United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Great Lakes National Program Office EPA-905-R-02-002
77 West Jackson Boulevard February 2002
Chicago, Illinois 60604
Sediment Remediation
Scoping Project in
Minnesota Slip, Duluth
Harbor
-------
SEDIMENT REMEDIATION SCOPING PROJECT IN
MINNESOTA SLIP, DULUTH HARBOR
Final Report
Submitted to:
Scott Cieniawski
Great Lakes National Program Office, G-17J
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
77 West Jackson Boulevard
Chicago, Illinois 60604-3590
Submitted by:
10^ 0
Judy L. Crane , Dawn E. Smorong , David A. Pillard , and Donald D. MacDonald
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
Environmental Outcomes Division
520 Lafayette Road North
St. Paul, Minnesota 55155-4194
Email: judy.crane@pca.state.mn.us
2MacDonald Environmental Sciences Ltd.
#24 - 4800 Island Highway North
Nanaimo, British Columbia V9T 1W6 Canada
3ENSR International
Fort Collins Environmental Toxicology Laboratory
4303 West LaPorte Avenue
Fort Collins, CO 80521
-------
Disclaimer
This publication was developed by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency under
USEPA Grant Number GL985004-01. The contents and views expressed in this
document are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the policies or positions
of the USEPA or the United States Government. The report has not been subjected to
Agency review, and therefore, does not necessarily reflect the views of the Agency, or
other organizations named in this report. Additionally, the mention of trade names for
products or software does not constitute their endorsement.
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Disclaimer i'
List of Tables v
List of Figures v>
List of Acronyms and Abbrevi ations vi i i
Acknowledgments xi
Abstract 1
1.0 Introduction 2
2.0 Description of Study Site 5
2.1 Site Description 5
2.2 Previous Sediment Investigations in Minnesota Slip 6
3.0 Methods 8
3.1 Field Sampling Protocols 8
3.1.1 Field Sampling Conducted During 1998 8
3.1.2 Field Sampling Conducted During 1999 8
3.2 Sediment Toxicity Test Procedures 10
3.2.1 10-d Chironomus tentans Toxicity Tests 11
3.2.2 28- to 42-d Hyalella azteca Toxicity Tests 11
3.3 Laboratory Analytical Procedures 12
3.4 Quality Assurance/Quality Control 13
3.5 Data Analysis 14
3.5.1 Comparison of Sediment Chemistry Data to Sediment Quality Targets 14
3.5.2 Calculation of Mean Probable Effect Concentration Quotients 14
3.5.3 Development of Isopleth Figures for Sediment Quality Parameters 15
3.5.4 Comparison of Mean PEC-Qs 17
3.5.4.1 Collection, Evaluation, and Compilation of Sediment
Quality Data 18
3.5.4.2 Identification of Appropriate Sites Within the St. Louis
River AOC „ 18
3.5.4.3 Identification of Appropriate Great Lakes AOCs 19
3.5.4.4 Determination of Mean PEC-Q Distribution 19
3.5.4.5 Production of Box and Whisker Plots and Cumulative
Distribution Frequency Plots 20
3.5.5 Calculation of Sediment Contaminant Volume Estimates 20
3.6 Data Archival 21
4.0 Results 22
4.1 Field Sampling Information 22
4.2 Sediment Toxicity Tests 22
4.2.1 10-d C. tentans Sediment Toxicity Tests 22
in
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
Page
4.2.2 28-to 42-d//, azteca Toxicity Tests 24
4.3 Sediment Chemistry Results 26
4.3.1 Particle Size 26
4.3.2 TOC 27
4.3.3 Total PCBs 27
4.3.4 PAHs 28
4.3.5 Ammonia Nitrogen 30
4.3.6 Total Metals: Cadmium, Chromium, Copper, Nickel, and Selenium 30
4.3.7 AVSandSEM 30
4.3.8 Mercury 31
4.3.9 Lead 31
4.3.10 Zinc 32
4.3.11 MeanPEC-Qs 32
5.0 Discussion 33
5.1 Pattern of Contamination in Minnesota Slip 33
5.2 Integration of Sediment Chemistry and Toxicity Results 37
5.3 Comparison of Mean PEC-Qs in Minnesota Slip with Other Sites 40
5.4 Volume of Contaminated Sediments 42
5.5 Consideration of Preliminary Remediation Options 42
6.0 Recommendations 48
References 49
Tables 58
Figures 102
APPENDIX A: Toxicity of Sediments Collected from Minnesota Slip to the Midge,
Chironomus tentans
APPENDIX B: Toxicity of Sediments Collected from Minnesota Slip to the Amphipod,
Hyalella azteca
APPENDIX C: Historical Distribution of Total PAHs, Mercury, Lead, and Zinc at
MNS-99-04R and MNS-99-13R
IV
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
1 Inventory of historical land uses around Minnesota Slip 59
2 Ranges of contaminant concentrations in Minnesota Slip 60
3 Description of field results 61
4 Geopositional information for sediment samples collected from
Minnesota Slip during 1998 and 1999 67
5 Number of sediment samples and field replicates included in each sediment
core section collected from Minnesota Slip during 1999 68
6 Results of the 10-d C. tentans sediment toxicity tests on surficial
sediments (0-5 cm) from Minnesota Slip 69
7 Mean percentage survival results of the 28- to 42-d H. azteca sediment
toxicity tests on surficial sediments (0-5 cm) from Minnesota Slip 70
8 Mean dry weight results of the 28- to 42-d H. azteca sediment toxicity
tests on surficial sediments (0-5 cm) from Minnesota Slip 71
9 Mean reproduction results of the 42-d H. azteca sediment toxicity tests
on surficial sediments (0-5 cm) from Minnesota Slip 72
10 Particle size distribution of sediments from Minnesota Slip. Particle
size ranges are given as diameters in microns (urn) 73
11 Sediment quality data for surficial (0-5 cm) sedimems collected from
MNS-99-01 through MNS-99-06 76
12 Summary of results of sediment samples analyzed for PAH compounds
in Minnesota Slip 78
13 Percentage composition of PAH compounds comprising the LMW and
HMW PAHs in Minnesota Slip 83
14 Summary of LMW, HMW, and total PAHs (based on a subset of 13
PAH compounds) for sediment samples collected from Minnesota Slip 87
15 Ratio of LMW or HMW PAHs to total PAHs (based on a subset of
13 PAHs) in sediments from Minnesota Slip 90
16 Mean PEC-Q values for sediment samples collected from Minnesota Slip 93
17 Percentage composition of PAHs in Slip C, Duluth Harbor 96
18 Summary of sediment toxicity test results, compared to the test control, and
mean PEC-Q values for surficial sediments collected from Minnesota Slip 97
19 Distribution of mean PEC-Qs for selected areas in the St. Louis River AOC 98
20 Distribution of mean PEC-Qs that also included mercury for selected areas
in the St. Louis River AOC 99
21 Distribution of mean PEC-Qs for selected Great Lakes AOCs 100
22 Summary of FIELDS mass and volume calculations for Minnesota Slip
sediments with total PAH (13) concentrations greater than 23 mg/kg dry wt 101
23 Summary of FIELDS volume calculations for Minnesota Slip
sediments with mean PEC-Qs exceeding 0.6 101
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure
1 Map of the St. Louis River AOC 103
2 Location of hot spot areas in the St. Louis River AOC 104
3 Location of Minnesota Slip in the Duluth.Harbor 105
4 Aerial photograph of Minnesota Slip 106
5 Map of the Duluth Harbor facilities in 1887 107
6 Location of sediment sampling sites in Minnesota Slip 108
7 Location of Great Lakes AOCs 109
8 Isopleth plots for the distribution of sand (>53 urn) in Minnesota
Slip for selected depth intervals 110
9 Isopleth plots for the distribution of silt (53 - 2 urn) in Minnesota
Slip for selected depth intervals 112
10 Isopleth plots for the distribution of clay (2-0 um) in Minnesota
Slip for selected depth intervals 114
11 Isopleth plots for the distribution of TOC (%) in Minnesota Slip
for selected depth intervals 116
12 Isopleth plot for the distribution of total PCBs (|ag/kg dry wt.) in
surficial sediments of Minnesota Slip 119
13 Isopleth plots fo; the distribution of total PAHs in Minnesota Slip for
selected depth intervals 120
14 Historical distribution of total PAHs (mg/kg dry wt.) at site MNS-99-15 123
15 Historical distribution of total PAHs (mg/kg dry wt.) at site MNS-99-04 124
16 Historical distribution of total PAHs (mg/kg dry wt.) at site MNS-99-03 125
17 Historical distribution of total PAHs (mg/kg dry wt.) at site MNS-99-13 126
18 Isopleth plots for the distribution of mercury (mg/kg dry wt.) in
Minnesota Slip for selected depth intervals 127
19 Historical distribution of mercury (mg/kg dry wt.) at site MNS-99-15 130
20 Historical distribution of mercury (mg/kg dry wt.) at site MNS-99-04 131
21 Historical distribution of mercury (mg/kg dry wt.) at site MNS-99-03 132
22 Historical distribution of mercury (mg/kg dry wt.) at site MNS-99-13 133
23 Isopleth plots for the distribution of lead (mg/kg dry wt.) in Minnesota
Slip for selected depth intervals 134
24 Historical distribution of lead (mg/kg dry wt.) at site MNS-99-15 137
25 Historical distribution of lead (mg/kg dry wt.) at site MNS-99-04 138
26 Historical distribution of lead (mg/kg dry wt.) at site MNS-99-03 139
27 Historical distribution of lead (mg/kg dry wt.) at site MNS-99-13 140
28 Isopleth plots for the distribution of zinc (mg/kg dry wt.) in Minnesota
Slip for selected depth intervals - 141
29 Historical distribution of zinc (mg/kg dry wt.) at site MNS-99-15 144
30 Historical distribution of zinc (mg/kg dry wt.) at site MNS-99-04 145
31 Historical distribution of zinc (mg/kg dry wt.) at site MNS-99-03 146
32 Historical distribution of zinc (mg/kg dry wt.) at site MNS-99-13 147
VI
-------
LIST OF FIGURES (Continued)
:igure Page
33 Isopleth plots for the distribution of mean PEC-Qs in Minnesota Slip
for selected depth intervals 148
34 Box and whisker plot showing the mean PEC-Q distribution for the St. Louis
River AOC (ranked according to decreasing average mean PEC-Q
values) 151
35 Cumulative distribution plot showing the mean PEC-Q distribution
for sediment samples collected in the St. Louis River AOC 152
36 Box and whisker plot showing the mean PEC-Q distribution for the St. Louis
River AOC (ranked according to decreasing average mean PEC-Q
values; mean PEC-Qs calculated including mercury) 153
37 Cumulative distribution plot showing the mean PEC-Q distribution
for sediment samples collected in the St. Louis River AOC (mean
PEC-Qs calculated including mercury) 154
38 Cumulative distribution plot showing the distribution of mean
PEC-Qs calculated either including or excluding mercury, for
sediment samples collected in Minnesota Slip 155
39 Box and whisker plot showing the mean PEC-Q distribution for selected
Great Lakes AOCs and Minnesota Slip (ranked according to decreasing
average mean PEC-Q values) 156
40 Cumulative distribution plot showing the mean PEC-Q
distribution for sediment samples collected in selected Great
Lakes AOCs 157
vn
-------
LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
2Metnap 2-Methylnaphthalene
AC Alternating Current,
Acene Acenaphthene
Aceny Acenaphthylene
AFDW Ash Free Dry Weight
Anth Anthracene
AOC Area of Concern
ARCS Assessment and Remediation of Contaminated Sediments
ASTM American Society of Testing and Materials
AVS Acid Volatile Sulfide
Bena Benzo[a]anthracene
Benap Benzo[a]pyrene
Benb Benzo[b&j]fluoranmene
Bene Benzo[e]pyrene
Beng Benzo[g,h,i]perylene
Benk Benzo[k]fluoranmene
BMP Best Management Practice
CAC Citizen's Action Committee
CDF Cumulative Distribution Frequency
Chry Chrysene
cm Centimeter
CO Colorado
Corp. Corporation
CV Coefficient of Variation
d Day
DC Direct Current
ODD Metabolite of DDT
DDT Dichloro-diphenyl-trichloroethane
DECC Duluth Entertainment and Convention Center
DI Deionized (as in deionized water)
Diben Dibenzo[a,h]anthracene
ECGO Electrochemical Geooxidation
ECRTs Electrochemical Remediation Technologies
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
FCETL Fort Collins Environmental Toxicology Laboratory
FIELDS Fully Integrated Environmental Location Decision Support System
Fluo Fluorene
Flut Fluoranthene
GC/ECD Gas Chromatography/Electron Capture Detection
GC/MS SIM Gas Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry Selected Ion Monitoring
GFT Glass Furnace Technology
GIS Geographic Information System
GLNPO Great Lakes National Program Office
vin
-------
LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS (continued)
GPS Global Positioning System
HC1 Hydrochloric Acid
HMW High Molecular Weight
o o
1C Induced Complexation
ID Identifier Code
IDW Inverse Distance Weighted
IJC International Joint Commission
IL Illinois
IN Indiana
Indp Indeno[l,2,3-cd]pyrene
IT Corp. International Technology Corporation
KC1 Potassium Chloride
kg Kilogram
1 Liter
Ib Pound
LMW Low Molecular Weight
m Meter
MDH Minnesota Department of Health
MESL MacDonald Environmental Sciences Ltd.
mg Milligram
MI Michigan
mm Millimeter
MN Minnesota
MNS Minnesota Slip
mo Month
MO Missouri
MPCA Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
n Number
Naph Naphthalene
NT Not Toxic
NY New York
OH Ohio
ON Ontario
PAHs Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons
PCBs Polychlorinated Biphenyls
PEC Probable Effect Concentration
PEC-Q Probable Effect Concentration Quotient
Phen Phenanthrene
PRP Potentially Responsible Party
Pyrn Pyrene
QA/QC Quality Assurance/Quality Control
QAPP Quality Assurance Project Plan
QC Quality Control
IX
-------
LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS (continued)
r Coefficient of Determination
R Field Replicate
R/V Research Vessel
RAP Remedial Action Plan
R-EMAP Regional Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program
RPD Relative Percent Difference
SADA Spatial Analysis and Decision Assistance
SD Standard Deviation
SEM Simultaneously Extractable Metals
SLRAOC St. Louis River Area of Concern
SOP Standard Operating Procedure
SQG Sediment Quality Guideline
SQT Sediment Quality Target
S.S. Steam Ship
T Toxic
TIP Tag Image File format
TMA Thermo Analytical
TOC Total Organic Carbon
ug Microgram
um Micrometer (also termed micron)
UMD University of Minnesota—Duluth
USEPA United States Environmental Protection Agency
USGS United States Geological Survey
WA Washington
WDNR Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
Wl Wisconsin
WLSSD Western Lake Superior Sanitary District
wt. Weight
WWI World War I
WWII World War II
yd Yard
yr Year
-------
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Field sampling support was provided by Harold Wiegner [Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
(MPCA)]; Scott Cieniawski [Great Lakes National Program Office (GLNPO)]; and Joe Bonem
and Polly Brooks (Deep Ocean Navigation). Jean Kahilainen [Minnesota Department of Health
(MDH)] coordinated the overall use of their laboratory for a number of chemical analyses. Paul
Swedenborg (MDH) coordinated the analyses of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs),
whereas Keith Peacock (MDH) coordinated the analyses of total organic carbon, mercury,
cadmium, chromium, copper, lead, nickel, selenium, zinc, ammonia, and percent moisture. Doug
Turgeon (MDH) provided electronic copies of MDH's sediment quality data. Particle size
analyses weie conducted through a contract with Keith Lodge (University of Minnesota-Duluth).
Polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB) congeners, simultaneously extractable metals, and acid volatile
sulfides were analyzed through a contract with En Chem, Inc. (project manager: Tod Noltemeyer).
Sediment toxicity tests were conducted through a contract with ENSR Corporation, Fort Collins
Environmental Toxicology Laboratory (project manager: Dave Pillard). Preparation of sediment
quality isopleth maps and comparison of mean probable effect concentration quotients between
Minnesota Slip and other sites in the Duluth-Superior Harbor and elsewhere in the Great Lakes
was conducted through a contract with MacDonald Environmental Sciences Ltd. (MESL). David
Sims (MESL) assisted Dawn Smorong with the preparation of isopleth figures for sediment quality
parameters. Technical assistance for the preparation of a digital map file of Minnesota Slip was
coordinated by Dave Bowman and prepared by Charles Burg (both of the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers—Detroit District). Word processing support was provided by Jan Eckart, Mary Osborn,
and Jennifer Holstad (MPCA). The draft report was reviewed by Scott Cieniawski (GLNPO),
Dave Bowman (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers—Detroit District), and Chris Ingersoll (U.S.
Geological Survey). Financial support for this project was provided by the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency's GLNPO, Chicago, IL through grant number GL985004-01-1. Scott
Cieniawski was the GLNPO project officer for this study.
This report should be cited as:
Crane, J.L., D.E. Smorong, D.A. Pillard, and D.D. MacDonald. 2002. Sediment remediation
scoping project in Minnesota Slip, Duluth Harbor. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Great Lakes National Program Office, Chicago, IL. EPA-905-R02-002.
XI
-------
ABSTRACT
A sediment remediation scoping project was conducted in Minnesota Slip in the Duluth, MN
Harbor. Previous investigations of this boat slip indicated that elevated levels of polycyclic
aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), DDT metabolites, toxaphene,
mercury, cadmium, chromium, copper, lead, nickel, and zinc were present in the sediments.
Minnesota Slip appears to be an orphan site since this contamination has not been attributed to
any potentially responsible parties. A sediment survey was conducted in August 1998 and
September 1999 to collect additional sediment samples to further delineate the vertical and
horizontal distribution of a short-list of chemicals of potential concern (i.e., PAHs, PCBs, lead,
mercury, and zinc), as well as the distribution of total organic carbon (TOC) and particle size
classes. In addition, acid volatile sulfides (AVS), simultaneously extractable metals (SEM),
ammonia, cadmium, chromium, copper, nickel, and selenium were measured in six surficial (0-5
cm) sediment samples in which matching sediment toxicity tests were run. For 10-d sediment
toxicity tests run using the midge, Chironomus tentans, comparison of treatment survival to the
control was made by observation since control survival was less than in any of the treatments.
For 28- to 42-d sediment toxicity tests run using the amphipod, Hyalella azteca, survival in two
of six samples was significantly lower than in the respective controls. This toxicity was
associated with [SEM] - [AVS] > 5 in the corresponding sediment chemistry samples, although
the specific cause of toxicity could not be determined. Isopleth figures of sediment quality data
were assembled for various depth intervals for the following parameters: percentage of sand,
silt, and clay, TOC, total PCBs, total PAHs, mercury, lead, and zinc. Contamination in the slip is
heterogeneous, and several sites either exceeded the corresponding Level I or Level II sediment
quality targets (SQTs). The greatest exceedances of the Level II SQTs occurred with PAHs.
Mean probable effect concentration quotients (PEC-Qs) were calculated for surficial sediments
in Minnesota Slip and compared to other surficial sites within the St. Louis River Area of
Concern (AOC), as well as other Great Lakes AOCs. Minnesota Slip is much less contaminated
than one of the Superfund sites in the Duluth Harbor, but more contaminated than other areas in
the St. Louis River AOC. In addition, the Oswego River, NY AOC and the Cuyahoga River, OH
AOC had similar mean PEC-Qs as Minnesota Slip. The volume of contaminated sediments was
estimated in only the upper depth segments of Minnesota Slip in which sediment quality data
were available for the entire slip. A short-list of sediment remediation options, including
dredging, is presented for further consideration. However, before any of these remediation
options can be seriously evaluated, best management practices need to be implemented to reduce
contaminant inputs from five storm water outfalls in Minnesota Slip.
-------
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
The St. Louis River is an important transboundary waterway, located in northeastern Minnesota
and northwestern Wisconsin, which culminates in the Duluth-Superior Harbor (Figure 1). In
1987, the International Joint Commission (IJC) designated the lower St. Louis River as one of 43
Areas of Concern (AOCs) in the Great Lakes basin (IJC 1989). The St. Louis River AOC
includes several sites where concentrations of metals, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs),
polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), pesticides, and/or dioxins and furans are elevated in the
sediments (Schubauer-Berigan and Crane 1997; Crane et al. 1997; Breneman et al. 2000). In
areas where these chemical substances occur at concentrations that pose a known or suspected
threat to environmental or human health, the sediments are designated as contaminated.
Contaminated sediments contribute to several use impairments in the St. Louis River AOC,
including the issuance offish advisories, restrictions on dredging, and habitat impairments to
bottom feeding organisms (MPCA and WDNR 1992, 1995).
The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA), and its collaborators, have conducted a
number of sediment assessment studies in the St. Louis River AOC, particularly in the Duluth-
Superior Harbor and in the impounded reservoirs of the river near Cloquet, MN (Schubauer-
Berigan and Crane 1996, 1997; Crane et al. 1997; AScI Corporation 1999; Crane 1999a,b;
Breneman et al. 2000; King 2001). The MPCA utilizes a number of sediment quality assessment
tools to characterize the sediments, including sediment chemistry measurements, physical
measurements (e.g., particle size), sediment toxicity tests (acute and chronic tests), benthic
community surveys, and bioaccumulation studies (Crane et al. 2000). The information gained
from these studies is evaluated, using a weight-of-evidence approach, for making management
decisions about contaminated areas. The Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNR),
Fond du Lac Band, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and consultants for industries and potentially
responsible parties have also used a similar set of sediment assessment tools in studies they have
conducted in the St. Louis River AOC (Redman and Janisch 1995; Wenck Associates 1995;
ENSR 1996; TMA 1996; IT Corporation 1997; Glass et al. 1998).
Successful remediation of contaminated sediments is essential for restoring impaired uses and
contributing to the de-listing of the St. Louis River AOC. Several hot spot areas of elevated
contamination occur in the Duluth-Superior Harbor, including the Interlake/Duluth Tar and USX
-------
Superfund sites. Hog Island Inlet/Newton Creek, several boat slips (e.g., Minnesota Slip, Slip C),
Howard's Bay, in the vicinity of historical and current wastewater treatment plants, and other
areas with historical sources of contamination (e.g.. Grassy Point) (Figure 2). Additional
background information on the extent of sediment contamination in the St. Louis River AOC is
O
given in the Stage I and II Remedial Action Plans (RAPs) (MPCA and WDNR 1992, 1995) and
in Craned a/. (2000).
During 1996, the MPCA solicited input from the Sediment Contamination Work Group of the St.
Louis River Citizen's Action Committee (CAC) to assist them in selecting an appropriate site for
a sediment remediation scoping project. The group selected Slip C, followed by Minnesota Slip,
as the best candidate sites. The reasons for selecting these sites were because the contamination
appeared to be well-contained within the slips; several surficial contaminants exceeded
benchmark sediment quality guidelines (Persaud et al. 1993); the sediments contained
bioaccumulative contaminants (e.g., PCBs, PAHs, mercury) in the surficial and deeper sediment
layers; significant sediment toxicity had been observed at both sites in the past, and the benthic
community was composed of organisms associated with degraded environments (Schubauer-
Berigan and Crane 1997; Crane et al. 1997; AScI Corporation 1999; Breneman et al. 2000). The
level of contamination in Minnesota Slip is of additional concern because of the close proximity
of the slip to the Duluth entry of Lake Superior. The group felt these sites had a high potential
for being effectively remediated in the future. A sediment remediation scoping project was
initiated in Slip C in 1996; however, the project was scaled down to an assessment of chemical
contamination in the sediments of Slip C (Crane 1999a). The MPCA obtained a grant from the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Great Lakes National Program Office (GLNPO)
in 1998 to conduct a sediment remediation scoping project in Minnesota Slip. This sediment
remediation scoping project was designed to fill data gaps from previous sediment investigations
in order to characterize site conditions and to develop some preliminary remediation options for
further consideration. This scoping project did not include an ecological or human health risk
assessment as would be required at Superfund ^ites through the completion of a remedial
investigation/feasibility study.
The objectives of this project were to:
• Delineate the extent and depth of selected contaminants of concern in the sediments of
Minnesota Slip;
• Determine the acute and chronic toxicity of surficial sediments to selected benthic
invertebrates;
-------
• Estimate the volume of contaminated sediments in the inner 75% of the slip, because a
previous sediment investigation indicated the inner slip was more contaminated than the
outer slip (Crane et al. 1997); and
• Develop a short list of sediment remediation options for further consideration.
The chemicals of potential concern included in this study were: eighteen PAH compounds,
congener-specific PCBs, mercury, lead, and zinc. Total organic carbon (TOC) and particle size
classes (sand, silt, and clay) were also measured in selected depth intervals. In addition, acid
volatile sulfides (AVS), simultaneously extractable metals (SEM), ammonia, cadmium,
chromium, copper, nickel, and selenium were measured in six surficial (0-5 cm) sediment
samples in which corresponding sediment toxicity tests were conducted. This expanded list of
chemicals was included to widen the MPCA's database of matching sediment chemistry and
bioeffects data. Selenium was included in the list because this metal had not previously been
measured in Minnesota Slip, and the MPCA had some unpublished data that indicated selenium
was elevated in soil samples collected from nearby sites in the Canal Park area of Duluth.
Although elevated concentrations of DDT metabolites and toxaphene have been detected in
sedii.ients collected from Minnesota Slip (Crane et al. 1997), the high costs associated with these
analyses could not be accommodated in the project budget. Since previous studies showed
PAHs to be a primary contaminant of concern in Minnesota Slip (Schubauer-Berigan and Crane
1997; Crane et al. 1997; Breneman et al. 2000), an assumption was made that any future
remediation of this slip to address PAH contamination would probably also take care of elevated
concentrations of DDT metabolites and toxaphene.
Two types of sediment toxicity tests were performed on six surficial sediment samples. Ten-day
sediment toxicity tests with the midge, Chironomus tentans, were conducted in order to measure
the biological responses of death and growth. Twenty-eight to 42-d sediment toxicity tests with
the amphipod, Hyalella azteca, were conducted to measure the biological responses of death,
reproduction, and growth.
Isopleth figures of sediment quality data were made to visualize the two-dimensional extent of
contamination in Minnesota Slip for selected depth intervals. This information was also used to
estimate the volume of contaminants in Minnesota Slip. A comparison of the degree of chemical
contamination measured in surficial sediments in Minnesota Slip was made with other sites
within the St. Louis River AOC, as well as at other Great Lakes AOCs. A preliminary list of
sediment remediation options was also developed for further consideration by the MPCA and
stakeholders.
-------
CHAPTER 2
DESCRIPTION OF STUDY SITE
2.1 SITE DESCRIPTION
Minnesota Slip is located in the northern section of the Duluth Harbor basin between Canal Park
and the Duluth Entertainment and Convention Center (DECC) (Figure 3). Canal Park is a
popular tourist destination in the Duluth-Superior area. The northeast side of the slip is bounded
by a parking lot and commercial businesses in Canal Park (e.g., restaurants, hotels, and small
retail stores), whereas the southwest side of the slip is bounded by Harbor Avenue and the
DECC. The slip itself is used to permanently dock the S.S. William A. Irvin, a former flagship
of U.S. Steel's fleet of ore carriers. Since 1986, it has been used as a floating museum
administered by the DECC. The Irvin takes up about one-third of the slip as shown in Figure 4.
The rest of the slip houses a marina for commercial and private boat owners. In addition, one of
the Vista fleet boats is docked in the outer part of the slip; the Vista fleet boats offer harbor and
dinner cruises. Entry into the slip is restricted by a drawbridge. The bridge acts as a wave
retention wall that decreases washout of the slip.
Three known storm sewers, and two unknown storm sewers, drain into Minnesota Slip. Two
other storm sewers discharge from the breakwall immediately outside of the slip. Most of the
drainage area borders the downtown business area of Duluth and adjacent residential
neighborhoods; this area extends from 2nd Avenue West to 1st Avenue East up to 14th Street.
Storm sewers that drain Canal Park and Commerce Street also discharge into the slip.
Local charter boat operators have called the U.S. Coast Guard on several occasions to report oil
slicks on the water in Minnesota Slip after rainstorm events. Oil and grease, as well as garbage,
appear to be flushed into the slip primarily from the most inland storm sewers. The city of
Duluth has created a Storm Water Utility that will seek out funding to update the maps of the
storm water system and make improvements to the system. This would include the
implementation of best management practices (BMPs) such as the use of sediment traps,
retention ponds, and filters. A preproposal submitted to GLNPO in 1999, by the city of Duluth,
was unsuccessful in obtaining funding for a contaminant loading study in Minnesota Slip. This
type of study would have helped to determine the direction and types of emphasis required for
the selection of BMPs to reduce contaminants entering Minnesota Slip from the storm sewers.
-------
Historically, Minnesota Slip has undergone several physical modifications since European
settlement of the area. The area encompassing the northern section of the Duluth Harbor was
initially swampland. Modem development of the harbor began after 1861 (Walker and Hall
1976). Construction of the Duluth Ship Canal was started in 1870, thereby providing a Duluth
entry into the harbor from Lake Superior. A map of the harbor, circa 1887, shows that a portion
of the current Minnesota Slip had already been formed through dredging operations (Figure 5).
The slip used to be called the Marshall Wells slip, and there was a Marshall Wells building
adjacent to it; part of this building is now called the Meyerhoff building.
Several historical photos of the slip are retained at the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Maritime
Museum in Duluth. A photo taken in 1904 shows a coal yard west of Minnesota Slip that was
eventually replaced by a scrap yard. A double train freight shed used to be located just west of
the slip. A May 1, 1929 photo of the slip shows a pile of material to the north of the slip that
appears to be coal. Another historical photo shows workers dumping wheelbarrows full of
material into the slip, approximately half-way down the east side of the slip. As of 1931, there
was another slip just west of Minnesota Slip; this area is now filled in. Over time, parts of
Minnesota Slip have been dredged out and filled in. Additional historical information about
surrounding land uses in the vicinity of Minnesota Slip is given in Table 1 (Kellner et al. 1999).
However, none of these historical businesses have been determined to be responsible for
sediment contamination in Minnesota Slip.
2.2 PREVIOUS SEDIMENT INVESTIGATIONS IN MINNESOTA SLIP
Minnesota Slip has been included in the following MPCA sediment assessment studies for the
St. Louis River AOC:
• Survey of sediment quality in the Duluth-Superior Harbor: 1993 sampling results
(Schubauer-Berigan and Crane 1997) (one core site in Minnesota Slip);
• Sediment assessment of hot spot areas in the Duluth-Superior Harbor (Crane et al. 1997)
(five core sites in Minnesota Slip);
• Regional Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program (R-EMAP) surveying,
sampling and testing: 1995 and 1996 sampling results (Breneman et al. 2000 and
unpublished data) [one surficial (0-5 cm) site sampled in 1995 and resampled in 1996 in
Minnesota Slip];
-------
• Minnesota Slip sampling to assess PAH analytical techniques (unpublished MPCA data
1998) (two core sites and three surficial sites); and
• Bioaccumulation of contaminants in the Duluth-Superior Harbor (AScI Corporation 1999)
(four surficial sites in Minnesota Slip).
The aforementioned studies have provided information about: chemicals of potential concern,
contaminants of concern, potential for short-term and long-term toxicity to bottom feeding (i.e.,
benthic) organisms living in the sediments, potential for changes in the community structure of
naturally occurring benthic organisms, and potential for bioaccumulation of certain contaminants
(like PAHs) in the base of the aquatic food chain in Minnesota Slip.
These studies have given rise to concerns of extensive contamination in Minnesota Slip
sediments. Based on these previous studies, the most contaminated sediments appear to be
located in the inner portion of the slip. Some sites are contaminated with oil to as deep as 1.6 m
(Crane et al. 1997). Chemicals of potential concern include: PAHs, PCBs, mercury, cadmium,
chromium, copper, lead, nickel, zinc, AVS, SEM, toxaphene, p,p'-DDD and o,p'-DDT, and
KCI-extractable ammonia (Schubauer-Berigan and Crane 1997; Crane et al. 1997; AScI
Corporation 1999; Breneman et al. 2000; unpublished R-EMAP and MPCA data). Since
Minnesota did not have its own sediment quality guidelines (SQGs) at the time these studies
were conducted, the Ontario low effect level and severe effect level SQGs (Persaud et al. 1993)
were used as benchmark values to compare the sediment quality data to. Chemicals that
exceeded the Ontario low effect level SQGs were designated as chemicals of potential concern.
The concentration ranges of chemicals of potential concern, and other parameters, are given in
Table 2.
A limited number of 10-d sediment toxicity tests, using Hyalella azteca and Chironomus tentans,
have not revealed significant acute toxicity to the sediments, although sediments from the most
contaminated area of the slip have not been tested (Schubauer-Berigan and Crane 1997; Crane et
a/. 1997). The results of one Mutatox® test of a Minnesota Slip sample in 1993 indicated the
sample was genotoxic (Schubauer-Berigan and Crane 1997). A previous benthic survey showed
the slip is consistently dominated with pollutant tolerant worms [e.g., Tubificids and naidid
oligochaetes (Crane et al. 1997)]. The results of some bioaccumulation studies indicated that
benthic worms, Lumbriculus variegatus, accumulated PAH compounds in their tissues, but little
PCBs or mercury were accumulated (AScI Corporation 1999). Based on this sediment quality
information, the MPCA has designated Minnesota Slip as a hot spot area of elevated
contamination where there is the potential for biological impairments to the benthic community.
-------
CHAPTERS
METHODS
3.1 FIELD SAMPLING PROTOCOLS
3.1.1 Field Sampling Conducted During 1998
Before the GLNPO-sponsored study was implemented in Minnesota Slip, state funds were used
to analyze a small number of sediment samples from the slip so that the Minnesota Department
of Health (MDH) could evaluate the adequacy of their analytical techniques for extracting PAHs
from these contaminated sediments. Sediment samples were collected by MFC A staff on May
26, 1998 (sample 98-MNS-01) and during August 12-13, 1998 (samples 98-MNS-02, 98-MNS-
03, and 98-MNS-04). The surficial (0-5 cm) sample from 98-MNS-01 was not analyzed. The
field sampling information for the other sites are described in Tables 3 and 4. The site locations
were marked on an aerial photograph of the slip.
Sediment samples were analyzed for 18 PAH compounds, mercury, lead, and TOC as described
in Crane (1999 a,b). The MDH met the quality control (QC) requirements for PAH compounds.
Thus, MDH was used to analyze PAHs from sediment samples collected in Minnesota Slip
during September 1999.
3.1.2 Field Sampling Conducted During 1999
Sediment samples were collected during September 22-29, 1999 according to the procedures
specified in the quality assurance project plan (QAPP) (Crane 1999b) and Smith and Rood
(1994). Health and safety measures complied with GLNPO (1997). The field crew consisted of
staff provided by GLNPO, Deep Ocean Navigation, and the MFC A. The full field crew was
used to sample a portion of the sediment sites, using GLNPO's specially designed research
vessel, the R/V Mudpuppy. A contractor to GLNPO took air measurements while people were
working on the R/V Mudpuppy to ensure that personal exposure to mercury and volatile organic
compounds did not exceed OSHA standards. The other sediment sites were sampled by Judy
Crane and Harold Wiegner (MFCA) either from shore or boat piers, or by using the MPCA's
R/V Naiad.
-------
A nonrandom sampling plan was used to select sites to delineate the vertical and horizontal
distribution of selected contaminants, especially in the inner 75% of the slip. Sediment sampling
in the outer 25% of the slip was done to confirm the sediments had a lower level of
contamination, as indicated in earlier sediment sampling surveys of this slip (Crane et al. 1997).
A total of eighteen sampling sites were selected. The sampling design in Minnesota Slip was
best represented by a rectangular grid pattern for an elliptical-shaped hot spot area (Lubin et al.
1995).
A sediment sounding was taken at each site to determine the approximate depth of the soft
sediment layer. This was done using a long metal rod of known length, in which the pole was
lowered into the sediment and pushed in until the point of refusal (WDNR 1995). A real-time,
differential global positioning system (GPS) unit was used to determine station positions by
receiving digital codes from three or more satellite systems, computing time and distance, and then
calculating an earth-based position. The positional accuracy of the GPS measurements was
between 0.5-5 m. The GPS measurements were made in degree/minute format. It was anticipated
that problems might be encountered with taking GPS measurements in this boat slip due to
potential interference caused by the S.S. William A. Irvin. Thus, all sites were also marked on an
aerial photograph of the slip. When the GPS measurements were used to generate a map of the
sampling sites in ArcView, several sites appeared in the wrong location. The site locations were
corrected to match the sites marked on an aerial photograph of the slip.
The sampling sites were georeferenced using a digital file (TIP image) of a rectified aerial
photograph in ArcView (Figure 6). Charles Burg (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers—Detroit
District) prepared this digital file by rectifying a GeoTIF image supplied by the MPCA to an
existing U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) digital orthophoto quadrangle image.
Three different sediment sampling devices were used in this study (Table 3). A shipek grab
sampler, from the MPCA's R/V Naiad, was used to collect composite grab samples of surficial
sediments at six sites. The approximate upper 5 cm layer of sediment was removed using a
Teflon®-lined spatula. Samples were placed into a 4-L acid and solvent-rinsed Pyrex®
measuring cup and homogenized by stirring. Each composited sample was split for synoptic
sediment chemistry and toxicity testing analyses. A Livingston corer was used to sample
sediments from shore in the approximate one meter band of water between the west wall of
Minnesota Slip and the S.S. William A. Irvin. As cohesive sediment core sections were extruded
from the core, the outer 1-2 mm of sediment was scraped off, using a Teflon®-lined spatula. The
sample was transferred into a 4-L acid and solvent-rinsed Pyrex® measuring cup. Observations
-------
were made, the sediments were mixed, and subsamples were put into pre-cleaned analytical jars
per the specifications given in the QAPP (Crane 1999b). GLNPO's R/V Mudpuppy was used to
sample 14 sites in Minnesota Slip. The R/V Mudpuppy was either tied off to the boat docks,
triple-anchored, or else the crew stabilized the boat against the S.S. William A. Irvin for sites
MNS-99-02, MNS-99-03, and MNS-99-14. A Vibrocorer system, composed of lexan plastic,
was used to collect sediment cores down to 2.1 m. GLNPO staff pre-cut most of the core tubes
to 1.6 m for use in this investigation. The cores were processed on-board the R/V Mudpuppy
immediately after collection. Each core was sectioned by sawing off the top section (0-15 cm)
and subsequent sections according to the sample scheme given in Table 5. After sectioning the
cores, the Vibrocorer samples were decontaminated by scraping the outer 1-2 mm of sediment
from the core section with an acid- and solvent-rinsed spatula, and discarding it prior to sample
homogenization. Samples were placed into a 4-L acid and solvent-rinsed Pyrex® measuring cup
and homogenized by stirring. Homogenized samples were apportioned into pre-cleaned sample
jars for delivery to the appropriate analytical laboratory (Crane 1999b).
All samples were stored on ice in a cooler during the day of sampling. At the end of each day,
the sediment samples were stored at 4 °C in the dark at the MPCA regional office in Duluth.
Samples were delivered to the contract laboratories for chemical analyses within one week of
collection. As shown in Table 5, selected sediment core sections were analyzed for either all or a
portion of the following chemical/physical measurements: eighteen PAH compounds, 107 PCB
congeners, mercury, cadmium, chromium, copper, lead, nickel, selenium, zinc, ammonia, SEM,
AVS, TOC, and particle size classes (percentage of sand, silt, and clay). Due to cost constraints,
the aforementioned chemical and physical parameters could not be measured in all samples. An
emphasis was placed on assessing sediments in the inner 75% of the slip where previous studies
have indicated the sediments to be more contaminated (Schubauer-Berigan and Crane 1997; Crane
etal. 1997).
3.2 SEDIMENT TOXICITY TEST PROCEDURES
Six surficial (0-5 cm) sediment samples (i.e., 99-MNS-01 through 99-MNS-06) were received on
October 5, 1999 at the ENSR Fort Collins Environmental Toxicology Laboratory (FCETL) in Fort
Collins, CO (Appendices A and B). Sediment samples were stored at 4 °C in the dark until test
setup. Each sediment sample was homogenized prior to use. Homogenization consisted of
transferring sediment to a clean Nalgene® container and thoroughly mixing the sediment with a
stainless steel auger attached to an electric drill for not less than three minutes. The auger and
container were thoroughly cleaned and decontaminated (i.e., soap, tap water rinse, acetone, tap
10
-------
water rinse, HC1, tap water rinse, DI rinse) between homogenization of each sediment. A control
sediment (Florissant reference soil obtained from USGS-Biological Resources Division in
Columbia, MO) was tested concurrently.
3.2.1 10-d Chironomus tentans Toxicity Tests
A portion of the six sediment samples were used for 10-d static-renewal toxicity tests using the
midge, Chironomus tentans. The tests were conducted according to USEPA (1994) and ASTM
Method E 1706-95b (ASTM 1997) guidelines. The test was modified to include ash free dry
weight (AFDW) as a growth endpoint, per the draft (unpublished) ASTM and USEPA guidelines
that have since then been published as ASTM (2001) and USEPA (2000a). The biological
responses measured were death (defined as no visible movement or any response to gentle
prodding with a blunt probe) and growth (mean dry weight and AFDW per surviving organism).
The complete test protocol is included in ENSR's sediment toxicity test report given in Appendix
A.
On day 1, dissolved oxygen in the MNS-99-03 and MNS-99-04 test chambers was at or less than
2.5 mg/L (Appendix A). Therefore, aeration was initiated on day 1 in all test chambers, including
the control. The aeration apparatus consisted of a Pasteur pipette (connected to the laboratory air
supply), the tip of which was positioned so as not to disturb the sediment. All test chambers were
aerated for the remainder of the test.
Acute reference toxicant tests were initiated from the lot of C. tentans obtained for this study.
Sodium chloride was the reference toxicant with moderately hard water as the dilution water. The
tests were 96 hours in length; 24-hour data were also collected, where possible, from the tests for
use with ENSR's historical 24-hour reference toxicant database.
3.2.2 28- to 42-d Hyalella azteca Toxicity Tests
A portion of the six sediment samples were used for 28- to 42-d static-renewal toxicity tests using
the amphipod, Hyalella azteca. At the time the tests were conducted, methods had not yet been
published, but were available in the draft USEPA and ASTM guidelines for conducting sediment
toxicity tests which have since been published as USEPA (2000a) and ASTM (2001). The
biological responses measured were death (defined as no visible movement or any response to
gentle prodding with a blunt probe), reproduction (number of young produced per female), and
growth (mean dry weight per surviving organism). At the time the tests were conducted, the 42-d
11
-------
reproduction study was new and little historical data existed for it. The ENSR Study Director
decided to include six control sediment treatments, one with each test sediment.
On days 0 through 28, the organisms were exposed to the test sediments with overlying water. On
day 28, all organisms were removed from the test chambers. Live organisms were counted and
organisms from replicates A through D were removed for determination of dry weight. Organisms
from replicates E through L were placed back in test chambers that contained overlying water only
(and a small piece of Nitex netting). On day 35, the number of surviving adults and young were
counted; young were removed from the test chambers. On day 42, the number of surviving adults
and young were counted and the surviving adults were removed for determination of dry weight
and identification of males and females. Adult H. azteca from each replicate were placed in 10%
sugar formalin. Under a compound microscope, males were identified by the enlarged second
gnathopod. Organisms were then rinsed with deionized water, dried at 60-90 °C, and weighed.
Reproduction for each replicate was determined by summing the number of young produced on
days 35 and 42 and dividing by the number of females in the test chamber at test termination.
Additional information about the test procedures are provided in the toxicity test report produced
by Ei\SR in Appendix B.
Acute reference toxicant tests were initiated using the lots of//, azteca obtained for this study.
Sodium chloride was the reference toxicant with moderately hard water as the dilution water.
Tests were 96 hours in length; 24-hour data were also collected for use with ENSR's historical 24-
hour reference toxicant database.
3.3 LABORATORY ANALYTICAL PROCEDURES
Sediment samples were analyzed by three different analytical laboratories. PCB congeners,
AVS, and SEM (cadmium, copper, mercury, lead, nickel, and zinc) were analyzed by En Chem
(Madison, WI), whereas particle size was analyzed by the University of Minnesota-Duluth
(UMD). PAH compounds, mercury, cadmium, chromium, copper, lead, nickel, selenium, zinc,
ammonia, and TOC were analyzed by MDH. Each laboratory did its own determination of percent
moisture. Most of the sediment samples were either analyzed or extracted (for organics) within the
holding times specified in the QAPP (Crane 1999b). However, the sediment samples analyzed by
MDH for metals and TOC exceeded the holding times specified in the QAPP (Crane 1999b). The
sediment samples for conventional metals were digested within 34 days to 2.5 months instead of
30 days, and TOC was analyzed within 7 months instead of 40 days. The quality of the data was
acceptable for samples that exceeded the holding times.
12
-------
A subset of 107 PCB congeners were analyzed by capillary column GC/ECD according to En
Chem's standard operating procedures (SOPs) (En Chem 1999a). Eighteen target PAH
compounds were measured by capillary column GC/MS SIM using MDH Method 513 (MDH
1997). Mercury was measured using flow injection atomic absorption spectrometry-cold vapor
technique according to EPA Method 245.1 A (USEPA 1983). The extraction of sediment samples
for total metals was based on EPA Method 200.7 (USEPA 1991); the metals were analyzed using
stabilized temperature graphite furnace atomic absorption spectroscopy (MDH 1993). Ammonia
was determined using QuickChem method 12-107-06-1-A (Lachat Instruments 1994). AVS and
SEM were determined based on En Chem's SOP WCM-63 (En Chem 1999b). AVS was
measured using a spectrophotometer, whereas SEM was measured using an inductively coupled
plasma emission spectrophotometer and cold vapor atomic absorption spectrophotometer (for
mercury only). TOC was measured on a Dohrmann DC-80 TOC analyzer (Rosemount Analytical
1990a,b; 1991). Percent moisture of samples run by MDH was done according to MDH Method
261 (MDH 1995). Particle size was measured using an Horiba LA-900 analyzer (Lodge 1996).
The particle size results were reported as percentages of the following classes: sand and gravel
(>53 (am), coarse silt (53 20 um), medium silt (20 - 5 urn), fine silt (5-2 um), coarse clay (2 - 0.2
um), medium clay (0.2 - 0.08 um), and fine clay (<0.08 um).
3.4 QUALITY ASSURANCE/QUALITY CONTROL
The Quality Assurance/Quality Control (QA/QC) procedures followed in this study adhered to the
site-specific QAPP (Crane 1999b) which was based on guidance given in USEPA (1995). Two
field replicate samples were collected to assess field precision. Analytical data quality objectives
were made to assess analytical precision, accuracy, and completeness. The sampling strategy was
designed to generate representative data for Minnesota Slip. The analytical methods utilized in this
study were similar to methods used in previous investigations so that the data would be directly
comparable to them.
A summary of the analytical quality control checks for chemical and physical parameters, as well
as the test acceptability requirements for sediment toxicity tests are given in the QAPP (Crane
1999b).
13
-------
3.5 DATA ANALYSIS
The analytical data were obtained electronically from each laboratory as cither Excel™ or Lotus™
spreadsheets. The results of analytical duplicates were averaged with the field sample results,
providing all data quality objectives had been met as specified in the QAPP (Crane 1999b). All
manipulations of the data sets were double-checked to ensure that no errors had occurred.
Electronic copies of the sediment toxicity test reports (Appendices A and B) were obtained from
ENSR.
3.5.1 Comparison of Sediment Chemistry Data to Sediment Quality Targets
Sediment chemistry data were compared to Level I and Level II sediment quality targets (SQTs)
adopted for the St. Louis River AOC (Crane et al. 2000) in which:
• Level I SQTs are intended to identify contaminant concentrations below which harmful effects
on sediment-dwelling organisms are unlikely to be observed; and
• Level II SQTs are intended to identify contaminant concentrations above which harmful effects
on sediment-dwelling organisms are likely to be frequently or always observed.
The SQTs were used as a benchmark tool by which to assess the severity of sediment
contamination in Minnesota Slip, and to predict the incidence of toxicity in sediment samples
collected from this slip. For most chemicals, the SQTs are the same as the consensus-based
sediment quality guidelines (SQGs) that were developed by Ingersoll and MacDonald (1999) and
MacDonald et al. (2000a) for evaluating whole sediment chemistry data. As the term implies,
consensus-based SQGs reflect the agreement among the various SQGs by providing an estimate
of their central tendency for SQGs of similar narrative intent. Importantly, the consensus-based
SQGs are considered to provide a unifying synthesis of the existing SQGs, reflect causal rather
than correlative effects, and account for the effects of contaminant mixtures in sediment (Swartz
1999; MacDonald et al. 2000a,b; Di Toro and McGrath 2000).
3.5.2 Calculation of Mean Probable Effect Concentration Quotients
Most of the Level II SQTs were adopted from consensus-based probable effect concentration
(PEC) values (USEPA 2000b). Mean PEC quotients (PEC-Qs), for chemicals with reliable PECs,
were calculated using the methods recommended by USEPA (2000b) and outlined in the box on
the following page. Mean PEC-Qs were calculated using dry weight concentrations of chemical
14
-------
contaminants, and values representing one-half the detection limit were used in instances where
substances were not detected.
Procedure for Calculating Mean PEC-Qs for Chemicals with Reliable PECs (USEPA 2000b)
Step 1. Calculate the individual PEC-Qs for chemicals with reliable PECs (i.e., metals, total PAHs, and
total PCBs). Note: the PEC for total PAHs (instead of the PECs for individual PAHs) was
used in the calculation to avoid double counting the PAH concentration data.
PEC-Q = chemical concentration (in dry wt.)
corresponding PEC value
Step 2. Calculate the mean PEC-Q for the metals with reliable PECs (i.e., arsenic, cadmium,
chromium, copper, lead, nickel, and zinc).
mean PEC-QmeIais = I individual metal PEC-Qs
n
where n = number of metals with reliable PECs for which sediment chemistry data were
available (i.e., 1 to 7).
Step 3. Calculate the mean PEC-Q for the three main classes of chemicals with reliable PECs. Note:
the average PEC-Q for pesticides was not used in this calculation because no matching
sediment chemistry and toxicity data were available for this class of contaminants in Minnesota
Slip.
mean PEC-Q = (mean PEC-Qmelals + PEC-QT PAHs + PEC-QT PCBs)
n
where n = number of classes of chemicals for which sediment chemistry data were
available (i.e., 1 to 3).
3.5.3 Development of Isopleth Figures for Sediment Quality Parameters
Electronic sediment quality data obtained from field sampling conducted in 1998 and 1999 were
merged together in order to examine spatial trends in the data. Isopleth figures, for selected depth
intervals, were generated for the percentage of sand, silt, and clay, TOC, total PAHs [based on the
addition of the 13 low molecular weight (LMW) and high molecular weight (HMW) PAHs], total
PCBs, mercury, lead, and zinc.
15
-------
The steps involved in generating isopleth figures for sediment quality parameters in Minnesota
Slip were as follows:
1. Several different interpolation techniques were evaluated to determine which one was most
appropriate to apply to the Minnesota Slip data set, and also provided flexibility in terms of
modifying and working with the resulting maps. The techniques that were evaluated
included:
• The Inverse Distance Weighted (IDW) interpolator in ArcView Version 3.2, ESRI's
Geographic Information System (GIS) software. This interpolator assumes that each
input point has a local influence that diminishes with distance. It weights the points
closer to the processing cell greater than those farther away.
• The Spline interpolator in ArcView Version 3.2. This is a general purpose interpolation
method that fits a minimum curvature surface through the input points. This method is
best for gently varying surfaces such as elevation, water table heights, or pollutant
concentrations.
• The Natural Neighbor interpolator employed by the U.S. EPA's Fully Integrated
Environmental Location Decision Support (FIELDS) system. This interpolator is a
weighted moving average technique that uses geometric relationships in order to choose
and weight nearby points. It is capable of generating estimates above and below the
maximum and minimum of the original data (i.e., parameter value extrapolation).
• The Natural Neighbor interpolator employed by the University of Tennessee Research
Corporation's Spatial Analysis and Decision Assistance (SADA) computer software
(SADA Version 2.0.108).
The maps were produced using the FIELDS natural neighbor interpolator within ArcView. The
FIELDS interpolator is added into ArcView as an extension, which is an add-on program. The
interpolation extension was downloaded from the FIELDS system web page
(http://www.epa.gov/region5fields/static/pages/index.html). This interpolation method was
deemed to be the most appropriate option for this data set, for the following reasons:
• Natural Neighbor interpolation provides more precise results than IDW interpolation;
• Natural Neighbor interpolation calculates weights depending on the area about each of the
data points (Voronoi polygons) instead of the distance between data points, as with IDW;
• The ArcView software provides the most flexibility for modifying and presenting the results;
and,
16
-------
• Dr. Robert Stewart, University of Tennessee and creator of SADA, recommended that
Natural Neighbor interpolation be used for this site based on discussions held with Dr. Judy
Crane during a SADA training workshop (March 8, 2001).
The isopleth figures were generated in color using a maximum of six isopleth ranges. The
rationale for the selection of isopleth ranges was as follows:
• For particle size and TOC, the isopleth ranges were denoted at even intervals that took into
consideration the range of values observed for each parameter;
• For total PCBs, total PAHs, mercury, lead, zinc, and mean PEC-Qs, the number of ranges
was partly dependent on the distribution of the sediment chemistry data. As a minimum, the
following ranges were included in the isopleth figures:
• 0 to < Level I SQT,
• > Level I SQT to < 1A Level II SQT,
• > '/. Level II SQT to < Level II SQT, and
• > Level II SQT.
If many low level samples were measured, then the lowest range was subdivided as follows:
• 0 to < '/2 Level I SQT, and
• > 1A Level I SQT to < Level I SQT.
If many high level samples were measured, then the upper level range was further subdivided
to make it easier to view the most contaminated areas of the slip. By dividing the isopleth
ranges in this manner, it was easier to discern possible inputs of contaminants into the slip
(e.g., through storm water outfalls) and to identify areas that may require remediation.
3.5.4 Comparison of Mean PEC-Qs
A step-wise approach was used to compare sediment chemistry data in surficial sediment
samples from Minnesota Slip with that in surficial sediments from other sites within the St. Louis
River AOC and other Great Lakes AOCs. The five main steps in this process included:
• Collection, evaluation, and compilation of the existing information on sediment quality
conditions in Minnesota Slip, the St. Louis River AOC, and other Great Lakes AOCs;
• Identification of appropriate sites within the St. Louis River AOC to include in the
comparison;
• Identification of appropriate Great Lakes AOCs to include in the comparison;
17
-------
• Determination of mean PEC-Qs for sediment samples from Minnesota Slip, other areas
within the St. Louis River AOC, and selected Great Lakes AOCs, and;
• Production of box and whisker plots and cumulative distribution frequency (CDF) plots to
graphically present the distribution of mean PEC-Qs within the selected areas.
Each of these steps is described in the following subsections.
3.5.4.1 Collection, Evaluation, and Compilation of Sediment Quality Data
The information used in this comparison was acquired from four different sources. The
information on sediment quality conditions in the St. Louis River AOC (including a small
number of Minnesota Slip sites) was obtained from the existing matching sediment chemistry
and toxicity database developed for the purpose of evaluating numerical SQTs and sediment
contamination in the St. Louis River AOC (Crane et al. 2000). The information on sediment
quality conditions in other Great Lakes AOCs was obtained from the matching sediment
chemistry and toxicity database maintained by MacDonald Environmental Sciences Ltd.
(MESL). Sediment quality data specific to the Indiana Harbor AOC was obtained from the
MESL project database, which included both matching and non-matching sediment chemistry
and toxicity data. All of the data sets that were included in these databases were critically
reviewed and verified to ensure that only high quality data sets were used in the assessment. The
screening criteria that were used to critically review the data provided a means of consistently
evaluating the methods that were used in each study, including the procedures that were used to
collect, handle, and transport sediment samples, the protocols that were applied to conduct
sediment toxicity tests, the methods that were used to determine the concentrations of
contaminants in sediments, and the statistical tests that were applied to the study results
(MacDonald et al. 2000a; Crane et al. 2000). The Minnesota Slip data set was acquired in
electronic format from MPCA files for this site. Only data obtained from surficial sediment
samples were included in the analysis, which were considered to be any samples with an upper
sampling depth of zero.
3.5.4.2 Identification of Appropriate Sites Within the St. Louis River AOC
The matching sediment chemistry and toxicity database that was developed for the St. Louis
River AOC as part of a previous project (Crane et al. 2000) was augmented with all the sediment
chemistry and toxicity data from this project (i.e., including sites that only had sediment
chemistry data available) to yield 198 data records. This database included samples from
18
-------
approximately 30 different reaches within the AOC. The sites selected for this analysis, besides
Minnesota Slip, included: Interlake/Duluth Tar Superfund site, Howards Bay, the embayment
around the Western Lake Superior Sanitary District (WLSSD) and the confluence of Miller and
Coffee Creeks (i.e., the embayment encompassed one hot spot site), and the matching sediment
chemistry and toxicity samples collected for an assessment of contaminated areas in the Duluth-
Supenor Harbor, as well as a reference area (Crane et al. 1997). These sites were selected based
on the criteria that data were available for ten or greater surficial sediment samples. In addition,
the entire St. Louis River AOC was included as an area (both including and excluding the 33
samples collected from Minnesota Slip). The sediment quality data included in the entire St.
Louis River AOC ranged from reference areas to Superfund sites.
3.5.4.3 Identification of Appropriate Great Lakes AOCs
The matching sediment chemistry and toxicity database maintained by MESL contains
information on sediment quality conditions in a total of 21 Great Lakes AOCs. Figure 7 shows
the locations of all Great Lakes AOCs. The other AOCs, besides the St. Louis River, that were
selected for this analysis included: Indiana Harbor, IN; Sheboygan Harbor, WI; Maumee River,
OH; St. Mary's River, ON and MI; Waukegan Harbor, IL; Cuyahoga River, OH; Oswego River,
NY; and the St. Clair River, ON and MI. These areas were selected based on three criteria:
• Availability of data for twenty or greater surficial sediment samples;
• Provision of broad geographic coverage within the Great Lakes; and
• Similar patterns of contamination in Minnesota Slip (i.e., a mixture of PAHs, PCBs, and
metals in the sediments).
3.5.4.4 Determination of Mean PEC-Q Distribution
The extent of chemical contamination in each sediment sample was determined by calculating
mean PEC-Qs as described in Section 3.5.2. Mean PEC-Qs were determined two different ways,
both including and excluding mercury. This approach was selected because, although mercury is
an important chemical of potential concern in the St. Louis River AOC, a reliable PEC is not
available for mercury. USEPA (2000b) indicated that the reason reliable SQGs do not exist for
mercury is because of mercury speciation in sediments and the fact that methyl mercury tends to
bioaccumulate in organisms rather than resulting in direct toxicity.
19
-------
The distribution of mean PEC-Qs in Minnesota Slip, other sites within the St. Louis River AOC,
and selected areas in the Great Lakes was determined by calculating summary statistics for each
of the selected areas, using Microsoft Excel™ software, including:
• Measures of central tendency (mean, median);
• Measures of variation (range, standard deviation); and,
• Measures of position (10th and 90th percentile).
3.5.4.5 Production of Box and Whisker Plots and Cumulative Distribution Frequency Plots
Box and whisker plots were generated within the graphical software program SigmaPlot Version
6.0. Box and whisker plots graph data as a box representing statistical values. The boundary of
the box closest to zero indicates the 25th percentile, a line within the box marks the median, and
the boundary of the box farthest from zero indicates the 75th percentile. Whiskers above and
below the box indicate the 90th and 10th percentiles, respectively.
Cumulative distribution frequency (CDF) plots were also generated using SigmaPlot Version
6.0. The design is such that the mean PEC-Q values are the independent variable (x-axis), and
the number of stations for each area are normalized to 100 (% stations) and represented on the y-
axis. These plots display exactly the same information as do histograms, except histogram
values are summed as the independent (x axis) variable increases, while the CDF plot begins at
0% (left axis) and ends at 100% (right axis). These plots are extremely useful for quickly finding
the mean PEC-Q of a distribution corresponding to any given percentile (such as the median).
3.5.5 Calculation of Sediment Contaminant Volume Estimates
The FIELDS software was used to estimate the volume of total PAHs within each sediment
depth interval (i.e., length x width x depth) and the proportion of that depth interval that
exceeded a mean PEC-Q of 0.6. At mean PEC-Qs of >0.6, the probability of observing chronic
sediment toxicity is higher (i.e., >50%), indicating that sediment-dwelling organisms would be
afforded a lower level of protection (USEPA 2000b). The density of silty sand (i.e., 3257 Ib yd"3)
was used as a default parameter in the calculations.
20
-------
3.6 DATA ARCHIVAL
The sediment quality data obtained from this study will be entered into a new GIS-based sediment
quality database for the St. Louis River (GLNPO grant number GL975363-01). Hard copies of the
data will be archived at the MPCA for five years, upon which time it will be moved off site to the
Minnesota Records Center for 30 years. After that time period, the files will either be returned to
the MPCA, archived at the Minnesota Historical Society, or recycled.
21
-------
CHAPTER 4
RESULTS
4.1 FIELD SAMPLING INFORMATION
The field sampling information for sediment samples collected from Minnesota Slip is given in
Table 3. Alterations in the field sampling plan given in the QAPP (Crane 1999b) were made as
necessary. Plans to sample below two storm water outfalls in the inner slip had to be adjusted
because the sediments contained too much gravel to obtain a cohesive sediment core. Coarse
sediments were also encountered in some areas between the wall of the slip and the S.S. William
A. Irvin. In addition, some alterations in sample sites had to be made because several boats were
still in the marina at the end of September 1999 when most of the field sampling was conducted.
During the 1998 field sampling trip, gas bubbles were observed throughout the sediment cores
collected at 98-MNS-02 and 98-MNS-03, using the Livingston corer. The gas bubbles probably
resulted from the generation of methane gas in the sediments. Gas bubbles were also observed
on the surface of the water where the sediments were collected. During the 1999 field sampling
trip, gas bubbles were also observed throughout the sediment cores collected with a Livingston
corer at: MNS-99-07, MNS-99-09, and MNS-99-10. A few gas bubbles were observed in the
sediment core for MNS-99-08. Gas bubbles were not so easily observed in samples collected
using the Vibrocorer, possibly because the samples were processed more rapidly and the lexan
core tubes were cut into sections to extract the sediments. With the Livingston corer, the
sediments were extruded out of the top of the clear core tube which allowed more time for
observation of the sediments.
Pieces of trash, detritus, and oil were observed in many sediment samples collected from
Minnesota Slip (Table 3). Garbage was removed from each sample prior to homogenizing the
sediment.
4.2 SEDIMENT TOXICITY TESTS
4.2.1 10-d C. teutons Sediment Toxicity Tests
Water quality parameters measured during the test are included in Appendix A. On day 1,
dissolved oxygen concentrations in MNS-99-03 and MNS-99-04 fell to 2.4 and 2.5 mg/L,
22
-------
respectively. Aeration was initiated on day 1 in all test chambers and dissolved oxygen
concentrations remained above 5.0 mg/L for the remainder of the study. Test temperature, as
measured in the test solutions, remained at 23 °C throughout the test. The pH of the test solutions
ranged from 7.0 to 8.5. Ammonia was detectable in the overlying water of all treatments on day 0.
Ammonia concentrations decreased after aeration was initiated. In the ENSR study director's
judgment, these protocol deviations to dissolved oxygen and ammonia did not impact the test
outcome. The physical and chemical data of the overlying water are provided in the toxicity test
report (Appendix A).
At test takedown, it was discovered that four replicates contained no live or dead organisms.
Those replicates were Control B, MNS-99-04 H, MNS-99-05 H, and MNS-99-06 F. Since there
were organisms in all other replicates and these four replicates were in a row after test chamber
randomization (Appendix A), it was the study director's judgment at ENSR that these test
chambers were not seeded with test organisms at test initiation. These four test chambers were,
therefore, not included in the analysis of the data. In addition, 12 organisms were found in MNS-
99-01 replicate H and 19 organisms were found in MNS-00-02 replicate E. It is likely that
replicate E of MNS-99-02 was double-seeded so it was assumed that 20 organisms were put into
the test chamber at test initiation. The number of organisms placed into replicate H of MNS-99-01
is not known. However, due to the good survival of all other MNS-99-01 replicates (not less than
90% survival in any replicate) it was assumed by the ENSR study director that 12 organisms were
placed in this chamber at test initiation. Both of these test chambers were included in the statistical
analysis of the data.
Percent survival and growth of test organisms were determined after ten days of exposure. Growth
was measured both as AFDW and as dry weight. The results are presented in Table 6.
Significant differences were identified with Toxstat Version 3.4 (West, Inc. and Gulley 1994).
Survival data were transformed using arcsine square root. Data normality was evaluated with the
Chi-square goodness of fit test (a = 0.01) due to the large number of treatments and replicates;
homogeneity of variance was evaluated with Bartlert's test (a = 0.01). All data were found to meet
the requirements for parametric analysis; where necessary, data were analyzed using a T-test with
Bonferroni adjustment (a = 0.05) because of unequal numbers of replicates in the treatments.
Comparison of treatment survival to the control was completed by observation since control
survival (71.4%) was less than in any of the treatments (i.e., 81.4% to 95%). Dry weight and
23
-------
AFDW were compared to the control using Toxstat. Dry weight and AFDW in the test treatments
were not significantly reduced relative to the control.
At the time the statistical analysis of the sediment toxicity data for C. tertians was conducted, the
corresponding sediment chemistry data were not yet available. Since there was a gradient of
higher survival (i.e., 95%) to lower survival (i.e., 81.4%) from the outer slip to the inner slip in the
10-d C. tentans toxicity test results (Table 6), the ENSR study director was asked to compare the
survival, dry weight, and AFDW from sediments MNS-99-02 through MNS-99-06 to sediment
MNS-99-01 using Toxstat (Appendix A). MNS-99-01 was suspected of being less contaminated
than the other Minnesota Slip sites in which sediment toxicity tests were conducted, and could
possibly be used as a reference site for the other samples. Survival in sediment MNS-99-05
(81.4%) was significantly reduced relative to survival in sediment MNS-99-01 (95%). There was
no significant reduction in dry weight or AFDW in sediments MNS-99-02, MNS-99-03, MNS-99-
04, or MNS-99-06 relative to sediment MNS-99-01.
Three reference toxicant tests were conducted using C. tentans from one lot number. Twenty-four
hour reference toxicant data from all three tests were included in ENSR's historical reference
toxicant database. Two tests also had acceptable 96-hour data. Because previous reference
toxicant tests conducted at FCETL with this species were only 24 hours in duration, and only three
96-hour tests have been conducted, insufficient data have been generated to calculate historical
95% control limits for the 96-hour endpoint. The C. tentans reference toxicant data sheets and 24-
hour reference toxicant control chart are included in Appendix A.
Judy Crane (MFCA) conducted an external QA/QC review of ENSR's sediment toxicity test report
given in Appendix A to verify the data, including checks on transcriptions of the data from
laboratory sheets to the report, calculations, and statistical procedures that were used. The data
passed this QA/QC evaluation.
4.2.2 28- to 42-d H. azteca Toxicity Tests
Water quality parameters measured during the test are included in Appendix B. Aeration was
initiated on day 0 in all test chambers, because previous testing with C. tentans under the same test
conditions indicated that dissolved oxygen in some of the test sediments might drop below 2.5
mg/L. On day 0 (before organisms were added and aeration initiated), dissolved oxygen
concentrations in sediments MNS-99-01, MNS-99-02, and MNS-99-03 were <4.2 mg/L. All other
dissolved oxygen measurements were >5.0 in all treatments for the remainder of the test. Aeration
24
-------
was terminated on day 28 at the end of the sediment exposure. Test chambers were not aerated
during the water-only exposure phase of the test and dissolved oxygen concentrations remained
greater than 5.3 mg/L for the remainder of the test. On day 11, test temperature in Controls 1, 2,
and 3 and sediments MNS-99-01, MNS-99-02, and MNS-99-03 was 17 °C. This decrease in
temperature was due to a malfunctioning refrigeration/heating unit (Remcor™). The unit was
repaired and test temperatures remained between 22 and 24 °C for the remainder of the test. In the
ENSR study director's judgment, this temperature deviation did not impact the study results. The
pH of the overlying water in the test sediment beakers ranged from 7.3 to 8.6. Ammonia was
detectable in all test sediments, except MNS-99-06, on day 0. Ammonia concentrations decreased
after aeration was initiated. The highest ammonia concentration (38 mg/L) was measured on day 0
in MNS-99-03. Because the test included a "with-sediment" period (days 0-28) and a "without-
sediment" period (days 28-42), water quality data are presented for these separate time periods in
the toxicity test report (Appendix B).
Percent survival and growth of test organisms were determined after 28 days of sediment exposure.
Survival and number of young produced on day 35 was determined. Survival, growth, and
reproduction at test termination (day 42) were also measured. The raw test data are presented in
Appendix B. Survival results are presented in Table 7. Dry weight (per surviving organism)
results are presented in Table 8. Reproduction results are presented in Table 9.
Controls 1, 2, and 3 all met the acceptability criterion of 80% survival on day 28. All endpoints
(survival, reproduction, and dry weight) for these treatments were statistically compared and were
not found to be significantly different. Therefore, data from all three of these controls were
combined and used as the control for comparison to MNS-99-01, MNS-99-02, and MNS-99-03.
Controls 4 and 5 had less than 80% survival on day 28. These controls were not used for
comparison to treatments MNS-99-04, MNS-99-05, and MNS-99-06; only Control 6 was used.
The poor survival in Controls 4 and 5 may have been due to the use of reconstituted water as the
overlying water in these tests. The U.S. EPA guidelines for the 28- to 42-d H. azteca toxicity test
(USEPA 2000a) recommend using either culture water, well water, surface water, or site water as
the overlying water; the use of reconstituted water is specifically not recommended. However, this
toxicity test was not invalidated by using reconstituted water, and the results of this amphipod test
are useable for this study.
Significant differences were identified with Toxstat Version 3.4 (West, Inc. and Gulley 1994).
Survival data were transformed using arcsine square root. Normality was evaluated with the Chi-
Square or Shapiro-Wilks test (a = 0.01); homogeneity of variance was evaluated with Bartlett's
25
-------
test (a = 0.01). Where data met the requirements for parametric analysis; data were analyzed using
analysis of variance with Dunnett's test or (for unequal replicates) a T-test with Bonferroni
adjustment (a = 0.05). Where parametric requirements were not met, data were analyzed with
Steel's Many-One Rank test.
Survival in MNS-99-03 and MNS-99-05 was significantly lower than in the respective controls.
Because survival was significantly lower in these two sediments, they were excluded from analysis
of sublethal endpoints. Neither reproduction nor dry weight of any of the remaining test treatments
were significantly less than in the respective controls.
Three reference toxicant tests were conducted using H. azteca from two different lot numbers
(Appendix B). Twenty-four hour reference toxicant data from all three tests were included in
ENSR's historical reference toxicant database. All three tests had acceptable 96-hour data.
Because previous reference toxicant tests conducted at the FCETL with this species were only 24
hours in duration, and only three 96-hour tests have been conducted, insufficient data have been
generated to calculate reliable historical 95% control limits for the 96-hour endpoint. The H.
azteca reference toxicant data sheets and 24-hour reference toxicant control chart are included in
Appendix B.
Judy Crane (MPCA) conducted an external QA/QC review of ENSR's sediment toxicity test report
given in Appendix B to verify the data, including checks on transcriptions of the data from
laboratory sheets to the report, calculations, and statistical procedures that were used. The data
passed this QA/QC evaluation.
4.3 SEDIMENT CHEMISTRY RESULTS
The sediment quality data assembled for this study met the data quality objectives of the QAPP
(Crane 1999b), except for a few quality control deviations noted in the following sections.
4.3.1 Particle Size
The particle size distribution in Minnesota Slip is presented in Table 10. The composition of the
sediments in Minnesota Slip is heterogeneous in regards to particle size. The percentage of sand
and gravel (>53 urn), silt (53 - 2 urn), and clay (2-0 urn) ranged from 15.6 - 98.3%, 1.4 - 73.9%,
and 0.3 - 13.4% by volume, respectively. A detailed analysis of the three different silt and clay
fractions is given in Table 10, with the medium silt (20-5 um) and coarse clay (2 - 0.2 um)
26
-------
fractions comprising the largest percentage of the respective silt and clay fractions. Very little
medium (0.2 - O.OS urn) or fine (O.OS urn) clay fractions were measured in the sediments. The
median particle size diameter was calculated for samples with <50% sand and was estimated for
samples with >50% sand (Table 10). The surface area of particles in the sediment samples ranged
from 254 - 16,002 cm2/crrr, with very sandy sediments comprising the smallest surface area
(Table 10).
Enough particle size data were available to generate isopleth graphics for the 0-15 cm and 15-30
cm depth segments for the entire slip, and for the 30-45 cm and 45-60 cm depth segments for the
inner slip. The particle size isopleth figures for sand (>53 urn), silt (53-2 jim), and clay (2-0 urn)
visibly show the heterogeneity of the sediments between sites and within the same site at different
depth intervals (Figures 8 to 10, respectively). A few areas of the slip that appeared to be
physically scoured (i.e., MNS-99-06, MNS-99-07 and MNS-99-11) had a very high percentage of
sand (Figure 8) down to 30 cm for which data were available.
4.3.2 TOC
The range of TOC values in the 0-5 cm surficial sediments, in which matching sediment toxicity
tests were run, is given in Table 11. The distribution of TOC throughout Minnesota Slip for the 0-
15, 15-30, and 30-45 cm depth intervals is shown in the isopleth plots in Figure 11. TOC data for
the inner half of the slip is shown in Figure 11 for isopleth plots down to 150 cm. TOC ranged
from 0.56 - 21% in the slip. Detrital matter, wood fibers, and oil were observed in several
sediment samples collected from Minnesota Slip (Table 3) which contributed to the TOC
measurements. The highest percentage of TOC (14-21%) was observed at MNS-99-04 between
the 60-75, 75-90, and 90-120 cm depth segments.
4.3.3 Total PCBs
Total PCBs were determined by adding up the individual or coeluting congeners in each sample.
A value of one-half the detection limit was used for nondetectable PCS congener data. The range
of total PCB concentrations in the 0-5 cm surficial sediments, in which matching sediment toxicity
tests were run, is shown in Table 11. Total PCB concentrations were between the Level I and
Level II SQT values in the 0-15 cm isopleth figure (Figure 12). The highest total PCB
concentrations were present in the middle part of the slip. The lowest PCB concentrations were
observed at two sites with very sandy sediments (MNS-99-06 and MNS-99-11; Table 11 and
Figure 12).
-------
The most predominant PCB congeners included BZ numbers (Ballschmiter and Zell 1980):
• 110/77: 2,3,3'4',6-pentachlorobiphenyl / 3,3\4,4'-tetrachlorobiphenyl;
• 47: 2,2',4,4'-tetrachlorobiphenyl;
• 138/163: 2,2',3,4,4',5'-hexachlorobiphenyl / 2,3,3',4',5,6-hexachlorobiphenyl;
• 101/90: 2,2',4,5,5'-pentachlorobiphenyl/2,2',3,4',5-pentachlorobiphenyl; and
• 66/95: 2,3',4,4'-tetrachlorobiphenyl / 2,2',3,5',6-pentachlorobiphenyl.
Congeners listed together indicate co-eluting congeners that cannot be separated using GC/ECD.
The full assemblage of PCB congener data from this study will be entered into a new GIS-based
sediment quality database for the St. Louis River AOC.
4.3.4 PAHs
A summary of the results for individual PAH compounds is given in Table 12. The relative
percent difference (RPD) was calculated for field replicate samples. The RPD was within the 50%
QC limit for most of the replicates, except for several PAHs in MNS-99-13R (15-30 cm) and
MNS-99-04R (45-60 cm). This exceedance of the QC limit for RPD was most likely due to the
heterogeneous distribution of PAH compounds between field samples and replicates, rather than
due to a problem with the analytical precision of the PAH method. Therefore, these field replicate
samples were treated as separate samples, except that they were averaged for the purpose of
creating contaminant isopleth figures.
Of the 18 PAH compounds, Level I and Level II SQT values were available for 13 compounds
corresponding to 7 LMW PAHs (2-methylnaphthalene, acenapthene, acenapthylene, anthracene,
fluorene, naphthalene, and phenanthrene) and 6 HMW PAHs (benz[a]anthracene, benzo[a]pyrene,
chrysene, dibenzo[a,h]anthracene, fluoranthene, and pyrene). Of these 13 compounds, most of
them exceeded the corresponding Level II SQT value in most depth intervals, except for 2-
methylnaphthalene, acenapthylene, and naphthalene which exceeded the corresponding Level II
SQT value mostly in deeper sediments (i.e., below 60 cm).
The percentage of PAH compounds comprising the LMW and HMW PAHs is given in Table 13.
Phenanthrene made up over 66% of the mean LMW PAHs, whereas acenapthene comprised the
lowest percentage (0.65%) of LMW PAHs. The mix of HMW PAHs was more widely distributed
with fluoranthene (29.5%), pyrene (27.3%), chrysene (14.7%), benz[a]anthracene (13.3%), and
28
-------
benzo[a]pyrene (12.5%) comprising the majority of the mean HMW PAH concentrations for all
sites and depth intervals for which PAH data were collected.
