United States Office of Water
Environmental Protection Regulations and Standards February 1986
Afleney Criteria and Standards Divisior. SCD# 5
Washington DC 20460
Water
PROTOCOL FOR SEDIMENT TOXICITY TESTING
FOR NONPOLAR ORGANIC COMPOUNDS
a
a
ai
a»
3
Ui
z
UI
-
Q_
Ul
cn
137 -
120 +
79 +
* *
< 58 +
o
t»4
* * * *****
* * * * * * *
* *
40 + * *
0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00
Cumulative Frequency
-------
PROTOCOL FOR SEDIMENT TOXICITY TESTING
OF NONPOLAR ORGANIC COMPOUNDS
Work Assignment 56, Task 1
April 1986
for
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Criteria and Standards Division
Washington, D.C.
Submitted by
BATTELLE
Washington Environmental Program Office
Washington, D.C.
-------
SEDIMENT CRITERIA METHODOLOGY VALIDATION
Work Assignment 56, Task 1
PROTOCOL FOR SEDIMENT TOXICITY TESTING
OF NONPOLAR ORGANIC COMPOUNDS
T. M. Poston
L. A. Prohammer
April 1986
Prepared for:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Criteria and Standards Division
Office of Water Regulation and Standards
Washington, D.C. 20460
Submitted by:
10
Washington Environmental Program Office
2030 M. Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036
-------
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Technical comments have been provided from B. Cornaby, J. Neff, D. Bean,
W. Pearson, and C. Cowan of Battelle. In addition, technical comments were
provides by Dr. D. Hansen, EPA Narragansett, Dr. A. Nebeker, EPA Con/all is.
and Dr. B. Adams, Monsanto Company.
iii
-------
CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 111
1.0 SCOPE .••••••••••*
2.0 TEST ORGANISMS 3
2.1 ACCLIMATION 3
2.2 PROJECT REQUIREMENTS 4
3.0 SEDIMENT HANDLING 7
3.1 COLLECTION AND STORAGE OF SEDIMENT ..... 7
3.2 SIEVING OF SEDIMENT 8
3.3 RECONSTITUTE OF SEDIMENT 8
4.0 DILUTION WATER 11
5.0 TOXICANT 13
6.0 EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN 15
6.1 SCREENING TESTS 15
6.2 DEFINITIVE TESTS 17
6.3 REFERENCE TOXICANT (INTERNAL CONTROL) . . • • • 17
6.4 DATA ANALYSIS 18
7.0 PROCEDURE 19
7.1 SEDIMENT DOSING 20
7.2 LOADING TEST ORGANISMS 21
7.3 AERATION 22
7.4 PHOTOPERIOD 22
7.5 TEMPERATURE 22
7.6 MONITORING OF MORTALITY 22
7.7 TEST DURATION 23
7.8 TERMINATION OF TEST 23
7.9 SEDIMENT CHEMISTRY MONITORING 23
7.10 SAMPLING OF BEAKERS 2*
7.11 WATER COLUMN.MONITORING 25
8.0 QUALITY ASSURANCE/QUALITY CONTROL 27
9.0 MATERIALS AND EQUIPMENT . . 29
10.0 REFERENCES 31
v
-------
PROTOCOL FOR SEDIMENT TOXICITY TESTING OF NONPOLAR ORGANIC COMPOUNDS
1.0 SCOPE
This protocol outlines the methods to be used to evaluate the organic
carbon normalization theory with respect to nonpolar organic compounds (NOC).
The carbon normalization theory states that the toxicity of NOC to benthic
infaunal organisms is determined by the total organic content of the sediment.
Toxicity of NOC in the sediments is generally attributed to the compound found
in the interstitial water, not adsorbed to the sediments. Sediments high in
total organic carbon (TOC) have a greater capacity to adsorb NOC. The rela-
tionship between the concentration of NOC in sediments and interstitial water
is defined by the aqueous solubility of the NOC, the octanal water partition
coefficient (Kow), and the concentration of sediment TOC (Staples et al.
1985). As sediment TOC levels increase, the toxicity expressed per gram of
sediment decreases. This relationship can be normalized by expressing the
toxicity of the NOC in terms of the TOC level of the sediment.
The toxicant to be tested has been selected to maximize the potential for
evaluating the influence of sediment TOC on toxicity. The three criteria
are:
1. The reported median lethal concentration, or median effective concentra-
tion (LC50 or EC50, respectively), for 48- or 96-h acute toxicity tests
with amphipods must fall at or below 20% of the reported solubility of
the toxicant in water.
2. The sediment sorption coefficient (Koc) should be greater than 1,000 to
ensure that the toxicant will establish reasonable concentrations 1n
interstitial water to elicit a toxic response in the test organisms.
3. The toxicant must have a low vapor pressure, I.e., less than 0.001-mm
mercury, to ensure that excessive volatilization does not cause a loss of
toxicant when amending the sediment.
The nonpolar organic compounds lindane, endrin, and DDT meet these
criteria (Guenzi and Beard 1974, Johnson and Finley 1980, Staples et al.
1985).
1
-------
The general approach involves using a screening water column test to
establish the toxicity of the toxicants in the water, a screening sediment
toxicity test with three levels of sediment TOC to establish the range of
sediment toxicant concentrations to be used in a definitive test, and the
definitive sediment toxicity test to provide 10-day LC50 values for the
toxicants at three levels of sediment TOC. The relationship between sediment
TOC and toxicity will be used to evaluate the organic carbon normalization
theory.
2
-------
2.0 TEST ORGANISMS
The test organisms used are the amphipods Rhepoxynius abronius for marine
tests and Hyallela azteca for freshwater tests.
2.1 ACCLIMATION
Test organisms must be acclimated before testing. The suggested method
is to acclimate the organisms to each of the three sediment TOC levels to be
tested. This acclimation eliminates the need for a sediment control treatment
in the experimental design and provides a more direct evaluation of the
influence of sediment TOC on the toxicity of nonpolar organic compounds. If
the test organisms do not adapt to the different sediment types, they must be
cultured on a suitable substrate, i.e., native sediment, and the substrate
must be incorporated as an extra control treatment. This protocol assumes
that acclimation of the test organisms to three different sediment TOC levels
is possible. Sediments will be sieved as described in Section 3. The test
organisms will be acclimated for at least 10 days to each sediment TOC, with
only a residual level of mortality (less than 5%) during acclimation. Sedi-
ment acclimation will initially be attempted on a bench-scale level prior to
committing the entire research population. Marine and freshwater species will
be cultured under a 16:8-h light to dark photoperiod.
2.1.1 R. Abronius
abronius will be collected from clean areas of Puget Sound and/or the
Strait of Juan de Fuca. Clean sediment from the collection site will be col-
lected for maintaining initial cultures in the laboratory. Once acclimated to
the laboratory, the cultures will be split into three groups for acclimation
to the three sediment TOC levels. Sediment depth in the culture aquaria will
be 2.5 cm. Cultures will be grown in seawater at 15°C under flow-through con-
ditions (100 to 200 ml/min per 200-1 aquaria). Cultures will be fed a diet
consisting of Oregon moist pellets ad libitum once weekly. Feeding will be
curtailed if excessive amounts of food accumulate on the bottom of the
aquarium.
3
-------
2.1.2 H. Azteca
Cultures of H_. azteca will be reared and tested at the Environmental
Protection Agency's laboratory in Corvallis, Oregon. Cultures are grown in
oak leaves with well water adjusted to 200 mg/L total hardness. Organisms are
fed newly hatched brine shrimp or Oregon moist pellets ad libitum once weekly.
Excess food is not removed and feeding amounts will be curtailed when exces-
sive amounts of food accumulate in the aquaria. Organisms are cultured at
20°C under flow-through conditions.
2.2 PROJECT REQUIREMENTS
A total of 5,050 organisms for either the freshwater or marine tests are
needed to complete the project. Because brood-bearing females and immature
(<2 mm) organisms are not tested, the test population will consist of three
groups of 2,500 organisms acclimated to each of the three sediment T0C levels.
The required number of organisms per test is summarized below.
1. Screening water column test. This test consists of 6 to 8 exposure
treatments, including exposures of 5 to 7 dilutions of the toxicant and
1 control exposure. With 3 replicate beakers per treatment and 20
organisms per beaker, the test will require a maximum of 480 organisms.
2. Screening sediment test. This test may have a maximum of 7 exposure
treatments for each sediment T0C level, including exposures to 5 dilu-
tions of the toxicant, 1 control exposure, and a sediment control expo-
sure if needed (see Section 6 for a complete description of the experi-
mental design). Assuming 3 replicate beakers per treatment with
20 organisms per beaker, the total number of organisms required for
testing 3 sediment T0C levels is 1,260. An additional reference water
column test will be run concurrently with the sediment test, with
6 exposure treatments (including the control exposure), 3 replicate
beakers per treatment, and 20 organisms per beaker, or a total of
360 organisms. Therefore, the maximum number of organisms required for
the sediment screening tests is 1,620.
4
-------
3. Definitive sediment test. This test may have a maximum of 7 exposure
treatments for each sediment TOC level, including exposures to 5 dilu-
tions of the toxicant, 1 control exposure, and a sediment control expo-
sure if needed (see Section 6 for a complete description of the experi-
mental design). Assuming 3 replicate beakers per treatment with
20 organisms per beaker, the total number of organisms required for
testing 3 sediment TOC levels is 1,260. An additional reference water
column test will be run concurrently with the sediment test, with
6 exposure treatments (including the control exposure), 3 replicate
beakers per treatment, and 20 organisms per beaker, or a total of
360 organisms. Finally, 480 organisms will be used in the chemical
monitoring beakers, so that a maximum of 2,100 organisms will be needed
for the definitive sediment test.
5
-------
3.0 SEDIMENT HANDLING
Sediments collected for this study should have the largest possible range
in TOC. The sediments must not contain toxic compounds because interactions
with other sediment-bound toxicants would prevent the development of a sound
relationship between sediment TOC and the test toxicant concentration. The
desired range of freshwater sediment TOC levels is 2%, 10%, and 20%-, the range
for marine sediments is 0.5%, 2.5%, and 5%. Measured TOC levels should fall
within 10% of these specified TOC levels. Several lots of sediment will be
collected to ensure that a broad range of sediment TOC is available. Ideally,
sediments with the desired TOC levels (after sieving) will be collected. If
it is not possible to locate and collect sediments with high TOC levels that
are not contaminated with oil, grease, and other types of anthropogenic
pollution, then two alternative methods to obtain the desired levels of
sediment TOC may be evaluated. In the first method, sediments of high and low
TOC would be mixed to obtain the desired TOC level. In the second method,
sediments that are highly enriched with TOC could be mixed in very small
amounts with sediments that are low in TOC to achieve the desired test
sediment TOC level. The advantage to the second method is a consistent
particle size distribution among the test sediments. The method will be
chosen after experience has been gained in culturing the organisms in
sediments of different TOC, and after the range of sediment TOC levels
available for testing has been determined.
3.1 COLLECTION AND STORAGE OF SEDIMENT
An effort will be made to collect sediments from sites that have been
minimally Influenced by industrial, agricultural, or domestic sewage efflu-
ents. Notes will be taken during collection about the presence of biota, oil,
or grease in the sediment, the odor of the sediment, or other abnormal charac-
teristics of the sediment.
The sediment will not be collected from a depth greater than 15 cm and
must appear to be uniform in texture and color. Sediment will be stored on
ice while in transit from the field to the laboratory. Five-gallon plastic
7
-------
buckets with plastic lids will be used for transporting and storing the sedi-
ment. The sediment will be stored at 4°C with no more than 1 cm of water
overlaying the surface of the sediment.
3.2 SIEVING OF SEDIMENT
Sediment will be wet sieved with a 1.0-mm sieve to remove gravel and
other coarse debris. After a batch of sediment has been sieved, it will be
thoroughly mixed with a spatula and subsampled for TOC analysis. Resulting
sieved sediment will be predominately fine sand (<0.2 mm) to silt (>0.005 mm),
with a low clay (<0.002 mm) content (<5%). The actual particle size distri-
bution of the sediments will be determined for the sediments used for test
organism acclimation and testing. Particle size characterization will be
determined for the sand, silt, and clay fractions. The primary criteria for
use of a sediment is that it contains the desired TOC and that the organisms
can be cultured on it.
3.3 (^CONSTITUTION OF SEDIMENT
If the sediment must be reconstituted to obtain a desired TOC level, the
following formula can be used:
X g sed (low percentage of TOC) + (Y-X)g sed (high percentage of TOC)
= Y g sed (desired percentage of TOC)
In this formula, the desired weight of the sediment (Y) and the desired per-
centage of TOC are determined by the investigator and the percentage of TOC of
the two available sediments is determined by analysis. Enough sediment must
be prepared for culture of the amphipods and sediment testing. Each batch of
sediment must be wet sieved at 1.0 mm prior to reconstitution. The sediment
TOC. of the reconstituted sediment must be verified before acclimating the test
organisms and sediment toxicity testing.
The reconstituted sediment must be thoroughly mixed before being dis-
pensed into tagging flasks. A proposed method of mixing the sediment is to
simultaneously pass equal amounts (200 to 400 g) of each sediment through a
8
-------
sieve into a glass battery jar. The sieved sediments should be mixed with a
stainless steel or plastic spatula before adding the second batch of sedi-
ments. The process is repeated until a sufficient amount of reconstituted
sediment (^1500 g) has been prepared. After the last batch of sieved sedi-
ments have been added to the jar, the entire mixture must be thoroughly mixed
with a spatula to ensure homogeneity of the reconstituted sediment.
9
-------
4.0 DILUTION WATER
The dilution water used for culturing test organisms and toxicity tasting
will be of such a quality that none of the water constituents will adversely
affect the test organisms. The water used for culturing the test organisms
will be of a constant quality. Dechlorinated tap water will not be used.
Monthly fluctuations in pH will be ^0.5 units, and will fall between 6.5 and
8.5 for freshwater and 7.5 to 8.5 for salt water. Dissolved oxygen will range
from 80% to 100% saturation. Other routine water quality measurements (EDTA
hardness, conductivity, alkalinity, dissolved organic carbon) should not vary
by more than 10% on a monthly basis.
The dilution water used is assumed to be the supply normally used by the
laboratory to culture and test aquatic organisms. Water quality data indicat-
ing the acceptability of the dilution water will be provided in historical
records of water quality monitoring for basic water quality parameters, or
from recent analysis for inorganic and organic contaminants in the water.
Specific analysis of water will include trace metal analysis for A1, As, Cd,
Cr, Cu, Hg, Mn, Ni, and Zn. Organic analysis will include analysis for dis-
solved organic carbon, PCBs, toxaphene, total organophosphorus pesticides,
total carbamate insecticides, and organochloride pesticides (DDT and meta-
bolites, lindane, chlordane, dieldrin, and endrin). Dilution water will be
judged acceptable if the metals do not exceed water quality standards for the
protection of aquatic life, as developed by the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA), and the identified organic constituents do not exceed 50 ng/L.
In lieu of these analyses, historical demonstration that Daphnia magna or £.
pule* live and successfully reproduce in the freshwater dilution water or
oyster larvae or other marine crustaceans endemic to the site of the labora-
tory can successfully reproduce in the marine dilution water may be used as
criteria for acceptance of the water as a dilution source.
The marine water used for amending the sediments with toxicant and
toxicity testing should be membrane filtered at 50 ym.
11
-------
5.0 TOXICANT
The toxicant to be tested on this project will be DDT. Radiolabeled
compounds will be used as a radiochemical tracer with the "cold" compound to
enhance the ability to monitor the toxicant in the column water, interstitial
water, and bound to the sediment. The radiolabeled compound will be mixed
with appropriate amounts of a nonlabeled compound to produce a concentration
of tracer at five times the limit of detectabi1ity (estimated at this time to
be 250 dpm above background). The expected specific activity of the toxicant
is 22.73 pCi ^C-labeled DDT per rig "cold" DDT. A total of 30 mCi (15 per
species tested) will provide an adequate amount of radiolabeled compound to
complete the testing program.
13
-------
6.0 EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN
Definitive toxicity tests will allow the comparison of the dose-response
relationships (EC50 and slope of the response curve) of nonpolar organic
compounds tested at three levels of TOC. Before the definitive tests, two
screening tests will be performed to determine the toxicity of the compound in
the water column, and to determine the range of exposure concentrations of the
compound when adsorbed to sediment that will be used in the definitive sedi-
ment tests. The sediment adsorption coefficient for organic carbon (Koc) will
be determined for each of the three concentrations of sediment TOC values dur-
ing sediment tagging. Sediment Koc levels will be determined by counting the
amount of radioactivity bound to the sediment and found in the interstitial
water, as described in the next section under Sampling of Beakers. The Koc
values and the EC50 value estimated from the water column screening test will
be used to establish the range of sediment toxicant concentrations for the
screening tests with sediments. During the second screening test, sediment
toxicant concentrations at and around the predicted median lethal values will
be tested for each sediment TOC level to verify that the predicted range of
sediment toxicant concentrations brackets toxic concentrations of the sedi-
ment-sorbed compound. This screening test will also verify that a sufficiently
broad range of sediment TOC levels was selected to test the carbon normaliza-
tion theory.
6.1 SCREENING TESTS
The objective of the first screening test is to estimate the EC50 value
of the toxicants in the water column. The median lethal concentration will be
estimated from literature values. This may involve interpolation of acute and
chronic data sets that span the 10-day test duration, or an extrapolation of
acute test data. Depending on the amount of extrapolation required from the
literature data, five to seven concentrations will be tested in the water
column screening test. The range of test concentrations for five treatments
will encompass at least 0.2, 0.6, 1.0, 1.6 and 5.0 times the estimated water
column EC50. A tentative list of exposure concentrations based on toxicity
data in Johnson and Finley (1980) is found in the next section under
15
-------
"Procedure." The higher the uncertainty associated with the data base, the
broader the range of test concentrations that will be used in the screening
tests. Three replicate beakers with 20 organisms per beaker will be tested at
each exposure concentration. Control treatments consist of three replicate
beakers (20 organisms each) with dilution water amended with an amount of
carrier solvent equal to that used in the highest test concentration. Ethanol
will be used as a carrier solvent for the water column tests and will not
exceed a concentration of 0.5 mL/l. Treatments will be randomly assigned to a
grid with assignments made from a table of random numbers. The data will be
analyzed to produce an EC50, slope of the dose-response curve, and associated
95" confidence intervals (Finney 1971, 1978).
The objective of the second screening test is to estimate the range of
exposure concentrations of sediment-sorbed toxicant to be tested in the
definitive tests. The EC50 value for each level of sediment TOC will be
predicted from the water column EC50 and the Koc values (theoretical values
from the literature (Staples et a'l. 1985), and empirical values determined
when dosing the sediment with tagging flasks and the syringe method). Because
the ratio of sediment to water used during sediment labelling is" greater than
that used to determine Koc values published in the literature, Koc values must
be estimated for the labeled sediments (Section 7.1). Five toxicant doses
bracketing the predicted EC50 sediment value will be tested. The initial
range in doses will be 0.2, 0.6, 1.0, 5.0, and 10.0 times the predicted EC50
concentration for sediment. Additional treatments will be added if there is
high variability in the Koc values used to establish the test sediment
concentrations. The three test sediments will be tested at the same time;
however, the addition of organisms to the exposure beakers may be staggered
over three days if manpower restrictions won't allow the work to be completed
in one day. Each treatment will consist of three replicate beakers containing
20 organisms each. Control treatments for each sediment will consist of three
replicate beakers with the test sediment to which no toxicant has been added.
The control sediment will undergo the same manipulations that the test
sediments experience during tagging; however, only the carrier solvent will .be
added to the tagging flask. A control treatment with native (or culture)
sediment will be included in the design if the organisms cannot be cultured in
the test
16
-------
sediment. All treatments for all three sediments will be randomly assigned to
a grid. EC50 estimates and 95% confidence intervals will be calculated for
each sediment TOC level tested (Finney 1971, 1978).
6.2 DEFINITIVE TESTS
The definitive sediment test will be similar to the screening tests.
Sediments with the three levels of TOC will be tested at the same time. Five
concentrations of toxicant for each sediment TOC level will be tested. Con-
centrations will be chosen that should theoretically produce 12%, 31%, 50%,
69%, and 88% mortality based on the data from the screening tests (Finney
1978). The number of replicates per treatment will be determined from the
level of control mortality observed in the screening test (mortality of 5% to
15% in the control treatments will require 5 replicates; less than 5% mortal-
ity would require 3 or 4 replicates). Higher control mortality in the screen-
ing tests will require additional control beakers. Control mortality in
excess of 15% will invalidate the test. A sediment control (tagged with
carrier only) and a native (culture) sediment control (if the organisms cannot
be acclimated to the three test sediments) will be included in the experi-
mental design. All exposure and chemistry beakers will be randomly assigned
to positions in a grid using a table of random numbers.
6.3 REFERENCE TOXICANT (INTERNAL CONTROL)
During the screening and definitive sediment tests, water column tests
with the test compound will be conducted. The tests will provide information
on any changes in the sensitivity of the test organisms to the toxicant over
the duration of the project. The test will consist of five exposure concen-
trations designed to theoretically produce 12%, 31%, 50%, 69%, and 88% mortal-
ity and a control treatment (dilution water). These levels of mortality are
predicted from the slope of the toxicity curve established in the screening
water column test and are not criteria for acceptance. There will be three
replicate beakers with 20 organisms per beaker for each treatment. The
beakers will be randomly assigned to positions in the grid used in the sedi-
ment toxicity test and loaded in sequence with the sediment test beakers.
17
-------
6.A DATA ANALYSIS
Data will be analyzed using techniques described in Finney (1971, 1978).
After a linearizing transformation, the dose-response lines from the three
types of sediment will be compared for parallelism. Nonparallelism of the
lines will indicate different modes of action of the toxicant (i.e., potential
interactions with sediment TOC or an undefined effect due to other differences
in the sediments). The EC50 values of the toxicant for each sediment TOC. will
be calculated and used to evaluate the carbon normalization theory. In the
event that the data cannot be linearized by any of the routinely used
transformations, the data will be analyzed using the Spearman-Karber method
(Hamilton et al. 1977).
18
-------
7.0 PROCEDURE
Three tests will be conducted under this protocol: a screening water
column test, a screening sediment toxicity test, and a definitive sediment
toxicity test. Theoretical test concentrations of DDT (based on data in
Johnson and Finley 1980 and an arbitrary 96-h LC50 value of 1.0 ug/L) for the
water column and screening sediment toxicity test are listed in Table 7.1.
Only a 10% sediment TOC level is listed. [Consult Staples et al. (1985) to
determine the actual amounts of toxicant to be added to each sediment TOC
level.] The final selection of test concentrations for the screening and
definitive sediment toxicity tests depends on the results of the water column
tests and the partitioning of the toxicants during sediment labeling. The
2.5 and 0.1-ug/L test concentrations are optional.
TABLE 7.1. Exposure Concentrations of DDT
Screening Water
Column Test
(ug/L)
Screening Sediment
Toxicity Tesr '
(ug toxicant/kg
sediment)
Definitive Sediment
Toxicity Test
(ug toxicant/g
sediment)
5.0
40,230
To be determined
2.5
20,120
To be determined
1.6
12,875
To be determined
1.0
8,046
To be determined
0.6
4,830
To be determined
0.2
1,610
To be determined
0.1
805
To be determined
control
0
0
(a) Assumes a Kp of 8,046 for 10% TOC (Staples et al. 1985)
The water column tests'will be conducted following routine methods for acute
toxicity testing (ASTM 1980). The exposure system includes 700 mL of exposure
solution in 1-L beakers with aeration. Exposure solution will be replaced
when the concentration of DDT drops below 90% of the desired value. This may
occur due to volatilization and adsorption to the surfaces of the glass beakers.
19
-------
7.1 SEDIMENT DOSING
Sediment is dosed with the toxicant (including the radioactive tracer) in
1,500-mL batches in 2.3-L Fernback flasks (tagging vessel). Acid bottles
placed on rollers can be used as tagging vessels as an alternative to using
Fernback flasks. The acid bottles may be used if laboratory shakers cannot be
used for tagging. The amount of radiolabeled compound added is determined by
the Koc for the compound, the organic carbon content of the sediment, and the
expected LC50 based on the toxicity of the compound in water.
The toxicant (with radiolabeled tracer) is dissolved in a carrier solvent
(ethanol or methylene chloride), added to a tagging vessel and swirled onto
the bottom and lower walls of the vessel by gently rotating the vessel.
Nitrogen (500 mL/min) is added to purge the evaporated solvent. The flask is
tagged in a HEPA-filtered hood. Once the toxicant has been tagged, the sedi-
ment may be labeled outside of the hood. When labeling sediments, toxicant
solutions will be prepared so that equal volumes of carrier-toxicant solution
are added to each tagging flask. After the carrier solvent has evaporated, a
4:1 slurry^ (1,500 mL) of sediment and dilution water is added to the flask
and placed on a rotating shaker at sufficient revolutions per minute to keep
the sediment suspended (120 rpm). The tagging continues for 7 days or until
equilibrium has been reached.
The concentrations of radiolabeled compounds in the water and sorbed to
the sediment are determined daily to verify that equilibrium has been reached.
Two measurements of the slurry are required to determine equilibrium: 1 mL of
water filtered at 0.45 um and a sediment-sorbed toxicant measurement. The
second measurement is done by placing a filter pad with sediment in a 13-mL
glass centrifuge tube (with screw cap) and adding 5 mL of methylene chloride
to the tube. The solution is sonicated for 5 minutes in a water bath
sonicator and centrifuged at 10000 x g. The supernatant is decanted into a
50-mL volumetric flask. The process is repeated three times and the combined
extracts are taken to 50 mL in the flask with the methylene chloride. A 1-mL
(a) This ratio is different from the ratio used to determine Kp and Koc
values in the laboratory and may result in a lower Kp value for this
particular system.
20
-------
subsample is transferred to a liquid scintillation vial, amended with a 20-mL
scintillation cocktail, and analyzed on a liquid scintillation detector.
Equilibrium is indicated by three consecutive values differing by less than
10* in the filtered water and sediment samples.
The day before the test/a^ 175 mL of sediment are transferred to a
1,000-mL Pyrex beaker and overlayed with approximately 700 mL of dilution
water. A plastic disk cut from black plastic sheeting is laid over the
sediment to minimize disruption and suspension when the dilution water is
added to the beaker. A separate plastic disk will be prepared for each
treatment (i.e., level of dosed sediment). A nylon monofilament line is
attached to the disk to facilitate its removal from the beaker.
After the sediment and water have been added to each beaker, they are
placed in their proper position in the grid and aeration initiated.
7.2 LOADING TEST ORGANISMS
An adequate number of test organisms for a test must be collected from
the culture aquaria and pooled to prevent bias in the allocation of organisms
to exposure beakers. Females with developing broods or immature animals
(_< 2mm) will not be used for testing.
Both species of amphipod can be transferred to beakers with a glass tube
(5.5 to 6.5 mm ID) and rubber bulb. Organisms used for testing will measure
greater than 2 mm in length. Exposure beakers are loaded in groups of six in
the order of their placement within the grid. To facilitate handling, groups
of six beakers may be removed, but the order of loading will not be altered.
Arbitrarily, the order is left to right and top to bottom starting with the
upper left beaker.
To load the exposure beakers, test organisms are collected in lots of
twenty and transferred to 50-mL pyrex transfer beakers filled with 40 mL of
dilution water (+ 2°C of the desired test temperature). The test organisms
are introduced into the exposure beaker by inverting the transfer beaker under
(a) Twenty-four hours may not be adequate for toxicant concentrations in the
water to come to equilibrium with sediment levels. The 24 h equilibrium
period may have to be extended.
21
-------
the surface of the exposure solution, taking care to ensure that no organisms
are left clinging to the side of the transfer beaker when it is removed. At
this time, any organisms found floating on the surface of the water may be
gently pushed beneath the surface with the transfer pi pet by a drop of water
on the organism, or by gently pushing the organism under the water with the
edge of the pi pet. This process is repeated until all the exposure beakers
are loaded.
Each beaker containing organisms will be examined for floating or injured
organisms one hour after loading. Floating and injured organisms will be
replaced. A record will be kept for all beakers that receive new organisms
and the number of new organisms added.
7.3 AERATION
Aeration is supplied to each beaker with a glass pasteur or 1-mL dispos-
able pipet. The pipet tip is positioned between 2 and 3 cm above the sediment
water interface. The air flow must not disturb the sediment and may be regu-
lated with adjustable tubing clamps or needle valves. The air will pass
through a glass wool and activated charcoal filter prior to delivery to the
exposure beakers. Aeration is started when the beakers are placed in the
grid, 24 hours before the addition of organisms.
7.4 PHOTOPERIOD
Lighting will be 16 h light to 8 h dark throughout the test.
7.5 TEMPERATURE
Test organisms are cultured and tested at the same temperature (i.e.,
20°C for H^. azteca and 15°C for R. abronius). Exposure beakers will be
partially submerged in a constant temperature water table.
7.6 MONITORING OF MORTALITY
Exposure beakers will be observed once daily during the 10-day duration
of the test. Under no circumstances will the sediment be disturbed or
22
-------
resuspended during the exposure. Lighting and aeration will be checked daily.
Temperature will be checked in a special beaker and continuously monitored in
the water bath. Floating and emergent amphipods are noted as dead, alive,
and/or moribund. Dead organisms are not removed.
7.7 TEST DURATION
Definitive and screening tests will run for 10 days.
7.8 TERMINATION OF TEST
On the tenth day, mortality will be determined in all beakers. Each
beaker will be examined for emergent and floating amphipods (dead, moribund,
and alive). A dead organism is one which shows no sign of movement. A
moribund organism is one that cannot walk or swim in a normal manner, but can
move its appendages when prodded. An organism is classified as alive if it
can crawl or swim in a normal manner. To calculate an LC50, moribund organ-
isms are considered alive. Test organisms are removed from the beaker by pipet
before sieving. A 1-mm sieve is used to locate organisms that have burrowed
into the mud. Total mortality is determined by adding the total dead organ-
isms over the 10-day observation period. Missing organisms are assumed to
have died and been eaten.
7.9 SEDIMENT CHEMISTRY MONITORING
Additional beakers will be set up to monitor sediment chemistry. Addi-
tional beakers are required because sampling would be stressful to the test
organisms. Resuspension of the sediment would change the exposure of the
test organisms to the sediment-bound toxicant. The additional beakers will be
treated the same as the exposure beakers (i.e., they will receive test organ-
isms, be aerated, be placed within the randomized grid, etc.). Three chem-
istry monitoring beakers will be prepared for the sediment control, high,
middle, and low treatments for each level of sediment TOC tested. Radiochem-
ical analysis will be performed on column water, interstitial water, and sedi-
ment at the first, fifth, and last day of exposure. Selected sediment and
23
-------
water extracts collected at the end of the test from the highest exposure
concentrations will also be analyzed by high-pressure liquid chromatography
(HPLC) to check for breakdown of the toxicant.
