U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
                       National Technical Information Service
                       PB-253 677
Criteria  Document
for Toxaphene

Environmental Protection Agency
June 1, 1976

-------
EPA-440/9-76-014
                        CRITERIA DOCUMENT






                            TCKAPHENE

-------
BIBLIOGRAPHIC DATA
SHEET
1. Report No.
   EPA-440/9-76-014
       3. Recipient's Accession No.
  Title and Subtitle
                                                   5. Report Date
                                                     Jtme  1.  1976
        Criteria Document for Toxaphene
                                                                        6.
7. Authors)
                                                   8. Performing Organization Kept.
                                                     No.
?. Performing Organization Name and Address
        U..JL.-Environmental Protection Agency
        Office of Water Planning and Standards
        401 M Street,, S.W.
                     n.C*.   20460	
                                                   10. Project/Task/Work Unit No.
                                                  11. Contract/Grant No.
12. Sponsoring Organization Name and Address
        Office of Water Planning  and Standards
        U. S.  Environmental Protection Agency
        401 M Street,  S.W.
        Washington, D.C.  20460	
                                                  13. Type of Report & Period
                                                     Covered

                                                     Interim	
                                                  14.
15. Supplementary Notes
16. Abstracts
        This document summarizes the physical/chemical properties, toxicological
        information and environmental fate and effects of Toxaphene,  with
        emphasis on aquatic behavior.  From these  data a criterion for the
        protection of aquatic life and human health is developed.
17. Key Words and Document Analysis.  17o. Descriptors
        Criteria
        Toxicity
        Aquatic animals
        Aquatic biology
        Human ecology
        Safety factor
17b. Identifiers/Open-Ended Terms

        Toxic Pollutant Effluent Standards
        Federal Water Pollution Control Act
17c. COSATI Field/Group
18. Availability Statement


       Release Unlimited
                                       19.. Security Class (This
                                         Report)
                                            UNCLASSIFI
                 121.'No. of Paxes
IINTI -AfS
urity Clas
                                       20. Security
                                         Page
                                            UNCLASSIFIED
FORM NTIS-SS (*cv. 10-781  ENDORSED BY ANSI AND UNESCO.
                                THIS FORM MAY BE REPRODUCED
                                                             U1COMM-DC S2ซซ-P74

-------
                              INTRODUCTION
            CRITERIA DOCUMENTS FOR TOXIC POLLUTANTS

    Scientific rationale and criteria developed pursuant to Section 307(a)
of tin; Kutteral Water Pollution Control Act, P. I,. ป2-!ป00,  3:i tl.S.C.  $ง 1251
et acq. 0  (1972).  for the development and establishment of effluent limitations
for toxic substances are set forth in the following chapters.

    Section 307(a)(2) states inter alia that  a proposed effluent standard
".. o shall take into account the toxicity of  the pollutant, its persistence,
degradability. the usual or potential presence of the affected organisms in
any water, the importance of the affected  organisms and the nature and extent
of the effect of the toxic pollutant on such  organisms..." Thereafter, having
considered these factors,  the Administrator is to set an effluent standard
for toxic pollutants which  provides an ample margin of safety.

    In the development of criteria which serve as both the basis and the goal  '
for the establishment of effluent limits, reliance was placed on the toxicity
data derived from laboratory studies on a range of organisms including
invertebrate, vertebrate,  and mammalian test species. These studies
provided extensive acute and chronic toxicity  data based on feeding experi-
ments for a wide range of aquatic organisms and consumers of aquatic
organisms. Environmental studies documenting bioaccumulation in the food
wob of the toxic material by the food chain organisms  and bioconcentration
uj  organisms directly from water provided an important component data
base upon which criteria were derived. Appropriate human toxicity data
and mammalian carcinogenic studies,  where available, were used also in
developing criteria.
                                 ii

-------
   Aquatic ioxicity data generally are obtained by one of two basic



methods, the static and flow-through bioassay.  The more traditional



static bioassay employs  a tank in which the test organisms are living



and to which a given concentration of toxicant is added.  Any water



loss due to evaporation is made up by the addition of fresh water. The



flow-through bioassay. which is a more recent development, reflects



more nearly the natural  conditions.  Concentrations of toxic substances



are constantly maintained and provide a more accurate test of sensitivity



of aquatic species.  Water in a flow-through test is replenished constantly



through flushing. Comparative results using the static and flow-through



bioassay s demonstrate that flow-through data yield lower toxicity values



for a pollutant than a static bioassay. This fact is demonstrated by



comparative-studies as discussed in the endrin document.  However*



most of the data available were developed using static bioassays.





   Some toxic pollutants are extremely stable and degrade only slowly



or form persistent degradation products.  Those pollutants which degrade



rapidly pose a less severe long-term hazard unless their entry to



the environment is continuous. A parent compound, e.g.. aldrin, may



rapidly degrade or be altered to a more toxic form. i. e., dieldrin.





   Bioconcentration of toxic pollutants is a significant consideration in



the development of criterion. The rate and degree of accumulation in



an animal and the rate of loss from the animal are factors that help  .



define the potential magnitude of the pollution load problem.  As an  i



                              • • •
                              HI

-------
example,  & pollutant which bioaccumulates presents a hazard both to
aquatic systems and potentially to man or other carnivores associated
with the iMroHystem. To satisfactorily manage a persistunt or
non-degradable pollutant requires the maintenance of a ceiling for
ambient levels in water which will affo'rd protection to the food chain
and the consumers of aquatic life (animals including humans).  The
body burden of toxic pollutants in fish or food chain organisms may
have no outward effect  on the species but will affect consumers of that food
                                                                -  .          I
level.   As an example, the brown pelican,  when feeding on endrin-contaminated'
                                                .. .'..  .            •           !
fish may die or suffer species depletion through reproductive impairment.     j

    Data on toxic effects of pollutants are not available for all  species
that may be exposed to the toxic pollutant in these complex societies.
Such data would be necessary to ensure protection of the most sensitive
species.  It is desirable to know the relative sensitivity of a wide
variety of species in order to have a better estimate of the sensitivity
of the  untested, most sensitive species.  Because such data are not
available on all species, the range in sensitivity of a small number of
tested species is used  to provide a measure  of the range of sensitivity
of all  species.

    The natural aquatic environment includes many kinds and life stages
of plants and animals that are intricately interrelated to form communities.
Criteria are developed to protect these interrelationships and incorporate
aquatic toxicity data for a phylogenetic cross section of organisms as well as
                              Iv

-------
species representative of wide geographic distribution.  Chronic
studies are an important consideration in establishing criteria and require
Htudius of at leaat one generation, i.e.,  one reproductive cycld.  llso of
an application factor for persistent and bioaccumulatcd toxic pollutants
represents consideration of a safety factor.  As discussed in the
National Academy of Science publication on water quality (p. 185 of
the NAS/NAE Water Quality Criteria —  1972. GPO-5501-00520), the
use of ah application factor of 0.01 when applied to acute toxic values
is thought to provide an ample margin of safety for certain chlorinated  - •
hydrocarbon pesticides.                       .

    Ecological importance of an organism is dependent on the
role the organism plays  within the ecosystem and upon its relationship
to the  food chain within the aquatic community and to consumers of
aquatic life, including man.  Thus, toxicity data for the top.carnivores
in a given ecosystem* as well as economically important species such
as trout, salmon, menhaden and shrimp are needed for the development
of a protective criteria level. Toxicity data for organisms such as the
stonefly and Daphnia are of equivalent importance since these organisms
are a food base for higher consumers and are representative.of invertebrate
species found in most waters of the United States.
    Invertebrate species, such as the stonefly and the Daphnia, are an
indication of the integrity of the aquatic food chain and their presence
may be the controlling factor for the abundance of economically and

-------
recreationally important predators such as trout, bass or pike. While
these fish may not directly consume the Daphnia or stonefly or, in              i
fact,  even inhabit the same waters,  these lower order organisms are
representative of the food  chain base supporting predators.
                                                                             i
                                                                             t
    Criteria levels,  by their nature,  are developed to protect aquatic
organisms and consumers of aquatic life from direct toxic effect when
placed on contact with the  toxic pollutants; and,  to protect from a
more insidious and even greater danger, e.g., chronic effects.
Chronic effects take the form of reproductive failures or the poisoning
of predators consuming food organisms which have bioaccumulated levels
of toxic pollutants as in the case of the brown pelican and consuming
endrin loaded fish (see Attachment D, Endrin), and a variety of other
physiological effects as discussed in the various documents. Decreases
in aquatic organisms or consumers of aquatic life not always are coupled
to point source discharges of toxic pollutants at concentrations below
acute toxic levels; however, the addition of toxic levels which are not
acutely toxic can achieve the destruction or at least disruption of aquatic
systems by causing reproduction of failure.  Hence, the need for application
factors. The relationships between discharges of toxic pollutants and
effects on important organisms of economic and environmental importance .
and consumers of these organisms are well documented  in the criteria
documents,
                              vi

-------
   An approach to criteria development is to provide ample protection  .
of the test species on the assumption that the response of these species
wilt hซ characteristic of other UHtiori&tetl orj;uni.:4ms in the
environment.  A number of nperieH have been ronsideretl in
a Criteria

   Use of mammalian systems  to determine the carcinogenic potential
of toxicants found in water follows  the same principle as use of aquatic
organisms to determine toxicity to fish and other organisms.  Carcinogenic
substances pose a special hazard to man through environmental exposure.
Cancer producing substances may reach man by several distinct pathways.