A summary of the concentrations of LMW, HMW, and total PAHs (based on the addition of the 13
LMW and HMW compounds) is presented in Table 14. Total PAHs ranged from 7.07 - 1,188
mg/kg dry wt., with sites MNS-99-11 (0-15 cm) and MNS-99-04 (75-90 cm) containing the lowest
and highest total PAH concentrations, respectively. Nearly all sites exceeded the Level II SQT
value. The HMW PAHs comprised, on average, 74.5% (±5.8 %) of total PAHs (Table 15). The
percentage composition of HMW and LMW PAHs was fairly consistent in Minnesota Slip, and the
concentration of HMW PAHs can be predicted from the concentration of LMW PAHs based on
the following regression equation:
HMW PAHs (mg/kg dry wt.) = 1.43[LMW PAHs (mg/kg dry wt.)] + 20.7 r2 = 0.9876 (n = 64)
Total PAH data were available to generate isopleth figures for the entire slip for the 0-15 and 15-30
cm depth segments (Figure 13). For the other depth intervals down to 120 cm, isopleth figures
were generated for the inner half of the slip (Figure 13). The distribution of total PAHs was
heterogeneous with hot spots of contamination at depth (i.e., MNS-99-14 in the 30-45 cm segment
and MNS-99-04 in the 60-75 and 75-90 cm depth segments). The 15-30 cm isopleth figure
showed an odd distribution of total PAHs in the 50 to < 100 mg/kg range, probably due to the
forcing of the data through a data point of 50 mg/kg (Figure 13). The distribution of the >100
mg/kg range in the 30-45 cm isopleth figure may be a more isolated hot spot than shown, but the
interpolation is done based on the available data (Figure 13).
Several long cores were collected from Minnesota Slip in order to look at the historical distribution
of contaminants. Although radioisotope dating was not done, data from the cores can still be used
to discern patterns of contamination in the slip (e.g., are newer surficial sediments cleaner than
historical sediments?). Figures 14-17 show the historical distribution of total PAHs in sediment
cores collected from MNS-99-15, MNS-99-04, MNS-99-03, and MNS-99-13, respectively. The
position of these cores represents a transect of sites from the inner slip to near the middle of the
slip. Similar figures for MNS-99-04R and MNS-99-13R are shown in Appendix C. The most
contaminated sediments were located in the 60-75 cm and 75-90 cm segments of MNS-99-04
(Figure 15). The Level II SQT was exceeded in each depth interval analyzed for PAHs at these
sites (Figures 14-17). For each of these sites, the surficial (0-15 cm) sediments were either similar
or somewhat exceeded the concentration of total PAHs in the 15-30 cm segment (Figures 14-17).
The deepest sediment core collected was at MNS-99-15; total PAHs were still very high (168
29
-------
mg/kg dry wt.) in the bottom (1.8-2.1 m) segment of this core. Deeper sediment cores could not
be collected with the Vibrocorer, because the Vibrocorer could not penetrate through dense sand.
Thus, we were not able to determine the depth at which pre-industrial concentrations of total PAHs
could be found in Minnesota Slip.
4.3.5 Ammonia Nitrogen
Ammonia nitrogen was only measured in surficial (0-5 cm) sediments in which matching sediment
toxicity tests were run (i.e., MNS-99-01 though MNS-99-06). Ammonia nitrogen ranged from 7.8
- 71.4 mg/kg dry wt., with sites MNS-99-06 and MNS-99-02 containing the lowest and highest
nitrogen concentrations, respectively (Table 11).
4.3.6 Total Metals: Cadmium, Chromium, Copper, Nickel, and Selenium
Cadmium, chromium, copper, nickel, and selenium were only measured in six surficial (0-5 cm)
sediments in which matching sediment toxicity tests were run (i.e., MNS-99-01 though MNS-99-
06). Cadmium was not detected in any of these samples, so one-half the reporting level was
reported in Table 11. Selenium was also not detected in MNS-99-02 through MNS-99-06; one-
half the reporting level was reported for these samples (Table 1 1). MNS-99-06 had the lowest
concentrations of chromium, copper, and nickel in the surficial (0-5 cm) sediments (Table 11),
whereas MNS-99-02 had the highest concentrations of these metals. While exceedances of the
Level I SQTs were observed for metals at some of these sites, the corresponding Level II SQTs
were not exceeded (Table 11). The interpretation of cadmium concentrations should be made with
caution since one-half of the cadmium reporting limit for samples MNS-99-01 through MNS-99-
06 exceeded the corresponding Level I SQT value.
4.3.7 AVS and SEM
AVS and SEM were only measured in surficial (0-5 cm) sediments in which matching sediment
toxicity tests were run (i.e., MNS-99-01 through MNS-99-06). AVS ranged from 0.245 - 5.15
umole/g dry wt., with sites MNS-99-06 and MNS-99-01 containing the lowest and highest AVS
concentrations, respectively (Table 11). MNS-99-04 and MNS-99-06 also had the lowest total
SEM concentrations (2.92 umole/g dry wt.), whereas MNS-99-05 had the highest total SEM
concentration (8.47 umole/g dry wt.) (Table 11). The only site in which SEM did not exceed AVS
was MNS-99-01 (Table 11). MNS-99-05 and MNS-99-03 had the greatest exceedances of SEM
over AVS.
30
-------
4.3.8 Mercury
The range of mercury concentrations in the 0-5 cm surficial sediments, in which matching
sediment toxicity tests were run (i.e., MNS-99-01 through MNS-99-06), is shown in Table 11.
Mercury data were available to generate isopleth plots for the full slip down to 60 cm, and in the
inner half of the slip down to 120-150 cm (Figure 18). Mercury ranged from 0.016 2.2mg/kgdry
wt, with sites MNS-99-06 (0-5 cm) and MNS-99-15 (1.5-1.8 m) containing the lowest and highest
mercury concentrations, respectively. The corresponding Level I SQT was exceeded in all depth
intervals, and the Level II SQT was exceeded in the 15-30, 60-75, 75-90, 90-120, and 120-150 cm
depth segments (Figure 18), as well as in the 1.5-1.8 and 1.8-2.1 m segments of MNS-99-15
(Figure 19). Most mercury concentrations ranged between 0.18 - 0.55 mg/kg dry wt. A hot spot of
mercury contamination occurred in the 15-30 cm segment in the inner quarter of the slip (MNS-99-
03), but the source of this contamination was not known. The extent of mercury contamination
also increased in the 60-75 and 75-90 cm segments in the inner slip (Figure 18), and higher
mercury concentrations were observed in deeper core segments of MNS-99-15 (Figure 19), MNS-
99-04 (Figure 20), MNS-99-03 (Figure 21), and MNS-99-13 (Figure 22). Refer to Appendix C for
depth profiles of mercury at MNS-99-04R and MNS-99-13R.
4.3.9 Lead
The range of lead concentrations in the 0-5 cm surficial sediments, in which matching sediment
toxicity tests were run (i.e., MNS-99-01 through MNS-99-06), is shown in Table 11. Lead data
were available to generate isopleth plots for the full slip down to 60 cm, and in the inner slip down
to the 120-150 cm depth segment (Figure 23). The concentration of lead exceeded the Level II
SQT in each of these depth segments (Figure 23), as well as in the 1.5-1.8 and 1.8-2.1 m depth
segments of MNS-99-15 (Figure 24). Less than detectable concentrations of lead (20 mg/kg dry
wt.) were observed at MNS-99-06 (0-5 cm; Table 11) and MNS-99-11 (0-15 cm); one-half the
detection limit (10 mg/kg dry wt.) was used for these sites. The highest concentration of lead (880
mg/kg dry wt.) was observed at MNS-99-09 (15-30 cm). The 0-15 cm depth segment was
generally less contaminated than the deeper sections (Figure 23). In addition, the outer slip and
MNS-99-07 (in the inner slip) were less contaminated than other areas of the slip (Figure 23). The
distribution of lead was heterogeneous throughout the slip and core segments (Figures 23-27).
Refer to Appendix C for depth profiles of lead at MNS-99-04R and MNS-99-13R.
31
-------
4.3.10 Zinc
The range of zinc concentrations in the 0-5 cm surficial sediments, in which matching sediment
toxicity tests were run (i.e., MNS-99-01 through MNS-99-06), is shown in Table 11. Zinc data
were available to generate isopleth plots for the full slip down to 60 cm, and in the inner slip down
to 120-150 cm (Figure 28). Zinc ranged from 41 to 1,110 mg/kg dry wt., with sites MNS-99-11
(0-15 cm) and MNS-99-04R (1.2-1.5 m), containing the lowest and highest zinc concentrations,
respectively. The corresponding Level I SQT (120 mg/kg dry wt.) was exceeded in each depth
interval (Figure 28). The Level II SQT (460 mg/kg dry wt.) was exceeded in the 30-45, 60-75, 75-
90, 90-120, and 120-150 cm depth segments (Figure 28), as well as in the 1.5-1.8 and 1.8-2.1 m
depth segments of MNS-99-15 (Figure 29). The distribution of zinc was heterogeneous in the 0-
15, 15-30, and 30-45 cm depth segments (Figures 28-32), and the distribution of zinc appeared to
follow more of a gradient of decreasing zinc concentrations from the inner slip to the middle of the
slip in deeper core segments (Figure 28). Refer to Appendix C for depth profiles of zinc at MNS-
99-04R and MNS-99-13R.
4.3.11 Mean PEC-Qs
Mean PEC-Qs were calculated for each site in Minnesota Slip (Table 16), although the number of
chemicals included in the mean PEC-Q calculations varied due to the availability of chemistry
data. For example, PCBs were only measured in the 0-5 cm and 0-15 cm depth segments and were
thus only included in the mean PEC-Q calculations for these depth segments. Mercury was not
included in the calculations given in Table 16, because this chemical does not have a reliable PEC
value (MacDonald et al. 2000a). Mean PEC-Qs ranged from 0.15 to 26.9, with sites MNS-99-11
(0-15 cm) and MNS-99-04 (mean value for 75-90 cm) containing the lowest and highest mean
PEC-Q values, respectively.
Isopleth figures for the entire slip were made for core sections down to 60 cm, and for the inner
slip down to 90-120 cm (Figure 33). The mean PEC-Qs exceeded 0.1 (equivalent to the Level I
SQT) at all sites and depth intervals, and exceeded 0.6 (equivalent to the Level II SQT) in
portions of all depth intervals. The highest mean PEC-Q values were observed at MNS-99-04
(mean values) in the 60-75, 75-90, and 90-120 cm segments.
32
-------
CHAPTERS
DISCUSSION
5.1 PATTERN OF CONTAMINATION IN MINNESOTA SUP
The results of this investigation provided a more representative data set of sediment chemistry
and physical data in Minnesota Slip than had been collected in previous studies (Table 2). The
isopleth plots of sediment quality data demonstrate the heterogeneous pattern of particle size
(Figures 8-10), TOC (Figure 11), total PCBs (Figure 12), total PAHs (Figure 13), mercury
(Figure 18), lead (Figure 23), and zinc (Figure 28), both spatially and temporally (i.e., with
depth), in Minnesota Slip. This lack of a well-defined pattern of contamination is indicative of
multiple sources of contaminants to the slip, such as from: storm water outfalls, unknown fill
material that was used to fill in part of the inner slip, historical dumping of material into the slip,
probable sediment mixing caused by bioturbation, wind-induced waves, and movement of the
S.S. William A. Irvin during storms, possible advective transport and deposition of contaminated
suspended sediment particles from other areas of the harbor into Minnesota Slip, possible land
runoff of contaminants directly into the slip, possible inputs of contaminants (e.g., oil, gasoline)
into the water column from boat operations in the slip, and possible groundwater transport of
contaminants into the slip. Due to the small size of Minnesota Slip, current and historical air
deposition of contaminants directly into the slip would probably comprise a small proportion of
the contaminant load to the slip; air deposition of contaminants in the St. Louis River watershed
that ultimately deposit in Minnesota Slip would probably be represented by water-borne
transport of contaminants into the slip.
Gas bubbles were observed in several sediment samples collected from Minnesota Slip, and
bubbles were observed breaking at the surface of the water. We do not know if gas formation
may promote mixing in the sediment at Minnesota Slip or serve as a transport mechanism for
contaminants that partition to bubbles during transport through the sediments to the water
column and overlying air. Adams el al. (1990 as reported in Jcpscn et al. 2000) found that gas
generation in fine-grained sediments significantly affected the flux of organic chemicals from
sediments. High concentrations of gas, up to 5% by volume, have been noted at another Great
Lakes site (Grand River, MI). Jepsen el al. (2000) determined that for reconstructed Grand River
sediments at approximately 20 "C, the effects of gas were to decrease the sediment densities by
up to 10%, to increase the erosion rates by as much as a factor of sixty, and to decrease the
33
-------
critical shear stress for erosion by as much as a factor of twenty compared to sediments with no
gas present. At lower temperatures, these effects decreased significantly. If the generation ot gas
in Minnesota Slip sediments happened to increase erosion rates, then this might hasten the
effects of bioturbation as a sediment and contaminant transport mechanism. Mean densities ot
T
Tubificidae in Minnesota Slip have been found on the order of 9,220 to 50,700 organisms, nr
(Crane et al. 1997). Thibodeaux et al. (2001) have observed that compared to molecular
diffusion, the bioturbation-driven soluble fraction transport of hydrophobia organic chemicals
from bed sediment is rapid, and it increases with increasing partitioning on the particle phase.
Thus, there may be a greater potential for the transport of hydrophobia organic contaminants
(e.g., PCBs, PAHs) from the sediments to the overlying water in Minnesota Slip during the
summer when the water temperature is warmer and benthic abundance is probably higher. Gas
bubble formation is currently being studied at the Interlake/Duluth Tar Superfund site in the
Duluth Harbor to assess whether it would adversely impact the integrity of a proposed sediment
cap.
The deepest sediment core sample obtained in this study was 2.15 m long at MNS-99-15. It was
not possible to obtain deeper sediment cores because the Vibrocorer could not penetrate through
the dense sand. Thus, in this study, we were not able to determine the sediment depth at which
cleaner (i.e., mean PEC-Q <0.1) sediments were present under contaminated sediments in
Minnesota Slip. Since fill material of an unknown origin has been dumped in the slip in the past,
there could possibly be more contaminated material under the sand layer that stopped the
Vibrocorer. Scott Cienia\vski (GLNPO, personal communication, 1999) has suggested that a
Russian peat corer would probably be able to penetrate through the sand to obtain a deeper core
segment. The water depth in the navigation channels in the Duluth-Superior Harbor is
maintained at 27 feet; it would be prudent to sample the sediments in Minnesota Slip down to a
combined water column and sediment depth of 27 feet. Given that the percentage composition
of PAH compounds was fairly consistent throughout the slip, a PAH fluorescence screening
technique (calibrated to the mix of PAHs observed in Minnesota Slip) could provide an effective
screening tool for quickly assessing deeper sediment core sections for contamination.
Particle size was not a good predictor of contamination in Minnesota Slip, either of total PAHs
or of mean PEC-Qs. There was no relationship (i.e., r2 O.004) between single regression
analyses of either total PAHs, LMW PAHs, HMW PAHs. or mean PEC-Q with the percentage of
sand and gravel, silt, or clay. In contrast, a linear relationship between total PAHs and the
percentage of silt (r2 = 0.802) was found in nearby Slip C (Crane 1999a). The lack of a
relationship between these parameters in Minnesota Slip may be due to oily sediments. Thus,
34
-------
some samples that had very sandy sediments were still contaminated with PAHs due to oil
coating the sand. In addition, very high mean PEC-Q values (i.e., >5) were observed in 7
sediment samples in which the percentage of silt ranged from 25-55%, thus leading to a scattered
distribution of the data.
PAHs are a principal contaminant of concern in Minnesota Slip due to the degree of their
exceedance of corresponding Level II SQT values for individual PAHs and total PAHs (Tables
12 and 14). The sediments in Minnesota Slip were more contaminated with PAHs than the
sediments in nearby Slip C. The ratio of either LMW or HMW PAHs to total PAHs was
calculated from sediment quality data collected in 1997 from Slip C (Crane 1999a). A similar
percentage and range of dominant LMW and HMW PAHs were observed in Slip C (Table 17) as
for Minnesota Slip. In addition, the composition of LMW and HMW PAHs was similar at both
sites, with a slightly higher percent composition of the more volatile 2-methylnaphthalene and
naphthalene in Slip C (Table 17) than Minnesota Slip (Table 13). A leaking underground oil line
contaminated the soil and groundwater by Slip C during 1990 and 1991 (Crane 1999a); this
leakage could have contributed to the more volatile PAHs observed in Slip C.
There may be a common source material of PAHs, such as from coal combustion products, that
may have contaminated both slips. The Duluth/Superior Harbor area had a high historical use of
coal during the past 100 years through the storage and transport of coal along the waterfront, the
presence of several coal gasification plants, and the manufacture of coal-powered ships,
especially during WWI. Throughout the United States, loading of PAHs to the atmosphere
increased during the WWII era due to an increase in coal consumption; this increase was
accentuated in the Great Lakes due to their proximity to the industrial centers (Schneider et al.
2001). The MPCA has found coal tar in the soils of Canal Park, including some areas that have
been paved over and made into parking lots. Further upstream, the U.S. Steel Company ran a
steel smelting operation from 1915-1973, in which the plant also produced coke for use in steel
making. This site is now a Superfund site. Another Superfund site, the Interlake/Duluth Tar
Superfund site, is located along the St. Louis River and includes Stryker Bay and two nearby
boat slips. The MPCA named four companies, including the Interlake Iron Company, as being
responsible for the investigation and clean-up of contaminated sediments at this Superfund site.
The Interlake portion of the site was used for manufacturing purposes from the later 1800s to the
early 1960s, including coking and by-product recovery, iron smelting and manufactured gas
production (Service Environmental and Engineering 2001). The last coke plant ceased operation
in 1961. Some of the rest of the site was used for coal tar refining and tar product manufacturing
until 1948. Coke emissions are typically enriched in HMW PAH compounds, whereas lower
35
-------
temperature combustion is dominated by the LMW PAHs. Therefore, the preponderance of
BMW PAHs in the sediments of Minnesota Slip and Slip C are consistent with coke-type
material that may have been used or disposed of in the vicinity of both slips. The preponderance
of HMW PAHs at both slips is also influenced by the physical-chemical properties of PAHs.
LMW PAHs are more volatile and would partition more readily to pore water and the overlying
water.
Another source of PAHs and PCBs may come from street dust that is washed into the storm
sewers draining into Minnesota Slip. For example, Tokyo street dust, containing PAHs from
asphalt, automobile exhaust, and tire wear residue, with contributions from used motor oil and
gasoline spills, was a rich (mg/kg by weight) source of PAHs (Takada et al. 1991 as cited by Van
Metre et al. 2001). Elevated concentrations of PCB congeners have been found in combined
sewer overflows (CSOs) draining into the Buffalo River, NY as a result of street dust and dirt
washing off into the CSOs (Loganathan et al. 1997).
Mercury, lead, and zinc also result from the combustion of fossil fuels and can be found in street
dust. Zinc is added during the manufacture of automobile tires in the form of zinc oxide, as an
accelerator in the vulcanization process (Christensen and Guinn 1979 as cited in Callender and
Rice 2000). Thus, as tires abrade during road travel, zinc and PAHs contained in the abraded
rubber contribute to street dust. Automobile exhaust emissions of tetraethyl lead contributed to
major sources of lead to the environment from 1950 to the 1970s (USEPA 1993 as cited in
Callender and Rice 2000). Lead and zinc are also a significant component of coal fly ash
emissions (Thornton 1995 as cited in Callender and Rice 2000). Surficial concentrations of lead
in Minnesota Slip have decreased compared to deeper sediment cores, probably in part due to the
phase-out of leaded gasoline in the 1970s. However, concentrations of lead still exceed the
Level II SQT in much of the surficial sediments, possibly due to fossil fuel-derived sources.
Zinc has remained elevated in the surficial sediments of Minnesota Slip, possibly due to
increased motor vehicle traffic in the central hillside area of Duluth, including a portion of
Interstate 35. The storm water system draining the central hillside area flows into Minnesota
Slip, mainly through two storm water outfalls. Tourism and population levels have also
increased in the Duluth and North Shore area of Lake Superior, especially during the past 15
years, which has resulted in increased traffic along Interstate 35 and the Canal Park area by
Minnesota Slip. Callender and Rice (2000) found that population density in the southeast U.S.
was strongly related to traffic density and was a predictor of lead and zinc concentrations in the
environment derived from anthropogenic sources. A similar scenario may be taking place in
36
-------
other urban areas of the country. Although a contaminant loading study has not been done for
storm water draining into Minnesota Slip, anecdotal observations suggest water quality may be
degraded by oil and grease, mud, and garbage that enters the slip from storm water outfalls
during rain events. For Minnesota Slip, it would be beneficial to implement BMPs to pretreat
storm water to reduce potential contaminant inputs to the slip.
A railroad yard was historically located on the west side of Minnesota Slip, and it was used for
loading and unloading cargo to and from ships moored in the slip. Some cargo could have been
spilled or accidentally dropped into Minnesota Slip, thus contributing pollutants to the slip. At
the USX Superfund site in Duluth, mercury was regularly replaced in the nearby rail yard
switches and disposed of in a pit on the site. It is not know if a similar practice could have taken
place at the railroad yard by Minnesota Slip and if any mercury was directly disposed of in the
slip.
The sediments in Minnesota Slip were most likely contaminated from several different sources,
including nonpoint runoff. A potentially responsible party (PRP) is not immediately apparent for
this site. However, the MPCA's Northern Assessment and Response Unit in Duluth should look
into this issue further to determine if there are any historical businesses that could be designated
as PRPs for Minnesota Slip.
5.2 INTEGRATION OF SEDIMENT CHEMISTRY AND TOXICITY RESULTS
Sublethal effects to growth and/or reproduction were not found in the sediment toxicity tests
conducted for this study. However, in terms of survival, the 28- to 42-d sediment toxicity tests
with H. azteca provided a more sensitive test than the 10-d C. tentans toxicity test. Significant
toxicity was observed at sites MNS-99-03 and MNS-99-05 for the amphipod test (Table 18).
Based on a North American data set, the 28- to 42-d amphipod test has also been found to be
more sensitive than either the 10-d amphipod or midge tests (Ingersoll et al. 2001), and use of it
would reduce the potential for false negatives at low mean PEC-Qs. In addition, use of these
chronic amphipod tests increases the potential for detecting toxicity at moderate mean PEC-Qs
(Ingersoll et al. 2001).
The corresponding mean PEC-Q values for sediment samples in which toxicity tests were
conducted (i.e., MNS-99-01 to MNS-99-06) ranged from 0.68 -1.1 (Table 18). A previous
study of the predictive ability of mean PEC-Qs, based on the results of 10-d C. tentans tests in
the St. Louis River AOC, corresponded to 20% toxicity (n = 20) at mean PEC-Q ranges of >0.5
37
-------
to <1.0 (Crane et al. 2000). Although no significant toxicity was observed in the 10-d C. tentans
sediment toxicity tests conducted for this study when compared to the control, the control
survival (although acceptable) was much lower (71.4%) than the sample treatment survival,
especially in sample MNS-99-01 (95% survival).
As mentioned in Section 4.2.1, the corresponding sediment chemistry data were not yet available
at the time the statistical analysis of the sediment toxicity data for C. tentans was conducted.
Since there was a gradient of higher survival (95%) to lower survival (81.4%) from the outer slip
to the inner slip in the 10-d C. tentans test results (Table 6), the ENSR study director was also
asked to compare the survival and growth results of MNS-99-02 through MNS-99-06 to MNS-
99 01 (i.e., outer slip sample). MNS-99-01 was suspected of being less contaminated than the
other Minnesota Slip sites in which sediment toxicity tests were conducted. Survival in MNS-
99-05 was significantly reduced relative to survival in MNS-99-01 (this would result in 20%
toxicity for a mean PEC-Q range of >0.5 to <1.0). There was no significant reduction in dry
weight or AFDW in MNS-99-02 through MNS-99-06 relative to MNS-99-01. However, when
the sediment chemistry data became available for these sites, MNS-99-01 was found to have a
mean PEC-Q value similar to most of the other sediment toxicity sites (Table 18). Therefore,
MNS-99-01 could not be used as an internal reference site. These statistical comparisons should
be used in an anecdotal way that if the control survival had been >95%, then sample MNS-99-05
would have been designated as toxic for the 10-d C. tentans test.
In examining the surficial sediment chemistry results for MNS-99-01, MNS-99-03, and MNS-
99-05, all three sites had a similar percentage of sand, silt, and clay, as well as TOC and
ammonia nitrogen (Table 11). Concentrations of total metals, PCBs, and PAHs (Tables 11 and
14) were also similar for these three sites. The main differences in these sites were with the AVS
and total SEM concentrations. MNS-99-01 was the only one of the six sites that had a higher
concentration of AVS than total SEM (Table 11). MNS-99-05 and MNS-99-03 had the greatest
exceedance of total SEM compared to AVS (i.e., >5 umole/g dry wt.; Table 11). Assuming that
AVS binds a molar equivalent of SEM metal (Di Toro et al. 1990), the fraction of SEM metals in
excess of AVS concentrations may be available for uptake by benthic biota. Most benthic
organisms, including those used in toxicity tests, survive in sediments that have a thin oxidized
surface layer and then an anoxic layer. The anoxic layer can have higher AVS concentrations
that would reduce the metal activity to which these organisms are exposed (Di Toro et al. 1992).
When SEM exceeds AVS by a factor of 5 (on a molar basis), a higher incidence of toxicity (80%
to 90%) has been observed in freshwater and saltwater sediment amphipod tests (USEPA 1997).
Thus, [SEM] - [AVS] >5 is a better predictor of sediment toxicity to amphipods. A sediment
38
-------
toxicity identification evaluation procedure could be used to determine the classes of chemicals
responsible for toxicity in Minnesota Slip.
The 28- to 42-d sediment toxicity tests with H. a:teca were the first tests of this kind conducted
in the St. Louis River AOC. In the future, reconstituted water should not be used as the
overlying water in this sediment toxicity test. For samples corresponding to mean PEC-Qs of
>0.5 to <1.0, two of five sites (40%; MNS-99-03 and MNS-99-05) were toxic to amphipods at a
= 0.05 (Table 18). In comparison, the incidence of toxicity in the same type of toxicity test and
mean PEC-Q range was 56% (n = 27) in samples collected from North America (USEPA
2000b). The lower toxicity observed in the Minnesota Slip sediments may be due to a lower
percentage of LMW PAHs observed in these samples compared to the Norh American data set
(USEPA 2000b). Preliminary analyses of the USEPA (2000b) database indicate a trend of lower
correct classification of the toxicity attributed to PAHs in samples with a lower percentage of
LMW PAHs (<40%) compared to samples with a higher percentage of LMW PAHs (>40%;
Chris Ingersoll, U.S. Geological Survey, personal communication, 2002). Therefore, the mean
PEC-Qs described in MacDonald et al. (2000a) may over predict the toxicity of samples with
PAHs primarily from combustion sources (i.e., with PAHs dominated by HMW PAHs).
Mercury exceeded the Level I SQT in a large portion of the surficial sediments of Minnesota Slip
(Figure 18). The ecological and toxicological effects of mercury are strongly dependent on the
chemical species present. High concentrations of inorganic mercury may depress methylmercury
production or may favor demethylation; methymercury levels in sediments rarely exceed a
threshold value of 1% (Ullrich et al. 2001). No bioaccumulation of mercury was found in 28-d
bioaccumulation tests with Lumbriculus variegatus that used surficial sediments from Minnesota
Slip (AScI Corporation 1999). However, fish consumption advisories are in effect for selected
fish species in the St. Louis River AOC because of elevated concentrations of mercury found in
the tissue of the fish (MDH 2000).
Although total PAH concentrations exceeded the corresponding PEC value (i.e., 23 mg/kg dry
wt.) in the six sediment samples in which sediment toxicity tests were conducted (Table 18),
significant toxicity was not always observed. Given the historical usage of coal-derived products
along the Duluth waterfront, some PAHs in Minnesota Slip may be associated with soot-type
particles, whereas other PAHs are most likely associated with sand, silt, and clay particles.
Heterogeneous particle types in sediment exhibit much different amounts and binding of PAHs.
Room-temperature PAH desorption kinetic studies on separated sediment fractions from
Milwaukee Harbor, WI revealed slow desorption rates for coal-derived particles and fast
39
-------
desorption rates for clay/silt particles (Ghosh ct al. 2001). These studies reveal that PAHs
associated with coal-derived particles aged over several decades in the field appear to be far from
reaching an equilibrium sorption state due to the extremely slow diffusivities through the
polymer-like coal matrix (Ghosh et al. 2001).
Some PAHs may contribute to dioxin-like activity in sediments, and Eljarrat et al. (2001) found
benzo[k]fluoranthene to be the most potent PAH in their study to calculate total toxicity
equivalent values for PAHs using the toxicity equivalent factors proposed by the literature.
Benzo[k]fluoranthene was measured in this study (Table 12), although not all of this compound
may be bioavailable to organisms. For example, humic substances make PAHs less bioavailable
for aquatic biota, particularly in the pore water and water column. Perminova et al. (2001) found
that the aromatics enriched humic materials are the most efficient detoxifying agents in relation
to PAHs. The most abundant source of such material is brown coal which contains up to 70-80%
of humic acids (Perminova et al. 2001). Black coal has probably been more heavily used in the
Duluth-Superior area because it contains much less water than brown coal.
5.3 COMPARISON OF MEAN PEC-Qs IN MINNESOTA SLIP WITH OTHER SITES
The distribution of mean PEC-Qs in surficial sediments of Minnesota Slip was compared to other
sites in the St. Louis River AOC for which more than ten data points were available in the St.
Louis River AOC matching sediment chemistry and toxicity database (Crane et al. 2001; Table
19). Other contaminated areas, such as the USX Superfund site and Hog Island Inlet/Newton
Creek, were excluded from this comparison because there were not more than ten data points of
matching sediment chemistry and toxicity data available for these sites. The results of Table 19
are presented graphically in Figure 34 as box and whisker plots. The Interlake/Duluth Tar
Superfund site had, by far, the highest mean PEC-Q values in the St. Louis River AOC. The
average mean PEC-Q values for Minnesota Slip were slightly less than for the entire St. Louis
River AOC, which included sediment quality data ranging from reference areas to Superfund
sites. Howards Bay, and the embayment by WLSSD and the confluence of Miller and Coffee
Creeks, had similar average mean PEC-Qs that were over half the average of Minnesota Slip.
The results of a hot spot investigation in the Duluth-Superior Harbor conducted in 1994 (Crane
et al. 1997), which excluded the Minnesota Slip results, comprised the lower mean PEC-Qs of
this comparison. This hot spot study (Crane et al. 1997) did not include highly contaminated
areas like the Interlake/Duluth Tar and USX Superfund sites, or Hog Island Inlet/Newton Creek.
In addition, a reference area in Kimball's Bay was included in this hot spot study (Crane et al.
1997).
40
-------
Figure 35 shows the CDF plots for surficial sediment samples collected in the St. Louis River
AOC that were presently available in a database format. It should be noted that additional
sediment chemistry data is available for the St. Louis River AOC, but it has not been entered into
a database yet. These data will be entered into a new CIS-based sediment quality database for
the St. Louis River AOC. Therefore, similar types of box and whisker plots and CDF plots will
be generated after the completion of the CIS-based database. From Figure 35, the broad range of
mean PEC-Q values for the St. Louis River (both including and excluding Minnesota Slip) is
evident, partly due to the high mean PEC-Q values present at the Interlake/Duluth Tar Superfund
site.
A similar exercise was carried out for the St. Louis River AOC, except mercury was included in
the calculation of mean PEC-Qs. The inclusion of mercury did not result in substantial changes
in the distribution of mean PEC-Qs for selected areas in the St. Louis River AOC (Table 20 and
Figures 36-38).
The distribution of mean PEC-Qs for surficial sediment samples collected from selected Great
Lakes AOCs is given in Table 21. Based on average values, Minnesota Slip had a similar level
of contamination as the St. Louis River AOC (excluding Minnesota Slip data), Cuyahoga River
AOC, and the Oswego River AOC. The average mean PEC-Qs in Minnesota Slip were about
twice those values in the St. Clair River AOC. The level of mean PEC-Qs were much less in
Minnesota Slip compared to the Indiana Harbor AOC, Sheboygan Harbor AOC, Maumee River
AOC, St. Mary's River AOC, and Waukegan Harbor AOC.
Because some of the average values were skewed by high maximum mean PEC-Q values at
other Great Lakes AOCs, summary statistics for the 10th percentile, median, and 90th percentile
provided a more well-rounded picture of the distribution of mean PEC-Qs (Table 21). Based on
median values, the mean PEC-Qs in Minnesota Slip (0.97) were only exceeded by the Oswego
River AOC (0.9855), Indiana Harbor AOC (2.49), and Waukegan Harbor AOC (2.85).
Minnesota Slip had the fourth highest minimum value, the highest 10th percentile mean PEC-Q
values, the seventh highest 90th percentile mean PEC-Q values, and the lowest maximum value.
The summary statistics of Table 21 are plotted in Figure 39 as box and whisker plots. The CDF
plot shown in Figure 40 demonstrates the range of mean PEC-Q values, which are especially
wide for the Indiana Harbor AOC. Minnesota Slip has a narrow, fairly consistent range of mean
PEC-Q values compared to the other Great Lakes AOC sites.
41
-------
5.4 VOLUME OF CONTAMINATED SEDIMENTS
The FIELDS software was used to calculate the volume of sediments exceeding a total PAH
concentration of 23 mg/kg dry wt. (i.e., Level II SQT) and a mean PEC-Q of 0.6. The output from
FIELDS seemed to be most reliable for sediment sections in which sediment quality data were
available for the entire slip. Technical assistance from the FIELDS group in U.S. EPA Region 5
may be needed to learn how volume estimates can be made for depth intervals in which only a
portion of the slip contained data (i.e., inner half of Minnesota Slip).
For total PAHs (comprised of the 13 LMW and HMW PAHs), approximately 4,900 yd3 of
sediments in the upper 30 cm exceeded the Level II SQT value of 23 mg/kg dry wt. (Table 22).
This volume corresponded to approximately 630 pounds of total PAHs. Mean PEC-Q values were
available for the entire slip for the upper four depth intervals (i.e., 0-15, 15-30, 30-45, and 45-60
cm). The volume of sediments exceeding a mean PEC-Q of 0.6 corresponded to approximately
9,600 yd3 (Table 23). A better estimate of the volume of contaminated sediments will need to be
determined before any remediation options can be selected for Minnesota Slip. The MPCA should
consider conducting a feasibility study as the principal mechanism for the development, screening,
and detailed evaluation of alternative remedial actions for Minnesota Slip.
5.5 CONSIDERATION OF PRELIMINARY REMEDIATION OPTIONS
Based on the sediment quality data that has been collected for Minnesota Slip, additional steps
should be taken to conduct a feasibility study of remediation options for this site. Options for
dealing with contaminated sediments (Feyerherm and Wardlaw 2001) generally include:
• Natural recovery (also termed natural attenuation) by which contaminated sediments are left in
place, and depositional processes cover them with clean material;
• Capping them with clean sediments, sand, gravel, geotextiles, or armored caps;
• In situ treatment using technologies that treat contaminants in place including chemical,
biological (i.e., bioremediation), and immobilization techniques;
• Dredging them to remove contaminated sediments from Minnesota Slip for:
• Disposal in the Erie Pier confined disposal facility,
• Using soil washing techniques of the dredged material to extract "clean" sand for beneficial
reuses (such as the creation of wetlands), and
42
-------
• Usinc treatment technologies on the dredged sediments such as biological treatment,
phytoremediation. metal extraction, chemical treatment of organics, thermal treatment,
separation of particle size using hydrocyclones. and immobilization.
• A combination of the sediment management options described above (e.g., limited dredging
plus capping, in situ treatment plus natural recovery, etc.).
There are often wide variations in cost, technical uncertainty, and environmental risk among these
options.
Before any sediment remediation options can be seriously
considered in Minnesota Slip, steps need to be taken to
implement source control measures to reduce contaminant
loads into the slip.
One probable source of contaminants into the slip is from storm water discharges from five storm
sewers. The City of Duluth Storm Water Utility is currently targeting the storm sewers in this slip
for an evaluation of best management practices (BMPs) during the next year (Mamie Lonsdale,
City of Duluth Public Works Department, personal communication, 2001). Due to complexities
associated with the water table being below the St. Louis River at this site, more expensive BMPs
(e.g., Vortex apparatus) will probably need to be considered.
Other issues that need to be considered as part of an evaluation of remediation options include:
• Direction of ground water flow either into or out of the slip from the surrounding land and from
under the sediments. Soils in nearby areas in Canal Park are contaminated with coal tar, and
groundwater traveling through these soils may pro vide a mechanism for the transport of PAHs
and other contaminants associated with coal tar to the slip.
• Sedimentation rate in Minnesota Slip. The clearance between the bottom of the S.S. William
A. Irvin and the surface of the sediments is approximately 2 m. As sediment accumulates, it
will eventually be necessary to dredge the sediments to maintain an adequate water depth for
the 3 m draft of the Irvin.
• Short-term and long-term water uses in Minnesota Slip. Minnesota Slip is actively used to
support several tourist-related operations. These uses are subject to change over time. For
example, several efforts have been made during the last four years to bring other historical
43
-------
ships (e.g., warships) to Duluth for use as a tourist venue (i.e., conduct tours of the ship). To
date, these efforts have been rejected by the community. However, if the S.S. William. A.
Irvin is ever replaced with another ship for tourism-related purposes, or another ship is added
to Minnesota Slip, in addition to the Irvin, then there may be the need to dredge sediments from
the slip to ensure an adequate water depth is maintained.
• Fluctuating water levels in the Great Lakes. Water levels in the Great Lakes normally
experience a seasonal decline in the fall due to lower rainfall, reduced inflows from rivers and
streams, and from increased evaporation. However, over the past four years, a dramatic
decrease in water levels in all of the Great Lakes have been observed. Between 1997 and 2001
(through April), water levels on Lake Superior dropped from within inches of the record high
to within inches of the record low (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 2001). As of February 15,
2002, Lake Superior's water level is currently 6 inches below its long-term average and 8
inches above this time last year; the water level of Lake Superior is expected to decline 2
inches over the next month (http://huron.lre.usace.army.mil/levels/weekly.html). Low water
levels have also occurred in the Great Lakes during the mid-1930s and mid-1960s. The current
low levels appear to exhibit a natural variability in water level trends. This type of variability,
then, needs to be taken into consideration with any selection of sediment remediation options.
• The stability of the sediments in Minnesota Slip. How much the sediments of Minnesota Slip
are subject to mixing and movement from hydrodynamic processes (e.g., wind-induced
resuspension) and bioturbation can affect the selection of remediation alternatives. Anecdotal
descriptions from marina boat owners that the water level in the slip can vary several feet
depending on wind and seiche actions will affect sediment transport in the slip. In addition, the
close proximity of the bottom of the Irvin to the surficial sediments may create micro-currents
from movement of the Irvin during high wind events to result in increased sediment transport.
• Economic value of Minnesota Slip to tourism. The implementation of any remediation actions
should be done during a time period that will allow the least disruption to tourist-related
activities in the slip. This would roughly correspond to the period from October through early
May. Depending on the remediation option selected, the Irvin may have to be moved to
another secured slip during a remediation action.
GLNPO has funded two experimental remediation technologies that, if successful, could be
considered for Minnesota Slip. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is conducting a project to test a
sediment treatment technology with sediments dredged from Minnesota Slip. The study is
designed to determine the viability of one type of electrochemical remediation technology (ECRT)
to reduce PAH contamination in dredged sediments placed in a special containment cell at the Erie
Pier confined disposal facility. The ECRT to be used is electrochemical geooxidation (ECGO), in
44
-------
which an electrical current passing through the sediments is used to mobilize or break down
organic contaminants. ECGO operates by imposing an electric current between electrodes
(cathodes and anodes) installed in the sediments to be remediated. Electric power is passed
through a proprietary direct current (DC)/altemating current (AC) converter that produces a low-
voltage and low-amperage DC/AC current. When this modified electrical current is passed
through the sediment through the electrodes, the sediment particles become polarized and are
purported to develop electrical properties similar to a capacitor. According to the technology
developer, when the polarized particles discharge electricity in the ECGO, the energy given off
induces chemical reactions (redox reactions), which are purported to decompose organic
contaminants. A pilot project has recently been initiated at a marine site at the Georgia-Pacific Log
Pond in Bellingham Bay, WA (Washington Department of Ecology 2001) to test the effectiveness
of both ECGO and induced complexation (1C) ECRT technologies. The remediation of metals has
been reported with 1C technology, which relies on ECGO to convert metals to mobile ions that
then migrate to the electrodes where they accumulate and are removed. The results of this project
in Bellingham Bay will provide additional information on the effectiveness of these ECRT
technologies that can be compared to the Corps of Engineers use of ECGO on sediments dredged
from Minnesota Slip.
The Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNR), through its contractor Minergy Corp.,
is involved in an evaluation of a feasibility study of a vitrification (melting) technology to destroy
organic contaminants (primarily PCBs) and immobilize inorganic contaminants (primarily heavy
metals) (WDNR 2001). The primary objectives of the study are:
• To determine the treatment efficiency of PCBs in dredged-and-dewatered river sediment when
processed in the Minergy Glass Furnace Technology (GFT); and
• To determine whether GFT glass aggregate product meets the criteria for beneficial reuse
under relevant federal and state regulations.
In addition, this project will also address the following secondary objectives:
• Determine the unit cost of operating the GFT on dewatered dredged river sediment;
• Quantify the organic and inorganic contaminant losses resulting from the existing or alternative
drying process used for the dredged-and-dewatered river sediment; and
• Characterize organic and inorganic constituents in all GFT process input and output streams.
Of principal concern is the formation of dioxin and furan during the vitrification step.
45
-------
This project is being applied to sediments in the Lower Fox River, WI. If it is successful, a full-
scale facility will be built that will perhaps be of use to process Minnesota Slip sediments, too.
Neither natural recovery nor capping, when considered alone, are viable remediation alternatives
for Minnesota Slip because:
• The surficial sediments are contaminated. At sites MNS-99-01 through MNS-99-06, the 0-5
cm depth segment exceeded a mean PEC-Q of 0.6 at each site. Thus, clean sediments are not
being deposited in the slip to allow natural recovery to work. Source control measures (e.g.,
BMPs) need to be implemented to reduce contaminant inputs into Minnesota Slip.
• The water depth is not sufficient to allow the sediments to be capped and to still maintain
existing water uses of the slip. The water depth in Minnesota Slip ranged from 3.2-6.7 m in
this study (Table 3). Since the draft of the S.S. William A. Irvin is 3 m, there is not enough
room to cap the sediments. The hydrodynamics of water motions in the slip are also not likely
to be quiescent enough to allow a cap to remain in place. An additional consideration with
capping is that capping efficiency is reduced if there is advective flow through the sediment
and capping material as a result of upward moving groundwater flow (Liu et al. 2001). The
direction of groundwater flow in Minnesota Slip sediments has not been determined.
Bioremediation of either in situ or field-applied sediments would also not be an effective
remediation technique for treating the mixture of contaminants in Minnesota Slip sediments,
particularly with metals, mercury, and higher chlorinated organic compounds. The majority of
bioremediation studies are conducted under aerobic conditions and, therefore, offer the
possibility of vaporizing PAHs during treatment. Recent studies suggest that vaporization of
PAHs (as large as 4 rings) can be emitted from field treated soils and sediments before
microbiological activity becomes significant, thus contributing significantly to the reductions in
PAH concentrations that are reported for biological treatment (Hawthorne and Grabanski 2000).
After BMPs are implemented for the storm water outfalls draining into Minnesota Slip, the MPCA
should consider dredging contaminated sediments from Minnesota Slip and either containing the
dredged material at the Erie Pier confined disposal facility or treating the dredged material to
reduce the mixture of contaminants to acceptable levels. Since Minnesota Slip is small, and has a
drawbridge at the outlet, it would be a fairly straight forward operation to seal the outlet and dredge
the sediments (after all boats and docks have been removed from the slip). The slip could possibly
be drained prior to dredging. In this case, the overlying water would probably need to be treated
by the nearby Western Lake Superior Sanitary District to meet water quality standards. Additional
46
-------
steps would be needed to divert storm water from the slip during the period of work and to further
enforce the walls of the slip. A special contaminated cell would need to be built at the Erie Pier
confined disposal facility for disposing or treating the dredged sediments. Since even sandy
sediments were contaminated with oil from this slip, soil washing techniques may not work well to
separate out clean sand from the slip for beneficial uses.
47
-------
CHAPTER 6
RECOMMENDATIONS
Recommendations for next steps to be taken at Minnesota Slip include:
• Implement BMPs for the five storm water outfalls draining into Minnesota Slip (through the
city of Duluth Storm Water Utility);
• Determine the direction of groundwater flow in the vicinity of Minnesota Slip to assess
whether it contributes to advective flow up through the sediments to the water column or
passes through contaminated soils in Canal Park to Minnesota Slip;
• Educate stakeholders and tourists visiting Minnesota Slip about the extent of sediment
contamination found in Minnesota Slip, what preventative measures they can take to reduce
contaminant inputs into the slip (e.g., keep motor boat engines in good working order to reduce
oil leakage into the water column), and what remediation options the MPCA may consider in
the future for this slip;
• Verify that no potentially responsible parties are available to contribute to clean-up costs at this
site;
• Develop narrative use protection objectives for the site, and
• Conduct a feasibility study of remediation options, including cost estimates.
The Northern Assessment and Response Unit in the MPCA's regional office in Duluth will be in
charge of future work at Minnesota Slip, including the acquisition of funds to carry-out this work.
As with any remediation effort, public input will be needed before a remediation option is selected
for Minnesota Slip. Due to the small size of the hot spot area, an ecological and human health risk
assessment may not be needed for this site. Sediment quality remediation targets could be based
on chemical SQTs, as well as biological effects data. Social and economic factors, in addition to
the technical feasibility and cost estimates of various remediation options, will be taken into
consideration when securing funds for a remediation action in Minnesota Slip.
48
-------
REFERENCES
AScI Corporation. 1999. Summary of test results determining potential mercury, PAH and PCB
bioaccumulation by Lumbriculus vanegatus exposed to St. Louis Bay sediment samples.
AScI Corporation, Duluth, MN.
ASTM (American Society of Testing and Materials). 1997. Standard test methods for
measuring the toxicity of sediment-associated contaminants with fresh water
invertebrates. Method E 1706-95b in 1997 Annual Book of ASTM Standards, Volume
11.05, Biological Effects and Environmental Fate; Biotechnology; Pesticides. American
Society of Testing and Materials, West Conshohocken, PA.
ASTM. 2001. Test method for measuring the toxicity of sediment-associated contaminants with
freshwater invertebrates. Method E 1706-00 in Annual Book of ASTM Standards,
Volume 11.05, Biological Effects and Environmental Fate; Biotechnology; Pesticides.
American Society of Testing and Materials, West Conshohocken, PA.
Ballschmiter, K. and M. Zell. 1980. Analysis of poly chlorinated biphenyls (PCB) by glass
capillary gas chromatography. Fresenius Z. Anal. Chem. 302:20-31.
Breneman, D., C. Richards and S. Lozano. 2000. Environmental influences on benthic
community structure in a Great Lakes embayment. J. Great Lakes Res. 26:287-304.
Callender, E. and K.C. Rice. 2000. The urban environmental gradient: Anthropogenic
influences on the spatial and temporal distributions of lead and zinc in sediments.
Environ. Sci. Technol. 34:232-238.
Crane, J.L. 1999a. Assessment of contaminated sediments in Slip C, Duluth Harbor,
Minnesota. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Great Lakes National Program
Office, Chicago, IL. EPA-905-R-99-007
Crane, J.L. 1999b. Quality assurance project plan (QAPP): Sediment remediation scoping
project for Minnesota Slip, Duluth Harbor. Revision: 0. Environmental Outcomes
Division, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, St. Paul, MN.
49
-------
Crane, J.L., M. Schubauer-Berigan, and K. Schmude. 1997 Sediment assessment of hotspot
areas in the Duluth/Superior Harbor. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Great
Lakes National Program Office, Chicago, IL. EPA-905-R97-020.
Crane, J.L., D.D. MacDonald, C.G. Ingersoll, D.E. Smorong, R.A. Lindskoog, C.G. Severn, T.A.
Berger, and L.J. Field. 2000. Development of a framework for evaluating numerical
sediment quality targets and sediment contamination in the St. Louis River Area of
Concern. Great Lakes National Program Office, Chicago, IL. EPA 905/R-00/008.
Di Toro, D.M. and J.A. McGrath. 2000. Technical basis for narcotic chemicals and polycyclic
aromatic hydrocarbon criteria. II. Mixtures and sediments. Environ. Toxicol. Chem.
19:1971-1982.
Di Toro, D.M., J.D. Mahony, D.J. Hansen, K.J. Scott, A.R. Carlson, and G.T. Ankley. 1992.
Acid-volatile sulfide predicts the acute toxicity of cadmium and nickel in sediments.
Environ. Sci. Technol. 26:96-101.
Di Toro, D.M., J.D. Mahony, D.J. Hansen, K.J. Scott, M.B. Hicks, S.M. Mayr, and M.S.
Redmond. 1990. Toxicity of cadmium in sediments: The role of acid-volatile sulfide.
Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 9:1487-1502.
Eljarrat, E., J. Caoxach, J. Rivera, M. De Torres, and A. Ginebreda. 2001. Toxic potency
assessment of non- and mono-ortho PCBs, PCDDs, PCDFs, and PAHs in northwest
Mediterranean sediments (Catalonia, Spain). Environ. Sci. Technol. 35:3589-3594.
En Chem, Inc. 1999a. Congener specific determination of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) in
soils and sediments by capillary column gas chromatography. En Chem SOP SVO-64,
Revision No. 1. En Chem, Inc., Madison, WI.
En Chem, Inc. 1999b. Acid volatile sulfides and simultaneously extractable metals in sediment.
En Chem SOP WCM-63, Revision No. 0. En Chem, Inc., Madison, WI.
ENSR. 1996. St. Louis River July 1995 field investigation. ENSR Consulting and Engineering,
St. Louis Park, MN. Document Number 5480-005-400.
50
-------
Feyerherm, J. and C. \Vardla\v. 2001. Healthy harbors, restored rivers. A community guide to
cleaning up our waterways. Sierra Club, Great Lakes Ecoregion Program, Madison, WI.
Ghosh, U., J.W Talley, and R.G. Luthy. 2001. Particle-scale investigation of PAH desorption
kinetics and thermodynamics from sediment. Environ. Sci. Technol. 35:3468-3475.
Glass, G.E., J.A. Sorensen, G.R. Rapp, Jr., M. Baker, and L. Schwarzkopf. 1998. Mercury
subsurface maxima in sediments: A diagnostic for anthropogenic origins. Pages 467-486
in Ebinghaus, Turner, Lacerda, Vasiliev, and Solomons, (eds.). Mercury contaminated
sites: Characterization, risk, and remediation. Springer-Verlag, Heidelberg.
GLNPO (Great Lakes National Program Office). 1997. Health and safety and environmental
compliance manual. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Great Lakes National
Program Office, Chicago, IL.
Hawthorne, S.B. and C.B. Grabanski. 2000. Vaporization of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons
(PAHs) from sediments at ambient conditions. Environ. Sci. Technol. 34:4348-4353.
IJC (International Joint Commission). 1989. Great Lakes water quality agreement of 1978 (as
amended by Protocol signed November 18, 1987). International Joint Commission,
Windsor, ON.
Ingersoll, C.G. and D.D. MacDonald. 1999. An assessment of sediment injury in the West
Branch of the Grand Calumet River. Volume I. Prepared for Environmental
Enforcement Section, Environment and Natural Resources Division, United States
Department of Justice, Washington, DC. 161 pp.
Ingersoll, C.G., D.D. MacDonald, N. Wang, J.L. Crane, L.J. Field, P.S. Haverland, N.E. Kemble,
R.A. Lindskoog, C. Severn, and D.E. Smorong. 2001. Predictions of sediment toxicity
using consensus-based freshwater sediment quality guidelines. Arch. Environ. Contam.
Toxicol. 41:8-21.
IT Corporation. (International Technology Corporation). 1997. Remedial investigation data
report, sediment operable unit, St. Louis River/Interlake Duluth Tar site. Volume 1 of 5.
IT Corp., St. Paul, MN.
51
-------
Jepsen, R., J. McNeil, and W Lick. 2000. Effects of gas generation on the density and erosion
of sediments from the Grand River. J. Great Lakes Res. 26:209-219.
Kellner, O.K., T. Kroska, and K. Plass. 1999. Historic reconstruction of property ownership and
land use along the Lower St. Louis River. St. Louis River Citizens Action Committee.
Duluth, MN.
King, P. 2001. Analysis of sediment cores to assess chlorinated bornanes and chlorinated
bornenes in the St. Louis River. Environmental Outcomes Division, Minnesota Pollution
Control Agency, St. Paul, MN.
Latchat Instruments. 1994. Ammonia (phenate) in 2 M KC1 soil extracts. QuikChem Method
12-107-06-1-A. Lachat Instruments, Milwaukee, WI.
Liu, C., J.A. Jay, R. Ika, J.P. Shine, and I.E. Ford. 2001. Capping efficiency for metal-
contaminated marine sediment under conditions of submarine groundwater discharge.
Environ. Sci. Technol. 35:2334-2340.
Lodge, K.B. 1996. A method for the particle-size analysis of freshwater sediments using the
Horiba LA-900 analyzer. Department of Chemical Engineering, University of
Minnesota, Duluth, MN.
Loganathan, B.G., K.N. Irvine, K. Kannan, V. Pragatheeswaran, and K.S. Sajwan. 1997.
Distribution of selected PCB congeners in the Babcock Street Sewer District: A
multimedia approach to identify PCB sources in combined sewer overflows (CSOs)
discharging to the Buffalo River, New York. Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 33: HO-
MO.
Lubin, A.N., M.H. Williams, and J.C. Lin. 1995. Statistical techniques applied to sediment
sampling. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, Chicago, IL.
MacDonald, D.D., C.G. Ingersoll, and T.A. Berger. 2000a. Development and evaluation of
consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Arch. Environ.
Contam. Toxicol. 39:20-31.
52
-------
MacDonald, D.D., L.M. DiPinto, J. Field, C.G. Ingersoll, E.R. Long, and R.C. Swartz. 2000b.
Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment effect concentrations for
polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB). Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 19:1403-1413.
MDH (Minnesota Department of Health). 1993. General method for metals determination by
stabilized temperature graphite furnace atomic absorption spectroscopy. MDH Method
GEN-STGFAA (September 1, 1993). Minnesota Department of Health, Minneapolis,
MN.
MDH. 1995. Percent moisture sed/soil. MDH Method 261. Minnesota Department of Health,
Minneapolis, MN.
MDH. 1997. Procedure for the determination of polyaromatic hydrocarbons in solid matrices by
gas chromatography/selected ion monitoring-mass spectrometry. MDH Method 513
(June 3, 1997). Minnesota Department of Health, Minneapolis, MN.
MDH. 2000. Minnesota fish consumption advisory. Health Risk Assessment Unit, Minnesota
Department of Health, St. Paul, MN.
MPCA and WDNR (Minnesota Pollution Control Agency and Wisconsin Department of Natural
Resources). 1992. The St. Louis River system remedial action plan. Stage One.
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, St. Paul, MN and Wisconsin Department of Natural
Resources, Madison, WI.
MPCA and WDNR. 1995. The St. Louis River system remedial action plan. Progress report.
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, St. Paul, MN and Wisconsin Department of Natural
Resources, Madison, WI.
Perminova, I.V., N.Y Grechishcheva, D.V. Kovalevskii, A.V. Kudryavtsev, V.S. Petrosyan, and
D.N. Matorin. 2001. Quantification and prediction of the detoxifying properties of
humic substances related to their chemical binding to polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons.
Environ. Sci. Tech. 35:3841-3848.
Persaud, D., R. Jaagumagi, and A. Hayton. 1993. Guidelines for the protection and
management of aquatic sediment quality in Ontario. Ontario Ministry of Environment
and Energy, Ottawa, ON. Report No. ISBN 0-7729-9248-7.
53
-------
Redman, S. and T. Janisch. 1995. Newton Creek system sediment contamination site
characterization report. Sediment Management and Remediation Techniques Program,
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, Madison, WI.
Rosemount Analytical. 1990a. Analysis of sludges and solids for carbon. Application Note
TOC-011. Rosemount Analytical, Dohrmann Division, Cincinnati, OH.
Rosemount Analytical. 1990b. Extending the carbon concentration range of the boat sampler.
Application Note TOC-012. Rosemount Analytical, Dohrmann Division, Cincinnati,
OH.
Rosemount Analytical. 1991. DC-80 total organic carbon analyzer systems manual. Revision
N. Rosemount Analytical, Dohrmann Division, Cincinnati, OH.
Schneider, A.R., H.M. Stapleton, J. Cornwell, and J.E. Baker. 2001. Recent declines in PAH,
PCB, and toxaphene levels in the northern Great Lakes as determined from high
resolution sediment cores. Environ. Sci. Technol. 35:3809-3815.
Schubauer-Berigan, M. and J.L. Crane. 1996. Preliminary contaminant assessment of the
Thomson, Forbay, and Fond du Lac Reservoirs. Water Quality Division, Minnesota
Pollution Control Agency, St. Paul, MN.
Schubauer-Berigan, M. and J.L. Crane. 1997. Survey of sediment quality in the Duluth/Superior
Harbor: 1993 sampling results. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Great Lakes
National Program Office, Chicago, IL. EPA 905-R97-005.
Service Environmental and Engineering. 2001. Phase IIIB work plan and sampling and analysis
plan for the re-opened RI/FS sediment operable unit, SLRIDT Site, Duluth, MN. Service
Environmental and Engineering, St. Paul, MN.
Smith, V.E. and S.G. Rood. 1994. Sediment sampling surveys. In: ARCS Assessment Guidance
Document, pp. 33-56. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Great Lakes National
Program Office, Chicago, IL. EPA 905-B94-002.
54
-------
Swartz, R.C. 1999. Consensus sediment quality guidelines for PAH mixtures. Environ. Toxicol.
Chem. 18:780-787
Thibodeaux, L.J., K.T. Valsaraj, and D.D. Reible. 2001. Bioturbation-dnven transport of
hydrophobic organic contaminants from bed sediment. Environ. Eng. Sci. 18:215-223.
TMA (Thermo Analytical). 1996. Sampling and analysis of sediments from the Duluth-Supenor
Harbor: September 1995 - April 1996. Thermo Analytical, Ypsilanti, MI.
Ullrich, S.M., T.W. Tanton, and S.A. Abdrashitova. 2001. Mercury in the aquatic environment:
A review of factors affecting methylation. Critical Rev. Environ. Sci. T;chnol. 31:241-293.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2001. Nature's effect on Great Lakes' water levels. U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers—Detroit District. Great Lakes Update Vol. No. 143.
USEPA (United States Environmental Protection Agency). 1983. Methods for chemical analysis
of water and wastes. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and
Development, Cincinnati, OH. EPA-600/4-79-020.
USEPA. 1991. EPA methods for the determination of metals in environmental samples. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, Washington, DC.
EPA/600/4-91/010.
USEPA. 1993. Methods for measuring the acute toxicity of effluents and receiving waters to
freshwater and marine organisms, 4lh edition. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office
of Research and Development. EPA/600/4-90/027F.
USEPA. 1994. Methods for measuring the toxicity and bioaccumulation of sediment-associated
contaminants with freshwater invertebrates. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Office of Research and Development, Duluth, MN. EPA 600/R-94/024.
USEPA. 1995. QA/QC guidance for sampling and analysis of sediments, water, and tissues for
dredged material evaluations: Chemical evaluations. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Office of Water, Washington, DC. EPA 823-B-95-001.
55
-------
USEPA. 1997. The incidence and severity of sediment contamination in surface waters of the
United States. Volume 1: National sediment quality survey. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Science and Technology, Washington, DC. EPA 823-R-97-
006.
USEPA. 2000a. Methods for measuring the toxicity and bioaccumulation of sediment-
associated contaminants with freshwater invertebrates. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Office of Research and Development, Office of Water, Washington, DC.
EPA/600/R-99/064.
USEPA. 2000b. Prediction of sediment toxicity using consensus-based freshwater sediment
quality guidelines. Great Lakes National Program Office, Chicago, IL. EPA 905/R-
00/007.
Van Metre, P.C, B.J. Mahler, and E.T. Furlong. 2001. Response to comment on "Urban sprawl
leaves its PAH signature." Environ. Sci. Technol. 35:1890-1891.
Walker, D.A. and S.P. Hall. 1976. Duluth-Superior Harbor cultural resources study. Archeology
Department, Minnesota Historical Society, St. Paul, MN.
Washington Department of Ecology. 2001. Whatcom Waterway site, Bellingham Georgia-
Pacific log pond. Washington Department of Ecology, Northwest Regional Office,
Bellevue, WA. Publication #01-09-061.
WDNR (Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources). 1995. Guidance for sediment
assessment in the state of Wisconsin. Bureau of Water Resources, Wisconsin Department
of Natural Resources, Madison, WI.
WDNR. 2001. Glass furnace technology (GFT) project fact sheet Phase III: Pilot-scale melter.
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, Madison, WI. (web site reference:
http://www.dnr.state.wi.us/org/water/wm/lowerfox/minergy/index.html)
Wenck Associates. 1995. Harbor sediment sampling documentation report. Wenck Associates,
Inc., Maple Plain, MN.
56
-------
West, Inc. and D.D. Gulley. 1994. Toxstat version 3.4. Western EcoSystems Technology, Inc.
Cheyenne, VVY
57
-------
TABLES
58
-------
Table 1. Inventory of Historical Land Uses around Minnesota Slip
Property Name
A.H. Thompson Planing Mill (Geo. Lautenschlager)
Gowan-Lenning Brown Co. Grocery Wharf
Crowley-Brown Sandstone Wharf
N. Gngon Shipyard, Shipbuilding and Repair Wharf
Northern Pacific No. 5 & No. 6
Scott & Holston Planing Mill
St. Paul & Duluth Railroad Cos. Warehouse
Marquis De Mares- Cold Storage House
Stone & Ordean Wholesale Grocery Warehouses
C. H. Graves & Co. Salt Lime Cement & Plaster
Warehouses
Asa Dailey's Lumber Yard
Marshall Wells Hardware Company and Dock
Booth Fisheries Co. Fish & Merchandise Wharf
Whitney Materials Co. Sand & Gravel Wharf
Standard Salt & Cement Co. Wharf
White Line Transportation Co. Freight & Passenger
Wharf
Christiansen & Sons, Inc. Fish Wharf
Scandia Fish Co. Wharf
City of Duluth Public Wharf
Rust-Parker Co. Grocery Wharf
City of Duluth Public Wharf
Christiansen & Sons
fohnson, Sam & Sons, Fisheries
Jnited States & Doninin Trans. Co.
Duluth Ice & Fuel Co.
VlacAskill-Monaghan Co.
Stone & Ordean Building
leno's Inc.
Date of
Develop-
ment
1872
1880
1883
c. 1880
1884
1884
c. 1885
1889
1894
1895
1884
1884
Beginning
Date of
Operation
1872
1878
1878
1880
1883
1884
1884
1884
1884
1884
1885
1889
1894
1895
1895
1895
1905
1908
1910
1911
1915
1927
1927
1930
1935
1950
1950
1970
Ending
Date of
Operation
1890
1935
1895
1895
1950
1940
1924
1890
1950
1940
1940
1960
1940
1935
1920
1940
1940
1940
1960
1960
1970
Address
7610 -7614 Lake Ave.
525 S. Lake Ave.
Industrial Slip (E side) and Minnesota Slip
(W side)
1501 - 1520 Lake Ave.
2nd Ave. W. & Waterfront (west side of
Minnesota Slip)
7607 Lake Avenue
1604 Lake Ave.; later 525 Lake Ave. S.
1604- 1706 Lake Ave.
301 or 325 Lake Ave. S.
20 W. Morse
15 Buchanan
237-245 Lake Ave.
20 W. Morse
217-219 Lake Ave. S.
20 W. Morse
19. W Morse
20 W Morse
102 Buchanan
227 Lake Ave. S.
1604 Lake Ave.; later 525 Lake Ave. S.
1604 Lake Ave.; later 525 Lake Ave. S.
-------
Table 2. Ranges of Contaminant Concentrations in Minnesota Slip (Schubauer-Berigan and
Crane 1997; Crane et ul. 1997; unpublished R-EMAP and MPCA data)
Contaminant
Concentration*
Total PAHs
PCBs
Mercury
Lead
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Nickel
Zinc
AVS
SEM**
Toxaphene
P,P'-DD;) & O,P'-DDT
KCI-extractable ammonia
Other Parameters
TOC
Particle Size
Sand
Silt
5.7-320mg/kg
7.8-612 ug/kg
0.075-1.6 mg/kg
31-280mg/kg
2.6 mg/kg
49.8 mg/kg
83.2 mg/kg
30.7 mg/kg
214 mg/kg
1.43-1.54 umol/g
5.36-7.59 umol/g
147-204 ug/kg
10 ug/kg
10.2-138 mg/kg
0.67-8.3%
48.2-96.9%
2.0-40%
* Single values represent one measurement.
** Includes cadmium, copper, lead, nickel, and zinc.
60
-------
Table 3. Description of Field Results
Site
Location
98-MNS-02
98-MNS-03
98-MNS-04
MNS-99-OI
MNS-99-01
MNS-99-02
MNS-99-02
MNS-99-03
Sampling
Date
(mo/d/yr)
8/13/98
8/13/98
8/13/98
9/22/99
9/28/99
9/22/99
9/28/99
9/22/99
Soft
Water Sediment Core
Depth (m) Depth (m) Sediment Sampler Length (cm)
4.4 2.1 Livingston corer 52
4.6 2.35 Drop corer N/A
Livingston corer 48
N/A N/A Drop corer N/A
5.2 0.6 Shipekgrab N/A
5.3 0.6 Vibrocorer 66
5.3 0.3 Shipekgrab N/A
5.2 0.7 Vibrocorer 28
5.0 1.3 Shipekgrab N/A
Core
Section (cm)
0-15
15-30
30-45
0-5
0-15
15-30
30-45
0-5
0-5
0-15
15-30
30-45
45-60
0-5
0-15
15-28
0-5
Core Section Description
dark brown sand and detritus, pudding-like texture.
removed piece of clear plastic
firmer texture and more sand than 0-15 cm segment, fibrous
detritus, odor
dark brown, firm sand, fibrous detritus, odor
brown, pudding-like texture, small amount of detritus
brown, pudding-like silt/sand, some detritus
brown, firm sand, detritus, odor
brown, very sandy and firm, some detritus, odor
sandy with a lot of fibrous detritus
brown silt, firm pudding-like texture, small amount of
detritus
silty, pudding-like consistency
silty clay, firm pudding-like texture
sandy
dry sand
brown, pudding-like silt/sand underlain by firm brown
silt/sand
silt underlain by sand
sand with wood pieces and a chunk of coal
firm, black silt/sand, detritus (leaves/twigs) and oil,
removed a candy wrapper and piece of wall paper
-------
Table 3. Continued
Sampling Soft
Site Date Water Sediment Core
Location (mo/d/yr) Depth (m) Depth (m) Sediment Sampler Length (cm)
MNS-99-03 9/29/99 4.9 2.3 Vibrocorer 140
MNS-99-04 9/22/99 4.3 0.5 Shipek grab N/A
MNS-99-04 9/29/99 4.3 0.6 Vibrocorer 155
MNS-99-04R 9/29/99 4.3 2.1 Vibrocorer 182
Core
Section (cm)
0-15
15-30
30-45
45-60
60-75
75-90
90-120
120-140
0-5
0-15
15-30
30-45
45-60
60-75
75-90
90-120
120-150
0-15
15-30
30-45
45-60
60-75
75-90
Core Section Description
silt, oil film, small amount of detritus
silt, oil, some detritus
silt/sand, detritus
silt/sand, detritus, some oil, removed piece of plastic
oily silt/sand, removed large chunk of wood
oily, silt/sand, some detritus
sand/silt, some oil and detritus
sand/silt, some oil and wood chips
dark brown sand/silt, some detritus (leaves) and oil
silt, firm pudding-like texture, detritus
firm silt, some detritus
firm silt, some detritus, removed pieces of metal
firm sand/silt, dark color (possibly due to oil)
soft sand/silt, oil
sand/silt, oil, some detritus
sand/silt, some detritus
sand/silt, some detritus
silt/sand, some detritus
silt/sand, some detritus
silt/sand with more sand on bottom
silt/sand, some detritus, possible oil
silt/sand, oil
silt/sand, oil
62
-------
Table 3. Continued
Sampling Soft
Site Date Water Sediment
Location (mo/d/yr) Depth (m) Depth (m)
MNS-99-04R 9/29/99 4.3 2.1
MNS-99-05 9/22/99 4.4 0.5
MNS-99-06 9/22/99 3.2 0.5
MNS-99-07 9/23/99 3.6 0.7
MNS-99-08 9/24/99 5.1 2.0
MNS-99-09 9/27/99 5.6 1.0
MNS-99-10 9/27/99 5.6 0.7
Core
Sediment Sampler Length (cm)
Vibrocorer 182
Shipek grab N/A
Shipek grab N/A
Livingston corer 60
& drop corer
Livingston corer
Livingston corer 52
& drop corer
Livingston corer
Livingston corer 58
Livingston corer 48
Core
Section (cm)
90-120
120-150
150-180
0-5
0-5
0-15
15-30
30-45
45-60
0-15
15-30
30-45
0-15
0-15
15-30
30-45
Core Section Description
silt/sand, oil, detritus
silt/clay/sand, some detritus, oil
silt/sand with a lot of detritus
dark brown sand/silt, detritus, some oil, removed pieces of
foil and plastic
coaise sand and oil, removed twigs and pebbles
black, oily sand with odor
black, oily sand with odor, some detritus
black sand with some oil and odor, very dry. small amount
of detritus
black sand
oily silt, some detritus, odor, gelatinous texture
firmer, oily silt underlain by sandier layer, removed small
piece of plastic
oily silt/sand, removed small pieces of foil and plastic
silty, gelatinous upper layer with odor and oil film
underlain by gritty sand and oil with detritus
soupy silt underlain by firmer silt/sand, oil, odor
firm ^ilt/sand/clay
firm sand/silt/clay, removed large rock and small wood
chips
63
-------
Table 3. Continued
Sampling Soft
Site Date Water Sediment Core Core
Location (mo/d/yr) Depth (m) Depth (m) Sediment Sampler Length (cm) Section (cm) Core Section Description
MNS-99-11 9/28/99 4.6 0.6 Vibrocorer 53
MNS-99-12 9/28/99 5.3 0.5 Vibrocorer 38
MNS-99-13 9/28/99 4.8 0.5 Vibrocorer 180
MNS-99-13R 9/28/99 4.8 1.4 Vibrocorer 160
MNS-99-14 9/28/99 4.9 0.7 Vibrocorer 140
0-15
15-30
30-45
0-15
15-30
0-15
15-30
30-45
45-60
60-75
75-90
90-120
120-150
0-15
15-30
30-45
45-60
60-75
0-15
15-30
30-45
45-60
60-75
75-90
90-120
soupy silt/sand
soupy sand
firmer sand, some oil, odor
silt, pudding-like consistency
oily sand, small amount of detritus, removed several rocks
oily silt, firm pudding-like texture
oily silt with a few wood fibers
sand/silt, some oil, small amount of detritus
sand/silt, some detritus
sand, some detritus
sand/silt with fine wood fibers
sand, odor
sand with wood fibers
silt
silt/sand, small amount of detritus
silt/sand, some detritus, removed rock
sand with wood fibers
sand, some detritus
oily silt, firm pudding-like texture
firm silt/clay
sand/silt, some detritus
grainy sand
sand, oil, detritus
sand, detritus
dry sand
64
-------
Table 3. Continued
Sampling Soft
Site Date Water Sediment Core Core
Location (mo/d/yr) Depth (m) Depth (m) Sediment Sampler Length (cm) Section (cm)
MNS-99-15 9/29/99 4.5 2.7 Vibrocorer 215 0-15
15-30
30-45
45-60
60-75
75-90
90-120
120-150
150-180
180-210
MNS-99-16 9/29/99 6.7 0.6 Vibrocorer 58 0-15
15-30
30-45
45-58
MNS-99-17 9/29/99 4.8 1.6 Vibrocorer 183 0-15
15-30
30-45
45-60
60-75
75-90
90-120
120-150
150-180
Core Section Description
firm silt, removed chunk of wood
firm silt
firm silt/sand
firm sand/silt/clay, removed a few wood chunks
silt/clay, oil, odor
silt/clay, oil, odor
silt/clay, oil, odor, wood fibers and small wood chips
silt/clay, oil, odor
sand/silt, oil, odor, wood fibers, removed large rubber band
sand/silt, lots of wood fibers and detritus
silt/sand, some detritus
sand, some detritus and wood chips
silt underlain by sand, some detritus (wood fibers)
sand, removed several rocks and large wood chips
silt/sand, some detritus
silt
sand/silt
sand/silt/clay, some detritus
dark brown silt/clay
sand/silt, oil, odor
sand/silt, oil, odor
sand/silt, detritus
sand, detritus, wood chips
-------
Table 3. Continued
Site
Location
MNS-99-18
Sampling
Date
(mo/d/yr)
9/29/99
Water
Depth (m)
6.2
Soft
Sediment Core
Depth (m) Sediment Sampler Length (cm)
0.8 Vibrocorer 53
Core
Section (cm)
0-15
15-30
30-45
Core Section Description
soupy silt, smooth, small amount of oil
firm silt/clay with dark striations
firm silt/clay/sand, smooth, odor
R = field replicate sample
66
-------
Table 4. Geopositional Information for Sediment Samples Collected from Minnesota Slip
During 1998 and 1999 (Using Map Datum NAD-83)
Site
Location
98-MNS-02
98-MNS-03
MNS-99-01
MNS-99-02
MNS-99-03
MNS-99-04
MNS-99-04R
MNS-99-05
MNS-99-06
MNS-99-07
MNS-99-08
MNS-99-09
MNS-99-10
MNS-99-11
MNS-99-12
MNS-99-13
MNS-99-13R
MNS-99-14
MNS-99-15
MNS-99-16
MNS-99-17
MNS-99-18
UTM15_X
568878
568902
568948
568934
568901
568898
568898
568869
568863
568866
568889
568903
568928
568998
568956
568930
568930
568914
568875
568968
568920
568960
UTM15_Y
5181521.221553
5181477.301521
5181333.222391
5181394.281948
5181462.572241
5181507.563494
5181507.563494
5181509.973739
5181495.512265
5181484.800063
5181436.595149
5181407.136591
5181356.253627
5181303.496028
5181391.603897
5181424.276116
5181424.276116
5181434.988319
5181515.329841
5181283.142842
5181462.036631
5181367.233635
Latitude
46.78368
46.78328
46.78198
46.78253
46.78315
46.78356
46.78356
46.78358
46.78345
46.78336
46.78292
46.78265
46.78219
46.78171
46.78251
46.7828
46.7828
46.7829
46.78363
46.78153
46.78315
46.78229
Longitude
-92.09765
-92.09734
-92.09676
-92.09693
-92.09736
-92.09739
-92.09739
-92.09777
-92.09785
-92.09781
-92.09752
-92.09734
-92.09702
-92.09611
-92.09665
-92.09698
-92.09698
-92.09719
-92.09769
-92.09651
-92.09711
-92.0966
R = field replicate sample
67
-------
Table 5. Number of Sediment Samples and Field Replicates Included in each Sediment Core Section collected from Minnesota Slip during 1999
Core Section (cm)
0-5
field replicate(s)
0-15
field replicate(s)
15-30
field replicate(s)
30-45
field replicate(s)
45-60
field replicate(s)
60-75
field replicate(s)
75-90
field replicate(s)
90-120
field replicate(s)
120-150
field replicate(s)
150-180
field replicate(s)
180-210
field replicate(s)
TOTAL NUMBER OF:
SAMPLES
FIELD REPLICATES
Number of Samples Analyzed for Chemical/Physical Parameters
Particle Other
PAHs PCBs TOC Size Lead Zinc Digestion % Moisture Mercury Metals* Ammonia AVS/SF.M
666666 6 6 66 6 6
000000 0 0 00 0 0
16 15 16 16 16 16 16 16 16
222222 2 2 2
16 15 16 16 16 16 16 16
2 22222 22
8 12 6 14 14 14 14 14
1 21222 22
6 74779 97
1 21222 22
4 63666 66
0 10222 21
4 63666 66
0 0011 1 10
4 63666 66
0 00111 10
3 53555 55
0 00111 10
1 11222 22
0 00000 00
1 11111 11
0 00000 00
69 21 81 62 85 85 87 87 85 6 6 6
6 2 9 6 13 13 13 13 90 0 0
* Cadmium, Chromium, Copper, Nickel, and Selenium
68
-------
Table 6. Results of the 10-d C. tentans Sediment Toxicity Tests on Surficial Sediments
(0-5 cm) from Minnesota Slip
Treatment
Mean Survival Mean Dry Weight Surviving Mean AFDW Per Surviving
% (± SD)a Organism (mg; ± SD)b'c Organism (mg; ± SD)c'd
Control
MNS-99-01
MNS-99-02
MNS-99-03
MNS-99-04
MNS-99-05
MNS-99-06
71.4±23.4
95.0 ±5.3
89.4 ±8.6
82.5 ± 14.9
82.9 ±13. 8
81.4±9.0
81.4±13.5
2. 844 (±0.503)
2. 525 (±0.523)
2.448 (±0.457)
2.424 (± 0.240)
2.970 (±0.421)
2.559 (±0.542)
2.769 (± 0.423)
1.908 (±0.402)
1.925 (±0.460)
1.765 (±0.348)
1.711 (±0.161)
2.208 (±0.319)
1.819(± 0.411)
2. 180 (±0.360)
a Companson of treatment survival to the control was completed by observation since control survival
was less than in any of the treatments.
b dried at 81°C for >24 hours
c Dry weight and mean AFDW in the test treatments were not significantly reduced relative to the
control.
d ashed at 550 ± 50 °C for 2 hours
SD = standard deviation
AFDW = ash free dry weight
69
-------
Table 7. Mean Percentage Survival Results of the 28- to 42-d H. aztcca Sediment Toxicity Tests
on Surficial Sediments (0-5 cm) from Minnesota Slip
Treatment
28-d Mean % Survival
(± SD)a
35-d Mean % Survival
(± SD)a
42-d Mean % Survival
(± SD)a
Control 1
Control 2
Control 3
Combined
C-ntrols l-3b
MNS-99-01
MNS-99-02
MNS-99-03c
Control 4d
Control 5d
Control 6
MNS-99-04
MNS-99-05c
MNS-99-06
84.2 (± 15.6)
85.0 (± 12.4)
88. 3 (±20.4)
85. 8 (± 16.1)
93.3 (± 8.9)
85.8 (± 10.0)
19.2 (± 18.3)
77.5 (± 16.6)
70.0 (± 16.5)
80.8 (± 17.8)
69.2 (± 16.8)
24.2 (±2 1.5)
75.0 (±15.7)
80.0 (± 20.0)
83. 7 (± 14.1)
93. 8 (±7.4)
85.8 (± 15.3)
92.5 (± 8.9)
80.0 (±12.0)
13. 8 (± 13.0)
65.0 (±30.7)
66.2 (± 22.6)
78.7 (± 18.1)
72.5 (±18.3)
25.0 (±22.7)
77.5 (±7.1)
77. 5 (± 18.3)
83. 7 (± 14.1)
91.3 ±(8.3)
84.2 (± 14.7)
90.0 (± 7.6)
80.0 (±12.0)
13. 8 (±13.0)
63.8 (±29.2)
65.0 (±2 1.4)
75.0 (±17.7)
71.3 (±17.3)
25.0 (±22.7)
77.5 (±7.1)
3 Day 28 mean survival is based on all 12 replicates; Days 35 and 42 survival are based on the
remaining eight replicates.
b The Combined Controls 1-3 was used for statistical comparison to MNS-99-01, MNS-99-02, and
MNS-99-03.
