ljual native Ambient Toxicity
Purveys ot tne Lower Calcasieu River, Louisiana
Final Report
Environmental Protection Agency
Uallas, lexas 7b27U
Environmental Services Division
-------
Qualitative Ambient Toxicity
Purveys ot trie Lower Calcasieu River, Louisiana
final Report
Environmental Protection Agency
Dal las, Texas 7b27U
Environmental Services Division
-------
txecutive Summary
Members of the Louisiana Department of tnvironmentaI Quality (LL>Lgj
collected water samples from six sites on the Calcasieu River anci its
tributaries in December of 1964. Trie sites were located upstream from
trie Saltwater Control Structure, In Bayou Verdine and Bayou D'Inoe, at
Vincent's Landing ana at burton's Landing. All samples collected during
December lyb4 were lethal to the marine alga, Champia parvula. Samples
from five of six sites were toxic to fertilization in tne sea urchin,
Aroacia punctulata. None of tne samples were toxic to luminescent bacteria
in the Microtox test. Samples aged for two weeks gave similar results
in the Criampia and Microtox tests. Chemical analysis of the samples was
not conducted as part of tnis survey.
because the Champia and Aroacia tests are relatively new marine toxicity
tests wmcn nau not previously been applied in Louisiana coastal waters
anotner set of water samples were collected for toxicity testing and
supporting crieinical analysis during August 19bb. Tne sampling sites
cnosen Tor the December survey were sampled again along witn Moss Bluff
and tne West Cove ot Calcasieu Lake. This stuuy was designeu to follow
up on trie Uecember survey and qualitatively screen tile ambient water tor
toxicity under low rlow conditions.
Samples from six ot seven sues visited during August inhibited
reproduction in the Champia test. Samples from tnree sites inhibited
fertilization in tiie Arbacia test. Une sample inniDited the survival
ana growtn ot the sheepsheaa minnow. None ot the samples were toxic to
rnysid snrimp.
Samples from botn seasons were consistently most toxic to Champia
ana Aroacia. Tne one exception is the greater toxicity in tne sheepsneaa
minnow test witn trie sample collected trom Vincent's Landing auring
August. The sensitivity ot tne Cnampia and Arbacia tests may be relatea
to their reproductive endpomts. Tne other tests used in tnis study
measureu toxicity as reductions in survival, growth or bacterial luminescence.
iinc, uri-ionized, ammonia and ten volatile organic compounds were
detecteu in the August samples at concentrations tnat were less than
tnose reporteo to cause toxicity as single chemicals. The toxicity ot
these chemicals in complex mixtures is not known. Bis pntnalate was
also detected but considered to be acontaminant.
The calculated concentrations ot hydrogen sulfide at Moss Bluff,
vO.Ubb mg/l) Bayou Verdine (U.Obb mg/1) aria Bayou D'Inde ^U.U4b mg/l)
were a order of magnitude greater the U.UUii mg/l criterion for freshwater
and marine aquatic lite (US£PA. iWbj. Because ot the uncertainty entered
into these calculations by the use of total rather than dissolved sulfide
they do not aocument violations of water quality criteria. Tney do
indicate a potential source ot toxicity in these samples.
i
-------
Toxicity in trie Arbacia test correlated to sulfide (r=-u.8377) arid
hydrogen sulfide (r=-U.90b3) in samples frum S.H. 171, Bayuu Verume and
Bayou U'Inde. it is our supposition that hydrogen sulfide in a causitive
ayent in the toxicity to Arbacia.
Toxicity in the sheepshead test correlated to uri-ionized ammonia
(r=-U.714), volatile organics ^-U.Blb; ana the maustrial site classi-
fication (r=-U.bob). These associations correspond to Vincent's Landing,
Burton's Landing, Bayou Verdine arid Bayou D'Inde. The correlations suggest
aduitive toxicity of a complex mixture.
It is recommended that toxicity tests be conducted witn the effluents
discharging into Bayou D'Inde, Bayou Verdine and into the Calcasieu Kiver
arouna Vincent's Landing. The combined weight of the evidence from the
toxicity tests aria cnemical analysis indicates that these areas have
toxicity problems and require further investigation. Technical guidelines
for eftluerit testing arc provided in the Technical Support Document for
Water ljual ity based-Toxics Control.
11
-------
Project Personnel
tPh LUtg LUgh
Mike Bastian Tom Killeen Cnris Pienler
Piiil Crocker
Terry Hoi lister
Barry Nash
Carl Young
David Parnsn
iii
-------
TAbLt OF CONTENTS
Page No.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1
PROJECT PERSONNEL 11
TABLE OF CONTENTS ill
LIST OF TAbLES llll
INTRODUCTION i
UtSCKlPTlON OF STUDY AREA AND SAMPLING SITES i
METHODS 5
Sampling Procedures...
Field Measurements
Laooratory Metnods
RESULTS 8
General Water Quality Parameters b
Cnemical Analysis for Toxicants 10
Winter Toxicity Results 13
Summer Toxicity Results lb
Correlation Analysis lb
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIUNS 19
blBLIObRMPHY 'Hi
AHPtNDIX-A/QUALlTY ASSURANCE SUMMARY
APPENDIX-B/CORRELATION ANALYSIS
IV
-------
1hTKUUUUTIUN
Trie Calcasieu Kiver basin has historically had many water quality
problems. Tne river between Uakdale and tne Gulf of Mexico is considered
to be one of tne critical water quality problems areas in Louisiana.
(Louisiana Water Quality Inventory, 19b4) Tms reach of the river
receives a large number of municipal ana industrial discharges, particu-
larly in the vicinity of the City of Lake Cnarles.
During December 1913*+, members of the Lutlj collected water samples
from five sites located upstream, within and downstream from the industrial
corriaor surroundiny Lake Charles. The samples were sent to tne tPA
tnvironmental kesearcn Laboratory at Narrayansett, Khooe Island ^tKL-N)
where they were assayed tor their effect on reproduction in the marine
red alga Champia parvula, fertilization in tne sea urchin Aroacia punctu-
Iold and bacterfal luminescence in tne Microtoxr test, Water from all
sites was toxic in var/iny degrees to Champia or Arbacia. In contract,
none ot tne samples were toxic in the microtox test.
Another round ot sample collection and testing was propsed by tPh
Keyion VI tor three reasons. One, the Champia and Arbacia tests are
relatively new marine toxicity tests whicn had not been previously applied
to Louisiana coastal waters. It was considered prudent to conduct a
second survey Decease ot tne douDts raised by these factors. Vwo, trie
Uecernoer samples rtau low salinities, rariying from U-3 parts per thousand
(pptj so E.RL-N adjusted the test water salinity to iJU ppi for the stanoaro
test conditions. Tms adjustment raised a question about how the salinity
cnange affected tne overall water chemistry. Three, there were no chemical
analysis to sugyest tne causes of toxicity.
Duriny the week of Muyust b, 1966 samples were collected at the
same sites as in December 1964 plus two additional ambient control site*
(boss Bluff and the West Cove ot Lake Calcasieu). The Cnampia and Arbacia
tests were conducted along witn tile sheepsrieau minnow (Cyprinodon variegatus)
larval growtn and survival test and the mysid (Mysidopsis baniajacute
toxicity test. Tne Microtox was not repeated oecause it showed no effect
witn tne earlier samples. Water samples were also collected for the
analysis ot conventional ana toxic compounds. Tne Aroacia, Champia arid
sneepshead toxicity tests were completed at tKL-N. The mysid tests and
the chemical analysis were completed at Keyion VI Laboratory in Houston,
Texas.
1ms study was designed to qualitatively screen ambient waters for
toxicity. The objective ot the study was to determine it grau water
samples from the river, bayou Veroine, and bayou U'lnde were toxic during
a period of minimal dilution ot effluents by the river. This represents
a condition when tne toxic effect of effluent discharges should De greatest,
assuming consistent treatment efficiency.
i
-------
lnis report presents trie results ot the cnenncal ana toxicity analyses
conuuctea witn tne samples collected during December 1984 and August 19ttb.
The results are discussed ana conclusions are arawri about our present
ability to assess ambient toxicity in the Calcasieu riiver.
2
-------
DESCRIPTION OF THE STUDY AREA AND SAMPLING SITES
Water samples were collected at the same sites (2,3,4,6 and 7)
during the winter ana summer sampling trips (Figure 1) Moss Bluff (site
1) and the West Cove of Calcasieu Lake (Site 5) were also sampled in
August. The sampling stations were distributed along approximately 50
miles of river.
Specific site locations are given below:
- Site 1, River mile (RM) 48 - Located on the Calcasieu River at S.H.
171. The site was located three miles upstream from the U.S. Corp of
Engineers Salt Water Control structure.
- Site 2 RM.42 - Located on the Calcasieu 200 M upstream from the Salt
Water Control Structure.
" Site 3 RM. - Located on the Calcasieu River at Vincent's Landing.
- Site 4 RM. 25 - Located on the Calcasieu River at Burton's Landing.
- Site 5 kM. 7 - Located in the West Cove of Calcasieu River.
- Site 6 RM.36 - Located on Bayou Verdine, a tributary of the Calcasieu
at the U.S. Interstate 10 bridge crossing.
" Site 7 RM. 34 - Located on Bayou D'Inde, a tributary to the Calcasieu,
at tne S.H. 108 bridge crossing.
Sites 1 and 2 are upstream from the industrial corridor surrounding
Lake Charles. They are aldo upstream from the Saltwater Control Structure.