   The following four criteria documents for aldrin/dieldrin.  DDT and its
metabolites, endrin and toxaphene,  represent a survey of  the scientific
literature documenting the effects of these toxic pollutants to aquatic
life and consumers of aquatic life including man.  A glossary of terms is
            *                   •
provided to define the terms used throughout the documents  and will be
expanded as necessary when additional documents are added.
                            vii

-------
                             TOXAPHENE
                          TABLE OF CONTENTS
I.      Preambl e.		.... 1
fl.     Chemical -Physical Properties	2
III.   Toxicological Data	5
       a.   General Toxicological Information	5
       b.   Microscopic Life	„	7
       c.   Aquatic Invertebrates	.••..-....7
            1.   Freshwater	7
            2.   Marine	.9
       d.   Fish	9
            1.  Freshwater	9
            2.  Marine	16
       e.   Birds	16
       f.   Mammal s-	17
       g.   Hunan  Toxicity	....23
 IV.    Environmental Fate and Effects	23
V.      Criteria Formulation.......	32
VI.    References	.36
                                  vui

-------
            I.  Preamble

                    Toxaphene (Chlorinated caraphene)  behaves much like other
                chlorinated  hydrocarbon  pesticides  1n  the aquatic environment.
                That 1s, 1t  degrades slowly, adsorbs on partlculate matter and
•• i      .-'•••                  • '             •
''               concentrates In living, tissues,  especially lipids.  At one time
•:'•   •' '• •  -       .•..._:•.-.   .-•-..'    •       •           '   ซ•
& •':.''         1t was widely used as a  pisctdde for  the elimination of "rough11
 j.              fl.sh from lakes prior to selective  restocking, but Its persistence
-;f ,              made 1t  unsuitable for such applications. .
;.•{••  .:    .         .   ' •.   •     .'.....    •      •   • •'         .   •'.     •''....
 ;               .   Toxaphene 1s  highly toxic to both vertebrates and Inverte-
*f:  •            brates.   It  accumulates  in plants and  animals and persists for
:jr;'      •  '•         -         '   .                •        •••.-;.•'.
 |               long periods 1n the aquatic environment.  At extremely low levels
                1t has been  shown  to cause the "broken back syndrome11 1n fish
 ]               fry (15). Toxaphene has been associated with the death of birds
 ;               that feed on fish  living 1n contaminated waters (1).

-------
          The purpose of this document Is to review available data
     concerning the properties, tori city and environmental fate and
     effects of toxaphene.  Based upon the data, a concentration In
     -water of-jjj.oos ug/1  (ppb)  Is recommended as a criterion,.  „;
IK  Chemical and Physical Properties           :>  '         ":     "

"'•••••\',   /Toxaphene Is defined as chlorinated 'camphene (67-69 percent
     chlorine) and has the empirical formula C10H10C18 w-i1tn ปn-' average
     molecular weight of 414.                                .

    :      Toxaphene (U.S. Patents 2,565,471 and 2 ,6.57,1 64* Hercules)
  .: Is commercially produced by reacting camphene and chlorine in
   ..'the presence of ultraviolet radiation and certain catalysts to
 .  •  yield chlorinated camphene with a chlorine content of 67 to.
     69 percent.  The final product is a relatively stable mixture
     of related, compounds and isomers with a mild terpene odor.

          A  large number of chlorinated compounds Is present in
     toxuphene.  A typical gas chroma togram suggests that 30 or 40
 N   principal constituents may exist.  The chlorine content In the
   .  commercial product is limited to 67 to 69 percent since insecti-
            ,  .   •                      •
     ddal activity peaks sharply in that range.

-------
i'
                        Infrared absorptivity at 7.2u helps distinguish toxaphene
                   from  other chlorinated terpene products such as Strobane.  Some
                   trlcydene may accompany the camphene, but less than 5 percent
                   of other terpenes  1s. present (1).

-------
                           Table 1
Physical form:
Melting point:
Solubility:
Vapor pressure:
 Physical Properties (1)

Amber, waxy solid.
70ฐ-90ฐC.
High solubility 1n most organic solvents, but
greater 1n aromatic solvents; water solubility
1s about 0.5 ppm.
0.2-.4 mm/250; 3-4mm/90ฐC.
Product Specifications
Total organic chlorine, % by weight
Acidity, % by weight as HC1
Drop softening point, ฐC
Infrared absorptivity at 7.2u
Specific gravity at 100ฐC/15.6ฐC
                              67.0-69.0
                              0.05% max.
                              70 min.
                              0.0177 max.
                              1.600 minimum
     When dispersed 1n a natural water toxaphene tends to be
adsorbed by the participates present or to be taken up by
living organisms 1n which 1t may be bloaccumulated.  Thus,
1t Is seldom  found at high levels as a soluble component 1n
receiving waters but can persist 1n sediments and on suspended
sol Ids for  prolonged periods.

-------
III.   lexicological  Aspects

           Toxic effects resulting from the presence of toxaphene 1n
      water have been documented for aquatic organisms representing
      a wide phylogenetlc cross section and a wide geographic distribu-
      tion.  While all test organisms used may not be universally
      distributed In the waters of the United States, they do represent
      types of organisms present in fresh, marine, and estuarine systems.
      Extrapolation from the effects found in laboratory and field tests
      is the only means for predicting effects of toxaphene on Individ-
      ual organisms and their food chains.
           It should be noted that the LC50 values reported for static
      bioassays are likely to be substantially higher that  LC50 values
      found using flow-through bioassays.  Because of a paucity of flow-
      through data, comparisons of flow-through and static results with
      toxaphene are not feasible.  However, with endrin Earnest in 1970
      (76) found a 96-hour TL50 (LC50) of 4.7 ug/1 of endrin for Korean
      shrimp, Palaemon macrodacty 1 us, using a static bioassay and a
      TL50 (LC50) of 0.30 ug/1 using an intermittent-flow bioassay.
      This may explain why Katz 1n 1961 (22) reported a 96-hour static
          j
      TLm  (LC50) for endrin of 1.2 ug/1 1n fresh water for Chinook
      salmon, Oncorhynchus klsutch, while Earnest in 1970 (76) calcu-
      lated a value of 0.14 ug/1, about one-tenth of the static bioassay
      value, from freshwater  Intermittent-flow bioassay data.  These
      data suggest loss of toxicant  in static bioassays.  Static
      tests in which dissolved oxygen and toxicant concentrations are

-------
measured periodically are more reliable than those in which
these parameters are not monitored.  The flow-through bioassays
more accurately reflect nature, where "container wall" effects
are likely to be negligible and where the volume of water per
fish is much greater.

     A review .of published toxciity values shows that toxaphene
is extremely toxic to many fish (16, 20, 21, 22) and to inverte-
brate species such as the stoneflies (9).
     In humans acutely toxic doses of toxaphene produce symptoms
that include salivation, spasms of the leg and back muscles,
nausea, vomiting, hyperexcitability, tremors, chronic convulsions
and tetanic contractions of all skeletal muscles.  Most of these
effects are the results of diffuse stimulation of the cerebrospinal
axis.  After lethal doses the convulsions continue until death
occurs.  Respiration is arrested due to tetanic muscular contrac-
tions  (5).

-------
A.  Microscopic Life
     The effects of 17 toxicants on 5 pure cultures of marine
phytopUnkton were reported by Ukeles in 1962 (8).   Toxaphene
was the most potent of the chlorinated hydrocarbons tested.*
At a concentration of 10 ug/1 no appreciable effect was seen
with four species; however, a concentration of 150 ug/1 was
lethal to all organisms.  One organism, Mpnochrysis 1utheri,
was killed by a concentration of 0.15 ug/1 toxaphene but not
by a concentration of .015 ug/1 (8).
*0ther tested substances were:  TEPP, Depterex, carbolic acid,
Oowacide A, o-dichlorobenzene, Niagara compound 3514, PVP, DOT,
Lindane, Nabam, Sevin, Lignasan, Fenuron, Monuron, Oiuron, and
Neburon.
B.,  Aquatic Invertebrates
    1.  Freshwater
        Toxaphene LC50 data for several species of freshwater
    invertebrates commonly found in U.S. waters exposed to
    toxaphsne are found in Table Z,

-------
                                                                 ft

                              TABLE 2
LC50 Values for Various Freshwater Invertebrates (Static Bfoassaysj—

                                       LC50 (ug/1)
     Species                     24-hr.    48-hr,    96-hr.    Ref.
     Stonefly
Claassenla sabulosa
Pteronarcella badla
Pteronarcys callfornica
6
9.2
18
3.2
5.6
7
1.3
3.0
2.3
. - 9-
9
     Anphipod
       Gammarus lacustrls       180        70     '   26      - 10
     Waterflea
       Daphnia pulex                       15          .11
          Sanders and Cope (11) conducted laboratory bloassays with
     toxaphene to determine Immobilization values for two species
     of amphlpods, Daphnia pulex and Slmocephalus serrulatus.
     Estimated 48-hr. EC50 Immobilization values for S. serrulatus
     were 19  ug/1 at 60ฐF and  10 ug/1 at 70ฐF.  For D. pulex the
     value was 15 ug/1  at 60ฐF.

