Using the Sediment Quality Triad to Characterize
Toxic Conditions in the Chesapeake Bay (1999):
An Assessment of Tidal River Segments in the
Bohemia, Magothy, Patuxent, Potomac, James, and York Rivers
Prepared by:
Beth L. McGee
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Chesapeake Bay Field Office
177 Admiral Cochrane Drive
«r
Annapolis, Maryland 21401
Daniel J. Fisher
University of Maryland System
Agricultural Experiment Station
Wye Research and Education Center
P.O. Box 169
Queenstown, Maryland 21658
Jeffrey Ashley
David Velinsky
Academy of Natural Sciences
Patrick Center for Environmental Research
1900 Benjamin Franklin Parkway
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19144
Prepared for:
Chesapeake Bay Program
A Watershed Partnership
Chesapeake Bay Program
410 Severn Avenue, Suite 109
Annapolis, Maryland 21403
1-800-YOUR-BAY
http://www.chesapeakebay.net
Printed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for the Chesapeake Bay Program
-------
-------
FOREWORD
This study was part of a larger project designed to use the Sediment Quality Triad to characterize
toxic conditions in tidal segments of Chesapeake Bay for which little data existed or for which existing
information was inconclusive. A team of scientists worked jointly to complete this goal. Dr. Beth
McGee of the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), Chesapeake Bay Field Office was project
coordinator and was in charge of collecting the sediment samples and writing the final summary report.
The chemical analyses were conducted by Drs. David Velinsky and Jeffrey Ashley, Patrick Center for
Environmental Research, Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, PA. The toxicity test results that
are covered in this report are based on studies conducted at the University of Maryland Wye Research
and Education Center under the direction of Dr. Daniel Fisher.
-------
ABSTRACT
The goal of this study was to assess the toxicity of sediments from tidal segments of Chesapeake
Bay. The focus was on assessing areas for which little data existed or for which existing information was
inconclusive. The toxicity information presented here is one part of a larger study designed to use the
Sediment Quality Triad to characterize toxic conditions in these stream segments. Twenty seven stations
were sampled in this study. Five stations were sampled in the Middle James River, five in the Upper
York River, three in the Magothy River, six in the Lower Potomac River, six in the Lower Patuxent
River, and two in the Bohemia River. The sediments were tested in two different batches. The toxicity
of these sediments was assessed using 10-d survival of the amphipod Leptocheirusplumulosus and 10-d
embryo/larval survival of the sheepshead minnow Cyprinodon variegatus in whole sediment bioassays.
Results show that there were no significant differences between survival in any test sediment and the
control sediments for either species. The mean control survival in the two amphipod tests were 100%
and 91% while the mean survival in the sheepshead minnow tests were both 82%. In the first test mean
treatment amphipod survival ranged from 94% to 98% while sheepshead survival ranged from 66% to
84%. In the second test mean treatment amphipod survival ranged from 89% to 98% while sheepshead
survival ranged from 70% to 90%.
11
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Foreword i
Abstract ii
Table of Contents iii
List of Tables iv
Introduction 1
Materials and Methods 1
Sample Stations 1
Sample Collection, Handling, and Storage 2
Sediment Toxicity Tests 2
Data Analysis 3
Results and Discussion 3
Water Quality 3
Reference Toxicity Tests 3
Sediment Toxicity Tests ; 4
References 5
Tables .' 6
in
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1 Sample station location and dates of collection and receipt
at the WREC
Table 2
Test conditions for 10-d acute sediment toxicity tests with
Leptocheirus plumulosus
Table 3 Test conditions for 10 d acute sediment toxicity tests with
Cyprinodon variegatus embryos 8
Table 4 Water quality summary for the 10-d acute Leptocheirus plumulosus
sediment toxicity test conducted 10/15 -10/25/99 9
Table 5 Water quality summary for the 10-d acute Cyprinodon variegatus
sediment toxicity test conducted 10/15 - 10/25/99 10
Table 6 Water quality summary for the 10-d acute Leptocheirus plumulosus
sediment toxicity test conducted 10/29 - 11/8/99 11
Table 7 Water quality summary for the 10-d acute Cyprinodon variegatus
sediment toxicity test conducted 10/29 - 11/8/99 12
Table 8 Summary of the toxicity test results for 10-d Leptocheirus plumulosus
and Cyprinodon variegatus sediment tests 13
Table 9 Sediment test toxicity data for the Stations tested from 10/15 -10/25/99 14
Table 9 (Continued) Sediment test toxicity data for the Stations tested
from 10/15 -10/25/99 15
Table 10 Sediment test toxicity data for the Stations tested from 10/29 -11/8/99 16
Table 10 (Continued) Sediment test toxicity data for the Stations tested
from 10/29 - 11/8/99 17
IV
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Abstract i
Acknowledgments iii
Table of Contents iv
List of Tables v
List of Figures vi
Introduction 1
Methods 2
Study areas 2
Sample collection ~. 2
Sediment toxicity tests 3
Sediment physico-chemical characterization 3
Benthic community analysis 4
Data analysis 4
Results 4
Sample collection 4
Sediment toxicity tests 4
Sediment physico-chemical characterization 5
Benthic community analysis 6
Relationships among sediment contaminant
concentrations and biological endpoints 6
Discussion 6
Relationship between sediment contaminant
concentrations and B-IBI 6
Characterization of chemical impacts on living resources 7
References ." 10
Appendices 35
iv
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Page
Table 1. Number of benthic sampling stations (LTB) that fell within
the target segments 13
Table 2. Sediment Quality Triad station identification and location 14
Table 3. List of PAHs, PCBs and OCs 15
Table 4. Inorganic parameters and methods 16
Table 5. Measured water quality parameters and qualitative
descriptions of grab samples 17
Table 6. Summary of the sediment toxicity test results 18
Table 7. Summary of sediment textural data 19
Table 8. Sediment and porewater (PW) carbon and nitrogen
concentrations 20
Table 9. Sediment trace metal concentrations 21
Table 10. Sediment acid volatile sulfide (AVS) and simultaneously
extracted metals (SEM) 23
Table 11. Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon concentrations 24
Table 12. Summary of sediment organochlorine analysis 26
Table 13. Organic carbon normalized concentrations of total
chlordane and dieldrin at each site 27
Table 14. Summary of the results of benthic community analysis 28
-------
Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
Figure 4
FigureS
Figure 6
LIST OF FIGURES
Location of 1999 Sediment Quality Triad Sites in
the Patuxent and Potomac Rivers
Page
29
Location of 1999 Sediment Quality Triad Sites in the Magothy River 30
Location of 1999 Sediment Quality Triad Sites in the Bohemia River 31
Location of 1999 Sediment Quality Triad Sites in
the York and James Rivers 32
Relationship between the Benthic ffil scores and the mean
ER-M quotient in the 1999 Sediment Quality Triad study .
Relationship between the Benthic IBI scores and the mean
ER-M quotient calculated without chlordane and dieldrin .
33
34
VI
-------
-------
ABSTRACT
In June 1999, the Chesapeake Bay Program Toxics Subcommittee Regional Focus Workgroup
finalized a public report characterizing the tidal tributaries of the Chesapeake Bay with respect to
their potential for adverse effects due to chemical contamination. One of the findings of the
report was there was a paucity of data for many areas of the Bay, resulting in many segments
characterized as Areas -with Insufficient or Inconclusive Data. The purpose of our study was to
help fill these identified data gaps. The study, a collaborative effort between the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service Chesapeake Bay Field Office, the University of Maryland Wye Research and
Education Center and the Academy of Natural Sciences Patrick Center, involved evaluating
complementary measures of sediment chemistry, sediment toxicity and benthic community
structure (i.e., the Sediment Quality Triad) at stations in tidal segments of the Magothy,
Bohemia, Potomac and Patuxent Rivers in Maryland and the York and James Rivers in Virginia.
Specifically, our objectives were to: 1) conduct sediment chemical analyses, 10 d sediment
toxicity tests with the estuarine amphipod, Leptocheirus plumulosus and the sheepshead minnow,
Cyprinodon variegatus, at 27 stations in the 6 Chesapeake Bay tributaries; 2) obtain benthic
community data for these stations from the Long-Term Benthic Monitoring Program and
evaluate the strength of the associations between toxicity test results, concentrations of sediment-
associated chemicals and benthic community parameters; and 3) characterize these tidal
segments in Chesapeake Bay with respect to their potential for adverse effects due to chemical
contamination by integrating data from this study with other information synthesized as part of
the 1999 Toxics Characterization effort.
Sampling was conducted in October 1999. Sediment toxicity was not observed at any of the
sampling stations; therefore, relationships between this endpoint and chemical and benthic
community data could not be evaluated. Results of correlation analysis between the Benthic
Index of Biotic Integrity (B-IBI) scores at each station and MERM-Q, a summary of chemical
contamination, indicated a significant negative association between these variables. Although
correlation does not imply causality, similar relationships between sediment chemistry summary
quotients and biological endpoints have been reported by other researchers. Based on this
relationship, individual stations in the Patuxent, Bohemia and Magothy Rivers may have benthic
community degradation that is related to chemical contaminant concentrations.
Integration of our results with existing information from the targeted tributaries resulted in the
following tentative recommendations for classification:
Lower Potomac River (LE-21: originally classified as an Area with Low Probability for
Adverse Effects. The study results confirmed the classification.
Magothy River (WT-6): originally classified as so. Area of Emphasis. The study results
confirm the classification.
Lower Patuxent River CLE-l): originally classified as an Area with Insufficient or
Inconclusive Data. Additional information suggests that the majority of the river segment is
unimpacted, but there may be a localized problem in the vicinity of Broome's Island/PX7.
-------
Elk/Bohemia Rivers {ET-2): originally classified as an Area with Insufficient or
Inconclusive Data. Due to inconsistencies between our study results and existing data, we
believe there is still insufficient data to make a classification.
Middle James River (RET-5): originally classified as an Area with Insufficient or
Inconclusive Data. Overall, the weight of evidence would suggest that this segment has a low
probability for adverse effects due to chemical contamination; however, kepone, a potential
contaminant of concern was not measured in this study.
Upper York River (RET-4): originally classified as an Area with insufficient or
inconclusive data with a concern for a contaminant problem near the confluence of the
Pamunkey and Mattaponi Rivers. Overall, the segment appears to have a low probability for
adverse affects due to chemical contaminants, except for a potential problem area in the
Pamunkey River near West Point.
These classifications represent our best professional judgement and should not be construed as
the final designation which is the responsibility of the Toxics Subcommittee.
11
-------
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
We acknowledge the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Chesapeake Bay Program (CBP)
for providing funding for this study (EPA Interagency Agreement DW14944021-01-0). We
thank the CBP's Regional Focus Workgroup for providing comments on the study design and
advice on segments to target for evaluation. We sincerely appreciate the assistance of Dan Dauer
(Old Dominion University), Roberto Llanso (VERSAR), and Rob Magnien (Maryland
Department of Natural Resources) for graciously providing benthic macroinvertebrate
monitoring locations and data. Keisha Johnson, James Forester, Fred Pinkney and Peter
McGowan of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service provided help in the field and Amber Busch and
Leslie Gerlich are acknowledged for their assistance in preparing this report.
U.S- EPA Headquarters Library
Ma" code 3201 ^
-------
-------
INTRODUCTION
The 1994 Chesapeake Bay Toxics Reduction and Prevention Strategy directs the Chesapeake
Bay Program Signatories to: "Support and conduct the necessary biological and chemical
assessments, including ambient toxicity and community structure, of Bay habitats to ensure
future characterization of all tidal Bay habitats through the Regions of Concern identification
protocol". To this end, for the past several years the U.S. EPA's Chesapeake Bay Program has
funded the Ambient Toxicity Program. In June 1999, the Chesapeake Bay Program Toxics
Subcommittee Regional Focus Workgroup finalized a public report characterizing the tidal
tributaries of the Chesapeake Bay with respect to their potential for adverse effects due to
chemical contamination (U.S. EPA 1999). One of the findings of the report was there was a
paucity of data for many areas of the Bay, resulting in many segments characterized as Areas
with Insufficient or Inconclusive Data. The objective of our study was to help fill these
identified data gaps.
The study, a collaborative effort between the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Chesapeake Bay
Field Office, the University of Maryland Wye Research and Education Center and the Academy
of Natural Sciences Patrick Center, involved evaluating complementary measures of sediment
chemistry, sediment toxicity and benthic community structure (i.e., the Sediment Quality Triad)
at stations in tidal segments of the Magothy, Bohemia, Potomac and Patuxent Rivers in
Maryland and the York and James Rivers in Virginia. With the exception of the Potomac River
segment, these were areas for which little data currently existed. Our intent was to maximize the
spatial coverage of toxics monitoring by assessing sediment toxicity and sediment chemistry at
stations that were sampled as part of the Long Term Benthic Monitoring programs in Virginia
and Maryland.
The Sediment Quality Triad has been successfully applied in the Chesapeake Bay (e.g.,
Baltimore Harbor, Anacostia River) and nation-wide (e.g., Puget Sound, San Francisco Bay, Gulf
of Mexico) to characterize ambient conditions in freshwater, estuarine and marine systems (e.g.,
Long and Chapman 1985, Chapman et al. 1987, McGee et al. 1999, Schlekat el al. 1994). The
combination of potential cause (chemistry) and effect (biology) measurements makes the Triad
one of the most complete and powerful tools available to determine the extent and significance of
pollution-induced degradation. Although water column contaminant levels are useful to
distinguish among sources (new inputs versus historic contamination) and loadings of
contaminants, they are temporally and spatially quite patchy, potentially confounding our ability
to characterize the potential for toxicant related impact. Therefore, the focus of this approach is
on the sedimentary environment because sediments accumulate and integrate toxic chemical
inputs from multiple sources over time; hence, determination of sediment quality is essential to
determine trends in toxic contaminants.
Specifically, our objectives were to: 1) conduct sediment chemical analyses, 10 d sediment
toxicity tests with the estuarine amphipod, Leptocheirus plumulosus and the sheepshead minnow,
Cyprinodon variegatus, at 27 stations in 6 Chesapeake Bay tributaries; 2) obtain benthic
1
-------
community data for these stations from the Long-Term Benthic Monitoring Program and
evaluate the strength of the associations between toxicity test results, concentrations of sediment-
associated chemicals and benthic community parameters; and 3) characterize these tidal
segments in Chesapeake Bay with respect to their potential for adverse effects due to chemical
contamination by integrating data from this study with other information synthesized as part of
the Toxics Characterization effort. Detailed results of the analysis of sediment toxicity and
chemistry (Objective 1) are provided elsewhere (Fisher et al 2000, Ashley and Velinsky 2000,
Appendices A and B). This report focuses on data integration and interpretation (Objectives 2
and 3).
METHODS
Study areas
Sampling was targeted primarily in tidal segments that were identified as having "Insufficient or
Inconclusive Data" to make a characterization (U.S. EPA 1999), and for which no or little
additional data was expected (e.g., segments not included in the 1998 -1999 NOAA
characterization of Chesapeake Bay). The segments have been identified by the first
segmentation scheme developed by the Chesapeake Bay Program. Priority segments, identified
by the Toxics Subcommittee's Regional Focus Workgroup for inclusion in the study, were as
follows: the Lower Patuxent River (LE-1), Elk and Bohemia Rivers (ET-2), the Magothy River
(WT-6) and Lower Potomac River (LE-2) in Maryland and the Middle James River (RET-5), and
the Upper York River (RET-4) in Virginia. These segments were then cross referenced with the
locations of the Long-Term Benthic (LTB) monitoring stations scheduled for sampling in the
summer of 1999 by VERSAR and Old Dominion University in Maryland and Virginia,
respectively (Table 1). In the Potomac and Patuxent Rivers, benthic sampling stations that fell
within areas likely to have anoxia problems during the summer were excluded from
consideration. Stations were then chosen randomly from the remaining available benthic sites
(Figures 1-4).
Sample collection
Sampling protocols followed those described in U.S. EPA/U.S. ACE (1995) and the'Quality
Assurance Project Plan developed for this study (U.S. FWS 1999). In brief, designated sampling
stations were located with the aid of a hand-held GPS unit, equipped with a differential antenna.
Final station coordinates (latitude and longitude) were recorded on site (Table 2). Sediments
were collected with a stainless steel 0.023 m2 petite Ponar grab sampler. Samples for sediment
toxicity testing and chemistry represented composite samples. At each station, the top 2-3 cm of
several grabs were placed into a pre-cleaned stainless steel bowl, homogenized with a stainless
steel spoon until uniform in color and texture then placed into separate pre-cleaned containers for
sediment chemistry and toxicological analyses. Collected sediments were kept on ice and
subsequently refrigerated (toxicological and grain size samples) or frozen (chemical samples)
until analysis. Between stations, the grab sampler, stainless steel bowl and mixing utensils were
rinsed sequentially in 10% nitric acid, distilled water, acetone and distilled water to remove
residual contaminants. Bottom water quality parameters (D.O., temperature, salinity, pH) and
-------
depth were measured at each station with a Hydrolab Surveyor IV. Criteria for acceptability of
representative grab samples include intact samples with sufficient depth penetration (>10cm) and
a relatively undisturbed sediment surface. Observations of sample acceptability, depth of
penetration and qualitative characteristics (i.e., odor, color, etc) were recorded on field data
sheets.
Sediment toxicity tests
Sediment toxicity was assessed using the acute 10 d EPA test with the estuarine amphipod,
Leptocheirusplumulosus (U.S. EPA 1994) and the 10 d sheepshead minnow (Cyprinodon
variegatus) test (Hall et al 1997). The EPA 10 d acute amphipod test is not currently used in the
Ambient Toxicity Program, but it is a standardized test that has been applied in areas within and
outside Chesapeake Bay; hence, data will be directly comparable to a broader database. The
sheepshead minnow test was chosen from among the suite of assays previously employed by the
Ambient Toxicity Program and provides a link to that assessment program. Details on testing
protocols can be found in Fisher et al. 2000 (Appendix A). Due to the number of sediment
samples being evaluated, two separate groups of tests were conducted. Tests were conducted on
sediments from the James River, Magothy River and Upper York River from October 15 to
October 25,1999. Tests were conducted on sediments from the Bohemia River, Lower Potomac
River, and Lower Patuxent River from October 29 to November 8, 1999.
Sediment physico-chemical characterization
Analyses included textural properties such as grain size and total organic carbon content, as well
as molar quantities of acid volatile sulfides and simultaneously extracted metals (AYS and
SEM), concentrations of trace metals and organic compounds including polychlorinated
biphenyls (PCBs), select organochlorine pesticides (OCs) and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons
(PAHs). The list ofanalytes was based on previous chemical characterizations of sediments in
the Ambient Toxicity Program (Tables 3 and 4). In addition, porewater concentrations of
ammonia were analyzed in sediments prior to use in toxicity tests as well as on a subsample of
those designated for chemical analysis. Details on analytical protocols and Quality
Assurance/Quality Control measures can be found in Ashley et al. 2000 (Appendix B). In brief,
congener specific PCBs and OCs were analyzed using a Hewlett Packard 5890 gas
chromatograph equipped with a 63Ni electron capture detector and a 5% phenylmethyl silicon
capillary column. Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons were identified and quantified using a
capillary gas chromatograph (Hewlett Packard 5890) and a mass spectrometer (5972) operated in
selected ion monitoring mode.