The samples from the stations were intended to represent water chemistry
relatively unaffected by effluent discharges. Sites 1 and 2 are located
in Segment 0313 which is "Water Quality Limited" (Louisiana Water Quality
Inventory, 1984). However, they are 25 miles downstream from the nearest
upstream municipal discharge in the town of Kinder, Louisiana.
Sites 3 and 4 are located on the Calcasieu River in the industrial
corridor. Sites 6 and 7 are located on tributaries to the Calcasieu
River in the industrial corridor. All these stations were selected to
represent in the industrial corridor. All these stations were selected
to represent ambient water quality after mixing with effluent discharges.
Site 5 is located approximately 20 miles downstream from the industrial
corridor. It was also selected to represent water chemistry relatively
unaffected by effluent discharges. (E. Overton. 1985. Personal Communi-
cation).
3
-------
CALCASIEU
RIVER
BAYOU VERDINE
INTERSTATE 10
LAKE
HARL
BAYOU d'INDE
CONOCO REFINERY
B... CONOCO CHEMICAL
OLIN CHEMICAL
CITY SERVICES REFINERY
PPG CHEMICAL
W,R. Grace
(Ammonia Producer)
Firestone, Inc.
INTERCOASTAL WATERWAY
Figure 1. Study area showing
location of sampling stations
and major industrial facilities
vith joint source discharges.
o
-------
KtTHUUS
Samp1i ny Procedures
Water samples were collecteu at each station using a one liter
stainless steel wastewater sampler. Water samples destined for metals
analysis were collected in 9lass oottles. Chemical samples were collected
anu preserved according to tne procedures listed in the Handbook of
Sampling and Sample Preservation of Water and Wastewater, EPA bUU/14-tte-Ui!!y.
In the August iy«b survey, duplicate samples were collected for the
cneinical parameters at site 6. A set of field blanks (sample Dottles
filieci witn deionized water) was collected at site /. Toxicity samples
were collected according to tne procedures outlined in Snort Term Metnoos
for Estimating the Cnromc Toxicity of Effluents and Keceiving Waters to
Fresnwater Organisms EPa 6UU/'14-bb-ui4.
All winter samples were collected at a depth of one meter. Some samples
were collected at mid-stream; others were collected closer to a ban* off
a structure extending out into tne river.
All summer samples were collecteu at a mio-point in range of salinity
in tne water column. This mid-point was chosen to represent wnere mixing
occurs between fresri water discnarges and deeper, more saline river water.
All tnese samples were collected at mid-stream to eliminate the possibility
of sampling a banksioe effluent plume.
The custody of the summer samples was maintained according to the
procedure listed in _NE1C Policies and Procedures, EPA 33U/y-/b-UUi-k.
Samples collected fur toxicity testing at EKL-N were snipped Dy
overnignt express. Une set of toxicity samples were snipped to the
Region vl Laooratory in Houston oy overnight mail. A second set of
toxicity samples ano all cneinical samples were returned to tnat facility
by agency vemcle. All toxicity ano cnemical samples were delivered to
the laboratories witnin 24 hours of collection. A quality assurance
summary for tms stuuy is presented in Appendix A.
Field Measurements
Salinity was measured witn a Beckman RS V salinometer. Temperature
and pH were measured with a Marten Mark X meter. Dissolved oxygen was
measured by a Winkler titration. The standard procedures tor conducting
these measurements are described in the LPEtj Field Procedures Manual
(LUEg. iyuaj.
Laboratory Methods
Water samples collected during tne summer survey were analyzed for
conventional chemical parameters (CUU, chloride, sulfate, nardness,
alkalinity, TDS TSS) and tor toxicants including (1) metals, ammonia,
sulfide and cyanide {£) volatile orgamcs ^3; acid extractable organics
(41 base-neutral orgamcs and (b) pesticides and PiiCs samples were analyzed
by the methods referenced in 4U CFk Part iJb.
5
-------
List of Tables
Table No. Page No.
1. Toxicity Test Descriptions 7
1. Measurements ot Field Parameters in the Calcasieu River on December
13, 1984 ana during August 5-7, 1985 9
3. Laboratory Measurements of General Water Chemistry and
Pollutants in tne Calcasieu River during August b-7, 1985 11
4. Toxicity Data for Volatile Organic Compounds Detected in the
Calcasieu River during August 5-7, 1986 13
b. Results oT Toxicity Tests witn Water Samples Collected from
tne Calcasieu River during December 1984 and August 198b 14
b. Variables Correlateu in tne Spearman's Statistics.... 17
7. Spearman's Rank urder Correlations of Toxicant Concentrations,
Dissolved (Jxygen, Toxicity Test Results and Site Locations 18
Figure No.
1. Study area snowing location of sampling stations and major
industrial facilities with point source discharges 4
v
-------
Inree acute (Arbdda, mysia, toicrotoxj ana two chronic (Unainp 1 ct
sheepsneauj toxicity tests were used in this study (Tdble 1;. Therefore,
we ridu trie opportunity to evdludte toxicity usiny a vdriety ot organisms,
exposure periods, ana endpoints. We chose d Ddttery of tests to reduce
tne uncertainty of toxicity results associated witn the finding tndt
species sensitivity to particular toxicants an can vary Dy several orders
of magnitude (UStHA. 1^85).
All test species are saltwater organisms even tnougn there was a
low salinity in the winter samples (U-ii ppt) anu one low salinity summer
sample ^1.5 ppt;. it may have been more appropriate to use fresnwater
organisms with the winter samples but the low salinity in the river was
not anticipated before tne sample collection, it was appropriate to use
saltwater organisms witri all the summer samples because 6 of 7 samples
were too saline for freshwater testing ana oecause tne some organisms
haa to be testea with eacn sample to make the results comparable.
6
-------
Toxicity Test Descriptions
1dOIe i.
Urydnism/Test
Exposure
End Point
Test Period
Reference
ArDdCld punctuldtd
sed urchin
Microtox witn
Photobdcterium
phosphenum
static* tertiIization-toxicity as
reduction in tertiIizatioii
To I lowing exposure of
sperm to sample
static* luminescence-toxicity as
reduction in luminescence
following exposure of
bacteria to Sdmple
bU nun. exposure
dv miri. terti Ii/ation
period
lb nun exposure
Mysidopsis bdnid,
opossum snrimp
Cyprinodon variegdtus,
sheepshead minnow
Champid parvula,
marine red alga
static*
static**
renewal
Static*
survival-toxicity measured
as no movement of body or
appendages
growtn & survival-toxicity
measured as no movement or
reduced weight gam
reproduction-toxicit> as
reduction in number of
cystocarps(buds) per plant
Z day exposure
7 ddy exposure
'
-------
KLSULls
tieneral Water Quality Parameters
Ambient conditions at the sampling depths were different during the
summer ana winter surveys. During tne winter, tool, wel 1 -oxygenated
surface waters were sampled (Table '£). The pH ranged from neutrality to
slightly acidity and tne water was relatively tresn water (u-3ppt salinity).
During the summer warm, poorly-oxygeriated, stratified waters were sampled.
Dissolved oxygen (D.U.) concentrations were below the segment criteria
at all sites except station b where waters were shallowed and welI-aerated.
Trie D.O. criteria are b mg/1 at 1 and 2, 4 mg/l at stations 3,4 and b
and 2 mg/1 at stations b and 7 (Louisiana Water Quality Standards. i9U4).
The pH at tne resampled stations was U.2-U.9 S.U. more basic than was
recorded during Uecember. All waters except at station d were saline
(greater than b ppt salinity).
The mineral content ana the pH show an abrupt change at tne salt
water oarrier. This> trend is clearest in tne August sample*. Salinity
was considerably higher at stations 3,4,b,b and 7 downstream from tne
barrier. Concentrations of magnesium, chlorides, sulfates, total aissolved
solius, total suspended sulius, alkalinity arid naraness were also greater
downstream Vrom tne salt water barrier. 3). Tne pH was J.b-i.U
S.U. lower at sites 1 ana
-------
TdDle 2. Measurements ot rield Parameters in tne Calcasieu River
on December 13, 19b4 ana auriny Auyst b-7, 198b
Samp Ie
lte
DeptlHft)
D.O.(ppm)
Temp(°C)
pH
Conductivlty(unmos)D
Salinity (ppt)1
Dec
Augd
Dec
Auy
Dec
Auy
Dec
Auy
Dec.
Auy.
1
23
i.5
27.y
.
b.7
.
b.7
2
-
1U
fa.i
2.b
13. V
28. o
b.O
6.4
19b
l.b
3
3
iU
7.0
ZJ
lb.b
30. b
6.y
7.7
2300
20.1
4
3
18
7.4
2.0
17.1
30.Z
7.0
7.9
46b0
23.1
5
-
2
-
7.2
-
31.U
-
7.9
-
23.0
0
3
6
3.b
ND
22.0
33.0
b.8
7.0
3890
10.0
7
3
b
b.O
U.9
20.0
33.0
b.8
7.4
3bo0
10.0
a. Depth represents mid-point in tne range ot salinity for tne Auyust samples.
D. EKL-N reported tnat tne salinity for trie December samples ranyed from 0-3 parts
per tnousaria.
c. Some values are interpolated from values at otner aeptns.
y
-------
Chemical Analysis for Toxicants
bis pntnalate, zinc, ammonia, sulfide ana ten volatile oryamcs ^VOC)
were detected in tnese samples, bis phthalate concentrations ranged from
7-y uy/l in samples trom sites 1,2,3,4 and b (Table 3). Trie niyhest
concentrations was 170 ug/in trie site b sample. Pntnalate esters are
ubiquitous contaminants in the environment. Tne relatively nigh con-
centration in the field Dlank (27 ug/l) along witn concentrations of
di-n-butyl phthalate ^6./ ug/l) and diethyl pntnalate (b.9 ug/lj in tne
blank suggests contamination of trie sampling bottles rattier than pollution
in tne river.
