&EPA
US EPA Office ol Research aw) Development
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Research and
Development
Washington, DC 20460
EPA/600/R-00/107
February 2001
A Survey of Fish
Contamination in Small
Wadeable Streams in the
Mid-Atlantic Region
Blacknose Dace (Rhinichthys atratulus)
Creek Chub (Semotilus atromaculatus)
White Sucker (Catostomus commersoni)
-------
-------
EPA/600/R-00/107
February 2001
A Survey of Fish Contamination in
Small Wadeable Streams in the
Mid-Atlantic Region
Prepared Under:
Contract No. 68-C6-0019
Contact Person:
M. Kate Smith, Ph.D., Director
Ecological Exposure Research Division
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
National Exposure Research Laboratory
26 W. M. L King Drive
Cincinnati, OH 45268
Printed on Recycled Paper
-------
Notice
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency through its Office of Research and Development
funded and managed the research described here under contract number 68-C6-0019. It has
been subjected to the Agency's peer and administrative review and has been approved for
publication as an EPA document.
-------
Abstract
In 1993 and 1994, fish tissue samples were collected from first, second and third order streams
in the Mid-Atlantic Region of the United States. The tissue samples were prepared from
whole fish from prioritized lists of Small Target Species and Large Target Species. The two
types of samples were analyzed for 56 contaminants, of which 22 had median values that
were above the detection limits for at least one category of fish. For this report, the data
analyses were conducted in order to determine 1) exposure to contaminants, 2) the magnitude
of exposure, and 3) the location of the sites which exceeded toxicological benchmark values.
All sites from which samples were taken showed exposure to at least one contaminant. In
order to determine the magnitude of this exposure, no observed adverse effects level (NOAEL)
benchmark values for 16 of the analytes were used. These NOAEL benchmark values are
estimates of the greatest concentration of contaminants at which it is unlikely that the belted
kingfisher (Megaceryle alcyori) would suffer adverse effects from consumption. These
NOAEL benchmark values were then compared to the concentration of contaminants found
in Small Target Species tissue sampled at each site. Maps were generated which showed the
locations of the sites that exceeded the NOAEL benchmark values. Seventy sites (100%)
exceeded at least one NOAEL benchmark value and twenty two sites (31.4%) exceeded four
or more NOAEL benchmark values. The number of sites exceeding multiple NOAEL bench-
mark values suggests a comprehensive study of fish tissue contaminants is warranted for the
region.
-------
-------
Table of Contents
Section
Page
Abstract iii
Tables, vii
Figures '. ix
Introduction 1
Background ,..,.., 1
Materials And Methods 2
Study Area and Sampling Design 2
Collection of Samples 3
Laboratory Analysis 6
Data Analysis 10
Analysis of Data Sets 10
Objectives 11
Descriptive Statistics 11
Exposure 11
Magnitude of Exposure 12
Location of Sites Exceeding Toxicological Benchmark
Values 14
Results 14
Descriptive Statistics 14
Exposure 16
Magnitude of Exposure 17
Location of Sites Exceeding Toxicological Benchmark
Values 17
Discussion and Conclusions 27
-------
Section
Literature Cited.
Index
Page
....33
....36
Appendix
A
B
D
Page
Histogram Representations of the Proportion
of the Large Target Species Category made
up of White Sucker for Selected Analytes A-1
Histogram Representations of the Proportion
of the Small Target Species Category made
up of Blacknose Dace for Selected Analytes B-1
Box Plots Representing the Distribution of
Analyte Data Across Stream Order for
Blacknose Dace and White Sucker C-1
Cumulative Distribution Functions (CDFS)
Showing the Proportion of the Four Fish
Categories that are at or below Varying
Concentrations of Selected Analytes D-1
Box Plots Showing the Level of Analytes
Detected in each of the Four Analyzed Fish
Categories E-1
.'ซ il Jn *!'
-------
Tables
Table Page
1 The Small Target Species for the Mid-Atlantic Tissue
Analysis in Order of Priority. 2
2 The Large Target Species for the Mid-Atlantic Tissue
Analysis in Order of Priority. 2
3 List of analytes from the Mid-Atlantic Fish Tissue Analysis
Study. The Fish Categories for which the Median Analyte
Concentrations were Above Detection Limits are Noted 7
4 Analytes for which the Median Values were Below the
Detection Limits in Small Target Species Samples (N=70) 11
5 Analytes for which the Median Values were Below the
Detection Limits in Blacknose Dace Samples (N=33) 12
6 Analytes for which the Median Values were Below the
Detection Limits in Large Target Species Samples (N=47) 12
7 Analytes for which the Median Values were Below the
Detection Limits in White Sucker Samples (N=24) 12
8 Toxicological Benchmark Values for the Belted Kingfisher
(Sample etal. 1996) 13
9 A Summary of the Number of Sites Visited, Number of Sites
where Tissue Samples were Collected, and the Number
of Sites at which no Tissue Samples were taken 14
-------
Tables (continued)
Table
Page
10 The 90% Levels of Contaminant Concentrations in
Blacknose Dace Tissue Samples (N=33) ; 17
11 Percentage of sites at which Small Target Species
Exhibited Exposure to Contaminants Above Detection
Limits (N=70) : 18
12 Percentage of sites at which Large Target Species Exhibited
Exposure to Contaminants Above Detection Limits (N-47).... 18
13 Number of Sites at which Small Target Species, Large
Target Species, neither or both Exhibited Exposure to
Contaminants Above Detection Limits (N=35) 27
14 Percentage of Sites that were Less than or Exceeded the
NOAEL Benchmark Values and the Degree to which
they were Exceeded. These Percentages are Based on
Small Target Species Tissue Samples (N=70) 27
15 Numbers and Percentages of Sites with Varying Numbers
of Contaminants Exceeding the NOAEL Benchmark
Values 28
16 Sites which Exceeded Five or More NOAEL Benchmark
Values with their Respective Stream Orders and Selected
Contaminant Levels 28
-------
Figures
Figure
Page
1 A map of the fish tissue sample sites in the Mid-Atlantic
Region 4
2 A graphical representation of the fish collection priorities
used in the Mid-Atlantic fish tissue sampling 5
3 The number of blacknose dace, white sucker, Small
Target Species and Large Target Species collected for fish
tissue analysis by stream order 15
4 The location of the site at which the concentration of
arsenic in the Small Target Species tissue sample
exceeded the NOAEL benchmark value for the belted
kingfisher 19
5 The locations of the sites at which the concentrations of
chromium in Small Target Species tissue samples
exceeded the NOAEL benchmark value for the belted
kingfisher 20
6 The locations of the sites at which the concentrations of
mercury in Small Target Species tissue samples exceeded
the NOAEL benchmark value for the belted kingfisher 21
7 The locations of the sites at which the concentrations of
lead in Small Target Species tissue samples exceeded the
NOAEL benchmark value for the belted kingfisher 22
-------
Figures (continued)
Figure
Page
8 The locations of the sites at which the concentrations of
selenium in Small Target Species tissue samples
exceeded the NOAEL benchmark value for the belted
kingfisher.
9 The locations of the sites at which the concentrations of
zinc in Small Target Species tissue samples exceeded
the NOAEL benchmark value for the belted kingfisher....
10
13
14
23
24
The locations of the sites at which the concentrations of
DDT and its metabolites in Small Target Species tissue
samples exceeded the NOAEL benchmark value for the
belted kingfisher
25
11 The locations of the sites at which the concentrations of
total PCBs in Small Target Species tissue samples
exceeded the NOAEL benchmark value for the belted
kingfisher
12 The locations of the sites at which the concentrations of
contaminants in Small Target Species tissue samples
exceeded at least one NOAEL benchmark value and
the number of benchmark values that were exceeded. ...
26
29
The locations of the sites at which the concentrations of
both organic and metal contaminants in Small Target
Species tissue samples exceeded at least one NOAEL
benchmark value and the number of benchmark values
that were exceeded
30
The locations of the sites at which the concentrations of
both organic and metal (excluding Hg and Se)
contaminants in Small Target Species tissue samples
exceeded at least one NOAEL benchmark value and
the number of benchmark values that were exceeded. ...
31
-------
Figures (continued)
Figure
Page
A-1 Histogram representations of the proportion of the large
target species category made up of white sucker for Al,
Cr, Cu and Fe A-2
A-2 Histogram representations of the proportion of the large
target species category made up of white sucker for Hg,
Ni, Zn, and o-p'-DDD A-3
A-3 Histogram representations of the proportion of the large
target species category made up of white sucker for
p.p'-DDD, p,p'-DDE, p,p'-DDT and Total RGBs A-4
A-4 Histogram representations of the proportion of the large
target species category made up of white sucker for
dieldrin, hexachlorobenzene, alpha-chlordane and
gamma-chlordane , , A-5
A-5 Histogram representations of the proportion of the large
target species category made up of white sucker for
cis-nonachlor, trans-nonachlor and oxychlordane A-6
B-1 Histogram representations of the proportion of the
small target species category made up of blacknose
dace for Al, Cr, Cu and Fe B-2
B-2. Histogram representations of the proportion of the small
target species category made up of blacknose dace for
Hg, Ni, Zn and o,p'-DDD B-3
B-3. Histogram representations of the proportion of the small
target species category made up of blacknose dace for
o.p'-DDT, p,p'-DDD, p,p'-DDE and Total PCBs B-4
B-4 Histogram representations of the proportion of the small
target species category made up of blacknose dace for
dieldrin, heptachlor epoxide, hexachlorobenzene and
alpha-chlordane B-5
-------
Figures (continued)
Figure
Page
B-5 Histogram representations of the proportion of the small
target species category made up of blacknose dace for
gamma-chlordane, cis-nonachlor, trans-nonachlor and
oxychlordane B-6
C-1 Box plots representing the distribution of Al, As, Cd and
Cr data across stream order for blacknose dace. C-2
C-2 Box plots representing the distribution of Cu, Fe, Hg
and Ni data across stream order for blacknose dace, C-3
C-3 Box plots representing the distribution of Pb, Se, Zn
and o,p'-DDD data across stream order for blacknose
dace C-4
C-4 Box plots representing the distribution of o,p'-DDE,
o,p'-DDT, p,p'-DDD and p,p'-DDE data across stream
order for blacknose dace
C-5
C-5. Box plots representing the distribution of p,p'-DDT,
aldrin, dieldrin and endrin data across stream order for
blacknose dace C-6
C-6 Box plots representing the distribution of endosulfan I,
endosulfan II, heptachlor and heptachlor epoxide
data across stream order for blacknose dace C-7
C-7 Box plots representing the distribution of hexachloro-
benzene, gamma-chlordane, alpha-chlordane and
alpha-BHC data across stream order for blacknose dace... C-8
C-8 Box plots representing the distribution of beta-BHC,
delta-BHC, gamma-BHC and cis-nonachlor data across
stream order for blacknose dace C-9
C-9 Box plots representing the distribution of trans-nonachlor,
oxychlordane, mirex and total PCB data across stream
order for blacknose dace C-10
-------
Figures (continued)
Figure
C-10 Box plots representing the distribution of Al, As, Cd
and Cr data across stream order for white sucker....
Page
C-11
C-11 Box plots representing the distribution of Cu, Fe, Hg
and Ni data across stream order for white sucker C-12
C-12 Box plots representing the distribution of Pb, Se, Zn
and o,p'-DDD data across stream order for white
sucker C-13
C-13 Box plots representing the distribution of o,p'-DDE,
o,p'-DDT, p,p'-DDD and p,p'-DDE data across stream
order for white sucker C-14
C-14 Box plots representing the distribution of p,p'-DDT,
aldrin, dieldrin and endrin data across stream order
for white sucker C-15
C-15 Box plots representing the distribution of endosulfan I,
endosulfan II, heptachlor and heptachlor epoxide data
across stream order for white sucker C-16
C-16 Box plots representing the distribution of hexachloro-
benzene, gamma-chlordane, alpha-chlordane and
alpha-BHC data across stream order for white sucker.
C-17 Box plots representing the distribution of beta-BHC,
delta-BHC, gamma-BHC and cis-nonachlor data
across stream order for white sucker ,
C-17
C-18
C-18 Box plots representing the distribution of beta-BHC,
delta-BHC, gamma-BHC and cis-nonachlor data
across stream order for white sucker C-19
D-1 CDFs showing the proportion of the four fish categories
that are at or below varying concentrations of Al. Note
that the value scales vary among CDFs D-2
57
-------
Figures (continued)
Figure Page
D-2 CDF showing the proportion of white sucker that are at
or below varying concentrations of cadmium D-3
D-3 CDFs showing the proportion of the four fish categories
that are at or below varying concentrations of chromium.
Note that the value scales vary among CDFs i D-4
D-4 CDFs showing the proportion of the four fish categories
that are at or below varying concentrations of copper.
Note that the value scales vary among CDFs : D-5
D-5 CDFs showing the proportion of the four fish categories
that are at or below varying concentrations of iron. ;
Note that the value scales vary among CDFs ..: D-6
D-6 CDFs showing the proportion of the four fish categories
that are at or below varying concentrations of mercury.
Note that the value scales vary among CDFs D-7
D-7 CDFs showing the proportion of the four fish categories
that are at or below varying concentrations of nickel.
Note that the value scales vary among CDFs ; D-8
D-8 CDFs showing the proportion of the four fish categories
that are at or below varying concentrations of zinc.
Note that the value scales vary among CDFs D-9
D-9 CDFs showing the proportion of the four fish categories
that are at or below varying concentrations of o,p'-DDD.
Note that the value scales vary among CDFs D-10
D-10 CDFs showing the proportion of the four fish categories
that are at or below varying concentrations of p,p'-DDD.
Note that the value scales vary among CDFs D-11
D-11 CDFs showing the proportion of the four fish categories
that are at or below varying concentrations of p,p'-DDE.
Note that the value scales vary among CDFs D-12
<*-
-------
Figures (continued)
Figure
Page
D-12 CDFs showing the proportion of three fish categories
that are at or below varying concentrations of o,p'-DDT.
Note that the value scales vary among CDFs D-13
D-13 CDFs showing the proportion of two fish categories
that are at or below, varying concentrations of p,p'-DDT.
Note that the value scales vary among CDFs D-14
D-14 CDFs showing the proportion of the four fish categories
that are at or below varying concentrations of dieldrin.
Note that the value scales vary among CDFs D-15
D-15 CDFs showing the proportion of three fish categories
that are at or below varying concentrations of
heptachlor epoxide. Note that the value scales vary
among CDFs
D-16
D-16 CDFs showing the proportion of three fish categories
that are at or below varying concentrations of
hexachlorobenzene. Note that the value scales
vary among CDFs. .....,...,..,.
D-17
D-17 CDFs showing the proportion of the four fish categories
that are at or below varying concentrations of gamma-
chlordane. Note that the value scales vary among
CDFs D-18
D-18 CDFs showing the proportion of the four fish categories
that are at or below varying concentrations of alpha-
chlordane. Note that the value scales vary among
CDFs D-19
D-19 CDFs showing the proportion of the four fish categories
that are at or below varying concentrations of cis-
nonachlor. Note that the value scales vary among
CDFs D-20
-------
Figures (continued)
Figure
Page
D-20 CDFs showing the proportion of the four fish categories
that are at or below varying concentrations of trans-
nonachlor. Note that the value scales vary among
CDFs D-21
D-21 CDFs showing the proportion of the four fish categories
that are at or below varying concentrations of
oxychlordane. Note that the value scales vary among
CDFs : D-22
D-22 CDFs showing the proportion of the four fish categories
that are at or below varying concentrations of total PCBs.
