopkins Univ. (1970).
18. StandaTdJMethods_fgr the Examination of Water and Wastewater,
APHA, AWWA, WPCF, 13th Edition, American Public Health Association,
N.Y. (1971).
19- Great Lakes Region Committee on Analytical Methods, "Chemistry
Laboratory Manual - Bottom Sediments," F^QA, Environmental
Protection Agency (December 1969).
20. Goulden, P.D., and B.K. Afghan, "An Automated Method for Determining
Mercury in Water," Te_chnicon Adv. in AutoAnal., 2, p. 317 (1970).
21. Finger, J., personal communication, Southeast Water Laboratory,
Analytical Services Section (1970).
22. "Mercury in Water (Automated Cold Vapor Technique)," Environmental
Protection Agency, Southeast Water Laboratory, Chemical Services
Section (April 1972).
23. Biggs, R.B., "The Sediments of Chesapeake Bay," Estuaries,
G.H. Lauff (ed), Publication No. 83, American Association for the
Advancement of Science, pp. 230-260 (1967).
2k. Smirnow, L.P., "Black Sea Basin," in Habitat of Oil, L.G. Weeks
(ed), Am. Assoc, Petrol. Geologists, Tulsa, Oklahoma, pp. 922-99^
(1958).
-------
I
25. Emery, K.O., and S.C. Rittenberg, "Early Diagenesis of California *
Basin Sediments with Special Reference to the Origin of Oil,"
Bull. Am. Assoc. Petrol Geologists, 36:735-806 (1952).
26. Van Straaten, L.M.J.U., 'Composition and Structure of Recent
Marine Sediments in the Netherlands," Leidse, Geol. Mededel,
(195*0. I
27. Manheim, F., "Geochemical Cross-Section of the Baltic Sea," _
Geochim, Cosmochim. Acta, 25:52-70 (I96l). I
28. Oppenheimei', C.H., "Bacterial Activity in Sediments in Shallow
Marine Bays," Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta., 19(U):I6l4-l623 (1960).
29. Priddy, R.R., "Recent Mississippi Sounds Sediments compared
with some Upper Cretaceous Sediments," Trans. Gulf Coast Assoc.
Geol. Soc, Ii:159-l68 (195*0 .
30. Bigga, R.B., "Trace Metal Concentration in the Sediments of
Baltimore Harbor at Dundalk Marine Terminal
Laboratory, CBL Ref. Wo. 68-97 (Dec. 1968).
Baltimore Harbor at Dundalk Marine Terminal," Chesapeake Biological
31. Villa, 0. and P.G. Johnson, "Distribution of Metals in
Baltimore Harbor Sediments," Environmental Protection Agency |
Technical Report No. 59, Annapolis Field Office (Jan. 197*0.
32. Pritchard, D.W., "Salinity Distribution and Circulation in the I
Chesapeake Bay Estuarine System," J. Marine Res., 11:106-123
(1952).
33- Ryan, J.D., "The Sediments of Chesapeake Bay," Maryland Board
of Natural Resources, Dept. of Geol. Mines, Water Resources
Bulletin No. 12 (1953).
3k. Huggett, R.J., M.E. Bender, and H.D. Slone, "Utilizing Metal
Concentration in the Eastern Oyster (Crassostrea Virginica) to _
Detect Heavy Metal Pollution," Virginia Institute of Marine
Sciences Contribution No. ^31, Gloucester Point, Virginia (1971).
35. Kopfler, F.C., and J. Mayer, "Studies of Trace Metals in Shellfish,"
Proceedings, Gulf and South Atlantic Shellfish Sanitation I
Research Conference, March 1967, Gulf Coast Marine Health Service
Laboratory, Dauphic Island, Alabama (1969)
36. Bender, M.E., R.J. Hugget, and J.D. Slone, "Heavy Metals -
an Inventory of Existing Conditions," J. Wash. Acad. Sci., _
Vol. 62, No. 2 (1972). " I
I
I
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
37- ASTM Manual on Quality; Control of jjaterials, Special Technical
Publication 15-C, Jan. 1951-
38. Sommer, S.E., and A.J. Pyzik, "Geochemistry of Middle Chesapeake
Bay Sediments from Upper Cretaceous to Present," Chesapeake^Sci.,
Vol. 15, No. 1, p. 39-44, (March 1974).
