United States Office of Water EPA-822-R-07-001
Environmental Protection 4304T February 2007
Agency
&EPA AQUATIC LIFE AMBIENT
FRESHWATER QUALITY
CRITERIA - COPPER
2007 Revision
-------
AQUATIC LIFE AMBIENT FRESHWATER QUALITY CRITERIA - COPPER
2007 Revision
(CAS Registry Number 7440-50-8)
February 2007
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Water
Office of Science and Technology
Washington, DC
-------
NOTICES
This document has been reviewed in accordance with U.S. EPA policy and approved for
publication. Mention of trade names or commercial products does not constitute endorsement or
recommendation for use.
This document can be downloaded from EPA's website at:
http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/criteria/aqlife.html
-------
FOREWORD
Section 304(a)(l) of the Clean Water Act of 1977 (P.L. 95-2.17) requires the
Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency to publish water quality criteria
that accurately reflect the latest scientific knowledge onthekindand extent of all
identifiable effects on health and welfare that might be expected from the presence of
pollutants in anybody of water, including ground water. This document is a revision of
criteria based upon consideration of comments received from independent peer reviewers
and the public. Criteria contained in this document supplement any previously published
EPA aquatic life criteria for the samepollutant(s).
The term "water quality criteria" is used in two sections of the Clean Water Act,
section 304(a)(l) and section 303(c)(2). The term has a different program impact in each
section. In section 304, the term represents anon-regulatory, scientific assessment of
health or ecological effects. Criteria presented in tins document are such scientific
assessments. If water quality criteria associated with specific waterbody uses are adopted
by a state or tribe as water quality standards under section 303, they become enforceable
maximum acceptable pollutant concentrations in ambient, waters within that state or tribe.
Water quality criteria adopted in state or tribal water quality standards could have the
same numerical values as criteria developed under section 304. However, in many
situations states or tribes might want to adjust water quality criteria dev el oped under
section 304 to reflect local environmental conditions. Alternatively, states or tribes may
use different data and assumptions than EPA in deriving numeric criteria that are
scientifically defensible and protective of designated uses. It is not until their adoption as
part of state or tribal water quality standards that criteria become regulatory. Guidelines
to assist the states and tribes in modifying the criteria presented in this document are
contained in the Water Quality Standards Handbook (U.S. EPA 1994"). The handbook and
additional guidance on the development of water quality standards and other water-
related programs of this agency have been dev el oped by the Office of Water.
This document is guidance only. It does not establish or affect legal rights or
obligations. It does not establish a binding norm and cannot be finally determinative of
the issues addressed. Agency decisions in any particular situation will be made by
applying the Clean Water Act and EPA regulations on the basis of specific facts
presented and scientific information then available.
Ephraim S. King, Director
Office of Science and Technology
in
-------
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Document Update: 2007
Luis A. Cruz
(document coordinator and contributor)
U.S. EPA
Health and Ecological Effects Criteria
Division
Washington, DC
Cindy Roberts
(contributor)
U.S. EPA
Office of Research and Development
Washington, DC
Mary Reiley
(contributor)
U.S. EPA
Health and Ecological Effects Criteria
Division
Washington, DC
Robert Santore
(contributor)
HydroQual, Inc.
Syracuse, New York
Paul Paquin
(contributor)
HydroQual, Inc.
Syracuse, New York
Gary Chapman
(contributor)
Great Lakes Environmental Center
Columbus, Ohio
Jennifer Mitchell
(contributor)
U.S. EPA (formerly)
Health and Ecological Effects Criteria
Division
Washington, DC
Charles Delos
(contributor)
U.S. EPA
Health and Ecological Effects Criteria
Division
Washington, DC
Joseph Meyer
(contributor)
University of Wyoming
Laramie, Wyoming
Rooni Mathew
(contributor)
HydroQual, Inc.
Syracuse, New York
Tyler K. Linton
(contributor)
Great Lakes Environmental Center
Columbus, Ohio
Statistical Support and Contributor:
Russell Erickson
Office of Research and Development
Environmental Research Laboratory
Duluth, Minnesota
IV
-------
CONTENTS
Notices ii
Foreword iii
Acknowledgments iv
Contents v
Acronyms vii
1.0 INTRODUCTION 1
2.0 APPROACHES FOR EVALUATING COPPER BIOAVAILABILITY 2
2.1 General Aspects of Copper Bioavailability 2
2.2 Existing Approaches 4
2.3 The BLM and Its Application to Criteria Development 5
2.4 BLM Uncertainties and Performance 7
3.0 INCORPORATION OF BLM INTO CRITERIA DEVELOPMENT PROCEDURES 11
3.1 General Final Acute Value (FAV) Procedures 11
3.2 BLM Input Parameters 12
3.3 Data Acceptability and Screening Procedures 12
3.4 Conversion Factors 14
3.5 Final Chronic Value (FCV) Procedures 14
4.0 DATA SUMMARY AND CRITERIA CALCULATION 14
4.1 Summary of Acute Toxicityto Freshwater Animal sand Criteria Calculation .... 14
4.1.1 Comparison with Earlier Hardness-Adjusted Criteria 16
4.2 Formulation of the CCC 17
4.2.1 Evaluation of Chronic ToxicityData 17
4.2.2 Calculation of Freshwater CCC 18
5.0 PLANT DATA 20
6.0 OTHER DATA 21
7.0 NATIONAL CRITERIA STATEMENT 22
8.0 IMPLEMENTATION 22
9.0 REFERENCES 43
-------
FIGURES
Figure 1. Conceptual Diagram of Copper Speciation and Copper-Gill Model 5
Figure 2. Effects of Increasing Ion Concentration on Acute Lethality To Fathead Minnows .... 9
Figure 3. Comparison of Predicted and Measured Acute Copper Toxicityto P. promelas 10
Figure 4. Ranked Freshwater Genus Mean Acute Values (GMAVs) 15
Figure 5. Comparison of Hardness Based and BLM Based WQC (Alkalinity and pH Covary
with Hardness) 16
Figure 6. Relationship Between Freshwater Acute Copper Sensitivity (LC50 or EC50)
and Acute-Chronic Ratios 19
TABLES
Table 1. Acute Toxicity of Copper to Freshwater Animals 24
Table 2a. Chronic Toxicity of Copper to Freshwater Animals 34
Table 2b. Chronic Toxicity of Copper to Saltwater Animals 36
Table 2c. Acute-Chronic Ratios 37
Table 3a. Ranked Freshwater Genus Mean Acute Values
with Species Mean Acute-Chronic Ratios 38
Table 3b. Freshwater Final Acute Value (FAV) and Criteria Calculations 39
Table 4. Toxicity of Copper to Freshwater Plants 40
APPENDICES
Appendix A. Ranges in Calibration and Application Data Sets A-l
Appendix B. Other Data on Effects of Copper on Freshwater Organisms B-l
Appendix C. Estimation of Water Chemistry Parameters for Acute Copper Toxicity Tests . . C-l
Appendk D. Saltwater Conversion Factors for Dissolved Values D-l
Appendix E. BLM Input Data and Notes E-l
Appendix F. Regression Plots F-l
Appendk G. Example WQC Values Using the BLM and the Hardness Equation G-l
Appendk H. Unused Data H-l
VI
-------
ACRONYMS
ACR Acut e-C hro nic Ratio
BL Biotic Ligand
BLM Biotic Ligand Model
CCC Criterion Continuous Concentration
CF Conversion Factors
CMC Criterion Maximum Concentration
CWA Clean Water Act
DIG Dissolved Inorganic Carbon
DOC Dissolved Organic Carbon
DOM Dissolved Organic Matter
EC Effect Concentration
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
FACR Final Acute-Chronic Ratio
FAV Final Acute Value
FCV Final Chronic Value
FIAM Free Ion Activity Model
GMAV Genus Mean Acute Value
GSIM Gill Surface Interaction Model
LC50 Lethal Concentration at 50 Percent Effect Level
LOAEC Lowest Observed Adverse Effect Concentration
NASQAN National Stream Quality Accounting Network
NOAEC No Observed Adverse Effect Concentration
pH Negative logarithm of the concentration (mol/L) of the H3O+[H+] ion; scale range
from 0 to 14
SMAV Species Mean Acute Values
STORE! EPA STOrage and RETrieval Data System
WER Water-Effect Ratio
WET Whole Effluent Toxicity
WQC Water Quality Criteria
vn
-------
1.0 INTRODUCTION
Copper is an abundant trace element found in the earth's crust and is a naturally occurring
element that is generally present in surface waters (Nriagu, 1979). Copper is a micronutrient for
both plants and animals at low concentrations and is recognized as essential to virtually all plants
and animals (Kapustka et al., 2004). However, it may become toxic to some forms of aquatic life at
elevated concentrations. Thus, copper concentrations in natural environments, and its biological
availability, are important. Naturally occurring concentrations of copper have been reported from
0.03 to 0.23 |-ig/L in surface seawaters and from 0.20 to 30 [ig/L in freshwater systems (Bowen,
1985). Copper concentrations in locations receiving anthropogenic inputs can vary anywhere from
levels that approach natural background to 100 i-ig/L or more (e.g., Lopez and Lee, 1977; Nriagu,
1979; Hem, 1989) and have in some cases been reported in the 200,000 i-ig/L range in mining areas
(Davis and Ashenberg, 1989; Robins et al., 1997). Mining, leather and leather products, fabricated
metal products, and electric equipment are a few of the industries with copper-bearing discharges
that contribute to anthropogenic inputs of copper to surface waters (Patterson et al., 1998).
Over the past 20 years, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has published a
number of guidance documents containing aquatic life criteria recommendations for copper (e.g.,
U.S. EPA 1980, 1985, 1986, 1996). The present document contains EPAs latest criteria
recommendations for protection of aquatic life in ambient freshwater from acute and chronic toxic
effects from copper. These criteria are based on the latest available scientific information,
supplementing EPA's previously published recommendations for copper. This criteria revision
incorporated new data on the toxicity of copper and used the biotic ligand model (BLM), a metal
bioavailability model, to update the freshwater criteria. With these scientific and technical revisions,
the criteria will provide improved guidance on the concentrations of copper that will be protective
of aquatic life. The BLM is not used in the saltwater criteria derivation because further development
is required before it will be suitable for use to evaluate saltwater data.
This document provides updated guidance to states and authorized tribes to establish water
quality standards under the Clean Water Act (CWA) to protect aquatic life from elevated copper
exposure. Under the CWA, states and authorized tribes are to establish water quality criteria to
protect designated uses. Although this document constitutes EPA's scientific recommendations
regarding ambient concentrations of copper, it does not substitute for the CWA or EPA's
regulations, nor is it a regulation itself. Thus, it cannot impose legally binding requirements on EPA,
states, tribes, or the regulated community, and might not apply to a particular situation based on the
circumstances. State and tribal decision makers retain the discretion in adopting approaches, on a
case-by-case basis, that differ from this guidance when appropriate. EPA may change this guidance
in the future.
Although the BLM has been used in place of the formerly applied hardness-based approach,
the updated freshwater criteria derivations in this document are still based on the principles set forth
in the Guidelines for Deriving Numerical Water Quality Criteria for the Protection of Aquatic Life
and Their Uses (Stephan et al. 1985, hereafter referred to as the Guidelines). Section 2 of this
document provides an overview of copper bioavailability and the BLM. Additional information on
the generalized BLM framework, theoretical background, model calibration, and application for the
BLM can be found in the published literature. Section 3 of this document discusses general
-------
procedures and requirements for applying the BLMto criteria. Section 4 provides the derivation of
criteria Final Acute Value (FAV) and Final Chronic Value (FCV) for freshwater organisms.
Section 5 discusses plant data and Section 6 discusses other data not included in the criteria
derivation. Sections 7 and 8 provide the final criteria statements and information on
implementation. Various supplementary information is provided in several appendices.
2.0 APPROACHES FOR EVALUATING COPPER BIOAVAILABILITY
2.1 General Aspects of Copper Bioavailability
The toxicity of a chemical to an aquatic organism requires the transfer of the chemical from
the external environment to biochemical receptors on or in the organism at which the toxic effects
are elicited. Often, this transfer is not simply proportional to the total chemical concentration in the
environment, but varies according to attributes of the organism, chemical, and exposure
environment so that the chemical is more or less "bioavailable". Definitions of bioavailability vary
markedly (e.g., National Research Council, 2003) and are often specific to certain situations, but a
useful generic definition is the relative facility with which a chemical is transferred from the
environment to a specified location in an organism of interest.
Of particular importance to bioavailability is that many chemicals exist in a variety of forms
(chemical species). Such chemical speciation affects bioavailability because relative uptake rates
can differ among chemical species and the relative concentrations of chemical species can differ
among exposure conditions. At equilibrium in oxygenated waters, "free" copper exists as cupric ion
- Cu(II) weakly associated with water molecules (Cu nH2O+2), but this species is usually a small
percentage of the total copper. Most dissolved copper is part of stronger complexes with various
ligands (complexing chemicals that interact with metals), including dissolved organic compounds,
hydroxides, carbonates, and other inorganic ligands. Substantial amounts of copper can also be
adsorbed to or incorporated into suspended particles. More information on copper speciation in
freshwater can be found in Kramer et al. (1997), Bryan et al. (2002), and Smith et al. (2002).
Copper toxicity has been reported to vary markedly due to various physicochemical
characteristics of the exposure water (e.g., either laboratory or field), including temperature,
dissolved organic compounds, suspended particles, pH, and various inorganic cations and anions,
including those composing hardness and alkalinity (see reviews by Sprague, 1968; Hunt, 1987;
Campbell, 1995; Allen and Hansen, 1996; Paquin et al., 2002). Many of these physicochemical
factors affect copper speciation, and their effects on copper toxicity therefore could be due to
effects on copper bioavailability. That bioavailability is an important factor is evident from uptake
of copper by aquatic organisms being reduced by various organic compounds and inorganic ligands
known to complex copper (Muramoto, 1980; Buckley et al., 1984; Playle et al., 1993 a,b; MacRae
etal., 1999).
A "ligand" is a complexing chemical (ion, molecule, or molecular group) that interacts with a
metal like copper to form a larger complex. A "biotic ligand" is a complexing chemical that is a
component of an organism (e.g. chemical site on a fish gill). For certain ligands, some studies have
demonstrated that the concentration of free copper associated with a specified level of accumulation
or toxicity changes little as the ligand concentration is varied, despite major changes in the
-------
proportion of copper bound to the ligand (see review by Campbell, 1995). This suggests that, even
at low concentrations, free copper is more important to bio availability than the ligand-bound
copper. This is expected if accumulation and toxicity are dependent on the binding of copper to a
biochemical receptor "X" on the surface of the organism, forming a chemical species X-Cu
(receptor-bound metal) that is a first limiting step in accumulation and toxicity. By standard
chemical equilibrium expressions, the amount of such species and the consequent biological effects
would be a function of the activity of just free copper (Morel, 1983 a), a relations hip commonly
referred to as the free ion activity model (FIAM). Ligand-bound copper (Cu-L) would contribute
to copper bioavailability if (a) a species X-Cu-L is formed that is important to copper
accumulation/toxicity, (b) the microenvironment near the organism surface is such that Cu-L
dissociates and increases the free copper activity interacting with "X", or (c) copper uptake is via
mechanisms that do not entail binding to such a receptor and can accommodate different copper
species. Some studies have indicated dissolved complexes of copper do contribute to bioavailability
(reviews by Sprague, 1968; Hunt, 1987; Campbell, 1995; Allen and Hansen, 1996; Paquin et al.,
2002).
The effects of physicochemical factors on copper toxicity are diverse and the specific
chemistry of the exposure water will determine whether or not there are appreciable effects on
copper speciation and a resulting strong relationship of toxicity to free copper. Usually copper
toxicity is reduced by increased water hardness (reviews by Sprague, 1968; Hunt, 1987; Campbell,
1995; Allen and Hansen, 1996; Paquin et al., 2002), which is composed of cations (primarily
calcium and magnesium) that do not directly interact with copper in solution so as to reduce
bioavailability. In some cases, the apparent effect of hardness on toxicity might be partly due to
complexation of copper by higher concentrations of hydroxide and/or carbonate (increased pH and
alkalinity) commonly associated with higher hardness. However, significant effects on toxicity
often are still present when hardness is increased in association with anions which do not interact
strongly with copper (Inglis and Davis, 1972; Chakoumakos et al., 1979; Miller and Mackay, 1980;
Erickson et al., 1987). Hardness cations could have some limited effect on copper speciation by
competing with copper for the same dissolved ligands, but increased hardness would then increase
free copper and thus increase, not decrease, toxicity. Sodium has also been reported to affect
copper toxicity (Erickson et al., 1996b) and pH effects can be partly due to effects of hydrogen ion
other than on copper speciation (Peterson et al., 1984).
The effects of hardness cations could be explained by the competing with copper for the
biochemical receptor "X", thus reducing copper uptake (Zitko, 1976; Zitko et al., 1976; Pagenkopf,
1983). Reduced metal bioavailability due to increased hardness cations has been experimentally
demonstrated (Playle et al., 1992; Meyer et al., 1999, 2002), although this does not specifically
establish cation competition as the mechanism Pagenkopf (1983) provided a mathematical
description of a Gill Surface Interaction Model (GSM) that addressed the effects on metal toxicity
of both metal speciation and cations via the interactions of gill surface biochemical receptors with
the free toxic metal, other metal species, hardness cations, and hydrogen ion.
The empirical evidence demonstrates that copper toxicity is affected by exposure conditions
and that much of these effects is plausibly attributed to effects of ligands and cations on copper
bioavailability. However, it should not be presumed that all of the observed effects of the
physicochemical factors on copper toxicity reflect effects on bioavailability, or that bioavailability
-------
effects are just due to ligand complexation and cation competition. For example, acute copper
toxicity in aquatic organisms has been related to disruption of osmoregulation, specifically
sodium/potassium exchange (Lauren and MacDonald, 1986; Wood, 1992; Wood et al., 1997;
Paquin et al., 2002), which can be affected by calcium other than by competition with copper for
the same biochemical receptor. Similarly, reported effects of sodium and potassium on copper
toxicity (Erickson et al., 1996 b) might simply reflect favorable or unfavorable ion exchange
gradients, rather than any effect on copper bio availability. Nevertheless, the effects of ligand
complexation and cation competition on copper bioavailability provide a reasonable conceptual
framework for improved descriptions of how copper toxicity differs across exposure conditions.
2.2 Existing Approaches
EPA aquatic life criteria for metals address the reported effects of hardness on metal toxicity
using empirical regressions of toxic concentrations versus hardness for available toxicity data across
a wide range of hardness (Stephan et al., 1985). Such regressions provided the relative amount by
which the criteria change with hardness, but have certain limitations. The regressions were not just
of hardness, but of any other factor that was correlated with hardness in the toxicity data set used
for the regressions, particularly pH and alkalinity. Although these regressions therefore address
more bioavailability issues than hardness alone, they best apply to waters in which the correlations
among hardness, pH, and alkalinity are similar to the data used in the regressions. The separate
effects of these factors are not addressed for exposure conditions in which these correlations are
different. In addition, some physicochemical factors affecting metal toxicity, such as organic
carbon, are not addressed at all.
Existing EPA metals criteria also address bioavailability by using dissolved metal as a better
approximation for metal bioavailability than total metal (U.S. EPA, 1993). Although this approach
accounts for the low bioavailability of metal on suspended particles, it does not address the major
effects of various dissolved species on bioavailability. This approach could conceivably be further
developed to include just part of the dissolved copper, but this not only requires resolving what
species to include, how to weight them, and how to assess their concentrations, but also would not
address the effects of cations and other factors that affect toxicity in addition to metal speciation.
Such a "bioavailable fraction" approach is not justified, because no fraction of metals species
provides a constant measure of toxicity.
To address more completely the modifying effects of water quality than the hardness
regressions achieve, EPA issued guidance in the early 1980s on the water-effect ratio (WER)
method (Carlson et al., 1984; U.S. EPA, 1983, 1992, 1994). The WER is "abiological method to
compare bioavailability and toxicity in receiving waters versus laboratory test waters" (U.S. EPA,
1992). A WER is calculated by dividing the acute LC50 of the metal, determined in water collected
from the receiving water of interest, by the LC50 of the metal determined in a standard laboratory
water, after adjusting both test waters to the same hardness. The standard laboratory water LC50 is
used as the denominator to reflect that this LC50 is measured in test water that has water quality
characteristics representative of the test waters used to develop the Water Quality Criteria (WQC)
toxicity database, at least as a good approximation The national hardness-based acute criterion
concentration is then multiplied by this ratio (i.e., the WER) to establish a site-specific criterion that
reflects the effect of site water characteristics on toxicity. However, a WER accounts only for
-------
interactions of water quality parameters and their effects on metal toxicity to the species tested and
in the water sample collected at a specific location and at a specific time. There is also significant
cost to generate a single WER.
Because of the limitations of these past approaches for addressing bioavailability in metals
criteria, there is a need for an approach that (1) explicitly and quantitatively accounts for the effect
of individual water quality parameters that modify metal toxicity and (2) can be applied more
cost-effectively and easily, and hence more frequently across spatial and temporal scales. An
assessment framework that incorporates the bioavailability mechanisms discussed in Section 2.1 was
therefore used to address more comprehensively the effects of physicochemical exposure conditions
on copper toxicity with lower costs than required by the WER approach.
2.3 The Biotic Ligand Modd and Its Application to Criteria Development
The interactions of toxic metal species and other exposure water constituents with biological
surface receptors described by Zitko (1976), Morel (1983), and Pagenkopf (1983) provided the
basic conceptual and mathematical structure for the bioavailability model to be used here (Figure 1).
Subsequent experimental work has supported various model tenets by demonstrating the effects of
complexing ligands and competing cations on accumulation of toxic metals at fish gills and the
relationship of toxic effects to accumulation, and has also provided estimates of various model
parameters (Playle et al., 1992, 1993a,b; Janes and Playle, 1995; MacRae et al., 1999, Meyer et al.,
1999, 2002; McGeer et al., 2002). Various efforts in metal speciation modeling also have provided
the ability to do better speciation calculations, especially regarding complexation of metals by
organic matter (e.g., Tipping, 1994). This experimental work has supported further metal toxicity
model development (Meyer, 1999; Brown andMarkich, 2000; McGeer et al., 2002; Di Toro et al.,
2001; Santore et al., 2001; Paquinet al., 2002). This bioavailability modeling approachisnow
commonly termed "Biotic Ligand Models" to broaden the scope beyond gill surfaces and to
acknowledge that the biochemical receptor "X" discussed in Section 2.1 is a metal-binding ligand
that is treated similarly to ligands in the exposure water, except that it is on the organism and is the
keystone for metal accumulation and toxicity.
•{ H
Swtoce
Se.OIO'1
Mteta)
e.g. - Cu - *— * x
Ct, • Cartonofes
Figure!. Conceptual Diagram of Copper Specktion and Copper-Gil Model
(after Pagpntopf, 1983)
-------
Briefly, available evidence indicates that both free copper and copper monohydroxide bind to a
biotic ligand "Lb" on the organism's surface (Lb-Cu and Lb-CuOH) and that death occurs when a
certain amount of the total biotic ligand sites are occupied by copper. This ligand must be at the
organism surface because the model describes its interactions with the external exposure water.
However, this does not mean that this ligand is the site of toxic action; rather it is only necessary to
assume that copper accumulation at the site(s) of toxic action is proportional to binding at the biotic
ligand (i.e., the biotic ligand controls bioavailability). Other cations also will bind to the biotic
ligand, affecting copper bioavailability because higher concentrations of copper are needed for
copper to reach toxic levels. The binding to the biotic ligand is considered to be at equilibrium,
with apparent (activity-corrected) equilibrium constants KLbCu, KLbCuOH, and KLbCj, respectively, for
free copper, copper hydroxide, and the "jth" competing cation. Chemical speciation in the exposure
water is also considered to be at equilibrium, and chemical speciation calculations are conducted to
compute the free copper, copper hydroxide, and competing cation activities to which the biotic
ligand is exposed. Because binding to the actual biotic ligand cannot be measured, it is expected
that accumulation relationships for some measurable variable (e.g., the total metal in gill tissue)
provide a reasonable surrogate for the actual biotic ligand. Because criteria deal with
concentrations eliciting a certain level of effects on groups of organisms (e.g., LCSOs), model
calculations are for an organism with characteristics appropriate for such group-wide statistics.
How the BLM is applied to criteria can be best discussed by starting with the following
general expression for the BLM:
BC=BCQ-/c-fl Equation 1
where EC is the total dissolved copper concentration eliciting an effect, EC0 is a baseline EC in the
absence of any complexing ligands and competing cations, fc should be a factor (<1) for how much
competing cations increase EC, andfL should be a factor (<1) for how much complexing ligands
increase EC. For the BLM used here:
f
ar
0 (l— f }• K Equation 2
•fc = 1 + £ li^ci» ' L^j I Equation 3
j
1
Ji = - p - Equation 4
""
where ^Lbi i§ the fraction of the biotic ligand sites that must be occupied by copper to elicit the
toxicity of interest (e.g., a lethal accumulation divided by the accumulation capacity), m is the
-------
number of competing cations included in the model, [Cj] is the concentration of the jth competing
cation, ccCu+2 is the ratio of free copper concentration to total dissolved copper concentration, ccCuOH
is the ratio for the copper hydroxide complex, and the ratio ^bcuoi/KLbCu specifies the
bioavailability of CuOH relative to free copper. Thus, in the absence of complexing ligands and
competing cations, the toxic concentration is only a function of the binding strength of free copper
and the copper occupied fraction of biotic ligand sites needed to elicit toxicity. The increase in the
effect concentration due to competing cations is simply a sum of the products of their
concentrations and binding constants. The increase in the effect concentration due to complexing
ligands is the inverse of the sum of the products of the relative bioavailabilities and concentration
fractions of the species that bind to the biotic ligand (free copper and copper hydroxide).
If toxicity to all the biological species in the criteria (at least the most sensitive ones) were
determined based on measured accumulation properties and the relationship of toxicity to
accumulation, the above model equations would be directly applied in criteria calculations.
However, this is not the case. Although gill accumulation properties and lethal accumulations have
been measured for certain species and conditions, and this has been useful in validating BLM
assumptions and formulations, the data that must be applied to the criteria consists of water effect
concentration (ECs) for biological species for which this accumulation information is generally not
available. The BLM therefore is needed, not to make absolute calculations regarding toxic
concentrations, but to extrapolate toxic concentrations from one exposure condition to another:
rpr-f T?SI J G,A ' JljL „ . _
&LA = AGj Equation 5
Jc,&" JL,&
where the A and B subscripts refer to different exposure conditions. The general procedure that
was followed for criteria development here was to use the above equation to normalize all available
toxicity data to a reference exposure condition, calculate criteria values at the reference condition,
and again use the above equation to compute criteria at other conditions.
This means that the BLM assumptions and parameters that just pertain to EC0 are not
important to its application to criteria, which actually simplifies model validation and
parameterization needs. In particular, there is no need to estimate/^ or me lethal accumulations
and accumulation capacities that define this fraction. Furthermore, the absolute values of KLbCu and
KLbCuOH do not need to be known, only their relative value (and if copper binding to the biotic ligand
was dependent only on free copper, the value of KLbCu would not be needed at all). Absolute values
are only needed for the binding constants for the competing cations, as well as the various constants
needed in speciation calculations to estimate ccCu+2 and ccCuOH- For BLM application to criteria, the
important concern is whether fc andfL are suitably formulated and parameterized, and not with
issues that relate to lethal accumulations and accumulation capacities.
2.4 BLM Uncertainties and Performance
The BLM employed here uses equilibrium reactions of copper and other cations with a single,
simple type of surface ligand as the focus for all the effects of physicochemical exposure conditions
on toxicity, and thus is a simple, approximate representation for the complex set of chemical
-------
reactions and transfers involved with environmental copper concentrations eliciting toxicity. As
already noted, cation effects might involve mechanisms other than competition for a surface ligand.
The nicroenvironment at the gill might change copper speciation. Multiple mechanisms that do not
react the same to external conditions night be involved in copper bioavailability and toxicity.
Accumulation parameters based on bulk gill measurements will likely not be the same as those for
the biotic ligand. Nonequilibrium processes might be important, especially regarding the
relationship of copper-binding on a surface ligand to toxic action.
However, any model is a simplification of reality and the existence of uncertainties does not
preclude a model from being useful and justified. Despite its simplicity, the BLM used here
provides a reasonable mechanistic framework for the well-established effects of copper speciation,
explicitly addressing the relative bioavailability of different copper species. It also includes a
plausible mechanism that allows the effects of cations to be addressed and uses a comprehensive
model for calculating the required concentrations of various chemical species. Even if the
mechanistic descriptions are incomplete, this model allows the major empirical effects of
complexing ligands and competing cations to be described in a more comprehensive and reasonable
fashion than other approaches.
Because this model is used in criteria to predict relative effects of physicochemical exposure
factors, its utility for criteria can be judged based on how well it predicts the relative effects of these
factors in copper toxicity studies. Examples of BLM performance for various exposure factors and
studies are provided in the technical support document for this criteria. Figure 2 shows one
example from a study on the effects of various exposure conditions on the acute lethality of copper
to fathead minnows. This set of exposures consisted of synthetic exposure solutions of various
total ion concentrations with fixed ratios of the major cations and anions, at a fixed pH (8.0) and
low dissolved organic matter (< 0.5 mg/L). Observed dissolved LCSOs (solid circles with
uncertainly bars) varied by 24-fold for only a 9-fold change in total ions. These large effects reflect
the combined influences of increased alkalinity (copper carbonate complex formation), hardness,
and sodium. Considering the wide range of the observed LCSOs and that the model was not fitted
to these data, BLM-predicted LCSOs (open symbols) were rather accurate, ranging from 55 to 87%
(average 75%) of the observed value. More importantly for criteria, the predicted relative change
across the range of total ion concentration was 20-fold, very close to that observed.
-------
20 •
fc 10-
CL
CL
O _
Q 5 •
2
o 2-
to
Q
i 0,5-
0*3 •
f
I *
o
z»
- 91
.$ CP
%
A
8 8
0,5 1 2 5 10
Total Ion Concentration (meq/L)
Fisure 2. Effects of increasiii2 total ion concentration on the acme lethality of
copper to fathead minnows at constant pH=S and low DOC' < 0.5 mg/L. Solid
symbols represent observed values, open symbols represent predicted rallies.
Model performance can also be judged across a variety of factors as in Figure 3, which shows
predicted versus observed LCSOs for a large number of exposures in the cited study, which varied
hardness, alkalinity, sodium, and pH together and separately over a wide range. Observed LCSOs
varied by about 60-fold, but predicted values deviated from observed values by only 0.12 log units
(a factor of 1.3) on average, and at worst only slightly more than a factor of 2. Again, more
information on model performance is provided in the Technical Support Document and the figures
here just provide some examples demonstrating the utility of this model for use in criteria.
-------
1 Anon
iyuuu
EncKson et el., 198?
Faihead minnow. 96h static exposures +2
5*
D>
3- X -2
c 1000 X"«
1C jr •
y * X*-'
— > x'»
d -:.X-'
i, » »*«J» »« »
"S .. * *
1 100 . ».l^^ **
™ J£
1
a X "
^•-
V""
*!fl • . . r i
IV '
10 100
Cu LC50 (ug/L)
Figure 3. Comparison of Predicted and Measured Acute Copper Toxicity to P.
promslas.
The use of the BLM to predict the bioa variability and toxicity of copper to aquatic organisms
under site-specific conditions is a significant change from the previous Criterion Maximum
Concentration (CMC) derivation methodology. Previous aquatic life criteria documents for copper
(e.g., U.S. EPA, 1980, 1985, 1996) expressed the CMC as a function of water hardness. Now, EPA
chooses to utilize the BLM to update its freshwater acute criterion because the BLM accounts for
all important inorganic and organic ligand interactions of copper while also considering competitive
interactions that influence binding of copper at the site of toxicity, or the "biotic ligand." The BLM's
ability to incorporate metal speciation reactions and organism interactions allows predict!on of
metal effect levels to a variety of organisms over a wide range of water quality conditions.
Accordingly, the BLM is an attractive tool for deriving water quality criteria. Application of the
BLM has the potential to substantially reduce the need for site-specific modifications, such as Water
Effect Ratio, to account for site-specific chemistry influences on metal toxicity.
The updated BLM-based WQC will in some cases be more stringent and in other cases less
stringent than the hardness based WQC. As there is not a single WQC value to use for comparison
purposes, it will only be possible to provide illustrative examples of each situation. It is the
judgement of the EPA that the BLM-based WQC for Cu will provide an improved framework for
evaluating a level of protection (LOP) that is consistent with the LOP that was intended by the
1985 Guidelines (i.e., a 1 -in-3 year exceedance frequency that will be protective of 95% of the
genera).
While the BLM is currently considered appropriate for use to derive an updated freshwater
CMC for the acute WQC, further development is required before it will be suitable for use to
10
-------
evaluate a saltwater CMC or a Criterion Continuous Concentration (CCC) or chronic value
(freshwater or saltwater WQC).
3.0 INCORPORATION OF THE BLM INTO CRITERIA DERIVATIONS
PROCEDURES
3.1 General Final Acute Value (FAV) Procedures
Application of the acute copper BLM to the derivation of the copper FAV is analogous to
procedures already described in the Guidelines for metals criteria using empirical hardness
regressions. For these hardness-dependent metals criteria, LCSOs at various hardness are
normalized to a reference hardness using the regression slopes. The normalized LCSOs for each
biological species are averaged to derive Species Mean Acute Values (SMAVs) at the reference
hardness. The SMAVs within each genus are then averaged to derive Genus Mean Acute Values
(GMAVs) at the reference hardness. The Guidelines' procedures for estimating the fifth percentile
of the GMAVs are then used to derive the FAV at the reference hardness. FAVs for other hardness
can then be derived using the hardness regression slope, and these FAVs are used to calculate the
Criterion Maximum Concentration (CMC) by dividing the FAV by 2.0 and the Final Chronic Values
(FCV) by dividing the FAV by the Final Acute-Chronic Ratio (FACR). Following the Guidelines,
the Criterion Continuous Concentration (CCC) is set to the FCV unless other data justifies a lower
value.
Extending this procedure to apply the BLM simply involves normalizing the LCSOs to a
reference exposure condition that includes all the physicochemical exposure factors important to the
BLM, not just hardness. For this normalization, the BLM provides the factors/^ and/j^ discussed
in Section 2.3, these factors serving the same purpose as the hardness regression slope described
above. Each LC50 to be used in criteria derivation would be normalized to the reference exposure
conditions by the equation:
f • f
= LC5QA • C'1 £JL Equation 6
Jc j.' JLJ.
where the subscript A refers to the exposure conditions for the observed LC50 and the subscript R
refers to the reference exposure conditions to which the LC50 is being normalized. These
normalized LCSOs are then used to derive the SMAVs, GMAVs, and FAV at the reference
exposure condition as described above for the hardness-corrected criteria. The BLM is then used
to derive FAVs at other exposures by the equation:
fcffis
PA ¥& = PA¥&- CJ L^ Equation 7
JC,R ' Ji,s.
11
-------
where the subscript B refers to the exposure conditions for which an FAV is desired. These
BLM-derived FAVs are then used to derive CMCs and CCCs following standard Guidelines
procedures.
For the criteria in this document, the reference exposure conditions to which LCSOs are
normalized and at which the reference FAV is calculated are as follows (see also footnote fin Table
1). The water chemistry used in the normalization was based on the EPA formulation for
moderately-hard reconstituted water, but any other water chemistry could have been used. In this
formulation the parameters included: temperature = 20°C, pH = 7.5, DOC = 0.5 mg/L, Ca = 14.0
mg/L, Mg = 12.1 mg/L, Na = 26.3 mg/L, K = 2.1 mg/L, SO4 =81.4 mg/L, Cl = 1.90 mg/L,
Alkalinity = 65.0 mg/L and S = 0.0003 mg/L.
3.2 BLM Input Parameters
For applying anLCSO to criteria derivations and for determining an FAV at exposure
conditions of interest, the necessary water quality input parameters for BLM calculations are
temperature, pH, dissolved organic carbon, major geochemical cations (calcium, magnesium,
sodium, and potassium), dissolved inorganic carbon (DIG, the sum of dissolved carbon dioxide,
carbonic acid, bicarbonate, and carbonate), and other major geochemical anions (chloride, sulfate).
DIG measurements are typically not made in the environment, and an alternative input parameter is
alkalinity, which can be used with pH and temperature to estimate DIG. There is some evidence
that other metals such as iron and aluminum can have an effect on copper toxicity to aquatic
organisms, which might be due to interactions of these metals with the biotic ligand, effects of these
metals on organic carbon complexation of copper, or adsorption of copper to iron and aluminum
colloids which are present in filtrates used to measure dissolved copper. These metals are not
currently included in routine BLM inputs, but users are encouraged to measure dissolved iron and
aluminum as part of monitoring efforts to support possible future criteria applications.
A number of fixed parameters are also used in the BLM but are not required user inputs in
criteria derivations. These include the variety of equilibrium constants used in copper speciation
calculations, and also the binding constants for copper and various cations to the biotic ligand. The
values for these constants were obtained from work by Playle and coworkers (Playle et al., 1992,
1993a,b) and also by inference from the relationship of toxicity to various water quality
characteristics. More information about these parameters can be obtained from the technical
support document.
3.3 Data Screening Procedures
To use a toxicity test in the derivation of BLM-based criteria, information must be available
for the various water quality parameters described in Section 3.2. This is in contrast to past metals
criteria, for which the only necessary water quality parameter was hardness. Many of these
parameters are not routinely measured in toxicity tests and, if measured, are not necessarily
reported in the primary literature for the test, especially for older toxicity tests. However, this
information might be available from supplemental sources or be estimated based on other
information. Therefore, in addition to reviewing the primary sources for relevant information,
12
-------
additional efforts were made to obtain or estimate the necessary water quality parameters for as
many of the available LCSOs as possible.
A detailed description of these efforts is provided in Appendix C, Estimation of Water
Chemistry Parameters for Acute Copper Toxicity Tests, and are summarized as follows. Reports of
acute copper toxicity tests identified in literature searches were reviewed to identify LCSOs for
possible inclusion in the criteria derivation. In addition to test acceptability standards specified in
the Guidelines, the current effort also required that the LCSOs be based on measured copper
concentrations. LCSOs based on nominal concentrations have been used in previous criteria, but
there are enough measured LCSOs for copper that this was considered to be no longer warranted,
especially considering the more advanced bioavailability assessments represented by the BLM For
the identified LCSOs, the primary reports were reviewed to record all reported information on
dilution and test water chemistry. Any additional references specified by the authors were also
obtained and reviewed. If test waters were synthetically prepared based on specified formulas,
these were used to estimate parameters as appropriate. When critical water chemistry parameters
were not available, authors were contacted regarding unpublished information or to measure
missing water chemistry parameters in dilution source waters. If primary or corresponding authors
could not be contacted, an attempt was made to contact secondary authors or personnel from the
laboratories where the studies were conducted. Where actual water chemistry data were
unavailable, data from other studies with the same water source were used as surrogate values if
appropriate. Absent this, the U.S. Geological Survey's National Stream Quality Accounting
Network (NASQAN) and the EPA STOrage and RETrieval (STORE!) were used to obtain data
for ambient surface waters which were the source of water for a test. In some instances other
available sources were contacted to obtained water chemistry data (e.g., city drinking water
treatment personnel). The acquired data were scrutinized for representativeness and usefulness for
estimating surrogate values to complete the water quality information for the dilution and/or test
water that was used in the original studies. When the above sources could not be used,
geochemical ion inputs were based on reported hardness measurements and regressions
relationships constructed for the relationship of various ions to hardness from NASQAN data.
As with any modeling effort, the reliability of model output depends on the reliability of model
inputs. Although the input data have been closely scrutinized, the reliability of the BLM-normalized
LCSOs are subject to the uncertainties of the estimation procedures described above. Therefore, a
ranking system was devised to rank the quality of the chemical characterization of the test water.
Studies with a rank of 1 contain all of the necessary parameters for BLM input based on
measurements from either the test chambers or the water source. In general, studies in which the
BLM input parameters were reported for test chamber samples take precedence over studies in
which the parameters were reported only for the source water. A characterization ranking of 2
denotes those studies where not all parameters were measured, but reliable estimates of the
requisite concentrations could be made. Similarly, a rank of 3 denotes studies in which all
parameters except DOC were measured, but reliable estimates of DOC could be made. For the
majority of the tests, a chemical characterization of 4+ was assigned because hardness, alkalinity,
and pH were measured, and the ionic composition could be reliably estimated or calculated. A 4-
was assigned to those studies conducted using standard reconstituted water in which hardness,
alkalinity, or pH was either measured or referenced, and the recipe for the water is known (ASTM,
2000; U.S. EPA, 1993). The chemical characterization rank of 5 was ascribed to studies in which
13
-------
one of the key parameters (DOC, Ca, pH, alkalinity) was not measured, and when it could not be
reliably estimated. If two or more key parameters (DOC, Ca, pH, alkalinity) were not measured and
could not be reliably estimated, a study was given a chemical characterization rank of 6. Studies
receiving a quality rating of greater than 4+ (i.e., higher than 4) were not used in the criteria
development procedures because the estimates for some of the key input parameters were not
thought to be reliable, all other studies were used.
3.4 Conversion Factors
The LCSOs used in deriving previous EPA metals criteria were based on total metal
concentration (measured or nominal) and the criteria were consequently for total metals
concentration. EPA afterwards made the decision that metals criteria should be based on dissolved
metal because it was thought to better represent the bioavailable fraction of the metal (U. S. EPA,
1993). It was thus necessary to convert the criteria to a dissolved concentration basis. However, at
that time, most toxicity tests reported only total concentration, so that a procedure was necessary to
estimate the likely fractions of metals that were dissolved in typical toxicity tests. Studies were
therefore conducted to determine these fractions under a variety of test conditions that mimicked
the conditions in the tests used to derive the metals criteria (University of Wisconsin-Superior,
1995). These tests demonstrated high fractions of dissolved copper and resulted in a conversion
factor (CF) of 0.96 for converting both the CMC and CCC for copper from a total to dissolved
basis (Stephan, 1995). The BLM-derived criteria developed here also uses dissolved copper as the
basis for criteria, assuming a negligible bioavailability for particulate copper. The conversion factor
of 0.96 was also used to convert total to dissolved copper for any toxicity test for which dissolved
copper measurements were not available.
3.5 Final Chronic Value (FCV) Procedures
Because the minimum eight family data requirements for chronic toxicity data were not met in
order to calculate the FCV by the fifth percentile method used for the FAV and because insufficient
information was available to develop a chronic BLM, EPA derived the CCC utilizing the Acute to
Chronic Ratio (ACR) approach from the Guidelines (Stephan et al., 1985). To calculate the FCV at
a specific water chemistry, the FAV at that chemistry is divided by the FACR. This entails the
assumption that the acute BLM reasonably approximates the bioavailability relationships for chronic
toxicity. Limited data available regarding effects of water chemistry on sublethal effects and
chronic lethality do show substantial effects of organic matter, alkalinity, pH, and sodium (Winner,
1985; Erickson et al., 1996 a,b) similar to those in the acute BLM used here. For hardness,
apparent effects are limited and uncertain, but the use of the acute BLM does not introduce major
uncertainties in this regard because the effects of hardness by itself in the acute BLM are also
limited.
4.0 DATA SUMMARY AND CRITERIA CALCULATION
4.1 Summary of Acute Toxicity to Freshwater Animals and Criteria Calculation
The screening procedure outlined in Sec. 3.3 (high quality data = 1, low quality data > 4, e.g.
4+) identified approximately 600 acute freshwater toxicity tests with aquatic organisms and copper
14
-------
potentially acceptable for deriving criteria Of these tests, approximately 100 were eliminated from
the criteria derivation process because they did not report measured copper concentrations. Nearly
150 additional tests were eliminated from the calculation of the FAV because they received a quality
rating of greater than 4 in the quality rating scheme described in section 3.3 described above.
Data from approximately 350 tests were used to derive normalized LC50 values, including 15
species of invertebrates, 22 species of fish, and 1 amphibian species (Table 1), representing 27
different genera. Species Mean Acute Values (SMAVs) at the reference chemistry were calculated
from the normalized LCSOs and Genus Mean Acute Values (GMAVs) at the normalization
chemistry were calculated from the SMAVs.
SMAVs ranged from 2.37 |ig/L for the most sensitive species, Daphnia pulicaria, to 107,860
|ig/L for the least sensitive species, Notemigonus crysoleucas. Cladocerans were among the most
sensitive species, with D. pulicaria, D. magna, Ceriodaphnia dubia, and Scapholeberis sp. being
four out of the six most sensitive species. Invertebrates in general were more sensitive than fish,
representing the 10 lowest SMAVs.
The 27 GMAVs calculated from the above-mentioned SMAVs ranged from 4.05 |ig/L for
Daphnia to 107,860 |ig/L for Notemigonus (Table 3a). Nine of the 10 most sensitive genera were
invertebrates. The salmonid genus Oncorhynchus was the most sensitive fish genus, with a GMAV
of 31.39 |ig/L and an overall GMAV ranking of 10.
The ranked GMAVs are presented in Figure 4. Pursuant to procedures used to calculate the
FAV, a FAV of 4.67 |_ig/L was derived from the four GMAVs with cumulative probabilities closest
to the 5th percentile toxicity value for all the tested genera (Table 3b). The presumption is that this
> TOiXj
_
0 D.
Figure 4. Ranted Freshwater Genus Mean Acute Values (GMAVs)
15
-------
acute toxicity value represents the LC50 for an organism that is sensitive at the 5th percentile of the
GMAV distribution. The CMC is the FAV divided by two. Therefore, the freshwater dissolved
copper CMC for the reference chemistry presented is 2.337 |ig/L.
Site-water chemistry parameters are needed to evaluate a criterion. This is analogous to the
situation that previously existed for the hardness-based WQC, where a hardness concentration was
necessary in order to derive a criterion. Examples of CMC calculations at various water chemistry
conditions are presented in Figure 5 and Appendk G.
250
200
150 •
100
50 -
CMC by Hardness Equation
•CMCby BLM
ELM,DOC=10mgL
ELM,DOC=5mgL
BLM,DOC=2mg(L
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
Haiibiess (mg /L)
Figure 5. Comparison of CMC calculated by ELM or Hardness Equation
AJkaMty (11 - 245 mg CaCO3/L) aiidpH (7.3 - 8.7) Cowry with Hardness
4.1.1 Comparison With Earlier Hardness-Adjusted Criteria
EPA's earlier freshwater copper criteria recommendations were hardness-dependent values.
One would expect a BLM-based criterion calculation procedure to yield the more appropriate
criterion—appropriate in the sense that it accounts for the important water chemistry factors that
affect toxicity, including DOC complexation, where the hardness correction does not. Application
of the BLM infield situations where DOC is expected to be present at higher concentrations than
those observed in laboratory studies would likely improve the performance of the BLM compared
with the hardness adjustment. The reason is that the BLM would reasonably account for the
typically observed increase in effect levels under such conditions, while the hardness-based
approach would not (Figure 5).
As a comparison between the hardness typical of the previous copper criterion and this revised
criterion using the BLM, both procedures were used to calculate criterion values for waters with a
range in hardness as specified by the standard EPA recipes (U.S. EPA, 1993). The EPA
formulations specify the concentration of various salts and reagents to be used in the synthesis of
16
-------
laboratory test waters with specific hardness values (e.g., very soft, soft, moderately hard, hard, or
very hard). As the water hardness increases in these recipes, pH and alkalinity also increase. This
has implications for the BLM because the bioavailability of copper would be expected to decrease
with increasing pH and alkalinity due to the increasing degree ofcomplexationof copper with
hydroxides and carbonates and decreasing proton competition with the metal at both DOM and
biotic ligand binding sites. The BLM criterion for these waters agrees very well with that calculated
by the hardness equation used in previous copper criterion documents (Figure 5). However,
alkalinity and pH change as hardness changes in the EPA recipes. The BLM prediction is taking all
of these changes in water quality into account.
It is possible to use the BLM to look only at the change in predicted WQC with changes in
hardness (e.g., alkalinity and pH remaining constant). The hardness equation is based on waters
where changes in hardness are accompanied by changes in pH and alkalinity. However, there are
many possible natural waters where changes in hardness are not accompanied by changes in pH and
alkalinity (such as water draining a region rich in gypsum). In these cases, the hardness equation
based criterion will still assume a response that is characteristic of waters where hardness, alkalinity,
and pH co-vary, and will likely be underprotective relative to the level of protection intended by the
Guidelines, in high hardness waters. Conversely, in waters where the covariation between hardness,
pH, and alkalinity is greater than is typical for data in Table 1, the hardness equation based criteria
may be overprotective. Appendix G shows representative water quality criteria values using both
the BLM and the hardness equation approaches for waters with a range in pH, hardness, and DOC
concentrations. The hardness approach does not consider pH and DOC while the BLM approach
takes those water quality parameters into consideration.
4.2 Formulation of the CCC
4.2.1 Evaluation of Chronic Toxicity Data
In aquatic toxicity tests, chronic values are usually defined as the geometric mean of the
highest concentration of a toxic substance at which no adverse effect is observed (highest no
observed adverse effect concentration, or NOAEC) and the lowest concentration of the toxic
substance that causes an adverse effect (lowest observed adverse effect concentration, or LOAEC).
The significance of the observed effects is determined by statistical tests comparing responses of
organisms exposed to low-level and control concentrations of the toxic substance against responses
of organisms exposed to elevated concentrations. Analysis of variance is the most common test
employed for such comparisons. This approach, however, has the disadvantage of resulting in
marked differences between the magnitudes of the effects corresponding to the individual chronic
values, because of variation in the power of the statistical tests used, the concentrations tested, and
the size and variability of the samples used (Stephan and Rogers, 1985).
An alternative approach to calculating chronic values focuses on the use of point estimates
such as from regression analysis to define the dose-response relationship. With a regression
equation or probit analysis, which defines the level of adverse effects as a function of increasing
concentrations of the toxic substance, it is possible to determine the concentration that causes a
specific small effect, such as a 5 to 30 percent reduction in response. To make chronic values reflect
a uniform level of effect, regression and probit analyses were used, where possible, both to
demonstrate that a significant concent rat ion-effect relationship was present and to estimate chronic
17
-------
values with a consistent level of effect. The most precise estimates of effect concentrations can
generally be made for 50 percent reduction (EC50); however, such a major reduction is not
necessarily consistent with criteria providing adequate protection. In contrast, a concentration that
causes a low level of reduction, such as an ECS or EC10, might not be statistically significantly
different from the control treatment. As a compromise, theEC20 is used here to represent a low
level of effect that is generally significantly different from the control treatment across the useful
chronic datasets that are available for copper. TheEC20 was also viewed as providing a level of
protection similar to the geometric mean of the NOEC and LOEC. Since the EC20 is not directly
dependent on the tested dilution series, similar EC20s should be expected irrespective of the tested
concentrations, provided that the range of tested concentrations is appropriate.
Regression or pro bit analysis was utilized to evaluate a chronic dataset only in cases where the
necessary data were available and the dataset met the following conditions: (1) it contained a
control treatment (or low exposure data point) to anchor the curve at the low end, (2) it contained
at least three concentrations, and (3) two of the data points had effect variable values below the
control and above zero (i.e., "partial effects"). Control concentrations of copper were estimated in
cases where no measurements were reported. These analyses were performed using theToxicity
Relationship Analysis Program software (version 1.0; U.S. EPA, Mid-Continental Ecology
Division, Duluth, MN, USA). Additional detail regarding the aforementioned statistical procedures
is available in the cited program.
When the data from an acceptable chronic test met the conditions for the logistic regression or
probit analysis, the EC20 was the preferred chronic value. When data did not meet the conditions
the chronic value was usually set to the geometric mean of theNOAEC and the LOAEC. However,
when no treatment concentration was an NOAEC, the chronic value is reported as less than the
lowest tested concentration.
For life-cycle, partial life-cycle, and early life stage tests, the lexicological variable used in
chronic value analyses was survival, reproduction, growth, emergence, or intrinsic growth rate. If
copper apparently reduced both survival and growth (weight or length), the product of variables
(biomass) was analyzed, rather than analyzing the variables separately. The most sensitive of the
lexicological variables was generally selected as the chronic value for the particular study.
A species-by-species discussion of each acceptable chronic test on copper evaluated for this
document is presented in Appendix F. Figures that present the data and regression/probability
distribution line for each of the acceptable chronic test which contained sufficient acceptable data
are also provided in Appendix F.
4.2.2 Calculation of Freshwater CCC
Acceptable freshwater chronic toxicity data from early life stage tests, partial life-cycle tests,
and full life-cycle tests were available for 29 tests including data for 6 invertebrate species and 10
fish species (Table 2a). The 17 chronic values for invertebrate species range from 2.83 (D. pulex) to
34.6 |ig/L (C. dubia); and the 12 chronic values for the fish species range from <5 (brook trout) to
60.4 |ig/L (northern pike). Of the 29 chronic tests, comparable acute values are available for 18 of
the tests (Table 2c). The relationship between acute toxicity values and ACRsis presented in Figure
6. The supporting acute and chronic test values for the ACRs and the species mean ACRs are
18
-------
presented in Table 2c. For the 11 tests in Table 2a with chronic values both from a regression
EC20 and the geometric mean of the NOAEC and LOAEC, the EC20 averaged 81% of the
geometric mean, demonstrating the similar level of protection for the two approaches.
Overall, individual ACRs varied from <1 (0.55) for C. dubia (Oris et al., 1991) to 191.6 for
the snail, Campeloma decisum (Arthur and Leonard, 1970). Species mean acute-chronic ratios
ranged from 1.48 in saltwater for the sheep shead minnow (Hughes etal, 1989)to 171.2 in
freshwater for the snail, C. decisum. Pursuant to the Guidelines (Stephan et al., 1985),
consideration was given to calculating the FACR based on all ACRs within a factor of 10, but
because there appeared to be a relationship between acute sensitivity and ACRs (Figure 6), the
FACR was derived from data for species whose SMAVs were close to the FAV. The FACR of
3.22 was calculated as the geometric mean of the ACRs for sensitive freshwater species, C. dubia,
D. magna, D. pulex, O. tshawytscha, and O. mykiss along with the one saltwater ACR for C.
variegatus (Table 2b). Based on the normalization water chemistry conditions used for illustrative
purposes in the document, the freshwater site specific FAV value is 4.67 |ig/L, which divided by the
FACR of 3.22 results in a freshwater FCV of 1.45 |ig/L dissolved Cu.
»i iufi'Lj
F%«re 6. Relationship Between Freshwater A cue Copper Sensitivity
(LCS 8 o r E C 50) and A cuts- Chronic Ratios
19
-------
5.0 PLANT DATA
Copper has been widely used as an algicide and herbicide for nuisance aquatic plants
(McKnight et al, 1983). Although copper is known as an inhibitor of photosynthesis and plant
growth, toxicitydata on individual species suitable for deriving aquatic life criteria (Table 4) are not
numerous.
The relationship of copper toxicity to the complexing capacity of the water or the culture
medium is now widely recognized (Gachter et al., 1973; Petersen, 1982), and several studies have
used algae to "assay" the copper complexing capacity of both fresh and salt waters (Allen et al.,
1983 ;Lumsden and Florence, 1983; Rueter, 1983). It has also been shown that algae are capable of
excreting complexing substances in response to copper stress (McKnight and Morel, 1979; Swallow
et al., 1978; van den Berg et al., 1979). Foster (1982) and Stokes and Hutchinson (1976) have
identified resistant strains and/or species of algae from copper (or other metal) impacted
environments. A portion of this resistance probably results from induction of the chelate-excretion
mechanism. Chelate excretion by algae may also serve as a protective mechanism for other aquatic
organisms in eutrophic waters; that is, where algae are capable of maintaining free copper activities
below harmful concentrations.
Copper concentrations from 1 to 8,000 |ig/L have been shown to inhibit growth of various
freshwater plant species. Very few of these tests, though, were accompanied by analysis of actual
copper exposure concentrations. Notable exceptions are freshwater tests with green alga including
Chlamydomonas reinhardtii (Schafer et al., 1993; Winner and Owen, 199 Ib), which is the only
flow-through, measured test with an aquatic plant, Chlorella vulgaris and Selenastrum
capricornutum (Blaylock et al., 1985). There is also a measured test with duckweed, Lemna minor
(Taraldsen and Norberg-King, 1990).
A direct comparison between the freshwater plant data and the BLM derived criteria is
difficult to make without a better understanding of the composition of the algal media used for
different studies (e.g., DOC, hardness, and pH) because these factors influence the applicable
criteria comparison. BLM derived criteria for certain water conditions, such as low to mid-range
pH, hardness up to 100 mg/L as CaCO3, and low DOC are in the range of, if not lower than, the
lowest reported toxic endpoints for freshwater algal species and would therefore appear protective
of plant species. In other water quality conditions BLM-derived criteria may be significantly higher
(see Figure 5).
Two publications provide data for the red algae Champia parvula that indicate that
reproduction of this species is especially sensitive to copper. The methods manual (U.S. EPA 1988)
for whole effluent toxicity (WET) testing contains the results of six experiments showing nominal
reproductionLOECs from 48-hr exposures to 1.0 to 2.5 |ig/L copper (mean2.0 |ig/L); these tests
used a mixture of 50 percent sterile seawater and 50 percent GP2 medium copper. The second
study by Morrison et al. (1989) evaluated interlaboratory variation of the 48-hr WET test
procedure; this six-test study gave growth EC50 values from 0.8 to 1.9 |ig/L (mean 1.0 |ig/L).
Thus, there are actually 12 tests that provide evidence of significant reproductive impairment in C.
parvula at nominal copper concentrations between 0.8 and 2.5 |ig/L. For these studies though, the
dilution water source was not identified.
20
-------
One difficulty in assessing these data is the uncertainty of the copper concentration in the test
solutions, primarily with respect to any background copper that might be found in the dilution
water, especially with solutions compounded from sea salts or reagents. Thus, with a CCC of 1.9
Hg/L dissolved copper, the significance of a 1 or 2 jig/L background copper level to a 1 to 3 jig/L
nominal effect level can be considerable.
The reproduction of other macroalgae appears to be generally sensitive to copper, but not to
the extent of Champia. Many of these other macroalgae appear to have greater ecological
significance than Champia, several forming significant intertidal and subtidal habitats for other
saltwater organisms, as well as being a major food source for grazers. Reproductive and growth
effects on the other species of macroalgae sometimes appear to occur at copper concentrations
between 5 and 10 |ig/L (Appendix B, Other Data). Thus, most major macrophyte groups seem to
be adequately protected by the CMC and CCC, but appear similar in sensitivity to some of the more
sensitive groups of saltwater animals.
6.0 OTHER DATA
Many of the data identified for this effort are listed in Appendix B, Other Data, for various
reasons, including exposure durations other than 96 hours with the same species reported in Table
1, and some exposures lasting up to 30 days. Acute values for test durations less than 96 hours are
available for several species not shown in Table 1. Still, these species have approximately the same
sensitivities to copper as species in the same families listed in Table 1. Reported LCSOs at 200 hours
for chinook salmon and rainbow trout (Chapman, 1978) differ only slightly from 96-hour LCSOs
reported for these same species in the same water.
A number of other acute tests in Appendix B were conducted in dilution waters that were not
considered appropriate for criteria development. Brungs et al. (1976) and Geckler et al. (1976)
conducted tests with many species in stream water that contained a large amount of effluent from a
sewage treatment plant. Wallenet al. (1957) tested mosquitofish in a turbid pond water. Until
chemical measurements that correlate well with the toxicity of copper in a wide variety of waters
are identified and widely used, results of tests in unusual dilution waters, such as those in Appendix
B, will not be very useful for deriving water quality criteria.
Appendix B also includes tests based on physiological effects, such as changes in appetite,
blood parameters, stamina, etc. These were included in Appendix B because they could not be
directly interpreted for derivation of criteria. For the reasons stated in this section above, data in
Appendix B was not used for criteria derivation.
A direct comparison of a particular test result to a BLM-derived criterion is not always
straightforward, particularly if complete chemical characterization of the test water is not available.
Such is the case for a number of studies included in Appendix B. While there are some test results
with effect concentrations below the example criteria concentrations presented in this document,
these same effect concentrations could be above criteria derived for other normalization chemistries,
raising the question as to what is the appropriate comparison to make. For example, Appendix B
includes an EC50 for D. Pulex of 3.6 |ig/L (Koivisto et al., 1992) at an approximate hardness of 25
mg/L (33 mg/L as CaCO3). Yet, example criteria at a hardness of 25 mg/L (as CaCO3) (including
those in Figure 6) range from 0.23 |ig/L (DOC = 0.1 mg/L) to 4.09 |ig/L (DOC = 2.3 mg/L) based
21
-------
on the DOC concentration selected for the synthetic water recipe. The chemical composition for the
Koivisto et al. (1992) study would dictate what the appropriate BLM criteria comparison should be.
Based on the expectation that many of the test results presented in Appendix B were
conducted in laboratory dilution water with low levels of DOC, the appropriate comparison would
be to the criteria derived from low DOC waters. Comparing many of the values in Appendix B to
the example criteria presented in this document, it appears that a large proportion of Appendix B
values are above these concentration levels. This is a broad generalization though and as stated
previously, all important water chemistry variables that affect toxicity of copper to aquatic
organisms should be considered before making these types of comparisons.
Studies not considered suitable for criteria development were placed in Appendk G, Unused
Data.
7.0 NATIONAL CRITERIA STATEMENT
The available toxicity data, when evaluated using the procedures described in the "Guidelines
for Deriving Numerical National Water Quality Criteria for the Protection of Aquatic Organisms
and Their Uses" indicate that freshwater aquatic life should be protected if the 24-hour average and
four-day average concentrations do not respectively exceed the acute and chronic criteria
concentrations calculated by the Biotic Ligand Model.
A return interval of 3 years between exceedances of the criterion continues to be EPA's
general recommendation. However, the resilience of ecosystems and their ability to recover differ
greatly. Therefore, scientific derivation of alternative frequencies for exceeding criteria may be
appropriate.
8.0 IMPLEMENTATION
The use of water quality criteria in designing waste treatment facilities and appropriate effluent
limits involves the use of an appropriate wasteload allocation model. Although dynamic models are
preferred for application of these criteria, limited data or other factors may make their use
impractical, in which case one should rely on a steady-state model. EPA recommends the interim
use of 1B3 or 1Q10 for criterion maximum concentration stream design flow and 4B3 or 7Q10 for
the criterion continuous concentration design flow in steady-state models. These matters are
discussed in more detail in the Technical Support Document for Water Quality-Based Toxics
Control (U.S. EPA, 1991).
With regard to BLM-derived freshwater criteria, to develop a site-specific criterion for a
stream reach, one is faced with determining what single criterion is appropriate even though a BLM
criterion calculated for the event corresponding to the input water chemistry conditions will be
time-variable. This is not anew problem unique to the BLM—hardness-dependent metals criteria
are also time-variable values. Although the variability of hardness over time can be characterized,
EPA has not provided guidance on how to calculate site-specific criteria considering this variability.