Trace metal analysis were accomplished using a total digestion method using HNO3-HF acid
solublization and microwave heating as outlined in Brooks et al. (1988). These methods are
similar to those used for NOAA's Status and Trends program. Acid volatile sulfide and
simultaneous extracted metals (SEM) were analyzed using a modification of the methods
outlined in Allen et al. (1993). The final trace metal samples were analyzed by Inductively
Coupled Plasma-Optical Emission Spectroscopy (ICP-OES; Perkin Elmer Optima 3000XL)
using the appropriate operating conditions referred to by the manufacturer. Samples for solid
-------
phase organic carbon and total nitrogen were analyzed using the method outlined in U.S. EPA
(1992), while grain size was measured using the methods in Folk (1980).
Benthic community analysis
Benthic macroinvertebrate community data for the sampling sites in Virginia were obtained from
Old Dominion University. Maryland data were downloaded from the xxx and the B-IBI
calculations were provided by VERSAR (Roberto Llanso, personal communication). The
following benthic community parameters were calculated for each station: taxa richness (i.e.,
number of species), Shannon-Weiner diversity, total abundance, and the Benthic Index of Biotic
Integrity (B-IBI). The B-IBI was developed specifically to interpret benthic community data in
Chesapeake Bay (Weisberg et al. 1997). The B-IBI is a multiple metrix index developed to -
identify to the degree to which the benthic assemblage meets the Chesapeake Bay Program's
Benthic Community Restoration Goals. It also provides a way to compare benthic communities
across different habitats in the Bay. The B-IBI ranges from 1-5. Sites with scores of greater than
or equal to 3 are considered to meet the restoration goals. Scores from 2 - 3 are indicative of a
degraded benthic community and scores less than 2 are considered severely degraded.
Data analysis
Associations between biological and chemical data were evaluated both quantitatively and
qualitatively. The EPA approaches to develop sediment quality quidelines (i.e., AVS-SEM,
equilibrium partitioning of organic compounds) were used to evaluate the potential
bioavailability of different classes of contaminants. In addition, sediment concentrations of
contaminants were compared to the Effects Range-Median (ER-M) values in Long et al. (1995)
and Long and Morgan (1991). In addition, for the sediment analytes for which an ER-M value
exists, the chemical concentration at the site was divided by the ER-M for that contaminant,
summing these quotients and then taking the average (MERM-Q), providing a hazard index for
sediment contamination. Several researchers have found this to be a useful way to summarize
chemical data and evaluate relationships among chemical and biological endpoints (McGee et al.
1999, Long et al. 1998). Spearman rank correlation was used to discern the significance of the
relationships between the MERM-Q and biological endpoints.
RESULTS
Sample collection
Measured water quality parameters and qualitative descriptions of grab samples are provided for
each site (Table 5). At some stations, penetration of the grab sampler into the substrate was not
adequate due to the presence of a hard, sandy bottom (Table 5). To allow the greatest
comparability between our sediment chemistry and toxicity data and the previously collected
benthic community samples, we felt it was important to remain as close as possible to the target
site. Therefore, we did not move these stations despite difficulties in obtaining grabs with
adequate depth penetration.
-------
Sediment toxicity tests
Performance criteria of 2 90% survival in the L. plumulosus controls and 2 80% survival in the
Cyprinodon variegatus controls were obtained for both sets of sediment toxicity tests (Table 6).
The mean control survival in the two amphipod tests were 100% and 91% while the mean
survival in the sheepshead minnow tests were both 82%. In the first test, mean treatment
amphipod survival ranged from 94% to 98% while sheepshead survival ranged from 66% to 84%
(Table 6). In the second test, mean treatment amphipod survival ranged from 89% to 98% while
sheepshead survival ranged from 70% to 90% (Table 6). There were no significant differences
between survival in any test sediment and the control sediment (Table 6; Appendix A).
Sediment physico-chemical characterization
Sediment textural characteristics and concentrations of select chemical constituents at each
station are summarized (Table 7-12, see Ashley and Velinsky 2000 for details). Sediment
grain size varied widely ranging from 2.2 to 99.6 % silt/clay with total organic carbon content
ranging from 0.15 to 3.96 % (Tables 7 and 8). For trace metals, sediment concentrations
exceeded ER-M values for Ni and Zn at stations MG 9 and MGl 1 in the Magothy River, for Ni
at BO 24 in the Bohemia River and for Ag at PX7 in the Patuxent River (Table 9). It should be
noted that Long et al. (1995) report a poor correlation between the incidence of effects and
exceedance of the ER-M for Ni. The difference between AVS and SEM was positive or only
slightly negative at all sites, suggesting that trace metals were not bioavailable (Table 10).
Concentrations of PAHs were below ER-M values at all sites (Table 11).
ER-M values were also exceeded for total chlordane (the sum of gamma chlordane, alpha
chlordane, cis- and trans-nonachlor), dieldrin, and total DDTs for at least one station in every
river segment except the Magothy (Table 12). However, Long and Morgan (1991) and Long et
al. (1995) indicate that the reliability of the ER-M values for these compounds is low due to the
limited dataset, poor correlation with effects data, or both. More recently, MacDonald et al.
(2000) published consensus based sediment quality guidelines for contaminants in freshwater
systems. For total chlordane, total DDTs and dieldrin, the consensus based probable effect
concentrations (PEC) are 17.6 ng/g, 572 ng/g and 61.8 ng/g, respectively, and the predictive
ability of these values is much improved over the ER-M values. Unfortunately, at this time there
are no consensus based guidelines for saltwater systems; however, for comparative purposes,
exceedances of the PECs is also indicated in Tables 9-12. For the organochlorine compounds,
total chlordane also exceeded the PEC at several stations.
To further evaluate if dieldrin and chlordane were sufficiently elevated to cause effects on
benthic organisms, the equilibrium partitioning (EqP) approach was used to calculate sediment
quality guidelines:
SQGoc=Koc*FCV
where SQG ^ is the organic carbon normalized sediment quality guideline, Koc is the organic
5
-------
carbon partition coefficient for the compound and FC V is the freshwater chronic water quality
criterion. Koc values were obtained from U.S. EPA (1997). An SQG was not calculated for
DDT metabolites because water quality criteria are not available for all the DDT compounds and
the Koc varies widely among the metabolites. Using FCVs of 0.056 ug/L and 0.0043 ug/L for
dieldrin and chlordane, respectively, resulted in SQC ^.s of 10.6 ug/g oc and 7.02 ug/g oc. These
values were then compared to organic carbon normalized concentrations of dieldrin and
chlordane at each site (Table 13). The SQG for chlordane is exceeded at site BO24; however,
this exceedance should be interpreted cautiously as the low percent organic carbon content at this
site, 0.25%, falls within the range at which the EqP theory does not apply (DiToro et al. 1991).
Benthic Community Analysis
Summary of the analysis of benthic community health is presented in Table 13 and the taxa list
and abundances for each station is listed in Appendix C. Taxa richness ranged from 5 at PM15
to 17 at PM4 and PM7. The Patuxent River had the highest proportion of stations (4 of 6)
meeting the benthic restoration goals, as indicated by a B-IBI score of 3 or greater, while in the
Potomac River 3 of 6 stations met the goal. In the James and York Rivers, 2 of 4 and 1 of 5
stations, respectively, met the benthic goals. Benthic assemblages at both stations in the
Magothy and Bohemia rivers were considered degraded and severely degraded, respectively.
Relationships among sediment contaminant concentrations and biological endpoints
Plots of MERM-Q versus B-IBI values for each station indicated a rough concentration response
relationship between levels of sediment contamination and condition of the benthic assemblage
(Figures 5 and 6). MERM-Q values were calculated with and without chlordane and dieldrin
because of the low reliability of the ER-M values for these compounds. Results of Spearman
rank correlation analysis indicated the relationship between these variables was statistically
significant, r= -0.41, p=0.037 for MERM-Q and and r= -0.50, p=0.0089, for MERM-Q without
dieldrin and chlordane (Figures 5 and 6). Relationships between the toxicological endpoints and
sediment contaminant concentrations were not evaluated because there were no statistically
significant toxicological effects observed in any of the test sediments.
DISCUSSION
Relationship between sediment contaminant concentrations and B-IBI
Results of correlation analysis between the B-IBI scores at each station and MERM-Q, a
summary of chemical contamination, indicated a negative association between these variables.
Although correlation does not imply causality, we note that similar relationships between
sediment chemistry summary quotients and biological endpoints (e.g., toxicity, benthic
community impairment) have also been reported by other researchers (McGee et al. 1999, Long
et al. 1998, Canfield et al. 1996) demonstrating the robustness of this approach. In the present
study, only degraded (B-IBI between 2 and 2.5) and severely degraded (B-IBI less than 2)
benthic communities were observed at MERM-Qs of greater than approximately 0.4 (Figure 5).
Under this scenario, stations M9, Y21, PM06, BO24 and PX7 may have benthic community
degradation that is related to chemical contaminant concentrations (Figure 5). Fairey et al.
-------
(1998) reported a similar chemical threshold when evaluating a large dataset including chemical
and benthic community data from marine environments. Due to the unreliability of ER-M values
for chlordane and dieldrin, the MERM-Qs were also calculated without these compounds (Figure
6). The negative correlation between B-EBI and MERM-Q was stronger, in this case, with
stations PX7, BO24, and M9 remaining as the sites with the highest levels of sediment
contamination and associated benthic degradation.
Characterization of chemical impacts on living resources
The 1994 Chesapeake Bay Basinwide Toxics Reduction and Prevention Strategy directed the Bay
Program signatories to characterize the status of the Bay and tidal tributaries with regard to
chemical contaminant effects on living resources. In addition, this characterization was to be
updated every three years, incorporating new data as they became available. In 1995, the Bay
Program's Toxics Subcommittee formed the Regional Focus Workgroup to carry out this task
and, in 1999, the first characterization report was published (U.S. EPA 1999). In the report, the
tidal Bay tributaries were characterized into one of four categories: Region of Concern, Area of
Emphasis, Area with Low Probability for Adverse Effects or Area with Insufficient or
Inconclusive data.
The tributaries sampled in the present study were primarily those characterized as having
insufficient or inconclusive data. Below we have attempted to integrate the existing data with
our results in order to refine the tributary classifications. The classifications represent our best
professional judgement and should not be construed as the final designation which is the
responsibility of the Toxics Subcommittee.
Potomac River
The lower tidal Potomac River was characterized as an Area with Low Probability for Adverse
Effects due to chemical contaminants in the Bay-wide characterization (U.S. EPA 1999).
Findings of the present study confirm this characterization. Sediments from the six Potomac
River sites were non-toxic to two test species. Concentrations of sediment-associated
contaminants were below ER-Ms for metals and PAHs. Select organochlorine compounds did
exceed ER-M values at some stations; however, calculations of SQGs using the EqP approach
suggested these contaminants were not expected to be bioavailable. The benthic community was
severely degraded at 2 of 6 sites; however, these results (i.e., the mixture of impaired and
unimpaired stations) are consistent with historical benthic data from the Potomac and may be
related to D.O. or other natural variables.
Patuxent River
The lower tidal Patuxent River was characterized as an Area with Insufficient or Inconclusive
Data in the Bay-wide characterization (U.S. EPA 1999). Although the spatial coverage of water
and sediment chemical contaminant concentration data was fairly good and biological effects
data (i.e., sediment and water column toxicity and benthic community health) were available, this
information was inconclusive because of somewhat conflicting results. For example, although
Hall et al. (1998) found little evidence of a sediment toxicity problem is this river segment,
-------
many sites had a degraded benthic community. Similarly, although water column chemical
concentrations were low or non-detected, water column toxicity was observed in the vicinity of
Broome's Island (Hall et al. 1998). Data from the present study indicate no sediment toxicity
and a healthy benthic community, with 4 of 6 sites meeting the benthic restoration goal. There
may be a localized problem at PX7. This site exhibited a severely degraded benthic community
in 1999; however, it should be noted that previous benthic data collected near this station
indicated healthy benthic communities. Sediment concentrations of heptachlor, heptachlor
expoxide, chlordane, dieldrin and t-DDT were the highest at PX7 of any sites and the MERM-Q
was also elevated, even when chlordane and dieldrin were removed from the calculations.
Integrating all this information, it would appear that the majority of the river segment is
unimpacted, but there may be a localized problem in the vicinity of Broome's Island/PX7.
»
Magotfay River
The Magothy River was classified as an Area of Emphasis with the need for additional data to
confirm the characterization (U.S. EPA 1999). This classification was based on elevated
concentrations of trace metals including Cu, Pb, Ni and Zn and several PAHs in sediments which
appeared to be a pervasive and consistent problem. In addition, Hall et al. present evidence for
sediment and water column toxicity. In the present study, concentrations of As, Pb, Ni, Cu and
Zn are highest in sediments from the Magothy River. In addition, sediments also had the second
and third highest concentrations of PAHs. The benthic community at both"stations sampled in
1999 was classified as degraded. Historical benthic data also indicate that the communities are
impaired; however, low D.O. may be a contributing factor, as much of the river appears to be
anoxic at times and no acute sediment toxicity was observed in our study. In summary, our
results support the characterization of this as an Area of Emphasis.
Bohemia/Elk Rivers
The Bohemia/Elk River segment was classified as an area with insufficient data to make a
classification (U.S. EPA 1999). The historical data suggested elevated concentrations of trace
metals and select PAHs in sediments (i.e., exceedances of ER-M values) and water quality
criteria exceedances for Cu and Ni in the surface water; however, the water and sediment data
were old, with the most recent samples being collected in 1992. Both stations in the present
study were located in the Bohemia River. Contrary to the earlier data, with the exception of Ni
and Zn, the sediment concentrations of trace metals and PAHs were well below ER-M values,
though concentrations of t-DDT, chlordane and dieldrin exceeded ER-M values at station
BO24. No sediment toxicity was observed; however, the benthic community at both stations was
classified as severely degraded which is consistent with the historical benthic data. Based on a
review of these data and the inconsistencies in sediment concentrations over time, we believe
there is still insufficient data to make a classification. We recommend additional sediment
quality triad samples be collected, particularly in the Elk River, in order to complete the
characterization. We recommend a minimum of four additional sites, and, as in the present
study, an attempt should be made to sample sites that are not influenced by seasonal anoxia.
James River
-------
The middle portion of the tidal James River was characterized as an Area with Insufficient or
Inconclusive Data (U.S. EPA 1999). Recent sediment contaminant data suggested that
concentrations were well below ER-M values; however, the spatial coverage of the data was poor
and there was very little complementary biological (i.e., toxicity or benthic community) or water
column information. In the present study, all sediment contaminants were below ER-M values
except for chlordane and dieldrin in J20; however, these concentrations were below the PECs and
EpP-derived SQGs. Station J17 had some of the highest concentrations of PAHs of all the
stations, especially the. high molecular weight compounds. High molecular weight PAHs are
commonly associated with pyrogenic activities, possibly indicating the influence of a local
combustion source. The benthic community at this station was also degraded. Dauer
(unpublished data) reported acute sediment toxicity at a site just upstream of J17; however, in our
study, sediment toxicity was not observed at any of the James River stations. Overall, the weight
of evidence would suggest that this segment has a low probability for adverse effects due to
chemical contamination; however, this area is still under a fish consumption advisory for kepone
and this contaminant was not measured in the present study.
York River
The upper portion of the York River was characterized as an Area with Insufficient or
Inconclusive Data with a concern for a contaminant problem near the confluence of the
Pamunkey and Mattaponi Rivers (U.S. EPA 1999). The upper and lower portions of this
segment were sampled by the Ambient Toxicity Program in 1995. Water column toxicity was
observed in samples collected in the Pamunkey River, below West Point and there was a water
quality exceedance for Pb observed upstream of. West Point. This study also indicated that
sediment contaminant concentrations and toxicity were low at all stations. In the present study,
the closest station to the confluence, Y21, was located at the mouth of the Mattaponi River.
Concentrations of organochlorine compounds, including heptachlor epoxide, total chlordane,
dieldrin and t-DDT and several PAHs were elevated at this station relative to other stations in the
York River; however, concentrations were still below those thought to elicit adverse effects on
benthic organisms. In addition, no sediment toxicity was observed here or at any York River
stations; however, the benthic community was severely degraded at 3 of 5 stations. Only one of
the York River stations, Y17, met the benthic restoration goal. Schafmer et al. (in press)
contend that the upper to middle York River is a high energy environment characterized by many
cycles of deposition and erosion and this physical disturbance can result in benthic faunal
impoverishment. Therefore, it seems likely that the degraded benthic community is a result of
physical processes, and perhaps anoxia, and not sediment-associated contaminants. Overall, the
segment appears to have a low probability for adverse affects due to chemical contaminants,
except for a potential problem area in the Pamunkey River near West Point.
-------
REFERENCES
Allen, H.E., G. Fu, and B. Deng. 1993. Analysis of acid-volatile sulfide and simultaneously
extracted metals (SEM) for estimation of potential toxicity in aquatic sediments. Environ.
Toxicol. Chem. 12:1441-1453.
Ashley, J.T.F, and D. J. Velinsky. 2000. Using the Sediment Quality Triad to characterize toxic
conditions in the Chesapeake Bay. Final Data Summary Report. July 2000. Submitted to the U.S.
EPA Chesapeake Bay Program.
Brooks, J.M., T.L. Wade, EX. Atlas, M.C. Kennicutt II, B.J. Presley, R.R. Fay, E.N. Powell, and
G. Wolff. 1988. Analyses of bivalves and sediments for organic chemicals and trace elements
from Gulf of Mexico estuaries. Annual Report of the Geochemical and Environmental Research
Group, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX, pp. 61
Canfield, T.J., F J. Dwyer, J.F. Fairchild, P.S. Haverland, C.G, Ingersoll, N.I. Kemble, D.R.
Mount, R.W. LaPoint, G.A. Burton, and M.C. Swift. 1996. Assessing contamination in Great
Lakes sediments using benthic invertebrate communities and the Sediment Quality Triad. J.
Great Lakes Res. 22:565-583.
Chapman, P.M., R.N. Dexter, and E.R. Long. 1987. Synoptic measures of sediment
contamination, toxicity and infaunal community structure (the Sediment Quality Triad) in San
Francisco Bay. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 37:75-96.
DiToro, D.M., C.S. Zarba, D.J. Hansen, WJ. Berry, R.C. Swartz, C.E. Cowan, S.P. Pavlou, H.E.
Allen, N.A. Thomas, P.R. Paquin. 1991. Technical basis for establishing sediment quality criteria
for nonionic organic chemicals using equilibrium partitioning. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 10:1541-
1583.
Fairey, R., J. Oakden, and S. Lamerdin. 1998. Assessing ecological impacts on benthic
community structure from sediments contaminated with multiple pollutants. Poster presentation
at the 19th Annual Meeting of the Society of Toxicology and Chemistry, Charlotte, NC.
Fisher, D.J., G.P. Ziegler, L.T. Yonkos, and B.S. Turley. 2000. Using the Sediment Quality Triad
to characterize toxic conditions in the Chesapeake Bay. December 2000. Draft final report
submitted to U.S. EPA Chesapeake Bay Program.
Folk, R.L. 1980. Petrology of Sedimentary Rocks. Hemphill Publishing Co, Austin, Texas 183 p.
