-------
daily renewal aliquots) kept cool (at four degrees centigrade to
minimize deterioration) during the test period and used as source
for the daily renewal. This option was chosen because of the lack
of resources required to collect daily surface microlayer samples
at four widely separated geographical locations. Also, relatively
large volumes of surface microlayer samples (over four liters) were
difficult to obtain due to the lack of surface forming "slicks."
Therefore, the volume of a sample did not permit the chronic test
to be run for the routine seven days; the results of the four-day
test are valid for measuring acute response.
The static renewal test protocol recommends using 7-11 day-
old silverside minnows (Menidia beryllina). When the sample
collection and testing began for the toxicity response test,
however, only 19-23 day-old fish were available in sufficient
numbers for the designed test. While the protocol authors theorize
that Menidia Jberyllina may be less sensitive to contaminant effects
as the fish age beyond the post-larvae stage, such comparable data
for 19-23 day old fish are not available. Cultured test organisms
are less variable in many ways than 'wild' fish and, therefore,
even though the test fish were 12 days older than recommended,
their potential response to controlled test conditions was presumed
more beneficial than not conducting this screening toxicity test
at all.
A sample of laboratory source control water (15 ppt salinity)
was obtained from the U.S. EPA's Gulf Breeze Laboratory. A control
was set up with each group of samples because the age of the fish
changed as the study progressed. Comparisons between control and
exposure tests should only be made among samples set up on the same
day. Using commercial artificial sea salts, the salinities of the
microlayer and bulk water samples were adjusted to the salinity
range in which the test organisms were acclimated. A control was
set up on May 10, 1988 using these artificial salts to demonstrate
that these salts do not adversely affect the survival and growth
of Menidia Jberyllina.
Menidia. beryllina was chosen because it is one of the species
identified in the standardized EPA method manual for marine
toxicity tests. It also is an estuarine species that inhabits the
Chesapeake Bay. The Menidia beryllina used for these tests were
obtained from the U.S. EPA's Gulf Breeze Laboratory. They were
shipped air freight on May 9, 1988 and arrived at the mobile
laboratory the next day. The fish were cultured in the laboratory
control water at 23-25 degrees centigrade with a salinity of 15
ppt. On the day that testing was initiated (May 10, 1988), they
were 19 days old. The remaining fish were held in culture water
to be used in the samples set up on May 12, and May 14, 1988 and
were 21 and 23 days old, respectively. While being held, the
10
-------
Menidia Jbisryllina were fed concentrated brine shrimp nauplii twice
daily.
After the water samples arrived at the laboratory, the
temperatures were adjusted up to the test temperature (24 degrees
centigrade +/- 2). The salinities were then adjusted to within 5
ppt salinity of the culture/holding water. The pH, temperature,
salinity and dissolved oxygen were measured in each test solution.
The dissolved oxygen was measured in one of the replicate test
containers every day thereafter for the duration of the test.
Each sample was set up in triplicate in 125 X 65 mm glass
containers with 500 ml of test solution in each. For the samples
set up on May 10 and 12, ten fish were placed in each replicate
for a total of 30 per sample. Due to a reduced supply of fish
during the testing period, only six fish were placed in each
replicate of the samples set up on May 14 for a total of 18 fish
per sample.
One hundred microliters of concentrated brine shrimp nauplii
were dispensed to each replicate every morning. The test organisms
were allowed to feed before the containers were cleaned. Each
replicate test chamber was cleaned daily by siphoning the water and
any debris out of it, filtering the water through a brine shrimp
net and returning the water to the test container. The test
organisms were then fed again.
All tests were terminated after four days of testing. The
tests set up on May 10 and 12 were terminated in the mobile
laboratory. The samples set up on May 14 were transferred from the
mobile laboratory to the U.S. EPA's Wheeling Laboratory on May 16
and terminated on May 18. Results of the control exposure
indicated no adverse effect of this transfer. At termination, the
test organisms were euthanized and preserved in 70% alcohol. The
fish from each replicate were dried and weighed to determine their
mean dry weight. The survival and weight data were analyzed using
Dunnett's Procedure.
Neuston Collections
The neuston population density, composition and diel variation
were all sampled from the same sampling stations using dual nets -
a neuston net immersed 5-10 centimeters during tows and a
subsurface net sampling at the 30-50 centimeters depth.
The dual net consisted of two rectangular-mouth (0.56 X 0.17
meter) zooplankton nets with a mesh size of 200 micrometers. Ten
minute tows were made at a boat speed of one nautical mph,
retracing a marked path or towing in a large circle to avoid
11
-------
current bias in the estimated sampling volumes. The towed distance
was 315 meters <0.17 nautical mile) and the sampling volume of the
partially immersed upper netf was 7.6 cubic meters while the
lowered net sampling volume was 25.8 cubic meters.
Nighttime collections were made no sooner than 3.5 hours after
sunset, and were generally completed at least two hours before
sunrise. Daytime collections rarely began before 10:00 a.m., or
generally at least 4.5 hours after sunrise, and were always
completed at least three hours before sunset.
Identification was made by counting aliquots of the sample in
a Durrel trough using aliquot volumes of 5 - 10 milliliters and
increasing the volumes until consistent concentrations for
identified species were obtained. Dissecting scopes and low power
(X40) inverting microscopes were used as required. The major
literature sources for taxonomic identification include Ward and
Whipple (1966); Versar, Inc. (1987), and Lippson and Moran (1974).
Surface Microlayer Sampler Design
The surface microlayer sampler (Figure 3) was constructed to
provide the Chesapeake Bay Program with an evaluated device for
surface microlayer sample operations. This device incorporates
modifications of existing surface microlayer samplers to improve
the design of the sampler in the following areas:
- collection of sample volumes sufficient for chemical
analysis;
- high collection efficiency;
- shallow, nominal/sampling depth;
- reasonably light weight;
- ease of repair and disassembly; and,
- facility for use from small boats.
Appendix A gives the design specifications and notes.
RESULTS AMD DISCUSSION
Surface Microlayer Contamination
Physical Analyses
The presence of either naturally occurring surfactants or
surface active contaminants is reflected in the observed surface
pressure changes (Table 4) from the nominal surface tension value
of 72.4 mN/m (milli Newton per meter) of freshwater at 20 degrees
centigrade. Surface pressure measurements, using the Adam
12
-------
I
<•*
Xi
o
-------
O <£5 HI
i o a o
to ITI- X
B BI ft H-
a rr f o
O
no
•9 O
0 1
(ft lfl
ft »
P-S
O P-
>•• n
- W
rt
x;
a
o
rt
O
V H-
rr o.
rt B
(u w
TJ V
o
n
If O
•o
n rt
in a>
a a
tr ff
•n <
a e
in
u c
rr ta
A
X C
» o
<; a-
l-I IK
e a
a
O H-
1 <
O n
o
a-a
K) O
« ft
o
HB
o e>
o n
|~ e
»» L-o t»
•°r°
"D ft
in
P
O »-
>x K-
o a
O H-
rt-
tr
h-
o
(A
e
o
CO
W K>
n (n
8 *
w
O>
u> a
n u
» e
*~n
•;s
rt B
Q.
O
»••
n
a>
n
rt
o
a
ia
Kl Co
LR iff
C
O ~M>
a B •
o *«
X* HI
c
6) ^
Hi
^
H- ^
_' ST
0*"
5T«
^ *
* •*
n o
w0"
S B
10 -s
* rt-
"S
2_j 3
£>
0
Sg
si
56
n
UI
O
A
in
8
"a
rt H-
H> I S> i
I- 1MB
t- I -O
Hg o
K * «
o> I * M
14
-------
spreading oils which rely on surface pressure sensitivity, did not
vary more than 1 mN/m from the nominally clean value. A surface
pressure change greater than 1 mN/m correlates with sufficiently
close molecular packing of surfactants to produce interfacial
effects such as capillary wave suppression; it also produces the
appearance of surface slicks (Katsaros et al.f in press; Huhnerfuss
et al., 1985). Thus, a measured spreading pressure of 9.25
indicates the clean surface tension of 72.4 mN/m had dropped to
63.15 mN/m.
In the spring 1988 sampling effort, few surface slicks were
observed; the majority appeared as windrows, bands of foam or
bubbles, with only a narrow zone of obvious capillary wave damping.
The highest surface pressure of 9.25 mN/m was recorded at the
Susquehanna site at giving a nominal sea surface tension of 63.2
mN/m. By comparison, in the autumn 1987 sampling effort, the same
stations gave slick surface pressures as high as 16 mN/m, with
slicks observed at all but two of the sites (data were missing at
two other sites) (U.S. EPA, 1988a). Slick surface pressures
averaged 7.5 mN/m. In both the spring 1988 and the autumn 1987
sampling efforts, the non-slick values were never lower than 0.83
mN/m.
