AMBIENT WATER QUALITY ADVISORY
FORMALDEHYDE
OFFICE OF WATER REGULATIONS AND STANDARDS
CRITERIA AND STANDARDS DIVISION
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
-------
NOTICES
This document has been reviewed' by the Criteria and Standards
Division, Office of Water Regulations and Standards, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, and approved for distribution.
Mention of trade names or commercial products does not constitute
endorsement or recommendation for use.
This document is available to the public through the Criteria and
Standards Division, Office of Water Regulations and Standards,
U.S. EPA, Washington, DC.
ii
-------
FOREWORD
The Criteria and Standards Division of the Office of Water
Regulations and Standards has instituted water quality advisories
as a vehicle for transmitting the best available scientific
information concerning the aquatic life and human health effects
of selected chemicals in surface waters. Advisories are prepared
for chemicals for which information is needed quickly, but for
which sufficient data, resources, or time are not available to
allow derivation of national ambient water quality criteria.
Data supporting advisories are usually not as extensive as
required for derivation of national ambient water quality
criteria, and the strength of an advisory will depend upon the
source, type, and reliability of the data available. We feel,
however, that it is in the best interest of all concerned to make
the enclosed information available to those who need it.
Users of advisories should take into account the basis for
their derivation and their intended uses. Anyone who has
additional information that will supplement or substantially
change an advisory is requested to make the information known to
us. An advisory for an individual chemical will be revised if any
significant and valid new data make it necessary.
We invite comments to help improve this product.
Edmund M. Notzon, Director
Criteria and Standards Division
-------
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
AQUATIC LIFE
Loren J. Larson, author
University of Wisconsin-Superior, Superior, WI
iv
-------
CONTENTS
Pacre
Notices
ii
Foreword
iii
Acknowledgments
iv
I.
Advisories
1-1
II.
General Information
II-l
A. Biological, Chemical
and Physical Properties II-l
Ill.
Aquatic Toxicity
III-l
IV.
References
IV-1
V.
EPA Contacts
V-l
v
-------
SECTION I. ADVISORIES
AQUATIC LIFE
If the estimated or measured ambient concentration of
formaldehyde exceeds 2.5 g/L in fresh or salt water, one or
more of the following options must be completed within a
reasonable period of time:
1. Obtain more measurements of the concentration.
2. Improve the estimate of the concentration.
3. Reduce the concentration.
4. Obtain additional laboratory and/or field data on the
effect of formaldehyde on aquatic life so that a new
aquatic life advisory or water quality criterion can be
derived.
After a reasonable period of time, unless a consideration of all
the available data concerning the ambient concentration and the
effects of formaldehyde on aquatic life indicates that the
ambient concentration is low enough, it must be reduced.
1-1
-------
SECTION II. GENERAL INFORMATION
A. Biological, Chemical, and Physical Properties
The following information on the properties of formaldehyde
and its persistence in the aquatic environment was obtained from
the Handbook of Chemistry and Physics~ha~s or from the QSAR systenThb~s
on April 15, 1987. Some of the values were calculated using
structure-activity relationships.
Property
Value
Source
Molecular Weight
Relative Density (20C)
Log P
Melting Point
Boiling Point
Vapor Pressure
Heat of Vaporization
pKa
Solubility in Water
BCF
Absorption Coef.[Log (Koc)]
30.03 g/mole
(not applicable)
-92.0C
-21.0C
5,380 cal/mole
(not applicable)
Calculated
Measured
Measured
Calculated
Hydrolysis Half-life = > 1000 days
Hydrolysis is not likely to be an important transformation
mechanism for this chemical.
Biodegradation Half-life Analysis
This chemical was classified into a group of chemicals that
include alcohols, esters and amines. There are 57 chemicals
in this group that range in molecular weight from 30 to 204
and they are all relatively degradable with half-lives
ranging from 2 to 15 days.
Log 10 (Henry's Constant)
Henry's Constant cannot be estimated without vapor pressure.
Neely 100-day Partitioning Pattern cannot be estimated without
vapor pressure.
a ' oHandbook of Chemistry and Physics, 67th Ed., CRC Press,
Boca Raton, FL. 1986-1987.
b For information on the QSAR system, see: Hunter, R., L.
Faulkner, F. Culver and J. Hill. Draft user manual for the
QSAR system. Center for Data Systems and Analysis, Montana
State University. November, 1985.
II-l
-------
SECTION III. AQUATIC TOXICITY
Introduction
Aquatic life advisory concentrations are conceptually
different from national aquatic life water quality criteria.