Survival in MNS-99-03 and MNS-99-05 was significantly lower than in the respective controls at
a = 0.05.
Controls 4 and 5 had less than 80% survival on day 28, and were therefore unacceptable. Only
Control 6 was used for statistical comparison to MNS-99-04, MNS-99-05, and MNS-99-06.
SD = standard deviation
70
-------
Table 8. Mean Dry Weight Results of the 28- to 42-d H. uzteca Sediment Toxicity Tests on
Surficial Sediments (0-5 cm) from Minnesota Slip
28-d Mean Dry Weight (mg) 42-d Mean Dry Weight (mg)
Treatment (± SD) (± SD)
Control 1
Control 2
Control 3
Combined
Controls l-3a
MNS-99-01
MNS-99-02
MNS-99-03
Control 4
Control 5
Control 6b
MNS-99-04
MNS-99-05
MNS-99-06
0.285 (±0.062)
0.332 (±0.080)
0.318 (±0.034)
0.312 (±0.060)
0.298 (±0.053)
0.456 (±0.226)
0.443 (± 0.097)
0.364 (±0.087)
0.440 (± 0.262)
0.364 (±0.071)
0.527 (±0.192)
0.572 (±0.332)
0.419 (±0.187)
0.300 (±0.048)
0.296 (±0.026)
0.3 12 (±0.40)
0.303 (±0.038)
0.322 (± 0.087)
0.365 (± 0.034)
0.392 (±0.131)
0.374 (± 0.077)
0.320 (± 0.044)
0.3 16 (±0.087)
0.5 16 (±0.079)
0.537 (±0.086)
0.536 (±0.030)
a The Combined Controls 1-3 were used for statistical comparison to MNS-99-01, MNS-99-02, and
MNS-99-03.
Controls 4 and 5 had less than 80% survival on day 28, and were therefore unacceptable. Only Control
6 was used for statistical comparison to MNS-99-04, MNS-99-05, and MNS-99-06.
SD = standard deviation
71
-------
Table 9. Mean Reproduction Results of the 42-d //. ciztcca Sediment Toxicity Tests on
Surficial Sediments (0-5 cm) from Minnesota Slip
Treatment
Total Number of Females Alive at
Test Termination
Mean Reproduction
(young/surviving female) (± SD)
Control 1
Control 2
Control 3
Combined
Controls l-?a
MNS-99-01
MNS-99-02
MNS-99-03
Control 4
Control 5
Control 6b
MNS-99-04
MNS-99-05
MNS-99-06
31
40
42
113
41
36
7
19
31
38
28
13
34
1.16 (±0.70)
1.50(± 1.66)
2.11 (± 1.43)
1.59 (± 1.33)
2.32 (±1.30)
2.55 (±1.11)
0.42 (±0.80)
2.77 (±2.61)
1.65 (±1.65)
0.80 (±1.02)
2.27 (±1.86)
1.30 (±1.99)
3.73 (±2.76)
a The Combined Controls 1-3 were used for statistical comparison to MNS-99-01, MNS-99-02, and
MNS-99-03.
Controls 4 and 5 had less than 80% survival on day 28, and were therefore unacceptable. Only Control
6 was used for statistical comparison to MNS-99-04, MNS-99-05, and MNS-99-06.
SD = standard deviation
72
-------
Table 10. Particle Size Distribution of Sediments from Minnesota Slip. Particle Size Ranges are Given as Diameters in Microns (|irn)
Detailed Analysis
Site
Location
MNS-99-01
MNS-99-02
MNS-99-03
MNS-99-04
MNS-99-05
MNS-99-06
MNS-99-01
MNS-99-02
MNS-99-03
MNS-99-04
MNS-99-04R
MNS-99-07
MNS-99-08
MNS-99-09
MNS-99-10
MNS-99-11
MNS-99-12
MNS-99-13
MNS-99-13R
MNS-99-14
MNS-99- 1 5
MNS-99-16
MNS-99- 17
MNS-99- 18
MNS-99-01
MNS-99-02
Depth
(cm)
0-5**
0-5
0-5**
0-5
0-5
0-5
0-15**
0-15
0-15**
0-15
0-15**
0-15
0-15**
0-15**
0-15
0-15
0-15**
0-15
0-15
0-15
0-15**
0-15
0-15
0-15
15-30
15-28
Sand Coarse
& Gravel Silt
>53 53-20
34.0
18.8
39.4
83.2
35.6
98.3
33.0
42.5
46.6
63.0
66.8
90.5
42.5
68.3
68.8
95.0
35.1
41.4
46.1
65.0
34.3
66.3
57.9
18.6
55.2
90.5
8.1
10.1
19.8
4.8
23.5
0.5
10.3
3.5
14.4
9.9
6.0
3.3
17.9
3.7
4.9
1.1
4.3
11.7
11.4
8.8
13.0
3.0
9.9
13.5
7.1
2.0
Percentages within Size Range (|um)
Medium Fine Coarse Medium
Silt Silt Clay Clay
20-5 5-2 2-0.2 0.2-0.08
31.7
41.2
29.4
7.4
31.2
0.6
33.1
30.0
25.6
17.0
16.7
3.4
24.4
14.2
15.0
1.7
30.4
28.9
24.1
16.6
33.2
17.2
18.1
34.2
23.6
3.8
14.9
19.2
6.6
2.9
5.1
0.3
12.9
14.9
7.8
6.4
6.2
2.0
9.2
8.6
5.7
1.3
16.8
10.4
11.1
6.4
12.5
7.5
7.9
22.0
8.3
2.4
11.0
10.3
4.7
1.7
4.6
0.3
10.7
8.8
5.6
3.6
4.2
0.8
5.9
5.2
5.5
0.9
13.3
7.4
7.2
3.3
7.0
5.9
6.0
11.6
5.6
1.3
0.20
0.08
0.03
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.10
0.12
0.05
0.04
0.03
0.00
0.03
0.02
0.06
0.01
0.09
0.12
0.05
0.00
0.06
0.03
0.09
0.16
0.04
0.01
Fine
Clay
<0.08
0.07
0.16
0.00
0.02
0.00
0.00
0.03
0.11
0.02
0.07
0.02
0.00
0.03
0.00
0.03
0.01
0.03
0.06
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.04
0.00
0.00
0.00
Median
Diameter*
(um)
15
9
28
> 53 (430)
28
> 53 (520)
15
17
42
> 53 (250)
> 53 (290)
> 53 (470)
36
> 53 (300)
>53(310)
> 53 (500)
13
24
33
> 53 (270)
19
> 53 (280)
> 53 (180)
10
> 53 (140)
> 53 (480)
Simple Analysis
Percentages
Sand
& Gravel
>53
3n.O
18.8
39.4
83.2
35.6
98.3
33.0
42.5
46.6
63.0
66.8
90.5
42.5
68.3
68.8
95.0
35.1
41.4
46.1
65.0
34.3
66.3
57.9
18.6
55.2
90.5
within Si/e Range (|am)
Silt Clay
53-2 2-0 '
54.7
70.6
55.9
15.1
59.8
1.4
56.2
48.4
47.7
33.3
28.9
8.7
51.6
26.4
25.6
4.1
51.4
51.0
46.7
31.8
58.7
27.7
36.0
69.7
39.1
8.2
11.2
106
4.7
1.7
4.6
0.3
10.8
9.1
5.6
3.7
4.2
0.8
6.0
5.3
5.6
1.0
13.4
7.6
7.3
3.3
7.0
6.0
6.1
11.7
5.7
1.3
Surface
Area
cnr/cm
14161
1 6002
6350
2540
6350
254
12446
12700
7239
6096
5334
1270
7747
5842
6350
1016
14605
10160
8636
4572
9271
6604
7620
14224
7366
1778
73
-------
Table 10. Continued
Detailed Analysis
Site
Location
MNS-99-03
MNS-99-04
MNS-99-04R
MNS-99-07
MNS-99-08
MNS-99-09
MNS-99-10
MNS-99-11
MNS-99-12***
MNS-99-13
MNS-99-13R
MNS-99-14
MNS-99-15
MNS-99-16
MNS-99-17
MNS-99-18
MNS-99-03
MNS-99-04
MNS-99-04R
MNS-99-13
MNS-99-14
MNS-99-15
MNS-99-17
MNS-99-03
MNS-99-04
MNS-99-04R
Depth
(cm)
15-30
15-30**
15-30
15-30
15-30
15-30
15-30
15-30
15-30**
15-30
15-30
15-30
15-30
15-30
15-30**
15-30
30-45
30-45
30-45
30-45
30-45
30-45
30-45
45-60
45-60
45-60
Sand
& Gravel
>53
66.7
51.4
67.3
87.6
37.3
69.9
41.1
96.6
83.0
47.2
77.0
30.2
55.6
85.5
41.0
15.6
47.2
36.0
60.2
80.8
61.8
63.1
59.8
41.0
61.3
48.0
Coarse
Silt
53-20
8.0
10.0
5.5
3.3
20.5
6.6
5.2
0.7
0.9
14.8
2.3
18.7
13.5
1.8
10.6
6.8
12.6
12.0
7.3
1.9
7.0
9.8
8.4
9.4
8.7
5.9
Percentages within Size Range (urn)
Medium Fine Coarse Medium
Silt Silt Clay Clay
20-5 5-2 2-0.2 0.2-0.08
15.4
25.0
17.8
5.8
28.1
15.6
31.9
1.2
7.4
21.9
11.1
31.6
19.6
6.6
29.0
52.1
25.0
31.1
19.8
12.1
18.9
16.6
18.8
28.3
17.4
25.6
5.6
8.7
5.6
1.9
8.3
4.8
11.2
0.9
4.6
9.7
5.2
11.2
7.7
3.4
12.3
13.0
9.0
12.6
7.6
2.9
7.9
6.8
8.5
12.8
8.0
12.4
4.1
4.9
3.8
1.4
5.8
3.0
10.4
0.6
4.0
6.2
4.2
8.2
3.6
2.7
6.9
12.3
6.2
8.3
5.0
2.2
4.3
3.7
4.5
8.4
4.4
8.0
0.03
0.02
0.04
0.01
0.06
0.03
0.12
0.00
0.03
0.06
0.06
0.07
0.04
0.03
0.06
0.17
0.00
0.06
0.04
0.06
0.07
0.00
0.08
0.06
0.07
0.10
Fine
Clay
<0.08
0.10
0.00
0.03
0.00
0.00
0.03
0.12
0.01
0.00
0.05
0.05
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.03
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.12
0.02
0.08
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.08
0.00
Median
Diameter*
(urn)
> 53 (290)
> 53 (80)
> 53 (290)
> 53 (460)
28
> 53 (320)
16
> 53 (510)
> 53 (430)
46
> 53 (380)
19
> 53 (150)
> 53 (440)
23
9
43
19
> 53 (210)
> 53 (410)
> 53 (230)
> 53 (250)
> 53 (210)
21
> 53 (230)
27
Simple Analysis
Percentages
Sand
& Gravel
>53
66.7
51.4
67.3
87.6
37.3
69.9
41.1
96.6
83.0
47.2
77.0
30.2
55.6
85.5
41.0
15.6
47.2
36.0
60.2
80.8
61.8
63.1
59.8
41.0
61.3
48.0
within Size Range (^m)
Silt Clay
53-2 2-0
29.1
43.7
28.9
11.1
56.9
27.0
48.3
2.8
13.0
46.5
18.6
61.5
40.8
11.8
52.0
71.9
46.6
55.7
34.7
16.9
33.8
33.2
35.7
50.5
34.2
43.9
4.2
4.9
3.9
1.4
5.8
3.1
10.6
0.6
4.0
6.3
4.3
8.2
3.6
2.7
7.0
12.5
6.2
8.3
5.2
2.3
4.4
3.7
4.6
8.4
4.5
8.1
Surface
Area
cnr/cm
6350
6350
5334
1778
7874
4X26
13462
762
3979
8636
5334
9906
5588
3048
9271
14986
7874
9906
7620
3810
7366
5080
6096
10414
7366
9652
74
-------
Table 10. Continued
Detailed Analysis
Site
ID
MNS-99-15
MNS-99-17
MNS-99-03
MNS-99-04
MNS-99-15
MNS-99-03
MNS-99-04
MNS-99-15
MNS-99-03
MNS-99-04
MNS-99-15
MNS-99-03
MNS-99-04
MNS-99-15
MNS-99-15
MNS-99-15
Depth
(cm)
45-60
45-60**
60-75
60-75
60-75
75-90
75-90
75-90
90-120
90-120
90-120
120-140**
120-150**
120-150
150-180
180-210**
Sand
& Gravel
>53
30.5
42.7
41.0
55.9
29.3
33.7
63.1
20.4
55.8
66.7
54.0
54.8
52.8
39.8
36.7
46.6
Coarse
Silt
53-20
10.9
7.8
6.0
7.7
16.6
5.2
4.7
21.5
3.8 '
3.6
10.9
1.9
5.6
9.9
13.3
2.9
Percentages within Size Range (fim)
Medium Fine Coarse Medium
Silt Silt Clay Clay
20-5 5-2 2-0.2 0.2-0.08
35.0
25.6
31.5
24.5
36.2
34.4
20.6
37.9
21.6
16.7
23.4
23.3
22.2
30.8
28.2
28.8
14.7
13.2
12.6
7.6
10.5
16.7
7.2
14.5
12.6
7.9
7.0
11.6
11.1
12.8
11.8
13.0
8.8
10.5
8.7
4.2
7.3
9.9
4.3
5.6
6.2
5.0
4.5
8.2
8.1
6.5
9.7
8.5
0.14
0.14
0.12
0.09
0.07
0.07
0.08
0.08
0.09
0.10
0.09
0.14
0.09
0.12
0.13
0.16
Fine
Clay
<0.08
0.00
0.06
0.06
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.07
0.08
0.04
0.13
0.09
0.00
0.00
0.06
0.19
0.05
Median
Diameter*
(Urn)
14
21
18
> 53 (150)
18
14
> 53 (250)
15
> 53 (150)
> 53 (290)
> 53 (120)
> 53 (130)
> 53 (100)
20
20
24
Simple Analysis
Percentages
Sand
& Gravel
>53
30.5
42.7
41.0
55.9
29.3
33.7
63.1
20.4
55.8
66.7
54.0
54.8
52.8
39.8
36.7
46.6
within Si/.c Range ^m)
Silt Clay
53-2 2-0
60.6
46.6
50.1
39.8
63.4
56.4
32.4
73.9
37.9
28.1
41.3
36.8
39.0
53.5
53.2
44.7
8.9
10.7
8.8
4.3
7.3
10.0
4.5
5.7
6.4
5.2
4.7
8.4
8.2
6.7
10.1
8.8
Surface
Area
cnr/cm1
11430
12319
11430
6096
9144
11430
7112
10668
8890
8382
7874
9779
9271
10414
13462
1 1938
* When the median diameter is >53 microns, an estimate in parentheses is provided by assuming the largest particle diameter is 1000 microns.
** Average of analytical duplicates.
*** Separate sample preparation was required to remove large material.
R = field replicate sample
75
-------
Table 11. Sediment Quality Data for Surficial (0-5 cm) Sediments Collected from MNS-99-01 through MNS-99-06. Values in Bold Itallics
Exceed the Corresponding Level I SQT Value
Site
Location
MNS-99-01
MNS-99-02
MNS-99-03
MNS-99-04
MNS-99-05
MNS-99-06
Level I SQT
Level II SQT
Core
Section
(cm)
0-5
0-5
0-5
0-5
0-5
0-5
TOC
(%)
4.8
4.8
4.8
3.6
5.4
0.71
Ammonia
Nitrogen
(mg/kg dry wt.)
68
71.4
70.4
32.7
62.9
7.77
Total Metals (mg/kg dry wt.)
Cadmium*
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
0.99
5
Chromium
43
51
42
28
45
19
43
110
Copper
72
92
94
47
99
22
32
150
Lead
110
120
100
62
110
10
36
130
Mercury
0.25
0.25
0.14
0.07
0.16
0.016
0.18
1.1
Nickel
32
38
31
21
33
19
23
49
Selenium
0.15
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
Zinc
270
350
300
170
320
85
120
460
TOC = total organic carbon
SQT = sediment quality target (Crane et al. 2000)
* Cadmium concentrations represent one-half the reporting level specified by the Minnesota Department of Health. The interpretation of these values, in
reference to the corresponding Level I SQT value, should be made with caution.
76
-------
Table 11. Continued
Site
Location
MNS-99-01
MNS-99-02
MNS-99-03*
MNS-99-04
MNS-99-05
MNS-99-06
Level I SQT
Level II SQT
Core
Section
(cm)
0-5
0-5
0-5
0-5
0-5
0-5
T. PCBs
(Hg/kg)
(dry wt.)
187
123
186
63.4
183
29.9
60
680
AVS
(jimole/g dry wt.)
5.15
1.72
2.30
1.03
2.06
0.245
SEM (mg/kg dry wt.)
Cadmium
1.1
0.81
1.45
0.32
1.4
0.21
Copper
49
42
99
44
102
15
Lead
126
109
168
54
181
16
Mercury
0.027
0.019
0.036
0.02
0.039
0.008
Nickel
9.3
7.2
14
6.6
15
102
Zinc
206
176
346
121
375
56
Total
SEM
(umole/g)
(dry wt.)
4.71
4.02
7.91
2.92
8.47
2.92
Total
SEM - AVS
(umole/g)
(dry wt.)
-0.44
2.3
5.6
1.9
6.4
2.7
*average of analytical duplicates for AVS and SEM
AVS = acid volatile sulfide
SEM = simultaneously extractable metals
SQT = sediment quality target (Crane et al. 2000)
-------
Table 12. Summary of Results of Sediment Samples Analyzed for PAH Compounds in Minnesota Slip. PAH Concentrations in Bold Italics
Exceed the Level I SQTs, Whereas Shaded Values Exceed the Level II SQTs
78
-------
Table 12. Continued
Sue
Location
Core
Section
(cm)
PAH Compounds (mg/kg dry wt.)
2Metnap
Acene
Aceny
Anth
Bena
Benap
Benb
Bene
Beng
Benk
Chry T Diben
Flut
77
Fluo
Indp
Naph
Phcn
Pyrn
MNS-99-13
0-15
0.125
0.11
•5.9
3.
4.1
4.7
2.3
0.91
4.
0.125
6.8
MNS-99-I3R
0-15
0.125
0.089
l.t
4.9
3.6
3.8
1.9
.- .-e a
i"'-'"'
ft/
0.86
4.6
0.125
6.8
10
mean (13)
0-15
0.125
0.705
0.10
5.4
3.8
4.0
4.
2.1
Jfttf
0.88
4.6
0.125
6.8
RPD(I3)
0-15
0%
1 .4 %
21.1 %
27.0 %
1 8.5 %
12%
7.6 %
0%
190%
12.4%
0. 1 %
18.9
5.6 %
0 %
MNS-99-14
0-15
0.125
0.035
3.5
2.
2.9
3.6
1.7
0.5
3.5
0.125
4.
7.5
~73
MNS-99-15*
0-15
0.192
M4
0.035
4.2
3.4
3.4
3.2
0.125
5.6
MNS-99-16
0-15
iJO.39
2.1
2.2
2.2
1.2
ft 77
0.28
4.8
5.9
Ts
~~7J
MNS-99-17*
0-15
0.125
0.035
3.6
2.9
3.6
fttfj
3.6
0.125
5.6
MNS-99-18
0-15
0.125
0.07
.•3.5
3.1
3.7
1.6
7.7
0.47
0.125
4.
98-MNS-02
15-30
0,41
0.035
:• A*
2.8
3.3
3.3
2.6
O.S8
2.8
0.125
4.9
7.5
98-MNS-03
MNS-99-OI
MNS-99-02
15-30
42
O.S9
0.035
JUT
3.6
4.2
4.9
0.79
0.4
6.6
15-30
O.54
0.076
4.2
4.1
3.1
3.2
1.8
15-28
0.125
0.64
0.035
2.9
.•2.8
1.9
2.2
1.21
15-30
0.125
0.035
3.1
3.3
4.
1.9
0.7
0.38
5.6
0.82
0.39
5.6
0.76
0.125
6.6
9.1
8.8
4.9
8.8
MNS-99-04
15-30
0.125
••0.39
0.035
2.5,
2.5
3.3
7.2
0.5
3.3
0.125
4.7
~3J
0%
MNS-99-04R
mean (04)
RPD(04)
15-30
0.035
2.4
2.5
2.7
1.4
0.54
2.6
0:i 25
5.4
15-30
0.208
0.035
2.4
2.5
7.2
0.52
0.125
5.0
15-30
79.5%
7.4 %
0%
2.0% 6.1%
4. 1 %
0%
20%
6.9 %
5.3 %
21.9%
0%
7.7 %
23.7 %
6.9
7.45
14.8%
MNS-99-07
MNS-99-08*
MNS-99-09
MNS-99-10
MNS-99-1 I*
15-30
ft 125
0.035
3.4
3.6
4.8
0,86
4.8
ft 26
9.8
15-30
mm
3.7
3.9
5.0
15-30
0.125
1.4
1.6
15-30
15-30
:•'•• -'' ' - >'•"' '•' .' '••.':•-. ' '.'•' *•--•• •..- • . .H"^ .. •. i .• - ':
3.3
3.6
4.3
0.49
0.51
0.49
3.2
3.2
3.5
4.4
4.4
4.9
7.4
6.9
5.9
5.7
5.9
7.2
0.525
10.4
0.125
3.2
0.77
4.
0.32
6.1
A*
0.12
0.44
0.125
1.2
1-2
3.5
0.35
6.8
LI
5.1
0.43
6.4
7.1
2.7
39
2A5
1.56
22.7
11
11.5
3.4
10
1.8
7.4
8.3
31
19.6
RPD(I3)
15-30
50.8 %
45.6
33.9 %
80%
92.7 %
128%
32.8
145%
} 44 %
1 1 6
MNS-99-14
15-30
0.26
4.1
4.3
5.1
2.1
0.77
0.125
6.9
-------
Table 12. Continued
PAH Compounds (mg/kg dry wt.)
80
-------
Table 12. Continued
Site
Location
MNS-99-03
MNS-99-04
MNS-99-15
MNS-99-17
MNS-99-03
MNS-99-04
MNS-99-15
MNS-99-17
MNS-99-03
MNS-99-04*
\A M C OO 1C
MNS-99-17
MNS-99-03
MNS-99-04
MNS-99-15
VINS-99-15
MNS-99-15
Core
Section
(cm)
60-75
60-75
60-75
60-75
75-90
75-90
75-90
75-90
90- 1 20
90- 1 20
90-120
90-120
120-140
120-150
120-150
150-180
180-210
PAH Compounds (mg/kg dry wt.
2Metnap
0.42
' -,';>#
:•••.•; Vij&Jgl
:,-•.••££«
0.47
;:-';-%**
0.77
0.89
'••' £51
'_ .; -'•*'?.?
0.96
0.89
:p;-V>:;,/.6
'^_ -•&?$
•.•r;,.-:;:?(/.ff
Acene
''-••£$•93
••-••;• 37
.'.-*.t'4
-\-:.-:2.2
r .0.66
-&ftf32
2.3
y 0.88
••- 19
:-":>-2
~'.<--'i:I'7
%$*j.$&2
&$&*
ii-ps
C: si2-?
Aceny
•-.vfcAW
0.38
•:$'jOJ6
W.28
^•13
<'$, .-.-
•; ~Vo? — * - •
ft 14
Anth
ia
'':••'•?.' 5I
Bena
;||fe;j;7*
3.7 f| -,= /7
<7 -. /O
'^-r1^.
fs 7^
-;:r..^
51 -S?
^ -¥
2&5
^Sfn^
:;*r^f
f;5**df
•::^!M
. „ •«-«., 9TJf
"'•••'^'^ **1&
•x;;^I
••^•w
,.x;-;7.«
:tS: ^
:•&; 5-p
:,:> ,:JJ.5
:fe;i 10
0^8.8
^K2?
^^•••^f
Sfi^^
JO
:fJK-'17
Benap
fy--'6-^
:^S1
:'*'-^V
-,?r, 11
•:ffifsW
'<"$.; JJ
• r- .:..&*
.':'.:-• •:*?
>.:.;A|
>'«fll*^
'^1*1
i^m
vi*i^J5
Benb
5
32
8
8.7
3.2
40
5.4
7.6
4
31.5
6.8
5.7
6
14
6.9
20
11
Bene
5.1
31
8.6
8.6
3.6
40
5.6
7'9j
4.1
32.5
6.7
6.6
6.2
24
6.8
21
12
Beng
5.4
26
6.6
10
3.5
34
4.1
9.7
3.9
28.5
4.3
6.9
5
12
4.9
19
11
Benk
2.
26
3
4.7
1.8
30
1.9
5.2
1.6
20.5
1.1
4.2
3.9
9.4
0.68
15
6.6
Level 1 SQT 0.02 0.0067 0.0059 0.057 0.11 0.15
Level 11 SQT 0.2 0.089 0.13 0.85 1.1 1.5
)
Chry
K
1
I
H
~ff~13
•' j'i • '''22
BB
12
....
3.5
II
9.7
1
m
liipjll
Wlifflimlsim
0.17
1.3
Diben
Iff .9
>•{}:.. 2.3
yft}=:'2.tf
»f^^
^££
;i""- *2
;!::..•'• 7
SitK^-2
iii^-7
Vte^i6.7
Flut
14
200
27
••26
9-5
240
' i?
, -,,27
11
140
^. 23
18
19
46
19
•4- '•-.•' 72
g . 32
Fluo
1.2
*%?'. 39
•^.% 2
,:--,-2.7
0.84
41
:-*>•>. 1.4
2.9
1.1
23.5
2.9
: 2.1
.,,':.: 4.2
8,9
2.1
H^..13.
'kA3*3,
Indp
5.5
27
6.5
1 1
35
37
4.1
9.6
4.2
29.5
4.5
7.1
5.5
12
4.9
19
11
Naph
0.46
25
0.54
1.1
0.45
13
0.65
1.3
0.61
17
0.84
1
2.2
3.3
0.9
1.4
1.8
Phcn
10
280
18
21
6.3
300
10
26
9.8
170
23
17
24
56
16
77
29
Pyrn
16
190
23
26
10
230
15
29
13
120
21
21
23
44
19
64
38
0.033 0.42 0.077 0.18 0.2 0.2
0.14 2.2 0.54 0.56 1.2 1.5
* average of analytical duplicates
R = field replicate sample
RPD = relative percent difference
SQT = sediment quality target (Crane et al. 2000)
-------
12. Continued
PKll Codes
2 i/lctnap = 2-Mcthylnaphthalcnc Bcna = Benz[a]anthracene Beng = Benzo[g,h,l]perylene Flut = Fluoranthene Phen = Phcnanthrene
cene = Accnapthenc Benap = Benzo[a]pyrene Benk = Benzo[k]fluoranthene Fluo = Fluorene Pyrn = Pyrcne
ceny = Acenapthylcnc Benb = Benzo[b&j]fluoranthenc Chry = Chrysenc Indp = Indeno[l,2,3-cd]pyrene
nth = Anthracene Bene = Benzo[e]pyrenc Diben = Dibenzo[a,h]anthracene Naph = Naphthalene
82
-------
Table 13. Percentage Composition of PAH Compounds Comprising the LMW and HMW PAHs in Minnesota Slip
Site
Location
9S-MNS-02
98-MNS-03
98-MNS-04
MNS-99-01
MNS-99-02*
MNS-99-03
MNS-99-04
MNS-99-05
MNS-99-06
98-MNS-02
MNS-99-01
MNS-99-02
MNS-99-03*
MNS-99-04 (mean)
MNS-99-07
MNS-99-08
MNS-99-09
MNS-99-IO
MNS-99-11
MNS-99-12
MNS-99-l3(mean)
MNS-99-14
MNS-99-15*
MNS-99-16
MNS-99-17*
MNS-99-18
98-MNS-02
98-MNS-03
MNS-99-01
MNS-99-02
MNS-99-03
Core
Section
(cm)
0-5
0-5
0-5
0-5
0-5
0-5
0-5
0-5
0-5
0-15
0-15
0-15
0-15
0-15
0-15
0-15
0-15
0-15
0-15
0-15
0-15
0-15
0-15
0-15
0-15
0-15
15-30
15-30
15-30
15-28
15-30
Percentage of LMW PAHs (%)
2Metnap Acene Acene Anth Fluo Naph Plien
3.1 4.9 0.37 13.7 6.8 2.7 68.4
1.7 5.4 0.47 13.3 7.2 1.7 70.3
2.3 5.5 0.64 14.5 6.8 2.3 68.0
2.0 7.1 0.55 14.7 7.8 2.0 65.9
2.5 5.6 0.71 14.2 6.8 2.5 67.7
2.1 5.9 0.59 15.0 6.6 2.1 67.6
3.4 7.6 0.18 11.2 7.6 4.2 65.9
2.0 5.9 0.57 15.3 7.2 2.0 '.6.9
1.0 7.0 0.29 10.0 5.7 1.0 74.9
3.1 5.3 0.42 14.3 7.7 1.5 67.7
2.3 5.6 0.66 14.3 7.1 2.3 67.6
1.7 6.4 0.46 14.6 8.3 3.7 64.9
1.4 5.7 0.39 13.0 7.2 1.4 70.9
2.2 5.6 0.25 12.8 6.7 3.2 69.4
t
4.0 4.1 1.11 14.6 5.7 4.0 66.6
1.6 5.9 0.45 12.8 7.4 1.6 70.3
3.9 5.9 1.09 13.0 7.1 3.9 65.1
2.9 6.6 0.87 13.4 7.8 2.9 65.6
6.4 4.9 1.79 12.3 6.7 6.4 61.5
2.3 6.5 0.52 14.8 8.5 3.0 64.3
1.2 6.7 0.94 17.5 8.4 1.2 64.2
1.8 5.8 0.49 14.1 7.0 1.8 69.1
2.4 5.6 0.44 13.1 7.0 1.6 69.9
4.9 6.6 1.63 13.8 9.6 3.5 60.0
1.5 6.3 0.43 14.0 7.7 1.5 68.6
1.8 5.4 1.03 14.0 6.9 1.8 69.0
4.2 5.6 0.48 13.5 7.9 1.7 66.7
4.1 5.7 0.34 14.5 7.6 3.9 63.9
3.0 6.1 0.86 14.7 7.9 4.3 63.2
1.4 7.1 0.39 15.5 9.1 4.3 62.2
1.3 6.6 0.36 14.5 7.8 1.3 68.1
Percentage of HMW PAHs (%)
Bena Benap Chry Diben Flut Pyni j
1
12.4 14.0 16.1 3.4 • 32.1 22.0
12.7 13.3 16.0 3.6 29.0 25.4
12.6 13.1 14.7 3.7 33.5 225
13.5 12.7 16.1 3.1 26.7 27.9
13.9 13.6 16.4 3.7 25.2 273
14.0 13.6 16.2 3.8 27.6 249
13.6 10.0 16.0 2.1 29.2 292
14.4 13.2 16.5 3.1 27.6 25.1
12.8 9.5 12.8 1.9 38.7 24.4
12.8 13.8 15.7 3.7 29.5 24.6
13.9 13.9 15.9 2.9 26.4 269
13.9 13.9 16.0 2.8 28.6 247
13.4 13.0 14.6 3.1 27.7 2S.2
13.6 12.2 14.0 3.0 28.9 283
13.2 12.2 16.0 2.1 30.1 26.4
13.1 13.9 15.3 2.6 30.2 249
12.5 13.3 22.7 3.1 25.8 22.7
12.6 13.0 13.7 2.7 32.7 25.2
12.9 13.1 14.3 3.1 31.3 254
12.7 12.2 14.7 2.4 29.0 29.0
14.9 13.8 15.6 3.2 27.7 24.8
14.1 13.4 14.5 3.5 25.9 28.6
13.6 12.8 16.2 2.7 29.8 25.0
13.4 13.0 15.7 2.8 28.7 26.4
11.7 11.7 12.4 2.9 29.6 31.7
12.7 14.2 14.9 3.6 28.0 26.5
12.9 13.3 15.3 3.3 29.6 25.5
13.5 13.5 16.2 3.4 29.2 24.1
13.0 12.7 15.8 2.5 28.6 27.3
14.0 13.5 14.4 2.3 32.2 23.6
13.5 12.9 14.8 3.1 28.0 27.7
83
-------
Table 13. Continued
Site
Location
MNS-99-04(mean)
MNS-99-07
MNS-99-08*
MNS-99-09
MNS-99-10
MNS-99-11*
MNS-99-12
MNS-99-13
MNS-99-13R
MNS-99-14
MNS-99-15
MNS-99-16
MNS-99-17
MNS-99-18
98-MNS-02
98-MNS-03
MNS-99-03
MNS-99-04
MNS-99-04R
MNS-99-08
MNS-99-09
MNS-99-13
MNS-99-14
MNS-99-15
MNS-99-17
MNS-99-03
MNS-99-04 (mean)
MNS-99-13*
MNS-99-14
MNS-99-15
MNS-99-17
Core
Section
(cm)
15-30
15-30
15-30
15-30
15-30
15-30
15-30
15-30
15-30
15-30
15-30
15-30
15-30
15-30
30-45
30-45
30-45
30-45
30-45
30-45
30-45
30-45
30-45
30-45
30-45
45-60
45-60
45-60
45-60
45-60
45-60
Percentage of LMW PAHs (%)
2Mernap Acene Acene Anth Fluo Naph Phen
2.8 5.5 0.48 13.5 7.1 1.7 68.9
0.9 6.9 0.26 12.4 6.3 1.9 71.4
3.3 6.5 0.22 12.8 7.5 3.3 66.4
2.6 6.5 0.73 12.9 8.1 2.6 66.6
3.5 6.2 2.06 14.4 7.9 3.3 62.7
6.5 5.0 1.82 14.0 6.5 6.5 59.7
1.1 9.4 0.30 17.9 10.2 3.0 58.1
3.3 7.9 0.98 17.0 9.8 3.8 57.1
2.0 8.3 0.15 10.8 8.4 4.6 65.8
2.5 5.4 1.07 15.5 7.5 1.2 66.8
2.7 6.2 0.36 13.5 7.4 2.6 67.3
3.7 6.4 0.39 14.6 8.6 3.3 63.0
2.8 5.4 0.32 12.0 6.5 2.7 70.3
1.9 5.8 1.11 13.8 7.4 1.9 68.2
3.8 8.4 0.17 13.0 10.3 4.3 60.0
3.9 6.4 0.31 15.2 8.2 3.4 62.5
3.0 6.6 0.28 12.9 7.1 3.0 67.1
2.5 5.4 0.68 15.3 7.1 2.3 66.7
1.7 6.2 0.47 13.5 7.7 1.7 68.8
3.3 7.3 0.92 15.1 8.4 3.2 61.9
1.2 6.4 0.34 12.7 9.0 2.9 *7.4
2.3 4.6 1.03 12.3 9.6 2.5 67.7
2.7 8.6 0.08 14.5 8.6 6.8 58.8
2.2 5.8 0.28 14.2 7.5 2.4 67.7
3.0 5.9 0.75 14.2 7.2 2.7 66.2
2.6 6.2 0.84 13.4 7.3 2.6 67.2
2.5 7.9 0.15 15.0 10.0 4.6 59.9
1.3 5.5 0.32 11.5 7.5 2.2 71.7
1.6 6.0 0.46 13.0 7.8 3.5 67.6
2.8 5.2 1-19 13.8 7.2 3.0 66.8
19 5.4 0.91 15.3 6.8 1.6 68.0
Percentage of HMW PAHs (%)
Bena Benap Chry Diben Flut Pyrn
12.8 12.4 14.8 3.0 28.0 29.0
13.0 11.3 13.5 2.2 32.5 27.5
13.6 12.0 13.6 2.4 30.4 28.0
13.4 14.2 14.2 2.9 29.9 25.4
12.6 12.3 13.6 2.7 32.1 26.7
12.6 11.6 13.8 2.1 30.4 295
15.5 13.0 15.2 2.4 31.0 22.9
16.2 14.7 16.5 2.8 28.4 21.4
12.4 10.3 12.4 2.0 31.0 32.0
13.9 13.1 14.4 3.3 27.7 27.7
14.1 13.0 15.4 2.5 28.1 268
14.3 13.1 14.3 2.5 29.1 26.6
11.9 11.4 12.7 2.9 29.2 31.X
12.8 14.3 15.0 3.6 26.8 27.5
14.1 11.4 14.1 2.7 31.8 25.9
13.3 13.3 15.4 3.6 313 23.2
13.7 12.4 14.3 3.2 26.7 29.6
13.5 12.3 15.5 2.8 30.1 25.8
13.5 13.1 15.3 2.7 28.1 27.3
15.1 14.3 15.8 2.5 29.6 22.7
12.7 12.3 14.0 2.8 34.6 23.6
12.1 10.9 12.1 2.3 36.4 26.1
13.1 11.7 11.7 2.4 29.1 32.0
14.0 11.9 14.5 2.6 31.1 259
11.7 11.5 12.8 2.8 28.1 33.2
12.8 12.5 15.0 3.3 26.6 29.9
13.7 11.7 13.9 2.2 30.1 284
12.0 11.0 11.7 2.1 35.9 27.4
13.3 12.4 12.9 3.1 28.9 29.3
13.2 12.5 16.0 2.9 29.1 26.2
12.1 12.2 14.6 3.2 27.3 30.5
84
-------
Table 13. Continued
Site
Location
MNS-99-03
MNS-99-04
MNS-99-15
MNS-99-17
MNS-99-03
MNS-99-04
MNS-99-15
MNS-99-17
MNS-99-03
MNS-99-04*
MNS-99-15
MNS-99-17
MNS-99-03
MNS-99-04
MNS-99-15
MNS-99-15
MNS-99-15
Mean
SD
CV
Range: Low
Range: High
Core
Section
(cm)
60-75
60-75
60-75
60-75
75-90
75-90
75-90
75-90
90-120
90-120
90-120
90-120
120-140
120-150
120-150
150-180
180-210
Percentage of LMW PAHs (%)
2Metnap Acene Acene Anth Fluo Naph Phen
2.7 6.0 0.97 14.9 7.8 3.0 64.7
3.3 8.2 0.08 12.6 8.6 5.5 61.8
2.2 5.3 1.35 13.9 7.5 2.0 67.7
2.6 6.7 0.85 14.3 8.2 3.3 63.9
4.5 6.4 1.26 14.5 8.1 4.3 60.9
1.9 6.8 0.07 16.0 8.7 2.8 63.8
4.6 5.9 1.57 15.1 8.5 3.9 60.4
2.3 5.9 0.44 13.4 7.5 3.4 67.1
3.4 5.8 0.86 13.9 7.3 4.0 64.8
3.7 7.1 0.16 10.6 8.8 6.3 63.3
2.7 5.6 0.65 15.8 8.2 2.4 64.7
3.3 6.4 0.75 13.9 7.9 3.8 63.9
3.8 7.7 0.31 15.1 10.1 5.3 57.7
2.9 7.5 0.15 14.3 9.8 3.6 61.7
3.7 5.9 0.79 14.6 8.3 3.6 63.1
1.8 5.0 1.76 18.4 10.4 1.1 61.6
3.1 6.5 0.31 13.7 7.4 4.0 65.0
2.7 6.2 0.65 14.0 7.8 3.0 65.6
1.1 1.0 0.45 1.5 1.0 1.3 3.6
40.5 15.4 68.9 10.5 13.3 43.2 5.4
0.9 4.1 0.07 10.0 5.7 1.0 57.1
6.5 9.4 2.06 18.4 10.4 6.8 74.9
Percentage of HMW PAHs (%)
Bena Benap Chry Diben Flut Pyrn
12.4 12.2 14.0 3.3 27.1 31 0
12.9 8.4 12.9 1.5 33.0 31.4
13.6 12.5 14.7 2.6 30.6 26.0
11.4 12.6 13.7 3.0 29.7 29.7
13.4 12.8 14.2 2.9 27.6 29.1
12.7 8.6 11.7 1.5 33.4 320
13.3 12.7 15.7 2.4 29.7 26.2
12.8 11.8 12.8 2.6 28.9 31.0
13.9 12.5 13.9 2.8 26.0 30.7
12.7 11.1 127 2.0 33.2 284
13.2 12.0 14.5 2.2 303 277
12.9 12.2 14.3 3.2 26.5 309
13.9 11.8 13.9 2.4 26.3 31.9
14.5 12.1 15.1 4.0 27.8 266
13.7 12.7 16.0 2.3 27.7 277
15.7 12.8 14.8 0.7 29.7 26.4
13.8 12.2 14.6 2.4 26.0 30.9
13.3 12.5 14.7 2.8 29.5 273
0.9 1.2 1.5 0.6 2.5 27
6.6 9.5 10.5 21.0 8.6 10. 1
11.4 8.4 11.7 0.7 25.2 21.4
16.2 14.7 22.7 4.0 38.7 33.2
Note: for replicate samples in which the RPD >50 % for total PAHs (13), the sample and replicate were treated as separate samples.
* average of analytical duplicates
LMW = low molecular weight PAHs
HMW = high molecular weight PAHs
R = field replicate sample
SD = standard deviation
CV = coefficient of variation
-------
Table 13. Continued
PAH codes:
2Metnap = 2-Methylnaphthalene
Acene = Acenapthene
Aceny = Acenapthylene
Anth = Anthracene
Bena = Benzfajanthracene
Benap = Benzo[a]pyrene
Chry = Chrysene
Diben = Dibenzo[a,h]anthracene
Flut = Fluoranthene
Fluo = Fluorene
Naph = Naphthalene
Phen = Phenanthrene
Pyrn = Pyrene
86
-------
Table 14. Summary of LMW, HMW, and Total PAHs (Based on a Subset of 13 PAH
Compounds) for Sediment Samples Collected from Minnesota Slip. Total PAH
Concentrations in Bold Italics Exceed the Level I SQT, Whereas Shaded Values
Exceed the Level II SQT
Site
Location
98-MNS-02
98-MNS-03
98-MNS-04
MNS-99-01
MNS-99-02*
MNS-99-03
MNS-99-04
MNS-99-05
MNS-99-06
98-MNS-02
MNS-99-01
MNS-99-02
MNS-99-03*
MNS-99-04*
MNS-99-04R
mean (04 & 04R)
RPD (04 & 04R)
MNS-99-07
MNS-99-08
MNS-99-09
MNS-99-10
MNS-99-11
MNS-99-12
MNS-99-13
MNS-99-13R
mean ( 13 & 13R)
RPD (13 & 13R)
MNS-99-14
MNS-99-15*
MNS-99-16
MNS-99-17*
MNS-99-18
98-MNS-02
98-MNS-03
MNS-99-01
Core
Section (cm)
0-5
0-5
0-5
0-5
0-5
0-5
0-5
0-5
0-5
0-15
0-15
0-15
0-15
0-15
0-15
0-15
0-15
0-15
0-15
0-15
0-15
0-15
0-15
0-15
0-15
0-15
0-15
0-15
0-15
0-15
0-15
0-15
15-30
15-30
15-30
Total
LMW PAHs
(mg/kg dry wt.)
9.51
7.40
5.45
6.38
4.95
5.92
19.7
6.13
12.0
8.42
5.33
7.55
8.88
16.5
11.3
13.9
37.1 %
3.16
7.83
3.23
8.99
1.95
14.2
10.9
10.3
10.6
5.3 %
7.10
8.01
8
8.24
6.81
7.35
10.3
8.87
Total
HMW PAHs
(mg/kg dry wt.)
43.6
33.8
19.1
23.6
22.0
22.9
41.2
24.3
33.6
40.7
20.1
28.7
30.9
45.7
37.3
41.5
20.2 %
10.6
28.1
12.8
26.9
5.12
44.9
37.3
35.2
36.3
5.8 %
26.2
31.2
22.3
31.1
27.5
29.4
37.7
32.2
Total
PAHs (13)
(mg/kg dry wt.)
„ ft;.;;S3J.y-
...-;;; 'S^O ;-:;.-: •'•
'X^fi-^24'5^''"', -::"'. •
^J||ff§ft0.;;. ;,
J ., 60.9 ' Hp j
•?ft/ ' 1
S^^^WMIili
:::-:-. ^9.1 :
:/::::::£•*,:•: '25.4- • ~
"'••'•••™- '- 36.3 ''" ••'•••
!51P •
. ••'•"• •-'••-: -•-•• •"
m/$l$%$ •?'&'•'•:
H^^lii
SS'4 "
24.5 %
13.8
':^f-:36.0:ff
16.0
gi^^iiai
7.07
Z&SW ' ,,„:
.••'.-•-i;?:4y&2-,;-.-:"
'•:•. ••:.'''^5,S--r!^*,,
•/..;/,-
5.7 %
:'f^J3.3.^.-..,
• :•!':' J9.2'-.
'••;y-:^:39:4; -••••• ':
,^:>£343 •>;•:•: ~
W36M^^~;
:-:;: • Jr-48.0 -•"•-•' "l
. : a ^41.1:^ . .
87
-------
Table 14. Continued
Site
Location
Core
Section (cm)
Total
LMW PAHs
(mg/kg dry wt.
Total
HMW PAHs
(mg/kg dry wt.)
Total
PAHs (13)
(mg/kg dry wt.)
4NS-99-02
15-28
9.01
29,8
MS-99-03
15-30
9.69
41.5
/INS-99-04
15-30
6.86
26.2
MS-99-04R
15-30
7.81
25.3
33.U
mean (04 &• 04R)
15-30
7.33
25.7
RPD (04 & 04R)
15-30
13.0%
3.4 %
0.2 %
rtNS-99-07
15-30
13.7
40.0
•53.7': ••••••••..
1NS-99-08*
15-30
15.7
41.1
4NS-99-09
15-30
4.81
13.4
18.2
4NS-99-10
15-30
9.73
37.4
4NS-99-11*
15-30
1.93
5.93
7.86
4NS-99-12
15-30
11.7
32.3
MNS-99-13
15-30
11.2
15-30
59.3
96.9
mean (13 & 13R)
RPD(13&13R))
15-30
15-30
35.2
136%
67.9
85.6 %
4NS-99-14
/INS-99-15
rtNS-99-16
/1NS-99-17
VINS-99-18
15-30
15-30
15-30
15-30
15-30
10.3
9.67
8.89
10.8
6.75
39.7
29.1
24.4
37.7
27.3
8-MNS-02
8-MNS-03
30-45
30-45
41.7
11.2
85
38.4
VINS-99-03
MNS-99-04
VINS-99-04R
30-45
30-45
30-45
12.4
13.0
7.42
37.1
46.5
27.4
mean (04 & 04R)
30-45
10.2
37.0
RPD (04 & 04R)
30-45
55.0%
51.6%
52.3 %
MNS-99-08
30-45
12.0
40.5
MNS-99-09
30-45
1(12
22.9
MNS-99-13
30-45
14.6
33.0
MNS-99-14
30-45
221
343
MNS-99-15
MNS-99-17
30-45
30-45
12.7
10.6
38.6
39.2
MNS-99-03
MNS-99-04
45-60
45-60
17.9
129
60.2
209
MNS-99-04R
45-60
172
280
452
mean (04 & 04R)
45-60
150
244
RPD (04 & 04R)
45-60
TO Q O/
/ o. o /o
29.3
29.1 %
88
-------
Table 14. Continued
Site
Location
MNS-99-13*
MNS-99-14
MNS-99-15
MNS-99-17
MNS-99-03
MNS-99-04
MNS-99-15
MNS-99-17
MNS-99-03
MNS-99-04
MNS-99-15
MNS-99-17
MNS-99-03
MNS-99-04*
MNS-99-15
MNS-99-17
MNS-99-03
MNS-99-04
MNS-99-15
MNS-99-15
MNS-99-15
Level I SQT
Level II SQT
Core
Section (cm)
45-60
45-60
45-60
45-60
60-75
60-75
60-75
60-75
75-90
75-90
75-90
75-90
90-120
90-120
90-120
90-120
120-140
120-150
120-150
150-180
180-210
Total
LMW PAHs
(mg/kg dry \vt.)
17.4
7.69
21.0
17.7
15.5
453
26.6
32.8
10.4
470
16.6
38.8
15.1
268
35.5
26.6
41.6
90.7
25.4
125
44.6
Total
HMW PAHs
(mg/kg dry wt.)
37.6
22.5
68.7
62.2
51.6
606
88.3
87.6
34.4
718
57.3
93.4
42.3
422
75.8
68
72.2
166
68.7
243
123
Total
PAHs (13)
(mg/kg dry wt.)
' •--• . &!••:-•.•„]*
^cjmj.
J*-£^**7J?^
.-... '.U: 7,9.9^.:-
isf^ ••<£/,;•''••.>;•.£
•^^.•-•1059^
.,':•:',:,.; JIS;".^.
il*BiP$$lHH
^^K~^f"3™"r
7? 0
-••'•y ,
/; j^2
: 691. ;,,.,;
;>,;:---. • >:•>... .. • .
'256.:-
llSSv^fcjffxl
¥';':--vj
-------
Table 15. Ratio of LMW or HMW PAHs to Total PAHs (Based on a Subset of 13 PAHs)
in Sediments from Minnesota Slip
Site Location
98-MNS-02
98-MNS-03
98-MNS-04
MNS-99-01
MNS-99-02*
MNS-99-03
MNS-99-04
MNS-99-05
MNS-99-06
98-MNS-02
MNS-99-01
MNS-99-02
MNS-99-03*
MNS-99-04 (mean)
MNS-99-07
MNS-99-08
MNS-99-09
MNS-99-10
MNS-99-11
MNS-99-12
MNS-99-13 (mean)
MNS-99-14
MNS-99-15*
MNS-99-16
MNS-99-17*
MNS-99-18
98-MNS-02
98-MNS-03
MNS-99-01
MNS-99-02
MNS-99-03
MNS-99-04 (mean)
MNS-99-07
MNS-99-08*
MNS-99-09
MNS-99-10
MNS-99-11*
MNS-99-12
MNS-99-13
MNS-99-13R
MNS-99-14
MNS-99-15
Core Section (cm)
0-5
0-5
0-5
0-5
0-5
0-5
0-5
0-5
0-5
0-15
0-15
0-15
0-15
0-15
0-15
0-15
0-15
0-15
0-15
0-15
0-15
0-15
0-15
0-15
0-15
0-15
15-30
15-30
15-30
15-28
15-30
15-30
15-30
15-30
15-30
15-30
15-30
15-30
15-30
15-30
15-30
15-30
Ratio of LMW to
T. PAHs (13)
(%)
17.9
18.0
22.2
21.2
18.4
20.6
32.4
20.2
26.3
17.1
21.0
20.8
22.3
25.1
22.9
21.8
20.1
25.0
27.6
24.0
22.6
21.3
20.4
26.4
20.9
19.8
20.0
21.5
21.6
30.2
23.3
22.2
25.5
27.6
26.4
20.6
24.5
26.6
22.4
38.0
20.6
24.9
Ratio of HMW to
T. PAHs (13)
(%)
82.1
82.0
77.8
78.8
81.6
79.4
67.6
79.8
73.7
82.9
79.0
79.2
77.7
749
77.1
78.2
79.9
75.0
72.4
76.0
77.4
78.7
79.6
73.6
79.1
80.2
80.0
78.5
78.4
69.8
76.7
77.8
74.5
72.4
73.6
79.4
75.5
73.4
77.6
62.0
79.4
75.1
90
-------
Table 15. Continued
Site Location
MNS-99-16
MNS-99-17
MNS-99-18
98-MNS-02
98-MNS-03
MNS-99-03
MNS-99-04
MNS-99-04R
MNS-99-08
MNS-99-09
MNS-99-13
MNS-99-14
MNS-99-15
MNS-99-17
MNS-99-03
MNS-99-04 (mean)
MNS-99-13*
MNS-99-14
MNS-99-15
MNS-99-17
MNS-99-03
MNS-99-04
MNS-99-15
MNS-99-17
MNS-99-03
MNS-99-04
MNS-99-15
MNS-99-17
MNS-99-03
MNS-99-04*
MNS-99-15
MNS-99-17
MNS-99-03
MNS-99-04
MNS-99-15
MNS-99-15
MNS-99-15
Mean
SD
CV
Range: Low
Range: High
Core Section (cm)
15-30
15-30
15-30
30-45
30-45
30-45
30-45
30-45
30-45
30-45
30-45
30-45
30-45
30-45
45-60
45-60
45-60
45-60
45-60
45-60
60-75
60-75
60-75
60-75
75-90
75-90
75-90
75-90
90-120
90-120
90-120
90-120
120-140
120-150
120-150
150-180
180-210
Ratio ol LMW to
T. PAHs(13)
(%)
26.7
22.3
19.8
32.9
22.6
25.0
21.9
21.3
22.8
30.9
30.7
39.2
24.8
21.2
22.9
38.1
31.7
25.5
23.4
22.1
23.1
42.8
23.1
27.3
23.1
39.6
22.4
29.3
26.3
38.9
31.9
28.1
36.6-
35.4
27.0
34.0
26.6
25.5
5.8
22.6
17.1
42.8
Ratio of HMW to
T. PAHs(13)
(%)
73.3
77.7
80.2
67.1
77.4
75.0
78.1
78.7
77.2
69.1
69.3
60.8
75.2
78.8
77.1
61.9
68.3
74.5
76.6
77.9
76.9
57.2
76.9
72.7
76.9
60.4
77.6
70.7
73.7
61.1
68.1
71.9
63.4
64.6
73.0
66.0
73.4
7475
5.8
7.7
57.2
82.9
91
-------
Table 15. Continued
Note: for replicate samples in which the RPD >50 % for T. PAHs (13), the sample and replicate were
treated as separate samples.
" average of analytical duplicates
LMW = low molecular weight PAHs
HMW = high molecular weight PAHs
R = field replicate sample
SD = standard deviation
CV = coefficient of variation
RPD = relative percent difference
92
-------
Table 16. Mean PEC-Q Values for Sediment Samples Collected from Minnesota Slip
Site Location
98-MNS-02
98-MNS-03
98-MNS-04
MNS-99-01
MNS-99-02
MNS-99-03
MNS-99-04
MNS-99-05
MNS-99-06
98-MNS-02
98-MNS-03
MNS-99-01
MNS-99-02
MNS-99-03
MNS-99-04 (mean)
MNS-99-07
MNS-99-08
MNS-99-09
MNS-99-10
MNS-99-11
MNS-99-12
MNS-99-13(mean)
MNS-99-14
MNS-99-15
MNS-99-16
MNS-99-17
MNS-99-18
98-MNS-02
98-MNS-03
MNS-99-01
MNS-99-02
MNS-99-03
MNS-99-04 (mean)
MNS-99-07
MNS-99-08
Core Section (cm)
0-5
0-5
0-5
0-5
0-5
0-5
0-5
0-5
0-5
0-15
0-15
0-15
0-15
0-15
0-15
0-15
0-15
0-15
0-15
0-15
0-15
0-15
0-15
0-15
0-15
0-15
0-15
15-30
15-30
15-30
15-28
15-30
15-30
15-30
15-30
Mean PEC-Q
1.6
1.3
0.66
0.72
0.68
0.71
1.1
0.75
0.76
1.8
0.86
0.73
1.0
0.97
1.1
0.31
0.96
1.1
0.93
0.15
1.6
1.3
0.98
0.97
0.82
1.2
0.97
1.3
1.6
1.5
0.86
1.7
1.2
1.4
1.9
93
-------
Table 16. Continued
Site Location
MNS-99-09
MNS-99-10
MNS-99-11
MNS-99-12
MNS-99-13
MNS-99-13R
MNS-99-14
MNS-99-15
MNS-99-16
MNS-99-17
MNS-99-18
98-MNS-02
98-MNS-03
MNS-99-01
MNS-99-03
MNS-99-04
MNS-99-04R
MNS-99-07
MNS-99-08
MNS-99-09
MNS-99-10
MNS-99-11
MNS-99-13 (mean)
MNS-99-14
MNS-99-15
MNS-99-16
MNS-99-17
MNS-99-18
MNS-99-01
MNS-99-03
MNS-99-04 (mean)
MNS-99-09
MNS-99-13 (mean)
MNS-99-14
MNS-99-15
MNS-99-16
MNS-99-17
Core Section (cm)
15-30
15-30
15-30
15-30
15-30
15-30
15-30
15-30
15-30
15-30
15-30
30-45
30-45
30-45
30-45
30-45
30-45
30-45
30-45
30-45
30-45
30-45
30-45
30-45
30-45
30-45
30-45
30-45
45-60
45-60
45-60
45-58
45-60
45-60
45-60
45-58
45-60
Mean PEC-Q
2.2
1.9
0.26
1.3
1.8
3.8
2.4
1.3
0.97
1.5
1.5
3.5
2.2
0.73
2.2
2.4
1.3
0.35
2.2
1.4
1.5
0.62
1.4
12.9
1.8
0.35
1.9
2.4
0.28
2.9
9.4
1.7
1.5
0.96
3.0
0.21
3.1
94
-------
Table 16. Continued
Site Location Core Section (cm) Mean PEC-Q
MNS-99-03
MNS-99-04 (mean)
MNS-99- 13 (mean)
MNS-99- 14
MNS-99-15
MNS-99-17
MNS-99-03
MNS-99-04 (mean)
MNS-99- 13
MNS-99-14
MNS-99-15
MNS-99-17
MNS-99-03
MNS-99-04 (mean)
MNS-99- 13
MNS-99-14
MNS-99-15
MNS-99-17
MNS-99-03
MNS-99-04 (mean)
MNS-99- 13
MNS-99-15
MNS-99-17
MNS-99-15
MNS-99-17
MNS-99-15
60-75
60-75
60-75
60-75
60-75
60-75
75-90
75-90
75-90
75-90
75-90
75-90
90-120
90-120
90-120
90-120
90-120
90-120
120-140
120-150
120-150
120-150
120-150
150-180
150-180
180-210
2.4
24.0
0.69
0.85
3.6
3.7
1.7
26.9
0.85
0.73
2.5
3.7
1.9
15.9
0.80
1.2
3.9
2.7
3.3
6.7
0.69
3.2
1.7
9.1
3.4
4.5
Note: The mean PEC-Q value for MNS-99-13 & 13R (15-30 cm), and MNS-99-04 &
04R (30-45 cm) was not used because the RPD for PAHs was >50% for most individual
PAH compounds and for total PAHs (13) for these samples.
PEC-Q = probable effect concentration quotient
RPD = relative percent difference
95
-------
Table 17. Percentage Composition of PAHs in Slip C, Duluth Harbor. Results are Based on 34 Samples Collected from 15 cm
Depth Segments (Down to 60 cm) in Slip C (Crane 1999a)
Summary
Parameter
Mean
SD
CV
Range: Low
Range: High
Ratio of LMW
to Total
PAHs(13)(%)
28.0
4.3
15.4
20.6
41
Ratio of HMW
to Total
PAHs(13)(%)
72.0
4.3
6
59
79.4
Percentage Composition of LMW PAHs (%)
2Metnap Acene Aceny Anth Fluo Naph Phen
5.8 6.6 1.9 12.9 9.3 5.3 58.4
2 1.5 0.7 2 1.7 1.5 3.7
35.5 23 37.2 15.7 18.4 28.9 6.4
2.7 4.6 0.5 8.7 7.2 2.4 49.6
11.5 11.3 3.4 17.7 14.4 8.2 64.7
Percentage Composition ofHMW PAHs (%)
Bena Benap Chry Diben Hut Pyrn
12 12.5 14.7 1.8 33.8 25.3
2.4 1.4 1.6 0.4 1.7 1.8
19.7 10.8 10.8 25.2 4.9 7.1
7.6 9.5 11.2 1.2 31.4 22.5
16.6 14.5 17.6 3.7 39.1 28.7
LMW = low molecular weight PAHs
HMW = high molecular weight PAHs
SD = standard deviation
CV = coefficient of variation
PAH Codes:
2Metnap = 2-Methylnaphthalene
Acene = Acenapthene
Aceny = Acenapthylene
Anth = Anthracene
Bena = Benz[a]anthracene
Benap = Benzo[a]pyrene
Chry = Chrysene
Diben = Dibenzo[a,h]anthracene
Flut = Fluoranthene
Fluo = Fluorene
Naph = Naphthalene
Phen = Phenanthrene
Pyrn = Pyrene
96
-------
Table 18. Summary of Sediment Toxicity Test Results, Compared to the Test Control, and Mean PEC-Q Values for Surficial
Sediments Collected from Minnesota Slip
10-day C. tentans Tests
28-42 day H. aztcca Tests
Site Location Core Section (cm) Mean PEC-Q*
Survival
Growth
Survival
Growth Reproduction
MNS-99-01
MNS-99-02
MNS-99-03
MNS-99-04
MNS-99-05
MNS-99-06
0-5
0-5
0-5
0-5
0-5
0-5
0.72
0.68
0.71
1.1
0.75
0.76
NT
NT
NT
NT
NT**
NT
NT
NT
NT
NT
NT
NT
NT
NT
T
NT
T
NT
NT
NT
--
NT
--
NT
NT
NT
--
NT
--
NT
* for each sample, the only contaminant of concern to exceed its corresponding PEC value was total PAHs.
**survival in MNS-99-05 was significantly reduced when compared to MNS-99-01.
NT = not toxic
T = toxic at a = 0.05
-------
Table 19. Distribution of Mean PEC-Qs for Selected Areas in the St. Louis River AOC
Area
Interlake/Duluth Tar Superfund Site
Entire SLRAOC, excluding Minnesota Slip
Entire SLRAOC, including Minnesota Slip
Minnesota Slip3
Howards Bay
WLSSD and Coffee and Miller Creek area
1994 Sediment Survey (Minnesota Slip excluded)
n
15
165
198
33
10
15
36
Average
8.8
1.2
1.1
1.0
0.43
0.42
0.33
Standard
Deviation
19.1
6.4
5.9
0.4
0.19
0.15
0.24
Minimum
0.251
0.00948
0.00948
0.15
0.0648
0.245
0.0211
lOthpercentile
0.544
0.0403
0.0433
0.68
0.0648
0.3
0.0872
Median
1.27
0.182
0.2595
0.982
0.4965
0.381
0.2915
90th percentile
14
0.794
1.22
1.41
0.629
0.46
0.547
Maximum
72.9
72.9
72.9
1.78
0.693
0.794
1.22
a Data included 29 surficial sediment samples from this survey plus 4 previously collected samples that were included in the St. Louis River matching
sediment chemistry and toxicity database.
PEC-Q = probable effect concentration quotient
SLRAOC = St. Louis River Area of Concern
WLSSD = Western Lake Superior Sanitary District
98
-------
Table 20. Distribution of Mean PEC-Qs that also Included Mercury for Selected Areas in the St. Louis River AOCa
Area
Interlake/Duluth Tar Superfund Site
Entire SLRAOC, excluding Minnesota Slip
Entire SLRAOC, including Minnesota Slip
Minnesota Slip
WLSSD and Coffee and Miller Creek area
Howards Bay
1994 Sediment Survey (Minnesota Slip excluded)
n
15
165
198
33
15
10
36
Average
8.8
1.2
1.1
0.94
0.48
0.43
0.36
Standard
Deviation
19.1
6.4
5.9
0.3
0.20
0.20
0.23
Minimum
0.242
0.00842
0.00842
0.144
0.245
0.0681
0.0211
10th percentile
0.51
0.0393
0.0414
0.634
0.321
0.0681
0.125
Median
1.27
0.186
0.2735
0.893
0.424
0.481
0.330
90th percentile
14.07
0.796
1.1
1.4
0.582
0.671
0.582
Maximum
72.85
72.85
72.85
1 .63
1.00
0.691
1.00
J Although a reliable PEC value for mercury is not available to include in the mean PEC-Q (MacDonald el al. 2000a), mercury is an important chemical
of potential concern in the St. Louis River AOC. For this table, mercury was included in the calculation of mean PEC-Qs to assess whether substantial
changes in the distribution of mean PEC-Qs would occur for selected areas in the St. Louis River AOC.
h Data included 29 surficial sediment samples from this survey plus 4 previously collected samples that were included in the St. Louis River matching
sediment chemistry and toxicity database.
PEC-Q = probable effect concentration quotient
SLRAOC = St. Louis River Area of Concern
WLSSD = Western Lake Superior Sanitary District
-------
Table 21. Distribution of mean PEC-Qs for selected Great Lake AOCs
Area11
Indiana Harbor AOCb
Sheboygan Harbor AOC
Maumee River AOC
St. Mary's River AOC
Waukegan Harbor AOC
St. Louis River AOCC
Cuyahoga River AOC
Minnesota Slipd
Oswego River AOC
St. Clair River AOC
n
821
23
25
38
23
165
21
29
22
44
Average
54
16
9.1
5.4
2.8
1.2
1.0
0.98
0.95
0.47
Standard
Deviation
867.4
77.9
40.4
11.1
1.4
6.4
0.7
0.4
0.9
1.0
Minimum
0.000636
0.0559
0.189
0.0412
0.267
0.00948
0.505
0.15
0.0196
0.054
10th percentile
0.123
0.0767
0.286
0.0829
0.615
0.0403
0.506
0.659
0.0469
0.0713
Median
2.49
0.256
0.363
0.743
2.85
0.182
0.88
0.97
0.9855
0. 1 505
90th percentile
25.2
0.391
2.61
14.2
4.01
0.794
1.51
1.4
1.79
0.906
Maximum
23800
374
203
52.4
5.25
72.9
3.93
1.78
1.79
6.46
d AOCs were selected based on availability of data on > 20 sediment samples in MESL's matching sediment chemistry and toxicity database.
b These quotients did not include not detected substances that had detection limits greater than the corresponding PEC value (i.e., conservative estimate ot
mean PEC-Q).
c Not including Minnesota Slip.
dData included 29 surficial sediment samples from this survey.
PEC-Q = probable effect concentration quotient
AOC = Area of Concern
100
-------
Table 22. Summary of FIELDS Mass and Volume Calculations for Minnesota Slip Sediments with Total PAH (13) Concentrations
Greater than 23 mg/kg Dry Weight
Depth Interval*
(cm)
0-15
15-30
Minimum
Concentration
(mg/kg)
23.0
23.0
Maximum
Concentration
(mg/kg)
58.9
102.2
Density
(lb/yd3)
3257
3257
Volume
(yd3)
2364
2563
Mass
(Ihs)
288
344
* The most reliable output from FIELDS corresponded to sediment sections in which PAH data were available for the entire slip. Thus, volume
and mass estimates were not given for deeper, more contaminated sections of Minnesota Slip for which PAH data were only available for the
inner portion of the slip.
Table 23. Summary of FIELDS Volume Calculations for Minnesota Slip Sediments with Mean PEC-Qs Exceeding 0.6
Depth Interval*
(cm)
0-15
15-30
30-45
45-60
Minimum Mean
PEC-Q
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.6
Maximum Mean
PEC-Q
1.8
2.8
12.8
9.5
Density
(lb/yd3)
3257
3257
3257
3257
Volume
(yd3)
2424
2745
2542
1921
* The most reliable output from FIELDS corresponded to sediment sections in which sediment chemistry data were available for the entire slip.
Thus, volume estimates were not given for deeper, more contaminated sections of Minnesota Slip for which sediment chemistry data were only
available for the inner portion of the slip.
PEC-Q = probable effect concentration quotient
-------
FIGURES
102
-------
Cloquet
St. Louis River
Area of Concern
Lake
Superior
Figure 1. Map of the St. Louis River AOC.
103
-------
MnnetoU PofluOon Confrcf^gancy
Duluth/Superior Harbor
Minnesota Slip
Duluth, MN
SlipC
Lake Superior
WLSSD/Miller Creek/
Coffee Creek
DM&IR Stockpile
Erie Pier
Grassy Point
InteVlake/DuluthTar
Superfund Site
USX Superfund Site
N
A
Figure 2. Location of hot spot areas in the St. Louis River AOC.
104
-------
Minnesota Slip (MNS Sites)
Duluth/Superior Harbor
Duluth Entertainment
Convention Center
N
A
50
0
IE
50
Meters
Canal Park
Figure 3. Location of Minnesota Slip in the Duluth Harbor. Sampling points denote sediment
sampling stations for a 1994 study (Crane et al. 1997).
105
-------
Figure 4. Aerial photograph of Minnesota Slip. The large ship in Minnesota Slip is the S.S.
William A. Irvin. The location of storm sewer outfalls are marked with white tape.
106
-------
MAP OF THE
HARBOR FACILITIES
DULUTH.
-IN-
1887
Figure 5. Map of the Duluth Harbor facilities in 1887 (Walker and Hall 1976).
107
-------
Minnesota Slip
• I
Duluth - Su0enor Harbor
rtamment
Center
MACDONALD
ITNVlRONVmNTAT. SCTKNCF5 T.TD.
Figure 6. Location of sediment sampling sites in Minnesota Slip.
108
-------
Areas of Concern in the
Great Lakes - St. Lawrence River Basin
J-ckffshBay
Peninsula Harbour
S«. Marys River
Spanish Rivm Mouth
St. Louis S.iyit<[vci
Manistique River
Menominee River
Fox River/Southern Green Bay
s
Sheboygan River 1
Milwaukee Estuary A
Wauliegan Harbor 9
Grand Calumet River w
f *»
r '" i\S^
St. Lawrence River
(Cornwall) ••
ff SI. Ui >vre r ice River
/ (Mjisena)
Severn Suund
Collinqv.ood
Lalct Huron
Hamilton H
BayolQuinte i
f Presque Isle Bay
.Ashlabula River
Niagara River,
White Lake f^ (Ontano)
Clinton River
MuskegonLafc« ~*-- • st
^«
Detroit River ^"JjJ
Rouge River
Rivef Raisin
MaumeeRiverW -^^.^ "cuyahoga River
Black River
Canada
U.S.A.
Delisted AOC
Connecting Channete
Figure 7. Location of Great Lakes AOCs.
109
-------
Depth O - 15 cm
Depth 15 - 30 cm
>64.9
90.5
% Sand (>53 jim)
71 0 to <20
II 20 to <40
HI 40 to <60
] 60 to <80
80 to <100
5.0
63.1
100
50
%.6
Depth 30 - 45 cm
N
100 meters
A
MACDONALD
ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES LTD.
Figure 8. Isopleth plots for the distribution of sand (>53 um) in Minnesota Slip for selected depth intervals.
110
-------
Depth 45 - 6O cm
4.7
% Sand (>53 jim)
0 to <20
1 20 to <40
J 40 to <60
ID 60 to <80
| 80 to <100
100
50
100 meters
N
A
MACDONALD
ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES LTD.
Figure 8. Continued.
Ill
-------
l>epth O - 15 cm
Depth 15 - 3O cm
51.4
69.7
% Silt (53 - 2 pirn)
0 to <15
] 15 to <30
30 to <45
45 to <60
60 to <75
100
50
100 meters
Depth 30 - 45 cm
N
A
MACDONALD
ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES LTD.
Figure 9. Isopleth plots for the distribution of silt (53 - 2 urn) in Minnesota Slip for selected depth intervals.
112
-------
Depth 45 - 6O cm
% Silt (53 - 2 urn)
0 to <15
Zl 15 to <30
] 30 to <45
45 to <60
60 to <75
100
50
100 meters
N
A
MACDONALD
ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES LTD.
Figure 9. Continued.
113
-------
Depth 0 - 15 cm
Depth 15 - 30 cm
Depth 30 - 45 cm
% Clay (2 - 0 |iun)
^Oto<3
j 3 to <6
J 6 to <9
U 9 to <12
3 12 to <15
100
50
100 meters
3.7'
N
A
MACDONALD
ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES LTD.
Figure 10. Isopleth plots for the distribution of clay (2-0 um) in Minnesota Slip for selected depth intervals.
114
-------
Depth 45 - 6O cm
% Clay (2 - 0 pun)
JOtoO
J 3 to <6
1 6 to <9
J 9 to <12
I 12 to <15
100
50
100 meters
N
A
MACDONALD
ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES LTD.
Figure 10. Continued.
115
-------
Depth O - 15 cm
Depth 15 - 3O cm
Depth 30 - 45 cm
Total Organic Carbon
Hi 0 to <4
[_|4to<8
J8to<12
I 112 to <16
~~116 to <20
120 to <24
100
i.3.2
50
100 meters
N
A
MACDONALD
ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES LTD.
Figure 11. Isopleth plots for the distribution of TOC (%) in Minnesota Slip for selected depth intervals.
116
-------
Depth 45 - 6O cm
Depth 60 - 75 cm
Depth 75 - 90 cm
Total Organic Carbon (%)
•I 0 to <4
;_ 1 4 to <8
| |8to<12
12 to <16
~| 16 to <20
20 to <24
Figure 11. Continued.
100
50
N
100 meters
A
MACDONALD
ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES LTD.
117
-------
Depth 9O - 12O cm
Depth 120 - 150 cm
Total Organic Carbon (%)
H 0 to <4
3 4 to <8
j 8 to <12
112 to <16
I 116 to <20
120 to <24
Figure 11. Continued.
100
\8.0
50
100 meters
N
A
MACDONALD
ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES LTD.
118
-------
Depth 0-15 cm
Total PCBs (jug/kg dry wt)
IB 0 to <60
(~~160* to <340
I) 340 to <680
] > 680**
* Level I SQT (Crane et al. 2000)
**Level n SQT (Crane et al. 2000)
100
38.8
50
N
100 meters
A
MACDONALD
ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES LTD.
Figure 12. Isopleth plot for the distribution of total PCBs (pig/kg dry wt.) in surficial sediments of Minnesota Slip.
119
-------
Depth O - 15 cm
Depth 15 - 3O cm
Depth 3O - 45 cm
59.1
Total PAHs (mg/kg dry wt.) •
apoto
-------
Depth 45 - 6O cm
Depth 60 - 75 cm
Depth 75 - 9O cm
55.1
Total PAHs (mg/kg dry wt.)
IB ° to 100
* Level I SQT (Crane et al. 2000)
** Level n SQT (Crane et al. 2000)
Figure 13. Continued.
100
^ 1,060
50
\120
N
100 meters
A
MACDONALD
ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES LTD.
121
-------
Depth 90 - 120 cm
111 V ,\691
Total PAHs (mg/kg dry wt.)
JH|Oto<1.6
[73] 1.6* to <12
] 12 to <23
| 123** to <50
| 150 to <100
|>100
N
* Level I SQT (Crane et al. 2000)
**Level D SQT (Crane et al. 2000)
100
50
100 meters
A
MACDONALD
ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES LTD.
Figure 13. Continued.
122
-------
MNS-99-15, Total PAH Profile
(based on 13 PAHs)
U
0)
+d
fi
0-15
15-30
30-45
45-60
60-75
75-90
g< 90-120
^ 120-150
v
O 150-180
180-210
100 200 300
Total PAHs (mg/kg dry wt.)