7.10 SAMPLING OF BEAKERS
The chemistry monitoring beakers are removed from the water table to
measure dissolved oxygen and pH in the water column. A 1-mL sample of column
water is removed, transferred to a liquid scintillation vial, amended with a
20-mL scintillation cocktail, and analyzed with a liquid scintillation detec-
tor. For selected chemistry beakers, the column water is siphoned into a
separate container for extraction and HPLC analysis of the toxicant. Care is
taken to minimize the resuspension of sediment during siphoning. To prevent
contamination of the water sample, the beaker will be slowly tipped to one
side, and the last 10 to 20 mL of water will be removed and discarded with a
pipet. All surviving and dead organisms are removed and tabulated from any
sediment that undergoes sample processing.
A 40-g subsample of the sediment is transferred to a tared, glass
centrifuge tube, weighed, and centrifuged at 64,000 x g for 10 minutes at 4°C.
One milliliter of supernatant which is assumed to be interstitial water is •
removed with a pipet, transferred to a liquid scintillation vial, amended with
a 20-mL scintillation cocktail, and analyzed for toxicant with a liquid
scintillation detector. The remaining supernatant can be decanted into a vial
and saved as a backup sample in case the original sample is lost.
The remaining sediment is divided into three samples. Two 4- to 5-g
samples are retained for dry weight determinations. The remaining sediment
(10 + 2 g) is extracted three times with methylene chloride (10 mL solvent per
gram of sediment). A 10-g sediment sample should be amended with 50-g
anhydrous sodium sulfate (Na2S04) to adsorb water in the sediment. The three
extracts are combined and concentrated to 5 mL under nitrogen. A 1-mL sub-
sample (or an appropriate dilution) of the extract is analyzed by liquid
scintillation to estimate the amount of labeled compound present in the sedi-
ment. The remaining extract may be analyzed by HPLC/gas chromatography (GC")
for the presence of breakdown products. A standard operating procedure will
24
-------
be written based on the operating instructions for the particular instrument
used and the authentic standards used in the analysis. The level of effort
committed to this activity depends on available funding for the project.
14
Alternatively, sediment samples may be analyzed for C labeled DDT in a
sample oxidizer; however, selected samples will be extracted for HPLC/GC
analysis.
7.11 WATER COLUMN MONITORING
Dissolved oxygen (DO) will be monitored daily in the chemistry monitoring
beakers with a YSI DO meter and in all exposure beakers at the end of the
test. Water samples (1 mL) will also be taken from each exposure beaker
immediately before the test organisms are added and at the termination of the
exposure. The 1-mL water samples will be collected in scintillation vials,
amended with a 20-mL scintillation cocktail, and analyzed for the presence of
toxicant in a liquid scintillation detector.
25
-------
8.0 QUALITY ASSURANCE/QUALITY CONTROL
Quality assurance (QA) and quality control (QC) will be guaranteed by the
implementation of a rigorous QA plan following the EPA/ORD 16-point format or
its equivalent. Responsibility for the QA/QC plan lies with the project
manager for each respective research facility where the research is conducted.
27
-------
9.0 MATERIALS AND EQUIPMENT
Generally, plastics and rubber should not be used when they may come in
contact with exposure solutions or exposure sediments that have been amended
with the toxicant. Stainless steel, Teflon, and glass are the preferred
material s.
Materials
1-L beakers 180
50-mL beakers 10
1-mL pi pets (aeration) 300
Tagging flasks 20
Scintillation vials 2000
Scintillation cocktail (1-gal bottles) 10
Tygon tubing (1/8 in. ID; ft) 250
Needle valves/tubing clamps 180
Plastic buckets and lids (5-gal) 6
Centrifuge tubes (50-mL) 25
Radiolabeled compound (mCi) 15
"Cold" compound (g) 50
Sheet plastic (sq. ft) 6
Monofilament line (ft) 50
Equipment
Water table (41 x 6' minimum)
Dissolved oxygen meter
pH meter
HPLC/GC
Sonicator
Liquid Scintillation Counter
Temperature recorder
Drying oven
Refrigerated centrifuge
Culture aquaria/tanks
Sieve (1.0-mm)
Well-stocked laboratory
29
-------
10.0 REFERENCES
American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM). 1980. Standard Practice
for Conducting Acute Toxicity Tests with Fishes, Macroinvertebrates a"na
Amphibians. ASTM Standard E729, American Society for Testing and Materials,
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
Finney, D. J. 1971. Probit Analysis. Cambridge University Press, London.
Finney, D. J. 1978. Statistical Methods in Biological Assay. MacMillian,
New York.
Guenzi, W. D. and W. E. Beard. 1974. "Volatilization of Pesticides." In
Pesticides in Soil and Water, ed. R. C. Oinauer, pp. 107-122. Soil Science
Society of America, Inc., Madison, Wisconsin.
Hamilton, M. A., R. C. Russo and R. V. Thurson. 1977. Environ. Sci. Technol.
11:714.
Johnson, W. W. and M. T. Finley. 1980. Handbook of Acute Toxicity of Chem-
icals to Fish and Invertebrates. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Resource
Publication 137. Washington, D.C.
Staples, C. A., K. L. Dickson, J. C. Rogers, Jr., and F. Y. Saleh. 1985.
ASTM STP 854, American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania, pp. 417-428.
31
-------
United States Office of Water _ , t qqc
Environmental Protection Regulations and Standards vJUly 1300
Agency Criteria and Standards Oivisior. SCD# 7
Washington DC 20460
Water
vvEPA
IMENT QUALITY CRITERIA VALIDATION:
CALCULATION OF SCREENING LEVEL
CONCENTRATIONS FROM FIELD DATA
-------
FINAL REPORT
SEDIMENT QUALITY CRITERIA METHODOLOGY VALIDATION:
CALCULATION OF SCREENING LEVEL CONCENTRATIONS
FROM FIELD DATA
Prepared by
J.M. Neff, D.J. Bean, B. W. Cornaby, R.M. Vaga,
T.C. Gulbransen, and J.A. Scanlon
July 1986
Prepared for
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Criteria and Standards Division
Office .of Water Regulation and Standards
Washington, D.c.
Submitted by
BATTELLE
Washington Environmental Program Office
2030 M Street, N.w.
Washington, D.C.
-------
1.
ABSTRACT
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Criteria and
Standards Division has initiated an effort to develop sediment
quality criteria. Sediment quality criteria are to be used in
conjunction with water quality criteria to protect U.S.
freshwater and saltwater bodies and their uses. Sediment quality
criteria are needed because credible national water quality
criteria alone are not sufficient to ensure protection of aquatic
ecosystems consistent with provisions of the Clean Water Act.
EPA is evaluating several different approaches to
developing technically sound and defensible sediment quality
criteria. The Screening Level Concentration (SLC) approach is one
of the approaches EPA is evaluating. The objectives of the
investigation described in this report are to evaluate the SLC
approach empirically for nonpolar organic contaminants in
sediments and to assess its strengths and weaknesses for use in
conjunction with other methods for deriving sediment quality
criteria.
The SLC approach uses field data on the co—occurence in
sediments of benthic infaunal invertebrates and different
concentrations of the nonpolar organic contaminant of interest.
The SLC is an estimate of the highest concentration of a
particular nonpolar organic contaminant in sediment that can be
tolerated by approximately 95 percent of benthic infauna. As
such, the SLC value could be used in a regulatory context as the
concentration off a contaminant in sediment which, if exceeded,
could lead to environmental degradation and therefore would
warrant further investigation.
To calculate a SLC, large databases are required that
rontain synoptic observations of the concentrations of the
specific nonpolar organic chemicals of interest in the sediments,
concentrations of total organic carbon in the sediments, and the
species composition of the benthic infauna. A cumulative
frequency distribution of all stations at which a particular
species of infaunal invertebrate is present is plotted against
the organic carbon-normalized concentration in sediment of the
contaminant of interest. The concentration of the contaminant at
the locus representing the 90th percentile of the total number of
stations at which the species was present is estimated by
interpolation and termed the species screening level
concentration (SSLC). Next, SSLCs for a large number of species
are plotted as a frequency distribution, the concentration above
which 95 percent o£ the SSLCs are found is termed the SLC.
SLCs were calculated in this way for five contaminants in
freshwater sediments (total polychlorinated biphenyls, DDT,
heptachlor epoxide, chlordane, and dieldrin) and nine
-------
2.
^nhaminants in saltwater sediments (total polychlorinated
biohenvls DDT, naphthalene, phenanthrene, fluoranthene,
bi«U)an4hrac°n« chrysene, pyt.ne, and benzol a pyr.n.).
Freshwater SLCs ranged from 0.008 ug/g sediment organic carbon
for heptachlor epoxide to 0.290 ug/g sediment organic carbon for
total PCBs. Saltwater SLCs ranged from 4.26 ug/g sediment organic
carbon for total PCBs to 43.4 ug/g sediment organic carbon for
pyrene. There are several possible reasons for the large
differences in the freshwater and saltwater SLC values. The most
important probably is the differences in ranges of organic carbon
normalized contaminant concentrations in sediments covered by
each database. The concentrations of contaminants m freshwater
sediments tended to be low as evidenced by the many zero
contaminant values. The saltwater database tended toward more
highly contaminated sediments. Based on these observations, the
freshwater SLC values may be conservative and the saltwater SLC
values may be too high.
the SLC approach has demonstrated sufficient merit to
warrant further evaluation and elaboration . Given a large enough
database and minor modifications to the methods for calculating
SSLCs and SLCs, the approach will provide a conservative estimate
of the highest organic carbon normalized concentrations of
individual contaminants in sediments that can be tolerated by
approximately 95 percent of benthic infauna. It is essential that
the database contain organic carbon normalized concentrations of
the sediment contaminants of interest that span a wide range
(preferably two orders of magnitude or more) and include values
from locations known to be heavily contaminated. Low and
intermediate sediment contaminant concentrations are also needed
to ensure that pollutant-sensitive species are not excluded from
the analysis. High values are needed to ensure that benthic
communities are in fact being adversely affected at some stations
by the contaminant of interest. Before SLCs can be used in a
regulatory context, the databases upon which they are based must
be subjected to a rigorous quality assurance review. Both the
biological and the chemical data should be evaluated for
accuracy, comparability, and representativeness.
-------
3.
SEDIMENT QUALITY CRITERIA METHODOLOGY VALIDATION:
CALCULATION OF SCREENING LEVEL CONCENTRATIONS FROM FIELD DATA
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 BACKGROUND
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Criteria and
Standards Division (EPA-CSD) has initiated an effort to develop
sediment quality criteria. Sediment quality criteria are to be
used in conjunction with water quality criteria to protect U. S.
freshwater and saltwater bodies and their uses, including
fisheries, recreation, and drinking water.
Sediment quality criteria are needed because credible
national water quality criteria alone are not sufficient to
ensure protection of aquatic ecosystems consistent with
provisions of the Clean Water Act. Section 304(a) of the Clean
Water Act authorizes EPA to develop and implement sediment
criteria analogous to EPA's water quality criteria (Gilford and
Zeller, 1986). Many instances have been recorded in recent years
of environmental degradation or unacceptable environmental
aualitv in freshwater and saltwater ecosystems in which water
quality criteria have not been exceeded, probable explanations
are that: 1) contaminated sediments can serve as reservoirs for
continual' recontamination of the overlying water column (ie.,
Larsson, 1985); and 2) aquatic organisms interact with sediments
either 'directly through physical contact or indirectly through
consumption of food organisms that are intimately associated with
sediments, and through this mechanism may become contaminated
with Dollutants associated with sediments (ie., Pavlou and
Dexter 1979; Varanasi et al., 1985). Thus, to prevent
environmental degradation, specific protection limits are
required for both aqueous and sediment phase contaminant
concentrations.
The development of technically sound sediment quality
rrifmria that can be applied widely to sediments from different
t is a difficult task. Chemical contaminants interact in
eomnlex often poorly understood ways with sediment particles and
HZ*Si' oresent in sediments in a variety of adsorbed or solid
may be pr rule, chemical pollutants associated with
«e much less bioavailabX« and toxic to aquatic
sediments a pollutants in solution in the water
"fen?? L»kS et ™1., 1985). However, there is no known
(Neff, 1984, between the concentration of a contaminant in
US&nt' and to aquatic organism, in contact with
that sediment.
vvx in recognition of the complexity of the sediment
contamination problem, has adopted a phased approach to
-------
4.
developing sediment quality criteria. In the first phase, EPA
sponsored two Sediment Quality Criteria Workshops, the first in
November 1984, and the second in February 1985. At the workshops,
experts on sediment chemistry and toxicology identified and
described several approaches or strategies for deriving sediment
aualitv criteria for three classes of chemical contaminantst
nonpolar organics, heavy metals, and polar organics. EPA-CSD
currently is supporting several research projects to evaluate and
refine some of the methods proposed at the workshop for
developing sediment quality criteria. The results of an
evaluation of one of those methods, the Screening Level
Concentration- (SLC) approach, is the subject of this "port.
These SLCs will be used with data generated by other tasks in the
sediment criteria program dealing with elaboration of sediment
normalization theory and development of solid phase bioassay
protocols for nonpolar organic chemicals to develop a method for
deriving sediment quality criteria.
The objectives of the investigation described in this
report are to evaluate the SLC approach empirically and to assess
its strengths and weaknesses for deriving sediment quality
criteria. The SLC approach was evaluated by using several
existing' databases to derive a minimum of five SLCs each for
freshwater and saltwater sediments.
1.2 THE SCREENING LEVEL CONCENTRATION APPROACH
The screening level concentration approach uses field
data on the concentration of specific nonpolar organic
contaminants in sediments and the presence of specific taxa of
benthic infauna in that sediment to calculate screening level
concentrations (SLCs). The SLC is defined here as the
concentration of a nonpolar organic contaminant in sediment
which, if exceeded, could lead to environmental degradation and
therefore would warrant further investigation, it is an estimate
of the highest concentration of a particular nonpolar organic
pollutant in sediment that can be tolerated by approximately 95
percent of benthic infauna. The SLC approach is consistent with
the strategy that assessments of sediment quality must involve at
a minimum measurements of concentrations of toxic chemicals in
the sediments, toxicity of the sediments to representative
infauna, and evidence of modified resident infaunal community
structure in the contaminated sediments (Chapman and Long, 198 3;
Long and Chapman, 1985).
Before an SLC can be derived, a large database must be
compiled. This database must contain synoptic observations of the
concentrations of the specific nonpolar organic chemicals of
interest in the sediments, concentrations of total organic carbon
in the sediments, and the species composition of the benthic
infauna.
m the first step of the calculation, a cumulative
frequency distribution of all stations at which a particular
-------
5.
species of infaunal invertebrate is present is plotted against
the organic carbon-normalized .concentration in sediment of the
contaminant of interest. The concentration of the contaminant at
the locus representing the 90th percentile of the total number of
stations at which the species was present is estimated by
interpolation and termed the species screening level
concentration (SSLC). Next, SSLCs for a large number of species
are plotted as a frequency distribution. The concentration above
which 95 percent of the SSLCs are found is termed the SLC.
This approach to developing sediment quality criteria has
several intuitively appealing attributes. It makes use of field
data on the coexistence of specific levels of sediment
contamination and a resident infauna, making extrapolations' from
laboratory to field conditions unnecessary. It utilizes data on
only the presence of species in sediments containing given
concentrations of contaminants. Thus, no a priori assumptions are
made about a causal relationship between levels of sediment
contamination and the distribution of infaunal populations.
Because no causal relationship is assumed, it is not necessary
take into account the wide variety of natural environmental
factors, such as water depth, sediment texture, and salinity,
that affect the composition and distribution of benthic infaunal
communities. However, because the method uses actual observations
from the field of the co—occurence in the sediments of multiple
species of benthic infauna and concentrations of contaminants,
valid a posteriori inferences can be made about the range of
contaminant concentrations in the sediment that the benthic
infauna can tolerate.
Nearly always, contaminated sediments contain more than
one contaminant . at an elevated concentration. The infauna
resident in the contaminated sediments, as well as the
populations that have been eliminated from the contaminated
sediments, are responding to the multiple contaminants present
and not just to the contaminants of interest. The SLC approach
can not take into account multiple contimant interactions in
sediments. As a result, the SLC value for a particular
contaminant will tend to be conservative (eg., lower than the
benthic infauna could tolerate if the contaminant of interest was
the only contaminant present in the sediment). Because the mix
and relative proportions of different contaminants present in the
sediments will vary substantially from location to location, this
conservative bias in the SLC will tend to decrease as the number
of observations upon which SSLCs are based is increased.
SLCs are calculated from organic carbon-normalized
contaminant concentrations rather than concentrations in bulk
sediment. This normalization is based on the premise, supported
by much theory and experimental data, that bioavailability of
nonpolar organic pollutants from sediments is dependent upon the
organic carbon content of the sediment, the lipid content of the
organism, and the relative affinities of the chemical for
sediment organic carbon versus animal lipid (Karickhoff and
-------
6.
Morris, 1986; Kadeg et al., 1986). A nonpolar organic
contaminant will be distributed among three phases, the sediment
organic fraction, the tissue organic fraction, and the sediment
pore water, in proportion to the respective sediment organic
carbon-water and tissue lipid-water partition coefficients of the
contaminant. Thus, the bioavailability and, by inference, the
toxicity of a nonpolar organic pollutant in sediment will be
proportional to the ratio of the partition coefficient of the
pollutant in the tissue organic fraction of the animal to the
partition coefficient of the pollutant in the sediment organic
fraction, and the sediment organic carbon concentration.
1.3 GENERAL DATA REQUIREMENTS
Large databases containing information on the biology and
chemistry of surficial sediments from freshwater and saltwater
ecosystems are required for the calculation of screening level
concentrations (SLCs). The calculation of an SLC for a given
nonpolar organic contaminant requires data bases containing
matched (synoptic if possible) observations of species
composition of benthic infauna, concentration of the organic
contaminant of interest in the sediment, and concentration of
total organic carbon in the sediment. Sediment grain size data
also are useful, but not essential. At a minimum, 20 observations
of the presence of a particular species in sediments containing
different concentrations of the contaminant of interest are
required for calculation of a species screening level
concentration (SSLC). A minimum of ten SSLCs are required to
calculate an SLC. These numbers were chosen somewhat arbitrarily
for the initial evaluation of the SLC approach.
Thie benthic infauna should be identified to species. A
limited number of identifications to only the genus level are
acceptable if a majority of the infauna in the database are
identified to species. Data sets containing only higher level
taxonomic identifications (e.g., family, order, class) are not
acceptable. Due to time and budget constraints, only a
superficial attempt was made during the course of this study to
assure the accuracy and consistency of the taxonomy within and
among data sets. Several taxonomic discrepancies were discovered
during this review and recalculation of SLCs based on the revised
species lists did not modify the SLCs significantly.
Data also are required on the concentration of the
specific nonpolar organic contaminant of interest in sediment
from the same location as the benthic data, and preferably
collected at the same time, as the biota sample. The chemical
contaminant must be identified specifically. Data for broad
generic pollutant classes (e.g., total petroleum hydrocarbons
oil and grease, total organohalogens, etc.) are not used'
However, narrower designations of chemical class (e g total
pcbs, total polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, DDT and maior
degradation products, etc.) are acceptable.
-------
7.
Data also are required on the total organic carbon (TOC)
concentration of the same sediments used for analysis of benthic
infauna and organic contaminant concentrations. If TOC values
are not available, measurements that can be converted readily to
TOC (e.g., total volatile solids, total organic matter, or total
sediment carbon for noncarbonate sediments) are acceptable.
Due to the preliminary nature of this approach, databases
were sought which fulfilled the aforementioned minimum criteria.
These databases were not subjected to any extensive quality
assurance review, nor were the QA/QC backgrounds of the databases
evaluated. Lacking this more extensive review, SLCs developed
' using these data sources will be illustrative of the validity of
the approach, but are not proposed at this stage of development
for regulatory purposes. Before SLCs could be used in a
regulatory context, the methodology used to collect and assess
geological, chemical, and biological data would require a
comparability assessment. Inconsistencies in taxonomic
identifications, for instance, may affect SLC values, yet only a
superficial review of taxonomic criteria has been conducted in
this study. A more thorough review of the biological, chemical,
and geological data may also result in refinements to and
improvements in the sensitivity of the SLC methodology.
-------
8.
2.0 MATERIALS AND METHODS
2.1 ACQUISITION OF FRESHWATER DATA
The freshwater data sets used in this study were located
by systematically contacting various government agencies, private
consulting firms, and universities, and by searching the open
literature. Government agencies contacted included the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (ten regions), U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers (Division and District offices), Ohio EPA,
International Joint Commission, and Environment Canada.
Approximately 120 individuals were interviewed in these
organizations during the initial data search. Results of this
preliminary survey indicated that the greatest amount of usable
and accessible information appeared to be available for the Great
Lakes region. A concentrated search in this geographic area
revealed the following sources of acceptable data: the Region V
Office of the U.S. EPA, Office of Federal Information, Chicago,
IL; the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency; the Buffalo
District of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; and the Ministry of
Environment, London, Ontario, Canada.
These sources yielded approximately 125 data sets which
were evaluated based on the data requirements described
previously to determine if they should be included in the
analysis. Based on the data requirements, sufficient data, were
available in the freshwater databases for calculating freshwater
screening level concentrations for DDT, total polychlorinated
biphenyls (PCBs), dieldrin, chlordane, and heptachlor epoxide.
The database compiled for calculating freshwater SLCs
consisted of 80 individual data sets representing 323 separate
sampling stations. Sampling stations were located in six states
(Table 1), with a majority of stations located in Illinois (97
sites or 30 percent of the total) and Michigan (95 sites or 30
percent of the total). The remaining 40 percent of the stations
were from Indiana (21 stations), New York (28 stations), Ohio (50
stations), and Wisconsin (32 stations). Data from both lotic and
lentic ecosystems were included in the analysis.
Sufficient data were available in the freshwater data
sets to calculate a screening level concentration for five
conpounds: DDT, PCBs, dieldrin, chlordane, and heptachlor
epoxide.
2.2 ACQUISITION OF SALTWATER DATA
Potentially useful saltwater data sets were identified
by searching a computerized inventory of marine pollution
monitoring programs. This inventory was recently prepared by
Battelle for NOAA-Ocean Assessment Division. The focus of the
data search was on three U.S. coastal regions for which large
databases that contained relevant information were thought to
-------
9.
exist: the New York Bight; the southern California Bight; and
Puget Sound. Several potentially applicable data sets were
identified in this inventory. The group that sponsored or
performed the data collection was contacted to determine the
suitability and availability of the data sets. Government
agencies contacted included the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (Regions 1,2,9, and 10), the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and
the Minerals Management Service. Several sewage treatment
districts of major metropolitan areas that discharge treated
wastewater or sludge to the ocean were contacted. In addition,
several consulting firms, universities, or individual
investigators that were known to have performed or participated
in marine benthic monitoring and assessment programs were
contacted. Approximately 100 individuals or institutions were
contacted by telephone or letter during this data search.
From these saltwater databases, a total of 19 field
surveys or monitoring cruises were identified that contained data
suitable for derivation of SLCs (Table 2). The 19 data sets
contained data from 293 sampling stations. Nearly equal numbers
of stations were located in each of the three regions. These
sampling stations contained 114 species of benthic infauna
identified to the species level. About 50 percent of these
species occurred with sufficient frequency to be used for
calculating an SSLC.
Sufficient data were available in the saltwater data sets
to calculate a screening level concentration for nine compounds:
DDT, PCBs, and the polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons naphthalene,
phenanthrene, fluoranthene, benz(a)anthracene, pyrene, chrysene,
and benzol a)pyrene.
2.3 CALCULATION OF SCREENING LEVEL CONCENTRATIONS (SLCs)
Separate SLCs were derived for freshwater and saltwater
sediments and were based exclusively on the respective freshwater
and saltwater databases. However, the procedures used to
calculate freshwater and saltwater SLCs were the same.
First, we identified all the stations in the database
at which the contaminant of interest was analyzed in the
sediments. For each of these stations, we prepared a list of all
species of benthic infauna that were present at that station. We
then normalized contaminant concentrations to the total organic
carbon concentration of the sediment at each station by the
simple formula:
TOC-normalized contaminant concentration - X/TOC
(ug contaminant/g organic carbon)
where X is the contaminant concentration in the bulk sediment (ug
contaminant/kg sediment dry wt.), and TOC is the concentration of
total organic carbon in the sediment (g organic carbon/kg
-------
10.
sediment dry wt.).
For each species that was present at 20 or more stations,
the oraanic carbon normalised concentration of the
chemical in tie Kt for all samples (or stations) in which
chemical in tn „„ae!orit. versus the station number, proceeding
£om IErieeastWto t^ ^st'c^ntamLafed station (Figured). From
fhi? Slot we estimated the sediment contaminant concentration
below which 90 percent of the samples containing the species
Deiow wnicn " p defined as the species screening
r^it^«r"«tio|, (ssLc. oj: th..e=°n^^-f^diir^ritio
IVS?. llUl™* thereby generating a number of SSLCs for a
given contaminant.
t-hen constructed a cumulative frequency distribution
We then construct ^ Qn sslc value&) of
(based on ran , contaminant (Figure lb) and calculated the
f frh ^rcentile (the SSLC value above which 95 percent of all
SSLCs fill) of that distribution by linear interpolation between
SS s rmani-iles This interpolated value was designated
as%he°screening level concentration ?SLC> of the contaminant.
Because the SSLCs for each contaminant were not normally
distributed (Kolmogorov D-Statistic, ^ -0.05) and Rohlf,
1969) standard statistical (distribution-free) techniques were
ised 'to calculate a confidence interval for the SLCs . Order
statistics were employed to set a confidence interval for the
fifth percentile of the SSLC cumulative frequency distribution
for each contaminant, confidence intervals were set using the
binomial distribution as described by Mood et al. (1974). The
interval that provided a confidence coefficient greater than 95
percent was chosen.
Estimates of the SLC were also made using the jackknife
procedure (Quenouille, 1956) in an effort to set confidence
intervals. However, this approach proved unsuitable. For example,
the pseudo-variables generated for DDT by this procedure were not
normally distributed (Shapiro-Wilk, w-0.625; n-21, ns, Shapiro
and Wilk, 1965). Furthermore, the pseudo-variables gave negative
estimates for the SLC.
-------
11.
3.0 RESULTS
3.1 FRESHWATER DATA
The freshwater database contained presence data for a
total of 103 different infaunal invertebrate taxa. However, only
a total of 23 species, representing seven families, orders or
classes were present at a sufficient number of sampling stations
to be included in the analysis. The freshwater benthic species
used in the analysis included eight oligochaetes (annelid worms),
five ephemeropterans (mayflies), three trichopterans
(caddisflies), one chironomid (midge), one isopod (aquatic sow
bug), two amphipods (scuds), and one gastropod (snail). For all
five contaminants for which freshwater SLCs were calculated, the
taxa found most frequently in the sample were Oligochaeta and
Ephemeroptera.
The distribution of total organic carbon concentrations
in freshwater sediments ranged from 5.0 to 366 g/kg dry wt. The
ranges of concentrations of the five nonpolar organic
contaminants in sediments, for which freshwater SLCs were
calculated, are summarized in Table 3. In each case, the lowest
concentration was below the detection limit of the analytical
technique used and is given as zero. The distribution of total
organic carbon, bulk contaminant concentrations, and organic
carbon normalized contaminant concentrations were not rtormally
distributed (Kolmogorov D-Statistic, with -0.05). In all cases,
the range of organic carbon normalized concentrations of
contaminants spanned at least one order of magnitude.
3.2 SCREENING LEVEL CONCENTRATIONS FOR CONTAMINANTS IN FRESHWATER
SEDIMENTS
The values of the SSLCs for DDT, total PCBs, dieldrin,
chlordane, and heptachlor epoxide in freshwater sediments are
presented in Tables 4 through 8, and their cumulative frequency
distributions are plotted in Figures 2 through 6. The confidence
envelope around the cumulative distribution of the SSLCs,
generated using the Kolmogorov D-Statistic, was approximately +
30 - 40 percent. The cumulative frequency distributions from
which the SSLCs for each contaminant were extracted are contained
in the Appendix.
SSLCs for DDT were calculated for 21 freshwater species
and ranged from 0.189 to 20.0 ug/g organic carbon (Table 4). The
number of observations used to calculate each SSLC ranged from 20
to 56. The cumulative frequency distribution curve of the SSLCs
showed* an irregular concave shape and was dominated by low
concentrations of DDT. Nearly 50 percent of the SSLCs were less
than 0.35 ug/g organic carbon (Figure 2). The SLC for DDT in
freshwater sediments is 0.190 ug/g organic carbon (confidence
interval, 0.0 - 0.283, 0.02). This SLC value is 0.005 percent
of the highest normalized concentration of DDT in the database.
-------
12.
SSLCs for total PCBs were calculated for the same 21
species used to calculate freshwater SSLCs for DDT. The SSLCs
ranged from 0.286 to 103.4 ug/g organic carbon (Table 5). The
number of observations used to calculate each SSLC ranged from 20
to 56". The shape of the cumulative frequency distribution curve
for the SSLCs was approximately linear, with PCB concentrations
evenly distributed over the entire range (Figure 3). The SLC for
total PCBs in freshwater sediments is 0.290 ug/g organic carbon
(confidence interval, 0.0 - 0.65, ^¦ 0.02). This SLC value is
0.05 percent of the highest normalized concentration of PCB in
the database. Although their specific rank order was different,
the species' below the 50th percentile for both DDT and PCB were
identical(Tables 4 and 5).
SSLCs for dieldrin were calculated for 16 freshwater
species and ranged from 0.026 to 1.00 ug/g organic carbon (Table
6). The number of observations used to calculate each SSLC ranged
from 23 to 56. The cumulative distribution curve of the SSLCs
had a markedly sigmoid shape with most of the concentrations
falling in the range of 0.12 to 0.26 ug/g organic carbon (Figure
4). The SLC for dieldrin in freshwater sediments is 0.021 ug/g
organic carbon (confidence interval, 0.0 - 0.084, ¦ 0.04). This
SLC value is 0.09 percent of the highest normalized concentration
of dieldrin in the database. Four of the eight species present
below the 50th percentile in the calculations ftjr dieldrin were
the same as for DDT (Tables 4 and 6).