-------
     It has been demonstrated that the stoneflles, Pteronarcys
call forn lea, Pteronarcella badla. and
extremely sensitive to toxaphene, with 96-hr. LCSO values of
1.3 to 3 ug/1 (9).
    2.  Marine
         Schlmmel In 1975 (13) found  a  96-hous? EC50 of
    1.4 ug/1 for the pink shrimp, Penaeuf duprarums, 4.4 ug/1 for
    the grass shrimp, Palaemonetes pug1q9 and 4.9 ug/T for the
    American oyster, Crassostrea vlrglnlca.  Aetual toxicant
    concentrations were measured during exposures „  Although
    few data are available, it is reasonable to ex pact further
    testing to uncover more sensitive species*

D.  Fish
  .  1.  Freshwater
         Considerable work has been done on the effects of
    toxaphene on freshwater fish.  The data in Tab]ฉ 38 obtained
    under various exposure conditions. Illustrate Its high
    toxlclty to many species widely distributed 1rn fresh waters
    of the  United States.

-------
                                                               10
                         TABLE 3


           Toxldty to Various Freshwater  Fishes
                    (Static Bloassays)

                             96-hour

Fish Species                 LC50 fug/1)           Reference
Largemouth bass                  2                   20
  (Mlcropterus salmoldes)
Brown trout                      3                   20
  (Salmo trutta)
BluegHI                         3.5                 21
  (Leponris macrochlrus)
Carp                             *                   20
  (Cyprlnus carpio)
Black Bullhead  .                 5                   20
  (Ictalurus melas)
Goldfish"5.6                 21
  (Carasslus auratus)
Coho salmon8                   zo
  (Oncorhynchus Msutch)
Rainbow trout                   11                   20
  (Salmo galrdneri)
Yellow  perch12                   20
  (Perca flavescens)
Channel catfish13                   20
  (Ictalurus punctatus)
 Redear  sunflsh13                   20
  (Lepomis micro!ophus)
 Goldfish                        14                   20
  (Carasslus auratus)
 Fathead minnow (hard water)      5.1                 21
  (Plmephales prpmelas)
 Fathead minnow (soft water)      7.5                 21
  (Plmephales promelas)
 Gupples (soft water)            20                  21
  (Poecilla retlculata)
 Chinook salmon2.5                 22
  (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha)

-------
11
Fish Species
Coho salmon
(OncorhynchuS klsutch)
Rainbow trout
(Sal mo galrdnerp
Rainbow trout (53ฐF.)
Stonerollers (53ฐF.)
(Camoostoma anomalum)
(73ฐF.J
Goldfish (53ฐF.)
(Carassius auratus)
. . ^.p }
Golden shiner (73ฐF.)
(Notemigonus crysoleucas)
Bluntnose minnow (53"F.)
(Plmephales notatus)
(73ฐF.).
Black bullhead (53ฐF.)
(Ictalurus melas)
: (73ฐF.)
96-hour
LC50(ug/l)
9.4
8.4
8.4
™
< 5
94
50
6
30
6,3
25
1.8
Referen
22
22
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16

-------
                                                             12
     Mayer and co-workers (14, 15) In 1974 and 1975 demon-
strated the chronic effects of toxaphene on two species of
freshwater fish.  In one series of tests* young fathead
minnows, Plmephales promelas. were exposed for 150 days to
concentrations of toxaphene as low as 0.055 ug/1 In a flow-
through system.  At the end of the exposure period the growth
of alI fish exposed to all levels of the toxicant was signifi-
cantly reduced, indicating the no-effect level of toxaphene
to be less than 0.055 ug/1 (14).

      in the other series of experiments year-old brook trout,
Salvelinus fontlnails, were continuously exposed for as long
as 180 days to water concentrations of toxaphene ranging from
0.502 to 0.039 ug/1 In a flow-through system.  Water temperature
and duration of light exposure were altered to correspond to
natural conditions.  The results of the experiment may be
summarized as follows:  growth of yearling brook trout was
reduced through continuous exposure to 0.288 and 0.502 ug/1 for
180 days; concentrations of 0.068 ug/1 and higher reduced egg
viability; the  composition (i.e., the ratio of calcium plus
phosphorus to collagen) of the vertebral column of fry was
significantly altered during  a 90-day exposure; there were
marked  liver, pancreatic, and kidney pathologies; and finally,
the mortality of fish at every concentration tested was signifi-
cantly  greater  than In the controls, indicating a no-effect
level of  less  than 0.039 ug/1 (15).

-------
                                                            13
     Mahdi In 1966 (16) determined lethal concentrations of
toxaphene for the stoneroller, Campostoma anomalumi golden
shiner, Notemigonus crysoleucas; goldfish, Carasslus auratus;
   • i                             .
black bullhead, Ictalurus me!as; and bluntnosฉ minnow,
Plmephales notatus 1n water at 53ฐF and 73ฐFs rainbow trout,
Salmo galrdnerl were tested at 53ฐF.  These tests Indicated
that the potency of toxaphene Increased with temperature.
The 96-hr. TLm (LC50) values were below 100 ug/1 of toxaphene
for all species tested and for fish other than goldf1sh9
ranged from 1.8 to 30 ug/1.

     Macek, et a]_., In 1969 (18) studied the effects of
temperature on the susceptibility of bluegills to toxaphene.
Their data are presented 1n Table 4.
     Ferguson, et_ al_., 1n 1965 (17) reported the tolerances
of black bullheads, Ictalurus melas, and mosqultefish,
Gambusia affinis, from a transect of the lower Mississippi
River.  The approximate 36-hour TLm (LC50) value for mosquito-
fish from five main river sites ranged from  10 to 30 ug/1,
while a resistant population of mosquitofish yielded a TLm
(LC50) of 480 ug/1.  Mississippi River data on black bullheads
from four sites gave 36-hr. TLm (LC50) values of 3.J5, 12.5
50, and 22.5 ug/1.  Obviously the more resistant fish could
transfer more toxaphene to predators, including man.

-------
                                                            14
     Predatlon by sunfish on toxaphene-contamlna'ted mosquito-
fish caused mortality to the sunfish (68).

     In ethological studies using the Comet strain of
goldfish, Carassius auratus, Warner and associates In 1966 (19)
showed that behavioral pathology occurred when the fish were
exposed to sublethal doses of toxaphene.  Effects were observed
at levels as low as 0.44 ug/1, which 1s approximately 1/25 of
the 96-hour TLm (LC50) reported by Macek and McAllister in
1970 (20).  Behavioral pathology was scored using a complicated
system based on a number of parameters, including responses to
light stimulus, total movement and habituation to light stimulus.

-------
                                                               15
                          TABLE  4

       24 and 96-hr.  TL50 (LC50) Values  for Bluegnis
               at Various Temperatures  (18)

Exposure
  Time       12.7"C      18.3ฐC       23.8"C      R.I.3.*

                    TL50 (ug/1)
24 hours      9.7         6.8         6.6         1.46
96 hours      3.2         2.6         2.4         1.71

*R.I.S. a Relative Increase in susceptibility:   The ratio
          of the TL50 value at the lowest temperature  to
          that at the highest temperature.

-------
    2.   Marine
         The  plnffsh,  Laqodon  rhomboldes.  1s an omnlvore (73).
    It ranges from Cape  Cod  to the  Yucatan Peninsula  and 1n many
    areas .Is  the most  abundant species  of  nonpelagic  fish (74,  75).
    It serves as a link  in the food chain  supporting  such commer-
    cially Important species as the spotted sea trout,  Cynoscion
'    nebuTosin; the sailffsh, Istophosus americanus; and the  gulf
    flounder, Para11chthys a1biguttas.   It is  also of some
         ..                  *                -
    importance as bait and as human food (74).   .
                             '" .   .   •  • .- '     f  ~     ' .•   '   •  .
         In 1975 Schimmel  (13) reported a 96-hour EC50 value for
    the pinflsh, Lagodon rhomboides, to be 0.5 ug/1  (measured
    concentration) 1n  a  flow-through bioassay. Chronic exposure
 .   -of spot, Leiostomus  xanthurus, to sublethal concentrations
  .  (0.1 ug/1) of toxaphene  In seawater for five  months under
    flow-through conditions  yielded evidence suggestive of histo-
    pathological changes (23).  Korn and Earnest  in  1974 (69)
    reported a TL50 (LC50) of 4.4 ug/1  for the striped bass,
    Morone saxatilis.                                            ,
E.  Birds
     Keith 1n 1966  (24)  studied groups of five white pelicans
maintained on sardines contaminated with each of the following
toxicant concentrations:  10 ppm toxaphene, 50 ppm toxaphene,
50  ppm DDT or a combination of 10 ppm toxaphene and 150 ppm DOT.
Death occured earlier in those pelicans fed toxaphene  at the 50 ppm
level than 1n all other groups.
                                                                            T
                                                                            !

