EPA-822-R-03-032
Technical Summary of
Information Available on the
Bioaccumulation of Arsenic in Aquatic
Organisms
December 2003
Office of Science and Technology
Office of Water
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, DC 20460
-------
NOTICE
This document has been reviewed by the Health and Ecological Criteria Division, Office
of Science and Technology, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and is approved for
publication.
Mention of trade names or commercial products does not constitute endorsement or
recommendation for use.
This document is available on EPA's web site: http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/humanhealth/.
-------
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Tyler K. Linton
Great Lakes Environmental Center
Columbus, OH
William H. Clement
Great Lakes Environmental Center
Columbus, OH
Dennis Mclntyre
Great Lakes Environmental Center
Columbus, OH
Document Coordinator
Tala R. Henry
U.S. EPA
Health and Ecological Criteria Division
Office of Water
Washington, DC
in
-------
CONTENTS
Section
Notice ii
Acknowledgments ni
Contents iv
Glossary of Arsenic Abbreviations vii
1.0 INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 Important Bioaccumulation Concepts 2
1.2 Bioaccumulation of Arsenic 2
1.3 Overview of Document 3_
2.0 LITERATURE SEARCH AND CALCULATION METHODS 5
2.1 Literature Search 5_
2.2 Methods for Estimating Bioaccumulation Factors 6
3.0 BAFs FOR ARSENIC IN FRESHWATER AND SALTWATER ECOSYSTEMS 8
3.1 Estimation of BAFs Using Laboratory-measured BCFs £
3.2 Estimation of BAFs Using Field Data - Freshwater Lentic Ecosystems K)
3.2.1 BAFs for Trophic Level 2 Organisms K)
3.2.2 BAFs for Trophic Level 3 Organisms 13.
3.2.3 BAFs for Trophic Level 4 Organisms j/7
3.3 Estimation of BAFs Using Field Data - Freshwater Lotic Ecosystems j/7
3.3.1 BAFs for Trophic Level 2 Organisms j/7
3.3.2 BAFs for Trophic Level 3 Organisms \9_
3.3.3 BAFs for Trophic Level 4 Organisms 20
3.4 Estimation of BAFs for Arsenic Using Field Data - Saltwater Ecosystems . ... 21
3.4.1 BAFs for Trophic Level 2 Organisms 2J_
3.5 Summary of BAFs for Arsenic in Freshwater and Saltwater Ecosystems 23_
4.0 CHEMICAL TRANSLATOR FOR ARSENIC IN SURFACE WATERS 25
4.1 Introduction to Chemical Translators 25
4.2 Objective 25
4.3 Results and Discussion 26
4.4 Application of the Chemical Translator for BAF Calculations
27
5.0 ARSENIC SPECIATION IN TISSUES OF AQUATIC ORGANISMS 28
5.1 Freshwater Aquatic Organisms 2J5
5.1.1 Trophic Level 2 28
iv
-------
5.1.2 Trophic Levels 3 and 4 30
5.2 S altwater Aquati c Organ! sm s
32
6.0 SUMMARY OF ARSENIC BAFs AND SUPPORTING INFORMATION 34
6.1 Freshwater and Saltwater Arsenic BAFs 34
6.2 BAFs Based on Total Arsenic versus Other Forms of Arsenic 34
6.3 Arsenic in Tissues of Freshwater and Saltwater Aquatic Organisms 3j5
7.0 CONCLUSIONS 37
8.0 REFERENCES 38
-------
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A: BAF LITERATURE SEARCH STRATEGY
APPENDIX B: SUMMARY OF ARSENIC BIO ACCUMULATION STUDIES REVIEWED
APPENDIX C: BCF STUDIES: RAW DATA AND CALCUATIONS
APPENDIX D: BAF STUDIES: RAW DATA AND CALCULATIONS
APPENDIX E: ARSENIC TOTAL: DISSOLVED CHEMICAL TRANSLATOR
APPENDIX F: TISSUE ARSENIC SPECIATION DATA
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE 3-1: BAFs for Arsenic in Aquatic Organisms Predicted from Laboratory-measured
BCFs 9
TABLE 3-2: BAFs for Arsenic in Trophic Level 2 Aquatic Organisms from Lentic Ecosystems
11
TABLE 3-3: BAFs for Arsenic in Trophic Level 3 Aquatic Organisms from Lentic Ecosystems
H
TABLE 3-4: BAFs for Arsenic in Trophic Level 4 Fish from Lentic Ecosystems j/7
TABLE 3-5: BAFs for Arsenic in Trophic Level 2 Aquatic Organisms from Lotic Ecosystems
18
TABLE 3-6: BAFs for Arsenic in Trophic Level 3 Aquatic Organisms from Lotic Ecosystems
19
TABLE 3-7: BAFs for Arsenic in Trophic Level 4 Fish from Lotic Ecosystems 2J_
TABLE 3-8: BAFs for Arsenic in Trophic Level 2 Aquatic Organisms from Saltwater
Ecosystems 23_
TABLE 3-9: Summary of BAFs for Arsenic by Trophic Level for Freshwater and Saltwater
Ecosystems 24
TABLE 4-1: Dissolved Arsenic as a Fraction of Total Arsenic in Surface Waters 27
TABLE 5-1: Arsenic Speciation in Freshwater Trophic Level 2 Aquatic Organisms 29
TABLE 5-2: Arsenic Speciation in Freshwater Trophic Levels 3 and 4 Aquatic Organisms . 3J_
VI
-------
Glossary of Arsenic Abbreviations
As= Arsenic
As(III)= Arsenite
As(V)= Arsenate
AsB= Arsenobetaine
AsC= Arsenocholine
TMA= Trimethylarsine
DMA= Dimethylarsenic acid
MMA= Monomethylarsonic acid
TMAO= Trimethylarsine oxide
vn
-------
1.0 INTRODUCTION
In 2000, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published the Methodology
for Deriving Ambient Water Quality Criteria for the Protection of Human Health (USEPA,
2000). That document (hereafter referred to as the 2000 Human Health Methodology) presents
technical guidance and the procedure that EPA will follow when deriving new and revised
national recommended ambient water quality criteria (AWQC) for the protection of human
health under Section 304(a) of the Clean Water Act.
The 2000 Human Health Methodology incorporates a number of scientific advancements
made over the past two decades. One of these advancements is in the assessment of chemical
exposure to humans through the aquatic food web pathway. For certain chemicals, exposure via
the aquatic food web is more important than exposure from ingestion of water. One method for
incorporating chemical exposure to humans through the aquatic food web involves estimating
the amount of a chemical expected to bioaccumulate in fish and shellfish that are commonly
consumed by populations in the United States.
Previously, EPA primarily used bioconcentration factors (BCF) to estimate accumulation
of waterborne chemicals by aquatic organisms. The BCF reflects contaminant accumulation by
fish and shellfish only through the water column. Over the past two decades, however, science
has shown that all the routes (e.g., food, sediment, and water) by which fish and shellfish are
exposed to highly bioaccumulative chemicals may be important in determining the chemical
accumulation in the organism's body, and that these chemicals can be transferred to humans
when they consume contaminated fish and shellfish. The EPA's approach to estimating uptake
into fish and shellfish now emphasizes the use of bioaccumulation factors (BAFs), which
account for chemical accumulation from all potential exposure routes (USEPA 2000). The
trophic level offish and shellfish consumed by humans can be important in predicting human
exposure through the consumption of contaminated fish and shellfish. Therefore, in EPA's 2000
Human Health Methodology national BAFs are estimated for trophic levels 2, 3, and 4 (BAF2,
BAF3, and BAF4, respectively), and are calculated as the geometric mean BAF of all species-
specific BAFs calculated for a given trophic level (USEPA 2000).
This document contains a summary of information currently available on the
bioaccumulation potential of arsenic in aquatic organisms. This information was gathered as a
first step in assessing the quantity and quality of data available to derive national BAFs for
updating the existing 304(a) human health ambient water quality criteria for arsenic. The Office
of Science and Technology (OST) is performing this data review for arsenic because new
scientific information has been developed regarding its bioaccumulation since the 304(a) criteria
for arsenic was published in 1985 (USEPA 1985).
Information available that may be useful for determining bioaccumulation factors for
arsenic is compiled in this document. National trophic-level specific BAFs are not included in
this document because OST is in the process of determining if the data identified is sufficient to
derive national BAFs. In the interim, we are making the results of the literature search available
to States and authorized Tribes so that they have access to a current compilation and review of
available data as they develop State and Tribal Water Quality Standards.
-------
1.1 Important Bioaccumulation Concepts
Aquatic organisms accumulate and retain certain chemicals when exposed to these
chemicals through water, their diet and other sources. The magnitude of accumulation can vary
widely depending on the chemical and its properties. For chemicals that are persistent and
hydrophobic, chemical concentrations in contaminated fish and shellfish may be several orders
of magnitude higher than their concentrations in water. These chemicals may also biomagnify in
aquatic food webs, a process whereby chemical concentrations increase in aquatic organisms of
each successive trophic level due to increasing dietary exposures (e.g., increasing concentrations
from algae, to zooplankton, to forage fish, to predator fish). For chemicals that biomagnify,
consumption of contaminated fish and shellfish may pose unacceptable human health risks even
when concentrations in water do not pose unacceptable health risks from consumption of water
alone.
The term "bioaccumulation" refers to the net accumulation of a chemical by an aquatic
organism as a result of uptake from all environmental sources (e.g., water, food, sediment).
Bioaccumulation can be viewed as the result of competing rates of chemical uptake and
elimination (chemical loss) by aquatic organisms. When the rates of chemical uptake and
elimination achieve balance, the distribution of the chemical between the organism and its
source(s) is said to be at steady-state. Under steady-state conditions, a BAF is the ratio (in L/kg)
of the concentration of a chemical in the tissue of an aquatic organism to its concentration in
water, in situations where both the organism and its food are exposed. (USEPA 2000). The
BAF is calculated as:
Ct
BAF = — (Equation 1)
where:
Ct = concentration of the chemical in wet tissue (either whole organism or specified tissue)
CL = concentration of chemical in water
-'w
1.2 Bioaccumulation of Arsenic
Arsenic, and/or its metabolites, is a chemical that bioaccumulates in tissues of aquatic
organisms but does not biomagnify in the aquatic food chain (Chen and Folt 2000, Maeda et al.
1990, Mason et al. 2000, Spehar et al. 1980, Wagemann et al. 1978, Woolson 1975). Arsenic
BAFs for upper trophic level freshwater and estuarine fish and shellfish typically consumed by
humans generally range between 5 L/kg and 5,000 L/kg (Baker and King 1994, Cooper and
Gillespie 2001, Chen et al. 2000, Chen and Folt 2000, Giusti and Zhang 2002, Langston 1984,
Mason et al. 2000). Despite the recent attention focused on arsenic uptake and accumulation in
aquatic biota, much uncertainty in the mechanisms and bioaccumulation potential of the various
forms of arsenic in the environment still exists. The consensus in the literature is that upwards of
85% to >90% of arsenic found in edible portions of marine fish and shellfish is organic arsenic
[arsenobetaine (AsB), arsenocholine (AsC), dimethylarsinic acid (DMA)] and that
approximately 10% is inorganic arsenic (De Gieter et al. 2002, Goessler et al. 1997, Johnson and
Roose 2002, Ochsenkuhn-Petropulu et al. 1997). Less is known about the forms of arsenic in
-------
freshwater fish, but there is evidence that organic arsenic may be as prevalent (Kaise et al. 1987;
field-based study) or considerably less (Maeda et al. 1990, 1992, 1993; Suhendrayatna et al.
2001, 2002a,b; laboratory-based studies).
Knowledge about the uptake and methylation of arsenic by aquatic biota is important for
estimating human health risk because it is becoming increasingly evident that methylation of
arsenic is critical in controlling its biological fate and effects (Thomas et al. 2001). Inorganic
arsenic was previously implicated as the primary toxic form to both aquatic life and humans
(Spehar et al. 1980, USEPA 1985). More recent research indicates that when compared to
arsenite, trivalent methylated arsenic metabolites1 exert a number of unique biological effects,
are more cytotoxic and genotoxic, and are more potent inhibitors of the activities of some
enzymes (Kitchin and Ahmad 2003; Thomas et al. 2001). Because each arsenic species (e.g.,
As(III), As(V), AsB, MMAV, MMAm) exhibits different toxicities, it may be important to take
into account the fraction of total arsenic present in the inorganic and organic forms when
estimating the potential risk posed to human health through the consumption of arsenic-
contaminated fish and shellfish. Ideally, the most appropriate BAFs for the protection of human
health would incorporate the most bioavailable and toxic form(s). Although this may not be
possible at this time, recent advances in analytical methodologies should eventually permit such
assessment. Although very little organic arsenic is present in surface waters, and most arsenic
found in groundwater and surface waters is inorganic in nature, the need still exists for
information on as many relevant species of arsenic as possible. Specifically, for the derivation
of AWQC, more data is needed on the chemical form and relative amounts of the various forms
of arsenic in the tissues of aquatic organisms and in surface waters.
1.3 Overview of Document
This document is organized into three primary sections. Section 2.0 presents an
overview of the literature search strategy, a discussion of data sources, the data quality
parameters used to determine if data identified were appropriate for deriving BAFs, and the
methods used to calculate BAFs from data found in the literature. The procedures for calculating
the BAFs are those described in detail in the 2000 Human Health Methodology (USEPA 2000)
and the Technical Support Document Volume 3: Development of National Bioaccumulation
Factors (referred to hereafter as the Bioaccumulation TSD; USEPA, 2003). Section 3.0 contains
summaries of experiments identified as having data acceptable and appropriate for deriving
BAFs. Section 4.0 presents the data used to calculate an arsenic total/dissolved chemical
translator. The chemical translator is used to convert arsenic BAFs from water concentration
data reported as total arsenic. The translators are also necessary in the implementation of
dissolved water quality standards where monitoring data are reported as total arsenic. Section
5.0 contains information regarding the relative fractions of inorganic and organic arsenic (e.g.,
As(III), As(V), AsB, AsC, DMA) in freshwater and estuarine/marine fishes and shellfish. A
basic understanding of the relative fractions of the various arsenic forms in freshwater and
saltwater organisms is useful for considering the representativeness and application of arsenic
BAFs based on total arsenic. Finally, Section 6.0 contains a summary of BAFs for arsenic and
the supporting chemical translator and tissue speciation data. All pertinent references are
'Primarily in the form of (mono)methylarsonous acid (MMA111) and dimethylarsinous acid (DMA111).
-------
provided in Section 7.0. Appendix A contains the literature search strategy and data
requirements. Appendix B contains an abbreviated summary of all the studies reviewed.
Appendices C and D contain tables with the raw data calculations for each acceptable BCF
(Appendix C) and BAF (Appendix D) study determined to be acceptable using the criteria
outlined in Appendix A. Appendix E and F contain tables with the chemical translator and
arsenic tissue speciation data, respectively, provided by ecosystem type and trophic level.
Footnotes are provided in the tables where appropriate for clarification of data quality and data
use in the BAF calculations.
-------
2.0 LITERATURE SEARCH AND CALCULATION METHODS
2.1 Literature Search
A literature search strategy was designed to identify, to the extent possible, all data
meeting the criteria for calculating BAFs using field or laboratory measurements. Preference
was given to data published in the peer-reviewed literature. Data from publically available
reports (e.g., State, Federal, or trade/industry group reports; dissertations; proceedings from
professional meetings) were included if appropriate analytical techniques and quality
assurance/quality control measures were provided. Studies identified in the literature search
were reviewed within the context of deriving a national B AF and therefore the general data
quality considerations described in EPA 2003 were used to judge the suitability of the data.
Criteria used to determine the acceptability of field-measured BAFs and laboratory-measured
BCFs are discussed in Section 5 of the 2000 Human Health Methodology (USEPA, 2000) and in
Section 5 of the Bioaccumulation TSD (USEPA, 2003). The literature search strategy and data
acceptability criteria are presented in Appendix A.
Every attempt was made to facilitate comparisons between studies. For example,
arithmetic and geometric means were estimated, even if the original authors did not do so.
Trophic levels for fishes were determined using EPA Guidance (USEPA 1995) and the
information provided in the specific papers. When more than one BAF was estimated for a
given species, a species-mean BAF (SBAF; calculated as the geometric mean) was calculated.
There were, however, some exceptions to this general calculation procedure. In some cases
where zooplankton data were available, each individual BAF was used to calculate the overall
SBAF. This was done because a zooplankton sample consists of multiple species, with the
composition varying from waterbody to waterbody. Also, in cases where species-mean BAFs
were reported relative to fish age or size, each species mean age or size-specific BAF (e.g.,
caddis fly larva versus caddis fly pupa) is reported separately. In these instances, the age and
size of the fish or shellfish species were taken into account for each trophic level designation.
Log normal distributions were assumed in this evaluation, partly for convenience, but
primarily because the underlying process and factors that contribute to variability are likely to be
multiplicative rather than additive. All species-mean BAFs reported in the summary tables have
been rounded to two significant digits. For comparison purposes, BAFs reported in text
discussions may be reported as calculated in the appendices. Because this compilation of data
includes studies that used a variety of methods for measuring arsenic, statistical comparisons
were not performed.
-------
2.2 Methods for Estimating Bioaccumulation Factors
In the 2000 Human Health Methodology, EPA presents a framework for deriving BAFs
for various types of chemicals (USEPA, 2000). For inorganics and organometallics, the national
BAF methodology relies on field-measured BAFs and lab-measured BCFs without adjustments
for site-specific factors that affect bioaccumulation (i.e., conversion to baseline BAF using lipid
content of aquatic organisms and organic carbon concentrations in water is not necessary). The
data provided in this report are provided on an individual study and species-mean basis and have
not been translated into national trophic-level values at this time. Therefore the data provided
may be applicable for derivation of BAFs for specific waterbodies, ecosystems, or regions. The
applicability of the bioaccumulation presented in this report for site-specific use should be
judged on a case-by-case basis.
For inorganic and organometallic chemicals, BAFs are calculated by one of two
procedures, depending on whether or not the chemical undergoes biomagnification in aquatic
food webs. Procedure 5 is recommended for inorganic and organometallic chemicals that do not
biomagnify and Procedure 6 is recommended for chemicals that do biomagnify. For arsenic,
biomagnification does not occur, therefore Procedure 5 is the recommended for deriving BAFs
for arsenic. In Procedure 5, BAFs may be developed by two different methods, either from field-
measured BAFs or from laboratory-measured BCFs. Because Procedure 5 applies only to
chemicals that do not biomagnify, under this procedure BAFs and BCFs are considered to be of
equal value in predicting BAFs and the use of food chain multipliers with BCF measurements is
not required. A detailed discussion of the scientific basis for the BAF derivation methods and
procedures used in the 2000 Human Health Methodology can be found in the Bioaccumulation
TSD (2003).
BAFs estimated using data available from the field are calculated using the ratio of tissue
and water arsenic data as shown in Equation 1 above. In Procedure #5, when appropriate field
data does not exist, or if it is considered unreliable, BAFs for arsenic may be predicted from
acceptable laboratory-measured BCFs. The general minimum criteria for overall data
acceptability were as follows:
• measured levels of arsenic (or arsenical species) in whole body or edible tissue of
aquatic organisms and in water;
• good analytical accuracy (standard recovery) and precision (reproducibility); and
• indication that steady-state was achieved (in the case of laboratory BCF studies).
The BAFs contained herein are all expressed on a wet-weight basis. BAFs reported or
derived using measurements of arsenic on a dry-weight basis were converted using factors that
were either measured or reliably estimated from the tissue used in the determination of the BAF.
If no measured or reliable conversion factor was reported, zooplankton, shellfish, and other
macroinvertebrates were assumed to be comprised of 80 percent water (multiplication factor =
0.2), and fish were assumed to be 75 percent water (multiplication factor = 0.25), in accordance
with the Mercury Report to Congress (USEPA 1997).
According to the 2000 Human Health Methodology, data for total arsenic in edible tissue
(i.e., muscle tissue) offish and shellfish are preferred over whole body data since the general
U.S. population doe not typically ingest the entire organism. The exception was for
-------
measurements of whole body arsenic in bivalves, aquatic insects and zooplankton. Although the
general U.S. population does not commonly consume aquatic insects or zooplankton, available
information on bioaccumulation of arsenic in these organism classes have been included in this
report for comparison and for completeness.
In the few cases where it was possible (Baker and King 1994), and where the water
exposure concentrations of arsenic were similar, total arsenic concentrations in whole body and
edible tissues of the same species were compared. The results of this very preliminary
assessment were inconclusive. Since no apparent differences were found in whole body versus
edible tissue arsenic concentration, the species-mean BAF calculations were made using the
tissue from which the majority of the BAFs were estimated for that ecosystem type and trophic
level designation.
In this summary, only concentrations of total dissolved arsenic in water below levels that
acutely affect aquatic organisms were used to derive BAFs. Acute arsenic (as As III) toxicity
ranges from approximately 1,000 to 3,000 |ig/L for amphipods and cladocerans to greater than
10,000 |ig/L for most freshwater fishes. In saltwater, it ranges from approximately 250 |ig/L for
crabs and copepods to greater than 1,500 |ig/L for bivalve molluscs, shrimps and fishes (USEPA
1985).
Using the methods outlined above, BAFs were calculated or predicted initially by trophic
level for lakes (i.e., lentic aquatic systems), rivers (i.e., lotic aquatic systems), and estuaries. An
ecosystem-approach to deriving BAFs was used because differences in general bioaccumulation
trends would be expected among the aquatic ecosystems due to inherent differences in food web
dynamics, arsenic loadings, and watershed interactions, among other factors. No clear
differences in bioaccumulation trends were observed between lentic and lotic ecosystems based
on qualitative and semi-quantitative comparisons of the data (see Section 3.5). The limited
estuarine and marine data, however, do appear to indicate a possible need for deriving separate
BAFs for saltwater systems.
-------
3.0 BAFs FOR ARSENIC IN FRESHWATER AND SALTWATER ECOSYSTEMS
3.1 Estimation of BAFs Using Laboratory-measured BCFs
In this analysis, BAFs for trophic levels 2, 3, and 4 were predicted using the
concentration of total arsenic in whole animal or muscle tissue and the concentration of arsenic
in filtered (dissolved) laboratory water. Ten studies were identified as potentially useful for the
derivation of a BAF from a laboratory-based BCF value. Five of the studies used saltwater
(estuarine/marine) organisms, including three bivalve molluscs and a crustacean (Table 3-1).
BCF determinations from the remaining five studies were conducted using several freshwater
fish and invertebrate species. Studies by Gailer et al. (1995), Franseconi et al. (1999), Maeda et
al. (1990, 1992, 1993), and Langston (1984) contain only one time period (• 10 days) for which
arsenic was measured in the organism (Table 3-1). Because steady-state conditions could not be
confirmed in these studies, they were not considered acceptable for BAF determination. The
study completed by Hunter et al. (1998) was not acceptable because the concentration of arsenic
in exposure water was not measured. The study by Zaroogian and Hoffman (1982) using the
eastern oyster, though it involved a 16 week flow-through exposure, was excluded because
arsenic uptake by the oyster increased in the first 5 weeks, decreased with spawning, and
increased again following spawing indicating that steady-state was never achieved. Perhaps
more importantly, at least in the case of this latter study, statistical analysis showed arsenic
uptake by oysters was not correlated with arsenic in seawater at the concentration range tested
(3,000 to 5,000 |ig/L), but was correlated with the arsenic concentration in the phytoplankton
growing in the exposure tanks.
Spehar et al. (1980) report BCFs for four freshwater invertebrate species and for rainbow
trout parr exposed for 28-days to arsenic [As(III)], arsenic [As(V)], sodium dimethyl arsenate
(DMA), or disodium methyl arsenate (MMA). Although only total arsenic was measured in the
test water, the turnover rates (100% water replacement in 9 hrs) were sufficiently high to
maintain concentrations of the arsenical species provided (in the form of a salt). Target test
concentrations for all experiments were 100 and 1,000 |ig/L. Stoneflies, snails, and daphnids
accumulated greater amounts of arsenic than fish. Arsenic tissue concentrations in treated
rainbow trout were generally the same as those in control fish (approximately 0.75 |ig/g wet
weight). Amphipods did not accumulate arsenic above the detection limit of 5 jig/g when
exposed to any of the arsenical compounds for 28 days. Arsenic accumulation in stoneflies and
snails was generally higher (note: this is opposite of what is observed with field-measured BAFs,
see Sections 3.2 and 3.3) when animals were exposed to higher concentrations and appeared to
reach steady-state after 14 days. Total arsenic accumulation in stoneflies and snails exposed to
1,000 |ig/L of the various arsenicals did not appear to be greatly affected by the form of arsenic
in water, although some animals exposed to inorganic forms did exhibit higher tissue
concentrations.
Mean BCFs for freshwater invertebrates (trophic level 2 species) ranged from 2 to 22
L/kg. For freshwater fish, mean BCFs ranged from 0.048 L/kg to 14 L/kg. These values are
lower than those obtained for aquatic organisms from field studies (see Sections 3.2 and 3.3).
No arsenic BCFs are available for saltwater fish species. BAFs predicted from laboratory BCF
studies with saltwater invertebrates ranged from 12 L/kg to 1,390 L/kg. These too were
generally lower on average than BAFs obtained for these species in field studies (Section 3.4).
-------
Based on these data, it does not appear that water-only arsenic exposure fully represents
environmental arsenic exposure. Therefore, the accuracy of using laboratory-measured BCFs to
represent BAFs for arsenic should be carefully considered.