Note that the value scales vary among CDFs D-23
E-1 Box plots showing the level of lead, oxychlordane and
total PCBs detected in each of the four analyzed fish
categories E-2
E-2 Box plots showing the level of Al, Cd, Cr and Cu detected
in each of the four analyzed fish categories E-3
E-3 Box plots showing the level of Fe, Hg, Ni and Zn detected
in each of the four analyzed fish categories E-4
E-4 Box plots showing the level of p,p'-DDD, p,p'-DDD,
o,p'-DDT and p,p'-DDT detected in each of the four
analyzed fish categories E-5
E-5 Box plots showing the level of p,p'-DDE, dieldrin,
heptachlor epoxide and hexachlorobenzene detected
in each of the four analyzed fish categories E-6
E-6 Box plots showing the level of alpha and gamma-
chlordane and cis- and trans-nonachlor detected in
each of the four analyzed fish categories E-7
-------
Introduction
This report uses contaminant levels in fish
tissue samples as indicators of pollutant expo-
sure to the fish themselves and the predators that
might eat them. In 1993 and 1994, fish tissue
samples were collected from first, second and
third order streams in the Mid-Atlantic Region
of the United States. These fish tissue samples
were analyzed for the concentration of selected
metals and organic compounds including mer-
cury, lead, and organochlorides (i.e., PCBs
and DDT). The data provide an opportunity
to screen for levels of contaminants that may
cause adverse effects to fish and wildlife. The
objectives of this report are to determine 1)
exposure to contaminants, 2) the magnitude
of exposure, and 3) the location of the sites
which exceeded lexicological benchmark val-
ues.
Background
The analysis offish tissue samples mea-
sures the bioaccumulation of toxic chemicals.
Bioaccumulation occurs when organisms incor-
porate and retain chemicals from the surround-
ing environment. In aquatic ecosystems, these
chemicals are associated with water, sediments,
suspended solids and prey organisms. If the in-
corporation of the chemical outpaces the me-
tabolism or excretion of the chemical, then
bioaccumulation occurs. The result is that the
concentration of the chemical inside the organ-
ism is greater than it is in the environment There-
fore, tissue analysis can reveal the presence of
contaminants that may not be detected other-
wise that is, they have such low concentrations
in the environment that they cannot be observed
through chemical analysis of the water column
or sediments (USEPA 1992). When used in
combination with other diagnostic indicators
(e.g., physical habitat and water chemistry) and
response indicators (e.g., fish, benthic
macroinvertebrate and algae assemblages), fish
tissue analysis can be an effective tool in deter-
mining the overall condition of an aquatic eco-
system (USEPA 1995).
Fish tissue studies have traditionally fo-
cused on the bioaccumulation of contaminants
in large game fish because these fish are more
likely to pose health risks to humans (USEPA
1995, 1997). Fish tissue studies have also fo-
cused on the bioaccumulation of toxic chemi-
cals in the fillets and livers of fish as well as in
the whole fish (USEPA 1995). This study ana-
lyzed whole fish of both large and small species
and both game and non-game species. While
an analysis of the bioaccumulation of toxic
chemicals in the fillets of large game fish may
give a better indication of the risks to humans
from consuming these organisms, whole fish
analysis that also includes small non-game fish
will give a better indication of the risks to all
-------
potential predators, both humans and non-hu-
mans.
From each site that was visited in this study,
attempts were made to collect two categories of
fish tissue samples. One of these categories
(Small Target Species, Table 1) included fish
taxa of which the adults are small and the other
category (Large Target Species, Table 2) in-
cluded fish taxa of which the adults are large.
The use of smaller fish is advantageous because
1) the common species are more likely to be
widely distributed among first to third order
streams, 2) their large numbers may make it
possible to obtain a more representative sample
of bioaccumulation, 3) they are more likely to
be preyed upon by piscivorous fish and wildlife
and 4) they are less expensive and less time-
consuming to process in the field and in the labo-
ratory. The use of larger fish is advantageous
because they are longer lived and bioaccumu-
lation can occur over a longer time period. There-
fore, there may be an increased likelihood of
detecting the presence of contaminants in the
ecosystem when using larger fish for tissue
analysis. Although it is known that the rates of
bioaccumulation vary between species
(Rubinstein et al. 1984; Williams and Eddy
1986; USEPA 1992, 1993a), the relationship
between large and small fish with respect to bio-
accumulation of contaminants is not well un-
derstood. The principal factor in determining the
rate of bioaccumulation is lipid content (USEPA
1991a, 1997), thus, there may be no relation-
ship between the two fish categories in their rates
of bioaccumulation. Therefore, it becomes nec-
essary to analyze the tissue from both fish cat-
egories and each category must be measured
separately (USEPA 1995). In this study, each
tissue sample represents acomposite of individu-
als of a single species rather than a mixture of
species found at a site.
l^gJ^^^T^maU Target Species for the Mid- ^
Sm^Tis$}ie,Analysis m Order of Priority
^
Small Target Species
dace (Rhinichthys atratulus)
~Xnothgr, Dace species (Rhinichthys
-spp^Phoxinus spp., Clinostomus spp.)
Crgek chub (Semotilus atromaculatus)
orjgaljfish (S. corporalis)
3limy sculpin (Cottus cognatus) or
Mofiled sculpm.(C bairdi)
Central stoneroller (Campostoma
-anomalum)
"APJrjer species (F. Percidae)
A Shiner species (F. Cypnnidae)
_jThe Large Target Species for the Mid-
Stic Jjjssye Analysis in Order of Priority
.__ Large Target Species
^^kerJCaiosiomus
n^hogsucker (Hypentelium
ass species (F. Centrarchidae,
"icropterus spp.)
ATrVoutjspecies (F. Salmonidae) *
A Sunfish species (F. Centrarchidae,
Common carp (Cypnnus carpio)
Materials and Methods
Study Area and
Sampling Design
The Mid-Atlantic Region is in the United
States Environmental Protection Agency's
(USEPA's) Region m which encompasses the
states of Delaware, Maryland, Pennsylvania,
Virginia and West "Virginia and the District of
Columbia. The majority (63%) of the stream
kilometers (km) in the study area are made up
of first order streams. Second order streams
make up 15%, third order streams make up 11 %
and fourth order streams make up 11% of the
stream km in the study area (USEPA 1994).
-------
The sampling locations were selected using a
spatially-constrained, randomized design
(Overton et al. 1991; Herlihy et al. in press).
The randomization of the site selection increases
the likelihood that the level of contamination
detected in the sampled sites is representative
of the contamination in the overall population
of streams (USEPA1997; Paulsen et al. 1991;
Olsen et al. 1999). Site selection was limited to
include only wadeable (first, second and third
order) streams. USGS topographical maps
(1:100,000 scale) were used to establish the
random placement of points within the popula-
tion of streams. These points were used as the
middle of each respective reach. USGS maps
of a finer resolution (1:24,000) were used by
the field crews in order to locate the sites to be
sampled. The latitude and longitude of the ran-
dom points were confirmed by the field crews
by global positioning system (GPS) instruments.
The locations of sample sites where fish tissue
samples were collected are shown in Figure 1.
Collection of Samples
Fish tissue samples were collected as a
part of the USEPA's Environmental Monitor-
ing and Assessment Program (EMAP). Fish
were collected using pulsed DC backpack
electrofishing equipment supplemented by
seining. The amount of sampling time and the
length of the sample reach used for the sam-
pling of streams were based on the standard-
ized EMAP protocol (USEPA 1997). The
length of each reach was 40 times the mean
width of the wetted channel at the designated
point. The minimum length of any reach was
150 meters (m) and the maximum length was
500 m. Sampling was conducted for a mini-
mum time of 45 minutes and a maximum time
of three hours.
Before collection began, two categories of
target taxa were established based upon their
anticipated distribution in the region. The two
categories of target taxa were Small Target
Species (Table 1) and Large Target Species
(Table 2). The criteria for establishing the
Small Target Species list were that the
adults of the species be small (< 100 mm),
short-lived, widely distributed and abun-
dant. The criteria for establishing the Large
Target Species list were that the adults of
the species be large (> 150mm), that the
species have a natural history of living more
than three years, and that the species be
likely to accumulate contaminants under pro-
longed exposure. The taxa on each list were
ranked according to their priority for collection
(Tables 1 and 2). The prioritization of the fish
was based on their anticipated common occur-
rence and abundance. An attempt was made to
collect one sample from each list at each sam-
pling site. Each sample was made up of mul-
tiple individuals of the same species.
The optimum weight for each tissue
sample of Small Target Species was 400
grams (g) and the sample could weigh no less
than 50 g. The Large Target Species samples
were made up of individuals from one cat-
egory on the Large Target Species list that
were at least 150 mm in length. The optimum
number of individuals to make up a sample
of Large Target Species was five and the mini-
mum number of individuals used to make up
a sample was three. There was no weight re-
quirement for the Large Target Species tissue
samples.
The primary objective of this field effort
was the development of an Index of Biotic In-
tegrity (IBI) for the region (Figure 2). The sec-
ondary objective was the assessment of the
magnitude of contaminants in fish tissue samples
(Figure 2). Therefore, the Small Target Species
sample collected for tissue analysis at each site
was made up of individuals from the highest
ranking category on the Small Target Species
list for which there were enough individuals to
-------
Fish Tissue Sampling Sites
O Small Target Species
A Large Target Species
Both Species
50 0 50 100 Miles
Figure 1. A map of the fish tissue sample sites in the Mid-Atlantic Region.
-------
Fish Collected From Each Site
EMAP
First Priority
Development of Fish
Index of Biotic Integrity
EMAP
Second Priority
25 Individuals of each
species preserved for
vouchering
Fish Tissue Analysis
I
Remaining Fish
I Small Target Species
25 Individuals <150 mm of
each species preserved for
vouchering
I
I Fish Tissue Analysis
Large Target Species
Yes
(Yes
50-400 gm blacknose dace
T
No
50-400 gm another dace species
T
No
JL_
50-400 gm creek chub/fallfish
I
No
I
50-400 gm slimy sculpin/mottled
sculpin
T
No
50-400 gm central stoneroller
T
No
J_
| 50-400 gm darter species
I
No
_ I
50-400 gm shiner species
No
Chemical analysis No chemical analysis
3 to 5 white suckers at least
150 mm in length
Yes
No
3 to 5 northern hogsuckers at least
150 mm in length
No
J_
3 to 5 bass at least
150 mm in length
r
No
J_
3 to 5 trout at least
150mm in length
No
J_
3 to 5 sunfish at least
150 mm in length
No
J_
3 to 5 common carp at least
150 mm in length
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No chemical analysis Chemical analysis
Figure 2. A graphical representation of the fish collection priorities used in the Mid-Atlantic fish tissue
sampling.
-------
meet the 50 g minimum requirement after the
removal of 25 voucher specimens for the IBI
study. Because the individuals from the Large
Target Species list that were removed as voucher
specimens were less than 150 mm in length and
the individuals on the Large Target Species list
that were collected for tissue samples were more
than 150 mm in length, the vouchering aspect
probably had no impact on the collection of
these species for tissue analysis. Individuals
making up the samples were always from the
same species or group of species on the target
species lists.
The samples used for tissue analyses con-
sisted offish with similar lengths. The general
criterion used in order for fish to be considered
similar in length was that the length of the small-
est individual in the composite sample was no
less than 75% of the length of the largest indi-
vidual in the composite sample. If fewer than
the acceptable number of Large Target Species
of the acceptable size were collected, then
smaller individuals were added to the sample. If
an acceptable number of Large Target Species
was not collected, then only Small Target Spe-
cies were kept for tissue analysis. Likewise, if
too few Small Target Species were collected,
then only Large Target Species were kept for
tissue analysis. If neither the criteria for Small
nor Large Target Species were met, then best
professional judgement was used in determin-
ing what type of fish tissue sample would be
submitted for analysis or if there would be no
fish tissue analysis for that particular site.
Fish were collected for tissue analyses
from 27 April 1993 to 8 July 1993 and from
18 April 1994 to 24 June 1994. There were
102 sites selected for fish tissue sampling and
fish tissue samples were collected at 77 of these
sites. There were 70 sites at which Small Target
Species fish tissue samples were collected, 47
sites at which Large Target Species tissue
samples were collected. Of these, both Small
and Large Target Species tissue samples were
collected at 40 sites (Figure 1).
Small Target Species samples were
composited and wrapped in aluminum foil in
the field. Individuals making up the Large Tar-
get Species samples were individually wrapped
in aluminum foil. Samples were then placed in
a labeled plastic bag which was placed within a
second plastic bag. The samples were then sealed
with tape and placed on dry ice or in a portable
freezer where they were kept frozen until they
were shipped to the laboratory via overnight
express mail (USEPA1994).
Laboratory Analysis
The tissue samples were analyzed by
a contractor, the Patuxent Analytical Con-
trol Facility located in Patuxent, Maryland.
Fish samples were held at -20ฐC until
analysis. In the laboratory, the aluminum
foil was removed from the fish samples and
the outside of each fish was thoroughly
washed with distilled water and then
weighed. The fish in the samples that con-
tained three to five large fish (i.e., Large
Target Species) were weighed individually
while the fish in the samples that contained
many small fish (i.e., Small Target Species)
were weighed together. The total weight
and number of fish in each composite
sample was recorded. Each composite
sample of Small and Large Target Species
from each site was analyzed separately.
Whole fish were analyzed to determine the
overall ecological condition of the streams
and the consumption risks to piscivorus
wildlife (USEPA 1994).
Laboratory analyses determined the con-
centrations of a suite of elemental and organic
contaminants (Table 3). These analytes were
taken from the EMAP Estuary Implementa-
-------
gigFgil-r^ _^ y j,*" Jj f> ~
gable 3. _ List of Analy tes from the Mid- Atlantic Fish Tissue Analysis Study. The Fish Categories for
MghJieJMedian Analyte Concentrations were above Detection Limits are Noted
^^^^^="c~^^^fJ^=l= {
^ai2E,rr *
:~" ' 'i
sSsS-jr" ~~~~~~ "~ *"
^%^^W. ---;
^Vluminum
JjfjSw^ ป '
_
Sg^SSia g-^ -v^-r^-. ( -*~~-* \ ~^ ->- ,
-"alpha
"
K^i^^^- -^ ^* '
delta
, ' _ป_*
|JpErgamrna
^^8^nfit" ~ ^
L^^1^ "S ฃ/* -,- *
jj]|?|~^~~ .
^SK-^'" "
* "*' ' *
" f-'
^^^^fflSSi i"^ u-ff x
.
^...j, .'V. ....pt, =S~
"
^^L, (
,-
Rs^"*^*^^"""
ij&D^*"1^ J_ .
> -J
CAS Number
> - ' i
._ -I-, - 309-00-2
7429-90-5
'i
7440-38-2
^ ^
58-89-9
/ / -Cf
58-89-9
"' '* _, **
58-89-9 \
j
58-89-9
, ^ J ^
^ x: * *
7440-43-9
7440-47-3
V . '-ป ,
,7440-50-8
/
53-19-0 '"
^i f ^
, 72-54-8
, ^ 3424-82-6
K - 72-55:?>,
v ' -, 789-02-6 '
* "*"* rf- r-
t Category of fish for which the median ;
^ Concentration of the respective analyte
was above the detection limit
None
All
, , , fi.^r \
1 ป, None
/ ' " t i
None
x, . None
f " ^- * ~ * * $
, None
' > -*J% V , ' , * ' -|
None
.u , *
^ t , t <% ' i
, White sucker
/*ซ ^? i? ** /"- ^ i
ป ' * /" *x w.^ '17, * 1
- " All
^ "J ^ 'ป ป * * 4
:* '' , - AU- ," 1
? ""^r x 4i ^^fft 1^1^ ซvj^ ***a ^ 1
* All
None
', ., ,; ^" - AH ,,t ^
, , Small Target Species, Blacknose dace, -
50-29-3
^White^sucker
t Ljjge Target Species, White sucker
,/7 ' "^, ^
, None "
hesre_c^mpounds were not used in CDFs, histograms or box plot's for atleast &ne category offish because
iir median values were below dejection limits, *
^..-x- ts of jiummum may iave b^en artificially inflated by the use of aluminum foil in the
' *S!?Sฃe of s2FPles (See Collection of Samples and Laboratory Analysis Sections). i
* "& f"~At . A.., il*r vtf-frf f i
ฃ-;.