-------
                                                                 17
     Toxaphene LDSO's have been reported for a variety of birds:
young mallards (less than six months of age). 70.7 mg/kg; young
pheasants, 40.0 rag/kg; young bobwhite quail, 85.4 mg/kg; sharp-
tailed grouse, 10 to 20 mg/kg; fulvous treeducks, 99 mg/kg; and
lesser sandhill cranes, 100 to 316 mg/kg (25).
     In 1958 a study was conducted on pheasants fed 100 and 300
ppm of toxaphene 1n their diets for two to three months (27).
The 300 ppm level caused a decrease 1n egg laying and hatchab111ty
and 1n the food Intake and weight gain.  Both dose levels caused
greater mortality 1n young pheasants during the first 2 weeks
after hatching than was observed in the controls.

F.  Mammals                                                		
Acute toxldty
    , The acute toxldty of toxaphene has been determined for a
number of mammalian species.  A comparison of the oral and dermal
toxlcities of several chlorinated hydrocarbon Insecticides in rats
under standardized conditions was published by Gaines in 1960 (28),
Table 6 presents data from that report.  For oral administration,
the compounds were dissolved or suspended in peanut oil.  For
dermal application xylene solutions were used.

-------
                                                        18
                           TABLE  5
  Acute Oral  and Dermal  Toxicitv of Several  Chlorinated
                  Hydrocarbons to Rats  (28)
Compound
Toxaphene
DDT
Chlordan
AldHn
Dieldrin
Endrln
Oral LD50 (mg/kg)
Males     Females
 90
113
335
 39
 46
 18
 80
118
430
 60
 46
  8
              Dermal  LD50 (mg/kg)
              Males     Females
1075

 840
  98
  90
 780
2510
 690
  98
  60
  15

-------
                                                              19
     The data in Table 5 show that toxaphene resembles  DOT  1n
acute oral toxldty to rats.   A number of factors  influence
the toxicity of toxaphene.   The route of administration,  the
solvent used for the tests, and the species must be considered
in evaluating the potential hazard.
     The data in Table 6 show the variation in toxicity of
toxaphene given orally and  dermally to several common species
by means of different vehicles.

-------
                                                         20
                         TABLE 6
      LD50  Values  of  Toxaphene  to  Several Manmals  (1)
Species

Rat
Rat
Rat
Mouse
Dog
Dog
Guinea pig
Guinea pig
Cat
Rabbit
Rabbit
•Cattle
Goat
Sheep
Rat
Rabbit
Rabbit
Route

Oral
Oral
Oral
Oral
Oral
Oral
Oral
Oral
Oral
Oral
Oral
Oral
Oral
Oral
Dermal
Dermal
Dermal
1050
(mg/kg)
90
60
120
112
49
>250
270
365
25-40
75-100
250-500
144
200
200
930
>4000
< 250
Vehicle*

Peanut oil
Corn ซo11
Kerosene
Corn oil
Corn oil
Kerosene
Corn oil
Kerosene
Peanut oil
Peanut oil
Kerosene
Grain
Xylene
Xylene
Xylene
Dust
Peanut oil
*The vehicle used to apply a toxicant may Influence the rate
and extent of toxicant absorption by the animal, whether by
oral or dermal or other mode of application.  Furthermore,
some vehicles may themselves be significantly toxic.

-------
                                                                   21
     Assuming for the sake of safety that man resembles the
most sensitive experimental species (the cat), the lethal
dose for a 70 kg adult would be about 2 to 3.5 g.  The
lethal dose for man has been estimated by others to be from
2 to 7 g (3, 29).

Chronic toxldty                                         	

     The chronic toxlclty of toxaphene was studied by Ortega
et al_., In 1951 (31) In small groups of rats fed 50 and 200
ppm 1n the diet.  These dietary levels'produced no clinical
signs of toxlclty, Inhibition of food consumption or growth
rate.  Only the livers, spleens, and kidneys were examined
h1stolog1ca1ly.  There was no damage to the kidney or spleen
but the livers of 3 of the 12 rats that received 50 ppm
showed slight changes.  Six of the 12 rats fed 200 ppm showed
distinct liver changes.

     In lifetime feeding studies with rats, dosages of 25, 100,
and 400 ppm of toxaphene 1n the diet were Investigated (32).
Liver enlargement was noted at all levels.
     The kidneys and livers of 2 dogs fed toxaphene at a rate
of 4 mg/kg of body weight per day for 106 days showed degenera-
tive changes (33).

-------
                                                            22
     Innes et al_., in 1969 (34) attempted to cause tumors In
mice by stomach tube administration of maximum tolerated doses
of pesticides starting at 7 days of age and continuing to 4 weeks
of age.  Front 4 weeks of age until 18 months of age, the
chemicals were fed 1n the diet at levels near the maximum
tolerated dose.  Toxaphene was not Included 1n that study but
the-closely related material, Strobane, given at a dally dose
of 4.64 mg/kg between ages 7-28 days and at 11 ppm 1n the diet
thereafter caused a higher Incidence of lymphomas and hepatomas
than was seen In controls.

     Toxaphene can change the toxicity of drugs and other
chemicals detoxified by hepatic microsomal enzymes and alter
steroid metabolism because 1t induces synthesis of hepatic
microsomal enzymes.  Dose-response relationships for enzyme
induction by toxaphene were measured by feeding various dietary
levels to rats for as long as 13 weeks.  The lowest dietary
level of toxaphene that caused induction of the synthesis
of one or more of the three microsomal enzymes studied was
5 ppm.  Maximum  induction occurred within the first 3 weeks
of the feeding period at all levels of toxaphene that caused
enzyme Induction.  After this time the activity was maintained
at a constant, elevated level until feeding of the pesticide
was discontinued  (35).

     These results show that dietary levels of 5 ppm and higher
could alter the  rate at which other chemicals are metabolized.

-------
                                                                 23
    Similar enzyme Induction was obtained with DDT at a dietary level
    of 1 ppm.

    G.  Humans                                                 	
         Acute toxaphene poisoning  In humans 1s rare.  When toxaphene
    was first used, four cases of poisoning by Ingestion 1n children
    under 4 years of age were reported  (5).  The  same report contained
    a description of severe toxaphene poisoning in adults from acci-
    dents or Injudicious use of the pesticide.  The dosage of toxaphene
    estimated to have been Ingested by  three of the people ranged from
    9.5 to 47 mg/kg.
          Inhalation of  toxaphene can cause irritation of the respiratory
    tract.  Warraki In  1968 (47) has described acute bronchiolitis with
    Hilary lung shadows in two men with an occupational history of
    heavy and prolonged exposure to toxaphene sprays.  The threshold
    limit value for atmospheric levels  of toxaphene has been established
    by  the Conference of Government Industrial Hyg1en1sts at 0.5 mg
    per cubic meter of  air  (48).
IV.  Environmental  Fate  and  Effects
          Toxaphene may persist in soil  from several  months  to  more  than
     10 years (62).  It has been shown to persist for up to  9 years  in
     lakes and ponds (49, 50, 52).