TABLE 3-1: BAFs for Arsenic in Aquatic Organisms Predicted from Laboratory-
measured BCFs
BCF
Species
Duration
Method3
Arsenical Exposure
Reference
Freshwater
9.0
22
10
5.0
14
4.0
2.0
14
7.0
10
8.0
12
4.0
0.048
7.0
7.0
5.0
3.0
6.0
9.0
5.0
2.0
Stonefly
Cladoceran
Snail
Snail
Rainbow trout
Bluegill sunfish
Zooplankter
Stonefly
Cladoceran
Snail
Snail
Red cherry shrimp
Guppy
Common carp
Stonefly
Cladoceran
Snail
Snail
Stonefly
Cladoceran
Snail
Snail
28-d
28-d
28-d
28-d
28-d
28-d
7-d
28-d
28-d
28-d
28-d
7-d
7-d
7-d
28-d
28-d
28-d
28-d
28-d
28-d
28-d
28-d
FT, M
FT,M
FT,M
FT, M
FT,M
FT, M
S,U
FT,M
FT, M
FT,M
FT,M
S,U
s,u
s,u
FT, M
FT,M
FT, M
FT,M
FT,M
FT, M
FT,M
FT, M
As(III)
As(III)
As(III)
As(III)
As(III)
As(III)
As(V)
As(V)
As(V)
As(V)
As(V)
As(V)
As(V)
As(V)
MMA
MMA
MMA
MMA
DMA
DMA
DMA
DMA
Speharetal. 1980
Speharetal. 1980
Speharetal. 1980
Speharetal. 1980
Speharetal. 1980
Barrows etal. 1980
Maedaetal. 1990
Speharetal. 1980
Speharetal. 1980
Speharetal. 1980
Speharetal. 1980
Maedaetal. 1992
Maedaetal. 1990
Maedaetal. 1993
Speharetal. 1980
Speharetal. 1980
Speharetal. 1980
Speharetal. 1980
Speharetal. 1980
Speharetal. 1980
Speharetal. 1980
Speharetal. 1980
-------
BCF
Species
Duration
Method3
Arsenical Exposure
Reference
Saltwater
863
12
1,390
1,300
35
454
151
Eastern oyster
Peppery furrow
shell
Blue mussel
Blue mussel
Common shrimp
Blue mussel
Blue mussel
16 wk
10-d
10-d
10-d
24-d
10-d
10-d
FT, M
R,M
R,U
R,U
R,M
R,U
R,U
As(III)
As(V)
AsB
AsB
AsB
AsC
TMAO
Zaroogian and Hoffman 1982
Langston 1984
Gaileretal. 1995
Franseconi et al. 1999
Hunter and Goessler 1998
Gaileretal. 1995
Gaileretal. 1995
a S= Static; FT = Flow-through; M = Measured; U = Unmeasured
3.2 Estimation of BAFs Using Field Data - Freshwater Lentic Ecosystems
3.2.1 BAFs for Trophic Level 2 Organisms
Wagemann et al. (1978) measured arsenic concentrations in several aquatic invertebrate
species and in the ambient surface waters of lakes in the vicinity of Yellowknife, Northwest
Territories, Canada. One of the lakes (Kam Lake) in the study received untreated sewage from
the City of Yellowknife. This lake previously received seepages from two mine tailing ponds.
A second lake for which data were available to calculate BAFs was Grace Lake. Grace Lake
was chosen as a reference lake for the study because it was subject only to arsenic in the rock
formations surrounding the Yellowknife District. Measured dissolved arsenic concentrations in
the water of the two lakes for the year when the invertebrates were collected (1975) ranged from
approximately 1.7 x 10"2 to 4.0 x 10"2 mg/L for Grace Lake (mean = 2.7 x 10"2 mg/L), and from
2.29 to 2.93 mg/L (mean = 2.58 mg/L) for Kam Lake. The invertebrates were collected in the
littoral zone of each lake once every month during the summer (May to September 1975). The
BAFs estimated for the various invertebrates sampled from Grace Lake (the designated reference
lake) were consistently higher than the BAFs calculated for the same species in Kam Lake (the
designated contaminated lake), see Table 3-2. The BAFs calculated for the invertebrates in
Grace Lake were generally in the hundreds (range: 28.3 to 377.8 L/kg), while in Kam Lake, they
were in the tens (range: 3.4 to 63.6 L/kg).
In a more recent study, Chen et al. (2000) examined the accumulation and fate of arsenic
in numerous lakes and large and small zooplankton in the northeastern United States. Data were
collected during August through October of 1995 and 1996. Each lake was sampled once for
arsenic in water and plankton. Trace metal clean techniques were used for the collection and
measurement of dissolved (0.45 |im filtration) arsenic in water. Plankton were collected with
vertical tows in the deepest part of the lakes from 0.5 m above bottom to the surface using a cone
net for macrozooplankton (> 202 jim size fraction; primarily adult copepods and cladocerans)
and a Wisconsin net (45-202 jim size fraction) for large phytoplankton and small zooplankton.
None of the lakes sampled were in watersheds with known point sources of metal pollution. The
arsenic BAFs calculated for small zooplankton and large phytoplankton (range: 369 to 19,487
10
-------
L/kg) were significantly higher than those calculated for larger zooplankton (range: 154 to 2,748
L/kg). Concentrations of total dissolved arsenic in the lakes ranged from 2.2 x 10"5 to 5.8 x 10"4
mg/L, whereas total arsenic in small and large zooplankton ranged from 0.0258 to 1.98 mg/kg,
and from 0.0218 to 0.598 mg/kg, respectively. The authors determined that although the arsenic
concentrations of the larger zooplankton were positively correlated with the dissolved arsenic
concentration in water, they were best predicted by the arsenic levels in their diet (small
zooplankton).
In a related study, Chen and Folt (2000) examined the trophic transfer of arsenic in a
metal-contaminated lake on a seasonal basis. Using measurement and collection techniques
similar to their earlier study (Chen et al. 2000), arsenic concentrations in water, particulates
(phytoplankton; 0.4 to 0.45 jim), and the two different size fractions of zooplankton were
measured in Upper Mystic Lake, New York in June, August and October 1997. Concentrations
of dissolved arsenic in water peaked in August at approximately 1.11 x 10"3 mg/L, and were
similar at around 6.0 x 10"4 mg/L in June and October (geometric mean of the three
measurements = 7.81 x 10"4 mg/L). The arsenic concentrations in small zooplankton mirrored
the fluctuating arsenic concentrations in water, while arsenic in larger zooplankton progressively
increased from June through October, again indicating the potentially greater influence of dietary
arsenic on the larger size class. The mean BAF for arsenic in small zooplankton from Upper
Mystic Lake, NY was calculated as 4,391 L/kg; for large zooplankton, it was 2,747 L/kg (Table
3-2).
TABLE 3-2: BAFs for Arsenic in Trophic Level 2 Aquatic Organisms from Lentic
Ecosystems
SBAF
9,400
560
770
3,100
19,000
390
5,000
1,300
630
500
2,400
BAF
9412
560.9
768.4
3084
19,490
385.0
5008
1285
630.6
503.7
2,382
Snecies
Small zooplankton
Small zooplankton
Small zooplankton
Small zooplankton
Small zooplankton
Small zooplankton
Small zooplankton
Small zooplankton
Small zooplankton
Small zooplankton
Small zooplankton
Location
Canobie Lake, NY
Clear Pond, NY
Community Lake, NY
Gregg Lake, NY
Horseshoe Pond, NY
Ingham Pond, NY
Island Pond, NY
Lake Placid, NY
Lower Kohanza Res., NY
Mirror Lake, NY
Palmer Pond, NY
Reference
Chen et al. 2000
Chen et al. 2000
Chen et al. 2000
Chen et al. 2000
Chen et al. 2000
Chen et al. 2000
Chen et al. 2000
Chen et al. 2000
Chen et al. 2000
Chen et al. 2000
Chen et al. 2000
11
-------
SBAF
370
1,700
7,800
7,600
4,400
2,900
2,200
190
1,200
150
830
1,300
700
590
390
270
730
570
580
2,300
2,700
960
200
55
BAF
369.2
1731
7,825
7,623
4,392
2,938
2,181
192.9
1,174
153.7
826.3
1,344
701.9
590.2
390.6
274.3
728.5
573.8
578.9
2,300
2,748
962.5
197.8
55.0
Species
Small zooplankton
Small zooplankton
Small zooplankton
Small zooplankton
Small zooplankton
Small zooplankton
Large zooplankton
Large zooplankton
Large zooplankton
Large zooplankton
Large zooplankton
Large zooplankton
Large zooplankton
Large zooplankton
Large zooplankton
Large zooplankton
Large zooplankton
Large zooplankton
Large zooplankton
Large zooplankton
Large zooplankton
Large zooplankton
Zooplankton
Zooplankton
Location
Post Pond, NY
Queen Lake, NY
Tewksbury Pond, NY
Turkey Pond, NY
Upper Mystic Lake
Williams Lake, NY
Canobie Lake, NY
Chaffin Pond, NY
Clear Pond, NY
Community Lake, NY
Gregg Lake, NY
Horseshoe Pond, NY
Ingham Pond, NY
Lake Placid, NY
Lower Kohanza Res., NY
Mirror Lake, NY
Post Pond, NY
Queen Lake, NY
Tewksbury Pond, NY
Turkey Pond, NY
Upper Mystic Lake
Williams Lake, NY
Grace Lake, NW Territories
Kam Lake, NW Territories
Reference
Chen et al. 2000
Chen et al. 2000
Chen et al. 2000
Chen et al. 2000
Chen and Folt 2000
Chen et al. 2000
Chen et al. 2000
Chen et al. 2000
Chen et al. 2000
Chen et al. 2000
Chen et al. 2000
Chen et al. 2000
Chen et al. 2000
Chen et al. 2000
Chen et al. 2000
Chen et al. 2000
Chen et al. 2000
Chen et al. 2000
Chen et al. 2000
Chen et al. 2000
Chen and Folt 2000
Chen et al. 2000
Wagemann et al. 1978
Wagemann et al. 1978
12
-------
SBAF
64
34
170
110
380
21
10
47
BAF
63.6
109.6
10.3
171.9
107.4
377.8
105.9
4.3
28.3
3.4
229.6
9.7
Species
Oligochaeta
Snail
Snail
Bivalve mollusc
Amphipoda
Ephemeroptera
Trichoptera
Trichoptera
Corixidae
Corixidae
Chironomidae
Chironomidae
Location
Kam Lake, NW Territories
Grace Lake, NW Territories
Kam Lake, NW Territories
Grace Lake, NW Territories
Grace Lake, NW Territories
Grace Lake, NW Territories
Grace Lake, NW Territories
Kam Lake, NW Territories
Grace Lake, NW Territories
Kam Lake, NW Territories
Grace Lake, NW Territories
Kam Lake, NW Territories
Reference
Wagemann et al. 1978
Wagemann et al. 1978
Wagemann et al. 1978
Wagemann et al. 1978
Wagemann et al. 1978
Wagemann et al. 1978
Wagemann et al. 1978
Wagemann et al. 1978
Wagemann et al. 1978
Wagemann et al. 1978
Wagemann et al. 1978
Wagemann et al. 1978
3.2.2 BAFs for Trophic Level 3 Organisms
The arsenic concentrations measured in aquatic invertebrates in Kam and Grace Lakes in
the vicinity of Yellowknife, Northwest Territories, Canada by Wagemann et al. (1978) also
included several predatory insects. As is noted above for the herbivorous insects, BAFs
estimated for the predatory insects from Grace Lake (reference lake) were consistently higher
than BAFs for the same species in the contaminated lake (Kam Lake). This is especially true for
damselfly, where the difference between BAF estimates is greater than 250 fold (Table 3-3). In
general, the difference in BAFs calculated for predatory insects and for sculpin fish exceeded 10
between the two lakes.
Chen and Folt (2000), in their examination of the trophic transfer of arsenic in Upper
Mystic Lake, New York, also measured whole body arsenic accumulation in five different forage
fish species: alewife, black crappie, bluegill sunfish, killifish, and yellow perch. Their objective
was to compare the arsenic body burdens in fish with different feeding strategies and to
determine whether arsenic burdens biodiminished2 with respect to the various size classes of
zooplankton. The fish were collected in October 1997 at multiple sites in the littoral zone of the
lake using seines, fyke nets and minnow traps. Five individuals were obtained of each of the
species for total arsenic analysis. The arsenic burdens for all fish in Upper Mystic Lake, NY
' Biodiminution is the trend of decreased chemical concentration in tissues of organisms as trophic level
increases.
13
-------
were 30 to 100 times lower than the burdens in zooplankton. Although the average
concentrations in the various forage fish species differed by less than a factor of 2.5 (range from
0.031 mg/kg for black crappie to approximately 0.075 mg/kg for alewife), alewife and killifish
(predominantly planktivorous fish species) had higher burdens than the bluegill sunfish, black
crappie, yellow perch, which are higher on the trophic scale. Corresponding arsenic BAFs only
ranged from 39.7 (black crappie) to 95.4 L/kg (alewife) - Table 3-3.
In a study to survey the upper Gila River, Arizona to determine if waters from mining
and agricultural drainages had the potential to cause significant harmful effects on fish and
wildlife, Baker and King (1994) measured the total arsenic concentrations in water and fish from
San Carlos Reservoir and Talkalai Lake. Three unfiltered water samples were collected from
each site from June to August 1990 for measurement of total recoverable arsenic, along with
five-specimen whole-body or edible portion composites of near equal weight or length of each
forage fish species that was collected (i.e., channel catfish and common carp). The total
recoverable arsenic concentrations in water were the same for both the San Carlos Reservoir and
Talkalai Lake at 8.0 x 10"3 mg/L. This is equivalent to 6.7 x 10"3 mg/L dissolved arsenic using
the default chemical translator of 0.84 to convert to a dissolved arsenic value as described in
Section 4.0 of this document. Whole body and fillet samples contained similar levels of arsenic
for each fish species at approximately 1.0 to 2.0 x 10"1 mg/kg. Corresponding BAFs based on
the estimated concentration of arsenic dissolved in San Carlos Reservoir and in whole body
samples of channel catfish and carp were 29.76 and 14.88 L/kg, respectively (Table 3-3). The
BAF
calculated for carp in Talkalai Lake was 29.76 L/kg.
Skinner (1985) conducted a preliminary study at several electric utility wastewater
treatment basins to determine if fish caught from these treatment basins presented a risk to
human health through their consumption. Nine basins were sampled October 6-9, 1983 using
shore zone electroshocking and seining and open-water trawling at various depths. Fish species
common to the basins and representing bottom feeders and predators were targeted. Edible
portions (fillets) of specimens of legal or recreationally sought sizes were prepared and analyzed
for total arsenic concentration. Corresponding water samples from near mid-basin and from
approximately 25 cm below the surface were also collected from each basin from where fish
were taken. Concentrations of total arsenic in water from the various basins ranged from 3.0 x
10"3 to 3.0 x 10"2 mg/L total arsenic, or from 2.52 x 10"3 to 2.5 x 10"2 mg/L dissolved arsenic
using the default arsenic chemical translator of 0.84 (see Section 4.0). Arsenic in muscle tissue
from opportunistic bottom feeders in the basins (brown bullhead, common carp, channel catfish)
ranged from <0.04 to 0.18 mg/kg wet weight (assuming a water content of 80% as used by the
author in the article), and from <0.04 to <0.10 mg/kg wet weight for other forage fish species
(e.g., black crappie, pumpkinseed). Since most of the arsenic in fish tissue was below the level
of detection, only BAFs for carp collected from the various basins could be calculated. Arsenic
accumulation in carp muscle tissue did not appear to be related to the concentration of total
arsenic in water. For example, whole body arsenic in carp from Brunner Island Wastewater
Treatment Pond #6 (6.0 x 10"2 mg/kg) was quite low despite the relatively high dissolved arsenic
concentration in water estimated for that basin (2.5 x 10"2 mg/L). BAFs for carp from the electric
utility wastewater treatment basins ranged from 2.38 to 71.4 L/kg (Table 3-3).
To summarize, species- mean BAFs (SBAFs) for eight species of forage fish and 10
14
-------
different predatory insects and a carnivorous leech (Hirudinea) were available from four
different studies (Baker and King 1994, Chen and Folt 2000, Skinner 1985, Wagemann et al.
1978). In general, those fish species that are lower on the trophic scale (alewife, killifish) had
higher BAFs than those species that are slightly higher on the trophic scale (perch, crappie,
catfish, carp, sunfishes). In contrast, data from Moon Lake, Mississippi reported in Cooper and
Gillespie (2001) show the average concentration of total arsenic in omnivorous fish species
(BAF = 6.0 L/kg) to be twice as high as in benthivorous fishes (BAF = 2.7 L/kg), and nearly 20
times higher than planktivorous fishes (BAF = 0.2 L/kg). The species-mean BAFs for trophic
level 3 fish in lakes only range by a factor of 5, from approximately 19 to 96 L/kg. By
comparison, the species-mean BAFs for trophic level 3 aquatic insects range from approximately
1 to 26 L/kg.
TABLE 3-3: BAFs for Arsenic in Trophic Level 3 Aquatic Organisms from Lentic
Ecosystems
SBAF
17
17
31
4.7
13
7.4
11
4.0
4.9
3.1
BAF
20.1
14.7
68.3
4.5
40.9
0.2
19.2
1.1
13.3
23.6
2.3
48.1
2.5
4.0
25.9
0.9
3.1
Species
leech
leech
dragonfly
dragonfly
damselfly
damselfly
whirligig beetles
whirligig beetles
water strider
back swimmer
back swimmer
diving beetle
diving beetle
water mite
ceraptogonid
ceraptogonid
tanypodinae
Location
Grace Lake, NW Territories
Kam Lake, NW Territories
Grace Lake, NW Territories
Kam Lake, NW Territories
Grace Lake, NW Territories
Kam Lake, NW Territories
Grace Lake, NW Territories
Kam Lake, NW Territories
Grace Lake, NW Territories
Grace Lake, NW Territories
Kam Lake, NW Territories
Grace Lake, NW Territories
Kam Lake, NW Territories
Kam Lake, NW Territories
Grace Lake, NW Territories
Kam Lake, NW Territories
Kam Lake, NW Territories
Reference
Wagemann et al. 1978
Wagemann et al. 1978
Wagemann et al. 1978
Wagemann et al. 1978
Wagemann et al. 1978
Wagemann et al. 1978
Wagemann et al. 1978
Wagemann et al. 1978
Wagemann et al. 1978
Wagemann et al. 1978
Wagemann et al. 1978
Wagemann et al. 1978
Wagemann et al. 1978
Wagemann et al. 1978
Wagemann et al. 1978
Wagemann et al. 1978
Wagemann et al. 1978
15
-------
SBAF
19
95
30
86
40
48
59
29
BAF
2.38a
19.84a
27.78a
19.84a
71.43a
63.49a
15.87a
15.87a
10.42a
14.88a
29.76a
95.4
29.76a'b
14.88a'c
85.8
39.7
47.7
58.6
70.6
11.8
Species
midge
common carp
common carp
common carp
common carp
common carp
common carp
common carp
common carp
common carp
common carp
common carp
alewife
channel catfish
channel catfish
killifish
black crappie
bluegill sunfish
yellow perch
sculpin
sculpin
Location
Brunner Is. WTB #6
Martins Cr. IWTB
Martins Cr. IWTB
Martins Cr. IWTB
Montour Detention Basin
Montour Detention Basin
Montour Stormwater Basin
Montour Stormwater Basin
Montour Fly Ash Basin
San Carlos Reservoir, AZ
Talkalai Lake, AZ
Upper Mystic Lake
San Carlos Reservoir, AZ
San Carlos Reservoir, AZ
Upper Mystic Lake
Upper Mystic Lake
Upper Mystic Lake
Upper Mystic Lake
Grace Lake, NW Territories
Kam Lake, NW Territories
Reference
Skinner 1985
Skinner 1985
Skinner 1985
Skinner 1985
Skinner 1985
Skinner 1985
Skinner 1985
Skinner 1985
Skinner 1985
Baker and King 1994
Baker and King 1994
Chen and Folt 2000
Baker and King 1994
Baker and King 1994
Chen and Folt 2000
Chen and Folt 2000
Chen and Folt 2000
Chen et al. 2000
Wagemann et al. 1978
Wagemann et al. 1978
aValue adjusted using arsenic chemical translator of 0.84 to normalize to a BAF based on dissolved arsenic in water.
bBased on whole body value; only this value was used in the calculation to determine the SBAF for the species.
°Based on edible tissue.
3.2.3 BAFs for Trophic Level 4 Organisms
16
-------
In addition to the several forage fishes which were examined to assess the trophic transfer
of arsenic in metal-contaminated Upper Mystic Lake, New York, Chen and Folt (2000) also
measured whole body arsenic accumulation in the largemouth bass. Five individuals were
obtained for total arsenic analysis in October 1997. The mean concentration of dissolved arsenic
in water measured in June, August and October 1997 was 7.81 x 10"4 mg/L. The average arsenic
burden for largemouth bass in Upper Mystic Lake, NY (3.6 x 10"2 mg/kg) was approximately 60
to 95 times lower than the burdens in large and small zooplankton, respectively. The average
arsenic concentrations in largemouth bass differed by less than a factor of 2 from the various
forage fishes it preys upon, and had an arsenic BAF of 46.1 L/kg (Table 3-4).
In the study of the Upper Gila River, Arizona reported by Baker and King (1994), the
BAF for largemouth bass based on whole-body tissue was very similar to the value derived for
this species by Chen and Folt (2000). The BAF for largemouth bass in San Carlos Reservoir, AZ
(in the Upper Gila River Watershed), was based on the estimated dissolved arsenic concentration
in the reservoir (0.84 x 8.0 x 10"3 mg/L or 6.72 x 10"3 mg/L) and the total arsenic concentration in
a composite of 5 individuals. Analysis of whole body and fillet samples of these bass indicated
slightly different levels of total arsenic: 3.0 x 10"1 and 1.0 x 10"1 mg/kg, respectively. As a result,
the corresponding BAFs for whole body and edible tissue were 44.64 and 14.88 L/kg,
respectively (Table 3-4). Only the BAF based on the whole body arsenic concentration was used
to calculate the BAFs for this species because too few BAFs based on edible fish tissue for these
and other fish species exist to warrant otherwise.
TABLE 3-4: BAFs for Arsenic in Trophic Level 4 Fish from Lentic Ecosystems
SBAF
45
BAF
44.64a'b
14.88a'c
46.1
Species
largemouth bass
largemouth bass
largemouth bass
Location
San Carlos Reservoir, AZ
San Carlos Reservoir, AZ
Upper Mystic Lake
Reference
Baker and King 1994
Baker and King 1994
Chen and Folt 2000
aValue adjusted using arsenic chemical translator of 0.84 to normalize to a BAF based on dissolved arsenic in water.
bBased on whole body value; only this value was used in the calculation to determine the SBAF for the species.
°Based on edible tissue.
3.3 Estimation of BAFs Using Field Data - Freshwater Lotic Ecosystems
3.3.1 BAFs for Trophic Level 2 Organisms
Only two studies were found for calculating BAFs for trophic level 2 aquatic organisms
in lotic ecosystems. Mason et al. (2000) sampled herbivorous insects and other aquatic
organisms in October 1997, April 1998, and July 1998 from two sites in western Maryland:
Harrington Creek Tributary and Blacklick Run. Water samples (filtered in situ at 0.8 jim) were
collected monthly in both of the streams using clean techniques. The average dissolved arsenic
concentrations in water were 6.7 x 10"4 and 3.7 x 10"4 mg/L for Harrington Creek and Blacklick
Run, respectively. Despite the difference in dissolved arsenic concentrations, there was no
concomitant variation in insect arsenic burdens between the two sites. BAFs for herbivorous
aquatic insects were consistently highest in Blacklick Run (Table 3-5). The authors also noted a
17
-------
trend of increasing arsenic body burden with decreasing average size of the animal, which they
ascribed to the dependence of arsenic accumulation in small insects on the surface/volume ratio
during the process of adsorption directly from water. A similar phenomenon was observed in
studies by Hare et al. (1991) and Cain et al. (1992).
In addition to the BAF data available from Herrington Creek and Blacklick Run, arsenic
levels present in arsenic-rich river water and biota collected from the Haya-kawa River at hot
springs in Hakone, Kanagawa, Japan are available in Kaise et al. (1997). In this study, the
aquatic herbivorous insects collected included a freshwater snail (Semisulcospira libertind) and
the larvae and pupae of a caddisfly (Stenopsyche marmoratd). The river water at the site where
the insects were collected contained 3.0 x 10"2 mg/L total arsenic, 93% of which was inorganic
and the remaining 7% trimethylated arsenic. The concentration of total arsenic in caddisfly
pupae was substantially higher (2.05 mg/kg) than in the larvae of this species (2.36 x 10"1 mg/kg)
and in the marsh snails (1.86 x 10"1 mg/kg). BAFs based on estimated concentration of dissolved
arsenic in Haya-kawa River water (0.84 x 3.0 x 10"2 mg/L or 2.52 x 10"2 mg/L) were less than 10
L/kg for caddisfly larvae and marsh snails, and approximately 81 L/kg for caddifly pupa (Table
3-5).
TABLE 3-5: BAFs for Arsenic in Trophic Level 2 Aquatic Organisms from Lotic
Ecosystems
SBAF
7.4
3,800
600
2,300
9.4
81
970
BAF
7.38a
5,619
2,543
604.6
2,810
1,846
9.37a'b
81.35a'b
2,401
392.8
Snecies
snail (marsh)
mayfly
mayfly
shredder stonefly
caddisfly
caddisfly
caddisfly (larva)
caddisfly (pupa)
cranefly
cranefly
Location
Hayakawa River, Japan
Blacklick Run, MD
Herrington Creek, MD
Blacklick Run, MD
Blacklick Run, MD
Herrington Creek, MD
Hayakawa River, Japan
Hayakawa River, Japan
Blacklick Run, MD
Herrington Creek, MD
Reference
Kaise etal. 1997
Mason et al. 2000
Mason et al. 2000
Mason et al. 2000
Mason et al. 2000
Mason et al. 2000
Kaise et al. 1997
Kaise et al. 1997
Mason et al. 2000
Mason et al. 2000
aValue adjusted using arsenic chemical translator of 0.84 to normalize to a BAF based on dissolved arsenic in water.
bValues shown to indicate the gross differences in bioaccumulation between the various life stages of this species.
Most data for aquatic insects in this document are for larvae of the species; pupa were rarely measured.
3.3.2 BAFs for Trophic Level 3 Organisms
18
-------
Both Mason et al. (2000) and Kaise et al. (1997) included several other aquatic organisms
in their studies, including a number of forage fishes, freshwater crustaceans, and some predatory
aquatic insects (Table 3-6). Added to this compilation are BAFs for channel catfish, flathead
catfish, and common carp from numerous sites along the Gila and San Francisco Rivers, AZ
(Baker and King 1994). BAFs for trophic level 3 organisms from the more polluted Haya-kawa,
Gila, and San Francisco Rivers are consistently lower, generally by more than an order of
magnitude or more, compared to like organisms in the western Maryland streams, Harrington
Creek and Blacklick Run, respectively (Table 3-6). The highest BAFs were for dobsonflies,
dragonflies and predatory stoneflies (Family: Perlidae), and the lowest for several of the forage
fishes, particularly the sweet fish, Japanese dace, and mottled sculpin.