^^ * */. ,^ซ
-------
TableS. (Continued)
;AnaJyte
3Heptachlor epoxide
*Hexachlorobenzene
:". ' ".. ,
*
jt .' i - ;, M . . -
I Mercury
| *Mirex
bttckel
j trans:Npnachlor
1, " .
i cis-Nonachlor
!' -V" ' '.- '
| Oxychlordane
tChlordane (alpha and gamma)
t"*Selenium
fZinc
i+PCB Congeners
2,4-Dichlprobipheriyl, #8
^'.S-frichlorobiphenyl, #18
2,4,4'-Trichlorobiphenyl, #28
-2,2',3,5'-Tetrachlorobiphenyl, #44
^'.S.S'-Tetrachlorobiphenyl, #52
j ' > , '., ':'. ...'; ;,,' ;.".'/:,;; '
^S'^'-Tetrachlorobiphenyl, #66
$,2S43,5'-Pentachlpropiphenyl, #101
CAS Number '
a
' 1024-57-3
118-74-1
7439-89-6
7439-92-1
7439-97-6
2385-85-5
7440-02-0
3675-80-5
5103-73-1
27304-13-8
57-74-9
7782-49-2
7440-66-6
34883-43-7
37680-65-2
7012-37-5
41464-39-5
35693-99-3
32598-10-0
37680-73-2
Category of fish for which the median *
* concentration of the respective analyte
wastabqve the detection limit
' All
tr -' f ^ ,.
Small Target Species, Blacknose dace, ,
White sucker ',
AH " ,;
None
All \
None
All
All
. All''
All
All
None
All
< "
All .
All ''" , .
All
All * '
All'"
All " *"''
' ' All
%3,4,4',5-Pentachlorobiphenyl, #118 31508-00-6 All
^Tiiese compounds were not used in CDFs, histogramsor b'ox'plots for at least one category of fish
%e"cause" their medium values were below detection limits.
^Laboratory analysis was conducted for each of these PCB congeners. Howeverrthe data analysis for
jjhis report only considered Total PCBs.
-.ff: > ., ^ i.ii. ..^ , , . , .. t t ^ , <*^, / ^ f ^
ibinij',',,; liaiHti '/ :r ,i,, ; ' ,'"ir, ','', 'ซ;,,ซ ' , , , 'v >-, E .. * ?s /r''*ฐ '-, ' '' * i < ffAntimlPfl'
l!l'!l! J1" " ' "" " ' l! ' ' " 1 ; '. .' : . .' n. i' ^ i ^ /^ t ^L-UlltlllU^U^
-------
CAS Number Category of fish for which, the median
fr /t '. concentration of %ie'respective analyte
' c"was above the detection limit ,
^^4'?53'-&exachlorobiphenyl, #153 35065-27-1
~3[^~f'-~' "f -i *" * * j ^ i "* ,
,^4,4'ipentachlorobiphenyl, #105 ' 32598-14-4
iexachlorobiphenyl, #138 ' 35065-28-2 *
* 'rt* ! $s ' * '
,%5,5'76-HeptachlorobiphenyL #187 ' 52663-68-0
jf ' " - *>. * s<< , f
^A^-Hexachlorobiphehyl, #128 ,38380-07-3
-lieptachlorobiphenyl, ^180" '"'35065-29-3'
y ,3'A4',5-HeptachlorobiphenyI, #170 35065-30-6 ! y
^^^4r,5,6;pctaclilorobiphenyl? #195 fi*52663-78-l'
^,3,3l,4,4f.5,5l,6-Nonachforobipheayl, #20640186-72-9 '
c __*,, * * *r /* ' /J '' t
*>*ป fi?"Hii" to,/,,'*- -f^ . 1
"J3=E?Kซ-
^J^ ^ 2051-24-3^
, #77 ' ^ /- 32598-'l3-3
;A4f,5-PentacWorobiphenyl #126 . 2^429-2^-2 '
tyl, #169 ' * 32774-16-6 '
'> ?> ,
< 1 A
NA1
^m^ ,
All
" -. '
All
' '
All"
;
All
,
t* V
11
AJ1%
" .All ^
J !,A11
AjJ
Vx*",*,
^ All
t~* t>f >i ^ ซ O' <*r ' -f >. *'' * , ' *
sis was conducted for each of these PCB congeners. However, the data analysis for this
"oily considered Total PCBsi " " ' ~' , , si
tion Plan so that this study would be consistent
with the EMAP Estuary Fish Tissue Contami-
nant Program, the EMAP Northeast Lakes Fish
Tissue Contaminant Program and the Office of
Water's National Contaminant Program. Tissue
samples were homogenized with a Teckmar
Tissumizer and sub-sampled. Tissue samples
were digested by a mixture of sulfuric and nitric
acids for mercury determination. For other el-
emental analyses, tissue samples were either di-
gested with nitric acid or dry ashed in a muffle
furnace. Metals were determined by one of three
techniques depending on the element and con-
centration. Mercury was determined by cold
vapor technique (USEPA method 245.6,
USEPA, 1991b) atomic absorption spectrom-
etry (AAS), in which stannous chloride was
used to reduce HgO. Arsenic, cadmium, sele-
nium and lead were determined by graphite fur-
nace AAS, in which electrical heating was used
to produce an atomic cloud. The remaining met-
als (also cadmium and lead when in high
ti/
* *M*'
-------
concentration) were determined by atomic
emission spectrometry using an argon plasma.
Extractions of the tissue samples for the
analysis of organic contaminants (i.e., polycy-
clic aromatic hydrocarbons, pesticides and
PCBs) were performed using the National Oce-
anic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
Status andTrends method (MacLeod et al. 1985)
with minor modification (Brooks et al. 1989;
Wade et al. 1988). Briefly, an aliquot of tissue
homogenate (1-10 g) was dried with sodium
sulfate and extracted with methylene chloride.
The tissue extract was purified by silica/alumi-
num column chromatography and high perfor-
mance liquid chromatography (HPLC) to iso-
late the desired organic fraction and to remove
interfering lipids. The quantitative analysis was
performed by gas chromatography (GC) with
mass spectrometer detector (MSD) in single ion
monitoring (SIM) mode for polycyclic aromatic
hydrocarbons and with electron capture detec-
tor (BCD) for pesticides and PCBs. Where
known co-elution occurred in GC/ECD (e.g.,
endosufan I and PCB congeners 114 and 117),
GC with MSD in SIM mode was used.
The Quality Assurance (QA)/Quality
Control (QC) for fish tissue analyses used in
EMAP for inland surface waters (EMAP-SW)
protocols (USEPA 1993b) is based on per-
formance. It uses a list of required elements
and limits (USEPA 1993b, 1994) of which a
Standard Reference Materials (SRM) is one
of the principle elements. This SRM must be
made up of a matrix of similar fish tissue, of
natural origin and contain several of the indi-
cator values.
Data Analysis
Analysis of Data Sets
For all data analyses, analytes which had
concentration values below the detection limits
were given values of 50% of the detection
limit. This approach helped reduce either
overestimating or underestimating the concen-
trations of these contaminants.
The analyses of the data from this study
were approached in two different ways. One
approach to analyzing the data was to con-
sider the Small Target Species and the Large
Target Species as groups and the other ap-
proach to analyzing the data was to consider
each individual species or species group (e.g.,
creek chub/fallfish) separately. When consid-
ering individual species or species groups,
separate subsets of the data were created for
analysis of the two most common species (i.e.,
blacknose dace and white sucker). For these
subsets, the data used were from the first visit
to a site in which that particular species was
collected.
White sucker made up a significant por-
tion of the Large Target Species and
blacknose dace made up a significant portion
of the Small Target Species. The proportions
that these individual species contributed to the
Large and Small Target Species are shown in
Appendices A and B, respectively.
Sites that were visited more than once
by the field crews required subsetting of the
data for analysis. One subset was created to
analyze the Small Target Species data as a
group. Among the Small Target Species, there
were often two to three different species of
fish collected during multiple visits. For those
sites that had more than one visit and more
than one species collected during those dif-
ferent visits, the sample made up of the high-
est priority fish species available was used for
analysis. If this highest priority fish species was
the same for more than one visit, the sample col-
lected during the earliest visit was used. Another
subset of data was created to analyze Large
Target Species as a group. Because the same
. jfctl*ปlf tp*piซ -' fft*!* * -
-------
Large Target Species were collected during all
visits to the same site, this subset of data included
all Large Target Species samples that were col-
lected during the first visit to a site.
Objectives
The data were analyzed so that three
questions could be answered:
1) Where were fish exposed to contami-
nants?
2) What was the magnitude of the
exposure?
3) Where were the sites that exceeded
toxicological benchmark values?
Descriptive Statistics
In order to interpret the data, several de-
scriptive statistics were generated. The pro-
portion of each fish category across the stream
orders was described and box plots represent-
ing the distribution of analyte levels across
stream order for blacknose dace and white
sucker were generated. Histograms which
show the proportion of white sucker to Large
Target Species and the proportion of
blacknose dace to Small Target Species with
their respective levels of exposure to 22
analytes were also generated. These histo-
grams not only describe the level of exposure
for four categories of fish but they also de-
scribe the relative contribution of the white
sucker to the Large Target Species category
and the relative contribution of the blacknose
dace to the Small Target Species category.
Empirical cumulative distribution functions
(CDFs) were calculated for 22 analytes. A CDF
indicates, across the full range of values, the pro-
portion of samples at or below a given value.
CDFs are a useful descriptive tool in determin-
ing whether most of the values are very low,
with a few high values or whether values cover
a broader range. Finally, box plots showing level
of analytes detected for each of four categories of
fish were generated. Histograms, CDFs and box
plots were not generated for analytes which had
median values below the detection limits in a par-
ticular category offish. Because of the infrequent
detections of these analytes, histograms, CDFs and
box plots would provide very little information.
Those analytes for which histograms, CDFs and
box plots were not generated are summarized in
Tables 4 through 7.
Exposure
The laboratory analyses provided the in-
formation necessary to determine that exposure
to contaminants had occurred based on the de-
tection of contaminants in the fish tissue samples.
The 90th percentile and 95% confidence
intervals were calculated for the contaminant
exposure of the most commonly occurring spe-
cies (blacknose dace) to each of the analytes
for which the median values were above the
detection limits. These statistics help to de-
v f-^-v * ^%"> 1ฃS^~.r ^ r^~ ^ -SF" J T*
4^ Analytes for which the,Median Values >
,jฃlo^flie,Detection Limits in Small Target __
l^iesJ^amplesx(N^70'ฃ. __ " > '**
, ., .. Detection
var* Zrf^sS^Z^" * ft1" nftfe-T * ~~
Yte.^__,~, Percgtfile Maximum Limit
i "~*sg* iซ3** *ss tee-1^ f ~* *- ,
"3.7500
JX1600
0-0002^
0.0002
__ fanj (ug/g) 0.0004
Sndosulfah II(ug/g)0.0004
9V*^' ~"^ 0.0002
ptacM>r (|ig/g) 0.0002
,0.0004
5.1000
0.7200
'oTooio
0.0070
0.0021
0.0041"
0.0033
0.0006
0.0007
0.0005
0.0007
0.0022
0.0006
2.8900
5.5900
0,0002
3.7500*
0.1000
0.0002'
0.0002
0:0004
0.0004
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002'
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
" 1.2500
3.7500
-------
Analytes for which the Median
lvalues were Below the Detection Limits in
is Blacknose DaceSamples (N=33)
; : ' - '" ; ' ' ',75th , _ Detection
i, Analyte Percentile Maximum Limit
itjig/g) 0.0062
Arsenic (ug/g) 3.7500
Cadmium (ug/g) 0. 1 500
0,p'-DDE(ug/g) 0.0003
p,p'-DDT(ug/g) 0.0002
Endpsulfan I (ug/g) 0.0004
Endosulfann(|.ig/g) 0.0004
Endrin (ug/g) 0.0002
"Heptachlor (ug/g) 0.0002
BHC -alpha (ug/g) 0.0002
BHC -beta (ug/g) 0.0002
J3HC- delta (ug/g) 0.0002
vBHC-gamrna(ug/g) 0.0003
Mirex(ug/g) 0.0002
Lead(ng/g) 1.2500
Selenium (ug/g) 3.7500
0.0004
4.2800
0.6400
0.0010
0.0029
0.0009
0.0041
0.0008
0.0006
0.0007
0.0002
0.0007
0.0022
0.0003
1.2500
5.5300
0.0002"
3.7500
0.1000
0.0002
0.0002
0,0004
0.0004
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002 .
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
0.0002
1.2500
3.7500
;TabIe6. Analytes for which the .Median
Values were Below the Detection Limits in Large
^Target Species Samples (N=47)
rAnalyte
75th" Detection;
Percentile Maximum Limit "
Cadmium (ug/g)
^p'-DDE(ug/g)
^pI-DDT(ug/g)
3=,*Sa,iiaK;;:.ซii,:'ts, a,H!
ndQ|ilfanlI(ug/g)
jndrin (ug/g)
'ieptachlor (ug/g)
0.0002
3.7500
0.1000
0.0002
0.0006
6.B004
6:0664
0.0002
'0.0004
i!.i,,,i.iiiHiiiiiiMi|i|ipHiiiii|[i|fiiiBni iii;|vซ.i,i>rrQ;-,*?/ H , ,, , . , - - -
BHC-alpha (ug/g) 0.0002
lijC - beta (ug/g) OM02
. tHC-delta (ug/g) 0.0002
*BHC-gamma(ug/g) "0.0062
0.0002
.)'_;;'' V'.JLSSQtT"
.e.mum (iig/g) "3'.1500
0.0007
7.6700
0.6700
0.0011
0.0073
0.0107
0.6602
6.0037
0.0009
0.0014
6.0004
"0.0002
0.0002
0.0012
0.0007
2.4200
6.6400
0.0002
3.7500
0.1000
0.0002
0.0002,
0.0004
0X5064
0.0002;
0.0002
0.0002.
0.0002,:
0'.0002
0,0002
0.0002*
0.0002,
1.2500
3,7500,
bleT. Analytes1 for^ which the Median
Values' were B^elow the Detection Limits in White
Suclcer Sanjpjes (K=24)" ""*
*.-. ~ _ .
75th , Detection
^^ *".,ป,. -r *
Percentile Maximum^ Limit
,
-------
The belted kingfisher was chosen to be a
representative of the wildlife in the region be-
cause it is widely distributed throughout the re-
gion, lives near bodies of water and feeds pri-
marily on fish. It is likely that its prey would be
near the size of the fish that were on the Small
Target Species list (Terres 1980; Peterson and
Peterson 1998). Because the sites for this study
were chosen randomly, not all sites will be rep-
resentative of typical belted kingfisher habitat
and the fish from those sites, therefore, may not
realistically represent a part of a belted
kingfisher's diet. However, the NOAEL-based
toxicological benchmarks should serve ad-
equately as screening values for determining the
magnitude of exposure.
