&EPA
September 2009
EPA-823-R-09-006
The National Study of
Chemical Residues in Lake Fish Tissue
-------
-------
The National Study of
Chemical Residues in Lake Fish Tissue
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Water
Office of Science and Technology
September 2009
-------
Notice
This report was prepared by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Office
of Water, Office of Science and Technology. It has been subjected to the Agency's peer
review and administrative review processes. The EPA Project Manager for preparation of
this document was Leanne Stahl who provided overall project coordination and technical
direction. Tetra Tech, Inc. provided primary support for the development of this document
under Contract Numbers EP-C-04-030 and EP-C-09-019. Elaine Snyder was the Tetra Tech
Project Manager. Additional support was provided by Computer Sciences Corporation under
Contract Number ET-W-06-046.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Office of Science and
Technology has approved this report for publication. Mention of trade names, commercial
products, or services does not constitute official EPA approval, endorsement, or
recommendation for use.
The appropriate citation for this document is:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2009. The National Study of
Chemical Residues in Lake Fish Tissue. EPA-823-R-09-006.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington, DC.
This document (including appendices) can be downloaded from the following
EPA Office of Water website:
www.epa.gov/waterscience/fishstudy/
Cover and report photo credits:
Elaine D. Snyder, Tetra Tech, Inc., Owings Mills, MD
-------
The National Study of Chemical Residues in Lake Fish Tissue
Table of Contents
Acknowledgements v
List of Acronyms and Abbreviations ix
Executive Summary xi
1.0 Introduction 1
1.1 Program History and Development 1
1.2 Study Objective 2
2.0 Study Design and Approach 3
2.1 Background 3
2.2 Study Design Development 3
2.2J Study Design Workshop 3
2.2.2 Statistical Selection of Lakes 4
2.2.3 Target Chemical Selection 6
2.3 Mobilization 9
2.3.1 Orientation and Training Workshops 9
2.3.2 Partnerships 10
2.3.3 Lake Evaluations 11
2.3.4 Quality Assurance and Field Sampling Plans 11
2.4 Sample Collection 12
2.4.1 Sampling Locations 12
2.4.2 Target Species 13
2.4.3 Composite Samples 14
2.4.4 Sampling Methods 14
2.4.5 Sample Collection Quality Assurance/Quality Control (QA/QC) 15
2.5 Sample Analysis 16
2.5.1 Non-routine Samples 16
2.5.2 Sample Preparation 16
2.5.3 Laboratory Network 17
2.5.4 Analytical Methods 17
2.5.5 Sample Analysis QA/QC 18
2.6 Statistical Analysis of Study Data 18
2.6.1 Calculating the Sample Weights 19
2.6.2 Estimating the Size of the Target Population of Lakes 20
2.6.3 Estimating the Size of the Sampled Population of Lakes 20
2.6.4 Estimating Fish Tissue Concentrations 20
2.6.5 Statistical Analysis QA/QC 21
3.0 Results 23
3.1 Technical Elements 25
3.1.1 Reporting Units 25
3.1.2 Detection and Quantitation Limits 25
3.1.3 Total Toxicity Equivalency and Summed Chemicals 26
3.1.4 Cumulative Distribution Functions 27
3.1.5 Human Health Screening Values 27
-------
The National Study of Chemical Residues in Lake Fish Tissue
4.0
Table of Contents
3.2 Chemicals Not Detected 29
3.3 Rarely-detected Chemicals 30
3.4 Commonly-detected Chemicals 33
3.4.1 Mercury 33
3.4.2 Total Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) 38
3.4.3 Total Dioxins and Furans 43
3.4.4 Total DDT 49
3.4.5 Total Chlordane 54
3.5 Sampling Variability 59
Conclusions and Recommendations 61
4.1 Chemical Occurrences 61
4.1.1 Mercury 61
4.1.2 PCBs 61
4.1.3 Dioxins and Furans 62
4.1.4 DDT and Chlordane 62
4.2 Lessons Learned 63
4.2.1 Importance of Partnerships 63
4.2.2 Adequate Time for Planning and Mobilizing 64
4.2.3 Commitment to Rigorous QA/QC 64
4.3 Data Availability 64
4.4 Future Monitoring 65
5.0 References 67
Appendix A. National Lake Fish Tissue Study Sampling Locations
Appendix B. Target Chemicals
Appendix C. Target Species
Appendix D. Analytical Methods
Appendix E. Percentile Tables for Detected Target Chemicals
Appendix F. Occurrence of Target Chemicals
Appendix G. Cumulative Distribution Functions
Appendix H. Detection Agreement between Replicate Sample Pairs
Appendix I. Tissue Concentration Differences between Replicate Sample Pairs
n
-------
The National Study of Chemical Residues in Lake Fish Tissue
Table of Contents
Figures
Figure 1. Locations of 10 regional orientation and training workshops 9
Figure 2. National Lake Fish Tissue Study participants 10
Figure 3. National Lake Fish Tissue Study sampling locations (500 lakes) 12
Figure 4. Box-and-whisker plot of mercury concentrations in predator and
bottom-dweller samples 35
Figure 5. Cumulative distribution function of mercury concentrations in predator samples 36
Figure 6. Cumulative distribution function of mercury concentrations in
bottom-dweller samples 37
Figure 7. Box-and-whisker plot of PCB (sum of congeners) concentrations in predator
and bottom-dweller samples 40
Figure 8. Cumulative distribution function of total PCB concentrations in predator samples 41
Figure 9. Cumulative distribution function of total PCB concentrations in
bottom-dweller samples 42
Figure 10. Box-and-whisker plot of total dioxin and furan concentrations in predator
and bottom-dweller samples 46
Figure 11. Cumulative distribution function of total dioxin and furan concentrations
in predator samples 47
Figure 12. Cumulative distribution function of total dioxin and furan concentrations
in bottom-dweller samples 48
Figure 13. Box-and-whisker plot of total DDT concentrations in predator and
bottom-dweller samples 51
Figure 14. Cumulative distribution function of total DDT concentrations in predator samples 52
Figure 15. Cumulative distribution function of total DDT concentrations in
bottom-dweller samples 53
Figure 16. Box-and-whisker plot of total chlordane concentrations in predator
and bottom-dweller samples 56
Figure 17. Cumulative distribution function of total chlordane concentrations in
predator samples 57
Figure 18. Cumulative distribution function of total chlordane concentrations in
bottom-dweller samples 58
111
-------
The National Study of Chemical Residues in Lake Fish Tissue
Table of Contents
Tables
Table 1. Numbers of Lakes by Size Category in the Sample Frame (from RF3) 5
Table 2. Number of Lakes Selected for Potential Sampling by Size Category and Year 5
Table 3. Number of Reserve Lakes Selected for Potential Sampling by Size Category and Year .... 5
Table 4. Target Chemicals and Analytical Methods for the National Lake Fish Tissue Study 7
Table 5. Recommended Target Species for Lakes and Reservoirs (in Order of Preference) 13
Table 6. Estimated Number of Lakes by Evaluation Status, Lake Size Category, and
Composite Type 24
Table 7. Reporting Units for EPA Standard Analytical Methods 25
Table 8. Human Health Screening Values (SV) for Interpreting National Lake Fish Tissue
Study Predator Results 28
Table 9. Chemicals Not Detected in Any Samples 29
Table 10. Infrequent Chemical Occurrences in Predators (Fillets) 31
Table 11. Infrequent Chemical Occurrences in Bottom Dwellers (Whole Bodies) 32
Table 12. Percentiles for Mercury Concentrations in Predator Samples 34
Table 13. Percentiles for Mercury Concentrations in Bottom-dweller Samples 34
Table 14. Percentiles for PCB Concentrations in Predator Samples 39
Table 15. Percentiles for PCB Concentrations in Bottom-dweller Samples 40
Table 16. Percentiles for Dioxin and Furan Concentrations (D/F TEQ) in Predator Samples 45
Table 17. Percentiles for Dioxin and Furan Concentrations (D/F TEQ) in Bottom-dweller
Samples 45
Table 18. Percentiles for Dioxin, Furan, and Coplanar PCB Concentrations (Total TEQ)
in Predator Samples 45
Table 19. Percentiles for Dioxin, Furan, and Coplanar PCB Concentrations (Total TEQ)
in Bottom-dweller Samples 46
Table 20. Percentiles for Total DDT Concentrations in Predator Samples 50
Table 21. Percentiles for Total DDT Concentrations in Bottom-dweller Samples 50
Table 22. Percentiles for Total Chlordane Concentrations in Predator Samples 55
Table 23. Percentiles for Total Chlordane Concentrations in Bottom-dweller Samples 55
IV
-------
The National Study of Chemical Residues in Lake Fish Tissue
Acknowledgements
This report is the culmination of nine years of collaboration between the U.S. Environmental Pro-
tection Agency (EPA) and a national network of 58 state, tribal, and federal agencies to plan and
conduct the National Study of Chemical Residues in Lake Fish Tissue (or National Lake Fish Tissue
Study). EPA's Office of Water (OW) managed the study and coordinated the efforts of participat-
ing agencies, and EPA's Office of Research and Development (ORD) provided technical support for
study design development and statistical analysis of the data. Within OW, Leanne Stahl has served
as the National Lake Fish Tissue Study Manager for ten years, and Jane Farris led the initial year of
study planning. They were supported by the National Lake Fish Tissue Study Management Team,
consisting of the following EPA and contractor staff: Tony Olsen (EPA/ORD); Cindy Simbanin,
Henry Kahn, and Maria Smith (EPA/OW); Elaine Snyder, Jennifer Pitt, and Amanda Richardson
(Tetra Tech, Inc.); and Lynn Walters, Michael Walsh, Neal Jannelle, and Erin Salo (Computer Sci-
ences Corporation).
The following EPA Regional Fish Study Coordinators played key roles in organizing study logistics
and conducting lake reconnaissance and field sampling: Peter Nolan and Hilary Snook (Region 1);
James Kurtenbach (Region 2); Frank Borsuk and Charles Kanetsky (Region 3); Alan Auwater and
Lonnie Dorn (Region 4); Pete Redmon and Holly Arrigoni (Region 5); Philip Crocker (Region 6);
Lorenzo Sena (Region 7); Toney Ott (Region 8); Peter Husby (Region 9); and Lillian Herger and
Kellie Kubena (Region 10).
EPA's Office of Water would like to express appreciation to all of the staff in the participating agen-
cies who conducted lake reconnaissance, planned sampling logistics, and collected fish samples.
Their combined efforts were crucial to the success of this study. The following agencies made long-
term, voluntary commitments to support the National Lake Fish Tissue Study:
Alabama Department of Environmental Management
Arizona Game and Fish Department
Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality
California Department of Fish and Game
Colorado Division of Wildlife
Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection
Crater Lake National Park
Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission
Georgia Department of Natural Resources
Idaho Department of Environmental Quality
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
Illinois Department of Natural Resources
Indiana Department of Environmental Management
Iowa Department of Natural Resources
Kansas Department of Health and Environment
Kentucky Department of Environmental Protection
-------
The National Study of Chemical Residues in Lake Fish Tissue
Acknowledgements
Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality
Maine Department of Environmental Protection
Maryland Department of the Environment
Maryland Department of Natural Resources
Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection
Michigan Department of Environmental Quality
Minnesota Chippewa Tribe
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources
Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality
Missouri Department of Conservation
Missouri Department of Natural Resources
Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks
Nebraska Department of Environmental Quality
Nevada Division of Wildlife
New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services
New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection
New Mexico Environment Department
New York Department of Environmental Conservation
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
North Dakota Department of Health
Ohio Department of Natural Resources
Oklahoma Conservation Commission
Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality
Oregon Department of Environmental Quality
Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection
Pictured Rocks National Lakeshore
Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe
Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management
South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control
South Dakota Game, Fish, and Parks
Tennessee Valley Authority
Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency
Texas Commission on Environmental Quality
Utah Department of Environmental Quality
Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation
Virginia Department of Environmental Quality
Washington Department of Ecology
West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection
Wind River Environmental Quality Commission
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
Wyoming Game and Fish Department
Yellowstone National Park
VI
-------
The National Study of Chemical Residues in Lake Fish Tissue
Acknowledgements
The principal authors of this report are Leanne Stahl (EPA/OW), Tony Olsen (EPA/ORD), Elaine
Snyder (Tetra Tech, Inc.) and Jennifer Pitt (Tetra Tech, Inc.). Tony Olsen kindly agreed to lead the
statistical analysis of the data for the report. Computer Sciences Corporation developed the fish
study database and prepared data files for statistical analysis. Tetra Tech formatted the statistical
analysis results, integrated text and graphics developed by the authors, and provided support for
final production of the report. External peer review of the report was conducted by Dr. Robert C.
Hale of the Virginia Institute of Marine Science (VIMS), Dr. Charles Jagoe of the Savannah River
Ecology Laboratory, and Dr. N. Scott Urquhart of the Colorado State University (Emeritus).
vn
-------
The National Study of Chemical Residues in Lake Fish Tissue
Vlll
-------
The National Study of Chemical Residues in Lake Fish Tissue
List of Acronyms and Abbreviations
ATSDR Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
BHC benzene hexachloride
CAS Chemical Abstracts Service
CD compact disc
CDF cumulative distribution function
CEC containment of emerging concern
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
COC chain of custody
DDD dichlorodiphenyldichloroethane
DDE dichlorodiphenyldichloroethylene
DDT dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane
DMA dimethylarsinic acid
EMAP Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program
EPA Environmental Protection Agency (U.S.)
FDA Food and Drug Administration
GC/FPD gas chromatography/flame photometric detector
GC/HSD gas chromatography/halide specific detector
GC/MS gas chromatography/mass spectrometry
GIS geographic information system
HpCB heptachlorobiphenyl
HpCDD heptachlorodibenzodioxin
HpCDF heptachlorodibenzofuran
HxCB hexachlorobiphenyl
HxCDD hexachlorodibenzodioxin
HxCDF hexachlorodibenzofuran
IRIS Integrated Risk Information System
MDL method detection limit
ML minimum level
MMA monomethylarsonic acid
NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
OCDD octachlorodibenzodioxin
OCDF octachlorodibenzofuran
IX
-------
The National Study of Chemical Residues in Lake Fish Tissue
Acronyms and Abbreviations
OPPTS Office of Pesticides, Prevention, and Toxic Substances
ORD Office of Research and Development
OST Office of Science and Technology
OW Office of Water
PAH polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon
PBT persistent, bioaccumulative, and toxic
PCB polychlorinated biphenyl
PeCB pentachlorobiphenyl
PeCDD pentachlorodibenzodioxin
PeCDF pentachlorodibenzofuran
QA/QC quality assurance/quality control
QAPP quality assurance project plan
RF3 River Reach File Version 3
SCC sample control center
SOP standard operating procedure
SV screening value
TeCB tetrachlorobiphenyl
TEF toxicity equivalency factor
TEQ toxic equivalency concentration
TCDD tetrachlorodibenzodioxin
TCDF tetrachlorodibenzofuran
USEPA United States Environmental Protection Agency
WQC water quality criterion
x
-------
The National Study of Chemical Residues in Lake Fish Tissue
Executive Summary
Environmental monitoring provides crucial data for describing the condition of the
environment and for assessing the effectiveness of pollution control activities. In the 1990s,
EPA identified a lack of information necessary to accurately characterize the condition of
the Nation's surface waters and responded by designing a series of statistically-based surveys
to produce information on the condition of lakes, streams, rivers, and coastal waters in the
United States. The National Study of Chemical Residues in Lake Fish Tissue (or National
Lake Fish Tissue Study) is one of the statistically-based surveys conducted by EPA since the
late 1990s. This study is a national screening-level survey of chemical residues in fish tissue
from lakes and reservoirs in the conterminous United States (lower 48 states), excluding
the Laurentian Great Lakes and Great Salt Lake. It is unique among earlier fish monitoring
efforts in the United States because the sampling sites were selected according to a statistical
(random) design. Study results allow EPA to estimate the percentage of lakes and reservoirs
in the United States with chemical concentrations in fish tissue that are above levels of
potential concern for humans or for wildlife that eat fish. This survey also includes the
largest set of chemicals ever studied in fish. Whole fish and fillets were analyzed for 268
persistent, bioaccumulative, and toxic (PBT) chemicals, including mercury, arsenic, dioxins
and furans, the full complement of polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB) congeners, and a large
number of pesticides and semivolatile organic compounds.
Partnerships made this study possible. Prior to beginning field sampling for the study, EPA
built a national network of partners that included 47 states, three tribes, and two other
federal agencies. Fisheries staff from more than 50 agencies worked for nearly five years
to evaluate the suitability
of lakes for sampling
and to collect fish for the
study. This study provides
an excellent example of
state, federal, and tribal
collaboration. Participating
agencies made a critical
contribution to the success
of this study through their
voluntary commitments and
dedicated efforts.
Fire Lake, Michigan - (Target Lake Number 0309)
XI
-------
The National Study of Chemical Residues in Lake Fish Tissue
Executive Summary
Study Objective
The objective of the National Lake Fish Tissue Study is to estimate the national distribution
of selected persistent, bioaccumulative, and toxic (PBT) chemical residues in fish tissue from
lakes and reservoirs of the conterminous United States. Results from this study provided
EPA with the first opportunity to:
• Develop national estimates of the median concentrations of PBT chemicals in lake fish;
• Estimate the percentage of lakes and reservoirs with fish tissue concentrations above
specified thresholds related to human health; and
• Define national baseline information for tracking changes in concentrations of PBT
chemicals in freshwater fish as a result of the combined effects of pollution control
activities and natural degradation.
Study Design and Approach
The National Lake Fish Tissue Study focused on lakes and reservoirs (hereafter referred to
collectively as lakes) for two reasons: they occur in a variety of landscapes where they can
receive and accumulate contaminants from several sources (including direct discharges into
water, air deposition, and agricultural or urban runoff) and there is usually limited dilution
of contaminants compared to flowing streams and rivers. Monitoring fish for chemical
contamination in lakes is also important because these areas are frequently used for sport
fishing. According to EPA's National Listing of Fish Advisories, 43% of the Nation's lake
acres are under fish consumption advisories.
This study applied a statistical or probability-based sampling approach so that results could
be used to describe fish tissue contaminant concentrations in lakes on a national basis. The
Nation's lakes were divided into six size categories based on surface area. Assigning different
probabilities to each category prevented small lakes from dominating the group of lakes
selected for sampling. It also allowed a similar number of lakes to be selected in each size
category.
For this study, a lake is defined as a permanent body of water with a permanent fish
population that has a surface area of at least one hectare (2.47 acres), a depth of at least
one meter (3.28 feet), and at least 1,000 square meters of open, unvegetated water. The
lower 48 states contain an estimated 147,000 lakes meeting these criteria (i.e., the target
population). A list of candidate lakes was randomly selected from the target population for
this study. From this list, EPA identified 500 sites that were accessible and appropriate for
fish collection.
The target population consists of all lakes in the lower 48 states that met the study defini-
tion of a lake (147,000 lakes). The sampled population consists of all target lakes that were
accessible for fish collection. Under ideal circumstances, the target and sampled populations
xn
-------
The National Study of Chemical Residues in Lake Fish Tissue
Executive Summary
National Lake Fish Tissue Study Sampling Sites (500 lakes)
should coincide. However, for this study, the sampled population is a subset of the target
population. A large number of target lakes were not accessible to field sampling teams
because the lakes were either located in remote wilderness areas or on private property
where landowners denied EPA permission to sample them. There is a different sampled
population for each composite type based on differences in the occurrence of predators and
bottom dwellers at the 500 sampling locations. The sampled population for predators is an
estimated 76,559 lakes, and the sampled population for bottom dwellers is an estimated
46,190 lakes. All predator and bottom-dweller results presented in this report apply to these
sampled populations of lakes.
Target Chemical Selection
The National Lake Fish Tissue Study includes the largest number of chemicals ever studied
in fish. EPA developed the list of target chemicals for this study from the agency's multime-
dia list of 451 PBT chemicals, along with a list of 130 chemicals referenced in several con-
temporary fish tissue and bioaccumulation studies. EPA selected chemicals that had detailed
information available, were known to accumulate, and were identified as important in one
or more EPA programs. The final list contains 268 chemicals, including mercury, five forms
of arsenic, 17 dioxins and furans, 159 PCB congener measurements, 46 pesticides, and 40
semivolatile organic compounds.
Xlll
-------
The National Study of Chemical Residues in Lake Fish Tissue
Executive Summary
Sample Collection
EPA planned four years of field sampling for the
National Lake Fish Tissue Study. After a brief pilot
in the fall of 1999 to test sampling logistics, EPA
and its partners began full-scale fish sampling in
2000 and continued sampling annually through
2003. Each year of the study, field sampling
teams collected fish from about 125 different
lakes distributed across the lower 48 states. These
teams applied consistent methods nationwide to
collect composite samples of a predator fish species
(e.g., bass or trout) and a bottom-dwelling species
(e.g., carp or catfish) from each lake or reservoir.
EPA identified twelve target predator species and
six target bottom-dwelling species to limit the
number of species included in the study. Predator
and bottom-dweller composites each consisted of
five adult fish of the same species and similar size (i.e., the smallest individual in a composite
was no less than 75% of the total length of the largest individual). Field teams re-sampled
more than 10% of the lakes to allow EPA to evaluate any possible sampling variability.
Sampling at Norvell Lake, Michigan
- (Target Lake Number 0664)
Sample Analysis
EPA analyzed different tissue fractions for predator
composites (fillets) and bottom-dweller composites
(whole bodies) to obtain chemical residue data
for the 268 target chemicals. Analyzing fish fillets
provides information for human health, while
whole-body analysis produces information for
ecosystem health. A single laboratory prepared all
fish samples in a strictly-controlled, contamination-
free environment. This laboratory distributed fish
tissue samples to four laboratories that specialize in
analysis of metals, pesticides, semivolatile organic
chemicals, and PCBs, dioxins, and furans. To
minimize variability among sample results, EPA
used the same laboratory for each type of analysis,
and these laboratories applied the same analytical
method for each chemical for the duration of the
study. Resulting fish tissue concentrations were
reported on a wet weight basis.
Analytical Chemistry Laboratory
Clean Room
xiv
-------
The National Study of Chemical Residues in Lake Fish Tissue
Executive Summary
Statistical Analysis
The data analyzed for the National Lake Fish Tissue Study include tissue concentrations for
each target chemical (e.g., mercury) or chemical group (e.g., PCBs) and fish composite type
(i.e., predator and bottom-dweller composites). Analysis of the fish tissue data incorporated
elements of the survey design, along with information from the field sampling operations
and laboratory analyses. Statistical analysis included evaluating information to determine
the status of each lake, adjusting the sample weights based on the lake status, estimating the
number and proportion of lakes in the sampled population, and estimating the cumulative
distribution and percentile concentrations of the target chemicals in fillets for predators and
whole bodies for bottom dwellers.
Results
The National Lake Fish Tissue Study
is the first national assessment of
freshwater fish contamination in the
United States for which sampling sites
were selected according to a statistical
(random) design. To interpret the
results, it is essential to understand the
following important points about this
design:
• During the four-year sampling
period, field teams collected
486 predator composites and
395 bottom-dweller composites
from the 500 sampling locations.
Predator and bottom-dweller
species did not occur together
at every sampling site; however,
if either a predator or bottom-
dweller species was present, the
target lake was sampled.
Lake 79, Wyoming - (Target Lake Number 0052)
• The 486 predator composites
and the 395 bottom-dweller
composites collected during the study each comprise nationally-representative samples
for the lower 48 states whose results can be extrapolated to an estimated 76,559 lakes
for predators and an estimated 46,190 lakes for bottom-dwellers.
• The unequal probability design makes it necessary to apply sample weights (derived
from the various probabilities assigned to each of the lake size categories) to the fish
tissue data to develop national estimates of fillet (predator) and whole-body (bottom-
dweller) fish tissue concentrations for each of the 268 target chemicals.
xv
-------
The National Study of Chemical Residues in Lake Fish Tissue
Executive Summary
Results from the National Lake Fish Tissue Study indicate that mercury, PCBs, and dioxins
and furans are widely distributed in lakes and reservoirs in the lower 48 states. Mercury and
PCBs were detected in all the fish samples collected from the 500 sampling sites. Dioxins
and furans were detected in 81% of the predator samples (fillet composites) and 99% of the
bottom-dweller samples (whole-fish composites). In contrast, there were a number of chemi-
cals that were not detected in any of the fish samples collected during the study. Forty-three
of the 268 target chemicals were not detected in any samples, including all nine organophos-
phate pesticides (e.g., chlorpyriphos and diazinon), one PCB congener (PCB-161), and 16 of
the 17 polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) analyzed as semivolatile organic chemicals.
There were also seventeen other semivolatile organic chemicals that were not detected.
In reporting the analytical results for this study, it is important to distinguish between
detection and presence of a chemical in a fish tissue sample. Estimates of fish tissue
concentrations ranging from the method detection limit (MDL) to the minimum level of
quantitation (ML) are reported as being present with a 99% level of confidence. However,
if a chemical is reported as "not detected" at the MDL level, there is a 50% possibility that
the chemical may be present. Therefore, results for chemicals not detected in the fish tissue
samples are reported as less than the MDL rather than zero. In interpreting the results, it is
also important to know the MDL for each chemical (Appendix B).
According to EPA's 2008 Biennial National Listing of Fish Advisories, mercury, PCBs,
dioxins and furans, DDT, and chlordane accounted for 97% of the advisories in effect
at the end of 2008. These five chemicals were also commonly detected in fish samples
collected for the National Lake Fish Tissue Study. Since human health screening values
(SVs) were readily available, they were applied to total concentrations of mercury, PCBs,
Snowbank Lake, Minnesota - (Target Lake Number 0235)
xvi
-------
The National Study of Chemical Residues in Lake Fish Tissue
Executive Summary
Percentage of Lakes
Above or Below Human Health
Screening Values
(Predator Results:
Sampled Population = 76,559 Lakes)
Mercury
51.2%
48.8%
PCBs (Sum of
Congeners)
16.8%
83.2%
7.6%
Dioxins and
Furans
92.4%
1.7%
DDT
98.3%
Chlordane
99.7%
0.3%
Percentage of lakes below
human health screening value
Percentage of lakes above
human health screening value
dioxins and furans, DDT, and chlordane found in
predator fillets. The mercury SV is the tissue-based
water quality criterion published by EPA in 2001.
All other SVs are risk-based consumption limits
published in 2000 in EPA's Guidance for Assessing
Chemical Contaminant Data for Use in Fish
Consumption Limits, Third Edition. Specifically,
the applied SVs are the upper limit of the four-meal-
per-month concentration range for the conservative
consumption limit (where tissue concentrations
are available for both cancer and noncancer health
endpoints). If available, wildlife criteria could be
applied in the same manner to interpret the whole-
body data from analysis of bottom-dweller samples.
Predator results for the five commonly-detected
chemicals indicate that:
• 48.8% of the sampled population of lakes had
mercury tissue concentrations that exceeded the
300 ppb (0.3 ppm) human health SV for mercury,
which represents a total of 36,422 lakes.
• 16.8% of the sampled population of lakes had
total PCB tissue concentrations that exceeded
the 12 ppb human health SV, which represents a
total of 12,886 lakes.
• 7.6% of the sampled population of lakes had
dioxin and furan tissue concentrations that
exceeded the 0.15 ppt [toxic equivalency or
TEQ] human health SV, which represents a total
of 5,856 lakes.
• 1.7% of the sampled population of lakes had
DDT tissue concentrations that exceeded the
69 ppb human health SV, which represents a
total of 1,329 lakes.
• 0.3% of the sampled population of lakes had
fish tissue concentrations that exceeded the
67 ppb human health SV for chlordane, which
represents a total of 235 lakes.
This report provides national baseline information
to track changes in PBT chemical concentrations
in freshwater fish resulting from pollution control
xvn
-------
The National Study of Chemical Residues in Lake Fish Tissue
Executive Summary
activities and chemical degradation. The results of the National Lake Fish Tissue Study are
presented to inform the public, water quality specialists, natural resource managers, and
government officials of the distribution and prevalence of selected PBT chemicals in fish
tissue from lakes and reservoirs of the conterminous United States. The findings should also
be useful to aid in the design and focus of future fish tissue contaminant studies. National
Lake Fish Tissue Study sampling design information and results have also been published
in peer-reviewed journal articles by Olsen et al. (2009) and Stahl et al. (2009). Additional
information, including instructions for obtaining study data and links to related study
literature, is posted on the Internet at http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/fishstudy/.
xvin
-------
The National Study of Chemical Residues in Lake Fish Tissue
1.0 Introduction
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) Office of Science and Technology (OST)
within the Office of Water (OW) conducted a national screening-level study of contamina-
tion in freshwater fish tissue called the National Study of Chemical Residues in Lake Fish
Tissue (or National Lake Fish Tissue Study). This study was a priority activity sponsored
under the agency-wide Persistent, Bioaccumulative, and Toxic (PBT) Chemical Program.
PBT pollutants are highly toxic, long-lasting chemicals that can build up in the food chain
to levels that are harmful to human and ecosystem health. In 1998, EPA developed the Mul-
timedia Strategy for Priority Persistent, Bioaccumulative, and Toxic (PBT) Pollutants. The
purpose of this multimedia strategy was to identify actions to address risks posed by PBT
chemicals in the environment. One of the priority actions in the strategy was to evaluate the
occurrence of PBT chemicals in fish from U.S. waters. In response to the strategy, the Office
of Water committed to conducting a comprehensive study of PBT chemical contamination in
fish tissue as an indication of the extent of this contamination in the Nation's waters.
At the time of this commitment, OW recognized that there were critical national data gaps
that prevented EPA from characterizing the condition of the nation's surface waters. Based
on earlier environmental assessment work conducted by the Environmental Monitoring
and Assessment Program (EMAP) in EPA's Office of Research and Development (ORD),
OW determined that probabilistic (random) surveys would be appropriate to address these
national data gaps. The National Lake Fish Tissue Study is one in a series of five probabi-
listic surveys undertaken by EPA since the late 1990s to provide statistically-based data to
characterize the national condition of lakes, streams, rivers, and coastal waters.3 OW has
partnered with ORD to design and implement these surveys.
Planning for the National Lake Fish Tissue Study began in the fall of 1998. In October
1998, EPA convened a two-day workshop of more than 50 scientists from state, federal, and
tribal agencies to obtain technical input on the sampling design, target chemicals, sampling
methods, and data management. EPA used input from scientists that attended this work-
shop and from technical experts that participated in a series of study planning meetings to
develop the final study design (USEPA 1999). During the year-long planning effort, EPA also
completed the random lake selection process and identified the PBT chemicals to be included
in the study.
EPA's other four national-scale probabilistic surveys include: the National Coastal Assessment (http://www.epa.gov/emap/
ttca/), the Wadeable Streams Assessment (http://www.epa.gov/owow/streamsurvey/), the National Lakes Assessment
(http://www.epa.gov/owow/lakes/lakessurvey/), and the National Rivers and Streams Assessment (http://www.epa.gov/
owow/riverssurvey/).
-------
The National Study of Chemical Residues in Lake Fish Tissue
Introduction
Lakes and reservoirs became the focus of this study because they are environments where
contamination accumulates. These waterbodies occur in a variety of landscapes (e.g., urban,
agricultural, and wilderness), and they can receive contaminants from several sources,
including direct discharges into the water, air deposition, and agricultural or urban runoff.
Monitoring fish contamination in lakes and reservoirs is a critical activity for protecting
human and ecosystem health because lakes and reservoirs provide important sports fisher-
ies and other recreational opportunities. Lake ecosystems also provide critical habitat for
aquatic species, and they support wildlife populations that depend on aquatic species for
food. EPA's 2008 Biennial National Listing of Fish Advisories (USEPA 2009) reports that
43% of the Nation's lake acres are under fish consumption advisories.
The National Lake Fish Tissue Study is the first national freshwater fish tissue survey to
be based on a probabilistic sampling design, and it includes data on the largest set of PBT
chemicals ever studied in fish. EPA worked with partner agencies in states, tribes, and other
federal organizations over a four-year period (2000-2003) to collect fish from 500 lakes and
reservoirs selected randomly from the estimated 147,000 target lakes and reservoirs in the
conterminous United States (i.e., lower 48 states). The information provided in this report
documents the national distribution of 268 PBT chemicals in predator fish species (e.g., bass
and trout) and in bottom-dwelling fish species (e.g., carp and catfish) from lakes and reser-
voirs in the lower 48 states. National Lake Fish Tissue Study sampling design information
and results have also been published in peer-reviewed journal articles by Olsen et al. (2009)
and Stahl et al. (2009).
1.2 Study Objective
The specific objective of the National Lake Fish Tissue Study is to estimate the national
distribution of the mean levels (i.e., composite average concentrations or "lake means") of
selected persistent, bioaccumulative, and toxic chemical residues in fish tissue from lakes
and reservoirs of the conterminous United States.
The study design developed to support this objective generated a ground-breaking data set
for EPA. Data from the National Lake Fish Tissue Study provided the agency with the first
opportunity to:
• Develop national estimates of the median concentrations of PBT chemicals in lake fish;
• Estimate the percentage of lakes and reservoirs with fish tissue concentrations above a
specified threshold related to human health; and
• Define a national baseline for tracking changes in concentrations of PBT chemicals in
freshwater fish as a result of pollution control activities.
-------
The National Study of Chemical Residues in Lake Fish Tissue
2.0 Study Design and Approach
.-.
The National Lake Fish Tissue Study was conducted in four phases over a period of eight
years. The initial planning phase began during the summer of 1998 and lasted for a year.
Key activities during this phase included conducting a national study design workshop,
applying a statistical approach to select lakes, and developing a list of target chemicals. It
took another year to mobilize for the study. The second phase, mobilization, consisted of
building a national network of partners, conducting orientation and training workshops for
study participants, mapping and evaluating the lakes to determine their suitability for the
study, and preparing standard operating procedures to guide implementation of the study.
Implementation (the third phase of the study) included fish sample collection and tissue
analysis. EPA and its partners began collecting fish samples in October 1999 and completed
sampling in November 2003. All fish tissue samples were analyzed by May 2005. The final
phase of the study involved statistical analysis of the fish tissue data and production of the
final report.
:.:, .- . - ••••• i: . -
Probability sampling provides the basis for estimating resource extent and condition, for char-
acterizing trends in extent or condition, and for representing spatial pattern, all with known
certainty. A probability sampling design has some inherent characteristics that distinguish
it from other sampling designs. First, the population being sampled is explicitly described.
Second, every element in the population has the opportunity to be sampled with known prob-
ability. Third, the selection process includes an explicit random element. Since the specific
purpose of the National Lake Fish Tissue Study is to describe the condition of resources on a
national basis, a probability-based design was an essential component of the study.
EPA's Office of Research and Development (ORD) created an unequal probability survey
design for the National Lake Fish Tissue Study that addresses the objective of the study.
The unequal weighting prevented small lakes from dominating the representative sample
drawn from the population of lakes. To support development of the final study design, EPA
completed critical planning activities, which included hosting a study design workshop and
selecting lakes and chemicals for the study.
In October 1998, EPA invited over 50 scientists from state, federal, and tribal agencies
to participate in a two-day national study design workshop. Prior to the workshop, a
workgroup of agency staff and contractors developed a draft study design to distribute to
-------
The National Study of Chemical Residues in Lake Fish Tissue
Study Design and Approach
workshop participants for review. Technical experts at the workshop provided input on fun-
damental elements of the study design, including the sampling design, chemicals of concern,
and data management. The workgroup used recommendations from these experts to prepare
the final study design prior to submitting it for external peer review in 1999.
2.2.2 Statistical Selection of Lakes
The target population for this study was all lakes and reservoirs within the conterminous
United States with a permanent fish population that met minimum size requirements,
excluding the Laurentian Great Lakes and the Great Salt Lake. Use of the term "lakes" in
this report refers collectively to lakes and reservoirs. A lake was defined as a permanent
body of water of at least one hectare (2.47 acres) in surface area with a minimum of
1,000 m2 of open (unvegetated) water and a depth of at least one meter. Since the lakes in
this study also needed to have a permanent fish population, lakes subject to annual fish
winterkill or recently stocked with fingerlings were rejected during the lake evaluation
process. Stocked lakes with adult fish introduced at least three years prior to sampling were
accepted as having a permanent fish population.
The sample frame used to generate the list of lakes was River Reach File Version 3 (RF3).
When lake selection took place in early 1999, RF3 provided the best available GIS coverage
for lakes and reservoirs in the United States. One important exception in the coverage was
newly-constructed reservoirs. EPA obtained this information from the states and updated
RF3 before initiating lake selection.
Statisticians from ORD selected an unequal probability sample of lakes according to pro-
cedures described by Stevens and Olsen et al. (2004). To obtain this sample, they divided
the lakes into the following six size categories based on surface area of the lake expressed
in hectares (ha), where one hectare is approximately 2.47 surface acres: 1-5 ha, >5-10 ha,
>10-50 ha , >50-500 ha, >500-5,000 ha, and >5,000 ha. Table 1 lists the number of lakes
available in RF3 by size category when lakes were selected for the study. Note that lakes
in the smallest category (1-5 ha) accounted for more than 60% of the lakes available to be
drawn, while lakes in the two largest categories (>500-5,000 ha and >5,000 ha) represented
less than 1% of the lakes in RF3. The probability of selection for a lake depended on its sur-
face area identified in the sample frame. Assigning varying probabilities for selection in each
lake size category allowed a similar number of lakes to be drawn from each size category.
EPA established a goal of sampling 500 lakes in a period of four years. To insure that suf-
ficient lakes were available to meet this target, ORD statisticians generated two statistically
drawn sets of lakes: an initial list of 900 lakes and a reserve list of 900 lakes. Tables 2 and 3
provide a breakdown of the number of lakes selected by size category and year for the initial
and reserve lake lists. These tables highlight another important feature of the study design.
The lakes selected for each sampling year comprise an annual statistical subset that provides
a nationally-representative sample. Since the initial list of 900 lakes contained a larger than
expected number of lakes that did not meet the criteria for inclusion in the study, reserve
lakes were added in the final year of field sampling. During the four years of sampling, field
-------
The National Study of Chemical Residues in Lake Fish Tissue
Study Design and Approach
teams collected fish from 443 lakes on the initial lake list and 57 lakes on the reserve lake
list to meet the sampling goal of 500 lakes. Appendix A provides a list of the 500 lakes and
reservoirs sampled for the study. The National Study of Chemical Residues in Lake Fish
Tissue: Study Design (USEPA 1999) and Quality Assurance Project Plan for Data Analysis
Activities for the National Study of Chemical Residues in Lake Fish Tissue (USEPA 2005a)
contain more detailed descriptions of the statistical lake selection process.
Table 1. Numbers of Lakes by Size Category in the Sample Frame (from RF3).
LAKE AREA
(HA)
>1-5
>5-10
>10-50
>50-500
>500-5000
>5000
NUMBER OF
LAKES
172,747
44,996
40,016
11,228
1,500
274
FREQUENCY
(%)
63.8
16.6
14.8
4.1
0.6
0.1
CUMULATIVE
NUMBER OF
LAKES
172,747
217,743
257,759
268,987
270,387
270,761
CUMULATIVE
FREQUENCY
(%)
63.8
80.4
95.2
99.3
99.9
100.0
Table 2. Number of Lakes Selected for Potential Sampling by Size Category and Year.
LAKE AREA
(HA)
>1-5
>5-10
>10-50
>50-500
>500-5000
>5000
Total
YEARl
39
44
32
34
36
40
225
YEAR 2
41
40
47
37
30
30
225
YEARS
47
47
46
29
31
25
225
YEAR 4
47
46
25
34
41
32
225
ALL YEARS
174
177
150
134
138
127
900
Table 3. Number of Reserve Lakes Selected for Potential Sampling by Size Category
and Year.
LAKE AREA
(HA)
>5-10
>10-50
>50-500
>500-5000
>5000
Total
YEARl
47
45
36
36
38
23
225
YEAR 2
48
52
39
26
29
31
225
YEAR 3
48
40
42
40
30
25
225
YEAR 4
49
42
41
22
37
34
225
ALL YEARS
192
179
158
124
134
113
900
-------
The National Study of Chemical Residues in Lake Fish Tissue
Study Design and Approach
2.2.3 Target Chemical Selection
EPA considered candidate chemicals for this study from two primary sources: the Agency's
persistent, bioaccumulative, and toxic (PBT) list of 451 chemicals and an integrated list of
130 chemicals developed from several contemporary fish tissue and bioaccumulation studies
(USEPA 1992, NOAA 1993, USEPA 1995, USEPA 1997, and USEPA 1998). Scientists
participating in the 1998 study design workshop discussed the lists of candidate chemicals
and provided comments on method availability and relevance for fish tissue. In March 1999,
a team of analytical experts convened to review these lists of chemicals and select a list of
chemicals for the study. They used the following criteria, along with input from study design
workshop participants, to develop a target chemical list:
• Detailed information is available for the chemical.
• The chemical is of immediate concern and known to accumulate.
• One or more EPA programs consider the chemical to be important.
The final target chemical list consists of 268 PBT chemicals. This count includes individual
and co-eluting PCB congeners (i.e., groups of two to six congeners that cannot be resolved
to an individual level during chemical analysis), as well as multiple forms of a particular
chemical (e.g., the six isomers of DDT, DDD, and DDE). Following is a summary of the
target chemicals by chemical group:
• 2 metals (mercury and five forms of arsenic)
• 17 dioxins and furans
• 159 PCB individual and co-eluting congener measurements
• 46 pesticides
• 40 semivolatile organic chemicals (e.g., phenols, PAHs, and chlorobenzenes)
Table 4 lists the target chemicals for the National Lake Fish Tissue Study. Appendix B pro-
vides additional information about the chemicals, such as the Chemical Abstracts Service
(CAS) numbers, method detection limits, and quantitation limits, which are also referred to
as minimum levels (MLs).
-------
The National Study of Chemical Residues in Lake Fish Tissue
Study Design and Approach
Table 4. Target Chemicals and Analytical Methods for the National Lake Fish Tissue Study.
ANALYTICAL METHOD i TARGET CHEMICAL
Total Mercury by Oxidation, Purge
and Trap, and Cold Vapor Atomic
Fluorescence Spectrometry (Method
1631, Revision B with Appendix A -
Digestion procedures for Total Mercury in
Tissue, Sludge, Sediment, and Soil)
Mercury
Arsenic Speciation byArsine
Generation, Chromatography, and
Atomic Absorption Spectrometry
(Method 1632, Revision A)
Arsenic (III)
Arsenic (V)
Dimethylarsinic acid (DMA)
Monomethylarsonic acid (MMA)
Total inorganic arsenic
Polychlorinated Biphenyls by
Isotope Dilution High-resolution Gas
Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry
(GC/MS) (Method 1668, Revision A)
209 congeners, including
3,3',4,4'-TeCB
3,4,4',5-TeCB
2,3,3',4,4'-PeCB
2,3,4,4',5-PeCB
2,3',4,4',5-PeCB
2',3,4,4',5-PeCB
the following 12 "dioxin-like" congeners:
3,3',4,4',5-PeCB
2,3,3',4,4',5-HxCB
2,3,3',4,4',5'-HxCB
2,3',4,4',5,5'-HxCB
3,3',4,4',5,5'-HxCB
2,3,3',4,4',5,5'-HpCB
Dioxins and Furans by Isotope Dilution
High-resolution GC/MS (Method 1613,
Revision B)
Organochlorine Pesticides by Gas
Chromatography/Halide Specific
Detector (GC/HSD) (Method 1656,
Revision A)*
2,3,7,8-TCDD
1,2,3,7,8-PeCDD
1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDD
1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDD
1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDD
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD
OCDD
2,4'-DDD (TDE) $
2,4'-DDE t
2,4'-DDT t
4,4'-DDD (TDE)
4,4'-DDE
4,4'-DDT
Aldrin
cis- and trans-Nonachlor
Dicofol
Dieldrin
Endosulfan sulfate
Endosulfan I
Endosulfan II
Endrin
Ethalfluralin (Sonalan)
Heptachlor
Heptachlor epoxide
Isodrin
2,3,7,8-TCDF
1,2,3,7,8-PeCDF
2,3,4,7,8-PeCDF
1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDF
1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDF
1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDF
2,3,4,6,7,8-HxCDF
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDF
1,2,3,4,7,8,9-HpCDF
OCDF
Kepone (Chlordecone)
Methoxychlor
Mi rex
Octachlorostyrene
Oxychlordane
Pendimethalin (Prowl)
Pentachloronitrobenzene (PCNB)
c/s-Permethrin and trans-Permethrin
Toxaphene
Trifluralin
a-BHC
a -Chlordane (c/s-Chlordane)
(3-BHC
v-BHC(Lindane)
Y -Chlordane (trans-Chlordane)
6BHC
Pentachloroanisole
$ Chemicals were added to the target chemical list after Year 1 of the
study.
*PCB Aroclors were not target chemicals for this study, but seven Aroclors were analyzed incidentally using Method 1656,
Revision A, including Aroclors 1016, 1221, 1232, 1242, 1248, 1254, 1260.
-------
The National Study of Chemical Residues in Lake Fish Tissue
Study Design and Approach
Table 4. (continued)
) ANALYTICAL METHOD
| Organophosphorus Pesticides by Gas
1 Chromatography/Flame Photometric
j Detector (GC/FPD) (Method 1657,
\ Revision A)
\ TARGET CHEMICAL
Chlorpyrifos
Diazinon
Disulfoton
Disulfoton sulfone
Ethion
Paraoxon
Parathion (ethyl)
Terbufos
Terbufos sulfone
Semivolatile Organic Chemicals by
Isotope Dilution GC/MS (Method 1625,
Revision C with modifications for tissue)
3,3'-dichlorobenzidine
1,2,4,5-Tetrachlorobenzene
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
1,2-Dichlorobenzene
1,3-Dichlorobenzene
1,4-Dichlorobenzene
2,4,5-Trichlorophenol
4,4'-Methylenebis
(2-chloroaniline)
4-Bromophenyl phenyl ether
4-Nonylphenol
Acenaphthene(PAH)
Acenaphthylene
Anthracene (PAH)
Benzo(a)anthracene (PAH)
Benzo(a)pyrene (PAH)
Benzo(b)fluoranthene (PAH)
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene (PAH)
Benzo(j)fluoranthene (PAH)
Benzo(k)fluoranthene (PAH)
Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
Butyl benzyl phthalate
Chrysene (PAH)
Dibenzo(a,h)anthrancene (PAH)
Di-n-butyl phthalate
Diethylstilbestrol (DES)
Fluoranthene (PAH)
Fluorene (PAH)
Hexachlorobenzene
Hexachlorobutadiene
lndeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene (PAH)
Naphthalene (PAH)
Nitrobenzene
Pentachlorobenzene
Pentachlorophenol
Perylene (PAH)
Phenanthrene (PAH)
Phenol
Phenol, 2,4,6-tris(1,1 dimethylethyl)-
Pyrene (PAH)
Tetrabromobisphenol A
-------
The National Study of Chemical Residues in Lake Fish Tissue
Study Design and Approach
23 Mobilization
August 1999 marked the beginning of the mobilization phase of the National Lake Fish
Tissue Study. EPA initiated this phase by conducting orientation and training workshops for
states and other potential fish study participants. These workshops were a key activity in
building a national network of partners to support the study. Another activity closely tied to
the workshops was the mapping and reconnaissance of the 900 lakes on the initial list of sta-
tistically drawn candidate lakes for the study. Lake lists were distributed to the states prior
to the workshops, allowing discussion of lake reconnaissance during the workshops. A final
activity completed during this phase of the study was the development of quality assurance
and field sampling plans. Preparation of these plans provided the basis for successful imple-
mentation of the study.
2.3.? Orientation and Training Workshops
EPA introduced study participants to the National Lake Fish Tissue Study design, scope, and
procedures through regional orientation and training workshops. Nearly 100 representatives
from state, tribal, and other federal agencies attended a series of ten workshops held at the
Agency's Regional Offices between August 1999 and June 2000 (Figure 1). Presentations
at the workshops included an overview of the study design, a description of the sampling
program, and instruction on the standard operating procedures (SOPs) and quality
assurance/quality control (QA/QC) requirements for fish collection, handling and shipping.
Workshop activities also included a discussion about lake reconnaissance (e.g., sampling
site assessments and lake access issues) and a forum for planning field sampling (e.g.,
addressing scheduling questions and discussing personnel needs). Study participants received
a variety of materials at the workshops, including training slides, a copy of the Sample
Collection Activities Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) (USEPA 2000a), and maps of
the lakes selected in
their jurisdictions.
Sampling
coordinators from
each participating
office or agency
viewed the training
materials, read the
QAPP, and verified
that they read all
the information
and understood
the procedures and
requirements.
Figure 1. Locations of 10 regional orientation and training
workshops.
-------
The National Study of Chemical Residues in Lake Fish Tissue
Study Design and Approach
2.3.2 Partnerships
A national network of partners provided critical support for the planning, mobilization, and
implementation phases of the study. Figure 2 presents an organizational chart for key partic-
ipants in the study. The Office of Science and Technology (OST) relied on fish study coordi-
nators in each EPA Region to recruit study participants from states, tribes and other federal
agencies in their geographic areas. These regional coordinators were also instrumental in
planning logistics for the orientation and training workshops (Section 2.3.1). The workshops
served as the primary vehicle to obtain formal commitments to participate in the study. The
external network of partners that provided long-term support for the study consisted of
47 states, three tribes, and two other federal agencies (the National Park Service and Tennes-
see Valley Authority). Through their combined efforts, they accomplished the majority of the
lake evaluations and fish collection from the 500 lakes and reservoirs across the country.
National Lake Fish Tissue Study Management
EPA/Office of Water (OW)/Office of Science and Technology (OST)
Field Sampling Support
EPA/OW/OST
Tetra Tech, Inc.
Analytical Support
EPA/OW/OST
Computer Sciences Corp.
Statistical Support
EPA/ORD/EMAP
(Corvallis, Oregon)
EPA iegional
Coordinators
10 EPA Regions
Participating
Field Teams
47 States
3 Tribes
National Park Service
Tennessee Valley Authority
Tetra Tech, Inc.
ManTech Environmental
Sample Control Center
Computer Sciences Corp.
Sample Preparation Laboratory
AXYS Analytical Services, Ltd.
Analytical La&oratorles
AXYS Analytical Services, Ltd. (PCBs, dioxins/furans)
Batelle Marine Sciences (mercury, arsenic)
Batelle Ocean Sciences (semivolatile organic chemicals)
Pacific Analytical, Inc. (pesticides)
Figure 2. National Lake Fish Tissue Study participants.
10
-------
The National Study of Chemical Residues in Lake Fish Tissue
Study Design and Approach
Within EPA, OST received significant support from ORD, the Office of Pesticides, Preven-
tion, and Toxic Substances (OPPTS), and the ten Regional Offices. ORD's Environmental
Monitoring and Assessment Program (EMAP) developed the statistical framework for the
study, implemented the lake selection process, managed the target lake list throughout the
study, and performed the statistical analysis of the data. Support from OPPTS focused on
study planning, particularly in identifying the target chemicals. The Office of Pollution Pre-
vention and Toxics within OPPTS also provided Agency leadership and coordination for
activities conducted under the PBT Initiative, including this study (the largest project spon-
sored under the Initiative). Besides organizing workshop logistics and recruiting partners,
the EPA Regions were actively involved in evaluating lakes and collecting fish for the study.
In areas where external or regional resources were not available to complete these tasks,
OST provided national contractor support for lake reconnaissance and fish collection.
2.3.3 Lake Evaluations
A critical component in mobilizing for the study was reconnaissance of the candidate lakes.
Section 2.2.2 describes the statistical selection of lakes for the study, which resulted in an
initial list of 900 candidate lakes and a reserve list of another 900 lakes. Study participants
evaluated each of the initial 900 lakes to determine if they met the definition of a lake for
the study (Section 2.2.2), if they were physically accessible, and if landowners would grant
permission to access lakes on private property. They furnished a complete record of the
reconnaissance information, including reasons why sites failed to meet the lake criteria and
information regarding physical barriers or landowner denials that prevented access to lakes
that did meet the criteria.
The lake reconnaissance process involved both desktop and ground truth exercises. National
contractors used mapping software to generate maps for each of the initial 900 lakes and dis-
tributed these maps to study participants. The maps were used to identify any obvious issues
regarding lake access. A site visit was necessary to determine lake status if regional, state, or
local agencies had no information on record for a candidate lake. During the final sampling
year (2003), participants repeated this process to evaluate an additional 101 lakes from the
reserve list. Assessment of 1001 lakes resulted in the identification of 500 viable sampling
sites. All reconnaissance information was tracked and tabulated on a national lake spread-
sheet. Appendix A contains the final list of 500 lakes and reservoirs sampled for the study.
2.3.4 Quality Assurance and Field Sampling Plans
During the mobilization phase, EPA developed two quality assurance project plans (QAPPs).
The Sample Collection Activities QAPP (USEPA 2000a) describes all requirements and proce-
dures related to the field sampling program, along with the roles and responsibilities of staff
supporting the field program. The Analytical Control and Assessment Activities QAPP (USEPA
2000b) describes all the requirements and procedures for sample preparation, fish tissue anal-
ysis, and analytical data review, as well as roles and responsibilities for analytical activities
staff. EPA also developed an abbreviated version of the Sample Collection Activities QAPP to
serve as a field manual for the fish sampling teams. Copies of this Field Sampling Plan (USEPA
2000c) and both QAPPs are available online at www.epa.gov/waterscience/fishstudy/.
11
-------
The National Study of Chemical Residues in Lake Fish Tissue
Study Design and Approach
2.4 Sample Collection
Fish sampling and fish tissue analysis comprised the implementation phase of the National
Lake Fish Tissue Study. EPA designed the study to include four years of fish collection. After
a brief pilot in the fall of 1999 to test sampling logistics, participants conducted full-scale
fish sampling from 2000 through 2003. Each year, field sampling teams collected fish from
approximately 125 lakes distributed across the lower 48 states. These field teams collected
the majority of the fish samples during the summer and fall of each sampling year. This
schedule coincided with the peak period for recreational fishing activity and allowed sam-
pling teams to avoid the spawning period for most target species.