Tne LC5J values for pnthalate esters as a group range from 2y,bUU
to 44b,GOU ug/l for tne sneepshead minnow and 9630 to 73,7UU ug/l for
mysid sririmp (OStPA. 197b;. Di-N-outyl pnthalate was toxic to the marine
alya, (jymnodinium oreve, at conentration as low as 3.4 ug/l i mil I sun, et.
al, 1973).
DeCauSc 11 ot the 12 samples from the Calcasieu were toxic to Champia,
another marine alga, we asked tRL-N to conduct some Champia tests witn
dis phthalate to determine if tne contaminant was a source of toxicity.
Tne tests showtu tnat ois phthalate did riot effect reproduction at
concentrations as rugri as 4UU ug/l ana only slightly reduced reproduction
at boo ug/l. We conclude tnat bis phtnlate diu not cause toxicity in
tne Calcasieu samples.
Zinc concentrations were 49(±3j ug/l at site o and 31 ug/l at site 7.
These values are less than the saltwater criteria ot 170 ug/l total ziric
(4b HK 7931b November 2b, 19e0). A 9oH LC^g value of 49b ug/l has
been reported for Hysioopsis barn a (OStPA. 19b0).
Total ammonia concentrations were oetectaole in all amoient samples
aria in the field blank. Tne niyhest concentrations were Tounu at sites i
vu.bbi nig/I), 3^0.407 nig/1 j bi^O.2/2 mg/1) ana 7 ^o.9ub mg/lj. Concentrations
ot un-iomzed ammonia the more toxic form, were calculated from
an equilibrium equation oaseo on temperature arid pH (Tnurston, et al. 19/4).
The niyhest concentrations ot NH^ were 0.020 my/I \site 3), 0.016 mg/I
Ibite 4) and 0.02b my/I (site 7).
Un-ionizeo ammonia toxicity data is available for some ot tne oryanisms
used in this study. tA Engineering viyBb) reported Mysidopsis bahia
LCj,u values ot 0.b4, 0.b4 and 0.b9 my/I at temperatures, pH and salinities
similar to tnose used in this study. Poucher il9bb) reported sneepshead
minnow LC^y values of 2.79 anu 3.6 my/1. Saltwater criteria tor ammonia
are presently Deiriy dratted by trie cPA.
Total sulfide was aetectable at sites 1 ^0.1 mg/ij, o (0.2 my/1)
ana 7 (0.2 niy/1). Concentrations of an unoissociatea nyuroyen sulfide
(H^S), tne toxic form, were calculated from an equilibrium cnart based
on temperature, pH ana conductivity (Standards MetrioQs. i9/b). An accurate
estimate ot unoissociated should be calculated from total dissolved
sulfiue wnicn will reveal tne equilibrium concentrations ot arid HS.
-------
TABLE 3 . LABORATORY MEASUREMENTS OF GENERAL MATER CHEMISTRY AND POLLUTANTS
IN THE CALCASIEU RIVER DURING AUGUST 5-7, 1985
SITE NUMBER
PARAMETER 1 2 3 4 6 6« 7 8b
BIS < 2—ETHVLHEXYL )PHTHALATE
ug/L
9
7
7
8
178
4
(8—8)
27
DI-N-BUTYL PHTHALATE
ug/L
6.7
DIETHYL PHTHALATE
ug/L
8.9
1,1-DICHLOROETHANE
ug/L
2.54
1, 2, DI CHLOROETHANE
ug/L
61.8
(68.6—63)
28.2
1,1, 1-TRI CHLOROETHANE
ug/L
3.92
1,1, 2—TRICHLOROE THANE
ug/L
3.51
<3.32—3.71
6.2
BROMODICHLOROMETHANE
ug/L
5.56
CHLOROOIBROMOMETHANE
ug/L
29.8
TETRACHLOROETHENE
ug/L
27
TRICHLOROETHENE
ug/L
4.56
CHLOROFORM
ug/L
8.16
BROMOFORM
ug/L
9.66
2.7
18.72
(9.14-12.3)
476
BARIUM
ug/L
82
65
64
65
73
128.5
(118—139)
223
57
IRON
ug/L
1388
965
171
426
977
318.5
(265-356)
276
71
MAGNESIUM
mg/L
22
2.56
689
637
658
243
(232-254)
175
3.87
ZINC
ug/L
49
(46-52)
31
NH3-N
mg/L
8.881
8.879
8.487
8.22
8.828
8.272
0.986
0.014
COD
mg/L
22
31
49
54
27
51.5
(58-53)
23
0
S04
mg/L
178
7.5
1988
3888
2268
1825
(1818-1848)
745
<1.0
TSS
mg/L
5
3
21
32
46
16. S
(14-19)
14
1
CHLORIDE
mg/L
1392.8
41.1
16173
15774
16245
7387.5
(7318-7465)
6845
<2
ALKALINITY
mg/L
48
28
92
99
99
188
(188)
116
2
HARDNESS
mg/L
458
24
>1688
>1688
>1688
>1688
(>1688)
>1688
0
TOS
mg/L
2614
151
21367
24595
23822
11551.5
(11378-11725)
18845
2
SULFIDE
mg/L
8.1
<8. 1
<8.1
<8. 1
<8. 1
8.2
(8.2,8.2)
8.2
<0.1
OIL AND GREASE
mg/L
3.64
3.33
3. 14
5.44
3.41
3.57
(3.5-3.64)
3.48
3.02
a, Mun of two SMiplas with ranga in paronthasis.
b.' Field blank.
-------
Me calculated H^b as a Traction of total sulfide. The calculated
concentrations are U.Uod iSite 1), U.Uob (site o) and U.U4b (bite 7;
my/I H^S. Tnese values are an oraer of magnitude greater than the
u.UUi: my/1 criterion fur fresnwater ana marine aquatic life (USbPA.
1976). Because of tne uncertainty entered into tnese calculations Dy
tne use or total rather tnan dissolved sulfide tney do not document
violations of water quality criteria. Tney do indicate a potential
source of toxicity in tnese samples.
Hydrogen sulfide is commonly produced in sediments by sulfur reducing
Dactena where Sulfate (SO4), organic carbon and low U.U. are present.
Ample SO4, organic matter (CUD) and low D.O. were present at sites l,b
and 7 (Taoles 1 and Zj. We uo not know if sulfide concentrations are
more closely related to natural sedimentary processes or to the effect
of ettluent discharges and nydrologic modification.
Volatile organic compounds (VOCj were only detected at sites in tne
industrial corridor. Une VUC was detected at sites 6 and 4, triree were
detecteu at site b, and iU were founu in the sample from site 7 (TaDle
Z). nsioe from Droiuoform, VUC concentrations ranged from i.bi to 61.8
ug/l. bromoTornt was present at all sites in the industrial area (sites
.3,4,6 anu 1). Concentrations of oromoforin ranged Trom z.l ug/l (site 4)
to 47b ug/l (site 1).
iione ot the VUC were present at concentrations tnat are reported to
cause toxicity as single cnemicals (Table 4). Concentrations are Z-b
oruers of magnitude less tnan reported acute concentrations and Z-i
orders of magnitude less than reported cnronic concentrations.
The literature values Tor the toxicity of zinc, NH^ arid VUC are
unly general indicators 01 the potential toxicity of the concentrations
reported iri this study Tor two reasons. First, the literature values
estimate the toxicity of single chemicals in clean water. Iri these
amuient samples the cnemical will exert its effect as a component of a
complex mixture and effects may be additive ^UStPA. 19bb) Secondly, it
is 11 keiy mat uifferent life stages of diTTering sensitivities are
Demy compared.
U
-------
Taule 4. Toxicity Data tor tne Volatile
Organic Compounds Detected in
tne Calcasieu
River uuring August b
-7, 19bb.
Cnemi cal
Avallable
Data
|Concentration
lug/1;
i Response
1,1 dicnloroetnane
1
1
| 2U2.UUU
1
j fresnwater acute d,b
1,2 dichloroetnane
1 113,UUU
j saltwater acutec
1,1,1 tnchloroetnane
| 31,20U
j saltwater acute0
1,1,2 trichloroethane
| lb.UUU
j fresnwater acute D,c
i y4ou
1 fresnwater chronic D,c
oromodicnlorometnane
| 1
-------
THBLE ii. RESULTS
TOXICITV TEST
OF rOXICIIV TESTS WITH MUTER i.AHF'L.ES
SEASON ENDPOI NT
COLLECTED
1
FROM THE
2
CALIAS1EU
li
RIVER 0UK1NG OECEMEIER 1981
SITE NUHBER
? 3 1
AND AUGUST
5
198!
BC
MICROTUX TEST 1
WINTER
LUMINESCENCE CxCONTKOL)
Bi'.B
80.2
101
188.9
11S.6
MICROTUX TEST 2
WINTER
LUMINESCENCE CKCONTROL)
99. 1
9£:.S
116
122
122
RHBHCIH TEST' 1
WINTER
FERTILIZATION CgCONT'ROL)
15
a*
0.9
1b«
?9
IBa
HKBHCIH TEST 2
WINTER
FERTILIZATION CKCONT'ROL)
e
20
26
180
5
CIIHHPIH
WINTER
CVSTOCARPS CXCONTROL.i
6
13
8
B
8
CHAMPIH
WINTER
LERSf EFFECT CONCENTRAT I ON
5
5
5
5
5
AKBflCIH
SUMHER
FERTILIZATION (^CONTROL)
9.1a
101.5
8.3.9
31.la
95.b
91.3
95.2
SHEEPSHEHD
SUMMER
MEAN WEIGHT (HlLLIGKAMSi
1
1.05
0.8 5
0.9
8.8a
8.95
1.83
1.86
SHEEPSHERD
SUMMER
HEIGHT CKCONTROL)
99
?a
05
?5 a
98
9?
