PROTECT/ON
AGENCY
TEXAS
Speed of Action
of Metals Acute Toxicity
to Aquatic Life
Package Contents:
EPA Summary Tables
Memorandum and Tables, July 19, 1994
(Search Strategy and Data Compilation, All Metals)
Memorandum, Table, and Graphs, November 7, 1994
(Data Analysis for Copper)
Memorandum, Tables, and Graphs, December 19, 1994
(Data Analysis for Other Metals)
December 14, 1995
-------
NOTICES
The results compiled in this package were originally released in April 1995 in
response to a request for information. The results were reviewed by the
Environmental Research Laboratory - Duluth, and the Office of Science and
Technology (Office of Water), Environmental Protection Agency. As of the date of
this package, the results had not been externally peer reviewed, and the Agency
had not come to a formal conclusion about any possible change to criteria guidance
regarding acute averaging periods for metals.
For this package, the original data compilation accompanying the Abt Associates
July 19, 1994, memorandum was reformatted to eliminate white space. The
November 7 and December 19, 1994, memoranda were edited for brevity, while
retaining, unedited, the speed of action results for each usable test.
Mention of trade names or commercial products does not constitute endorsement
thereof.
A contact for further enquiries is Charles Delos, Mail Code 4304, U.S. EPA,
Washington, DC 20460; phone 202-260-7039, fax 202-260-1036.
-------
Summary Table 1. Speed of Action of Metals Toxicity for Freshwater Species
12/14/95
Kinetic Coefficient k, estimated by non-linear regression analysis of LC50 versus time data.
Averaging period = 1/k. bounded by first observation time and the acute test duration.
GMAV
FAV=18.5
16.7
17.1
25.2
76.9
82.1
88.5
90
91.3
125
157
807
900
4600
10240
Genus
Copper
Rychocheil.
Ptychocheil.
Daphnia
Daphnia
Daphnia
Daphnia
Daphnia
Daphnia
Daphnia
Gammerus
Gammerus
Gammerus
Chironomus
Salmo
Salmo
Salmo
Salmo
Salmo
Oncorhynch.
Oncorhynch.
Oncorhynch.
Oncorhynch.
Nais
Pimephales
3imephales
Pimephales
Pimephales
Pimephales
'imephales
'imephales
Pimephales
Poecilia
Carassius
Lepomis
Lepomis
Amnicola
Crangonyx
Damselfly
Caddisfly^
Species
oregonensis
oregonensis
magna
magna
magna
magna
magna
magna
pulex
pulex
pulex
sp.
sp.
gairdneri
gairdneri
gairdneri
gairdneri
gairdneri
tshawytscha
tshawytscha
tshawytscha
tshawytscha
sp.
promelas
promelas
promelas
promelas
promelas
promelas
promelas
promelas
reticulata
auratus
macrochirus
macrochirus
sp.
Life
Stage
juv
juv
1-d
6-d
parr
swm-up
smolt
smott
alevin
alevin
swm-up
parr
smolt
adult
adult
1-2g
1-2g
1-2g
1-2g
1-2g
1-2g
6 mo.
1-2g
1-2g
1-2Q
adult
pseudogracilis
Study Citation
Andros & Garton 1980
Andros & Garton 1980
Adema & Degroot 1972
Adema & Degroot 1972
Caimsetal. 1978
Cabejszek & Stasiak 1960
Dave 1984
Dave 1984
Caimsetal. 1978
Stephenson 1 983
Stephenson 1 983
Rehwoldt 1973
Rehwoldt1973
Chapman 1975
Chapman 1975
Chapman 1975
Chapman 1975
Chapman 1975
Chapman 1975
Chapman 1975
Chapman 1 975
Chapman 1975
Rehwoldt 1973
Birgeet al. 1983
Birgeetal. 1983 ^_
Pickering & Henderson
Pickering & Henderson
Pickering & Henderson
Pickering & Henderson
Pickering & Henderson
Pickering & Henderson
Pickering & Henderson
Pickering & Henderson
Pickering & Henderson
Pickering & Henderson
Renwoldt1973
Martin & Holdich 1986
Rehwoldt 1973
Rehwoldt 1973
1966
1966
1966
1966
1966
1966
1966
1966
1966
1966
No. Study
Obs. Design
Times
2
2 •
2
2
2
5
4
2
2
4
4
2
2
3
2
3
2
2
3
3
3
3
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
2
2
2
F,M
F, M
S, U
s,u
S, U
S, U
Rfed, U
S, U
S, U
R,U
R, U
S, M
S,M
F, M
F,M
F, M
F, M
F, M
F, M
F, M
F, M
F, M
S, M
S, M
S, M
S, U
s,u
S, U
s,u
S, U
S, U
s,u
S, U
S, U
S, U
S, U
F, M
S, M
S, M
Estim.
Kinetic
Coef
(1/nr)
1.9E-03
NC
3.2E-02
4.6E-02
NC
8.0E-04
7.2E-05
2.6E-03
NC
4.2E-03
3.0E-04
5.9E-02
NC
1.5E-02
3.7E-02
1.3E-02
1.1E-02
2.5E-02
1.3E-02
4.0E-02
7.6E-03
2.4E-02
NC
6.2E-02
3.0E-02
4.7E-02
3.2E-02
4.0E-02
3.8E-02
4.2E-02
5.1E-02
4.3E-03
1.5E-02
6.2E-02
1.3E-01
3.6E-02
2.4E-03
2.0E-02
2.7E-02
Equivalent
Averaging
Period
(hr)
>96
>96
31
22
<24
>48
>48
>48
>48
>48
>48
17
>48
67
27
77
91
40
77
25
>96
42
>48
16
33
21
31
25
26
24
20
>96
67
16
8
28
>96
50
37
-------
GMAV
FAV=3.59
30.5
3570
3641
8325
FAV=31
28.9
67.1
30000
47180
119500
123500
Genus
Cadmium
Pimephales
Pimephales
Pimephales
Pimephales
Pimephales
Pimephales
Poecilia
.epomis
Lepomis
Lepomis
Carassius
Species
promelas
promelas
promelas
promelas
promelas
promelas
reticulata
cyanellus
cyanellus
macrochirus
auratus
Life
Stage
adult
adult
1-2Q
1-2g
1-2Q
1-2g
6 mo.
1-2g
1-2g
Study Citation
Birge et al. 1983
Birgeetal. 1983
Pickering & Henderson 1966
Pickering & Henderson 1 966
Pickering & Henderson 1 966
Pickering & Henderson 1966
Pickering & Henderson 1966
Pickering & Henderson 1966
Pickering & Henderson 1 966
Pickering & Henderson 1 966
Pickering & Henderson 1 966
No.
Obs.
Study
Design
Times
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
S,M
S, M
s,u
S, U
Sppt, U
Sppt, U
S, U
S, U
Sppt, U
S, U
S, U
Chromium VI
Daphnia
Daphnia
Daphnia
Daphnia
Daphnia
Dapjinia
Daphnia
Daphnia
Daphnia
Daphnia
Daphnia
Daphnia
Daphnia
Daphnia
Daphnia
Daphnia
Daphnia
Daphnia
Daphnia
Daphnia
Daphnia
Daphnia
Daphnia
Daphnia
Daphnia
Daphnia
Gammarus
Gammarus
'oecilia
Pimephales
Pimephales
Carassius
Lepomis
Lepomis
magna
magna
magna
magna
magna
magna
magna
magna
magna
magna
magna
magna
magna
magna
magna
magna
magna
magna
magna
magna
magna
magna
magna
magna
magna
pulex
pseudolimn.
pseudolimn.
reticulata
promelas
promelas
auratus
macrochirus
macrochirus
12-24 h
>7d
6 mo.
1-2g
1-2g
1-2g
1-2fl
1-2g
Caimsetal. 1978
Call etal. 1981
Call etal. 1981
Call et al. 1981
Call etal. 1981
Call etal. 1981
Call etal. 1981
Call etal. 1981
Call etal. 1981
Call etal. 1981
Call etal. 1981
Call etal. 1981
Call etal. 1981
Call etal. 1981
Call et al. 1981
Call etal. 1981
Call etal. 1981
Call etal. 1981
Call etal. 1981
Call etal. 1981
Stevenson & Watts 1984
Stevenson & Watts 1984
Stevenson & Watts 1984
Trabalka&Gehrs1977
Trabalka&Gehrs1977
Caimsetal. 1978
Call etal. 1983
Call etal. 1983
Pickering & Henderson 1966
Pickering & Henderson 1966
Pickering & Henderson 1966
Pickering & Henderson 1966
Pickering & Henderson 1966
Pickering & Henderson 1966
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
4
4
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
S, M
S, M
S, M
S, M
Sfed.M
S, M
S, M
S, M
Sfed, M
Sfed, M
S, M
S, M
S, M
Sfed, M
Sfed, M
S, M
S, M
S, M
Sfed, M
Sfed, M
S, U
S, U
S, U
S, M
S, M
S, M
F, M
S, M
S, U
S, U
S, U
S, U
S, U
S, U
Estim.