2.4.1 Sampling Locations
The potential sampling locations were limited to the target population of approximately
147,000 lakes in the lower 48 states that met the study's definition of a lake (Section 2.2.2).
Due to resource and study design constraints, Alaska and Hawaii were not included in the
study. EPA worked with study partners to collect fish from 500 lakes randomly selected from
the target population. The 500 sampling locations included both private and public access
lakes that ranged in size from one to about 384,615 hectares (or from 2.5 to about 950,000
surface acres). Figure 3 shows the locations of the 500 lakes sampled for the study, and
Appendix A provides a list of these locations. Sampling sites occurred in each of the lower
48 states except Delaware because no lakes or reservoirs were randomly drawn in Delaware.
Figure 3. National Lake Fish Tissue Study sampling locations (500 lakes).
12
-------
The National Study of Chemical Residues in Lake Fish Tissue
Study Design and Approach
The National Lake Fish Tissue Study included two distinct ecological groups of fish, preda-
tors (e.g., bass or trout) and bottom dwellers (e.g., carp or catfish). This permitted monitor-
ing of a variety of habitats, feeding strategies, and physiological factors that might result in
differences in the bioaccumulation of chemicals. Predators were included because they are
good indicators of persistent contaminants that may be biomagnified through several trophic
levels of the food web. Bottom dwellers were included because they may accumulate high
contaminant concentrations through direct contact with contaminated sediments or by con-
suming benthic organisms that live in contaminated sediments. Twelve predator species and
six bottom-dwelling species were targeted to limit the number of fish species included in the
study. Table 5 lists the recommended target species for the study.
Table 5. Recommended Target Species for Lakes and Reservoirs (in Order of Preference).
I/I
.£
v&
£*
10 §
•S£
SB
8£
« 2
o fc
^"2
0 0
*.S
•o^
Z
&
m
c
IE H- "v
S.2 fe c
•u "-a g;
• v fc 5
E o.o't
S t/> C C.
8 ;~ 5
+4 v— °-
?
oa
FAMILY NAME
Centrarchidae
Percidae
Percichthyidae
Esocidae
Salmonidae
Cyprinidae
Ictaluridae
Catostomidae
COMMON NAME
Largemouth bass
Smallmouth bass
Black crappie
White crappie
Walleye
Yellow perch
White bass
Northern pike
Lake trout
Brown trout
Rainbow trout
Brook trout
Common carp
Channel catfish
Blue catfish
Brown bullhead
Yellow bullhead
White sucker
SCIENTIFIC NAME
Micropterus salmoides
Micropterus dolomieu
Pomoxis nigromaculatus
Pomoxis annularis
Sander vitreus
Perca flavescens
Morone chrysops
Esox lucius
Salvelinus namaycush
Salmo trutta
Oncorhynchus mykiss
Salvelinus fontinalis
Cyprinus carpio
Ictalurus punctatus
Ictalurus furcatus
Ameiurus nebulosus
Ameiurus natalis
Catostomus commersoni
13
-------
The National Study of Chemical Residues in Lake Fish Tissue
Study Design and Approach
To select target fish species, EPA used the following criteria from Guidance for Assessing
Chemical Contaminant Data for Use in Fish Advisories, Volume 1: Fish Sampling and
Analysis, Third Edition (USEPA 2000d):
• The species is abundant and commonly consumed in the study area.
• It may potentially accumulate high concentrations of chemicals.
• The species is easy to identify, and it has a wide geographic distribution.
• Adult specimens are large enough to provide adequate tissue for analysis.
In areas where the recommended target species were not available, field teams applied these
criteria to identify additional target species. Appendix C provides a summary of the fish spe-
cies collected for the study.
2.4.3 Composite Samples
The sampling goal for field teams was to collect separate composite samples of a predator
fish species and a bottom-dwelling species from each lake or reservoir. Composite
samples consisted of multiple adult fish (five preferred) of the same species and similar size
(i.e., lengths of all fish in the composite were within 75% of the length of the largest fish).
Collecting composite samples served as a form of physical averaging and offered a cost-
effective approach for obtaining an estimate of the mean chemical concentrations in fish
tissue for a lake or reservoir. Compositing also ensured that an adequate amount of tissue
was available for analysis of all the target chemicals.
During the four-year sampling period, field teams collected 486 predator composites and
395 bottom-dweller composites from the 500 sampling locations. Predator and bottom-
dwelling species did not occur together at every sampling site; however, if either a predator
or bottom- dweller species were present, the target lake was sampled. In addition, field teams
collected replicate composite samples from about 10% of the lakes to allow evaluation of
sampling variability. This sampling effort produced 70 replicate predator composites and 52
replicate bottom-dweller composites.
2.4.4 Sampling Methods
Field sampling procedures developed for the National Lake Fish Tissue Study followed the
recommendations in Guidance for Assessing Chemical Contaminant Data for Use in Fish
Advisories, Volume I: Fish Sampling and Analysis, Third Edition (USEPA 2000d). Specific
sampling protocols for this study are detailed in the Field Sampling Plan (USEPA 2000c) and
Sample Collection Activity QAAP (USEPA 2000a).
Fish sampling teams used active (e.g., electrofishing) and passive (e.g., gill netting) collec-
tion methods to obtain the desired target numbers and species of fish. Experienced fisheries
biologists determined the appropriate type of fishing gear for a particular target lake and
14
-------
The National Study of Chemical Residues in Lake Fish Tissue
Study Design and Approach
identified the species available for compositing. After collecting the fish, team members mea-
sured total body length of each fish in a composite, wrapped whole fish in contaminant-free
materials, packed them on dry ice in shipping coolers, and used overnight delivery to ship
the fish samples (under Chain of Custody) to the laboratory responsible for sample prepa-
ration. Field teams recorded all site and sampling information on a standard Field Record
Form and enclosed it with the samples in the shipping coolers.
2.4.5 Sample Collection Quality Assurance/Quality Control (QA/QC)
EPA emphasized experience and consistency in recruiting, training, and coordinating field
sampling support for the National Lake Fish Tissue Study. To initiate this effort, detailed
Standard Operating Procedures were developed to establish consistent methods and require-
ments for fish collection, handling, and shipping. These study-specific procedures were
presented to study participants during the orientation and training workshops. EPA also
distributed a Field Sampling Plan (USEPA 2000c) to every field sampling team. This field
manual contained a project description, the comprehensive SOPs for sample collection, and
instructions for completing fish labels and field and shipping forms. In the field, highly quali-
fied fisheries biologists led the sampling teams. Under their leadership, every fish sample col-
lected during the four sampling years of the study arrived intact at the sample preparation
laboratory. The fact that no fish samples were lost throughout the four field seasons demon-
strates how carefully the field teams adhered to the sampling and shipping protocols.
EPA employed additional measures to maintain quality control for fish sampling. Each
year, the Sample Control Center distributed identical field sampling supplies to every field
team across the country. These supplies included materials for wrapping and packaging fish
specimens (e.g., solvent-rinsed foil and food-grade plastic tubing), coolers for shipping, and
standard forms and labels to document sample collection and shipping. To reduce the risk
of introducing contamination, field teams shipped whole fish to the laboratory where fish
tissue samples were prepared in a strictly-controlled environment. Another provision for
quality control was centralizing the daily coordination and tracking of sample shipments at
the national level. This process prevented coolers from becoming lost or delayed to an extent
that would compromise the condition of the samples during transit to the laboratory. When
each cooler reached the laboratory, staff inspected it for damage and contacted the Sample
Control Center to verify that the samples it contained arrived frozen and in good condition.
The laboratory forwarded all associated paperwork (e.g., Field Record Forms and Chain-
of-Custody Forms) to the national sampling support contractor to verify completeness and
accuracy. A final QA activity involved collecting replicate samples at a minimum of 10% of
the lakes to provide data for developing estimates of sampling variability (Section 3.5).
15
-------
The National Study of Chemical Residues in Lake Fish Tissue
Study Design and Approach
2.5 Sample Analysis
Laboratories analyzed different fish tissue fractions for the two types of composite samples
collected for the study: fillets for the predator composites and whole bodies for the bottom-
dweller composites. This approach allowed development of data relevant to both human and
ecosystem health. A network of four commercial laboratories (Figure 2) applied seven stan-
dard EPA methods to analyze the fish tissue for the 268 target chemicals (Table 4). One of
these laboratories was also responsible for sample preparation, which involved filleting and
grinding fish samples, dividing the tissue into sub-samples (i.e., aliquots), and shipping the
fish tissue samples to the other laboratories for analysis. A large tissue volume was necessary
to complete all the chemical analyses. The sample preparation laboratory processed and dis-
tributed 560 grams (about 20 ounces) of tissue for each fish composite sample. This volume
provided sufficient tissue for measuring the lipid content of each sample and running required
portions of the sample through the series of analytical methods. It also provided reserve
tissue for the option of re-analyzing samples and archiving frozen fish tissue for future use.
2.5.? Non-routine Samples
This study defined a composite sample as one containing five fish of the same species. An
additional requirement for each composite was that the smallest fish in the composite be at
least 75% of the length of the largest fish (Section 2.4.3). Composite samples that did not
meet either of these requirements were designated as non-routine samples. Prior to making a
decision about whether to retain and analyze a non-routine sample, EPA evaluated species,
number of specimens, and specimen lengths. This evaluation resulted in one of the follow-
ing decisions: accept non-routine composites that had less than five specimens, but provided
sufficient tissue for analysis; accept composites of more than five specimens in order to pro-
vide enough tissue for analysis; or reject individual specimens or entire composites that fell
outside of study parameters. Non-routine samples that met the first two decision criteria
were accepted for analysis. Individual specimens that did not meet the 75% length rule were
eliminated (with rare exceptions for fish whose lengths were less than 5mm shorter than the
minimum allowable length).
Over the four-year sampling period, about 24% of the composite samples were non-routine
samples. EPA rejected about 2% of the total composite samples submitted by the field teams.
Rejection of these samples was based on submission of composites containing inappropriate
species or insufficient tissue, predator specimens mistakenly filleted in the field, or fish col-
lected from the wrong lake (i.e., a lake not on the target lake list).
2.5.2 Sample Preparation
AXYS Analytical Services, Ltd. in Sidney, British Columbia served as the sample preparation
laboratory for the duration of the study. In accordance with EPA specifications, the labora-
tory prepared bottom-dwelling species as whole fish composites. This involved grinding
the entire specimen, including the head, skin, internal organs, muscle, and bones. Labora-
tory staff combined ground tissue from each whole fish in the composite and thoroughly
homogenized the fish tissue before extracting sub-samples for analysis. Predator species were
16
-------
The National Study of Chemical Residues in Lake Fish Tissue
Study Design and Approach
prepared as skin-on fillet composites (scales removed and belly flap attached). In preparing
predator composites, the entire fillet was removed from both sides of each fish in the com-
posite and all the fillets were ground together. Laboratory staff ensured that the tissue was
completely homogenized before preparing sample aliquots for analysis. AXYS distributed
sample aliquots to three other laboratories for analysis, and they shipped additional aliquots
to a sample repository for archiving.
All sample preparation activities (e.g., filleting and tissue homogenization) were performed
according to procedures in EPA's Guidance for Assessing Chemical Contaminant Data for
Use in Fish Advisories, Volume 1: Fish Sampling and Analysis (Third Edition, November
2000) (USEPA 2000d). The National Lake Fish Tissue Study Analytical Control and
Assessment Activities QAPP describes study-specific procedures for sample preparation
(USEPA 2000b).
2.5.3 Laboratory Network
Four laboratories analyzed samples for this study: AXYS Analytical Services, Ltd., Sidney,
British Columbia; Battelle Marine Sciences, Sequim, Washington; Battelle Ocean Sciences,
Duxbury, Massachusetts; and Pacific Analytical, Inc., Carlsbad, California. EPA used mul-
tiple laboratories to access their expertise for specific chemical analyses. AXYS Analytical
Services analyzed fish tissue samples for PCBs and dioxins and furans, in addition to serving
as the sample preparation laboratory. Battelle Marine Sciences performed the metals analy-
ses (mercury and arsenic), whereas Battelle Ocean Sciences performed the analyses for semi-
volatile organic chemicals (e.g., phenols, phthalates, and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons
or PAHs). Pacific Analytical analyzed the tissue samples for pesticides.
2.5.4 Analytical Methods
Laboratories analyzed fish tissue samples using seven standard EPA methods: two meth-
ods for metals (mercury and arsenic), two methods for pesticides (organochlorine and
organophosphate pesticides), and a single method for each of the three other chemical
groups (PCBs, dioxins and furans, and semivolatile organic chemicals). Each method speci-
fies procedures for analysis, QA/QC requirements, and reporting limits. Table 4 lists the
method number and title, along with the number and group of target chemicals covered
by the method. At EPA's direction, laboratories made study-specific modifications to two
of the methods to achieve lower detection limits: Method 1613B for dioxins and furans
and Method 1656A for organochlorine pesticides. Appendix D provides more detailed
information for each of the methods and describes the modifications to Methods 1613B
and 1656A to achieve lower detection limits. Method-specific information is also avail-
able in the QAPP for Analytical Control and Assessment Activities in the National Study
of Chemical Residues in Lake Fish Tissue (USEPA 2000b) and in the Quality Assurance
Report for the National Study of Chemical Residues in Lake Fish Tissue: Analytical Data
for Years 1 through 4 (USEPA 2005b). Both documents are posted online at www.epa.gov/
waterscience/fishstudy/.
17
-------
The National Study of Chemical Residues in Lake Fish Tissue
Study Design and Approach
EPA stressed consistency and comparability in planning and implementing QA/QC
measures for sample analysis. An initial step in promoting consistency for fish tissue
analysis was centralizing sample filleting (predator composites only) and the grinding and
homogenization of tissue in a strictly-controlled, contaminant-free environment at a single
laboratory. Using the same laboratory for each type of analysis throughout the study was
also crucial for maintaining consistency in generating results. Comparability of study results
was achieved by using a single set of methods to analyze all fish samples collected during the
study. Applying consistent method detection limits (MDLs) and QC acceptance criteria also
insured comparable results.
EPA maintained quality control through a number of other laboratory and data review activi-
ties. Prior to initiating sample analysis, EPA's Sample Control Center (SCC) verified that each
laboratory participating in the study could achieve the specified detection limits and quantita-
tion levels. The SCC also required laboratories to analyze initial and ongoing QC samples to
demonstrate their ability to obtain precise and accurate results with the standard methods. In
addition, the laboratories used pure and traceable reference standards during sample analysis,
analyzed sample preparation and analysis blanks to demonstrate the absence of contamina-
tion, and submitted data reports in standard formats. The SCC received and reviewed the
analytical data from the laboratories using a standard process for data quality assessment.
The Quality Assurance Report for the National Study of Chemical Residues in Lake Fish
Tissue: Analytical Data for Years 1 through 4 (USEPA 2005b) provides detailed descriptions
of all the standard procedures for sample analysis, data reporting, and data review.
."•/• ,:. >• • \:. :-1' ;;-::-" ,: '! ."•;'•• '.': KV; ••
Tissue concentrations for each target chemical (e.g., mercury) or chemical group (e.g., PCBs)
and fish composite type comprise the series of national data sets analyzed for the National
Lake Fish Tissue Study. Statistical analysis of these fish tissue data sets involved application
of R statistical software (R Development Core Team 2004) to estimate percentiles (Section
3.0) and the cumulative distribution of tissue concentrations (Section 3.1.4) for the sampled
population of lakes. This statistical package was selected for tissue data analysis because it is
readily available, it has robust capabilities, and statisticians in EPA's Office of Research and
Development (ORD) have extensive experience using this software for analysis of unequal
probability survey data (e.g., Environment Monitoring and Assessment Program (EMAP)
survey data). Analysis of the fish tissue data incorporated elements of the survey design,
along with information from the field sampling operations and laboratory analyses. The
statistical analysis process included the following essential steps:
• compiling lake evaluation information to determine the status for each lake in the study
(Section 2.3.3),
• adjusting the survey design (sample) weights based on lake status,
• estimating the number of lakes within the conterminous United States that meet the
project definition of a lake (i.e., the target population),
18
-------
The National Study of Chemical Residues in Lake Fish Tissue
Study Design and Approach
• estimating the number and proportion of lakes in the sampled population, and
• estimating the cumulative distribution and percentile concentrations of the target
chemicals in each fish tissue fraction (i.e., fillets for predator composites and whole
bodies for bottom-dweller composites).
Activities in the last four steps are summarized in Sections 2.6.1 through 2.6.4. Section
2.6.5 contains a brief description of statistical analysis QA/QC.
2.6.1 Calculating the Sample Weights
A critical activity for analyzing data from a study with an unequal probability survey design
is deriving the sample weights. For this study, lake size (surface area) was used to assign a
probability of selection, or inclusion probability, to each lake. The lakes were divided into
six size categories with inclusion probabilities assigned to each to allow a similar number of
lakes to be selected from each size category (Section 2.2.2). Statistical analysis of data for
this unequal probability sample of lakes is more complex, and it requires that all analyses
use weights derived from the unequal probability of selection (Thompson 1992).
The statistical weight of each lake is the inverse of its probability of selection or inclusion
probability. The inclusion probability was determined by the goal of obtaining approxi-
mately an equal number of lakes to sample in each size category. During the lake selec-
tion process, the inclusion probability was adjusted for the three smaller size categories to
account for the larger number of lakes that would not meet the study definition of a lake.
These adjustments were as follows: increase by 40% for 1-5 hectares (ha), increase by 30%
for 5-10 ha, and increase by 20% for 10-50 ha. No adjustment was required for the remain-
ing size categories (50-500 ha, 500-5,000 ha, and >5,000 ha). Initial sample weights were
calculated for each lake based on the unequal probabilities of selection. The inclusion prob-
abilities for the smallest to the largest lake size categories were as follows: 0.001065142,
0.003822562, 0.003898441, 0.011756323, 0.088000000, and 0.452554745. These prob-
abilities resulted in expected total sample sizes of 184, 172, 156, 132, 132, and 124 lakes,
respectively. They also resulted in initial design weights of 938.84, 261.60, 256.51, 85.06,
11.36, and 2.21, respectively. Note that the sample weights are expressed as numbers of
lakes. The final sample weights were derived from adjusted inclusion probabilities based
on the total number of lakes identified for potential sampling at the conclusion of the lake
evaluation process. This weight adjustment was made individually for each lake size cat-
egory. The adjusted weight is the initial weight multiplied by the ratio of the number of lakes
in the sample frame divided by the product of the number of lakes evaluated and their initial
weight. For example, the adjustment for lakes in the >5000 ha size category is:
274
2.21 x = 1.971223
(139x2.21)
19
-------
The National Study of Chemical Residues in Lake Fish Tissue
Study Design and Approach
2.6.2 Estimating the Size of the Target Population of Lakes
The data necessary for estimating the number of target lakes are the evaluation status results
compiled for all lakes statistically drawn for potential field sampling. Diaz-Ramos et al.
(1996) describe the statistical procedure used to estimate the total (target) population from
the unequal probability sample of lakes. An associated variance estimate, called a local
neighborhood variance estimate, is described by Stevens and Olsen (2003). Procedures for
estimating both the target population size and variance are available online at http://wwu>.
epa.gov/nheerl/arm/analysispages/r_design_guide.htm in the R library for the Office of
Research and Development's National Health and Environmental Effects Research Labora-
tory in Corvallis, Oregon. An option also exists to complete the same estimates for sub-
regions of the conterminous United States. However, unless the sample size is sufficiently
large, the confidence intervals of the sub-region estimates may be so large that the estimates
provide little information. Sub-region estimates were not derived for this study because the
sample size was insufficient to develop estimates with reasonable confidence intervals.
2.6.3 Estimating the Size of the Sampled Population of Lakes
The target population of lakes for this study included lakes on both public and private
lands. All target lakes met the study definition of a lake (Section 2.2.2), but some of these
lakes could not be sampled. Landowner denial to access lakes on private property was a
major factor in preventing field teams from sampling privately-owned target lakes. Another
important factor was physical barriers that made some target lakes inaccessible (e.g., remote
locations with no road access or reservoir draw downs). EPA used the number of inaccessible
target lakes to develop an estimate of the sampled population of lakes (i.e., the number of
target lakes that could be sampled). Table 6 in Section 3.0 presents the estimated number
of lakes by evaluation status (e.g., non-target, target, and inaccessible target), lake size
category, and composite type.
2.6.4 Estimating Fish Tissue Concentrations
EPA developed national estimates of fish tissue concentrations in each fish composite type
(i.e., predator fillets and bottom-dweller whole bodies) for all the target chemicals. Tissue
concentration data from laboratory analysis of the fish composite samples, along with the
final sample weights associated with each lake, were required to derive these estimates.
The tissue concentrations are reported as percentiles, including the 50th percentile or
median concentration, for each target chemical and composite type. EPA estimated the
cumulative distribution of fish tissue concentrations for the sampled population of lakes
using a procedure described by Diaz-Ramos et al. (1996) entitled, "Estimation Method 1:
Cumulative Distribution Function for Proportion of a Discrete or an Extensive Resource."
The estimated proportion (Pc) below a specific value for a concentration (C) is:
!>.-**.•
20
-------
The National Study of Chemical Residues in Lake Fish Tissue
w
here:
Study Design and Approach
xt = 1 if concentration for /th lake is below C and equals 0 otherwise,
iv. = the adjusted weight for /th lake, and
n = total number of lakes sampled.
Variance estimates were derived using the local neighborhood variance estimator described
by Stevens and Olsen (2003 and 2004). To complete these analyses, EPA utilized the
R statistical software (R Development Core Team 2004) and an R contributed library for
probability survey population estimation (spsurvey) that is available online at the following
Internet address: http://www.epa.gov/nheerl/arm/analysispages/software.
2.6.5 Statistical Analysis QA/QC
EPA focused on QA/QC activities to achieve accuracy and reproducibility during statistical
analysis of the fish tissue data and review of the results. These activities began with a series
of internal checks of the input data files to verify the consistency and completeness of the
data. For example, the composite sample identification numbers were compared to the lake
site identification numbers and the sample (composite) types to ensure that no miscoding
occurred. National study management team members also checked the consistency of the
output files. Any inconsistencies identified by the team were traced to errors in the input
files and resolved by correcting these files and repeating the analyses. The final step in
reviewing statistical analysis of the data involved re-analyzing a subset of the data to verify
the reproducibility of the results. A QAPP describing data analysis activities for the National
Lake Fish Tissue Study (USEPA 2005a) provides additional information about statistical
analysis QA/QC. It is available online at www.epa.gov/waterscience/fishstudy/.
21
-------
The National Study of Chemical Residues in Lake Fish Tissue
Study Design and Approach
22
-------
The National Study of Chemical Residues in Lake Fish Tissue
3.0 Results
The National Lake Fish Tissue Study is the first statistically-based national assessment of
freshwater fish contamination to be completed in the United States. The study applies an
unequal probability design. It is essential to understand two important points about this
design:
• The 486 predator composites and the 395 bottom-dweller composites collected during
the study from the 500 sampling locations (Section 2.4.3) each comprise nationally-
representative samples whose results can be extrapolated to tens of thousands of lakes
and reservoirs in the lower 48 states.
• The unequal probability design requires application of sample weights (Section 2.6.1)
to the fish tissue data to develop national estimates of fillet (predators) and whole-
body (bottom dwellers) tissue concentrations for each of the 268 target chemicals. The
sample weights are derived from the various probabilities assigned to each of the six
lake size categories in the study design (Section 2.2.2).
Two statistical sets of lakes, the target population and the sampled population, define how
broadly the fish tissue concentration results apply to lakes and reservoirs in the United
States. The target population consists of all lakes and reservoirs in the lower 48 states with a
permanent fish population that met the study lake size requirements. There are an estimated
147,000 lakes in the target population for this study. The sampled population consists of all
target lakes that were accessible for fish collection. Under ideal circumstances, the target and
sampled populations should coincide. However, for this study, the sampled population is a
subset of the target population. A number of target lakes were not accessible to field sam-
pling teams because the lakes were either located in remote wilderness areas or on private
property where landowners denied EPA permission to sample them (Table 6). There is a dif-
ferent sampled population for each composite type based on differences in the occurrence of
predators and bottom dwellers in the 500 sampled lakes. The sampled population for preda-
tors contains an estimated 76,559 lakes, and the sampled population for bottom dwellers
consists of an estimated 46,190 lakes. All predator and bottom-dweller results presented in
this report apply to these sampled populations of lakes.
23
-------
The National Study of Chemical Residues in Lake Fish Tissue
Results
Table 6. Estimated Number of Lakes by Evaluation Status, Lake Size Category, and Composite Type
ESTIMATED NUMBER OF
LAKES BY EVALUATION
STATUS
Lakes in RF3 (Actual)
LAKE AREA (HECTARES)
I I >50- I >500-
>1-5 >5-10 I >10-50 I 500 1 5000
172,747
Non-Target Lakes
Saline Lake
Not a Lake
Lake <1 hectare
No Fish in Lake
1,809
47,031
5,427
17,184
No Permanent Fish 9,044
44,996
466
15,620
3,031
3,730
40,016
710
11,365
1,657
2,368
11,228
217
2,898
72
362
1,500
29
380
-
-
>5000
274
8
IIII1
2
TOTAL
(95% CONFIDENCE
INTERVAL)
270,761
1 23,41 8±8%
3,240±66%
77,300±12%
5,427±63%
21,947±28%
15,505±30%
Target Population of Lakes 147,343±7%
Inaccessible Target Lakes
Land Owner Denied
Access
Lake Physically
Inaccessible
39,795
9,948
5,595
4,430
5,209
2,605
724
362
-
10
-
-
51,424±16%
17,355±29%
Sampled Population of Lakes
Predator Sampled
Population
Bottom Dweller
Sampled Population
Total Sampled
Population*
41,604
19,898
42,508
16,101
11,602
12,123
11,191
8,160
16,101
6,375
5,360
6,592
1,032
935
1,081
256
235
258
76,559±12%
46,190±17%
78,664±12%
*The total sampled population of lakes includes lakes that yielded either predator or bottom-dweller species.
Data analysis focused on the study objective to develop estimates of the national distribu-
tion of the mean levels (i.e., "lake means" or composite average concentrations) of the target
chemicals (Section 2.2.3) in predator fillets and whole bodies of bottom dwellers. These
national distributions of fillet and whole-body tissue residue data are described by percen-
tiles (5th, 10th, 25th, 50th, 75th, 90th, and 95th percentiles) for each of the target chemicals. The
50th percentile is the median tissue concentration. Section 3.4 provides percentile tables by
composite type for five target chemicals that occurred in a large percentage of the fish tissue
samples. Appendix E provides percentile tables by composite type for all target chemicals
detected in the fish samples.
Since the study design included analysis of fillets for predator composites and whole bodies
for bottom-dweller composites, this study generated data relevant to both human and eco-
system health. In this report, however, predator results are highlighted because human
24
-------
The National Study of Chemical Residues in Lake Fish Tissue
Results
health screening values were readily available to interpret the fillet data for chemicals that
occurred frequently in the edible tissue (Section 3.4). If available, wildlife criteria could be
applied in the same manner to interpret the whole-body data from analysis of the bottom-
dweller composites.
Familiarity with certain technical information is critical for understanding the results.
Section 3.1 provides a description of key technical elements and how they apply to the study
data. Sections 3.2, 3.3, and 3.4 present the fish tissue results by respective composite type
based on three levels of occurrence of target chemicals: not detected, rarely detected, and
commonly detected. The five chemicals highlighted as commonly detected in Section 3.4
are mercury, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), dioxins and furans, DDT, and chlordane.
According to EPA's 2008 Biennial National Listing of Fish Advisories (USEPA 2009), these
five chemicals accounted for 97% of the advisories in effect at the end of 2008.
All fish tissue results are reported as wet weight concentrations. These concentrations are
expressed as the mass of the chemical per unit of fish tissue mass. Each analytical method
specifies the reporting units for a particular chemical or chemical group. Table 7 lists the
reporting units for the seven EPA standard analytical methods used to generate fish tissue
results.
Table 7. Reporting Units for EPA Standard Analytical Methods
EPA METHOD
1631B
1632A
1668A
1613B
1656A
1657A
1625C
CHEMICAL(S)
Mercury
Arsenic
PCBs
Dioxins and Furans
Organochlorine Pesticides
Organophosphate Pesticides
Semivolatile Organic Chemicals
REPORTING UNITS
ng/g (ppb)
ug/g (ppm)
ng/kg (ppt)
ng/kg (ppt)
ug/kg (ppb)
ug/kg (ppb)
ug/kg (ppb)
5.1,2
The Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) provides a definition and description of the method
detection limit (MDL) in 40 CFR, part 136. The MDL varies for different chemicals, matri-
ces (e.g., water, sediment, or tissue), and analytical methods. Appendix B contains a table
that lists the MDL for each of the target chemicals. Other factors can influence the MDL,
such as increasing the sample size (e.g., the amount of tissue) used for analysis. In this study,
EPA modified Method 1613B by increasing the volume of tissue analyzed from 10 grams
to 100 grams to allow detection of dioxins and furans at levels ten times lower than those
specified in the method.
25
-------
The National Study of Chemical Residues in Lake Fish Tissue
Results
The MDL is designed to provide a 99% level of confidence that when a chemical is reported
as being present, it really is present. The opposite is not true, however. If a chemical is
reported as not being present at the MDL level, there is a 50% possibility that the chemical
is really present (i.e., the result is a false negative).
The minimum level of quantitation (ML) is the lowest concentration at which the analytical
system gives a quantitative result. Generally speaking, the ML is approximately three times
greater than the MDL, and it is comparable to the American Chemical Society's Limit of
Quantitation. The table in Appendix B lists the MLs for all of the target chemicals.
For this study, laboratories reported all positive results that met the method-specified criteria
down to the MDL. They also applied a "J" flag to any results reported at or above the MDL
(detection limit), but below the ML (quantitation limit). The "J" flag indicates that the
chemical was present, but the reported value is an estimate of the true concentration since it
was detected below the quantitation limit. Appendix F provides a breakdown by composite
type and chemical of the concentrations that occurred below the MDL, between the MDL
and ML (and inclusive of the MDL), and at or above the ML. The "J" flagged values were
included in all analyses of the fish tissue data.
3.1.3 Total Toxicity Equivalency and Summed Chemicals
The tissue concentrations for dioxins and furans are reported as toxicity-weighted total
concentrations. They are derived by multiplying an individual toxicity equivalency factor
(TEF) by the concentrations of each of the seven dioxins and ten furans, then summing
the 17 results. This sum is referred to as the total toxicity equivalency or total TEQ. EPA's
Guidance for Assessing Chemical Contaminant Data for Use in Fish Advisories, Volume I:
Fish Sampling and Analysis, Third Edition (USEPA 2000d) includes a discussion of the
method for estimating total TEQ, and it provides a list of the toxicity equivalency factors for
the 17 dioxins and furans.
In addition to the 17 dioxins and furans, fish tissue samples were analyzed for multiple
forms of other chemicals, such as PCBs, chlordane, DDT and endosulfan. Analysis of
tissue samples for PCBs included all 209 congeners (individual PCB compounds), which
produced 159 congener measurements due to co-elution of up to six individual congeners
(Section 2.2.3). Results for the 12 coplanar ("dioxin-like") PCBs were converted to toxic
equivalents, added to toxicity-weighted concentrations for dioxins and furans, and reported
as a total TEQ in accordance with EPA guidance (USEPA 2000d). Tissue analysis for the
three organochlorine pesticides involved multiple isomers, including five for chlordane,
six for DDT, and two for endosulfan. Results for these chemical groups are reported as
individual congener or isomer concentrations and as summed concentrations for each group.
In developing the summed concentrations, non-detected components of the chemical were
assigned a value of zero for this report. The summed concentrations from the predator fillet
results are compared to human health screening values published in Volume 2 of EPA's
Guidance for Assessing Chemical Contaminant Data for Use in Fish Advisories (USEPA
2000e).
26
-------
The National Study of Chemical Residues in Lake Fish Tissue
Results
3.1.4 Cumulative Distribution Functions
A cumulative distribution function (CDF) offers an approach to displaying statistical data
that correlates the results to the sampled population. In technical terms, a CDF character-
izes the probability distribution of a random variable (Zar 1999). For this study, the random
variable is the concentration of a particular chemical in fish tissue. Each chemical and com-
posite type has a unique probability distribution.
The probability distributions for fillet and whole-body fish tissue concentrations are presented
by chemical and composite type as plots of chemical concentration (x-axis) versus the cumu-
lative percentage of lakes (y-axis) (Section 3.4 and Appendix G). Every point on the plot is a
mean tissue concentration measured for a fillet composite or a whole-body composite, and
each of these points corresponds to a sampling site where the chemical was detected in the
tissue composite. The maximum number of points for a CDF displaying predator (fillet) data
is 486 because predator composites were collected from 486 of the 500 sampling locations.
Similarly, the maximum number of points for a CDF presenting bottom-dweller (whole-body)
data is 395 because bottom dwellers were only sampled from 395 of the 500 locations. The
points are plotted in order of increasing tissue concentration. An important point of reference
on the CDFs is the median, or the tissue concentration corresponding to 50% of the lakes.
Many target chemicals did not have sufficient tissue data to develop a CDF with adequate
resolution. The CDFs included in Appendix G represent chemicals that had published
human health screening values and at least 50 data points (i.e., tissue concentrations above
the MDL). Five chemicals or chemical groups met these criteria, including mercury, PCBs,
dioxins and furans, DDT, and chlordane. Predator and bottom-dweller CDFs for these
commonly-occurring chemicals are displayed and described in Section 3.4. Human health
screening values are most commonly applicable to fillet data, not whole-body data; there-
fore, bottom-dweller (whole-body) CDFs do not include human health thresholds.
Each CDF contains a horizontal (x) axis for tissue concentrations and two vertical (y) axes.
The left y-axis presents the cumulative percentage of lakes, and the right y-axis shows the
corresponding number of lakes in the sampled population. The human health screening
value appears on the predator CDFs as a dashed green line. The point of intersection of
the human health screening concentration on the left y-axis indicates the point where the
percentage of lakes is below this threshold. The intersection on the right y-axis provides an
estimate of the number of lakes with tissue concentrations below the human health screen-
ing value. Subtracting these points of intersection from the maximum values on each y-axis
(e.g., 100% for the left y-axis and 76,559 for the right y-axis on predator CDFs) will give
the percentage of lakes and the corresponding number of lakes that exceed the human health
screening value (Section 3.1.5).
3.1.5 Human Health Screening Values
The human health screening value applied to predator results for mercury is EPA's tissue-
based water quality criterion published in January 2001 (USEPA 2001b). EPA has no other
tissue-based water quality criteria available, so all other human health screening values
27
-------
The National Study of Chemical Residues in Lake Fish Tissue
Results
applied to predator results in this report are risk-based consumption limits published in
EPA's Guidance for Assessing Chemical Contaminant Data for Use in Fish Advisories,
Volume 2: Risk Assessment and Fish Consumption Limits, Third Edition (USEPA 2000e).
Section 3 of the guidance describes the methods and assumptions (e.g., body weight and
acceptable risk level) used to derive the consumption limits. Section 4 of the guidance pro-
vides tables of risk-based consumption limits. The screening values include consumption
limits for both carcinogenic and noncarcinogenic health effects. Following the recommenda-
tion in the guidance, this report uses the more conservative consumption limit as a screening
value to account for both types of health effects.
The screening value for mercury in this report is EPA's tissue-based water quality criterion
of 0.3 ppm (or 300 ppb) (USEPA 2001b). Consistent with the recommendation issued by the
Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and EPA for instances where no fish consumption
advice is available, all other screening values in this report are based on consumption limits
for four meals per month (or one meal per week). Specifically, the report screening values are
the upper limit of the four-meal-per-month concentration range for the more conservative
consumption limit where tissue concentrations are available for both cancer and noncancer
health endpoints. Table 8 provides a list of the screening values (SVs) used to interpret
predator results for this study.
Table 8. Human Health Screening Values (SV)a for Interpreting National Lake Fish Tissue
Study Predator Results
CHEMICAL
Mercury
Arsenic (inorganic)
PCBs
Dioxins/Furans
Chlordane
DDT
Dicofol
Dieldrin
Endosulfan
Endrin
Heptachlor epoxide
Lindane (gamma BHC)
Mi rex
Toxaphene
VOL.2
TABLE
WQCb
4-1
4-24
4-25
4-6
4-7
4-8
4-9
4-10
4-11
4-12
4-14
4-15
4-16
HEALTH
ENDPOINT
SV FISH TISSUE
CONCENTRATION
Noncancer 300
Cancer
Cancer
Cancer
Cancer
Cancer
Noncancer
Cancer
Noncancer
Noncancer
Cancer
Cancer
Noncancer
Cancer
0.016
12
0.15
67
69
700
1.5
14000
700
2.6
18
470
21
UNITS
ppb
ppm
ppb
ppt
ppb
ppb
ppb
ppb
ppb
ppb
ppb
ppb
ppb
ppb
Taken from EPA's Guidance for Assessing Chemical Contaminant Data for Use in Fish Advisories, Volume 2: Risk
Assessment and Fish Consumption Limits, Third Edition.
' Screening value for mercury is the tissue-based water quality criterion (WQC) published by EPA in January 2001
(USEPA 2001 b).
28
-------
The National Study of Chemical Residues in Lake Fish Tissue
Results
In reporting the analytical results for this study, it is important to distinguish between detec-
tion and presence of a chemical in a fish tissue sample. As discussed in Section 3.1.2, esti-
mates of fish tissue concentrations ranging from the MDL (method detection limit) to the
ML (minimum level or quantitation limit) are reported as being present with a 99% level
of confidence. However, if a chemical is reported as "not detected" at the MDL level, there
is a 50% possibility that the chemical may be present. Therefore, results for chemicals not
detected in the fish tissue samples are reported as less than the MDL rather than zero.
Forty-three of the 268 target chemicals were not detected in any of the fish samples collected
during this study. Table 9 provides a list of these chemicals. No detections were reported for
any of the nine organophosphate pesticides (e.g., chlorpyriphos and diazinon), for one of the
209 PCB congeners, or for 16 of the 17 polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) analyzed
as semivolatile organic chemicals. Seventeen other semivolatile organic chemicals were not
detected in the fish samples, including hexachlorobenzene, which was a priority chemical
under EPA's Persistent, Bioaccumulative, and Toxic Chemicals Initiative.
The choice of methods determines detection limits that can be achieved for each chemical or
chemical group. Methods with lower detection limits often involve greater costs. External
Table 9. Chemicals Not Detected in Any Samples.
CATEGORY
PCBs
Organophosphate
Pesticides
PAHs
CHEMICAL
PCB-161
Chlorpyrifos
Diazinon
Disulfoton
Disulfoton sulfone
Ethion
Acenaphthene
Acenaphthylene
Anthracene
Benzo(a)anthracene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Benzo(ghi)perylene
Benzo(j)fluoranthene
Ethyl parathion
Paraoxon
Terbufos
Terbufos sulfone
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
Chrysene
Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene
Fluoranthene
Fluorene
Indeno (1,2,3-cd) pyrene
Perylene
Phenanthrene
Other Semivolatile
Organic Chemicals
1,2,4,5-Tetrachlorobenzene
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
1,2-Dichlorobenzene
1,3-Dichlorobenzene
1,4-Dichlorobenzene
2,4,5-Trichlorophenol
2,4,6-Tris(1,1-dimethylethyl) phenol
3,3'-dichlorobenzidine
4,4'-Methylenebis (2-chloroaniline)
4-Bromophenyl phenyl ether
Diethylstilbestrol
Hexachlorobenzene
Hexachlorobutadiene
Nitrobenzene
Pentachlorobenzene
Pentachlorophenol
Tetrabromobisphenol A
29
-------
The National Study of Chemical Residues in Lake Fish Tissue
Results
peer reviewers of the study design identified analytical methods with lower detection limits
that were available for some of the semivolatile organic chemicals, including PAHs and
Tetrabromobisphenol A (a chemical linked to endocrine disruption). EPA did not use these
methods in the study due to resource constraints. However, applying methods with lower
detection limits may have produced different results.
33
Thirty-four target chemicals occurred infrequently in the fish tissue samples (excluding
individual congeners or isomers of summed chemicals). Most of these chemicals were either
organochlorine pesticides or semivolatile organic compounds. Tables 10 and 11 provide a
list of these chemicals and their frequency of occurrence for predator samples and bottom-
dweller samples, respectively. The tables present frequency of occurrence for the chemical
groups as a percentage of total sampling locations. These percentages are divided into four
intervals for predator samples (<1%, 1-5%, 5-10%, 10-15%) and six intervals for bottom-
dweller samples (<1%, 1-5%, 5-10%, 10-15%, 15-20%, and 20-35%).
Thirty-two of the 34 rarely-detected chemicals occurred in the predator samples, includ-
ing three forms of arsenic, 24 organochlorine pesticides, and five semivolatile organic
compounds. Total inorganic arsenic and DMA (an organic arsenic compound) occurred
in predator samples at less than 1% of the sampling sites, while MMA (another form of
organic arsenic found only in predators) occurred at less than 5% of the sites. Twenty-two
of the organochlorine pesticides were detected in predator samples at less than 10% of the
sites, and eight of these pesticides were found at less than 1% of the sites. The two remain-
ing pesticides, kepone and pentachloroanisole, were both detected at 12% of the sites. Three
semivolatile organic compounds occurred in predator samples at less than 1% of the sites,
including nonylphenol, pyrene, and a phthalate. Two other phthalates, bis(2-ethylhexyl)
phthalate and di-n-butyl phthalate, were detected in predator samples at 1% and 7% of the
sites, respectively.
Thirty-three of the 34 rarely-detected chemicals occurred in the bottom-dweller samples,
including two forms of arsenic, 25 organochlorine pesticides, and six semivolatile organic
compounds. Three of these chemicals were found only in bottom dwellers: naphthalene,
phenol, and toxaphene. The other rarely-detected chemicals generally occurred more fre-
quently in the bottom-dweller samples than in the predator samples. Total inorganic arsenic
was detected in bottom-dweller samples at 9% of the sampling locations, and DMA was
detected at less than 5% of the locations. Nineteen of the organochlorine pesticides were
found in bottom dwellers at less than 10% of the locations, and three pesticides were present
at 10% to 20% of the locations. The other three pesticides were detected in bottom-dweller
samples at more than 20% of the sampling sites. Kepone occurred in bottom dwellers at 26%
of the sites, while pentachloroanisole and trifluralin occurred at 27% and 32% of the sites,
respectively. Four semivolatile organic chemicals were detected in bottom dwellers at less
than 1% of the sites. Two remaining phthalates, bis (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate and di-n-butyl
phthalate, were present in bottom-dweller samples at 3% and 7% of the sites, respectively.
30
-------
Table 10. Infrequent Chemical Occurrences in Predators (Fillets).
CHEMICAL CROUP
Metals
Organochlorine
Pesticides
Semivolatile
Organic
Chemicals
PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL SAMPLING LOCATIONS
Arsenic (total inorganic)
Dimethylarsinic acid (DMA)
Endosulfan sulfate
Endrin
Pendimethalin
Aldrin
Permethrin, cis-
Permethrin, trans-
Hexachlorocyclohexane (BHC),
alpha-
Hexachlorocyclohexane (BHC), delta-
4-Nonylphenol
Butyl benzyl phthalate
Pyrene
1-5%
Monomethylarsonic acid
(MMA)
Dicofol
Endosulfan (total)
Ethalfluralin
Heptachlor
Heptachlor epoxide
Isodrin
Methoxychlor
Mi rex
Octachlorostyren
Bis (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
5-10%
10-15%
Dieldrin
Hexachlorocyclohexane
(BHC), beta-
Hexachlorocyclohexane
(BHC), gamma-
Pentachloronitrobenzene
Trifluralin
Di-n-butyl phthalate
Kepone(12%)
Pentachloroanisole (12%)
-------
Table 11. Infrequent Chemical Occurrences in Bottom Dwellers (Whole Bodies).
CHEMICAL CROUP
Metals
Organochlorine
Pesticides
Semivolatile
Organic
Chemicals
PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL SAMPLING LOCATIONS
<1%
Toxaphene
4-Nonylphenol
Butyl benzyl
phthalate
Naphthalene
Phenol
1-5% 5-10% i 10-15% ; 15-20% \ 20-35%
Dimethylarsinic acid [ Arsenic (total inorganic) I I
(DMA) | j j
Aldrin
Dicofol
Endosulfan (total)
Endosulfan sulfate
Endrin
Hexachlorocyclohexane
(BHC), alpha-
Hexachlorocyclohexane
(BHC), delta-
Isodrin
Methoxychlor
Pendimethalin
Permethrin, trans-
Octachlorostyrene
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)
phthalate
Heptachlor
Heptachlor epoxide
Hexachlorocyclohexane
(BHC), beta-
Hexachlorocyclohexane
(BHC), gamma-
Mi rex
Permethrin, cis-
Di-n-butyl phthalate
Pentachloronitro- Ethalfluralin | Kepone (26%)
benzene Dieldrin I Pentachloroanisole
j i (27%)
I Trifluralin (32%)
! 1
! 1
! 1
! 1
! 1
ii
i 1
I
ii
! 1
! 1
a
-------
The National Study of Chemical Residues in Lake Fish Tissue
Results
3.4 Commonly-detected Chemicals
3.4.1 Mercury
Mercury is widely distributed in the environment due to both natural and anthropogenic pro-
cesses (USEPA 2000e). A major source of atmospheric mercury is the natural degassing of the
earth's crust; however, mercury releases are also attributable to anthropogenic sources such as
mining and smelting, industrial processes, and the combustion of fossil fuels (ATSDR 1999).
In the United States, primary sources of mercury emissions include coal-burning power
plants, hazardous waste incineration, chlorine production, and mercury product breakage
and spillage (USEPA 2001a). Mercury is generally released as elemental mercury or divalent
mercury, but it may form mercury compounds through chemical processes in the air, soil,
and water (ATSDR 1999). In the aquatic environment, microorganisms convert deposited
(inorganic) mercury to toxic methylmercury that accumulates in fish, shellfish, and animals
that eat fish. Nearly all fish and shellfish contain traces of mercury (USEPA 2005c), and
methylmercury in fish is known to bind to amino acids in fish muscle tissue (USEPA 2000e).
Generally, the amount of mercury in fish tissue increases with fish age and size (USEPA
2000e). Mercury accumulation varies among fish species; however, piscivorous (fish-eating)
species typically accumulate higher concentrations of mercury than non-piscivorous species.
According to EPA's 2008 Biennial National Listing of Fish Advisories (USEPA 2009), fish
consumption advisories involving mercury account for 80% of all advisories in effect during
2008. In 2008, a total of 16,808,032 lake acres (representing 40% of the Nation's total lake
acres) were under advisory for mercury in the United States. Mercury is highlighted in this
report as a chemical of special interest because mercury advisories are widespread, and
all fish samples collected for this study contained mercury at concentrations above the
quantitation limit.
'
All National Lake Fish Tissue Study samples were analyzed for total mercury using
Method 1631B. EPA's Guidance for Assessing Chemical Contaminant Data for Use in Fish
Advisories: Volume 1, Third Edition (USEPA 2000d) recommends monitoring for total
mercury concentrations (rather than methylmercury) in state fish contaminant monitoring
programs. EPA also recommends applying the conservative assumption that all mercury
is present in fish tissue as methylmercury in order to be most protective of human health
(USEPA 2006a). EPA's tissue-based criterion for methylmercury was applied to predator
(fillet) mercury results to identify the number (and percentage) of the sampled population
of the Nation's lakes that exceed this human health screening value. The Water Quality
Criterion for the Protection of Human Health: Methylmercury (USEPA 2001b) regulations
identified a fish tissue-based criterion of 0.3 mg methylmercury per kg (300 ppb) of fish
tissue (wet weight). This represents the concentration in fish tissue that should not be
exceeded based on a total consumption-weighted rate of 0.0175 kg of fish/day (assuming a
human adult body weight default value of 70 kg and a reference dose of 0.0001 mg/kg-day).
33
-------
The National Study of Chemical Residues in Lake Fish Tissue
Results
Results
Mercury was detected in all predator and bottom-
dweller composite samples collected for this study at
concentrations above the quantitation limit of 2 ng/g
(ppb). Mercury tissue concentrations are reported as
percentiles, including the median concentration (or
50th percentile), for each composite type in Tables
12 and 13. Concentrations in predators ranged from
23 ppb to a maximum of 6,605 ppb, and the median
concentration was 285 ppb (Figure 4). Mercury con-
centrations in bottom dwellers were generally lower
than concentrations for predators. This is consistent
with the findings of other studies in that piscivorous predator species typically accumulate
higher concentrations of mercury than non-predators (USEPA 2000e). Concentrations in
bottom-dweller composites ranged from 5 ppb to a maximum of 596 ppb, with a median
concentration of 69 ppb. The mean mercury concentration was 352 ppb in predator com-
posite samples and 96 ppb in bottom-dweller composite samples. National means were cal-
culated for mercury only. A statistically valid mean could be calculated for mercury because
the chemical was found in every sample above the quantitation limit.
Mercury Detections
• Mercury was detected in 100%
of predator and bottom-dweller
composite samples.
• The mean mercury
concentration was 352 ppb in
predator composite samples
and 96 ppb in bottom-dweller
composite samples.
Table 12. Percentiles for Mercury Concentrations in Predator Samples.
PERCENTILE
Concentration
(ppb)
Lower Confidence
Bound (95%) (ppb)
Upper Confidence
Bound (95%) (ppb)
Maximum Amount
Detected
10T
36.39 70.e
25T
50T
75T
90T
6605 ppb
95T
59.17 89.33 176.67 284.60 432.08 561.79 833.41
154.20 241.63 386.94 532.10 634.69
87.06 117.38 202.19 313.52 481.77 745.41 1018.68
Table 13. Percentiles for Mercury Concentrations in Bottom-dweller Samples.
PERCENTILE | 5™ 10™ 25™ 50™ 75™
Concentration 1
(ppb) | 18.61 20.10 39.27 68.56 124.17
Lower Confidence I
Bound (95%) (ppb) 16.26 18.66 35.69 52.61 109.46
Upper Confidence i
Bound (95%) (ppb) | 18.87 27.41 42.72 85.17 135.87
Maximum Amount i rq,- nnh
Detected | 596 ppb
90™
219.58
154.05
247.70
95™
247.31
221.48
380.89
34
-------
The National Study of Chemical Residues in Lake Fish Tissue
Results
Mercury
o
SI-
VO
.Q
Q_
Q.
^>*
C
O
u
3
o -
Predator
Bottom Dweller
Figure 4. Box-and-whisker plot of mercury concentrations in predator and bottom-dweller
samples. (The small box denotes the median or 50th percentile, the large box
encloses the data between the 25th and 75th percentiles, and the whiskers indicate
minimum and maximum values.)
35
-------
The National Study of Chemical Residues in Lake Fish Tissue
Results
Prevalence of Mercury in the Sampled Population of Lakes
Cumulative distribution function (CDF) graphs (Fig-
ures 5 and 6) are used to illustrate the mercury con-
centrations that correspond to the percentage and
number of the sampled population of lakes. For preda-
tor results, the human health screening value is over-
laid on the CDF to identify the number and percentage
of lakes with fish tissue mercury concentrations that
are above or below the criterion. The percentage of
lakes below this threshold can be read directly from
the graph, while the percentage of lakes above this
threshold can be derived by subtracting the percentage of lakes below the threshold from
100%. The CDF (Figure 5) shows that edible portions (fillets) of predators in 48.8% of the
sampled population of lakes had tissue concentrations that exceeded the 300 ppb human
health screening value for mercury, representing a total of 36,422 lakes nationwide.
Prevalence of Mercury in
Predators
• Mercury concentrations
exceeded the human health
screening value of 300 ppb
in 36,422 of the Nation's
lakes (48.8% of the sampled
population).
Predator
Data
Screening Value
95% Confidence Intervals
500
1000
Mercury Concentration (ppb)
1500
6605
Figure 5. Cumulative distribution function of mercury concentrations in predator samples.
36
-------
The National Study of Chemical Residues in Lake Fish Tissue
Results
Bottom Dweller
JS
"B
re
4."
I
Data
95% Confidence Intervals
100
200
300
400
500
600
Mercury Concentration (ppb)
Figure 6. Cumulative distribution function of mercury concentrations in bottom-dweller
samples.
For more information on mercury, visit the following websites:
http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/fishadvice/advice.html
http://epa.gov/waterscience/fish/advisories/index.html
http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/fishadvice/mercupd.pdf
http://www.epa.gov/mercury/effects.htm
http://www.epa.gov/mercury/about.htm
http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/tfacts46.html
37
-------
The National Study of Chemical Residues in Lake Fish Tissue
Results
3.4.2 Total Poly chlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs)
Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) are manufactured chemicals that exist as mixtures of up
to 209 individual compounds known as congeners. Although they were once utilized exten-
sively by industry, the production and use of PCBs was banned in the United States in 1979
because of evidence that they accumulate in the environment and can pose human health
risks. Mixtures of various PCB congeners were developed for commercial use in the United
States under the trade name Aroclor (ATSDR 2000). The Aroclors were labeled on the basis
of their chlorine content, e.g., Aroclor 1254 has an average chlorine content of 54% by
weight (USEPA 2000d). PCBs were never intended to be released into the environment, but
rather were manufactured to be used in closed industrial systems. Their thermal stability,
fire resistance, and solubility in organic compounds led to their use as coolants or lubricants.
PCBs were included as insulating fluids in electrical transformers and capacitors, as fluids in
vacuum pumps and compressors, and as hydraulic fluids.