-------
                                                           24  f
      The fate and movement of a pesticide in and from the soil
 depend on the following broadly categorized factors:  (a)  the
 pesticide characteristics; (b)  edaphic considerations;, (c)  climate-;
• (d)  topography; and (e)  land use and management.   Any of these
 factors that tend to promote the pesticide's persistence will tend
 to increase its potential  for environmental dispersion (2).      :

-------
                                                                             25
                    Pesticide movement through or across soil 1s facilitated by
               the movement of water.  Overland flow  Is generally more  Important
               1n pesticide transport than passage through soil.  Two processes
               fcre Involved:  (a)  pesticide movement while dissolved In water
               and (b)  pesticide movement while adsorbed on soil.  Reports of
               the water solubility of toxaphene have ranged from 0.4 mg/1 to 3 mg/1  (56).

j                    Bailey and White 1n  1970 (57) stated that the principal means
'i
]               of pesticide transport within soils are:  (a)  diffusion In the
:l
;!               airspaces of soil; (b)  diffusion In soil water;  (c) downward
1)               .                   .                                  .              '
I               flowing water; and (d)  upward moving  water.
•;                   A report by Hermanson et a1_., In  1971 (58) gives half-life
i              figures on a number of chlorinated pesticides, Including toxaphene,
-1
1              In Holtvllle sandy clay.  The half-lives of toxaphene and DOT were
 ;              calculated to be 4 years.
                    Johnston,  et  aj_.  (59),  studied  pesticide  concentrations  In  tile
                drainage  and open  drains  In  the  San  Joaquln  Valley  of California
                between 1963 and 1965.  Toxaphene was  detected In 13  of 66 analyses
                of tile drainage effluents In  concentrations varying  from 0.13 ug/1
                to 0.95 ug/1 and averaging 0.53  ug/1.   Water from surface drains
                that collected  surface and subsurface  water  was positive for  toxaphene
                In 60  out of 61 samples.  Concentrations  varied from  0.10 ug/1 to
                7.90 ug/1  and averaged 2.01  ug/1.  The predominant  residues found

-------
                                                             26
in surface waters were DOT/DOT and toxapheneo   The average concen-
tration of toxaphene was higher than that of any other chlorinated
hydrocarbon Insecticide and It was found most frequently.

     Velth and Lee In 1971 (60) Investigated the sorptlon of
toxaphene to lake sediments and concluded that within the limits
of their analytical system, detectable concentrations of toxaphene
could not be leached from sediments by lake water.  However, their
limit of detection was about 1 ug/1 and they carefully concluded,
                               \ •
"Also, the laboratory study does not rule out lake waters that may
contain ng/liter concentrations of toxaphene due to desorptlon
from the sediments."  They also explicitly did not rule out the
possibility of the transport of toxaphene from lake sediments
through the migration of bottom fauna.

     Nicholson et aJL, 1n 1966 (61) showed the relative Importance
of sediment versus solution 1n the transport of toxaphen@9 DDT and
BHC in Flint Creek, Alabama.  Suspended sediment seemed Ttss
important to toxaphene and BHC transport than to DDT transport.  This
suggests a lesser affinity of toxaphene for solid substrates than
that possessed by DDT, which 1s strongly hydrophobic.  Support
for this contention comes from the fact that toxaphent was frequently
recovered in clarified and treated municipal drinking water while
DDT was found less often.

-------
                                                                            27
                       Johnson, et al_., 1n 1966 (49) used gas chromatography to
I
                  study the mechanisms of detoxification.  This study shows that
                  toxaphene may persist 1n a lake for several years after applica-
                  tion for fishery management even when detoxification Is rapid.
                  All of the lakes studied were shallow and eutrophlc.  The authors
                  point out that detoxification 1s accomplished, In part, by
                  sorptlon reactions rather than degradation, but Indicate some
                  evidence based on the gas chromatographlc "fingerprint" that
                  toxaphene may be chemically modified.

-------
                                                               28
     Johnson and Lew 1n 1970 (64) determined chlorinated hydro-
carbon Insecticide residues In fish of.the Lower Colorado River
system which drains an Irrigated agricultural area where Insecti-
cides are often used.  The following residues of DDT and Its
congeners, DDT and IDE, and toxaphene were reported In the fat
and/or viscera of these fish.
     Carp               :  DDT, etc., 2.0 - 185.0 mg/kg
     Cyprtnus carpio       toxaphene, 50.0 mg/kg
     Channel Catfish    :  DDT, etc., 0.7 - 77.0 mg/kg
     Ictalurus punctatus   toxaphene, 8.2 - 11.4 mg/kg
     Sonoran Sucker     :  DDT, etc., 7.3 - 46.3 mg/kg
     Catostomus.insignis   toxaphene, 2.8 - 172.9 mg/kg
     611a Sucker        :  "DDT, etc., 36.2 - 39.5 mg/kg
     Pantosteus clarkl     toxaphene, 25.2 .- 42.9 mg/kg
     Although the practice of applying toxaphene to lakes for
fisheries management has been discouraged, one study of that usaye
revealed Information on bioaccumulation in the hydrosphere under
conditions of gross contamination.  Terrlere, et ajL (65), applied
toxaphene in Davis Lake, Oregon at 88 ug/1 in 1961 and found in
1962 and 1963 that toxaphene was present 1n water at average
levels of 2.1 ug/1 and 1.2 ug/1, respectively.  They reported a
concentration factor of about 500 for aquatic plants, 1000 to 2000
for aquatic Invertebrates, 10,000 to 20,000 for rainbow trout,
4000 to 8000 for Atlantic salmon and 1000 to 2000 for lake bottom
and mud.

-------
                                                              29
     Hughes 1n 1970 (66) studied biological accumulation and
persistence of toxaphene In Wisconsin lakes.  When applied to
the lakes 1n fisheries management, toxaphene In the lake water
declined to less than the detection limit (1 ug/liter) within
9 to 12 months.  However, aquatic fauna, particularly fish
stocked 1n the lakes following treatment, accumulated as much
as 19 ug of toxaphene residues per gram of body weight.  In
general, prey fish accumulated higher concentrations of toxa-
phene than did predators.  Bluegllls stocked in Fox Lake about
eight months following the last of 3 treatments accumulated
9.4 ug/g in 176 days, after which toxaphene residues began
declining until, after 787 days, 0.8 ug/g remained.  Two months
after fish were stocked, plankton contained 34 ug/g.
     Schimmel, eฃ aj_. (72), studied the bioaccumulation of
toxaphene in the ova of the longnose klllifish, Fundulus similus,
and found that at a measured water concentration of 0.2 ug/1,
the concentration of toxaphene in the eggs rose to 0.3 mg/kg in
fourteen days  (a factor of. 1500) and 1n thirty-two days to
1.1 mg/kg (a factor of 5500).

-------
                                                            30

     Lowe e_t aJL, 1n 1971 (67) demonstrated an accumulation of
as much as 30 ppm in oysters exposed for 24 weeks to 1 ppb of
toxaphene — a concentration factor fo 30,000.  In the ensuing
16 weeks 1n clean sea water the oysters excreted 90 percent of
this toad, but retained 3.0 ppm In their tissues — still 3.000
times the water concentration they had been exposed to originally.
     Mayer et aU, In 1975 (15) reported that brook trout concen-
trated toxaphene by factors as high as 76,000 and that the more
highly chlorinated isomers were preferentially stored.
     Until recently there was no evidence of the existence of
toxaphene conversion products, or metabolites in crops that had been
                            \
exposed to toxaphene or in adipose tissues of animals fed toxaphene
diets.  When toxaphene was extracted either from alfalfa that had
been exposed to toxaphene, or from adipose tissue of steers that had
been fed toxaphene-treated alfalfa, it had insecticidal activity
Identical to that of unaltered toxaphene (1).  New studies reported
in 1974 and 1975 by Casida's groups, however, produced evidence that
toxaphene is degraded in vivo (36).  They have shown substantial
dechlorination  In 14 days or  less in tissues of rats given toxaphene
orally.  Although they consider dechlorination essentially equiva-
lent to detoxification, they  have not tested the recovered metabolites
on Insects.
     The  effects of  toxaphene on  plankton  in  treated  lakes were
 studied  by  Hoffman and  Olive in 1961  (7) using a concentration of
 100  ug/1.   The  groups  tested were Rotatoria,  Protozoa, and Entomostraca.

-------
                                                             31
The first two of these exhibited decreased growth rates, while the
population of Entomostraca disappeared 1n the treated lakes.

     Hllsenhoff 1n 1965 (12) studied the effects of toxaphene on
macroscopic bottom fauna 1n a reservoir and found that an applica-
tion level of 100 ug/1 markedly affected the Chlronomldae and
Chaoborus populations.  Living Chlronomldae were absent from samples
taken three days after treatment and population recovery was not
complete until nine months later.  Chaoborus larvae exhibited no
Immediate effects, but were absent six months later and had not
reappeared when the study ended.  01igochaetes showed no adverse
effects from toxaphene; their populations actually increased during
the eleven-month study period.  Chaoborus larvae were the only
profundal organisms adversely affected by treatment of the top
30 feet with 100 ug/1 of toxaphene.  They were eliminated and had
not become reestablished two years after treatment.  However, these
organisms are not strictly profundal and appear to have been killed
during sorties into the epilimnion.
     Unusually high mortalities were observed in fish-eating birds
at the Tule Lake and Lower Klamath.Refuges in 1960, 1961, and 1962.
The mortalities were reportedly and apparently due to application
of large quantities of toxaphene for several years, beginning in
1956, to the agricultural lands immediately surrounding the
refuges. Water from the farmlands drains into the marshes.
Toxaphene was found in the fish from the marshes at levels of
about 8 ppm and 1n the fat of fish-eating birds at levels as
high as 31.5 ppm (51).