We interpret the findings as follows: when no deviations in
surface tension are found (e.g. 72.4 mN/m at 20 C) , surface
pressure is zero, and the water surface is essentially free of
surface-active contaminants. Low surface pressure (e.g. values
less than 1 mN/m), indicates the presence of natural or man-made
surfactants in very low concentrations, insufficient to produce
even a layer one molecule thick (see, for example, Adamson 1974).
Our measurements, and the work of others (Baier et. al., 1974),
have shown that biogenic surfactants are ubiquitous on natural
waters, typically at low concentrations. Higher surface pressures
indicate higher surfactant concentrations at the interface, and
these may be toxic, anthropogenic surfactants, or more likely,
biogenic materials that in turn have a high potential for trapping
or adsorbing potentially toxic contaminants (Hardy, 1987 and Hardy
et. al., 1987b, 1987c).
The presence of organic substances at the air-water interface
is further verified by two infrared analyses done on Germanium
prism dips at the Choptank and Susquehanna stations. Figures 4 and
5 show the infrared spectrum of the surfactants recovered, analyzed
by attenuated total reflection (ATR) unprocessed, and after gently
leaching with high purity deionized water, respectively. The
leaching removes soluble components, especially salts. Figure 4
highlights 5 peaks. These are:
- the broad peak centered at 3350 I/cm indicating the presence
15
-------
H-
1
•1
(I)
H
9
H>
h
0>
(X
CA
•o
Hj
H
O
tf
9
O
?
H
03
H
Mi
O
s
H-
O
H
O
TRANSMISSION
ilii] cu LI-^ • j:.4i:I-l—Ji;::i ^ jil
. i"., J i ;;, .";..; .. -,..j,; . ."'i."!* I ; * * j i" * -
-T-.—-7-. . | ¥... ...^ ................i. •. . ,y.. •
TT-iTTITTjTr:i:ir:.|t: j.Vit
~" ^"--" ._.....-•> --
"•'{:"-
IS
im | i_n -
— :j;.^-:..r ~-.f-^:- :::- •->. :•: r|: =-..'.-T-:: }. g7 i _:.%!: •.•:~.j~r. ._j ';^_;.:^rr; :«t.':;-:^:l-i ii::::!-L^: ;i.
---
: rr:.--.| .;:.T_-.:.% _Il^i.^.V-^-*-t- —I- -" , • •-" J* '- Tt:. -T" — H.it^r.:..^.^ J r: "ti^-r.^/.ur^ *-'., . ~
"
O
16
-------
H-
3
H
cn
H
a
H)
h
f»
h
A
a
03
O
ft
Hi
n
O
9
rt
tr
n>
o
if
I
n
w
0
N
H>
V
a
o
h
o
o
3
H-
N
0>
a
3E
(D
H
(5
TRANSMISSION (%)
8
isx$i^
s3i ' °
€K
-------
of both bound water and molecules having an N-H bond;
- a peak produced by methyl and CH2 groups of aliphatic
hydrocarbons, occurring free or bound as side chains of
larger molecules;
- a peak reflecting atmospheric C02 in the sample chamber of
the spectr©photometer, a sign of sensitive instrument
performance;
- the broad, noise peak(s) centered at 1660 I/cm 'reflecting
the presence of amide bonds found in proteins and their
breakdown products; and,
- the peak centered at 1310 I/cm which is produced by bonds
both of the sulfate radical and the hydroxyl groups bound
in polysaccharides.
The removal by the peaks at 3350 and 1310 I/cm indicated these
constituents were not firmly bound and partially water soluble.
What remains, likely a significant component of the surface
microlayer, is protein-derived material and some hydrocarbons. The
latter are most probably man-made inputs (e.g. fuels etc.), for
these bands are rarely seen at that strength in waters remote from
human influence (see Baier, 1974; Gucinski et. al., 1981; and,
Sieburth, 1983).
Figures 6 and 7 contain similar information with the following
differences. The hydrocarbon signature is weaker, while the protein
related peaks are more distinctly defined. Moreover, all three
peaks - hydrocarbon, protein-like, and possible polysaccharide-
like - are changed minimally by leaching the sample, indicating low
solubility, and suggesting large molecular size. Finally, the
remaining peak at 3300 I/cm after leaching correlated well with
the presence of amide bonds, further confirming proteinaceous
material to be present.
*
Figures 8 and 9 further confirm the presence of a microlayer
organic matrix, as shown by contact angle analysis. The intercept
of the Zisman Plot least squares fit gives a critical surface
tension of 21.8 mN/m for the Choptank data (Figure 8), and 29.4
mN/m for the Susquehanna data {Figure 9) . The former value is
consistent with one obtained in spreading a film mixture of glyco-
protein and a little oil onto the prism. The latter value,
somewhat higher, suggests a less coherent and less intact film,
shown by the changes seen upon leaching. Both sets of contact
angle data were taken after the prism had been leached and analyzed
by infrared scans. These data indicate that small concentrations
of natural surface-active substances are present at the air-water
10
-------
H-
"8
H
ID
s
i«
£9
Mi
h
o>
n
«>
o
rt
H
H>
H
O
0
ft
tr
(P
w
d
to
o>
D>
IS
j
H
b>
C
h
•^
(U
o
ft
S
H-
O
M
O
M
PI
K
(D
h
TRANSMISSION (%)
8
I
'
— .-i—r—[ : . rt -*—•--
..-., -J.--.-. .— P=^rrr-=^r
19
-------
TRANSMISSION (%)
8
H-
O
H-
N
(D
a
(U
ft
CO
d
to
*
(D
s
CO
d
H
M»
t"
o
H-
o
h
o
M
(B
- -~r-- ;~ :TT:
:-. ::./4- Jj_:.J.a.-.j: •-'..:
^fT/T: ""^'?: ~:VTH " fi" rTj^il'
rr"'" "" "" "•""'
:f-
:-=.i--: •-;•:-:/:! l -i • = ;!::!!![!;• P^M;!-
"•=-•:' i:T!J "*""
TT-;.?!"M.T; U.nuTVK ~ °*
,...„. i._..!'i^l
"t-iZTiS? .B:v-:'ltr'.-:! ~" i'i;'! |""r. rr;-^ I."'-"1'-:.-:.! frl; • -'7-'! :.i:"T;7r:.3-,~ " i.~"T7; j-'-it-i7i."V
20
-------
;
0.95-
I '•
g" 0.9-
o
o
0.85-
08-
(
' ~ v O
O)
X
. c
c
3 5 10 15 20 25 30 3!
Surface Tension (mM/m)
Figure 8. Zisman contact angle plot from the Choptank River at
Cambridge, May 10,1988. (leached in deionized water for 10
seconds. HG 6N epi 1328, gamma - C = 21.8)
S"
15
«•*.
1^
I
O
I
-------
interface even in the absence of slicks. The potential to trap
other substances including toxic contaminants exists. The absence
of well-defined slicks of moderate to high spreading pressure
during our sampling suggests that enrichment of trapped
contaminants under these conditions is only moderate at best.
Chemical Analyses
Over 300 organic compounds were scanned for (Appendix D), but
only four compounds were detected in microlayer and bulk water
samples. These compounds were three low molecular weight solvents
and a plasticizer (Table 5) . The autumn 1987 study (U.S. EPA,
1988a) detected a larger number of organic compounds including
saturated and aromatic hydrocarbons. These same compounds were not
detected during the spring 1988 survey. Sixteen pesticides were
detected (Table 6) in trace quantities out of the 79 screened
(Appendix E) by GC/MS. The autumn 1987 study (U.S. EPA, 1988a)
detected a greater variety of pesticides at slightly higher
concentrations than the present study.
The results of the metals analyses (Table 7) indicated
concentrations of several metals in the surface microlayer samples
exceeded the U.S. EPA marine or freshwater water quality chronic
values. While the microlayer itself is not 'water,' its close
association to the water column justifies comparing the measured
concentration to these chronic values.
The following marine chronic values were exceeded in the
microlayer at stations in the Elk, Sassafras and the Susquehanna
rivers: copper - 2.9 ug/1; lead - 5.6 ug/1 and nickel - 8.3 ug/1).
The zinc marine chronic value (86 ug/1) was exceeded in the
Sassafras River.
The freshwater chronic values were exceeded in the microlayer
for the following: copper (12 ug/1) at two of the Potomac River's
three freshwater locations; lead at all three Potomac River
freshwater locations; and zinc at two of the three Potomac River
freshwater locations. The aluminum analytical results were high
for the Potomac (middle station), Elk , Sassafras and Susquehanna
stations. These values exceed the water quality criteria for
freshwater organisms. Depending on hardness and pH, the values
reported here are potentially capable of producing toxic effects
on aquatic life.