Multiple input parameters for the BLM could complicate the calculation of site-specific criteria
because of their combined effects on variability. Another problem arise from potential scarcity of
data from small stream reaches with small dischargers. The EPA is currently exploring two
22
-------
approaches to fill data gaps in such situations. One potential approach is the selection of values
based on geography, the second approach is based on correlations between measured parameters
and missing parameter measurements. A companion document in the form of Supplementary
Training Materials, addressing issues related to data requirements, implementation,
permitting, and monitoring will be released via EPA's website following the publication of
this criteria document. D D
23
-------
Table 1. Acute Toxicity of Copper to Freshwater Animals
Species'
Worm,
Lumbriculus variega
Snail,
Campeloma
Snail,
Juga plicifera
Snail,
Lithoglyphus virens
Snail,
Physa Integra
Freshwater mussel,
Actinonaias
Freshwater mussel,
Utterbackia imbecilli
Cladoceran,
Ceriodaphnia dubia
Organism Age,
Size, or Lifestage
adult (mixed age)
adult (mixed age)
adult (mixed age)
1.1-2.7 cm
1.1-2.7 cm
adult
adult
0.4-0.7 cm
0.4-0.7 cm
juvenile
juvenile
1 -2 d juv
1 -2 d juv
juvenile
juvenile
juvenile
juvenile
juvenile
juvenile
<4h
<4h
<12h
<12h
<12h
<12h
<12h
<12h
<12h
<12h
<12h
<12h
<12h
<12h
<12h
<12h
<12h
<12h
<12h
<12h
<12h
Method"
S,M,T
S,M,T
S,M,T
F,M,T
F,M,T
F,M,T
F,M,T
F,M,T
F,M,T
S,M,T
S,M,T
S,M,T
S,M,T
S,M,T
S,M,T
S,M,T
S,M,T
S,M,T
S,M,T
S,M,T
S,M,T
S,M,D
S,M,D
S,M,D
S,M,D
S,M,D
S,M,D
S,M,D
S,M,D
S,M,D
S,M,D
S,M,D
S,M,D
S,M,D
S,M,D
S,M,D
S,M,D
S,M,D
S,M,D
S,M,D
Chemical0
N
N
N
S
S
C
C
S
S
S
S
S
S
N
N
N
S
S
S
C
C
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
Reported LC50 or
EC50
(total ug/L)d
130
270
500
2000
1400
15
8
41
37
27
<29
86
199
76
85
41
79
72
38
19
17
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Reported LC50
or EC50
(Diss. ug/L)e
—
—
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
—
...
...
—
—
...
...
—
—
...
...
25
17
30
24
28
32
23
20
19
26
21
27
37
34
67
38
78
81
28
BLM Data Label
LUVA01S
LUVA02S
LUVA03S
CADE01 F
CADE02F
JUPL01F
LIVI01F
PHIN01F
PHIN02F
ACPE01S
ACPE02S
UTIM01S
UTIM02S
UTIM03S
UTIM04S
UTIM05S
UTIM06S
UTIM07S
UTIM08S
CEDU01S
CEDU02S
CEDU03S
CEDU04S
CEDU05S
CEDU06S
CEDU07S
CEDU08S
CEDU09S
CEDU10S
CEDU11S
CEDU12S
CEDU13S
CEDU14S
CEDU15S
CEDU16S
CEDU17S
CEDU18S
CEDU19S
CEDU20S
CEDU21S
BLM Normalized
LC50 or EC50
(ug/L)f
37.81
55.39
54.18
4319
2956
12.31
6.67
21.81
19.09
10.36
12.39
177.9
172.3
40.96
43.22
24.12
39.04
39.96
28.31
10.28
9.19
7.98
5.25
9.80
7.63
9.06
10.56
7.28
6.25
5.91
3.10
2.46
3.24
4.66
4.22
5.50
2.72
6.74
7.10
4.10
Species Mean Acute
Value (ug/L)g
48.41
3573
12.31
6.67
20.41
11.33
52.51
5.93
Reference
Schubauer-Berigan et al. 1993
Schubauer-Berigan et al. 1993
Schubauer-Berigan et al. 1993
Arthur and Leonard 1970
Arthur and Leonard 1970
Nebekeretal. 1986b
Nebekeretal. 1986b
Arthur and Leonard 1970
Arthur and Leonard 1970
Keller unpublished
Keller unpublished
Keller and Zam 1991
Keller and Zam 1991
Keller unpublished
Keller unpublished
Keller unpublished
Keller unpublished
Keller unpublished
Keller unpublished
Carlson etal. 1986
Carlson etal. 1986
Belanger etal. 1989
Belangeretal. 1989
Belanger etal. 1989
Belangeretal. 1989
Belangeretal. 1989
Belangeretal. 1989
Belangeretal. 1989
Belangeretal. 1989
Belangeretal. 1989
Belangeretal. 1989
Belangeretal. 1989
Belangeretal. 1989
Belangeretal. 1989
Belangeretal. 1989
Belangeretal. 1989
Belangeretal. 1989
Belangeretal. 1989
Belangeretal. 1989
Belanger and Cherry 1990
24
-------
Table 1. Acute Toxicity of Copper to Freshwater Animals
Species'
Cladoceran,
Daphnia magna
Cladoceran,
Daphnia pulicaria
Organism Age,
Size, or Lifestage
<12h
<12h
<24h
1 d
1 d
<2h
<2h
1 d
<4h
1 d
<2h
<24h
<24h
<24h
<24h
<24h
<24h
<24h
<24h
<24h
<24h
<24h
<24h
<24h
<24h
<24h
<24h
<24h
<24h
<24h
<24h
<24h
<24h
<24h
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
Method"
S,M,D
S,M,T
R,M,T,D
S,M,T
S,M,T
S,M,T
S,M,T
S,M,T
S,M,T
S,M,T
S,M,T
S,M,T
S,M,T
S,M,T
S,M,T
S,M,T
S,M,T
S,M,I
S,M,I
S,M,I
S,M,I
S,M,I
S,M,I
S,M,I
S,M,I
S,M,I
S,M,I
S,M,T
S,M,T
S,M,T
S,M,T
S,M,T,D
S,M,T,D
S,M,T,D
S,M,T
S,M,T
S,M,T
S,M,T
S,M,T
S,M,T
S,M,T
S,M,T
Chemical0
S
S
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
C
C
C
C
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
Reported LC50 or
EC50
(total [iglLf
13.4
6.98
9.1
11.7
6.6
9.9
11.7
6.7
9.1
5.2
41.2
10.5
20.6
17.3
70.7
31.3
7.1
16.4
39.9
18.7
18.9
39.7
46
71.9
57.2
67.8
26
30
38
69
4.8
7.4
6.5
11.4
9.06
7.24
10.8
55.4
55.3
53.3
97.2
Reported LC50
or EC50
(Diss. (jg/L)e
84
5.54
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
BLM Data Label
CEDU22S
CEDU23S
CEDU24R
DAMA01S
DAMA02S
DAMA03S
DAMA04S
DAMA05S
DAMA06S
DAMA07S
DAMA08S
DAMA09S
DAMA10S
DAMA11S
DAMA12S
DAMA13S
DAMA14S
DAMA15S
DAMA16S
DAMA1 7S
DAMA18S
DAMA19S
DAMA20S
DAMA21S
DAMA22S
DAMA23S
DAMA24S
DAMA25S
DAMA26S
DAMA27S
DAMA28S
DAMA29S
DAMA30S
DAMA31S
DAPC01S
DAPC02S
DAPC03S
DAPC04S
DAPC05S
DAPC06S
DAPC07S
DAPC08S
BLM Normalized
LC50 or EC50
(|jg/i-)f
10.74
6.19
5.03
3.42
4.43
2.50
3.78
13.46
8.21
4.40
2.16
21.55
5.63
11.31
9.48
33.58
16.90
2.67
4.26
5.18
3.39
1.99
3.04
8.93
9.97
5.76
4.16
10.34
9.04
9.84
12.31
1.22
16.29
2.11
1.63
1.04
0.88
1.13
8.81
6.03
4.12
3.94
Species Mean Acute
Value (ug/L)g
6.00
2.73
Reference
Belanger and Cherry 1990
Orisetal. 1991
Diamond etal. 1997b
Nebekeretal. 1986a
Nebekeretal. 1986a
Nebekeretal. 1986a
Nebekeretal. 1986a
Nebekeretal. 1986a
Nebekeretal. 1986a
Nebekeretal. 1986a
Nebekeretal. 1986a
Bairdetal. 1991
Bairdetal. 1991
Bairdetal. 1991
Bairdetal. 1991
Bairdetal. 1991
Bairdetal. 1991
Meador 1991
Meador 1991
Meador 1991
Meador 1991
Meador 1991
Meador 1991
Meador 1991
Meador 1991
Meador 1991
Meador 1991
Chapman et al. Manuscript
Chapman et al. Manuscript
Chapman et al. Manuscript
Chapman et al. Manuscript
Long's MS Thesis
Long's MS Thesis
Long's MS Thesis
Lind et al. Manuscript (1978)
Lind et al. Manuscript (1978)
Lind et al. Manuscript (1978)
Lind et al. Manuscript (1978)
Lind et al. Manuscript (1978)
Lind et al. Manuscript (1978)
Lind et al. Manuscript (1978)
Lind et al. Manuscript (1978)
25
-------
Table 1. Acute Toxicity of Copper to Freshwater Animals
Species'
Cladoceran,
Scapholeberis sp.
Amphipod,
Gammarus
Amphipod,
Hyalella azteca
Stonefly,
Acroneuria lycorias
Vlidge,
Chironomus
Shovelnose
sturgeon,
Scaphirhynchus
Apache trout,
Oncorhynchus
.ahontan cutthroat
Oncorhynchus
clarki henshawi
Organism Age,
Size, or Lifestage
:::
...
...
—
—
...
—
—
...
...
—
—
...
...
...
adult
1-3 d
1-3 d
7-1 4 d
7-1 4 d
7-1 4 d
<7d
<7d
<7d
<7d
...
4th instar
fry, 6.01 cm, 0.71 9 g
larval, 0.38 g
larval, 0.34 g
larval, 0.57 g
Method"
S,M,T
S,M,T
S,M,T
S,M,T
S,M,T
S,M,T
S,M,T
S,M,T
S,M,T
S,M,T
S,M,T
S,M,T
S,M,T
S,M,T
S,M,T
S,M,T
S,M,T
F,M,T
F,M,T
S,M,T
S,M,T
S,M,T
S,M,T
S,M,T
S,M,T
S,M,T
S,M,T
S,M,T
S,M,T
S,M,T
S,M,T
S,M,T
Chemical0
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
c
S
S
N
N
N
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
Reported LC50 or
EC50
(total ug/L)d
199
213
165
35.5
78.8
113
76.4
84.7
184
9.3
17.8
23.7
27.3
25.2
25.1
25.1
18
22
19
17
24
87
24.3
23.8
8.2
10
8300
739
160
70
80
60
Reported LC50
or EC50
(Diss. ug/L)e
:::
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
BLM Data Label
DAPC09S
DAPC10S
DAPC11S
DAPC12S
DAPC13S
DAPC14S
DAPC15S
DAPC16S
DAPC1 7S
DAPC18S
DAPC19S
DAPC20S
DAPC21S
DAPC22S
DAPC23S
DAPC24S
SCSP01S
GAPS01F
GAPS02F
HYAZ01S
HYAZ02S
HYAZ03S
HYAZ04S
HYAZ05S
HYAZ06S
HYAZ07S
ACLY01S
CHDE01S
SCPL01S
ONAP01S
ONCL01S
ONCL02S
BLM Normalized
LC50 or EC50
(ug/L)f
3.01
7.63
5.78
1.83
2.36
1.06
2.36
6.62
7.14
1.11
2.11
2.67
2.77
2.81
2.60
2.31
9.73
10.39
8.86
12.19
9.96
15.77
8.26
8.09
15.49
18.80
20636
1987
69.63
32.54
34.26
24.73
Species Mean Acute
Value (ug/L)g
9.73
9.60
12.07
20636
1987
69.63
32.54
32.97
Reference
Lind et al. Manuscript (1978)
Lind et al. Manuscript (1978)
Lind et al. Manuscript (1978)
Lind et al. Manuscript (1978)
Lind et al. Manuscript (1978)
Lind et al. Manuscript (1978)
Lind et al. Manuscript (1978)
Lind et al. Manuscript (1978)
Lind et al. Manuscript (1978)
Lind et al. Manuscript (1978)
Lind et al. Manuscript (1978)
Lind et al. Manuscript (1978)
Lind et al. Manuscript (1978)
Lind et al. Manuscript (1978)
Lind et al. Manuscript (1978)
Lind et al. Manuscript (1978)
Carlson et al. 1986
Arthur and Leonard 1970
Arthur and Leonard 1970
Schubauer-Berigan et al. 1993
Schubauer-Berigan et al. 1993
Schubauer-Berigan et al. 1993
Welsh 1996
Welsh 1996
Welsh 1996
Welsh 1996
Warnick and Bell 1969
Kosalwat and Knight 1987
Dwyeretal. 1999
Dwyeretal. 1995
Dwyeretal. 1995
Dwyeretal. 1995
26
-------
Table 1. Acute Toxicity of Copper to Freshwater Animals
Species'
Cutthroat trout,
Oncorhynchus dark,
Pink salmon,
Oncorhynchus gorbi
Coho salmon,
Oncorhynchus kisuh
Rainbow trout,
Oncorhynchus mykk
Organism Age,
Size, or Lifestage
7.4cm, 4.2 g
6.9cm, 3.2 g
8.8cm, 9.7 g
8.1 cm, 4.4 g
6.8cm, 2.7g
7.0cm, 3.2 g
8.5cm, 5.2 g
7.7cm, 4.4 g
8.9cm, 5.7 g
ilevin (newly hatched
alevin
fry
6g
parr
adult, 2.7 kg
fry
smolt
fry
parr
larval, 0.67 g
larval, 0.48 g
larval, 0.50 g
swim-up, 0.25 g
swim-up, 0.25 g
swim-up, 0.20-0.24 g
swim-up, 0.20-0.24 g
swim-up, 0.20-0.24 g
swim-up, 0.20-0.24 g
alevin
swim-up, 0.17 g
parr, 8.6 cm, 6.96 g
smolt, 18.8cm, 68.19
19
4.9cm
6.0cm, 2.1 g
6.1 cm, 2.5g
2.6 g
4.3 g
9.2cm, 9.4 g
9.9cm, 11.5g
11.8cm, 18.7g
13.5cm, 24.9 g
Method"
F,M,T,D
F,M,T,D
F,M,T,D
F,M,T,D
F,M,T,D
F,M,T,D
F,M,T,D
F,M,T,D
F,M,T,D
F,M,T
F,M,T
F,M,T
R,M,T,I
F,M,T
F,M,T
F,M,T,D,I
F,M,T,D,I
F,M,T,D,I
F,M,T,D,I
S,M,T
S,M,T
S,M,T
R,M,T,D
R,M,T,D
R,M,T,D
R,M,T,D
R,M,T,D
R,M,T,D
F,M,T
F,M,T
F,M,T
F,M,T
F,M,T,D
F,M,T,D
F,M,T,D
F,M,T,D
F,M,T,D
F,M,T,D
F,M,T,D
F,M,T,D
F,M,T,D
F,M,T,D
Chemical0
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
s
s
s
—
C
C
—
—
—
—
s
s
s
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
Reported LC50 or
EC50
(total ug/L)d
398.91
197.87
41.35
282.93
186.21
85.58
116.67
56.20
21.22
143
87
199
164
33
46
61
63
86
103
110
50
60
46.7
24.2
0
0
0
0
28
17
18
29
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Reported LC50
or EC50
(Diss. ug/L)e
367
186
36.8
232
162
73.6
91
44.4
15.7
—
—
—
—
—
—
49
51
58
78
—
—
—
40
19
3.4
8.1
17.2
32
—
—
—
—
169
85.3
83.3
103
274
128
221
165
197
514
BLM Data Label
ONCL03F
ONCL04F
ONCL05F
ONCL06F
ONCL07F
ONCL08F
ONCL09F
ONCL10F
ONCL11F
ONGO01F
ONGO02F
ONG003F
ONKI01R
ONKI02F
ONKI03F
ONKI04F
ONKI05F
ONKI06F
ONKI07F
ONMY01S
ONMY02S
ONMY03S
ONMY04R
ONMY05R
ONMY06R
ONMY07R
ONMY08R
ONMY09R
ONMY10F
ONMY11F
ONMY12F
ONMY13F
ONMY14F
ONMY15F
ONMY16F
ONMY17F
ONMY18F
ONMY19F
ONMY20F
ONMY21F
ONMY22F
ONMY23F
BLM Normalized
LC50 or EC50
(ug/L)f
67.30
44.91
21.87
51.94
111.3
39.53
19.63
18.81
10.60
41.65
19.70
78.76
106.09
20.94
32.66
12.67
13.19
11.95
22.98
41.64
25.26
29.46
10.90
9.04
5.02
11.97
13.80
23.84
20.30
12.54
9.87
22.48
23.41
10.20
9.93
12.71
44.54
16.51
33.33
22.70
28.60
99.97
Species Mean Acute
Value (ug/L)g
40.13
22.93
22.19
Reference
Chakoumakos et al. 1979
Chakoumakos et al. 1979
Chakoumakos et al. 1979
Chakoumakos et al. 1979
Chakoumakos et al. 1979
Chakoumakos et al. 1979
Chakoumakos et al. 1979
Chakoumakos et al. 1979
Chakoumakos et al. 1979
Servizi and Martens 1978
Servizi and Martens 1978
Servizi and Martens 1978
Buckley 1983
Chapman 1975
Chapman and Stevens 1978
Mudgeetal. 1993
Mudgeetal. 1993
Mudgeetal. 1993
Mudgeetal. 1993
Dwyeretal. 1995
Dwyeretal. 1995
Dwyeretal. 1995
Cacelaetal. 1996
Cacelaetal. 1996
Welsh etal. 2000
Welsh etal. 2000
Welsh etal. 2000
Welsh etal. 2000
Chapman 1975, 1978
Chapman 1975, 1978
Chapman 1975, 1978
Chapman 1975, 1978
Chakoumakos et al. 1979
Chakoumakos et al. 1979
Chakoumakos et al. 1979
Chakoumakos et al. 1979
Chakoumakos et al. 1979
Chakoumakos et al. 1979
Chakoumakos et al. 1979
Chakoumakos et al. 1979
Chakoumakos et al. 1979
Chakoumakos et al. 1979
27
-------
Table 1. Acute Toxicity of Copper to Freshwater Animals
Species'
Sockeye salmon,
Oncorhynchus nerki
Chinook salmon,
Oncorhynchus tsha\i
Organism Age,
Size, or Lifestage
13.4cm, 25.6 g
6.7cm, 2.65 g
parr
swim-up, 0.29 g
swim-up, 0.25 g
swim-up, 0.23 g
swim-up, 0.23 g
swim-up, 0.26 g
swim-up, 0.23 g
0.64 g, 4.1 cm
0.35 g, 3.4 cm
0.68 g, 4.2 cm
0.43 g, 3.7cm
0.29 g, 3.4cm
ilevin (newly hatched
alevin
alevin
alevin
alevin
fry
smolt, 5.5 g
smolt, 5.5 g
smolt, 5.5 g
smolt, 4,8 g
alevin, 0.05 g
swim-up, 0.23 g
parr, 9.6cm, 11.58g
smolt, 14.4cm, 32.46
3 mo, 1 .35 g
3 mo, 1 .35 g
3 mo, 1 .35 g
3 mo, 1 .35 g
swim-up, 0.36-0.45 g
swim-up, 0.36-0.45 g
swim-up, 0.36-0.45 g
swim-up, 0.36-0.45 g
Method"
F,M,T,D
F,M,T
F,M,T,D,I
F,M,T,D
F,M,T,D
F,M,T,D
F,M,T,D
F,M,T,D
F,M,T,D
F,M,T,D
F,M,T,D
F,M,T,D
F,M,T,D
F,M,T,D
F,M,T
F,M,T
F,M,T
F,M,T
F,M,T
F,M,T
F,M,T
F,M,T
F,M,T
F,M,T
F,M,T
F,M,T
F,M,T
F,M,T
F,M,T,I
F,M,T,I
F,M,T,I
F,M,T,I
F,M,T,D
F,M,T,D
F,M,T,D
F,M,T,D
Chemical0
C
C
—
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
Reported LC50 or
EC50
(total ug/L)d
2.8
90
19.6
12.9
5.9
37.8
25.1
17.2
101
308
93
35.9
54.4
190
200
100
110
130
150
210
170
190
240
26
19
38
26
10.2
24.1
82.5
128.4
0
0
0
0
Reported LC50
or EC50
(Diss. ug/L)e
243
68
18
12
5.7
35
18
17
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
7.4
12.5
14.3
18.3
BLM Data Label
ONMY24F
ONMY25F
ONMY26F
ONMY27F
ONMY28F
ONMY29F
ONMY30F
ONMY31F
ONMY32F
ONMY33F
ONMY34F
ONMY35F
ONMY36F
ONMY37F
ONNE01F
ONNE02F
ONNE03F
ONNE04F
ONNE05F
ONNE06F
ONNE07F
ONNE08F
ONNE09F
ONNE10F
ONTS01F
ONTS02F
ONTS03F
ONTS04F
ONTS05F
ONTS06F
ONTS07F
ONTS08F
ONTS09F
ONTS10F
ONTS11F
ONTS12F
BLM Normalized
LC50 or EC50
(ug/L)f
37.88
7.00
19.73
8.10
32.15
24.80
16.16
37.66
24.19
39.73
85.83
95.9
50.83
47.69
71.73
79.52
23.74
27.22
35.36
45.37
87.77
57.53
71.73
114.4
14.48
10.44
28.30
20.09
19.41
30.91
32.74
20.66
36.49
30.85
31.49
48.56
Species Mean Acute
Value (ug/L)g
54.82
25.02
Reference
Chakoumakos et al. 1979
Cusimano etal. 1986
Mudgeetal. 1993
Cacelaetal. 1996
Cacelaetal. 1996
Cacelaetal. 1996
Cacelaetal. 1996
Cacelaetal. 1996
Cacelaetal. 1996
Hansen et al. 2000
Hansen et al. 2000
Hansen et al. 2000
Hansen et al. 2000
Hansen et al. 2000
Servizi and Martens 1978
Servizi and Martens 1978
Servizi and Martens 1978
Servizi and Martens 1978
Servizi and Martens 1978
Servizi and Martens 1978
Servizi and Martens 1978
Servizi and Martens 1978
Servizi and Martens 1978
Servizi and Martens 1978
Chapman 1975, 1978
Chapman 1975, 1978
Chapman 1975, 1978
Chapman 1975, 1978
Chapman and McCrady 1977
Chapman and McCrady 1977
Chapman and McCrady 1977
Chapman and McCrady 1977
Welsh et al. 2000
Welsh et al. 2000
Welsh et al. 2000
Welsh et al. 2000
28
-------
Table 1. Acute Toxicity of Copper to Freshwater Animals
Species'
Bull trout,
Salvelinus confluent
Chiselmouth,
Acrocheilus
Bonytail chub,
Gila elegans
Golden shiner,
Notemigonus
crysoleucas
=alhead minnow,
Pimephales promele
Organism Age,
Size, or Lifestage
0.130 g, 2.6cm
0.555 g, 4.0 cm
0.774 g, 4.5 cm
1. 520 g, 5.6 cm
1. 160 g, 5.2 cm
4.6cm, 1.25g
larval, 0.29 g
...
adult, 40 mm
adult, 40 mm
adult, 40 mm
...
...
<24h
<24h
<24h
<24 h, 0.68 mg
<24 h, 0.68 mg
<24 h, 0.68 mg
<24 h, 0.68 mg
<24 h, 0.68 mg
<24 h, 0.68 mg
<24 h, 0.68 mg
<24 h, 0.68 mg
<24 h, 0.68 mg
<24 h, 0.68 mg
larval, 0.32 g
larval, 0.56 g
larval, 0.45 g
larval, 0.39 g
3.2-5.5 cm, 0.42-3.23
2.8-5.1 cm, 0.30-2.38
1.9-4.6 cm, 0.1 3-1 .55
3.0-4.8 cm, 0.23-1 .36
<24h
<24h
<24h
<24h
Method"
F,M,T,D
F,M,T,D
F,M,T,D
F,M,T,D
F,M,T,D
F,M,T
S,M,T
F,M,T
S,M,T
S,M,T
S,M,T
S,M,T
S,M,T
S,M,T
S,M,T
S,M,T
S,M,T
S,M,T
S,M,T
S,M,T
S,M,T
S,M,T
S,M,T
S,M,T
S,M,T
S,M,T
S,M,T
S,M,T
S,M,T
S,M,T
S,M,T
S,M,T
S,M,T
S,M,T
S,M,T,D
S,M,T,D
S,M,T,D
S,M,T,D
Chemical0
C
C
C
C
C
C
s
C
s
s
s
C
C
N
N
N
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
Reported LC50 or
EC50
(total ug/L)d
228
207
66.6
50
89
143
200
84600
310
120
390
55
85
15
44
>200
4.82
8.2
31.57
21.06
35.97
59.83
4.83
70.28
83.59
182
290
630
400
390
450
297
311
513
62.23
190.5
68.58
168.91
Reported LC50
or EC50
(Diss. ug/L)e
:::
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
53.96
165.18
59.46
146.46
BLM Data Label
SACO01 F
SACO02F
SAC003F
SAC004F
SACO05F
ACAL01 F
GIEL01S
NOCR01 F
PIPR01S
PIPR02S
PIPR03S
PIPR04S
PIPR05S
PIPR06S
PIPR07S
PIPR08S
PIPR09S
PIPR10S
PIPR11S
PIPR12S
PIPR13S
PIPR14S
PIPR15S
PIPR16S
PIPR17S
PIPR18S
PIPR19S
PIPR20S
PIPR21S
PIPR22S
PIPR23S
PIPR24S
PIPR25S
PIPR26S
PIPR27S
PIPR28S
PIPR29S
PIPR30S
BLM Normalized
LC50 or EC50
(ug/L)f
69.70
63.62
74.18
63.60
71.11
216.3
63.22
107860
266.3
105.61
207.3
38.08
70.71
11.23
18.03
24.38
8.87
16.72
25.15
17.67
21.24
16.64
5.92
13.34
8.22
13.91
73.92
157.9
103.2
161.7
152.9
77.75
67.56
76.36
25.70
87.89
28.59
89.18
Species Mean Acute
Value (ug/L)g
68.31
216.3
63.22
107860
69.63
Reference
Hansen et al. 2000
Hansen et al. 2000
Hansen et al. 2000
Hansen et al. 2000
Hansen et al. 2000
Andros and Carton 1980
Dwyeretal. 1995
Hartwelletal. 1989
Birgeetal. 1983
Birgeetal. 1983
Birge et al. 1983; Benson & Birge
Carlson et al. 1986
Carlson etal. 1986
Schubauer-Berigan et al. 1993
Schubauer-Berigan et al. 1993
Schubauer-Berigan et al. 1993
Welsh etal. 1993
Welsh etal. 1993
Welsh etal. 1993
Welsh etal. 1993
Welsh etal. 1993
Welsh etal. 1993
Welsh etal. 1993
Welsh etal. 1993
Welsh etal. 1993
Welsh etal. 1993
Dwyeretal. 1995
Dwyeretal. 1995
Dwyeretal. 1995
Dwyeretal. 1995
Richards and Bellinger 1995
Richards and Bellinger 1995
Richards and Bellinger 1995
Richards and Bellinger 1995
Erickson etal. 1996a,b
Erickson et al. 1996a,b
Erickson elal. 1996a,b
Erickson elal. 1996a,b
29
-------
Table 1. Acute Toxicity of Copper to Freshwater Animals
Species'
Organism Age,
Size, or Lifestage
<24h
<24h
<24h
<24h
<24h
<24h
<24h
<24h
<24h
<24h
<24h
<24h
<24h
<24h
<24h
<24h
<24h
<24h
<24h
<24h
<24h
<24h
<24h
<24h
<24h
<24h
<24h
<24h
<24h
<24h
<24h
<24h
<24h
<24h
<24h
<24h
<24h
<24h
<24h
<24h
<24h
<24h
Method"
S,M,T,D
S,M,T,D
S,M,T,D
S,M,T,D
S,M,T,D
S,M,T,D
S,M,T,D
S,M,T,D
S,M,T,D
S,M,T,D
S,M,T,D
S,M,T,D
S,M,T,D
S,M,T,D
S,M,T,D
S,M,T,D
S,M,T,D
S,M,T,D
S,M,T,D
S,M,T,D
S,M,T,D
S,M,T,D
S,M,T,D
S,M,T,D
S,M,T,D
S,M,T,D
S,M,T,D
S,M,T,D
S,M,T,D
S,M,T,D
S,M,T,D
S,M,T,D
S,M,T,D
S,M,T,D
S,M,T,D
S,M,T,D
S,M,T,D
S,M,T,D
S,M,T,D
S,M,T,D
S,M,T,D
S,M,T,D
Chemical0
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
Reported LC50 or
EC50
(total ug/L)d
94.62
143.51
120.65
196.85
133.35
184.15
304.8
292.1
133.35
92.71
152.4
177.8
203.2
190.5
196.85
234.95
146.05
171.45
152.4
184.15
203.2
203.2
203.2
222.25
146.05
139.7
139.7
152.4
203.2
196.85
266.7
99.06
111.13
78.74
92.71
85.09
123.19
165.1
190.5
165.1
127
92.08
Reported LC50
or EC50
(Diss. ug/L)e
82.04
124.43
103.76
167.32
120.02
169.42
268.22
242.44
113.35
77.88
128.02
151.13
166.62
163.83
157.48
199.71
128.52
150.88
131.06
160.21
182.88
180.85
176.78
188.91
125.60
117.35
114.55
126.49
172.72
167.32
226.70
84.20
97.79
70.08
81.58
77.43
110.87
151.89
175.26
145.29
1 1 1 .76
79.18
BLM Data Label
PIPR31S
PIPR32S
PIPR33S
PIPR34S
PIPR35S
PIPR36S
PIPR37S
PIPR38S
PIPR39S
PIPR40S
PIPR41S
PIPR42S
PIPR43S
PIPR44S
PIPR45S
PIPR46S
PIPR47S
PIPR48S
PIPR49S
PIPR50S
PIPR51S
PIPR52S
PIPR53S
PIPR54S
PIPR55S
PIPR56S
PIPR57S
PIPR58S
PIPR59S
PIPR60S
PIPR61S
PIPR62S
PIPR63S
PIPR64S
PIPR65S
PIPR66S
PIPR67S
PIPR68S
PIPR69S
PIPR70S
PIPR71S
PIPR72S
BLM Normalized
LC50 or EC50
(ug/L)f
49.27
104.90
86.54
122.0
75.0
122.2
78.5
201.5
100.75
72.95
112.9
136.3
136.0
147.7
125.9
157.4
127.8
153.9
114.57
131.3
130.9
105.76
128.8
122.1
111.87
85.45
83.10
85.82
110.0
106.46
133.4
138.0
165.8
114.8
121.5
106.69
124.7
114.24
89.93
140.2
100.16
58.74
Species Mean Acute
Value (ug/L)g
Reference
Erickson etal. 1996a,b
Erickson etal. 1996a,b
Erickson et al. 1996a,b
Erickson et al. 1996a,b
Erickson etal. 1996a,b
Erickson etal. 1996a,b
Erickson et al. 1996a,b
Erickson etal. 1996a,b
Erickson etal. 1996a,b
Erickson etal. 1996a,b
Erickson et al. 1996a,b
Erickson etal. 1996a,b
Erickson etal. 1996a,b
Erickson et al. 1996a,b
Erickson et al. 1996a,b
Erickson etal. 1996a,b
Erickson etal. 1996a,b
Erickson et al. 1996a,b
Erickson et al. 1996a,b
Erickson etal. 1996a,b
Erickson etal. 1996a,b
Erickson et al. 1996a,b
Erickson et al. 1996a,b
Erickson etal. 1996a,b
Erickson etal. 1996a,b
Erickson et al. 1996a,b
Erickson et al. 1996a,b
Erickson etal. 1996a,b
Erickson etal. 1996a,b
Erickson et al. 1996a,b
Erickson et al. 1996a,b
Erickson etal. 1996a,b
Erickson etal. 1996a,b
Erickson etal. 1996a,b
Erickson etal. 1996a,b
Erickson etal. 1996a,b
Erickson etal. 1996a,b
Erickson et al. 1996a,b
Erickson et al. 1996a,b
Erickson etal. 1996a,b
Erickson etal. 1996a,b
Erickson etal. 1996a,b
30
-------
Table 1. Acute Toxicity of Copper to Freshwater Animals
Species'
Organism Age,
Size, or Lifestage
<24h
<24h
<24h
<24h
<24h
<24h
<24h
<24h
<24h
<24h
<24h
<24h
<24h
<24h
<24h
<24h
<24h
<24h
<24h
<24h
<24h
<24h
<24h
<24h
<24h
<24h
<24h
<24h
<24h
<24h
<24h
<24h
<24h
<24h
<24h
<24h
<24h
<24h
<24h
<24h
<24h
<24h
Method"
S,M,T,D
S,M,T,D
S,M,T,D
S,M,T,D
S,M,T,D
S,M,T,D
S,M,T,D
S,M,T,D
S,M,T,D
S,M,T,D
S,M,T,D
S,M,T,D
S,M,T,D
S,M,T,D
S,M,T,D
S,M,T,D
S,M,T,D
S,M,T,D
S,M,T,D
S,M,T,D
S,M,T,D
S,M,T,D
S,M,T,D
S,M,T,D
S,M,T,D
S,M,T,D
S,M,T,D
S,M,T,D
S,M,T,D
S,M,T,D
S,M,T,D
S,M,T,D
S,M,T,D
S,M,T,D
S,M,T,D
S,M,T,D
S,M,T,D
S,M,T,D
S,M,T,D
S,M,T,D
S,M,T,D
S,M,T,D
Chemical0
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
Reported LC50 or
EC50
(total ug/L)d
66.68
393.70
317.50
107.95
67.95
45.72
177.80
13.97
304.80
71.12
83.82
104.78
139.70
152.40
260.35
488.95
203.20
704.85
952.50
1244.60
1485.90
781 .05
476.25
273.05
22.23
24.13
36.83
27.94
26.67
20.32
26.67
190.50
109.86
203.20
209.55
146.05
165.10
254.00
311.15
165.10
920.75
1073.15
Reported LC50
or EC50
(Diss. ug/L)e
60.01
370.08
292.10
101.47
62.51
42.06
172.47
12.43
271.27
71.12
79.63
99.54
132.72
137.16
182.25
268.92
188.98
662.56
904.88
995.68
891 .54
757.62
404.81
262.13
20.45
23.16
34.99
27.94
26.67
20.32
26.67
182.88
96.67
182.88
190.69
127.06
148.59
223.52
283.15
150.24
644.53
697.55
BLM Data Label
PIPR73S
PIPR74S
PIPR75S
PIPR76S
PIPR77S
PIPR78S
PIPR79S
PIPR80S
PIPR81S
PIPR82S
PIPR83S
PIPR84S
PIPR85S
PIPR86S
PIPR87S
PIPR88S
PIPR89S
PIPR90S
PIPR91S
PIPR92S
PIPR93S
PIPR94S
PIPR95S
PIPR96S
PIPR97S
PIPR98S
PIPR99S
PIPR100S
PIPR101S
PIPR102S
PIPR103S
PIPR104S
PIPR105S
PIPR106S
PIPR107S
PIPR108S
PIPR109S
PIPR110S
PIPR111S
PIPR112S
PIPR113S
PIPR114S
BLM Normalized
LC50 or EC50
(ug/L)f
37.67
163.3
252.2
169.6
146.5
126.3
197.6
28.13
149.2
105.76
108.41
114.7
137.8
114.8
114.8
122.1
147.5
185.0
197.1
188.3
135.5
181.4
172.5
191.4
59.14
64.08
97.49
78.99
72.86
50.73
68.24
146.6
93.76
128.86
113.0
101.01
120.9
137.6
142.9
106.74
131.9
116.5
Species Mean Acute
Value (ug/L)g
Reference
Erickson etal. 1996a,b
Erickson etal. 1996a,b
Erickson et al. 1996a,b
Erickson et al. 1996a,b
Erickson etal. 1996a,b
Erickson etal. 1996a,b
Erickson et al. 1996a,b
Erickson etal. 1996a,b
Erickson etal. 1996a,b
Erickson et al. 1996a,b
Erickson et al. 1996a,b
Erickson etal. 1996a,b
Erickson etal. 1996a,b
Erickson et al. 1996a,b
Erickson et al. 1996a,b
Erickson etal. 1996a,b
Erickson etal. 1996a,b
Erickson et al. 1996a,b
Erickson et al. 1996a,b
Erickson etal. 1996a,b
Erickson etal. 1996a,b
Erickson et al. 1996a,b
Erickson et al. 1996a,b
Erickson etal. 1996a,b
Erickson etal. 1996a,b
Erickson etal. 1996a,b
Erickson etal. 1996a,b
Erickson etal. 1996a,b
Erickson etal. 1996a,b
Erickson et al. 1996a,b
Erickson et al. 1996a,b
Erickson etal. 1996a,b
Erickson etal. 1996a,b
Erickson et al. 1996a,b
Erickson et al. 1996a,b
Erickson etal. 1996a,b
Erickson etal. 1996a,b
Erickson et al. 1996a,b
Erickson et al. 1996a,b
Erickson etal. 1996a,b
Erickson etal. 1996a,b
Erickson et al. 1996a,b
31
-------
Table 1. Acute Toxicity of Copper to Freshwater Animals
Species'
Northern squawfish,
Ptychocheilus orego
Organism Age,
Size, or Lifestage
<24h
<24h
<24h
<24h
<24h
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
-
30 d, 0.15 g
<24h
<24h
<24h
<24h
<24h
<24h
<24h
<24h
<24h
<24h
<24h
<24h
<24h
<24h
<24h
<24h
<24h
<24h
<24h
<24h
<24h
larval, 0.32 g
larval, 0.34 g
Method"
S,M,T,D
S,M,T,D
S,M,T,D
S,M,T,D
S,M,T,D
F,M,T
F,M,T
F,M,T
F,M,T
F,M,T
F,M,T
F,M,T
F,M,T
F,M,T
F,M,T,D
F,M,T,D
F,M,T,D
F,M,T,D
F,M,T,D
F,M,T,D
F,M,T,D
F,M,T,D
F,M,T,D
F,M,T,D
F,M,T,D
F,M,T,D
F,M,T,D
F,M,T,D
F,M,T,D
F,M,T,D
F,M,T,D
F,M,T,D
F,M,T,D
F,M,T,D
F,M,T,D
F,M,T,D
S,M,T
S,M,T
Chemical0
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
N
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
Reported LC50 or
EC50
(total [iglLf
1003.30
933.45
742.95
1879.60
266.70
114.00
121.00
88.50
436.00
516.00
1586.00
1129.00
550.00
1001.00
96.00
31.75
117.48
48.26
73.03
59.06
78.74
22.23
6.99
22.23
107.32
292.10
81.28
298.45
241 .30
133.35
93.98
67.95
4.76
13.97
29.85
59.69
380
480
Reported LC50
or EC50
(Diss. (jg/L)e
752.48
653.42
646.37
939.80
253.37
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
88.32
27.94
105.73
40.06
64.26
49.02
67.72
18.67
6.15
20.45
93.36
245.36
72.34
229.81
195.45
109.35
78.00
45.52
4.38
12.43
26.86
51.33
—
—
BLM Data Label
PIPR115S
PIPR116S
PIPR117S
PIPR118S
PIPR119S
PIPR120F
PIPR121F
PIPR122F
PIPR123F
PIPR124F
PIPR125F
PIPR126F
PIPR127F
PIPR128F
PIPR129F
PIPR130F
PIPR131F
PIPR132F
PIPR133F
PIPR134F
PIPR135F
PIPR136F
PIPR137F
PIPR138F
PIPR139F
PIPR140F
PIPR141F
PIPR142F
PIPR143F
PIPR144F
PIPR145F
PIPR146F
PIPR147F
PIPR148F
PIPR149F
PIPR150F
PTLU01S
PTLU02S
BLM Normalized
LC50 or EC50
(|jg/i-)f
109.8
123.2
129.6
124.8
176.1
17.99
19.70
13.27
78.50
50.09
66.49
73.03
42.76
34.39
39.58
8.69
37.88
10.80
22.19
20.32
18.51
13.61
10.94
17.70
67.09
17.75
41.16
16.18
24.40
21.07
50.83
23.18
40.09
45.37
59.43
58.84
88.44
197.6
Species Mean Acute
Value (ug/L)g
132.2
Reference
Erickson et al. 1996a,b
Erickson et al. 1996a,b
Erickson et al. 1996a,b
Erickson et al. 1996a,b
Erickson et al. 1996a,b
Lind et al. Manuscript (1978)
Lind et al. Manuscript (1978)
Lind et al. Manuscript (1978)
Lind et al. Manuscript (1978)
Lind et al. Manuscript (1978)
Lind et al. Manuscript (1978)
Lind et al. Manuscript (1978)
Lind et al. Manuscript (1978)
Lind et al. Manuscript (1978)
Speharand Fiandt 1986
Erickson etal. 1996a,b
Erickson etal. 1996a,b
Erickson etal. 1996a,b
Erickson etal. 1996a,b
Erickson etal. 1996a,b
Erickson etal. 1996a,b
Erickson etal. 1996a,b
Erickson etal. 1996a,b
Erickson etal. 1996a,b
Erickson etal. 1996a,b
Erickson etal. 1996a,b
Erickson etal. 1996a,b
Erickson etal. 1996a,b
Erickson etal. 1996a,b
Erickson etal. 1996a,b
Erickson etal. 1996a,b
Erickson etal. 1996a,b
Erickson etal. 1996a,b
Erickson etal. 1996a,b
Erickson etal. 1996a,b
Erickson etal. 1996a,b
Dwyeretal. 1995
Dwyer et al. 1995
32
-------
Table 1. Acute Toxicity of Copper to Freshwater Animals
Species'
Northern squawfish,
Ptychocheilus orego
Razorback sucker,
Xyrauchen texanus
Gila topminnow,
Poeciliposis
Bluegill,
Lepomis macrochiru
Fantail darter,
Etheostoma flabellai
Greenthroat darter,
Etheostoma
Johnny darter,
Etheostoma nigrum
Fountain darter,
Etheostoma rubrum
Boreal toad,
Bufo boreas
Organism Age,
Size, or Lifestage
5.0cm, 1.33g
7.2 cm, 3.69 g
larval, 0.31 g
larval, 0.32 g
2.72 cm, 0.219 g
3.58 cm, 0.63 g
12cm, 35 g
2.8-6.8 cm
3.58 cm, 0.63 g
3.7cm
3.7cm
3.7cm
3.7cm
2.26 cm, 0. 133 g
3.9 cm
3.9cm
3.9cm
3.9cm
2.02 cm, 0.062 g
tadpole, 0.01 2 g
Method"
F,M,T
F,M,T
S,M,T
S,M,T
S,M,T
R,M,D
F,M,T
F,M,T
F,M,D
S,M,T
S,M,T
S,M,T
S,M,T
S,M,T
S,M,T
S,M,T
S,M,T
S,M,T
S,M,T
S,M,T
Chemical0
C
C
S
s
S
C
s
C
C
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
Reported LC50 or
EC50
(total ug/L)d
23
18
220
340
160
1100
1000
330
341
373
392
260
493
483
602
548
60
120
Reported LC50
or EC50
(Diss. ug/L)e
:::
—
2200
1300
—
—
—
—
BLM Data Label
PTOR01 F
PTOR02F
XYTE01S
XYTE02S
POAC01S
LEMA01R
LEMA02F
LEMA03F
LEMA04F
ETFL01S
ETFL02S
ETFL03S
ETFL04S
ETLE01S
ETNI01S
ETNI02S
ETNI03S
ETNI04S
ETRU01S
BUB001S
BLM Normalized
LC50 or EC50
(ug/L)f
17.02
12.54
63.78
97.0
56.15
2202
2305
4200
1163
117.7
121.1
122.8
136.6
82.80
167.3
164.2
200.1
183.9
22.74
47.49
Species Mean Acute
Value (ug/L)g
14.61
78.66
56.15
2231
124.3
82.80
178.3
22.74
47.49
Reference
Andros and Carton 1980
Andros and Carton 1980
Dwyeretal. 1995
Dwyer et al. 1995
Dwyeretal. 1999
Blaylocketal. 1985
Benoit 1975
Cairns et al. 1981
Blaylocketal. 1985
Lydy and Wissing 1988
Lydy and Wissing 1988
Lydy and Wissing 1988
Lydy and Wissing 1988
Dwyeretal. 1999
Lydy and Wissing 1988
Lydy and Wissing 1988
Lydy and Wissing 1988
Lydy and Wissing 1988
Dwyeretal. 1999
Dwyeretal. 1999
a Species appear in order taxonomically, with invertebrates listed first, fish, and an amphibian listed last. Species within each genus are ordered alphabetically. Within each species, tests are ordered b;
test method (static, renewal, flow-through) and date.
b S = static, R = renewal, F = flow-through, U = unmeasured, M = measured, T = exposure concentrations were measured as total copper, D = exposure concentrations were measured as
dissolved copper.
0 S = copper sulfate, N = copper nitrate, C = copper chloride.
d Values in this column are total copper LC50 or EC50 values as reported by the author.
e Values in this column are dissolved copper LC50 or EC50 values either reported by the author or if the author did not report a dissolved value then a conversion factor (CF) was applied
to the total coccer LC50 to estimate dissolved coccer values.
Ma? rna III alie-n Chamisti'y
Tc-mp
Deg C
2C.OC
pM
7.5
DissCy
uglL
mgfL
%HA Ca
10.0 140
MB
12.1
Na
26.3
K
2.1
SO4
mgIL
81.4
CI
mgIL
U
Alfcalinitf
mp/L
§s.a
S
g Underlined LCSOs or ECSOs not used to derive SMAV because considered extreme value.
' Table updated as of March 2, 2007
33
-------
Table 2a. Chronic Toxicity of Copper to Freshwater Animals
Species
Rotifer,
Brachionus calyciflorus
Snail,
Campe/oma dec/sum ( Test 1)
Snail,
Campe/oma dec/sum (Test 2)
Cladoceran,
Ceriodaphnia dubia (New River)
Cladoceran,
Ceriodaphnia dubia (Cinch River)
Cladoceran,
Ceriodaphnia dubia
Cladoceran,
Ceriodaphnia dubia
Cladoceran,
Ceriodaphnia dubia
Cladoceran,
Daphnia magna
Cladoceran,
Daphnia magna
Cladoceran,
Daphnia magna
Cladoceran,
Daphnia magna
Cladoceran,
Daphnia magna
Cladoceran,
Daphnia pulex
Cladoceran,
Daphnia pulex
Cladoceran,
Daphnia pulex
Test"
LC,T
LC,T
LC,T
LC,D
LC,D
LC,T
LC,T
LC,T,D
LC,T
LC,T
LC,T
LC,T
LC,T
LC,T
LC,T
LC,T
Chemical
Copper sulfate
Copper sulfate
Copper sulfate
"
"
Copper sulfate
Copper sulfate
Copper chloride
Copper chloride
Copper chloride
Copper chloride
Copper chloride
Copper chloride
Copper sulfate
Copper sulfate
Copper sulfate
Endpoint
Intrinsic growth
rate
Survival
Survival
Reproduction
Reproduction
Survival and
reproduction
Survival and
reproduction
Reproduction
Reproduction
Carapace length
Reproduction
Reproduction
Reproduction
Survival
Survival
Survival
Hardness
(mg/L as
CaCOS)
85
35-55
35-55
179
94.1
57
57
85
225
51
104
211
57.5 (No HA)
115 (No HA)
230 (0.1 5 HA)
Chronic
Limits (ug/L)
2.5-5.0
8-14.8
8-14.8
6.3-9.9
<1 9.3-1 9.3
"
"
12-32
10-30
12.6-36.8
11.4-16.3
20-43
7.2-12.6
4.0-6.0
5.0-10.0
10-15
Chronic Values
Chronic
Value"
(ug/L)
3.54
10.88
10.88
7.90°
(8.23)
<19.3
24.50
34.60
19.59
17.32
21.50
13.63
29.33
9.53
4.90
7.07
12.25
EC20b
(ug/L)
"
8.73
10.94
"
19.36°
(20.17)
"
"
9.17
"
"
12.58
19.89
6.06
2.83
9.16
Species Mean
Chronic Value
(Total ug/L)
3.54
9.77
19.3
14.1
5.68
Genus Mean
Chronic Value
(Total ug/L)
3.54
9.77
19.3
8.96
ACR
191.6
153.0
3.599
3.271
0.547
2.069
2.067
1.697
11.39
9.104
3.904
3.143
Reference
Janssen etal. 1994
Arthur and Leonard 1970
Arthur and Leonard 1970
Belangeretal. 1989
Belangeret al. 1989
Orisetal. 1991
Orisetal. 1991
Carlson etal. 1986
Blaylocketal. 1985
van Leeuwen et al. 1988
Chapman et al. Manuscript
Chapman et al. Manuscript
Chapman et al. Manuscript
Winner 1985
Winner 1985
Winner 1985
34
-------
Table 2a. Chronic Toxicity of Copper to Freshwater Animals
Species
Caddisfly,
Clistoronia magnifica
Rainbow trout,
Oncorhynchus mykiss
Rainbow trout,
Oncorhynchus mykiss
Chinook salmon,
Oncorhynchus tshawytscha
Brown trout,
Salmo trutta
Brook trout,
Salvelinus fontinalis
Brook trout,
Salvelinus fontinalis
Lake trout,
Salvelinus namaycush
Northern pike,
Esox lucius
Bluntnose minnow
Pimephales notatus
Fathead minnow,
Pimephales promelas
White sucker,
Catostomus commersoni
Bluegill (larval),
Lepomis macrochirus
Test"
LC,T
ELS.T
continuous
ELS.T
ELS.T
ELS.T
PLC.T
ELS.T
ELS.T
ELS.T
LC,T
ELS.T.D
ELS.T
ELS.T.D
Chemical
Copper chloride
Copper chloride
Copper sulfate
Copper chloride
Copper sulfate
Copper sulfate
Copper sulfate
Copper sulfate
Copper sulfate
Copper sulfate
"
Copper sulfate
Copper sulfate
Endpoint
Emergence (adult
1st gen)
Biomass
Biomass
Biomass
Biomass
Biomass
Biomass
Biomass
Biomass
Egg production
Biomass
Biomass
Survival
Hardness
(mg/L as
CaCOS)
26
120
160-180
20-45
45.4
35.0
45.4
45.4
45.4
1 72-230
45
45.4
44-50
Chronic
Limits (ug/L)
8.3-13
12-22
<7.4
20.8-43.8
<5-5
22.3-43.5
22.0-43.5
34.9-104.4
<18-18
12.9-33.8
21-40
Chronic Values
Chronic
Value"
(ug/L)
10.39
16.25
<7.4
29.91
<5
31.15
30.94
60.36
18.00
20.88
28.98
EC20b
(ug/L)
7.67
27.77
20.32
5.92
"
"
"
"
"
"
9.38
"
27.15
Species Mean
Chronic Value
(Total ug/L)
7.67
23.8
5.92
29.9
12.5
30.9
60.4
18.0
9.38
20.9
27.2
Genus Mean
Chronic Value
(Total ug/L)
7.67
11.9
29.9
19.7
60.4
13.0
20.9
27.2
ACR
2.881
5.594
12.88
11.40
40.52
Reference
Nebekeretal. 1984b
Seimetal. 1984
Besser et al. 2001
Chapman 1975, 1982
McKimetal. 1978
Sauteretal. 1976
McKimetal. 1978
McKimetal. 1978
McKimetal. 1978
Horning and Neiheisel 1979
Lind etal. manuscript
McKimetal. 1978
Benoit1975
a LC = life-cycle; PLC = partial life-cyle; ELS = early life state; T = total copper; D = dissolved copper.
b Results are based on copper, not the chemical.
0 Chronic values based on dissolved copper concentration.
35
-------
Table 2b. Chronic Toxicity of Copper to Saltwater Animals
Species
Sheepshead minnow,
Cyprinodon variegatus
Test
ELS
Chemical
Copper chloride
Salinity
(g/kg)
30
Limits (|jg/L)
1 72-362
Chronic Value
(ug/L)
249
Chronic Value Dissolved
(ug/L)
206.7
ACR
1.48
Reference
Hughes et al. 1989
36
-------
Table 2c. Acute-Chronic Ratios
Species
Snail,
Campeloma decisum
Cladoceran,
Ceriodaphnia dubia
Cladoceran,
Daphnia magna
Cladoceran,
Daphnia pulex
Rainbow trout,
Oncorhynchus mykiss
Chinook salmon,
Oncorhynchus tshawytscha
Bluntnose minnow,
Pimephales notatus
Fathead minnow,
Pimephales promelas
Bluegill,
Lepomis macrochirus
Sheepshead minnow,
Cyprinodon variegatus
Hardness (mg/L
as CaCO3)
35-55
35-55
179
94.1
57
51
104
211
57.5
115
230
120
20-45
1 72-230
45
21-40
-
Acute Value
(ug/L)
1673a
1673a
28.42b
63.33b
13.4
17.974°
26
33.76d
69
25.737
27.6
28.79
80
33.1
231 .9e
106.875'
1100
368
Chronic
Value (ug/L)
8.73
10.94
7.90
19.36
24.5
9.17
12.58
19.89
6.06
2.83
7.07
9.16
27.77
5.92
18
9.38
27.15
249
Ratio
191.61
152.95
3.60
3.27
0.55
1.96
2.07
1.70
11.39
9.10
3.90
3.14
2.88
5.59
12.88
11.40
40.52
1.48
Reference
Arthur and Leonard 1970
Arthur and Leonard 1970
Belangeretal. 1989
Belangeretal. 1989
Orisetal. 1991
Carlson et al. 1986
Chapman et al. Manuscript
Chapman et al. Manuscript
Chapman et al. Manuscript
Winner 1985
Winner 1985
Winner 1985
Seimetal. 1984
Chapman 1975, 1982
Horning and Neiheisel 1979
Lindetal. 1978
Benoit 1975
Hughes etal. 1989
Overall
Ratio for
Species
171.19
2.859
3.42
4.82
2.88
5.59
12.88
11.40
40.49
1.48
•/
S
•/
S
•/
S
aGeometric mean of two values from Arthur and Leonard (1970) in Table 1.
""Geometric mean of five values from Belanger et al. (1989) in Table 1. ACR is based on dissolved metal measurements.
'Geometric mean of two values from Carlson etal. (1986) in Table 1.
dGeometric mean of two values from Chapman manuscript in Table 1.
eGeometric mean of two values of three values from Horning and Neiheisel (1979) in Appendix C.
'Geometric mean of three values from Lind etal. (1978) in Table 1.
9ACRfrom Oris etal. (1991) not used in calculating overall ratio for species because it is <1.
FACR
Freshwater final acute-chronic ratio = 3.22
Saltwater final acute-chronic ratio = 3.22
' Table updated as of March 2, 2007
37
-------
Table 3a. Ranked Freshwater Genus Mean Acute Values with Species Mean
Acute-Chronic Ratios
Rank
27
26
25
24
23
22
21
20
19
18
17
16
15
14
13
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
GMAV
107,860
20,636
3,573
2,231
1,987
216.3
80.38
78.66
69.63
69.63
68.31
63.22
56.15
52.51
48.41
47.49
43.94
31.39
20.41
12.31
12.07
11.33
9.73
9.60
6.67
5.93
4.05
Species
Golden shiner, Notemigonus crysoleucas
Stonefly, Acroneuria lycorias
Snail, Campeloma decisum
Bluegill sunfish, Lepomis macrochirus
Midge, Chironomus decorus
Chiselmouth, Acrocheilus alutaceus
Fantail darter, Etheostoma flabellare
Greenthroat darter, Etheostoma lepidum
Johnny darter, Etheostoma nigrum
Fountain darter, Etheostoma rubrum
Razorback sucker, Xyrauchen texanus
Fathead minnow, Pimephales promelas
Shovelnose sturgeon, Scaphirhynchus platorynchus
Bull trout, Salvelinus confluentus
Bonytail chub, Gila elegans
Gila topminnow, Poeciliposis occidentalis
Freshwater mussel, Utterbackia imbed/Us
Worm, Lumbriculus variegatus
Boreal toad, Bufo boreas
Colorado squawfish, Ptychocheilus lucius
Northern squawfish, Ptychocheilus oregonensis
Apache trout, Oncorhynchus apache
Cutthroat trout, Oncorhynchus clarki
Pink salmon, Oncorhynchus gorbuscha
Coho salmon, Oncorhynchus kisutch
Rainbow trout, Oncorhynchus mykiss
Sockeye salmon, Oncorhynchus nerka
Chinook salmon, Oncorhynchus tshawytscha
Snail, Physa Integra
Snail, Juga plicifera
Amphipod, Hyalella azteca
Freshwater mussel, Actinonaias pectorosa
Cladoceran, Scapholeberis sp.
Amphipod, Gammarus pseudolimnaeus
Snail, Lithoglyphus virens
Cladoceran, Ceriodaphnia dubia
Cladoceran, Daphnia magna
Cladoceran, Daphnia pulicaria
SMAV (ug/L)
107,860
20,636
3,573
2,231
1,987
216.3
124.3
82.80
178.3
22.74
78.66
69.63
69.63
68.31
63.22
56.15
52.51
48.41
47.49
132.2
14.61
32.54
32.97
40.13
22.93
22.19
54.82
25.02
20.41
12.31
12.07
11.33
9.73
9.60
6.67
5.93
6.00
2.73
ACR
171.19
40.49
11.40
2.88
5.59
2.85
3.42
' Table updated as of March 2, 2007
38
-------
Table 3b. Freshwater Final Acute Value (FAV) and Criteria Calculations
Calculated Freshwater FAV based on 4 lowest values: Total Number of GMAVs in Data Set =
Rank
4
3
2
1
Sum:
S =
L =
A =
Calculated FAV =
Calculated CMC =
GMAV
9.600
6.670
5.930
4.050
4.374
0.5641
1.542
4.674452
2.337
InGMAV
2.261
1.897
1.780
1.398
7.33671
(InGMAV)2
5.114
3.599
3.170
1.954
13.83657
P = R/(n+1)
0.143
0.107
0.071
0.036
0.35714
27
SQRT(P)
0.378
0.327
0.267
0.189
1.16153
Dissolved Copper Criterion Maximum Concentration (CMC) = 2.337 ug/L (for example normalization chemistry see Table 1, footnote f)
Criteria Lethal Accumulation (LA50) based on example normalization chemistry = 0.03395 nmol/g wet wt
Criterion Continuous Concentration (CCC) = 4.67445/3.22 = 1.4516932 ug/L (for example normalization chemistry see Table 1, footnote f)
S = Scale parameter or slope
L = Location parameter or intercept
P = Cumulative probability
A = InFAV
' Table updated as of March 2, 2007
39
-------
Table 4. Toxicity of Copper to Freshwater Plants
Species
Blue-green alga,
Anabaena flos-aqua
Bllue-green alga,
Anabaena variabilis
Blue-green alga,
Anabaena strain 7120
Blue-green alga,
Chroococcus paris
Blue-green alga,
Microcystis aeruginosa
Alga,
Ankistrodesmus braunii
Green alga,
Chlamydomonas sp.
Green alga,
Chlamydomonas reinhardtii
Green alga,
Chlamydomonas reinhardtii
Green alga,
Chlamydomonas reinhardtii
Green alga,
Chlorella pyrenoidosa
Green alga,
Chlorella pyrenoidosa
Green alga,
Chlorella pyrenoidosa
Green alga,
Chlorella pyrenoidosa
Green alga,
Chlorella pyrenoidosa
Green alga,
Chlorella saccharophila
Green alga,
Chlorella vulgaris
Green alga,
Chlorella vulgaris
Green alga,
Chlorella vulgaris
Green alga,
Chlorella vulgaris
Green alga,
Chlorella vulgaris
Green alga,
Chlorella vulgaris
Method'
S,U
s,u
-
s,u
s,u
-
s,u
S,M,T
S,M,T
F,M,T
S,U
S,U
S,U
S,U
S,U
S,U
S,U
S,U
F,U
S,M,D
S,M,T
S,U
Chemical
Copper
sulfate
Copper sulfate
-
Copper nitrate
Copper sulfate
-
Copper sulfate
-
-
-
-
-
Copper sulfate
Copper sulfate
Copper sulfate
Copper
chloride
Copper sulfate
Copper
chloride
Copper sulfate
Copper sulfate
Copper
chloride
Copper sulfate
Hardness (mg/L
as CaCO3)
65.2
65.2
-
54.7
54.9
-
68
90- 133
90-133
24
-
54.7
365
36.5
3.65
-
2,000
-
-
-
17.1
Duration
96 hr
-
-
1 0 days
8 days
-
1 0 days
72 hr
72 hr
10 days
96 hr
-
1 4 days
1 4 days
1 4 days
96 hr
96 hr
33 days
96 hr
96 hr
96 hr
7 days
Effect
EC75
(cell density)
EC85
(wet weight)
Lag in growth
Growth reduction
Incipient inhibition
Growth reduction
Growth inhibition
NOEC
(deflagellation)
NOEC
(cell density)
EC50
(cell density)
ca. 12 hr lag in growth
Growth inhibition
EC50
(dry weight)
EC50
(dry weight)
EC50
(dry weight)
96-h EC50
Growth inhibition
EC20
(growth)
EC50 or EC50
(cell numbers)
IC50
EC50
(cell density)
15% reduction in cell density
Result"
(Total ug/L)
200
100
64
100
30
640
8,000
12.2-49.1
12.2-43.0
31.5
1
100
78-100
78-100
78-100
550
200
42
62
270
200
100
Reference
Young and Lisk 1972
Young and Lisk 1972
Laubeetal. 1980
Les and Walker 1984
Bringmann 1975; Bringmann and Kuhn
1976, 1978a,b
Laubeetal. 1980
Cairns etal. 1978
Winner and Owen 1 991 a
Winner and Owen 1 991 a
Schaferetal. 1993
Steeman-Nielsen and Wium-Andersen
1970
Steeman-Nielsen and Kamp-Nielsen
1970
Bednarz and Warkowska-Dratnal 1985
Bednarz and Warkowska-Dratnal 1985
Bednarz and Warkowska-Dratnal
1983/1984
Rachlinetal. 1982
Young and Lisk 1972
Rosko and Rachlin 1977
Ferardetal. 1983
Ferardetal. 1983
Blaylock et al. 1985
Bilgrami and Kumar 1997
40
-------
Table 4. Toxicity of Copper to Freshwater Plants
Species
Green alga,
Scenedesmus quadricauda
Green alga,
Scenedesmus quadricauda
Green alga,
Selenastrum capricornutum
Green alga,
Selenastrum capricornutum
Green alga,
Selenastrum capricornutum
Green alga,
Selenastrum capricornutum
Green alga,
Selenastrum capricornutum
Green alga,
Selenastrum capricornutum
Green alga,
Selenastrum capricornutum
Green alga,
Selenastrum capricornutum
Green alga,
Selenastrum capricornutum
Green alga,
Selenastrum capricornutum
Green alga,
Selenastrum capricornutum
Green alga,
Selenastrum capricornutum
Green alga,
Selenastrum capricornutum
Algae,
mixed culture
Diatom,
Cyclotella meneghiniana
Diatom,
Navicula incerta
Diatom,
Nitzschia linearis
Diatom,
Nitzschia palea
Duckweed,
Lemna minor
Duckweed,
Lemna minor
Method'
S,U
s,u
s,u
s,u
S,M,T
S,U
S,U
S,U
S,U
S,U
s,u
s,u
s,u
R,U
S,U
s,u
s,u
s,u
-
-
F
s,u
Chemical
Copper sulfate
Copper sulfate
Copper
chloride
Copper
chloride
Copper
chloride
Copper sulfate
Copper sulfate
Copper sulfate
Copper
chloride
Copper sulfate
Copper sulfate
Copper sulfate
Copper sulfate
Copper sulfate
Copper sulfate
Copper sulfate
Copper sulfate
Copper
chloride
-
-
-
Copper sulfate
Hardness (mg/L
as CaCO3)
68
181
14.9
14.9
24.2
9.3
9.3
9.3
15
14.9
9.3
9.3
24.2
24.2
16
-
68
-
-
-
-
-
Duration
1 0 days
7 days
1 4 days
7 days
96 hr
96 hr
96 hr
96 hr
2-3 wk
5 days
96 hr
96 hr
96 hr
96 hr
96 hr
-
1 0 days
96 hr
5 day
-
7 day
28 days
Effect
Growth reduction
LOEC
(growth)
EC50
(cell volume)
LOEC
(growth)
EC50
(cell count)
EC50
(cell count)
EC50
(cell count)
EC50
(cell count)
EC50
(biomass)
Growth reduction
EC50
(cell count)
EC50
(cell count)
EC50
(cell count)
EC50
(cell count)
EC50
(cell density)
Significant reduction in blue-green
algae and nitrogen fixation
Growth inhibition
EC50
EC50
Complete growth inhibition
EC50
Significant plant damage
Result"
(Total ug/L)
8,000
1,100
85
50
400
48.4
44.3
46.4
53.7
58
69.9
65.7
54.4
48.2
38
5
8,000
10,429
795-815
5
119
130
Reference
Cairns etal. 1978
Bringmann and Kuhn 1977a, 1978a,b,
1979, 1980a
Christensen et al. 1979
Bartlettetal. 1974
Blaylock et al. 1985
Blaiseetal. 1986
Blaiseetal. 1986
Blaiseetal. 1986
Turbaketal. 1986
Nyholm 1990
St. Laurent etal. 1992
St. Laurent etal. 1992
Radetski et al. 1995
Radetski et al. 1995
Chen etal. 1997
Elder and Home 1978
Cairns etal. 1978
Rachlinetal. 1983
Academy of Natural Sciences 1960;
Patrick etal. 1968
Steeman-Nielsen and Wium-Andersen
1970
Walbridge 1977
Brown and Rattigan 1 979
41
-------
Table 4. Toxicity of Copper to Freshwater Plants
Species
Duckweed,
Lemna minor
Duckweed,
Lemna minor
Duckweed,
Lemna minor
Eurasian watermilfoil,
Myriophyllum spicatum
Method'
S,U
s,u
R,M,T
S,U
Chemical
-
Copper sulfate
Copper nitrate
-
Hardness (mg/L
as CaCO3)
0
78
39
89
Duration
96 hr
96 hr
96 hr
32 days
Effect
EC50
(frond number)
EC50
(chlorophyll a reduction)
Reduced chlorophyll production
EC50
(root weight)
Result"
(Total ug/L)
1,100
250
24
250
Reference
Wang 1986
Eloranta et al. 1988
Taraldsen and Norberg-King 1990
Stanley 1974
1 S=Static; R=Renewal; F=Flow-through; M=Measured; U=Unmeasured; T=Total metal cone, measured; D=dissolved metal cone, measured.