400
Total PAHs (based on 13 compounds) (mg/kg dry wt.)
Level I SQT for Total PAHs (1.6 mg/kg dry wt.)
Level II SQT for Total PAHs (23 mg/kg dry wt.)
Figure 14. Historical distribution of total PAHs (based on the sum of 13 LMW and HMW PAH
compounds; mg/kg dry wt.) at site MNS-99-15.
123
-------
MNS-99-04, Total PAH Profile
(based on 13 PAHs)
0
200 400 600 800 1000
Total PAHs (mg/kg dry wt.)
1200
Total PAHs (based on 13 PAHs) (mg/kg dry wt.)
Level I SQT for Total PAHs (1.6 mg/kg dry wt.)
Level II SQT for Total PAHs (23 mg/kg dry wt.)
Figure 15. Historical distribution of total PAHs (based on the sum of 13 LMW and HMW PAH
compounds; mg/kg dry wt.) at site MNS-99-04.
124
-------
MNS-99-03, Total PAH Profile
(based on 13 PAHs)
S
u
s-^
"3
>>
'-
&
£
G
HH
A
^^
a
«
Q
0-15
15-30
30-45
45-60
60-75
75-90
90-120
120-140
20 40 60 80 100
Total PAHs (mg/kg dry wt)
120
Total PAHs (based on 13 compounds) (mg/kg dry wt.)
Level 1 SQT for Total PAHs (1.6 mg/kg dry wt.)
Level II SQT for Total PAHs (23 mg/kg dry wt.)
Figure 16. Historical distribution of total PAHs (based on the sum of 13 LMW and HMW PAH
compounds; mg/kg dry wt.) at site MNS-99-03.
125
-------
MNS-99-13, Total PAH Profile
(based on 13 PAHs)
20 40
Total PAHs (mg/kg dry wt.)
60
Total PAHs (based on 13 compounds) (mg/kg dry wt.)
Level I SQT for Total PAHs (1.6 mg/kg dry wt.)
Level II SQT for Total PAHs (23 mg/kg dry wt.)
Figure 17. Historical distribution of total PAHs (based on the sum of 13 LMW and HMW PAH
compounds; mg/kg dry wt.) at site MNS-99-13.
126
-------
Depth 0-15 cm
Depth 15 - 30 cm
0.35 »„-
Mercury (mg/kg dry wt.)
BO to <0.09
HH°-°9 to <0-18
30.18* to <0.55
,55 to <1.1
Jl.l**to<1.6
* Level I SQT (Crane ef a/. 2000)
**Level H SQT (Crane et al. 2000)
100
0.03
50
0.25
0.3 4'
H.2-J
Depth 30 - 45 cm
0.061
0.21*,-
0.28 r
0.18
0.37
0.06
100 meters
N
A
MACDONALD
ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES LTD.
Figure 18. Isopleth plots for (lie distribution of mercury (mg/kg dry wt.) in Minnesota Slip for selected depth intervals.
127
-------
Depth 45 - 60 cm
Depth 60 - 75 cm
Depth 75 - 90 cm
6.48*
Mercury (mg/kg dry wt.)
•HO to <0.09
BH0.09 to <0.18
g3°-18* to <0-55
I 10.55 to <1.1
Hl.l**to<1.6
D>1.6
* Level I SQT (Crane et al. 2000)
**Level H SQT (Crane et al. 2000)
Figure 18. Continued.
100
50
0.59t-^
N
100 meters
A
MACDONALD
ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES LTD.
128
-------
Depth 9O - 120 cm
Depth 120 - 150 cm
Mercury (mg/kg dry wt.)
• 0 to <0.09
•I 0.09 to <0.18
Q0.18* to <0.55
UO.55 to 1.6
* Level I SQT (Crane et ai 2000)
**Level n SQT (Crane et al. 2000)
N
100
50
100 meters
MACDONALD
ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES LTD.
Figure 18. Continued.
129
-------
0-15 J
g 15-30 -J
^ 30-45 J
> 45-60
60-75 -
75-90 -
ft 90-120
120-150 -
150-180 4
180-210 -
0.0
MNS-99-15, Mercury Profile
0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0
Mercury (mg/kg dry wt.)
Mercury (mg/kg dry wt.)
Level I SQT for Mercury (0.18 mg/kg dry wt.)
Level II SQT for Mercury (1.1 mg/kg dry wt.)
2.5
Figure 19. Historical distribution of mercury (mg/kg dry wt.) at site MNS-99-15.
130
-------
S
fl
M
A
0-15 J
15-30 -
30-45 -
45-60
60-75
75-90 J
« 90-120 -J
w
O
U 120-150
MNS-99-04, Mercury Profile
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4
Mercury (mg/kg dry wt.)
Mercury (mg/kg dry wt.)
Level I SQT for Mercury (0.18 mg/kg dry wt.)
Level II SQT for Mercury (1.1 mg/kg dry wt.)
1.6 1.8
Figure 20. Historical distribution of mercury (mg/kg dry wt.) at site MNS-99-04.
131
-------
0.0
MNS-99-03, Mercury Profile
0-15 -
S 15-30 -
£ 30-45 -
s-
2 45-60 -
fl
j, 60-75 -
& 75-90 -
Q
g 90-120 -
M
o
Q 120-140 -
0.3 0.6 0.9 1.2
Mercury (mg/kg dry wt.)
Mercury (mg/kg dry wt.)
Level I SQT for Mercury (0.18 mg/kg dry wt.)
Level II SQT for Mercury (1.1 mg/kg dry wt.)
1.5
Figure 21. Historical distribution of mercury (mg/kg dry wt.) at site MNS-99-03.
132
-------
MNS-99-13, Mercury Profile
0-15 -
I 15-30 -
« 30-45 -
&•
h
£ 45-60 -
a
j- 60-75 -
53
& 75-90 -
P
£ 90-120 -
0
U 120-150 -
0.0
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
Mercury (mg/kg dry wt.)
Mercury (mg/kg dry wt.)
Level I SQT for Mercury (0.18 mg/kg dry wt.)
Level II SQT for Mercury (1.1 mg/kg dry wt.)
1.2
Figure 22. Historical distribution of mercury (mg/kg dry wt.) at site MNS-99-13.
133
-------
Depth O - 15 cm
Depth 15 - 3O cm
Depth 3O - 45 cm
Lead (mg/kg dry wt.)
IB 0 to <36
E~l36*to<65
I l65to<130
H130** to <300
I I300to<500
>500
* Level I SQT (Crane et al. 2000)
* "Level n SQT (Crane et al. 2000)
100
50
\330
100 meters
N
A
MACDONALD
ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES LTD.
Figure 23. Isopleth plots for the distribution of lead (mg/kg dry wt.) in Minnesota Slip for selected depth intci-vals.
134
-------
Depth 45 - 6O cm
Depth 6O - 75 cm
Depth 75 - 90 cm
Lead (mg/kg dry wt.)
•|0to<36
HH36*to<65
Z)65to<130
I 1 130** to <300
I 1 300 to <500
* Level I SQT (Crane et al. 2000)
** Level n SQT (Crane et al. 2000)
Figure 23. Continued.
100
50
N
100 meters
A
MACDONALD
ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES LTD.
135
-------
Depth 9O - 12O cm
Lead (mg/kg dry wt.)
8i 0 to <36
[~]36*to<65
Z] 65 to <130
I 1 130** to <300
I] 300 to <500
* Level I SQT (Crane et al. 2000)
** Level n SQT (Crane et al. 2000)
Figure 23. Continued.
Depth 12O - ISO cm
100
50
100 meters
N
A
MACDONALD
ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES LTD.
136
-------
C
0)
0
o>
0
MNS-99-15, Lead Profile
100 200 300 400
Lead (mg/kg dry wt.)
Lead (mg/kg dry wt.)
Level I SQT for Lead (36 mg/kg dry wt.)
Level II SQT for Lead (130 mg/kg dry wt.)
Figure 24. Historical distribution of lead (mg/kg dry wt.) at site MNS-99-15.
137
-------
0
MNS-99-04, Lead Profile
100 200 300 400
Lead (mg/kg dry wt.)
500
Lead (mg/kg dry wt.)
Level I SQT for Lead (36 mg/kg dry wt.)
Level II SQT for Lead (130 mg/kg dry wt.)
Figure 25. Historical distribution of lead (mg/kg dry wt.) at site MNS-99-04.
138
-------
MNS-99-03, Lead Profile
100 200 300 400
Lead (mg/kg dry wt.)
500
Lead (mg/kg dry wt.)
Level I SQT for Lead (36 mg/kg dry wt.)
Level II SQT for Lead (130 mg/kg dry wt.)
Figure 26. Historical distribution of lead (mg/kg dry wt.) at site MNS-99-03.
139
-------
0
MNS-99-13, Lead Profile
50 100 150 200
Lead (mg/kg dry wt.)
Lead (mg/kg dry wt.)
Level I SQT for Lead (36 mg/kg dry wt.)
Level II SQT for Lead (130 mg/kg dry wt.)
Figure 27. Historical distribution of lead (mg/kg dry wt.) at site MNS-99-13.
140
-------
Depth O - 15 cm
Depth 15 - 3O cm
Depth 3O - 45 cm
310
Zinc (mg/kg dry wt.)
• 0 to <60
• 60 to <120
l~~l 120* to <230
I] 230 to <460
I] 460** to <600
]>600
* Level I SQT (Crane et al. 2000)
**Leve1 II SQT (Crane el al. 2000)
100
41
50
0
100 meters
N
A
MACDONALD
ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES LTD.
Figure 28. Isopleth plots for the distribution of zinc (mg/kg dry wt.) in Minnesota Slip for selected depth intervals.
141
-------
Depth 45 - 6O cm
Depth 6O - 75 cm
Depth 75 - 9O cm
Zinc (mg/kg dry wt.)
• 0 to <60
• 60 to <120
120* to <230
230 to <460
460** to <600
I |>600
* Level I SQT (Crane et al 2000)
**Level 0 SQT (Crane et al. 2000)
\445
N
100
50
100 meters
A
MACDONALD
ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES LTD.
Figure 28. Continued.
142
-------
Depth 9O - 12O cm
Depth 12O - 15O cm
Zinc (mg/kg dry wt.)
• 0 to <60
• 60 to <120
i~~l 120* to <230
I] 230 to <460
I] 460** to <600
I |>600
* Level I SQT (Crane el al. 2000)
**Level 0 SQT (Crane e/ a/. 2000)
Figure 28. Continued.
100
660
80S*)
50
N
100 meters
A
MACDONALD
ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES LTD.
143
-------
MNS-99-15, Zinc Profile
£
y
q
H
0)
O
Q
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
Zinc (mg/kg dry wt.)
700 800
Zinc (mg/kg dry wt.)
Level I SQT for Zinc (120 mg/kg dry wt.)
Level II SQT for Zinc (460 mg/kg dry wt.)
Figure 29. Historical distribution of zinc (mg/kg dry wt.) at site MNS-99-15.
144
-------
£
u
5
a
^
Q
O
U
MNS-99-04, Zinc Profile
100 200 300 400
Zinc (mg/kg dry wt.)
500
Zinc (mg/kg dry wt.)
Level I SQT for Zinc (120 mg/kg dry wt.)
Level II SQT for Zinc (460 mg/kg dry wt.)
Figure 30. Historical distribution of zinc (mg/kg dry wt.) at site MNS-99-04.
145
-------
t,
0)
o
U
MNS-99-03, Zinc Profile
100 200 300 400
Zinc (mg/kg dry wt.)
500
Zinc (mg/kg dry wt.)
Level I SQT for Zinc (120 mg/kg dry wt.)
Level II SQT for Zinc (460 mg/kg dry wt.)
Figure 31. Historical distribution of zinc (mg/kg dry wt.) at site MNS-99-03.
146
-------
§
•
I
-w
£
o
U
MNS-99-13, Zinc Profile
100 200 300 400
Zinc (mg/kg dry wt.)
500
Zinc (mg/kg dry wt.)
Level I SQT for Zinc (120 mg/kg dry wt.)
Level II SQT for Zinc (460 mg/kg dry wt.)
Figure 32. Historical distribution of zinc (mg/kg dry wt.) at site MNS-99-13.
147
-------
Depth 0 - 15 cm
Depth 15 - 30 cm
Depth 30 - 45 cm
Mean PEC-Q
HBOto
-------
Depth 45 - 60 cm
Depth 60 - 75 cm
Depth 75 - 90 cm
Mean PEC-Q
0.1*to<0.3
^]0.3to<0.6
Jo.6**to<1.5
1.5 to <3
* Level I SQT (Crane et al. 2000)
**Level 0 SQT (Crane et al. 2000)
Figure 33. Continued.
100
50
N
100 meters
A
MACDONALD
ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES LTD.
149
-------
Depth 90 - 120 cm
Mean PEC-Q
gHJ|Oto<0.1
go.i*to
-------
25 -
20 -
7 15-
«
i ioi
5 -
0 -
X = 8.8
,.u
•So
3 •-
.5 u
5 §•
C 01
C T
W -2
t
1
s
Q
M
V)
w ^
f
o.
c/5
Z
S
Figure 34. Box and whisker plot showing the mean PEC-Q distribution for the St. Louis River AOC (ranked according to decreasing
average mean PEC-Q values). Refer to Section 3.5.4.5 for the percentile distribution of box and whisker plots.
151
-------
C/3
C
o
ti
to
100 -
80 -
60 -
40 -
20 -
0 -
0.001
0.01
—•— Interlake/Duluth Tar Superfund Site
• • •• • Entire SLRAOC, excluding MN Slip
—r- • Entire SLRAOC, including MN Slip
Minnesota Slip
— 1994 Hot Spot Study (MN Slip excluded)
—a— Howards Bay
—•— WLSSD
0.1 1 10
Mean PEC-Q
100
1000
Figure 35. Cumulative distribution plot showing the mean PEC-Q distribution for sediment samples collected in the St. Louis River
AOC.
152
-------
9*
u
25 J
20 H
15 A
5H
OH
X=8.
X = 0.48
= 0.36
zs
-a-
55
CO
W
If
rVl °
w a
c/3
i
CO
1
o\ o ;:
o\ ex &•
Figure 36. Box and whisker plot showing the mean PEC-Q distribution for the St. Louis River AOC (ranked according to decreasing
average mean PEC-Q values; mean PEC-Qs calculated including mercury). Refer to Section 3.5.4.5 for the percentile
distribution of box and whisker plots.
153
-------
100 -
80 -
GO
c
o
60 -
40 -
20 -
0 -
[nterlake/Duluth Tar Superfund Site
Entire SLRAOC, excluding MN Slip
Entire SLRAOC, including MN Slip
Minnesota Slip
1994 Hot Spot Study (MN Slip excluded)
Howards Bay
WLSSD
0.001
0.01
0.1 1
Mean PEC-Q
10
100
1000
Figure 37. Cumulative distribution plot showing the mean PEC-Q distribution for sediment samples collected in the St. Louis River
AOC (mean PEC-Qs calculated including mercury).
154
-------
120
100 -
S 60 -
00
40 -
20 -
0 -
Mean PEC-Qs calculated, including Hg
Mean PEC-Qs calculated, excluding Hg
Mean PEC-Q
Figure 38. Cumulative distribution plot showing the distribution of mean PEC-Qs calculated
either including or excluding mercury, for sediment samples collected in Minnesota
Slip.
155
-------
25 -
20 -
15 -
1 io H
5 -
0 -
= 54
X=5.4
X=9.1
X= 16
X= 1.2
X=1.0 X = 0.98
= 0.95
X = 0.47
J
S3
•o
c
s
1
P.
55
3
O
o
,£>
00
o
,c
CJ
o
oo
U
Figure 39. Box and whisker plot showing the mean PEC-Q distribution for selected Great Lakes AOCs and Minnesota Slip (ranked
according to decreasing average mean PEC-Q values). Refer to Section 3.5.4.5 for the percentile distribution of box and
whisker plots.
156
-------
CO
100 -
80 -
60 -
40 -
20 -
0 -
-•— Indiana Harbor AOC
• Sheboygan Harbor
-"- • Maumee River
St. Mary's River
-•— Waukegan Harbor
-•— St. Louis River, excluding MN Slip
-i— Cuyahoga River
-• -• Minnesota Slip
* - • Oswego River
-*- - St. Clair River
0.0001 0.001
0.01 0.1 1 10
Mean PEC-Q
100
1000 10000 100000
Figure 40. Cumulative distribution plot showing the mean PEC-Q distribution for sediment samples collected in selected Great Lakes
AOCs.
157
-------
APPENDIX A
TOXICITY OF SEDIMENTS COLLECTED FROM MINNESOTA SLIP TO
THE MIDGE, Chironomus tentans
-------
8503-111-007
Toxicity of Sediments Collected from Minnesota Slip
to the Midge, Chironomus tentans
Author
David A. Pillard
Study Period
Start: 12 October 1999
End: 22 October 1999
Performing Laboratory
ENSR Corporation
Fort Collins Environmental Toxicology Laboratory
4303 West LaPorte Avenue
Fort Collins, CO 80521
Telephone: (970)416-0916
Fax: (970) 493-8935
Laboratory Project ID
8503-111-007
-------
8503-111-007
STATEMENT OF PROCEDURAL COMPLIANCE
I certify that this document and all attachments were prepared under my direction or
supervision in accordance with a system designed to assure that qualified personnel properly
gather and evaluate the information submitted. Based on my inquiry of the person or persons
who manage the system, or those persons directly responsible for gathering the information,
the information submitted is, to the best of my knowledge, accurate and complete.
J6
David A Pillard, Ph.D. Date
Study Director
STATEMENT OF QUALITY ASSURANCE
The test data were reviewed by the Quality Assurance unit to assure that the study was
performed in accordance with the protocol and standard operating procedures. This report is
an accurate reflection of the raw data.
Quality Assurance Unit Date
A-l
-------
8503-111-007
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Six sediment samples, collected from Minnesota Slip in the Duluth Harbor Basin, were received
by the Fort Collins Environmental Toxicology Laboratory (FCETL) on October 5, 1999. Ten-day
toxicity tests were conducted with these samples using the dipteran midge, Chironomus
tentans. The test endpoints were survival and growth, as measured by dry weight and ash-free
dry weight (AFDW). The results of these tests indicated that the sediments were not toxic to C.
tentans in the 10-day study when compared to the test control. However, survival in sediment
MNS-99-05 was significantly reduced when compared to sediment MNS-99-01.
The following table summarizes the study:
STUDY SUMMARY
Sponsor
Project Officer
Study Director
Test Facility
Location of Data
Test Substances
Test Dates
Length of Tests
Test Species
Source of Organisms
Age of Test Organisms
Test Concentrations
Overlying Water
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
520 Lafayette Road N.
St. Paul, MN 551 55-41 94
Judy L. Crane, Ph.D.
(651)297-4068
David A. Pillard, Ph.D.
(970)416-0916
ENSR Fort Collins Environmental Toxicology Laboratory (FCETL)
4303 West LaPorte Avenue
Fort Collins, Colorado 80521
Data Records and Storage
328 Link Lane #4
Fort Collins, Colorado 80524
Sediments: MNS-99-01, MNS-99-02, MNS-99-03, MNS-99-04,
MNS-99-05, MNS-99-06
12 October - 22 October 1999
10 days
Chironomus tentans
Aquatic Biosystems
9-10 days (2nd- 3rd instar)
Bulk (100%) sediment
Moderately hard reconstituted water
A-2
-------
8503-111-007
Results
No significant reduction in survival, dry weight, or AFDW in any
sediment, relative to the control.
Significant reduction in survival in sediment MNS-99-05
relative to sediment MNS-99-01.
A-3
-------
8503-111-007
1.0 INTRODUCTION
Minnesota Slip is located in the northern section of the Duluth Harbor basin in Duluth, MN.
Because of concerns regarding sediment contamination in the St. Louis River Area of Concern,
several investigations have been conducted of Minnesota Slip and other nearby contaminated
areas. The purpose of this study was to determine if sediments collected from Minnesota Slip
were toxic to Chironomus tentans. These toxicity tests were part of a sediment remediation
scoping project in Minnesota Slip. The study sponsor was the Minnesota Pollution Control
Agency (MPCA); the testing laboratory was the ENSR Fort Collins Environmental Toxicology
Laboratory (FCETL).
2.0 DESCRIPTION OF TEST AND CONTROL SUBSTANCES
2.1 Test Sediment
Six sediment samples were received on 5 October 1999. Each sample was a composite of the
upper 5 cm layer of sediment. Sample containers were 4-liter high-density polyethylene, wide-
mouth jars. Sample collection and receipt information is presented in the following table. See
Appendix A for chain of custody records.
Sample
Name
MNS-99-01
MNS-99-02
MNS-99-03
MNS-99-04
MNS-99-05
MNS-99-06
Collection
Date and
Time
9/22/99 @
0950-1030
9/22/99 @
1115-1140
9/22/99 @
1345-1410
9/22/99 @
1505-1535
9/22/99 @
1620-1642
9/22/95 @
1715-1738
FCETL
Sample #
and Date of
Receipt
12809
10/5/99
12810
10/5/99
12811
1 0/5/99
12812
10/5/99
12813
10/5/99
12814
10/5/99
Temp at
Arrival
(°C)
6
6
6
6
6
6
coc
Number
34570
34570
34570
34571
34571
34571
COC
Tape
Number
5815
5815
5815
5816
5816
5816
Sediment samples were stored at 4°C in the dark until test setup. Sediment was homogenized
prior to use. Homogenization consisted of transferring sediment to a clean Nalgene" container
and thoroughly mixing the sediment with a stainless steel auger attached to an electric drill for
not less than three minutes. The auger and container were thoroughly cleaned and
decontaminated (soap, tap water rinse, acetone, tap water rinse, HCI, tap water rinse, Dl rinse)
between homogenization of each sediment.
A-4
-------
8503-111-007
2.2 Control Sediment
A control sediment (Florissant reference soil obtained from USGS-Biological Resources Division
in Columbia, Missouri) was tested concurrently.
2.3 Overlying Water
The overlying test water was moderately hard reconstituted water (USEPA 1993). Four batches
of water were used during the course of the study. Initial characterization of the moderately
hard water batches was:
Batch #
3634
3636
3641
3644
Initial Use
Date
10/11/99
10/12/99
10/14/99
10/17/99
Hardness
(mg/L as CaCOj)
96
96
96
94
Alkalinity
(mg/L as CaCOj)
66
65
63
62
Conductivity
(^S/cm)
328
332
328
328
PH
8.1
8.2
8.1
8.2
Ammonia
(mg/L N)
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
TRC"
(mg/L)
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
' total residual chlorine
3.1 Test Methods
3.0 TEST CONDITIONS
The studies were 10-day static-renewal toxicity tests using Chironomus tentans. Tests were
conducted according to USEPA (1994) and ASTM Method E 1706-95b (ASTM 1997) guidelines.
The test was modified to include ash free dry weight (AFDW) as a growth endpoint, per the draft
(unpublished) ASTM and USEPA guidelines (personal communication with Drs. David Mount
and Chris Ingersoll). The biological responses measured were death (defined as no visible
movement or any response to gentle prodding with a blunt probe) and growth (mean dry weight
and AFDW per surviving organism). The complete test protocol 's included as Appendix B.
3.2 Test Duration
Test duration was 10 days.
3.3 Test Apparatus
Test chambers were 500-ml glass beakers containing 100 ml of test sediment and 175 ml of
overlying water. On the day prior to test initiation, sediment was homogenized and placed into
the test chambers. Overlying water was added and the resulting mixtures were allowed to settle
overnight. At test initiation, ten organisms were to be impartially distributed to each test
chamber. Due to a technician error, four chambers received no organisms at test initiation, one
chamber probably received 12, and one chamber probably received 20 (see section 6.1 for
further details). Eight replicates were tested per treatment for a (target) total of 80 organisms
per treatment. All test chambers were held in a temperature controlled water bath under
A-5
-------
8503-111-007
fluorescent lighting with a photoperiod of 16 hours lights hours dark; target test temperature
was 23 ± 1°C.
3.4 Feeding
Test organisms were fed 1.5 ml of a 4 g/L Tetramin suspension, in moderately hard water, per
test chamber on a daily basis.
3.5 Aeration
On day 1 dissolved oxygen in MNS-99-03 and MNS-99-04 test chambers was at or less than
2.5 mg/L (Appendix C). Therefore, aeration was initiated on day 1 in all test chambers,
including the control. The aeration apparatus consisted of a Pasteur pipette (connected to the
laboratory air supply), the tip of which was positioned so as not to disturb the sediment. All test
chambers were aerated for the remainder of the test.
4.0 TEST ORGANISMS
Chironomus tentans were obtained from Aquatic BioSystems (ABS) in Fort Collins, CO. One lot
(99-23) of 9- to 10-day old organisms was received on 10/12/99. At the time of test setup, 20
organisms were subsampled and preserved with 10% osmotically-balanced (sugar) formalin.
Head capsule width of these organisms was measured using a calibrated ocular micrometer
under an Olympus compound microscope. The mean head capsule width was 0.322 mm
(range of 0.28 - 0.525 mm) (Appendix C). USEPA (1994) guidelines indicate that head capsule
widths of second instar C. tentans range from 0.18 - 0.23 mm and mean head capsule widths of
third instar C. tentans range from 0.33 - 0.45 mm. These data indicate that most of the test
organisms were late second instar to early third instar chironomids, although one organism was
probably a late third instar. The test organisms were transferred to moderately hard
reconstituted laboratory water at the time of receipt (@1240) and held for approximately 2 hours
at test temperature (23°C) until test initiation. No further acclimation was conducted.
5.0 QUALITY ASSURANCE
Acute reference toxicant tests were initiated from the lot of C. tentans obtained for this study.
Sodium chloride was the reference toxicant with moderately hard water as the dilution water.
Tests were 96 hours in length; 24-hour data were also collected, where possible, from the tests
for use with ENSR's historical 24-hour reference toxicant database.
A-6
-------
8503-111-007
6.0 RESULTS
6.1 Biological Data
At test takedown it was discovered that four replicates contained no live organisms. Those
replicates were Control B, MNS-99-04 H, MNS-99-05 H, and MNS-99-06 F Since there were
organisms in all other replicates and these four replicates were in a row after test chamber
randomization (see data package in Appendix C for randomization chart), it was the study
director's judgement that these test chambers were not seeded with test organisms at test
initiation. These four test chambers were, therefore, not included in analysis of the data. In
addition, 12 organisms were found in MNS-99-01 replicate H and 19 organisms were found in
MNS-99-02 replicate E. It is likely that replicate E of MNS-99-02 was double seeded so it was
assumed that 20 organisms were put into the test chamber at test initiation. The number of
organisms placed into replicate H of MNS-99-01 is not known. However, due to the good
survival of all other MNS-99-01 replicates (not less than 90% survival in any replicate) it was
assumed by the study director that 12 organisms were placed in this chamber at test initiation.
Both of these test chambers were included were included in the statistical analysis of the data.
Live organisms at the end of the test were all large, dark red, and appeartc hea.tiy. A few o:
the test chambers contained live pupae. These organisms were counted as alive but excluded
from measurements of weight. There was an emerged adult in replicate H of sediment 06. This
organism was also counted as alive but excluded from weight measurements.
Percent survival and growth of test organisms were determined after 10 days of exposure.
Growth was measured both as AFDW and as dry weight. Raw test data are presented in
Appendix C. Results are presented in the following table.
Treatment
Control
MNS-99-01
MNS-99-02
MNS-99-03
MNS-99-04
MNS-99-05
MNS-99-06
Mean % Survival
(± Standard Deviation)
71 .4 ±23.4
95.0 ± 5.3
89.4 ± 8.6
82.5 ± 14.9
82.9 ± 13.8
81.4 ± 9.0
81.4 ± 13.5
Mean Dry Wt. Per Surviving
Organism (mg) (± Standard
Deviation)'
2.844 (± 0.503)
2.525 (± 0.523)
2.448 (± 0.457)
2.424 (± 0.240)
2.970 (±0.421)
2.559 (± 0.542)
2.769 (± 0.423)
Mean AFDW Per Surviving
Organism (mg) (± Standard
Deviation)11
1.908 (±0.402)
1.925 (±0.460)
1.765 (±0.348)
1.711 (± 0.161)
2.208 (± 0.319)
1.819 (±0.411)
2. 180 (±0.360)
Dried at 81 °C for > 24 hours.
b Ashed at 550±50°C for 2 hours.
A-7
-------
8503-111-007
6.2 Data Analysis
Significant differences were identified with Toxstat Version 3.4 (West, inc. and Gulley 1994).
Survival data were transformed using arcsine square root. Data normality was evaluated with
the Chi-square goodness of fit test (a=0.01); homogeneity of variance was evaluated with
Bartlett's test (
-------
8503-111-007
6.4 Reference Toxicant Test Results
Three reference toxicant tests were conducted using C. tentans from lot 99-23. Twenty-four
hour reference toxicant data from all three tests were included in ENSR's historical reference
toxicant database. Two tests also had acceptable 96-hour data.Because previous reference
toxicant tests conducted at the FCETL with this species were only 24 hours in duration and only
three 96-hour tests have been conducted, insufficient data have been generated to calculate
historical 95% control limits for the 96-hour endpoint. The C. tentans reference toxicant data
sheets and 24-hour reference toxicant control chart are included in Appendix E.
Test Number
(8503-109-
820-)
051
054
055
Test Period
10/12-10/16/99
10/18-10/22/99
10/18-10/22/99
24-H LCso
(mg/L CO
6,013
5,540
5,169
ENSR FCETL Historical 95% Control
Limits for 24-Hour Tests (mg/L Cl~)
Low
5,240
5,107
4,660
High
7,094
7,047
7,068
96-H LCso
(mg/L CO
N/Aa
3,655
3,914
96-hour data not acceptable for test 051 due to excessive control mortality at 96 hours.
7.0 PROTOCOL DEVIATIONS
On day 1 the dissolved oxygen level in replicate B of MNS-99-03 was 2.4 mg/L. Aeration was
initiated on day 1 in all treatments and dissolved oxygen concentrations remained >2.5 mg/L for
the remainder of the test.
At test takedown it was discovered that four test chambers contained no test organisms. It was
assumed by the Study Director that no organisms were placed in these chambers at test setup.
Two other test chambers received more than 10 organisms per chamber.
Ammonia was measured in each treatment on day 6 rather than day 7 as indicated in the test
protocol.
Crucibles containing organisms from sediments 05 (replicates E through G) and 06 (replicates A
through E) were ashed for 1 hour 55 minutes rather than for at least 2 hours as stated in the test
protocol. Organisms from all other treatments/replicates were ashed for a 2- to 3-hour period.
Because of the large number of treatments and replicates, the Chi-square test was used to test
for normality rather than Shapiro-Wilk's test.
Because of the failure to seed four of the test chambers at test initiation, there was an uneven
number of replicates among treatments. As a result, statistical comparisons were made using a
T-test with Bonferroni adjustment rather than analysis of variance with Dunnett's test. However,
both of these are parametric tests and this difference in statistical analyses is not likely to have
affected data interpretation. It is the Study Director's judgement that the remaining protocol
deviations did not impact test outcome.
A-9
-------
8503-111-007
8.0 REFERENCES
ASTM. 1997 Standard test methods for measuring the toxicity of sediment-associated
contaminants with fresh water invertebrates, Method E 1706-95b_in 1997 Annual Book of
ASTM Standards, Volume 11.05, Biological Effects and Environmental Fate;
Biotechnology; Pesticides. American Society of Testing and Materials.
USEPA. 1993. Methods for measuring the acute toxicity of effluents and receiving waters to
freshwater and marine organisms, 4th edition. EPA/600/4-90/027F. United States
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development.
USEPA. 1994. Methods for measuring the toxicity and bioaccumulation of sediment-associated
contaminants with freshwater invertebrates. EPA/600/R-94/024. United States
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development.
West, Inc. and D.D. Gulley. 1994. Toxstat version 3.4. Western EcoSystems Technology, Inc.
Cheyenne, WY.
A-10
-------
8503-111-007
Appendix A
Chain of Custody
-------
CHAIN OF CUSTODY RECORD
Page
Project Location: \V\ i<\ A C
Field Logbook No.: |
-------
CHAIN OF CUSTODY RECORD
Relinquished by: (Pnm Name)
Received by. (Pnm Name) rVr C rr
"P
Analytical Laboratory (Destination):
ENSR
4303 W. LaPorte Ave.
Fort Collins, CO 80521
(970)416-0916
a/V {<
-------
8503-111-007
Appendix B
Test Protocol
-------
ENSR Consulting and Engineering
ENSR Project No.:8503-111-007
Protocol No.: CT3MN.007.001
Effective: 10/99
Page: 1 of 7
Title: Acute Toxicity (with a Growth Measurement) of Bulk Sediment to the Midge,
Chironomus ten tans.
Study Sponsor:
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
520 Lafayette Road North
St. Paul, MN 55155-4194
Project Officer:
Judy L. Crane, Ph.D.
Testing Facility:
Study Director:
ENSR Consulting and Engineering
Fort Collins Environmental Toxicology Laboratory
4303 West LaPorte Avenue
Fort Collins, Colorado 80521
(303) 416-0916, Ext. 307
David A. Pillard, Ph.D.
-------
ENSR Project No.:8503-111-007
ENSR Consulting and Engineering PfOtOCOl No.! CT3MN.007.001
Effective: 10/99
Page: 2 of 7
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Objective
To determine the 10-day survival and growth of the midge, Chironomus tentans, in bulk sediment
samples.
1.2 Sediment Samples
The sediment samples will be collected by the study sponsor and shipped to ENSR's Fort Collins
Laboratory. At the laboratory, sediment samples will be stored under refrigeration (4°C) until used
in testing (preferably less than 4 weeks of storage). Each sample will be mechanically
homogenized prior to use in testing (ENSR SOP #5208). Endemic organisms observed in the
sediment will be removed manually.
2.0 BASIS AND TEST ORGANISM
2.1 Basis
The test protocol is based on USEPA (1994 or subsequent) methods and ASTM Method E 1706-
95b (ASTM 1997 or subsequent).
2.2 Test Organism
1. Species Chironomus tentans
2. Age - Chironomus fenranswill be 9 to 13 days old at test initiation (mostly 3'a instar).
3. Source Test organisms will be obtained from ENSR's in-house culture or a
commercial supplier.
4. Feeding - Chironomus tentans will be fed 1.5 ml of a 4 g/L Tetramin suspension (in
moderately hard water) per exposure chamber on a daily basis.
3.0 TEST SYSTEM
3.1 Overlying Water
The overlying water used in the test chambers will be moderately hard synthetic laboratory water.
prepared according to USEPA (1993).
-------
ENSR Project No.:8503-111-007
ENSR .-nsull.ng and Engineering PrOtOCOlNO.: CT3MN .007 .00 1
Effective: 10/99
Page: 3 of 7
3.2 Test Temperature
Test temperature will be 23 ± 1°C. Testing will be conducted in an environmental chamber
or a temperature controlled water bath.
3.3 Test Containers
Test containers will be 500-ml beakers containing 100 ml of sediment and 175 ml of overlying
water.
3.4 Photoperiod
The photoperiod will be 16-hours light and 8-hours dark.
3.5 Dissolved Oxygen Concentrations
Dissolved oxygen concentrations will be maintained ^2.5 mg/L. If the dissolved oxygen
concentration approaches this level, the amount of time between overlying water renewals will
be decreased or, if necessary, all test chambers will be gently aerated throughout the
remainder of the test. If aeration is initiated, the aeration pipette will be appropriately
positioned so as to avoid disturbance of the sediment.
3.6 Reference Toxicant Testing
In addition to the test material exposures, reference toxicant tests will be conducted using
sodium chloride (NaCI) to determine the sensitivity range of the test organisms. Reference
toxicant exposures will be conducted monthly or at the time of test initiation for in-nouse or
commercially-supplied organisms. Reference toxicant testing will be performed according to
USEPA (1994) methods.
4.0 TEST DESIGN
4.1 Test Treatments
The test treatments will be 100 percent test material from each sediment sample. A 100
percent control sediment (see section 4.3) exposure will be conducted concurrently.
-------
ENSR Project No.:8503-111-007
ENSR Consulting and Engineering PfOtOCOlNO.: CT3MN.007.001
Effective: 10/99
Page: 4 of 7
4.2 Sediment/Water Mixture
Sediment (100 ml) will be placed in each test chamber. After addition of sediment, 175 ml
of overlying water will be poured into each beaker. The beakers will be left unaerated
overnight to allow sediment to settle and to reduce turbidity prior to addition of test organisms.
4.3 Reference/Control Sediments
In addition to the field-collected samples, a laboratory control sediment (Florissant soil provided
by USFWS-NFCRC in Columbia, Missouri) will be tested concurrently.
4.4 Number of Test Organisms
Eighty Chironomus tentans will be exposed to each treatment. Ten organisms will be assigned
to each test chamber and eight replicates will be tested per treatment.
4.5 Analytical Sampling
Aliquots of sediment for chemical analysis will be removed by the study sponsor prior to
shipping samples to ENSR's laboratory. No analytical sampling of the test chambers
themselves is planned.
4.6 Test Initiation/Renewal Frequency
Testing will be initiated by addition of the test organisms after the overnight settling period.
Each chamber will be renewed with approximately 2 volume additions per day. This will be
accomplished by manual removal and replacement of water by a test technician or with a
renewal box that can be filled with overlying water and allowed to drain into the test
chambers. Renewal will begin on Day 0 just before organisms are added to the test chambers
4.7 Chemical and Physical Monitoring
At a minimum, the following measurements will be made:
1. Dissolved oxygen, temperature, and pH will be measured in the overlying water
of each treatment and the control each day of testing.
2. Hardness, alkalinity, conductivity, and ammonia will be measured in the
laboratory reconstituted water (used as overlying water) on day 0.
-------
ENSR Project No.:8503-111-007
ENSH Consulting and Engineering PrOtOCOl NO.: CT3MN.007.001
Effective: 10/99
Page: 5 of 7
3. Hardness, alkalinity, conductivity, and ammonia will be measured in overlying
water from each treatment at test initiation (just prior to renewal on day 0 or 1)
and at test termination.
4. Ammonia will also be measured in each treatment on days 3 and 7.
4.8 Biological Monitoring
After ten days of exposure, sediment from each test chamber will be removed and sieved or
sorted to recover living test organisms. Organisms not recovered at test termination will be
presumed dead. At test termination, the surviving organisms in each test chamber will be
counted and transferred to a pre-ashed, weighed, porcelain crucible. The crucible will then be
dried at 60-90°C for approximately 24 hours. After recording dry weight, the sample will be
ashed at 550 ± 50°C for 2 hours. Ash-free dry weight (AFDW) is the dry gross weight
ashed gross weight. If samples cannot be dried immediately, they will be preserved in sugar
formalin.
4.9 Test Duration
Test duration will be 10 days.
4.10 Calculations
Survival data will be transformed by arcsine squareroot. Normality and homogeneity
assumptions for survival data will be evaluated by the Shapiro-Wilk's test and Bartlett's test,
respectively (a =0.01). Data will then be evaluated (@ a = 0.05) using either parametric or
nonparametric methods depending upon the outcome of the normality and homogeneity
assessments.
Organism weights will be statistically compared in treatments not having significantly reduced
survival. Analysis will occur in the same manner as for survival, although the weights will not
be transformed using arcsine squareroot.
4.11 Quality Criterion
The test will not be considered acceptable if mortality in the control sediment exceeds 30
percent. The mean AFDW per surviving control organism should be 2:0.48 mg.
-------
ENSR Project No.:8503-111-007
ENSR Consulting and Engineering PrOtOCOl NO.! CT3MN.007.001
Effective: 10/99
Page: 6 of 7
5.0 TEST REPORT
The report will be a typed document describing the results of the test and will be signed by the
Study Director and Quality Assurance Unit. The report will include, but not be limited to, the
following:
• A copy of all raw data.
• Name of test, Study Director, and laboratory, and date test was begun.
• A detailed description of the sediments, including their source, time of collection,
composition, known physical or chemical properties, and any information that
appears on the sample container or has been provided Dy the Sponsor.
• The source of the overlying water, its chemical characteristics, and a description of
any pretreatment.
• Detailed information about the test organisms, including scientific name, age, life
stage, source, history, acclimation procedure, and food used.
• A description of the experimental design and the test chambers, the volume of
solution in the chambers, the way the test was begun, the number of organisms per
treatment, and the lighting.
• A description of any aeration performed on test solutions before or during the test.
* Definition of the criterion used to determine the effect and a summary of general
observations on other effects or symptoms.
• Percentage of organisms that died or showed the effect.
* The minimum dissolved oxygen concentration, range in test dissolved oxygen,
temperature, and pH, all visual observations of test solutions.
• Any deviations from the protocol.
6.0 LITERATURE CITED
Crane, J.L. 1999. Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP): Minnesota Slip Sediment Remediation
Scoping Project. Revision 0. Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Environmental
Outcomes Division, St. Paul, MN.
ASTM. 1997. Standard Test Methods for Measuring the Toxicity of Sediment-Associated
Contaminants with Fresh Water Invertebrates. Method E 1706-95b in 1997 Annual Book
of ASTM Standards, Volume 11.05, Biological Effects and Environmental fate;
Biotechnology: Pesticides. American Society of Testing and Materials.
-------
ENSR Project No.:8503-111-007
ENSR Consulting and Engineenng PfOtOCOl No.: CT3MN.007.001
Effective: 10/99
Page: 7 of 7
USEPA. 1993. Methods for Measuring the Acute Toxicity of Effluents and Receiving Waters
to Freshwater and Marine Organisms. Fourth Edition. EPA/600/4-90/027F.
USEPA. 1994. Methods for Measuring Toxicity and Bioaccumulation of Sediment-Associated
Contaminants with Freshwater Invertebrates. EPA/600/R-94/024.
7.0 PROCEDURAL COMPLIANCE
All test procedures, documentation, records, and reports will comply with the sponsor-specific
quality assurance project plan (Crane 1999). To this end, random audits of the test may be
scheduled while the test is in progress. The raw data will be checked and compared to
protocol requirements and Standard Operating Procedures, and the final report will be audited
for accuracy and signed, if satisfactory, by both the Study Director and an individual from the
Quality Assurance Unit.
8.0 PROTOCOL AMENDMENTS AND DEVIATIONS
All changes (i.e., amendments, deviations, and final report revisions) of the approved protocol
plus the reasons for the changes must be documented in writing. The changes will be signed
and dated by the Study Director and maintained with the protocol. All amendments must be
authorized in advance by the Sponsor.
9.0 SPONSOR AND STUDY DIRECTOR APPROVAL
Sponsor Approval :^~/^ LC-O^V/^- (^/jlff-rtjz -~~~ Date: J_L
Study Director: -^ ^——-
-------
8503-111-007
Appendix C
Test Data
-------
Page / of ^
FCETL QA Form No. 115
Revision 0
tffective 8/99
SEDIMENT TOXICITY DATA PACKAGE COVER SHEET
TPstTvpe: 5* /V^t-M^ C/i/^'l. Project Number: 'SSS- ' \\-QOl ~(00 1
Test Substance: g^dim/n.'t' _ Species: C,'
Overlying Water Type:_Mad_iiacd _ ^ Organism' Loror Batch Number:
Concurrent Control Overlying Water Type: .J*\oA \birA ® Age^-^ KV( ^~(3
Date and Time Test Began: /O/d./?? ,g> /"TOO Date and Time Test Ended:
Protocol Number C T _ Investiaator(s): (r^J '
Background Information
Type of Test: /£' "CX^fy _ Renewal Frequency: J? '/ 1>A I *-*/
Test Temperature: ^tt^^, Env. Chmbr/Bath #: -^ Test Chambers: "SPO^I Itfa
Sediment Vol.: 100 MI Overlying Water Vol: \1S^\ I Number of Replicates per Treatment: ' *>/
1
\ -f-im6cw.ilv/
Alkalinity: O ^}Q
DO:7S«.Vv pH:J>^,/y
/
Test Sediment(s) Sample Description.
FCETL Sample #(sl: i tth*) / 1 3&1 0 //3$-lf /IJL'S'I? j >1
-------
Date:
Project Number:
BIOLOGICAL DATA
Test Species (Circle): H. azteca
Qj ,H
'
Page JL of J^ .
FCETL QA Form No. 1 1 6
Revision: 0
Effective: r 9
Sediment
(1,2*1
Other(Specify):
Observation at
Test Tprmlnatlon
# Surviving
tf Observed Dead
# Not Found
Initials
# Surviving
# Observed Dead
# Not Found
Initials
# Surviving
# Observed Dead
# Not Found
Initials
# Surviving
# Observed Dead
# Not Found
Initials
# Surviving
# Observed Dead
# Not Found
Initials
# Surviving
# Observed Dead
# Not Found
Initials
# Surviving
# Observed Dead
# Not Found
Initials
ti
O
CJM
JM
/O
0
O
/c?
JO
0
0
,0
0
-o
z
0
Replicate
in
kta-
f
Q
O
10
-IM
0
10
7T
lO
10
9
\c
0
D
_a
^
o
10
o
0
'-7
J2_
vary
r
_£_
10
O
O
Time
(Range)
Remarks
fi,
if H U*f> A*l
Q)
81. H
'Ort'Y ' ^ ~ j ~-v\ I»^H>
o •» '«•/ ? Sc/-/^- if
2-1 "b-
-------
Page :5 of
OVERLYING WATER CHARACTERIZATION (COMPOSITE)
>
'
FCETL QA Form No. 117
Revision: 0
Effective: 8/99
Project No.: ^rtSKV \ \\-CCTf (t£>\~9dt^\ Test species (Circle): H. azteca
Other (Specify):.
Sediment
Conductivity (^S/cm)
Hardness (mg/l as CaCO3)
Alkalinity (mg/l as CaCO3)
Total Ammonia (mg/l)
Day
0
10
10
10
10
342-
350
573
/52-
3o
6//C-
/JC
70
i2o
111
llQ
99
55
53
/'. 2-
62.
63
It
76
\ D
J-h
[ ol
o
8
7
C/-0
Meter #
Date:
Time:
ti
7T
JlTf?,
(Uoo
((,00
//5V
fl.z.
ujs
Tec
ir.H»«»
.«i •;•„.!<.
rfic-/i s we «
j pH 8.
io
(m\
: *}\.
Cr*J
/L j
•J ^li.j
e.t-
-------
_ Of\5"
FCETL QA Form No 118
TEMPERATURE
Effective 8/99
Project Number:
I -OKJ-
Test Species (Circle): H. azteca (c.Jentans) Other (Specify):
Treatment
Day
Rep.
Temperature (°C)
01
23
D
_H_
A
23
13
23
=53
02-
D
Meter#
53
53
23
23
B3
53
53
Date:
io
10(20!^
10
Time:
fllio
10 |5
Initials:
-------
Page f) of
FCETLQAFormNo118
Revision 0
Effective 8/99
Test Species (Circle): H azteca
-------
TEMPERATURE
_
FCETL QA Form No rja
.4/9^ Revision 0
Effective 8/99
Project Number: <£fiVH < -PHI -
Test Species (Circle): H. azteca (c.tenten^ Other (Specify):
"Treatment
Day -»
AU/5-
Rep.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
Meter#
Date:
Time:
Initials:
Temperature (°C)
0
-2>
53
i^ltfe
VO^O
^
1
23
53
"hill
i^l to
G^-^
2
.53
?5
lolH r?
cns^"
6cj
3
J3
53
/"/IS ('i'/
|0|b
Gtii
4
c2j
5^
lojiv.h'i
0115
GxJ
5
33
51
>°|(7/^
1020
Uu
6
Z>
S3
^I^ici9
oVfc
^
7
-------
FCETL QA Form No 119
Revision 0
Effective 8/99
DISSOLVED OXYGEN
Project Number:l
-02.
LM
3
XT
s
5
5
>>-
"1*4*1
to
Time:
C'?(Q
IIO'
-------
DISSOLVED OXYGEN
Page _j£_ Of 55"
FCETL QA Form NolTg
Revision 0
Effective 8/99
Project Number:
., _ / ^. ^, \ Test Species (Circle): H. azteca\ C. tentans) Other (Specify):
) II -^1- MOI-7006Q K ^y^^.^/ XH y,.
Treatment
Da -»
Rep.
0 1
Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L)
10
03
H
2-4
t-
5
t-b
05"
5.
25"
(,.1
H
A
D
H
Meter#
5
5
5"
5
Date:
Time:
1016
0^3-6
UDS"
Initials:
(rfJ
|o
-------
DISSOLVED OXYGEN
Page ? of 5-3
FCETLQAFormNo119
'79 Revision 0
Effective 8/99
Project Number:.
- 111 - Aol- f OCA ^
Test Species (Circle): H. azteca
Other (Specify):
reatment
Da*
Rep.
Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L)
10
". 8
t-1/
-00-
_H_
A
C
Meter#
5"
5"
5
5'
t?
Date:
__ Time:
Hie
loio
(olS
0^35
1 0-5-0
___ Initials:
tnci
(rvCj'
-------
PH
Page JO of 35
FCETL QA Form Nol20
„ R?visi;no
Efective8/99
Project Number:
-------
// of 2
pH
Page
FCETLQAFormNo120
Revision 0
8/99
Test Species (Circle): H. azteca i
Other (Specify i
Rep.
7-C*
pH (units)
-75
?3
7-5'
H
A
8-3
-5
J[ime:_
Initials:
y 3
u
JK)
P
is
lOTf)
1
-------
pH
FCETLQAFormNol20
O<> 10^ ^//? Revision 0
/^ tL,(,Lf(qc/ Effective 8/99
Project Number:_
Test Species (Circle): H. aztec
Other (Specify):
Treatment
Day-*
Rep.
pH (units)
10
Ob
7Y
7 7
9 3
D
H
Meter#
It-
(01
10
lu
Date:
10
Time:
1015
(050
6*7(0
IIOS"
Initials:
6xJ
(nU
-------
Page I 3 of.
SEDIMENT TESTING DAILY LOG
0/yo icv'/f/? > FCETL QA Form No. 121
/f* ii/»«<(
(2 o
e__i7(5
(2. 0*120
Day 2
peNL'WLt> 0\£evyiN(r »*G& ,000
Day 3
(3 lOi'o
Day 4
- 1^0 6i
Day 5
rltNClvtD
H^c(i(O25 CCrci] A-Ol D
-------
_
FCETL QA Form No. 15
Effective: 5/90
-00") -
SUBJECT DAILY LOG
ALL ENTRIES MUST BE INITIALLED WITH DATE AND TIME:
In
M
fVUK-q9-03- 1^ /111
<-/ C
4f/c
-------
I5031110°7 C. tentans Survival of Control ^p -, /
•ile- c:\stats\CTCONTRO.DAT Transform: NO TRANSFORMATION ^ '
-------
Page
55"
FCETLQAFormNo.108
(Dr., U^V-^T/ • • — Revision 0
' ,., ,^ AcWii-i*"^ ^^f<--) Effective 08/99
TEST ORGANISM DRY WEIGHT AND ASH-FREE DRY WEIGHT (AFDW) j^y l*Si yJI X
/ \
Project No: ^ff^T)- / / \-n(T)~£c' '•^'4'
Species <- • /*>i^4^
Lot/B,3tch No.: /"/-I"}
Analytical Balance ID: 5AA. !*t 1
Boai
No
1
a,
q
5"
,,
7
^
/o
/I
u
ii
Rlanl
Treatment
^Ji^Ana
Dk«™*
frfanUL.
Q.faiM*
ti^u
o^ou-,
co\
00 1
00
001
001
ftn\
Rep
^
c.
D
e
£
6r
H
6
J2 1 K^'7
/^OZZZS"
1 7. (.035?
l/f>*>1,?Ltf
Kc K&*H
^x^^/^ / jt^cfc- tL^J( •fa.it, t*4(t**U/viml'vlZ>
TARE: Date/time: ^/nfadtSIO Analyst: *1 t^f,^je) '(^
DRY GROSS: Date/time: '/sl^cZ Analyst: ,
jrvto/* / iji**)1* fift& '
ASHED GROSS: Date/time: *.! ^ - , , Analyst: y
C1-- /fT&C*?!.3*^ /
Dry Gioss
Weight (g)
B
**.
.7.9 H^n
M-r^j-i,-/
y-« lOf ")*3iv^y
A O Q^/. ^ O
//aOtfi/
Jo. 0/75 •»•/
^,com<.
^A5c i-
LJ< LJ * t-*" 1
n nz-^-Z.
o.ni9o^
0.61110
£$£®
O.DUfi^
ft D7-Zi6
Adjusted
Dry
Net Weight
(g)1
©
Ashed
Gross
Weight (g)
(D)
j£j/7^
l<^^«9
Uo.-yi:1(at
•A*
/S ,3^796.
i^y/w,?
|tl) ^^ T^t 3.
yc*Cfc'^O -y
ft. 11 1*2.1
K.OifM
Llttft&tl
*IL *lr,*tSf
4*
AFDW
(g)
(B-D)
on//=5q
n,o/w^
n.r,/^o^
ft />!mz.
Dried in Oven
Oven °C: fr|
Ashed in Furn
Furnace °C: ^
# /W from Date:"/ii]9s Time4,&5'
ace from Date:1 ''//sht Time: /3&S~
S> to Date: 'jWft Time:_tfsiajr/(^S7
Indicate mean weight is (J)ry Weight ior CAFDW^) (Circle one)
No. of
Original
Org.
/r,
/o
V9^
/o
/o
/o
^
/£>
/O
/o
/o
/o
Mean Wt. per
Original
Organism
(mg)
/.M9
/ osrsr
> •!:££&&
mv«
IML
O.X1*
I5W
f V 7*y
^ 7^0
/.ato
Mean Wt. per
Treatment
(mg)
(Original)
/ ^^
i
No.
of Surv.
Org.
%
3"
7
4
/n
7
2070
1W
I(A
-------
Page / 7" of
FCETL QA Form No.108
Revision 0
Effective 08/99
TEST ORGANISM DRY WEIGHT AND ASH-FREE DRY WEIGHT (AFDW)
Project No:
(flOl-«fe
Species: (
Lot/Batch No.:
Analytical Balance ID:
TARE:
Date/time:
Analyst:
DRY GROSS: Date/time:
Analyst:
A5HED-. .
/O
I.1&
CO?
^
/o
MM
-UL
O.O^/^
,r2rS9(i
36'
r
I.&0
1 Add ,ii weight loss of blank boat, if appropriate.
/
-------
Page
of
FCETLQAFormNo.108
Revision 0
Effective 08/99
TEST ORGANISM DRY WEIGHT AND ASH-FREE DRY WEIGHT (AFDW)
Projcrt No-
e-; C ./-.
Lot/Batch No.:
Analytical Balance ID:
TARE'S^*/ Date/timo-
1 IMS' Analyst:
DRY GROSS: Date/time:
Analyst:^
A
GROSS: Date/time:
Analyst:^
Dried in Oven # >O from Date
Oven °C: ~~l I1: to Date
Time:
Ashed in Furnace from Date:^
Furnace °C: to .Date:
_Time:_
Time:
Bo;
No
Treatment
Re[)
Tare
Weight (g)
A
Dry Gross
Weight (g)
B
Dry Net
Weight (g)
(B-A)
Adjusted
Dry
Net Weight
(g)1
Ashed
Gross
Weight (g)
(D)
AFDW
(g)
(B-D)
Indicate mean weight is Dry Weight or
No. of
Original
Org.
Mean Wt. per
Original
Organism
(mg)
Mean Wt. per
Treatment
(mg)
(Original)
No.
of Surv.
Org.
(Circle one)
Mean Wt. per
Surviving
Organism
Mean Wt.
per
Treatment
(mg)
(Surviving)
D
/D
3L
Jz.
AW?
s
H
O.OlbM,
O.OltM
/f?
0.0W
JL
O.DZ^Z.
J£L
6
0-OZ(/M(,
/O
/.996>
C.CftO'7
In.
to
cioq
(6.013*
00M
0,
1912
OOM
O.OIWK*
i.VZT.
/o
BlaiJi
Add in weight lo.s-5 of blank boat, if appropriate.
®Vlfl^ *-
-------
Page
of
FCETL QA Form No. 108
Revision 0
Effective 08/99
TEST ORGANISM DRY WEIGHT AND ASH-FREE DRY WEIGHT (AFDW)
PiojectNo: "--*'~>'ll ~OffJ-{_ ^^
Species. C 't^iknS
Lot/Batch No.:
Annlytical Balance ID: .£flCT ^
Hoat
No.
M
/T
IL,
11
IV
ft
ID
1 1
22.
^
£~
005~
OC>^
00*5"
OCO
OC6
OOC?
DOG>
oof?
00k
Rep
P?
d
0
f
f=
^
ft
ft
r
f){7
f
{
r-r
Tare
Weight (g)
A
/ 7.^4/5-
/t.i^^-,
/9./6»r/29
/*.*&}?
jO.K^jf
KMltt
fi^co-n
MLL.^
ftvnn
/S-4^^2'
y^./i/a^to
I^ZIZS^
/9 r>-^^
TARE: 5<»v^*/Date/time: "It^t^tp i^>><" Analyst: >f Gfufaf^td fa)
{ '
DRY GROSS: Date/time: l(/£fAM HV< Analyst: •/
ASHED GROSS: Date/lime: . vlf/^ , ,.„„,,.. Analyst: y
Dry Gross
Weight (g)
B
nVu.r,
&MT7L,
A /97kk
JO.JOO^
^0^^)T
^O/73-T
'i'Wte^
HUZLttt
KCV1%S2»
/^«Z7
* 7.725,9
A n-U^
Dry Net
Weight (g)
(B-A)
0 J02£S \
D.O/W5
O.OZ.V5-7
0. DZC'i'l
o,ni?%<
0 .CVOf^
0,CI(^
0,02.1^
n,niv(o^
O.CZ.OIL
f),05i5L
O.OOOD2-
Adjusted
Dry
Net Weight
(g)1
Ashed
Gross
Weight (g)
(D)
\lfUOK
&*fi3(f-1
ft.mut,
^52^31
Zft (ft 10
KJlVXtM
i93cti&_
n<)*am
l«XLif,t,
KM.11M
K.OI2S2.
K 222^3
iCfftf&L
AFDW
(g)
(B-D)
A fit //><&
n,oi3r*
0.0? OVD
0. 0'V5^
(\OCZflO
A.O/WIT?
oowzz.
ArtnZ,./
0.6/VS?
O.VISW
Q.fnftfO
-0.0/00/0
b0Htto
Dried in Oven
Oven °C: ~ll
Ashed in Furn
Furnace °C: _
# id from
_ to DC
ace from D
__^ to Da
Date: "//-j/W
ime:'<^
ite: ll/'2rVr Time: Qjacfi
ate: Time'
te: Time:
Indicate mean weight is Dry Weight orcfAFDW^ (Circle one
No. of
Original
Org.
/£
/O
10
10
to
/O
9
q
/D
/a
/»
kf$
/o
Mean Wt. per
Original
Organism
(mg)
i.urt
/309
1.000
WZ
I.&0
litfSq
IttO
I.1M
I.Qffl
l.-sio
c^.
Mb
Mean Wt. per
Treatment
(mg)
(Original)
/•*/ (t^l
No.
of Surv.
Org.
1
y
9
-------
Page 2Oof JV?
FCETLQA Form No. 108
Revision 0
Effective 08/99
TEST ORGANISM DRY WEIGHT AND ASH-FREE DRY WEIGHT (AFDW)
Proje : No-£&73 - ) M -OO"? C O^V
Species (- Kr-^l<-*->^>
Lot/B itch No.:
Analytical Balance ID: fAl^T^I
Boai
No.
Z.1
Rlan'
Treatment
COLf
Rep
H
Tare
Weight (g)
A
iCt.LSltUD
"n^^lk
TARESW-**/ Date/time "/| ^5^ Analyst: . ten fir /KJC) fa)
. /
DRY GROSS: Date/time: "OiM Analyst: ^
.^i^f*/ U'VS'^/SCS"
^vf tt-/ ii/> iiU r%
ASHED^3ROSS: Date/time: [t^=,\qzc Analyst: ^
Dry Gross
Weight (g)
B
ilt.uW^
n.q^-r;
Dry Net
Weight (g)
(B-A)
O.OZcSX
o
Adjusted
Dry
Net Weight
(g)1
Ashed
Gross
Weight (g)
(D)
ks.u-ivn
n?)5f*fo
AFDW
(g)
(B-D)
Oottl
-O-OOCOI
Dried in Oven # /£> fron
Oven°C:J£2_ to
Ashed in Furnace from
Furnace °C: to 1
n Date: "Infa Time/'VS^
Date: Time:
3ate: Time:
ft) pL -< ^_
Indicate mean weight is Dry Weight or(^~AFD$) (Circle one)
No. of
Original
Org.
'0
Mean Wt. per
Original
Organism
(mg)
/3V/
Mean Wt. per
Treatment
(mg)
(Original)
inn
No.
of Surv.
Org.
(f
Mean Wt. per
Surviving
Organism
(mg)
*.(,*&
Mean Wt.
per
Treatment
(mg)
(Surviving)
J/to
Add in weight loss of blank boat, if appropriate.
0 iAJT * A1=DiAJ
iri/dT£ST
*1 C-f
. Tzrr/>c
-------
-ni-off! f001-&•
Page: J- I
FCETL QA Form No. 15
Effective: 5/90
SUBJECT DAILY LOG
ALL ENTRIES MUST BE INITIALLED WITH DATE AND TIME.
/A,
nv
7
v3 /" /
I IPO i^OU of- /IM-I *. - jU /y/Ai/L< ^ -JU>-
^
.3V £g
'Ink*
linO
-------
8503-111-007-(001-006) C. tentans AFDW/survivors ^^ . ., ,IL.ia*
File: c:\stats\CTAFDW.DAT Transform: NO TRANSFORMATION . '2y *<
/***- f-^/IH n"
Chi-square test for normality: actual and expected frequencies
INTERVAL <-l 5 1.5 to <-0.5 -0.5 to 0.5 >0.5 to 1.5 >l.s
EXPECTED 3.484 12.584 19.864 12.584 3.484
OBSERVED 4 14 17 15 2
Calculated Chi-Square goodness of fit test statistic = 1.7446
Table Ch:.-Square value (alpha = 0.01) = 13.277
Data PASS noimality test. Continue analyses
8503-111-007-(001-006) C. tentans AFDW/survivors
File: c:\stats\CTAFDW.DAT Transform: NO TRANSFORMATION
Bartlett's test for homogeneity of variance
Calculated Bl statistic = 6.84
Bartlett's test using average degrees of freedom
Calculated B2 statistic = 6.36
Based on average replicate size of 6.43
Table Chi-square value = 16.81 (alpha = 0.01, df = 6)
Table Chi-square value = 12.59 (alpha = 0.05, df = 6)
Data PASS Bl homogeneity test at 0.01 level. Continue analysis
Data PASS B2 homogeneity test at 0.01 level. Continue analysis
-------
Z3
i
TLE: 8503-111-007-(ooi-ooe;
LE: c:\stats\CTAFDW.DAT
ANSFORM: NO TRANSFORMATION
C. tentans AFDW/survivors
NUMBER OF GROUPS: 7
DENTIFI CATION
Control
Control
Control
Control
Control
Control
Control
001
001
001
001
001
001
001
001
002
002
002
002
002
002
002
002
003
003
003
003
003
003
003
003
004
004
004
004
004
004
004
005
005
005
005
005
005
005
006
006
006
006
006
REP
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
1
2
3
4
5
VALUE
1.4240
2 . 1760
2 .2940
1.6130
1 .4440
2 .3370
2 .0700
2 .2040
1. 6380
2 . 0580
2 . 7200
1.2110
1.5920
2 . 1340
1.8450
1.7950
1.1680
2 .3800
1.5440
1.6970
1.7940
2 .0000
1.7390
1.4240
1.8800
1.7870
1.5840
1.5940
1 .7830
1.7610
1.8740
2 . 1570
2 .2480
2 .4950
2 .6040
2 .3130
1. 9920
1. 6510
1.2030
2 .3540
1. 6360
2 .2220
1. 6200
1. 6120
2 .0840
2 .3700
1 .7340
1 . 8240
1. 9860
2 . 5900
TRANS VALUE
1 .4240
2 .1760
2 .2940
1.6130
1 4440
2 .3370
2 . 0700
2 .2040
1. 6380
2 .0580
2 .7200
1.2110
1 .5920
2 . 1340
1 . 8450
1 .7950
1.1680
2 .3800
1.5440
1.6970
1 .7940
2 .0000
1.7390
1.4240
1.8800
1 .7870
1.5840
1.5940
1.7830
1.7610
1 .8740
2 . 1570
2 .2480
2 .4950
2 .6040
2 .3130
1 . 9920
1 .6510
1 .2030
2 .3540
1 .6360
2 .2220
1 .6200
1 .6120
2 . 0840
2 .3700
1 .7340
1 . 8240
1 . 9860
2 5900
-------
7
7
006
006
2 ... 2 3 0
2 . 6350
2 . 1230
2.6350
8503-111-007- (001-006) C
File: c:\stats\CTAFDW.DAT
tentans AFDW/survivors
Transform: NO TRANSFORMATION
SUMMARY STATISTICS ON TRANSFORMED DATA TABLE 1 of 2
GRP IDENTIFICATION
N
MIN
MAX
MEAN
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Control
001
002
003
004
005
006
7
8
8
8
7
7
7
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
.424
.211
. 168
. 424
.651
.203
.734
2
2
2
1
2
2
2
. 337
. 720
.380
. 880
. 604
.354
. 635
1
1 .
1
1
2
1
2 .
. 908
. 925
765
711
209
819
, 180
„ «= ^
u.iOS=> V
8503-111-007- (001-006) C.
File: c:\stats\CTAFDW.DAT
tentans AFDW/survivors
Transform: NO TRANSFORMATION
SUMMARY STATISTICS ON TRANSFORMED DATA TABLE
of 2
GRP IDENTIFICATION
VARIANCE
SD
SEM
c.v.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Control
001
002
003
004
005
006
0,
0,
0,
0,
0 ,
C.
0.
. 161
.212
.121
. 026
. 102
. 169
. 130
0
0
0.
0,
0.
0,
0
402
460
.348
. 161
.319
.411
.360
0
o
0 .
0 .
0
0 .
0
152
163
. 123
. 057
121
. 155
136
21
23
19,
9,
14 .
22 ,
16.
. 04
89
. 70
.39
.45
.61
.51
85'03-111-007-(001-006) C tentans AFDW/survivorj
File: c:\stats\CTAFDW.DAT Transform: NO TRANSFORMATION
ANOVA TABLE
SOURCE
Between
Within (Error)
Total
DF
6
45
51
SS MS F
1 673 0.279 2.134
5 878 0 131
7 5cl
Critical F value = 2.34 (0.05,6,40)
Since F < Critical F FAIL TO REJECT He: All eaual
-------
PC,
03-111-007-(001-006) C. tentans AFDW/survivors
le: c:\stats\CTAFDW.DAT Transform: NO TRANSFORMATION
BONFERRONI t-TEST
TABLE 1 OF 2
Ho:Control
-------
• / t r ^T
e
re
Page ^O of
FCETLQAForm No. 108
Revision 0
Effective 08/99
TEST ORGANISM DRY WEIGHT AND ASH-FREE DRY WEIGHT (AFDW)
Project No: fi ^0 J -\tl-0d7- (jp < -fe^
Species: C. tc? « tci^/
Lot/Batch No.. ^7-,l"5
Analytical Balance ID: jJ/^AT^ ^
Boat
No.
a
3
^
3"
6
/
>5
cl
10
II
(1
13
Treatment
fW
0 V
ReF
Ref
fteF
ReF
ReF
6)01
&&2®
O0|
^o|
0£ 1
GO \
Rep
,A
C
D
i=
£
G
H
A
n>
c
D
c
p
Tare
Weight (g)
A
TARE: Date/time: Analyst:
DRY GROSS: Date/time: Analyst:
ASHED CROSS: Date/time: Analyst:
Dry Gross
Weight (g)
B
Dry Net
Weight (g)
(B-A)
Adjusted
Dry
Net Weight
(g)1
0.0H13
0,01637
0- 02 17£
C>.LW3
2t02T-sJ
O..0mv^
d°oi4p
<9, 0^533
0^01 70^
^.01771
(?, 0^360
(9.0I-H76
^9. f 2031 1
Ashed
Gross
Weight (g)
(D)
(i)
AFDW
(g)
(B-D)
Dried in Oven
Oven "C:
# from Date: Time:
to Date: Time:
Ashed in Furnace from
Date: Time:
Furnace °C: to Date: Time:
x-" --, CTV 1 C
Indicate mean weight ig Dry Weight qr AFDW (Circle one)
No. of
Original
Org.
10
10
1 0
?
10
10
10
10 .
10
10
o
o
_LP
\
Mean Wt. per
Original
Organism
(mg)
/.m
1 . 6'6 7
.XI 76
.2.6 l^f
2.3>:5 |
2.0V3
Qi ''^U-
.2.533
i k 7^^
2*711
3^360
/. H?6
J . :•» a \
^TBciii Wfper
Treatment
(mg)
(Original)
\f\(o ^
h%lr^
7
No.
of Surv.
Org.
8
S
7
°)
/o
6
LI
7
^
10
io
<7
/o
Mean Wt. per
Surviving
Organism
(mg)
2*ll£
3,37^
3, ID ft
2.6H
'2.'i'i/
3.i?7
^^r5^
2.^14
x? J2
2.77
^ 360
^2-e^f^
s* • UvJ o
o n ->
•** • J* ^1
Mean Wt.
per
Treatment
(mg)
(Surviving)
^iX4c^
) „ ^
1,^2.
Add in
CD
weight loss of blank boat, if appropriate ^ t^t. vz,^^ C (em,rw
= >V/2x'''t e © FrfetiiCj 1
-------
Page
FCETL QA Form No.108
Revision 0
Effective 08/99
JEST ORGANISM DRY WEIGHT AND ASH-FREE DRY WEIGHT (AFDW)
Project No: <6^o~t>~ ^i-oc'i-fo-'^^c)
n • ( + f3 »V ~t A/*-x £
Species: *-
Lot/Batch No.: T/-2>,
Analytical Balance ID: VtV^T -^ I
Boat
No.
'f
/T
/6
/7
/S
/T
at
;n
2}
2^
2^
26
Treatment
60!
60 1
ool
-va
00 X
o->x
Jo? X
/> j i
001
00 1^
oo ^
00 ^
00^
Rep
4,
H
A
B
c
0
Ir
f
G
H
A
R
r
Tare
Weight (g)
A
TARE: Date/time: Analyst:
DRY GROSS: Date/time: Analyst:
ASHED GROSS: Date/time: Analyst:
Dry Gross
Weight (g)
B
Dry Net
Weight (g)
(B-A)
Adjusted
Dry
Net Weight
(g)1
0.02*0*3
0.0215$
0-OM5I
C'OMTA
0,0, me
0^l'^7
o<0 ice'}
Q.u&ll
utoxin
0.01013
0.02175
o.osan
O.OH77
Ashed
Gross
Weight (g)
(D)
AFDW
(9)
(B-D)
Dried in Oven
Oven °C:
# from Date: Time:
to Date: Time:
Ashed in Furnace from
Furnace "C:
Date: Time-
to Date: Time:
Indicate mean weight is ^ry Weight) or AFDW (Circle one)
No. of
Original
Org.
10
LI
10
lo
t ?S
2 „ ^/ «3 7
1*7/7
:2.J07
Z, ^7^
2,15(7
2.
/ ^7-Y
Mean Wt. per
Treatment
(mg)
(Original)
2,Hd%^
J
3A$% ^
3 (l
5- ° 7 /JLL
No.
of Surv.
Org.
7
a
^
;c
7
7
i <7
o
10
r-\
o
ft
7
Mean Wt. per
Surviving
Organism
(mg)
2* "7-87
3- *i6 °
j?, ^V
l.^^
3,ico
a. no
2t^a^
) ' 5 Cy
**^ *• O / J
^.^^7
^^3,7
_2j 7.5"
J-, / O O
2. S""i^8
fe
Mean Wl.
per
Treatment
(mg)
(Survivinq)
^ 5^5
o — 7 U
>K * -^ I
g
2 ^1^&
Add in
of
boat, if appropriate
-------
r
0
i t* V
67-
FCETLQAForm No. 108
Revision 0
Effective 08/99
TEST ORGANISM DRY WEIGHT AND ASH-FREE DRY WEIGHT (AFDW)
Project No: '/Jo^-ll '-<*" '{p '^k
Species: ^ ] ^ ^ ^ 5
Lot/Batch No.: V/'^M
Analytical Balance ID: WV^-t 1
Boat
No.
,1
3
4
5-
&
7
^
i
lo
1
I'7.
Treatment
6?<^
OC'-5
L'C' ">,
00"^
OoH
C'C'^
LV ^
00 f
^0'4
ocW
oo H
ool
Oo 5"
Rep
D
13
F
G
H
A
n
r
D
f
r
G
A
Tare
Weight (g)
A
TARE: Date/time: Analyst:
DRY GROSS: Date/time: Analyst:
ASHED GROSS: Date/time: Analyst:
Dry Gross
Weight (g)
B
Dry Net
Weight (g)
(B-A)
Adjusted
Dry
Net Weight
(g)'
O.OIG^
ao20D\
ft i'\ j iCl//
L/^ U/v*- /I
0.0^023
o.cmij
0.0171-7
(Q> ^
A A } £fc~ <£-
0.0211J
0.0^071
0,011 "f?
0-oiJS^
0.0 'i /1iT
0.6)15^7
Ashed
Gross
Weight (g)
(D)
AFDW
(g)
(B-D)
Dried in Oven # from Date: Time:
Oven °C: to Date: Time:
Ashed in Furnace from
Date: Time:
Furnace °C: to Date: Time:
Indicate mean weight is pry Weight) or AFDW (Circle one)
No. of
Original
Org.
10
lo
\o
10
10
lo
c
o
o
c
cl
o
10
Mean Wt. per
Original
Organism
(mg)
/,03-f
2 , oo
.2.174
2.01'!)
2k3,/3
,717
^
2*^7
*>.o7't
2* i -n
•") ti « I / / /S
^.M^S^1
No.
of Surv.
Org.
s
<=!
^
y
1
(,
7
^
^
7
J
o
o
Mean Wt. per
Surviving
Organism
(mg)
l*O&?j
^,^13
2,5~2,7
2,5"!?
2..T70
2.^ i 1
3 13^
'^, io*r
V^-y / S
'3,o 70
2.426'
2 333
/ 74 /
Mean Wt.
per
Treatment
(mg)
(Surviving)
IL
&
ft
2 97-fe
©
0 o*/> oo^o.7f .i-i-i^f (^^li^fc^e ,rzru_4A^U^ (i^1 Ae |^6.ft4. £, 3.Z8/
1 Add in weight loss of blank boat, if appropriate.
-------
Page2-? of ^J
FCETL QA Form No. 108
Revision 0
Effective 08/99
TEST ORGANISM DRY WEIGHT AND ASH-FREE DRY WEIGHT (AFDW)
Project No: "JJ 5^'V I II -Oa '?-(t!>(-ix£
Species: <° i^t^->
Lot/Batch No.: '>/-•/.-)
Analytical Balance ID: S^W^
Boat
No.
'1
/5~
1^
17
/8
1?
Zc
21
11
23
^
25"
U
c5i-,4k
Treatment
00.T
005"
Oos"
00-S"
005"
Oo5~
r)o^
£06
006
00*.
^)06-
OO6
00^
006
Rep
/s
e
D
'c
F
G
A
&
C
D
F
F
^
•TARE: Date/time: Analyst:
DRY GROSS: Date/time: Analyst:
ASHED GROSS: Date/time: Analyst:
Dry Gross
Weight (g)
B
/'-iZJi-vi 1 j» f~>
jiiak. -^
a 0/^5"
^^.059
Ashed
Gross
Weight (g)
(D)
dlutad
AFDW
(9)
(B-D)
Indicate mean weight is
No. of
Original
Org.
/r
lo
1C
/o
I'O
/o
c/
?
/o
10
10
10
10
Mean Wt. per
Original
Organism
(mg)
:?.i.5X
L^il
2.H3^
Z.OV5
l.7Sc
2-0/7
/.3M3
2.3c/7
//dt.3
2,c/3
y.i53
;^-85-
i.o^
Dried in Oven
Oven °C:
# from Date: Time:
to Date: Time:
Ashed in Furnace from Date: Time:
Furnace °C: to Date: Time:
(Dry Weigrjrt or AFDW (Circle one)
Mean Wt. per
Treatment
(mg)
(Original)
A063
z.iiCb
No.
of Surv.
Org.
^•£'7
•3
C{
7
•D
~7
j
£
?
£
•3
/C
7
i<
Mean Wt. per
Surviving
Organism
(mg)
3 ^/~?
Z3vT
3./53
^.3il
Zi'U
-Z.^H
^.765"
2,3^7
a.il?
a.5V6
3,0.^3
^.673
3-^iZ
Mean Wt.
per
Treatment
(mg)
(Surviving)
1.55*1
2. -161
Add in weight loss of blank boat, if appropriate.
-------
3°
cr
8503-111-007-(001-006) C. tentans Dry v/t/survivors
File: c:\stats\CTDRYWT.DAT Transform: NO TRANSFORMATION £A/0 ,• ^
Chi-square test for normality: actual and expected frequencies
INTERVAL <-1.5 1.5 to <-0.5 -0.5 to 0.5 >0.5 to 1.5
EXPECTED 3.484 12.584 19.864 12.584 3.484
OBSERVED 3 14 17 15 3
Calculated Chi-Square goodness of fit test statistic = 1.1706
Table Chi-Square value (alpha = 0.01) = 13.277
Data PASS normality test. Continue analysis.