Hall, L.W. and others. 1997. A pilot study for ambient toxicity testing in Chesapeake Bay. Year
4 Report. EPA 903-R-97-011. U.S. EPA Chesapeake Bay Program. Annapolis, MD.
Hall, L.W., R.D. Anderson, R.W. Alden, A. Messing, T. Turner, D. Goshora, and M. McGinty.
10
-------
1998. Ambient toxicity testing in Chesapeake Bay. Year 6 Report. EPA 903/R98/017. U.S. EPA
Chesapeake Bay Program. Annapolis, MD.
Long, E.R. and P.M. Chapman. 1985. A Sediment Quality Triad: Measures of sediment
contamination, toxicity and infaunal community composition in Puget Sound. Mar. Poll. Bull.
10:405-415.
Long, E.R. and L.G. Morgan. 1991. The potential for biological effects of sediment-sorbed
contaminants tested in the National Status and Trends Program. NOAA Technical Memorandum
NOS OMA 52, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Seattle, WA, 175 pp +
appendices.
Long, E.R., D.D. MacDonald, S.L. Smith andF.D. Calder. 1995. Incidence of adverse biological
effects within ranges of chemical concentrations in marine and estuarine sediments. Environ.
Manag. 19:81-97.
Long, E.R., L.J. Field, and D.D. MacDonald. 1998. Predicting toxicity in marine sediments with
numerical sediment quality guidelines. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 17:714-727.
MacDonald, D.D., C.G. Ingersoll, and T.A. Berger. 2000. Development and evaluation of
consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Arch. Environ. Contam.
Toxicol. 39:20-31.
McGee, B.L., DJ. Fisher, L.T. Yonkos, G.P. Ziegler, and S. Turley. 1999. Assessment of
sediment contamination, acute toxicity and population viability of the estuarine amphipod
Leptocheirus plumulosus in Baltimore Harbor. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 18:2151-2160.
Schafmer, L.C., and others. In press. Physical energy regimes, seabed dynamics and organism-
sediment interactions along an estuarine gradient. In, Organism-Sediment Interactions, S.A.
Woodin and R.C. Aller, eds. University of South Carolina Press, Columbia, S.C.
Schlekat, C.E., B.L. McGee, D.M. Boward, E. Reinharz, DJ. Velinsky, and T.L. Wade. 1994.
Tidal river sediments in the Washington, D.C. area. III. Biological effects associated with
sediment contamination. Estuaries 17:334-344.
U.S. EPA. 1992. Methods for the determination of chemical substances in marine and estuarine
environmental samples. EPA/600/R-92/121, Office of Research and Development, U.S. EPA,
Washington, D.C.
U.S. EPA. 1994. Methods for assessing the toxicity of sediment-associated contaminants with
estuarine and marine amphipods. EPA/600/R-94/025. Office of Research and Development,
Washington, D.C.
11
-------
U.S. EPA. 1997. The incidence and severity of sediment contamination in surface waters of the
United States. Volume 1: National Sediment Quality Survey. EPA-823-R-97-006. Office of
Water, Office of Science and Technology, Washington, D.C.
U.S. EPA. 1999. Targeting toxics: A characterization report, A tool for directing management
and monitoring actions in the Chesapeake Bay's tidal rivers. EPA 903-R-99-010. Chesapeake
Bay Program, Annapolis, MD.
U.S. EPA/U.S. ACE. 1998. Evaluation of dredged material proposed for discharge in
waters of the U.S. - Testing Manual. Inland testing manual. EPA-823-B-98-004. Washington,
D.C.
U.S. FWS. 1999. Draft Quality Assurance Project Plan for using the Sediment Quality Triad to
characterize toxic conditions in Chesapeake Bay. Prepared for U.S. EPA Chesapeake Bay
Program by the U.S. FWS Chesapeake Bay Field Office. .
Weisberg, S.B., J.A. Ranasinght, D.M. Dauer, L.C. Schaffner, RJ. Diaz, J.B. Frithsen. 1997. An
estuarine Benthic Index of Biotic Integrity (B-IBI) for Chesapeake Bay. Estuaries 20:149-158.
12
-------
Table 1. Number of long-term benthic (LTB) sampling stations that fell within the target
segments and the number of stations from each segment included in the present study.
Segment
RET-5
RET-4
WT-6
ET-2
LE-2
LE-1
River
Middle James River
Upper York River
Magothy River
Elk and Bohemia Rivers
Lower Potomac River
Lower Patuxent River
Number of
LTB stations
6
7
2
22
19
14
Number of
stations selected
5
5
3'
2
6
6
1 At the request of the Maryland Department of the Environment, an extra station was added in
the Magothy River for analysis of sediment chemistry and toxicity.
2 Both stations were located in the Bohemia River.
13
-------
Table 2. Sediment Quality Triad station identification and location.
River Segment LTB Station ID
Study ID Latitude Longitude
York
York
York
York*
York*
RET-4
RET-4
RET-4
RET-4
RET-4
YRK 06Y16
YRK 06Y17
YRK 06Y18
YRK 06Y21
YRK 06Y22
Y16
Y17
Y18
Y21
Y22
37.442
37.481
37.495
37.529
37.538
-76.738
-76.761
-76.777
-76.792
-76.787
James
James
James
James
James
RET-5
RET-5
RET-5
RET-5
RET-5
JAM 06J17
JAM 06J18
JAM 06J20
JAM 06J22
JAM 06J23
J17
J18
J20
J22
J23
37.191
37.199
37.218
37.232
37.233
-76.801
-76.793
-76.890
-76.890
-76.910
Magothy
Magothy
Magothy
WT-6
WT-6
WT-6
MW 06309
MW06310
NA
Patuxent
Patuxent
Patuxent
Patuxent
Patuxent
Patuxent
LE-1
LE-1
LE-1
LE-1
LE-1
LE-1
M9
M10
Mil
39.065
39.073
39.077
-76.465
-76.511 _
-76.487
PXR 06203
PXR 06204
PXR 06205
PXR 06207
PXR 062 11
PXR 06214
PX3
PX4
PX5
PX7
PX11
PX14
38.365
38.397
38.398
38.400
38.440
38.465
-76.475
-76.577
-76.487
-76.520
-76.605
-76.661
Potomac
Potomac
Potomac
Potomac
Potomac
Potomac
LE-2
LE-2
LE-2
LE-2
LE-2
LE-2
PMR 06104
PMR 06106
PMR 06107
PMR 06 112
PMR 06 113
PMR 06 115
PM4
PM6
PM7
PM12
PM13
PM15
38.027
38.117
38.159
38.231
38.239
38.271
-76.473
-76.438
-76.677
-76.677
-76.927
-76.971
•
Bohemia
Bohemia
ET-2
ET-2
MET 06424
MET 06425
B024
BO25
39.477
39.486
-75.902
-75.894
* stations located in the Mattaponi River, just upstream of the confluence of the Pamunkey and
Mattaponi Rivers
14
-------
Table 3. List of PAHs, PCBs and OCs analyzed in the 1999 Sediment Quality Triad study.
Polvcvclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons
Fluorene
Phenanthrene
Anthracene
Fluoranthene
Pyrene
Benz[a]anthracene
Chrysene + Triphenylene
Benzo[b]fluoranthene
Benzo[k]fluoranthene
Benzo[a]pyrene
Indeno[l ,2,3-c,d]pyrene
Benzo[g,h,i]perylene
Organochlorine Pesticides
BHC (alpha, beta, gamma, delta)
Heptachlor
Heptachlor Epoxide
Chlordanes (gamma and alpha)
Nonachlors (cis and trans)
Dieldrin
DDDs (o,p and p,p)
DDEs (o,p and p,p)
DDTs (o,p and p,p)
»
Polvchlorinated Biohenvl
1
4,10
7,9
6
8,5
19
12,13
18
17
24
16,32
29
26
25
31,28
33,21,53
51
22
45
46
52
49
48,47
44
37,42
41,64,71
40
100
63
74
70,76
66,95
91
56,60
92,84
89
101
99
119
83
97
81,87
136
77,110
82
151
134,144
107
123,149
118
134
146
132,153,105
14!
Conveners*
137,130,176
163,138
158
129,178
187,182
183
128
185
174
177
202,171,156
172
197
180
193
191
199
170,190
198
201
203,196
189
208,195
207
194
205
206
209
*PCB congeners appearing as pairs or triplets were coeluted and reported as sum.
15
-------
Table 4. Inorganic parameters and methods.
Parameter List
Reference Method
Grain Size
Total Organic Carbon
% Water
Acid Volatile Sulfide
Total Nitrogen (sediments)
Ammonia
Metals and Metalloids
Aluminum
Cadmium*
Chromium*
Copper*
Zinc*
Lead*
Mercury*
Nickel*
Silver
Arsenic*
Selenium*
Iron*
.Folk (1974)
EPA 440.0
NOAA(1985)
DiToroetal.(1990)
EPA 440.0
ASTM (1984)
Modified Smoley (1992)1
* denotes elements measured for SEM analysis. :Se and As via hydride generation-AAS (Cutter,
1982)
16
-------
•i
ta
,2
"a.
1
I
-o
03
i
txt
3
a-
•o
.
TT *"! Tf "^ TT P^ f> —i " oo
oovo2r^£P~*fr*l^ON?Ci"~l^<*"ioo
ONOo2°°2®NOAONOO;;ONOOOOr-
Si
vq o
in I—
ON ON
— O
-«s- — t—
oor^r-
oor-
P- •*»•
O oo
3S
r- r-r^r-r-r-t~-vor-vooor-ONoo;x
oo oo —
p oo r-;
06
r- r- ON
^ O f*"i r^ OO
p ON ON vq —
" t-^ r-^ r—' 06 ON ON
in n -n
(N
vo
o
t--
0
r <* i- - 2 §
OoggggxxSSS^
najft-a-ft-e-eucuSfiS?
eu o- eu
-------
Table 6. Summary of the sediment toxicity test results.
Station
Control
J17
J18
J20
J22
J23
M9
M10
Mil
Y16
Y17
Y18
Y21
Y22
Control
BO24
BO25
PM4
PM6
PM7
PM12
PM13
PM15
PX3
PX4
PX5
PX7
PX11
PX14
Start
Date
10/15/99
10/15/99
10/15/99
10/15/99
10/15/99
10/15/99
10/15/99
10/15/99
10/15/99
10/15/99
10/15/99
10/15/99
10/15/99
10/15/99
10/29/99
10/29/99
10/29/99
10/29/99
10/29/99
10/29/99
10/29/99
10/29/99
10/29/99
10/29/99
10/29/99
10/29/99
10/29/99
10/29/99
10/29/99
Leptocheirus plumulosus
10-d survival (%)
Mean
100.0
95.0
97.0
98.0
98.0
95.0
96.0
96.0
98.0
96.0
96.0
94.0
96.0
96.0
91.0
98.0
96.0
91.0
89.0
92.0
89.0
92.0
95.0
94.0
92.0
89.0
96.0
92.0
93.0
SD
0.00
3.54
4.47
2.74
4.47
5.00
2.24
6.52
4.47
6.52
4.18
6.52
4.18
4.18
4.18
2.74
4.18
6.52
9.62
4.47
7.42
5.70
3.54
5.48
5.70
4.18
2.24
7.58
4.47
Cyprinodon variegatus
10-d survival (%)
Mean
82.0
78.0
76.0
80.0
78.0
68.0
82.0
72.0
66.0
72.0
84.0 -
74.0
74.0
70.0
82.0
82.0
80.0
78.0
74.0
86.0
88.0
76.0
90.0
86.0
78.0
70.0
82.0
84.0
74.0
SD
8.37
13.00
15.20
15.80
13.00
8.37
16.40
13.00
23.00
13.00
19.50
5.48
15.20
12.20
8.37
8.37
21.20
8.37
24.10
8.94
16.40
16.70
12.20
15.20
13.00
25.50
14.80
8.94
23.00
18
-------
Table 7. Summary of sediment textural data for the 1999 Sediment Quality Triad samples.
Tributary
York
York
York
York
York
James
James
James
James
James
Magothy
Magothy
Magothy
Bohemia
Bohemia
Patuxent
Patuxent
Patuxent
Patuxent
Patuxent
Patuxent
Potomac
Potomac
Potomac
Potomac
Potomac
Potomac
StalD
Y16
Y17
Y18
Y21
Y22
J17
J18
J20
J22
J23
M9
M10
Mil
BO 24
BO 25
PX3
PX4
PX5
PX7
PX11
PX14
PM4
PM6
PM7
PM12
PM13
PM15
% Water
74.87
80.62
82.68
78.15
81.15
75.30
48.15
42.93
70.50
70.25
79.15
22.11
78.71
71.07
34.83
32.51
89.70
74.11
80.85
29.26
67.44
34.84
77.86
45.79
30.97
65.95
84.64
% Gravel
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.2
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.0
3.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
% Sand
9.0
5.6
3.1
13.5
82.4
13.5
70.8
5.1
2.8
4.9
8.6
97.8
1.6
6.5
72.8
87.5
89.6
4.0
4.0
93.0
26.5
85.0
4.9
78.8
97.9
1.0
12.2
% Silt
4.8
30.2
9.7
5.4
5.2
39.3
14.6
50.0
52.3
30.0
27.3
1.5
29.2
46.7
20.7
3.7
4.6
34.6
40.7
2.4
17.5
5.8
45.7
8.0
0.0
13.7
27.2
% Clay
86.2
64.2
87.2
81.1
12.2
47.2
14.6
45.0
44.8
65.1
64.2
0.7
69.2
46.7 _
6.5
8.7
5.8
61.4
55.3
4.6
56.0
5.8
49.5
13.3
2.1
85.4
60.6
% < 63 pm
91.0
94.4
96.9
86.5
17.4
86.5
29.2
95.0
97.1
95.1
91.5
2.2
98.4
93.4
27.2
12.4
10.4
96.0
96.0
7.0
73.5
11.6
95.2
21.3
2.1
99.1
87.8
U.S. EPA Headquarters Library
Mail code 3201
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington DC 20460
19
-------
Table 8. Sediment and porewater (PW) carbon and nitrogen concentrations for the 1999
Sediment Quality Triad samples.
StalD
Y16
Y17
Y18
Y21
Y22
J17
J18
J20
J22
J23
M9
M10
Mil
BO 24
BO 25
PX3
PX4
PX5
PX7
PX11
PX14
PM4
PM6
PM7
PM12
PM13
PM15
Total N
(mg/kg)
3,473
2,942
2,901
2,652
1,992
3,060
830
2,184
2,423
2,650
2,627
307
3,679
347
489
641
2,297
3,926
3,322
389
2,359
633
4,838
1,121
1,380
2,405
527
Organic C
(mg/kg)
22,594
28,725
28,797
28,344
17,178
39,634
6,211
20,725
26,405
24,494
29,107
1,554
35,333
2,490
3,414
3,916
25,583
33,753
23,565
1,790
19,144
2,661
28,579
7,569
11,011
19,913
7,972
PWDOC
(mg/L)
8.3 .
8.4
16.0
12.0
5.4
8.6
13.3
9.8
9.4
5.7
20.8
50.0
23.8
2.7
4.9
3.5
8.7
8.3
21.1
5.3
3.4
8.3
8.5
5.1
20.9
4.7
9.4
PW NH4+NH3
(mg/L)
3.26
4.80
14.34
3.84
0.56
2.25
0.60
2.51
1.90
1.15
2.13
4.58
8.66 "
2.39
2.19
1.53
0.75
4.70
1.32
2.60
6.42
2.28
15.49
2.31
3.67
6.62
4.10
20
-------
O
ii
S
^_f
8
- 5
jj> ^<
>
2
O
03
O
w
8
gj
£> «
T3
U
3
13
I
1
co C
c j>
.2 5
« °
J» 03
n 8
1 £ 3
c «>
sti
C 3 4>
« w J3
C •— *-
I g'S
w'j §
111
•S § x
H O 8
M)
X
CO
w
^
04
*
^
s*'
£•
c^
^<
<
e
KI
U
s
U
,a
CM
•o
U
o
n
CO
V}
o
o
Q
ON
CN
Q
Z
CN
**
O
"*
vo
«n
CN
ON
00
CO
00
d
CN
CO
^
00
CN
1
\0
CO
in
o
o
Q
3?
CN
Q
n
co
"*
VO
CO
r-
S
CN
CO
35
oo
CO
CN
••*
t^;
CO
a
z
r-
t^
o
o
Q
B
vd
Q
Z
00
co
_
CN
m
CN
S
2
CO
CO
CN
m
CN
CN
^
t"--
CO
o
Z
00
VO
TJ-
O
o
Q
Z
$
CN
*— 1
Q
ON
vO
«— «
in
ON
CN
CO
vO
ON
d
CO
CO
d
^
CN
O
CO
1
CN
CO
*— H
0
0
a
z
CO
Q
Z
oo
m
^
«— i
--
o
V£>
0
CO
m"
CN
*
CN
ON
co
CN
CN
O
CO
O
Q
Z
CN
CN
d
Q
Z
^
VO
vO
CO
in
r— 1
**_
CO
in
CO
CO
co
o
o
d
wo
ON
CO
VO
r-
oo
CO
d
r-
•*
^^
— ^
o
Q
Z
ON
CO
Q
Z
ON
ON
•"
V*
in
VO
00
CN
rt
r-
00
in
O
00
2
o
d
oo
i— >
r-
•<*
o
o
o
CO
o
vo
Q
Z
VO
m
CN
VO
*
VO
ON
ON
CN
m
in
CO
co
—
CO
CN
00
CN
O
Q
Z
0
CN
CO
co
o
Q
Z
s
CN
a
z
co
f-
VO
m
^
o
m
CO
oo
^
VO
co
co
q
o
00
CO
VO
ON
5
Q
Z
CN
CN
1—5
O
ON
O
O
Q
Z
£
-
Q
Z
VO
m
«n
CO
00
CN
oo
CO
ON
VO
co
O
ON
CN
C\
CO
CN
O
rfr
Q
Z
CO
CN
t-H
CO
o
a
z
CN
CO
ON
m
d
CO
oo
S
c£
OQ
NO
CN
00
d
CO
£
^
CO
oo
o
m
d
ON
oo
o
o
o
r-
d
Q
Z
o
d
oo
o
o
o
(•"H
m
d
£
•
o
r-
CN
OO
CN
in
CO
d
o
0
ON
CN
O
O
Z
oo
t-;
J^
co
d
ON
^
o
**
0
0\
«0
•*•>
ff)
^
«n
in
oo
00
p-
ON
00
^
— H
vd
oo
oo
oo
d
i
«n
^ o —i
CN
oo O co
00 f- CO
CO
o . -
O Qs
~ — «n
ON vo vo
d i—" 06
CN «n "*
q q
oo £ d
CO —
q q
d ON
CN «
r- <=> <=>
< oo oo
: «^ CN
r CN —
O O 00
CN vo ON
^ a\ Tf
CN
-------
o
o
(U
OJD
cc
on
s
u
•o
o ^
,-,,^000000000000
Q
Z
w-i
IN
oo
O
rn
O\
ooooooooooooo
CM
o
m
d °
oo
00
r-
en
o
0 OS
o\ vq vq
O «-< oo
cs m rf
o o
So ^ ^
rn —
o o
O ON
- ° <=>
oo oo
00
o\
u
-------
Table 10. Sediment acid volatile sulfide (AVS) and simultaneously extracted metals (SEM) for the
1999 Sediment Quality Triad stations.
AVS
(timoles/g)
1.06
1.72
0.31
0.50
0.06
0.05
. 0.06
0.05
0.10
0.03
5.92
0.07
10.57
2.15
0.04
0.53
0.43
8.61
8.74
0.54
0.65
3.58
9.80
4.15
1.29
8.29
0.54
SEMCu
(limoles/g)
0.07
0.07
0.10
0.10
0.02
0.19
0.05
0.14
0.21
0.15
0.13
0.04
0.01
0.14
0.07
0.02
0.01
0.08
0.04
0.02
0.06
0.01
0.00
0.04
0.00
0.05
0.07
SEMZn
(|imoles/g)
1.00
1.23
1.18
1.04
0.41
0.81
0.29
0.71
0.94
0.65
3.91
0.14
4.13
1.53
0.33
0.15
0.07
0.45
0.70
0.15
0.46
0.30
0.64
0.57
0.03
1.07
0.75
SEMNi
(limoles/g)
0.032
0.040
0.037
0.032
0.006
0.047
0.017
0.044
0.062
0.042
0.269
0.011
0.182
0.204
0.036
0.007
0.006
0.031
0.070
0.020
0.065
0.008
0.017
0.021
0.003
0.091
0.073
SEMPb
(limoles/g)
0.075
0.094
0.096
0.082
0.018
0.096
0.031
0.076
: o.ios
0.072
0.211
0.013
0.218
0.136
0.030
0.014
0.006
0.047
0.060
0.015
0.049
0.010
0.026
0.028
0.004
0.086
0.070
SEMCd
(pmoles/g)
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.002
0.000
0.003
0.001
0.002
0.003
0.002
0.003
0.000
0.007
0.003
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.002
0.002
0.001
0.002
0.001
0.002
0.003
0.000
0.002
0.001
SEMHg
(pmoles/g)
0.70
0.50
0.95
1.65
2.04
10.13
6.65
11.37
12.91
20.78
0.08
3.04"
0.25
0.83
4.21
0.02
0.15
0.36
0.44
0.46
0.95
0.26
0.08
0.43
0.04
0.74
0.89
Sum SEM
(jimoles/g)
1.17
1.44
1.42
1.27
0.45
1.15
0.39
0.98
1.33
0.94
4.53
0.21
4.55
2.02
0.47
0.19
0.09
0.61
0.87
0.21
0.63
0.33
0.68
0.66
0.04
1.30
0.97
AVS -SEM
-0.11
0.29
-1.11
-0.77
-0.39
-1.10
-0.33
-0.93
-1.23
-0.91
1.39
-0.14
6.02
0.13
-0.43
0.34
0.34
8.00
7.87
0.33
0.02
3.25
9.11
3.49
1.24
6.98
-0.43
23
-------
•a
1
•o
I
i
0)
O
§
I
W
T3
1
O1
•*-^
g
173
o\
ON
ON
5
CL,
"3
H
-s
s S.