The butyltin concentrations (Table 7) were much less than
those observed in the exploratory studies conducted in the autumn
1987 study (U.S. EPA, 1988a) . Several of the values from the spring
1988 study are in the range reported to produce sublethal effects:
.015 ug/1 for dibutyltin (DBT) and .016 ug/1 for tributyltin (TBT)
22
-------
H-
a
e
J3
o-
•a
n
a
tr
u
01
rt
O.
a.
B
ft
D
n
rt
>••
o
D
a «ri»
fl H- O L1 a 9 P 3 H- M-» Ju tt a £ M
65 ft rt o "O "O a a. o n *>nj a >- n"0
wiEro.ftrtriof-'tr • rt B rt » o*
oonwtuH-no.t-lObn I u
mxH-nnaCnoePi I ml
ixssrrr r-*-s>rj uotostB
» n i-** hi»»M SB a: n a:
tr o o v o n n
»4 O
"O
O
x
H-
a
o
H
Bl
o
Sr
t-
O
»!
O
»
ft
»
O
a
) O
Z B
I O
n H,
e o
•< B
n
(T
h-
4
oooooooooooooooo
SCCSSSSSSSCESSSS
o
o
f ft
I*. If
B n
rt H-
o
a
>o
e
III
rt
o
H-
.
M a
0
n
o
•o
o
* 90* s
O O
sma-ata •
O O O O O
t \fl UT W W U* e
u in
rt e
0 e
n 9
< Sr
a u
*j
0.3
0 ft
O»
n H.
ft <
n o
»T
4
o
rt
A
P.
H.
g
ff
*f
O
(ft
n
Oi
0
A
0 W
rt C
|s> 3»ja
*-» *•- M *-• W I*- * £
o o o o fa nie
\n i < a-
o a si
I 9
a a
* a
*. * ^ n 1C
If oft so
i- i-. h* >- Irt e " N-
O O O O |» M » <
|1 X- 1 o
o n
O
o
rt
a
rt
0
a
r*.
a
rr
0
b>
c
n
X- ll-
ft 4040444000004040 [ft
i-* o oot^ii^M o 0(0
cr uu uiu4u4c^u(|t
C
rt
P jc
^ 0404404000404040 |j^
~ o^ oootoi^ool'
tf
u
3
rt
H-
Pt)
*••
» 2
ff H-
« 11
. 0404444400000044 o
0 H O fO (-• H 0 O * ft
U1 U* i*> U1 W U> W 1*1 <
0
1
X
O4O4444OO4OO404O O
• 5d*$fl9d!09d*490««90.S0m ••*
O *-• OO *-*!«* O O ft
e
*
n
Jtc V
« n'
O ft 01
i a s
trw
^i
CD H- 90
£•!§"<
X« «
ft O
rt
SO
0 &
a»
ai n
so
BH-
n a
B
ft
ft a.
rt i
ig pi
a
«
»1
O
»-*
fr
»
M
ft*
a
a
c
x-
«
A
en
B
"0
A
a
J
/\
t- U
o a
PI
Si
a
a
c
0
rt
a
n
u
a
•a
"5
3
o
ft J7.
23
-------
— 1 —~
1 "•
II 11
9 U
O rt
rt
o
to n
B (•"
if? 0
H VI
0 n
IX
rt
nt yr
O B
1 9
U ft
3 sr
Q. 0
\
0 A
it 0
ft
a 0
o n
ft rt
V O
a a
t- »-•
*< **-
a ft
HI
o
.
— .
Kl
1
n U>
U »
vn *^
l_i *-*
**
*<
>
•O
*o
J-»
H-
*
0*
1?
*<
"
n
r
£•
Q
2
ft
o
J
V
0
n
in
O
a
0
0
!>•»
*•
ft
o
fi
ft
><
0
III
rt-
Id
a
o
ft
no
rt
o
n
B
(S»
o
a
ST
0
n
0
*~ 7i
i-* w
— K
|
(1)
0*
B
"0
0
n
0
t-
H*
0
fl
ft
0
O.
V
9
a
0
•p
c
a
o.
0
n
o
B
B
B
B
H-
rr
>•:
n
O
M
»-»
If)
0
13
0
5
O
a
a
0
^
o
x
Q
^.
FT
•<
ft
O
to
rt
0
•t
tli
O
t
-*
o
a
rt
•o
t-
0
«
»
•0
< 0
H-rt
t O
^ B
f * In
.3 r>
t*,
fr $0
M-
—. <
K> O
j
e *•
M O
*• i
o
C I-
„ „
rtKJ
0 0
1 1
N> K>
U)U>
1 1
n n
Ul «J
Ul U>
o o
U.U.
A. J\
xv r*
Ul Ul
M
w ^-«
•>. r-.
UIUI
/, 1-
L>> t*J
A
Ul \O
o ^
o o
o o
tu M
, ,
o o
O 0
•0
3 o
i*-rt
ao
Q.3
0 n
— »
ej H-
0
rt
1
o>3
p *"
rrolaye
Lk wat a
i i
Kl KJ
o\ m
1 I
o> o»
Ul
-4UI
Ul O
00
UIW
ON U>
^
09 W
W
l£» O
M
-JO
^
UIUI
UIUI
w
0» A
0 O
00
tu t\>
, ,
o o
OO
fJKI
Z V
t> o
1 ft
•
*. w
>\
U U
UtUl
Ul 1C
-J 1C
0 O
OO
Nl **!
*. n
. .
o o
o o
MM
PI
X*
M
H-
^
0
»t
^K
M
te»
I--C P-
ft !r t
o
H0 D
1 i i
i— i-* »-*
to 1010
1 1 1
O9 O>0>
Kl Ul
lolo
nw^i
OOO
UIIUUI
^
Ul 0% 09
^I«OI-'
o
^
MUIW
Ul Ul Ul
U1UIUI
H-UIA
» 0> H
.
O O
00
M Kl
| A /\
O O
oo
ww
la
a
Id
(ft
Ck
hn
•t
ft
Ul
id
H-
^
0
rl
^»
M
•**
H- C f '
ft K 1
O
tr» »
C rtw;
1 1 1
NJ IO M
OOO
1 ( 1
OXfeCD
CO CP 09
Ul
*"o>
*ss
V-UIBI
UUIUI
^ m
wwto
•B. Ulf
o
M
^ A 0V
M
09
Ul U Ul
Ul UIUI
•> tu Ul
w o oi
w
1 vs. *x
00
OO
kJ NJ
I yv yv
< ,
o o
OO
NIW
in a 3
C rt V-
in o.
>a & i
e on
W ft !5"
P1 & »
&. »o w
£9 O *
» fr
(M x- a
0 B)
JC Kl
H- — •
<* |>^
0 v
rj
— .
.M
•w
0)3 0) X
C H- C H-
X n K n
O O
« h- C M
1 1 1
IO 10 J h*
OO 1 U
1 1 1
09 O> 09
oa o» at
.•% * 1 «M
ON Ul O
OO O
ys *-> I A
UIUI Ul
O.UI | ^
Ul
Ox UT 1 ^
Ul
/^ /v | /v
» -J 1 A
Ul
UiUI W
UIUI Ul
M 1 *-•
O 0» M
/v • t *
• O 0
Oh* f
OO Ul
W
*. . 1 •
• o o
ONI »-
O 01 ON
W
til *0
rt O
^
SCO
0 B
a. PI
d3 O
0
$0
JJJ H-
0 <
n »
7P *t
^^.
1-
-»>
e H-
x n
o
e »-
a »
if*
1
1 f
1 Ul
I
09
o>
i A
o
i A
U,
Ul
1 Ul
1 Ul
1 ".
1 Ul
Ul
1 M
-1
• i
1 1
n
u rr
ft O
•o
n rt
to U
B a
U X*
•t
H- i0
O.H*
tQ <
a o
i
^•K
H"
•«•
c*
o
J» ft
Ul
1- 1
O 1
1
O9
00
„
o
/•I 1
U,
Ul
XN 1
U)
A 1
Ul
^ t
0> 1
rt
Ul
A 1
Ul
to I
XV «
• O
O -J
O M
*v
y\ .
• O
O O
OKI
Kl
(n
U C
ft n
<
«I>UI
1 1
1 1
to O>
»0»
M «
00>
OO
*N XV
Ul Ul
W U*
Ul ife
A (-•
Ul Kl
N
W O
Ul ON
^
Ul Ul
M *-•
UIUI
*-i>
M Ul
/\ «
• 0
o o
O -4
l\>
XX .
• O
OO
O Ul
K>
cn
r
0
h
P
1
in
(•O
0 M
0
0
ft
0
P*
P
n
r>
r>
it
: 0
rr
«
k-'
IB n
crx
o
ft
ss *$
re
a
in u>
0
c
in
x
W t-
3 ~ '
P4
a
o
B
*3
H
B
fi
Table 1
•
3
C'°
»J
H*
7 W
«»?.