8503-111-007-(001-006) C. tentans Dry wt/survivors
File: c:\stats\CTDRYWT.DAT Transform: NO TRANSFORMATION
Bartlett's test for homogeneity of variance
Calculated Bl statistic = 4.61
Bartlett's test using average degrees of freedom
Calculated B2 statistic = 4.33
Based on average replicate size of 6.43
Table Chi-square value = 16.81 (alpha = 0.01, df = 6)-
Table Chi-square value = 12.59 (alpha = 0.05, df = 6)
Data PASS Bl homogeneity test at 0.01 level. Continue analysis
Data PASS B2 homogeneity cest at 0.01 level. Continue analysis
-------
LE.
8503-111-007- (001-006)
c:\stats\CTDRYWT.DAT
NO TRANSFORMATION
C. tentans Dry wt/survivors
NUMBER OF GROUPS : 7
IDENTIFICATION
Control
Control
Control
Control
Control
Control
Control
001
001
001
001
001
001
001
001
002
002
002
002
002
002
002
002
003
003
003
003
003
003
003
003
004
004
004
004
004
004
004
005
005
005
005
005
005
005
006
006
006
006
006
REP
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
1
2
3
4
5
VALUE
2
3
3
2
2
3
2
2
2
2
3
1
2
2
2
2
1
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
2
2
1
3
2
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
. 1160
.3740
. 1080
6140
.3310
.3970
. 9650
.8140
. 1210
.7710
.3600
.6620
.2210
.7870
4620
.5640
.6980
.2000
.2100
.2240
.6380
. 8170
.2370
.1750
.7660
.5380
.0680
.2230
.5270
.5290
.5700
.9120
.2810
.3090
.413C
.0700
.4260
.3830
.7410
.2170
.3550
.1530
.3310
.2320
.8840
.7650
.3970
.3290
.5160
.2530
TRANS VALUE
2
3
3 .
2 .
2 .
3 .
2 .
2 .
2 .
2 .
3
1
2 .
2
2 .
2 .
1
3 .
2 .
2 .
2 .
2 .
2 .
2
2
2 .
2 .
2 .
2 .
2 .
2
2 .
3 .
3 .
3 .
3
2 .
2
1 .
3
2 .
3 .
2 .
2 .
2
2
2
2
2 ,
3
1160
3740
1080
6140
3310
3970
9650
8140
1210
7710
3600
6620
2210
7870
4620
5640
6980
2000
2100
2240
6380
8170
2370
1750
7660
5380
0680
2230
5270
5290
5700
9120
2810
3090
4130
0700
4260
3830
7410
2170
3550
1530
.3310
.2320
8 8 -1 C
7650
397C
32 9C
. 5 1 £ 0
253C
-------
7
7
006
006
6
7
2 .6930
3 .4320
2 . 6930
3 .4320
2.
•?*
8503-111-007-(001-006) C. tentans Dry wt/survivors
File: c:\stats\CTDRYWT.DAT Transform: NO TRANSFORMATION
SUMMARY STATISTICS ON TRANSFORMED DATA TABLE 1 of 2
GRP IDENTIFICATION
N
MIN
MAX
MEAN
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Control
001
002
003
004
005
006
7
8
8
8
7
7
7
2 ,
1.
1 .
2 .
2 .
1 .
2 .
. 116
. 662
. 698
. 068
.383
. 741
.329
3
3
3
2
3
3
3
.397
.360
.200
.766
.413
.217
.432
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
. 844
.525
.449 (.a.UWfrS;
.425 tZ^aHSj
.971 (a^iosv
. 559
.769
8503-111-007-(001-006) C. tentans Dry wt/survivors
File: c:\stats\CTDRYWT.DAT Transform: NO TRANSFORMATION
SUMMARY STATISTICS ON TRANSFORMED DATA TABLE 2 of 2
GRP IDENTIFICATION
VARIANCE
SD
SEM
c.v.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Control
001
002
003
004
005
006
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.253
.273
.209
.057
. 177
.294
. 179
0,
0,
0 ,
0 ,
0 .
0 .
0 ,
.503
.523
.457
.240
.421
.542
.423
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
. 190
. 185
. 162
. 085
.159
.205
. 160
17
20
18
9
14
21
15
.68
.71
.68
.88
.16
. 17
.29
8503-111-007-(001-006) C. tentans Dry wt/survivors
File: c:\stats\CTDRYWT.DAT Transform: NO TRANSFORMATION
ANOVA TABLE
SOURCE
Between
Within (Error)
Total
DF
6
45
51
SS
1.
9
11
MS F
. 989 0 . 331 1.622
.197 0.204
. 186
Critical F value = 2.34 (0 05,6,40)
Since F < Critical F FAIL TO REJECT Ho: All equal
-------
35-
03-111-007-(001-006) C. tentans Dry wt/survivors
le: c:\stats\CTDRYWT.DAT Transform: NO TRANSFORMATION
BONFERRONI t-TEST
TABLE 1 OF 2
Ho:Control
-------
Length/Width of Obfects Using a Micrometer
Project/Study Number:
Study Initiation Date:
VSCY H l-oc7-™*t
lo/n./sy
Source of Organisms: /J (3>_S
Collected by: 4_J f* , l[<^rj(
Analyzed by: TO
-^ .'. i)
T ' i )^^c\
Project Name:
Species: C/i (r ^ ^ <= <•
Organism Batch/Lot #:
Date Collected: / 1_
Date Analyzed: /
vi t. :>
Oq
Oc i .
Dec ,
•fc-nt-dKI
23
/???
HJJ
^
Specimen
Number
I
2
3
1
S
6
7
^
1
10
n
IZ
/^
/4
/.T
«
17
/^
n
10
Total
Mean
Magnif.
^X
\oot
iCOy:
IOC*
loox
ftfK
IOC*
^oy
100*
ICO i
loc^
la\
ICQ \L
loo i
160^
/^X
/ocx
ioo\
looy
/LVV
#of
Squares
/.?
9
.5"
'V
5,^"
^
^S'
•7
15"
^
^
4
Y. 3
^, 2_
*
V-S
V.2-
^.^
3^
^,.5T
Length of One
Sguare (mm)
O.i 7^
o. 07
O.o 7
0.07
0.07
o. ~ir
0,0 7
0. -75~
O,o 7
C'.Q7
0.07
O * 0 7
0.07
O.O 7
0,01
0.0~r
0.07
0,07
O,07
T-07
Total (mm)
C', ^3Z
6)= ^3"
,0. 35"
O.^S
aj-ar
0, 35*
O.3/5"
0,^Z5"
0.3/5"
0,?^
c.,:l^
o.z^
Oc 3o |
0,2?^
(3.2^
O.336
0,27V
C.30^
O/J66
C . ^ ;T
C'.^ZX
Remarks
• i ct t A ^>
.rA
y
-------
Project Number:
oo
7 (wt -^Date Initiated: ''«
a:
VD
V)
v\.
Q
o
CS
- Q
CO
4-
Random Number Chart Generated by:
-------
8503-111-007
Appendix D
Statistical Analysis Comparing Sediments 02 - 06 to Sediment 01
-------
TIE:
LE:
&NSFORM:
8503111007
C. tentans
survival ci
ompared to
site 001 A
-------
^ So "i - 11 I - (~ O 7 Co a \ -(.
SUMMARY STATISTICS ON TRANSFORMED DATA TABLE 1 of 2
13
GRP
1
2
3
4
5
6
IDENTIFICATION
001
002
003
004
005
006
N
8
8
8
7
7
7
MIN
0
0
0
0
0
0
. 900
. 800
.500
600
. 700
.700
MAX
1 .
1 .
1 .
1.
0 .
1.
000
000
000
000
900
000
MEAN
0 .
0.
0.
0 .
0 .
0 .
950
894
825
829
814
814
8503111007 C. tentans survival compared to site 001
File: c:\stats\CTSURVIV.DAT Transform: NO TRANSFORMATION
ON TRANSFORMED DATA TABLE 2 of 2
3RP IDENTIFICATION
1
2
3
4
5
6
001
002
003
004
005
006
VARIANCE
0 ,
0 ,
0 ,
0,
0 .
0.
.003
. 007
.022
.019
, 008
.018
SD
0 .
0
0.
0 .
0 .
0 .
053
086
149
138
090
135
SEM
0.
0 .
0.
0 .
0 .
0.
019
031
053
052
034
051
C.V.
5.
9.
18.
16.
11.
16.
%
63
66
04
66
05
52
-------
",503111007 C. tentans survival compared to site 001
r\]_e: c:\stats\CTSURVIV.DAT Transform: ARC SINE (SQUARE ROOT(Y)
11
i-square test for normality: actual and expected frequencies
ilculated Chi-Square goodness of fit test statistic = 4.7361
,ble Chi -Square value (alpha = 0.01) = 13.277
,ta PASS normality test. Continue analysis.
03111007 C. tentans survival compared to site 001
le: c:\stats\CTSURVIV.DAT Transform: ARC SINE(SQUARE ROOT(Y)
rtlett's test for homogeneity of variance
Iculated Bl statistic = 5.35
rtlett's test using average degrees of freedom
Iculated B2 statistic = 5.23
Based on average replicate size of 6.50
ble Chi-square value = 15.09 (alpha = 0.01, df = 5)
ble Chi-square value = 11.07 (alpha = 0.05, df = 5)
ta PASS Bl homogeneity test at 0.01 level. Continue analysis
ta PASS B2 homogeneity test at 0.01 level. Continue analysis
ITERVAL < - 1 . 5
[PECTED 3 015
iSERVED 2
1.5 to <-0. 5
10.890
13
-0.5 to 0.5
17.190
16
>0 .5 to 1.5
10.890
14
>1.5
3 .015
0
-------
A^ r"
;-dO° /
8503111007"c. tentans survival compared to site 001
File: c:\stats\CTSURVIV.DAT Transform: ARC SINE(SQUARE ROOT(Y)
SUMMARY STATISTICS ON TRANSFORMED DATA TABLE 1 of 2
GRP IDENTIFICATION
N
MIN
MAX
MEAN
1
2
3
4
5
6
001
002
003
004
005
006
8
8
8
7
7
7
1
1
0
0
0
0
.249
.107
.785
.886
. 991
.991
1
1
1
1
1
1
.412
.412
.412
.412
.249
.412
1 .
1 .
1 .
1 .
1 .
1 .
331
249
158
163
135
145
8503111007 C. tentans survival compared to site 001
File: c:\stats\CTSURVIV.DAT Transform: ARC SINE(SQUARE ROOT(Y))
SUMMARY STATISTICS ON TRANSFORMED DATA TABLE 2 of 2
GRP IDENTIFICATION
VARIANCE
SD
SEM
C.V. %
1
2
3
4
5
6
001
002
003
004
005
006
0 .
0 .
0 .
0.
0 .
0 .
008
018
034
032
014
036
0 .
0 .
0.
0.
0 .
0.
087
132
184
180
117
190
0
0
0
0
0
0
031
.047
.065
. 068
. 044
. 072
6
10
15
15
10
16
.55
.61
.85
.44
.30
.60
8503111007 C. tentans survival compared to site 001
File: c:\stats\CTSURVIV.DAT Transform: ARC SINE(SQUARE ROOT(Y)
ANOVA TABLE
SOURCE
Between
Within (Error)
Total
DF
5
39
44
SS
0
0
1
MS F
•230 0.046 1.983
-904 0.023
.134
Critical F value = 2.53 (0.05,5,30)
Since F < Critical F FAIL TO REJECT Ho: All equal
8503111007 C tentans survival compared to site 001
File: c:\stats\CTSURVIV.DAT Transform: ARC SINE(SQUARE ROOT(Y))
-------
BONFERRONI t-TEST
TABLE 1 OF 2
Ho:Control
-------
8503-111-007-(001-006) AFDW compare to OC1
File: c:\stats\AFDW_001.DAT Transform: NO TRANSFORMATION
Chi-square test for normality: actual and expected frequencies
INTERVAL <-1.5 -1.5to<-0.5 -0.5 to 0.5 >0.5 to 1.5 >i.s
EXPECTED 2.546 9.196 14.516 9.196 2.546
OBSERVED 4 9 14 92
Calculated Chi-Square goodness of fit test statistic = 0.9742
Table Chi-Square value (alpha = 0.01) = 13 277
Data PASS normality test Continue analysis.
8503-111-007-(001-006) AFDW compare to 001
File: c:\stats\AFDW 001.DAT Transform: NO TRANSFORMATION
Bartlett's test for homogeneity of variance
Calculated Bl statistic = 6.33
Bartlett's test using average degrees of freedom
Calculated B2 statistic = 5.99
Based on average replicate size of 6.60
Table Chi-square value = 13.28 (alpha = 0.01, df = 4)
Table Chi-square value = 9.49 (alpha = 0 05, df = 4)
Data PASS Bl homogeneity test at 0.01 level Continue analysis
Data PASS B2 homogeneity test at 0.01 level Continue analysis
:X/» I -Xj.
A F
-------
a//4 A?
'TLE: 8503-111-007- (001-006) AFI
LE. c:\StatS\AFDW 001. DAT
"WSFORM: NO TRANSFORMATION
p IDENTIFICATION
001
001
001
001
001
001
001
001
002
002
002
002
002
002
002
002
003
003
003
003
003
003
003
003
004
004
004
004
004
004
004
006
006
006
006
006
006
006
REP
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
DW compare to 001
NUMBER OF
VALUE
2
1
2
A
1
1
2
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
2
1
1
1
2
2
2
.2040
.6380
0580
.7200
.2110
.5920
.1340
.8450
.7950
.1680
.3800
.5440
.6970
.7940
.0000
.7390
.4240
.8800
.7870
.5840
.5940
.7830
.7610
. 8740
.1570
.2480
.4950
.6040
.3130
.9920
.6510
.3700
.7340
.8240
.9860
.5900
. 1230
.6350
AJM
GROUPS : 5
TRANS VALUE
2 .
1.
2 .
2 .
1 .
1 .
2 .
1
1 .
1 .
2 .
1 .
1
1
2
1
1
1 .
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
2
1
1
1
2
2
2
2040
6380
0580
7200
2110
5920
1340
8450
7950
.1680
3800
.5440
6970
7940
0000
7390
4240
. 8800
7870
.5840
.5940
7830
7610
8740
1570
.2480
4950
6040
3130
9920
6510
.3700
7340
8240
9860
5900
1230
6350
03-1H-007- (001-006) AFDW compare to 001
le: c:\stats\AFDW_001.DAT Transform: NO TRANSFORMATION
SUMMARY STATISTICS ON TRANSFORMED DATA TABLE i of 2
P IDENTIFICATION N
001 8
MIN
1.211
MAX
2 . 720
MEAN
1 . 925
-------
2
3
4
5
002
003
004
006
8
8
7
7
1. 168
1 .424
1.651
1 .734
2 .380
1.880
2 604
2 . 635
1.765
1-711
2 . 2096/ -^ 5 v D^/3 (l-'ty
2.180 Afcl2/Nl
8503-111-007-(001-006) AFDW
File: c:\stats\AFDW 001.DAT
compare to 001
Transform:
NO TRANSFORMATION
SUMMARY STATISTICS ON TRANSFORMED DATA TABLE 2 of 2
GRP IDENTIFICATION
VARIANCE
SD
SEM
C.V.
1
2
3
4
5
001
002
003
004
006
0
0
0
0
0
.212
.121
. 026
. 102
. 130
0
0
0
0
0
.460
.348
. 161
.319
.360
0 .
0.
0.
0 .
0 .
163
123
057
121
136
23
19
9
14
16
.89
.70
.39
.45
.51
8503-111-007-(001-006) AFDW compare to 001
File: c:\stats\AFDW_001.DAT Transform: NO TRANSFORMATION
ANOVA TABLE
SOURCE
Between
Within (Error)
Total
DF
4
33
37
SS
1
3
5,
MS F
576 0.394 3.336
.896 0.118
.472
Critical F value = 2.69 (0.05,4,30)
Since 7 > Critical F REJECT Ho: All equal
8503-111-007-(001-006) AFDW compare to 001
File: c:\siiats\AFDW 001.DAT Transform: NO TRANSFORMATION
BONFSRRONI t-TEST
TABLE 1 OF 2
Ho:Control
-------
9 J
Jl
•••33-111-007- (001-006) AFDW compare to 001
[e: c:\stats\AFDW_001.DAT Transform: NO TRANSFORMATION
BONFERRONI t-TEST
TABLE 2 OF 2
Ho:Control
-------
Co s^-c^ f- i ^G -;tW r I'M €^vi fs C<0
0
6'5
^ tv
8503-111-007- (001-006) dry weight compare to 001
File: c:\stats\DRYWT001.DAT Transform: NO TRANSFORMATION
Chi-square test for normality: actual and expected frequencies
INTERVAL <-1.5 -1.5to<-0.5 -05 to 0.5 >0.5 to 1.5 >i.s
EXPECTED 2.546 9.196 14.516 9.196 2.546
OBSERVED 2 11 13 9 3
Calculated Chi-Square goodness of fit test statistic = 0.7144
Table Chi-Square value (alpha = 0.01) = 13.277
Data PASS normality test Continue analysis.
8503-111-007- (001-006) dry weight compare to 001
File: c:\stats\DRYWT001.DAT Transform: NO TRANSFORMATION
Bartlett's test for homogeneity of variance
Calculated Bl statistic = 3.79
Bartlett ' s test using average degrees of freedom
Calculated B2 statistic = 3.58
Based on average replicate size of 6.60
Table Chi-square value = 13.28 (alpha = 0.01, df = 4)
Table Chi-square value = 9.49 (alpha =0.05, df = 4)
Data PASS Bl homogeneity test at 0.01 level. Continue analysis
Data PASS B2 homogeneity test at 0.01 level. Continue analysis
-------
p
I 2.
TRANSFORM:
'3RP
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
~2
2
3
3
-3
3
3
3
8503-111-007- (001-006!
c:\stats\DRYWT001.DAT
NO TRANSFORMATION
dry weight compare to 001
NUMBER OF GROUPS
IDENTIFICATION
001
001
001
001
001
001
001
001
002
002
OCL
002
002
002
002
002
003
003
003
003
003
003
003
003
004
004
004
004
004
004
004
006
006
006
006
006
006
006
REP
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
VALUE
2
2
2
3
1
2
2
2
2
1
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
2
3
.8140
. 1210
.7710
.3600
.6620
.2210
.7870
.4620
.5640
.6980
.2000
.2100
.2240
.6380
.8170
.2370
. 1750
.7660
.5380
.0680
.2230
.5270
.5290
.5700
. 9120
.2810
.3090
.4130
. 0700
.4260
.3830
.7650
.3970
.3290
.5160
.2530
.6930
.4320
TRANS VALUE
2
2
2
3
1
2
2
2
2
1
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
2
3
.8140
.1210
.7710
.3600
.6620
.2210
.7870
.4620
.5640
.6980
.2000
.2100
.2240
.6380
.8170
.2370
. 1750
.7660
.5380
.0680
.2230
.5270
. 5290
.5700
. 9120
.2810
.3090
.4130
.0700
.4260
.3830
.7650
.3970
.3290
. 5160
.2530
.6930
.4320
3503-1H-007- (001-006) dry weight compare to 001
?lle: C:\stats\DRYWT001.DAT Transform: NO TRANSFORMATION
SUMMARY STATISTICS ON TRANSFORMED DATA TABLE 1 of 2
IDENTIFICATION N
001 8
MIN
1.662
MAX
3 .360
MEAN
2 . 525
-------
2
3
4
5
002
003
004
006
8
a
7
7
1 .698
2 . 068
2 .383
2 .329
3 .200
2 . 766
3 .413
3 .432
2 .449
2.425 T,
2.971 ' JA?
2 . 769 /f£
8503-111-007- (001-006) dry weight
File: c:\stats\DRYWT001.DAT
compare to
Transform:
001
NO TRANSFORMATION
SUMMARY STATISTICS ON TRANSFORMED DATA TABLE 2 of 2
GRP IDENTIFICATION
VARIANCE
SD
SEM
C.V.
1
2
3
4
5
001
002
003
004
006
0
0
0
0
0
.273
.209
.057
. 177
. 179
0
0
0
0
0
.523
.457
.240
.421
.423
0 .
0 .
0
0 .
0 .
185
162
085
159
160
20
18
9
14
15
.71
.68
.88
.16
.29
8503-111-007- (001-006) dry weight compare to 001
File: c:\stats\DRYWT001.DAT Transform: NO TRANSFORMATION
ANOVA TABLE
SOURCE
Between
Within (Error)
Total
DF
4
33
37
SS
1 .
5 .
7
629
919
548
MS F
0.407 2.270
0 179
Critical F value = 2.69 (0.05,4,30)
Since F < Critical F FAIL TO REJECT Ho: All equal
8503-111-007- (001-006) dry weight compare to 001
File: c:\stats\DRYWT001.DAT Transform: NO TRANSFORMATION
BONFERRONI t-TEST
TABLE 1 OF 2
Ho: Control
2
2
2
•~>
525
.449
.425
. 971
. 769
2
2
2
2
2
. 525
.449
.425
. 971
. 769
0
0
-2
-1
.360
.473
.034
.116
Bonferroni ~ table value =
1 Tailed Value, P=0.05, df=33,4l
-------
1503-111-007- (001-006) dry weight compare to 001
'lie: c:\stats\DRYWT001.DAT Transform: NO TRANSFORMATION
BONFERRONI t-TEST
TABLE 2 OF 2
Ho:Control
-------
8503-111-007
Appendix E
Reference Toxicant Data and Control Chart
-------
ENSR/FCETL Chironomus tentans Acute Ref. Tox. Data
Commercially Supplied Organisms
September 1995 through October 1999
24-Hour LC50 (mg/L chloride)
Thousands
10
8
a
D
G
-O
-O-
Test Date
D LC50
95% Historical Control Limits
-------
Qf _/_U
Page _ __
FCETL QA Form No. 051
Revisions <-A
Effective 6/97 •*>
TOXICITY DATA PACKAGE COVER SHEET
Test Type:_
Test Substance: .Ut\l
Dilution Water: Moti
Concurrent Control Water:
Date and Time Test Began: fO//nMr\ <_
Test Temperature: ^Tj- I JC
Test Solution Vol. -j
Length of Test: ^ite A/n/j
Type of Food and Quantity per Chamber: /, S
pH Control?: / 'P If
Env. Chmnr/Bath It ^L I Test rhamnpf;-
Number of Replicates per Treatment:__J
Number of Organisms per
Yes, give % CO,; _
x/// //>><•
Test Substance Characterization Parameters and Frequency:
NH,: //O oH: ^Li\ ' ~
Feeomg Freauencv<^
e. ;:>.. /.
Alkalinity: ^o* 1
rnnftuf!Tivirv: J /i 1^- TRC:.
Test Concentrations (ValumeiVolumot: 1 /JVI/I^T/. ^
&
iVolu
XXL
Agency Summary Sheet(s)7:
Referanca Toxicant Oata: Test Dates:
Hist 95% Control Limits'
Method for Oeterminino Ref Tox. Value:
Special Procedures and Considerations:
M^Ci
fO-AOl
[0-3
5WK pnepAreJ: htaltv; -for :Worul^
1 l l q- *
^^OOOfA.f/t-'
?- - 10(11 11
Studv Director
Initials: // 4-f* Date- /<-x ' ' /
-------
Page - of
FCETL QA Form No. 052
Revision 2
Effective 1/95
ACUTE BIOLOGICAL DATA
Protect Number
Test Species (Clrde>: C. dubia D. maona D. ouiex P. smmolas O.
Other
-------
ACUTE CHEMICAL DATA
. of <
FCETL QA Form No. 053
Revision 2
Effective 3/98
Project Number:
{I Test Species (Circle): C. dubia D. magna D. pule* P. prome/as O. myfr/sjfoiherjspecify):
Cone.
Rep
Dissolved Oxygen (mg/Lj
1
Temperature (
C)
PH
New
Old New
Old New
Old
New
Old
New
Old New
Old
New
Old New
Old
New
Old
New
Old
New
Old
New
Old
41
s.s
42
2-r
26
,1
'06
26
'26
26
8.0
26
26
16
26
26
B o
26
2(3
u
Zl
l.b
\°
I0±
kl
OIK.
DUuliuii/njiitiul
anil elltuonl woto brooglil lu 2O 'C pilui lo mixing-H
-------
,„ IO
-.,.,, ,„
I C:L I I. UA Inim No. O'.if,
Mnvision 7
Irllcclivc 1/9(5
lESF MATERIAL CHARACTEHIZATION
Project Number:
Test Species ICiicIc): C. dubia D. magna D. pulcx P. pioinc/js O. niykiss (Otlier^Specilylic'
Cone. Conducllvily lyS/cni) Hardness |mg/L CaCO3| | Alkalinily (mg/L CaC03l
ft
TRC Img/LI
NH, Img/L)
IOOO
I1-\o
^000
Melcil
li
z
Dale:
I6CP
NOTE lln,rtn,!s. ..V.llnl.y. 1PC. onrt NM. d,l. .ppn»,l»o on .1,1, pa0o *
l-o,n ,1,0 «.. cl,0m,S,,y log. FCEIL QA Fo,m No 081.
-------
Page J3__0f _
FCETL QA Form No. 055
Revision 2
Effective 1/94
DAILY TOXIC1TY TEST LOG
Project Number:
Test Species (Circle): C. dubia 0. magna D. pu/ex P. promelas 0. mykiss Other (Specifvi:
General
Comments
Test Day 0
Test Day 1
Test Day 2
Test Day 3
Test Day 4
Test Day 5
Test Day 6
Test Day 7
Test Day 8
Test Solution Mixed at: I^^O
Test Organisms Added at: /±5Z^
^T,\ i .
Feeding
/,6W Ti/x*»»*.\.
(£-'53^" •)
(g— i-*^t&~
«'f^
^
Initials/Date
/
**";
t
'«, i
-------
SB il|l5|41
EPA PROBIT ANALYSIS PROGRAM
ALCULATING
Version 1.5
Pntl/JlL>
USED FOR CALCULATING LC/EC VALUES "
Study #8503-109-820-055
Chironomua tentans lot #99-23
Teat Date: 10/18/99
24-Hour LC50
* Note : No convergence in 25 iterations. This usually
* means that a probit model is not appropriate
* for your concentration response data.
*«*«*****>
-------
Study #8503-109-820-055
DATE: 10/18/99
TOXICANT : Cl-
SPECIES: Chironomua tentans
TEST NUMBER: 820-055
DURATION:
24 H
Clot
RAW DATA:
Concentration
(mg/L)
.00
1125.00
2250.00
4500.00
9000.00
Number
Exposed
10
10
10
10
10
Mortalities
0
0
2
1
10
SPEARMAN-KARBER TRIM: .00%
SPEARMAN-KARBER ESTIMATES: LC50:
95% LOWER CONFIDENCE:
95% UPPER CONFIDENCE:
6450.00
NOTE: MORTALITY PROPORTIONS WERE NOT MONOTONICALLY INCREASING.
ADJUSTMENTS WERE MADE PRIOR TO SPEARMAN-KARBER ESTIMATION.
Qfft
-------
FILE IS CHIRON24
REFERENCE TOXICANT DATA FOR CHIRONOMUS TENTANS ACUTES
SODIUM CHLORIDE - EXPRESSED AS MG/L CL-
ENSR FORT COLLINS ENVIRONMENTAL TOXICOLOGY LABORATORY
DATE
09/29/95
10/20/95
10/24/95
07/14/98
04/06/99
10/12/99
i 0/1 8/99
10/18/99
LOT or
BATCH #
091895
101095
101195
98-43
99-08
99-23
99-23
99-23
24-HR
LC50
5514
6859
6096
6508
6011
6013
5540
5169
MEAN
5514
6187
6156
6244
6198
6167
6077
5964
SD
ERR
951
675
578
511
464
485
552
ACCEPTABLE I
LOW
ERR
4284
4807
5088
5175
5240
5107
4860
RANGE
HIGH
ERR
8089
7505
7401
7220
7094
7047
7068
METHOD
S-K
Binomial
S-K
T-S-K
S-K
T-S-K
S-K
S-K
-------
EPA PROBIT ANALYSIS PROGRAM
USED FOR CALCULATING LC/EC VALUES
Version 1.5
Study #8503-109-820-055
ChironomuB tentana lot #99-23
Test Date: 10/18/99
96-Hour LC50
Cone.
Control
1125.0000
2250.0000
4500.0000
9000.0000
Number
Exposed
Number
Resp.
Observed
Proportion
Responding
Proportion
Responding
Adjusted for
Controls
10
10
10
10
10
1
0
4
4
10
0.1000
0.0000
0.4000
0.4000
1.0000
0.0000
-.0704
0.3578
0.3578
1.0000
Chi - Square for Heterogeneity (calculated)
Chi - Square for Heterogeneity
(tabular value at 0.05 level)
5.429
5.991
96-H
Estimated LC/EC Values and Confidence Limits
Point
LC/EC 1.00
LC/EC 50.00
Exposure
Cone .
^994.776^
< 3913.844
95% Confidence Limits
Lower Upper
25.140
1879.919
1996.954
5809.324
-------
- 320-055 h 10/10
DATE
10/18/99
10/18/99
LOT or
BATCH #
99-23
99-23
'36-HR
LC50
3655
3914
MEAN
3655
3785
SD
ERR
183
ACCEPTABLE
LOW
ERR
3418
RANGE
WIGH
ERR
4151
METHCD
S-K
Probit
FILE IS CHIRON96 /fy2-
REFERENCE TOXICANT DATA FOR CHIRONOMUS TENTANS ACUTES
SODIUM CHLORIDE - EXPRESSED AS MG/L CL-
ENSR FORT COLLINS ENVIRONMENTAL TOXICOLOGY LABORATORY
-------
Pace 1 of _
FCETL QA Form No. 051
Revision 5
Effective 6/97
^ > i
•" Ii|l5|'
Test Type: C
Test Substance:
Dilution Water:_
TQXIC1TY DATA PACKAGE COVER SHEET
Project
Concurrent Control Water: M A
Date and Time Test Began: |n 11
Protocol Number:.
(5)
Organism Lot or Batch Number: °> ^ ~3 j
Age: __ j _ I Supplier:
Date ana Time Test Ended: lollb
lnvestigator(s):^_l_l
o tf.70
Background Information
Type of Test:
Test Temnerature^r * f 'C Env. Chmbr/Bath if 2 f Test
Test Solution Vol.: ^2cr3 ^> / Number of Replicates per Treatment:
Length of Test: 7%; A/gJ • Number of Organisms per flpniir.are:
Tvce of Food and Quantity per Charnber^)-7s'/vi / T&Zffa* ,\
pH Ccntrcl?:
r
If Yes. give % CO.-
Frpnupnrv
: 2 hit's Stfaf
fK
Test Substance Characterization Parameters and Frequency- Hardness:
NH,: _ pH: _ Conductivir/:
Alkalinity:
TRC:
TPstrnnr.PnTraT.nns
Agency Summary Sheet(s)?:
5OO , \OOO ,
. WOOD ftQJO .
.n<, \L-
'^ 1
Refarenca Toxicant Data: Test Dates
Hist. 95% Control Limits:
Method for Determinina Ref. Tox. Value:.
Special Procedures and Considerations:
Study Directcr Initials:
Date:
-------
10
TEST SUBSTANCE USAGE LOG
" ' I
Page 2 of
FCETL QA Form 014
Revision 0
Effective 1/96
T«t Subatanca Number
Ttil Subatanca Cokactton Data
and Tim*
Sampla Typ* (Grab or Comp)
n.^.^fcUiF^^
Dilution Watar Numbar
/rfwj^r FCTTL*. clrcU DIM
Concurrent Contral W.t.r RW*
0«t*(>) U«.d
S.mpl. 1
cw-tt.
From:
@>
To:
@
10/13 (^f/
J^3L-
»^/v-
te/i2,k
IOC
0
Total
Vohjim
Iml)
2ru
2coj |
Z^u
^vi ro//2-/? ^
/
(rt2.i lodv/^?')
TaW^iX
Su^nanc*
^um« (ml)
._TjS^-
-^75-Jtr
.. : i -r
1750
^\30C
Vc'OC'
DUubon
Watar
Volum* (ml)
21-^
^45
Total
Voluma
(ml)
Tax
&ub«tanc«
Voluma (ml)
Dilution
Watar
Volum* (ml)
Total
Volum*
Iml)
-------
Page_J_of_K)
FCETLQAFonnNo.QS:
Revision2 _. . i
Effective 1/96 ^° '*P5
ACUTE BIOLOGICAL DATA
ProieaNumber 9)^0 3 -/O't ~g> 3O - OS / __ ^
TestSoeaesfCIrdeV C dutia D maona 0. outer P. oromelas O. mvfc/ss Other (Soeafvrt: 1, C. tfcM.tAT-^
^--
,.*--
1 \?
^1^1
-t*~-
1 s ~f *3
IU
L^J— -
•&• -
vv^--
' 1
.
-
O 0
_ —
to/IS -'/c, 1° Itol'i'j
15-25 IGJO
^ ^r
+•"*• \ cftad , 1 header tbSo-vt'f/ io
i " i '
*+r o\a<*t.r\,-t ct / hjadcffjy retrtCtiH^ Q
J
1
0
B
1-
I)
)t- ^ /V F- f 0 b S<- r VTT *'/ / n7 (/ cr ('fy
•o/yr/^
/•X-^^al U.Krrr«njiini«r '"/'^
-------
Page 31 ol «^g^'" Uiluliun sefioo. The tomperalure ol resulting effluent-dilutions Is assumed to also be 20"C
-------
Page - of
FCETL QA Form No. 053
Revision 2
Effective 3/98
ACUTE CHEMICAL DATA
Project Number:
I —"i?30 -0:31 [I Test Species (Circle): C. dubia D. magna D. pulex P. prgmclas O. mykiss Other (Speci(j)|_
ior tcrrnbdng Iliu Ullullon series—Ttie-iem
aulliny clduonl dllullens Is -assumetHo also
©
-------
I I.I: II C )A I iitlll Nil. U'>t>
I llcclivc- 1/'Hi
TEST MATERIAL CHARACTERIZATION
Project Number: 0503 •)Q/1- %&) -Qo| Tost Species (Circle): C. dubia D. marina D. pulcx P. />ioincljs 0. myt.iss Other |Spe[.i[
Cone.
,™|L
LoN i £L>I_
OL,0
j ,000
' 1 ,000
ft DOO
Melcrf
Dale:
Initials:
Conductlvily (j/S/crn) Hardness (rng/L CaCOj)
0
13 7
u^
3 t? ''
^76
7SVO
/ 4^7(3
3(,*flO
)l
10
\
lil'l'l
r"?O
i
2
316
lib*
.0,0
3150
?S'(o
14470
^
If
ms
3
0
4(.
rn*-
J/4f
,3/^
^
t
2
3
Alkalinity (rng/L CaCO3|
0
6^
rrtL
kli^
/Jij'
.^
i
2
3
TRC (rng/LI
0
,-cuy
If
n/nfa
i*f
^TL
i
2
3
NH, Img/LI
0
^/- v
2.
k/v#1
/>'JT
£$_
I
2
3
.-
rime
„„,*,„,. .ll,.llnl,y. THC. onH NH, d.l. .pno^l-O o , pao" h.« b..n ...nsc.lhod I,. 0 «.l cl,.,niS,,V .O0. fCE .L OA Fo.m No OOd.
-------
Page _.(_ Of JL
FCETL QA Form No. 05!
Revision;
Effective l/g<
DAILY TOXICITY TEST LOG
Project Number: 8503-
Test Species (Circle): C. dubia D. magna D. pulex P. promelas O. mykiss Other (Specify):
General
Comments
Feeding
Initials/Date
Test Day 0
Test Solution Mixed at:
Test Organisms Added at:/, ^
Test Day 1
,(* °c
nncvr*-
VL «-U. foot—
CT
Test Day 2
(ODJC OlC.
Test Day 3
10
Test Day 4
Test Day 5
Test Day 6
Test Day 7
Test Day 8
rJc
0
-------
EPA PROBIT ANALYSIS PROGRAM
USED FOR CALCULATING LC/EC VALUES
Version 1.5
sa
Study #8503-109-820-051
Chironomus tentans lot #99-23
Teat Date: 10/12/99
24-Hour LC50
Cone.
1125.0000
2250.0000
4500.0000
9000.0000
Number
Exposed
10
10
10
10
Number
Resp.
1
0
1
10
Observed
Proportion
Responding
0.1000
0.0000
0.1000
1.0000
Proportion
Responding
Adjusted for
Controls
0.1000
0.0000
0.1000
1.0000
Chi - Square for Heterogeneity (calculated)
Chi - Square for Heterogeneity
(tabular value at 0.05 level)
20.675
5.991
***************************************************************
* WARNING *
* *
* The tabular chi-square value exceeds the calculated *
* chi-square value for heterogeneity. This is evidence that *
* the probit model may not be appropriate for these data. *
* The results reported for this data set may not be valid, *
* and should be interpreted with appropriate caution. *
***************************************************************
A**************************************************************
* NOTE *
* *
* Slope not significantly different from zero. *
* LC/EC fiducial limits cannot be computed. *
***************************************************************
Estimated LC/EC Values and Confidence Limits
Point
LC/EC 1.00
LC/EC 50.00
Exposure
Cone.
1244.836
5399.982
95% Confidence Limits
Lower Upper
-------
Study #8503-109-820-051
TEST NUMBER: 820-051
DATE: 10/12/99
TOXICANT : Cl-
SPECIES: Chironomua tentans (lot #99-23)
DURATION:
24 H
RAW DATA:
Concentration
(rag/L)
.00
1125.00
2250.00
4500.00
9000.00
Number
Exposed
10
10
10
10
10
Mortalities
0
1
0
1
10
SPEARMAN-KARBER TRIM:
5.00%
SPEARMAN-KARBER ESTIMATES: LC50:
95% LOWER CONFIDENCE:
95% UPPER CONFIDENCE:
5148747
7023.18
NOTE: MORTALITY PROPORTIONS WERE NOT MONOTONICALLY INCREASING.
ADJUSTMENTS WERE MADE PRIOR TO SPEARMAN-KARBER ESTIMATION.
-------
UOl
FILE IS CHIRON24
REFERENCE TOXICANT DATA FOR CHIRONOMUS TENTANS ACUTES
SODIUM CHLORIDE - EXPRESSED AS MG/L CL-
ENSR FORT COLONS ENVIRONMENTAL TOXICOLOGY LABORATORY
DATE
09/29/95
10/20/95
10/24/95
07/14/98
04/06/99
10/12^9
LOT or
BATCH #
091895
101095
101195
98-43
99-08
99-23
LC50
5514
6859
6096
6508
6011
6013
MEAN
5514
6187
6156
6244
6198
6167
AC
SD
ERR
951
675
578
511
464
iCEPTAB
LOW
ERR
4284
4807
5088
5175
5240
LE RANGE
HIGH
ERR
8089
7505
7401
7220
7094
METHOD
S-K
Binomial
S-K
T-S-K
S-K
T-S-K
-------
Page i_ of I
FCETL QA Form No. 051
Revisions <
Effective 6/97
TOXIC1TY DATA PACKAGE COVER SHEET
Test Tvoe: /77^1-K^
Test Substance: XJk £J
Project Number: ^STfe - fff> -n HOT?
Concurrent Control Water: Lt/A
Date and Time Test Began:
Protocol Number:_^_
Organism Lot or Batch Number: f
Age: I 1 Supplier:
Date and Time Test Ended:
ra
Background Information
Type of Test: <~~JtU\ c
pH Control?: J_ If Yes, give % CO,:
Test Temperature: A*7* I "C Env. Chmbr/Bath tt ^L \ Test Chambers:-^>dD>~{ (^
i
Test Solution VQl.:-9 r\A\js^. Number of Organisms per Replicate: lO
Type of Food and Quantity per Chamber: 7i?~'.S IM I T//n^>^/^- Feeding Frequency: L/^H
Test Substance Characterization Parameters and Frequency: Hardness:
NH3: pH: Conductivity:.
Alkalinity:.
TRC:
Test Concentrations (VolumoiVolume-):
/(/u. C ( »^YVuW
Agency Summary Sheet(sl7:
Reference Toxicant Data: Test Dates:
to
Hist. 95% Control Limits:.
to_
Method for Oeterminmo Ref. Tox. Value:
Special Procedures and Considerations-
fVgpV'
11~~ A I .
d 3,
\ 10(q
£03 -
Studv Director Initials:
Date:
/ '0 '~ 1 & ' ~
-------
FCETL QA Form No. 051
Revision 5 / Number of Replicates per Treatment: '
Length of Test: Tfo k/£3 Number of Organisms per Replicate:__^Z___
Type of Food and Quantity per Chamber*? -7^/vi I 7t5£4m ,\ furling Frpnuenrv:
pH Co.ntrcl?: _ , If Yes, s
-------
TEST SUBSTANCE USAGE LOG
Page _2_ of ' J
FCETLQA Form 014
Revision 0
Effective 1/96
Project Number $f->o?-toci ''bxc
Taat Subatanca Numbar
Tart Subatanea Colacdon Data
and Tim*
Sampta Typa (drab or Camp)
°
2-CV
Zca
Z^ru
2c^j
ZcTJ
3^ wlllh'l
1 ,
bus 10 iy/ : i -r
1^50
M5^'
'^'OC'
Dilution
Watar
Voluma Iml)
21-^
^4-
Total
Voluma
(ml)
Tait
Subatanc*
Voluma (ml)
Dilution
Watar
Volume irrj)
Total
Volunvi
Iml)
,1-1
-------
Page ^ of JjO
FCETT.QAFormNo.052
Revision 2
Effective 1/96
ACUTE BIOLOGICAL DATA
PfoieaNumber flS'fl j -/O^ '3 3O ~t)SI
Test Soeaea (Circle): C. dutia D. maona 0. outer P. aroma/as O.mvtdss Other (SoeaM: (<-'.
Cone.
Test
Repticata
Number of Surviving Organisms
0
Hours
24
Hours
48
Hours
72
Hours
96
Hours
Remarks
in
8 +
£>*-
fVP
^ /VF
C
10
s-
10
tO
1*-*- \ + \ dinJ
m-na
id
(lias)
12.
/•y~ Zlpif^a. I rttil (('rtrnQinin^
5
/u
0
O
0
/TOO)
ve-
Date:
Time:
He 34
Hoc
Initiate:
-------
.±0,
Page i
FCETL QA Form No. 053
Revision 2
Effective 3/98
ACUTE CHEMICAL DATA
12115
Proiecl Number *B^63-101-"8^0-OS I
Snecifis (ClrcleV C dnhia D maana D oulex P oromelas O tnvkiss Other (Soecirv)^
alpr and elllilfinl
l Io20"
peralure ol resulting eHiuent-dilutions Is assumed to also be 20"C
-------
Page . of .
FCETL QA Form No. 053
Revision 2
Effective 3/98
ACUTE CHEMICAL DATA
Project Number:
Tesl Species (Circle): C dub/a D. magna D. pulex P. promotes O. mykiss Other (Speci(& L. lg/ltAA5) [|
Uilulluii/cuiliml
j ollluonl mrra hrnnght lo 2Q"C prior I onmtxli ig Iliu Ullullun series—ThtrleiMpei jluiu u( leaulling cllluonl dltoltefiBte-assumed-to also be~2fT-TT~
-------
IO
OA I mm H«i n'..(,
Hn vision ')
1/!i(>
TEST MATERIAL CHARACTERIZATION
'f-,
| Project Muinbcc OO03 -101- SiO-QfSi | Test S|n;cii;s ICitclel: C. dubia 0. magna D. i>ulcx P. inotiwljs 0. inytuss Other (Specify!; C if^Ul|l
Cone.
,-»1A | L
loN \ viOL
.0^0
\ )Q|JU
j vOOO
' 1 ,000
9) , DUO
\lo ,000
Melerf
Dale:
Initials:
Conductivity O'S/cml Hardness |nig/L CaCOjl
0
321
00^
3l ta''
LU10
7S"so
IHH70
2t.*00
|l
,0
\
lih4!
r7O
C(H
1
2
3 16
\\\iS
JOL'O
3950
IS'/o
14470
MA
If
4ihy
niS
(ntj
^ |
o
<76
r/7^-
/4^
i3/^
JWJ
1
2
3
Alkalinity |mg/L CaC03)
0
(,£
rrrtL
?
T^
i
2
3
Nil, Img/LI
0
^f~ v
2.
AM
/>'/
^
i
2
3
.=-.-
MOTE
Mnidnrss. olkBllnlly. 7HC. onrl Nil, dal* uppoailng o" Ilili paQ" ''"" been Itinscilhod lioin Ilio wol choiiiisl'V lofl. FCE IL OA Form No 001.
-------
Page {_ of _[U
FCETL QA Form No.~055
Revision 2
Effective 1/94
DAILY TOXICITY TEST LOG
Project Number: 8503- l&\- %3-Q ~
Test Species (Circle): C. dt/A/'a O. magna D. pulex P. promelas O. mykiss Other (Specif
^): (- •
General
Comments
Feeding
-------
EPA PROSIT ANALYSIS PROGRAM
USED FOR CALCULATING LC/EC VALUES
Version 1.5
Study #8503-109-820-051
Chironomua tentans lot #99-23
Teat Date: 10/12/99
24-Hour LC50
Number
Cone. Exposed
1125.0000
2250.0000
4500.0000
9000.0000
10
10
10
10
Number
Resp.
1
0
1
10
Observed
Proportion
Responding
0.1000
0.0000
0.1000
1.0000
Proportion
Responding
Adjusted for
Controls
0.1000
0.0000
0.1000
1.0000
Chi - Square for Heterogeneity (calculated)
Chi - Square for Heterogeneity
(tabular value at 0.05 level)
20.675
5.991
********************************!
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
WARNING
*********
*
*
*
The tabular chi-square value exceeds the calculated
chi-square value for heterogeneity. This La evidence that *
the probit model may not be appropriate for these data. *
The results reported for this data set may not be valid, *
and should be interpreted with appropriate caution. *
**********************************!
t******i
t**********************************
NOTE
Slope not significantly different from zero.
LC/EC fiducial limits cannot be computed.
******************************************************
*
r*****
Estimated LC/EC Values and Confidence Limits
Point
LC/EC 1.00
LC/EC 50.00
Exposure
Cone.
1244.836
5399.982
95% Confidence Limits
Lower Upper
-------
•J-
'0
Study #8503-109-820-051
DATE: 10/12/99
TOXICANT : Cl-
SPECIES: Chironomus
TEST NUMBER: 820-051
DURATION:
24 H
tentans (lot #99-23)
RAW DATA:
Concentration
(rag/L)
.00
1125.00
2250.00
4500.00
9000.00
Number
Exposed
10
10
10
10
10
Mortalities
0
1
0
1
10
SPEARMAN-KARBER TRIM:
5.00%
SPEARMAN-KARBER ESTIMATES: LC50:
95% LOWER CONFIDENCE:
95% UPPER CONFIDENCE:
5148.47
7023.18
NOTE: MORTALITY PROPORTIONS WERE NOT MONOTONICALLY INCREASING.
ADJUSTMENTS WERE MADE PRIOR TO SPEARMAN-KARBER ESTIMATION.
-------
10 of (0
sa
FILE IS CHIRON24
REFERENCE TOXICANT DATA FOR CHIRONOMUS TENTANS ACUTES
SODIUM CHLORIDE - EXPRESSED AS MG/L CL-
ENSR FORT COLLINS ENVIRONMENTAL TOXICOLOGY LABORATORY
DATE
09/29/95
10/20/95
10/24/95
07/14/98
04/06/99
10/12/99
LOT or
BATCH*
091895
101095
101195
98-43
99-08
99-23
LC50
5514
6859
6096
6508
6011
6013
MEAN
5514
6187
6156
6244
6198
6167
AC
SO
ERR
951
675
578
511
464
iCEPTABLE
LOW
ERR
4284
4807
5088
5175
5240
RANGE
HIGH
ERR
8089
7505
7401
7220
7094
METHOD
S-K
Binomial
S-K
T-S-K
S-K
T-S-K
-------
Test Type: nj^J+C^
Test Substance: /O&- (LI
Dilution Water: LJn n
q
Page __ i__ of '
FCETL QA Form No. 051
Revision 5
Background Information
Type of Test:.
Test Temperature: AT* I °C
Test Solution \lc\.:JjQQniL
Length of Test: 9//>
, /
• 'J
Env. Chmbr/Bath » XI / Test Chambers:-^^)/1^/
_C&J.
Number of Replicates per Treatmen-:
pH Control?: • 'J If Yes, give % CO,: _
Number of Organisms per flgolicate: 1(3
Type of Food and Quantity per Chamber: Ttf—l. S »vi I
t.U'So^
Feeding Frequency:
Test Substance Characterization Parameters and Frequency:
NH3: _ pH:
Hardness:
Conductivity:.
Alkalinity:
TFIC:
Test Concentrations
f^^\
5TV3,
'
OOC)
Agency Summary Sheet(s)7:
Reference Toxicant Data: Test Dates:
to
Hist. 95% Control Limits:,
to_
Method for Oeterminino Ref. Tox. Value:
Special Procedures and Considerations:
£63 -
Study Director Initials:
Date:
/ 0 ~ 1 8"~
-------
FCETT.QAFonnNo.052 .
Revision 2 SB i3J 15/11
EffecWa1/95
ACUTE BIOLOGICAL DATA
Protect Number eZ&T\2r- ICfi -~*^+o_- ^^0.0 ~ 034* •
Cone.
fftolml
-5m
I7CO
Teat
Repncata
A
B
C
D
Number of Surviving Organisms ;
0
Hours
in
A 1 ,„
B
C
D
A
B
C
0
^000 1 A
(\\^}
^D&o
1 j j t-\| i \
fern
IH500)
/GrtBO
Wocn)
B
C
D
10
(O
24
Hours
1 O
Hours
0
1
72
Hours
/ 0
7^7
1
' U IO O
1
o
to
A \\ m /", >c>
B
C
D
A
B
C
0
A
a
c
iO
-
i
1
ri 1 5"
J
IO
.
: J
______
:^_
1 U—
/o O —
D II —
Date:
Time:
iniB3t3I
%fa
\^
7
Romanes :
•> . _ ^ /o^s,/.^- -
'
'•) .5
Ci
-------
ACUTE CHEMICAL DATA
Page ._. ol
FCETL QA Form No. 053
Revision 2
Effective 3/98
tijit, ftf
=7= === /)
\ Tesl Species (Circle): C dubia D. magna D. pulex P promelas O. mykiss Olher (Specify): C ,
Pmjpri
-£Z£L_rO *^ H~
-------
ICI: II. ()A I 1)1111 Mi) U'>r>
Unviv.ion ?
TEST MATERIAL CHARACTERIZATION
r s r>«= n ~" - - - - . . - -ji
| F'lojecl Number: V#7)^ iCn Y2O ~v)ol - || Test Species ICiicle): C. dubia D. niagna D. pulcx P. pio/uc/js 0 niykiss Other (Spccilyl: £_ /£nlt,v$ ||
Cone.
Lc1'") (
5Z3<9
/C>20
^?6>tf£.
vo^
^^^^
/U'ft.)^)
Mcinf
Dale:
Time'
l/nlials:
Condiiclluily O'S/cm) llaiilner.s In
0
35^"
i^D
Z2^|D
Q£«>
7^0
,^t&
2S#£
II
I^'K'
•7
i
2
3
0
7V
i,K
'^'///
•'. a---
r^.J/->
1
0/1 CaCOj)
2
3
Alknlinity |ni(j/L C;iCO,|
i
/ -j
1 1 F^"~
*/' A~
l(a>
^¥}
,
2
3
C
<*, ,
17
'^//
/^^
(H70
TflC liDQ/LI
i
2
3
Nil, (mr|/LI
0
-------
1
Page of
FCETL QA Form No. 055
Revision 2
Effective 1/94
DAILY TOXICITY TEST LOG
Project Number: (Y
Test Spec.es (Circle): C. dubia 0. magna 0. oulex P. promelas O. mykiss Other
(Specify):( L.
Test Solution Mixed at:
Test Organisms Added at
(r 1500
-------
Study #8503-109-820-054
dofl
TEST NUMBER: 820-054
DATE: 10/18/99
TOXICANT : Cl-
SPECIES: Chironomus tentans
RAW DATA: Concentration
(mg/L)
.00
1125.00
2250.00
4500.00
9000.00
SPEARMAN-KARBER TRIM: .00%
SPEARMAN-KARBER ESTIMATES: LC50:
95% LOWER CONFIDENCE:
95% UPPER CONFIDENCE:
DURATION:
24 H
Number 1
Exposed
10
10
10
10
10
Uortalil
0
0
0
2
10
-------
FILE IS CHIRON24
REFERENCE TOXICANT DATA FOR CHIRONOMUS TENTANS ACUTES
SODIUM CHLORIDE - EXPRESSED AS MG/L CL-
ENSR FORT COLLINS ENVIRONMENTAL TOXICOLOGY LABORATORY
DATE
09/29/95
10/20/95
10/24/95
07/14/98
04/06/99
10/12/99
10/18/99
LOT or
BATCH*
091895
101095
101195
98-43
99-08
99-23
99-23
24-HR
LC50
5514
6859
6096
6508
6011
6013
5540
MEAN
5514
6187
6156
6244
6198
6167
6077
A(
SO
ERR
951
675
578
511
464
485
DCEPTABLI
LOW
ERR
4284
4807
5088
5175
5240
5107
E RANGE
HIGH
ERR
8089
7505
7401
7220
7094
7047
METHOD
S-K
Binomial
S-K
T-S-K
S-K
T-S-K
S-K
-------
Study #8503-109-820-054
56
DATE: 10/18/99
TOXICANT : Cl-
SPECIES: Chironoraua tentana
TEST NUMBER: 820-054
DURATION:
96 H
RAW DATA:
Concentration
(mg/L)
.00
1125.00
2250.00
4500.00
9000.00
Number
Exposed
10
10
10
10
10
SPEARMAN-KARBER TRIM: .00%
SPEARMA»'-KARBER ESTIMATES: LC50:
95% LOWER CONFIDENCE:
95% UPPER CONFIDENCE:
Mortalities
0
0
0
8
10
-------
FILE IS CHIRON96
REFERENCE TOXICANT DATA FOR CHIRONOMUS TENTANS ACUTES A72-I2//6. (^
SODIUM CHLORIDE - EXPRESSED AS MG/L CL-
ENSR FORT COLLINS ENVIRONMENTAL TOXICOLOGY LABORATORY
LOT or 96-HR ACCEPTABLE RANGE
DATE BATCH* LC50 MEAN SD LOW HIGH METHOD
10/18/99 99-23 3655 3655 ERR ERR ERR S-K
-------
8503-111-007
APPENDIX B
TOXTCITY OF SEDIMENTS COLLECTED FROM MINNESOTA SLIP TO
THE AMPHIPOD, Hyalella azteca
-------
8503-111-007-(007-012)
Toxicity of Sediments Collected from Minnesota Slip
to the Amphipod, Hyalella azteca
Author
David A. Pillard
Study Period
First Tests Started: 13 October 1999
Last Tests Ended: 8 December 1999
Performing Laboratory
ENSR Corporation
Fort Collins Environmental Toxicology Laboratory
4303 West LaPorte Avenue
Fort Collins, CO 80521
Telephone: (970)416-0916
Fax: (970) 493-8935
Laboratory Project ID
8503-111-007
-------
8503-1 11 -007- (007-01 2)
STATEMENT OF PROCEDURAL COMPLIANCE
I certify that this document and all attachments were prepared under my direction or supervision
in accordance with a system designed to assure that qualified personnel properly gather and
evaluate the information submitted. Based on my inquiry of the person or persons who manage
the system, or those persons directly responsible for gathering the information, the information
submitted is, to the best of my knowledge, accurate and complete.
David A Pillard, Ph.D. Date
Study Director
STATEMENT OF QUALITY ASSURANCE
The test data were reviewed by the Quality Assurance unit to assure that the study was
performed in accordance with the protocol and standard operating procedures. This report is
an accurate reflection of the raw data.
Quality Assurance Unit Date
B-l
-------
8503-111-007-(007-012)
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Six sediment samples, collected from Minnesota Slip in the Duluth Harbor Basin, were received
by the Fort Collins Environmental Toxicology Laboratory (FCETL) on October 5, 1999. Forty-
two-day toxicity tests were conducted with these samples using the amphipod, Hyalella azteca.
The test endpoints were survival, reproduction, and growth (as measured by dry weight per
surviving organism). The results of these tests indicated that sediments MNS-99-03 and MNS-
99-05 caused significant reductions in amphipod survival. In the sediments that did not cause
significant reductions in survival, there were no significant sublethal effects to either
reproduction or growth, when compared to the test controls.
The following table summarizes the study:
STUDY SUMMARY
Sponsor
Project Officer
Study Director
Test Facility
Location of Data
Test Substances
Test Dates
Length of Tests
Test Species
Source of Organisms
Age of Test Organisms
Test Concentrations
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
520 Lafayette Road N.
St. Paul, MN 551 55-41 94
Judy L. Crane, Ph.D.
(651)297-4068
David A. Pillard, Ph.D.
(970)416-0916
ENSR Fort Collins Environmental Toxicology Laboratory (FCETL)
4303 West LaPorte Avenue
Fort Collins, Colorado 80521
Data Records and Storage
328 Link Lane #4
Fort Collins, Colorado 80524
Sediments: MNS-99-01, MNS-99-02, MNS-99-03, MNS-99-04,
MNS-99-05, MNS-99-06
13 October - 24 November 1999 (MNS-99-01 to MNS-99-03)
27 October - 8 December 1999 (MNS-99-04 to MNS-99-06)
42 days
Hyalella azteca
Environmental Consulting and Testing
7 days (test beginning 13 October) and
8 days (test beginning 27 October)
Bulk (100%) sediment
B-2
-------
8503-111-007-(007-012)
Overlying Water
Results
Moderately hard
Significant (a=0.
and MNS-99-05
reconstituted
05) reduction
water augmented with
in survival in sediments
-50mg CI7L
MNS-99-03
B-3
-------
8503-111-007-(007-012)
1.0 INTRODUCTION
Minnesota Slip is located in the northern section of the Duluth Harbor basin in Duluth, MN.
Because of concerns regarding sediment contamination in the St. Louis River Area of Concern,
several investigations have been conducted of Minnesota Slip and nearby contaminated areas.
The purpose of this study was to determine if sediments collected from Minnesota Slip were
toxic to Hyalella azteca. These toxicity tests were part of a sediment remediation scoping
project in Minnesota Slip. The study sponsor was the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
(MPCA); the testing laboratory was the ENSR Fort Collins Environmental Toxicology Laboratory
(FCETL).
2.0 DESCRIPTION OF TEST AND CONTROL SUBSTANCES
2.1 Test Sediment
Six sediment samples were received on 5 October 1999. Each sample was a composite of the
upper 5 cm layer of sediment. Sample containers were 4-liter high-der 3ity polyethylene, wide-
mouth jars. Sample collection and receipt information is presented in the following table. See
Appendix A for chain of custody records.
Sample
Name
MNS-99-01
MNS-99-02
MNS-99-03
MNS-99-04
MNS-99-05
MNS-99-06
Collection
Date and
Time
9/22/99 @
0950-1030
9/22/99 @
1115-1140
9/22/99 @
1345-1410
9/22/99 @
1505-1535
9/22/99 @
1620-1642
9/22/95 @
1715-1738
FCETL
Sample #
and Date of
Receipt
12809
10/5/99
12810
10/5/99
12811
10/5/99
12812
10/5/99
12813
10/5/99 •
12814
10/5/99
Temp at
Arrival
("O
6
6
6
6
6
6
coc
Number
34570
34570
34570
34571
34571
34571
COC
Tape
Number
5815
5815
5815
5816
5816
5816
Sediment samples were stored at 4°C in the dark until test setup. Sediment was homogenized
prior to use. Homogenization consisted of transferring sediment to a clean Nalgene" container
and thoroughly mixing the sediment with a stainless steel auger attached to an electric drill for
not less than three minutes. The auger and container were thoroughly cleaned and
decontaminated (soap, tap water rinse, acetone, tap water rinse, HCI, tap water rinse, Dl rinse)
between homogenization of each sediment.
B-4
-------
8503-111-007-(007-012)
2.2 Control Sediment
A control sediment (Florissant reference soil obtained from USGS-Biological Resources Division
in Columbia, Missouri) was tested concurrently. Because the 42-day reproduction study is new
and little historical data exist, the Study Director decided to include 6 control sediment
treatments, one with each test sediment.
2.3 Overlying Water
The overlying test water was moderately hard reconstituted water (USEPA 1993) that was
augmented with 50 mg/L of CI", added as NaCI. Previous experience with H. azteca has shown
that addition of chloride to the overlying water can significantly improve organism health and
control performance. Because of the long length of the tests, several batches of water were
prepared over the duration of these studies. Initial characterization of the Cl'-enhanced
moderate'y hard water batches was:
Batch ft
3640
3645
3654
3657
3664
3665
3668
3672
3674
3679
3680
3687
3691
3696
3703
Dd.o
Measured
10/12/99
10/18/99
10/24/99
10/25/99
10/28/99
10/31/99
11/3/99
11/5/99
11/9/99
11/11/99
11/15/99
11/18/99
11/21/99
11/26/99
12/3/99
Cf (mg/L)
48
48
NM
49
50
49
48
49
48
49
49
50
49
49
48
Hardness
(mg/L as
CaCOj)
98
94
94
98
98
100
96
96
96
98
98
98
96
98
96
Alkalinity
(mg/L as
CaCOj)
64
64
65
63
64
66
63
63
65
62
65
65
66
66
63
Conductivity
(,,8/011)
492
496
490
497
499
435
485
496
500
505
504
506
498
506
500
pH
8.2
8.1
8.4
8.1
8.2
8.1
8.1
8.2
8.2
8.2
8.1
8.1
8.2
8.1
8.1
Ammonia
(mg/L N)
NM"
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
NM
<1.0
NM
<1.0
<1.0
TRC"
(mg/L)
NM
O.05
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
O.05
<0.05
NM
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
NM
^TRC = total residual chlorine
NM = not measured
-------
8503-111-007-(007-012)
3.0 TEST CONDITIONS
3.1 Test Methods
The studies were 42-day static-renewal toxicity tests using Hyalella azteca. Methods for this
test have not yet been published, but are available in the draft USEPA and ASTM guidelines for
conducting sediment toxicity tests (personal communication with Drs. David Mount and Chris
Ingersoll). The biological responses measured were death (defined as no visible movement or
any response to gentle prodding with a blunt probe), reproduction (number of young produced
per female) and growth (mean dry weight per surviving organism).
On days 0 through 28 the organisms were exposed to the test sediments with overlying water.
On day 28 all organisms were removed from the test chambers. Live organisms were counted
and organisms from replicates A through D were removed for determination of dry weight.
Organisms from replicates E through L were placed back in test chambers that contained
overlying water only (and a small piece of Nitex netting). On day 35 the number of surviving
adults and young were counted; young were removed from the test chrnbers. On day 42 the
number of surviving adults and young were counted and the surviving adults were removed for
determination of dry weight and identification of males and females. Adult H. azteca from each
replicate were placed in 10% sugar formalin. Under a compound microscope males were
identified by the enlarged second gnathopod (Figure 1). Organisms were then rinsed with
deionized water, dried at 60-90°C, and weighed. Reproduction for each replicate was
determined by summing the number of young produced on days 35 and 42 and dividing by the
number of females in the test chamber at test termination (see Figure 2).
The complete test protocol is included as Appendix B.
3.2 Test Duration
Test duration was 42 days (28 days of sediment exposure and 14 days of water-only exposure).
3.3 Test Apparatus
Test chambers were 300- or 500-ml glass beakers containing 100 ml of test sediment and 175
ml of overlying water. On the day prior to test initiation, sediment was homogenized and placed
into the test chambers. Overlying water was added and the resulting mixtures were allowed to
settle overnight. At test initiation, ten organisms were impartially distributed to 30-ml plastic
cups containing 15 ml of overlying water. The number of amphipods in each cup was verified
by laboratory technicians. Amphipods were then introduced into a test chamber by gently
submerging the cup and swirling it in the water until all of the amphipods swam out. Twelve
replicates were tested per treatment for a total of 120 organisms per treatment. All test
chambers were held in a temperature-controlled water bath under fluorescent lighting with a
photoperiod of 16 hours light:8 hours dark; target test temperature was 23 ± 1 °C.
B-6
-------
8503-111-007-(007-012)
Figure 1. Female and male H. azteca at test termination (49 to 50 days old).
Figure 2. Female H. azteca (49-50 days old) and neonate (est. age 0-1 days).
B-7
-------
8503-111-007-(007-012)
3.4 Feeding
Test organisms were fed 1.5 ml of a yeast-trout chow-cereal leaf suspension per test chamber
on a daily basis.
3.5 Aeration
Previous testing with Chironomus tentans under the same test conditions indicated that
dissolved oxygen in some of the test sediments might drop below 2.5 mg/L. In addition,
dissolved oxygen concentrations in some of the chambers with test sediments was low (<4.5
mg/L) on day 0 (after the overnight settling period) (see Appendix C). Aeration was, therefore,
initiated in all test chambers, including the control, on day 0 after organisms had been added to
the test chambers. The aeration apparatus consisted of a Pasteur pipette (connected to the
laboratory air supply), the tip of which was positioned so as not to disturb the sediment.
Aeration was continued through day 28; test chambers were not aerated from days 28 through
42 during the water-only exposure.
4.0 TEST ORGANISMS
Hyalella azteca were obtained from Environmental Consulting and Testing in Superior, Wl.
Since two batches of tests were set up, two lots were used. Lot 99-22 was received on
10/12/99; organisms were 6 days old at the time of receipt and 7 days old at test set up. Lot 99-
27 was received on 10/26/99; organisms were 7 days old at the time of receipt and 8 days old at
test set up. The test organisms were transferred to moderately hard reconstituted laboratory
water at the time of receipt and held at test temperature (23°C) until test initiation. No further
acclimation was conducted.
At the time of test setup, 51 organisms from lot 99-22 and 55 organisms from lot 99-27 were
subsampled and preserved with 10% osmotically-balanced (sugar) formalin. These organisms
were used to determine the initial dry weight of the test organisms. The mean dry weight of H.
azteca from lot 99-22 was 0.011 mg (Appendix C) and the mean dry weight of H. azteca from lot
99-27 was 0.052 mg (Appendix D).
5.0 QUALITY ASSURANCE
Acute reference toxicant tests were initiated using the lots of H. azteca obtained for this study.
Sodium chloride was the reference toxicant with moderately hard water as the dilution water.
Tests were 96 hours in length; 24-hour data were also collected for use with ENSR's historical
24-hour reference toxicant database.
-------
3503-111-007-(007-012)
6.0 RESULTS
6.1 Biological Data
Percent survival and growth of test organisms were determined after 28 days of sediment
exposure. Survival and number of young produced on day 35 was determined. Survival,
growth and reproduction at test termination (day 42) were also measured. Raw test data
(except day 42 dry weight) are presented in Appendices C (sediments MNS-99-01 MNS-99-
03) and D (sediments MNS-99-04 - MNS-99-06). Survival results are presented in the following
table.
Treatment
Control 1
Control 2
Control 3
Combined
Controls 1-3
MNS-99-01
MNS-99-02
MNS-99-03
Control 4
Control 5
Control 6
MNS-99-04
MNS-99-05
MNS-99-06
28-day Mean % Survival
(± Standard Deviation)3
84.2 (± 15.6)
85.0 (± 12.4)
88.3 (^ 204)
85.8 (± 16.1)
93.3 (± 8.9)
85.8 (± 10.0)
19.2 (± 18.3)
77.5 (± 16.6)
70.0 (± 16.5)
80.8 (± 17.8)
69. 2 (± 16.8)
24.2 (± 21.5)
75.0 (^ 15.7)
35-day Mean % Survival
(± Standard Deviation)3
80.0 (±20.0)
83.7 (± 14.1)
93.8 (- 7.4)
85.8 (± 15.3)
92.5 (±8.9)
80.0 (± 12.0)
13.8 (± 13.0)
65.0 (± 30.7)
66.2 (± 22.6)
78.7 (± 18.1)
72.5 (± 18.3)
25.0 (± 22.7)
77.5 (± 7.1)
42-day Mean % Survival
(± Standard Deviation)3
77.5 (± 18.3)
83.7 (± 14.1)
91. 3 (± 8.3)
84. 2 (± 14.7)
90.0 (± 7.6)
80.0 (± 12.0)
13. 8 (± 13.0)
63.8 (±29.2)
65.0(± 21.4)
75.0 (± 17.7)
71. 3 (± 17.3)
25.0 (± 22.7)
77.5 (± 7.1)
Day 28 mean survival is based on all 12 replicates; Days 35 and 42 survival are based on the remaining eight
replicates.
Data sheets with initial organism weight and day 28 dry weight are included in Appendices C
and D. Day 42 dry weight data and statistical analysis are included as Appendix E. Dry weight
(per surviving organism) results are presented in the following table.
B-9
-------
8503-111-007-(007-012)
Treatment
Control 1
Control 2
Control 3
Combined
Controls 1-3
MNS-99-01
MNS-99-02
MNS-99-03
Control 4
Control 5
Control 6
MNS-99-04
MNS-99-05
MNS-99-06
28-day Mean Dry Weight (mg)
(± Standard Deviation)
0.285(- 0.062)
0.332 (± 0.080)
0.318 (± 0.034)
0.312 (± 0.060)
0.298 (± 0.053)
0.456 (± 0.226)
0.443 (± 0.097)
0.364 (± 0.087)
0.440 (. 0.262)
0.364 (±0.071)
0.527(± 0.192)
0.572 (± 0.332)
0.419 (±0.187)
42-day Mean Dry Weight (mg)
(± Standard Deviation)
0.300 (: 0.048)
0.296 (± 0.026)
0.312 (± 0.40)
0.303 (± 0.038)
0.322 (± 0.087)
0.365 (± 0.034)
0.392 (±0.131)
0.374 (± 0.077)
0.320 (± 0.044)
0.316(± 0.087)
0.516 (±0.079)
0.537 (± 0.086)
0.536 (± 0.030)
Reproduction data are included in Appendices C and D. Reproduction results are presented in
the following table:
B-10
-------
8503-111-007-(007-012)
Treatment
Control 1
Control 2
Control 3
Combined
Controls 1-3
MNS-99-01
MNS-99-02
MNS-99-03
Control 4
Control 5
Control 6
MNS-99-04
MNS-99-05
MNS-99-06
Total Number of Females Alive at Test
Termination
31
40
42
113
41
36
7
19
31
38
28
13
34
Mean Reproduction (young/surviving
female)
(± Standard Deviation)
1.16(± 0.70)
1.50(± 1.66)
2.11 (±1.43)
1.59(± 1.33)
2.32 (± 1.30)
2.55 (± 1.11)
0.42 (± 0.80)
2.77 (± 2.61)
1.65(± 1.65)
0.80 (± 1.02)
2.27 (± 1.86)
1.30(± 1.99)
3.73 (± 2.76)
6.2 Data Analysis
Controls 1, 2, and 3 all met the acceptability criterion of 80% survival on day 28. All endpoints
(survival, reproduction and dry weight) for these treatments were statistically compared and
were not found to be significantly different (Appendix F). Therefore, data from all three of these
controls were combined and used as the control for comparison to MNS-99-01, MNS-99-02, and
MNS-99-03.
Controls 4 and 5 had less than 80% survival on day 28. These controls were not used for
comparison to treatments MNS-99-04, MNS-99-05, and MNS-99-06; only control 6 was used.
Significant differences were identified with Toxstat Version 3.4 (West, Inc. and Gulley 1994).
Survival data were transformed using arcsine square root. Normality was evaluated with the
Chi-Square or Shapiro-Wilks test (a=0.01); homogeneity of variance was evaluated with
Bartlett's test (a=0.01). Where data met the requirements for parametric analysis; data were
analyzed using analysis of variance with Dunnett's test or (for unequal replicates) a T-test with
Bonferroni adjustment (a=0.05). Where parametric requirements were not met, data were
analyzed with Steel's Many-One Rank test.
B-ll
-------
8503-111-007-(007-012)
Survival in MNS-99-03 and MNS-99-05 were significantly lower than in the respective controls.
Because survival was significantly lower in these two sediments, they were excluded from
analysis of sublethal endpoints.
Neither reproduction nor dry weight of any of the remaining test treatments was significantly less
than in the respective controls. Computer printouts from Toxstat 3.4 of the statistical analysis of
survival, reproduction, and day 28 dry weight are presented in Appendices G (MNS-99-01 -
MNS-99-03) and H (MNS-99-04 MNS-99-06).
6.3 Physical and Chemical Data of the Overlying Water
Water quality parameters measured during the test are included in Appendices C and D.
Aeration was initiated on day 0 in all test chambers. On day 0 (before organisms were added
and aeration initiated) dissolved oxygen concentrations in sediments MNS-99-01, MNS-99-02,
and MNS-99-03 were <4.2 mg/L. All other dissolved oxygen measurements were >5.0 in all
treatments for the remainder of the test. Aeration was terminated on day 28 at the end of the
sediment exposure. Test chambers were not aerated during the watei-only exposure phase of
the test and dissolved oxygen concentrations remained greater than 5.3 mg/L for the remainder
of the test. On day 11, test temperature in Controls 1, 2, and 3 and sediments MNS-99-01,
MNS-99-02, and MNS-99-03 was 17°C. This decrease in temperature was due to a
malfunctioning refrigeration/heating unit (Remcor™). The unit was repaired and test
temperatures remained between 22 and 24°C for the remainder of the test. The pH of the test
solutions ranged from 7.3 to 8.6. Ammonia was detectable in ail test sediments, except MNS-
99-06, on day 0. Ammonia concentrations decreased after aeration was initiated. The highest
ammonia concentration (38 mg/L) was measured on day 0 in MNS-99-03. Because the test
included a "with-sediment" period (days 0-28) and a "without-sediment" period (days 28-42),
water quality data are presented accordingly in the following tables.
Water Quality Data from Days 0-28
Treatment
Control 1
Control 2
Control 3
MNS-99-01
MNS-99-02
MNS-99-03
Control 4
Control 5
Control 6
pH Range
(Units)
7.3-8.3
7.3-8.4
7.3-8.4
7 6-8.4
7.5-8.5
7.7 -8.5
7.6-8.3
7.5-8.4
7.5-8.4
DO Range
(mg/L)
5.6-7.5
5.5-7.5
5.3-7.6
4.2-7.2
4.2-74
3.4 - 7.4
6.0-7 3
6.0-7.2
6.1 -7.2
Conductivity
Range
(^S/cm)
515-655
522 - 675
518-664
478 - 540
478- 565
560-631
486 - 605
517 -581
509 - 588
Temperature
Range (°C)
17-23
17-24
17-23
17-23
17 - 23
17-23
22-24
22-23
22-24
Ammonia as
N Range
(mg/L)
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0- 1 9
<1 0- 1.9
<1 0-38
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
Hardness
(mg/L as
CaCO3)
100- 176
98- 174
102- 174
102- 106
102 - 114
1 48- 154
110-138
98-130
96- 146
Alkalinity
(mg/L as
CaCOj)
47-64
43-63
43-68
G1 -74
64 -86
109-120
48-64
50-66
67 105
B-12
-------
8503-111-007-(007-012)
Treatment
MNS-99-04
MNS-99-05
MNS-99-06
pH Range
(Units)
7.8-8.6
7.7-8.6
8.0-8.5
DO Range
(mg/L)
5.5-7.2
5.0-7.1
5.5-7.4
Conductivity
Range
(nS/cm)
551 - 598
566 - 585
539 - 559
Temperature
Range (°C)
22 -24
22-23
22-23
Ammonia as
N Range
(mg/L)
<1.0- 3.4
<1. 0-4.7
<1.0
Hardness
(mg/L as
CaCO3)
128-130
128-134
114- 124
Alkalinity
(mg/L as
CaCO3)
107 108
102- 116
80-88
Water Quality Data from Days 29-42
Treatment
Control 1
Control 2
Control 3
MNS-99-01
MNS-99-02
MNS-99-03
Control 4
Control 5
Control 6
MNS-99-04
MNS-99-05
MNS-99-06
pH Range
(Units)
7.9-8.4
"9-8.4
7.9-8.3
7.9-8.3
7.9 - 8.4
79-8.3
7.7-8.2
78-8.2
7.8-8.2
7.8-8.2
7.8-8.2
7.9-8.2
DO Range
(mg/L)
5.5-7.0
5.3-6.9
5.4-6.9
5.4 - 6.8
5.3-6.9
5.3-6.8
5.8-7.0
5.5-6.8
5.3-6.8
5.3-6.8
5.5-6.8
5.6-6.8
Conductivity
Range
(fiS/cm)
511 -532
510-534
505 - 525
504 - 526
516-530
514-594
517-535
514-533
514-525
512-527
510-516
512-518
Temperature
Range ('C)
23
23-24
23-24
23
23
23
22-23
22-23
22-23
22-23
22-23
22-23
Ammonia as
N Range
(mg/L)
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
Hardness
(mg/L as
CaC03)
92-96
96-98
92-94
94
94-96
98
94-108
90-102
94-96
96-106
92- 104
90-96
Alkalinity
(mg/L as
CaCO3)
65-68
63 - 69
64-68
63-68
63-69
63-66
66-67
66-67
66-67
64-66
65-67
64-68
6.4 Reference Toxicant Test Results
Two reference toxicant tests were conducted using H. azteca from lot 99-22 and one reference
toxicant test was conducted with organisms from lot 99-27 Twenty-four hour reference toxicant
data from all three tests were included in ENSR's historical reference toxicant database. All
three tests also had acceptable 96-hour data. Because previous reference toxicant tests were
conducted at the FCETL with this species were only 24 hours in duration and only three 96-hour
tests have been conducted, insufficient data have been generated to calculate reliable historical
95% control limits for the 96-hour endpoint. The H. azteca reference toxicant data sheets and
24-hour reference toxicant control chart are included in Appendix I.