3 Results are expressed as copper, not as the chemical.
42
-------
9.0 REFERENCES
Allen, HE. and DJ. Hansen. 1996. The importance of trace metal speciation to water quality
criteria. Water Environ. Res. 68:42-54.
Allen, H.E. et al. 1983. An algal assay method for determination of copper complexation capacities
of natural waters. Bull. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 30:448.
Arthur, J.W. and E.N. Leonard. 1970. Effects of copper on Gammaruspseudolimnaeus, Physa
Integra, and Campeloma decisum in soft water. J. Fish. Res. Board Can. 27:1277-1283.
ASTM. 2000. Standard guide for conducting acute toxicity tests on test materials with fishes,
macroinvertebrates, and amphibians. E729-96. In: Annual book of ASTM standards. Section 11,
Volume 5. American Society for Testing and Materials, Pennsylvania, PA.
Blaylock, B .G., M.L. Frank and J.F. McCarthy. 1985. Comparative toxicity of copper and acridine
to fish, Daphnia and algae. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 4(1):63-71.
Bowen, H.J.M. 1985. In D. Hutzinger (ed.), The Handbook of Environmental Chemistry, Vol. 1,
Part D: The natural environment and biogeochemical cycles, Springer-Verlag, New York. p. 1-26.
Brown, P. L., and Markich, S. J. 2000. Evaluation of the free ion activity model of metal-organism
interaction: Extension of the conceptual model. Aquatic Toxicology 51:177-194.
Brungs, W.A., J.R. Geckler and M. Gast. 1976. Acute and chronic toxicity of copper to the
fathead minnow in a surface water of variable quality. Water Res. 10:37-43.
Bryan, S. E., Tipping, E., and Hamilton-Taylor, J. 2002. Comparison of measured and modelled
copper binding by natural organic matter in freshwaters. Comparative Biochemistry and
Physiology 133C:37-49.
Buckley, J. A, Yoshida, G. A, and Wells, N. R 1984. A cupric ion-copper bioaccumulation
relationship in coho salmon exposed to copper-containing treated sewage. Comparative
Biochemistry and Physiology 78C: 105-110.
Campbell, P.G.C. 1995. "Interactions Between Trace Metals and Aquatic Organisms: A Critique
of the Free-ion Activity Model," in Metal Speciation and Bioavailability in Aquatic Systems, A.
Tessier and D.R. Turner, eds., John Wiley and Sons, New York, pp. 45-102.
Carlson, A.R., W.A. Brungs, G.A. Chapman and D J. Hansen. 1984. Guidelines for deriving
numerical aquatic site-specific water quality criteria by modifying national criteria. EPA-600/3-84-
099, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Environmental Research Laboratory, Duluth,
Minnesota, USA.
Chakoumakos, C., R.C. Russo and R. V. Thurston. 1979. The toxicity of copper to cutthroat trout
(Salmo clarki) under different conditions of alkalinity, pH, and hardness. Environ. Sci. Technol.
13:213-219.
Chapman, G.A 1978. Toxicities of cadmium, copper, and zinc to four juvenile stages of chinook
salmon and steelhead. Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. 107:841-847.
Davis, A and D. Ashenberg. 1989. The aqueous geochemistry of the Berkeley Pit, Butte,
Montana, U.S.A. Appl. Geochem. Vol (4):23-36.
43
-------
Di Toro, D.M. et al. 2001. The persistence and availability of metals in aquatic environments.
International council on metals and the environment. Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
Erickson, R.J., D.A. Benoit and V.R. Mattson. 1996a. A prototype toxicity factors model for site-
specific copper water quality criteria. U.S. EPA, Duluth, Minnesota.
Erickson, RJ., D.A. Benoit, V.R. Mattson, H.P. Nelson, Jr. and E.N. Leonard. 1996b. The effects
of water chemistry on the toxicity of copper to fathead minnows. Environ. Toxicol. Chem.
15(2):181-193.
Erickson, R.J., D.A. Benoit and V.R. Mattson, 1987. "A Prototype Toxicity Factors Model
ForSite-Specific Copper Water Quality Criteria," revised September 5, 1996, United States
Environmental Protection Agency, Environmental Research Laboratory-Duluth, Duluth, MN.
Foster, P.L. 1982. Metal resistances of chlorophyta from rivers polluted by heavy metals.
Freshwater Biol. 12:41.
Gachter, R., K. Lum-Shue-Chan and Y.K Chau. 1973. Complexing capacity of the nutrient
medium and its relation to inhibition of algal photosynthesis by copper. Schweiz. Z. Hydrol.
35:252.
Geckler, J.R., W.B. Horning, T.M. Neiheisel, Q.H. Pickering, E.L. Robinson and C.E. Stephan.
1976. Validity of laboratory tests for predicting copper toxicity in streams. EPA-600/3-76-116.
National Technical Information Service, Springfield, VA.
Hem, J.D. 1989. Study and interpretation of the chemical characteristics of natural water, 3rd ed.
U.S. Geological Survey water-supply paper 2253. Government Printing Office.
Hughes, M.M., M.A. Heber, G.E. Morrison, S.C. Schimmel and W.J. Berry. 1989. An evaluation
of a short-term chronic effluent toxicity test using sheepshead minnow (Cyprinodon variegatus)
larvae. Environ. Pollut. 60(1): 1-14.
Hunt, D. T. E. 1987. Trace Metal Speciation and Toxicity to Aquatic Organisms - A Review. TR
247, Water Research Centre, Marlow, Bucks, United Kingdom.
Inglis, A. and E.L. Davis. 1972. Effects of water hardness on the toxicity of several organic and
inorganic herbicides to fish. Technical Paper No. 67. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington,
D.C.
Janes, N, Playle, R.C. 1995. Modeling silver binding to gills of rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus
mykiss). Env. Toxicol. Chem 14, 1847-1858.
Kapustka, L.A., W.H. Clements, L. Ziccardi, P.R. Paquin, M. Sprenger and D. Wall, August 19,
2004. "Issue Paper on the Ecological Effects of Metals," Submitted by ERG to U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Risk Assessment Forum, Washington, DC.
Koivisto, S., M. Ketola and M. Walls. 1992. Comparison of five cladoceran species in short- and
long-term copper exposure. Hydrobiol. 248(2): 125-136.
Kramer, J. R., Allen, H. E., Davison, W., Godtfredsen, K L., Meyer, J. S., Perdue, E. M.,
Tipping, E., van der Meent, D., and Westall, J. C. 1997. Chemical speciation and metal toxicity in
surface freshwater. In Bergman, H. L., and Dor ward-King, E. J. (eds.) Reassessment of Metals
Criteria for Aquatic Life Protection. Pensacola, FL: SETAC Press.
44
-------
Lauren, D. J., and McDonald, D. G. 1986. Influence of water hardness, pH, and alkalinity on the
mechanisms of copper toxicity in juvenile rainbow trout, Salmo gairdneri. Canadian Journal of
Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 43:1488-1496.
Lopez, J.M., Lee, G.F. 1977. Water, Air and Soils Pollut. Vol. (8): 373.
Lumsden, B.R. and T.M. Florence. 1983. A new algal assay procedure for the determination of the
toxicity of copper species in seawater. Environ. Toxicol. Lett. 4:271.
MacRae, R.K., D.E. Smith, N. Swoboda-Colberg, J.S. Meyer and H.L. Bergman. 1999. Copper
binding affinity of rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) and brook trout (Salvelinus fontinalis)
gills: Implications for assessing bioavailable metal. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 18:1180-1189.
McGeer JC, Szebedinszky C, McDonald DG, and Wood CM. 2002. The role of dissolved
organic carbon in moderating the bioavailability and toxicity of Cu to rainbow trout during chronic
waterbrone exposure. Comp. Biochem. Physiol. C: Toxicol and Pharmacol. 133C:147-161.
McKnight, D.M. andF.M.M. Morel. 1979. Release of weak and strong copper-complexing agents
by algae. Limnol. Oceanogr. 24:823.
McKnight, D.M. et al. 1983. CuSO4 treatment of nuisance algal blooms in drinking water
reservoirs. Environ. Manage. 7:311.
Meyer, IS., CJ. Boese and S.A. Collyard. 2002. Whole-body accumulation of copper predicts
acute toxicity to an aquatic oligochaete (Lumbriculus variegatus) as pH and calcium are varied.
Comp. Biochem. Physiol. Part C 133:99-109.
Meyer, J.S., R.C. Santore, J.P. Bobbitt, L.D. DeBrey, CJ. Boese, P.R. Paquin, H.E. Allen, H.L.
Bergman and D.M. Di Toro. 1999. Binding of nickel and copper to fish gills predicts toxicity when
water hardness varies, but free-ion activity does not. Environ. Sci. Technol. 33:913-916.
Miller, T.G andW.C. MacKay. 1980. The effects ofhardness, alkalinity and pH of test water on
the toxicity of copper to rainbow trout (Salmo gairdneri). Water Res. 14:129-133.
Morel, F.M., 1983a. "Complexation: Trace Metal sand Microorganisms," in Chapter 6 of
Principles of Aquatic Chemistry., Wiley Interscience, New York, pp. 301-308.
Morel F.M.M. 1983b. Principles of Aquatic Chemistry. John Wiley and Sons, New York, NY.
Morrison, G., E. Torello, R Comeleo, R Walsh, A. Kuhn, R Burgess, M. Tagliabue and W.
Greene. 1989. Intralaboratory precision of saltwater short-term chronic toxicity tests. J. Water
Pollut. Control Fed. 61(11-12): 1707-1710.
Muramoto, S. 1980. Effect of complexants (EDTA, NTA and DTP A) on the exposure to high
concentrations of cadmium, copper, zinc and lead. Bull Environ Contam Toxicol. 25(6):941-946.
National Research Council. 2003. Bioavailability of Contaminants in Soils and Sediments:
Processes, Tools, and Applications. The National Academy of Sciences, Washington, DC, USA.
Nriagu, J.O. (Ed.) 1979. Copper in the Environment. Part I: Ecological Cycling; Part II: Health
Effects. Wiley and Sons, Inc. New York, NY.
Oris, J.T., R.W. Winner and M.V. Moore. 1991. A four-day survival and reproduction toxicity test
for Ceriodaphnia dubia. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 10(2):217-224.
45
-------
Pagenkopf; O.K. 1983. Gill surface interact!on model for trace-metal toxicity to fishes: Role of
complexation, pH, and water hardness. Environ. Sci. Technol. 17:342-347.
Paquin, P.R., J.W. Gorsuch, S. Apte, G.E. Batley, K.C. Bowles, P.G.C. Campbell, C.G Delos,
D.M. Di Toro, R.L. Dwyer, F. Galvez, RW. Gensemer, G.G. Goss, C. Hogstrand, C.R Janssen,
J.C. McGeer, R.B. Naddy, R.C. Playle, R.C. Santore, U. Schneider, W.A. Stubblefield, C.M.
Wood and K.B. Wu. 2002. The bitoic ligand model: A historical overview. Comp. Biochem.
Physiol. Part C 133:3-35.
Patterson, J.W., R A. Minear, E. Gasca and C. Petropoulou. 1998. Industrial discharges of metals
to water. In: H.E. Allen, A.W. Garrison and G.W. Luther III (Eds.). Metals in Surface Waters.
Ann Arbor Press, Chelsea, MI. pp. 37-66.
Petersen, R. 1982. Influence of copper and zinc on the growth of a freshwater algae, Scenedesmus
quadricauda: The significance of speciation. Environ. Sci. Technol. 16:443.
Peterson, H. G., Healey, F. P., and Wagemann, R. 1984. Metal toxicity to algae: A highly pH
dependent phenomenon. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Science 41:974-979.
Playle, R.C., D.G. Dixon and K. Burnison. 1993a. Copper and cadmium binding to fish gills:
Estimates of metal-gill stability constants and modeling of metal accumulation. Can. J. Fish. Aquat.
Sci. 50(12):2678-2687.
Playle, R.C., D.G. Dixon and K. Burnison. 1993b. Copper and cadmium binding to fish gills:
Modification by dissolved organic carbon and synthetic ligands. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci.
50(12):2667-2677.
Playle, R.C., R.W. Gensener and D.G. Dkon. 1992. Copper accumulation on gills of fathead
minnows: Influence of water hardness, complexationandpH of the gill micro-environment.
Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 11(3):381-391.
Reeve, W.R et al. 1976. A controlled environmental pollution experiment (CEPEX) and its
usefulness in the study of larger marine zooplankton under toxic stress. In: Effects of pollutants on
aquatic organisms. Lockwood, P.M. (Ed.). Cambridge University Press, New York, NY. p. 145.
Robins, R.G, Berg, R.B., Dysinger, O.K., Duaime, T.E., Metesh, J.J., Diebold, F.E., Twidwell,
L.G, Mitman, G.G, Chatham , W.H., Huang, H.H., Young, C.A. 1997. Chemical, physical and
biological interactions at the Berkeley Pit, Butte, Montana. Tailings and Mine Waste 97. Bakeman,
Rotterdam.
Rueter, J.G 1983. Alkaline phosphatase inhibition by copper: Implications to phosphorus nutrition
and use as a biochemical marker of toxicity. Limnol. Oceanogr. 28:743.
Santore, R.C., D.M. Di Toro and P.R Paquin, H.E. Allen, and J. S. Meyer. 2001. "A Biotic Ligand
Model of the Acute Toxicity of Metals. II. Application to Acute Copper Toxicity in Freshwater
Fish and Daphnia," Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry. 20(10):2397-2402.
Schafer, H., A. Wentzel, U. Fritsche, G. Roderer and W. Trauspurger. 1993. Long-term effects of
selected xenobiotica on freshwater green alga: Developmental of a flow-through test system. Sci.
Total Environ. Suppl.:735-740.
Smith, D. S., Bell, R. A., and Kramer, J. R. 2002. Metal speciation in natural waters with emphasis
on reduced sulfur groups as strong metal binding sites. Comparative Biochemistry and Physiology
133C:65-74.
46
-------
Sprague, J.B. 1968. Avoidance reactions of rainbow trout to zinc sulphate solutions. Water
Res.2(5):367-372.
Steemann-Nielsen, E. andL. Kamp-Nielsen. 1970. Influence of deleterious concentrations of
copper on the growth of Chlorellapyrenoidosa. Physiol. Plant. 23:828-840.
Steemann-Nielsen, E. and S. Wium-Andersen. 1970. Copper ions as poison in sea and in
freshwater. Mar. Biol. 6:93.
Stephan, C.E. 1995. Derivation of conversation factors for the calculation of dissolved freshwater
aquatic life criteria for metals. Report. March 11, 1995. U.S. EPA, Duluth, MN.
Stephan, C.E., D.I. Mount, D.J. Hansen, J.H. Gentile, G.A. Chapman and W.A Brungs. 1985.
Guidelines for deriving numerical national water quality criteria for the protection of aquatic
organisms and their uses. PB85-227049. National Technical Information Service, Springfield, VA.
Stephan, C.E., and J.W. Rogers. 1985. Advantages of Using Regression Analysis to Calculate
Results of Chronic Toxicity Tests. In: Aquatic Toxicology and Hazard Assessment: Eighth
Symposium. R.C. Bahner and D.J. Hansen, Eds. ASTM STP 891. American Society for Testing
and Materials, Philadelphia, PA. Pp. 328-338.
Stokes, P. and T.C. Hutchinson. 1976. Copper toxicity to phytoplankton, as affected by organic
ligands, other cations and inherent tolerance of algae to copper. In: Toxicity to biota of metal
forms in natural water. Andrew,
Swallow, K.C. et al. 1978. Potentiometric determination of copper complexation by phytoplankton
exudates. Limnol. Oceanogr. 23:538.
Taraldsen, I.E. and TJ. Norberg-King. 1990. New method for determining effluent toxicity using
duckweed (Lemna minor). Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 9(6):761-767.
Tipping, E., 1994. "WHAM-A Chemical Equilibrium Model and Computer Code for Waters,
Sediments, and Soils Incorporating a Discrete Site/Electrostatic Model of Ion-Binding by Humic
Substances," Computers and Geosciences, 20(6): 973-1023.
U.S. EPA. 1980. Ambient water quality criteria for copper. EPA-440/4-80-036. National
Technical Information Service, Springfield, VA.
U.S. EPA. 1983a. Methods for chemical analysis of water and wastes. EPA-600/4-79-020.
National Technical Information Service, Springfield, VA.
U.S. EPA. 1983b. Water quality standards regulation. Federal Register 48:51400. November 8.
U.S. EPA. 1983c. Water quality standards handbook. Office of Water Regulations and Standards,
Washington, D.C.
U.S. EPA. 1985. "Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Copper - 1984," Office of Water
Regulations and Standards, Criteria and Standards Division, Washington, DC.
U.S. EPA. 1986. Quality Criteria for Water 1986. EPA 440/5-86-001. Office ofWater, Regulation
and Standards, Washington, DC.
U.S. EPA. 1988. Short-term methods for estimating the chronic toxicity of effluents and receiving
waters to marine and estuarine organisms. EPA/600/4-87-028. National Technical Information
Service, Springfield, VA.
47
-------
U.S. EPA. 1991. Technical support document for water quality-based toxics control. EPA-505/2-
90-001. National Technical Information Service, Springfield, VA.
U.S. EPA. 1992. Interim guidance on interpretation and implementation of aquatic life criteriafor
metals. Health and Ecological Criteria Division, Office of Science and Technology, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, District of Columbia, USA.
U. S. EPA. 1993. Methods for measuring the acute toxicity of effluents and receiving water to
freshwater and marine organisms. Fourth Edition. EPA/600/4-90/027F. National Technical
Information Service, Springfield, VA.
U.S. EPA. 1994. Water quality standards handbook. 2nd Edition. EPA-823-B94-005b.National
Technical Information Service, Springfield, VA.
U.S. EPA. 1996 1995 Updates: Water Quality Criteria Documents for the Protection of Aquatic
Life in Ambient Water. Office of Water. EPA-820-B-96-001.
University of Wisconsin-Superior. 1995. Results of freshwater simulation tests concerning
dissolved metal. Report. March 10, 1995. U.S. EPA, Duluth, MN.
van den Berg, C.M.G., P.T.S. Wong and Y.K. Chan. 1979. Measurement of complexing materials
excreted from algae and their ability to ameliorate copper toxicity. J. Fish. Res. Board Can.
36:901-905.
W alien, I.E., W.C. Greer and R. Lasater. 1957. Toxicity to Gambusia affinis of certain pure
chemicals in turbid waters. Sewage Ind. Wastes 29:695-711.
Winner, R.W. 1985. Bioaccumulation and toxicity of copper as affected by interactions between
humic acid and water hardness. Water Res. 19(4):449-455.
Winner, R.W. andH.A. Owen 1991b. Toxicity of copper to Chlamydomonas reinhardtii
(Chlorophyceae) and Ceriodaphnia dubia (Crustacea) in relation to changes in water chemistry of
a freshwater pond. Aquat. Toxicol. 21(3-4):157-169.
Wood, C. M. 1992. Flux measurements as indices of H+ and metal effects on freshwater fish.
Aquatic Toxicology 22:239-264.
Wood, C. M., Adams, W. J., Ankley, G. T., DiBona, D. R., Luoma, W. N., Playle, R. C.,
Stubblefield, W. A., Bergman, H. L., Erickson, R. J., Mattice, J. S., and Schlekat, C. E. 1997.
Environmental toxicology of metals. In Bergman, H. L., and Dorward-King, E. J. (eds.)
Reassessment of Metals Criteria for Aquatic Life Protection. Pensacola, FL: SET AC Press.
Zitko, V. 1976. Toxicity to biota of metal forms in natural water. In Andrew, R. A., Hodson, P.
V., and Konasewich, D. (eds.) Toxicity to Biota of Metal Forms in Natural Water. Proceedings of
Workshop, October 1975, Duluth, MN. Windsor, Ontario: International Joint Commission.
Zitko, V., and Carson, W. G. 1976. A mechanism of the effects of water hardness on the lethality
of heavy metals to fish. Chemosphere 5:299-303.
48
-------
Appendices
-------
Appendix A. Ranges in Calibration and Application Data Sets
-------
40
30
O
20
2
2L
10
N
Measured/Nominal/Calculated Data
Assumed/Untraceable Data
g
46 0 33 030101010 24 0 13 0 10 040010460 017200 300740 30 0 1050 013013 80 40 01 09110 03 10 02 01
3
ff
s
« -o
o> c
|,l||
-
E E
°>
a
6*8
= -cf "
8 s
O C >-
o ro
= .
Q Q
E i
ro
! I
•
-
«««««««««
dubia
D. D. magna
pulicaria
D. pulex H. azteca F. minnow -> R. trout
Median, Range and Quartiles of Temperature in BLM Calibration and Application Datasets
(All species, Median and Quartiles calculated directly from data i.e., no distributional assumptions)
A-1
-------
100
I Measured/Nominal/Calculated Data
90 2_ — Assumed/Untraceable Data
80 I_
70 1.
60 1.
| 4
i :
40 1.
30 L
20 L
10 L _ _
" ~0 46 0 33 03010101 024 01301004
<5
£
1
C.
Q. g>
Z3 ^_
! 1 s i 1 s 1
1 i ? Si E I | i
U-anjT-o """ o O E
i 1 t 4 1 I |lf
«> co co o a _i _i s o
t^ * * * * * * * *
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
010406 017020 030704 030 0105 0 13 0 13
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
a>
a>
5 ! s il 1 i i i i i i
111 i i 115 1! 1 i
oo ro =| oo4 ro.yro =
P P P QJ> «f» « ? omQQ
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 II II II _
080401 090110301 02 01™
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 II II II ~
oo
f- °>
to o> r- •*• m *- s
o» - -^ ro o o ^ o
ro.coO.cQ.3ro>
XUU-XUCOU^CO
Rtrrti it >
pulicaria
Median, Range and Quartiles of HA in BLM Calibration and Application Datasets
(All species, Median and Quartiles calculated directly from data i.e., no distributional assumptions)
A-2
-------
10
N
^
Measured/Nominal/Calculated Data
Assumed/Untraceable Data
i
o
Eh
i
S
46 0 33 030101010 17 7 13 0 10 040010460 0 17 18 2 300740 30 0 1050 130 013 80 40 01 09110 03 10 02 01
O>
0)
00
h*
0)
g
---
ig
8
f «T E
0. •= .2
S S *
E £ E _-
2
s.
* * * *
C. dubia
>
_i _i s o m m m
* * * * * * *
D. D. magna >
pulicaria
W0§
* * *
ilg
1 o I
HiSS
CJ LLJ LJ
D. pulex H. azteca F. minnow ->
XOU-XOWOJEW
R. trout >
Median, Range and Quartiles of pH in BLM Calibration and Application Datasets
(All species, Median and Quartiles calculated directly from data i.e., no distributional assumptions)
A-3
-------
10
10
)
O
O
0
10
10
-I
Measured/Nominal/Calculated Data
Assumed/Untraceable Data
I
2026 2013 03010101 17 7 0 13 10 040010460 017200 030740 1119 0105 013013 80 40 01 09110 03 10 02 01
O>
o>
! H I -
! 1 1 i 1 1
-
co — <*> ^
8 § 8 8
« i ;•
I I ;.
s- ? ? i
******
l
=
=
i— 1
s.
i i *
^ °>
co
o>
f i
o o g
V) O §
* * *
C. dubia
>
pulicaria
magna
>
). pulex H.
-
ilgi
1 o 1 §
HiSSo
(J LU LJ LJ
-. minnow
XOU-XOWOJEW
R. trout >
Median, Range and Quartiles of DOC in BLM Calibration and Application Datasets
(All species, Median and Quartiles calculated directly from data i.e., no distributional assumptions)
A-4
-------
10
10
PO
O
O
(0
O
810
(0
O
10
N
10
-1
Measured/Nominal/Calculated Data
Assumed/Untraceable Data
I
460330 30 10 10 10
130100 40 01 04 60
30 07 40
30 0 1050 130 0 13
80 40 01 09110 03 10 02 01
<~> (U
5 «?
& =
3 1
• D
a>
a>
nj S O O. >-
r: «> CO CO O
CJ u. * « *
.a
r-
a>
a>
o
ro
b
to _ to •*
I ^ 1 I I
co
r-
a>
18 S
£ i.-
10 ?-
E
E» E» I
o o ro
o m m m
1 I
z §
o>
o>
m
5
1
o>
O)
s,
O
o
a>
I
g
(a
r^
a>
o = "o
•£ s §
J£ ^ C
ro .y ro
(a
•=
LU
a>
ro
m
0)
n:
co
r^
a>
K
a>
r^
a>
C. dubia
D. D. magna
pulicaria
D. pulex H. azteca
O LU Q Q
F. minnow ->
o» oo r- u
g- 5 || |
Q. "53 5 j£ ro
(u O) ^ TO flj
£ O O £ Q.
O U. X O CO
(a
'in
3
O
Q.
o
C
(a
-------
10
10(t
91-
10
^ 7
CO
O 1
(O10 6
G)
10
N .2
10
Measured/Nominal/Calculated Data
Assumed/Untraceable Data
rfi
5I-
4I=-
31-
21-
I
"
v
1 -
JL
0 330 3.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 . 17.7 . 13.0 10.0 4.0 0.1 0.4 6.0 . 017 20.0 . 3.0 0.7 4.0
130 10
200
300 1050 130 013
80 40 01 09 11 0 03 10 02 01
1
fe
!-*
i 1 1
«
§
-
to —
§|S
5 i ;• li 5
! I | I I ;.
s i s- ? ? i
0) ^
rn O)
^ o> ^
W O §
* * *
i I *
^ °>
8
oo
h*
O)
fe
ill
I o 1
OlIXOWO
W
*********
dubia
D. D. magna —
pulicaria
D. pulex H. azteca F. minnow -> R. trout
Median, Range and Quartiles of HA in BLM Calibration and Application Datasets
(All species, Median and Quartiles calculated directly from data i.e., no distributional assumptions)
A-6
-------
10
10 2
^^
z
(0
w 1
_|10 1
G)
(0
Z
10°
N .1
10 '
= I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 II II II -
I Measured/Nominal/Calculated Data -
_ ___ Assumed/Untraceable Data
-
II - - ft -- 1*
: :
-
™ n
—
46 0 1320 30 10 10 10
I J_ -
-
-
-
X. -
- B
-
H_ _ y _ _ T
77 13 0 10 040010460 017200 300740 30 0 1050 013013 80 40 01 09110 03 10 02 01
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 II II II
co
9- o» o» T~ °* *• S
.Sir ^ (O_to^1 r . °> ..r T~
-------
10
10 2
(0
(0
1
"8)
J"-
10 "1
N .
10 -2
- \ 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 II II II -
~ Measured/Nominal/Calculated Data I
- ___ Assumed/Untraceable Data
—
jv -_
j - - - jj -
! i
— L
460 1320 30 10 10 10 177 130 1
Q. gj
-
0 - ?
T ; ; T rJ
- II Q . '
: L
—
—
__ ^^ ^^ SSSSSi^^
J B E
—
00 40 01 04 60 017 200 30 07 40 300 1050 013 013 80 40 01 09 11 0 03 10 02 01
S . S R «
s 1 i , I l^lll „ . £ a 1 $ S « * § . s s" | f |
S 1 * 1 ^ ?- - * i ;- i i 5 i 2 * 5 2 2 ? s 2 l I- * - 1 £ * 1 1
i: o 3 « "0 £• ?• - ro £ £ °> ••" = -0" ^ ^ I-" Tf ^ OQmT~iTfc?-Cn3.-
o y « i." « c « 'oolii'" i." '-" S ° § c «-" «!•£<«" ^O"PS>
n Hnhia > n n m
~ * * * * o« * * * OLUOO *********
anna > n niilov H aytpra P minnn\A; -> R trout >
pulicaria
Median, Range and Quartiles of K in BLM Calibration and Application Datasets
(All species, Median and Quartiles calculated directly from data i.e., no distributional assumptions)
A-8
-------
10
10 2
-^
(0
(0
^10°
O
CO
N .
10 -2
- i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i
I Measured/Nominal/Calculated Data
- ___ Assumed/Untraceable Data
j - " x a '
"" ~~ T
- i i
J_ ~~ I '•""" ™55*
-
: ]
460 1320 30 10 10 10 177 130 100 40 01 04 60 017 812 30 07 40 300 1C
3 1 i
1 1 j i i _ 1 s i ! ! 5 i » l' i s I i
H 1 S ! 1 !- 1 1 1 1 H 1 1 ill 11
n Hnhia > n n manna > n nnlov H aytpra P m
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 II II II -
-
•
_
B - :
u
-
50 0 13 0 13 8040010911003100201
co
* ^ ? •" §»
| i 1 | ! S i 1 K ! ! !
III 1 1 i f 1 1 1 1 i
pulicaria
Median, Range and Quartiles of SO4 in BLM Calibration and Application Datasets
(All species, Median and Quartiles calculated directly from data i.e., no distributional assumptions)
A-9
-------
10
10 2
O
(0
"8)
O
10°
N
10 -1
= I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 II II II -
I Measured/Nominal/Calculated Data -
_ ___ Assumed/Untraceable
—
I
i n n
r •-
_ LJ -
-
—
3115 1320 30101010 17 7
& 1
^ 2 r a
5 o 5 £•
i I ? 3 1
•g ft § ? 5; ^- ™
O Q. * * * * *
n Hnhia > n
Data
- i i
r PI T
U - - 5
~~ ~~
1
-
—
_
-
i :
( H ^
13 0 10 04001 0460 017200 300740 1515 1050 013013 80 40 01 09110 03 10 02 01
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 II II II
co
a> (n a> r— T~ °* *• S
(O_to^ r . °> .x1 T~ n nnlov H aytpra P minnn\A; -> R trout >
pulicaria
Median, Range and Quartiles of Cl in BLM Calibration and Application Datasets
(All species, Median and Quartiles calculated directly from data i.e., no distributional assumptions)
A-10
-------
10
0 2
Q10
(0
0
(0
(0
?
I10
N .
10°
- I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 II II II -
- Measured/Nominal/Calculated Data
_ ___ Assumed/Untraceable Data
$~- ]
-
—
, - 5-°- -- ill -" i
T H —
— \ LJ
H - : | i
_ — _
i " " 1
46 0 33 030101010 17 7 13 0 10 040010460 017200 300740 30 0 1050 130 013 80 40 01 09110 03 10 02 01
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 II II II
co
§• §» S to o» ff g>
.2r .Q to _ to ^ r . °> .,«- T~ o)0* S^gl j!£'-T-o» '<5c"0>T~§o;0=1-
* « 1 i * 1 ! 1 ill 1 1 i i 1U nii H i f 1 ; 1 ! !
ifc£a).i2£ ^ |q n a " " .± "Sc £ = 73 if'SE'S n>ron>>roo'-a>
rr.yww'OQ j Jjsommm 5§ wo§ r^in^^ xo£xowosw
OQ.**** * ****** Q* *** UUJLJLJ *********
n Hnhia > n n manna > n nnlov H aytpra P minnn\A; -> R trout >
pulicaria
Median, Range and Quartiles of Alkalinity in BLM Calibration and Application Datasets
(All species, Median and Quartiles calculated directly from data i.e., no distributional assumptions)
A-11
-------
Appendix B. Other Data on Effects of Copper on
Freshwater Organisms
-------
Appendix B. Other Data on Effects of Copper on Freshwater Organisms
Species
Bacteria,
Escherichia coli
Bacteria,
Pseudomonas putida
Protozoan,
Entosiphon sulcatum
Protozoan,
Microrega heterostoma
Protozoan,
Chilomonas paramecium
Protozoan,
Uronema parduezi
Protozoa,
mixed species
Protozoa,
mixed species
Green alga,
Cladophora glomerate
Green alga,
Chlamydomonas reinhardtii
Green alga,
Chlamydomonas reinhardtii
Green alga,
Chlamydomonas reinhardtii
Green alga^
Chlamydomonas reinhardti
Green alga,
Chlorella sp.
Green alga,
Chlorella pyrenoidosa
Green alga,
Chlorella pyrenoidosa
Green alga,
Chlorella pyrenoidosa
Green alga,
Eudorina californica
Green alga (flagellate cells),
Haematococcus sp.
Green alga,
Scenedesmus quadricauda
Green alga,
Scenedesmus quadricauda
Green alga,
Scenedesmus quadricauda
Method3
S,U
s,u
s,u
s,u
s,u
s,u
-
S,M,T
Dosed
stream
-
-
-
-
S,U
s,u
s,u
s,u
s,u
s,u
s,u
s,u
s,u
Chemical
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
-
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Copper
nitrate
-
-
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Hardness
(mg/L as
CaCO3)
-
81.1
81.9
214
-
-
-
-
226-31 0
76
76
76
76
-
29.4
14.9
82
19.1
2
214
60
34.8
Duration
48 hr
16 hr
72 hr
28 hr
48 hr
20 hr
7 days
1 5 days
10 mo
72 hr
72 hr
72 hr
72 hr
28 hr
72 hr
72 hr
4hr
-
24 hr
96 hr
72 hr
24 hr
Effect
Threshold of inhibited glucose use;
measured by pH change in media
ECS
(cell numbers)
ECS
(cell numbers)
Threshold of decreased feeding rate
Growth threshold
Growth threshold
Reduced rate of colonization
Reduced rate of colonization
Decreased abundance from 21% dowi
toO%
Deflagellation
Deflagellation
Deflagellation
Deflagellation
Inhibited photosynthesis
IC50
(cell division rate)
IC50
(cell division rate)
Disturbed
photosystem II
Decrease in cell density
Inhibited growth during 96 hr recovery
period
Threshold of effect on cell numbers
ECS
(cell numbers)
EC50
(photosynthesis)
Total
Concentration
(ug/L)b
80
30
110
50
3,200
140
167
100
i 120
6.7
6.7
16.3
25.4
6.3
16
24
25
5,000
50
150
1,100
100
Dissolved
Concentration
(ug/L)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Reference
Bringmann and Kuhn 1959a
Bringmann and Kuhn 1976, 1977a,
1979, 1980a
Bringmann 1978;
Bringmann and Kuhn 1979, 1980a,
Bringmann and Kuhn 1959b
Bringmann and Kuhn 1980b, 1981
Bringmann and Kuhn 1980b, 1981
Cairns et al. 1980
Buikema et al. 1983
Weber and McFarland 1981
Garvey et al. 1991
Garvey et al. 1991
Garvey et al. 1991
Garvey et al. 1991
Gachteretal. 1973
Stauberand Florence 1989
Stauberand Florence 1989
Vavilinetal. 1995
Young and Lisk 1972
Pearlmutter and Buchheim 1983
Bringmann and Kuhn 1959b
Bringmann and Kuhn 1980a
Starodubetal. 1987
B-1
-------
Appendix B. Other Data on Effects of Copper on Freshwater Organisms
Species
Green alga,
Scenedesmus quadricauda
Green alga,
Scenedesmus quadricauda
Green alga,
Scenedesmus quadricauda
Green alga,
Selenastrum capricornutum
Green alga,
Selenastrum capricornutum
Green alga,
Selenastrum capricornutum
Green alga,
Selenastrum capricornutum
Green alga,
Selenastrum capricornutum
Green alga,
Selenastrum capricornutum
Green alga,
Selenastrum capricornutum
Diatom,
Cocconeis placentula
Phytoplankton,
mixed species
Macrophyte,
Elodea canadensis
Microcosm
Microcosm
Microcosm
Microcosm
Microcosm
Microcosm
Microcosm
Microcosm
Microcosm
Method3
S,U
s,u
s,u
s,u
s,u
s,u
s,u
s,u
s,u
F,U
Dosed
stream
S,U
S,U
F,M,T,D
F,M,T,D
F,M,T
F,M,T
F,M,T
F,M,T
F,M,T
S,M,T
F,M,T
Chemical
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Copper
chloride
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
-
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
-
Hardness
(mg/L as
CaCO3)
34.8
34.8
34.8
14.9
29.3
24.2
24.2
14.9
24.2
15
226-310
-
-
200
200
76.7
58.5
151
68
80
102
160
Duration
24 hr
24 hr
24 hr
7 days
72 hr
72 hr
72 hr
72 hr
72 hr
24 hr
10 mo
124hr
24 hr
32 wk
32 wk
96 hr
1 0 days
1 0 days
1 0 days
1 0 days
5wk
28 days
Effect
NOEC
(growth)
NOEC
(growth)
NOEC
(growth)
Growth reduction
EC50
(cell count)
EC50
(cell count)
EC50
(cell count)
EC50
(cell count)
EC50
(cell count)
EC50
(cell density)
Decreased abundance from 21 % dowi
to<1%
Averaged 39% reduction in primary
production
EC50
(photosynthesis)
LOEC
(primary production)
NOEC
(primary production)
Significant drop in no. of taxa and no.
of individuals
Significant drop in no. of individuals
58% drop in no. of individuals
Significant drop in species richness
and no. of individuals
Significant drop in species richness
and no. of individuals
14-28% drop in phytoplankton species
richness
LOEC
(species richness)
Total
Concentration
(ug/L)b
50
50
>200
50
19
41
28
60
28.5
21
120
10
150
9.3
4
15
2.5
13.5
11.3
10.7
20
19.9
Dissolved
Concentration
(ug/L)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Reference
Starodub et al. 1987
Starodub et al. 1987
Starodub etal. 1987
Bartlettetal.1974
Vasseuretal. 1988
Vasseuretal. 1988
Vasseuretal. 1988
Vasseuretal. 1988
Benhra etal. 1997
Chen etal. 1997
Weber and McFarland 1981
Cote 1983
Brown and Rattigan 1979
Hedtke1984
Hedtke1984
Clements et al. 1988
Clements etal. 1989
Clements etal. 1989
Clements et al. 1990
Clements et al. 1990
Winner and Owen 1991b
Pratt and Rosenberger 1993
B-2
-------
Appendix B. Other Data on Effects of Copper on Freshwater Organisms
Species
Dosed stream
Dosed stream
Sponge,
Ephydatia fluviatilis
Sponge,
Ephydatia fluviatilis
Rotifer,
Philodina acuticornis
Rotifer,
Philodina acuticornis
Rotifer,
Philodina acuticornis
Rotifer,
Philodina acuticornis
Rotifer,
Philodina acuticornis
Rotifer,
Brachionus calyciflorus
Rotifer (2hr),
Brachionus calyciflorus
Rotifer,
Brachionus calyciflorus
Rotifer (2hr),
Brachionus calyciflorus
Rotifer (2hr),
Brachionus calyciflorus
Rotifer (2hr),
Brachionus calyciflorus
Rotifer (2hr),
Brachionus calyciflorus
Rotifer (2hr),
Brachionus calyciflorus
Rotifer (2hr),
Brachionus calyciflorus
Rotifer (2hr),
Brachionus calyciflorus
Rotifer (2hr),
Brachionus calyciflorus
Rotifer (2hr),
Brachionus calyciflorus
Rotifer (<2 hr),
Brachionus calyciflorus
Method3
F,M,D
F,M,D
S,U
S,U
S,U
S,U
S,U
S,U
S,U
S, U
S,U
S,U
S,U
S,U
S,U
S,U
s,u
s,u
s,u
s,u
s,u
S, U
Chemical
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Copper
chloride
Copper
sulfate
-
-
Hardness
(mg/L as
CaCO3)
56
56
200
200
45
45
45
45
45
39.8
-
90
90
90
90
85
85
85
170
63.2
90
85
Duration
1 yr
1 yr
1 0 days
1 0 days
48 hr
48 hr
48 hr
48 hr
48 hr
24 hr
2 hr
24 hr
5hr
6 days
5hr
3 days
3 days
8 days
35 min
24 hr
2 days
24 hr
Effect
Shifts in periphyton species
abundance
Reduced algal production
Reduced growth by 33%
Reduced growth by 100%
LC50
(5°C)
LC50
(10°C)
LC50
(15°C)
LC50
(20° C)
LC50
(25° C)
EC50
(mobility)
LOEC
(swimming activity)
EC50
(mobility)
EC50
(filtration rate)
LOEC
(reproduction decreased 26%)
LOEC
(reduced swimming speed)
LOEC
(reproduction decreased 27%)
LOEC
(reproduction decreased 29%)
LOEC
(reproduction decreased 47%)
LOEC
(food ingestion rate)
EC50
(mobility)
LOEC
(reproduction decreased 100%)
EC50
(mobility)
Total
Concentration
(ug/L)b
5.208
5.208
6
19
1,300
1,200
1,130
1,000
950
200
12.5
76
34
5
12
5
5
5
100
9.4
30
26
Dissolved
Concentration
(ug/L)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Reference
Lelandand Carter 1984
Lelandand Carter 1985
Francis and Harrison 1988
Francis and Harrison 1988
Cairns etal. 1978
Cairns et al. 1978
Cairns etal. 1978
Cairns etal. 1978
Cairns etal. 1978
Couillardetal. 1989
Charoy etal. 1995
Ferrando et al. 1992
Ferrando et al. 1993a
Janssen et al. 1993
Janssen et al. 1993
Janssen etal. 1994
Janssen etal. 1994
Janssen etal. 1994
Juchelka and Snell 1994
Porta and Ronco 1993
Snell and Moffat 1992
Snell etal. 1991b
B-3
-------
Appendix B. Other Data on Effects of Copper on Freshwater Organisms
Species
Rotifer (<2 hr),
Brachionus calyciflorus
Rotifer (<2 hr),
Brachionus calyciflorus
Rotifer (<2 hr),
Brachionus calyciflorus
Rotifer (<2 hr),
Brachionus calyciflorus
Rotifer (<2 hr),
Brachionus calyciflorus
Rotifer (<3 hr),
Brachionus rubens
Rotifer,
Keratella cochlearis
Worm,
Aeolosoma headleyi
Worm,
Aeolosoma headleyi
Worm,
Aeolosoma headleyi
Worm,
Aeolosoma headleyi
Worm,
Aeolosoma headleyi
Worm (adult),
Lumbriculus variegatus
Worm (7 mg),
Lumbriculus variegatis
Tubificid worm,
Limnodrilus hoffmeisteri
Tubificid worm,
Tubifex tubifex
Snail (11-27 mm),
Campeloma decisum
Snail,
Gyraulus circumstriatus
Snail,
Goniobasis livescens
Snail,
Goniobasis livescens
Snail,
Nitrocris sp.
Snail,
Nitrocris sp.
Method3
S, U
s, u
S, U
s, u
s, u
s, u
s,u
s,u
s,u
s,u
s,u
s,u
s,u
F,M,T
S,U
R, U
F,M,T
S,U
S,U
S,M,D
S,U
S,U
Chemical
-
-
-
-
-
Copper
sulfate
Copper
chloride
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Hardness
(mg/L as
CaCO3)
85
85
85
85
85
90
-
45
45
45
45
45
30
45
100
245
45
100
154
154
45
45
Duration
24 hr
24 hr
24 hr
24 hr
24 hr
24 hr
24 hr
48 hr
48 hr
48 hr
48 hr
48 hr
1 0 days
6 wk
48 hr
96 hr
48 hr
48 hr
Effect
EC50
(mobility; 10°C)
EC50
(mobility; 15°C)
EC50
(mobility; 20° C)
EC50
(mobility; 25° C)
EC50
(mobility; 30° C)
LC50
LC50
LC50
(5°C)
LC50
(10°C)
LC50
(15°C)
LC50
(20° C)
LC50
(50 C)
LC50
LC50
LC50
LC50
LOEC
(mortality)
LC50
LC50
LC50
LC50
(5°C)
LC50
(10°C)
Total
Concentration
(ug/L)b
18
31
31
26
25
19
101
2,600
2,300
2,000
1,650
1,000
150
35
102
158
14.8
108
860
-
3,000
2,400
Dissolved
Concentration
(ug/L)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
390
-
-
Reference
SnelM991;
Snelletal. 1991b
Snell 1991;
Snelletal. 1991b
Snell 1991;
Snelletal. 1991b
Snell 1991;
Snelletal. 1991b
Snell 1991;
Snelletal. 1991b
Snell and Persoone 1989b
Borgman and Ralph 1984
Cairns et al. 1978
Cairns etal. 1978
Cairns et al. 1978
Cairns etal. 1978
Cairns etal. 1978
Bailey and Liu, 1980
West etal. 1993
Wurtz and Bridges 1961
Khangarot 1991
Arthur and Leonard 1970
Wurtz and Bridges 1961
Cairns etal. 1976
Paulson etal. 1983
Cairns etal. 1978
Cairns etal. 1978
B-4
-------
Appendix B. Other Data on Effects of Copper on Freshwater Organisms
Species
Snail,
Nitrocris sp.
Snail,
Nitrocris sp.
Snail,
Nitrocris sp.
Snail,
Lymnaea emarginata
Snail (adult),
Juga plicifera
Snail (adult),
Lithoglyphus virens
Snail,
Physa heterostropha
Freshwater mussel (released
glochidia),
Actinonaias pectorosa
Freshwater mussel (released
glochidia),
Actinonaias pectorosa
Freshwater mussel (released
glochidia),
Actinonaias pectorosa
Freshwater mussel (released
glochidia),
Actinonaias pectorosa
Freshwater mussel (released
glochidia),
Actinonaias pectorosa
Freshwater mussel (1-2 d),
Anodonta grandis
Freshwater mussel (1-2 d),
Anodonta imbecilis
Freshwater mussel (1-2 d),
Anodonta imbecilis
Freshwater mussel (released
glochidia), Lampsilis
fasciola
Freshwater mussel (released
glochidia), Lampsilis
fasciola
Freshwater mussel (released
glochidia), Lampsilis
fasciola
Method3
S,U
s,u
s,u
s,u
F,M,T
F,M,T
S,U
R,M
R,M
R,M
R,M
R,M
S,M,T
S,M,T
S,M,T
R,M,T
R,M,T
R,M,T
Chemical
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Copper
chloride
Copper
chloride
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Hardness
(mg/L as
CaCO3)
45
45
45
154
23
23
100
140
150
170
140
170
70
39
90
170
160
75
Duration
48 hr
48 hr
48 hr
48 hr
30 days
30 days
24 hr
24 hr
24 hr
24 hr
48 hr
24 hr
48 hr
48 hr
24 hr
24 hr
24 hr
Effect
LC50
(15°C)
LC50
(20° C)
LC50
(25° C)
LC50
LC50
LC50
LC50
LC50
LC50
LC50
Total
Concentration
(ug/L)b
1,000
300
210
300
6
4
69
132
93
67
42
51
44
171
388
48
26
46
Dissolved
Concentration
(ug/L)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Reference
Cairns etal. 1978
Cairns et al. 1978
Cairns etal. 1978
Cairns etal. 1976
Nebekeretal. 1986b
Nebekeretal. 1986b
Wurtz and Bridges 1961
Jacobson etal. 1997
Jacobson etal. 1997
Jacobson etal. 1997
Jacobson etal. 1997
Jacobson etal. 1997
Jacobson etal. 1993
Keller and Zam 1991
Keller and Zam 1991
Jacobson etal. 1997
Jacobson etal. 1997
Jacobson etal. 1997
B-5
-------
Appendix B. Other Data on Effects of Copper on Freshwater Organisms
Species
Freshwater mussel (released
glochidia), Lampsilis
fasciola
Freshwater mussel (released
glochidia),
Medionidus conradicus
Freshwater mussel (released
glochidia),
Medionidus conradicus
Freshwater mussel (released
glochidia),
Medionidus conradicus
Freshwater mussel (released
glochidia),
Medionidus conradicus
Freshwater mussel (released
glochidia),
Medionidus conradicus
Freshwater mussel (released
glochidia),
Medionidus conradicus
Freshwater mussel (released
glochidia),
Medionidus conradicus
Freshwater mussel (released
glochidia),
Pygranodon grandis
Freshwater mussel (released
glochidia),
Pygranodon grandis
Freshwater mussel (released
glochidia),
Pygranodon grandis
Freshwater mussel (1-2 d),
Villosa iris
Freshwater mussel (released
glochidia),
Villosa iris
Freshwater mussel (released
glochidia),
Villosa iris
Freshwater mussel (released
glochidia),
Villosa iris
Method3
R,M,T
R,M,T
R,M,T
R,M,T
R,M,T
R,M,T
R,M,T
R,M,T
R,M,T
R,M,T
R,M,T
S,M,T
R,M,T
R,M,T
R,M,T
Chemical
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Hardness
(mg/L as
CaCO3)
170
185
185
185
170
160
150
170
170
170
50
190
190
190
185
Duration
48 hr
24 hr
24 hr
24 hr
24 hr
24 hr
24 hr
48 hr
24 hr
24 hr
24 hr
24 hr
24 hr
24 hr
24 hr
Effect
LC50
Total
Concentration
(ug/L)b
40
69
40
37
46
41
81
16
>160
347
46
83
80
73
65
Dissolved
Concentration
(ug/L)
-
Reference
Jacobson et al. 1997
Jacobson et al. 1997
Jacobson et al. 1997
Jacobson et al. 1997
Jacobson et al. 1997
Jacobson et al. 1997
Jacobson et al. 1997
Jacobson et al. 1997
Jacobson et al. 1997
Jacobson et al. 1997
Jacobson et al. 1997
Jacobson etal. 1993
Jacobson etal. 1997
Jacobson etal. 1997
Jacobson etal. 1997
B-6
-------
Appendix B. Other Data on Effects of Copper on Freshwater Organisms
Species
Freshwater mussel (released
glochidia),
Villosa iris
Freshwater mussel (released
glochidia),
Villosa iris
Freshwater mussel (released
glochidia),
Villosa iris
Freshwater mussel (released
glochidia),
Villosa iris
Freshwater mussel (released
glochidia),
Villosa iris
Freshwater mussel (released
glochidia),
Villosa iris
Freshwater mussel (released
glochidia),
Villosa iris
Freshwater mussel (released
glochidia),
Villosa iris
Freshwater mussel (released
glochidia),
Villosa iris
Freshwater mussel (released
glochidia),
Villosa iris
Freshwater mussel (released
glochidia),
Villosa iris
Freshwater mussel (released
glochidia),
Villosa iris
Freshwater mussel (released
glochidia),
Villosa iris
Freshwater mussel (released
glochidia),
Villosa iris
Zebra mussel (1 .6-2.0 cm),
Dreissena polymorpha
Method3
R,M,T
R,M,T
R,M,T
R,M,T
R,M,T
R,M,T
R,M,T
R,M,T
R,M,T
R,M,T
R,M,T
R,M,T
R,M,T
R,M,T
R,M,T
Chemical
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Copper
chloride
Hardness
(mg/L as
CaCO3)
185
170
160
160
155
155
150
150
55
55
50
160
170
150
268
Duration
24 hr
24 hr
24 hr
24 hr
24 hr
24 hr
24 hr
24 hr
24 hr
24 hr
24 hr
24 hr
48 hr
48 hr
9 wk
Effect
EC50
+F106(filtrationrate)
Total
Concentration
(ug/L)b
46
75
46
36
39
37
46
46
55
38
71
46
66
46
43
Dissolved
Concentration
(ug/L)
-
Reference
Jacobson et al. 1997
Jacobson et al. 1997
Jacobson et al. 1997
Jacobson et al. 1997
Jacobson et al. 1997
Jacobson et al. 1997
Jacobson et al. 1997
Jacobson et al. 1997
Jacobson et al. 1997
Jacobson et al. 1997
Jacobson et al. 1997
Jacobson et al. 1997
Jacobson et al. 1997
Jacobson et al. 1997
Kraaketal. 1992
B-7
-------
Appendix B. Other Data on Effects of Copper on Freshwater Organisms
Species
Zebra mussel (1 .6-2.0 cm),
Dreissena polymorpha
Asiatic clam (1 .0-2.1 cm),
Coprbicula fluminea
Asiatic clam (1 .0-2.1 cm),
Coprbicula fluminea
Asiatic clam (juvenile),
Corbicula fluminea
Asiatic clam (juvenile),
Corbicula fluminea
Asiatic clam (adult),
Corbicula fluminea
Asiatic clam (adult),
Corbicula fluminea
Asiatic clam (adult),
Corbicula fluminea
Asiatic clam (adult),
Corbicula fluminea
Asiatic clam (adult),
Corbicula fluminea
Asiatic clam (veliger larva),
Corbicula manilensis
Asiatic clam (juvenile),
Corbicula manilensis
Asiatic clam (veliger),
Corbicula manilensis
Asiatic clam (trochophore),
Corbicula manilensis
Asiatic clam (adult),
Corbicula manilensis
Asiatic clam (adult),
Corbicula manilensis
Asiatic clam (4.3 g adult),
Corbicula manilensis
Cladoceran,
Bosmina longirostrus
Cladoceran (<24 hr),
Daphnia ambigua
Cladoceran (<24 hr),
Daphnia ambigua
Cladoceran,
Ceriodaphnia dubia
Method3
R,M,T
S,M,T
F,M,T
F,M,D
F,M,D
F,M,D
F,M,D
F,M,D
F,M,D
F,M,D
S,M,T
S,M,T
S,M,T
S,M,T
F,M,T
F,M,T
F,M,T
S, U
S,U
S,U
S,U
Chemical
Copper
chloride
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Copper
chloride
Copper
chloride
Copper
chloride
Copper
chloride
Copper
chloride
Copper
chloride
Copper
chloride
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Hardness
(mg/L as
CaCO3)
268
64
64
78
78
78
71
78
-
-
-
17
17
17
17
17
17
33.8
145
145
188
Duration
10 wk
96 hr (24hr
LC50 also
reported)
96 hr (24 hr
LC50 also
reported)
30 days
30 days
30 days
30 days
30 days
15-1 6 days
1 9 days
24 hr
24 hr
24 hr
8hr
7 days
42 days
30 days
72 hr
Life span
(ca. 5 wk)
Effect
NOEC
(filtration rate)
LC50
LC50
43.3% mortality
Stopped shell growth
13.3% mortality
25% mortality
Inhibited shell growth
LC50
LC100
34% mortality
LC50
LC50
LC100
LC50
LC50
LC50
EC50
LC50
Chronic limits (inst. rate of population
growth)
EC50
Total
Concentration
(ug/L)b
13
40
490
14.48
8.75
14.48
16.88
8.75
-
-
10
100
28
7.7
3,638
12
11
1.6
86.5
50
36.6
Dissolved
Concentration
(ug/L)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Reference
Kraaketal. 1993
Rodgerset al. 1980
Rodgerset al. 1980
Belangeret al. 1990
Belangeret al. 1990
Belangeret al. 1990
Belangeret al. 1990
Belangeret al. 1990
Belangeret al. 1991
Belangeret al. 1991
Harrison et al. 1981, 1984
Harrison etal. 1984
Harrison etal. 1984
Harrison etal. 1984
Harrison et al. 1981, 1984
Harrison et al. 1981, 1984
Harrison etal. 1984
Koivisto etal. 1992
Winner and Farrell 1976
Winner and Farrell 1976
Bright 1 995
B-8
-------
Appendix B. Other Data on Effects of Copper on Freshwater Organisms
Species
Cladoceran,
Ceriodaphnia dubia
Cladoceran,
Ceriodaphnia dubia
Cladoceran,
Ceriodaphnia dubia
Cladoceran,
Ceriodaphnia dubia
Cladoceran,
Ceriodaphnia dubia
Cladoceran,
Ceriodaphnia dubia
Cladoceran (<24 hr),
Ceriodaphnia dubia
Cladoceran (<12hr),
Ceriodaphnia dubia
Cladoceran (<12hr),
Ceriodaphnia dubia
Cladoceran (<12hr),
Ceriodaphnia dubia
Cladoceran (<48 h),
Ceriodaphnia dubia
Cladoceran (<48 h),
Ceriodaphnia dubia
Cladoceran (<48 h),
Ceriodaphnia dubia
Cladoceran (<24 hr),
Ceriodaphnia dubia
Cladoceran,
Ceriodaphnia dubia
Cladoceran,
Ceriodaphnia dubia
Cladoceran,
Ceriodaphnia dubia
Cladoceran,
Ceriodaphnia dubia
Cladoceran,
Ceriodaphnia dubia
Cladoceran (<24 hrs),
Ceriodaphnia reticulata
Cladoceran,
Ceriodubia reticulata
Cladoceran,
Daphnia magna
Method3
S,U
s,u
s,u
s,u
s,u
s,u
S,M,D
S,M,D
S,M,D
S,M,D
S,M,T
S,M,T
S,M,T
S,M,T,D
R,U
R,U
R,U
R,U
R,M,T
S, U
S,U
-
Chemical
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Copper
chloride
Copper
sulfate
-
-
-
Copper
nitrate
Copper
nitrate
Copper
nitrate
Copper
nitrate
Copper
nitrate
Copper
nitrate
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
-
Copper
chloride
-
Copper
sulfate
Hardness
(mg/L as
CaCO3)
204
428
410
494
440
90
6-10
113.6
113.6
113.6
280 - 300
280 - 300
280 - 300
100
111
111
90
90
20
240
43-45
-
Duration
1 hr
48 hr
48 hr
48 hr
48 hr
48 hr
48 hr
48 hr
48 hr
1 0 days
1 0 days
-
-
-
72 hr
Effect
EC50
EC50
EC50
EC50
EC50
NOEC
(ingestion)
LC50
LC50
LC50
LC50
LC50
LC50
LC50
LC50
LC50
NOEC
(reproduction)
LOEC
(reproduction)
LOEC
(reproduction)
IC50
(reproduction)
EC50
EC50
EC50
(mobility; 10°C)
Total
Concentration
(ug/L)b
19.1
36.4
11.7
12.3
12
30
-
-
-
-
9.5
28
200
66
53
96
44
40
5
23
17
61
Dissolved
Concentration
(ug/L)
-
2.72
52
76
91
-
-
-
60.72
-
-
-
-
-
-
Reference
Bright 1995
Bright 1995
Bright 1995
Bright 1995
Bright 1995
Juchelkaand Snell 1994
Suedeletal. 1996
Belangerand Cherry 1990
Belangerand Cherry 1990
Belangerand Cherry 1990
Schubauer-Berigan et al. 1993
Schubauer-Berigan et al. 1993
Schubauer-Berigan et al. 1993
Speharand Fiandt 1986
Cowgill and Milazzo 1991 a
Cowgill and Milazzo 1991 a
Zuiderveen and Birge 1997
Zuiderveen and Birge 1997
Jopetal. 1995
Elnabarawy et al. 1986
Mount and Norberg 1984
Braginskij and Shcherben 1978
B-9
-------
Appendix B. Other Data on Effects of Copper on Freshwater Organisms
cies
Cladoceran,
Daphnia magna
Cladoceran,
Daphnia magna
Cladoceran,
Daphnia magna
Cladoceran,
Daphnia magna
Cladoceran (<8 hr),
Daphnia magna
Cladoceran (1 mm),
Daphnia magna
Cladoceran (1 mm),
Daphnia magna
Cladoceran,
Daphnia magna
Cladoceran,
Daphnia magna
Cladoceran,
Daphnia magna
Cladoceran,
Daphnia magna
Cladoceran,
Daphnia magna
Cladoceran,
Daphnia magna
Cladoceran (4 days),
Daphnia magna
Cladoceran (24-48 hr),
Daphnia magna
Cladoceran,
Daphnia magna
Cladoceran,
Daphnia magna
Cladoceran (<24 hr),
Daphnia magna
Cladoceran (<24 hrs),
Daphnia magna
Cladoceran (<24 hrs),
Daphnia magna
Cladoceran (<24 hr),
Daphnia magna
Cladoceran (<24 hr),
Daphnia magna
Method3
-
-
-
S,U
s,u
s,u
s,u
s,u
s,u
s,u
s,u
s,u
s,u
s,u
s,u
s,u
s,u
s,u
S,M,D
S,M,I
S,M,I
S,M,I
Chemical
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Copper
chloride
Copper
nitrate
Copper
nitrate
-
-
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
-
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Hardness
(mg/L as
CaCO3)
-
-
-
-
-
100
200
100
100
45
45
45
45
-
90
50
-
145
72-80
180
100
100
Duration
72 hr
72 hr
72 hr
16 hr
64 hr
24 hr
24 hr
48 hr
49 hr
48 hr
48 hr
48 hr
48 hr
24 hr
24 hr
48 hr
Life span
(ca. 18wk)
48 hr
-
48 hr
48 hr
Effect
EC50
(mobility; 15°C)
EC50
(mobility; 20° C)
EC50
(mobility; 30° C)
EC 50
(mobility)
Immobilization threshold
EC 50
(mobility)
EC 50
(mobility)
EC50
(mobility)
EC50
(mobility)
EC50
(mobility; 5° C)
EC50
(mobility; 10°C)
EC50
(mobility; 15°C)
EC50
(mobility; 25° C)
EC50
(filtration rate)
EC50
(mobility)
EC50
EC50
(mobility)
Chronic limits
(inst. rate of population growth)
LC50
LC50
EC50
(mobility)
EC50
(mobility)
Total
Concentration
(ug/L)b
70
21
9.3
38
12.7
50
70
254
1,239
90
70
40
7
59
380
7
45
70
-
55.3
46.0
57.2
Dissolved
Concentration
(ug/L)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
11.3
-
-
-
Reference
Braginskij and Shcherben 1978
Braginskij and Shcherben 1978
Braginskij and Shcherben 1978
Anderson 1 944
Anderson 1948
Bellavere and Gorbi 1981
Bellavere and Gorbi 1981
Borgmann and Ralph 1983
Borgmann and Ralph 1983
Cairns et al. 1978
Cairns etal. 1978
Cairns et al. 1978
Cairns etal. 1978
Ferrando and Andreu 1993
Ferrando et al. 1992
Oikarietal. 1992
Oikarietal. 1992
Winner and Farrell 1976
Suedeletal. 1996
Borgmann and Charlton 1984
Meador1991
Meador1991
B-10
-------
Appendix B. Other Data on Effects of Copper on Freshwater Organisms
Species
Cladoceran (<24hr),
Daphnia magna
Cladoceran (<24 hr),
Daphnia magna
Cladoceran (<24 hr),
Daphnia magna
Cladoceran (<24 hr),
Daphnia magna
Cladoceran (24 hr),
Daphnia magna
Cladoceran (<24 hr),
Daphnia parvula
Cladoceran (<24 hr),
Daphnia parvula
Cladoceran (<24 hr),
Daphnia parvula
Cladoceran,
Daphnia pulex
Cladoceran,
Daphnia pulex
Cladoceran (<24 hrs),
Daphnia pulex
Cladoceran (<24 hrs),
Daphnia pulex
Cladoceran (<24 hrs),
Daphnia pulex
Cladoceran (<24 hrs),
Daphnia pulex
Cladoceran (<24 hrs),
Daphnia pulex
Cladoceran (<24 hr),
Daphnia pulex
Cladoceran (<24 hr),
Daphnia pulex
Cladoceran (<24 hr),
Daphnia pulex
Cladoceran,
Daphnia pulex
Cladoceran,
Daphnia pulex
Cladoceran,
Daphnia pulex
Cladoceran,
Daphnia pulex
Method3
S,M,I
S,M,T
S,M,T
S,M,T
R,U
S,U
S,U
S,U
S,U
S,U
S, U
S, U
S,U
S,U
S,U
S,U
S,U
s,u
s,u
s,u
s,u
s,u
Chemical
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Copper
chloride
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
-
Copper
chloride
Copper
sulfate
Copper
chloride
Copper
chloride
Copper
chloride
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Hardness
(mg/L as
CaCO3)
100
100
100
85
-
145
145
145
45
45
240
33.8
80-90
80-90
80-90
145
145
145
45
45
45
45
Duration
48 hr
72 hr
72 hr
96 hr
48 hr
72 hr
72 hr
Life span
(ca. 10 wk)
72 hr
72 hr
Life span
(ca. 7 wk)
48 hr
48 hr
48 hr
48 hr
Effect
EC50
(mobility)
EC50
(mobility)
EC50
(mobility)
EC50
(mobility)
EC50
(mobility)
EC50
(mobility)
EC50
(mobility)
Chronic limits (inst. rate of population
growth)
EC50
EC50
EC50
EC50
EC50
EC50
EC50
EC50
(mobility)
EC50
(mobility)
Chronic limits (inst. rate of population
growth)
EC50
(mobility)
EC50
(mobility)
EC50
(mobility)
EC50
(mobility)
Total
Concentration
(ug/L)b
67.8
52.8
56.3
130
18
72
57
50
10
53
31
3.6
18
24
22
86
54
50
70
60
20
56
Dissolved
Concentration
(ug/L)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Reference
Meador 1 991
Winner 1984b
Winner 1984b
Blaylock et al. 1985
Kazlauskieneetal. 1994
Winner and Farrell 1976
Winner and Farrell 1976
Winner and Farrell 1976
Cairns etal. 1978
Mount and Norberg 1984
Elnabarawy et al. 1986
Koivisto etal. 1992
Rouxet al. 1993
Rouxet al. 1993
Rouxet al. 1993
Winner and Farrell 1976
Winner and Farrell 1976
Winner and Farrell 1976
Cairns etal. 1978
Cairns etal. 1978
Cairns etal. 1978
Cairns etal. 1978
B-11
-------
Appendix B. Other Data on Effects of Copper on Freshwater Organisms
Species
Cladoceran (<24 hr),
Daphnia pulex
Cladoceran,
Daphnia pulex
Cladoceran,
Daphnia pulex
Cladoceran,
Daphnia pulex
Cladoceran,
Daphnia pulex
Cladoceran,
Daphnia pulex
Cladoceran,
Daphnia pulicaria
Cladoceran,
Daphnia pulicaria
Cladoceran,
Daphnia pulicaria
Cladoceran,
Daphnia pulicaria
Cladoceran,
Daphnia pulicaria
Cladoceran,
Daphnia pulicaria
Cladoceran,
Daphnia pulicaria
Cladoceran,
Daphnia pulicaria
Cladoceran,
Daphnia pulicaria
Cladoceran,
Daphnia pulicaria
Cladoceran,
Daphnia pulicaria
Cladoceran,
Daphnia pulicaria
Cladoceran,
Daphnia pulicaria
Cladoceran,
Daphnia pulicaria
Cladoceran,
Daphnia pulicaria
Cladoceran,
Simocephalus serrulatus
Method3
S,U
S,M,T
S,M,T
S,M,T
R,U
R,M,T
S,M,T
S,M,T
S,M,T
S,M,T
S,M,T
S,M,T
S,M,T
S,M,T
S,M,T
S,M,T
S,M,T
S,M,T
S,M,T
S,M,T
S,M,T
S,M,T
Chemical
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Copper
sulfate
Copper
nitrate
Hardness
(mg/L as
CaCO3)
200
106
106
106
85
106
31
29
28
28
100
86
84
16
151
96
26
84
92
106
106
8
Duration
24 hr
48 hr
48 hr
48 hr
21 days
70 days
48 hr
49 hr
50 hr
50 hr
51 hr
52 hr
53 hr
54 hr
55 hr
56 hr
57 hr
58 hr
59 hr
60 hr
48 hr
24 hr
Effect
EC50
(mobility)
EC50
(mobility)
EC50
(mobility)
EC50
(mobility)
Reduced fecundity
Significantly shortened life span;
reduced brood size
EC50
(mobility ;TOC=1 4 mg/L)
EC50
(mobility ;TOC=1 3 mg/L)
EC50
(mobility ;TOC=1 3 mg/L)
EC50
(mobility; TOC=28 mg/L)
EC50
(mobility; TOC=34 mg/L)
EC50
(mobility; TOC=34 mg/L)
EC50
(mobility; TOC=32 mg/L)
EC50
(mobility ;TOC=1 2 mg/L)
EC50
(mobility ;TOC=1 3 mg/L)
EC50
(mobility; TOC=28 mg/L)
EC50
(mobility; TOC=25 mg/L)
EC50
(mobility ;TOC=1 3 mg/L)
EC50
(mobility; TOC=21 mg/L)
EC50
(mobility; TOC=34 mg/L)
LC50
EC50
(mobility; TOC=11 mg/L)
Total
Concentration
(ug/L)b
37.5
29
20
25
3
20
55.4
55.3
53.3
97.2
199
627
165
35.5
78.8
113
76.4
84.7
184
240
240
12
Dissolved
Concentration
(ug/L)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Reference
Liliusetal. 1995
Ingersoll and Winner 1982
Ingersoll and Winner 1982
Ingersoll and Winner 1982
Rouxet al. 1993
Ingersoll and Winner 1982
Lind et al. manuscript
Lind et al. manuscript
Lind et al. manuscript
Lind et al. manuscript
Lind et al. manuscript
Lind et al. manuscript
Lind et al. manuscript
Lind et al. manuscript
Lind et al. manuscript
Lind et al. manuscript
Lind et al. manuscript
Lind et al. manuscript
Lind et al. manuscript
Lind et al. manuscript
Lind et al. manuscript
Giesy etal. 1983
B-12
-------
Appendix B. Other Data on Effects of Copper on Freshwater Organisms
Species
Cladoceran,
Simocephalus serrulatus
Cladoceran,
Simocephalus serrulatus
Cladoceran (<24 hr),
Simocephalus vetulus
Cladoceran (life cycle),
Bosmina longirostris
Copepods (mixed sp),
Primarily Acanthocyclops
vernalis and Diacyclops thomasi
Copepod (adults and copepodids
V),
Tropocyclops prasinus
mexicanus
Copepod (adults and copepodids
V), Tropocyclops
prasinus
mexicanus
Amphipod (0.4 cm),
Crangonyx pseudogracilis
Amphipod (4 mm),
Crangonyx psuedogracilis
Amphipod,
Gammarus fasciatus
Amphipod,
Gammarus lacustris
Amphipod (2-3 wk),
Hyallela azteca
Amphipod (0-1 wk),
Hyallela azteca
Amphipod (7-1 4 days),
Hyallela azteca
Crayfish (intermoult adult,
19.6 g),
Cambarus robustus
Crayfish (1 .9-3.2 cm),
Orconectes limosus
Crayfish (3.0-3.5 cm),
Orconectes rusticus
Crayfish (embryo),
Orconectes rusticus
Method3
S,M,T
S,M,T
S,U
R,U
R,M,I
S, U
S, U
R,U
R,U
S,U
S,U
S,M,T
R,M,T
F,M,T
S,M,D
S,M,T
F,U
F,U
Chemical
Copper
nitrate
Copper
nitrate
-
Copper
sulfate
Copper
chloride
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Copper
nitrate
Copper
sulfate
Copper
chloride
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Hardness
(mg/L as
CaCO3)
16
16
45
10
10
45-55
50
206
-
6-10
130
46
10-12
-
100-125
113
Duration
25 hr
26 hr
1 3 days
1 wk
96 hr
48 hr
48 hr
96 hr
-
10 wk
1 0 days
96 hr
96 hr
2wk
Effect
EC50
(mobility ;TOC=1 2.4 mg/L)
EC50
(mobility ;TOC=1 5.6 mg/L)
LOEC
(intrinsic rate of population increase)
EC20
(growth)
LC50
LC50
LC50
LC50
LC50
Significant mortality
LC50
LC50
LC50
52% mortality of newly
hatched young
Total
Concentration
(ug/L)b
7.2
24.5
57
18
42
29
247
1290
2,440
210
1,500
65.6
25.4
31
600
3,000
250
Dissolved
Concentration
(ug/L)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
830
-
-
Reference
Giesy etal. 1983
Giesy etal. 1983
Mount and Norberg 1984
Koivisto and Ketola 1995
Borgmann and Ralph 1984
Lalande and Pinel-Alloul 1986
Lalande and Pinel-Alloul 1986
Martin and Holdich 1986
Martin and Holdich 1986
Judy 1979
Nebekerand Gaufin 1964
Suedeletal. 1996
Borgmann etal. 1993
West etal. 1993
Taylor etal. 1995
Boutet and Chaisemartin 1973
Hubschman 1967
Hubschman 1967
B-13
-------
Appendix B. Other Data on Effects of Copper on Freshwater Organisms
Species
Crayfish (3.14 mg dry wt.),
Orconectes rusticus
Crayfish (30-40 mm),
Orconectes sp.