Aquatic life criteria are based on toxicity and bioconcentration
data for a sufficiently diverse group of animals and plants to
provide reasonable confidence in the appropriateness of the
criteria. Advisories are issued for selected chemicals for which
sufficient data are not available to allow derivation of national
water quality criteria for aquatic life. Because aquatic life
advisories are intended to be used to identify situations where
there is cause for concern and where appropriate action should be
taken, the advisory concentration for a chemical is derived to be
equal to or lower than what the Criterion Continuous
Concentration (Stephan et al. 1985) would be if a national water
quality criterion for aquatic life could be derived for the
chemical. If the concentration of a chemical in a variety of
surface waters is found to exceed the aquatic life advisory
concentration, this may indicate that the U.S. EPA should
consider deriving aquatic life water quality criteria for that
chemical.
Tne literature searching and data evaluation procedures used
in the derivation of aquatic life advisories are identical to
those used in the derivation of water quality criteria for
aquatic life (Stephan et al. 1985). However, advisories do not
contain a section on "Unused Data" as in a criteria document.
This aquatic life advisory concentration for formaldehyde was
derived using the procedures described in the "Guidelines for
Deriving Ambient Aquatic Life Advisory Concentrations" (Stephan
et al. 1986). A knowledge of these guidelines is necessary in
order to understand the following text, tables, and calculations.
The latest comprehensive literature search for information for
this aquatic life advisory was conducted in May 1987.
Formaldehyde does not appear to be highly volatile (see
Section III-A). Brooke (1987) reported that concentrations of
formaldehyde declined by less than 10% in the initial 24-hour
period in static tests. However, concentra- tions began to
decline rapidly after 24 hours, presumably due to biodegrada-
tion of formaldehyde. This resulted in a calculated half-life of
66 to 72 hours in static exposure systems. According to a review
by Kitchens et al. (1976), complete degradation of formaldehyde
in water occurs within 48 to 72 hours under optimum conditions.
Due to the rapid decline of concentrations in static exposures,
an adjustment factor was necessary for the interpretation of data
from static tests. Brooke (1987) conducted a comparable flow-
through measured exposure and a static, measured exposure (based
upon 0-hr measurement) with the fathead minnow, Pimephales
promelas (Table 1). The ratio of the flow-through to static 96-hr
III-l
-------
LC50s was 0.5530. Therefore, all results reported in Table 1 from
static exposures in which concentrations of formaldehyde were not
measured were multiplied by 0.5530 to obtain an adjusted LC50 or
EC50. Only adjusted values are used in the calculation of the
Advisory Concentration and only results in Table 1 were adjusted.
Effects on Freshwater Organisms
A majority of the tests described here were conducted using
a commercial aqueous formaldehyde solution, formalin, as the
stock solution. Results which were reported as concentration of
formalin were converted to concentration of formaldehyde assuming
a saturated 37% formaldehyde solution. Commercial formalin
preparations contain up to 15% methanol as a stabilizer. The
toxicity of methanol to aquatic organisms is low. For example,
the 96-hr LC50 for methanol in the rainbow trout was
approximately 15 g/L (Mayer and Ellersieck 1986). Only one
researcher (Brooke 1987) has conducted tests using non-formulated
formaldehyde (generated by heating paraformaldehyde) and
measuring the concentrations of formaldehyde in test chambers.
Data generated in this manner for the fathead minnow were in
agreement with data on other fish. This provides additional
support to the assumption that methanol in commercial formalin
solutions has a negligible effect on the results of acute
toxicity tests with formaldehyde.
Acceptable data on the acute toxicity of formaldehyde to
freshwater organisms are available for five species of
invertebrates and eleven species of fish. (Table 1).
Invertebrates represent both the most susceptible and the most
resistant species to formaldehyde. All were tested by Bills et
al. (1977). The mean adjusted 96-hr LC50s were 19,025 g/L for a
snail, Helisoma sp., 31,120 g/L for adult clams, Corbicula
manilensis, 170,800 g/L for the backswimmer, Notonecta sp., and
95,180 g/L for the prawn, Palaemonetes kadiakensis. An
ostracod, Cypridopsis sp., was the most sensitive organism
tested, with an adjusted 96-hr LC50 of 216 g/L. Although this
value is much lower than those reported for other invertebrates,
insufficient data are available to warrant exclusion of this data
from the calculation of the aquatic life advisory concentration
for formaldehyde.
Hilton and Eversole (1978, 1979, 1980) tested three life
stages of the American eel (Anguilla rostrata), including adult,
black, and glass eel stages. The glass eel, which was the
earliest life stage tested, was the most sensitive with an
adjusted 96-hr LC50 of 17,200 g/L. Three salmonids were exposed
by Marking et al. (1984) and Bills et al. (1977). The mean
adjusted 96-hr LC50s were 41,600 g/L for the rainbow trout
(Salmo qairdneri). 64,000 g/L for the Atlantic salmon (Salmo
salar). and 37,000 g/L for the lake trout (Salvelinus
namaycush).