13-13
-------
8503-111-007-(007-012)
Test Number
(8503-109-
820-)
052
053
062
Lot of H.
azfeca
99-22
99-22
99-27
Test Period
10/13-10/17/99
10/13-10/17/99
10/27-10/31/99
24-H LCso
(mg/L CO
2,969
2,770
2,770
ENSR FCETL Historical 95%
Control Limits for 24-Hour
Tests (mg/L CI")
Low
1,909
1,901
1,893
High
3,781
3,772
3,759
96-H LCso
(mg/L CO
1,563
1,459
1,648
7.0 PROTOCOL DEVIATIONS
On day 11, the temperature of the overlying water in the test chambers (Controls 1, 2 and 3 and
sediments MNS-99-01, MNS-99-02, and MNS-99-03) was 17°C due to a malfunctioning
heating/cooling unit. The device was repaired and temperatures remained between 22 and
24°C for the remainder of the test. It was the Study Director's judgement that this deviation had
no impact on the test.
From days 28-42 the test chambers contained 300 to 350 ml of water rather than 150 to 275 ml
of water, as stated in the protocol. The reason for this difference is that since sediment had
been removed on day 28, a larger volume of water was needed to raise the water level to the
Nitex screen on the side of the beaker through which water drained when the test chambers
were renewed. This deviation had no impact on the test.
Day 28 survival of Controls 04 and 05 was less than the acceptable level of 80%. These
controls were dropped from the analysis.
8.0 REFERENCES
USEPA. 1993. Methods for measuring the acute toxicity of effluents and receiving waters to
freshwater and marine organisms, 4th edition. EPA/600/4-90/027F United States
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development.
West, Inc. and D.D. Gulley. 1994. Toxstat version 3.4. Western EcoSystems Technology, Inc.
Cheyenne, WY
B-14
-------
8503-111-007- (007-012)
Appendix A
-------
ENSR
CHAIN OF CUSTODY RECORD
Pago
Chain ol Custody Tape No.:
Sampler: (Pnni Na»e) /AIMialkxy i I I I
> uldu L, (jraHi/ hWo id
Send Results/Report to
stvm
. SSI)
-------
CHAIN OF CUSTODY RECORD
CHenl/ProjeclName: fV\ |O S U
Project Location: fYV
,r. t>
Project Number:
Reid Logbook No..
Chain of Custody Tape No.: ^"g / I/O
Sampler: (Pnnl Name) /AHiliatkx
Relinquished by: (Print Nam?)
^elinquished by: (Pnm Name)
_ ^.u MU-'l
v4 (\
Signature>xVu
-------
8503-111-007-(007-012)
Appendix B
Test Protocol
-------
ENSR Consulting and Engineering
ENSR Project No.:8505-111-007
Protocol No.: HA3MN.007.002
Effective: 10/99
Page: 1 of 7
Title: Long-Term Chronic Toxicity of Bulk Sediment to the Amphipod Hyalella azteca.
Study Sponsor: Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
520 Lafayette Road North
St. Paul, MN 55155-4194
Project Officer: Judy L. Crane, Ph.D.
Testing Facility:
ENSR Consulting and Engineering
Fort Collins Environmental Toxicology Laboratory
4303 West LaPorte Avenue
Fort Collins, Colorado 80521
(303) 416-0916, Ext. 307
Study Director: David A. Pillard, Ph.D.
-------
ENSR Project No.:8505-111-007
ENSR Consulting and Engineenng PrOtOCOl No.! HA3MN.007.002
Effective: 10/99
Page: 2 of 7
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Objective
To determine if the sediment samples shew long-term chronic toxicity to Hyalella azteca.
1.2 Sediment Samples
The sediment samples will be collected by the study sponsor and shipped to ENSR's Fort
Collins Laboratory. At the laboratory, sediment samples will be stored under refrigeration
(4°C) until used in testing (preferably less than 4 weeks of storage). Each sample will be
mechanically homogenized prior to use in testing (ENSR SOP #52U8). Endemic organisms
observed in the sediment will be removed manually.
2.0 BASIS AND TEST ORGANISM
2.1 Basis
The test protocol is based, where appropriate, on the ASTM method for conducting 42-day
sediment toxicity tests with Hyalella azteca (unpublished) and Ingersoll et al. (1998).
2.2 Test Organism
1. Species Hyalella azteca
2. Life Stage Juvenile (7 to 8 days).
3. Source - Test organisms will be obtained from ENSR's in-house culture or trom
a commercial supplier.
4. Feeding Hyalella azteca will be fed 1.5 ml of a yeast-trout chow-Cerophyl
suspension (YTC) every day during testing.
3.0 TEST SYSTEM
3.1 Overlying Water
The overlying water used in the test chambers will be moderately hard reconstituted water
(USEPA 1993) with an additional 50 mg/L Cl' spike.
-------
ENSR Project No.:8505-111-007
ENSR Consulting and Engmeering PrOtOCOlNo.: H A3MN.007.002
Effective: 10/99
Page: 3 of 7
3.2 Test Temperature
Test temperature will be 23 ± 1 °C. Testing will be conducted in an environmental chamber
or a temperature-controlled water bath.
3.3 Test Containers
Test containers will be 300- or 500-ml beakers containing 100 ml of sediment and 175 ml of
overlying water.
3.4 Photoperiod
The photoperiod will be 16-hours light and 8-hours dark.
3.5 Dissolved Oxygen Concentrations
Dissolved oxygen concentrations will be maintained ^2.5 mg/L. If the dissolved oxygen
concentration approaches this level, the amount of time between overlying water renewals will
be decreased or, if necessary, all test chambers will be gently aerated throughout the
remainder of the test. If aeration is initiated, the aeration pipette will be appropriately
positioned so as to avoid disturbance of the sediment.
3.6 Reference Toxicant Testing
In addition to the test material exposures, reference toxicant tests will be conducted using
sodium chloride (NaCI) to determine the sensitivity range of the test organisms. Reference
toxicant exposures will be conducted monthly or at the time cf test initiation for in-house or
commercially-supplied organisms. Reference toxicant testing will be performed according to
USEPA (1994) methods.
4.0 TEST DESIGN
4.1 Test Treatments
The test treatments will be 100 percent test material from each sediment sample. A 100
percent control sediment (see section 4.3) exposure will be conducted concurrently.
-------
ENSR Project No.:8505-111-007
ENSR Consulting and Engineering PrOtOCOl No.: HA3MN.007.002
Effective: 10/99
Page: 4 of 7
4.2 Sediment/Water Mixture
Sediment (100 ml) will be placed in each test chamber. After addition of sediment, 175 ml
of overlying water will be poured into each beaker. The beakers will be left unaerated
overnight to allow sediment to settle and to reduce turbidity prior to addition of test organisms.
4.3 Reference/Control Sediments
In addition to the field-collected samples, a laboratory control sediment (Florissant soil provided
by USFWS-NFCRC in Columbia, Missouri) will be tested concurrently.
4.4 Number of Test Organisms
One hundred and twenty Hyalella azteca will be exposed to each treatment. Ten organisms
will be assigned to each test chamber and twelve replicates will be tested per treatment.
4.5 Analytical Sampling
Aliquots of sediment for chemical analysis will be removed by the study sponsor prior to
shipping samples to ENSR's laboratory. No analytical sampling of the test chambers
themselves is planned.
4.6 Test Initiation/Renewal Frequency
Testing will be initiated by addition of the test organisms after the overnight settling period.
Each chamber will be renewed with approximately 2 volume additions per day. This will be
accomplished by manual removal and replacement of water by a test technician or with a
renewal box that can be filled with overlying water and allowed to drain into the test
chambers. Renewal will begin on Day 0 just before organisms are added to the test chambers
4.7 Chemical and Physical Monitoring
At a minimum, the following measurements will be made:
1. Dissolved oxygen and pH will be measured in the overlying water of each
treatment and the control on days 0, 28, 29, and 42, and at least three times
a week while the test is in progress.
2. Temperature will be measured daily in at least one test chamber per treatment
and continuously in the water bath or environmental chamber.
-------
ENSR Project No.:8505-111-007
ENSR Consulting and Engineering PrOtOCOl No.: HA3MN.007.002
Effective: 10/99
Page: 5 of 7
3. Hardness, alkalinity, conductivity, and ammonia will be measured in the
laboratory reconstituted water (used as overlying water) on day 0.
4. Hardness, alkalinity, conductivity, and ammonia will be measured in overlying
water from each treatment at test initiation (just prior to renewal on day 0 or 1),
day 28 (end of sediment exposure), day 29 (beginning of reproductive phase),
and day 42 (test termination).
5. Conductivity will be measured in each treatment weekly.
4.8 Biological Monitoring
After 28 days of exposure, sediment from each test chamber will be removed and sieved or
sorted to recover living test organisms. Test organism survival will be recorded. Test
organisms from four replicates (preferably A through D) will be rinsed with deionized water
and placed in dried, tared aluminum boats. If the organisms cannot be dried and weighed
immediately, they will be preserved in vials containing sugar formalin. Organisms from the
remaining eight replicates will be placed in new beakers containing 1 50 to 275 ml of CI"
spiked moderately hard water only (no sediment) and a small ( = 5 cm x 5 cm) piece of Nitex
screen.
After 35 days of exposure, organisms from the eight remaining replicates will be counted to
determine the number of live and dead adults. The test chamber (particularly the Nitex screen)
will be examined for the presence of juvenile organisms. Juveniles will be counted and
discarded.
After 42 days of exposure, organisms from the eight remaining replicates will be counted to
determine the number of live and dead adults. The test chamber (particularly the Nitex
screen) will be examined for the presence of juvenile organisms. Juveniles will be counted and
discarded. The number of original females and males will be determined by examining the
adults microscopically for the presence/absence of the enlarged second gnathopod in the male.
After the adults have been sexed, they will be placed in dried, tared aluminum boats. If the
organisms cannot be dried and weighed immediately, they will be preserved in vials containing
sugar formalin.
4.9 Test Duration
Test duration will be 42 days.
-------
ENSR Project No.:8505-111-007
ENSR Consulting and Engineering PrOtOCOlNO.: HA3MN.007.002
Effective: 10/99
Page: 6 of 7
4.10 Calculations
Survival data will be transformed by arcsine squareroot. Normality and homogeneity
assumptions for survival data will be evaluated by the Shapiro-Wilk's test and Bartlett's test,
respectively (a = 0.01). Data will then be evaluated (@ a = 0.05} using either parametric or
nonparametric methods depending upon the outcome of the normality and homogeneity
assessments.
Organism weights and reproduction (young per female) will be statistically compared in
treatments not having significantly reduced survival. Analysis will occur in the same manner
as for survival, although the weights will not be transformed using arcsine squareroot.
4.11 Quality Criterion
The test will not be considered acceptable if day-28 mortality in the control sediment exceeds
20 percent.
5.0 TEST REPORT
The report will be a typed document describing the results of the test and will be signed oy
the Study Director and Quality Assurance Unit. The report will include, but not be limited to,
the following:
• A copy of all raw data.
• Name of test, Study Director, and laboratory, and date test was begun.
• A detailed description of the sediments, including their source, time of
collection, composition, known physical or chemical properties, and any
information that appears on the sample container or has been provided by the
Sponsor.
• The source of the overlying water, its chemical characteristics, and a description
of any pretreatment.
• Detailed information about the test organisms, including scientific name, age,
life stage, source, history, acclimation procedure, and food used.
• A description of the experimental design and the test chambers, the volume of
solution in the chambers, the way the test was begun, the number of organisms
per treatment, and the lighting.
• A description of any aeration performed on test solutions before or during the
test.
• Definition of the criterion used to determine the effect and a summary of general
observations on other effects or symptoms.
• Percentage of organisms that died or showed the effect.
-------
ENSR Project No.:8505-111 -007
ENSR Consulting ,nd Eng.neenng PrOtOCOlNo.: HA3MN.007.002
Effective: 10/99
Page: 7 of 7
• The minimum dissolved oxygen concentration, range in test dissolved oxygen
concentrations, temperature, and pH, all visual observations of test solutions.
• Any deviations from the protocol.
6.0 LITERATURE CITED
Crane, J.L. 1999. Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP): Minnesota Slip Sediment
Remediation Scoprng Project. Revision 0. Minnesota Pollution Control Agency,
Environmental Outcomes Division, St. Paul, MN.
Ingersoll, C.G., E.L. Brunson, F.J. Dwyer, O.K. Hardesty, and N.E. Kemble. 1998. Use of
Subletha! Endpoints in Sediment Toxicity Tests with the Amphipod Hyalella azteca.
Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 17:1508-1523.
USEPA. 1993. Methods for Measuring the Acute Toxicity of Effluents and Receiving Waters
to Freshwater and Marine Organisms. Fourth Edition. EPA/600/4-90/027F.
USEPA. 1994. Methods for Measuring Toxicity and Bioaccumulation of Sediment-Associated
Contaminants with Freshwater Invertebrates. EPA/600/R-94/024.
7.0 PROCEDURAL COMPLIANCE
Aii test procedures, documentation, records, and reports will comply with the sponsor-specific
quality assurance project plan (Crane 1999). To this end, random audits of the test may oe
scheduled while the test is in progress. The raw data will be checked and compared to
protocol requirements and Standard Operating Procedures, and the final report will be audited
for accuracy and signed, if satisfactory, by both the Study Director and an individual from the
Quality Assurance Unit.
3.0 PROTOCOL AMENDMENTS AND DEVIATIONS
All changes (i.e., amendments, deviations, and final report revisions) of the approved protocol
plus the reasons for the changes must be documented in writing. The changes will be signed
and dated by the Study Director and maintained with the protocol. All amendments must oe
authorized in advance by the Sponsor.
9.0 SPONSOR AND STUDY DIRECTOR APPROVAL
r ^ , . /
Sponsor A::proval:L> u^^/l— . ^AjSL^^L-^-^'^ Date: _U/ i
Study Director- U^ ?^L/ / ^^Lj Date: H/
-------
8503-111-007-(007-012)
Appendix C
Test Data for Sediments MNS-99-01, MNS-99-02, and MNS-99-03
-------
_L. eft
Page
FCETL QA -oT^No. 115"
Revision 0
Effective'8/30?
SEDIMENT TOXICITY DATA PACKAGE COVER SHEET
e5tTYpfl
- 42
1C.
est Substance:
••>
^
/fc.
Project Number:
Species:
- t ) I - Q0 1 (pO > -CO f \
Iverlying Water Type
loncurrent Control Overlying Water Type:_
late and Time Test Began:j
CA fc
Organism Lot or Batch Number: ri
J I Supplier:.
/ /
Date and Time Test Ended:
&
Investigator(s):
lack ground Information
ype of Test:
'est Temperature:*^? H
iediment Vol.: fOOWI
.ength of Test:.
Env. Chmbr/
Overlying Water Vol: f_l
Number of Organiprr.- oer t
: /"75/n /
Renewal Frequency:
Test Chambers: .52/fl
'ype of Food and Quantity per Chamber:/. £*•»/ \/TC
Test Substance Characterization Parameters and
NH?:
s-1
T
ixiumber of Replicates per Treatment:.
IP
t-'fequency:
'onductivity:/wr>
T>fl^
Alkalinity: '
restConcentratior^(Volume:Volume):
Test Sediment(s) Sample Description: /M/*S ^-Q/ /
FCETL Sample fts): t2*4lf IZ*/ <* j
~ * i- Av/5 -
Agency Summary Sheet(s)?:_
jeference Toxicant Data: Test Dates: f0/'V*??
.Hist. 95% Control Limits: ' ' ^ ' to 3 "7 7 ^C.
Z^t-H-
'.C^ior IC^ (Circle):.
f jr Determining Ref. Tox. Value:
l\
_ Special Procedures and Considerations:
-2\
Jbfcfl
H^'-
m
40 w
Director Initials:
1 £ /
Date'
HW*3(»4D U-Itd Day O— 4 (<) &*J .'l«h<»E l«rt
-------
Page
T/ r 7f
Project No,
~ <30 7
Hyalella azteca Biological Data
QA Form No. 109
Effective: 8/99
Revision: 0
Treatment
Cotf. I
Rep.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
Date
Time
Initials
Remarks
Day 0
ffLlve
Adults
|0
JO
,0
JO
10
10
10
to
to
JO
10
\v
("to
llCJ
&\
Day 28
#Llve
Adults
q
$
d
/£?
g
5"
Yi
9
/o
/o
AS^
(*
#Dead
Adults
0
0
1
^?
o
0
o
o
o
o
0
0
# Adults
Not
Found
1
2
0
£>
^
5-
IsPi
(
D
o
fcu*
q
%,/fy
/A»
4
04% 5^"'
f^.^fr")
Day 35
(SfLlve
Adults
A/
>i
/t
%
5"
B
?
• 0
;c?
9
5
#Dead
Adults
O
O
C?
0
0
o
O
0
ujn
n Adults
Not
Found
O
O !
o
o
c>
o
o
1
#Llve
Young
8
/
k0&
^
O
0
0
0,0,
M3t>
(k^
5^"'
Day 42
Total #
Live
Adults
8
if
y _j
^
/o
<•?
<7'
5
#Dead
Adults
O
6
o
/
o
1
o
O
>i ^4
I3&Q ~~
# Adults
Not
Found
0
0
o
fi
o
o
G
J^
ZS
*l
ffLlve
Young
^|
^
/O
I
y
5
<7
^
"A*/*7
M-I3U
^v
^^ ^^
"\J /J O ^i~*
y r f
©
-------
Page
Of
Project No.:
Hyalella azteca Biological Data
QA Form No. 109
Effective: 8/99
02/2.5 (00 Revlsion:0
-------
Page.
Of
Project No.: 8503- )i\ ~ OO 1
Hyalella azteca Biological Data
QAForm No. 109
Effective: 8/99
Revision: 0
Treatment
CONT3
Rep.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1
J
K
L
Date
Time
Initials
Remarks
Day 0
#Llve
Adults
10
10
>o
10
10
10
10
10
to
10
10
1
1
ssr^
Day 35
#Llve
Adults
N)^r
1
1
q
9
U
IQ
\t)
iO
5
1
#Dead
Adults
0
O
0
0
0
a
0
o
# Adults
Not
Found
\
O !
<9
0
0
o
0
1
#Llve
Young
3
3
3
0
I
•2,
g
+
u nh^
1340
(hti
n^, e^T7
Day 42
Total #
Live
Adults
^
'*?
9
'0
10
lo
§
&
#Dead
Adults
£>
O
^
^
0
0
0
\
# Adults
Not
Found
o
o
1
o
o
o
o
o
n/vtlM
i33S - /54<
2^\
#Live
Males
5
^
3
*~
4-
c4
^
^
)zfi
#Llve
Females
4-
3
6
tT
(^
(0
b
L>
(^
l<-f-Zo
-------
Page.
Of
Project No.: $56 3 -
Hyalella azteca Biological Data
QAForm No. 109
Effective: 8/99
Revision: 0
Treatment
L
Rep.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
Date
Time
Initials
Remarks
Day 0
#Llve
Adults
|0
|0
|0
,0
|0
,0
|0
,0
|0
10
|0
|0
w|*[tf
da
^
Day 28
#Llve
Adults
8
10
10
\0
10
I
9
9
10
/O
\0
$
#Dead
Adults
0
0
O
o
0
o
0
0
o
o
0
o
tt Adults
Not
Found
L-
O
O
0
o
2.
/
1
D
d
D
Z-
"Itoki
/CT3d>
7
£&
Day 35
#Llve
Adults
H AT
I
0
s
'1
<\
\o
|0
t o
^
#Dead
Adults
0
o
o
0
0
(J
o
(\
\
o
n
# Adults
Not
Found
O
0 '
o
0
0
0
O
o
#Llve
Young
O
-3
O
\
(?
0
o
3
°n
i
(TYJ-C
, Ft-^"'l/
^T *7 *^ ^7 1 MI ( Q ^ /
/ ^™ "*^ » •^^ J O f
Day 42 , |
Total *
Live
Adults
'0
T
-------
Page
£
Project No.: 85d3-ll|- 007
Hyalella azfeca Biological Data
QAForm No. 109
Effective: 8/99
Revision: 0
1
Treatment
02.
Rep.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1
J
K
L
Date
Time
Initials
Remarks
Day 0
#Llve
Adults
10
1C,
(0
10
10
10
10
>o
jQ
\0
.0
10
°fnh
|tio
y*\
Day 28
#Llve
Adults
10
4
4
o
0
0
)7|^
\^4rO
w~t2_, ^
^0%
10
"l**hi
'"ft*
^7
^ (jr\j • V0 ° "^
-------
Project No..
856 3> - f 1
1 — '
1 Treatment
03
Rep.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1
J
K
L
Date
Time
Initials
Remarks
Day 0
ffLlve
Adults
10
,o
10
l&
10
|Q
I*
|0
|G
)(S
l&
l(i
0 ft\Cf\
Zio
^M
Day 28
tt Live
Adults
1
/
g,
^
1
=£
\
1
a
4
o
o
Adults
2.
0
0
/
0
/
J
Q
1
/
&
0
0 Adults
Not
Found
1
9
4
^
9
7
1
9
-i
$
'L
10
•/"At
/2»
1
1
(7f
Day 35
# Live
Adults
NlA:
I
*
a
4.
MA
N
K
#Dead
Adults
a
o
0
o
0
O
1(1
# Adults
Not
Found
O
o !
o
0
0
o
ftLlve
Young
-8$
0
0
0
D
O
\1\^°1
CrO-S
'"•• ^
Day 42
Total 0
Live
Adults
J
^
[
1
e*.
4
- —
ODead
Adults
Q
0
O
O
o
0
• —
# Adults
Not
Found
Q
0
0
C?
O
&
—
M/Z'f/1'7
' , s
tyo? - /<{i5
^l
I
'l^ r°^-
-------
TEMPERATURE
___ of j£r
FCETLQAFormNo1i3
Project Number-
~ 007
Test Species (Circle):
7. tentans Other (Specify):
Temperature °C)
Inriirafp day
IHefliiirprl riajul
03
10
7
"
C&ttf Z
Meter*
33
S3
aa
23
7
53
53
57
53
Date:
Time:
\zatt
1035
Oictf
1000
Initials:
r
-------
TEMPERATURE
FCETL QA Form No 113
Revision 0
/co Effective 8/99
MO* (3.5/00
Project Number: ;
-oo7
Test Species (Circle): /H. aztec? C. tentans Other (Specify):
n
Temperature <°C)
2c
Hay h
23
2-7
25?
a?
s
"(JfltiT I
23
23
2}
33
33
13
23
2£
Meter!
33
53
M.
40
-to
Data:
1025
HOD
1010 QiTj
1000
Idvrr
_ Initials:
W
-------
QA Form No 113
TEMPERATURE
Project M..mhpr
- 6503 Hi — 00~7
Test Species (Circle)i^Mazreca C. tentans Other (Specify):
Temperature (°C)
32- 33 34
InrliraTc rlay hplnw IRpflllirprl rial
57
a?
JJ
21
73
23
Meter*
40
£L
40_
LfQ
la
Date:
Time:
IQIO
1000
lOjq
'o;ti
Initials:
-------
rage / / ui > A
FCETL CLA Form No 11 3
, ;,^ , Revision 0
Effective 8/99
TEMPERATURE
s Project Number:.
Test Species (Circle): (H. azteca) C. tentans Other (Specify):
sTreatment| Rep
Temperature °C)
Day-»
0
3
!""•
5
ITP day h
(Rpnn.rpHH;
>o
11
13
23
31
23
23
23
7
23
TT-
23
23
0(
23
17
^ Meter*
55
S3
57
T?
53
53
53
Date:
! — Tima!
/OOO
a
Initials:
C- <» -S
-------
FCETLQAFormNo113
Revision 0
TEMPERATURE
Project M..mh.r.
Test Species (Circle): ( H. azteca ) C. tentans Other (Specify):
'reatment Rep
Temperature °C)
Day
OQNT3
n
23
id
InHii-afP Hay hdnus/ IRp^Mirci-) rtailyl
33
aj
23
27 /S
01
33
tl
Meter*
si
40
40
40
M.
Date:
Time:
10
1000
foot)
Initials:
Pel
-------
rage ; _)01 > / v
FCETLQA Form No 113
Revision 0
>° Effective 8/99
TEMPERATURE
v Project Number:.
Test Species (Circle): (H. azteca) C. tentans Other (Specify):
^Treatment! Rep.
Temperature (°C)
Day-*
Ini4(|f
4a
-jnw fRf
37
M-2.
23
23
Z3
23
n
I*
0-3
23
33
Meter*
40
40
io
£L
40
/-o
44)
Date:
"//7/ff
11
M.
^ —
(V— TimB!
X1
J i_ Initials;
\0!0
6
-------
FCETL QA Form NoTis
Revision 0
TEMPERATURE
Project Mnmh«r.
Test Species (Circle): H. azteca) C. tentans Other (Specify)
_J;
ri
Treatment Rep
Temperature (°C)
Day
02-
23
23
6
13
B
to
23
\(
11
11
03
23
33
23
£->
17
11-
Meter*
53
S3
S3
5?
5.-?
Date:
to i
Time:
O'KO
/015
Initials:
-------
FCETLQA Form No 113
Revision 0
Effective 8/99
TEMPERATURE
A
Project Number:.
-lit- Q07
Test Species (Circle):! H. azteca C. tentans Other (Specify):
\TreatmentJ
—r^^s
Day-*
Temperature (°C)
\1
Inrlii:
•Inw (Rf
1
23
-03
Meterl
JJate:
Time:
'••itials:
(025
-------
TEMPERATURE
FCETL QA Form No~7l3
Revision 0
Effective 8/99
Project
Test Species (Circle): (H. aztecaC. tentans Other (Specify):
V-
>
Meterf
46
40
40
40
Date:
Time:
\010
o&S
1000
(ArO
Initials:
&«/
(hzj
(hy
'Vc
(' e-» f- e O
W
of
-------
Page /? of LF^
FCETL QA Form No 11 2
Revision 0
Effective 8/99
CONDUCTIVITY
Project Number:
~>U- 00?
Test Species (Circle): (H. azteca) C. tentans Other (Specify):
\reatment Rep.
Conductivity (,uS/cm)
Day-*
0
Indiratp rlay hplnw IRqnmrcrl Hay; arg fl 7ft?
H
54!
£m
55 /
V2.
V
5to
if
— Matetf
v/
I/
I!
if
35h
1116
//flD
430
141?
/oft
__ Initials:
6x1
t (P.
Vvc" V
io
-t s
~ D
-------
. OT i
CONDUCTIVITY
FCETL QA Form No
Revision 0
Effective 8/99
Protect Number: £K
io3- ill "00 7
Test Species (Circle):
y-"" '
H. azteca j C. ten tans Other (Specify):
3
o
L
A
Conductivity (^S/cm)
o
Inrliratp ri
(7
hplnw (Rpqiiirpri rla
VIS
^
V
V
-95
551
• n "3
47- nlhr-r w
IHAST. 1 X _n« wp_pl(
5/7
52-r
Meter*
II
II
Dare-
10/ok
n fit
Time"
1415'
>; I'i
,-e^o
licv i- s
/^rm^-^i-' ^'^ 6.**
-------
raye / i OT i /
FCETL QA Form No 11 2
Revision 0
Effective 8/99
CONDUCTIVITY
Project Number:,
0503 -ill " CO 7
Test Species (Circle): (H. aztecajC. tentans Other (Specify):
Conductivity (wS/cm)
IrHiraTp H,-,w hplnw iRpqinrPrl ri.iys arp D
-\q 70 d7
)7
a1
55o
3 5"
P at Ipaqt 1 Y
02.
ff
560
V
Meter*
1!
M
19
i/
Time:
lia
II (JO
initials:
pi
4-
,./'
/i«r
,
A«,-
r X
-------
DISSOLVED OXYGEN
rage _,/.£_ of _4jL
FCETL QA Form No 11Q
Revision 0
Effective 8/99
Project Number: ^503~)tl~ CO 7
Test Species (Circle):s^L azteca^C. tentans Other (Specify):
u
Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L)
0
(p-7
nriira-o rla / hplnw (Ppqi nrpri H3y
-------
ruye
ui
DISSOLVED OXYGEN
FCETL QA Form No 1 10
Revision 0
j./i->Jcx> Effective 8/99
Project
M,,mber: 85*3 " 1II ~
Test Species (Circle) :1fazteca\ C. tentans Other (Specify):
Treatment | Rep.
li _
V
Day-*
Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L
n
rliratp
18
22-
z?
7.1
fe.8
fc.fe-
fc-5
ii-
t'
fe.9
-Off!
h.B
b.6
U,4
u
Xs
MetFrff
5"
5"
n/9?
.1,1 "'—
&.
Time:
/I5D
/a 2o
1010
HOC
(O'SD
1040
(OK
1100
Ini'ials:
OtJ
fi*/
-------
DISSOLVED OXYGEN
__
FCETL QA Form No 11Q
Revision 0
Effective 8/93
Project Nur
nber: O
593-111-
007
Test Species (Circle): (H. azteca £. tentans Other (Specify):
Treatment | Rep.
Day-*
COKTI
CGI^T 2.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1
J
K
L
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1
J
K
L
1 Mf>ter»
Date:
Time-
1 ,n,«,,S.
Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L)
3o
fc.4
If.?
u
1
izH
ICtfD
(T*S
31
5, S
5:3
1
"bfa
1^35
frxj
Hirafp
•52.
(?• (7
to. (9
H
i^lw
U 10
(kj
rlay hplnw IRpninrpH rlaug ars 0
33
&- /
5".^
1
"l'i"|
^
1040
6r^
74
^-5
(0.^
1
li/^
103^
(rrlf
?-T
fa- O
(,.0
i
'//7/fr
.
*fi
^
^
3^
(>-/
(,./
/
|(/2>/^
|o cAJ
>^
40
6. |
fl i
1
U
*fa
IllO
6\s
41
(?-1
-f;
^
"A«/i-
—i '. i
Ur
-------
FCETL QA Form No 1 1 0
Revision 0
DISSOLVED OXYGEN
Project Number:,
Test Species (C\rc\eb^7jT~azte£aJc. tentans Other (Specify):
o
5-3
Dissolved Oxygen (mq/L)
nriiraTP Hay hglnw
'3
nra O ?o "O
7
8
io I a
/Z i3
7.0
IV
^.
S.b
01
^Z_
(,-b
__ Mete.
-------
DISSOLVED OXYGEN
, - U1 ' /
FCETL QA Form No 11Q
Revision 0
Effective 8/99
Project Mnmhpr ^503
/
Test Species (Circlel^T/r azleca C. tentans Other (Specify):
(,.7
Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L)
n
Hirate ria
hplnw 1
ninrpri
6,7
7R 7q
4.4-
' nthp wl<:p at cast .?X n
7.2.
Z6,
2-7
28
Meter*
5
6
5
(ISO
/o2a
(010
1100
1090
020
1 04*
(100
(W
Gtu
-------
DISSOLVED OXYGEN
FCETLQA Form No 110
Revision 0
-'o'o Effective 8/99
Project Number:,
^ 11 i " 00 7
Test Species (Circle)y^W. aztecq C. tentans Other (Specify):
Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L)
nrliratP riau hpjnw I
3
Pf]i iir^H
3=5
3k
37 ?%
gji fir Ipagt TX Opr VA/P
r 3
(,.0
(f-l
M
d
5,4
(,,0
(0-8
Meterff
Gate:
nyifh?
I-
11(0
104-0
Ifi-rf
1005
103$
IciO
6*5;
(mJ
(?*/
-------
UA Form No no
Revision 0
DISSOLVED OXYGEN
Project Number:
8 S3 3 — ) j ) ' QCT /
Test Species (Circie):( H. aztecaJ C. tentans Other (Specify):
02.
03
Meter*
Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L)
(D
4-2-
6-C.
nrlir-atP HP holnw
Is-S
5
M-
pqn.rprt rlay
-------
rage >• j ui i , - c
FCETL QA Form No 110
Revision 0
Effective 8/99
DISSOLVED OXYGEN
project Nur
nber: fl503 ' 1 1 1 - OG7
/^*^ s
Test Species (Circle)^ H. azteca)C. tentans Other (Specify):
s
treatment |
s
% Dayi
s
1
N
I
-01
i
i
103
/
/
f
L Meter
Rep.
•
*
.,
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1
J
K
L
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1
J
K
L
==
»
L Date:
i1
'^_ limp-
;_ Initials:
Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L)
InrtiratP rlav hpjnw 1 pnmrpH 5u^ arp n ?fl 7Q d?. nTho,,.,,r« „ !„,„. TV „«, ,....1,1
t-7
U-(e
5"
"%
K5D
GvU"
tu
i,-1
(,-f
5
lo/Slft?
I62c
Pi
n
1,4
k(>
6
Ify
J/ffB
^7
>8
^•f
t-!T
^
vkik'f
,iaU
^
Vi
(,-t.
6.C.
^
"1
lltf
/O^i
1^7
ZQ
^.5"
b.fc
5
"/i/^
/0/«?
(f^j
2-\
(,A
1,4
1
"Iz/^
1100
(r«-(
^2
^,.fe
4-/?
^
"M'J?
/C50
JhLL
Z3
4-8
(,.7
^
"/^Ai
(0^0
ht(
^4
^ s
A;.
i
**#>
tf-v
r^^
2^
7n
7r2.
/r
%4.
/^^
IW5
26
M
t-t
1
"/8/^
/(Ho
(neJ
Z7
/,r
^-^
f
uhfa
j/K
^1
Z-«
6.7
ic7
1
"/ /
/(•W)
)T)K
7
Z«7
fe^-
£.b
/
•/•./*
' //OO
6*/
-------
DISSOLVED OXYGEN
FCETL QA Form No 110
Revision 0
EffectiveS/99
Project Number:
" 1 ^ - Qt)7
Test Species (Circle
^
. tentans Other (Specify):
Treatment
Rep.
Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L)
Day
02-
31
nrliratp Hay hplnw IRpqinrpri dayg arp O 7fl 7Q 4.7- nthprwisp at
6-5
33
34
i.J
?s
fc-0
pact ^y npr woalr
35
03
,.J-
1. 1
(,.7
^7
Meter*
Date:
llt/V
Time:
01 «U
looS
ro
Initials:
(reJ
Js
^ /4 11 or
j O O CV -t-VA.
^ L
/ v cf
-------
rage
or i
FCETL QA Form No 1 11
Revision 0
Effective 8/99
PH
, project Number:.
8503-ni-oo7
Test Species (Circle):
. tentans Other (Specify):
^Treatment | Rep.
Day
pH (units)
0
7-3
z
ifliratp Hay hplnw iRp^inrprl rlayg arp n ?R 79 A7- nlhpf
3 4
7
a'it .TX ppr yyppkl
70
IV-
8-0
73
I?-/
1-1
^J/____Meter*_
___ Date:
tOt
101
/D/
IGl
(Of
^iM
O
ol >«/
Time:
IC30
IQPQ
1055
|100
Initials:
CoU
-------
•— • f
FCETL QA FormNoTlT'
pH
Project Number: #55 3 ' I l[ " 00 7
Test Species
C. tentans Other (Spec fy):
8-
Meter*
101
pH (units)
f-0
Hay hplnw i
f V i
(Hay11
V-/
V-
8.2.
1(0
lot
8.
WL<:P at
8-0
J,
iOi
m
ppr
2$-
27
foi
u,
ID/
Date:
ES
"7^
"K-
it
Time:
USD
\o\G
noo
IOST)
Initials:
G«J
Cny
-------
PH
FCETL QA Form No 111
Revision 0
Effective 3/99
Project Nu
mber: $'3\~?>~
(l
I- oo7
^ ^
Test Species (Circle): Mtazteca t.
tentans Other (Specify):
treatment
—
ii Day -
X
s,
__
|_ Meter
Rep.
==
»
-
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1
J
K
L
A
B
C
0
E
F
G
H
1
J
K
L
==
1
j
1 Date:
r-^_ Time:
J
i, Initials:
pH (units)
. lndical£_dav hpjnw IRpouirpH a\/.„, h» _„.,. ,,. TV j.i
30
8'^
5.4-
(01
"llz/'»
-------
pH
FCETL QA Form No 111
Revision 0
E^ctive 8/99
Project Number: 8563 ' ] \\ ' Odl
Test Species (Circle):
C. tentans Other (Specify):
G
Meteri»
o
7-3
|L
(units)
nrliratP Hay hplnw
1-2-
6.0
101
loi
101
pnnirpH Hay<:
Id.
lo
/ol
47- nthpnvisp at (past TY npr yyppH
8.
0
"3.0
I£L
10 |
Date:
10 (3,
Time:
|QUt>
1030
looO
\oo
/
-------
rage
or
.0
PH
FCETL QA Form No 1 11
Revision 0
Effective 8/99
Project Number: S"5D 3
II j-
x^T" ^
Jesl Species (Circle): (H. azteca C. tentans Other (Specify):
v— ^
Treatment | Rep
Day-»
pH (units)
nHiraTp Hay hplnw
n
pr]i iirpr|
?R ?q
22,
47- nth
at luagt iy nor vuopltl
y,l.
-s.
8.3
80
8.
ji>
Meter*
10)
8-4
jxll
taf
101
101
101
/Of
in
lot
Date:
/lOft'i
Time:
i lot?
IC-'O
1100
(640
IW5"
11 QV
F
(riU
-------
pH
FCETL QA Form No~Tn
, j.~.L^ Revision 0
Effective 8/99
Project Number:
"H i ~ 6Q7
Test Species (Circle):
C. tentans Other (Specify):
Treatment | Rep.
Day
pH (units)
InHiratP Hay hglnw (Rpqiurpri Hays arg C, 73 7q A?' nthpr.«/.co at Igagt ^X ngr wppltl
33
37
37
41
0
Meterff
8-3
, a
fof
6.1
8.0-
S-3
8-1
0.0
8-3L
|0) fD)
101
Date:
H fb
Time-
1050
(110
6^70 s"
II 10
Initials:
frrU
(rw-T
-------
rage
OI
FCETL QA Form No 11 1
Revision 0
Effective 8/99
PH
Project
Number: 3593 " *U -QQ *7
Test Species (Circle) •/^H/azteca] C. tentans Other (Specify):
u
Day*
02-
(73
77
pH (units)
jp.rfif-atp ri.iy hpJnw J.Rp_q|j[rpH H^y
-------
pH
FCETLQAFormNoin
Revision 0
Effective 8/99
Project Number:
Test Species (Circle)^ H. azteca/C. tentans Other (Specify):
pH (units)
02
8-1
1U
rhr-arp Ha
n
hplnw I
prjinrprt ay.<; arp 7a_J>9 47- mhprwi-,P at past .TX r}pr
2o
8,3
03
14
B.S
8.2-
g
Meter*
101
/a
101
loi \\G\
1 * V- •*•
oi
IQL
Date:
Time:
10
|o
1046
1/15
Initials:
GuJ
-------
FCETL QA Form No 11 1
Revision 0
Effective 8/99
pH
Pfnjprt Number: 8 5Z) 3 ~~ ) U - O
07
Test Species (Circle):^
,-^^n
W. liztecaj C. tentans Other (Specify):
^Treatment] Rep
Day
pH (units)
3t
33
35
37 38
•J-f 4Z.
I
8-3
g.l
fl-
5-4
1-
8.1
1. 1
Hfi
Meter*
liL
/o/
lot
liL
10)
Id/
,5
Time:
(HO
(OfO
/OflS'
/I/O
Cni-i
2 "?
c-7
i 5 -u >,
/v t^/.,
-------
Page
of
FCETL QA Form No. 114
Revision 0
Effective 8/99
TEST MATERIAL CHARACTERIZATION
Project Number: "8 50 3 ~ I I) - GC?7
Test Species (Circle):
C. tentans
Other (Specify):
Treatment
Hardness Imq/L CaCO
Alkalinity (ma/L CaCO,
NH, (rng/U
Day
28
29
42
0
28
29
42
28
29
42
C Gfi 7£o L-
00
n4
!0
n
4-3
8
0 )
I02.
74
102.
4
.0
03
(54
58
0-0
o
Meter*
TVTR.
2_
11 (0 fc,c,
'i In I'; 7
/44S
104V
Goz. <,
Crti^f
NOTE: Hardness, alkalinitv. TRC, anti rJ^J3 djlo appu
^n il^is p^ge
been tr
-------
Page
SEDIMENT TESTING DAILY LOG
Project No.: #5(73 ~ I U ~ c?Q7 Test Species (Circle)f//fiizfeca y C. tentans Other (Specify):
FCETU QA Form No. 121
Revision: 0
Effective: 8/99
Sediment
Initial DO (mg/L)
Time/Initials
Sediment
Initial DO
(mg/L)
Time/Initials
Feeding
Initials/Date
5-5-5
OZ-
4-2 -
Day 0
5.1 -5.
03
- 3
0 I
4--0-
OH ^>. 0.
loM'T'O
TVST"
Day 1
Day 2
Fv
Day 4
Day 5
OjtTn.l_yirJ6\ >V^cJ 0
\\imi 48 ms I'- ftn
C? of /o
Day 6
1 1 '0
Day?
Day 8
Day 9
<2
Ffeo
1700
frsi-
-------
Project No.:
SEDIMENT TESTING DAILY LOG
Test Species (Circle): ( H. azteca) C. tentans Other (Specify):
FCETL QA Form No. 121
Revision: 0
Effective: 8/99
Sediment
Initial DO (mg/L)
Time/Initials
Sediment
Initial DO
(mg/L)
Time/Initials
Feeding
Initials/Date
Day 0
Day Jl
O ^ 0X3 u
^ % Hi ;
fcr^d1 ,Qi,
-
AT. Co *~ O (
;^±r
o
Day II
Dayl3
&IVIO
Day
It-Mo
Day |(,
1030
Day
Day
cr
Day \<1
Day
-------
SEDIMENT TESTING DAILY LOG
mi.
Page .
of
FCETU QA Form No. 121
Revision: 0
Effective: 8/99
Project No.: fr^S ~(li~CQ 7 Test Species (Circle): (fw. azteca) C. fentans Other (Specify):
Sediment
Initial DO (ing/L)
Time/Initials
Sediment
Initial DO
(mg/L)
Time/Initials
Feeding
Initials/Date
Day 0
Day 2 1
Fed j.SW fit /CHS L
Day ^^
(2
b l.-5«|
tO'ii'
n/4/9?
Day
V cL er L/t*
- CA,
c(
iX
I K ipojijr -*Vy
Day 2*
I04o
<2 _ 1
Day 2,7
^JL
|2uuuaf(.frvx*lu/yit.
\OZO
Day
Day fo
102 5- 1 OK
G-#-S
J. r
-Jes
-s n.r
, ex, »
^
-f/W
,» Ch«»,Ur t *r*>-
*ff^u^c^ . ID rv
^^^^^
j ,.,, ,';M^V^, ;t
V .
-------
Project No.:
SEDIMENT TESTING DAILY LOG
C/( -Qg'7 Test Species (Circle):/ H. aztecaj C. fen fans Other (Specify):
Page;
FCETL QA Form No. 121
Revision: 0
Effective: 8/99
Sediment
Initial DO (mg/L)
Time/Initials
Sediment
Initial DO
(mg/L)
Time/Initials
Feeding
Initials/Date
Day 0
Day?,
084-0
C&K.S)
(30650
Dayu
Day-}}
Cellos-
Day
IOVO
Day -5-
otkj
-------
'7 ••s^z'-*'
Project No.:
\\-ca ~7
SEDIMENT TESTING DAILY LOG
C. tentans
Page of - "&
FCETL QA Form No. 121
Revision: 0
Effective: 8/99
Day 0
Day^f
Day^
Day
Day
Day
Day
Day
Day
Day
Day
Sediment
Initial DO (mg/L)
Time/Initials
Sediment
Initial DO
(mg/L)
Time/Initials
RsLWujO^^l ov^/Uji^v H^d (2?Cf\4£) (faSj M^0(^~_j *59^ {y**)
hk ^^^-} ~&r t-^o€i>
—
Feeding
£ec± l-SimbyrC/ , „
' ICH&
»<«e
Initials/Date
n|z3/
-------
Page
of
f- 1-
FCETLQAForm No. 108
Revision 0
>/ 1 7/-£> Effective 08/99
TEST ORGANISM DRY WEIGHT AND ASH-FREE DRY WEIGHT (AFDW)
Project No: SS^i-^// - 0 07 - ^,-j
Species: n ' c<-^~ "eccA-
Qit/patch No.: M
W
1
Tare
Weight (g)
A
(Htt
•l&l^0!
hH^
TARE: Date/time: /Q/I, '"'•.' V>Ttfc> Analyst: &4/9
DRY GROSS: Date/time:! ^/l^/?']" Analyst: ^^y^O
C" f .."5 ( i
ASHED GROSS: Date/time: Analyst:
Dry Gross
Weight (g)
B
ll£<74-
).I67?)7
Dry Net
Weight (g)
(B-A)
O.OOO^T)
-O.Own
Adjusted
Dry
Net Weight
(g)1
O.OCD55
Ashed
Gross
Weight (g)
(D)
AFDW
(g)
(B-D)
Dried in Oven # ]_Q_ fror
Oven °C: J& to
Ashed in Furnace from
Furnace °C: to
n Date^^Time: A5QQ
Date: Time:
Date: Time:
Indicate mean weight is (ury Weight /or AFDW (Circle one)
No. of
Original
Org.
5~1
Mean Wt. per
Original
Organism
(mg)
O.O)/ 1
Mean Wt. per
Treatment
(mg)
(Original)
No.
of Surv.
Org.
—
Mean Wt. per
Surviving
Organism
(mg)
,
Mean Wt.
per
Treatment
(mg)
(Surviving)^
Add in weight loss of blank boat, if appropriate.
-------
QA~Form No.O1O
Revision 5
Effective 08/99
TEST ORGANISM LENGTHS, WEIGHTS, AND LOADING
Project Number: -^D5- DI-flO"7 (om*t)'r)
Species: Utf
Rep.
A
6
d-
D
A
6
£.
0
«
^
C
i')
Length
Units:
Test Substance: Sfd,^o^- U&M/IX:; 10/iOX 1 1
Analyst Tare: -Y Analyst Gross: Q-f.^
DateATime of Gross Wt.: lljizh^ ^_1^9S"
Comments:
Analytical Bala
Dried in Oven 1
/" \^ 0 - Tc? cc ci>
Weight Type (Circle): Wet Blot Dry (Bfy-t*4QQ2£.\ • ^AFDW (>500*C)
Tare
Weight (g)
SaJ-*<
/.^6»/^Co
/.a^otj
/J^9T1
afckw
/j/^y^
y^5>?r
/,«AW3S
/.^«aq7
laitfttt
f.XnnM
LX&&
/J65^2,
/p-?/).^
Gross
Weight (g)
i.Jbga^-
i.Ji»4l3
1.37138
I.»7o5"b
l.ibSl^-
i.a^flK
1-37245
/•^(,ff«l7
|.2b7fa3-
/.at?^
/.37l^i
I.^t54-
I.2l03t,
Net Weight
(g)
ftkl^
O.OOiO1]
o.oo^l
/0<00^
(9.ooao|
o-Ooao'j
0,00307
aot)3ta
O.OOXM
O.rt^05-
0,0^^
o.dtfj^i
OcOooo2
Test Solution Volume:
Adjusfed —
Net Weight
(g)1
Vi)
O.ool'l^
•-^^e^H
^-OD^Dl
0,<9o3.6^
aoo56'b
O.c°2.°i
0-^°^°^
o«co:5o7
C?.oo^1.
O.na^i
0.00^5
6).<90l-8'i
o.o^^a.
0>.OoOO^L
-^Jaof
Orig.
Organisms
• 10
10
10
10
\0
10
\o
}0
\o
\o
10
10
Mean Wt. per
Original
Organism (mg)
(O ,d from C
to Dat
T^l
)ate: ''//ota Time: <7&O
e: "/n/^ Time: /fcfl^"
Loty>r Batch Number: QQ ~ jCi
No. of
Surv.
Organisms
?
^
1
10
3
7
7
/o
<3
10
^
3
Mean Wt.
per
Surviving
Organism
(m9i
^^^
O. 26 1
0.270
0.^6%
0.151
ai?s
O.^3H
0,MZ.
0.3^3
O. ^2T
o. 361
O.iO'7
Mean Wt. per
Treatment (mg)
(Surviving)
- 0,'A«5
D-'33Z-
0,31g
Loading Rate:
1 Add in weight loss of blank boat, if appropriate.
~-oo i'i
-------
Page %
FCETLQA Form No. 010
Revision 5
Effective 08/99
TEST ORGANISM LENGTHS, WEIGHTS, AND LOADING
Project Number. "zjSD^'" 1-007- (OOl^dO^)
Species: \\->~^~/ !3-(&i/l£%lL)//3.'ir< 1
Analyst Tare: 4 Analyst Gross: GK_$
DateATime of Gross Wt.: l\\\3-\Vl500°C)
Mean Wt. per
Original
Organism (mg)
0.^76
o.y^
O.^^i
o,y&5
c;,3o|
0.63X
<9.3il
O-i"?3
O.055"
O.o5^
O. ^l£
O. (71
Mean Wt. per
Treatment
(mg)
(Original)
ice ID: ^.(iK'tt I /
t /o from Date: 'i4)A* Time: /73^>
to
Dateujjiijaf} Time:_L^S
Lot c)r Batch Number: ^V\~.2<^-
No. of
Surv.
Organisms
"8
10
o
10
fo
<^
^
^
£
/
V
Mean Wt.
per
Surviving
Organism
(mg)
O.VifT
0.353
o.^^
0, ^T
O, iol
o. 7^0
O. S?0
0^ "S^il
^•^^
(0. 5"6<5
o. y? ?
(9. ^5
Mean Wt. per
Treatment (mg)
(Surviving)
o^g
O.M5(r
0-LIH3
Loading Rate:
Add in wciyht loss of blank boat, if appropriate.
-------
Project Number:
- Q07
Date Initiated:,
0
U
H
Ijj
H
-Q
H
u
ui
U
U
u
CQ
LLl
UJ
0
c;
ro
0
Q
ok
o
0
Q
UJ
Random Number Chart Generated by:_
-------
v-
FCETL QA Form No. 15
Effective: 5/90
SUBJECT: DAILY LOG
ALL ENTRIES MUST BE INITIALLED WITH DATE AND TIME:
or}
Jo.
li
^AS
I.WtJ
fV\ MS -99-00-
IHSJ
n \J-\tJL C ^tuAac
^ /o/H/'r? r
-. 321)
LI-/ : 1L
- J i -o H /4A- 5 -^ -? -o r
-? ?- 06'
-------
8503-111-007-(007-012)
Appendix D
Test Data for Sediments MNS-99-04, MNS-99-05, and MNS-99-06
-------
Page [_ of _ ._• A 0
FCETL QA Forrr No. 115
Revision 0
Effective 8/99
Test Type:
Test Substance:.
SEDIMENT TOXICITY DATA PACKAGE COVER SHEET
= Project Number: fr5fl3 - ID - (?/j7 fplo - O)2?)
Concurrent Control Overlying Water Type:_
Date and Time Test Beoan:'0/2-7 I 9*7 &
Test Substance: .^UiMBQt I Species: t-^Mfil^Uff H-t-
Overlying Water Type:MOD Hft£C> At6/U£rtTTJ) WJ C\ j& Sfc^/i, Organism Lot or Batch Number:
Age:
Supplier: £•
Protocol Number:
, 007- OQ Z.
Date and Time Test Ended: I •*•
Investigator(s):
@
Background Information
Type of Test:
Jty l&?^
Test Tsmperature:^ T *
Sediment Vol.: 100 M
_^- Env. Chmbrffatri# $
Overlying Water Vol: /
Leng\h of Test:
Typi; of Food and Quantity per Chamber:! -^ MI
Number of Organisms pe- "' ^' c :te-
Renewal Frequency: Z X
Test Chambers: ^f / 2Alt-y
Test Substance Characterization Parameters and Freque;.:;
Alkalinity: P/rj c.l*ilei,
Conductivity:^^
.f/f i- DA^ c, 2jy, wy
oH:
Test Concentrations (Volume:Volume):.
Test Sediment(s) Sample Description:.
FCETL Sample
Ofr .
>Z8l3f i28)4
Agency Summary Sheet(s)7:_
Reference Toxicant Data: Test Dates: /fl/2-7/T? :
Hist. 95% Control Limits: /0/-3 to \lSl
tO/.\ >/?3 (CCQoMC
(Circle):
tor Determining Ref. Tox. Value;.
Special Procedures and Considerations:
0 -
£ I . ?T
J I I1.**! •-> ' !
(POl)
1 -
3703
7 -
Study Director Initials:
Date:
-------
Pago.
Prolecl No.: S503 - ill- GO 7
Treatment
£.4
Rep.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1
J
K
L
Date
Time
Initials
Remarks
I
Day 0
ffLlva
Adults
I*
1-0
10
10
\o
10
10
to
10
\0
10
\Q
*J»/0
15 to
*M
y QA Form No. 109
Hyalella azteca Biological Data ^y 'V-L^oo Effective: 8/99
A»-0?-/?3JOO Revlslon:0
Day 28
«Llve
Adults
tf
^
*l
9
^
7
7
B
/o
0 _
7-T
T
#Dead
Adults
0
0
0
o
1
o
0
0
3
-fc /S
///W?f
.s-rtf**
Day 35
#Llve
Adults
O
7
b
y
lo
•p"
^
7
«Dead
Adults
4
0
o
o
0
o
o
0
# Adults
Not
Found
O
0 !
I
0
0
0*/
o
0
#Llve
Young
O
0
5
•L
A.
/.
*f
4-
'Z/ 1/ 3 9
otto — OW>
^M
T^i '>»~-i5<^v& >t*^- k>
-------
Page
Of
Pioject No.:.
8503- iH-oo7
Hyalella azteca Biological Data
QA Form No. 109
Effective: 8/99
03-/3-3/UZ) Revision: 0
f —
treatment
1C 5
Rep.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1
J
K
L
Date
Time
Initials
Remarks
DayO
#Llve
Adults
10
10
10
1C
10
10
10
VQ
Id
\Q
\o
VO
^pfa
VStu
4#\
\ OU ,-i I
^3f&
%
#Dead
Adults
0
O
o
0
<0
0
o
0
* Adults
Not
Found
0
o
0
/
o
c)
°^S
0
ia|sl^
1 1 55 - 1 150
6x£
#Llve
Males
3
3T
^
3
3
)
ci
4
1 D '
#Llve
Females
s
1
4-
S
$
3.
1
4
In
0150- I6?5
6Sei
#Llve
Young
/I
o
%
3
//
3
j
\
^/^^
HVB
^1
8- ^
-------
Page
_ ^/
Of
Project No.: 8503~Ht- 00?
Hyalella azteca Biological Data
QA Form No. 109
Effective: 8/99
Revision: 0
Treatment
C_k?
Rep.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1
J
K
L
Date
Time
Initials
Remarks
Day 0
tfLlve
Adults
10
JO
10
10
10
SO
10
to
>c
to
\o
VO
1nfa
l*l«
9*\
Day 28
#Llve
Adults
(0
t5
7
iO
c\
sr
5
7
7
IO
J5~
» Dead
Adults
0
^
c?
0
o
0
£,
o
O
/
o
O
* Adults
Not
Found
0
2,
/
e
1
3^
Z.
'2
^
c>
5
«M*f
& 't 3*J " — /o <^5
^Jvl
w
Day 35
«Llve
Adults
/(7
^
c
u
6
6
7
10
5
#Dead
Adults
0
O
0
0
0
0
O
0
* Adults
Not
Found
0
o \
0
0
1
0
0
0
ffLlve
Young
O
3
0
0
3
O
^
0
'V'/?!
/ ^d5^ •" i'0?<>
'XJ?^
^~^ — 75\ 89b
vjffV^'V
Day 42
Total #
Live
Adults
°\
8
y
^
5
-7
/o
S"
#Dead
Adults
i
0
o
o
o
C
o
o
* Adults
Not
Found
0
\
o
'O
/
o
o
o
'2/t/y^
!3rt -pi*
*^y\/
s^l_l
1
tfLlve
Males
iff
®
#Llvo
Females
3
C?
8
iT
Z
7
6
/
ul*M
IW
3*1
ffLlvo
Young
0
0
o
V
Z
(9
7
c?
n-fyftf
I3'£o
^\
n C^, — ' "7<*c>7' 1^
"^^5/O SJCJVtWj,
-------
Page
Ol
Prolect No.: &5Q3 - 1 1 1 - OO "7
Treatment
\6\re
||
Rep.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1
J
K
L
Date
Time
Initials
Remarks
Day 0
ffLlve
Adults
10
Itj
i (j
^
10
10
\
o
0
O
O
o
ffLlve
Young
I-
0
O
o
5
O
4
3
/i/'f^
\o*5 ~»05£
5^
-"""' *
Day 42 |
Total #
Live
Adults
Z~
%
7
Y
9
<4
8
r
#Dead
Adults
d
0
€>
c)
o
0
0
0
ff Adults
Not
Found
O
0
o
?
o
c
D
£>
j, /ff faj
)HC) ' I'-f'sti
^H
#Llve
Males
^0 ^
-------
Project No.: 85o3-lt\.^ 00 "7
Hyalella azteca Biological Data
QA Form No. 109
Effective: 8/99
Revision: 0
H Treatment
Ob
Rep.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1
J
K
L
Date
Time
— — — ^— — — —
Initials
Remarks
Day 0
#Llvo
Adults
10
10
10
10
1-0
to
to
10
10
10
10
)0
"fate
5,0
^
Day 28
ffLive
Adults
3
S
/
O
^
/
o
5
O
4?
?
LJ
# Dead
Adults
O
p
0
6>
^
O
0
0
0
o
0
D
ft Adults
Not
Found
7
^
*\
lc>
%
9
/o
5"
/c
4
c^
to
ajz^l
1*33^114*
^
ZVfc
Day 35
Adults
£
1
-
s
(p
1
4
# Dead
Adults
O
o
—
0
—
c
o
0
# Adults
Not
Found
0
0 '
—
0
•
C
O
0
#Llvo
Young
0
O
—
0
• —
0
0
D
i3|ih«i
noo-tllS-
(y/K^tj
0 /*j
fj^^ vl o^^ 5
Day 42
Total n
Live
Adults
i
1
:T
—
t,
2,
-/
#Dead
Adults
5
0
• —
0
—
0
o
°T@^
u
ff Adults
Not
Found
O
O
—
o
—
0
o
O
ef^
H^-1426'
&ci
it Live
Males
O
I
•
3
• —
i
(J
Z
12-f^
ffLlve
Females
^
0
—
2.
b
^
•z^
^1
Id 31?"
^1
#Llve
Young
O
o
9
— _
o
t?
^
'•*/*/?^<
XJWJ
2.5"%
/3 qn^
-------
Page
QA Form No. 109
Pro|ect No.: S503 ' Ml -0^7
Treatment
1 0(P
1
Rep.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1
J
K
L
Date
Time
iniUals
(Remarks
Day 0
ffLfve
Adults
10
10
10
JO
10
10
>0
10
1°
10
vO
lO
^/fl
V5lO
5^\
f lyainiia at
Day 28
0Llve
Adults
3
vy-'b
6
7
K
^*
^j
^
7
®/r^
^
«Dead
Adults
0
O
0
/
0
0
0
6
0
o
(3
r?
* Adults
Not
Found
7
<2gr 0.
2-
^
Z,
1
t-
(
3
^
^X^
•v
fiMti
ittn ^iM*
SM
to/
/\10
:*&*
E.IOUCI uiuiuyi^oi i^aia ^ '
/Kco|^
Day 35
tf Live
Adults
&
^
8
^
-7
1
7
\
O(J\^/">Ar
n"t
-------
Page
FCETL QA Form No 112
r><
CONDUCTIVITY
Project Nu
mher: ^5^3 "HI* CO 7
Test Species (Circle}: Q£ azteca) C. Tentans Other (Specify}:
Treatment
Rep.
Day-*
C,
05"
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1
J
K
L
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1
J
K
L
Meter f
Date:
Time:
Initials:
Conductivity (MS/cm)
o
boZ
f
•'
/>
(L)
,
.'
•
-
-
^
'
$81
//
$7/#
IStO
Pi
/
5Bo
t
\
57b
s
;/
*fefa
JltC
^
1
5/0
5-25
il
"bin
|ICH>
CnU
Is
4-&b
Z(
7
jl
\\1
^i
^
$23
\
(
if
Hl^m
XJ50
^
;Z? CP
52^
f
-5
1
'^/fclll
HIS
•
»
i
-»
-------
Page_2_
FCETL QA Form No 112
Revision 0
Effective 8/99
CONDUCTIVITY
Project Number:.
Test Species (Circle): (H. azreca ) C. tentans Other (Specify):
Treatment Rep
Day-*
Conductivity r*
/
Meter*
II
H
Date:
///7/ff
1 'fa fij
Time:
MOO
IliO
1115"
Initials:
Cra-'"
-------
CONDUCTIVITY
Page _K)_ Of
FCETL QA Form No 112
Revision 0
Effective 8/99
Project Number: #5S 3 - I U " UP?
Test Species (Circle): (jH. aztecaJC. tentans Other (Specify):
Treatment Rep
Conductivity US/cm)
Day
C7
Inrticatp riav hptnw fRpntiirgd Hau«t arg O 7fl 7Q 47' nthprm/L'gp at.lgast IX ngr VUPP!
J^
514
0k
Meter*
Date:
Time:
Initials:
n
uto
)IOP
550
573
n
II
/dS^
1115
*
/V-0 o
irQ
-------
Page
H
TEMPERATURE
FCETL QA Form No 1 1 3
Revision 0
Effective 8/99
Project Number:.
Test Species (Circle): (fr/aztecaJ C. tentans Other (Specify):
Treatment Rep^
Temperature °C)
Day -»
o
_lndi
•"» ^y h
""" IR<
7
•"" ri;
IO II
23
•23
CT-
23
13
13
L
2"?
23
Co
23
12
23
Meterf
53
53
53
40
40
40
10
$Q_
7)
Date:
1025
ICAS
icx/0
OT55"
1000
-------
TEMPERATURE
FCETLQA Form No 113
Revision 0
Vivbo Effective 8/99
Project Number: 65C7"5 " / t I " OG 1
Species (Circle)
)C. tentans Other (Specify):
Treatment Rep
Day-*
1-5"
ai
IU
33
Temperature (°C)
Indicate rlaw K nw fPo nrAri ria I
(8
20
32
Z3
23
23
21
ZO
2?
35
13
33
2,-?
2?
2$
Meter*
40
4£
ffi.
4o
40
Date:
Time:
1000
|0|0
\040
1006
fovf
"P
-------
TEMPERATURE
Page O of
FCETL QA Form No 1 13
Revision 0
Effective 8/99
Met Number:_£6g3jHyjl007_
Project
Test Species (Circle)\ JfTazteca/C. tentans Other (Specify):
rreatment Rep
Day-*
•31 3Z-
Temperature °C)
35 3i
37
-Z3
23
2
C5"
2.3
V>
23
23
2-1
Meter*
4L
4SL
40
40
2£
Date
"
Time:
oftso
?oco
uoo
/0/S
Initials:
-------
TEMPERATURE
Page_/lof
FCETLQAFormNons
Revision 0
Effective 8/99
Project Number: £50 3 J) I < ~ CK? 7
Test Species (Circle):
tentans Other (Specify):
Treatment Rep
Temperature °C)
Day
4
a.
22-
33
j
F
o4
23
23
Meter*
S3
<$?>
-53
40
40
40
If (3
Date:
-t
Time:
l-STc?
1026
IQK?
(feu
(000
0-755"
1110
IfflSl
-------
Page 15' of J*±
FCETL QA Form No 11 3
Revision 0
Effective 8/99
TEMPERATURE
Project Number:.
-it)-co 7
Test Species (Circle): (h/azteca/ C. remans Other (Specify):
Treatment | Rep.
Temperature °C)
Day-*
/to
n
18
I4?
InHiratP Hay h
7"
73 74
2,7
33
as
a
23
93
33
aj
23
33
Of
Meter*
40
40
40
40
ifO
0
Date:
Time:
I QOt)
cfisu
c&o
Initials:
(htf
(rtJ
Cr^i
I V\
-------
TEMPERATURE
Page J6. of ,,
FCETL QA Form No~M3
Revision 0
Effective 8/99
Project Number:
55B3-
MI-o
-------
Paoe / /of
TEMPERATURE
FCETL QA Form No 11 3
Revision 0
2/pa/oO Effective 8/99
Project Number:
Test Species (Circlelf H. aztecac. tentans Other (Specify):
Treatment Rep
Temperature (°C)
Day-»
O i -r
D
<=?.?
33
23
22
$ fit
06
22
23
33
fb
21
23
3£.
Meter*
S3
40
AQ_
40.
4o
tfo
&L
Daw:
Time:
1025-
VMQ
low
1 000
1110
Initials:
faJ
T
-------
TEMPERATURE
Page . /fr Of _
FCETLQAFormNo1l3
Pff Revisi°n
Effectlve
Project
Test Species (Circle): /M azteca ) C. tentans Other (Specify):
Treatment Rep
Temperature (°C)
Day
16
Inriiratp riav h Inw fR» iirf>H Hailvl
3-3
23
as
23
33
ok
53
23
Meter*
4-0
40
40
&
4rO
Data:
"iiihy
Time:
1010
loot?
Initials:
A
-------
TEMPERATURE
Page 1? of
FCETLQA Form No 113
Revision 0
? Effective 8/99
AR }o
(ft®
Initials:
(kr
All
A^-
p,ep. 1 •
J
.—*e»
-------
DISSOLVED OXYGEN
FCETL QA Form No no
Revision 0
3-/ai/cc Effective 8/99
Project Nu
mber: P5»3 ' M 1 ~ OC^
Test Species (Circle!: ^Wazteca) C. tentans Other (Specify):
Treatment | Rep.
Day -»
C4
<*
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1
J
K
L
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1
J
K
L
Meter*
Date:
Time:
Initials:
Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L)
d
"^ t.
?1
3
V-7
^7
5"
*y*A~?
// 00
^JV)
4_
i? IP
IrU
$
fyfa
H«T>
W
5
6-$
£?
^
"M?
/c^
^
Hay* arp 0 7fl 79 47- nth rvuies at
6.7
fo.5
fT
"bM
IOK
CtJi
7
6-6
b.7
5
,,|3^
1100
Cur
F'
^•8
1*. 8
5
11 Ms 9
)ioo
fhM
*?
fe.^
A.,-?
,^-
"f^«j
IR95
frr?i
/o
^^5"
^ ^"
|!^
!^-4t
^>Tnc
"IMP
;/
7,2.
7.2.
s~
(^
JJ7»
/VIP
72,
t.9
b-^
i
A/0/9?
/«40
^r
/^
^•?
65
/
1 *p**t—
»//«
,?"
/f
'7'/
70
1 ,
-------
Page I of
FCETL QA Form No 110
Revision 0
Effective 8/99
DISSOLVED OXYGEN
Project Number:
Test Species (Circl^l: M azteca^
tentans Other (Specify):
Treatment | Rep
Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L)
Day-
n 7B 7O A7- nth
act ^y n
»pplf >
Ob
i_L
fe.7
7, I
,,-?
7-
L2
!£
Meter*
Date:
Bvf
Time:
iioo
1535
LOJO
I020
{03^
looo
0740
Initials
ft*
6-n/
GxJ
r\
te
r '
v
-------
DISSOLVED OXYGEN
Page _^L of
FCETL QA Form No 110
, A, /.- Revision0
EffectiveS/99
Project Mnmhor. %5£ V 1 ( C -t*> 7
Test Species (Circle):
C. temans Other (Specify):
Treatment Rep
Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L)
Day
21
rtirato rta halnuu I j»nnir»ri au« ar» fi ?R ?Q d7- nthpru/i<:» at acr
34-
r? ss
40
C4
5.3
.X
C.6
5.1
fc.5
5:5
5
Date:
I
v
•*/•/
Ox.f
-------
Page
FCETL QA Form No 1 1 0
Revision 0
Effective 8/99
DISSOLVED OXYGEN
Project Number
: 8^03-111-007
Test Species (Circle):
C. tentans Other (Specify):
Treatment
Rep.
Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L)
Day-*
o
rtirat» rlay h.lr.^ I
T 6
9 7fl ?q^ A?
niT TY r)°r ""•»"
/o
fc-5
/ 8
h'O
5.5*
04
7.2.
Meier*
Date:
Time:
MHO
MOO
1100
HID
Initials:
CnO
-------
Page ^i of
FCETL QA Form No 110
DISSOLVED OXYGEN
Project NumhPr;
/ ( I -C?O 7
Test Species (Circle): (H. azteca , C. tentans Other (Specify):
Treatment Rep.
Day-»
Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L)
'nrlirarp ria\j hplnwu fRAnnirgri ria\/< ar*> O 7R 7Q d7- nThprm/tgA at |p_a_*cTJ^Y npr \juAi*trl
n
fr.7
LO
7.0
o4
•1
tjg.
Meter*
5-
Date
Time:
MOO
(OSS
[110
1040
|0|0
IIZJO
IOOO
Initials:
l-
/TV
6m
/I
4-D
Al/r
-------
Page
Of 4-^- f;
FCETL QA Form No 110
Revision 0
DISSOLVED OXYGEN
Project Number:.
-007
Test Species (Circle):/ H. aztecai C. tentans Other (Specify):
Treatment
Rep.
Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L)
Day-*
3O -31 33
nrliraTP rlaw halniA/ )R.r,i,,r.^
34
3y. aro O 7H 7O d?. pt^
-"T ™ p
"• wpplfl
4/
4-JL
ur
C4
5..
t.
/
b.l
04
5-S
6-5
b-
Meter*
5
fT
.t
Date:
uMn
W3
Time:
I005
1010
1130
M5J>
I04O
Initials:
(hi*
(neJ
-------
DISSOLVED OXYGEN
Page _ Of _
FCETLQAFormNolio
Revision 0
Effective 8/99
Project Numb
PI-- #5d3-Ml- 00 7
Test Species (Circle): /4(
-^^ 2 "1
ttt&oe C. tentans Other (Specify):
Treatment Rep
Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L)
Day-»
o
4
l»r|iiir»ri Hay, arp ft 7R 7O d.7- nrhoruuitp at
(o
7
6
/O
IS
/
7
(,,-1
I
GO?
6.7
6.4
Meter »
$
5
Date:
^5h
Time:
IHO
HOC
Io25
\f)(0
(!<&
Initials:
21
(rAf
-------
Page ^7 of "^
FCETL QA Form No 110
Revision 0
Effective 8/99
DISSOLVED OXYGEN
Project Number:
: '%&>'*> ~ III ~O° 7
Test Species (Circle): <7/. azteca JZ. tentans Other (Specify):
Treatment Rep
Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L!
Day-*
n
nriirata Hay hplnw
3nqnir»ri
•lay, ar. f) 7B 70
3,3.
^' "*h
» =, [pact 3Y par W»A|(|
7-1
05
t.B
>,7
64
Ok
7,0
7.0
Metar*
Date:
S
Time:
1121
15,11
mo
IPAQ
10
095U
1000
Initials:
(.-nif
(nLf
. 0
C
-------
DISSOLVED OXYGEN
Page 2g Of
FCETL QA Form No 11Q
Revision 0
Effective 8/99
Project Number:
" 1 / ^ ~ 00 , '
Test Species (Circle):///, aztetia C. tentans Other (Specify):
Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L)
So St
Jt
40
4-1
ctf
5-7
.0
OL>
I*
Al
5.7
M.
L.3
Meier 1
r
5"
£
T
Date.
S
*,k
'*/.!*
Time:
W30
IRO
015D
I04Q
67?.^
-------
pH
FCETL QA Form No 1 11
Revision 0
Effective 8/99
Project Number:,
-HI- 00?
Test Species (Circle):
C. tentans Other (Specify):
Treatment
Rep.
pH (units)
Day
G '
riiratP Hay holn^,
'""•'•"I
5
»Y« ="•• 9
?S 70
*•>• "th
ft
" ^y
°r »"»plc>
IO
C4
8.0
cf. 2-
$.3,
C5
7-*
.o
?.
a. a.
Meter*
/a/
/Ol
la (
loi
10 I
j»L
i.
lo/
Date:
Time:
MVO
1030
tioo
10(0
/OfO
II K
^n
Initials:
dvzf
-------
Page 3o of
FCETL QA Form No 1 n
^vision 0
PH
Project Number:.
Test Species (Circle)/ //. azteca /C. temans Other (Specify):
Treatment Rep
pH (units)
InHiratP H
Day -»
15
n
^fl
JIM; ar» H 7fl 7Q d7-
8.:
6-3
J L
.a,
B-4
8.0
8.3
8-4
,.x
1?.,?
LI
V •>
fr1?
ft.?
Metet»
I0\
foi
[01
M
10 1
j't-d?
s
Time:
II W
\\\o
io?0
1035
(t
oco
-D
2 "3
14
T"
\--Q
-------
Page ?) I of _£zl ^
FCETL QA Form No 111
Revision 0
Effective 8/99
PH
iect Number: 8503 ~l I I -cfO '
Project
Test Species (Circle): /H. azteca C. tentans Other (Specify):
Treatment! Rep.
Day-*
pH (units)
Jo
Si
rlirata rlay h»lni«, iRoninrori rfayg art. O 7R 7Q /17- nth»
33
75
» at loatt ^V n»r v^CAlfl
4/
c4
fl.o
8 /
111.
7
K.o
L2.
s.
77
7.1
Cb
,0
71
8.0
8-0
Meter*
/Of
loi
/OJ
10 1
(Of
101
Ihi
fC(
loi
IDI
Date:
Time:
Initials:
OrtS
fax
-------
Page _. of
FCETL QA Form No
pH
Effective 8/9Q
Project Number:
' ) | ) - (30 7
Test Species (Circle): /f^arf^cay C. tentans Other (Specify):
Treatment Rep
pH (units)
Day
0
nHiratP rlay hclnw /Roqinrprt Hayc arp O ?B 7Q d7- nthcrw.<;» at |pa»t ^Y nor ,/u».H
'
7
10
/J
g.o
?.&
S.S
Iff
«. 3
8-3
4
s-/
Meter*
10)
Kil
/oi
101
101
M
Id
Date:
"Ate
Time:
140
lew
1 0(5
noo
M.
Mk
/ptf.
Initials:
hU
-------
Page
J3
of
pH
FCETL QA Form No 111
Revision 0
Effective 8/99
Project N"mher: O*O» -J 1 1 [ ~ O(J f
^-s=F
Tesi Species (Circle) ^fiTazrega
' C. tenrans Other (Specify):
Treatment Rep
pH (units)
Day
nrtirat. rta
'8
hcl""" '
°"'"r"H
ao
layg ar» O
I?" "'*
se_ai
-r. ^y "
25
"• IMUgH
/p.
8.0
8.4
Cb
12
8.3
8-4-
04
y-f
0.5
Meterf
foi
10 i
\ol
101
10)
101
101
Date:
11/22
Time:
1100
(030
tooo
Initials:
or\
f) (~*
(ca
. C,.
-------
PH
Page of
FCETL QA Form No 1
Vision 0
Effectlve
Project Number: 1?S<93~ III " 0<3 7
Test Species (Circle):
azteca/C. tentans
Other (Specify):
Treatment
Rep.
pH (units)
Day
30
rlif-atP ria
' hj>lnuu I
33
gqiiirari
are O 7R
47- nfhp wuu!_at l-a
-------
pH
Page "3^5~of
FCETL QA Form No 1 11
Revision 0
Effective 8/99
1
Project Nun
nber: 850 3 - 1 1 | - <
3c?7
Test Species (Circle): ^Kazteca JL. tentans Other (Specify):
s
Treatment
DayH
0^
Ok
Rep.
>
A
B
C
0
E
F
G
H
1
J
K
L
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
,
J
K
L
Meterf
Date:
_ Time:
Initials:
pH (units)
o
7.7
?•>Q
yM
J
7 . ii~
c ^L.
HI
ity
11(0
$1
4-
r 3
j.3
J^/
"Wff
;lw
^
5
y-*/'
?'^
/o/
"/'/^
A>V«
,f^
(o
t>-1
8.4
lot
"kl^
|ois-
(nt/
7
S-A
^•3
I0|
n/?|^
|IOO
Coi.t
^
8.4
g.^
fOI
|i f A.I AQ
TIT/
||0i
&VI/
-^
^.3
fc.f
fO)
"H^
10 as
(htvT
d
^•f
i (j
0 * \
10, \
$/fy
ft^
lW
j/
3«|
3.3
/Ol
Yj.*ft
)DiO
l^f-
/<^
B.^L
$A
101
N/rf^
140
> (mf
/J
?-l
?.>
/o/
"fa/;
till
S"l
/f
||
w5" II
5f.<
/o/
"AM
tofT
7
-------
of
FCETL QA Form No 111
Revision 0
EffectiveS/90
Project Number:
~li I ~ <^0 7
Test Species (Circle): (H. aztecj C. tentans Other (Specify):
j C.