« £•
so S.
^ w
v S
«. £
r< >,
_- a.
>>
&
75"
BS
C
S
O
£
ca
B
8
L.
a
a"
ca"
tu
t 1
u v
It
ZS.
m Qi
U T
•«*
p«
5
s"
ca
41
U
J»
0*
luoranth
X.
s
Li
<
=
i
u
M
a
a
£
**t ""? ^1
vo 00 O
vo in ON
fN ro <n o
CN in to
<5T — vo
r^ od ON
r*$ ^i f^
ON — —
•* in o
— to ro
^ml (•*} (/•}
to in -^
•*t —• oo
in vq p
ON r~ ON
~- CN CO
vo 1- r^
OV 00 NO
— _ fsj
r- vo vo
in O rf
to vo oo
—• •-* «n
fsj — ; — ;
CO VO 00
CN to ON
«n r> od
in CN ^f
Tt CN 0\
— CN CN
vo r-- oo
> > >
in
od
oo
ro_
vo
r-^
r>
p
ro
ro
O
fN
^^
i
_-
in
oo
oo
ON"
ON
m
r-"
^«
ON
vo"
•^t
CN
r--
C-^
ot
CN
0\
r~
CO
o
S
,
CN
>
in ro
wi in
VO 00
°°. O\
co" r-^
0 0
VO ON
TT tN
— to
CN 1-;
O\ '^:
VO CN
CN f-
m vo
ON fN
ro •*
— i r-
— CN
vd ro
in >n
— ^
OO
CN
VO
m
o
O\
ON
CN
CN
CN
Ov
Ol
VO
CN
CO
to
ON
in
ro
O
ON
to
p
CO
VO
oo
CO
vo
0\
o
^^
rr
CN
OO
H^
p
•V
r-
K
•^r
m
£
in
od
E***
Q
^-
8^
oq
to
NO
CN
in
r-~
CN
•n
CN
VO
5
^^
S
^*
od
in
O
CN
•^
O O
? $
°_, CN_
O ro
8 ?2
CN ~l
s ~
O\ rr
od Tf
0 ro
— O
CN ON
p- m
CN "O
^ 2
^ «
» 2
NO H
•—>
o
o
•V
"T,
in
•^>
to
0
to
^
r^
r-
CN
rr
TT"
•*^ ^^
O O
S S
OO fN
CN —
O O
O C)
o m
vo O
p 0
§CN
m
CN —
o o
o ed
o to
— CN
m CN
® 0
o ,x
2 5
z. °°
0 0
§ r?
m ~-
S 0
^s
-------
I
a
o
O
flk
75
o
H
Si
e* £»
a g.
f 8
3" >»
—' o.
L.
"5T
aa
c
o
s
£T
e
2
0
S
e
a
4- B
w ja
£ O,
u 5
£
C3
OS
5"
V
>•»
a*
JS
luorant
x<
3
h
S
f
Phenant
g
35
q
*""*
CO
—
^
0
tN
v>
i--
**1
OS
Os
*1
oo
:2
1
s
OS
o
CQ
q
(N
OO
2
I-;
fi
(N
S
OS
£
w>
vo
(N
q
(M
S
—
f*~>
OS
tN
q
S
1
r- <=>.
s 1
V> <=>
-* s
rsi °.
Tf °°
•0 ^
^
2 S
O f>)
VO —
r- ^
«« °P
~Z °s
O '»
**} "^
— . oo
O VO
(N r*
U1 "^
Tt °*
n T
X X
Cu P,
OO
oo
cs
oo
l>
OS
s
>^-
«1
oo
o
ra
*""*
00
s
s
X
OH
00
Tf
VO
r-
os
OS
u-i
(N
(N
r-
oo
OS
06
C4
q
^~!
o\
v-i
s
r-
X
eu
'" m
-
• r~
—
r- —
oo 06
vo «
~". °>
«i rn
r- os
rs — '
S 2
OS vi
vd 06
TT «
oo oo
• &
d '*>
°° ^
r": ^
oo ^
s i
s s
a. c.
o 9 q
S S §
o g: °°
^ (N
0 q q
8 S S
5 vo rr
o 0 q
s § s
«^ OO fN)
rs "^
o R =>
- S °
<= S S
0 <=> P
S § 8
VO ^ ^
-------
Table 12. Summary of sediment organochlorine analysis of the 1999 Sediment Quality Triad
samples. Concentrations are ng/g dry weight. Exceedances of ER-M and PEC values are indicated by
underlining and italics, respectively.
StalD
Y16
Y17
Y18
Y21
Y22
J17
J18
J20
J22
J23
M9
M10
Mil
BO 24
BO 25
PX3
PX4
PX5
PX7
PX11
PX14
PM4
PM6
PM7
PM12
PM13
PM15
ER-L
ER-M
PEC
p-BHC
BDL
1.00
0.76
7.20
0.92
0.60
BDL
2.95
2.16 .
0.80
7.77
2.09
6.77
8.78
BDL
3.06
1.00
BDL
8.48
BDL
4.16
1.38
7.73
BDL
BDL
8.11
3.58
Y-BHC
(lindane)
BDL
BDL
0.36
0.22
0.17
BDL
BDL
BDL
0.16
0.11
0.12
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
0.73
BDL
0.14
BDL
BDL
BDL
0.17
0.04
BDL
BDL
0.15
4.99
6-BHC
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
0.51
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
0.52
BDL
BDL
BDL
0.68
heptachlor
1.30
2.33
1.96
0.76
0.81
0.72
BDL
0.46
0.51
0.53
1.49
0.67
1.35
0.79
BDL
0.69
3.84
0.92
3.31
0.53
0.75
0.75
2.58
0.59
0.42
1.18
1.83
heptachlor
epoxide
0.12
BDL
0.24
1.01
ND
0.15
BDL
0.86
0.20
ND
BDL
0.52
BDL
1.66
ND
0.80
ND
ND
3.84
ND
0.72
0.65
2.96
BDL
BDL
1.12
0.13
16
Total
chlordane
BDL
1.28
0.90
25.74
0.88
1.12
BDL
13.00
1.45
1.29
4.52
4.44
4.51
25.96
0.12
10.99
1.15
BDL
55.73
BDL
14.91
8.17
35.06
BDL
BDL
16.03
2.50
0.50
6
17.6
dieldrin
ND
ND
ND
13.45
BDL
BDL
ND
8.77
ND
0.15
2.97
4.32
0.42
14.61
ND
6.90
ND
ND
28.12
ND
8.39
5.28
20.73
ND
ND
9.23
0.52
0.02
8
61.8
t-DDT
5.75
7.20
6.24
29.60
4.23
8.61
1.65
14.30
8.99
7.04
29.26
8.97
17.32
89.08
2.11
30.03
3.33
5.99
133.51
0.00
29.55
12.49
56.16
0.80
0.00
28.34
10.44
1.58
46.1
572
t-PCBs
25.24
46.09
35.36
57.83
27.96
68.88
10.75
49.05
37.59
33.30
159.74
19.74
137.53
100.01
23.77
28.97
33.34
31.89
162.02
3.89
24.22
22.80
119.09
11.81
5.58
72.79
102.84
22.70
180
676
26
-------
Table 13. Organic carbon normalized concentrations of total chlordane and dieldrin at each site.
Sediment quality guidelines derived from the EqP approach are 7.0 and 10.6 ug/g oc for chlordane
and dieldrin, respectively.
Station
Y16
Y17
Y18
Y21
Y22
J17
J18
J20
J22
J23
M9
M10
Mil
BO 24
BO 25
PX3
PX4
PX5
PX7
PX11
PX14
PM4
PM6
PM7
PM12
PM13
PM15
organic Total Total
carbon chlordane chlordane
(ug/g dry) (ng/gdry) (ug/goc)
22,593.56
28,725.47
28,797.35
28,344.01
17,177.73
' 39,633.80
6,210.61
20,724.64
26,404.80
24,493.90
29,106.67
1,553.52
35,333.09
2,489.63
3,414.12
3,916.27
25,582.58
33,752.79
23,564.90
1,790.11
19,144.43
2,660.68
28,578.87
7,569.33
11,010.72
19,913.34
7,971.77
BDL
1.28
0.90
25.74
0.88
1.12
BDL
13.00
1.45
1.29
4.52
4.44
4.51
25.96
0.12
10.99
1.15
BDL
56.73
BDL
14.91
8.17
35.06
BDL
BDL
16.03
2.50
NA
0.04
0.03
0.91
0.05
0.03
NA
0.63
0.05
0.05
0.16
2.86
0.13
10.43
0.03
2.81
0.04
NA
2.41
NA
0.78
3.07
1.23
NA
NA
0.80
0.31
dieldrin
(ng/g dry)
ND
ND
ND
13.45
BDL
BDL
ND
8.77
ND
0.15
2.97
4.32
0.42
14.61
ND
6.90
ND
ND
28.12
ND
8.39
5.28
20.73
ND
ND
9.23
0.52
dieldrin
(ug/g oc)
NA
NA
NA
0.47
NA
NA
NA
0.42
NA
0.01
0.10-
2.78
0.01
5.87
NA
1.76
NA
NA
1.19
NA
0.44
1.98
0.73
NA
NA
0.46
0.06
27
-------
Table 14. Summary of the results of benthic community analysis for the 1999 Sediment Quality
Triad stations.
Tributary
York River
York River
York River
York River
York River
ames River
ames River
ames River
James River
James River
^lagothy River
Magothy River
Magothy River
Bohemia River
Bohemia River
Patuxent River
'atuxent River
Patuxent River
'atuxent River
'atuxent River
>atuxent River
^tomac River
*otomac River
'otomac River
Potomac River
Jotomac River
'otomac River
Station
Y16
Y17
Y18
Y21
Y22
J17
J18
J20
J22
J23
M9
M10
Mil
BO 24
BO 25
PX3
PX4
PX5
PX7
PX11
PX14
PM4
PM6
PM7
PM12
PM13
PM15
Abundance
per m.sq
3,787
2,517
2,948
3,333
2,495
2,721
2,222
2,063
3,152
6,985
1,065
1,474
ND
2,608
2,404
748
1,020
362
771
1,973
340
3,878
703
2,903
1,428
408
544
No. of
Taxa
7
12
9
8
10
10
8
7
11
11
7
9
ND
6
8
9
15
9
8
15
7
17
7
17
12
7
5
Shannon-
Wiener
0.97
1.71
1.43
1
1.18
1.09
1.47
0.92
1.74
1.44
1.31
1.71
ND
1.43
1.58
1.94
2.36
2.01
1.54
2.18
1.62
2.04
1.74
2.08
1.9
1.64
1.09
B-mi
2
3.3
2
2
2.7
2.2
3.4
2.6
3
2.2
2.2
2.2
ND
1.67
1.67
3.3
2.6
3
2
3.3
3.3
3
2
3
3.3
2.67
1.67
Status
severely degraded
meets goal
severely degraded
severely degraded
marginal
degraded
meets goal
marginal
meets goal
degraded
degraded
degraded
ND
severely degraded
severely degraded
meets goal
marginal
meets goal
severely degraded
meets goal
meets goal
meets goal
severely degraded
meets goal
meets goal
marginal
severely degraded
28
-------
> .f
itSf
I
s
<£
1
the Pa
ality Triad Sites
Ei— •
rv
Locati
n
S •
CU ..-,
.
'
/-• _____ --
/ /V
y
.H
'S
CTs
(N
-------
2
t
•*~~£sfrr r
A
,-/-/>
s i
y
/ {
f "
V'3 \
Of
A
_J
1-'
•ik
l*i
''
s
-------
-------
2
I
PQ
JS
00
I
999
"N
-S • 'i
/'
|\
-------
m
-------
o
u>
*«>
*3
m
o ?
\t
i V
oo CX
w
§
w
IT)
1 o
o °
II
CO
-------
o
CO
•*«•
g
CD
•3
1
•s
o
•w
§
1
O
tU o
c "*
(S O
e
S
-
EX -2
li
"3 ^
43 n
iu ca
,;
*'
CQ O-
f-5 vi5>
• - "c I
§ S :
OQ a ,
VI
i *„
in
rn
.
-------
-------
APPENDIX A
Draft final report on sediment toxicity test results for the
Sediment Quality Triad study submitted by Fisher et al.
December 2000
36
-------
-------
DRAFT FINAL REPORT
Using the Sediment Quality Triad to Characterize Toxic Conditions in the Chesapeake Bay •
Chesapeake Bay Ambient Toxicity Assessment Program (1999 - 2001)
EPA/IAG # CB983072010
Prepared by:
Daniel J. Fisher, Ph.D.
Gregory P. Ziegler
Lance T. Yonkos
Bonnie S. Turley
University of Maryland System
Agricultural Experiment Station
Wye Research and Education Center
Box 169
Queenstown, Maryland 21658
Prepared for:
Ms. Kelly Eisenman, Toxics Coordinator
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Chesapeake Bay Program Office
410 Severn Avenue
Annapolis, MD 21403
December, 2000
U.S. EPA Headquarters Library
Mail code 3201
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington DC 20460
-------
-------
INTRODUCTION
The objective of this study was to use the Sediment Quality Triad to characterize toxic conditions
in tidal segments of Chesapeake Bay. The focus was on assessing areas for which little data existed or
for which existing information was inconclusive. The river systems sampled during this study were the
James and York Rivers in Virginia and the Potomac, Magothy, Patuxent, and Bohemia Rivers in
Maryland. The intent was to maximize the spatial coverage of toxics monitoring by limiting the number
of toxicological analyses and coordinating with ongoing benthic monitoring programs. Twenty seven
stations were sampled in this study. This report covers the results of the toxicity tests using 10-d survival
of the amphipod Leptocheirus plumulosus and 10-d embryo/larval survival of the sheepshead minnow
Cyprinodon variegatus. All toxicity tests were conducted at the University of Maryland Wye Research
and Education Center (WREC) in Queenstown, MD.
The Sediment Quality Triad has been successfully applied in the Chesapeake Bay and nation-wide
(e.g., Baltimore Harbor, Anacostia River, Puget Sound, San Francisco Bay, Gulf of Mexico) to
characterize ambient conditions in freshwater, estuarine and marine systems (e.g., Long and Chapman
1985, Chapman et al. 1987, Hall et al. 1991, 1992, 1994, 2000, McGee et al. 1999). This weight of
evidence approach consists of complementary measures of sediment chemistry, benthic community
structure and sediment toxicity. The combination of potential cause (chemistry) and effect (biology)
measurements makes the Triad one of the most complete and powerful tools available to determine the
extent and significance of pollution-induced degradation. Although water column contaminant levels are
useful to distinguish among sources (i.e., new inputs versus historic contamination) and loadings of
contaminants, they are temporally and spatially quite patchy, potentially confounding our ability to
characterize the potential for toxicant related impact. Therefore, the focus of this approach is on the
sedimentary environment because sediments accumulate and integrate toxic chemical inputs from
multiple sources overtime; hence, determination of sediment quality is essential to determine trends in
toxic contaminants.
The toxicity information generated in this report is part of a larger effort to characterize these river
systems. The benthic community and sediment chemistry data will be combined with this toxicity data
in a later report to be prepared for the Chesapeake By Program by Dr. Beth M. McGee of the U. S. Fish
and Wildlife Service (USFWS), Chesapeake Bay Field Office.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Sample Stations
Twenty seven stations were sampled in this study. The river systems sampled during this study
were the James and York Rivers in Virginia and the Potomac, Magothy, Patuxent, and Bohemia Rivers
in Maryland. Five stations were sampled in the Middle James River, five in the Upper York River, three
in the Magothy River, six in the Lower Potomac River, six in the Lower Patuxent River, and two in the
Bohemia River. The station abbreviations, numbers and coordinates are presented in Table 1. In
addition, the dates of collection and receipt at the WREC are also given in Table 1.
Sample Collection, Handling, and Storage
-------
General sediment collection, handling, and storage procedures described in Hall et al. (1991) were
used in this study to be consistent with the existing Ambient Toxicity Assessment Program. Final details
on sediment collection will be covered in the final report prepared by the USFWS. Samples were
collected at each station by the USFWS and returned to the laboratory for testing. Sediments were
collected by petite ponar grab. The top two centimeters from each grab were composited until sufficient
sample was obtained for both toxicity testing and chemical analysis. The chemical analyses were
conducted by Drs. David Velinsky and Jeffrey Ashley, Patrick Center for Environmental Research,
Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, PA. All toxicity samples were transported on ice in coolers,
out of direct sunlight. Toxicity samples were held at the WREC in refrigerators in the dark at 4°C until
initiation of the toxicity tests.