SHEEPSHERD
SUMMER
SURVIVAL CJSCONTROLJ
lea
93.3
100
108
86. Pa
93.3
108
189
CHAMPIH
SUHMER
CVSTOCARPS CXCONTROl.5
13a
?a
8.9
?'a
120
5a
0a
CHAMPin
SUMHER
LEAST EFFECT CONCENTRATION
188
100
25
58
>180
12.5
25
MVS JO
SUMHER
SURVIVAL C2CONIROLJ
169
100
100
108
180
1B0
188
Bi: = BUI ME CONTROL
4 = SIGNIFICANTLY' LOWER THfIN CONTROL CP<0.0'5J
14
-------
All samples (sites 2,3,4 o anu 7) were lethal to tne marine alga,
Cnampia parvula. Therefore, effects on cystocarp aevelopnient were not
tested. It was predicted that a 1 to 2U dilution of river water would
still inhibit cyctocarp aevelopnient ^ least effect concentrationj.
None of tne samples inhiDited bacterial luminescence in tne Micro-
tox test. Again, samples hela for two weeks produced similar results.
Summer Toxicity Results
Samples from sites 1,6 and 7 significantly inniDited fertilization
in Arpacia (Table 4j. Samples from sites 1 and b were most toxic (UiK
and 9Z% inhibition).
Samples from sites 1,2,4 and 7 severely inmbited tne cystocarp
development in Champia (b7%-9b% inhiDitiori;. Water from sites b ana b
killed tne cultures. Tne concentration of ambient sample* tnat
caused inhibition ranyeu from 12.b* (site 4j to 1UUa> (sites 1 and 1).
Statistically significant decreases are determined by ANUVA arid tne
Durinett's test.
Water from site 3 siyniTicantly reduced tne survival of the sneeps-
head minnow. This sample alsu reduced the weiyht gain of the fish over
a seven day period. Significant differences in survival and weight gam
are determined by an ANUVa followed by a Duncan's test. Survival data
are transformed to percent control values, square roots ano then arcsirie
values (Heber, S chi mine I and berry. 19db;.
None of tlie sample* affected tne survival of the inysid shrimp,
Mysidopsis bahid.
Tne Champia test was the most sensitive oioassay duriny both seasons.
Tne Arbacia test was tne second most sensitive bioassay. We assumed tnat
tne Sensitivities uf the tests would cnange among sites in as much as tne
sample* represented different complex mixtures distributed over bJ miles
of river despite tne nomogcniziny effect of the ambient water. This
assumption is based on the findiny that specie* sensitivity can vary
over several order* of magnitude for particular toxicants (USLPA. 196b).
I fie August sample from site 3 was toxic to the sheepsnead minnow arid
non-toxic to Champia and Arbacia. Otherwise, it was the red alga and
*ea urchin tests that demonstrated toxicity in the river. Both these
tests measure an ininoitiori to reproduction while trie other tests do not.
Possibly, substances in these waters have a more inhibitory effect on the
reproductive process tnan on survival, growth on the biochemistry of bacterial
1 umi riesce.
Tne sheepsheaa minnow and the mysid shrimp are indigenous to tne
Calcasieu (L). Given*. LULL;. Personal Cornmunication). We can not conclude
tnat tne results with these species are most germaine to assessing toxicity
in this river because we do not know tnat their responses are protective
of sensitive species in the system and, in fact, it was because of tnis
uncertainty tnat a battery of tests was cnoosen for thi* study. Also,
as mention above, tne tests witn the indigeneous species may not incorporate
the most sensitive endpoints for detecting toxicity in tnese samples.
lb
-------
Correlation Analysis
In order to look tor associations among (i) areas ot the river {2)
toxicity results anu [i) toxicant concentrations a Spearman's Rank uroer
Correlation was conducted witn a variety ot variables (Table b). Tms
non-parametric statistics ranks each variaole among sites so tnat a
higher numerical value receives a higher rank. The correlation is based
on the similarity in the trends of tne ranks among sites. A level of
significance is calculated for tne null hypetnesis that tne slope of the
regresion between the variables is zero. The values of all tne input
variables and the correlation matrix are presented in Appendix B.
Several of the correlations build the case for a strong association
uetween H^S and toxicity in tne Arbacia tests. There is an inverse
relationship between decreasing U.U. and increasing total sulfide and H^S,
r=-U.b% ana r=-U.bb7^Table oj. Hydrogen sulfide concentrations directly
increased as total sultiue increased (r=U.y21j. finally, fertilization
decreased in Aroacia as concentrations of sulfide and H^S increased
(r=-U.bib arid r=-0.£uo). Tne supposition is tnat H^S concentrations
were sutticient to cause some of the toxicity measured at sites 1,6 and 7.
Several correlations also indicate an association between toxicity
ana industrial sites. Un-ionizea ammonia (NH^) ano VUC concentrations both
correlate witn the industrial site classification (r=+U.7k^ and +0.B9
Weignt gain ot tne sneepsneau minnow is inversely correlated to increasing
VUC and NHj concentrations ^r=U.bib and -0.714). Finally, decreasing
weigiit gain is correlated to tne industrial site classification \r=U.bbb).
As discusseu earlier, neitner nor the total VOC concentrations are
present in amounts that would be expected to cause toxicity. Possioly,
the correlation of VOCs arid tne industrial sites (3,4,b&7; reflects
tne additive effects ot complex mixtures at these sites. The additive
acute toxicity ot effluents has been documented little is known about
tne additive cnronic effects (Alabaster ana Lloyd. igb2, UStPA. 19bb).
-------
Table b. Variables Correlateu in the Spearman's Statistic
Variable
Site
1
j Sampling site number
Sa It
| Salinity (ppt)
VGA
1 Sum of VOC concentrations at a site iug/l)
pH
1 pH (S.U.)
AMM
| Total ammonia as N (my/L).
NHj
1 Calculated NH3 (mg/L)
S-Tox*
| Sneepsheao weignt gam control)
type
| U=Coritrol site, il,2,5,j i=inoustnal site (i,4,b,7)
A-tox*
j Arbacia fertilization control in summer)
A-win*
1 Arbacia fertilization (% control in winter)
C-iox*
1 Cnampia cystocarp development (% control in summer)
suitide
| Total sulfide (my/L)
rt^S
I Calculated H^S ^mg/'L
U.O
1 Dissolved oxygen (iny/Lj
1
* All values are considered in lookiny for associations amoriy variaules,
including values winch were not statistically siymf icantly different
from controls in order to evaluate overall, qualitative trenus in tne
data.
17
-------
TdDle 7
. Spearnidfi's Rank-Order Correlations ot 10x1 cant
Concentrations, Dissolved Uxyyen,
Toxicity
Test Results arid Site locations
Variables
Spearman's
Siynificance
NumDer ot
Correlated
Coefficient
Level
ODservations
l).U. & Sulfide
1 i
1 -u.eyb |
O.OObii
1
i 7
U.U. & H^S
| -U.8t>7 1
o.Oilb
1 7
iultiae u H^S
1 -o.y*;3 j
0.0030
i 7
A-Tox & Sulfide
1 -0.637 |
o.oiby
1 7
A-Tox & H^S
1 -U.9U6 I
0.00b
1 7
NHj a AMM.
| 0.78b |
0.03b*
1 7
Type & NH3
j U.JZd j
O.Ub/
1 7
Type & S-Tox
1 -u.bbb |
0.0117
I 7
NHj U S-Tox
1 -U.714J j
O.U'/l3
I 7
VOA &. Type
1 o.byy |
o.ooby
VOA & S-lox
| -O.blb |
1 1
0.02b4
1 7
1
lb
-------
Conclusions and Recommendations
1. Samples from Dotn seasons were consistently most toxic to sexual
reproduction in trie Cnampia test and fertilization in tne Arbacia
test. The one exception is the greater toxicity in the sheepshead
minnow test with tne sample collected troin Vincent's Landing in
August. Tne sensitivity ot the Champia and Arbacia tests may De
related to tneir reproductive enupoints. The otner tests used in
this stud,y measured toxicity as reductions in survival, growtn or
bacterial luminescence.
i. Zinc, unionized ammonia ana ten volatile organic compounus were
detected in tne August samples at concentrations that were less than
those reported to cause toxicity as single cnemicals. Tne toxicity
of these chemicals in complex mixtures is not known. Bis phtnalate
was also uetectea out considered to be a contaminant. Tne calculated
concentrations of hydrogen sulfide at Moss BlufT (U.Ubb mg/l), Bayou
tferairie ^U.Uob rng/lj and Bayou U'lnde (u.04b my/l, were a order ot
magnitude greater the U.UU2 rng/1 criterion for freshwater and marine
aquatic life (UStHA. Because of tne uncertainty entered into
these calculations Dy the use of total ratner than dissolved sulfide
they do not document violations of water quality criteria. They do
indicate a potential source of toxicity in these samples.
i. Toxicity in the Arbacia test correlated to hydrogen sulfide concentrations
at S.H. i7j., Bayou Verdine arid Bayou J'Inde. it is our supposition
that hydrogen sulfide is a causitive agent in tne toxicity to Aruacia.