= 5-
Jlc
?5
0 J^
aH*
n
2 0
CO
•S-
0 tt
«3
«. «>•
&3
C^
~,c
>r^
^ ^
tt rt
ft f^'
9 °
*t ^
WS
B **
"O ~"
^* /^
U °
a
ft
n
fT
O
trt
24
-------
in the Matapeake; .071 ug/1 for DBT and .009 ug/1 for TBT in the
Choptank; .010 ug/1 DBT and .028 ug/1 TBT in the Susquehanna.
Biological Results
Toxicity Tests
The Menidia beryllina toxicity tests were terminated after
four days because insufficient volumes of surface microlayer
samples were obtained. The results of these tests (surface
microlayer and bulkwater samples for four stations) are summarized
in Table 8 and fully listed in Appendix B.
No mortality with larval Menidia beryllina was observed in any
of the ambient water samples. The control exposures (Gulf Breeze
water and an artificial sea salt water) also recorded high survival
(100% survival in nine exposures, 89% survival in one exposure).
The four-day growth rate response parameter (final mean weight) was
not significantly different in any of the sample tests when
compared to the sample set controls. The growth rate response
parameter in the endpoint of the standardized chronic test protocol
is designed for a seven-day period. Insufficient sample volumes
precluded completion of the seven day chronic test, and therefore,
the four-day test results record an acute toxicity response.
Neuston Analyses
The results of the neuston analyses are summarized by station
in Figures 10-13 and fully listed in Appendix C. The neuston
concentration (number of organisms per cubic meter) and percent
abundance for the top 5 cm and for a 20 cm interval sampled between
the 30 and 50 cm water depth are listed for each station.
Both day and night tows were made to better characterize the
diel differences. The values reported as the averages of two
replicated tows (with the exception of the mid-Chesapeake Bay at
Matapeake station where a top tow sample was not collected).
Unfortunately, the nighttime neuston samples for the Potomac River
at Hedge Neck station were invalidated due to a labeling error.
The nighttime total organism density exceeded the daytime
density at all stations, as did the density of the single most
abundant species. Nighttime total organism density exceeded
daytime values by as little as a factor of two at the Susquehanna
station, up to a factor of 50 at the mid-Chesapeake Bay at
Matapeake station. One might expect greater organism densities at
the lower depth compared to the surface layer in daytime and this
is borne out at all stations. It is not clear whether a nighttime
25
-------
Table 8. Summary of Menidia berylllna Toxicity Test Results
Sample
Gulf Breeze
Control
Sea Salt
Control
Choptank River
at Cambridge
Bulk water
Choptank River
at Cambridge
Microlayer
Gulf Breeze
Control
Sueguehanna River
at Havre de Grace
Bulk water
Susquehanna River
at Havre de Grace
Microlayer
Mid-Chesapeake Bay
at Matapeake
Bulk water
Mid-Chesapeake Bay
at Matapeake
Microlayer
Gulf Breeze
Control
Potomac River
at Hedge Heck
Bulk water
Potomac River
at Hedge Heck
Microlayer
Beginning
Test Date
5-10-88
5-10-88
5-10-88
5-10-88
5-12-88
5-12-88
5-12-88
5-12-88
5-12-88
5-14-88
5-14-88
5-14-88
Total Number of
Surviving Organisms
Rep. 1
A
B
C
A
B
C
A
B
C
A
B
C
A
B
C
A
B
C
A
B
C
A
B
C
A
B
C
A
B
C
A
B
C
A
B
C
Day
1
10
10
10
10
10
8
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
Day
2
10
10
10
10
10
8
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
Day
3
10
10
10
10
10
8
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
Day
4
10
10
10
10
10
8 '
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
€
6
6
6
6
6
6
e
6
Percent
Survival
100
100
100
100
100
89
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
26
-------
3.
§•
(
o"
ro
8-
8-
!
I-
CO CO
c c
3. a.
3
O
t»
O
o
I I
2 O
1
o
CA
I
5'
CO
I
I
o
•o
o
o"
to
CO
f
(O
_A
to
I-^JVIMI^I^JJJJ
§_
.
«i
.;
H=
R;
-:
s;
to -
r
i
•1
i
!
u
i
(Q
i
_k
p
£1
o"
CO CO
c c
sr §•
c o
2. O
OJ ^_
8 2
g §
£ ?
o 2
? a-
i 3
CO
I
W 3 OT
S Q »
g
0)
r>
CD
I
{A
D
(U
I
O
o
1
k
(O
-------
o
BT
f»
4*_
CO-
o~
_>.
of
2? o
S> gj1
—L-J,
i-
£ i 5" c * a
*m B% 8? T3 =: co o. T3 to w>
1 ' ' '
1
u
I
P
1
CO
TO
I
§
o
5
o
c/>
S
§
r
(O
i
a*
10
(D
S2.
o
s
w
a.
ro §
3 C/>
2 o
w ?
o z
3 <5"
to' **
CO CO
c c
Sf &
§. §
I
3
(D
O
CD
6
o
o
o
I
01
•§
03
DO
D>
Q>
ST
•o
o
D9
«3
CO
28
-------
reversal is expected, yet a clearly evident case was observed at
the Choptank River at Cambridge station. Here a single species
Gammarus sp., accounted for the high density (97% abundance) in the
surface layer at night, although fish eggs were also more abundant
than at subsurface depths.
At a number of sites, several species occurred in greater
abundance within the surface layer compared to the deeper layer,
even if that species did not dominate the total population density.
For example, at the Potomac River at Hedge Neck station, Bos.mi.na
sp. (a cladoceran) and Eurytemora sp. (a copepod) occurred in
greater numbers in the surface layer, while the total population
density was driven by the slightly greater abundances of Acarfcia
sp. (a copepod) and barnacle nauplii in the subsurface layer. At
the mid-Chesapeake Bay at Matapeake station, Acartia sp., mysid
shrimp, and barnacle nauplii were more abundant below the surface,
but Eurytejnqra sp. was more dense within the surface layer and
Diaphanosoma sp. (a cladoceran) , and Gammarus sp. (an amphipod) and
fish eggs were more abundant within the surface layer. At the
Susquehanna River at Havre de Grace station, only Daphnia sp. were
more dominant in the surface layer compared to the subsurface
volume sample in this work.
The greater abundance of some zooplankton species in or near
the surface microlayer, especially at night, along with the high
abundance of a few species assemblages in that zone at other times,
suggest highly dynamic behavior in these populations. Our data are
too sparse to allow deductions about variables that shape the
zooplankton density at any one level. Certainly vertical motility
plays a role, as do physical mixing processes. But the sum total
of the effects suggests that contact with the microlayer as part
of the diel changes is likely for some fraction of these animals.
Copepods, cladocerans, and amphipods are important prey for
fishes and shellfish of resource value. These species may directly
assimilate potential toxicants when the surface microlayer is
contaminated. No knowledge has come to our attention concerning
the possibility of increased grazing by these opportunistic species
in slick-covered enriched areas.
CONCLUSIONS
The absence of coherent surface films or slicks and the
infrequency and low concentration of surface microlayer
contaminants found in this spring 1988 sampling correlate well with
the autumn 1987 higher "slick" abundance and higher surface
microlayer contaminant loading. This correlation supports the
hypothesis that biogenic surfactants form a pollutant trapping
matrix. No data have been found that allow prediction of the
29
-------
frequency, distribution, and coherence of film or the trapping
potential they represent.
The toxicity test results agree with the organic and pesticide
analyses - no observable toxic responses with low concentrations
of contaminants. Several metal concentrations (copper, lead,
nickel and zinc) exceeded the marine water quality criteria chronic
values. These chronic values were based on the lowest observed
effective concentration and, therefore, observed concentrations
near these values would not necessarily produce direct acute or
short-term responses. A broader scoped sample and analysis design
is required for verification of the observed variability of the
surfactants and their potential effects.
30
-------
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Adam, N.K. 1937. A rapid method for determining the lowering of
tension of exposed water surfaces, with some observations of
surface tension of the sea and inland waters. Proc. Royal Soc. (B)
122:134-139.
Adamson, A.W. 1967. Physical Chemistry of Surfaces.
Interscience, New York, pp. 747.
Baier, R.E., D.W. Goupil, S. Perlmutter, R. King. 1974. Dominant
chemical composition of sea-surface films, natural slicks, and
foams. J. Res. Atmosph. 8: 571-600.
Gucinski, H., D.W. Goupil, and R.E. Baier. 1981. The Sampling and
Composition of the surface microlayer. in: Atmospheric Pollutants
to Natural Waters. S. Eisenreich, Ed., Ann Arbor Press.
Hardy, J.T. 1988. Anthropogenic alteration of the sea-surface.
Guest Editorial. Marine Env. Res. 23: 223-225.
Hardy, J.T., E.A. Crecelius, L.D. Antrim, S.L. Kiesser and V.L.