Kinetic
Coef
(1/hr)
5.9E-02
6.1E-02
1.6E-01
1.4E-01
1.1E-01
1.3E-01
1 .2E-02
1.3E-02
5.7E-02
1.8E-02
4.6E-02
9.2E-02
4.8E-02
4.1E-02
1.0E-02
1.6E-02
6.4E-02
1.1E-02
1.5E-02
3.7E-02
1.6E-02
5.1E-04
1.0E-03
6.0E-01
1.7E-02
2.0E-02
7.9E-04
1.1E-04
8.0E-04
2.0E-02
1.9E-02
8.3E-02
3.0E-02
1.9E-04
2.9E-05
1.8E-05
1.2E-01
NC
NC
1.3E-03
2.1E-02
1.9E-02
6.8E-03
1.7E-02
3.4E-02
Equivalent
Averaging
Period
(hr)
17
16
6
7
9
8
83
77
18
56
22
11
21
24
>48
>48
16
>48
>48
27
>48
>48
>48
2
>48
>48
>48
>48
>48
>48
>48
12
33
>48
>48
>48
8
>48
>48
>96
48
53
>96
59
29
-------
GMAV
FAV=67.5
. 143
448
25440
52310
66140
101100
FAV=1578
8027
9530
21320
FAV=1 .8
2.2
2.2
4.5
9.2
11.3
26
420
FAV=130
119
300
3830
6053
10250
10600
Genus
Lead
Gammarus
Daphnia
Pimephales
Pimephales
Pimephales
Lepomis
Lepomis
Poecilia
Carassius
Nickel
Pimephales
3imephales
"imephales
3imephales
Lepomis
Lepomis
Carassius
Silver
Daphnia
Daphnia
Leptophlebia
Gammarus
Jordanella
Pimephales
Hydra
Tanytarsus
Zinc
Morone
Daphnia
Daphnia
Pimephales
Pimephales
'imephales
Pimephales
Pimephales
Poecilia
Carassius
Lepomis
Lepomis
Lepomis
Lepomis
Lepomis
Species
pseudolimn.
magna
promelas
promelas
promelas
macrochirus
macrochirus
reticulata
auratus
promelas
promelas
promelas
promelas
macrochirus
macrochirus
auratus
magna
magna
sp.
pseudolimn.
floridae
promelas
sp.
dissimilis
saxatilis
magna
pulex
promelas
promelas
promelas
promelas
promelas
reticulata
auratus
macrochirus
macrochirus
macrochirus
macrochirus
macrochirus
Life
Stage
1-2g
1-2Q
1-2fl
1-2g
6 mo.
1-2g
1-2g
1-2g
1-2g
1-2g
1-2o
1-2g
1-2g
30-d
fngrling
adult
adult
1-2g
1-2g
1-2o
6 mo.
1-2o
1-2fl
1-2fl
1-2fl
1-2fl
1-2o
Study Citation
Call etal. 1983
Khangarot & Ray 1 987
Pickering & Henderson
Pickering & Henderson
Pickering & Henderson
Pickering & Henderson
Pickering & Henderson
Pickering & Henderson
Pickering & Henderson
Pickering & Henderson
Pickering & Henderson
Pickering & Henderson
Pickering & Henderson
Pickering & Henderson
Pickering & Henderson
Pickering & Henderson
Khangarot & Ray 1987
LeBlanc1980
Brook etal. 1976
Call etal. 1983
Call etal, 1983
Call etal. 1983
Brook etal. 1976 ~ =_
Call etal. 1983
Rehwoldt et at. 1971
Caims etal. 1978
Cairns etal. 1978
Birgeet at. 1983
Birgeet at. 1983
Pickering & Henderson
Pickering & Henderson
Pickering & Henderson
Pickering & Henderson
Pickering & Henderson
Pickering & Henderson
Pickering & Henderson
Pickering & Henderson
Pickering & Henderson
Pickering & Henderson
1966
1966
1 9oo
1966
1966
1966
1966
1966
1966
1966
1966
1966
1966
1 9oo
M
1966
1 9oo
1966
1966
1966
1966
1966
1966
1966
1966
No. Study
Obs. Design
Times
2
2
3
3
3
3 .
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
2
3
4
4
4
2
2
3
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
S, M
S, U
Sppt, U
Sppt, U
Sppt, U
Sppt, U
Sppt, U
Sppt, U
Sppt, U
S, U
s,u
s,u
S, U
S, U
S, U
s,u
S, U
S, U
S, M
F, M
F, M
F, M
S, M
S, M
S, M
S, M
S, M
S, M
S, M
S, U
S, U
Sppt, U
s,u
S, U
S, U
s,u
S, U
s.u
Sppt, U
Estim.
Kinetic
Coef
(1/hr)
NC*
4.3E-02
4.7E-02
4.2E-02
NC
1.1E-01
1.2E-01
9.1E-02
4.8E-02
1.4E-02
2.0E-02
1.6E-02
3.2E-02
8.4E-05
2.2E-02
6.6E-03
7JE-04
6.3E-01
1.6E-02
1.3E-01
1.8E-04
4.9E-02
6.9E-02
2.2E-02
3.6E-02
3.4E-02
8.8E-02
9.0E-02
1.6E-01
NC
8.9E-02
1.4E-01
1.9E-02
5.0E-02
6.2E-02
6.7E-02
7.9E-02
7.4E-02
NC
Equivalent
Averaging
Period
(hr)
>48
23
21
24
<24
9
8
11
21
71
50
63
31
>96
45
>96
>48
2
>48
8
>96
20
14
45
28
29
11
11
6
<24
11
7
53
20
16
15
13
14
<24
S = Static, ppt = precipitate reported, fed=food added, R = Renewal, F = Flow-through; M = easured, U = Unmeas
NC = not computable as point value. NC* = not computed because no 24 hr observation.
-------
-------
Summary Table 2. Speed of Action of Metals Toxicity for Saltwater Species
Kinetic Coefficient, k, estimated by non-linear regression analysis of LC50 versus time data.
Averaging period = 1/k, bounded by first observation time and the acute test duration.
GMAV
FAV=9.6
FAV=85.1
78
645
1672
2413
10110
19170
32590
FAV=2158
2000
10000
32000
57000
74010
105000
FAV=434
315000
FAV=4.1
12
60
67
50
70
Genus
Copper
rundulus
:undulus
Cadmium
Homarus
Pagarus
Mya
Asterias
Nereis
Nassarius
rundulus
=undulus
Species
heteroclitus
heteroclitus
americanus
longicarpus
arenaria
forbesi
virens
obsoletus
heteroclitus
heteroclitus
Chromium VI
Nereis virens
Pagarus
Asterias
Mya
Fundulus
Fundulus
Nassarius
Lead
Fundulus
Mercury
Acartia
Acartia
Acartia
Mya
Asterias
Fundulus
:undulus
Fundulus
Pagarus
Nassarius
Nereis
longicarpus
fobesi
arenaria
heteroclitus
heteroclitus
obsoletus
heteroclitus
tonsa
tonsa
tonsa
arenana
forbesi
heteroclitus
heteroclitus
heteroclitus
longicarpus
obsoletus
virens
Life
Stage
adult
adult
larvae
adult
adult
adult
adult
adult
adult
adult
adult
adult
adult
adult
adult
adult
adult
adult
adult
adult
adult
adult
adult
adult
adult
adult
adult
adult
adult
Study Citation
Dorfman 1977
Dorfman 1977
Johnson & Gentile 1979
Eisler & Hennekey 1977
Eisler & Hennekey 1977
Eisler & Hennekey 1 977
Eisler & Hennekey 1977
Eisler & Hennekey 1977
Dorfman 1 977
Eisler & Hennekey 1977
Eisler & Hennekey 1977
Eisler & Hennekey 1977
Eisler & Hennekey 1977
Eisler & Hennekey 1977
Dorfman 1 977
Dorfman 1 977
Eisler & Hennekey 1977
Dorfman 1977
Sosnowski & Gentile 1978
Sosnowski & Gentile 1978
Sosnowski & Gentile 1 978
Eisler & Hennekey 1977
Eisler & Hennekey 1977
Dorfman 1977
Dorfman 1 977
Eisler & Hennekey 1977
Eisler & Hennekey 1977
Eisler & Hennekey 1977
Eisler & Hennekey 1977
No. Study
Obs. Design
Times
3 '
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
2
2
2
2
2
4
4
2
3
4
4
4
2
2
3
3
2
2
2
2
s, u
s,u
s, u
s, u
s, u
s, u
s, u
s, u
s, u
s, u
s, u
s,u
s, u
s,u
s,u
s,u
s, u
s,u
s, u
s, u
s, u
s,u
s,u
s,u
s, u
s, u
s, u
s, u
s, u
Estim.