Individual PCB congeners have widely varying potencies for producing a variety of adverse
biological effects. PCB mixtures have been shown to cause adverse developmental effects
in experimental animals (ATSDR 2000), and EPA has classified PCBs as probable human
carcinogens (USEPA 2000e). PCBs can still be released into the air, soil, or water from
illegal or improper disposal of industrial wastes, leaks from old electrical transformers or
hazardous waste sites, and burning of some wastes in incinerators (ATSDR 2000). PCBs are
extremely persistent in the environment, and they can be widely dispersed by atmospheric
transport. After deposition on land, they bind strongly to soil particles. In water, some PCBs
may remain dissolved, but most partition into bottom sediments and adhere to organic
particles. PCBs bioaccumulate through the food chain, and humans can be exposed to
elevated concentrations of PCBs through fish consumption.
EPA's 2008 Biennial National Listing of Fish Advisories (USEPA 2009) identified 1,025 fish
consumption advisories for PCBs in 2008. Altogether, the PCB advisories affect 6,049,506
lake acres (representing nearly 15% of the Nation's total lake acres). PCBs are highlighted
in this report as a chemical group of special interest because PCB advisories continue to
be widespread, and because they were detected in 100% of all samples collected for this
study.
and
All National Lake Fish Tissue Study samples were analyzed for the full complement of
209 congeners, which produced 159 congener measurements. These measurements included
results for 126 individual congeners and 33 groups of 2 to 6 congeners. For a complete
listing of the individual congeners and congener groups, refer to the target chemical list in
Appendix B. PCBs were analyzed using Method 1668A, and results are presented as the
sum of congeners following recommendations in EPA's Guidance for Assessing Chemical
Contaminant Data for Use in Fish Advisories: Volume 1, Third Edition (USEPA 2000d).
38
-------
The National Study of Chemical Residues in Lake Fish Tissue
Results
EPA recommends the reporting of total PCB concentrations (calculated as the sum of the
concentrations of the congeners or homologues, i.e., co-eluting groups), since Aroclor
analysis does not adequately represent bioconcentrated PCB mixtures found in fish tissue.
An EPA risk-based tissue residue health endpoint for total PCBs was applied to predator
(fillet) PCB results to identify the number (and percentage) of the sampled population of the
Nation's lakes that exceed this human health screening value. Table 4-24 in EPA's Guidance
for Assessing Chemical Contaminant Data for Use in Fish Advisories, Volume 2: Risk
Assessment and Fish Consumption Limits, Third Edition (USEPA 2000e) lists a cancer
health endpoint of 0.012 ppm (12 ppb) PCBs (wet weight) in fish tissue. This threshold
represents the fish tissue concentration that should not be exceeded based on a total
consumption-weighted rate of four 8-ounce (0.227 kg) fish meals per month (assuming a
human adult body weight default value of 70 kg, a cancer slope factor of 2(mg/kg-d)"1, and a
1 in 100,000 risk level) (USEPA 2000e).
PCB Detections
• PCBs were detected in 100% of
predator and bottom-dweller
composite samples.
PCB
PCBs were detected in 100% of both predator and
bottom-dweller composite samples collected for
the National Lake Fish Tissue Study. PCB tissue
concentrations are reported as percentiles, including
the median concentration (or 50th percentile), for
each composite type in Tables 14 and 15. Total PCB
concentrations (sum of the congeners) in predators ranged from 0.061 ppb to 704.92 ppb,
and the median concentration was 2.16 ppb (Figure 7). Concentrations in bottom dwellers
were generally higher than levels detected in predators. This may be linked to the lipophilic
nature of PCBs, which tend to accumulate in fatty tissues and organs (USEPA 2000e).
Bottom-dweller results ranged from 0.598 ppb to 1,266.25 ppb, and the median PCB
concentration in bottom-dweller composites was 13.90 ppb. [Results for individual PCB
congeners are reported in Appendix E (percentiles) and Appendix F (occurrence)].
Table 14. Percentiles for PCB Concentrations in Predator Samples.
PERCENTILE | 5™ 10™ 25™
Concentration 1
(ppb) | 0.35 0.49 1.00
Lower Confidence I
Bound (95%) (ppb) 0.19 0.35 0.89
SO™ 75™ 90™ 95™
2.16 8.13 18.17 33.16
1.65 5.26 16.51 23.43
Upper Confidence i
Bound (95%) (ppb) | 0.41 0.64 1.20 2.62 10.30 30.10 59.60
DeSaed Am°Unt 70492PPb
39
-------
The National Study of Chemical Residues in Lake Fish Tissue
Results
Table 15. Percentiles for PCB Concentrations in Bottom-dweller Samples.
PERCENTILE
Concentration
(ppb)
Lower Confidence
Bound (95%) (ppb)
Upper Confidence
Bound (95%) (ppb)
Maximum Amount
Detected
5™
1.58
1.50
2.20
10™
2.31
1.58
3.24
25™
5.15
3.87
5.75
50™
13.90
9.05
20.29
266.25 ppt
75™
70.87
41.95
92.07
>
90™
130.79
113.70
196.97
95™
198.32
133.83
435.57
Total PCBs (Sum of Congeners)
o
o
PM
O
(0
I
o
u
o-
Predator
Bottom Dweller
Figure 7. Box-and-whisker plot of PCB (sum of congeners) concentrations in predator and
bottom-dweller samples. (The small box denotes the median or 50th percentile,
the large box encloses data between the 25th and 75th percentiles, and the
whiskers indicate minimum and maximum values.)
40
-------
The National Study of Chemical Residues in Lake Fish Tissue
Results
Prevalence of PCBs in the Sampled Population of Lakes
Cumulative distribution function (CDF) results for
PCBs are presented in Figures 8 and 9. The CDF
graphs depict PCB concentrations that correspond to
the percentage and/or number of the sampled popula-
tion of lakes. The human health screening value is
plotted on the predator composite CDF to delineate
between the number and percentage of lakes with
fish tissue total PCB concentrations that are above or
below the human health endpoint. The percentage of
lakes below this threshold can be read directly from
the graph, while the percentage of lakes above this threshold can be derived by subtracting
the percentage of lakes below the threshold from 100%. Figure 8 indicates that edible por-
tions (fillets) of predators in 16.8% of the sampled population of lakes had total PCB tissue
concentrations that exceeded the 12 ppb human health screening value, representing a total
of 12,886 lakes nationwide.
Prevalence of PCBs in
Predators
• Total PCB concentrations
exceeded the human health
screening value of 12 ppb
in 12,886 of the Nation's
lakes (16.8% of the sampled
population).
Predator
Data
Screening Value
95% Confidence Intervals
-a ^
tu
I
3
Z
50
100
705
Total PCB (Sum of Congeners) Concentration (ppb)
Figure 8. Cumulative distribution function of total PCB concentrations in predator samples.
41
-------
The National Study of Chemical Residues in Lake Fish Tissue
Results
8-F
Bottom Dweller
Data
95% Confidence Intervals
100 200 300 400 500
Total PCB (Sum of Congeners) Concentration (ppb)
1266
Figure 9. Cumulative distribution function of total PCB concentrations in bottom-dweller
samples.
For more information on PCBs, visit the following websites:
http://www.epa.gov/pbt/pubs/pcbs.htm
http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/tfacts17.html
42
-------
The National Study of Chemical Residues in Lake Fish Tissue
Results
3.4.3 Total Dioxins and Furans
Dioxins and furans commonly refer to a group of synthetic organic chemicals that includes
210 structurally-related chlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins and chlorinated dibenzofurans
(USEPA 2000e). The generic term dioxin is used here to refer to the aggregate of this
group of compounds. Dioxins are not produced commercially, but rather are unintentional
byproducts of combustion and certain industrial chemical processes. They may be formed
during the chlorine bleaching process at pulp and paper mills, during chlorination by water
treatment plants, or during the manufacture of certain organic chemicals. Dioxins can be
released in emissions from solid waste and industrial incinerators (ATSDR 1998). Dioxin
levels in the environment have been declining since the early 1970s; however, they are
widely distributed in low concentrations, and current exposure levels still remain a concern
(USEPA 2006b). Extremely low doses of the homologue 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-
dioxin (2,3,7,8-TCDD) have been found to elicit a wide range of toxic responses in animals
(USEPA 2000d). Concerns over the health effects of 2,3,7,8-TCDD continue because of its
persistence in the environment and its potential to bioaccumulate (USEPA 2000d). Dioxins
have been characterized by EPA as likely human carcinogens, and are anticipated to increase
the risk of cancer even at low background levels of exposure (USEPA 2006b). When released
into the atmosphere, dioxins may be transported long distances. When discharged to surface
water, some dioxins adhere to suspended solids and bottom sediments. Dioxins can be
absorbed by fish through the gastrointestinal tract and skin, build up in fat and the liver, and
bioaccumulate through the food chain (ATSDR 1998).
EPA's 2008 Biennial National Listing of Fish Advisories (USEPA 2009) lists 123 active
fish consumption advisories involving dioxins in the United States. In 2008, a total of
35,400 lake acres or 0.1% of the Nation's total lake acres were under a dioxin advisory.
The geographic extent of dioxin advisories is limited compared to that for the other four
commonly-detected chemicals. This may be due in part to the relatively limited monitoring
of dioxins throughout the country because of the high cost of analysis (USEPA 2007).
Dioxins are highlighted in this report as a chemical group of special interest because
a number of advisories are still in effect, and because they were detected in 89% of all
samples collected for this study.
and and
All National Lake Fish Tissue Study samples were analyzed for 17 dioxins and furans using
Method 1613B. Results were reported as toxicity-weighted total concentrations derived by
multiplying results for each chemical by an individual toxicity equivalency factor (TEF),
then summing the 17 results. This sum is referred to as the total toxicity equivalency or total
TEQ (Section 3.1.3). EPA's Guidance for Assessing Chemical Contaminant Data for Use in
Fish Advisories, Volume 2: Risk Assessment and Fish Consumption Limits, Third Edition
(USEPA 2000e) recommends analyzing the 17 dioxins and furans together as a simplifying
43
-------
The National Study of Chemical Residues in Lake Fish Tissue
Results
and interim approach until further guidance is available on this chemical group. An EPA
risk-based tissue residue health endpoint for dioxins and furans was applied to predator
(fillet) dioxin and furan results to identify the number (and percent) of the sampled popula-
tion of the Nation's lakes that exceed this human health screening value. This same screen-
ing value was applied to results for the 12 coplanar PCB congeners, as recommended by
EPA (USEPA 2000d). EPA's Guidance for Assessing Chemical Contaminant Data for Use in
Fish Advisories, Volume 2: Risk Assessment and Fish Consumption Limits, Third Edition
(USEPA 2000e) identified a cancer health endpoint of 0.15 ppt for dioxins and furans (TEQ-
wet weight) in fish tissue. This represents the concentration in fish tissue that should not be
exceeded based on a total consumption-weighted rate of four 8-ounce (0.227 kg) fish meals
per month (assuming a human adult body weight default value of 70 kg, a cancer slope
factor of 1.56 x 10'5 [mg/kg-d]'1, and a 1 in 100,000 risk level) (USEPA 2000e).
Dioxin and Furan
Detections
• Dioxins and furans were
detected in 81% of predator
and 99% of bottom-dweller
composite samples.
Dioxins and furans were detected in 395 (of 486)
predator and 393 (of 395) bottom-dweller samples
collected for the National Lake Fish Tissue Study.
Dioxin and furan tissue concentrations are reported
as percentiles, including the median concentration (or
50th percentile), for each composite type in Tables 16
and 17. Concentrations in predators ranged from
0.00002 ppt [TEQ] to 7.545 ppt [TEQ], and the
median concentration was 0.006 ppt [TEQ] (Figure 10). Dioxin and furan concentrations
in bottom-dwellers (Figure 10) were generally higher than concentrations for predators,
which may be linked to their lipophilic nature. Dioxins tend to accumulate in fat and the
liver (USEPA 2000e). Concentrations in bottom-dwellers ranged from 0.0008 ppt [TEQ]
to a maximum of 23.814 ppt [TEQ], and the median concentration was 0.406 ppt [TEQ].
[Appendix E and Appendix F present percentiles and occurrence data for the 17 individual
dioxins and furans.]
Results for the 12 coplanar ("dioxin-like") PCBs were derived by multiplying an individual
toxicity equivalency factor (TEF) by the concentrations of each of the 12 congeners. Predator
results ranged from 0.0003 ppt [TEQ] to 38.666 ppt [TEQ], with a median concentration
of 0.030 ppt [TEQ]. Bottom dweller results ranged from 0.006 ppt [TEQ] to 20.018 ppt
[TEQ], with a median concentration of 0.154 ppt [TEQ]. Results for Total TEQ, which
includes dioxins and furans plus the 12 coplanar PCBs, ranged from 0.0003 ppt [TEQ] to
46.211 ppt [TEQ] for predators, with a median concentration of 0.042 ppt [TEQ]. Total
TEQ concentrations in bottom dwellers ranged from 0.011 ppt [TEQ] to 27.062 ppt [TEQ],
with a median concentration of 0.677 ppt [TEQ]. [Appendix E and Appendix F present
percentiles and occurrence data for the TEQ of the 12 coplanar PCBs and Total TEQ of
dioxins and furans combined with the coplanar PCBs.]
44
-------
The National Study of Chemical Residues in Lake Fish Tissue
Results
Table 16. Percentiles for Dioxin and Furan Concentrations (D/F TEQ) in Predator Samples.
PERCENTILE
Concentration
(PPt)
Lower Confidence
Bound (95%) (ppt)
Upper Confidence
Bound (95%) (ppt)
Maximum Amount
Detected
5™
-------
The National Study of Chemical Residues in Lake Fish Tissue
Results
Table 19. Percentiles for Dioxin, Furan, and Coplanar PCB Concentrations (Total TEQ) in
Bottom-dweller Samples.
PERCENTILE
Concentration
(PPt)
Lower Confidence
Bound (95%) (ppt)
Upper Confidence
Bound (95%) (ppt)
Maximum Amount
Detected
5™
0.073
0.036
0.082
10™
0.108
0.068
0.157
25™
0.291
0.195
0.362
50™
0.677
0.490
1.273
27.062 ppt
75™
2.89
2.33
4.00
90™
5.30
4.59
5.83
95™
5.83
5.61
9.59
Total TEQ for Dioxins and Furans
CM
a-
c
o oo -
1
4-1
5 \o-
u
3
fM-
o-
Predator
Bottom Dweller
Figure 10. Box-and-whisker plot of total dioxin and furan concentrations in predator and
bottom-dweller samples. (The small box denotes the median or 50th percentile,
the large box encloses data between the 25th and 75th percentiles, and the
whiskers indicate minimum and maximum values.)
46
-------
The National Study of Chemical Residues in Lake Fish Tissue
Results
Prevalence of Dioxins and Furans in the Sampled Population of Lakes
Cumulative distribution functions (CDFs) (Figures 11
and 12) are used to identify the dioxin and furan
concentrations that correspond to the percentage
and number of the sampled population of lakes.
For predator results, the human health screening
value is plotted on the CDF to identify the number
and percentage of lakes with fish tissue total dioxin
and furan concentrations that are above or below
the screening value. The percentage of lakes below
this threshold can be read directly from the graph,
while the percentage of lakes above this threshold can be derived by subtracting the
percentage of lakes below the threshold from 100%. Figure 11 shows that edible portions
(fillets) of predators in 7.6% of the sampled population of lakes had tissue concentrations
that exceeded the 0.15 ppt [TEQ] human health screening value for dioxins and furans,
representing a total of 5,856 lakes nationwide.
Prevalence of Dioxins and
Furans in Predators
• Dioxin and furan concentrations
exceeded the human health
screening value of 0.15 ppt
[TEQ] in 5856 of the Nation's
lakes (7.6% of the sampled
population).
Predator
8-
i/>
V
$ '.
1 s-
Q.
1
-2-
Screenir
.. QCOA t~r*
ig Value
nfidence Intervals
k.
-8
S
iv
s
\o
v\
ro
- O\
3
-!
ro
(N
ro
i/>
r^
1
Total Dioxin and Furan Concentration (ppt)
8
10
^
J3
%
I
3
z
Figure 11. Cumulative distribution function of total dioxin and furan concentrations in
predator samples.
47
-------
The National Study of Chemical Residues in Lake Fish Tissue
Results
Bottom Dweller
Data
95% Confidence Intervals
468
Total Dioxin and Furan Concentration (ppt)
PM
s
VO
- ix
fM
I "^
3
00
rf\
s
0)
m
.Q
E
3
Z
24
Figure 12. Cumulative distribution function of total dioxin and furan concentrations in
bottom-dweller samples.
For more information on dioxin and furans, visit the following websites:
http://www.epa.gov/pbt/pubs/dioxins.htm
http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/tfacts104.html
http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/tfacts32.html
48
-------
The National Study of Chemical Residues in Lake Fish Tissue
Results
3.4.4 Total DDT
DDT (dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane) is an organochlorine pesticide that was commonly
used to control insects in agricultural applications between the mid-1940s and the early
1970s. Its use was banned in the United States in 1972, primarily due to its toxic effects on
wildlife (ATSDR 2002). Limited use of DDT continues throughout the tropics, as a means of
controlling insects that carry disease (e.g., malaria) (USEPA 2000e). Commercial DDT prep-
arations often included the DDT metabolites DDE (dichlorodiphenyldichloroethylene) and
DDD (dichlorodiphenyldichloroethane). As a result, fish, wildlife, and humans have been
typically exposed to a mixture of DDT, DDE, and DDD. DDT continues to be ubiquitous
in the environment due to its widespread use prior to 1972 and its relatively long half-life.
It breaks down fairly rapidly in air, but it adheres strongly to soil where its half-life ranges
from 2 to 15 years (depending upon soil type) (ATSDR 2002). DDT in soil can enter ground-
water and surface waters, and once it reaches aquatic environments, it can build up in fatty
tissues of fish, birds, and other animals (USEPA 2000e). DDT and its metabolites continue
to persist in the environment, are known to bioaccumulate, and have been classified by EPA
as probable human carcinogens (USEPA 2000d).
Although the use of DDT has been banned since 1972, there were 76 advisories still in effect
for DDT (and its degradation products, DDE and DDD) in 2008 (USEPA 2009). These advi-
sories affect 876,520 lake acres and represent 2% of the Nation's total lake acres. DDT is
highlighted in this report as a chemical of special interest because DDT advisories are in
effect in several areas of the country, and because it was detected in 87% of all samples
collected for this study.
Fish, wildlife, and humans are typically exposed to a mixture of DDT, DDE, DDD, and
their degradation and metabolic products. EPA recommends reporting total DDT fish tissue
results, based on the sum of the 4,4'- and 2,4' isomers of DDT, DDE, and DDD (USEPA
2000e). Fish samples for this study were analyzed for the 4,4'- and 2,4' isomers of DDT,
DDE, and DDD using Method 1656A, and those values were summed to provide total DDT
results for each sample. (Note that no data for 2,4' isomers of DDT, DDE, and DDD are
available for fish samples collected during the first year of the study.) An EPA risk-based
tissue residue health endpoint for total DDT was applied to predator (fillet) results to iden-
tify the number (and percent) of the sampled population of the Nation's lakes that exceed
this human health screening value. EPA's Guidance for Assessing Chemical Contaminant
Data for Use in Fish Advisories, Volume 2: Risk Assessment and Fish Consumption Limits,
Third Edition (USEPA 2000e) identified a cancer health endpoint of 0.069 ppm (69 ppb)
DDT (wet weight) in fish tissue. This represents the concentration in fish tissue that should
not be exceeded based on a total consumption-weighted rate of four 8-ounce (0.227 kg)
fish meals per month (assuming a human adult body weight default value of 70 kg, a cancer
slope factor of 0.34 [nig/kg-d]'1, and a 1 in 100,000 risk level) (USEPA 2000e).
49
-------
The National Study of Chemical Residues in Lake Fish Tissue
Results
DDT Detections
• DDT was detected in 78% of
predator and 98% of bottom-
dweller composite samples.
Ill I I 1 III ••suits
DDT was detected in 378 (of 486) predator and 388
(of 395) bottom-dweller samples collected for the
National Lake Fish Tissue Study. Total DDT tissue
concentrations are reported as percentiles, including
the median concentration (or 50th percentile), for
each composite type in Tables 20 and 21. Total
concentrations in predators ranged from 0.77 ppb
to 1,481.4 ppb, and the median concentration was 1.47 ppb (Figure 13). Bottom-dweller
values were generally higher than concentrations detected in predators. DDT and its analogs
are stored in fat, liver, kidney, and brain tissue (USEPA 2000e), which may explain the
tendency for higher values in bottom-dweller samples. Total DDT concentrations in bottom-
dwellers ranged from 0.82 ppb to 1,760.57 ppb, with a median concentration of 12.68 ppb.
[Percentiles and occurrence data for individual DDT isomers are reported in Appendix E
and Appendix F.]
Table 20. Percentiles for Total DDT Concentrations in Predator Samples.
PERCENTILE 5™
Concentration
(ppb)
-------
The National Study of Chemical Residues in Lake Fish Tissue
Results
Total DDT
o
51-
.Q
Q.
2
+J
I
O
u
o -
Predator
Bottom Dweller
Figure 13. Box-and-whisker plot of total DDT concentrations in predator and bottom-
dweller samples. (The small box denotes the median or 50th percentile, the
large box encloses data between the 25th and 75th percentiles, and the whiskers
indicate minimum and maximum values.)
51
-------
The National Study of Chemical Residues in Lake Fish Tissue
Results
Prevalence of DDT in the Sampled Population of Lakes
Figures 14 and 15 illustrate the DDT concentrations
that correspond to the percentage and number of the
sampled population of lakes. For predator results,
the human health screening value is plotted on the
CDF to identify the number and percentage of lakes
with fish tissue total DDT concentrations that are
above or below the screening value. The percentage of
lakes below this threshold can be read directly from
the graph, while the percentage of lakes above this
threshold can be derived by subtracting the percentage of lakes below the threshold from
100%. Figure 14 shows that edible portions (fillets) of predators in 1.7% of the sampled
population of lakes had tissue concentrations that exceeded the 69 ppb human health
screening value for DDT, representing a total of 1,329 lakes nationwide.
Prevalence of DDT in
Predators
• DDT concentrations exceeded
the human health screening
value of 69 ppb in 1329 of the
Nation's lakes (1.7% of the
sampled population).
Predator
or
Percentage of Lakes
0 40 60 80 10
CM
r
i
1
.... ,
I
1
t^TT^TTTT
_ r\
- — Sc
9f
r^'
3ta
reening Value
»% Confidence Intervals
A
1 1 1 1 IV
0 100 200 300 400 500 1'
0\
-18
S
IN
a
VO
i/)
-3
CM
181
o
I
Total DDT Concentration (ppb)
Figure 14. Cumulative distribution function of total DDT concentrations in predator
samples.
52
-------
The National Study of Chemical Residues in Lake Fish Tissue
Results
§H
Bottom Dweller
o
•5 *
V
(0
Data
95% Confidence Intervals
CM
a
VO
m
V
IN -1
IN <4-
CM O
i
s
00
- ro
CM
Os
100 200 300 400 500
Total DDT Concentration (ppb)
1761
Figure 15. Cumulative distribution function of total DDT concentrations in bottom-dweller
samples.
For more information on DDT, visit the following websites:
http://www.epa.gov/pbt/pubs/ddt.htm
http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/tfacts35.html
53
-------
The National Study of Chemical Residues in Lake Fish Tissue
Results
3.4.5 Total Chlordane
Chlordane is a multipurpose organochlorine insecticide that has been used extensively in
home and agricultural applications in the United States for the control of termites and other
insects (USEPA 2000d). It is a manufactured chemical and does not occur naturally in the
environment. Chlordane was first introduced in 1947, but most chlordane uses were banned
in 1978, and all uses were banned by EPA in 1998 due to human and wildlife exposure
concerns (USEPA 2000b). Chlordane is known to be extremely lipid soluble, is moderately
to highly toxic, and has been classified as a probable human carcinogen by EPA (IRIS
1998). For the purposes of health advisory development, this organochorine insecticide is
considered by EPA to be comprised of the sum of cis- and trans- isomers of chlordane, cis-
and trans- isomers of nonachlor, and oxychlordane (the major metabolite of chlordane).
Most people in the United States have been exposed to low levels of chlordane due to its
widespread use (USEPA 2006b). Chlordane can be found in soils surrounding structures
where it was applied to control for termites, and it can be transported to soils and waters
by atmospheric deposition. It can linger in soils for over 20 years following application or
deposition (ATSDR 1994). In the aquatic environment, chlordane is bound to particles in the
water column and in substrate sediments. It has been widely detected in freshwater fish (both
predators and bottom-feeding species), estuarine and marine fish, and marine bivalves (e.g.,
clams) at concentrations of human health concern (USEPA 2000d). Because it has a long
half-life and it is a bioaccumulative chemical, chlordane continues to be commonly detected
in fish in the United States (USEPA 2000b).
According to EPA's 2008 Biennial National Listing of Fish Advisories (USEPA 2009), there
are 67 active fish consumption advisories involving chlordane in the United States. In 2008,
a total of 842,913 lake acres (representing 2% of the Nation's total lake acres) were under
advisory for chlordane. Chlordane is highlighted in this report as a chemical of special
interest because chlordane advisories remain relatively widespread, and because it was
detected in 33% of all fish samples collected for this study.
All National Lake Fish Tissue Study samples were analyzed for ds-chlordane, trans-
chlordane, ds-nonachlor, trans-nonachlor, and oxychlordane using Method 1656A. Results
for these five major degradation products of chlordane were summed to yield values for total
chlordane (Section 3.1.3). EPA's Guidance for Assessing Chemical Contaminant Data for
Use in Fish Advisories, Volume 2: Risk Assessment and Fish Consumption Limits, Third
Edition (USEPA 2000e) recommends monitoring for total chlordane concentrations for
fish contaminant and health advisory monitoring. An EPA risk-based tissue residue health
endpoint for total chlordane was applied to predator (fillet) chlordane results to identify
the number (and percent) of the sampled population of the Nation's lakes that exceed this
human health screening value. EPA's Guidance for Assessing Chemical Contaminant Data
for Use in Fish Advisories, Volume 2: Risk Assessment and Fish Consumption Limits,
54
-------
The National Study of Chemical Residues in Lake Fish Tissue
Results
Third Edition (USEPA 2000e) identified a cancer health endpoint of 67 ppb chlordane (wet
weight) in fish tissue. This represents the concentration in fish tissue that should not be
exceeded based on a total consumption-weighted rate of four 8-ounce (0.227 kg) fish meals
per month (assuming a human adult body weight default value of 70 kg, a cancer slope
factor of 0.35 (mg/kg-d)'1, and a 1 in 100,000 risk level) (USEPA 2000e).
Chlordane Detections
• Chlordane was detected in 20%
of predator and 50% of bottom-
dweller composite samples.
Chlordane Results
Chlordane was detected in 96 (of 486) predator and
197 (of 395) bottom-dweller samples. Total chlordane
tissue concentrations are reported as percentiles,
including the median concentration (or 50th percentile),
for each composite type in Tables 22 and 23. Predator
concentrations ranged from 0.59 ppb to 99.99 ppb,
and the median concentration was less than the MDL for total chlordane (Figure 16).
Bottom-dweller chlordane concentrations (Figure 16) were generally higher than levels
detected in predators, which may be due to their tendency to partition to fatty tissues and
organs (USEPA 2000e). Total concentrations in bottom-dwellers ranged from 0.50 ppb to
377.98 ppb, with a median concentration of 1.65 ppb. [Percentiles and occurrence data for
each chlordane compound are reported in Appendix E and Appendix F.]
Table 22. Percentiles for Total Chlordane Concentrations in Predator Samples.
PERCENTILE
Concentration
(ppb)
Lower Confidence
Bound (95%) (ppb)
Upper Confidence
Bound (95%) (ppb)
10T
25T
50T
75T
-------
The National Study of Chemical Residues in Lake Fish Tissue
Results
Total Chlordane
.a
a.
a.
^^
c
o
8
o
u
o -
Predator
Bottom Dweller
Figure 16. Box-and-whisker plot of total chlordane concentrations in predator and bottom-
dweller samples. (The small box denotes the median or 50th percentile, the
large box encloses data between the 25th and 75th percentiles, and the whiskers
indicate minimum and maximum values.)
56
-------
The National Study of Chemical Residues in Lake Fish Tissue
Results
Prevalence of Chlordane in the Sampled Population of Lakes
Figures 17 and 18 are cumulative distribution
function (CDF) graphs that illustrate the chlordane
concentrations corresponding to the percentage (and
number) of the sampled population of lakes. The
human health screening value is plotted on the CDF
for predators to delineate between those lakes with
fish tissue total chlordane concentrations that are
above the cancer health endpoint versus those that are
below the endpoint. The percentage of lakes below
this threshold can be read directly from the graph, while the percentage of lakes above this
threshold can be derived by subtracting the percentage of lakes below the threshold from
100%. Figure 17 shows that edible portions (fillets) of predators in 0.3% of the sampled
population of lakes had fish tissue concentrations that exceeded the 67 ppb human health
screening value for total chlordane, representing a total of 235 lakes nationwide.
Prevalence of Chlordane
in Predators
• Chlordane concentrations
exceeded the human health
screening value of 67 ppb in
235 of the Nation's lakes (0.3%
of the sampled population).
Predator
0\
-------
The National Study of Chemical Residues in Lake Fish Tissue
Results
Bottom Dweller
" o
•S *'
re
V
Q.
8-
\-
Data
95% Confidence Intervals
40 60
Total Chlordane Concentration (ppb)
80
PM
VO
V)
V.
-IX -I
S "s
tu
M
s
oo
'8
378
Figure 18. Cumulative distribution function of total chlordane concentrations in bottom-
dweller samples.
For more information on chlordane, visit the following websites:
http://epa.gov/waterscience/fish/advisories/index.html
http://www.epa.gov/pbt/pubs/chlordane.htm
http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/tfacts31.html
58
-------
The National Study of Chemical Residues in Lake Fish Tissue
Results
3.5
Field teams collected replicate samples of predators from 70 lakes and bottom dwellers from
52 lakes (simultaneously with standard sample collection) to provide estimates of sampling
variability. For this study, a replicate sample consisted of a second composite of fish contain-
ing the same species and number of fish and specimens with similar size ranges as the origi-
nal (standard) sample. A representative set of lakes was selected for collection of replicate
samples. Measuring sampling variability involved analyzing a standard composite sample
and a replicate composite sample and comparing the results.
EPA applied a tiered approach to compare the results from standard and replicate samples.
The first tier involved a simple comparison of agreement between the sample pairs using
detection limits. The paired sample results were divided into three categories: sample results
with both below detection, those with both above detection, and those with one below
detection and one above detection. This was the only comparison possible for the large
group of non-detected target chemicals (43 of the 268 total target chemicals). Appendix H
provides the data for detection agreement between replicate sample pairs.
Comparisons of detections for the 70 predator and 52 bottom-dweller sample pairs showed
perfect agreement in the results for mercury (i.e., mercury occurred in all sample pairs above
detection). Sample pair comparisons also showed perfect agreement in detections for each of
the 43 chemicals not detected in any of the fish samples, including organophosphate pesti-
cides (i.e., all sample pair results were below detection). There was a high level of agreement
between standard and replicate samples for arsenic detections, with 99-100% agreement
for predator sample pairs and 88-100% agreement for bottom-dweller sample pairs. For the
159 PCB congener results, 75% of the predator sample pairs and 80% of the bottom-dweller
sample pairs showed 90-100% detection agreement. Detection results varied the most for
dioxins and furans, ranging from 71-100% agreement for both the predator and bottom-
dweller sample pairs. For DDT and chlordane, differences are apparent in the level of agree-
ment for detection between predator and bottom-dweller sample pairs. Predator detection
agreement ranged from 87-100% for DDT and 94-100% for chlordane, while agreement in
detections for bottom dwellers ranged from 75-100% for DDT and 88-96% for chlordane.
The high level of agreement for detections of semivolatile organic chemicals (94-100% for
both predator and bottom-dweller sample pairs) reflects the large number of non-detected
chemicals in this group.
The second tier for estimating sampling variability involved comparisons of measured
concentrations when both samples were above detection or when one sample (standard or
replicate) was above detection and the other was below detection. In the first case, the two
concentrations were compared directly. In the second case, the measured concentration was
compared to the method detection limit. Appendix I contains the results for these compari-
sons. Differences between standard and replicate sample concentrations are summarized
as minimum and maximum values and percentiles (10th, 25th, 50th, 75th, and 90th) for all
detected target chemicals.
59
-------
The National Study of Chemical Residues in Lake Fish Tissue
Results
60
-------
The National Study of Chemical Residues in Lake Fish Tissue
4.0 Conclusions and Recommendations
For the first time in its history, EPA has freshwater fish contamination data available to draw
statistically valid conclusions about the occurrence of persistent, bioaccumulative, and toxic
chemicals in lakes and reservoirs of the conterminous United States. Obtaining, analyzing,
and reporting these data required an agency investment of over eight years to complete
the National Lake Fish Tissue Study. To succeed, it also required the long-term support
(about five years) of more than 50 state, tribal, and other federal agencies contributing
in-kind services. Given the inherent challenges in conducting a national-scale environmental
assessment, the conclusions in this report cover technical (Section 4.1) and programmatic
(Section 4.2) aspects of the study. The final sections of the report provide information about
data availability (Section 4.3) and discuss recommendations for future national monitoring
of freshwater fish contamination (Section 4.4).
4.1 Chemical Occurrences
Elevated mercury concentrations in fish are the leading cause of fish advisories. In 2008,
43% of the total lake acres in the United States were under advisory for mercury. Results
from the National Lake Fish Tissue Study confirm that mercury is widely distributed in lakes
and reservoirs across the country. Study data show that mercury was detected at quantifi-
able levels (i.e., concentrations at or above the quantitation limit) in every fish sample col-
lected from all 500 locations sampled for the study. Statistical analysis of the mercury data
revealed that mercury concentrations in the predator samples occurred above the 300 ppb
human health screening value for mercury at nearly half of the lakes in the sampled popula-
tion. These elevated mercury concentrations in predators apply to more than 36,000 lakes
in the lower 48 states. Overall, the results from this statistically-based study underscore the
pervasive nature of mercury deposition on lakes and their surrounding watersheds in the
conterminous United States.
Although the U.S. banned the production and use of PCBs in 1979, study results show that
PCBs are still widely distributed in the environment. Like mercury, PCBs were detected in
100% of both the predator and bottom-dweller samples. However, PCBs occurred at elevated
concentrations to a lesser extent than mercury. Total PCB concentrations exceeded the human
health screening value of 12 ppb at about 17% of the lakes in the sampled population, which
represents nearly 13,000 lakes in the lower 48 states. Results from individual PCB congeners
are more difficult to interpret. Information about the relative toxicities of the individual
congeners is incomplete, and no screening values exist for the individual congeners.
61
-------
The National Study of Chemical Residues in Lake Fish Tissue
Conclusions and Recommendations
The set of PCB data for the National Lake Fish Tissue Study includes results for PCB con-
geners and Aroclors. However, only the PCB congeners are officially counted and listed as
target chemicals (Table 4 and Appendix B). In addition, the discussion about PCB results
(Section 3.4.2) is limited to the congener data. Nonetheless, EPA also obtained Aroclor data
from the analytical method for organochlorine pesticides (Method 1656A). Results from
the statistical analyses of the Aroclor data are provided in Appendix E (percentiles). These
results may be useful for agencies that have historical Aroclor tissue data or for agencies that
are continuing to use the Aroclor method for PCB analysis because it is more economical. In
the past, most laboratories used Aroclor methods to report PCB concentrations because few
laboratories had the capability or expertise to perform congener analyses. For the Aroclor
analysis, the laboratories assumed that the distribution of PCB congeners and parent Aro-
clors in environmental samples was similar, but current data indicate that PCBs are more
persistent, bioaccumulative, and toxic than the original Aroclor mixtures. Therefore, con-
gener analysis should provide a more conservative and accurate determination of total PCB
concentrations than Aroclor analysis.
4.1.3 Dioxins and Furam
Even though dioxins and furans are widely dispersed in the environment, results from this
study indicate that they were somewhat less prevalent in lake fish than PCBs. Since diox-
ins tend to accumulate in fat rather than in muscle tissue, there was a distinct difference in
the number of dioxin and furan detections between predator and bottom-dweller samples.
Dioxins and furans were detected in 99% of the bottom-dweller samples and in 81% of the
predator samples. Higher concentrations of dioxins and furans occurred in the whole-body
tissue of bottom dwellers than in the fillets of predators, confirming that these chemicals col-
lect in fatty tissue. The median concentration of 0.41 ppt (total TEQ) for bottom dwellers
was nearly two orders of magnitude higher than the predator median concentration of 0.006
ppt (total TEQ). Total dioxin and furan concentrations in predator samples exceeded the
0.15 ppt (TEQ) human health screening value at less than 10% of the lakes in the sampled
population or about 5800 lakes. Detailed information about dioxin exposure and associated
human health effects is available online through EPA's dioxin reassessment (http://cfpub.
epa.gov/ncea/).
4.1.4 DDT and Chlordane
During the 1970s and 1980s, the U.S. banned the manufacture and use of most of the
organochlorine pesticides included in the study. The low percentages of detections for
the majority of these pesticides suggest that they are being effectively sequestered in lake
environments. Two notable exceptions are DDT and chlordane. For this study, total DDT
was more prevalent in the fish tissue than total chlordane. DDT was detected in 98% of the
bottom-dweller samples and 78% of the predator samples, while chlordane was detected
in 50% of the bottom-dweller samples and 20% of the predator samples. Like PCBs and
dioxins and furans, DDT and chlordane had higher concentrations in the whole-body tissue
of the bottom dwellers than in the predator fillets. However, the differences in the median
concentrations between composite types for total DDT were less than an order of magnitude.
62
-------
The National Study of Chemical Residues in Lake Fish Tissue
Conclusions and Recommendations
Total concentrations of DDT and chlordane rarely exceeded their respective human health
screening values of 69 ppb and 67 ppb. Concentrations of total DDT in predator samples
exceeded the screening value at less than 2% of the lakes in the sampled population (about
1300 lakes). Total chlordane concentrations in predator samples occurred above the screening
value at less than 1% of the lakes in the sampled population (about 230 lakes). These results
suggest a tendency toward declining concentrations for both DDT and chlordane.
4.2 Lessons Learned
Environmental monitoring on a national scale is a formidable challenge. EPA's experience
in conducting the National Lake Fish Tissue Study revealed that certain factors were crucial
in successfully meeting this challenge. Foremost among these were broad cooperation, care-
ful planning, and meticulous attention to detail in addressing the technical and logistical
requirements of the study. More specifically, the three most critical factors that contributed
to the success of this study included:
• Obtaining voluntary commitments and maintaining the support of a large network of
partners among states, tribes, and other federal agencies,
• Allowing two years to plan the study design and mobilize for national-scale
implementation of the study, and
• Establishing and maintaining a high degree of quality assurance/quality control to
develop scientifically-defensible data.
A study of this magnitude cannot be conducted effectively in isolation. Instead, it requires
the involvement of a large group of experts that have the knowledge and experience neces-
sary to plan and implement the study on the local level. During workshops held around the
country, EPA sought the participation of states, tribes, and other federal agencies to plan
the study and provide long-term support for lake reconnaissance and fish collection. These
workshops allowed EPA's study management team to meet scientists from states, tribes, and
various federal agencies, and to present study-specific information for evaluating lakes and
collecting fish samples. It also allowed EPA to build a national network of partners that
consisted of 47 states, three tribes, and two other federal agencies. These partnerships were
crucial to the technical and financial success of the study. Completing the fish tissue analy-
sis required 80% of the resources EPA allocated for the study. The in-kind contributions of
partner agencies made fish collection for this study possible.
Maintaining voluntary participation in the National Lake Fish Tissue Study over the five-year
period for lake reconnaissance and fish collection required some EPA actions or commitments
in return. To allow greater participation in the study, EPA identified where flexibility
was possible in the sampling design. Examples include allowing states to sample lakes in
different years than they were scheduled in the study design and extending the field sampling
season to provide more time for participants to complete fish collection. EPA's commitment
63
-------
The National Study of Chemical Residues in Lake Fish Tissue
Conclusions and Recommendations
to simplifying procedures to reduce the burden on partner agencies also facilitated their
continued participation. Finally, EPA's agreement to distribute the fish tissue data to states
and other participants on an annual basis for four years maintained their interest in the study.
4.2.2 Adequate Time for Planning and Mobilizing
Allowing adequate time for planning and organizing project logistics was vital to the success
of this study. Too often schedules for project planning are compressed to a point where there
is insufficient time to adequately explore design options or to access the full range of techni-
cal expertise available to support planning efforts. Project schedules also generally short-
change the time allowed for organizing project logistics. EPA management recognized how
critical these study components were by providing budgetary support for one year of plan-
ning and an additional year for mobilizing. For planning, this made it possible to carefully
consider all the elements of the study design (e.g., lake selection process and target chemi-
cal selection), to involve technical experts around the country in a study design workshop,
and to conduct peer review of the study design. The additional year for mobilizing allowed
EPA to establish a full national network of effective partnerships, to provide orientation and
training for partners during workshops held in the ten EPA Regions over a period of ten
months, to complete mapping and reconnaissance of 900 lakes, and to conduct pilot sam-
pling in ten states to test project logistics prior to full-scale implementation of the study.
4.2.3 Commitment to Rigorous QA/QC
The National Lake Fish Tissue Study set a high QA/QC standard for scientific studies con-
ducted by EPA. From the study's inception, QA/QC activities became an integral part of
all program operations. The national study management team developed an unprecedented
number of quality assurance project plans (three) to thoroughly document all QA/QC proce-
dures for fish sample collection (USEPA 2000a), fish tissue preparation and analysis (USEPA
2000b), and statistical analysis of the study data (USEPA 2005a). Documenting all study-
specific procedures was crucial for establishing consistency among participants in field and
laboratory operations across the country. Making a serious commitment to follow these
procedures was critical for maintaining this consistency. EPA estimates about one-third of
the combined efforts of agency staff, support contractors, and voluntary participants were
devoted directly to QA/QC activities. This level of investment in QA/QC paid important
dividends as evidenced by the fact that EPA did not lose a single fish sample during the four
years of field sampling.
4.3 Data Availability
EPA released the four years of National Lake Fish Tissue Study data to the public in Octo-
ber 2005. These data are available on CDs at no charge. The CDs contain field sampling
information and analytical results (raw data) for fish samples collected at all 500 sampling
locations, a data dictionary that defines each of the fields in the data files, and a report that
summarizes analysis of the fish samples and results of the data quality review. Instructions
for obtaining the study data are posted on the Internet at http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/
fishstudy/.
64
-------
The National Study of Chemical Residues in Lake Fish Tissue
Conclusions and Recommendations
4.4 Future Monitoring
The full complement of data from this study defines a national baseline of fish contamina-
tion in lakes and reservoirs of the lower 48 states. Future monitoring will be necessary to
determine trends in occurrence of the target chemicals in lake fish and to track changes in
concentrations of PBT chemicals in freshwater fish in response to pollution control activities.
EPA's PBT Monitoring Strategy identifies the National Lake Fish Tissue Study as an agency
monitoring effort that should continue in the future.
With the completion of this study, EPA recognizes the importance of conducting further
studies to obtain representative chemical residue data for fish in other surface waters, to
investigate the occurrence of contaminants of emerging concern (CECs) in fish tissue, and to
generate data that define temporal trends in fish contaminant concentrations. The following
future fish tissue monitoring activities would enhance the Agency's current fish assessment
program:
• Analysis of archived tissue from the National Lake Fish Tissue Study to investigate the
occurrence of CECs in lake fish
• Analytical method development to expand the suite of methods available for
quantifying concentrations of CECs in fish tissue
• Development of trend data for priority chemicals by repeating the National Lake Fish
Tissue Study or a similar statistically-designed national study of lakes at an appropriate
fixed interval (e.g., 5 or 10 years)
• Assessment of fish contamination in other surface waters, such as the fish tissue
indicator work currently being conducted under EPA's National Rivers and Streams
Assessment.
Since national-scale studies are resource intensive, collaborative efforts similar to the sup-
port EPA received for the National Lake Fish Tissue Study would be necessary to implement
the last two recommendations. Agency budget commitments over multiple years would also
be necessary to fund these recommendations.
65
-------
The National Study of Chemical Residues in Lake Fish Tissue
Conclusions and Recommendations
66
-------
The National Study of Chemical Residues in Lake Fish Tissue
5.0 References
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR). 1999. Toxicological Profile for
Mercury. Atlanta, GA: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health
Service, http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tp46.pdf
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR). 2002. Toxicological Profile
for DDT/DDE/DDD (Update). Atlanta, GA: U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services, Public Health Service, http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tp35.pdf
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR). 1998. Toxicological Profile for
Chlorinated Dibenzo-p-dioxins (CDDs). Atlanta, GA: U.S. Department of Health and
Human Services, Public Health Service.
http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tpl04.pdf
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR). 2000. Toxicological Profile for
Polychlorinated Biphenyls. Atlanta, Georgia: U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services, Public Health Service, http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tpl7.pdf
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR). 1994. Toxicological Profile
for Chlordane. Atlanta, GA: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public
Health Service, http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tp31.pdf
Diaz-Ramos, S., D.L. Stevens, Jr., and A.R. Olsen. 1996. EMAP Statistics Methods Manual.
EPA/620/R-96/XXX. Corvallis, OR: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office
of Research and Development, National Health and Environmental Effects Research
Laboratory, http://www.epa.gov/nheerl/arm/documents/intro.pdf
Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS). 1998. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington, DC. http://www.epa.gov/iris
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 1993. Sampling and Analytical
Methods of the National Status and Trends Program-National Benthic Surveillance and
Mussel Watch Projects 1984-1992. NOAA Technical Memorandum NOS ORCA 71.
July, 1993.
http://ccma.nos.noaa.gov/stressors/pollution/nsandt/bs_details.html
Olsen, A.R., B.D. Snyder, L.L. Stahl, and J.L. Pitt. 2009. Survey design for lakes and
reservoirs in the United States to assess contaminants in fish tissue. Environmental
Monitoring and Assessment 150:91-100.
67
-------
The National Study of Chemical Residues in Lake Fish Tissue
References
Olsen, A.R., D.L. Stevens, Jr., and D. White. 1998. Application of global grids in
environmental sampling. Computing Science and Statistics 30:279-284.
Stahl, L.L., B.D. Snyder, A.R. Olsen, and J.L. Pitt. 2009. Contaminants in fish tissue from
US lakes and reservoirs: a national probabilistic study. Environmental Monitoring and
Assessment 150:3-19.
Stevens, D.L. and A.R. Olsen. 2003. Variance estimation for spatially balanced samples of
environmental resources. EnvironMetrics 14:593-610.
http://www.epa.gov/nheerl/arm/documents/nbh.var.environmetrics.pdf
Stevens, D.L. and A.R. Olsen. 2004. Spatially balanced sampling of natural resources.
Journal of the American Statistical Association 99:262-278.
http://www.epa.gov/nheerl/arm/documents/grts_asa.pdf
Thompson, S. 1992. Sampling. John Wiley and Sons, New York, NY.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 1992. National Study of Chemical Residues
in Fish. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Science and Technology,
Washington, D.C. EPA-823-R-92-008a.
http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/library/fish/residuevoll.pdf
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 1995. Guidance for Assessing Chemical
Contaminant Data for Use in Fish Advisories. Volume 1: Fish Sampling and Analysis.
Second Edition. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington,
D.C. EPA-823-R-95-007.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 1997. Guidance for Assessing Chemical
Contaminant Data for Use in Fish Advisories. Volume 2: Risk Assessment and Fish
Consumption Limits. Second Edition. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of
Water, Washington, D.C. EPA-823-B-97-009.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 1998. A Multimedia Strategy for Priority
Persistent, Bioaccumulative, and Toxic (PBT) Pollutants [DRAFT].
http://www.epa.gov/pbt/pubs/pbtstrat.htm
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 1999. National Study of Chemical Residues
in Lake Fish Tissue: Study Design. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of
Science and Technology, Washington, D.C. EPA-823-R-09-005.
http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/fishstudy/
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2000a. Quality Assurance Project Plan
for Sample Collection Activities for a National Study of Chemical Residues in Lake
Fish Tissue. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Science and Technology,
Washington, D.C. EPA-823-R-02-005.
http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/fishstudy/
68
-------
The National Study of Chemical Residues in Lake Fish Tissue
References
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2000b. Quality Assurance Project Plan
for Analytical Control and Assessment Activities in the National Study of Chemical
Residues in Lake Fish Tissue. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Science
and Technology, Washington, D.C. EPA-823-R-02-006.
http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/fishstudy/
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2000c. Field Sampling Plan for the
National Study of Chemical Residues in Lake Fish Tissue. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Science and Technology, Washington, D.C.
EPA-823-R-02-004. http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/fishstudy/
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2000d. Guidance for Assessing Chemical
Contaminant Data for Use in Fish Advisories, Volume 1: Fish Sampling and Analysis,
Third Edition. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington,
D.C. EPA-823-B-00-007.
http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/fish/advice/volumel/index.html
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2000e. Guidance for Assessing Chemical
Contaminant Data for Use in Fish Advisories, Volume 2: Risk Assessment and Fish
Consumption Limits, Third Edition. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of
Science and Technology, Office of Water, Washington, D.C. EPA-823-B-00-008.
http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/fish/advice/volume2/index.html
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2001a. Mercury Update: Impact on Fish Advisories,
Fact Sheet. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Science and Technology,
Office of Water, Washington, D.C. EPA-823-F-01-011.
http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/fish/advice/mercupd.pdf
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2001b. Water Quality Criterion for the
Protection of Human Health: Methylmercury. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, Office of Science and Technology, Office of Water, D.C. EPA-823-R-01-001.
http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/criteria/methylmercury/pdf/mercury-criterion.pdf
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2005a. Quality Assurance Project Plan
for Data Analysis Activities for the National Study of Chemical Residues in Lake Fish
Tissue. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington, D.C.
EPA-823-R-09-008. http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/fishstudy/
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2005b. Quality Assurance Report for the
National Study of Chemical Residues in Lake Fish Tissue: Analytical Data for Years 1
through 4. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington, D.C.
EPA-823-R-05-005. http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/fishstudy/
69
-------
The National Study of Chemical Residues in Lake Fish Tissue
References
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2006a. Draft Guidance for Implementing
the January 2001 Methylmercury Water Quality Criterion. EPA-823-B-04-001.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington, D.C.
http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/criteria/methylmercury/pdf/guidance-draft.pdf
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2006b. Website - Persistent
Bioaccumulative and Toxic (PBT) Chemical Program.
http://www.epa.gov/pbt/pubs/cheminfo.htm
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2007. 2005/2006 National Listing of
Fish Advisories Fact Sheet. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water,
Washington, D.C. EPA-823-F-07-003.
http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/fish/advisories/2006/tech.html
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2009. 2008 Biennial National Listing of
Fish Advisories Fact Sheet. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water,
Washington, D.C. EPA-823-F-09-007.
http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/fish/advisories/tech2008.html
Zar, J.H. 1999. Biostatistical Analysis, Fourth Edition. Prentice Hall, Inc., New Jersey.
70
-------
The National Study of Chemical Residues in Lake Fish Tissue
Appendix A
National Lake Fish Tissue Study
Sampling Locations
-------
-------
STATE LAKE NAME
COUNTY
LAKE STATISTICAL SAMPLING
ID YEAR*f YEAR*
LATITUDE
DEC MIN SEC
LONGITUDE LAKE AREA
DEC MIN SEC
ALABAMA: 16 LAKES
AL
AL
AL
AL
AL
AL
AL
AL
AL
AL
AL
AL
AL
AL
AL
AL
Bankhead Reservoir
Candles Lake
Choccolocco Lake
Clark's Lake
Jones Bluff Lake
Lake Martin
Lewis Smith Lake
Payne Lake
Pine Lake
Unnamed lake
Unnamed lake
Unnamed lake
Walter F. George
Reservoir
Wheeler Lake
William "Bill"
Dannelly Reservoir
Wilson Reservoir
Walker 0272
Talladega 1497
Calhoun 1436
Russell 0560
Lowndes 1072
Tallapoosa 0236
Cullman/Walker/ 0136
Winston
Hale 0947
Houston 0622
Walker 0022
Monroe 0923
Marshall 0961
Henry/Barbour 0072
Lauderdale 0161
Wilcox 0197
Colbert 0311
R
4
4
2
3
R
1
3
2
1
3
3
1
1
1
R
2003
2003
2003
2001
2002
2003
2000
2002
2001
2000
2002
2002
2000
2000
2000
2003
33 37
33 10
33 36
32 26
32 23
33 26
34 4
32 53
31 9
33 56
31 26
34 7
31 56
34 39
32 5
34 49
17.76 87
9.84 86
47.52 85
55.32 85
20.4 86
27.96 85
51.24 87
10.68 87
14.04 85
55.32 87
51 87
22.44 86
3.84 85
49.932 87
53.88 87
27.084 87
12
23
59
8
45
34
7
26
19
19
17
17
5
2
22
30
11.52
45.24
37.68
22.56
8.64
42.456
55.2
34.08
28.2
53.4
45.96
52.08
48.84
23.208
56.28
14.328
1346.43
25.75
6.97 |
2.68 j
5063
15783 |
8793.13 j
46.02 |
3.25 |
4.37
1.87 |
3.37 |
15281.91
27143 |
4738.41
6272.6 |
ARIZONA: 3 LAKES
AZ
AZ
AZ
Apache Lake
Lake Havasu
Lake Mohave
Maricopa 0045
Mohave 1520
Mohave 1020
1
4
3
2000
2002
2001
33 35
34 30
35 27
15.36 111
3.24 114
14.04 114
17
21
38
32.28
56.52
10.32
888.11 |
7223 I
10446.12
ARKANSAS: 11 LAKES
AR
AR
AR
Beaver Reservoir
Greers Ferry Lake
Horseshoe Lake
Benton 1493
Cleburne 0571
Crittenden 1522
4
2
4
2002
2000
2001
36 22
35 33
34 55
1.20 93
39.60 92
__£0£6^90
56
9
20
58.56
47.16
13.20
8310.84 |
4803 |
872.26 |
.