-------
                                                                   32
Criteria Formulation	—

     The data presented, above establish that toxaphene Is a powerful
Insecticide capable of persisting 1n the aquatic environment, tha
soil or animal tissues for long periods* capable of b1oaccumu1at1rig
by factors of as much as 30,000, and capable of producing deleterious
effects on fish at levels as low as 0.039 ug/1.  Since at least some
aquatic organisms can readily bioaccumulate toxaphene, formulation
of criteria for this pesticide 1n natural Waterways must take Into
account the potential danger to terrestrial predators, Including man,
which consume that aquatic life.  However, many Important aquatic
organisms are exquisitely sensitive to direct poisoning by toxaphene
and must themselves be protected.
     Sanders and Cope 1n 1968 (9) demonstrated 96-hour LC50 values
from 1.3 to 3.0 ug/1 for several species of freshwater stonefHes.
The 96-hour LC50 values for largemouth bass and brown trout have
been reported as 2.0 and 3.0 ug/1, respectively.  Katz in 1961 (22)
demonstrated the 96-hour TLm (LC50) for Chinook salmon to be 2.5 ug/1.
ScMmmel (13) reported a 96-hour EC50 of 1.1 ug/1 for the sheepshead
minnow.
     Mayer, et al_., 1n 1974 (IS) experimenting on brook trout, found  -
the no-effect level for a six-month exposure to toxaphene to be less
than 0.039 ug/1.   Similar studies on the fathead minnow (14) showed that

-------
                                                                 33
the no-effect level for this species was less than 0.055 ug/1.  It
Is Important to emphasize that In neither series of experiments was
a toxaphene concentration used which was low enough to have no effect.

     Work by Schlmmel 1n 1975 (13) demonstrated the 96-hour EC50
(death) for adult pink shrimp to be 1.4 ug/1.  Lowe (23) demonstrated
the 48-hour EC50 for spot to be 1.0 ug/1. The 144-hour EC50 for the
same species was 0.5 ug/1.  Additional work by Schlmnel (13) demonstrated
96-hour EC50 values for plnflsh to be 0.5 ug/1.

     Lowe et aj_., 1n 1971 (67) reported that oysters exposed to 1 ug/1
of toxaphene concentrated It about 30,000 times in their tissues.  Upon
transfer to clean water the oysters excreted the toxaphene slowly;
excretion was not complete after 16 weeks.
     The data set forth above establish the following facts:
     (a)  Toxaphene 1n concentrations clustered around 1 ug/1 1s
          acutely toxic to fish and to the lower organisms on which
          they feed;
     (b)  Toxaphene can be bioaccumulated by factors as high as
          30,000 in aquatic organisms, thereby posing a potential
          threat to other aquatic organisms, to birds, and to
          mammals  (Including man) which feed on them.
     (c)  Toxaphene can be quite persistent  In aquatic systems, on
          soil, and  1n animal tissues.

-------
                                                                  34
     (d)  Toxaphene can have serious adverse effects on aquatic life



          exposed to concentrations as low as 0.039 ug/1 and perhaps



          even lover.  At higher concentrations these effects become



          pore pronounced, to the point of death.






     Acute toxicity has been reported at levels as low as 0.5 ug/1



of -toxaphene (13).  Thus, some damage to aquatic life could be expected



at higher levels.  At levels of 1.0 to 2.0 ug/1 a large number of



species are known to be affected.  These include stoneflies (9), the



sheepshead minnow (13), the black bullhead (16), the pinfish (13), the



pink shrimp (13) and the spot (23).  An LC50 is the concentration at



which half the population dies and can be lowered by other environmental



stresses, for instance, by low dissolved oxygen concentration or



elevated temperature.






Chronic Criterion:  0.005 ug/1



     Several common aquatic species have LC50 or EC50 values in the



neighborhood of 1 ug/1; among these are the Stonefly, Claassenia



sabulosa. 1.3 ug/1 LC50  (9); the sheepshead minnow, 1.1 ug/1 EC50 (13);



the black bullhead, 1.8 ug/1 LC50 (16); the marine pinfish, 0.5 ug/1



LC50 (13); and the pink shrimp, 1.4 ug/1 EC50  (16).  In addition, Lowe



(23) reported a 48-hour LC50 of 1.0 ug/1 and a 144-hour LC50 of



0.5 ug/1 for the spot.

-------
                                                                 35
     The 96-hour LC50 for the pinfish, Lagodon rhomboides. an organism

of vide geographic distribution and of ecological importance in the

food chain, has been reported as 0.5 ug/1 (13>.  While the use of an

application factor of 0.01 has been recommended by the NAS-NAE (77), its
                .••*-'•.,
use is especially appropriate in the case of toxaphene because long-term

studies with fathead minnows, Pimephales promelas (14), and brook trout,

Salvelinus fontinalis (15), have failed to establish a no-effect level.

Application of this factor to the 96-hour pinfish LC50 value yields a

criterion of 0.005 ug/1.

-------
                                                                36
    REFERENCES                                            	
1.  EPA, 1971.  Toxaphene status report.   Special  report to
         the Hazardous Materials Advisory Committee.   EPA.

2.  Hercules, Incorporated, 1970.  Toxaphene:   Use patterns
         and environmental Aspects.
3.  Amer. Med. Assoc. Committee on Pesticides, 1952.
         Pharmacological properties of toxaphene,  a
         chlorinated hydrocarbon Insecticide.   J.  A.  M. A.
         149:  1135-1137.

4.  FAO/WHO-(1968).  Evaluations of some pesticide residues
         1n food.  267-283.

5.  McGee, L. C., H. L. Reed and J. P. Fleming, 1952.
         Accidental poisoning by toxaphene.  J. A. M. A. 149:
         1124-1126.

6.  Negherbon, W. 0., 1959.  Toxaphene.  Handbook of
         Toxicology.  Vol. III.  Insecticides, a
         compendium.  754-769pp.
7.  Hoffman,  D. A.  and  J.  R. Olive, 1961.  The effects of rotenone
         and  toxaphene  upon plankton of  two Colorado reservoirs.
         Umnolo Oceanegr., 6:219-222.

-------
                                                                              37
'f          8.  Ukeles* R., 1962.  Growth of pure cultures of marine



 |                   phytoplankton in the presence of toxicants.  Appl.

'is         .        '                      .            . '    .


 :                   Microbiolc, 10(6):532-537.
           9.  Sanders, B. 0. and 0. B. Cope, 1968.  The relative




                    toxicities of several pesticides to naiads of three




                    species of stoneflies, Limnol. and Oceanog., 13:112.




                               *            .               V

          10.  Sanders, H. 0., 1969.  Toxicity of pesticides to the




                    crustacean, Gซ™""ru8 lacustris.  Tech. paper 25.




                    Bur. Sport Fish, and Wildlife, U.S.D.I., 18 pp.,




                    Page 12.






          11.  Sanders, H. 0. and 0. B. Cope, 1966.  Toxicities of




                    several pesticides to two species of cladocerans.




                    Trans. Amer. Pish. Soc., 95:165-169.






 ;V        12.  Hilsenhoff, W. L., 1965.  The effect of toxaphene on the
 • t'



 !                 • benthos in a thermally-stratified lake.  Trans. Amer.




 |                  Pish. Soc.  94(3):210-213.






 i        13.  Schimmel, S. C., In Press.  Uptake and toxicity of toxaphene




 ;                  in several estuarine organisms, Gulf Breeze Environmental




 ]                  Research Laboratory, Contribution No. 269.






 i        14.  Mehrle, P. M. and P. L. Mayer, Jr., 1975.  Toxaphene




 :                  effects on growth and bone composition of fathead




                    minnows, Pimephales promelas. J. Pish. Res. Board




                    Can.  32:593-598.

-------
                                                                      38
15.  Mayer, F. L., P. M. Mehrle. and W. P. Dwyer, 1975.
          Toxaphene effects on reproduction, growth, and
          mortality of brook trout.  U.S. EPA Ecological
          Research Series, No. EPA-600/3-75-013.
16.  Mahdl, MA., 1966.  Mortality of some species of fish to
          toxaphene at three temperatures.  U.S.D.I., Fish
          and Wildlife Ser., Inves. 1n Fish Control, Research
          Publ. 10:10.

17.  Ferguson, 0. E., W. D. Cotton, 0. 0. Culley, 1965.
          Tolerances to Five Chlorinated Hydrocarbon
          Insecticides Into Species of F1sh From a Transect
          of the Lower Mississippi River.  J. Mississippi
          Academy of Sciences.  Vol. XI:239-257.

18.  ,Macek, K. J., C. Hutchlnson and 0. B. Cope, 1969.  The
          effects of temperature on the susceptibility of
          bluegllls and rainbow trout to selected pesticides.
          Bull, of Envir. Contam. and Toxlcol., 3:174-183.
19.  Warner, R. E., K. K. Peterson and L. Borgman, 1966.
          Behavioral pathology 1n fish:  a quantitative study
          of sublethal pesticide toxlcation.  J. Appl. Ecol. 3
           (suppl.):223-247.