Kinetic
Coef
(1/hr)
NC
NC
3.9E-05
7.5E-05
6.3E-02
5.4E-05
6.2E-05
1.8E-04
8.8E-02
8.1E-05
1.1E-05
7.6E-03
1.0E-08
3.7E-06
1.2E-04
NC
3.0E-03
4.0E-02
3.5E-02
5.8E-02
4.8E-02
6.5E-05
1 .4E-04
6.5E-05
3.7E-05
5.8E-05
3.4E-05
NC
7.4E-05
Equivalent
Averaging
Period
(hr)
>48
>48
>96
>96
16
>96
>96
>96
11
>96
>96
>96
>96
>96
>96
<24
>96
25
29
17
21
>96
>96
>96
>96
>96
>96
<24
>96
-------
GMAV
FAV=149
35000
47000
72000
149900
150000
320000
FAV=190
400
8856
6328
36630
50000
39000
Genus
Nickel
Nereis
Pagarus
Nassarius
Fundulus
Asterias
Mya
Silver
runduius
Zinc
3agarus
Nereis
Mya
=undulus
=undulus
:undulus
Nassarius
Asterias
- Species
. virens
longicarpus
obsoletus
heteroclitus
forbesi
arenaria
heteroclitus
longicarpus
virens
arenaria
heteroclitus
heteroclitus
heteroclitus
obsoletus
forbesi
Life
Stage
adult
adult
adult
adult
adult
adult
adult
adult
adult
adult
adult
adult
adult
adult
adult
Study Citation
Eisler & Hennekey 1 977
Eisler & Hennekey 1977
Eisler & Hennekey 1 977
Dorfman 1 977
Eisler & Hennekey 1977
Eisler & Hennekey 1977
Dorfman 1977
Eisler & Hennekey 1 977
Eisler & Hennekey 1 977
Eisler & Hennekey 1977
Dorfman 1977
Dorfman 1 977
Eisler & Hennekey 1 977
Eisler & Hennekey 1977
Eisler & Hennekey 1977
No.
Obs.
Study
Design
Times
2
2
2
4
2
2 •
4
2
2
2
4
4
2
2
2
s, u
s, u
s,u
s,u
s, u
s, u
s, u
s,u
s,u
s, u
s,u
s, u
s, u
S.U
s, u
Estim.
Kinetic
Coef
d/hr)
1.4E-04
1.2E-02
2.8E-04
2.1E-02
3.0E-02
2.0E-02
6.5E-05
1 .OE-04
1 .6E-02
1. OE-04
8.6E-02
1. OE-04
2.3E-02
8.8E-03
1. OE-04
Equivalent
Averaging
Period
(hr)
>96
83
>96
48
33
50
>96
>96
63
>96
12
>96
43
>96
>96
S = Static, ppt = precipitate reported, fed=food added, R = Renewal, F = Flow-through; M = Measured, U = Unmeas
NC = not computable as point value. NC* = not computed because no 24 hr observation.
-------
TO:
FROM:
MEMORANDUM
Charles Delos
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Health and Ecological Criteria Division
Keith Sappington, Caryl Waggett
Abt Associates Inc.
DATE: July 19, 1994
SUBJECT: Documentation of LC50 vs. Exposure Time Data
As requested, we have compiled time-varying LC50 data (e.g., LC50 vs. exposure time)
for cadmium, copper, chromium (VI), lead, silver, and zinc. These metals were designated as
"high priority" in your April 8th memorandum outlining the LC50 documentation task. We
retrieved studies for the other "low priority" chemicals but did not evaluate these studies because
of resource constraints.
Upon initial inspection, it appears that sufficient data were compiled for most of
freshwater genera, but not for the saltwater genera. Therefore, a second attempt at retrieving
additional information from the Narragansett lab will be necessary to expand the saltwater
database. Since this effort would have extended significantly'beyond the original resources
allotted for this task, we did not pursue the collection and evaluation of additional saltwater data.
Upon your approval, we will initiate a second retrieval process and compile additional saltwater
data.
Provided below are descriptions of the data collection and compilation efforts. Results
of the task (i.e., the time-varying LC50 data) are shown in Tables 1-4 at the end of this
memorandum.
DATA COLLECTION AND EXTRACTION
Chemicals of Focus
We collected approximately 150 studies from the Duluth and Narragansett Laboratories
pertaining to all 10 metals .outlined in your memorandum. These include:
-------
Page 2
• High Priority: cadmium, chromium (VI), copper, lead, silver, zinc
• Lower Priority: arsenic (III), chromium (III), mercury, nickel,
selenium (IV & VI)
As previously discussed, we extracted data only from studies corresponding to the high
priority metals.
Genera Considered
As requested in your memorandum, we focussed our data collection efforts on the more
sensitive genera for each metal as determined by the "Table 3" criteria document rankings.
Since the goal was to obtain time-varying LC50 data from the four most sensitive genera for
which data were available, we reviewed studies on the six most sensitive genera in anticipation
of data gaps.
Data Sources Used
Data collected were referenced studies in "Table 1" of the following aquatic life criteria
documents:
• Cadmium (EPA 440/5-84/032) • Arsenic (EPA 440/5-84/033)
• • Copper (EPA 440/5-84/031) • Mercury (EPA 440/5-84/028)
• Chromium (EPA 440/5-84/029) • Nickel (EPA/5-86/004)
• Lead (EPA 440/5-84/027) • . Selenium (EPA/5-87/006)
• Silver (Draft, 9/24/87)
• Zinc (EPA 440/5-87/003)
Potentially useful data were also identified in "Table 6" of the criteria documents.
However, due to resource constraints, we did not retrieve these studies.
Type of Data Compiled
We recorded the following information when time-varying LC50 data were available in
a study:
• The pollutant, chemical formulation, study reference (citation), genus &
species, life stage, and genus rank
• The toxicity test series (if multiple tests were conducted in a single study)
• All LC50s, and corresponding exposure times generally lasting up to 7
days
• Water hardness where relevant
• Whether the study contained raw data on mortality vs. exposure time
(yes/no)
• Any pertinent information regarding study quality or data interpretation
(e.g., feeding of organisms, formation of precipitates during the test)
-------
Page 3
In anticipation of data gaps, we did not restrict our data extraction to LC50s for only the
6 most sensitive genera contained in the studies, but recorded data for all genera in most cases.
When available, we also recorded time-varying LC50 information for other metals. Importantly,
when multiple toxicity tests existed for a species in a given study (and chemical formulation),
we assigned "Test ID numbers" to each toxicity test in that study. This ensured that the LC50-
time data would not be incorrectly assigned to different toxicity tests within a study. This often
occurred when multiple life stages of a species were tested in a single study.
When time-varying LC50 data were not available in a study, -we recorded the following
information:
• The pollutant, chemical formulation, study reference (citation), genus &
species, life stage, and genus rank
• A designation that the study lacks useful LC50 vs. exposure time data
• A designation of whether the study contains raw data on mortality vs.
exposure time (yes/no)
• Any pertinent information regarding study quality or data interpretation
All data have gone through a QA/QC check. This included checking data against the
acute values in Table 1 of the criteria documents (were appropriate), verifying data against our
original data sheets, and reviewing the database for lexicological inconsistencies (e.g., where
shorter duration LC50s were less than longer duration LC50s within a test series)1.
RESULTS
The availability of time-varying LC50 data from studies consisting of the six most
sensitive genera is displayed in Table 1 for freshwater genera and Table 2 for saltwater genera.
The availability of time-varying LC50 data is also showfr-fo*. other genera that were part of the
studies we reviewed.
For freshwater genera, time- vary ing LC50 data were available for at least four of the six
most sensitive genera for cadmium and silver. Time- varying LC50 data were available for three
of the six most sensitive genera for copper, lead, and zinc and were available for other less
sensitive genera as shown in Table 1. For chromium (VI), time- varying LC50 data were
available for only two of the six most sensitive genera, but data were available for four other
less sensitive genera.
1 As noted in the freshwater database, a shorter duration LC50 was less than a longer term
LC50 in only one case (data by Kumada et al., 1980 for cadmium). This may be a result of a
translation or transcription error in the published study.
-------
Page 4
Far fewer data were available for saltwater genera. Time-varying LC50 data were
available for two of the six most sensitive genera for cadmium and only one genus for chromium
(VI), copper, lead and zinc. Data were also available for less sensitive genera for these
chemicals. No time-varying LC50 data were available for silver.
Tables 3 and 4 display the actual time-varying LC50 data for freshwater and saltwater
species, respectively. These tables are organized by chemical and genus ranking. Most LC50
data occur for 24, 48, and 96 hour exposure periods (for fish) and 24 and 48 hours (for
daphnids). LC50 data for salmonids from Chapman (1975) extend significantly beyond 96 hours
(e.g., up to 340 hours). Very few LC50s were measured for exposure durations of less than 24
hours. In terms of the data sources, the freshwater database is relatively diverse but is
dominated by data from Call et al. (1981), Chapman (1975) and Pickering and Henderson
(1966). The saltwater database is dominated by data from Eisler and Hennekey (1977) and
Dorfman (1977).
We hope this information is useful to you and the rest of the Guidelines Committee. We
have enclosed electronic versions of the tables in Lotus 123 (version 2.4). Please contact me
if data are needed in different formats (ASCII) or if anything is unclear in the tables.