111-2
-------
Brooke (1987) reported a 96-hr LC50 of 24,500 g/L for the
fathead minnow (Pimephales promelas)in a measured flow-through
exposure. Two ictalurids, the black bullhead, Ictalurus melas.
and the channel catfish, Ictalurus punctatus. had mean 96-hr
LC50s of 23,000 and 20,730 g/L, respectively. Acute values were
also available for four species of centrachids. Mean 96-hr LC50s
were 64,000 g/L for the green sunfish (Lepomis cyanellus).
36,050 g/L for the bluegill (Lepomis macrochirus). 50,300 g/L
for the smallmouth bass (Micropterus dolomieui). and 52,900 g/L
for the largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides). Ranked Genus
Mean Acute Values (GMAV) are presented in Table 2.
No acceptable data are available on the chronic toxicity of
formaldehyde to freshwater organisms. Nazarenko (1960) conducted
a 51-day exposure of fry of Leucaspius delineatus. a cyprinid
which is not resident to North America. The resulting 51-day LC50
was 5,200 g/L (Table 3).
Other acute toxicity data are summarized in Table 3. Data
for most organisms are similar to the values reported for related
species, genera, and families included in Table 1. Some
exceptions are discussed below. The hydra, Hydra attenuata.
suffered increased mortality after exposure to a concentration of
only 3 g/L. Nazarenko (1960) reported that the LC50 for D.
magna decreased from 17,780 g/L at 24 hours to 2,240 g/L at
120 hours. Control mortality was higher than recommended in the
longer exposures. In contrast, Dowden and Bennett (1965) reported
that the 24-hr LC50 for D^ magna was between 100,000 and
1,000,000 g/L.
Sills (1979) studied the uptake of formaldehyde by several
freshwater fish. In 1 to 3-hr exposures, no fish were reported to
accumulate detectable amounts of formaldehyde.
Allison (1962) conducted a study on the effects of formalin
treatment to ponds and small artificial pools. In the pools,
formalin applied at 15 and 25 ppm (approximately 5,600 and 9,300
g formaldehyde/L) resulted in a reduction in plankton biomass of
5 to 63%. In the ponds, which ranged in size from 12.4 to 22
acres, application of formalin at 10 ppm (approximately 3,700
g/L as formaldehyde) produced a rapid decline in dissolved oxygen
concentrations. In some ponds this resulted in large fish kills.
The author concluded that reduced oxygen concentrations were the
result of an increased biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) produced
by decaying organisms. An increased BOD resulting from the
biodegradation of formaldehyde could also have been an
explanation for this phenomena. The effect of formaldehyde on
dissolved oxygen concentrations should be considered an important
water quality issue, and is not adequately addressed by
traditional toxicity tests.
III-3
-------
Effects on Saltwater Organisms
Acceptable data on the acute toxicity of formaldehyde to
saltwater organisms are available for one species of fish (Table
1). The pompano, Trachinotus carolinus. was tested at three
different salinities by Birdsong and Avault (1971). The toxicity
of formaldehyde increased only slightly with increased salinity.
The mean adjusted 96-hr LC50 was 14,700 g/L.
No acceptable data are available on the chronic toxicity of
formaldehyde to saltwater organisms. However, Leong et al. (1980)
exposed 2-month-old loggerhead turtles (Caretta caretta) to
formalin for periods up to 10 days. Concentrations of 400,000
g/L did not affect the turtles. Signs of irritation were noted
during exposure to 800,000 g/L (Table 3).
Calculation of Advisory Concentration
A total of seventeen Species Mean Acute Values (SMAVs) and
thirteen Genus Mean Acute Values (GMAVs) are available for
freshwater and saltwater organisms (Table 2). Values ranged from
216 g/L for Cypridopsis to 170,000 g/L for Notonecta. The
lowest GMAV (216 g/L) is divided by a factor of 3.4, in
accordance with the advisory guidelines, resulting in an Advisory
Acute Value (AAV) of 63.53 g/L. In the absence of any
experimentally determined acute-chronic ratios, an Advisory
Acute-Chronic Ratio (AACR) of 25 was assumed. The FAV (63.53
g/L) was divided by the AACR (25) resulting in an Aquatic Life
Advisory Concentration of 2.5 g/L.
111-4
-------
loble I Acute loxicily of foi mu I dchyde to Aquatic Animals
Spec i es
Method Chemi col
Hardness
(mg/L as
CaCOjl
LCSI)
or EC5U
(^q/L)b
Adj us t ed
LC5Q or EC50
Species Mean
Acute Value
(/W-l
Reference
FRESHWATER SPECIES
Snail,
Heli soma sp .