-------
                                                                    39
20.  Macek, K. J. and W.  U.  McAllister, 1970.   Insecticide
          susceptibility of some common fish family
          representatives.  Trans. Amer. F1sh.  Soc., 99(1):20-27.

21.  Henderson, C., Q. H. Pickering and C.  M.  Tarzwell., 1959.
          Relative toxldty of ten chlorinated  hydrocarbon
          Insecticides to four species of fish.  Trans.  Amer.
          Fish-. Soc. 88(1):23-32.

22.  Katz, M., 1961.  Acute toxlclty of some organic
          Insecticides to three species of salmonids and to
          the threesplne stickleback.  Trans.  Amer. Fish.  Soc.
          90(3):264-268.

23.  Lowe, J. I., 1964.  Chronic exposure of spot, Lelostomus
          xanthurus, to sublethal concentrations of toxaphene
          1n seawater.  Trans. Amer. F1sh.  Soc., 93(4)396-399.

24.  Keith, J. C., 1966.   Insecticide contaminations 1n
          wetland habitats and their effects on fish-eating
          birds.  J. Appl. EcoK  3(Supp1 ,):71-85.
25.  Tucker, R. K. and 0. G. Crabtree, 1970.  Handbook of
          toxlclty of pesticides to wildlife.   U.S. Fish and
          WUdl. Ser., Bur. Sport Fish, and W11d1. Resource
          Publ.  (84):131.

-------
                                                               40
26.  Genelly, R. E. and R. C. Rudd, 1956.  Chronic toxlclty of
       _  DOT, toxaphene and dleldrln to rlngneck pheasants.
          Calif. F1sh and Game.  42.5-14.
27.  Genelly, R. E. and R. 1. Rudd, 1958.  Effects of DDT,
          toxaphene, and dleldrln on pheasant reproduction.
          Auk. 73:529-539.  Chem Abstr. 52:1658c.
28.  Galnes, T. B., 1960.  The acute toxlclty of pesticides
          to rats.  Toxlcol. Appl. Pharm. 2, 88-99.
29.  Driesbach, R. H., 1969.  Handbook of Poisoning.
          Diagnosis and Treatment, 6th Edition.  Lange
          Medical Publications, Los Altos, California.  91-93 pp.
31.  Ortega, P., W. J. Hayes, and W. F. Durham, 1951.
          Pathologic changes in the liver of rats after
          feeding low levels of various insecticides.  A.M.A.
          Arch. Pathol. 64:614-622.

-------
                                                               41
J'
Kฎ
3?.~   Fitzhugh,  0.  G.,  and A.  A.  Nelson,  1951.-  Comparison of
          chronic effects produced 1n rats by several
          chlorinated  hydrocarbon Insecticides.  Fed.  Proc.
          Federation of American Societies for Experimental
          Biology.  10, 295.

33-   Lackey, R. W., 1949.  Observations  on the acute and
          chronic toxlcity of toxaphene  1n the dog.   J.  Ind.
          Hyg.  Toxlcol.  31:117-120.

34.   Innes, J.  R.  M.,  B. M. Ulland, M. G.  ValeHo, L.  Petruclll,
          L. Fishbein, E. R.  Hart, A. J. Pallotta, R.  R. Bates,
          H. L. Falk,  J. J. Gart, M.  Klein, I. Mitchell, and
          J. Peters, 1969.  Bioassay of  pesticides and Industrial
          chemicals for tumorigenicity 1n mice:  A preliminary
          note.  J. Nat. Cancer Inst. 42(6):1101-1114.

35.   Kinoshlta, F. K., J. P.  Frawley and K. P. Dubois, 1966.
          Quantitative measurement of Induction of hepatic
          mlcrosomal enzymes by various  dietary levels of DDT
          and toxaphene 1n rats.  Toxlcol. Appl. Pharmacol.
          9:505-513.
36*   Casida, J. E., R. L. Holmstead, and S. Khamfa, 1974.
          Toxaphene Insecticide:  A complex biodegradable
                                                     -
          mixture.  Science, 183:520-521.

-------
                                                                              42
             i
             37.  Schlndler, U., 1955.   Allge Forstzeltsh 33/34.   p.  384.

             ,38.  Schlndler, U., 1956.   F.A.O. Plant Protection Bull.
                       1V(5) '.67-68.

:             ;39.  Eadle, W. E,,  1959.  Toxaphene — for control of meadow
;                       mice.In orchards.  Farm Research. N.Y.  State Agrlc.
I                       Exp. Sta.  Geneva, N.Y.  25(1):15.
             40.  Marsh, H., L. H. Johnson, R. S. Clark and J.  H.  Pepper,
                       1951. Toxlclty to cattle of toxaphene and chlordane
                       grasshopper baits.  Montana State Coll.  Agr.  Exp.
                       Sta. Bull.  477:11.
             41.  Marsh, H., 1949.  Toxaphene residues III.  Experimental
                       feeding of toxaphene treated alfalfa to cattle and
                       sheep.  Montana State Coll. Agr. Exp. Sta.  Bull.
                       461:16-21.
             42.  Nunn, J. R., 1952.  Toxaphene poisoning in dogs.  J. Vet.
                       Med. 47(6):256-257.

             43.  Radeleff, R. D. and R. C.-Bushland, 1950.  Acute toxlclty
                       of chlorinated Insecticides applied to livestock.
                       J. Econ. Ent.  43(3):358-364.
             44.  Eubank, N. H., 1964.  Toxaphene Intoxication from home
                       treatment.  J. Vet. Med.  59(6):584.

-------
                                                                                   43
   j              45-   Choudbury, B. and V. Robinson, 1950.  Clinical and
   :                        pathological effects produced In goats by the
   :                        Ingestion of toxic amounts of chlordane and
   !                           ' "  •
   i                       .
   '.                        toxaphene.  Amer. J. Vet. Res. 11:50-56.
 r I              46.  Bushland, R. C., R. W. Wells, and R. D. Radeleff, 1948.
• '•?',!'
 r  |                        Effect on livestock of sprays and dips containing
 ^  I                        new chlorinated Insecticides.  J. Econ. Ent.
   i
                           41:642-645.
TTBfc,
$);•
''||!              47.  Warrakl, S., 1963.  Respiratory hazards of chlorinated
;ป! :                       caniphene.  Arch. Environ. Health  7:253-256.
u^'tt- >
;*' !             48.  Gafafer, W. M., 1964.  Occupational diseases, A guide to
 "   '                       their recognition.  U.S. Public Health Service
;•*.; ''I                       Publication 1097, 244 pp.
 A !             49.  Johnson, W. D., G.  F. Lee and D. Spyrldakls., 1966.
    ;                       Persistence of toxaphene 1n treated  lakes.  A1r and
                           Water Pollut.  Int. J.  10;555-560.
                 50.  Keith, J. 0.,  1966.  The effect of pesticides on white
                           pelicans.  4th Conf. Use of Agr. Chem. In Calif.,
                           Feb. 8, 1966,  Davis, Calif., 8 pp.

-------
                                                              44
 51.   Keith,  J.  0.,  1966.   Insecticide contaminations In
           wetland habitats and their effects on fish-eating
           birds.   Pesticides in the environment and their
           effects on wfldl1 f e.  J.  Appl.  Ecol., 3(Suppl.) 71-85.
,52.   Rucker, R. R., 1967.   Ground water toxic to fish.  Proc.
           N.W.  F1sh Culture Conf.,  87 p.
 53.   U.S.  Department-of Agriculture, ARS, 1936.  Monitoring
           agricultural pesticide, residues.  A Preliminary
           Report of Studies on Soil, Sediment and Mater in
           Mississippi River Delta.   U.S.D.A., A.R.S. 13-81.

 54.   H111en, R. H., 1967.   Special  Report — pesticide
           surveillance program — range caterpillar control
           project.   Colfax and Union Cols, New Mexico, Bur.
           Spt.  Fish. Wildlife* Div. Wildlife Services, Fort
           Collins,  Colorado, 31 pp.
 56.   Gunther, F. A., W. E. Westlake, and P. S.  Jaglan, 1968.
           Reported solubilities of 738 pesticide chemicals In
           water.  Residue Reviews.   20, 1-145.

-------
                                                            45
57.  Bailey, G. W.and J. L. White, 1970.  Factors                               :
          Influencing the adsorption, desorption* and
          movement of pesticides  1n soil.  Residue Reviews
          32, 29-92.
58.  Hermanson, H. P.,  F. A. Gunther, L. D. Anderson, and
          M. J. Garber,  1971.   Installment application effects
          upon Insecticide  residue content of a California
          soil.  J. Agr. Food Chem.  19:722.
                    *                                  ' '                    •'
W.  Johnston, W. R., F. T.  Itt1had1eh, and K. R. Craig, 1967.
          Insecticides  In the tile drainage effluent.  Water
          Resources Research, 3(2):525-537.
60.  Veith, E. D. and G. F.  Lee,  1971.  Water chemistry of
          toxaphene —  Role of  lake sediments.  Environmental
          Science and Technology, 5(3):230-234.
61.  Nicholson, H. P.,  A. R. Grzenda, and J. I. Tensley, 1966.
          Water pollution by Insecticides:  a six and one-half
          year study of a watershed.  Proc. Symposium on
          Agricultural  Waste Waters, Univ. of Calif., Davis.                      .
          132-141 pp.
62.  Nash,  R. G.and  E.  A. Woolson, 1968.  Distribution of                         j
          chlorinated Insecticides 1n cultivated soil.  Soil                      '
          Scl. Soc. Amer. Proc.   32:525-527.                                      !