-------
Sfi
2
0)
b
>•
1
2
X
(35
s
U
en
H
"o
U
Z
OS
1
33
a
-i
COPPER
P
^
i
|
U
•••MA
SSS
5
CADMIUP
-s . ^
4»
1?
x a
3 1*
e ^
V
a
w**l
H
a* -*^
zi
11
K
O
s . %
j *' •-
H
Genus Name
(Rank)
"
*"
u « 1
j > .5
enus Name
(Rank)
U
9 ^J
J S> '-
1 ~
z 1
U) fl
3 fie
S O
V
••••MMMi^^M
^2.1
If
V
z > z >• z >
2 3
ik l-^--sw|^ i^ "L
O 5 5. S8 ^— •
D *^ W ^
C J
o
> > z >• > z
I -1 a « >,
|3|s|£ |s |s|§
CJ aj i) r h ^* ^5
j U' U
> >< z z z >
i S
«_•!_ g ^ -o ^ 1 ^ i ^
g^ a- a- g- |- j-
O H «« £
>• >• z >» z z
| .2 g ^ 3
" -2 J3 *• 3 -Q
1 - -s N J*^ s^ 1 jr |s~
o ^> a< N^ ^ >«^ p >«*' c ^^ o ^-^
u Q 'C «8 5 a.
£ U ^ j
> Z Z >- Z Z
3 -2 a
cs -a o a J2
"3 5 •*" a — "u
9^ 5 ^ .2 ^ | ^ >.~ J ^
i/5 U »
>•>«>•>• Z >•
1 '2 1 1
-^ ^|^|^^^s^
„
g
O
1
8*
u
i
e-varying LCj,,
E
H
U i/5 ;/}
|s |§ |§ |§ |§
_, W) r/5
« 4) 3
Ss Is |= I§
o .5 r<3
-. cu f-
X M 3 ">
'3 3
!£!SS^I
«
3 -fl 8t«P!$2,C
-------
r Genera
Ol
~
s
•*••
1
V
>
1
en
1
S
X
t«
1
A
1
9
ime-varying LC
H
"8
£>
Z
S8
'S
>
•<
r*
Jj
z
£
u
z
N
SILVER
O
J
COPPER
|
OMIUM
s
U
|
i
<
u
;..
^ '£ .§
i
li
3S
c ^— '
O
S! . %
y g
li
e £
O
_ r-»
9! . v
<" 0) 2
III
o ^t
a ^ j
If
o
9 ^J
^ S .§
^
1 ^
ii
e C
V
u - a
•J * 2
li
i §
o
z z z z >• z
_>-
•£ ----'S - JJ- • a S3 u
(u g — g S c
1° i~ 1~ is|°!£i'|s
u
on
Z Z Z Z Z Z
« >» .3 S
1^1^ l_-2_l^ 8-
o— .yes H^ s ^ c.m a ^0
|| " < £? u
cj a, 2 <
>• Z Z Z Z Z
M 3 Crt 1-t C3 C3
*
z z > z z z
1 "8
3 - -fc n .2 «
CL y
> Z > Z Z Z
C/l
en p ...
•3^ 1^ J~ s^ |^ 1^
SC."2G- SC. gS^C'cS
* - ° J «
Z >» > Z Z Z
•| 3 .2 5 8 §
^•C SO- «C.'|,S gC- | S
£ 22 << u U u
2
e
u
1
u
13
a
U
i
S!
U
en
e
B
Time-va
1= 5,= Is 'is IS
£ ~ 2 0, | 0- 1 d | d
CO
l§
0.
0 ^ 3 ^^
- -^ -
U3
1^ f® 1- -a- !s> !~
u
a « .1 1
|§ 1 S i § 1 § 1 S
1
. ca
w
c
a
^ QJ < *»»
cue
'3 u £J
«s -, -a
*— S3
3 (J1 jf
•^ o
13 'S. u
o s o
c > c
-------
(0
i
2
I
I
•o
8
01
n
9
3
ii
1,
82
III,
i
zz
ri
o a
€•§.-§.-§.-§.•§.
zz
l
zz
zz
222$Z\22$22
^^^Jfl^^d^^^^^^g?*g***?gg**|g|?|g|g|*|g
zz
zz
•a -e
o
zzz
SB
U L)
-5-5
zzzz
s
•5-5
zz
•a-s
B
U IU W
all
tl
-------
s
i
w
&
3
•o
s
u
I
•s
I
n
JI
3s
n
a I
|
•1
I
i
zz
SS
SS
zz
S
u
zz
u
s
u
1
s
zz
s
ill
Izz
zz
•3-5
11
SS
zz
5,1
s
i
ST?
o j
zz
ya
tM n
SS
III!!
zz
I
SSS
ss
ss
zz
n m in
111
8
n
I
SS
11
•a
sss?
r\ * A /%
S
9.2
•i-g.
ss
•§.•&
i.i
_ T3
O'U
li
-------
(0
£
u.
5 =
3
r>
0
II
,in
i
I
111
S
S
I
888M8
II
i
S
E E
§
in !>/> 'in [in Itn in
CN (N i
-------
1
W
I
LL.
I
I
•o
s
3
III
ill
SsU
I
m
If
il
i
Z Z
S
•5-5
33
33
Z Z
552
O L)
Ul |1J IUUJ
Z Z
O D
555
&
383
8
$
&
•3*5
1
1
SS?
3o
15
•5-3-3
3311
33
liJli
33
-3-5-3
00
_ _
11 UJ 11 IU
33
zz
O L>
83
I
888
3 a
000
o a
33
•5-3
o j
oi3
838
o DO
•5-5
izz
o u
•5-3
o u
33
Z Z
.2 .3 .9
O
Z Z
i
_8
111 HI
i
rjSBSB0^*^*^^
-------
s
1
•o
3
o
«
4)
i
o
,1
!
o
Illl
z z
o
ZZ
o
zz
o
11
zzz
33
TiTi
.2
o
zz
I
$
12
zz
888
oo
S88
•« <8 «
00
88
oo
as
3$
O OIO
E5
O O
o
.£.£
olo
z
S3
IS
IS
12
i5
:*
i x
-------
(A
.2
s
n
•o
8
n
«
ii
ill
ii,
Ij
ii
Ml
II
° s
x r
ii
o'oio
IS 12 IS
i
SSj?
33
O|0
ss
o o
£ O
$
1111
zz
I
I
o
-g.-g.-g.
0,0,
u
O
I
-g.-g.-g.
o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o 0 o o o o o o o u o o o
O J
UJ JU
ii
i
I
i
o
i
11
II
_
o o
Z Z
S 2?
o o
ii
O
*,
I
»1>
§§
J
8J»SH
s
nil
IK IK I
Z
ss
clc
SIS
o
_ 6 E
III
•3 a
o o
Sip^coo)O*-
-------
o;
Is.
(0
2
u.
ol
u
«
A
•
r»
ij
If
i*
32
«
41
S.3,
o
aa
o o
a,aa.a
i
O
S 8
(B
I
u
o
!S
1
ill
zz
g
zz
SS
o o
zz
s
ZZ
ft
5. 5. o. 5. 5.
ZZ
Q. Q.
33 3
ob u
o 0,01010 o
[>/) iu) |u> 'in tn
o
zz
in ho - '•>
osl oi
0,0,
II?
n
OiO
333 3 I 3 I 3 3|3 3'3|3!3
O O O QiqUJ O O O U Qn!U
a
(/>' ICO 1(0 105
3 I 31 Dl 31 3
OiOiO'OlOlO
i *- 01 m
f*» h» P-
• n f> ^
-------
010 I
in lin
9
t»
II
i= z
I
W
I
P
IS
i§
Isi
Bi.
3
CO
I
zz
S
I
ili
z z
SIS
(T IT
56
in
-------
I
0)
i
1
9>
01
-------
IA
to
M
£
•o
s
3
.2
x>
.2
I
a
**l
£il
o 2.
o o o
fj (N £i *s
: el Bl «
1
z z
O
•a
I
^- iCM
CL at
u u
ii
NN
n n
c c
O»l OD
« n
£:£
NN
NN
NNN
ZZ
NNN
§
!
5
Z >
O
f
•a «a
S0
N N
§
i!
1
£r5£
ST?
ly
§
a
o
to
I
N
^515
1
NN
Z Z
N
z!zz
en ro
CM
-------
5 2
Is
B«,
I
(0
u.
0
IS
ill
.2
I
r»
i
!i
£s
-i S
OlOiOJ
!8lSi8i
=! = 1 =
O
E
s§
I
- «a -
III
a a a
&TS.-g.
la
« «
1 S!
5.1 5. Q. Q.
!!
II
a n
££
i33
I'S'Si-d =
I NININ N
c c e
M ,N IN
SIS
f
E E
I
5. 5.; a.
8
6i66
2|.