We oo nut knuw 11 tne sulfide concentrations are more closely related
to natural sediment processes or to the effect of effluent discharges
and hyurological modification.
4. Toxicity in tne sneepsnead minnow test correlated to un-iomzed ammonia,
volatile, orgariics and the industrial site classfication. Tnese associations
correspond to Vincent's Landing, Burton's Landing, Bayou Verdine and
Bayou u'indt:. The correlations suggest tne additive toxicity of a
complex mixture.
Tne waters of the Calcasieu and its triDutaries were toxic to a variety
of test organisms during two seasons. Samples from all sites caused toxicity
in one or more tests. The toxicity was most severe in Bayou D;Inde ana
Bayou verdine. The comDined weight of the chemical and toxicological
evidence suggests tiiat the toxicity in Bayou U'lnde, Bayou Verdine and
in the Calcasieu around Vincent's Landing may be associated with effluent
discharges. In order to determine if this toxicity is associated with
effluent discharges it is recommended that toxicity tests be conducted
with trie effluents discharying into tnese waters. Technical guidelines
for effluent testing are provided in the Technical Support Document
for Water Quality-based Toxics Control.
-------
1. AI aoaster, J.S. and k. Lloyd ltds). iyb*. Water Quality Criteria tor
Fis>n. 2nd tdition Butterswortn, London, 3bl pp.
I. Bulich, A.A. iyai:. Micrutox System Operating Manual. Beckmon
Publication No.Ulb-bbbb/y. Beckman Inc. CarlsDad, Ca.
3. tA tny. ^tA triyineeriny, Science ana Technology). 19bb. Proposed
modified effluent limitations for ammonia. £.A. Report B£Tb4E prepared
Tor Betnleham steel Corporation. Sparrows Point, Maryland 212iy.
4. Hollander, M. and D. Wolfe. 1973. Nonparametric Statistical Methods.
New York. Jonn Wiley ana Sons.
o. Horrnny, W. ana C. WeDer. lybb. Metnoas for Estimatiny the Cnronic
Toxicity of Effluents and Receiviny Waters to Freshwater Organisms.
tPA b00/14-bb-Ul4.
b. Hughes, M, M. HeDer ana S. Scmmmel. iyab. tRL-Narragansett Contribution
No. xlU4. USlPA.
7. Louisiana Uepartment ot Environmental Quality. iyb4o. Field Procedures
for the Analysis of Water Samples.
b. Louisiana Department of tnvironmental Quality. lyo4c. Louisiana
water Quality Standards.
y. Nacci» U., R. walsn and t. Jackim. 19bb. tKL-Narragansett Contribution
No.xlUb.UStPA.
1U. Overton, toward. lybb. Personal communication University of New Orleans
New Orleans, LA.
li. Peltier, W. and l. WeUer. 19do. Methods for Measuriny the Acute Toxicity
or tffluents to Fresnwater and Marine Organisms. EPA oOO/4-bb-Ui.i.
it. Poucrier, S.L. 19bo. Memoranuum to Liavid Hansen. UStPA, Narragansett,
Rhoae Islana.
13. Standard Metnods. ly/b. Fourteenth tdition. Anier. Puo. Hltn. Asso.
14. Steel, K.b., and J.ri. Torrey. 19b0 Principles and Procedures of
Statistics. Mcbraw Hill. 4b pp.
lb. Bruce Thompson. 19bb. Personal Communication Louisiana State
University, Baton Rouge, La.
lb. Thursby b. and R. Steele, lybb. ERL-Narrangansett Contnoution
No.xlU3. UStPA.
17. Tnurstori, R.V., k.L. Russo anu K. tmerson. iy7y. Aqueous Ammonia
tquiliDrium-taoulation of Percent Unionizea Ammonia. LPa bUU/3-7y-
oyi.
-------
16. U.S.tPA. 19/o. Water Quality Criteria for Water.
19. U.S.EPA. 1976. In-deptn Studies on Healtn ana Environmental
Impacts ot Selected Water Pollutants Contract No. bb-ul-4b4o.
*U. U.S.EPA, 19Ui^. HandbooK of Sampling and Sample Preservation
ot Water and Wastewater EPA bUU/ 14-b2-Uii9.
2i. U.S.EPA. i98bd. AQUIRE data base. Environ. Res. Lab., Dulutn, MN.
2d. U.S.EPA. 19bbD. NEIC Policies and Procedures EPA 3oU/9-7b-UUi-R.
Z'6. U.S.EPA. 19bbd. Tecnnical Support Document for Water Quality-based
Toxics Control.
^4. U.S.b.S. 19bb. Unpublished data. Baton Kouge, LA.
*b. Wilson, W.b. etal. 197b. Tne toxicity of pntnalates to the itiarine
ainof layel late bymnooemum oreve. bull. Environ Contain. Toxicol.
2U:149.
21
-------
APPENDIX A
QUALITY ASSURANCE SUMMARY
-------
LDEQ-EPA CALCASIEU RIVER SURVEY
QUALITY ASSURANCE REPORT
A. QA Management - 8ince the approval o-f the QAPP the
responds!bility -for the project QA changed -from Barry Nash to
David Parrish.
B. Status of the QAPP - The QAPP was approved on August 1,
1985.
C. Measures of Data Quality -
> Precision - see Summary Tables.
> Accuracy - No information availible.
> Completeness - 100 X.
> Control Conditions - (for bioassays) see Summary Tables.
> Detection Limits - Organics other than pesticdes all
detection limits were less than or equal to those in the
QAPP. Detection limits for the pesticides were an
average of 15 times higher than those listed in the QAPP.
No detection levels for metals were listed in the
QAPP. Detection levels for the conventionale were in
line with the QAPP.
D. Significant Quality Problems & Accomplishments &
Corrective Actions - There were no significant QA problems.
All data was of adequate quality to satisfy the objectives of
this study. No corrective actions were necessary.
E. QA Performance Audits - None required or performed.
F. QA Systems Audits None required or performed.
6. Assessment of Data Quality -
>Precision - All measures of precision were determined
to be acceptable for this survey. Precision targets
for the chemistry work are based on lab duplicates. The
measures reported are for field duplicates which would
be expected to be more variable than lab duplicates.
Therefore relative ranges greater than the targets are
not considered unacceptable.
There were no targets for the bioassays tests.
However the measures reported were well within the
ranges commonly found for such tests.
>Accuracy - No information on accuracy was reported by
the analytical laboratory. However based on our
knowledge of past performance the accuracy was judged to
be acceptable.
There are no measures of accuracy for the bioassay
tests used in this survey.
Completeness - All samples were collected and analyzed
successfully. Therefore completeness was 100 X.
>Representiveness -All samples were collected
according to the QAPP. 8amples were representative of
the midpoint of salinity in the stream.
Comparability - Samples were analyzed using standard
methods to assure comparability. Samples were
collected so they could be compared to the results of
a previous survey in the same waterbody.
H. QA Training - None required.
-------
Calcasieu River Survey
Quality Assurance Summary
Precision and Control Condition Measures
Chemistry -
Measurement
Organics -
1,2-di chloroethane
1,1,2-trichloroethani
bromoform
Metals —
From Duplicate Results
Val 1 Val 2 Mean Range
63.00 60.60 61.80 2.40
3.70 3.32 3.51 0.36
12.30 9.14 10.72 3.16
The Average RR for Organics
RR
3.9X
10.87.
29.5X
14.7%
barium
139
118 128.5
21
16.3%
iron
356
265 310.5
91
29.3%
magnesium (*1000)
232
254 243
22
9.1%
zinc
52
46 49
6
12.2%
The Average RR for Metal
s is
16.7%
Target
RR
None
15.00%
Conventionale -
chemical oxygen demand
sulfate
total suspended solids
chloride
alkalinity
total dissolved solids
sulfide
oil and grease
53
50
51.5
3
5.8%
10.00%
1010
1040
1025
30
2.9%
11.00%
19
14
16.5
5
30.3%
15.00%
7310
7465
7387.5
155
2.10%
5.00%
108
108
108
0
0.00%
NA
11378
11725
11552
347
3.00%
10.00%
0.2
0.2
0.2
0
0.00%
NA
3.64
3.5
3.57
0.14
3.92%
25.00%
Bioassays -
Reps No.
of
/Test Tests
Mean
Min
Max
Target
-Precision (RR or RSD)i
—
8heepshead - Browth
3
9
10.71%
3.23%
25.58%
None
Sheepshead - Survival
3
9
4.23%
0.00%
13.32%
None
Mysid Shrimp - Survival
2
29
2.18%
0.00%
10.53%
None
Arbacia - Fertilzation
2-3
12
16.60%
2.62%
37.21%
None
Champia - Reproduction
2
41
23.39%
0.00%
75.00%*
None
-Control Conditions (Response)i
Sheepshead - Browth
3
2
0.978
0.854
1.135
None
Sheepshead - Survival
3
2
100.0
100.0
100.0
> 90.X
Mysid 8hrim£ - Survival
2
7
100.0
100.0
100.0
> 90.X
Arbacia - Fertilization
2-3
7
76.7
73.2
80.0
60—90X
Champia - Reproduction
2
6
17.4
12.0
26.0
None
Notes —
- RR ¦ Realtive Range or the range of duplicates/mean.
- RSD ¦ Relative Standard Deviation or the standard deviation/mean.
- None ¦» No target measure has been determined.
- t ¦ Based on responses Mith means > 3.0 (see Champia table).