Broadhurst. 1987. Aquatic surface microlayer contamination in
Chesapeake Bay. Contract to Maryland Dept. of Natural Resources,
Energy Administration, Power Plant Research Program, Annapolis,
MD. 39 pp.
Hardy, J.T., E.A. Crecelius, C.W. Apts and J.M. Gurtisen. 1988.
Sea-surface contamination in Puget Sound: Part I. Toxic effects
on fish eggs and larvae. Marine Env. Res. 23: 227-249.
Hardy, J.T., E.A. Crecelius, C.W, Apts and J.M. Gurtisen. 1988.
Sea-surface contamination in Puget Sound: Part II. Concentration
and distribution of contaminants. Marine Env. Res. 23: 251-271.
Harrick, N. J. 1967. Internal Reflection Spectroscopy.
Interscience, New York.
Huhnerfuss, H., P.A. Lange, w. Walter. 1985. Relaxation effects in
monolayers and their contribution to water wave damping. I. Wave-
induced phase shifts. J. Colloid Interf. Sci. 108(2): 430-431.
Katsaros, K.B., H. Gucinski, S.S. Atakturk, R. Pincus. Effects of
reduced surface tension on short waves at low wind speeds in a
fresh water lake, (in press.)
Idppson, A.J. and R.L. Moran. 1974. Manual for identification of
early developmental stages of fishes of the Potomac River Estuary.
Maryland Dept. of Natural Resources, Power Plant Siting Program.
PPSP-MP-13. 282 pp.
31
-------
Seiburth, J. McN. 1983. Microbiological and organic-chemical
processes in the surface and mixed layers. In: P.S. Liss, W.G.N.
Slinn. Air-Sea Exchange _of Qas.eg and ,Pa.rticles. NATO ASI Series
108, Reidel Publ. Co., Boston.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1979. Methods for chemical
analysis of water and wastes. U.S. EPA, Washington, DC. EPA 600/4-
79-020.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1982. Methods for chemical
analysis of water and wastes. U.S. EPA, Washington, DC. EPA 600/4-
79-020.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Chesapeake Bay Program.
1988a. Review of Technical Literature and Characterization of
Aquatic Surface Microlayer Samples. Contract Report prepared by
J.T. Hardy, Battelle Marine Research Laboratory, Sequim, WA, and
Hermann Gucinski, Anne Arundel Community College, Annapolis, MD.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1988b. Method 1624C Revision
B - Volatile Organic Compounds by Isotope Dilution GC/MS. Office
of Water Regulations and Standards/Industrial Technology Division
(ITD) Methods. 6/89. Washington, D.C.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1988c. Method 1625C Revision
B - Semivolatile Organic Compounds by Isotope Dilution GC/MS.
Office of Water Regulations and Standards/Industrial Technology
Division (ITD) Methods. 6/89. Washington, D.C.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1988d. Method 1618 Organo-
Halide Pesticides, Organo-Phosphorus Pesticides, and Phenoxy-Acid
Herbicides by Wide Bore Capillary Column Gas Chromatography with
Selective Detectors. U.S. EPA, Washington, DC. June 1989.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1989. Office of Water
Regulations and Standards/Industrial Technology Division (ITD)
Methods, Method 1618. 6/89. Washington, D.C.
Unger, M.A., W.G. Maclntyre, J. Greaves and R.J. Huggett. 1986. GC
determination of butyltins in natural waters by flame photometric
detection of hexyl derivatives with mass spectrometric
confirmation. Chemosphere 15;461-470.
Versar, Inc., July, 1987. Chesapeake Bay Water Quality Monitoring
Program Meso-Zooplankton Component: August 1984 - December 1986.
Maryland Dept. of Health and Mental Hygiene, Office of Ertvir.
Programs, Baltimore, MD. 21201.
Ward, H.B. and G.C. Whipple. 1966. Freshwater Biology. 2nd ed. John
Wiley, New York. 1248 pp.
Zisman, W.A. 1964. Relation of equilibrium contact angle in liquid
and solid constitution. Advances in Chemistry 43:1.
32
-------
APPENDIX A
FREEMAN SURFACE MICROLAYER SAMPLER DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS
The microlayer sampler (Figure 3) incorporates the advantages
of previous models in order to provide the Chesapeake Bay Program
with an upgraded, evaluated collecting device. The upgrades to the
microlayer sampler include:
- collection of large sampling volume;
- high collection efficiency;
- shallow, nominal, sampling depth;
- reasonable light weight;
- ease of repair and disassembly; and
- facility of use from small boats.
Design specifications for the microlayer drum sampler were
submitted for bid to several contractors. These specifications
include:
The drum material should be metal and thick enough to retain
stiffness. It does not have to be made of stainless steel.
Aluminum is acceptable if the coating extends over all surfaces.
Tolerance of the drum barrel surface should be within 1/32 inch or
2 mm. The drum coating should be teflon (polytetrafluoroethylene),
preferably non-dyed, with sufficient thickness so that minor
scratches will not expose the metal. The teflon should be tested
and must provide water contact angles of at least 108 degrees and
critical surface tension of 16-18 milli newtons per meter. The
teflon finish coat should be characterized by infrared spectro-
scopy and contact angle analysis. The drum shaft should be made
from a non-corrosive material or coated from corrosion.
The floats may consist of either foam floatation with a
suitable watertight outer layer or PVC (poly vinyl -chloride) pipe
of adequate diameter to ensure towing qualities. Buoyancy
requirements must support the sampler, its attached sampling
bottles and immerse the drum 2-4 inches during towing operations.
The float separation must be sufficient to minimize float wake
effects on the drum sampler.
The supporting structure may be made of PVC or corrosion-
protected metal. It must provide lateral and transverse stability
to withstand waves of up to 3 feet, handling and shipping stress,
and overboard launching and retrieval. Easy disassembly and
reassembly is preferred. The structure must support a wiper and
drain system and provide a secure platform for the sampling
bottles. A maximum sampling bottle capacity of 1 U.S. gallon and
a minimum capacity of 125 milli liters is required.
A-l
-------
An automatic drive is preferred to propel the sampler forward
using the water's motion to turn the drum so that the forward face
of the drum is rising and the after face is descending. Drum
rotation rate should be set so that the drum's rim tangential
velocity is equal to the sampler's forward motion via a paddle
wheel, propeller, or other drive mechanism. If this set up is not
achievable, then an electric drive that is fear or belt driven is
acceptable. The electric drive must use a 12 volt DC motor run
from a standard 12 volt car or marine lead-acid battery (i.e. a
duty cycle with a 24 amp. hour battery) , to allow for an -adjustable
drum rotation rate consistent with a tangential velocity equal to
a sampler tow speed of 1 to 2,5 knots.
The wiper and drain assembly must have a flexible blade so
that it maintains contact with the drum at all times. The use of
teflon coating is preferred to prevent sample contamination, but
siliconized rubber may be used with minimum reliability. The drain
assembly may be made of PVC piping or an equivalent, but must have
a teflon or silicon coating to prevent sample contamination.
Freeman Associates, in Berlin, Maryland, was selected as the
contractor. Their design sketch, in Figure 3, is similar to a
design developed by Battelle Marine Science Lab (see Hardy, et al.,
1988) except for these differences:
- Except for the drum shafts, and pulleys constructed of T6061
aluminum, construction is almost entirely of PVC with commercially
available grade pipe sizes. Simplicity and ease of repair and
assembly was emphasized allowing maintenance on-site with a simple
PVC repair kit.
- The drive is unique in that it synchronizes the drum rotation
rate with the forward motion of the sampling rig, ensuring the
proper drum advancement and the fresh surface layer to be lifted
from the water. This drive system avoids the problems caused by
a fixed speed tow where the tow speed may exceed or lag behind the
drum rotation rate.
A higher tow speed in respect to the drum rotation rate will
collapse the surface film ahead of the drum, collecting too much
surface layer in the presence of a slick. Too slow of a tow speed
will initially remove the surface film present, but will
subsequently remove subsurface water, causing a dilution effect in
the sample collection. These risks should be minimized by the
chosen design.
A-2
-------
APPENDIX B
JMenidia Jberyllina Toxicity Testing:
Survival, Physical and Chemical Data
Menidia beryl Una. Larval Survival and Growth Test Toxicity Data
Sample Source: Chesapeake Bay
Beginning Date: 5-10-88 Number of
Surviving Organisms/Day
Observation Time:
Exposure
Gulf Breeze
Control
Observation Time;
Exposure
Sea Salt
Control
Observation Time:
Exposure
Choptank
Bulk water
Observation Time :
Exposure
Choptank
Microlayer water
Repl.
A
B
C
Repl.
A
B
C
;
Repl.
A
B
C
Repl.