Treatment Rep
pH (units)
Day
16
nriiraT. Hay h»lnw IR»nfnr»rl ri3y« ar» O 7R 7Q d7- nthprwkp at lea-it .?X npr WPplfl
11
20
J-l
2.-S-
27
fl.3
I A
2.4
0.5
84
Meter*
JW
10)
wr
iaL
iil
ID/
/of
Date:
Mi
f^/<»
Tims:
l\\0
IOJD
I ODD
Initials:
(he/
H Co c<5
.^a
-------
Page
of
FCETL QA Form No 1 1 1
Revision 0
Effective 8/99
pH
Project Number:.
-m-od 7
tentans Other (Specify):
Treatment I Rep
pH (units)
Day-*
3\
3.2
irlirat. rt*y h.l»... (
!f|"i"»H
ay« ar» O 7fl 7O
31
•17- nth
59
t -)Y n»r vu»»H
40
8-
OG>
-7-1]!
7-7
7-7
8-0
Mater*
M.
/o/
M
Date:
>\TI
Time:
MX)
(no
Initials:
(hJ
W
-------
Page
of
TEST MATERIAL CHARACTERIZATION
FCETL QA Form No. 114
Revision 0
Effective 8/99
Test Species (Circle):
C. tentans Other (Specify):
Treatment
Hardness Ima/L CaCO,
Alkalinity (ma/L CaCO,
NH.Img/L
Day
28
29
42
28
29
42
28
29
42
14
u
5®
66
67
U
fot?
Utf
id-
1- a
t5
H
Meter*
nr£_
•7/7^-
-r/r/
-nix
Date:
'//ZS'/ll
it
-------
SEDIMENT TESTING DAILY LOG
Project No.: #50'^> ' lil"007 Test Species (Circle):(^arteca^ C. tentans Other (Specify):
Page of I
FCETL QA Form No. 121
Revision: 0
Effective: 8/99
Sediment
Initial DO (mg/L)
Time/Initials
Sediment
Initial DO
(mg/L)
Time/Initials
Feeding
Initials/Date
1120
Day 0
(e,a
_2Jt_
HIS"
1125
-^ 0
1000 (j»*
7 Ci~-t-i4ra.+ 'ii>-n'
Day (
Day I
Day
Day
V^fc,
Day
1-^0
<2Jb*o (frx-J J
Day C,
n| 2
Day 1
irt fj
|U'
Day °(
.m
en Be-
te
c- to ir
-------
Paoe
JO of
SEDIMENT TESTING DAILY LOG
Project No.:
~°° 7 Test Species (Circle): (H. azteca , C. tentans Other (Specify):
FCETL QA Form No. 121
Revision: 0
Effective: 8/99
Sediment
Initial DO (mg/L)
Time/Initials
Sediment
Initial DO
(mg/L)
Time/Initials
Feeding
Initials/Date
Day 0
Day f|
.so
Day |Z
I05S"
it/ 6
Day 1 3
fl -
TcD > 5
Day If
Day
Cl"
e
Day
tO'iO
Day 1 7
'(6*0 ANb^/7^^rJ
Day
over
Day
-------
SEDIMENT TESTING DAILY LOG
Project No.s'&Sfr?)- (< (~QO 7 Test Species (Circle): (H. azteca) C. tentans Other (Specify):
Page II of ( ~7 f" o
FCETL QA Form No. 121
Revision: 0
Effective: 8/99
Sediment
Initial DO (mg/L)
Time/Initials
Sediment
Initial DO
(mg/L)
Time/Initials
Feeding
Initials/Date
Day 0
Day
ftes
Day 23
DayZ
-------
Page
Project No.;
SEDIMENT TESTING DAILY LOG
Test Species (Circle): (fw. arteca C.tentans Other (Specify):
FCETL QA Form No. 121
Revision: 0
Effective: 8/99
Sediment
Initial DO (mg/L)
Time/Initials
Sediment
Initial DO
(mg/L)
Time/Initials
Feeding
Initials/Date
Day 0
fttrow-c<* 4*2.0 H^> €
H 10
.12
Day 37
^ /\J
'
Day3
-------
SEDIMENT TESTING DAILY LOG
Project No.; g£5'g>5--H( ~&>~7 jest Species (Circle): (jL azfecT) C. tentans Other (Specify):
0/2(3
Page
of ~
QA Form No. 121
Revision: 0
Effective: 8/99
Day 0
Day 4)
Day 4.3^
Day
Day
Day
Day
Day
Day
Day
Sediment
Initial DO (mg/L)
Time/Initials
Sediment
Initial DO
(mg/L)
Time/Initials
' ,^_ _^
NO V'CVlCWtM-T m ft S t" •fc-Y
-------
Paged* V
FCETL QA Form No. T5
Effective: 5/9°
SUBJECT: DAILY LOG
ALL ENTRIES MUST BE INITIALLED WITH DATE AND TIME:
7 AMP
Av-w
- os
»'
IV i IT'S"
l(cfa ^
-------
Page
of
.*«*•<-
TEST ORGANISM LENGTHS, WEIGHTS, AND LOADING
FCETL QA Form No.O1O
Revision 5
Effective 08/99
Project Number: 'l&O *>- I / <• "O O 7 "" ^X-
Species: Ny n W/X << 2i o ^-r^MA
nee: / »" M * i-crtTT" *-* ' f j "~JL / Nr\
Analyst Tare: 'Y^V^ Analyst Gross: ~J> A/°
DaterTime of Gross Wt.: /2/V17 (y 1 b^c)
Comments: . ^4 i
Analytical Balance ID: ^'^ ' /(
Dried in Oven # (Q from Date:J^i^'Time: It 30
to Date: ' 5-4/1 ri"ime: Q^j Jo
60 -'Jo ^CC(P
Weight Type (Circle): Wet Blot Dry Dry (>1DO°C) AFDW (>500°C)
Tare
Weight (g)
/.173S
,1^1
Gross
Weight (g)
/.tei2,
A 15^1
Net Weight
(g)
0.00*34
c)
Adjusted
Net Weight
(g)1
0-eoVii*
No. of
Orig.
Organisms
5^
Mean Wt. per
Original
Organism (mg)
0-07/6
Mean Wt. per
Treatment
(mg)
(Original)
_-
Lot c)r Batch Number: QQ^Oi£J-7
No. of
Surv.
Organisms
Mean Wt.
per
Surviving
Organism
(mg)
—
Mean Wt. per
Treatment (mg)
(Surviving)
__
Loading Rate:
Add in weight loss of blank boat, if appropriate.
-------
|';ii|i! _ ot ._
FCE1L QA Form No.010
Revision 5
Effective 08/99
TEST ORGANISM LENGTHS. WEIGHTS. AND LOADING
Prelect Number: 1?503-(H-oOl
Species:
*.[(,\\
A/
Analyst Tare:
Analyst Gross:
Date/Time ol Gross Wt.: 'I/27>T? £> I
Comments:
Analytical Balance ID: _
Dried In Oven * IQ from Date: H-lM-ft Time:.
to Date:l'-Z^-1? Time:
Boat
Nc.
Traatmen
Rep
Length
Units:
Weight Type (Circle!: Wet Blot Dry
Dry (->4GOaC| AFDW|>500°CI
Tare
Weight 10
Gross
Weight Ig
Net
Weight |g
Adjusted
Net Weight
Igl1
No. of
Orig.
Organisms
Mean Wt. pe
Original
Organism
Imgl
LoTp
Mean Wt. pe
Treatment
(mg)
(Original)
LoTr Batch Number:
No. of
Surv.
Organisms
Mean Wt.
per
Surviving
Organism
Imgl
Mean Wt. per
Treatment
Imgl
(Surviving)
A
o.
0
10
1V703
/.150VO
0,00^7
(0
7
0.374
/. 15*7^6
0-00330
I 0
0.
10
o.asf
o.^o
10
0.00 ft I
IQ
0.1*81
0.
8
»«-^Q
00306
\o
/G
o. 306
|0
.
10
5-
H
\o
1 2.
\d
(7.16?
Blank
Rango
oadlng
Rate:
1 Add In weight loss ol blank boat. II appropriate.
1 - — <-.«./
-------
FCETU QA. Form Mo.OlO
Revision 5
Effective O8/99
TEST ORGANISM LENGTHS, WEIGHTS. AND LOADING
Prelect Number; 9 50 3 -> I I - GO 7
Spacles:
Date/Time ol Tare Wt.: II'2W}/ IMP
Test Substance:
M
Analyst Tare:
Analyst Gross:
Date/Time ol Gross Wt.: |(/1-1/?? (? C2-(5"
Comments:
Analytical Balance I
Dried In Oven * |0 from Date:./]
to Dateij
ime: /5500°C)
Tare
Weight (g
Gross
Weight |g
Net
Weight (g
Ad|usted
Net Weight
igi'
No. of
Orlg.
Organism
Mean Wt. pe
Original
Organism
Imgl
Mean Wt. pe
Treatment
(mg)
(Original)
Lot pr Batch Number:
No. ol
Surv.
Organism
Mean Wt.
per
Surviving
Organism
Irnjj)
Mean Wt. per
Treatment
Imgl
(Surviving)
/.1T7IO
1.15ft
O.CM172
lo
0.271.
7
O.
I,
10
10
6®
^j i ^
.Xf/06
-
0
7
0^00(3,2.
o
Q^
3
O .S7I-
O.OQJ63
10
o-
0.&6
J±
1?
A/o
0
0
.2652H
10
0.^0
O.M
•uuo
\o
.^36
^3
\o
0.^77
24
0
.0021 1
0-111
7
0,3^7
Blank
Range
Test Solution Volume:
SSJS^— •^BHSSOSBSM^S^HSCS^
1 Add In wulght loss ol blank boat, II appropriate
-------
Project M.imhPr5?f7>3M>f -OP y Date Initiated:
VJ
n
VJ
\0
W
vj
) V/
U
k
VJ
cO
5
-
0
3-
0
Q
VP
NO X
In
O -J
0
n
U
o
U
vJ
H
(n Q
\0
XD
V)
Random Number Chart Generated by:
-------
8503-111-007-(007-012)
Appendix E
Day 42 Dry Weight Data and Statistical Analysis
-------
Page
i
of
TEST ORGANISM LENGTHS, WEIGHTS, AND LOADING
FCETLQAFormNo.010
Revision 5
-O Effective 08/99
02)23/00
Project Number: <«3?3 i ll-£0"7
Species: H • tithe f\
Date/Time of Tare Wt.: '/IflcVcLlfrSb
Boat
No.
/
2.
*>
s
T
fc
*
9
/b
M
n
Blank
Range
Mean
Treatment
c-\
1 Analyst Gross: 1
Date/Time of Gross Wt.: /,/«; Ae.T~ * /
Dried in Oven # (o from Date- '/J/QQ Time: /ZZtJ
to Date:yV/100°C) AFDW (>500°C) Lr^ +\O(fL. {
Tare
Weight (g)
i.2MS
LtfW
Net Weight
(9)
o.cozss
O.C&MS
(\OD2.t&
o.co^f7
0 .C'OiC'j
O.OOIID
^.cO-2Sc>
fX ()0^'3
O..OOKK
d.oci^r
0.002^2
0-002M
Test Solution Volume:
Adjusted
Net Weight
(g)'
0.00^3
0.no/^2>
o . oaz. ?o
o-oc'lo5~
O-Oo^lO
n.oc..!^
0.pt?J5rl
^^0//6
/9-OOH3
6.#ym-3
/).OT2HO
0-0) 211
No. of
Orig.
Organisms
if)
10
ID
iu
to
lo
lo
in
to
to
10
lo
Mean Wt. per
Original
Organism (mg)
C.l^
0. i 5"^
0-170
0 . "SoT
o- ^lo
o. 1115
o.^'^
0. lit
(?-^»'3
r/-^^
£>.ito
o.art
Mean Wt. per
Treatment
(mg)
(Original)
Lot^r Batch Number: <~{C\ ~3 3-
No. of
Surv.
Organisms
q
1
3
1
10
*
Ih
Mean Wt.
per
Surviving
Organism
(mg)
0^0
-------
Page V_ of / V
FCETL QA. Form No.CHO
Revision 5
fccj Effective 08/99
TEST ORGANISM LENGTHS, WEIGHTS, AND LOADING
Project Number: 3*>£/S II/-00"?
Species: \A >&ll
C-5
Rep
/
r
L
f
^
(T
H
1
T
y
(
Length
Units:
Test Substance: 2c<^1/r^r^-
Analyst Tare:
Comments: Octn k>*fj-fc*i- i"'ot if'lileo**^
Analytical Balance ID: £?/vr -* /
Dried in Oven # 10 from Date: ]j^lc>o Time:/22^>
to Date: '/tjoo Time: ose,/-
Weight Type (Circle): Wet Blot Dry Dry(>100"C) AFDW (>500°C) Dr^ ^iCxttL
Tare
Weight (g)
/.a^to
/ ^^C T*^?
/ 2S**n
I.H*r$pi
I.ZT-TK
I. tU.fr'
I. It ,21*
/ 2.USK
IlLtilti
/,^7o/2>
Gross
Weight (g)
/. 2^5-72.
/Z*«39
/Z5*7^
/.Z5-W7
/ L(i\}(
i. 2.L, In T
/ ZbfiFiH
/. 1L>Mi&
/.L(/1L1
1 2.iu^nr:
I.L1ZL*
Net Weight
(g)
^t?01%
Ott'02'iJ
D •(X'.X26
O.OOJLIO
•)*0^)2^
O.-OO^Cfi
frdOTn
0,0o.\62
(OoOO^S'
0.00266
,0.6102^
0.002&
Adjusted
Net Weight
(g)1
0-OC2T4
o.oo?.sa
^.OCl^T
^'.oc^i^
dCDtXtS
fi.M 13
C;f 03^7 6,
0.03163
aoo27H
OAoW
O.oo Id "5
No. of
Orig.
Organisms
to
/n
lo
ID
1C,
10
In
io
tQ
10
10
In
Mean Wt. per
Original
Organism (mg)
6,:m
0. 1^
,->. i ^ i
tf.il T)
o.a^t^>
^i,.in
0..137
fy. ^76
C'.lfc^.
^.J.7f
0.1? Y
C>. 16 ^
Mean Wt per
Treatment
(mg)
(Original)
Lot t)r Batch Number: ^H'cil) —
No. of
Surv.
Organisms
1
10
1
9
9
/o
In
/A
^
^
Mean Wt.
per
Surviving
Organism
(mg)
CKVM
(9. ^^
o.a^
<9. M
0.^-70
O-^^'S
O» il^
Js^76
0, 16 ">
0,%74
/O- -M?j
6). .^^
Moan Wt. per
Treatment (mg)
(Surviving)
O. ."M X
Loading Rate:
1 Add in weight loss of blank boat, if appropriate.
-------
J.'-y
TEST ORGANISM LENGTHS, WEIGHTS, AND LOADING
Page ") of J_^/
FCETLQA Form No.010
Revision 5
.,/,j_Ao Effective 08/99
Project Number: <%%& - 1 1 l-OtD
Species: l4.6Z.Lv«,\
Dateffime of Tare Wt.: (/c,/00 C//ZO
Boat
No.
ZT
2i*
2?
zv
lfl
*S)
*>(
5z.
Blank
Range
Treatment
Ol
0
0
0!
0)
0|
0\
01
6-
Rep.
£
£
J Analyst Gross: t
Date/Time of Gross Wt.: /n/^^fO _ \i3^
Comments: C&A [c»«f> - te'<- <•*'$ 1 r/ifc''&''3 *•'
Analytical Balance ID: 6><*;/" */
Dried in Oven # IQ from Date: '/7/^o Time: /z/o
to Date: d^/ao Time: o90L"i
Weight Type (Circle): Wet Blot Dry Dry(>100°C) AFDW (>500°C) LVw -Cioo't- (
Tare
Weight (g)
/..2^^/
/,3^-7^K/
A:;/,!5L>6
i.xnisi
I.M&K-
I.X&LV
L>/a3M
J.ZMrf*,
i.Lnn
Gross
Weight (g)
I.2.L*LH
l.TJ,X-r-i
/.ZLfaT.
t, ^LH
0 t^ l^ (
L).CC'.^^
O.COK1)
c.oc ^ I
O^o }(0
O.cc'W 3>
c?.03ii6
No. of
Orig.
Organisms
to
IP
ID
in
tO
to
It)
10
Mean Wt. per
Original
Organism (mg)
o. ^/
0.1* /
^^HH
0 >C^
« i"- J
/j 0 •> 1
o^ iio
O-^"1)
0-ilC
Mean Wt. per
Treatment
(mg)
(Original)
Lot £r Batch Number: ^ -^ X
.No. of
Surv.
Organisms
to
%
9
3
q
/O
^
^/
Mean Wt.
per
Surviving
Organism
(m9)
0-1>4l
n,^16
LJ-.V3?,
0,ioc)
0o68
O..MO
0-^81
0. /-T^J
Mean Wt. per
Treatment (mg)
(Surviving)
r) /VAn
Loading Rate:
Add in weight loss of blank boat, if appropriate.
-------
Page
of ' *
FCETL QA Form No.O1O
Revision 5
Effective 08/99
TEST ORGANISM LENGTHS, WEIGHTS, AND LOADING
Project Number: *>f&-\\\'($51
Species: M.&zlfe&
Date/Time of Tare Wt.: %
II
12
73
Blank
Range
Treatment
t'(f
C-b
C-(,
(-L
L-U>
t-U
c-u
d-(/
04
tto
m
W
Rep.
6
f
6r
H
/
r
y
i
t
t
lr
f
^3 '3^5"
Length
Units:
fi>
'T-
Test Substance: ^xc\\Ka*d~
Analyst Tare: y Analyst Gross: ^
DaterTime of Gross Wt.: 'ltA/a-) i2fX>
Comments:
Analytical Balance ID: tS* \jf*- )
Dried in Oven # & from Date: fo/ha Time:y5£o
to Date: '-O/^L?Time: /M^
/- 60 - ?o°c (aJ i
Weight Type (Circle): Wet Blot Dry (Dry)(>100°C) AFDW(>500nC) (
Tare
Weight (g)
A26*"L)
/;zu-^5
/^75to
1.21*1*1.1
l.llfrlZ
f-2(^2^
yz63S2.
Gross
Weight (g)
/Z//fe.O
i.-um^
l-nci-M
I-LL&-&
iiLftn i
/.LTSSi
/.2&fi/fc_
A7J7 (^5.
/.2MW
l;U<,(&-5
iZLfrll
/2673Z.
Net Weight
(9)
0.0 D IK 7
d.flflifll
0.0^)25^
0.00271
fl. Oo2o\
0,00110
QtQMH
frccM
(MOW
0.00*57
O.cW^H^'
^.dO^TO
Adjusted
Net Weight
(g)1
o.oo^io
D.oolU
0/»'X6 f
0.001 IS"
0.
0-4 .to
O.H6
A.V^
o. 7.60
o^lis
o. y'j^
Mean Wt. per
Treatment
(mg)
(Original)
Lot))r Batch Number: ^ "P^U 5 7
No. of
Surv.
Organisms
°t
-------
2-
A TS
iW - (^^ t
TEST ORGANISM LENGTHS, WEIGHTS, AND LOADING
Page 6 of /"-/
FCETLQAForm No.010
Revision 5
' Effective 08/99
Project Number: "828 "\l\-6CTI
Species: tt.Q2lfft:^
Date/Time of Tare Wt.: '/rf/cGtLlSyZ'
Boat
No.
77
Tf
7(x
11
->£>'
n
—
^0
—
fr/
I%JO
Comments:
Analytical Balance ID: ^xu500"C)
Tare
Weight (g)
A2iy2f?y
/ z/,^y^
I.Tjj&l ~l
1 Hfltt
I.Z'fti^
/ 7/ASZ^
X^73^/
/.ZL^5f^52
W^^
Gross
Weight (g)
I.2L&1, 1
/ 7Uttt
I.1L-MI*
/2.7Z51/
LLrftiM
f.Z.^012.
/.zv&>
I.ZTSK)
>i*
/ "?-f -fitf i 7
i,zlm
Net Weight
(g)
AWtin
owiol
QjdQM!
0,OOH2K
0,0fjl?>6
O'OOCH*!
0,0611^-
0>OOZ1^
&C&D7f
n.oo^ff
Test Solution Volume:
Adjusted
Net Weight
(g)1
M0H70
(5,00 i (0
fl-tW;V7Z
A. CW 3 (
O.OJv1)^
0.00050^
o.oolij'
OAVXld
Q^JO?/^
D.OOJ-H
No. of
Orig.
Organisms
lo
io
10
10
IO
10
10
\o
10
10
Mean Wt. per
Original
Organism (mg)
0.^70
0,1-10
G-.S71
O^2)
D./M
0 c- ^X
O.T7T
0.17<^
^.^.K^
o.ia
Mean Wt. per
Treatment
(mg)
(Original)
tot pr Batch Number: ^^ >U2C ^27
No. of
Surv.
Organisms
G.
q
-------
FCETL QA. Form No.OlO
Revision 5
, Effective O8/99
TEST ORGANISM LENGTHS, WEIGHTS, AND LOADING
Project Number: *&£&• \ \\~0b1
Species: \\.Ca\£(^
DateATimeofTareWt.: // i2J.b
Comments: ^i^_J- *- /
Analytical Balance ID:
Dried in Oven # (p from Date: ^^^Time/sop
to Date: />$tV/>i Time: //3^T
Weight Type (Circle): Wet Blot Dry Dry (r»400»C) AFDW(>500°C) [tot )>r Batch Number: ^-^3^-2 7
Tare
Weight (g)
/^VS"
/Z7AT-T
/ 2^5- 7 7
7.2^^7
/Z^/,5
/2L,(stf
/.z(*m.
S/ZLfiftO
t.2UZm
Gross
Weight (g)
/Z6*SV
/27V37
/27W/^
/.2^797
/ 2.7235-
1,21061
/,Z7tf3
/,27^V
/JMTM
Net Weight
(g)
0.-00106
^Coi'?,I
0.00^^1
OcOoviiO
n,^rA72
fl.ooiat
ao^oi
tf,0042.H
-/).^1^
Adjusted
Net Weight
(g)1
O.oo^tf)
o.oos^S"
^,oc^5"
o.oOH^2>
0-00-V75
aoo.*8T
D.OOf^H
0*^^27
No. of
Orig.
Organisms
/o
/. ^3
(9-^7 5
O-'.^'l
dJ.t^'-l
0. 427
Mean Wt. per
Treatment
(mg)
(Original)
No. of
Surv.
Organisms
-------
TEST ORGANISM LENGTHS, WEIGHTS, AND LOADING
Page 7 of / V
FCETLQAForm No.010
Revision 5
o Effective 08/99
GP
Project Number: /3SD
Boat
No.
33
&
35
36>
57
*?
4i Analyst Gross: f
i /
Date/Time of Gross Wt.: ytf/Oi f* i^.^O
Comments: ovcn*IO k->^p
Analytical Balance ID: Si--
Dried in Oven # /O from D
to Dat
Weight Type (Circle): Wet Blot Dry Dry (>100°C) AFDW (>500nC) t^r^ <^
/Z55-/9
t.UJ*n
,.-z.-ttK
1 7-T/9Z.
/. Z.-37«^
/. 2.<^05?
Net Weight
(g)
0.0HT
Mean Wt. per
Treatment
(mg)
(Original)
'A/ *'"lc*2'ttc°1
ate: '//•*//},> Time: /"V1*/^
3: '/i^lo/) Time: /v^p
/-^ /^ ^ -, —^
Lot )or Batch Number: ^\~\~ ^ ^
No. of
Surv.
Organisms
-
/
f
f)
%
%-tfjfa
(\
u
%
%
z.
Mean Wt.
per
Surviving
Organism
(mg)
0 ~i ^'•-''
O- ^o 1
6,"V&5
0-^^.0
O^oX^
O-iiO
0^61
/^l "^ C* o
r^) ^4 / o
O -T60
O 1o o?X
Loading Rate:
Add in weight loss of blank boat, if appropriate.
*
-------
Page
of
FCETL QA Form No.OlO
Revision 5
Effective 08/99
TEST ORGANISM LENGTHS, WEIGHTS, AND LOADING
/ht op
Project Number: "25D&'/ I - 001
Species: n-Gilffa
DateATime of Tare Wt.: //1&>0 <*?/
r1
6r
H
T
t
/.
Length
Units:
Test Substance: ^'^l/xtf/-^/
Analyst Tare: */ Analyst Gross: /
/ '
Date/Time of Gross Wt.: /ytj/^aC^ /5Z/^
Comments: ft^o *'O ^^ ' ,7-2"c ^ ' Wt) ^/«<> /
Analytical Balance ID: *Sxz*~r&)
Dried in Oven # /Q from Date:'/vWo<3 Time:/t/^D
to Date: '/fafa Tune: *ied
Weight Type (Circle): Wet Blot Dry Dry (>100°C) AFDW (>500°C) "&rc^
/1252T52.
/.Zi^r?
I.ZJ^L.4
Net Weight
(9)
o,m$5
0.00/^6
xj,00^
0.003^1
tf.oom
0,0030.4
aoj/^z
a 00^3
n.oo^i
Adjusted
Net Weight
(g)1
No. of
Orig.
Organisms
/o
10
10
10
10
10
\0
\o
(0
Mean Wt. per
Original
Organism (mg)
aoss
o. (6^
<9. :W'~
^.a?/
0-171
ooan
<^^ 141
^,Vf3
o.i^l
Mean Wt. per
Treatment
(mg)
(Original)
Lot or patch Number: ^'^X/^t^-
No. of
Surv.
Organisms
z
4
0
0
0
1
0
*
-------
Page JL of/
FCETLQAFormNo.010
Revision 5
-'o Effective 08/99
TEST ORGANISM LENGTHS, WEIGHTS, AND LOADING
Project Number:
Weight Type (Circle): Wet Blot Dry Dry (>100°C) AFDW (>500°C) CVi^
/.Z-ST-J^
/Z53S-J
/, 2^3-W
/ztx/^r?
L-UMCA
1 .2^/97
/.255W/
Gross
Weight (g)
LVSZUlp
/Zji*tt
IzXssto
*/. 25-tbOfl
I.US16Q
/.7J,7*>'
/.ZltltW
l>Uth25t
IISlHl
Net Weight
(g)
0*00^)1
n.ooja^
o.ooUl
fl.^oin
o.ooi^o
0,<3^0^
0-ra;^
^).ooa?>\
0
Test Solution Volume1
Adjusted
Net Weight
(g)1
No. of
Orig.
Organisms
/o
l<9
lo
lo
lo
lo
\o
10
Mean Wt. per
Original
Organism (mg)
o.toi
o.li^
o.yii
o-W
o. (60
O.-IO't
0.1W
0.1^1
Mean Wt. per
Treatment
(mg)
(Original)
Lotjbr Batch Number: ^
No. of
Surv.
Organisms
^
^
^
<€
(/
3
9
S
Mean Wt.
per
Surviving
Organism
(mg)
0^-76
0/^3.
0*^6-3
0.274
0.167
a, ^60
0.1*?^
0^7
Loading Rate:
^^^7
Mean Wt. per
Treatment (mg)
(Surviving)
o.3ao
Add in weight loss of blank boat, if appropriate.
-------
01-03)
azteca dry weight at 42 days, first set
: h:\mpca\ha42dwt.dat Transform: NO TRANSFORMATION
Shapiro Wilk's test for normality
D 0.181
w. 0.953
Critical W (P = 0.05) (n = 46) = 0.945
icritical W (P = 0.01) (n = 46) = 0.927
Data PASS normality test at P=0.01 level. Continue analysis.
8503111007 H azteca dry weight at 42 days, first set
File: h:\mpca\ha42dwt.dat Transform: NO TRANSFORMATION
JBartlett's test for homogeneity of variance
Calculated Bl statistic = 22.09
Bartlett's test using average degrees of freedom
Calculated B2 statistic = 23.37
Based on average replicate size of 10.50
Table Chi-square value = 11.34 (alpha = 0.01, df = 3)
Table Chi-square value = 7.81 (alpha = 0.05, df = 3)
Data FAIL Bl homogeneity test at 0.01 level. Try another transformation.
Data FAIL B2 homogeneity test at 0.01 level. Try another transformation.
-------
"
if
(Q6^~ (s^l^V)
TITLE: 8503111007'H azteca dry weight at 42 days, first set
FILE: h:\mpca\ha42dwt.dat
TRANSFORM: NO TRANSFORMATION NUMBER OF GROUPS: 4
Aft 0^3/0
GRP
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
4
IDENTIFICATION
Control
Control
Control
Control
Control
Control
Control
Control
Control
Control
Control
Control
Control
Control
Control
Control
Control
Control
Control
Control
Control
Control
Control
Control
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
02
02
02
02
02
02
02
02
03
03
03
03
03
03
REP
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
1
2
3
4
5
6
VALUE
0.3040
0.3060
0.3380
0.3810
0.3100
0.2420
0.2870
0.2320
0.3040
0.2430
0.3000
0.2990
0.3340
0.2880
0.2920
0.3110
0.2700
0.3480
0.3190
0.3760
0.2630
0.2740
0.3180
0.3290
0.3410
0.2260
0.3820-
0.4090
0.3680
0.3100
0.3810
0.1580
0.3300
0.3810
0.3850
0.3300
0.3230
0.4100
0.3620
0.3990
0.4600
0.5600
0 .2000
0.4400
0.2750
0.4150
TRANS VALUE
0.3040
0.3060
0.3380
0.3810
0.3100
0.2420
0.2870
0.2320
0.3040
0.2430
0.3000
0.2990
0.3340
0.2880
0.2920
0.3110
0.2700
0.3480
0.3190
0.3760
0.2630
0.2740
0.3180
0.3290
0.3410
0.2260
0.3820
0.4090
0.3680
0.3100
0.3810
0.1580
0.3300
0.3810
0.3850
0.3300
0.3230
0.4100
0.3620
0.3990
0.4600
0.5600
0.2000
0.4400
0.2750
0.4150
8503111007 H azteca dry weight at 42 days, first set
-------
,ile: h:\mpca\ha42dwt.dat Transform: NO TRANSFORMATION
I
SUMMARY STATISTICS ON TRANSFORMED DATA TABLE 1 of 2
DENTIFI CATION
Control
01
02
03
N
24
8
8
6
MIN
0.232
0.158
0.323
0.200
MAX
0.381
0.409
0.410
0.560
MEAN
0.303
0.322
0.365
0.392
B503H1007 H azteca dry weight at 42 days, first set
File: h:\mpca\ha42dwt.dat Transform: NO TRANSFORMATION
SUMMARY STATISTICS ON TRANSFORMED DATA TABLE 2 of 2
GRP
1
2
3
4
IDENTIFICATION
Control
01
02
03
VARIANCE
0
0
0
0
.001
.008
.001
.017
SD
0.
0.
0.
0.
038
087
034
131
SEM
0.
0.
0.
0.
008
031
012
054
c.v.
12.
27.
9.
33.
%
59
13
30
53
-------
Roa* ^ tf
u U
TITLE: 8503111007'H azteca dry weight, 42 days, second set
FILE: h:\mpca\ha42dwt.dat
TRANSFORM: NO TRANSFORM
NUMBER OF GROUPS: 4
8503111007 H azteca dry weight, 42 days, second set
File: h:\mpca\ha42dwt.dat Transform: NO TRANSFORM
SUMMARY STATISTICS ON TRANSFORMED DATA TABLE 1 of 2
GRP
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
IDENTIFICATION
Control
Control
Control
Control
Control
Control
Control
Control
MNS-99-04
MNS-99-04
MNS-99-04
MNS-99-04
MNS-99-04
MNS-99-04
MNS-99-04
MNS-99-04
MNS-99-05
MNS-99-05
MNS-99-05
MNS-99-05
MNS-99-05
MNS-99-05
MNS-99-06
MNS-99-06
MNS-99-06
MNS-99-06
MNS-99-06
MNS-99-06
MNS-99-06
MNS-99-06
REP
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
VALUE
0.3560
0.2400
0.3260
0.3440
0.4080
0.1760
0.4300
0.2520
0.6880
0.4500
0.4970
0.4410
0.5220
0.5250
0.4650
0.5390
0.6950
0.5200
0.5500
0.4600
0.4650
0.5300
0.5110
0.4810
0.5560
0.5370
0.5360
0.5560
0.5770
0.5340
TRANS VALUE
0.3560
0.2400
0.3260
0.3440
0.4080
0.1760
0.4300
0.2520
0.6880
0.4500
0.4970
0.4410
0.5220
0.5250
0.4650
0.5390
0.6950
0.5200
0.5500
0.4600
0.4650
0.5300
0.5110
0.4810
0.5560
0.5370
0.5360
0.5560
0.5770
0.5340
GRP
1
2
3
4
IDENTIFICATION
Control
MNS-99-04
MNS-99-05
MNS-99-06
N
8
8
6
8
MIN
0.176
0.441
0.460
0,481
MAX
0.430
0.688
0.695
0.577
MEAN
0.316
0.516
0.537
0.536
0/f£ fa Bftfi ctysjoo e
8503111007 H azteca dry weight, 42 days, second set
-------
l/le: h:\mpca\ha42dwt.dat & Transform: NO TRANSFORM
SUMMARY STATISTICS ON TRANSFORMED DATA TABLE 2 of 2 ^ /^°a/^3/°°
-gp IDENTIFICATION VARIANCE SD SEM C.V.
2
3
4
Control
MNS-99-04
MNS-99-05
MNS-99-06
0.008
0.006
0.007
0.001
0.087
0.079
0.086
0.030
0.031
0.028
0.035
0.010
27.60
15.22
15.94
5.52
G)
-------
8503-111-007-(007-012)
Appendix F
Statistical Comparison of Controls 01, 02, and 03
-------
-------
8503111007, Hyalella tests comp. of controls 1-3
File: h:\stats\h.dat Transform: NO TRANSFORMATION
SUMMARY STATISTICS ON TRANSFORMED DATA TABLE 2 of 2
3RP
1
2
3
IDENTIFICATION
Control 1
Control 2
Control 3
VARIANCE
0.024
0.015
0.042
SD
0.156
0.124
0.204
SEM
0.045
0.036
0.059
C.V. %
18.59
14.63
23.07
-------
. 8503111007, Hyalella tests comp . of controls 1 3
'"ile: h:\stats\h.dat Transform: ARC SINE(SQUARE ROOT(Y)
Shapiro
•i
w- o
Wilk's test for normality
.479
.886
TWy IX S'oru.^^
*£££>
Critical W (P = 0.05) (n = 36) = 0.935
Critical W (P = 0.01) (n = 36) = 0.912
Data FAIL normality test. Try another transformation.
Warning - The first three homogeneity tests are sensitive to non-normal
data and should not be performed.
8503111007, Hyalella tests comp. of controls 1 3
File: h:\stats\h.dat Transform: ARC SINE (SQUARE ROOT(Y)
Bartlett's test for homogeneity of variance
Calculated Bl statistic = 1.35
Table Chi-square value = 9.21 (alpha = 0.01, df = 2)
Table Chi-square value = 5.99 (alpha = 0.05, df = 2)
Data PASS Bl homogeneity test at 0.01 level. Continue analysis
o * t'c (5 / ~ 3
f>° ^ o
~T 4- I
j i c cis^t \ I ^/
-------
TITLE: 8503111007, Hyalella tests comp,
FILE: h:\stats\h.dat
TRANSFORM: ARC SINE(SQUARE ROOT(Y))
frit. W/33/oO
of controls 13
NUMBER OF GROUPS: 3
GRP IDENTIFICATION
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
Control
Control
Control
Control
Control
Control
Control
Control
Control
Control
Control
Control
Control
Control
Control
Control
Control
Control
Control
Control
Control
Control
Control
Control
Control
Control
Control
Control
Control
Control
Control
Control
Control
Control
Control
Control
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
REP
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
VALUE
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
1
1
1
1
0
1
.9000
.8000
.9000
.0000
.8000
.5000
.8000
.9000
.0000
.0000
. 9000
.6000
.8000
.7000
.7000
.0000
.8000
.0000
.8000
.0000
.8000
.0000
.9000
.7000
.8000
.0000
.8000
.3000
.0000
.9000
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
.8000
.0000
TRANS
1
1
1
1
1
0
1
1
1
1
1
0
1
0
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
1
1
1
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
VALUE
.2490
.1071
.2490
.4120
.1071
.7854
.1071
.2490
.4120
.4120
.2490
.8861
.1071
.9912
.9912
.4120
.1071
.4120
.1071
.4120
.1071
.4120
.2490
.9912
.1071
.4120
.1071
.5796
.4120
.2490
.4120
.4120
.4120
.4120
.1071
.4120
8503111007, Hyalella tests comp. of controls 1-3
File: h:\stats\h.dat Transform: ARC SINE(SQUARE ROOT(Y))
SUMMARY STATISTICS ON TRANSFORMED DATA TABLE 1 of 2
3RP IDENTIFICATION
1
2
3
Control
Control
Control
1
2
3
N
12
12
12
MIN
0
0
0
.785
.991
.580
MAX
1
1
1
.412
.412
.412
MEAN
1
1
1
.185
.192
.253
-------
5~ of Z~*
'
I5031H007' Hyalella tests comp . of controls 13
•lie: h:\stats\h.dat Transform: ARC SINE (SQUARE ROOT(Y))
SUMMARY STATISTICS ON TRANSFORMED DATA TABLE 2 of 2
;RP IDENTIFICATION VARIANCE SD SEM C.V. %
1 Control 1 0.040 0.200 0.058 16.84
2 Control 2 0.032 0.178 0.051 14.90
3 Control 3 0.063 0.251 0.073 20.05
3503111007, Hyalella tests comp. of controls 1 3
?ile: h:\stats\h.dat Transform: ARC SINE (SQUARE ROOT(Y)
ANOVA TABLE
SOURCE DF SS MS F
Between 2 0.033 0.017 0.372
Within (Error) 33 1.479 0.045
Total 35 1.513
Critical F value = 3.32 (0.05,2,30)
Since F < Critical F FAIL TO REJECT Ho: All equal
8503111007, Hyalella tests comp. of controls 1-3
File: h:\stats\h.dat Transform: ARC SINE (SQUARE ROOT(Y)
TUKEY method of multiple comparisons
GROUP
TRANSFORMED ORIGINAL 000
GROUP IDENTIFICATION MEAN MEAN 123
1 Control 1 1.185 0.842 \
2 Control 2 1.192 0.850 . \
3 Control 3 1.253 0.883 . . \
= significant difference (p=0.05) . = no significant difference
value (3,33) = 3.49 s = 0.045
8503inoo7, Hyalella tests comp. of controls 1-3
File: h:\stats\h.dat Transform: ARC SINE (SQUARE ROOT(Y)
-------
y
2? 5
KRUSKAL WALLIS' ANOVA BY RANKS
J I U Cv (
TABLE 1 OF 2
(p=0.05)
GROUP
1
2
3
TRANSFORMED MEAN CALCULATED IN
IDENTIFICATION MEAN ORIGINAL UNITS
Control 1 1.185 0.842
Control 2 1.192 0.850
Control 3 1.253 0.883
Calculated H Value = 1.943 Critical H Value Table =
Since Calc H < Crit H FAIL TO REJECT Ho : All groups are equal.
8503111007, Hyalella tests comp . of controls 1-3
File: h:\stats\h.dat Transform: ARC SINE (SQUARE ROOT(Y))
DUNN'S MULTIPLE COMPARISON - KRUSKAL - WALLIS TABLE 2 OF 2
GROUP
1
2
3
GROUP
TRANSFORMED ORIGINAL 000
IDENTIFICATION MEAN MEAN 123
Control 1 1.185 0.842 \
Control 2 1.192 0.850 . \
Control 3 1.253 0.883 . . \
RANK
SUM
206.000
198.500
261.500
5.990
(p=0.05)
* = significant difference (p=0.05;
Table q value (0.05,3) = 2.394
. = no significant difference
SB = 4.115
CD
-------
7
D<
•Y
8503111007, Hyalella tests comp,
,.pILE. h:\stats\h.dat
-TRANSFORM: NO TRANSFORMATION
J^D ^> t- / ^ i'
of controls 1 3
NUMBER OF GROUPS: 3
!JW
GRp IDENTIFICATION
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
Control
Control
Control
Control
Control
Control
Control
Control
Control
Control
Control
Control
Control
Control
Control
Control
Control
Control
Control
Control
Control
Control
Control
Control
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
REP
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
VALUE
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
1
0
0
.8000
.5000
.8000
. 9000
. 0000
.0000
.9000
.5000
.7000
. 0000
.8000
. 0000
.7000
. 0000
.8000
.7000
. 9000
.9000
.0000
.0000
.0000
. 0000
.8000
.9000
TRANS
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
1
0
0
VALUE
.8000
.5000
.8000
.9000
.0000
. 0000
.9000
.5000
.7000
.0000
.8000
.0000
.7000
.0000
.8000
.7000
.9000
. 9000
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
.8000
.9000
8503111007, Hyalella tests comp. of controls 1-3
File: h:\stats\h.dat Transform: NO TRANSFORMATION
SUMMARY STATISTICS ON TRANSFORMED DATA TABLE 1 of 2
GRP IDENTIFICATION
1
2
3
Control
Control
Control
1
2
3
N
8
8
8
MIN
0
0
0
.500
.700
.800
MAX
I.
1.
1.
000
000
000
MEAN
0
0
0
.800
.837
.938
8503111007, Hyalella tests comp. of controls 1-3
pile: h:\stats\h.dat Transform: NO TRANSFORMATION
SUMMARY STATISTICS ON TRANSFORMED DATA TABLE 2 of 2
GRP IDENTIFICATION
VARIANCE
SD
SEM
C.V-
-------
1 Control I 0.040 0.200 0.071 25.00
2 Control 2 0.020 0.141 0.050 16.81
3 Control 3 0.006 0.074 0.026 7.94
S
f i
-------
S <-t re/ i c'O-xT
i
8503H1007, Hyalella tests comp. of controls 1-3
File: h:\stats\h.dat Transform: ARC SINE (SQUARE ROOT(Y)
Shapiro Wilk's test for normality
•D= 0.798
H= 0.938
Critical W (P = 0.05) (n = 24) = 0.916
Critical W (P = 0.01) (n = 24) = 0.884
Data PASS normality test at P=0 01 level. Continue analysis.
8503111007, Hyalella tests comp. of controls 1-3
File: h:\stats\h.dat Transform: ARC SINE (SQUARE ROOT(Y)
Bartlett' s test for homogeneity of variance
Calculated Bl statistic = 3.46
Table Chi-square value = 9.21 (alpha = 0.01, df = 2)
Table Chi-square value = 5.99 (alpha = 0.05, df = 2)
Data PASS Bl homogeneity test at 0.01 level. Continue analysis
-------
~Y
8503111007, Hyalella tests comp. of controls 1 3
File: h:\stats\h.dat Transform: ARC SINE(SQUARE ROOT(Y))
SUMMARY STATISTICS ON TRANSFORMED DATA TABLE 1 of 2
GRP IDENTIFICATION N MIN MAX MEAN
1 Control 1 8 0.785 1.412 1.138
2 Control 2 8 0.991 1.412 1.178
3 Control 3 8 1.107 1.412 1.313
8503111007, Hyalella tests comp. of controls 1-3
File: h:\stats\h.dat Transform: ARC SINE(SQUARE ROOT(Y))
SUMMARY STATISTICS ON TRANSFORMED DATA TABLE 2 of 2
GRP IDENTIFICATION VARIANCE SD SEM C.V. %
1 Control 1 0.061 0.247 0.087 21.65
2 Control 2 0.040 0.200 0.071 16.95
3 Control 3 0.013 0.116 0.041 8.82
8503111007, Hyalella tests comp. of controls 1-3
File: h:\stats\h.dat Transform: ARC SINE(SQUARE ROOT(Y))
ANOVA TABLE
SOURCE DF SS MS F
Between 2 0.134 0.067 1.759
Within (Error) 21 0.798 0.038
Total 23 0.932
Critical F value = 3.47 (0.05,2,21)
Since F < Critical F FAIL TO REJECT Ho: All equal
8503111007, Hyalella tests comp. of controls 1-3
File: h:\stats\h.dat Transform: ARC SINE(SQUARE ROOT(Y))
TUKEY method of multiple comparisons
GROUP
TRANSFORMED ORIGINAL 000
GROUP IDENTIFICATION MEAN MEAN 123
-------
l Control 1 1.138 0.800 \
2 Control 2 1.178 0.837 . \
3 Control 3 1.313 0.938 . \
*= significant difference (p=0.05) . = no significant difference
Tukey value (3,21) = 3.58 s = 0.038
-------
, . ,-i; i U 'a-x\
TITLE: 8503111007, Hyalella tests comp
FILE: h:\stats\h.dat
TRANSFORM: NO TRANSFORMATION
of controls 1 3
NUMBER OF GROUPS: 3
GRP IDENTIFICATION
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
Control
Control
Control
Control
Control
Control
Control
Control
Control
Control
Control
Control
Control
Control
Control
Control
Control
Control
Control
Control
Control
Control
Control
Control
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
REP
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
VALUE
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
0
0
.8000
.5000
.8000
.8000
.0000
.9000
.9000
.5000
.7000
.0000
.8000
.0000
.7000
.0000
.8000
.7000
.9000
.9000
.9000
.0000
.0000
.0000
.8000
.8000
TRANS
0
0
0
0
I
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
.0
0
1
1
1
0
0
VALUE
.8000
.5000
.8000
.8000
.0000
.9000
.9000
.5000
.7000
.0000
.8000
.0000
.7000
.0000
.8000
.7000
.9000
.9000
.9000
.0000
.0000
.0000
.8000
.8000
8503111007, Hyalella tests comp. of controls 1-3
File: h:\stats\h.dat Transform: NO TRANSFORMATION
SUMMARY STATISTICS ON TRANSFORMED DATA TABLE 1 of 2
GRP
1
2
3
IDENTIFICATION
Control
Control
Control
1
2
3
N
8
8
8
MIN
0
0
0
.500
.700
.800
MAX
1
1
1
.000
.000
.000
MEAN
0
0
0
.775
.837
.913
8503111007, Hyalella tests comp. of controls 1-3
File: h:\stats\h.dat Transform: NO TRANSFORMATION
SUMMARY STATISTICS ON TRANSFORMED DATA TABLE 2 of 2
GRP IDENTIFICATION
VARIANCE
SD
SEM
C.V. %
-------
Control
Control
Control
I
2
3
0
0
0
.034
.020
.007
0
0
0
.183
. 141
.083
0
0
0
.065
.050
.030
23 .
16.
9.
rtijjL °7/
64
81
15
>-(bo 7-00?)
-------
.y Y 2- S LA. r IS t V <3-JC
8503111007, Hyalella tests comp. of controls 1-3
File: h:\stats\h.dat Transform: ARC SINE(SQUARE ROOT(Y)
Shapiro - Wilk's test for normality
D = 0.734
W = 0.952
Critical W (P = 0.05) (n = 24) = 0.916
Critical W (P = 0.01) (n = 24) = 0.884
Data PASS normality test at P=0.01 level. Continue analysis.
8503111007, Hyalella tests comp. of controls 1 3
File: h:\stats\h.dat Transform: ARC SINE(SQUARE ROOT(Y))
Bartlett's test for homogeneity of variance
Calculated Bl statistic = 1.95
Table Chi-square value = 9.21 (alpha = 0.01, df = 2)
Table Chi-square value = 5.99 (alpha = 0.05, df = 2)
Data PASS Bl homogeneity test at 0.01 level. Continue analysis,
-------
"'•J503111007, Hyalella tests comp. of controls 1-3
: h:\stats\h.dat Transform: ARC SINE(SQUARE ROOT(Y))
SUMMARY STATISTICS ON TRANSFORMED DATA TABLE 1 of 2
,GRp IDENTIFICATION N MIN MAX MEAN
I Control 1 8 0.785 1.412 1.100
2 Control 2 8 0.991 1.412 1.178
3 Control 3 8 1.107 1.412 1.275
8503111007, Hyalella tests comp. of controls 1-3
File: h:\stats\h.dat Transform: ARC SINE(SQUARE ROOT(Y))
SUMMARY STATISTICS ON TRANSFORMED DATA TABLE 2 of 2
GRP IDENTIFICATION VARIANCE SD SEM C.V. %
1 Control 1 0.049 0.220 0.078 20.03
2 Control 2 0.040 0.200 0.071 16.95
"3 Control 3 0.016 0.128 0.045 10.04
8503111007, Hyalella tests comp. of controls 1 3
File: h:\stats\h.dat Transform: ARC SINE(SQUARE ROOT(Y))
ANOVA TABLE
SOURCE DF SS MS F
Between 2 0.122 0.061 1.748
Within (Error) 21 0.734 0.035
Total • 23 0.856
Critical F value = 3.47 (0.05,2,21)
Since F < Critical F FAIL TO REJECT Ho: All equal
85031H007, Hyalella tests comp. of controls 1-3
Flle: h:\stats\h.dat Transform: ARC SINE (SQUARE ROOT(Y)
TUKEY method of multiple comparisons
GROUP
TRANSFORMED ORIGINAL 000
GROUP IDENTIFICATION MEAN MEAN 123
-------
"f
1 Control 1 1.100 0.775 \
2 Control 2 1.178 0.837 . \
3 Control 3 1.275 0.913 . . \
* = significant difference (p=0.05) . = no significant difference
Tukey value (3,21) =3.58 s = 0.035
~ (007-001}
p«*,So*
/• T -A ^) L{. r (/ (i
-------
J503111007, Hyalella tests comp. of controls 1-3
..Fiie; h:\stats\h.dat Transform: NO TRANSFORMATION
Shapiro Wilk's test for normality
n= 37.010
it;
I) - 0.945
Critical W (P = 0.05) (n = 24) = 0.916
Critical W (P = 0.01) (n = 24) = 0.884
Data PASS normality test at P = 0.01 level. Continue analysis,
8503111007, Hyalella tests comp. of controls 1-3
File: h:\stats\h.dat Transform: NO TRANSFORMATION
Bartlett's test for homogeneity of variance
Calculated Bl statistic = 4.58
Table Chi-square value = 9.21 (alpha = 0.01, df = 2)
Table Chi-square value = 5.99 (alpha = 0.05, df = 2)
Data PASS Bl homogeneity test at 0.01 level. Continue analysis,
/-3
-------
Is
' * — • t~/ —
TITLE: 8503111007, Hyalella tests comp. of controls 1-3 ^^ ^
FILE: h:\stats\h.dat A* 02/25/1
TRANSFORM: NO TRANSFORMATION NUMBER OF GROUPS: 3
GRP IDENTIFICATION
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
Control
Control
Control
Control
Control
Control
Control
Control
Control
Control
Control
Control
Control
Control
Control
Control
Control
Control
Control
Control
Control
Control
Control
Control
1
1
1
1
1
1
I
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
REP
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
VALUE
1
0
2
1
1
1
0
1
5
1
0
0
0
2
2
0
2
4
0
0
1
1
2
4
.7100
.5000
.2000
.5000
.4000
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
.2800
.8000
.0000
.5000
.1200
.3300
.0000
.5000
.0000
.6700
.2000
.5000
.6700
.1700
.1700
TRANS
1
0
2
1
1
1
0
1
5
1
0
0
0
2
2
0
2
4
0
0
1
1
2
4
VALUE
.7100
.5000
.2000
.5000
.4000
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
.2800
.8000
.0000
.5000
.1200
.3300
.0000
.5000
.0000
.6700
.2000
.5000
.6700
.1700
.1700
8503111007, Hyalella tests comp. of controls 1-3
File: h:\stats\h.dat Transform: NO TRANSFORMATION
SUMMARY STATISTICS ON TRANSFORMED DATA TABLE 1 of 2
GRP IDENTIFICATION
1
2
3
Control
Control
Control
1
2
3
N
8
8
8
MIN
0
0
0
.000
.000
.200
MAX
2
5
4
.200
.000
.170
MEAN
1
1
2
.164
.504
.110
8503111007, Hyalella tests comp. of controls 1-3
File: h:\stats\h.dat Transform: NO TRANSFORMATION
SUMMARY STATISTICS ON TRANSFORMED DATA TABLE 2 of 2
GRP IDENTIFICATION
VARIANCE
SD
SEM
C.V. %
-------
1 Control 1 0.484 0.696 0.246 59.79
2 Control 2 2.766 1.663 0.588 110.60
l Control 3 2.037 1.427 0.505 67.64
8503111007, Hyalella tests comp. of controls 1-3
File: h:\stats\h.dat Transform: NO TRANSFORMATION
ANOVA TABLE
SOURCE DF SS MS F
Between 2 3.676 1.838 1.043
Within (Error) 21 37.010 1.762
Total 23 40.686
Critical F value = 3.47 (0.05,2,21)
Since F < Critical F FAIL TO REJECT Ho: All equal
8503111007, Hyalella tests comp. of controls 1-3
File: h:\stats\h.dat Transform: NO TRANSFORMATION
TUKEY method of multiple comparisons
GROUP
TRANSFORMED ORIGINAL 000
GROUP IDENTIFICATION MEAN MEAN 123
1 Control 1 1.164 1.164 \
2 Control 2 1.504 1.504 . \
3 Control 3 2.110 2.110 . . \
*- significant difference (p=0.05) . = no significant difference
Tukey value (3,21) = 3.58 s = 1.762
-------
8503-111-007-(007-009) Comp. of Controls 1-3, 28-day wt
File- h-\stats\hacont.dat Transform: NO TRANSFORMATION
Shapiro - Wilk's test for normality
D = 0.034
W = 0.956
Critical W (P = 0.05) (n = 12) = 0.859
Critical W (P = 0.01) (n = 12) = 0.805
Data PASS normality test at P=0.01 level. Continue analysis.
8503-111-007-(007-009) Comp. of Controls 1-3, 28-day wt
File: h:\stats\hacont.dat Transform: NO TRANSFORMATION
Bartlett's test for homogeneity of variance
Calculated Bl statistic = 1.71
Table Chi-square value = 9.21 (alpha = 0.01, df = 2)
Table Chi-square value = 5.99 (alpha = 0.05, df = 2)
Data PASS Bl homogeneity test at 0.01 level. Continue analysis,
-------
TITLE: 8503-111-007- (007-009;
PILE: h:\stats\hacont.dat
TRANSFORM: NO TRANSFORMATION
GRP
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
Comp. of Controls 1-3, 28-day wt
NUMBER OF GROUPS: 3
IDENTIFICATION
Control
Control
Control
Control
Control
Control
Control
Control
Control
Control
Control
Control
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
REP
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
VALUE
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.2200
.2610
.2900
.3680
.2510
.2980
.4380
.3420
.2800
.3250
.3610
.3070
TRANS
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
VALUE
.2200
.2610
.2900
.3680
.2510
.2980
.4380
.3420
.2800
.3250
.3610
.3070
8503-111-007-(007-009) Comp. of Controls 1 3, 28-day wt
File: h:\stats\hacont.dat Transform: NO TRANSFORMATION
SUMMARY STATISTICS ON TRANSFORMED DATA TABLE 1 of 2
GRP
1
2
3
IDENTIFICATION
Control
Control
Control
1
2
3
N
4
4
4
MIN
0
0
0
.220
.251
.280
MAX
0
0
0
.368
.438
.361
MEAN
0
0
0
.285
.332
.318
8503-111-007- (007-009) Comp. of Controls 1 3, 28-day wt
File: h:\stats\hacont.dat Transform: NO TRANSFORMATION
SUMMARY STATISTICS ON TRANSFORMED DATA TABLE 2 of 2
>RP IDENTIFICATION
1
2
3
Control
Control
Control
1
2
3
VARIANCE
0
0
0
.004
.006
.001
SD
0
0
0
.062
.080
.034
SEM
0
0
0
.031
.040
.017
C.V
21
23
10
- %
.95
.99
.68
8503-1H-007-(007-009) Comp. of Controls 1-3, 28-day wt
piie: h:\stats\hacont.dat Transform: NO TRANSFORMATION
ANOVA TABLE
-------
SOURCE DF SS MS F
Between 2 0.005 0.002 0.627
Within (Error) 9 0.034 0.004
Total 11 0.039
Critical F value = 4.26 (0.05,2,9)
Since F < Critical F FAIL TO REJECT Ho: All equal
8503-111-007-(007-009) Comp. of Controls 1-3, 28-day wt
File: h:\stats\hacont.dat Transform: NO TRANSFORMATION
TUKEY method of multiple comparisons
GROUP
TRANSFORMED ORIGINAL 000
GROUP IDENTIFICATION MEAN MEAN 132
1 Control 1 0.285 0.285 \
3 Control 3 0.318 0.318 . \
2 Control 2 0.332 0.332 . . \
* = significant difference (p=0.05) . = no significant difference
Tukey value (3,9)= 3.95 s = 0.004
-------
85031H007 H azteca dry weight, 42 days, cents. 1, 2, 3
p;ie. H:\MPCA\HA42DWT.DAT Transform: NO TRANSFORMATION
tu
Shapiro Wilk's test for normality
D 0.032
•„- 0.953
Critical W (P = 0.05) (n = 24) = 0.916
Critical W (P = 0.01) (n = 24) = 0.884
Data PASS normality test at P=0.01 level. Continue analysis.
8503111007 H azteca dry weight, 42 days, conts. 1, 2, 3
File: H:\MPCA\HA42DWT.DAT Transform: NO TRANSFORMATION
Bartlett' s test for homogeneity of variance
Calculated Bl statistic = 2.46
Table Chi-square value = 9.21 (alpha = 0.01, df = 2)
Table Chi-square value = 5.99 (alpha = 0.05, df = 2)
Data PASS Bl homogeneity test at 0.01 level. Continue analysis,
J e.**<°ti ',2, + 3
Corw0^^^ °~fi '
-------
p.
TITLE: 8503111007 H azteca dry weight
FILE: H:\MPCA\HA42DWT.DAT
TRANSFORM: NO TRANSFORMATION
42 days, cents. I, 2, 3
NUMBER OF GROUPS: 3
GRP IDENTIFICATION
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
Control
Control
Control
Control
Control
Control
Control
Control
Control
Control
Control
Control
Control
Control
Control
Control
Control
Control
Control
Control
Control
Control
Control
Control
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
02
02
02
02
02
02
02
02
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
REP
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
VALUE
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.3040
.3060
.3380
.3810
.3100
.2420
.2870
.2320
.3040
.2430
.3000
.2990
.3340
.2880
.2920
. 3110
.2700
.3480
.3190
.3760
.2630
.2740
.3180
.3290
TRANS
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
VALUE
.3040
.3060
.3380
.3810
.3100
.2420
.2870
.2320
.3040
.2430
.3000 ^na.'*
.2990 t° 'WJ°
.3340 i
.2880 f^/if"
.2920
.3110
.2700
.3480
.3190
.3760
.2630
.2740
.3180
.3290
8503111007 H azteca dry weight, 42 days, conts. 1, 2, 3
File: H:\MPCA\HA42DWT.DAT Transform: NO TRANSFORMATION
SUMMARY STATISTICS ON TRANSFORMED DATA TABLE 1 of 2
GRP
1
2
3
IDENTIFICATION
Control 01
Control 02
Control 03
N
8
8
8
WIN
0.232
0.243
0,263
MAX
0.381
0.334
0 .376
MEAN
0.300
0.296
0.312
8503111007 H azteca dry weight, 42 days, conts. 1, 2, 3
File: H:\MPCA\HA42DWT.DAT Transform: NO TRANSFORMATION
SUMMARY STATISTICS ON TRANSFORMED DATA TABLE 2 of 2
GRP IDENTIFICATION
VARIANCE
SD
SEM
C.V. %
-------
1 Control 01 0.002 0.048 0.017 16.09
2 Control 02 0.001 0.026 0.009 8.69
3 Control 03 0.002 0.040 0.014 12.92
8503111007 H azteca dry weight, 42 days, conts. 1, 2, 3
File: H:\MPCA\HA42DWT.DAT Transform: NO TRANSFORMATION
ANOVA TABLE
SOURCE DF SS MS F
Between 2 0.001 0.001 0.353
Within (Error) 21 0.032 0.002
Total 23 0.033
Critical F value = 3.47 (0.05,2,21)
Since F < Critical F FAIL TO REJECT Ho: All equal
Co*'
8503111007 H azteca dry weight, 42 days, conts. 1, 2, 3
File: H:\MPCA\HA42DWT.DAT Transform: NO TRANSFORMATION
TUKEY method of multiple comparisons
GROUP
TRANSFORMED ORIGINAL 000
GROUP IDENTIFICATION MEAN MEAN 213
2 Control 02 0.296 0.296 \
1 Control 01 0.300 0.300 . \
3 Control 03 0.312 0.312 . . \
*- significant difference (p=0.05) . = no significant difference
Mey value (3,21) = 3.58 s = 0.002
-------
8503-111-007-(007-012)
Appendix G
Statistics for Sediments MNS-99-01, MNS-99-02, and MNS-99-03
-------
p
TITLE: 8503-111-007- (007-009) H. azteca 28-day survival
FILE: HA28DSUR.dat
TRANSFORM: NO TRANSFORMATION NUMBER OF GROUPS: 4
GRP IDENTIFICATION
1
1
1
1
i
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
0
L,
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
Control
Control
Control
Control
Control
Control
Control
Control
Control
Control
Control
Control
Control
Control
Control
Control
Control
Control
Control
Control
Control
Control
Control
Control
Control
Control
Control
Control
Control
Control
Control
Control
Control
Control
Control
Control
MNS - 9 9 - 0 1
MNS-99-01
MNS-99-01
MNS-99-01
MNS-99-01
MNS-99-01
MNS-99-01
MNS-99-01
MNS-99-01
MNS-99-01
MNS-99-01
MNS-99-01
MNS-99-02
MNS-99-02
REP
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
1
2
VALUE
0.
0.
0.
1.
0 .
0.
0.
0.
1.
1.
0 .
0.
0.
0.
0.
1.
0.
1.
0.
1.
0.
1.
0.
0.
0.
1.
0.
0.
1.
0.
1.
1.
1.
1.
0.
1.
0.
1.
1.
1.
1.
0.
0.
0.
1.
-I
1.
0.
1.
0.
9000
8000
9000
0000
8000
5000
8000
9000
0000
0000
9000
6000
8000
7000
7000
0000
8000
0000
8000
0000
8000
0000
9000
7000
8000
0000
8000
3000
0000
9000
0000
0000
0000
0000
8000
0000
8000
0000
0000
0000
0000
8000
9000
9000
0000
0000
0000
8000
0000
8000
TRANS
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
1
1
1
1
0
1
0
1
1
1
1
0
0
0
1
1
1
0
1
0
VALUE
.9000
.8000
.9000
.0000
.8000
.5000
.8000
.9000
.0000
.0000
. 9000
.6000
.8000
. 7000
.7000
.0000
.8000
. 0000
.8000
.0000
.8000
.0000
.9000
.7000
.8000
.0000
.8000
.3000
.0000
.9000
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
.8000
. 0000
.8000
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
.8000
.9000
.9000
.0000 ;
.0000 ftr-
.0000 (?r^
.8000 L
.0000
.8000
-------
T
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
MNS
MNS
MNS
MNS
MNS
MNS
MNS
MNS
MNS
MNS
MNS
MNS
MNS
MNS
MNS
MNS
MNS
MNS
MNS
MNS
MNS
MNS
-99-
-99-
-99-
-99-
-99-
-99-
-99-
-99-
02
02
02
02
02
02
02
02
-99-02
-99-
-99-
-99-
-99-
-99-
-99-
-99-
-99-
-99-
-99-
-99-
-99-
-99-
02
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.8000
.8000
. 9000
.0000
. 8000
.9000
.0000
.7000
.8000
.8000
.1000
. 1000
.6000
.4000
.1000
.2000
.1000
.1000
.2000
.4000
.0000
.0000
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.8000
.8000
.9000 a
.0000
.8000 '
.9000
.0000
.7000
.8000
.8000
.1000
.1000
.6000
.4000
. 1000
.2000
.1000
. 1000
.2000
.4000
.0000
.0000
8503-111-007-(007-009) H. azteca 28-day survival
File: HA28DSUR.dat Transform: NO TRANSFORMATION
SUMMARY STATISTICS ON TRANSFORMED DATA TABLE 1 of 2
GRP
1
2
3
4
IDENTIFICATION
Control
MNS- 99 -01
MNS-99-02
MNS-99-03
N
36
12
12
12
MIN
0.300
0.800
0 .700
0.000
MAX
1.000
1.000
1.000
0.600
MEAN
0.858
0. 933
0.858
0.192
8503-111-007-(007-009) H. azteca 28-day survival
File: HA28DSUR.dat Transform: NO TRANSFORMATION
SUMMARY STATISTICS ON TRANSFORMED DATA TABLE 2 of 2
GRP
1
2
3
4
IDENTIFICATION
Control
MNS-99-01
MNS-99-02
MNS-99-03
VARIANCE
0.026
0.008
0.010
0.034
SD
0.161
0.089
0.100
0.183
SEM
0.027
0.026
0.029
0.053
C.V. %
18.76
9.51
11.61
95.58
-------
;<('3503-lH-°07- (007-009) H. azteca 28-day survival
,;.?ile: HA28DSUR.dat Transform: ARC SINE(SQUARE ROOT(Y))
^-square test for normality: actual and expected frequencies
INTERVAL <-1.5 -1.5 to <-0.5 -0.5 to 0.5 > 0.5 to 1.5
Table Chi-square value = 11.34 (alpha = 0.01, df =
Table Chi-square value = 7.81 (alpha = 0.05, df =
3
3
Data PASS Bl homogeneity test at 0.01 level. Continue analysis
Data PASS B2 homogeneity test at 0.01 level. Continue analysis
EXPECTED 4.824 17.424 27.504 17.424 4.824
OBSERVED 3 15 27 26 1
Calculated Chi-Square goodness of fit test statistic = 8.2885
Table Chi-Square value (alpha = 0.01) = 13.277
Data PASS normality test. Continue analysis.
8503-111-007-(007-009) H. azteca 28-day survival
File: HA28DSUR.dat Transform: ARC SINE (SQUARE ROOT(Y)
Bartlett' s test for homogeneity of variance
Calculated Bl statistic = 4.34
Bartlett' s test using average degrees of freedom
Calculated B2 statistic = 5.92
Based on average replicate size of 17.00
-------
8503-111-007-(007-009) H. azteca 28-day survival
File: HA28DSUR.dat Transform: ARC SINE(SQUARE ROOT(Y))
SUMMARY STATISTICS ON TRANSFORMED DATA TABLE 1 of 2
3RP IDENTIFICATION
1
2
3
4
Control
MNS-99-01
MNS-99-02
MNS-99-03
N
36
12
12
12
MIN
0
1
0
0
.580
.107
.991
.159
MAX
1
1
1
0
.412
.412
.412
.886
MEAN
1
1
1
0
.210
.309
.197
.426
8503-111-007-(007-009) H. azteca 28-day survival
File: HA28DSUR.dat Transform: ARC SINE(SQUARE ROOT(Y))
SUMMARY STATISTICS ON TRANSFORMED DATA TABLE 2 of 2
3RP IDENTIFICATION
1
2
3
4
Control
MNS-99-01
MNS-99-02
MNS-99-03
VARIANCE
0
0
0
0
.043
.019
.021
.050
SD
0
0
0
0
.208
.136
.146
.223
SEM
0
0
0
0
.035
.039
.042
.064
C.V.
17.
10.
12.
52.
%
18
40
21
31
8503-111-007-(007-009) H. azteca 28-day survival
File: HA28DSUR.dat Transform: ARC SINE(SQUARE ROOT(Y))
ANOVA TABLE
SOURCE
Between
Within (Error)
Total
DF
3
68
71
SS
6
2
9
.524
.497
.020
MS
2.175
0.037
F
59.226
Critical F value = 2.76 (0.05,3,60)
Since F > Critical F REJECT Ho: All equal
8503-111-007-(007-009) H. azteca 28-day survival
File: HA28DSUR.dat Transform: ARC SINE(SQUARE ROOT(Y))
BONFERRONI t-TEST TABLE 1 OF 2 Ho:Control
-------
1
2
3
4
Co
MNS-
MNS-
MNS-
ntr
99-
99-
99-
ol
01
02
03
1
1
1
0
.210
.309
.197
.426
0
0
0
0
.858
.933
.858
.192
-1
0
12
.545
.197
.278
*
gonferroni t table value = 2.18
;i Tailed Value, P=0.05, df=60,3;
6503-111-007- (007-009) H. azteca 28-day survival
pile: HA28DSUR.dat Transform: ARC SINE (SQUARE ROOT(Y)
BONFERRONI t-TEST
TABLE 2 OF 2
Ho:Control
-------
TITLE: 8503-111-007-(007-009) H. azteca 35-day survival
FILE: h:\stats\HA35DSUR.dat
TRANSFORM: NO TRANSFORMATION NUMBER OF GROUPS: 4
GRP IDENTIFICATION
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
Control
Control
Control
Control
Control
Control
Control
Control
Control
Control
Control
Control
Control
Control
Control
Control
Control
Control
Control
Control
Control
Control
Control
Control
MNS-99-01
MNS-99-01
MNS-99-01
MNS-99-01
MNS-99-01
MNS-99-01
MNS-99-01
MNS-99-01
MNS-99-02
MNS-99-02
MNS-99-02
MNS-99-02
MNS-99-02
MNS-99-02
MNS-99-02
MNS-99-02
MNS-99-03
MNS-99-03
MNS-99-03
MNS-99-03
MNS-99-03
MNS-99-03
MNS-99-03
MNS-99-03
REP
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
VALUE
0.8000
0.5000
0.8000
0.9000
1.0000
1.0000
0.9000
0.5000
0 .7000
1 . 0000
0 . 8000
1.0000
0.7000
1.0000
0 .8000
0 . 7000
0.9000
0.9000
1.0000
1.0000
1.0000
1.0000
0.8000
0.9000
1.0000
0.8000
0.9000
0.9000
1.0000
1 .0000
1.0000
0.8000
0.7000
1.0000
0.8000
0.8000
0.9000
0.6000
0.8000
0.8000
0.1000
0.2000
0.1000
0.1000
0.2000
0.4000
0.0000
0.0000
TRANS VALUE
0.8000
0.5000
0.8000
0.9000
1.0000
1.0000
0.9000
0.5000
0.7000
1.0000
0.8000
1.0000
0.7000
1.0000
0.8000
0.7000
0.9000
0.9000
1.0000
1.0000
1.0000
1.0000
0.8000
0.9000
1.0000
0.8000
0.9000
0.9000
1.0000
1.0000
1.0000
0.8000
0.7000
1.0000
0.8000
0 .8000
0.9000
0.6000
0.8000
0.8000
0.1000
0.2000
0.1000
0.1000
0.2000
0.4000
0.0000
0.0000
-------
^503-111-007-(007-009) H. azteca 35-day survival
k'rtle: h:\stats\HA35DSUR.dat Transform: NO TRANSFORMATION
K,
SUMMARY STATISTICS ON TRANSFORMED DATA TABLE 1 of 2
GRP
1
2
3
3-^3/00
IDENTIFICATION
Control
MNS-99-01
MNS-99-02
MNS-99-03
N
24
8
8
8
MIN
0.500
0.800
0.600
0.000
MAX
1.000
1.000
1. 000
0.400
MEAN
0.858
0.925
0.800
0.138
8503-111-007-(007-009) H. azteca 35-day survival
File: h:\stats\HA35DSUR.dat Transform: NO TRANSFORMATION
SUMMARY STATISTICS ON TRANSFORMED DATA TABLE 2 of 2
IDENTIFICATION
Control
MNS-99-01
MNS-99-02
MNS-99-03
VARIANCE
0,
0,
0 ,
0.
.023
.008
.014
.017
SD
0.
0.
0.
0.
153
089
120
130
SEM
0.
0.
0 .
0.
031
031
042
046
C.V.
17.
9.
14.
94.
%
82
58
94
73
-------
8503-111-007-(007-009) H. azteca 35-day survival
File: h:\stats\HA35DSUR.dat Transform: ARC SINE(SQUARE ROOT(Y)
Shapiro Wilk's test for normality
D = 1.448
W = 0.954
Critical W (P = 0.05) (n = 48) = 0.947
Critical W (P = 0.01) (n = 48) = 0.929
Data PASS normality test at P=0.01 level. Continue analysis.
8503-111-007-(007-009) H. azteca 35-day survival
File: h:\stats\HA35DSUR.dat Transform: ARC SINE(SQUARE ROOT(Y)
Bartlett's test for homogeneity of variance
Calculated Bl statistic = 1.69
Bartlett's test using average degrees of freedom
Calculated B2 statistic = 1.72
Based on average replicate size of 11.00
Table Chi-square value = 11.34 (alpha = 0.01, df = 3)
Table Chi-square value = 7.81 (alpha = 0.05, df = 3)
Data PASS Bl homogeneity test at 0.01 level. Continue analysis,
Data PASS B2 homogeneity test at 0.01 level. Continue analysis,
-------
;.;8503-111-007-(007-009) H. azteca 35-day survival
'"•File: h:\stats\HA35DSUR.dat Transform: ARC SINE(SQUARE ROOT(Y)
SUMMARY STATISTICS ON TRANSFORMED DATA TABLE 1 of 2
GRP IDENTIFICATION N MIN MAX MEAN
1 Control 24 0.785 1.412 1.210
2 MNS-99-01 8 1.107 1.412 1.295
3 MNS-99-02 8 0.886 1.412 1.121
4 MNS-99-03 8 0.159 0.685 0.362
8503-111-007-(007-009) H. azteca 35-day survival
File: h:\stats\HA35DSUR.dat Transform: ARC SINE (SQUARE ROOT(Y))
SUMMARY STATISTICS ON TRANSFORMED DATA TABLE 2 of 2
GRP IDENTIFICATION VARIANCE SD SEM C.V. %
1 Control 0.041 0.201 0.041 16.64
2 MNS-99-01 0.019 0.136 0.048 10.51
3 MNS-99-02 0.025 0.158 0,056 14.06
4 MNS-99-03 0.030 0.174 0.062 48.12
8503-111-007-(007-009) H. azteca 35-day survival
File: h:\stats\HA35DSUR.dat Transform: ARC SINE(SQUARE ROOT (Y) )
ANOVA TABLE
SOURCE DF SS MS F
Between 3 4.906 1.635 49.699
Within (Error) 44 1.448 0.033
Total 47 6.354
Critical F value = 2.84 (0.05,3,40)
Since F > Critical F REJECT Ho: All equal
8503-1H-007-(007-009) H. azteca 35-day survival
Flle: h:\stats\HA35DSUR.dat Transform: ARC SINE (SQUARE ROOT(Y))
I BONFERRONI t-TEST TABLE 1 OF 2 Ho:Control
-------
r
Bonferroni t table value = 2.20
(1 Tailed Value, P=0.05, df=40,3)
1
2
3
4
Co
MNS-
MNS-
MNS-
ntr
99-
99-
99-
ol
01
02
03
1
1
1
0
.210
.295
.121
.362
0
0
0
0
.858
.925
.800
.138
1
1
11
.152
.200
.449
*
8503-111-007-(007-009) H. azteca 35-day survival
File: h:\stats\HA35DSUR.dat Transform: ARC SINE(SQUARE ROOT(Y))
BONFERRONI t-TEST
TABLE 2 OF 2
Ho : Control
-------
'TITLE: 8503-111-007-(007-009) H. azteca 42-day survival
, FILE: h:\stats\HA42Dsur.dat
TRANSFORM: NO TRANSFORMATION NUMBER OF GROUPS: 4
GRP IDENTIFICATION
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
Control
Control
Control
Control
Control
Control
Control
Control
Control
Control
Control
Control
Control
Control
Control
Control
Control
Control
Control
Control
Control
Control
Control
Control
MNS-99-01
MNS-99-01
MNS-99-01
MNS-99-01
MNS-99-01
MNS-99-01
MNS-99-01
MNS-99-01
MNS-99-02
MNS-99-02
MNS-99-02
MNS-99-02
MNS-99-02
MNS-99-02
MNS-99-02
MNS-99-02
MNS-99-03
MNS-99-03
MNS-99-03
MNS-99-03
MNS-99-03
MNS-99-03
MNS-99-03
MNS-99-03
REP
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
VALUE
0.8000
0.5000
0 . 8000
0.8000
1.0000
0. 9000
0. 9000
0.5000
0.7000
1.0000
0 .8000
1.0000
0 .7000
1.0000
0 .8000
0.7000
0.9000
0 . 9000
0. 9000
1.0000
1.0000
1.0000
0.8000
0.8000
1.0000
0.8000
0.9000
0.9000
0 .9000
1.0000
0.9000
0.8000
0.7000
1.0000
0.8000
0.8000
0.9000
0.6000
0.8000
0.8000
0.1000
0.2000
0.1000
0.1000
0.2000
0 .4000
0.0000
0.0000
TRANS VALUE
0.8000
0.5000
0.8000
0 .8000
1.0000
0.9000
0 . 9000
0.5000
0.7000
1.0000
0 .8000
1.0000
0 .7000
1.0000
0 .8000
0.7000
0 .9000
0.9000
0.9000
1.0000
1.0000
1.0000
0.8000
0 .8000
1.0000
0.8000
0.9000
0.9000
0.9000
1.0000
0.9000
0.8000
0.7000
1.0000
0.8000
0.8000
0.9000
0.6000
0.8000
0.8000
0.1000
0.2000
0.1000
0.1000
0.2000
0.4000
0.0000
0.0000
-------
8503-111-007-(007-009) H. azteca 42-day survival
File: h:\stats\HA42Dsur.dat Transform: NO TRANSFORMATION
SUMMARY STATISTICS ON TRANSFORMED DATA TABLE 1 of 2
3RP IDENTIFICATION
1
2
3
4
Control
MNS-99-01
MNS-99-02
MNS-99-03
N
24
8
8
8
MIN
0
0
0
0
.500
.800
.600
.000
MAX
1
1
1
0
.000
.000
.000
.400
MEAN
0
0
0
0
.842
.900
.800
.138
8503-111-007-(007-009) H. azteca 42-day survival
File: h:\stats\HA42Dsur.dat Transform: NO TRANSFORMATION
SUMMARY STATISTICS ON TRANSFORMED DATA TABLE 2 of 2
GRP
1
2
3
4
IDENTIFICATION
Control
MNS-99-01
MNS-99-02
MNS-99-03
VARIANCE
0.022
0.006
0.014
0.017
SD
0.147
0.076
0.120
0.130
SEM
0.030
0 . 027
0.042
0.046
C.V. %
17.49
8.40
14.94
94.73
-------
8503-111-007-(007-009) H. azteca 42-day survival 7j.Af> y
pile: h:\stats\HA42Dsur.dat Transform: ARC SINE (SQUARE ROOT(Y))
Shapiro - Wilk's test for normality
D. 1.335
W_ 0.961
Critical W (P = 0.05) (n = 48) = 0.947
Critical W (P = 0.01) (n = 48) = 0.929
Data PASS normality test at P=0.0l level. Continue analysis.