Crayfish,
Procambarus clarkii
Mayfly (6th-8th instar),
Stenonema sp.
Mayfly,
Cloeon dipterium
Mayfly,
Cloeon dipterium
Mayfly,
Cloeon dipterium
Mayfly,
Cloeon dipterium
Mayfly,
Ephemerella grandis
Mayfly,
Ephemerella subvaria
Mayfly (6th-8th instar),
Isonychia bicolor
Stonefly,
Pteronarcys californica
Caddisfly,
Hydropsyche betteni
Midge (2nd instar),
Chironomus riparius
Midge (1st instar),
Chironomus tentans
Midge (1st instar),
Chironomus tentans
Midge (1st instar),
Chironomus tentans
Midge (4th instar),
Chironomus tentans
Midge (4th instar),
Chironomus tentans
Midge (4th instar),
Chironomus tentans
Midge,
Chironomus tentans
Midge (2nd instar),
Chironomus tentans
Method3
F,U
F,M,T
S,M,T
-
-
-
-
F,M,T
S,M
S,M,T
F,M,T
S,M,T
S,M,T
S,U
S,U
S,U
S,U
S,U
S,U
S,U
S,M,T
Chemical
Copper
sulfate
-
Copper
chloride
-
Copper
sulfate
-
-
-
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
-
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
-
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Hardness
(mg/L as
CaCO3)
113
113
17
110
-
-
-
-
50
44
110
50
44
110
42.7
109.6
172.3
42.7
109.6
172.3
25
8
Duration
2wk
48 hr
1358hr
48 hr
72 hr
72 hr
72 hr
72 hr
1 4 days
48 hr
48 hr
1 4 days
1 4 days
48 hr
96 hr
Effect
23% reduction in growth
LC50
LC50
LC50
LC50
(10°C)
LC50
(15°C)
LC50
(25° C)
LC50
(30° C)
LC50
LC50
LC50
LC50
LC50
LC50
LC50
Total
Concentration
(ug/L)b
15
2,370
657
453
193
95.2
53
4.8
180-200
320
223
12,000
32,000
1,170
16.7
36.5
98.2
211
977
1184
327
630
Dissolved
Concentration
(ug/L)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Reference
Hubschman 1967
Dobbsetal. 1994
Rice and Harrison 1983
Dobbsetal. 1994
Braginskij and Shcherban 1978
Braginskij and Shcherban 1978
Braginskij and Shcherban 1978
Braginskij and Shcherban 1978
Nehring 1976
Warnickand Bell 1969
Dobbsetal. 1994
Nehring 1976
Warnickand Bell 1969
Dobbsetal. 1994
Gauss etal. 1985
Gauss etal. 1985
Gauss etal. 1985
Gauss etal. 1985
Gauss etal. 1985
Gauss etal. 1985
Khangarot and Ray 1989
Suedeletal. 1996
B-14
-------
Appendix B. Other Data on Effects of Copper on Freshwater Organisms
Species
Midge (4th instar),
Chironomus tentans
Midge (embryo),
Tanytarsus dissimilis
Midge,
Unidentified
Bryozoan (2-3 day ancestrula),
Lophopodella carteri
Bryozoan (2-3 day ancestrula),
Pectinatella magnified
Bryozoan (2-3 day ancestrula),
Plumatella emarginata
American eel (5.5 cm glass eel
stage),
Anguilla rostrata
American eel (9.7 cm black eel
stage),
Anguilla rostrata
American eel,
Anguilla rostrata
American eel,
Anguilla rostrata
Arctic grayling (larva),
Thymallus arcticus
Arctic grayling (larva),
Thymallus arcticus
Arctic grayling (larva),
Thymallus arcticus
Arctic grayling (swim-up),
Thymallus arcticus
Arctic grayling (0.20 g juvenile),
Thymallus arcticus
Arctic grayling (0.34 g juvenile),
Thymallus arcticus
Arctic grayling (0.81 g juvenile),
Thymallus arcticus
Arctic grayling (0.85 g juvenile),
Thymallus arcticus
Coho salmon (larva),
Oncorhynchus kisutch
Coho salmon (larva),
Oncorhynchus kisutch
Coho salmon (0.41 g juvenile),
Oncorhynchus kisutch
Method3
F,M,T
S,M,T
F,M,T,D
S,U
S,U
S,U
S,U
S,U
S,M,T
S,M,T
S,U
S,U
S,U
S,U
S,U
S,U
S,U
S,U
S,U
S,U
s,u
Chemical
Copper
chloride
Copper
chloride
Copper
sulfate
-
-
-
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Copper
nitrate
Copper
nitrate
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Hardness
(mg/L as
CaCO3)
36
46.8
200
190-220
190-220
190-220
40-48
40-48
53
55
41.3
41.3
41.3
41.3
41.3
41.3
41.3
41.3
41.3
41.3
41.3
Duration
20 days
1 0 days
32 wk
96 hr
96 hr
96 hr
96 hr
96 hr
96 hr
96 hr
96 hr
96 hr
96 hr
96 hr
96 hr
96 hr
96 hr
96 hr
Effect
LC50
LC50
Emergence
LC50
LC50
LC50
LC50
LC50
LC50
LC50
LC50
LC50
LC50
LC50
LC50
LC50
LC50
LC50
Total
Concentration
(ug/L)b
77.5
16.3
30
510
140
140
2,540
3,200
6,400
6,000
67.5
23.9
131
9.6
2.7
2.58
49.3
30
21
19.3
15.1
Dissolved
Concentration
(ug/L)
-
-
-
-
-
Reference
Nebekeretal. 1984b
Anderson etal. 1980
Hedtke1984
Pardue and Wood 1980
Pardue and Wood 1980
Pardue and Wood 1980
Hinton and Eversole 1978
Hinton and Eversole 1979
Rehwoldt et al. 1971
Rehwoldt et al. 1972
Buhl and Hamilton 1990
Buhl and Hamilton 1990
Buhl and Hamilton 1990
Buhl and Hamilton 1990
Buhl and Hamilton 1990
Buhl and Hamilton 1990
Buhl and Hamilton 1990
Buhl and Hamilton 1990
Buhl and Hamilton 1990
Buhl and Hamilton 1990
Buhl and Hamilton 1990
B-15
-------
Appendix B. Other Data on Effects of Copper on Freshwater Organisms
Species
Coho salmon (0.47 g juvenile),
Oncorhynchus kisutch
Coho salmon (0.87 g juvenile),
Oncorhynchus kisutch
Coho salmon (10cm),
Oncorhynchus kisutch
Coho salmon (9.7 cm),
Oncorhynchus kisutch
Coho salmon (9.7 cm),
Oncorhynchus kisutch
Coho salmon (juvenile),
Oncorhynchus kisutch
Coho salmon (juvenile),
Oncorhynchus kisutch
Coho salmon (6.3 cm),
Oncorhynchus kisutch
Coho salmon (6.3 cm),
Oncorhynchus kisutch
Coho salmon (smolts),
Oncorhynchus kisutch
Coho salmon (smolts >1 0 cm),
Oncorhynchus kisutch
Coho salmon (7.8 cm),
Oncorhynchus kisutch
Coho salmon (7.8 cm),
Oncorhynchus kisutch
Coho salmon (3-8 g),
Oncorhynchus kisutch
Coho salmon (3-8 g),
Oncorhynchus kisutch
Coho salmon (parr),
Oncorhynchus kisutch
Coho salmon,
Oncorhynchus kisutch
Coho salmon (parr),
Oncorhynchus kisutch
Rainbow trout (15-40g)
Oncorhynchus mykiss
Sockeye salmon (yeasrling),
Oncorhynchus nerka
Sockeye salmon (fry, 0.132 g,
2.95 cm),
Oncorhynchus nerka
Method3
S,U
s,u
s,u
s,u
s,u
R,M,T,I
R,M,T,I
F,U
F,U
F,M,T
F,M,T
F,M,T
-
F,M,T
F,M,T
F,M,T,D,I
F,M,T,D,I
F,M,T,D,I
F,M,
S,U
R,M,T
Chemical
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
-
-
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Copper
chloride
Copper
chloride
Copper
acetate
-
Copper
acetate
Copper
acetate
-
-
-
Copper
chloride
Copper
sulfate
Copper
chloride
Hardness
(mg/L as
CaCO3)
41.3
41.3
-
-
-
33
33
-
-
91
91
276
276
280
280
24.4
31.1
31
—
12
36-46
Duration
96 hr
96 hr
72 hr
72 hr
72 hr
96 hr
96 hr
30 days
72 hr
144hr
165 days
14wk
7 days
7 days
7 days
61 days
60 days
61 days
120hr
1-24hr
96 hr
Effect
LC50
LC50
LC50
LC50
LC50
LC50
(TOC=7.3 mg/L)
LC50
LC50
LC50
Decrease in survival upon transfer to
30 ppt seawater
Decrease in downstream migration
after release
15% reduction in growth
LC50
LC50
LC50 (acclimated to copper for 2 wk)
NOEC
(growth and survival)
NOEC
(growth and survival)
NOEC
(growth and survival)
LA50 (50% mortality)
Drastic increase in plasma
corticosteroids
LC50
Total
Concentration
(ug/L)b
23.9
31.9
280
190
480
164
286
360
370
20
5
70
220
275
383
22
18
33
~1.4ug Cu/g gill
64
220
Dissolved
Concentration
(ug/L)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Reference
Buhl and Hamilton 1990
Buhl and Hamilton 1990
Holland et al. 1960
Holland et al. 1960
Holland et al. 1960
Buckley 1983
Buckley 1983
Holland et al. 1960
Holland et al. 1960
Lorz and McPherson 1976
Lorz and McPherson 1976
Buckley etal. 1982
Buckley etal. 1982
McCarter and Roch 1983
McCarter and Roch 1983
Mudge et al. 1993
Mudge et al. 1993
Mudge et al. 1993
MacRae etal. 1999
Donaldson and Dye 1975
Davis and Shand 1978
B-16
-------
Appendix B. Other Data on Effects of Copper on Freshwater Organisms
Species
Sockeye salmon (fry, 0.132 g,
2.95 cm),
Oncorhynchus nerka
Sockeye salmon (fry, 0.132 g,
2.95 cm),
Oncorhynchus nerka
Sockeye salmon (fry, 0.132 g,
2.95 cm),
Oncorhynchus nerka
Sockeye salmon (fry, 0.132 g,
2.95 cm),
Oncorhynchus nerka
Chinook salmon (18-21 weeks),
Oncorhynchus tshawytscha
Chinook salmon (18-21 weeks),
Oncorhynchus tshawytscha
Chinook salmon (18-21 weeks),
Oncorhynchus tshawytscha
Chinook salmon (5.2 cm),
Oncorhynchus tshawytscha
Chinook salmon (eyed embryos)
Oncorhynchus tshawytscha
Chinook salmon (alevin),
Oncorhynchus tshawytscha
Chinook salmon (alevin),
Oncorhynchus tshawytscha
Chinook salmon (swimup),
Oncorhynchus tshawytscha
Chinook salmon (swimup),
Oncorhynchus tshawytscha
Chinook salmon (parr),
Oncorhynchus tshawytscha
Chinook salmon (parr),
Oncorhynchus tshawytscha
Chinook salmon (smolt),
Oncorhynchus tshawytscha
Chinook salmon (smolt),
Oncorhynchus tshawytscha
Chinook salmon (3.9-6.8 cm),
Oncorhynchus tshawytscha
Cutthroat trout (3-5 mo),
Oncorhynchus clarki
Method3
R,M,T
R,M,T
R,M,T
R,M,T
S,U
S,U
S,U
S,U
F,M,D
F,M,T
F,M,T
F,M,T
F,M,T
F,M,T
F,M,T
F,M,T
F,M,T
F,M,T
F,M
Chemical
Copper
chloride
Copper
chloride
Copper
chloride
Copper
chloride
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Copper
nitrate
Copper
sulfate
Copper
chloride
Copper
chloride
Copper
chloride
Copper
chloride
Copper
chloride
Copper
chloride
Copper
chloride
Copper
chloride
Copper
sulfate
Copper
chloride
Hardness
(mg/L as
CaCO3)
36-46
36-46
36-46
36-46
211
211
343
-
44
23
23
23
23
23
23
23
23
20-22
50
Duration
96 hr
96 hr
96 hr
96 hr
96 hr
96 hr
96 hr
5 days
26 days
200 hr
200 hr
200 hr
200 hr
200 hr
200 hr
200 hr
200 hr
96 hr
20 min
Effect
LC50
LC50
LC50
LC50
LC50
LC50
LC50
LC50
93% mortality
LC50
LC10
LC50
LC10
LC50
LC10
LC50
LC10
LC50
avoidance of copper
Total
Concentration
(ug/L)b
210
240
103
240
58
54
60
178
41.67
20
15
19
14
30
17
26
18
32
7.708
Dissolved
Concentration
(ug/L)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Reference
Davis and Shand 1978
Davis and Shand 1978
Davis and Shand 1978
Davis and Shand 1978
Hamilton and Buhl 1990
Hamilton and Buhl 1990
Hamilton and Buhl 1990
Holland et al. 1960
Hazel and Meith 1970
Chapman 1978
Chapman 1978
Chapman 1978
Chapman 1978
Chapman 1978
Chapman 1978
Chapman 1978
Chapman 1978
Finlayson and Verrue 1982
Woodward etal. 1997
B-17
-------
Appendix B. Other Data on Effects of Copper on Freshwater Organisms
Species
Rainbow trout,
Oncorhynchus mykiss
Rainbow trout (9-16 cm),
Oncorhynchus mykiss
Rainbow trout (0.4 g),
Oncorhynchus mykiss
Rainbow trout (larva),
Oncorhynchus mykiss
Rainbow trout (0.60 g juvenile),
Oncorhynchus mykiss
Rainbow trout (1 3-1 5 cm),
Oncorhynchus mykiss
Rainbow trout (1 3-1 5 cm),
Oncorhynchus mykiss
Rainbow trout (3.2 cm),
Oncorhynchus mykiss
Rainbow trout (3.2 cm),
Oncorhynchus mykiss
Rainbow trout (4.0-10.6 cm),
Oncorhynchus mykiss
Rainbow trout (4.0-10.6 cm),
Oncorhynchus mykiss
Rainbow trout (4.0-10.6 cm),
Oncorhynchus mykiss
Rainbow trout (0.52-1 .55 g),
Oncorhynchus mykiss
Rainbow trout (0.41 -2.03 g),
Oncorhynchus mykiss
Rainbow trout (0.0.40-1 .68 g),
Oncorhynchus mykiss
Rainbow trout (0.0.34-1 .52 g),
Oncorhynchus mykiss
Rainbow trout (0.0.38-1 .30 g),
Oncorhynchus mykiss
Rainbow trout (embryo),
Oncorhynchus mykiss
Rainbow trout (6.6 cm),
Oncorhynchus mykiss
Rainbow trout (6.6 cm),
Oncorhynchus mykiss
Rainbow trout,
Oncorhynchus mykiss
Rainbow trout (yearling),
Oncorhynchus mykiss
Method3
-
In situ
S,U
S, U
S, U
S,U
S,U
S,U
S,U
S,U
S,U
S,U
S,U
S,U
s,u
s,u
s,u
s,u
R,U
R,U
R,U
R,U
Chemical
-
-
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Copper
chloride
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Hardness
(mg/L as
CaCO3)
320
21-26
-
41.3
41.3
250
250
-
-
45
45
45
-
-
-
-
-
30
320
17.5
320
240
Duration
48 hr
48 hr
96 hr
96 hr
96 hr
72 hr
72 hr
24 hr
24 hr
24 hr
24 hr
24 hr
96 hr
96 hr
96 hr
96 hr
96 hr
56 hr
72 hr
7 days
48 hr
48 hr
Effect
LC50
LC50
LC50
LC50
LC50
LC50
LC50
LC50
LC50
LC50
(5°C)
LC50
(15°C)
LC50
(30° C)
LC50
(Silver Cup diet)
LC50
(purified H440)
LC50
(SD-9 diet)
LC50
(liver diet)
LC50
(brine shrimp diet)
LC50
LC50
LC50
LC50
LC50
Total
Concentration
(ug/L)b
500
70
185
36
13.8
580
960
140
130
950
430
150
23.9
11.3
15.9
14.3
11.3
100
1,100
44
270
750
Dissolved
Concentration
(ug/L)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Reference
Brown 1 968
Calamari and Marchetti 1975
Bills etal. 1981
Buhl and Hamilton 1990
Buhl and Hamilton 1990
Brown etal. 1974
Brown etal. 1974
Shaw and Brown 1974
Shaw and Brown 1974
Cairns etal. 1978
Cairns etal. 1978
Cairns etal. 1978
Marking etal. 1984
Marking et al. 1984
Marking etal. 1984
Marking etal. 1984
Marking etal. 1984
Rombough 1985
Lloyd 1961
Lloyd 1961
Herbert and Vandyke 1964
Brown and Dalton 1970
B-18
-------
Appendix B. Other Data on Effects of Copper on Freshwater Organisms
Species
Rainbow trout (1 3-1 5 cm),
Oncorhynchus mykiss
Rainbow trout (embryo),
Oncorhynchus mykiss
Rainbow trout (embryo),
Oncorhynchus mykiss
Rainbow trout (embryo),
Oncorhynchus mykiss
Rainbow trout (eyed embryos),
Oncorhynchus mykiss
Rainbow trout (larva),
Oncorhynchus mykiss
Rainbow trout (1 6-1 8 cm),
Oncorhynchus mykiss
Rainbow trout (embryo),
Oncorhynchus mykiss
Rainbow trout (embryo),
Oncorhynchus mykiss
Rainbow trout (eyed embryos),
Oncorhynchus mykiss
Rainbow trout (yearling),
Oncorhynchus mykiss
Rainbow trout (embryo),
Oncorhynchus mykiss
Rainbow trout (embryo),
Oncorhynchus mykiss
Rainbow trout (5.1-7.6 cm),
Oncorhynchus mykiss
Rainbow trout (1 1 cm),
Oncorhynchus mykiss
Rainbow trout (5 wk post
swimup)
Oncorhynchus mykiss
Rainbow trout (1 8.5-26.5 cm),
Oncorhynchus mykiss
Rainbow trout (3.2 cm),
Oncorhynchus mykiss
Rainbow trout (1 2-1 6 cm),
Oncorhynchus mykiss
Rainbow trout (adult),
Oncorhynchus mykiss
Rainbow trout (53.5 g),
Oncorhynchus mykiss
Method3
R,U
R,U
R,U
R,U
R,U
R,U
R,U
R,M,T
R,M,T
R,M,T
R,M,T
R,M,T
R,M,T
F,U
F,U
F,U
F,U
F,M,I
F,M,T
F,M,T
F,M,T
Chemical
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Copper
nitrate
-
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Copper
chloride
Copper
sulfate
Hardness
(mg/L as
CaCO3)
250
104
101
101
-
-
-
62.9
62.9
40-48
36.5
44
62.9
-
100
89.5
90
-
300
42
365
Duration
8 days
28 days
28 days
28 days
96 hr
96 hr
96 hr
7-9 mo
7-9 mo
96 hr
21 days
96 hr
7-9 mo
96 hr
96 hr
1 hr
2hr
8 days
1 4 days
-
96 hr
Effect
LC50
LC50
EC50
(death or deformity)
EC10
(death or deformity)
LC50
LC50
LC50
Lesions in olfactory rosettes
31 % mortality
LC50
Elevated plasma cortisol returned
to normal
15-20% post-hatch mortality
Inhibited olfactory discrimination
LC50
LC50
Avoidance
55% depressed olfactory response
LC50
LC50
LC50
LC50
Total
Concentration
(ug/L)b
500
90
110
16.5
1,150
430
930
22
22
400
45
80
22
253
250
10
50
500
870
57
465
Dissolved
Concentration
(ug/L)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Reference
Brown etal. 1974
Birge 1978;
Birgeetal. 1978
Birge etal. 1980;
Birge and Black 1979
Birgeetal. 1980
Kazlauskieneetal. 1994
Kazlauskiene et al. 1994
Kazlauskiene et al. 1994
Saucier et al. 1991b
Saucier et al. 1991b
Giles and Klaverkamp 1982
Munozetal. 1991
Giles and Klaverkamp 1982
Saucier etal. 1991 a
Hale 1977
Goettletal. 1972
Folmar 1976
Haraetal. 1976
Shaw and Brown 1974
Calamari and Marchetti 1973
Chapman 1975, Chapman and
Stevens 1 978
Lett etal. 1976
B-19
-------
Appendix B. Other Data on Effects of Copper on Freshwater Organisms
Species
Rainbow trout (53.5 g),
Oncorhynchus mykiss
Rainbow trout (alevin),
Oncorhynchus mykiss
Rainbow trout (alevin),
Oncorhynchus mykiss
Rainbow trout (swimup),
Oncorhynchus mykiss
Rainbow trout (swimup),
Oncorhynchus mykiss
Rainbow trout (parr),
Oncorhynchus mykiss
Rainbow trout (parr),
Oncorhynchus mykiss
Rainbow trout (smolt),
Oncorhynchus mykiss
Rainbow trout (smolt),
Oncorhynchus mykiss
Rainbow trout,
Oncorhynchus mykiss
Rainbow trout (>8 g),
Oncorhynchus mykiss
Rainbow trout (>8 g),
Oncorhynchus mykiss
Rainbow trout (>8 g),
Oncorhynchus mykiss
Rainbow trout (>8 g),
Oncorhynchus mykiss
Rainbow trout (>8 g),
Oncorhynchus mykiss
Rainbow trout (>8 g),
Oncorhynchus mykiss
Rainbow trout (>8 g),
Oncorhynchus mykiss
Rainbow trout (>8 g),
Oncorhynchus mykiss
Rainbow trout (200-250 g),
Oncorhynchus mykiss
Rainbow trout (7 cm),
Oncorhynchus mykiss
Rainbow trout (2.70 g),
Oncorhynchus mykiss
Rainbow trout (2.88 g),
Oncorhynchus mykiss
Method3
F,M,T
F,M,T
F,M,T
F,M,T
F,M,T
F,M,T
F,M,T
F,M,T
F,M,T
F,M,T
F,M,T
F,M,T
F,M,T
F,M,T
F,M,T
F,M,T
F,M,T
F,M,T
F,M,T
F,M,T
F,M,T
F,M,T
Chemical
Copper
sulfate
Copper
chloride
Copper
chloride
Copper
chloride
Copper
chloride
Copper
chloride
Copper
chloride
Copper
chloride
Copper
chloride
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Copper
chloride
Copper
chloride
Copper
chloride
Hardness
(mg/L as
CaCO3)
365
24
24
24
24
25
25
25
25
112.4
49
51
57
12
99
98
12
97
320
28.4
9.2
9.2
Duration
1 5 days
200 hr
200 hr
200 hr
200 hr
200 hr
200 hr
200 hr
200 hr
80 min
15-1 8 days
15-1 8 days
15-1 8 days
15-1 8 days
15-1 8 days
15-1 8 days
15-1 8 days
15-1 8 days
4 mo
20 min
96 hr
96 hr
Effect
Transient decrease in food
consumption
LC50
LC10
LC50
LC10
LC50
LC10
LC50
LC10
Avoidance threshold
LC50
LC50
LC50
LC50
LC50
LC50
LC50
LC50
Altered liver and blood enzymes and
mitochondrial function
Avoidance
LC50
LC50
Total
Concentration
(ug/L)b
100
20
19
17
9
15
8
21
7
74
48
46
63
19
54
78
18
96
30
6.4
4.2
66
Dissolved
Concentration
(ug/L)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Reference
Lettetal. 1976
Chapman 1978
Chapman 1978
Chapman 1978
Chapman 1978
Chapman 1978
Chapman 1978
Chapman 1978
Chapman 1978
Black and Birge 1980
Miller and MacKay 1980
Miller and MacKay 1980
Miller and MacKay 1980
Miller and MacKay 1980
Miller and MacKay 1980
Miller and MacKay 1980
Miller and MacKay 1980
Miller and MacKay 1980
Arilloetal. 1984
Giattinaetal. 1982
Cusimano et al. 1986
Cusimano et al. 1986
B-20
-------
Appendix B. Other Data on Effects of Copper on Freshwater Organisms
Species
Rainbow trout (2.88 g),
Oncorhynchus mykiss
Rainbow trout (2.70 g),
Oncorhynchus mykiss
Rainbow trout (2.65 g),
Oncorhynchus mykiss
Rainbow trout (5 day embryo),
Oncorhynchus mykiss
Rainbow trout (1 0 day embryo),
Oncorhynchus mykiss
Rainbow trout (1 5 day embryo),
Oncorhynchus mykiss
Rainbow trout (22 day embryo),
Oncorhynchus mykiss
Rainbow trout (29 day embryo),
Oncorhynchus mykiss
Rainbow trout (36 day embryo),
Oncorhynchus mykiss
Rainbow trout (2 day larva),
Oncorhynchus mykiss
Rainbow trout (7 day larva),
Oncorhynchus mykiss
Rainbow trout (yearling),
Oncorhynchus mykiss
Rainbow trout (swimup),
Oncorhynchus mykiss
Rainbow trout (swimup),
Oncorhynchus mykiss
Rainbow trout (9. 0-1 1.5 cm,
10.6g),
Oncorhynchus mykiss
Rainbow trout (3.5cm),
Oncorhynchus mykiss
Rainbow trout (3.5cm),
Oncorhynchus mykiss
Rainbow trout (3.5cm),
Oncorhynchus mykiss
Rainbow trout (3.5cm),
Oncorhynchus mykiss
Rainbow trout (10.0 g),
Oncorhynchus mykiss
Rainbow trout (10.9 g),
Oncorhynchus mykiss
Method3
F,M,T
F,M,T
F,M,T
F,M,T
F,M,T
F,M,T
F,M,T
F,M,T
F,M,T
F,M,T
F,M,T
F,M,T
F,M,T
F,M,T
F,M,T
F,M,T
F,M,T
F,M,T
F,M,T
F,M,D
F,M,D
Chemical
Copper
chloride
Copper
chloride
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Copper
nitrate
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Copper
chloride
Copper
chloride
Copper
chloride
Copper
chloride
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Hardness
(mg/L as
CaCO3)
9.2
9.2
9.2
87.7
87.7
87.7
87.7
87.7
87.7
87.7
87.7
63
60.9
60.9
284
24.2
24.2
24.2
24.2
362
362
Duration
168hr
168hr
168hr
48 hr
48 hr
48 hr
48 hr
48 hr
48 hr
48 hr
48 hr
1 5 days
1 3-40 wk
40 wk
96 hr
96 hr
96 hr
96 hr
96 hr
144hr
144hr
Effect
LC50
LC50
LC50
LC50
LC50
LC50
LC50
LC50
LC50
LC50
LC50
Olfactory receptor degeneration
Inhibited olfactory discrimination
43% mortality
LC50
LC50
LC50
LC50
LC50
LC50
(extruded diet)
LC50
(steam pelleted diet)
Total
Concentration
(ug/L)b
36.7
3.1
2.3
8,000
2,000
400
600
400
100
100
100
20
20
40
650
12.7
16.6
21.4
34.2
276
350
Dissolved
Concentration
(ug/L)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Reference
Cusimano et al. 1986
Cusimano et al. 1986
Cusimano et al. 1986
Shaziliand Pascoe 1986
Shazili and Pascoe 1986
Shazili and Pascoe 1986
Shazili and Pascoe 1986
Shazili and Pascoe 1986
Shazili and Pascoe 1986
Shazili and Pascoe 1986
Shazili and Pascoe 1986
Julliard et al. 1993
Saucier and Astic 1 995
Saucier and Astic 1 995
Svecevicius and Vosyliene 1996
Marret al. Manuscript
Marret al. Manuscript
Marret al. Manuscript
Marret al. Manuscript
Dixon and Hilton 1981
Dixon and Hilton 1981
B-21
-------
Appendix B. Other Data on Effects of Copper on Freshwater Organisms
Species
Rainbow trout (12.3g),
Oncorhynchus mykiss
Rainbow trout (11.6g),
Oncorhynchus mykiss
Rainbow trout (1 .7-3.3 g),
Oncorhynchus mykiss
Rainbow trout (1 .7-3.3 g),
Oncorhynchus mykiss
Rainbow trout (1 .7-3.3 g),
Oncorhynchus mykiss
Rainbow trout (1 .7-3.3 g),
Oncorhynchus mykiss
Rainbow trout (1 .7-3.3 g),
Oncorhynchus mykiss
Rainbow trout (1 .7-3.3 g),
Oncorhynchus mykiss
Rainbow trout (1 .7-3.3 g),
Oncorhynchus mykiss
Rainbow trout (1 .7-3.3 g),
Oncorhynchus mykiss
Rainbow trout (1. 7-3.3 g),
Oncorhynchus mykiss
Rainbow trout (1 .7-3.3 g),
Oncorhynchus mykiss
Rainbow trout (2.9 g),
Oncorhynchus mykiss
Rainbow trout (3.2 g),
Oncorhynchus mykiss
Rainbow trout (1.4g),
Oncorhynchus mykiss
Rainbow trout (2.2 g),
Oncorhynchus mykiss
Rainbow trout (smolt),
Oncorhynchus mykiss
Rainbow trout (parr),
Oncorhynchus mykiss
Atlantic salmon (2-3 yr parr),
Salmo salar
Atlantic salmon (6.4-1 1 .7 cm),
Salmo salar
Atlantic salmon (7.2-10.9 cm),
Salmo salar
Brown trout (3-6 day larva),
Salmo trutta
Method3
F,M,D
F,M,D
F,M,D
F,M,D
F,M,D
F,M,D
F,M,D
F,M,D
F,M,D
F,M,D
F,M,D
F,M,D
F,M,D
F,M,T,D
F,M,T,D
F,M,T,D
F,M,T,D
F,M,T,D,I
S,M,T
F,M,T
F,M,T
S,M,T
Chemical
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Copper
chloride
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
-
-
Copper
sulfate
-
Copper
chloride
Hardness
(mg/L as
CaCO3)
362
362
374
374
374
374
374
374
374
374
374
374
30.5
30
101
370
363
31.0
8-10
20
14
4
Duration
144hr
144hr
21 days
21 days
21 days
21 days
21 days
21 days
21 days
21 days
21 days
21 days
ca. 2 hr
96 hr
96 hr
96 hr
>10days
62 days
96 hr
7 days
7 days
30 days
Effect
LC50
(Low carbohydrate diet)
LC50
(high carbohydrate diet)
Incipient lethal level
Incipient lethal level
Incipient lethal level
Incipient lethal level
Incipient lethal level
Incipient lethal level (acclimated to 3C
ug/L)
Incipient lethal level (acclimated to 5£
ug/L)
Incipient lethal level (acclimated to 9*
ug/L)
Incipient lethal level (acclimated to 13
ug/L)
Incipient lethal level (acclimated to 19'
ug/L)
Inhibited avoidance of serine
LC50
LC50
LC50
LC50
NOEC
(growth and survival)
LC50
LC50
LC50
>90% mortality
Total
Concentration
(ug/L)b
408
246
329
333
311
274
371
266
349
515
564
708
6.667
-
-
-
97.92
90
125
48
32
80
Dissolved
Concentration
(ug/L)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
19.9
176
232
-
-
-
-
-
-
Reference
Dixonand Hilton 1981
Dixonand Hilton 1981
Dixon and Sprague 1981 a
Dixon and Sprague 1981 a
Dixon and Sprague 1981 a
Dixon and Sprague 1981 a
Dixon and Sprague 1981 a
Dixon and Sprague 1981 a
Dixon and Sprague 1981 a
Dixon and Sprague 1981 a
Dixon and Sprague 1981 a
Dixon and Sprague 1981 a
Rehnberg and Schreck 1986
Howarth and Sprague 1978
Howarth and Sprague 1978
Howarth and Sprague 1978
Fogels and Sprague 1977
Mudge et al. 1993
Wilson 1972
Sprague 1964
Sprague and Ramsay 1965
Reader etal. 1989
B-22
-------
Appendix B. Other Data on Effects of Copper on Freshwater Organisms
Species
Brown trout (larva),
Salmo trutta
Brown trout (larva),
Salmo trutta
Brown trout (larva),
Salmo trutta
Brook trout,
Salvelinus fontinalis
Brook trout (1 g),
Salvelinus fontinalis
Brook trout (8 mo),
Salvelinus fontinalis
Brook trout (15-20 cm),
Salvelinus fontinalis
Brook trout (13-20 cm),
Salvelinus fontinalis
Goldfish (3.8-6.3 cm),
Carassius auratus
Goldfish (1 0.5 g),
Carassius auratus
Goldfish (embryo),
Carrassius auratus
Goldfish,
Carassius auratus
Goldfish,
Carassius auratus
Goldfish,
Carassius auratus
Common carp (1 .8-2.1 cm),
Cyprinus carpio
Common carp (5.0-6.0 cm),
Cyprinus carpio
Common carp (embryo),
Cyprinus carpio
Common carp (embryo),
Cyprinus carpio
Common carp (larva),
Cyprinus carpio
Common carp (fry),
Cyprinus carpio
Common carp,
Cyprinus carpio
Common carp,
Cyprinus carpio
Method3
S,M,T
S,M,T
F,M,T
-
S,M,T
R,M,T
F,M,T
F,M,T
S,U
S,M,T
R,U
R,U
R,U
R,U
S,U
S,U
S,U
S,U
S,U
S,U
S,M,T
S,M,T
Chemical
Copper
chloride
Copper
chloride
Copper
chloride
-
Copper
chloride
-
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Copper
acetate
Copper
acetate
Copper
acetate
Copper
nitrate
Copper
nitrate
Hardness
(mg/L as
CaCO3)
4
22
25
-
4
20
47
47
20
34.2
195
45
45
45
144-188
144-188
360
274
274
274
53
55
Duration
30 days
30 days
60 days
24 hr
80 hr
1 0 days
21 days
337 days
96 hr
-
7 days
24 hr
24 hr
24 hr
96 hr
96 hr
-
96 hr
96 hr
96 hr
-
-
Effect
>90% mortality
<10% mortality
Inhibited growth
Significant change in cough rate
75% mortality
IC50
(growth)
Altered Blood Hct, RBC, Hb, Cl,
PGOT, Osmolarity, protein
Altered blood PGOT
LC50
LC50
EC50
(death or deformity)
LC50
(5°C)
LC50
(15°C)
LC50
(30° C)
LC50
LC50
EC50
(hatch and deformity)
LC50
LC50
LC50
LC50
LC50
Total
Concentration
(ug/L)b
20
80
4.6
9
25.4
187
38.2
17.4
36
150
5,200
2,700
2,900
1,510
117.5
530
4,775
140
4
63
110
800
Dissolved
Concentration
(ug/L)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Reference
Sayeretal. 1989
Sayeretal. 1989
Marretal. 1996
Drummond et al. 1973
Sayeretal. 1991 b, c
Jopetal. 1995
McKim etal. 1970
McKim etal. 1970
Pickering and Henderson 1966
Hossainetal. 1995
Birge 1978;
Birgeand Black 1979
Cairns etal. 1978
Cairns etal. 1978
Cairns etal. 1978
Deshmukh and Marathe 1980
Deshmukh and Marathe 1980
Kapur and Yadav 1 982
Kaurand Dhawan 1994
Kaurand Dhawan 1994
Kaurand Dhawan 1994
Rehwoldt et al. 1971
Rehwoldt et al. 1972
B-23
-------
Appendix B. Other Data on Effects of Copper on Freshwater Organisms
Species
Common carp (4.7-6.2 cm),
Cyprinus carpio
Common carp (embryo and
larva),
Cyprinus carpio
Common carp (3.5 cm),
Cyprinus carpio
Common carp (6.5 cm),
Cyprinus carpio
Common carp (embryo),
Cyprinus carpio
Common carp (1 mo),
Cyprinus carpio
Common carp (22.9 cm),
Cyprinus carpio
Common carp (embryo and
larva),
Cyprinus carpio
Common carp (embryo and
larva),
Cyprinus carpio
Bonytail (larva),
Gila elegans
Bonytail (100-110 days),
Gila elegans
Golden shiner (11-13 cm),
Notemigonus crysoleucas
Golden shiner,
Notemigonus crysoleucas
Golden shiner,
Notemigonus crysoleucas
Golden shiner,
Notemigonus crysoleucas
Golden shiner,
Notemigonus crysoleucas
Striped shiner,
Notropis chrysocephalus
Striped shiner (4.7 cm)
Notropis chrysocephalus
Striped shiner (5.0 cm)
Notropis chrysocephalus
Striped shiner,
Notropis chrysocephalus
Method3
R,U
R,U
R,U
R,U
R,M,T
R,M,T
F,M,T
F,M,T
F,M,T
S, U
S, U
S,U
S,U
S,U
S,U
F,M,T
F,M,T,D
F,M,T,D
F,M,T,D
F,M,T,D
Chemical
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Copper
nitrate
Copper
chloride
Copper
chloride
Copper
chloride
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Copper
chloride
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Hardness
(mg/L as
CaCO3)
19
50
-
-
50
84.8
17
100
100
199
199
221
45
45
45
72.2
318
316
274
314
Duration
96 hr
108hr
96 hr
96 hr
72 hr
1 wk
48 hr
168hr
168hr
96 hr
96 hr
94 hr
24 hr
24 hr
24 hr
15 min
96 hr
96 hr
96 hr
96 hr
Effect
LC50
77% deformed
LC50
LC50
Prevented hatching
Raised critical D.O. and altered
ammonia excretion
LC50
55% mortality
18% mortality;
LC50
LC50
Decreased serum osmolality
LC50
(5°C)
LC50
(15°C)
LC50
(30° C)
EC50
(avoidance)
LC50
LC50
LC50
LC50
Total
Concentration
(ug/L)b
63
10
300
1,000
700
14.0
170
19
50.8
364
231
2,500
330
230
270
26
3,400
4,000
5,000
8,400
Dissolved
Concentration
(ug/L)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Reference
Khangarotetal. 1983
Wani 1986
Alam and Maughan 1992
Alam and Maughan 1992
Hildebrand and Cushman 1978
De Boecketal. 1995a
Harrison and Rice 1981
Stouthart et al. 1996
Stouthartetal. 1996
Buhl and Hamilton 1996
Buhl and Hamilton 1996
Lewis and Lewis 1971
Cairns etal. 1978
Cairns et al. 1978
Cairns etal. 1978
Hartwelletal. 1989
Geckleretal. 1976
Geckleretal. 1976
Geckleretal. 1976
Geckleretal. 1976
B-24
-------
Appendix B. Other Data on Effects of Copper on Freshwater Organisms
Species
Striped shiner,
Notropis chrysocephalus
Bluntnose minnow,
Pimephales notatus
Bluntnose minnow,
Pimephales notatus
Bluntnose minnow,
Pimephales notatus
Bluntnose minnow,
Pimephales notatus
Bluntnose minnow,
Pimephales notatus
Bluntnose minnow,
Pimephales notatus
Bluntnose minnow,
Pimephales notatus
Bluntnose minnow,
Pimephales notatus
Bluntnose minnow,
Pimephales notatus
Bluntnose minnow,
Pimephales notatus
Bluntnose minnow,
Pimephales notatus
Bluntnose minnow,
Pimephales notatus
Bluntnose minnow,
Pimephales notatus
Bluntnose minnow,
Pimephales notatus
Bluntnose minnow,
Pimephales notatus
Bluntnose minnow,
Pimephales notatus
Bluntnose minnow,
Pimephales notatus
Bluntnose minnow,
Pimephales notatus
Bluntnose minnow,
Pimephales notatus
Bluntnose minnow,
Pimephales notatus
Bluntnose minnow,
Pimephales notatus
Method3
F,M,T,D
S,U
S,U
S,U
S,U
S,U
S,U
S,U
S,U
S,U
S,U
S,U
S,U
S,M,D
S,M,D
S,M,D
S,M,D
S,M,D
S,M,D
S,M,D
S,M,D
S,M,D
Chemical
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Hardness
(mg/L as
CaCO3)
303
208
132
182
233
282
337
322
322
322
203
203
203
320
324
324
320
318
318
314
318
324
Duration
96 hr
48 hr
48 hr
48 hr
48 hr
48 hr
48 hr
48 hr
48 hr
48 hr
48 hr
48 hr
48 hr
48 hr
48 hr
48 hr
48 hr
48 hr
48 hr
48 hr
48 hr
48 hr
Effect
LC50
LC50
LC50
LC50
LC50
LC50
LC50
LC50
LC50
LC50
LC50
LC50
LC50
LC50
LC50
LC50
LC50
LC50
LC50
LC50
LC50
LC50
Total
Concentration
(ug/L)b
16,000
290
150
200
180
260
260
6,300
1 1 ,000
25,000
160
1,100
2,900
6,300
9,000
4,700
1 1 ,000
5,700
10,000
8,000
1 1 ,000
9,700
Dissolved
Concentration
(ug/L)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Reference
Geckleretal. 1976
Geckleretal. 1976
Geckleretal. 1976
Geckleretal. 1976
Geckleretal. 1976
Geckleretal. 1976
Geckleretal. 1976
Geckleretal. 1976
Geckleretal. 1976
Geckleretal. 1976
Geckleretal. 1976
Geckleretal. 1976
Geckleretal. 1976
Geckleretal. 1976
Geckleretal. 1976
Geckleretal. 1976
Geckleretal. 1976
Geckleretal. 1976
Geckleretal. 1976
Geckleretal. 1976
Geckleretal. 1976
Geckleretal. 1976
B-25
-------
Appendix B. Other Data on Effects of Copper on Freshwater Organisms
Species
Bluntnose minnow,
Pimephales notatus
Bluntnose minnow,
Pimephales notatus
Bluntnose minnow,
Pimephales notatus
Bluntnose minnow,
Pimephales notatus
Bluntnose minnow,
Pimephales notatus
Bluntnose minnow,
Pimephales notatus
Bluntnose minnow,
Pimephales notatus
Bluntnose minnow,
Pimephales notatus
Bluntnose minnow,
Pimephales notatus
Bluntnose minnow,
Pimephales notatus
Bluntnose minnow,
Pimephales notatus
Bluntnose minnow,
Pimephales notatus
Bluntnose minnow (3.9 cm),
Pimephales notatus
Bluntnose minnow (5.3 cm),
Pimephales notatus
Fathead minnow (adult),
Pimephales promelas
Fathead minnow (adult),
Pimephales promelas
Fathead minnow (adult),
Pimephales promelas
Fathead minnow (adult),
Pimephales promelas
Fathead minnow (adult),
Pimephales promelas
Fathead minnow,
Pimephales promelas
Fathead minnow,
Pimephales promelas
Fathead minnow (3.8-6.3 cm),
Pimephales promelas
Method3
S,M,D
S,M,D
S,M,D
S,M,D
S,M,D
S,M,D
S,M,D
S,M,D
S,M,D
S,M,D
S,M,D
S,M,D
F,M,T,D
F,M,T,D
S,U
S,U
S,U
S,U
S,U
S,U
S,U
S,U
Chemical
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Hardness
(mg/L as
CaCO3)
339
310
310
302
296
332
340
296
306
308
304
315
314
303
1 03-1 04
1 03-1 04
1 03-1 04
1 03-1 04
254-271
200
31
20
Duration
48 hr
48 hr
48 hr
48 hr
48 hr
48 hr
48 hr
48 hr
48 hr
48 hr
48 hr
48 hr
96 hr
96 hr
96 hr
96 hr
96 hr
96 hr
96 hr
96 hr
96 hr
96 hr
Effect
LC50
LC50
LC50
LC50
LC50
LC50
LC50
LC50
LC50
LC50
LC50
LC50
LC50
LC50
LC50
LC50
LC50
LC50
LC50
LC50
LC50
LC50
Total
Concentration
(ug/L)b
7,000
12,000
21 ,000
19,000
8,000
1 1 ,000
6,300
1,500
750
2,500
1,600
4,000
6,800
13,000
210
310
120
210
390
430
84
25
Dissolved
Concentration
(ug/L)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Reference
Geckleretal. 1976
Geckleretal. 1976
Geckleretal. 1976
Geckleretal. 1976
Geckleretal. 1976
Geckleretal. 1976
Geckleretal. 1976
Geckleretal. 1976
Geckleretal. 1976
Geckleretal. 1976
Geckleretal. 1976
Geckleretal. 1976
Geckleretal. 1976
Geckleretal. 1976
Birge etal. 1983
Birge etal. 1983
Birge etal. 1983
Birge etal. 1983;
Benson and Birge 1985
Birge etal. 1983;
Benson and Birge 1985
Mount 1968
Mount and Stephan 1969
Pickering and Henderson 1966
B-26
-------
Appendix B. Other Data on Effects of Copper on Freshwater Organisms
Species
Fathead minnow (3.8-6.3 cm),
Pimephales promelas
Fathead minnow (3.8-6.3 cm),
Pimephales promelas
Fathead minnow (3.8-6.3 cm),
Pimephales promelas
Fathead minnow (3.8-6.3 cm),
Pimephales promelas
Fathead minnow (3.8-6.3 cm),
Pimephales promelas
Fathead minnow,
Pimephales promelas
Fathead minnow,
Pimephales promelas
Fathead minnow (3.2-4.2 cm),
Pimephales promelas
Fathead minnow (2.0-6.9 cm),
Pimephales promelas
Fathead minnow (2.0-6.9 cm),
Pimephales promelas
Fathead minnow (2.0-6.9 cm),
Pimephales promelas
Fathead minnow (2.0-6.9 cm),
Pimephales promelas
Fathead minnow (2.0-6.9 cm),
Pimephales promelas
Fathead minnow (2.0-6.9 cm),
Pimephales promelas
Fathead minnow (2.0-6.9 cm),
Pimephales promelas
Fathead minnow (2.0-6.9 cm),
Pimephales promelas
Fathead minnow (2.0-6.9 cm),
Pimephales promelas
Fathead minnow (2.0-6.9 cm),
Pimephales promelas
Fathead minnow (2.0-6.9 cm),
Pimephales promelas
Fathead minnow (2.0-6.9 cm),
Pimephales promelas
Fathead minnow (2.0-6.9 cm),
Pimephales promelas
Method3
S,U
s,u
s,u
s,u
s,u
s,u
s,u
S,M
S,M,D
S,M,D
S,M,D
S,M,D
S,M,D
S,M,D
S,M,D
S,M,D
S,M,D
S,M,D
S,M,D
S,M,D
S,M,D
Chemical
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Copper
acetate
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Hardness
(mg/L as
CaCO3)
20
20
20
360
360
20
400
44
294
120
298
280
244
212
260
224
228
150
310
280
280
Duration
96 hr
96 hr
96 hr
96 hr
96 hr
96 hr
96 hr
96 hr
96 hr
96 hr
96 hr
96 hr
96 hr
96 hr
96 hr
96 hr
96 hr
96 hr
96 hr
96 hr
96 hr
Effect
LC50
LC50
LC50
LC50
LC50
LC50
LC50
LC50
LC50
LC50
LC50
LC50
LC50
LC50
LC50
LC50
LC50
LC50
LC50
LC50
LC50
Total
Concentration
(ug/L)b
23
23
22
1760
1140
50
1,400
117
16,000
2,200
16,000
3,300
1,600
2,000
3,500
9,700
5,000
2,800
1 1 ,000
12,000
1 1 ,000
Dissolved
Concentration
(ug/L)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Reference
Pickering and Henderson 1966
Pickering and Henderson 1966
Pickering and Henderson 1966
Pickering and Henderson 1966
Pickering and Henderson 1966
Tarzwell and Henderson 1960
Tarzwell and Henderson 1960
Curtis etal. 1979;
Curtis and Ward 1981
Brungsetal. 1976
Brungset al. 1976
Brungsetal. 1976
Brungsetal. 1976;
Geckleretal. 1976
Brungsetal. 1976;
Geckleretal. 1976
Brungsetal. 1976;
Geckleretal. 1976
Brungsetal. 1976;
Geckleretal. 1976
Brungsetal. 1976;
Geckleretal. 1976
Brungsetal. 1976;
Geckleretal. 1976
Brungsetal. 1976;
Geckleretal. 1976
Brungsetal. 1976;
Geckleretal. 1976
Brungsetal. 1976;
Geckleretal. 1976
Brungsetal. 1976;
Geckleretal. 1976
B-27
-------
Appendix B. Other Data on Effects of Copper on Freshwater Organisms
Species
Fathead minnow (2.0-6.9 cm),
Pimephales promelas
Fathead minnow (2.0-6.9 cm),
Pimephales promelas
Fathead minnow (2.0-6.9 cm),
Pimephales promelas
Fathead minnow (2.0-6.9 cm),
Pimephales promelas
Fathead minnow (2.0-6.9 cm),
Pimephales promelas
Fathead minnow (2.0-6.9 cm),
Pimephales promelas
Fathead minnow (2.0-6.9 cm),
Pimephales promelas
Fathead minnow (2.0-6.9 cm),
Pimephales promelas
Fathead minnow (2.0-6.9 cm),
Pimephales promelas
Fathead minnow (2.0-6.9 cm),
Pimephales promelas
Fathead minnow (2.0-6.9 cm),
Pimephales promelas
Fathead minnow (2.0-6.9 cm),
Pimephales promelas
Fathead minnow (2.0-6.9 cm),
Pimephales promelas
Fathead minnow (2.0-6.9 cm),
Pimephales promelas
Fathead minnow (<24 h),
Pimephales promelas
Fathead minnow (<24 h),
Pimephales promelas
Fathead minnow (<24 h),
Pimephales promelas
Fathead minnow (<24 h),
Pimephales promelas
Fathead minnow (<24 h),
Pimephales promelas
Fathead minnow (<24h; 0.68
mg),
Pimephales promelas
Method3
S,M,D
S,M,D
S,M,D
S,M,D
S,M,D
S,M,D
S,M,D
S,M,D
S,M,D
S,M,D
S,M,D
S,M,D
S,M,D
S,M,D
S,M,T
S,M,T
S,M,T
S,M,T
S,M,T
S,M,T
Chemical
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Copper
nitrate
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Hardness
(mg/L as
CaCO3)
260
308
206
262
322
210
260
252
312
276
252
298
282
284
290
16.8
19.0
19.0
19.0
17
Duration
96 hr
96 hr
96 hr
96 hr
96 hr
96 hr
96 hr
96 hr
96 hr
96 hr
96 hr
96 hr
96 hr
96 hr
96 hr
96 hr
96 hr
96 hr
96 hr
96 hr
Effect
LC50
LC50
LC50
LC50
LC50
LC50
LC50
LC50
LC50
LC50
LC50
LC50
LC50
LC50
LC50
LC50
LC50
LC50
LC50
LC50
Total
Concentration
(ug/L)b
22,200
4,670
920
1,190
2,830
1,450
1,580
1,000
5,330
4,160
10,550
22,200
21 ,800
23,600
>200
36.0
70.3
85.6
182.0
1.99
Dissolved
Concentration
(ug/L)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Reference
Geckleretal. 1976
Geckleretal. 1976
Geckleretal. 1976
Geckleretal. 1976
Geckleretal. 1976
Geckleretal. 1976
Geckleretal. 1976
Geckleretal. 1976
Geckleretal. 1976
Geckleretal. 1976
Geckleretal. 1976
Geckleretal. 1976
Geckleretal. 1976
Geckleretal. 1976
Schubauer-Berigan et al. 1993
Welsh etal. 1993
Welsh etal. 1993
Welsh etal. 1993
Welsh etal. 1993
Welsh etal. 1993
B-28
-------
Appendix B. Other Data on Effects of Copper on Freshwater Organisms
Species
Fathead minnow (<24h; 0.68
mg),
Pimephales promelas
Fathead minnow (<24h; 0.68
mg),
Pimephales promelas
Fathead minnow (<24h; 0.68
mg),
Pimephales promelas
Fathead minnow (<24h; 0.68
mg),
Pimephales promelas
Fathead minnow (60-90 days),
Pimephales promelas
Fathead minnow (3 wk),
Pimephales promelas
Fathead minnow (2-4 day),
Pimephales promelas
Fathead minnow (<24 hrs),
Pimephales promelas
Fathead minnow (<24 hrs),
Pimephales promelas
Fathead minnow (<24 hrs),
Pimephales promelas
Fathead minnow (<24 hrs),
Pimephales promelas
Fathead minnow (<24 hrs),
Pimephales promelas
Fathead minnow (<24 hrs),
Pimephales promelas
Fathead minnow (<24 hrs),
Pimephales promelas
Fathead minnow (<24 hrs),
Pimephales promelas
Fathead minnow (<24 hrs),
Pimephales promelas
Fathead minnow (<24 hrs),
Pimephales promelas
Fathead minnow (<24 hrs),
Pimephales promelas
Fathead minnow (<24 hrs),
Pimephales promelas
Fathead minnow (<24 hrs),
Pimephales promelas
Method3
S,M,T
S,M,T
S,M,T
S,M,T
S,M,T
S,M,T
S,M,T
S,M,T
S,M,T
S,M,T
S,M,T
S,M,T
S,M,T
S,M,T
S,M,T
S,M,T
S,M,T
S,M,T
S,M,T,D
S,M,T,D
Chemical
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
-
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Hardness
(mg/L as
CaCO3)
20.5
16.5
17.5
17
110
101
6-10
9.9
7.1
8.3
8.9
16.8
12.2
9.4
11.4
10.9
12.4
17.4
46
46
Duration
96 hr
96 hr
96 hr
96 hr
48 hr
48 hr
-
96 hr
96 hr
96 hr
96 hr
96 hr
96 hr
96 hr
96 hr
96 hr
96 hr
96 hr
96 hr
96 hr
Effect
LC50
LC50
LC50
LC50
LC50
Short-term intolerance of hypoxia (2
mg D.O./L)
LC50
LC50
LC50
LC50
LC50
LC50
LC50
LC50
LC50
LC50
LC50
LC50
LC50
LC50
Total
Concentration
(ug/L)b
4.86
11.1
9.87
15.7
284
186
12.5
10.7
6.3
12.2
9.5
26.8
21.2
19.8
31.9
26.1
26.0
169.5
17.15
21.59
Dissolved
Concentration
(ug/L)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
14.87
18.72
Reference
Welsh etal. 1993
Welsh etal. 1993
Welsh etal. 1993
Welsh etal. 1993
Dobbsetal. 1994
Bennett etal. 1995
Suedeletal. 1996
Welsh etal. 1996
Welsh etal. 1996
Welsh etal. 1996
Welsh etal. 1996
Welsh etal. 1996
Welsh etal. 1996
Welsh etal. 1996
Welsh etal. 1996
Welsh etal. 1996
Welsh etal. 1996
Welsh etal. 1996
Erickson etal. 1996a,b
Erickson etal. 1996a,b
B-29
-------
Appendix B. Other Data on Effects of Copper on Freshwater Organisms
Species
Fathead minnow (<24 hrs),
Pimephales promelas
Fathead minnow (<24 hrs),
Pimephales promelas
Fathead minnow (<24 hrs),
Pimephales promelas
Fathead minnow,
Pimephales promelas
Fathead minnow,
Pimephales promelas
Fathead minnow (<24 hr),
Pimephales promelas
Fathead minnow (<24 hr),
Pimephales promelas
Fathead minnow (<24 hr),
Pimephales promelas
Fathead minnow (embryo),
Pimephales promelas
Fathead minnow (embryo),
Pimephales promelas
Fathead minnow (embryo),
Pimephales promelas
Fathead minnow (embryo),
Pimephales promelas
Fathead minnow (embryo),
Pimephales promelas
Fathead minnow (embryo),
Pimephales promelas
Fathead minnow (embryo),
Pimephales promelas
Fathead minnow (embryo),
Pimephales promelas
Fathead minnow (embryo),
Pimephales promelas
Fathead minnow (embryo),
Pimephales promelas
Fathead minnow (larva),
Pimephales promelas
Fathead minnow (larva),
Pimephales promelas
Fathead minnow (larva),
Pimephales promelas
Fathead minnow (3-7 days),
Pimephales promelas
Method3
S,M,T,D
S,M,T,D
S,M,T,D
S,M,T,D
S,M,T,D
R,U
R,U
R,U
R,U
R,U
R,U
R,U
R,U
R,U
R,U
R,U
R,U
R,U
R,M,T
R,M,T
R,M,T
R,M,T
Chemical
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
-
-
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Hardness
(mg/L as
CaCO3)
47
45
46
100
250
45
45
345
106
106
106
106
106
106
106
106
106
106
180
218
218
74
Duration
96 hr
96 hr
96 hr
96 hr
96 hr
7 days
7 days
4 days
5 days
5 days
5 days
5 days
7 days
7 days
7 days
7 days
7 days
7 days
7 days
7 days
7 days
48 hr
Effect
LC50
LC50
LC50
LC50 (fish from metal-contaminated
pond)
LC50 (fish from metal-contaminated
pond)
LC50
LOEC
(growth)
RNA threshhold effect
LC50
LC50
EC50
(malformation)
EC50
(malformation)
LC50
LC50
EC50
(malformation)
EC50
(malformation)
LOEC
(length)
LOEC
(length)
LOEC
(growth)
LOEC
(growth)
LOEC
(growth)
LC50
Total
Concentration
(ug/L)b
123.19
42.56
83.19
360
410
70
26
130
480
440
270
260
310
330
190
170
160
180
25
38
38
225
Dissolved
Concentration
(ug/L)
106.8
36.89
72.13
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Reference
Erickson etal. 1996a,b
Erickson etal. 1996a,b
Erickson etal. 1996a,b
Birgeetal. 1983
Birgeetal. 1983
Norberg and Mount 1985
Norberg and Mount 1985
Parrott and Sprague 1993
Fort etal. 1996
Fort etal. 1996
Fort etal. 1996
Fort etal. 1996
Fort etal. 1996
Fort etal. 1996
Fort etal. 1996
Fort etal. 1996
Fort etal. 1996
Fort etal. 1996
Pickering and Lazorchak 1995
Pickering and Lazorchak 1995
Pickering and Lazorchak 1995
Diamond etal. 1997b
B-30
-------
Appendix B. Other Data on Effects of Copper on Freshwater Organisms
Species
Fathead minnow (larva),
Pimephales promelas
Fathead minnow (larva),
Pimephales promelas
Fathead minnow (larva),
Pimephales promelas
Fathead minnow (larva),
Pimephales promelas
Fathead minnow (3-7 days),
Pimephales promelas
Fathead minnow (3-7 days),
Pimephales promelas
Fathead minnow (32-38 mm),
Pimephales promelas
Fathead minnow (larva),
Pimephales promelas
Fathead minnow (embryo),
Pimephales promelas
Fathead minnow (embryo),
Pimephales promelas
Fathead minnow (24-96 hr),
Pimephales promelas
Fathead minnow (24-96 hr),
Pimephales promelas
Fathead minnow (24-96 hr),
Pimephales promelas
Fathead minnow (24-96 hr),
Pimephales promelas
Fathead minnow (<24 hrs),
Pimephales promelas
Fathead minnow (<24 hrs),
Pimephales promelas
Fathead minnow,
Pimephales promelas
Fathead minnow,
Pimephales promelas
Fathead minnow,
Pimephales promelas
Fathead minnow,
Pimephales promelas
Fathead minnow,
Pimephales promelas
Fathead minnow,
Pimephales promelas
Method3
R,M,T,D
R,M,T,D
R,M,T,D
R,M,T,D
R,M,T,D
R,M,T,D
F,M,T
F,M,T
F,M,T
F,M,T
F,M,T
F,M,T
F,M,T
F,M,T
F,M,T
F,M,T
F,M,T
F,M,T
F,M,T
F,M,T
F,M,T
F,M,T
Chemical
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
-
-
-
-
-
-
Hardness
(mg/L as
CaCO3)
80
80
80
80
80
72
244
202
202
202
10.7
10.7
9.3
9.3
46
46
30
37
87
73
84
66
Duration
48 hr
48 hr
48 hr
48 hr
48 hr
48 hr
9 mo
-
34 days
34 days
21 days
21 days
21 days
21 days
96 hr
96 hr
96 hr
96 hr
96 hr
96 hr
96 hr
96 hr
Effect
LC50
LC50
LC50
LC50
LC50
LC50
LOEC
(93% lower fecundity)
LC50
Reduced growth;
increased abnormality
LC50
Incipient lethal level
Growth (length) reduced by 8%
Incipient lethal level
Growth (length) reduced by 1 7%
LC50
LC50
LC50
(TOC=12mg/L)
LC50
(TOC=13mg/L)
LC50
(TOC=36 mg/L)
LC50
(TOC=28 mg/L)
LC50
(TOC=15mg/L)
LC50
(TOC=34 mg/L)
Total
Concentration
(ug/L)b
35.9
28.9
20.7
80.8
297.1
145.8
120
250
61
123
6.2
5.3
17.2
16.2
305
298.6
436
516
1,586
1,129
550
1,001
Dissolved
Concentration
(ug/L)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Reference
Diamond etal. 1997a
Diamond etal. 1997a
Diamond etal. 1997a
Diamond etal. 1997a
Diamond etal. 1997b
Diamond etal. 1997b
Brungsetal. 1976
Scudderet al. 1988
Scudderetal. 1988
Scudderetal. 1988
Welsh 1996
Welsh 1996
Welsh 1996
Welsh 1996
Erickson et al. 1996a,b
Erickson et al. 1996 a, b
Lind et al. manuscript
Lind et al. manuscript
Lind et al. manuscript
Lind et al. manuscript
Lind et al. manuscript
Lind et al. manuscript
B-31
-------
Appendix B. Other Data on Effects of Copper on Freshwater Organisms
Species
Fathead minnow,
Pimephales promelas
Fathead minnow,
Pimephales promelas
Fathead minnow,
Pimephales promelas
Fathead minnow,
Pimephales promelas
Fathead minnow (4.4 cm),
Pimephales promelas
Fathead minnow (4.2 cm),
Pimephales promelas
Fathead minnow (<24 hrs),
Pimephales promelas
Fathead minnow (<24 hrs),
Pimephales promelas
Fathead minnow (<24 hrs),
Pimephales promelas
Fathead minnow (<24 hrs),
Pimephales promelas
Fathead minnow (<24 hrs),
Pimephales promelas
Colorado squawfish (larva),
Ptychocheilus lucius
Colorado squawfish (155-186
days),
Ptychocheilus lucius
Colorado squawfish (32-40 days
posthatch),
Ptychocheilus lucius
Colorado squawfish (32-40 days
posthatch),
Ptychocheilus lucius
Creek chub,
Semotilus atromaculatus
Creek chub,
Semotilus atromaculatus
Razorback sucker (larva),
Xyrauchen texanus
Razorback sucker (1 02-1 1 6
days),
Xyrauchen texanus
Razorback sucker (1 3-23 days
posthatch),
Xyrauchen texanus
Method3
F,M,T
F,M,T
F,M,T
F,M,T
F,M,T,D
F,M,T,D
F,M,T,D
F,M,T,D
F,M,T,D
F,M,T,D
F,M,T,D
S,U
S,U
S,U
S,U
F,M,T
F,M,T
S,U
S,U
S,U
Chemical
-
-
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Hardness
(mg/L as
CaCO3)
117
121
117
121
314
303
45
45
46
44
45
199
199
144
144
316
274
199
199
144
Duration
96 hr
96 hr
96 hr
96 hr
96 hr
96 hr
96 hr
96 hr
96 hr
96 hr
96 hr
96 hr
96 hr
96 hr
96 hr
96 hr
96 hr
96 hr
96 hr
96 hr
Effect
LC50
(TOC=30 mg/L)
LC50
(TOC=30 mg/L)
LC50
LC50
LC50
LC50
LC50
LC50
LC50
LC50
LC50
LC50
LC50
LC50
LC50
LC50
LC50
LC50
LC50
LC50
Total
Concentration
(ug/L)b
2,050
2,336
2,050
2,336
1 1 ,000
15,000
158.8
80.01
20.96
50.8
65.41
363
663
293
320
1 1 ,500
1,100
404
331
231
Dissolved
Concentration
(ug/L)
-
-
-
-
-
-
138.1
72.01
18.23
39.12
45.78
-
-
Reference
Lind et al. manuscript
Lind et al. manuscript
Lind et al. manuscript
Lind et al. manuscript
Geckleretal. 1976
Geckleretal. 1976
Erickson etal. 1996a,b
Erickson etal. 1996a,b
Erickson etal. 1996a,b
Erickson etal. 1996a,b
Erickson etal. 1996a,b
Buhl and Hamilton 1996
Buhl and Hamilton 1996
Hamilton and Buhl 1997
Hamilton and Buhl 1997
Geckleretal. 1976
Geckleretal. 1976
Buhl and Hamilton 1996
Buhl and Hamilton 1996
Hamilton and Buhl 1997
B-32
-------
Appendix B. Other Data on Effects of Copper on Freshwater Organisms
Species
Razorback sucker (1 3-23 days
posthatch),
Xyrauchen texanus
Brown bullhead,
Ictallurus nebulosus
Brown bullhead (5.2 cm),
Ictalurus nebulosus
Channel catfish (1 3-1 4 cm),
Ictalurus punctatus
Channel catfish,
Ictalurus punctatus
Channel catfish,
Ictalurus punctatus
Channel catfish,
Ictalurus punctatus
Channel catfish,
Ictalurus punctatus
Channel catfish (fingerlings),
Ictalurus punctatus
Channel catfish (fingerlings),
Ictalurus punctatus
Channel catfish (fingerlings),
Ictalurus punctatus
Channel catfish (fingerlings),
Ictalurus punctatus
Channel catfish (fingerlings),
Ictalurus punctatus
Channel catfish (fingerlings),
Ictalurus punctatus
Channel catfish (fingerlings),
Ictalurus punctatus
Channel catfish (fingerlings),
Ictalurus punctatus
Channel catfish (400-600 g),
Ictalurus punctatus
Channel catfish (4.1 gm),
Ictalurus punctatus
Channel catfish (5.7 gm),
Ictalurus punctatus
Banded killifish,
Fundulus diaphanus
Banded killifish,
Fundulus diaphanus
Method3
S,U
F,M,T
F,M,T
S,U
S,U
S,U
S,U
S,U
S,U
S,U
S,U
S,U
S,U
S,U
S,U
S,U
F,M,T
F,M,T,D
F,M,T,D
S,M,T
S,M,T
Chemical
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Copper
nitrate
Copper
nitrate
Hardness
(mg/L as
CaCO3)
144
303
314
221
45
45
45
100
16
16
83
83
161
161
287
287
-
319
315
53
55
Duration
96 hr
96 hr
96 hr
94 hr
24 hr
24 hr
24 hr
1 0 days
96 hr
96 hr
96 hr
96 hr
96 hr
96 hr
96 hr
96 hr
10 wk
1 4 days
1 4 days
-
-
Effect
LC50
LC50
LC50
Decreased serum osmolality
LC50
(5°C)
LC50
(15°C)
LC50
(30° C)
EC50
(death and deformity)
LC50
LC50
LC50
LC50
LC50
LC50
LC50
LC50
Significant mortality
LC50
LC50
Total
Concentration
(ug/L)b
314
12,000
5,200
2,500
3,700
2,600
3,100
6,620
54
55
762
700
768
1139
1041
925
354
1,229
1,073
860
840
Dissolved
Concentration
(ug/L)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Reference
Hamilton and Buhl 1997
Geckleretal. 1976
Geckleretal. 1976
