United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Water
Regulations and Standards
Washington. DC 20460
?/EPA
Water
SEDIMENT QUALITY CRITERIA METHODOLOGY
VALIDATION: CALCULATION OF SCREENING
LEVEL CONCENTRATIONS FROM FIELD DATA
CJ
u
'c
a
o>
o
01
_o
"5
"c
u
1000
100
10
1.0
0.1
0.01 •
90th Ptretntilt Conctntration
SSLC for 'A' /
_* - x
X
X X
XX
„ X
x x
X
x
w X
x
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
X
X
1 1
1 2 34 5 6 78 9 10 11 12 13 U 15 16 17 18 19 20
Sittc Wh«r« Spvcivs "A* is Prtsvnt
A. CALCULATION OF SPECIES SCREENING LEVEL CONCENTRATION (SSLC)
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Criteria and Standards Division
Washington, B.C. 20460
-------
SEDIMENT QUALITY CRITERIA METHODOLOGY
VALIDATION: CALCULATION OF SCREENING
LEVEL CONCENTRATIONS FROM FIELD DATA
Work Assignment 56, Task IV
July 1986
for
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Criteria and Standards Division
Washington, D.C.
Submitted by
BATTELLE
Washington Environmental Program Office
Washington, D.C.
-------
FINAL REPORT
SEDIMENT QUALITY CRITERIA METHODOLOGY VALIDATION:
CALCULATION OF SCREENING LEVEL CONCENTRATIONS
FROM FIELD DATA
Prepared by
J.M. Neff, D.J. Bean, B. W. Cornaby, R.M. Vaga,
T.C. Gulbransen, and J.A. Scanlon
July 1986
Prepared for
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Criteria and Standards Division
Office .of Water Regulation and Standards
Washington, D.C.
Submitted by
BATTELLE
Washington Environmental Program Office
2030 M Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
-------
1.
ABSTRACT
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Criteria and
Standards Division has initiated an effort to develop sediment
quality criteria. Sediment quality criteria are to be used in
conjunction with water quality criteria to protect U.S.
freshwater and saltwater bodies and their uses. Sediment quality
criteria are needed because credible national water quality
criteria alone are not sufficient to ensure protection of aquatic
ecosystems consistent with provisions of the Clean Water Act.
EPA is evaluating several different approaches to
developing technically sound and defensible sediment quality
criteria. The Screening Level Concentration (SLC) approach is one
of the approaches EPA is evaluating. The objectives of the
investigation described in this report are to evaluate the SLC
approach empirically for nonpolar organic contaminants in
sediments and to assess its strengths and weaknesses for use in
conjunction with other methods for deriving sediment quality
criteria.
The SLC approach uses field data on the co-occurence in
sediments of benthic infaunal invertebrates and different
concentrations of the nonpolar organic contaminant of interest.
The SLC is an estimate of the highest concentration of a
particular nonpolar organic contaminant in sediment that can be
tolerated by approximately 95 percent of benthic infauna. As
such, the SLC value could be used in a regulatory context as the
concentration of a contaminant in sediment which, if exceeded,
could lead to environmental degradation and therefore would
warrant further investigation.
To calculate a SLC, large databases are required that
:ontain synoptic observations of the concentrations of the
specific nonpolar organic chemicals of interest in the sediments,
concentrations of total organic carbon in the sediments, and the
species composition of the benthic infauna. A cumulative
frequency distribution of all stations at which a particular
species of infaunal invertebrate is present is plotted against
the organic carbon-normalized concentration in sediment of the
contaminant of interest. The concentration of the contaminant at
the locus representing the 90th percentile of the total number of
stations at which the species was present is estimated by
interpolation and termed the species screening level
concentration (SSLC). Next, SSLCs for a large number of species
are plotted as a frequency distribution, the concentration above
which 95 percent of the SSLCs are found is termed the SLC.
SLCs were calculated in this way for five contaminants in
freshwater sediments (total polychlorinated biphenyls, DDT,
heptachlor epoxide, chlordane, and dieldrin) and nine
-------
2.
contaminants in saltwater sediments (total polychlorinated
biphenyls, DDT, naphthalene, phenanthrene, fluoranthene,
benz(a)anthracene, chrysene, pyrene, and benzo(a)pyrene).
Freshwater SLCs ranged from 0.008 ug/g sediment organic carbon
for heptachlor epoxide to 0.290 ug/g sediment organic carbon for
total PCBs. Saltwater SLCs ranged from 4.26 ug/g sediment organic
carbon for total PCBs to 43.4 ug/g sediment organic carbon for
pyrene. There are several possible reasons for the large
differences in the freshwater and saltwater SLC values. The most
important probably is the differences in ranges of organic carbon
normalized contaminant concentrations in sediments covered by
each database. The concentrations of contaminants in freshwater
sediments tended to be low as evidenced by the many zero
contaminant values. The saltwater database tended toward more
highly contaminated sediments. Based on these observations, the
freshwater SLC values may be conservative and the saltwater SLC
values may be too high.
the SLC approach has demonstrated sufficient merit to
warrant further evaluation and elaboration . Given a large enough
database and minor modifications to the methods for calculating
SSLCs and SLCs, the approach will provide a conservative estimate
of the highest o.rganic carbon normalized concentrations of
individual contaminants in sediments that can be tolerated by
approximately 95 percent of benthic infauna. It is essential that
the database contain organic carbon normalized concentrations of
the sediment contaminants of interest that span a wide range
(preferably two orders of magnitude or more) and include values
from locations known to be heavily contaminated. Low and
intermediate sediment contaminant concentrations are also needed
to ensure that pollutant-sensitive species are not excluded from
the analysis. High values are needed to ensure that benthic
communities are in fact being adversely affected at some stations
by the contaminant of interest. Before SLCs can be used in a
regulatory context, the databases upon which they are based must
be subjected to a rigorous quality assurance review. Both the
biological and the chemical data should be evaluated for
accuracy, comparability, and representativeness.
-------
3.
SEDIMENT QUALITY CRITERIA METHODOLOGY VALIDATION:
CALCULATION OF SCREENING LEVEL CONCENTRATIONS FROM FIELD DATA
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 BACKGROUND
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Criteria and
Standards Division (EPA-CSD) has initiated an effort to develop
sediment quality criteria. Sediment quality criteria are to be
used in conjunction with water quality criteria to protect U. S.
freshwater and saltwater bodies and their uses/ including
fisheries, recreation, and drinking water.
Sediment quality criteria are needed because credible
national water quality criteria alone are not sufficient to
ensure protection of aquatic ecosystems consistent with
provisions of the Clean Water Act. Section 304(a) of the Clean
Water Act authorizes EPA to develop and implement sediment
criteria analogous to EPA's water quality criteria (Gilford and
Zeller, 1986). Many instances have been recorded in recent years
of environmental degradation or unacceptable environmental
quality in freshwater and saltwater ecosystems in which water
quality criteria have not been exceeded. Probable explanations
are that: 1) contaminated sediments can serve as reservoirs for
continual recontamination of the overlying water column (ie.,
Larsson, 1985); and 2) aquatic organisms interact with sediments
either directly through physical contact or indirectly through
consumption of food organisms that are intimately associated with
sediments, and through this mechanism may become contaminated
with pollutants associated with sediments (ie., Pavlou and
Dexter, 1979; Varanasi et al., 1985). Thus, to prevent
environmental degradation, specific protection limits are
required for both aqueous and sediment phase contaminant
concentrations.
The development of technically sound sediment quality
criteria that can be applied widely to sediments from different
sources is a difficult task. Chemical contaminants interact in
complex, often poorly understood ways with sediment particles and
may be present in sediments in a variety of adsorbed or solid
forms. As a general rule, chemical pollutants associated with
sediments are much less bioavailable and toxic to aquatic
organisms than the same pollutants in solution in the water
(Neff, 1984; Lake et al., 1985). However, there is no known
simple relationship between the concentration of a contaminant in
sediment and its toxicity to aquatic organisms in contact with
that sediment.
EPA, in recognition of the complexity of the sediment
contamination problem, has adopted a phased approach to
-------
4.
developing sediment quality criteria. In the first phase, EPA
sponsored two Sediment Quality Criteria Workshops, the first in
November 1984, and the second in February 1985. At the workshops,
experts on sediment chemistry and toxicology identified and
described several approaches or strategies for deriving sediment
quality criteria for three classes of chemical contaminants:
nonpolar organics, heavy metals, and polar organics. EPA-CSD
currently is supporting several research projects to evaluate and
refine some of the methods proposed at the workshop for
developing sediment quality criteria. The results of an
evaluation of one of those methods, the Screening Level
Concentration (SLC) approach, is the subject of this report.
These SLCs will be used with data generated by other tasks in the
sediment criteria program dealing with elaboration of sediment
normalization theory and development of solid phase bioassay
protocols for nonpolar organic chemicals to develop a method for
deriving sediment quality criteria.
The objectives of the investigation described in this
report are to evaluate the SLC approach empirically and to assess
its strengths and weaknesses for deriving sediment quality
criteria. The SLC approach was evaluated by using several
existing databases to derive a minimum of five SLCs each for
freshwater and saltwater sediments.
1.2 THE SCREENING LEVEL CONCENTRATION APPROACH
The screening level concentration approach uses field
data on the concentration of specific nonpolar organic
contaminants in sediments and the presence of specific taxa of
benthic infauna in that sediment to calculate screening level
concentrations (SLCs). The SLC is defined here as the
concentration of a nonpolar organic contaminant in sediment
which, if exceeded, could lead to environmental degradation and
therefore would warrant further investigation. It is an estimate
of the highest concentration of a particular nonpolar organic
pollutant in sediment that can be tolerated by approximately 95
percent of benthic infauna. The SLC approach is consistent with
the strategy that assessments of sediment quality must involve at
a minimum measurements of concentrations of toxic chemicals in
the sediments, toxicity of the sediments to representative
infauna, and evidence of modified resident infaunal community
structure in the contaminated sediments (Chapman and Long, 1983;
Long and Chapman, 1985).
Before an SLC can be derived, a large database must be
compiled. This database must contain synoptic observations of the
concentrations of the specific nonpolar organic chemicals of
interest in the sediments, concentrations of total organic carbon
in the sediments, and the species composition of the benthic
infauna.
In the first step of the calculation, a cumulative
frequency distribution of all stations at which a particular
-------
5.
species of infaunal invertebrate is present is plotted against
the organic carbon-normalized concentration in sediment of the
contaminant of interest. The concentration of the contaminant at
the locus representing the 90th percentile of the total number of
stations at which the species was present is estimated by
interpolation and termed the species screening level
concentration (SSLC). Next/ SSLCs for a large number of species
are plotted as a frequency distribution. The concentration above
which 95 percent of the SSLCs are found is termed the SLC.
This approach to developing sediment quality criteria has
several intuitively appealing attributes. It makes use of field
data on the coexistence of specific levels of sediment
contamination and a resident infauna, making extrapolations from
laboratory to field conditions unnecessary. It utilizes data on
only the presence of species in sediments containing given
concentrations of contaminants. Thus, no a priori assumptions are
made about a causal relationship between levels of sediment
contamination and the distribution of infaunal populations.
Because no causal relationship is assumed, it is not necessary
take into account the wide variety of natural environmental
factors, such as water depth, sediment texture, and salinity,
that affect the composition and distribution of benthic infaunal
communities. However, because the method uses actual observations
from the field of the co-occurence in the sediments of multiple
species of benthic infauna and concentrations of contaminants,
valid a posteriori inferences can be made about the range of
contaminant concentrations in the sediment that the benthic
infauna can tolerate.
Nearly always, contaminated sediments contain more than
one contaminant at an elevated concentration. The infauna
resident in the contaminated sediments, as well as the
populations that have been eliminated from the contaminated
sediments, are responding to the multiple contaminants present
and not just to the contaminants of interest. The SLC approach
can not take into account multiple contimant interactions in
sediments. As a result, the SLC value for a particular
contaminant will tend to be conservative (eg., lower than the
benthic infauna could tolerate if the contaminant of interest was
the only contaminant present in the sediment). Because the mix
and relative proportions of different contaminants present in the
sediments will vary substantially from location to location, this
conservative bias in the SLC will tend to decrease as the number
of observations upon which SSLCs are based is increased.
SLCs are calculated from organic carbon-normalized
contaminant concentrations rather than concentrations in bulk
sediment. This normalization is based on the premise, supported
by much theory and experimental data, that bioavailability of
nonpolar organic pollutants from sediments is dependent upon the
organic carbon content of the sediment, the lipid content of the
organism, and the relative affinities of the chemical for
sediment organic carbon versus animal lipid (Karickhoff and
-------
6.
Morris, 1986; Kadeg et al., 1986). A nonpolar organic
contaminant will be distributed among three phases, the sediment
organic fraction, the tissue organic fraction, and the sediment
pore water, in proportion to the respective sediment organic
carbon-water and tissue lipid-water partition coefficients of the
contaminant. Thus, the bioavailability and, by inference, the
toxicity of a nonpolar organic pollutant in sediment will be
proportional to the ratio of the partition coefficient of the
pollutant in the tissue organic fraction of the animal to the
partition coefficient of the pollutant in the sediment organic
fraction, and the sediment organic carbon concentration.
1.. 3 GENERAL DATA REQUIREMENTS
Large databases containing information on the biology and
chemistry of surficial sediments from freshwater and saltwater
ecosystems are required for the calculation of screening level
concentrations (SLCs). The calculation of an SLC for a given
nonpolar organic contaminant requires data bases containing
matched (synoptic if possible) observations of species
composition of benthic infauna, concentration of the organic
contaminant of interest in the sediment, and concentration of
total organic carbon in the sediment. Sediment grain size data
also are.useful, but not essential. At a minimum, 20 observations
of the presence of a particular species in sediments containing
different concentrations of the contaminant of interest are
required for calculation of a species screening level
concentration (SSLC). A minimum of ten SSLCs are required to
calculate an SLC. These numbers were chosen somewhat arbitrarily
for the initial evaluation of the SLC approach.
The benthic infauna should be identified to species. A
limited number of identifications to only the genus level are
acceptable if a majority of the infauna in the database are
identified to species. Data sets containing only higher level
taxonomic identifications (e.g., family, order, class) are not
acceptable. Due to time and budget constraints, only a
superficial attempt was made during the course of this study to
assure the accuracy and consistency of the taxonomy within and
among data sets. Several taxonomic discrepancies were discovered
during this review and recalculation of SLCs based on the revised
species lists did not modify the SLCs significantly.
Data also are required on the concentration of the
specific nonpolar organic contaminant of interest in sediment
from the same location as the benthic data, and preferably
collected at the same time, as the biota sample. The chemical
contaminant must be identified specifically. Data for broad
generic pollutant classes (e.g., total petroleum hydrocarbons,
oil and grease, total organohalogens, etc.) are not used.
However, narrower designations of chemical class (e.g., total
PCBs, total polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, DDT and major
degradation products, etc.) are acceptable..
-------
7.
Data also are required on the total organic carbon (TOC)
concentration of the same sediments used for analysis of benthic
infauna and organic contaminant concentrations. If TOC values
are not available, measurements that can be converted readily to
TOC (e.g., total volatile solids, total organic matter, or total
sediment carbon for noncarbonate sediments) are acceptable.
Due to the preliminary nature of this approach, databases
were sought which fulfilled the aforementioned minimum criteria.
These databases were not subjected to any extensive quality
assurance review, nor were the QA/QC backgrounds of the databases
evaluated. Lacking this more extensive review, SLCs developed
using these data sources will be illustrative of the validity of
the approach, but are not proposed at this stage of development
for regulatory purposes. Before SLCs could be used in a
regulatory, context, the methodology used to collect and assess
geological, chemical, and biological data would require a
comparability assessment. Inconsistencies in taxonomic
identifications, for instance, may affect SLC values, yet only a
superficial review of taxonomic criteria has been conducted in
this study. A more thorough review of the biological, chemical,
and geological data may also result in refinements to and
improvements in the sensitivity of the SLC methodology.
-------
8.
2.0 MATERIALS AND METHODS
2.1 ACQUISITION OF FRESHWATER DATA
The freshwater data sets used in this study were located
by systematically contacting various government agencies, private
consulting firms, and universities, and by searching the open
literature. Government agencies contacted included the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (ten regions), U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers (Division and District offices), Ohio EPA,
International Joint Commission, and Environment Canada.
Approximately 120 individuals were interviewed in these
organizations during the initial data search. Results of this
preliminary survey indicated that the greatest amount of usable
and accessible information appeared to be available for the Great
Lakes region. A concentrated search in this geographic area
revealed the following sources of acceptable data: the Region V
Office of the U.S. EPA, Office of Federal Information, Chicago,
IL; the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency; the Buffalo
District of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; and the Ministry of
Environment, London, Ontario, Canada.
These sources yielded approximately 125 data sets which
were evaluated based on the data requirements described
previously to determine if they should be included in the
analysis. Based on the data requirements, sufficient data were
available in the freshwater databases for calculating freshwater
screening level concentrations for DDT, total polychlorinated
biphenyls (PCBs), dieldrin, chlordane, and heptachlor epoxide.
The database compiled for calculating freshwater SLCs
consisted of 80 individual data sets representing 323 separate
sampling stations. Sampling stations were located in six states
(Table 1), with a majority of stations located in Illinois (97
sites or 30 percent of the total) and Michigan (95 sites or 30
percent of the total). The remaining 40 percent of the stations
were from Indiana (21 stations), New York (28 stations), Ohio (50
stations), and Wisconsin (32 stations). Data from both lotic and
lentic ecosystems were included in the analysis.
Sufficient data were available in the freshwater data
sets to calculate a screening level concentration for five
conpounds: DDT, PCBs, dieldrin, chlordane, and heptachlor
epoxide.
2.2 ACQUISITION OF SALTWATER DATA
Potentially useful saltwater data sets were identified
by searching a computerized inventory of marine pollution
monitoring programs. This inventory was recently prepared by
Battelle for NOAA-Ocean Assessment Division. The focus of the
data search wa.s on three U.S. coastal regions for which large
databases that contained relevant information were thought to
-------
9.
exist: the New York Bight; the southern California Bight; and
Puget Sound. Several potentially applicable data sets were
identified in this inventory. The group that sponsored or
performed the data collection was contacted to determine the
suitability and availability of the data sets. Government
agencies contacted included the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (Regions 1,2,9, and 10), the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and
the Minerals Management Service. Several sewage treatment
districts of major metropolitan areas that discharge treated
wastewater or sludge to the ocean were contacted. In addition,
several consulting firms, universities, or individual
investigators that were known to have performed or participated
in marine benthic monitoring and assessment programs were
contacted. Approximately 100 individuals or institutions were
contacted by telephone or letter during this data search.
From these saltwater databases, a total of 19 field
surveys or monitoring cruises were identified that contained data
suitable for derivation of SLCs (Table 2). The 19 data sets
contained data from 293 sampling stations. Nearly equal numbers
of stations were located in each of the three regions. These
sampling stations . contained 114 species of benthic infauna
identified to the species level. About 50 percent of these
species occurred with sufficient frequency to be used for
calculating an SSLC.
Sufficient data were available in the saltwater data sets
to calculate a screening level concentration for nine compounds:
DDT, PCBs, and the polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons naphthalene,
phenanthrene, fluoranthene, benz(a)anthracene, pyrene, chrysene,
and benzo(a)pyrene.
2.3 CALCULATION OF SCREENING LEVEL CONCENTRATIONS (SLCs)
Separate SLCs were derived for freshwater and saltwater
sediments and were based exclusively on the respective freshwater
and saltwater databases. However, the procedures used to
calculate freshwater and saltwater SLCs were the same.
First, we identified all the stations in the database
at which the contaminant of interest was analyzed in the
sediments. For each of these stations, we prepared a list of all
species of benthic infauna that were present at that station. We
then normalized contaminant concentrations to the total organic
carbon concentration of the sediment at each station by the
simple formula:
TOC-normalized contaminant concentration =» X/TOC
(ug contaminant/g organic carbon)
where X is the contaminant concentration in the bulk sediment (ug
contaminant/kg sediment dry wt.), and TOC is the concentration of
total organic carbon in the sediment (g organic carbon/kg
-------
10.
sediment dry wt.).
For each species that was present at 20 or more stations,
we plotted the organic carbon normalized concentration of the
chemical in the sediment for all samples (or stations) in which
the species was present, versus the station number, proceeding
from the least to the most contaminated station (Figure la). From
this plot, we estimated the sediment contaminant concentration
below which 90 percent of the samples containing the species
occurred. This concentration was defined as the species screening
level concentration (SSLC) of the contaminant. This procedure was
repeated for each benthic species present in the data set at 20
or more stations, thereby generating a number of SSLCs for a
given contaminant.
We then constructed a cumulative frequency distribution
(based on rank, which in turn was based on the SSLC values) of
all SSLCs for the contaminant (Figure Ib) and calculated the
fifth percentile (the SSLC value above which 95 percent of all
SSLCs fall) of that distribution by linear interpolation between
the two nearest quantiles. This interpolated value was designated
as the screening level concentration (SLC) of the contaminant.
Because the SSLCs for each contaminant were not normally
distributed (Kolmogorov D-Statistic, > =»0.05) (Sokol and Rohlf,
1969), standard statistical (distribution-free) techniques were
used to calculate a confidence interval for the SLCs . Order
statistics were employed to set a confidence interval for the
fifth percentile of the SSLC cumulative frequency distribution
for each contaminant. Confidence intervals were set using the
binomial distribution as described by Mood et al. (1974). The
interval that provided a confidence coefficient greater than 95
percent was chosen.
Estimates of the SLC were also made using the jackknife
procedure (Quenouille, 1956) in an effort to set confidence
intervals. However, this approach proved unsuitable. For example,
the pseudo-variables generated for DDT by this procedure were not
normally distributed (Shapiro-Wilk, w-0.625; n-21, ns, Shapiro
and Wilk, 1965). Furthermore, the pseudo-variables gave negative
estimates for the SLC.
-------
11.
3.0 RESULTS
3.1 FRESHWATER DATA
The freshwater database contained presence data for a
total of 103 different infaunal invertebrate taxa. However, only
a total of 23 species, representing seven families, orders or
classes were present at a sufficient number of sampling stations
to be included in the analysis. The freshwater benthic species
used in the analysis included eight oligochaetes (annelid worms),
five ephemeropterans (mayflies), three trichopterans
(caddisflies), one chironomid (midge), one isopod (aquatic sow
bug), two amphipods (scuds), and one gastropod (snail). For all
five contaminants for which freshwater SLCs were calculated, the
taxa found most frequently in the sample were Oligochaeta and
Ephecteroptera.
The distribution of total organic carbon concentrations
in freshwater sediments ranged from 5.0 to 366 g/kg dry wt. The
ranges of concentrations of the five nonpolar organic
contaminants in sediments, for which freshwater SLCs were
calculated, are summarized in Table 3. In each case, the lowest
concentration was below the detection limit of the analytical
technique used and is given as zero. The distribution of total
organic carbon, bulk contaminant concentrations, and organic
carbon normalized contaminant concentrations were not normally
distributed (Kolmogorov D-Statistic, with =0.05). In all cases,
the range of organic carbon normalized concentrations of
contaminants spanned at least one order of magnitude.
3.2 SCREENING LEVEL CONCENTRATIONS FOR CONTAMINANTS IN FRESHWATER
SEDIMENTS
The values of the SSLCs for DDT, total PCBs, dieldrin,
chlordane, and heptachlor epoxide in freshwater sediments are
presented in Tables 4 through 8, and their cumulative frequency
distributions are plotted in Figures 2 through 6. The confidence
envelope around the cumulative distribution of the SSLCs,
generated using the Kolmogorov D-Statistic, was approximately +
30 - 40 percent. The cumulative frequency distributions from
which the SSLCs for each contaminant were extracted are contained
in the Appendix.
SSLCs for DDT were calculated for 21 freshwater species
and ranged from 0.189 to 20.0 ug/g organic carbon (Table 4). The
number of observations used to calculate each SSLC ranged from 20
to 56. The cumulative frequency distribution curve of the SSLCs
showed an irregular concave shape and was dominated by low
concentrations of DDT. Nearly 50 percent of the SSLCs were less
than 0.35 ug/g organic carbon (Figure 2). The SLC for DDT in
freshwater sediments is 0.190 ug/g organic carbon (confidence
interval, 0.0 - 0.283,7-= 0.02). This SLC value is 0.005 percent
of the highest normalized concentration of DDT in the database.
-------
12.
SSLCs for total PCBs were calculated for the same 21
species used to calculate freshwater SSLCs for DDT. The SSLCs
ranged from 0.286 to 103.4 ug/g organic carbon (Table 5). The
number of observations used to calculate each SSLC ranged from 20
to 56. The shape of the cumulative frequency distribution curve
for the SSLCs was approximately linear, with PCB concentrations
evenly distributed over the entire range (Figure 3). The SLC for
total PCBs in freshwater sediments is 0.290 ug/g organic carbon
(confidence interval, 0.0 - 0.65, c^a 0.02). This SLC value is
0.05 percent of the highest normalized concentration of PCB in
the database. Although their specific rank order was different,
the species below the 50th percentile for both DDT and PCB were
identical(Tables 4 and 5).
SSLCs for dieldrin were calculated for 16 freshwater
species and ranged from 0.026 to 1.00 ug/g organic carbon (Table
6). The number of observations used to calculate each SSLC ranged
from 23 to 56. The cumulative distribution curve of the SSLCs
had a markedly sigmoid shape with most of the concentrations
falling in the range of 0.12 to 0.26 ug/g organic carbon (Figure
4). The SLC for dieldrin in freshwater sediments is 0.021 ug/g
organic carbon (confidence interval, 0.0 - 0.084, ^= 0.04). This
SLC value is 0.09 percent of the highest normalized concentration
of dieldrin in the database. Four of the eight species present
below the 50th percentile in the calculations for dieldrin were
the same as for DDT (Tables 4 and 6).
SSLCs for chlordane were calculated for 16 species of
freshwater animals and ranged from 0.124 to 8.51 ug/g organic
carbon (Table 7). The number of observations used to calculate
each SSLC ranged from 20 to 56. The distribution curve of the
SSLC values was essentially flat from the origin to the 63rd
percentile, above which the values increased sharply (Figure 5).