SSLCs for chlordane were calculated for 16 species of
freshwater animals and ranged from 0.124 to 8.51 ug/g organic
carbon (Table 7). The number of observations used to calculate
each SSLC ranged from 20 to 56. The distribution curve of the
SSLC values was essentially flat from the origin to the 63rd
percentile, above which the values increased sharply (Figure 5).
The SLC for chlordane in freshwater sediments is 0.098 ug/g
organic carbon (confidence interval, 0.0 - 0.136, o(- 0.04). This
SLC value is about 0.01 percent of the highest normalized
concentration of chlordane in the database, with the exception of
the oligochaete, Peloscolex ferox, all species present below the
50th percentile were the same as for DDT (Tables 4 and 7).
SSLCs for heptachlor epoxide were calculated for 12
freshwater species and ranged from 0.013 to 4.88 ug/g organic
carbon (Table 8). The number of observations used to calculate
each SSLC ranged from 23 to 56. The cumulative distribution curve
of the SSLCs was dominated by values less than 0.053 ug/g organic
carbon (Figure 6). The SLC for heptachlor epoxide in freshwater
sediments is 0.008 ug/g organic carbon (confidence interval 0.0
0.029, •' - 0.02) This SLC value is 0.03 percent of the highest
concentration of heptachlor epoxide in the database. With the
exception of the oligochaete, Limnodrilus hoffmeisteri all of
the species below the 50th percentile were the same as'for DDT
(Tables 4 and 8).
-------
13.
3.3 SALTWATER DATA
The saltwater database contained data for the presence
of a total of 117 species of marine benthic invertebrates. Of
these, only 60 species were present at a sufficient number of
sampling stations to be included in the analysis. The most
abundant saltwater taxa used to calculate SLCs were the
Polychaeta, followed by the Crustacea and Mollusca.
In the saltwater database, the concentration of total
organic carbon in the sediments ranged from 0.31 to 303 g/kg. The
highest value was somewhat anomalous, in that the second highest
value was 160 g/kg. The range in the concentrations of the nine
nonpolar organic contaminants in sediments, for which saltwater
SLCs were calculated, are summarized in Table 9. In all cases the
lowest concentration used was above the detection limit of the
analytical technique. In addition, the range of concentrations of
the organic carbon normalized contaminants spanned more than two
orders of magnitude, for all nine contaminants.
3.4 SCREENING LEVEL CONCENTRATIONS FOR CONTAMINANTS IN SALTWATER
SEDIMENTS "
The values of the SSLCs for DDT, total PCBs, naphthalene,
phenanthrene, fluoranthene, benz(a)anthracene, chrysene, pyrene,
and benzo(a)pyrene in saltwater sediments are presented in Tables
10 through 18, and the cumulative frequency distributions of the
SSLCs are plotted in Figures 7 through 15. The cumulative
frequency distributions from which the SSLCs for each contaminant
were calculated are contained in the Appendix.
SSLCs for DDT were calculated for 17 saltwater species
from the Southern California Bight and ranged from 50.488 to
2069.586 ug/g organic carbon (Table 10). The number of
observations used to calculate each SSLC ranged from 20 to 101.
As reflected in the cumulative frequency distribution, there was
a bimodal distribution of SSLC values for DDT, with nine of the
values falling below 210 ug/g organic carbon and the remaining
ten values falling above 1100 ug/g organic carbon (Figure 7). The
SLC for DDT in saltwater sediments is 42.8 ug/g organic carbon
(confidence interval, 0.0 - 113.7, 0.03). This SLC value is
0.6 percent of the highest normalized concentration of DDT in the
saltwater database.
SSLCs for total PCBs were calculated for 51 saltwater
species from the New York Bight and the Southern California Bight
and ranged from 3.394 to 71.315 ug/g organic carbon (Table 11).
The number of observations used to calculate each SSLC ranged
from 20 to 109. The shape of the frequency distribution curve
for the SSLCs was nearly linear, with PCB concentrations evenly
distributed over the entire range of observed values (Figure 8).
The SLC for total PCBs in saltwater sediments is 4.26 ug/g
organic carbon (confidence interval, 0.0 - 4.63,c*- 0.03). This
-------
14.
SLC value is 1.6 percent of the highest normalized concentration
of PCBs in the saltwater database. Four of the five most tolerant
species (highest SSLC values) were the same for both DDT and
PCBs. None of the species used to calculate the saltwater SLC for
DDT occurred below the 50 percentile concentration of SSLC values
for PCBs.
SSLCs for naphthalene were calculated for 24 species of
saltwater animals from the New York Bight and Puget Sound and
ranged from 36.036 to 57.059 ug/g organic carbon (Table 12). The
number of observations used to calculate each SSLC ranged from
20 to 55. The shape of the frequency distribution curve for the
SSLCs was relatively linear, with naphthalene concentrations
evenly distributed over the entire range of observed values
(Figure 9). The^ SLC for naphthalene in saltwater sediments is
36.7 ug/g organic carbon (confidence interval, 0.0 - 41.4,
»0.03). This SLC value is 10.7 percent of the highest normalized
concentration of naphthalene in the saltwater database.
SSLCs for phenanthrene were calculated for 25 species of
saltwater animals from the New York Bight and Puget Sound and
ranged fro® 22.368 to 75.0 ug/g organic carbon (Table 13). The
number of observations used to calculate each SSLC ranged from 20
i f. , f. s"aPe 5he fre were the same for both
naphthalene and phenanthrene(Tables 12 and 13).
caifcwat«fSLinveft^hra?«fan^hene Were calculated for 26 species of
lfiS 38 4 uj/o m ?Uget Sound and ran9ed from 36.184
observations used 1Ci car^on (Table 14). The number of
£2 lu&bSiS"? "s£crir:rVJ°" h" ?¦
values with 16 of th. 25 values '£2
SLC for fluoranthene in saltwater serfi«.«««¦= ?. n J / •
carbon (confidence interval, 0.0 - 64 3
-------
15.
52 ug/g (Figure 12). The SLC for benz(a)anthracene in saltwater
sediments is 26.1 ug/g organic carbon (confidence interval, 0.0 -
41.0, & -0.03). This SLC value is 7.1 percent of the highest
normalized concentration of benz(a)anthracene in the saltwater
database.
SSLCs for pyrene were calculated for 27 saltwater species
from Puget Sound and ranged from 31.579 to 105.882 ug/g organic
carbon (Table 16). The number of observations used to calculate
each SSLC ranged from 20 to 58. The cumulative distribution of
SSLCs was skewed slightly toward the high side, with half the
values occupying the narrow range between 94 and 106 ug/g (Figure
13). The SLC for pyrene in saltwater sediments is 43.4 ug/g
organic carbon (confidence interval, 0.0 - 74.4, c^- 0.06). This
SLC value is 5.6 percent of the highest normalized concentration
of pyrene in the saltwater database. The three most sensitive
species were the same for phenanthrene and pyrene (Tables 13 and
16).
SSLCs for chrysene were calculated for 23 saltwater
species from Puget Sound and ranged from 35.652 to 76.471 ug/g
organic carbon (Table 17). The number of observations used to
calculate each SSLC ranged from 20 to 57. The cumulative
distribution.of SSLCs was relatively flat, with all but one value
falling between 53 and 77 ug/g (Figure 14). The SLC for chrysene
in saltwater sediments is 38.4 ug/g organic carbon (confidence
interval, 0.0 - 60.5,^.- 0.03). This SLC value is 10.3 percent of
the highest normalized concentration of chrysene in the saltwater
database.
SSLCs for benzo(a)pyrene were calculated for'23 saltwater
species from Puget Sound and ranged from 39.604 to 137.386 ug/g
organic carbon (Table 18). The number of observations used to
calculate each SSLC ranged from 20 to 56. The cumulative
distribution of SSLCs was rather flat, with all but the lowest
two and highest values falling in the narrow range of 47 to 67
ug/g (Figure 15). The SLC for benzo(a)pyrene in saltwater
sediments is 39.6 ug/g organic carbon (confidence interval, 0.0 -
46.8, cL - 0.03). The SLC value is 11.5 percent of the highest
normalized concentration of benzo(a)pyrene in the saltwater
database. The two most sensitive species, the polychaetes
Prionosplo cirrifera and Spionophanes berkelevorum were the same
for chrysene and benzo(a)pyrene (Tables 17 and 18). in addition,
either Glycinde armigera or Prionospio cirrifera was the most
sensitive species for all seven polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons.
However, these two species ranked forty-second and thirty-fourth,
respectively, in apparent sensitivity to total PCBs (Table 11).
-------
16.
4.0 DISCUSSION
All SLCs determined in this project are summarized in
Table 19. Some interesting patterns emerge. All SLCs for
freshwater sediments are lower than all SLCs for saltwater
sediments by at least one order of magnitude. This pattern is
exemplified best by the two contaminants for which we have
comparative freshwater and saltwater SLCs: PCBs and DDT. The SLC
for PCBs in saltwater sediments is 15 times higher than the
corresponding value for freshwater sediments. There is a 225-fold
difference in the SLCs for DDT in freshwater and saltwater
sediments. There are several possible reasons for these
differences. The most important are the following: 1) differences
in the range and distribution of values of organic carbon
normalized contaminant concentrations for freshwater and
saltwater sediment in the two databases; 2) differences in the
relative sensitivity of the freshwater and saltwater benthic
infauna used in this analysis; and 3) differences in the
solubility of the nonpolar organic contaminants in fresh water
and salt water. In addition, the freshwater database included
zero values for organic contaminants in sediments, whereas the
saltwater database .did not.
The range and distribution of contaminant concentrations
in the database used to calculate an SLC will have a marked
effect on the value of the SSLCs, and therefore the SLCs
generated. The SLC calculation process, by its very nature, makes
no a priori assumptions about a causal relationship between a
given concentration of the contaminant of interest in sediments
and the presence or absence of a particular species of benthic
infauna in those sediments. Therefore, it is possible to have a
data set in which all concentrations of the contaminant of
interest are well below the concentration in sediments that would
adversely affect the distribution of benthic infauna. SLCs
calculated with such a data set would be conservative and the SLC
would have little regulatory relevance. On the other hand, if
most observations are from a heavily contaminated area, most of
the pollutant-sensitive species would be absent and the SLC would
be based primarily on pollutant-tolerant species, in such a case
the SLC would be too high. As the range of contaminant
concentrations upon which the SLC is based increase* the
likelihood of these types of biases in the SLC decreases. '
in the freshwater and saltwater data sets used to
calculate SLCs, the observed organic carbon normalized
concentrations of the contaminants in sediments were distributed
quite differently. This could account for much of the difference
in the SLC values between freshwater and saltwater sediments For
example, in the freshwater data set, approximately 10 percent of
the observations of the organic carbon normalized concentration
of DDT m sediments were below 0.5 ug/g, and only 10 percent of
observations were above 30 ug/g However, in thl cor?esponding
saltwater data set, approximately 10 percent of observations were
-------
below 1.0 ug/g, and approximately 75 percent of observations were
above 30 ug/g. As a result, 47.6 percent of the SSLCs for DDT in
freshwater sediments were below 0.35 ug/g organic carbon (Table
4), whereas 47.4 percent of the SSLCs for DDT in saltwater
sediments were at or below 208 ug/g organic carbon (Table 10).
The differences between freshwater and saltwater data sets for
PCBs are similar to but not as large as those described above for
DDT.
To further illustrate the differences between the
freshwater and saltwater databases, the SLCs can be compared to
the corresponding maximum concentrations of the contaminants in
the database. For freshwater sediments, each SLC was 0.01 to 0.09
percent of the highest organic carbon normalized concentration of
the corresponding contaminant in the freshwater database. In the
case of both DDT and PCBs, the SLC value was 0.05 percent of the
highest concentration in the freshwater database. For saltwater
sediments, each SLC was 0.6 to 11.5 percent of the highest
organic carbon normalized concentration of the corresponding
contaminant in the saltwater database. The SLC values for DDT
and PCBs were 0.6 and 1.6 percent, respectively, of their highest
concentrations in the saltwater database.
Although differences in the sensitivity of freshwater
and saltwater benthic invertebrates to sediment-associated
nonpolar contaminants could result in some differences in the SLC
values, it is unlikely that such differences would be large
enough to account for more than a fraction of the differences in
SLC values observed here for freshwater and saltwater sediments.
Current water quality criteria for DDT and PCBs indicate that
there are only small differences in the apparent sensitivity of
freshwater and saltwater animals to these two chemicals (FR
45:231, Nov. 28,1980, 79318-79379). For DDT, the criterion to
protect freshwater aquatic life is 0.001 ug/1 as a 24-hour
average, not to exceed 1.1 ug/1 at any time. The corresponding
criterion to protect saltwater aquatic life is 0.001 ug/1 as a
24-hour average, not to exceed 0.13 ug/1 at any time. For PCBs,
the criterion to protect freshwater aquatic life is 0.014 ug/1 as
a 24-hour average. The corresponding criterion to protect
saltwater aquatic life is 0.030 ug/1. Thus, based on the water
quality criteria and assuming similarity in the sensitivity of
the . organisms used to calculate water quality criteria and the
benthic infaunal invertebrates used to calculate SLCs, there
should be only a moderate difference in the sensitivity of
freshwater and saltwater animals to DDT and PCBs. Recently,
Palawski et al.(1985) reported that striped bass, a euryhaline
species of fish, was more sensitive to several pollutants,
including PCBs, several polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, and
pesticides, in hard fresh water than in low salinity sea water.
However, the differences in LC50 values were never greater than
about two-fold for any of the chemicals tested. The major
difference in sensitivity of freshwater and saltwater organisms
to sediment-adsorbed nonpolar organic contaminants is probably
due more to differences in partitioning behavior of the
-------
18.
contaminants in freshwater and saltwater systems than to
differences in the sensitivity of freshwater and saltwater
organisms themselves.
Salinity of the ambient medium does affect the physical
and chemical behavior of many chemicals. Kadeg et al. (1986)
reviewed the effects of salinity on the behavior of nonpolar
organic chemicals in aqueous media. The aqueous solubility of
PCBs, DDT, and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons decreases with
increasing salinity. As a result, the presence of electrolytes
(salts) in solution increases the sorption of nonpolar organic
chemicals by sediments. Therefore, it is reasonable to infer that
nonpolar organic chemicals adsorbed to sediments will be less
bioavailable in salt water than in fresh water. There are
relatively few data available that are suitable for testing this
inference (Neff, 1984). Boehm (1982V measured the concentration
of several nonpolar organic pollutants in sediments and resident
infaunal polychaetes and bivalves from the New York Bight.
Bioaccumulation factors for the contaminants from the sediments
(concentration in animal tissues/concentration in sediment)
ranged from 0.001 to 0.7 in the polychaetes Nephthys sp. and
Pherusa affinis and from 0.002 to 4.46 in the bivalve, Nucula
proxima. Bioaccumulation factors for several polycyclic aromatic
hydrocarbons (PAH) ranged from 0.01 to 0.24 in the polychaetes
and 0.002 to 3.20 in the bivalve. Eadie et al. (1982a,b;1983 )
studied the concentrations of several PAHs in sediments and
benthic oligochaetes and arthropods from the Great Lakes.
Bioaccumulation factors from sediments for individual PAHs in the
amphipod Pontoporeia hoyi ranged from 1 to 45. Bioaccumulation
factors from sediments for different PAHs in the oligochaete
Limnodrilus hoffmeisteri ranged from 0.1 to 2.3, This limited
comparison lends support to the inference that bioavailability of
nonpolar organic contaminants from sediments will be inversely
related to salinity of the overlying water. Because
bioavailability and toxicity of a nonpolar organic chemical are
directly related, we can infer that there will be a tendency for
freshwater organisms to be more sensitive than saltwater
organisms to sediment-adsorbed contaminants. This conclusion is
consistent with our analysis and may account for a small part of
the difference in SLCs for freshwater and saltwater sediments.
This conjecture is very preliminary and requires further
experimental verification.
Zero values for contaminant concentrations in sediments
were used to calculate freshwater but not saltwater SLCs The use
of zero values would tend to decrease the value of'the SLCs
calculated. In order to determine the magnitude of the effect of
this difference in calculating freshwater and saltwater SLCs a
few of the freshwater SLCs were recalculated without inclusion'of
the zero values. This procedure approximately doubled the
resultant SLCs. Therefore, the contribution of this procedural
difference to the differences in freshwater and saltwater SLCs
for DDT and PCBs was small. Zero values were used in the
calculation of the freshwater SLCs so that there would be the
-------
minimum number of 20 observations required to calculate an SSLC.
Of the four possible reasons for the differences between
the freshwater and saltwater SLC values, the most important
probably is the differences in ranges of organic carbon
normalized contaminant concentrations in sediments covered by
each database. The freshwater concentrations tended to be low as
evidenced by the many zero contaminant values. The saltwater
database tended toward the more highly polluted sediments. Based
on these observations, the freshwater SLC values may be
conservative and the saltwater SLC values may be too high.
Recently, Tetra Tech (1986) evaluated the SLC and
several other approaches to developing sediment quality criteria.
They used field data from Puget Sound. The only chemical for
which both Tetra Tech and Battelle calculated an SLC was
naphthalene. Our SLC for naphthalene, based on data from Puget
Sound and the New York Bight, is 36.7 ug/g organic carbon. This
value compares very favorably with the value of 37 ug/g organic
carbon reported by Tetra Tech, based on data from Puget Sound
alone.
Tetra Tech also calculated an SLC of 230 ug/g organic
carbon for total high molecular weight polycyclic aromatic
hydrocarbons in marine sediments. Nine PAHs were included in the
total, including five PAHs for which we calculated individual
SLCs (fluoranthene through benzo(a)pyrene). Assuming addativity,
the Tetra Tech data would indicate an average SLC for each of the
nine PAH of 26 ug/g organic carbon. The SLCs that we calculated
for the five PAH range from 26.1 to 41.9 ug/g organic carbon
(mean, 37.6 ug/g organic carbon). Again, there is reasonable
agreement between the two independent estimates. Although Tetra
Tech did not calculate a saltwater SLC for DDT or PCBs, they did
apply another approach, which they named the apparent effects
threshold (AET) approach, to deriving sediment quality indices
for these contaminants. The AET values for PCBs and the different
PAHs were similar to one another, whereas the AET value for DDT
was much lower than the AETs for PCBs and PAHs. In our analysis
of saltwater sediments, the ranking of PCBs and DDT is reversed.
DDT and the different PAHs have similar SLCs and the SLC for PCBs
is much lower. In addition, the SLCs generated in the present
investigation are all less than the corresponding AET values
calculated by Tetra Tech, except for DDT. The SLC value for DDT
is much larger than the corresponding AET value. This difference
in relative ranking can be attributed to the different sources
and characteristics of the data sets used to calculate the SLCs
for DDT and PCBs. The data set used to calculate the saltwater
SLC for DDT was from the Southern California Bight, an area known
to be heavily contaminated with DDT residues. Thus, a large
fraction of the observations were at stations with sediments
containing high concentrations of DDT. The saltwater SLC for PCBs
was calculated with data from both the New York Bight and the
Southern California Bight. Both areas have sediments with
elevated concentrations of PCBs, but not as elevated as locations
-------
20.
in Puget Sound from which Tetra Tech obtained the data set used
to calculate the AET for PCBs.
The SLC approach has demonstrated sufficient merit to
warrant further evaluation and elaboration. Given a large enough
database and minor modifications to the methods for calculating
SSLCs and SLCs, the approach will provide a conservative estimate
of the highest organic carbon normalized concentrations of
individual contaminants in sediments that can be tolerated by
approximately 95 percent of benthic infauna. As the number and
range of observations contributing to the calculation of the SLC
for a contaminant increases, one would expect the SLC values
calculated "to asymptotically approach some ideal "true" SLC
values for freshwater and saltwater sediments. It is essential
that the database contain organic carbon normalized
concentrations of the sediment contaminants of interest that span
a wide range (preferably two orders of magnitude or more) and
include values from locations known to be heavily contaminated.
Low and intermediate sediment contaminant concentrations are
needed to ensure that pollutant—sensitive species are not
excluded from the analysis. High values are needed to ensure that
benthic communities are in fact being adversely affected at some
stations by the % contaminant of interest. Data from areas
containing clearly defined gradients of concentrations of the
contaminant of interest in the sediments would be ideal for use
in calculating an SLC. In the present investigation, the
freshwater database was dominated by low contaminant
concentrations and the saltwater database was dominated by high
contaminant concentrations. The result was that freshwater SLCs
tended to be low and saltwater SLCs tended to be high. As the
number of observations in the database increases, the magnitude
of this bias toward high or low values will decrease.
In order to calculate an accurate SLC, the number of
species used in the analysis should be as large as possible and
should span a wide phyletic range. Whenever possible, taxa known
to be sensitive to chemical pollutants, such as benthic amphipods
and certain insect larvae, should be included in the analysis.
Thompson (1982) identified three zones with different be£thic
mfaunal community structure along a pollution gradient away from
point source discharges of treated sewage to the southern
California Bight. Species restricted to the unpolluted reference
J5eas f?n, be considered the most pollutant-sensitive, whereas,
those that are most abundant m severely impacted areas can be
considered the most pollutant-tolerant. Some animals are most
abundant in the transitional zone between these extremes Of the
five dominant members of the control (poUuSan^sMs^ive!
community, ^wo/ the brittle star, Amphiodia (AmphisDina) urtica.
and the polychaete, Pectinaria californienslsr in.i.HoH in
the calculation of the SLCs for DDT (Table 10) and PCBs (Table
11). These two species ranked number two and eight, respectivelv
in SSLCs for DDT, and number thirty and forty, respectively, iA
SSLCs for PCBs. Among the most pollutant-tolerant species the
polychaete, Capitella capitata, ranked number fifteen in SSLCs
-------
21.
for DDT and number forty-three in SSLCs for PCBs. Thus, in the
present exercise, there was • a fairly good relationship in the
case of DDT, but not PCBs, between the apparent sensitivity of
benthic species to pollution and their relative rank in a
cumulative frequency distribution of SSLC values. However, the
important point here is that apparently sensitive and apparently
tolerant species were included in the data sets used to calculate
the SLCs for DDT and PCBs.
Greater use could be made of taxa that have been
identified only to the genus level, if this will increase the
number of taxa in the database suitable for SSLC calculation.
Inclusion of animals identified only to the genus level shpuld be
done with caution. If data sets from different geographic areas
are being used to calculate an SLC, a species group identified to
the genus level in one region may or may not correspond to the
species group from another area identified to the same genus. For
example, Tharyx sp. from the southern California Bight may or may
not correspond to Tharyx sp. from Puget Sound or the New York
Bight. In using data for animals identified to only the genus
level, the assumption is implied that all members of that genus
have a similar sensitivity to the pollutant of interest. This
probably is not true. Organisms of a genus, including benthic
infauna, tend to segregate along environmental gradients,
including pollution gradients (Grassle and Grassle, 1976).
Therefore, the genus mean sensitivity may have little
environmental relevance with respect t:o generation of SLC values.
Another way to increase the number of species that can be
used in the analysis is to decrease the number of observations
required to calculate an SSLC. It may be possible to reduce this
number to ten without seriously compromising the validity of the
SSLCs. The requirement for at least 20 observations for
calculation of an SSLC was set somewhat arbitrarily at the
beginning of this project. It is likely that any disadvantage of
using fewer observations to calculate the SSLC would be more than
compensated for by the increase in the number of SSLCs that could
be calculated and used to determine the SLC. In addition, it is
probable that a majority of the additional SSLCs obtained this
way would be for the more sensitive species most likely to be
eliminated from the more contaminated stations. Ideally, more
than 20 SSLCs should be used to calculate each SLC. The more
SSLCs used, the more technically and statistically sound the
resulting SLC will be.
The requirement of the SLC approach for large databases,
and the desirability of using data from different regions to
calculate each SLC, raises another potential problem. Different
data sources may reach different conclusions regarding what
constitutes a genus. For example, one source might designate a
polychaete as Pectinaria californiensis and another might
designate the same animal as Cistena californiensis. These two
designations represent a single species and should be included
together for the SSLC determination. As our knowledge of the
-------
22.
freshwat
taxonomy
changes
original
or more
species.
investig
be take
synonymi
species.
subjecte
familiar
which th
quality
adequate
represen
detectic
two-folc
calculat
analytic
inaccura
rejectee
combinec
techniqv
comparat
results.
and saltwater benthic infauna grows, revisions of the
of some taxa are made. These revisions may result in
a some genus or species names. In addition, a population
r designated as a single species may be divided into two
oecies, or several species may be combined into a single
Thus, when using data sets from several different
-ors and/or several geographic regions, great care must
to ensure that the final species list contains no
> or single entries that actually represent multiple
All data sets used to calculate each SLC must be
to rigorous quality assurance review by a taxonomist
with the benthic infauna of the geographic regions from
data sets were obtained.
le chemical data also must be subjected to rigorous
isurance review. Chemical data sets which do not contain
iocumentation of precision, accuracy, comparability, and
itiveness should be used with caution. Analytical
limits should be documented and values less than
greater than the detection limits should not be used to
SSLCs. Data sets based on results of analyses using
L techniques which have subsequently been found to be
2 or subject to excessive interference should be
When several data sets from different regions are being
t0„H S * „SLC value' the analytical
I s; 1 •£? • dlf?ere*t data sets should be
. or at least capable of yielding roughly comparable
range c
which c
for PCBs
in this
sediment
sediment
with tJ:
on equi
calculat
normaliz
1SconcentrationsUm»nrf and, distrifaution (in terms of both
concentrations and number of different locations from
servations were used of obssrvan««« Lu
;« 1-ho mnch 1 ^ 311ons, the saltwater SLC
preliminary SLC^cor^ generated
,qu*^y
permissible sedimenf nh a5 co®pares reasonably well
Lbriui partitioning for PCBsaofCina4ntC/ti0n
-------
23.
5.0 RECOMMENDATIONS
1. The SLC approach to deriving sediment quality criteria has
merit and warrants further evaluation and refinement.
2. The requirements for the number of observations necessary to
calculate an SSLC should be reduced to 10 and the- number of SSLCs
required to calculate an SLC should be increased to at least 20.
This relationship should be evaluated statistically in detail to
arrive at the most statistically sound approach to deriving SLCs.
3. The choice of the 90th percentile of observations for the SSLC
and the 5th percentile of SSLCs for the SLC value also should be
evaluated statistically, using real data sets, in order to
develop an approach to calculating SLCs that makes optimal use of
the available data.
4 Additional data, particularly from sites known to be heavily
contaminated with the pollutants of interest, should be acquired
and added to the database. The effects of the inclusion of these
additional data on the SLCs generated should be evaluated.
5 A statistical analysis should be performed to determine the
optimum range and distribution of sediment contaminant
concentrations for calculating SLCs.
6 All data bases used to calculate SLCs should be subjected to
rigorous quality assurance review. Both the biological and the
chemical data should be evaluated for precision, accuracy,
comparability, and representativeness. Criteria should be
developed for accepting or rejecting databases based on the
outcome of this quality assurance review.
7 investioators should be encouraged in designing new benthic
monitorina and pollution assessment programs to include
collection of synoptic data on benthic infaunal community
structure? sediment contaminant concentrations, and sediment
organic carbon concentrations.
-------
24.
LITERATURE CITED
Boehm, P.D. 1982. Organic pollutant transforms and
bioaccumulation of pollutants in the benthos from waste
disposal-associated sediments. Tech. Rep. submitted to U.S. Dept.
of Commerce, NOAA, Rockville, MD. 78pp.
Chapman, P.M., and E.R. Long. 1983. The use of bioassays as part
of a comprehensive approach to marine pollution assessment. Mar.
Pollut. Bull. 1_4: 81-84.
Eadie, B.J., W. Faust, W.S. Gardner, and T. Nalepa. 1982a.
Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in sediments and associated
benthos in Lake Erie. Chemosphere 11: 185-191.
Eadie, B.J., W.R. Faust, P.F. Landrum, N.R. Moorehead, W.S.
Gardner, and T. Nalepa. 1983. Bioconcentrations of PAH by some
benthic organisms of the Great Lakes. Pages 437-449 In:
Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons: Formation, Metabolism, and
Measurement. Ed. by M. Cooke and A.J. Dennis. Battelle Press,
Columbus, OH.
Eadie, B.J., P.F." Landrum, and w. Faust. 1982b. Polycyclic
aromatic hydrocarbons in sediments, pore water and the amphipod
Pontoporeia hoyi from Lake Michigan. Chemosphere LI: 847-8,49.
Gilford, J.H., and R.W. Zeller. 1986. Information needs related
to toxic chemicals bound to sediments— a regulatory perspective.
in; Fate and Effects of Sediment-Bound Chemicals in Aquatic
Systems. Proceedings of the Seventh Pellston Workshop. Ed. by
K.L. Dickson, A.W,. Maki, and W. Brungs. Society of Environmental
Toxicology and Chemistry, (in press).
Grassle, J.P., and J.F. Grassle. 1976. Sibling species in the
marine pollution indicator Capitella capitata (Polvchaeta) .
Science 192: 567-569.
Kadeg, R.D., S.P. Pavlou, and A.S. Duxbury. 1986. Sediment
criteria methodology validation. Work Assignment 37, Task II.
Elaboration of sediment normalization theory for nonpolar organic
chemicals. Report to U.S. EPA, Criteria and Standards Division,
Washington, D.C. 44pp plus append.
Karickhoff, S.W., and K.R. Morris. 1986. Pollutant sorption:
Relationship to bioavailability. In: Fate and Effects of
Sediment-Bound Chemicals in Aquatic Systems. Proceedinas of the
Sixth Pellston Workshop. Ed. by K.L. Dickson, a.w. Maki, and w.
Brungs. Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, (in
press).
.i:'-?:L; Ho*£man' ?nd s-£- Schimmel. 1985. Bioaccumulation
of contaminants from Black Rock Harbor dredged material by
-------
25.
mussels and polychaetes. Tech. Rep. D-85-2. U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers and U.S. EPA, Washington, D.C. 150pp.
Larsson, P. 1985. Contaminated sediments of lakes and oceans act
as sources of chlorinated hydrocarbons for release to water and
atmosphere. Nature 317: 347-349.
Long, E.R., and E.R. Chapman. 1985. A sediment quality triad:
Measures of sediment contamination, toxicity and infaunal
community composition in Puget Sound. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 16;
405-515.
Mood, A.M., F.A. Graybill, and D.C. Boes. 1974. Introduction to
the Theory of Statistics. McGraw-Hill, New York. 564pp.
Neff, J.M. 1984. Bioaccumulation of organic micropollutants from
sediments and suspended particulates by aquatic animals. Fres. Z.