8503-111-007-(007-009) H. azteca 42-day survival
File: h:\stats\HA42Dsur.dat Transform: ARC SINE (SQUARE ROOT(Y)
Bartlett' s test for homogeneity of variance
Calculated Bl statistic = 2.36
Bartlett' s test using average degrees of freedom
Calculated B2 statistic = 2.83
Based on average replicate size of 11.00
Table Chi-square value = 11.34 (alpha = 0.01, df = 3)
Table Chi-square value = 7.81 (alpha = 0.05, df = 3)
Data PASS Bl homogeneity test at 0.01 level. Continue analysis
Data PASS B2 homogeneity test at 0.01 level. Continue analysis
-------
8503-111-007-(007-009) H. azteca 42-day survival
File: h:\stats\HA42Dsur.dat Transform: ARC SINE(SQUARE ROOT(Y)
SUMMARY STATISTICS ON TRANSFORMED DATA TABLE 1 of 2
GRP IDENTIFICATION N MIN MAX MEAN
1 Control 24 0.785 1.412 1.184
2 MNS-99-01 8 1.107 1.412 1.254
3 MNS-99-02 8 0.886 1.412 1.121
4 MNS-99-03 8 0.159 0.685 0.362
8503-111-007-(007-009) H. azteca 42-day survival
File: h:\stats\HA42Dsur.dat Transform: ARC SINE(SQUARE ROOT(Y)
SUMMARY STATISTICS ON TRANSFORMED DATA TABLE 2 of 2
GRP IDENTIFICATION VARIANCE SD SEM C.V. %
1 Control 0.037 0.193 0.039 16.29
2 MNS-99-01 0.013 0.115 0.041 9.20
3 MNS-99-02 0.025 0.158 0.056 14.06
4 MNS-99-03 0.030 0.174 0.062 48.12
8503-111-007-(007-009) H. azteca 42-day survival
File: h:\stats\HA42Dsur.dat Transform: ARC SINE(SQUARE ROOT(Y))
ANOVA TABLE
SOURCE DF SS MS F
Between 3 4.595 1.532 50.481
Within (Error) 44 1.335 0.030
Total 47 5.930
Critical F value = 2.84 (0.05,3,40)
Since F > Critical F REJECT Ho: All equal
8503-111-007-(007-009) H. azteca 42-day survival
File: h:\stats\HA42Dsur.dat Transform: ARC SINE(SQUARE ROOT(Y))
BONFERRONI t-TEST TABLE 1 OF 2 Ho: Control
-------
! Co
2 MNS-
3 MNS-
4 MNS-
nt
99
99
99
rol
-01
-02
-03
1
1
1
0
.184
.254
. 121
.362
0
0
0
0
.842
.900
.800
.138
-0
0
11
.984
.892
.565
*
Bonferroni
t table value = 2.20
(1 Tailed Value, P=0.05, df=40,3;
8503-111-007-(007-009) H. azteca 42-day survival
File: h:\stats\HA42Dsur.dat Transform: ARC SINE (SQUARE ROOT(Y))
BONFERRONI t-TEST
TABLE 2 OF 2
Ho:Control
-------
/ (> < 2
8503-111-007- (007-009) H. azteca reproduction
File: h:\stats\HAREPRO.dat Transform: NO TRANSFORMATION
Shapiro - Wilk's test for normality
D = 61.143
W = 0.965
Critical W (P = 0.05) (n = 40) = 0.940
Critical W (P = 0.01) (n = 40) = 0.919
Data PASS normality test at P=0.01 level. Continue analysis
8503-111-007-(007-009) H. azteca reproduction
File: h:\stats\HAREPRO.dat Transform: NO TRANSFORMATION
Bartlett's test for homogeneity of variance
Calculated Bl statistic = 0.31
Bartlett's test using average degrees of freedom
Calculated B2 statistic = 0.44
Based on average replicate size of 12.33
Table Chi-square value = 9.21 (alpha =0.01, df = 2)
Table Chi-square value = 5.99 (alpha = 0.05, df = 2)
Data PASS Bl homogeneity test at 0.01 level. Continue analysis,
Data PASS B2 homogeneity test at 0.01 level. Continue analysis.
-------
TITLE: 8503-111-007- (007-009!
fILE: h:\stats\HAREPRO.dat
TRj\NSFORM: NO TRANSFORMATION
H. azteca reproduction
NUMBER OF GROUPS: 3
GRP IDENTIFICATION
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
f\
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
Control
Control
Control
Control
Control
Control
Control
Control
Control
Control
Control
Control
Control
Control
Control
Control
Control
Control
Control
Control
Control
Control
Control
Control
MNS-99-01
MNS-99-01
MNS-99-01
MNS-99-01
MNS-99-01
MNS-99-01
MNS-99-01
MNS-99-01
MNS-99-02
MNS-99-02
MNS-99-02
MNS-99-02
MNS-99-02
MNS-99-02
MNS-99-02
MNS-99-02
REP
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
VALUE
1.7100
0.5000
2.2000
1.5000
1.4000
1.0000
0.0000
1.0000
5.0000
1.2800
0.8000
0 .0000
0.5000
2.1200
2.3300
0 . 0000
2.5000
4.0000
0.6700
0.2000
1.5000
1.6700
2.1700
4.1700
0.0000
2.0000
1.6000-
3.5000
3 .7500
2.5700
1.5000
3.6000
1.2000
1.5000
2.5000
3.7500
4 .3300
3 .0000
1.6000
2.5000
TRANS VALUE
1.7100
0.5000
2.2000
1.5000
1.4000
1.0000
0.0000
1.0000
5.0000
1.2800
0.8000
0.0000
0.5000
2 .1200
2 .3300
0.0000
2.5000
4.0000
0.6700
0.2000
1.5000
1.6700
2.1700
4.1700
0.0000
2.0000
1.6000
3 .5000
3 .7500
2.5700
1.5000
3.6000
1.2000
1.5000
2.5000
3 .7500
4 .3300
3 .0000
1.6000
2.5000
8503-1H-007-(007-009) H. azteca reproduction
File: h:\stats\HAREPRO.dat Transform: NO TRANSFORMATION
SUMMARY STATISTICS ON TRANSFORMED DATA TABLE 1 of 2
GRp IDENTIFICATION N
MIN
MAX
MEAN
-------
1 Control 24 0.000 5.000 1.593
2 MNS-99-01 8 0.000 3.750 2.315
3 MNS-99-02 8 1.200 4.330 2.548
8503-111-007-(007-009) H. azteca reproduction
File: h:\stats\HAREPRO.dat Transform: NO TRANSFORMATION
SUMMARY STATISTICS ON TRANSFORMED DATA TABLE 2 of 2
GRP IDENTIFICATION VARIANCE SD SEM C.V. %
1 Control 1.769 1.330 0.271 83.52
2 MNS-99-01 1.688 1.299 0.459 56.12
3 MNS-99-02 1.235 1.111 0.393 43.62
8503-111-007-(007-00'9) H. azteca reproduction
File: h:\stats\HAREPRO.dat Transform: NO TRANSFORMATION
ANOVA TABLE
SOURCE DF SS MS F
Between 2 6.970 3.485 2.109
Within (Error) 37 61.143 1.653
Total 39 68.113
Critical F value = 3.32 (0.05,2,30)
Since F < Critical F FAIL TO REJECT Ho: All equal
8503-111-007-(007-009) H. azteca reproduction
File: h:\stats\HAREPRO.dat Transform: NO TRANSFORMATION
BONFERRONI t-TEST TABLE 1 OF 2 Ho: Control
-------
file: h:\stats\HAREPRO.dat Transform: NO TRANSFORMATION
BONFERRONI t-TEST TABLE 2 OF 2 Ho:Control
-------
8503-111-007-(007-009) H. azteca 28-day dry weight
File- h-\stats\HA28DWT.dat Transform: NO TRANSFORMATION
Shapiro Wilk's test for normality
______ _____________________________ ~______ — _________ _ _ ______ _
D = 0.201
W = 0.860
Critical W (P = 0.05) (n = 20) = 0.905
Critical W (P = 0.01) (n = 20) = 0.868
Data FAIL normality test. Try another transformation.
Warning The first three homogeneity tests are sensitive to non-normal
data and should not be performed.
8503-111-007-(007-009) H. azteca 28-day dry weight
File: h:\stats\HA28DWT.dat Transform: NO TRANSFORMATION
Bartlett's test for homogeneity of variance
Calculated Bl statistic = 11.78
Bartlett's test using average degrees of freedom
Calculated B2 statistic = 13.82
Based on average replicate size of 5.67
Table Chi-square value = 9.21 (alpha = 0.01, df = 2)
Table Chi-square value = 5.99 (alpha =0.05, df = 2)
Data FAIL Bl homogeneity test at 0.01 level. Try another transformation.
Data FAIL B2 homogeneity test at 0.01 level. Try another transformation.
-------
TITLE: 8503-111-007- (007-009)
|FILE: h:\stats\HA28DWT.dat
: TR0SFORM: NO TRANSFORMATION
H. azteca 28-day dry weight
NUMBER OF GROUPS: 3
GRP IDENTIFICATION
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
Control
Control
Control
Control
Control
Control
Control
Control
Control
Control
Control
Control
MNS-99-01
MNS-99-01
MNS-99-01
MNS-99-01
MNS-99-02
MNS-99-02
MNS-99-02
MNS-99-02
REP
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
VALUE
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.2200
.2610
.2900
.3680
.2510
.2980
.4380
.3420
.2800
.3250
.3610
.3070
.3450
.3330
.2290
.2850
.3010
.7900
.3900
.3410
TRANS
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
VALUE
.2200
.2610
.2900
.3680
.2510
.2980
.4380
.3420
.2800
.3250
.3610
.3070
.3450
.3330
.2290
.2850
.3010
.7900
.3900
.3410
8503-111-007-(007-009) H. azteca 28-day dry weight
File: h:\stats\HA28DWT.dat Transform: NO TRANSFORMATION
SUMMARY STATISTICS ON TRANSFORMED DATA TABLE 1 of 2
GRP
1
2
3
IDENTIFICATION
Control
MNS-99-01
MNS-99-02
N
12
4
4
MIN
0.220
0.229
0.301
MAX
0.438
0.345
0.790
MEAN
0.312
0.298
0.456
8503-111-007-(007-009) H. azteca 28-day dry weight
File: h:\stats\HA28DWT.dat Transform: NO TRANSFORMATION
SUMMARY STATISTICS ON TRANSFORMED DATA TABLE 2 of 2
iRp IDENTIFICATION
1 Control
2 MNS-99-01
3 MNS-99-02
VARIANCE
0
0
0
.004
.003
.051
SD
0.
0.
0.
060
053
226
SEM
0.
0.
0.
017
026
113
C.V.
19.
17.
49.
%
10
72
60
-------
8503-111-007- (007-009) H. azteca 28-day dry weight
File: h:\stats\HA28DWT.dat Transform: LOG BASE 10 (Y)
Shapiro - Wilk's test for normality
D = 0.199
W = 0.945
Critical W (P = 0.05) (n = 20) = 0.905
Critical W (P = 0.01) (n = 20) = 0.868
Data PASS normality test at P=0.01 level. Continue analysis
8503-111-007- (007-009) H. azteca 28-day dry weight
File: h:\stats\HA28DWT.dat Transform: LOG BASE 10 (Y)
Bartlett's test for homogeneity of variance
Calculated Bl statistic = 4.08
Bartlett ' s test using average degrees of freedom
Calculated B2 statistic = 5.25
Based on average replicate size of 5.67
Table Chi-square value = 9.21 (alpha =0.01, df = 2)
Table Chi-square value = 5.99 (alpha = 0.05, df = 2)
Data PASS Bl homogeneity test at 0.01 level. Continue analysis,
Data PASS B2 homogeneity test at 0.01 level. Continue analysis
-------
23
<^-
'18503-Hl-007- (007-009) H. azteca 28-day dry weight
" ' ats\HA28DWT.dat Transform: LOG B
SUMMARY STATISTICS ON TRANSFORMED DATA TABLE 1 of 2
File: h:\stats\HA28DWT.dat Transform: LOG BASE 10 (Y) .,
GRP IDENTIFICATION N MIN MAX MEAN
I Control 12 -0.658 -0.359 -0.513
2 MNS-99-01 4 -0.640 -0.462 -0.531
3 MNS-99-02 4 -0.521 -0.102 -0.375
8503-111-007-(007-009) H. azteca 28-day dry weight
File: h:\stats\HA28DWT.dat Transform: LOG BASE 10 (Y)
SUMMARY STATISTICS ON TRANSFORMED DATA TABLE 2 of 2
GRP IDENTIFICATION VARIANCE SD SEM C.V. %
1 Control 0.007 0.082 0.024 -15.95
j 2 MNS-99-01 0.007 0.081 0.041 -15.26
J 3 MNS-99-02 0.035 0.187 0.094 -49.99
8503-111-007-(007-009) H. azteca 28-day dry weight
File: h:\stats\HA28DWT.dat Transform: LOG BASE 10 (Y)
ANOVA TABLE
SOURCE DF SS MS F
Between 2 0.066 0.033 2.830
Within (Error) 17 0.199 0.012
Total 19 0.265
Critical F value = 3.59 (0.05,2,17)
Since F < Critical F FAIL TO REJECT Ho: All equal
3503-111-007- (007-009) H. azteca 28-day dry weight
pile: h:\stats\HA28DWT.dat Transform: LOG BASE 10 (Y)
BONFERRONI t-TEST - TABLE 1 OF 2 Ho:Control
-------
Tf
2 MNS-99-01 -0.531 0.298 0.288
3 MNS-99-02 -0.375 0.456 -2.215
Bonferroni t table value =2.11 (1 Tailed Value, P=0.05, df=17,2)
8503-111-007-(007-009) H. azteca 28-day dry weight
File: h:\stats\HA28DWT.dat Transform: LOG BASE 10(Y)
BONFERRONI t-TEST - TABLE 2 OF 2 Ho:Control
-------
8503-111-007-(007-012)
Appendix H
Statistics for Sediments MNS-99-04, MNS-99-05, and MNS-99-06
-------
TITLE: 8503-111-007-(010-012) H. azteca survival ~.
FILE: h:\stats\HASURV.DAT
TRANSFORM: NO TRANSFORMATION NUMBER OF GROUPS: 4
5cr
i f<
GRP
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
IDENTIFICATION
Control 6
Control 6
Control 6
Control 6
Control 6
Control 6
Control 6
Control 6
Control 6
Control 6
Control 6
Control 6
MNS-99-04
MNS-99-04
MNS-99-04
MNS-99-04
MNS-99-04
MNS-99-04
MNS-99-04
MNS-99-04
MNS-99-04
MNS-99-04
MNS-99-04
MNS-99-04
MNS-99-05
MNS-99-05
MNS-99-05
MNS-99-05
MNS-99-05
MNS-99-05
MNS-99-05
MNS-99-05
MNS-99-05
MNS-99-05
MNS-99-05
MNS-99-05
MNS-99-06
MNS - 9 9 - 0 6
MNS-99-06
MNS-99-06
MNS-99-06
MNS-99-06
MNS-99-06
MNS-99-06
MNS-99-06
MNS-99-06
MNS-99-06
MNS-99-06
REP
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
VALUE
1.0000
0.5000
0.9000
0. 9000
1.0000
0.9000
0.8000
0.8000
0. 7000
0.7000
1.0000
0.5000
0.7000
0.4000
0 . 6000
0.7000
0.6000
0.8000
0.7000
0.9000
0.9000
0.4000
0.8000
0.8000
0.3000
0.5000
0.1000
0. 0000
0.2000
0.1000
0.0000
0.5000
0.0000
0.6000
0.2000
0.4000
0.3000
0.8000
0.8000
0.7000
0.8000
0.9000
0.8000
0.9000
0.7000
0.7000
0.8000
0.8000
TRANS VALUE
1.0000
0.5000
0.9000
0.9000
1.0000
0.9000
0.8000
0 .8000
0. 7000
0 . 7000
1.0000
0.5000
0 .7000
0.4000
0.6000
0.7000
0.6000
0. 8000
0.7000
0.9000
0 .9000
0.4000
0.8000
0.8000
0.3000
0.5000
0.1000
0 .0000
0 .2000
0 . 1000
0.0000
0.5000
0.0000
0.6000
0.2000
0.4000
0.3000
0.8000
0.8000
0.7000
0.8000
0.9000
0.8000
0.9000
0.7000
0.7000
0.8000
0.8000
5/4/Q 2/3-3/93
_ i_ __i
A#02/23|eo
-------
8503-111-007-(010-012) H. azteca survival C^"V ^ -J
File: h:\stats\HASURV.DAT Transform: NO TRANSFORMATION
SUMMARY STATISTICS ON TRANSFORMED DATA TABLE 1 of 2
IRP IDENTIFICATION
1
2
3
4
Control
MNS
MNS
MNS
-99-
-99-
-99-
6
04
05
06
N
12
12
12
12
MIN
0
0
0
0
.500
.400
.000
.300
MAX
1
0
0
0
.000
.900
.600
.900
MEAN
0
0
0
0
.808
.692
.242
.750
8503-111-007-(010-012) H. azteca survival
File: h:\stats\HASURV.DAT Transform: NO TRANSFORMATION
SUMMARY STATISTICS ON TRANSFORMED DATA TABLE 2 of 2
GRP
1
2
3
4
IDENTIFICATION
Control 6
MNS-99-04
MNS-99-05
MNS-99-06
VARIANCE
0 .032
0.028
0.046
0.025
SD
0.178
0.168
0.215
0.157
SEM
0.051
0.048
0.062
0.045
C.V. %
22.04
24.24
89.03
20.89
-------
P
J
sform: ARC SIN
Shapiro - Wilk's test for normality
8503-111-007- (010-012) H. azteca survival - aY
File: h:\stats\HASURV.DAT Transform: ARC SINE(SQUARE ROOT(Y)
D = 2.031
W = 0.961
Critical W (P = 0.05) (n = 48) = 0.947
Critical W (P = 0.01) (n = 48) = 0.929
Data PASS normality test at P=0.01 level. Continue analysis.
8503-111-007-(010-012) H. azteca survival
File: h:\stats\HASURV.DAT Transform: ARC SINE(SQUARE ROOT(Y))
Bartlett's test for homogeneity of variance
Calculated Bl statistic = 2.30
Table Chi-square value = 11.34 (alpha =0.01, df = 3)
Table Chi-square value = 7.81 (alpha = 0.05, df = 3)
Data PASS Bl homogeneity test at 0.01 level. Continue analysis.
-------
1
/~-\ 0 5?
8503-111-007- (010-012) H. azteca survival ^, Y
. h:\stats\HASURV.DAT Transform: ARC SINE(SQUARE ROOT(Y)
SUMMARY STATISTICS ON TRANSFORMED DATA TABLE 1 of 2
GRP IDENTIFICATION N MIN MAX MEAN
! Control 6 12 0.785 1.412 1.146
2 MNS-99-04 12 0.685 1.249 0.995
3 MNS-99-05 12 0.159 0.886 0.481
MNS-99-06 12 0.580 1.249 1.058
8503-111-007-(010-012) H. azteca survival
File: h:\stats\HASURV.DAT Transform: ARC SINE(SQUARE ROOT(Y))
SUMMARY STATISTICS ON TRANSFORMED DATA TABLE 2 of 2
GRP IDENTIFICATION VARIANCE SD SEM C.V. %
1 Control 6 0.050 0.225 0.065 19.61
2 MNS-99-04 0.035 0.187 0.054 18.77
3 MNS-99-05 0.069 0.263 0.076 54.80
4 MNS-99-06 0.030 0.173 0.050 16.37
8503-111-007-(010-012) H. azteca survival
File: h:\stats\HASURV.DAT Transform: ARC SINE(SQUARE ROOT(Y))
ANOVA TABLE
SOURCE DF SS MS F
Between 3 3.223 1.074 23.268
Within (Error) 44 2.031 0.046
Total 47 5.254
Critical F value = 2.84 (0.05,3,40)
Since F > Critical F REJECT Ho: All equal
8503-111-007-(010-012) H. azteca survival
pile: h:\stats\HASURV.DAT Transform: ARC SINE(SQUARE ROOT(Y))
DUNNETT'S TEST - TABLE 1 OF 2 Ho:Control
-------
of
1
2
3
4
Control 6
MNS-99-04
MNS-99-05
MNS-99-06
1 . 146
0.995
0.481
1.058
0 .808
0.692
0.242
0.750
1.725
7.583
1.004
Dunnett table value = 2.13
;i Tailed Value, P=0.05, df=40,3;
8503-111-007-(010-012) H. azteca survival
File: h:\stats\HASURV.DAT Transform: ARC SINE(SQUARE ROOT(Y)
DUNNETT'S TEST
TABLE 2 OF 2
Ho:Control
-------
TITLE: 8503-111-007- (010-012!
FILE: h:\stats\HASURV.DAT
TRANSFORM: NO TRANSFORMATION
H. azteca survival
-------
8503-111-007-(010-012) H. azteca survival
File: h:\stats\HASURV.DAT Transform: NO TRANSFORMATION
SUMMARY STATISTICS ON TRANSFORMED DATA TABLE 2 of 2
3RP
1
2
3
IDENTIFICATION
Control 6
MNS-99-04
MNS-99-05
VARIANCE
0.033
0.034
0.051
SD
0.181
0.183
0.227
SEM
0.064
0.065
0.080
C.V. %
22.96
25.27
90.71
MNS-99-06 0.005 0.071 0.025 9.12
-------
i I \c ~\ 5
'• 8503-111-007- (010-012) H. azteca survival l^J-^Y
t File: h:\stats\HASURV.DAT Transform: ARC SINE(SQUARE ROOT(Y)
Shapiro - Wilk's test for normality
D = 1.251
W 0.962
Critical W (P = 0.05) (n = 32) = 0.930
Critical W (P = 0.01) (n = 32) = 0.904
Data PASS normality test at P=0.01 level. Continue analysis.
8503-111-007-(010-012) H. azteca survival
File: h:\stats\HASURV.DAT Transform: ARC SINE (SQUARE ROOT(Y)
Bartlett' s test for homogeneity of variance
Calculated Bl statistic = 7.25
Table Chi-square value = 11.34 (alpha = 0.01, df = 3)
Table Chi-square value = 7.81 (alpha = 0.05, df = 3)
Data PASS Bl homogeneity test at 0.01 level. Continue analysis.
-------
V
8503-111-007- (010-012) H. azteca survival
File: h:\stats\HASURV.DAT Transform: ARC SINE (SQUARE ROOT (Y)
SUMMARY STATISTICS ON TRANSFORMED DATA TABLE 1 of 2
3RP IDENTIFICATION
1
2
3
4
Control
MNS
MNS
MNS
-99-
-99-
-99-
6
04
05
06
N
8
8
8
8
MIN
0
0
0
0
.785
.685
.159
.991
MAX
1
1
0
1
.412
.249
.886
.249
MEAN
1
1
0
1
.119
.035
.490
.081
8503-111-007-(010-012) H. azteca survival
File: h:\stats\HASURV.DAT Transform: ARC SINE (SQUARE ROOT(Y))
SUMMARY STATISTICS ON TRANSFORMED DATA TABLE 2 of 2
GRP
1
2
3
4
IDENTIFICATION
Control
MNS-99-
MNS-99-
MNS-99-
6
04
05
06
VARIANCE
0
0
0
0
.053
.042
.076
.008
SD
0.
0.
0.
0.
230
205
275
089
SEM
0.
0.
0.
0.
081
072
097
031
c.v.
20.
19.
56.
8.
%
57
80
18
21
8503-111-007-(010-012) H. azteca survival
File: h:\stats\HASURV.DAT Transform: ARC SINE (SQUARE ROOT(Y))
ANOVA TABLE
SOURCE
Between
Within (Error)
Total
DF
3
28
31
SS
2
1
3
.103
.251
.354
MS
0.701
0.045
F
15.686
Critical F value = 2.95 (0.05,3,28)
Since F > Critical F REJECT Ho: All equal
8503-111-007-(010-012) H. azteca survival
File: h:\stats\HASURV.DAT Transform: ARC SINE(SQUARE ROOT(Y))
DUNNETT'S TEST - TABLE 1 OF 2 Ho:Control
-------
1
2
3
4
Dunne tt
8503-111
File: h:
Control 6
MNS-99-04
MNS-99-05
MNS-99-06
1 . 119
1. 035
0.490
1. 081
table value =2.17 (1 Tailed Value,
-007- (010-012) H.
\stats\HASURV.DAT
DUNNETT'S TEST
GROUP
1
2
3
4
IDENTIFICATION
Control 6
MNS-99-04
MNS-99-05
MNS-99-06
azteca survival V_ ^
Transform: ARC
TABLE 2 OF 2
0.787
0.725
0.250
0 .775
P=0.05, df=24
0.791
5.945 *
0.353
,3)
'35)
SINE (SQUARE ROOT(Y))
Ho : Control
-------
TITLE: 8503-111-007-(010-012;
FILE: h:\stats\HASURV.DAT
TRANSFORM: NO TRANSFORMATION
H. azteca survival
NUMBER OF GROUPS: 4
GRP
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
IDENTIFICATION
Control 6
Control 6
Control 6
Control 6
Control 6
Control 6
Control 6
Control 6
MNS-99-04
MNS-99-04
MNS-99-04
MNS-99-04
MNS-99-04
MNS-99-04
MNS-99-04
MNS-99-04
MNS-99-05
MNS-99-05
MNS-99-05
MNS-99-05
MNS-99-05
MNS-99-05
MNS-99-05
MNS-99-05
MNS-99-06
MNS-99-06
MNS-99-06
MNS-99-06
MNS-99-06
MNS-99-06
MNS-99-06
MNS-99-06
REP
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
VALUE
0.9000
0.8000
0 .8000
0.8000
0.5000
0 .7000
1.0000
0.5000
0.5000
0 .8000
0.7000
0.8000
0 . 9000
0 .4000
0.8000
0.8000
0.2000
0.1000
0.0000
0.5000
0.0000
0.6000
0.2000
0 .4000
0.8000
0.8000
0.8000
0.9000
0.7000
0.7000
0.7000
0.8000
TRANS VALUE
0.9000
0.8000
0.8000
0.8000
0.5000
0.7000
1.0000
0.5000
0.5000
0.8000
0.7000
0.8000
0. 9000
0 .4000
0 .8000
0.8000
0.2000
0.1000
0.0000
0.5000
0.0000
0.6000
0.2000
0.4000
0.8000
0.8000
0.8000
0.9000
0.7000
0.7000
0.7000
0.8000
8503-111-007-(010-012) H. azteca survival
File: h:\stats\HASURV.DAT Transform: NO TRANSFORMATION
SUMMARY STATISTICS ON TRANSFORMED DATA TABLE 1 of 2
GRP
1
2
3
4
IDENTIFICATION
Control 6
MNS-99-04
MNS-99-05
MNS-99-06
N
8
8
8
8
MIN
0.500
0.400
0.000
0.700
MAX
1.000
0.900
0.600
0.900
MEAN
0.750
0.713
0.250
0.775
-------
2,|
CT*\ L4 1^
8503-111-007- (010-012) H. azteca survival^1-' ( J
file: h:\stats\HASURV.DAT Transform: NO TRANSFORMATION
SUMMARY STATISTICS ON TRANSFORMED DATA TABLE 2 of 2
GRP IDENTIFICATION
1
2
3
4
Control
MNS-
MNS-
MNS-
99-
99-
99-
6
04
05
06
VARIANCE
0
0
0
0
.031
.030
.051
.005
SD
0
0
0
0
.177
.173
.227
.071
SEM
0
0
0
0
.063
.061
.080
.025
C.V
23
24
90
9
. %
.64
.24
.71
.12
-------
8503-111-007-(010-012) H. azteca survival
File: h:\stats\HASURV.DAT Transform: ARC SINE(SQUARE ROOT(Y)
Shapiro - Wilk's test for normality
D = 1.159
W = 0.958
Critical W (P = 0.05) (n = 32) = 0.930
Critical W (P = 0.01) (n = 32) = 0.904
Data PASS normality test at P=0.01 level. Continue analysis.
8503-111-007-(010-012) H. azteca survival
File: h:\stats\HASURV.DAT Transform: ARC SINE(SQUARE ROOT(Y)
Bartlett's test for homogeneity of variance
Calculated Bl statistic = 7.21
Table Chi-square value = 11.34 (alpha =0.01, df = 3)
Table Chi-square value = 7.81 (alpha = 0.05, df = 3)
Data PASS Bl homogeneity test at 0.01 level. Continue analysis.
-------
8503-111-007-(010-012) H. azteca survival aY " ) D-V 2/2.5
File: h:\stats\HASURV.DAT Transform: ARC SINE (SQUARE ROOT(Y))
SUMMARY STATISTICS ON TRANSFORMED DATA TABLE 1 of 2
GRP IDENTIFICATION N MIN MAX MEAN
1 Control 6 8 0.785 1.412 1.068
2 MNS-99-04 8 0.685 1.249 1.017
3 MNS-99-05 8 0.159 0.886 0.490
4 MNS-99-06 8 0.991 1.249 1.081
8503-111-007-(010-012) H. azteca survival
File: h:\stats\HASURV.DAT Transform: ARC SINE (SQUARE ROOT(Y)
SUMMARY STATISTICS ON TRANSFORMED DATA TABLE 2 of 2
GRP IDENTIFICATION VARIANCE SD SEM C.V. %
1 Control 6 0.046 0.214 0.076 20.06
2 MNS-99-04 0.036 0.189 0.067 18.62
3 MNS-99-05 0.076 0.275 0.097 56.18
4 MNS-99-06 0.008 0.089 0.031 8.21
8503-111-007-(010-012) H. azteca survival
File: h:\stats\HASURV.DAT Transform: ARC SINE(SQUARE ROOT(Y))
ANOVA TABLE
SOURCE DF SS MS F
Between 3 1.935 0.645 15.588
Within (Error) 28 1.159 0.041
Total 31 3.094
Critical F value = 2.95 (0.05,3,28)
Since F > Critical F REJECT Ho: All equal
8503-111-007-(010-012) H. azteca survival
File: h:\stats\HASURV.DAT Transform: ARC SINE(SQUARE ROOT(Y))
DUNNETT'S TEST - TABLE 1 OF 2 Ho:Control
-------
1
2
3
4
Cont
MNS-
MNS-
MNS-
ro
99
99
99
1 6
-04
-05
-06
1
1
0
1
.068
.017
.490
.081
0
0
0
0
.750
.713
.250
.775
0
5
-0
.498
.680
.131
*
Dunnett table value = 2.17
;i Tailed Value, P=0.05, df=24,3)
fi)
8503-111-007-(010-012) H. azteca survival^ "^ "^
File: h:\stats\HASURV.DAT Transform: ARC SINE(SQUARE ROOT(Y))
DUNNETT'S TEST
TABLE 2 OF 2
Ho:Control
-------
"
« 1
8503-111-007-(010-012) H. azteca reproduction
File: h:\stats\HArepro.dat Transform: NO TRANSFORMATION
Shapiro - Wilk's test for normality
D= 85.156
0_ 0.926
Critical W (P = 0.05) (n = 24) = 0.916
Critical W (P = 0.01) (n = 24) = 0.884
Data PASS normality test at P=0.01 level. Continue analysis.
8503-111-007-(010-012) H. azteca reproduction
File: h:\stats\HArepro.dat Transform: NO TRANSFORMATION
Bartlett's test for homogeneity of variance
Calculated Bl statistic = 5.75
Table Chi-square value = 9.21 (alpha = 0.01, df ^ 2)
Table Chi-square value = 5.99 (alpha = 0.05, df = 2)
Data PASS Bl homogeneity test at 0.01 level. Continue analysis
-------
l7
TITLE: 8503-111-007- (010-012,
FILE: h:\stats\HArepro.dat
TRANSFORM: NO TRANSFORMATION
H. azteca reproduction
NUMBER OF GROUPS: 3
GRP IDENTIFICATION REP
VALUE
TRANS VALUE
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
Control
Control
Control
Control
Control
Control
Control
Control
MNS-99-
MNS-99-
MNS-99-
MNS-99-
MNS-99-
MNS-99-
MNS-99-
MNS-99-
MNS -99-
MNS-99-
MNS-99-
MNS-99-
MNS-99-
MNS-99-
MNS-99-
MNS-99-
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
04
04
04
04
04
04
04
04
06
06
06
06
06
06
06
06
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
0
0
0
1
2
0
2
0
6
2
0
1
3
0
2
3
2
5
7
2
2
1
0
7
.0000
.5000
.0000
.4000
.5000
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
.6700
.2500
.0000
.0000
.0000
.2500
.3300
.8000
.5000
.0000
.5000
.6000
.6000
.5000
0
0
0
1
2
0
2
0
6
2
0
1
3
0
2
3
2
5
7
2
2
1
0
7
.0000
.5000
.0000
.4000
.5000
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
.6700
.2500
.0000
.0000
.0000
.2500
.3300
.8000
.5000
.0000
.5000
.6000
.6000
.5000
8503-111-007-(010-012) H. azteca reproduction
File: h:\stats\HArepro.dat Transform: NO TRANSFORMATION
SUMMARY STATISTICS ON TRANSFORMED DATA TABLE 1 of 2
GRP IDENTIFICATION
N
MIN
MAX
MEAN
1
2
3
Control 6
MNS-99-04
MNS-99-06
8
8
8
0.000
0.000
0 . 600
2.500
6.000
7.500
0.800
2.271
3 .729
8503-111-007-(010-012) H. azteca reproduction
File: h:\stats\HArepro.dat Transform: NO TRANSFORMATION
SUMMARY STATISTICS ON TRANSFORMED DATA TABLE 2 of 2
GRP IDENTIFICATION
VARIANCE
SD
SEM
C.V- %
-------
V
1 Control 6 1.049 1.024 0.362 128.00
2 MNS-99-04 3.472 1.863 0.659 82.04
3 MNS-99-06 7.644 2.765 0.978 74.15
5503-111-007-(010-012) H. azteca reproduction
File: h:\stats\HArepro.dat Transform: NO TRANSFORMATION
ANOVA TABLE
SOURCE DF SS MS F
Between 2 34.311 17.155 4.231
Nithin (Error) 21 85.156 4.055
Total 23 119.466
Critical F value = 3.47 (0.05,2,21)
Since F > Critical F REJECT Ho: All eaual
8503-111-007-(010-012) H. azteca reproduction
[File: h:\stats\HArepro.dat Transform: NO TRANSFORMATION
DUNNETT'S TEST - TABLE 1 OF 2 Ho:Control
-------
f?
V
8503-111-007-(010-012) H. azteca Day 28 dry weight
File: h:\stats\HA28DWT.dat Transform: NO TRANSFORMATION (H°
Shapiro - Wilk's test for normality
D = 0.231
W = 0.949
Critical W (P = 0.05) (n = 12) = 0.859
Critical W (P = 0.01) (n = 12) = 0.805
Data PASS normality test at P=0.01 level. Continue analysis.
8503-111-007-(010-012) H. azteca Day 28 dry weight
File: h:\stats\HA28DWT.dat Transform: NO TRANSFORMATION
Bartlett's test for homogeneity of variance
Calculated Bl statistic = 2.51
Table Chi-square value = 9.21 (alpha =0.01, df = 2)
Table Chi-square value = 5.99 (alpha = 0.05, df - 2)
Data PASS Bl homogeneity test at 0.01 level. Continue analysis
-------
20
2.,
TITLE
FILE:
: 8503-111-007- (010-012
h:\stats\HA28DWT.dat
v * ' ^sr
) H. azteca Day 28 dry weight /V^oS>-f3-3/o
TRANSFORM: NO TRANSFORMATION
GRP
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
8503-
File:
GRP
1
2
3
IDENTIFICATION REP
Control 6 1
Control 6 2
Control 6 3
Control 6 4
MNS-99-04 1
MNS-99-04 2
MNS-99-04 3
MNS-99-04 4
MNS-99-06 1
MNS-99-06 2
MNS-99-06 3
MNS-99-06 4
111-007- (010-012) H. azteca
h : \stats\HA28DWT . dat
SUMMARY STATISTICS ON
VALUE
0.3060
0.4180
0.4310
0.2990
0.3880
0.6600
0.7220
0.3370
0.6800
0.2360
0.3710
0.3870
Day 28 dry
Transform
- - — ¥ |
NUMBER OF GROUPS : 3
TRANS VALUE
0.3060
0 .4180
0.4310
0.2990
0.3880
0.6600
0.7220
0.3370
0 . 6800
0.2360
0.3710
0.3870
weight
: NO TRANSFORMATION
TRANSFORMED DATA TABLE 1 of 2
IDENTIFICATION N MIN MAX MEAN
Control 6 4 0 .
MNS-99-04 4 0.
MNS-99-06 4 0.
299 0.
337 0.
236 0.
431 0.364
722 0.527
680 0.419
8503-111-007-(010-012) H. azteca Day 28 dry weight
File: h:\stats\HA28DWT.dat Transform: NO TRANSFORMATION
SUMMARY STATISTICS ON TRANSFORMED DATA TABLE 2 of 2
GRP IDENTIFICATION
VARIANCE
SD
SEM
C.V. %
1
2
3
Control 6
MNS-99-04
MNS-99-06
0.005
0.037,
0.035
0.071
0.192
0.187
0.035
0.096
0.094
19.45
36.54
44 .69
8503-111-007-(010-012) H. azteca Day 28 dry weight
pile: h:\stats\HA28DWT.dat Transform: NO TRANSFORMATION
ANOVA TABLE
-------
SOURCE
Between
Within (Error)
Total
DF
2
9
11
SS
0
0
0
.055
.231
.286
MS F
0.028 1.075
0.026
Critical F value = 4.26 (0.05,2,9)
Since F < Critical F FAIL TO REJECT Ho: All equal
8503-111-007-(010-012) H. azteca Day 28 dry weight
File: h:\stats\HA28DWT.dat Transform: NO TRANSFORMATION
DUNNETT'S TEST
TABLE 1 OF 2
Ho:Control
-------
8503-111-007-(007-012)
Appendix I
Reference Toxicant Data and Control Chart
-------
ENSR/FCETL Hyalella azteca Acute Ref. Tox. Data
Commercially Supplied Organisms - 20 data points
24-Hour LC50
November 1995 through October 1999
24-Hour LC50 (mg/L chloride)
Thousands
/ /
Test Date
D LC50
95% Historical Control Limits
-------
Test Type:
Test Substance: N^
Dilution Water tvWl
I ci-
Page 1 of
FCETL QA Form No. 051
Revision 5 r>Nl Number of Replicates per Treatment: [
nc.
Length of Test:
nf$
Number of Organisms per Rep:icate:._!_£_
Type of Food and Quantity per Chamber: c • ^S mJi yrc/cttCK, Feedinc Frequency: & M fe
Test Substance Characterization Parameters and Frequency: Hardness:
NH,: _ pH: _ Conductivity:
Alkalinity:.
TRC: _
Test Concentrations tVol
Vuluine): LONTXOL , Sop \QOO
^000 { $000 I b, 0^0
&
;
//_
Agency Summary Sheet(s)?:
Reference Toxicant Data: Test Dates:
to
Hist. 95% Control Limits:
to
Method for Determinira Ref Tox. Value:
Special Procedures and Considerations:
Stock
2'' 10
Ci-^ - ^{000
Study Director Initials:
. )/v~^
Date:
-------
TEST SUBSTANCE USAGE LOG
Page st_ of _i
FCETL QA Form 0
Revision
Effective l/j
Project Nurrmer fiSO3-/o<7' ft ao
Teat Substance Number
Test Sub nance Collection Date)
; and TTmex
Sample Type (GraborCompr
n . T "JtOi.yt- (Pr^i^if^
.--eiution Water Number
(h\Nt Br FCETt*. circle one
S_ph,1
(^/W^^^^
From:
To:
@ A/A
10-11-4*1
3b- O
Concurrent Control Water RW» -., *
Date 5} Used
10 1 1? h^l
Sample Z.
From:
To:
Sample 3
From:
To:
Sample*
From:
To:
@
•
"
••
y
•
i
PREPARATION OF TEST SOLUTIONS
Test
Substance
i»l|L
CONTRCL.
5 CO
Teat
Substance
Volume (ml)
0
L>
i 000 | | 3,
^-ooo JS
4000
5ooo
So
| DO
[(,000 3.0O
Total
Initiala/Data
Inidab/Oate
Initials/Data
.^^3
Dilution Total
Water Volume
Volume (ml) (mil
ZOO JOO
11H ^oo
Ifeg ^200
(IT ^00
1 SO J200
100 2-dO
Q ^00
1007 noo
OfcS lo l?/^6)
Ininala/Oaia i
Inidala/Date
Inrtiata/Oata
lnitials/0«t»
Initials/Data
Sflbetance^"^
VorumeTmtt^
%
2."70
^40
il!5
aa50
tf^QQ
^1000
Dilution
Water
Volume (ml)
Total
Volume
(ml)
Test
Substance
Volume
-------
Page 3 of
FCEn.QAFonnNo.052
Revision2 CO.
ACUTE BIOLOGICAL DATA
Project Number
-10°)- £2,0 - 052.
Test Species (Clrde): C. dutia O.mama D.ouiax P.orumalas 0. /nvfrss(Other (SofecirV): H--
feT)
Test
Repo'catB
Number of Surviving Organisms
0
Hours
24
Hours
48
Hours
72
Hours
96
Hours
Remarxm
COf\/TT?OL
1 C?
(0
5OO
10
^L
IOOO
10 (0
1 O i 0
1540)
J.OOO
019-5)
Mooo
0 ci
8000
lO
I
luoool
to o
Date
'•/IS/'}')
/0/lb/1
-------
U , n
Page "q ol I &-
FCETL QA Form No. 053
Revision 1
Effective 2/93
ACUTE CHEMICAL DATA
11 j*""""* *
Project Number: ft^Ol- )0°l' 82-O^05 * || Test Species (Circle): C. dubia D. magna D. pulex P. promelas O. myki^s Other)(Specity): (4.
Cone.
Rep.
Dissolved Oxygen (nig/L)
Temperature (°C)
PH
0
Ni'vv
M
kJL
3
f-S
0
Ni'W
t.5
35
Old
Did
4
Old
0
N
-------
Pago 'f) ol ISL
FCETL QA Form No. 053
Revision 1
Effective 2/93
AN£-
ACUTE CHEMICAL DATA
Project Number:
II I -X^L
g 1,0-06 ?. || Test Species (Circle): C. dubia D. magna D pulex P. promelas O. myk/$s/Other(Specify): \]
Cone.
Rep
Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L)
Temperature ('C)
PH
1
New
Old
-------
Page
„
Q
FCETL QA Form No. 056
Revision 2
Effective 1/96
TEST MATERIAL CHARACTERIZATION
j| Project Number: $503 "Wl -6 3-O-0<; > || Test Species (Circle): C. dubia D. magna D. pulex P. promelas O. mK
^JliO
7J&0
!38l/0
^fcrot?
\\
'•hhs
lloZO
1
2
3
0
1
2
3
Alkalinity (mg/L CaC03)
0
1
2
3
TRC (mg/L)
0
i
2
3
NH3 (mg/L)
0
i
2
3
-------
Page [_ of ' <*-
FCETL QA Form No. 055
Revision 2
Effective 1/94
DAILY TOXICITY TEST LOG
Project Number: &S£>3 - \0°) - 3 3.0 ~o< J-
Test Species (Circle): C. dubia D. magna D. pulex P. prome/as O. /ny/r/ss ^6the7jbpecify): /f . o.z.te.cc\_
General
Comments
Test Day 0
Test Day 1
Test Day 2
Test Day 3
Test Day 4
Test Day 5
Test Day 6
Test Day 7
Test Day 8
Test Solution Mixed at: iSTO
Test Organisms Added at: \igco
cSkvJtt/TJVS Ok! *]
£W v'l v i C">3 I Off 1C 0 C .
CT ^5. (. "C. ^an 5^, Jff. 9- 3S.$*C
C-T iS",H''C *^O>\CA JS". 2 ~3£.(a'C
SlU'v/iVi KIC. LOT? J^ OK ,
Feeding
Red 0.7S"M'/c/fg)j_
yTt-J(3,^6 Hou^i
r^O fd &
^J(f^\
««s.ias
jOo^?
^
i
Initials/Date
loillh 1
'Ollilfa
(jytj
\OJIbll1
,%*,
1
-------
Study #8503-109-820-052
TEST NUMBER: 820-052
DATE: 10/13/99
TOXICANT : Cl-
SPECIES: Hyalella azteca (lot f99-22)
RAH DATA: Concentration
(mg/L)
.00
1125.00
2250.00
4500.00
9000.00
SPEARMAN-KARBER TRIM: .00%
SPEARMAN-KARBER ESTIMATES: LC50:
95% LOWER CONFIDENCE:
95% UPPER CONFIDENCE:
DURATION:
24 H
Number
Exposed
10
10
10
10
10
Mortalr
0
0
1
10
10
J968.J39
"260376
3386.19
-------
^•8303-104020. 3*03-! 01- 310 " 0 5 X
FILEIS20HYAL24
REFERENCE TOXICANT DATA FOR HYALELLA AZTECA ACUTES
SODIUM CHLORIDE - EXPRESSED AS MG/L CL-
ENSR FORT COLLINS ENVIRONMENTAL TOXICOLOGY LABORATORY
DATE
10/17/95
10/27/95
11/03/95
11/10/95
01/08/96
03/28/96
08/06/96
08/20/96
01/21/97
07/29/97
10/14/97
08/18/98
09/29/98
10/13/98
10/20/98
10/27/98
12/15/98
08/10/99
09/03/99
10/13/99
LOT#
95-80
95-84
95-87
95-88
96-15
96-30
97-05
97-12
97-18
98-48
98-52
98-53
98-54
98-57
98-60
99-14
99-19
99-22
24-HR.
LC50
2940
2986
2257
1704
2904
3204
3193
2706
2930
2881
3874
2930
2360
2411
3182
3380
3070
2406
2615
2969
ACCEPTABLE RANGE
MEAN
2940
2963
2728
2472
2558
2666
2741
2737
2758
2771
2871
2876
2836
2806
2831
2865
2877
2851
2839
2845
SD
ERR
33
408
611
563
569
556
515
486
460
549
523
521
513
504
506
492
490
480
468
LOW
ERR
2898
1911
1250
1432
1529
1629
1707
1786
1851
1774
1829
1794
1779
1823
1853
1892
1870
1879
1909
HIGH
ERR
3028
3544
3693
3685
3803
3853
3766
3730
3690
3968
3922
3878
3832
3839
3877
3862
3832
3798
3781
METHOD
S-K
S-K
Probit
Probit
S-K
S-K
S-K
Probit
S-K
S-K
S-K
S-K
S-K
S-K
Binomial
Binomial
S-K
S-K
S-K
S-K
-------
1J
EPA PROBIT ANALYSIS PROGRAM
USED FOR CALCULATING LC/EC VALUES
Version 1.5
Study #8503-109-820-052
Hyalella azteca lot #99-22
Teat Date: 10/13/99
96-Hour LC50
Cone.
270.0000
540.0000
1125.0000
2250.0000
4500.0000
9000.0000
Number
Exposed
10
10
10
10
10
10
Number
Resp.
1
0
2
8
10
10
Observed
Proportion
Responding
0.1000
0.0000
0.2000
0.8000
1.0000
1.0000
Proportion
Responding
Adjusted for
Controls
0.1000
0.0000
0.2000
0.8000
1.0000
1.0000
Chi - Square for Heterogeneity (calculated)
Chi - Square for Heterogeneity
(tabular value at 0.05 level)
•A******************************************
* WARNING
12.264
9.488
****************
*
* The tabular chi-square value exceeds the calculated *
* chi-square value for heterogeneity. This is evidence that *
* the probit model may not be appropriate for these data. *
* The results reported for this data set may not be valid, *
* and should be interpreted with appropriate caution. *
•a*************************************************************
*«**************************
****************************
* NOTE *
* *
* Slope not significantly different from zero. *
* LC/EC fiducial limits cannot be computed. *
***************************************************************
Estimated LC/EC Values and Confidence Limits
Point
LC/EC 1.00
LC/EC 50.00
Exposure
Cone.
277.641
1408.313
95% Confidence Limits
Lower Upper
-------
Study #8503-109-820-052
DATE: 10/13/99
TOXICANT : Cl-
SPECIES: Hyalella azteca (lot /99-22)
66
TEST NUMBER: 820-052
DURATION:
96 H
RAW DATA:
Concentration
(mg/L)
.00
270.00
540.00
1125.00
2250.00
4500.00
9000.00
Number
Exposed
9
10
10
10
10
10
10
Mortalities
0
1
0
2
8
10
10
SPEARMAN-KARBER TRIM:
5.00%
SPEARMAN-KARBER ESTIMATES: LC5C:
95% LOWER CONFIDENCE:
95% UPPER CONFIDENCE:
1179.89
2070.13
NOTE: MORTALITY PROPORTIONS WERE NOT MONOTONICALLY INCREASING.
ADJUSTMENTS WERE MADE PRIOR TO SPEARMAN-KARBER ESTIMATION.
-------
£503-104-?XO-051
3'
FILEISHYAL96 56 li/|5/f
REFERENCE TOXICANT DATA FOR HYALELLA AZTECA ACUTES
SODIUM CHLORIDE - EXPRESSED AS MG/L CL-
ENSR FORT COLLINS ENVIRONMENTAL TOXICOLOGY LABORATORY
96-HR ACCEPTABLE RANGE
DATE LOT* LC50 MEAN SD LOW HIGH METHOD
10/13/99 99-22 1563 1563 ERR ERR ERR T-S-K
-------
TOXICITY DATA PACKAGE COVER SHEET
Page 1 of ' ^
FCETLQAFonm No. 051
Revision 5 c\f-
Effective 6/97
Test TVpe:_Acu±Jk _ Project Numhgr: BSU3- \0*> - gjLQ-6 S3
Test Substance:_Ak£J -- Species: |4\/fllr-,lfl
Dilution Water: /V\Q(d rffl r(i ( Cl" Spkfdj Organism Lot or Batch
Concurrent Control Water:_N£: Aoe: 7c/«V.r Mcffinl Supplier:_^T
Date and Time Test Began: Io|l3|c7gi (3> | L> i P Date and -nme Test Ended: >0|l7/c?':j &
Protocol Number: . Investigator(s):.
Background Information
Type of Test: Shah'C RfrK^A. I pH Control?: If Yes, give % C02
Test Temperature:^ ± \ =c Env. Chmbr/Bath tt ^ ' Test Chambers:.?iT ml
Test Solution Vol.: ^00 rmt Number of Replicatp5 -er Treatment:_J
Length of Test: ^lo hgLlt'S Number of Organisms per Replicate: *
Type of Food and Quantity per Chamber: C- 75 mJL VTC/ _ Feeding Frequency: 3 hrf. pr< or -fo
Test Substance Characterization Parameters and Frequency: Hardness: _ Alkalinity:
NH3: _ pH: _ Conductivity: _ TRC:
Test Concentrations (Volume: Volume): CONTROL ,500,1000 , £CCO, ^ D(?0. fipoO,ll»000 m»j JL
Agency Summary Sheet(s)7:
Reference Toxicant Data: Test Dates: to
Hist. S5% Control Limits: to Method for Determinina Ref. Tox. Value:
Special Procedural and Considerations:
Ufe
Study Director Initials: V j/9-<-^ Date:
-------
TEST SUBSTANCE USAGE LOG
Page PC Of
FCETL QA Form
Revisii
Effective
Prr)ip"T Number 950->~ll-
Test Substance. Number
Test Substance Collection Date
and Timer
Sample Type (Grab or Compr
-^tlt-U- P^P1***^
-SSUtion Water Number
/RWa* or FCETt*. circle one
Concurrent Control Water HW»
9-tf 1-0~0>S
Sample 1
(1 (^(ty'tl
From:
@ /Vfl-
To:
NA-
& i<>-l " ^
j*ff£
•Jt>'-/'0
/vA-
K?)l^ j^^
1 L, 1 1 5" r? '/
SamoieZ
1
From:
To:
Sample 3
From:
To:
i
Sample* ,
',
From:
@
To: #
.
^
r
9
\
=
PREPARATION OF TEST SOLUTIONS
Test
Substance
Cone.
COWTROL
S0(",
i oro
AOCO
HCCO
ft OOP
»v. L~0^7
Total
InitiaJaiOate
Initials/Oat*
Initiall/Dlte
InitialsfOata
InitiaUyDste
InhiaWOat*
Initial* Date
Initials/Date
Test
Substance
Volume (mil
0
b
10.
as
50
100
aoo
5f1j
Dilution
Water
Volume (mil
J.OO
l^H
i«8
I 75"
ISt?
(00
(j
(007
Total
Volume
(ml)
Joo
-i
-------
Paoa_3_of id
FCETL QA Form No. 0
Revision 2
-------
Page T of I
-------
Page
ol
\ I e> I "V=\
FCETL QA Form No. 053
ReS/ision 1
Effective 2/93
ACUTE CHEMICAL DATA
^-
Project Number:_Sl>O:S'IC^'8-30-oS 2 Test Species (Circle): C. dubia D. magna D. pulex P promelas O. my/c^sOtherjiBpecify):
Cone.
Rep.
Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L)
Temperature ('Q
PH
1
New
Old New
Old
^000
b.7
New
Old New
u?
Old
New
Old New
Old New
Old
New Old
New
Old New
35
Old New
Old New
Old
S.OCP
U,"7
A//V
•1.1
l,QQfl
'1-7
Melon?
5
6
53
SI
Dale-
S*
si
I0\
IM
ii.ro
Ib'S'O
'54-0
Initials:
tots
(he/
-------
Page
Q
FCETL QA Form No. 056
Revision 2
Effective 1/96
TEST MATERIAL CHARACTERIZATION
Project Number: 85"03" Jo*) - g 3-O -nSJ | Test Species (Circle): C. dubia D. magna D. pulex P. promelas O. mykiss(oth§j (Specify):/^ .
Cone.
CPA/TfcOL
50O
000
J.ooo
L|,OOO
&(OoO
Meter*
Date:
.Time:
Conductivity
0
413
|32>o
4280
12$0
/3&'/0
JHSbP
(J
«MV)
wo
.
U;S/cm) Hardness (mg/L CaCO3)
2
H&S
1356
JJ4C
HI80
7570
NA-
NA
1C
1
I
i^
6«/
3
0
I
2
3
Alkalinity (mg/L CaCO3)
0
1
2
3
TRC (mg/L)
0
i
2
-
3
NH3 (mg/L)
0
i
2
3
NOTE:.
Hardness. ," Hinltv. :»C. and NH, data appearing en !h;S page |;J, = tcon ..nnscrihed from the wrt chemistry log, FCETL QA Form No. 084.
-------
Page / of I <*•
FCETL QA Form No. 055
Revision 2
Effective 1 /94
DAILY TOXICITY TEST LOG
Project Number: vS03~lO°!~£i P.O— oSJ1
Test Species (Circle): C. dubia D. magna D. pulex P. promeias O. mykiss Bother JSpecify): /f.4z-ft/-A
General
Comments
Test Day 0
Test Day 1
Test Day 2
Test Day 3
Test Day 4
Test Day 5
Test Day 6
Test Day 7
Test Day 8
Test Solution Mixed at: I'TS'O
Test Organisms Added at: | u iO
'
""^j^rr"'"
%t::;:rxr^^^.,
CT 25. V * C- Aanc^ ^^ -^— J5. 6 PC^
S^VlVilS k*2>£- 0^,
Feeding
per CH-SH. 2 hrr.
jr\(}T 4<)
/° tn 1°?*)
-------
Study #8503-109-820-053
11/15(11
TEST NUMBER: 820-053
DATE: 10/13/99
TOXICANT : Cl-
SPECIES: Hyalella azteca (lot #99-22)
DURATION:
24 H
RAW DATA: Concentration Number
(mg/L) Exposed
.00 10
1125.00 10
2250.00 10
4500.00 10
9000.00 10
Mortalities
0
0
2
10
10
SPEARMAN-KARBER TRIM:
.00%
SPEARMAN-KARBER ESTIMATES: LC50:
95% LOWER CONFIDENCE:
95% UPPER CONFIDENCE:
2324.54
3301.01
-------
•MM-104-020- 3503-103'830-053
F1LEIS20HYAL24
REFERENCE TOXICANT DATA FOR HYALELLA AZTECA ACUTES
SODIUM CHLORIDE - EXPRESSED AS MG/L CL-
ENSR FORT COLUNS ENVIRONMENTAL TOXICOLOGY LABORATORY
P.Via
3
DATE
10/27/95
11/03/95
11/10/95
01/08/96
03/28/96
08/06/96
08/20/96
01/21/97
07/29/97
10/14/97
08/18/98
09/29/98
10/13/98
10/20/98
10/27/98
12/15/98
08/10799
09/03/99
10/13/99
10/13/99
LOT*
95-84
95-87
95-88
96-15
96-30
97-05
97-12
97-18
98-48
98-52
98-53
98-54
98-57
98-60
99-14
99-19
99-22
99-22
24-HR.
LC50
2986
2257
1704
2904
3204
3193
2706
2930
2881
3874
2930
2360
2411
3182
3380
3070
2406
2615
2969
2770
ACCEPTABLE RANGE
MEAN
2986
2622
2316
2463
2611
2708
2708
2736
2752
2864
2870
2827
2795
2823
2860
2873
2846
2833
2840
2837
SD
ERR
515
643
602
618
601
549
514
484
578
548
543
533
522
523
508
505
493
480
468
LOW
ERR
1591
1030
1259
1376
1505
1610
1707
1785
1708
1773
1741
1730
1779
1813
1857
1836
1847
1880
1901
HIGH
ERR
3652
3602
3666
3846
3911
3806
3764
3719
4019
3967
3914
3861
3867
3907
3890
3856
3819
3800
3772
METHOD
S-K
Probit
Probit
S-K
S-K
S-K
Probit
S-K
S-K
S-K
S-K
S-K
S-K
Binomial
Binomial
S-K
S-K
S-K
S-K
S-K
-------
EPA PROBIT ANALYSIS PROGRAM
USED FOR CALCULATING LC/EC VALUES
Version 1.5
Study #8503-109-820-053
Hyalella azteca lot #99-22
Teat Datet 10/13/99
96-Hour LC50
Cone.
Control
270.0000
540.0000
1125.0000
2250.0000
4500.0000
9000.0000
Number
Exposed
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
Number
Resp.
1
4
4
4
8
10
10
Observed
Proportion
Responding
0.1000
0.4000
0.4000
0.4000
0.8000
1.0000
1.0000
Proportion
Responding
Adjusted for
Controls
0.0000
0.1385
0.1385
0.1385
0.7128
1.0000
1.0000
Chi - Square for Heterogeneity (calculated)
Chi - Square for Heterogeneity
(tabular value at 0.05 level)
0.954
9.488
******************
*
*
*
*
NOTE
Slope not significantly different from zero.
LC/EC fiducial limits cannot be computed.
*************************
*
*
*
*
>**************************
Estimated LC/EC Values and Confidence Limits
Point
LC/EC 1.00
LC/EC 50.00
Exposure
Cone.
746.564
1778.100
95% Confidence Limits
Lower Upper
-------
Study #8503-109-820-053
DATE: 10/13/99
TOXICANT : Cl-
SPECIES: Hyalella azteca
TEST NUMBER: 820-053
DURATION:
96 H
RAW DATA:
Concentration
(mg/L)
.00
270.00
540.00
1125.00
2250.00
4500.00
9000.00
Number
Exposed
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
Mortalities
1
4
4
4
8
10
10
SPEARMAN-KARBER TRIM:
33.33%
SPEARMAN-KARBER ESTIMATES: LC50:
95% LOWER CONFIDENCE:
95% UPPER CONFIDENCE:
1458. 94) "56
~njwrr4
2026.89
NOTE: MORTALITY PROPORTIONS WERE NOT MONOTONICALLY INCREASING.
ADJUSTMENTS WERE MADE PRIOR TO SPEARMAN-KARBER ESTIMATION.
-------
p»
FILEISHYAL96
REFERENCE TOXICANT DATA FOR HYALELLA AZTECA ACUTES
SODIUM CHLORIDE - EXPRESSED AS MG/L CL-
ENSR FORT COUJNS ENVIRONMENTAL TOXICOLOGY LABORATORY
96-HR ACCEPTABLE RANGE
DATE LOT# LC50 MEAN SD LOW HIGH METHOD
10/13/99 99-22 1563 1563 ERR ERR ERR T-S-K
10/13/99 99-22 1459 1511 74 1364 1658 T-S-K
Cf
-------
of JJ_
Page _ _
FCETL QA Form No. 051
Revisions
Effective 6/97
TOXICITY DATA PACKAGE COVER SHEET
T" Type:
Test Substance: - //*£-/
Dilution Water
Projea
Siwi,..
Concurrent Control Water -
Dan and Time Test Beoan:/^//^
PrOtOCOl Number - .
An-
Ratrh Mumber:
X d , I Supplier:
Date gnd Ttme Test
Background Information
Type of
Test Temperature^li_/_X_ Env. Chmbr/Bath »
pH Comro|7. _ |f YeSj give
Test Chamhurn- . ?dV * / gcV
Test Solution Vol.: 2
-------
Page _2_ of J_
FCETLQAFormOl-:
Revision C.
Effective 1/96
Project Number ,F523~ fc'f'JfZ^ 0 i-' «1
Teat Subetanc. Numbar
T*at Subatanca Collection Data
and Time
Sampla Typa (Grab or Comp)
&M ^R^^&'j?^^
Motion Watar Numbar
JrWT^ FCETLJf. circle one
Concurrent Control Water RW*
Dated) Used
Samf
4.1
//ft ^/ .-^T
From:
To:
[0-37-^4
J^5"7
'•vfh
l o In fay
i f
Sampla 2
t (y
From:
@
To:
Sample 3
From:
To:
\\
Sample 4- !,
From:
T°@ ^
*
'
J
,
,-
s
\
-
PREPARATION OF TEST SOLUTIONS
Taat
Subatanca
% Cone.
o
/
J
tCLV "
tf(Mi '
Jflflfv
WJt '
To*
.nr^Oat.
Inltlala/Data
InMela/Date
InhlatelData
1 Inlt^D.,.
Inlu*lf/Dite
Initlah/Oita
,^,0...
Teat
Subatanca
Volume (ml)
0
Q-frisLG
-/TJ^**-^
2-S
•31
/vTZ)
0.ZC7V)
Diution
Water
Voluma (mil
X&t
tf<+
/$$
'•?*>'
/.•TO
/en?
6'
Total •
Volunw
[ml)
2^.^
2*V
WJ
?*v
^
zm
2>*>
LCi2Jitfty
-------
Pace ^ of I \
FCETLQAFonnNo.052
Reviaion2
Effective 1/95
ACUTE BKDLQGJCAL DATA
Project Number
Test Soeaes (Clrda): C.dubia D.maona D. outer P omm»/»» n mvttiss Other fSnecmrtX 1-1 #
Cone.
Test
Repticata
Number of Surviving Organisms
0
Hours
24
Hours
48
Hours
n
Hours
96
Hours
1C
IP_
l£.
X
\/
V
10
A
/
V
to
/o
/\
V
/C'
10
"7
/ V
K
s
1X150)
ZL
!/ K P
o
I45oo)
/o
(3000)
Data
Time:
Irritate:
-------
I'ayu ..\ ol U
TCEll QAFormNo. (to
Revision 2
Effective 3/98
I'l
ACUTE CHEMICAL DATA
|| Pro|ecl Number:_1£??J'VOIr -?2o Ot,1 || Jest Species (Circle): C. dubia D. magna D. pulex P. promelas O. myhis
Cone.
(ysf
$W
(<&V
2tM>
J5SE--
A
B
C
D
A
B
C
0
A
B
C
D
A
B
C
0
Meier*
Dale*
Time*
Dissolved Oxygen
0
New
If- ^
-*•?
(f-Tt
t>3
*)
12^
&\
i
Old
£8.
^
S>1
5
Itifa
630
Now
2
Old
5.-S
5-t
^'(,
r> V
i
*fofo
<,<*>
^
Now
mg/L)
3
Old
6-.Z-
?->
9->
*^,>
j
•ti/if
5*511
^
Now
4
Old
£./
{, /
(, 0
1,0
$
i*fa
(**>
^
Temperalure (°C)
0
Nuw
2^
f
^
4-
53
T-^fe
7^<3
JM
1
Old
as
iJS'
^^
-95
w.
°lltk
\,lo
^
New
2
Old
2<
/•T
Z^'
Z<
53
"fafy
i^
n
Now
3
Old
^iT
^^"
-zf
x-r
6~>
I^AI
5?fc
^
Ucw
4
Old
Z<
-i7
?<
_<
•^
^
-£*0
&
.? — ">
s/eHKer (SEE
•« — — — •" "
^ily): H.fl^r^ ||
pH
0
New
y • Cl
^ V
o^ -^
5*.o
/«/
^?
TtJfl
2*.
i
Old
$.0
8.0
A 1
U * 1
8-0
10)
%•/,
/^30
°F
New
2
Old
V-o1
yo
o /
y /
to/
'i^ii
lv«l
^-1
Now
3
Old
7-1
71
?-y
y.&
Ai/
'jfyfa
•s^
r)
Now
4
01,1
y. z-
^2
5"-^
y. /
/«/
^'
/^J*.i>
•sj^
Uiliilion/coiiliol waiur iiiul elllucnl wcio biuuyhi Co 20"C piior lo HHKIIKJ Iliu ililiilion sciics Iho |-jiiiporaliiro ol lesullliifj cllliicnl dilullons Is assinnod lo also lioj
-------
I'aye _^D ol J V
rCETL QA Form No. 053
Revision 2
Effective 3/98
•=£>
ACUTE CHEMICAL DATA
Project Number: <$50SHQV o^O-Qt>CL fl Te>1 Species (Circle): C. dutiia D. magna 0. po/ex P. promelas O. mykiss Other (Specify^
Cone.
Rap.
Dissolved Oxygen
mg/L)
Temperature (°C)
PH
i
New
Old Now
Old New
Old
5 >
New
Old
New
Old
New
Old New
9-S
Old
New
Old
New
Old
Jv?
New
Old
New
Old New
Old
{,.1
A
r^A-
Meier*
53
o|
Dale:
1,20
.
(D
Dilution/control water and ellluenl were brought to ^C prior to mixing Ihe dilution series. The temperature ol resulting effluent dilutions Is assumed to also be
-------
U> nl I I
I Clill. (1A I OHM No. ()!»(.
Ili'vision ?
LMIcclivo
TEST MAFEHIAL CHAMAC I EWZA1 ION
Project Number: 3*^33 /cl^'5r'Ze>' •" Ot>ri- Test Species (Circle): C. dubia D. magna D. pulex P. promelas O. inykiss(otfier{Spe£My\j/.
Cone.
__^__
5^
/UtJ-O
2.ln0 on Ililj p«0" hl«» b»en tllnicilhod l.orn Iho wol chomisl.y log. FCEH QA form No O81.
-------
1
Page [_ of
FCETL QA Form No. 055
Revision 2
Effective 1/94
DAILY TOXICITY TEST LOG
Project Number:
-QLp.1
Test Species (Circle): C. dubia D. magna D. pulex P. prome/as 0. mykiss Other (Specifyl^ H,
General
Comments
Feeding
Initials/Date
Test Day 0
Test Solution Mixed at:
Test Organisms Added at
A1/
Test Day 1
Cr JS,3-C
t
CKl
Test Day 2
Test Day 3
Test Day 4
Test Day 5
Test Day 6
Test Day 7
Test Day 8
-------
Study /8503-109-820-062
TEST NUMBER: 820-062
DATE: 10/27/99
TOXICANT : Cl-
SPECIES: Hyalella azteca (lot #99-27)
DURATION: 24 H
RAW DATA:
Concentration
(mg/L)
.00
1125.00
2250.00
4500.00
9000.00
Number
Exposed
10
10
10
10
10
Mortal!
0
0
2
10
10
SPEARMAN-KARBER TRIM:
.00%
SPEARMAN-KARBER ESTIMATES: LC50:
95% LOWER CONFIDENCE:
95% UPPER CONFIDENCE:
2324754
3301.01
-------
•8503-104K320-
FILE IS 20HYAL24
REFERENCE TOXICANT DATA FOR HYALELLA AZTECA ACUTES
SODIUM CHLORIDE - EXPRESSED AS MG/L CL-
ENSR FORT COLLINS ENVIRONMENTAL TOXICOLOGY LABORATORY
56
DATE
11/03/95
11/10/95
01/08/96
03/28/96
08/06/96
08/20/96
01/21/97
07/29/97
10/14/97
08/18/98
09/29/98
10/13/98
10/20/98
10/27/98
12/15/98
08/10/99
09/03/99
10/13/99
10/13/99
10/27/99
LOT*
95-87
95-88
96-15
96-30
97-05
97-12
97-18
98-48
98-52
98-53
98-54
98-57
98-60
99-14
99-19
99-22
99-22
99-27
24-HR.
LC50
2257
1704
2904
3204
3193
2706
2930
2881
3874
2930
2360
2411
3182
3380
3070
2406
2615
2969
2770
2770
ACCEPTABLE RANGE
MEAN
2257
1981
2268
2517
2652
2661
2700
2722
2850
2858
2813
2780
2810
2851
2866
2837
2824
2832
2829
2826
SD
ERR
391
601
671
655
586
545
508
611
577
567
553
541
542
525
520
507
493
479
466
LOW
ERR
1198
1087
1175
1343
1489
1610
1706
1628
1705
1678
1673
1728
1767
1815
1796
1811
1847
1871
1893
HIGH
ERR
2763
3490
3859
3962
3834
3789
3739
4073
4012
3948
3886
3893
3935
3916
3878
3837
3817
3787
3759
METHOD
Probit
Probit
S-K
S-K
S-K
Probit
S-K
S-K
S-K
S-K
S-K
S-K
Binomial
Binomial
S-K
S-K
S-K
S-K
S-K
S-K
-------
EPA PROBIT ANALYSIS PROGRAM
USED FOR CALCULATING LC/EC VALUES
Version 1.5
Study /8503-109-820-062
Hyalella azteca lot #99-27
Test Date: 10/27/99
96-Hour LC50
Cone.
270.0000
540.0000
1125.0000
2250.0000
4500.0000
9000.0000
Number
Exposed
10
10
10
10
10
10
Number
Reap.
Observed
Proportion
Responding
0
1
1
7
10
10
0.0000
0.1000
0.1000
0.7000
1.0000
1.0000
Proportion
Responding
Adjusted for
Controls
0.0000
0.1000
0.1000
0.7000
1.0000
1.0000
Chi - Square for Heterogeneity (calculated)
Chi - Square for Heterogeneity
(tabular value at 0.05 level)
3.877
9.488
96h
Estimated LC/EC Values and Confidence Limits
Point
LC/EC 1.00
LC/EC 50.00
Exposure
Cone.
95% Confidence Limits
Lower Upper
126.766
1180.890
711.340
2286.802
-------
- tew-
FILEISHYAL96 -
REFERENCE TOXICANT DATA FOR HYALELLA AZTECA ACUTES frtf.
SODIUM CHLORIDE - EXPRESSED AS MG/L CL-
ENSR FORT COLLINS ENVIRONMENTAL TOXICOLOGY LABORATORY
96-HR ACCEPTABLE RANGE
DATE LOTf LC50 MEAN SD LOW HIGH METHOD
10/13/99 99-22 1563 1563 ERR ERR ERR T-S-K
10/13/99 99-22 1459 1511 74 1364 1658 T-S-K
10/27/99 99-27 1648 1557 95 1367 1746 Probit
-------
APPENDIX C
HISTORICAL DISTRIBUTION OF TOTAL PAHs, MERCURY, LEAD,
AND ZINC AT MNS-99-04R AND MNS-99-13R
^ C
LbtuuJ . ^ ' ' CO
-------
MNS-99-04R, Total PAH Profile
(based on 13 PAHs)
100 200 300 400
Total PAHs (mg/kg dry wt.)
500
Total PAHs (based on 13 compounds) (mg/kg dry wt.)
Level I SQT for Total PAHs (1.6 mg/kg dry wt.)
Level II SQT for Total PAHs (23 mg/kg dry wt.)
Figure C-l. Historical distribution of total PAHs (mg/kg dry wt.) at site MNS-99-04R.
C-I
-------
MNS-99-13R, Total PAH Profile
(based on 13 PAHs)
0-15
OS
+*
HH
A
-*-•
fi
0)
o
50 100 150
Total PAHs (mg/kg dry wt.)
200
Total PAHs (based on 13 compounds) (mg/kg dry wt.)
Level I SQT for Total PAHs (1.6 mg/kg dry wt.)
Level II SQT for Total PAHs (23 mg/kg dry wt.)
Figure C-2. Historical distribution of total PAHs (mg/kg dry wt.) at site MNS-99-13R.
C-2
-------
MNS-99-04R, Mercury Profile
0-15 -
15-30 -
30-45 -
45-60 -
60-75 -
57 75-90 -
Q
£ 90-120 -
O
U 120-150 -
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
Mercury (mg/kg dry wt.)
Mercury (mg/kg dry wt.)
Level I SQT for Mercury (0.18 mg/kg dry wt.)
Level II SQT for Mercury (1.1 mg/kg dry wt.)
1.2
Figure C-3. Historical distribution of mercury (mg/kg dry wt.) at site MNS-99-04R.
C-3
-------
£
CJ
t-
O)
0-15 -
15-30 -
30-45 -
45-60 -
O 60-75 -
U
MNS-99-13R, Mercury Profile
• '• • . ,;,rrtSVV.:-^;r-, ,:< ;
"'^-/y.V'f
.'', '•:••' -:'"
0.0
0.1 0.2 0.3
Mercury (mg/kg dry wt.)
Mercury (mg/kg dry wt.)
Level I SQT for Mercury (0.18 mg/kg dry wt.)
0.4
Figure C-4. Historical distribution of mercury (mg/kg dry wt.) at site MNS-99-13R.
C-4
-------
MNS-99-04R, Lead Profile
0 50 100 150 200 250
Lead (mg/kg dry wt.)
300
350
Lead (mg/kg dry wt.)
Level I SQT for Lead (36 mg/kg dry wt.)
Level II SQT for Lead (130 mg/kg dry wt.)
Figure C-5. Historical distribution of lead (mg/kg dry wt.) at site MNS-99-04R.
C-5
-------
OS
0)
•4^
c
0)
Q
o
U
0-15
MNS-99-13R, Lead Profile
50
100 150 200
Lead (mg/kg dry wt.)
250
300
Lead (mg/kg dry wt.)
Level I SQT for Lead (36 mg/kg dry wt.)
Level II SQT for Lead (130 mg/kg dry wt.)
Figure C-6. Historical distribution of lead (mg/kg dry wt.) at site MNS-99-13R.
C-6
-------
MNS-99-04R, Zinc Profile
W
13
>
fe-
o>
+J
S3
HH
fl
a
0)
Q
o
U
120-150
200
400 600 800
Zinc (mg/kg dry wt.)
1000
1200
Zinc (mg/kg dry wt.)
Level I SQT for Zinc (120 mg/kg dry wt.)
Level II SQT for Zinc (460 mg/kg dry wt.)
Figure C-7. Historical distribution of zinc (mg/kg dry wt.) at site MNS-99-04R.
C-7
-------
0-15
o>
•<->
=
SH
o
MNS-99-13R, Zinc Profile
100 200 300 400
Zinc (mg/kg dry wt.)
Zinc (mg/kg dry wt.)
Level I SQT for Zinc (120 mg/kg dry wt.)
Level II SQT for Zinc (460 mg/kg dry wt.)
500
Figure C-8. Historical distribution of zinc (mg/kg dry wt.) at site MNS-99-13R.
C-8
------- |