The SLC for chlordane in freshwater sediments is 0.098 ug/g
organic carbon (confidence interval, 0.0 - 0.136,o(« 0.04). This
SLC value is about 0.01 percent of the highest normalized
concentration of chlordane in the database. With the exception of
the oligochaete, Peloscolex ferox, all species present below the
50th percentile were the same as for DDT (Tables 4 and 7);
SSLCs for heptachlor epoxide were calculated for 12
freshwater species and ranged from 0.013 to 4.88 ug/g organic
carbon (Table 8). The number of observations used to calculate
each SSLC ranged from 23 to 56. The cumulative distribution curve
of the SSLCs was dominated by values less than 0.053 ug/g organic
carbon (Figure 6). The SLC for heptachlor epoxide in freshwater
sediments is 0.008 ug/g organic carbon (confidence interval, 0.0
- 0.029, -' - 0.02) This SLC value is 0.03 percent of the highest
concentration of heptachlor epoxide in the database. With the
exception of the oligochaete, Limnodrilus hoffmeisteri, all of
the species' below the 50th percentile were the same as for DDT
(Tables 4 and 8).
-------
13.
3.3 SALTWATER DATA
The saltwater database contained data for the presence
of a total of 117 species of marine benthic invertebrates. Of
these, only 60 species were present at a sufficient number of
sampling stations to be included in the analysis. The most
abundant saltwater taxa used to calculate SLCs were the
Polychaeta, followed by the Crustacea and Mollusca.
In the saltwater database, the concentration of total
organic carbon in the sediments ranged from 0.31 to 303 g/kg. The
highest value was somewhat anomalous, in that the second highest
value was 160 g/kg. The range in the concentrations of the nine
nonpolar organic contaminants in sediments, for which saltwater
SLCs were calculated, are summarized in Table 9. In all cases the
lowest concentration used was above the detection limit of the
analytical technique. In addition, the range of concentrations of
the organic carbon normalized contaminants spanned more than two
orders of magnitude, for all nine contaminants.
3.4 SCREENING LEVEL CONCENTRATIONS FOR CONTAMINANTS IN SALTWATER
SEDIMENTS
The values of the SSLCs for DDT, total PCBs, naphthalene,
phenanthrene, fluoranthene, benz(a)anthracene, chrysene, pyrene,
and benzo(a)pyrene in saltwater sediments are presented in Tables
10 through 18, and the cumulative frequency distributions of the
SSLCs are plotted in Figures 7 through 15. The cumulative
frequency distributions from which the SSLCs for each contaminant
were calculated are contained in the Appendix.
SSLCs for DDT were calculated for 17 saltwater species
from the Southern California Bight and ranged from 50.488 to
2069.586 ug/g organic carbon (Table 10). The number of
observations used to calculate each SSLC ranged from 20 to 101.
As reflected in the cumulative frequency distribution, there was
a bimodal distribution of SSLC values for DDT, with nine of the
values falling below 210 ug/g organic carbon and the remaining
ten values falling above 1100 ug/g organic carbon (Figure 7). The
SLC for DDT in saltwater sediments is 42.8 ug/g organic carbon
(confidence interval, 0.0 - 113.7,^ = 0.03). This SLC value is
0.6 percent of the highest normalized concentration of DDT in the
saltwater database.
SSLCs for total PCBs were calculated for 51 saltwater
species from the New York Bight and the Southern California Bight
and ranged from 3.394 to 71.315 ug/g organic carbon (Table 11).
The number of observations used to calculate each SSLC ranged
from 20 to 109. The shape of the frequency distribution curve
for the SSLCs was nearly linear, with PCB concentrations evenly
distributed over the entire range of observed values (Figure 8).
The SLC for total PCBs in saltwater sediments is 4.26 ug/g
organic carbon (confidence interval, 0.0 - 4.63,c*» 0.03). This
-------
14.
SLC value is 1.6 percent of the highest normalized concentration
of PCBs in the saltwater database. Four of the five most tolerant
species (highest SSLC values) were the same for both DDT and
PCBs. None of the species used to calculate the saltwater SLC for
DDT occurred below the 50 percentile concentration of SSLC values
for PCBs.
SSLCs for naphthalene were calculated for 24 species of
saltwater animals from the New York Bight and Puget Sound and
ranged from 36.036 to 57.059 ug/g organic carbon (Table 12). The
number of observations used to calculate each SSLC ranged from
20 to 55. The shape of the frequency distribution curve for the
SSLCs was relatively linear, with naphthalene concentrations
evenly distributed over the entire range of observed values
(Figure 9). The SLC for naphthalene in saltwater sediments is
36.7 ug/g organic carbon (confidence interval, 0.0 - 41.4,
•'=0.03). This SLC value is 10.7 percent of the highest normalized
concentration of naphthalene in the saltwater database.
SSLCs for phenanthrene were calculated for 25 species of
saltwater animals from the New York Bight and Puget Sound and
ranged from 22.368 to 75.0 ug/g organic carbon (Table 13). The
number of observations used to calculate each SSLC ranged from 20
to 56. The shape of the frequency distribution curve was
relatively linear, with phenanthrene concentrations nearly evenly
distributed over the entire range of observed values (Figure 10).
The SLC for phenanthrene in saltwater sediments is 25.9 ug/g
organic carbon (confidence interval, 0.0 - 38.4,^= 0.03). This
SLC value is 5.9 percent of the highest normalized concentration
of phenanthrene in the saltwater database. Five of the six most
sensitive species (lowest SSLC values) were the same for both
naphthalene and phenanthrene(Tables 12 and 13).
SSLCs for fluoranthene were calculated for 26 species of
saltwater invertebrates from Puget Sound and ranged from 36.184
to 164.384 ug/g organic carbon (Table 14). The number of
observations used to calculate each SSLC ranged from 20 to 59.
The cumulative distribution of SSLCs was skewed toward higher
values, with 16 of the 25 values above 100 ug/g (Figure 11). The
SLC for fluoranthene in saltwater sediments is 43.2 ug/g organic
carbon (confidence interval, 0.0 - 64.3,c^= 0.04). This SLC value
is 9.8 percent of the highest normalized concentration of
fluoranthene in the saltwater database. The two most sensitive
species, the polychaetes Glycinde armigera and Prionospio
cirrifera were the same for both naphthalene and fluoranthene
(Tables 12 and 14).
SSLCs for benz(a)anthracene were calculated for 23
species of saltwater invertebrates from Puget Sound and covered a
relatively narrow range from 24.348 to 51.802 (Table-'lS). The'
number of observations used to calculate each SSLC ranged from 20
to 57. The cumulative distribution of SSLCs was quite flat, with
all but three values falling in the narrow range between 41 and
-------
15.
52 ug/g (Figure 12). The SLC for benz(a)anthracene in saltwater
sediments is 26.1 ug/g organic carbon (confidence interval, 0.0 -
41.0, &• =0.03). This SLC value is 7.1 percent of the highest
normalized concentration of benz(a)anthracene in the saltwater
database.
SSLCs for pyrene were calculated for 27 saltwater species
from Puget Sound and ranged from 31.579 to 105.882 ug/g organic
carbon (Table 16). The number of observations used to calculate
each SSLC ranged from 20 to 58. The cumulative distribution of
SSLCs was skewed slightly toward the high side, with half the
values occupying the narrow range between 94 and 106 ug/g (Figure
13). The SLC for pyrene in saltwater sediments is 43.4 ug/g
organic carbon (confidence interval, 0.0 - 74.4,
-------
16.
4.0 DISCUSSION
All SLCs determined in this project are summarized in
Table 19. Some interesting patterns emerge. All SLCs for
freshwater sediments are lower than all SLCs for saltwater
sediments by at least one order of magnitude. This pattern is
exemplified best by the two contaminants for which we have
comparative freshwater and saltwater SLCs: PCBs and DDT. The SLC
for PCBs in saltwater sediments is 15 times higher than the
corresponding value for freshwater sediments. There is a 225-fold
difference in the SLCs for DDT in freshwater and saltwater
sediments. There are several possible reasons for these
differences. The most important are the following: 1) differences
in the range and distribution of values of organic carbon
normalized contaminant concentrations for freshwater and
saltwater sediment in the two databases; 2) differences in the
relative sensitivity of the freshwater and saltwater benthic
infauna used in this analysis; and 3) differences in the
solubility of the nonpolar organic contaminants in fresh water
and salt water. In addition, the freshwater database included
zero values for organic contaminants in sediments, whereas the
saltwater database .did not.
The range and distribution of contaminant concentrations
in the database used to calculate an SLC will have a marked
effect on the value of the SSLCs, and therefore the SLCs
generated. The SLC calculation process, by its very nature, makes
no a. priori assumptions about a causal relationship between a
given concentration of the contaminant of interest in sediments
and the presence or absence of a particular species of benthic
infauna in those sediments. Therefore, it is possible to have a
data set in which all concentrations of the contaminant of
interest are well below the concentration in sediments that would
adversely affect the distribution of benthic infauna. SLCs
calculated with such a data set would be conservative and the SLC
would have little regulatory relevance. On the other hand, if
most observations are from a heavily contaminated area, most of
the pollutant-sensitive species would be absent and the SLC would
be based primarily on pollutant-tolerant species. In such a case,
the SLC would be too high. As the range of contaminant
concentrations upon which the SLC is based increases, the
likelihood of these types of biases in the SLC decreases.
In the freshwater and saltwater data sets used to
calculate SLCs, the observed organic carbon normalized
concentrations of the contaminants in sediments were distributed
quite differently. This could account for much of the difference
in the SLC values between freshwater and saltwater sediments. For
example, in the freshwater data set, approximately 10 percent of
the- observations of the organic carbon normalized concentration
of DDT in sediments were below 0.5 ug/g, and only 10 percent of
observations were above 30 ug/g. Hpwevef, in the corresponding
saltwater data set, approximately 10 percent of observations were
-------
17.
below 1.0 ug/g, and approximately 75 percent of observations were
above 30 ug/g. As a result, 47.6 percent of the SSLCs for DDT in
freshwater sediments were below 0.35 ug/g organic carbon (Table
4), whereas 47.4 percent of the SSLCs for DDT in saltwater
sediments were at or below 208 ug/g organic carbon (Table 10).
The differences between freshwater and saltwater data sets for
FCBs are similar to but not as large as those described above for
DDT.
To further illustrate the differences between the
freshwater and saltwater databases, the SLCs can be compared to
the corresponding maximum concentrations of the contaminants in
the database. For freshwater sediments, each SLC was 0.01 to 0.09
percent of the highest organic carbon normalized concentration of
the corresponding contaminant in the freshwater database. In the
case of both DDT and PCBs, the SLC value was 0.05 percent of the
highest concentration in the freshwater database. For saltwater
sediments, each SLC was 0.6 to 11.5 percent of the highest
organic carbon normalized concentration of the corresponding
contaminant in the saltwater database. The SLC values for DDT
and PCBs were 0.6 and 1.6 percent, respectively, of their highest
concentrations in the saltwater database.
Although "differences in the sensitivity of freshwater
and saltwater benthic invertebrates to sediment-associated
nonpolar contaminants could result in some differences in the SLC
values, it is unlikely that such differences would be large
enough to account for more than a fraction of the differences in
SLC values observed here for freshwater and saltwater sediments.
Current water quality criteria for DDT and PCBs indicate that
there are only small differences in the apparent sensitivity of
freshwater and saltwater animals to these two chemicals (FR
45:231, Nov. 28,1980, 79318-79379). For DDT, the criterion to
protect freshwater aquatic life is 0.001 ug/1 as a 24-hour
average, not to exceed 1.1 ug/1 at any time. The corresponding
criterion to protect saltwater aquatic life is 0.001 ug/1 as a
24-hour average, not to exceed 0.13 ug/1 at any time. For PCBs,
the criterion to protect freshwater aquatic life is 0.014 ug/1 as
a 24-hour average. The corresponding criterion to protect
saltwater aquatic life is 0.030 ug/1. Thus, based on the water
quality criteria and assuming similarity in the sensitivity of
the organisms used to calculate water quality criteria and the
benthic infaunal invertebrates used to calculate SLCs, there
should be only a moderate difference in the sensitivity of
freshwater and saltwater animals to DDT and PCBs. Recently,
Palawski et al.(1985) reported that striped bass, a euryhaline
species of fish, was more sensitive to several pollutants,
including PCBs, several polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, and
pesticides, in hard fresh water than in low salinity sea water.
However, the differences in LC50 values were never greater than
about two-fold for any of the chemicals tested. The major
difference in sensitivity of freshwater and saltwater organisms
to sediment-adsorbed nonpolar organic contaminants is probably
due more to differences in partitioning behavior of the
-------
18.
contaminants in freshwater and saltwater systems than to
differences in the sensitivity of freshwater and saltwater
organisms themselves.
Salinity of the ambient medium does affect the physical
and chemical behavior of many chemicals. Kadeg et al. (1986)
reviewed the effects of salinity on the behavior of nonpolar
organic chemicals in aqueous media. The aqueous solubility of
PCBs, DDT, and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons decreases with
increasing salinity. As a result, the presence of electrolytes
(salts) in solution increases the sorption of nonpolar organic
chemicals by sediments. Therefore, it is reasonable to infer that
nonpolar organic chemicals adsorbed to sediments will be less
bioavailable in salt water than in fresh water. There are
relatively few data available that are suitable for testing this
inference (Neff, 1984). Boehm (1982) measured the concentration
of several nonpolar organic pollutants in sediments and resident
infaunal polychaetes and bivalves from the New York Bight.
Bioaccumulation factors for the contaminants from the sediments
(concentration in animal tissues/concentration in sediment)
ranged from 0.001 to 0.7 in the polychaetes Nephthys sp. and
Pherusa affinis and from 0.002 to 4.46 in the bivalve, Nucula
prqxima. Bioaccumulation factors for several polycyclic aromatic
hydrocarbons (PAH)" ranged from 0.01 to 0.24 in the polychaetes
and 0.002 to 3.20 in the bivalve. Eadie et al. (1982a,b;1983)
studied the concentrations of several PAHs in sediments and
benthic oligochaetes and arthropods from the Great Lakes.
Bioaccumulation factors from sediments for individual PAHs in the
amphipod Pontoporeia hoyi ranged from 1 to 45. Bioaccumulation
factors from sediments for different PAHs in the oligochaete
Limnodrilus hoffmeisteri ranged from 0.1 to 2.3. This limited
comparison lends support to the inference that bioavailability of
nonpolar organic contaminants from sediments will be inversely
related to salinity of the overlying water. Because
bioavailability and toxicity of a nonpolar organic chemical are
directly related, we can infer that there will be a tendency for
freshwater organisms to be more sensitive than saltwater
organisms to sediment-adsorbed contaminants. This conclusion is
consistent with our analysis and may account for a small part of
the difference in SLCs for freshwater and saltwater sediments.
This conjecture is very preliminary and requires further
experimental verification.
Zero values for contaminant concentrations in sediments
were used to calculate freshwater but not saltwater SLCs. The use
of zero values would tend to decrease the value of the SLCs
calculated. In order to determine the magnitude of the effect of
this difference in calculating freshwater and saltwater SLCs, a
few of the freshwater SLCs were recalculated without inclusion of
the zero values. This procedure approximately doubled the
resultant SLCs. Therefore, the contribution of this procedural
difference to the differences in freshwater and saltwater SLCs
for DDT and PCBs was small. Zero values were used in the
calculation of the freshwater SLCs so that there would be the
-------
19.
minimum number of 20 observations required to calculate an SSLC.
Of the four possible reasons for the differences between
the freshwater and saltwater SLC values, the most important
probably is the differences in ranges of organic carbon
normalized contaminant concentrations in sediments covered by
each database. The freshwater concentrations tended to be low as
evidenced by the many zero contaminant values. The saltwater
database tended toward the more highly polluted sediments. Based
on these observations, the freshwater SLC values may be
conservative and the saltwater SLC values may be too high.
Recently, Tetra Tech (1986) evaluated the SLC and
several other approaches to developing sediment quality criteria.
They used field data from Puget Sound. The only chemical for
which both Tetra Tech and Battelle calculated an SLC was
naphthalene. Our SLC for naphthalene, based on data from Puget
Sound and the New York Bight, is 36.7 ug/g organic carbon. This
value compares very favorably with the value of 37 ug/g organic
carbon reported by Tetra Tech, based on data from Puget Sound
alone.
Tetra Tech also calculated an SLC of 230 ug/g organic
carbon for total high molecular weight polycyclic aromatic
hydrocarbons in marine sediments. Nine PAHs were included in the
total, including five PAHs for which we calculated individual
SLCs (fluoranthene through benzo(a)pyrene). Assuming addativity,
the Tetra Tech data would indicate ah average SLC for each of the
nine PAH of 26 ug/g organic carbon. The SLCs that we calculated
for the five PAH range from 26.1 to 41.9 ug/g organic carbon
(mean, 37.6 ug/g organic carbon). Again, there is reasonable
agreement between the two independent estimates. Although Tetra
Tech did not calculate a saltwater SLC for DDT or PCBs, they did
apply another approach, which they named the apparent effects
threshold (AET) approach, to deriving sediment quality indices
for these contaminants. The AET values for PCBs and the different
PAHs were similar to one another, whereas the AET value for DDT
was much lower than the AETs for PCBs and PAHs. In our analysis
of saltwater sediments, the ranking of PCBs and DDT is reversed.
DDT and the different PAHs have similar SLCs and the SLC for PCBs
is much lower. In addition, the SLCs generated in the present
investigation are all less than the corresponding AET values
calculated by Tetra Tech, except for DDT. The SLC value for DDT
is much larger than the corresponding AET value. This difference
in relative ranking can be attributed to the different sources
and characteristics of the data sets used to calculate the SLCs
for DDT and PCBs. The data set used to calculate the saltwater
SLC for DDT was from the Southern California Bight, an area known
to be heavily contaminated with DDT residues. Thus, a large
fraction of the observations were at stations with sediments
containing high concentrations of DDT. The saltwater SLC for PCBs
was calculated with data from both the New York Bight and the
Southern California Bight. Both areas have sediments with
elevated concentrations of PCBs, but not as elevated as locations
-------
20.
in Puget Sound from which Tetra Tech obtained the data set used
to calculate the AET for PCBs.
The SLC approach has demonstrated sufficient merit to
warrant further evaluation and elaboration. Given a large enough
database and minor modifications to the methods for calculating
SSLCs and SLCs, the approach will provide a conservative estimate
of the highest organic carbon normalized concentrations of
individual contaminants in sediments that can be tolerated by
approximately 95 percent of benthic infauna. As the number and
range of observations contributing to the calculation of the SLC
for a contaminant increases, one would expect the SLC values
calculated to asymptotically approach some ideal "true" SLC
values for freshwater and saltwater sediments. It is essential
that the database contain organic carbon normalized
concentrations of the sediment contaminants of interest that span
a wide range (preferably two orders of magnitude or more) and
include values from locations known to be heavily contaminated.
Low and intermediate sediment contaminant concentrations are
needed to ensure that pollutant-sensitive species are not
excluded from the analysis. High values are needed to ensure that
benthic communities are in fact being adversely affected at some
stations by the . contaminant of interest. Data from areas
containing clearly defined gradients of concentrations of the
contaminant of interest in the sediments would be ideal for use
in calculating an SLC. In the present investigation, the
freshwater database was dominated by low contaminant
concentrations and the saltwater database was dominated by high
contaminant concentrations. The result was that freshwater SLCs
tended to be low and saltwater SLCs.tended to be high. As the
number of observations in the database increases, the magnitude
of this bias toward high or low values will decrease.
In order to calculate an accurate SLC, the number of
species used in the analysis should be as large as possible and
should span a wide phyletic range, whenever possible, taxa known
to be sensitive to chemical pollutants, such as benthic amphipods
and certain insect larvae, should be included in the analysis.
Thompson (1982) identified three zones with different benthic
infaunal community structure along a pollution gradient away from
point source discharges of treated sewage to the southern
California Bight. Species restricted to the unpolluted reference
areas can be considered the most pollutant-sensitive, whereas,
those that are most abundant in severely impacted areas can be
considered the most pollutant-tolerant. Some animals are most
abundant in the transitional zone between these extremes. Of the
five dominant members of the control (pollutant-sensitive)
community, two, the brittle star, Amphiodia (Amphispina) urtica,
and the polychaete, Pectinaria californiensis, are included in
the calculation of the SLCs for DDT (Table 10) and PCBs (Table
11). These two species ranked number two and eight, respectively,
in SSLCs for DDT, and number thirty and forty, respectively, in
SSLCs for PCBs. Among the most.pollutant-tolerant species, the
polychaete, Capitella capitata, ranked number fifteen in SSLCs
-------
21.
for DDT and number forty-three in SSLCs for PCBs. Thus, in the
present exercise, there was a fairly good relationship in the
case of DDT, but not PCBs, between the apparent sensitivity of
benthic species to pollution and their relative rank in a
cumulative frequency distribution of SSLC values. However, the
important point here is that apparently sensitive and apparently
tolerant species were included in the data sets used to calculate
the SLCs for DDT and PCBs.
Greater use could be made of taxa that have been
identified only to the genus level, if this will increase the
number of taxa in the database suitable for SSLC calculation.
.Inclusion of animals identified only to the genus level should be
done with caution. If data sets from different geographic areas
are being used to calculate an SLC, a species group identified to
the genus level in one region may or may not correspond to the
species group from another area identified to the same genus. For
example, Tharyx sp. from the southern California Bight may or may
not correspond to Tharyx sp. from Puget Sound or the New York
Bight. In using data for animals identified to only the genus
level, the assumption is implied that all members of that genus
have a similar sensitivity to the pollutant of interest. This
probably is not true. Organisms of a genus, including benthic
infauna, tend to segregate along environmental gradients,
including pollution gradients (Grassle and Grassle, 1976).
Therefore, the genus mean sensitivity may have little
environmental relevance with respect to generation of SLC values.
Another way to increase the number of species that can be
used in the analysis is to decrease the number of observations
required to calculate an SSLC. It may be possible to reduce this
number to ten without seriously compromising the validity of the
SSLCs. The requirement for at least 20 observations for
calculation of an SSLC was set somewhat arbitrarily at the
beginning of this project. It is likely that any disadvantage of
using fewer observations to calculate the SSLC would be more than
compensated for by the increase in the number of SSLCs that could
be calculated and used to determine the SLC. In addition, it is
probable that a majority of the additional SSLCs obtained this
way would be for the more sensitive species most likely to be
eliminated from the more contaminated stations. Ideally, more
than 20 SSLCs should be used to calculate each SLC. The more
SSLCs used, the more technically and statistically sound the
resulting SLC will be.
The requirement of the SLC approach for large databases,
and the desirability of using data from different regions to
calculate each SLC, raises another potential problem. Different
data sources may reach different conclusions regarding what
constitutes a genus. For example, one source might designate a
polychaete as Pectinaria californiensis and another might
designate the same animal as Cistena californiensis. These two
designations represent a single species and should be included
together for the SSLC determination. As our knowledge of the
-------
22.
freshwater and saltwater benthic infauna grows, revisions of the
taxonomy of some taxa are made. These revisions may result in
changes in some genus or species names. In addition, a population
originally designated as a single species may be divided into two
or more species, or several species may be combined into a single
species. Thus, when using data sets from several different
investigators and/or several geographic regions, great care must
be taken to ensure that the final species list contains no
synonymies or single entries that actually represent multiple
species. All data sets used to calculate each SLC must be
subjected to rigorous quality assurance review by a taxonomist
familiar with the benthic infauna of the geographic regions from
which the data sets were obtained.
The chemical data also must be subjected to rigorous
quality assurance review. Chemical data sets which do not contain
adequate documentation of precision, accuracy, comparability, and
representativeness should be used with caution. Analytical
detection limits should be documented and values less than
two-fold greater than the detection limits should not be used to
calculate SSLCs. Data sets based on results of analyses using
analytical techniques which have subsequently been found to be
inaccurate or subject to excessive interference should be
rejected. When several data sets from different regions are being
combined to calculate a single SLC value, the analytical
techniques used to generate the different data sets should be
comparable or at least capable of yielding roughly comparable
results.
Based on the number and distribution (in terms of both
range of concentrations and number of different locations from
which observations were used) of observations, the saltwater SLC
for PCBs is the most technically sound marine SLC value generated
in this preliminary evaluation of the SLC approach to developing
sediment quality criteria. The SLC value for PCBs in saltwater
sediments, 4.26 ug/g organic carbon, compares reasonably well
with the permissible sediment chemical concentration (PCC) based
on equilibrium partitioning for PCBs of 1.84 ug/g organic carbon
calculated for all sediments according to a sediment
normalization approach of Kadeg et al. (1986).
-------
23.
5.0 RECOMMENDATIONS
1. The SLC approach to deriving sediment quality criteria has
merit and warrants further evaluation and refinement.
2. The requirements for the number of observations necessary to
calculate an SSLC should be reduced to 10 and the number of SSLCs
required to calculate an SLC should be increased to at least 20.
This relationship should be evaluated statistically in detail to
arrive at the most statistically sound approach to deriving SLCs.
3. The choice of the 90th percentile of observations for the SSLC
and the 5th percentile of SSLCs for the SLC value also should be
evaluated statistically, using real data sets, in order to
develop an approach to calculating SLCs that makes optimal use of
the available data.
4. Additional data, particularly from sites known to be heavily
contaminated with the pollutants of interest, should be acquired
and added to the database. The effects of the inclusion of these
additional data on _the SLCs generated should be evaluated.
5. A statistical analysis should be performed to determine the
optimum range and distribution of sediment contaminant
concentrations for calculating SLCs.
6. All data bases used to calculate SLCs should be subjected to
rigorous quality assurance review. Both the biological and the
chemical data should be evaluated for precision, accuracy,
comparability, and representativeness. Criteria should be
developed for accepting or rejecting databases based on the
outcome of this quality assurance review.
7. Investigators should be encouraged in designing new benthic
monitoring and pollution assessment programs to include
collection of synoptic data on benthic infaunal community
structure, sediment contaminant concentrations, and sediment
organic carbon concentrations.
-------
24.
LITERATURE CITED
Boehm, P.D. 1982. Organic pollutant transforms and
bioaccumulation of pollutants in the benthos from waste
disposal-associated sediments. Tech. Rep. submitted to U.S. Dept.
of Commerce, NOAA, Rockville, MD. 78pp.
Chapman, P.M., and E.R. Long. 1983. The use of bioassays as part
of a comprehensive approach to marine pollution assessment. Mar.
Pollut. Bull. JU: 81-84.
Eadie, B.J., W. Faust, W.S. Gardner, and T. Nalepa. 1982a.
Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in sediments and associated
benthos in Lake Erie. Chemosphere 11; 185-191.
Eadie, B.J., W.R. Faust, P.F. Landrum, N.R. Moorehead, W.S.
Gardner, and T. Nalepa. 1983. Bioconcentrations of PAH by some
benthic organisms of the Great Lakes. Pages 437-449 In;
Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons: Formation, Metabolism, and
Measurement. Ed. by M. Cooke and A.J. Dennis. Battelle Press,
Columbus, OH.
Eadie, B.J., P.F. Landrum, and W. Faust. 1982b. Polycyclic
aromatic hydrocarbons in sediments, pore water and the amphipod
Pontoporeia hoyi from Lake Michigan. Chemosphere 11; 847-849.
Gilford, J.H., and R.W. Zeller. 1986. Information needs related
to toxic chemicals bound to sediments- a regulatory perspective.
In; Fate and Effects of Sediment-Bound Chemicals in Aquatic
Systems. Proceedings of the Seventh Pellston Workshop. Ed. by
K.L. Dickson, A.W,* Maki, and W. Brungs. Society of Environmental
Toxicology and Chemistry, (in press).
Grassle, J.P., and J.F. Grassle. 1976. Sibling species in the
marine pollution indicator Capitella capitata (Polychaeta).
Science 192: 567-569.
Kadeg, R.D., S.P. Pavlou, and A.S. Duxbury. 1986. Sediment
criteria methodology validation. Work Assignment 37, Task II.
Elaboration of sediment normalization theory for nonpolar organic
chemicals. Report to U.S. EPA, Criteria and Standards Division,
Washington, D.C. 44pp plus append.
Karickhoff, S.W., and K.R. Morris. 1986. Pollutant sorption:
Relationship to bioavailability. In; Fate and Effects of
Sediment-Bound Chemicals in Aquatic Systems. Proceedings of the
Sixth Pellston Workshop. Ed. by K.L. Dickson, A.W. Maki, and W.
Brungs. Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, (in
press).
Lake, J., G.L. Hoffman, and S.C. Schimmel. 1985. Bioaccumulation
of contaminants from Black Rock Harbor dredged material by
-------
25.
mussels and polychaetes. Tech. Rep. D-85-2. U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers and U.S. EPA, Washington, D.C. 150pp.
Larsson, P. 1985. Contaminated sediments of lakes and oceans act
as sources of chlorinated hydrocarbons for release to water and
atmosphere. Nature 317; 347-349.
Long, E.R., and E.R. Chapman. 1985. A sediment quality triad:
Measures of sediment contamination, toxicity and infaunal
community composition in Puget Sound. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 16;
405-515.
Mood, A.M., F.A. Graybill, and D.C. Boes. 1974. Introduction to
the Theory of Statistics. McGraw-Hill, New York. 564pp.
Neff, J.M. 1984. Bioaccumulation of organic micropollutants from
sediments and suspended particulates by aquatic animals. Fres. z.
Anal. Chem. 319; 132-136.
Palawski, D., J.B. Hunn, and F.J. Dwyer. 1985. Sensitivity of
young striped bass to organic and inorganic contaminants in fresh
and saline waters. Trans. Amer. Fish. Soc. 114; 748-753.
Pavlou, S.P., and R.N. Dexter. 1979. Distribution of
polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB) in estuarine ecosystems. Testing
the concept of equilibrium partitioning in the marine
environment. Environ. Sci. Technol. 13; 65-71.
Quenouille, M. 1956. Notes on bias estimation. Biometrica 43;
353-360.
Shapiro, S.S., and M.B. Wilk. An analysis of variance test for
normality (complete samples). Biometrica 52; 591-611.
Sokol, R.R., and F.J. Rohlf. 1969. Biometry. W.H. Freeman, San
Francisco. 776 pp.
Tetra Tech, Inc. 1986. Tasks 4 and 5a. Application of selected
sediment quality value approaches to Puget Sound Data. Report to
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Seattle District, Seattle, WA. 59
PP plus append.
Thompson, B.E. 1982. Variation in benthic assemblages. Pages
45-58 In: Coastal Research Project. Biennial Report for the Years
1981-1982. Ed. by W. Bascom. Southern California Coastal Water
Research Project, Long Beach, CA.
Varanasi, U., W.L. Reichert, J.E. Stein, D.w. Brown, and H.R.
Sanborn. 1985. Bioavailability and biotransformation of aromatic
hydrocarbons in benthic organisms exposed to sediment from an
urban estuary. Environ. Sci. Technol. 19; 836-841.
-------
26,
TABLE 1. LIST OF DATA SETS USED TO CALCULATE FRESHWATER SLCs BY
STATE AND THE NUMBER OF STATIONS IN EACH DATA SET.
Data Set Location No. of Stations
ILLINOIS
Big Muddy River 3
Calumet Channel 4
Casey Ft?rk 4
Des Plaines River 4
Fox River 8
Green River 3
Illinois River 6
Kankanee River 8
Kaskaskia River 8
LaMoine River 3
Little Calumet River 3
Little Wabash River 1
Lusk Creek 4
Middle Fork Saline River 3
Mississippi River 10
North Branch Chicago River 3
North Fork Saline River 2
Rock River 7
Salt Creek 4
Sanitary/Ship Canal 1
South Fork Saline River 3
Vermilion River 2
Wabash River 3
TOTAL 97
INDIANA
Indiana Harbor 21
TOTAL 21
MICHIGAN
Caseville Harbor 1
Detroit River 59
Grand Haven Harbor 8
Hammond Bay Harbor 1
Holland 12
-------
27.
TABLE 1. (Continued)
Data Set Location No. of Stations
MICHIGAN (CONT)
Lake St. Clair Channel 7
Manistee River 2
Monroe Harbor 1
Point Lookout Harbor 1
Thunder Bay 3
TOTAL 95
NEW YORK
Cape Vincent • 5
Dunkirk 5
Little Salmon River 1
Oak Orchard 4
Ogdensburg Harbor 1
Olcott Harbor 6
Port Ontario 1
Sakets Harbor 5
TOTAL 28
OHIO
Ashtabula Harbor 7
Conneaut 8
Cuyahoga River 14
Fairport 11
Sandusky Bay 10
TOTAL 50
WISCONSIN
Algoma Harbor 4
Ashland Harbor 2
Grant Park 4
Green Bay 17
Kenosha Harbor 3
Port Wing 2
TOTAL 32
GRAND TOTAL 323
-------
28.
TABLE 2. LIST OF DATA SETS USED TO CALCULATE SALTWATER SLCs BY LOCATION AND
NUMBER OF STATIONS.
Cruise/Survey
Region Code
NY Bight AL8109
DL8206
AL8201
AL8210
KE8007
Number of
Stations
44
4
6
1
33
TOTAL 88
S. Calif. Bight 730 39
80Q 12
81S 13
80m80 33
TOTAL 97
Puget Sound SAM 4
DABOB 4
SEQ 4
CASE 4
BELL 8
ELL 8
EVER 8
• SINCL 8
MSQS 50
URSCCI 10
TOTAL 108
GRAND TOTAL 293
-------
29.
TABLE 3. CONCENTRATION RANGES OF CONTAMINANTS IN SEDIMENTS FROM THE
FRESHWATER DATA BASE, EXPRESSED IN TERMS OF BULK SEDIMENT AND
NORMALIZED TO SEDIMENT TOTAL ORGANIC CARBON CONCENTRATION.
Organic Carbon
Concentration Range Normalized Concentration
Compound pg/g Dry Sed. Range pg/g Org C
DDT 0.0 - 30.7 0.0 - 3,520
PCBs 0.0 - 23.13 0.0 - 600
Dieldrin 0.0 - 1.00 0.0 - 24.5
Chlordane 0.0 - 1.00 0.0 - 25.1
Heptachlor Epoxide 0.0 - 1.00 0.0 - 29.1
-------
30.
TABLE 4.
CUMULATIVE FREQUENCY AND VALUES FOR SPECIES SCREENING LEVEL
CONCENTRATIONS (SSLCs) FOR DDT IN FRESHWATER SEDIMENTS. THE NUMBER
OF OBSERVATIONS USED TO CALCULATE EACH SSLC ALSO IS GIVEN.
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
Cumulative
Frequency (%)
4.8
9.5
14.3
19.0
23.8
28.6
33.3
38.1
42.9
47.6
52.4
57.1
61.9
66.7
71.4
76.2
80.9
85.7
90.6
95.2
100.0
SSLC
(ug/g Org. C)
0.189
0.208
0.227
0.283
0.283
0.286
0.286
0.333
0.345
0.345
2.471
2.667
2.667
2.667
3.000
3.000
3.182
3.182
4.429
16.842
20.000
No. of
Observations
20
28
25
42
35
36
20
54
37
34
25
23
20
56
55
26
20
26
43
31
56
Organism
Stenonema exiquum
Stenonema pulchellum
Cyrnellus fraternus
Stenonema integrum
Stenonema terminatus
Hyalella azteca
Pentanerua mallochi
Stenacron interpunctatum
Hydropsyche frisoni
Hydropsyche orris
Asellus intermedius
Limnodrilus claparedeianus
Limnodrilus udekemianus
Tubifex tubifex
Limnodrilus hoffmeisteri
Valvata sincera
Limnodrilus cervix
Potamothrix vejdovskyi
Peloscolex ferox
Peloscolex multisetosus
Gammarus fasciatus
-------
31.
TABLE 5.
CUMULATIVE FREQUENCY AND VALUES FOR SPECIES SCREENING LEVEL
CONCENTRATIONS (SSLCs) FOR TOTAL POLYCHLORINATED BIPHENYLS (PCBs) IN
FRESHWATER SEDIMENTS. THE NUMBER OF OBSERVATIONS USED TO CALCULATE
EACH SSLC ALSO IS GIVEN.
Rank
Cumulative
Frequency (%)
SSLC
(M9/9 Org. C)
No. of
Observations
Organism
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
15
17
18
19
20
21
4.8
9.5
14.3
19.0
23.8
28.6
33.3
38.1
42.9
47.6
52.4
57.1
61.9
66.7
71.4
76.2
81.0
85.7
90.5
95.2
100.0
0.286
0.379
0.606
0.650
0.722
0.722
0.949
1.905
3.137
4.655
7.442
9.318
24.260
29.259
29.600
34.286
45.714
52.778
52.778
56.338
103.448
25
35
28
34
37
42
20
54
20
25
36
26
26
23
56
43
20
20
55
56
31
Cyrnellus fraternus
Stenonema terminatum
Stenonema pulchellum
Hydropsyche orris
Hydro psyche frisoni
Stenonema integrum
Stenonema exiquum
Stenacron interpunctatum
Pentaneura mallochi
Asellus intermedius
Hyalella azteca
Potamothrix vejdovskyi
Valvata sincera
Limnodrilus claparedeianus
Tubifex tubifex
Peloscolex ferox
Limnodrilus udekemianus
Linmodrilus cervix
Limnodrilus hoffmei.steri
Gammarus fasciatus
Peloscolex multisetosus
-------
32.
TABLE 6.
CUMULATIVE FREQUENCY AND VALUES FOR SPECIES SCREENING LEVEL
CONCENTRATIONS (SSLCs) FOR OIELDRIN IN FRESHWATER SEDIMENTS. THE
NUMBER OF OBSERVATIONS USED TO CALCULATE EACH SSLC ALSO IS GIVEN.
Cumulative
Rank Frequency (%)
SSLC
(M9/9 Org. C)
No. of
Observations
Organism
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
6.3
12.5
18.8
25.0
31.2
37.5
43.7
50.0
56.2
62.5
68.8
75.0
81.3
87.5
93.8
100.0
0.026
0.084
0.115
0.139
0.167
0.167
0.178
0.178
0.185
0.185
0.186
0.194
0.200
0.260
0.370
1.000
40
24
34
23
52
56
34
40
51
26
36
24
34
28
26
56
Peloscolex ferox
Cyrnellus- fraternus
Stenonema terminatum
Limnodrilus claparedeianus
Limnodrilus hoffmeisteri
Tubifex tubifex
Hydropsyche orris
Stenonema integrum
Stenacron interpunctatum
Stenonema pulchellum
Hydropsyche frisoni
AseTliis intermedius
Hyalella azteca
Peloscolex multisetosus
Valvata sincera
Gammarus fasciatus
-------
33.
TABLE 7.
CUMULATIVE FREQUENCY AND VALUES FOR SPECIES SCREENING LEVEL
CONCENTRATIONS (SSLCs) FOR CHLORDANE IN FRESHWATER SEDIMENTS. THE
NUMBER OF OBSERVATIONS USED TO CALCULATE EACH SSLC ALSO IS GIVEN.
Cumulative
Rank Frequency (%)
SSLC
(M9/9 Org. C)
No. of
Observations
Organism
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
6.3
12.5
18.8
25.0
31.2
37.5
43.8
50.0
56.3
52.5
68.8
75.0
81.3
87.5
93.8
100.0
0.124
0.136
0.141
0.143
0.172
0.172
0.173
0.185
0.208
0.256
0.309
0.466
0.714
1.086
2.821
8.511
38
40
33
23
32
32
23
47
23
56
29
20
47
28
26
56
Stenonema integrum
Peloscolex ferox
Stenonema terminatum
Cyrnellus fraternus
Hydropsyche frisoni
Hydropsyche orris
Stenonema pulchellum
Stenacron interpunctatum
Limnodrilus claparedeianus
Tubifex tubifex
Hyalella azteca
Asellus intermedius
Limnodrilus hoffmeisteri
Peloscolex muHisetosus
Valvata sincera
Gammarus fasciatus
-------
34.
TABLE 8.
CUMULATIVE FREQUENCY AND VALUES FOR SPECIES SCREENING LEVEL
CONCENTRATIONS (SSLCs) FOR HEPTACHLOR EPOXIDE IN FRESHWATER
SEDIMENTS. THE NUMBER OF OBSERVATIONS USED TO CALCULATE EACH SSLC
ALSO IS GIVEN.
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Cumulative
Frequency (%)
8.3
16.7
25.0
41.7
41.7
50.0
58.3
66.7
75.0
83.3
91.7
100.0
SSLC
(pg/g Org. C)
0.013
0.029
0.029
0.034
0.034
0.037
0.043
0.050
0.053
0.705
1.086
4.878
No. of
Observations
52
37
34
33
31
24
48
23
34
26
28
56
Organism
Limnodrilus ho f fine is ten
Stenonema integrum
Stenonema terminatum
Hydro psyche frisoni
Hydropsyche orris
Stenonema pulchellum
Stenacron interpunctatum
Asellus intermedius
Hyalella azteca
Valvata sincera
Peloscolex multisetosus
Gammarus fasciatus
-------
35.
TABLE 9. CONCENTRATION RANGES OF CONTAMINANTS IN SEDIMENTS FROM THE
SALTWATER DATA BASE, EXPRESSED IN TERMS OF BULK SEDIMENT AND
NORMALIZED TO SEDIMENT TOTAL ORGANIC CARBON CONCENTRATION.
Organic Carbon
Concentration Range Normalized Concentration
Compound pg/g Dry Sed. Range pg/g Org C
PCBs 0.0005 - 3.18 0.625 - 271.96
DDT 0.0010 - 149.0 0.109 - 7292.3
Naphthalene 0.0011 - 1.20 0.110 - 342.86
Phenanthrene 0.0062 - 1.50 1.088 - 428.57
Fluoranthene 0.300 - 1.50 1.875 - 428.57
Benz(a)anthracene 0.093 - 1.30 0.581 - 371.43
Chrysene 0.059 - 1.30 0.368 - 371.43
Pyrene 0.290 - 2.60 1.812 - 742.86
Benzo(a)pyrene 0.100 - 1.20 0.625 - 342.86
-------
36.
TABLE 10. CUMULATIVE FREQUENCY AND VALUES FOR SPECIES SCREENING LEVEL
CONCENTRATIONS (SSLCs) FOR DDT IN SALTWATER SEDIMENTS. THE NUMBER
OF OBSERVATIONS USED TO CALCULATE EACH SSLC ALSO IS GIVEN.
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
Cumulative
Frequency (%)
5.9
11.8
17.6
23.5
29.4
35.3
41.2
47.1
52.9
58.8
64.7
70.6
76.5
82.4
88.2
94.1
100.0
SSLC
(pg/g Org. C)
50.488'
50.488
68.696
113.684
137.692
137.692
207.917
954.033
1186.331
1260.058
1392.128
1407.287
1511.990
1816.188
1999.961
2069.586
2069.586
No. of
Observations
21
27
29
21
29
20
20
62
79
45
86
61
101
51
44
37
57
Organism
Ampelisca brevisimulata
Amphiodia (Amphispina) urtica
Euphilomedes carcharodonta
Heterophoxus oculatus
Compsomyax subdiaphana
Sthenelanella uniformis
Chloeia pinnata
Pectinaria californiensis
Axinopsida sericata
Paraprionospio pinnata
Glycera capitata
Prionospio steenstrupi
Parvilucina tenuisculpta
Macoma carlottensis
Capitella capitata
Spiophanes berkeleyorum
Tellina carpenteri
-------
37.
TABLE 11. CUMULATIVE FREQUENCY AND VALUES FOR SPECIES SCREENING LEVEL
CONCENTRATIONS (SSLCs) FOR TOTAL POLYCHLORINATED BIPHENYLS (PCBs) IN
SALTWATER SEDIMENTS. THE NUMBER OF OBSERVATIONS USED TO CALCULATE
EACH SSLC ALSO IS GIVEN.
Rank
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
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
Cumulative
Frequency (%)
2.0
3.9
5.9
7.8
9.8
11.8
13.7
15.7
17.6
19.6
21.6
23.5
25.5
27.5
29.4
31.4
33.3
35.3
37.3
39.2
41.2
43.1
45.1
47.1
49.0
51.0
52.9
54.9
56.9
58.8
60.8
62.7
64.7
66.7
68.6
70.6
72.5
74.5
76.5
78.4
80.4
82.4
84.3
86.3
88.2
90.2
92.2
94.1
96.1
98.0
100.0
SSLC
(ng/g Org. C)
3.394
3.871
4.583
4.634
4.634
4.714
4.714
4.841
4.841
4.841
4.841
6.000
6.000
7.500
7.500
8.000
8.000
8.000
8.000
8.854
9.143
10.000
10.000
10.000
10.000
10.625
10.625
10.941
11.417
11.731
13.769
16.935
18.644
27.736
30.118
33.103
33.905
39.683
40.017
40.017
41.143
42.755
45.045
46.025
46.307
47.817
52.058
52.058
56.307
58.774
71.315
No. of
Observations
21
32
24
22
22
24
27
29
27
30
26
23
33
25
33
39
22
24
24
25
54
23
27
26
33
30
29
32
24
37
25
55
21
28
21
26
20
20
23
56
109
38
74
90
20
56
100
67
89
42
40
Organism
Spiochaetopterus costarum
Nephtys ferruginea
Harmothoe extenuata
Euchone elegans
Scalibregma inflatum
Drilonereis Tonga
Spiophanes bombyx
Anobothrus gracilis
Arctica islandica
Euchone incolor
Ninoe ni gripes
Nephtys incisa
Nucula proxima
Mediomastus ambiseta
Tharyx acutus
Aricidea catherinae
Caulleriella cf killariensis
Goniadella gracilis
Unciola irrorata
Lumbri nereis hebes
Pholoe minuta
Paraonis gracilis
Pherusa affinis
Phyllodoce mucosa
Tharyx annulosus
Lumbri nereis acicularum
Pitar morrhuanus
Tellina agilis
Glycera dibranchiata
Amphiodia (amphispina) urtica
Heterophoxus oculatus
Euphilomedes carcharodonta
Prionospio cirri fera
Cossura longocirrata
Ampelisca brevisimulata
Compsomyax subdiaphana
Sthenelanella uniformis
Armandia brevis
Glycinde armigera
Pectinaria cal iforniensis
Prionospio steenstrupi
Nephtys cornuta franciscana
Capitella capitata
Axinopsida sericata
Chloeia pinnata
Prionospio pinnata
Glycera capitata
Macoma carlottensis
Parvilucina tenuisculpta
Spiophanes berkeleyorum
Tellina carpenteri
-------
38.
TABLE 12. CUMULATIVE FREQUENCY AND VALUES FOR SPECIES SCREENING LEVEL
CONCENTRATIONS (SSLCs) FOR NAPHTHALENE IN SALTWATER SEDIMENTS. THE
NUMBER OF OBSERVATIONS USED TO CALCULATE EACH SSLC ALSO IS GIVEN.
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
13
19
20
21
22
23
24
Cumulative
Frequency (%)
4.2
3.3
12.5
16.7
20.8
25.0
29.2
33.3
37.5
41.7
45.8
50.0
54.2
58.3
62.5
66.7
70.8
75.0
79.2
83.3
37.5
91.7
95.8
100.0
SSLC
(pg/g Org. C)
36.036
39.565
40.000
41.394
41.765
41.765
41.765
41.765
43.333
43.333
47.436
47.436
47.436
51.980
51.980
51.980
51.980
51.980
51.980
52.055
52.055
57.059
57.059
57.059
No. of
Observations
20
24
53
25
51
22
45
24
24
25
52
52
55
49
20
31
50
26
21
29
21
28
27
30
Organism
Glycinde armigera
Prionospio cirri fera
Capitella capitata
Armandia brevis
Axinopsida sericata
Euchone incolor
Nephtys cornuta franciscana
Praxillella gracilis
Compsomyax subdiaphana
Goniada brunnea
Euphilomedes carcharodonta
Glycera capitata
Macoma carlottensis
Nephtys ferruginea
Phyllodoce hartmanae
Platynereis bicanal iculata
Prionospio steenstrupi
Sp'iochaetopterus costarum
Spiophanes berkeleyorum
Glycera americana
Pectinaria californiensis
Amphiodia (Amphispina) urtica
Parvilucina tenuisculpta
Pholoe tninuta
-------
39.
TABLE 13. CUMULATIVE FREQUENCY AND VALUES FOR SPECIES SCREENING LEVEL
CONCENTRATIONS (SSLCs) FOR PHENANTHRENE IN SALTWATER SEDIMENTS. THE
NUMBER OF OBSERVATIONS USED TO CALCULATE EACH SSLC ALSO IS GIVEN.
Cumulative
Rank Frequency (%)
SSLC
(M9/g Org. C)
No. of
Observations
Organism
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
3
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
4.0
8.0
12.0
16.0
20.0
24.0
28.0
32.0
36.0
40.0
44.0
48.0
52.0
56.0
60.0
64.0
68.0
72.0
76.0
80.0
84.0
88.0
92.0
96.0
100.0
22.368
36.576
36.576
38.356
38.514
39.726
39.726
40.588
40.588
40.588 '
40.588
52.294
52.294
52.294
52.294
54.167
55.372
55.372
55.372
55.372
55.372
75.000
75.000
75.000
75.000
21
25
25
25
20
52
27
25
53
51
25
56
56
55
21
54
29
54
20
37
22
29
27
32
26
Glycinde armigera
Armandia brevis
Prionospio cirrifera
Euchone incolor
Phyllodoce hartmanae
Axinopsida sericata
Goniada brunnea
Compsomyax subdiaphana
Euphilomedes carcharodonta
Nephtys ferruginea
Praxillella gracilis
Capitella capitata
Glycera capitata
Macoma carlottensis
Pectinaria cal iforniensis
Prionospio steenstrupi
Amphiodia (amphispina) uritica
Nephtys cornuta franciscana
Paraprionospio pinnata
Pholoe minuta
Spiophanes berkeleyorum
Glycera americana
Parvilucina tenuisculpta
Platynereis bicanal iculata
Spiochaetopterus costarum
-------
40.
TABLE 14. CUMULATIVE FREQUENCY AND VALUES FOR SPECIES SCREENING LEVEL
CONCENTRATIONS (SSLCs) FOR FLUORANTHENE IN SALTWATER SEDIMENTS. THE
NUMBER OF OBSERVATIONS USED TO CALCULATE EACH SSLC ALSO IS GIVEN.
Cumulative
Rank Frequency (%)
SSLC
(M9/9 Org. C)
No. of
Observations
Organism
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
3.8
7.7
11.5
15.4
19.2
23.1
26.9
30.8
34.6
38.5
42.3
46.2
50.0
53.8
57.7
61.5
65.4
69.2
73.1
76.9
80.8
84.6
83.5
92.3
96.2
100.0
36.184
58.993
61.321
64.286
66.138
81.081
81.651
81.651
97.872
111.765
124.65&
124.658
124.658
124.658
124.658
124.658
129.412
129.412
129.412
129.412
135.294
135.294
135.294
146.552
164.384
164.384
21
27
20
22
25
20
27
26
59
52
28
53
55
57
51
58.
25
57
41
20
27
21
25
32
29
29
Glycinde armigera
Prionospio cirri fera
Paraprionospio pinnata
Spiophanes berkeleyorum
Armandia brevis
Phyllodoce hartmanae
Goniada brunnea
Spiochaetopterus costarum
Capitella capitata
Axinopsida sericata
Euchone incolor
Euphilomedes carcharodonta
Macoma carlottensis
Nephtys cornuta franciscana
Nephtys ferruginea
Prionospio steenstrupi
Compsomyax subdiaphana
Glycera capitata
Pholoe minuta
Scalibregma inflatum
Parvilucina tenuisculpta
Pectinaria cal i form' ens is
Praxillella gracilis
Platynereis bicanal iculata
Amphiodia (amphispina) urtica
Glycera americana
-------
41.
TABLE 15. CUMULATIVE FREQUENCY AND VALUES FOR SPECIES SCREENING LEVEL
CONCENTRATIONS (SSLCs) FOR BENZ(A)ANTHRACENE IN SALTWATER SEDIMENTS.
THE NUMBER OF OBSERVATIONS USED TO CALCULATE EACH SSLC ALSO IS
GIVEN.
