Persistence of DDT residues and dieldrin off a pesticide processing plant in San Francisco Bay, California David Young1, Robert Ozretich1, Henry Lee II1, Scott Echols2 and John Frazier2 !U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Western Ecology Division Newport, OR 97365 2CH2M Hill, Corvallis, OR 97330 This paper reports concentrations of DDT residues and dieldrin in surficial sediment, unfiltered near-surface water, intertidal mussels, and epibenthic and pelagic organisms collected from Richmond Harbor more than 25 years after removal of the predominant local source of these contaminants. High concentrations were measured in most of the samples collected. Despite the large concentration gradients away from the source zone, relatively little variability in the tissue/water bioconcentration factors for the mussel, a benthic Gobiid fish, and the pelagic shiner surfperch was observed. This indicates that these organisms are potentially useful bioindicators of organoehlorine contamination in estuarine ecosystems. Disclaimer: This information has been funded wholly (or in part) by the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. It has been subjected to the Agency's peer and administrative review, and it had been approved for publication as an EPA document. Mention of trade names or commercial products does not constitute endorsement or recommendation for use. Introduction Between 1947 and 1966, United Heckathorn and other companies operated a pesticide formulation plant in Richmond, California. The operations resulted in discharges of DDT and dieldrin to the shoreline and the poorly flushed waters of Richmond Harbor of San Francisco Bay (Figure 1), In 1990 U.S. EPA listed the site (since remediated by removal of contaminated sediment) on the National Priorities List, and a study of contamination levels there was conducted by EPA during October 1991 and February ------- 1992 (1). Here we report results of that study related to the persistence of residues of these organochlorine pesticides in the sediment and water of Richmond Harbor, and their bioconcentration by estuarine organisms. Methods Sample Collection and Preparation Sediment: During the October survey, surficial sediment (0-10 cm) was collected in a 0.1 m2 van Veen grab sampler at 21 stations within the three inner channels and the outer channel (Figure 1), The sediment samples were collected with pre-cleaned glass corers from the grab and transferred to glass jars with Teflon-lined caps. The jars were placed immediately on " gel" ice in ice chests, returned to the laboratory in a cool state and were processed within 24-36 hours of collection. Aliquots were taken for determination of percent solids (by drying overnight at 105° C), total organic carbon - TOC (by acidifying and high-temperature combustion), and DDT and dieldrin residues. The latter sample (~2 g wet wt.) was spiked with surrogate internal standards (4,4' DDE- d8 and 13C-heptachlor epoxide), desiccated with sodium sulfate, sonicated in acetonitrile and passed through a C-18 solid phase cartridge (2). To maintain the analytical degradation of DDT to DDD and DDE to less that 10%, the biogenic material remaining in the extracts was further reduced by passage through a column of silica gel (1). The resulting extracts were refrigerated until GC/MS analysis, Water: Near-surface water was collected within ~ 1 meter of the intertidal mussel sampling sites in three inner channels of Richmond Harbor - Lauritzen Channel, Santa Fe Channel, and Richmond Channel (Figure 1). During the October survey, at each site a single sample was collected on three separate days during lower, intermediate, and higher tidal stages. During the February survey, triplicate samples were collected simultaneously at each site on an intermediate tide. Pre-cleaned capped 0.5-liter glass bottles with Teflon-lined caps were immersed from the bow of a small boat, triple-rinsed in the sample without contacting the air-water interface, filled completely while underwater, and capped tightly before withdrawal. The bottles were kept cool in an ice chest, and that evening were air-shipped to the EPA laboratory in Newport, OR. The following morning, water was decanted down to the bottle's shoulder and surrogate internal standards (4,4* DDE-d8 and 13C-heptachlor epoxide) were added to each unfiltered sample, which was shaken and then topped with the extraction solvent (12 ml of 10 % isooctane in hexane). These samples were extracted for 12 to 18 hours by gentle swirling on a shaker table in the dark. The water was removed from the bottom of the bottle via a vacuum probe, and the solvent sample transferred to a pre-cleaned 40 ml