Sediment Toxicity Tests
Sediment toxicity was assessed using the acute 10 d Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) test
with the estuarine amphipod, Leptocheirus plumulosus (McGee and Fisher 1998, U.S. EPA 1994) and
the 10 d sheepshead minnow Cyprinodon variegatus test used in the Ambient Toxicity Assessment
Program (Hall et al. 1997, Fisher 1999). Amphipods used in the tests were from cultures maintained at
the WREC while sheepshead minnow embryos were obtained from Aquatic Bio Systems, Inc. of Fort
Collins, Co. Two separate groups of tests were conducted. Tests were conducted on the sediments from
the James River, Magothy River and Upper York River from October 15 to October 25,1999. Tests were
conducted on the sediments from the Bohemia River, Lower Potomac River, and Lower Patuxent River
from October 29 to November 8,1999.
Summaries of the test methods are given in Tables 2 and 3. The EPA 10 d acute amphipod test
is a static exposure with survival as the endpoint, with no feeding; this protocol is not currently used in
the Ambient Toxicity Assessment Program. The advantages of incorporating this acute test were: 1) the
test is standardized and has been applied in areas within and outside Chesapeake Bay; hence, data
generated in this program will be directly comparable to a broader database; 2) the acute test has been
"field validated", that is the survival endpoint has been shown to be successful in tracking gradients in
sediment contamination as indicated by negative relationships to levels of sediment-associated
contaminants and positive relationships with indigenous amphipod populations (McGee et al. 1999,
McGee and Fisher 1999); 3) recent studies have indicated that the sensitivity of the acute 10 d test
endpoint (i.e., mortality) with this species is comparable to sensitivity of sublethal endpoints (growth,
reproduction) measured in chronic 28 d exposures (McGee and Fisher 1999).
The sheepshead minnow test was chosen from among the suite of assays currently employed by
the Ambient Toxicity Program. The test is a static test using survival of embryos and hatchlings as the
endpoint. At the end of the test, surviving unhatched eggs are classified as "dead eggs" for the total
survival endpoint. This test provides a link to the existing assessment program and represents a different
exposure pathway and taxonomic group. In addition, evaluation of the last several years of sediment
toxicity data from the Ambient Program indicates this test: 1) performs well in control and reference
sediments, 2) appears to be insensitive to effects of sediment type and grain size and, 3) can discriminate
among toxic sites as indicated by the relatively good agreement between stations exhibiting toxicity in
this test and those classified as toxic using the Toxicity Index.
Data Analysis
-------
Statistical procedures for the analysis of sediment toxicity test data are presented in U.S. EPA
(1994) and U.S. EPA/ACE (1994). The data were analyzed using the statistical package SigmaStat® 2.03
by SPSS, Inc. Survival data were Arc Sine Square Root transformed prior to analysis. Data were
assessed for normality and homogeneity of variance using the Kolmogorov-Srnimov test and Levene's
Median test, respectively. If the data met the assumptions of normality and homogeneity of variance
they were analyzed via ANOVA followed by comparisons between test sediments and the control using
Fisher's LSD test. If the assumptions were not met the data were analyzed using a Kruskal-Wallis One
Way Analysis of Variance on Ranks.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Water Quality
Measurements for water quality during the acute test are given in Tables 4 through 7. Porewater
ammonia was low in all test beakers, with a highest recorded value of 6.0 mg/L for any test sediment and
10.0 mg/L for the control sediment. Overlying ammonia was also low, with a highest recorded value of
1.7 mg/L for any test sediment and 2.3 mg/L for the control sediment. These values are well below the
level of 60 mg/L that would be considered to be a problem by the U.S. EPA (U.S. EPA, 1998). Values
for pH, salinity and dissolved oxygen were acceptable for all test sediments. Control sediment values
were acceptable for the control sediments also. In the second test on day seven pH values in the overlying
water of the control sediment treatment for both species were slightly below 5.0. Overlying water was
replaced in all replicates of the control treatments and the problem disappeared. Since no pH problems
were noticed in any test treatments, overlying water was not replaced. The problems did not cause
significant mortality in the control treatments with final survival being above test acceptability criteria.
Reference Toxicant Tests
The cadmium chloride reference toxicity test for L. plumulosus resulted in a 96-h LC50 of 0.22
mg/L as cadmium. This value falls within the acceptable range (± 2 standard deviations) for cadmium
reference toxicity tests conducted at the WREC laboratory (0.12 to 0.37 mg/L as cadmium). The
potassium chloride reference toxicity test conducted on larval C. variegatus resulted in a 48-h LC50 of
1,072 mg/L. This value falls within the acceptable range (± 2 standard deviations) forpotassium chloride
reference toxicity tests on this species conducted at the WREC laboratory (561 to 1,155 mg/L). The 48
h reference test with this species was extended to 96 h and a 96-h LC50 of 812 mg/L was calculated.
This is within the above mentioned acceptable range of values for this toxicant/species combination. In
addition, a separate 10 day C. variegatus embryo hatchability and survival test was also conducted with
potassium chloride. The 10-d LC50 for this test was 568 mg/L, a value still within the acceptable range
of values for this toxicant/species combination.
Sediment Toxicity Tests
Performance criteria of s 90% survival in the L. plumulosus controls and 2 80% survival in the
Cyprinodon variegatus controls were obtained for both sets of sediment toxicity tests (Table 8). The
mean control survival in the two amphipod tests were 100% and 91% while the mean survival in the
-------
sheepshead minnow tests were both 82%. In the first test mean treatment amphipod survival ranged from
94% to 98% while sheepshead survival ranged from 66% to 84% (Table 8). In the second test mean
treatment amphipod survival ranged from 89% to 98% while sheepshead survival ranged from 70% to
90% (Table 8). Individual replicate data for all treatments in the first and second test can be found in
Tables 9 and 10, respectively.
There were no significant differences between survival in any test sediment and the control
sediment (Table 8). The sheepshead survival data generated from the October 15 to October 25,1999
test met the normality and homogeneity of variance assumptions so an ANOVA was conducted (« =
0.05). The sheepshead survival data generated from the October 29 to November 8,1999 test failed the
homogeneity of variance assumption and a Kruskal-Wallis One Way Analysis of Variance on Ranks was
conducted (« = 0.05). The amphipod data generated for both test periods failed the normality assumption
and a Kruskal-Wallis One Way Analysis of Variance on Ranks was conducted (« = 0.05).
-------
REFERENCES
Chapman, P.M., R.N. Dexter, and E.R. Long. 1987. Synoptic measures of sediment contamination,
toxicity and infaunal community structure (the Sediment Quality Triad) in San Francisco Bay.
Mar. Ecol Prog. Ser. 37:75-96.
Fisher, DJ. 1999. Standard Operating Procedure for Conducting Cyprinodon variegatus
Embryo/larval 7-10 day Sediment Toxicity Test. Standard Operating Procedure, University of
Maryland at College Park, Wye Research and Education Center, Queenstown, MD.
Hall, L.W., Jr., M.C. Ziegenfuss, S.A. Fischer, R.W. Alden, IH, E. Deaver, J. Gooch and N. Debert-
Hastings. 1991. A Pilot Study for Ambient Toxicity Testing in Chesapeake Bay. Volume 1 -
Year 1 Report CBP/TRS 64/91. U.S. EPA Chesapeake Bay Program, Annapolis, MD.
Hall, L.W. Jr., M.C. Ziegenfuss, S.A. Fischer, R.D. Anderson, W.D. Killen, R.W. Alden, HI, E. Dao;
J. GoochandN. Shaw. 1992. A Pilot Study for Ambient Toxicity Testing in Chesapeake Bay -Year
2 report. CBP/TRS 82/92. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Chesapeake Bay Program
Office, Annapolis, MD.
Hall, L.W., Jr., M.C. Ziegenfuss, R.D. Anderson, W.D. Killen, R.W. Alden, and P. Adolphson.
1994. A Pilot Study for Ambient Toxicity Testing in Chesapeake Bay. Year 3 Report CBP/TRS
116/94. U.S. EPA Chesapeake Bay Program, Annapolis, MD.
Hall, L.W., Jr., R.D. Anderson, A. Messing, J. Winfield, A.K. Jenkins, I J. Weber, R.W. Alden, D.
Goshom and M. McGinty. 2000. Ambient Toxicity Testing in Chesapeake Bay. Year 8 Report.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Chesapeake Bay Program Office, Annapolis, MD.
Long, E.R. and P.M. Chapman. 1985. A Sediment Quality Triad: Measures of sediment
contamination, toxicity and infaunal community composition in Puget Sound. Mar. Poll. Bull.
10:405-415.
McGee, B.L. and D.J. Fisher. 1998. Culturing and Testing Protocols for Conducting Sediment
Toxicity Tests with Freshwater and Estuarine Amphipods. Standard Operating Procedure,
University of Maryland at College Park, Wye Research and Education Center, Queenstown, MD.
McGee, B.L. and DJ. Fisher. 1999. Field validation of the chronic sediment bioassay with the
estuarine amphipod Leptocheirus plumulosus in Chesapeake Bay. Final technical report. U.S.
EPA, Office of Science and Technology, Washington, D.C. 71 pp.
McGee, B.L., D.J. Fisher, L.T. Yonkos, G.P. Ziegler, and S. Turley. 1999. Assessment of sediment
contamination, acute toxicity, and population viability of the estuarine amphipod Leptocheirus
plumulosus in Baltimore Harbor, Maryland, USA. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 18:2151-2160.
U.S. EPA. 1994. Methods for Assessing the Toxicity of Sediment-associated Contaminants with
Estuarine and Marine Amphipods. EPA/600/R-94/025. Office of Research and Development,
Washington, D.C.
U.S. EPA. 1998. Draft Method for Assessing the Chronic Toxicity of Sediment-associated
Contaminants •withLeptocheirusplumulosus. First Edition. Office of Research and Development,
Washington, D.C.
U.S. EPA/U.S. ACE. 1994. Evaluation of Dredged Material Proposed for Discharge in Waters of
the U.S. - Testing Manual (Draft). Washington, D.C.
-------
Table 1. Sample station location and dates of collection and receipt at the WREC.
River System
James
York
Magothy
Potomac
Patuxent
Bohemia
Station
J17
J18
J20
J22
J23
Y16
Y17
Y18
Y21
Y22
M9
M10
Mil
PM4
PM6
PM7
PM12
PM13
PM15
PX3
PX4
PX5
PX7
PX11
PX14
BO24
BO25
Latitude/Longitude (Decimal degrees)
37.191 / -76.801
37.199 7-76.793
37.218 / -76.890
37.232 / -76.890
37.2337 -76.910
37.442 7 -76.738
37.4817-76.761
37.495 7 -76.777
37.529 7 -76.792
37.538 7 -76.787
39.065 7 -76.465
39.0737-76.511
39.077 7 -76.487
38.027 7 -76.473
38.1177-76.438
38.1597-76.677
38.2317-76.677
38.239 7 -76.927
38.2717-76.971
38.365 7 -76.475
38.397 7 -76.577
38.398 7 -76.487
38.4007-76.520
38.4407-76.605
38.4657-76.661
39.4777-75.902
39.4867-75.894
Date Collected
10/6/99
1076/99
10/6/99
10/6/99
10/6/99
10/7/99
10/7/99
10/6/99
10/6/99
10/6/99
10/8799
10/8799
10/8/99
10/25/99
10/25/99
10/25/99
10/25/99
10/25/99
10/25/99
10/19/99
10719/99
10/19/99
10/19/99
10/19/99
10/19/99
10/20/99
10/20/99
Date Received
10/7/99
10/7/99
10/7/99
10/7/99
10/7/99
10/7/99
10/7/99
10/7/99
10/7/99
10/7/99
10/12/99
10/12/99
10/12/99
10/26/99
10/26/99
10/26/99
10/26/99
10/26799
10/26799
10/25/99
10/25/99
10/25/99
10/25/99
10/25/99
10/25/99
10725/99
10725/99
-------
Table 2. Test conditions for 10-d acute sediment toxicity tests with Leptocheirus plumulosus.
1. Test type Whole sediment, static
2. Temperature 25 °C
3. Overlying water
4. Light
5. Photoperiod
6. Test chamber
7. Sediment volume
8. Overlying water volume
9. Water renewal
Filtered Wye River water adjusted as necessary with well water
or Hawaiian Marine Mix® to 15%o
Ambient laboratory
16:8 (L/D)
1 L glass beaker covered with watchglass
175 ml (2 cm)
800ml
None
10. Size and life stage of amphipods 2-4 mm, sub-adults
11. Number of organisms/replicate 20
12. Number of replicates
13. Feeding
14. Aeration
5
None
1-2 bubbles/sec with 1 ml pipette
15. Water quality
16. Test duration
17. Endpoint
18. Performance criteria
Salinity, pH and total ammonia at beginning and end of test;
Temperature and D.O. daily
10 d
Survival
Control survival > 90%
-------
Table 3. Test conditions for 10 d acute sediment toxicity tests with Cyprinodon variegatus
embryos
1. Test type
2. Temperature
3. Overlying water
4. Light
5. Photoperiod
6. Test chamber
7. Sediment volume
8. Overlying water volume
9. Test organism
Whole sediment, static
25°C
Filtered Wye River water adjusted as necessary with well water
or Hawaiian Marine Mix® to 15%o
Ambient laboratory
16:8(L/D)
250 mL crystallizing dish covered with watch glass
90mm X 50mm. Mesh enclosures used to keep embryos from
glass sides of dish.
100mL(2cm)
125 mL
48-h old embryo
10. Number of organisms/replicate 10
11. Number of replicates
12. Feeding
13. Aeration
14. Water quality
15. Test duration
16. Endpoint
5
None
1 bubble/sec with 1 mL pipette
Salinity, pH and total ammonia at beginning and end of test.
Temperature and D.O. daily in one replicate.
10 d
Survival of embryos and hatchlings. Unhatched embryos
scored as "dead" at end of test.
17. Performance criteria
Embryo/hatchling survival > 80%.
-------
Table 4. Water quality summary for the 10-d acute Leptocheirus plumulosus sediment toxicity test
conducted 10/15 -10/25/99 (mean± (S.D.) unless otherwise stated).
Station
Control
J17
J18
J20
J22
J23
Y16
Y17
Y18
Y21
Y22
M9
M10
Mil
DO
mg/L
7.34 (0.43)
7.36 (0.41)
7.35 (0.39)
7.31 (0.49)
7.41 (0.55)
7.39 (0.57)
7.25 (0.59)
7.26 (0.47)
7.35 (0.43)
7.22 (0.54)
7.27 (0.49)
7.25 (0.36)
7.26 (0.57)
7.16 (0.55)
pH
range
6.84 - 8.20
7.59-8.13
7.69 - 8.23
7.59 - 8.02
7.50 - 7.97
7.29-8.18
7.86 - 8.22
7.79 - 8.37
7.80-8.35
7.77 - 8.28
7.86 - 8.47
7.82 - 8.59
7.71 - 8.30
7.87 - 8.77
Temp
°C
25.0(0.16)
25.0(0.16)
25.0(0.16)
25.0(0.16)
25.0(0.16)
25.0 (0.16)
25.0 (0.16)
25.0 (0.16)
25.0 (0.16)
25.0 (0.16)
25.0 (0.16)
25.0 (0.16)
25.0 (0.16)
.25.0 (0.16)
Salinity
%0
14.0(0.71)
14.0 (0.71)
13.8 (0.35)
14.3 (0.35)
14.0 (0.71)
13.8 (0.35)
14.3 (0.35)
14.5 (0.71)
14.3 (0.35)
14.5 (0.71)
14.3 (0.35)
14.8 (0.35)
14.3 (0.35)
14.8 (0.35)
Ammonia
mg/L
Overlying
d-0
1.7
0.7
0.3
0.7
0.6
0.9
0.5
0.8
1.6
0.3
0.6
0.3
0.7
1.0
d-10
0.2
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
0.1
<0.1
0.1
0.2
0.1
O.I
Porewater
d-0
6.0
3.2
2.3
5.0
3.0
5.2
1.9
2.8
5.8
2.4
3.1
1.4
6.0
3.0
U.S. EPA Headquarters Library
Mail code 3201
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington DC 20460
-------
Table 5. Water quality summary for the 10-d acute Cyprinodon variegatus sediment toxicity test
conducted 10/15 -10/25/99 (mean ± (S.D.) unless otherwise stated).
Station
Control
J17
J18
J20
J22
J23
Y16
Y17
Y18
Y21
Y22
M9
M10
Mil
DO
mg/L
7.17(0.30)
7.12(0.17)
7.20 (0.19)
7.18(0.30)
7.13(0.20)
7.12 (0.19)
7.03 (0.34)
7.05(0.11)
7.02 (0.22)
6.90 (0.37)
7.02 (0.27)
7.12(0.24)
7.05 (0.22)
6.85 (0.37)
pH
range
6.39 - 7.84
7.16-7.69
7.61 - 8.06
7.30 - 7.75
7.06 - 7.73
7.06 - 7.65
7.65 - 8.32
7.76 - 8.23
7.62-8.13
7.63 - 8.36
7.82-8.12
7.74-8.15
7.80 - 8.20
8.03 - 8.95
Temp
°C
24.8 (0.20)
24.8 (0.19)
24.8 (0.20)
24.8 (0.20)
24.8 (0.18)
24.8 (0.18)
24.8 (0.21)
24.8 (0.19)
24.8(0.18)
24.8 (0.20)
24.8 (0.19)
24.8 (0.19)
24.7 (0.24)
24.7 (0.32)
Salinity
%0
13.8 (0.35)
14.0 (0.71)
13.8 (0.35)
14.0 (0.71)
14.0(1.41)
14.0(0.71)
14.5 (0.71)
14.3 (0.35)
14.8 (0.35)
14.5 (0.71)
14.3 (0.35)
14.8 (0.35)
14.5 (0.00)
14.5 (0.71)
Ammonia
mg/L
Overlying
d-0
1.7
0.7
0.3
0.7
0.6
0.9
0:5
0.8
1.6
0.3
0.6
0.3
0.7
1.0
d-10
0.1
0.1
<0.1
<0.1
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
0.1
<0.1
<0.1
Porewater
d-0
6.0
3.2
2.3
5.0
3.0
5.2
1.9
2.8
5.8
2.4
3.1
1.4
6.0
3.0
10
-------
Table 6. Water quality summary for the 10-d acute Leptocheims plumulosus sediment toxicity test
conducted 10/29 - 11/8/99 (mean ± (S.D.) unless otherwise stated).