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
Cumulative
Frequency (%)
4.3
8.7
13.0
17.4
21.7
26.1
30.4
34.8
39.1
43.5
47.8
52.2
56.5
50.9
65.2
69.6
73.9
78.3
82.6
87.0
91.3
95.7
100.0
SSLC
(M9/9 Org. C)
24.348
35.477
35.477
40.952
41.322
42.466
44.118
44.118
44.118
44.118
44.118
44.118
47.647
47.647
47.647
47.647
47.647
47.945
51.765
51.765
51.765
51.802
51.802
No. of
Observations
24
25
21
26
26
52
57
25
28
53
57
56
50
27
21
25
57
29
30
50
40
20
30
Organism
Prionospio cirri fera
Armandia brevis
Spiophanes berklyorum
Goniada brunnea
Spiochaetopterus costarum
Axinopsida sericata
Capitella capitata
Compsomyax subdiaphana
Euchone incolor
Euphilomedes carcharodonta
Glycera capitata
Macoma carlottensis
Nephthys ferruginea
Parviculina tenniscul pta
Pectinaria californiensis
Praxillella gracilis
Prionospio steenstrupi
Ampho i od i a ( Amph i s pi na ) urt i ca
Glycera americana
Nephthys cornuta franciscana
Phloe minuta
Phyllodoce hartmanae
Platynereis bicanaliculata
-------
42.
TABLE 16. CUMULATIVE FREQUENCY AND VALUES FOR SPECIES SCREENING LEVEL
CONCENTRATIONS (SSLCs) FOR PYRENE IN SALTWATER SEDIMENTS. THE
NUMBER OF OBSERVATIONS USED TO CALCULATE EACH SSLC ALSO IS GIVEN.
Cumulative SSLC No. of
Rank Frequency (%) (n9/9 Org. C) Observations Organism
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
3.7
7.4
11.1
14.8
18.5
22.2
25.9
29.6
33.3
37.0
40.7
44.4
48.1
51.9
55.6
59.3
63.0
66.7
70.4
74.1
77.8
81.5
85.2
88.9
92.6
96.3
100.0
31.579
65.217
73.171
74.380
75.000
82.375
82.375
84.906
84.906
84.932
87.671
87.671
87.671
94.118
94.118
94.118
100.000
100.000
100.000
100.000
100.719
105.882
105.882
105.882
105.882
105.882
105.882
22
27
25
22
27
20
26
20
20
52
53
55
51
59
57
58.
25
28
21
25
57
29
29
27
41
32
20
Glycinde armigera
Prionospio cirri fera
Armandia brevis
Spiophanes berkeleyorum
Goniada brunnea
Phyllodoce hartmanae
Spiochaetopterus costarum
Paraprionospio pinnata
Tharyx monilaris
Axinopsida sericata
Euphilomedes carcharodonta
Macoma carlottensis
Nephtys ferruginea
Capitella capitata
Glycera capitata
Prionospio steenstrupi
Compsomyax subdiaphana
Euchone incolor
Pectinaria cal iforniensis
Praxillella gracilis
Nephtys cornuta franciscana
Amphiodia (amphispina) urtica
Glycera americana
Parvilucina tenuisculpta
Pholoe minuta
Platynereis bicanal iculata
Scalibregma inflatum
-------
43.
TABLE 17. CUMULATIVE FREQUENCY AND VALUES FOR SPECIES SCREENING LEVEL
CONCENTRATIONS (SSLCs) FOR CHRYSENE IN SALTWATER SEDIMENTS. THE
NUMBER OF OBSERVATIONS USED TO CALCULATE EACH SSLC ALSO IS GIVEN.
Cumulative SSLC No. of
Rank Frequency (%) (^9/9 Or9- C) Observations Organism
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
3
9
10
11
12
13 '
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
4.3
8.7
13.0
17.4
21.7
26.1
30.4
34.8
39.1
43.5
47.8
52.2
56.5
60.9
65.2
69.6
73.9
78.3
82.6
87.0
91.3
95.7
100.0
35.652
52.893
57.143
60.847
62.084
62.084
62.084
63.694
63.694
64.706
64.706
64.706
64.706
68.966
68.966
69.863
69.863
69.863
75.314
76.471
76.471
76.471
76.471
24
21
26
25
51
57
20
28
57
52
55
50
50
56
25
21
31
25
25
29
29
26
40
Prionospio cirrifera
Spiophanes berkeleyorum
Goniada brunnea
Armandia brevis
Axinopsida sericata
Capital la capita ta
Phyllodoce hartmanae
Euchone Tricolor
Prionospio steenstrupi
Euphilomedes carcharodonta
Macoma carlottensis
Nephtys cornuta franciscana
Nephtys ferruginea
Glycera capitata
Spiochaetopterus costarum
Pectinaria californiensis
Platynereis bicanaliculata
Praxillella gracilis
Compsoinyax subdiaphana
Amphiodia (amphispina) urtica
Glycera americana
Parvilucina tenuisculpta
Pholoe minuta
-------
44.
TABLE 18. CUMULATIVE FREQUENCY AND VALUES FOR SPECIES SCREENING LEVEL
CONCENTRATIONS (SSLCs) FOR 8ENZO(A)PYRENE IN SALTWATER SEDIMENTS.
THE NUMBER OF OBSERVATIONS USED TO CALCULATE EACH SSLC ALSO IS
GIVEN.
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
15
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
Cumulative
Frequency (%)
4.3
8.7
13.0
17.4
21.7
26.1
30.4
34.8
39.1
43.5
47.8
52.2
56.5
60.9
55.2
69.6
73.9
78.3
82.6
87.0
91.3
95.7
100.0
SSLC
(jag/g Org. C)
39.504-
39.604'
46.552
46.795
49.315
49.315
50.000
50.000
50.000
50.000
50.000
51.887
. 52.910
52.910
52.910
55.372
55.372
55.372
55.372
61.644
61.644
66.667
137.387
No. of
Observations
21
21
52
26
28
25
51
25
52
56
25
43
25
55
56
49
26
21
37
29
29
29
20
Organism
Prionospio cirri fera
Spiophanes berkeleyorum
Capitella capitata
Spiochaetopterus costarum
Euchone incolor
Goniada brunnea
Axinopsida sericata
Compsomyax subdiaphana
Euphilomedes carcharodonta
Glycera capitata
Praxillella gracilis
Nephtys cornuta franciscana
Armandia brevis
Macoma carlottensis
Prionospio steenstrupi
Nephtys ferruginea
Parvilucina tenuisculpta
Pectinaria californiensis
Pholoe minuta
Amphiodia (Amphispina) urtica
Glycera americana
Platynereis bicanaliculata
Phyllodoce hartmanae
-------
TABLE 19. SUMMARY OF SCREENING LEVEL CONCENTRATIONS (SLCs) FOR FRESHWATER AND SALTWATER
SEDIMENTS. VALUES IN \iq CONTAMINANT PER g SEDIMENT ORGANIC CARBON (PARTS PER
MILLION).
Compound
SLC (Confidence Interval and a)
Freshwater
Saltwater
Heptachlor Epoxide
Chlordane
Dieldrin
Polychlorinated Biphenyls
DDT
Naphthalene
Phenanthrene
Fluoranthene
Benz(a)anthracene
Chrysene
Pyrene
Benzo(a)pyrene
0.008(C.I.=0.0-0.029,o-0.02)
0.098(C.I.=0.0-0.136,a=0.04)
0.021(C.I.=0.0-0.084,o=0.04)
0.290(C.I.=0.0-0.65,a=0.02)
0.190(C.I.=0.0-0.283,a=0.02)
4.26(C.I.=0.0-4.63,0=0.03)
42.8(C.I. = 0.0-113.7,a=0.03)
36.7(C.I.-0.0-41.4,a=0.03)
25.9(C.I.=0.0-38.4,a=0.03)
43.2(C.I.=0.0-64.3,a=0.04)
26.1(C.I.=0.0-41.0,a=0.03)
38.4(C.I.=0.0-60.5,a=0.03)
43.4(C.I.=0.0-74.4,a=0.06)
39.6(C.I.=0.0-46.8,a=0.03)
-------
46.
o 1000
u
'c
| 100
o
O>
"ra 10
3
C
s 1.0
a
"c
S 0.1
c
0
u
0.01 .
90th Percentile Concentration
SSLC for 'A' /
f r
_"" X
X
X X
XX
Y X
X
X
x x
X
x
x x
> 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
X
X
k
1 1
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 U 15 16 17 18 19 20
Sites Where Species "A° is Present
A. CALCULATION OF SPECIES SCREENING LEVEL CONCENTRATION (SSLC)
o
u
'c
a
0)
o 10000
O)
D
. 1000
c
0
1 100
"c
a
U
c
o 10
u
_l
1
_
_
0
Y X X
xXX xx xxx x
X X
w X
-5% SLC x, X- A
/ x x
~* t 1 III 1 1 1 1 1
,
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Cumulative Frequency of Species*
B. CALCULATION OF SCREENING LEVEL CONCENTRATION (SLC)
FIGURE 1. A SCHEMATIC ILLUSTRATION OF THE CALCULATION OF
SCREENING LEVEL CONCENTRATIONS (SLCs) FOR
NONPOLAR ORGANIC CONTAMINANTS IN SEDIMENTS.
-------
47.
+
O)
Q
Q
* * *
0.25 + * * -A- * *
* -.if
0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.SO
Cumulative Frequency
FIGURE 2. CUMULATIVE FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OF SPECIES
SCREENING LEVEL CONCENTRATIONS (SSLCs) FOR DOT IN
FRESHWATER SEDIMENTS. SSLC VALUES ARE INpG DDT/G
SEDIMENT ORGANIC CARBON.
-------
48.
- -k
40 + * *
O
O
O)
m - *
o
°" 1 + *
* * * *
* *
0 .16 +•
H i i 1 i
0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.30 . 1.0
Cumulative- Frequency
FIGURE 3. CUMULATIVE FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OF SPECIES
SCREENING LEVEL CONCENTRATIONS (SSLCs) FOR TOTAL
POLYCHLORINATEO BIPHENYLS IN FRESHWATER SEDIMENTS.
SSLC VALUES ARE IN -jJG PCB/G SEDIMENT ORGANIC
CARBON.
-------
49.
o
o
o> 0.32 r
* * * * -k -k
* *
tr G.I o +
a
_i
QJ
a
0 . 0 3 +
+ + -+ + -f +
0.00 0.20 0.40 0.SO 0.80 i.0 Q
Cumulative Frequency
FIGURE 4. CUMULATIVE FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OF SPECIES
SCREENING LEVEL CONCENTRATIONS (SSLCs) FOR
DIELDRIN IN FRESHWATER SEDIMENTS. SSLC VALUES ARE
IN-jjG DIELDRIN/G SEDIMENT ORGANIC CARBON.
-------
50.
o>
3
ui
z
<
cc
o
1
+
*
0.25+
+
0.00
+ + . +
0.20 0.40 0.60
Cumulative- Frequency
4-
0 . SO
1 . 0 0
FIGURE 5. CUMULATIVE FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OF SPECIES
SCREENING LEVEL CONCENTRATIONS (SSLCs) FOR
CHLORDANE IN FRESHWATER SEDIMENTS. SSLC VALUES
ARE IN-JG CHLORDANE/G SEDIMENT ORGANIC CARBON.
-------
51.
O
o
6.0 r
- -if
O>
i.o +
UJ
9
x
o
Q_ 0 . 1 6 -f
LU
o:
O
-
yj
0.03 + *
+ --------- + --------- + --------- -u --------- + --------- +
0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0 . SO 1 . 0 0
Cumulative Frequency
FIGURE 6. CUMULATIVE FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OF SPECIES
SCREENING LEVEL CONCENTRATIONS (SSLCs)) FOR
HEPTACHLOR EPOXIDE IN FRESHWATER SEDIMENTS.
SSLC VALUES ARE IN>lG HEPTACHLOR EPOXIDE/G
SEDIMENT ORGANIC CARBON.
-------
52.
* * * *
)
1000 +
* * * *
o
o
I—
o>
O>
316
a
a
* * *
100
+-
0.00
+.
0.20
0.40 0.60 0.80
Cumulative Frequency
1.00
FIGURE 7.
CUMULATIVE FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OF SPECIES
SCREENING LEVEL CONCENTRATIONS (SSLCs) FOR DDT
IN SALTWATER SEDIMENTS. SSLC VALUES ARE IN-)JG
DDT/G SEDIMENT ORGANIC CARBONc
-------
53.
**
39 +
*****
o
o
O)
o>
CD
U
Q.
15
**
**
****2***
**
******
**
****
*****
**
0.00
0.20
+ H +.
0.40 0.60 0.80
Cumulative Frequency
1.00
FIGURE 8.
CUMULATIVE FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OF SPECIES
SCREENING LEVEL CONCENTRATIONS (SSLCs) FOR
TOTAL POLYCHLORINATED BIPHENYLS IN SALTWATER
SEDIMENTS. SSLC VALUES ARE IN ->JG PCB/G SEDIMENT
ORGANIC CARBON.
-------
54.
- * * *
55 +
Q — *-*.*<* * * * ' * *•*
O)
? 48 + * * *
ui
3 I
< 42 + *****
H *
I *
Q.
Z
36 + *
+ H + + + +
0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00
Cumulative Frequency
FIGURE 9. CUMULATIVE FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OF SPECIES
SCREENING LEVEL CONCENTRATIONS (SSLCs) FOR
NAPHTHALENE IN SALTWATER SEDIMENTS. SSLC VALUES
ARE INpG NAPHTHALENE/G SEDIMENT ORGANIC CARBON
-------
55.
* * * *
o
o
o>
Ul
LU
CC
111
X
Q.
63 +
* * * *
44 +
* * * *
* * * *
* *
31
22 + *
0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80
Cumulative Frequency
+
1.00
FIGURE 10,
CUMULATIVE FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OF SPECIES
SCREENING LEVEL CONCENTRATIONS (SSLCs) FOR
PHENANTHRENE IN SALTWATER SEDIMENTS. SSLC
VALUES ARE IN njG PHENANTHRENE/G SEDIMENT ORGANIC
CARBON.
-------
56.
o
o
H-
O>
Ul
111
cr
o:
o
D
-J
U_
158 +
100 ••
* *
63
39
*******
** * *i *•» *- *
** *
* *
-t-
0.00
+-
0.20
0.40
0.60
0.80
1.00
Cumulative, Frequency
FIGURE 11
CUMULATIVE FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OF SPECIES
SCREENING LEVEL CONCENTRATIONS (SSLCs) FOR
FLUORANTHENE IN SALTWATER SEDIMENTS. SSLC VALUES
ARE IN-jjG FLUORANTHENE/G SEDIMENT ORGANIC CARBON
-------
57.
_ *****
o 50 +
O - ******
I-
o> -
"^ _ ******
3. - * * *
40 +
uf
z
LL)
O _ * *
<
32 +
M 25 +
Z *
111
CD
0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0..80 1.00
Cumulative Frequency
FIGURE 12. CUMULATIVE FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OF SPECIES
SCREENING LEVEL CONCENTRATIONS (SSLCs) FOR
BENZ(A)ANTHRACENE IN SALTWATER SEDIMENTS.
SSLC VALUES ARE IN >)G BENZ(A)ANTHRACENE/G
SEDIMENT ORGANIC CARBON.
-------
58.
***********
* * *
89
* * *
*****
o
o> 63. 4-
*..
LU
LU
tr
44
31 H-
+
0.00
0.20
+.
0.40
+.
0.60
+.
0.80
+
1.00
Cumulative Frequency
FIGURE 13. CUMULATIVE FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OF SPECIES
SCREENING LEVEL CONCENTRATIONS (SSLCs) FOR
PYRENE IN SALTWATER SEDIMENTS. SSLC VALUES ARE
IN-jJG, PYR.ENE/6 SEDIMENT ORGANIC CARBON.
-------
59.
80 +
_ *****
o - * * * *
P 63+ *****
o> _ *
o> _ *
LU
Z
CO
cr
50 +
40
35
0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00
Cumulative Frequency
FIGURE 14. CUMULATIVE FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OF SPECIES
SCREENING LEVEL CONCENTRATIONS (SSLCs) FOR
CHRYSENE IN SALTWATER SEDIMENTS. SSLC VALUES ARE
IN-JJG CHRYSENE/G SEDIMENT ORGANIC CARBON.
-------
60.
137 -
8
h-
o>
uj 79 +
HI
tr
>- *
i - * *
< 58 +
"~* _ ********
o
f^J _ *******
z _ * *
LU
CQ
40 + * *
0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00
Cumulative Frequency
FIGURE 15. CUMULATIVE FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OF SPECIES
SCREENING LEVEL CONCENTRATIONS (SSLCs) FOR
BENZO(A)PYRENE IN SALTWATER SEDIMENTS. SSLC
VALUES ARE. IN -JJG BENZO (A )PYRENE/G SED IMENT
ORGANIC CARBON.
-------
APPENDIX
Cumulative Frequency Distribution Plots Used to Calculate Species
Screening Level Concentrations for Contaminants in Freshwater and
Saltwater Sediments. Contaminant Concentrations (Vertical Axis)
are Given in ug Contaminant/g Sediment Organic Carbon.
-------
APPENDIX. Part I. Species Screening Level Concentration Plots for
Contaminants in Freshwater Sediments.
-------
CUMULATIVE FREQUENCY OF HOKMALIZED *DDT! (DG/G ORGAHIC CARBOM)
GENUS=ASELLUS SPP=INTERMEDIOS
PLOT OF DDT*CUMFREQ
PLOT OF SSLC*CUBFREQ
SYMBOL USED IS X
SYMBOL USED IS *
DDT |
100.0 +
10.0
1.0
0.1
XX XX X X
0.0 *
I
« « X X
X X
X X
.—+-.
c.o
.- + _.
0.2
o.u
._ +_.
0.6
0.8
1 .0
CUKFREQ
!iOTE:
16 CBS HIDDEN
-------
CUMULATIVE FREQUENCY OF NORMALIZED *DDT! (UG/G ORGANIC CARBON)
GEHUS=CYRNELLUS SPP=FRATERNUS
PLOT OF DDT*CUMFREQ
PLOT OF SSLC*CUMFREQ
SYMBOL USED IS X
SYMBOL USED IS *
COT |
100.0 +
10.0
1.0
0.1
0.0
0.0
X X
X X* *
XX. X
X X
0.2
0.4 0.6
CURF'REQ
0.8
• -•¥ —
1 .0
NOTE:
26 CBS HIDDEN
-------
CUMULATIVE FREQUENCY OF NORMALIZED *DDT! (UG/G ORGANIC CARBON)
GENUS=GAKMARUS SPP=FASCIATUS
DDT
100.0
10.0
1.0
Q.l *
PLOT OF DDT*CU«FREQ
PLOT OF SSLC*CUKFREC
SYMBOL USED IS X
SYMBOL USED IS *
X XX
XXX
X XX
XX
XX
XX X
XXX XXXX
XXXXXX XXXX
XXX
X XX
XXXX
X X
0.0 + X
I
0.0
0.2
O.U 0.6
CUMFREQ
0.8
1 .0
NO'TE:
6 OBS HIDDEN
-------
CUMULATIVE FREQUENCY OF NORMALIZED fZDDT! (UG/G ORGANIC C&RBON)
GENUS=HYALELLA SPP=AZTECA
DDT
1.00.0
10.0
1 .0 +
0.1
0.0
PLOT OF DDT*CUKFREQ
PLOT OF SSLC*CU«FREQ
SYMBOL USED IS X
SYMBOL USED IS *
X X XX X X X XXX
XXX
X X
0.0
0.2
O.U 0.6
CUWFREQ,
C.8
1 .0
NOTE:
31 OBS HIDDEN
-------
CUMULATIVE FREQUENCY OF NORMALIZED ZDDT! (UG/G ORGANIC CARBON)
GENUS=HYDROPSYCH SPP=FRISONI
DDT |
100.0 «•
10.0
1.0
"0.1
0.0
PLOT OF DDT*CUKFREQ
PLOT OF SSLC*CUKFREQ
SYMBOL USED IS X
SYMBOL USED IS *
X XX
X X X XX
XXX
Q.O
0.2
O.U 0.6
CUMFREQ
0.8
1.0
NC'TE:
38 CBS HIDDEN
-------
CUMULATIVE FREQUENCY OF NORMALIZED *DDT! (UG/G ORGANIC CARBON)
3ENUS=HYDROPSYCH SPP=ORRJS,
PLOT OF DDT*CUKFREC
PLOT OF SSLC*CUMFREQ
SYMBOL USED IS X
SYMBOL USED IS *
DDT |
.ao.o *
TO.O *
1 .0 «•
0.1 *
0.0 *
I
0.0
0.2
x x x x x x
x x: x.
xxx
.->-,
o.u
. _+ _.
0.6
0.6
1 .0
CU.1FREQ
NOTE:
26 DBS HIDDEN
-------
CUMULATIVE FREQUENCY OF NORMALIZED «DDT! (UG/G ORGANIC CARBON)
GENUS=LIMNODRILUS SPP=CERVIX
PLOT OF DDT*CURFREQ
PLOT OF SSLC*CUKFREg
DDT
TCO.O
10.0 *
1 .0 +
"0.1 *
**- **»
X X
X X
0.0
SYMBOL USED IS X
SYKfaOL USED IS «
XXX
X X
* *
NOTE:
0.0 0.2 O.U 0.6
CUttFREQ
1 OBS HAD HISSING VALUES Ch WERE OUT OF RANGE
0.6 1.0
2 OBS HIDDEN
-------
CUHULAT1VE FREQUENCY OF NORHALIZED eDDT! (UG/G ORGANIC CARBOH)
GENU5=LIKNODRILUS SPP=CLAPAREDEIANUS
DDT |
100.0 *
1 0.0
1 .0 *
0.1 *
u.O •*•
PLOT OF DDT^CUKFREQ
PLOT OF SSLC-CUMFREQ
.*. *•» **• .*. **• •*• •*.
it* ^r f •*• ** *f ~f
X' X
XXX
X X X
SYMBOL USED IS X
SYMBOL USED IS *
X X
XV -V Jt.
X •«• •*•
X X X.
XXX
XXX
0.0
0.2
O.U- 0.6
CUflFRt.Q
o.t
1 .0
!* OI £ ;
U ObS H1DD.EN
-------
CUMULATIVE FREQUENCY OF NORKAL1ZED eDDT! (UG/G ORGANIC CARBON)
GENUS=LIhNODRILUS SPP=HOFFHEISTSHI
PLOT OF DDT*CUMFRE£
PLOT OF SSLC*CU«FR£Q
SfflBOL USED IS X
SYttBOL USED IS *
DDT |
100.0 +
10.0
1 .0 +
'0.1
** ***** *** ** ***** ***XX* ***
XX
X X
XX XXXX
X
XXX XX
XX XX
XXXX
XX XXXX X X
XX XXX
X XX
0.0 *
• — •*• —
1 .0
0.0
0.2
o.u
0.6
0.6
NCTTE:
3 DBS HAD KISSING VALUES OR WERE OUT OF RANGE
1U OBS HIDDEN
-------
CUMULATIVE FREQUENCY OF NORMALIZED «DDT! (UG/G ORGANIC CARBON)
GENUS=LIttNODRILUS SPP=UDEKEHIANUS
DDT
"00.0
10.0
1.0 +-
C.I *
0.0
PLOT OF DDT*CUMFREQ
PLOT OF SSLC*CUMFR£w
XXX
SYMBOL USED IS X
SYMBOL USED IS *
.V .**
XX XX
.•• *. •** v
•«• V f X
X X
tGTE:
0.0 0.2 O.U 0.6
CUHFREQ
1 ObS HAD ^5ISSI^G VALUES OR WERE CUT OF RANGE
0.b 1.0
7 OBS HIDDEN
-------
CUMULATIVE frREuUENCY OF SOhKALISED *DDT! (UG/G ORGANIC CARBON)
GENUS=PELOSCOLEX SPP=FEROX
PLOT OF DDT*CUKFREC
PLOT OF SSLC*CUKFREQ
SYKBOL USED IS X
SYrtbOL USED IS *
DDT
100.0
10.0
«« ^T^^ •VST IT •*•
-•*- •*•
*^' *t^
XX XX XX
X XX XX X
O.T X XX X
X
O.Q
XX XX
XX
XX XX
X XX
0.0
0.2
o.u
0.6
0.8
1 .0
CUMFRE2
NCTTE:
OBS HAD KISSING VALUES OR WERE OUT OF RA!JGE
13 CBS HIDDEN
-------
CUMULATIVE FREQUENCY OF NORMALIZED *DDT! (UG/G ORGANIC CARBON)
GENUS=PELOSCOLEX SPP=KULTISETOSUS
DDT |
ICO.O +
1 0.0 *
1 .0
0.1 *
0.0
PLOT OF DDT*CUMFREQ
PLOT OF SSLC*CUMFHEQ
SYMBOL USED IS X
SYMBOL USED IS *
£ *
XXX
X X X X
XXX
XXX
X X X X
XXX
0.0 0.2 O.U 0.6.
CUMFRE;
3 OfcS HAD MISSING VALUES OR WERE OUT OF- RANGE
0.6 1.0
1 OOS HIDDEN
-------
CUMULATIVE FREQUENCY OF HOfiKALIZED «DDT! (UG/G ORGANIC CAfiBON)
EURA SPP=MALLOCHI
PLOT CF DDT*CUMFKEQ
PLOT OF SSLC*CUMFREQ
SYMBOL USED IS X
SYMBOL USED IS *
DDT |
00.0 •»
10.0
.
0.1 +
u.o
* * X
X X
XX*
._ + _.
0.4
0.0
0.2
0.6
C.8
1 .0
CUHFHE;
NCTTE:
27 GbS HIDDEN
-------
CUMULATIVE FREQUENCY OF NORKALIZED eDDT! (UG/G ORGANIC CARBON)
GENUS=PCTAMOTHR1X SPP=VEJDOVSKYI
PLOT OF DDT*CU«FREQ
PLOT OF SSLC*CUKFPEQ
SYMBOL USED IS X
SYrttOL USED IS *
DDT
t'GO.O
10.0
1 .0 *
0.1 +
X X
0.0
X. X X
•*•• »•• «W \f U" •'•'
-^ •*• tc XX "^
x x
X
X X
X XX
—.•*> —
0.2
._+_.
o.u
._ + _.
0.6
• - *•-
1 .0
0.0
C.o
CU.1FRE3
.NOTE:
16 CBS HIDDEN
-------
CUMULATIVE FREQUENCY OF NORMALIZED «DDT! (UG/G ORGANIC CARBON)
GENOS=STENACRON SPP=INTERPUNCT
PLOT OF DDT*CURFREQ
PLOT OF SSLC--CUMFREQ
SYMBOL USED IS X
SYMBOL USED IS *
DDT
100.0
10.0
1.0
0.1 *
0.0
XXXXX
XX X XXX X XX XXXX
XXX X
._ + _.
0.6
— 4.-.