Nil
c c!c
IN IN ;N
o
_
If
•ft
z
S3
zz
cc
IN IN
zz
o
IN N IN IN ,N
o
zz
ccc
IN N IN
NN
ill
o o o
in in in
-_ C
S 3
zz
ccc
N N IN ,
a
i
L)
§•?
-------
•h
M
*
I
0)
a
(0
I
3
O
Ula
:S5
Z
n
^
O O
1
if
•s-s
1
S £
11
1
I
ts
-------
M
«
i
(0
&
I
2
s
I
£
I
•5
i!
51
ii
a JC
II
51
i
i
15 15
as
88
2
S
I
"SI
i
1
ii
I
II
i
I-8
.£ 9
I
11
UJ 111
n n
111
•g?
li
11
ii
B 13
11
ii
I
33
i
i
3333
1
11
O lij iD
I
9
ill
O LJ
i
14 J.
i
i
i
1
ouoo
S8S
o o o
-------
t
(0
I
o
a
9,
O
«d
0
4)
3
1-1
tli
U
I?
i
555
o o
1
O
o
o o
u
aa
u
I
U
i!
u
aa
i
U
O
3S3
55
u. u. u.
II
o
o o
Ill
iff
O
o!
fl
-------
ILS
til
II
w
V
I
m
I
re
co
I
3
I
•5
!*
•
S
o
f
:i
1
i
1
o
u
a
n t^
w
I
1111111
o
^j ^j ^j
III
JJ ^J
II
2
^J JJ ^J ^J
Illl
.
oo
f
1
I
II
1
1
11
=
ss
o u
11
I
o u
11
.2
^j ^j ^ ^j ^
Illll
-------
(0
18
01
3
i
\
2
w
i!
I j
s
ii
«
II
I
1
1
z
1
I
s
III
11
iu
ii
zz
3
111
zz
u
11
iiii
ii
u. u. u.
M
?
£££
I
ii
i
££
££
u
I
££
II
a
t
u
£££
!£
ICMP4M«M
-------
(0
1
o
S
9!
3
«
Z
.2
'C
ra
41
41
2
«
« S
£ o
o z
III
Si I
i!
s_
sisi
U-
if
!i
I
.1
o
o
9
£
3.3.
I
c c -s •= w
I!!!!
I
SS
^ P.
S
iff
gte
cccccccccccecceecececccc c:c c cic
,N IN IN IN IN IN IN IN IN IN 11^4 IN IN IN IN IN IN IN IN IN IN IN IN IN IN IN IN N JN
SS
1 : !
_ _
« .52
I
S3
O L>
Iflll
c
sis?
OIL)
• « to r»-
i (0 r^ n» r«- n» f*» P*- f^
IC4C«IMr4CslMfN*fM(NfMCN
-------
-------
MEMORANDUM
TO: Charles Delos
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Health and Ecological Criteria Division
FROM: Keith Sappington
Abt Associates Inc.
DATE: November 7, 1994
SUBJECT: Mancini Modeling of LC^ vs. Exposure Time Data
In this memorandum we provide results of our analysis of the relationship between
exposure time and the LC50 for one of the criteria heavy metals being evaluated (copper). We
provide these early results so that you can decide whether we should continue these analysis on
the remaining criteria heavy metals of interest. Described below are the methods and results
pertaining to the acute toxicity of copper to freshwater organisms.
METHODS
model:
As suggested by Russ Erickson, LC50 is assumed to depend on time according to the
LC50 =
LC50
where,
LC50oo = asymptotic LC50,
kr = kinetic constant, and
t = time.
For each set of LC50 and time observations, a non-linear regression was performed to
determine estimates for the parameters LCSOoo and kr, as well as estimates of the standard error
and the 95 % confidence interval for each parameter. The regressions were performed using
SAS.
\Lir\Lmil
-------
0)
a
a
o
o
(A ~
•M Q *J _
a
X
UJ
"55
o
TS
(A
O
4^
(0
'•^
Q
««
0)
£•
(0
E
3
0)
X
UJ
999
UJ LU LU
co
CNCNOI^NCSOCN U CMC4
Z 99999I9999*Z 99999999;9 9->99|99 9-9
>.;: UJ LU UJ UJUJUJUJUJ3LUUJUJUJ UJLUUJUJUJUJUJUJ-.UJ UJ .. UJ UJ $ UJ UJ UJ UJ
ScNpoj-- u> N. r> T-; «';:« p to •*;: CMpr-.CNpoocNr- n 10 :• CN c> ;j; to p h- ^
.£» n to -. 'T-« T-^ O«ST-» rsi oi' to ei W r> * n * «> ^+, r-'Sia T-S« ft, ri •. «N
O> to 00
<-> to oo » uo eo <-> Z o> rs « o to to
i i-. to r- (j w> i— CM to CM p , o o> to e £ v to fi T- -;• oo
'Zoi^notadait^n 10 ., id tn XCM CMSW
CNCNC>lD D
Q: w"f«"*u. u. u. u. u-Su. u. u. u.,
-------
Exhibit 2: Nonlinear Regression Analysis of Copper
Toxicity vs. Exposure Time for Selected Species
Daphnia magna
(Hardness = 250, Test I D 1)
30 —
25 -
24 72 120 168 216 264 312 360 408 456 504
Exposure time (hrs)
Daphnia magna
(Hardness = 250; Test I D 2)
10 t
24 48 72 96 120
Exposure Time (hrs)
Data from Dave, 1984
Daphnia magna
(Hardness = 226)
600
500 -
400
-300 -
uo !
200 |
I
100 -
0 i • 1 ' 1 < 1 1 1 ' 1—
0 24 48 72 96 120
Exposure Time (hrs)
Data from Cabejszek & Stasiak, 1960
-------
Exhibit 2: Nonlinear Regression Analysis of Copper
Toxicity vs. Exposure Time for Selected Species (cont'd)
Gammarus pulex
(Hardness.= 249)
450
24 48 72 96
Exposure Time (hrs)
Data from Stephenson, 1983
120
Gammarus pulex
(Hardness =104)
90 -
70
10
24 48 72 96
Exposure Time (hrs)
120
-------
Exhibit 2: Nonlinear Regression Analysis of Copper
Toxicity vs. Exposure Time for Selected Species (cont'd)
Salmo gairdneri
(Hardness = 23, parr stage)
22
20
I
8
lLC50inf = 139
95% CI= 12 1, 159
95% CI = 0 007, 0 023
32
LC50inf - 18 8
95%CI-8 5,41 8
!Kr= 013
195% CI-- 0019. 0045
16
48 96 144 192 240 288 .336 384
Exposure Time (hrs)
Salmo gairdneri
(Hardness = 23, swim-up stage)
18
•LCSOinf = 16 59
!Kr = 0037
14 -
48
^^
96 144 192 240 288 336 384
Exposure Time (hrs)
Salmo gairdneri
(Hardness = 23; smolt stage)
168 ^ >v
166 f ^***~ u
48 72 96 120 144 168 192 216 240
j Exposure Time (hrs)
Salmo gairdneri
(Hardness = 23; alevin stage)
32
i
'28
26
24
48 72 96 120 144 168 192 216
Exposure Time (hrs)
Data from Chapman, 1975
-------
Exhibit 2: Nonlinear Regression Analysis of Copper
Toxicity vs. Exposure Time for Selected Species (cont'd)
Oncorhynchus tshawytscha
(Hardness = 23, swimup stage)
24
XCSOinf- 187
:Kr- 04
22 -
o
s
20
18
24 48 72 96 120 144 168 192 216 240 264
Exposure Time (hrs)
Oncorhynchus tshawytscha
(Hardness = 23, parr stage)
120
168 216 264
Exposure Time (hrs)
312
Oncorhynchus tshawytscha
(Hardness = 23; smott stage)
22 f
20
LCSOmf - 23 7
95% CI - 7 8, 72 2
Kr - 0 024
95% CI--015,020
72 120
168 216 264
Exposure Time (hrs)
312 360
Oncorhynchus tshawytscha
(Hardness = 23; alevm stage)
28
ILCSOinf- IS 8
!95%CI= 176,20 I
Kr-0013
,95% Q = 0010. 0016
80 100 120- 140 160 180 200 220 240
Exposure time (hrs)
Data from Chapman, 1975
-------
Exhibit 2: Nonlinear Regression Analysis of Copper
Toxicity vs. Exposure Time for Selected Species (cont'd)
Pimephales promelas
(Hardness = 20, Test I D 1)
46
42 -
TLminf-262
95% CI = 2 8, 243
Kr-004
' 95V, CI--018, 026 }
24 48 72 96
Exposure Time (hrs)
120
Pimephales promelas
(Hardness = 20, Test I.D 2)
42
38
~34
I
£ 30 4-
26
22
18
TLm inf = 20 7
95%'CI- 1 6.268
jKr-003
i95%CI--0 15,021
24
48 72
Exposure Time (hrs)
96 120
Pimephales promelas
(Hardness = 20; Test I.D. 3)
40
36
TLmuif-239
195% CI-6 4, 896
JKr = 005
95% CI = -0 13,023
• 28
24 f
20 ^~
24
48 72 96
Exposure Time (hrs)
120
Pimephales promelas
(Hardness = 20; Test I D 4)
38
34 f
!>30 --
26 --
22 r
jTLmuif=206
|95V,CI=58736
|Kr- 038
! 95V, CI - -0 078, 0 15
18
24 43 72 96
Exposure Time (hrs)
120
Data from Pickering & Henderson, 1966
-------
Exhibit 2: Nonlinear Regression Analysis of Copper
Toxicity vs. Exposure Time for Selected Species (cont'd)
Poecilia reticulata
(Hardness = 20)
140
24 48 72 96
Exposure Time (hrs)
120
Carassius auratus
(Hardness = 20)
120
20
iTLminf-259
!95% CI = 006. 10800
'Kr = 0015
:95»/.ci = -0 12, 0 15
24 48 72 96 120
Exposure Time (hrs)
Lepomis macrochirus
(Hardness = 20)
900
800
E
700 t
600
TLm inf - 675
95% a = 389, 1170
Kr « 0 062
95% CI--0066. 019
L
24 48 72 96
Exposure Time (hrs)
120
Lepomis macrochirus
(Hardness = 360)
11000
10800 4-
I
3-10600 -•
I
E
f* 10400 --
10200 --
10000
24
lTLminf-10190
i 95% CI-10040, 10340
Kr = 013
|95%CI-011,0 15
48 72 96
Exposure Time (hrs)
120
Data from Pickering & Henderson, 1966
-------
Exhibit 2: Nonlinear Regression Analysis of the Copper
Toxicity vs. Exposure Time for Selected Species (cont'd)
Pimephales promeias
(Hardness = 360, T.est I D 5)
iTLmuif- 1690
! 95V. CI- 801. 3560
,Kr- 042
95%CI = -004, 013
48 72
Exposure Time (hrs)
96 120
Pimephales promeias
(Hardness = 360; Test I D 6)
1800
1600 1-
-1400 T
1200 ~
1000
TLminf* 1100
• 95V. CI > 500, 2400
'KT- 051
195% CI =-0073.0 18
24 48 72
Exposure Time (hrs)
96 120
Data from Pickering & Henderson, 1966
-------
-------
TO:
FROM:
MEMORANDUM
Charles Delos
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Health and Ecological Criteria Division
Keith Sappington, Matthew Wiener
Abt Associates Inc.