Lewis and Lewis 1971
Cairns etal. 1978
Cairns et al. 1978
Cairns etal. 1978
Birge and Black 1979
Straus and Tucker 1993
Straus and Tucker 1993
Straus and Tucker 1993
Straus and Tucker 1993
Straus and Tucker 1993
Straus and Tucker 1993
Straus and Tucker 1993
Straus and Tucker 1993
Perkins etal. 1997
Richey and Roseboom 1978
Richey and Roseboom 1978
Rehwoldt et al. 1971
Rehwoldt et al. 1972
B-33
-------
Appendix B. Other Data on Effects of Copper on Freshwater Organisms
Species
Flagfish (0.1 -0.3 g),
Jordanella floridae
Flagfish (0.1 -0.3 g),
Jordanella floridat
Mosquitofish (3.8-5.1 cm
female),
Gambusia affinis
Mosquitofish (3.8-5.1 cm
female),
Gambusia affinis
Mosquitofish (2.5 cm male),
Gambusia affinis
Mosquitofish (2.5 cm male),
Gambusia affinis
Mosquitofish (2.5 cm male),
Gambusia affinis
Mosquitofish (3.5 cm female),
Gambusia affinis
Mosquitofish (3.5 cm female),
Gambusia affinis
Mosquitofish (3.5 cm female),
Gambusia affinis
Mosquitofish (0.8 cm fry),
Gambusia affinis
Mosquitofish (0.8 cm fry),
Gambusia affinis
Mosquitofish (0.8 cm fry),
Gambusia affinis
Mosquito fish,
Gambusia affinis
Mosquito fish,
Gambusia affinis
Guppy (1 .5 cm),
Poecilia reticulata
Guppy (1 .62 cm),
Poecilia reticulata
Guppy (1 .9-2.5 cm),
Poecilia reticulata
Guppy (1 .5 cm),
Poecilia reticulata
Guppy (0.8-1 .0 cm),
Poecilia reticulata
Guppy (1 .2-2.3 cm; female),
Poecilia reticulata
Method3
F,M,T,D
F,M,T,D
S,U
S,U
S,U
S,U
S,U
S,U
S,U
S,U
S,U
S,U
S,U
S,U
R,M
S,U
S,U
S,U
R,U
R,U
R,U
Chemical
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Copper
nitrate
Copper
sulfate
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Hardness
(mg/L as
CaCO3)
363
363
27-41
27-41
50
150
300
50
150
300
50
150
300
-
45
230
240
20
260
144-188
144-188
Duration
1 0 days
96 hr
96 hr
96 hr
96 hr
96 hr
96 hr
96 hr
96 hr
96 hr
96 hr
96 hr
96 hr
96 hr
48 hr
96 hr
96 hr
96 hr
96 hr
96 hr
96 hr
Effect
LC50
LC50
LC50
LC50
LC50
LC50
LC50
LC50
LC50
LC50
LC50
LC50
LC50
LC50
(high turbidity)
LC50
LC50
LC50
LC50
LC50
LC50
LC50
Total
Concentration
(ug/L)b
-
-
93
200
3,500
5,000
6,000
2,500
2,900
5,000
900
1,400
2,000
75,000
180
1,230
764
36
2,500
160
275
Dissolved
Concentration
(ug/L)
680
1,270
-
-
Reference
Fogels and Sprague 1 977
Fogels and Sprague 1 977
Joshiand Rege 1980
Joshiand Rege 1980
Kallanagoudarand Patil 1997
Kallanagoudarand Patil 1997
Kallanagoudarand Patil 1997
Kallanagoudarand Patil 1997
Kallanagoudarand Patil 1997
Kallanagoudarand Patil 1997
Kallanagoudarand Patil 1997
Kallanagoudarand Patil 1997
Kallanagoudarand Patil 1997
Wallenetal. 1957
Chagnon and Guttman 1989
Khangarot 1981
Khangarot et al. 1981b
Pickering and Henderson 1966
Khangarot et al. 1981 a
Deshmukh and Marathe 1980
Deshmukh and Marathe 1980
B-34
-------
Appendix B. Other Data on Effects of Copper on Freshwater Organisms
Species
Guppy (2.3-2.8 cm; male),
Poecilia reticulata
Guppy (340 mg; female),
Poecilia reticulata
Guppy (1 .5 cm),
Poecilia reticulata
Guppy (1 .5 cm),
Poecilia reticulata
Guppy (1 mo),
Poecilia reticulata
Guppy (1 mo),
Poecilia reticulata
Guppy (1 mo),
Poecilia reticulata
White perch,
Morone americana
White perch,
Morone americana
Striped bass (larva),
Morone saxitilis
Striped bass (larva),
Morone saxitilis
Striped bass (3.5-5.1 cm),
Morone saxitilis
Striped bass (3.1-5.1 cm),
Morone saxitilis
Striped bass (35-80 day),
Morone saxitilis
Striped bass (6 cm),
Morone saxitilis
Striped bass,
Morone saxitilis
Striped bass,
Morone saxitilis
Rock bass,
Ambloplites rupestris
Pumpkinseed (1.2g),
Lepomis gibbosus
Pumpkinseed (1.2g),
Lepomis gibbosus
Pumpkinseed,
Lepomis gibbosus
Pumpkinseed,
Lepomis gibbosus
Method3
R,U
R,U
R,U
R, U
F,U
F,U
F,U
S,M,T
S,M,T
S,U
S,U
S,U
S,U
S,U
S,U
S,M,T
S,M,T
F,M,T
S,M,T
S,M,T
S,M,T
S,M,T
Chemical
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Copper
nitrate
Copper
nitrate
Copper
chloride
Copper
sulfate
Copper
chloride
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Copper
nitrate
Copper
nitrate
-
Copper
nitrate
Copper
nitrate
Copper
nitrate
Copper
nitrate
Hardness
(mg/L as
CaCO3)
144-188
144-188
260
181
76
76
76
53
55
34.6
34.6
34.6
34.6
285
35
53
55
24
53
55
53
55
Duration
96 hr
96 hr
48 hr
96 hr
24 hr
24 hr
24 hr
-
-
96 hr
96 hr
96 hr
96 hr
96 hr
96 hr
96 hr
96 hr
96 hr
-
-
96 hr
96 hr
Effect
LC50
LC50
LC50
LC50
LC50
LC50
LC50
LC50
LC50
LC50
LC50
LC50
LC50
LC50
LC50
LC50
LC50
LC50
(high TOC)
LC50
LC50
LC50
LC50
Total
Concentration
(ug/L)b
210
480
2,500
986
1,370
930
1,130
6,200
6,400
50
100
50
150
270
620
4,300
2,700
1,432
2,400
2,700
2,400
2,700
Dissolved
Concentration
(ug/L)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Reference
Deshmukh and Marathe 1980
Deshmukh and Marathe 1980
Khangarotetal. 1981 a
Khangarot and Ray 1987b
Minicucci 1971
Minicucci 1971
Minicucci 1971
Rehwoldt et al. 1971
Rehwoldt et al. 1972
Hughes 1973
Hughes 1973
Hughes 1973
Hughes 1973
Palawskietal. 1985
Wellborn 1969
Rehwoldt et al. 1971
Rehwoldt et al. 1972
Lind et al. manuscript
Rehwoldt et al. 1971
Rehwoldt et al. 1972
Rehwoldt et al. 1971
Rehwoldt et al. 1972
B-35
-------
Appendix B. Other Data on Effects of Copper on Freshwater Organisms
Species
Bluegill,
Lepomis macrochirus
Bluegill,
Lepomis macrochirus
Bluegill,
Lepomis macrochirus
Bluegill,
Lepomis macrochirus
Bluegill,
Lepomis macrochirus
Bluegill (3-4 cm),
Lepomis macrochirus
Bluegill (4.2 cm),
Lepomis macrochirus
Bluegill (4.2 cm),
Lepomis macrochirus
Bluegill (4.2 cm),
Lepomis macrochirus
Bluegill (5-1 5 g),
Lepomis macrochirus
Bluegill (3.8-6.3 cm),
Lepomis macrochirus
Bluegill (3.8-6.3 cm),
Lepomis macrochirus
Bluegill,
Lepomis macrochirus
Bluegill,
Lepomis macrochirus
Bluegill (5-11 cm),
Lepomis macrochirus
Bluegill (5-11 cm),
Lepomis macrochirus
Bluegill (0.51 g),
Lepomis macrochirus
Method3
S,U
s,u
s,u
s,u
s,u
s,u
s,u
s,u
s,u
s,u
s,u
s,u
s,u
s,u
s,u
s,u
S,M,T
Chemical
Copper
chloride
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
-
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
-
Hardness
(mg/L as
CaCO3)
43
43
45
45
45
119
52
209
365
35
20
360
20
400
46
101.2
110
Duration
96 hr
96 hr
24 hr
24 hr
24 hr
8 days
96 hr
96 hr
96 hr
2-6 days
96 hr
96 hr
96 hr
96 hr
48 hr
48 hr
48 hr
Effect
LC50
LC50
LC50
(5°C)
LC50
(15°C)
LC50
(30° C)
33% reduction in locomotor activity
LC50
LC50
LC50
8% increase in oxygen consumption
rates
LC50
LC50
LC50
LC50
LC50
LC50
LC50
Total
Concentration
(ug/L)b
770
1,250
2,590
2,500
3,820
40
254
437
648
300
660
10,200
200
10,000
3,000
7,000
4,300
Dissolved
Concentration
(ug/L)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Reference
Academy of Natural Sciences 1960
Academy of Natural Sciences 1960
Cairns and Scheier 1968; Patrick e
Cairns et al. 1978
Cairns etal. 1978
Cairns et al. 1978
Ellgaardand Guillot 1988
Inglisand Davis 1972
Inglisand Davis 1972
Inglisand Davis 1972
0'Hara1971
Pickering and Henderson 1966
Pickering and Henderson 1966
Tarzwell and Henderson 1960
Tarzwell and Henderson 1960
Turnbulletal. 1954
Turnbulletal. 1954
Dobbsetal. 1994
B-36
-------
Appendix B. Other Data on Effects of Copper on Freshwater Organisms
Species
Bluegill (5-9 cm),
Lepomis macrochirus
Bluegill (5-9 cm),
Lepomis macrochirus
Bluegill (5-1 5 g),
Lepomis macrochirus
Bluegill (3.5-6.0 cm),
Lepomis macrochirus
Bluegill (3.2-6.7 cm),
Lepomis macrochirus
Bluegill (3.2-6.7 cm),
Lepomis macrochirus
Bluegill (35.6-62.3 g),
Lepomis macrochirus
Bluegill,
Lepomis macrochirus
Bluegill,
Lepomis macrochirus
Bluegill,
Lepomis macrochirus
Bluegill (0.1 4-0.93 g),
Lepomis macrochirus
Bluegill (1.1 5-2.42 g),
Lepomis macrochirus
Bluegill (48.3 g),
Lepomis macrochirus
Largemouth bass (embryo),
Micropterus salmoides
Largemouth bass,
Micropterus salmoides
Rainbow darter,
Etheostoma caeruleum
Rainbow darter,
Etheostoma caeruleum
Rainbow darter,
Etheostoma caeruleum
Rainbow darter (4.6 cm),
Etheostoma caeruleum
Rainbow darter (4.6 cm),
Etheostoma caeruleum
Fantail,
Etheostoma flabellare
Method3
S,M,T
S,M,T
F,M
F,M,T
F,M,T
F,M,T
F,M,T
F,M,T
F,M,T,D
F,M,T,D
F,M,T,D
F,M,T,D
F,M,T,D
R,U
F,U
F,M,T,D
F,M,T,D
F,M,T,D
F,M,T,D
F,M,T,D
S,M,T
Chemical
Copper
chloride
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Copper
chloride
Copper
chloride
Copper
sulfate
Copper
chloride
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
-
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Copper
sulfate
Hardness
(mg/L as
CaCO3)
45-47
45-47
35
112.4
21 .2-59.2
21 .2-59.2
273.3
157
316
318
246
237
40
100
-
318
316
274
314
303
170
Duration
-
-
-
80 min
96 hr
96 hr
24-96 hr
24-96 hr
96 hr
96 hr
1 4 days
1 4 days
96 hr
8 days
24 hr
96 hr
96 hr
96 hr
96 hr
96 hr
96 hr
Effect
LC50
LC50
LC50
Avoidance threshold
LC50
LC50
Various behavioral changes
27% reduction in food consumption
LC50
(high BOD)
LC50 (high BOD)
LC50
LC50
Biochemical changes
EC50
(death and deformity)
Affected opercular rhythm
LC50
(high BOD)
LC50
(high BOD)
LC50
(high BOD)
LC50 (high BOD)
LC50 (high BOD)
Lowered critical thermal maximum
Total
Concentration
(ug/L)b
710
770
2400
8,480
1,100
900
34
31
16,000
17,000
-
-
2,000
6,560
48
4,500
8,000
2,800
4,800
5,300
43
Dissolved
Concentration
(ug/L)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
2,500
3,700
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Reference
Trama 1 954
Tram a 1 954
0'Hara1971
Black and Birge 1980
Thompson et al. 1980
Thompson et al. 1980
Henry and Atchison 1986
Sandheinrich and Atchison 1989
Geckleretal. 1976
Geckleretal. 1976
Richey and Roseboom 1978
Richey and Roseboom 1978
Heath 1 984
Birge et al. 1978; Birge and Black
1979
Morgan 1979
Geckleretal. 1976
Geckleretal. 1976
Geckleretal. 1976
Geckleretal. 1976
Geckleretal. 1976
Lydy and Wissing 1988
B-37
-------
Appendix C. Estimation of Water Chemistry Parameters for
Acute Copper Toxicity Tests
-------
FINAL REPORT
ESTIMATION OF WATER CHEMISTRY PARAMETERS FOR
ACUTE COPPER TOXICITY TES TS
For:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Health and Ecological Criteria Division
Office of Science and Technology, Office of Water
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20460
Great Lakes Environmental Center Program Manager
G.M. DeGraeve
Great Lakes Environmental Center, Inc.
739 Hastings Street, Traverse City, Michigan 49686
Phone: (231)941-2230
-------
CONTENTS
Foreword C -3
1.0 Data Acquisition C-4
2.0 Technical Issues and Corresponding Recommendations C-4
2.1 Estimating Ion Concentrations C-4
2.2 pH Adjustment with HC1 C-7
2.3 Estimation of DOC C-7
2.4 DOC in Lake Superior Water C-8
2.5 Applying Water Chemistry Data to Lake Superior Water C-8
2.6 Predicting Ionic Composition of WFTS Well Water C-9
2.7 Data for Measurement ofBlacksburg/New River Water C-ll
2.8 Cu Concentrations and Alkalinity C-12
2.9 Calculation ofDOC and Humic Acid C-14
2.10 Alkalinity of Lake Superior Water C-15
2.11 Availability of LC50s C-15
2.12 Cl and Na Concentrations C-15
2.13 Calculating DOC in Dilution Water C-16
2.14 Ionic Composition ofChehalis River Water C-16
2.15 Chemistry of Water in Howarth and Sprague (1978) C-17
2.16 Deiault Values of Analyte Concentrations C-18
2.17 Organic Carbon Content of Samples C-19
2.18 Additional Water Chemistry Data Needed C-19
2.19 Estimating Data for Waters C-19
References C-32
Appendix C-l, Calculations for Ionic Composition of Standard Laboratory Reconstituted
Water C-35
Appendix C-2, Dissolved, Paniculate, and Estimated Total Organic Carbon for Streams and
Lakes by State C-36
Appendix C-3, Mean TOC and DOC in Lake Superior Dilution Water C-38
Appendix C-4, Measured Hardness and Major Ion and Cation Concentrations in WFTS
Well Waterfom April 1972 to April 1978 C-39
Appendix C-5, Analytical Results of New and Clinch Rivers and
Sinking Creek, VA, Water Samples C-41
Appendix C-6, Water Composition of St. Louis River, MN, from USGS NASQAN and Select
Relationships to Water Hardness C-42
Appendix C-7, Supplementary Data for Bennett et al. (1995) C 48
Appendix C-8, Supplementary Data for Richards and Beitinger (1995) C -51
Appendix C-9, Water Quality Data for the American River, CA for
July 1978 Through December 1980 C-52
Appendix C-10, STORET Data for Minnesota Lakes and Rivers C -53
C-1
-------
TABLES
Table 1. Standard Reconstituted Water Composition and Target Water Quality Characteristics C-5
Table 2. Calculated Ion Concentrations Based on the Standard Salts Added C -6
Table 3. Adjusted Ion Concentrations for a Standard Reconstituted Water Mix Based on Reported
Hardness C -6
Table 4. Recommended Spreadsheet Addition for Lake Superior Dilution Water C-9
TableS. Predicted Ion Concentrations in WFTS Well Water Based on Measured Hardness C-10
Table 6. Comparison of Values for Untreated (Natural) and Treated (Dechlorinated City of
Blacksburg, VA) New River Water C-13
Table 7. Estimated Alkalinity in Natural Surface Water Based on pH C -14
Table 8. Estimates of Dissolved Organic Carbon and Percent Humic Acid for the Winner (1985)
Toxicity Tests C -14
Table 9. Example Calculations to Estimate Water Chemistry of Tests Conducted at 100 mg/L as
CaCo3 by Howarth and Sprague (1978) Using a Mixture of University of Guelph Well
Water and De-ionized Water C-18
FIGURES
Figure 1. Relationship Between Ca and Hardness in WFTS Well Water C -24
Figure 2. Relationship Between Mg and Hardness in WFTS Well Water C-25
Figure 3. Relationship Between Na and Hardness in WFTS Well Water C-26
Figure 4. Relationship Between K and Hardness in WFTS Well Water C -27
Figure 5. Relationship Between Cl and Hardness in WFTS Well Water C-28
Figure 6. Relationship Between SO4 and Hardness in WFTS Well Water C-29
Figure 7. Slopes of the Regression Equations Derived for Na Concentration in St. Louis River, MN,
Water Versus Water Hardness from 1973 to 1993 C -30
Figure 8. Intercepts of the Regression Equations Derived for Na Concentration in St. Louis River,
MN, Water Versus Water Hardness from 1973 to 1993 C-31
C-2
-------
FOREWORD
This report was developed by the Great Lakes Environmental Center. Some minor revisions
were made by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). These revisions were primarily
editorial. Additional editorial and formatting revisions were made by the CDM Group, Inc.
The purpose of this report is to provide input water chemistry information for a Biotic Ligand
Model (BLM) analysis of the acute copper toxicity data in Table la of the U. S. Environmental
Protection Agency's (EPA) drat 2003 Update of Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Copper. EPA
will use these BLM data to derive adjusted aquatic life criteria for copper. Many of the reported Table
la acute copper toxicity data lack sufficient information on the chemistry of the dilution water to
generate BLM-derived critical accumulation values. This compendium contains data from the
primary authors of these articles. It also contains recommendations for the use of these data,
additional supporting documentation and/or computations, and recommendations for estimating
missing parameters.
C-3
-------
Estimation of Water Chemistry Parameters for Acute Copper Toxicity Tests
To prepare for the possibility of incorporating the Biotic Ligand Model (BLM) (Di Toro et al.
2001) into an updated copper aquatic life criteria document, the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) sought to generate a data table summarizing the acute toxicity of copper to
freshwater organisms that included the following parameters: alkalinity, dissolved organic carbon
(DOC), pH, and the major anions (Cl and SO4) and cations (Ca, Mg, Na, K) of the test water.
Published literature was reviewed and appropriate information tabulated, but measurements for many
of the aforementioned parameters were not reported. To resolve the overwhelming number of
missing test water chemistry values in the database, certain authors were contacted for additional
information and to obtain additional measurements in waters where critical information was either
not measured or not reported. EPA also attempted to determine appropriate methods for estimating
test water chemistry in the absence of reported values. The information received from the authors
and recommended procedures for estimating missing parameters are the subject of this report.
1.0 Data Acquisition
The authors of several studies were contacted for additional information on the chemistry of
the water or methods used in their studies. If the primary or corresponding authors could not be
contacted, an attempt was made to contact secondary authors or personnel from the laboratories
where the studies had been conducted. In a few instances, this initial effort failed to produce the
desired information, and censored databases (U.S. Geological Survey's [USGS] National Stream
Quality Accounting Network [NASQAN] and EPA's STOrage and RETrieval [STORET] data
warehouse) were consulted to obtain the missing data. As a last resort, other available sources of
water compositional data (e.g., city drinking water treatment officials) were contacted.
The acquired data were scrutinized for representativeness and usefulness in estimating surrogate
values to complete the water quality information in the original studies. Summary tables and figures
generated from these data are included in the following pages, which serve as the basis for the
addition of values in the spreadsheets. Information used for the tabular and graphical summaries of
these data is included in separate appendices.
2.0 Technical Issues and Corresponding Recommendations
2.1 Estimating Ion Concentrations
Develop a methodology for estimating Ca, Mg, Na, K, Cl, and SO4 concentrations in
laboratory-reconstituted waters.
Recommendation: The best approach for estimating ion concentrations in standard
laboratory-reconstituted water involves scaling default ion concentrations based on measured
hardness. The default ion concentrations can be computed from the concentrations of the salts
added. The use of calculated ion concentrations as input for the BLM applies only to reconstituted
water prepared following the standard recipes reported in guidance documents for conducting acute
bioassays with aquatic organisms (ASTM 2000; U.S. EPA 1993) (see Table 1). If similar salts are
added in different amounts, then the ion concentrations must be calculated using the recipe reported
C-4
-------
in the article. Otherwise, specific ion ratios, and more importantly ion concentrations, cannot be
calculated.
Table 1. Standard Reconstituted Water Composition and Target Water Quality
Characteristics
Water Type
Very Soft
Soft
Mod. Hard
Hard
Very Hard
NaHCO3
12.0
48.0
96.0
192.0
384.0
Reagent Added
CaSO4«2H2O
7.5
30.0
60.0
120.0
240.0
(mg/L)
MgSO4
7.5
30.0
60.0
120.0
240.0
KC1
0.5
2.0
4.0
8.0
16.0
Final Water Quality
pHa
6.4-6.8
7.2-7.6
7.4-7.8
7.6-8.0
8.0-8.4
Hardness3 Alkalinityb
10-13
40-48
80-100
160-180
280-320
10-13
30-35
60-70
110-120
225-245
a Approximate equilibriumpH after 24-hour aeration
b Expressed as rng/L CaCOs
When standard laboratory-reconstituted water is cited as the dilution water, and no additional
measurements are reported, the recommended approach for estimating ion concentrations is to use
the ion concentrations calculated from the amount of salts added for the type of reconstituted water
reported in the article. For example, if the range of hardness of the reconstituted water is reported as
80-100 mg/L CaCO3, then the specific ion concentrations calculated Irom the standard recipe for
moderately hard reconstituted water should be used for BLM input (see Table 2 and example
calculation in Appendix D-2). The use of ion concentrations calculated from the standard recipes
assumes that salts were stored in a manner to prevent hydration and that technician errors in
weighing of salts, measurements of dilution water, and measurement of solution volumes were
minimal.
Alternatively, if the authors state that moderately hard water was prepared following one of the
standard recipes, and they measured the hardness of the water, then the calculated ion concentrations
should be adjusted to account for any difference from the mean of the expected range. For example,
if the mean measured hardness in a test water prepared using the recipe for moderately hard
reconstituted water was 78 mg/L CaCO3, the Ca:Mg ratio would be 0.700 for all reconstituted water
types, and the respective Ca and Mg concentrations could be calculated using the following equations:
Ca = (0.4008 x measured hardnessMl+(l<:a:Mg ratio)]
Equation 1
Mg = (0.2431 x measured hardness)-Kl+Ca:Mg ratio)
The remaining ion concentrations are each multiplied by 0.92 (quotient of 78 and 85 mg/L CaCO3,
the latter of which is the expected hardness for moderately hard reconstituted water), as in Table 1.
Equation 2
C-5
-------
Table 3 provides ion concentrations predicted for a standard reconstituted water mix using the
hardness adjustment in accordance with the example above.
Note that this same rationale for scaling the delault major anions and cations in reconstituted
water also applies to a variety of natural surface and well waters. Analysis of St. Louis River, MN,
water and Western Fish Toxicology Station (WFTS) well water indicated that a strong linear
relationship also exists between water hardness and the major anion (Cl, SO4) and cation (Ca, Mg,
Na) concentrations in these water types (see Sections 2.6, 2.7, and 2.19). The strong relationships
are consistent with findings
Table 2. Calculated Ion Concentrations Based on the Standard Salts Added
Water Type
(Nominal Hardness Range)
Very Soft
(10-13mg/LCaCO3)
Soft
(40-48 mg/L CaCO3)
Moderately Hard
(80-1 00 mg/L CaCO3)
Hard
(160-180 mg/L CaCO3)
Very Hard
(280-320 mg/L CaCO3)
Specific Ionsa (mg/L)
Ca Mg
1.75 1.51
6.99 6.06
14.0 12.1
27.9 24.2
55.9 48.5
Na K Cl S04 Ca:Mgb
3.28 0.262 0.238 10.2 0.700
13.1 1.05 0.951 40.7 0.700
26.3 2.10 1.90 81.4 0.700
52.5 4.20 3.80 163 0.700
105 8.39 7.61 325 0.700
Expected Hardness
(mg/L CaC03)c
11
42
85
170
339
a Ion concentrations were calculated fromstandard salt recipes (refer to Table 1 and example calculation for very soft
water in Appendix D-1).
b Ratio equals quotient of(Ca-40.08) and (Mg-24.31), where 40.08 and 24.31 are the molecular weights ofCa and
Mg, respectively, in units ofmg/mmol.
c Hardness calculated according to the concentrations ofCa and Mg given here and the equation given in Appendix
D-l.
Table 3. Adjusted Ion Concentrations for a Standard Reconstituted Water Mix Based on
Reported Hardness
Moderately Hard Reconstituted Hardness
Water (mg/L CaCO3)
Nominal
Adjusted
85a
78
Specific Ions (mg/L)
Ca
14.0
12.9
Mg
12.1
11.2
Na
26.3
24.2
K
2.10
2.10
Cl
1.90
7.75
SO4
81.4
74.9
a Expected hardness based on the amount of salts added (fromTable 1). Calciumand magnesiumare calculated
using Equations 1 and 2. Other adjusted values (italic and bold) are a result ofthe product ofthe ratio ofmeasured
hardness (78 mg/L) to expected hardness (85 mg/L) and nominal ion concentrations, e.g., the adjusted sodiumion
concentration for a standard laboratory reconstituted water nixbased on a reported total hardness of78 mg/L CaCO3
is: 78-85=0.92; 0.92*26.3=24.2.
C-6
-------
presented in an earlier comprehensive report by Erickson (1985). Note, however, that because there
is generally poor correlation between K and water hardness in the various ambient surface and ground
water types (see Section 2.6), the value calculated for K should not be scaled according to hardness.
2.2 pH Adjustment with HCl
Schubauer-Berigan et al. (1993) adjusted pH using HCl but reported only nominal hardness and
alkalinity. The tests were conducted at the EPA Office of Research and Development, Mid-
Continent Ecology Division, Duluth, MN, using a standard very hard reconstituted water mix. The
authors need to be contacted to obtain any additional water chemistry data they might have.
Recommendation: Alkalinity and hardness were not measured in the tests reported in
Schubauer-Berigan et al. (1993), and no additional water chemistry data are available from the study
(Phil Monson, U.S. EPA-Duluth, personal communication). The HCl required to adjust the pH was
assumed to be added in amounts too small to significantly affect any of the other water quality
parameters (Gerald Ankley, U.S. EPA-Duluth, personal communication). Based on these remarks, we
believe ion concentrations for this particular study should be estimated using methods outlined in
Section 2.1.
2.3 Estimation of DOC
How should DOC be estimated if only total organic carbon (TOC) was measured in the study?
Can DOC be estimated if no measurements of organic carbon were reported in the study?
Recommendation: As a general rule, TOC values can be used directly in place of DOC for
dechlorinated and de-ionized city tap water, well water, and oligotrophic lake water (e.g., Lake
Superior water). TOC values are not recommended in place of DOC for water Irom estuaries,
wetlands, or higher order streams unless data are included that indicate otherwise. Rather, the
proportion of organic carbon expected to be dissolved in surface waters should be estimated and used
to scale the measured TOC value. When possible, the DOC:TOC ratio for a surface water should be
obtained using the USGS NASQAN dataset. The NASQAN dataset can be reached through the USGS
Web site (water.usgs.gov/nasqan/data/finaldatahtml). If a representative ratio for a particular body of
water cannot be determined, the ratio for the particular water type (lake or stream) should be
obtained Irom the final drai of the Ambient Water Quality Criteria Derivation Methodology Human
Health Technical Support Document (U.S. EPA 1998a, Table 2.4.11). A summary ofthese data, by
State, is provided in Appendix D-2. hi this appendix, TOC is operationally defined as the sum of
DOC and paniculate organic carbon (POC). The national mean fraction of organic carbon is 86
percent for streams and 88 percent for lakes. The DOC:TOC ratio can be applied to lakes or streams
within a State to obtain an estimate of DOC Irom values reported for TOC.
Example:
Reference Water Body TOC (mg/L) DOC:TOC Estimated DOC (mg/L)
Lind et al. manuscript St. Louis R, MN 32 0.87 28
C-7
-------
For tests with reconstituted, city tap, or well water, delault DOC values can be applied if the
author does not report a measured value. The recommended deiault TOC (DOC) value for laboratory
prepared reconstituted water is 0.5 mg carbon/L (note: some newer laboratory water systems can
achieve a TOC of less than 0.5 mg/L). For regular city tap and well water, a value of 1.6 mg carbon/L
can be assumed. The recommended delault value for laboratory-prepared reconstituted water is based
on the arithmetic mean of recent measurements of DOC in reconstituted water prepared at two
Federal (U.S. EPA Cincinnati, OH, and USGS Yankton, SD) and two consulting (Commonwealth
Biomonitoring and GLEC) laboratories (range 0.1 to 1 mg/L). The recommended deiault value for
dechlorinated city tap and well water is based on the arithmetic mean of measurements of DOC in
source water from Lake Ontario (Environment Canada, Burlington, ON) and the New River, VA
(City of Blacksburg, VA), and well water Irom Oak Ridge National Laboratory (Oak Ridge, TN) and
EPA's WFTS (Corvallis, OR). The DOC values in these waters ranged from 1.1 to 2.5 mg/L.
For tests conducted in surface waters, we do not recommend the use of a delault DOC value
because of the large variability of DOC observed. Rather, a reliable database such as USGS NASQAN
(as described above) should be searched for DOC measurements. If a database such as NASQAN is
consulted, only those DOC measurements closest to the time of the study should be considered as
surrogate values, hi general, these DOC concentrations should not difler by more than a lactor of
1.25. If DOC measurements for the surface water cannot be obtained from a reliable source, then the
toxicity test should not be included in Table 1 for BLM normalization.
2.4 DOC in Lake Superior Water
Lake Superior water has been used in a number of acute and chronic toxicity studies included in
the Aquatic Life Criteria for Copper (U.S. EPA 1998b). Dissolved organic matter (DOM) in Lake
Superior is assumed to be anywhere from 1 to 3 mg/L (Russ Erickson, U.S. EPA-Duluth, personal
communication; McGeer et al. 2000). This value is expected to be at least 90 percent of TOC (or 2
mg/L) (see Spehar and Fiandt 1986). A deiault value based on recent measurements is needed for
DOC in Lake Superior water.
Recommendation: Recent measurements of TOC in Lake Superior dilution water are in
Appendix D-3 (Greg Lien, U.S. EPA-Duluth, personal communication). The geometric mean
concentration of TOC in Lake Superior dilution water from multiple measurements is 1.27 mg/L.
Given the recommendation in Section 2.3, the recommended DOC for Lake Superior dilution water is
1.1 mg/L (1.27 mg/L x 0.88).
2.5 Applying Water Chemistry Data to Lake Superior Water
The ionic composition included in the Table 1 spreadsheet for Lake Superior water is based on
concentrations converted from values reported in Erickson et al. (1996b): Ca at 0.68 meq/L = 13.6
mg/L; Mg at 0.24 meq/L = 2.9 mg/L; Na at 0.065 meq/L = 1.5 mg/L; K at 0.015 meq/L = 0.59 mg/L;
SO4 at 0.070 meq/L = 3.4 mg/L; Cl at 0.035 meq/L = 1.2 mg/L; and alkalinity at 0.85 meq/L = 43
mg/L. The concentrations for most of these parameters were also reported in Biesinger and
Christensen (1972) and approximate those listed above. Should the Erickson et al. (1996b) data be
applied to all Lake Superior studies, or is there a stronger rationale for applying the Biesinger and
Christensen (1972) data to the older studies?
C-8
-------
Recommendation: We recommend applying the mean of the Erickson et al. (1996b) citation
and Biesinger and Christensen (1972) water chemistry data to all Lake Superior studies prior to 1987,
when the results were initially reported. After 1987, we recommend use of the Erickson et al.
(1996b) water chemistry data alone (Table 4). For each test, Ca and Mg concentrations should be
estimated using Equations 1 and 2, the Ca:Mg ratios given below, and the measured hardness of the
test water (Section 2.1). Ions other than K should be scaled according to the measured test hardness,
also discussed in Section 2.1.
Table 4. Recommended Spreadsheet Addition for Lake Superior Dilution Water
Applied to:
Pre-1 987a
Post-1987b
Hardness
(mg/L CaCO3)
46
46
Alkalinity
(mg/L CaCO3)
42
43
Specific Ions (mg/L)
Ca
13.6
13.6
Mg
3.0
2.9
Ca:Mg
2.75
2.84
Na
1.3
1.5
K
0.57
0.59
Cl
1.2
1.2
S04
3.4
3.4
a Mean ofthe Erickson et al. (1996b)and Biesinger and Christensen (1972) water chemistry data
b Erickson et al. (1996b) water chemistry data alone
2.6 Predicting Ionic Composition ofWFTS Well Water
The following studies seem were conducted at EPA's WFTS using well water: Andros and
Carton (1980), Chapman (1975, 1978), Chapman and Stevens (1978), Lorz and McPherson (1976),
Nebeker et al. (1984a, 1986a, b), and Seim et al. (1984). Among these studies, however, there is a
wide range of hardness values (20-100 mg/L), and the ionic composition ofthe water was not always
reported.
The large variation in WFTS well water hardness, and consequently, ionic composition, is due to
seasonal variability (Samuelson 1976). The TOC content of this water has been reported to be 1.1
mg/L (McCrady and Chapman 1979), of which 100 percent is expected to be dissolved. A general
strategy is needed to predict the ionic composition of WFTS well water based on measured water
hardness.
Recommendation: The well feeding the WFTS is susceptible to influx from ground water
during rain events in late lall and winter (November through March or April). During this period the
water
hardness can reach measured levels as high as 100 mg/L CaCO3. Over the remaining months
(particularly from July to November), hardness stabilizes at around 25 to 40 mg/L CaCO3, as do other
water quality parameters (Al Nebeker, U.S. EPA Corvallis, personal communication; Samuelson
1976). It is important to note that the high hardness reported for WFTS well water is sporadic, even
in the winter.
The recommended strategy for filling the existing gaps in data reported from studies using this
well water is to estimate the ion concentrations on the basis of their relationship to the total
hardness measured during a particular test. The acceptability of tests conducted using WFTS water
depends on the range of hardness values reported, i.e., if the hardness varies widely over the course of
a particular test, then perhaps the test should not be used. Regression analyses were performed using
measured hardness and ion data for the WFTS well water reported in Samuelson (1976), April 1972
C-9
-------
to April 1974, and supplemented with additional data from Gaiy Chapman, personal communication
(only those data from May 1974 to April 1978; see Appendix D-4). These relationships and the
corresponding regression equations are presented in Figures 1 through 6 (found at the end of this
report). Major ion concentrations for WFTS well water were predicted using the regression equations
over a wide range of water hardness (10 to 80 mg/L CaCO3) to determine the accuracy of the
procedure (Table 5). The error between predicted and measured ion concentrations is generally within
10 percent for all ions except K, where a default value of 0.7 mg/L was chosen for all hardness levels
(actual range is 0.1 to 1.1 mg/L, with the majority of data falling between 0.5 and 0.9 mg/L). The
correlation coefficient (R2) for the relationship between K and water hardness in WFTS well water
was only 0.124. Note: BLM predictions of copper gill accumulation and toxicity are relatively
insensitive to the concentration of K, so errors in its estimation should not appreciably aflect model
predictions. The following regression equations were used to generate the example data provided in
Table 5:
[Ca] = 0.3085 + (measured hardness * 0.2738)
[Mg] = 0.5429 + (measured hardness * 0.0573)
[Na] = 3.3029 + (measured hardness * 0.0713)
[Cl] = 2.7842 + (measured hardness * 0.1278)
[SO4] = -3.043 + (measured hardness * 0.2816)
Lorz and McPherson (1976) and the Seim et al. (1984) tests were not run in WFTS well water,
but in water from different wells along the Willamette River. Water chemistry appears to be less
variable for these wells (Harold Lorz and Wayne Seim, personal communication). The following
additional water chemistry information for the two well water types used in these studies was
provided by the respective authors in January 2001.
Many of the studies conducted by Chapman used reverse osmosis treatment to maintain a
blended water supply that was of essentially constant ion content throughout the tests. All the test
data from Chapman appear to be acceptable; the only test complicated by fluctuating hardness was
the 22-month chronic zinc test with sockeye salmon, and that test produced only a NOEC.
Table 5. Predicted Ion Concentrations in WFTS Well Water Based on Measured
Hardness
Total Hardness
(Mean Measured value)
mg/L CaCO3
15.00
20.00
25.00
30.00
35.00
40.00
45.00
50.00
55.00
60.00
65.00
Predicted Ion Concentrations (mg/L)
Ca
4.42
5.78
7.15
8.52
9.89
11.26
12.63
14.00
15.37
16.74
18.11
Mg
1.40
1.69
1.98
2.26
2.55
2.83
3.12
3.41
3.69
3.98
4.27
Na
4.10
4.46
4.82
5.17
5.53
5.88
6.24
6.60
6.95
7.31
7.67
Cl
4.70
5.34
5.98
6.62
7.26
7.90
8.54
9.17
9.81
10.45
11.09
S04
1.18
2.59
4.00
5.41
6.81
8.22
9.63
11.04
12.45
13.85
15.26
Defeulta
K
0.70
0.70
0.70
0.70
0.70
0.70
0.70
0.70
0.70
0.70
0.70
C-10
-------
70.00
75.00
80.00
19.47
20.84
22.21
4.55
4.84
5.13
8.02
8.38
8.74
11.73
12.37
13.01
16.67
18.08
19.49
0.70
0.70
0.70
1 Value not corrected. Assume defeult value ofO.70 mg/L.
Recommended Spreadsheet Addition for Oregon Well Water.
Applied to:
Lorz and
McPherson
1976
Seimet al.
1984
Hardness Alkalinity Specific Ions* (n«/L)
(iiig/L (mg/L
CaCCh) CaCCh) pH DOC Ca Mg Ca:Mg Na K Cl SO4
95 66 6.8-7.9 1.6B 19 12 1.0 7.6 1.0 7.0 12
120 126 7.7 1.6B 34 8.6 2.4 15 0.7 5.0 2.3
a Specific ion values were obtained through personal communication with the primary authors; hardness, alkalinity,
andpH values areas reported in the article. TheCa:Mg ratios were calculated on the basis of data provided by
authors, then Ca and Mg values used were back-calculated on the basis ofthese ratios and the measured test
hardness (see Equations 1 and 2).
b Suggested default value for untreated well water (see Section 2.3).
2.7 Data for Measurement of Blacksburg/New River Water
A substantial amount of acute copper toxicity data to various feshwater organisms is reported
using dechlorinated City of Blacksburg, VA, tap water. These include studies by Belanger et al.
(1989), Cairns et al. (1981), Hartwell et al. (1989), and Thompson et al. (1980). Hardness,
alkalinity, and pH values are reported for City of Blacksburg water in all ofthese studies, but the
ionic compositional data are not. This information is required to obtain BLM-normalized LC50s for
these data.
Recommendation: According to Don Cherry (personal communication), tests conducted at
Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University used City of Blacksburg, VA, tap water, which is
drawn from the nearby New River. Don Cherry collected a sample of New River water for analysis
under Work Assignment 1-20. The results of the analysis are provided in Appendix D-5. The sample
was of untreated natural water prior to any treatment by the City of Blacksburg. Values for treated
New River water (city) were provided by Jerry Higgins, Water Superintendent, City of Blacksburg.
Table 6 summarizes the measured values for New River and City of Blacksburg dechlorinated tap
water.
Historically, hardness and alkalinity vary substantially in dechlorinated City of Blacksburg tap
water and in raw New River water (Table 6). Some of this difference may be attributed to seasonal
eflects. For example, strong seasonal influence was observed in both well water (influenced by surface
water, i.e., WFTS well water, see Section 2.6) and a natural surface water (St. Louis River, MN; refer
ahead to Section 2.19). Previously, we plotted ion concentrations against hardness for each ofthese
two water types (Figures 1 through 6 and Appendix D-6). The relationships were good in almost all
cases (positive, R2 = 0.5 to 0.9), and the resultant regression equations were used to scale ion
concentrations according to reported water hardness. Incomplete datasets, however, preclude the use
C-11
-------
of the same approach for City of Blacksburg tap and raw New River water. Instead, we recommend
using the ion and hardness values from the City of Blacksburg water sample and USGS NASQAN ion
data, respectively (Table 6), to generate surrogate ion values for the respective waters that were not
reported in the previous studies (indicated by the shaded area in Table 6). The operation is simply to
multiply ion concentrations for the " acquired data" by the ratio of hardness values in City of
Blacksburg and NASQAN water and the corresponding test waters as was done in Section 2.1. We used
the NASQAN ion data as the basis for scaling the raw New River water ion estimates because
NASQAN represents data collected over several representative years, including the years in the
timeframe in which the studies of interest were initiated and completed. The exception was with
DOC. We felt that the DOC value obtained from the sample of New River water collected in August
2000 would be more representative than the few values generated from NASQAN (all pre-1980).
2.8 Cu Concentrations and Alkalinity
The methods sections of both Belanger and Cherry (1990) and Belanger et al. (1989) state that
total and dissolved Cu were measured, but it is not clear whether the reported LC50s are based on
total or dissolved copper concentration. Also, in Belanger and Cherry (1990), pH was adjusted with
sodium hydroxide (NaOH) or nitric acid (HNO3), but only nominal pHs were reported. Alkalinity and
hardness aier pH adjustment were not reported. Can alkalinity be adjusted for these tests?
Recommendation: The concentration Cu in algae is reported on a total metal basis in
Belanger et al. (1989) and Belanger and Cherry (1990). The Cu in water is reported on an acid-
soluble basis. The acid-soluble concentration of Cu in water was used to derive the LC50. For all
intents and purposes, acid-soluble Cu can be considered as dissolved Cu because the acidification of the
filtrate after filtration is probably sufficient to obtain most of the Cu associated with colloidal
material. Normally a digestion procedure is required to convert all Cu to the dissolved form. If the
sample had not been filtered, it would not have been acceptable because it could have been elevated
by dissolution of paniculate copper.
The pH levels achieved in the batch culture pH tests in Belanger and Cherry (1990) were
reported as 6.15, 8.02, and 8.95. Given the proximity of these values to the desired target pH values
of 6, 8, and 9, respectively, it would appear that the researchers were able to closely approximate the
nominal pH levels, including those selected for the acute heavy metal tests (also pH 6, 8, and 9,
respectively). Assuming that the target pH values of 6, 8, and 9 were achieved in the acute tests,
adjustment with NaOH and HNO3 would have affected alkalinity, but probably not hardness or the
major anion and cation concentrations, except possibly Na The contribution to Na by the addition
of NaOH was probably small, so no further adjustment would be necessary.
C-12
-------
Table 6. Comparison of Values for Untreated (Natural) and Treated (Dechlorinated City of Blacksburg, VA) New River Water
Source
City ofBlacksburg, VAa
Cherry 2000 (08/00)b
NASQANC
Belangeretal. 1989
Hartwelletal. 1989
Cairns etal. 1981
Thompson et al. 1980
Belangeretal. 1989
Belanger and Cherry 1990
Water
Type
City
NewR.
NewR.
City
City
City
City
NewR.
NewR.
PH
8.5
8.0
-
7.7
7.5
7.0
7.2
8.2
6,8,9
Total
Hardness
(mg/L CaCO3)
44
-
61
Values To
45
72
26
40
94
98
Total
Alkalinity
(mg/L CaCO3)
Acquired Data
39
52
-
Be Applied to Table 1
40
43
27
28
70
74
Specific Ions (mg/L)
Ca
-
15
15
Toxicity
11
18
6.4
9.9
23
24
Mg
-
0.6
5.8
Testsd
4.2
6.8
2.4
3.8
8.8
9.1
Na
9.3
6.6
3.4
9.5
15
5.5
8.5
5.2
5.4
K
-
2.0
1.6
1.6
1.6
1.6
1.6
1.6
1.6
Cl
33
6.1
4.0
34
54
19
30
6.2
6.4
SO4 NO3
45
9.8 0.7
13 0.8
46
74
26
41
20
21
Ca:Mg
ratio
-
1.6
1.6
1.6
1.6
1.6
1.6
1.6
DOC
(mg/L)
1.5
2
5.4
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
2
2
a Data provided by Gerard (Jerry )Hig gins ofBlacksburg-Christianburg VPI Water Authority, Blacksburg, VA. Values presented are froma grab sample
collected January 31,2000. Organic carbon (originally measured and reported as TOC)is assumed to be 100 percent dissolved.
b Sample provided by Don Cherry, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, VA, and analyzed by Environmental Health Laboratories,
South Bend, IN. Values presented are froma grab sample collected August 2000. The value fcrMg of 0.6 mg/L appears to be a reporting error, and was not
used for subsequent calculations oftotal hardness or scaling ofion values.
c Data obtained fromUSGS NASQAN database. Values presented are means of213 samples, except for DOC, which is a mean of seven samples, collected and
analyzed from January 1973 to August 1995.
d Shaded area indicates mean values estimated frompreviously (NASQAN) or recently measured (Cherry 2000 or City ofBlacksburg; nonadjusted) ion values.
All values have been rounded to two significant figures. Shaded values were derived according to text above using the approach outlined in Section 2.1.
C-13
-------
Using a nomograph found in Faust and Aly (1981), alkalinity at pH 6 should be approximately
33 percent of the alkalinity at pH 8, and alkalinity at pH 9 should be 5 percent higher than the
alkalinity at pH 8 (Table 7). Therefore, the values for alkalinity in Table 7 should be used for the
acute toxicity tests presented in Belanger and Cherry (1990) in this case. For other analyses,
different adjustment iactors may be appropriate, based on other interpretations from the Faust and
Aly nomograph or other methods as well. Appropriate consideration should also be given to the test
system equilibration with the atmosphere.
Table 7. Estimated Alkalinity in Natural Surface Water Based on pH
Source Water
New River
Clinch River
Amy Bayou
Nominal pH
6
8.1
9
6
8.3
9
6
8.3
9
Alkalinity fmg/L CaCCM
24.5
74 .2 a
77.9
47.6
144a
152
40.2
122a
128
a Indicates values reported in text.
2.9 Calculation of DOC and Humic Add
What was the technical approach used to calculate DOC and percent humic acid (HA) for the
Winner (1985) toxicity tests?
Recommendation: At a nominal HA concentration of 0.0 mg/L in soi and medium hardness
test waters, the DOC is assumed to be that of the ultrapure laboratory water, which is estimated to be
0.3 mg/L (approximately one-half of the recommended deiault value for DOC in laboratory water,
see Section 2.3). At nominal HA concentrations of 0.15, 0.75, and 1.50 mg/L, the DOC is calculated
by dividing by a value of 2, based on the assumption in the BLM User's Guide (Di Toro et al. 2000)
that the percent carbon in HA is 0.50 (see example below and Table 8). Because the water used to
obtain these HA concentrations was ultrapure laboratory water, 0.3 mg carbon/L was added; final
rounded values of 0.38, 0.68, and 1.1 are recommended.
Table 8. Estimates of Dissolved Organic Carbon and Percent Humic Acid for the Winner
(1985) Toxicity Tests
Humic Acid Added (mg/L)a Calculated DOC (mg/L) Calculated Percent Humic Acid
0 0.3 10
0.15 0.38 28
0.75 0.68 60
U LJ 24
C-14
-------
a As indicated in Table 3 ofWinner(1985).
2.10 Alkalinity of Lake Superior Water
For the Lind et al. (manuscript) tests conducted in Lake Superior water (adjusted with CaSO4 or
MgSO4), is there any way to estimate alkalinity values?
Recommendation: For tests conducted in Lake Superior water, assume an alkalinity of 42
mg/L CaCO3 (see Section 2.5).
2.11 Availability of LC50s
The LC50s reported by Collyard et al. (1994) are shown graphically in publication. The LC50s
provided in Table 1 are interpolated from the figure. Are the actual measured LC50s available from
the authors?
Recommendation: The actual LC50s generated and presented graphically in Collyard et al.
(1994) have been archived at U.S. EPA-Duluth, as reported by Gerald Ankley (personal
communication, 3 November 2000). These values are not readily available in any other form. The
data are acceptable as is on the basis of recommendations in the Guidelines (Stephan et al. 1985).
Precedence for the use of values gleaned from graphical data is provided in the 2001 Update of
Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Cadmium (U. S. EPA 2001).
2.12 Cl and Na Concentrations
Cl and Na ion concentrations of the tap water used for testing in Rice and Harrison (1983) were
derived from the addition of 20 mg/L sodium chloride (NaCl). What are the specific concentrations
of the individual ions from the addition of the salt? What concentrations do you suggest using for K
and SO4 in this water?
Recommendation: The Cl content of the tap dilution water used in Rice and Harrison (1983)
was reported as having been derived from the addition of 20 mg/L of NaCl. Assuming that the initial
Na and Cl concentrations in tap water were essentially zero, the concentrations of these ions can be
calculated in the following way:
The molecular weight of NaCl is 58.44 g/mol. The atomic weight of Na is 22.98 mg/L and the
atomic weight of Cl is 35.453 mg/L.
The concentration of Na is:
20 mg NaCl/L * 1 mmol NaCl/58.44 mg NaCl = 0.342 mmol NaCl/L.
0.342 mmol NaCl * 1 mmol Na/1 mmol NaCl * 22.98 mg Na/1 mmol Na
= 7.86mgNa/L.
The concentration of Cl is:
20 mg NaCl/L x l mmol NaCl/58.44 mg NaCl = 0.342 mmol NaCl/L.
C-15
-------
0.342 mmol NaCl x 1 mmol Na/1 mmol NaCl x 35.453 mg Cl/1 mmol Cl
= 12.12mgCl/L.
Given the potentially large dichotomy between the deiault ion concentrations and measured
hardness of the water used in this study, we recommend adjusting the deiault SO4 concentration
according to measured hardness as in Section 2.1. We do not, however, recommend adjusting the
current deiault value of 1.0 mg/L for K.