-------
Calcasieu River Survey
Quality .'Assurance Summary
Precision Measures - Sheepshead Minnow Tests
Sample Relative
No.
Rep 1
Rep 2
Rep 3
Mean
Std Dev
Std Dev(RSD)
Endpoint i
1
0.954
1.045
0.996
0.998
0.046
4.56X
Growth
2
1.095
1.067
0.974
1.045
0.063
6.06X
3
0.830
0.778
0.805
0.804
0.026
3.23X
4
0.777
1.073
0.995
0.948
0.153
16.10%
5
1.031
1.176
0.884
1.030
0.146
14.17X
6
0.895
0.910
0.691
0.832
0.122
14.70X
7
1.085
0.643
0.980
0.903
0.231
25.58X
SW-Control
0.885
0.952
0.854
0.897
0.050
5.58X
Brine-Control
1.006
1.038
1.135
1.060
0.067
6.34X
Ave RSD
10.71X
Min RSD
3.23X
Max RSD
25.58X
Endpoint i
1
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
0.00
O.OOX
Survival
2
80.00
100.00
100.00
93.33
11.55
12.37X
3
80.00
100.00
80.00
86.67
11.55
13.32X
4
100.00
100.00
80.00
93.33
11.55
12.37X
5
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
0.00
O.OOX
6
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
0.00
O.OOX
7
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
0.00
O.OOX
8W-Control
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
0.00
O.OOX
Brine-Control
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
0.00
O.OOX
Ave
Range
Ave RSD
4.23X
Control Survival (n"
2)
100.OX
100.0-100.0
Min RSD
O.OOX
Target Survival
m
> 90.OX
Max RSD
13.32X
-------
Calcasieu River Survey
Quality Assurance 8ummary
Precision Measures - Mysid Shrimp Tests
Percent
Site 8ample Rep 1 Rep 2
1
0
10
10
1
50
10
9
1
75
10
10
1
100
9
10
2
0
10
10
2
50
10
9
2
100
10
10
3
0
10
10
3
50
10
10
3
75
10
10
3
100
10
10
4
0
10
10
4
50
10
10
4
75
10
10
4
100
10
10
5
0
10
10
5
50
10
10
5
75
10
10
5
100
10
10
0
10
10
25
10
9
50
10
10
75
10
9
100
9
10
0
10
10
25
10
10
50
10
10
75
10
10
100
10
10
Ave Range
Control Survival (n»7) 100.OX 100.0-100.0
Target Survival ¦ > 90.OX
Relative
Hean
Range Range(RR)
10.0
0
O.OOX
9.5
1
10.53X
10.0
0
O.OOX
9.5
1
10.53X
10.0
0
O.OOX
9.5
1
10.53X
10.0
0
O.OOX
10.0
0
O.OOX
10.0
0
O.OOX
10.0
0
O.OOX
10.0
0
O.OOX
10.0
0
O.OOX
10.0
0
O.OOX
10.0
0
O.OOX
10.0
0
O.OOX
10.0
0
O.OOX
10.0
0
O.OOX
10.0
0
O.OOX
10.0
0
O.OOX
10.0
0
O.OOX
9.5
1
10.53X
10.0
0
O.OOX
9.5
1
10.53X
9.5
1
10.53X
10.0
0
O.OOX
10.0
0
O.OOX
10.0
0
O.OOX
10.0
0
O.OOX
10.0
0
O.OOX
Ave RR
2.1BX
Min RR
O.OOX
Max RR
10.53X
-------
Calcasieu River Survey
Quality Assurance Summary
Precision Measures - Arbacia "Sea Urchin" Tests
Relative
Sample
Range or
Range or
No. - Rep 1
Rep 2
Rep 3
Mean
Std Dev
Std Dev
Control - 0 88.0
72.0
t
80.0
16.0
20.00%
Control - 0
84.0
70.0
$
77.0
14.0
18.18%
Control — 0
73.6
70.2
75.9
73.2
2.9
3.92%
1 - 41*
14.0
20.4
S
17.2
6.4
37.21%
1 - 82%
7.0
7.5
*
7.3
0.5
6.90%
2 - 84%
85.0
67.6
t
76.3
17.4
22.80%
3 - 86%
81.0
72.0
$
76.5
9.0
11.76%
4 - 94%
82.0
68.9
$
75.5
13.1
17.36%
5 - NO REPORT
*
*
$
*
*
t
6 - 41%
34.3
36.3
37.0
35.9
1.4
3.91%
6 - 83%
5.0
4.9
B.4
6.1
2.0
32.66%
7 - 41%
61.0
62.0
64.2
62.4
1.6
2.62%
7 - 82%
17.0
26.0
25.2
22.7
5.0 21.91%
Mean 16.60%
Control Fertilization
Minimum
2.62%
Mean *¦
76.7 %
Maximum
37.21%
Minimum *
73.2%
Maximum *
80.0%
Target Range m
60 - 90
%
-------
Calcasieu River Survey
Quality Assurance Summary
Precision Measures —. Champia Reproduction (cystocarps/plant)
Percent
Site Sample
1
6.3
1
12.3
1
25.0
1
50.0
1
100.0
2
0.0
2
6.3
2
12.3
2
25.0
2
50.0
2
100.0
3
0.0
3
6.3
3
12.5
3
25.0
3
50.0
3
100.0
0.0
6.3
12.5
25.0
50.0
100.0
5
0.0
5
6.3
5
12.5
5
25.0
5
50.0
5
100.0
6
0.0
6
6.3
6
12.5
6
25.0
6
50.0
6
100.0
7
0.0
7
6.3
7
12.5
7
25.0
7
50.0
7
100.0
Control Reproduction (n>6) ™
Target Reproduction ¦
Relati ve
Rep 2
Mean
Range Range
14
12.5
3
24.00%
11
12.5
3 .
24.00%
13
11.5
3
26.09%
14
14.0
0
o.oox
1
2.0
2
100.00%
16
14.0
4
28.57%
17
15.0
4
26.67%
19
15.5
7
45.16%
18
20.5
5
24.39%
13
15.0
4
26.67%
0
1.0
2
200.00%
16
16.5
1
6.06%
13
12.5
1
8.00%
10
11.5
3
26.09%
10
14.5
9
62.07%
12
14.0
4
28.57%
21
18.5
5
27.03%
13
13.0
0
0.00%
16
17.0
2
11.76%
9
10.5
3
28.57%
7
8.5
3
35.29%
8
8.0
0
0.00%
1
1.0
0
0.00%
15
13.5
3
22.22%
11
12.5
3
24.00%
12
13.5
3
22.22%
5
8.0
6
75.00%
5
5.5
1
18.18%
0
0.0
0
0.00%
21
23.5
5
21.28%
25
25.0
0
0.00%
18
20.0
4
20.00%
12
13.5
3
22.22%
4
3.5
1
28.57%
2
1.5
1
66.67%
25
24.0
2
8.33%
22
26.0
8
30.77%
20
18.5
3
16.22%
20
19.0
2
10.53%
12
15.5
7
45.16%
5
5.5
1
18.18%
Range
Ave RR
23.39%
12.0-26.
0
Min RR
0.00%
Max RR
75.00%
Rep 1
11
14
10
14
3
12
13
12
23
17
2
17
12
13
19
16
16
13
IS
12
10
8
1
12
14
15
11
6
0
26
25
22
15
3
1
23
30
17
is
19
6
Ave
17.4
None
Note i t'd have a low mean response of less than 3.0 therefore were
subject to a high relative variability. These were not used in
overall average. minf and max RRs.
-------
APPENDIX B
CORRELATION ANALYSIS
-------
USEPA-LDEQ
CALCASIEU
RIVER SURVEY
STATISTICAL ANALYSIS
OF RESULTS
OBS
SITE
SALT VOA
PH i
AMM S_TOX AREA
A_TOX
1
1
5.
7 0. 0
6. 7 0
.881 94.3396 C
9. 4
£
£
1.
5 0. 0
6.4 0
.079 99.0566 C
101. 5
3
3
£0.
1 9. 7
7. 7 0
.407 75.4717 I
95. &
4
4
£3.
1 £.7
7. 9 0
.££0 89.&££& I
94. 3
5
5
£3.
0 0. 0
7.9 0
.0£8 97.1698 C
95. £
6
6
10.
0 76. 0
7.0 0
.£7£ 78.3019 I
8. 3
7
7
10.
0 564. 0
7. 4 0
.960 84.9057 I
31. 1
OBS
H£S
SULF cjrox
A_WIN TEMP DO TYPE NH
3
1
0. 064
0. 1
13
45 £7.
9 1.5 0 0.0037197
£
0. 000
0. 0
7
0 £8.
6 £.5 0 0.0001758
3
0. 000
0. 0
ISO
79 30.
5 £.7 1 0.0197933
4
0. 000
0. 0
5
18 30.
£ £.6 1 0.016
£536
5
0. 000
0. 0
0
31.
0 7. £ 0 0. 002
1771
6
0. 100
0. £
8
0 33.
0 0.0 1 0. 003
££39
7
0. 056
0. £
7
46 33.
0 0.9 1 0. 0£81660
USEPA-LDED
' CALCASIEU
RIVER SURVEY
STATISTICAL ANALYSIS
1 OF RESULTS
VARIABLE
N
MEAN
STD DEV
MEDIAN MINIMUM
MAXIMUM
SITE
7
4.000000
£.16025
4.000000 1.000000
7.
00000
SALT
7
13.34£S57
8.70955
10.000000 1.500000
£3.