DATE: December 19, 1994
SUBJECT: Mancini Modeling of LCJO vs. Exposure Time Data
Provided in this memorandum are results from our analysis of the relationship between
exposure time and the LC50 for the remaining criteria heavy metals being evaluated (cadmium,
chromium, lead, mercury, nickel, silver, and zinc). Results are provided separately for the
analysis of freshwater and saltwater toxicity data.
METHODS
As suggested by Russ Erickson, the LC50 is assumed to depend on time according to the
equation:
IC50..
(1)
where,
LCSOoo = asymptotic LC50 (ug/1),
kr = kinetic constant (hr1), and
t = time (hr).
For each unique set of LC50 and time observations, a non-linear regression analysis was
performed to determine estimates for the parameters LCSOoo and kr, as well as estimates of the
95% confidence interval for each parameter. The regressions were performed using SAS. As
requested, we performed the regression analysis only on those data sets where at least one LC50
was available from an exposure duration of 24 hours or less.
-------
-------
O !=
ao,
o
< < Q T- t- T-
z z °
z z
J, U) UJ LU
;:: co in co
,_ o> *- cri
1 T- i- CM T-
9999
LU UJ UJ LU
in co CM co
Ni cp' r*i to
33333
99
U
T- (N
9 9
UJ UJ
r«* in
*- N."
°S
(N *-
9 9
Ul UJ
O) CO
CM CM
9 9
UJ UJ
in en
W CO
9e
II
= a ra a a
| 3 CM CM CM CjT
i a t- »- »• T-
Q. a a Q. Q.
CM -0
CM N.
T- A
3 S
11
*fl
i
. .
lii
a: a: s tc s.
(N CM CM CM CM CM
O O O O O O
o o o o o o
.S .S .3 .5 .S .3 .3 « .3 .3 .3 .3 .3 ™ .3 .3
CCCCCCCC
Q.Q.a.a.a.a.Q.a.Q.aL
CM. CM
11
ill
i^
E r
CLC
K2Cr2O7
K2Cr2O7
£ :
8
! .2 .!
! E i
! a:
o
i o O
! <2
-------
O £
£.%~
$• T"
ID ^v
e at
99Z1
LU LU
CO CO
CO TT
LU LU
CO ^"
lh CO
CO O
CM in
99
LU LU
«j> CM
CO
°9
CM CN CN CM
9999
LU LU LU LU
00i O)i CM I*-;
«- O) *- CN
Oi Csi ® ,-
CM CM O
992
99
LU LU
CM CM CM
999 .
LU LU LU LU
•* q cp CM
W CM ^ CO
LU LU
LU LU
^ CO
r^ CD
Isl
88"
LU
CM
ss
+ +
LU LU
oo in
+ + '
LU LU
P "*.
CM
CN
-------
O fe
a.
O !=
S»
O en
$
I
s-
1*1
Is
>?«;
01
pio
M
.£
.
&
CO
u
N
co
w
w
3
S-i
W
< < o
z z
< <
z z
UJ UJ
•* (O
i°9
UJ UJ
CO CO
CO T-
CN »- (J fM T-
99z9 9
« O !
ZZZ
co co o in
?o y F-
+ *• r~
UJ UJ
"~ ">
co r^
CO CO CO CO CO
CM CN CO CO CO
8f:R8
^- CN
T- CM T- CM CO
10 10 O) O) C3)
« -8 -E • •
CD CD Q_ Q_ I
10 W
si:
!!J§
I« «
•g-g-g-g
J .i .i .i .i
a. a. a. Q. a.
•*
o
O O O O
CO CO CO CO CO
c c c c
UJ
UJ
CO
CO
w
s
CO
CO
9 99 9z
LLJ LLJ LLJ LLJ
o in h- in
CO ^ «- ^
*— CN CN CO O
9999z
HI LU UJ Ul
°°. 9 *~ '"
• 'T
3888"
+ + + + ^
UJ LU HI UJ
•* CM CM
r^' co' N-
8888^
+ + + +
UJ LU UJ UJ
^ o) a> co
8888"
+ + + + z
UJ UJ UJ LU
in in •* in
CO CO CO CO CO
co co co co co
CN CM CN CN
c£ i£ SI
E E E E E
0> (0 .(0 M W
20000
U CO CO CO CO
c c c c c
N N N tsl N
L«,
^< o
-------
Exhibit 2a: Toxicity vs. Exposure Time for Selected Freshwater Species
Cadmium
Lepomis cyanellus
(Pickering & Henderson 1966, hrd 20)
10000 r
8000
6000
4000
2000
24 48 72 96 120
Exposure Time (hrs)
Lepomis cyanellus
(Pickering & Henderson 1966, hrd 360)
120000
100000
80000
60000
0 24 48 72 96 120
Exposure Time (hrs)
Lepomis macrochirus
(Pickering & Henderson 1966, hrd 20)
7000
5000
3000
1000
0 24 48 72 96 120
Exposure Time (hrs)
-------
Exhibit 2a (cont.): Toxicity vs. Exposure Time for Selected Freshwater Species
Cadmium
Pimephales promelas
(Hardness 20, Test I.D. 1)
1300
1200
1100
1000
24 48 72 96
Exposure Time (hrs)
120
Pimephales promelas
(Hardness 20, Test I.D. 2)
800
750
650
600
24 48 72 96
Exposure Time (hrs)
120
Pimephales promelas
(Hardness 360, Test I.D. 3)
100000
90000
I
E
80000
70000
24 48 72 96 120
Exposure Time (hrs)
Pimephales promelas
(Hardness 360, Test I.D. 4)
100000
90000
E
80000
70000
24 48 72 96 120
Exposure Time (hrs)
Data from Pickering & Henderson 1966
-------
Exhibit 2a (cont): Toxicity vs. Exposure Time for Selected Freshwater Species
Cadmium
Carassius auratus
(Pickering & Henderson 1966, hrd 20)
6000
sooo
'4000
3000
2000
24 48 72 96 120
Exposure Time (hrs)
Poecilia reticulata
(Pickering & Henderson 1966, hrd 20)
7000
6000
5000
i
'4000
3000
2000
1000
24 48 72 96 120
Exposure Time (hrs)
-------
Exhibit 2b: Toxicity vs. Exposure Time for Selected Freshwater Species
Chromium
Daphnia magna
(Trabalka & Gehrs 1977, hrd NA, ID 1 )
1000
0 48 96 144 192 240 288 336 384
Exposure Time (hrs)
Daphnia magna
(Trabalka & Gehrs 1977, hrd NA, ID 2 )
1000
800
400
200
48 96 144
Exposure Time (hrs)
192
Carassius auratus
(Pickering & Henderson 1966, hrd 20
150000
120000
-=• 90000
60000
30000
0 24 48 72 96 120
Exposure Time (hrs)
Poecilia reticulata
(Pickering & Henderson 1966, hrd 20 )
140000
^100000
j
60000
20000
24 48 72 96
Exposure Time (hrs)
120
-------
Exhibit 2b (cont): Toxicity vs. Exposure Time for Selected Freshwater Species
Chromium
Lepomis macrochirus
(Pickering & Henderson 1966, hrd 20 ;
300000
250000
'200000
150000
100000
0 24 48 72 96 120
Exposure Time (hrs)
Lepomis macrochirus
(Pickering & Henderson 1966, hrd 360 )
300000
250000
'200000
150000
100000
0 24 48 72 96 120
Exposure Time (hrs)
Pimephales promelas