0.8
• -•f -
1 .0
0.0
0.2
O.i*
CU.1FREQ
NCfTE:
U8 DBS KIDDEh
-------
CUMULATIVE FREQUENCY OF NORMALI2ED »DDT ! (UG/G ORGANIC CARBON)
G£NUS=STENONEHA SPP=EXIQUUM
PLOT OF DDT*CURFREQ
PLOT OF SSLC-CUSFREU
SYKEOL USED IS X
SYHEOL USED IS *
DDT
00.0
10.0
1 .0 +
0.1 «•
0.0
X X
X X X *
. — 4.-.
0.0
0.2
O.U 0.6
CUHFHEQ
mm* 4- . .
0 ..6
1 .0
NOTE:
25 OBS HIDDEN
-------
CUMULATIVE FREQUENCY OF NORMALIZED *DDT! (UG/G ORGANIC CARBON)
GENUS=STENONEHA SPP=INTEGRUH
PLOT OF DDT*CUMFR£Q
PLOT OF SSLC*CUHFREQ
SYMBOL USED IS X
SYMBOL USED IS *
DDT |
100.0 *
10.0
1 .0
•o.i
** * ** ** ** ** ******* XX X* *
XX X XX XX XX
X XX
X X
0.0
0.0
0.2
0.4 0.6
CUBFRE3
0.8
1 .0
NOTE:
Ul CBS KICDEfi
-------
CUMULATIVE FREQUENCY OF NORHALIZED «DDT! (UG/G ORGANIC CARBON)
GEK05=STENONEHA SPP=PULCHELLUM
DDT
CG.O
10.0
.0 «•
o.r
u.o
PLOT OF DDT*CUBFHEQ
PLOT OF SSLC*CU«FREQ
SYBBOL USED IS X
SYMBOL USED IS *
*'*«* **X XXX
X! XX.
XV -•- •••
X f f
0.0
0.2
0 . «•- 0.6
CUMFREQ,
O.ti
1 .0
NO.TS:
32 CBS h I L- D E H •
-------
CUMULATIVE FREQUENCY OF NORMALISED CDDT! (UG/G ORGANIC CAB80N)
G£NU£=STENONEnA SPP=TERHINATUM
PLOT OF DDT*CUf1FREQ
PLOT OF SSLC^CUMFKEQ
SYMBOL USED IS X
SYMBOL USED IS *
DDT
100.0
10.0
1 .0
0.1
0.0
X X *
XX X X X X X X
X X
XXX
0.0
0.2
0.<4 0.6
CUMFREQ
0.8
1 .0
NOTE;
35 OBS HIDDEN
-------
CUMULATIVE FREQUENCY OF NORMALIZED £DDT! (UG/G ORGANIC CARBON)
GENUS=TUBIFEX SPP=TOBIFEX
DDT |
0.0.0 *
1,0.0 *
1 .0
0.1
0.0 +
I
PLOT OF DDT*CUHFREU
PLOT CF SSLC*CUKFHEQ
SYMBOL USED IS X
SYMBOL USED IS *
* ** ***
X X
** ****** *XXXX* ****
X X
XXXXX
X
X
X XXX
X XX XX
XXXXXX X
XXX XXX XX
X XXX
«OTE:
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6
CUMFREQ
1 CBS HAD MISSING VALUES OR WERE OUT OF RANGE
-_4 _.
0.8
1 .0
20 DBS HIDDEN
-------
CUMULATIVE FREQUENCY OF NOKBALIZED *DDT! (UG/G ORGANIC CARBON)
GENUS=VALVATA SPP=SINCERA
PLOT OF DDT*CUHFREQ
PLOT OF SSLC^CUMFREQ
SYMBOL USED IS X
SYMBOL USED IS *
DDT |
100.0 +
10.0
1 .0 *
'0.1 *
XX*
XXX
XX
0.0
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1 .0
I.OTE:
10 DBS HIDDEN
-------
CUMULATIVE FREQUENCY OF NORHALIZED CPCB! (UG/G ORGANIC CARBON)
GENUS=ASELLUS SPP=INTERMEDIUS
PLOT CF PC6*CUKFREQ
PLOT OF SSLCSCUKFHEQ
SYMBOL USED IS X
SY.1BOL USED IS *
PCB |
00.0 +
10.0
r.o *
0.1
X X
X X
XXX
XXX
0.0 *
I
0.0
0.2
O.U 0.6
CUMFREQ
0.8
1 .0
NOTE: 16 CBS HIDDEN
-------
CUMULATIVE FREQUENCY OF NORRALIZED ePCB! (UG/G ORGANIC CARBON)
GENUS=CYRNELLUS SPP=FRATERNUS
PLOT OF PCB^CUKFREQ
PLOT OF SSLC#CUMFREC
SYMBOL USED IS X
SYMBOL USED IS *
PCB
100.0
1:0.0 *
T.O *
O.T *
X X X X,
X X
0..0 *
I
0.0
0.-2_
o.u
._+_.
o.e.
0.6
1 .0
CUMFRLQ
NOTE:
30 OBS HIDDEN
-------
CUMULATIVE FREQUENCY OF NORMALIZED ZPCB! (UG/G ORGANIC CARBON)
GENUS=GAHHARUS SPP=FASCIATUS
PCB |
100.0 «•
10.0
1 .0 *
0.1
0.0
PLOT OF PCB*CUttFREQ
PLOT OF SSLC«CU«FREQ
5YHBOL USED IS X
SYMBOL USED IS *
XXXXXX X
xxxxx
XXXXX X
XX
XXX
XXXXXX XXXXXX
xxxxx
XX
0.0
0.2
0.4 0.6
CUKFREQ
0.6
1 .0
NOTS:
U QBS HIDDEN
-------
CUMULATIVE FREQUENCY OF NORMALIZED «PCB! (UG/G ORGANIC CARSON)
GENU3=HYALELLA SPP=AZTECA
PLOT OF PCB*CUMFREQ
PLOT OF SSLC^CUBFREQ
SYMBOL USED IS X
SYMBOL USED IS *
PCB
i;oo.o
10.0
1.0
0..1 *
X
x* *
X X
X X
X X
x: x- x xxx
X XX
X.X
0.0
. — 4 -•
0.0
-"•» +•» .
0.2
._ + _.
o.u
._ + _.
0.6
0.8
1 .0
CUKFREQ
NOTE.:
25 OBS HIDDEN
-------
CUHULATIVE FREQUENCY OF NORMALIZED ftPCB! (UG/G ORGANIC CARBON)
GENUS=HYDROPSYCH SPP=FRISONI
PLOT OF PCB*CDBFREQ
PLOT OF SSLC*CUMFREQ
SYMBOL USED IS X
SYMBOL USED IS *
PCB |
100.0 +
1 0.0
7.0 *
t).l *
XXX
* X*
X
X X XX
X X XX X X XX
0.0 *
I
0.0
0.2
._ + _.
0.6
._ + _.
0.6
1 .0
CUMFREQ
NO-TE:
35 CBS HIDDEN
-------
CURULATIVE FREQUENCY OF NORMALIZED «PC8! (UG/G ORGANIC CARBON)
GENUS=HYDROFSYCH SPP-ORHIS
PC 3
00.0
10.0
1 .0 •»
0.1
0.0
PLOT OF PC6*CUBFREQ
PLOT OF SSLCSCUF.FREQ
SYMBOL USED IS X
SYMBOL USED IS *
X X
X XX X
X X X X X, X X X X
X XX
0.0
0.2
0.<4 C.6
CU«FRE3
0.8
1 .0
,OTS:
27 OBS KiDDEH
-------
CUMULATIVE FREQUENCY OF NORMALIZED (ZPCB! (UG/G ORGANIC CARBON)
GENUS=LIHNODRILUS SPP=CERVIX
PLOT OF PCB*CUMFREQ
PLOT OF SSLC-CUMFHEQ
SYMBOL USED IS X
SYMBOL USED IS *
10.0
1 .0
0.1
0.0
X X
X XXX
XXX
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6
CUMFREQ
2 DBS HAD MISSING VALUES OR WERE OUT OF RANGE
._.». «_«__•-.__ — — 4. _
G.ti 1.0
3 OBS HIDDEN
-------
CUMULATIVE FREQUENCY OF NORMALIZED CFCB! (UG/G ORGANIC CARBOH)
GENUS=LIKNODRILUS SPP-CLAPAHEDEIANUS
PCB |
100.0 +
10.0
T.O-
0.1
0.0
PLOT OF PCB*CUKFREQ
PLOT OF SSLC*CUnFREQ
SYflBOL USED IS X
XXX
X X
X X
X X
X
* x *
X
X X
NOTE:
G.O
0.2
O.B
1.0
O.U 0.6
CUflFRES
1 CBS HAD MISSING. VALUES OR WERE OUT OF RANGE 3 OBS HIDDEN
-------
CUMULATIVE FREQUENCY OF NORMALIZED (ZPCB! (UG/G ORGANIC CARBON)
GENUS=LIHNODRILUS SPP=HOFFHEISTERI
PC8
i
-------
CUMULATIVE KREUUENCY OF NORMALIZED 0PCB! (UG/G ORGANIC CABBOH)
GENUS=L1SNODRILUS SPP=UDEKEMIANUS
PLOT OF PCB*CUKFRE2 SYMBOL USED IS X
PLOT OF SSLC*CUKFREQ SYMBOL USED IS *
PCB
100.0
10.0
1.0
0.1 *
0.0
X X
X X
N-OTE:
0.0 0.2 O.U 0.6
CUKFREQ
1 CBS HAD MIS31KG VALUES OK WERE OUT" CF RANGl!.
0.8 1 .0
5 OBS HIDDEN
-------
CUBULATIVE FKEgUENCY OF NORMALIZED *PCB! (UG/G ORGANIC CARBON)
GEHUS=PELOSCOLEX SPP=FEROX
PCB
100.0
1 0.0 +
1 .0
0.1
0.0
PLOT OF PCB*CUKFREQ
PLOT OF SSLC*CUftFREQ
SYMBOL USED IS X
SYMBOL USED IS *
V -*• ••-•*•
X*** •*• ^*
XX
X X
X XX
XX X
XX XX XX XX
X XX XX
XX X X
XX
XX
N(3TE:
0.0
0.2
0.6
1.0
O.U 0.6
CUMFREQ
3 O&S HAD MISSING VALUES OR WERE OUT OF RANGE 5 OBS HIDDEN
-------
CUBULATIVE FREQUENCY OF NORHALIZED *PCB! (UG/G ORGANIC CARBON)
GENUS=PELOSCOLEX SPP=HULTTSETOSU5
PCB |
100.0 *
10.0
1.0 *
0.1
0.0 +
I
PLOT OF PCB*CUKFREQ
PLOT OF SSLC*CUHFREQ
SYHEOL USED IS X
SYMBOL USED IS *
XXX
XXX
XXX
X X
X X
XXX
X X
XX X
NOTE":
0.0 0.2 O.-U, 0.6.
CUKFREQ
35 OBS HAD KISSING VALUES OR HERE OUT OF RANGE
0.6
1 .0
-------
CUMULATIVE FREQUENCY OF NORKALIZ2D tVCBl (UG/G ORGANIC CARBON)
GENUS=PENTAHEURA SPP=HALLOCHI
PCB
00.0
10.0
1 .0
0.1
o.o +
I
0.0
PLOT OF PCB*CUBFREC
PLOT OF SSLC*CUKFR£Q
SYBBOL USED IS X
SYflbOL USED IS *
X X
0
0.4 0.6
CUKFRE3
0.8
1 .0
iOTE:
21 CBS HIDDEN
-------
CUMULATIVE FREQUENCY OF NORMALIZED *PCB! (OG/G ORGANIC CARBON)
GENUS=POTAMOTHRIX SPP = ?EJDOVSKY I
PCS |
1,00.0 *
TO.O
1 .0
U... 1 *
G.O
PLOT OF PCB*CUMFREQ
PLOT OF SSLC*CUHFREQ
SYrtSOL USED IS X
SYMBOL USED IS *
X X
X X
X X
X X
•A* »•• V V *** **"
•r f XX f f
X
0.0
O..U
0.6
O.b
1 .0
CUKFRE2
SOTE:
12 OBS hIDDEN
-------
FCB
100.0
1 0.0 +
1 .0
0.1
0.0
0.0
CUMULATIVE FREQUENCY OF NORMALIZED *PCB! (UG/G ORGANIC CARBON)
SPP=INTERPUNCT
SYMBOL USED IS X
SYMBOL USED IS *
PLOT OF PCB*CUMFREC
PLOT OF SSLC*CUMFREQ
XX XX
xxxx
XXXXX XX XXXXX X
XXX X
.— .f —
0.2
O.U 0.6
CUKFREQ
O.ti
1 .0
OT E:
OBS HIDDEN
-------
CUMULATIVE FREQUENCY CF NORMALIZED tfPCS! (UG/6 ORGANIC CARBON)
G£NUS=STENONEMA SPP=EXIQUUH
PLOT OF PCB*CUnFREC
PLOT OF SSLC*CUKFREU
SYMBOL USED IS X
SYHBOL USED IS *
PCB |
1 OX) . 0 *
10.0
1.0
U.I *
XX
0.0 *
0.0
0.2
o.u
0.6
C.8
1 .0
CUMFREC
NOTE:
25 OES HIDDEN
-------
CUP1ULATIVE FREQUENCY OF NORMALIZED tfPCB! (UG/G ORGANIC CARBON)
GENUS=STENONEMA SPP=INTEGRUM
PLOT OF PCB*CUHFHEQ
PLOT OF SSLCSCUHFREQ
SYMBOL USED IS X
SYMBOL USED IS *
PC8 |
100.0 +
10.0
1.0
D.I
X XX
•*» wy ••• ^*« v ^ -^- >• *A.
•«•:? •«••»• x-» »*• •«•
X
X XX X
X XX XX XX XX X X
X XX
0.0
• -*-
1 .0
0.0
0.2
o.a 0.6
CUKFREQ
0.8
NOTE:
35 OB£ HIDDEN
-------
CUttULATIVE FREQUENCY OF NORMALIZED «PCB! (UG/G ORGANIC CARBON),
GL«US=STENONE«A- S?P=PULCHELLUH
PLOT OF PCB*CUKFREQ
PLOT OF SSLC*CUKFREQ
SYMEOL USED IS X
SYMBOL USED IS -
PCS
ao.o
10.0
i .0 «•
0.1
X X
X *
X X X X X X
xxx.
c.o *
0.0
0.2
O..U
0.6
C.6
1 .0
CUMFHE2
27 DBS HIDDEN
-------
CUMULATIVE FREQUENCY OF NOHHALIZED *PCB! (UG/G ORGANIC CARBON)
GBNUS=STENONERA SPP=TERHINATUH
PLOT OF PCB*CUMFREQ
PLOT OF SSLC-CUKFREU
SYMBOL USED IS X
SYMBOL USED IS $
PCB
1.00.0
10.0
1 .0
Q.I
X X
X XX * * *
xxxxxxxxxxxxx
X X
0.0
--4- —•
0.1
— 4.-.
C.8
c.o
0.
0.6
1 .0
CUKFREQ
NOTE:
28 OBS HIDDEN
-------
CUMULATIVE FREQUENCY OF NORMALIZED ePCE! (UG/G ORGANIC CAHBOK)
GENUS=TUBIFEX SPP=TUBIFEX
PCB
100.0
10.0
1 .0
0.1
0.0
PLOT CF PCb*CUHFHEC
PLOT OF SSLC*CUMFREQ
SYMBOL USED IS X
SYMBOL USED IS *
£S *« ****** ***«*-: ***XXX ***?
XX
X
XX
X
X XXX
xxxx
XXX XXX XX X
XXX XXXX
XXX X X
XX
X X
XX
XX
XX
NOTE:.
0.0 0.2. O.a 0.6 0.6
CUMFRE2
1 OBS HAD KISSING VALUES OR WERE OUT OF" RANGE
-4--
1.0
9 OBS HIDDEN
-------
CUttULATIVE FREQUENCY OF NORMALIZED *PCB! (UG/G ORGANIC CARBON)
3ENUS=VALVATA SPP=SINCERA
PLOT OF PCB*CUKFREQ
PLOT OF SSLC*CUKFREQ
SYMBOL USED IS X
SYMBOL USED IS *
PCB
.00.0
10.Q
1.0
0.1
0.0
X X
X X
.1. *v
XX X
X X
._ + _.
0.6
-—+ _.
0.8
0.0
0.2
o.a
1 .0
lU.IFREQ
20 DBS HIDDEN
-------
CUMULATIVE FREQUENCY OF NORMALIZED *DIELDRIN! (UG/G ORGANIC CARBON)
GENUS=A5ELLUS SPP=INTERBEDIUS
PLOT OF DIELDRISSCUHFREQ SYMBOL USED IS X
PLOT OF SSLC*CUKFREt SYMBOL USED IS *
DIELUfcIN |
1100.0 *
1 0.0 +
1 .0
0.1 *
O.I
XXX
. X
X X
V V V V **^
XX XX -^
X X
XXX
XX XX
0.0
0.2
0.u 0.6
CUHFREQ
0.8
1 .0
NOTE
9 OBS HIDDEN
-------
CUMULATIVE FREQUENCY OF NORMALIZED CDIELDRXN! (UG/G ORGANIC CARBON)
GENUS=CYRNELLUS SPP=FHATERHUS
PLOT OF DIELDRINSCUHFREQ
PLOT OF SSLC*CUMFREQ
SYMBOL USED IS X
SYMBOL USED IS *
/IL.LDRIN |
0.0 . 0 *•
10.0
1.0
U.1
0.0
XX X
X X
XX XX
XXX
._ +.—
c.o
._ * -.
0.2
• — •«.—,•
0.6
._^._.
1 .0
O.U
0.8
CUJ5FFEQ
n o T E:
16 CBS HIDDEN
-------
CUMULATIVE FREQUENCY OF NORMALIZED *DIELDRIN! (UG/G ORGANIC CAHBOM)
GEMUS=GAHHARUS SPP=FASCIATUS
PLOT OF DIELDRINSCUflFREQ
PLOT OF SSLCSCUMFREQ
SYHBOL USED IS X
SYMBOL USED IS *
[/IELDRIN |
TCG.O +
10.0
1 .0
0.1
o.c
XX
xxxxxxx
XX XXXXX
xxxxxxxxxxx
XXXXXXXXXX X
XX
X XX
xxxx
.-4--.
0.0
.._ + —
0.2
._4 _.
C.6
._ + _.
0.8
— + -.
1 .0
CU3FREQ
NOTE:
b DBS hICDEN
-------
CUMULATIVE FREQUENCY OF NORMALIZED CDIELDRIN! (U6/G ORGANIC CARBON)
GENUS=HYAL£LLA SPP=AZTECA
PLOT OF DIELDRIN*CUKFREG
PLOT OF SSLC*CU«FREQ
SYMBOL USED IS X
SYMBOL USED IS *
;IELDF.ir. |
100.0 «•
10.0
1 .0
0.1
0.0 +•
X
** * * XX X X X*
x. x x.
XX X X
X X
XX X X XX X
X X
.-4.-.
1 ..0
0.0
0.2.
0.6
0.8
CUMFRE'Q
NOTE:
17 OB 5 HIDDEN-
-------
CUMULATIVE FREQUENCY OF NORMALIZED
-------
CUHULATIVE FREQUENCY OF NORKALIZED *DIELDRIN! (UG/G ORGANIC CARBON)
GENUS=HYDROPSYCH SFP=ORRIS
PLOT OF DIELDRIN*CU«FREQ
PLOT OF S5LC*CUHFREQ
SYMBOL USED IS X
SYMBOL USED IS *
)I£LDRIN
I 00 . 0
10.0 *
1.0 *
0.-1
o.o
.'« ^~**« •*• .«• -*. J»- **• * .At tf» ••••*• •*• **« •*• V V V V <^
-<• -,-v v v -.--«• if v f ir-r -v -r •»••»• v •«• v^f -v X X A X •«•
X X
X X
X X
XXX
X X XX
X X
XX X X X
0
.0
0
.2.
0
.4
0
.6
0.
8
1
.0
CU.^FKEQ
NOTE.:
20 OBS- KIDDE.J*
-------
CUMULATIVE FREQUENCY OF NORMALIZED «DIELDHIH! (UG/G ORGANIC CARBON)
GENUS=LIKNODRILUS SPP=CLAPAREDEIANUS
PLOT OF
PLOT OF SSLC*CU«FREQ
SYMBOL USED IS X
SYMBOL USED IS *
D1LLDRIN I
100.0 *
1 0.0
1 .0
0.1
X X
0.0
._ + _.
c.c
._ + _.
0.2
. _ + _.
0.4
.- + _.
0.6
.- + -.
0.8
._-»._.
1 .0
CUHFREQ
vj O T* 7 •
I* -J A- & •
31 DBS HIDDEN
-------
CUMULATIVE FREQUENCY OF NORMALIZED 2DIELDRIN! (UG/G ORGANIC CARBON)
GENU5=LIMNODRILUS SPP=HOFFMEISTERI
PLOT OF DIELDRIN*CUMFREC
PLOT OF SSLC*CUMFREC
DI'ELDRIN |
roo.o *
10.0 *
1.0 *
0.1
o.c
SYMBOL USED IS X
SYMBOL USED IS *
0.0
0.2
XX
XX X
X XXXX
O.tt- 0.6
CUMFREC
0.6
+_.
1.0
NOTE: 65 CBS HIDDEN
-------
CUMULATIVE FREQUENCY OF NOHKALIZED *DIELDRIN! (UG/G ORGANIC CARBON)
GE«US=PELOSCOLEX SPP=«ULTISETOSUS
PLOT OF LIELDRIN*CU«FR£Q
PLOT OF SSLC*CUHFREU
SYMBOL USED IS X
SYMBOL USED IS «
DIELDRIN |
100.0 *•
10.0
1 .0
0.-1
0.0
«« * * * X X X X
XX X X. X
X X
. _ 4, -.
0.0
.,— + .
o.:
0.6
0.5.
1 .0
CUMFR-EC-
NGTE:
25. CBS HIDDEN.
-------
CUMULATIVE FREQUENCY OF NORMALIZED «DIELDRIN! (UG/G ORGANIC CARBON)
GENUS=PELOSCOLEX SPP=FEROX
PLOT OF DIELDRIH*CUMFREQ
PLOT OF SSLCSCUHFREQ
SYMBOL USED IS X
SYMBOL USED IS *
DTELDRIM I
100.0 *
10.0
1 .0
Q.I
0.0
•*• X X "C1 ^ ^
X
._ + _.
O.G
._ +._.
0.2
._+_.
o.u
.-4...
0.8
-_4_.
1 .0
0.6
CUWFREC
68 OBS HIDDEN
-------
CUMULATIVE FREQUENCY OF NORMALIZED «DIELDHIN! (OG/G ORGANIC CARBON)
GENUS=POTA«OTHRIX SPP=VEJDOVSKTI
PLOT OF DIELDRIN*CUMFREC
PLOT OF SSLC*CUHFR£Q
SYMBOL USED IS X
SYMBOL USED IS *
DltLDRIX |
100.0 +
10.0
1 .0 +
C.I
0.0
NOTE:
0.0
0.2
O.tt
0.6
0.8
1 .0
CUflFREC
26 DBS HAD KISSING VALUES OR WERE OUT OF RANGE
19 DBS HIDDEN
-------
CUMULATIVE FREQUENCY OF NORMALISED 0DIELDRIN! (UG/G ORGANIC CARBON)
GENUS=STENACRON SPP=INTERPUNCT
PLOT OF DlELORIN*CU«FREw
PLOT OF SSLC*CUKFREQ
SYHEOL USED IS X
SYMBOL USED IS *
D-IELDRIN I
l.UO.O +
1 0.0
1 .0
0.1
0.0
X
* ****** ***** ****** *xx XX X.X*
XXXX X
X
XXXX X
XXX X
X XXX
xxxxx xxxxx
XX XX
._ 4. _.
0.8
0.0
0.2
C . 4 0". 6
CUflFREw
1 .0
NOTE:
26 DBS HIDDEN
-------
CUMULATIVE FREQUENCY OF NORMALISED *DIELDRIN! (UG/G ORGANIC CARBON)
GEHUS=STENONEKA SPP=IMTEGRUH
PLOT OF DIELDRIN*CUKFREQ
PLOT OF SSLC*CU«FREQ
SYMBOL USED IS X
SYMBOL USED IS *
DIELDRIN |
100.0 *
10.0 «•
1 .0
G.I
0.0 +
«« *X XX XX
XX X
XX X
XX
XX XX XX
X XX XX
X XX XX X
0.0
0.2
Q.H 0.6
CUHFREC
0.8
1 .0
Mais:
19 GBb HIDDEN
-------
CUMULATIVE FREQUENCY OF NORMALIZED. tfDIELDRIN! (UG/G ORGANIC CARBON)
GENUS=STENONEMA SPP-PULCHELLOir
PLOT OF DIELDRIN*CUKFREQ
PLOT OF SSLCSCUMFREQ
DILLDRIN |
100.0 *
10.0.
1 .0
0.1
C . 0
.*» ,'. .*» *•*
f^
-------
CUMULATIVE FREQUENCY OF NORMALIZED 0DIELDRIM! (UG/G ORGANIC CARBON)
= STENONEWA SPP=TERHIN ATUM
SYMBOL USED IS X
SYMBOL USED IS *
PLOT OF DIELDRIN*CU«FREQ
PLOT OF SSLC*CUKFREQ
DILLDRIS |
1CO.O *
10.0
1 .0
0.1
0.0
XXX
X X
XX X
X X X XX X X
X XX
XX X
._ + ..
0.0
. _ + _.
0.2
C.U 0.6
CUMFREC
0.8
1 .0
NOTE:
20 DBS HIDDEN
-------
CUMULATIVE FREQUENCY OF NORMALIZED 2DIELORIN! (UG/G ORGANIC CARBON)
GENUS=TUBIFEX SPP=TU8IFEX
PLOT OF DIELDRIN*CUMFREQ
PLOT OF SSLCSCUWFREQ
SYMBOL USED IS X
SYMBOL USED IS *
D.IELDRIN |
1100.0 +
10.0
1.0
o.i
X X
XX
XX
o.o
.— 4 _.