S, U f orma Ii n
34.400 19.020
19,020
tills et al . 1977
As i at i c cI am
(adult),
Corb i c uI a
man iI ensi s
S, U forma Ii n 16-26
46,600 25,770
Bills et al. 1977;
Chandler and Marking
1979
Asiatic cI am
(adult),
Corb i cuI a
man i1 ens i s
f, U f ormoli n I 6-26
35,200
35.200
31 ,1 20
Bills et al 1977;
Chandler and Marking
1979
Ost rocod,
Cypr idops i s sp.
S. U
f ormaIi n
390
216
21 6
BiI Is et al 1977
Bac ksw i mmer,
Hotonecto sp
S. U
forma Ii n
308,900 170,800
170,800
li lis et al . 1977
Prawn,
Poloemonet es
kod i ok ens i s
S. U
f ormaIi n
172,100 95,180
95.180
Bills et al. I 977
American eel
(glass eel stage) ,
Anou iI I a rost rata
S. U f ormaIi n 40-48
31,100 17,200
Hilton and Eversole
I 978
American eel
(black eel stage),
Anqu iI Io rost rot a
S , U f orma I i n 40-48
83.100
45,960
Hilton and Eversole
I 979
-------
Table I
(cont i nued)
Species Method"
American eel S, U
(aduIt),
AnquiI Io rostrolo
Rainbow trout S. U
(I 0 g).
Solmo goi rdner i
Rainbow trout S. U
(i o g).
So I mo go i rdner i
Rainbow trout S, U
d o g).
So I mo go i rdner i
Rainbow trout S, U
(10 g).
So I mo go i rdner i
Rainbow trout S, U
(i o g).
SaI mo go i rdner i
Rainbow trout f, U
(f i ngerIi ng),
SaI mo ga i rdner i
Ra i nbow trout f, U
(fingerling),
So I mo go i rdner i
Hardness LC5I)
(mg/L as or CC5U
Chemi col CoCOj) (tiq/L) **
formalin 40-48 122,000
f orma I i'n I 20 45, 300
formal in I 20 43,500
formal in 120 45,300
formaI in I 20 43,800
forma Ii n 120 51 ,400
formal i n sof t 9(1,700
forma tin soft 4 j., 700
Adjusted Species Uean
LCS0 or EC5U Acute Value
t/iq/L)C (tiq/Ll Ref crence
67,470^ 17,200 Hilton and Gversole
1980
25,050 - Morking et al . 1984
25,060 - Marking et al. 1984
25.050 - Marking et al I9B4
24,220 - Marking et ol. 1984
28.980 - Marking et al. 1984
90,700 - Bills et al. 1977
43,700 - Bills et al 1977
-------
Table I (conlinued)
Spec i es Met hod Chemi col
Rainbow trout F, U formalin
(fi ngerling),
Sol mo go i rdner i
Hardness
(rog/L as
CoCOj)
hard
LC5U
or EC5II
63.600
Rainbow trout F, U formalin very 63,300
(fingerling) , hord
SaI mo go i rdner i
Rainbow trout F, U formalin soft 63,300
(fi ngerling),
So I mo qa i rdner i
Rainbow trout F, U Formalin soft 63,600
(f i ngerling),
SaI mo go i rdner i
Rainbow trout F, U formalin soft 37,000
(finger ling),
SoImo go i rdner i
Rainbow trout F, U formalin soft 39.600
(f i ngerli ng),
SaImo qa i rdner i
Rainbow trout T, U formalin soft 44 80U
(f i ngerling),
SaImo qg irdner i
Atlantic salmon F, U formalin - 64 000
(f i ngerIi ng) ,
SoImo solar
Adj usted
LCSI) or EC5U
Species Mean
Acute Value
-------
Table I. (continued)
Spec i es
Lake trout
(f i ngerIi ng),
Solveli nus
nomovcush
Met hod
F. U
Chenti col
forma Ii n
Hardness
(mg/L as
CaCOj)
LCSII
or CC5II
_Ltia/Llb
37.000
Fot head mi nnow S,
(30 day) ,
P i mephoIes
promelos
Fathead minnow S,
(30 day) ,
Pimephales
promeI as
Fat head mi nno* S,
(30 day) ,
P i mephoIes
promelas
U formaldehyde
(>90*)
0
U formaldehyde
(>90%)
U formaldehyde
(>90*)
49 8 39,600
49 8 44,300
49 8 26,300
fathead minno* F, U formaldehyde 50.8 24,500
( 30 day) , (>90*)
P i mephoIes
promeIos
Black bullhead F, U formalin - 23,000
(f i ngerli ng),
Ic t a I urus me I as
Channel catfish S, U formalin 22 25,500
(fi ngerling),
Ic t a Iurus
punctotus
Adjusted