Station
Control
BO24
BO25
PX3
PX4
PX5
PX7
PX11
PX14
PM4
PM6
PM7
PM12
PM13
PM15
DO
mg/L
7.30 (0.25)
7.25 (0.19)
7,20(0.19)
7.22(0.14)
7.27 (0.09)
7.20 (0.09)
7.14(0.15)
7.09 (0.21)
7.17 (0.17)
7.09 (0.22)
7.02 (0.21)
7.05 (0.16)
7.07 (0.19)
7.10(0.16)
7.13 (0.16)
pH
range
4.71 - 7.68
7.77-8.14
7.78 - 8.26
8.08 - 8.85
7.77 - 8.66
7.56 - 8.66
8.00 - 8.57
7.96 - 8.53
7.87 - 8.78
8.00 - 8.78
8.14-8.53
8.13-8.74
7.93 - 8.74
7.83 - 8.43
8.03 - 8.48
Temp
°C
25.2 (0.09)
25.2 (0.09)
25.2 (0.09)
25.2 (0.09)
25.2 (0.09)
25.2 (0.09)
25.2 (0.09)
25.2 (0.09)
25.2 (0.09)
25.2 (0.09)
25.2 (0.09)
25.2 (0.09)
25.2 (0.09)
25.2 (0.09)
25.2 (0.09)
Salinity
%0
14.8(1.06)
14.8 (0.35)
14.8 (0.35)
14.8 (0.35)
15.3 (0.35)
15.3 (0.35)
15.3 (0.35)
14.8 (0.35)
15.3 (0.35)
15.3 (0.35)
15.0 (0.00)
15.3 (0.35)
15.0 (0.71)
15.0 (0.00)
15.0(0.00)
Ammonia
mg/L
Overlying
d-0
1.3
0.6
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.4
0.9
0.3
0.8
1.7
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.5
d-10
<0.1
0.3
<0.1
0.1
<0.1
<0.1
0.3
0.2
<0.1
0.2
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
Porewater
d-0
10.0
2.6
5.0
4.0
5.4
3.0
3.0
3.0
1.4
5.2
8.4
2.4
2.9
4.0
2.8
11
-------
Table 7. Water quality summary for the 10-d acute Cyprinodon variegatus sediment toxicity test
conducted 10/29 -11/8/99 (mean ± (S.D.) unless otherwise stated).
Station
Control
BO24
BO25
PX3
PX4
PX5
PX7
PX11
PX14
PM4
PM6
PM7
PM12
PM13
PM15
DO
mg/L
7.36(0.19)
7.26(0.17)
7.34 (0.23)
7.32 (0.27)
7.34 (0.25)
7.17(0.35)
7.23 (0.30)
7.20 (0.24)
7.25 (0.24)
7.16 (0.29)
7.06 (0.48)
7.02 (0.41)
7.20 (0.36)
7.01 (0.82)
7.06 (0.30)
pH
range
4.99 - 7.46
6.99 - 7.90
7.46 - 7.95
8.04 - 8.63
8.01 - 8.68
7.99 - 8.59
7.24 - 8.71
7.89 - 8.62
7.97 - 8.34
8.02 - 8.85
8.26-8.81
7.87-8.81
8.15-8.63
7.75 - 8.66
7.89 - 8.47
Temp
°C a
25.0 (0.34)
25.0 (0.34)
25.0(0.34)
25.0(0.34)
25.0 (0.34)
25.0 (0.34)
25.0 (0.34)
25.0 (0.34)
25.0 (0.34)
25.0 (0.34)
25.0 (0.34)
25.0 (0.34)
25.0 (0.34)
25.0 (0.34)
25.0 (0.34)
Salinity
%0
14.3 (0.35)
14.8 (0.35)
15.3 (0.35)
15.3 (0.35)
15.5 (0.71)
15.3(0.35)
15.8 (0.35)
14.8 (0.35)
16.0 (0.71)
15.3 (0.35)
15.8(1.06)
15.8 (0.35)
16.0(0.71)
15.5 (0.71)
15.8 (0.35)
Ammonia
mg/L
Overlying
d-0
1.3
0.6
0.3 .
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.4
0.9
0.3
0.8
1.7
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.5
d-10
2.3
<0.1
0.1
<0.1
<0.1
O.I
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.1
<0.1
<0.1
0.1
0.2
O.I
Porewater
d-0
10.0
2.6
5.0
4.0
5.4
3.0
3.0
3.0
1.4
5.2
8.4
2.4
2.9
4.0
2.8
12
-------
Table 8. Summary of the toxicity test results for 10-d Leptocheirus plumulosus and Cyprinodon
variegatus sediment tests.
Station
Control
J17
J18
J20
J22
J23
M9
M10
Mil
Y16
Y17
Y18
Y21
Y22
Control
BO24
BO25
PM4
PM6
PM7
PM12
PM13
PM15
PX3
PX4
PX5
PX7
PX11
PX14
Start
Date
10/15/99
10/15/99
10/15/99
10/15/99
10/15/99
10/15/99
10/15/99
10/15/99
10/15/99
10/15/99
10/15/99
10/15/99
10/15/99
10/15/99
10/29/99
10/29/99
10/29/99
10/29/99
10/29/99
10/29/99
10/29/99
10/29/99
10/29/99
10/29/99
10/29/99
10/29/99
10/29/99
10/29/99
10/29/99
Leptocheirus plumulosus
10-d survival (%)
Mean
100.0
95.0
97.0
98.0
98.0
95.0
96.0
96.0
98.0
96.0
96.0
94.0
96.0
96.0
91.0
98.0
96.0
91.0
89.0
92.0
89.0
92.0
95.0
94.0
92.0
89.0
96.0
92.0
93.0
SD
0.00
3.54
4.47
2.74
4.47
5.00
2.24
6.52
4.47
6.52
4.18
6.52
4.18
4.18
4.18
2.74
4.18
6.52
9.62
4.47
7.42
5.70
3.54
5.48
5.70
4.18
2.24
7.58
4.47
Cyprinodon variegatus
10-d survival (%)
Mean
82.0
78.0
76.0
80.0
78.0
68.0
82.0
72.0
66.0
72.0
84.0
74.0
74.0
70.0
82.0
82.0
80.0
78.0
74.0
86.0
88.0
76.0
90.0
86.0
78.0
70.0
82.0
84.0
74.0
SD
8.37
13.00
15.20
15.80
13.00
8.37
16.40
13.00
23.00
13.00
19.50
5.48
15.20
12.20
8.37
8.37
21.20
8.37
24.10
8.94
16.40
16.70
12.20
15.20
13.00
25.50
14.80
8.94
23.00
Indicates treatments significantly different than the control treatment.
13
-------
Table 9. Sediment test toxicity data for the Stations tested from 10/15-10/25/99.
Station
Control
J17
J18
J20
J22
J23
M9
M10
Rep
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
10-d Leptocheirus plumulosus
#
Alive
21
21
20
20
21
19
18
19
19
20
20
20
19
21
18
20
19
20
19
20
18
20
20
20
20
19
20
18
20
18
19
19
20
19
19
17
20
20
19
20
%
Alive
100
100
100
100
100
95
90
95
95
100
100
100
95
100
90
100
95
100
95
100
90
100
100
100
100
95
100
90
100
90
95
95
100
95
95
85
100
100
95
100
Station
Mean ± SD
100.0 ±0.00
95.0 ±3.54
97.0 ±4.47
98.0 ±2.74
98.0 ± 4.47
95.0 ±5.00
96.0 ±2.24
. 96.0 ±6.52
10-d Cyprinodon variegatus
#
Alive
8
9
8
7
9
7
9
8
9
6
7
7
6
8
10
6
7
8
10
9
6
9
9
7
8
8
6
7
6
7
9
9
10
7
6
8
5
7
8
8
%
Alive
80
90
80
70
90
70
90'
80
90
60
70-
70
60
80
100
60
70
80
• 100
90
60
90
90
70
80
80
60
70
60
70
90
90
100
70
60
80
50
70
80
80
Station
Mean ± SD
82.0 ±8.37
78.0 ±13.00
76.0 ±15.20
80.0 ±15.80
78.0 ±13.00
68.0 ±8.37
82.0 ± 16.40
72.0 ±13. 00
14
-------
Table 9 (Continued). Sediment test toxicity data for the Stations tested from 10/15 - 10/25/99.
Station
Mil
Y16
Y17
Y18
Y21
Y22
Rep
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
10-d Leptocheirus plumulosus
#
Alive
18
20
20
20
20
20
20
19
17
21
18
20
19
20
19
21
19
17
20
18
19
20
19
18
20
20
20
19
19
18
%
Alive
90
100
100
100
100
100
100
95
85
100
90
100
95
100
95
100
95
85
100
90
95
100
95
90
100
100
100
95
95
90
Station
Mean ± SD
98.0 ± 4.47
96.0 ± 6.52
96.0 ±4. 18
94.0 ±6.52
96.0 ±4. 18
96.0 ±4.18
10-d Cyprinodon variegatus
#
Alive
8
9
6
3
7
6
6
9
8
7
10
5
9
9
9
7
8
7
8
7
7
8
8
5
9
7
8
5
8
7
%
Alive
80
90
60
30
70
60
60
90
80
70
100
50
90
90
90
70
80
70
80
70
70
80
80
50
90
70
80.
50
80
70
Station
Mean ± SD
66.0 ±23.00
72.0 ±13. 00
84.0 ±19.5
74.0 ±5. 48
74.0 ±15.20
70.0 ± 12.20
15
-------
Table 10. Sediment test toxicity data for the Stations tested from 10/29 - 11/8/99.
Station
Control
BO24
BO25
PM4
PM6
PM7
PM12
PM13
Rep
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
10-d Leptocheirus plumulosus
#
Alive
17
19
18
19
18
19
20
20
19
20
19
20
18
19
20
20
19
17
17
18
17
15
20
19
18
18
18
18
18
20
16
18
17
20
18
19
20
18
17
18
%
Alive
85
95
90
95
90
95
100
100
95
100
95
100
90
95
100
100
95
85
85
90
85
75
100
95
90
90
90
90
90
100
80
90
85
100
90
95
100
90
85
90
Station
Mean ± SD
91.0 ±4.18
98.0 ± 2.74
96.0 ±4. 18
91.0 ±6.52
89.0 ± 9.62
92.0 ± 4.47
89.0 ± 7.42
92.0 ±5. 70
10-d Cyprinodon variegatus
#
Alive
8
9
7
8
9
8
9
7
9
8
8
10
5
10
7
7
8
8
7
9
4
8
10
9
6
8
9
8
8
10
10
7
10
7
10
7
9
9
5
8
%
Alive
80
90
70
80
90
80
90
70
90
80
80
100
50
100
7a
70
80
80
70
90
40
80
100
90
60
80
90
80
80
100
100
70
100
70
100
70
90
90
50
80
Station
Mean ± SD
82.0 ±8.37
82.0 ±8.37
80.0 ±2 1.20
78.0 ±8.37
74.0 ±24. 10
86.0 ± 8.94
88.0 ±16.40
76.0 ±16.70
16
-------
Table 10 (Continued). Sediment test toxicity data for the Stations tested from 10/29 -11/8/99.
Station
PM15
PX3
PX4
PX5
PX7
PX11
PX14
Rep
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
10-d Leptocheirus plumulosus
#
Alive
19
20
19
18
19
20
20
18
18
18
17
20
18
19
18
17
18
18
17
19
19
20
19
19
19
19
16
20
19
18
18
18
18
20
19
%
Alive
95
100
95
90
95
100
100
90
90
90
85
100
90
95
90
85
90
90
85
95
95
100
95
95
95
95
80
100
95
90
90
90
90
100
95
Station
Mean ± SD
95.0 ±3.54
94.0 ± 5.48
92.0 ±5.70
89.0 ±4.18
96.0 ± 2.24
92.0 ± 7.58
93.0 ± 4.47
10-d Cyprinodon variegatus
#
Alive
9
10
10
9
7
9
6
9
10
9
9
9
6
8
7
7
4
9
10
5
10
6
8
9
8
9
9
8
9
7
5
9
5
8
10
%
Alive
90
100
100
90
70
90
60
90
100
90
90
90
60
80
70
70
40
90
100
50
100
60
80
90
80
90
90
80
90
70
50
90
50
80
100
Station
Mean ± SD
90.0 ±12.20
86.0 ±15.20
78.0 ±13.00
70.0 ±25.50
82.0 ±14.80
84.0 ±8.94
74.0 ± 23.00
17
-------
-------
APPENDIX B
Draft final report for sediment chemical analysis for the
Sediment Quality Triad study submitted by Ashley and Velinsky
July 2000
-------
USING SEDIMENT QUALITY TRIAD TO CHARACTERIZE
TOXIC CONDITIONS IN THE CHESAPEAKE BAY
CB983034-01-0
DATA SUMMARY REPORT
July, 2000
FINAL
Project Officers:
Submitted to:
Jeffrey Ashley, David Velinsky
Patrick Center for Environmental Research
Academy of Natural Sciences
1900 Benjamin Franklin Parkway
Philadelphia, PA 19144
Kelly Eisenman, US EPA
Beth McGee, US FWS
Dan Fisher, UM
-------
DATA SUMMARY REPORT
The following report summarizes the results of the chemical analyses performed for project
CB983034-01-0 entitled "Using Sediment Quality Triad to Characterize Toxic Conditions in the
Chesapeake Bay". The report also summarizes the results of the quality assurance and control
measures that were followed. Tables 1 and 2 outline the parameters measured for this study and
Appendix A outlines the final data. This report, previously submitted in draft form as part of the third
quarterly report, will pass through a final internal QA/QC review.
I. Metals
a) Digestions and Elemental Analyses:
Trace metals were determined using a strong acid digestion with 10 mL nitric acid on 0.5 g
dry sediment. A CEM MDS 2100 microwave digestion system was employed to solubize the
majority of metal on the sediment. Metal analysis was subsequently accomplished on a Perkin Elmer
Optima 3000 XL ICP-OES for Al, Ag, As, Cd, Cr, Cu, Fe, Ni, Pb and Se (Table 2). For Hg analysis,
a Perkin Elmer Fimms 400 Cold Vapor AA was used. Due to the high detection limit for As and Se
on the ICP-OES, a separate analysis was performed for total As and Se using a perchloric-nitric
digestion in pre-cleaned glass beakers. Sample digest were accomplished with hydride-generation
AAS. Final trace metal data are shown in Appendix A.
b) Analytical Quality Assurance:
Calibration blanks, intercalibration verification samples, and instrument duplicates were
analyzed to insure instrument performance and accuracy. Sample blanks, duplicates, spikes, serial
dilutions, and NIST Standard Reference Materials (2704-Buffalo River sediment, 2709-San Joaquin
soil, and 2711-Montana soil) were digested with the samples to insure adequate recoveries and assess
accuracy of analysis (Tables 3 and 4).
Intercalibration verification samples were all 92-108% of the actual concentration. The
relative percent differences (RPD) for instrument duplicates were below 10% except in a few
instances where concentrations were at or below detection limits (As, Cd, Se). RPDs for sample
duplicates typically ranged from 0.1 to 20% with the exception of a few instances where
concentrations were near or below the detection limits (e.g., Cd, Ag, Se). Sample spike recoveries
1
-------
were between 88-105% of the added concentrations and the RPDs for the serial dilutions were below
10% for all elements that were measured above the detection limits.
Recoveries for NIST SRM 2704 were compared to the certified NIST values obtained using
total sediment digestion techniques and were within 85-115% of the reported concentration for all
elements except Al, Ag, As, Cr and Se (Table 4). The Se concentration in SRM 2704 was below the
detection limit for this study and therefore could not be assessed. Ag was not detected. Low
recoveries for Al (52%), As (63%), and Cr (70%) can be attributed to the digestion's inability to
completely remove these elements from the sediment matrix. Recoveries from NIST SRMs 2709 and
2711 were compared to uncertified NIST values determined by an acid leaching technique similar to
the one used in this study. Element recoveries were within 80-120% of the actual concentration for
all elements except Al, Ag, Ni, and Se. Se concentrations were again below detection limits. For
SRM 2711, Ag recovery was 77% of the uncertified concentration and Cr was 141%, however Cr
recovery in SRM 2709 was 94% of the uncertified value and was considered within the QC
guidelines promulgated for this study. Once again, Al recoveries were low (36% and 43%),
presumably due to this digestion technique. Therefore, Al concentrations determined in this study
should be considered only a portion of the total Al within the sediments.
For the analysis of Se by hydride generation-AAS, the process digestion blanks averaged 0.09
± 1.0 g/ml (n=4). The recovery of the NIST SRM 1646 sediment material averaged 0.53 ± 0.05 ^g/g
dw (n=4) while the non-certified value is 0.6 jig/g dw (Table 4). RPDs for duplicates averaged 2.1 ±
1.4% (n=4) except for a blanks (RPD= 35%) which were near or below the detection limits (Table 3).
Spiked samples for Se averaged 101 ± 2% recovery (n=4).
For As analysis by hydride generation-AAS, four process blank samples were prepared.
These blanks contained no sample but were processed by identical means to actual samples. These
blanks averaged -0.04 ± 0.41 jig/L as dissolved arsenic. Assuming a 10 ml sample volume and 0.22 g
dw sample weight (the average), this corresponds to -0.002 ± 0.019 ng/g dw. Ten samples were
spiked for recovery determination. Spike recoveries ranged from 99.5 to 108.8% with a mean 104.5 ±
3.0%. Four samples of the standard reference material NIST SRM 1646 were also digested. The
certified value for As is 11.6 ± 1.3 [ig/g dw; our values ranged from 10.8 to 13.3 pg/g dw, with a
mean of 11.9 ± 1.1 n-g/g dw (Table 4). Duplicate analysis for As were within 10% (Table 3).
-------
II. AVS and SEM
Acid volatile sulfur was analyzed via acid distillation under N2 and specific ion probe
detection of the resultant HS". Recoveries of sulfide were excellent, averaging 99.5 ± 6% (n=4).
Spike sample recoveries showed a wide range of recoveries (7 to 220%) with an overall average of
98% (n=4). This wide range for spike samples is due to the interactions of dissolved sulfide with
other mineral phases within the sample such as iron oxides. Duplicate AVS analysis of four samples
yielded RPDs between 7 and 45%. However, samples were generally low in AVS concentration with
8 out of 27 below 2 |imole/g wet weight (Table 5).
The leachate from the AVS analysis was filtered and analyzed for a number of trace metals
and metalloids. Duplicate analysis of four samples yielded RPDs that ranged from < 1 to 200% (Table
5). The Magothy River sample from MG10 had RPDs for the various trace elements that were
generally below 10% except for Se and Hg which were much more variable. However,
concentrations were extremely low overall. For sample MG11, concentrations were only slightly
higher than MG10 and the duplicate analysis was more variable. The RPDs ranged from 12 % for Se
to 65% for Hg and Cu. A Bohemia River sample, BO25, had RPDs for trace elements less than 10%
except for Hg in which the RPD was 54%. The duplicate sample for the Patuxent River sample,
PX14, had RPDs from approximately 28% for Cu to 65% for Se with most RPDs around 31%. The
low concentrations of most trace elements in these samples were most likely the reason for the
variable and higher than expected RPDs.
III. Organic Contaminants:
a) Extractions and Analyses:
Sediment samples were frozen and stored until extraction. Samples were thawed and
homogenized using a stainless steel spatula prior to sub-sampling. A 5-12 g sub-sample of wet
sediment was used for organic contaminant analysis. Approximately 30 g of Na2SO4 (previously
Soxhlet extracted with hexane and dried) was added to the sub-sample to eliminate water. The
mixture was transferred into a mortar and ground with a pestle. The dried sample was placed in a
glass thimble and was Soxhlet extracted with ca. 200 mL dichloromethane (DCM) for 18 hours.
Liquid-solid chromatography using alumina as the stationary phase was used as a clean-up
step prior to PAH and PCB analysis. The collected eluate was concentrated by evaporation under a
-------
N2 stream and analyzed for PAHs before a further clean-up procedure using florisil. PCBs (as well as
heptachlor, nonachlors, and DDEs) were eluted from a column containing florisil using petroleum
ether. The remaining organochlorine pesticides were eluted using 50:50 petroleum ether and
dichloromethane.