A
B
C
1033
Day
1
10
10
10
1046
Day
1
10
10
8 of 9
1100
Day
1
10
10
10
1131
Day
1
10
10
10
1414
Day
2
10
10
10
1425
Day
2
10
10
8 of 9
1438
Day
2
10
10
10
1446
Day
2
10
10
10
1045
Day
3
10
10
10
1056
Day
3
10
10
8 of
1109
Day
3
10
10
10
1142
Day
3
10
10
10
1300
Day
4
10
10
10
1304
Day
4
10
10
9 8 of 9
1310
Day
4
10
10
10
1317
Day
4
10
10
10
B-l
-------
APPENDIX B
Menidla Jberyllina Larval Survival and Growth Test Toxicity Data
(continued)
Sample Source: Chesapeake Bay
Beginning Date: 5-12-88
Observation Time:
Exposure
Gulf Breeze
Control
Repl.
A
B
C
Observation Time:
Exposure Repl.
Susquehanna
Bulk water
Observation Time:
Exposure
Susquehanna
Microlayer water
Observation Time:
Exposure
•
Mid-Bay
Bulk water
Observation Time:
Exposure
Mid-Bay
Microlayer water
A
B
C
Repl
A
B
C
Repl
A
B
C
Repl
A
B
C
Number of
Surviving Organisms/Day
1154
Day
_!
10
10
10
1205
Day
_1
10
10
10
1220
Day
_1
10
10
10
1230
Day
_1
10
10
10
1242
Day
1
10
10
10
1418
Day
_2
10
10
10
1428
Day
_2_
10
10
10
1437
Day
_2
10
10
10
1459
Day
_2
10
11
10
1509
Day
2
10
10
10
1008
Day
_2.
10
10
10
1018
Day
_3
10
10
10
1028
Day
_3
10
10
10
1038
Day
_3
10
11
10
1058
Day
3
10
10
10
0853
Day
_i
10
10
10
0906
Day
_4
10
10
10
0910
Day
_4
10
10
10
0917
Day
4
10
11
10
0923
Day
4
10
10
10
B-2
-------
APPENDIX B
Menidia Jberyllina Larval Survival and Growth Test Toxicity Data
(continued)
Sample source: Chesapeake Bay
Beginning Date: 5-14-86
Oba e rvat i on T ime;
Exposure
Gulf Breeze
Control
Repl.
A
B
C
1108
Day
I
6
6
6
Number of
Surviving Organisms/Day
0903
Day
_2
6
6
6
1303
Day
_3
6
6
6
1441
Day
_4
6
6
6
Observation Time:
Exposure
Potomac
Bulk water
Repl
A
B
C
1119
Day
1
0912
Day
2
1300
Day
3
1434
Day
4
6
6
6
6
6
6
5
6
6
5
6
6
Observation Time:
Exposure
Potomac
Microlayer water
Repl
A
B
C
1130
Day
1
0925
Day
2
1258
Day
3
1428
Day
4
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
5
6
6
5
6
B-3
-------
APPENDIX B
Initial Test: Exposure Water Quality Data
(all temperatures reported are in degrees Celsius)
Sample Source: Chesapeake Bay
Beginning Date: 5-10-88
--Dissolved Oxygen--
Exposure Day: £ i 2 3, 4_ p_H Temp. Salinity
Gulf Breeze 8.1 7.1 7.2 6.8 7.1 7.7 25.8° 18
Control
Exposure
Sea Salt
Control
--Dissolved Oxygen--
Day: 0_ 1. 2_ 3_ 4_ pH Temp. Salinity
8.7 7.2 7.1 6.7 7.0 8.6 23.8° 16
--Dissolved Oxygen—
Exposure Day: 0. I 2_ 3 4_ pH Temp. Salinity
Choptank 8.2 7.2 7.2 6.5 6.9 6.8 25.5° 15
Bulk water
—Dissolved Oxygen--
Exposure Day: £ 1. 2_ 3. 4_ pH Temp. Salinity
Choptank 8.5 7.2 6.6 6.6 6.9 7.8 24.4° 14
Microlayer water
Sample Source: Chesapeake Bay
Beginning Date: 5-12-88
—Dissolved Oxygen--
Exposure Day: 0. 1. 2_ 3_ _4
Gulf Breeze 7.8 7.1 7.0 6.5 7.0
Control
pH Temp. Salinity
7.7 24.1° 15
--Dissolved Oxygen--
Exposure Day: 0. 1. 2 3 4_
Susquehanna 8.6 7.0 6.9 6.5 6.9
Bulk water
pH Temp.
8.4 23.0°
Salinity
15
--Dissolved Oxygen—
Exposure Day: £ i 2_ 3, 4_
Susquehanna 8.8 6.2 6.6 6.7 7.1
Microlayer
pjj Temp.
8.4 23.4°
Salinity
15
B-4
-------
APPENDIX B
Initial Test Exposure Water Quality Data (continued)
(all temperatues reported are in degrees Celsius)
Sample Source: Chesapeake Bay
Beginning Date: 5-12-88 (continued)
--Dissolved Oxygen--
Exposure Day: 0. 1 2_ 3 4 pH Temp;. Salinity
Mid-Bay 8.4 6~.1 6.7 6.1 6.9 7.9 24.2° 14
Bulk water
—Dissolved Oxygen—
Exposure Day: Q 1. 2_ 3 4_ pH Temp. Salinity
Mid-Bay 8.3 6.8 6.9 6.2 6.9 7.9 24.2° 14
Microlayer
Sample Source: Chesapeake Bay
Beginning Date: 5-14-88
--Dissolved Oxygen--
Exposure Day: 0. 1. 2 3. 4_
Gulf Breeze 7.8 6.7 7.3 6.4 5.2
Control
pJH Temp.
7.6 23.7°
Salinity
16
--Dissolved Oxygen--
Exposure Day: () I 2_ 3_ 4.
Potomac 8.0 4.5 6.8 6.6 5.6
Bulk water
pH Temp.
8.2 22.5°
Salinity
14
Exposure
Potomac
Microlayer
--Dissolved Oxygen--
Day: £ i 2. 3 4
8.2 4.3 7.0 6.2 5.4
pH Temp. Salinity
8.3 22.6° 14
B-5
-------
t*. H t* i
-l.l< - •
3B-§g£,KM&.§
lurtHtiuKutiu
OHtoUflftH-BBOuRlB
— -- H|P» tr^ B
- * p- p ft p-
rt n 8 tt p «d
« I* 3 o B rt I
M&SSSS
r •&•"•»
28-p: I1?-
•• s&
§!?
r
«
K-
19
8-.I
» >d 3
•O U
• U ft *-•
"8
PS
G> * tfl M
»> p ft -
'<•< ft
O 0
p
O
u a
o
«
O |OOOOOOMI-'(O
H K •-• 10 QB
WUJUOlCTll-'H'tn* CO
nS
B >< w z
5,L0S
O w t> tt
*-. i *< o
MO M
o w 01 I
O lOOOOOOOOOOOHHH'CJOJWU dpi
o<7\ojcouioajcn*>oooooo<»i-'o
CO-J(O*.MOU)-4U>OOOO(OOU)OitJ
W W H1
Ot-'WIOWOI-'l-'OOOOClOOI-'O-J
o a
• H-
0 <<
>» "
s c?
(O tt
*•" 00
>
»•
dp g
(0
1
1 !
K »
S i
C-l
-------
H
O
rt
open
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOHOOOO-JOOCO
*?
o,
f I O
< (-> O tl
• H * O
o
o
OOOOOOOOOHOOOOOONUIOOOOK>«I->OUI
-J-JOOOOOO-JCOOOOOOOOU)~J-JOOO\t-'U)OO
09
-J
O
o
O
OOOOIOOOOOOOOI-'OOOOI-'OOOI-'OOOOO
OOI->U~)OOOOI-lOOHOI-*OIB*OOOtOls>OOOO
U> H M (O
oooiy))-'ooooHooMOi->oa>cnoooioMoo
O» t"* H
w |ooooooooooooooooooooooi-*M(oo« n
• | *.*., p
o jo o o o
o Jo o o o
B4 u, £
• V I * O
< H» H- H
» )-»a o
u, f. > -. i g-»-.
oo o 01 or n a> rt »
• • • * g — 00 k
-------
ocooooooooooo
Muwu«k«ooo4»oMWtooot>>oai
o
o
OOODOOODOQOOOOOOOI-'tOOOOOl
OOOQOOOOOHHk>U>Ul^'&tDt-*tOtOOOOI
•ooooootoo)-'
*
I
I
o
o
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOt--N)N*>Olff.OlnOOOOOibOK>OOOUIU<»
Io o o o
in «. -j -j
t-> •
a U
C-3
-------
rt
o
ft
V
H o "o (a o < sr o h « a1 .
B"8&-8&Ha8&.8
POPUP '- -
HI- «
p B o *-• tr* ft
3T3 t3 O P- ffi li Tj P U
• B 3 g • cr P f
-• S p § "3
P n -a S 6 ?