LC5U or EC50
<*"»/L)C
Species Uean
Acute Value
("q/H
Reference
37,000 37,000
21,900
24,500
26,300
24,500 24,500
23,000 23,000
I 2.860
Bills et al. 1977
Brooke 1987
Brooke 1987
Brooke 1987
Brooke 1987
Sills et a I 1977
Clemens and Sneed
1958
-------
Iable I. (conli nued)
Spec i es Met hod"
Channel catfish f, U
(f i ngerling),
I c ta Iurus
nunc t a t us
Channel catfish f, U
(f i ngerling),
I c t a Iur us
punc t at us
Channel cat fish f", U
(finger ling),
I c t a Iurus
punc t at us
Channel catfish f, U
(fingerling),
I c t a Iurus
punc t a t us
Chonnel catfish f, U
(f i ngerling),
Ic ta Iurus
punc t ot us
Channel cat fish F, U
(fingerling),
Ic t a Iurus
punc t at us
Channel catfish F, U
( f i tiger I i ng ) ,
I c t a Iurus
Hardness LC5U
(mg/L as or EC5II
Chemi col CoCOj) (
-------
Table I (continued)
Hardness LC5II
(mg/L as or EC50
Spec i es Met hod" Chemi col CoCQj) (uq/L) **
Channel catfish F, U formalin soft 20,900
(f i ngerIi ng) ,
Ic t oIurus
punc t a t us
Chonnel catfish F, U formalin soft 15,900
(f i ngerling),
Ic t a Iurus
punc t a t us
Green sunfish F, U formalin - 64,000
(f i ngerling),
Lepomi s cvanelI us
Bluegill, F, U formalin soft 37,000
(f i ngerli ng),
Lepomi s
macrochi rus
Bluegill, F, U formalin soft 27,200
(finger ling),
Lepomi s
mac roc li i rus
Bluegill, F, U formalin soft 33,700
(f i ngerli ng),
Lepomi s
macroch i rus
Bluegill, F, U formalin very 32,700
(f i ngerI i ng) , soft
Lepomi s
macrocli i rus
Adjusted Species Uean
LC5U or CC5Q Acute Value
(
-------
Table I
(con Iinued)
Spec i es
B1uegiI I,
( f i nger ling)
Lepomi s
moiroch i rus
Met hod
r. U
Clieroi col
f ormaIi n
Hardness
(mg/L as
CoCOj)
hard
LC5II
or CC50
_ltiaZklb
39.200
B I ueg iI I,
(f i ngerIi ng),
Lepomis
macrochi rus
F. U
formaIi n
very
hard
43,300
B I ueg i I I ,
(Tingerling),
Lepoini s
mocrochi rus
r. U
formaIi n
soTt
46,300
BIueg iII,
(f i ngerling)
Lepomi s
macroch i rus
r. U
formaIi n
soft
31,900
BIueg ill,
(f i nger ling).
Iepomi s
macroc h i r us
F, U
formaIi n
soft
37,000
SmalImouth bass
(f i nger ling).
Mi cropt erus
do Iomi eu i
F, U
Formali n
5C.300
Largemoulh bass
Micropt erus
ha I ino i des
F, U
formaIi n
52,900
Adj ust ed
LC5(1 or EC50
Species Uean
Acute Value
(pq/i)
Reference
3f,200
43,300
46,300
31,900
37,000
50,300
Bills et al 1977
Bills et al 1977
Bills et al 1977
Bills et al. 1977
36,050 Bills et al 1977
50,300 Bills et al 1977
52,900
52,900
Bills et al 1977
-------
Table I
(con t i nued)
LC5II Adjusted Species Uean
Salinity or EC5U LC50 or EC5U Acute Value
Species Method0 Chemical (a/tal (
-------
Table 2. Ranked Genus Uean Acute Values «illi Species Mean Acute-Chronic Ratios
Rank
Genus Uean
Acule Value
f jjq/l )
Spec i es
Species Uean
Acute Value
(pq/i)b
Species Uean
Acute-Chroni c
Rot i o
13
I 70,800
Backswimmer,
Hot onec t o s p
170,800
12
95,I 80 Prawn ,
Pa Iaemonet es kad i ok ensi s
95.180
I I
51,584 Largemouth bass,
Micropterus so I mo i des
52,900
SmaI Imout h boss,
Mi cropterus dolomi eu i
50.300
10
51,600 Atlantic salmon,
So I mo solar
64,000
Ra i nbo« trout ,
So I mo qa i rdner i
41 , 600
48,030 Green sunfish,
Lepomi s cyoneI I us
64,000
BIueg ill,
Lepomi s mocroch i rus
36,050
37,000 Lake trout ,
Solve!i nus nomovcush
37.000
7
31,I 20
Asiatic clam,
Cor b i c uI a moniI ens i s
31 , I 20
-------
Table 2.