Anal. Chem. 319: 132-136.
Palawski, 0., J.B. Hunn, and F.J. Dwyer. 1985. Sensitivity of
young striped bass to organic and inorganic contaminants in fresh
and saline waters. Trans. Amer. Fish. Soc. 114: 748-753.
Pavlou, S.P., and R.N. Dexter. 1979. Distribution of
polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB) in estuarine ecosystems. Testing
the concept of equilibrium partitioning in the marine
environment. Environ. Sci. Technol. 13: 65-71.
Quenouille, M. 1956. Notes on bias estimation. Biometrica 43*
353-360. —'
Shapiro, S.S., and M.B. Wilk. An analysis of variance test for
normality (complete samples). Biometrica 52: 591—611.
Sokol, R.R., and F.J. Rohlf. 1969. Biometry. W.H. Freeman, San
Francisco. 776 pp.
Tetra Tech, Inc. 1986. Tasks 4 and 5a. Application of selected
sediment quality value approaches to Puget Sound Data. Report to
^ Army Corps of Engineers, Seattle Dxstrxct, Seattle, WA. 59
PP plus append.
Thompson, B.E. 1982. Variation in benthic assemblages. Pages
45-58 In- Coastal Research Project. Biennial Report for the Years
1981-1982. Ed. by W. Bascom. Southern California Coastal Water
Research Project, Long Beach, CA.
Varanasi, U., W.L. Reichert, J.E. Stein, D.W. Brown, and H.R.
Sanborn. 1985. Bioavailability and biotransformation of aromatic
hydrocarbons in benthic organisms exposed to sediment from an
urban estuary. Environ. Sci. Technol. 1_9: 836—841.
-------
26.
TABLE 1. LIST OF DATA SETS USED TO CALCULATE FRESHWATER SLCs BY
STATE AND THE NUMBER OF STATIONS IN EACH DATA SET.
ILLINOIS
Big Muddy River 3
Calumet Channel 4
Casey Fsrk 4
Des Plaines River 4
Fox River 8
Green River 3
Illinois River 6
Kankanee River 8
Kaskaskia River 8
LaMoine River 3
Little Calumet River 3
Little Wabash River 1
Lusk Creek 4
Middle Fork Saline River 3
Mississippi River 10
North Branch Chicago River 3
North Fork Saline River 2
Rock River 7
Salt Creek 4
Sanitary/Ship Canal 1
South Fork Saline River 3
Vermilion River 2
Wabash River 3
TOTAL 97
INDIANA
Indiana Harbor 21
TOTAL 21
MICHIGAN
Caseville Harbor 1
Detroit River 5g
Grand Haven Harbor 3
Hammond Bay Harbor 1
Holland 12
-------
27.
TABLE 1. (Continued)
Data Set Location No. of Stations
MICHIGAN (CONT)
Lake St. Clair Channel 7
Manistee River 2
Monroe Harbor 1
Point Lookout Harbor 1
Thunder Bay . 3
TOTAL 95
NEW YORK
Cape Vincent 5
Dunkirk 5
Little Salmon River 1
Oak Orchard 4
Ogdensburg Harbor 1
Olcott Harbor 6
Port Ontario 1"
Sakets Harbor 5
TOTAL 28
OHIO
Ashtabula Harbor 7
Conneaut 8
Cuyahoga River 14
Fairport 11
Sandusky Bay 10
TOTAL 50
WISCONSIN
Algoma Harbor 4
Ashland Harbor 2
Grant Park 4
Green Bay 17
Kenosha Harbor 3
Port Wing 2
TOTAL 32
GRAND TOTAL 323
-------
28.
TABLE 2. LIST OF DATA SETS USED TO CALCULATE SALTWATER SLCs BY LOCATION AND
NUMBER OF STATIONS.
Region
NY Bight
Cruise/Survey
Code
AL8109
DL8206
AL8201
AL8210
KE8C07
Number of
Stations
44
4
6
1
33
TOTAL
88
S. Calif. Bight
730
80Q
81S
80m80
39
12
13
33
TOTAL
Puget Sound
SAM
DABOB
SEQ
CASE
BELL
ELL
EVER
SINCL
msqs
URSCCI
97
4
4
4
4
8
8
8
8
50
10
GRAND TOTAL
TOTAL
108
293
-------
29.
TABLE 3. CONCENTRATION RANGES OF CONTAMINANTS IN SEDIMENTS FROM THE
FRESHWATER DATA BASE, EXPRESSED IN TERMS OF BULK SEDIMENT AND
NORMALIZED TO SEDIMENT TOTAL ORGANIC CARBON CONCENTRATION.
Organic Carbon
Concentration Range Normalized Concentration
Compound yg/g Dry Sed. Range yg/g Org C
DDT 0.0 - 30.7 0.0 - 3,520
/
PCBs 0.0 - 23.13 0.0 - 600
Dieldrin 0.0 - 1.00 0.0 - 24.5
Chlordane 0.0 - 1.00 0.0 - 25.1
Heptachlor Epoxide 0.0 - 1.00 0.0 - 29.1
-------
1
2
3
4
5
5
7
3
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
30.
Will. ATI VE FREQUENCY AND VALUES FOR SPECIES SCREENING LEVEL
CONCENTRATIONS (SSLCs) FOR DOT IN FRESHWATER SEDIMENTS. THE NUMBER
OF OBSERVATIONS USED TO CALCULATE EACH SSLC ALSO IS GIVEN.
I
Cumulative SSLC No. of
Frequency {%) (ug/g Org. C) Observations Organism
4.3
0.139
20
9.5
0.208
28
14.3
0.227
25
19.0
0.233
42
23.8
0.283
35
23.6
0.286
36
33.3
0.236
20
38.1
0.333
54
42.9
0.345
37
47.6
0.345
34
52.4
2.471
25
57.1
2.667
23
51.9
2.667
20
66.7
2.667
56
71.4
3.000
55
76.2
3.000
26
80.9
3.132
20
35.7
3.182
26
90.6
4.429
43
95.2
16.842
31
100.0
20.000
56
Stenonema
Stenonema
Cyrnel1 us
Stenonema
Stenonema
HyaleHa
exiquum
pulchel1 urn
fraternus
integrum
tarmi natus
azteca
Pentanerua mallochi
Stenacron interpunctatum
Hydropsyche frisoni
Hydropsyche orris
Asellus intermedius
Limnodrilus claparedeianus
Limnodrilus udekemianus
Tubifex tubifex
Limnodrilus hoffmeisteri
Valvata sincera
Limnodrilus cervix
Potamothrix vejdovskyi
Peloscolex ferox
Peloscolex multisetosus
Gammarus fasciatus
-------
, 1
2
3
4
5
o
7
3
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
15
17
13
19
20
21
31.
CUMULATIVE FREQUENCY AND VALUES FOR SPECIES SCREENING LEVEL
CONCENTRATIONS (SSLCs) FOR TOTAL POLYCHLORINATED BIPHENYLS (PCBs) IN
FRESHWATER SEDIMENTS. THE NUMBER OF OBSERVATIONS USED TO CALCULATE
EACH SSLC ALSO IS GIVEN.
Cumulative SSLC No. of
Frequency [%) (pg/g Org* C) Observations Organism
4.8
0.286
25
Cyrnellus fraternus
9.5
0.379
35
Stenonema termination
14.3
0.606
28
Stenonema pulc^ellum
19.0
0.650
34
Hydropsyche orris
23.8
0.722
37
Hydropsyche frisoni
28.6
0.722
42
Stenonema integrum
33.3
0.949
20
Stenonema exiquum
38.1
1.905
54
Stenacron interpunctatum
42.9
3.137
20
Pentaneura mallochi
47.6
4.655
25
Asellus intermedius
52.4
7.442
36
HyaleHa azteca
57.1
9.318
26
Potamothrix vejdovskyi
61.9
24.260
26
Valvata sincera
66.7
29.259
23
Limnodrilus claparedeianus
71.4
29.600
56
Tub if ex tubifex
76.2
34.286
43
Peloscolex ferox
81.0
45.714
20
Limnodrilus udekemianus
35.7
52.778
20
Linmodrilus cervix
90.5
52.778
55
Limnodrilus hoffmeisteri
95.2
56.338
56
Gammarus fasciatus
100.0
103.448
31
Peloscolex multisetosus
-------
1
2
3
4
5
5
7
3
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
32.
CUMULATIVE FREQUENCY AND VALUES FOR SPECIES SCREENING LEVEL
CONCENTRATIONS (SSLCs) FOR OIELDRIN IN FRESHWATER SEDIMENTS. THE
NUMBER OF OBSERVATIONS USED TO CALCULATE EACH SSLC ALSO IS GIVEN.
Cumulative SSLC No. of
Frequency (?) (p9/9 Org. C) Observations Organism
6.3
0.026
40
Peloscolex ferox
12.5
0.084
24
Cyrnellus fraternus
13.8
0.115
34
Stenonema terminatum
25.0
0.139
23
limnodrilus claparedeianus
31.2
0.157
52
limnodrilus hoffmeisteri
37.5
0.167
56
Tubifex tubifex
43.7
0.173
34
Hydropsyche orris
50.0
0.178
40
Stenonema integrum
56.2
0.135
51
Stenacron interpunctatum
62.5
0.135
25
Stenonema pulchellum
58.8
0.136
36
Hydropsyche frisoni
75.0
0.194
24
Asellus intermedius
31.3
0.200
34
HyaTelia azteca
37.5
0.260
28
Peloscolex multisetosus
93.8
0.370
26
Valvata sincera
100.0
1.000
56
Gammarus fasciatus
-------
33.
TABLE 7. CUMULATIVE FREQUENCY AND
CONCENTRATIONS (SSLCs) FOR
NUMBER OF OBSERVATIONS USED
VALUES FOR SPECIES SCREENING LEVEL
CHLORDANE IN FRESHWATER SEDIMENTS. THE
TO CALCULATE EACH SSLC ALSO IS GIVEN.
Cumulative SSLC No. of
Rank Frequency (2) (m9/9 0r9- c) Observations Organism
1
6.3
0.124
2
12.5
0.136
3
13.8
0.141
4
25.0
0.143
5
31.2
0.172
5
37.5
0.172
7
43.8
0.173
3
50.0
0.135
9
55.3
0.208
10
52.5
0.256
LI
68.3
0.309
12
75.0
0.466
13
81.3
0.714
14
87.5
1.086
15
93.8
2.821
15
100.0
8.511
38
Stenonema integrum
40
Peloscolex ferox
33
Stenonema terminatum
23
Cyrnellus fraternus
32
Hydropsyche frisoni
32
Hydropsyche orris
23
Stenonema pulchellum
47
Stenacron interpunctatum
23
Limnodrilus claparedeianus
56
Tubifex tubifex
29
Hyalella azteca
20
Asellus intermedins
47
Limnodrilus hoffmeisteri
23
Peloscolex multisetosus
26
Valvata sincera
56
Gammarus fasciatus
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
34.
CUMULATIVE FREQUENCY AND VALUES FOR SPECIES SCREENING LEVEL
CONCENTRATIONS (SSLCs) FOR HEPTACHLOR EPOXIDE IN FRESHWATER
SEDIMENTS. THE NUMBER OF OBSERVATIONS USED TO CALCULATE EACH SSLC
ALSO IS GIVEN.
Cumulative SSLC No. of
Frequency {%) (pg/g Org. C) Observations Organism
8.3
0.013
52
16.7
0.029
37
25.0
0.029
34
41.7
0.034
33
41.7
0.034
31
50.0
0.037
24
58.3
0.043
48
56.7
0.050
23
75.0
0.053
34
33.3
0.705
26
91.7
1.086
23
100.0
4.878
56
Limnodrilus hoffmeisteri
Stenonema integrum
Stenonema terminaturo
Hydropsyche frisoni
Hydropsyche orris
Stenonema pulchellum
Stenacron interpunctatum
Asellus intermedius
Hyalella azteca
Valvata sincera
Peloscolex multisetosus
Gammarus fasciatus
-------
35.
TABLE 9. CONCENTRATION RANGES OF CONTAMINANTS IN SEDIMENTS FROM THE
SALTWATER DATA BASE, EXPRESSED IN TERMS OF BULK SEDIMENT AND
NORMALIZED TO SEDIMENT TOTAL ORGANIC CARBON CONCENTRATION.
Organic Carbon
Concentration Range Normalized Concentration
Compound iig/g Dry Sed. Range ng/g Org C
PCBs
0.0005 - 3.18
0.625 - 271.96
ODT
0.0010 - 149.0
0.109 - 7292.3
Naphthalene
0.0011 - 1.20
0.110 - 342.86
Phenanthrene
0.0062 - 1.50
1.088 - 428.57
Fluoranthene
0.300 - 1.50
1.875 - 428.57
Benz(a)anthracene
0.093 1.30
0.581 - 371.43
Chrysene
0.059 - 1.30
0.368 - 371.43
Pyrene
0.290 - 2.60
1.812 - 742.86
Benzo(a)pyrene
0.100 - 1.20
0.625 - 342.86
-------
36.
TABLE 10. CUMULATIVE FREQUENCY AND VALUES FOR SPECIES SCREENING LEVEL
CONCENTRATIONS (SSLCs) FOR DOT IN SALTWATER SEDIMENTS. THE NUMBER
OF OBSERVATIONS USED TO CALCULATE EACH SSLC ALSO IS GIVEN.
Cumulative
Rank Frequency (%)
SSLC
(vig/g Org. C)
No. of
Observations
Organism
1
5.9
50.488
21
2
11.8
50.483
27
3
17.6
68.696
29
4
23.5
113.684
21
5
29.4
137.692
29
6
35.3
137.692
20
7
41.2
207.917
20
3
47.1
954.033
62
9
52.9
1136.331
79
10
58.3
1260.058
45
11
64.7
1392.123
86
12
70.6
1407.287
61
13
76.5
1511.990
101
14
32.4
1816.188
51
15
88.2
1999.961
44
15
94.1
2069.586
37
17
100.0
2069.586
57
Ampelisca brevisimulata
Amphiodia (Amphispina) urt
Euphiiomedes carcharodonta
Heterophoxus oculatus
Compsoinyax subdiaphana
Sthenelanella uniformis
Chloeia pinnata
Pectinaria californiensis
Axinopsida sericata
Paraprionospio pinnata
Glycera capitata
Prionospio steenstrupi
Parvilucina tenuisculpta
Macoma carlottensis
CapiteUa capitata
Spiophanes berkeleyorum
Telli-na carpenteri
-------
37.
TABLE 11. CUMULATIVE FREQUENCY AND VALUES FOR SPECIES SCREENING LEVEL
CONCENTRATIONS (SSLCs) FOR TOTAL POLYCHLORINATED 8IPHENYLS (PCBs) IN
SALTWATER SEDIMENTS. THE NUMBER OF OBSERVATIONS USED TO CALCULATE
EACH SSLC ALSO IS GIVEN.
Cumulative SSLC No. of
Rank Frequency (2) (p9/9 0r9- C) Observations Organism
1
2.0
3.394
2
3.9
3.371
3
5.9
4.583
4
7.3
4.634
5
9.8
4.634
5
11.8
4.714
7
13.7
4.714
3
15.7
4.841
9
17..6
4.341
10
19.6
4.341
11
21.6
4.341
12
23.5
6.000
13
25.5
6.000
14
27.5
7.500
15
29.4
7.500
15
31.4
8.000
17
33.3
3.000
13
35.3
8.000
19
37.3
8.000
20
39.2
8.854
21
41.2
9.143
22
43.1
10.000
23
45.1
10.000
24
47.1
10.000
25
49.0
10.000
26'
51.0
10.625
27
52.9
10.625
23
54.9
10.941
29
56.9
11.417
30
58.8
11.731
31
60.8
13.769
32
62.7
16.935
33
64.7
18.644
34
66.7
27.736
35
68.6
30.118
36
70.6
33.103
37
72.5
33.905
38
74.5
39.683
39
76.5
40.017
40
78.4
40.017
41
80.4
41.143
42
32.4
42.765
43
84.3
45.045
44
86.3
46.025
45
38.2
46.307
46
90.2
47.817
47
92.2
52.058
48
94.1
52.058
49
96.1
56.307
50
98.0
58.774
51
100.0
71.315
21 Spiochaetopterus costarum
32 Nephtys ferruginea
24 Harmothoe extenuata
22 Euchone elegans
22 Sealibregma inflatum
24 Drilonereis Tonga
27 Spiophanes bombyx
29 Anobothrus gracilis
27 Arctica islandica
30 Euchone incolor
26 Ninoe nigripes
23 Nephtys incisa
33 Nucula proxima
25 Mediomastus ambiseta
33 Tharyx acutus
39 Aricidea catherinae
22 Caulleriella cf kill an ens is
24 Goniadella gracilis
24 Unciola irrorata
25 Lumbrinereis hebes
54 Pholoe minuta
23 Paraonis gracilis
27 Pherusa afflnis
26 Phyllodoce mucosa
33 Tharyx annulosus
30 Lumbrinereis acicularum
29 Pi tar morrhuanus
32 Tellina agilis
24 Qlycera dibranchiata
37 Amphiodia (amphispina) urtica
25 Heterophoxus oculatus
55 Euphilomedes carcharodonta
21 Prionospio cirrifera
28 Cossura longocirrata
21 Ampelisca brevisimulata
26 Compsomyax subdiaphana
20 Sthenelanella uniformis
20 Armandia brevis
23 Glycinde armigera
56 Pectlnaria californiensis
109 Prionospio steenstrupi
38 Nephtys cornuta franciscana
74 Capitella capitata
90 Axinopsida sericata
20 Chloeia pinnata
56 Prionospio pinnata
100 Glycera capitata
57 Macoma carlottensis
89 Parvilucina tenuisculpta
42 Spiophanes berkeleyorum
40 Tellina carpenteri
-------
38.
TABLE 12. CUMULATIVE FREQUENCY AND
CONCENTRATIONS (SSLCs) FOR
NUMBER OF OBSERVATIONS USED
VALUES FOR SPECIES SCREENING LEVEL
NAPHTHALENE IN SALTWATER SEDIMENTS. THE
TO CALCULATE EACH SSLC ALSO IS GIVEN.
Cumulative
Rank Frequency [%)
SSLC
(pg/g Org. C)
No. of
Observations
Organism
I
4.2
36.036
20
2
3.3
39.565
24
3
12.5
40.000
53
4
15.7
41.394
25
5
20.8
41.765
51
6
25.0
41.765
22
7
29.2
41.765
45
3
33.3
41.765
24
9
37.5
43.333
24
10
41.7
43.333
25
11
45.8
47.436
52
12
50.0
47.436
52
13
54.2
47.436
55
14
53.3
51.980
49
15
62.5
51.930
20
16
56.7
51.980
31
17
70.8
51.980
50
13
75.0
51.980
26
19
79.2
51.980
21
20
33.3
52.055
29
21
37.5
52.055
21
22
91.7
57.059
23
23
95.8
57.059
27
24
100.0
57.059
30
Glycinde armigera
Prionospio cirrifera
Capitella capitata
Armandia brevis
Axinopsida sericata
Euchone incolor
Nephtys cornuta franciscana
Praxillella gracilis
Compsomyax subdiaphana
Goniada brunnea
Euphilomedes carcharodonta
Glycera capitata .
Macoma carlottensis
Nephtys ferruginea
Phyllodoce hartmanae
Platynereis bicanaliculata
Prionospio steenstrupi
Spiochaetopterus costarum
Spiophanes berkeleyorum
Glycera americana
Pectinaria californiensis
Amphiodia (Amphispina) urti^
Parvilucina tanuisculpta
Pholoe minuta
—^
-------
39.
TABLE 13. CUMULATIVE FREQUENCY AND VALUES FOR SPECIES SCREENING LEVEL
CONCENTRATIONS (SSLCs) FOR PHENANTHRENE IN SALTWATER SEDIMENTS. THE
NUMBER OF OBSERVATIONS USED TO CALCULATE EACH SSLC ALSO IS GIVEN.
Cumulative SSLC No. of
R&rfe Frequency (%) (pg/g Org. C) Observations Organism
r.
4.0
22.368
2:
3.0
36.576
3:
12.0
36.576
4--
16.0
38.356
5~
20.0
38.514
5'
24.0
39.726
7
28.0
39.726
3
32.0
40.588
9
36.0
40.588
10:
40.0
40.588
II
44.0
40.588
IZ
48.0
52.294
IT
52.0
52.294
14
56.0
52.294
15:
60.0
52.294
16i
64.0
54.167
IT
68.0
55.372
W
72.0
55.372
19.-
76.0
55.372
20
80.0
55.372
21
34.0
55.372
22
33.0
75.000
23
92.0
75.000
2^
96.0
75.000
25
100.0
75.000
21 Glycinde armigera
25 Amandia brevis
25 Prionospio cirrifera
25 Euchone incolor
20 Phyllodoce hartmanae
52 Axinopsida sericata
27 Goniada brunnea
25 Compsomyax subdiaphana
53 Euphilomedes carcharodonta
51 Nephtys ferruginea
25 Praxillella gracilis
56 Capitella capitata
56 Glycera capitata
55 Macoma carlottensis
21 Pectinaria californiensis
54 Prionospio steenstrupi.
29 Amphiodia (amphispina) uritic
54 Nephtys cornuta franciscana
20 Paraprionospio pinnata
37 Pholoe minuta
22 Spiophanes berkeleyorum
29 Glycera americana
27 Parvilucina tenuisciilpta
32 Platynereis bicanaliculata
26 Spiochaetopterus costarum
-------
40.
TABLE 14. CUMULATIVE FREQUENCY AND VALUES FOR SPECIES SCREENING LEVEL
CONCENTRATIONS (SSLCs) FOR FLUORANTHENE IN SALTWATER SEDIMENTS. THE
NUMBER OF OBSERVATIONS USED TO CALCULATE EACH SSLC ALSO IS GIVEN.
Cumulative SSLC No. .of
Rank Frequency (%) (pg/g Org. C) Observations Organism
1
3.8
36.134
21
2
7.7
58.993
27
3
11.5
61.321
20
4
15.4
64.286
22
5
19.2
66.138
25
6
23.1
81.081
20
7
26.9
31.651
27
3
30.8
81.651
26
9
34.6
97.872
59
10
38.5
111.765
52
11
42.3
124.658
28
12
46.2
124.658
53
13
50.0
124.658
55
14
53.8
124.658
57
15
57.7
124.658
51
15
61.5
124.658
58
17
55.4
129.412
25
13
69.2
129.412
57
19
73.1
129.412
41
20
76.9
129.412
20
21
30.8
135.294
27
22
84.6
135.294
21
23
38.5
135.294
25
24
92.3
146.552
32
25
96.2
164.384
29
26
100.0
164.384
29
Glycinde armigera
Prionospio cirrifera
Paraprionospio pinnata
Spiophanes berkeleyorum
Armandia brevis
PhyTlodoce hartmanae
Goniada brunnea
Spiochaetopterus costarum
Capitella capitata
Axinopsida sericata
Euchone incolor
Euphi "I omedes carcharodonta
Macoma carlottensis
Nephtys cornuta franciscana
N.ephtys ferruginea
Prionospio steenstrupi
Compsomyax subdiaphana
Glycera capitata
Pholoe minuta
Sealibregma inflatum
Parvilucina tsnuisculpta
Pectinaria californiensis
Praxillalla gracilis
Platynereis bicanaliculata
Amphiodia (amphispina) urti^
Glycera americana
-------
41.
TABLE 15. CUMULATIVE FREQUENCY AND VALUES FOR SPECIES SCREENING LEVEL
CONCENTRATIONS (SSLCs) FOR 8ENZ(A)ANTHRACENE IN SALTWATER SEDIMENTS.
THE NUMBER OF OBSERVATIONS USED TO CALCULATE EACH SSLC ALSO IS
GIVEN.
Cumulative SSLC No. of
Rank Frequency (X) (m9/9 Org. C) Observations Organism
1
4.3
24.348
24
Prionospio cirrifera
2
3.7
35.477
25
Armandia brevis
3
13.0
35.477
21
Spiophanes berklyorum
4
17.4
40.952
26
Goniada brunnea
5
21.7
41.322
26
Spiochaetopterus costarum
6
26.1
42.466
52
Axinopsida sericata
7
30.4
44.118
57
Capitella capitata
3
34.8
44.118
25
Compsomyax subdiaphana
9
39.1
44.113
23
Euchone tricolor
10
43.5
44.118
53
Euphilomedes carcharodonta
U
47.8
44.118
57
Glycera capitata
12
52.2
44.118
56
Macoma carlottensfs
13
56.5
47.647
50
Nephthys ferruginea
14
60.9
47.647
27
Parviculina tennisculpta
15
65.2
47.647
21
Pectinaria cal iforniensi.s
16
69.6
47.647
25
PraxiUella gracilis
17
73.9
47.647
57
Prionospio steenstrupi
18
78.3
47.945
29
Ampho i od i a(Amph i s pi na)urt i ca
19
82.6
51.765
30
Glycera americana
20
37.0
51.765
50
Nephthys cornuta franciscans
21
91.3
51.765
40
Phioe minuta
22
95.7
51.802
20
Phyllodoce hartmanae
23
100.0
51.302
30
Platynereis bicanaliculata
-------
42.
TABLE 16. CUMULATIVE FREQUENCY AND VALUES FOR SPECIES SCREENING LEVEL
CONCENTRATIONS (SSLCs) FOR PYRENE IN SALTWATER SEDIMENTS. THE
NUMBER OF OBSERVATIONS USED TO CALCULATE EACH SSLC ALSO IS GIVEN.
Cumulative
Rank Frequency (%)
SSLC
(pg/g Org. C)
No. of
Observations
Organism
1
3.7
31.579
22
2
7.4
65.217
27
3
11.1
73.171
25
4
14.8
74.380
22
5
18.5
75.000
27
6
22.2
82.375
20
7
25.9
82.375
26
3
29.6
84.906
20
9
33.3
84.906
20
10
37.0
84.932
52
11
40.7
87.671
53
12
44.4
87.671
55
13
48.1
87.671
51
14
"51.9
94.118
59
15
55.6
94.118
57
16
59.3
94.118
58
17
63.0
100.000
25
13
66.7
100.000
28
19
70.4
100.000
21
20.
74.1
100.000
25
21
77.8
100.719
57
22
31.5
105.882
29
23
85.2
105.382
29
24
88.9
105.882
27
25
92.6
105.882
41
26
96.3
105.882
32
27
100.0
105.882
20
Glycinde armigera
Prionospio cirrifera
Armandia brevis
Spiophanes berkel eyoruin
Goniada brunnea
Phyllodoce hartmanae
Spiochaetopterus costarum
Paraprionospio pinnata
Tharyx monilaris
Axinopsida saricata
Euphilomedes carcharodonta
Macoma carlottensis
Nephtys ferruginea
Capitella capitata
Glycera capitata
Prionospio steenstrupi
Compsomyax subdiaphana
Euchone Tricolor
Pectinaria californiensis
Praxillella gracilis
Nephtys cornuta franciscana
Amphiodia (amphispina) urtii
Glycera americana
Parvilucina tanuisculpta
Pholoe minuta
Platynereis bicanaliculata
Sealibregma inflatum
-------
43.
TABLE 17. CUMULATIVE FREQUENCY AND
CONCENTRATIONS (SSLCs) FOR
NUMBER OF OBSERVATIONS USED
VALUES FOR SPECIES SCREENING LEVEL
CHRYSENE IN SALTWATER SEDIMENTS. THE
TO CALCULATE EACH SSLC ALSO IS GIVEN.
Cumulative SSLC No. of
Rank Frequency [%) (pg/g Org. C) Observations Organism
1
4.3
35.652
2
3.7
52.893
3
13.0
57.143
4
17.4
60.847
5
21.7
62.084
5
26.1
62.084
7
30.4
62.084
3
34.8
63.694
9
39.1
63.594
10
43.5
54.706
11
47.3
64.706
12
52.2
64.706
13
56.5
64.706
14
60.9
68.966
15
65.2
68.966
16
69.6
69.863
17
73.9
69.863
18
78.3
69.863
19
32.6
75.314
20
87.0
76.471
21
91.3
76.471
22
95.7
76.471
23
100.0
76.471
24 Prlonospio cirrifera
21 Spiophanes berkeleyorum
26 Goniada brunnea
25 Armandia brevis
51 Axinopsida sericata
57 Capitella capitata
20 Phyllodoce hartmanae
28 Euchone incolor
57 Prionospio steenstrupi
52 Euphilomedes carcharodonta
55 Macoma carlottensis
50 Nephtys cornuta franciscana
50 Nephtys ferruginea
56 Glycera capitata
25 Spiochaetopterus costarum
21 Pectinaria californiensis
31 Platynereis bicanaliculata
25 Praxillella gracilis
25 Compsomyax subdiaphana
29 Amphiodia (amphispina) urtic
29 Glycera americana
26 Parvilucina tenuisculpta
40 Pholoe minuta
-------
44.
TABLE 18. CUMULATIVE FREQUENCY AND VALUES FOR SPECIES SCREENING LEVEL
CONCENTRATIONS (SSLCs) FOR 8ENZ0(A)PYRENE IN SALTWATER SEDIMENTS.
THE NUMBER OF OBSERVATIONS USED TO CALCULATE EACH SSLC ALSO IS
GIVEN.
Cumulative
Rank Frequency (%)
SSLC
(pg/g Org. C)
No. of
Observations
Organism
1
4.3
39.504
21
2
3.7
39.604
21
3
13.0
46.552
52
4
17.4
46.795
25
5
21.7
49.315
28
6
26.1
49.315
25
7
30.4
50.000
51
3
34.3
50.000
25
3
39.1
50.000
52
10
43.5
50.000
56
11
47.8
50.000
25
12
52.2
51.887
43
13
55.5
52.910
25
14
50.9
52.910
55
15
55.2
52.910
56
15
69.6
55.372
49
17
73.9
55.372
26
13
78.3
55.372
21
19
32.6
55.372
37
20
87.0
61.544
29
21
91.3
61.644
29
22
95.7
66.667
29
23
100.0
137.387
20
Prio.nospio cirrifera
Spiophanes berkeleyorum
Capitella capitata
Spiochaetopterus costarum
Euchone incolor
Gom'ada brunnea
Axinopsida sericata
Compsomyax subdiaphana
Euphilornedes carcharodonta
Glycera capitata
Praxillella gracilis
Nephtys cornuta franciscana
Armandia brevis
Macoma carlottensis
Prionospio steenstrupi
Nephtys ferruginea
Parvilucina tenuisculpta
Pectinaria californiensis
Pholoe minuta
Amphiodia (Amphispina) urti^
Glycera americana
Platynereis bicanaliculata
Phyllodoce hartmanae
-------
TABLE 19. SUMMARY OF SCREENING LEVEL CONCENTRATIONS (SLCs) FOR FRESHWATER AND SALTWATER
SEDIMENTS. VALUES IN jjg CONTAMINANT PER g SEDIMENT ORGANIC CARBON (PARTS PER
MILLION).