TABLE 3-6: BAFs for Arsenic in Trophic Level 3 Aquatic Organisms from Lotic
Ecosystems
SBAF
32
560
1,000
500
690
110
420
2.0
8.5
11
BAF
32.42a
489.2
646.4
1,333.5
824.8
195.7
1257
1102
432.1
114.1a
571.1
308.2
2.02a
10.82a
11.90a
4.76a
10.60a
Species
prawn
crayfish
crayfish
predatory stonefly
predatory stonefly
dragonfly
dragonfly
dobsonfly
dobsonfly
dobsonfly larva
brook trout (small)
brook trout (small)
sweet fish
common carp
common carp
common carp
downstream
Location
Hayakawa River, Japan
Blacklick Run, MD
Herrington Creek, MD
Blacklick Run, MD
Herrington Creek, MD
Blacklick Run, MD
Herrington Creek, MD
Blacklick Run, MD
Herrington Creek, MD
Hayakawa River, Japan
Blacklick Run, MD
Herrington Creek, MD
Hayakawa River, Japan
Gila River, AZ
Gila River, AZ
Gila River, AZ
Hayakawa River, Japan
Reference
Kaise etal. 1997
Mason et al. 2000
Mason et al. 2000
Mason et al. 2000
Mason et al. 2000
Mason et al. 2000
Mason et al. 2000
Mason et al. 2000
Mason et al. 2000
Kaise et al. 1997
Mason et al. 2000
Mason et al. 2000
Kaise et al. 1997
Baker and King 1994
Baker and King 1994
Baker and King 1994
Kaise et al. 1997
19
-------
SBAF
510
280
4.0
380
280
5.3
6.5
15
13
800
BAF
512.7
281.5
3.97
376.1
283.9
7.00a
3.50a
5.95a
3.50a
7.00a
11.90a
11.90a'b
5.95a
14.68a
13.21
798.1
Species
fatminnow
blacknose dace
creek chub
Japanese dace
white sucker
brown bullhead
channel catfish
channel catfish
channel catfish
flathead catfish
flathead catfish
flathead catfish
flathead catfish
flathead catfish
amphidromous goby
goby
Mottled Sculpin
Location
Blacklick Run, MD
Herrington Creek, MD
Hayakawa River, Japan
Herrington Creek, MD
Herrington Creek, MD
Gila River, AZ
Gila River, AZ
San Francisco River, AZ
Gila River, AZ
Gila River, AZ
Gila River, AZ
Gila River, AZ
San Francisco River, AZ
Hayakawa River, Japan
Hayakawa River, Japan
Blacklick Run, MD
Reference
Mason et al. 2000
Mason et al. 2000
Kaiseetal. 1997
Mason et al. 2000
Mason et al. 2000
Baker and King 1994
Baker and King 1994
Baker and King 1994
Baker and King. 1994
Baker and King. 1994
Baker and King. 1994
Baker and King. 1994
Baker and King 1994
Kaise et al. 1997
Kaiseetal. 1997
Mason et al. 2000
aValue adjusted using arsenic chemical translator of 0.84 to normalize to a BAF based on dissolved arsenic in water.
bValue was based on edible tissue, and therefore, was not used in calculation of the SBAF in lieu of several based on
whole body values.
3.3.3 BAFs for Trophic Level 4 Organisms
BAFs are only available for two coldwater trophic level 4 fish species in lotic
ecosystems, large brook trout (from Mason et al. 2000) and masu salmon (Kaise et al. 1997). As
noted above, BAFs for brook trout from the less arsenic contaminated streams in western
Maryland (Herrington Creek and Blacklick Run) were substantially higher than the BAF
estimated for masu salmon collected from the arsenic-rich Haya-kawa River, Japan (Table 3-7).
The SBAF for brook trout was calculated to be 270 L/kg, while for masu salmon it was 45 times
lower at 5.8 L/kg (Table 3-7). Compared to the BAFs estimated for forage fishes and other
trophic level 3 aquatic organisms from the same locations (refer to Table 3-6 above), the BAFs
20
-------
for the trophic level 4 fishes were approximately the same.
TABLE 3-7: BAFs for Arsenic in Trophic Level 4 Fish from Lotic Ecosystems
SBAF
270
5.8
BAF
304.6
237.8
5.79a
Species
brook trout (large)
brook trout (large)
masu salmon
Location
Blacklick Run, MD
Herrington Creek, MD
Hayakawa River, Japan
Reference
Mason et al. 2000
Mason et al. 2000
Kaiseetal. 1997
aValue adjusted using arsenic chemical translator of 0.84 to normalize to a BAF based on dissolved arsenic in water.
3.4 Estimation of BAFs for Arsenic Using Field Data - Saltwater Ecosystems
3.4.1 BAFs for Trophic Level 2 Organisms
Three studies contain information useful for calculating BAFs for trophic level 2 saltwater
organisms (Giusti and Zhang 2002, Langston 1984, and Valette-Silver et al. 1999). All three
studies examined the arsenic burdens in edible tissues of bivalve molluscs, and included the
measured dissolved arsenic concentration in the exposure water. A fourth study by Hung et al.
(2001) reportedly contains information on the arsenic burdens in over 30 different marine
molluscs at over 12 different coastal sites in Taiwan, but the species-specific values for arsenic in
tissue were not provided in the condensed summary of information included in the published
article.
Giusti and Zhang (2002) examined the level of trace element contamination in water,
sediment and the marine mussel Mytilus galloprovincialis in a section of the Venice Lagoon near
Murano Island, Italy. The dissolved, labile arsenic concentration in the water of the lagoon was
measured by means of a recently developed trace metal speciation technique referred to as DGT
(diffusive gradients in thin-films). The DGT technique allows trace metal speciation
measurements to be made in situ in marine and fresh waters. In this study, two DGT devices
were deployed together at each site to determine the arsenic concentrations representative of the
dissolved fraction of arsenic in water available to the mussels. Mussels from about 3-7 cm long
were collected from wooden pillars at the four sites where they were most common. They were
depurated for 24-h in water from a reference site prior to separating soft tissue from the shells.
The soft tissues from all organisms from a site were pooled prior to measuring the total arsenic
concentration. Arsenic burdens in the mussels ranged from 2.4 to 3.6 mg/kg. Dissolved, labile
arsenic in water from the corresponding sites ranged from 1.90 x 10"3 mg/L to 4.73 x 10"3 mg/L.
BAFs were from 762 to 1263 L/kg (Table 3-7).
Valette-Silver et al. (1999) examined the arsenic concentrations in bivalve samples
collected under the National Status and Trends Program (NS&T), Mussel Watch Project (MWP)
from the southeast coasts of the U.S. Compared to the rest of the U.S., the oysters collected from
sites located along the southeastern coasts, from North Carolina to the Florida panhandle,
displayed high concentrations of arsenic in their soft tissues. As part of their examination of this
phenomenon in oysters, samples of two species of bivalves (the eastern oyster and a marine
mussel species -Isognomon sp.), water, sediment, and particulates, were collected in 1993 in
21
-------
Biscayne Bay, Florida in addition to the samples collected in the NS&T MWP. In the brackish
waters collected from the mouth of the Miami River feeding into Biscayne Bay, total dissolved
arsenic concentrations averaged 8.9 x 10"4 mg/L. Most of the arsenic in the water was present as
inorganic arsenate (As(V) = 6.9 x 10"4 mg/L versus As(III) = 1.0 x 10"4 mg/L), with only very
small concentrations of organic arsenic present (MMA = 3.0 x 10"5 mg/L and DMA = 6.0 x 10"5
mg/L). The average total arsenic concentration in eight individual mussels was high at 7.46
mg/kg, while the total arsenic in small oysters averaged 4.72 mg/kg. The corresponding BAFs
calculated for the two bivalve species are 8,382 L/kg and 5,303 L/kg, respectively (Table 3-7).
Langston et al. (1984) carried out a field and laboratory evaluation of the availability of
arsenic to estuarine and marine organisms. The field study area focused primarily on Restronguet
Creek, a branch of the Fal estuary system. Restronguet Creek has historically been contaminated
by metalliferous mining in southwest England. Water, sediment, and selected organisms were
collected from Restrognuet Creek between 1978 and 1981, and for comparison, from the Tamar
and Torridge estuaries. The accumulation of arsenic in the field was studied by transplanting the
bivalve mollusc Scrobiculariaplana from the Tamar estuary to sites in Restrognuet Creek and
recovering subsamples (usually 6 individuals were pooled for analysis) at intervals between
February 1980 and March 1981. The effect of dissolved arsenic concentration on uptake rate in
the laboratory was also determined in Tamar S. plana (3 cm shell length) using 74As as arsenic
acid. Arsenic concentrations in S. plana transferred from the Tamar estuary to site S in
Restrognuet Creek (4.9 x 10"3 mg/L measured dissolved arsenic concentration taken at high-water,
4 September 1980) had more than doubled in 1 month and after 4 months were similar to levels in
native individuals (approximately 32 mg/kg, whole bivalve). The arsenic concentrations in native
and transplanted populations remained constant for the remainder of the experiment (up to 12
months). The total arsenic in tissue remained stable despite a seasonal increase in concentrations
of dissolved arsenic entering the creek during the summer. This observation suggested to the
authors a particulate (dietary) rather than waterborne source of arsenic for this mollusc species,
which was confirmed through laboratory studies where concentration factors determined for this
species in experimental exposures to dissolved arsenic were two orders of magnitude less than the
estimated values in natural populations. The B AF for transplanted S. plana in Restroguet Creek
was estimated to be 6,490 L/kg (Table 3-7). Additional BAFs for native populations of this
species in Restrognuet Creek and the Tamar Estuary based on measured interstitial water arsenic
concentrations and tissue concentrations back-calculated from the reported concentration factors
at the sites are 776.8 L/kg and 623.9 L/kg, respectively (Table 3-7). The latter values were not
included in the calculation of the SBAF for the species.
TABLE 3-8: BAFs for Arsenic in Trophic Level 2 Aquatic Organisms from Saltwater
Ecosystems
SBAF
6,500
BAF
6,490
776.8a
623. 9a
Species
bivalve
bivalve
bivalve
Location
Restronguet Cr, Fal Estuary, U.K.
Restronguet Cr., Fal Estuary, U.K.
Tamar Estuary, U.K.
Reference
Langston 1984
Langston 1984
Langston 1984
22
-------
880
8,400
5,300
1,263
680.8
923.1
761.6
8,382
5303
mussel
mussel
mussel
mussel
mussel
oysters
Is. of Murano, Italy - Site G
Is. of Murano, Italy - Site E
Is. of Murano, Italy - Site B
Is. of Murano, Italy - Site F
Biscayne Bay, FL
Biscayne Bay, FL
Giusti and Zhang 2002
Giusti and Zhang 2002
Giusti and Zhang 2002
Giusti and Zhang 2002
Valette-Silver et al. 1999
Valette-Silver et al. 1999
aValue was based on measurements of arsenic in interstitial water, and therefore, was not used in calculation of the
SB AF in lieu of a value based on measurements of total dissolved arsenic in the water column.
3.5 Summary of BAFs for Arsenic in Freshwater and Saltwater Ecosystems
Preliminary assessment of BAFs estimated from laboratory-measured BCFs indicate that
the estimated values are lower than those derived using data from the field BAFs. Much of the
BCF data failed to meet the requirement that steady-state conditions be achieved during the
exposure.
The majority of the BAFs estimated for trophic level 2 organisms in lentic ecosystems
come from a single comprehensive study of arsenic accumulation in northeastern lakes (Chen et
al. 2000). Although the lakes are free from any known point sources of arsenic, the range in
species-mean BAFs is quite large, and highest for the smaller size class of zooplankton collected.
Other values were estimated from trophic level 2 aquatic insects from the Northwest Territories,
Canada (Wagemann et al. 1978). The species-mean BAFs estimated for these species are
substantially lower on the average than for the zooplankters, though mostly higher than those
estimated for organisms comprising the higher trophic levels (3 and 4, respectively). Only one
species-mean BAF is available for trophic level 4 organisms.
The BAFs estimated for trophic level 2 organisms in lotic ecosystems are all for
herbivorous aquatic insects from one of three river systems, Haya-kawa River, Japan (Kaise et al.
1997), and Harrington Creek and Blacklick Run tributaries in northwest Maryland ( Mason et al.
2000). Trophic level 3 and 4 species-mean BAFs for lotic ecosystems were more variable than
those for lentic ecosystems (Table 3-8). There is no clear explanation for this finding. The
number and diversity of aquatic organisms represented at these higher trophic levels were about
the same. Moreover, the concentrations of total and dissolved arsenic in water from the various
lakes represented were more variable than for rivers and streams.
An observation that does seem to hold for both lentic and lotic ecosystems is that BAFs
estimated for aquatic animals in the most arsenic contaminated waters were consistently lowest.
This phenomenon has been noted for other trace elements, most recently for selenium (Mclntyre
et al. 2002). However, unlike arsenic, selenium is considered an essential trace metal.
23
-------
The concentrations of arsenic in the edible soft tissues of marine and estuarine bivalve
mollusks are substantially higher than for their freshwater counterparts. Species-mean BAFs
were calculated for four saltwater species, from three different studies. In one study (Lin, 2001)
arsenic BAF data for the herbivorous marine fish species the mullet, Liza macrolepis, was over
several hundred times lower than the lowest BAF estimated for a saltwater species.
TABLE 3-9: Summary of BAFs for Arsenic by Trophic Level for Freshwater and
Saltwater Ecosystems
Trophic
Level
2
3
4
Freshwater Species-Mean BAFs
Range
(number)
Lentic
9.8- 19,000
(n = 43)
4.0-95
(n=18)
45-46
(n=l)
Lotic
7.4-3,800
(n = 7)
(2.0 - 1,000)
(n = 20)
5.8-270
(n=2)
Saltwater Species-
Mean BAFs
Range
(number)
880 - 8,400
(n = 4)
-
-
24
-------
4.0 CHEMICAL TRANSLATOR FOR ARSENIC IN SURFACE WATERS
4.1 Introduction to Chemical Translators
Dissolved forms of a chemical are more readily bioaccumulated by organisms than are
corresponding particulate forms. Dissolved metal more closely approximates the bioavailable
fraction of metal in the water column than does total recoverable metal (USEPA 1993). This does
not necessarily mean that particulate metal is nontoxic, only that particulate metal uptake into
aquatic organisms is limited (USEPA 1996). Dissolved metal is operationally defined as that
which passes through a 0.45 jim or a 0.40 jim filter and particulate metal is operationally defined
as total recoverable metal minus dissolved metal. A part of what is measured as dissolved metal
is particulate metal that is small enough to pass through the filter, or that is adsorbed to or
complexed with organic colloids and ligands. Some or all of this may be biologically
unavailable.
EPA defines the chemical translator (fd) as the fraction (f) of the total recoverable metal in
the surface water that is dissolved (d). The translator can be used to estimate the concentration of
dissolved metal from measured total metal values, or vice versa. The most reliable translators are
produced from site-specific data. Two procedures can be used to develop site-specific translators.
Complete guidance for determining a site-specific translator is provided by EPA (USEPA 1996).
The most straightforward approach is to analyze directly the dissolved and total recoverable
fractions. In this approach, a number of samples are taken over time and an fd value is determined
Cd
(Equation 2)
for each sample, where:
where:
Cd = the dissolved (operationally-defined) concentration of chemical in
water
Ct = the total concentration of chemical in water
The translator is then calculated as the geometric mean (GM) of the dissolved fractions (fds).
The second approach is to derive fd from the use of a partition coefficient, Kd, where
usually the coefficient is determined as a function of total suspended solids (TSS) (although some
other basis such a humic substances or particulate organic carbon may be used).
4.2 Objective
To expand the BAF database for arsenic, a chemical translator was required to derive
BAFs from water concentration data reported as total arsenic. Translators and/or related Kd
values can be generated from an acceptable existing literature-derived data base. To gather this
25
-------
data base, peer-reviewed literature papers from 1985 to present were searched and reviewed. All
data identified in the literature were required to meet the following criteria in order to be used it
in developing the translator:
Appropriate techniques were used in sampling and analysis.
Adequate QA/QC procedures were used.
Analytical methods used provided sufficiently low detection level.
Given the available data it was possible to determine the relative fractions of total and dissolved
arsenic in ambient surface waters, and hence generate a translator for total arsenic, but it is not
possible to determine the total and dissolved fractions of inorganic arsenic, AsB, AsC, and DMA.
4.3 Results and Discussion
The results of the literature review are presented in Table 4-1. Due to the paucity of data
found, these fd results are presented for combined lake, river and estuarine systems. The data
represent four lotic, two lentic, one estuarine, and one lotic-lentic combined systems. Clearly,
insufficient data were obtained to provide reliable fd (translator) values for arsenic for individual
systems. The translator for total dissolved arsenic derived from the recent literature data base
(Table 4-1) is 0.84.
Little information that would allow for development of translator values for individual
dissolved arsenic species was found. Only two articles (Anderson and Bruland, 1991; Michel et
al., 2001) contained adequate data for use in calculating arsenic species translators. In addition,
the dynamic inter-conversion that occurs between arsenic species all but precludes use of arsenic
species translators. Thermodynamically predicted As(V)/As(III) ratios are rarely observed in
natural surface waters, and experimental evidence clearly indicates that a multiplicity of factors
influences the relative concentrations of these species (Cullen and Reimer 1989; Smedley and
Kinniburg 2002). The interconversion of arsenite and arsenate by algal/bacteria transformations
prevents achievement of thermodynamic equilibrium. A recent survey of surface drinking water
sources in the U.S. found that about two thirds of the soluble arsenic was As(V) arsenate, and
about one third was in the As(III) arsenite form (Chen et al. 1999). Concentrations and relative
proportions of As(V) and As(III) vary according to changes in input sources, redox conditions,
pH, and biological activity. The presence of As(III) may be maintained in oxygenated waters by
biological reduction of As(V), particularly during summer months. Proportions of As(III) and
As(V) are particularly variable in stratified lakes where redox gradients and biological activity
can be large and seasonally variable.
For example, Anderson and Bruland (1991) found an fd value of 0.34 for As(V) in Davis
Reservoir, CA surface water in October, 1988, but an fd value of 0.87 was measured in February,
1989. Similarly, an fd value determined for dimethyarsenic acid (DMA) was 0.419 in October but
was found to be <0.01 in February, showing the large seasonal variability of the arsenic species
fds. Variability was encountered with depth of sample also (an fd of 0.42 for DMA on the surface
but an fd of 0.01 at 17.7 m depth in the reservoir in October, 1988). Therefore, because of the
dynamic transformations and variability of species, no attempt has been made to present species
specific arsenic translators.
26
-------
4.4 Application of the Chemical Translator for BAF Calculations
Application of the arsenic translator to the saltwater BAF data set was not required
because all values for arsenic in water were already provided in the desired form (total dissolved
arsenic). The translator was used for two lotic studies and one lentic study in the freshwater
dataset. The BAF data to which the translator was applied was primarily for trophic level 3 and 4
freshwater organisms. Because the BAFs estimated for these organisms were generally very low,
the use of the translator did not greatly alter the original BAF estimate. The use of the translator
permitted the calculation of additional BAFs in 12 instances for freshwater fish species and 5
instances for freshwater invertebrate species.
TABLE 4-1: Dissolved Arsenic as a Fraction of Total Arsenic in Surface Waters
fd Value
0.62
0.74
0.81
0.87
0.88
0.92
0.94
0.94
Location
Surface Drinking Water Sources, U.S.
Ogeechec River, GA
Los Angeles Aquaduct Channel, CA
Tanagawa and Saganigawa Rivers, Japan
Upper Mystic Lake, MA
Davis Creek Reservoir, CA
Seine River, France
Thames Estuary, England
Reference
Chenetal. 1999
Waslenchuk 1979
Hering and Kneebone 2002
Tanzakietal. 1992
Chen and Folt 2000
Anderson and Brulandl991
Michel etal. 2001
Millward et al. 1997
GM= 0.84 Range 0.62 - 0.94
27
-------
5.0 ARSENIC SPECIATION IN TISSUES OF AQUATIC ORGANISMS
As indicated in the Introduction to this document, there exists in the literature a general
consensus that from 85% to >90% of arsenic found in edible portions of marine fish and shellfish
is in an organic form [(arsenobetaine (AsB), arsenocholine (AsC), dimethyl arsinic acid (DMA)]
and that approximately 10% is inorganic arsenic species [As(III), As(V)]. Less is known about
the forms of arsenic in freshwater fish, but the available evidence suggests inorganic forms
predominate over organic forms (AsB, AsC). Marine algae accumulate inorganic arsenic from
seawater and incorporate it into an array of carbohydrate compounds known as arsenosugars.
Arsenosugars are precursors in the metabolic pathway to AsB and AsC which may explain the
source of these latter forms in marine animals (Hansen et al. 2003). Currently, there is no similar
information on freshwater phytoplankton. This section includes a compilation of the available
information regarding the relative fractions of inorganic and organic (e.g, AsB, AsC, DMA)
arsenic in freshwater and marine aquatic organisms by trophic level. These data are useful for
understanding the transformation of arsenic in tissues of organisms within the aquatic food web,
and for considering and approximating possible BAFs based on the various forms of arsenic
present in animal tissue.
5.1 Freshwater Aquatic Organisms
5.1.1 Trophic Level 2
Very little field data exists to determine the relative fractions of the various arsenic forms
in tissues of trophic level 2 organisms in freshwater systems. For example, no data were found
for trophic level 2 organisms in lentic ecosystems, and only a single study contains this type of
information in lotic ecosystems. Kaise et al. (1997) reported the arsenic species present in
arsenic-rich river water and the corresponding arsenic body burden in aquatic invertebrates from
the Haya-kawa River in Hakone, Kanagawa, Japan. The river water at the site where the
organisms were collected contained 3.0 x 10"2 mg/L total arsenic, 93% of which was inorganic
and the remaining 7% trimethylated arsenic. The corresponding chemical speciation of arsenic in
whole body tissue of trophic level 2 organisms varied greatly between species. Caddisfly larvae
and pupae were composed mostly of dimethylarsenic (DMA) compounds, 86% and 56%,
respectively, while the marsh snail contained only about 27% (Table 5-1). The remainder of the
total arsenic burden in the whole body of these organisms was identified as trimethylarsenic
compounds, which is commonly distinguished as AsB or AsC in marine fish. Very little
inorganic arsenic was detected in these organisms. These findings are meaningful in that nearly
all of the arsenic accumulated naturally by these particular freshwater organisms in the Haya-
kawa River was biomethylated.
Substantially more data are available on the various forms of arsenic present in tropic
level 2 organisms exposed to arsenic as either arsenate [As(V)] or arsenite [As(III)] in laboratory
experiments. Modified Detmer medium was used as the laboratory dilution water in all of the
laboratory studies. The experimental designs were such that water-only and dietary (2 or 3 step
laboratory food-chain model) arsenic exposure was included.
28
-------
Suhendrayatna et al. (2001,2002a, 2002b) investigated the bioaccumulation and
biotransformation of arsenite [As(III)] by the waterflea, Daphnia magna, and red cherry shrimp,
Neocaridina denticulata. Waterfleas exposed for 7 days to arsenite under static conditions at
concentrations ranging from 0.05 to 1.5 mg/L contained from 63% to 75% As(III) and from 24%
to 36% As(V), with geometric means of approximately 70 and 28%, respectively (Table 5-1).
The relative fraction of DMA measured in their whole body tissues was less than 2%. Shrimp
exposed under similar conditions to water containing from 0.1 to 1.5 mg/L arsenic as arsenite
contained from 37% to 48% As(III) and from 22% to 56% As(V), with geometric means of
approximately 43 and 35%, respectively (Table 5-1). The relative fraction of DMA in whole
body was markedly higher for shrimp ranging from 7% to 32%. In contrast, for waterfleas fed a
diet of arsenite-dosed alga (Chlorella vulgaris) which contained approximately 83% As(V), 9%
As(III), and only 6% DMA, the fraction of As(III) and As(V) in their tissues was nearly 50:50,
while in shrimp, a much greater percentage existed as As(V) (80 to 90%), the remainder in the
form of As(III) (Table 5-1). In both cases, regardless of exposure type (water-only or dietary),
inorganic arsenic was accumulated as the predominant arsenic species in these organisms, with
relatively little indication of biomethylation. Similar observations were made for the red cherry
shrimp exposed to arsenic as arsenate in the medium (Maeda et al. 1992, 1993), whereas the
relative fraction of organic arsenic (measured as DMA) in the zooplankterMo/'wa macrocopa
exposed to arsenic as arsenite in the medium was much higher, approximately 55% (Maeda et al.
1990).
In general, for trophic level 2 organisms exposed to arsenic as either arsenite or arsenate
in laboratory water, approximately 80% of their tissue body burden remains in the inorganic
forms, while less than 10% to 20% is biomethylated. The same appears to be true when these
organisms are exposed to arsenic via their diet. The observations differ substantially from those
reported by Kaise et al. (1997) who examined trophic level 2 organisms in field studies.
TABLE 5-1: Arsenic Speciation in Freshwater Trophic Level 2 Aquatic Organisms
Species
marsh snail
caddisfly larva
caddisfly pupa
zooplank. grazer
waterflea
Test type
Field
Field
Field
Lab; As(III)
(water)
Lab; As(III)
(water)
Fraction of Total Arsenic3
Inorganic
NM
NM
NM
0.45
-
As(III)
-
-
-
NM
0.70
As(V)
-
-
-
NM
0.28
Organic
0.89
0.95
0.99
0.55
0.012
Reference
Kaise etal. (1987)
Kaise etal. (1987)
Kaise etal. (1987)
Maeda etal. (1990)
Suhendrayatna et al. (2001)
29
-------
red cherry shrimp
red cherry shrimp
zooplank. grazer
waterflea
red cherry shrimp
red cherry shrimp
Lab; As(III)
(water)
Lab; As(V)
(water)
Lab; As(III)
(diet)
Lab; As(III)
(diet)
Lab; As(III)
(diet)
Lab; As(V)
(diet)
-
0.83
0.81
-
-
0.88
0.43
NM
NM
0.44
0.13
NM
0.35
NM
NM
0.56
0.86
NM
0.16
0.15
0.24
-
0.016
0.056
Suhendrayatna et al. (2001)
Maedaetal. (1992, 1993)
Maedaetal. (1990)
Suhendrayatna et al. (2001,
2002a)
Suhendrayatna et al. (2001,
2002b)
Maedaetal. (1993)
aValues represent geometric mean; calculations based on data compiled in Appendix X.
5.1.2 Trophic Levels 3 and 4
The field study by Kaise et al. (1997) provides data on the proportion of organic arsenic
(di- and trimethyl arsenic species) in several forage fishes, a piscivorous fish, a freshwater prawn,
and dobsonfly larvae. In addition to these data, the relative fractions of inorganic arsenic and
AsB in the tissues of crayfish caught in an area affected by a toxic mine-tailing spill near Seville,
southern Spain were analyzed and reported by Devesa et al. (2002). In the former study, the
range in percent dimethylarsenic compounds identified in trophic levels 3 and 4 species from
Haya-kawa River in Hakone, Kanagawa, Japan, was quite large with Japanese dace, prawn, and
dobsonfly larva each containing 76, 75, and 96% dimethylarsenic compounds, respectively,
whereas other species including goby, downstream fatminnow, and sweet fish contained less than
25% of these dimethylated arsenic compounds, but a much greater percentage of trimethylarsenic.