( cont i nued)
Genus Mean Species Mean Species Ucan
Acute Value Acute Value Acute-Chronic
ec i es (uq/L1^ Ratio
24.500 fathead minnow, 24,500
P i mepho Ies proroeI as
21,840 Black bulIhead, 23,000
Ic t a Iurus me I as
Channel catfish, 20,730
Ic t a Iurus punctotus
19,020 Snail, 19,020
Heli soma sp
17,200 American eel, 17,200
AnquiI I a rost roto
14,700 Pompano, 14,700
Trac h i no t us caroli nus
216 Ostracod, 216
Cypr i dops i s sp.
Ranked from most resistont to most sensitive based on Genus Mean Acute Value,
k Trom Table I
final Acute Value = 216 / 3 4 = 63 53 ftg/L
Advisory Acute-Chronic Ratio = 25
Advisory Concentration = ( 63 53 //g/L)/ 25 = 2 5 /ig/L
-------
Table 3. Oilier Data on Effects of formaldehyde on Aquatic Organisms
Spec i es
Chemi caI
Hardness
(mg/L as
CoCOj)
Durali on
Effect
Concent rat ion
Reference
FRESHWATER SPECIES
Fungus,
Aphonomvces
as t oc i
1 hr exposure,
4 hr recovery
EC50
(spore germination)
19,000
Hall and Unestam
1980
Tungus,
Aphonomvces
as t oc i
I hr exposure;
3 day recovery
Reduced
growth
27,000
Hall and Unes t am
1980
F ungus,
Aphonomvces
as t oc i
I hr exposure, No effect
10 day recovery on growth
80,000
Hall and Unes t am
1980
F ungus,
Laqen i d i urn spp
24 hr
ECS0 (myceIi a I
grouth)
13,200
Lio-Po et al. 1982
Green algo,
Anfc ist rodesmus
f a IcoI us
46 days
Increased growth
I ,000
Nazarenlco I960
Green alga,
Ant is t rodesmus
f a IcaI us
46 days
74Z growth
reduc t ion
5,000
Nazarenlto I960
Green alga,
Sc enedesmus
quadr i Cauda
8 days
Incipient
inhibition
300
Bringmann and Kuhn
1959 a,b
Uac rophy t e,
Cera t optiy I I um
d emers um
27 days
Reduced
growth
5,000
Na2orenlto 1960
-------
Table 3. (cont i nued)
Hardness
(mg/L as
Spec i es Chemical CaCOj)
Ourat i on
Macrophyte, - - 9 days
Ceratophv11um
demersum
Protozoan, - - 28 hr
Mi croreqmo
het erostomo
Hydra (adul t), - - 90 hr
Hydra ottenuato
Cladoceran, - - 24 hr
Daphni a magna
Cladoceran, - - 48 hr
Daphni a magna
Cladoceran, - - 72 hr
Daphni a magna
Cladoceran, - - 96 hr
Daphni a magna
CIadoceran, - - I 20 hr
Dophni o magna
Cladoceran, - - 24 hr
Daphni a magna
Fairy shrimp, - I 20 48 hr
St rept ocephaI us
sea I i
Effect
I 007. mor t a 1 i t y
Concent rot i on
(/"¦/LI"
20,000
Reference
Nazarenko I960
Incipient
inhibition
5, 000
Bringmann and Kuhn
1959a
Incipient
mor ta I i t y
Kudlo 1984
LC50 (fed)
17,780
Nazarenko I960
LC50 (fed)
LC50 (Ted)
LC50 (fed)
LC50 (fed)
LCS0 (fed)
7,720
5,860
b, c
3.490
b, c
b, c
2. 240
100.000 -
I .000,000
Nazarenko I960
Nazarenko I960
Nazarenko I960
Nazarenko I960
Doxden and
Bennett 1965
No significant
mor t a Ii t y
9,250
Uoss 1978
-------
loble 3. (conli nued)
Spec i es
Coho salmon,
Oncorhynchus
k i s u t c h
Chemi col
f ormali n
Hardness
(mg/L as
CoCOjl
Duroti on
I hr
Coho salmon,
Oncorhynchus
k i sutch
f ormali n
I hr
Coho salmon
(smolt j,
Oncorhynchus
li i sutch
formali n
I hr exposure,
10 day recovery
Chinook salmon
(2.6 in).
Oncorhynchus
tshawvtscho
Chinook salmon
(2 6 in ) ,
Oncorhynchus
tshaxvtscha
Ra i nbow t rout ,
So I mo go i rdneri
Ra i nbow trout ,
Sol mo go irdner i
forma Ii n
< 51 9 hr
Ra i nbow t rout ,
So I mo go i rdner i
F ormaIi n
250
> 72 hr
48 hr
I hr
48 hr
Effect
BCr = < 0 05
Concent rot i on
(lia/Ll" ' Reference
.000
Sills 1979
BCr = < 0 05 111,000 Si I Is 1979
No effect on
surv i voI
167,000
Bauck and Johnson
1979
LT50
50,000
Hoi land et at. I 964
LT50
28,200
Hoi I and et at 1964
LC50
50,000
Alabaster 1969
Gill damage 61 ,800
Fromm and Olson
1973
No effect
on flavor
56,000
Shumoay and
Pa I ens k y 1973
-------
Table 3. (continued)
Hardness
(mg/L as
Spec i es Chemi col CaCOj)
Rainbow trout
(adult),
So I mo qa i rd ner i
Rainbow trout, formalin
So I mo qa i rdner i
Rainbow trout formalin
(3 I in).