Compound
Freshwater
SLC (Confidence Interval and a)
Saltwater
Heptachlor Epoxide
Chlordane
Dieldrin
Polychlorinated Biphenyls
DDT
Naphthalene
Phenanthrene
Fluoranthene
Benz(a)anthracene
Chrysene
Pyrene
Benzo(a)pyrene
0.008(C. I .=0.0-0.029,ot-0.02)
0.098(C.I.=0.0-0.136,a=0.04)
0.021(C.I.=0.0-0.084,a=0.04)
0.290(C.I.=0.0-0.65,a=0.02)
0.190(C.I.=0.0-0.283,a=0.02)
4.26(C.I.=0.0-4.63 ,ot=0.03)
42.8(C.I.=0.0-113.7,a=0.03)
36.7(C.I.-0.0-41.4,a=0.03)
25.9(C.I.=0.0-38.4,a=0.03)
43.2(C.I.=0.0-64.3,a=0.04)
26.1(C.I.=0.0-41.0,a=0.03)
38.4(C.I.=0.0-60.5,a=0.03)
43.4(C.I.=0.0-74.4,a=0.06)
39.6(C. I .=0.0-46.8,nt=0.03)
-------
46.
c
o
o>
o
at
at
3
C
o
c
ai
o
c
o
CJ
1000 _
90th Percentile Concentration
1 2 3 4 5 5 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 U 15 16 17 18 19 20
Sites Where Species "A" is Present
A. CALCULATION OF SPECIES SCREENING LEVEL CONCENTRATION (SSLC)
u
c
a
o>
u
O
a»
o>
3
C
o
c
a
u
c
o
a
(/)
10000
1000
100
10
1
X X
X x X X X
- 5% SLC V
/ XX
HL
X
JL.
X X
0 10 20 30 40 50 50 70 80 90 100
Cumulative Frequency of Species
3. CALCULATION OF SCREENING LEVEL CONCENTRATION tSLC)
FIGURE 1. A SCHEMATIC ILLUSTRATION OF THE CALCULATION OF
SCREENING LEVEL CONCENTRATIONS (SLCs) FOR
NONPQLAR ORGANIC CONTAMINANTS IN SFDIMENTS.
-------
47.
'k -x -k -k -k
¦k •k -If
¦k -k :k :k -k.
¦k :k
-i 1 ' (¦'
00 0 « 20 '-1 * 40 0 « SO
Cumulative Frequency
CUMULATIVE FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OF SPPrrfS
SEDIMENT ORGANIC CARBON. RE IN;jG 00T/G
-------
48.
•k
-)r it -fr -if
'Jf
-k
JQ
20
' 0 . 40
0 .50
I I
Cumulative Frequency
CUMULATIVE FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OF SPECIES
SCREENING LEVEL CONCENTRATIONS (SSLCs) FOR TOTAL
POLYCHLORINATEO BIPHENYLS IN FRESHWATER SEDIMENTS.
SSLC VALUES ARE IN -pG PCB/G SEDIMENT ORGANIC
CARBON.
-------
49.
0 . 0 0
0 .20
0 .40
0 . SO
0 .30
Cumulative Frequency
FIGURE 4. CUMULATIVE FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OF SPECIES
SCREENING LEVEL CONCENTRATIONS (SSLCs) FOR
DIELDRIN IN FRESHWATER SEDIMENTS. SSLC VALUES ARE
IN-jjG DIELDRIN/G SEDIMENT ORGANIC CARBON.
-------
50.
a
5.
1 -J-
UJ
2
<
O *
§ :
x 0 .25 + *
o - 'k -k k :k -k
- :k -k k
-+ i"
1 — — — — — —T —
0.00 0.20 0.40 0.SO .0.30
Cumulative Frequency
FIGURE 5. CUMULATIVE FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OF SPECIES
SCREENING LEVEL CONCENTRATIONS (SSLCs) FOR
CHL0R0ANE IN FRESHWATER SEDIMENTS. SSLC VALUES
ARE IN G CHLORDANE/G SEDIMENT ORGANIC CARBON.
-------
51.
6. 0 t
O
0
H-
O)
1 i.o;
UJ
a
x
o ...
0. U . I to t
UJ
-------
52.
* * * *
* * * *
1000 +
o
o
I-
O)
o>
*
316 +
o
a
* # *
100 +
* *
-h-
0.00
0.20
(.
0 .40
Q.60 o.ao
Cumulative Frequency
1.00
FIGURE 7. CUMULATIVE FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OF SPECIES
SCREENING LEVEL CONCENTRATIONS (SSLCs) FOR DOT
IN SALTWATER SEDIMENTS. SSLC VALUES ARE IN VG
OOT/G SEDIMENT ORGANIC CARBON.
-------
53.
o
o
»—
O)
o>
R
CD
O
Q_
39
15
**
******
*****
**
* *
****2***
* ~
******
* *
****
* ~ * * *
# *
+ + + +
0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00
Cumulative Frequency
FIGURE 8. CUMULATIVE FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION QF SPECIES
SCREENING LEVEL CONCENTRATIONS (SSLCs) FOR
TOTAL POLYCHLORINATED BIPHENYLS IN SALTWATER
SEDIMENTS. SSLC VALUES ARE IN -pG PCB/G SEDIMENT
ORGANIC CARBON.
-------
54.
* * *
55 +
* * * - * it ir it it
o
I-
o»
q* 48 + * * *
ui
z
Ui it it
< 42+ *****
X
H-
I *
Q.
<
Z
36 + *
*
0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00
Cumulative Frequency
FIGURE 9. CUMULATIVE FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OF SPECIES
SCREENING LEVEL CONCENTRATIONS (SSLCs) FOR
NAPHTHALENE IN SALTWATER SEDIMENTS. SSLC VALUES
ARE IN "pG NAPHTHALENE/G SEDIMENT ORGANIC CARBON.
-------
55.
uu
tr
x
Ui
X
Q.
44 +
31 +
it if fr if
u 63 +
° ^
O) | *******
~0) I * * * *
*
* * * *
UJ I * * * 11
* *
22 + *
0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00
Cumulative Frequency
FIGURE 10. CUMULATIVE FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OF SPECIES
SCREENING LEVEL CONCENTRATIONS (SSLCs) FOR
PHENANTHRENE IN SALTWATER SEDIMENTS. SSLC
VALUES ARE IN-yti PHENANTHRENE/G SEDIMENT ORGANIC
CARBON.
-------
56.
158 +
* it
o
o
i—
o>
o>
5.
Ui
111
£T
X
I—
z
<
tr
o
=3
—I
LL
*******
* * * - * * *
100 +
** *
63 +
~ *
39 +
0.00
0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80
Cumulative Frequency
1.00
FIGURE 11. CUMULATIVE FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OF SPECIES
SCREENING LEVEL CONCENTRATIONS (SSlCs) FOR
FLUORANTHENE IN SALTWATER SEDIMENTS. SSLC VALUES
ARE IN-pG FLUQRANTHENE/G SEDIMENT ORGANIC CARBON
-------
57.
* * * * *
o 50 +
o ******
t-
CT> -
_ * * * * * *
o>
^ _ * * *
40 +
LU
UlI
CJ
<
DC o->
X 32 +
I—
Z
<
< ~
n 25 +
2
LU
03
* *
0 . 00 0 .20 0 .40 0 .60 0..80 1 . 00
Cumulative Frequency
FIGURE 12. CUMULATIVE FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OF SPECIES
SCREENING LEVEL CONCENTRATIONS (SSLCs) FOR
BENZ(A)ANTHRACENE IN SALTWATER SEDIMENTS.
SSLC VALUES ARE IN fJG 3ENZ(A)ANTHRACENE/G
SEDIMENT ORGANIC CARBON.
-------
58.
89
** *********
* * *
* * *
*****
o
o
h-
O)
o»
63 +
* *
LU
Z
UJ
cc
>¦
Q.
44 +
31 +
+-
0.00
0.20
0.40 0.60 0.80 1-00
Cumulative Frequency
FIGURE 13. CUMULATIVE FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OF SPECIES
SCREENING LEVEL CONCENTRATIONS (SSLCs) FOR
PYRENE IN SALTWATER SEDIMENTS. SSLC VALUES ARE
INVG PYRENE/G SEDIMENT ORGANIC CARBON.
-------
59.
80 +
_ *****
_ * * * *
o 53 + *****
o> - *
o> - *
3,
£ 50 ~
uj
CO _
>
cc
" 40 I
35 . *
* * * * *
0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00
Cumulative Frequency
FIGURE 14. CUMULATIVE FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OF SPECIES
SCREENING LEVEL CONCENTRATIONS (SSLCs) FOR
CHRYSENE IN SALTWATER SEDIMENTS. SSLC VALUES ARE
I N ]JG CHRYSENE/G SEDIMENT ORGANIC CARBON.
-------
60.
137 -
g 120 +
i—
o>
—>» ¦"
o>
UJ 79 +
z
UJ
cc
>'
OL
o
M
— *
— * *
53 +
— ********
*******
_ * *
in
03
40 + *
+ + + +
0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00
Cumulative Frequency
FIGURE 15. CUMULATIVE FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OF SPECIES
SCREENING LEVEL CONCENTRATIONS (SSLCs) FOR
BENZQ(A)PYRENE IN SALTWATER SEDIMENTS. SSLC
VALUES ARE IN -pG BENZO(A)PYRENE/G SEDIMENT
ORGANIC CARBON.
-------
APPENDIX
Cumulative Frequency Distribution Plots Used to Calculate Species
Screening Level Concentrations for Contaminants in Freshwater and
Saltwater Sediments. Contaminant Concentrations (Vertical Axis)
are Given in ug Contaminant/g Sediment Organic Carbon.
-------
APPENDIX. Part I. Species Screening Level Concentration Plots for
Contaminants in Freshwater Sediments.
-------
CUflULATIVE FREQUENCY OF .NOkflALIZED «DDT! (DG/G ORGAHIC CAHBOM)
GENUS-ASELLUS SPP=INTERSEDIUS
PLOT OF DDT^CUnFREQ SYMBOL USED IS I
PLOT CF SSLC-CUBFREQ SI.1BOL USED IS -
DDT |
!0.O ~
1
X 1 1 1
1
I
— — ~ — — — — "~ — — — + — — — — —— — ———— —
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 O.e 1.0
CUKFRES
16 cas HIDDEN
-------
CtlHOLATIVE FREQUENCY OF NORMALIZED £ DDT! (UG/G ORGAHIC CARBON)
GEMOS-CYRN ELLU S SPP=FRATERNUS
PLOT OF DDT-CUBFREQ SYHBOL USED IS X
PLOT OF SSLC-CUPIFREQ SYHBOL USED IS -
DOT |
a.o ~
0.0
1 .0
0.1
s *
X
* X
X
X X
X
Q.O ~
I
0.0
0.2
0.4 0.6
CUBFREQ
0.8
1 .0
«TEr 26 CSS HIDDEN
-------
CUMULATIVE FREQUENCY OF NOROALIZED *DDT! (UG/G ORGANIC CARfiON)
GEHUS=GAttKARUS SPP=FASCIATUS
PLOT CF
PLOT OF
DDT-CUKFREQ
SSLC-CUMFfiEC
SYMBOL USED IS X
SYMBOL USED IS *
OCT
'0.0
'0.Q
1.0
i$i &&XXXX
X XX
XIX
X XX
XX
XX
XX X
XXX XXXX
XXXXXX XXXX
XXX
X
X XX
XXXX
X X
^•0 ~ x
*2:
0.0 0.2
6 CBS HIDDEN
O.tt
0.6
0.8
•— * —
1 .0
CUBFREQ
-------
CUMULATIVE FHECUENCT OF NORMALIZED 2DDT! (UG/G ORGANIC CARBON)
GENUS = tiYALELLA SPP=AZTECA
PLOT OF DDT^CURFr.EQ SYttEOL USED IS X
PLOT OF SSLC-CU«FR£Q SYMBOL USED IS <=
DDT |
j 0 . 0 +
10.0
1 .0
0.1
;««««« 5$ * $ $ ~ $ j:* $ $
XX XX XXX XXX
XXX
X X
0.0 ~
I
0.0
0.2
0.1 0.6
CUttFREQ
. b
~ —
1 .0
GTS:
31 OBS HIDDEN
-------
Cumulative frequency of normalized «ddt! (ug/g organic carbon)
CENUS=HYDROPSYCH SPP=FRISONI
PLOT OF DDT-CUMFREQ SYMBOL USED IS X
PLOT OF SSLC-CUKFREC SYflEOL USED IS -
I
£ tf. $ -S X X XX ^
X X X XX
X
XXX
X
X
X
X
X
I
+
0.0 C.2 0*tt 0,6 0,8
CUJ1FRES
38 CBS HIDDEN
-------
CUMULATIVE FREQUENCY OF NORMALIZED 2 DDT ! (UG/G ORGANIC CARBON)
3ENUS=HYDROPSYCH SPP=ORHIS
PLOT OF DDT^CUKFREw SYMBOL USED IS X
PLOT OF SSLC^CUHFREC SYMBOL USED 15 *
iCT I
"ii.Q ~
0.0
i .a
x
3.1
X X X X X X
XXX
J.Q *
I
XXX
0.0
7 .0
cu.ifre:
26 05S h1 CD EM
-------
CUMULATIVE FREQUENCY OF NORMALIZED « DDT ! (UG/G ORGANIC CARBOH)
GENUS = LI."!NODHILUS SFP = CERVIX
PLOT OF DDTSCUKFREQ SYMBOL USED IS X
PLOT OF SSLC^CUfiFREC SYKbOL USED IS «
X
~
I
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 Q.b 1.
CUKFRES
1 CSS hAD KISSING VALUES CR WERE QUT OF RANGE 2 CBS HIDDEN
-------
CUHULATIVE FREQUENCY OF NORMALIZED SDDTi (UG/G ORGANIC CARBON)
GENUS=LIKNODRILUS SPP=CLAPAREDEIANUS
PLOT OF DDT^CUKFHEC SYMBOL USED IS X
PLOT OF SSLC*CCnFREQ SYHEOL USED IS -
£07 |
jl.Q ~
JU .0
i
X X
XXX
X XX
X X
*»* *
•f# eA#1 «# If
* *¦ * X X
X
XXX
XXX
XXX
Jo • J *
I
0.0
0.2
o.u
o.e
0.
1 .0
CUMF RtQ
U ObS HIDDEN
-------
CUMiLATIVE FREQUSHCY OF SORRAL1ZED «DDT! (UG/G ORGANIC CARBON)
GEMUS=LIhNODRILUS SPP=HOFFHEISTSHI
PLOT OF D0T*CUKF3Ew SX3B0L USED IS X
*107 OF SSLC^CUwFREQ SYMBOL USED IS $
ll
l>
I
i
t
I
1JW «*»•»•••« «•. V. * Asj!AA± «•» «• UA
»v -»» y* •*•"#•* v•*• s«*k»^5* '•***¦ ^ A Av
i XX
+ XX
I XX xxxx
I X
t
| XXX XX
1 XX XX
I xxxx
|> XX xxxx X X
~ XX XXX
I, x
I
IX
I X XX
I
I x
---------- ~ —— --------- ¦~• - - -----4 -
0.0 0.2 0.4 C.6 0.6 1.0
CUHFRS3
3 oes HAD KISSIKG VALUES OS WERE OUT OF RANGE 1U OBS HIDDEN
-------
CUMULATIVE FREQUENCY OF NORMALIZED eDDT! (UG/G ORGANIC CARBON)
GENUS=LIftNODRILUS SPP=ODEKEBIAMUS
; sit fc
i Qi mG) *
(I
T I
t
8
PLOT OF DDT^CUfi FREt
PLOT CF SSLC^CUI-FS £w
SYMBOL USED IS X
SYMBOL USED IS -
I
jlU-d ~
1
fi
fe
l;
t
fi
I
*©.1 ~
\
I
I
XX XX
X X
\ u. * 1 *"
'-,rs;
Q-0 0.2 0.4 0.6
CUSFREQ
1 ObS KAC KISSING VALUES OR WERE CUT OF RANGE
0 . b 1 • 0
7 CBS HIDDEN
-------
CUMULATIVE *RE«*UENCY OF NORMALIZED «DCT! (UG/G ORGANIC CARBON)
GENUS=PELOSCOLEX SPP=FEROX
PLOT OF ddt^cubfre; SY.»POL USED IS X
tf LOT OF SSLC-CUP.FREC SIH&OL USED IS -
XX XX XX
X XX XX X
X XX X
•Jf ^ **• A ^ J1; A ^ A «!• V «
* * T -f *»••#» * "*• w V * vv* '
XX XX
XX
XX XX
X XX
' — ~ — ~ ¦*¦ ¦ — + ~
0.0 0.2 o.u 0.6 0.8 1.
• C'JttFRE*
U CBS hAL KISSING VALUES OR WERE OUT OF RANGE 13 GBS HIDDEN
-------
CUMULATIVE FREQOENCY OF NORMALIZED « DDT! (UG/G ORGANIC CAHBON)
GE«U5 = PEL0SC0LEX S PP = J! U LTISETOSU S
I DT
;.'.o
V. . o ~
I
PLOT OF DDT*CUKFHE^
PLOT OF S5LC-CUKFHEQ
SYMBOL USED 15 X
SYKEOL USED IS -
'f
'(• V
•*#
v «*»
A ^
XXX
X X X X
XXX
XXX
X XXX
XXX
0.0
0.2
•j.?E :
c-.a a. 6
Cu-fre;
3 Cc2 HAL HISSING VALUES OR WERE OUT OF RANGE
- — — ~ —
0.8 1.0
1 CDS hlDDEN
-------
CUMULATIVE KREGUEKCY OF NO&KALIZED £ DDT ! (UG/G ORGANIC CAflSON)
GESUSsPEJiTAKEOHA SPP=BALLOCHI
PLOT CF DDT*CURFKEw SYMBOL USED IS 'X
PLOT GF SSLC-CUMFhEQ SYMBOL USED IS -
1
¦»
X
X
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 c.8 1
CUMFHES
27 ObS HIDDEN
-------
CUMULATIVE FREQUENCY OF NORMALIZED S DDT ! (UG/G ORGANIC CARBON)
GENUS=PCTAMOThnIX 5PP=VEJDOVSKII
SYMBOL USED IS 1
SYMLOL USED IS -
JDT I
(i.O ~
PLOT OF DDT^CUnFRE^
PLOT CF SSLC-CUfFFSS
j • 0
0.0 ~
v *W"
X X
XXX
XXX
X X
- - - XX
X X
X
V V
C .G
0.2
0.4
0.6
C . b
~ —
n
|ir. *
16 CBS HlDDEii
C U * F R e ;
-------
CUMULATIVE F h£QU EMCY CF SOKBALIZED « DDT! (UG/G OHGA NIC CARBON)
GENUSsSTESACHCfi SPP = INTSRPUNCT
r LOT OF DDT-CURFREQ SYMBOL USED IS X
PLOT OF SSLCSCUHFfiSi} SYMBOL USED IS -
X
if. XXX XX 53
XX X XXX X XX xxxx
XXX X
iX
X
X
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
CUSFHEQ
48 OBS KIDDEtt
-------
CUMULATIVE FREQUENCY OF NORMALIZED «DDT! (UG/G ORGANIC CARBON)
GENUS=STENOSEttA SPP=EXIQUUH
t LOT OF DDT^CUf! F 3EC ^"Y«50L USED 15 X
PLOT CiF SSLC-CU^FaEv' 3YS20L USED IS *
acx I
,o;»q ~
a.Q
T.Q
.. T
XX X *
X X
£.3 ~
I
0.0
0.2
0.4 0.6
CURFhEQ
0 . b
¦ - ~ —
1 .0
T'F •
' i £» »
25 O&S KIDDEii
-------
CUMULATIVE fRECUENCY OF NORMALIZED CDDT! (UG/G ORGANIC CARBON)
GENUS=STENONEMA SPPslNTEGRUH
PLOT OF CDT-CUMFREw
PLOT CF SSLC-CURFREQ
SYMBOL USED IS X
SYrtbOL USED IS -
>0T |
.0 ~
• 0
•*» A 4* «A» WU A «li «A« *Ao W U> WW
I** V * 1« V ^ V V4* Jw X X
XX X XX XX XX
X XX
X X
0.0
0.2
0.4 0.6
curfre;
0.8
' —~ —
1 .0
U1 CBS HICDErt
-------
CUB ULATIVE FREQUENCY OF NORMALIZED £ DDT ! (UG/G ORGANIC CARSON)
GESOS=STEKONESA SPP=PULCHELLUfl
PLOT OF DDT-CURFHEQ SYHBOL USED IS X
PLOT OF SSLC'-'CUfFREw SYMBOL USED IS *
ai I
.0 ~
,1 -0
I .0
.1
- - - - - X XXX XX - -
X XX
.0 >
0.0
0.2
0.4 0.6
CU.1FREQ
3 .a
¦ —~ —
1 .0
3 2 CBS h I L D £.'»
-------
ClfflULATI VE FREQUENCY OF NORMALIZED «DDT ! (UG/G ORGANIC CAB80H)
GENtfS=STENONESA 5PP=TERHINATUH
fLOT OF CDT«CUHFfiEC SYMBOL USED IS X
HOT CK SSLC-CUMFREQ SYnBOL USED IS -
i
~
«£ss2s «s & *2s •*» i ^ <*• «•» v v v
XX X X X X X X
X X
XXX
0.0 0.2
0.4 0.6
CUMFEE3
0.8
35 OBS HIDDEN
-------
CUMULATIVE FREQUENCY OF NORMALIZED DDT! (UG/G ORGANIC CARBON)
GENUS=TUBIFEX SPP=TUBIFEX
PLOT CF DDT*CUM FnEil SYMBOL USED IS X
PLOT CF SSLC^CUMFREQ SiBEOL USED IS $
CLOT |
2..Q ~
«% »'#
-------
CUMULATIVE FREQUENCY OF NOriEALIZED «DDT! (UG/G ORGANIC CARBOH)
GENUS=VALVATA SPP=SIHCERA
PLOT
PLOT
OF
OF
DDT-CUKFREQ
SSLC^CUKFREC
SY.130L
SYMEOL
USED IS
USED IS
DT |
• 0 ~
X i
'0 ~
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
CU.1FRE2
20 CBS HIDDEN
-------
CUMULATIVE FREQUENCY OF NORMALIZED «PCB! (UG/G ORGANIC CARBON)
GEMUS-ASELLUS SPP=INTERHEDIUS
PLOT CF PCd-C'JKFHEw SYMBOL USED IS X
PLOT OF SSLC-CUFFREQ SY.1BOL USED IS -
I
X
X -
U.O 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
CUKFRE3
^ -Am A A <«• A ¦*» V
X X
X X
X XX
X
XXX
16 CBS HIDDEN
-------
CUMULATIVE FREQUENCY OF NORMALIZED ePCB! (UG/G ORGANIC CARBOS)
GENUS-CYRNELLUS SPPsFRATERNUS
SYMBOL USED IS X
SYMBOL USED IS -
CB i
,.0 +
PLOT OF PCe^CUKFREQ
PLOT OF SSLC^CUrtFREC
!-.o
.0
*u 1
* * * * x X v -»*
X X X X
X X
S;.0 ~
I
0.2
0.0
30 CBS HIDDEN
o.e
CUMFRL^
0 . b
1 .0
-------
CUMULATIVE FREQUENCY OF NORMALIZED *PCB! (UG/G ORGANIC CARBOH)
GENUSsGAWMARUS SPP=FASCIATUS
PLOT C F PCS^CUHFREw S YrtBOL USED IS X
PLOT OF SSLCSCUflFHEQ SYMBOL USED IS $
X
X
X
X
SSS iSSSSS: SCSSsSS SSSSSS «$$«««# ££££*:£ XX X
X
IXXI11 X
xxxxx
xxxix x
X
X
XX
X
XXX
XXXXXX xxxxxx
xxxxx
X x
X
X
* — ~ — * -r + +¦ -
Q„0 0.2 0.4 0,6 0.6 1.0
CUMFHE3
u 03S BIDDEN
-------
CUftULATIVE FREQUENCY OF NORMALIZED *PCB! (UG/G ORGANIC CAfiSON)
3ENU5-HYALELLA SFP=AZTECA
PLOT OF PCB^CUKFREQ SYMBOL USED IS X
FLOT OF SSLC^CUrtFREQ SYMBOL USED IS -
PCB
.0.0
X
0.0
1.0
-1 0 .1
S 0.0 ~
1
-.4 —
G.O
0.2
*r v v>»
XX
X-
X X
X X
X X X XX X x XX
X X
0 0.6
CUKFRE2
0.8
1 .0
';Ti : 25 CBS HIDDEN
-------
CUHULATIVE FREQUENCY OF NORMALIZED CPCBI (UG/C ORGANIC CARBOH)
GENUSsHYDROPSYCH SPP=FRISONI
PLOT OF PCb~CCMFREC SYMBOL USED IS I
PLOT OF SSLCSCUMFREQ SYKBOL USED IS -
I
~
X X
yW yW
WW v
«*• y X *¦*
X
X
X X XX
x X XX X X XX
~
I
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
o.e
35 CBS HIDDEN
CUflFREQ
-------
CUMULATIVE FREQUENCY OF NORMALIZED *PC3! (UG/G ORGANIC CARBON)
GENUS=HYDROFSYCH SPP=ORHIS
PLOT OF PCB'CUBFREQ SYMBOL USED 15 X
PLOT CF SSLC*CU?!FREQ SYrtBOL USED IS S
lrCB |
-J.0 ~
.0
M J.O ~
X X
4: $5 £ $ * ~ $
- X
v r
X XX X
X XX
XXXXXXXXX
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
¦ — ~ -
1 .0
CUrtFRE;
¦ v T E :
27 CBS HIDDEN
-------
CUMULATIVE FREQUENCY OF NORMALIZED tPCB! (UG/G ORGANIC CAR80N)
GENUS=LlflNODRILUS SPP=CERVIX
PLOT OF PCB*CUttFREv SYMBOL USED IS X
PLOT OF SSLC-CU.MFHE4 SYMBOL USED IS *
I
4
X
X
~
0.Q 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
CUSKREC
2 OBS HAD «IS3IhC VALUES OR »EKE OUT OF RANGE
3 OBS tilLDE
-------
Cumulative frecuenct of normalized sfcb! (ug/g organic carboh)
GENUS=LIKNODRILUS SPP=CLAPAHEDEIANUS
PLOT OF PC3-CUf!FEE0 SYMBOL USED IS X
PLOT OF SSLC^ClirtFHEQ SYMBOL USED IS «
>CS I
¦D.O ~
X X
X X
X X
A A.
- - X -
X
X
X X
XXX
;.Q ~
I
c.o
0.2
0.4
—+«
0.6
cujifre;
1 CBS HAD rtlSillSG VALUES CR * Eh E OUT OF RANGE
0.8 1.0
3 OBS HIDDEN
-------
CUMULATIVE FREQUENCY OF NORMALIZED tPCB! (UG/G ORGANIC CARBOM)
GENUS-LIflNODRILUS SPP=HOFFMEISTERI
PLOT OF PCd-CU«FREO SYMBOL USED IS I
PLOT OF SSLC-CUFFfiEQ" SYflBOL USED IS -
PCS |
C.o ~
A JW •*< •». «N »*» «'» .*¦ «*« «*• •«> A «J» jJj «*• jJ* •>% «*• «<• «*• «J» «W «*• ^ j
X
IX
XX
X
XX
X
XX
X XXX
XXX X X
XX XXX
XX XXX
XX
X X
XXX
XX
X XXX
~ * ~ ~ +¦-
0.0 0.^ O.u 0.6 0.6 1.0
CUHFRE*
U OBS HAD JTIS3ISG VALUES OR WERE CUT OF RANGE 12 GBS HIDDEN
-------
CUMULATIVE FREQUENCY OF NORMALIZED ePCB! (UG/G OSGANIC CARBOH)
GENUS-LIflNODRILUS SPP^UDEKEKlAMUS
PLOT OF FC3rCUKFnES SYMBOL USED IS X
PLOT OF SSLC^CUKFREQ SYMBOL USED IS -
?