vial, reduced in volume with a stream of nitrogen, and placed in a freezer pending GC/MS analysis, Biota: Intertidal byssal mussels (4-6 cm long) were collected at the water sampling sites in the three inner channels during the October and February surveys. Epibenthic invertebrates and benthic and pelagic fishes also were collected by trawling along a fixed transect in each channel (Figure 1). All specimens were wrapped in pre- cleaned aluminum foil and frozen pending sample preparation, which was conducted ------- within a few months of collection. In the laboratory, ten mussels (Mytilus galloprovincialis) were randomly selected, the byssus removed, and the soft tissues excised and composited. Composite samples of the epibenthic bay shrimp (Crangon franciscorum), briefly rinsed free of attached sediment in a stream of filtered seawater, also were obtained when possible. These samples, as well as whole body samples of an epibenthic Gobiid fish (probably the bay goby Lepfdogobius lepidus), the pelagic shiner surfperch (Cymatogaster aggregates), and a pelagic Anchoveta fish (probably the northern anchovy Engraulis mordax), also were collected and rinsed of attached sediment. The composite or single-specimen tissue samples were frozen in liquid nitrogen and pulverized with mortar and pestle. Subsamples were distributed for pesticide, percent solids, and lipid analyses. Subsamples were spiked with internal surrogate standards (4,4' DDE-d8 and 13C-heptachlor epoxide), and pesticide extracts were obtained following the procedures of Ozretich and Schroeder (2) using C-18 and aminopropyl solid phase cartridges for the initial cleanup, followed by passage through a column of silica gel to further remove biogenic material in the extracts (1). Percent solids of most tissues were determined following freeze-drying; lipid content then was measured with a methanol- chloroform micro-volume technique (3). GC/MS Analysis Quantitation was by capillary gas chromatography - mass spectrometry selected ion monitoring using response factors relative to surrogate internal standards added prior to sample extraction. Pesticide identity was confirmed by retention time and use of characteristic ion pairs. Compound identities were considered confirmed if their peaks were found at expected retention times with ratios of ions within 20% of those expected from authentic standards. The level of degradation of DDT to DDE and DDD during the analysis was determined daily and corrections were applied to the extract concentrations of these compounds. Less than 10% degradation of DDT was observed during the course of this study. Results and Discussion Surficial Sediment The magnitude of contamination of Richmond Harbor by DDT and dieldrin residues is indicated by the surficial sediment concentrations (Table I). The median of the four EDDT values for Lauritzen Channel was about 37,000 /^g/kg (dry wt); medians for Santa Fe Channel, Richmond Channel, and Outer Channel were 630, 60, and 15 /J.gfkg, respectively. Corresponding values for dieldrin were 480,14,1.2,and L9,ag/kg. For each pesticide there was a clear gradient away from the head of Lauritzen Channel, near the former site of the pesticide formulation plant. In addition, the distribution of EDDT changed substantially along this gradient. Within Lauritzen Channel, the two primary residues were 4,4'-DDT and 4,4'-DDD, which together constituted 85% - 90% of the ------- EDDT, while 4,4'-DDE constituted only about 2%. However, within Richmond Channel, the median concentration of 4,4'-DDT was lower by about a factor of two, while that of 4,4'-DDE was higher by a factor of four. Over the entire study area, the median ratio of 4,4'-DDD to 4,4'-DDT was about 2:1. This relative high ratio is consistent with the suggestion by Pereira et al. (4) and Venkatesan et al. (5) that much of the DDD measured in Richmond Harbor is attributable to the facility's processing and loss of technical DDD, which also was used as an agricultural insecticide, rather than to reductive dechlorination of DDT. Near-Surface Water Concentrations of EDDT and dieldrin measured in the near-surface waters collected from the three channels in October 1991 and February 1992 were remarkably similar (Table IIA). For Lauritzen Channel, average values for EDDT were 50 and 50 ng/liter, respectively. Corresponding values for dieldrin were 21 and 15 ng/liter. Similar agreement between seasonal values was observed for the other two inner channels. There is some indication that the water concentrations obtained from the October survey varied with tidal height; in four of the five cases where a comparison is possible, the average pesticide concentration at the lowest