So I mo ao i rd ner i
Rainbow trout formalin
(3.1 in.).
So I mo go i rdner i
Rainbow trout formalin
(3 I in.),
So I mo qa i rdner i
Rainbow trout, formalin
So I mo qa i rdner i
Brown trout, formalin
So I mo t rut t a
Brook trout , f ormaIi n
So Iveli nus
f on t i no Ii s
Loketrout, f ormaIi n
SaIveli nus
nomovcush
Duroti on
24 hr
I hr
< 23 8 hr
< 45.0 hr
> 72 hr
48 hr
48 hr
48 hr
48 hr
Concentrat ion
Cf f ec t (uq/L)° Ref erence
LCIUO 64,000 Lysak and
Marc i nek I 972
BCF = < 0 05
III,000
Sills I 979
LT50
100,000
Ho I I and et a I
1964
LT 50
56,300
NolIond et a I
1964
LT50
31 .800
Holland et a I
1964
LT50
62.200
Willford 1966
LC50
68,500
Willford 1966
IC50
58,100
Willford 1966
LC50
61 .800
Willford 1966
-------
Tabic 3.
(con Ii nued)
Hardness
(mg/L as
Spec i es Chemi ca I CaCOj)
Duration
Cyprinid (fry), 51 days
Leucaspi us
deli neo t us*^
Emerald shiner, - - 120 hr
Not ropi s
other i noi des
Spotfin shiner, - - 120 hr
Not rop i s
spiI opt erus
Guppy, - - I 4 day
Poec iIi o
reticulata
Channel catfish, formalin - 3 hr
Ict a Iurus
punctatus
Channel catfish, formalin - 48 hr
Ic t oIurus
punctatus
Bluegill formalin - 48 hr
lepomi s
macroch i rus
Largemouth bass formalin - 10 min
(embryo).
Mi cropt erus
soImoides
Effect
Concentraf i on
(nq/l\° Ref erence
LC50
5,200 Nazarenko I960
I nc i pi ent
mort a I i t y
50,000
Van Horn et al
1949
I nc i pi ent
mort a I i t y
50,000
Van Horn et al
1949
LC50
32,890
Hermans et al
1985
BCr= < 0.05
,000
Sills 1979
LC50
35,500 Willford 1966
LC50
51.800 WiI I ford I 966
No effect
on hot ch i ng
3,700,000
Wright 1976
-------
Tab Ie 3. (conli nued)
Hardness
(mg/L as
Speci es Chemi col CoCOjl
Largemouth bass formalin
(Iarva).
Mi crop)erus
so I mo i des
Largemouth bass formalin
( fry) ,
Mi cropterus
soImoides
Largemouth bass formalin
(embryo),
Mi cropterus
so I mo i des
Largemouth bass, formalin
Mi cropterus
saI mo i des
Loggerhead turtle formalin
(2 mont h),
Caret t a
coret t a
Loggerhead turtle formalin
(2 mon t h),
Coret t a
caret t a
0 Results report as concentration of formal
saturated i77. formalin slock solution
^ Calculated from table
C High control mortality
^ Not resident to North America
Durati on
Effect
Concent ra t i on
(iig/L)° Ref erence
10 mi n No effect 3,700,000 Wright 1976
on surv i vat
48 hr LC50 36,200 Wright 1976
15 min No effect 555,000 Wright and Sno*
on hatching 1975
3 hr BCr = < 0.05 III,000 Sills 1979
SALTWATER SPECIES
10 days No observed 400,000 Leong et al.
effects 1980
< 10 days Irritation 800,000 Leong et al.
1980
*ere conve'ted to concentration of f orma I detiy de assuming o
-------
SECTION IV.REFERENCES
Alabaster, J.S. 1969. Survival of fish in 164 herbicides,
insecticides, fundicides, wetting agents and miscellaneous
substances. Int. Pest. Control 11:29-35.
Allison, R. 1962. The effects of formalin and other parasiticides
upon oxygen concentrations in ponds. Proc. 16th Annual Conf.
Southeast. Assoc. Game Fish Commission. 16:446-449.
Bills, T.D., L.L. Marking and J.H. Chandler, Jr. 1977. Formalin:
Its toxicity to non target aquatic organisms, persistence, and
counteraction. Investigations in Fish Control, No. 73, U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C..