J) ?CB 1
JO.Q ~
"i 0.0
1 .0
X
X X
X i XX
0.1
1
0.0 ~
I
0•0 0 •2 0 • 0.6 0.8 1.0
cubrat;
'/E
, TE I 1 CisS HAD HISSING VALUES Git * ER E OUT CF RA.VGE 5 OBS HIDDEN
-------
CUttULATIVE FREQUENCY OF NORMALIZED *PCB! (UG/G ORGANIC CARBON)
G£MUS=P£LOSCOL£X SPP=FEROX
PLOT OF PC3«CUKFREi SYMBOL USED IS X
PLOT OF SSLC-CUBFREC SYMBOL USED IS $
I
+
'<» V *V» */••*' AA X**"
XX
X
X X
X
X XX
XX X
XX XX XX XX
X XX XX
XX X X
XX
XX
~
I
0.0 0.2 O.u 0.6 0.6 1
CU.1FRE2
3 O&S HAD MISSING VALUES CR WERE OUT OF RANGE 5 09S HI DDE
-------
CUMULATIVE FREQUENCY OF NORMALIZED *PCB! (UG/G ORGANIC CABBON)
GENUS-L1J1NOORILUS SPP-UD ZKEMlAttUS
PLOT OF FC3rCUKFREw SY.180L USED IS X
PLOT OF SSLC^CUfiFREQ SYMBOL USED IS $
PCB |
")O.Q ~
'iO.O
T .0
X X
X X XX
^ 0.7
1,5 0.0 ~
I
o-° °*2 o»^ c.e o.8 1.0
cukfslq
;^TE: 1 CBS HAL SIS31SG VALUES CS ER S OUT OF RA^GE 5 OES HIDDEN
-------
CUKULATIVE FREQUENCY OF NOAMALIZED tPCB! (UG/G ORGANIC CARBON)
GEHUS-PELOSCOLEX SPP=FEROX
PLOT OF PCS-CUfiFREi SYMBOL USED IS X
PLOT OF SSLC-CUMFREQ 5Y.1BQL USED IS S
C8 |
.0 ~
X
iiit an ££ Zit £ S £=S ££ £# £4= =>=t ££ ^ XX X* **
XX
X
X X
X
X XX
XX X
XX XX XX XX
X XX XX
XX X X
XX
X
X
XX
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6
CU.1FRE3
3 06S HAD MISSING VALUES OR WERE OUT OF RANGE
0.6
1
5 03S HI DDE
-------
CvIRlIL&TI V £ FREQUENCY OF SORBALIZED *PCB! (UG/G ORGANIC CARSON)
G EHU S-P £LQSCOLEX SPP^HULTISETOSUS
L.T
\
i
t
I
•¥
I
XtmQi ~
PLOT CF PC5-CUKFREQ SY.1EOL USED IS X
PLOT OF SSLOCUHFREQ SYMBOL USED IS <•*
''tea e
* i *
+ ~7* -y -t
ft
I
f
ft
t
li.G
X X
XXX
X X
XX x
XXX
XXX
X XX
X X
0.0
0.2
o.u
0.6
0.6
cubfre;
35 OSS hA13 KISSING VALUES OR WERE OUT OF RANGE
-------
CUMULATIVE FREQUENCY OF MORRALIZED «PCB! (UG/G ORGANIC CARBON)
GENUS=PEHTAHEURA SPP=HALLOCHI
PLOT OF PCB-CUPIFREG SYMBOL USED IS X
PLOT GF SSLCSCUKFSEQ SYflfaOL OSED IS -
CB ,
.0 *
X x
0.0
0.2
O.U 0.6 0.8
CU3FRE3
• - ~ -
t .0
21 CBS HIDDEN
-------
CUMULATIVE FREQUENCY OF NORMALIZED £PCB! (UG/G ORGANIC CARSON)
GENU 5-POTAMOTH RIX SPP = VEJDOVSKtI
PLOT OF PC5-CU»FfiEQ 5*rt50L USED IS X
FLOT OF SSLC-CUMFREQ SYKBOL USED IS -
!-:C3 |
!:iuQ
1.0
a
X X
v
XXX
X X
X X
X X
•11. 0 +
I
~ + —— —— -» — _
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 o.b 1.0
cukfre;
12 GtiS uIDDErt
-------
CUMULATIVE FREQUENCY OK NORMALIZED tPCB! (UG/G ORGANIC CARBON)
GE*US=STENACROh SPP=INTEBPUNCT
PLOT OF PC5^cUf.FREC SYMBOL USED IS X
PLOT OF SSLC-CUf!FR£Q SY.150L USED IS =*
?CB |
2.0 ~
X
X
S3 SSSSS 5~XXX
XX XX
X
X
X
XXXX
XXXXX XX XXXXX X
XXX X
0.0 0.2 G.U 0.6 O.ti 1 .0
CUKFRE2
LBS HIDDEN
-------
CUMULATIVE FREQUENCY OF MORALIZED «PCS! (UG/G ORGANIC CARBON)
G2NUS=STEhONEKl 5PP=EXIQUU«
i^LOT OF PCB^CUtlFHEQ SYMBOL USED IS X
PLOT OF SSLC-CUKFfiEv SYMBOL USED IS =?
'J)?C8 |
0.0 ~
0.0
1 .0
U.l
0.0 ~
I
l.Q 0.2 0.4
A >*¦ <*. t/ u 7
X
X XX
X
X
0.6 0.8 1.0
¦
25 OBS HIDDEN
CUrtFREQ
-------
CUMULATIVE FREQUENCY OF NORMALIZED *PCB! (UG/G ORGANIC CARBON)
GENUS=STENONEMA SPP=INTEGBUH
PLOT CF PCB '-*CU tt F H E y SYMBOL USED IS X
PLOT OF SSLCSCUHFHEQ SYMBOL USED IS -
?CB |
Q»Q ~
• 0
X XX
X
X XX X
X XX XX XX XX X X
X XX
O.G
0.,
0.4
0.6
C .8
1 .0
:UP1FRE3
35 CBS HIDDEN
-------
CUMULATIVE FREQUENCY OF HOhHALIZED *PC3! (UG/G ORGANIC CARBON)
GLiiUS=ST£NONEMA S?P=PULCHELLUH
PLOT OF PCB$CUKFRE3
PLOT OF SSLC-CUWFREW
SSSEDL USED IS X
SYMBOL USED 15 -
tPCB |
G.O ~
,0.0
1 .0
X X
u . 0 ~
..TE: 27 CbS HI DDE.*.
•A. A
rQ.1
i j
X X X X X
X XX
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
C.b
1 .0
CUMFSE;
-------
CUMULATIVE FREQUENCY OF NOKflALIZED tfPCB! (UG/G ORGANIC CARBON)
GENUS=STE.VONERA 5PP=TERMINATUH
PLOT OF PCBSCUtlFrtEQ SYMBOL USED IS X
t- LOT OF SSLC-CUKFREQ Srrt50L USED IS s
'ce |
».Q ~
.0
'.0 +
X X
• I ~
<*• izA f: « m m is A ¦*»•••<<* \r v v v •••
v ^ ' v v * V V ^ v«^ v *** ^ A a A A ' v i*
xxxxxxxxxxxxx
X X
1 .0
c.o
O.U 0.6
CUSFHE2
C .8
28 OSS HIDDEN
-------
CUMULATIVE FREQUENCY OF NORMALIZED «PCB! (UG/G ORGANIC CARBON)
GLNU3-TUBIFEX SPP=TOBIFEX
PLOT CF PCb-CUttFREQ
PLOT CF SSLC3CLBFREQ
SYKEOL USED IS X
SYMBOL USED IS *
n.*i
5.1
XX
•** dW <*« »*; *
X XXX
XXXX
XXX XXX XX X
XXX xxxx
XXX X X
XX
X X
XX
XX
XX
C • I) 0.2 0.4 0.6
c u n F R E w
1 OBS HAL KISSING VALUES OH WERE OUT OF RANGE
0.b 1.0
S 03S HIDDEN
-------
CUMULATIVE FREQUENCY OF NORMALIZED 2PCB! (OG/G ORGANIC CARBON)'
5ENUS=VALVATA SPP=SINCERA
PLOT GF PC&*CUJ?FHEv SY«SOL USED IS X
PLOT CF SSLC-CUKFREw SYMBOL USED IS =*
I
~
XX 1
i X
XX XX
¦V
I
0.0 0.2 O.tt 0.6 0.8
CU-FREQ
20 OBS HIDDEN
-------
CUHULATIVE FREQUENCY OF NORMALIZED » DIELDRIN! (UG/G ORGANIC CARBON)
GEN US = AS ELLU S 3PP=INTERttEDIUS
PLOT OF DIELDRIS*CU«FREQ SYMBOL USED IS X
PLOT OF SSLC^CUKFRECr SYMBOL USED IS -
ID kW |
.3 ~
M
k.i
ii £ $3 3 $ «x
X X
XXX
X X . X X -
XX XX
t.
( X
0.0
0.2
0.4 0*6
CUSFREQ
0.8
1 .C
9 OBS HIDDEN
-------
CUMULATIVE FREQUENCY OF NORMALIZED 2DIELDRIN! (UG/G ORGANIC CARBON)
GENUS=CYRNELLUS SPP=FflATERNUS
PLOT OF DIELDHIM«CUHFBEO SYMBOL USED IS X
PLOT OF SSLC^C'JSFF.EO SYMBOL USED IS -
LOR It. i
.0 ~
.0
.0
U A & i WV «<« •»# .V **m Tf V »'¦
' v ' * V V v i» •(* v -*• V X X *
X XX
XX X
X X
XX XX
,0 ~
0.0
0.1
0 • tv~ G • 6-
CUBFREC
0.6
1 • 3
E:
16 CBS HIDDEN
-------
CUMULATIVE FREQUENCY OF NORMALIZED GDIELDRIK! (UG/G ORGANIC CAHBOS)
GEMUS=GAf1HARUS SPP=FASCIATUS
PLOT OF DIELDfilN-CUfiFREQ
FLOT OF SSLC3CUHFRE2
SYJ130L USED IS X
SYMBOL USED IS $
KLDRIJi J
ti.Q ~
XXXXXXX
XX xxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxx
ixxxxxxxxx X
XX
X XX
XXXX
XX
0.0
0.2
G.u 0.6
CUSFREC
0.8
1 .0
b 05S hICDEN
-------
CUMULATIVE FREQUENCY OF NORMALIZED 2DIELDRIM! (UG/G ORGANIC CARBOH)
GENUS=HYALtLLA SPP=AZTECA
|:>f ^ «0
PLOT CF DIELDRINSCUBFRKC
F LOT OF SSLCrCUMFhEw
SYMBOL USED IS X
SYMBOL USED IS -
j.liLDfcli. I
Jl'i.O ~
'¦ V
I ,1 .0
I'1
I1-' 3.1
' \ i
J
X
^ - i XX 1 X X-
XXX
XX X X
X X
XX X X XX X
X X
i'- J • 0
X
0.0
0.2
o.u
0.6
0.8
1 .0
C'JHFREQ
I .IE: 1 7 OBS HIDDEN
-------
CUKULATIVE FREQUENCY OF MORHALIZED tfDIELDRIN! (UG/G ORGANIC CARBON)
-------
CTUrUI»ATIV£ FREQUENCY OF HORttALIZED «DIEL0RIH! (UG/G ORGANIC CARBON)
GENU5-HYDROPSYCH SFP=ORRIS
FLCT OF DIELORIN-CU«FK£w SYMBOL USED IS X
BLOT OF SSLCfCUHFREQ SYMBOL USED IS -
sloeis fi
i (j.® +
t
I
I
I
I
I
li
Oi sii.O) *
I
t
I
i
t
I
i
} lm® *
I
1
t
I
I
' ... X
I v ^ & $ 3 £ £ £ $ £5 j jj j *
; a-li * x i
t XX
t
• XX
I XXX
I X X XX
I X x
I XX X X X
. ~ X
I
0,0 0,2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
CUSFREC
' rmtR; •»
T* *. £• «
20 CBS HIDDEN
-------
CUMULATIVE FREQUENCY OF 1*0 R.*1ALI«
GENUS=LIttNODRILUS
f LOT G? DIELDRIS«CUnFREw
PLOT OF SSLC-CUKFfcEC
^DRlfc |
Q.0 ~
SDIELDRIH! (QG/G ORGANIC CARBON)
SPP-CLAPAREDEIANOS
SYMBOL USED IS X
SYMBOL USED IS *
X
•O
r * v A**" *
i x
~-
I
—
0.0
0.2
o.u- o.6 o.a i.o
CUMFREQ
31 C6S HICDEU
-------
CUMULATIVE FREQUENCY OF NOHBALIZED 2DIELDRIN! (UG/G ORGANIC CARBON)
GEHUS=LIHNODRILUS SPP = HOFFflEISTERI
PLOT CF DISLDRINSCUMFREQ
FLOT OF SSLC*CU«FREQ
SYMBOL USED 15 X
SYMBOL USED IS *
DHIM I
0 ~
* yii a jw ¦
XX
11 X
X X X X X
~
I
0.0
0.2
C.U 0.6
CUSFREC
0.8
1 .0
65 CBS HIDDSm
-------
CUMULATIVE FREQUENCY OF NORMALIZED CDIELDRIN! (UG/G ORGANIC CARBON)
GENUS=PE LOSCO LEX SPP=FEROX
PLOT OF DIE LDRIS^C'JM FREQ SYMBOL USED IS X
PLOT OF SSLC*CUflFREQ SYSEOL USED IS *
I
II.o ~
M
! »0
X
(V t u «Ab 4%
A X "** ^
X
o.c
b6 095 hIDDEH
0.4 o.6
CUHFREQ
C • 8
1 .0
-------
CUMULATIVE FRECUENCI OF NORMALIZED «DIELDHIN! (UG/G ORGANIC CARBON)
GEfliUS=PELOSCOLEX SPP = «ULTISETOSUS
PLOT OF DIELDHIN-CUKFRtw SYMBOL USED IS X
PLOT OF SSLC^CUKFREU 2 YP1 BO L USED IS a
;:ldhin i
i. D ~
'i.O
.0
¦).1 ~
3 $ « « « X X X X x ~
XX XXX
';.0 ~
I
X 1
0.0
•
O.U 0.6
CU.IFREw
0.6
1 .0
25 CBS HIDDEN
-------
CUMULATIVE FREQUENCY OF NORMALIZED £DIELDBIN! (UG/G ORGANIC CAHBOH)
GENUS=POTAROTHRIX SPP=VEJDOVSXYI
FLGT OF DIELDRIN$CUHFHEC SYMBOL (JSED IS X
PLOT OF SSLC^CUMFRLw SYMBOL USED IS *
^LDRIN |
'0.0 ~
O.o
1.0
C.I
I X
I X
I
t'.o ~ X
I
0.0 0.2 O.u 0.6 0.6 1.0
CUMFREC
26 OoS hAD KISSING VALUES OR WERE CUT OF RANGE 19 OBS HIDDEN
-------
CUHCLATIVE FREQUENCY OF NO RBALIZED «DIBLDBIN! (UG/G ORGANIC CARBON)
G£MUS=STEHACRON SPP=INTERPUNCT
PLOT OF SlELDRIN$CUf1fRE* S Yf!20 L USED IS X
PLOT OF SSLC-CUKFREQ SYMBOL USED IS *
jlELBRUt I
"?i0 «Q ~
%
i'fi 0, • 0
11 - o
;)a . 1
X
SXX XX XX-
XXXX X
XX XX X
XXX X
X XXX
XXXXX XXXXX
XX XX
;;0.0
~
I
0.0
0.2
G.U 0.6
C'J.IFREw
0.8
1.0
::is: 26 oes hidden
-------
CUMULATIVE FREQUENCY OF NORMALIZED *DIELDRIN! (UG/G ORGANIC CAHBOH)
GE.4US-STEKONEKA SP P = If! TEG RU S
PLOT OF DIELDRIN*CUKFREC SYJ1EOL OSED IS X
i-LOT OF SSLOCUBFRtQ SY.1B0L USED IS -
;URIS 1
.0 ~
• 3
.0
$$ -X XX XX *
XX X
XX X
XX
XX XX XX
X XX XX
X XX XX X
0.0
0.2
O.u
0.6
0.8
1.0
19 CBS HILDEN
CUJIFREw
-------
cumulative frequency OF NOHHALIZED *DIELDRIN! (UG/G ORGANIC CARBOM)
GENUS=STENONEHA SPP^PULCH ELLQB
PLOT OF DIELDRIN-CUKFREQ SYMBOL USED IS I
PLOT OF SSLC-CUrtFREw SY.1SOL USED IS -
^LERIS |
-03 ~
t
I
i
t
{
i
i
»J3 ~
I
I
I
r
I
i
I
ui ~
i
I
I
{
t
* X
( ~ S £ 5 5 3 3 S cs 5 5 s 5 S $ x X X x X s
1 WH ~ X XXX
I
I
I
I XXX
I X X
I A X X X
| X A
* X
I
0.0 0.1 0.4 0.6 0.6 1.0
CUBFRE3
13 GbS KICDES
-------
CUMULATIVE FREQUENCY OF NORMALIZED DIELDHIN! (UG/G ORGANIC CARBON)
GENUS=S?EKONEMA SPP=TEHBINATUM
PLOT CF DIELDRIN-CUMFREQ SYMBOL USED IS X
fc-LGT OF LSLC$CUHFREQ SYMBOL USED IS -
tLDHia I
O.O ~
o.o ~
'.0
•# Vf
XXX
if. ^ Z Z if $ $ $3 :$: £ £x X X JSSS
X X
XX X
X X X XX X X
X XX
XX X
¦ — ~ - •
0.6
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.8
1.0
'ft;
20 CBS HIDDEN
CUMFREC
-------
CUMULATIVE FREQUENCY OF NORMALIZED *DIELDRIN» (UG/G ORGANIC CARBON)
GEhUS-TUblFoX SPP=TUBIFEX
SYSB3L USED IS X
SYMBOL USED IS -
!£LDRIH I
•'2.0 ~
PLOT OF DIELDRIH-CUHFREQ
PLOT CF SSLC-CUf!FREQ
1.0
X
!u.o ~
¦m*. A •<«
- *XXX!
X X
A I
XX
0.0
o .a
0.6
C . 8
1 .0
CUSFRE2
IE; 67 CfaS HIDDEN
-------
CUMULATIVE FKEC.UEMCT OF HCRBALIZED 2DIELDRIN ! (UG/G ORGANIC CARBON)
GEM)~ = VALVATA 3?P=SINCERA
PLOT OF DIELDEIS^CarlFREU SYHBOL USED IS X
PLCT OF SSLC-CU.IFfiEU SYttEOL USED IS =?
Florin i
«q.o ~
> O.Q
1.0
0.1
X X
if*
V * ¦»»
X X
X
X ¦* *
~
I
o.c
0.2
0.4 0.6
CU.1FREQ
0.8
1.0
16 CBS HIDDEN
-------
CUflULATIVE FREQUENCY OF fiORJIALIZED «CHLODANE! (UG/G ORGANIC CARBOM)
GE MUS-AS ELLUS SPP-INTERMEDIUS
PLOT OF CHLOHDAN-CUMFRE5 SYMBOL USED IS X
PLOT CF SSLC^CUMFREQ SYS&OL USED IS $
2R&AK |
.0 ~
Q
a >« **; ± A rf. ««» * A V" V V
~ v v v y f r ^ ^ v X XX
X X
X X
x x x x
x x x
o.o
0.2
0.4
0.6
C.b
1 .0
CU^FREQ
7 C5S HIDDEN
-------
CUflULATIVE FREQUENCY or NO REALIZED £CH LOD AN E! (UG/G ORGANIC CARSON)
GEHUS=CYRUELLUS 5PP = FRATEILVUS
FLO I OF CH LOUD A N^-'CJE FREQ SYMBOL USED IS X
FLCT OF SSLC*CU.1FREG 5YHB0L USED IS -
I
.Oft DA J* t
' .0 ~
.0
.0
(.1
XXX
S S - X X XX X* -
XX X
0 .c
o.;
o-t 0.6
CUMFRLC
0.0
1 .0
:£:
19 CtsS HIDDEN
-------
CUHULATIVE FREQUENCY OF NORBALIZED KCHLCTOANE! (UG/G ORGANIC CARBON)
GEHUS-GAflHARUS SPP-FASCIATUS
t LOT OF CHLOaDAS»CUf!FSEw SYMBOL USED IS X
F LOT OF SSLC-CUKFREQ SYHbOL USED IS -
UORDAN I
^0.0 ~
¦A* %'« m*m •*> a
jSjJj «'• A ah ,<
X
xxxx
• «'• ^ •*» •*« «*• at*
*JL
X X
xxxx
xxxxx
xxxxx xxxx
X
XX
xxxx
xxxxxx X
XX XXXXXXXX
XXX
«0 ~
I
0.0
0.2
O.U 0.6
CUttFREC
0.6
1 .0
,£.s 1 ObS HIDDEN
-------
CUMULATIVE FREQUENCY OF NORMALISED *CHLo'dANE! (UG/G ORGANIC CARBON)
GENUS=HYALELLA SPP=A2TECA
? LOT OF ChLOHDAN-CuMFREQ STfSBOL USED IS X
FLQT OF SSLC'CUXFREQ SYMBOL USED IS -
LOffHAi I
3 ..CC ~
K
t
I
I
I
f :<
~ x
Oi.jCD ~
(
t
I
71-CT ~
t
I
I
I
I X
V V ^ ^ " * * v * v V
I X
0..T ~ X X X X X X X
I X X X X X
I X X
I, XX
0.0 0.2 Q.U 0.6 C.8 1.C
CUHFREv
T5S: 15 GBS HIDDEN
-------
CUMULATIVE FHECUEHCY OF HORHALIZED 2CHL0DAKE! (UG/G ORGANIC CARBON)
GEMU5=HYDROPSYCH SPP=FRISOHl
PLOT CF CHLORDAN-CLir.FHLG SYMBOL USED IS X
PLOT OF SSLC-C'JEFftSQ SYMBOL USED IS -
JORDAN |
10 .0 *
IC.O
l.o
0.1
:0.Q
S X X X S
X XX
XX X X X
XXX
X X
X
~
I
0.0
0.2
o.u
0*6
0 • b
1.0
CUHPSEC
29 OBS HIDDEN
-------
CUMULATIVE FREQUENCY OF NORMALIZED 2CHL0DAN E! (UG/G ORGANIC CARBON)
GENUS=HYDROPSYCH SFP=CflRIS
SYMBOL USED IS X
SYMBOL USED IS -
LOR DAN |
0.0 ~
PLOT Or CHLOHDANSCUHFREC
PLOT OF SSLC:'CUf!F REQ
0.0
1 .0
¦v» v v -v «*» v ^ v -r
0.1
A A A U «f r/
» » ¦» *4 X X
X X XX
X XX X x
XXX
XXX
0*0
~
I
o.c
o.;
Q•4 0.6
CUHFREC
0.6
1 .0
>TE :
25 CSS HIDDEN
-------
CUMULATIVE FREQUENCY OF NORMALIZED tfCHLCDANE! (UG/G ORGANIC CARBON)
GENUS-LIHNODRILUS SPP=CLAPAREDEIANUS
PLOT OF CHLOSDANSCUKFREi
PLOT OF SSLC*CUSFREG
SYMBOL USED IS
5Y1SOL USED IS
Jordan
"o.o
o.o
1.0
a.1
* * r ». X x s -t
X X
X
!°.q ~
I
0.0
0.2
O.u
o.o
C.8
T .0
CUKFRES
-------
CUMULATIVE FREQUENCY OF NORMALIZED SCHLO'DANE! (UG/G ORGANIC CABBON)
G£NUS=LIKNODRILUS SPP=HOFFttEISTERI
PLCI UF CHLQADANfCUilFREb SYHSOL USED IS X
FLQT OF SSLC-CUSFniC SYMBOL USED IS *
• *QROAb |
0/. 0 ~
Q • 0
I
XX
XX
A. *««¦
XX
XI X
XX
o.c
0.4
0.6
c.s
1 . 0
CCBFREQ
59 OBS itIDDEN
-------
CUMULATIVE FREQUENCY OF NORMALIZED «CHLc/i>ANE! (OG/G ORGANIC CARBON)
GENUS=PELOSCOLEX SPP=FEROX
PLOT OF CHLORDANSCUBFRtQ
PLOT OF SSLC^CUilF REQ
SYMBOL USED IS X
SY383L USED IS «
Jordan t
•o.O *
o.o
1 .0
b.i
XX
* *<• *** XX X *«* •*»
o.o ~
XX
0.0 0.2
£9 CBS HIDDEN
0.4 0.6
CUSFREQ
o.e
1 .0
-------
CUBULATIVE FREQUENCY OF NORMALISED *CKLo'dANE! (UG/G ORGANIC CARBON)
G£ M U S—P ELO SCOLIX SPP=HULTISETOSOS
FLOT OF CH LORD A N^C'J FSEw SYMBOL USED IS X
FLOT OF SSLC^C'JttFfiEi SYMBOL USED IS *
] L.0R D A to |
"U.Q ~
C .0
~
I
o.c
0.2
v *«• *
X
XX-
X X
X X X X
X
C.4 C.6
CUflFREQ
C.8
1 .0
T F •
'iri.
23 DBS HIDDEN
-------
CUMULATIVE FREQUENCY OF NORBALIZED £CH LOGANS! (UG/G ORGANIC CAHSON)
GENUS=POTAMOTHRIX SPP=VEJDOVSKII
PLOT OF CHLOHDAN-CUMFP.EQ
PLOT OF SSLCSCUMFhEC
S XHBOL USED IS X
S*360L USED IS *
*¦0 R L A N |
O.Q ~
Lq «.
X X
C .0
0.2
O.U 0.6
CUSFREQ
o.e
1 .0
£.
26 OSS HAD MISSING VALUES OR WERE OUT OF RANGE
18 CBS HILDEN
-------
CUMULATIVE FREQUENCY OF NORMALIZED «CHLCDANE! (UG/G ORGANIC CARBON)
GENUS=STENACSOH SPP=INTERPUNCT
PLOT OF CHLORCAN*CU!1FR£w SYMBOL USED IS X
PLOT OF SSLC-CUttFRZQ SYMBOL USED IS -
Vj'-iOHDAH |
.0.0 ~
'0.0
1 .0
0*0 ~
I
v v *«- -
v* «<• •
XX
xxxx
"I X XX XXX XXX
^ i*. iV 1
X XX X XX
X X XXX
xxxx
0 .0
G.U
0.6
0.8
1 .c
"h „
• ~ E • -31 CfcS HIDDE.i
-------
CUBULATIVE FREQUENCY OF NORflALIZED ^CHLoljANE! (UG/G ORGANIC CARBON)
GENUS=STENONEflA S?P=INTEGRUH
? LOT OF CHLORDAN-CUrtFREQ SYMBOL USED IS X
FLOT OF SSLC-C'JaFREQ SYMBOL USED IS ^
Jordan i
b.o ~
J.o
t.Q
X
S# « i W JJ J J XX X* «
X XX X XX
XX X
XXX
X
'0 ~
I
c.o
0.2
0.4 0.6
CUKFREQ
O.b
1 .0
27 OBS HIDDEN
-------
CUMULATIVE FREQUENCY OF NORMALIZED «CHLo'dANE! (UG/G ORGANIC CARBON)
GENUS=STENONEMA SPP = PULCHELLUfl
SY3B0L USED IS X
3YJ150L USED 15 *
QRCAM |
-0 ~
PLOT OF CHLORDAN^CUHFREg
PLOT OF SSLC-C JHf StEw
.0
.0
X X
XX X
X X X X
X X X
.0 ~
0.0 0.2
E: 18 CBS HIDDEN
0.U Q.b
CU'-FREg
0.8
1 .0
-------
CUMULATIVE FREQUENCY OF NORMALIZED *CHLC,DANE! (UG/G ORGANIC CARBON)
GENUS=STENONEMA SPP = TEi?M INATU?!
SISBOL USED IS X
SYMBOL USED IS S
:I*OHDAK |
'0.0 1
PLOT GF ChLCRDAN-CUKFHEC
FLOT CF SSLC-CUMFREw
0.0
1 .0
A
« $ S ss $ $ * xx x X X X XX * *
X X X X
X X
X X
~
I
0 .u
0.0
0.2
0.6
0.6
1 .c
CUflFREw
36 C9S HIDDEN
-------
CUMULATIVE FREQUENCY OF NORMALIZED eCH LO*D AH E! (UG/G ORGANIC CARBON)
3ENUS=TUbIFEX SPF=TUBIFEX
PLOT OF CKLOiiDAN^COnFREC
£ LCT OF SSLC-CUKFREQ
SY.1SGL
SYMBOL
USED
USED
IS
t
LORDAK I
Uf.O ~
tf.O
1 .0
X
XX
0.1
-•--X XX
xxxx
X X
.0
~
I
X
0.0 0,2
79 OBS HIDDEN
0.4 0.6 0.6 1.0
canthej
-------
CUMULATIVE FREQUENCY OF NORMALIZED «CHLO^ANE! (UG/G ORGANIC CARBON)
GENUS=VALVATA SPP=SINCERA
PLOT OF CHLORDANSCUHFREw SYMBOL USED IS X
FLCT OF SSLC«CUJ!FREC SYMBOL USED IS *
Jordan |
D.o *
X
X -
X x
0*0 0*2
27 CBS HIDDEN
0 • 4 0 • 6
CUMFREQ
C.8
1.0
-------
ATI V £ FREQUENCY OF NORMALIZED «HEPTACHLOR! (UG/G ORGANIC CARBON)
uEN US = AS ELLUS 3PP=INTERflEDIUS
PLOT Cf KEPTACHL-CUflFREQ SYMBOL USED IS X
t-LOT OF SSLC-CUflJ REQ SYMBOL USED IS -
•* " ¦» v v. X XX X
XXX
X X X X X X X
XX XX
X
0.0 3.2 0~. U 0.6 0.6 1.0
CUMFREC
12 CBS hlDDEU
-------
OUMTLATIVE FRECUENCY OF NORflALIZED tfHEPTACHLOR! (UG/G ORSAHIC CAH80H)
GENUS-GAHMAIiUS SPP=FASCIATUS
PLOT OF KEPTACHLSCU.1FREC SYMBOL USED IS X
F LOT OF SSLC-CU.IFfiEC SY.IbOL USED IS $
KracftL i
&-J0D «•
~
I
XXXX
XXX
XXX
XX
X
XX
xxxxxx
X xxxxx
xxxxxxxxxx
XXXXXXX XXX
G.C
3.2
0.4
0.6
0.6
1 .0
CUtlFREC
k 095 HILDE*
-------
OlttttLATIVE FREQUENCY OF NORMALIZED CH EPTACHLOR! (UG/G ORGANIC CARBON)
GZKUS~HYAi.El.LA 5PP = AZTECA
t LOT OF HEPTACHL-CUKFREQ SYHbOL USED IS X
PLOT CF SSLC^CUSFfibC SYMBOL USED IS $
P.TJBCttL. |
Oi.XB *¦
!i
I
Ii
r
i
r
i
0..J3S *
I
TlJI
Oj~T
I «/• •'« «*»«'» .v A .«> tA> -»» A v V V "¦*»
I V V V "# 'i* *1* 1» ^ A A V '«•
I XX
i X X X X X X X
I xxxxxxxxx
U-05 ~ XX
I
0*0 G • «i 0 • U C • 6 0 «8 1*0
CUBFREC
*
21 CSS HIDDEN
-------
CUHULATIVE FREQUENCY or NORMALIZED «HEPTACHLOH! (UG/G ORGANIC. CARBON)
GENU5=HYDHOPSYCH SPP=FRISONI
PLOT OF HEPTACHLfCUnFREC SYflisGL USED IS X
PLOT OF SSLCSCUKFfiEC SY.IeOL JSED IS *
'PTACH L I
JQ.O ~
»0.0
1 .0
P.o
I
if ~ « « $ •-> -•$ $ - £ XX X -
X X X X
X XX X X i XX
X X
0.0
C • 2
O.u 0.6
CUHPREC
o.e
1 .0
3J OBS HIDOEM
-------
CUMULATIVE FREQUENCY OF NORMALIZED 2HEPTACHLOR! (UG/G- ORGANIC CARBON)
GENUS=HYDROPSYCH SPP=ORRIS
PLCT CF HEPTACHL-CUJ1FHEQ SYKbCL USED IS 1
PLOT OF SSLC-CUMFREQ SYMBOL USED IS -
jPTACHL |
-cO.O ~
U/ • 0
11 .0
. 0.0
.•< •*«
- - * x x x
x x x x
xxxxxxxxxx
X X
0.0
0.2
0.4 O.o
CUHFREC
0.8
1 .0
Vote :
25 CBS kidde;«
-------
CgnULATIVE FREQUENCY OF NORMALIZED
GENUS=LI«NODRILUS
r LOT CF HEPTACHL-C'JMFREw
r LOT OF SSLC-CUrtFREw
•ptachl |
!Q .0 ~
*HEPTACHLOR! (UG/G ORGANIC CARBON)
SPPsCLAPAREDEIASUS
SYMBOL USED IS X
SYMBOL USED IS -
1 .0
0.1
;&.o ~ X
I
"o.O " 0.2 o-4 °«6 0.8 1.0
CUSFP.EQ
rS: 23 CBS HAD HISSING VALUES OB WERE OUT OF RANGE 22 OBS HIDDEN
-------
CUMULATIVE FREQUENCY OF NORMALIZED tHEPTACHLOR! (UG/G ORGANIC CARBON)
GENUS=LIrtNODRILUS SPP = HOFFF!EISTERI
PLOT OF iiEPTACHL-CUilFREQ
t1 LOT OF SSLC-CUSFF.EQ
SYMBOL USED IS X
SYMBOL LIS ED IS -
r TACiJ L
0.0
0 .0
1 .0
li
0.1
0.0
~
I
-xxxx-
o.c
' J • l>
0
G .o
0. fa
CUBFREC
Cd OAS HIDDEN
-------
CUMULATIVE FREQUENCY OF NORMALIZED *H EPTACH LOR! (UG/G ORGANIC CARBON)
GENUS-PSLOSCOLSX SPP=FEROX
PLOT OF hEPTACHL-CUIIFREC SYMBOL USED IS X
PLOT OF SSLCSCUMF-REU SYMBOL USED IS -
*UCHL I
D.O
M
I.Q
Uq I x
I
0 .G 0.2 0,4 0,6 0,8 1,0
CURFREG
UO C3S HAD KISSING VALUES OR WERE OUT OF RASGE 39 OPS HIDDE.N
-------
CUMULATIVE FREQUENCY OF NORMALIZED (CHEPTACHLOH! (UG/G ORGANIC CARBON)
GENUS=PELQSCOLEX 5PP=nULTISETOSUS
PLOT OF HEPTACHL-CUKFREQ
PLOT OF S5LC~CUMFP.EC'
SYMBOL USED IS X
SYMBOL USE D IS $
>TACHL
v; .0
J • 0
V V 1* IT V * *»¦ AX
X X
X X
0.0
0.2
0 .4
0.6
C . 3
1 .0
CUSFREO
4 "E :
33 CfaS HIDDEN
-------
CUMULATIVE FREQUENCY OF NORMALIZED *HEPTACHLOR! (UG/G ORGANIC CARBOH)
GENUS=POTArtOTHRIX SPP = VEJDOVSKY I
PLOT GF HEPTACHL3CUI1FHEQ SYflBOL USED IS 1
PLOT OF SSLC-CJHF*E'w SYMBOL USED IS *
!?tachl i
?Q.Q
'*3.0
1.0
b.o ;
I
o.o °-u °*6
CUSFREQ
2b Q5S HAD MISSING VALUES OR '-4ESE OUT OF RANGt
0.8
1 .0
22 OBS HIDDEN
-------
CUMULATIVE FRECUENCY OF NORMALIZED (ZHEPTACHLOR ! (UG/G ORGANIC CARBON)
GENUS=ST£NACRON SPP=INTERPUNCT
PLOT OK HEPTACHL-CUtfFREQ SYrtSCL USED IS X
t LOT OF SSLC-CUKFREQ SYMBOL USED IS *
. 'jPTACHL |
. lP ' 0 *
(]G . 0
,1.0
(-G.l
XX X
XXX XXXX XX X
XX X XX XXXX XXX
X X
0.0
C .4
0.6
o. a
1 .0
CU3FREC
J tTE :
38 CBS HIDDEN
-------
CUdULATIVE FREQUENCY OF WORflALIZED «HEPTACHL08! (UG/G ORGANIC CAHBOK)
GEMUS=STENON£BA SPP=INTEGR0H
?LOT or heptachl-cukfre; symbol used is X
FLOT OF SSLC^CUHFREQ SYfl&OL USED IS -
'pTACHi |
b.o
d.d
1.0
XX
X X
#% rv
:S<; $3 X XX X XX
XX XX X XX X XX X
»- ~
0.4
0.0
1 ¦ 2
. — ~ —.