0.6
0.0
0-. 2
o.u
C.8
1 .0
CUMF.REQ
NOTE;
67 ObS HIDDEN
-------
CUMULATIVE FREQUENCY OF JiCRHALIZED CDIELDRIN! (UG/G ORGANIC CARBON)
GENUS=VALVATA 5PP=SINCERA
PLOT OF DIELDRIN*CUMFREQ
PLOT OF SSLC*CUflFfiE^
SYMBOL USED IS X
SYMBOL USED IS *
DIELDRIN |
100.0 +
10.0
1 .0
0.1
U.O
XX X
X XX
0.0
0.2
o.u
0.6
0.6
1 .0
CUMFREQ
NOTE:
26 CBS HIDDEN
-------
CUMULATIVE FREQUENCY OF tiORHALIZED «CHLODANE! (UG/G ORGANIC CARBOM)
GENUS=A5ELLUS SPP=INTERHEDIUS
PLOT OF CHLOBDAN*CUHFREQ
PLOT OF SSLC*CUMFREC
SYMBOL USED IS X
SYMBOL USED IS *
10.0
1 .0 *
0.1
0.0
XXX
**. .*.
XXX*
X X
X X
X X X X
0.0
0.2
0.6
o.b
1 .0
CU.1FREC
7 CBS HIDDEN
-------
CUMULATIVE FREQUENCY OF NORMALIZED ftCHLODANE! (UG/G OHGANIC.,CARBON)
GENUS=CYRHELLUS SPP=FRATERNUS
PLOT OF CHLORDAN*CUKFREQ
PLOT OF SSLC*CUMFREG
SYMBOL USED IS X
SYHBOL USED IS *
:HLORDAJ»
I 0.0 .0
vo.o
i.o
o.t *
o.o •»
X X X X- X
XXX
XXX
0.0
G . U • 0.6.
CUMFREQ
— 4. _.
0.8
1 .0
NOTE
19 OBS HIDDEN
-------
Glycinde armigera, Flouranthrene
4.5+
3.0+
1.5
* *
* * * *
* *
* * *
* *
0.00 0.20 ~0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00
Prionospio cirrifera, Flouranthrene
4.0+
3.0+
2.0+
**
2 *
* * *
** *
*****
* * *
**
1.0-.
o. 06 6720 6740 6760 67so 1766
Spiophanes berkeleyorum, Flouranthrene
6.0+ *
4.5+
3.0+
1.5+
* *
* *
* * * *
* * *
* *
* * * *
o.oo"
"0.20"
~0.40 0.60~
"0.80 1.00
-------
Armandia brevis, Flouranthrene
5.0+
4.0+
3.0+
2.0+ *
* *
* *
* *
* *
* * * *•
* *
* * *
o.oo"
"6.20 " ~6.4ooTioo.so"
"IToo
Phyllodoce hartmanae, Flouranthrene
6.0+
4.5+
* *
* *
* * * *
* * * *
3.0+
1.5+
o.oo " 5720 ~ "0.40 ~o.eo ~ ~ oTso iToo
Goniada brunnea, Flouranthrene
6.0+ *
4.5+
3.0+
1.5+
* * * *
* 2
* *
* *
* ** *
* * *
* 2
0.00 ~ 0.20 ~0.40 ~ " 0.60
1.00
-------
Prionospio cirrifera, Chrysene
4.0+
3.0+
2.0 +
* * *
* *
* * *
* * *
* * *
1.0+
o.oo"
+-
0.20
+.
0.40
+.
0.60
+.
0.80
+
1.00
Spiophanes berkeleyorum, Chrysene
6.0+
4.5+
3.0+
1.5+
o.oo"
* * * * *
* * *
* *
"0.20 0.40 o.eo"oTao iToo
Goniada brunnea, Chrysene
6.0+
4.5+
3.0 +
* *
* * *
* * **
* * * *
* *
* * * *
1.5 +
0.00 0.20"
+-
0.40
+.
0.60
+-
0.80
+
1.00
-------
Armandia brevis, Chrysene
4.8+
3.6+
2.4+
1.2+
* * * *
* *
* * * *
* *
* * *
* * *
* *
0.00 0.20 0.40
Axinopsida sericata, Chrysene
0.60
0.80
1.0
4.5+
3.0 +
********
******
*******
******
***2**
***
**
**
**
1.5+ ***
**
0.00 0
Capitella capitata
.20 0
, Chrysene
.40
0
.60
0
.80
1
.00
4.5+
3.0+
1.5+
****
*******
***2**
*2
******
***
***
*****
*2*
**2
***
**
2*
0.0+ *
o.ocT"
0.20
+.
0.40
+.
0.60
"O.BO"
'l.OO
-------
CUHULATIVE FREQUENCY OF hORHALIZED fCHLo'DANE! (UG/G ORGANIC CARBON)
GENUS-GAMBARUS SPP=FASCIATUS
PLOT OF CHLORDAN*CUMFREtf
PLOT OF SSLC*CUHFREQ
SYMBOL USED IS X
SYMBOL USED IS *
ChLORDAN |
100.0 +
10.0
1 .0
0.1
0.0
xxxx
^rVW -*• »*- *•* •'* •»- •*- -•» »V J*» ^» -••• **• .«*
^..^.^^.^.^.^.^.^.^k^.^.^v^. ^.
* .«. «*. .1. ••. ,'. .»,.»* ^w V
^ .
X X
xxxx
xxxxx
xxxxx xxxx
XX
xxxx
XXXXXX X
XX XXXXXXXX
XXX
0.0
.-4.—
0.2
0.6
0.6
.-4.-.
1 .0
CUHFREC
NOTE:
1 ObS HIDDEN
-------
CUMULATIVE FREQUENCY OF NORMALIZED *CHLODANE! (UG/G ORGANIC CARBON)
GENUS=HYALELLA SPP=AZTECA
PLOT OF CHLORDAN*C'JMFREQ
PLOT OF SSLC*CU«FREQ
SYHBOL USED IS X
SYMBOL USED IS *
:HLORDA« I
i oo.o *
10.0
i .0
o.i
0.0
X X X X X
X X X X X
X X
X X
0.0
0.2
o.a 0.6
CUMFREC
0.6
._•«._.
1 .C
NOTE-:
15 DBS HIDDEN-
-------
CUBULATIVE FREQUENCY OF NORMALISED (TCHLODAKE! (UG/G ORGANIC CARBON)
GENUS=HYDROPSYCH SPP=FRISONI
CHLORDAN
100.0
1.0
"0.1
PLOT OF CHLORDAN*CUKFRtQ
PLOT OF SSLC*CUKFREG
SYMBOL USED IS X
SYMBOL USED IS *
1C.O *
0.0 *
* *X X X
X X
XX X X X
XXX
X X
0.0
0.2
O.U 0.6
CUHFSEC
1 .0
NOT2:
29 OBS hiDDE.S
-------
CUMULATIVE FREQUENCY OF NORMALIZED *CHLODANE! (UG/G.ORGANIC CARBON)
GENUS=HYDROPSYCH SPP=OflRIS
PLOT OF CHLORDAN*CUKFREC
PLOT OF S5LC*CUMFREQ
SYMBOL USED IS X
SYHBOL USED IS *
HLORDAN |
00.0 *
10.0
1 .0 *
0.1
0.0
,». .*.*«.
!X X X *
X X 1C X
X XX X X-
XXX
XXX
.-4.-.
0.6
0.0
0.2
o.u
0.6
1 .0
CUHPREC
iOTE:
25 065 HIDDEN
-------
CUMULATIVE FREQUENCY OF NORMALIZED tfCHLC'DANE! (UG/G ORGANIC CARBON)
GENUS=LIMNODRILUS SPP=CLAPAREDEIANUS
PLOT OF CHLOflDAN*CUMFREC
PLOT OF SSLC*CUHFREQ
SYMBOL USED IS X
SYMBOL USED IS *
CHLORDAN |
100.0 *
10.0 «•
1 .0 *
0.1
0.0 *
*r **. •** tf V "** '""
•+• •** •*• X A "*" "*"
X X
0.0
U.2
o.u
.
0.8
1 .0
CUKFRE^
NOTE:
30 OBS HIDDEN
-------
CUMULATIVE FREQUENCY OF NORMALIZED tfCHLODANE! (UG/G ORGANIC CARBON)
G£NUS=LIKNODRILUS SPP=HOFFHEISTEHI-
PLOT OF CHLORDAN*CUKFR£Q
PLOT OF SSLC*CU«FREQ
SYMBOL USED IS X
SYMBOL USED IS *
:H-LORDAN |
i ao. o +
10.0
1 .0 *
Q.I *
XX
XX
«X** **
X
XX
XX. X
XX
0.0
._ 4 —
0.0
r— •»— •
o.u
— +—
0.6
,_ + _.
0.8
._^._.
1 .0
0.
CUMFREQ
NOTE:
59 DBS HIDDEN
-------
3UHULATIVE FREQUENCY OF NORMALIZED
GEHUS=PELOSCOLEX
(UG/G ORGANIC CARBON)
SPP=FEROX
PLOT OF CHLORDAN^CUWFREQ
PLOT OF SSLC*CUMFREQ
SYMBOL USED IS X
SYMBOL USED IS *
CnLORDAM |
1100.0 +
10.0 «•
1 .0
0.1
0.0
XX
X
.*. .*. ^- **. •*. tf V V *** **" *** "*•
f -ft- v-f XX X--' •«••»• •••
X
X
XX
X
0.0
.-4.—
0.2
.-4.-.
O.u
0.6
o.e
•—•*•—•
1.0
CUMFREQ
NOTE:
59 CBS HIDDEN
-------
CUMULATIVE FREQUENCY OF NORMALIZED tfCHLODANE! (UG/G ORGANIC CARBON)
G£NUS=PELOSCGLEX SPP=KULTISETOSUS
PLOT OF CHLOHDAN*CUHFREC
PLOT OF SSLC*CUMFP.Ei
SYMBOL USED IS X
SYMBOL USED IS *
:.HLORDAK |
iOO.O +
10.0 +
1.0. *
0.1 +
0.0
X X
X X X X
X
o.c
0.2
G.U 0.6. c.e i.o
CUMFREQ.
NOTE:
23 ObS HIDDEN
-------
CUHULATIVE FREQUENCY OF NORHALIZED *CHLODANE! (UG/G ORGANIC CARBON)
GENUS=POTAMOTHRIX SPP=¥EJDOVSKYI
PLOT OF CKLOHDAN*CUHFREQ
PLOT OF SSLC#CU«FREG
SYMBOL USED IS X
SYMBOL USED IS *
CiHLORLAN |
1100.0 *
10.0 «•
7 .0 +
0.1
0.0
x x
NCTE:
C.O 0.2 0.« 0.6
CUHFREQ
26 035 HAD MISSING VALUES OR WERE OUT OF RANGE
0.8
1 .0
18 DBS HIDDEN
-------
CUttOLATIVE FREQUENCY OF NORMALIZED «CHLOIDANE! (UG/G ORGANIC CARBON)
GENUS=STENACRON SPP = INTERPUNC!r
PLOT OF CHLORDAN*CUMFREC
PLOT OF SSLCSCUMFREQ
SYMBOL USED IS X
SYMBOL USED IS *
JjiLORDAN |
llQO.O *
10.0" «•
1 .0
0..1 *
0.0 *
0.0
•.»•• +'*+** iff
XX
XXXX ^^
X X XX XXX. XXX
X XX X XX
X X XXX
XXXX
0.2
o.u
— 4. _.
0.6
O.B
1 .0
CUJ1FREQ,
NOTE:
31 CBS HIDDEN
-------
CUMULATIVE FREQUENCY OF NORMALIZED <*CHLOfDANE! (UG/G ORGANIC CARBON)
GENUS=STENOKEMA SPP=INTEGHUH
PLOT OF CHLORDAN*CUKFREQ
PLOT OF SSLC*CU«FREQ
SYMBOL USED IS X
SYMBOL USED IS *
HLORDAN
00.0 ^
1 0.0 <
1 .0 H
04
. 1 •*
0.0 H
K
i
K
K
X
X
X XX X XX
XX X
XX X
X
> X
1
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 O.B 1.0
CUMFREQ
:iOTE:
37 OSS HIDDEN
-------
CUMULATIVE FREQUENCY OF NORMALIZED *CHLODANE! (UG/G ORGANIC CARBON)
GENUS=STENONEMA SPP=PULCHELLUM
PLOT OF CHLORDAN*CUHFREU
PLOT OF SSLC*CUMFREQ
SYMBOL USED IS X
SYF1BOL USED IS *
;HLORDAN
ioa.0
1:0.0 •»
1.0 *
0.1 *•
0.0
XX*
x r
x x x x
xxx
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8.
1 .0
NOTE:
18 DBS HIDDEN
-------
CUMULATIVE FREQUENCY OF NORMALIZED tfCHLCDANE! (UG/G ORGANIC CARBON)
GLNUS=STENONE«A SPP=TERMINATUM
PLOT OF CHLORDAN*CUKFREQ
PLOT CF SSLC*CUMFREw
SYMBOL USED IS X
SYMBOL USED IS *
ChLORDAN |
100.0 *
10.0 *
1 .0 «•
0.1 +
0.0 *
::(: :£ :£ if. X V V Y V J£ XX1^
X X X X
X X
X X
.-4.-.
1^
. u
0.0
0.2
O.U 0.6
CUMFREQ
o.e
36 C9S HIDDEN
-------
CUMULATIVE FREQUENCY OF NORMALIZED «CHLO*DANE! (UG/G ORGANIC CARBON)
GEKUS=TUBIFEX SPP-TUBIFEX
PLOT OF CHLOHDAN*CUMFREQ
PLOT OF SSLC*CUKFREQ
SYMBOL USED IS X
SYMBOL USED IS *
3H.LORDAN |
1 0.0 . 0 *
1.0 . 0
1 .0
0.1
XX
xxxx.
XX
0.0
0..0
0.2
0.4
.-4..-.
0.6
0.8
1 .0
C'JMFREQ
NOTE:
79 CBS HIDDEN
-------
CUMULATIVE FREQUENCY Of NORHALIZED SCHLOANE! (UG/G ORGANIC CARBON)
GENUS=VALVATA SPP=SINCERA
PLOT OF CHLORDAN*CU«FREQ
PLOT OF SSLC*CU«FREQ
SYHBOL USED IS X
SYMBOL USED IS *
:HLORDAN
lOO.O -<
10.0
1 .0
0.1
0.0 H
K
X
X
***** * * ,*** x* *
X X
.
X X
X X
>• X
A
X
> A
0.0 0.2 0.1 0.6 0.8 1.0
NOTE:
27 CBS HIDDEN
CUHFREQ
-------
CUKULATIVE FREQUENCY OF NORMALIZED «HEPTACHLOR! (UG/G ORGANIC CARBON)
GENUS=ASELLU5 SPP=INTERHEDIUS
PLOT OF HEPTACHL*CU«FREQ
PLOT OF SSLC*CUMFREQ
SYMBOL USED IS X
SYMBOL USED IS *
iEPTACHL
100.0 i
10.0 <
1 .0, <
0.1 <
0.0 -i
K
K
K
.
/
.*. .*. <.?* •*• .*. -•- .'» *'• »*. »•*. ••• ••• .*- ,•• J. y V V V
XXX
X X X X X X X
XX XX
> X
-
0.0
0.2
0.4 0.6
CUM-FREQ
0.8
1 .0
N'OTE:
12 CBS HIDDEN
-------
CUMULATIVE FREQUENCY OF NORMALIZED (ZHEPTACHLOR! (UG/G ORGANIC CARBON)
GENUS=GAMMARUS SPP=FASCIATUS
PLOT OF HEPTACHL*CUMFREQ
PLOT OF SSLC*CU,1FREQ
iEPTACHL I
100.0 *
10.0
1 .0
U.I
0.0
SYMBOL USED IS X
SYMBOL USED IS *
XXX
«^«^«««**« x X
XXXX
XXX
XXX
XX
XX
xxxxxx
X XXXXX
xxxxxxxxxx
XXXXXXX XXX
o.c
0.2
O.U 0.6
CUMFREC
0.8
1 .0
NOTE:
U 095 HILDEN
-------
CUWULATIVE FREQUENCY OF NORMALIZED *HEPTACHLOR! (OG/G ORGANIC CARBON)
GENUS=HYALELLA SPP=AZTECA*
tLOT OF HEPTACHL*CUMFREG
PLOT OF SSLC^CUMFRLQ
SYHBOL USED IS X
SYMBOL USED IS *
hEPTACHL
1UO.O
10.0
1 .0
c.o
0.0
X X
XXX X X X X
xxxxxxxxx
X X
0.2
O.U 0.6
CUKFREC
0.8
. _ 4 _ .
1 .0
NOTE.:
21 DBS. HIDDEN
-------
CUBULATIVE FREQUENCY OF NORMALIZED eHEPTACHLOR! (UG/G ORGANIC CARBON)
GENUS=HYDROPSYCH SPP=FRISONI
PLOT OF HEPTACHL*CUHFREs,
PLOT OF SSLC*CUHFREQ
SYMBOL USED IS X
SYMBOL USED IS *
riEPTACHL |
100.0 +
10.0
1 .0 +
0.1
0.0 *
, .*» .(. •*.
XX X *
X X X X
X XX X X X XX
X X
— 4.-.
0.8
0.0
0.2
C.U 0.6
CUMKREQ
1 .0
NOTE:
33 ObS HIDDEN
-------
CUBULATIVE FRE&SENCY OF NORMALIZED fHEPTACHLOR! (UG/G ORGANIC CARBON)
GENUS=HYDROPSYCH SPP=ORRIS
PLOT OF HEPTACHL*CUHFREQ
PLOT OF SSLC-CUKFREQ
SYMBOL USED IS X
SYMBOL USED IS *
hEPTACHL |
1.00.0 *
10.0
1 .0
0-. 1 *
0.0
'f X X X *
X X X X
xxxxxxxxxx
X X
• —* — •
O'.O
0.2
0 . U'- 0.6
CUMFREQ
0..8
1 .0
NOTE :
25 CBS HIDDE14
-------
CUMULATIVE FREQUENCY OF NORMALIZED tfHEPTACHLOR! (UG/G ORGANIC CARBON)
GENUS=LIMNODRILUS SPP=CLAPAREDEIAJiUS
PLOT OF HEPTACHL*CUMFREQ
PLOT OF SSLC*CUHFREQ
SYMBOL USED IS X
SYMBOL USED IS *
iiEPTACHL |
100.0 *
10.0
1 .0
0.1
0.0
NOTE:
o.c
0.
0.8
1 .0
O.U 0.6
CUMFREQ
23 OSS HAD MISSING VALUES OR HERE OUT OF RANGE 22 OBS HIDDEN
-------
CUMULATIVE FREQUENCY OF NORMALIZED tfHEPTACHLOR! (UG/G ORGANIC CARBON)
GENUS=LinNODRILUS SPP=HOFFMEISTERI
PLOT OF KEPTACHL*CUrtFREQ
PLOT OF SSLC*CUHFP.EQ
SYMBOL USED IS X
SYMBOL USED IS *
h.EHACHL I
i;00.0 *
10.0
1 .0
0.1
X
:XXXX*
0..0
._.*_.
1 .0
0.0
0.2
C...6
O.fa
CUMFREC
N 0 T"E -: •
66 OflS HIDDEN-
-------
CUMULATIVE FREQUENCY OF NORMALIZED *HEPTACHLOR! (UG/G ORGANIC CARBON)
GENUS=PELOSCOL£X SPP=FEROX
PLOT OF HEPTACHL*CU«FREQ
PLOT OF SSLC*CUMFREQ
SYMBOL USED IS X
SYMBOL USED IS *
iEPTACHL |
100.0 *
10.0
1 .0
0.1 «•
0.0 *
I
o.c
0.2
KOTE:
O.U 0.6
CUHFREQ
UO OSS HAD KISSING VALUES OR WERE OUT OF RANGE
0.8
1 .0
39 OBS HIDDEN
-------
CUMULATIVE FREQUENCY OF NORMALIZED SHEPTACHLOR! (UG/G ORGANIC CARBON)
GENUS=PELOSCOLEX SPP=MULTISETOSUS
PLOT OF HEPTACHL*CUHFREQ
PLOT OF SSLC*CUMFREQ
SYMBOL USED IS X
SYMBOL USED IS *
t.EPTACHL
VOO.O
10.0 H
1 .0 <
0.1 •>
U .0 <
1
t-
h
X
X
X X
X
X
X X*
> X
0..0 0.2 C.U 0..6 0..3 1.0
DOTE:
CUflF-REO
33 DBS KI
-------
COHULATIVE FREQUENCY OF NORMALIZED *HEPTACHLOR! (UG/G ORGANIC CARBOB)
GENUS=POTAI10THRIX SPP = VEJ DOVSKYI
PLOT OF HEPTACHL^CUMFHEQ
PLOT OF SSLCSCUKFBEQ
SYMBOL USED IS X
SYMBOL USED IS *
HEPTACHL
100.0
10.0
1 .0
0.1
0.0 *
NOTE:
0.0
0.
O.U 0.6
CU.1FREQ
16 OBS HAD MISSING VALUES OR WERE OUT OF RANGE
0.8
1 .0
22 OBS HIDDEN
-------
CUKULATIVE FREQUENCY OF NORMALIZED (ZHEPTACHLOR! (UG/G ORGANIC CARBON)
GENUS=ST£NACRON SPP=INTERPUNCT
PLOT OF HEPTACHL*CUKFREQ
PLOT OF SSLC*CUKFREQ
SYMBOL USED IS X
SYMBOL USED IS *
ritPTACHL |
100.0 *
10.0
1 .0
0.1
0.0
XX X
XX X XX XXXX XXX
XXX XXXX XX X
X X
. — 4. —.
0.0
0.2,
0.4
0.6
0.8.
1 .0
38 OBS- KID-D.E.W*.
-------
CUflULATlVE FREQUENCY OF NORMALIZED «HEPTACHLOR! (UG/G ORGANIC CARBON)
GENUS=STENONEHA SPP=INTEGRU«
PLOT OF HEPTACHL*CUHFREQ
PLOT OF SSLC*CUKFi
-------
CUMULATIVE FREQUENCY OF NORMALIZED *HEPTACHLOR! (UG/G ORGANIC CARBON)
S = STENOHEttA SPP = PULCHELLU.1
PLOT OF HEPTACHL*CUMFREQ
PLOT OF SSLCSCUHFREQ
SYHBOL USED IS X
SY!1£OL USED IS *
HEPTACHL |
100.0 +
10.0
1 .0
0.1
Q.O *
XX XX
X XX XX XX XX
0.0
0.2
O.U- 0.6 0.8
CUHFEEg
1 .0
NOTE:
16 DBS', HIDDEN,
-------
CUMULATIVE FREQUENCY OF NORMALIZED «HEPTACHLOR! (U6/G ORGANIC CARBON)
GENUS=STENONE«A SPP=TERMINATUH
PLOT OF HEPTACHL*CUMFREQ
PLOT OF SSLCSCUMFREQ
SYMBOL USED IS X
SYMBOL USED IS *
:EPTACHL |
100.0 +
10.0 *
1 .0 «•
0.1
C.O
****** X X X XX X X X * * *
X XX X X X
X X
.-4 — '
0.0
.— + —.
O.tt
._ + _.
0.6
.-4 _.
G.8
._ + _.
1 .0
CUSFREQ
NOTE:
38 OflS HIDDEN
-------
CUMULATIVE FREQUENCY OF NORMALIZED ZHEPTACHLOR! (U3/G ORGANIC CARBON)
GENUS=TUBIFEX SPP=TUBIFEX
PLOT OF HEPTACHL*CUKFREQ
PLOT OF SSLC*CUMFREQ
SYMBOL USED IS X
SYMBOL USED IS *
riEPTACHL |
1100.0 +
10.0
1 .0 *
U.I
X
NOTE:
— -f _.
0.2
..—-4.—.
o.a
0.0 0.2 O.U C.6
CUHFRE.-Q,
56 DBS HAD KISSING VALUES OR W-E:R-£~ CUT OF RANGE
0 ..8-
1 .0
53 055 HIDDEN.
-------
CUMULATIVE FREQUENCY OF NORMALIZED (ZHEPTACHLOR! (UG/G ORGANIC CABBON)
GENDS=VALVATA SPP=SINCERA
PLOT OF KEPTACHL*CU«FHE(
PLOT OF SSLC-CUMFREQ
HEPTACHL
100.0
10.0
1 .0
0.1
0.0
SYMBOL USED IS X
SYMBOL USED IS *
X *
0.0
0.2
O.U 0.6
CUMFREC
0.6
1 .0
NOTE:
32 OBS HIDDEN
-------
APPENDIX. Part II. Species Screening level Concentration Plots
for Contaminants in Saltwater Sediments.
-------
Spiochaetopterus costorum, PCB
4.0+
2.0+
0.0+
-2.0 +
* * * *
* *
* * * *
* *
+ -
0.00
+-
0.20
+.
0.40
'o.eo o.ao"
Nephtys ferruginea, PCB
4.0+
2.0+
0.0+
-2.0+
1.00
**
* ** *
** ** it *
** * *
** **
0
Harmotho«
2.0-
1.0-
0.0-
-1.0-
0
00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00
; extenuata, PCB
*
*
*
*
*
*
•
* 2
* *
* 4 *
*
* * * *
2
•
.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00
-------
Euchone elegans, PCB
1.5+
0.0+
-1.5+
* * * * *
* * *
* * * *
* *
0.
brec
3.2H
00 0.20
jma inflatum, PCB
[
0.40
0.60
0.80
1.00
*
1.6 +
0.0+
-1.6 +
* *
* * *
* * * * **
* *: * * *
o.oo"
"0.20"
+-
0.40
"0.60~
+.
0.80
+
1.00
Drilonereis longa, PCB
2.0+
1.0+
0.0+
-1.0+
* * *
* *•••
*•- *-
* *; *
* *
*.» **
* * *
+-
0.00
+-
0.20
+.
0.40
+.
0.60
0.80 1.00
-------
Spiophanes bombyx, PCB
3.2+
1.6+
0.0 +
-1.6+
* **
* * *
* * **
* * * * 2
o.oo"
+.
0.20
+.
0.40
+-
0.60
+.
0.80
Anobothrus gracilis, PCB
+
1.00
**
1.5+
0.0+
-1.5+
* * *
* *
**
* * ** *
**
* *
0.00 0.20 0.40"
Artica islandica/ PCB
0.60
0.80"
+
1.00
1.5+
0.0+
-1.5+
* * * **
* * *
**
* * * *
* *
0.00 " 0.20~ 0.40 0.60 ~ 0.80 1.00
-------
Euchone*incolor, PCB
3TO+-
1.5+
*******
** * *
** *
0.0 +
-1.5+
* ** *
* **
Ninoe
0.00
ningripes ,
0.20
PCB
0
.40
0
.60
0
.80
1
.00
2.0+
1.0 +
0.0 +
-1.0+ *
* * *
* *
* **.