All analytes used in this study (Table 3)
for which there were NOAEL benchmark val-
ues reported in Sample et al. (1996) were used
in data analysis. These analytes include As, Cd,
Cr, Cu, Pb, Hg, Ni, Se, Zn, DDT and metabo-
lites, endosulfan, dieldrin, endrin, chlordane,
gamma-BHC and total PCBs (Table 8). For
cases in which the benchmark values were cal-
culated for a particular form of an element (e.g.,
Methyl mercury dicyandiamide) and the labo-
ratory analysis for this study yielded only a value
for the element (e.g., Mercury), then the lowest
available benchmark was used. This was done
in order to represent the range of exposure to
these 16 contaminants.
For the calculation of these benchmark
values, it was assumed that there was no expo-
sure to contaminants by the ingestion of water.
The toxicological benchmark values for food
were used in order to best estimate the effects of
a belted kingfisher eating the fish that were col-
lected from these streams. Because the prey of
the belted kingfisher is likely to be small fish,
only the data from the Small Target Species were
considered.
For the magnitude of exposure analyses,
six DDT metabolites were summed to obtain a
Table 8. Toxicological Benchmark Values for
Jje JBglted Kingfisher (Sample et al. 1996)
s Form
NOAEL
' Chemical
Arsenic ~
" Cadmium '
Cjjromium^^
Copper
-= X,
- Mercury
4$$$^ * <^^^L v , ^
#W-S>V- *- <- -
Nickel
^ _
C -^ % ~* ' *-
Lead
Referenced (Food, (ig/g)
Copper
,acetoarsenite
Cadmium chloride
Xd+^CrgSQ^
*~~ > -s
Copper "oxide /
~~ /
Methyl mercury
ซ* /
Nickel sulfate
Lead acetate
4.9 "
2.86
7
1.97
92.7
0.013
~' 152.74
2:23
Selanomethionine , 0.789
,. % y^^ t"^**. * -^ -4-*-ป -,.*.ซป?. *-* ซ /^
"VZuST " "'"'^ Zinc sulfate ""*' " 2"8.6
HH^S&-. ซซซeiS*e*>ป ซ^^ M
F^fl
Dfeldrin^'
"-gamma-BHC " ^ ^ n7a
> .&'..
!4 metabolites
I^P^a
r'Sffi1 '"*^iป Js?r^ jss" _"^r"
0.152
^* -^t;, " -~
'3.95 ^ "
5 *.
biooe" -
, (Jhlordane ^ ^ n/a
gPi^&r t t ^"i^ฃ ^ '^^t^. -aSiCp.
lEndosulfanl - ' n/a
4.20
3^7,
single value for DDT. Endosulfan I and en-
dosulfan n were totaled for total endosulfan. The
values for alpha-chlordane, gamma-chlordane,
oxychlordane, cis-nonachlor and trans-
nonachlor were summed for total chlordane.
Before summing, half the detection limit was
used for any values that were below the detec-
-------
tion limits. For the contaminants not used in
summing, half the detection limit was used if
the value was below the detection limit be-
fore comparing it to the NOAEL.
Location of Sites Exceeding
Toxicological Benchmark
Values
The locations of the sites that yielded the
Small Target Species tissue samples that ex-
ceeded the NOAEL benchmark values were
mapped using GIS software. The maps were
constructed to illustrate the degree to which
the benchmark values were exceeded at each
site for each of the selected contaminants and
to illustrate the number of benchmark values
that were exceeded at each site.
Results
Descriptive Statistics
The database containing the data collected
during this study is located at www.epa.gov/
emap/htmVdataI/surfwatr/data/mastreams/9396.
Fish tissue samples were collected at 77 of the
102 sites selected for fish tissue sampling. In 92
visits to these 77 sites, Small Target Species were
collected during 83 visits to 70 sites and Large
Target Species were collected during 53 visits
to 47 sites. Of these, both Small and Large Tar-
get Species were collected during 44 visits to
40 sites. The prediction that the Small Target
Species would be more widely distributed in
first through third order streams within the re-
gion is supported by these data.
No Small Target Species tissue samples
were collected at 32 sites (Table 9). There were
no Small Target Species tissue samples collected
from 15 of these sites because either the sites
were not sampleable (e.g., no water present) or
no fish were present in the reach. At 13 of the
JWง9. A Summary of the Number of Sites
|i|g-d;. Number of Sites where Tissue Samples
iffcoilected. and the Number of Sites at which
ป^H^' ^"'*g>ggv ^ %j
Xyjsjje Samples were taken
Nupiber of Sites
Species Target Species
remaining sites, at least one individual of the
Small Target Species was caught, but there were
either too few fish to take a fish tissue sample or
the sample was lost after the fish tissue sample
was collected. At four sites, fish were collected
but there were no Small Target Species present.
No Large Target Species tissue samples were
collected at 55 sites (Table 9). There was no
Large Target Species tissue samples collected
from 15 of these because either the sites were
not sampleable or no fish were present in the
reach. At 19 of the remaining sites, Large Tar-
get Species were caught, but there were either
too few fish to take a fish tissue sample or the
sample was lost after the fish tissue sample was
collected. At the other 21 sites, fish were col-
lected but there were no Large Target Species
present.
A series of histograms displays the num-
ber of four of the fish categories that were
collected in the three stream orders (Figure
3). Note that the Small Target Species were
collected in fairly even numbers among the
-------
30
CO
_03
ง 20
to
CO
E 10
Fish Category by Stream Order
Blacknose dace
1 2 3
Stream order
30
CO
_03
^20
CO
CO
CD
E 10
White sucker
n
1 2 3
Stream order
Small target species
ou
$
f- 20
CO
CO
s
CD
|10
z
n
-
i
i
-
Large target species
1 2 3
Stream order
ou
co
03
Number of sampl
-i to
o o o
-
I
1
-
1 2 3
Stream order
Figure 3. The number of blacknose dace, white sucker, small target species and large target species
collected for fish tissue analysis by stream order.
stream orders, however, very few of the Large
Target Species were collected in first order
streams and the greatest number were col-
lected in third order streams.
Although Small Target Species were ap-
proximately evenly distributed among first, sec-
ond, and third order streams (Figure 3),
blacknose dace were more common in first and
second order streams. Large Target Species
were least common in first order streams (about
20%) and most common in third order streams
(about 45%). However, white sucker samples
were collected primarily from second order
streams (about 50%), with another large pro-
portion in third order streams and only about
10% in first order streams.
Box plot representations of the distribu-
tion of various analytes across the stream or-
ders for blacknose dace and white sucker were
developed (Appendix C). For blacknose dace,
samples from third order streams generally
showed higher variability and often higher
-------
medians than samples from first and second or-
der streams. However, some of this variability
may be an artifact of a much smaller sample
size (n=5) for third order streams. The greatest
values for DDT metabolites and organics were
usually found in samples from second or third
order streams. For white sucker, there were
no apparent differences among stream order
for pesticides (DDT and metabolites), most
organics, total PCBs, or metals. However,
chlordane derivatives often showed slightly
higher variability among samples from first
order sites (n=3).
Two sets of histograms were generated
for the analytes for which the median values
were above the detection limits. One set of
histograms shows the proportion of white
sucker to Large Target Species (Appendix A)
and the other set shows the proportion of
blacknose dace to Small Target Species (Ap-
pendix B). These histograms describe the
level of exposure of the four most common
categories offish to contaminants.
They also describe the relative contribu-
tion of the white sucker to the Large Target
Species tissue samples and the relative con-
tribution of the blacknose dace to the Small
Target Species tissue samples.
Sets of CDFs were calculated for each
of the 22 analytes for which the median val-
ues were above the detection limits (Appen-
dix D). Box plot representations of these data
are presented in Appendix E. The production
of the CDFs provides some key insights into
the distribution of the data. For example, the
CDFs reveal that all contaminants had distri-
butions which were skewed toward low val-
ues or the detection limits. They also illus-
trate that metals were present in relatively low
concentrations at most sites, but with a range
of moderate to high values at some sites. Cad-
mium was present in quantities less than the
detection limit for all groups except white
sucker, in which concentrations were relatively
high for a large proportion of sites. Some met-
als (i.e., Fe, Hg, Ni and Zn) had a maximum
concentration among blacknose dace which was
much lower than it was for the Small Target
Species group as a whole. However, this was
not true of white suckers in relation to the Large
Target Species group. For both Large and Small
Target Species, DDT and its metabolites were
largely below detection limits for most sites with
only a very small number of sites having rela-
tively high concentrations of a given metabo-
lite. The concentration of most organics were
below detection limits in most species at over
80% of the sites.
The central part of the distribution of each
contaminant, except Zn, was similar among in-
dividual species and groups of species (i.e.,
Large and Small Target Species), but outliers
and maximum values varied greatly among the
categories depending on the contaminant (Ap-
pendix E). Zn values tended to be much greater
among Small Target Species than they were
among Large Target Species. For the remain-
der of the analytes, there was no consistency as
to whether the Large or Small Target Species
had the greatest values for concentrations of
contaminants.
Exposure
Blacknose dace was the most common
species in the study. The 90th percentile levels
of contaminants were calculated for the
blacknose dace (Table 10). This table only in-
cludes those analytes for which the median val-
ues were above their respective detection lim-
its. Because at least one contaminant was above
the detection limit at every site (Tables 11 through
13), exposure occurred at every site. When con-
sidering the results of the Al portion of the analy-
sis, it is important to note that these results may
be artificially inflated because of the way in
which the field samples were processed and
-------
stored (see Collection of Samples and Laboratory
Analysis Sections). Itis possible that the use of alu-
minum foil in the storage of samples affected the
results of the Al analysis. The percentage of sites at
which exposure occurred for both Small and Large
Target Species was calculated for each analyte
(Tables 11 and 12, respectively). For visits occur-
ring in both the Large and Small Target Species
data sets, the number of sites at which there was
exposure for one or both categories of target fish
was also calculated (Table 13). For both categories
of target species, exposure to most contaminants
occurred at a moderate to high percentage of sites.
When considering only sites where Small and Large
Target species were collected, exposure was fairly
consistent between large and small species.
* *" ,v " ฅ&, / f
^'The 90% Levels of Contaminant ^
oncentrafions in'Blacknose Dace TiissuVSaraples '
" ^
I
;|
ntaminant
90th percentile
' (pg/g) " -
'
9% CI
tachlor epoxide
hrobenzene
_180?58 ,
- 1.51
1.23
141.57 .
(103.03, 188.27)
, (ilsej r.60)
' (1.07, 1.47)
(98.88, 209.X60)
O.Q763 (0-t)582,J 0.0993) '
0.43 J(0.350,0.740) ?,
54.'l9 (47.40,56.24) ;
0.0015 (OJ0007, 0.0021) '
O."d029 (0.0010, 0.0034) "
0.0019 (0.0007:; 0.0057) ^
0.0397 (0.0099, 0.0704) j
0.01Q9 (0.0028,, 0.0338)
0.0014 (0.0007, 0.0057) ^
otoooe: (O.ooo4, o.ooio)
Q.0060 (0.0014, 0.0503) ซ
0.0054 (0.0015, 0.0342),
0^0038 (0.0014, 0.0435) ซ
^0.0130 (0.0037, 0.1001) ;
0.0033 (0.0012, 0.0371) '
0.1971 (0.0660; Q.4981).j
fleeted levels of ^uminum may have been ',
li^ally inflated % the use of alpmmum foil in J
ackagrag and storage of samples (See ' *
~ ^'~~" of Samples and*Laboratory Analysis *
Magnitude of Exposure
The benchmark toxicological values for
the 16 contaminants that were available from
Sample et al. (1996) are presented in Table 8.
Table 14 shows the percentage of sites in
which the NOAEL benchmark values were
exceeded by Small Target Species, by fac-
tors of 1 or 10, and which NOAEL bench-
mark values were not exceeded by Small Tar-
get Species. Figures 4 through 11 show the
locations of the sites that exceeded the bench-
mark values for As, Cr, Hg, Pb, Se, Zn, DDT
and metabolites and Total PCBs. Because the
NOAEL benchmark value for Se was less
than 50% of the detection limit for Se, then
the concentration of Se in the Small Target
Species tissue samples exceeds the NOAEL
benchmark value at all 70 sites. Thus, the map
for Se indicates the sites where NOAEL val-
ues were exceeded but were below the de-
tection limit and those sites where NOAEL
values were exceeded and were also above
the detection limit. Maps were not produced
for those analytes whose NOAEL benchmark
values were not exceeded at any sites (i.e.,
Cd, Cu, Ni, chlordane, dieldrin, endosulfan,
endrin and gamma-BHC).
Location of Sites
Exceeding Toxicological
Benchmark Values
Of the sites from which Small Target
Species tissue samples were collected, 70
(100%) exceeded at least one of the 16
NOAEL toxicological benchmark values
(Table 15). The location of the sites and the
number of NOAEL benchmark values ex-
ceeded at those sites are shown in Figure 12.
Figure 13 shows the locations of the sites that
exceeded the NOAEL benchmark values for
both metal and organic contaminants. Note
that this map reflects the pervasiveness of
-------
Tablejl. Percentage of Sites at which Small
fEarget Species Exhibited Exposure to Con-
taminants Above Detection Limits (!N=70)
JPercentage of Sites at which Large
Contaminant
% of sites exposed
|s*Aluminum
Arsenic,
Cadmium
i,Chrqrr|juirn
Copper
"Lead ; '
Mercury
Nickel ;
;2Snc
p,p'-DDp
o^'-DDE
^-DgT
;p^-DDl)
,p,p'-DDT
ฅip'-DDE
Dieldrin
Endosulfan I
Endosulfan II
Endrin
Heptachlor
Heptachlor epoxide
Hexacfilorobenzene
BHC -alpha
jBHC-faeta
;BHC-delta ,: L' ' ,' ^
BjlC-gamma
alpha-Chlordane
gamma-Chlordane
cis-Nonachlqr
^^ns-konacrilqir
jQxychlordane
ivlirex
100.0
5.7
38.6
100.0
100.0
51.4
84.3
70.0
4.3
100.0
71.4
28.6
62.9
75.7
10.0
100.0
15.7
100.0
, 7-1
18.6
11.4
14.3
65.7
81.4
12.9
7.1
2.9
25.7
77.1
72.9
88.6
100.0
90.0
11.4
*The detected levels of aluminum may have been
^artificially inflated by the use of aluminum foil in
"the packaging and storage of samples (See
Collection of Samples and Laboratory Analysis
Sections).
,, Target Species Exhibited Exposure to Con-
pg%y'^CW,^ปrg*Jr. ^ ^ ^_^^^ ^ ^f ^
inants Above Detection Limits (N=47)
~j V, , < '" * i
DDT and its metabolites. Because both Hg and Se
exceed NOAEL values at a large number of sites,
they were removed from the data set in order to
produce the map shown in Figure 14. There were
four sites that exceeded more than four NOAEL
benchmark values. One of these sites was a first
order stream, one was a second order stream and
two were third order streams (Table 16).
-------
Arsenic
O NOAEL
$ >10xNOAEL
Figure 4. The location of the site at which the concentration of arsenic in the small target species tissue
sample exceeded the NOAEL benchmark value for the belted kingfisher.
-------
Chromium
O NOAEL
>10xNOAEL
Figure 5. The locations of the sites at which the concentrations of chromium in small target species
tissue samples exceeded the NOAEL benchmark value for the belted kingfisher.
-------
Mercury
O NOAEL
ฉ >10xNOAEL
Figure 6. The locations of the sites at which the concentrations of mercury in small target species
tissue samples exceeded the NOAEL benchmark value for the belted kingfisher.
-------
Lead
O NOAEL
>10xNOAEL
Figure 7. The locations of the sites at which the concentrations of lead in small target species tissue
samples exceeded the NOAEL benchmark value for the belted kingfisher.