10000
VOA
7
96.057143
£16.9£7£4
£.700000 0.000000
584.
00000
PH
7
7.£65714
0.53841
7.400000 6.400000
7.
90000
AMM
7
0.406714
0.37303
0.£7£000 0.028000
0.
96000
S..TOX
7
86. 409704
9.£0660
89.6££64£ 75.471698
99.
05660
A_TOX
7
&£.£00000
43.66486
94.300000 8.300000
101.
50000
H£S
7
0.0314£9
0.04147
0.000000 0.000000
0.
10000
SULF
7
0.0714£9
0.0951£
0.000000 0.000000
0.
£0000
C_TOX
7
££.857143
43. 00941
7.OOOOOO 0.000000
120.
00000
A_WIN
&
31. w tj wf 3
31. 0333c!
31.500000 0.OOOOOO
79.
00000
TEMP
7
30.600000
1.96384
30.500000 £7.900000
33.
00000
DO
7
£.485714
£.30754
£.500000 0.OOOOOO
7.
£0000
TYPE
7
0.5714£9
0.53452
1.OOOOOO 0.OOOOOO
1.
00000
NHS
7
0.010501
0.01085
0.0037£0 0.000176
0.
0£817
-------
USEPA-LDEQ CALCASIEU RIVER SURVEY
STATISTICAL ANALYSIS Or RESULTS
PEARSON CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS
/ PROB > !R! UNDER- HO: RH0=0 / NUMBER OF OBSERVATIONS
SITE
SITE 1.00000
0.0000
7
SALT 0.£9055
O.5273
7
SALT VOA
0.£9055 O.6737£
0.5E73 0.0970
7 7
1.00000 -0. 1865£
0.0000 0.6888
7 7
PH AMM
0.451£5 0.05047
0.3095 0.9144
7 7
0.96780 -0.33961
0.0004 0.4561
7 7
S_TOX A_TOX
-0.40319 -O.£1503
0. 3698 0. 6433
7 7
-0. £4£98 O. 47324
0.5996 0.£835
7 7
VOA
0.6737£
0.0970
7
"0. 1865c?
0.6888
7
1.00000
0. 0000
7
O.06510
O.8897
7
0.64339
0. 1190
7
-O. £4508
O.5963
7
-O. 38443
0. 3945
7
PH
O.451£5
0.3095
7
O.96780
0.0004
7
0.06510
0.8897
7
1.00000
0.0000
7
-0. 17399
0. 7091
7
-0. £919£
0.5£53
7
O.39413
0.3816
7
AMM
0.05047
0.9144
7
-0. 33961
0.4561
7
0.64339
0.1190
7
-O.17399
0.7091
7
1.00000
0.0000
7
-0. £3301
0. 6151
7
-0. 67891
0. 0935
7
S TOX
-0.40319
O.3698
7
-0. £4£9G
O.5996
7
-0. £4508
O.5963
7
-0.£919£
0.5£53
7
-0. £3301
O.6151
7
1.00000
O. 0000
7
O. £7156
0.5558
7
A TOX
-O.£1503
O.6433
7
0.473£4
O.£835
7
-0. 38443
O.3945
7
0.39413
O.3816
7
-0. 67891
0.0935
7
0.£7156
O. 5558
7
1.00000
0.0000
7
H£S
0.32745
O.4734
7
-0.46637
0.£915
7
0.35520
0.4343
7
-0.40068
O.3730
7
0.51573
0. £361
7
-0.361£4
O.4£60
7
-O.96747
O.0004
7
SULF
0.56777
0.1836
7
-0.4££77
0.3447
7
0.678£6
0.0940
7
-0.£7189
0.5553
7
0.61600
0. 1408
7
-0.40526
O.3671
7
-0.89406
O. 0066
7
C TOX
-0.£4396
0.5981
7
0.£7908
O. 5445
7
-0.16963
0.716£
7
0.£4£75
0.5999
7
0.0599£
0. 8985
7
-0.63147
0.1£8£
7
0.£7585
0. 5493
7
A WIN
*0.1£4£6
¦' 0.8146
6
0.33828
0.434£
6
0.18£79
0. 7£89
6
0.46234
0.3559
6
0.55716
0. £507
6
-0.43655
O. 3868
6
O.06342
0. 9050
6
TEMP
0.96644
O.0004
7
0.26855
0.5604
7
0.61890
0.1384
7
O.411£8
0.3593
7
0.06884
0.8834
7
-0.60527
0.1498
7
-0.£7798
0.5461
7
-------
USEPA-LDEC! CALCASIEU RIVER SURVEY
STATISTICAL ANALYSIS OF RESULTS
PEARSON CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS
/ PROB > SR! UNDER.HO:RH0=0 / NUMBER OF OBSERVATIONS
SITE
DO -0.07690
0. 8698
7
TYPE O.57735
O. 1747
7
SALT VOA
0.57274 -0.37044
0.1790 0.4134
7 7
0.351B7 0.41421
0.4389 0.3556
7 7
PH AMM
0.50072 -0.54627
0.2524 O.2046
7 7
0.44662 0.19404
0.3151 0.6768
7 7
S_TOX A_TOX
0.49936 0.66545
0.2539 0.1028
7 7
0.85810 -0.13925
0.0135 0.7659
7 7
NH3 0.43958 0.31379 0.69882 0.50018 0.53543 -0.54166 0.00544
0.3237 0.4931 0.0806 0.2530 0.2155 0.2092 0.9908
7 7 7 7 7 7 7
H2S SULF C_TOX A_WIN TEMP DO TYPE
SITE 0.32745 0.56777 -0.24396 -0.12426 0.96644 -0.07690 0.57735
0.4734 0.1836 0.5961 0.8146 0.0004 0.8698 0.1747
7 7 7 6 7 7 7
SALT -0.46637 -0.42277 0.27908 0.39828 0.26855 0.57274 0.35187
0.2915 0.3447 0.5445 0.4342 0.5604 0.1790 0.4389
7 7 7 6 7 7 7
VOA 0.35520 0.67826 -0.16963 0.18279 0.61890 -0.37044 0.41421
0.4343 0.0940 0.7162 0.7289 0.1384 0.4134 0.3556
7 7 7 6 7 7 7
PH -0.40068 -0.27189 0.24275 0.46234 0.41128 0.50072 0.44662
0.3730 0.5553 0.5999 0.3559 0.3593 0.2524 0.3151
7 7 7 6 7 7 7
AMM 0.51573 0.61600 0.05992 0.55716 0.06884 -0.54627 0.19404
0.2361 0.1408 0.8985 0.2507 0.8834 0.2046 0.6768
7 7 7 6 7 7 7
-0.36124 -0.40526 -0.63147
0.4260 0.3671 0.1282
7 7 7
S TOX
A_TOX -O.96747
0.0004
7
-0.89406 0.£7585
0.0066 0.5493
7 7
—0.43655 —0.60527
0. 3868 0. 1498
6 7
0.06342 -0.27798
0. 9050 0. 5461
6 7
0.49936 -0.85810
0.2539 0.0135
7 7
0.66545 -0.13925
0.1028 0.7659
7 7
H2S 1.00000
O.0000
7
SULF 0.92475
0.0029
7
0.92475 -0.28077
0.0029 0.5419
7 7
1.00000 -0.29042
0. 0000 0. 5275
7 7
-0.21636 0.41259
0.6805 O.3576
6 7
-0.12891 0.61564
0.8077 0.1411
6 7
-0.69749 0.22772
0.0815 0.6234
7 7
-0.69316 0.37463
0. 0842 0. 4077
7 7
-------
USEPA-LDEQ CALCASIEU RIVER SURVEY
STATISTICAL ANALYSIS OF RESULTS
PEARSON CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS
/ PROB > IRi UNDER H0:RH0=0 / NUMBER Or OBSERVATIONS
H£S SULF C_TOX A_WIN TEMP DO TYPE
C_TOX -O.£8077 -0.£9042 1.00000 0.76877 -0.05347 -0.0£9£4 O.35£13
0.5419 0.5£75 0.0000 0.0740 0.9093 0.9504 0.4386
7 7 7 6 7 7 7
A_WIN -0.£1636 -0.1£891 0.76877 1.00000-0.04111 0.£9015 0.££048
0.6805 0.8077 0.0740 0.0000 0.9384 0.5770 0.6746
6 6 6 6 6 6 6
TEMP
0.41£59
O.3576
7
0.61564
O. 1411
7
-0. 05347
0.9093
7
-0. 04111
0.9384
6
1.00000
0. 0000
7
-0. 19566
0.674£
7
O.68£7£
0.0910
7
DO
-0. 69749
0.0815
7
-0. 69316
0. 084£
7
-0. 0£9£4
0.9504
7
0.£9015
O.5770
6
-O. 19566
0. 674£
7
1.00000
0.0000
7
-0.50575
O. £469
7
TYPE
0.££77£
0.6£34
7
0.37463
O.4077
7
0.35£13
0.4386
7
0.££048
0. 6746
6
0.68£7£
0. 0910
7
-0. 50575
0.£469
7
1.00000
0.0000
7
NH3
-0. 06391
0.8917
7
0.££598
O.6£61
7
0.3745e
0.4077
7
0.6£471
O. 1848
6
0.44844
0. 31£9
7
-0. £6613
0.5640
7
0.73085
0.06£1
7
NH3
SITE 0.43958
O.3£37
7
SALT 0.31379
0.4931
7
VOA 0.698B£
O.0806
7
PH 0.50018
0. £530
7
AMM 0.53543
0.£155
7
S_TOX -0.54168
O.£032
7
-------
USEPA-LDEQ CALCASIEU RIVER SURVEY