B O H- «{ H-
& tt a P a
M ft fc » 0)
P H ft B
rt H- C
CUB
B
» o o s
» p p f
I
I
M
-J
O
o
O O O I
'o o A i
(OOOOOMOOMOOOWO
,UIUIOOO-Jibl-'OICOOO9tO
ooHwievHtooiouiopopooMO
oo»ao>it-'icwOfeOuiouioooo«cJooi
Si
O
O
o
> a> HI
• co p
in
10
fl-'UWUIOlQU
OOOOOOOOt-'IOO%MCOUU<7.i-'tOCD
U, P
O H> (-• M M
O |0000000000!-'t0.e.-J-IKJU)IO«>
ot> io at
CD to H ui
Ul lOUOOOOOOOOOOUIOOOI-'-J* *
M» gg
f* 52pf
M * Vftl
O >° -1 to 'P o> rt H,
o IOOOOOOOOOOOOWOOOUMO P — ^ p
k.oof-*OH>ooMoHoi» *K °
C-4
-------
APPENDIX D
List of Organic Compounds Scanned for in the Surface
Microlayer and Bulk Water Samples *
Chemical Name pet.ec.tjLon Limits (ug/L)
1,1,1,2-TETRACHLOROETHANE 10
1,1,1-TRICHLOROETHANE 10
1,1,2,2-TETRACHLOROETHANE 10
1,1,2-TRICHLOROETHANE 10
1,1-DICHLOROETHANE 10
1,1-DICHLOROETHENE 10
1,2,3-TRICHLOROBENZENE 10, 12, OR 20
1,2,3-TRICHLOROPROPANE 10
1,2,3-TRIMETHOXYBENZENE 10, 12, OR 20
1,2,4,5-TETRACHLOROBENZENE 10, 12, OR 20
1,2,4-TRICHLOROBENZENE 10, 12, OR 20
l,2-DIBROMO-3-CHLOROPROPANE 20, 25, OR 40
1,2-DIBROMOETHANE (EDB) 10
1,2-DICHLOROBENZENE 10, 12, OR 20
1,2-DICHLOROETHANE 10
1,2-DICHLOROPROPANE 10
1,2-DIPHENYLHYDRAZINE 20, 25, OR 40
1,2:3,4-DIEPOXYBUTANE 20, 25, OR 40
1,3,5-TRITHIANE 50, 62, OR 100
1,3-BENZENEDIOL (RESORCINOL) 50, 62, OR 100
l,3-DICHLORO-2-PROPANOL 10, 12, OR 20
1,3-DICHLOROBENZENE 10, 12, OR 20
1,3-DICHLOROPROPANE 10
1,4-DICHLOROBENZENE 10, 12, OR 20
1,4-DINITROBENZENE 20, 25, OR 40
1,4-NAPHTHOQUINONE 99, 124, OR 198
1,5-NAPHTHALENEDIAMINE 99, 124, OR 198
1-METHYLFLUORENE 10, 12, OR 20
1-METHYLPHENANTHRENE 10, 12, OR 20
1-PHENYLNAPHTHALENE 10, 12, OR 20
2,3,4,6-TETRACHLOROPHENOL 20 OR 25
2,3,6-TRICHLOROPHENOL 10 OR 12
2,3-BENZOFLUORENE 10, 12, OR 20
2,3-DICHLOROANILINE 10, 12, OR 20
2,3-DICHLORONITROBENZENE . 50, 62, OR 100
2,4,5-TRICHLOROPHENOL 10 OR 12
2,4,5-TRIMETHYLANILINE 20, 25, OR 40
2,4,6-TRICHLOROPHENOL 10 OR 12
2,4-DIAMINOTOLUENE 99, 124, OR 198
2,4-DICHLOROPHENOL 10 OR 12
2,4-DIMETHYLPHENOL 10, 12, OR 20
2,4-DINITROPHENOL 50 OR 62
2,4-DINITROTOLUENE 10, 12, OR 20
2,6-DI-TERT-BUTYL-P-BENZOQINONE 99, 124, OR 198
2,6-DICHLORO-4-NITROANILINE 99, 124, OR 198
2,6-DICHLOROPHENOL 10 OR 12
2,6-DINITROTOLUENE 10, 12, OR 20
D-l
-------
Chemical Name De tecti on Li mits (ug/L)
2-(METHYLTHIO)BENZOTHIAZOLE 10, 12, OR 20
2-BROMOCHLOROBENZENE 10, 12, OR 20
2-BUTANONE (MEK) 50
2-CHLORO-l,3-BUTADIENE 10
2-CHLOROETHYLVINYL ETHER 10
2-CHLORONAPHTHALENE 10, 12, OR 20
2-CHLOROPHENOL 10 OR
2-HEXANONE 50
2-ISOPROPYLNAPHTHALENE 10, 12, OR 20
2-METHYL-4,6-DINITROPHENOL 20 OR 25
2-METHYLBENZOTHIOAZOLE 10, 12, OR 20
2-METHYLNAPHTHALENE 10, 12, OR 20
2-NITROANILINE 10, 12, OR 20
2-NITROPHENOL 20 OR 25
2-PHENYLNAPHTHALENE 10, 12, OR 20
3,3'-DICHLOROBENZlDINE 50, 62, OR 100
3,3'-DIMETHOXYBENZIDINE 50, 62, OR 100
3,5-DIBROMO-4-HYDROXYBENZONITR 50 OR 62
3,6-DIMETHYLPHENANTHRENE 10, 12, OR 20
3-BROMOCHLOROBENZENE 10, 12, OR 20
3-CHLORONITROBENZENE 50, 62, OR 100
3-CHLOROPROPENE 10
3-METHYLCHOLANTHRENE 10, 12, OR 20
3-NITROAN1LINE 20, 25, OR 40
4,4'-METHYLENEBIS(2-CHLOROANI) 20, 25, OR 40
4,5-MSTHYLENEPHENANTHRENE 10, 12, OR 20
4-AMINOBIPHENYL 10, 12, OR 20
4-BROMOPHENYL PHENYL ETHER 10, 12, OR 20
4-CHLORO-2-NITROANILINE 20, 25, OR 40
4-CHLORO-3-KETHYLPHENOL 10 OR 12
4-CHLOROANILINE 10, 12, OR 20
4-CHLOROPHENYL PHENYL ETHER 10, 12, OR 20
4-METHYL-2-PENTANONE 50
4-NITROANILINE 50, 62, OR 100
4-NXTROBIPHENYL 10, 12, OR 20
4-NITROPHENOL 50 OR 62
5-CHLORO-O-TOLUIDINE 10, 12, OR 20
5-NITRO-O-TOLUIDINE 10, 12, OR 20
7,12-DIMETHYLBENZ(A)ANTHRACENE 10, 12, OR 20
ACENAPHTHENE 10, 12, OR 20
ACENAPHTHYLENE 10, 12, OR 20
ACETONE 50
ACETOPHENONE 10, 12, OR 20
ACROLEIN 50
ACRYLONITRILE 50
ALLYL ALCOHOL 10
ALPHA-NAPHTHYLAMINE 10, 12, OR 20
ALPHA-PICOLINE 50, 62, OR 100
ALPHA-TERPINEOL 10, 12, OR 20
ANILINE 10, 12, OR 20
ANTHRACENE 10, 12, OR 20
ARAMITE 50, 62, OR 100
B-NAPHTHYLAMINE 50, 62, OR 100
D-2
-------
Cheroi cal Name
BENZANTHRONE
BENZENE
BENZENETHIOL
BENZIDINE
BENZO(A)ANTHRACENE
BENZO(A)PYRENE
BENZOJB)FLUORANTHENE
BENZO(GHI)PERYLENE
BSNZO{K)FLUORANTHENE
BENZOIC ACID
BENZYL ALCOHOL
BIPHENYL
BIS (2-CHLOROETHOXY) METHANE
BIS (2-CHLOROISOPROPYL) ETHER
BIS (2-ETHYLHEXYL) PHTHALATE
BIS(2-CHLOROETHYL)ETHER
BROMODICHLOROMETHANE
BROMOFORM
BROMOMETHANE
BUTYL BENZYL PHTHALATE
CARBAZOLE
CARBON DISULFIDE
CARBON TETRACHLORIDE
CHLOROACETONITRILE
CHLOROBENZENE
CHLOROETHANE
CHLOROFORM
CHLOROMETHANE
CHRYSENE
CIS-1,3-DICHLOROPROPENE
CROTONALDEHYDE
CROTOXYPHOS
DI-N-BUTYL PHTHALATE
DI-N-OCTYL PHTHALATE
DIBENZO{A,H)ANTHRACENE
DIBENZOFURAN
DIBENZOTHIOPHENE
DIBROMOCHLOROHETHANE
DIBROMOMETHANE
DIETHYL ETHER
DIETHYL PHTHALATE
DIMETHYL PHTHALATE
DIMETHYL SULFONE
DIPHENYL ETHER
DIPHENYLAMINE
DIPHENYLDISULFIDE
ETHYL CYANIDE
ETHYL METHACRYLATE