Activated elemental copper wool was used to remove elemental sulfur which interferes with
the detection of PCB congeners when using an electron capture detector. Prior to use, the copper was
washed by 10% HC1 and rinsed with dichloromethane. The cleaned copper (0.5 -1 g) was exposed to
each sample during extraction and subsequently turned black in those samples solutions containing
sulfur due to the formation of CuS. Additional copper was added to each auto sampling vial prior to
instrumental analysis.
Congener specific PCBs and organochlorine pesticides (Table 1) were analyzed using a
Hewlett Packard 5890 gas chromatograph equipped with a 63Ni electron capture detector and a 5%
phenylmethyl silicon capillary column. The identification and quantification of PCB congeners
followed the '610 Method' (Mullin, 1985) in which the identities and concentrations of each congener
in a mixed Aroclor standard (25:18:18 mixture of Aroclors 1232,1248 and 1262) were determined by
calibration with individual PCB congener standards. Congener identities in the sample extracts were
based on their chromatographic retention times relative to the internal standards added. In cases
where two or more congeners could not be chromatographically resolved, the combined
concentrations were reported (Table 1). Organochlorine pesticides (OCPs) were identified and
quantified based on comparisons (retention times and peak areas) with a known calibration standard
prepared from individual compounds.
Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (Table 1) were identified and quantified using a capillary
gas chromatograph (Hewlett Packard 5890) and a mass spectrometer (5972) operated in selected ion
monitoring mode (Chesapeake Biological Laboratory, University of Maryland System). Each PAH
was identified by its retention time relative to the retention time of mixed standards (Accustandard),
and this identification was confirmed by the abundance of a secondary mass fragment relative to the
molecular ion. Internal standards were added to all the samples and calibration standards prior to
instrumental analysis: 2,3,6-trichlorobiphenyl (PCB#30) and 2,2',3,4,4',5,6,6'-octachlorobiphenyl
(PCB#204) for PCBs, and d,0-phenanthrene, du-anthracene, di2-benz[a]anthracene, and d]2-
benzo[g,/u]perylene for PAHs.
-------
b) Analytical Quality Assurance:
Analyte loss through analytical manipulations was assessed by the addition of surrogate PCB
congeners 14,65 and 166, and perdeuterated PAHs (drnapthalene, d,0-fluorene, d,0-fluoranthene and
d,2-perylene) prior to extraction by Soxhlet apparatus. These surrogates are not present in the
environment. Average recoveries of congeners 14, 65 and 166 were 97 ± 16%, 96 ± 16% and 109 ±
16% . Recoveries of dg-napthalene, d]0-fluorene, d,0-fluoranthene and d,2-perylene were 60 ±12%,
111 ±17%, 87 ±14% and 87 ± 12%, respectively. The high recovery of d10-fluorene (i.e., >100%)
was likely attributed to an interference by a phthalate known for its ubiquitous nature. Subsequently,
the recoveries based on d|0-fluorene should not be used to assess analyte loss. Due to the relatively
high recoveries of the remaining surrogates and the low standard deviations arising from each, all
reported values of concentration in this study were not corrected for analyte loss.
Laboratory blanks were generated to monitor possible laboratory contamination and to assess
the detection limits for PCB, OCP and PAH analyses. Matrix blanks consisting of approximately 30
g of clean Na2SO4 were analyzed using the same procedures as the samples. In the quantification of
each analyte, the method detection limit was estimated as three times the peak area of the signal
produced in the matrix blank. The blank-based detection limits for PCBs and OCPs ranged from to
0.03 to 3.0 ng/g dry sample and from 0.1 to 3.1 ng/g dry sample, respectively. For PAHs, detection
limits ranged from 0.6 to 3.1 ng/g dry sample. Most PAH concentrations were well above detection
limits. However, many individual PCB and OCP concentrations fell below detection limits while
only a few were routinely not detected at all. A NIST standard reference material (SRM
#1941 a; Organics in Marine Sediments) was used to evaluate extraction efficiency. PAH (n=4) and
PCB/OCP (n=3) values were compared to reported NIST values (Table 6 and 7). Analyte recoveries
for PAHs ranged from 2 to 28 % (Table 6). The majority of concentrations fell below the NIST
values. However, the average surrogate recovery for PAHs was 75%. Considering analyte loss
through sample extraction and preparation, the range and variability of RPD values for PAHs is well
within that expected for PAH analysis.
For PCBs, recoveries ranged from 0 to 61% with most values falling short of those reported
by NIST (Table 7). Considering the average surrogate recovery was 67% and that some discrepancies
-------
exist between which congeners are reported (e.g., coeluting versus non-coeluting), PCB recoveries
suggest a reasonable degree of accuracy in the ANS' ability to quantify PCBs.
NIST reports the concentrations of only five OCPs in their SRM 1941 a as opposed to the 17
OCPs quantified in this study. Recoveries for p,p DDE, trans-nonachlor, and alpha chlordane were 1,
10, and 34% (Table 7). Recoveries for o,p-DDE and p,p-DDE were very large (>500%). Values this
high usually indicate one of two things: a problem with the concentration value assigned for that
analyte in the calibration standard or a problem with the ability to resolve that analyte without
interference using the analytical instrumentation.
As an additional quality assurance process and to shed light on the above discrepancies in
OCP concentrations within SRMs, our laboratory recently completed (April, 2000) the NIST Inter-
laboratory Comparison, a blind evaluation offish tissue for PCBs and OCPs. Using the same
calibration standard as was used in this study, recoveries of o,p-DDE were once again well above
expected values. This OCP elutes in the first fraction of the florisil cleanup along with the PCBs.
Therefore, coelution with PCBs (congeners 92+84) takes place and is the likely cause of inflated
concentrations of o,p-DDE compared to NIST published values. This OCP should be reported as
"o,p-DDE + Congener 92+85". The interlaboratory exercise yielded a concentration for p,p-DDD of
12.6 ng/g dry wgt compared to the lab-wide average of 16.9 ± 8 ng/g dry wgt. Based on this, it is
suggested that the calibration standard concentration was correct and that a matrix interference may
be the likely cause of inflated p,p-DDD concentrations in this particular study. Because the recovery
of p,p-DDD was so high in this study, caution should be taken when using these concentrations. It is
likely that matrix interferences in the sediment SRM would occur in actual sediment samples as well.
However, the majority of samples had concentrations of both o,p-DDE and p,p-DDD that were often
low or on par with levels of other commonly detected OCPs.
To assess precision of the organic contaminant analyses, sample duplicates of three randomly
selected samples (PX14, JM17 and Y21) were performed. Additionally, triplicate PAH analysis of
one sample (JM22) was performed. The average RPD between duplicate samples for total PAHs
ranged from 14 to 110%. For PCBs and OCPs, RPDs ranged from 29 to 77% and 40 to 160%,
respectively. However, replicate analysis (n=4 for PAHs; n=3 for PCBs and OCPs) of NIST SRMs
-------
produced very low RPDs. The SRM matrix is a dry homogeneous mixture whereas the actual
sediment samples were mixed heterogeneous suspensions. It was thought that sub-sampling errors
(leading to higher than normal RPDs) may have occurred at a higher rate when sub-sampling actual
samples.
To shed light on this hypothesis, three additional duplicate analysis were conducted (Table 8).
Though the RPDs between duplicates were moderate to high, overall average f-PCBs and f-PAHs
concentrations for samples Y21 and PM15 compared well with the concentrations obtained in a
previous single analysis. However, duplicate analysis of Y18 yielded much lower concentrations of
individual PAHs than the first single analysis. The RPD of this duplicate re-extraction was 37%, a
reasonable value for organic duplicate analysis. Based on this, it is thought that the PAH
concentrations from the original single evaluation of sample Yl 8 were grossly influenced by
subsampling error (e.g., in which a soot particle may have been sampled). The reported
concentrations of PAHs for Y18 (Appendix I)) are based on duplicate analysis round just described
and not the from the original extraction date (as earlier reported).
VL Grain Size
Sediment samples were analyzed for the amount of sand, silt and clay material. Grain size
ranged from 0 to 3.5 % gravel, 1 to 97.9 % sand, 0 to 52.3% silt, and 0.7 to 87.2 % clay. Three
samples were analyzed in duplicate and RPD were variable (Table 9). For sample # 8816, the RPD
were elevated. The sand fraction exhibited an RPD of 200%, however the amount of material was
very small (< 0.1% of the total) compared to the other fraction. The silt and clay fraction exhibited
RPDs of 67 and 15% respectively, but again they were a small fraction of the total sediment. For this
sample, the sand fraction was greater than 92% of the total sample. The other two duplicate samples
(8706 and 8825) had RPDs less than 10% for all fractions.
y. Organic Carbon and Xotal Nitrogen
The sediments were analyzed for total carbon and nitrogen. Samples were treated in a
desiccator with fuming HCL to remove any inorganic carbon prior to analysis on Carlo-Erba CNH
-------
1106 Analyzer. Blanks were analyzed and generally contained carbon and nitrogen below the
detection limit. Sulfanilamide was used as a primary standard and NIST standard reference materials
(SRM 2704 for carbon; SRM 1570a for nitrogen) were analyzed in each analytical batch (i.e., each
day of analysis). There was excellent agreement between the NIST values and those obtained through
this study. Organic carbon recoveries of NIST sediment were 95 ± 8% (n = 3) and for total nitrogen
recoveries of NIST sediment were 93 ± 9% (n=3). Each sample was analyzed in duplicate and the
average RPD values for all samples were <12% for organic carbon and < 6% for total nitrogen. Four
samples for organic carbon (Chem ID: 8696, 8701, 8816, and 8820) and one samples for total
nitrogen (8707) had RPDs greater than 20%.
VI. Percent Water
Sub-samples (~5 g) were taken to measure water content. These sub-samples were weighed
and allowed to dry at 60°C for 24 hours, cooled to room temperature in a desiccator, and reweighed to
± 0.001 g. Percent water ranged from 22 to 90% water. For most samples, the appearance and
consistency of the homogenized sediment upon collection did not resemble the thawed samples prior
to analyses. In many cases, the latter seemed to contain more water and was more difficult to
homogenize (i.e., keep as a suspension). This may have been a result of exclusion of moisture from
clay fractions.
VTI. Porewater DOC and NIL + NH,
Porewater, centrifuged and filtered shortly after collection, was analyzed for DOC (not
proposed as per the QAPP) and NH4+NH3. Values for porewater DOC ranged from 2.7 to 50 mg
C/L. Analysis of reference standards for DOC resulted in recoveries of 84 to 126%. Reagent blanks
averaged 0.2 mg C/L. Duplicate analyses produced RPDs ranging from 0.6 to 27% with higher
RPDs at lower concentration levels. Matrix blanks (filters treated with DI instead of porewater) had
considerably high concentrations of DOC (1.5 and 2.3 mg C/L) arising from a DI wash bottle
containing water of having a DOC value of 3.3 mg C/L. An average value for the blanks was
subtracted from sample DOC values.
Porewater NH4-)-NH3 values ranged from 0.6 to 15.5 mg N/L. Analysis of reference standards
forNH4+NH3 resulted in recoveries of 86 to 109% and reagent blanks averaged < 0.01 mg N/L.
8
-------
Duplicate analyses produced RPDs ranging from 0.4 to 0.6 % while spike recoveries ranged from 96
to 102%. Matrix (or field) blanks had low concentrations of NH4+NH3 (mean of 0.003 mg N/L).
U.S. EPA Headquarters Library
Mail code 3201
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington DC 20460
-------
Table 1. List of PAHs, PCBs and OCPs analyzed in this study.
Polvcvclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons
Fluorcne
Phenanthrene
Anthracene
Fluoramhene
Pyrene
Benz[a] anthracene
Chrysene + Triphenylene
Benzo[b]fluoranthene
Benzo[k]fl uoranthene
Benzo[a]pyrene
Indeno[ 1 ,2,3-c,d]pyrene
Benzo[g,h,i]perylene
Organochlorine Pesticides
BHC (alpha, beta, gamma, delta)
Heptachlor
Heptachlor Epoxide
Chlordanes (gamma and alpha)
Nonachlors (cis and trans)
Dieldrin
DDDs (o,p and p,p)
DDEs (o,p and p,p)
DDTs (o,p and p,p)
Polvchlorinated Biohenvl Congeners*
1
4,10
7,9
6
8,5
19
12,13
18
17
24
16,32
29
26
25
31,28
33,21,53
51
22
45
46
52
49
48,47
44
37,42
41,64,71
40
100
63
74
70,76
66,95
91
56,60
92,84
89
101
99
119
83
97
81,87
136
77,110
82
151
134,144
107
123,149
118
134
146
132,153,105
141
137,130,176
163,138
158
129,178
187,182
183
128
185
174
177
202,171,156
172
197
180
193
191
199
170,190
198
201
203,196
189
208,195
207
194
205
206 i
209
*PCB congeners appearing as pairs or triplets were coeluted and reported as sum.
10
-------
Table 2. Inorganic parameters and methods.
Parameter List
Reference Method
Grain Size
Total Organic Carbon (sediments)
% Water
Acid Volatile Sulfide
Total Nitrogen (sediments)
Ammonia
Metals and Metalloids
Aluminum
Cadmium*
Chromium*
Copper*
Zinc*
Lead*
Mercury*
Nickel*
Silver
Arsenic*
Selenium*
Iron*
Folk (1974)
EPA 440.0
NOAA(1985)
DiToro et al. (1990)
EPA 440.0
ASTM (1984)
Modified Smoley(1992)'
* denotes elements measured for SEM analysis. 'Se and As via hydride
generation-AAS (Cutter, 1982)
11
-------
Table 3. Summary of duplicate analysis for trace metals'.
River
Location
Sta. Chem
ID Sample ID Ag Al As Cd Cu Cr Fe Hg
Duplicate Samples
Potomac PM078824 ND 1.14 2.01 0.38 8.24 17.57 1.40
Potomac PM07 8824 Dup ND 1.342.49 0.40 8.6221.341.45
RPD NC 15.5 213 4.7 4.5 19.4 3.8
Patuxent
Patuxent
York
York
York
York
Fames
Fames
Patuxent
Patuxent
Potomac
Potomac
Patuxent
'atuxent
Patuxent
Patuxent
PX11 8815 ND 0.31 0.67 0:16 1.43 6.59 0.29
PX11 8815 Dup ND 0.350.73 0.11 1.43 6.870.32
RPD NC 14.2 8.5 373 0.1 4.1 113
Y22 8700 ND 1.14 4.87 0.13 4.62 15.11 1.58
Y22 8700 Dup ND 1.02 5.04 0.12 3.82 14.40 1.43
RPD NC 10.5 3.4 4.5 19.1 4.8 10.5
Y18 8698
Y18 8698 Dup
RPD
JM22 8705
JM22 8705 Dup
RPD
PX5 8817
PX5 8817 Dup
RPD
PM06 8823
PM06 8823 Dup
RPD
PX4 8815 0.011
PX4 8815 Dup 0.010
RPD 4.44
PX3 8820 0.014
PX3 8820 Dup 0.015
RPD 10.9
Ni Pb Se
10.57 10.55
11.11 10.93
5.0 3.6
4.06 2.97
3.07 2.85
27.8 4.1
5.30 9.24
4.56 8.33
15.1 103
0.52
0.51
2.5
0.79
0.77
2.1
0.78
0.77
13
1.11
1.05
5.7
Zn
70.04
71.15
1.6
12.89
12.69
1.6
46.60
41.37
11.9
Note: Concentrations in jig/g dw unless noted. RPD-Relative Percent Difference
12
-------
Table 4. Summary of recoveries for digested NIST standards for trace metals.
NIST Std
p704
2704 Dup
RPD
Average
Value
% Recovery
2709
Value (Uncert)
% Recovery
2711
Value (Uncert)
% Recovery
1646-1
1646-2
1646-3
1646-4
Average
Std Dev
%RSD
Value (As-Cert;
Std Dev
% Recovery
Ag
ND
ND
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
3.10
4.00
77
Al (%)
3.22
3.12
3.2
3.17
6.11
53
2.94
7.50
39
2.84
6.53
43
Se-Uncert)
As
14.61
15.59
6.5
15.10
23.40
62
15.12
17.70
85
94.16
105.00
90
11.51
11.88
13.35
10.81
11.89
1.07
9
11.60
1.3
102
Cd
3.28
3.18
3.1
3.23
3.45
95
0.30
0.38
78
39.84
40.00
100
Cu
89.54
93.16
4.0
91.35
98.60
91
30.97
32.00
97
108.05
100.00
108
Cr Fe
95.57
93.96
1.7
94.77
135.00
71
74.09
79.00
94
28.37
20.00
142
(%) Hg
3.52 1.41
3.72 1.39
5.6 1.43
3.62 1.40
4.11 1.47
86 95
3.18 1.56
3.00 1.40
106 111
2.58
2.20
113
Ni
42.66
43.66
23
43.16
44.10
97
77.13
78.00
99
19.03
16.00
119
Pb
149.09
150.10
0.7
149.60
161.00
93
14.31
13.00
110
1034.2
1100.0
94
Se
0.51
0.47
0.57
0.58
0.53
0.05
10
0.60
ND
88
Zn
406.44
406.44
0.0
406.44
438.00
93
96.56
100.00
97
321.93
310.00
104
Note: Concentrations in |ig/g dw unless noted. RPD-Relative Percent Difference; %RSD - Relative
standard deviation.
13
-------
.
§
^g
«
.5
e
h»
0>
^3
*P
M
S
**tl
£
as
tS
"5.
^
0
>>
a
S
E
s
in
u
3
H
c
S3
ir
a.
Z
E
s
01
V
3
•s
«
!»
>j
^
5t
a
u
Q
a
Location Sil
00
M.
o
^
o
o
o
o
so
g
o
o
g
c»
o\
0
5
s
o
o
o
o
0
O
IO
O
o
g
oo
o
5
1
s
IS
MM ^O
O
s
o <*>
o
o
0 «
o
VD
o
Ov
fS
Ig
0
i i-
^
1 =
o
M
o
§ =
0
s ^
o **
cj
OO
° "
O
c.
C
o £
£ a
igothy River
ra
O
~
_
1
o
1
o
r-
S
o
oo
oo
s
&
01
i
o\
§
o
i
0
o
^J
cs
^
<^J
00
_
igolhy River MGl
«o
^
— in
q S
"
0
§ -
o
i R
o
^
o
O 0
M
S,g
"
00
7 s
06 M
8 S
o
v\
8 S
0
i «
^J f*l
o
2
^4 ^
OO
CX.
Q
sg
09 S6
igothy River
S
^
in
0
r*
§
0
m
S
o
r*»
o
OS
(N
O
S
o
vo
§
o
1
o
f*l
o
o
oo
00
in
hetnia River D02
S
r~
rs »*
0
^
O 1*1
o
S ^r
o
^
o —
o
o
(S
(S
R ^
w S
"
§"~
•a-
•o
o
VTl
O •"
o
vo
o
8 "
o
1 -
£5
s%
o r*-
o
g-
a
•* o
» S;
oo K
hernia River
S
O
(N
0
^
§
o
ts
IS
o
o
o
s
o
s
"
5
o
R
V£>
cS
O
0
i
o
i
0
oo
oo
o
s
oo
oo
«»
tuxent River PXI'
£
r-
00 *.