The single trophic level 4 fish represented in the dataset from this study, the masu salmon,
contained about 43% dimethylarsenic compound and 55% trimethylarsenic compounds. Thus,
although there appears to be very large differences in the form of biomethylated arsenic species
present in tissues of aquatic organisms within each of the respective trophic levels, very little
inorganic arsenic in tissues is present (Table 5-2).
By contrast, in the recent study by Devesa et al. (2002), crayfish from the River
Guadiamar and Puente de los Vaqueros and Aguas Minimas Canal, Seville, Spain contained from
21% to 92% inorganic arsenic based on whole body analysis. The mean (geometric) fraction of
inorganic arsenic in crayfish whole body tissue was about 54% (Table 5-2). The fraction of AsB
in this species ranged from a mere 2% to less than 16% (geometric mean = 4%). Crayfish from
experimental ponds raised near the contaminated study area contained similar mean fractions of
the arsenicals (Table 5-2), 29% and 4%, respectively.
The findings of the various laboratory exposures of higher trophic level organisms, i.e.,
30
-------
carp, tilapia, Japanese medaka, and guppy, exposed to arsenite and arsenate via the water in the
Suhendrayatna and Maeda studies indicated that inorganic arsenic comprised a large portion of
the total arsenic present in these animals, except for tilapia (Table 5-2). One observation from the
Suhendrayatna et al. (2002b) experiment, however, is the fact that tilapia fish exposed to
dimethylarsinic acid in water (nominal concentrations ranging from 1 to 50 mg/L) carried a body
burden of approximately 94% organic arsenic (one third DMA related compounds and two thirds
TMA related compounds), which is approximately two to three times higher than in tilapia
exposed to any other form of arsenic from the same study (Table 5-2). These data imply that the
amount of dimethylated arsenic chemical species in ambient surface waters may result in a greater
proportion of total arsenic in aquatic biota existing in the organic form. The importance of the
amount of organic arsenic in ambient surface water is further supported by the observation that
very little of this form of arsenic was found in the whole bodies of tilapia and Japanese medaka
exposed to arsenic as arsenite through a simulated 3-step food chain model (Suhendrayatna et al.
2002b, Table 5-2). In this particular study, arsenic residues in tilapia and Japenese medaka
exposed to arsenite in water were actually higher than when they accumulated it via the food
chain. The same was not true for guppies exposed via a simulated food chain where the arsenic in
water was originally provided as arsenate (Maeda et al. 1990).
Mean fractions of inorganic and organic arsenic in dorsal muscle of carp exposed to
arsenic as arsenate in water do not differ substantially from the corresponding whole body
concentrations measured for other fishes (Maeda et al. 1993).
TABLE 5-2: Arsenic Speciation in Freshwater Trophic Levels 3 and 4 Aquatic Organisms
Species
dobsonfly larvae
freshwater prawn
amphidromous
goby
Japanese dace
downstream
fatminnow
goby
sweet fish
masu salmon
Test type
Field
Field
Field
Field
Field
Field
Field
Field
Fraction of Total Arsenic3
Inorganic
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
As(III)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
As(V)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Organic
0.96
0.75
0.97
0.96
0.97
0.95
0.88
0.99
Reference
Kaiseetal. (1997)
Kaiseetal. (1997)
Kaiseetal. (1997)
Kaiseetal. (1997)
Kaiseetal. (1997)
Kaiseetal. (1997)
Kaiseetal. (1997)
Kaiseetal. (1997)
31
-------
crayfish
crayfish
tilapia
tilapia
tilapia
tilapia
tilapia
Japanese medaka
guppy
carp
tilapia
tilapia
Japanese medaka
guppy
Field
Field
Lab; As(III)
(water)
Lab; As(V)
(water)
Lab; As(III)
(water)
Lab; MMA
(water)
Lab; DMA
(water)
Lab; As(III)
(water)
Lab; As(V)
(water)
Lab; As(V)
(water)
Lab; As(III)
(diet)
Lab; As(III)
(diet)
Lab; As(III)
(diet)
Lab; As(V)
(diet)
0.54
0.29
-
-
-
-
-
-
0.78
0.76
-
-
-
0.15
NM
NM
0.25
0.36
0.37
0.40
-
0.45
NM
NM
0.41
0.41
0.26
NM
NM
NM
0.14
0.36
0.24
0.31
-
0.38
NM
NM
0.56
0.44
0.74
NM
0.04
0.04
0.50
0.25
0.37
0.27
0.94
0.06
0.21
0.19
0.023
0.037
0.0
0.84
Devesa et al. (2002)
Devesa et al. (2002)
Suhendrayatna et al. (2001)
Suhendrayatna et al. (2002b)
Suhendrayatna et al. (2002b)
Suhendrayatna et al. (2002b)
Suhendrayatna et al. (2002b)
Suhendrayatna et al. (2002a)
Maedaetal. (1990)
Maedaetal. (1993)
Suhendrayatna et al. (2001)
Suhendrayatna et al. (2002b)
Suhendrayatna et al. (2002a)
Maedaetal. (1990)
aValues represent geometric mean; calculations based on data compiled in Appendix X.
5.2 Saltwater Aquatic Organisms
Most of the available arsenic speciation data in tissues of saltwater organisms are from
field studies. The majority of these data pertain to marine bivalve molluscs, and all of it from soft
or edible tissues. Clearly, only a very small percentage of inorganic arsenic exists in the soft
tissues of these organisms (most often less than 1%), the bulk of it being in the form of AsB. The
studies by De Gieter et al. (2002), Goessler et al. (1997), and Ochsenkuhn-Petropulu et al. (1997),
32
-------
confirm the general assertion that from 85% to >90% of arsenic found in edible portions of
marine fish and shellfish is organic arsenic (primarily AsB).
Geizinger et al. (2002) recently showed that the total arsenic concentration in marine
polychaetes Nereis diversicolor and N. virens (Geizinger et al. 2002) was about 70% water-
soluble and consisted of approximately 60% AsB and 20 to 30% tetramethylarsonium ion.
Tetramethylarsoniopropionate and arsenosugars were also present as minor constituents. When
the polychaetes were exposed in the laboratory to different concentrations of arsenate in seawater
(0.010, 0.050, 0.100, 0.500, and 1.0 mg/L arsenic), the arsenic taken up by the polychaetes was
readily methylated with the major metabolite as tetramethylarsonium ion (up to 85% of the
accumulated arsenic). Methylation is assumed to be a process of detoxification, and the authors
note the fact that tetramethylarsonium ion is a common compound in marine organisms, which
suggests that this methylating ability is not restricted to Nereis sp.
33
-------
6.0 SUMMARY OF ARSENIC BAFs AND SUPPORTING INFORMATION
6.1 Freshwater and Saltwater Arsenic BAFs
The present data compilation indicates that insufficient data are available to determine if
distinguishing separate BAFs for freshwater lotic and lentic ecosystems is warranted, and the only
data available for estimating field-derived arsenic BAFs for estuarine and marine ecosystems is
for trophic level 2 organisms.
The species-mean BAFs for saltwater organisms are on average several times higher than
for the majority of trophic level 2 organisms in the two freshwater ecosystem types. This
apparent difference in arsenic BAFs calculated for freshwater and saltwater trophic level 2
organisms indicates the possible need to derive separate BAF values for arsenic in the two water
types.
6.2 BAFs Based on Total Arsenic versus Other Forms of Arsenic
The hypothesis that BAFs based on total arsenic may not be representative of all
freshwater ecosystems, and especially saltwater ecosystems, due to variation in the various forms
of arsenic present in the water and tissues of organisms from those systems remains an issue
requiring further consideration. Average concentrations of arsenic in ambient freshwater are
generally <1 to 10 |ig/L, and arsenic in seawater is present at a fairly uniform concentration of 2
|ig/L (Smedley and Kinniburgh 2002). Concentrations of As in lake waters are typically close to
or lower than those found in river waters. Some polluted rivers and lakes show levels of arsenic
in the hundreds of ppb.
The environmental behavior of arsenic is dependent on the physical and chemical
properties, toxicity, mobility, and biotransformation of individual arsenic compounds. Arsenic
can occur in the environment in several oxidation states (0, +3 and +5), but in natural waters is
mostly found in inorganic form as oxyanions of trivalent arsenite [As(III)] or pentavalent arsenate
[As(V)]. Naturally occurring organo-arsenic compounds are described as having either As(III) or
As(V) oxidation numbers. For example, the designated oxidation states in (CH3)3As is As(+III)
and in (CH3)3AsO is As(+V) (Cullen and Reimer 1989). In oxygenated waters, inorganic arsenic
acid (As(V)) species-H3AsO4, H2As(V ,»HAsO42» ,»andAsO43» *-are stable. Under slightly
reducing conditions and/or lower pH arsenous (As(III)) acid becomes stable, mainly as neutral
H3AsO3 (Cullen and Reimer 1989).
The range of arsenic species is more restricted when the pH domain of natural water is
considered. Freshwater systems rarely exceed a pH range of 5-9 and the maximum pH
distribution in seawater is 7.5-8.3. Thus As(V) should dominate over As(III) in oxygenated
waters-at least on thermodynamic grounds. For examples, As(V)/As(III) ratios of 1015-1026 have
been calculated for seawater. Furthermore, As(V) should mainly consist of HAsO42> in
oxygenated seawater (calculations show 98% HAsO42> «and 1% each of H2AsO4» *and AsO43> ).
In fresh water of pH 6, H2AsO4» •becomes dominant (89% versus 11% HAsO42> ). Inorganic
As(III) species should mainly be neutral, as H3AsO3. The solution properties of arsenic acid
34
-------
(H3AsO4) closely resemble those of phosphoric acid (H3PO4) and the ionization behavior of
As(OH)3 more closely resembles that of boric acid. Thermodynamically predicted As(V)/As(III)
ratios are rarely observed, and experimental evidence clearly indicates that a multiplicity of
factors influences the relative concentrations of these species. Paramount among these are
biologically mediated redox reactions. The interconversion of arsenite and arsenate by
algal/bacteria transformations prevents achievement of thermodynamic equilibrium.
Concentrations and relative proportions of As(V) and As(III) vary according to changes in input
sources, redox conditions and biological activity. The presence of As(III) may be maintained in
oxic waters by biological reduction of As(V), particularly during summer months. Proportions of
As(III) and As(V) are particularly variable in stratified lakes where redox gradients and biological
activity can be large and seasonally variable.
Organoarsenic compounds are widely distributed in the environment. The origin of
essentially all organoarsenicals starts with biomethylation of inorganic arsenic species. The
principal biomethylation products are:
Monomethylarsonate (MMA) CH3AsO2OH» •
Dimethylarsenate (DMA) (CH3)2AsOO •
Trimethylarsine (TMA) (CH3)3As
Trimethylarsine oxide (TMAO) (CH3)3AsO
Arsenobetaine (AsB) (CH3)3As« CH2COOH
Arsenocholine (AsC) (CH3)3As« (CH2)2OH
also, arsenoribosides and arsenophospholipids are formed. MMA and DMA are the
organoarsenics usually encountered in surface waters and usually do not exceed 10% of the total
dissolved arsenic. However, some seasonally anoxic lakes have shown methylated forms to be
the dominate temporal species( >50%) of dissolved arsenic within the surface photic zone as a
result of phytoplankton activity. Clearly, the speciation of arsenic in natural surface waters
depends upon pH, DO (dissolved oxygen) and corresponding oxidation potential (Eh), and
biological activity.
The only field data identified in our literature search for which concentrations of
corresponding inorganic and organic arsenic in both the water and tissues of aquatic organisms
are from Kaise et al. (1997). In their study of the arsenic species present in arsenic-rich river
water from the Haya-kawa River at hot springs in Hakone, Kanagawa, Japan, the authors showed
that the river water at the site where the organisms were collected contained 3.0 x 10"2 mg/L total
arsenic, 93% of which was inorganic and the remaining 7% trimethylated arsenic. The
corresponding chemical speciation of arsenic in whole body tissue of the various organisms
collected there varied greatly between species, but were composed mostly of dimethylarsenic
(DMA) and trimethylarsenic (TMA) compounds, which are commonly distinguished as AsB or
AsC in marine fish. The corresponding BAFs based on the organic fraction of arsenic in water
and tissues of these organisms ranged from 26 to 1,590 L/kg, compared to 2.0 to 114.1 L/kg based
on total arsenic; an increase of a factor often. In contrast, in the laboratory studies composed by
Spehar et al. (1980), there was no difference in BCFs for several freshwater invertebrate species
exposed to inorganic arsenic either as As(III) or As(V), or organic arsenic as DMA or MMA (see
Table 3-1). Much more field data are required to adequately compare and support the derivation
of separate BAFs for the various forms of arsenic in ambient surface waters.
35
-------
6.3 Arsenic in Tissues of Freshwater and Saltwater Aquatic Organisms
The tissue data collected from this literature search for bioaccumulation of arsenic appear
to confirm earlier assumptions that the majority of arsenic in saltwater organisms is arsenobetaine
(AsB), with only a relatively small fraction of the total arsenic in these organisms existing in the
inorganic form. However, these observations are based on data for relatively few saltwater
species.
A finding for freshwater organisms is that a very high percentage of organic arsenic in the
tissues of animals collected from the arsenic-rich (containing approximately 93% inorganic
arsenic) Haya-kawa River, Japan (Kaise et al. 1997). These observations run counter to those
observed for like animals exposed to arsenic (delivered as inorganic arsenic) in laboratory water-
only and food-chain experiments (Suhendrayatna et al. 2001, 2002a,b; Meada et al. 1990, 1992,
1993). The reason for this apparent discrepancy in results cannot be easily explained. It would
appear that rates of biomethylation for aquatic organisms in the field may greatly exceed those for
like organisms exposed to arsenic in a laboratory setting.
In general, the concentrations of total arsenic in marine and estuarine bivalve molluscs
(data from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's Mussel Watch Program,
National Status and Trends) and saltwater fish (data for flounder from EPA's Mid-Atlantic
Integrated Assessment Program) greatly exceed those in freshwater fishes (Lowe et al. 1985;
Schmitt and Brumbaugh 1990). Typical background total arsenic levels in the respective
organisms (marine bivalves, flounder, freshwater fish) are in the range of 1 to 2 mg/kg, 0.75 to
2.5 mg/kg, and 0.10 to 0.25 mg/kg wet weight, respectively. Clearly, more field studies are
needed regarding the biogeochemical cycling of arsenic in aquatic environments and the
biological fate and disposition of arsenic in both freshwater and saltwater organisms.
36
-------
7.0 CONCLUSIONS
This document presents the information and methodologies used to support EPA's current
effort to update the existing 304(a) human health ambient water quality criteria (AWQC) for
arsenic. The BAF values calculated from raw data of appropriate studies are summarized in
Appendices B through D and appear in various tables throughout the text. Only those total
dissolved arsenic BAFs estimated directly from field-measured data were included in the
summary tables and used to calculate species-mean BAFs. Insufficient data were available to
support the derivation of BAFs for other forms of arsenic (i.e., organic, inorganic; see Section
6.2). BAFs estimated from laboratory BCF experiments are presented, but are not considered
robust for estimating BAFs because the majority of the values generated from these studies did
not meet data acceptability criteria and because the estimated BCFs were lower than BAFs
calculated using field-data.
Data on the uptake and accumulation of arsenic in estuarine and marine shellfish
representative of those regularly consumed by humans were very limited. Species-mean BAFs
were calculated for four saltwater species, all of which were trophic level 2 organisms.
Chemical speciation data for arsenic in fresh and salt surface water was limited.
Insufficient data were obtained to provide reliable fd (translator: dissolved/total) values for arsenic
for the individual systems specified in this document. An interim default chemical translator
value of 0.84 (range 0.62 to 0.94) based on four lotic, two lentic, one estuarine, and one lotic-
lentic combined systems was generated for arsenic in this document.
Information available that may be useful for determining bioaccumulation factors for
arsenic is compiled in this document. National trophic-level specific BAFs are not included in
this document because OST is in the process of determining if the data identified in our literature
search is sufficient to derive national BAFs. In the interim, we are making the results of the
literature search available to States and authorized Tribes so that they have access to a current
compilation and review of available data as they develop State and Tribal Water Quality
Standards.
37
-------
8.0 REFERENCES
Anderson, L.C.D., and K.W. Bruland. 1991. Biogeochemistry of arsenic in natural waters: he
importance of methylated species. Environ. Sci. Technol. 25:420-427.
Baker, D.L. and K.A. King. 1994. Environmental contaminant investigation of water quality,
sediment and biota of the Upper Gila River Basin, Arizona. Project No. 22410-1130-90-2-053.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Phoenix, AZ.
Barrows, M.E., S.R. Petrocelli, KJ. Macek, JJ. Carroll. 1980. Bioconcentration and elimination
of selected water pollutants by bluegill sunfish (Lepomis macrochirus). In: Dynamics, Exposure
and Hazard Assessment of Toxic Chemicals. R. Haque (ed.). Ann Arbor Science Pub., Inc., Ann
Arbor, MI. pp. 379-392.
Bart, H.L., Jr., PJ. Martinat, A. Abdelghani, P.B. Tchounwou and S.L. Taylor. 1998. Influence
of taxonomy, ecology, and seasonality in river stage on fish contamination risks in flood plain
swamps of the lower Mississippi River. Ecotoxicology. 7:325-334.
Cain, D.J., S.N. Luoma, J.L. Carter, and S.V. Fend. 1992. Aquatic insects as bioindicators of
trace element contamination in cobble-bottom rivers and streams. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 49:
2141-2154.
Chen, C.Y., and C.L. Folt. 2000. Bioaccumulation and diminution of arsenic and lead in a
freshwater food web. Environ. Sci. Technol. 34:3878-3884.
Chen, C.Y., R.S. Stemberger, B. Klaue, J.D. Blum, P.C. Pickhardt, and C.L. Folt. 2000.
Accumulation of heavy metals in food web components across a gradient of lakes. Limnol.
Oceanogr. 45:1525-1536.
Chen, H., M.M. Frey, D. Clifford, L.S. McNeil, and M. Edwards. 1999. Arsenic treatment
considerations. J. AWWA, 91:74-85.
Cooper, C.M., and W.B. Gillespie Jr. 2001. Arsenic and mercury concentrations in major
landscape components of an intensively cultivated watershed. Environ. Pollut. Ill :67-74.
Cullen, W.R., and K. J. Reimer. 1989. Arsenic speciation in the environment. Chem. Rev.
89:713-764.
De Gieter, M., M. Leemakers, R. Van Ryssen, J. Noyen, L. Goeyens, and W. Baeyens. 2002.
Total and Toxic Arsenic Levels in North Sea Fish. Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 43:406-417.
Devesa, V., M.A. Suner, V.W.-M. Lai, S.C.R. Granchinho, J.M. Martinez, D. Velez, W.R.
Cullen, and R. Montoro. 2002. Determination of arsenic species in a freshwater crustacean
Procambarus clarkii. Applied Organometal. Chem. 16:123-132.
38
-------
Francesconi, K.A., J. Gailer, J.S. Edmonds, W. Goessler, KJ. Irgolic. 1999. Uptake of arsenic-
betaines by the mussel Mytilus edulis. Comp. Biochem. Physiol. C. 122:131-137.
Gailer, J., K.A. Francesconi, J.S. Edmonds, and KJ. Irgolic. 1995. Metabolism of arsenic
compounds by the blue mussel Mytilus edulis after accumulation from seawater spiked with
arsenic compounds. Appl. Organometal. Chem. 9:341-355.
Geiszinger, A.E., W.Goessler, and K.A. Francesconi. 2002. Biotransformation of arsenate to the
tetramethylarsonium ion in the marine polychaetes Nereis diversicolor and Nereis virens.
Environ. Sci. Technol. 36(13):2905-2910.
Giusti, L., and Hao Zhang. 2002. Heavy metals and arsenic in sediments, mussels and marine
water from Murano (Venice, Italy). Environ. Geochem. Health. 24: 47-65.
Goessler, W., W. Maher, KJ. Irgolic, D. Kuehnelt, C. Schlagenhaufen, and T. Kaise. 1997.
Arsenic compounds in a marine food chain. Fresenius J. Analyst Chem. 359:434-437.
Hansen, H.R., A. Raab, K.A. Francesconi, and J. Feldmann. 2003. Metabolism of arsenic by
sheep chronically exposed to arsenosugars as a normal part of their diet. 1. Quantitative intake,
uptake, and excretion. Environ. Sci. Technol. 37:845-851.
Hare, L., A. Tessier, and P.G.C. Campbell. 1991. Trace element distributions in aquatic insects:
variations among genera, elements and lakes. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. 48: 1481-1491.
Hering, J.G. and P.E. Kneebone. 2002. Biogeochemical controls on arsenic occurrence and
mobility in water supplies. In: W.T. Frankeberger (ed.). Environmental Chemistry of Arsenic,
Marcel Dekker, NY. pp. 155-181.
Hung, T.-C., P.-J. Meng, B.-C. Han, A. Chuang, C.-C. Huang. 2001. Trace metals in different
species of mollusca, water and sediments from Taiwan coastal area. Chemosphere 44: 833-841.
Hunter, D.A., W. Goessler, and K.A. Francesconi. 1998. Uptake of arsenate, trimethylarsine
oxide, and arsenobetaine by the shrimp Crangon crangon. Mar. Biol. 131:543-552.
Johnson, A. and M. Roose. 2002. Inorganic arsenic levels in puget sound fish and shellfish from
303 (d) listed waterbodies and other areas. Washington State Department of Ecology.
Environmental Assessment Program Olympia Washington. Publication no. 02-03-057.
Kaise, T., M. Ogura, T. Nozaki, K. Saithoh, T. Sakurai, C. Matsubara, C. Watanabe, and K.
Hanaoka. 1997. Biomethylation of arsenic in an arsenic-rich freshwater environment. Appl.
Organom. Chem. 11:297-3 04.
Kitchin, K.T. and S. Ahmad. 2003. Oxidative stress as a possible mode of action for arsenic
carcinogenesis. Toxicology Letters. 137:3-13.
39
-------
Langston, WJ. 1984. Availability of arsenic to estuarine and marine organisms: a field and
laboratory evaluation. Marine biology. 80:143-154.
Lin, M.-C., C.-M. Liao, C.-W. Liu, S. Singh. 2001. Bioaccumulation of arsenic in aquacultural
large-scale mullet Liza macrolepis from Blackfoot Disease area in Taiwan. Bull. Environ.
Contam. Toxicol. 67: 91-97.
Lowe, T.P., T.W. May, W.G. Brumbaugh, and D.A. Kane. 1985. National contaminant
biomonitoring program: Concentrations of seven elements in freshwater fish, 1978-1981. Arch.
Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 14:363-388.
Maeda, S., K. Mawatari, A. Ohki, and K. Naka. 1993. Arsenic metabolism in a freshwater food
chain: Blue-green alga (Nostoc sp.)» •shrimp (Neocardina denticulatd)* «carp (Cyprinus carpio).
Appl. Organom. Chem. 7:467-476.
Maeda, S., A. Ohki, K. Kusadome, T. Kuroiwa, I. Yoshifuku, and K. Naka. 1992.
Bioaccumulation of arsenic and its fate in a freshwater food chain. Appl. Organom. Chem.
6:213-219.
Maeda, S., A. Ohki, T. Tokuda and M. Ohmine. 1990. Transformation of arsenic compounds in
a freshwater food chain. Appl. Organom. Chem. 4:251-254.
Mason, R.P., J.-M. Laporte, and S. Andres. 2000. Factors controlling the bioaccumulation of
mercury, methylmercury, arsenic, selenium, and cadmium by freshwater invertebrates and fish.
Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 38:283-297.
Mclntyre, D.O., C.G. Delos, W.H. Clement and T.K. Linton. 2002. BAFs for selenium:
Implications for implementation of a tissue-based chronic criterion. Abstract Book. SET AC 23rd
Annual Meeting in North America, Salt Lake City, UT 16-20 November, 2002. Society of
Toxicology and Chemistry. Abstract No. 042. p. 13.
MDEQ (Michigan Department of Environmental Quality). 1996. Michigan default metals
translator. MI/DEQ/SWQ-95/085. Lansing, MI.
Michel, P., B. Averty, J.-F. Chiffoleau, and L.-A. Romana. 2001. Biogeochemical behavior of
arsenic species in the seine estuary in relation of successive high-amplitude primary production,
anoxia, turbidity, and salinity events. Estuaries. 24:1066-1073.
Millward, G.E., HJ. Kitts, L. Ebdon, J.I. Allen and A.W. Morris. 1997. Arsenic in the Thames
Plume, UK. Marine Environmental Research. 44:51-67.
Ochsenkuhn-Petropulu, J. Varsamis, and G. Parissakis. 1997. Speciation of arsenobetaine in
marine organisms using a selective leaching/digestion procedure and hydride generation atomic
absorption spectrometry. Analytica Chimica Acta. 337:323-327.
40
-------
Schmitt, CJ. and W.G. Brumbaugh. 1990. National contaminant biomonitoring program:
Concentrations of arsenic, cadmium, copper, lead, mercury, selenium, and zinc in U.S. freshwater
fish, 1976-1984. Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 19:731-747.
Skinner, W.F. 1985. Trace element concentrations in wastewater treatment basin-reared fishes:
Results of a pilot study. Proceedings of the Pennsylvania Academy of Science. 59:155-161.
Smedley, P.L., and D.G. Kinniburgh. 2002. A review of the source, behaviour and distribution
of arsenic in natural waters. Applied Geochemistry 17:517-568.
Spehar, R.L., J.T. Fiandt, R.L. Anderson, and D.L. DeFoe. 1980. Comparative toxicity of arsenic
compounds and their accumulation in invertebrates and fish. Arch. Environm. Contam. Toxicol.
9:53-63.
Suhendrayatna, A.O., T. Nakajima, and S. Maeda. 2002a. Studies on the accumulation and
transformation fo arsenic in freshwater organisms I. Accumulation, transformation and toxicity
of arsenic compounds to the Japenese medaka, Oryzias latipes. Chemosphere. 46:319-324.
Suhendrayatna, A.O., T. Nakajima, and S. Maeda. 2002b. Studies on the accumulation and
transformation fo arsenic in freshwater organisms II. Accumulation and transforamtion of arsenic
compounds by Tilapia mossambica. Chemosphere. 46:325-331.
Suhendrayatna, A.O., and S. Maeda. 2001. Biotransformation of arsenite in freshwater
food-chain models. Applied Organometallic Chemistry. 15:277-284.
Tanizaki, Y., T. Shimokawa, andM. Nakamura. 1992. Physicochemical speciation of trace
elements in river waters by size fractionation. Environ. Sci. Technol. 26:1433-1443.