-------
Selenium
ฉ > NOAEL, Below Detection Limit
ฎ > NOAEL, Above DL
Figure 8. The locations of sites at which the concentrations of selenium in small target species tissue
samples exceeded the NOAEL benchmark value for the belted kingfisher.
-------
Zinc
O NOAEL
>10xNOAEL
Figure 9. The locations of the sites at which the concentrations of zinc in small target species tissue
samples exceeded the NOAEL benchmark value for the belted kingfisher.
tsSl!
ป *t
-------
DDT and Metabolites
O NOAEL
II >10xNOAEL
Figure 10. The locations of the sites at which the concentrations of DDT and its metabolites in small
target species tissue samples exceeded the NOAEL benchmark value for the belted kingfisher.
-------
Total PCBs
O NOAEL
>10xNOAEL
Figure 11. The locations of the sites at which the concentrations of total PCBs in small target species
tissue samples exceeded the NOAEL benchmark value for the belted kingfisher.
-------
fralSelS. Number of Sites at which Small *
/QfgQ Species^ Large Target Species, neither orf
|bojh Exhibited Exposure to Contaminants Above"
tDjjtection Limits (N=35)
"*?& , - . ~.
antaminant _ JBoth None Small
F i^pz W J.J f si i, ir i
r,cury
tenium
f-DDE
.eptachlor ^
achlpr_epoxide 19
ili;obenzene 20
"
ordane
marCjilordane
iS^NorTachlor
ejejected, levels of aluminum may have been
afl^ inflated by the use of aluminum'foil in
p_ackagingjn(i storage of samples (See > .^
|lectipnjpf Samples and Laboratory Analysis
Discussion and
Conclusions
While smaller species of fish are more
prevalent in small streams, tissue from small
= Pejce^tage of tSites that were Less ,
^Exceeded jgie NjpAE^ Benchmark Values 1
*&^4ie Degree^to^ which'they were Exceeded, i
iM-S^&jff^feS^^^^^^^ ^*^ Hased pn Small Target ^
Species_Tissue"Sapples \N=^lb)
,
_ 100.0
TotaLECBx_"",, . .97.1 .
0,0
0.0
_ limit for Selenium
ipfeatef than the reported NOAEL value.
fishes has rarely been collected and analyzed
for contaminants as an indicator of exposure
to fish or their predators. The data presented
here demonstrate the usefulness of small fish,
as well as larger fish in larger streams, as in-
dicators of exposure to contaminants, espe-
cially those contaminants that are persistent
and bioaccumulate.
A number of contaminants were measured
above detection limits at more than half of the
sites that were sampled (Table 3). Among these
were Hg, Zn, DDT metabolites, PCBs, dield-
rin and chlordane, some of which may be irre-
versibly accumulating in the ecosystem or have
very slow rates of decomposition. A subset of
contaminants that were widely distributed also
occurred at levels that exceeded NOAELbench-
mark values for the belted kingfisher. DDT, Hg
and Zn concentrations exceeded NOAEL
I Ms*.
-------
TabJelS. Numbers and Percentages of Sites
with Varying Numbersof Contaminants Exceeding
the NOAEL Benchmark Values "
~, Number of
contaminants Number Percentage >>
l^eedjng NOAEL of sites of sites j
f
f
*""o
. 1
-2
3
4
*'5'
0
1
15
32
18
4
0.0 :
1.4
21.4
45.7 '
25.7
, 5'7 <
benchmark values at greater than 40% of
the sites where small target species were col-
lected (Table 14). The widespread occurrences
of these contaminants (Figures 12 through 14)
suggests the influence of non-point sources
of pollution (e.g., agriculture and atmospheric
deposition) should be investigated.
The number of sites exceeding NOAEL
benchmarks for mercury, DDT and PCB val-
ues (Table 14) suggests a comprehensive study
of fish tissue contaminants is warranted for
the region. While the NOAEL values are very
conservative estimations of the effects of a
polluted food source on belted kingfishers,
they are useful indicators of excess contami-
nation.
Low values for fish contaminants do not
necessarily mean absence of contaminants and
their sources. Low values of contaminants in
fish tissue can occur when the exposure path-
way is incomplete. For instance, it is possible
that even when mercury sources are uniformly
distributed throughout a region, higher me-
thylation and, hence, higher bioaccumulation
may occur in response to the nutrient and dis-
solved organic carbon (DOC) status of the
stream. (Krabbenhoftetal. 1999, Krabbenhoft
and Weiner 1999; Weiner and Krabbenhoft
1999; Eisler 2000).
Characterizing the presence of Se is prob-
lematic. More than half of the sites did not have
values that met or exceeded the detection limit
for Se. However, Se is highly toxic to wildlife.
In fact, the NOAEL benchmark value for Se
was less than half of its detection limit. Thus, no
measurements could be reported below the
NOAEL. As a precaution and because no
screening was possible, Se is reported at or above
its NOAEL at every site sampled for small tar-
get species. To identify sites with safe values of
Se in fish tissues, analytical methods are needed
that have detection limits that are at least ten times
lower.
In using the information provided in this
report, several factors should be kept in mind.
One factor is that it is known that different
fish species bioaccumulate contaminants at
different rates. Rubinstein et al. (1984) dem-
onstrated in a controlled laboratory experi-
PTable 16. Sites which Exceeded Five or More NOAEL Benchmark Values with their Respective Stream ^
^Orders and Selected Contaminant Levels / _ ^ -* , / ' /ik
I i r 11 . t ' ^' l *" s *- > - ' ' '
1 No. ' ' * ., ' '' /^"i"f&-~- '<,*""' , "" ,\
r chemicals
f:"'-.ovef '
! benchmark
'5
ILJ. JปJ
5'
, 5"
Stream
.order
1
-2-
3
3
Arsenic
(|Ag/g)
3.750*
5.1000
3.750**
3.750*
*
Chromium
(M-S/g)
1.130
1.190
' 1.360
3.030
Mercury
(M-g/g)
0.079
0.047
" 0.053
0.066 ,
>, <
Lead
(t^g)
f.250*
Y.^6"
6.080'
0.030*
_ * }
Selenium
(M-g/g) ;
3.750*
' 4.8^1105:
-3.750*
' '3.t50*
# /
' Zinc-
(MS'g)
3674^0
34.140
45.^36'
30.700
Dpf
(M-g/g)
0.018
'6.004
*"0.*055
0^0'lf.
5
Tota^PCBs *
*
0.49! ;
"0.088, ;'j
0.5(58' ' ,
o;o69 ^l
? cpncentration of the contaminant was below the detection limit/The value given is the detection, limit. ,
-------
Total number of contaminants over the NOAEL
O 1 Contaminant > NOAEL
ฉ 2 Contaminants > NOAEL
ฉ 3 Contaminants > NOAEL
i 4 Contaminants > NOAEL
i 5 Contaminants > NOAEL
Figure 12. The locations of the sites at which the concentrations of contaminants in small target
species tissue samples exceeded at least one NOAEL benchmark value and the number of benchmark
values that were exceeded.
-------
Metals and organics
ฉ Metals and organics
Figure 13. The locations of the sites at which the concentrations of both organic and metal
contaminants in small target species tissue samples exceeded at least one NOAEL benchmark value.
'**
-------
Metals and organics - excluding
mercury and selenium
ฎ Metals and organics
50 Miles
Figure 14. The locations of the sites at which the concentrations of both organic and metal (excluding
Hg and Se) contaminants in small target species tissue samples exceeded at least one NOAEL
benchmark value.
.
-------
ment that three different fish species
bioaccumulated PCBs at different rates. Will-
iams and Eddy (1986) noted that common carp
and tench (Tinea tinea) had low Cl uptake rates
and were more resistant to NO2 than rainbow
trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss), perch (Perca
spp.), and northern pike (Esox Indus) which had
higher Cl uptake rates. Also, it is generally re-
ported that for hydrophobic chemicals (e.g.,
chlorinated hydrocarbon pesticides) and mer-
cury, greater bioaccumulation occurs in organ-
isms with higher lipid content. This increases
the importance of collecting fish during a sea-
son in which reproductive activities, feeding
habits or other influences have not affected the
lipid content of the sampled organisms (USEPA
1992,1993a). In a study by the USEPA's Na-
tional Study of Chemical Residues in Fish
(NSCRF), it was found that bottom-feeding fish
and game fish bioaccumulated different diox-
ins, furans and xenobiotic compounds at very
different rates (USEPA 1992). Therefore, the
white sucker from the Large Target Species list
would accumulate chemicals at a very different
rate than a species of bass or trout, which are
also on the Large Target Species list.
Although it is known that fish bioaccumu-
late contaminants at different rates, it is not
known how the bioaccumulation rates among
the species used for this study may differ. The
American Fisheries Society's PCB subcommit-
tee advised against assuming that a bioaccumu-
lation factor that was developed for contami-
nants in one waterbody would be applicable to
other waterbodies. The authors state that the
amount of bioaccumulation that occurs for a
given concentration of a chemical in the water
column or in the sediments is usually site-spe-
cific and, therefore, should not be inferred to
remain the same at other sites (Veith et al., 1979).
Thus, it is difficult to accurately compare sites
when those comparisons are based on the con-
taminant levels found in different species. The
life histories of large fish are generally different
from the life histories of smaller fish. It would
be imprudent to compare sites based on differ-
ent contaminant levels found in the two target
categories offish or any two species.
Human health studies have taken a differ-
ent approach to measuring dietary exposure to
chemical contaminants (Thomas et al. 1997).
In this approach, composited samples that rep-
resent actual diet are analyzed for chemical con-
taminants. Sampling could be adapted for as-
sessments of wildlife that take into account that
different species offish may have different con-
centrations of contaminants and wildlife ingest
a variety of food items. The critical component
is obtaining a representative dietary sample. A
representative sample would consist of prey
items in the proportion likely to be caught by
the predator. A simplifying assumption is that
predators take prey in the proportion to the oc-
currence in the total fish assemblage. This ap-
proach would permit sites to be compared on
the basis of potential exposure of predators to
contaminants in fish.
This report describes fish tissue contami-
nant data collected from randomly-selected sites
in the Mid-Atlantic Region. The report is in-
tended to be used to screen exposure levels for
fish and wildlife. An alternative approach could
have used a subset of the data from the Mid-
Atlantic Highlands to represent the proportion
of stream miles with various levels offish tissue
contamination. However, this alternative ap-
proach was not used so that this report could
present all of the data collected in 1993 and 1994,
including data from areas outside of the Mid-
Atlantic Highlands. These data also warrant
further analysis of the associations offish tis-
sue contaminant levels with habitat and wa-
ter chemistry factors and with invertebrate and
fish assemblages.
-------
Literature Cited
Brooks, J.M., T.L. Wade, E.L. Atlas, M.C.
Kennicuttll, BJ. Presley, R.R. Fay, E.N.
Powell, and G. Wolff. 1989. Analysis of
bivalves and sediments for organic
chemicals and trace elements, Third
annual report for NOAA's National
Status and Trends Program, Contract 5-
DGNC-5-00262.
Eisler, R. 2000. Handbook of chemical risk
assessment: Health hazards to humans,
plants and animals. Volume 1: Metals.
CRC Press LLC Printing, Boca Raton,
Florida.
Herlihy, A.T., D.P. Larsen, S.G. Paulsen,
N.S. Urquhart, and BJ. Rosenbaum. In
Press. Designing a spatially-balanced,
randomized site selection process for
regional stream surveys: the EMAP Mid-
Atlantic pilot study. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Corvallis, Oregon.
Krabbenhoft, D.P., J.G. Wiener, W.G.
Brumbaugh, M.L. Olson, J.F. DeWild,
and TJ. Sabin. 1999. A national pilot
study of mercury contamination of
aquatic ecosystems along multiple gradi-
ents. Pages 147-160 in D. W. Morganwalp
and H.T. Buxton, eds. Proceedings of the
U.S. Geological Survey Toxic Sub-
stances Hydrology Program Technical
Meeting, Charleston, South Carolina,
March 8-12, 1999. Volume 2: Contami-
nation of hydrologic systems and related
ecosystems: U.S. Geological Survey
Water Resources Investigations Report
99-4018B.
Krabbenhoft, D.P., and J.G. Wiener. 1999.
Mercury contamination: A nationwide
threat to our aquatic resources and a
proposed research agenda for the U.S.
Geological Survey. Pages 171-178 in
D.W. Morganwalp and H.T. Buxton,
eds. Proceedings of the U.S. Geological
Survey Toxic Substances Hydrology
Program Technical Meeting, Charleston,
South Carolina, March 8-12, 1999.
Volume 2: Contamination of hydrologic
systems and related ecosystems: U.S.
Geological Survey Water Resources
Investigations Report 99-4018B.
MacLeod, W.D., D.W. Brown, A.J. Fried-
man, D.G. Burrow, O. Mayes, R.W.
Pearce, C.A. Wigren, and R.G. Bogar.
1985. Standard analytical procedures of
the NOAA National Analytical Facility
1985-1986. Extractable toxic organic
compounds. Seconded. U.S. Department
-------
of Commerce, NOAA/NMFS, NOAA
Technical Memo. NMFS/NWRC-92.
Olsen, A.R., J. Sedransk, D. Edwards, C.A.
Gotway, W. Ligett, S.L. Rathburn, K.H.
Reckhow, and LJ. Young. 1999.
Statistical issues for monitoring ecologi-
cal and natural resources in the United
States. Environmental Monitoring and
Assessment 1:1 -45.
Overton, W.S., D.L. Stevens, and D. White.
1991. Design report for EMAP, Environ-
mental Monitoring and Assessment
Program. EPA/600/3-91/053. U.S. Envi-
ronmental Protection Agency, Corvallis,
Oregon.
Paulsen, S.G., D.P. Larsen, P.R. Kaufmann,
T.R. Whittier, and J.R. Baker. 1991.
Environmental Monitoring and Assess-
ment Program: EMAP-surface waters
monitoring and research strategy - Fiscal
Year 1991. EPA/600/3-91/022. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency,
Corvallis, Oregon.
Peterson, R.T. and V.M. Peterson. 1998. A
field guide to the birds: A completely new
guide to all the birds of eastern and central
North America. Fourth ed. Houghton
Mifflin Company, 384pp.
Rubinstein, N.I., W.T. Gilliam, and N.R.
Gregory. 1984. Evaluation of three fish
species as bioassay organisms for
degraded material testing. Long Term
Effects of Dredging Operations Program,
US Army Engineers Waterways Experi-
ment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi.
Sample, B.E., D.M. Opresko, and G.W.
Suter H. 1996. Toxicological benchmarks
for wildlife: 1996 revision. ES/ER/TM-
86/R3. Department of Energy, Office of
Scientific and Technical Information,
Oak Ridge, Tennessee.
Terres, J. K. 1980. The Audubon Society
encyclopedia of North American birds.
Alfred A. Knopf, New York. 1100pp.
Thomas, K.W., L.S. Sheldon, E.D. Pellizzari,
R.W. Handy, J.M. Roberds, and M.R.
Berry. 1997. Testing duplicate diet
sample collection methods for measuring
personal dietary exposures to chemical
contaminants. Journal of Exposure Analy-
sis and Environmental Epidemiology.
7(1): 17-36.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
199la. Technical support document for
water quality based toxics control. EPA
505/2-90-001. Office of Water, Washing-
ton, D.C.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
1991b. Methods for the determination of
metals in environmental samples. EPA/
6004/4-91/010. Office of Research and
Development, Washington, D.C.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
1992. National study of chemical residues
in fish. Volume I. EPA/823-R-92-008a.