* * *
* * *
0.00 0.20"
Nephtys incisa, PCB
2.0+
1.0+-
0.0+
-1.0+ *
1..
0.40
0.60
+.
0.80
+
1.00
* * *
* *
* *
* *
*• *
* *
0.00 0.20
oTeo"
'oTso
i.oo
-------
Nucula proxima, PCB
* **
1.6 +
0.0 +
** **
**
* **
** ** *
** **
** ** *
**
0.00
Mediomastus
ambi
0.20
seta,
PCB
0
.40
0
.60
0
.80
1
.00
* *
1.6+
0.0 +
-1.6 +
* * *
* * *
* * *
* * * *
* * *
Tharyx
0.00
acutus,
0
PCB
.20
0.
40
0
.60
0
.80
1
.00
2.4 +
1.2 +
0.0 +
-1.2+ *
* ** *
* **
** *
** **
**
* **
** *
**
* *
* 2
o.oo"
'0.20 0740 0.60 ~ 0.80"
'l.OO
-------
Aricidea catherinae, PCB
5.0+
2.5+
* **
* **** **
2 *** *
*** **
0.0 +
-2.5+
2 * *** ***
2 *
o.oo"
+.
0.20
+.
0.40
+.
0.60
+.
0.80
T.oo
Caulleriella cf killariensis, PCB
4.8+
3.2+
1.6+
* *
* *• 2
0.0+
* * *-
* 3
+ +
0.00 0.20
Goniadella gracilis, PCB
5.0+
2.5+
"0.40"
"0.60"
+.
0.80
"l.OO
*> *
* - *
2 *
0.0+
-2.5+
*•*-.*•-*- * *
o.oo"
+.
0.20
+.
0.40
0.60
0.80
+
1.00
-------
Unciola irrorata, PCB
5.0+
2.5+
* 2 *
0.0 +
-2.5+
* * * *
2 * * * *
0.00 0..
Lumbrinereis hebes,
20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00
PCB
2..4 +
1.2 +
0.0+
* * *
* *
* * *
* *
* *
* * * *
* *
o.oo"
+.
0.20
"0.40"
1..
0.60
0.80
Pholoe minuta, PCB
*. "Or
2.0+
"l.OO
* *
****
is******
0.0 +
-2.0+ **
*
***2***
******
****2 ***
***
2**** 2
o.oo"
"0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80"
1.00
-------
Paraonis gracilis, PCB
3.0+
1.5+
0.0+
* * * * *
* * *
* * * *
*/
* * *
-1.5+
o.00oTIooT4ooTeooTso"
Pherusa Affinis, PCB
1-
1.00
4.0 +
2.0+
0.0.+
-2.0+
* *
*****
* **v
* * *
**
* *
* * *
**
* *
0.00
Phyllodoce
mucosa
0
/
.20
PCB
0
.40
0
.60
0
.80
1
.00
5.0+
2.5+
0.0+
-2.5+
*> *
*• *-
* * **
*****
* *
* * *
*- - * * *
+-
0.00
"0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80"
+
1.00
-------
Tharyx annulosus, PCB
4.0+
2.0 +
0.0+
-2.0+
** *
** ** ** *
** **
* * * * **
** ** **
o.oo"
+.
0.20
+-
0.40
+-
0.60
+-
0.80
"l.OO
Lumbrinereis acicularuro, PCB
4.8+
3.2 +
1.6 +
0.0 +
**
* *
** *
* * * 2
* 2 *
** * **
2 *
0.00 oT20
Pitar morrhuanus, PCB
sToI
2.5+
0.40
+-
0.60
+.
0.80
"l.OO
* * *
0.0 +
-2.5+
* * * *
* * ** * *
* ** * **
* *
* * *
0.00 ~~oT20 0.40 0.60 " 0.80 1.00
-------
Tellina agilis, PCB
5.0+
2.5+
**
** **
* *
2 * ** **
* * ** **
0.0 +
-2.5 +
* **
**
* *
*-
o.oo"
'oTicT
—+-
0.40
+.
0.60
+-
0.80
+
1.00
Glycera dibranchiata, PCB
4.8+
3.2 +
1.6+
* *
* *
* * * 2
* *.- *
0.0 +
* *
2 * '
Amphioda (amphispina) urtica, PCB
o.oo
+-
0.40
h-
0.60
0.80
+
1.00
* *
3.0+
1.. 5+
0.0+
*** *
*-*-
***•
**
* - * *••# • *-
* *** **
* *
-1.5+
+-
0.00
0.20
+-
0.40
+-
0.60
+.
0.80
+
1.00
-------
Heterophoxus oculatus, PCB
5.0+
2.5+
0.0+
-2.5+ *
*****
* *
* * *
* *
*****
0.00
Euphilomedes
4.0-
-
0.20
carcharodonta,
0.40
PCB
0.60 0.80 1.00
**
***
*
**
******
2.0 +
0.0+
**
****
****
**2*****
*****2 *
*2***
**
-2. OH
0
i- *
*
.00
Glycera capitata,
0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80
PCB
1.00
4.0+
2.0+
0.0+
-2.0+ *
I *
**
* *
**
* ***
** *** **
* *** *
*** **
* *** *
o.oo"
+.
0.20
'0.40~
+.
0.60
+.
0.80
"l.OO
-------
* * * * *•
Prionospio cirrifera, PCB
4.0+
2.0 +
0.0+
-2.0+
I _^_ ^^_ ^ ^M I_«IBflL WHK ^ BBB^ ^^ ^« •!• ^ ^^_^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^^»^ W _«»• J. «M*_^B^ W fl^ ^ .^ ^ ^
0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00
Cossuro longocirrata, PCB
*!
3.0 +
1.5+
0.0+
**
*.
**. * *
* *
* ** *
* **
* *
Ampleli
0.00
sea
brevi
0.20
simulata,
0.
PCB
40
0
.60
0
.80
1
.00
4.0+
2.0 +
0.0+
* * *
* *
*> *•;
*- *'
* * *
o.oo"
+-
0.20
"0.40"
0.60
+.
0.80
+
1.00
-------
Cistena californiensis, PCB
4.0+
2.0+
0.0+
* * *
* * * *
* *
* *
* *
* *
* * *
* *
0.00
Compsomyax
0.20
subdiaphana,
PCB
0.
40
0
.60
0
.80
1
.00
**
3.0 +
1.5+
0.0+
-1.5+
* **
* *
**
** ***
* ** *
2 *
o.oo"
0.20
Paraprionospio pinnata, PCB
0.40"
"oTeo"
—+.
0.80
1.00
5.0+
2.5+
0.0+
-2.5+ *
* ** *
** **
** *
* ***
* ** **
** *
**
o.oo"
+-
0.20
+-
0.40
+.
0.60
+.
0.80
1.00
-------
Sthenelanella uniformis, PCB
4.0+
2.0+
0.0+
* * *
* *
* • *•
*~ *
* *•
0
Armandia 1
.00
srevis,
0.20
PCB
0.40
0.60
0.80
1.00
4.0+
2.0+
0.0+
-2.0+
*• *• *•
* * * *
* *
*
o.oo"
"0.20"
+-
0.40
+-
0.60
+.
0.80
+
1.00
Glycinde armigera, PCB
4.0+
* * * *
2,o 0 +
0.0 +
-2.0 +
* *
* * *
* * * *-
o.oo
+-
0.40
0.60
0.80
"IToo
-------
Pectinaria californiensis, PCB
4.0+
2.0+
0.0+
* ** * *
**
* ** * * *
**
** *
* *
** * *
* *
0.00
+-
0.20
0.40
+.
0.60
oTso"
Prionospio steenstrupi, PCB
5.0+
2.5+
0.0+
-2.5+ *
*3*322
2*
2222223
22*
*3223222
2232
222
2*3222*
222*
'l.OO
**
*222*
223*
+-
0.40
0.00 0.20
Nephtys cornuta franciscana, PCB
4.0+
2.0+
+-
0.60
+-
0.80
"iToo
** **
***
***
* *
**
**
***
** ***
** *
0.0 +
-2.0+ *
*
* **
* **
o.oo"
+-
0.20
+.
0.40
+-
0.60
+-
0.80
1.00
-------
Capitella capitata, PCB
4.0+
2.0+
0.0+
2*2
*2*
2**2*
2*2*2*
**2*2
2*2**
*2
*2*
**
2***
2*2*
2*2
*2
-2.0-
0
Axinopsic
K *
*
.00 0.20
la sericata, PCB
0.40
0.60
0.80
1
1.00
5.0+
2.5+
**222*
*22*222*
**2*
*2*222*
**22*
22*'
0.0-
-2.5-
0
Chloeia i
*22*2
22*2*
2*22
*2*2*3
*
. *
.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00
sinnata, PCB
4.0 +
2.0 +
0.0 +
* *
* *
* *
* * *
+-
0.00
+-
0.20
+-
0.40
+-
0.60
+-
0.80
1.00
-------
Prionospio pinnata, PCB
* * *
3.6+
2.4+
1.2+
0.0 +
o.oo"
* * * * *
* * * * *
* *
"0.20"
"0.40~
+-
0.60
+.
0.80
"l.OO
Macoma carlottensis, PCB
5.0+
2.5+
*
***
**2
2**
2**2**2
**2**2
***2**
**2***
0.0-
-2.5-
0
***2
2***
*
*
*
00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00
Parvilucina tenuisculpta, PCB
5.0+
2.5+
0.0+
*
*
22*2
22
*2
*22*
*2
*2
**222*2*
**222*222*
*22*
*2*222**
22*22*
-2.5+ *
+-
0.00
"0.20"
"0.40"
"0.60"
+-
0.80
"iToo
-------
Glycera branchiopoda, PCS
4.0+
2.0 +
0.0 +
**
****2**
****2*****
****
**
**2**
*2** *2
* **2
**
*-*2
o.oo"
+-
0.20
+-
0.40
"0.60"
Spiophanes berkeleyorum, PCB
4.0+
2.0+
0.0 +
-2.0+ *
* *****
** ***
***
* *
***
+.
0.80
+
1.00
***
****
*** it
**
o.oo"
"0.20"
"0.40"
Telliina carpenter!, PCB
6.0+
4-.8V
3.6 +
0.60
0.80
'l.OO
*••
** *-
* **
** ***
** ***•* **i
** **
* ***
2.4 +
***
***
* *
o.oo"
+.
0.20
"oT4o"
+-
0.60
+.
0.80
1.00
-------
Ampelisca brevisimulata, DDT
5.0+
2.5+
0.0+
* *
* *
* * *
* *
* *
-2.5+
0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 ~ 0.80
+
1.00
Amphioda (amphispina) urtica, DDT
5.0+
2.5+
0.0+
-2.5+
**
* *
*****
* *
* * *
* **
o.oo"
"0.20"
+-
0.40
+-
0.60
+.
0.80
'l.OO
Euphilomedes carcharodonta, DDT
5.0+
2.5+
* *
**
* *
* *
* **
* *
0.0+
-2.5+
* * **
* * **
o.oo"
+.
0.20
+-
0.40
0.60
+.
0.80
'l.OO
-------
Heterophoxus oculatus, DDT
5.0+
2.5+
0.0+
-2.5+
* *
* *
* *
* *
o.oo"
"oTzo ~ 0.40 oTeo"
0.80
1.00
Cistena californiensis, DDT
5.0+
2.5+
0.0+
-2.5+
* *
* *
* *
* * *.
* * *
*• *
*. *.
* *
0.00
Compsomyax
0.20
subdiaphana,
0.
DDT
40
0
.60
0
.80
1
.00
6.0+
3.0+
0.0+
* *
* * - * *
* *
** *
**
* * *
-3.0+ *
o.oo ~~ oT2o"
"0.40~~ 0.60~ ~ ~0.80"
TToo
-------
Axinopsida sericata, DDT
7.0+
3.5+
0.0+
*2
**
*2
*
*2**
**2
2**
*22*2
*22*2*2*2
*2*2*22*
2*2*2**
**2
**2*
*
-3.5+
o.oo"
+.
0.20
+-
0.40
0.60
+-
0.80
1.00
Pectinaria californiensis, DDT
7.0+
3.5+
0.0+
* *** *
** ** **
*** ***** ** *
* ***
*v *
* *
o.oo 0.20"
+-
0.40
+.
0.60
+-
0.80
"l.OO
-------
Sthenelanella uniformis, DDT
5.0+
2.5+
0.0+
-2.5+
* *
* * *
* * *
* *
0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00
Chloeia pinnata, DDT
6.0-
3.0-
0.0-
-3.0-
0
Paraprior
* *
*
* *
*
*
* * *
* * *
*
*
*
* *
it
*
00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00
lospio pinnata, DDT
6.0+
3.0+
0.0 +
* * *
* *
* * *
* * * *
-3.0 +
o.oo"
+.
0.20
+.
0.40
"0.60"
+.
0.80
+
1.00
-------
Capitella capitata, Phenanthrene'
4.5+
3.0 +
***
**2
******
******
*2****
* **2***
**** **2
1.5-
0.0-
0
***
*
**
*
•
.00
Glycera capitata,
1
0.20
1 1 1 ""
0.40 0.60 0.80
1.00
Phenanthrene
6.0+
4.5+
3.0 +
1.5+
**
*
***
********
*2*****
**.******2
****
******
2****
2**
o.oo"
+.
0.40
0.20
Macoma carlottensis, Phenanthrene
6.0+
4.5+
"oTeo"
"oTso"
"i.oo
**
********
2.
3.0 +
**2****
*****2**
****
********
***
**2** *
1.5+ *
*
o.oo"
+.
0.20
+-
0.40
+.
0.60
0.80
1.00
-------
Nephtys ferruginea, Phenanthrene
6.0+
4.5+
*******
3.0 +
1.5+
****
*2****
*******
******
***
Praxillella gracilis, Phenanthrene
6.0+
4.8+
**
0.00 0.
20 0.40
0.60
0.80
1.00
3.6+
2.4+
******
* * *
* * *
* * *
* * * *
* *
o.oo"
'0.20~
+-
0.40
+-
0.60
+-
0.80
+
1.00
-------
Glycera branchiopoda, DDT
6.0+
3.0+
*2
2*2*2
*22*2*2
2*2*2*
22*2*2*
22*2*2
2*2*
*2
***
*2*
0.0+ **
**
0
*
*
1
00
0
1
.20
0
.40
0
.60
0
.80
1.
00
Prionospio pinnata, DDT
7.2+
6.0+
4.8+
3.6+ *
* *
. * *
* *
* *
* *
Pr
0
ionosp]
00 0.20
.0 steenstrupi,
DDT
0
.40
0
.60
0
.80
1
.00
7.0+
3.5+
0.0+
-3.5+
****
2*
***2**
*****2
**2****
****
*
*
2**
2****
o.oo'
"0.20"
"o.40~
+-
0.60
0.80
**2*
1.00
-------
Parvilucina tenuisculpta, DDT
*,
*
7.0+
3.5+
0.0+
*2
**
**
*
22*
22
*222222
22*
222222222
2222222
*222
22222222*
2*
22
-3.5+
o.oo"
+.
0.20
+.
0.40
+-
0.60
"0.80"
TToo
Macoma carlottensis, DDT
7.0+
3.5+
0.0+
-3.5+
***************
****2***
*********
***
**
****
0.00
+-
0.20
"0.40~
0.60
0.80
+
1.00
Capitella capitata, DDT
7.0+
3.5+
0.0+
** ***
**** ******
*** ***
*** ****
*• *****
**
** **
-3.5+
o.oo"
+.
0.20
1..
0.40
oeo
0.80
+
1.00
-------
Spiophanes berkeleyorum, DDT
**
7.5+
6.0+
4.5+
** it
** *
* ***
**
**
* ***
*** **
* **
* **
0.00
+-
0.40
+-
0.60
+.
0.80
1.00
Tellina carpenter!, DDT
9T011
7.5+
6.0+
***
2*
***
2***
***2*
*****2***
****
*******
**2
4.5+ *
*
2***
o.oo"
0.40 0.60
+.
0.80
+
1.00
-------
Glycinde armigera, Napthalene
4.0+
2.0+
0.0+
* * *
* *
* *
* * * *
* *
o.oo"
+.
0.20
+.
0.40
+.
0.60
Prionospio cirrifera, Nap'thalene
+.
0.80
* * * *
+
1.00
* *
3.2+
1.6+
0.0 +
* *
*****
* * * *
0.00
+-
0.20
+-
0.40
+.
0.60
+.
0.80
+
1.00
Capitella capitata, Napthalene
5.0+
2.5+
0.0+
-2.5+
**
***********
2**********
******2****
******
***
**
0.00
+-
0.20
+.
0.40
0.60"
+-
0.80
1.00
-------
Armandia brevis/ Napthalene
4.0+
2.0+
0.0+
* * *
* * *
******
* * * *
* *
* *
o.oo"
+-
0.20
+-
0.40
+-
0.60
"oTIo"
TToo
Axinopsida sericata, Napthalene
4.0+
2.0+
0.0+
****
***************
****
*****
*******2*
****
****
0.00
0.20
+-
0.40
+-
0.60
o.ao"
Euchone incolor, Napthalene
4.0+
3.0 +
1.00
* *
* * *
* * * * *
* *
* *
2.0 +
1.0+ * *
o.oo"
+_
0.20
+.
0.40
+.
0.60
'o7so~ ~~iToo
-------
Nephtys cornuta franciscana, Napthalene
oTO+"
4.0+
**
* **
********
****
2.0 +
0.0 +
** *****
***
***
* *
**
o.oo"
"0.20"
+-
0.40
+-
0.60
+.
0.80
"l.OO
PraxijLlella gracilis, Napthalene
6 .0+
4.5+
* *
***** ****
.*
3.0 +
1.5+
*****
* * *
* *
o.oo"
+-
0.20
'0.40~
+-
0.60
+-
0.80
+
1.00
Compsgroyax subdiaphana, Napthalene
6
royas
4.5+
3.0+
1.5+
* * *
* * * * * * *
* * *
* * * *
* *
* * *
o.oo"
+-
0.20
0.40
+-
0.60
"oTso"
"l.OO
-------
Goniada brunnea, Napthalene
"
4.0+
* *
*******
* * >
* * *
2.0+
0.0 +
* * * ; * *
* *, *
o.oo"
+-
0.20
+-
0.40
+_
0.60
+.
0.80
+
1.00
Euphilomedes carcharodonta, Napthalene
6.0+
4.0+
2.0+
0.0+
****
*****
*******2*****
*•* * * ******
***
** ****
****
o.oo"
0.20
"0.40"
"0.60
0.80"
'IToo
-------
Glycera capitata, Napthalene
~~^
4.0+
2.0 +
0.0 +
****
*******2*****
*********
***
***2
****
**
0.00 0.20 ~ 0.40 ~0.60 0.80 ~ 1.00
/ '-
Macoma carlottensis, Napthalene
4.0+
2.0 +
0.0+
****
****2*********
2**
******
*2***
******2*
*2*
o.oo"
0.20"
+-
0.40
+-
0.60
0.80
+
1.00
Nephtys ferruginea/ Napthalene
4.0+
2.0 +
0.0+
****
*************
***
******* **
***
******
****
o.oo"
"0.20"
1"
0.40
+-
0.60
+.
0.80
"l.OO
-------
Phyllgdoce hartmanae, Napthalene
6.0+
4.0+
2.0+
* *
* *
* * *
* *
0.0 +
o.oo"
+-
0.20
+-
0.40
+-
0.60
+.
0.80
Platynereis bicanaliculata, Napthalene
~~ 6.0+
4.0 +
**
* * **-** *
** *
2.0 +
0.0 +
* *
* * *
o.oo"
"0.20
0.40~
0.60
+-
0.80
Prionospio steenstrupi, Napthalene
5.0+
2.5+
0.0+
-2.5+
"IToo
** *
+
1.00
****
************
*******
****** *v*
*******
**
*****
o.oo
+-
0.20
+.
0.40
0.60
0.80
1.00
-------
Spiochaetopterus costorum, Napthalene
D • U"
4.0 +
2.0 +
0.0 +
* * * * ** *
* * *
*****
* *
* *
o.oo"
+.
0.20
'0.40~
"0.60~
+-
0.80
+
1.00
Spiophanes berkeleyorum, Napthalene
6.0+
4.0 +
* * * *
* * *
* * *
* *
2.0 +
0.0 +
* * *
0.00
+.
0.20
+.
0.40
0.60
+.
0.80
+
1.00
Glycera americana, Napthalene
6TO+"
4.0+
* * *
* * * **
******
* *
2.0+
0.0+
* **
* * **
o.oo"
+-
0.20
"0.40 0.60"
"0.80 1.00
-------
Pectinaria californiensis, Napthalene
. u+
4.5+
3.0+
1.5+
* * *
* * * * * * *
* *
* * * * *
o.oo"
+_
0.20
0.40
+-
0.60
"0.80"
T.OO
Amphioda (amphispina) urtica, Napthalene
6.0+
4.5+
* ** *• *•
*-*-*****
3.0 +
1.5+
* *
**. * * *
* *•
*,* *
o.oo"
+-
0.20
+-
0.40
+.
0.60
0.80
+
1.00
Parvilucina tenuisculpta, Nap'thalene
6.0+
4..0+
2.0+
0.0 +
**
* ** ****-*
*- *
* ** *
* *
it *
**
0.00 ~0.20"
0.40
+-
0.60
"oTeo"
—+
1.00
-------
Pholoe minuta, Napthalene
'
4.0+
2.0 +
0.0+
* * * * **
** * *
* *
* * *
* * *
0
*
.00
1
0.20
0
.40
0
.60
0
.80
1
.00
-------
Glycinde
armigera, Phenanthrene
4.8+
3.6+
2.4 +
1.2+ 2
* *
* *
* * *
* * *
I
I
0.040 0.080 0.120 0.160
Armandia brevis, Phenanthrene
0.200
+C41
0.240
4.8 +
3.6+
2.4+
*- *
* * * *
*****
* * *•
* * *
* * *-
1.2+
.!•«. ^«»«_ _•. « ^m _•••» -U«> .w ^^ -- ^ .__, r ^ I ^ ^ ^»«• ^ _u _• ^^ -Iw ^ —* w» ^ —• « ^ — J- -I- —i- ^ v— ^— <*^ ^^_ v^^_ J-
0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00
Prionospio cirrifera, Phenanthrene
4.00+ *
3.20+
2.40 +
1.60 +
* *
* *
* * *
* *
* *
* * *
* *
* *
* *
0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00
-------
Euchone incolor, Phenanthrene
4.5+
3.0 +
1.5+
0.0+ _*
0.00
*****
*****
******
*****
+-
0.20
+-
0.40
+-
0.60
+.
0.80
+
1.00
Phyllodoce hartmanae, Phenanthrene
6.0+
4.5+
* *
* * *
3.0 +
1.5+
* * *
* *
* * * * *
0.00 0.20 0.40
Axinopsida sericata, Phenanthrene
0
.60
0
.80
1
.00
4.8 +
3.6+
2.4 +
1.2+ 2
**
*******
****
******2
*******
** **
*2***
***
****
**
+-
0.00
+-
0.20
"0.40~
+.
0.60
+-
0.80
"l.OO
-------
Goniada brunnea, Phenanthrene
6.0+
4.5+
* * **
* '*• *
3.0 +
1.5+
* * * **
**
* * *
**
0.00
Compsomyax
0.20
subdiaphana,
0.40
Phenanthrene
0
.60
0
.80
1
.00
6.0+
4.5+
3.0+
1.5+
*****
* * * *
*****
* *
* * * *
o.oo"
+-
0.20
+.
0.40
+-
0.60
+.
0.80
+
1.00
Euphilomedes carcharodonta, Phenanthrene
6.0+
4.5+
**
********
****2**
3.0 +
****
**2* ***
******
** *
*2****
1.5+ **
*
o.oo"
+-
0.20
'0.40~
+-
0.60
+-
0.80
"l.OO
-------
Pectinaria californiensis, Phenanthrene
6.0+
4.8 +
3.6+
2.4 +
* * * *
* * *
* * * *
* * *
* *
o.oo"
+-
0.20
+-
0.40
+-
0.60
+-
0.80
'l.OO
Prionospio cirrifera, Phenanthrene
4.8 +
3.2+
***
*2****
*******
*2
******
2****
********
1.6-
0
•
2 *
*
00
Amphioda (amphi
*****
**
0.20
spina)
0.40
0.60 0.80
1.00
urtica, Phenanthrene
6.0 +
4.5+
3.0 +
1.5+
* * * **
** * *
******
* *
*****
o.oo"
+-
0.20
0.40
+.
0.60
0.80"
+
1.00
-------
Nephtys cornuta franciscana, Phenanthrene
4.8+
3.2+
**
**
**
******
******
********
*****
**2****
***
1.6+ **2**
0.00"oT20
Pholoe minuta, Phenanthrene
6.0+
4.5+
+.
0.40
+.
0.60
+.
0.80
"iToo
* *
*** ** **
***
3.0 +
* ***
* **
* **
* *•*
1.5H
0
Spiopham
** *
*** * *•
2
.00 0.20
>s berkeleyorum,
0.40 0.60
Phenanthrene
1 1
0.80 1.00
6.0+
4.5+
3.0+
1.5+
*.
* *
*' * * *
*-
* * * *
o.oo"
"0.20 ~ " 0.40 0.60 0780"
"iToo
-------
Glycera americana, Phenanthrene
6.0+
4.5+
3.0+
* * ** *
* * **
* * *
******
**
* * *
1.5+ *
o.oo"
+-
0.20
+-
0.40
"oTeo"
—+-
0.80
"l.OO
Parvilucina tenuisculpta, Phenanthrene
6.0+
4.5+
* * *
** * *
3.0 +
1.5+
*****
* *
* *
** *
o.oo"
+.
0.40
oTeo"
0.20
Platynereis bicanaliculata, Phenanthrene
6.0+
4.5+
"o.io"
1.00
* *
** **
* ** *
3.0 +
1.5+
* * ** *
* *
** *
* * **
* *
o.oo"
+-
0.20
+.
0.40
0.60
+-
0.80
"l.OO
-------
Spiochaetopterus costorum, Phenanthrene
6.0+
4.5+
3.0+
1.5+
* *
**
* * * *»
* * *•• *
** *
* *
o.oo"
+-
0.20
+.