Thomas, D.J., M. Styblo, and S. Lin. 2001. The cellular metabolism and systemic toxicity of
arsenic. Toxicol. Appl. Pharm. 176: 127-144.
USEPA (United States Environmental Protection Agency). 2000. Methodology for deriving
ambient water quality criteria for the protection of human health (2000). Office of Water,
Washington, DC. EPA-822-B-00-004.
USEPA (United States Environmental Protection Agency). 1996. The metals translator:
Guidance for calculating a total recoverable permit limit from a dissolved criteria, Washington,
DC.
USEPA (United States Environmental Protection Agency). 1995. Trophic level and exposure
analyses for selected piscivorous birds and mammals. Volume II: Analyses of species in the
conterminous United States. Draft. Office of Water, Washington, DC.
USEPA (United States Environmental Protection Agency). 1993. Memo from Martha G.
Prothro, Acting Assistant Administrator for Water, to Water Management Division Directors and
41
-------
Environmental Services Division Directors, titled "Office of Water Policy and Technical
Guidance on Interpretation and Implementation of Aquatic Life Metals Criteria, Office of Water,
Washington, DC.
USEPA (United States Environmental Protection Agency). 1985. Ambient aquatic life water
quality criteria for arsenic - 1984. PB85-227445. National Technical Information Service,
Springfield, VA.
Valette-Silver, N.J., G.F. Riedel, E.A. Crecelius, H. Windom, R.G. Smith, and S.S. Dolvin.
1999. Elevated arsenic concentrations in bivalves from the southeast coasts of the USA. Marine
Environ. Research. 48:311-333.
Wagemann, R., N.B. Snow, D.M. Rosenberg, and A. Lutz. 1978. Arsenic in sediments, water
and aquatic biota from lakes in the vicinity of Yellowknife, Northwest territories, Canada. Arch.
Environm. Contam. Toxicol. 7:169-191.
Waslenchuk, D.G. 1979. The geochemical controls on arsenic concentrations in Southeastern
United States River. Chemical Geology. 24:315-325.
Woolson, E.A. 1975. Bioaccumulation of arsenicals. In: Arsenical pesticides. E.A. Woolson
(ed.). ACS Symposium Series 7. American Chemical Society, Washington, D.C.
Zaroogian, G.E., and G.L Hoffman. 1982. Arsenic Uptake and Loss in the American Oyster,
Crassostrea Virginica. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment. 1:345-358.
42
-------
APPENDIX A
BAF LITERATURE SEARCH STRATEGY
-------
Literature Search Strategy
for
Data on Arsenic Bioaccumulation in Aquatic Organisms
The literature search strategy is designed to obtain all relevant information for the
calculation (if data are available of bioaccumulation factors (BAFs) for total arsenic, total
inorganic arsenic, dissolved inorganic arsenic, arsenobetaine (AsB), arsenocholine (AsC) and
dimethyl aresinic acid (DMA).
A 'bioaccumulation' search was conducted with the objective of retrieving relevant
information for arsenic in lotic, lentic and estuarine ecosystems. A 'translator' search was
conducted to obtain additional information relevant to establishing chemical translators for
arsenic. This search used a set of search terms different than those used in the primary search,
and therefore eliminated the hits obtained in the primary search. Elements of the searches:
• Major Database: Chemical Abstracts
Time Period for the Literature Search: 1980 through 2002
Bioaccumulation Search
Objective: To obtain information relevant for determining BAFs from acceptable field
bioaccumulation or laboratory bioconcentration studies. The search used the following sets of
search terms to obtain information relevant to deriving bioaccumulation factors for lotic, lentic,
and marine/estuarine ecosystems:
arsenic, arsenite, arsenate, arsine, arsenobetaine, arsenocholine, dimethyl arsinic
acid (search included chemical name and/or CAS number)
• all the organisms listed in Attachment A-l
• bioaccumulat, or bioconcentrat, or accumulat, or biomagnif, or uptake, or depurat,
or eliminat, or BAF, or BCF, or AF, or residue, or tissue, or food chain, or food
web, or predator/prey, or PPF, or pharmacokinetic, or toxicokinetic
The titles and abstracts of those references that contained the three sets of search terms
shown above (e.g., arsenic and walleye and bioaccumulat) were printed and reviewed by senior
scientists/specialists. The titles and abstracts were reviewed for indication that the references
contained the following information necessary for deriving bioaccumulation factors:
• the concentration of arsenic (or forms of interest) in the tissue of an aquatic
organism (fish and invertebrates; mammal data were excluded)
the concentration of the arsenic (or forms of interest) in water, and
any indication that a predator-prey factor could be determined.
Articles containing the above information were retrieved, reviewed and data extracted and
recorded in tables/spreadsheets for use in deriving BAFs.
A-2
-------
Translator Search
Objective: To obtain information relevant for development of arsenic translators for lotic,
lentic , and marine/estuarine ecosystems. The search used the following sets of search terms to
obtain relevant:
arsenic, arsenite, arsenate, arsine, arsenobetaine, arsenocholine, dimethyl arsinic
acid (search included chemical name and/or CAS number)
lotic, or river, or stream, or creek, or brook, or spring, or trib, or canal, or lentic, or
lake, or pond, or water, or loch, or saltwater, or ocean, or marine, or sea, or delta,
or harb, or waterway, or estuar, or bay, or inlet, or sound, or firth, or fjord, or
mouth, or coast
• distribu, or speciation, or partition, or Kd, or dissolv, or fraction, or translat, or
filter
The titles and abstracts of those references that contained the three sets of search terms shown
above (e.g., arsenic and walleye and bioaccumulat) were printed and reviewed by senior
scientists/specialists. Articles containing information on (1) the total and dissolved concentration
of arsenic or forms of interest, or (2) the concentration of particulate arsenic and total suspended
solids, or (3) arsenic partition coefficients were were retrieved, reviewed and data extracted and
recorded in tables/spreadsheets for use in deriving BAFs.
A-3
-------
ATTACHMENT A-l
abalone
acartia
aeolosoma*
agnatha
alevin
alewife
alga
ambystoma*
amoeb*
amphipod *
anchov*
annelid*
aquaculture
archannelid *
artemi*
aufwuchs
backswimmer
barnacle
bass
benth*
beetle
bivalv*
blackfl*
blenny
bluegill
boatman
bream
bryophyt*
bryozoa*
bullhead
caddisfl *
carassius
carp
catfish
centrarch *
ceriodaphni *
chaetognatha
chaetonotid*
char
charphyt*
chinook
chironom *
chlamydomonas
chlorophyt*
chrysophyt*
chub
ciliat*
cisco
cladocera*
clup*
cnidaria
coho
coleoptera*
conchostracan
copepod*
corbicula
coregon*
crab
cranefl*
crangon
crappie
crayfish*
crassostrea
croaker
Crustacea*
cryptophyt*
ctenophor*
cyanophyt*
cyprini *
cyprinodon*
dab
dace
damself 1 *
daphni *
darter
diptera*
dobsonfl*
dolphin
dragonfl*
drum
duckweed
ecihno*
eel
ephemer*
esoc*
esox
etheostoma
euglen*
fmgerling
fish
fishes
flounder
fundulus
gambusia
gammar*
gar
gastropod *
gastrotrich*
goby
goldfish
grunlon
guppy
gupples
haddock
hemiptera
herring
hexagenia
hirudin *
hyallela
hydra
hydridae
hydroid
hydrozoa
hyla
ictalur*
isopod*
jordanella
kelp
killifish
lamprey
lancelet
leech
lemna
lepomis
lobster
lymnaea
macoma
mayfl*
medaka
A-4
-------
menhaden
menidia
mlcropogon
micropterus
midge
minnow
mollus*
molly
morone
mosquito *
mudminnow
mullet
mummichog
muskellunge
mussel
mysid*
mytilus
naupli*
neanthes
nereis
notropis
odonata
oligochaet*
oncorhynchus
osmerid*
osteichthyes
ostracod
ostre*
oyster
palaemon*
paramec*
parr
pelecypod*
penae*
perch
perci*
periphyt*
phaeophyt*
philodin*
physa
phytoplankton *
pike
pimephaeles
pinfish
pipefish
plaice
planari*
plankton*
platyfish
plecoptera
polychaet*
pompano
porifera
porpoise
prawn
protozo*
puffer
pyrrophyt*
quahog
rhinichthy*
rhodophyt*
roach
roccus
rockfish
rotifer*
salmo*
salvelinus
sanddab
sauger
scallop
sciaenid*
scud
sculpin
seagrass
seaweed
selnastrum
shad
shellfish
sheep shead
shiner
shrimp
silverside
skeletonema
smelt
smolt
snail
sockeye
sole
spong*
spot
squid
squawfish
starfish
steelhead
stickleback
stonefl*
sturgeon
sucker
sunfish
surfclam
tench
tilapia
toad*
trematod *
trichoptera
trout
tubificid*
tubifex
tuna
turbellar*
urchin
walleye
whitefish
wonn
wrasse
zooplankton*
A-5
-------
APPENDIX B
SUMMARY OF ARSENIC BIO ACCUMULATION STUDIES REVIEWED
-------
APPENDIX B: Summary of Arsenic Bioaccumulation Studies Reviewed
Article
#
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
3
3
3
4
4
4
5
6
7
7
8
8
9
10
10
10
Field
or
Lab
Lab
Lab
Lab
Lab
Lab
Field
Field
Field
Lab
Lab
Lab
Lab
Lab
Lab
Field
Lab
Field
Field
Field
Field
Field
Field
Field
Field
Water or Waterbody Type
Modified Detmer medium
Modified Detmer medium
Modified Detmer medium
Modified Detmer medium
Modified Detmer medium
Rock pool at Rosedale NSW
Rock pool at Rosedale NSW
Rock pool at Rosedale NSW
Modified Detmer medium
Modified Detmer medium
Modified Detmer medium
Modified Detmer medium
Modified Detmer medium
Modified Detmer medium
Red River of the North, North
Dakota
Lab Water
Coal fly ash basin at US DOE
Fire Pond (unaffected by fly ash
effluent)
Elevsis bay near Athens Greece
Elevsis bay near Athens Greece
12 Coastal sites in western
Taiwan
6 Sites along the Lower Gila
6 Sites along the Lower Gila
6 Sites along the Lower Gila
Habitat
Type
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Marine
Marine
Marine
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Lentic
NA
Lentic
Lentic
Marine
Marine
Marine
Lotic
Lotic
Lotic
Species
Chlorella vulgaris
Daphnia magna
Neocardina denticulata
Tilapia mossambica
Zacco playtypus
Hormosira banksii
Austrocochlea
Morula marginalba
Chlorella vulgaris
Daphnia magna
Oryzias latipes
Tilapia mossambica
Tilapia mossambica
Tilapia mossambica
Cyprinus carpio
Lepomis macrochirus
Micropterus salmoides
Micropterus salmoides
Mytilus edulis
Murex trunculus
Cyprinus carpio
Micropterus salmoides
Ictalurus punctatus
Common Name
green algae
waterflea
shrimp
fish
fish
seaweed
gastropod
gastropod
green algae
waterflea
Japanese
medaka
fish
fish
fish
common carp
bluegill sunfish
largemouth bass
largemouth bass
blue mussel
marine snail
30 different
marine molluscs
common carp
largemouth bass
channel catfish
Trophic
Level
1
2
2
3
3
1
2
4
1
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
2
2
2
3
4
3
Chemical
Form
Water
Arsenite
Arsenite
Arsenite
Arsenite
Arsenite
NM
NM
NM
Arsenite
Arsenite
Arsenite
Arsenite
MMA
DMA
NM
Arsenite
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
Chemical Form Reject
Tissue or
Accept
Total, Inorganic, Reject
Organic
Total, Inorganic,
Organic
Total, Inorganic,
Organic
Total, Inorganic,
Organic
Total, Inorganic
Inorganic, Organic Reject
Inorganic, Organic
Inorganic, Organic
Total, Inorganic, Reject
Organic
Total, Inorganic
Total, Inorganic
Total, Inorganic, Reject
Organic
Total, Inorganic,
Organic
Total, Inorganic,
Organic
Total Reject
Total Reject
Total Reject
Total
Total, AsB Reject
Total, AsB
Total Uncertain
Total Reject
Total
Total
BAF/BCF Reason for Rejection
provided
in paper?
Y=Yes
N=No
N No indication that
steady-state was achieved.
Water concentrations not
measured.
N Water concentrations not
measured.
N No indication that
steady-state was achieved.
Water concentrations not
measured.
N No indication that
steady-state was achieved.
Water concentrations not
measured.
N Water concentrations were
not measured.
Y Article states that
steady-state conditions in
bluegills did not appear to
be reached during this
period.
N Water concentrations were
not measured.
N Water concentrations were
not measured.
N Concentrations of arsenic
in water and sediment were
measured, but not
N Water concentrations were
not measured.
Water Tissue Notes
Speciation Speciation
Data? Data?
N Y 7-day exposure (static). Includes
speciation in tissue from wateborne and
dietary exposure (lab
food chain study). Dietary exposure of
greater significance in lower trophic
levels. No indication of
bioamagnification.
N Y Tissue speciation useful for indicating
differences in As species in the Marine
food chain, but the arsenic species in
tissues are not quantified.
N Y 7-day exposure (static). Does include
speciation in tissue from wateborne and
dietary exposure (lab food chain study).
No indication of biomagnification in lab
food chain.
Y Y 7-day exposure (static).
N N Specimens collected at 4 sites. Study
includes Total Arsenic in whole body,
muscle, and liver tissue.
N N BCF of 4 reported for 28-day exposure
period.
N N Study includes Total Arsenic in gill,
gonad, liver, and muscle tissue. [As] is
highest in liver tissue. Further analysis
of gill and liver extracts from bass
indicated that AB was not present.
N Y
N N
N N
B-2
-------
APPENDIX B: Summary of Arsenic Bioaccumulation Studies Reviewed
Article
#
11
11
11
11
12
12
12
13
13
13
13
13
14
15
15
16
16
17
18
Field
or
Lab
Field
Field
Field
Field
Field
Field
Field
Field
Field
Field
Field
Field
Field
Lab
Lab
Field
Field
Lab
Field
Water or Waterbody Type
7 Sites along the Santa Cruz
7 Sites along the Santa Cruz
7 Sites along the Santa Cruz
7 Sites along the Santa Cruz
1 1 Sites along the Middle Gila
1 1 Sites along the Middle Gila
1 1 Sites along the Middle Gila
Campaign Creek, OH
Ohio River, OH
Singy Run, OH
Singy Run, OH
Little Scary Creek, OH
20 Coastal States
Simulated Irrigation Drainwater
Simulated Irrigation Drainwater
18 Sites in Lake Xolotlan,
Managua, Nicaragua
18 Sites in Lake Xolotlan,
Managua, Nicaragua
Lab water
Los Angeles Harbor (Sediment)
Habitat
Type
Lotic
Lotic
Lotic
Lotic
Lotic
Lotic
Lotic
Lotic
Lotic
Lotic
Lotic
Lotic
Marine
NA
NA
Lentic
Lentic
NA
Marine
Species
Aeshnidae
Belostoma sp.
Physa virgata
Pantosteous clarki
Cyprinus carpio
Ictalurus punctatus
Pantosteous clarki
Lepomis macrochirus
Lepomis macrochirus
Lepomis macrochirus
Lepomis cyanellus
Lepomis macrochirus
Xyrauchen texanus
Gila elegans
C. citrinellum
C. managuense
Oncorhynchus mykiss
Genyonemus lineatus
Common Name
dragonfly larvae
giant water bug
snail
desert sucker
common carp
channel catfish
desert sucker
bluegill sunfish
bluegill sunfish
bluegill sunfish
green sunfish
bluegill sunfish
shellfish
razorback
bonytail
fish
fish
rainbow trout
feral fish
Trophic
Level
3
3
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
3
3
Uncertai
n
Uncertai
n
4
Uncertai
n
Chemical
Form
Water
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
NM
Total
Total
Total
Total
NA
NM
Chemical Form
Tissue
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
NM
NM
Total
Total
Total
Total
Reject BAF/BCF Reason for Rejection
or provided
Accept in paper?
Y=Yes
N=No
Reject N Water concentrations were
not measured.
Reject N Water concentrations were
not measured.
Reject N The only applicable data is
for arsenic in liver tissue,
which is not an edible
tissue.
Reject N Water concentrations were
not provided.
Reject N Tissue concentrations were
not provided.
Reject N Tissue concentrations were
given as a range from less
than detect (<0.01 ug/g
w/v) to 0.2 to 0.4 ug/g wet
Reject N Dietary exposure only.
Reject N Tissue concentrations not
measured.
Water Tissue Notes
Speciation Speciation
Data? Data?
N N Sediment As concentrations reported.
N N Sediment As concentrations reported.
N N
N N
N N
N N
N N Arsenic measured in muscle, gills, liver
and skin. Concentrations were highest
in the liver.
N N
B-3
-------
APPENDIX B: Summary of Arsenic Bioaccumulation Studies Reviewed
Article
#
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
20
20
21
21
21
22
22
22
22
22
22
23
24
Field
or
Lab
Field
Field
Field
Field
Field
Field
Field
Field
Field
Field
Field
Lab
Lab
Field
Field
Field
Lab
Lab
Lab
Lab
Lab
Lab
Field
Field
Water or Waterbody Type
Savannah River, South Carolina
Savannah River, South Carolina
Savannah River, South Carolina
Savannah River, South Carolina
Savannah River, South Carolina
Savannah River, South Carolina
Savannah River, South Carolina
Savannah River, South Carolina
Savannah River, South Carolina
Savannah River, South Carolina
Savannah River, South Carolina
Natural seawater
Natural seawater
Ponds at Horsethief Canyon
Adobe Creek, CO
North Pond near Fruita, CO
Filtered Air River water
Filtered Air River water
Filtered Air River water
Filtered Air River water
Filtered Air River water
Filtered Air River water
3 sites along Thane Creek, India
Coastal waters of Yoshimi,
Shimonoseki, Japan
Habitat
Type
Lotic
Lotic
Lotic
Lotic
Lotic
Lotic
Lotic
Lotic
Lotic
Lotic
Lotic
NA
NA
Lentic
Lotic
Lentic
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Lotic
Marine
Species
Amia calva
Micropterus salmoides
Ictalurus punctatus
Esox niger
Perca fluvescens
Pomoxis
Anguilla rostrata
Lepomis microlophus
Lepomis macrochirus
Lepomis auritus
Minytrema melanops
Nereis virens
Nereis diversicolor
Physa fontinalis
Asellus aquaticus
Gammarus fossarum
Niphargus
Hydropsiche pellucidula
Hepatgenia sulphurea
Common Name
bowfin
bass
channel catfish
chain pickerel
yellow perch
black crappie
american eel
shellcracker
bluegill
redbreast
spotted sucker
marine
polychaetes
marine
polychaetes
cladocerans and
cladocerans and
cladocerans and
snail
isopod
amphipod
amphipod
caddisfly
mayfly
phytoplankton
(algae, diatoms)
mixed marine
organisms
Trophic
Level
4
4
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1 thru 4
Chemical
Form
Water
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
Arsenate
Arsenate
NM
NM
NM
Arsenite
Arsenite
Arsenite
Arsenite
Arsenite
Arsenite
Total
Arsenic
NM
Chemical Form
Tissue
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total, Inorganic,
Organic
Total, Inorganic,
Organic
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Reject BAF/BCF Reason for Rejection
or provided
Accept in paper?
Y=Yes
N=No
Reject N Water concentrations were
not measured.
Reject N No indication that
steady-state was achieved.
Water concentrations
measured as dissolved
Total Arsenic.
Reject N Water concentrations were
not provided.
Reject N No indication that
steady-state was achieved.
Uncertain Y BCF is suspect. High Total
Arsenic concentrations (mean of
527 ug/L) were measured in
water, but arsenic was not
detected in macroinvertebrates
and fish.
Reject N Water concentrations were
not measured.
Water Tissue Notes
Speciation Speciation
Data? Data?
N N
N Y 12-day exposure (static). Includes
Speciation data in tissues.
N N Arsenic in zooplankton measured as part
of dietary exposure treatment for the
razorback sucker.
N N 10-day exposure (flow-through)
N N
N N Tissue Speciation useful for indicating differences
in As species in the Marine food chain, but the
arsenic species in tissues are not quantified.
B-4
-------
APPENDIX B: Summary of Arsenic Bioaccumulation Studies Reviewed
Article
#
25
26
27
27
27
27
27
27
27
28
29
29
30
30
30
31
31
31
31
32
33
34
34
Field
or
Lab
Field
Field
Field
Field
Field
Field
Field
Field
Field
Lab
Lab
Lab
Lab
Lab
Lab
Lab
Lab
Lab
Lab
Lab
Lab
Lab
Lab
Water or Waterbody Type
Sites in the North Sea and English
Channel from Venice Lagoon
Mine-affected and adjacent areas
at Aznalcollar (Seville, Spain)
Puget Sound, WA
Puget Sound, WA
Puget Sound, WA
Puget Sound, WA
Puget Sound, WA
Puget Sound, WA
Puget Sound, WA
City of Winnipeg tap water
Synthetic softwater
Synthetic softwater
Sea water
Sea water
Sea water
Modified Detmer medium
Modified Detmer medium
Modified Detmer medium
Modified Detmer medium
Modified Detmer medium
Modified Detmer medium
Sand filtered sea water
Sand filtered sea water
Habitat
Type
Marine
Lotic
Marine
Marine
Marine
Marine
Marine
Marine
Marine
NA
NA
NA
Species
Procambarus clarkii
Monoraphidium
Chlorella sp.
Crangon crangon
Crangon crangon
Crangon crangon
Chlorella vulgaris
Phormidium sp.
Moina macrocopa
Poecila reticulata
Cyprinus carpio
Neocaridina denticulata
Mytilus edulis
Mytilus edulis
Common Name
fish (25
species);
shellfish
freshwater
crayfish
English sole
quillback
Dungeness crab
coho salmon
Pacific herring
clams
graceful crabs
lake whitefish
freshwater
freshwater
shrimp
shrimp
shrimp
freshwater algae
freshwater algae
zooplankton
guppy fish
carp
shrimp
mussels
mussels
Trophic
Level
2 thru 4
3
3
3
3
4
2
2
3
3
1
1
2
2
2
1
1
2
3
3
2
2
2
Chemical
Form
Water
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NA
Arsenate
Arsenate
Arsenate
TMAO
AB
Arsenate
Arsenate
Arsenate
Arsenate
Arsenate
Arsenate
AsB 1,2,3
AsB 1,2,3
Chemical Form Reject
Tissue or
Accept
primarily Total Reject
Total, Inorganic, Reject
Organic
Total, Inorganic Reject
Total, Inorganic
Total, Inorganic
Total, Inorganic
Total, Inorganic
Total, Inorganic
Total, Inorganic
Total Reject
Inorganic, Organic Reject
Inorganic, Organic
Total Reject
Total
Total
Total, Inorganic, Reject
Organic
Total, Inorganic,
Organic
Total, Inorganic,
Organic
Total, Inorganic,
Organic
Total, Inorganic, Reject
Organic
Total, Inorganic, Reject
Organic
Total Reject
AsB
BAF/BCF Reason for Rejection
provided
in paper?
Y=Yes
N=No
N Water concentrations were
not measured.
N Water concentrations were
not measured.
N Water concentrations were
not measured.
N Exposure was via diet only.
N No indication that
steady-state was achieved.
N Data did indicate that
steady-state was achieved after
8 days. Concentrations of As
species in water were not
measured.
N No indication that
steady-state was achieved.
N No indication that
steady-state was achieved.
Water Arsenate
concentrations not
measured.
N No indication that
steady-state was achieved.
concentrations not
measured.
N No indication that
steady-state was achieved.
Water Tissue Notes
Speciation Speciation
Data? Data?
N Y Some tissue speciation data provided, divided
into toxic (inorganic, MMA, DMA) and non-toxic
fractions (AsB, AsC, TMAO), but the individual
arsenic species are not quantified separately.
N Y Tissue speciation useful for indicating differences
in As species in freshwater crayfish. Arsenic
species in tissues are quantified.
N Y Tissue speciation useful for indicating
differences in As species in Marine fish,
clams and crabs. Combined inorganic
As species in tissues are quantified.
N N Arsenic measured in muscle and non-edible
tissue. Concentrations were highest in pyloric
caeca, intestine, liver, and scales.
N Y 72-h exposure (static). Tissue As
speciation measured at IC50
concentrations (high).
Y N 10-day static renewal exposure.
N Y 7-day exposure (static). Does include
speciation in tissue from wateborne and
dietary exposure (lab food chain study).
No indication of biomagnification.
N Y 7-day exposure (static). Does include speciation
in tissue from wateborne and dietary exposure
(lab food chain study). No indication of
biomagnification. Arsenic species measured in
muscle, gut, and skin. Total As concentrations
were highest in the gut.
N Y 7-day exposure (static). Does include speciation
in tissue from wateborne and dietary exposure
(lab food chain study). No indication of
biomagnification. Biomethylation increases with
trophic level.
N Y 10-day exposure (static). Water AsB
concentrations were confirmed with
measurement. Order of AsB uptake efficieny is
the following AsB1 >AsB2>AsB3.
B-5
-------
APPENDIX B
Article Field
* or
Lab
35
35
36
37
37
38
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
44
44
44
45
45
45
45
Field
Field
Field
Field
Field
Field
Field
Field
Field
Lab
Field
Lab
Field
Field
Field
Field
Field
Field
Field
Field
Water or Waterbody Type
Mouth of Miami River, Biscayne
Mouth of Miami River, Biscayne
Electric utility wastewater
Restronguet Creek in Fal Estuary,
Tamar Estuary, SW England
Devil's Swamp, lower Mississippi
Tunica Swamp, lower Mississippi
Hypersaline evaporation ponds,
CA
Hayakawa River, Japan
Sea water
Venetian Lagoon, Island of
Narragansett Bay seawater
Grace Lake, NW Territories,
Grace Lake, NW Territories,
Kam Lake, NW Territories,
Kam Lake, NW Territories,
San Francisco and Upper Gila
San Francisco and Upper Gila
Upper Gila River, AZ
Upper Gila River, AZ
Habitat Species
Type
Estuarine Isognomon sp. -
Estuarine Crassostrea virginica
Lentic Cyprinus carpio
Estuarine Scrobicularia plana
Estuarine Scrobicularia plana
Lotic / 33 species
Lotic / 28 species
Saltwater Artemia franciscana
Lotic 1 3 FW species
NA Mytilus edulis
Marine Mytilus galloprovincialis
NA Crassostrea virginica
Lotic
Lotic Cottus cognatus
Lotic
Lotic Cottus cognatus
Lotic Ictalurus punctatus
Lotic Pilodictis olivaris
Lotic Cyprinus carpio
Lotic Micropterus salmoides
Summary of Arsenic Bioaccumulation Studies Reviewed
Common Name Trophic Chemical
Level Form
Water
mussels
oysters
common carp
bivalve
bivalve
freshwater fish
freshwater fish
brine shrimp
an alga, diatom,
invertebrates
and fishes
blue mussel
mussell
eastern oyster
zooplankton &
sculpin
zooplankton &
sculpin
channel catfish
flathead catfish
common carp
largemouth bass
2
2
3
2
2
3-4
3-4
2
1-4
2
2
2
2
3
2
3
3
3
2
4
Dissolved
Dissolved
Total
Dissolved
Dissolved
Total
Total
Total
Arsenic
Total
Arsenic
Dissolved
Total
Dissolved
Dissolved
Dissolved
Dissolved
Total
Total
Total
Total
Chemical Form
Tissue
Total, Inorganic,
Total, Inorganic,
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total, Inorganic,
Organic
Total, Organic
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Reject
or
Accept
Accept
Accept
Accept
Accept
Accept
Accept
Reject
Accept
Reject
Accept
Reject
Accept
Accept
Accept
Accept
Accept
Accept
Accept
Accept
BAF/BCF Reason for Rejection Water
provided Speciation
in paper? Data?