(Pickering & Henderson 1966, hrd 20 ;
soooo
40000
'30000
20000
10000
0 24 48 72 96 120
Exposure Time (hrs)
Pimephales promelas
(Pickering & Henderson 1966, hrd 360 )
80000
60000
I
1"
40000
20000
24 48 72 96 120
Exposure Time (hrs)
-------
Exhibit 2c: Toxicity vs. Exposure Time for Selected Freshwater Species
Lead
Pimephales promelas
(Pickering&Henderson 1966,hrd 20,101)
10000
9000
~ 8000
7000
6000
5000
0 24 48 72 96 120
Exposure Time (hrs)
Pimephales promelas
(Pickering&Henderson 1966,hrd 20,ID 2)
15000
12000
9000
6000
24 48 72 96 120
Exposure Time (hrs)
Poecilia reticulata
(Pickering & Henderson 1966, hrd 20)
30000
28000
i
26000
E
"~ 24000
22000
20000
24 48 72 96 120
1 Exposure Time (hrs)
-------
Exhibit 2c (cont): Toxicity vs. Exposure Time for Selected Freshwater Species
Lead
Lepomis macrochirus
(Pickermg&Henderson 1966,hrd 20,ID 1)
30000
28000
— 26000
24000
22000
24 48 72 96 120
Exposure Time (hrs)
Lepomis macrochirus
(Pickering&Hendersorv1966,hd 360.ID 2)
sooooo
480000
460000
440000
24 48 72 96 120
Exposure Time (hrs)
Carassius auratus
(Pickering & Henderson 1966, hrd 20)
50000
30000
25000
0 24 48 72 96 120
Exposure Time (hrs)
-------
Exhibit 2d: Toxicity vs. Exposure Time for Selected Freshwater Species
Nickel
Pimephales promelas
(Pickermg&Henderson 1966,hrd 20,101)
15000
12000
i
•=• 9000
6000
3000
0 24 48 72 96 120
Exposure Time (hrs)
Pimephales promelas
(Pickering&Henderson 1966,hrd 20.ID 2)
15000
12000
i
9000
6000
3000
24 48 72 96 120
Exposure Time (hrs)
Pimephales promelas
(Pickering&Henderson 1966,hd 360.ID 3)
120000
90000
I
j
60000
30000
24 48 72 96 120
Exposure Time (hrs)
Pimephales promelas
(Pickering&Henderson 1966,hd 360,ID 4)
120000
90000
60000
30000
24 48 72 96 120
Exposure Time (hrs)
-------
Exhibit 2d (cont.): Toxicity vs. Exposure Time for Selected Freshwater Species
Nickel
Lepomis macrochirus
(Pickermg&Henderson 1966,hd 20.ID 1)
50000
40000
f30000
•20000
10000
0 24 48 72 96 120
Exposure Time (hrs)
Lepomis macrochirus
(Pickering&Henderson 1966,hd 20.ID 2)
20000
15000
'10000
5000
24 48 72 96 120
Exposure Time (hrs)
Carassius auratus
(Pickering&Henderson 1966,hd 20)
40000
30000
'20000
10000
0 24 48 72 96 120
Exposure Time (hrs)
-------
Exhibit 2e : Toxicity vs. Exposure Time for Selected Freshwater Species
Silver
Leptophlebia sp.
(Brook et al 1976, hardness 43 5)
24 48 72 96
Exposure Time (hrs)
Gammarus pseudolimnaeus
(Calletal. 1983, hardness 48.1)
12
10
I8
8
o _
24 48 72 96
Exposure Time (hrs)
120
Pimephales promelas
(Call et al. 1983, hardness 46)
40
30
I
8
o
20
10
24 48 72 96 120
Exposure Time (hrs)
Jordanella floridae
(Call et al. 1983, hardness 44.5)
60
so
40
930
1
20
10
24 48 72 96
Exposure Time (hrs)
120
-------
Exhibit 2f: Toxicity vs. Exposure Time for Selected Freshwater Species
Zinc
Morone saxatiiis
(Rehwoldt et al. 1971, hardness 53)
15000
12000
9000
6000
0 24 48 72 96 120
Exposure Time (hrs)
Poecilia reticulata
(Pickering & Henderson 1966, hrd 20)
3200
2400
1600
800
0 24 48 72 96 120
Exposure Time (hrs)
Carassius auratus
(Pickering & Henderson 1966, hrd 20)
10000
9000
3- 8000
7000
6000
0 24 48 72 96 120
Exposure Time (hrs)
-------
Exhibit 2f (cont): Toxicity vs. Exposure Time for Selected Freshwater Species
Zinc
Lepomis macrochirus
(Pickenng&Henderson 1966,hrd 20.ID 1)
7500
7000
0-6500
"6000
5500
5000
24 48 72 96 120
Exposure Time (hrs)
Lepomis macrochirus
(Pickering&Henderson 1966,hrd 20,ID 2)
6500
6000
'5500
5000
4500
24 48 72 96 120
Exposure Time (hrs)
Lepomis macrochirus
(Pickering&Henderson 1966,hrd 20, ID 3)
7500
7000
6000
5500
24 48 72 96 120
Exposure Time (hrs)
Lepomis macrochirus
(Pickering&Henderson 1966,hd 20,ZnCI2)
8000
7000
i
6000
5000
24 48 72 96
Exposure Time (hrs)
120
-------
Exhibit 2f (cont): Toxicity vs. Exposure Time for Selected Freshwater Species
Zinc
Pimephales promelas
(Pickering&Henderson 1966,hd 20.ID 2)
900
850
800
750
24 48 72 96
Exposure Time (hrs)
120
Pimephales promelas
(Pickering&Henderson 1966,hd 360.ID 3)
35000
34500
~34000
33500
33000
24 48 72 96 120
Exposure Time (hrs)
-------
-------
CO
0
'o
0)
a
(0
I
(0
CO
£
I
I
0)
O
Q.
X
U
15
3
(0
(0
E
(O
co
X
UJ
_.
i_ O ^
£ "^ ***
j_ IO *—•
DO)
- ° ?
t) sjO ^
^ S) ^
Oo>
^ ** te
2 g 2
v~
_.
O ~
U a ^
E. 3^ 3
5-0
.
^J 5S
S ^o Ol
3*'
j
s .a
2 w 6
S"cj
>> n
i-
3 0
too
&
a.
^ ^
10 CO
IQ
Study Citation
4»
gfl
J CO
in
CO
enus
O
e
_o
(0
"5
s.
•<
z
<
in
9
UJ
o>
CO
J(
Z
•j
Z
in
o
_,
CO
CN
O)
CO
dmium
Johnson & Gentile '
CD
U o>
(B
CO
americanu
V.
n
c
X
CN
O
>_.
c
•<
z
z
in
9
LU
in
h-
J(
Z
*
Z
CO
^
CO
CN
0>
Eisler & Hennekey 1
CO
U
a
'c
J
a.
n
c
CO
a.
CN
c
z
z
CN
O
LLJ
CO
CO
<
^
<
CO
o
LU
in
CN
D
CO
CN
CO
Eisler & Hennekey '
1
arenaria
2
5
CN
C
c;
jf
z
z
in
9
LU
^"
in
k
Z
Jf
z
00
in
D
CO
CN
<3>
Eisler & Hennekey '
•o
CO
S
8
1
<
CN
C
c
'<
z
z
in
cp
LLJ
CN
CO
Jj.
T
Jj.
z
(V,
CD
D
CO
CN
O)
Eisler & Hennekey i
•o
(0
virens
i
a
Z
CN
C
*£
z
z
o
1
LU
00
*~
«
Z
Jj.
Z
,_
o
-3
CO
CN
co
Eisler & Hennekey 1
a
obsoletus
assanus
z
CN
C
c
0 <
ULJZ
^1"
9|
T)
CO
CN in
9 °
LLJ LLJ
00 T-
00 OO
0<
+ z
LJJ
if)
CN
^ *
O <.