0.6
3.6
1 .0
CUHFREC
35 0 9 S HIDDEN
-------
CUMULATIVE FREQUENCY OF NORMALISED «H EPTACHLQR ! (UG/G ORGANIC CARBON)
GcNUS-STESONEttA SPP-?ULCHELLU3
PLOT OF HEPTACdL^CUMFREQ SYMBOL USED IS X
PLOT OF SSLC-CUHFREQ SY'lfcOL USED IS $
'PTACHL |
'<0.0 ~
<;y .0
' fi. o
l A
V V -I* «*• V V XX
X X XX
X XX XX XX XX
0.0
0.2
0.4 0.6
CUSFREC
0.8
1.0
16 ObS HIDDEN
-------
CUMULATIVE FREQUENCY OF NORMALIZED fHEPTACHLQR! (OG/G ORGANIC CARBOM)
GENUS=STENONEHA SPP = TERMlNATOfJ
PLOT OF hEPTACHL-CUHFREQ
PLOT OF SSLC-CUrtFEEC
SYBBOL USED IS X
SYHBOL USED IS -
?tach;
P.o
5.0
.0
X
5 SS •••.: $ -sx x X XX X X X*
X XX X X X
X X
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0 • 8
1 .0
CU3FREQ
k: 38 OBS HIDDEN
-------
CUKULATIYE FREQUENCY OF NORMALIZED 2HEPTACHLOR! (U3/G ORGANIC CARBON)
GENUS=TUBIFEX SPP=TUBIF£X
HOT OF HEPTACHL-CUKFREC
P LOT OF SSLCSCUflf F-EC
SYMBOL USED IS X
StHBOL USED IS -
,,o T A C h L
a.Q
.fi. o
¦1.0
( &> • 1 ~
{ ki • 0 ~
v ~ W '
" jx c. •
0*0 0 • 2 0*4 0*6
CU3FREQ
56 OSS hAC KISSING VALUES OR WERE CUT OF RANGE
o. a
1 .0
5 3 05S HIDDEN
-------
CUMULATIVE FREQUENCY OF NOR flALIZED «HEPTACHLOR! (UG/G ORGAHIC CARBON)
GEN 05 = V ALV ATA SPP=SIMCERA
PLOT OF keptachl-cumfre;
PLOT CF SSLC*CUf1FREQ
¦TACHL
>.0
•0
I
SYMBOL USED IS X
SYMBOL USED IS *
3 S x
X -
0.0
0.2
C.U
0.6
0.8
1 .0
CU.1FREQ
f£ •
32 GbS HIDDEN
-------
APPENDIX. Part II. Species Screening level Concentration Plots
for Contaminants in Saltwater Sediments.
-------
Spiochaetopterus costorum, PCB
4.0+
2.0 +
* * *
* * * *
* *
0.0+
-2.0+
~ it
it it ir it
0.00
0.20
Nephtys ferruginea, PCB
4.0+
2.0 +
0T40"
0.60 0.80
TToo
it it
* * * *
* * * * * * A
* * * *
0.0+
-2.0+ *
*
* * * * *
* ** * *
0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80
Harmothoe extenuata, PCB
TToo
2.0+
1.0+
0.0+
-1.0+
* it
* 2
* 4 *
* * * *
0.00
0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00
-------
Euchone elegans, PCB
* it
1.5+
0.0+
-1.5+
* * * * *
* * *
* * * *
* *
0 .00*
oTIq"
"oT-40"
'oTio oTio"
IToo
Scalibcegma inflatum, PCB
3.2+
1.6 +
0.0+
-1.6+
it *
* * *
¦k it * * *
* *
* * * * *
0.00 0.20
Dcilonereis longa, PCB
0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00
2.0+
L.0+
0.0+
* it it
it it
it it-
it it it
it it
* it
it it it
-1.0+
I
O.QO"
0.20
'oTio'
oTicT
"oTao"
TToo
-------
T
1
0
¦1
-t
1
0
1
a
1
0
1
s borabyx, PCB
i *
*
*
* * *
* * *
*
* * * * 2
* * **
2
* *
* *
*
00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00
is gracilis, PCB
k-k k
* * *
k k
k k
k k k k k k
k k
k k k * k
kk
*
k k
*
00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 ITOO
landica, PCB
*
*
*
*****
* * *
*****
**
* * * *
*
*
* *
*
00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00
-------
Euchone incolor, PCB
3T0T
1.5+
* *
0.0
-1.5+
. * *
it it it it it it it
ie it it it
it it it
it it it it
it it it
0.00 0T20"
"0?40"
"oTio oTao"
Ninoe ninqripes, PCB
TToo
* *
2 . 0+
1.0+
0.0+
-1.0+ *
* lit *
* *
* *
* *
* * *
* * *
0.00 0.20"
0T40
oTio oTio"
Nephtys incisa, PCB
2.0I
1.0+
1.00
* *
* * *
* *
* *
* *
* ~
* *
0.0+
-1.0+ *
0.00"
0T20"
0.40 0.60 0.80
TToo
-------
Nucula proxima, PCB
3 .2 +
*
* * *
1.6+
0.0+
* * * *
* *
* * *
* * * # *
* * * *
* * * * *
**
-1.6 +
o.oo"
0.20
"oT40"
0.60
0.80"
1.00
Mediomastus ambiseta, PCB
3"T2T
1.6 +
* "k
* *
* * *
* * *
it -k ir
* *
* * * *
0.0+
-1.6+
* * *
0.00 0.20
Tharyx acutus, PCB
0.40
"oTio"
o.ao
2.4+
1.2+
0.0+
'IToo
* ~ * *
* **
* * *
* * * *
¦k *
* **
** *
* *
* 2
* #
-1.2+ *
-------
Aricidea catherinae, PCB
5.0 +
2.5+
0.0+
-2.5+
¦k *
* * *
* * * * *
2 * * * *
* * * ~ * * *
2 * * * * * * *
2 *
o.oo"
'0T40"
0 .20
Caulleriella cf killariensis, PCB
4.8-1
3.2 +
0.60
0.80
1.0
1.6+
0.0+
* *
* *• 2
* 3
* * *
0.00*
"oTIo"
0 .40
0.60
0.30
1. 0
Goniadella gracilis, PCB
5.0+
2.5+
* *
* *
2" *
0.0+
-2.5+
* * * * * *
0.00"
oTIci"
0.40
0.60
0TI0"
1.0
-------
Unciola irrorata, PCB
5.0+
2.5+
0.0+
-2.5+
* *
* *
* 2 *
* *
* * * *
2 * *
* *
o.oo"
0.20
Lumbrinereis hebes, PCB
"o74o"
0.60 0.80 1.00
* *
2.4 +
1.2 +
0.0+
* * *
* *
* * *
* *
* *
* * * *
* *
0.00
0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80
1.00
Pholoe minuta, PCB
*.iTf
2.0+
* *
~ * it it
it
it it it it it it it
0.0+
-2.0+ **
*
* * *
***2***
******
****2 ***
2**** 2
0.00*
'0T20"
0.40 0.60
"oTio"
1.00
-------
Paraonis gracilis, PCB
3.0--
1.5-
•k it
¦k it it it it
~ it it
it it it it
0.0+
* * *
-1.5+
0.
Pherusa Affinis, PCB
o.oo"
oTIo"
"0T40"
0T60 oTao'
'IToo
4.0+
2.0+
0.0+
-2.0
it it
it it it it it
it it it
it if ~
it if
~ it
it it it
it it
it it
0.00 0T20"
Phyllodoce mucosa, PCB
5.0+
2.5+
0.40 0.60
'0TI0"
IToo
it it
if if
it it it it
it it it it it
it *
0.0+
-2.5+
* * *
it it it it
0.00 0T20 0T40 oTio oTao IToo
-------
Tharyx annulosus, PCB
4.0+
2.0+
0.0+
-2.0+
* * *
* * * * * * *
* * * *
* * * * * *
* *
* * * * * *
o.oo"
0.20
Lumbrinereis acicularum, PCB
4.8+
3.2 +
oTio"
oTio"
o.ao
"1T00
* *
* *
* *
1.6 +
0.0+
* *
* * *
* * * 2
* * * * *
* 2 *
0.00
2 *
0T20"
Pitac morchuanus, PCB
5T0+
0T40"
0.60 0.80
1.00
2.5+
0.0 +
* * *
* * * * * *
******
* * * *
* *
* * *
-2.5+
0.00
0TI0
0.40 0.60 0.80
IToo
-------
Tellina aailis, PCB
5.0+
2.5+
0.0+
-2.5+
* ~
k k k it
k "k
k k k k k k
2 k k-k kit
k k k
k k it
k :k
o.oo" 0.20 0.40
Glyceca dibtanchiata, PCB
4.8 +
3.2 +
"oTio"
oTio*
TToo
k k
1.6 +
0.0 +
* * *
* *
* * * 2
* * *
~ *
2 *
+— — 1 — 1 —
0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60
Amphioda (amphispina) urtica, PCB
3.0-
1.5+
0.80
1.00
* *
* * * *
**
*#
* *
* * *
0.0+
k -k
k kitk k
it k k k itk
k k
-1.5+
o.oo"
0-20 0.40 0.60 0 .30
TToo
-------
Heterophoxus oculatus, PCB
5.0+
2.5+
*****
* *
* * *
0.0+
* *
*****
-2.5+ *
I +-
0.00 0.20 0.40
Euphilomedes carcharodonta,-PCB
0.60 0.80
1.00
4.0 +
2.0+
0.0 +
* *
***
*
* *
******
*.*
* * * *
* * * *
*****2 *
*2***
**
-2.0+ *
*
o.oo"
0.20
Glycera capitata, PCB
4.0+
2.0+
0.40
0 .60
0 .80
'IToo
**
* *
* *
* ***
* * * * * * *
* * * * *
0.0+
-2.0+ *
*
*** **
* *** *
o.oo"
0.20 0.40
"oTio"
"oTio"
TToo
-------
Prionospio ci rrifera, PCB
4 . 0 +
2.0+
* *
~ * * it it
0.0+
-2.0+
* * * *
0.00 0.20 0T40"
Cossuro longocirrata; PCB
0.60
0.80
1T00
it if
3 . 0 +
1.5+
0.0+
it it
* it it it
it *
it it it it
it it it
it ~
it it
0.00"
"oTIo"
0 .40
Amplelisca bcevisimulata, PCB
"oTio"
o.ao 1.00
4.0+
2.0+
0.0+
* * *
* *
it it
it it
it it
it it
it it it
o.oo"
"0T20"
'0T40"
'oTio oTio"
1.00
-------
Cistena californiensis, PCB
*
4.0+
* * *
* * * *
2.0+
* *
* if
it if
0.0+
~ ~
* if if
if if
—+—————————4—————————+————— j.
0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00
Compsomyax subdiaphana, PCB
* if
if if if
3.0+
1.5+
0.0+
-1.5+
* * *
* *
* *
**
* * * * * *
* * * *
2 *
0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80
Parapcionospio pinnata, PCB
'IToo
5.0+
2.5+
0.0+
-2.5+ *
* *
it it if if
* ** **
* * *
* * * *
* * * * *
** *
**
0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00
-------
Sthenelanella uniformis, PCB
4.0+
* * *
~ ~
2.0 +
* *
~ it
* *
0.0+
* *¦
o.oo"
oTIo'
"oT 4 o"
0.60
"oTIo"
1.0'
Acmandia brevis, PCB
4.0+
2.0 +
0.0+
-2.0+
* * *
* * * *
* *
o .oo"
0 .20
Glycinde armiqera, PCB
4.0+
2.0+
'3.4 0
0.60 0 . 30
1. 0
* * * *
* *
* *
* * *
0.0 +
¦2.0+ *
I *
it if it it
o.oo"
0.20 0.40
0.60
o T a o"
1.0
-------
Capitella capitata, PCB
4.0 +
2.0+
0.0 +
2*2
*2*
2**2*
2*2*2*
**2*2
2*2**
*2
*2*
* *
2***
2*2*
2*2
*2
-2.0 +
*
*
o.oo"
0.20 0.40 0.60
Axinopsida sericata, PCB
"oTao"
TToo
5.0 +
2.5+
0.0+
*2*2*3
*
2*22
*22*2
22*2*
**222*
*22*222*
* * 2*
*2*222*
* * 22 *
22*
-2.5+
*
*
0.00*
0.20 0.40
Chloeia pinnata, PCB
oTio"
0 .80
1.00
4.0+
2.0 +
0.0+
* *
* *
* *
* *
* *
* * *
0.00
0.20 0.40
0.60
oTIo"
1.00
-------
Pectinaria californiensis, PCB
*
4.0+
* * * * *
* *
* * ¦k * * *
2.0+
* *
* * *
•k 'k
0.0+
* * it it
it *
0.00 0.20 0.40
Prionospio steenstrupi, PCB
0.60 0.80
TToo
5.0 +
2.5+
0.0+
*
~
*3*322
2*
2222223
22*
*3223222
2232
222
2*3222*
222*
~
~ it
*222*
223*
-2.5+ *
I
0.00*
0.20 0.40
oTio"
oTio"
Nephtys cornuta franciscana, PCB
4.0+
TToo
it it ir it
it it it it
it it it
it it
2.0+
0.0+
-2.0+ *
*
* * *
**
***
# * * * *
* * *
* * *
* * *
o.oo"
0.20 0.40
0.60
oTIo"
1.00
-------
Glycera branchiopoda, PCB
4.0+
2.0+
0.0 +
**** 2* *
it it it it
it
it it
**2**
* 2 * * * 2
***2
**
*
* *
* *
**2
o.oo"
0.20
Spiophanes berkeleyorum, PCB
4.0+
0T40"
0.60
0.80
TToo
* * *
* * * *
* * * *
* *
it it it it it it
2.0 +
0.0 +
-2.0+ *
*
* * * * *
* # * * *
* * *
* #
***
o.oo"
0.20 0-40
"oTio"
0.80
TToo
Telliina carpenteri, PCB
STU+
4.8+
*-* *
* **
* * * * *
3.6+
2.4 +
#* *#** **
** * *
* *
* * * *
*# *
* * *
* *
+-
¦———+¦
n «n
0 an
» —— — «f
i nn
-------
Prionospio pinnata, PCB
* *
~ ~ -k
3.6 +
2.4 +
1.2 +
0 . 0 +
¦k * * * it
* * * * *
* *
0.00
0T20"
0T4 0"
oTeo"
0.80
1.00
Macoma carlottensis, PCB
5.0 +
2.5+
0.0+
-2.5+ *
¦k
k k k
k* 2
k k 2,k k
2 * *
2**2**2
* * 2 * * 2
***2
2***
* * * 2 * *
* * 2 * * *
O.OO"
0.20 0.40
Parvilucina tenuisculpta, PCB
5.0 +
0.60
0.30
1.00
2.5+
0.0+
22*2
22
*2
*22*
*2
*2
**222*2*
**222*222*
*22*
*2*222**
22*22*
k
k
-2.5+ *
O.OO"
0.20 0.40
0.60
oTao"
1.00
-------
Heterophoxus oculatus, DDT
5.0+
2.5+
0.0 +
•2.5+
I
o.oo"
~ *
* *
~ *
* ~
~ it *k
it it
it it
0.20
0.40 0.60
0.80
TToo
Cistena califocniensis, DDT
5.0+
2.5+
0.0+
-2.5+
~ *
it it
it it
it it
it it it
it it it
it ~
it it
it it
0.00 0.20 0'40 0.60 0.80
Compsomyax subdiaphana, DDT
TToo
6.0+
3.0+
0.0+
* *
* #
* * * *
* #
#* *
** *
* * *
-3.0+ *
o .oo"
'<3.20 0.40 0 .60 0 .80
TToo
-------
Ampelisca brevisimulata, DDT
5.0+
2.5+
*
* *
* * *
* * *
0.0+
¦2.5+
* *
it it
* *
0.00
0.20 0.40
+ :~+-
0.60 0.80
1.0
Amphioda (amphispina) urtica, DDT
5.0+
2.5+
* *
if if
if it it
it it it
it it
0.0+
-2.5+
it it
it it
ir it it it it
0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80
Euphilomedes carcharodonta, DDT
5.0+
1.0
* *
**
2.5+
0.0+
* *
* *
* * *
* *
* * * *
-2.5+ *
* * * *
-------
Axinopsida sericata, DDT
7.0+
3.5 +
0.0 +
*2
~ *
*2
*
*2**
**2
2**
*22*2
*22*2*2*2
„ „ „ *2*2*22*
2*2*2**
**2
** 2*
~
-3.5+
o.oo"
+-
0.20 0.40 0.60
0.80 1.0
Pectinacia californiensis>, DDT
* *
7.0+
* * * * *
~ * * * * *
* * * * * * * * * * *
* * * *
3.5+
0.0+
* *
-------
Sthenelanella uniformis, DDT
5.0 +
2.5+
0.0+
-2.5+
•k *
* *
* * ~
it it it
* it
it it
0.00 0T20 0.40 0T6O 0.80 ITo
Chloeia pinnata, DDT
6 . 0+
3.0+
0.0+
-3.0+
* *
* * *
* * *
* *
0.00 0.20
0.40
*0.60"
0.80 1.0
Paraprionospio pinnata, DDT
6.0+
3.0+
0.0 +
-3.0 +
it it it
it it
it it
it it it
it it it it
it it
0.00"
'0T20"
'0T4 0"
0.60 0.80
1.0
-------
Parvilucina tenuisculpta, DDT
*
*
7.0+
3.5+
0.0+
-3.5+
*2
**
* *
2*
*
22*
22
*222222
22*
222222222
2222222
*222
22222222*
22
0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00
Macoma earlottensis, DDT
******
7.0
3.5+
0.0+
-3.5+
***************
****2***
*********
* * *
**
* * * *
+-
0 .00
0.20
Capitella capitata, DDT
'0T40"
0.60 0.80
TToo
* * * * *
7.0+
3.5+
0.0+
-3.5+
* * * * ******
* * * * * *
* * * * * * *
* *
* * * *
+-
0.00
0.20
"0T4 0"
0.60
0.80
TToo
-------
Glycera branchiopoda, DDT
6.0+
3.0+
*2
2*2*2
*22*2*2
2*2*2*
22*2*2*
22*2*2
2*2*
*2
* ~
* * it
* 2*
0.0+ **
* *
*
*
o.oo"
0.20~
oT40'
"oTio"
"oTio"
TToo
Prionospio pinnata, DDT
7.2 +
6.0+
4.8+
3.6+ *
0.00
* * *
* *
* *
* *
* *
"oTio"
0.40
oTio"
0.80
1.00
Prionospio steenstrupi, DDT
7.0+
3.5+
0.0 +
-3.5+
* * * *
*
2*
* * * 2 * *
***** 2
**2****
* * * 2 * *
**2*
****
*
it
2**
2 * * * *
o.oo"
0T20"
0.40
0.60
0.80
1T00
-------
Spiophanes berkeleyorum, DDT
* * *
7.5+
6.0+
4.5+
* * *
* ~ *
* * * *
**
* *
* * * *
- * * * * *
* * *
* * *
o.oo"
"oTIo"
'o740~
'oTio'
"oTio"
1.00
Tellina carpenteri, DDT
9T0T—
7.5+
2*
* * *
* * *
2 * * *
* * # 2 *
6.0 +
it it it it
it it it * * * *
**2
4.5+ *
2 * * *
o.oo"
oTio"
0T40"
0T60"
0.80 1.00
-------
Armandia brevis, Napthalene
4.0+
* * *
* * *
******
* * * *
2.0+
0.0+
* *
~ ~
o.oo"
0.20
0T40"
0T60"
0.80
TToo
Axinopsida sericata, Napthalene
4.0+
2.0+
0.0+
* * * *
***************
* * * *
*****
* * * *
* * * *
0.00
'0T20"
'0T40*
0.60 0.80
Euchone incolor, Napthalene
4.0+
3.0+
2.0+
TToo
* *
* * * * *
* * *
* n
it it
1.0+ * *
0.00
0.20 0.40 0.60
"oTio"
TToo
-------
4
2
0
£
3
1
0
_e
5
2
0
2
armigera, Napthalene
* * *
* *
* * *
* * * *
* *
0 0 0.2 0 ~0.40 0.60 0.80 IToO
,o_ cirrifer-a, Napthalene
* *
•k * * *
* *
*****
* * * *
*
*
it
*
00 oTio 0.40 ~ 0.60 0.80 1.00
1 capitata, Napthalene
*
*
* *
2 **********
***********
* * * * * *
* * *
* *
*
*
*
00 0T20 0.4 0 0.6 0 oTs0 IToo
-------
Goniada brunnea, Napthalene
6 . OT
4.0+
* *
*******
it it
it it it
2.0 +
0.0+
*****
* * *
0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00
Eunhilomedes carcharodonta, Napthalene
—c
4.0 +
2.0 +
* * * *
*****
**********
* * *
******
* * * *
0.0+
*
+ — — — — — — — — _ — — — + — — — L
0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.30 1.00
-------
Nephtgs^cornuta franciscana, Napthalene
*
4.0+
2.0+
0.0+
* *
*******
* * *
********
* * * *
* * *****
** *
* * *
* *
* *
o.oo"
0T20"
'0T40"
0.60
oTao"
'1T00
Praxillella gracilis, Napthalene
4.5+
~ *
k k k k k it k it k
3.0 +
1.5+
k k k k k
k k k
k k
0.00"
0T20'
0.4 0 0.60
Compsqm^ax subdiaphana, Napthalene
0.80
1T00
4.5+
3.0+
1.5+
* * *
* * * * * * *
* * *
* * * *
* *
* * *
o.oo"
"0T20"
'0T40"
0.60
oTio"
1.00
-------
Phvllodoce hartmanae, Napthalene
6 .0 +
*
4.0+
* *
* * *
* * *
2.0+
* *
* * *
0.0 +
o.oo"
0.20
0T40"
0.60 0.80
TToo
Platvnereis bicanaliculata, Napthalene
Hrrttr
4.0+
* * *
2.0+
0.0+
* * * * * *
* *
* * * * * * *
* * *
* *
* * *
0.00"
'0T40"
0.20 0.40 0.60
Prionospio steenstrupi, Napthalene
0 .80"
TToo
5.0 +
2.5+
0.0+
-2.5+
****
* ** * ** *
************
* * * *¦**¦**¦
******
* *
*****
0.00"
'0T20'
0T40"
0.60 0.80
TToo
-------
Glycera capitata, Napthalene
5T0T
4.0 +
~ * * ~
* it it it it
¦kitifititikit^ititititit
ititititititiritit
~ if it
2.0+
0.0+
***2
if if if if
if if
o.oo"
0 .20
"0T4 o"
"oTio"
0.80 1.00
Macoma carlottensis, Napthalene
S". 0+
4 . 0 +
2.0 +
0.0 +
if if it if
2 * *
it it it it it it
it 2 if * *
it it it it it it 2, *
*2*
0.00 0T20 oTIo"
Nephtgs^fecruginea, Napthalene
0.60
oTIo"
"IToo
4.0+
2.0+
* * * *
*************
* * *
******* * *
* * *
******
* * * *
0.0 +
~
+——————(•——————— — .