Y=Yes
N=No
N
N
Y (3882)
Y(3110)
N
N
N Data are for brine shrimp. Water
[As] was measured in samples
collected December 1995, but
corresponding [As] in adult brine
shrimp weren't collected for
analysis until August 1996.
N
N
N
N
Y
Y
Y
Y
N
N
N
N
Y
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
Tissue Notes
Speciation
Data?
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
B-6
-------
APPENDIX B
Article Field
* or
Lab
46
46
46
46
46
46
46
46
47
48
48
49
49
49
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
Field
Field
Field
Field
Field
Field
Field
Field
Field
Field
Field
Field
Field
Field
Field
Field
Field
Field
Field
Field
Field
Water or Waterbody Type
Blacklick Run and Herrington
Blacklick Run and Herrington
Blacklick Run and Herrington
Blacklick Run and Herrington
Blacklick Run and Herrington
Blacklick Run and Herrington
Blacklick Run and Herrington
Blacklick Run and Herrington
Fish ponds, southwest coast of
20 Lakes in NW U.S.
20 Lakes in NW U.S.
Moon lake, Mississippi
Moon lake, Mississippi
Moon lake, Mississippi
Upper Mystic Lake, MA
Upper Mystic Lake, MA
Upper Mystic Lake, MA
Upper Mystic Lake, MA
Upper Mystic Lake, MA
Upper Mystic Lake, MA
Upper Mystic Lake, MA
Habitat
Type
Lotic
Lotic
Lotic
Lotic
Lotic
Lotic
Lotic
Lotic
Estuarine
Lentic
Lentic
Lentic
Lentic
Lentic
Lentic
Lentic
Lentic
Lentic
Lentic
Lentic
Lentic
Species
Crustacea
cranefly, caddisfly,
Ameirus nebulosus
Catostomus
Cottus bairdi
Rhinichthys atratulus
Semotilus
Salvelinusfontinalis
Liza macrolepis
Pomoxis
Lepomis macrochirus
Micropterus salmoides
Perca flavescens
Summary of Arsenic Bioaccumulation Studies Reviewed
Common Name Trophic Chemical
Level Form
Water
crayfish
invertebrates
brown bullhead
white sucker
mottled sculpin
blacknose dace
creek chub
brook trout
mullet
zooplankton
piscivorous and
omnivorous fish
benthivorous
omnivorous fish
planktivorous
zooplankton
alewife
Killifish
black crappie
bluegill sunfish
largemouth bass
yellow perch
3
2-3
3
3
3
3
4
4
2
3-4
3
3
2
2
3
3
3
3
4
3
Dissolved
Dissolved
Dissolved
Dissolved
Dissolved
Dissolved
Dissolved
Dissolved
Total
Dissolved
Dissolved
Arsenic
Total
Total
Total
Dissolved
Dissolved
Dissolved
Dissolved
Dissolved
Dissolved
Dissolved
Chemical Form Reject
Tissue or
Accept
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Accept
Accept
Accept
Accept
Accept
Accept
Accept
Accept
Accept
Accept
Accept
Accept
Accept
Accept
Accept
Accept
Accept
Accept
Accept
Accept
Accept
BAF/BCF Reason for Rejection Water Tissue Notes
provided Speciation Speciation
in paper? Data? Data?
Y=Yes
N=No
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
Y
N
N
Y
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N N
N N
N N
N N
N N
N N
B-7
-------
APPENDIX B: Summary of Arsenic Bioaccumulation Studies Reviewed
Article
#
51
51
51
51
51
51
51
51
51
51
51
51
51
51
51
51
51
51
51
51
51
51
51
51
52
Field
or
Lab
Lab
Lab
Lab
Lab
Lab
Lab
Lab
Lab
Lab
Lab
Lab
Lab
Lab
Lab
Lab
Lab
Lab
Lab
Lab
Lab
Lab
Lab
Lab
Lab
Lab
Water or Waterbody Type
Filtered Lake Superior water
Filtered Lake Superior water
Filtered Lake Superior water
Filtered Lake Superior water
Filtered Lake Superior water
Filtered Lake Superior water
Filtered Lake Superior water
Filtered Lake Superior water
Filtered Lake Superior water
Filtered Lake Superior water
Filtered Lake Superior water
Filtered Lake Superior water
Filtered Lake Superior water
Filtered Lake Superior water
Filtered Lake Superior water
Filtered Lake Superior water
Filtered Lake Superior water
Filtered Lake Superior water
Filtered Lake Superior water
Filtered Lake Superior water
Filtered Lake Superior water
Filtered Lake Superior water
Filtered Lake Superior water
Filtered Lake Superior water
Well water
Habitat
Type
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Species
Pteronarcys dorsata
Pteronarcys dorsata
Pteronarcys dorsata
Pteronarcys dorsata
Helisoma campanulata
Helisoma campanulata
Helisoma campanulata
Helisoma campanulata
Stagnicola emarginata
Stagnicola emarginata
Stagnicola emarginata
Stagnicola emarginata
Daphnia magna
Daphnia magna
Daphnia magna
Daphnia magna
Gammarus
Gammarus
Gammarus
Gammarus
Oncorhynchus mykiss
Oncorhynchus mykiss
Oncorhynchus mykiss
Oncorhynchus mykiss
Lepomis macrochirus
Common Name
stonefly
stonefly
stonefly
stonefly
snail
snail
snail
snail
snail
snail
snail
snail
cladoceran
cladoceran
cladoceran
cladoceran
amphipod
amphipod
amphipod
amphipod
rainbow trout
rainbow trout
rainbow trout
rainbow trout
bluegill sunfish
Trophic
Level
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
4
4
4
4
3
Chemical
Form
Water
Arsenite
Arsenate
DMA
MMA
Arsenite
Arsenate
DMA
MMA
Arsenite
Arsenate
DMA
MMA
Arsenite
Arsenate
DMA
MMA
Arsenite
Arsenate
DMA
MMA
Arsenite
Arsenate
DMA
MMA
Arsenite
Chemical Form
Tissue
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Reject
or
Accept
Accept
Accept
Accept
Accept
Accept
Accept
Accept
Accept
Accept
Accept
Accept
Accept
Accept
Accept
Accept
Accept
Accept
Accept
Accept
Accept
Accept
Accept
Accept
Accept
Accept
BAF/BCF Reason for Rejection
provided
in paper?
Y=Yes
N=No
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
Y Authors state that it appeared
that steady-state was not
achieved over the 4 wk exposure
period; This data was used in the
1985 Arsenic AWQC document,
so it was included for
comparison.
Water
Speciation
Data?
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
Tissue Notes
Speciation
Data?
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
B-l
-------
APPENDIX B: Articles Reviewed
Article Authors
#
Year Reference
1 Suhendrayatna et al.
2 Goessler et al.
3 Suhendrayatna et. al.
4 Suhendrayatna et. al.
5 Goldstein and DeWeese.
6 Barrows et al.
7 Jackson et al.
8 Ochsenkuhn-Petropulu et al.
9 Hung et al.
10 King et al.
11 King et al.
12 King and Baker.
13 Lohneretal.
14 United States Food and Drug
Administration.
15 Hamilton et al.
16 Lacayo et al.
17 Oladimejei etal.
18 Anderson et al.
19 Burger etal.
20 Geiszinger et al.
21 Hamilton et al.
2001 Applied Organometallic Chemistry 15:277-284.
1997 Fresenius Journal of Analytical Chemistry 359:434-437.
2002 Chemosphere 46:319-324.
2002 Chemosphere 46:325-331.
1999 Journal of the American Water Resources Association
35(5):1133-1140.
1980 In: Dynamics, Exposure and Hazard Assessment of Toxic
Chemicals. Ann Arbor Science Pub., Inc., Ann Arbor, MI
2002 Analytical and Bioanalytical Chemistry 374:203-211.
1997 Analytica Chimica Acta 337:323-327.
2001 Chemosphere 44:833-841.
1997 Environmental contaminants in fish and wildlife of the
lower Gila River, Arizona. US Fish & Wildlife Service,
pp. 1-70.
1999 Contaminants as a limiting factor of fish and wildlife
populatios in the Santa Cruz River, Arizona. US Fish &
Wildlife Service, pp. 1-56
1995 Contaminants in fish and wildlife of the Middle Gila
River, Arizona. US Fish & Wildlife Service, pp 1-17.
2001 Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety 50:203-216.
1993 Guidance Document for Arsenic in Shellfish, pp. 1-27.
2000 Environmental Toxicology 15:48-64
1992 Bulletin of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology
49:463-470.
1984 Bulletin of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology
32:732-741.
2002 Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 20(2):359-370.
2002 Environmental Research Section A 89:85-97.
2002 Environmental Science and Technology 36:2905-2910.
2002 Aquatic Toxicology 59:253-281.
B-9
-------
APPENDIX B: Articles Reviewed
Article Authors
#
Year Reference
22 Canivet et al.
23 Athalye et al.
24 Hanaoka et. al.
25 De Gieter et al.
26 Devesa et al.
27 Johnson and Roose.
28 Pedlar and Klaverkamp.
29 Strauber et al.
30 Hunter and Goessler.
31 Maeda et al.
32 Maeda et al.
33 Maeda et al.
34 Francesconi et al.
35 Valette-Silver et al.
36 Skinner
37 Langston
38 Bart et al.
39 Tanner et al.
40 Kaise et al.
41 Gaileretal.
42 Giusti and Zhang.
43 Zaroogian and Hoffman.
44 Wagemann et al.
2001 Archives of Environmental Contamination and
Toxicology 40:345-354.
2001 Ecology,
Environment and Conservation 7(3):319-325.
1988 Applied Organometallic Chemistry 2:371-376.
2002 Archives of Environmental Contamination and
Toxicology 43:406-417.
2002 Applied Organometallic Chemistry 16:123-132.
2002 Report for the Environmental Assessment Program,
Olympia, Washington. Pub. No. 02-03-057
2002 Aquatic Toxicology 57:153-166.
2002 23rd Annual Meeting of the Society of Environmental
Toxicology and Chemistry, Poster and Absract No. P296.
1998 Marine Biology 131:543-552.
1990 Applied Organometallic Chemistry 4:251-254.
1993 Applied Organometallic Chemistry 7:467-476.
1992 Applied Organometallic Chemistry 6:213-219.
1999 Comparative Biochemistry and Physiology Part C
122:131-137.
1999 Marine Environmental Research 48:311-333.
1985 Proceedings of the Pennsylvania Academy of Science
59:155-161.
1984 Marine Biology 80:143-154.
1998 Ecotoxicology 7:325-334.
1999 Water Environment Research 71(4):494-505.
1997 Applied Organometallic Chemistry 11:297-304.
1995 Applied Organometallic Chemistry 9:341-355.
2002 Environmental Geochemistry and Health 24:47-65.
1982 Environmental Monitoring and Assessement 1:345-358.
1978 Archives of Environmental Contamination and
Toxicology 7:169-191.
B-10
-------
APPENDIX B: Articles Reviewed
Article Authors
#
Year Reference
45 Baker and King.
46 Mason et al.
47 Lin et al.
48 Chen et al.
49 Cooper and Gillespie.
50 Chen and Folt.
51 Speharetal.
52 Barrows et al.
1994 Environmental contamination investigations of water
quality, sediment, and biota of the upper Gila River Basin,
Arizona. US Fish & Wildlife Service,
2000 Archives of Environmental Contamination and
Toxicology 38:283-297.
2001 Bulletin of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology
67:91-97.
2000 Limnology and Oceanography 45(7): 1525-1536.
2001 Environmental Pollution 111:67-74.
2000 Environmental Science and Technology 34:3878-3884.
1980 Archives of Environmental Contamination and
Toxicology 9:53-63
1980 In: R. Hague (ed.) Dyanmics, Exposure, and Hazard
Assessment of Toxic Chemicals. Ann Arbor Sci., Ann
Arbor, MI
B-ll
-------
APPENDIX C
BCF STUDIES: RAW DATA AND CALCUATIONS
-------
APPENDIX C: BCF Studies
Gailer et al. 1995. Applied Organometallic Chemistry 9:341-355
10-day static-renewal exposure of different arsenic compounds to Mytilus edulis
Note: arsenate, dimethylarsenic acid, dimethyl(2-hydroxyethyl)arsine oxide, trimethylarsine oxide, arsenite and methylarsonic acid were also exposed to Mytilus at 0.1 mg/L, but did not accumulate in tissues more than
the control.
Arsenic cmpd used in Species Common name Cw Ct BCF
exposure mg/L* mg/kg**
arsenobetaine
trimethylarsonium
iodide
arsenocholine
Mytilus edulis
Mytilus edulis
Mytilus edulis
0.1
0.1
0.1
* nominal
concentration
139
15.1
45.4
** wet weight
whole animal
1390
151
454
Hunter and Goessler 1998. Marine Biology. 131:543-552
24-day static-renewal exposure of different arsenic compounds to the common shrimp, Crangon crangon
Note: arsenate and trimethylarsine oxide were also exposed to the shrimp but were not
accumulated
Arsenic cmpd used
exposure
arsenobetaine
Maeda, etal. 1990
in Species
Crangon crangon
Common name Cw
mg/L*
0.108
* measured
concentration
Ct
mg/kg**
18.8
** dry weight tail
muscle
Ct
mg/kg***
3.76
*** converted to
wet weight
assuming 80%
water content
BCF
dry weight
174.07
BCF
wet weight
35
. Applied Organometallic Chemistry. 4:251-254
7-day static exposure (not specified in paper)
Note: only one data
point on day 7, therefore
Nominal concentration Species
of Na2HAsO4 used in
exposure, mg/L
1
0.5
1
10
Moina
Poecilia
Poecilia
Poecilia
of different Na2HAsO4to the zooplankter, Moina macrocopa and the guppy, Poecilia
it is not known if steady-state has been
Common name Cw
mg/L*
0.403
0.2015
0.403
4.03
*conc'n as As,
based on 0.403
of 186 MW
achieved
Total As
Ct
mg/kg**
4.7
6.8
6.9
40
** dry weight
Total As
Ct
mg/kg***
0.94
1.7
1.725
10
*** converted to
wet weight
assuming 80%
water content
for Moina, and
75% for Poecilia
Inorganic As
Ct
mg/kg**
2.1
5
5.8
30.6
reticulata
Mono-CH3 DI-CH3 Tri-CH3 Total As
Ct Ct Ct BCF
mg/kg** mg/kg** mg/kg** dry weight
trace 2.6 trace 11.66
0.6 0.1 1.1 33.75
0.1 0.2 0.8 17.12
5.9 0.7 2.8 9.93
Geomean
Total As
BCF
wet weight
2
8
4
2
4
C-2
-------
APPENDIX C: BCF Studies
Maeda, etal. 1993. Applied Organometallic Chemistry. 7:467-476
7-day static exposure (not specified in paper) of different Na2HAsO4*7H20 (As(V)) to the carp, Cyprinus carpio.
Mote: only one data point on day 7, therefore
it is not known if steady-state has been achieved
MUSCLE
Nomina
of As(V)
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
GUT
Nomina
of As(V)
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
concentration Species Common name
mg/L
Cyprinus
Cyprinus
Cyprinus
Cyprinus
Cyprinus
Cyprinus
Cyprinus
concentration Species Common name
mg/L
Cyprinus
Cyprinus
Cyprinus
Cyprinus
Cyprinus
Cyprinus
Cyprinus
Total As
Ct
mg/kg**
2
3.8
6
5.8
7.2
11.4
12
** dry weight in
muscle tissue
Total As
Ct
mg/kg**
7.6
19.7
23.8
40
51.4
60.6
82.8
** dry weight in
gut
Total As
Ct
mg/kg***
0.4
0.76
1.2
1.16
1.44
2.28
2.4
Total As
Ct
mg/kg***
1.52
3.94
4.76
8
10.28
12.12
16.56
Non-methylat
edAs
Ct
mg/kg**
1.8
3.6
5
4.6
6
7
7.1
Non-methylat
edAs
Ct
mg/kg**
7.3
15
16
13
17
20
22
Mono-CH3
Ct
mg/kg**
trace
0.4
0.2
0.5
3.1
2.5
Mono-CH3
Ct
mg/kg**
3.8
4.8
24
29
36
57
DI-CH3
Ct
mg/kg**
trace
0.2
0.1
0.3
0.6
1
DI-CH3
Ct
mg/kg**
0.2
0.6
1.4
1.4
3.4
3.1
1.5
Tri-CH3
Ct
mg/kg***
0.2
0.2
0.4
0.9
0.4
0.7
1.4
Tri-CH3
Ct
mg/kg***
0.1
0.3
1.9
1.6
2
1.5
2.3
Total As
BCF
dry weight
0.38
0.30
0.19
0.18
0.23
0.20
Geomean
Total As
BCF
dry weight
1.97
1.19
1.33
1.28
1.21
1.38
Geomean
Total As
BCF
wet weight
0.08
0.06
0.04
0.04
0.05
0.04
0.048
Total As
BCF
wet weight
0.39
0.24
0.27
0.26
0.24
0.28
0.275
CARP REMNANTS (SKIN, SCALE, BONE, FIN)
Nomina
ofAs(V)
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
concentration Species Common name
mg/L
Cyprinus
Cyprinus
Cyprinus
Cyprinus
Cyprinus
Cyprinus
Cyprinus
Total As
Ct
mg/kg**
5.5
7.5
7.9
6.7
6.8
13.8
12.6
Total As
Ct
mg/kg***
1.1
1.5
1.58
1.34
1.36
2.76
2.52
Non-methylat
edAs
Ct
mg/kg**
5.4
6.5
6.7
5.2
5
9.2
9
Mono-CH3
Ct
mg/kg**
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.5
2.7
1.8
DI-CH3
Ct
mg/kg**
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.2
0.4
0.7
0.5
Tri-CH3
Ct
mg/kg***
trace
0.6
0.6
0.8
0.9
1.2
1.3
Total As
BCF
dry weight
0.75
0.40
0.22
0.17
0.28
0.21
Total As
BCF
wet weight
0.15
0.08
0.04
0.03
0.06
0.04
C-3
-------
APPENDIX C: BCF Studies
"dry weight *** converted to wet weight Geomean 0.059
assuming 80% water content
C-4
-------
APPENDIX C: BCF Studies
Maeda, etal. 1992. Applied Organometallic Chemistry. 6:213-219
7-day static exposure (not specified in paper) of different Na2HAsO4 (As V) to the shrimp, Neocaridina
denticulata
Note: only one data point on day 7, therefore it is not known if steady-state has been achieved
Nominal concentration Species
of Na2HAs04 (as As V)
used in exposure, mg/L
0.1 Neocardia
0.2 Neocardia
0.3 Neocardia
0.5 Neocardia
1 Neocardia
1 .5 Neocardia
Common name
Francesconi et al. 1999. Comparative Biochemistry and Physiology Part C 122
Total As
Ct
mg/kg**
18.9
18.5
19.8
22.6
33.2
31.6
** dry weight
131-137
Total As
Ct
mg/kg***
3.78
3.7
3.96
4.52
6.64
6.32
*** converted to
wet weight
assuming 80%
water content
Inorganic As
Ct
mg/kg**
15.9
14.9
17.3
15.4
30.2
27.9
Mono-CH3 DI-CH3 Tri-CH3 Total As
Ct Ct Ct BCF
mg/kg** mg/kg** mg/kg** dry weight
1.9 1.1 189
trace 1.9 1.7 92
1.4 1.1 66
trace 2.6 4.6 45
trace 1.7 1.3 33
trace 2.2 1.5 21
Geomean
Total As
BCF
wet weight
38
18
13
9
7
4
12
10-day static exposure of arsenic-betaines to the mussel, Mytilus edulis
Note: only one data point on day 10, therefore it is not known if steady-state has been
Nominal concentration Species
of As-betaine used in
exposure, mg/L*
control Mytilus
0.1 C-1 betaine Mytilus
0.1 C-2 betaine Mytilus
0.1 C-3 betaine Mytilus
"nominal concentrations
were confirmed with
measurements - all within
4%
Zaroogian and Hoffman. 1982. Environmental
Common name
achieved
Total As
Ct
mg/kg**
18.3
1740
1220
151
** dry weight
Total As
Ct
mg/kg***
3.66
348
244
30.2
*** converted to
wet weight
assuming 80%
water content
Total As
BCF
dry weight
NA
17217
12017
1327
Geomean
Total As
BCF
wet weight
3443
2403
265
1300
Monitoring and Assessment 1:345-358
16 week study flow-through exposure of arsenic as arsenite to eastern oysters,
Note: uptake initially increased in the first 5 weeks
Nominal concentration Species
ofNa2HAs04(asAslll)
used in exposure, mg/L
control Crassostrea
3 Crassostrea
5 Crassostrea
Crassostrea virginica
then decreased with spawning, followed by a
Common name Total As
Cw
mg/L
0.0012
0.0033
0.0058
Total As
Ct
mg/kg**
10.3
12.7
14.1
** dry weight
subsequent increase again. Steady-state is never really achieved.
Total As
Ct
mg/kg***
2.06
2.54
2.82
*** converted to
wet weight
assuming 80%
water content
Total As
BCF
dry weight
8583
3848
2431
Total As
BCF
wet weight
1717
770
486
C-5
-------
APPENDIX C: BCF Studies
Langston. 1984. Marine Biology. 80:143-154
10-day renewal exposure of native Scrobicularia plana (3 cm length) from Restronguet Creek and Tamar Estuary,
U.K.
Dry Weight Basis
Species
Scrobicularia plana
common name
bivalve
Dissolved As
Cw
mg/L*
0.01
* Interstitial
water As
concentrations
Spehar et al. 1980. Archives of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology.
Total As
Ct
mg/kg**
0.784
** dry weight of
total soft parts
9:53-63.
Total As
Ct
mg/kg***
0.124656
** converted to
wet weight
based on a
water content of
84.1%
Total As
BCF
dry weight
78
Total As
BCF
wet weight
12
28-day intermittent flow exposure (1 00% renewal every 9 hrs) of wild-caught invertebrates and hatchery-reared rainbow trout parr
Original whole body tissue arsenic concentrations reported on a dry weight basis; converted to wet wt assuming 80% water content for invertebrates,
75% for fish.
Nominal concentration
of As2O3(As(lll)used
in exposure, mg/L
100
1000
100
1000
100
1000
100
1000
100
1000
100
1000
Species
Pteronarcys dorsata
Pteronarcys dorsata
Daphnia magna
Daphnia magna
Helisoma campanulata
Helisoma campanulata
Stagnicola emarginata
Stagnicola emarginata
Gammurus pseudolimnaeus
Gammurus pseudolimnaeus
Oncorhynchus mykiss
Oncorhynchus mykiss
Common name
stonefly
stonefly
cladoceran
cladoceran
snail
snail
snail
snail
amphipod
amphipod
rainbow trout
rainbow trout
Total As
Cw
mg/L*
0.088
0.961
0.088
0.961
0.088
0.961
0.088
0.961
0.088
0.961
0.088
0.961
* Measured as
total As in water
Total As
Ct
mg/kg*
NA
42
21
47
2.5
80
3.3
16
Total As
Ct
mg/kg wet wt
8.4
4.2
9.4
0.5
16
0.66
3.2
Total As
BAF
dry weight
44
239
49
28
83
38
17
and
Total As Geomean
BAF
wet weight
9
48
10
6
17
8
3
9
22
10
5
C-6
-------
APPENDIX C: BCF Studies
Speharetal. 1980. Archives of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 9:53-63.
28-day intermittent flow exposure (100% renewal every 9 hrs) of wild-caught invertebrates and hatchery-reared rainbow trout parr
Original whole body tissue arsenic concentrations reported on a dry weight basis; converted to wet wt assuming 80% water content for invertebrates, and
75% for fish.
Nominal concentration Species Common name Total As Total As Total As Total As Total As Geomean
of 3As205 .5H20 Cw Ct Ct BAF BAF
(As(V) used in mg/L* mg/kg* mg/kg wet wt dry weight wet weight
exposure, mg/L
100
1000
100
1000
100
1000
100
1000
100
1000
100
1000
Pteronarcys dorsata stonefly
Pteronarcys dorsata stonefly
Daphnia magna cladoceran
Daphnia magna cladoceran
Helisoma campanulata snail
Helisoma campanulata snail
Stagnicola emarginata snail
Stagnicola emarginata snail
Gammurus pseudolimnaeus amphipod
Gammurus pseudolimnaeus amphipod
Oncorhynchus mykiss rainbow trout
Oncorhynchus mykiss rainbow trout
0.089
0.973
0.089
0.973
0.089
0.973
0.089
0.973
0.089
0.973
0.089
0.973
* Measured as
total As in water
12
34
5.2
19
8.8
27
8.2
17
2.4
6.8
1.04
3.8
1.76
5.4
1.64
3.4
135
35
58
20
99
28
92
17
27
7
12
4
20
6
18
3
14
7
10
8
Speharetal. 1980. Archives of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 9:53-63.
28-day intermittent flow exposure (100% renewal every 9 hrs) of wild-caught invertebrates and hatchery-reared rainbow trout parr
Original whole body tissue arsenic concentrations reported on a dry weight basis; converted to wet wt assuming 80% water content for invertebrates, and
75% for fish.