•o
•o
n
3
Q.
vt
t/»
n
3
vt
-------
STATE 1 LAKE NAME
I COUNTY
LAKE E STATISTICAL SAMPLING
ID I YEAR*t YEAR*
LATITUDE
DEC I MIN
LONGITUDE
SEC j DEC j MIN
1 LAKE AREA
SEC
AR
AR
AR
AR
AR
AR
AR
AR
Lake Dardanelle
Lake DeGray
Lake Ouachita
Logan
Clark
Garland
Lake Terkington Arkansas
Millwood Lake Little River
Norfolk Lake Baxter
Ozark City Lake Franklin
ReReg Lake
Clark
0247
1449
1371
1396
1398
0143
0497
0623
R
4
4
4
4
1
2
2
2003
2002
2002
2002
2002
1999
2000
2000
35
34
34
34
33
36
35
34
21
15
37
27
45
24
31
11
7.92 93
25.56 93
0.84 93
58.68 91
2.16 94
22.68 92
54.84 93
4.92 93
24
14
23
23
0
14
49
6
21.6
14.64
22.20
35.88
14.40
31.20
57.00
13.32
12640.98
4575.86
15815.64
23.57
9667.69
7546.18
166.23
151.71
CALIFORNIA: 18 LAKES
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
Claire Engle
Reservoir
Clear Lake
Crag Lake
El Capitan Reservoir
Finnon Reservoir
Guadalupe Reservoir
Trinity
Lake
El Dorado
San Diego
El Dorado
Santa Clara
Jewelry Lake Tuolumne
Lake Oroville Butte
Lake Thomas Edison
Little Grass Valley
Reservoir
Meadow Lake
New Melones
Reservoir
Pete's Valley
Reservoir
Pine Flat Reservoir
Fresno
Plumas
Nevada
Calaveras
Lassen
Fresno
1426
0126
1026
0468
1526
0303
0027
0151
0977
0301
1351
0227
0077
0002
4
1
3
2
4
R
1
1
3
R
4
R
1
1
2003
2000
2002
2002
2003
2003
2001
2001
2003
2003
2003
2003
2003
2001
40
39
38
32
38
37
38
39
37
39
39
37
40
36
53
1
59
54
47
11
9
34
22
43
24
59
32
52
42.36 122
35.76 122
27.96 120
44.64 116
53.52 120
33 121
45.72 119
47.64 121
46.92 118
44.4 120
41.04 120
30.84 120
40.56 120
28.92 I 119
^^^_^^^j^^^^^
46
46
9
46
44
52
46
21
58
59
29
30
26
14
10.56
13.8
18.36
51.6
54.6
21.72
52.32
35.64
39.36
36.6
34.08
26.64
56.04
5.64
6757.19
15956.2
8.38
589.97
8.58
25.64
2.61
1730.03
755.47
564.03
89.41
726.39
10.86
2336.88
a
•o
•o
n
3
Q.
X*
O
3
sr
n
vt
t/»
n
3
vt
-------
LAKE I STATISTICAL SAMPLING
LATITUDE
LONGITUDE
LAKE AREA
! CA
CA
CA
! CA
San Leandro
Reservoir
San Luis Reservoir
Alameda 0051
Merced 0503
Shasta Lake Shasta 0476
Woodward Stanislaus 1002
Reservoir
1
2
2
3
2002
2002
2002
2002
37 47
37 2
40 49
37 51
9.96
38.04
31.08
10.44
122
121
122
120
6
7
23
50
58.68
39
51
58.56
V™V |
309.21 I
5214.08 |
5467.73 I
718.84 I
COLORADO: SLAKES
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
! co
I CO
Cherry Creek
Reservoir
Fuchs Reservoir
Left Hand Valley
Stalker Lake
Trujillo Meadows
Reservoir
Turk's Pond
Williams Fork
Reservoir
Willow Creek
Reservoir
Arapahoe 1569
Rio Grande 0969
Boulder 0228
Yuma 0469
Conejos 0319
Baca 0019
Grand 0552
Weld 0903
4
3
R
2
R
1
2
3
2000
2001
2003
2001
2003
2000
2001
2000
39 38
37 28
40 5
40 5
37 3
37 29
40 1
40 48
22.92
23.16
49.92
7.44
2.88
10.32
3.72
8.64
104
106
105
102
106
102
106
104
51
31
15
16
27
22
12
27
15.48
1.92
56.88
34.68
9
56.28
22.68
47.16
347.28
6.1
45.82
6.63 |
29.16 |
22.13 |
546.12 I
1.21 I
CONNECTICUT: 2 LAKES
I CT
CT
Barkhamsted
Reservoir
Rainbow Lake
Litchfield 1117
Fairfield 0938
3
3
2001
2001
41 58
41 20
13.44
27.24
72
73
57
29
17.64
45.24
890.54 I
15.25
FLORIDA:16LAKES
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
Brown Lake
Chipco Lake
Crescent Lake
Eagle Lake
Lake Apopka
Osceola 1425
Putnam 1060
Putnam/Flagler 0260
Polk 1575
Orange 0500
4
3
R
4
2
2003
2002
2003
2002
2001
28 9
29 37
29 27
27 59
28 37
38.16
42.24
11.628
16.08
8.76
81
81
81
81
81
25
53
29
46
37
55.2
31.92
34.296
3.72
19.56
57.37
18.28
6459 |
259.22 j
12439.41 |
.
•o
•o
n
3
Q.
vt
t/»
n
3
vt
-------
STATE 1 LAKE NAME
I COUNTY
LAKE
ID
STATISTICAL
SAMPLING
YEAR*
LATITUDE
DEC I MIN
SEC
LONGITUDE
DEC j MIN . SEC
LAKE AREA
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
GA
GA
GA
GA
GA
GA
GA
GA
GA
GA
GA
GA
GA
Lake Butler
Lake Manatee
Lake Okeechobee
Lake Reedy
Lake Tohopekaliga
Lake Tsala Apopka
Long Pond
Mill Dam Lake
Unnamed lake
Unnamed lake
Unnamed lake
Allatoona Lake
Boatright Lake
Demott Lake
J. Strom Thurmond
Reservoir
Johnson's Lake
Lake Ashley
("Fishing Lake")
Lake Blue Ridge
Lake Seminole
Lake Sinclair
Qualatchee Lake
Reservoir 29
Unnamed lake
Unnamed lake
Union
Manatee
Palm Beach/Hendry
Polk
Osceola
Citrus
Hillsborough
Marion
Walton
B reward
Palm Beach
Bartow/Cherokee
Washington
Colquitt
Columbia
Warren
Carroll
Fannin
Seminole
Putnam
White
Madison
Elbert
Stewart
0060
1050
0150
0975
1000
0100
0600
0135
0498
0625
0325
1035
0661
1411
1461
0286
1360
0261
1547
1561
0061
0636
0186
0036
1
3
1
3
3
1
2
1
2
2
R
GEORGIA
3
2
4
4
R
4
R
4
4
1
2
1
1
2000
2002
2001
2002
2002
2000
2001
2000
2001
2001
2003
\: IS LAKES
2000
2000
2003
2000
2003
2003
2003
2003
2001
2002
2001
2000
2003
30 2
27 28
27 10
27 44
28 13
28 55
27 57
29 10
30 28
26 1
26 35
34 8
32 48
31 11
33 39
33 21
33 39
34 50
30 47
33 13
34 38
34 3
34 5
31 57
12.12
46.2
30.72
16.8
57
27.228
57.96
49.44
57.36
34.32
5.64
12.48
40.32
7.08
32.04
54.72
14.76
29.04
6.72
50.52
56.04
52.56
3.12
21.6
82
82
80
81
81
82
82
81
86
80
80
84
82
83
82
82
84
84
84
83
83
83
82
84
20
18
47
29
22
21
15
50
19
15
11
37
42
49
23
38
55
15
54
17
48
13
46
40
21.84
27
45.6
58.2
20.28
2.52
57.24
37.32
40.44
39.6
10.68
54.84
29.52
23.16
53.88
8.52
21.72
57.6
48.96
8.88
3.6
38.64
48.72
42.24
362.69
593.3 |
4830.28
1399.66
7642.87 |
7733.98 |
22.39 [
140.03 |
1.53 |
5.43 |
2.32 |
4661.32
12.58 |
4 \
10306.7 |
25.72 [
6.2 |
1339.82 |
5137.63 |
2070.71 |
15.64 |
32.62
1.94
1.39 |
a
•o
•o
n
3
Q.
X*
O
3
sr
n
vt
t/»
n
3
vt
-------
LATITUDE
LONGITUDE
STATE
GA
GA
ID
ID
ID
ID
ID
ID
ID
IL
IL
IL
IL
IL
IL
IL
IL
IL
IL
IN
IN
IN
IN
I I LAKE
LAKE NAME j COUNTY j ID
Unnamed lake Thomas 1097
West Point Lake Troup 0086
Bear Lake Bear Lake 0627
Blackfoot Reservoir Caribou 1452
Brownlee Reservoir Washington 0079
EnosLake#1 Valley 1028
Loon Creek Lake #2 Valley 0904
Palisades Reservoir Bonneville 0127
Priest Lake Bonner 0554
Buck Lake De Kalb 0041
Kincaid Lake Jackson 1565
Lake Inverness Cook 0241
Otter Lake Macoupin 0115
Rend Lake Franklin 1065
Shock's Pond Rock Island 0140
Unnamed lake Williamson 0015
Unnamed lake Tazewell 0515
Unnamed lake Saline 1465
Wolf Lake Cook 0491
Baire Lake Putnam 0141
Fox Lake Steuben 1516
Geist Reservoir Hamilton 0616
Hardy Lake Scott 0941
STATISTICAL I SAMPLING
YEAR*f I YEAR*
3 2003
1 2002
IDAHO: 7 LAKES
2 2000
4 2002
1 2000
3 2002
3 2002
1 2000
2 2000
ILLINOIS: 10 LAKES
1 2000
4 2002
R 2003
1 2001
3 2001
1 2000
1 2000
2 2000
4 2002
2 2001
INDIANA: 7 LAKES
1 2000
4 2003
2 2001
3 2002
DEC
30
33
42
42
44
45
45
43
48
41
37
42
39
38
41
37
40
37
41
39
41
39
38
MlN
52
3
0
54
40
5
5
14
34
38
49
5
27
4
27
46
35
44
39
43
37
55
46
SK
22.08
44.28
13.32
15.012
32.736
58.452
37.5
36.96
4.368
51
7.32
39.48
4.32
52.32
17.64
23.88
1.68
13.2
52.2
58.8
36.48
41.52
21.36
DEC
83
85
111
111
117
115
115
111
116
88
89
88
89
88
90
88
89
88
87
86
85
85
85
MlN
49
8
19
35
4
50
55
6
51
39
28
5
53
58
36
47
35
30
31
45
1
56
41
SEC
57.36
0.6
58.476
9.672
42.348
48.876
14.808
40.68
27.504
36
42.24
3.12
35.16
26.76
11.16
0.6
7.8
28.08
57.72
17.64
24.96
33
20.04
LAKE AREA
(HA)
4.77
9215.38
28329
6475.2
6070.5
3.01
2.62
6061.57
9453.8
3.56
972.39
6.57
126.16
832.64
1.67
6.2
17.48
7.87
323
3.03
53.2
683.06
315.77
>
•o
.
•o
n
3
Q.
"
ml
O
i
i
Tl
!r
H
C
n
s
Q.
3
5'
(O
\
^
m
r
p
1
™
4
O
r>
3
vt
-------
STATE LAKE NAME
COUNTY
LAKE i STATISTICAL 1 SAMPLING
ID I YEAR*t I YEAR*
LATITUDE
DEC , MIN
LONGITUDE
SEC , DEC , MIN
LAKE AREA
SEC
', IN Turtle Creek
; Reservoir
; IN Unnamed lake
IN Winona Lake
Sullivan 0590
Montgomery 1541
Kosciusko 0466
2
4
2
IOWA
IA Diamondhead Lake
'. IA Morse Lake
! IA Percival Lake
] IA Saylorville Lake
; IA Unnamed lake
Guthrie 1090
Wright 0165
Fremont 0615
Polk 1040
Wapello 0965
3
1
2
3
3
2001
2003
2001
39
40
41
4 1.92
2 5.64
13 22.44
87
86
85
31
57
50
42.96
10.8
0.96
605.95
5.24
216.43
: 5 LAKES
2002
2000
2001
2002
2002
41
42
40
41
40
32 59.28
50 20.04
46 37.56
45 11.52
58 26.4
94
93
95
93
92
15
41
48
43
22
33.84
41.28
36.72
53.76
25.68
40.03
41.11
6.39
2041.2
12.99
I KANSAS: 4 LAKES
; KS Tuttle Creek Lake
KS Unnamed lake
KS Unnamed lake
KS Unnamed lake
Pottawatomie 0119
Jackson 1119
Greenwood 0293
Woodson 1568
1
3
R
4
2000
2002
2003
2003
39
39
37
37
27 25.2
30 8.64
56 5.28
53 13.56
96
95
96
95
42
36
10
36
4.68
3.6
45.84
43.2
2152.55
5.43
1.53
1.81
I KENTUCKY: 7 LAKES
: KY Barkley Lake
I KY Green River Lake
; KY Herrington Lake
; KY Lake Cumberland
KY Unnamed lake
KY Unnamed lake
KY Unnamed lake
Lyon 1361
Adair 1012
Boyle 0641
Pulaski 1062
Livingston 0465
Nelson 0640
Fleming 0266
4
3
2
3
2
2
R
2003
2002
2001
2003
2001
2001
2003
37
37
37
36
37
37
38
1 24.24
14 0.6
41 6
58 26.4
16 55.92
47 52.08
23 12.84
88
85
84
84
88
85
83
7
16
42
46
29
38
31
18.48
15.6
52.56
44.76
39.12
50.28
20.64
7.75
3190.89
1084.43
231.04
13.42
2.56
7.11
I LOUISIANA: 7 LAKES
'. LA Catahoula Lake
] LA Lac des Allemands
; LA Lake Bistineau
LaSalle 0274
St. John the Baptist 0999
Webster 0173
R
3
1
2002
2000
1999
31
29
32
30 20.34
55 14.95
26 17.16
92
90
93
7
34
23
30.72
18.05
12.48
10846
5957.2
6282.91
a
•o
•o
n
3
Q.
X*
O
3
ST
n
vt
t/»
n
(O
3
vt
-------
LAKE I STATISTICAL SAMPLING
LATITUDE
LONGITUDE
LAKE AREA
LA
LA
LA
LA
ME
ME
ME
ME
ME
ME
ME
ME
ME
ME
ME
ME
ME
ME
ME
ME
ME
ME
ME
ME
Lake Bussey Brake
Miller's Lake
Salt Lake
Unnamed lake
Chandler Pond
Cuxabexis Lake
Green Lake
Hadley Lake
Hale Pond
Heald Ponds
Little Pond
Little River Lake
McCurdy Pond
Megunticook Pond
Middle Range Pond
Moose Pond
Moosehead Lake
Mooselookmeguntic
Lake
Parker Pond
Peaked Mountain
Pond
Pemadumcook Lake
Puffer's Pond
Ragged Lake
Seboomook Lake
Morehouse
Evangeline
Calcasieu
Pointe Coupee
Piscataquis
Piscataquis
Hancock
Washington
Piscataquis
Somerset
Oxford
Washington
Lincoln
Waldo
Androscoggin
Cumberland
Piscataquis
Oxford
Kennebec
Piscataquis
Piscataquis
Penobscot
Piscataquis
Somerset
'"
1548
1374
1074
1474
1460
0660
0566
0917
0285
0042
0192
0516
0642
1366
0617
0217
0492
0667
1067
0935
1041
0242
0210
1560
4
4
3
4
MAINE:
4
2
2
3
R
1
1
2
2
4
2
1
2
2
3
3
3
R
1
4
2002
2002
2001
2003
25 LAKES
2003
2001
2001
2002
2003
2000
2000
2001
2001
2003
2001
2000
2001
2001
2002
2002
2002
2003
2000
2003
32
30
30
30
46
46
44
44
45
45
44
45
44
44
44
44
45
44
44
46
45
45
45
45
51
45
15
42
18
6
38
47
48
11
9
9
0
15
1
3
40
53
29
30
41
0
49
54
52.20
6.84
23.40
43.20
23.04
22.68
53.88
10.68
36
4.2
11.88
33.84
35.28
46.08
16.32
14.04
43.104
12.48
8.88
27.36
15
56.88
13.08
54
l^CVJ
91
92
93
91
69
69
68
67
68
69
70
67
69
69
70
70
69
70
70
69
68
69
69
69
55
21
24
43
3
17
29
26
58
51
35
49
27
6
23
48
43
49
1
5
54
15
22
52
44.04
18.00
56.88
56.64
46.08
54.24
53.52
56.04
35.76
48.6
16.44
14.52
11.88
47.52
57.12
17.64
19.092
43.68
49.44
14.64
5.4
37.08
4.08
13.44
V™V |
848.31
1245.69 |
63.59 I
16.31 I
I
51.83
247.09
1267.24
680.2
64.84 |
8.72 j
10.67
29.41 |
79.6 j
573.61
14.61 |
679.43 I
30308
6597
611.44
5.01
7453.06
46.36 |
1046.61 j
2571.1
.
•o
•o
n
3
Q.
vt
t/»
n
(O
3
vt
-------
STATE . LAKE NAME
COUNTY
LAKE i STATISTICAL 1 SAMPLING
ID I YEAR*t I YEAR* DEC
LATITUDE
MIN
SEC . DEC
LONGITUDE
MIN
LAKE AREA
SEC
ME
ME
ME
| ME
ME
Spednik Lake
Stiles Lake
Upper Middle
Branch Pond
Wallagrass Lakes
Wood Pond
Washington
Hancock
Hancock
Aroostook
Somerset
0966
0166
0092
0635
1442
3
1
1
2
4
2002
2000
2000
2001
2003
45
44
44
47
45
37
58
52
6
37
17.76
23.16
34.32
20.16
9.12
67
68
68
68
70
38
0
13
42
16
32.28
34.2
37.2
51.48
58.44
5570.94
16.99
103.76
100.43
819.41
MARYLAND: 1 LAKE
MD
Deep Creek Lake
Garrett
1439
4
2002
39
30
15.48
79
19
17.4
1449.35
MASSACHUSETTS: 7 LAKES
MA
! MA
| MA
! MA
| MA
! MA
MA
Bent's Pond
Carbuncle Pond
North Watuppa
Pond
Quabbin Reservoir
Rockwell Pond
Seymour Pond
Westboro Reservoir
Worcester
Worcester
Bristol
Worcester
Worcester
Barnstable
Worcester
0493
0592
0017
0567
1443
0467
0992
2
2
1
2
4
2
3
2001
2001
2000
2001
2003
2001
2002
42
42
41
42
42
41
42
31
8
42
24
31
43
14
37.92
7.08
11.16
5.4
37.92
26.04
36.6
71
71
71
72
71
70
71
59
52
6
18
46
5
36
55.68
7.32
27
31.32
9.12
34.08
16.92
8.72
3.94
673.72
9535.65
3.68
68.75
1.33
MICHIGAN: 21 LAKES
| Ml
Ml
| Ml
Ml
! Ml
Ml
! Ml
Ml
! Ml
Burt Lake
Chenango Lake
Cloverleaf Lake
Fire Lake
Glen Lake
Gogebic Lake
Haney Lake
Horseshoe Lake
Houghton Lake
Cheboygan
Livingston
Alger
Baraga
Leelanau
Gogebic
Van Buren
Ogemaw
Roscommon
0459
1564
0934
0309
1459
1534
0591
0589
0639
2
4
3
R
4
4
2
2
2
2001
2003
2002
2003
2003
2003
2003
2001
2001
45
42
46
46
44
46
42
44
44
27
30
33
29
52
30
15
24
20
35.784
13.68
32.4
57.12
14.88
29.556
8.64
57.96
59.64
84
83
86
88
86
89
86
84
84
39
53
5
11
1
35
7
16
42
55.584
41.28
13.92
29.76
5.16
10.5
29.28
49.8
59.4
6928.25
12.35
4.79
10.83
559.97
5170
11.9
14.45
8067.91
a
•o
•o
n
3
Q.
X*
O
3
ST
n
vt
t/»
n
3
vt
-------
LAKE I STATISTICAL I SAMPLING
LATITUDE LONGITUDE
T ; LAKE AREA
MIN 1 SEC | DEC MIN | SEC | (HA)
55 37.56
41 6.72
53 18.24
11 41.28
28 50.52
8 48.12
5 48.48
58 41.52
18 1.8
5 56.76
40 8.76
23 51.36
86
84
88
85
86
84
83
85
85
83
83
85
20
45
51
31
32
12
30
18
0
24
33
23
52.8
2.52
5.4
14.16
16.8
29.52
34.92
54.72
41.4
53.64
51.48
5.64
220.36
767.18
107.27
198.23
6.01
12.38
555.78
7503.08
1832.12
1.12
198.12
13.49
29 45.96
19 18.12
58 53.04
39 0.72
29 9.24
25 23.484
9 3.24
52 25.68
28 45.48
10 59.52
51 54.72
23 54.96
18 52.56
93
94
94
93
93
94
93
95
95
94
90
95
92
54
6
25
44
35
31
44
29
44
50
29
25
49
46.8
7.92
33.24
45.96
13.2
53.94
48.12
2.76
58.2
33.72
39.48
19.92
11.64
65.74
86.47
361.91
119.92
41.26
12050
94.11
41.04
2987.93
626.23
52.8
170.1
31.02
>
?
n
3
Q.
>
&)
cf
O
i
sH
ff
«/»
3-
_.
H
55
t/»
c
A
> Study Sampling Locations
•
?
-|
;
p
P
-.
3
-------
STATE . LAKE NAME
COUNTY
LAKE i STATISTICAL 1 SAMPLING
ID I YEAR*t I YEAR*
LATITUDE
DEC . MIN
LONGITUDE
SEC . DEC . MIN
SEC
MN
MN
MN
MN
MN
MN
MN
MN
MN
MN
MN
MN
MN
MN
MN
MN
MN
MN
MN
MN
MN
MN
MN
MN
MN
MN
Fish Lake Reservoir
Flat Lake
Florida Lake
Fox Lake
Fox Lake
Hendricks Lake
Hubert Lake
Isabella Lake
Kabekona Lake
Kekekabic Lake
La Salle Lake
Lac La Croix
Lake Carlos
Lake Geneva
Lake Minnetonka
Lake of the Woods
Lake Pepin
Lake Washington
Lake Washington
Lake Winona
Leech Lake
Linwood Lake
Long Lake
Many Point Lake
Mille Lacs
Moberg Lake
St. Louis 0605
Becker 1506
Kandiyohi 0957
Becker 0081
Beltrami 0655
Lincoln 0457
Crow Wing 0155
Lake 0985
Hubbard 1480
Lake 0035
Hubbard 0005
St. Louis 0485
Douglas 1532
Freeborn 0207
Hennepin 1032
Lake of the Woods 1430
Goodhue 1457
Le Sueur 1057
Meeker 0307
Winona 0932
Cass 1055
St. Louis 0130
Hubbard 0031
Becker 0481
Mille Lacs 0933
St. Louis 0530
2
4
3
1
2
2
1
3
4
1
1
2
4
1
3
4
4
3
R
3
3
1
1
2
3
2
1999
2003
2001
1999
2001
2000
2000
2003
2003
2002
2000
1999
2000
2000
2002
2003
2003
2002
2003
2003
2002
2000
2000
2001
2003
2001
46
46
45
46
47
44
46
47
47
48
47
48
45
43
44
48
44
44
45
44
47
47
46
47
46
46
56 20.76
58 44.4
14 10.32
46 49.8
36 33.48
29 43.8
29 13.92
48 39.6
10 0.48
4 7.68
20 29.4
17 33.72
57 50.76
47 31.2
54 34.2
58 12.072
30 55.8
15 15.12
4 15.6
2 29.4
9 20.484
19 10.92
53 10.68
4 39
14 17.16
48 48.96
92
95
95
95
94
96
94
91
94
91
95
92
95
93
93
95
92
93
94
91
94
92
94
95
93
92
16
39
3
54
50
27
16
17
45
10
9
4
21
16
38
12
18
52
22
39
23
6
59
32
38
54
25.32
17.28
49.68
30.24
30.48
44.64
7.32
29.04
26.28
26.4
52.92
40.08
22.32
26.76
10.68
13.248
25.56
38.64
20.64
22.32
29.688
20.52
57.84
17.16
35.16
40.32
V "V |
1214.34
741.28
210.53
55.54
63.87
616
510.95
666.76
974.89
690.72
90.11
5768.93
1039.76
693.82
1699.75
384622
5075
582.48
979.68
32.22
44280
2.5
783.5
676.86
51699.73
13.94
-------
LAKE I STATISTICAL I SAMPLING
LATITUDE LONGITUDE
T ; LAKE AREA
MIN 1 SEC | DEC MIN | SEC | (HA)
1
19
33
18
44
10
20
57
22
12
15
59
36
29
22
52
53
21
57
28
43
8
49
37
1
17.4
45.552
28.512
22.68
28.32
51.6
35.16
43.02
29.64
48.24
13.32
3.48
51.48
27.6
48.72
5.196
53.88
6.48
30.96
90
95
92
95
93
93
94
95
94
93
94
91
91
93
92
92
91
94
94
56
58
49
47
31
34
18
1
36
40
36
25
33
34
45
18
45
17
16
33.36
18.48
25.932
57.48
0.48
37.2
42.12
30.288
56.52
56.64
1.8
9.12
29.16
36.84
22.32
26.172
13.32
12.48
21.72
94.49
9591
5686
600.51
118.14
6313
605.98
61512.47
617.62
276.63
547.87
1889.88
112.64
546.03
666.38
19875
2404.36
158.52
2395.76
Appendix A
L: National Lake Fish
H
5'
t/»
f
ie Study Sampling L
•
?
-|
;
p
fc
4
I^R9=!
37.2
17.4
50.676
54.804
89
88
89
89
41.16 | 90
49.44 I 90
50
42
51
44
28
46
15
40.32
43.452
2.364
49.8
57.36
50.29
4.76
11230
26154
5.53
37
£
§
vt
-------
LATITUDE
LONGITUDE
STATE
MS
MS
MS
MO
MO
MO
MO
MO
MO
MO
MO
MO
MO
MO
MT
MT
MT
MT
MT
MT
MT
MT
MT
MT
LAKE NAME
Lake Lucille
Sardis Reservoir
Unnamed lake
Lake Wapapello
Mark Twain Lake
Table Rock Lake
Tressle Hole
Truman Reservoir
Unnamed lake
Unnamed lake
Unnamed lake
Unnamed lake
Unnamed lake
Unnamed lake
Bighorn Lake
Bynum Reservoir
Clear Lake
Cliff Lake
Ennis Lake
Fort Peck Reservoir
Frenchman Pond
Hebgen Lake
Krieder's Pond
Laird Pond
I LAKE
COUNTY i ID
Lauderdale 0098
Panola 0672
Carroll 1546
Wayne 0290
Rails 1440
Stone 0543
New Madrid 1437
StClair 1393
Dade 0618
Jasper 1068
Cooper 0240
Polk 0318
Knox 1490
Callaway 1515
Big Horn 0053
Teton 1429
Mineral 1104
Flathead 1079
Madison 1504
Valley 0084
Phillips 1434
Gallatin 0952
Garfield 0104
Carter 0178
STATISTICAL I SAMPLING
YEAR*f | YEAR*
1 2000
2 2001
4 2003
MISSOURI: 11 LAKES
R 2003
4 2003
2 2003
4 2003
4 2003
2 2002
3 2002
R 2003
R 2003
4 2003
4 2003
MONTANA: 16 LAKES
1 2001
4 2003
3 2001
3 2002
4 2003
1 2000
4 2003
3 2002
1 2000
1 2000
DEC
32
34
33
36
39
36
36
38
37
37
38
37
40
38
45
47
47
48
45
47
48
44
47
45
MIN j SEC
34 30
26 55.032
35 58.2
58 3.72
30 46.44
33 32.4
33 12.6
10 12
22 33.6
17 22.92
54 46.44
46 16.32
1 54.12
57 54.36
10 14.16
56 45.6
16 9.12
9 46.08
25 51.24
44 0.6
42 19.8
47 13.02
7 47.28
37 24.24
DEC
88
89
90
90
91
93
89
93
93
94
92
93
92
91
108
112
115
113
111
106
107
111
107
104
WIN
32
42
1
21
42
23
26
34
41
31
47
33
4
58
6
26
24
53
40
44
13
14
28
40
SEC
38.76
46.476
49.44
15.12
36
45.96
58.92
18.84
24
58.08
36.96
17.28
6.96
57.72
14.04
0.6
24.84
22.92
55.56
36.6
33.24
58.74
39.36
28.92
LAKE AREA E
(HA) [
12
23684
8.1
2523.23
3551.37
12409.59
9.93
9246.25
3
14.27
4.83
5.54
4.27
9.35
6942.75
1295.69
3.09
9.3
1490.89
98766.25
231.25
4856.25
5.88
7.75
a
•o
•o
n
3
Q.
X*
O
3
sr
n
vt
t/»
n
3
vt
-------
LAKE I STATISTICAL SAMPLING
LATITUDE
LONGITUDE
LAKE AREA
MT
MT
MT
MT
MT
MT
Lake Elwell
Lake Koocanusa
Leigh Lake
Rape Creek
Reservoir
Upper Cold Lake
Upper Two
Medicine Lake
Liberty
Lincoln
Lincoln
Beaverhead
Missoula
Glacier
0029
0604
1029
0153
0454
0254
1
2
3
1
2
R
2000
2002
2002
2000
2001
2003
48
48
48
44
47
48
22
35
13
59
33
27
39
11.04
15.6
50.28
25.2
54.72
111
115
115
113
113
113
12
14
39
11
54
27
15.84
5.28
55.08
42
4.32
27
v™v
1075.54
11462.51
52
9.64
22.84
61.42
NEBRASKA: SLAKES |
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
Enders Reservoir
Harlan County
Reservoir
Jeffrey Reservoir
Lake McConaughy
Lake Minatare
Chase
Harlan
Lincoln
Keith
Scotts Bluff
1444
0244
0494
1403
0453
4
R
2
4
2
2002
2003
2000
2002
2000
40
40
40
41
41
25
3
56
15
56
55.92
30.6
27.6
1.08
1.32
101
99
100
101
103
33
18
24
50
29
14.04
12.96
34.2
53.16
42
652.43
5185.54
226.1
11464.25
784.3
NEVADA: 4 LAKES
NV
NV
NV
NV
Chimney Reservoir
Lake Mead
Pyramid Lake
Ruby Lake
Humboldt
Clark
Washoe
Elko
1451
0652
0902
0926
4
2
3
3
2002
2000
2003
2001
41
36
40
40
24
16
1
10
52.56
57.36
19.2
20.64
117
114
119
115
9
22
33
28
11.88
23.16
11.88
10.2
880.93
39372.55
44232.8
38.43
NEW HAMPSHIRE: 5 LAKES
NH
NH
NH
NH
NH
Big Diamond Pond
Horn Pond
Lake Winnipesaukee
Little Island Pond
Newfound Lake
Coos
Carroll
Carroll/Belknap
Hillsborough
Graf ton
0292
0317
0167
0243
0517
R
R
1
R
2
2003
2003
2000
2003
2001
44
43
43
42
43
57
33
36
43
39
11.16
39.6
9.36
39.72
34.2
71
70
71
71
71
18
57
20
17
46
44.28
41.4
27.6
16.08
2.64
67.92
91.56
18545.11
64.89
1717.53
.
•o
•o
n
3
Q.
O
3
vt
t/»
n
(O
3
vt
-------
STATE 1 LAKE NAME
Unnamed lake
I COUNTY
LAKE E STATISTICAL SAMPLING
ID I YEAR*f . YEAR*
NEW JERSEY: 2 LAKES
LATITUDE
DEC I MIN .
j LONGITUDE
SEC j DEC j MIN .
I LAKE AREA
SEC I (HA)
a
Verona Lake
Brantley Reservoir
NEW MEXICO: 2 LAKES
•o
•o
n
3
Q.
X*
O
3
sr
n
vt
t/»
n
NY
Navajo Reservoir
Rio Arriba
Brant Lake
Warren
0593
NEW YORK: 17 LAKES
2000
43
42
55.44
73
42
25.2
571.85
NY
Chautauqua Lake
Chautauqua
0114
1999
42
59.196
79
22
40.116
5438
NY
Colgate Lake
Greene
0488
2000
42
14
74
10.67
NY
Copake Lake
Columbia
0138
2000
42
38.76
73
35
47.4
157.5
NY
Goldfish Pond
Suffolk
1463
2003
40
56
31.2
72
19
45.12
1.34
NY
Grizzle Ocean
Essex
1518
2002
43
49
73
35
42.72
7.6
NY
Jamesville Reservoir
Onondaga
0238
2003
42
58
23.52
76
87.71
NY
Lake DeForest
Rockland
1488
2002
41
42.12
73
57
31.32
93.52
NY
Little Wolf Pond
Franklin
0542
2000
44
15
13.32
74
28
47.64
65.08
NY
Moose Lake
Herkimer
1513
2003
43
50
0.96
74
50
41.64
507.45
NY
Mud Pond
Clinton
1542
2002
44
33
42.12
73
55
21.36
45.43
NY
NY
Northville Pond
Fulton
1013
2001
43
13
44.76
74
10
13.44
Seneca Lake
Yates
0088
2003
42
37
39.72
76
55
6.96
7.6
17413.27
(O
3
vt
NY
Southern South
Lake
Putnam
0613
2001
41
30
9.36
73
42
14.76
4.26
NY
Sylvia Lake
St. Lawrence
0113
1999
44
15
9.72
75
24
50.04
124.86
NY
Tupper Lake
Franklin
0067
2001
44
11
29.04
74
30
0.72
2583.95
NY
Whitney Pond
Oswego
0913
2001
43
26
0.96
75
59
23.28
32.07
-------
LAKE STATISTICAL 1 SAMPLING
LATITUDE
LONGITUDE
LAKE AREA
STATE \ LAKE NAME j COUNTY , ID , YEAR*t ( YEAR* , DEC , MIN j SEC , DEC \ MIN
SEC , (HA) |
NORTH CAROLINA: 8 LAKES
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
B. Everett Jordan
Lake
Kings Mountain
Reservoir
Lake Gaston
Lake Norman
Lake Phelps
Mountain Island
Reservoir
San-Lee Park Lake
Smith Lake
Chatham
Cleveland
Warren
Catawba
Washington
Gaston/
Mecklenburg
Lee
Cumberland
0162
0062
0164
0262
0139
0537
0312
0612
1
1
1
R
1
2
R
2
2000
2000
2000
2003
2000
2001
2003
2002
35
35
36
35
35
35
35
35
46
18
32
37
46
21
28
8
23.52
3.6
27.6
35.4
7.356
2.88
53.04
9.6
79
81
78
80
76
80
79
78
0
27
1
56
27
58
7
55
59.4
21.24
8.4
40.2
36.18
11.28
31.08
38.64
5787
551.51
7951
13211.68
6718
1403.92
7.29
34.07
NORTH DAKOTA: 8 LAKES
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
Devils Lake
Dry Lake
Dry Lake
Epping -
Springbrook Dam
Homme Lake
Horsehead Lake
Long Lake
Twin Lakes South
Ramsey
Mcintosh
Ramsey
Williams
Walsh
Kidder
Kidder
La Moure
0030
1456
0105
0484
0230
0956
0006
0281
1
4
1
2
R
3
1
R
2001
2000
2001
2001
2003
2001
2000
2003
48
46
48
48
48
47
46
46
13
7
15
15
24
2
44
24
15.6
5.88
8.64
43.92
24.84
34.8
20.4
8.28
98
99
98
103
97
99
100
98
48
28
58
25
48
47
3
15
19.08
20.28
27.12
0.48
4.68
2.76
46.8
45.72
7119.61
203.78
2196.46
59.85
75.74
1355.91
1299.72
108.46
OHIO: 7 LAKES
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
Clouse Lake
Darrell Rose's Pond
Lake Rupert
Tom Porter's Pond
Unnamed lake
Perry
Marion
Vinton
Licking
Lucas
1491
0541
0066
0513
1114
4
2
1
2
3
2003
2001
2000
2001
2002
39
40
39
39
41
46
37
11
57
36
1.56
20.28
23.28
9.36
25.92
82
83
82
82
83
17
7
31
14
40
56.4
39.36
19.56
1.68
48.72
13.14
2.16
133.07
1.52
5.3
>
•o
.
•o
n
3
Q.
"
ml
O
i
sH
ff
Tl
!r
H
C
n
s
Q.
3
5'
(O
jj
^
•
r
p
|
™
4
O
r>
3
vt
-------
LATITUDE
LONGITUDE
STATE
OH
OH
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
LAKE NAME
Unnamed lake
Unnamed lake
Broken Bow Lake
Camp Simpson Lake
Coalgate City Lake
Fort Cobb Lake
Great Salt Plains
Lake
Hugo Lake
Keystone Lake
Lake Altus-Lugert
Lake El Reno
Lake Hudson
Lake Lawtonka
Lake Ponca
Oologah Lake
Sardis Lake
Tenkiller Ferry Lake
Unnamed lake
Unnamed lake
Unnamed lake
Unnamed lake
Unnamed lake
Wewoka Lake
COUNTY
Trumbull
Hancock
Mccurtain
Johnston
Coal
Caddo
Alfalfa
Choctaw
Creek/Pawnee
Kiowa
Canadian
Mayes
Comanche
Kay
Rogers
Latimer
Cherokee
Mcclain
Osage
Stephens
Le Flore
Rogers
Seminole
LAKE
ID
1514
0963
0499
1123
0924
0069
1544
0099
0219
1494
0944
1093
0269
0294
0068
0249
1468
0544
0669
1423
1524
1543
1469
STATISTICAL
YEAR*f
4
3
OKLAHOIV
2
3
3
1
4
1
1
4
3
3
R
R
1
R
4
2
2
4
4
4
4
SAMPLING
YEAR*
2003
2002
1A: 21 LAKE!
2000
2001
2001
1999
2002
2000
1999
2002
2001
2001
2003
2003
2000
2003
2002
2000
2000
2002
2002
2002
2002
DEC
41
41
>
34
34
34
35
36
34
36
34
35
36
34
36
36
34
35
34
36
34
35
36
35
MlN
18
3
16
25
34
11
44
5
14
55
31
26
45
44
34
46
42
59
36
35
16
32
11
SEC
24.84
4.32
49.08
7.32
40.80
53.52
1.32
8.52
53.16
32.52
19.56
2.04
28.44
19.68
55.56
21
41.76
12.48
48.60
12.12
8.76
46.32
49.20
DEC
80
83
94
96
96
98
98
95
96
99
97
95
98
97
95
95
94
97
96
97
94
95
96
M.N
34
34
40
32
14
29
10
25
22
18
59
11
30
2
35
4
57
31
47
38
48
38
31
SEC
16.68
28.56
46.92
49.20
16.80
27.24
39.36
26.04
4.80
42.12
31.56
30.12
50.04
4.56
31.92
9.84
21.24
44.76
36.60
8.52
20.52
43.80
1.92
LAKE AREA I
(HA) j
2.38
1.18 |
I
5342.04
41.33 |
159.1 |
1654.07 |
4041.26 |
4950.45
5454.54 |
1810.44 j
62.72
8.22 |
959.22 I
184.84
6099.87
63.2
5350.48
12.21
2.18 |
14.67 |
1.18 I
99.47 |
144.51 I
•o
•o
n
3
Q.
X*
O
3
sr
n
vt
t/»
n
a
(O
3
If!
-------
LAKE I STATISTICAL SAMPLING
LATITUDE
LONGITUDE
LAKE AREA
STATE J LAKE NAME | COUNTY
ID i YEAR*f , YEAR* | DEC
MlN ( SEC
DEC I MIN , SEC | (HA)
OREGON: 9 LAKES
OR
OR
OR
OR
OR
OR
OR
OR
OR
Barney Reservoir
Crater Lake
Denley Reservoir
Elk Lake
Lake Owyhee
Lake Umatilla
Malheur Lake
Unnamed lake
Wickiup Reservoir
Washington
Klamath
Douglas
Marion
Malheur
Klickitat
Harney
Linn
Deschutes
1454
0451
1001
0901
1353
0629
0326
0076
1501
4
2
3
3
4
2
R
1
4
2003
2001
2002
2002
2003
2002
2003
2002
2003
45
42
43
44
43
45
43
44
43
26
56
22
49
29
43
18
33
41
42.612
57.84
22.476
22.872
57.084
32.916
35.24
9.54
29.868
123
122
123
122
117
120
118
123
121
23
5
14
7
21
31
47
14
43
19.968
41.1
38.724
7.968
3.672
53.544
32.03
20.112
19.668
81.14
5318.03 |
5.91 I
25.95
4576.85
11697.92
5961.67
7.23
4110.44 |
PENNSYLVANIA: 9 LAKES
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
Crooked Creek Lake
Francis Slocum State
Park Lake
Keystone Lake
Lake Sabula
Pike Lake #3
Shenango River Lake
Unnamed lake
Unnamed lake
Whitney Lake
Armstrong
Luzerne
Westmoreland
Clearfield
Pike
Mercer
Franklin
Bradford
Wayne
0489
0288
0239
0039
0188
1014
0089
0213
1088
2
R
R
1
1
3
1
1
3
2000
2003
2003
2002
1999
2001
1999
2000
2001
40
41
40
41
41
41
39
41
41
40
20
22
9
55.92
12.48
24.96
29.16
15 | 1.44
17 34.08
56
56
28
42.36
39.48
9.12
79
75
79
78
74
80
77
76
75
29
53
22
39
57
25
48
23
15
8.52
40.56
58.08
57.24
5.04
28.92
43.56
19.68
0.72
151.44
66.62 |
23.52
13.36 |
5.61 |
1490.57 |
1.6 |
9.65 j
46.01
RHODE ISLAND: 2 LAKES
Rl
Rl
Arnold Mills
Reservoir
Gorton Pond
Providence
Kent
1567
1517
4
4
2003
2003
41
41
59
42
2.04
18.72
71
71
24
27
23.4
33.84
6.44
21.82 |
.
•o
•o
n
3
Q.
vt
t/»
n
3
vt
-------
STATE 1 LAKE NAME
I COUNTY
LAKE E STATISTICAL SAMPLING
ID I YEAR*f . YEAR*
LATITUDE
DEC I MIN .
j LONGITUDE
SEC j DEC j MIN .
I LAKE AREA
SEC I (HA)
SOUTH CAROLINA: 3 LAKES
SC
sc
sc
Hartwell Reservoir
Lake Murray
Lake Wateree
Oconee
Newberry
Kershaw
1486
0987
1562
4
3
4
2001
2000
2001
34
34
34
34
5
25
42.24 83
15.72 81
9.48 80
6
28
48
6.12
0.12
32.04
6881.09 |
19601.57 |
5548.26 |
SOUTH DAKOTA: 9 LAKES j
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
Angostura Reservoir Fall River
Corsica Lake Douglas
Hayes Lake
Lake Mitchell
Lake Oahe
Mud Lake
Pelican Lake
Shadehill Reservoir
South Waubay Lake
Stanley
Davison
Dewey
Kingsbury
Codington
Perkins
Day
1553
1031
0982
0007
1056
1107
0107
0056
1507
4
3
3
1
3
3
1
1
4
2002
2001
2000
2000
2002
2001
2001
2000
2002
43
43
44
43
44
44
44
45
45
18
24
21
45
52
28
52
46
22
28.08 103
53.64 98
57.6 101
23.04 98
26.76 100
44.76 97
4.08 97
11.64 102
49.08 97
25
17
0
3
31
35
10
15
27
4.44
31.2
44.64
21.6
59.16
33
48.36
16.92
5.04
1741.5 I
37.99 I
24.6 |
283.62 I
61520.39
119.08 |
1124.44 I
958.83 |
940.18 |
TENNESSEE: SLAKES
TN
TN
TN
TN
TN
TN
TN
TN
Dale Hollow Lake
Douglas Reservoir
J. Percy Priest Lake
Kentucky Lake
Norris Lake
Pine Lake
Ridgetop Lake
Tellico Lake
Clay
Jefferson
Davidson
Henry/Stewart
Union
Henderson
Robertson
Monroe
0487
1487
0087
1036
0187
0561
0587
1536
2
4
1
3
1
2
2
4
2001
2003
2000
2002
2000
2001
2001
2003
36
35
36
36
36
35
36
35
33
59
5
25
18
33
24
36
54.36 85
50.28 83
56.76 86
53.76 88
40.68 83
29.16 88
46.08 86
30.96 84
16
21
33
4
49
24
45
13
29.28
54.36
37.08
45.12
58.8
54
51.84
4.8
10725.65
11138.56
5369.73 |
46342.27 |
3749.23 |
184.41 |
5.41 j
6638.63
TEXAS: 41 LAKES
TX
TX
Arnold Lake
ASCS Lake Riser 638
Houston
Collin
0220
0598
1
2
1999
2002
31
33
10
18
9.84 95
28.08 96
41
40
0.24
9.48
23.46 I
6.77
a
•o
•o
n
3
Q.
X*
O
3
sr
n
vt
t/»
n
(O
3
vt
-------
LAKE I STATISTICAL SAMPLING
LATITUDE
LONGITUDE
LAKE AREA
TX B.A. Steinhagen
Lake
TX Bardwell Reservoir
TX Caddo Lake
TX E.V. Spence
Reservoir
TX : Hubbard Creek
; Reservoir
TX ; Lake Arrowhead
TX : Lake Belton
TX ; Lake Caballo
TX :: Lake Childress
TX ; Lake Coleman
TX Lake Conroe
TX Lake Corpus Christi
TX Lake Falcon
TX Lake Lavon
TX I Lake Lewisville
TX : Lake Logan
TX '•. Lake Palestine
TX • Lake Pat Mayse
TX Lake Proctor
TX Lake Sam Rayburn
TX Lake Tawakoni
TX Lake Texoma
TX Lake Travis
TX Richland Reservoir
i^^^^^^^j^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Tyler/Jasper
Ellis
Marion
Coke
Stephens
Clay
Bell
Zavala
Childress
Coleman
Montgomery
Live Oak
Zapata
Collin
Denton
Navarro
Henderson
Lamar
Comanche
Nacogdoches
Hunt
Grays on
Travis
Navarro/Freestone
'"
0524
0246
1373
0021
0596
0048
0921
0196
0495
0471
1570
0221
1571
0948
1473
0496
0673
0573
1045
0324
0223
0473
0070
1446
2
R
4
1
2
1
3
1
2
2
4
1
4
3
4
2
2
2
3
R
1
2
1
4
2000
2003
2003
2000
2000
2000
2001
2000
2000
2000
2002
1999
2003
2001
2002
2000
2000
2001
2001
2003
2000
2001
2000
2003
30 50
32 17
32 44
31 56
32 46
33 42
31 9
28 54
34 27
32 2
30 28
28 12
26 55
33 7
33 8
32 0
32 11
33 49
32 1
31 7
32 56
33 51
30 24
31 58
^^s^s^s^s^Jt^s^s^ss^ss=
56.29
11.04
56.76
13.56
31.08
37.08
59.40
23.40
40.68
13.20
4.08
4.68
17.76
49.44
57.84
52.20
9.60
37.20
8.04
0.516
57.12
21.96
55.44
47.14
l^CVJ
94
96
94
100
99
98
97
99
100
99
95
97
99
96
96
96
95
95
98
94
96
96
98
96
11
40
7
34
0
22
34
38
20
30
35
55
19
32
59
49
29
35
30
9
0
47
1
13
30.59
10.92
32.16
39.72
24.48
44.40
25.68
57.84
57.12
50.40
8.52
42.24
7.68
39.84
12.48
37.92
17.16
54.24
18.36
37.332
38.52
23.64
32.88
1.92
V™V |
5549
1125.31 |
10794 I
6055 I
5960.07 |
6561 |
1052.24 |
4.95 |
120.72 |
705.13 I
8029.64
7831 |
15801.88 I
80.66
8589.78 |
12.44 I
9533.34 |
2389.57 |
1913.14 |
46336.7
15333.32
23548.87 |
7239.69 I
18124
.
>
•o
•o
n
3
Q.
n
s
Q.
3
lO
£
n
3
vt
-------
STATE LAKE NAME
I COUNTY
LAKE E STATISTICAL SAMPLING
ID I YEAR*t YEAR*
LATITUDE
DEC I MIN
LONGITUDE
SEC j DEC j MIN
1 LAKE AREA
SEC
TX Rogers Lake
TX Stillhouse Hollow
Reservoir
TX Toledo Bend
Reservoir
TX Toledo Bend
Reservoir
TX ; Unnamed lake
Montgomery 0020
Bell 0645
Panola 0974
Sabine 1399
Young 1021
TX '•. Unnamed lake Smith 1098
TX | Unnamed lake Henderson 0998
TX ; Unnamed lake
TX : Unnamed lake
TX I Unnamed lake
TX Unnamed lake
TX Unnamed lake
TX Unnamed lake
TX Unnamed lake
TX : Wright Patman Lake
Nacogdoches 1049
Hopkins 1073
Karnes 1395
Mcculloch 1421
Collin 1498
Ellis 1370
Montague 1523
Bowie 0973
1
2
3
4
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
3
1999
2000
2002
2002
2001
2001
2002
2002
2002
2002
2002
2002
2003
2003
2003
30 11
31 0
32 1
31 31
33 23
32 34
32 4
31 33
33 6
28 56
31 18
33 11
32 14
33 29
33 17
6.36
22.32
39.72
22.80
43.80
5.52
54.48
15.12
4.32
11.40
57.24
22.56
28.32
19.32
3.84
95
97
94
93
98
95
96
94
95
98
99
96
96
97
94
23
36
9
46
40
30
2
33
31
0
14
21
49
36
19
14.64
31.32
57.24
16.32
37.56
57.96
20.40
7.92
55.20
58.32
0.60
46.08
17.40
39.60
55.56
9.31
2663.76 |
4.96
67141.13
8.72 |
6.07 |
10.27 |
3.24 |
5.18 |
8.01 |
5.97 |
8.58
9.12
5.38 |
11360.46 |
UTAH: 5 LAKES
UT : Gunlock Reservoir
UT : Olsen Slough
UT Strawberry Reservoir
UT Unnamed lake
UT Utah Lake
Washington 0102
Sanpete 0526
Wasatch 1051
Cache 0927
Utah 1476
1
2
3
3
4
2000
2003
2002
2003
2002
37 15
39 4
40 11
41 49
40 12
42.48
14.52
13.56
53.4
8.856
113
111
111
111
111
46
50
8
53
48
31.8
15.72
41.64
17.88
26.208
100.83 I
14.5 I
3171.67
6.96 |
39231 I
I VERMONT: 2 LAKES j
VT Lake Whitingham
VT LakeWilloughby
Windham 0093
Orleans 0942
1
3
2000
2002
42 49
44 44
41.52
52.8
72
72
53
3
29.4
33.12
1564.85
670.01 |
a
•o
•o
n
3
Q.
X*
O
3
sr
n
-------
LAKE I STATISTICAL SAMPLING
STATE I LAKE NAME
!COUNTY
ID
YEAR*f
YEAR*
LATITUDE
DEC I MIN ,
| LONGITUDE
SEC I DEC I MIN ,
SEC
LAKE AREA
(HA)
VIRGINIA: 10 LAKES
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
Banister Lake
Big Lake
Griggs Pond
John H. Kerr
Reservoir
Lake Anna
Lake Caroline
Lake Chesdin
Lone Star Lake
Unnamed lake
Unnamed lake
Halifax
Halifax
Henrico
Mecklenburg
Louisa
Caroline
Chesterfield
Suffolk
Caroline
Prince William
1089
0512
0614
0314
0064
0264
1539
0964
0090
0914
3
2
2
R
1
R
4
3
1
3
2001
2000
2000
2003
1999
2003
2002
2001
2001
2001
36
36
37
36
38
37
37
36
37
38
47
40
25
33
3
59
15
52
58
49
14.28
55.2
23.88
54.72
51.84
23.28
43.2
1.56
1.92
14.52
78
79
77
78
77
77
77
76
77
77
57
5
18
28
50
31
36
34
18
42
14.76
25.08
37.44
36.48
37.68
35.4
8.64
13.44
43.92
14.04
154.42 |
10.42 I
5.81 I
16907.08 |
5254.27 I
111.22
1315.57
13.14 I
10.88
2.99
WASHINGTON: 14 LAKES
WA
WA
WA
WA
WA
WA
WA
WA
WA
WA
WA
WA
WA
Buffalo Lake
Calligan Lake
Crescent Lake
Dorothy Lake
Frenchman Hills
Lake
Keechelus Lake
Lake Chelan
Lake Nahwatzel
LakeWallula
Okanogan
King
Clallam
King
Grant
Kittitas
Chelan
Mason
Benton
Lone Lake Island
Patterson Lake Okanogan
Pend Oreille River
Potholes Reservoir
Pend Oreille
Grant
1379
1554
0202
0654
0179
0004
0504
0279
1479
0979
0304
1354
1054
4
4
1
2
1
1
2
R
4
3
R
4
3
2002
2002
1999
2000
1999
2001
2000
2003
2003
2001
2003
2002
2001
48
47
48
47
46
47
48
47
46
48
48
48
46
3
36
5
35
58
20
1
14
0
1
27
25
59
47.016
18.54
5.316
3.408
54.876
2.94
33.96
35.34
17.208
17.472
31.896
48
12.48
118
121
123
121
119
121
120
123
118
122
120
117
119
53
39
46
22
35
21
19
19
58
27
14
17
19
14.496
57.168
2.712
59.88
17.772
34.056
55.38
56.532
54.156
34.812
40.308
33.072
19.992
226.24 |
116.96 |
1995.24 I
101.93 I
138.34 I
955.35 |
13091 I
111.16 |
12960.93 I
34.21 |
51.6 |
935.8 I
11333
.