Office of Science and Technology,
Washington, D.C.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
1993a. Guidance for assessing chemical
contaminant data for use in fish
advisories. Volume 1: Fish sampling and
analysis. EPA 823-R-93-0 Office of
Science and Technology, Office of
Water, Washington, D.C.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
1993b. Environmental Monitoring and
Assessment Program. Integrated quality
assurance project plan for the surface
.
-------
waters resource group. 1993 Northeast
lakes demonstration survey. EPA/600/X-
91/080, Rev. 1.01. Office of Research
and Development, Las Vegas, Nevada.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1994.
Environmental Monitoring and Assess-
ment Program. Surface Waters and Region
3 Regional Environmental Monitoring and
Assessment Program. 1994 Pilot field
operations and methods manual for streams.
EPA/620/R-94/004. Office of Research
and Development, Cincinnati, OH.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1995.
Environmental Monitoring and Assess-
ment Program Surface Waters: Field
operations and methods for measuring the
ecological conditions of wadeable streams.
DJ. Klemm. and J.M. Lazorchak (eds.).
EPA/620/R-94/004. Office of Research
and Development, Cincinnati, OH.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
1997. Guidance for assessing chemical
contaminant data for use in fish
advisories. Volume 2. Risk assessment
and fish consumption limits. Second ed.
EPA/823/B-97/009. Office of Water,
Office of Science and Technology,
Washington, D.C.
Veith, G.D., T.C. Carver II., C.M. Fetterolf,
G.F. Lee, D.L. Swanson, W. A. Willford,
and M.G. Zeeman. 1979. Polychlori-
nated biphenyls. Pages 239 to 246 In: A
review of the EPA red book: Quality
criteria for water. American Fisheries
Society, Bethesda, MD.
Wade, T.L., E.L. Atlas, J.M. Brooks, M.C.
Kennicutt II, R.G. Fox, J. Sericano, B.
Garcia, and D. DeFreitas. 1988. NOAA
Gulf of Mexico Status and Trends
Program: Trace organic contaminant
distribution in sediments and oyster.
Estuaries 11:171-179.
Wiener, J.G., and D.P. Krabbenhoft. 1999.
Methylmercury in aquatic food webs:
Consequences and management chal-
lenges. Pages 161-170inD.W. Morganwalp
and H.T. Buxton, eds. Proceedings of the
U.S. Geological Survey Toxic Substances
Hydrology Program Technical Meeting,
Charleston, South Carolina, March 8-12,
1999. Volume 2: Contamination of
hydrologic systems and related ecosystems:
U.S. Geological Survey Water Resources
Investigations Report 99-4018B.
Williams, E.M., and F.B. Eddy. 1986.
Chloride uptake in freshwater teleosts and
its relationship to nitrite uptake and
toxicity. Journal of Comparative Physiol-
ogy 1566:867-872.
-------
Index
Subject
Page
Aldrin 7,11,12, 18,27, C6, C15
Aluminum 6, 7, 10, 17, 18, 27, A2, B2, G2, Cll, D2, E3
Arsenic 7, 9, 11-13,17-19, 27, 28, C2, Cl 1
Bass (R Centrarchidae, Micropterus spp.) 2, 5, 32
Belted kingfisher (Megaceryle alcyori) ii, 12, 13,19-28
Benzene Hexachloride (BHC) 7, 11-13,17,18, 27, C8, C9, C17-19
Bioaccumulation 1> 2, 27, 32
rate of bioaccumulation 2, 28, 32
Cadmium 7, 9,11-13, 16-18, 27, C2, Cll, D3, E3
Carp, common (Cyprinus carpio) 2, 5, 32
Central Stoneroller (Campostoma anomalum) 2, 5
Chlordane 8,13, 16-18, 27, A5, B5-6, C8, C17, D18-19, E7
Chromium 7, 13, 17, 18, 20, 27, 28, A2, B2, C2, Cll, D4,E3
Copper - 7, 13, 17, 18, 27, A2, B2, C3, C12, D5, E3
Creek Chub (Semotilus atromaculatus) 2,5,10
Cumulative distribution functions (CDFs) 7, 8, 11, 16, Appendix D
Dace (Rhinichthys spp., Phoxinus spp., Clinostomus spp.) 2, 5
Elacknose(Rhinichthysatmtulus) 2, 5,7, 8,10-12,15-17,
Appendix B, C2-C10, Appendix D, Appendix E
Darter (F. Percidae) 2> 5
ODD 7, 17, 18, 27, A3,-4, B3-4, C4-5, C13-14, D10-11, E5
DDE 7, 11, 12, 17, 18, 27, A4, B4, C5, C14, D12, E6
DDT 1, 7, 11-13, 16-18, 25, 27, 28, A4, B4, C5-6, C14-15, D13-14, E5
Detection limits ii> 7-14, 16-18, 27, 28
Dieldrin 7,13, 17, 18, 27, A5, B5, C6, C15, D15, E6
Dioxins 32
EMAP 3, 5, 6, 9,10
Endosulfan 7,11-13, 17,18,27,C7,C16
Endrin 7, 11-13,17, 18, 27, C6, C15
-------
Index (continued)
Subject
Page
Fallfish (Semotilus corporalis) 2 5 10
Furans ' ' 32
Heptachlor 7, 11? 12; ig, 27, C7 C16
HeptachlorEpoxide 8, 17, 18, 27, B5, C7, C16, D16, E6
Hexachlorobenzene 8, 12, 17, 18, 27, A5, B5, C8, C17, D17, E6
Hogsucker, Northern (Hypentelium nigricans) 2, 5
11011 8, 16, 17, A2, B2,C3,C12,D6,E4
Lead 1, 8, 9 11-13, 18, 22, 27, 28, C4, C13, E2
Mercury 1, 8, 9, 13, 16-18, 21, 27, 28, 31, 32, A3, B3, C3, C12, D7, E4
Mid-Atlantic ^ 1? 2, 4,5, 32
Mirex 8, 11, 12, 18, 27, CIO
Mottled Sculpin (Cottus bairdi) 2, 5
Nickel 8, 13, 16-18, 27, A3, B3, C3, C12, D8, E4
NOAA 10
NOAEL ii, 12-14,17,19-31
Nonachlor 8, 13, 17, 18, 27, A6, B6, C9-10, C18-19, D20-21, E7
Oxychlordane 8, 13, 17, 18, 27, A6, B6, CIO, D22, E2
PCB 1, 8-10, 13, 16, 17, 26-28, 32, A4 B4, CIO, D23, E2
Congeners 8-10,27
Perch (Perca spp.) 32
Pike, Northern (Esox lucius) 32
Selenium 8, 9, 11-13, 17, 18, 23, 27, 28, 31, C4, C13
Shiner (F. Cyprinidae) 2 5
Slimy Sculpin (Cottus cognatus) 2, 5
Sunfish (F. Centrachidae, Lepomis spp.) 2 5
Tench (Tinea tinea) 32
Trout (F. Salmonidae) 2, 5, 32
Rainbow (Oncorhynchus mykiss) 32
White Sucker (Catostomus commersoni) 2,5,7,8, 10-12, 15, 16,32,
>**ซ*
*
-------
-------
Appendix A
Histogram Representations of the
Proportion of the Large Target Species
Category Made Up of White Sucker for
Selected Analytes
-------
D Large species
White Sucker
100 200 300 400 500
Aluminum (ug/g)
30
9- 20
10
1 2
Chromium (|jg/g)
5 10 15
Copper (ug/g)
40
8 30
D.
to
CO
o 20
o
.ฃ)
* 10
100 200 300
Iron (ug/g)
400
"The detected levels of aluminum may have been artificially inflated by the use of aluminum
foil in the packaging and storage of samples (See Collection of Samples and Laboratory
Analysis Sections).
Figure A-1. Histogram representations of the proportion of the large target species category made up
of white sucker for Al, Cr, Cu and Fe.
-------
Large species
White Sucker
30
CO
CD
0.20
CO
CO
"o
<5
i 10
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15
Mercury (ug/g)
0.20
70
60
f 50
I 40
2345
Nickel (ug/g)
40
$ 30
Q.
CO
co
o 20
CD
1 10
10 20 30 40
Zinc (ug/g)
50
o.p'-DDD (|jg/g)
Figure A-2. Histogram representations of the proportion of the large target species category made up
of white sucker for Hg, Ni, Zn, and o-p'-DDD.
-------
D Large species 60
White Sucker
50
0.000 0.005 0.010 0.015 0.020
p,p'-DDD (ug/g)
10 20 30 40 50 60
p,p'-DDE (pg/g)
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2
Total PCBs (ug/g)
p.p'-DDT
Figure A-3. Histogram representations of the proportion of the large target species category made up
of white sucker for p,p'-DDD, p,p'-DDE, p.p'-DDT and total PCBs.
-------
Large species 80
White Sucker 70
0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05
Dieldrin (|jg/g)
Q. 20 -
0.0000 0.0005 0.0010 0.0015
Hexachlorobenzene (|jg/g)
alpha-Chlordane (pg/g)
0.00
0.01
0.02
0.03
gamma-Chlordane
,h -\HisJฐ9';arn ^Presentations of the proportion of the large target species category made up
of white suckerfordieldrm, hexachlorobenzene, alpha-chlordane and gamma-chlordane.
-------
D Large species
White Sucker
0.05 0.10 0.15
trans-Nonachlor (pg/g)
cis-Nonachlor
0.01 0.02
Oxychlordane (|jg/g)
0.03
Figure A-5. Histogram representations of the proportion of the large target species category made up
of white sucker for cis-nonachlor, trans-nonachlor and oxychlordane.
-------
Appendix B
Histogram Representations of the
Proportion of the Small Target Species
Category Made Up of Blacknose Dace for
Selected Analytes
:*.
-------
Small species
Blacknose dace
500 1000 1500 2000
Aluminum (ug/g)
90
80
co 70
|-60
850
ฐ 40
| 30
i 20
10
0
12345
Chromium (ug/g)
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
2345
Copper (ug/g)
6 7
Iron (ug/g)
*The detected levels of aluminum may have been artificially inflated by the use of aluminum foil in the
packaging and storage of samples (See Collection of Samples and Laboratory Analysis Sections).
Figure B-1. Histogram representations of the proportion of the small target species category made
up of blacknose dace for Al, Cr, Cu and Fe.
-------
n Small species
Blacknose dace
Q.
CB
03
13
0.05 0.10 0.15
Mercury (ug/g)
0.20
30
20
10
0
10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Zinc (ug/g)
70
1 2 3
Nickel (ug/g)
o,p'-DDD (ug/g)
Figure B-2. Histogram representations of the proportion of the small target species category made
up of blacknose dace for Hg, Ni, Zn and o,p'-DDD.
--'A.'
-------
n Small species
Blacknose dace
120
0.000 0.005 0.010 0.015 0.020
o.p'-DDT ((jg/g)
120
100 -
80 -
p,p'-DDE ftjg/g)
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6
Total RGBs (|jg/g)
Figure B-3. Histogram representations of the proportion of the small target species category made
up of blacknose dace for o,p'-DDT, p,p'-DDD, p,p'-DDE and total PCBs.
*****ป u ฃ1
-------
D Small species
Blacknose dace
150 r
E100
CO
"o
i so
I
150
CO
E 100
CO
co
"o
CD
E 50
-J 1 1 1 1 i_
Dieldrin (pg/g)
Heptachlor epoxide (|jg/g)
CO
CD
Q.
ง
CO
"o
l_
CD
.a
E
3
Z
/u
60
50
40
30
20
1 1
-
1 i
-H
-
10 Jh
ol^tU. ,
CO
"o.
CO
CO
"o
^.
CD
1
3
"Z.
0.000 0.001 0.002 0.003
150
100
i 1 _
-
_
I I ~
50 I
O^B i |
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.1
Hexachlorobenzene (pg/g)
alpha-Chlordane (\IQ/Q)
Figure B-4. Histogram representations of the proportion of the small target species category made
up of blacknose dace for dieldrin, heptachlor epoxide, hexachlorobenzene and alpha-chlordane.
I fl
-------
D Small species
Blacknose dace "150 i r
100 -
co
CO
E 50 -
gamma-Chlordane (pg/g)
150
co
CD
g- 100
50
0
0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05
cis-Nonachlor |
120
100
o.
CO
CO
"5
L.
CD
I
80
0.05 0.10
trans-Nonachlor (pg/g)
0.15
150
CO
JB
ฃ 100
CO
CO
05
.a
E
=3
0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03
Oxychlordane
0.04 0.05
Figure B-5. Histogram representations of the proportion of the small target species category made
up of blacknose dace for gamma-chlordane, cis-nonachlor, trans-nonachlor and oxychlordane.
-------
Appendix C
Box Plots Representing the Distribution of
Analyte Data Across Stream Order for
Blacknose Dace and White Sucker
Key to Box Plots
1
c
g
"1ฐ
I
o
o
1
E
CD
.C
O
75th percentile
25th percentile
-p 95th percentile
median
-1- 5th percentile
-------
Blacknose Dace
300
o>
g 200
|
100
1 2 3
Stream order
CD
52
1 2 3
Stream order
u./
0.6
_. 0.5
o>
&
a o.4
1 0.3
" 0.2
0.1
I I
o
-
_ _
-
*
0 -
T
-
i i i
o.o _
1 2
Stream order
O
5? 2
Chromium (j
D ->
i i i
o
-
T T T
1 1 '
j J
- T ^ -
1 2 3
Stream order
The detected levels of aluminum may have been artificially inflated by the use of aluminum foil
in the packaging and storage of samples (See Collection of Samples and Laboratory Analysis
Sections).
Figure C-1. Box plots representing the distribution of Al, As, Cd and Cr data across stream order for
blacknose dace.
-------
Blacknose Dace
2.0
1.5
O)
0)
Q.
Q.
0 1.0
0.5
*
*
T
T T
T
r-
1 T
i i i
400
300
"3
^ 200
Q
100
0
1 1 1
O
_
*
T
I
hp"
ฑ 1 J-
1 2 3
Stream order
1 2 3
Stream order
0 11
0.10
0.09
0.08
5 0 07
0)
cb n nฃ
ฃ>
13 n HK
Jj U.UO
tf^-H? ^
s f t
-------
Blacknose Dace
u./
0.6
0.5
1 0.4
1 0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
-
-
-
-
i
.
i
1
o
t
i
1 2 3
Stream order
-
-
-
-
6
5
f ซ
E
3
"c
ฎ. 3
CD
CO
2
1
i i i
o
-
-
1 1 1
1 2 3
Stream order
i
60
50
40
30
20
1 2
Stream order
u.uuo
0.004
ง> 0.003
Q
Q
9 0.002
o
0.001
0.000
i i i
o
-
-
_ *
- JL ' -
+ ' i ' i
1 2 3
Stream order
Figure C-3. Box plots representing the distribution of Pb, Se, Zn and o,p'-DDD data across stream order
for blacknose dace.
-------
U.UU 1 U
0.0009
0.0008
55 0.0007
ง 0.0006
Q 0.0005
Q
4 0.0004
0.0003
0.0002
0.0001
n nnnn
-~ Y1 r- i
*
-
-
-
: JL JL . :
i i i
Blacknose Dace
0.020
1 2 3
Stream order
Q
Q
"d.
o"
0.015
0.010
0.005
0.000
1 2 3
Stream order
u.uu/
0.006
_ 0.005
O)
~ 0.004
Q
Q
9 0.003
0.002
0.001
n nnn
1
-
*
* T
*
T ,_
1
'='
141 1 1 1 <ป
1 2
Stream order
S*
en
^
LJJ
Q
Q
~CL
d.