2.13 Calculating DOC in Dilution Water
The dilution water used in the acute copper toxicity tests with cutthroat trout in Chakoumakos
et al. (1979) was a different mix of spring water and de-ionized water for each test. Ca and Mg
concentrations were measured and reported for each of the test waters used, but measurements of the
other ions were reported only for the undiluted spring water. Based on a percentage dilution, ions
other than Ca and Mg were estimated in the following way: hardness was measured in the spring water
and in each of the test waters; the proportion of spring water was calculated for each test using these
measured hardness values; this proportion was then multiplied by the concentration of, for example,
Na in the spring water to get an estimated Na value for each test. TOC in the spring water was 3.3
mg/L. Should the same approach as that used to estimate the other ions be used to calculate DOC,
which was only measured in undiluted spring water?
Recommendation: The concentrations of the major cations and anions in the dilution water
used by Chakoumakos et al. (1979) were calculated based on the percent dilution of natural spring
water with de-ionized water. The same correction can be used to estimate DOC, with the following
assumptions. First, the TOC in spring water was 100 percent dissolved. Second, the DOC of de-
ionized water was 0.5 mg/L. rf these assumptions are acceptable, the DOCs forH/H, M/H, L/H, H/M,
MM, L/M, H/L, M/L, and L/L would be 3.3, 1.5, 0.75, 3.3, 1.7, 0.94, 2.8, 1.5, and 0.87 mg/L,
respectively.
2.14 Ionic Composition of Chehalis River Water
The ionic composition of Chehalis River, WA, water is needed to fill in existing data gaps used
for BLM analysis of acute toxicity reported in Mudge et al. (1993). The publication states, " Water
quality data collected during this bioassay program is similar to historical data for Chehalis River
(WPPSS 1982) and other Pacific NW streams (Samuelson 1976)." Are data from Samuelson (1976)
acceptable for use in approximating these ion concentrations? Furthermore, are there any dissolved
or ionic LC50s available other than those reported in the publication?
Recommendation: The following additional water chemistry information for the Chehalis
River dilution water used in the studies reported by Mudge et al. (1993) was provided by the author on
20 November 2000. These measurements were made on Chehalis River water at the time of testing.
A corresponding value for DOC was obtained from the NASQAN dataset.
Recommended spreadsheet addition for Chehalis River dilution water
Applied to:
JJUC
(mg/L) Ca
Mg
Specific Ions (mg/L)
Ca:Mg Na K Cl
SO 4
C-16
-------
Mudgeetal. 1993 3.2a 7.1 2.4 1.8 5.1 0.65 4.5 (May) 4.0 (May)
4.2 (Jim) 3.5(May-Jul)
3.1 (Sep) 2.3 (Sep)
a Value fromthe USGS NASQAN dataset, 1980-1982, when the tests were conducted.
2.15 Chemistry of Water in Howarth and Sprague (1978)
What is the ionic composition and organic caibon content of test waters used in Howarth and
Sprague (1978)? The waters used for testing were various mixes of University of Guelph (Guelph,
ON, Canada) well water and de-ionized well water. The de-ionized well water was reported as " having
retained its original chloride content (22 mg/1)," but the values for the other major anion and cation
concentrations were not reported. Furthermore, the equation provided for calculating alkalinity from
pH and hardness (supposedly accounting for 96.7 percent of the variability) appears unreliable. For
example, using the equation and a total water hardness of 364 mg/L CaCO3 at pH 9, one obtains an
estimated alkalinity value of 341 mg/L CaCO3. In contrast, the measured alkalinity reported in the
text for this level of hardness and pH was 263 mg/L CaCO3.
Recommendation: The equation provided in the text of Howarth and Sprague (1978) for
calculating alkalinity appears unreliable. The calculated alkalinity does not approximate measured
alkalinity within a reasonable degree of accuracy. Values of hardness, pH, and alkalinity in Dixon and
Sprague (1981a), which used the same water source in their toxicity tests, give greater evidence of
this; i.e., using the measured value of hardness of 374 mg/L CaCO3 and a pH of 7.75, the alkalinity
calculated with the equation is 98 mg/L CaCO3. This compares rather poorly with the measured
alkalinity of 223 mg/L CaCO3. Instead, alkalinity can be estimated using the nomograph Irom Faust
and Aly (1981) as in Section 2.8.
It is possible to apply the procedure used with the Chakoumakos et al. (1979) data here, i.e.,
using the ratio of hardness in fill-strength well water and de-ionized well water to calculate the
dilution of the other major ion concentrations. However, no values are given for Na or K in
University of Guelph well water. This study is also complicated by the reverse-osmosis unit used to
create the de-ionized well water. In particular, the statement concerning the retention of the original
Cl concentration in the de-ionized well water implies an ionic exchange that would also require a
cation (to maintain charge balance). The cation involved is unknown. As discussed in a phone
conversation with John Sprague on 17 November 2000, and later that day with Scott Howarth
(Environment Canada), NaCl may have leached through the RO unit. Assuming that Na and Cl
leached through the unit in equivalent proportions, a value of 14 mg/L for Na can be back-calculated
from the reported Cl concentration of 22 mg/L.
Delault DOC concentrations of 1.6 and 0.5 mg/L were assumed for the well water and de-
ionized water used in the tests, respectively (see Section 2.3). The DOC concentrations were adjusted
for each particular test water hardness level based on the proportion of well water and de-ionized
water used to achieve the desired test hardness level, hi the example provided in Table 9, the dilution
lactor of 0.27, based on the ratio of the average hardness of well water (366 mg/L CaCO3) versus the
average hardness of well plus de-ionized well water (100 mg/L CaCO3), was applied to the starting
DOC concentrations to achieve an estimate of the DOC concentrations at 100 mg/L CaCO3). Table
C-17
-------
9 shows the results of similar adjustments made for the major anions and cations based on the data
reported in Howarth and Sprague (1978).
2.16 Default Values for Analyte Concentrations
What value should be used when a specific analyte is not detected at its designated detection
limit?
Recommendation: The use of half the detection limit PL) is most appropriate when the
concentration of an analyte is not detected. One-half the DL will closely approximate a replacement
value for censored data in a log-normally distributed population that includes several measured values
(Berthouex and Brown 1994; Dolan and El-Shaarawi 1991). This way some of the "nondetect"
samples will actually be counted as detected.
Table 9. Example Calculations to Estimate Water Chemistry of Tests Conducted at 100
mg/L CaCO3 by Howarth and Sprague (1978) Using a Mixture of University of Guelph
Well Water and De-ionized Water
Parameter
(units in mg/L)
De-ionized water
Well Water
Example Calculations
for Mixture
Hardness
Ca
Mg
Na
K
Cl
SO4
DOC
14 (assuming NaCl used for
the softening process)
0
22 (stated as not having
changed fromthe water
sotening process)
0
0.5 (defeult value for de-
ionized waters)
366
77 (fromDixon & Sprague
1981)
43 (fromDixon & Sprague
1981)
14 (estimated from [Cl])
2.4 (based on personal
communication fromDr. Patricia
Wright, Univ. ofGuelph,
Guelph, ON)
22
129
1.6 (defeult value for well
waters)
100
(i.e., 0.27 dilution fector)
21
12
14
0.66
22
35
0.8
Alkalinity (calculated using ratios as in Section 2.8):
atpH6 Oa
at pH 7 Oa
at pH 8 Oa
at pH 9 Oa
81.5
205
250
263
22
55
N/A
70
Alkalinity in de-ionized well water is assumed to be 0.0 mg/L.
C-18
-------
2.17 Organic Carbon Content of Samples
Can any information be obtained on the organic carbon content of the spring water / City of
Cincinnati, OH, tap water mixes used in Brungs et al. (1973), Geckler et al. (1976), Horning and
Neiheisel (1979), Mount (1968), Mount and Stephan (1969), and Pickering et al. (1977)?
Recommendation: The water used for all tests was a mixture of spring-fed pond water
(originating at the Newtown Fish Farm) and carbon-filtered, demineralized Cincinnati tap water. The
water was mixed to achieve the desired test hardness level and discharged to a large (several thousand
gallon) concrete reservoir that fed the test system. The detention time varied anywhere from 30 to
90 days, depending on the study, which was sufficient to allow the growth of phytoplankton and
zooplankton in moderate abundance. No additional information regarding the TOC (DOC)
concentration or treatment of this water is available at this time. The recommended organic carbon
content of spring/city water mix is currently a conservative 1.6 mg/L, but could be as high as 2.5
mg/L, the highest DOC concentration recorded for a natural surface or well water used for studies
included in this report (see Section 2.3). Considering the long retention time, and the feet that the
natural water was spring-fed pond water, the more conservative DOC value of 2.5 mg/L is
recommended for this water.
2.18 Additional Water Chemistry Data Needed
Additional water chemistry data are needed for Bennett et al. (1995) and Richards and Beitinger
(1995). In the case of Richards and Beitinger 1995, only the ranges of measured pH, alkalinity, and
hardness across all tests were given.
Recommendation: Detailed pH, alkalinity, and hardness values were provided by both
Bennett et al. (1995) and Richards and Beitinger (1995) (Appendixes D-7 and D-9, respectively).
The studies performed by Bennett et al. were conducted using dechlorinated City of Denton, TX, tap
water (from Lake Roy Roberts). The author was not able to provide any additional data regarding the
ionic composition of this water; however, based on supplementary data, mean values of pH,
alkalinity, and temperature were 8.07 and 89.7 mg/L CaCO3 and 21.4 C, respectively. Richards and
Beitinger's studies were conducted using standard reconstituted (hard) water. To estimate the ionic
composition of this water, refer to recommendations provided in Section 2.1.
2.19 Estimating Data for Waters
Values for DOC, TSS, Ca, Mg, Na, K, SO4, and Cl are needed for the following natural waters:
Water Body
American River, California - sand filtered
Clinch River - 1 l^m filtered
Amy Bayou
Elaine Creek, Kentucky - 1.6
S. Kawishiwi
St. Louis River
Lake One
filtered
Reference
Finlayson and Venue 1982
Belanger et al. 1989
Belanger and Cherry 1990
Belanger and Cherry 1990
Dobbs et al. 1994
Lind et al. manuscript
Lind et al. manuscript
Lind et al. manuscript
C-19
-------
Colby Lake Lind et al. manuscript
Cloquet Lake Lind et al. manuscript
Greenwood Lake Lind et al. manuscript
Embarrass River Lind et al. manuscript
Green Duwamish River Buckley 1983
Chehalis River Mudge et al. 1993
Pinto Creek, AZ Lewis 1978
Naugatuck River Carlson et al. 1986
Recommendation: On the following pages are data (current and/or historical, presented as
arithmetic means) from selected natural waters that were retrieved from NASQAN, STORET, or a
secondary source (as indicated). As mentioned earlier (see Sections 2.6 and 2.7), given the reasonably
good correlation between most of the major anion and cations (except K) and water hardness in
natural surface and well waters, we recommend using the ion and hardness values retrieved Irom these
various sources to estimate the ion concentrations in the test water used in the previous studies. The
operation, again, is simply to multiply the ion concentrations listed below by the ratio of hardness
values presented below and the earlier test waters.
Note that additional data were not available for Elaine Creek, KY, or Pinto Creek, AZ, and
although additional data were obtained Irom the City of Sacramento, CA, regarding the American
River, the default DOC value (8.2 mg/L) for California streams may be artificially high on the basis
of reported values of DOC in the Sacramento River (1.2 mg C/L), of which the American River is a
tributary. Therefore, the data Irom Finlayson and Verrue (1982) have been relegated to " other data"
Likewise, Amy Bayou is a highly contaminated and dynamic system (Don Cherry, personal
communication), and ELM normalization is not recommended for these data A large annual
variability in water quality also excludes the use of surrogate STORET data for the Embarrass River,
MN, for ELM analysis (Lind et al. manuscript).
American River. CA (AppendixC-9). Source: Ron Myers. City of Sacramento, CA. Water Quality Laboratory
Applied to:
Finlayson and
Verrue 19 82
Hardness
(mg/L
CaCO3)
21
Alkalinity Specific Ions (mg/L)
(mg/L
CaCO3) pH DOC Ca Mg Ca:Mg
22 7.5 -a 5.6 1.8 2.0
Na K Cl SO4
3.0 - 2.6 3.8
DOC and K data for the American River were not available.
Clinch River, VA (Appendix D-5): Source: Don Cherry, VA Poly. Inst. & State Univ., Blacksburg.VA
Hardness Alkalinity Specific Ions (mg/L)
(mg/L (mg/L
Applied to: CaCO3) CaCO3) pH DOC Ca Mg Ca:Mg Na K Cl SO4
Belangeret al.
1989, and
Belangerand
Cherry 1990
150 150 8.3 2.3 42 11 2.3 12 2.4 9.2 19
C-20
-------
S.KawishiwiRiver,MN(AppendixC-10). Source: STORET
Hardness Alkalinity Specific Ions (mg/L)
(mg/L (mg/L
Applied to: CaCO3) CaCO3) pH DOC Ca Mg Ca:Mg Na K Cl SO4
Lindetal. 24 18 6.6 -a 5.6 2.4 1.5 1.3 0.5 1.0 4.9
manuscript
a DOC data for this river were not available. TOC measurements reported by Lind et al. (manuscript) should be
adjusted based on a mean DOC:TOC ratio (0.8721) in Minnesota streams (see Section 2.3 and AppendixD-2).
LakeOne,MN(AppendixC-10). Source: STORET
Hardness Alkalinity Specific Ions (mg/L)
(mg/L (mg/L
Applied to: CaCO3) CaCO3) pH DOC Ca Mg Ca:Mg Na K Cl SO4
Lindetal. 10 15 6.7 -a 2.8 0.7 1.8 0.1 0.3 0.2 4.2
manuscript
a DOC data for this lake were not available. TOC ireasurements reported by Lind et al. (manuscript) should be
adjusted based on a mean DOC:TOC ratio (0.9677) in Minnesota lakes (see Section 2.3 and AppendixD-2).
Colby Lake, MN (AppendixC-10). Source: STORET
Hardness Alkalinity Specific Ions (mg/L)
(mg/L (mg/L
Applied to: CaCO3) CaCO3) pH DOC Ca Mg Ca:Mg Na K Cl SO4
Lindetal. 56 33 7.1 -a 13.3 5.4 1.6 4.0 1.4 7.3 23
manuscript
a DOC data for this lake were not available. TOC measurements reported by Lind et al. (manuscript) should be
adjusted based on a mean DOC: TOC ratio (0.9677) in Minnesota lakes (see Section 2.3 and Appendix D-2).
CloquetLake,MN(AppendixC-10). Source: STORET
Hardness Alkalinity Specific Ions (mg/L)
(mg/L (mg/L
Applied to: CaCO3) CaCO3) pH DOC Ca Mg Ca:Mg Na K Cl SO4
Lindetal. 27 21 7.2 -a 6.9 2.3 1.4 1.9b 1.4° 1.2 5.6
manuscript
a DOC data for this lake were not available. TOC measurements reported by Lind et al. (manuscript) should be
adjusted based on a mean DOC:TOC ratio (0.9677) in Minnesota lakes (see Section 2.3 and AppendixD-2).
b Na data for this lake were not available. The Na value given here is based on data for Colby Lake, MN, and was
scaled on the basis ofhardness (see Section 2.1): Na = 4.0 mg Na/L * (27 mg/L CaCO3 / 56 mg/L CaCO3).
c K data for this lake were not available. The K value given here is fromdata for Colby Lake, MN. This value was
not scaled on the basis ofhardness (see discussion ofK-hardness relationship in Sections 2.1 and 2.7).
C-21
-------
GreenwoodLake(AppendixC-10),MN. Source: STORET
Applied to:
Lind et al.
manuscript
Hardness Alkalinity Specific Ions (mg/L)
(mg/L (mg/L
CaC03) CaC03) pH DOC Ca Mg Ca:Mg Na K Cl SO4
17 11 6.4 -a 4 1.8 2.4 0.2b 0.3C 1.7 7.6
a DOC data ibr this lake were not available. TOC measurements reported by Lind et al. (manuscript) should be
adjusted based on a mean DOC:TOC ratio (0.9677) in Minnesota lakes (see Section 2.3 and AppendixD-2).
b Na data for this lake were not available. The Na value given here is based on data for Lake One, MN, and was
scaled based on hardness: Na = 0.1 mg Na/L * (17 mg/L CaCO3/ 10 mg/L CaCO3).
c K data for this lake were not available. TheK value given here is fromdata for Lake One, MN. This value was
not scaled on the basis ofhardness (see discussion ofK-hardness relationship in Sections 2.1 and 2.7).
St. Louis River,MN (AppendixC-6). Source: NASQAN
Note: for the St. Louis River dataset (1973 to 1993), a question arose as to which data would be most representative
for estimating the ion concentrations in St. Louis River water for BLM analysis. In order to determine this, the
relationship between hardness and Na ion for all 20 years was plotted. Linear regression was used to fit the data.
Most data showed very high coefficient correlation (0.8-0.94). For each of these 20 regression lines, the slope and
intercept coefficients were plotted on separate graphs as functions oftime (Figures 7 and 8). The following
conclusions were derived:
• A significant event occurred in 1976 and perhaps 1977 that affected the water balance ofthe St. Louis River. A
wastewater treatment plant was built, which substantially improved the water quality (Jesse Anderson, Minn.
Pollution Control Bd., personal communication).
• For the 1979-1993 period, hardness and ion concentrations did not change significantly as absolute values.
Therefore, general equations (which could be used to extrapolate water chemistry data till year 2000 and before
1979) can be obtained connecting hardness, alkalinity, pH, and the major ion concentrations.
• The exponential growth in the values between 1973 and 1979 shows that averaging values on seasonal and
annual basis is not appropriate. The constant values for the slopes and intercepts for 1979-1993 allow mean
monthly and annual interpretation ofthe data.
• The regression equations derived for 1977 alone are recommended to predict ion concentrations based on the
water hardness levels measured in the Lind et al. (manuscript). The equations derived for each ion are
provided in AppendixD-6 with the corresponding figures.
Green-Duwamish River, WA. Source: James Buckley
Applied to:
Buckley 1983
Hardness
(mg/L
CaC03)
33
Alkalinity
(mg/L
CaCO3)
29
Specific Ions (mg/L)
PH
7.2
DOC
3.2a
Ca
8.9
Mg
2.8
Ca:Mg
2.0
Na
7.5
K
1.2
Cl
7.0
S04
6.3
a Value given as TOC. DOC data for this river were not available. TOC measurements reported by Buckley et al.
(1983) should be adjusted on the basis ofamean DOC:TOC ratio (0.7803) in Washington streams (see Section 2.3
and Appendix C-2).
D-22
-------
Naugatuck River, WA. Source: STORET
Hardness Alkalinity Specific Ions (mg/L)
(mg/L (mg/L
Applied to: CaCO3) CaCO3) pH DOC Ca Mg Ca:Mg Na K Cl SO4
Carlson etal. 39 20 6.4 3.7a 9.9 3.3 1.9 9.9 2.3 - 22
1986
a Value given as TOC. DOC data for this river were not available. TOC measurements reported by Carlson et al.
(1986) should be adjusted on the basis of a mean DOC: TOC ratio (0.8711) in Connecticut streams (see Section 2.3
and AppendixC-2).
C-23
-------
Figure 1. Relationship between Ca and hardness in WFTS well water
to
O
15
10
b[0]=0.3085
b[1]=0.2738
r2=0.7129
2D
40
60
3D
Total Hardness (mg/L as CaCOS)
C-24
-------
Figure 2. Relationship between Mg and hardness in WFTS well water.
£
Ul
5 -
3 -
b[0]=0.5429
b[1]=0.0573
r2=0.7964
** *
20
40
60
80
Total Hardness (mg/L as CaCO3)
C-25
-------
Figure 3. Relationship between Na and hardness in WFTS well water.
10
B)
£
a
4 -
2 -
20
b[0]=303290
b[1]=0.0713
r2=0.5989
40
60
80
Total Hardness (mg/L as CaCOS)
C-26
-------
Figure 4. Relationship between K and hardness in WFTS well water
*
i -
bfO)=0.4332
b(1)=0,0058
«•«•'
flft •„-
20
40
80
Total Hardness (mg/L as CaCOS)
C-27
-------
Figure 5. Relationship between Cl and hardness in WFTS well water.
16
14 -
12 -
10 -
o
E 8
o
6 -
4 -
b[0]=2.7842
b[1]=0.1278
r2=0.5637
20
40
60
80
Total Hardness (mg/L as CaCO3)
C-28
-------
Figure 6. Relationship between SO4 and hardness in WFTS well water.
o
20
18
16
14
12
10
8 H
6
4 -
2 -
0
b[0]=-3.0430
b[1]=0.2816
r2=0.8035
* •»
o
10
20
30
40
50
60
Total Hardness (mg/L as CaCO3)
C-29
-------
Figure 7. Slopes of the regression equations derived for Na
concentration in St. Louis River, MN, water versus water
hardness from 1973 to 1993.
a
o
35
U.fJ •
0.4 •
0.35 •
0.3 •
0.25 •
0.2 •
0.15 •
0.1 •
0.05 •
n .
* 4
4
.,.
• 4 4 * 4* *
4-4 4
1970 1975 1980 19fl5
Time
1990
1995
C-30
-------
Figure 8. Intercepts of the regression equations derived for Na
concentration in St. Louis River, MN water versus water
hardness from 1973 to 1993.
a
o
35
U.fJ •
0.4 •
0.35 •
0.3 •
0.25 •
0.2 •
0.15 •
0.1 •
0.05 •
n .
* 4
4
.,.
• 4 4 * 4* *
4-4 4
1970 1975 1980 19fl5
Time
1990
1995
C-31
-------
References
Andros, ID. and R.R. Garton. 1 980. Acute lethality ofcopper, cadmium, and zinc to northern squawfish. Trans.
AmFish.Soc. 109:235.
ASTM. 2000. Standard guide for conducting acute toxicity tests on test materials with fishes, macroinvertebrates,
and amphibians. E729-96. In: Annual book of ASTM standards. Section 1 1 , Volume 5 . American Society for
Testing and Materials, Pennsylvania, PA.
Belanger, S.E. andD.S. Cherry. 1990. Interacting effects ofpH acclimation, pH, and heavy metals of acute and
chronic toxicity to Ceriodaphnia dubia (Cladoceran). I Crustacean Biol. 10(2):225-235.
Belanger, S.E. , XL. Farris andD.S. Cherry. 1989. Effects of diet, water hardness, and population source on acute
and chronic copper toxicity to Ceriodaphnia dubia. Arch. Environ. Contain Toxicol. 18(4): 60 1-61 1 .
Bennett, W.A., A. Sosaand TL.Beitinger. 1995. Oxygen tolerance of fathead minnows previously exposed to
copper. Bull. Environ. Contain Toxicol. 55(4): 5 17-524.
Berthouex, P .M. and L.C. Brown. 1994. Statistics for environmental engineers. Lewis Publishers/CRC Press,
Boca Raton, FL.
Biesinger, K.E. and G.M. Christensen. 1 972. Effects ofvarious metals on survival, growth, reproduction, and
metabolismofDa/>/!w/a magna. Jour. Fish Res. Board Can. 29:1691.
Brungs, WA.,E.N. Leonard and J.M. McKim 1 973. Acute and long-term accumulation of copper by the brown
bullhead, Ictalurus nebulosus. J. Fish. Res. Board Can. 30(4):583-586.
Buckley, JA. 1983. Complexation ofcopper in the effluent ofa sewage treatment plant and an estimate ofits
influence on toxicity to coho salmon. Water Res. 17(1 2): 192 9- 19 34.
Cairns, I, Jr., K.W. Thompson and A.C. Hendricks. 1981. Effects offluctuating,sublethal applications ofheavy
metal solutions upon the gill ventilation response ofbluegills (Lepomis macrochirus). EPA-600/3-8 1-003. National
Technical Information Service, Springfield, VA.
Carlson, A. R.,H. Nelson andD. Hammermeister. 1986. Development and validation of site-specific water quality
criteria for copper. Environ. Toxicol. Chem 5(1 1):997-1012.
Chakoumakos,C.,R.C. Russo andR.V. Thurston. 1979. The toxicity of copper to cutthroat trout (Salmo clarki)
under different conditions of alkalinity, pH, and hardness. Environ. Sci. Technol. 13:213-219.
Chapman, GA. 1 975 . Toxicity ofcopper, cadniumand zinc to Pacific Northwest salmonids. U.S. EPA, Corvallis,
OR.
Chapman, GA. 1 978. Toxi cities ofcadnium, copper, and zinc to four juvenile stages ofchinook salmon and
steelhead. Trans. Am Fish. Soc. 107:841-847.
Chapman, GA. and D.G. Stevens. 1 978. Acute lethal levels ofcadnium, copper, and zinc to adult male coho
salmon and steelhead. Trans. Am Fish. Soc. 107:837-840.
Colly ard, S.A., G.T. Ankley,RA. Hokeand T. Goldstein. 1994. Influence of age on the relative sensitivity of
Hyalella azteca to diazinon, alkylphenol ethoxylates, copper, cadniumand zinc. Arch. Environ. Contam Toxicol.
Di Toro, D.M., H.E. Allen, H.L. Bergman, J.S. Meyer, P .R. Paquin and R.C. Santore, 2001 . A Biotic Ligand
Model ofthe Acute Toxicity ofMetals. I. Technical Basis, Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry. 20:2383-
2396.
Di Toro, D.M., H. Allen, H. Bergman, J. Meyer, R.C. Santore and P .R. Paquin. 2000. The Biotic Ligand Model:
A computational approach for assessing the ecological effects ofcopper and other metals in aquatic systems.
International Copper Association, Ltd.
Dixon,D.G. and J.B. Sprague. 198 la. Acclimation to copper by rainbow tro ut (Salmo gairdneri). A modifying
factor in toxicity. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 38:880-888.
C-32
-------
Dolan, D.M. and A.H. El-Shaarawi. 1991. Application ofmass balance approach with censored data. J. Gr. Lakes
Res. 17:220-228.
Erickson, RJ. 1985. Analysis ofmajor ionic content ofselected U.S. waters and application to experimental design
for the evaluation ofthe effect ofwater chemistry on the toxicity ofcopper. Draft report. U.S. EPA, Duluth, MN.
Erickson, R.J., DA. Benoit, V.R. Mattson, HP. Nelson, Jr. and E.N. Leonard. 1996b. The effects ofwater
chemistry on the toxicity of copper to fathead minnows. Environ. Toxicol. Chem 15 (2): 181-193.
Faust, S.D. and O.M. Aly. 1981. Chemistry ofnatural waters. Ann Arbor Science Publishers, Inc., Ann Arbor, MI.
Finlayson,BJ. andK.M. Verrue. 1982. To xi cities of copper, zinc, and cadniumnixtures to juvenile chinook
salmon. Trans. Am Fish. Soc. 111:645-650.
Geckler, J.R., W.B. Horning, TM.Neiheisel,Q.H. Pickering, E.L. Robinson and C.E. Stephan. 1976. Validity of
laboratory tests forpredicting copper toxicity in streams. EPA-600/3-76-116. National Technical Information
Service, Springfield, VA.
Hartwell, S.I., J.H. Jin,D.S. Cherry and I Cairns, Jr. 1989. Toxicity versus avoidance response of golden shiner,
Notemigonus crysoleucas,to five metals. J. FishBiol. 35(3):447-456.
Homing, W.B. and T.W. Neiheisel. 1979. Chronic effect ofcopper on the bluntnose imrmow,Pimephales notatus
(Rafinesque). Arch. Environ. Contam Toxicol. 8:545-552.
Howarth,R.S. and J.B. Sprague. 1978. Copper lethality to rainbow trout in waters of various hardness andpH.
Water Res. 12:455-462.
Lind,D.,Alto and Chatterton. Manuscript. Regional copper-nickel study: Aquatic toxicology study. Preliminary
draft report, Minnesota Environmental Quality Board, St. Paul, MN.
Lorz, H.W. and B.P. McPherson. 1976. Effects ofcopper or zinc in fresh water on the adaptation to sea water and
ATPase activity, and the effects ofcopper on migratory disposition ofcoho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch). J. Fish.
Res. Board Can. 33:2023.
McCrady, J.K. and G. A. Chapman. 1979. Determination of copper completing capacity ofnatural river water, well
water and artificially reconstituted water. Water Res. 13:143-150.
McGeer, J.C., R.C. Playle, C.M. Wood and F. Galvez. 2000. A physiologically based biotic ligand model for
predicting the acute toxicity ofwaterborne silver to rainbow trout in freshwaters. Environ. Sci. Technol. 34:4199-
4207.
Mount,D.I. 1968. Chronic toxicity ofcopperto fathead minnows (Pimephales promelas Rafinesque). Water Res.
2:215-223.
Mount, D.I. and C.E. Stephan. 1969. Chronic toxicity ofcopperto the fathead minnow (Pimephalespromelas) in
soft water. J. Fish. Res. Board Can. 26:2449-2457.
Mudge, J.E., TE.Northstrom,G.S. Jeane, W. Davis and J.L.Hickam 1993. Effect of vary ing environmental
conditions on the toxicity ofcopper to salmon. In: Environmental toxicology and risk assessment. Gorsuch, J.W.,
F.J. Dwyer, C.G. Ingersoll and T.W. LaPoint (Eds.). ASTM STP 1216. American Society for Testing and
Materials, Philadelphia, PA. pp. 19-33.
Nebeker,A.V.,MA. Cairns and C.M. Wise. 1984a. Relative sensitivity ofChironomus tentans life stages to
copper. Environ. Toxicol. Chem 3(1): 151-158.
Nebeker, A.V.,MA. Cairns, S.T OnjukkaandR.H. Titus. 1986a. Effect ofageon sensitivity ofDaphnia magna
to cadmium, copper and cyanazine. Environ. Toxicol. Chem 5(6): 527-30.
Nebeker,A.V.,A. Stinchfield, C. Savonen and GA. Chapman. 1986b. Effects of copper, nickel and zinc on three
species ofOregon freshwater snails. Environ. Toxicol. Chem 5(9): 807-811.
Pickering, Q.H., W. Brungs and M. Gast. 1977. Effect ofexposure time and copper concentration on reproduction of
the fathead minnow (Pimephales promelas). Water Res. 11:1079-1083.
C-33
-------
Rice, D.W., Jr. andF.L. Harrison. 1983. The sensitivity of adult, embryonic, and larval crayfashProcambaris
clarkii to copper. UCRL-53048. National Technical Information Service, Springfield, VA.
Richards, V.L. and T.L. Beitinger. 1995. Reciprocal influences oftemperature and copper on survival of fathead
imnnow$,Pimephalespromelas. Bull. Environ. Contam Toxicol. 55(2):230-6.
Sanuelson,D.F. 1976. Water quality: Western Fish Toxicology Station and Western Oregon rivers. EPA-600/3-
76-077. U.S. EPA,Duluth, MN.
Schubauer-Berigan, M.K., J.R. Dierkes, P.D. Monson and G.T Ankley. 1993. pH-dependent toxicity of cadmium,
copper, nickel, lead and zinc to Ceriodaphnia dubia,Pimephales promelas,Hyalella azteca andLumbriculus
variegatus. Environ. Toxciol. Chem 12(7): 1261-1266.
Seim, W.K., L.R. Curtis, S.W. Glenn and GA. Chapman. 1984. Growth and survival ofdeveloping steelhead
trout (SaImo gairdneri) continuously or intermittently exposed to copper. Can. I Fish. Aquat. Sci. 41(3):433-438.
Spehar, R.L. and IT. Fiandt. 1986. Acute and chronic effects ofwater quality criteria-based metal mixtures on three
aquatic species. Environ. Toxicol. Chem 5(10):917-931.
Stephan, C.E., D.I. Mount, DJ. Hansen, J.H. Gentile, GA. Chapman and WA. Brungs. 1985. Guidelines for
deriving numerical national water quality criteria for the protection of aquatic organisms and their uses. PBS 5-
227049. National Technical Information Service, Springfield, VA.
Thompson, K.W., A.C.Hendricks and J. Cairns, Jr. 1980. Acute toxicity ofzinc and copper singly and in
combination to thebluegill (Lepomis macrochirus). Bull. Environ. Contam Toxicol. 25:122.
U.S. EPA. 1993. Methods for measuring the acute toxicity ofelfluents and receiving water to freshwater and marine
organisms. Fourth Edition. EPA/600/4-90/027F. National Technical Information Service, Springfield, VA.
U.S. EPA. 1998a. Ambient water quality criteria derivation methodology human health technical support
document. EPA-822-B-98-005. Office ofWater. Washington,DC.
U.S. EPA. 1998b. Ambient aquatic life water quality criteria for copper. Draft Report. Office ofWater. Washington,
DC.
U.S. EPA. 2001.2001 update of ambient water quality criteria for cadmium EP A-822-R-01-001. Office ofWater.
Washington, DC.
Winner, R.W. 1985. Bioaccumulation and toxicity ofcopper as affected by interactions between hunic acid and
water hardness. Water Res. 19(4):449-455.
WPPSS (Washington Public Power Supply System). 1982. Supply systemnucl ear project No. 3. Environmental
Report -Operating License Stage Docket No. 50-508. Richland, WA.
C-34
-------
Appendix C-l. Calculations for Ionic Composition of Standard
Laboratory-Reconstituted Water
Molecular Weights Atomic Weights
NaHCO3 = 84.03 Na = 22.98
CaSO4.2H2O= 172.12 Ca = 40.08
MgSO4= 120.37 Mg = 24.31
KC1 = 74.55 K = 39.10
Cl = 35.45
Example Calculation
[Na] in very soft water:
12 mg NaHCO3/L x 1 mmol NaHCO3/84.03 mg NaHCO3 = 0.143 mmol NaHCO3/L.
0.143 mmolNaHCO3/Lx(l mmol Na/1 mmol NaHCO3) x 22.98 mg Na/1 mmol Na = 3.3 mg Na/L.
[Ca] in very soft water:
7.5 mg CaSO4.2H2O/L x 1 mmol CaSO4.2H2O/172.12 mg CaSO4.2H2O = 0.044 mmol CaSO4.2H2O/L.
0.044 mmol CaSO4.2H2O/L x (1 mmol Ca/1 mmol CaSO4.2H2O) x 40.08 mg Ca/1 mmol Ca = 1.8 mg Ca/L.
[Mg] in very soft water:
7.5 mg MgSO4/L x 1 mmol MgSO4/120.37 mg MgSO4 = 0.062 mmol MgSO4/L.
0.062 mmol MgSO4/L x (1 mmol Mg/1 mmol MgSO4) x 24.31 mg Mg/1 mmol Mg = 1.5 mg Mg/L.
[K] in very soft water:
0.5 mg KC1/L x 1 mmol KC1/74.55 mg KC1 = 0.0067 mmol KC1/L.
0.0067 mmol KC1/L x (1 mmol K/l mmolKCl) x 39.102 mg K/l mmol K = 0.26 mg K/L.
[Cl] in very soft water:
0.5 mg KC1/L x 1 mmol KC1/74.55 mg KC1 = 0.0067 mmol KC1/L.
0.0067 mmol KC1/L x (1 mmol Cl/1 mmolKCl) x 35.453 mg Cl/1 mmol K = 0.24 mg Cl/L.
[SO4] in very soft water:
7.5 mg CaSO4.2H2O/L x 1 mmol CaSO4.2H2 O/172.12 mg CaSO4.2H2O = 0.044 mmol CaSO4.2H2O/L.
0.044 mmol CaSO4.2H2O/L x (1 mmol SO4/1 mmol CaSO4.2H2O) x 96.064 mg Ca/1 mmol Ca = 4.2 mg Ca/L.
[SO4] in very soft water:
7.5 mg MgSO4/L x 1 mmol MgSO4/120.37 mg MgSO4 = 0.062 mmol MgSO4/L.
0.062 mmol MgSO4/L x (1 mmol SO4/1 mmol MgSO4) x 96.064 mg Mg/1 mmol Mg = 6.0 mg Mg/L.
Total SO4 = 10.2 mg/L
Conversion Factors to calculate water hardness (as CaCO3) from [Ca] and [Mg]:
[Ca] x2.497
[Mg] x 4.116
C-35
-------
Appendix C-2. Dissolved, Particulate, and Estimated Total Organic Carbon for Streams
and Lakes by State (as presented in EPA Document #822-B-98-005)
State
AK
AL
AR
AZ
CA
CO
CT
DC
DE*
FLA
GA
HI
IA
ID
IL
IN
KS
KY
LA
MA
MD
ME
MI
MN
MO
MT
NC
ND
NE
NH
NJ
NM
NV
NY
OH
OKA
OR*A
PA
RI*
SC
SD
TN
TX
UTA
VA
VT
WA
WI
wv
WY
POC
0.54
0.72
0.8
0.71
1.13
1.29
0.71
...
0.7
0.68
0.67
0.59
1.79
0.6
1.77
0.71
1.75
0.75
1.52
0.47
1.66
0.46
0.58
1.79
0.56
0.9
1.14
1.14
1.84
0.28
0.69
1.43
0.82
1.4
0.57
1.27
1.14
2.19
0.42
0.7
1.25
0.67
1.33
1.38
0.81
0.31
1.52
1.03
0.63
1.07
DOC
4.6
3.4
7.2
5.2
8.2
8.6
4.8
...
7.1
16.1
4.3
4
11.6
3.2
6.8
9.2
5.2
3.1
6.9
5.9
3.7
15.3
6.3
12.2
4.2
9.4
11.5
14.5
6.8
4.2
5.5
6.3
4.2
4
5
7.7
2.1
5.4
8.3
5.7
7.6
2.3
6.5
8.9
4.7
4.5
5.4
9.2
2.8
8.2
Streams
Est. TOC
5.14
4.12
8
5.91
9.33
9.89
5.51
...
7.8
16.78
4.97
4.59
13.39
3.8
8.57
9.91
6.95
3.85
8.42
6.37
5.36
15.76
6.88
13.99
4.76
10.3
12.64
15.64
8.64
4.48
6.19
7.73
5.02
5.4
5.57
8.97
3.24
7.59
8.72
6.4
8.85
2.97
7.83
10.28
5.51
4.81
6.92
10.23
3.43
9.27
Est. DOC:TOC
89.49
82.52
90.00
87.99
87.89
86.96
87.11
...
91.03
95.95
86.52
87.15
86.63
84.21
79.35
92.84
74.82
80.52
81.95
92.62
69.03
97.08
91.57
87.21
88.24
91.26
90.98
92.71
78.70
93.75
88.85
81.50
83.67
74.07
89.77
85.84
64.81
71.15
95.18
89.06
85.88
77.44
83.01
86.58
85.30
93.56
78.03
89.93
81.63
88.46
POC
0.53
...
0.4
0.52
0.32
...
...
...
...
2.9
...
...
...
...
0.12
...
1.53
...
0.65
...
...
...
0.32
0.16
...
0.91
...
0.8
...
...
1.04
0.51
...
0.46
0.49
1.72
0.64
0.63
...
...
...
...
1.55
0.5
...
...
0.61
0.16
...
...
DOC
6.4
...
2.7
4.2
2.3
...
...
...
...
12.1
...
...
...
...
4.7
...
4.5
...
5.6
...
...
...
2.7
4.8
...
8.2
...
14.9
...
...
5
5.2
...
2.4
2.6
15
4.4
3.2
...
...
...
...
10.3
2.4
...
...
2.8
4.1
...
...
Lakes
Est. TOC
6.93
...
3.1
4.72
2.62
...
...
...
...
15
...
...
...
...
4.82
...
6.03
...
6.25
...
...
...
3.02
4.96
...
9.11
...
15.7
...
...
6.04
5.71
...
2.86
3.09
16.72
5.04
3.83
...
...
...
...
11.85
2.9
...
...
3.41
4.26
...
...
Est. DOC:TOC
92.35
...
87.10
88.98
87.79
...
...
...
...
80.67
...
...
...
...
97.51
...
74.63
...
89.60
...
...
...
89.40
96.77
...
90.01
...
94.90
...
...
82.78
91.07
...
83.92
84.14
89.71
87.30
83.55
...
...
...
...
86.92
82.76
...
...
82.11
96.24
...
...
C-36
-------
State
Streams
POC DOC Est. TOC
Mean
Max
Min
Est. DOC:TOC
85.71
97.08
64.81
Lakes
POC DOC Est. TOC
Mean
Max
Min
Est. DOC:TOC
87.84
97.51
74.63
* States where sample size was low for streams.
A States where sample size was low for lakes.
C-37
-------
Appendix C-3. Mean TOC and DOC in Lake Superior Dilution Water
(data from Greg Lien, U.S. EPA-Duluth, MN)
Replicate
Filter Blank*
Pre-gill
experiment TOC b
Mean
Post-gill
experiment TOC b
Mean
Pre-gill
experiment DOC b
Mean
Post-gill
experiment DOC b
Mean
Ambient (8/29/2000)
-0.04
1.13
1.37
1.25
1.20
1.27
1.24
1.96
1.52
1.74
1.49
1.64
1.57
pH 7.0 (8/30/2000)
0.22
1.34
1.30
1.32
1.24
1.46
1.35
1.51
1.28
1.40
1.36
1.58
1.47
pH 6.2 (8/31/2000)
0.38
1.26
1.36
1.31
1.18
1.10
1.14
1.34
0.99
1.17
1.44
1.24
1.34
Filter blank is ultra-pure Duluth-EPA laboratory water.
C-38
-------
Appendix C-4. Measured Hardness and Major Ion and Cation Concentrations
in WFTS Well Water from April 1972 to April 1978. Concentrations Given as Mg/L
(data from Samuelson 1976 and Chapman, personal communication)
Month
Mar-72
Apr-72
May-72
Jun-72
Jul-72
Aug-72
Sep-72
Oct-72
Nov-72
Dec-72
Jan -7 3
Feb-73
Mar-73
Apr-73
May-73
Jun-73
Jul-73
Aug-73
Sep-73
Oct-73
Nov-73
Dec-73
Jan-74
Feb-74
Mar-74
Apr-74
May-74
Jun-74
Jul-74
Aug-74
Sep-74
Oct-74
Nov-74
Dec-74
Jan -7 5
Feb-75
Mar-75
Apr-75
May-75
Jun-75
Jul-75
Aug-75
Sep-75
Oct-75
Nov-75
Dec-75
Jan-76
Feb-76
Mar-76
Apr-76
Total Hardness
22
24
23
23
22
22
23
23
52
33
30
31
28
28
26
25
25
27
28
62
67
58
53
51
23
22
23
23
23
23
23
24
41
61
54
18
Ca
7.9
5.8
5.8
6.7
6.5
6
6.7
6.2
6.2
15.3
7.7
8
8.9
8.3
8.4
7.4
6.5
6.7
7
7.9
20.3
21.3
14.3
20.8
18.2
7.5
6
5.4
4.8
5.8
11
12
6.4
7.7
11.6
9.1
4.4
7.2
4.4
5.2
5.2
4.5
7.1
5.3
9.8
Mg
2
1.4
1.6
1.6
1.7
1.6
1.9
1.6
1.5
3.5
2.1
2.1
2.3
2.4
2.2
1.9
1.7
1.7
1.8
2.1
4.2
4.8
3.4
3.8
3.7
2.1
1.9
1.7
1.6
1.5
2
2.6
2.5
2.9
4.2
3.1
1.6
2
1.6
1.6
1.4
1.5
1.9
1.5
5
Na
5
4.4
4.4
4.6
4.7
4.5
4.7
4.2
4.2
7.1
5
5.3
5.4
5.8
5.8
5.8
5.7
5.4
5.4
4.8
9
7
6.9
7.2
6.8
4.6
4.8
5
5
5.1
7.1
4.5
5.2
6.7
8.6
6.4
4.4
5
4.6
7
7
4.5
4.3
4.2
5.4
4.1
5.3
K
1.1
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.5
0.7
0.5
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.8
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.8
0.8
0.9
0.7
0.6
0.6
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.7
0.8
0.5
0.7
0.6
0.8
0.6
0.5
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.6
0.7
0.5
0.5
0.4
0.1
0.1
SOA
<10.0
<5.0
3
<1.0
<10.0
<10.0
5
3.7
3
7.8
5
5
5.3
3
4.8
<5.0
3.1
3.1
2.9
10
13
17.3
14.7
13
15.5
5
3
3.3
3
2.9
3.1
3.8
3.8
8
16
8
3
6
5
5
5
5
20
5
9
3
6
Cl
8
7
7
8.3
6.3
4
5.5
5.3
4
12.4
5
6
8.8
8
7.5
6.8
5.8
5.3
5.4
6.8
14
11.3
6.7
7
8.5
4.8
4.5
6.3
6
4.8
5
5.3
5
8
11.8
8
5
7
6
7
5
4
5
4
9
6
9
C-39
-------
Month
May-76
Jun-76
Jul-76
Aug-76
Sep-76
Oct-76
Nov-76
Dec-76
Jan-77
Feb-77
Mar-77
Apr-77
May-77
Jun-77
Jul-77
Aug-77
Sep-77
Oct-77
Nov-77
Dec-77
Jan-78
Feb-78
Mar-78
Apr-78
Total Hardness
27
26
23
23
21
22
25.5
27.2
25
27
24
25
27
27
Ca
7.9
8.1
4.9
6.7
6.7
7.7
6.4
7.7
10.7
10.7
5
6.6
6.7
6.9
9.9
6.6
9.7
10.9
10.6
10.2
8.3
Mg
1.8
1.9
1.3
2.6
2.6
3
1.8
2.6
4.9
2.2
1.8
2
2
1.9
2.1
2.1
3.75
3.8
2.6
2.4
Na
4.5
3.3
4.8
4.7
4.7
4.7
5
5.6
5.9
5.5
5
5.2
7.1
6.9
5.9
5.6
4.95
8.6
4.7
K
0.5
0.6
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.6
0.6
0.8
0.8
0.7
0.8
1
0.9
0.9
0.65
0.85
0.7
0.6
0.7
SOA
3
4
3
3
4
4
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
10
9
6
5
6
5
C1D
6
7
6
7
8
11
8
7
5
5
7
8
6
4.6
4.6
12
11
9
9.55
C-40
-------
Date
19790329
19790430
19790611
19790723
19790827
19791015
19791126
19800121
19800219
19800331
19800602
19800630
19800804
19800902
19800929
19801103
19801208
19810105
19810209
19810309
19810504
19810706
19810908
19811020
19820113
19820309
19820420
19820621
19820809
19821004
19821207
19830131
19830328
19830523
19830718
19831031
19840109
19840306
19840424
19840619
19840822
19841009
19841120
19850211
19850325
19850506
19850730
19851021
pH
7.6
7.6
7.2
7.6
7.2
8.1
7.8
7.6
7.4
8.4
8.3
8.3
8.1
7.8
7.6
7
7.6
7.5
7.7
7.3
7.4
7.9
7.6
7.4
7.2
7.9
7.4
8
7.3
6.9
7.5
8.2
7.6
7.7
7.4
7.1
7.2
9.5
6.4
7.6
7.1
7
7.3
7.4
7.6
7.5
Hardness
80
37
47
73
74
61
60
63
68
84
93
130
110
73
82
67
70
68
61
42
51
73
51
62
66
32
61
66
73
55
62
68
68
67
64
57
66
51
52
70
73
64
69
61
55
62
58
Alkalinity
63
29
34
55
54
52
53
51
64
72
68
110
82
54
58
50
55
58
57
40
39
64
37
52
58
25
55
54
63
43
50
56
53
53
48
50
57
39
39
58
Ca
19
8.7
11
17
16
14
14
15
16
19
21
28
24
16
18
15
16
16
14
9.6
12
16
12
14
15
7.5
14
15
15
12
14
15
15
15
14
13
15
11
12
15
16
14
15
13
12
14
12
Mg
8
3.7
4.8
7.3
8.2
6.3
6
6.2
6.9
8.8
9.9
14
11
8.1
8.9
7.2
7.2
6.9
6.2
4.3
5
8
5.2
6.5
7
3.3
6.4
6.9
8.7
6.1
6.5
7.3
7.5
7.2
7
6
7
5.6
5.3
7.9
7.9
7.1
7.7
7
6
6.6
6.8
Na
8.4
2.2
3.1
3.9
5
3.8
3.8
3.9
4.2
6.4
7.9
10
7.2
5.7
5.6
4.6
4.2
4.9
5.2
3.7
3.5
4.2
4.3
4
5.3
2.1
4.3
3.9
4.9
4.2
4.1
4.5
4
3.7
3.9
3.6
4.4
3.1
2.9
4.7
4.6
3.9
4.6
5.6
3.6
3.2
3.7
K
2.3
1.3
0.8
0.9
1.1
0.9
0.9
0.8
1.1
1.2
1.4
1.9
1.7
1.4
1.3
1
1.1
1
1.8
1.2
1.2
0.8
1.2
0.9
1
1.3
1.1
0.6
1
0.8
0.8
1.2
1.3
1.3
1.2
0.9
0.9
1.4
0.8
1
1
0.9
1.1
2.5
1.7
0.9
1.1
Cl
7.8
2.8
2.8
3.7
3.9
3.6
3.2
2.9
3.5
5
6.7
11
7.6
5.8
6.9
4.1
4.1
3.5
5.1
3.6
3.2
4.2
4.2
3.7
3.8
2.3
4
3.5
4.7
3.3
3.5
4.1
0.8
3.7
3.5
3.4
5.2
3.2
3.6
3.8
3.7
3.7
4
6.6
4.2
4
0.2
S04
13
8.9
9.4
8.9
13
11
9.9
9.2
9.2
15
24
24
18
14
18
11
13
8.1
8.6
9.6
7.5
8.3
8.9
9.3
11
6
10
9
13
16
15
15
23
22
24
13
8.7
14
10
17
15
14
11
16
14
9.8
12
NO3
0.01
0.37
0.15
0.19
0.3
0.01
0.02
0.01
0.01
0.12
0.19
0.19
0.23
0.27
0.36
0.18
0.14
0.11
0.31
0.24
0.36
0.19
0.1
0.25
0.11
0.24
0.36
0.35
0.12
0.15
0.12
0.23
0.31
0.12
0.13
0.1
0.1
0.24
0.27
0.31
0.15
0.1
0.13
DOCD
20
30
12
17
21
13
23
14
21
10
C-41
-------
Appendix C-6. Water Composition of St. Louis River, MN, from USGS NASQAN and
Select Relationships to Water Hardness
Date
19730222
19730503
19730816
19731128
19740221
19740516
19740919
19741030
19741209
19750121
19750303
19750407
19750527
19750708
19750818
19750929
19751110
19751216
19760209
19760322
19760503
19760614
19760726
19760908
19761019
19761129
19770110
19770214
19770404
19770516
19770628
19770808
19770919
19771031
19771212
19780123
19780306
19780417
19780530
19780710
19780821
19781002
19781115
19781218
19790205
pH
6.8
7.1
6.9
7
7
6.9
7.3
7.4
7.3
7.3
7.2
7.5
9.2
7.2
7.4
7.1
7.6
7.5
7.7
7.6
7.5
7.4
7.5
7.5
7.4
7.3
8.2
7.3
7.3
7.8
7.4
7.4
7.6
7.5
7.3
7.2
7.5
7.9
7.4
8.4
7.7
7.4
7.4
7.4
Hardness
68
58
70
65
64
45
88
83
86
74
74
95
63
58
73
90
90
87
72
78
59
94
93
82
83
95
85
82
87
120
100
110
73
64
65
71
67
43
64
53
60
71
68
68
63
Alkalinity
53
46
51
48
48
32
60
62
62
66
68
80
50
43
56
72
63
61
59
65
43
75
80
78
72
74
88
73
67
98
75
90
44
47
50
52
48
28
54
44
42
57
52
55
57
Ca
17
14
17
16
16
11
21
23
22
18
17
22
15
14
18
23
22
22
18
19
14
22
22
18
20
22
20
20
21
29
24
26
17
15
15
17
16
10
15
13
15
17
16
16
15
Mg
6.3
5.5
6.6
6.1
5.8
4.3
8.6
6.3
7.6
7
7.6
9.7
6.1
5.7
6.9
8
8.4
7.8
6.6
7.4
5.8
9.4
9.3
9.1
8.1
9.7
8.4
7.8
8.5
11
9.9
10
7.3
6.5
6.8
6.9
6.5
4.3
6.4
5.1
5.5
6.9
6.8
6.9
6.3
Na
11
6.6
7.6
7.5
8.9
3.5
12
13
12
10
10
11
8.5
3.2
12
12
12
14
13
12
7.9
16
21
17
21
25
17
18
20
30
13
27
6.6
7.9
6.3
12
8.8
4.2
5.7
4.3
5.3
8.2
11
11
334.4
K
1.6
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.3
1.2
1.8
1.3
1.6
1.1
1.7
2
1.5
1
1.3
1.5
1.7
1.6
1.6
1.4
1.3
1.9
1.9
2.5
1.6
1.8
1.5
1.7
2.4
2.8
2
2.2
1.7
1.3
1.2
1.5
1.2
1.8
1.5
1.3
1.5
1.1
1.1
1
1
Cl
14
9.5
9
8.8
12
3.8
17
16
15
12
11
14
9.2
3.4
16
13
15
16
13
11
8.6
20
25
9.3
24
32
15
26
28
26
16
32
8.9
9.7
7.1
9.4
17
5.7
7.1
5.3
6.5
9.6
10
9.2
3.1
SO4
14
13
20
14
14
11
23
23
18
13
12
16
12
10
16
20
24
28
18
17
15
20
24
26
21
24
19
17
24
36
23
28
17
22
16
18
16
15
14
8.9
12
15
12
14
8
NO3
0.19
0.17
0.01
DOC
37
32
33
36
24
12
C-42
-------
Date
19790329
19790430
19790611
19790723
19790827
19791015
19791126
19800121
19800219
19800331
19800602
19800630
19800804
19800902
19800929
19801103
19801208
19810105
19810209
19810309
19810504
19810706
19810908
19811020
19820113
19820309
19820420
19820621
19820809
19821004
19821207
19830131
19830328
19830523
19830718
19831031
19840109
19840306
19840424
19840619
19840822
19841009
19841120
19850211
19850325
19850506
19850730
19851021
pH
7.6
7.6
7.2
7.6
7.2
8.1
7.8
7.6
7.4
8.4
8.3
8.3
8.1
7.8
7.6
7
7.6
7.5
7.7
7.3
7.4
7.9
7.6
7.4
7.2
7.9
7.4
8
7.3
6.9
7.5
8.2
7.6
7.7
7.4
7.1
7.2
9.5
6.4
7.6
7.1
7
7.3
7.4
7.6
7.5
Hardness
80
37
47
73
74
61
60
63
68
84
93
130
110
73
82
67
70
68
61
42
51
73
51
62
66
32
61
66
73
55
62
68
68
67
64
57
66
51
52
70
73
64
69
61
55
62
58
Alkalinity
63
29
34
55
54
52
53
51
64
72
68
110
82
54
58
50
55
58
57
40
39
64
37
52
58
25
55
54
63
43
50
56
53
53
48
50
57
39
39
58
Ca
19
8.7
11
17
16
14
14
15
16
19
21
28
24
16
18
15
16
16
14
9.6
12
16
12
14
15
7.5
14
15
15
12
14
15
15
15
14
13
15
11
12
15
16
14
15
13
12
14
12
Mg
8
3.7
4.8
7.3
8.2
6.3
6
6.2
6.9
8.8
9.9
14
11
8.1
8.9
7.2
7.2
6.9
6.2
4.3
5
8
5.2
6.5
7
3.3
6.4
6.9
8.7
6.1
6.5
7.3
7.5
7.2
7
6
7
5.6
5.3
7.9
7.9
7.1
7.7
7
6
6.6
6.8
Na
8.4
2.2
3.1
3.9
5
3.8
3.8
3.9
4.2
6.4
7.9
10
7.2
5.7
5.6
4.6
4.2
4.9
5.2
3.7
3.5
4.2
4.3
4
5.3
2.1
4.3
3.9
4.9
4.2
4.1
4.5
4
3.7
3.9
3.6
4.4
3.1
2.9
4.7
4.6
3.9
4.6
5.6
3.6
3.2
3.7
K
2.3
1.3
0.8
0.9
1.1
0.9
0.9
0.8
1.1
1.2
1.4
1.9
1.7
1.4
1.3
1
1.1
1
1.8
1.2
1.2
0.8
1.2
0.9
1
1.3
1.1
0.6
1
0.8
0.8
1.2
1.3
1.3
1.2
0.9
0.9
1.4
0.8
1
1
0.9
1.1
2.5
1.7
0.9
1.1
Cl
7.8
2.8
2.8
3.7
3.9
3.6
3.2
2.9
3.5
5
6.7
11
7.6
5.8
6.9
4.1
4.1
3.5
5.1
3.6
3.2
4.2
4.2
3.7
3.8
2.3
4
3.5
4.7
3.3
3.5
4.1
0.8
3.7
3.5
3.4
5.2
3.2
3.6
3.8
3.7
3.7
4
6.6
4.2
4
0.2
S04
13
8.9
9.4
8.9
13
11
9.9
9.2
9.2
15
24
24
18
14
18
11
13
8.1
8.6
9.6
7.5
8.3
8.9
9.3
11
6
10
9
13
16
15
15
23
22
24
13
8.7
14
10
17
15
14
11
16
14
9.8
12
NO3
0.01
0.37
0.15
0.19
0.3
0.01
0.02
0.01
0.01
0.12
0.19
0.19
0.23
0.27
0.36
0.18
0.14
0.11
0.31
0.24
0.36
0.19
0.1
0.25
0.11
0.24
0.36
0.35
0.12
0.15
0.12
0.23
0.31
0.12
0.13
0.1
0.1
0.24
0.27
0.31
0.15
0.1
0.13
DOCD
20
30
12
17
21
13
23
14
21
10
C-43
-------
Date
19851203
19860303
19860407
19860602
19860818
19861112
19861210
19870218
19870518
19870622
19870721
19871028
19871208
19880119
19880223
19880412
19880907
19881031
19881130
19890221
19890410
19890626
19890814
19891101
19891218
19900123
19900416
19900716
19900820
19901009
19910102
19910212
19910502
19910610
19910731
19910801
19911003
19911204
19920113
19920413
19920722
19921026
19921216
19930201
19930426
19930722
19931201
pH
7.4
7.4
7.3
7.5
7.9
7.5
7.3
7
8
7.8
7.6
8
7.9
7.4
7.4
7.4
7.1
7.6
7.6
7.1
7.2
7.4
8.1
8.1
7.5
7.3
7.5
7.7
8.1
7.3
7.4
7.1
6.7
7.3
7.8
7.3
7.8
7.4
7.9
7.7
7.6
8.2
7.6
7.2
7.7
7.5
7.7
Hardness
73
66
58
74
55
70
66
83
75
51
82
69
73
85
42
70
100
78
77
48
63
95
110
88
100
62
70
95
81
83
80
56
64
55
67
61
67
30
71
86
89
83
66
64
80
Alkalinity
57
Ca
16
15
13
15
12
13
15
18
16
12
17
15
16
19
9.2
15
21
17
17
11
14
20
20
17
18
13
15
20
18
19
18
13
15
13
15
13
15
7.8
16
18
19
18
15
15
17
Mg
8
7
6.3
8.9
6
9
6.8
9.3
8.5
5.2
9.6
7.7
8
9.2
4.7
8
12
8.6
8.4
5
6.8
11
15
11
14
7.2
8
11
8.7
8.7
8.5
5.8
6.5
5.4
7.1
6.9
7.2
2.5
7.5
10
10
9.1
6.8
6.5
9
Na
4
4
3.5
4.6
3.4
5
3.7
5.8
6.2
2.8
6.8
5.3
5.1
6.5
3
5.3
9
5.5
6.3
4.9
4.6
9.1
7.8
6.1
7.2
5.1
5.7
7.8
5.4
5.3
6.8
4
4
2.5
4.4
4.8
4.3
2.5
4.8
5.3
6
7.3
4.1
4
4.8
K
1
1
1
1.2
1.4
1
0.9
1.2
1.1
1.3
1.4
1.4
1
8.5
2.8
1.5
1.9
1.3
1.3
1.8
1.1
1.5
1.9
1.4
1.7
1.9
1.3
1.5
1.5
1.4
1.3
1
0.7
1
1
1
1.1
0.3
0.9
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
0.2
1
Cl
4.2
3.4
2.8
3.7
3.8
4.8
3.1
5
5.2
3.1
1.3
4.8
3.6
5.1
5
6.1
7.8
5.5
4.4
8.1
5
8.9
6.3
5
5.2
5.4
5.4
7.9
5.7
5
3.9
3.7
4.1
2.6
4.4
3.5
3.2
2.4
2.1
5.4
5.6
7.3
4.9
3.9
4
S04
18
10
15
24
19
21
12
10
19
15
19
17
15
16
20
18
27
19
17
8
12
18
31
22
28
14
11
20
13
12
11
7.9
6.9
3.8
9.6
7
9.3
4.8
9.6
14
13
12
9.5
7.7
11
NO3
0.16
0.24
0.19
0.1
0.1
0.27
0.16
0.24
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
0.15
0.1
0.19
0.25
0.37
0.15
0.1
0.1
0.16
0.23
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.12
0.05
0.068
0.18
0.21
0.16
0.11
0.25
0.28
0.092
0.079
0.16
DOCD
C-44
-------
Date
19940216
19940511
MIN
MAX
MEAN
pH
7.3
7.7
6.4
9.5
7.52
Hardness
51
30
130
71.11
Alkalinity
25
110
56.94
Ca
11
7.5
29
16.16
Mg
5.6
2.5
15
7.46
Na
3.7
2.1
30
7.09
K
1.1
0.2
8.5
1.37
Cl
3.4
0.2
32
7.39
S04
9.4
3.8
36
15.04
NO3
0.076
0.01
0.37
0.17
DOCD
10
37
22.19
C-45
-------
/in _
in -
J* on -
O "I
1 n -
n -
5
15 -
in -
E
c .
n -
5
AC
*4-L
"V
iti or
z zL
1f
I L
f
.„__ y = 0.2486X - 0.930
'S^' Rz= 0.9962
^ «^^*
jr— * "*
i i i
D 70 90 110 1
Hardness
.___ y =0.0791 X-H 1.5586
'M'' Rz=0.9814
»- s 1 I '"*»
0 70 90 110 1
Hardness
1977 y = 0.3951x-1
R2= 0.793"
)_
^j^^>"***J>
_^J-*^ T
i i i
50 70 90 110 13
Hardness
4
1
30
30
3.303
T
0
C-46
-------
1977 y = 0.0237 x- 0.2069
Rz= 0.7611
3 -j
2 -
1 -
0 -
5
._ ___^--
-— -*^*^ '
0 70 90 110 130
Hardness
y =Q,3578x-12.5
Rz= 0.5509
O
1/5
1977 y = 0. 2793 x- 1.9496
Rz=0.7145
4(1 _,
30 -
20 -
in
0 -
«
^^
^^^« ' m m
* , - "1 "~ ••
-------
Appendix C-7. Supplementary Data for Bennett et al. (1995)
Tank
Dose
(ug Cu/L)
Conductivity
(uniho/cm)
PH
Oxygen
(mg/L)
Temp
Alkalinity
(asmg
CaCO,/L)
Hardness
(as mg
CaCO,/L)
0 hours 7/9/92
a
b
c
d
e
f
g
h
I
j
k
1
m
n
o
P
q
r
24 hours
a
b
c
d
e
f
g
h
I
j
k
1
m
n
o
P
q
r
48 hours
a
b
c
d
e
f
g
897
897
897
607
607
607
93
93
93
505
505
505
319
319
319
0
0
0
7/10/92
897
897
897
607
607
607
93
93
93
505
505
505
319
319
319
0
0
0
7/11/92
897
897
897
607
607
607
93
325
300
320
320
370
328
310
370
310
310
310
320
320
330
320
310
320
320
300
305
305
300
305
305
300
295
295
300
300
300
300
300
310
305
305
300
*
*
320
315
310
315
300
8.62
8.6
8.6
8.62
8.62
8.64
8.64
8.69
8.6
8.62
8.65
8.69
8.69
8.68
8.67
8.62
8.63
8.6
7.78
7.64
7.68
7.7
7.65
7.75
7.77
7.76
7.76
7.73
7.71
7.73
7.74
7.52
7.79
7.79
7.7
7.71
*
*
8.1
7.91
7.84
8
8.19
7.5
7.6
7.6
7.7
7.6
7.6
7.6
7.5
7.6
7.7
7.7
7.7
7.7
7.7
7.7
7.5
7.6
7.7
8.5
8.4
8.5
8.4
8.4
8.4
9.1
9.2
9
8.8
8.8
8.7
9.1
8.5
8.7
9.1
9.1
9.1
*
*
7.2
6.9
6.8
7
7.7
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21.5
22
22
21.5
21.5
21.5
22
21.5
21.5
22
21.5
21.5
21.5
22
22.5
22
22
22
*
*
21.5
21.5
21.5
21.5
21.5
100
100
80
80
80
80
80
80
80
100
80
80
80
80
80
80
80
80
60
80
90
90
80
80
80
80
85
90
80
80
80
80
80
80
80
80
*
*
100
100
100
100
100
96
96
96
96
96
96
96
96
96
96
96
96
96
96
96
96
96
96
104
100
100
100
100
100
100
108
100
84
100
100
100
100
100
100
104
104
*
*
96
96
100
104
100
C-48
-------
Tank
h
I
j
k
1
m
n
o
P
q
r
72 hours
a
b
c
d
e
f
g
h
I
j
k
1
m
n
o
P
q
r
96 hours
a
b
c
d
e
f
g
h
I
j
k
1
m
n
o
Dose
(ug Cu/L)
93
93
505
505
505
319
319
319
0
0
0
7/12/92
897
897
897
607
607
607
93
93
93
505
505
505
319
319
319
0
0
0
7/13/92
897
897
897
607
607
607
93
93
93
505
505
505
319
319
319
Conductivity
(umho/cm)
300
300
310
310
310
310
310
310
300
300
300
*
*
*
310
315
315
310
305
310
315
310
310
310
310
320
300
300
305
*
*
*
320
320
325
325
315
310
320
320
320
315
320
330
PH
8.13
8.16
8.1
8.12
8.13
8.12
7.8
8.18
8.16
8.1
8.21
*
*
*
8.02
8.04
8.02
7.92
7.91
7.91
7.97
7.96
7.96
7.91
7.97
7.99
7.86
7.81
7.93
*
*
*
8.03
8.07
8.02
7.95
8.03
8.02
8.06
8.05
8.03
8.05
8.06
8.08
Oxygen
(mg/L)
7.7
7.6
7.5
7.4
7.4
7.4
6.4#
7.3
8
7.9
8
*
*
*
8.9
8.8
8.7
9.1
9.1
9
8.9
8.9
9
9
9
8.8
9.3
9.1
9.3
*
*
*
7.3
7.3
7.2
7.1
7.5
7.4
7.4
7.4
7.3
7.5
7.4
7.3
Temp
(°C)
21
21
21
21
21
21
21.5
22
21.5
21.5
21.5
*
*
*
21.5
21.5
21.5
21.5
21
21
21.5
21
21
21
21
22
21.5
21.5
21.5
*
*
*
21.5
21.5
21.5
21.5
21
21
21.5
21
21
21
21
22
Alkalinity
(asmg
CaCO./L)
100
100
80
100
80
100
100
100
80
80
100
*
*
*
100
100
80
100
100
80
100
100
80
100
80
100
100
80
80
*
*
*
100
100
100
120
100
100
80
120
100
100
100
100
Hardness
(as mg
CaCO,/L)D
100
104
100
100
100
100
100
96
100
104
100
*
*
*
100
100
100
104
100
106
104
100
104
100
100
104
104
100
100
*
*
*
104
100
104
104
100
100
100
100
104
104
100
104
C-49
-------
Tank
P
q
r
Dose
(ug Cu/L)
0
0
0
Conductivity
(umho/cm)
330
325
330
PH
7.78
7.75
7.86
Oxygen
(mg/L)
8.1
7.9
8.1
Temp
(°C)
21.5
21.5
21.5
Alkalinity
(asmg
CaCO./L)
80
80
80
Hardness
(as mg
CaCO,/L)D
96
104
100
* All fish dead, no water quality measured.