ETHYL METHANESULFONATE
ETHYLBENZENE
ETHYLENETHIOUREA
ETHYNYLESTRADIOL 3-METHYL ETHE
FLUORANTHENE
p. g£egfel on Li mi £ s (ug/L)
50, 62, OR 100
10
10, 12, OR 20
50, 62, OR 100
10, 12, OR 20
10, 12, OR 20
10, 12, OR 20
20, 25, OR 40
10, 12, OR 20
50 OR 62
10 OR 12
10, 12, OR 20
10, 12, OR 20
10, 12, OR 20
10 OR 12
10, 12, OR 20
10
10
50
10, 12, OR 20
20, 25, OR 40
10
10
10
10
50
10
50
10, 12, OR 20
10
50
99, 124, OR 198
10
10, 12, OR 20
20, 25, OR 40
10, 12, OR 20
10, 12, OR 20
10
10
50
10, 12, OR 20
10, 12, OR 20
10, 12, OR 20
10, 12, OR 20
10, 12, OR 20
20, 25, OR 40
10
10
20, 25, OR 40
10
20, 25, OR 40
20, 25, OR 40
10, 12, OR 20
D-3
-------
Chemical Name
FLUORENE
HEXACHLORO-1,3-BUTADIENE
HEXACHLOROBENZ ENE
HEXACHLOROCYCLOPENTADIENE
HEXACHLOROETHANE
HEXACHLOROPROPENE
HEXANOIC ACID
INDENO(1,2,3-CD)PYRENE
IODOMETHANE
ISOBUTYL ALCOHOL
ISOPHORONE
ISOSAFROLE
LONGIFOLENE
M-XYLENE
MALACHITE GREEN
METHACRYLONITRILE
METHAPYRILENE
HETHYL METHACRYLATE
METHYL METHANESULFONATE
METHYLENE CHLORIDE
N,N-DIMETHYLFORMAMIDE
N-DECANE (N-C10)
N-DOCOSANE (N-C22)
N-DODECANE (N-C12)
N-EICOSANE (N-C20)
N-HEXACOSANE (N-C26)
N-HEXADECANE (N-C16)
N-NITROSODI-N-BUTYLAMINE
N-NITROSODI-N-PROPYLAMINE
N-NITROSODIETHYLAMINE
N-NITROSODIMETHYLAMINE
N-NITROSODIPHENYLAMINE
N-NITROSOMETHYLETHYLAMINE
N-NITROSOMETHYLPHENYLAMINE
N-NITROSOMORPHOLINE
N-NITROSOPIPERIDINE
N-OCTACOSANE (N-C28)
N-OCTADECANE (N-C18)
N-TETRACOSANE (N-C24)
N-TETRADSCANE (N-C14)
N-TRIACONTANE (N-C30)
NAPHTHALENE
NITROBENZENE
0- + P-XYLENE
0-ANISIDINE
0-CRESOL
O-TOLUIDINE
P-CRESOL
P-CYMSNE
P-DIMETHYLAMINOAZOBENZENE
P-DIOXANE
PENTACHLOROBENZENE
PENTACHLOROETHANE
Detection Limits (ug/L)
10, 12, OR 20
10, 12, OR 20
10, 12, OR 20
10, 12, OR 20
10, 12, OR 20
20, 25, OR 40
10 OR 12
20, 25, OR 40
10
10
10, 12, OR 20
10, 12, OR 20
50, 62, OR 100
10
10, 12, OR 20
10
10, 12, OR 20
10
20, 25, OR 40
10
10, 12, OR 20
10, 12, OR 20
10, 12, OR 20
10, 12, OR 20
10, 12, OR 20
10, 12, OR 20
10, 12, OR 20
10, 12, OR 20
20, 25, OR 40
10, 12, OR 20
50, 62, OR 100
20, 25, OR 40
10, 12, OR 20
99, 124, OR 198
10, 12, OR 20
10, 12, OR 20
10, 12, OR 20
10, 12, OR 20
10, 12, OR 20
10, 12, OR 20
10, 12, OR 20
10, 12, OR 20
10, 12, OR 20
10
10, 12, OR 20
10, 12, OR 20
10, 12, OR 20
10 OR 12
10, 12, OR 20
20, 25, OR 40
10
20, 25, OR 40
20, 25, OR 40
D-4
-------
Chemical Name Detection Limits (ug/L)
PENTACHLOROPHENOL 50 OR 62
PENTAMETHYLBENZENE 10, 12, OR 20
PERYLENE 10, 12, OR 20
PHENACETIM 10, 12, OR 20
PHENANTHRENE - 10, 12, OR 20
PHENOL 10, 12, OR 20
PHENOTHIAZINE 50, 62, OR 100
PRONAMIDE 10, 12, OR 20
PYRENE 10, 12, OR 20
PYRIDINE 10, 12, OR 20
SAFROLE 10, 12, OR 20
SQUALENE 99, 124, OR 198
STYRENE 10, 12, OR 20
T-1,3-DICHLOROPROPENE 10
TETRACHLOROETHENE 10
THIANAPHTHENE 10, 12, OR 20
THIOACETAMIDE 20, 25, OR 40
THIOXANTHONE 20, 25, OR 40
TOLUENE 10
TRANS-1,2-DICHLOROETHENE 10
TRANS-l,4-DICHLORO-2-BUTENE 50
TRICHLOROETHENE 10
TRICHLOROFLUOROMETHANE 10
TRIPHENYLENE 10, 12, OR 20
TRIPROPYLENEGLYCOL METHYL ETHE 99, 124, 198
VINYL ACETATE 50
VINYL CHLORIDE 10
* The sample detection limits varied depending on the final
dilution volume of the sample for analyses.
D-5
-------
APPENDIX E
List of Pesticides Analyzed for in the Surface
Microlayer and Bulk Water Samples
Chemical Name Detection Limits (ug/L)
PHENOXYACID HERBICIDES AND HALOGENATED PESTICIDES:
ALDRIN 0.025
ALPHA-8HC 0.025
BETA-BHC 0.025
DELTA-BHC 0.025
GAMMA-BHC 0.063
CAPTAFOL 0.250
CAPTAN 0.125
CARBOPHENOTHION 0.500
CHLORDANE 0.010
CHLOROBENZILATE 0.250
4,4'~DDD 0.125
4,4'-DDE 0.125
4,4'-DDT 0.050
DIALLATE 0.250
DICHLONE 0.250
DIELDRIN 0.025
ENDOSULFAN I 0.025
ENDOSULFAN II 0.025
ENDOSULFAN SULFATE 0.125
ENDRIN 0.025
ENDRIN ALDEHYDE
ENDRIN KETONE 0.125
HEPTACHLOR 0.050
HEPTACHLOR EPOXIDE 0.050
ISODRIN 0.025
KEPONE 0.250
METHOXYCHLOR 0.125
MIREX 0.125
NITROFEN (TOK) 0.125
PCB-1016 1.0
PCB-1221 1.0
PCB-1232 1.0
PCB-1242 1.0
PCB-1248 1.0
PCB-1254 1.0
PCB-1260 1.0
PCNB - 0.050
TOXAPHENE 1.67
TRIFULRALIN 0.125
PHENOXY ACID HERBICIDES:
2,4-D 0.50
DINOSEB 0.50
2,4,5-T 0.25
2,4,5-TP 0.25
E-l
-------
Chemical Name Detection Limits (ug/L)
THIOPHOSPHATE PESTICIDES:
AZINPHOS ETHYL 1.0
AZINPHOS METHYL 1.0
CHLORFEVINPHOS 0.5
CHLORPYRIFOS 0.5
COUMAPHOS 2.0
CROTOXYPHOS 1.0
DEMETON . 1.0
DIAZINON 0.5
DICHLORVOS 0.5
DICROTOPHOS 2.0
DI«ETHOATE 0.5
DIOXATHION 4.0
DISULFOTON 0.5
EPN 0.5
ETHION 2.0
FAMPHUR 0.5
FENSULFOTHION 1.0
FENTHION 0.5
LEPTOPHOS 0.5
KALATHION 0.5
METHYL PARATHION 0.5
MEVINPHOS 0.5
MONOCROTOPHOS 5.0
NALED 1.0
PARATHION 1.0
PHORATE 0.5
PHOSKET 1.0
PHOSPHAMIDON 2.0
SULFOTEPP 0.5
TERBUFOS 1. 2
TETRACHLORVINPHOS 0.5
TRICHLOROFON 1.0
TRICHLORONATE 1.0
TRIAZINE HERBICIDES:
ATRAZINE 0.8
ALACHLOR 0.2
CYANAZINE 0.4
METOLACHLOR 0.4
SIHAZINE 0.8
TRIFLURALIN 0.2
E-2
-------