STATISTICAL ANALYSIS OF RESULTS
PEARSON CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS
/ PROB > !R! UNDER H0:RH0=0 / NUMBER OF OBSERVATIONS
NH3
A_TOX 0.00544
0.9908
7
H2S -0.06391
0.6917
7
SULF O.£2598
0. 626 1
7
C_TOX 0.37458
O.4077
7
A_WIN 0.62471
O. 1848
6
TEMP 0.44844
0. 3129
7
DO -0.26613
0.5640
7
TYPE 0.73085
O.0621
7
NHS
1.00000
0.0000
7
-------
USEPA-LDEQ CALCASIEU RIVER SURVEY
STATISTICAL ANALYSIS OF RESULTS
SPEARMAN CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS
/ PROB > •R' UNDER H0:RH0=0 / NUMBER OF OBSERVATIONS
SITE SALT VOA PH AMM S_TOX A_TOX
SITE 1.00000 0.37839 0.74125 0.41443 0. 10714 -0.39286 -0.35714
0.0000 0.4026 0.0566 0.3553 0.8192 0.3833 0.-4316
7 7 7 7 7 7 7
SALT 0.37839 1.00000 0.16823 0.98182 -0.27028 -0.30632 0.03604
0.4026 O. 0000 O. 7183 0.0001 0.5577 O. 5040 0.9389
7 7 7 7 7 7 7
VOA
O.74125
O.0566
7
O.16829
0. 7183
7
1.00000
0.0000
7
O.14959
0. 7489
7
O.59300
0. 1605
7
-O. 81537
0.0254
7
-0. 40769
0. 3639
7
PH
0.41443
0. 3553
7
0. 98182
0.0001
7
0.14959
0. 7489
7
1.00000
0.0000
7
-0.25226
O.5852
7
-O. 25226
0.5852
7
0.09009
0.8477
7
AMM
O.10714
0.8192
7
-0. 27028
0.5577
7
0.59300
0.1605
7
-O. 25226
0. 5852
7
1.00000
0.0000
7
-0.57143
O. 1802
7
-O.50000
0. £532
7
S TOX
-0. 39286
0.3833
7
-0. 30632
0. 5040
7
•0. 81537
0.0254
7
-0. 25226
0. 5852
7
-0.57143
0.1802
7
1.00000
0. 0000
7
0.35714
0.4316
7
A TOX
-O. 35714
0.4316
7
0.03604
0. 9389
7
-0. 40769
0.3639
7
0.09009
0. 8477
7
-0.50000
0.2532
7
0.35714
0. 4316
7
1.00000
0. 0000
7
H2S
0.23643
0.6097
7
-0.41750
0. 3513
7
0.38848
0.3891
7
-0. 45726
0. 3023
7
0.57138
0.1802
7
-0.31524
0.4910
7
-0.90633
0.0049
7
SULF
O.49801
0.£554
7
-0. 36181
0. 4£5£
7
0.62017
0.1373
7
-0.36181
0. 4252
7
0.67730
0.0946
7
-0.37849
0. 4025
7
-0.83666
0. 0189
7
C TOX
-0.37839
O.4026
7
-0. 42727
0.3390
7
0.24309
0.5994
7
-0.47273
0.£841
7
0.63066
O.1289
7
-0.57660
0. 1754
7
-0. 18019
0.6990
7
A_WIN
O.05798
0.9131
6
0.39706
O.4357
6
O.30882
0. 5515
6
0.49281
0.3206
6
0.72471
0.1032
£
-0.49281
0.3206
6
0.11595
0.8268
£
TEMP
0.95499
0.0008
7
0.30909
0.5000
7
O.76666
0.0443
7
0.34545
0. 4479
7
0.12613
0.7876
7
-0. 52254
0. 2289
7
-0.32434
O.4779
7
-------
USEPA-LDEC! CALCASIEU RIVER SURVEY
STATISTICAL ANALYSIS OF RESULTS
SPEARMAN CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS
/ PROB > !R! UNDER H0rRH0=0 / NUMBER OF OBSERVATIONS
SITE SALT VOA PH AMM S_TOX A_TOX
DO -0.28571 0.55858 -0.51887 0.61264 -0.57143 0.25000 0.71429
0.5345 0.1925 0.2328 0. 1436 0.1802 0.5887 0.0713
7 7 7 7 7 7 7
TYPE 0.57735 0.43693 0.89872 0.36411 0.43301 -0.86603 -0.28868
0. 1747 0.3270 0.0059 0.4220 0.3318 0.0117 0.5301
7 7 7 7 7 7 7
NH3 0.32143 0.32434 0.70419 0.34236 0.78571 -0.71429 -0.25000
0.4821 0.4779 0.0774 0.4523 0.0362 0.0713 0.5887
7 7 7 7 7 7 7
H2S SULF C_TOX A_WIN TEMP DO TYPE
SITE 0.23643 0.49601 -0.37839 0.05798 0.95499 -0.28571 0.57735
0.6097 0.2554 0.4026 0.9131 0.0008 0.5345 0.1747
7 7 7 6 7 7 7
SALT -0.41750 -0.36181 -0.42727 0.39706 0.30909 0.55858 0.43693
0.3513 0.4252 0.3390 0.4357 0.5000 0.1925 0.3270
7 7 7 6 7 7 7
VOA 0.38848 0.62017 0.24309 0.30882 0.76666 -0.51887 0.89872
0.3891 0.1373 0.5994 0.5515 0.0443 0.2328 0.0059
7 7 7 6 7 7 7
PH -0.45726 -0.36181 -0.47273 0.49281 0.34545 0.61264 0.36411
0.3023 0.4252 0.2841 0.3206 0.4479 0.1436 0.4220
7 7 7 6 7 7 7
AMM 0.57138 0.67730 0.63066 0.72471 0.12613 -0.57143 0.43301
0.1802 0.0946 0.1289 0.1032 0.7876 0.1802 0.3318
7 7 7 6 7 7 7
S_TOX -0.31524 -0.37849 -0.57660 -0.49281 -0.52254 0.25000 -0.86603
0.4910 0.4025 0.1754 0.3206 0.2289 0.5887 0.0117
7 7 7 6 7 7 7
A_TOX -0.90633 -0.83666 -0.18019 0.11595 -0.32434 0.71429 -0.28868
0.0049 0.0189 0.6990 0.8268 0.4779 0.0713 0.5301
7 7 7 6 7 7 7
H2S 1.00000 0.92313 0.40756 -0.21561 0.27833 -0.86692 0.15926
0.0000 0.0030 0.3641 0.6816 0.5456 0.0115 0.7331
7 7 7 6 7 7 7
SULF
0.92313 1.00000 0.28141 -0.04697 0.50252 -0.89642 0.32203
0.0030 0.0000 0.5410 0.9296 0.2504 0.0063 0.4812
7 7 7 6 7 7 7
-------
USEPA-LDEG! CALCASIEU RIVER SURVEY
STATISTICAL ANALYSIS OF RESULTS
SPEARMAN CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS
/ PROB > J RUNDER.HO:RH0=0 / NUMBER OF OBSERVATIONS
C TOX
H2S
0.40756
0.3641
7
SULF
O. £8141
0.5410
7
C_TOX
1.00000
O. 0000
7
A_WIN
O.45588
0.3635
6
TEMP
-0.17273
0.7111
7
DO
-0. 32434
O.4779
7
TYPE
0.21847
0. 6379
7
A WIN
-0.21561
O. 6816
6
-0.04697
0. 9296
6
O. 45588
0. 3635
6
1.00000
0. 0000
6
O.13235
0.8026
6
0.40584
0.4247
6
0.31506
0. 5430
6
TEMP
0.27833
0. 5456
7
0.50252
0.2504
7
-0. 17273
0.7111
7
0.13235
O.8026
6
1.00000
0. 0000
7
-0. 27028
0.5577
7
0.58258
0. 1699
7
DO
-0. 86692
0.0115
7
-0.89642
O.0063
7
"0. 3d4«s>4
0. 4779
7
0.40584
0. 4247
6
-0.27028
O. 5577
7
1.00000
0.0000
7
-0.28868
0.5301
7
TYPE
0.15926
O.7331
7
0. 32203
0.4812
7
0.21847
0. 6379
7
O.31506
0. 5430
6
0.58258
0. 1699
7
-0. 28868
0.5301
7
1.00000
0. 0000
7
NHS
0.11822
O.8007
7
0.31873
0.4860
7
0.32434
0. 4779
7
0.86966
0.0244
6
0.28830
0.5307
7
-0. 14286
0.7599
7
0. 72169
0.0671
7
NH3
SITE 0.32143
0.4821
7
SALT O.32434
O.4779
7
VOA 0.70419
0.0774
7
PH O.34236
O.4523
7
AMM 0.78571
0.0362
7
S_TOX
-0.71429
O.0713
7
-------
USEPA-LDEB CALCASIEU RIVER SURVEY
STATISTICAL ANALYSIS OF RESULTS
SPEARMAN CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS
/ PROB > iRi UNDER H0:RH0=0 / NUMBER OF OBSERVATIONS
NHS
A_TOX -0.£5000
O.58S7
7
H£S O.118££
O.8007
7
SULF 0.31873
O.4860
7
C_TOX 0.3£434
O.4779
7
A_WIN 0.86966
0.0£44
6
TEMP 0.£8830
O. 5307
7
DO -O.14£86
0. 7599
7
TYPE 0.7£169
0.0671
7
NH3
1.00000
0.0000
7
------- |