# Air stone had fallen out of tank.
D-50
-------
Appendix C-8. Supplementary Data for Richards and Beitinger (1995)
Acclimation
Temp erature
Replicate
Sample size
pH
Hardness
(mg/1 CaCO3)
Alkalinity
(mg/1 CaCO3)
Weights of
minnows (g)
Lengths of
minnows (cm)
5°C
1
30
8.2-8.3
164-180
125-140
0.62-
3.23
3.3-5.5
2
36
7.8-8.2
152-166
130-140
0.42-2.64
3.2-5.2
12°C
1
30
8.4-8.5
152-168
130-140
0.56-2.38
3.2-4.9
2
36
8.2-8.4
148-170
130-140
0.30-1.93
2.8-5.1
22°C
1
36
8.3-8.4
164-174
140-145
0.66-
1.15
1.9-4.3
2
30
8.1-8.5
162-172
140-145
0.13-
1.55
2.4-4.6
32°C
1
33
8.4-8.5
164-168
135-140
0.26-
1.36
3.0-4.8
2
29
8.4-8.5
162-172
135-145
0.23-
1.32
3.3-4.8
C-51
-------
Appendix C-9. Data for the American River, CA, for July 1978 Through December 1980
(data from the City of Sacramento, CA, Water Quality Laboratory; personal
communication). Units Are mg/L.
Date
Jul-78
Aug-78
Sep-78
Oct-78
Nov-78
Dec-78
Jan-79
Feb-79
Mar-79
Apr-79
May-79
Jun-79
Jul-79
Aug-79
Sep-79
Oct-79
Nov-79
Dec-79
Jan-80
Feb-80
Mar-80
Apr-80
May-80
Jun-80
Jul-80
Aug-80
Sep-80
Oct-80
Mean
max
min
pH
7.6
7.6
7.5
7.3
7.2
7.4
7.5
7.6
7.7
7.6
7.7
7.6
7.5
7.3
7.2
7.5
7.4
7.5
7.7
7.5
7.3
7.4
7.5
7.3
7.3
7.5
7.7
7.2
Hardness
20
20
20
20
20
23
24
26
27
25
22
21
21
20
19
23
23
24
25
22
19
18
18
18
18
21.4
27.0
18.0
Alkalinity
22
22
22
22
24
25
27
27
26
24
22
22
21
20
23
23
26
25
21
21
20
21
20
20
22.8
27.0
20.0
Ca
5.2
4.9
5.2
5
4.9
5.1
6.5
7.4
7.5
5.7
5.7
5.3
5.6
5.7
5.5
6.1
6.1
5.8
6.4
6.1
5.1
4.6
5.2
4.9
5
5.6
7.5
4.6
Mg
1.7
1.9
1.7
1.8
1.9
2.1
1.9
1.8
2
2.6
1.9
1.9
1.7
1.4
1.3
1.9
1.9
2.3
2.2
1.6
1.5
1.6
1.2
1.4
1.3
1.8
2.6
1.2
Ca:Mg
3.06
2.58
3.06
2.78
2.58
2.43
3.42
4.11
3.75
2.19
3.00
2.79
3.29
4.07
4.23
3.21
3.21
2.52
2.91
3.81
3.40
2.88
4.33
3.50
3.85
3.2
4.3
2.2
Na
3.2
3.4
3.5
3.6
3.9
3.2
3
3.3
3.6
3.4
3.1
3
3.2
3.5
3.1
2.4
2.7
2
1.9
2.4
2.3
2.6
3
2.9
3
3.0
3.9
1.9
Cl
2.6
2.8
2.6
3
2.9
3
2.7
2.7
2.4
2.5
2.7
2.4
2.5
2.8
2.6
2.3
2.3
2.5
2.4
2.4
2.1
2.7
2.4
2.7
2.6
3.0
2.1
SO^
4
5
4
4
5
4
5
6
7
6
4
4
5
3
3
4
2
2
3
3
2
3
2
4
2
3.8
7.0
2.0
C-52
-------
Appendix C-10. STORET Data for Minnesota Lakes and Rivers
Date pH
Embarrass River,
3/22/76 7
4/29/76 6.7
5/28/76 6.5
6/28/76 6.9
7/28/76 6.6
8/26/76 6.9
Means 6.8
max. 7
min. 6.5
S . Kawishiwi Riv
10/16/75 6.4
11/6/75 6.9
12/11/75
1/9/76 6.6
2/4/76 6.3
3/9/76 6.9
4/23/76 6.6
5/25/76 6.8
6/25/76 6.6
7/23/76 6.7
Means 6.6
max. 6.9
min. 6.3
Colby Lake, MN
LCY2
6/17/96 8.5
6/17/96 6.8
6/17/96 6.9
LCY1
6/17/96 6.8
6/17/96 6.8
6/17/96 6.5
6/17/96 7.4
Means 7.1
max. 8.5
min. 6.5
Hardness
MN
133
25.3
44
100
75.58
133
25.3
er, MN
21
24
39
29
24
23
14
16
23.75
39
14
56
71
54
41
83
55.50
71
41
Alkalinity Ca Mg
103
23
53
36
76
110
66.83
110
23
14
19
23
24
20
23
8
11
16
19
17.70
24
8
33
33
33
34
39
33.25
34
33
27
5.2
9.9
5.2
24
14.26
27
5.2
4.9
5.5
10
6.2
5.2
5.7
3.4
4
5.61
10
3.4
13
17
12
11
21
13.25
17
11
16
3
4.6
9.9
8.38
16
3
2.1
2.5
3.4
3.2
2.7
2.2
1.3
1.5
2.36
3.4
1.3
5.7
7
5.8
3.2
7.3
5.43
7
3.2
Ca:Mg
1.69
1.73
2.15
2.42
2.00
2.42
1.69
2.33
2.20
2.94
1.94
1.93
2.59
2.62
2.67
2.40
2.94
1.93
2.28
2.43
2.07
3.44
2.88
2.55
3.44
2.07
Na
2.5
2.8
3.9
9
4.55
9
2.5
1.3
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.7
1.5
0.9
0.9
1.31
1.7
0.9
4.3
4.3
3.9
3.6
4.03
4.3
3.6
K
2
0.7
0.3
1
1.00
2
0.3
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.8
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.4
0.49
0.8
0.4
1.5
1.4
1.4
1.3
1.40
1.5
1.3
Cl
11
2.9
3.5
5
4.8
8.4
5.93
11
2.9
0.5
0.6
1.5
2.3
0.9
0.9
0.7
0.7
1.1
1.2
1.04
2.3
0.5
6.3
9.4
6.6
6.8
7.8
7.28
9.4
6.3
SOA
34
8.4
12
13
7.5
5.6
13.42
34
5.6
4.4
4.1
7
6.3
4.9
4.8
4.8
3.3
4.4
4.89
7
3.3
22
22
26
22
52
23.00
26
22
NO,
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.01
0.16
0.09
0.16
0.01
0.25
0.25
0.3
0.33
0.18
0.28
0.33
0.25
TOC DOC Sulfide
16
37
21
24.67
37
16
12
16
14.00
16
12
17
17
18
16
16
17
16.83
18
16
0.6
0.6
0.60
0.6
0.6
0.2
0.2
0
1
0.2
1.8
0.5
0.56
1.8
0
Cloquet Lake, MN
7/13/76 6.4
Lake One, MN
10/16/75 7.2
Greenwood Lake.
7/6/76 6.7
17
27
, MN
10
11
21
15
4
6.9
2.8
1.8
2.3
0.7
2.22
3.00
4.00
0.1
0.3
1.7
1.2
0.2
7.6
5.6
4.2
0
0.02
0
38
22
11
C-53
-------
Appendix D. Saltwater Conversion Factors for Dissolved Values
-------
Appendix D
Saltwater Conversion Factors for Dissolved Values
February 14,2007
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Water
Office of Science and Technology
Washington, B.C.
D-1
-------
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Larry Brooke and Tyler Linton
(primary authors)
Great Lakes Environmental Center
1295 King Avenue
Columbus, OH 43212
Jennifer Mitchell and Cindy Roberts
(authors and document coordinators)
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, DC
D-2
-------
Saltwater Conversion Factors for Converting Nominal or Total Copper Concentrations to
Dissolved Copper Concentrations
The U.S. EPA changed its policy in 1993 of basing water quality criteria for metals from a total
metal criteria to a dissolved metal criteria. The policy states "the use of dissolved metal to set and
measure compliance with water quality standards is the recommended approach, because dissolved metal
more closely approximates the bioavailable fraction of metal in the water column than does total
recoverable metal" (Prothro 1993). All of the criteria for metals to this date were based upon total metal
and very few data were available with dissolved concentrations of the metals. A problem was created by
the new policy of how to derive dissolved metal concentrations for studies in which this form of the
metal was not measured. The U.S. EPA attempted to develop correction factors for each metal for which
criteria exist for both fresh- and saltwater (Lussier et al. 1995; Stephan 1995). In the case of saltwater, a
correction for copper was not derived.
Several saltwater studies are available that report nominal, total, and dissolved concentrations of
copper in laboratory water (Table 1) from site-specific water effect ratio (WER) studies. These studies
show relatively consistent ratios for the nominal-to-dissolved concentrations and for the total-to-
dissolved concentrations. Calculation of a mean ratio (conversion factor) to convert nominal and total
copper concentrations to dissolved copper permits the use of the results for critical studies without
dissolved copper measurements.
Three studies, each with multiple tests per study, were useful for deriving the conversion factors.
One study was conducted for the lower Hudson River in the New York/New Jersey Harbor (SAIC 1993).
The tests were conducted with harbor site water and with EPA Environmental Research Laboratory -
Narragansett water from Narragansett Bay, Massachusetts. Only the tests with laboratory water were
used for this exercise. Three series of 48-hour static tests were conducted with various animals. Salinity
ranged from 28 to 32 ppt during all the tests. Series 1 tests were not used to calculate ratios for dissolved-
to-total or dissolved-to-nominal copper concentrations, because in many instances, concentrations of
measured copper did not increase as nominal concentrations increased. Of the series 2 tests, only the coot
clam (Mulinia lateralis) tests were successful and used to calculate ratios. Three replicate tests without
ultraviolet (UV) light present and one test with UV light present were reported with total and dissolved
copper measurements made at 0 hr and 48 hr (end) of the tests. Dissolved-to-total and dissolved-to-
nominal ratios were calculated for the four tests each with two time intervals. The mean ratio for the
dissolved-to-total measurements is 0.943 and the mean ratio for the dissolved-to-nominal is 0.917. A
third series of static tests was conducted by SAIC and the mussel (Mytilus sp.) test was the only
successful test. Again the tests were conducted as three replicate tests without UV light and a fourth with
UV light. The mean test ratio for dissolved-to-total copper was 0.863 and the dissolved-to-nominal mean
test ratio was 0.906.
The summer flounder (Paralichthys dentatus) was exposed to copper in laboratory water for 96
hours in a static test (CH2MHill 1999a). The water was collected from Narragansett Bay and diluted with
laboratory reverse osmosis water to dilute the solution to 22 ppt salinity. Three tests were run with
copper concentrations measured at the start of the tests as total recoverable and dissolved copper. Five
exposure concentrations were used to conduct the tests. Only the two lowest concentrations were used to
derive ratios for dissolved-to-total and dissolved-to-nominal copper mean ratios. These concentrations
were at the approximate 500 (ig/L or lower concentrations, and are in the range of most copper
concentrations routinely tested in the laboratory. The mean dissolved-to-total and dissolved-to-nominal
ratios were 0.947 and 0.836, respectively.
Three 48-hour static tests were conducted with the blue mussel (Mytilus edulis) in water from the
D-3
-------
same source and treated in the same manner as the summer flounder tests (CH2MH1111999b). Salinity
was diluted to 20 ppt. Exposures were made at eight concentrations of copper and total and dissolved
copper concentrations were measured only at the start of the tests. Mean ratios for the dissolved-to-total
and dissolved-to-nominal copper were calculated by combining the ratios calculated for each of the test
concentrations. The mean dissolved-to-total and dissolved-to-nominal ratios were 0.979 and 0.879,
respectively.
A study was conducted by the City of San Jose, CA to develop a WER for San Francisco Bay in
which copper was used as a toxicant and the concentrations used in the laboratory exposures were
measured as total and dissolved copper (Environ. Serv. Dept, City of San Jose 1998). Mussels and the
purple sea urchin (Strongylocentrotus purpuratus) were used as the test organisms. Tests were conducted
in filtered natural sea water from San Francisco Bay that was diluted to a salinity of 28 ppt. The mussel
test was of 48-hour duration and the purple sea urchin test was of 96-hour duration. Five concentrations
of copper were used in the toxicity tests with the concentrations measured at the start of each test.
(During each test, a single concentration of copper was measured at the termination of the test and this
value was not used in the calculations.) Twenty-two tests were conducted during a 13-month period with
the mussel and two tests were conducted with the purple sea urchin. The mean dissolved-to-total and
dissolved-to-nominal ratios for the mussel tests were 0.836 and 0.785, respectively. The mean dissolved-
to-total and dissolved-to-nominal ratios for the purple sea urchin were 0.883 and 0.702, respectively.
For some of the tests, control concentrations had measured concentrations of total and dissolved
copper. These values were not used to calculate ratios for dissolved-to-total and dissolved-to-nominal
copper concentrations. All mean ratios were calculated as the arithmetic mean and not as a geometric
mean of the available ratios. When the data are normally distributed, the arithmetic mean is the
appropriate measure of central tendency (Parkhurst 1998) and is a better estimator than the geometric
mean. All concentrations of copper used to calculate ratios should be time-weighted averages (Stephan
1995). In all instances of data used to calculate ratios, the concentrations were identical to time-weighted
values because either only one value was available or if two were available they were of equal weight.
Based on the information presented above the overall ratio for correcting total copper
concentrations to dissolved copper concentrations is 0.909 based upon the results of six sets of studies.
This is comparable to its equivalent factor in freshwater, which is 0.960 ± 0.037 (Stephan 1995). When it
is necessary to convert nominal copper concentrations to dissolved copper concentrations the conversion
factor is 0.838 based upon the same studies. The means of both conversion factors have standard
deviations of less than ten percent of the means (Table 1).
D-4
-------
Table D-l. Summary of Saltwater Copper Ratios
Species
Mean Dissolved-to-
Total Ratio
Mean Dissolved-to-
Nominal Ratio Reference
Coot clam,
Mulinia lateralis
Summer flounder,
Paralichthys dentatus
Blue mussel,
Mytilus sp
Blue mussel,
Mytilus edulis
Blue mussel,
Mytilus sp
Purple sea urchin,
Strongylocentrotus
purpuratus
0.943
0.947
0.863
0.979
0.836
0.883
0.917
0.836
0.906
0.879
0.785
0.702
SAIC 1993
CH2MHill 1999a
SAIC 1993
CH2MHill 1999b
Environ. Serv. Dept,
City of San Jose 1998
Environ. Serv. Dept.,
City of San Jose 1998
Arithmetic Mean
Standard Deviation
0.909
±0.056
0.838
±0.082
D-5
-------
References
CH2MH111. 1999a. Bioassay report: Acute toxicity of copper to summer flounder (Paralichthys dentatus). Final
report prepared for U.S. Navy. November 1999. CH2MH111, Norfolk, Virginia. 26 p.
CH2MHill. 1999b. Bioassay report: Acute toxicity of copper to blue mussel (Mytilus edulis). Final report prepared
forU.S. Navy. November 1999. CH2MH111, Norfolk, Virginia. 41 p.
Environmental Services Department, City of San Jose. 1998. Development of a site-specific water quality criterion
for copper in south San Francisco Bay. Environmental Services Department, City of San Jose, San Jose/Santa Clara
Water Pollution Control Plant, 4245 Zanker Road, San Jose, CA. 171 pp. May.
Lussier, S.M., W.S. Boothman, S. Poucher, D. Champlin and A. Helmsteter. 1995. Derivation of conversion factors
for dissolved saltwater aquatic life criteria for metals. Draft report to the U.S. EPA, Office of Water. U.S. EPA,
Narragansett, RI. March 31, 1995.
Parkhurst, D.F. 1998. Arithmetic versus geometric means for environmental concentration data. Environ. Sci.
Technol./News. 32:92A-95A.
Prothro, M. 1993. Memorandum concerning "Office of Water Policy and Technical Guidance on Interpretation and
Implementation of Aquatic Life Metals Criteria." October 1.
SAIC. 1993. Toxicity testing to support the New York/New Jersey Harbor site-specific copper criteria study. Final
Report to U.S. EPA, Office of Wastewater Enforcement and Compliance (Contract No. 68-C8-0066. Work
Assignment C-4-94). Science Applications International Corporation, Narragansett, RI.
Stephan, C.E. 1995. Derivation of conversation factors for the calculation of dissolved freshwater aquatic life criteria
for metals. Report. March 11, 1995. U.S. EPA, Duluth, MN.
D-6
-------
Appendix E. BLM Input Data and Notes
-------
Appendix E. BLM Table
BLM
Data Label
LUVA01S
LUVA02S
LUVA03S
CADE01F
CADE02F
JUPL01F
LIVI01F
PHIN01F
PHIN02F
ACPE01S
ACPE02S
UTIM01S
UTIM02S
UTIM03S
UTIM04S
UTIM05S
UTIM06S
UTIM07S
UTIM08S
CEDU01S
CEDU02S
CEDU03S
CEDU04S
CEDU05S
CEDU06S
CEDU07S
CEDU08S
CEDU09S
CEDU10S
CEDU11S
CEDU12S
CEDU13S
CEDU14S
Model Output
Critical
Accumulation
1.1869
2.1707
2.0991
27.6903
26.6895
0.1537
0.0570
0.4378
0.3410
0.1147
0.1556
8.2925
8.0633
1 .3555
1 .4793
0.5289
1.2514
1 .3009
0.7111
0.1132
0.0941
0.0751
0.0400
0.1046
0.0700
0.0920
0.1184
0.0651
0.0517
0.0476
0.0194
0.0144
0.0206
Hard-
ness
(mg/L)
290
290
290
44.9
44.9
21
21
44.9
44.9
96
68
39
90
92
86
90
90
90
86
52
52
45
45
45
45
45
45
45
45
45
94.1
94.1
94.1
Model Input
Temp Dissolved DOC Humic Ca Mg Na K SO4 Cl Alkalinity S
(°C) pH LC50(ug/L) (mg/L) Acid (%) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L)
25
25
25
15
15
15
15
15
15
25
25
23
23
25
25
25
24
25
25
24.5
24.5
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
6.57
7.29
8.25
7.7
7.7
7.20
7.2
7.7
7.7
8.35
8.35
7.4
7.6
8.1
8.2
8
8.2
7.9
7.9
7.5
7.5
7.72
7.72
7.72
7.72
7.72
7.72
7.72
7.72
7.72
8.15
8.15
8.15
124.8
259.2
480
1920
1344
14.4
7.68
39.36
35.52
25.92
27.84
82.56
191.04
72.96
81.6
39.36
75.84
69.12
36.48
18.24
16.32
25
17
30
24
28
32
23
20
19
26
21
27
0.5
0.5
0.5
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
1.1
1.1
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
2
2
2
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
47.8602
47.8602
47.8602
13.1965
13.1965
6.0583
6.0583
13.1965
13.1965
15.8434
11.2224
6.43638
13.9716
29.0614
27.1661
28.4296
14.8532
28.4296
14.193
15.2833
15.2833
11.0991
11.0991
11.0991
11.0991
11.0991
11.0991
11.0991
11.0991
11.0991
23.2094
23.2094
23.2094
41.47
41.47
41.47
2.911001
2.911001
1.7462
1.7462
2.911001
2.911001
13.728
9.724
5.577
12.11764
4.73839
4.429364
4.635381
12.87
4.635381
12.298
3.371316
3.371316
4.2075
4.2075
4.2075
4.2075
4.2075
4.2075
4.2075
4.2075
4.2075
8.79835
8.79835
8.79835
89.821
89.821
89.821
1.27
1.27
4.5302
4.5302
1.27
1.27
29.734
21.061
12.079
26.253
30.798
28.79
30.129
13.938
30.129
13.318
1.5
1.5
9.5
9.5
9.5
9.5
9.5
9.5
9.5
9.5
9.5
5.2449
5.2449
5.2449
7.178
7.178
7.178
0.56
0.56
0.7
0.7
0.56
0.56
2.3762
1 .6831
0.9653
2.098
1 .6408
1 .5338
1 .6052
1.1138
1 .6052
1 .0643
0.57
0.57
1.6
1.6
1.6
1.6
1.6
1.6
1.6
1.6
1.6
1.6
1.6
1.6
278.4
278.4
278.4
3.32
3.32
2.8706
2.8706
3.32
3.32
92.159
65.279
37.439
81.372
46.006
43.005
45.006
43.199
45.006
41.279
3.8
3.8
46
46
46
46
46
46
46
46
46
20.054
20.054
20.054
6.5081
6.5081
6.5081
1.2
1.2
5.468
5.468
1.2
1.2
2.1544
1.526
0.8752
1 .9022
32.716
30.583
32.005
1.0099
32.005
0.965
1.4
1.4
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
6.1705
6.1705
6.1705
235
235
235
42.7
42.7
26
26
42.7
42.7
102
108
32.5
65
77
78
78
99
99
59
55
55
39.7
39.7
39.7
39.7
39.7
39.7
39.7
39.7
39.7
69.6
69.6
69.6
0.0003
0.0003
0.0003
0.0003
0.0003
0.0003
0.0003
0.0003
0.0003
0.0003
0.0003
0.0003
0.0003
0.0003
0.0003
0.0003
0.0003
0.0003
0.0003
0.0003
0.0003
0.0003
0.0003
0.0003
0.0003
0.0003
0.0003
0.0003
0.0003
0.0003
0.0003
0.0003
0.0003
Notes
1,2,3,4,5
1,2,3,4,5
1,2,3,4,5
1,2,3,6,7,8
1,2,3,6,7,8
1,3,6,7,9,10
1,3,6,7,9,10
1,2,3,6,7,8
1,2,3,6,7,8
1,2,3,4,6,7,20
1,2,3,4,6,7,20
1,2,3,4,6,11
1,2,3,4,12
1,2,3,4,6,7,53
1,2,3,4,6,7,53
1,2,3,4,6,7,53
1,2,3,4,5,6,7
1,2,3,4,6,7,53
1,2,3,4,5,6,7
1,2,3,6,7,8
1,2,3,6,7,8
1,2,6,7,16
1,2,6,7,16
1,2,6,7,16
1,2,6,7,16
1,2,6,7,16
1,2,6,7,16
1,2,6,7,16
1,2,6,7,16
1,2,6,7,16
1,2,6,7,17
1,2,6,7,17
1,2,6,7,17
E-1
-------
Appendix E. BLM Table
BLM
Data Label
CEDU15S
CEDU16S
CEDU17S
CEDU18S
CEDU19S
CEDU20S
CEDU21S
CEDU22S
CEDU23S
CEDU24R
DAMA01S
DAMA02S
DAMA03S
DAMA04S
DAMA05S
DAMA06S
DAMA07S
DAMA08S
DAMA09S
DAMA10S
DAMA11S
DAMA12S
DAMA13S
DAMA14S
DAMA15S
DAMA16S
DAMA17S
DAMA18S
DAMA19S
DAMA20S
DAMA21S
DAMA22S
DAMA23S
DAMA24S
Model Output
Critical
Accumulation
0.0338
0.0294
0.0428
0.0164
0.0579
0.0627
0.0283
0.1218
0.0510
0.0377
0.0221
0.0315
0.0147
0.0253
0.1799
0.0786
0.0312
0.0123
0.4278
0.0443
0.1330
0.0990
0.9670
0.2716
0.0160
0.0298
0.0393
0.0219
0.0111
0.0189
0.0898
0.1076
0.0458
0.0288
Hard-
ness
(mg/L)
94.1
94.1
179
179
179
179
97.6
182
57.1
80
39
39
38
38
39
39
26
27
170
170
170
170
170
170
109.9
109.9
109.9
109.9
109.9
109.9
109.9
109.9
109.9
109.9
Model Input
Temp Dissolved DOC Humic Ca Mg Na K SO4 Cl Alkalinity S
(°C) pH LC50 (ug/L) (mg/L) Acid (%) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L)
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
8.15
8.15
8.31
8.31
8.31
8.31
8
8
8.18
7.6
7.8
7.8
7.79
7.79
6.9
6.9
7.6
7.7
7.8
7.8
7.8
7.8
7.8
7.8
6.93
6.93
7.43
7.43
7.82
7.82
6.93
6.93
7.43
7.82
37
34
67
38
78
81
28
84
12.864
5.5396825
8.736
1 1 .232
6.336
9.504
1 1 .232
6.432
8.736
4.992
39.552
10.08
19.776
16.608
67.872
30.048
6.816
15.744
38.304
17.952
18.144
38.112
44.16
69.024
54.912
65.088
2
2
2.3
2.3
2.3
2.3
2
2.3
0.5
0.5
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
2.4
3.4
3.4
2.4
2.4
3.4
4.4
6.1
4.4
4.4
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
23.2094
23.2094
50.1069
50.1069
50.1069
50.1069
24.0727
50.9467
9.42352
13.2028
10.9867
10.9867
10.7129
10.7129
10.9867
10.9867
7.4273
7.7011
27.9433
27.9433
27.9433
27.9433
27.9433
27.9433
40.0
40.0
40.0
40.0
40.0
40.0
40.0
40.0
40.0
40.0
8.79835
8.79835
13.12323
13.12323
13.12323
13.12323
9.1256
13.34317
8.1653
11.44
2.7776
2.7776
2.7203
2.7203
2.7776
2.7776
2.0327
2.09
24.23527
24.23527
24.23527
24.23527
24.23527
24.23527
2.43
2.43
2.43
2.43
2.43
2.43
2.43
2.43
2.43
2.43
5.2449
5.2449
14.32
14.32
14.32
14.32
5.44
14.56
17.685
24.778
5.8136
5.8136
5.7423
5.7423
5.8136
5.8136
4.8867
4.958
52.507
52.507
52.507
52.507
52.507
52.507
85.1
85.1
85.1
85.1
85.1
85.1
85.1
85.1
85.1
85.1
1.6
1.6
2.4
2.4
2.4
2.4
1.6
2.4
1.4133
1 .9801
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
4.1961
4.1961
4.1961
4.1961
4.1961
4.1961
1.23
1.23
1.23
1.23
1.23
1.23
1.23
1.23
1.23
1.23
20.054
20.054
22.673
22.673
22.673
22.673
20.8
23.053
54.815
76.799
7.9394
7.9394
7.6578
7.6578
7.9394
7.9394
4.2786
4.5602
162.74
162.74
162.74
162.74
162.74
162.74
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
6.1705
6.1705
10.979
10.979
10.979
10.979
6.4
11.163
1.2814
1 .7953
7.7684
7.7684
7.6406
7.6406
7.7684
7.7684
6.107
6.2348
3.8045
3.8045
3.8045
3.8045
3.8045
3.8045
106
106
106
106
106
106
106
106
106
106
69.6
69.6
140.1
140.1
140.1
140.1
74.2
144.3
81
53
51
51
50
50
30
30
24
24
115
115
115
115
115
115
12.5
12.5
13.875
13.875
14.5
14.5
12.5
12.5
13.875
14.5
0.0003
0.0003
0.0003
0.0003
0.0003
0.0003
0.0003
0.0003
0.0003
0.0003
0.0003
0.0003
0.0003
0.0003
0.0003
0.0003
0.0003
0.0003
0.0003
0.0003
0.0003
0.0003
0.0003
0.0003
0.0003
0.0003
0.0003
0.0003
0.0003
0.0003
0.0003
0.0003
0.0003
0.0003
Notes
1,2,6,7,17
1,2,6,7,17
1,2,6,7,18
1,2,6,7,18
1,2,6,7,18
1,2,6,7,18
1,2,6,7,17
1,2,6,7,18
1,2,3,4,6,7,20
1,2,6,7,20,21
1,2,3,6,7,9,10
1,2,3,6,7,9,10
1,2,3,6,7,9,10
1,2,3,6,7,9,10
1,2,3,6,7,9,10
1,2,3,6,7,9,10
1,2,3,6,7,9,10
1,2,3,6,7,9,10
3,4,22,23
3,4,22,23
3,4,22,23
3,4,22,23
3,4,22,23
3,4,22,23
1,2,3,6,7,24
1,2,3,6,7,24
1,2,3,6,7,19,24
1,2,3,6,7,19,24
1,2,3,6,7,19,24
1,2,3,6,7,19,24
1,2,3,6,7,24
1,2,3,6,7,24
1,2,3,6,7,19,24
1,2,3,6,7,19,24
E-2
-------
Appendix E. BLM Table
BLM
Data Label
DAMA25S
DAMA26S
DAMA27S
DAMA28S
DAMA29S
DAMA30S
DAMA31S
DAPC01S
DAPC02S
DAPC03S
DAPC04S
DAPC05S
DAPC06S
DAPC07S
DAPC08S
DAPC09S
DAPC10S
DAPC11S
DAPC12S
DAPC13S
DAPC14S
DAPC15S
DAPC16S
DAPC17S
DAPC18S
DAPC19S
DAPC20S
DAPC21S
DAPC22S
DAPC23S
DAPC24S
SCSP01S
GAPS01 F
GAPS02F
Model Output
Critical
Accumulation
0.1143
0.0917
0.1053
0.1538
0.0062
0.2536
0.0119
0.0087
0.0052
0.0043
0.0057
0.0879
0.0490
0.0285
0.0268
0.0187
0.0701
0.0460
0.0100
0.0137
0.0053
0.0137
0.0564
0.0633
0.0056
0.0119
0.0160
0.0168
0.0171
0.0155
0.0133
0.1034
0.1153
0.0888
Hard-
ness
(mg/L)
52
105
106
207
7.1
20.6
23
48
48
48
44
31
29
28
88
100
82
84
16
151
96
26
84
92
47
97
147
247
97
147
247
52
44.9
44.9
Model Input
Temp Dissolved DOC Humic Ca Mg Na K SO4 Cl Alkalinity S
(°C) pH LC50 (ug/L) (mg/L) Acid (%) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L)
18.2
20.3
19.7
19.9
24
24
24
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
24.5
15
15
7.8
7.9
8.1
8.3
8.55
6.97
8.52
8.03
8.03
8.01
8.04
6.66
6.97
7.2
7.01
7.55
6.99
7.01
7.39
7.76
8.1
7.24
7.08
7.22
8.03
8.03
8.03
8.03
8.03
8.03
8.03
7.5
7.7
7.7
24.96
28.8
36.48
66.24
4.608
7.104
6.24
10.944
8.6976
6.9504
10.368
53.184
53.088
51.168
93.312
191.04
204.48
158.4
34.08
75.648
108.48
73.344
81.312
176.64
8.928
17.088
22.752
26.208
24.192
24.096
24.096
17.28
21.12
18.24
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
0.5
0.5
0.5
2.288
2.816
2.728
3.08
12.2094
11.3373
11.3373
24.4188
29.6514
27.9072
27.9072
11.6124
12.5801
27.0956
24.1925
12.5801
20.3217
2.728
2.728
2.728
2.728
2.728
2.728
2.728
1.1
1.1
1.1
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
14
29
29
58
1.15182
3.39973
3.79581
14.1077
14.1077
14.1077
12.932
7.37407
6.89832
6.66045
20.9464
23.9296
19.4548
19.952
4.13844
36.7872
22.0888
7.37925
20.4644
22.4134
13.8137
34
54
94
13.6
13.6
13.6
15.2833
13.1965
13.1965
3.5
6.8
6.8
13
1 .027387
2.9458
3.289
3.111984
3.111984
3.111984
2.852652
3.063455
2.865813
2.766992
8.5194
9.4686
8.0448
8.203
1 .379481
14.39533
9.939946
1.844812
8.008
8.770667
3.047151
2.9
2.9
2.9
15.2
27.5
51.9
3.371316
2.911001
2.911001
12
29
29
62
3.5102
2.5478
2.8446
1.36
1.36
1.36
1.24
1 .6792
1 .5708
1.5167
16.466
21.207
14.095
14.885
0.16
10.786
6.8571
0.26
6
6.5714
1.33
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.47
1.27
1.27
2.9
5.3
5.3
8.2
2.8052
2.1356
2.3845
0.57
0.57
0.57
0.57
0.5
0.5
0.5
1 .8787
2.1631
1 .7365
1 .7839
0.3
1.4
1.4
0.3
1.4
1.4
0.57
0.57
0.57
0.57
0.57
0.57
0.57
0.57
0.57
0.57
23
57
57
127
6.8159
19.776
22.08
3.55
3.55
3.55
3.25
6.3292
5.9208
5.7167
22.629
25.98
20.953
21.512
6.72
62.018
19.911
11.624
34.5
37.786
3.47
51.3
99.3
147.3
51.3
99.3
147.3
3.84
3.32
3.32
11
21
21
40
2.5434
1 .9363
2.1619
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.15
1.2917
1 .2083
1.1667
18.986
23.28
16.84
17.555
0.32
19.684
4.2667
2.6
10.95
11.993
1.23
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.36
1.17
1.17
45
79
82
166
56
60
64
42
42
44
42
27
27
22
20
20
18
17
11
44
91
4
13
19
42.5
42.5
42.5
42.5
42.5
42.5
42.5
55
42.7
42.7
0.0003
0.0003
0.0003
0.0003
0.0003
0.0003
0.0003
0.0003
0.0003
0.0003
0.0003
0.0003
0.0003
0.0003
0.0003
0.0003
0.0003
0.0003
0.0003
0.0003
0.0003
0.0003
0.0003
0.0003
0.0003
0.0003
0.0003
0.0003
0.0003
0.0003
0.0003
0.0003
0.0003
0.0003
Notes
1,2,3,6,7,9,25
1,2,3,6,7,9,25
1,2,3,6,7,9,25
1,2,3,6,7,9,25
1,2,3,4,6,7,56
1,2,3,4,6,7,56
1,2,3,4,6,7,56
1,2,3,6,7,15,26
1,2,3,6,7,15,26
1,2,3,6,7,15,26
1,2,3,6,7,15,26
1,2,3,6,7,27,28
1,2,3,6,7,27,28
1,2,3,6,7,27,28
1,2,3,6,7,27,29
1,2,3,6,7,27,29
1,2,3,6,7,27,29
1,2,3,6,7,27,29
1,2,3,6,7,27,28
1,2,3,6,7,27,28
1,2,3,6,7,27,28
1,2,3,6,7,27,28
1,2,3,6,7,27,28
1,2,3,6,7,27,28
1,2,3,6,7,15,26
1,2,3,6,7,15,30
1,2,3,6,7,15,30
1,2,3,6,7,15,30
1,2,3,6,7,15,30
1,2,3,6,7,15,30
1,2,3,6,7,15,30
1,2,3,6,7,8
1,2,3,6,7,8
1,2,3,6,7,8
E-3
-------
Appendix E. BLM Table
BLM
Data Label
HYAZ01S
HYAZ02S
HYAZ03S
HYAZ04S
HYAZ05S
HYAZ06S
HYAZ07S
ACLY01S
CHDE01S
SCPL01S
ONAP01S
ONCL01S
ONCL02S
ONCL03F
ONCL04F
ONCL05F
ONCL06F
ONCL07F
ONCL08F
ONCL09F
ONCL10F
ONCL11F
ONGO01F
ONGO02F
ONGO03F
ONKI01R
ONKI02F
ONKI03F
ONKI04F
ONKI05F
ONKI06F
ONKI07F
ONMY01S
ONMY02S
Model Output
Critical
Accumulation
0.1511
0.1074
0.2392
0.0794
0.0768
0.2314
0.3312
29.5658
25.2731
2.9865
0.9139
1 .0007
0.5538
2.8512
1 .5731
0.4400
1.9714
5.2514
1 .2778
0.3591
0.3318
0.1192
1 .3932
0.3615
3.5018
4.9807
0.4054
0.9203
0.1617
0.1736
0.1461
0.4829
1 .3925
0.5765
Hard-
ness
(mg/L)
290
290
290
20.5
20.5
20.6
20.6
42
44
167
169
169
169
205
69.9
18
204
83
31.4
160
74.3
26.4
83.1
83.1
83.1
33
25
20
31.1
31.1
31.6
31
169
169
Model Input
Temp Dissolved DOC Humic Ca Mg Na K SO4 Cl Alkalinity S
(°C) pH LC50 (ug/L) (mg/L) Acid (%) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L)
25
25
25
21
21
21
21
18.5
20
22
12
12
12
13.7
13.7
13.7
13.7
13.7
13.7
13.7
13.7
13.7
7.15
7.15
7.15
13.5
12
9.4
13.3
13.3
15.7
15.3
12
12
6.23
7.51
8.38
7.15
7.15
7.14
7.14
7.0
7.40
7.6
8
8.1
8.25
7.73
8.54
8.07
7.61
7.4
8.32
7.53
7.57
7.64
7.63
7.63
7.63
7.29
7.30
7.29
7.30
7.30
7.50
7.20
8.2
7.95
16.32
23.04
83.52
23.328
22.848
7.872
9.6
7968
709.44
153.6
67.2
76.8
57.6
367
186
36.8
232
162
73.6
91
44.4
15.7
137.28
83.52
191.04
157.44
31.68
44.16
49
51
58
78
105.6
48
0.5
0.5
0.5
2.8
2.8
0.5
0.5
1.1
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
3.3
1.5
0.75
3.3
1.7
0.94
2.8
1.5
0.87
2.58
2.58
2.58
2.496
1.3
1.3
3.2
3.2
3.2
3.2
0.5
0.5
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
47.8602
47.8602
47.8602
5.1
5.1
5.3
5.3
12.3442
6.99
27.5609
27.891
27.891
27.891
49.8
18.4
4.8
64.7
20.4
7.9
57.5
24.7
6.0
22.3428
22.3428
22.3428
8.77741
6.8
5.7845
8.01999
8.01999
8.14893
7.99421
27.891
27.891
41.47
41.47
41.47
1.9
1.9
1.8
1.8
2.722986
6.06
23.881
24.167
24.167
24.167
19.6
5.8
1.5
10.3
7.8
2.7
4.0
3.1
2.8
6.313221
6.313221
6.313221
2.698479
1.8
1 .6889
2.695987
2.695987
2.739331
2.687318
24.167
24.167
89.821
89.821
89.821
5.3
5.3
5.5
5.5
1.3
13.1
51.724
52.344
52.344
52.344
4
1.405
0.3618
4.1005
1 .6683
0.6312
3.2161
1 .4935
0.5307
10.259
10.259
10.259
7.3188
5.0
4.4589
5.12
5.12
5.12
5.12
52.344
52.344
7.178
7.178
7.178
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.57
1.05
4.1335
4.183
4.183
4.183
0.64
0.2248
0.0579
0.6561
0.2669
0.101
0.5146
0.239
0.0849
7.5024
7.5024
7.5024
1.15
0.6
0.7
0.653
0.653
0.653
0.653
4.183
4.183
278.4
278.4
278.4
9.3
9.3
7.0
7.0
3.4
40.7
160.32
162.24
162.24
162.24
10
3.5126
0.9045
10.251
4.1709
1 .5779
8.0402
3.7337
1 .3266
25.1
25.1
25.1
6.1426
4.2
2.589
4
4
3.5
2.3
162.24
162.24
6.5081
6.5081
6.5081
10.0
10.0
9.7
9.7
1.2
0.951
3.7478
3.7927
3.7927
3.7927
0.44
0.1546
0.0398
0.4511
0.1835
0.0694
0.3538
0.1643
0.0584
9.994
9.994
9.994
6.8124
6
5.3402
4.5
4.5
4.2
3.1
3.7927
3.7927
235
235
235
6.7
6.7
11.0
11.0
47
32.5
115
117
117
117
178
174
183
77.9
70
78.3
26.0
22.7
20.1
62.5
62.5
62.5
29
24
22
29.6
29.6
30.4
29.7
117
117
0.0003
0.0003
0.0003
0.0003
0.0003
0.0003
0.0003
0.0003
0.0003
0.0003
0.0003
0.0003
0.0003
0.0003
0.0003
0.0003
0.0003
0.0003
0.0003
0.0003
0.0003
0.0003
0.0003
0.0003
0.0003
0.0003
0.0003
0.0003
0.0003
0.0003
0.0003
0.0003
0.0003
0.0003
Notes
1,2,3,4,5,13
1,2,3,4,5,13
1,2,3,4,5,13
3,31
3,31
3,31
3,31
1,2,3,6,7,8
1,2,3,4,32,33
1,2,3,4,6,7,20
1,2,3,4,6,7,20
1,2,3,4,6,7,20
1,2,3,4,6,7,20
1,2,6,7,34
1,2,6,7,35
1,2,6,7,35
1,2,6,7,35
1,2,6,7,35
1,2,6,7,35
1,2,6,7,35
1,2,6,7,35
1,2,6,7,35
1,2,3,6,7,52
1,2,3,6,7,52
1,2,3,6,7,52
1,2,3,6,7,27,36
3,37
1,2,3,6,7,10,38
1,2,6,7,39
1,2,6,7,39
1,2,6,7,39
1,2,6,7,39
1,2,3,4,6,7,20
1,2,3,4,6,7,20
E-4
-------
Appendix E. BLM Table
BLM
Data Label
ONMY03S
ONMY04R
ONMY05R
ONMY06R
ONMY07R
ONMY08R
ONMY09R
ONMY10F
ONMY11F
ONMY12F
ONMY13F
ONMY14F
ONMY15F
ONMY16F
ONMY17F
ONMY18F
ONMY19F
ONMY20F
ONMY21F
ONMY22F
ONMY23F
ONMY24F
ONMY25F
ONMY26F
ONMY27F
ONMY28F
ONMY29F
ONMY30F
ONMY31F
ONMY32F
ONMY33F
ONMY34F
ONMY35F
ONMY36F
Model Output
Critical
Accumulation
0.7648
0.1249
0.0917
0.0376
0.1465
0.1881
0.5172
0.3824
0.1589
0.1059
0.4633
0.4998
0.1118
0.1069
0.1627
1 .5525
0.2605
0.9538
0.4717
0.7244
4.6605
1.1894
0.0613
0.3626
0.0770
0.8944
0.5568
0.2504
1.1775
0.5318
1 .2884
3.8957
4.4437
1 .9096
Hard-
ness
(mg/L)
169
44.1
44.6
38.7
39.3
89.5
89.67
23
23
23
23
194
194
194
194
194
194
194
194
194
194
194
9.2
31
36.1
36.2
20.4
45.2
45.4
41.9
214
220
105
98.2
Model Input
Temp Dissolved DOC Humic Ca Mg Na K SO4 Cl Alkalinity S
(°C) pH LC50 (ug/L) (mg/L) Acid (%) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L)
12
11.5
11.5
12
12
12
12
12.2
12.2
12.2
12.2
12.8
12.8
12.8
12.8
12.8
12.8
12.8
12.8
12.8
12.8
12.8
15.5
15.3
11.4
11.5
11.7
11.7
11.8
12.3
7.64
7.74
7.77
8.49
7.95
7.7
7.8
7.62
7.61
8.21
8.15
7.1
7.1
7.4
7.1
7.84
7.84
7.84
7.84
7.84
7.84
7.84
7.84
7.84
7.84
7.84
6.96
7.2
7.6
6.1
7.5
7.7
6.3
7.9
7.94
7.92
7.82
7.89
57.6
40
19
3.4
8.1
17.2
32
26.88
16.32
17.28
27.84
169
85.3
83.3
103
274
128
221
165
197
514
243
2.688
68
18
12
5.7
35
18
17
96.96
295.68
89.28
34.464
0.5
2
0.99
0.33
0.36
0.345
0.345
1.4
1.4
1.3
1.3
3.3
3.3
3.3
3.3
3.3
3.3
3.3
3.3
3.3
3.3
3.3
0.5
3.2
1.31
1.36
0.15
1.23
1.22
0.33
0.27
0.36
0.1
0.045
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
27.891
9.07
7.37
2.37
14.1
15
28.9
6.1
6.1
6.8
6.8
55.1
55.1
55.1
55.1
55.1
55.1
55.1
55.1
55.1
55.1
55.1
2.3
7.99421
4.03
3.93
3.13
9.7
9.7
6.6
49.4
51.2
23.1
22.3
24.167
4.1
6.1
8.65
1.8
11.85
3.15
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.8
13.7
13.7
13.7
13.7
13.7
13.7
13.7
13.7
13.7
13.7
13.7
0.7
2.687318
7.13
7.27
2.77
4.43
4.43
5.97
24.1
25.5
11.8
11.2
52.344
4.75
6.24
13.7
13.2
10.05
32.5
4.4
4.4
5.0
5.0
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
2
5.12
1.56
1.57
2.62
5.33
5.02
5.89
10.3
8.36
3.54
3.58
4.183
1.02
0.8
0.15
0.1
1
0.5
0.4
0.4
0.6
0.6
0.64
0.64
0.64
0.64
0.64
0.64
0.64
0.64
0.64
0.64
0.64
0.2
0.653
0.26
0.28
0.25
0.97
0.98
0.63
1.75
2.1
3.22
0.9
162.24
3.3
1.31
0.36
0.36
0.36
0.36
5.8
5.8
4.2
4.2
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
4.6
2.3
1.49
1.47
0.36
3.41
3.37
1.11
18.9
24
17.1
11.5
3.7927
1.56
3.82
20.3
19.9
6.73
45.2
6
6
6
6
0.44
0.44
0.44
0.44
0.44
0.44
0.44
0.44
0.44
0.44
0.44
2.1
3.1
0.88
0.87
1.48
1.47
1.37
3.37
5.28
4.64
2.91
2.85
117
49.7
53.1
40
41.7
97.5
97.25
22
22
22
22
174
174
174
174
174
174
174
174
174
174
174
11
29.7
36.6
8.5
23
50
10.9
48.3
198
197
94.1
87.9
0.0003
0.0003
0.0003
0.0003
0.0003
0.0003
0.0003
0.0003
0.0003
0.0003
0.0003
0.0003
0.0003
0.0003
0.0003
0.0003
0.0003
0.0003
0.0003
0.0003
0.0003
0.0003
0.0003
0.0003
0.0003
0.0003
0.0003
0.0003
0.0003
0.0003
0.0003
0.0003
0.0003
0.0003
Notes
1,2,3,4,6,7,20
40
40
51
51
51
51
3,37
3,37
3,37
3,37
1,2,6,7,34
1,2,6,7,34
1,2,6,7,34
1,2,6,7,34
1,2,6,7,34
1,2,6,7,34
1,2,6,7,34
1,2,6,7,34
1,2,6,7,34
1,2,6,7,34
1,2,6,7,34
3,41
1,2,6,7,39
40
40
40
40
40
40
1,2,3,6,7,54,55
1,2,3,6,7,54,55
1,2,3,6,7,54,55
1,2,3,6,7,54,55
E-5
-------
Appendix E. BLM Table
BLM
Data Label
ONMY37F
ONNE01F
ONNE02F
ONNE03F
ONNE04F
ONNE05F
ONNE06F
ONNE07F
ONNE08F
ONNE09F
ONNE10F
ONTS01F
ONTS02F
ONTS03F
ONTS04F
ONTS05F
ONTS06F
ONTS07F
ONTS08F
ONTS09F
ONTS10F
ONTS11F
ONTS12F
SACO01 F
SACO02F
SACO03F
SACO04F
SACO05F
ACAL01 F
GIEL01S
NOCR01F
PIPR01S
PIPR02S
PIPR03S
Model Output
Critical
Accumulation
1.7297
3.1060
3.5466
0.5132
0.6617
1 .0574
1 .6007
4.0021
2.2920
3.1060
5.4103
0.2050
0.1161
0.7109
0.3750
0.3517
0.8340
0.9241
0.3954
1.1161
0.8313
0.8622
1.7785
2.9901
2.6420
3.2456
2.6405
3.0680
9.7513
2.6186
29.9790
1 1 .3981
4.9570
9.4256
Hard-
ness
(mg/L)
104
83.1
83.1
83.1
83.1
83.1
83.1
83.1
83.1
83.1
83.1
23
23
23
23
13
46
182
359
36.6
34.6
38.3
35.7
214
220
105
98.2
104
54
173
72.2
103
103
263
Model Input
Temp Dissolved DOC Humic Ca Mg Na K SO4 Cl Alkalinity S
(°C) pH LC50 (ug/L) (mg/L) Acid (%) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L)
16.3
7.15
7.15
7.15
7.15
7.15
7.15
7.15
7.15
7.15
7.15
12.2
12.2
12.2
12.2
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
7.64
7.74
7.77
8.49
16.3
10.5
22
25
22
22
22
7.83
7.63
7.63
7.63
7.63
7.63
7.63
7.63
7.63
7.63
7.63
7.4
7.4
7.1
7.1
7.15
7.55
8.12
8.49
7.71
7.79
7.71
7.74
7.94
7.92
7.82
7.89
7.83
7.3
8.05
7.50
7.4
7.4
7.4
52.224
182.4
192
96
105.6
124.8
144
201.6
163.2
182.4
230.4
24.96
18.24
36.48
24.96
9.792
23.136
79.2
123.264
7.4
12.5
14.3
18.3
218.88
198.72
63.936
48
85.44
137.28
192
81216
297.6
115.2
374.4
0.28
2.58
2.58
2.58
2.58
2.58
2.58
2.58
2.58
2.58
2.58
1.3
1.3
1.4
1.3
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.055
0.19
0.24
0.17
0.27
0.36
0.1
0.045
0.28
1.1
0.5
1.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
22.4
22.3428
22.3428
22.3428
22.3428
22.3428
22.3428
22.3428
22.3428
22.3428
22.3428
6.8
6.8
6.1
6.8
2.14546
7.59162
30.0364
59.2477
6.36
7.82
6.33
8.15
49.4
51.2
23.1
22.3
22.4
15.0937
28.5511
17.8079
28.4667
28.4667
72.6868
11.4
6.313221
6.313221
6.313221
6.313221
6.313221
6.313221
6.313221
6.313221
6.313221
6.313221
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.859
6.578
26.026
51 .337
4.73
3.17
5.1
3.38
24.1
25.5
11.8
11.2
11.4
3.6371
24.739
6.7507
7.773195
7.773195
19.84806
3.76
10.259
10.259
10.259
10.259
10.259
10.259
10.259
10.259
10.259
10.259
5.0
5.0
4.4
5.0
4.0264
14.247
56.37
111.19
4.84
9.98
5.27
10
10.3
8.36
3.54
3.58
3.76
6.8831
53.583
15.26
27.778
27.778
36.487
2.72
7.5024
7.5024
7.5024
7.5024
7.5024
7.5024
7.5024
7.5024
7.5024
7.5024
0.6
0.6
0.4
0.6
0.3218
1.1386
4.5048
8.8858
0.22
0.11
0.6
0.37
1.75
2.1
3.22
0.9
2.72
0.7
4.282
1.6
2.6358
2.6358
3.4623
12.4
25.1
25.1
25.1
25.1
25.1
25.1
25.1
25.1
25.1
25.1
4.2
4.2
5.8
4.2
12.48
44.159
174.72
344.64
0.94
0.73
0.99
0.76
18.9
24
17.1
11.5
12.4
12.163
166.08
73.841
29.602
29.602
77.901
3.01
9.994
9.994
9.994
9.994
9.994
9.994
9.994
9.994
9.994
9.994
6
6
6
6
0.2917
1 .0323
4.0844
8.0566
2.79
8.34
2.96
9.1
5.28
4.64
2.91
2.85
3.01
9.6854
3.8824
54.15
53.021
53.021
130.77
97.6
62.5
62.5
62.5
62.5
62.5
62.5
62.5
62.5
62.5
62.5
22
22
22
22
12
35
125
243
40.8
40.6
43.6
43.3
198
197
94.1
87.9
97.6
43
117
42.5
65
65
65
0.0003
0.0003
0.0003
0.0003
0.0003
0.0003
0.0003
0.0003
0.0003
0.0003
0.0003
0.0003
0.0003
0.0003
0.0003
0.0003
0.0003
0.0003
0.0003
0.0003
0.0003
0.0003
0.0003
0.0003
0.0003
0.0003
0.0003
0.0003
0.0003
0.0003
0.0003
0.0003
0.0003
0.0003
Notes
1,2,3,6,7,54,55
1,2,3,6,7,52
1,2,3,6,7,52
1,2,3,6,7,52
1,2,3,6,7,52
1,2,3,6,7,52
1,2,3,6,7,52
1,2,3,6,7,52
1,2,3,6,7,52
1,2,3,6,7,52
1,2,3,6,7,52
3,37
3,37
3,37
3,37
1,2,3,4,6,7,20
1,2,3,4,6,7,20
1,2,3,4,6,7,20
1,2,3,4,6,7,20
51
51
51
51
1,2,3,6,7,54,55
1,2,3,6,7,54,55
1,2,3,6,7,54,55
1,2,3,6,7,54,55
1,2,3,6,7,54,55
1,2,3,6,7,9,10
1,2,3,6,7,20
2,3,6,7,16,42
1,2,3,4,6,48
1,2,3,4,6,48
1,2,3,4,6,48
E-6
-------
Appendix E. BLM Table
BLM
Data Label
PIPR04S
PIPR05S
PIPR06S
PIPR07S
PIPR08S
PIPR09S
PIPR10S
PIPR11S
PIPR12S
PIPR13S
PIPR14S
PIPR15S
PIPR16S
PIPR17S
PIPR18S
PIPR19S
PIPR20S
PIPR21S
PIPR22S
PIPR23S
PIPR24S
PIPR25S
PIPR26S
PIPR27S
PIPR28S
PIPR29S
PIPR30S
PIPR31S
PIPR32S
PIPR33S
PIPR34S
PIPR35S
PIPR36S
PIPR37S
Model Output
Critical
Accumulation
1 .2005
3.0479
0.1314
0.3064
0.5392
0.0890
0.2665
0.5716
0.2950
0.4162
0.2640
0.0477
0.1770
0.0787
0.1907
3.2305
7.4512
4.8297
7.6122
7.2327
3.4469
2.8678
3.3686
0.5950
4.0104
0.7241
4.0805
1.8188
4.9213
3.9367
5.7875
3.2914
5.7959
3.4870
Hard-
ness
(mg/L)
52
52
290
290
290
19
19.5
16.5
17
19
17
17
17.5
18.5
18.5
173
173
173
173
166
159
168
167
45.54059
45.54059
44.53969
44.53969
44.53969
45.54059
45.04014
45.04014
138.1231
151.1347
138.1231
Model Input
Temp Dissolved DOC Humic Ca Mg Na K SO4 Cl Alkalinity S
(°C) pH LC50 (ug/L) (mg/L) Acid (%) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L)
24.5
24.5
25
25
25
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
5
12
22
32
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
7.4
7.4
6.27
7.14
8.6
7.06
7.25
6.36
6.42
6.38
7.15
7.16
7.13
7.06
6.90
8.25
8.1
8.15
7.3
8.05
8.35
8.3
8.45
7.93
7.93
7.98
7.98
7.99
7.96
7.79
7.81
7.785
7.78
8.02
52.8
81.6
14.4
42.24
192
4.6272
7.872
30.3072
20.2176
34.5312
57.4368
4.6368
67.4688
80.2464
174.72
278.4
604.8
384
374.4
432
285.12
298.56
492.48
53.958366
165.17867
59.464322
146.45842
82.038741
124.4346
103.759
167.3225
120.015
169.418
268.224
1.1
1.1
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.6
0.4
3.3
3.1
4.3
3.4
0.8
5.1
10.5
15.6
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
15.2833
15.2833
47.8602
47.8602
47.8602
4.9
5.2
4.1
4.2
5
4.2
4.5
4.6
5
4.9
28.5511
28.5511
28.5511
28.5511
27.3959
26.2406
27.7259
27.5609
13.4911
13.4911
13.1946
13.1946
13.1946
13.4911
13.3428
13.3428
12.892
14.1065
12.892
3.371316
3.371316
41.47
41.47
41.47
1.64
1.64
1.54
1.56
1.62
1.54
1.46
1.48
1.54
1.5
24.739
24.739
24.739
24.739
23.738
22.737
24.024
23.881
2.888065
2.888065
2.824591
2.824591
2.824591
2.888065
2.856328
2.856328
25.75825
28.18476
25.75825
1.47
1.47
89.821
89.821
89.821
3.7
5.36
2.82
2.74
7.04
2.9
2.68
2.62
2.64
3.54
53.583
53.583
53.583
53.583
51.415
49.247
52.034
51.724
1 .6093
91.27
1 .6093
45.98
1 .6093
1 .6093
1 .6093
47.589
1 .6093
1 .6093
1 .6093
0.57
0.57
7.178
7.178
7.178
0.78
0.79
0.76
0.74
0.72
1
0.78
0.77
0.8
0.99
4.282
4.282
4.282
4.282
4.1088
3.9355
4.1583
4.1335
0.391
0.391
0.391
0.391
0.391
0.391
0.391
0.391
0.391
0.391
0.391
3.84
3.84
278.4
278.4
278.4
9.6
2.45
9.4
7.4
10.2
7.4
10.9
10.5
10.7
7
166.08
166.08
166.08
166.08
159.36
152.64
161.28
160.32
3.362
3.362
3.362
3.362
3.362
3.362
3.362
99.42
3.362
99.42
3.362
1.36
1.36
6.5081
6.5081
6.5081
5.8
8.6
4.7
4.6
12.2
4.7
3.8
3.5
3.5
5.2
3.8824
3.8824
3.8824
3.8824
3.7253
3.5682
3.7702
3.7478
1.4181
143.23
1.4181
72.324
1.4181
36.871
1.4181
1.4181
72.324
1.4181
1.4181
55
55
235
235
235
11.17
12.7
8.46
3.4
7.83
8.74
9.3
8.95
8.29
9.52
117
117
117
117
132.5
135
142.5
140
42.037464
42.037464
42.037464
44.039248
42.53791
43.038356
46.041032
46.041032
43.038356
43.038356
149.13291
0.0003
0.0003
0.0003
0.0003
0.0003
0.0003
0.0003
0.0003
0.0003
0.0003
0.0003
0.0003
0.0003
0.0003
0.0003
0.0003
0.0003
0.0003
0.0003
0.0003
0.0003
0.0003
0.0003
0.0003
0.0003
0.0003
0.0003
0.0003
0.0003
0.0003
0.0003
0.0003
0.0003
0.0003
Notes
1,2,3,6,7,8
1,2,3,6,7,8
1,2,3,4,5
1,2,3,4,5
1,2,3,4,5
3,49
3,49
3,49
3,49
3,49
3,49
3,49
3,49
3,49
3,49
1,2,3,4,6,7,20
1,2,3,4,6,7,20
1,2,3,4,6,7,20
1,2,3,4,6,7,20
1,2,3,4,6,7,20
1,2,3,4,6,7,20
1,2,3,4,6,7,20
1,2,3,4,6,7,20
43,44
43,44
43,44
43,44
43,44
43,44
43,44
43,44
43,44
43,44
43,44
E-7
-------
Appendix E. BLM Table
BLM
Data Label
PIPR38S
PIPR39S
PIPR40S
PIPR41S
PIPR42S
PIPR43S
PIPR44S
PIPR45S
PIPR46S
PIPR47S
PIPR48S
PIPR49S
PIPR50S
PIPR51S
PIPR52S
PIPR53S
PIPR54S
PIPR55S
PIPR56S
PIPR57S
PIPR58S
PIPR59S
PIPR60S
PIPR61S
PIPR62S
PIPR63S
PIPR64S
PIPR65S
PIPR66S
PIPR67S
PIPR68S
PIPR69S
PIPR70S
PIPR71S
Model Output
Critical
Accumulation
9.2068
4.7038
3.1754
5.3335
6.4718
6.4642
7.0015
5.9820
7.4331
6.0725
7.2713
5.4175
6.2395
6.2194
4.9667
6.1183
5.7931
5.2814
3.8765
3.7460
3.8963
5.1820
5.0050
6.3379
6.5522
7.7846
5.4254
5.7632
5.0152
5.9195
5.4017
4.1225
6.6575
4.6725
Hard-
ness
(mg/L)
139.124
47.04192
37.033
60.05352
76.06779
103.0919
103.0919
107.0954
134.1195
45.04014
46.04103
45.04014
45.04014
44.03925
45.04014
46.04103
189.1686
46.04103
75.0669
46.04103
74.06601
133.1186
76.06779
134.1195
52.04638
51 .04549
50.0446
51 .04549
51 .04549
53.04728
53.04728
52.04638
47.04192
47.04192
Model Input
Temp Dissolved DOC Humic Ca Mg Na K SO4 Cl Alkalinity S
(°C) pH LC50 (ug/L) (mg/L) Acid (%) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L)
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
25
20
7.775
7.78
7.785
7.795
7.8
7.805
7.78
7.79
7.8
7.815
7.82
7.82
7.81
7.82
7.81
7.81
7.82
7.865
7.87
7.865
7.85
7.85
7.85
7.84
7.96
7.96
7.945
7.965
7.96
7.97
7.96
7.94
7.82
7.82
242.443
113.3475
77.8764
128.016
151.13
166.624
163.83
157.48
199.7075
128.524
150.876
131.064
160.2105
182.88
180.848
176.784
188.9125
125.603
117.348
114.554
126.492
172.72
167.3225
226.695
84.201
97.79
70.0786
81 .5848
77.4319
110.871
151.892
175.26
145.288
111.76
1.1
1.1
0.88
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
1.1
1.1
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
51.1778
13.4268
11.022
15.2304
18.8376
25.05
32.064
18.2364
32.2644
14.028
14.028
14.028
14.2284
15.03
14.4288
14.2284
55.11
14.6292
24.4488
14.4288
24.4488
41.082
24.048
40.8816
12.024
11.2224
11.022
1 1 .2224
11.2224
11.2224
11.6232
11.4228
13.9359
13.9359
2.779812
4.010325
3.281175
5.954725
7.413025
10.2081
4.010325
15.43368
13.00318
2.18745
2.18745
2.18745
2.18745
2.18745
2.18745
2.18745
15.79825
3.15965
5.954725
3.15965
6.07625
1 1 .6664
6.07625
1 1 .6664
4.13185
3.8888
3.767275
3.8888
3.767275
3.767275
3.8888
3.767275
2.983276
2.983276
1 .6093
1 .6093
2.9887
1 .6093
1 .6093
2.0691
1 .8392
1 .6093
1 .6093
1 .3794
6.2072
15.173
35.174
62.992
101.39
57.015
1 .6093
1 .3794
1 .3794
19.771
18.392
18.392
47.589
49.198
1 .6093
2.7588
5.9773
11.955
23.22
46.899
117.94
236.79
1 .6093
1 .6093
0.391
0.391
0.391
0.391
0.391
0.391
0.391
0.391
0.391
0.391
1 .5639
1 .5639
1 .5639
1 .5639
1 .9549
19.158
0.782
0.391
0.391
0.391
0.391
0.391
0.782
0.782
0.391
0.782
1 .5639
2.3459
3.1279
4.6918
7.0377
10.948
0.391
0.391
99.42
3.362
3.362
17.771
32.179
60.036
58.115
61.957
88.854
3.362
5.7635
10.566
21.613
40.825
59.076
40.825
152.25
3.362
30.739
12.488
38.903
98.94
58.115
118.63
10.566
10.566
12.007
15.369
21.613
33.62
68.201
128.24
3.362
3.362
1.4181
1.4181
1.4181
1.4181
1.7727
1.7727
1.7727
1.7727
1.7727
1 .0636
7.0906
15.245
36.162
70.906
107.78
71.97
1 .0636
1 .0636
1 .0636
18.436
18.436
18.436
52.116
51.052
1.7727
3.5453
8.1542
15.245
30.135
59.207
141.81
279.72
1.4181
1.4181
43.038356
43.038356
43.038356
43.038356
42.037464
43.038356
40.03568
43.038356
43.038356
41 .036572
42.037464
41 .036572
41 .036572
40.03568
41 .036572
42.037464
42.037464
42.037464
41 .036572
41 .036572
42.037464
42.037464
43.038356
43.038356
42.037464
41 .036572
41 .036572
42.037464
41 .036572
41.537018
42.037464
43.038356
42.53791
43.038356
0.0003
0.0003
0.0003
0.0003
0.0003
0.0003
0.0003
0.0003
0.0003
0.0003
0.0003
0.0003
0.0003
0.0003
0.0003
0.0003
0.0003
0.0003
0.0003
0.0003
0.0003
0.0003
0.0003
0.0003
0.0003
0.0003
0.0003
0.0003
0.0003
0.0003
0.0003
0.0003
0.0003
0.0003
Notes
43,44
43,44
43,45
43,44
43,44
43,44
43,44
43,44
43,44
43,44
43,44
43,44
43,44
43,44
43,44
43,44
43,44
43,44
43,44
43,44
43,44
43,44
43,44
43,44
43,46
43,46
43,46
43,46
43,46
43,46
43,46
43,46
43,44
43,44
E-8
-------
Appendix E. BLM Table
BLM
Data Label
PIPR72S
PIPR73S
PIPR74S
PIPR75S
PIPR76S
PIPR77S
PIPR78S
PIPR79S
PIPR80S
PIPR81S
PIPR82S
PIPR83S
PIPR84S
PIPR85S
PIPR86S
PIPR87S
PIPR88S
PIPR89S
PIPR90S
PIPR91S
PIPR92S
PIPR93S
PIPR94S
PIPR95S
PIPR96S
PIPR97S
PIPR98S
PIPR99S
PIPR100S
PIPR101S
PIPR102S
PIPR103S
PIPR104S
PIPR105S
Model Output
Critical
Accumulation
2.3613
1.1782
7.6860
10.9585
7.9470
6.9448
5.9976
9.0570
0.7034
7.0672
4.9660
5.1028
5.4229
6.5439
5.4310
5.4306
5.7955
6.9862
8.5781
9.0461
8.7054
6.4404
8.4348
8.0730
8.8271
2.3840
2.6680
4.5268
3.5167
3.1703
1 .9033
2.9068
6.9464
4.3303
Hard-
ness
(mg/L)
47.04192
47.04192
140.1249
88.0785
59.05263
41 .03657
27.02408
43.03836
25.0223
107.0954
87.0776
85.07582
88.0785
87.0776
87.0776
87.0776
87.0776
87.0776
251.2239
252.2248
252.2248
251.2239
200.1784
140.1249
90.08028
19.01695
34.03033
51 .04549
29.02587
30.02676
27.02408
27.02408
90.08028
60.05352
Model Input
Temp Dissolved DOC Humic Ca Mg Na K SO4 Cl Alkalinity S
(°C) pH LC50 (ug/L) (mg/L) Acid (%) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L)
15
10
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
7.82
7.82
8.03
7.965
7.89
7.825
7.745
7.885
7.565
8.105
7.055
7.33
7.605
7.745
8.07
8.375
8.73
8.115
7.2
7.575
7.915
8.275
8.05
7.95
8.045
7.525
7.53
7.54
7.585
7.605
7.55
7.525
7.995
8.11
79.1845
60.0075
370.078
292.1
101.473
62.5094
42.0624
172.466
12.4333
271.272
71.12
79.629
99.53625
132.715
137.16
182.245
268.9225
188.976
662.559
904.875
995.68
891 .54
757.6185
404.8125
262.128
20.447
23.1648
34.9885
27.94
26.67
20.32
26.67
182.88
96.6724
1.1
1.1
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
1.1
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
13.9359
13.9359
29.058
19.038
12.024
8.2164
5.6112
10.4208
6.68596
28.6924
23.3293
22.793
23.5975
23.3293
23.3293
23.3293
23.3293
23.3293
67.127
67.3945
67.3945
67.127
53.5426
37.4414
24.1338
5.08133
9.0929
13.6394
7.75571
8.02315
7.22084
7.22084
24.1338
16.0463
2.983276
2.983276
12.03098
7.04845
4.61795
3.038125
1 .822875
2.67355
2.02764
8.631893
7.018455
6.857111
7.099127
7.018455
7.018455
7.018455
7.018455
7.018455
20.35751
20.43861
20.43861
20.35751
16.18781
1 1 .35479
7.260471
1.541007
2.757591
4.136386
2.352063
2.433168
2.189852
2.189852
7.260471
4.866337
1 .6093
1 .6093
25.059
14.943
9.1959
7.5866
4.598
1 .6093
3.4485
14.254
13.564
13.794
13.564
14.484
12.644
13.334
14.254
12.874
57.475
57.475
57.475
57.475
37.243
22.99
14.254
3.4485
3.4485
3.4485
3.4485
1 .3794
10.345
20.691
14.254
11.955
0.391
0.391
4.3008
2.7369
0.782
2.7369
2.3459
0.782
1.1729
1 .9549
1 .9549
1 .9549
1 .9549
1 .9549
1 .9549
1 .9549
1 .9549
1 .9549
4.6918
4.6918
4.6918
4.6918
3.5188
2.3459
1 .9549
0.782
0.782
0.782
0.782
0.782
1.1729
1 .5639
1 .9549
1 .5639
3.362
3.362
60.036
37.943
23.054
13.928
8.6452
2.8817
4.3226
19.212
19.212
19.212
19.212
18.731
18.731
18.731
18.731
18.731
72.524
70.603
73.484
73.484
49.47
28.817
18.731
0.9606
9.6058
16.81
5.2832
4.3226
5.2832
10.566