•o
•o
n
3
Q.
vt
t/»
n
3
vt
-------
LATITUDE
LONGITUDE
STATE 1 LAKE NAME j COUNTY
WA
Rimrock Lake
Yakima
LAKE i STATISTICAL SAMPLING I
ID i YEAR*f , YEAR* I DEC
0529
2
2000
46
MIN ( SEC
38
25.08
-, .- | LAKE AREA |
DEC i MIN ( SEC 1 (HA)
121
9
42.444
951.97
WEST VIRGINIA: 1 LAKE
WV
Summersville Lake
Nicholas
0637
2
2003
38
14
27.24
80
51
15.12
843.74 |
WISCONSIN: 18 LAKES
Wl
Wl
Wl
Wl
Wl
Wl
Wl
Wl
Wl
Wl
Wl
Wl
Wl
Wl
Wl
Wl
Wl
Wl
Big Gibson Lake
Castle Rock Lake
Hatch Lake
Irogami (Fish) Lake
Keyes Lake
Lake DuBay/Big Eau
Pleine Reservoir
Lake Winnebago
Lake Winter
Pacwawong Lake
Pewaukee Lake
Rainbow Flowage
Spirit River Flowage
Sweeney Lake
Turtle Flambeau
Flowage
Warner Lake
Whitefish Lake
Wolf Lake
Yellow River Barren
Flowage #3
Vilas
Adams/Juneau
Waupaca
Waushara
Florence
Marathon
Winnebago
Sawyer
Sawyer
Waukesha
Oneida
Lincoln
Oneida
Iron
Burnett
Sawyer
Fond Du Lac
Barren
1084
0458
0983
0008
0259
0208
0666
0133
0958
1566
0308
0283
0134
0608
0058
0258
0291
1058
3
2
3
1
R
1
2
1
3
4
R
R
1
2
1
R
R
3
2002
2001
2003
2001
2003
2002
2003
2001
2002
2003
2003
2003
2003
2001
2002
2003
2003
2002
46
43
44
44
45
44
44
45
46
43
45
45
45
46
45
45
43
45
8
56
31
3
53
42
0
48
9
4
51
26
51
5
47
51
51
24
15.36
6.72
50.52
57.24
58.2
0
7.2
42.12
1.8
22.44
32.4
38.76
42.84
8.52
49.2
47.52
51.48
48.6
89
89
89
89
88
89
88
90
91
88
89
89
89
90
92
91
88
91
33
59
6
13
18
40
24
59
20
18
30
49
35
10
13
26
12
51
9.72
9.6
52.56
56.28
23.76
48
56.52
3.48
21.84
25.92
51.84
24.24
21.84
8.724
19.56
36.24
28.44
57.24
48.45 |
5010.01 I
46.13 I
116.45 |
76.26 I
5356.14 |
53756.72 |
110.43
76.05 |
984.62 I
1291.37
640.24 [
77.73 [
7648.59 |
71.36 |
322.36 |
33.84 |
20.56 |
•o
•o
n
3
Q.
X*
O
3
sr
n
vt
t/»
n
a
(O
3
vt
-------
LATITUDE
LONGITUDE
STATE
WY
WY
WY
WY
WY
WY
LAKE NAME
Baptiste Lake
Buffalo Bill Reservoir
Lake 79
Lake DeSmet
Lewis Lake
Yellowstone Lake
| LAKE
COUNTY [ ID
Fremont 0527
Park 0528
Fremont 0052
Johnson 1478
Teton 0602
Teton 1078
STATISTICAL
YEAR*f
WYOMIh
2
2
1
4
2
3
SAMPLING
YEAR*
JG: 6 LAKES
2001
2000
2001
2001
2003
2003
DEC
42
44
43
44
44
44
MlN
52
29
0
29
17
27
SEC j DEC
21.36 109
33 109
30.24 109
3.48 106
59.28 : 110
17.532 ! 110
MlN
18
15
19
45
37
21
SEC
18
30.96
58.8
12.24
39.72
58.428
LAKE AREA
("A) i
73.34
1384.63
4.04
821.12
1115.92
35223.98
.
•o
•o
n
3
Q.
* "Statistical Year" indicates the annual statistical subset that provides a nationally-representative sample (Sec. 2.2.2.). "Sampling Year" indicates the calendar year during
which the samples were collected.
t "R" indicates a reserve lake. Reserve lakes were added in the final year of sampling, since the initial list of 900 lakes contained a larger than expected number of lakes that
did not meet the criteria for inclusion in the study.
vt
t/»
n
3
vt
-------
The National Study of Chemical Residues in Lake Fish Tissue
Appendix A: National Lake Fish Tissue Study Sampling Locations
A-24
-------
The National Study of Chemical Residues in Lake Fish Tissue
Appendix B
Target Chemicals
-------
-------
The National Study of Chemical Residues in Lake Fish Tissue
Appendix B: Target Chemicals
CHEMICAL
CROUP/
METHOD
Mercury
Method 1631 B
(1 chemical)
Arsenic
Method 1632A
(5 chemicals)
PCBs
Method 1668A
(126 individual
congeners plus
33 congener
groups of 2 to
6 congeners)
CHEMICALS
Mercury
Arsenate
Arsenite
Total Inorganic Arsenic
Dimethylarsonic Acid (DMA)
Monomethylarsonic Acid (MMA)
PCB-1
PCB-2
PCB-3
PCB-4
PCB-5
PCB-6
PCB-7
PCB-8
PCB-9
PCB-10
PCB-11
PCB-12+13
PCB-14
PCB-15
PCB-16
PCB-17
PCB-18+30
PCB-19
PCB-20+28
PCB-21+33
PCB-22
PCB-23
PCB-24
PCB-25
PCB-26+29
PCB-27
PCB-31
PCB-32
PCB-34
PCB-35
PCB-36
PCB-37
PCB-38
PCB-39
PCB-40+41+71
PCB-42
PCB-43
PCB-44+47+65
CAS
NUMBER
7439-97-6
17428-41-0
22569-72-8
75-60-5
124-58-3
METHOD
DETECTION LIMIT
(MDL)1
0.521 ng/g (ppb)
0.03 |jg/g (ppm)
0.02 |jg/g (ppm)
0.03 |jg/g (ppm)
0.04 |jg/g (ppm)
0.01 |jg/g (ppm)
0.8 ng/kg (ppt)
0.8 ng/kg (ppt)
0.6 ng/kg (ppt)
0.5 ng/kg (ppt)
0.7 ng/kg (ppt)
0.3 ng/kg (ppt)
0.4 ng/kg (ppt)
1.3 ng/kg (ppt)
0.5 ng/kg (ppt)
0.7 ng/kg (ppt)
1.0 ng/kg (ppt)
1.0 ng/kg (ppt)
0.5 ng/kg (ppt)
0.4 ng/kg (ppt)
1.0 ng/kg (ppt)
1.0 ng/kg (ppt)
1.8 ng/kg (ppt)
0.1 ng/kg (ppt)
4.2 ng/kg (ppt)
1.0 ng/kg (ppt)
0.2 ng/kg (ppt)
0.6 ng/kg (ppt)
0.8 ng/kg (ppt)
0.6 ng/kg (ppt)
3.5 ng/kg (ppt)
0.7 ng/kg (ppt)
0.5 ng/kg (ppt)
0.6 ng/kg (ppt)
0.5 ng/kg (ppt)
0.4 ng/kg (ppt)
0.5 ng/kg (ppt)
0.2 ng/kg (ppt)
0.4 ng/kg (ppt)
0.5 ng/kg (ppt)
1.6 ng/kg (ppt)
0.7 ng/kg (ppt)
1.4 ng/kg (ppt)
4.3 ng/kg (ppt)
MINIMUM
LEVEL (ML)
(QUANTITATION
LIMIT)1 I
2 ng/g (ppb)
0.1 |jg/g (ppm)
0.1 |jg/g (ppm)
0.1 |jg/g (ppm)
0.1 |jg/g (ppm)
0.05 |jg/g (ppm)
2.0 ng/kg (ppt)
2.0 ng/kg (ppt)
2.0 ng/kg (ppt)
2.0 ng/kg (ppt) |
2.0 ng/kg (ppt) |
1.0 ng/kg (ppt)
1.0 ng/kg (ppt)
5.0 ng/kg (ppt) |
2.0 ng/kg (ppt) |
2.0 ng/kg (ppt) |
2.0 ng/kg (ppt)
2.0 ng/kg (ppt)
2.0 ng/kg (ppt)
1.0 ng/kg (ppt) |
2.0 ng/kg (ppt) |
2.0 ng/kg (ppt)
5.0 ng/kg (ppt)
0.5 ng/kg (ppt)
10.0 ng/kg (ppt)
2.0 ng/kg (ppt) |
0.5 ng/kg (ppt) |
2.0 ng/kg (ppt)
2.0 ng/kg (ppt)
2.0 ng/kg (ppt)
10.0 ng/kg (ppt)
2.0 ng/kg (ppt) |
2.0 ng/kg (ppt) |
2.0 ng/kg (ppt)
2.0 ng/kg (ppt)
1.0 ng/kg (ppt) |
2.0 ng/kg (ppt) |
0.5 ng/kg (ppt)
1.0 ng/kg (ppt)
2.0 ng/kg (ppt)
5.0 ng/kg (ppt)
2.0 ng/kg (ppt)
5.0 ng/kg (ppt)
10.0 ng/kg (ppt)
B-l
-------
The National Study of Chemical Residues in Lake Fish Tissue
Appendix B: Target Chemicals
CHEMICAL
CROUP/
METHOD
PCBs
Method 1668A
(126 individual
congeners plus
33 congener
groups of 2 to
6 congeners)
(continued)
CHEMICALS
PCB-45+51
PCB-46
PCB-48
PCB-49+69
PCB-50+53
PCB-52
PCB-54
PCB-55
PCB-56
PCB-57
PCB-58
PCB-59+62+75
PCB-60
PCB-61 +70+74+76
PCB-63
PCB-64
PCB-66
PCB-67
PCB-68
PCB-72
PCB-73
PCB-77
PCB-78
PCB-79
PCB-80
PCB-81
PCB-82
PCB-83+99
PCB-84
PCB-85+116+117
PCB-86+87+97+108+119+125
PCB-88+91
PCB-89
PCB-90+101+113
PCB-92
PCB-93+95+98+100+102
PCB-94
PCB-96
PCB-103
PCB-104
PCB-105
PCB-106
PCB-107+124
PCB-109
PCB-110+115
PCB-111
CAS
NUMBER
METHOD
DETECTION LIMIT
(MDL)1
2.2 ng/kg (ppt)
1.2 ng/kg (ppt)
0.8 ng/kg (ppt)
1 .4 ng/kg (ppt)
3.2 ng/kg (ppt)
4.3 ng/kg (ppt)
0.3 ng/kg (ppt)
0.5 ng/kg (ppt)
0.5 ng/kg (ppt)
0.6 ng/kg (ppt)
0.5 ng/kg (ppt)
2.0 ng/kg (ppt)
0.4 ng/kg (ppt)
2.3 ng/kg (ppt)
0.7 ng/kg (ppt)
0.6 ng/kg (ppt)
5.2 ng/kg (ppt)
0.6 ng/kg (ppt)
0.4 ng/kg (ppt)
0.5 ng/kg (ppt)
0.7 ng/kg (ppt)
4.9 ng/kg (ppt)
0.7 ng/kg (ppt)
0.8 ng/kg (ppt)
0.8 ng/kg (ppt)
0.5 ng/kg (ppt)
0.6 ng/kg (ppt)
1.0 ng/kg (ppt)
0.9 ng/kg (ppt)
1.0 ng/kg (ppt)
4.5 ng/kg (ppt)
0.8 ng/kg (ppt)
0.6 ng/kg (ppt)
3.7 ng/kg (ppt)
0.1 ng/kg (ppt)
2.1 ng/kg (ppt)
0.6 ng/kg (ppt)
1.0 ng/kg (ppt)
0.4 ng/kg (ppt)
3.6 ng/kg (ppt)
5.3 ng/kg (ppt)
0.4 ng/kg (ppt)
1.0 ng/kg (ppt)
0.5 ng/kg (ppt)
0.5 ng/kg (ppt)
0.4 ng/kg (ppt)
MINIMUM
LEVEL (ML)
(QUANTITATION
LIMIT)1 I
5.0 ng/kg (ppt)
5.0 ng/kg (ppt)
2.0 ng/kg (ppt)
5.0 ng/kg (ppt)
10.0 ng/kg (ppt)
10.0 ng/kg (ppt)
1.0 ng/kg (ppt)
2.0 ng/kg (ppt)
2.0 ng/kg (ppt)
2.0 ng/kg (ppt)
2.0 ng/kg (ppt)
5.0 ng/kg (ppt)
1.0 ng/kg (ppt)
10.0 ng/kg (ppt)
2.0 ng/kg (ppt)
2.0 ng/kg (ppt)
20.0 ng/kg (ppt)
2.0 ng/kg (ppt)
1.0 ng/kg (ppt)
2.0 ng/kg (ppt)
2.0 ng/kg (ppt)
20.0 ng/kg (ppt)
2.0 ng/kg (ppt)
2.0 ng/kg (ppt)
2.0 ng/kg (ppt)
2.0 ng/kg (ppt)
2.0 ng/kg (ppt)
2.0 ng/kg (ppt)
2.0 ng/kg (ppt)
2.0 ng/kg (ppt)
20.0 ng/kg (ppt)
2.0 ng/kg (ppt)
2.0 ng/kg (ppt)
10.0 ng/kg (ppt)
0.5 ng/kg (ppt)
5.0 ng/kg (ppt)
2.0 ng/kg (ppt)
2.0 ng/kg (ppt)
1.0 ng/kg (ppt)
10.0 ng/kg (ppt)
20.0 ng/kg (ppt)
1.0 ng/kg (ppt)
2.0 ng/kg (ppt)
2.0 ng/kg (ppt)
2.0 ng/kg (ppt)
1.0 ng/kg (ppt)
B-2
-------
The National Study of Chemical Residues in Lake Fish Tissue
Appendix B: Target Chemicals
CHEMICAL
CROUP/
METHOD
PCBs
Method 1668A
(126 individual
congeners plus
33 congener
groups of 2 to
6 congeners)
(continued)
CHEMICALS
B™™™™^^
PCB-112
PCB-114
PCB-118
PCB-120
PCB-121
PCB-122
PCB-123
PCB-126
PCB-127
PCB-128+166
PCB-129+138+160+163
PCB-130
PCB-131
PCB-132
PCB-133
PCB-134+143
PCB-135+151+154
PCB-136
PCB-137
PCB-139+140
PCB-141
PCB-142
PCB-144
PCB-145
PCB-146
PCB-147+149
PCB-148
PCB-150
PCB-152
PCB-153+168
PCB-155
PCB-156+157
PCB-158
PCB-159
PCB-161
PCB-162
PCB-164
PCB-165
PCB-167
PCB-169
PCB-170
PCB-171+173
PCB-172
PCB-174
PCB-175
PCB-176
CAS
NUMBER
METHOD
DETECTION LIMIT
(MDL)1
0.6 ng/kg (ppt)
0.4 ng/kg (ppt)
4.9 ng/kg (ppt)
0.5 ng/kg (ppt)
0.6 ng/kg (ppt)
0.3 ng/kg (ppt)
1.1 ng/kg (ppt)
5.1 ng/kg (ppt)
0.5 ng/kg (ppt)
3.7 ng/kg (ppt)
5.4 ng/kg (ppt)
0.4 ng/kg (ppt)
0.6 ng/kg (ppt)
0.8 ng/kg (ppt)
0.5 ng/kg (ppt)
0.8 ng/kg (ppt)
4.0 ng/kg (ppt)
0.6 ng/kg (ppt)
0.4 ng/kg (ppt)
0.8 ng/kg (ppt)
0.7 ng/kg (ppt)
0.5 ng/kg (ppt)
0.7 ng/kg (ppt)
0.5 ng/kg (ppt)
0.4 ng/kg (ppt)
0.6 ng/kg (ppt)
0.6 ng/kg (ppt)
0.4 ng/kg (ppt)
0.4 ng/kg (ppt)
4.1 ng/kg (ppt)
0.3 ng/kg (ppt)
0.5 ng/kg (ppt)
0.4 ng/kg (ppt)
0.4 ng/kg (ppt)
0.5 ng/kg (ppt)
0.4 ng/kg (ppt)
0.3 ng/kg (ppt)
0.4 ng/kg (ppt)
0.2 ng/kg (ppt)
0.3 ng/kg (ppt)
5.0 ng/kg (ppt)
0.8 ng/kg (ppt)
0.5 ng/kg (ppt)
0.6 ng/kg (ppt)
0.6 ng/kg (ppt)
0.5 ng/kg (ppt)
MINIMUM
LEVEL (ML)
(QUANTITATION
LIMIT)1 |
2.0 ng/kg (ppt)
1.0 ng/kg (ppt)
20.0 ng/kg (ppt)
2.0 ng/kg (ppt)
2.0 ng/kg (ppt)
1.0 ng/kg (ppt)
2.0 ng/kg (ppt)
20.0 ng/kg (ppt)
2.0 ng/kg (ppt)
10.0 ng/kg (ppt)
20.0 ng/kg (ppt)
1.0 ng/kg (ppt)
2.0 ng/kg (ppt)
2.0 ng/kg (ppt)
2.0 ng/kg (ppt)
2.0 ng/kg (ppt)
10.0 ng/kg (ppt)
2.0 ng/kg (ppt)
1.0 ng/kg (ppt)
2.0 ng/kg (ppt)
2.0 ng/kg (ppt)
2.0 ng/kg (ppt)
2.0 ng/kg (ppt)
2.0 ng/kg (ppt)
1.0 ng/kg (ppt)
2.0 ng/kg (ppt)
2.0 ng/kg (ppt)
1.0 ng/kg (ppt)
1.0 ng/kg (ppt)
10.0 ng/kg (ppt)
1.0 ng/kg (ppt)
2.0 ng/kg (ppt)
1.0 ng/kg (ppt)
1.0 ng/kg (ppt)
2.0 ng/kg (ppt)
1.0 ng/kg (ppt)
1.0 ng/kg (ppt)
1.0 ng/kg (ppt)
1.0 ng/kg (ppt)
1.0 ng/kg (ppt)
20.0 ng/kg (ppt)
2.0 ng/kg (ppt)
2.0 ng/kg (ppt)
2.0 ng/kg (ppt)
2.0 ng/kg (ppt)
2.0 ng/kg (ppt)
B-3
-------
The National Study of Chemical Residues in Lake Fish Tissue
Appendix B: Target Chemicals
CHEMICAL
CROUP/
METHOD
PCBs
Method 1668A
(126 individual
congeners plus
33 congener
groups of 2 to
6 congeners)
(continued)
Dioxins/
Furans2
Method 1613B
(17 chemicals)
CHEMICALS
PCB-177
PCB-178
PCB-179
PCB-180+193
PCB-181
PCB-182
PCB-183+185
PCB-184
PCB-186
PCB-187
PCB-188
PCB-189
PCB-190
PCB-191
PCB-192
PCB-194
PCB-195
PCB-196
PCB-1 97+200
PCB-198+199
PCB-201
PCB-202
PCB-203
PCB-204
PCB-205
PCB-206
PCB-207
PCB-208
PCB-209
2,3,7,8-TCDD
1,2,3,7,8-PeCDD
1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDD
1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDD
1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDD
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD
OCDD
2,3,7,8-TCDF
1,2,3,7,8-PeCDF
2,3,4,7,8-PeCDF
1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDF
1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDF
1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDF
2,3,4,6,7,8-HxCDF
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDF
1,2,3,4,7,8,9-HpCDF
OCDF
CAS
NUMBER
1746-01-6
40321-76-4
39227-28-6
57653-85-7
19408-74-3
35822-46-9
3268-87-9
51207-31-9
57117-41-6
57117-31-4
70648-26-9
57117.44.9
72918-21-9
60851-34-5
67562-39-4
55673-89-7
39001-02-0
METHOD
DETECTION LIMIT
(MDL)1
0.3 ng/kg (ppt)
0.8 ng/kg (ppt)
0.4 ng/kg (ppt)
4.5 ng/kg (ppt)
0.5 ng/kg (ppt)
0.8 ng/kg (ppt)
1.1 ng/kg (ppt)
0.6 ng/kg (ppt)
0.7 ng/kg (ppt)
4.3 ng/kg (ppt)
4.6 ng/kg (ppt)
0.4 ng/kg (ppt)
0.3 ng/kg (ppt)
0.5 ng/kg (ppt)
0.3 ng/kg (ppt)
1.1 ng/kg (ppt)
4.9 ng/kg (ppt)
0.8 ng/kg (ppt)
0.8 ng/kg (ppt)
0.8 ng/kg (ppt)
4.9 ng/kg (ppt)
0.5 ng/kg (ppt)
0.8 ng/kg (ppt)
0.9 ng/kg (ppt)
0.5 ng/kg (ppt)
4.5 ng/kg (ppt)
0.5 ng/kg (ppt)
0.5 ng/kg (ppt)
5.0 ng/kg (ppt)
0.01 ng/kg (ppt)
0.06 ng/kg (ppt)
0.06 ng/kg (ppt)
y ;j \r r /
0.04 ng/kg (ppt)
y ;j \r* r /
0.04 ng/kg (ppt)
y ;j \n r /
0.03 ng/kg (ppt)
y .3 \r r /
0.09 ng/kg (ppt)
0.03 ng/kg (ppt)
0.04 ng/kg (ppt)
0.06 ng/kg (ppt)
0.04 ng.kg (ppt)
3 3 \r r /
0.04 ng/kg (ppt)
y .3 \r r /
0.04 ng/kg (ppt)
3' 3 \r r /
0.06 ng/kg (ppt)
3' 3 \r r /
0.05 ng/kg (ppt)
y .3 \r r /
0.05 ng/kg (ppt)
3' 3 \r r /
0.2 ng/kg (ppt)
MINIMUM
LEVEL (ML)
(QUANTITATION
LIMIT)1 I
1.0 ng/kg (ppt)
2.0 ng/kg (ppt)
1.0 ng/kg (ppt)
10.0 ng/kg (ppt)
2.0 ng/kg (ppt)
2.0 ng/kg (ppt)
5.0 ng/kg (ppt) |
2.0 ng/kg (ppt) |
2.0 ng/kg (ppt) |
10.0 ng/kg (ppt)
10.0 ng/kg (ppt)
1.0 ng/kg (ppt)
1.0 ng/kg (ppt) |
2.0 ng/kg (ppt) |
1.0 ng/kg (ppt)
5.0 ng/kg (ppt)
20.0 ng/kg (ppt)
2.0 ng/kg (ppt)
2.0 ng/kg (ppt)
2.0 ng/kg (ppt)
20.0 ng/kg (ppt)
2.0 ng/kg (ppt)
2.0 ng/kg (ppt)
2.0 ng/kg (ppt)
2.0 ng/kg (ppt)
10.0 ng/kg (ppt)
2.0 ng/kg (ppt)
2.0 ng/kg (ppt) |
20.0 ng/kg (ppt) |
0.1 ng/kg (ppt)
0.5 ng/kg (ppt)
0.5 ng/kg (ppt) i
,3' 3 \r r / |
0.5 ng/kg (ppt) i
,3' 3 \r r / |
0.5 ng/kg (ppt) i
,3' 3 \r r / |
0.5 ng/kg (ppt) i
,3' 3 \r r / |
1.0 ng/kg (ppt)
0.1 ng/kg (ppt) |
0.5 ng/kg (ppt) |
0.5 ng/kg (ppt)
0.5 ng/kg (ppt) i
y .3 \r r / i
0.5 ng/kg (ppt) i
y .3 \r r / i
0.5 ng/kg (ppt) i
y .3 \r r / i
0.5 ng/kg (ppt) i
y 3 \r r / i
0.5 ng/kg (ppt) i
y 3 \r r / i
0.5 ng/kg (ppt) i
y 3 \r r / i
1.0 ng/kg (ppt)
B-4
-------
The National Study of Chemical Residues in Lake Fish Tissue
Appendix B: Target Chemicals
CHEMICAL
CROUP/
METHOD
Organochlorine
Pesticides3
Method 1656A
(37 chemicals)
Organo-
phosphate
Pesticides
Method 1657A
(9 chemicals )
CHEMICALS
2,4'-DDD
2,4'-DDE
2,4'-DDT
4,4'-DDD
4,4'-DDE
4,4'-DDT
Aldrin
Chlordane, alpha-
Chlordane, gamma-
Dicofol
Dieldrin
Endosulfan 1
Endosulfan II
Endosulfan Sulfate
Endrin
Ethalfluralin
Heptachlor
Heptachlor Epoxide
Hexachlorocyclohexane (BHC), alpha-
Hexachlorocyclohexane (BHC), beta-
Hexachlorocyclohexane (BHC), delta-
Hexachlorocyclohexane (BHC), gamma-
Isodrin
Kepone
Methoxychlor
Mi rex
Nonachlor, cis-
Nonachlor, trans-
Octachlorostyrene
Oxychlordane
Pendimethalin
Pentachloroanisole
Pentachloronitrobenzene
Permethrin 1
Permethrin II
Toxaphene
Trifluralin
Chlorpyriphos
Diazinon
Disulfoton
Disulfoton Sulfone
Ethion
Paraoxon
Parathion, Ethyl-
Terbufos
Terbufos Sulfone
CAS
NUMBER
53-19-0
3424-82-6
789-02-6
72-54-8
72-55-9
50-29-3
309-00-2
5103-71-9
5566-34-7
115-32-2
60-57-1
959-98-8
33213-65-9
1031-07-8
72-20-8
55283-68-6
76-44-8
1024-57-3
319-84-6
319-85-7
319-86-8
58-89-9
465-73-6
143-50-0
72-43-5
2385-85-5
5103-73-1
39765-80-5
29082-74-4
26880-48-8
40487-42-1
1825-21-4
82-68-8
61949-76-6
61949-77-7
8001-35-2
1582-09-8
2921-88-2
333-41-5
298-04-4
2497-06-5
563-12-2
311-45-5
56-38-2
13071-79-9
56070-16-7
METHOD
DETECTION LIMIT
(MDL)1
0.38 Mg/kg (ppb)
0.52 ug/kg (ppb)
0.74 ug/kg (ppb)
0.66 ug/kg (ppb)
2.178 ug/kg (ppb)
1.814 ug/kg (ppb)
0.38 ug/kg (ppb)
0.82 ug/kg (ppb)
0.488 ug/kg (ppb)
1 6.24 ug/kg (ppb)
0.44 ug/kg (ppb)
1.22 ug/kg (ppb)
10.3 ug/kg (ppb)
4.16 ug/kg (ppb)
2.86 ug/kg (ppb)
1.67 ug/kg (ppb)
1.79 ug/kg (ppb)
0.52 ug/kg (ppb)
4.7 ug/kg (ppb)
1.13 ug/kg (ppb)
1.5 ug/kg (ppb)
0.606 ug/kg (ppb)
1.58 ug/kg (ppb)
1 2.23 ug/kg (ppb)
7.106 ug/kg (ppb)
1.52 ug/kg (ppb)
1.95 ug/kg (ppb)
1.48 Mg/kg (ppb)
0.83 Mg/kg (ppb)
1.94 ug/kg (ppb)
6.21 |jg/kg (ppb)
1.312Mg/kg(ppb)
0.76 Mg/kg (ppb)
25 |jg/kg (ppb)
21 Mg/kg (ppb)
20 Mg/kg (ppb)
2.98 Mg/kg (ppb)
59 Mg/kg (ppb)
40 Mg/kg (ppb)
161 Mg/kg (ppb)
275 Mg/kg (ppb)
254 Mg/kg (ppb)
121 Mg/kg (ppb)
125 Mg/kg (ppb)
286 Mg/kg (ppb)
73 Mg/kg (ppb)
MINIMUM
LEVEL (ML)
(QUANTITATION
LIMIT)1
2.0 Mg/kg (ppb)
2.0 Mg/kg (ppb)
2.0 Mg/kg (ppb)
2.0 Mg/kg (ppb)
4.0 Mg/kg (ppb)
4.0 Mg/kg (ppb)
2.0 Mg/kg (ppb)
2.0 Mg/kg (ppb)
2.0 Mg/kg (ppb)
40.0 Mg/kg (ppb)
1.0 Mg/kg (ppb)
4.0 Mg/kg (ppb)
40.0 Mg/kg (ppb)
10.0 Mg/kg (ppb)
10.0 Mg/kg (ppb)
4.0 Mg/kg (ppb)
2.0 Mg/kg (ppb)
2.0 Mg/kg (ppb)
10.0 Mg/kg (ppb)
4.0 Mg/kg (ppb)
4.0 Mg/kg (ppb)
2.0 Mg/kg (ppb)
4.0 Mg/kg (ppb)
40.0 Mg/kg (ppb)
20.0 Mg/kg (ppb)
4.0 Mg/kg (ppb)
4.0 Mg/kg (ppb)
4.0 Mg/kg (ppb)
2.0 Mg/kg (ppb)
4.0 Mg/kg (ppb)
20.0 Mg/kg (ppb)
4.0 Mg/kg (ppb)
2.0 Mg/kg (ppb)
100.0 Mg/kg (ppb)
40.0 Mg/kg (ppb)
100.0 Mg/kg (ppb)
10.0 Mg/kg (ppb)
200.0 Mg/kg (ppb)
100.0 Mg/kg (ppb)
500.0 Mg/kg (ppb)
1000.0 Mg/kg (ppb)
1000.0 Mg/kg (ppb)
500.0 Mg/kg (ppb)
500.0 Mg/kg (ppb)
1000.0 Mg/kg (ppb)
200.0 Mg/kg (ppb)
B-5
-------
The National Study of Chemical Residues in Lake Fish Tissue
Appendix B: Target Chemicals
CHEMICAL
CROUP/
METHOD
Other
Semivolatile
Organics
Method 1625
(40 chemicals)
CHEMICALS
____________________j
1, 2,4,5 -Tetrachlorobenzene
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene (TCB)
1,2-Dichlorobenzene
1,3-Dichlorobenzene
1,4-Dichlorobenzene(p)
2,4,5-Trichlorophenol
2,4,6-Tris (1,1-Dimethylethyl) Phenol
3,3'-Dichlorobenzidine
4-Bromophenyl Phenyl Ether
4,4'-Methylene bis (2-Chloroaniline)
Acenaphthene (PAH)
Acenaphthylene
Anthracene (PAH)
Benzo[a]Anthracene (PAH)
Benzo[a]Pyrene (PAH)
Benzo(b)Fluoranthene (PAH)
Benzo(ghi)Perylene (PAH)
BenzoQFIuoranthene (PAH)
Benzo(k)Fluoranthene (PAH)
Bis (2-ethylhexyl) Phthalate
Butyl Benzyl Phthalate
Chrysene (PAH)
Di-n-Butyl Phthalate
Dibenz[a,h]Anthrancene (PAH)
Diethylstilbestrol (DES)
Fluoranthene(PAH)
Fluorene(PAH)
Hexachlorobenzene
Hexachlorobutadiene
lndeno(1,2,3-cd)Pyrene (PAH)
Naphthalene (PAH)
Nitrobenzene
Nonylphenol4
Pentachlorobenzene
Pentachlorophenol
Perylene (PAH)
Phenanthrene (PAH)
Phenol
Pyrene (PAH)
Tetrabromobisphenol A
CAS
NUMBER
95-94-3
120-82-1
95-50-1
541-73-1
106-46-7
95-95-4
732-26-3
91-94-1
101-55-3
101-14-4
83-32-9
208-96-8
120-12-7
56-55-3
50-32-8
205-99-2
191-24-2
205-82-3
207-08-9
117-81-7
85-68-7
218-01-9
84-74-2
53-70-3
56-53-1
206-44-0
86-73-7
118-74-1
87-68-3
193-39-5
91-20-3
98-95-3
25154-52-3
608-93-5
87-86-5
198-55-0
85-01-8
108-95-2
129-00-0
79-94-7
METHOD
DETECTION LIMIT
(MDL)1
111 |jg/kg (ppb)
111 Mg/kg (ppb)
111 Mg/kg (ppb)
111 Mg/kg (ppb)
111 Mg/kg (ppb)
111 Mg/kg (ppb)
111 Mg/kg (ppb)
555 Mg/kg (ppb)
111 Mg/kg (ppb)
222 Mg/kg (ppb)
111 Mg/kg (ppb)
111 Mg/kg (ppb)
111 Mg/kg (ppb)
111 Mg/kg (ppb)
111 Mg/kg (ppb)
111 Mg/kg (ppb)
222 Mg/kg (ppb)
111 Mg/kg (ppb)
111 Mg/kg (ppb)
111 Mg/kg (ppb)
111 Mg/kg (ppb)
111 Mg/kg (ppb)
111 Mg/kg (ppb)
111 Mg/kg (ppb)
111 Mg/kg (ppb)
111 Mg/kg (ppb)
111 Mg/kg (ppb)
111 Mg/kg (ppb)
111 Mg/kg (ppb)
222 Mg/kg (ppb)
111 Mg/kg (ppb)
111 Mg/kg (ppb)
111 Mg/kg (ppb)
222 Mg/kg (ppb)
555 Mg/kg (ppb)
111 Mg/kg (ppb)
111 Mg/kg (ppb)
111 Mg/kg (ppb)
111 Mg/kg (ppb)
5550 Mg/kg (ppb)
MINIMUM
LEVEL (ML)
(QUANTITATION
LIMIT)1
333.0 Mg/kg (ppb)
333.0 Mg/kg (ppb)
333.0 Mg/kg (ppb)
333.0 Mg/kg (ppb)
333.0 Mg/kg (ppb)
333.0 Mg/kg (ppb)
333.0 Mg/kg (ppb)
1665.0 Mg/kg (ppb)
333.0 Mg/kg (ppb)
666.0 Mg/kg (ppb)
333.0 Mg/kg (ppb)
333.0 Mg/kg (ppb)
1665.0 Mg/kg (ppb)
333.0 Mg/kg (ppb)
333.0 Mg/kg (ppb)
333.0 Mg/kg (ppb)
666.0 Mg/kg (ppb)
333.0 Mg/kg (ppb)
333.0 Mg/kg (ppb)
333.0 Mg/kg (ppb)
333.0 Mg/kg (ppb)
333.0 Mg/kg (ppb)
333.0 Mg/kg (ppb)
333.0 Mg/kg (ppb)
333.0 Mg/kg (ppb)
333.0 Mg/kg (ppb)
333.0 Mg/kg (ppb)
333.0 Mg/kg (ppb)
333.0 Mg/kg (ppb)
666.0 Mg/kg (ppb)
333.0 Mg/kg (ppb)
333.0 Mg/kg (ppb)
333.0 Mg/kg (ppb)
666.0 Mg/kg (ppb)
1665.0 Mg/kg (ppb)
333.0 Mg/kg (ppb)
333.0 Mg/kg (ppb)
333.0 Mg/kg (ppb)
333.0 Mg/kg (ppb)
16650.0 Mg/kg (ppb)
Notes:
1. See Section 3.1.2 for more information on detection and quantitation limits.
2. Reporting levels for dioxins and furans in this study are ten (10) times lower than the ML specified in Method 1613B.
3. Hexachlorocyclohexane is reported as its individual components: alpha, beta, delta, and gamma BHC. See notation in list.
Note that gamma BHC is also known as Lindane.
4. Nonylphenol is calibrated, calculated, and integrated as a group of nonylphenol isomers, rather than as the single
4-nonylphenol isomer.
B-6
-------
The National Study of Chemical Residues in Lake Fish Tissue
Appendix C
Target Species
-------
The National Study of Chemical Residues in Lake Fish Tissue
Appendix C: Target Species
^
o
UJ JT
U O
K H
£
LL
2-
1|
|o
UJ
0
Qg
^^
r™ VJ
0
UJ
S
UJ
O
Ofi'g'
X £
0^
z
UJ
UJ
S
Z
u
il
SCIENT
UJ
5
z
o
o
u
"v
Os|
PO
Os|
1
PX,
PX,
"•o
Osl
"•o
(
m
"st
« §
38
:1 -2
II
M
C „
If
0 0
Gfi SI
"v
PO
oo
PO
IV
1 —
CM
VO
oo
WO
oo
PO
tisosteidae
isosteus oculatus
s-s-
_l — j
TO
O)
01
2 z
31
v^°^
,- PO 0; 00
PO iv o o
o o wo PO
•^r o iv wo
, CM PO ,
O ' 'wo
PO ^O ' — ^~
CM TJ- WO
O < — WO ^O
vo o oo -*r
PO ^O VO PO
O ^0 O O
<— oo o\ iv
PO PO i— i—
E
3
'S
C
o
"S
•^J
°
.[N
^o
CM CM
•cidae
ostedion canadensi
ostedion canadensi
ostedion vitreum
:a flavescens
v £ £ £ §
t ^ <~^> <~^> CL
_c
u
* OJ S_
)!• 1— ^*1 ^^ ^
y QI QI— o
~i ~i -— —
rtl — ' — ' tu ~~Z~,
tw TO TO > ^
^ hs
m
m osi
,_ i
* — ^~
0s! Q\
O O
^sT 00
OO O
m ^0
PO Osl
S^.2
Iti
(J ^ " •
2 >< ><
goo
to to to
U "-U >-U
If
& U C
UO V
^sT Osl <—
Osl
OO Osl O O\ iO "-O O
•^r 10 o »— ^- o <—
\o osi osj PO r-s, Q o
, , PO i *~~ <— <—
[s^ ro ' ^ ' '
Px, PO T— 00 r^* Osl PO
IX, O LO 00
O *O O O OO "-O O
^~ i~ rx ^~ oo ^~ o
^|- Osl LO Osl i— "^T CM
rx osi rx r-x, o "^r o\
*— T— *— T— Osl Osl ,—
to to
3 3
i s i -g .1 i
ll^lp^l
1 !§^ !•§§.!
ItlsSssg
™ Ql 1^ Ql Ql
is -a .a ^ ^ ^ ^ -a
6 g | §-t & & g
eco^ — Q1-1-^
r c c^.o p .0 .0 £:
* o ^"^ fc^^ °
UQ I^^C^^CL
to ^
TO TO
* re" ^ S ^ -0 2
| | $ « ^ =s | |
V
CM PO PO CM
CM WO ^O O
OO C"N ^t" IV
1 ' oo wo
Tj- CNI ,— O
iv PO PO rsi
wo r\i
O i— O O
iv ^r PO PO
•^t" PO WO PO
O\ WO CM WO
PO CM PO CM
•cichthydae
rone saxatilis
rone chrysops
rone spp,
rone americana
S o o o o
t3333
v
** ~o
•* "^
V
-------
The National Study of Chemical Residues in Lake Fish Tissue
Appendix C: Target Species
i oo i— *o i— f— •
UJ
C.
VO <
CM
i— i— i— i— i— rsi CM -— i— i— i— i— i— ro-— i— o
VVVVV VVV CM
o 2
UJ S
ii
O\ oo ro -— i— CM -— ro-— ko^r-—
•— oo
OOO-— OMUOOOO
o\i^.o*— ^uo^roo
O ' ' ' ' ' O\ IV
i— O\ ui
CM VO O
oo iv o
IV >— o
00, , ,rN
I O '— '— IV O
rsi "i i— i— rsi
O
u!
UJ
O
Z
H<
O
Z
UJ
'-OOOO'-OO'-OUOO
O O
•^ oo
'— omoo
o
C.
O
u
Q
i
O
o
CO
cji
u
oo
<
Z
U
SC
.2 .2
carp/o
s auratus
^
c
o
-Q
O
I
|
f
—
1
11
£
sl
3
=3 "§
1
|a
'
COMMON
§
0
e
i
•u
" E iS °
S" E ^ S
« §"o £
U o ai ai
m
w
C-2
-------
The National Study of Chemical Residues in Lake Fish Tissue
Appendix C: Target Species
C-3
-------
The National Study of Chemical Residues in Lake Fish Tissue
Appendix D
Analytical Methods
-------
-------
The National Study of Chemical Residues in Lake Fish Tissue
Appendix D: Analytical Methods
Analytical Methods
Total mercury (Hg) concentrations were determined by EPA Method 1631, Revision B
(Mercury in Water by Oxidation, Purge and Trap, and Cold Vapor Atomic Fluorescence
Spectrometry) and its Appendix (Digestion Procedures for the Determination of Total
Mercury in Tissue, Sludge, Sediment, and Soil).
Analysis of total mercury in fish tissue samples by Method 1631B involved the following
steps:
1) digesting 0.5 g to 1.5 g of tissue sample and refluxing with 10 mL of concentrated
nitric acid,
2) diluting the digestate to volume (50 or 100 mL) with 0.02N BrCl to ensure complete
oxidation of methylmercury,
3) pipetting aliquots of the diluted digestate into pre-purged SnCl2-containing water,
4) purging Hg(0) from solution onto a gold trap, and
5) thermally desorbing Hg(0) from the gold trap and transferring it to a cold vapor atomic
fluorescence spectrometer for quantification.
The chemical concentration in the fish tissue sample was calculated on a mass basis
(i.e., relative to the mass of the sample extracted).
Total inorganic arsenic, arsenic (III), monomethylarsonic acid (MMA), and dimethylarsinic
acid (DMA) were directly determined by EPA Method 1632, Revision A (Chemical Speciation
of Arsenic in Water and Tissue using Hydride Generation Quartz Furnace Atomic Absorp-
tion Spectrometry). Arsenic (V) was determined by mathematically subtracting the measured
concentration of arsenic (III) from the measured concentration of total inorganic arsenic.
Total arsenic (which includes organic forms such as arsenobetaine) was not measured.
Analysis of the fish tissue samples by Method 1632A involved the following steps:
1) volatilizing Arsenic (III), arsenic (V), MMA, and DMA from solution at a specific pH
after reduction to the corresponding arsines with sodium borohydride,
2) sweeping the volatilized arsines onto a liquid nitrogen cooled chromatographic trap
which, upon warming, allows for a separation of species based on boiling points,
3) sweeping the released arsines by helium carrier gas into a quartz cuvette burner cell,
where they are decomposed to atomic arsenic, and
4) determining arsenic concentrations by atomic absorption spectroscopy.
Strictly speaking, this technique determines the valence states of arsenate (V) and arsenite
(III) rather than the species of inorganic arsenic. The actual species of inorganic arsenic are
assumed to be those predicted by a geochemical equilibrium model.
D-l
-------
The National Study of Chemical Residues in Lake Fish Tissue
Appendix D: Analytical Methods
EPA Method 1668, Revision A (Chlorinated Biphenyls Congeners in Water, Soil, Sediment,
and Tissue by HRGC/HRMS, EPA-821-R-00-002) was used to determine PCB congener
concentrations in tissue samples collected during the study. There are 209 possible
congeners, 12 of which have toxicological significance (i.e., the "toxic" PCBs identified
by the World Health Organization). Method 1668A can unambiguously determine 126
of the 209 congeners as separate chromatographic peaks. The remaining 83 congeners do
not appear as separate peaks, but elute from the gas chromatograph in groups of 2 to 6
congeners that cannot be completely resolved by the instrumentation. Ten of the 12 "toxic"
congeners are resolved, and the remaining two congeners (PCB 156 and PCB 157) elute
as a congener pair. Because PCB 156 and 157 have identical toxicity equivalency factors,
however, it is possible to accurately calculate PCB toxic equivalence based on the 12 toxic
congeners.
Analysis of the full complement of PCB congeners in fish tissue samples by Method 1668A
involved the following steps:
1) drying a 10-g aliquot of a homogenized fish tissue sample with sodium sulfate,
2) spiking the dried fish sample with a labeled standard solution,
3) performing soxhlet extraction of the dried fish sample using 1:1 methylene chloride/
hexane as the extraction solvent,
4) drying the extract with sodium sulfate and concentrating the extract to dryness (to
measure lipid content) using Kuderna-Danish and nitrogen blow-down techniques,
5) re-dissolving the extract and removing lipids by passing the extract through a layered
column of silica gel, potassium silicate, and acid silica gel,
6) completing further clean-up of the extract using back-extraction with a strong base,
acid and/or sodium chloride solution, gel-permeation chromatography, silica gel,
carbon, or Florisil chromatography,
7) re-concentrating the extract using Kuderna-Danish and nitrogen blow-down
techniques, and
8) quantifying the target chemicals in the extract using a gas chromatograph equipped
with a high-resolution mass spectrometer.
The target chemicals were identified by comparing their chromatographic retention times
with those of authentic standards and by comparing the ratio of the abundance of two ions
specific to each chemical with the theoretical ion abundance ratio for that chemical. Concen-
trations were calculated from selected ion current profile areas using either an isotope dilu-
tion or internal standard technique. The efficiency of the clean-up process was monitored by
spiking the extract prior to clean-up with labeled standards (PCBs 81 and 111) and tracking
the final recovery of these standards. The chemical concentration in the fish tissue sample
can be calculated on a mass basis (i.e., relative to the mass of the sample extracted), or lipid
basis (i.e., relative to the lipid content of the sample extracted).
D-2
-------
The National Study of Chemical Residues in Lake Fish Tissue
Appendix D: Analytical Methods
The presence and concentration of seventeen 2,3,7,8-substituted chlorinated dibenzo-p-
dioxins and dibenzofurans in each sample was determined by a slightly modified version
of EPA Method 1613, Revision B (Tetra- through Octa- Chlorinated Dioxins and Furans
by Isotope Dilution HRGC/HRMS, EPA-821-B-94-005). Modifications were made to the
procedures in order to allow for determination of dioxins and furans at levels ten times
lower than those specified in the method. Specifically, the method was modified to increase
the tissue sample size used for analysis and to add a sixth calibration solution that contained
all the method-specified chemicals at levels lower than the levels specified in the method to
verify linearity at the lower concentrations targeted.
Determination of dioxins and furans in tissue samples by Method 1613B involved the
following steps:
1) drying a 100-g aliquot of a homogenized fish tissue sample with sodium sulfate,
2) spiking the dried fish sample with a labeled standard solution,
3) preparing extracts either by soxhlet extraction using 1:1 methylene chloride/hexane as
the extraction solvent or by acid digestion using hydrochloric acid and 1:1 methylene
chloride/hexane,
4) drying with sodium sulfate and concentrating the extract to dryness (to measure lipid
content) using Kuderna-Danish and nitrogen blow-down techniques,
5) re-dissolving the extract and removing lipids by passing the extract through a layered
column of silica gel, potassium silicate, and acid silica gel,
6) completing further clean-up of the extract using back-extraction with a strong base,
acid and/or sodium chloride solution, gel-permeation chromatography, silica gel,
alumina, or Florisil chromatography,
7) re-concentrating the extract using Kuderna-Danish and nitrogen blow-down
techniques, and
8) quantifying the target chemicals in the extract using a gas chromatograph equipped
with a high-resolution mass spectrometer.
The target chemicals were identified by comparing their chromatographic retention times
with those of authentic standards and by comparing the ratio of the abundance of two
ions specific to each chemical with the theoretical ion abundance ratio for that chemical.
Concentrations were calculated from selected ion current profile areas using either an
isotope dilution or internal standard technique. The efficiency of the clean-up process was
monitored by spiking the extract prior to clean-up with a labeled standard (37C14- labeled
2,3,7,8 TCDD) and tracking the final recovery of this standard. The chemical concentration
in the fish tissue sample can be calculated on a mass basis (i.e., relative to the mass of the
sample extracted), or lipid basis (i.e., relative to the lipid content of the sample extracted).
For more information on this Method, visit www.epa.gov/waterscience/methods/1613.pdf.
D-3
-------
The National Study of Chemical Residues in Lake Fish Tissue
Appendix D: Analytical Methods
ill "" Silk- 1111 : III' Iiiih
il-
iii IP
1
iii nil-,'! <"
Organochlorine pesticides (e.g., DDT and chlordane) and were determined by Method 1656,
Revision A (Organo-Halide Pesticides in Wastewater, Soil, Sludge, Sediment, and Tissue by
GC/HSD). The following modification was made to the procedure listed below: the tissue
sample extracts were concentrated by a factor of five beyond method-specified levels before
instrumental analysis. This modification ensured that all target pesticides could be quanti-
fied at levels equal to or lower than the human health screening values for recreational fish-
ers published in Table 5-3 of EPA's Guidance for Assessing Chemical Contaminant Data for
Use in Fish Advisories, Volume 1: Risk Assessment and Fish Consumption Limits, Third
Edition (EPA 2000d).
Analysis of the target pesticides in fish tissue samples by Method 1656A involved the
following steps:
1) drying a 10-g aliquot of a homogenized fish tissue sample with sodium sulfate,
2) preparing a soxhlet extraction of the dried fish sample using 1:1 methylene chloride/
hexane as the extraction solvent,
3) drying the extract with sodium sulfate and concentrating the extract to dryness (to
measure lipid content) using Kuderna-Danish and nitrogen blow-down techniques,
4) re-dissolving the extract and removing lipids by gel-permeation chromatography and/or
solid-phase extraction (SPE cartridges),
5) re-concentrating the extract using Kuderna-Danish and nitrogen blow-down
techniques, and
6) quantifying the target chemicals in the extract using a gas chromatograph equipped
with dual capillary columns and an electron capture detector.
Target chemical identification is performed by comparing the GC retention times of each
chemical on two different columns with the respective retention times of an authentic
standard. Quantitative analysis (e.g., determining the concentration of each chemical) was
performed using an authentic standard to produce a calibration factor or calibration curve,
and using the calibration data to determine the concentration of a pollutant in the extract.
The chemical concentration in the fish tissue sample can be calculated on a mass basis
(i.e., relative to the mass of the sample extracted), or lipid basis (i.e., relative to the lipid
content of the sample extracted).
D-4
-------
The National Study of Chemical Residues in Lake Fish Tissue
Appendix D: Analytical Methods
in in •
„ •„, t,
'lit1
Ill •
Ilk If i
EPA Method 1657, Revision A (Organophosphorus Pesticides in Water, Soil, and Tissue
by GC/FPD) was used to determine the presence and concentration of organophosphorus
pesticides (e.g., chlorpyrifos and diazinon).
Analysis of the fish tissue samples by Method 1657A involved the following steps:
1) drying a 10-g aliquot of a homogenized fish tissue sample with sodium sulfate,
2) preparing a soxhlet extraction of the dried fish sample using 1:1 methylene chloride/
hexane as the extraction solvent,
3) drying the extract with sodium sulfate and concentrating the extract to dryness (to
measure lipid content) using Kuderna-Danish and nitrogen blow-down techniques,
4) re-dissolving the extract and removing lipids by gel-permeation chromatography and/or
solid-phase extraction (SPE cartridges),
5) re-concentrating the extract using Kuderna-Danish and nitrogen blow-down
techniques, and
6) quantifying the target chemicals in the extract using a gas chromatograph equipped
with dual capillary columns and a flame photometric detector.
Target chemical identification was performed by comparing the GC retention times of
each chemical on two different columns with the respective retention times of an authentic
standard. Quantitative analysis (e.g., determining the concentration of each chemical) was
performed using an authentic standard to produce a calibration factor or calibration curve,
and using the calibration data to determine the concentration of a chemical in the extract.
The chemical concentration in the fish tissue sample can be calculated on a mass basis
(i.e., relative to the mass of the sample extracted), or lipid basis (i.e., relative to the lipid
content of the sample extracted).
D-5
-------
The National Study of Chemical Residues in Lake Fish Tissue
Appendix D: Analytical Methods
Ill ..... liiiiill • " ............... .-.ill* '• ill : ................ ii * .-; Ill
The remainder of the target organic chemicals were analyzed by a modified version of EPA
Method 1625, Revision C (Semivolatile Organic Compounds by Isotope Dilution GC/MS).
The modifications made to this method involved fractionating the samples by gel permeation
chromatography (GPC) to yield a fraction containing the phthalates and some of the lower
molecular weight lipids and a lipid-free fraction containing the polar target compounds. The
phthalate/lipid fraction was further cleaned using Alumina and then recombined with the
lipid-free fraction so that all target chemicals could be determined in a single run.
Analysis of the target chemicals by Method 1625C involved the following steps:
1) homogenizing and spiking isotopically labeled analogs of each target chemical into the
sample,
2) extracting the sample at pH 12-13 and then at pH <2 with methylene chloride using
continuous extraction techniques,
3) drying each extract over sodium sulfate,
4) concentrating the extract to five mL,
5) cleaning the extract with gel permeation chromatography,
6) concentrating the extract to 0.5 mL,
7) adding internal standards to the extract, and
8) injecting a one uL aliquot of the extract into a gas chromatograph (GC).
At this point, the target chemicals are separated by GC and detected by a mass spectrometer
(MS). The labeled compounds serve to correct the variability of the analytical technique.
Chemical identification was performed by comparing mass spectrum and retention time
to calibration standards (for most chemicals) or through reference libraries using forward
search or reverse search techniques. Quantitative analysis was performed in one of the
following ways using extracted ion current profile (EICP) areas:
• for compounds in which standards and labeled analogs were available, the
concentration was determined using isotope dilution techniques,
• for compounds in which standards were available but labeled analogs were not, the
concentration was determined using an internal standard technique, and
• for compounds in which neither standards nor known response factors were available,
concentrations were determined using the sum of the EICP areas relative to the sum of
the EICP areas of the internal standard.
During analysis of the samples collected in the fourth year of the study only, the laboratory
employed a Florisil cleanup instead of an Alumina cleanup. This change was initiated to
mitigate lipid interferences that were resulting in an excessive number of re-extractions and
re-analyses in the samples collected during previous years of the study. The use of Florisil
did reduce the number of re-analyses required, suggesting that this approach should be
considered in any further studies.