-------
                                                            46
64.  Johnson, 0. W. and S. Lew* 1970.   Chlorinated hydrocarbon
                     9. •
          pesticides In representative fishes of Southern
                      **
          Arizona.  J4stป Monlt. Jour. 4(2):57-61.  See also
          Ertvfron; Nealth Abst. 1(7):2765.  1971.

65.  Terrle^e, L., C., |L KHgemagi, A. R. Gerlach and R. L.
          Borovlcka** 1966.  The persistence of toxaphene In
          lake water a$id Its uptake by aquatic plants and
          animals.  J.fAgr. Food Chem.  14:66-69.
56.  Hughes, R. A., 1970.  Studies on the persistence of
          toxaphene 1n treated lakes.   Ph.D. thesis,
          University of Wisconsin (Water Chemistry).

57., Lowe, J,* I., Pป 0. WHson, A. J.  Rick and A. J. WHson
          Jr., )'971.  Proceedings, of the Nat. ShellflsheHes
          Association.  Vol. 61:71-79.
68.  Ferguson, D. E., 1975.  The ecological consequences of
          pesticide resistance 1n fishes.  Transactions of the
          32nd North American Wi-ldllfe and Natural Resources
          Conference,  pp. 103-107.

-------
                                                                  47
69.  torn, S. and R. Earnest, 1974.  Acute Toxlclty of Twenty
         Insecticides to Striped Bass, Morone saxatnis.
         Calif. Fish and Game.  60(3):128-131o

70.  Crockett, A. B., (5. B. Wlersma, H. Ta1, and W, Mitchell,
         1975.  Residues in F1sh, Wildlife, and Estuaries.
         Pesticides Monitoring Journal 8(4):235-240,

71 .  Hawthorne, J. C., J. H. Ford, and G. P. Morkln, 1974.
         Residues of M1rex and other Pesticides 1n Commercially
         Raised Catfish.  Bulletin of Environmental Contamination
         and Toxicology ll(3):258-264.

 72.  Schlmmel, S. C., J. M. Patrick, Jr., and J. Forester, 1975.
         Uptake and Toxlclty of Toxaphene 1n Several EstuaHne
         Organisms.  Unpublished Date.  Gulf Breeze Envlr.
         Research Lab.

73.  Hansen, D. J.  1969.  Food, growth, migration,
         and abundance of plnflsh, Lagodon rhombo1desB
         Atlantic croaker, Mlcropogon undulatus. near Punsacola,
         FTorIda, 1963-65.  F1sh. Bull. 68(1):135-1460

 74.  Caldwell, D. K.  1957.  The biology and systematlcs of the
          plnflsh, Lagodon rhomboldes (Dlnmaeus).  Bull.  Florida
          State Mus. 2(6):1-173.

-------
                                                            48
7f*  Daugherty, F.  M.  Jr.   1951.  A  proposed toxldty test for
         Industrial wastes  to  be  discharged to marine, waters.
         Sewage and Indus.  Wastes, 23(8)-.1029-1031.
                                           f • .        . .    .    '  :' •
   ^Earnest, R. 1970.   Effects  of  pesticides on aquatic
         animals in the  estuarine and marine environment.        .
      ,   Unpublished data.   In:   Annual  Progress Report,
         Bureau of  Sport Fisheries and Wildlife.  U.S. Dept.      .
         of the Interior.
77.  MAS -NAE, 1973* Water Quality  Criteria, 1972,  EPA-R3-73-033

-------
                                                            49
                            GLOSSARY

Acutely toxic: Causing death or severe damage to an organism by
  . poisoning during a brief exposure period, normally ninety-six.
   hours or less.

Anadromous fishes:  Fishes that spend a part of their lives in seas
   or lakes, but ascend rivers and streams at certain  intervals to
   spawn.   Examples are sturgeon, shad, salmon,  trout, and
   striped bass.

Application  factor:  The ratio of the safe concentration  to the lethal
   concentration as determined for potential aquatic pollutants
   administered to species of interest.

Bioaccumulation (Bioconcentration): The phenomenon wherein elements
   or compounds are stored in living organisms because elimination
   fails to match intake.

Carcinogenic: Producing Cancer.

Catadromous fished: Fishes that feed and grow in fresh water, but
   return to the sea to spawn.  The best example is the American
   eel.

Chronically toxic:  Causing death or damage to an organism by
   poisoning during prolonged exposure, which, depending on the
   organism tested and the test conditions and purposes, may range
   from several days, to weeks, months, or years, or through a
   reproductive cycle.

-------
                                                             50
EC50:  The concentration at which a specified effect is observed
   under the test conditions in a specified time in fifty percent of
   the organisms tested.  Examples of specified 
-------
                                                         51
LC35:. The eoncentr^on of a toxicant that is lethal (fatal) 'to twenty-
    five percent of the organisms tested under toฉ test conditions in
    a specified time.

LC50? The concentration of a toxicant which is lethal (fatal) to
    fifty percent of the organisms tested under the test conditions
    in a specified time.  It is virtually identical with TLm and TL50.

LDSOs The dose of a toxicant that is lethal (fatal) tฉ fifty percent
    of the organisms tested under the test coaditLoas in a specified
    time.  A dose is the quantity actually administered to the
    organism and is not identical with a concentration, which is the
    amount of toxicant in- a unit of test medium rather than the
    amount ingested by or administered to the organism.,

Liter fl):. The volume occupied by one kilogram of water at a pressure
       ,.  •.                                     o
    of 760 mm of mercury and a temperature of 4 Co  A liter is
    1.05-7 quart.

Methylmercury: Mercury which has been methylated,, usually through
    gome biological agent, such as bacteria,,

Microgram per liter  (ug/1);  The concentration at which one millionth
    of a gram (one microgram) is contained in a Wtame of one liter.
    Where the density of solvent is equal to one,  one ug/1 is equiva-
    lent to one part per billion (ppb) or one microgram per kilogram
    (ug/kg).

-------
                                                            52
#Microgram per kilogram (ug/kg): The concentration at which one
  -  millionth of a gram (one microgram) is contained in a mass of
 ,,  one kilogram.  A kilogram is 2. 2046 pounds.
                    •
    igrahi per kilogram (mg/kg): The concentration at which one
              '       i                               .        •
    thousandth of a gram (one milligram) is contained in a mass of
                     i                               • •
    one kilogram.  A gram contains 1000 milligrams.
           per liter (mg/1):  The concentration at which one milligram
    is contained in a volume of one liter.  Where the density of the
,3 *             '
    solvent is equal to one, one mg/1 is equivalent to one part per  .
• ป    • '             •         ' .                     •
    million (ppm) or one milligram per kilogram (mg/kg).

 Milliliter (ml): A volume equal to one thousandth of a liter.

ffenogram per liter (ng/1): The concentration at which one billionth
    of a gram (one nanogram) is contained in a volume of one liter.
    Where the  density of the solvent is equal to one, one ng/1 is
    equivalent  to one part per trillion or one nanogram per kilogram
    (ng/kg).

 Neoplastic:  Describing any new and abnormal growth, such as a tumor.

Part per million (ppm): A concentration in which one unit is contained
    in a total of a million units.  Any units may be used (e. g. ,  weight,
    volume) but in any given application identical units must be used
    (e. g. ,  grams per million grams or liters per million liters).
    Where the  density of the solvent is one, one part per million is
    equivalent  to one milligram per liter.

-------
                                                             53
Parts per thousand (o/oo): A concentration at which one unit is     '
    contained in a total of a thousand units. The rules for using
    this term are the same as those for parts per million.  Normally,
    this term is used to specify the salinity of eatuarine or sea waters.

Piscicide* A substance used for killing fish.

Static bioassay:  A bioassay in which the toxicant is not renewed during
    the test.
Thermocline: That layer in a body of water where the temperature
    difference is greatest per unit of depth.  It is the layer in which
    the drop in temperature is 1  t.  or greater per meter of depth.
TLm - Median Tolerance Limit: The concentration of a test material
    at which fifty percent of the test animals are able to survive
    under test conditions for a specified period of exposure. It is
    virtually synonymous with LC50 and TL50.

TL50:  Synonymous with TLm and virtually synonymous with LC50.
Tumorigenic: Causing or producing tumors.

-------