0.40
"oTeo"
o.Io "" ~ iToo
-------
Spiochaetopterus costorum, Flouranthrene
* *
4.5+
3.0+
1.5+
* *
* 2 * *
* * * *
* *
*****
o.oo" ~ 0.20 ~ 6.40 "~ o.eo~ 6Ts6 iToo
Capitella capitata, Flouranthrene
4.8+
**
*2
**2 2**
*2**
3.6+
2.4+
**
1.2+ **
****
2*
**
**2*
****2*
**
**2*
***2
0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00
Axinopsida sericata, Flouranthrene
***
****
4.5+
3.0+
1.5+
***
****
*2***
*******
****
*******
******
***
0.00 0.20 ~ 0.40 0.60 " 6.80 1.00
-------
Euchone incolor, Flouranthrene
4.8+
3.6+
2.4+
1.2+ * *
*****
**
** * 2
* *
* * **
* **
o.oo"
"0.20 ~ 0.40~ 0.60 ~ 0780"
"l.OO
Euphilomedes carcharodonta, Flouranthrene
***
4.8+
3.2+
1.6
**2 ***
******.
*2
****
******
**2**
**
*****
****
2**
o.oo'
"6.206.40~ "6.60 0.80"
"l.OO
Macoma carlottensis, Flouranthrene
6.0+
4.5+
3.0+
1.5
***
***
2*****
****
*2****
***
*2*
*******
**
******
**2 2
o.oo"
"0.20"
"0.40~
"0.60"
"0.80"
'l.OO
-------
Nephtys cornuta franciscana, Flouranthrene
6.0+
4.5+
3.0+
***
**2
***
***
**2*
***
2******
2*****
*2*
***
2***
****
1.5+ **
*
*
o.oo"
"6.20 0.40 0.60 0.80"
'l.OO
Nephtys ferruginea, Flouranthrene
6.0+
4.5+
3.0+
1.5
***
****
****
* 2***
***
*2****
*******
**
*2
******
o.oo"
"0.20"
"0.40~
"0.60"
"0.80"
Prionospio steenstrupi, Flouranthrene
4.8+
3.2+
1.6+
"l.OO
***
*****
*****
**
2 2*****
*****
*****
*2**
***2
****
2**
*2
o.oo"
"0.20"
"0.40"
"0.60"
"0.80"
"l.OO
-------
Compsomyax subdiaphana, Flouranthrene
6.0+
4.8+
* * * *
3.6+
2.4+
* * *
* * * *
* * * *
* *
o.oo ~" "6720 0.40 ~ "6.60 "~ oTso
Glycera capitata, Flouranthrene
6.0+
1.60
****
****
4.5+
3.0+
**
****
*******
*2. 2*
***
**2***
***2
** 2
*
***2*
1.5+ *
*
*
o . oo 6720 6740 6760 67ao
i76o
Pholoe minuta, Flouranthrene
4.5+
3.0+
1.5+
* *
** ***
2* **
***** *
* ****
** **
***
***
* *
o.oo
0.20
6.60 ~ 6.80
i76o
-------
Scalibregma Inflatum, Flouranthrene
* * * *
4.5+
3.0+
1.5+
* *
* * *
* *
* * *
o.ocT
"6.20"
~0.60~
"oTso"
"i.oo
Parvilucina tenuisculpta, Flouranthrene
6.0+
4.5
3.0+
1.5+
* *
* **
* *
*****
* *
* **
* * * *
**
0.00 0.20 ~ 0.40 ~0.60 ~ ~ 0.80 " ~1.00
Pectinaria californiensis, Flouranthrene
6.0+
4.8+
3.6+
* *
* * *
* * *
* *
* * * *
* *
2.4+ *
o.oo 6720 6740 6.60 67io i76o
-------
Praxillella gracilis, Flouranthrene
6.0+
4.8+
3.6+
2.4+ *
* *
* * * *
* * *
* *
* *
* ** *
* * * *
o.oo~ oTio 6740 ~6.6o o.so"
Platynereis bicanaliculata, Flouranthrene
6.0J
'l.OO
4.5+
3.0+
1.5+
** **
* **
* *
** **
* ** *
* *
* * **
* *
0.00 ~ 0.20 6.40 ~0.60 ~ 0.80~
Amphioda (amphispina) urtica, Flouranthrene
6.0-f
"l.OO
4.8+
3.6+
2.4+
* *
* ** * -
* *
* *
* **
* ** *
* *
* *
0.00 0720" 6.40 0.60 0.80 ~~ 1.00
-------
Glycera americana, Flouranthrene
6.0+
4.5+
3.0+
* **
* ** *
* *
* *
* *
** * *
*****
1.5-
o . oo 6720 5740
6760 67io I76o
-------
Prionospio cirrifera, Benzo(a)anthracene
4.0 +
* *
3.0 +
2.0+
1.0+
* *
* *
* * *
* *
* *
* *
0
Armandia
.00
brevis,
0.20
Benzo(
0.40
a)anthracene
0.
60
0
.80
1
.00
4.8 +
3.6 +
2.4 +
* *
* * *
* * *
* * *
* *
* *
* *
1.2+ * * *
*
0.00 0.20
Spiophanes berkeleyorura,
0.40
Benzo(a
0.60
)anthracene
0.80
1.00
4.8 +
3.2 +
1.6 +
* *
* * * *
* * * *
* *
* *
o.oo"
0.20
"0.40"
+-
0.60
+-
0.80
+
1.00
-------
Goniada brunnea, Benzo(a)anthracene
4.5+
* * *
* * ** *
3.0+
1.5+
* * * *
* *
* **
* * *
o.oo"
+-
0.20
+.
0.40
+-
0.60
"o.ao"
"i.oo
Spiocliaet opt ecus costorum, Benzo(a)anthracene
6.0+
4.5+
*-
* *
* * ** *
3.0 +
1.5+
*******
* *
* *-
* *
o.oo"
+-
0.20
+-
0.40
1..
0.60
+.
0.80
1.00
Axinopsida sericata, Benzo(a)anthracene
4.5+
3.0+
1.5+
*****
******
********
*****2
******
****•
*2*
***
***
**
- 0.0 +
o.oo"
'0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00
-------
Capitella capitata, Benzo(a)anthracene
4.5+
3.0 +
1.5+
**
****
*2*
****
*2***
***2*
2****
**2*
*** *
***2*
***
*
***
0.0+ *
1
0.00
0
.20
0
1
.40
0
.60
0
i
.80
1
.00
Compsgrnyax subdiaphana, Benzo(a)anthracene
4.5+
3.0+
1.5+
* * *
*****
* *
* * *
* *
* * *
* * *
0.00 0.20~ 0.40 0.60 ~ 0.8o"
"l.OO
Euchone incolor, Benzo(a)anthracene
4.5+
** *
** * *
*****
3.0 +
1.5+
* * * *
* * *.
* * *
* *
0.0+ * *
o.oo 0.20"
0.40~
"0.60"
+-
0.80
+
1.00
-------
Euphilomedes carcharodonta, Benzo(a)anthracene
6.0+ ~~
4.0+
2.0+
0.0+
****
**********
***2**
****
****2***
*****
***
***** 2,
o.oo"
+.
0.20
0.40
+.
0.60
+.
0.80
T.oo
Glycera capitatay Benzo(a)anthracene
4.8+
3.2+
1.6+
* * * *-* * 2 *
**2***
***2****
**2*******
*2
****
**
* * * *-*<
**
t
o.oo"
"oTIo"
0.40
Macoma carlottensis, Benzo(a)anthracene
oTeo"
"o.Io"
—+
1.00
4.8+
3.2+
1.6+
******2**
**
*'**•******-* r
*,*,*****
***
**
2**
****
**
2**
o.oo"
0.20
+.
0.40
0.60
+-
0.80
"l.OO
-------
Nephtys ferruginea, Benzo(a)anthracene
4.8+
3.2+
1.6+
*********
*****
*****
***
****
**
****
***
**
o.oo"
+.
0.20
"0.40"
0.60
+.
0.80
+
1.00
Parvij.ucina tenuisculpta, Benzo(a)anthracene
6.0+
4.5+
** *
*****
3.0 +
1.5+
* * * *
**
* *
* * *
o.oo"
0.20
+.
0.40
+-
0.60
0.80
1.00
Pectiiiaria californiensis, Benzo(a)anthracene
6.0+
4.8+
* * * * * *
3.6+
2.4+
* *
* * *
* * *
* * *
0.00
+.
0.20
+.
0.40
0.60
+-
0.80
+
1.00
-------
Praxillella gracilis, Benzo(a)anthracene
6.0+
4.8+
3.6+
2.4+
*****
* *
* * *
* *
* *
* *•
o.oo"
+-
0.20
0.40
+-
0.60
+-
0.80
"IToo
Prionospio steenstrupi, Benzo(a)anthracene
6.0+
4.0+
2.0 +
***2***
******
***2*******
*2*
**•.*
***
***2
*****2
**
**
0.0+ *
*
o.oo o~2o 0.40 " oTeo" "o.Io i.oo
Amphioda (amphispina) urtica, Benzo(a)anthracene
— 6.0+
4,5+
* * * *
** * * *
** *
3.0+
1.5+
* * *
* *
* **
** * * *
o.oo"
+-
0.20
+-
0.40
0.60
+-
0.80
+
1.00
-------
Glycega americana, Benzo(a)anthracene
6.0-
4.5+
* * **
* *
3.0 +
1.5+
* * **
** *
* *
* *
* **
o.oo"
+.
0.20
0.40
0.60~
+_
0.80
"IToo
Nephtys cornuta franciscana, Benzo(a)anthracene
4.8+
3.2+
1.6+
**
**********
**
****
******
*****
*****
****
***
***
***
Pholoe
0.00
minuta,
0.20
Benzo( a
0.40
)anthracene
0
.60
0
.80
1
.00
6.0+
4.0 +
2.0 +
0.0+ *
0.00~"
**
**** *
** ****
*** **
** *
*** **
** *
*** *
+-
0.20
+-
0.40
+-
0.60
+.
0.80
"iToo
-------
Phyllodoce hartmanae, Benzo(a)anthracene
4.8+
3.2+
1.6+
*-' * *
* * * * *
* *
0.00 0.20~ 0.40 0.60 0.80
Platynereis bicanaliculata, Benzo(a)anthracene
4.8+
3.2+
1.6+
* * ** *"**•*
* *
** * *
**
* *
**
o.oo"
0.20
"o74o ~~o.6o o.ao iToo
-------
Phyllodoce hartmanae, Chrysene
6.0+
4.5+
3.0+
* *
* *
* *
* *
* *
* * *
1.5+
0.00~
+.
0.20
+-
0.40
"0.60~
+-
0.80
+
1.00
Euchone incolor, Chrysene
4~r8+"
3.6+
* * **
**
* ** * * *
* ** *
* *
* *
2.4 +
1.2 +
0.00~ ~ 0.20"
+-
0.40
"0.60"
"oTao"
"I. oo
Prionospio steenstrupi, Chrysene
6.0+
4.0+
***2***
***2****
***
2.0+
0.0+
***
******
**
***
o.oo"
+-
0.20
0.40
+.
0.60
+.
0.80
***
"iToo
-------
Euphilomedes carcharodonta, Chrysene
6.0+
****
4.0 +
2.0+
0.0 +
********
**2******
*********
*****
***
*2
******
0.00 0.20
0.40
0.60
0.80
1.00
Macoma carlottensis, Chrysene
6T 0+"
4.5+
*******
2 *****
* *.* * 2 * *
3.0+
***2**
*****
**
2*
**
*****
1.5+ *2
**
o.oo"
+-
0.40
0.60
+.
0.80
1.00
Nephtys cornuta franciscana, Chrysene
oTO-
4.5+
********
******
***
**
3.0+
1.5+
********
*****
***
****
**
***
**
o.oo"
+-
0.20
+-
0.40
+-
0.60
+_
0.80
1.00
-------
Nephtys ferruginea, Chrysene
4.5+
3.0+
******
*******
******
*******
*****
***
**
**
****
1.5+ ***
*
*
0.00
+-
0.20
+.
0.40
+-
0.60
0.80
+
1.00
Glycera capitata, Chrysene
6rO-
4.5+
*******
******
**2***
****2*
3.0 +
*****
**
***2**
**
****
1.5+ 2*
**
o.oo"
+-
0.20
+.
0.40
0.60
+.
0.80
"l.OO
Spiochaetopterus costorum, Chrysene
6.0+
4.5+
* *
* * *
*****
* * * *
3.0 +
1.5+ * * *
* * * *
0.00 ~ ~0.20 " 0.40 ~ 0.60 ~ 0.80~
"l.OO
-------
Pectinaria californiensis, Chrysene
6.0-
5.0+
4.0+
3.0+
o.oo"
* * *
* *
* * *
* * *
* *
+-
0.20
'0.40~
"0.60"
+.
0.80
'l.OO
Platynereis bicanaliculata, Chrysene
6.0+
4.5+
3.0 +
1.5+
*• *' *-* * **
* * **
* *
** * *
* *
*- *
o.oo"
+-
0.20
n 1[a ^^ ^ Ii
0.40
0.60
0.80
"l.OO
Praxillella gracilis, Chrysene
6.0+
5.0+
4.0 +
* *
*. *• * *
* * * *
* * *
* * * *
3.0+
* * *
o.oo"
"0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80"
"l.OO
-------
Compsomyax subdiaphana, Chrysene
6 .
4.8+
* *
* * *
* * *
3.6 +
2.4 +
* *
* *
* * *
* *
* * *
o.oo"
+-
0.20
+-
0.40
+-
0.60
"0.80"
"IToo
Amphioda (amphispina) urtica, Chrysene
6.0+
4.5+
** * *
** * *
* ** *
** *
3.0 +
* ** *
1.5+ **
* * *
0
Glycera c
.00 0
imericana ,
.20 0
Chrysene
.40
0
.60
0
.80
1
.00
6.0+
4.5+
3.0 +
1.5+ * * *
**
** *
*****
**
**
o.oo"
+.
0.20
'0.40~
+-
0.60
"o.80"
1.00
-------
Parvilucina tenuisculpta, Chrysene
6.0+
4.5+
* * * *
* *
* *
* * *
3.0+
1.5+
* * * *
* *
Pholoe
0.00
minuta,
0.20
Chrysene
0
.40
0
.60
0
.80
1.00
4.5 +
3.0 +
1.5+
* ***
*-*•*
* * * * *
* * * * * *
*** *
* *
* **
**
** *
* **
o.oo"
+.
0.20
+.
0.40
"oTeo"
—+-
0.80
1.00
-------
Glycinde armigera, Pyrene
4.5+
3.0 +
1.5+
* *
* * * *
* *
* * *
* * *
o.oo"
+-
0.20
+.
0.40
"0.60"
+-
0.80
+
1.00
Prionospio cirrifera, Pyrene
* ** *
4.0+
3.0+
2.0+
* *
**
* * *
* *
* * *
* * *
o.oo"
+-
0.20
+-
0.40
"0.60"
+.
0.80
+
1.00
Armandia brevis/ Pyrene
5.0+
4.0+
* *
* * *
* * * *
* *
* * *
3.0 +
2.0+
* * *
* * *
o.oo"
+.
0.20
0.40
+-
0.60
+.
0.80
+
1.00
-------
Spiophanes berkeleyorum, Pyrene
6.0+
4.0+
2.0+
* * *
* * * *
* * * *
* *
* *
0.0+
0.00
Goniada brunnea,
0.20 ' 0.40
Pyrene
III
0.60 0.80 1.00
6.0 +
4.0 +
2.0+
* ** * *
* * *
* ** *
** * * *
* * *
* * 2
0.0 +
0.00 0.20 0.40
Phyllodoce hartmanae, Pyrene
0.60 0.80 1.00
6.0+
4.5+
3.0+
1.5+
*• * *
* *
* * *
* *
* *
+-
0.00
+-
0.20
+-
0.40
+-
0.60
0.80"
+
1.00
-------
Spiochaetopterus costorum, Pyrene
6.0+
4.0+
2.0+
* * * *
* * * *
*****
* * *
**
* *
0.0+
0.00
Tharyx monilaris
0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80
, Pyrene
1.00
4.8 +
3.6+
2.4 +
1.2+
* * *
* * * *
* *
* *
o.oo"
+-
0.20
"0.60"
"0.80"
"l.OO
Axinopsida sericata, Pyrene
4.5+
3.0 +
**
*****
*2****
*****
********
******
*****
*****
**
**
**
1.5+ *
*
o.oo"
"o720 ~ 0.40 0.60 0.80
"l.OO
-------
Euphilomedes carcharodonta, Pyrene
6.0+
4.0+
***
*******
***2***
********
*2******
****
****
2.0+ ***2
0
Macoma
0+
0
.00
0
carlottensi
.20
s,
0.40 0.60 0.80
Pyrene
1.00
6.0+
4.5+
3.0+
**
*********
*****
**2*
*****
*2*****
*****
2**-*
***
1.5+ *
**
* * 2.
0
Nephtys J
.00
Eer
0.
ruginea ,
20
Pyrene
0
.40
0
.60
0
.80
1.
00
6.0+
4.0+
2.0+ ***2
*
0.0+
o.oo"
***
********
*******
********
**2*****
****
***-
+-
0.20
"0.40~
+-
0.60
+.
0.80
"l.OO
-------
Glycera capitata, Benzo(a)pyrene
— 6. OT"-^
4.5+
**
3.0+
1.5+
******
*****
**2***
**** *2
*******2
***
****
*2***
o.oo"
"0.20"
"o740~
0.60
0.80
+
1.00
Praxillella gracilis, Benzo(a)pyrene
6.0+
4.5+
*****
* * *
*****
3.0+ * * *
* *
* *
1.5+ *
0.00 0.20 0.40 ~ 0.60 ~ 0.80 1.00
Nephtys cornuta franciscana, Benzo(a)pyrene
OTOT
4.5+
* ******
* *****
***
3.0 +
1.5 +
** **
* ****
**
**
*** *
* **
o.oo"
+.
0.20
+.
0.40
+.
0.60
+.
0.80
'l.OO
-------
Armandia brevis, Benzo(a)pyrene
4.8+
* *
3.6 +
2.4 +
1.2 +
* * *
* *
* * * *
* *
* * *
o.oo"
"0.20 0.40"
0.60"
+.
0.80
+
1.00
Macoma carlottensis, Benzo(a)pyrene
6.0+
4.0+
2.0 +
**
* **
*.**.*2.*****
****2****
*****2**
*2**
****
**
*2***
0.0+ *
0.00~"
+.
0.20
0.40
0.60
+.
0.80
+
1.00
Prionospio steenstrupi, Benzo(a)pyrene
6.0+
4.0 +
2.0+
0.0+
*** *.
2**
**** ,
**>
*******
**
o.oo"
+-
0.20
+.
0.40
+-
0.60
+-
0.80
"l.OO
-------
Capitella capitata, Pyrene
Glyce
**
2*
4.5-- ***
****2*
*2*
2***
2** ***
•J • W 1
******
****
***2*
**
1.5-- 2
**
0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00
ra capitata, Pyrene
6.0-
*
*
2**
2******
4 . 0- • ******
2.0-
0.0-
2******2
**2* *****
*****
***
2**2
**
*
•
0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00
Prionospio steenstrupi, Pyrene
6.0+
4.0+
2.0+
0.0 +
o.oo"
****
**2*
****2* *
***2***
**2****
**2****
*2*
***2
**
*2
0.20
+-
0.40
0.60
+.
0.80
'l.OO
-------
Compsomyax subdiaphana, Pyrene
6.0+
4.5+
3.0+
1.5+
* *
* * *
* *
* * *
* *« * *
* * *
* *
* 2
+-
0.00
+-
0.20
"0.40"
o.eo oTso"
+
1.00
Euchone incolor, Pyrene
4.8+
* * **
* **
* * *
3.6 +
2.4 +
1.2+
*****
*-
** * *
0.00 0.20
Pectinaria californiensis,
0.40
Pyrene
0.60
0.80
1.00
6.0 +
4.8 +
3.6 +
2.4 +
* * * *
* *
* *
* * *
* *
* * * *
0.00
+-
0.20
+-
0.40
+.
0.60
+.
0.80
'l.OO
-------
Praxillella gracilis, Pyrene
6.0+
4.8 +
3.6 +
*****
* * *
* *
* * *
* * *
* * * *
2.4 +
O.I
Nephtys cornuta franciscana, Pyrene
o.oo"
+-
0.20
+-
0.40
"oTeo"
—+-
0.80
1.00
6.0 +
4.0 +
**
******
2****
**2*
2.0+ ******
***
0.0 +
o.oo"
*2
******2**
****2**
****2
0.20
+-
0.40
0.60
+-
0.80
1.00
-------
Amphioda (amphispina) urtica, Pyrene
6.0+
4.5+
3.0+
1.5+
it ** it
it it it
** *
it it it it it it
*. *
* ** *
*' 2
0.00 0
americana,
.20
Pyrene
0
.40
0
.60
0
.80
1
.00
6.0+
4.5+
3.0+
* *
* * ** *
* * **
* *
* **
* **
* *
* *
*-
1.5+
0.(
Parvilucina tenuisculpta, Pyrene
o.oo"
+-
0.20
"0.40"
+.
0.60
"oTao"
1.00
6.0+
4.0+
2.0 +
0.0 +
o.oo"
** *
* * *-
* *'
* * * **
* ** *
* * *
**. *
"0.20"
+-
0.40
0.60
+-
0.80
+
1.00
-------
Pholoe minuta, Pyrene
6.0+
4.0+
2.0+
****
****
**** *
*****
****
***
** **
* *
**
0.0 +
-
0.00
Platynereis
0.20
bicanaliculata,
0.40 0.60
Pyrene
0.80 1.00
6.0 +
4.0 +
2.0+ **
* ** *
* ** *
* **
* * ** *
* * *
* **
** * *
0
b
4
.On
0
rec
.8-
.
00
jma
0.20
inf latum,
0.
Pyrene
40
0.60
0.80
i
1.00
if
*
* * *
* *
3.6 +
2.4 +
1.2 +
* *
* * *
* *
o.oo"
0.20
+.
0.40
0.60
"0.80"
"l.OO
-------
Prionospio cirrifera, Benzo(a)pyrene
3.6+
2.4 +
1.2 +
0.0+ *
o.oo""
* *
* *
* *
* * *
* *
'0.40~
"0.60"
+.
0.80
'l.OO
Spioplianes berkeleyorum, Benzo(a)pyrene
6.0-
4.5+
*• * *
*• *• * *
3.0 +
1.5+
* *
* * *
o.oo"
+.
0.20
"0.40"
0.60
1..
0.80
1.00
Capitella capitata, Benzo(a)pyrene
4.5+
3.0+
1.5+
*******
******
*2**
****
******
**
*****
*
******
**
***
0.0+ *
0.00~"
+.
0.20
+-
0.40
0.60"
0.80 1.00
-------
Spioctiaetopterus costorum, Benzo(a)pyrene
6.0+
4.5+
*****
*****
* * *
3.0 +
1.5+
* * * *
* *
* *
o.oo"
+.
0.20
+.
0.40
+-
0.60
+-
0.80
"l.OO
Euchone incolor, Benzo(a)pyrene
** * * ** *
3.6 +
2.4 +
1.2 +
* * *
* **
** * *
* * *
* *
O.OH
0
Goniada I
•
.00
srunnea,
0.20
Benzo(
0.40 0.60 0.80
a )pyrene
1.00
6.0+
4.5+
3.0 +
1.5+
* *
* * *
* *
* * * *
* * *
* *
* * * *
* * *
o.oo"
"0.20"
+-
0.40
+.
0.60
0.80 1.00
-------
Axinopsida sericata, Benzo(a)pyrene
4.5+
3.0 +
1.5+
0.0+ *
o.oo"
**
********
*******
*******
******
*****
**
** **
***
+-
0.20
0.40
+-
0.60
+.
0.80
"iToo
Compsomyax subdiaphana, Benzo(a)pyrene
6.0+
4.5+
3.0+
1.5+
*****
* * * *
* * *
* *
* *,
*-
*• *
* * *
o.oo"
+-
0.40
+-
0.60
+-
0.80
"l.OO
Euphilomedes carcharodonta, Benzo(a)pyrene
6 .0+
**
4.0+
2.0+
0.0+
*******
***********
* * * * *•* 2 * *
****
** **
*
****.
******
0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 ~0.80~
"l.OO
-------
Nephtys ferruginea, Benzo(a)pyrene
4.5+
3.0+
1.5+
**
********
******
******
****
*****
**
****
*****
o.oo"
"0.20"
+-
0.40
+-
0.60
'O.SCJ"
"l.OO
Parvilucina tenuisculpta, Benzo(a)pyrene
6.0+
4.5+
* * * *
******
3.0 +
1.5+
* *
* * *
* * * *
* *
o.oo"
"0.20"
+-
0.40
+.
0.60
+.
0.80
'l.OO
Pectinaria californiensis, Benzo(a)pyrene
6.0+
4.5+
* *
* * * *
* * *
* * * *
3.0 +
1.5+ *
* * *
* *
o.oo"
0.20
'0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00
-------
Pholoe minuta, Benzo(a)pyrene
4.8+
3.2+
1.6+
**
* ** ***
** **
* *** *
**
**
** *
* *
** **
o.oo"
"0.20"
+.
0.40
+.
0.60
+-
0.80
+
1.00
Amphioda (amphispina) urtica, Benzo(a)pyrene
6.0+
4.5+
3.0+
1.5+
* * * ** *
* * *
* * * *
* *
* *
* * * *
o.oo"
0.20"
+-
0.40
+-
0.60
0.80
"l.OO
Glycega americana, Benzo(a)pyrene
6.0-
4. 5+
* * ** *
** * **
3.0 +
1.5 +
** *
** *
* * *
o.oo"
+-
0.20
+.
0.40
"0.60"
+-
0.80
"l.OO
-------
Platynereis bicanaliculata, Benzo(a)pyrene
6.0-
4.5+
* * **
** * **
* *
3.0 +
1.5 +
**
** *
* ** *
o.oo"
0.20 0.40 0.60"
0.80
+
1.00
Phyllodoce hartmanae, Benzo(a)pyrene
6.0-
4.5+
it it
* *
3.0 +
1.5+
* *
* *
* * *
o.oo"
"0.20"
0.40 0.60
"0.80 1.00
------- |