D-6
-------
The National Study of Chemical Residues in Lake Fish Tissue
Appendix E
Percentile Tables
for Detected Target Chemicals
-------
-------
TABLE El. METALS
Tissue Concentration Estimates for Predators (Fillets)
r
| Chemical
1
1 Mercury
I Arsenate
I Arsenite
I Inorganic Arsenic
I (Total)
Dimethylarsonic Acid
1
| Monomethylarsonic
I Acid
Number Number
of I of
Samples Detects
486 \ 486
486 \ 2
486 \ 0
486 \ 2
486 \ 4
486 \ 6
Maximum
Concentration
6605
Units
ppb
0.035 ppm
Not Applicable ppm
0.035 ppm
0.107 ppm
0.016 ppm
5th
Percentile
Mercur
59.17
10th
Percentile
y
89.33
25th
Percentile
176.67
50th
Percentile
284.60
Arsenic
T
n
3
8
-------
TABLE E 2. PCBs— SUM OF CONGENERS
( Tissue Concentration Estimates for Predators (Fillets) ^^^1
Nun-
iber Number
of of Maximum
Chemical Samples Detects Concentration Units
PCB 1 486 32 7 ppt
PCB 2
I PCB 3 i
I PCB 4 !
I PCB 5
| PCB 6
| PCB 7
1 PCB 8
PCB 9
PCB 10
PCB 11
PCB 12 + PCB 13
PCB 14
PCB 15
i PCB 16
I PCB 17
| PCB 18 + PCB 30
I PCB 19
I PCB 20 + PCB 28
| PCB 21 + PCB 33
I PCB 22
| PCB 23
I PCB 24
486 8 3 ppt
486 131 8 I ppt
486 213 266 ppt
486 : 4 4 ' ppt
486 172 I 401 ppt
486 92 l 11 ppt
486 ; 174 467 ; ppt
486 37 28 ppt
486 I 15 9 ppt
486 264 I 185 ' ppt
486 14 20 ppt
486 11 1 ppt
486 258 I 820 ppt
486 I 287 298 I ppt
486 339 487 | ppt
486 370 1470 ppt
486 287 142 ppt
486 , 428 7910 ppt
486 401 , 699 , ppt
486 439 584 ppt
486 8 , 2 ppt
486 31 16 ppt
I I
5th 10th 25th
Percentile | Percentile | Percentile
o-
n
If!
-h
a
2.
n
S
r>
S
^j
&)
(O
-
••.
"x
•
r
j
;
>
\
Llfl
-JH
J
1
£ mm
m
3 ft
n' Efl
a t-m
— u
r
-------
TABLE E 2. PCBs— SUM OF CONGENERS (continued)
I Tissue Concentration Estimates for Predators (Fillets) (continued) ^^^11
Number Is
of
| Chemical Samples
| PCB 25 486
| PCB 26 + PCB 29 486
| PCB 27 486
| PCB 31 486
I PCB 32 I 486 I
| PCB 34 ' 486 '
| PCB 35 486
| PCB 36 486
| PCB 37 486
I PCB 38 ! 486
| PCB 39 486
I PCB 40 + PCB 41 + 486
I PCB 71
I PCB 42 486
I PCB 43 486
I PCB 44 + PCB 47 + 486
I PCB 65
' PCB 45 + PCB 51 486
PCB 46 : 486
PCB 48 486
PCB 49 + PCB 69 486
PCB 50 + PCB 53 I 486
I PCB 52 I 486
I PCB 54 I 486
lumber
of Maximum
Detects Concentration J Units
262 I 200 ppt
146 ' 577 ppt
140 136 ppt
434 2020 ppt
286 I 282 ppt
72 27 ppt
1 1 PPt
2 1 ^ PPt
438 1170 ppt
22 7 ppt
52 ' U ppt
407 1690 ppt
455 1230 ppt
151 96 ppt
452 10700 ppt
190 327 ppt
93 97 ppt
389 405 ppt
478 9940 ' ppt
123 678 ppt
469 ; 12500 ppt
34 15 ppt
5th 10th
Percentile Percentile
|
^3 ~
^3 ™
fD ?
Q. 1
X :
m -
rt ™
n r
51 I
C" L
JO I
? •
D <•
etected Target Chemicals
-------
TABLE E 2. PCBs— SUM
OF CONGENERS (continued)
Tissue Concentration Estimates for Predators (Fillets) (continued) ^^^1
Number
of
| Chemical Samples
| PCB 55 486
| PCB 56 486
| PCB 57 486
| PCB 58 486
I PCB 59 + PCB 62 + 486
I PCB 75
| PCB 60 486
I PCB 61 + PCB 70 + 486
| PCB 74 + PCB 76
| PCB 63 486
| PCB 64 486
| PCB 66 486
| PCB 67 486
I PCB 68 : 486
1 PCB 72 ! 486
PCB 73 I 486
PCB 77 I 486
PCB 78 I 486
PCB 79 I 486
PCB 80 1 486
PCB 81 I 486
PCB 82 I 486
PCB 83 + PCB 99 I 486
PCB 84 I 486
Number
of Maximum J
Detects Concentration Units
63 81 ppt
467 1230 ppt
113 57 I ppt
131 ' 71 ' ppt
286 480 ppt
479 1560 ppt
485 11700 ppt
405 616 ppt
484 2320 I ppt
460 8000 ppt
295 I 131 ppt
378 ! 317 ppt
325 389 ! ppt
20 ; 78.4 ppt
181 275 ppt
1 1 ppt
284 458 ppt
2 11 ppt
104 28 ! ppt
456 1890 ppt
484 24300 ppt
449 2320 ppt
5th
Percentile
H
w
•o
n
3
5'
-3
n
(D
(D
H
(D
Ifl
gl
^
CD
CD
n
CD
fi)
(Q
CD
-
•
^
«
r
j
i
:9
3
J9
:•
••
'!
n KM
&) *~*
- a
r
-------
TABLE E 2. PCBs— SUM
OF CONGENERS (continued)
( Tissue Concentration Estimates for Predators (Fillets) (continued) ^^^1
1 Number
I of
Chemical Samples
PCB85 + PCB 116+ I 486
, PCB 117
I PCB 86 + PCB 87+ 486
I PCB 97 + PCB 108 +
1 PCB 119 + PCB 125
PCB 88 + PCB 91 486
, PCB 89 486
I PCB 90 + PCB 101 + I 486
I PCB 113
I PCB 92 486
I PCB 93 + PCB 95 + 486
I PCB 98 + PCB 100 +
I PCB 102
| PCB 94 486
I PCB 96 486
I PCB 103 486
| PCB 104 486
| PCB 105 486
| PCB 106 486
| PCB 107 + PCB 124 486
I PCB 109 486
PCB 110 + PCB 115 I 486
PCB 111 I 486
PCB 112 I 486
PCB 114 I 486
PCB 118 I 486
Number
of Maximum |
Detects Concentration Units
485 7980 ppt
476 , 18900 ppt
469 4770 ppt
121 22.3 ppt
484 , 36500 , ppt
481 8620 ppt
470 17200 ppt
76 62 ppt
47 31 ppt
326 365 ppt
1 4 ppt
470 12100 ppt
0 Not Applicable ppt
449 1430 ppt
478 4090 ppt
485 31800 ppt
214 90 ppt
1 40 ppt
458 950 ppt
483 26300 ppt
5th 10th
Percentile Percentile
2.84 3.81
1.96 I 6.86
-------
TABLE E 2. PCBs— SUM OF CONGENERS (continued)
( Tissue Concentration Estimates for Predators (Fillets) (continued) ^^^|
Number h
of
| Chemical Samples
I PCB 120 486
| PCB 121 486
| PCB 122 486
| PCB 123 486
I PCB 126 ! 486 i
| PCB 127 486 !
| PCB 128 + PCB 166 486
I PCB 129 + PCB 138+ i 486
| PCB 160 + PCB 163
I PCB 130 486
| PCB 131 486
| PCB 132 486
| PCB 133 486
I PCB 134 + PCB 143 486
I PCB 135 + PCB 151 + 486
I PCB 154
1 PCB 136 i 486
PCB 137 I 486
PCB 139 + PCB 140 I 486
PCB 141 I 486
PCB 142 I 486
PCB 144 I 486
PCB 145 I 486
PCB 146 I 486
dumber
of Maximum J
Detects Concentration Units
407 392 ppt
105 : 85 ppt
281 74 ppt
400 764 ppt
51 296 ppt
174 I 97 ! ppt
477 l 12500 ppt
485 91600 ppt
481 4360 ppt
315 272 ppt
485 9020 ppt
476 1940 ppt
434 1530 ppt
472 13000 ppt
435 2670 l ppt
480 ; 4190 ppt
445 1260 ppt
485 9440 ppt
1 14 ' ppt
444 1290 ppt
7 1 ppt
485 18100 ppt
5th
Percentile
S
Q.
i1
|
^
•
r
-r
\
3
3
3
™ o
n' El
- 1=1
~ Q
-------
TABLE E 2. PCBs— SUM OF CONGENERS (continued)
Tissue Concentration Estimates for Predators (Fillets) (continued) ^^^1
Number K
of
Chemical Samples
PCB 147 + PCB 149 486
PCB 148 486
PCB 150 I 486
PCB 152 ! 486
PCB 153 + PCB 168 486
PCB 155 486
PCB 156 + PCB 157 486
PCB 158 I 486
PCB 159 l 486
PCB 161 486
PCB 162 486
PCB 164 486
PCB 165 486
PCB 167 I 486
PCB 169 486 j
PCB 170 I 486 l
PCB 171 +PCB 173 486
PCB 172 486
PCB 174 486
PCB 175 486
PCB 176 486
PCB 177 486
PCB 178 486
lumber
of Maximum (
)etects Concentration Units
483 25500 ppt
253 ' 143 ppt
174 50 I ppt
37 21 ; ppt
485 101000 ppt
199 I 417 ppt
483 7640 ppt
484 : 5190 ' ppt
398 277 ppt
0 Not Applicable ppt
410 723 I ppt
480 3070 ! ppt
170 108 ppt
482 3540 ppt
103 70 ppt
473 I 18200 : ppt
480 4920 ppt
480 I 5540 ppt
483 5490 ppt
435 1040 I ppt
412 580 ppt
484 11100 ppt
481 6540 , ppt
5th
Percentile
8.82
^j
^2
(D
f^
_.
X
m
•o
n
rcentile Tab
(6
^
^^
o
D
etected Target Chemicals
•
?
•
r
-r
i;
™
3
-------
TABLE E 2. PCBs— SUM OF CONGENERS (continued)
1 Tissue Concentration Estimates for Predators (Fillets) (continued) ^^^1
Nun-
iber Number
of of Maximum
Chemical Samples Detects Concentration Units
PCB 179 486 466 2170 ppt
PCB 180 + PCB 193 I
486 483 55800 ppt
I PCB 181 I 486 308 255 I ppt
I PCB 182 !
I PCB 183 + PCB 185
486 326 494 ppt
486 ! 478 14800 l ppt
| PCB 184 486 213 I 536 ppt
| PCB 186
1 PCB 187
PCB 188
PCB 189
PCB 190
PCB 191
PCB 192
PCB 194
, PCB 195
| PCB 196
| PCB 197 + PCB 200
I PCB 198 + PCB 199
I PCB 201
| PCB 202
I PCB 203
| PCB 204
I PCB 205
486 1 l 4 I ppt
486 ; 483 39700 ' ppt
486 49 207 ppt
486 I 447 978 ppt
486 481 I 4290 ' ppt
486 436 646 ppt
486 17 I 30 ppt
486 482 I 9780 ppt
486 I 390 I 2900 I ppt
486 479 5650 | ppt
486 435 783 ppt
486 485 16100 ppt
486 , 296 1930 ppt
486 471 4250 , ppt
486 481 9480 ppt
486 67 , 72 ppt
486 424 666 , ppt
I I
5th 10th 25th
Percentile | Percentile | Percentile
S
a
r)
B)
(O
n
-
••.
"x
•
r
-r
;
i
H
Llfl
-JH
a
a
*i
3
•>H
r\ Pa
rH
3 ^J
n' Efl
a |-|
- u
r
-------
TABLE E 2. PCBs— SUM OF CONGENERS (continued)
1 Tissue Concentration Estimates for Predators (Fillets) (continued) ^^^1
Number
of
Chemical Samples
PCB 206 486
PCB 207 486
I PCB 208 486
I PCB 209 486
| PCBs (Sum of I 486
I Congeners) I
Mumber
of Maximum
Detects Concentration
458 5490
469 ' 1450
477 3000
419 3450
486 704921
Units
ppt
ppt
ppt
ppt
ppt
5th
Percentile
-------
TABLE E 2. PCBs— SUM OF CONGENERS (continued)
Tissue Concentration Estimates for Bottom Dwellers (Whole Bodies) (continued) ^^^1
Nun-
Chemical Sam
PCB 16
PCB -(7
PCB 18 + PCB 30
PCB 19
PCB 20 + PCB 28
PCB 21 + PCB 33
PCB 22
PCB 23
PCB 24
PCB 25
PCB 26 + PCB 29
PCB 27
PCB 31
PCB 32
PCB 34
PCB 35 |
PCB 36 I
PCB 37
PCB 38
PCB 39
PCB 40 + PCB 41 +
PCB 7-\
PCB 42
PCB 43
iber Number
of of | Maximum
pies Detects Concentration
395 364 2270
395 369 2820
395 I 383 11900
395 ! 316 431
395 394 51600
395 373 I 16200
395 386 l 13800
395 38 87
395 ; 122 167
395 340 i 1170
395 291 7500
395 278 976
395 388 27300
395 365 5990
395 216 ! 248
395 I 9 I 350
395 3 | 47
395 365 989
395 68 80
395 176 442
395 , 382 , 45400
395 394 28200
395 278 4070
Units
ppt
ppt
ppt
ppt
ppt
ppt
ppt
ppt
ppt
ppt
ppt
ppt
ppt
ppt
ppt
ppt
ppt
ppt
ppt
ppt
ppt
ppt
ppt
5th
Percentile
•o
•o
n
g
^
X
m
•o
n
rcentile Tables for Detected Target Chemicals
|
?
•
r
-r
3
-------
TABLE E 2. PCBs— SUM OF CONGENERS (continued)
Tissue Concentration Estimates for Bottom Dwellers (Whole Bodies) (continued) ^^^1
Number h
of
Chemical Samples 1
PCB 44 + PCB 47 + I 395
PCB 65
PCB 45 + PCB 51 , 395
PCB 46 395
PCB 48 395
PCB 49 + PCB 69 I 395
PCB 50 + PCB 53 395
PCB 52 395
PCB 54 395
PCB 55 395
PCB 56 395
PCB 57 395
PCB 58 395
PCB 59 + PCB 62 + 395
PCB 75
PCB 60 395
PCB 61 + PCB 70 + 395
PCB 74 + PCB 76
PCB 63 395
PCB 64 395
PCB 66 395
PCB 67 395
PCB 68 395
PCB 72 I 395
PCB 73 395
umber
of Maximum
Detects Concentration J Units
391 90500 ppt
314 9940 ppt
245 2190 ppt
376 22100 ppt
395 69000 ppt
239 6760 ppt
395 92900 ppt
93 126 ppt
85 135 ppt
389 26900 ppt
203 364 ppt
245 281 ppt
370 9330 ppt
394 40200 ppt
395 I 152000 ppt
389 5880 ppt
394 48700 ppt
395 136000 ppt
331 789 ppt
380 1090 ppt
369 809 ppt
44 385 ppt
5th
Percentile
13.16
-------
TABLE E 2. PCBs— SUM OF CONGENERS (continued)
( Tissue Concentration Estimates for Bottom Dwellers (Whole Bodies) (continued) ^^^1
I Nun-
Chemical Sam
PCB 77
1 PCB 78
I PCB 79
I PCB 80
| PCB 81
I PCB 82
I PCB 83 + PCB 99
| PCB 84
I PCB 85 + PCB 116 +
| PCB 117
I PCB 86 + PCB 87 +
I PCB 97 + PCB 108 +
I PCB 119 + PCB 125
| PCB 88 + PCB 91
| PCB 89
I PCB 90 + PCB 101 +
I PCB 113
| PCB 92
I PCB 93 + PCB 95 +
I PCB 98 + PCB 100 +
I PCB 102
| PCB 94
" PCB 96
PCB 103
PCB 104
PCB 105
iber Number
of of | Maximum
pies Detects Concentration
395 279 1060
395 5 15
395 I 337 571
395 ! 26 ' 34
395 251 260
395 383 I 7950
395 395 l 35100
395 386 10300
395 395 ' 12500
395 395 39400
395 393 9240
395 254 1300
395 395 43700
395 395 9080
395 I 392 I 22400
395 216 502
395 143 542
395 362 811
395 15 34
395 395 19600
Units
ppt
ppt
ppt
ppt
ppt
ppt
ppt
ppt
ppt
ppt
ppt
ppt
ppt
ppt
ppt
ppt
ppt
ppt
ppt
ppt
5th
Percentile
•o
•o
n
g
^
X
m
•o
n
rcentile Tables for Detected Target Chemicals
|
?
•
r
-r
3
-------
TABLE E 2. PCBs— SUM OF CONGENERS (continued)
Tissue Concentration Estimates for Bottom Dwellers (Whole Bodies) (continued) ^^^|
Number Is
of
Chemical Samples
PCB 106 395
PCB 107 + PCB 124 395
PCB 109 395
PCB 110 + PCB 115 395
PCB 111 I 395 I
PCB 112 ' 395 '
PCB 114 395
PCB 118 395
PCB 120 395
PCB 121 ! 395
PCB 122 395
PCB 123 395
PCB 126 ; 395
PCB 127 395 {
PCB 128 + PCB 166 I 395 '
PCB 129 + PCB 138+ 395
PCB 160 + PCB 163
PCB 130 395
PCB 131 395
PCB 132 395
PCB 133 395
PCB 134 + PCB 143 395
PCB 135 + PCB 151 + I 395
PCB 154 I i
lumber
of Maximum |
Detects Concentration Units
1 11 ppt
392 ' 1210 ppt
394 4460 ppt
395 37200 ppt
302 I 120 ppt
0 | Not Applicable ppt
392 : 1960 ppt
395 34300 ppt
383 829 ppt
240 128 ppt
365 538 ppt
390 ; 1410 ppt
158 132 ppt
257 I 147 ppt
395 10100 ppt
395 ' 97200 ppt
395 5720 ppt
340 525 ppt
395 10100 ppt
393 2490 ppt
384 2230 ppt
394 19600 ppt
5th 10th
Percentile Percentile
-------
TABLE E 2. PCBs— SUM OF CONGENERS (continued)
( Tissue Concentration Estimates for Bottom Dwellers (Whole Bodies) (continued) ^^^1
Nun-
Chemical Sam
PCB 136
PCB 137
I PCB 139 + PCB 140 |
I PCB 141 !
I PCB 142
| PCB 144
| PCB 145
1 PCB 146
PCB 147 + PCB 149
PCB 148
PCB 150
PCB 152
PCB 153 + PCB 168
PCB 155
I PCB 156 + PCB 157
| PCB 158
| PCB 159
I PCB 161
I PCB 162
| PCB 164
| PCB 165
| PCB 167
I PCB 169
iber Number
of of Maximum |
pies Detects | Concentration Units
395 392 3200 ppt
395 393 4210 ppt
395 393 : 1310 ppt
395 394 9890 I ppt
395 ! 1 1 l ppt
395 383 I 1760 ppt
395 48 l 11 ppt
395 ; 395 27700 : ppt
395 395 42000 ppt
395 I 328 351 ppt
395 279 I 200 ! ppt
395 161 44 ppt
395 395 I 167000 ppt
395 275 2080 ppt
395 I 395 7290 I ppt
395 395 6550 ppt
395 362 444 ppt
395 0 Not Applicable ppt
395 , 374 395 ppt
395 395 , 2660 , ppt
395 250 190 ppt
395 395 , 3540 ppt
395 278 12 ppt
5th 10th 25th
Percentile Percentile f Percentile
1.36 2.46 I 5.78
4.67 8.86 16.15
1.74 2.60 : 6.01
15.87 22.75 37.91
•o
•o
n
g
^
X
m
•o
n
rcentile Tables for Detected Target Chemicals
|
?
•
r
-r
3
-------
TABLE E 2. PCBs— SUM OF CONGENERS (continued)
Tissue Concentration Estimates for Bottom Dwellers (Whole Bodies) (continued) ^^^1
Number K
of
Chemical Samples
PCB 170 395
PCB 171 + PCB 173 395
PCB 172 I 395
PCB 174 ! 395
PCB 175 395
PCB 176 395
PCB 177 395
PCB 178 I 395
PCB 179 l 395
PCB 180 + PCB 193 395
PCB 181 395
PCB 182 395
PCB 183 + PCB 185 395
PCB 184 I 395
PCB 186 395 j
PCB 187 I 395 l
PCB 188 395
PCB 189 395
PCB 190 395
PCB 191 395
PCB 192 395
PCB 194 395
PCB 195 395
lumber
of Maximum (
)etects Concentration Units
395 27800 ppt
395 ' 10600 ppt
395 8530 I ppt
395 12900 ; ppt
393 1400 ppt
385 I 2140 ppt
395 17800 ppt
395 : 7430 ' ppt
391 5500 ppt
395 105000 ppt
350 ' 219 I ppt
334 445 ! ppt
391 28800 ppt
310 2960 ppt
4 3 ppt
395 I 55600 : ppt
135 194 ppt
390 I 1160 ppt
395 7720 ppt
391 1600 I ppt
45 15 ppt
395 17500 ppt
377 6510 ppt
5th
Percentile
26.84
8.26
7.68
15.01
1.47
^j
^2
(D
f^
_.
X
m
•o
n
rcentile Tab
(6
^
^^
o
D
etected Target Chemicals
•
?
•
r
-r
i;
™
3
-------
w
TABLE E 2. PCBs— SUM OF CONGENERS (continued)
I Tissue Concentration Estimates for Bottom Dwellers (Whole Bodies) (continued) ^^^|
Number t
of
| Chemical Samples
I PCB 196 395
I PCB 197 + PCB 200 395
I PCB 198 + PCB 199 395
| PCB 201 395
I PCB 202 ! 395 |
| PCB 203 395 !
| PCB 204 395
| PCB 205 ; 395
1 PCB 206 i 395
PCB 207 I 395
PCB 208 I 395
PCB 209 I 395
PCBs (Sum of I 395
Congeners)
dumber
of Maximum
Detects Concentration
392 10100
389 1680
392 19300
354 1800
392 2840
391 I 14400
169 45
386 856
393 ; 8660
395 i 1920
395 6000
388 29200
395 s 1266249
Units
ppt
ppt
ppt
ppt
ppt
ppt
ppt
ppt
ppt
ppt
ppt
ppt
ppt
5th
Percentile
9.03
1.86
22.77
n
a.
(O
-
•
^
•
r
-r
;
>
1
J
3
1
m
3 H
n KM
-------
TABLE E-3. PCBs— SUM
OF AROCLORS
( Tissue Concentration Estimates for Predators (Fillets) ^^^1
Chemical
PCB 1016
I PCB 1221
| PCB 1232
| PCB 1242
| PCB 1248
I PCB 1254
I PCB 1260
| PCBs (Sum of Aroclors)
Number
of
Samples
486
486
486
486
486
486
486
486
Number
of
Detects
0
0
0
0
2
8
109
111
Maximum |
Concentration Units
Not Applicable ppt
Not Applicable ppt
Not Applicable ppt
Not Applicable I ppt
33 ' ppt
182 ppt
421 ppt
421 ppb
5th 10th
Percentile Percentile
-------
TABLE E 4. DIOXINS AND FURANS
Tissue Concentration Estimates for Predators (Fillets) ^^^1
Chemical
2,3,7,8-TCDD
1,2,3,7,8-PeCDD
1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDD
1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDD
1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDD
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD
OCDD
2,3,7,8-TCDF
1,2,3,7,8-PeCDF
2,3,4,7,8-PeCDF
1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDF
1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDF
1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDF
2,3,4,6,7,8-HxCDF
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDF
1,2,3,4,7,8,9-HpCDF
OCDF
Dioxins and Furans
TEQ
12CoplanarPCBsTEQ
Total TEQ
Number
of
Samples
486
486
486
486
486
486
486
486
486
486
486
486
486
486
486
486
486
486
486
486
Number
of | Maximum
Detects Concentration
188 2
83 3
15 0.3
136 ' 5
26 0.4
74 ; 11
18 10
347 7
33 1
66 5
28 0.2
12 0.3
3 0.07
8 0.4
12 , 2
0 ! Not Applicable
10 1
395 8
485 38.7
485 46.2
Units
ppt
ppt
ppt
ppt
ppt
ppt
ppt
ppt
ppt
ppt
ppt
ppt
ppt
ppt
ppt
ppt
ppt
ppt
ppt
ppt
5th
Percentile
•o
•o
n
g
X
^H
^g
rcentile Tables for Detected Target Chemicals
|
?
.
r
-r
3
-------
TABLE E 4. DIOXINS AND FURANS (continued)
I Tissue Concentration Estimates for Bottom Dwellers (Whole Bodies) ^^^|
j Chemical
; 2,3,7,8-TCDD
; 1,2,3,7,8-PeCDD
: 1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDD
'•- 1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDD
'-• 1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDD
i 1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD
; OCDD
i 2,3,7,8-TCDF
i 1,2,3,7,8-PeCDF
; 2,3,4,7,8-PeCDF
: 1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDF
'•- 1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDF
'-• 1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDF
'-. 2,3,4,6,7,8-HxCDF
''•• 1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDF
i 1,2,3,4,7,8,9-HpCDF
; OCDF
: Dioxins and Furans
ITEQ
; 12CoplanarPCBsTEQ
; Total TEQ
Number
of
Samples
395
395
395
395
395
395
395
395
395
395
395
395
395
395
395
395
395
395
395
395
Number
of
Detects
319
299
229
340
222
260
186
374
219
301
170
148
10
89
159
4
35
393
395
395
Maximum |
Concentration Units
17 ppt
10 ppt
13 ppt
24 ppt
19 ppt
142 ppt
480 ppt
12 ppt
8 ppt
3 ppt
20 ppt
5 ppt
0.3 ppt
1 PPt
7 ' ppt
3 ppt
9 ppt
24 ppt
20.0 ppt
27.1 ppt
5th 10th
Percentile Percentile
^
•o
n
g
ff
^g
rcentile Tab
n
^
^^
Q
D
etected Target Chemicals
•
?
.
r
p
i;
™
3
-------
TABLE E 5. ORGANOCHLORINE PESTICIDES
Tissue Concentration Estimates for Predators (Fillets) ^^^|
Chemical
Aldrin
Dicofol
Dieldrin
Endosulfan Sulfate
Endrin
Ethalfluralin
Heptachlor
Heptachlor epoxide
Hexachlorocyclohexane
(BHC), alpha-
Hexachlorocyclohexane
(BHC), beta-
Hexachlorocyclohexane
(BHC), delta-
Isodrin
Kepone (Chlordecone)
Lindane
(Hexachlorocyclohexane,
gamma-BHC)
Methoxychlor
Mi rex
Octachlorostyrene
Pendimethalin
Pentachloroanisole
Pentachloronitrobenzene
Permethrin, cis-
Number
of
Samples
486
486
486
486
486
486
486
486
486
486
486
486
486
486
486
486
486
486
486
486
486
Number
of
Detects
6
15
24
1
3
20
-(7
6
5
39
7
16
60
28
9
10
6
1
57
29
5
Maximum J
Concentration Units
8 ppb
1235 ppb
18 ppb
11 ppb
12 ppb
12 ppb
8 ppb
3 ppb
8 ppb
9 ppb
4 ppb
5 ppb
129 ppb
3 ppb
370 ppb
9 ppb
19 ppb
13 ppb
4 ppb
4 ppb
325 ppb
5th
Percentile
•o
•o
n
g
^
X
m
•o
n
rcentile Tables for Detected Target Chemicals
|
?
•
r
-r
3
-------
TABLE E 5. ORGANOCHLORINE PESTICIDES (continued)
Tissue Concentration Estimates for Predators (Fillets) ^^^1
Chemical
Permethrin, trans-
Toxaphene
Trifluralin
Number
of
Samples
486
486
486
Number
of
Detects
4
0
36
Maximum |
Concentration Units
131 ppb
Not Applicable ppb
11 ppb
5th
Percentile
-------
TABLE E 5. ORGANOCHLORINE PESTICIDES (continued)
( Tissue Concentration Estimates for Bottom Dweller (Whole Bodies) (continued) ^^^|
| Chemical
Methoxychlor
Mi rex
Octachlorostyrene
I Pendimethalin
I Pentachloroanisole
' Pentachloronitrobenzene
Permethrin, cis-
Permethrin, trans-
Toxaphene
Trifluralin
Number
of
Samples
395
395
395
395
395
395
395
395
395
395
Number
of
Detects
23
19
8
19
92
50
27
12
1
144
Maximum
Concentration
107
29
3
33
9
5
441
264
91
96
Units
ppb
ppb
ppb
ppb
ppb
ppb
ppb
ppb
ppb
ppb
5th
Percentile
1 R7 ! ~°
1.87 -5
- n
-------
TABLE E-6. SUMMED ORGANOCHLORINE PESTICIDES
Tissue Concentration Estimates for Predators (Fillets)
Chemical
Number
of
Samples
Number
of
Detects
Maximum
Concentration
I 5th
Units Percentile
10th
Percentile
25th 50th
Percentile j Percentile
75th
Percentile
90th
Percentile
95th
Percentile
Total Chlordane
| Chlordane, alpha- \ 486 [ 33
1 ^ ^
| Chlordane, gamma- \ 486 \ 13
| Nonachlor, cis- \ 486 \ 23
1 1 1
I Nonachlor, trans- \ 486 \ 56
| Oxychlordane \ 486 \ 23
pTotllTmord^ ^ _ -j — _
|
| 2,4'-DDD \ 352 \ 5
| 2,4'-DDE \ 352 \ 34
| 2,4'-DDT \ 352 \ 18
[4^DDD \ 486~j 46~
| 4,4'-DDE \ 486 \ 374
| 4,4'-DDT \ 486 \ 43
[rotalj^^
|
| Endosulfan I \ 486 | 18
| Endosulfan II \ 486 \ 0
20
6
10
70
10
100
3
9
10
41
1394
50
1481
59
Not Applicable
I Total Endosulfan \ 486 | 18 | 59
ppb \
-------
TABLE E-6. SUMMED ORGANOCHLORINE PESTICIDES (continued)
Tissue Concentration Estimates for Bottom Dwellers (Whole Bodies)
Chemical
Ei Number Ei Number
I of I of
I Samples I Detects
Maximum
Concentration
I 5th I 10th
Units Percentile Percentile
25th 50th 75th
Percentile Percentile Percentile
90th 95th
Percentile Percentile
Total Chlordane
a
Chlordane, alpha- \ 395 \ 122
Chlordane, gamma- \ 395 \ 48
Nonachlor, cis- \ 395 | 68
Nonachlor, trans- \ 395 | 159
Oxychlordane \ 395 | 45
Total Chlordane \ 395 I 197
2,4'-DDD \ 274 | 27
2,4'-DDE I 274 I 112
2,4'-DDT \ 274 \ 28
4,4'-DDD \ 395 | 147
4,4'-DDE \ 395 | 387
4,4'-DDT \ 395 | 60
Total DDT \ 395 | 388
Endosulfan I \ 395 \ 23
Endosulfan II \ 395 \ 0
Total Endosulfan \ 395 | 23
178
80
68
87
12
378
13
41
20
159
1743
42
1761
38.6
Not Applicable
38.6
ppb \
S
Q.
n
cf
r>
T
n
3
8
-------
The National Study of Chemical Residues in Lake Fish Tissue
Appendix F
Occurrence of Target Chemicals
-------
-------
^^^^^^^^H The National Study of Chemical Residues in Lake Fish Tissue ^^^^^^^^H
Appendix F: Occurrence of Target Chemicals
METAL RESULTS FOR PREDATORS
MDL ML
CHEMICAL | ng/g (ppb) | ng/g (ppb)
Mercury 0.521 2
MDL ML
CHEMICAL H9/9 (ppm) I H9/9 (ppm)
Arsenate 0.03
Arsenite 0.02
Total Inorganic Arsenic 0.03
Dimethylarsonic Acid 0.04
Monomethylarsonic Acid 0.01
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.05
NUMBER OF CONCENTRATION VALUES
< MDL (>MDL& ML TOTAL
0 | 0 | 486 | 486
NUMBER OF CONCENTRATION VALUES
< MDL
484
486
484
482
480
>MDL&ML
0
0
0
1
0
TOTAL
486
486
486
486
486
METAL RESULTS FOR BOTTOM DWELLERS
MDL
CHEMICAL [jg/g (ppb)
Mercury j 0.521
MDL
CHEMICAL (jg/g (ppm)
Arsenate 0.03
Arsenite I 0.02
Total Inorganic Arsenic 0.03
Dimethylarsonic Acid 0.04
Monomethylarsonic Acid | 0.01
ML
^jjgjMjppb^
2
ML
M9/9 (ppm)
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.05
NUMBER OF CONCENTRATION VALUES
< MDL
0
>MDL&ML
0 | 395
TOTAL
395
NUMBER OF CONCENTRATION VALUES
< MDL
391
334
359
386
395
>MDL&< ML
3
53
30
9
0
>ML
1
"III...
6
0
0
TOTAL
395
395
395
395
395
POLYCHLORINATED BlPHENYL (PCB) RESULTS FOR PREDATORS
MDL
CHEMICAL j ng/kg (ppt)
PCB-1 0.8
J3CB-2 ^ 0.8
J^S^^^^^^Z^^^^^J 0.6
J^r'Z^ 0.5
Zs^ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZj °-7
TcB^6^^^^^^^^^^^J 0.3
TcB^/^^^^^^^^^^^J 0.4
TcB^8^^^^^^^^^^^J 1.3
1>CIB^9 0.5
PCB-10 0.7
ML
ng/kg (ppt)
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
1.0
1.0
5.0
2.0
2.0
NUMBER OF CONCENTRATION VALUES
< MDL
449
474
353
272
482
313
394
311
448
471
>MDL&ML
7
3
19
66
2
49
33
46
8
5
TOTAL
482*
482*
485*
486
486
486
486
486
486 !
486 !
* Some results were excluded from the database due to QC failures. Therefore, the total number may be less for some target
chemicals within the same analytical class.
t These chemicals were not analyzed during the first year of the study.
F-l
-------
The National Study of Chemical Residues in Lake Fish Tissue
Appendix F: Occurrence of Target Chemicals
POLYCHLORINATED BlPHENYL (PCB) RESULTS FOR PREDATORS (continued)
CHEMICAL
MDL ML
ng/kg (ppt) j ng/kg (ppt)
PCB-11 1.0
PCB-12+PCB-13
PCB-14
PCB-15
PCB-16
PCB-17
PCB-18+PCB-30
PCB-19
PCB-20+PCB-28
PCB-21+PCB-33
PCB-22
1.0
0.5
0.4
1.0
1.0
1.8
0.1
4.2
1.0
0.2
2.0
2.0
2.0
1.0
2.0
2.0
5.0
0.5
10.0
2.0
0.5
J^CE^^ 0.6J 2.0
J?CI^ °-8~
7cB^25^ 0.6^
PCB-26+PCB-29
PCB-27
PCB-31
PCB-32
PCB-34
PCB-35
PCB-36
PCB-37
PCB-38
PCB-39
PCB-40+PCB-41+PCB-71
PCB-42
PCB-43
PCB-44+PCB-47+PCB-65
PCB-45+PCB-51
PCB-46
PCB-48
PCB-49+PCB-69
PCB-50+PCB-53
PCB-52
PCB-54
PCB-55
PCB-56
PCB-57
3.5
0.7
0.5
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.5
0.2
0.4
0.5
1.6
0.7
1.4
4.3
2.2
1.2
0.8
1.4
3.2
4.3
0.3
0.5
0.5
0.6
2.0
2.0
10.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
1.0
2.0
0.5
1.0
2.0
5.0
2.0
5.0
10.0
5.0
5.0
2.0
5.0
10.0
10.0
1.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
NUMBER OF CONCENTRATION VALUES
< MDL
> MDMSr<^ > ML
221 | 156
472
485
227
198
146
115
198
57
84
46
478
455
223
339
345
51
199
413
485
484
47
464
434
78
30
334
33
295
392
96
7
362
16
452
423
18
372
9
1
135
115
120
185
130
115
115
8
7
17
146
83
78
17
176
49
1
2
69
13
35
141
98
88
86
81
64
113
69
75
66
16
38
67
66
109
5
0
124
173
220
186
158
314
287
432
1
14
117
64
63
418
111
24
0
0
370
9
17
267
358
64
367
110
30
277
410
49
404
18
25
401
48
TOTAL
486
486
486
486
486
486
486
486
486
486
486
486
486
486
486
486
486
486
486
486
486
486
486
486
486
486
486
486
486
486
486
486
486
486
486
486
486
486
F-2
-------
The National Study of Chemical Residues in Lake Fish Tissue
Appendix F: Occurrence of Target Chemicals
POLYCHLORINATED BlPHENYL (PCB) RESULTS FOR PREDATORS (continued)
MDL ML
CHEMICAL • ng/kg (ppt) : ng/kg (ppt)
PCB-58 ~~~O5~
JPCB^^ 2.0
7cB^60^ 0.4^
^•^:^^:^^:7^:^:^\ ^i~
7cB^63^ Q.7
7cB^64^ ^
7cB^66^ 5.2^
7cB^6^ °^~
7cB^68^ 0.4^
TcB^T^ ^
TcB^TS^ OJ^
2.0
5.0
1.0
10.0
2.0
2.0
20.0
2.0
1.0
2.0
2.0
7,5^^ 2o.o
TcB^T^ °-7~
7cB^79^ 0.8^
7cB^8^ °-8~
7cB^81^ 0.5^
7cB^8^ °^~
7cB^83+PCB^99^ U)_
7c^84^ °-9~
7cB^85+PCB^V16+PCM17^^ LO^
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
^^^^ _| ^^
J^£08+PC^£29+PC^-125^
7c^88+PCB^^ °^"
7cB^89^ 0.6^
^C^90+PCQ^m+PCQ^^^^\ -1J
7cB^92^ Ol_
2.0
2.0
10.0
0.5
^^^ __, ^^
J^£00+PCB-102
J3CB^94^ °^~
TcB^96^ -(.Q
J^CMO:^ °^"
^CB£04^ 1.6
2.0
2.0
1.0
10.0
J^CMOS^^^ 20.0
J^CMO^ °^"
^CB^107+PCM24^ LO^
PCB-109 0.5
W^^^ 0.5
"pCB^lTl 0.4^
J>CB-ri2 Q~6
PCB-114 0.4
1.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
1.0
2.0
1.0
NUMBER OF CONCENTRATION VALUES
< MDL
354
199
6
0
80
1
25
190
107
160
466
304
485
201
484
381
29
1
36
0
9
16
364
1
4
15
409
438
159
485
15
486
36
7
0
271
485
27
- MEL_5JlMLj - ML I TOTAL
77
127
19
25
141
31
107
153
135
179
8
128
1
105
1
80
61
0
48
5
65
43
77
9
0
21
40
22
90
1
82
0
55
20
0
105
0
47
55
160
461
461
265
454
354
143
244
147
12
54
0
180
1
25
396
485
402
481
412
427
45
476
482
450
37
26
237
0
389
0
395
459
486
110
1
412
486 |
486
486
486
486
486
486
486
486
486 |
486
486
486
486
486
486
486
486
486
486
486
486
486
486
486
486
486
486
486 |
486
486 |
486
486
486 |
486 |
486 !
486 |
486 !
F-3
-------
The National Study of Chemical Residues in Lake Fish Tissue
Appendix F: Occurrence of Target Chemicals
POLYCHLORINATED BlPHENYL (PCB) RESULTS FOR PREDATORS (continued)
CHEMICAL
MDL | ML
ng/kg (ppt) j ng/kg (ppt)
PCB-118 4.9
PCB-120
PCB-121
PCB-122
PCB-123
PCB-126
PCB-127
0.5
0.6
0.3
1.1
5.1
0.5
20.0
2.0
2.0
1.0
2.0
20.0
2.0
PCB-128+PCB-166 [ 3.7_[ 10.0
PCB-129+PCB-138+ I 5.4
PCB-160+PCB-163
PCB-130
PCB-131
0.4
0.6
PCB-132 [ 0.8
PCB-133
PCB-134+PCB-143
PCB-135+PCB-151+PCB-154
0.5
0.8
4.0
PCB-136 | 0.6
PCB-137
PCB-139+PCB-140
PCB-141
PCB-142
PCB-144
PCB-145
0.4
0.8
0.7
0.5
0.7
0.5
PCB-146 | 0.4
PCB-147+PCB-149
PCB-148
PCB-150
PCB-152
PCB-153+PCB-168
PCB-155
PCB-156+PCB-157
PCB-158
PCB-159
PCB-161
PCB-162
PCB-164
PCB-165
PCB-167
PCB-169
0.6
0.6
0.4
0.4
^^^L
0.3
0.5
0.4
0.4
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.4
0.2
0.3
20.0
1.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
10.0
2.0
1.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
1.0
2.0
2.0
1.0
1.0
10.0
1.0
2.0
1.0
1.0
2.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
NUMBER OF CONCENTRATION VALUES
< MDL
2
78
381
204
85
435
312
8
0
4
170
0
9
51
13
50
5
40
0
485
41
479
0
2
232
311
448
0
287
2
1
87
486
75
5
315
383
- M5iA±ELJ - ML
21
166
74
70
83
47
97
39
5
5
129
19
59
78
31
73
7
68
4
0
51
7
0
0
126
84
22
2
116
11
2
77
0
64
7
77
6
65
463
242
31
212
318
4
77
439
481
477
187
467
418
357
442
363
474
378
482
1
394
0
486
484
128
91
16
484
83
473
483
322
0
347
474
94
477
38
TOTAL
486
486
486
486
486
486
486
486
486
486
486
486
i
486
486
486
486
486
486
486
486
486
486
486
486
486
486
486
486
486
486
486
486
486
486
486
486
486
486
F-4
-------
The National Study of Chemical Residues in Lake Fish Tissue
Appendix F: Occurrence of Target Chemicals
POLYCHLORINATED BlPHENYL (PCB) RESULTS FOR PREDATORS (continued)
CHEMICAL
PCB-170
PCB-171+PCB-173
PCB-172
MDL I ML
ng/kg (ppt) i ng/kg (ppt)
5.0
0.8
0.5
J3CB-174 1 0.6
"PCB^TTS 0.6^
J^CEM76 OfT
l^CMTT 0.3^
PCB-178 I CXiT
PCB-179
PCB-180+PCB-193
PCB-181
0.4
4.5
0.5
PCB-182 [ 0.8
PCB-183+PCB-185
PCB-184
1.1
0.6
PCB-186 | 0.7
PCB-187
PCB-188
PCB-189
4.3
4.6
0.4
PCB-190 | 0.3
PCB-191
PCB-192
PCB-194
PCB-195
PCB-196
PCB-197+PCB-200
0.5
0.3
1.1
4.9
0.8
0.8
PCB-198+PCB-199 [ 0.8
PCB-201
PCB-202
PCB-203
PCB-204
4.9
0.5
0.8
0.9
J>C^^ 0.5^
PCB-206
PCB-207
PCB-208
PCB-209
4.5
0.5
0.5
5.0
20.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
1.0
2.0
1.0
10.0
2.0
2.0
5.0
2.0
2.0
10.0
10.0
1.0
1.0
2.0
1.0
5.0
20.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
20.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
10.0
2.0
2.0
20.0
NUMBER OF CONCENTRATION VALUES
< MDL
12
5
5
2
50
73
1
4
19
177
159
7
272
485
2
437
38
4
49
469
3
95
o
50
0
189
14
4
419
61
27
16
8
66
>MDL&< ML
62
15
18
9
91
119
1
13
22
^^^
153
117
7
122
0
8
33
47
3
117
^^^
18
193
^^^
77
2
180
18
8
40
145
54
54
25
197
>ML
412
466
463
475
345
294
484
469
445
481
156
210
472
92
1
476
16
401
479
320
5
465
198
468
359
484
117
454
474
27
280
405
416
453
223
TOTAL
486 |
486
486
486
486
486
486
486
486
486
486
486
486
486
486
486 !
486
486
486
486 !
486 [
486
486 |
486
486
486
486 !
486
486
486 |
486
486 |
486 [
486
486
* Some results were excluded from the database due to QC failures. Therefore, the total number may be less for some target
chemicals within the same analytical class.
t These chemicals were not analyzed during the first year of the study.
F-5
-------
The National Study of Chemical Residues in Lake Fish Tissue
Appendix F: Occurrence of Target Chemicals
POLYCHLORINATED BlPHENYL (PCB) RESULTS FOR BOTTOM DWELLERS
MDL i ML
CHEMICAL ng/kg (ppt) j ng/kg (ppt)
PCB-1 | 0.8
lo^^ 0.8
"raTs 0.6^
J3CB-4 CLfT
"PCB^S 0.7^
J3QB-.6 o!T
"PCBV 0.4^
J3CB-8 llT
"PCB^9 0.5^
_PCB-10 I 0.7
"pciTii 1 1.0
2.0
^^^°Z
2.0
2.0
2.0
1.0
1.0
5.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
PCB-12+PCB-13 [IIIIIIj^l 2'°
_PCB-14 oTfT
"PCB^TS 0.4^
J3CB-16 I 1.0
"PCB^TZ 1.0_
J^CB^Sj-l^-SO L8~
"PCB^19 0.1_
J3OB-2Ci4l3^ 4~2
l^CB^i+PCB^S 1.0_
PCB-22 1 CLlT
PCB-23 | CuT
"PCB^24 [ 0.8
PCB-25 | Q~6
"PCB^26+PCB^29 [ 3.5
PCB-27 | QJ
"PCB^SI [ 0.5
PCB-32 | O^T
"PCB^34 [ 0.5
PCB-35 ] OA~
PCB-37 0.2
"poTIs [ 0.4
PCB-39 | CL5^
"PCB^40+PCB^41+PCBV1 [ 1.6
PCB-42 | 0^
"PCB^43 [ 1.4
PCB-44+PCB-47+PCB-65 | 4^
"PCB^45+PCB^51 [ 2.2
PCB-46 ] L2~
TcB^48]^ 0.8^
2.0
1.0
2.0
2.0
5.0
0.5
10.0
2.0
0.5
2.0
2.0
2.0
10.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
1.0
^^ol
0.5
1.0
2.0
5.0
2.0
5.0
10.0
5.0
5.0
2.0
NUMBER OF CONCENTRATION VALUES
< MDL
313
320
296
132
358
99
266
84
241
336
106
317
379
83
31
26
12
79
1
22
9
357
273
55
104
117
7
30
179
386
392
30
327
219
13
1
117
4
81
150
19
- MPAA±EL_J - ML
58
55
87
84
27
104
71
132
115
33
52
38
14
44
45
48
56
31
2
25
0
30
61
94
119
106
0
101
126
5
2
7
32
103
37
16
116
4
82
132
__
23
19
11
179
10
192
58
179
39
26
237
40
2
268
319
321
327
285
392
348
386
8
61
246
172
172
388
264
90
4
^!L
358
36
73
345
378
162
387
232
TOTAL
394* |
394*
394*
395 |
395
395
395
395 |
395
395
395
395 ;
395 ;
395 \
395 I
395 :
395 ;
395 I
395 !
395
395 :
395 ;
395 I
395 !
395 ;
395 ;
395 \
395 I
395 :
395 \
395 ;
395 \
395 ;
395 ;
395 \
395 I
395 :
395 ;
395 I
113 ] 395 i
____| .^ ^
F-6
-------
The National Study of Chemical Residues in Lake Fish Tissue
Appendix F: Occurrence of Target Chemicals
POLYCHLORINATED BlPHENYL (PCB) RESULTS FOR BOTTOM DWELLERS (continued)
CHEMICAL
MDL
ng/kg (ppt)
ML
ng/kg (ppt)
NUMBER OF CONCENTRATION VALUES
< MDL
> MDL & < ML > ML 1 TOTAL
PCB-49+PCB-69
PCB-50+PCB-53
PCB-52
PCB-54
PCB-55
PCB-56
PCB-57
PCB-58
PCB-59+PCB-62+PCB-75
PCB-60
PCB-61+PCB-70+PCB-74+PCB-76
PCB-63
PCB-64
PCB-66
PCB-67
PCB-68
PCB-72
PCB-73
PCB-77
PCB-78
PCB-79
PCB-80
PCB-81
PCB-82
PCB-83+PCB-99
PCB-84
PCB-85+PCB-116+PCB-117
PCB-86+PCB-87+PCB-97+
PCB-108+PCB-119+PCB-125
PCB-88+PCB-91
PCB-89
PCB-90+PCB-101+PCB-113
PCB-92
PCB-93+PCB-95+PCB-98+
PCB-100+PCB-102
PCB-94
PCB-96
PCB-103
PCB-104
PCB-105
PCB-106
PCB-107+PCB-124
1.4
3.2
4.3
0.3
0.5
0.5
0.6
0.5
2.0
0.4
2.3
0.7
0.6
5.2
0.6
0.4
0.5
0.7
4.9
0.7
0.8
0.8
0.5
0.6
1.0
0.9
1.0
4.5
0.8
0.6
3.7
0.1
2.1
0.6
1.0
0.4
3.6
5.3
0.4
1.0
5.0
10.0
10.0
1.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
5.0
1.0
10.0
2.0
2.0
20.0
2.0
1.0
2.0
2.0
20.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
20.0
2.0
2.0
10.0
0.5
5.0
2.0
2.0
1.0
10.0
20.0
1.0
2.0
0
156
0
302
310
6
192
150
25
1
0
6
1
0
64
15
26
351
116
390
58
369
144
12
0
9
0
0
2
141
0
0
3
179
252
33
380
0
394
2
106
11
46
30
12
86
88
73
0
1
25
0
8
84
28
87
16
141
1
58
19
117
9
0
4
0
5
4
105
0
0
0
92
48
46
11
9
0
o
393
133
384
47
55
377
117
157
297
394
394
364
394
387
247
352
282
28
138
4
279
7
134
374
395
382
395
390
389
149
395
395
392
124
95
316
4
386
1
384
395
395 I
395
395
395
395 |
395
395
395
395 |
395 I
395
395
395
395 |
395
395
395
395 |
395 I
395
395
395
395 |
395
395
395
395 |
395
395
395 |
395
395
395 |
395 |
395 !
395 |
395 !
395 |
395 !