Nominal concentration Species Common name Total As Total As Total As Total As Total As Geomean
of (CH3)2AsO(ONa) Cw Ct
SDMA used in mg/L* mg/Kg*
exposure, mg/L
Total As Total As
Ct BAF
mg/Kg wet wt dry weight
Total As
BAF
wet weight
100
1000
100
1000
100
1000
100
1000
100
1000
100
1000
Pteronarcys dorsata stonefly
Pteronarcys dorsata stonefly
Daphnia magna cladoceran
Daphnia magna cladoceran
Helisoma campanulata snail
Helisoma campanulata snail
Stagnicola emarginata snail
Stagnicola emarginata snail
Gammurus pseudolimnaeus amphipod
Gammurus pseudolimnaeus amphipod
Oncorhynchus mykiss rainbow trout
Oncorhynchus mykiss rainbow trout
0.086
0.97
0.086
0.97
0.086
0.97
0.086
0.97
0.086
0.97
0.086
0.97
* Measured as
total As in water
2.4
29
7.2
23
1.9
23
NA
9.8
0.48
5.8
1.44
4.6
0.38
4.6
1.96
28
30
84
24
22
24
10
6
6
17
5
4
5
C-7
-------
APPENDIX C: BCF Studies
Speharetal. 1980. Archives of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 9:53-63.
28-day intermittent flow exposure (1 00% renewal every 9 hrs) of wild-caught invertebrates and hatchery-reared rainbow trout parr
Original whole body tissue arsenic concentrations reported on a dry weight basis; converted to wet wt assuming 80% water content for invertebrates, and
75% for fish.
Nominal concentration Species Common name Total As Total As Total As Total As Total As Geomean
of Cw Ct Ct BAF BAF
CH32AsO(ONa)2.6H2O mg/L* mg/Kg* mg/Kg wet wt dry weight wet weight
DSMA used in
exposure, mg/L
100
1000
100
1000
100
1000
100
1000
Pteronarcys dorsata
Pteronarcys dorsata
Daphnia magna
Daphnia magna
Helisoma campanulata
Helisoma campanulata
Stagnicola emarginata
Staanicola emarainata
stonefly
stonefly
cladoceran
cladoceran
snail
snail
snail
snail
0.085
0.846
0.085
0.846
0.085
0.846
0.085
0846
1.8
44
5
17
2.6
18
1
16
0.085
8.8
1
3.4
0.52
3.6
0.2
32
2
52
59
20
31
21
12
19
0
10
12
4
6
4
2
4
7
7
5
3
Co
-o
-------
APPENDIX D
BAF STUDIES: RAW DATA AND CALCULATIONS
-------
RAF Studies
Skinner. 1985. Proceedings of the Pennsylvania Academy of Science. 59:155-161
Scope: measurements of contaminants in fish and water in fly ash basins (As BAF)
Dry Weight Basis
DryaWcright Basis Species
Bl#6
Mon FA
Mon DB
Mon DB
MonSW
MonSW
MCIWTB
MCIWTB
MCIWTB
Wet Weight Basis
Location Species
Bl#6
Mon FA
Mon DB
Mon DB
MonSW
MonSW
MCIWTB
MCIWTB
MCIWTB
Common Name
carp
carp
carp
carp
carp
carp
carp
carp
carp
Common Name
carp
carp
carp
carp
carp
carp
carp
carp
carp
Cw
mg/L*
0.03
0.016
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.006
0.006
0.006
"Total As
Cw
mg/L*
0.03
0.016
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.006
0.006
0.006
"Total As
ct
mg/kg**
0.3
0.7
0.9
0.8
0.2
0.2
0.5
0.7
0.5
**Total As, dry
weight edible
ct
mg/kg***
0.06
0.14
0.18
0.16
0.04
0.04
0.1
0.14
0.1
*** converted to
wet weight
assuming 80%
BAF
dry weight
10.0
43.7
300.0
266.7
66.7
66.7
83.3
116.7
83.3
BAF
dry weight
2.0
8.7
60.0
53.3
13.3
13.3
16.7
23.3
16.7
log
BAF
1.0
1.6
2.5
2.4
1.8
1.8
1.9
2.1
1.9
log
BAF
0.3
0.9
1.8
1.7
1.1
1.1
1.2
1.4
1.2
Avg log BAF
per Location
1.00
1.64
2.45
1.82
1.97
Avg log BAF
per Location
1.00
0.94
1.75
1.12
1.27
Avg BAF
per Location
10.0
43.8
282.8
66.7
93.2
Avg BAF
per Location
10.0
8.8
56.6
13.3
18.6
D-2
-------
RAF Studies
Kaiseetal. 1997. Applied Organometallic Chemistry. 11:297-304
Scope: As species in water, algae,
Location
Hayakawa River (Japan)
Hayakawa River (Japan)
Hayakawa River (Japan)
Hayakawa River (Japan)
Hayakawa River (Japan)
Hayakawa River (Japan)
Hayakawa River (Japan)
Hayakawa River (Japan)
Hayakawa River (Japan)
Hayakawa River (Japan)
Hayakawa River (Japan)
Hayakawa River (Japan)
Hayakawa River (Japan)
Bartetal. 1998. Ecotoxicology.
macroinvertebrates and fish collected from the Hayakawa
Species
Clodophora glomerate
Diatom
Plecoglossus altivelis
Onchorhynchus masou masou
Rhinogobius sp.
Phoxinus steindachneri
Trobolodon hakonensis
Sicyopterus japonicus
Macrobranchiura nipponense
Semisulcospira libertina
Plotohermes grandis
caddisfly larva
Stenopsyche marmorata
7:325-334
Common Name
green alga
FW Diatom
sweet fish
masu salmon
goby
downstream
fatminnow
Japanese dace
amphidromous goby
prawn
marsh snail
dobsonfly larva
caddisfly larva
caddisfly pupa
River (Japan)
Total As Total As
Cw Ct
mg/L* mg/kg*
0.03 0.453
0.03 0.124
0.03 0.051
0.03 0.146
0.03 0.333
0.03 0.267
0.03 0.100
0.03 0.370
0.03 0.817
0.03 0.186
0.03 2.875
0.03 0.236
0.03 2.050
*wet weight
Inorganic As
Ct
mg/kg*
0.0
0.0
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
Methylarsine
Ct
mg/kg*
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
Diemthylarsine
Ct
mg/kg*
0.385
0.101
0.005
0.063
0.077
0.061
0.076
0.089
0.614
0.050
2.762
0.202
1.180
Trimethylarsine
Ct
mg/kg*
0.015
0.003
0.040
0.081
0.238
0.197
0.020
0.269
0.187
0.116
0.043
0.022
0.839
Total As
BAF
15.1
4.1
1.7
4.9
11.1
8.9
3.3
12.3
27.2
6.2
95.8
7.9
68.3
Scope: Total As in fish and water from the lower Mississippi River
Location
Devil's Swamp
Tunica Swamp
Species
mean of numerous spp.
mean of numerous spp.
Common Name
Total As Total As
Cw Ct
mg/L* mg/kg*
0.147 0.061
0.221 0.035
*assumed to be
wet weight (not
stated) based on
the article's stating
of dry wt for
sediment samples
with no reference
to fish
Total As
BAF
0.4
0.2
D-3
-------
RAF Studies
Valette-Silver et al. 1999. Marine Environmental Research. 48:311-333
Scope: As data from National Status and Trends program (1 986-1 995)
Dry Weight Basis
Location
Miami River mouth
Miami River mouth
Wet Weight Basis
Location
Miami River mouth
Miami River mouth
Langston. 1984. Marine Biology.
Scope: In field study, measued Total
Dry Weight Basis
Location
Restronguet Creek, Site S
Restronguet Creek*
Tamar Estuary*
Wet Weight Basis
Location
Restronguet Creek, Site S
Restronguet Creek
Tamar Estuary
Species
Isognomon sp.-radiatus?
Crassostrea virginica
Species
Isognomon sp.-radiatus?
Crassostrea virginica
80:143-154
As in the bivalve mollusk,
Species
Scrobicularia plana
Scrobicularia plana
Scrobicularia plana
Species
Scrobicularia plana
Scrobicularia plana
Scrobicularia plana
Common Name
bivalve
bivalve
Common Name
bivalve
bivalve
Scrobicularia plana and in
Common Name
bivalve
bivalve
bivalve
Common Name
bivalve
bivalve
bivalve
Total As As(lll)
Cw Cw
mg/L* mg/L**
0.00089 0.0
0.00089 0.0
* water samples ** dry weight
were filtered
Total As As(lll)
Cw Cw
mg/L* mg/L**
0.00089 0.0
0.00089 0.0
* water samples *** converted to
were filtered wet weight
assuming 80%
water content
Restronguet Creek
Dissolved As Total As
Cw Ct
mg/L* mg/kg**
0.0049 200.0
0.0551 214.0
0.0109 34.0
* I nterstitial water ** dry weight of
As concentrations Total soft parts
Dissolved As Total As
Cw Ct
mg/L* mg/kg**
0.0049 31.8
0.0551 34.0
0.0109 5.4
* I nterstitial water ** converted to wet
As concentration weight based on a
water content of
84.1%
As(V) MMA
Cw Cw
mg/L** mg/L**
0.00069 0.00003
0.00069 0.00003
As (V) MMA
Cw Cw
mg/L** mg/L**
0.00069 0.00003
0.00069 0.00003
Total As
BAF
40816.3
3883.8
3119.3
Total As
BAF
6489.8
617.5
496.0
DMA Total As Total As
Cw Ct BAF
mg/L** mg/kg** dry weight
0.00006 37.3 41910
0.00006 23.6 26517
DMA Total As Total As
Cw Ct BAF
mg/L** mg/kg*** wet weight
0.00006 7.46 8382
0.00006 4.72 5303
D-4
-------
BAF Studies
Cooper and Gillespie. 2001. Environmental Pollution. 111:67-74
Scope: Study was designed to measure concentrations of As and Hg associated with different components (sediment, water, fish) of a NW Mississippi
Dry Weight Basis
Location Species Common Name Total As Total As Total As
Cw
mg/L*
Ct
mg/kg*
BAF
Moon Lake
Moon Lake
Moon Lake
Moon Lake
Wet Weight Basis
Location
freshwater fish species
benthivorous fish
omnivorous fish
planktivorous fish
Species
Common Name
0.00512
0.00512
0.00512
0.00512
* Average of six
sites
Total As
Cw
mg/L*
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.0
7.2
8.9
20.3
0.8
* dry weight
Total As
Ct
mg/kg**
Total As
BAF
Moon Lake
Moon Lake
Moon Lake
Moon Lake
freshwater fish species
benthivorous fish
omnivorous fish
planktivorous fish
0.00512
0.00512
0.00512
0.00512
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.8
2.2
5.1
0.2
* Average of six ** converted to wet
sites weight assuming
75% water content
Giusti and Zhang.
Scope: Study of the
Dry Weight Basis
Location
2002. Environmental Geochemistry and Health 24:47-65.
trace metal distribution in sediments, marine water and mussel Mytilus galloprovincialis of the Venetian Lagoon, Island of Murano
Species
Common Name
Dissolved As
Cw
mg/L
Total As
Ct
mg/kg*
Total As
BAF
B
E
F
H
Wet Weight Basis
Location
Mytilus galloprovincialis
Mytilus galloprovincialis
Mytilus galloprovincialis
Mytilus galloprovincialis
Species
Mussel
Mussel
Mussel
Mussel
Common Name
0.0039
0.00473
0.00323
0.0019
18.0
16.1
12.3
12.0
4615.4
3403.8
3808.0
6315.8
"Edible portion, composite samples (n
= 15 to 20 mussels per site)
Dissolved As
Cw
mg/L
Total As
Ct
mg/kg*
Total As
BAF
Mytilus galloprovincialis Mussel
Mytilus galloprovincialis Mussel
Mytilus galloprovincialis Mussel
Mytilus galloprovincialis Mussel
0.0039
0.00473
0.00323
0.0019
3.6
3.2
2.5
2.4
923.1
680.8
761.6
1263.2
D-5
-------
BAF Studies
* converted to wet weight assuming
80% water content
D-6
-------
RAF Studies
Chen and Folt. 2000. Environmental Science & Technology, 34:3878-3884.
Scope: Bioaccumulation (and Diminution) of As in Freshwater Food Web
Dry Weight Basis
Location
Upper Mystic Lake
Upper Mystic Lake
Upper Mystic Lake
Upper Mystic Lake
Upper Mystic Lake
Upper Mystic Lake
Upper Mystic Lake
Upper Mystic Lake
Wet Weight Basis
Location
Upper Mystic Lake
Upper Mystic Lake
Upper Mystic Lake
Upper Mystic Lake
Upper Mystic Lake
Upper Mystic Lake
Upper Mystic Lake
Upper Mystic Lake
Species Common Name
zooplankton (small) NA
zooplankton (large) NA
alewife
killifish
black crappie
bluegill sunfish
yellow perch
largemouth bass
Species Common Name
zooplankton (small) NA
zooplankton (large) NA
alewife
killifish
black crappie
bluegill sunfish
yellow perch
largemouth bass
Dissolved As
Cw
mg/L*
0.000781
0.000781
0.000781
0.000781
0.000781
0.000781
0.000781
0.000781
* average of 3
samples (June,
August, October)
Dissolved As
Cw
mg/L*
0.000781
0.000781
0.000781
0.000781
0.000781
0.000781
0.000781
0.000781
*average of 3
samples (June,
August, October)
Total As
Ct
mg/kg**
17.2
10.7
0.3
0.3
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.1
** dry weight
Total As
Ct
mg/kg**
3.4
2.1
0.1
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
** converted to wet
weight assuming
75% water content
for fish and 80%
for zooplankton
Total As
BAF
21959.0
13738.8
381.6
343.1
158.8
190.8
234.3
184.4
Total As
BAF
ERR
2747.8
95.4
85.8
39.7
47.7
58.6
46.1
D-7
-------
RAF Studies
Chenetal. 2000. Limnology and Oceanography 45:1 525-1 536.
Scope: Arsenic in food web across a gradient of lakes
Dry Weight Basis
Location Species Common Name
Canobie Lake
Canobie Lake
Chaffin Pond
Clear Pond
Clear Pond
Community Lake
Community Lake
Gregg Lake
Gregg Lake
Horseshoe Pond
Horseshoe Pond
Ingham Pond
Ingham Pond
Island Pond
Lake Placid
Lake Placid
Lower Kohanza Reservoir
Lower Kohanza Reservoir
Mirror Lake
Mirror Lake
Palmer pond
Post pond
Post pond
Queen Lake
Queen Lake
Tewksbury pond
Tewksbury pond
Turkey pond
Turkey pond
Williams Lake
Williams Lake
All lakes
Small zooplankton
Large zooplankton
Large zooplankton
Small zooplankton
Large zooplankton
Small zooplankton
Large zooplankton
Small zooplankton
Large zooplankton
Small zooplankton
Large zooplankton
Small zooplankton
Large zooplankton
Small zooplankton
Small zooplankton
Large zooplankton
Small zooplankton
Large zooplankton
Small zooplankton
Large zooplankton
Small zooplankton
Small zooplankton
Large zooplankton
Small zooplankton
Large zooplankton
Small zooplankton
Large zooplankton
Small zooplankton
Large zooplankton
Small zooplankton
Large zooplankton
Piscivores and omnivores freshwater fish
Dissolved As
Cw
mg/L
0.000221
0.000221
0.000113
0.000046
0.000046
0.000367
0.000367
0.00038
0.00038
0.000078
0.000078
0.000587
0.000587
0.00026
0.000123
0.000123
0.000085
0.000085
0.000409
0.000409
0.000022
0.00026
0.00026
0.000107
0.000107
0.000057
0.000057
0.00026
0.00026
0.000096
0.000096
0.000174
Total As
Ct
mg/kg*
10.4
2.4
0.1
0.1
0.3
1.4
0.3
5.9
1.6
7.6
0.5
1.1
2.1
6.5
0.8
0.4
0.3
0.2
1.0
0.6
0.3
0.5
0.9
0.9
0.3
2.2
0.2
9.9
3.0
1.4
0.5
0.6
*dry weight
Total As
BAF**
95.4
10905.0
964.6
2804.3
5869.6
3842.0
768.4
15421.1
4131.6
97435.9
6717.9
1925.0
3509.4
25038.5
6422.8
2951.2
3152.9
1952.9
2518.3
1371.6
11909.1
1846.2
3642.3
8654.2
2869.2
39122.8
2894.7
38115.4
11500.0
14687.5
4812.5
3281.6
**BAF for fish was back calculated from
the Loa BAF and Cw
D-8
-------
RAF Studies
Chenetal. 2000. Limnology and Oceanography 45:1 525-1 536.
Scope: Arsenic in food web across a gradient of lakes
Wet Weight Basis
Location Species Common Name
Canobie Lake
Canobie Lake
Chaffin Pond
Clear Pond
Clear Pond
Community Lake
Community Lake
Gregg Lake
Gregg Lake
Horseshoe Pond
Horseshoe Pond
Ingham Pond
Ingham Pond
Island Pond
Lake Placid
Lake Placid
Lower Kohanza Reservoir
Lower Kohanza Reservoir
Mirror Lake
Mirror Lake
Palmer pond
Post pond
Post pond
Queen Lake
Queen Lake
Tewksbury pond
Tewksbury pond
Turkey pond
Turkey pond
Williams Lake
Williams Lake
All lakes
Small zooplankton
Large zooplankton
Large zooplankton
Small zooplankton
Large zooplankton
Small zooplankton
Large zooplankton
Small zooplankton
Large zooplankton
Small zooplankton
Large zooplankton
Small zooplankton
Large zooplankton
Small zooplankton
Small zooplankton
Large zooplankton
Small zooplankton
Large zooplankton
Small zooplankton
Large zooplankton
Small zooplankton
Small zooplankton
Large zooplankton
Small zooplankton
Large zooplankton
Small zooplankton
Large zooplankton
Small zooplankton
Large zooplankton
Small zooplankton
Large zooplankton
Piscivores and omnivores freshwater fish
Dissolved As
Cw
mg/L
0.000221
0.000221
0.000113
0.000046
0.000046
0.000367
0.000367
0.00038
0.00038
0.000078
0.000078
0.000587
0.000587
0.00026
0.000123
0.000123
0.000085
0.000085
0.000409
0.000409
0.000022
0.00026
0.00026
0.000107
0.000107
0.000057
0.000057
0.00026
0.00026
0.000096
0.000096
0.000174
Total As
Ct
mg/kg*
2.1
0.5
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.3
0.1
1.2
0.3
1.5
0.1
0.2
0.4
1.3
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.0
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.4
0.0
2.0
0.6
0.3
0.1
0.1
Total As
BAF**
2894.7
2181.0
192.9
560.9
1173.9
768.4
153.7
3084.2
826.3
19487.2
1343.6
385.0
701.9
5007.7
1284.6
590.2
630.6
390.6
503.7
274.3
2381.8
369.2
728.5
1730.8
573.8
7824.6
578.9
7623.1
2300.0
2937.5
962.5
361.0
D-9
-------
BAF Studies
* converted to wet weight based on
88% water content for fish (as in the
article) and 80% forzooplankton
D-10
-------
RAF Studies
Mason et al. 2002. Archives of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology 38:283-297.
Scope: Bioaccumulation of As and other metals by freshwater Inverts and fish
Wet Weight Basis
Species Common Name Location Dissolved As Total As Total As
Cw Ct BAF
mg/L mg/kg**
Diptera/Tipulidae
Diptera/Tipulidae
Tricoptera/Hydropsychidae
Tricoptera/Hydropsychidae
Ephemeroptera/Heptageniidae
Ephemeroptera/Heptageniidae
Plecoptera/Pteronacidae/Pteronarcy
s
Plecoptera/Perlidae/Acroneuria
Plecoptera/Perlidae/Acroneuria
Odonata/Aeshnidae/Aeshna
Odonata/Aeshnidae/Aeshna
Megaloptera/Corydalidae
Megaloptera/Corydalidae
Crustacea/Decapoda
Crustacea/Decapoda
Ameierus nebulosus
Catostomus commersoni
Cottus bairdi
Rhinichthys atratulus
Semotilus atromaculatus
Salvelinus fontinalis
Salvelinus fontinalis
Salvelinus fontinalis
Salvelinus fontinalis
*whole body
periphyton
periphyton
bryophytes
bryophytes
cranefly
cranefly
caddisfly
caddisfly
mayfly
mayfly
shredder stonefly
predatory stonefly
predatory stonefly
dragonfly
dragonfly
dobsonfly
dobsonfly
Crayfish
Crayfish
Brown Bullhead
White Sucker
Mottled Sculpin
Blacknose Dace
Creek Chub
Small Brook Trout
Small Brook Trout
Large Brook Trout
Large Brook Trout
Blacklick
Herrington Creek
Blacklick
Herrington Creek
Blacklick
Herrington Creek
Blacklick
Herrington Creek
Blacklick
Herrington Creek
Blacklick
Blacklick
Herrington Creek
Blacklick
Herrington Creek
Blacklick
Herrington Creek
Blacklick
Herrington Creek
Herrington Creek
Herrington Creek
Blacklick
Blacklick
Harrington Creek
Blacklick
Harrington
Blacklick
Harrington Creek
0.00037
0.00067
0.00037
0.00067
0.00037
0.00067
0.00037
0.00067
0.00037
0.00067
0.00037
0.00037
0.00067
0.00037
0.00067
0.00037
0.00067
0.00037
0.00067
0.00067
0.00067
0.00037
0.00037
0.00067
0.00037
0.00067
0.00037
0.00067
0.6
1.4
1.1
1.6
0.9
0.3
1.0
1.2
2.1
1.7
0.2
0.5
0.6
0.1
0.8
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.4
0.2
0.3
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.2
1600.3
2062.1
2915.9
2415.5
2400.5
392.8
2809.5
1846.0
5618.6
2543.1
604.6
1333.5
824.8
195.7
1256.9
1102.4
432.1
489.2
646.4
283.9
376.1
798.1
512.7
281.5
571.1
308.2
304.6
237.8
D-ll
-------
RAF Studies
Wagemann et al. 1978
Scope: As in water and
Dry Weight Basis
Location
Grace Lake
Grace Lake
Kam Lake
Kam Lake
Grace Lake
Grace Lake
Kam Lake
Grace Lake
Kam Lake
Grace Lake
Kam Lake
Grace Lake
Kam Lake
Grace Lake
Grace Lake
Kam Lake
Grace Lake
Kam Lake
Grace Lake
Kam Lake
Grace Lake
Kam Lake
Grace Lake
Kam Lake
Kam Lake
Kam Lake
Grace Lake
Kam Lake
Grace Lake
Kam Lake
Grace Lake
Grace Lake
Kam Lake
Archives of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology 7:169-191.
Biota from Lakes in N. West Canada
Species Common Name Dissolved As Total As Total As
Cw Ct BAF
mg/L* mg/kg**
Pelecypoda
Gastropoda
Gastropoda
Oligochaeta
Ephemeroptera
Trichoptera
Trichoptera
Chironomidae
Chironomidae
zooplankton
zooplankton
Hemiptera: Notonectidae
Hemiptera: Notonectidae
Hemiptera: Gerridae
Odonata: Anispotera
Odonata: Anispotera
Odonota: Zygoptera
Odonota: Zygoptera
Coleoptera: Dytiscidae
Coleoptera: Dytiscidae
Coleoptera: Gyrinidae
Coleoptera: Gyrinidae
Diptera: Ceratopogonidae
Diptera: Ceratopogonidae
Chironomidae: Tanypodinae
Hydracarnia
Hirudinea
Hirudinea
Cottus cognatus
Cottus cognatus
Amphipoda
Hemiptera: Corixidae
Hemiptera: Corixidae
Herbivore
Herbivore
Herbivore
Herbivore
Herbivore
Herbivore
Herbivore
Herbivore
Herbivore
Herbivore
Herbivore
Carnivore
Carnivore
Carnivore
Carnivore
Carnivore
Carnivore
Carnivore
Carnivore
Carnivore
Carnivore
Carnivore
Carnivore
Carnivore
Carnivore
Carnivore
Carnivore
Carnivore
Carnivore', sculpin
Carnivore; sculpin
Omnivore
Omnivore
Omnivore
0.027
0.027
2.58
2.58
0.027
0.027
2.58
0.027
2.58
0.027
2.58
0.027
2.58
0.027
0.027
2.58
0.027
2.58
0.027
2.58
0.027
2.58
0.027
2.58
2.58
2.58
0.027
2.58
0.027
2.58
0.027
0.027
2.58
23.2
14.8
133.0
820.0
51.0
14.3
56.0
31.0
125.0
26.7
710.0
3.2
30.0
1.8
9.2
57.5
5.5
2.0
6.5
32.1
2.6
14.6
3.5
12.0
40.0
51.6
2.7
190.0
7.6
122.0
14.5
3.8
44.1
859.3
548.1
51.6
317.8
1888.9
529.6
21.7
1148.1
48.4
988.9
275.2
118.1
11.6
66.7
341.5
22.3
204.4
0.8
240.4
12.4
95.9
5.7
129.6
4.7
15.5
20.0
100.7
73.6
282.2
47.3
537.0
141.5
17.1
D-12
-------
RAF Studies
*Average of 1 975 **Geometric mean of whole body
monthly samples samples collfrin summer months 1975
Wagemann et al. 1978
Scope: As in water and
Wet Weight Basis
Location
Archives of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology 7:169-191.