39- Cross, F.A., e^__aj.._} "Biogeochemistry of Trace Elements in a
Coastal Plain Estuary: Distribution of Mn, Fe and Zn in Sediments,
Water, and Polychaetous Worms," Chesapeake_Science, Vol. 11, No. 4,
p. 221-234 (Dec. 1970).
hO. Holmes, C.W., et al., "Migration and Redistributi .->u of Zn and
Cd in Marine Estuarine Systems," Environmental Science and
Technology, Vol. 8, No. 3, pp. 255-259 (March 197*0.
41. Singer, P.C. (ed), Trace Metals and Met,al Organic Interactions
in Natural Waters, Ann Arbor Science, Michigan (1973)
42, Walter, L.J., Jr., "Transfer of Heavy Metal Pollutants from
Lake Erie Bottom Sediments to the Overlying Water," Water
Resources Center, Ohio State Univ., Columbus, Ohio (1974).
43. Chesapeake Bilogical Laboratory, "A Biological Inventory of
Baltimore Harbor," Natural Resources Institute, Univ. of Md.,
N.R.I. Ref. No. 71-76 (Sept. 1971).
44. Neilson, B.J, "A Water Quality Study of the Elizabeth River:
The Effects of the Army Base and Lambert Point STP Effluents,"
Special Report No. 75 in Applied Marine Science and Ocean
Engineering, Virginia Institute of Marine Science, Gloucester
Point, Virginia (May 1975).
45. Drifmeyer, J.E. and W. E. Odum, "Lead, Zinc and Manganese, in
Dredge-spoil Pond Ecosystems," Environmental Conservation,
Vol. 2, No. 1 (Spring 1975).
46. Richardson, M.D., "Benthic Macroinvertebrate Communities as
Indicators of Pollution in the Elizabeth River, Hampton Roads,
Virginia," a thesis for the faculty of the school of Marine
Science, William and Mary (1971).
47. Boesch, D.F., "Distribution and Structure of Benthic Communities
in the Hampton Roads Area, Virginia," a technical ecological report
to the Hampton Roads Sanitation District Commission, special
report No. 15, Virginia Institute of Marine Science, (April 1971).
-------
I
U8. Bender, M.E., "Physical, Chemical and Biological Features of I
the Tidal James," Final Report for Task VII-13, Virginia Institute
of Marine Science (April 1972).
^9. "Lower James River Basin Comprehensive Water Quality Management
Study," prepared by Engineering Science Co. for the Virginia
State Water Control Board, Planning Bulletin No. 217-B (July 197*0 . I
50. Huggett, R.J., et al., "A Report on the Concentration, Distribution
and Impact of Certain Trace Metals from Sewage Treatment Plants
on the Chesapeake Bay," CRC Publication No. 31, VIMS Contribution |
No. 628 (June 197*)-) .
51. Frazier, John M., "The Dynamics of Metals in the American I
Oyster, Crassostrea virginica. 1. Seasonal Effects," Chesapeake
Science, Vol. 16, No. 3,, p. 162-171 (Sept. 1975).
52. "James River Comprehensive Water Quality Management Study,"
Vol. VII- 8 & 9 Section A - Existing Data Base for Industrial
Wastewater Management Systems, Commonwealth of Virginia Water
Control Board (May 1973). |
53- Ballinger, D.G., and G.D. McKee, "Chemical Characterization
of Bottom Sediments," Journal of Water Pollution Control Federation, I
Vol. U3, No. 2, p. 216^227 (February 1971).*
5*)-. Carmody, D.J., Pearce, J.B., and W.E. Yasso, "Trace Metals I
in Sediments of the New York Bight," Mar. Poll. Bull., M9),
p. 132-135 (1973).
55- Frazier, J.M., "Current Status of Knowledge of the Biological |
Effects of Heavy Metals in the Chesapeake Bay," Chesapeake Science,
13 (Supplement), p 51^9-53 (1972). _
I
I
I
I
I
I
-------
|