F-7
-------
The National Study of Chemical Residues in Lake Fish Tissue
Appendix F: Occurrence of Target Chemicals
POLYCHLORINATED BlPHENYL (PCB) RESULTS FOR BOTTOM DWELLERS (continued)
MDL i ML
CHEMICAL ng/kg (ppt) j ng/kg (ppt)
PCB-109 j~~ 0.5
Tci^ 0.5
"pciTiTi 0.4^
J^iEMi2 cuT
"pcB^m 0.4^
_PCB-118 43
"PCB^120 0.5^
J3CB-1_21 CuT
"PCB^122 0.3^
J^OB-IZB I 1.1
"PCB^126 I 5.1
2.0
^^^°Z
1.0
2.0
1.0
20.0
2.0
2.0
1.0
2.0
20.0
PCB~127 [ZZZZZ^It 2-°
J3O£28j-1>CB£6^ ^J
----p^-^^p^-^^p^-^-+ 54
PCB-163
J>CEM30 O^T
"PCB^TSI 0.6^
J3QB-132 CUT
TcMSS^^^^^^^^^^ 0.5
7cM34+PCB^143^ 0.8^
^CQ^35+PCQ^+PCQ^5^^^\ 4xT
7cB£36^ 0.6^
TcM3^ °^~
7cM39+PCB£40^ 0.8^
TcM4^ Q-7
"PCB^142 0.5^
TcM44^^^^^^^^^^] 0.7
l^aTHS 1 0.5
10.0
20.0
1.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
10.0
2.0
1.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
J^CB-146 [IIIIII°3 1'°
TcM47+PCM4^ ^
~PciTl48 0.6^
2.0
2.0
TceTso^^ o.4j i_.o_
^<^ °^4
"PCB^153+PCB^168 4/l_
J3QB-155 03^
"PCB^156+PCB^157 0.5^
J>CB-15_8 OA~
PCB-159 0.4
"PCB^161 0.5^
J3QB-1__62 OxT
PCB-164 0.3
1.0
10.0
1.0
2.0
1.0
1.0
2.0
NUMBER OF CONCENTRATION VALUES
< MDL
1
0
93
395
3
0
12
155
30
5
237
138
0
0
0
55
0
2
11
1
3
2
2
1
394
12
347
0
0
67
116
234
0
120
0
0
33
395
1.0 21
1.0 I 0
- MPAA±EL_J - ML
0
0
60
0
4
1
53
147
22
17
107
75
2
0
0
50
1
11
0
12
0
15
0
1
5
35
0
0
93
394
395
242
0
388
394
330
93
343
373
51
182
393
395
395
290
394
390
373
394
380
393
378
394
0
378
13
395
395
235
77] 202
61
0
116
0
0
13
0
15
0
100
395
159
395
395
349
0
359
395
TOTAL
395
395
395
395
395
395
395
395
395
395
395
395
395
395
395
395
395
395
395
395
395
395
395
395
395
395
395
395
395
395
395
395
395
395
395
395
395
395
395
395
-------
The National Study of Chemical Residues in Lake Fish Tissue
Appendix F: Occurrence of Target Chemicals
POLYCHLORINATED BlPHENYL (PCB) RESULTS FOR BOTTOM DWELLERS (continued)
CHEMICAL
PCB-165
MDL
ng/kg (ppt)
0.4
ML 1
ng/kg (ppt) j < MDL
1.0 i 145
NUMBER OF CONCENTRATION VALUES
> MDL & < ML > ML I TOTAL
46
204
395
PCB-167
PCB-169
PCB-170
PCB-171+PCB-173
PCB-172
PCB-174
PCB-175
PCB-176
PCB-177
PCB-178
PCB-179
PCB-180+PCB-193
PCB-181
PCB-182
PCB-183+PCB-185
PCB-184
PCB-186
PCB-187
PCB-188
PCB-189
PCB-190
PCB-191
PCB-192
PCB-194
PCB-195
PCB-196
PCB-197+PCB-200
PCB-198+PCB-199
PCB-201
PCB-202
PCB-203
PCB-204
PCB-205
PCB-206
PCB-207
PCB-208
PCB-209
0.2
0.3
5.0
0.8
0.5
0.6
0.6
0.5
0.3
0.8
0.4
4.5
0.5
0.8
1.1
0.6
0.7
4.3
4.6
0.4
0.3
0.5
0.3
1.1
4.9
0.8
0.8
0.8
4.9
0.5
0.8
0.9
0.5
4.5
0.5
0.5
5.0
1.0
1.0
20.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
1.0
2.0
1.0
10.0
2.0
2.0
5.0
2.0
2.0
10.0
10.0
1.0
1.0
2.0
1.0
5.0
20.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
20.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
10.0
2.0
2.0
20.0
0
117
0
0
0
0
2
10
0
0
4
0
45
61
4
85
391
0
260
5
0
4
350
0
18
3
6
3
41
3
226
9
2
0
0
7
0
63
10
0
0
0
26
25
0
0
0
0
80
49
0
137
2
0
66
9
0
30
28
0
73
0
16
0
111
0
82
35
9
7
1
49
395
215
385
395
395
395
367
360
395
395
391
395
270
285
391
173
2
395
69
381
395
361
17
395
304
392
373
392
243
391
391
87
351
384
388
394
339
395
395
395
395
395
395
395
395
395
395
395
395
395
395
395
395
395
395
395
395
395
395
395
395
395
395
395
395
395
395
395
395
395
395
395
395
395
* Some results were excluded from the database due to QC failures. Therefore,
chemicals within the same analytical class.
t These chemicals were not analyzed during the first year of the study.
the total number may be less for some target
F-9
-------
^^^^^^^^H The National Study of Chemical Residues in Lake Fish Tissue ^^^^^^^^H
Appendix F: Occurrence of Target Chemicals
PCB AROCLOR RESULTS FOR PREDATORS
CHEMICAL
Aroclor-1016
Aroclor-1221
Aroclor-1232
Aroclor-1242
Aroclor-1248
Aroclor-1254
Aroclor-1260
MDL
Mg/kg (ppb)
0.68
0.76
0.76
0.76
0.76
0.76
0.76
ML
Mg/kg (ppb)|
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
NUMBER OF CONCENTRATION VALUES E
< MDL |>MDL& ML TOTAL |
0 486
Oj 486
^^^JLJ 486
_______________________2\ 486
PCB AROCLOR RESULTS FOR BOTTOM DWELLERS
CHEMICAL
Aroclor-1016
Aroclor-1221
Aroclor-1232
Aroclor-1242
Aroclor-1248
Aroclor-1254
Aroclor-1260
MDL
Mg/kg (ppb)
0.68
0.76
0.76
0.76
0.76
0.76
0.76
ML
Mg/kg (ppb)j
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
NUMBER OF CONCENTRATION VALUES
< MDL !>MDL& ML TOTAL |
0 395
0 395
^JZjLJ 395
0^1^395
11 L^L.
10!^9^
DlOXIN AND FURAN RESULTS FOR PREDATORS
CHEMICAL
2,3,7,8-TCDD
1,2,3,7,8-PeCDD
1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDD
1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDD
1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDD
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD
OCDD
2,3,7,8-TCDF
1,2,3,7,8-PeCDF
2,3,4,7,8-PeCDF
1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDF
1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDF
1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDF
2,3,4,6,7,8-HxCDF
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDF
1,2,3,4,7,8,9-HpCDF
OCDF
MDL
ng/kg (ppt)
0.01
0.06
0.06
0.04
0.04
0.03
0.09
0.03
0.04
0.06
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.06
0.05
0.05
ML
ng/kg (ppt)
0.1
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
1.0
0.1
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.2 | 1.0
NUMBER OF CONCENTRATION VALUES E
< MDL j > MDL & < ML ] > ML TOTAL (
297 142 47 j 486
__403j 75 | 8_j 486
^^ZLJ 15
^^50J 128
460 26
'''IIII^Kl 6S
467| 9
IIIjI8] 189
ZZZl^l] 32
^^42CH 61
ZZZ^slTj 28
''IIII^ll U
483 3
478 8
^^74J 11
^^486J 0
__| ^
CM 486
8U^86
^^^JLJ '486
^^JIJ 486
^^59J 486
1 486
5 P^t86
^^JLJ 486
0^1^86
^^^JLJ '486
^^JJ 486
^^OJ 486
OJ 486 •
* Some results were excluded from the database due to QC failures. Therefore, the total number may be less for some target
chemicals within the same analytical class.
t These chemicals were not analyzed during the first year of the study.
F-10
-------
^^^^^^^^H The National Study of Chemical Residues in Lake Fish Tissue ^^^^^^^^H
Appendix F: Occurrence of Target Chemicals
DlOXIN AND FURAN RESULTS FOR BOTTOM DWELLERS
CHEMICAL
2,3,7,8-TCDD
1,2,3,7,8-PeCDD
1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDD
1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDD
1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDD
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD
OCDD
2,3,7,8-TCDF
1,2,3,7,8-PeCDF
2,3,4,7,8-PeCDF
1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDF
1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDF
1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDF
2,3,4,6,7,8-HxCDF
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDF
1,2,3,4,7,8,9-HpCDF
OCDF
MDL
ng/kg (ppt)
0.01
0.06
0.06
0.04
0.04
0.03
0.09
0.03
0.04
0.06
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.06
0.05
0.05
0.2
... I NUMBER OF CONCENTRATION VALUES I
ng/kg (ppt) < MDL J > MDL & < ML
0.1 76 | 133
0.5 L^96j 226
0.51^^1661 193
°^Ll^J 209
0.5 L^J^ 201
0.5 L^J35J 74
^^^^Ton^^09J 22
0.1 ^^2T1 67
0.5 P^JZ3 211
CllLLZZ^J 264
^^^^2lLLZ^2Tj 168
0.5 ^^2^7J 147
CliLLZZ^J 10
^^^^0^2^306J 88
0.5 236) 146
0.5 L^3^T 2
1.0 360 32
>ML
186
73
36
131
21
186
164
307
8
37
2
1
0
1
13
2
3
TOTAL
395 I
395
395
395
395
395
395
395
395
395
395
395 |
395
395
395
395
395
ORCANOCHLORIDE PESTICIDE RESULTS FOR PREDATORS
CHEMICAL
2,4'-DDD
2,4'-DDE
2,4'-DDT
4,4'-DDD
4,4'-DDE
4,4'-DDT
Aldrin
Chlordane, alpha-
Chlordane, gamma-
Dicofol
Dieldrin
Endosulfan 1
Endosulfan II
MDL
Mg/kg (ppb),
0.38
0.82
0.38
0.52
0.74
0.66
2.178
1.814
0.488
16.24
0.44
1.22
10.3
NUMBER OF CONCENTRATION VALUES
pg/kg (ppb) < MDL > MDL & < ML
2.0 [347 3
2.0 I 318 17
2.0_|__[l34j 10
^^^^^^ZZZi^j 5
2.0 ^^J^ 117
2.0 P^44^ 10
4.0 L^480J 5
^^^^Ton^^53J 16
2.0 473| 10
40.0 P^jrT 1
1.0 r^462^ 2
4.oJ TeT" 7
^^^^ 0
>ML
__
17
"III...
41
257
33
1
17
3
14
22
11
0
TOTAL
352f |
352f
^52t]
486
486
486
486
486
486
486
486
486
486
* Some results were excluded from the database due to QC failures. Therefore, the total number may be less for some target
chemicals within the same analytical class.
t These chemicals were not analyzed during the first year of the study.
F-ll
-------
The National Study of Chemical Residues in Lake Fish Tissue
Appendix F: Occurrence of Target Chemicals
ORCANOCHLORIDE PESTICIDE RESULTS FOR PREDATORS (continued)
MDL
CHEMICAL Hg/kg (ppb)
Endosulfan Sulfate j 4.16
Jindrin 2.86
Ethalfluralin 1.67
Heptachlor 1.79
Heptachlor Epoxide 0.52
Hexachlorocyclohexane (BHC), 4.7
alpha-
Hexachlorocyclohexane (BHC), 1.13
Joeta-
Hexachlorocyclohexane (BHC), 1.5
jdelta-
Hexachlorocyclohexane (BHC), 0.606
gamma-
Isodrin ~~ 1.58
Kepone 12.23
Methoxychlor 7.106
Mirex 1.52
Nonachlor, cis- 1.95
Nonachlor, trans- 1.48
Octachlorostyrene 0.83
Oxychlordane 1.94
Pendimethalin 6.21
Pentachloroanisole 1.312
Pentachloronitrobenzene 0.76
Permethrin, cis- 25
Permethrin, trans- 21
Toxaphene 20
IvifiuraNn 2.98
ML
Hg/kg (ppb)
10.0
10.0
4.0
2.0
NUMBER OF CONCENTRATION VALUES
< MDL i>MDL&ML
1
2
4
17
3
0
13
1
1
1
15
6
2
5
17
3
3
0
1
7
1
4
0
1
TOTAL
470*
486
486
486
486
486
486
486
486
486
486
486
486
486
486
486
486
486
486
486
486
486
486
486
ORCANOCHLORINE PESTICIDE RESULTS FOR BOTTOM DWELLERS
MDL
_£HEJVIICAL__^^ Hg/kg (ppb)
2/tMX)D 0.38
2,4'-DDE 0.82
^4^-DDT 0.38
4,4'-DDD 0.52
4,4'-DDE 0.74
ML
Hg/kg (ppb)
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
J^DDT [IIIIII^^ 2£_
NUMBER OF CONCENTRATION VALUES
< MDL i>MDL&ML
10
57
18
123
346
40
TOTAL
274tj
274f
274t |
395
395
395
* Some results were excluded from the database due to QC failures. Therefore, the total number may be less for some target
chemicals within the same analytical class.
t These chemicals were not analyzed during the first year of the study.
F-12
-------
The National Study of Chemical Residues in Lake Fish Tissue
Appendix F: Occurrence of Target Chemicals
ORCANOCHLORINE PESTICIDE RESULTS FOR BOTTOM DWELLERS (continued)
CHEMICAL
Aldrin
Chlordane, alpha-
Chlordane, gamma-
Dicofol
Dieldrin
Endosulfan 1
Endosulfan II
Endosulfan Sulfate
Endrin
Ethalfluralin
Heptachlor
Heptachlor Epoxide
Hexachlorocyclohexane (BHC),
alpha-
Hexachlorocyclohexane (BHC),
beta-
Hexachlorocyclohexane (BHC),
delta-
Hexachlorocyclohexane (BHC),
gamma-
Isodrin
Kepone
Methoxychlor
Mi rex
Nonachlor, cis-
Nonachlor, trans-
Octachlorostyrene
Oxychlordane
MDL
ng/kg (ppb)
2.178
1.814
0.488
16.24
0.44
1.22
10.3
4.16
2.86
1.67
1.79
0.52
4.7
1.13
1.5
0.606
1.58
12.23
7.106
1.52
1.95
1.48
0.83
1.94
ML
ng/kg (ppb)
4.0
4.0
2.0
40.0
1.0
4.0
40.0
10.0
10.0
4.0
2.0
2.0
10.0
4.0
4.0
2.0
4.0
40.0
20.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
2.0
4.0
Pendimethalin [ 6.21 [ 20.0
Pentachloroanisole 1.312
Pentachloronitrobenzene [ 0.76
Permethrin, cis-
Permethrin, trans-
Toxaphene
Trifluralin
25
21
20
2.98
4.0
2.0
100.0
40.0
100.0
10.0
NUMBER OF CONCENTRATION VALUES
< MDL
386
273
347
387
322
372
395
376
381
305
371
370
387
357
374
364
376
303
372
376
327
236
387
350
376
303
345
368
383
394
251
>MDL&< ML
4
64
26
2
13
7
0
17
13
36
2
16
8
26
11
20
9
47
14
14
22
85
27
13
67
34
17
4
1
84
>ML
58
22
6
60
IIK
0
2
1
54
22
9
0
12
10
11
10
45
9
5
46
74
1
18
6
25
16
10
8
0
60
TOTAL
395
395
395
395
395
395
395
395
395
395
395
395
395
395
395
395
395
395
395
395
395
395
395
395
395
395
395
395
395
395
395
* Some results were excluded from the database due to QC failures. Therefore, the total number may be less for some target
chemicals within the same analytical class.
t These chemicals were not analyzed during the first year of the study.
F-13
-------
The National Study of Chemical Residues in Lake Fish Tissue
Appendix F: Occurrence of Target Chemicals
ORCANOPHOSPHORUS PESTICIDE RESULTS FOR PREDATORS
CHEMICAL
Chlorpyriphos
Diazinon
Disulfoton
Disulfoton Sulfone
Ethion
Paraoxon
Parathion, Ethyl-
Terbufos
Terbufos Sulfone
MDL
ng/kg (ppb)
59
40
161
275
254
121
125
286
73
— "i '=
... I NUMBER OF CONCENTRATION VALUES I
pg/kg (ppb)j < MDL | > MDL & < ML
200.0 486 0
100.0 P^486j 0
500.0_r~484n 0
''^^LZ^J °
1000.0 P^J8^ 0
^MJ^^^IJ °
^^^oaoj^^86j o
1000.0 486J 0
200.0 I 48fTj (T
> ML TOTAL
0 486
0 L^486
^^^JLJ 484*
°L^86
0 P^486j
^^^JLJ ^~I
^^OJ 486
0 486
0 I 486
ORCANOPHOSPHORUS PESTICIDE RESULTS FOR BOTTOM DWELLERS
CHEMICAL
Chlorpyriphos
Diazinon
Disulfoton
Disulfoton Sulfone
Ethion
Paraoxon
Parathion, Ethyl-
Terbufos
Terbufos Sulfone
MDL
ng/kg (ppb)
59
40
161
275
254
121
125
286
73
NUMBER OF CONCENTRATION VALUES
pg/kg (ppb) < MDL f > MDL & < ML > ML | TOTAL
200.0 395 0 | 0 | 395
100.0 395 0 | 0 | 395
500.0 373j 0 | 0 | 373*
1000.0 ___395J 0 | 0 I 395
^^^moaol^^395j o 3Z?J 395
500.0 ^^3^5J 0 | 0 395
500.0 L^395J 0 0 LJ95
__[^^2_CZ^U 0 ____________J5H 395
20OO| 395J 0 Oj 395
SEMIVOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUND RESULTS FOR PREDATORS
CHEMICAL
1,2,4,5-Tetrachlorobenzene
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
1,2-Dichlorobenzene
1,3-Dichlorobenzene
1,4-Dichlorobenzene
2,4,5-Trichlorophenol
2,4,6-Tris (1,1-Dimethylethyl)
Phenol
3,3'-Dichlorobenzidine
4-Bromophenyl Phenyl Ether
MDL
pg/kg (ppb)
111
111
111
111
111
111
111
555
111
... NUMBER OF CONCENTRATION VALUES I
Mg/kg (ppb) < MDL > MDL & < ML
333.0 485 0
333.0 485 0
^^^J33ToJ^^85J 0
333.0 ^^485J 0
333.0 P^485J 0
333.0 P^485j 0
333.0 485| 0
________________^ 0
3^0| ^5| o
> ML TOTAL* j
0 [ 485
0 | 485
^^OJ 485
0 485 |
0 P^485
0 P^485
0 485
^^JLJ ^5*
0| 485
* Some results were excluded from the database due to QC failures. Therefore, the total number may be less for some target
chemicals within the same analytical class.
t These chemicals were not analyzed during the first year of the study.
F-14
-------
The National Study of Chemical Residues in Lake Fish Tissue
Appendix F: Occurrence of Target Chemicals
SEMIVOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUND RESULTS FOR PREDATORS (continued)
CHEMICAL
MDL
ng/kg (ppb)
ML
ng/kg (ppb)
4,4'-Methylene bis 222^ ^^
(2-Chloroaniline)
Acenaphthene ^~^_LLU 333X)
Acenaphthylene 111
Anthracene 111
Benzo(a)Anthracene 111
Benzo(a)Pyrene
Benzo(b)Fluoranthene
Benzo(ghi)Perylene
111
111
222
Benzo(j)Fluoranthene 111
Benzo(k)Fluoranthene
Bis (2-ethylhexyl) Phthalate
111
111
Butyl Benzyl Phthalate | 111
Chrysene
Di-n-Butyl Phthalate
Dibenz(a,h)Anthracene
111
111
111
Diethylstilbestrol [ 111
Fluoranthene
Fluorene
Hexachlorobenzene
Hexachlorobutadiene
lndeno(1,2,3-cd)Pyrene
Naphthalene
111
111
111
111
222
111
Nitrobenzene 111
Nonylphenol
Pentachlorobenzene
Pentachlorophenol
Perylene
Phenanthrene
Phenol
Pyrene
Tetrabromobisphenol A
111
222
555
111
111
111
111
5550
333.0
1665.0
333.0
333.0
333.0
666.0
333.0
333.0
333.0
333.0
333.0
333.0
333.0
333.0
333.0
333.0
333.0
333.0
666.0
333.0
333.0
333.0
666.0
1665.0
333.0
333.0
333.0
333.0
16650.0
NUMBER OF CONCENTRATION VALUES
< MDL
>MDMSr<^^
432 0
485
485
485
485
485
485
485
485
485
479
482
485
451
485
435
485
485
485
485
485
485
485
479
485
481
485
484
485
484
429
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
1
0
29
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
6
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
2
0
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
TOTAL*
432*
485
485
485
485
485
485
485
485
485
485
485
485
485
485
485
485
485
485
485
485
485
485
485
485
481*
485
484*
485
485
429*
There were only 485 predator samples analyzed for the semivolatile organics.
* Some results were excluded from the database due to QC failures. Therefore, the total number may be less for some target
chemicals within the same analytical class.
t These chemicals were not analyzed during the first year of the study.
F-15
-------
^^^^^^^^H The National Study of Chemical Residues in Lake Fish Tissue ^^^^^^^^H
Appendix F: Occurrence of Target Chemicals
SEMIVOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUND RESULTS FOR BOTTOM DWELLERS
MDL ML
CHEMICAL H9/kg (ppb) ng/kg (ppb)
1,2,4,5-Tetrachlorobenzene |
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene j
1,2-Dichlorobenzene
1,3-Dichlorobenzene |
1,4-Dichlorobenzene
2,4,5 -Trichlorophenol
2,4,6-Tris(1,1-Dimethylethyl) I
Phenol
3,3'-Dichlorobenzidine
4-Bromophenyl Phenyl Ether |
4,4'-Methylene bis(2-Chloroaniline) |
Acenaphthene
Acenaphthylene |
Anthracene
Benzo(a)Anthracene |
Benzo(a)Pyrene |
Benzo(b)Fluoranthene
Benzo(ghi)Perylene |
Benzo(j)Fluoranthene
Benzo(k)Fluoranthene |
Bis (2-ethylhexyl) Phthalate I
Butyl Benzyl Phthalate
Chrysene |
Di-n-Butyl Phthalate
Dibenz(a,h)Anthracene |
Diethylstilbestrol
Fluoranthene
Fluorene |
Hexachlorobenzene
Hexachlorobutadiene |
lndeno(1,2,3-cd)Pyrene
Naphthalene
Nitrobenzene |
Nonylphenol |
Pentachlorobenzene
Pentachlorophenol [
Perylene
Phenanthrene
Phenol
Pyrene
Tetrabromobisphenol A
111 | 333.0
NUMBER OF CONCENTRATION VALUES
< MDL >MDL& ML
"^395 0 0
111 | 333.0 1^39^
111 __333.oJ 395^
111 | 333.0
111 333.0
395
395
111 ^^^.oj 395
111 | 333.0
555 I ^r^
111 [ 333.0
222 I 666A__
111 I ^^
111 J ^^L
111 I ^r^
111 [ 333.0
111 I ^^L
111 I ^^
222 j 666A__
111 I ^^
111 [ 333.0
111 I ^f^L
395
131
395
377
395
395
395
395
395
394
395
395
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
TOTAL* j
3951
395 !
395
395 1
395 i
0 flj 395 i
0 0
o I o~
0 | 0
0 I 0
o I o~
0 j 0
o I o~
o I o
0 I 0
o I (T
0 [ 0
0 ) 0
39^7] o | 0
384 \^^~^^~W~\ 0
111 333.0J 394
111 J ^^L
111 I ^^
111 [ 333.0
111 I ^°_
395
368
395 I
131*
395 I
377* i
395
395 j
395 I
395 i
395 |
394* I
395 i
395
394* I
395 i
1 OJ 395 i
0 j 0
21 I
-------
The National Study of Chemical Residues in Lake Fish Tissue
Appendix G
Cumulative Distribution Functions
-------
-------
The National Study of Chemical Residues in Lake Fish Tissue
Appendix C: Cumulative Distribution Functions
Mercury CDFs G-2
PCB CDFs G-4
Dioxin and Furan CDFs G-6
DDT CDFs G-12
Chlordane CDFs G-14
G-l
-------
Mercury CDFs
Predator
- Data
•- Screening Value
•• 95% Confidence Intervals
a
vo
hs
\0
rrS «g
ON -1
eo
is
•o
•o
n
3
n.
r>
I
i
ro
CM
o
3
3
n
i*
5"
3
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
Mercury Concentration (ppb)
-------
Mercury CDFs
Bottom Dweller
o
Data
95% Confidence Intervals
.
•o
•o
n
3
Q.
&)
H^
<'
O
o
3
3
r>
i*
5"
3
100
200
300
400
500
600
Mercury Concentration (ppb)
-------
PCB CDFs
Predator
o
-k
o
01
I
o>
u
o
00
9-
s
-
-
_..
-•
— -
_
~i
(
mm»^^^JS'
|^**
i
i\
IB
ff
MB
1
1
.....
Data
Scre<
95/0
sning Value
Confidence Intervals
1 1 1 1 1 1 1
) 100 200 300 400 500 600 70
- 10
\0
hs
rs.
- CM
vo
m -*
CO W
-ON — '
10 *-
^ o
30624
Number
CM
m
- o
0
9
•o
•o
n
3
a.
r>
I
o
3
3
n
cf
5"
3
Total PCB (Sum of Congeners) Concentration (ppb)
-------
PCB CDFs
Bottom Dweller
o
-!-
Data
Intervals
.
CM
s
VO
ro
•o
•o
n
3
Q.
?•
(N
0)
1
00
CO
CM
0\
&)
H^
<'
O
o
3
3
r>
cf
5"
3
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
Total PCBs (Sum of Congeners) Concentration (ppb)
-------
Dioxin and Furan CDFs
Predator
O
oo
(O
o
I
ON
0»
I
o>
z
o»
o
CM
ON
-
_
-
-
_
-
Igf7^"
1
k'
L
Data
Screening V
'alue
ience Intervals
- 10
\o
hs
rs.
- CM
VO
CO
- ON
-S
o
CM
r/%
m
5
Ol
O)
•a
•a
n
3
n.
r>
I
o
3
3
n
cf
5"
3
Total Dioxin and Furan Concentration (ppt)
-------
Dioxin and Furan CDFs
Bottom Dweller
O
(0
01
o>
u
0
10
Total Dioxin and Furan Concentration (ppt)
20
.
•o
•o
m
3
Q.
5'
?•
&)
rt
<'
o
O
3
3
r>
i*
5"
3
-------
Dioxin and Furan CDFs
Predator
ON
o
GO
o-
o
oo-
0>
§ ~-
1 *-
o
CM
r'"W
,
f
[
<
...... (
.
.
.
1
,
.
1
Data
Screening Value
?5% Confidence Intervals
H2 30624 45935 61247 765.
Number of Lakes
5
•o
•o
n
3
n.
r>
I
o
3
3
n
cf
5"
3
10
20
30
40
Total TEQ Concentration (ppt)
NOTE: Total TEQ includes Total Dioxin and Furan plus 12 Coplanar PCBs.
-------
Dioxin and Furan CDFs
Bottom Dweller
o
o
o
tO
to
01
O>
kf
o>
c.
1
10
Data
95% Confidence Intervals
i
15
8
CM
S
\0
m
00
CO
CM
O\
o>
rs -i
rs M-
CM o
s 1
.
•o
•o
m
3
Q.
&)
rt
<'
O
o
3
3
r>
cf
5"
3
20
25
Total TEQ Concentration (ppt)
NOTE: Total TEQ includes Total Dioxin and Furan plus 12 Coplanar PCBs.
-------
Dioxin and Furan CDFs
Predator
ON
(O
o
Hi
o
01
w
2
8-
0
CM
•
.
?
IS)
1 1
0 10 20
Data
Screening
. O C O/« f*r\ n4
Value
:idence Intervals
H2 30624 45935 61247 765
Number of Lakes
1 *-*
30
a
•o
•o
n
3
n.
r>
I
o
3
3
n
cf
5"
3
12 Coplanar PCB Concentration (ppt)
-------
Dioxin and Furan CDFs
Bottom Dweller
o
0
i
10
Data
95% Confidence Intervals
i
15
8
20
12 Coplanar PCB Concentration (ppt)
CM
hS
VO
CO
- hs -1
CM 'S
S |
00
_ ro
CM
o\
.
•o
•o
n
3
Q.
$
o
3
3
r>
cf
o"
3
-------
DDT CDFs
Predator
o
ON
o-
o
00~
0>
I -
S-
f
...
f ^
\.
—*
D,
-— Sc
. O'
ata
:reening Value
>% Confidence Intervals
H2 30624 45935 61247 765.
Number of Lakes
1 1 1 1 1 1 *-*
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400
5
•o
•o
n
3
n.
r>
I
o
3
3
n
cf
5"
3
Total DDT Concentration (ppb)
-------
DDT CDFs
Bottom Dweller
o
Data
95% Confidence Intervals
g
CM
S
\0
m
rs -i
rs M-
CM o
L.
V
s 1
oo
CO
CM
O\
500
1000
1500
Total DDT Concentration (ppb)
.
n
3
Q.
5'
?•
&)
rt
<'
o
o
3
3
r>
cf
5"
3
-------
Chlordane CDFs
Predator
ON
o
V)
O
0)
I
o>
u
s
1 1
) 20 40
D
-— s
. o
ata
creening Value
5% Confidence Intervals
H2 30624 45935 61247 765.
Number of Lakes
I i i «-*
60 80 100
9
•o
•o
n
3
n.
r>
I
o
3
3
n
i*
5"
3
Total Chlordane Concentration (ppb)
-------
Chlordane CDFs
Bottom Dweller
o
Data
95% Confidence Intervals
g
.
CM
S
\0
m
rs
rs
CM
•o
•o
n
3
Q.
$
1
00
CO
CM
O\
o
3
3
r>
i*
5"
3
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
Total Chlordane Concentration (ppb)
-------
-------
The National Study of Chemical Residues in Lake Fish Tissue
Appendix H
Detection Agreement between
Replicate Sample Pairs
-------
-------
CHEMICAL
BOTH ABOVE
DETECTION
PREDATORS (N=70 SAMPLES)
I DETECTION
BOTH BELOW RESULTS
DETECTION DIFFER
PERCENT
AGREEMENT
BOTTOM DWELLER
DETECTION
RESULTS PERCENT
DIFFER AGREEMENT
s (N=52 SAMPLES)
DETECTION I
RESULTS PERCENT
DIFFER AGREEMENT
METALS ^H
Mercury
Mercury
Arsenate
Arsenite
Total Inorganic Arsenic
Dimethylarsonic Acid
Monomethylarsonic Acid
70
0
0
0
1
0
0 0
Ar.
69 1
70 0
70 0
68, 1
69 1
100
senic
99
100
100
99
99
52 0
0 52
7 39
3 43
O, 52
0 52
0 100
0 100
6 88
6 88
O, 100
0 100
Appendix H: D
•election Agri
PCBS ^Bl
PCB-1
PCB-2
PCB-3
PCB-4
PCB-5
PCB-6
PCB-7
PCB-8
PCB-9
PCB-10
PCB-11
PCB-12+PCB-13
PCB-14
PCB-15
PCB-16
3
2
15
27
0
16
5
19
2
0
30
0
0
35
38
__! _
67 1
40 15
32 11
68, 2
39 15
53 1 12~
36 15
67 1
67 3
30 10
66 4
__| _
28 7
21 11
96
99
79
84
97
79
83
79
99
96
86
94
100
90
84
__! _
8 39
7 32
33 14
4 , 45
36 11
15 , 24
40 7
16 25
4 45
32 15
6 41
__| _
45 6
47 2
cT1 sT1
5 90
13 75
5 90
3 , 94j
5 90
13 , 75
5 90
11 79
3 94
5 90
5 90
_| _
1 98
3 94
ent between Replicate Sample Pairs
•
?
•u
*
jj
J
i;
•
•
3
-------
PREDATORS (N=70 SAMPLES)
BOTTOM DWELLERS (N=52 SAMPLES)
CHEMICAL
BOTH ABOVE
DETECTION
BOTH BELOW
DETECTION
DETECTION
RESULTS
DIFFER
I DETECTION
PERCENT I RESULTS
AGREEMENT DIFFER
PERCENT
AGREEMENT
DETECTION
RESULTS
DIFFER
PERCENT
AGREEMENT
PCBs (continued)
PCB-17
PCB-18+PCB-30
PCB-19
PCB-20+PCB-28
PCB-21+PCB-33
PCB-22
PCB-23
PCB-24
PCB-25
PCB-26+PCB-29
PCB-27
PCB-31
PCB-32
PCB-34
PCB-35
PCB-36
49
50
38
59
55
62
0
4
34
13
12
58
33
5
0
0
15
14
16
8
10
4
67
64
25
50
51
5
23
58
70
70
6
6
16
3
5
4
3
2
11
7
7
7
14
7
0
0
PCB-37 | 61 | 2 | 7
PCB-38 | 1 | 67 | 2
PCB-39
PCB-40+PCB-41+PCB-71
PCB-42
PCB-43
PCB-44+PCB-47+PCB-65
PCB-45+PCB-51
3
59
61
14
60
22
60
8
6
45
4
39
7
3
3
11
6
9
91 46
91 49
77 43
96 52
93 48
94 50
96 3
97 14
84 44
90 38
90 35
90 50
80 44
90 28
100 1
100 1
90 48
97 6
90 18
96 49
96 51
84 36
91 51
87 39
3
0
5
0
1
2
47
30
6
9
12
2
1
18
51
51
4
39
25
1
0
12
0
6
3
3
4
0
3
0
2
8
2
5
5
0
7
6
0
0
0
7
9
2
1
4
1
7
94
94
92
100
94
100
96
85
96
90
90
100
87
88
100
100
100
87
83
96
98
92
98
87
•o
•o
n
3
Q.
5'
a
O
n
S
r>
cf
0*
n
n
3
n
cf
o-
n
cf
I
-------
PREDATORS (N=70 SAMPLES)
BOTTOM DWELLERS (N=52 SAMPLES)
CHEMICAL
BOTH ABOVE
DETECTION
BOTH BELOW
DETECTION
DETECTION
RESULTS
DIFFER
PERCENT
AGREEMENT
DETECTION
RESULTS PERCENT
DIFFER AGREEMENT
DETECTION
RESULTS
DIFFER
PERCENT
AGREEMENT
PCBs (continued)
PCB-46
PCB-48
PCB-49+PCB-69
PCB-50+PCB-53
PCB-52
PCB-54
PCB-55
PCB-56
PCB-57
PCB-58
PCB-59+PCB-62+PCB-75
PCB-60
PCB-61+PCB-70+PCB-74+
PCB-76
PCB-63
PCB-64
PCB-66
PCB-67
PCB-68
PCB-72
PCB-73
PCB-77
PCB-78
PCB-79
9
56
65
10
57 [ 4
10 [ 4
1 | 4
53 | 7
94
94
94
90
65 | 3 2 | 97
2 66 2 97
5
66
10
12
39
67
70
54
67
64
41
49
46
0
21
0
36
58 [ 7
2 | 2
52 [ 8
46 | 12
20 | 11
1 [ 2
0 | 0
8 [ 8
0 | 3
6
21
12
18
67
40
69
22
0
8
9
6
3
9
1
12
90
97
89
83
84
97
100
89
31 16
48 2
52 0
29 15
52 0
6 40
5 35
51 0
26 18
33 13
45 3
52 0
52 0
51 1
96 52 0
100 si"1 o~
89
87
91
96
87
99
83
43 6
50 0
46 4
2 49
34 12
1 51
43 5
5 [ 90
2 [ 96
0 | 100
8 [ 85
0 | 100
6 [ 88
12 [ 77
1 | 98
8 [ 85
6 | 88
4 | 92
0 [ 100
0 | 100
0 [ 100
0 | 100
0
3
2
2
1
6
0
4
100
94
96
96
98
88
100
92
•a
•a
n
3
Q.
.
o
n
S
r>
n
n
3
n
cf
o-
n
!
n
3
X
n
•a
I
n
-------
CHEMICAL
BOTH ABOVE
DETECTION
PREDATORS (M
BOTH BELOW
DETECTION
=70 SAMPLES)
DETECTION
RESULTS
DIFFER
PERCENT
AGREEMENT
BOI
DETECTION
RESULTS
DIFFER
FTOM DWELLER
PERCENT
AGREEMENT
s (N=52 SAMPI
DETECTION
RESULTS
DIFFER
ii^^^"
PERCENT
AGREEMENT
PCBs (continued)
PCB-80
PCB-81
PCB-82
PCB-83+PCB-99
PCB-84
PCB-85+PCB-116+PCB-117
PCB-86+PCB-87+PCB-97+
PCB-108+PCB-119+PCB-125
PCB-88+PCB-91
PCB-89
PCB-90+PCB-101+PCB-113
PCB-92
PCB-93+PCB-95+PCB-98+
PCB-100+PCB-102
PCB-94
PCB-96
PCB-103
PCB-104
PCB-105
PCB-106
PCB-107+PCB-124
PCB-109
PCB-110+PCB-115
PCB-111
PCB-112
0
7
63
70
62
69
65
65
9
69
68
68
3
3
45
0
65
0
61
66
69
27
0
70 [ 0
51 [ 12
5 | 2
0 [ 0
5 | 3
0
2
4
52
0
0
1
59
65
16
69
4
70
4
2
0
35
70
1
3
1
9
1
2
1
8
2
9
1
1
0
5
2
1
8
0
100
83
97
100
96
99
96
99
87
99
97
99
89
97
87
99
99
100
93
97
99
89
100
1
28
51
52
50
52
52
51
30
52
52
51
24
15
44
2
52
0
51
52
52
37
0
49
12
1
0
1
0
0
0
14
0
0
0
19
31
3
50
0
52
1
0
0
8
52
2 [ 96
12 [ 77
0 | 100
0 [ 100
1 | 98
0
0
1
8
0
0
1
9
6
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
7
0
100
100
98
85
100
100
98
83
88
90
100
100
100
100
100
100
87
100
•o
•o
n
3
Q.
5'
a
O
n
0
n
n
3
n
cf
o-
n
cf
I
n
3
30
n
•o
I
n
-------
PREDATORS (N=70 SAMPLES)
BOTTOM DWELLERS (N=52 SAMPLES)
CHEMICAL
BOTH ABOVE
DETECTION
BOTH BELOW
DETECTION
DETECTION
RESULTS
DIFFER
PERCENT
AGREEMENT
DETECTION
RESULTS
DIFFER
PERCENT
AGREEMENT
DETECTION
RESULTS
DIFFER
PERCENT
AGREEMENT
PCBs (continued)
PCB-114
PCB-118
PCB-120
PCB-121
PCB-122
PCB-123
PCB-126
PCB-127
PCB-128+PCB-166
PCB-129+PCB-
138+PCB-160
+PCB-163
PCB-130
PCB-131
PCB-132
PCB-133
PCB-134+PCB-143
PCB-135+PCB-151+PCB-154
PCB-136
PCB-137
PCB-139+PCB-140
PCB-141
PCB-142
PCB-144
PCB-145
62
67
56
13
32
54
4
21
65
70
68
39
66
62
58
65
59
67
60
69
0
55
0
4
1
8
52
24
9
63
39
4
0
1
21
0
3
6
4
5
1
6
0
70
5
69
4
2
6
5
14
7
3
10
1
0
1
10
4
5
6
1
6
2
4
1
0
10
1
94
97
91
93
80
90
96
86
99
100
99
86
94
93
91
99
91
97
94
99
100
86
99
52
52
48
25
48
51
16
29
52
52
52
43
52
51
51
52
51
52
51
51
0
50
5
0
0
2
18
2
1
32
13
0
0
0
5
0
1
1
0
1
0
0
0
52
1
44
0
0
2
9
2
0
4
10
0
0
0
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
1
3
100
100
96
83
96
100
92
81
100
100
100
92
100
100
100
100
100
100
98
98
100
98
94
•a
•a
n
3
Q.
.
o
n
S
r>
n
n
3
n
cf
o-
n
!
n
3
X
n
•a
I
n
-------
PREDATORS (N=70 SAMPLES)
BOTTOM DWELLERS (N=52 SAMPLES)
CHEMICAL
BOTH ABOVE
DETECTION
BOTH BELOW
DETECTION
DETECTION
RESULTS
DIFFER
I DETECTION
PERCENT I RESULTS
AGREEMENT ( DIFFER
DETECTION
PERCENT RESULTS
AGREEMENT DIFFER
PERCENT
AGREEMENT
PCBs (continued)
PCB-146
PCB-147+PCB-149
PCB-148
PCB-150
PCB-152
PCB-153+PCB-168
PCB-155
PCB-156+PCB-157
PCB-158
PCB-159
PCB-161
PCB-162
PCB-164
PCB-165
PCB-167
PCB-169
PCB-170
PCB-171+PCB-173
PCB-172
PCB-174
PCB-175
PCB-176
PCB-177
PCB-178
70
69
33
22
1
70
28
67
69
49
0
55
67
18
68
10
66
66
67
68
56
55
69
0
0
29
40
67
0
35
0
0
11
70
10
0
40
0
52
4
2
2
0
6
0
1
8
8
2
0
7
3
1
10
0
5
3
12
2
8
0
2
1
2
8
100
99
89
89
97
100
90
96
99
86
100
93
96
83
97
89
100
97
99
97
89
52
52
37
33
16
52
30
52
52
44
0
45
52
26
52
30
52
52
52
52
52
9 6 91 51
0 ; 1 99 I 52
0 0
0 0
10 5
12 7
28 8
0 0
15 7
0 0
0 0
. _, _
52 0
2 5
0 0
14 12
0 0
12 10
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 1
0 | 0
100
100
90
87
85
100
87
100
100
85
100
90
100
77
100
81
100
100
100
100
100
98
100
66 3 1 99 52 0 0 100
•o
•o
n
3
Q.
5'
a
O
n
S
r>
cf
0*
n
n
3
n
cf
o-
n
cf
I
n
3
30
n
•o
I
n
-------
PREDATORS (N=70 SAMPLES)
BOTTOM DWELLERS (N=52 SAMPLES)
CHEMICAL
BOTH ABOVE
DETECTION
DETECTION
BOTH BELOW RESULTS
DETECTION DIFFER
PERCENT
AGREEMENT
DETECTION
RESULTS
DIFFER
PERCENT
AGREEMENT
DETECTION
RESULTS PERCENT
DIFFER AGREEMENT
PCBs (continued)
PCB-179
PCB-180+PCB-193
PCB-181
PCB-182
PCB-183+PCB-185
PCB-184
PCB-186
PCB-187
PCB-188
PCB-189
PCB-190
PCB-191
PCB-192
PCB-194
PCB-195
PCB-196
PCB-197+PCB-200
PCB-198+PCB-199
PCB-201
PCB-202
PCB-203
PCB-204
PCB-205
PCB-206
63
67
40
45
68
28
0
67
5
63
65
55
1
67
53
66
56
69
36
64
66
6
57
2 5
2 1
17 13
17 8
0 2
37 5
70 0
2 1
62 3
6 1
2 3
7 8
69 0
2 1
11 6
3 1
7 7
0 1
25 9
3 3
1 3
59 5
8 5
63 6 1
93
99
81
89
97
93
100
99
96
99
96
89
100
99
91
99
90
99
87
96
96
93
93
49
52
42
41
52
32
0
52
15
51
52
52
4
52
47
51
50
51
43
51
51
21
51
99 51
0
0
4
2
0
10
52
0
33
1
0
0
44
0
4
0
0
0
5
0
1
28
1
3 94
0 100
6 88
9 83
0 100
10 81
0 100
0 100
4 92
0 100
0 100
0 100
4 92
0 100
1 98
1 98
2 96
1 98
4 92
1 98
0 100
3 94
o ; 100
0 1 98
•a
•a
n
3
Q.
.
o
n
S
r>
n
n
3
n
cf
o-
n
!
n
3
X
n
•a
I
n
-------
CHEMICAL
BOTH ABOVE
DETECTION
PREDATORS (N
BOTH BELOW
DETECTION
=70 SAMPLES)
DETECTION
RESULTS PERCENT
DIFFER AGREEMENT
PCBs (continued)
PCB-207 65 3
PCB-208 66 1
PCB-209 55 7
2 97
3 96
8 89
DlOXINS AND FURANS
2,3,7,8-TCDD 14 36
1,2,3,7,8-PeCDD 11 54
1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDD
1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDD
1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDD
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD
1 65
13 46
4 60
4 56
OCDD 0 68
2,3,7,8-TCDF
1,2,3,7,8-PeCDF
2,3,4,7,8-PeCDF
1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDF
1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDF
1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDF
2,3,4,6,7,8-HxCDF
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDF
1,2,3,4,7,8,9-HpCDF
OCDF
48
4
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
15
63
58
64
66
69
70
67
69
70
20 71
5 93
4 94
11 84
6 91
10 86
2 97
_l _
3 96
7 90
6 91
4 94
1 99
0 100
3 96
1 99
0 100
BOI
DETECTION
RESULTS
DIFFER
FTOM DWELLER
PERCENT
AGREEMENT
s (N=52 SAMP
DETECTION
RESULTS
DIFFER
ii^^^
PERCENT
AGREEMENT
^B
52
52
50
0
0
0
0
1 1
100
100
98
39
38
24
46
24
28
18
50
16
36
10
13
0
8
12
0
2
4 9
6 8
16 12
2 4
21 7
13 11
28 6
2
21
7
28
29
52
39
25
51
48
0
15
9
14
10
0
5
15
1
2
83
85
77
92
87
79
88
100
71
83
73
81
100
90
71
98
96
Appendix
=
D
ft
S
rtion Agreement between Replicate Sample Pairs
ORCANOCHLORINE PESTICIDES: TOTAL DDT ^^|
2,4'-DDD
2,4'-DDE
0
1
57
52
0 100
4 93
1
13
36
21
2
5
95
87
|
7
.
2
P
3
-------
CHEMICAL
BOTH ABOVE
DETECTION
PREDATORS (N
BOTH BELOW
DETECTION
=70 SAMPLES)
DETECTION
RESULTS
DIFFER
PERCENT
AGREEMENT
BOI
DETECTION
RESULTS
DIFFER
FTOM DWELLER
PERCENT
AGREEMENT
s (N=52 SAMPLES)
DETECTION
RESULTS PERCENT
DIFFER AGREEMENT
ORCANOCHLORINE PESTICIDES: TOTAL DDT (continued)
2,4'-DDT
4,4'-DDD
4,4'-DDE
4,4'-DDT
2
1
45
1
54
68
16
61
"I
1
9
8
98
99
0
12
87 51
89 4
34
27
1
36
2 95
13 75
0 100
12 77
ORCANOCHLORINE PESTICIDES: TOTAL CHLORDANE
Chlordane, alpha-
Chlordane, gamma-
Nonachlor, cis-
Nonachlor, trans-
Oxychlordane
1
1
1
1
1
65
69
68
64
66
4
0
1
5
3
94
100
99
93
96
15
4
8
20
3
32
44
38
29
45
5 90
4 92
6 88
3 94
4 92
Appendix
I
• •
n
ff
>ction Agreement
OTHER ORCANOCHLORINE PESTICIDES ^H=l
^^^^^•I'H
Aldrin
Dicofol
Dieldrin
Endosulfan 1
Endosulfan II
Endosulfan Sulfate
Endrin
Ethalfluralin
Heptachlor
Heptachlor Epoxide
Hexachlorocyclohexane
(BHC), alpha-
Hexachlorocyclohexane
(BHC), beta-
0
1
2
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
1
69
68
67
66
70
70
69
66
64
69
70
59
1
1
1
4
0
0
1
4
5
0
0
10
99
99
99
94
100
100
99
94
93
100
0
0
11
1
0
0
3
1
4
2
100 0
86 1
52
49
39
49
52
50
47
38
44
46
50
41
0 100
3 94
2 96
2 96
0 100
2 96
2 96
13 75
4 92
4 92
2 96
10 81
tween Replicate Sample Pairs
•
2
-
j-
'T
i;
™
i
3
-------
CHEMICAL
BOTH ABOVE
DETECTION
PREDATORS (N
BOTH BELOW
DETECTION
=70 SAMPLES)
DETECTION
RESULTS
DIFFER
PERCENT
AGREEMENT
BOI
DETECTION
RESULTS
DIFFER
FTOM DWELLER
PERCENT
AGREEMENT
s (N=52 SAMPLES)
DETECTION
RESULTS PERCENT
DIFFER AGREEMENT
OTHER ORCANOCHLORINE PESTICIDES (continued) ^^H
Hexachlorocyclohexane
(BHC), delta-
Hexachlorocyclohexane
(BHC), gamma-
Isodrin
Kepone
Methoxychlor
Mi rex
Octachlorostyrene
Pendimethalin
Pentachloroanisole
Pentachloronitrobenzene
Permethrin, cis-
Permethrin, trans-
Toxaphene
Trifluralin
0
3
0
3
0
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
2
69 1
63 4
65 5
56
69
11
1
68 2
69 1
70 0
50 17
63 7
68 2
70 0
70
63
0
5
99
94
93
84
99
97
99
100
76
90
97
100
100
93
1
2
0
1
2
0
2
9
5
1
0
0
7
48
44
49
36
49
49
49
46
37
45
48
49
52
31
3 94
6 88
3 94
8 85
2 96
1 98
3 94
4 92
6 88
2 96
3 94
3 94
0 100
14 73
Appendix
H: Detection Agreement between Replic
!
^
•
r
p
3
ORCANOPHOSPHOROUS PESTICIDES ^Kl 1
Chlorpyriphos
Diazinon
Disulfoton
Disulfoton Sulfone
Ethion
Paraoxon
Parathion, Ethyl-
Terbufos
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
70
70
70
70
70
70
70
70
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
52
52
52
52
52
52
52
52
0 100
0 100
0 100
0 100
0 100
0 100
0 100
0 100
I
f
I
H
-------
PREDATORS (N=70 SAMPLES)
BOTTOM DWELLERS (N=52 SAMPLES)
CHEMICAL
Terbufos Sulfone
BOTH ABOVE
DETECTION
BOTH BELOW
DETECTION
DETECTION
RESULTS
DIFFER
PERCENT
AGREEMENT
DETECTION
RESULTS
DIFFER
PERCENT
AGREEMENT
DETECTION
RESULTS
DIFFER
ORCANOPHOSPHOROUS PESTICIDES (continued)
SEMIVOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS: PAHs
PERCENT
AGREEMENT
Acenaphthene
Anthracene
Benzo(a)Anthracene
Benzo(a)Pyrene
Benzo(b)Fluoranthene
Benzo(ghi)Perylene
Benzo(j)Fluoranthene
Benzo(k)Fluoranthene
Chrysene
Dibenzo(a,h)Anthracene
Fluoranthene
Fluorene
lndeno(1,2,3-cd)Pyrene
Naphthalene
Perylene
Phenanthrene
Pyrene
1,2,4,5-Tetrachlorobenzene
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
1,2-Dichlorobenzene
1,3-Dichlorobenzene
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
70
70
70
70
70
70
70
70
70
70
70
70
70
69
70
70
70
OTHER Si
70
70
70
70
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
EMI VOLATILE
0
0
0
0
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
99
100
100
100
ORGANIC C
100
100
100
100
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
OMPOUNDS
0
0
0
0
52
52
52
52
52
52
52
52
52
52
52
52
52
52
52
52
52
52
52
52
52
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
•o
•o
n
3
Q.
.
o
n
S
r>
n
n
3
n
cf
o-
n
!
n
3
n
•a
I
n
-------
PREDATORS (N=70 SAMPLES)
BOTTOM DWELLERS (N=52 SAMPLES)
CHEMICAL
BOTH ABOVE
DETECTION
I DETECTION
BOTH BELOW I RESULTS
DETECTION ( DIFFER
I DETECTION |
PERCENT I RESULTS | PERCENT
AGREEMENT ( DIFFER | AGREEMENT
DETECTION I
RESULTS I PERCENT
DIFFER ( AGREEMENT
OTHER SEMIVOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS (continued)
1,4-Dichlorobenzene
2,4,5 -Trichlorophenol
2,4,6 -Tris(1,1-
Dimethylethyl) Phenol
3,3'-dichlorobenzid'me*
4-Bromophenyl Phenyl
Ether
4,4'-Methylene bis
(2-Chloroaniline)
Acenaphthylene
Bis (2-ethylhexyl) Phthalate
Butyl Benzyl Phthalate
Di-n-Butyl Phthalate
Diethylstilbestrol
Hexachlorobenzene
Hexachlorobutadiene
Nitrobenzene
Nonylphenol
Pentachlorobenzene
Pentachlorophenol
Phenol
Tetrabromobisphenol A
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
70
70
70
70
70
70
69
70
66
70
70
70
70
__l
70
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
70 0
70 0
70 0
100 0 52
10CI Q 52^
1001 o~| ~S2
100 0 | 52
100 , 0 | 52
100 0 52
99 0 | 50
100 0 52
94 2 | 47
100 0 52
100 0 52
100 0 52
100 0 52
100 0 52
100 0 52
100 0 52
100 0 52
100 0 52
0 100
Ci 100^
__j __
0 100
0 , 100
0 100
2 96
0 100
3 94
0 100
0 100
0 100
0 100
0 100
0 100
0 100
0 100
0 100
•o
•o
n
3
Q.
5'
a
o
n
S
r>
cf
0*
>
(O
n
n
3
n
cf
o-
n
cf
I
n
3
n
•o
I
n
3,3'-dichlorobenzidine was originally included as a target analyte in this study. However, the nature of this compound often results in poor recoveries from tissue samples and
Ongoing Precision and Recovery (OPR) samples. Historically, the recovery problems have led to exclusion of large numbers of analytical results for 3,3'-dichlorobenzidine.
Therefore, rather than exclude a large percentage of these results and include other results for this compound with recoveries that are very disparate from the other target
analytes, EPA decided not to report results for 3,3'-dichlorobenzidine.