•^i CO
0
^
is
o
*
Q C4
O
_«
s s
C5
va o
r^ n
00
S 5
0
i.
oo
NO
0
o
o r^
o
I «
0
2
^ w
o
Q.
O
2; a
oo £j
oc CC
luxcnt River
,2
u
u
c
u
*Q
•4-»
S
£J
u
0.
1
o£
i
Q
S
1
i
™
-S?
"o
1
.52
_y
S
oo
1H
&
M-r
"S.
O
g
f*
.00
C
u
S
fc
ob
13
1
£
2
re
C
te: Concentratio
o
-------
""«
"T
OS
§
cc
w
B
1
o
V
a
o
X
Su,
22
z
•o
M
«!
CO
1
Table 6. Comparison of .
X
>» H
i. 1/1
> Z
§ P
Z
CO
Z
2 5
C« Q
ob
s*j
***«
r
ft
*
i
2£?
t« 0 e
1
s,
£
Compound
oo vo °° f" ^
— ^ r- — i
Q OS fM (M «M 00
ir Os c*^ O f1-* O
*^ ^r ts r- vo TJ-
Fluorene
Phenanthrene
Anthracene
Fluoranthene
Pyrene
Benz[a]anthracene
oo
^
s
r~
r~
U1
S
n
^
^^
u
C
u
"?»
(X
£
+
1
ca
r-
*7
o
o
PN-
oo
s
00
vo
|Benzo[b]fluoranthene
00
^H
VO
n
r-
o
5
o
oo
|Benzo[k]fluoranthene
o\
1
«
00
n
00
r-
S
^D
1
•a1
V
**!,
CM"
«k
e
!1
_
•
r-
i^)
-------
CO
§1
0 Z
O «n
sOOCNOO-"*OOOOr~n"'^'~rinr*iOOi^l^*sOoo:
-------
n
d
s
N
BM
§1
O ^
vo r-
— r-
o\ —i
M 00 O
VO •* O\
t^ S - 2
o o
o o\
t~~ o
AAy
S R
S §-rt
'§>
*^
(A
«
_>»
"«
«
S
n
.a
"E,
I.
•o
•o
— o
rO IN {»->
in vq oo
o
OO <*•>
oo t-
«M tN
, «
8
.§>!
^s
.So
E?
•a
-Sx
1
g
crt
O
I
u
y
o
u
-------
-------
APPENDIX C
Benthic macroinvertebrate community data for the Sediment Quality Triad
sites obtained from the 1999 long-term benthic monitoring program
-------
Species
Chironomidae spp. larvae
Cyathura polita
Hobsonia florida
Ilyodrilus templetoni
Leptocheirus plumulosus
Macoma mitchelli
Marenzelleria viridis
Rangia cuneata
Tubificoides heterochaetus
Tubificoides spp. Group I
Total
Asabellides oculata
Cyathura polita
Leptocheirus plumulosus
Macoma mitchelli
Marenzelleria viridis
Nemertea spp.
Rangia cuneata
Tubificoides heterochaetus
Total
Cryptochironomus fulvus
Cyathura polita
Leptocheirus plumulosus
Marenzelleria viridis
R.angia cuneata
Tubificoides heterochaetus
Tubificoides spp. Group I
Total
Clinotanypus pinguis
Corophium lacustre
Cyathura polita
Hobsonia florida
Leptocheirus plumulosus
Marenzelleria viridis
Polydora ligni
Rangia cuneata
LTB
Station
06J17
06J17
06J17
06J17
06J17
06J17
06J17
06J17
06J17
06J17
06J18
06J18
06J18
06J18
06J18
06J18
06J18
06J18
06J20
06J20
06J20
06J20
06J20
06J20
06J20
06J22
06J22
06J22
06J22
06J22
06J22
06J22
06J22
Abundance
(# / m2)
45.36
45.36
136.08
22.68
1973.16
22.68
45.36
249.48
22.68
158.76
2721.6
22.68
317.52
975.24
22.68
45.36
22.68
453.6
362.88
2222.64
45.36
45.36
1564.92
22.68
45.36
158.76
181.44
2063.88
68.04
68.04
249.48
90.72
1496.88
90.72
45.36
362.88
Biomass
(g/m2)
0.02268
0.06804
0.02268
0.02268
0.13608
0.11340
0.04536
0.06804
0.02268
0.02268
0.54432
0.02268
0.04536
0.06804
0.02268
0.04536
0.02268
0.29484
0.02268
0.54432
0.02268
0.06804
0.13608
0.04536
0.02268
0.02268
0.02268
0.34020
0.02268
0.02268
'0.09072
0.02268
0.11340
0.09072
0.02268
0.13608
-------
Trichoptera sp.
Tubificoides heterochaetus
Tubificoides spp. Group I
Total
Clinotanypus pinguis
Corophium lacustre
Cryptochironomusfulvus
Cyathura polita
Gammarus daiberi
Hydrobidae spp.
Leptocheirus plumulosus
Marenzelleria viridis
Prodadius sublettei
Rangia cuneata
Tubificoides spp. Group I
Total
Glycinde solitaria
Leucon americanus
Macoma mitchelli
Nereis succinea
Paraprionospio pinnata
Streblospio benedicti
Tubificoides heterochaetus
Total
Eteone heteropoda
Gastropoda spp.
Glycinde solitaria
Heteromastus filiformis
Leucon americanus
Macoma balthica
Monoculodes edwardsi
Nemertea spp.
Nereis succinea
Paraprionospio pinnata
Tubificoides heterochaetus
Tubificoides spp. Group I
Total
Edotea triloba
06J22
06J22
06J22
06J23
06J23
06J23
06J23
06J23
06J23
06J23
06J23
06J23
06J23 .
06J23
06Y16
06Y16
06Y16
06Y16
06Y16
06Y16
06Y16
06Y17
06Y17
06Y17
06Y17
06Y17
06Y17
06Y17
06Y17
06Y17
06Y17
06Y17
06Y17
06Y18
22.68
294.84
362.88
3152.52
45.36
22.68
22.68
544.32
45.36
1088.64
3515.4
45.36
45.36
272.16
1338.12
6985.44
90.72
635.04
45.36
45.36
181.44
90.72
2698.92
3787.56
22.68
22.68
22.68
68.04
521.64
136.08
22.68
204.12
90.72
22.68
1111.32
272.16
2517.48
22.68
0.02268
0.02268
0.02268
0.58968
0.02268
0.02268
0.02268
0.22680
0.02268
0.15876
0.36288
0.06804
0.02268
0.22680
0.11340
1.27008
0.04536
0.02268
0.06804
0.34020
0.04536
0.02268
0.04536
0.58968
0.02268
0.02268
0.02268
0.02268
0.02268
0.24948
0.02268
0.02268
0.09072
0.02268
0.02268
0.02268
0.56700
0.02268
-------
Eteone heteropoda
Glycinde solitaria
Macoma mitchelli
Nemertea spp.
Nereis succinea
Streblospio benedicti
Tubificoides heterochaetus
Tubificoides spp. Group I
Total
Cyathura polita
Eteone heteropoda
Heteromastus filiformis
Leucon americanus
Nereis succinea
Streblospio benedicti
Tubificoides heterochaetus
Tubificoides spp. Group I
Total
Cyathura polita
Cyclaspis varians
Edotea triloba
Heteromastus filiformis
Macoma balthica
Monoculodes edwardsi
Nemertea spp.
Nereis succinea
Streblospio benedicti
Stylochus ellipticus
Total
Tubificoides sp.
Carinoma tremaphorus
Hypereteone heteropoda
Heteromastus filiformis
Streblospio benedicti
Leptocheirus plumulosus
Macoma mitchelli
Total
06Y18
06Y18
06Y18
06Y18
06Y18
06Y18
06Y18
06Y18
06Y21
06Y21
06Y21
06Y21
06Y21
06Y21
06Y21
06Y21
06Y22
06Y22
06Y22
06Y22
06Y22
06Y22
06Y22
06Y22
06Y22
06Y22
MW 06309
MW 06309
MW 06309
MW 06309
MW 06309
MW 06309
MW 06309
226.8
68.04
45.36
90.72
204.12
521.64
1655.64
113.4
2948.4
22.68
45.36
113.4
113.4
158.76
45.36
2449.44
385.56
3333.96
90.72
22.68
45.36
1632.96
22.68
45.36
68.04
476.28
68.04
22.68
2495.75
181.44
22.68
22.68
22.68
589.68
181.44
45.36
1065.96
0.02268
0.02268
0.04536
0.02268
0.02268
0.02268
0.02268
0.02268
0.22680
0.09072
0.02268
0.02268
0.02268
0.02268
0.02268
0.02268
0.02268
0.24948
0.09072
0.02268
0.02268
0.34020
0.27216
0.02268
0.02268
0.11340
0.02268
0.02268
0.95256
0.00113
0.09526
0.00680
0.01361
0.02948
0.02268
0.07484
0.24381
-------
Chironomus sp.
Edwardsia elegans
Carinoma tremaphorus
Littoridinops tenuipes
Heteromastus filiformis
Neanthes succinea
Streblospio benedicti
Macoma mitchelli
Hobsonia florida
Total
Tubificoides sp.
Parahesione luteola
Imm. Tubificid w/o cap. Chaete
Glycinde solitaria
Neanthes succinea
Streblospio benedicti
Leptocheirus plumulosus
Macoma balthica
Micrura leidyi
Total
Odostomia engonia
Amphiphorus bioculatits
Hypereteone heteropoda
Glycinde solitaria
Heteromastus filiformis
Pectinaria gouldii
Paraprionospio pinnata
Leptocheirus plumulosus
unknown taxa
Gemma gemma
Macoma mitchelli
Mulinia lateralis
Acteon punctostriatus
Haminoea solitaria
Micrura leidyi
Total
Tubificoides sp.
Parahesione luteola
Podarkeopsis levifuseina
MW06310
MW06310
MW06310
MW06310
MW06310
MW06310
MW 06310
MW06310
MW06310
PXR 06203
PXR 06203
PXR 06203
PXR 06203
PXR 06203
PXR 06203
PXR 06203
PXR 06203
PXR 06203
PXR 06204
PXR 06204
PXR 06204
PXR 06204
PXR 06204
PXR 06204
PXR 06204
PXR 06204
PXR 06204
PXR 06204
PXR 06204
PXR 06204
PXR 06204
PXR 06204
PXR 06204
PXR 06205
PXR 06205
PXR 06205
22.68
22.68
226.8
22.68
249.48
45.36
430.92
408.24
45.36
1474.2
204.12
113.4
113.4
22.68
136.08
22.68
45.36
68.04
22.68
748.44
22.68
45.36
22.68
158.76
68.04
22.68
68.04
22.68
113.4
68.04
249.48
90.72
22.68
22.68
22.68
1020.6
22.68
113.4
22.68
0.00000
0.07484
0.00113
0.00113
0.15649
0.04763
0.01134
0.00227
0.00227
0.29711
0.00680
0.00907
0.00000
0.04990
0.32659
0.00454
0.04536
0.37422
0.04536
0.86184
0.00113
0.00907
0.00113
0.02495
0.00454
0.00113
0.01814
0.02495
0.00454
0.00680
0.01588
0.06804
0.00227
0.00113
0.00113
0.18484
0.00113
0.01134
0.00227
-------
Carinoma tremaphorus
Glycinde solitaria
Paraprionospio pinnata
Streblospio benedicti
Macoma balthica
Macoma mitchelli
Total
Tubificoides sp.
Parahesione luteola
Podarkeopsis levifuseina
Glycinde solitaria
Neanthes succinea
Paraprionospio pinnata
Molgula manhattensis
unknown taxa
Total
Tubificoides sp.
Podarkeopsis levifuseina
Glycinde solitaria
Heteromastus filiformis
Neanthes succinea
°olydora cornuta
Micrura leidyi
Gemma gemma
Macoma mitchelli
Mulinia lateralis
Tagelus plebius
Acteon punctostriatus
Cratena pilata
Epitonium rupicola
Sayella chesapeakea
Total
Tubificoides sp.
Carinoma tremaphorus
ram. Tubificid w/o cap. Chaete
Glycinde solitaria
Neanthes succinea
Cyathura polita
Macoma balthica
PXR 06205
PXR 06205
PXR 06205
PXR 06205
PXR 06205
PXR 06205
PXR 06207
PXR 06207
PXR 06207
PXR 06207
PXR 06207
PXR 06207
PXR 06207
PXR 06207
PXR 062 11
PXR 062 11
PXR 062 11
PXR 06211
PXR 062 11
PXR 062 11
PXR 062 11
PXR 062 11
PXR 062 11
PXR 062 11
PXR 062 11
PXR 062 11
PXR 062 11
PXR 062 11
PXR 06211
PXR 06214
PXR 06214
PXR 06214
PXR 06214
PXR 062 14
PXR 062 14
PXR 062 14
22.68
45.36
45.36
45.36
22.68
22.68
362.88
204.12
90.72
22.68
22.68
45.36
340.2
22.68
22.68
771.12
_
181.44
45.36
181.44
635.04
340.2
22.68
22.68
113.4
113.4
90.72
45.36
45.36
22.68
22.68
90.72
1973.16
136.08
22.68
22.68
22.68
22.68
90.72
22.68
0.05670
0.00907
0.00454
0.00113
0.06350
0.01361
0.16330
0.00113
0.00907
0.00113
0.00454
0.21773
0-05897
0.00113
0.00113
0.29484
0.00227
0.00113
0.00680
0.19958
0.13835
0.00227
0.00113
0.00454
0.00113
0.01134
0.00113
0.00113
0.00680
0.01588
0.00680
0.40030
0.00680
0.02268
0.00000
0.00680
0.20639
0.56246
0.04536
-------
Total
Pkyllodoce arenae
Spiochaetopterus costarum
Mediomastus ambiseta
Glycinde solitaria
Heteromastus filiformis
Liomia medusa
Neanthes succinea
Pectinaria gouldii
Paraprionospio pinnata
Leitoscoloplos robustus
Streblospio benedicti
Macoma mitchelli
Mulinia lateralis
Acteocina canaliculate.
Acteon punctostriatus
Stylochus ellipticus
Phoronis architecta
Total
Glycinde solitaria
Neanthes succinea
Pectinaria gouldii
Paraprionospio pinnata
Streblospio benedicti
Macoma mitchelli
Acteocina canaliculata
Total
Tubificoides sp.
Edwardsia elegans
Spiochaetopterus costarum
Imm. Tubificid w/o cap. Chaete
Glycinde solitaria
Heteromastus filiformis
Neanthes succinea
Pectinaria gouldii
Paraprionospio pinnata
Streblospio benedicti
Macoma mitchelli
Mulinia lateralis
PMR06104
PMR06104
PMR06104
PMR06104
PMR06104
PMR06104
PMR06104
PMR06104
PMR06104
PMR06104
PMR 06104
PMR 06104
PMR 06104
PMR 06 104
PMR 06 104
PMR 061 04
PMR 06 104
PMR 06106
PMR 06106
PMR 06106
PMR 06106
PMR 06106
PMR 06106
PMR 06 106
PMR 061 07
PMR 061 07
PMR 061 07
PMR 06 107
PMR 061 07
PMR 061 07
PMR 061 07
PMR 061 07
PMR 061 07
PMR 06 107
PMR 06 107
PMR 06 107
340.2
22.68
45.36
952.56
136.08
22.68
22.68
68.04
340.2
793.8
22.68
272.16
45.36
22.68
929.88
45.36
45.36
90.72
3878
22.68
68.04
68.04
136.08
226.8
45.36
136.08
703.08
90.72
22.68
90.72
45.36
385.56
113.4
181.44
22.68
226.8
1202.04
249.48
90.72
0.85050
0.00113
0.00227
0.03629
0.00907
0.00227
0.02041
0.02495
0.02495
0.44226
0.00000
0.00227
0.00113
0.15876
0.04309
0.00113
0.00113
0.01588
0.78700
0.00227
0.14288
0.00454
0.06577
0.01814
0.00113
0.00227
0.23701
0.00907
0.00680
0.00907
0.00000
0.04082
0.09072
0.18824
0.00680
0.22000
0.07484
0.00680
0.74390
-------
Acteocina canaliculate
Micrura leidyi
Corophium lacustre
Sayella chesapeakea
Phoronis architecta
Total
Tubificoides sp.
Amphiphorus bioculatus
Glycinde solitaria
Heteromastus filiformis
Pectinaria gouldii
Streblospio benedicti
Macoma mitchelli
Acteocina canaliculata
Haminoea solitaria
Micrura leidyi
Stylochus ettipticus
Phoronis architecta
Total
Tubificoides sp.
Hypereteone heteropoda
Glycinde solitaria
Heteromastus filiformis
Neanthes succinea
Streblospio benedicti
Micrura leidyi
Total
Podarkeopsis levifuseina
Neanthes succinea
Paraprionospio pinnata
Streblospio benedicti
Mulinia lateralis
Total
[mm. Tubificid w/o cap. Chaete
Coelotanypus sp.
Streblospio benedicti
Leptocheirus plumulosus
Melita nitida
PMR06107
PMR 06107
PMR 06 107
PMR 06 107
PMR 06 107
PMR 061 12
PMR 061 12
PMR 061 12
PMR 061 12
PMR 061 12
PMR 061 12
PMR 06 112
PMR 061 12
PMR 061 12
PMR 061 12
PMR 061 12
PMR 061 12
PMR 061 13
PMR 061 13
PMR 061 13
PMR 061 13
PMR 061 13
PMR 061 13
PMR 061 13
PMR 06115
PMR 061 15
PMR 061 15
PMR 061 15
PMR 061 15
MET 06424
MET 06424
MET 06424
MET 06424
MET 06424
45.36
45.36
22.68
22.68
45.36
2903.04
45.36
22.68
113.4
22.68
22.68
249.48
113.4
544.32
204.12
22.68
22.68
45.36
1428.84
158.76
22.68
68.04
22.68
22.68
90.72
22.68
408.24
45.36
113.4
22.68
340.2
22.68
544.32
340.2
362.88
725.76
1065.96
45.36
0.00454
0.26762
0.00454
0.00680
0.02268
1.70327
0.00113
0.00227
0.02041
0.00907
0.05216
0.00680
0.00454
0.05443
0.08165
0.01588
0.00113
0.00907
0.25855
0.01588
0.00680
0.04763
0.01361
0.00113
0.01361
0.01814
0.11680
0.00454
0.23587
0.02041
0.02722
0.17010
0.45814
0.00000
0.12247
0.01588
0.27896
0.00113
-------
Gammarus daiberi
Total
Tubificoides sp.
Imm. Tubificid w/o cap. Chaete
Coelotanypus sp.
Heteromastus filiformis
Neanthes succinea
Streblospio benedicti
Leptocheirus plumulosus
Cyathura polita
Total
MET 06424
MET 06425
MET 06425
MET 06425
MET 06425
MET 06425
MET 06425
MET 06425
MET 06425
68.04
2608.2
22.68
498.96
476.28
68.04
22.68
748.44
544.32
22.68
2404.08
0.00000
0.41845
0.001 13
0.00000
0.12474
0.00680
0.01134
0.00907
0.07711
0.01134
0.24154
-------
-------
|