19.212
3.8423
1.4181
1.4181
25.881
17.017
9.9268
6.3815
4.2544
1.4181
4.9634
16.308
15.954
15.954
15.954
15.954
15.954
15.954
14.89
15.954
62.397
62.043
62.043
62.043
46.798
25.172
15.599
4.9634
4.6089
4.6089
4.6089
2.4817
13.118
26.59
15.954
17.372
42.53791
42.53791
98.087416
63.056196
39.034788
29.025868
23.020516
42.037464
16.014272
80.07136
58.051736
58.051736
59.052628
59.052628
59.052628
59.052628
59.052628
59.052628
150.1338
164.14629
150.1338
143.12756
128.11418
99.088308
65.05798
19.016948
20.01784
21.018732
22.019624
23.020516
20.01784
20.01784
63.056196
58.051736
0.0003
0.0003
0.0003
0.0003
0.0003
0.0003
0.0003
0.0003
0.0003
0.0003
0.0003
0.0003
0.0003
0.0003
0.0003
0.0003
0.0003
0.0003
0.0003
0.0003
0.0003
0.0003
0.0003
0.0003
0.0003
0.0003
0.0003
0.0003
0.0003
0.0003
0.0003
0.0003
0.0003
0.0003
Notes
43,44
43,44
43,46
43,46
43,46
43,46
43,46
43,44
43,46
43,46
43,46
43,46
43,46
43,46
43,46
43,46
43,46
43,46
43,46
43,46
43,46
43,46
43,46
43,46
43,46
43,46
43,46
43,46
43,46
43,46
43,46
43,46
43,46
43,46
E-9
-------
Appendix E. BLM Table
BLM
Data Label
PIPR106S
PIPR107S
PIPR108S
PIPR109S
PIPR110S
PIPR111S
PIPR112S
PIPR113S
PIPR114S
PIPR115S
PIPR116S
PIPR117S
PIPR118S
PIPR119S
PIPR120F
PIPR121F
PIPR122F
PIPR123F
PIPR124F
PIPR125F
PIPR126F
PIPR127F
PIPR128F
PIPR129F
PIPR130F
PIPR131F
PIPR132F
PIPR133F
PIPR134F
PIPR135F
PIPR136F
PIPR137F
PIPR138F
PIPR139F
Model Output
Critical
Accumulation
6.1231
5.3380
4.7175
5.7327
6.5363
6.7795
5.0174
6.2630
5.5141
5.1749
5.8459
6.1591
5.9250
8.2172
0.3052
0.3617
0.1755
3.4889
1 .8656
2.8066
3.1774
1 .4538
1 .0075
1 .2809
0.0860
1.1899
0.1230
0.4522
0.3833
0.3216
0.1834
0.1256
0.2961
2.8408
Hard-
ness
(mg/L)
120.107
180.1606
91.08117
90.08028
93.08296
92.08206
91.08117
144.1284
292.2605
440.3925
217.1936
218.1945
212.1891
92.08206
48
45
46
30
37
87
73
84
66
43.9
47.04192
243.2168
255.7279
47.04192
45.04014
45.04014
45.54059
49.04371
45.04014
43.03836
Model Input
Temp Dissolved DOC Humic Ca Mg Na K SO4 Cl Alkalinity S
(°C) pH LC50 (ug/L) (mg/L) Acid (%) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L)
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
8.09
8.09
8.125
8.155
8.135
8.145
8.19
8.38
8.27
8.225
8.31
8.305
8.345
8.125
8.03
8.04
7.98
6.82
7.28
7.11
6.94
7.07
6.97
7.4
8.1
8.01
8.01
8.1
8.02
8.65
7.3
6.63
7.16
7.93
182.88
190.6905
127.0635
148.59
223.52
283.1465
150.241
644.525
697.5475
752.475
653.415
646.3665
939.8
253.365
109.44
116.16
84.96
418.56
495.36
1522.56
1083.84
528
960.96
88.32
27.94
105.7275
40.0558
64.262
49.01565
67.7164
18.669
6.1468
20.447
93.36405
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
2.64
2.64
2.64
10.4652
11.3373
31.3956
24.4188
14.5155
32.9018
2
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
32.0926
48.1389
24.3369
24.0695
24.8718
24.6043
24.402
38.5111
78.092
117.673
58.0341
58.3016
56.6969
24.6701
14.1077
13.2259
13.5198
7.1362
8.80131
20.6978
17.2174
20.4644
16.0792
12.9026
13.9359
92.7261
14.1661
13.9359
13.3428
13.3428
13.4911
14.5289
13.3428
12.7498
9.732674
14.59901
7.38061 1
7.299505
7.542822
7.461717
7.341142
11.67921
23.68284
35.68647
17.59992
17.68102
17.19439
7.421814
3.111984
2.917485
2.982318
2.964634
3.656382
8.4403
7.3329
8.008
6.292
2.846168
2.983276
2.884195
53.5752
2.983276
2.856328
2.856328
2.888065
3.110224
2.856328
2.72938
11.955
11.955
11.955
2.299
35.864
71.728
14.484
34.485
34.485
34.485
34.485
6.8969
103.45
14.254
1.35
1.27
1.3
1.625
2.0042
16.071
10.539
6
4.7143
1.24
1 .6093
47.129
1 .6093
47.589
1 .6093
1 .6093
1 .6093
1 .6093
1 .6093
1 .6093
1 .5639
1 .5639
1 .5639
6.2557
3.9098
7.4287
15.248
3.1279
3.1279
3.1279
3.1279
1 .5639
7.8197
1 .9549
0.57
0.57
0.57
0.5
0.5
1.855
1 .5232
1.4
1.4
0.57
0.391
0.391
0.391
0.391
0.391
0.391
0.391
0.391
0.391
0.391
33.62
62.438
19.212
15.85
27.377
41.305
18.731
12.488
87.893
175.31
46.588
38.903
65.319
19.212
3.54
3.33
3.4
6.125
7.5542
22.35
18.439
34.5
27.107
3.24
3.362
3.362
3.362
3.362
3.362
3.362
3.362
3.362
3.362
3.362
17.372
17.017
15.954
6.027
49.989
102.81
17.372
42.189
57.079
41.125
43.253
9.5723
124.79
16.663
1.25
1.17
1.2
1.25
1.5417
18.629
13.619
10.95
8.6036
1.14
1.4181
143.23
143.23
72.324
1.4181
1.4181
1.4181
1.4181
15.599
1.4181
59.052628
58.051736
59.052628
60.05352
62.055304
61.054412
62.055304
138.1231
137.1222
133.11864
133.11864
140.12488
143.12756
63.056196
44
44
41
21
21
20
18
12
12
42.4
42.53791
43.038356
43.538802
43.538802
43.038356
47.041924
44.039248
49.043708
26.023192
41 .036572
0.0003
0.0003
0.0003
0.0003
0.0003
0.0003
0.0003
0.0003
0.0003
0.0003
0.0003
0.0003
0.0003
0.0003
0.0003
0.0003
0.0003
0.0003
0.0003
0.0003
0.0003
0.0003
0.0003
0.0003
0.0003
0.0003
0.0003
0.0003
0.0003
0.0003
0.0003
0.0003
0.0003
0.0003
Notes
43,46
43,46
43,46
43,46
43,46
43,46
43,46
43,46
43,46
43,46
43,46
43,46
43,46
43,46
1,2,3,6,7,15,26
1,2,3,6,7,15,26
1,2,3,6,7,15,26
1,2,3,6,7,27,28
1,2,3,6,7,27,28
1,2,3,6,7,27,29
1,2,3,6,7,27,29
1,2,3,6,7,27,28
1,2,3,6,7,27,28
1,2,6,7,8,14,15
43,44
43,44
43,44
43,44
43,44
43,44
43,44
43,44
43,44
43,44
E-10
-------
Appendix E. BLM Table
BLM
Data Label
PIPR140F
PIPR141F
PIPR142F
PIPR143F
PIPR144F
PIPR145F
PIPR146F
PIPR147F
PIPR148F
PIPR149F
PIPR150F
PTLU01S
PTLU02S
PTOR01F
PTOR02F
XYTE01S
XYTE02S
POAC01S
LEMA01R
LEMA02F
LEMA03F
LEMA04F
ETFL01S
ETFL02S
ETFL03S
ETFL04S
ETLE01S
ETNI01S
ETNI02S
ETNI03S
ETNI04S
ETRU01S
BUBO01S
Model Output
Critical
Accumulation
0.0373
1 .3667
0.0310
0.1023
0.1038
1 .9076
0.4905
1 .3078
1 .5995
2.4015
2.3670
4.0390
9.0637
0.2752
0.1587
2.6511
4.5011
2.2126
25.6628
25.8381
27.6113
22.5658
5.5744
5.7421
5.8278
6.4920
3.7314
7.8536
7.7256
9.1617
8.5329
0.4735
1.7185
Hard-
ness
(mg/L)
45.54059
45.04014
45.04014
45.54059
45.04014
44.03925
44.03925
22.52007
24.02141
23.02052
21.51918
173
173
25
54
173
173
167
85
45
25.9
85
170
170
170
170
167
170
170
170
170
167
167
Model Input
Temp Dissolved DOC Humic Ca Mg Na K SO4 Cl Alkalinity S
(°C) pH LC50 (ug/L) (mg/L) Acid (%) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L)
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
7.8
11.5
22
22
22
20.2
20
19
21.85
20
20
20
20
22
20
20
20
20
22
22
7.91
7.94
7.95
7.94
7.91
7.87
7.84
6.01
7.02
8
9.01
8.3
7.25
7.3
7.3
8.15
8.05
8
7.3
7.5
7.03
7.45
7.8
7.8
7.9
7.8
8
7.8
7.8
7.8
7.8
8.2
7.9
245.364
72.3392
229.8065
195.453
109.347
78.0034
45.52315
4.3815
12.4333
26.8605
51 .3334
364.8
460.8
22.08
17.28
211.2
326.4
153.6
2200
1056
960
1300
316.8
327.36
358.08
376.32
249.6
473.28
463.68
577.92
526.08
57.6
115.2
6.1
1.1
6.1
3.6
2.35
1.1
1.1
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.5
0.5
1.1
1.1
0.5
0.5
0.5
1.1
1.1
1.5
1.1
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
83.7705
10
83.7705
72.5
57.8723
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
13.4911
13.3428
13.3428
13.4911
13.3428
13.0463
13.0463
6.01736
6.41852
6.15108
5.74992
28.5511
28.5511
7.1535
15.0937
28.5511
28.5511
27.5609
23.9
13.2259
6.38814
23.9
27.9
27.9
27.9
27.9
27.5609
27.9
27.9
27.9
27.9
27.5609
27.5609
2.888065
2.856328
2.856328
2.888065
2.856328
2.792854
2.792854
1 .824876
1 .946535
1 .865429
1.743771
24.739
24.739
1 .9754
3.6371
24.739
24.739
23.881
6.5
2.917485
2.42165
6.5
24.2
24.2
24.2
24.2
23.881
24.2
24.2
24.2
24.2
23.881
23.881
1 .6093
1 .6093
1 .6093
1 .6093
1 .6093
1 .6093
1 .6093
3.4485
3.6784
4.1382
4.598
53.583
53.583
4.8154
6.8831
53.583
53.583
51.724
0.64
1.3
5.4743
0.64
52.5
52.5
52.5
52.5
51.724
52.5
52.5
52.5
52.5
51.724
51.724
0.391
0.391
0.391
0.391
0.391
0.391
0.391
0.391
0.391
0.782
1 .5639
4.282
4.282
0.7
0.7
4.282
4.282
4.1335
0.46
0.57
1.6
0.46
4.2
4.2
4.2
4.2
4.1335
4.2
4.2
4.2
4.2
4.1335
4.1335
3.362
3.362
3.362
3.362
3.362
3.362
3.362
3.362
3.362
3.362
3.362
166.08
166.08
3.997
12.163
166.08
166.08
160.32
4.32
3.4
26.489
4.32
163
163
163
163
160.32
163
163
163
163
160.32
160.32
1.4181
1.4181
1.4181
1.4181
1.4181
1.4181
19.145
4.2544
4.9634
4.9634
4.9634
3.8824
3.8824
5.9792
9.6854
3.8824
3.8824
3.7478
1.5
1.2
19.425
1.5
3.80
3.80
3.80
3.80
3.7478
3.80
3.80
3.80
3.80
3.7478
3.7478
44.039248
43.038356
43.038356
44.039248
42.037464
42.037464
17.015164
15.01338
17.015164
17.51561
19.016948
117
117
25
43
117
117
115
82
43
27.1
82
115
115
115
115
115
115
115
115
115
115
115
0.0003
0.0003
0.0003
0.0003
0.0003
0.0003
0.0003
0.0003
0.0003
0.0003
0.0003
0.0003
0.0003
0.0003
0.0003
0.0003
0.0003
0.0003
0.0003
0.0003
0.0003
0.0003
0.0003
0.0003
0.0003
0.0003
0.0003
0.0003
0.0003
0.0003
0.0003
0.0003
0.0003
Notes
43,47
43,44
43,47
43,47
43,47
43,44
43,44
43,46
43,46
43,46
43,46
1,2,3,4,6,7,20
1,2,3,4,6,7,20
1,2,3,6,7,9,10
1,2,3,6,7,9,10
1,2,3,4,6,7,20
1,2,3,4,6,7,20
1,2,3,4,6,7,20
50
1,2,3,6,7,8
1,2,3,6,7,16
50
1,3,4,22
1,3,4,22
1,3,4,22
1,3,4,22
1,2,3,4,6,7,20
1,3,4,22
1,3,4,22
1,3,4,22
1,3,4,22
1,2,3,4,6,7,20
1,2,3,4,6,7,20
Appendix updated as of March 2, 2007
E-11
-------
Appendix F. Regression Plots
-------
Appendix F. Analyses of Chronic Data
The following pages contain figures and other information related to the regression and probability distribution analyses that were performed to calculate
chronic EC20s. The initial parameter estimates are shown in the tables below. In the figures that follow, circles denote measured responses and solid lines
denote estimated regression lines.
Probability Distribution Analysis
Species
Snail,
Campe/oma dec/sum ( Test 1)
Snail,
Campe/oma dec/sum ( Test 2)
Cladoceran,
Daphnia pulex
Cladoceran,
Daphnia pulex
Caddisfly,
Clistoronia magnifica
Bluegill (larval),
Lepomis macrochirus
Study Test
Arthur and Leonard 1 970 LC
Arthur and Leonard 1 970 LC
Winner 1985 LC
Winner 1985 LC
Nebekeretal. 1984b LC
Benoit1975 ELS
Endpoint
Survival
Survival
Survival
Survival
Emergence (adult
1st gen)
Survival
Control Value
0.925
0.875
1.00
0.900
0.750
0.880
Final Estimates
EC50
14.50
11.80
4.57
11.3
20.0
39.8
Standard
Deviation
0.192
0.339
0.260
0.111
0.300
0.250
EC20
8.73
10.94
2.83
9.16
7.67
27.15
EC10
7.01
9.16
2.24
8.28
5.63
21.60
Logistic Regression Analysis
Species
Cladoceran,
Ceriodaphnia dubia
Cladoceran,
Daphnia magna
Cladoceran,
Daphnia magna
Cladoceran,
Daphnia magna
Rainbow trout,
Oncorhynchus mykiss
Rainbow trout,
Oncorhynchus mykiss
Chinook salmon,
Oncorhynchus tshawytscha
Fathead minnow,
Pimephales promelas
Study Test
Carlson et al. 1986 LC
Chapman et al. Manuscript LC
Chapman et al. Manuscript LC
Chapman et al. Manuscript LC
Seimetal. 1984 ELS
Besser et al. 2001 ELS
Chapman 1975, 1982 ELS
Lind et al. manuscript ELS
Endpoint
Reproduction
Reproduction
Reproduction
Reproduction
Biomass
Biomass
Biomass
Biomass
Control Value
13.10
171.5
192.1
88.0
137.6
1224
0.901
108.4
Final Estimates
EC50
14.6
16.6
28.4
15.8
40.7
29.2
9.55
11.4
Slope
1.36
1.40
1.59
1.00
1.69
1.99
1.27
4.00
EC20
9.17
12.58
19.89
6.06
27.77
20.32
5.92
9.38
EC10
7.28
10.63
16.34
3.64
22.16
16.74
4.47
8.67
F-1
-------
Evaluation of the Chronic Data Available for Freshwater Species
Following is a species-by-species discussion of each chronic test on copper evaluated for this
document. Also presented are the results of regression analysis and probability distribution analysis of
each dataset that was from an acceptable chronic test and contained sufficient acceptable data. For each
such dataset, this appendix contains a figure that presents the data and regression/probability distribution
line.
Brachionus calyciflorus. The chronic toxicity of copper was ascertained in 4-day renewal tests
conducted at regular intervals throughout the life of the freshwater rotifer, B. calyciflorus (Janssen et al.
1994). The goal of this study was to develop and examine the use of this rotifer as a viable test organism.
The effect of copper on the age-specific survivorship and fertility of B. calyciflorus was determined, but
no individual replicate data were provided and only three copper concentrations were tested, which
precludes these data from further regression analysis. Chronic limits based on the intrinsic rate of natural
increase were 2.5 (ig/L total copper (NOAEC) and 5.0 (ig/L total copper (LOAEC). The chronic value
determined via traditional hypothesis testing is 3.54 (ig/L total copper (Table 2a).
Campeloma decisum. Adult C. campeloma were exposed to five concentrations of total copper
and a control (Lake Superior water) under flow-through conditions in two 6-week studies conducted by
Arthur and Leonard (1970). Adult survival in the two separate chronic copper toxicity test trials was
markedly reduced in the two highest copper concentrations, 14.8 and 28.0 jig/L, respectively. The
authors reported that growth, as determined from cast exoskeleton, was not measurable for this test
species, although the authors did observe that the adult snails would not consume food at the two highest
copper concentrations. Control survival was 80 percent or greater. Chronic values of 10.88 (ig/L total
copper were obtained for survival based on the geometric mean of the NOAEC and LOAEC of 8.0 and
14.8 (ig/L, respectively, in both tests. The corresponding EC20s were 8.73 and 10.94 (ig/L (Table 2a).
Ceriodaphnia dubia. The chronic toxicity of copper to C. dubia was determined in ambient river
water collected upstream of known point-source discharges of domestic and industrial wastes as part of a
water effect ratio study (Carlson et al. 1986). In this study, survival and young production of C. dubia
were assessed using a 7-day life-cycle test. Organisms were not affected at total copper concentrations
ranging from 3 to 12 (ig/L (5 to 10 (ig/L dissolved copper). There was a 62.7 percent reduction in
survival and 97 percent reduction in the mean number of young produced per female at 32 (ig/L total
copper (27 (ig/L dissolved copper). No daphnids survived to produce young at 91 (ig/L total copper.
Control survival during the study was 80 percent, which included one male. The chronic value EC20
selected for C. dubia in this study, 9.17 ng/L derived from a nonlinear regression evaluation, was based
on mean number of young produced (reproduction).
The effects of water hardness on the chronic toxicity of copper to C. dubia were assessed by
Belanger et al. (1989) using 7-day life-cycle tests. C. dubia 2 to 8 hours old were exposed to copper in
ambient surface water from the New and Clinch Rivers, Virginia. Mean water hardness levels were 179
and 94 mg/L as CaCO3, respectively. Test water was renewed on days 3 and 5. The corresponding
chronic values for reproduction based on the NOAEC and LOAEC approach were 7.9 and <19.3 (ig/L
dissolved copper, respectively. The EC20 value for number of young (neonates) produced in Clinch
River water (water hardness of 94 mg/L as CaCO3) was 19.36 (ig/L dissolved copper. The EC20 for
young produced in New River water was not calculated. The chronic values were converted to total
copper using the freshwater conversion factor for copper 0.96 (e.g., 7.897/0.96). The resulting total
chronic values for the New and Clinch rivers are 8.23 and 20.17 (ig/L, respectively.
F-2
-------
Copper was one of 12 toxicants examined by Oris et al. (1991) in their comparisons between a 4-
day survival and reproduction toxicity test utilizing C. dubia and a standard 7-day life-cycle test for the
species. The reported 7-day chronic values for survival and reproduction (mean total young per living
female) in two tests based on the traditional hypothesis testing techniques were 24.5 and 34.6 ug/L total
copper. Comparable point estimates for these 7-day tests could not be calculated using regression
analysis.
Daphnia magna. Blaylock et al. (1985) reported the average numbers of young produced for six
broods of D. magna in a 14-day chronic exposure to copper. A significant reduction was observed in the
mean number of young per female at a concentration of 30 ug/L total copper, the highest copper
concentration tested. At this concentration, young were not produced at brood intervals 5 and 6.
Reproduction was not affected at 1 0 ug/L total copper. The chronic value determined for this study
(17.32 ug/L total copper) was based on the geometric mean of theNOAEC, 10 ug/L, and LOAEC, 30
Van Leeuwen et al. (1988) conducted a standard 21 -day life-cycle test with/), magna. The water
hardness was 225 mg/L as CaCO3. Carapace length was significantly reduced at 36.8 ug/L total copper,
although survival was 100 percent at this concentration. Carapace length was not affected at 12.6 ug/L
total copper. No daphnids survived at 1 1 0 ug/L concentration. The highest concentration not
significantly different from the control for survival was 36.8 ug/L. The lowest concentration significantly
different from the control based on survival was 110 ug/L, resulting in a chronic value of 63.6 ug/L for
survival. The chronic value based on carapace length was 21 .50 ug/L. The 21 -day EC 10 as reported by
the author was 5.9 ug/L total copper.
Chronic (21 -day) renewal toxicity tests were conducted using D. magna to determine the
relationship between water hardness (nominal values of 50, 100, and 200 mg/L as CaCO3, respectively)
and the toxicity of total copper (Chapman et al. unpublished manuscript). All test daphnids were <1 day
old at the start of the tests. The dilution water was well water from the Western Fish Toxicology Station
(WFTS), Corvallis, Oregon. Test endpoints were reproduction (total and live young produced per female)
and adult survival. The survival of control animals was 1 00 percent at nominal water hardness levels of
50 and 200 mg/L as CaCO3, and 80 percent at a hardness of 100 mg/L as CaCO3. The chronic values for
total young produced per female (fecundity) based on the geometric mean of the NOAEC and LOAEC
were 13.63, 29.33, and 9.53 ug/L at the nominal hardness levels of 50, 100, and 200 mg/L as CaCO3,
respectively. The corresponding EC20 values for reproduction calculated using nonlinear regression
analysis were 12.58, 19.89, and 6.06 ug/L total copper. The chronic toxicity of copper to D. magna was
somewhat ameliorated from an increase in water hardness from 50 to 100 mg/L as CaCO3, but slightly
increased from 100 to 200 mg/L as CaCO3.
Daphnia pulex. Winner (1985) evaluated the effects of water hardness and humic acid on the
chronic toxicity (42-day) of copper to D. pulex. Contrary to the expectation that sublethal endpoints are
more sensitive indicators of chronic toxicity, reproduction was not a sensitive indicator of copper stress
in this species. Water hardness also had little effect on the chronic toxicity of copper (similar to D.
magna trends), but humic acid significantly reduced chronic toxicity of copper when added to the varying
water types. The survival chronic values based on the NOAEC and LOAEC values for the three low to no
humic acid studies were 4.90, 7.07, and 12.25 ug/L total copper at hardnesses of 57.5, 115, and 230 (0.15
mg/L HA) ug/L as CaCO3, respectively. The EC20 values calculated for the low and high hardness
studies using nonlinear regression techniques were 2.83 and 9.16 ug/L at hardness values of 57.5 and 230
(0.15 mg/L HA) ug/L as CaCO3, respectively.
F-3
-------
CUstoronia magnified. The effects of copper on the lifecycle of the caddisfly, C. magnified, were
examined inNebeker et al. (1984b). The test included continuous exposure of first-generation aquatic
larvae and pupae through to a third generation of larvae. A significant reduction in adult emergence
occurred at 13.0 ug/L total copper from first-generation larvae. No observed adverse effect to adult
emergence occurred at 8.3 ug/L total copper. Percent larval survival was close to the control value of 80
percent. The chronic value based on hypothesis testing was 10.39 ug/L total copper. The corresponding
EC20 value for adult emergence was 7.67 ug/L total copper.
Oncorhynchus mykiss. The growth and survival of developing O. mykiss embryos continuously
and intermittently exposed to copper for up to 85 days post-fertilization was examined by Seim et al.
(1984). Results only from the continuous exposure study are considered here for deriving a chronic
value. A flow-through apparatus was used to deliver six concentrations and a control (untreated well
water; average of 3 ug/L copper) to a single incubation chamber. Continuous copper exposure of
steelhead embryos in the incubation chambers was begun 6 days post-fertilization. At 7 weeks post-
fertilization, when all control fish had hatched and reached swim-up stage, subsamples of approximately
100 alevins were transferred to aquaria and the same exposure pattern continued. Dissolved oxygen
remained near saturation throughout the study. Water hardness averaged 120 mg/L as CaCO3. Survival of
steelhead embryos and alevins exposed continuously to total copper concentrations in the range of 3
(controls) to 30 ug/L was greater than 90 percent or greater. Survival was reduced at 57 ug/L and
completely inhibited at 121 ug/L. A similar effect on survival was observed for embryos and alevins
exposed to a mean of 51 (peak 263) and 109 (peak 465) ug/L of copper in the intermittent exposure,
respectively. The adverse effect of continuous copper exposure on growth (measured on a dry weight
basis) was observed at concentrations as low as 30 ug/L. (There was a 30 percent reduction in growth
during the intermittent exposure at 16 ug/L.) The chronic limits for survival of embryos and alevin
steelhead trout exposed continuously to copper were 16 and 31 ug/L, respectively (geometric mean =
22.27 ug/L). The EC20 for biomass for the continuous exposure was 27.77 ug/L.
Besser et al. (2001) conducted an ELS toxicity test with copper and the rainbow trout, O. mykiss,
starting with eyed embryos and continuing for 30 days after the fish reached the swim-up stage. The total
test period was 58 days. The test was conducted in ASTM moderately hard reconstituted water with a
hardness of approximately 160 to 180 mg/L as CaCO3. Twenty-five eyed embryos were held in each of
four replicate egg cups at each concentration. Survival was monitored daily. At the end of the test,
surviving fish in each replicate chamber were weighed (dry weight). Dry weights were used to determine
growth and biomass of surviving fish. The no observed effect concentrations (NOECs) for survival and
biomass were both 12 ug/L and the lowest observed effect concentrations (LOECs) for survival and
biomass was also the same for both endpoints, 22 ug/L. The chronic values for biomass and survival
based on the geometric mean of the NOEC and LOEC were 16.25 ug/L. The corresponding EC20 for
biomass was 20.32 ug/L.
Oncorhynchus tshawytscha. The draft manuscript prepared by Chapman (1975/1982) provides
the results from a 4-month egg through fry partial chronic test conducted to determine the effects of
copper on survival and growth of 0. tshawytscha. Continuous exposure occurred from several hours
post-fertilization through hatch, swim-up, and feeding fry stages. The test was terminated after 14 weeks
post-hatch. The dilution water was WFTS well water. Because of the influence of the nearby Willamette
River on the hardness of this well water, reverse osmosis water was mixed periodically with ambient well
water to attain a consistent hardness. The typical hardness of this well water was approximately 23 mg/L
as CaCO3. Control survival exceeded 90 percent for the test. The measured total copper concentrations
during the test were 1.2 (control), 7.4, 9.4, 11.7, 15.5, and 20.2 ug/L, respectively. Copper adversely
affected survival at 11.7 ug/L copper and higher, and growth was reduced at all copper concentrations
tested compared with the growth of control fish. The chronic limits for copper in this study were
F-4
-------
estimated to be less than 7.4 ug/L. The EC20 value estimated for biomass is 5.92 ug/L total copper based
on a logistic nonlinear regression model.
Salmo trutta. McKim et al. (1978) examined the survival and growth (expressed as standing
crop) of embryo-larval and early juvenile brown trout to copper. The most sensitive exposure was with
embryos exposed for 72 days. The NOAEC and LOAEC, as obtained from the figure, were 20.8 and 43.8
ug/L total copper, respectively. Data were not available to calculate point estimates at the 20 percent
effect level using regression analysis. The chronic value selected for this species was 29.91 ug/L total
copper (geometric mean of 20.8 and 43.8 ug/L total copper).
Salvelinus fontinalis. Sauter et al. (1976) examined the effects of copper on selected freshwater
fish species at different hardness levels (softwater at 37.5 mg/L as CaCO3; hardwater at 187 mg/L as
CaCO3) during a series of partial life-cycle (PLC) tests. The species tested were brook trout (Salvelinus
fontinalis), channel catfish (Ictalurus punctatus), and walleye (Stizostedion vitreum). Because of the poor
embryo and larval survival of control animals (in all cases less than 70 percent), results from tests with
channel catfish and walleye were not included in Table 2a. One of the replicate control chambers from
the PLC tests conducted with brook trout in hard water also exhibited poor hatchability (48 percent) and
survival (58 percent) between 31 and 60 days of exposure. Therefore, the data for brook trout in hard
water were not included in the subsequent EC20 (regression) analysis either.
The softwater test with brook trout was conducted using untreated well water with an average
water hardness of 35 mg/L as CaCO3. This PLC exposure consisted of six copper concentrations and a
control. Hatchability was determined by examining randomly selected groups of 100 eggs from each
replicate exposure tank. Growth and survival of fry were determined by impartially reducing the total
sample size to 50 fry per tank and assessing their progress over 30 day intervals up to 60 days post-hatch.
The chronic limits based on the growth (wet weight and total length) of larval brook trout after 60 days of
exposure to copper in soft water were <5 and 5 ug/L. The resultant chronic value for soft water based on
hypothesis testing was <5 ug/L. The corresponding EC20 values based on total length, wet weight, and
biomass (the product of wet weight and survival) for brook trout in the soft-water exposures after 60 days
were not amenable to nonlinear regression analysis.
McKim et al. (1978) examined survival and growth (expressed as standing crop) of embryo-
larval and early juvenile brook trout exposed to copper. The embryo exposure was for 16 days, and the
larval-early-juveniles exposure lasted 60 days. The NOAEC and LOAEC were 22.3 and 43.5 ug/L total
copper, respectively. Data were not available to calculate point estimates at the 20 percent effect level
using regression analysis. The chronic value for this species was 31.15 ug/L total copper (geometric
mean of 22.3 and 43.5 ug/L total copper).
Salvelinus namaycush. McKim et al. (1978) examined the survival and growth (expressed as
standing crop) of embryo-larval and early juvenile lake trout exposed to copper. The embryo exposure
was for 27 days, and the larval-early-juveniles exposure lasted 66 days. The NOAEC and LOAEC were
22.0 and 43.5 ug/L total copper, respectively. Data were not available to calculate point estimates at the
20 percent effect level using regression analysis. The chronic value for this species was 30.94 ug/L total
copper (geometric mean of 22.0 and 43.5 ug/L total copper).
Esox lucius. McKim et al. (1978) examined the survival and growth (expressed as standing crop)
of embryo-larval and early juvenile northern pike exposed to copper. The embryo exposure was for 6
days, and the larval-early-juveniles exposure lasted 34 days. The NOAEC and LOAEC were 34.9 and
104.4 ug/L total copper, respectively. The authors attributed the higher tolerance of E. lucius to copper to
the very short embryonic exposure period compared with salmonids and white sucker, Catostomus
F-5
-------
commersoni. Data were not available to calculate point estimates at the 20 percent effect level using
regression analysis. The chronic value for this species was 60.36 ug/L total copper (geometric mean of
34.9 and 104.4 ug/L total copper).
Pimephales notatus. An experimental design similar to that described by Mount and Stephan
(1967) and Mount (1968) was used to examine the chronic effect of copper on the bluntnose minnow, P.
notatus (Horning andNeiheisel 1979). Measured total copper concentrations were 4.3 (control), 18.0,
29.9, 44.1, 71.8, and 119.4 ug/L, respectively. The experimental dilution water was amixture of spring
water and demineralized City of Cincinnati tap water. Dissolved oxygen was kept at 5.9 mg/L or greater
throughout the test. Total water hardness ranged from 172 to 230 mg/L as CaCO3. The test was initiated
with 22 6-week-old fry. The fish were later separated according to sex and thinned to a sex ratio of 5
males and 10 females per duplicated test chamber. Growth (total length) was significantly reduced in
parental and first (F^ generation P. notatus after 60 days of exposure to the highest concentration of
copper tested (119.4 ug/L). Survival of parental P. notatus exposed to this same high test concentration
was also lower (87 percent) at the end of the test compared with the other concentrations (range of 93 to
100 percent). Copper at concentrations of 18 ug/L and greater significantly reduced the number of eggs
produced per female. The number of females available to reproduce was generally the same up to about
29.9 ug/L of copper. The chronic limits were based on anNOAEC and LOAEC of <18 and 18 ug/L for
number of eggs produced per female. An EC20 was not estimated by nonlinear regression; nevertheless,
in this case an EC20 is likely to be substantially below 18 fig/L.
Pimephales promelas. The results from a 30-day ELS toxicity test to determine the chronic
toxicity of copper to P. promelas using dilution water from Lake Superior (hardness ranging from 40 to
50 mg/L as CaCO3) was included in Table 2a from a manuscript prepared by Lind et al. in 1978. In this
experiment, five test concentrations and a control were supplied by a continuous-flow diluter. The
exposure began with embryos 1 day post-fertilization. Pooled results from fish dosed in replicate
exposure chambers were given for mean percentage embryo survival to hatch, mean percentage fish
survival after hatch, and mean fish wet weight after 30 days. The percentage of embryo survival to hatch
was not affected by total copper concentrations as high as 52.1 ug/L total copper. Survival after hatch,
however, was compromised at 26.2 ug/L, and mean wet weight of juvenile fathead minnows was
significantly reduced at 13.1 ug/L of copper. The estimated EC20 value for biomass was 9.376 ug/L total
copper.
Catastomus commersoni. McKim et al. (1978) examined the survival and growth (expressed as
standing crop) of embryo-larval and early juvenile white sucker exposed to copper. The embryo exposure
was for 13 days, and the larval-early-juvenile exposure lasted 27 days. The NOAEC and LOAEC were
12.9 and 33.8 ug/L total copper, respectively. The resulting chronic value based on hypothesis testing for
this species was 20.88 ug/L total copper (geometric mean of 12.9 and 33.8 ug/L total copper).
Lepomis macrochirus. Results from a 22-month copper life-cycle toxicity test with bluegill (L.
macrochirus) were reported by Benoit (1975). The study included a 90-day embryo-larval survival and
growth component. The tests were conducted at the U.S. EPA National Water Quality Laboratory in
Duluth, Minnesota, using Lake Superior water as the dilution water (average water hardness = 45 mg/L
as CaCO3). The test was initiated in December 1969 with 2-year-old juvenile L. macrochirus. In May
1971, the fish were sexed and randomly reduced to three males and seven females per tank. Spawning
commenced on 10 June 1971. The 90-day embryo-larval exposure was initiated when 12 lots of 50 newly
hatched larvae from one of the two control groups were randomly selected and transferred to duplicate
grow-out chambers at 1 of 6 total copper concentrations: 3 (control), 12, 21, 40, 77, and 162 ug/L,
respectively. In the 22-month juvenile through adult exposure, survival, growth, and reproduction were
unaffected at 77 ug/L of copper and below. No spawning occurred at 162 ug/L. Embryo hatchability and
F-6
-------
survival of 4-day-old larvae at 77 (ig/L did not differ significantly from those of controls. However, after
90 days of exposure, survival of larval L. macrochirus at 40 and 77 (ig/L was significantly lower than for
controls, and no larvae survived at 162 (ig/L. Growth remained unaffected at 77 (ig/L. Based on the 90-
day survival of bluegill larvae, the chronic limits were estimated to be 21 and 40 (ig/L (geometric mean =
28.98 (ig/L). The corresponding EC20 for embryo-larval survival was 27.15 (ig/L.
F-7
-------
Campeloma decisum (Test 1), Life-cycle, Arthur and Leonard 1970
Log Cu i
Campeloma decisum (Test 2), Life-cycle, Arthur and Leonard 1970
* *
Log Cu i
Ceriodaphnia dubia (Clinch River), Life-cycle, Belanger et al. 1989
Log Cu
F-8
-------
Lepomis macrochims, Early Life-stage, Benoit 1975
Log Cu ijig,l.;i
Oncorhynchus mykiss, Early Life-Stage, Besser et al. 2001
EC20 = 20.32
Log Cu i
Ceriodaphnia dubia, Life-cycle, Carlson et al. 1986
Log Cu i
F-9
-------
Daphnia magna (Hardness 104), Life-cycle, Chapman et al. Manuscript
5
f
EC20 = 19.89 |ig/L
Log Cu i
Daphnia magna (Hardness 211), Life-cycle, Chapman et al. Manuscript
EC20 = 6.06
Lug Cu i)jgil.i
Daphnia magna (Hardness 51), Life-cycle, Chapman et al. Manuscript
Q I f- 0 2 Z «*- ill
F-10
-------
Oncorhynchus tshawytscha, Early Life-Stage, Chapman 1975 & 1982
U| Cu (
Pimephales promelas, Early Life-stage, Lind et al. 1978
- EC20 = 9.38
Log Cu (pp.)
Clistoronia magnified, Life-cycle, Nebeker et al. 1984a
Log Cu i
F-11
-------
Oncorhynchus mykiss, Early Life-stage, Seim et al. 1984
EC20 = 27.77 |ig/L
l£ 12 '*
Log Cu ijjg,l_)
Daphniapulex (Hardness 230 HA 0.15), Life-cycle, Winner 1985
= 9.16|ig/L
LOj CU (
Daphniapulex (Hardness 57), Life-cycle, Winner 1985
EC20 = 2.83 |ig/L
F-12
-------
Appendix G. Example Water Quality Criteria Values Using the BLM and the
Hardness Equation
-------
Appendix G: Representative water quality criteria values using the BLM and the
Hardness equation approaches for waters with a range in pH, Hardness, and DOC
concentrations. The BLM calculation assumed that alkalinity was correlated with pH, and
that other major ions were correlated with hardness based on observed correlations in
EPA synthetic water recipes.
PH
6.5
7.0
Hardness
mg/L CaCO3
40
80
159
317
40
80
159
317
DOC
mg/L
2
4
8
16
2
4
8
16
2
4
8
16
2
4
8
16
2
4
8
16
2
4
8
16
2
4
8
16
2
4
8
16
Hardness
Equation Based
Water Quality
Criterion for
Cu[1]
ng/L
5.9
5.9
5.9
5.9
11.3
11.3
11.3
11.3
21.7
21.7
21.7
21.7
41.5
41.5
41.5
41.5
5.9
5.9
5.9
5.9
11.3
11.3
11.3
11.3
21.7
21.7
21.7
21.7
41.5
41.5
41.5
41.5
BLM Based
Instantaneous
Water Quality
Criterion for Cu
^g/L
1.6
3.3
6.8
14.3
1.9
3.8
7.7
16.0
2.3
4.5
9.2
18.9
2.8
5.6
11.4
23.1
3.9
8.0
16.4
34.3
4.4
8.8
18.0
37.0
5.1
10.3
20.7
42.4
6.2
12.4
24.9
50.6
G-1
-------
PH
7.5
8.0
Hardness
mg/L CaCO3
40
80
159
317
40
80
159
317
DOC
mg/L
2
4
8
16
2
4
8
16
2
4
8
16
2
4
8
16
2
4
8
16
2
4
8
16
2
4
8
16
2
4
8
16
Hardness
Equation Based
Water Quality
Criterion for
Cu[1]
ng/L
5.9
5.9
5.9
5.9
11.3
11.3
11.3
11.3
21.7
21.7
21.7
21.7
41.5
41.5
41.5
41.5
5.9
5.9
5.9
5.9
11.3
11.3
11.3
11.3
21.7
21.7
21.7
21.7
41.5
41.5
41.5
41.5
BLM Based
Instantaneous
Water Quality
Criterion for Cu
^g/L
7.9
15.8
32.4
67.3
8.7
17.4
35.3
72.5
10.1
20.1
40.5
82.4
12.0
23.9
47.8
96.8
13.8
27.6
55.8
115.0
15.5
30.6
61.4
125.1
18.0
35.3
70.3
142.0
21.5
41.6
82.3
165.1
G-2
-------
PH
8.5
Hardness
mg/L CaCO3
40
80
159
317
DOC
mg/L
2
4
8
16
2
4
8
16
2
4
8
16
2
4
8
16
Hardness
Equation Based
Water Quality
Criterion for
Cu[1]
ng/L
5.9
5.9
5.9
5.9
11.3
11.3
11.3
11.3
21.7
21.7
21.7
21.7
41.5
41.5
41.5
41.5
BLM Based
Instantaneous
Water Quality
Criterion for Cu
ug/L
22.5
43.3
85.6
172.9
26.0
49.1
96.0
191.6
31.4
58.0
111.7
220.6
39.1
70.3
132.8
259.6
Notes:
[1] : Hardness Equation: CMC = e(0-9422 [ln(H)l'17)
where:
H = water hardness (mg/L CaCO3)
' Appendix updated as of March 2, 2007
G-3
-------
Appendix H. Unused Data
-------
APPENDIX H. UNUSED DATA
Based on the requirements set forth in the guidelines (Stephan et al. 1985), the following studies
are not acceptable for the following reasons and are classified as unused data.
Studies Were Conducted with Species That Are Not Resident in North America
Abaldeetal. (1995)
Abel (1980)
Ahsanullah and Ying (1995)
Ahsanullah et al. (1981)
Aoyama and Okamura (1984)
Austen and McEvoy (1997)
Bougis(1965)
Cidetal. (1995, 1996a,b)
Collvin(1984)
Cosson and Martin (1981)
Dalyetal. (1990a,b, 1992)
Denton and Burden-Jones (1986)
Drbaletal. (1985)
Giudici and Migliore (1988)
Giudicietal. (1987, 1988)
Gopal and Devi (1991)
Gustavson and Wangberg (1995)
Hameed and Raj (1989)
Heslinga(1976)
Horietal. (1996)
Huebner and Pynnonen (1992)
Ismail etal. (1990)
Jana and Bandyopadhyaya (1987)
Jindal and Verma (1989)
Jones (1997)
Kadioglu and Ozbay (1995)
Karbe(1972)
Knaueretal. (1997)
Kulkarni(1983)
Kumar etal. (1985)
Lan and Chen (1991)
Lee and Xu (1984)
Luderitz and Nicklisch (1989)
Majori and Petronio (1973)
Masuda and Boyd (1993)
Mathew and Fernandez (1992)
Maund etal. (1992)
Migliore and Giudici (1988)
Mishra and Srivastava (1980)
Negilski etal. (1981)
Nell and Chvojka (1992)
Neuhoff(1983)
Nias etal. (1993)
Nonnotte et al. (1993)
Pant etal. (1980)
Paulij etal. (1990)
Peterson et al. (1996)
Pistocchi et al. (1997)
Pynnonen (1995)
Raj and Hameed (1991)
Rajkumar and Das (1991)
Reeve etal. (1977)
Ruiz etal. (1994, 1996)
Sawardetal. (1975)
Schaferetal. (1993)
Smith etal. (1993)
Solbe and Cooper (1976)
Steeman-Nielsen and Bruun-Laursen
(1976)
Stephenson(1983)
Takamura etal. (1989)
Taylor etal. (1991, 1994)
Timmermans (1992)
Timmermans et al. (1992)
Vardiaetal. (1988)
Verriopoulos and Moraitou-
Apostolopoulou (1982)
Visviki and Rachlin (1991)
Weeks and Rainbow (1991)
White and Rainbow (1982)
Wong and Chang (1991)
Wong etal. (1993)
Copper Was a Component of a Drilling Mud, Effluent, Mixture, Sediment, or Sludge
Buckler etal. (1987)
Buckley (1994)
Clements etal. (1988)
de March (1988)
Hollis etal. (1996)
Home and Dunson (1995)
Hutchinson and Sprague (1987)
Kraak et al. (1993 and 1994a,b)
Lowe (1988)
McNaught(1989)
Munkittrick and Dixon (1987)
Pellegrini et al. (1993)
Roch and McCarter (1984a,b)
Roch etal. (1986)
Sayeretal. (1991b)
Weis and Weis (1993)
Widdows and Johnson (1988)
Wong etal. (1982)
H-1
-------
These Reviews Only Contain Data That Have Been Published Elsewhere
Ankley et al. (1993) Felts and Heath (1984) Peterson et al. (1996)
Borgmann and Ralph (1984) Gledhill et al. (1997) Phillips and Russo (1978)
Chapman et al. (1968) Handy (1996) Phipps et al. (1995)
Chen et al. (1997) Hickey et al. (1991) Spear and Pierce (1979b)
Christensen et al. (1983) Janssen et al. (1994) Starodub et al. (1987b)
Dierickx and Brendael-Rozen (1996) LeBlanc (1984) Taylor et al. (1996)
DiToro et al. (1991) Lilius et al. (1994) Thompson et al. (1972)
Eisler (1981) Meyeret al. (1987) Toussaintet al. (1995)
Eisler et al. (1979) Ozoh (1992c)
Enserink et al. (1991)
No Interpretable Concentration, Time, Response Data, or Examined Only a Single Concentration
Asztalos et al. (1990) Koltes (1985) Sayer(1991)
Beaumont et al. (1995a,b) Kosalwat and Knight (1987) Sayer et al. (1991a,b)
Beckman and Zaugg (1988) Kuwabara (1986) Schleuter et al. (1995, 1997)
Bjerselius et al. (1993) Lauren and McDonald (1985) Starcevic and Zielinski (1997)
Carballo et al. (1995) Leland (1983) Steele (1989)
Daoust et al. (1984) Lett et al. (1976) Taylor and Wilson (1994)
De Boeck et al. (1995b, 1997) Miller and McKay (1982) Viale and Calamari (1984)
Dick and Dixon (1985) Mis and Bigaj (1997) Visviki and Rachlin (1994b)
Felts and Heath (1984) Nalewajko et al. (1997) Waiwood (1980)
Ferreira(1978) Nemcsok et al. (1991) Webster and Gadd (1996)
Ferreiraetal. (1979) Ozoh (1990) Wilson and Taylor (1993a,b)
Hansen et al. (1993, 1996) Ozoh and Jacobson (1979) Winberg et al. (1992)
Heath (1987, 1991) Parrott and Sprague (1993) Wundramet al. (1996)
Hughes and Nemcsok (1988) Pyatt and Dodd (1986) Wurts and Perschbacher (1994)
Julliard et al. (1996) Riches et al. (1996)
No Useable Data on Copper Toxicity or Bioconcentration
Cowgill et al. (1986) Lustigman et al. (1985) Wong et al. (1977)
de March (1979) MacFarlane et al. (1986) Wren and McCarroll (1990)
Lehman and Mills (1994) van Hoof et al. (1994) Zamuda et al. (1985)
Lustigman (1986) Weeks and Rainbow (1992)
Results Not Interpretable as Total or Dissolved Copper
Brand et al. (1986) Sanders and Martin (1994) Sunda et al. (1987)
MacFie et al. (1994) Sanders et al. (1995) Winberg et al. (1992)
Riedel (1983) Stearns and Sharp (1994)
Sanders and Jenkins (1984) Stoecker et al. (1986)
Some of these studies would be valuable if copper criteria were developed on the basis of cupric
ion activity.
H-2
-------
Organisms Were Selected, Adapted or Acclimated for Increased Resistance to Copper
Fisher (1981)
Fisher and Fabris (1982)
Hall (1980)
Hall etal. (1989)
Harrison and Lam (1983)
Harrison et al. (1983)
Lumoaetal. (1983)
Lumsden and Florence (1983)
Munkittrick and Dixon (1989)
Myint and Tyler (1982)
Neuhoff(1983)
Parker (1984)
Phelps etal. (1983)
Ray etal. (1981)
Sander (1982)
Scarfeetal. (1982)
Schmidt (1978a,b)
Sheffrin etal. (1984)
Steele(1983b)
Takamura etal. (1989)
Viarengo etal. (1981a,b)
Wood (1983)
Either the Materials, Methods, Measurements or Results Were Insufficiently Described
Abbe (1982)
Alam and Maughan (1995)
Balasubrahmanyam et al. (1987)
Baudouin and Scoppa (1974)
Belanager etal. (1991)
Benedeczky et al. (1991)
Benedetti et al. (1989)
Benhraetal. (1997)
Bouquegneau and Martoja (1982)
Burton and Stemmer (1990)
Burton etal. (1992)
Cabejszek and Stasiak (1960)
Cain and Luoma (1990)
Chapman (1975, 1982)
Cochrane et al. (1991)
Devi etal. (1991)
Dirilgen and Inel (1994)
Dodge and Theis (1979)
Doucet and Maly (1990)
Dunbaretal. (1993)
Durkina and Evtushenko (1991)
Enescoetal. (1989)
Erickson et al. (1997)
Evans (1980)
Ferrando and Andreu (1993)
Finlayson and Ashuckian (1979)
Furmanska(1979)
Gibbs etal. (1981)
Gordon etal. (1980)
Gould etal. (1986)
Govindarajan et al. (1993)
Hayes etal. (1996)
Howard and Brown (1983)
Janssenetal. (1993)
Janssen and Persoone (1993)
Keanetal. (1985)
Kentouri et al. (1993)
Kessler(1986)
Khangarot et al. (1987)
Kobayashi(1996)
Kulkarni(1983)
Labatetal. (1977)
Lakatosetal. (1993)
LeBlanc(1985)
Lelandetal. (1988)
Mackey(1983)
Magni(1994)
Martin et al. (1984)
Martincic et al. (1984)
Mclntosh and Kevern (1974)
McKnight(1980)
Moore and Winner (1989)
Muramoto(1980, 1982)
Nyholm and Damgaard (1990)
Peterson et al. (1996)
Pophan and D'Auria (1981)
Reed-Judkins et al. (1997)
Rehwoldt etal. (1973)
Riches etal. (1996)
Sakaguchi et al. (1977)
Sanders etal. (1995)
Sayer(1991)
Schultheis et al. (1997)
See etal. (1974)
Shcherban(1977)
Smith etal. (1981)
Sorvari and Sillanpaa (1996)
Stearns and Sharp (1994)
Strong and Luoma (1981)
Sullivan andRitacco (1988)
Taylor (1978)
Taylor etal. (1994)
Thompson (1997)
Truccoetal. (1991)
Verma etal. (1980)
Visviki and Rachlin (1994a)
Watling(1983)
Winner etal. (1990)
Young and Harvey (1988, 1989)
Zhokhov(1986)
H-3
-------
Questionable Effect Levels Due to Graphical Presentation of Results
Alliot and Frenet-Piron (1990) Gupta et al. (1985) Pekkala and Koopman (1987)
Andrew (1976) Hansen et al. (1996) Peterson et al. (1984)
Arsenault et al. (1993) Hoare and Davenport (1994) Romanenko and Yevtushenko (1985)
Balasubrahmanyam et al. (1987) Lauren and McDonald (1985) Sanders et al. (1994)
Bjerselius et al. (1993) Llanten and Greppin (1993) Smith and Heath (1979)
Bodar et al. (1989) Metaxas and Lewis (1991) Stokes and Hutchinson (1976)
Chen (1994) Michnowicz and Weeks (1984) Winner and Gauss (1986)
CowgillandMilazzo(1991b) Miersch et al. (1997) Wong (1989)
Cvetkovic et al. (1991) Nasu et al. (1988) Young and Lisk (1972)
Dodoo et al. (1992) Pearlmutter and Lembi (1986)
Francisco et al. (1996)
Studies of Copper Complexation With No Useable Toxicology Data for Surface Waters
Borgmann (1981) Jennett et al. (1982) Swallow et al. (1978)
Filbin and Hough (1979) Maloney and Palmer (1956) van den Berg et al. (1979)
Frey et al. (1978) Nakajima et al. (1979) Wagemann and Barica (1979)
Gillespie and Vaccaro (1978) Stauber and Florence (1987)
Guy and Kean (1980) Sunda and Lewis (1978)
Questionable Treatment of Test Organisms or Inappropriate Test Conditions or Methodology
Arambasic et al. (1995) Hockett and Mount (1996) Ozoh and Jones (1990b)
Benhra et al. (1997) Huebert et al. (1993) Reed and Moffat (1983)
Billard and Roubaud (1985) Huilsom (1983) Rueter et al. (1981)
Bitton et al. (1995) Jezierska and Slominska (1997) Sayer et al. (1989)
Brand et al. (1986) Kapu and Schaeffer (1991) Schenck (1984)
Bringmann and Kuhn (1982) Kessler (1986) Shaner and Knight (1985)
Brkovic-Popovic and Popovic Khangarot and Ray (1987a) Sullivan et al. (1983)
(1977a,b) Khangarot et al. (1987) Tomasik et al. (1995)
Dirilgenand Inel (1994) Lee andXu (1984) Watling (1981, 1982, 1983)
Folsom et al. (1986) Marek et al. (1991) Wikfors and Ukeles (1982)
Foster et al. (1994) McLeese (1974) Wilson (1972)
Gavisetal. (1981) Mis et al. (1995) Wong and Chang (1991)
Guanzon et al. (1994) Moore and Winner (1989) Wong (1992)
Hawkins and Griffith (1982) Nasu et al. (1988)
HoandZubkoff(1982)
High control mortalities occurred in all except one test reported by Sauter et al. (1976). Control
mortality exceeded 10% in one test by Mount and Norberg (1984). Pilgaard et al. (1994) studied
interactions of copper andhypoxia, but failed to run a hypoxic control. Beaumont et al. (1995a,b) studied
interactions of temperature, acid pH and copper, but never separated pH and copper effects. The 96-hour
values reported by Buikema et al. (1974a,b) were subject to error because of possible reproductive
interactions (Buikema et al. 1977).
H-4
-------
Bioconcentration Studies Not Conducted Long Enough, Not Steady-State,
Not Flow-through, or Water Concentrations Not Adequately Characterized or Measured
Anderson and Spear (1980a) Martincic et al. (1992) Xiaorong et al. (1997)
Felton et al. (1994) McConnell and Harrel (1995) Yan et al. (1989)
Griffin et al. (1997) Miller et al. (1992) Young and Harvey (1988, 1989)
Harrison et al. (1988) Ozoh (1994) Zia and Alikhan (1989)
Krantzberg (1989) Wright and Zamuda (1987)
Anderson (1994), Anderson et al. (1994), Viarengo et al. (1993), and Zaroogian et al. (1992)
reported on in vitro exposure effects. Benedeczky et al. (1991) studied only effects of injected copper.
Ferrando et al. (1993b) studied population effects of copper and cladoceran predator on the rotifer prey,
but the data are difficult to interpret. A similar problem complicated use of the cladoceran competition
study of LeBlanc (1985).
H-5
------- |