-------
The National Study of Chemical Residues in Lake Fish Tissue
Appendix I
Tissue Concentration Differences
between Replicate Sample Pairs
-------
-------
TABLE 1-1. METALS
Tissue Concentration Differences for Predators (Fillets) i^^^l
Number of
Chemical jj Units E Samples
Minimum Maximum 10th 25th 75th
Difference Difference Percentile Percentile Median Percentile
90th
Percentile
Mercury
Mercury ppb
70
1.7
410.0
11.00
21.75
48.50
84.75
162.50
Arsenic
Arsenate ppm
Arsenite ppm
Inorganic arsenic (Total) ppm
Dimethylarsonic Acid ppm
Monomethylarsonic Acid ppm
70
70
70
70
70
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Tissue Concentration Differences for Bottom Dwellers (Whole Bodies)
1 1 Number of
Chemical Units Samples
Mercury ppb | 52
Minimum ( Maximum ( 10th 25th ( ( 75th
Difference Difference Percentile Percentile Median Percentile
Mercury
0.1
130.9
3.81
5.32
11.80
37.43
90th
Percentile
90.83
Arsenic
Arsenate ppm
Arsenite ppm
Inorganic arsenic (Total) ppm
Dimethylarsonic Acid ppm
Monomethylarsonic Acid ppm
52
52
52
52
52
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.02
0.01
0.00
0.00
Appendix 1: Tis
sue Concentratio
3
O
ifferences between Replicate Sample
•
.
r
p
7
A
i;
1
3
-------
TABLE 1-2. PCBs
Tissue Concentration Differences for Predators (Fillets)
! Number of Minimum Maximum! 10th 25th 75th 90th
Chemical i Units : Samples ( Difference Difference ( Percentile Percentile Median Percentile Percentile
PCB 1 I ppt I 70
J^CBJ! |__PPlJ 7^_
TcBJ^^^^^^^^^J^ppin^^^^TCr
J"CBj4 (PEL! ™
7cB^5 pptj 7cT
PCB 6 pplH 70~
Tc^^^^^^^^^^p^DpT^^^^o^
7c^8^ ™~
PCB9 |_PPlJ ™
TcM^^^^^^^^^p^pT^^^^o^
j>oni Ljr1!:3!] 70
J3CBJ2+J3CBJ3 IPfLl —
PCB 14 I ppt I 70
J3CBJ5 |__PPlJ 70
J3CBJ6 IPflJ ^_
J^CBJT Lj?PlJ 7°
J3CBJ8j4j3(^ Ipptj 70
^ PPM ^
7c¥^oT^c¥^^^^^^P^pd^^^^o^
J^S^L^S^^^^^T^PM^^^^^
7cB^22 TZPP1! ™~
J3QB^23 IPPL) ™
J^SL^^^^^^^^^T^PM^^^^^
TcT^^^^^^^^^^P^pfDtJ^^^^TO^
J3CB^6j4j3C^ LpEiJ ^
0.0 6.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.8
5.6
265.5
3.1
400.6
9.6
465.7
27.0
8.4
128.0
18.5
0.0
817.5
188.0
485.7
1465.7
120.7
7842.7
650.3
504.2
2.8
10.9
145.4
573.5
0.00 0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.09
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.10
0.13
0.00
0.80
0.10
0.20
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.05
0.15
0.40
0.60
0.10
2.85
0.55
0.90
0.00
0.00
0.10
0.00
0.00
0.20
0.28
0.00
0.10
0.00
0.48
0.00
0.00
0.40
0.00
0.00
0.30
0.60
1.08
1.85
0.20
8.90
2.00
2.08
0.00
0.00
0.40
0.20
0.00
0.00
1.01
0.72
0.00
0.31
0.40
1.11
0.00
0.00
2.43
0.00
0.00
1.10
2.41
3.91
5.15
0.62
34.33
4.50
5.24
0.00
0.00
3.00
4.64
•o
•o
n
a.
n
r>
o
r>
n
O
3
n
n
r\
n
If!
a-
ft
n
n
3
JO
n
&i
cf
n
&i
3
•o
9
-------
TABLE 1-2. PCBs (continued)
Tissue Concentration Differences for Predators (Fillets) (continued)
1 Number of 1 Minimum Maximum! 10th 25th 75th 90th
Chemical ( Units Samples ( Difference Difference ( Percentile Percentile ( Median Percentile Percentile
IPCB27 IPP^J ™
^s^^^^^Z^^^^L^py^^^^^
\PCB32 LPiZj^^^^Z
IPCB34 |_PPlJ 7®
[Z^^^^^^^^^^pjpjZj^^^^Z
\PCB36 LPiZj^^^^Z
[pcj^T^^Z^^^^JZZEEL^^^^^L
fpo[l8^^^^^^^^^jDptJ ™
PCB 39 |_PPlJ ^
^^^
[^Z^^^^^^^^^HZpjZ^^^^Z
L^s^^^z^^^^^r^pD^^^^z
(Pt^
J^6^^ LJ^ 7°
M^CEUe Lj^PlJ ^_
M^OMS Ij?!:3!] 70
J^6^^ L^El] 7^_
Zs^zzzz^^^^^rz^ij^^^^z
Zs^^^^^z^^^^nz^M^^^^z
Lp£L54^^^^^^^^IZZL^^^^Z
uZLZZZZZZZZZZZZj PPM ^
M3O56 LPPL! ^_
LP£BZ^^^^^^^^^IZPJDL^^^^CL
M^CBSS L^PlJ ^_
0.0 97.9
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
2012.7
223.6
14.0
0.0
0.0
1162.5
3.5
11.6
841.0
628.0
132.6
2660.0
209.6
44.0
403.2
2059.0
248.8
4151.0
7.9
30.1
473.0
13.6
32.5
0.00 0.00
0.10
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.47
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.30
0.00
0.60
0.00
0.00
0.19
0.00
0.00
0.93
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.10
0.00
0.00
0.23
0.33
0.00
3.00
0.00
0.00
0.13
1.53
0.00
3.35
0.00
0.00
0.33
0.00
0.00
0.00 0.00
2.60
0.10
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.30
0.00
0.00
1.30
1.10
0.00
5.10
0.00
0.00
0.50
4.00
0.00
7.50
0.00
0.00
1.40
0.00
0.00
7.00
0.50
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.88
0.00
0.00
3.38
2.60
0.18
14.48
0.75
0.00
1.70
16.68
0.00
22.90
0.00
0.00
5.28
0.00
0.18
0.70
21.30
2.05
0.10
0.00
0.00
2.18
0.00
0.20
14.65
12.72
1.91
62.57
5.11
0.63
6.46
51.61
2.87
83.80
0.00
0.64
11.80
0.51
0.60
•o
•o
n
a.
n
r>
o
r>
n
O
3
n
n
r>
n
If!
n
n
3
JO
n
&i
cf
n
&i
3
•o
.
-------
TABLE 1-2. PCBs (continued)
Tissue Concentration Differences for Predators (Fillets) (continued)
Number of I Minimum Maximum 10th 25th I 75th 90th
Chemical Units Samples ( Difference 1 Difference ( Percentile 1 Percentile ( Median I Percentile ( Percentile
PCB 59 + PCB 62 + PCB 75 | ppt | 70
7c^^ 70^
7c^6lTrcB7oTK^74
+ PCB76 IPPLJ ™
Tc^^^^^^^^^^P^DpT^^^^O^
PCB 64 pplH 70~
pcBee LPPL! ™
TcB^^^^^^^^^^P^DpT^^^^O^
J^C^^
^^^
PCB 73 1 ppt 1 70
J^1^^
J^^^
TcBTp^^^^^^^^r^ppT^^^^O^
J3CB^80 IPPL! ™
7cB^81 pptj 7cT
J3CB^2^^^^^^^^T^pptJ^^^^O^
Tc^sT^C^^^^^^r^DpT^^^^O^
PCB 84 ppt 70
PCB 85 + PCB 116 +
j^CBjnT LJ:^] ^_
"pcYseTpcYsTTpcB^Tl
+ PCB 108 + PCB 119 +
J^CBJZS IPPIJ 7®
Tc^ssTpc^^^
^s^^^^^^^^^ZIj^pHZZZZZz^
0.0 373.0
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1108.8
3870.8
115.7
1226.0
3911.0
80.5
82.2
93.0
0.5
270.1
0.1
64.6
0.0
19.7
286.0
5910.0
569.0
1070.0
2850.0
991.0
18.5
0.00 0.00
0.19
1.24
0.00
0.20
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.09
3.76
0.10
0.80
1.09
0.10
0.00
0.80
6.00
0.20
0.73
3.93
0.00
0.10
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.33
12.05
0.43
3.00
4.75
0.45
0.00
0.40 1.38
1.70
16.85
0.70
2.20
12.35
0.20
0.30
0.30
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.20
0.00
0.00
1.50
32.10
1.50
8.40
19.70
2.25
0.00
4.78
47.05
1.78
6.43
28.75
0.60
0.80
0.98
0.00
0.98
0.00
0.88
0.00
0.00
4.23
90.00
5.85
21.78
50.75
6.25
0.00
6.05
12.73
131.00
4.97
28.89
74.22
1.83
3.01
3.11
0.00
4.62
0.00
3.18
0.00
0.30
12.07
293.10
17.11
74.14
162.89
35.34
0.53
•o
•o
n
a.
n
r>
o
r>
n
O
3
n
n
r\
n
If!
n
n
3
JO
n
&i
cf
n
&i
3
•o
9
-------
TABLE 1-2. PCBs (continued)
Tissue Concentration Differences for Predators (Fillets) (continued)
I Chemical
PCB90 + PCB 101
PCB 113
PCB 93 + PCB 95 + PCB 98
+ PCB 100 +PCB 102
PCB 94
PCB 96
Number of Minimum! Maximum ( 10th 25th
Samples ( Difference I Difference ) Percentile \ Percentile
I 75th 1 90th
Median I Percentile 1 Percentile
ppt
ppt
70
70
70
70
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1970.0
3210.0
12.4
10.3
3.94
0.79
0.68
0.00
0.00
14.08
2.63
2.75
0.00
0.00
34.85
5.75
7.25
0.00
0.00
110.50
25.30
36.00
0.00
0.00
311.50
71.54
132.70
0.21
0.00
PCB 103
PCB 104
PCB 105
PCB 106
PCB 107 +PCB 124
PCB 109
PCB 110 +PCB 115
PCB 111
PCB 112
PCB 114
PCB 118
PCB 120
PCB 121
ppt
ppt
ppt
ppt
ppt
ppt
70
70
70
0.0
0.0
160.3
3.9
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.30
0.00
70
70
0.0
0.0
881.0
0.0
0.58
0.00
4.45
0.00
16.70
0.00
70
70
70
0.0
0.0
0.0
109.5
528.0
4680.0
0.10
0.50
1.77
0.40
1.60
4.30
1.50
4.80
23.40
70
70
0.0
0.0
20.1
0.0
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
70
0.0
0.0
76.0
3860.0
0.00
5.60
0.30
15.70
1.10
48.00
70
70
0.0
0.0
151.6
14.0
0.00
0.00
0.20
0.00
0.75
0.00
0.80
0.00
38.55
0.00
3.90
13.03
87.15
0.30
0.00
3.25
117.25
2.05
0.00
4.11
0.00
119.39
0.00
9.94
27.77
253.90
0.63
0.00
8.67
342.30
4.41
0.31
n
PCB 122
PCB 123
PCB 126
PCB 127
PCB 128 +PCB 166
ppt
ppt
70
70
70
0.0
0.0
39.9
67.8
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.30
0.30
1.05
70
70
0.0
0.0
13.9
6.9
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.0
1027.0
0.70
3.43
12.65
0.70
3.38
0.00
0.20
34.93
1.81
5.98
0.00
0.73
94.53
-------
TABLE 1-2. PCBs (continued)
Tissue Concentration Differences for Predators (Fillets) (continued)
Chemical
Number of Minimum
Units ; Samples | Difference
Maximum ( 10th
Difference 1 Percentile
25th
Percentile
Median
75th I 90th
Percentile 1 Percentile
ON
PCB 129 + PCB 138+ I I
iJ'CBJ^C^ L^El] 7^_
L^J^^^^Z^^^^T^PM^^^^^
n^cMs^^^^^^^^l^pprj^^^^o^
U^^^^^^^^^^^^EL^^^^^
[PCBJ^^ PPM 7®
lji£EL^ LPPL! ^_
H^CBTssTKIBlsTT
ij3CBji54 LJ:^! ^_
n^cBjse^^^^^^^^r^ppT^^^^o^
^^^^^
M3CM3^7^CM4^^^^]^ppr^^^^O^
[PC^
M3CBJ42 LjPPLJ ^_
M3CBJ4^^^^^^^^]^ppr^^^^O^
Z^J^^^^Z^^^^T^PL^^^^^
M3CM4^^^^^^^^|^pprj^^^^O^
[PCBJ474^ ^°~
IJ3CBJ48 IPPlJ —
IJ3CBJ50 Ljr^lJ 70
M^CBJ52 |PPlJ —
!j3CBJ53^cBj68 Lj5^LJ ^_
7cM5^^^^^^^^|^pptJ^^^^O^
j^z^z^j^^^^^n^pL^^^^^
M3CB158 LjPPLJ ^_
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
11730.0
706.0
48.1
1340.0
383.0
214.0
5140.0
467.0
275.0
241.0
1081.0
4.5
319.0
4.5
4380.0
9150.0
84.6
30.3
3.6
18400.0
103.7
543.0
714.0
9.99
0.20
0.00
0.57
0.19
0.09
1.44
0.00
0.58
0.09
1.18
0.00
0.00
0.00
2.91
3.08
0.00
0.00
0.00
11.52
0.00
0.94
0.69
34.50
1.38
0.00
1.65
0.60
0.23
4.03
0.30
1.23
0.40
4.00
0.00
0.53
0.00
9.43
8.68
0.00
0.00
0.00
44.53
0.00
2.65
2.55
111.00
5.10
0.25
6.95
1.95
1.30
14.45
1.50
4.30
1.50
9.00
0.00
1.95
0.00
24.65
34.30
0.10
0.00
0.00
122.50
0.00
8.25
8.30
242.00
15.20
0.90
18.68
5.40
2.88
37.70
4.28
9.85
4.08
23.25
0.00
4.90
0.00
57.70
87.75
0.50
0.20
0.00
277.48
0.28
21.78
16.65
705.20
28.09
2.24
51.12
19.31
8.81
122.00
14.85
26.33
8.88
54.16
0.00
10.96
0.00
143.90
228.20
2.01
0.80
0.00
776.20
0.70
48.20
39.40
•o
•o
n
a.
n
r\
o
r>
n
O
3
n
n
r>
n
If!
a-
ft
n
n
3
JO
n
3
•o
a
-------
TABLE 1-2. PCBs (continued)
Tissue Concentration Differences for Predators (Fillets) (continued)
1 Number of 1 Minimum Maximum! 10th 25th 75th 90th
Chemical ( Units Samples ( Difference Difference ( Percentile Percentile ( Median Percentile Percentile
J>CBJ59 LPPL! 7^_
J>C^^
PCB-\62 LZPPL^^^^^L
J3CBJ64 LPPL! 7^_
J^CE^^
PCB-\67 LZPPL^^^^^L
J3CM6^^^^^^^^P^DpT^^^^^
TcBJTO^ ™
PCB 171 +PCB 173 LPPL! ™
J^JZ^^^^^^^jZ^EL^^^^^
J3CBJ74 LJPPLJ 70
J3CBJ75 LPPL| —
J3CBJ76 LJPPLJ 7^_
J^CBJTT LJPPL] 70
JfZBJTS LPPlJ ^_
J3CBJ79 Ljr^LJ 70
J3OB280j4^^ LPPlJ ^_
j^j^^^^z^^^^r^pij^^^^^
J^CMS^^^^^^^^L^ptJ^^^^O^
^^j^+j^j^^^^^n^pL^^^^^
j^j^ZZZZZZZZZZI^ ^°~
J3CBJ86 LPPL! ^_
^^j^^^^^^^^^tj^L^^^^^
j^^^^^^^^^jZ^pi^^^^0^
J3CBJ89 LPPlJ 7^_
0.0 86.8
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
4.5
44.5
604.0
14.6
351.0
2.2
2710.0
931.0
663.0
2105.0
171.1
257.0
1303.0
1100.0
772.0
8680.0
21.4
64.2
2820.0
96.6
0.0
7990.0
13.9
107.8
0.00 0.10
0.00
0.00
0.39
0.00
0.30
0.00
1.63
0.68
0.59
0.69
0.00
0.00
1.09
0.46
0.20
4.94
0.00
0.00
2.18
0.00
0.00
4.25
0.00
0.09
0.00
0.20
0.93
0.00
1.35
0.00
7.40
1.63
1.90
2.65
0.30
0.10
2.90
1.60
0.73
22.98
0.00
0.00
4.68
0.00
0.00
16.25
0.00
0.30
0.65 1.73
0.00
0.75
3.20
0.00
4.70
0.00
19.45
5.65
5.40
8.55
1.05
0.70
6.70
5.55
2.25
60.50
0.30
0.30
19.20
0.00
0.00
47.50
0.00
1.05
0.00
1.40
11.00
0.28
9.95
0.00
56.28
14.00
14.60
23.05
3.20
1.78
27.65
18.00
6.43
177.25
0.77
1.10
53.75
0.38
0.00
118.25
0.00
2.08
3.16
0.00
3.07
23.17
0.83
25.71
0.20
112.50
32.19
29.05
60.50
6.36
6.66
64.14
43.82
26.61
375.10
2.01
3.11
109.20
1.26
0.00
307.50
0.23
6.31
•o
•o
n
a.
n
r>
o
r>
n
O
3
n
n
r>
n
If!
a-
ft
n
n
3
JO
n
&i
cf
n
&i
3
•o
.
-------
TABLE 1-2. PCBs (continued)
| Tissue Concentration Differences for Predators (Fillets) (continued) ^^^|
Number of I Minimum Maximum 10th 25th I 75th! 90th
Chemical Units Samples ( Difference 1 Difference ( Percentile 1 Percentile ( Median I Percentile ( Percentile
PCB 190 | ppt | 70
7cEM9^ 70^
J'CBJ^ LJPPL] 70
PCB 194 (PEL! ™
TCBT95 ] pptj 7cT
J*CE[^^
7cij97+J^
J3CBJ98T^CBl99^ 7®
j^CB^OI |__PPlJ ™
^^^
TcB^OS^^^^^^^^^ppT^^^^O^
7cB^04^^^^^^^^P^DpT^^^^O^
PCB 205 1 ppt 1 70
TcB^oe^^^^^^^^^ppTj^^^^o^
Tc^o^^^^^^^^P^DpT^^^^o^
^P(^^ PPM 7®
PCB 209 ]__PPlJ 7^_
0.0 643.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
130.0
0.2
1683.0
610.0
1006.0
177.1
2206.0
263.0
490.0
1556.0
3.6
90.7
530.0
100.0
222.0
609.0
0.66 1.63
0.00
0.00
0.80
0.00
0.38
0.00
1.47
0.00
0.10
0.58
0.00
0.00
0.09
0.10
0.20
0.09
0.30
0.00
3.85
0.75
1.93
0.33
5.35
0.00
1.35
3.03
0.00
0.20
2.08
0.40
0.80
0.88
5.30 14.35
0.90
0.00
11.90
4.45
7.85
1.25
18.50
0.95
4.20
11.95
0.00
0.70
10.45
1.80
3.10
4.15
1.93
0.00
37.53
12.83
20.05
3.15
51.00
6.65
12.75
33.90
0.00
1.63
20.15
4.28
8.03
10.80
26.05
4.77
0.00
87.23
25.45
46.04
7.65
113.90
17.53
30.74
75.34
0.22
4.13
57.10
11.17
20.12
30.80
Appendix 1: Tissue Concentration Differences between Repli
|
?
•
r
P
3
\ Tissue Concentration Differences for Bottom Dwellers (Whole Bodies) ^^El fi
! Number of I Minimum Maximum 10th 25th] \ 75th 90th
Chemical I Units Samples | Difference ;• Difference | Percentile ;• Percentile ( Median ;• Percentile | Percentile
PCB 1 I ppt 52
PCB 2 I ppt I 52
PCB 3 PP1 52
J>CEM Ij^pd ^_
7cB^^^^^^^^^^^r^p7T^^^^52^
0.0 32.6
0.0 10.7
0.0
0.0
0.0
22.2
57.9
6.1
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.75
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.10
1.95
0.00
0.20
0.40
0.40
7.92
0.09
1
fT
Z
^
vt
-------
TABLE 1-2. PCBs (continued)
Tissue Concentration Differences for Bottom Dwellers (Whole Bodies) (continued)
! Number of) Minimum Maximum 10th 25th) I 75th! 90th
Chemical i Units Samples J Difference f Difference ( Percentile \ Percentile J Median f Percentile ( Percentile
PCB 6 ppt 52
j^^^^^^^^^^T^DpT^^^^^
J3CB8 |__PPlJ 52
PCB9 |_PPlJ ^_
1'CBTo pptj sT"
J"£^^
^L^
^ PPM ^~
J3CBJ5 IPPL! ^_
TcBTe^^^
7cBJ7^^^^^^^^r^pfDn^^^^52^
TcM^T^c^^^^^^p^Dpn^^^^^
PCB 19 I ppt I 52
TcB^oTTc^S^^^^r^pTj^^^^S^
Tc^TT^c^sj^^^^^P^Dpr^^^^^
J3CB22 |__PPlJ 52
PCB23 IPPiJ ^_
~PCB24 pptj sT"
j^^ZZZZZZZZZI^
^L^
^ PPM ^~
J3CBJ1 LPPI! ^_
^L^^
J^os^^^^^^^^^LZpJ^M^^^^sjL
.^^
0.0 48.7
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
13.1
321.0
19.1
2.8
310.0
4.1
0.0
53.8
213.0
469.0
828.0
47.8
4470.0
1169.0
1085.0
4.5
13.7
188.0
533.0
59.6
2960.0
282.0
14.8
0.5
0.00 0.10
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.10
0.21
0.70
0.01
3.00
0.71
0.42
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.08
0.20
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.45
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.28
0.80
0.95
1.38
0.20
9.08
1.80
1.85
0.00
0.00
0.28
0.60
0.07
5.38
0.40
0.00
0.00
0.40 1.10
0.00
1.60
0.00
0.00
0.85
0.00
0.00
0.85
2.05
2.70
4.65
0.60
37.50
4.80
6.10
0.00
0.00
1.25
2.75
0.35
17.15
1.15
0.10
0.00
0.20
5.85
0.23
0.00
2.60
0.00
0.00
2.23
7.43
10.48
21.85
1.80
122.50
13.20
17.60
0.00
0.23
2.63
5.45
1.88
42.95
4.83
0.63
0.00
4.06
0.76
12.97
1.00
0.20
5.49
0.58
0.00
4.60
20.50
43.75
67.35
5.46
275.20
48.05
53.98
0.00
1.69
12.00
28.80
7.28
125.20
29.38
1.89
0.00
•o
•o
n
a.
n
r>
o
r>
n
O
3
n
n
r\
n
If!
a-
ft
n
n
3
JO
n
&i
cf
n
&i
3
•o
.
-------
TABLE 1-2. PCBs (continued)
Tissue Concentration Differences for Bottom Dwellers (Whole Bodies) (continued)
Number of I Minimum Maximum 10th 25th I 75th 90th
Chemical Units Samples ( Difference I Difference ( Percentile I Percentile ( Median I Percentile ( Percentile
PCB 36 | ppt | 52
TcB^T^ 52^
j>cBji8 LJPPLJ 52
PCB 39 LPEL| ^_
_________ ___^ _
J*CE[^^
J"£^^^
TcB^T^CBTTT^CB^S^J^ppn 52^
J^6^^^ Ippt] 52
J)£[^^
J3c¥48^^^^^^^^^ppn^^^^2^
TcT^T^C^^^^^^r^DpT^^^^^
PCB 50 + PCB 53 1 ppt 1 52
TcB^52^^^^^^^^^ppT^^^^2^
Tc^^^^^^^^^^P^DpT^^^^^
J'CB.SS |__PPlJ 52
PCB56 |_PPlJ ^_
TcFsT pptj slT
7c¥^58^^^^
Tc^spTi^^
PCB 60 ppt 52
PCB 61 + PCB 70 + PCB 74
j4j3CB76 LJ^flJ :^_
^B^63 L^El^^^^2^
0.0 0.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.7
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.2
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.3
0.0
188.0
4.7
27.7
1666.0
1298.0
166.7
4250.0
426.0
65.6
1054.0
3340.0
279.0
4080.0
3.0
51.0
1428.0
36.9
32.2
418.0
1275.0
9140.0
301.5
0.00 0.00
0.10
0.00
0.00
0.63
0.51
0.00
4.15
0.01
0.00
0.41
2.80
0.00
1.94
0.00
0.00
1.66
0.00
0.00
0.20
1.62
7.22
0.40
0.68
0.00
0.00
3.50
2.40
0.07
13.58
0.48
0.00
1.35
8.30
0.00
12.55
0.00
0.00
4.30
0.00
0.00
1.20
3.98
24.28
1.05
0.00 0.00
1.65
0.00
0.00
11.45
11.75
1.40
57.50
2.45
0.45
5.75
38.95
1.25
62.50
0.00
0.00
14.00
0.30
0.30
5.50
9.95
92.50
3.75
6.10
0.00
0.55
30.73
30.00
3.98
131.50
7.48
1.63
20.98
131.58
6.65
144.25
0.00
0.60
30.38
0.90
1.08
16.50
29.35
360.25
13.75
0.00
15.53
0.20
1.81
130.91
103.20
11.50
452.50
32.64
7.04
63.88
393.80
30.50
705.20
0.29
3.78
117.82
2.40
2.85
43.67
99.14
867.60
42.20
•o
•o
n
a.
n
r>
o
r>
n
O
3
n
n
r\
n
If!
a-
ft
n
n
3
JO
n
&i
cf
n
&i
3
•o
9
-------
TABLE 1-2. PCBs (continued)
Tissue Concentration Differences for Bottom Dwellers (Whole Bodies) (continued)
! Number of) Minimum Maximum 10th 25th) I 75th! 90th
Chemical i Units Samples J Difference f Difference ( Percentile \ Percentile J Median f Percentile ( Percentile
PCB 64 ppt 52
J^S^^^^^Z^^^^T^PM^^^^^
J"£Bj57 L^Pl] 52
PCB68 (PEL! ^_
1)CB72 pptj slT
JJa^Ts^^^^^^^^TjDptJ^"^"^
^L^^
^ PPM ^~
^C-^79 |PP1J ^_
7cB^80^^^
ZZ^L^^^Z^^^^LZpjZ]^^^^52^
J^S^^^^^Z^^^^L^PL^^^^Z
PCB 83 + PCB 99 1 ppt 1 52
TcB^^^^^^^^^r^pTj^^^^S^
.^^^
PCB 117 ppt 52
PCB 86 + PCB 87 + PCB 97
+ PCB 108 + PCB 119 +
J>CBJ25 LJPPlJ ^_
PCB 88 + PCB 91 I ppt I 52
J^F89^^^^^^^^T~pptJ^~^~52~
Tc^oT^CBloTTKIB
113 ppt 52
J>C^^
"pcFpsTpcFpsTpcFps
+ PCB 100 + PCB 102 ppt 52
J3CBJ94 L^PlJ ^_
0.4 2266.0
0.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.3
0.0
0.4
0.3
0.1
0.0
1.5
0.6
0.3
0.0
5690.0
150.3
64.0
58.0
5.3
125.0
4.8
55.0
4.2
15.3
237.0
7200.0
311.0
711.0
2000.0
600.0
32.4
5200.0
1170.0
1420.0
13.1
1.13 6.68
4.30
0.00
0.20
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.53
15.35
1.06
4.10
6.16
1.41
0.00
14.08
3.20
4.96
0.00
24.45
0.30
0.50
0.30
0.00
0.17
0.00
0.63
0.00
0.00
2.70
45.55
4.08
9.38
23.15
3.23
0.00
46.15
8.08
16.60
0.00
23.05 63.30
55.00
1.25
1.20
1.45
0.00
2.90
0.00
2.20
0.00
0.40
7.50
110.00
10.80
28.00
103.00
15.90
0.20
134.50
16.75
60.35
0.25
285.50
2.70
5.08
3.50
0.00
8.15
0.00
5.33
0.00
1.25
24.20
513.75
28.83
125.00
289.50
39.33
1.43
492.50
80.50
182.68
0.83
199.10
921.10
11.59
17.17
12.68
0.00
18.13
0.00
22.56
0.00
2.59
44.30
1721.00
101.31
481.90
1272.00
230.60
4.84
1619.00
338.40
413.80
3.28
•o
•o
n
a.
n
r>
o
r>
n
O
3
n
n
r>
n
If!
a-
ft
n
n
3
JO
n
&i
cf
n
&i
3
•o
.
-------
TABLE 1-2. PCBS (continued)
Chemical
PCB96
PCB 103
Tissue Concentration Differences for Bottom Dwellers (Whole Bodies) (continued)
1 Number of
Units ; Samples
Minimum
Difference
ppt
52
Maximum
Difference
10th
Percentile
0.0
16.2
0.0
0.0
100.0
1.5
25th
Percentile
Median
0.00
0.00
0.10
0.00
0.30
0.00
75th
Percentile
90th
Percentile
0.00
1.00
0.00
0.25
3.68
0.00
1.97
13.75
0.00
•o
•o
n
a.
n
r>
o
r>
n
O
3
n
n
r\
n
If!
a-
ft
n
n
3
JO
n
&i
cf
n
&i
3
•o
9
CBOS
JPPt^
ppt
0.0
0.0
1399.0
1.6
5.15
0.00
18.90
0.00
58.00
0.00
0.0
0.1
130.0
630.0
0.72
1.22
1.88
5.90
4.90
15.15
0.8
3500.0
19.10
34.63
123.00
151.08
0.00
12.85
53.13
349.00
683.80
0.00
31.84
213.50
1497.00
0.0
0.0
21.8
2.4
0.00
0.00
0.18
0.00
0.40
0.00
0.0
0.0
98.8
5870.0
0.53
20.75
1.18
47.40
3.30
147.50
1.60
0.00
11.90
605.00
3.54
0.00
53.11
1747.70
3CB20
0.0
0.0
236.0
13.7
0.21
0.00
0.40
0.00
1.05
0.20
4.90
0.80
21.35
1.49
3CB22
0.0
39.6
0.20
0.50
1.35
4.18
13.03
PCB126
52
0.0
0.0
90.6
25.3
0.41
0.00
0.98
0.00
3.45
0.00
11.23
1.80
34.57
6.58
0.0
0.6
8.2
2220.0
0.00
7.34
0.00
15.95
0.30
70.00
4.0
0.1
25200.0
1280.0
45.60
1.55
138.25
4.83
327.00
25.75
1.33
127.50
882.25
57.20
4.06
478.40
3459.00
210.60
CB132
ppt
52
0.0
0.0
49.0
1080.0
0.01
4.04
0.48
8.40
2.30
50.00
0.0
620.0
0.60
2.78
6.80
5.70
122.25
18.38
14.02
310.60
74.37
-------
TABLE 1-2. PCBs (continued)
Tissue Concentration Differences for Bottom Dwellers (Whole Bodies) (continued)
1 Number of 1 Minimum Maximum! 10th 25th 75th 90th
Chemical ( Units Samples ( Difference Difference ( Percentile Percentile ( Median Percentile Percentile
J'CBJ^jJ^cBJ^ Ipptl 52
TcBlssTKIBlsTT
PCB 154 ppt 52
J^anie^^^^^^^jIZpf^D^^^^52^
^K^
J^CB^ ^~
PCB141 |_PPlJ ^_
^^^
J3CM44^^^^^^^^r^ppT^^^^2^
J^J^^^^Z^^^^^^EL^^^^^
Z^j^ZZZZZIZZZZ^ ^~
J3CBJI47j^ JJ3P^ 52
J3CBJ48 IPflJ —
j'CBjso LJPPLJ 52
J3CBJI52 (PEL! ^_
^ PPM ^~
j^s^^^^^^^^jZZppi]^^^^52!
^^J^6TP^J^7^^^^r^PM^^^^^
I'CBTss LZpi^Lj ^~
J>CBJ59 |__PPlJ ^1_
J^J^^^^^^^^^CjPJ^^^^^^L
j^^j^ZZZZZZZZ
J3CM64^^^^^^^^r^DpT^^^^^
PCB165 ppt 1 52
PCB167 Ljr^J ^_
0.0 186.0
1.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.7
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.6
4.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
4.0
0.0
0.1
0.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
3600.0
247.0
530.0
286.0
2450.0
2.0
263.0
2.0
8400.0
11500.0
98.1
30.0
2.0
56000.0
118.2
1300.0
1850.0
118.0
2.0
135.0
740.0
22.1
1170.0
0.42 1.58
7.64
0.90
1.30
0.51
1.91
0.00
0.31
0.00
6.68
21.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
22.90
0.00
2.01
2.24
0.31
0.00
0.30
1.21
0.00
1.14
19.23
2.83
4.75
1.70
12.83
0.00
1.98
0.00
20.75
36.20
0.10
0.00
0.00
151.75
0.00
9.75
7.85
0.85
0.00
0.95
4.18
0.00
4.08
9.30 16.65
66.00
8.90
14.25
5.50
38.30
0.00
5.70
0.00
58.00
182.00
0.65
0.30
0.00
435.00
0.10
31.10
37.00
2.45
0.00
2.10
11.80
0.25
17.90
154.00
19.73
47.78
22.78
108.75
0.00
18.30
0.00
227.00
389.25
1.73
0.93
0.23
1500.00
0.43
80.50
82.50
7.05
0.00
7.30
41.28
0.80
40.28
49.40
614.20
80.68
152.20
55.90
349.90
0.00
55.24
0.29
749.10
1367.00
7.26
2.54
0.89
5400.00
10.95
342.30
319.20
19.69
0.00
16.20
155.90
2.66
163.90
•o
•o
n
a.
n
r>
o
r>
n
O
3
n
n
r\
n
vt
o-
ft
n
n
3
JO
n
&i
cf
n
&i
3
•o
.
-------
TABLE 1-2. PCBs (continued)
Tissue Concentration Differences for Bottom Dwellers (Whole Bodies) (continued)
Number of I Minimum Maximum 10th 25th I 75th 90th
Chemical Units Samples ( Difference I Difference ( Percentile I Percentile ( Median I Percentile ( Percentile
PCB 169 | ppt | 52
TcMT^ 52^
J^BJj71^^ JjpjotJ 52
PCB 172 LPEL| ^_
TCBT74 ] pptj slT
j*5^^^
J)£E^^
TcBJTT^ ^~
J>CBJ78 |__PPlJ 52
J"SBJ^
J^JSoT^C^JPS^^^n^ppT^^^^^
TcMS^^^^^^^^P^DpT^^^^^
PCB 182 I ppt I 52
Tc^J83T7cTl85^^^^^ppn^^^^2^
TcMS^^^^^^^^^P^DpT^^^^^
J>CBjj36 LjPPLJ 52
PCB187 LPEL| ^_
TcslsS pptj slT
J*CE[I^^
J"£B^^
TcBlgi LZPPLJ ^~
J>CBJ92 |__PPlJ ^_
7c¥j94^^^
J3c¥j95^^^^^^^^r^ppT^^^^2^
^^^
0.0 2.7
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.5
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.5
0.1
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.8
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.5
0.0
0.4
9100.0
3820.0
3880.0
3640.0
431.0
470.0
5200.0
1780.0
907.0
47100.0
69.0
153.0
10600.0
63.0
2.8
15400.0
57.0
493.0
3060.0
699.0
1.2
8470.0
2770.0
4860.0
0.00 0.00
3.92
1.02
1.12
6.24
0.21
0.61
2.47
2.04
2.03
14.54
0.00
0.10
5.19
0.00
0.00
7.43
0.00
0.31
0.76
0.10
0.00
4.12
0.52
1.64
26.25
5.08
5.93
14.70
1.33
1.18
10.28
6.33
5.33
72.00
0.30
0.48
20.80
0.10
0.00
45.48
0.00
1.18
5.03
0.98
0.00
10.75
3.48
6.08
0.20 0.60
78.20
24.65
19.65
47.40
4.10
3.00
53.20
17.55
14.75
229.50
1.10
1.95
69.35
0.45
0.00
176.50
0.00
3.60
15.15
3.20
0.00
33.40
13.15
17.70
230.50
85.25
62.25
99.43
9.93
12.38
118.13
45.48
42.50
647.50
2.85
4.93
145.83
1.20
0.00
309.25
1.18
8.85
55.25
10.23
0.00
131.55
47.00
75.08
0.79
771.30
225.25
151.37
449.00
32.74
38.71
450.60
208.90
165.60
1981.40
8.77
8.15
621.50
4.08
0.00
1459.90
4.24
26.95
180.66
27.34
0.09
348.80
123.20
177.80
•o
•o
n
a.
n
r>
o
r>
n
O
3
n
n
r>
n
If!
a-
ft
n
n
3
JO
n
&i
cf
n
&i
3
•o
9
-------
TABLE 1-2. PCBs (continued)
Ul
Tissue Concentration Differences for Bottom Dwellers (Whole Bodies) (continued)
1 Number of I Minimum Maximum) 10th 25th) I 75th) 90th
Chemical | Units Samples | Difference \ Difference ( Percentile • Percentile | Median \ Percentile ( Percentile
^^^ L^PLJ ^_
J3CBJ98T^CBJ99^ ^~
PCB201 LPflJ ^_
Tc^O^^^^^^^^P^DpT^^^^^
J3CB^203^^^^^^^^^ppT^^^^2^
J3CB^204 IPEiJ ^_
PCB 205 1 ppt I 52
TcB^206^^^^^^^^^ppT^^^^2^
j^^^ZZZZZZZZZI^
"^^^
^^^
0.0
0.4
0.0
0.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.2
0.2
0.0
0.0
560.0
8000.0
570.0
936.0
6280.0
5.5
353.0
1430.0
253.0
660.0
839.0
0.72
5.48
0.21
1.84
1.43
0.00
0.30
4.49
0.71
1.50
1.02
1.65
27.68
1.92
7.08
9.05
0.00
0.70
7.13
1.75
4.38
3.90
5.60
67.50
7.38
16.40
45.00
0.00
2.60
47.95
5.85
20.00
20.85
15.15
202.00
17.75
36.25
116.08
0.33
7.45
132.03
22.25
54.55
65.25
30.34
446.50
53.52
93.67
314.30
1.32
21.60
292.00
56.70
120.18
216.89
n
-------
TABLE 1-3. DIOXINS AND FURANS
Tissue Concentration Differences for Predators (Fillets)
Number of I Minimum Maximum 10th 25th I 75th 90th
Chemical Units Samples ( Difference 1 Difference ( Percentile 1 Percentile ( Median I Percentile ( Percentile
2,3,7,8-TCDD | ppt | 70
1^2A^PeCD^ 70^
1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDD ppt 70
1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDD ppt 70
1^2A^94HxCDD pptl 7cT
^^^ ^^^
^O^^
^3^8£TCD^ ™
JI^A^S-PeQ^ |__PPlJ ™
j^A^^
l^SAT^IHxCDF pptl 70~
_^ ^_
1^3^8^IHxCDF ppTl 70^
^_i_u_i_! KK
2,3,4,6,7,8-HxCDF ppt 70
_^ ^_
^^^ ^^^
OCDF J__PPlJ ^°_
0.0 0.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.3
0.1
0.5
0.1
0.6
1.8
1.3
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.1
0.3
0.00 0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00 0.02
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.03
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.04
0.04
0.00
0.03
0.02
0.04
0.00
0.10
0.01
0.02
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Tissue Concentration Differences for Bottom Dwellers (Whole Bodies)
•o
•o
n
a.
n
r>
o
r>
n
O
3
n
n
r\
n
If!
a-
ft
JO
n
3
•o
9
1 Number of
Chemical I Units Samples
2,3,7,8-TCDD ] ppt 52
1,2,3,7,8-PeCDD I ppt I 52
"l^AV^IHxCDD pptTl 52^
_^^ ^_
^^ ^^^ _
Minimum
Difference
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Maximum
Difference
1.3
0.8
0.3
1.3
0.3
10th
Percentile
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
25th
Percentile
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Median
0.02
0.04
0.01
0.08
0.00
75th
Percentile
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.20
0.06
90*" |
Percentile
0.20
0.20
0.14
0.50
0.10
-------
TABLE 1-3. DIOXINS AND FURANS (continued)
Tissue Concentration Differences for Bottom Dwellers (Whole Bodies) (continued)
' Number of
Chemical ! Units Samples
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD ppt i 52
^CD^^^^^^^^^T^DpT^^^^2^
^2,3,^8£CDF |__PPlJ 52
VAT^S-PeCDF |_PPlJ ^
^3A^PeCDF pptj slT
l^AV^IHxCDF pptH 52^
VA6^8^HxCDF pptl 52^
^^^ ^^^
2,3,4,6,7,8-HxCDF 1 ppt 52
^^ ^_
^^^ ^^^ ^^^
J^^^^
Minimum
Difference
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Maximum
Difference
3.5
31.5
2.3
0.1
0.6
0.1
0.1
0.0
0.1
0.3
0.0
0.1
10th
Percentile
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
25th
Percentile
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Median
0.14
0.00
0.04
0.00
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
75th
Percentile
0.38
1.55
0.11
0.01
0.10
0.01
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.00
0.00
90th!
Percentile
0.90
7.35
0.34
0.04
0.19
0.03
0.03
0.00
0.03
0.05
0.00
0.00
n
-------
TABLE 1-4. ORGANOCHLORINE PESTICIDES
Tissue Concentration Differences for Predators (Fillets)
Number of
Chemical Units Samples
Minimum ' Maximum
Difference Difference
10th 25th1 75th
Percentile Percentile Median Percentile
90th
Percentile
Total DDT
2,4'-DDD ppb
2,4'-DDE ppb
2,4'-DDT ppb
4,4'-DDD ppb
4,4'-DDE ppb
4,4'-DDT ppb
57
57
57
70
70
70
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
4.1
4.5
1.8
17.0
17.9
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.05
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.54
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.68
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
4.96
1.16
Total Chlordane
Chlordane, alpha- ppb 70
Chlordane, gamma- ppb 70
Nonachlor, cis- ppb 70
Nonachlor, trans- ppb 70
Oxychlordane ppb 70
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
6.5
0.3
8.9
21.2
2.1
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Other Organochlorine Pesticides
Aldrin ppb
Dicofol ppb
Dieldrin ppb
Endosulfan 1 ppb
Endosulfan II ppb
Endosulfan Sulfate ppb
Endrin ppb
Ethalfluralin ppb
Heptachlor ppb
Heptachlor epoxide 1 ppb
70
70
70
70
70
70
70
70
70
70
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.0
48.6
5.8
2.0
0.0
0.0
2.1
1.3
4.8
2.2
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
•o
•o
n
a.
n
r\
o
r>
n
O
3
n
n
r\
n
If!
n
n
3
JO
n
&i
cf
n
&i
3
•o
5
-------
TABLE 1-4. ORGANOCHLORINE PESTICIDES (continued)
Tissue Concentration Differences for Predators (Fillets) (continued)
Number of
Chemical Units Samples
Hexachlorocyclohexane
(BHC), alpha- ppb
Hexachlorocyclohexane
(BHC), beta- ppb
Hexachlorocyclohexane
(BHC), delta- ppb
Isodrin ppb
Kepone (Chlordecone) ppb
Methoxychlor ppb
Mirex ppb
Octachlorostyrene ppb
Pendimethalin ppb
Pentachloroanisole ppb
Pentachloronitrobenzene ppb
Permethrin, cis- ppb
Permethrin, trans- ppb
Toxaphene ppb
Trifluralin ppb
70
70
70
70
70
70
70
70
70
70
70
70
70
70
70
Minimum Maximum
Difference Difference
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
5.7
1.0
1.4
130.8
5.5
0.7
0.4
0.0
2.5
1.9
41.6
0.0
0.0
8.3
10th 25th1 75th
Percentile Percentile Median Percentile
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.03
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
90th
Percentile
0.00
0.84
0.00
0.00
7.69
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.42
0.04
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.01
Tissue Concentration Differences for Bottom Dwellers (Whole bodies)
Number of
Chemical Units Samples
Minimum ( Maximum
Difference Difference
10th
Percentile
"25""! ^^i ^^
Percentile Median Percentile Percentile
Total DDT
2,4'-DDD ppb
2,4'-DDE ppb
2,4'-DDT ppb
4,4'-DDD ppb
39
39
39
52
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.5
6.3
10.1
61.0
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.49
0.00
1.26
0.00
1.37
0.06
4.01
•o
•o
n
a.
n
r\
o
r>
n
O
3
n
n
r\
n
If!
a-
ft
n
n
3
JO
n
&i
cf
n
&i
3
•o
.
-------
TABLE 1-4. ORGANOCHLORINE PESTICIDES (continued)
Tissue Concentration Differences for Bottom Dwellers (Whole bodies) (continued)
Number of
Chemical Units Samples
4,4'-DDE ; ppb 52
4,4'-DDT I ppb I 52
Minimum
Difference
0.0
0.0
Maximum
Difference
641.6
29.4
10th 25th
Percentile Percentile
0.21 0.54
CKOoJ OJDO^
75th
Median Percentile
2.58 6.50
CKOoJ 0,48^
90th
Percentile
20.27
3.78
•o
•o
n
a.
n
r\
o
r>
n
O
3
n
n
r\
n
If!
a-
ft
n
n
3
JO
n
&i
(*
n
«/>
&i
3
•o
a
Total Chlordane
Chlordane, alpha-
Chlordane, gamma-
52
52
0.0
4.3
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.43
0.00
1.90
0.11
ppb
0.0
5.1
0.00
Nonachlor, cis-
Nonachlor, trans-
Oxychlordane
52
52
52
0.0
39.3
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.09
0.63
0.00
5.94
0.0
10.6
0.00
1.52
ppb
0.0
3.7
0.00
0.26
Other Organochlorine Pesticides
Aldrin
Dicofol
52
52
0.0
0.0
586.8
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
ppb
0.0
0.0
0.00
1.41
Dieldrin
Endosulfan I
52
52
15.4
5.4
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.09
0.00
ppb
0.0
0.0
0.00
0.00
Endosulfan II
Endosulfan Sulfate
52
52
0.0
2.1
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
ppb
0.0
0.0
0.00
0.00
Endrin
Ethalfluralin
52
52
7.3
11.7
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.61
ppb
ppb
0.0
0.0
2.45
0.67
Heptachlor
Heptachlor epoxide
ppb
52
52
0.0
16.3
3.8
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.02
Hexachlorocyclohexane I
(BHC), alpha- | ppb
52
0.0
0.7
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Hexachlorocyclohexane I
(BHC), beta- | ppb
52
0.0
10.6
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
2.81
Hexachlorocyclohexane I
(BHC), delta- I ppb
52
0.0
2.6
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
-------
TABLE 1-4. ORGANOCHLORINE PESTICIDES (continued)
\ Tissue Concentration Differences for Bottom Dwellers (Whole bodies) (continued) ^^^1
1 ! 'Number of Minimum: Maximum
1 Chemical • Units i Samples Difference \ Difference
| Isodrin j ppb | 52
I Kepone (Chlordecone) ppb 52
| Methoxychlor ppb 52
| Mirex ppb 52
I Octachlorostyrene ppb 52
| Pendimethalin ppb 52
| Pentachloroanisole ppb 52
I Pentachloronitrobenzene ppb 52
| Permethrin, cis- ppb 52
| Permethrin, trans- ppb 52
I Toxaphene ppb 52
| Trifluralin ppb 52
0.0 2.4
0.0 [ 174.0
0.0 48.9
0.0 | 1.2
0.0 1.1
0.0 17.3
0.0 | 2.7
0.0 [ 2.9
0.0 124.0
0.0 32.4
0.0 0.0
^^i^ZZj56-^
10th 25th 1 75th 90th >
Percentile Percentile Median \ Percentile Percentile ^
0.00 __________JD^ °f ° ^J5^0! °^)CL
0.00 | 0.00 i 0.00 | 2.20 1 21.97
0.00 CLOOJ 0.00 O.OOJ 0.00^
0.00 [ 0.00 0.00 [ 0.00 0.00
oxxTI OJDO ooo~] ojxT o.oo
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.30
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.07 0.46
OJDOJ OOO O00| OXxT 0.34
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
OJDOJ ooo ooo] oxxT o.oo
^^aooJ^^aoo^^^^aooJ^^^^ToT^ 7.46
= \
1 l|
H
v<
n
n
o
r>
n
r+
y
r.
7
•
r
P
;
^ ^
^t
§ !
o
^
^»
n
^
r>
n>
If!
a-
n
r+
s
n
n
3
JO
n
•a
r>
77
I
•
i
3
4
4
•3
i
3i
&) ZM
<+ ft
n H
v> Km
&i |4
3 H
•o ^
n
-------
TABLE 1-5. SEMIVOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS
Tissue Concentration Differences for Predators (Fillets)
Chemical
Acenaphthene
Anthracene
Benzo[a] Anthracene
Benzo[a]Pyrene
Benzo(b)Fluoranthene
Benzo(ghi)Perylene
Benzo(j)Fluoranthene
Benzo(k)Fluoranthene
Chrysene
Dibenz[a,h]Anthrancene
Fluoranthene
Fluorene
lndeno(1,2,3-cd)Pyrene
Naphthalene
Perylene
Phenanthrene
Pyrene
1, 2,4,5 -Tetrachlorobenzene
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
(TCB)
1,2-Dichlorobenzene
1,3-Dichlorobenzene
1,4-Dichlorobenzene
Units
ppb
ppb
ppb
ppb
ppb
ppb
ppb
ppb
ppb
ppb
ppb
ppb
ppb
ppb
ppb
ppb
ppb
Number of
Samples
Minimum
Difference
Maximum
Difference
10thf 25th] f 75th
Percentile j Percentile j Median j Percentile
90th
Percentile
Semivolatile Organic Compounds: PAHs
70
70
70
70
70
70
70
70
70
70
70
70
70
70
70
70
70
ppb 70
ppb 70
ppb 70
ppb 70
ppb 70
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
888.0
888.0
888.0
888.0
888.0
1776.0
888.0
888.0
888.0
888.0
888.0
888.0
1776.0
888.0
888.0
888.0
888.0
Other Semivolatile Orga
0.0 888.0
0.0 888.0
0.0 888.0
0.0 888.0
0.0 888.0
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
nic Compounds
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
•o
•o
n
a.
n
r\
o
r>
n
O
3
n
n
r\
n
If!
a-
ft
n
n
3
JO
n
&i
cf
n
&i
3
•o
a
-------
TABLE 1-5. SEMI VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS (continued)
Tissue Concentration Differences for Predators (Fillets) (continued)
! Number of) Minimum Maximum 10th 25th) I 75th! 90th
Chemical i Units Samples J Difference f Difference ( Percentile \ Percentile J Median f Percentile ( Percentile
2,4,5-Trichlorophenol [ ppb | 70
2,4,6-Tris(l,l-Dimethylethyl)
Phenol ppb 70
4,4'-Methylenebis(2-
Chloroaniline) ppb 70
4-Bromophenyl Phenyl
Ether ppb 70
4-Nonylphenol ppb 70
Acenaphthylene ppb 70
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate ppb 70
Butyl benzyl phthalate ppb 70
Chlorpyriphos ppb 70
Diazinon ppb 70
Diethylstilbestrol ppb 70
Disulfoton ppb 70
Disulfoton Sulfone ppb 70
Ethion ppb 70
Hexachlorocyclohexane,
gamma-BHC (Lindane) ppb 70
Hexachlorobenzene ppb 70
Hexachlorobutadiene ppb 70
Nitrobenzene ppb 70
Paraoxon ppb 70
Parathion-Ethyl ppb 70
Pentachlorobenzene ppb 70
Pentachlorophenol ppb 70
0.0 888.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
888.0
1776.0
888.0
888.0
888.0
888.0
888.0
0.0
0.0
888.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.1
888.0
888.0
888.0
0.0
0.0
1776.0
4440.0
0.00 0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
•o
•o
n
a.
n
r\
o
r>
n
O
3
n
n
r\
n
If!
a-
ft
n
n
3
JO
n
&i
cf
n
&i
3
•o
.
-------
TABLE 1-5. SEMIVOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS (continued)
Tissue Concentration Differences for Predators (Fillets) (continued)
Chemical
Phenol
Terbufos
Terbufos Sulfone
Tetrabromobisphenol A
Units
ppb
ppb
ppb
ppb
Number of
Samples
70
70
70
70
Minimum Maximum
Difference Difference
0.0 | 888.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
44400.0
10th 25th1 75th
Percentile Percentile Median Percentile
0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
90th
Percentile
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Tissue Concentration Differences for Bottom Dwellers (Whole Bodies)
Chemical
Acenaphthene
Anthracene
Benzo[a]Anthracene
Benzo[a]Pyrene
Benzo(b)Fluoranthene
Benzo(ghi)Perylene
Benzo(j)Fluoranthene
Benzo(k)Fluoranthene
Chrysene
Dibenz[a,h]Anthrancene
Fluoranthene
Fluorene
lndeno(1,2,3-cd)Pyrene
Naphthalene
Perylene
Phenanthrene
Pyrene
Units
ppb
ppb
ppb
ppb
ppb
ppb
ppb
ppb
ppb
ppb
ppb
ppb
ppb
ppb
ppb
ppb
ppb
Number of
Samples
Minimum
Difference
Maximum
Difference
10th 25th 75th
Percentile Percentile Median Percentile
90th
Percentile
Semivolatile Organic Compounds: PAHs
52
52
52
52
52
52
52
52
52
52
52
52
52
52
52
52
52
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
999.0
999.0
999.0
999.0
1998.0
0.0
999.0
0.0
999.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
•o
•o
n
a.
n
r\
o
r>
n
O
3
n
n
r>
n
If!
a-
ft
n
n
3
JO
n
&i
(*
n
«/>
&i
3
•o
9
-------
TABLE 1-5. SEMI VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS (continued)
Tissue Concentration Differences for Bottom Dwellers (Whole Bodies) (continued)
Number of
Chemical j Units Samples
Minimum Maximum
Difference Difference
10th 25th1 75th
Percentile Percentile Median Percentile
90th
Percentile
Other Semivolatile Organic Compounds
1,2,4,5-Tetrachlorobenzene ppb 52
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
(TCB) ppb 52
1,2-Dichlorobenzene ppb 52
1,3-Dichlorobenzene ppb 52
1,4-Dichlorobenzene ppb 52
2,4,5-Trichlorophenol ppb 52
2,4,6-Tris(1,1-Dimethylethyl)
Phenol ppb
4,4'-Methylenebis(2-
Chloroaniline) ppb
4-Bromophenyl Phenyl
Ether ppb
4-Nonylphenol ppb
Acenaphthylene ppb
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate ppb
Butyl benzyl phthalate ppb
Chlorpyriphos ppb
Diazinon ppb
Diethylstilbestrol ppb
Disulfoton ppb
Disulfoton Sulfone ppb
Ethion ppb
Hexachlorocyclohexane,
gamma-BHC (Lindane) ppb
52
52
52
52
52
52
52
52
52
52
52
52
52
52
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
19780.1
999.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.5
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.34
•o
•o
n
a.
n
r\
o
r>
n
O
3
n
n
r\
n
If!
a-
ft
n
n
3
JO
n
&i
cf
n
&i
3
•o
.
-------
TABLE 1-5. SEMI VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS (continued)
Tissue Concentration Differences for Bottom Dwellers (Whole Bodies) (continued)
1 Number of I Minimum Maximum 10th 25th I 75th 90th
Chemical ( Units Samples ( Difference 1 Difference ( Percentile 1 Percentile ( Median I Percentile ( Percentile
Hexachlorobenzene ppb | 52
Hexachlorobutadiene ppb 52
Nitrobenzene ppb 52
Paraoxon ppb 52
Parathion-Ethyl ppb 52
Pentachlorobenzene ppb 52
Pentachlorophenol ppb 52
Phenol ppb 52
Terbufos ppb 52
Terbufos Sulfone ppb 52
Tetrabromobisphenol A ppb 52
0.0 0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
4995.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.00 0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
•o
•o
n
a.
n
r\
o
r>
n
O
3
n
n
r\
n
vt
o-
ft
n
n
3
JO
n
a
&i
cf
n
3
•o
------- |