U.1U
0.09
0.08
0.07
0.06
0.05
0.04
0.03
0.02
0.01
0.00
i i i
_ 0
-
- o -
o
- *
o -
*
cฑq =
1 2 3
Stream order
Figure C-4. Box plots representing the distribution of o,p'-DDE, o,p'-DDT, p,p'-DDD and p,p'-DDE data
across stream order for blacknose dace.
-------
0.003
ง5 0.002
o>
_o.
0
dl 0.001
0.000
0.07
0.06
0.05
s
a Q.04
_ฃ
1 0.03
5
0.02
0.01
0.00
6 ' '
o
~~ ~"
i i i
1 2 3
Stream order
i i i
o
-
_ _
0
o
_ 0
i i i i T i i i i
1 2 3
Blacknose Dace
0.0005
0.0004
^ 0.0003
O)
^.
c,
32 0.0002
0.0001
0.0000
0.0008
0.0007
0.0006
^ 0.0005
^.
^ 0.0004
ง 0.0003
0.0002
0.0001
0.0000
i i i
o -
- o -
- o -
1 1 I
1 2 3
Stream order
9 I T
-
-
- 0 O
- o -
o
I I I
1 2 3
Stream order Stream order
Figure C-5. Box plots representing the distribution of p,p'-DDT, aldrin, dieldrin and endrin data across
stream order for blacknose dace.
-------
0.0010
0.0009
__ 0.0008
0)
5" 0.0007
,2
"5
CO
o
-a
LU
0.0006
0.0005
0.0004
0.0003
0.0001
Blacknose Dace
0.005
0.004
5
0.003
| 0.001
T3
_u
0.002
1 2 3
Stream order
0.000
o
o
o
1 2
Stream order
;s
^.
_o
ซ
"S.
CD
X
u.uuu/
0.0006
0.0005
0.0004
0.0003
0.0002
0.0001
0.0000
t i i
o -
0
-
o
1 1 1
1 2 3
Stream order
0.08
0.07
0.06
OJ
S 0.05
X
ง- 0.04
0.03
co
ง- 0.02
x
0.01
0.00
1 2
Stream order
Figure C-6. Box plots representing the distribution of endosulfan I, endosulfan II, heptachlor and
heptachlbr epoxide data across stream order for blacknose dace.
-------
Blacknose Dace
0.003
c
N
I
2
ฃ
1
0.002
0.001
0.000
i
0
1 2 3
Stream order
^
-S
1
1
^
o
CO
0)
U. IU
0.09
0.08
0.07
0.06
0.05
0.04
0.03
0.02
0,01
n nn
i i i
o
-
-
-
-
o
-
~ o
1 2 3
Stream order
0.15
1 0.10
T3
o
Q.
15
0.05
0.00
O
o
1 2
Stream order
CQ
u.uuuo
0.0007
0.0006
0.0005
0.0004
0.0003
0.0002
.UUU1
n nnnn
i i i
- o -
o -
-
-
-
i i i
1 2
Stream order
Figure C-7. Box plots representing the distribution of hexachiorobenzene, gamma-chlordane, alpha-
chlordane and alpha-BHC data across stream order for blacknose dace.
Blfl
-------
CQ
0.00025
0.00020 -
0.00015 -
0.00010 -
0.00005
1 1 1
o
-
1 1 1
1 2 3
Stream order
i i
o
~
-
-
o
- o
r- ,
0 i 1
i "-T-1 1=
1 2 3
Blacknose Dace
0.0008
0.0007
0.0006
o> 0.0005
i 0.0004
CO
f 0.0003
a
0.0002
0.0001
0.0000
0.05
0.04
35
jr o.os
_o
o
CO
ง 0.02
z
to
"o
0.01
0.00
1 1 1
- o
-
-
_
Q
I 1 I
1 2 3
Stream order
5> 1 1
o
-
_
_
o
*
1 2 3
Stream order Stream order
Figure C-8. Box plots representing the distribution of beta-BHC, delta-BHC, gamma-BHC and cis-
nonachlor data across stream order for blacknose dace.
-------
Blacknose
0.15
^
g 0.10
* *
0
,c
ca
o
1 0.05
2
i
- o -
o
8
ง*
-
CD
C
CO
5
_g
r-
0
X
0
0.00 ' = ^*= -1
1 2 3
Stream order
Dace
.05
0.04
0.03
0.02
0.01
o
-
o
-
ซ.
rdt, ซ2- _-
1 2 3
Stream order
0.0004
0.0003
"
s
^
0.0002
0.0001
0.0000
1 2 3
Stream order
"3
CD
ฃ
0
CL
co
(2
u.e
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
f\ n
i i i
0 ฐ
_
*
- -
" . JL
I"1-] CU
1 2 3
Stream order
Figure C-9. Box plots representing the distribution of trans-nonachlor, oxychlordane, mirex and total
PCB data across stream order for blacknose dace.
*- t
-------
White Sucker
4UU
300
S*
O)
| 200
E
100
n
_
-
_
T
i
i
i i
_
-
,
_
1 2 3
Stream order
8
7
6
O)
D) 5
03
S2
1 2
Stream order
ฃ
O
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.2
0.1
0.0
1 2
Stream order
o
5 1
1 2
Stream order
* The detected levels of aluminum may have been artificially inflated by the use of aluminum foil
in the packaging and storage of samples (See Collection of Samples and Laboratory Analysis
Sections).
Figure C-10. Box plots representing the distribution of A!, As, Cd and Cr data across stream order for
white sucker.
-------
White Sucker
10
9
8
7
H 6
r s
CD
a 4
o
0 3
JL
_L
1 2
Stream order
400
300
ง
a 200
o
100
1 2 3
Stream order
0.1
^ 0.10
a
^
CD
^ 0.05
0.00
1 2
Stream order
~r
*
ซ 2
z
1 2
Stream order
Figure C-11. Box plots representing the distribution of Cu, Fe, Hg and Ni data across stream order for
white sucker.
"lid
-------
White Sucker
O)
CO
03
1 2 3
Stream order
ra
_:3
"53
CO
/
6
5
4
3
2
1
i 1 1 1
o
-
-
~
~
1_ i ,
1 2
Stream order
ou
40
^>
3. 30
O
f*
N
20
10
I 1 1
o
-
*
T T
T T
| T , |
I ^l
^^ i
1
1 1 ,
1 2 3
Stream order
u.uu/
0.006
_ 0.005
ง. 0.004
Q
Q 0.003
D.
ฐ 0.002
0.001
0.000
-
-
I 1 1
-
"
-
T
4-
-*- \=^
1 2
Stream order
order7ofwNteBsฐuXckertS representing the distribution ฐf Pb, Se, Zn and o,p'-DDD data across stream
vt&Ht&lL^ .uiU.^L.
-------
0.0011
0.0010
0.0009
0.0008
0.0007
0.0006
0.0005
0.0004
0.0003
0.0002
0.0001
1
o
*
T
i
2
White Sucker
-
-
"
o
"'
\J.\J\JU
0.007
0.006
,- 0.005
-S'
O)
^ 0.004
I
Q
9 0.003
"b.
ฐ 0.002
0.001
0.000
3
Stream order
0.020
0.015
"85
1
g 0.010
Q
1
Q.
ex
0.005
0.000
-
-
-
1
T
' j.
1
1
o
T
2
I
*
czu
60
50
;B 40
~3>
3.
g 30
Q
"^ on
CL 20
10
0
3
Stream order
0.008
0.007
0.006
,- 0.005
-S'
O)
^ 0.004
Q
9 0.003
"b.
ฐ 0.002
0.001
0.000
1 1 1
o
_
_
0
-
T
^E~~^ i r^r^
1 2
Stream order
^-,
~3>
3.
ill
Q
Q
"o.
a.
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
1 1 1
o
_
_
_
-
1 Jc 6
1 2
Stream order
Figure C-13. Box plots representing the distribution of o.p'-DDE^.p'-DDT.p.p'-DDDandp.p'-DDEdata
across stream order for white sucker.
-------
White Sucker
0.006
0.005
-2> 0.004
O)
Q 0.003
Q
d. 0.002
0.001
0.000
1 2 3
Stream order
u.uuu/
0.0006
0.0005
"5
"ra 0.0004
'! 0.0003
0.0002
0.0001
n nnnn
l i I
o
-
- 0 -
-
o -
1 1 1
1 2
Stream order
-S"
O)
:i
_c
Q
U.UO
0.04
0.03
0.02
0.01
n nn
i i i
- o _
-
-
o
T
Ep _,_ T
U.UU4
0.003
1
~ 0.002
111
0.001
n nnn
i i i
o
-
_ _
-
o
1 2 3
Stream order
1 2 3
Stream order
Figure C-14. Box plots representing the distribution of p,p'-DDT, aldrin, dieldrin and endrin data across
stream order for white sucker.
-------
White Sucker
0.004
_, 0.003
I
.ง 0.002
ง
0.001
0.000
1
r
Endosulfa
U.UUIU
0.0009
0.0008
0.0007
0.0006
0.0005
0.0004
0.0003
0.0002
n nnm
i i i
- 0 -
_ ~
r
O -
1 1 1
1 2 3
Stream order
1 2 3
Stream order
1
0
1ง
s
u.uuua
0.0008
0.0007
0.0006
0.0005
0.0004
0.0003
0.0002
0.0001
n nnnn
1 1 T
-
-
-
-
i i i
1 2
Stream order
0.020
0.015
-------
White Sucker
U.UUIt)
O)
1
o" 0.0010
CD
N
CD
0
O
o 0.0005
1
I
0.0000
-
0.08 i
0.07
5> 0.06
D)
"aT 0.05
c
CO
1 0.04
9 0.03
CO
f 0.02
0.01
0.00
-
-
_
-
-
"
T
f
_
1
L
i
o
T
i
2
1
_
O
-
rn
i
i
0.03
3>
D)
~t
-------
White Sucker
0.0003
0.0002
"55
g
g 0.0001
CO
w
O
U.UUU1
CO
cb
(D
-a
0.0000
n nnrn
1 1 i
-
i i
123 123
Stream order Stream order
0.0015
& 0.0010
O
CO
| 0.0005
O)
0.0000
i i i
0
1 ^
1
0
1
III
u.u/
0.06
oi 0.05
O)
5 0.04
.c
ง 0.03
o
g . 0.02
0.01
n nn
i i i
-
-
-
_
o
' + ' ' T i *
123 123
Stream order Stream order
Figure C-17. Box plots representing the distribution of beta-BHC, delta-BHC, gamma-BHC and cis-
nonachlor data across stream order for white sucker.
r.T-TI^
-------
White Sucker
0.15
0.10
ง
o
<2 0.05
CO
0.00
1 2 3
Stream order
0.03
0.02
.
CO
-
ง. 0.01
X
o
0.00
1 2 3
Stream order
0.0006
0.0005 -
0.0004 -
ฃ 0.0003 -
0.0002 -
0.0001
1 1 1
- 0 -
1
.
~~
i
i i
u.a
0.7
-, ฐ'6
"55
a 0.5
8 ฐ-4
0.
ซ 0.3
jo
0.2
0.1
r\ n
1 1 1
0
-
-
-
*
T
~
1 ฐ
T -
1 1 ฑ i I j^ 1
U.U
123 123
Stream order Stream order
Figure C-18. Box plots representing the distribution of beta-BHC, delta-BHC, gamma-BHC and cis-
nonachlor data across stream order for white sucker.
." A,
-------
-------
Appendix D
Cumulative Distribution Functions (CDFs)
Showing the Proportion of the Four Fish
Categories that are At or Below Varying
Concentrations of Selected Analytes.
If the median value of the analyte was below the detection limit in a cat-
egory offish, a CDF was not generated for that category offish (See Table 3).
Key to CDFs
Lower 95% bound
CDF
Upper 95% bound
lien
-------
'Aluminum
1.5
1.0
0.5
Q_
0.0
-0.5
Small species
Blacknose dace
_L
500 1000 1500
Aluminum (ug/g)
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
-0.5
2000 0
_L
J_
100 200
Aluminum (ug/g)
300
Large species
White sucker
1.5
' -~ - 1.0
0.5
0.0
0 100
200 300
Aluminum (ug/g)
-0.5
400 500
100 200 300
Aluminum (|jg/g)
400
'The detected levels of aluminum may have been artificially inflated by the use of
aluminum foil in the packaging and storage of samples (See Collection of Samples
and Laboratory Analysis Sections).
Figure D-1. CDFs showing the proportion of the four fish categories that are at or below varying
concentrations of Al. Note that the value scales vary among CDFs.
-------
Cadmium
Small species
Blacknose dace
Median value was below the detection limit Median value was below the detection limit
Large Species
White sucker
Median value was below the detection limit
1.1
1.0
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
i i i i
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7
Cadmium (ug/g)
Figure D-2. CDF showing the proportion of white sucker that are at or below varying concentrations
of cadmium.
-------
Chromium
o
'c
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
-0.5
Small species
i i r
j i i i i
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
-0.5
0123456
Chromium (ug/g)
Blacknose dace
1 2
Chromium (ug/g)
.1
D-
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
-0.5
Large species
White sucker
1 2
Chromium (ug/g)
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
-0.5
3 0
1 2
Chromium (ug/g)
Figure D-3. CDFs showing the proportion of the four fish categories that are at or below varying
concentrations of chromium. Note that the value scales vary among CDFs.
-------
Small species
.o
2
o.
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
-0.5
J L
Copper
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
012345
Copper (ug/g)
Large species
T
-0.5
7 0.5
-0.5
5 10 15
Copper (jjg/g)
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
-0.5
Blacknose dace
1.0 1.5
Copper (fjg/g)
White sucker
T 1 1 1 T
2.0
J 1 1 1 I I i i i
20
0123456789 10
Copper (ng/g)
Figure D-4. CDFs showing the proportion of the four fish categories that are at or below varying
concentrations of copper. Note that the value scales vary among CDFs.
-------
Iron
Large species
1 T
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
-0.5
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 0
Iron (pg/g)
Blacknose dace
1 T
Z^- ~ ~ '"
100 200 300 400
Iron (|jg/g)
Small species
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
-0.5
T
100
200
Iron
300
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
White sucker
1
-0.5
400 0
_L
100 200 300
Iron (pg/g)
400
Figure 5. CDFs showing the proportion of the four fish categories that are at or below varying
concentrations of iron. Note that the value scales vary among CDFs.
WfWWfW^**!'
" 'ฃ*3
v :*ป/,>
-------
Mercury
Small species
Blacknose dace
1.5
1.0
.g
g.
o
0.0
-0.5
0.00
1.2
1.0
0.8
_g
o 0.6
Q_
O
0.4
0.2
0.0
_i_
0.05 0.10 0.15
Mercury (ug/g)
Large species
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15
Mercury (ug/g)
1.2
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
i I i I i I r
0.20
1.2
1.0 -
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
0.20 0.00
Mercury (ug/g)
White sucker
0.05 0.10
Mercury (ug/g)
0.15
Figure D-6. CDFs showing the proportion of the four fish categories that are at or below varying
concentrations of mercury. Note that the value scales vary among CDFs.
y->
-------
1.1
1.0
0.9
0.8
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
c
S
Q_
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
-0.5
Small species
1 2
Nickel ((jg/g)
Large species
i i i i
234
Nickel (pg/g)
Nickel
1.2
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
3 0.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
-0.5
Blacknose dace
0.5 1.0
Nickel (pg/g)
White sucker
1 2 3
Nickel (pg/g)
1.5
Figure D-7. CDFs showing the proportion of the four fish categories that are at or below varying
concentrations of nickel. Note that the value scales vary among CDFs.