0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00
-------
Pectinaria californiensis, Napthalene
o . 0+ —————
4.5+
* * *
* * * * * * *
3 . 0+
* *
* * * * *
1.5+
if if
0.00 0.20
'0T40"
0.60 0.80
1.00
A^phioda (amphispina) uctica, Napthalene
4.5+
* * * *
*******
3.0 +
1.5+
* *
*****
* *
* * *
0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80
Parvilucina tenuisculpta, Napthalene
STOr ~
1.00
4.0+
2.0+
0.0+
* if
********
# *
if it if if
~ *
* *
if if
0.00"
0.20 0.40
"oTio"
0.80 1.00
-------
Spiocfoaetopterus costorum, Napthalene
4.0 +
* *
2.0+
0.0+
*******
~ * *
*****
* *
* *
o.oo"
"oTio"
"oTio"
"o.io
"oT80 IToo
Spiophanes berkeleyorum, Napthalene
d . 0+
4. 0 +
* * * *
* * *
* * *
* *
2.0 +
0.0+
* * *
o.oo"
0 .20
0T40"
0.60
'oTscT
'IToo
Glycera americana, Napthalene
6 . 0 +
4.0+
* * *
*****
* * * ** *
* *
2.0+
0.0+
* **
* * * *
0.00"
oTIo"
T.40
"o~60~
"oTio"
1.00
-------
Glycinde armigera, Phenanthrene
4.8-
3.6+
# *
* *
2.4+
1.2+2
* it
it ~
* * *
* * *
' 0.040 0.080
Armandia brevis, Phenanthrene
0.120 0.160 0.200
+C<1 J
0.240
4.8+
3.6+
2.4+
1.2 +
* it
if it it it
it it it it it
it it it
it it it
it it it
1T00
0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80
Prionospio cirrifsra, Phenanthcene
4.00+ *
it &
it it
3.20+
2.40+
1.6 0+
* * *
* *
* *
* * *
* *
* *
* *
0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60
0.80
1.00
-------
Pholoe minuta, Napthalene
6".TJT^
4.0 +
~ *
it it it it it it it it
it it it it
it it
2.0+
0.0+
* * *
~ * ~
it it
o.oo"
'o .20"
0.40 0.60 0.80
"l.OO
-------
Goniada brunnea, Phenanthrene
6.0 +
4.5+
3.0+
1.5+
* * *
* * * **
* * *
* * * *
* * *
* * *
o.oo"
"0~20~
"o~4 o"
0.60
0.80
Compsomvax subdiaDhana, Phenanthrene
I —
6.0+
4.5+
TToo
3.0 +
1.5+
*****
* * * *
*****
* *
* * * *
o.oo"
"oTIo"
'o~4o"
oTio"
0.80"
Euphilomedes carcharodonta, Phenanthrene
6.0+
• — —
1.00
4.5+
3.0+
* * * *
**2****
********
****2**
* *
******
* 2 * * * *
***
1.5+ **
-------
Euchone incolor, Phenanthrene
4 . 5+
*****
*****
3.0+
******
*****
1.5+
0.0+ *
0.00
0T4 o"
0.20
Phvllodoce hartmanae, Phenanthrene
6.0 +
4.5+
0.60
0.80 1.00
* *
* * *
3.0 +
1.5+
* * *
* *
* * * * *
0.00"
"oTIo"
0 .40
Axinopsida sericata, Phenanthrene
"oTso"
0 .80
1.00
4.8 +
3.6+
2.4+
1.2+ 2
* *
* * * *
****** 2
*******
*******
* * * *
* 2 * * *
* * *
* * * *
* *
O.OO"
'0T20"
0.40 0.60
oTio"
1.00
-------
Capitella capitata, Phenanthrene
4.5 +
3.0+
1.5+
0.0 +
* * *
******
* 2 * * * *
* * * 2 * * *
******
******
**2
****** 2
* * *
*
* *
o.oo"
0.20
'oTicT
0.60 0.80
1.00
Glyce ra capitata, Phenanthrene
6.0+
4 . 5+
* *
*******
* 2 * * * * *
*
***
3.0+
1.5+
********2
* * * *
******
2**
o.oo"
0.20
M0'
"oTio"
0.80 1.00
Macoma earlottensis, Phenanthrene
6.0+
4.5+
3.0 +
**
* * 2 * * * *
* * * * * 2 *
********
* * * *
**2***
********
* * *
1.5+ *
*
o.oo"
0.20 0.40
"oTio"
0.80
TToo
-------
6
4
3
1
1
6
4
3
2
, Phenanthrene
*
*
*
* *
********
*******
* 2 * * * *
* * * *
*******
******
* * *
*
2
oo oTIo ~o74o oTio oTao ITo
.la gracilis, Phenanthrene
******
* * *
* * *
* * *
* * * *
* *
0T20
+•
00
'0T4 o"
0.60
'0TI0"
1.0
-------
Nephtys cornuta franciscana, Phenanthrene
4.8+
3.2+
* *
* *
* *
******
it * * * * *
********
* * 2 it it it it
*****
it it it
1.6 + **2**
0.00*
0 .20
Pholoe minuta, Phenanthrene
6 .0+
4.5+
0T40"
0.60 0.80
1.00
* *
* * * * * * *
* * *
3.0 +
1.5+
* * * *
* * *
* * *
* * *
* * *
** *
O.OO"
0.20 0.40 0.60
Spioohanes berkeleyorum, Phenanthrene
6.0+
4.5+
0.80
'1T00
3.0+
1.5+
* *
* * * *
* *
¦k it it it
0.00"
0.20
0.40 0.60* 0.80 1.00
-------
6
4
3
2
£
4
3
1
£
6
4
3
1
californiensis, Phenanthrene
*
*
*
* * * *
* * *
* * * *
* * *
*
* *
oo 0T20 0T40 oTio 0.80 1.0
o cirrifera, Phenanthrene
*
*
if-kit
*2
*******
* 2 * * * *
******
2 * * * *
********
*****
* *
2 *
*
00 0T20 oT40 0T60 0.80 1.0
(amphispina) urtica, Phenanthrene
*
*
* *
*****
** * *
******
*
* *
*****
*
H 1 + __+ ______
00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.0
-------
Spiochaetopterus costorum, Phenanthrene
6.0 +
4.5+
* *
* * *
* * * *
3.0+
1.5+
* * * *
* * *
* *
o.oo"
0 .20
0.40 0.60
0.80
TToo
-------
Glycera americana, Phenanthrene
6.0-
4.5+
*****
* * **
3.0+
•k if if
if 'k if k if if
if if
if if if
1.5+ *
0 . oo"
OTIS"
0 .40
Parvilucina tenuisculpta, Phenanthrene
6.0+
4 . 5 +
0 .60'
0.80 1.0
~ if if
it if if if
3.0+
1.5+
if if if if if
if if
if if
if if if
0.00'
'0T20'
0.40 0.60
Platynereis bicanalic-ulata, Phenanthrene
6.0+
4.5+
'oTio"
1.0
* *
* * * *
* * * *
3.0 +
1.5+
*****
* *
* * *
* * * *
* *
0.00*
"0.20 ~o. 40 0.60 oTao 1T0
-------
Glycinde armigera, Flouranthrene
4. 5h
3.0+
1.5+
* *
* * * *
* *
* * *
* *
O.oO 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00
Prionospio cirrifera, Flouranthrene
4.0+
3.0+
2.0+
1.0+
**
2 *
* * *
** *
*****
* * *
**
+ 57Io" 0.40 0.60 0.80 iToo
0.00
Spiophanes berkeleyorum, Flouranthrene
6.0+
4.5+
~ ~
~ ~
* * * *
3.0+
1.5+
* * *
* *
* * * *
o.oo oTIo 0.40 o.6o oTao IToo
-------
Armandia brevis, Flouranthrene
5.0+
4.0+
3.0+
2.0+ * *
a *
* *
* *
* *
* * * *
* *
* * *
0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80
Phyllodoce hartraanae, Flouranthrene
6.0+
1.0
4.5+
3.0+
1.5
* *
~ "k
k ~ k if
it it it it
0.00 0.20 0.40
Goniada brunnea, Flouranthrene
1
6.0+
0.60 0.80 1.0
4.5+
3.0+
1.5+
* * * *
* 2
* *
~ ~
* ** *
* * *
* 2
0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.0
-------
Spiochaetopterus costorum, Flouranthrene
6?oI
~ ~
4.5+
3.0+
1.5
* *
* 2 * *
* * * *
* *
*****
0.00
+ --.-+ 5740 0.60 0.80 I.00
Capitella capitata, Flouranthrene
**
4.8+
3.6+
2.4+
*2
**2 2**
*2**
****
2*
**2*
****2*
**
**2*
**¦*2
**
**
1.2+ **
| *
0Q0 5720 0.40 0.60 0.30 1.00
Axinopsida sericata» Flouranthrene
***
****
4.5+
3.0+
1.5+
****
*2***
***
*******
****
*******
******
***
o.oo"
0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80
"IToo
-------
Euchone incolor, Flouranthrene
4.8h
*****
**
** * 2
3.6+
2.4+
* *
* * **
* **
1.2+ * *
0.00 0.20
Euphilomedes carcharodonta, Flouranthrene
0.40 oTio 5780 " "1.00
***
4.8+
3.2+
1.6+
****
**2 ***
*2
******
******
**2**
**
*****
****
2**
0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80
Macoma carlottensis, Flouranthrene
6.0+
1.00
***
4.5+
3.0+
1.5+
***
*2*
****
*2****
2*****
***
*******
**
******
**2 2
o.oo"
0.20 0.40 0.60
0.80
'IToo
-------
Nephtys cornuta franciscana> Flouranthrene
6.0I
***
4.5+
3.0+
***
**2
**2*
***
***
2******
2*****
*2*
***
2***
****
1.5+ **
+ ---+ ---0
0.00
Nephtys ferruginea, Flouranthrene
6.0I
4.5+
0.60 0.80 1.00
***
****
* 2***
***
****
**
*2****
3.0+
1.5+
*******
**
******
*2
0.00 0.20
Prionospio steenstrupi, Flouranthrene
0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00
4.8+
3.2+
1.6+
***
*****
*****
**
2 2*****
*****
*****
*2**
***2
****
2**
*2
0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80
1.00
-------
Compsomyax subdiaphana, Flouranthrene
6.0+
4.8+
* ~ * *
* * *
3.6+
2.4+
* * k *
* * * *
•k k
o.oo" 0T20 ~o.4o " 0T60 ~~~o7ao 1T00
Glycera capitata, Flouranthrene
6.0+ *
4.5
k-kick
**
*2 2*
***2
3.0+ **2***
***
**~2*
¦kit 2
¦k
1.5+ *
*
*
0.00 oTio 5740 5760 57Io I7oo
Pholoe rainuta, Flouranthrene
6?oI '
4.5+
* *
** ***
2* **
3.0+
1.5+
* ****
** **
***
* *
0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00
-------
Scalibregma inflatum, Flouranthrene
* * * -k
4.5<
* *
3.0+
* * *
if *
1.5h
* * *
0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60, 0.80 1.00
Parvilucina tenuisculpta, Flouranthrene
1—
~
6.0+
4.5+
3.0+
1.5+
~ ~
* **
* *
¦k if kit k
k *
* **
* * * *
**
0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00
Pectinaria californiensis, Flouranthrene
6.0+
4.8+
3.6+
2.4+ *
* *
* ~ *
* ~ -k
•k *
* * * *
* *
0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00
-------
Praxillella gracilis, Flouranthrene
6.0-
~ -k
4. 8h
3.6+
* * * *
* * *
* *
* *
* * *
* -k it *
2.4+ *
o.oo oTio o74o oTio oTao"
Platynereis bicanalicuiata, Flouranthrene
6.0+
1.0
** **
* **
4.5+
3.0+
1.5
* *
*¦* **
* kit k
* *
* * **
* *
o.oo o7io~ o.40 oTio oTao ITo
Amphioda (amphispina) urtica, Flouranthrene
6.0+
* ~
4.8+
3.6
2.4+
* ** *
* *
* *
*
* ** *
* *
* *
k k
0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.0'
-------
Glycera americana, Flouranthrene
6.0+
4.5+
3.0+
1.5+
* **
* ** *
* *
* *
* * *
** * *
¦k 1e *
0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00
-------
Prionospio cirrifera, Benzo(a)anthracene
4T0+
* *
3.0+
2.0+
1.0+
* *
it it it
it it it
it it
* *
~ *
it it
0.00"
0.20 0.40
Armandia bcevis, Benzo(a)anthracene
"oTio"
0TI0"
TToo
4.8 +
3.6 +
2.4+
1.2 +
* A
* *
* * *
* * *
* * *
* *
* *
* *
* * *
0.00
0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80
Soiophanes berkelevorum, Benzo(a)anthracene
1.00
4.8+
3.2+
1.6 +
* *
* * * *
* * * *
* *
* *
O.OO"
0.20
0T40"
oTio"
0.80
'IToo
-------
Goniada brunnea, Benzo(a)anthracene
6 . 0 +
*
4.5+
3.0+
* * *
* * ** *
* * * *
* *
* *
1.5 +
* * *
if ~ *
0.00
0.20
0.40 0.60
*0.80"
1.00
Spiochaetopterus costorum, Benzo(a)anthracene
-c gj; f
4. 5 +
* *
if it -kit it
3.0 +
1.5+
*******
* *
* *
* *
o.oo"
0.20 0.40
oTio"
0.80
1.00
Axinopsida sericata, Benzo(a)anthracene
4.5+
3.0+
1.5+
0.0+
********
* * * * * 2
•kit hit h *
******
* * * *
*2*
* * *
* * *
**
o.oo"
0.20 0.40
0.60
0.80
iToo
-------
Capitella capitata, Benzo(a)anthracene
4.5+
3.0+
1.5+
* *
****
*2*
* 2 * * *
***2*
* * * *
2****
**2*
* * * *
* * *
* * *2 *
*
* * *
0.0+ *
0.00
0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80
Compsom^ax subdiaphana, Benzo(a)anthracene
I. 00
4 . 5 +
3.0+
1.5+
* * *
*****
* *
* * *
* *
* * *
* * *
o.oo"
•———+-
0 .20 0 .40 0 .60
Euchone incolor, Benzo(a)anthracene
4.5+
0.30
1.00
* * *
* * * *
** * * *
3.0+
1.5+
0.0+
* * * *
* * *
* * *
* *
* *
o.oo"
0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80
1.00
-------
Euphilomedes carcharodonta, Benzo(a)anthracene
E
*
¦k
4.0+
2.0+
****
* * * * * * * * * *
* * * 2 * *
* * * *
*****
* a *
***** 2
0.0+
0.00
0.20
0.40
'oTscT
oTio"
'lToo
Glycera capitata, Benzo(a)anthracene
4.8 +
3.2+
1.6 +
******2*
* * 2 * * *
***2****
**2******
* * * *
* *
*****
*2
* *
o.oo"
'0T20"
'0T40"
"0.60"
'oTao"
1.00
Macoma carlottensis, Benzo(a)anthracene
4.8+
3.2+
1.6+
* *
**********
*******
******2**
**2*
* * *
2**
* *
* * * *
2**
* *
0.00*
0.20
"oTIo"
0.60
0.80
TToo
-------
4
3
1
[1
-f
4
3
1
n;
~6r,
4.
3.
2.
erruginea, Benzo(a)anthracene
•k
*********
*****
*****
* * *
* * * *
**
* * * *
* * *
**
oo 0T20 0.4 J- oTio oTato IToo
na tenuisculptar, Benzo(a)anthracene
** *
*****
*
* * * *
*
**
* *
*
* * *
*
*
*
3 5 "Oo Oo o7So~ Oo
a californiensis, Benzo(a)anthracene
* * * * * *
* *
* * *
* * *
* * *
+-
)0
"oTIo"
'0T40"
———4.-
0.60
0.80 1.00
-------
Praxillella gracilis, Benzo(a)anthracene
6.0+
4.8 +
3.6+
******
*****
* *
* * *
2.4+
* *
* *
* *
o.oo"
0 .20
0.40
0.60
0T80"
1.00
Prionospio steenstrupi, Benzo(a)anthracene
6.0 +
4.0+
2.0+
* * *
******
***2*******
*2 *
* * *
* * * 2
***** 2
* *
* *
0.0+ *
*
o.oo 0T20 0.40 oTso oTio*
'1.00
Amphiqda (amphispina) urtica, Benzo(a)anthracene
4.5+
* * * *
*****
* * *
3.0+
1.5+
* * *
* *
* **
*****
0.00"
"oTIo"'
0T40"
oTio*
"oTio"
'1T00
-------
Glvcera americana, Benzo(a)anthracene
— 6 . Ot"
4.5+
3.0+
1.5+
*****
* * * *
* *
* * * *
* * *
* *
* *
* * *
0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00
NejphJi^^ cornuta fjT3inc_i_s_caria^ Benzo(a)anthracene
4.8 +
3.2+
1.6+
* *
**********
* *
* * * *
* * * * * *
*****
*****
* * * *
***
* * *
* * *
4.—— ——— — +—— — — — — — — — + — — — — — — — — —+
0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00
Pholoe mmuta, Benzo (a) anthracene
6.0+
4.0+
2.0+
0.0+ *
+-
**
* * * * *
* * * * * *
* * * * *
* * *
* * * * *
* * *
* * * *
0.00 0.20 0.40
oTio"
0.80
TToo
-------
Phyllodoce hartmanae, Benzo(a)anthracene
4.8+
3.2 +
1.6+
* * it it it
~ ~
~ *
it it
it it it
o.oo"
0.20
"oTio"
0.60 0.80
1.0
Platynereis bicanaliculata, Benzo(a)anthracene
4.8+
3.2+
1.6+
it it it it it it it it
it it
•k it it it
it it
itit
it it
it it
itit
o.oo"
'o72o"
"oTio"
0.60 0.80 1.0
-------
Prionospio cirrifera, Chrysene
4.0 +
3.0+
* * *
* *
* * *
* * *
* *
2.0+
1.0+
~ *
* * *
0 .00*
0.20 0.40
oTio"
0 .80
TToo
Spiophanes berkeleyorum, Chrysene
4.5 +
3.0+
1.5+
*
* * * * *
* * *
* *
* *
o.oo"
0.20
"o74o"
"oTio"
0 .80
TToo
Goniada brunnea, Chrysene
6.0+
4.5
* *
* * *
* * * *
* *
3.0+
1.5+
* # * *
* *
**
* * * *
o.oo"
0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80
TToo
-------
evis, Chrysene
*
*
* * * *
* *
* *
* * * *
* *
it * *
it
* * *
* *
oTIo 0T40 oTio 0.80 1T00
sericata, Chrysene
~
********
if it it it it if
*******
* * * 2 * *
******
* * *
**
* *
* *
* * *
*
**
0T20 0T40 o.io" 0.8 0 IToo
:apitata, Chrysene
*
***2**
****
*******
*2
******
* * *
***
*2*
*****
**2
* * *
2*
* *
*
0T20 0T40 oTio oTio 1T00
-------
Phvllodoce hartmanae, Chrysene
—i ~g>Q+
*
*
4.5+
3.0+
* *
* *
* *
* *
* *
* *
* * *
1.5+
0.00*
0.20
"0T40"
"o~6o~
0.80
1T00
Euchone incolor, Chrysene
zrrgqF
3.6+
* i€ * *
* it
******
* * it *
* * ie
* *
2.4+
1.2+
0.00*
'0T2O*
"qT40"
0 .60
0.80
"IToo
Pcionospio steenstrupi, Chrysene
4.0+
2.0+
0.0+
* * *
* 2 * * *
* * * 2 * * *
***2****
* * *
* * *
******
**
***
0.00*
0.20
0T40"
oTio"
0.80
»———+
1.00
-------
Euphilomedes carcharodonta, Chrysene
6 . 0 +
* * * *
4.0+
2.0+
0.0 +
********
*********
* * * * *
if if if
*2
if it if if if if
o.oo'
0 . 2o"
"oT4o"
'oTio o.io"
TToo
Macoma caclottensis, Chrvsene
STOT
4.5 +
if if if if if if it
2 * * it if if
it if if if 2 * *
3.0+
* if if 2 * *
ir if if if if
2*
if if
if if
if if if if if
1.5+ *2
~ *
o.oo"
0.20 0.40 0.60
Nephtgs^cornuta franciscana, Chrysene
0.80 1.00
4.5+
3.0+
1.5+
********
******
* * *
* *
*******
*****
* if *
* * * *
* *
* * *
* *
0.00"
0T20"
0.40
oTio"
0TI0"
TToo
-------
Nephtgs^ferruginea, Chrysene
~
4.5+
3.0
******
*******
******
*******
*****
* * *
**
**
* * * *
1.5+ * **
~
*
0 .00~
0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80
TToo
Glycera capitata, Chrysene
07U+ -
4.5+
3.0+
*****
**
* * * 2 * *
*******
******
**2***
* * * * 2 *
**
* * * *
1.5+ 2*
**
0
.00
Spiochael
:opterus
6. Oh
4.5-
3.0-
0.20 0.40 0.60
0.80
»———+
1.00
* *
* * *
* * * *
*****
* * * *
1.5+ * * *
o.oo"
0.20
0.40 0.60
0.80
TToo
-------
Pectinaria californiensis, Chrysene
mr?
5.0+
it it
4.0+
3.0+
* * *
* *
* * *
* * * *
* * *
o.oo"
0.20
'oTIo'
"oTeo"
oTao"
1.0
Platynereis bicanaliculata, Chrysene
o . 0+
4.5+
¦k * * * it * *
* * **
* *
3.0+
1.5+
* * * *
* *
* *
* *
o.oo'
0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.0
Praxillglla gracilis, Chrysene
5.0+
4 . 0 +
3.0+ * * *
* *
if if it it
if it it it
it it if
it it if it
+ — — — — — — + — — — — — — —— — + — — —— — —— — — + — — —— — — —
0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.0
-------
Compsomyax subdiaphana, Chrysene
o . 0 +
*
4.8 +
3.6 +
* *
* * *
* * *
* *
* *
* * *
* *
2.4 +
* * *
0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00
Amphioda (amphispina) urtica, Chrysene
6.0 +
4.5 +
* * * *
* * * *
* * * *
it it *
3.0+
1.5+
* * * *
* * *
**
0. 00
'oTIo"
0T40'
0.60 0.80 1.00
Glycera americana, Chrysene
6.0+
4.5+
* * * * * *
**
* * *
*****
3.0 +
1.5+ * * *
~
* it
**
0.00"
"0T20"
0T40"
oTso"
0.80
I. 00
-------
Parvilucina tenuisculpta, Chrysene
6.0+
*
*
4.5+
3.0 +
1.5+
* * * *
* *
* *
* * *
* * * *
* *
* *
* *
o.oo"
0.20
0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00
Pholoe minuta, Chrysene
S-.-OT
4.5+
•k it it it
it it it
* * * it *
* * * it * *
3.0 +
1.5 +
* it * *
"* *
¦k
* * *
**-
* * *
* * *
o.oo"
0.20 0.40 0.60
oTao"
1.00
-------
Glycinde armigera, Pyrene
4.5+
* *
* *
3.0 +
1.5+
¦k k
k k k k
¦k k
k k k
k k k
+———— ——I— — (•" ——— —+— — — 1———. ——(.
0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00
Prionospio ci r ri fera, Pyrene
~ if "k it
4 . 0 +
3.0 +
2.0+
it it
it *
it it it
it it
it it it
it it it
0.00 0.20
Armandia brevis, Pyrene
5.0+
4.0
"oTIo"
0.60 0.80 1.00
* *
k k k
* * * *
* *
* * *
* * *
* * *
3.0+
2.0+ *
0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00
-------
Spiophanes berkeleyorum, Pyrene
6.0 +
* * *
4.0 +
2.0 +
0.0 +
o .oo"
it it it if
it k it it
it it
it it it
0T20"
0.40
'oTio"
oTscT
1.0
Goniada brunnea, Pyrene
6.0 +
4.0+
it it it it it
it it it
it it it it
it it it it it
2.0+ * * 2
0.0+
* * *
O.OO"
0TI0"
0 .40
Phyllodoce hartmanae, Pyrene
0 .60
'0TI0"
1.0
6.0+
4.5+
3.0+
1.5+
it it it
~ it
it it it
it it
it it
0.00'
0T20 0T40 oTio oTio ~ "" 1T0
-------
Spiochaetopterus costorum, Pyrene
6.0+
4.0+
2.0+
* * * *
* * * *
*****
* * *
* *
* *
0 . 0 +
0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 ' 0.80 1.00
Thacyx monilaris, Pyrene
4.8+
3.6+
2.4+
1.2 +
0 .00
* * *
* * * *
* *
* *
0.20
Axinopsida sericata^ Pyrsns
0T40"
oTso"
0.80 1.00
* *
4.5+
3.0+
1.5 +
*****
*****
* 2 * * * *
********
******
*****
*****
* *
**
* *
O.OO"
0.20 0.40
'oTio"
"oTao"
'1T00
-------
Euphilomedes carcharodonta, Pyrene
6.0 +
4.0+
* * *
* * * 2 * * *
*******
********
*2******
* * * *
* * * *
2.0+ ***2
0.0 +
0.00"
"0~2Q~
oTio'
0.60
qTIq"
'IToo
Macoma carlottensis, Pyrene
5.0 +
4. 5 +
~ *
**2*
********
*****
* 2 * * * * *
*****
3.0 +
*****
2 * * *
* * *
**2
* *
1.5+ *
o.oo"
"0T20"
0.40
"oTio"
oTso"
1.00
Nephtys
6.0-
4.0-
erruginea, Pyrene
* * *
********
********
**2*****
*******
* * * *
* * *
2.0+ ***2
*
0.0+
o.oo"
0.20
"oT40"
"oTeo"
oTio"
TToo
-------
Capitella capitata, Pyrene
* *
4.5+
3.0+
1.5+
* * *
2*
2 * * * * *
2***
*2*
* * * * 2 *
******
******
* * * *
* *
* * * 2 *
* *
0.00 0.20
Glycera capitata, Pyrene
"o74o"
0.60
0.80
TToo
6.0+
4.0+
2.0+ 2**2
* * * * *
~ * *
**2******
2******2
******
2******
2**
* *
0.0+
0.00
0.20
"0~40'
0.60
0.80
TToo
Prionos£i£ steenstrupi, Pyrene
6.0+
4.0+
2.0+
0.0+
* * * *
* * 2 *
* * * * 2 * *
* * * 2 * * *
**2****
*2*
***2
**
*2
o.oo"
0.20
"0T40"
0.60 0.80
1.00
-------
Compsomyax subdiaphana, Pyrene
6.0 +
it it
4.5+
3.0+
1.5+
* * *
* *
* * *
* * * *
* * *
* *
* 2
0.00 0.20
Euchone incolor, Pyrene
4.8+
'0T40'
0 .60
0TI0"
1.0
* * * *
¦k it it
* * *
3.6 +
2.4+
1.2+
it it it it it
it it it it
0.00"
"oTio"
0T4 0"
"oTio"
0.80 1.0
Pectinaria californiensis, Pyrene
6.0+
4.8+
3.6+
2.4+
0.00*
* * * *
* *
* it
it * *
* *
* * * *
0T20 0T40 oTio oTio 1T0
-------
Praxillella gracilis, Pyrene
6.0 +
4.8+
3.6+
*****
* * *
* *
* * *
* * *
* * * *
2.4 +
0.00
0.20 0.40 0.60
Nephtys cornuta franciscana, Pyrene
0.80 1.00
6.0+
4.0+
2.0+
0.0 +
* *
******
* * *
*2
****** 2**
* * * * 2 * *
****2
******
2 * * * *
* *2 *
0.00
"0~2Q~
oT 4 o"
0.60 0.80
1.00
-------
Amphioda (amphispina) uctica, Pyrene
6.0+
* *
4.5+
3.0+
1.5+
* * * *
* * *
* * *
******
* *
* * * *
* 2
0.00 0.20
Glycera americana, Pyrene
0T40"
0.60
0.80 1.0
6.0+
4.5+
3.0+
1.5+
* *
*****
* * * *
* *
* * *
* * *
* *
* *
* *
0.00 0T20 0?40
Parvilucina tenuisculpta, Pyrene
"oTio"
0.80 1.0
6.0+
4.0+
2.0 +
0.0+
* * *
~ *• ~
* *
* * * **
* * * *
* * *
* * *
0.00"
'0 T20"
0.40 0.60
"oTio"
1. 0
-------
Pholoe minuta, Pyrene
6.0+
4.0 +
2.0+
* * * *
****
* * * * *
*****
*****
****
* * *
* * * *
**
* *
0.0+
0.
Platvnereis
o.oo"
0T20 oTio"
bicanaliculata, Pyrene
"oTio"
oTio"
'1T00
6.0+
4.0+
2.0+
0.0+
* * * *
* * * *
* * *
*****
* * *
* * * •
* * * *
**
0.00
0.20
Scalibregnia inflatum, Pyrene
4.8 +
3.6+
0T40"
0.60
0.80
1.00
* * *
* it
it *
2.4 +
1.2+
* * it
if it
0.00
0.20
0.40
0.60
oTio"
TToo
-------
Prionospio cirrifera, Benzo(a)pyrene
3.6 +
2.4+
1.2+
0.0+ *
0.00
~ it it
•k it
it it
it it it
it it
'0T20*
0 . 40
'o .6 0*
"oT8o"
TToo
Spiophanes berkeleyorum, Benzo(a)pyrene
o . 0 +
4 . 5+
* * *
* * * *
3.0 +
1.5+
* it
it it it
o.oo 0T20 ~ oTio"
Capitella capitata, Benzo(a)pyrene
oTeo"
0.80
1.00
4.5+
3.0+
1.5+
******
*2**
*******
* * * *
******
* *
*****
*
******
* *
* * *
0.0+ *
0.00~"
0.20 0.40
0.60
0TI0"
TToo
-------
Spiochaetopterus costorum, Benzo
-------
Axinopsida sericata, Benzo(a)pyrene
4.5+
3.0 +
1.5+
0.0+ *
o.oo"
* it
•kititititititie
"k it it it it it it
it it it it it it it
it it it it it it
it it it it it
it it
it it it it
it it it
0.20 0.40
'oTio'
"oTio"
TToo
Compsomyax subdiaphana, Benzo(a)pyrene
6.0+
4.5+
it it it it it
it it it it
it it it
3.0 +
1.5+
* *
* *
it it
it it it
o.oo"
'0T20"
0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00
EuphiXoipedes carcharodonta, Benzo ( a ) pyrene
* *
4.0+
2.0+
0.0 +
***********
******2**
*******
* * * *
* * * *
*
* * * *
******
0.00"
Q~2o'
0.40
"oTeo"
"oTio"
'1T00
-------
Glvcera capitata, Benzo(a)pyrene
—* 6.0+ y
4.5+
3.0+
1.5+
******
*****
* * 2 * * *
*****2
*******2
* *
* * *
* * * *
*2***
0 .00
0.20
"oTiS"
0.60 0.80
TToo
Praxillella gracilis, Benzo(a)pyrene
6.0+
4.5+
*****
* * *
*****
3.0+
1.5+ *
* * *
* *
* *
0.00
0.20
0.40 0.60
oTio"
1.00
Nepht^s^cornuta franciscana, Benzo(a)pyrene
4.5+
* ******
* *****
***
3.0+
1.5+
* * * *
* ****
**
* *
*** *
* **
O.OO"
0.20
"oT40"
"oTio"
0TI0"
1.00
-------
Armandia brevis, Benzo(a)pyrene
4.8 +
*
* *
3.6+
2.4+
* * *
* *
* * * *
* *
* *
* * *
1.2+
* *
o.oo"
"oTio 0T40"
"oTio"
oTio "Too
Macoma carlottensis, Benzo(a)pyrene
6.0 +
4.0+
2.0+
* *
****2****
* * *
* 2 * *
* * * *
* *
*2***
0.0+ *
o.oo""
0.20
'o. 40*
'oTio*
0.80
1.00
Priongspio steenstrupi, Benzo(a)pyrene
**
4.0+
2.0+
0.0+
* * * *
2 * *
******2 *
******2
* ~
~ * * * * * *
*2*
* *
0.00*
0.20
0.40
0.60 0.80
IToo
-------
4
3
1
il
nff
4
3
1
in
6
4
3
1
'erruginea, Benzo(a)pyrene
*
*
*
**
********
******
******
* * * *
*****
* *
*
* * * *
*
*****
*
*
00 0T20 0.40 0.60 oTio 1T00
,na t.enuisculpta, Benzo( a )pyrene
*
* * * *
******
*
* *
* * *
*
* * * *
* *
00 0T20 0?40 0.60 "oTio 1T00
a califorrniensis, 8enzo(a)pyrene
*
* *
* * * *
* * *
* * * *
* * *
*
* *
-------
Pholoe minuta, Benzo(a)pyrene
4.8+
~ ~
* * it it it *
* * it it
3.2 +
1 • 6+
it it it it it
ikit
it it
it it it
it it
it it
it it it it
o.oo"
0.20
'oT40*
0 .60
oTio"
1.0
Amphigda (amphispina) urtica, Benzo(a)pyrene
4.5+
3.0 +
1.5+
* *
it it it it it it
it ~ it
it it it it
it it
it it
it it it -k
0.00
0T20"
0.40
'oTso'
"oTio"
1.0
Glycega^americana, Benzo(a)pyrene
4.5+
*****
* * * * *
3.0 +
1.5 +
* * *
* it it
k it
it it it
0.00"
0.20
"0T4 0"
0.60
oTio"
1.0
-------
Platynereis bicanaliculata, Benzo(a)Dvrene
6.0 +
4.5+
* * * * *
* * * *
* *
* *
3.0+
1.5+
* *
** *
* •* * *
o.oo"
0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80
"IToo
Phyllodoce hartmanae, Benzo(ajpyrene
4 . 5 +
* *
* it
3.0+
* *
* if
* it it
1.5-
* *
------- |