Biota from Lakes in N. West Canada
Species Common Name Dissolved As Total As Total As
Cw Ct BAF
mg/L mg/kg**
Grace Lake
Grace Lake
Kam Lake
Kam Lake
Grace Lake
Grace Lake
Kam Lake
Grace Lake
Kam Lake
Grace Lake
Kam Lake
Grace Lake
Kam Lake
Grace Lake
Grace Lake
Kam Lake
Grace Lake
Kam Lake
Grace Lake
Kam Lake
Grace Lake
Kam Lake
Grace Lake
Kam Lake
Kam Lake
Kam Lake
Grace Lake
Kam Lake
Grace Lake
Kam Lake
Grace Lake
Grace Lake
Pelecypoda
Gastropoda
Gastropoda
Oligochaeta
Ephemeroptera
Trichoptera
Trichoptera
Chironomidae
Chironomidae
zooplankton
zooplankton
Hemiptera: Notonectidae
Hemiptera: Notonectidae
Hemiptera: Gerridae
Odonata: Anispotera
Odonata: Anispotera
Odonota: Zygoptera
Odonota: Zygoptera
Coleoptera: Dytiscidae
Coleoptera: Dytiscidae
Coleoptera: Gyrinidae
Coleoptera: Gyrinidae
Diptera: Ceratopogonidae
Diptera: Ceratopogonidae
Chironomidae: Tanypodinae
Hydracarnia
Hirudinea
Hirudinea
Cottus cognatus
Cottus cognatus
Amphipoda
Hemiptera: Corixidae
Carnivore
Carnivore
Carnivore
Carnivore
Carnivore
Carnivore
Carnivore
Carnivore
Carnivore
Carnivore
Carnivore
Carnivore
Carnivore
Carnivore
Carnivore
Carnivore
Carnivore
Carnivore; sculpin
Carnivore; sculpin
Omnivore
Omnivore
0.027
0.027
2.58
2.58
0.027
0.027
2.58
0.027
2.58
0.027
2.58
0.027
2.58
0.027
0.027
2.58
0.027
2.58
0.027
2.58
0.027
2.58
0.027
2.58
2.58
2.58
0.027
2.58
0.027
2.58
0.027
0.027
4.6
3.0
26.6
164.0
10.2
2.9
11.2
6.2
25.0
5.3
142.0
0.6
6.0
0.4
1.8
11.5
1.1
0.4
1.3
6.4
0.5
2.9
0.7
2.4
8.0
10.3
0.5
38.0
1.9
30.5
2.9
0.8
171.9
109.6
10.3
63.6
377.8
105.9
4.3
229.6
9.7
197.8
55.0
23.6
2.3
13.3
68.3
4.5
40.9
0.2
48.1
2.5
19.2
1.1
25.9
0.9
3.1
4.0
20.1
14.7
70.6
11.8
107.4
28.3
D-13
-------
BAF Studies
Kam Lake Hemiptera: Corixidae Omnivore 2.58 8.8 3.4
* converted to wet weight assuming
80% water content for invertebrates
and 75% for fish
D-14
-------
BAF Studies
Lin et al. 2001 . Bulletin of Environmental Conamination and Toxicology 67:91 -97.
Scope: Bioaccumulation
Dry Weight Basis
Location
Putai 3
Wet Weight Basis
Location
Putai 3
Baker and King. 1994.
of As in Mullet in Fish Ponds using As contaminated groundwater
Species Common Name
Liza macrolepis Mullet
Species Common Name
Liza macrolepis mullet
Total As Total As
Cw Ct
mg/L mg/kg*
0.1697 2.2
* value is average
As in dorsal
muscle of eleven
fish
Total As Total As
Cw Ct
mg/L mg/kg*
0.1697 0.6
* Converted to wet
weight assuming
75% water content
Total As
BAF
13.2
Total As
BAF
3.3
Environmental contamination investigations of water quality, sediment, and biota of the upper Gila River Basin,
Scope: As in water and biota of the San Francisco River (site 2) and Upper Gila River, AZ.
Wet Weight Basis
Locaton
2
2
4
4
5
5
6
7
7
7
8
9
9
9
9
9
10
Species Common Name
Ictalurus punctatus Channel Catfish
Pilodictis olivaris FH Catfish*
Ictalurus punctatus Channel Catfish
Pilodictis olivaris FH Catfish
Ictalurus punctatus Channel Catfish
Pilodictis olivaris FH Catfish
Cyprinis carpio Carp
Pilodictis olivaris FH Catfish
Cyprinis carpio Carp
Pilodictis olivaris FH Catfish*
Cyprinis carpio Carp
Ictalurus punctatus Channel Catfish
Cyprinis carpio Carp
Micropterus salmoides LM Bass
Ictalurus punctatus Channel Catfish*
Micropterus salmoides LM Bass*
Cyprinis carpio Carp
Total As Total As
Cw Ct
mg/L** mg/kg
0.02 0.1
0.02 0.1
0.034 0.1
0.034 0.1
0.017 0.1
0.017 0.1
0.025 0.1
0.01 0.1
0.01 0.1
0.01 0.1
0.011 0.1
0.008 0.2
0.008 0.1
0.008 0.3
0.008 0.1
0.008 0.1
0.008 0.2
Total As
BAF
5.0
5.0
2.9
2.9
5.9
5.9
4.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
9.1
25.0
12.5
37.5
12.5
12.5
25.0
D-15
-------
3
0>
LJ_
<
m
*Edible portion ** water sample is average of 3
monthly samples collected June thru
Alienist 1990 whpn fig;h WPTP nnllpntpH
APPENDIX E
ARSENIC TOTAL: DISSOLVED CHEMICAL TRANSLATOR
-------
Dissolved Fraction (f-d) of
Author/Location
Anderson and Bruland (1991)/CA
10/23/88- depth, m= 0
10/23/88- depth, m= 3.7
10/23/88- depth, m= 15.2
10/23/88- depth, m= 17.7
12/20/88- depth, m= 0
12/20/88- depth, m= 3.7
12/20/88- depth, m= 7.6
12/20/88- depth, m= 12.2
12/20/88- depth, m= 16.8
2/13/89-depth, m=0
2/13/89-depth, m=3.7
2/13/89-depth, m=7.6
2/13/89-depth, m=12.2
2/13/89-depth, m=16.8
GM
Chen and Folt (2000)/Upper Mystic Lake,
Summer, 1997
Fall, 1997
As-D
(nM)
Davis Creek
24.9
26.8
22.4
19.6
23.9
24.2
23.8
24.8
24.2
17.8
17.4
16.4
16.8
15.6
for the three
MA
0.85
0.65
Arsenic (As) for Lentic Systems
As-T
(nM)
As
f-d
As
log (f-d)
Reservoir
25.8
25.6
32.4
37.9
22.6
23.2
23.3
23.1
21.9
15.9
16.4
16.5
16.3
16.4
dates:
0.985
0.72
0.965
1.000
0.691
0.517
0.766
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
0.950
0.987
0.918
0.86
0.9
0.88
-0.015
0.000
-0.161
-0.287
-0.116
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
-0.022
-0.006
-0.066
-0.046
-0.056
E-2
-------
Dissolved
Author/Location
Tanzaki et al (1992)/ Japan
Tamagawa River- S-1
Tamagawa River- S-2
Tamagawa River- S-3
Tamagawa River- S-4
Tamagawa River- S-5
Tamagawa River- S-6
Sagamigawa River- S-7
Sagamigawa River- S-8
Tamagawa and Sagamigawa Rivers
Waslenchuk(1979)/GA
Ogeechee River
Hering and Kneebone (2002)/CA
Los Angelos Aqueduct, channel
Michel et al./France
Seine River*
*Average of samples from the
210-280 Kmn to Paris zone of
freshwater.
Fraction
As-D
(ug/L)
0.596
0.530
0.785
0.719
0.409
0.535
0.325
0.356
0.265
4.6
1.65
(f-d) of Arsenic (As) for Lotic Systems
As-T
(ug/L)
0.655
0.578
0.851
0.754
0.898
0.535
0.382
0.380
0.36
5.7
1.76
As
f-d
0.910
0.917
0.924
0.954
0.455
1
0.851
0.937
0.862
0.736
0.807
0.938
As
log (f-d)
-0.041
-0.038
-0.034
-0.020
-0.342
0.000
-0.070
-0.028
-0.076
-0.133
-0.093
-0.028
E-3
-------
Dissolved
Author/Location
Milward et al. (1997)/England
Thames estuary
Febuary, 1989
July, 1990
Fraction
As-D
(ug/L)
3.277
2.292
(f-d) of Arsenic (As)
Participate
As
(ug/L)
0.227
0.133
for Estuarine Systems
As-T
(ug/L)
3.504
2.425
As
f-d
0.935
0.945
0.940
As
log (f-d)
-0.029
-0.024
-0.027
E-4
-------
Dissolved Fraction (f-d) of Arsenic (As) for Combined Surface Drinking Water Sources
Author/Location
Relative Sample
Contribution
Range
of
As f-d
Chen et al. (1999)/ U.S. Surface Drinking Water Sources
6.54
5.05
6.35
5.85
5.61
5.79
5.79
5.99
6.16
5.61
6.36
4.48
6.54
5.43
5.79
6.17
4.67
5.70
0.901-1
0.789-0.901
0.783-0.789
0.756-0.783
0.753-0.756
0.72-0.753
0.693-0.72
0.673-0.693
0.651-0.673
0.589-0.651
0.589-0.589
0.5-0.589
0.497-0.56
0.483-0.497
0.451-0.483
0.441-0.451
0.182-0.441
M id-Rang
e of
As f-d
0.950
0.845
0.783
0.770
0.754
0.737
0.706
0.683
0.662
0.610
0.589
0.544
0.498
0.490
0.467
0.446
0.312
Weighted Log
Dissolved Weighted
Sample Log Relative Contributi
Contribution* Contribution on
6.210
4.270
4.970
4.500
4.230
4.270
4.090
4.090
4.080
3.420
3.750
2.440
3.260
2.660
2.700
2.750
1.460
3.418
GM f-d:
f-d=
"relative sample
contribution x
midrange f-d.
5.74xf-d=3.54
0.60
0.816
0.703
0.803
0.767
0.749
0.763
0.763
0.777
0.790
0.749
0.803
0.651
0.816
0.735
0.763
0.790
0.669
0.756
0.793
0.630
0.696
0.653
0.626
0.630
0.612
0.612
0.611
0.534
0.574
0.387
0.513
0.425
0.431
0.439
0.164
0.534
E-5
-------
APPENDIX F
TISSUE ARSENIC SPECIATION DATA
-------
APPENDIX F: TISSUE SPECIATION DATA
Study Type Trophic Articl Tissue Common Name
Level e
#
whole
:reshwater -Field 2 40 body marsh snail
whole
2 40 body caddisfly larva
whole
2 40 body caddisfly pupa
GMEAN
whole
:reshwater-Lab 2 1 body waterflea
whole
Water Exposure) 2 1 body waterflea
whole
2 1 body waterflea
GMEAN
whole
2 1 body shrimp
whole
2 1 body shrimp
whole
2 1 body shrimp
GMEAN
whole zooplanktonic
2 31 body grazer
whole
2 32, 33 body shrimp
whole
2 32, 33 body shrimp
whole
2 32, 33 body shrimp
whole
2 32, 33 body shrimp
whole
2 32, 33 body shrimp
whole
2 32, 33 body shrimp
GMEAN
Total
As
Ct
mg/kg
0.186
0.236
2.05
0.4481
18
19.4
35.2
23.07&
1
1.88
2.2
1 .605!
0.94
3.78
3.7
3.96
4.52
6.64
6.32
4.679S
Inorganilnorgani As (III) As (III) As (V) As (V)
cAs c Ct Fraction Ct Fractior
Ct As mg/kg mg/kg
mg/kg Fraction
13 0.722 4.6 0.256
14.6 0.753 4.6 0.237
22 0.625 12.8 0.364
16.1030 0.6978 6.4701 0.280^
0.46 0.460 0.2 0.220
0.9 0.479 0.6 0.340
0.82 0.373 1.2 0.555
0.6976 0.4346 0.5559 0.346;
0.42 0.447
3.18 0.841
2.98 0.805
3.46 0.874
3.08 0.681
6.04 0.910
5.58 0.883
3.8784 0.8287
Organic MMA MMA DMA DMA TMA TMA AsB AsB AsC AsC
As Ct Fraction Ct Fraction Ct Fraction Ct Fraction Ct Fraction
Fraction mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg
1.058 0.05 0.269 0.116 0.624
1.173 0.202 0.856 0.022 0.093
3.004 1.18 0.576 0.839 0.409
0.2284 0.1289
0.060 0.3 0.017
0.020 0.18 0.009
0.020 0.42 0.012
0.0288 0.2831 0.0123
0.32 0.320
0.34 0.181
0.16 0.073
0.2592 0.1615
0.52 0.553
0.759 0.38 0.101 0.22 0.058
0.915 0.38 0.103 0.34 0.092
0.626 0.28 0.071 0.22 0.056
1.759 0.52 0.115 0.92 0.204
0.690 0.34 0.051 0.26 0.039
0.857 0.44 0.070 0.3 0.047
0.8761 0.3828 0.0818 0.3251 0.0695
F-2
-------
APPENDIX F: TISSUE SPECIATION DATA
Study Type Trophic Articl Tissue Common Name
Level e
#
whole
:reshwater-Lab 2 1,3 body waterflea
Dietary Exposure -
ab foodchain
nodel) 2
whole
2 1 body shrimp
whole
2 1 body shrimp
whole
2 4 body shrimp
GMEAN
whole zooplanktonic
31 body grazer
whole zooplanktonic
31 body grazer
whole
33 body shrimp
Total
As
Ct
mg/kg
41.8
2.5
6.4
6.4
4.678^
15.12
22.2
5.12
Inorganilnorgani As (III) As (III) As (V) As (V)
cAs c Ct Fraction Ct Fractior
Ct As mg/kg mg/kg
mg/kg Fraction
18.4 0.440 23.4 0.560
0.44 0.176 2.0 0.808
0.6 0.094 5.8 0.906
0.6 0.094 5.8 0.906
0.5411 0.1157 4.0807 0.872!
13.24 0.876
16.66 0.750
4.52 0.883
Organic MMA MMA DMA DMA TMA TMA AsB AsB AsC AsC
As Ct Fraction Ct Fraction Ct Fraction Ct Fraction Ct Fraction
Fraction mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg
0.04 0.016
0.0400 0.0160
1.88 0.124
3.930 1.860 0.084 3.68 0.166
0.286 0.056
F-3
-------
APPENDIX F: TISSUE SPECIATION DATA
Study Type Trophic Articl Tissue Common Name
Level e
#
whole
:reshwater-Field 3 40 body prawn
whole
3 40 body dobsonfly larva
whole
3 26 body freshwater crayfish
whole
3 26 body freshwater crayfish
whole
3 26 body freshwater crayfish
whole
3 26 body freshwater crayfish
whole
3 26 body freshwater crayfish
whole
3 26 body freshwater crayfish
whole
3 26 body freshwater crayfish
whole
3 26 body freshwater crayfish
whole
3 26 body freshwater crayfish
whole
3 26 body freshwater crayfish
whole
3 26 body freshwater crayfish
whole
3 26 body freshwater crayfish
whole
3 26 body freshwater crayfish
GMEAN
whole
3 26 body freshwater crayfish
whole
3 26 body freshwater crayfish
whole
3 26 body freshwater crayfish
whole
3 26 body freshwater crayfish
GMEAN
whole amphidromous
3 40 body goby
whole
3 40 body Japanese dace
whole downstream
3 40 body fatminnow
whole
3 40 body goby
whole
3 40 body sweet fish
whole
3 26 body freshwater crayfish
whole
3 26 body freshwater crayfish
Total
As
Ct
mg/kg
0.817
2.875
0.6
1.26
0.32
0.62
0.76
1
0.4
1.16
1.26
1.02
1.7
0.52
0.52
0.766C
0.26
0.24
0.36
0.32
0.291!
0.37
0.1
0.267
0.333
0.051
0.5
1.44
Inorganilnorgani As (III) As (III) As (V) As (V)
cAs c Ct Fraction Ct Fractior
Ct As mg/kg mg/kg
mg/kg Fraction
0.44 0.733
0.15 0.469
0.42 0.677
0.44 0.579
0.174 0.435
0.72 0.621
0.56 0.549
1.08 0.635
0.36 0.692
0.48 0.923
0.4172 0.6179
0.22 0.611
0.068 0.213
0.1223 0.3604
0.146 0.292
0.86 0.597
Organic MMA MMA DMA DMA TMA TMA AsB AsB AsC AsC
As Ct Fraction Ct Fraction Ct Fraction Ct Fraction Ct Fraction
Fraction mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg
0.614 0.752 0.187
2.762 0.961 0.043
0.054 0.090
0.056 0.044
0.0112 0.035
0.024 0.039
0.034 0.045
0.034 0.034
0.05 0.125
0.022 0.019
0.024 0.019
0.03 0.029
0.028 0.016
0.0118 0.023
0.054 0.104
0.0296 0.0386
0.016 0.062
0.038 0.158
0.0144 0.040
0.026 0.081
0.0218 0.0750
1.326 0.089 0.241 0.269 0.727
1.056 0.076 0.760 0.02 0.200
1.224 0.061 0.228 0.197 0.738
1.261 0.077 0.231 0.238 0.715
0.927 0.005 0.098 0.04 0.784
0.022 0.044
F-4
-------
APPENDIX F: TISSUE SPECIATION DATA
Study Type Trophic Articl Tissue Common Name
Level e
#
whole
3 26 body freshwater crayfish
whole
3 26 body freshwater crayfish
whole
3 26 body freshwater crayfish
GMEAN
whole
rreshwater-Lab 3 1 body tilapia
whole
Water Expsoure) 3 1 body tilapia
whole
3 1 body tilapia
GMEAN
whole
3 3 body Japanese medaka
whole
3 3 body Japanese medaka
whole
3 3 body Japanese medaka
whole
3 3 body Japanese medaka
whole
3 3 body Japanese medaka
GMEAN
whole
3 4 body tilapia
whole
3 4 body tilapia
whole
3 4 body tilapia
GMEAN
whole
3 4 body tilapia
whole
3 4 body tilapia
whole
3 4 body tilapia
GMEAN
whole
3 4 body tilapia
whole
3 4 body tilapia
whole
3 4 body tilapia
GMEAN
whole
3 4 body tilapia
whole
3 4 body tilapia
whole
3 4 body tilapia
Total
As
Ct
mg/kg
0.44
0.82
0.76
0.722S
0.675
0.8
5.15
1 .406;
5.3
53.25
80.25
77.75
62.5
40.5811
0.85
1.9
2.8
1 .653*
5.15
3
3.075
3.621 1
0.625
2.475
3.025
1 .672*
0.475
1.775
5.25
Inorganilnorgani As (III) As (III) As (V) As (V)
cAs c Ct Fraction Ct Fractior
Ct As mg/kg mg/kg
mg/kg Fraction
0.3543 0.4176
0.15 0.222 0.0 0.074
0.15 0.187 0.1 0.094
2.025 0.393 1.8 0.359
0.3572 0.2540 0.1907 0.1 35(
1.375 0.259 1.6 0.292
38.25 0.718 11.5 0.216
41.5 0.517 36.2 0.452
34.25 0.441 41.5 0.534
27 0.432 32.5 0.520
1 8 2390 0 4494 1 5 41 89 0 380C
0.25 0.294 0.2 0.294
0.725 0.382 0.7 0.382
1.125 0.402 1.2 0.429
05886 03559 06014 03637
2.025 0.393 1.8 0.359
0.975 0.325 0.9 0.300
1.25 0.407 1.2 0.374
13514 03731 12418 0 342S
0.25 0.400 0.2 0.280
1.025 0.414 1.0 0.384
1.2 0.397 0.9 0.289
0.6750 0.4035 0.5259 0.314^
0.95 0.181
Organic MMA MMA DMA DMA TMA TMA AsB AsB AsC AsC
As Ct Fraction Ct Fraction Ct Fraction Ct Fraction Ct Fraction
Fraction mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg
0.0134 0.030
0.017 0.022
0.0171 0.0311
1.179 0.475 0.704
1.294 0.575 0.719
1.248 0.275 0.053 0.4 0.078 0.6 0.117
1.2391 0.2750 0.0534 0.4000 0.0777 0.5472 0.3891
1.598 1.225 0.231 0.6 0.113 0.55 0.104
1.066 2.500 0.047 1 0.019
0.781 1.750 0.022 0.75 0.009
0.026 2.000 0.026
1.048 2.000 0.032 0.875 0.014 0.125 0.002
05140 18460 00455 07329 00246 04097 00157
0.762 0.35 0.412
0.612 0.075 0.039 0.125 0.066 0.25 0.132
0.570 0.075 0.027 0.175 0.062 0.225 0.080
06427 00750 00325 01479 00641 02700 01633
1.248 0.275 0.053 0.4 0.078 0.6 0.117
1.350 0.150 0.050 0.275 0.092 0.7 0.233
0.870 0.025 0.008 0.25 0.081 0.4 0.130
11356 01010 00279 03018 00833 05518 01524
0.370 0.150 0.240 0.05 0.080
0.377 0.325 0.131 0.175 0.071
0.614 0.650 0.215 0.3 0.099
0.4408 0.3164 0.1892 0.1379 0.0825
1.475 0.15 0.316 0.325 0.684
2.775 0.625 0.352 1.15 0.648
5.119 1.8 0.343 2.5 0.476
F-5
-------
APPENDIX F: TISSUE SPECIATION DATA
Study Type Trophic Articl Tissue Common Name
Level e
#
GMEAN
whole
3 31 body guppy
whole
3 31 body guppy
whole
3 31 body guppy
GMEAN
3 32 muscle carp
3 32 muscle carp
3 32 muscle carp
3 32 muscle carp
3 32 muscle carp
3 32 muscle carp
GMEAN
whole
:reshwater-Lab 3 1 body Tilapia
Dietary Exposure -
ab foodchain whole
tiodel) 3 4 body Tilapia
whole
3 1 body freshwater minnow
whole
3 1 body freshwater minnow
whole
3 3 body Japanese Medaka
whole
3 31 body guppy
whole
3 31 body guppy
whole
rreshwater-Field 4 40 body masu salmon
Total
As
Ct
mg/kg
1.641S
1.7
1.725
10
3.083S
0.95
1.5
1.45
1.8
2.85
3
1 .779S
6.65
6.75
0.55
0.4
12.5
0.925
1.4
0.146
Inorganilnorgani As (III) As (III) As (V) As (V)
cAs c Ct Fraction Ct Fractior
Ct As mg/kg mg/kg
mg/kg Fraction
0.9500 0.1810
1.25 0.735
1.45 0.841
7.65 0.765
0.7791 #NUM! #NUM!
0.9 0.947
1.25 0.833
1.15 0.793
1.5 0.833
1.75 0.614
1.775 0.592
1 .3491 0.7579
2.75 0.414 3.8 0.564
2.75 0.407 3 0.444
0.35 0.636 0.2 0.364
0.25 0.625 0.2 0.375
3.25 0.260 9.2 0.740
0.125 0.135
0.225 0.161
Organic MMA MMA DMA DMA TMA TMA AsB AsB AsC AsC
As Ct Fraction Ct Fraction Ct Fraction Ct Fraction Ct Fraction
Fraction mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg
2.7569 0.5526 0.3366 0.9776 0.5954
0.565 0.150 0.088 0.025 0.015 0.275 0.162
0.409 0.025 0.014 0.05 0.029 0.2 0.116
1.110 1.480 0.148 0.175 0.017 0.7 0.070
0.6356 0.1771 0.0574 0.0603 0.0195 0.3377 0.1095
0.103 0.05 0.053
0.317 0.100 0.067 0.05 0.033 0.1 0.067
0.457 0.050 0.034 0.025 0.017 0.225 0.155
0.342 0.125 0.069 0.075 0.042 0.1 0.056
0.711 0.775 0.272 0.15 0.053 0.175 0.061
1.008 0.625 0.208 0.25 0.083 0.35 0.117
0.3922 0.1978 0.0980 0.0811 0.0402 0.1379 0.0775
0.173 0.15 0.023
0.25 0.037
0.287
1.665 0.8 0.865
2.014 0.025 0.018 1.15 0.821
1.130 0.063 0.432 0.081 0.555
F-6
-------
APPENDIX F: TISSUE SPECIATION DATA
Study Type Trophic Articl Tissue Common Name
Level e
#
Saltwater-Field 2 8 edible blue mussel
2 27 edible dam
2 27 edible dam
2 27 edible dam
2 27 edible dam
2 27 edible dam
2 27 edible dam
2 27 edible dam
2 27 edible dam
2 27 edible dam
2 27 edible dam
2 27 edible dam
2 27 edible dam
2 27 edible dam
2 27 edible dam
GMEAN
2 27 edible cockle clam
2 27 edible littleneck clam
2 27 edible littleneck clam
2 27 edible littleneck clams
2 8 soft marine snail
2 8 soft marine snail
2 27 edible oyster
2 25 edible oysters
whole
2 20 body marine polychaetes
whole
2 20 body marine polychaetes
whole
2 20 body marine polychaetes
whole
2 20 body marine polychaetes
whole
2 20 body marine polychaetes
whole
2 20 body marine polychaetes
whole
2 20 body marine polychaetes
whole
2 20 body marine polychaetes
whole
2 20 body marine polychaetes
whole
2 20 body marine polychaetes
whole
2 20 body marine polychaetes
Total
As
Ct
mg/kg
1.022
1.9
2.3
2.9
4.2
3.2
8.4
4.2
2.2
12
2.8
2.1
3.4
2.3
3
3.344!
1.1
6.9
2.2
2.4
6.106
5.408
2.1
10
Inorganilnorgani As (III) As (III) As (V) As (V)
cAs c Ct Fraction Ct Fractior
Ct As mg/kg mg/kg
mg/kg Fraction
0.025 0.025
0.015 0.007
0.018 0.006
0.018 0.004
0.017 0.005
0.009 0.001
0.021 0.005
0.015 0.007
0.008 0.001
0.022 0.008
0.02 0.010
0.035 0.010
0.022 0.010
0.021 0.007
0.0178 0.0053
0.02 0.018
0.02 0.003
0.02 0.009
0.02 0.008
0.01 0.005
0.010
0.013
0.024
0.022
0.119
0.149
0.051
0.208
Organic MMA MMA DMA DMA TMA TMA AsB AsB AsC AsC
As Ct Fraction Ct Fraction Ct Fraction Ct Fraction Ct Fraction
Fraction mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg
0.888 0.869
5.984 0.980
5.138 0.950
0.68 0.068 10.4 1.040
0.64
0.70
0.78
0.60
0.53
0.70
0.81 0.0127
1.22 0.0095
0.77 0.0206
0.66 0.0175
0.83 0.0222
F-7
-------
APPENDIX F: TISSUE SPECIATION DATA
Study Type Trophic Articl Tissue Common Name
Level e
#
whole
2 20 bodv marine polvchaetes
Total
As
Ct
mg/kg
Inorganilnorgani As (III) As (III) As (V) As (V)
cAs c Ct Fraction Ct Fractior
Ct As mg/kg mg/kg
mg/kg Fraction
0.211
Organic MMA MMA DMA DMA TMA TMA AsB AsB AsC AsC
As Ct Fraction Ct Fraction Ct Fraction Ct Fraction Ct Fraction
Fraction mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg
0.58 0.0190
F-8
-------
APPENDIX F: TISSUE SPECIATION DATA
Study Type Trophic Articl Tissue Common Name
Level e
#
Saltwater-Field 3 27 edible sand dab
3 27 edible rock sole
3 27 edible red rock crab
3 2 edible gastropod
Total
As
Ct
mg/kg
4.5
17
3.6
46.6
Inorganilnorgani As (III) As (III) As (V) As (V)
cAs c Ct Fraction Ct Fractior
Ct As mg/kg mg/kg
mg/kg Fraction
0.01 0.002
0.05 0.003
0.03 0.008
Organic MMA MMA DMA DMA TMA TMA AsB AsB AsC AsC
As Ct Fraction Ct Fraction Ct Fraction Ct Fraction Ct Fraction
Fraction mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg
44.7 0.959
F-9
------- |