-------
Zinc
1.5
1.0
_o
I 0.5
2
CL
-0.5
Small species
i \ 1 r
Blacknose dace
0.0 - =
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
-0.5
10 20 30 40 .50 60 70 20
Zinc (ug/g)
"I r
_L
30 40 50
Zinc (pg/g)
60
Large species
White sucker
20 30 40
Zinc (ug/g)
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0 -
-0.5
50 10
J_
20 30 40
Zinc (ug/g)
50
Figure D-8. CDFs showing the proportion of the four fish categories that are at or below varying
concentrations of zinc. Note that the value scales vary among CDFs.
-------
0.1
0
Small species
o,p'-DDD
1.2
Blacknose dace
~T
,000 0.001 0.002 0.003 0.004 0.005 0.000 0.001 0.002 0.003 0.004 0.005
o.p'-DDD (ng/g) o.p'-DDD (pg/g)
1.1
1.0
0.9
0.8
.1 0.7
g
Q 0.6
ol
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
J
^
Large species
1 1
White sucker
o.p'-DDD (|jg/g)
o.p'-DDD (pg/g)
Figure D-9. CDFs showing the proportion of the four fish categories that are at or below varying
concentrations of o.p'-DDD. Note that the value scales vary among CDFs.
pBiiiMWiHipa^w^
-------
Small species
p,p'-DDD
Blacknose dace
'
p,p'-DDD (jjg/g)
Large species
_L
0.000 0.005 0.010
p,p'-DDD
0.015
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
-0.5
0.020 0.000
p.p'-DDD (ug/g)
White sucker
1
0.005 0.010 0.015
p.p'-DDD (ug/g)
0.020
Figure D-10. CDFs showing the proportion of the four fish categories that are at or below varvina
concentrations of p.p'-DDD. Note that the value scales vary among CDFs.
-------
Small species
1 1
Blacknose dace
1 i 1
i 1 I I 1 1 -0.5 I ' 1 ' ' '
p.p'-DDE (pg/g)
Large species
p,p'-DDE
White sucker
I
Q.
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
-0.5
T T
J L
J L
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
-0.5
T 1 1 T
J L
J L
0 10
20 30 40
p.p'-DDE
50 60 0
10 20 30 40 50 60
p.p'-DDE (\jg/g)
Figure D-11. CDFs showing the proportion of the four fish categories that are at or below varying
concentrations of p.p'-DDE. Note that the value scales vary among CDFs.
-------
1.1
1.0
0.9
0.8
c
"I 0.7
o
2 0.6
Q-
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
Small species
o,p'-DDT
_L
0.000 0.005 0.010 0.015
o,p'-DDT (ug/g)
0.1
0.020 0.000
Blacknose dace
0.005 0.010
o,p'-DDT
0.015
0.020
Large species
Median value was below the detection limit
,#
White sucker
T
^\S>ฐ\S**V
& c&
*> -C
-------
p,p'-DDT
Small species
Blacknose dace
Median value was below the detection limit
Median value was below the detection limit
Large species
White sucker
0.1
o
.000 0.001 0.002 0.003 0.004 0.005 0.006 ' 0.000 0.001 0.002 0.003 0.004 0.005 0.006
p,p'-DDT (ug/g) P.P'-E
Figure D-13. CDFs showing the proportion of two fish categories that are at or below varying
concentrations of p,p'-DDT. Note that the value scales vary among CDFs.
Lie
"I
fc&Vllr.
-------
Small species
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
-0.5
i I I I r
Blacknose dace
i \ r
0.0
-0.5
0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07 ' 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07
Dieldrin (|jg/g) Dieldrin (ng/g)
Large species
White sucker
0.0
-0.5
j i
0.00 0.01
0.02 0.03
Dieldrin (pg/g)
1.5
I.'O
0.5
0.0
-0.5
0.04 0.05 0.00 0.01
0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05
Dieldrin (M9/9)
Figure D-14. CDFs showing the proportion of the four fish categories that are at or below varying
concentrations of dieldrin. Note that the value scales vary among CDFs.
-------
Heptachlor Epoxide
Small species
Blacknose dace
1.1
1.0
0.9
0.8
J 0.7
g 0.6
Q.
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.
i i i i i i i
f
-
-
-
-
-
i i i i i i i
00 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07 0.08
Heptachlor epoxide (pg/g)
Large species
Median value was below detection limit
1.1
1.0
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
"0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07 0.08
Heptachlor epoxide (|jg/g)
White sucker
0.000 0.005 0.010
Heptachlor epoxide (pg/g)
0.015
Figure D-15. CDFs showing the proportion of three fish categories that are at or below varying
concentrations of heptachlor epoxide. Note that the value scales vary among CDFs.
-------
Small species
Hexachlorobenzene
_L
0.000 0.001 0.002
Hexachlorobenzene (|jg/g)
Large species
Blacknose dace
0.003 0.000
Median value was below detection-limit
0.001 0.002
Hexachlorobenzene (M9/g)
White sucker
0.0
0.0000 0.0005 0.0010
Hexachlorobenzene (pg/g)
0.003
0.0015
Figure D-16. CDFs showing the proportion of three fish categories that are at or below varying
concentrations of hexachlorobenzene. Note that the value scales vary among CDFs.
...Jrt.
-------
gamma-Chlordane
Small species
c
a.
8
D.
1.1
1r\
.U
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
n -I
1 i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
&^~~~
1
-
.
.
.
-
i i i i i i i 1 1
1.1
1.0
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
Blacknose dace
1 1 1 1 1 1 T
j L
gamma-Chlordane (pg/g)
gamma-Chlordane (pg/g)
Large species
White sucker
1.1
1.0
0.9
0.8
I ฐ'7
I 0.6
Q.
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
T
0.00 0.01 0.02
gamma-Chlordane (pg/g)
1.1
1.0
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.03 0.00
0.01 0.02
gamma-Chlordane (ug/g)
0.03
Figure D-17. CDFs showing the proportion of the four fish categories that are at or below varying
concentrations of gamma-chlordane. Note that the value scales vary among CDFs.
-------
c
o
"c
o
Q.
0
Q.
C
_o
o
Q.
0
D-
alpha-Chlordane
Small species Blacknose dace
1.0
On
.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0 1
i I
fr^ -^
r :
_
- _
-
-
i i
i.^.
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
n n
I 1
_, .
r~ir^~~ ~~~~"~~
-f ~ _
/
_
-
_
i i
ฐ-ฐฐ 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15
alpha-Chlordane (ug/g) alpha-Chlordane (pg/g)
Large species White sucker
' ' i i i i i 1 1
f/X __ --
0.8 I/
if/
0.7 i
0.6 W-
0.5 |-
0.4 1-
0.3 L
0.2 H
01 I 1_ I I i i i i
I.Z
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
- i . i i i
-i-
/T" """""""
f .'
f
j
(
_
i i i i i i i
0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07 0.08
alpha-Chlordane (pg/g)
0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07 0.08
alpha-Chlordane (pg/g)
Figure D-18. CDFs showing the proportion of the four fish categories that are at or below varying
concentrations of alpha-chlordane. Note that the value scales vary among CDFs.
-------
cis-Nonachlor
1.2
1.0
0.8
1 0.6
a.
o
a.
0.4
0.2
0.0
O.C
1.2
1 n
0.8
.1
H ฐ-6
aZ
0.4
0.2
n n
Small species
f^^"-
-
i i i i
)0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 O.C
cis-Nonachlor (pg/g)
Large species
i i i i i >
^^~-
f
-
i i i i i i
.0
1.0
0.5
0.0
On
.O
)5 O.C
1 .<ฃ.
1 0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
Blacknose dace
^ ^^
1
-
i i i i
)0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.(
cis-Nonachlor (pg/g)
White sucker
i i i i i
T^^
I
i.i i i i i ....
35
'o.OO 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07
cis-Nonachlor (pg/g) cis-Nonachlor (pg/g)
Figure D-19. CDFs showing the proportion of the four fish categories that are at or below varying
concentrations of cis-nonachlor. Note that the value scales vary among CDFs.
-------
g
t;
a
2
Q_
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
-0.5
0.00
1.5
1.0
.g
I ฐ-5
o
0.0
-0.5
0.00
Small species
~T
J_
0.05 0.10
trans-Nonachlor (ug/g)
Large species
_L
_L
_L
0.05 0.10 0.15
trans-Nonachlor (pg/g)
trans-Nonachlor
1.5
0.0
-0.5
0.15 0.00
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
-0.5
0.20 0.00
Blacknose dace
0.05 0.10
trans-Nonachlor (ug/g)
White sucker
J_
_L
_L
0.05 0.10 0.15
trans-Nonachlor (ug/g)
0.15
0.20
Figure D-20. CDFs showing the proportion of the four fish categories that are at or below varying
concentrations of trans-nonachlor. Note that the value scales vary among CDFs.
it ,
-------
g
"-C
I"
D.
1.2
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
O.C
Ox
Small species
~r^^~ -
.
.
i i i *
)0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.
ychlordar
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
-0.5
35 O.C
le
Blacknose dace
i i i i
/i ' -^
f
-
i i i i
10 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.0
Oxychlordane (ug/g) Oxychlordane (pg/g)
1.2
1.0
0.8
0.6
Large species
i i
'&^~~^
\
0.4 |
0.2
0.0
0.
00 0.01 0.02 0.
1.2
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
03 0.
White sucker
i i
$T^^~ -
[/
-
\ i
00 0.01 0.02 O.C
Oxychlordane (pg/g)
Oxychlordane (ug/g)
Figure D-21. CDFs showing the proportion of the four fish categories that are at or below varying
concentrations of Oxychlordane. Note that the value scales vary among CDFs.
!{','** i
-------
1.5
1.0
o 0.5
o
Q.
O
0.0
-0.5
Small species
"I 1 \ 1 T
Total RGBs
1.5
J L
1.0
0.5
0.0
-0.5
Blacknose dace
"i 1 1 1 r
j i i
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6
Total PCBs (pg/g) Total RGBs ([jg/g)
Large species
I 1 i i i
-0.5
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
-0.5
White sucker
"I 1 1 1 T
J I I I
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 ' 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8
Total PCBs (Mg/g) Total PCBs (|jg/g)
Figure D-22. CDFs showing the proportion of the four fish categories that are at or below varying
concentrations of total PCBs. Note that the value scales vary among CDFs.
-------
-------
Appendix E
Box Plots Showing the Level of Analytes
Detected in Each of the Four Analyzed
Fish Categories.
Key to Box Plots
_g
|
05
O
c
o
o
1
E
6
75th percentile
111
25th percentile
I
median
-------
3
_ 2
u>
1
T3
CO
Q>
-1 1
n
-
i
o
'
-*-
1
O
T
LJ
i
0
'-1-'
-
O.Ob
0.04
-S1
ง
7 o-03
CO
y
^ 0.02
0
X
0 0.01
0.00
1 1 r 1
0 0
-
o o
-
O 0
~
0
o
JL Jn r|n rf-
^
1.2
1.0
|! 0.8
S ฐ'6
Q.
1 o-4
0.2
0.0
1 - 1
Figure E-1. Box plots showing the level of lead, oxychlordane and total PCBs detected in each of
the four analyzed fish categories.
***?
-------
U.B
0.7
0.6
"3
^> 0.5
E 0.4
.3
-1 0.3
CO
0 0.2
0.1
n n
i i i i
o
oof8
-
-
* * * J
T T
T
I JL -
Hh 1 r~l
D Q -
i i i i
D
5
_
"*^- 4
CD ^
-5
E -?
3 0
E
o
^ 2
O
i
1
0
6 ' i i
-
o
00*0
o
- * I -
_ i i i ' i ' 1 1 I * _
i i i i
^U
15
-3
CD
f 1ฐ
Q.
Q.
O
0
5
n
i i i i
0
-
o o
o o
0 O -
o * o
4- 4= ^ ฑ
^
*The detected levels of aluminum may have been artificially inflated by the use of
aluminum foil in the packaging and storage of samples (See Collection of Samples and
Laboratory Analysis Sections).
Figure E-2. Box plots showing the level of Al, Cd, Cr and Cu detected in each of the four analyzed
fish categories.
-------
ouu
700
600
55 500
1
400
c
i 300
200
100
n
9 1 1
-
8
o
-
1
-
-
-
0 *
o o *
o *
c *
* *
- * * 1
f 64^
[ I -
1
J.
0.15
0.10
0.05
0.00
*
I
I
f
i i i i
.p>
.a
6
5
4
3
2
1
n
i i
-
-
_
o
o
0 0
1 '
o
o o
-
o o
0
Ai-
-------
\J.\J\Jt
0.006
_ 0.005
-S5
O)
a 0.004
Q
Q
Q 0.003
i
Q.
ฐ" 0.002
0.001
o onn
i i i i
0 0
-
-
0 0
- o
_
* * o
9 *
- ฑ * 1 I -
a ฃ ^ h-
0.020
0.015
"3
ง
Q 0.010
Q
Q
"o.
d.
0.005
1 1 1 1
0 0
-
.
On
\J
" i f I "
^ ^ n
u.uuu U.UUU " iii * * 1
,j^ , -.sP ซ*5y ^
0.020
0.015
5
_3;
JEJ 0.010
Q
i
"h.
O*
0.005
0.000
^' "o " \. V c*>
1 I 1 1
_ 0 0
-
0 0
0 0
i * * 8
^ "^ r~^~i FR
U.UUB
0.007
0.006
"3
g, 0.005
[5 0.004
Q
Q. 0.003
d.
0.002
0.001
n nnr>
i i i i
- o
oo-
0 0
-
- _
0 0 * *
0 0 1
* T -
T
T
-?- i U-l UJ
p'-DDD, o,p'-DDD, o,p'-DDT and p,p'-DDT detected in
-------
I
HI
Q
Q
"5
1.
Q)
S
o.
CD
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
1 1 1 1
0 O
-
-
-
-
_
A 4 4 4
^*' ^
.Uo
0.07
0.06
0.05
0.04
0.03
0.02
0.01
n nn
1 l i i
0 O
-
-
_
0 0
-
O O Q Q
a * 8 JL
"CT
'-I
5
0.07
0.06
0.05
0.04
0.03
0.02
0.01
0.00
1 1 1 1
O 0
_
00-
0 0
0
g o o *
0.003
^ 0.002
c
N
C
O
2 0.001
I
0.000
V
-1 i T- P
O O
* *
-------
. .
-^
0)
CD
CO
"2
o
j=
.c
Q.
CO
~O)
.0
.C
fj
CO
c
0
1
o
u. 10
0.10
0.05
Onn
A o ' '
-
o o
-00
o o
o
o
soil
^85
0)
CO
o
r
9
cb
CO
O)
,// yfy
.07
0.06
0.05
0.04
0.03
0.02
0.01
nnn
1 1 1 I
O 0 _
00
o o
-
_
_ _
o
o ~
IMLM__bMA_nl>BjEHl ' 1 '
-S1
^
_c
o
CO
o
1
CO
1
0.10
0.09
0.08
0.07
0.06
0.05
0.04
0.03
0.02
0.01
Or\n
i i i i
-00
-
-
-
-
-
o o
o o
o
0 00
1 1 8 S
0.15
0.10
0.05
n nn
0 0
-00
-00
o
i J. ฑ i
.<**
Figure E-6. Box plots showing the level of alpha and gamma-chlordane and cis and trans-nonachlor
detected in each of the four analyzed fish categories.
-------
-------
-------
United States
Environmental Protection Agency/ORD
National Exposure Research Laboratory
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
Please make all necessary changes on the below label,
detach or copy, and return to the address in the upper
left-hand corner.
If you do not wish to receive these reports CHECK HERECH;
detach, or copy this cover, and return to the address in the
upper left-hand corner.
PRESORTED STANDARD
POSTAGE & FEES PAID
EPA
PERMIT No. G-35
Official Business
Penalty for Private Use
$300
EPA/600/R-00/107
------- |