Birdsong, C.L. and J.W. Avault, Jr. 1971. Toxicity of certain
chemicals to juvenile pompano. Prog. Fish-Cult. 33: 76-80.
Bouck, G.R. and D.A. Johnson. 1979. Medication inhibits tolerance
to seawater in coho salmon smolts. Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. 108:63-
66.
Bringmann, G. and K. Huhn. 1959a. Water-toxicological
investigations with protozoa as test organisms. Gesundh. Ingen.
8:239-242.
Bringmann, G. and K. Huhn. 1959b. The toxic effects of waste
water on aquatic bacteria, algae and small crustaceans. Gesundh.
Ingen. 4:115-120.
Brooke, L.T. 1987. Center for Lake Superior Environmental
Studies, University of Wisconsin-Superior, Superior, WI.
(Memorandum to L.J. Larson, Center for Lake Superior
Environmental Studies, University of Wisconsin-Superior,
Superior, WI. August 31).
Chandler, J.H., Jr. and L.L. Marking. 1979. Toxicity of fishery
chemicals to the asiatic clam, Corbicula manilensis. Prog. Fish-
Cult. 41:148-151.
Clemens, H.P. and K.E. Sneed. 1958. The chemical control of some
diseases and parasites of channel catfish. Prog. Fish-Cult. 20:
8-15.
Dowden, B.F. and H.J. Bennett. 1965. Toxicity of selected
chemicals to certain animals. J. Water Pollut. Control Fed.
37:1308-1316.
Fromm, P.O. and K.R. Olson. 1973. Industrial and municipal
wastes: Action of some water soluble pollutants on fish. PB-
237428. National Technical Information Service, Springfield, VA.
IV-1
-------
Hall, L. and T. Unestam. 1980. The effect of fungicides on
survival of the crayfish plague fungus Aphanomvces astaci.
growing on fish scales. Mycopathologia 72:131-134.
Hermans, J., F. Busser, P. Leeuwang and A. Musch. 1985.
Quanitative correlation studies between the acute lethal toxicity
of 15 organic halides to the guppy (Poecilla reticulata) and
chemical reactivity towards 4-nitrobenzylpyridine. Toxicol.
Environ. Chem. 9:219-236.
Hilton, M.J. and A.G. Eversole. 1978. Toxicity of ten commonly
used chemicals to american eels. Proc. Ann. Conf. S.E. Assoc.
Fish and Wildl. Agencies. 32:599-604.
Hilton, M.J. and A.G. Eversole. 1979. Toxicity of ten chemicals
commonly used in aquaculture to the black eel stage of the
american eel. Proc. World Maricul. Soc. 10:554-560.
Hilton, M.J. and A.G. Eversole. 1980. Toxicity and tolerance
studies with yellow-phase eels: Five chemicals. Prog. Fish-Cult.
42:201-203.
Holland, G.A., J.E. Lasater, E.D. Neumann and W.E. Eldridge.
1964. Toxic effects of organic and inorganic pollutants on young
salmon and trout. Research Bulletin No. 5. Washington State
Department of Fisheries, Seattle, WA.
Kitchens, J.F., R.E. Casner, G.S. Edwards, W.E. Harward and B.J.
Marci. 1976. Investigation of selected potential environmental
contaminants: Formaldehyde. EPA-560/2-76-009. National Technical
Information Service, Springfield, VA.
Kudla, A.J. 1984. Hydra reaggragation: A rapid assay to predict
teratogenic hazards induced by environmental toxicity. J. Wash.
Acad. Sci. 74:102-107.
Leong, J.K., R.S. Wheeler and L.M. Lansford. 1980. Tolerance and
responses of normal and diseased loggerhead turtles (Caretta
caretta) to some chemotherapeutics. Proc. World Maricul. Soc.
11:291-302.
Lio-Po, G.D., M.E.G. Sanvictores, M.C.L. Baticados and C.R.
Lavilla. 1982. In vitro effect of fungicides on hyphal growth and
sporogenesis of Laqenidium spp. isolated from Penaeus monodon
larvae and Scylla serrota eggs. J. Fish Dis. 5:97-112.
Lysak, A. and J. Marcinek. 1972. Multiple toxic effect of
simultaneous action of some chemical substances on fish. Rocz.
Nauk Roln. Ser. H Rybactivo. 94(3):53-63.
Marking, L.L., T.D. Bills and J.R. Crowther. 1984. Effects of
five diets on sensitivity of rainbow trout to eleven chemicals.
Prog. Fish-Cult. 46:1-5.
IV-2
-------
SECTION V. EPA CONTACTS
AQUATIC LIFE ADVISORIES
For further information regarding the aquatic life and fish and
water exposure advisories contact:
FTS 382-7144 (202)382-7144
FTS 475-7315 (202)475-7315
V-l
------- |