+ Z
u
CN
TT CN
LU
CO
CN
ID D
CO CO
CO CN
^
co
Dorfman 1977
Eisler & Hennekey '
+J ^rf
3 =
T3 T
CO CO
CO CO
heteroclitu
heteroclitu
CO CO
J3 _I
T3 T
C C
3 ;
U. LL
$N CM
0 C
O C
*
z
z
in
o
I
LJJ
••"
«
Z
*
z
0
CN
-,
CO
CN
j^
CO
romium
Eisler & Hennekey '
r-
O ±t
3
•a
CO
virens
CO
'£
cu
Z
Q
o
CN
<
z
CO
9
LU
CO
h-
<
^
<
^
CO
o
LU
CN
in
-,
CO
CN
[^
3)
Eisler & Hennekey '
3
T5
(0
CO
3
C
n
c
'a
c
3
cc
ct
Q-
5
CN
<
z
Z
oo
C3
LLJ
0
*~
«
Z
*
Z
o
d
^
-,
CO
CN
^
»
1
4)
C
1
00
•^
Lu
+^
3
TJ
CO
I
CO
ct
1
<
g
f>
z
9
LU
CO
<
^
o
CN
D
CO
CN
^
3)
1
0)
C
c
s
S
u
<
z
CO
cp
LJJ
0
CO
<
^-
<
^_
^f
o
LJJ
N.
CN
-,
CO
CN
H^
3)
Eisler & Hennekey '
3
T3
CO
obsoletus
assarius
z
O
o
o
b°
z z
b °
z z
9z
UJ
CN
T-
b°
z z
bz
z -^
CO (J
UJ
o
*~
D D
CO CO
<*«*
Dorfman 1977
Dorfman 1 977
3 3
CO CO
CO CO
heteroclitu
heteroclitu
co u
•o x
c c
3 3
U. LL
N.
o
1?
cp
LLJ
^
"
CNI
cp
LU
in
CO
'
9
LU
O
^
8
LJJ
q
^~
s
LJJ
00
in
o
LU
CO
cxi
-,
CO
CO
«— ,. -
Lead
Dorfman 1977
^^
T3
CO
CO
heteroclitu
a
•£
LL
CN
O
>*_
Q.
O O O <
' 1 ' ~7
LU UJ UJ
CN CD O
T^ T^ CO
cp cp cp <
LU LU LU Z
in o oo
^f T ^"
CN CN CN in
cp cp cp cp
UJ UJ UJ UJ
in oo oo in
co in •sr co
r*- ^t o «.
CN CN CN *<
in o CN «,
z
T- CO CO lf>
»~ »~ •«- Tf
D D D ID
CO CO CO CO
Tf TT TT CN
T- CN CO
00 OO 00
^ f*- ^ |s.
T- •«- T- [i-
CD 01 O) O
X X X X
Jj
z
z
cp
UJ
•^
«
Z
<
Z
CO
CN
-,
CO
CN
j^.
3>
Eisler & Hennekey '
£2
T3
CO
I
£
1
<
CNJ
C
X
O O <
z z z
o o <
z z z
in in in
999
UJ UJ UJ
m r^ oo
CD co m
j b <
z z z
« * <
J O <
zzz
00 00 CN
CN CN ^
D D D
CO CO CO
CO CO CN
f-
fe
Dorfman 1977
Dorfman 1977
Eisler & Hennekey '
<-» •*-• ^
CO CO CO
CO CO CO
heteroclitu
heteroclitu
heteroclitu
-------
,. d ^
0.5s r=
3 O)
- " i
5 S? ^
J °*
w *• j^
5C 2 ^
^~
^J
,_ cj S1
5. o> 3
§•« ~
f \ ^
5 Si
og~
o
•ft . &
til
v> O
t -J
3 '*
55 o
0)
Q.
M
w«
o
1
•o
55
«
Q) (B
J CO
M
!
CO
c
X
"35 ""
_O lit
Z
^*
3
n
arenaria
5
o
z
z
^
2
CN
9
LU
O
CO
<
^.
<
^~
in
o
LU
T-
co
CN
fc
(7)
3J
c
c
0)
00
«
.<&
LU
as
3
T3
(1)
-9
£
Asterias
O
z
CN
q
LU
in
CN
O
LU
T**
CN
O
i
LU
T-
CN
in
o
LU
00
CO
|
LU
CD
in
in
0
LU
in
""
CO
^
f«^^
?
oT
0)
00
!»
LU
^rf
3
18
ID
1
O
'01
J
u>
TO
01
ro
Q.
CN
0
z
«
Z
<
z
s
LU
00
CN
«
Z
*
Z
CO
o
LU
in
CO
D
CO
CN
fc
O)
S
0)
c
c
0)
00
T3
Lu
f
T3
(0
obsoletus
Nassarius
O
Z
«
z
<
z
§
LU
^>
^~
«
Z
J(
2
CO
o
LU
O
*"
D
CO"
CN
fc
O)
1
0)
c
c
0)
X
00
1
111
±i
T3
(D
virens
£
o>
O
Z
o
<
o
z
in
o
LLJ
in
co'
b
Z
•k
o
z
S
LU
o>
Z)
co"
^
-
h-
C"
k. ro
JS C
1 1
(O Q
^•1
3
"§
heteroclitus
Fundulus
CO
O
z
<
*
z
«
z
o
i
LLJ
q
T-
«
Z
J(
2
00
(N
D
CO
CN
fc
O)
1
0)
c
c
<1>
X
00
S
5
0)
c
0)
00
J5
Lu
•fj
3
T3
CD
arenaria
1
CN
O
N
LLJ Z
O
CN ?, <
o O ^
LU Z
CN
(N •* CN
O O O
i i i
LU LU LU
(D O CO
00 ^ CN
Sb|
+ z
LU
CN
CO
o O ^
+ Z
LU
CO
•^r o T
o o o
LU LU
i- •*
co in
co" co" co"
^r »»• CN
|v_
o>
5
fcp: =
0) O) g
c c1
(D (0 00
*^ it Q)
0 0.2
Q Q LU
±± ±1 ±±
T3 XJ T3
TO TO (Q
heteroclitus
heteroclitus
heteroclitus
Fundulus
Fundulus
Fundulus
CN o CN
o co o
C C C
N N N
Z
<£
z
CO
q
LU
00
CO
<
o
LU
00
CN
D
CO
CN
h-
O)
i
0)
c
c
I
00
jij
LU
•^— I
3
^
obsoletus
Nassarius
o
N
«
z
«
z
§
LU
q
'r"
«
Z
«
2
CO
o
LU
O
T~
D
CO
CN
r-
o>
S
0)
c
(U
00
_aj
iS
•^-t
3
TJ
TO
£
Asterias
CN
o
N
T3 T5"
0) 0)
II II
^ 0) £ O
Illi
CO W -»
!ll|
Illi
TO
CO
y ^ o <' . > o o
« * S " ? S 1 I
*: ^ ^ •- § O CO CO
° °- 3
y =s a) c
-------
Exhibit 4: Toxicity vs. Exposure Time for Selected Saltwater Species
Cadmium
Chromium
Fundulus heteroclitus
(Dorfman 1977)
28000
27000
26000
25000
24000
23000
22000
24 48 72 96
Exposure Time (hrs)
120
Fundulus heteroclitus
(Dorfman 1977)
400000
350000
300000
1250000
i 200000
150000
100000
50000
24 48 72 96
Exposure Time (hrs)
120
Lead
Nickel
Fundulus heteroclitus
(Dorfman 1977)
500000
450000
r400000
•350000
300000
250000
24 48 72 96 120
Exposure Time (hrs)
Fundulus heteroclitus
(Dorfman 1977)
400000
350000
. 300000
250000
200000
150000
24 48 72 96
Exposure Time (hrs)
120
-------
Exhibit 4: Toxicity vs. Exposure Time for Selected Saltwater Species
Mercury
Acartia tonsa
(Sosnowski&Gentile 1978, Test I.D. 1)
24
20
i
s
o
16
12
0 24 48 72 96 120
Exposure Time (hrs)
Acartia tonsa
(Sosnowski&Gentle 1978, Test I.D. 2)
24
20
8
o
16
12
24 48 72 96 120
Exposure Time (hrs)
Mercury
Silver
Acartia tonsa
(Sosnowski&Gentle 1978,Test I.D. 3)
26
22
18
14
24 48 72 96 120
Exposure Time (hrs)
Fundulus heteroclitus
(Dorfman 1977)
700000
600000
500000
^400000
i 300000
200000
100000
24 48 72 96 120
Exposure Time (hrs)
-------
Exhibit 4: Toxicity vs. Exposure Time for Selected Saltwater Species
Zinc
Zinc
Fundulus heteroclitus
(Dorfman 1977, ZnCI2)
40000
38000
736000
1-34000
32000
30000
24 48 72 96
Exposure Time (hrs)
120
Mercury
Fundulus heteroclitus
(Dorfman 1977, ZnSO4)
220000
180000
•100000
60000
20000
0 24 48 72 96 120
Exposure Time (hrs)
Mercury
Fundulus heteroclitus
(Dorfman 1977, HgCI2)
2500
2000
i-1500
1000
500
24 48 72 96 120
Exposure Time (hrs)
Fundulus heteroclitus
(Dorfman 1977, Hg2CI2)
5000
4000
24 48 72 96 120
Exposure Time (hrs)
-------
-------
------- |