tide level exceeded that at the highest tide level. The three values obtained from the replicates collected sequentially at a station during the February survey showed a high degree of precision; on average, the relative standard error obtained was less than 10%. As was the case for the surficial sediment samples, somewhat more than half of the EDDT in the water samples from the three channels was 4,4'-DDD (Table IIB). hi addition, the approximate two-fold decrease in the percentage composition of 4,4'-DDT from Lauritzen to Richmond Channel observed for surficial sediment also was obtained for the near-surface water samples. However, in contrast to the pattern observed for sediment, there was no substantial increase in the percentage composition of 4,4-DDE measured in the near-surface water samples. Intertidal Mussels As was the case for sediment and water, large spatial gradients also were observed for EDDT and dieldrin in whole soft tissue of the intertidal mussel Mytilus galloprovincialis (Table IIIA). However, in contrast to the case for water, substantial differences were obtained between average (wet weight) concentrations in the Lauritzen and Santa Fe Channel samples from the October and February survey. These differences generally correspond to those measured in the lipid content of the mussel tissues, where, on average, the February values were lower than those for October by about a factor of three. As was the case for sediment and water, 4,4'-DDD constituted the largest percent of EDDT in the mussel tissue (Table IIIB). Also, percent values for 4,4'-DDT were highest, and percent values of 4,4'-DDE were lowest, in the Lauritzen Channel mussels. The percent composition results listed in Table IIIB contrast highly with those reported for the coastal mussel M. californianus collected in 1974 inshore of the municipal ------- wastewater outfall system off Palos Verdes Peninsula, amajor source of DDT wastes. In that study, 4,4'-DDD and 4,4'-DDT constituted only about 3% and 1%, respectively, of the EDDT measured in the whole soft tissue, while 4,4'-DDE constituted about 85% of the EDDT (6). Epibenthic and Pelagic Biota Distinct spatial gradients of the target pesticides also were measured in the whole body concentrations of two epibenthic organisms, the bay shrimp Crangonfranciscorum and a Gobiid fish (Table IV), This also was observed for the pelagic shiner surfberch (Cymatogaster aggregates), but not for the Anchoveta (Table V). Available percent composition data yielded an average value of about 60 percent 4,4'-DDD in the whole body samples of the Gobiid fish (Table IVB), similar to the values presented above for sediment and water. However, a much lower average value for 4,4'-DDT (7 percent), and a much higher average value for 4,4'-DDE (29 percent) was measured in this epibenthic fish compared to the surficial sediment (Table I), Also, the percent composition data obtained for the whole body samples of the epibenthic Gobiid fish contrast with corresponding results for muscle tissue of shiner surfpereh collected during 1997 from other parts of the Bay; average values reported for 4,4'-DDE, 4,4'-DDD, and 4,4'-DDT were 72%, 21%, and <4%, respectively (7). Even greater contrasts exist between the average percent composition values for the Gobid fish and muscle tissue of another epibenthic fish, the flatfish Dover sole (Microstotnuspacificus), collected from the municipal wastewater discharge zone off Palos Verdes Peninsula, CA, hi 1971 -72. In those samples corresponding values for the three compounds were 84%, 6%, and 0.7% respectively (8). This high percentage of 4,4'-DDE found in the 1971-72 study of Dover Sole (and other organisms) is consistent with recent reports that 4,4'- DDE constitutes >80% of EDDT in sediments and biota off southern California (9,10). Such agreement between percent composition values obtained over two to three decades argues against the hypothesis that the earlier reports of relatively high DDE metabolites in the region might be due principally to measurement error caused by degradation of DDT during analysis. Comparison of Spatial Gradients A listing of the comparable average concentrations of EDDT and dieldrin obtained for the samples discussed above is presented in Table VI. (The sediment averages are based on values for those stations included in, or immediately bracketing, the trawl tracks). This comparison illustrates the large spatial gradients measured in all sample types except the highly motile Anchoveta fish. The largest gradient was observed in the surficial sediment (associated with the trawl tracks), where the respective average EDDT and dieldrin values for Lauritzen Channel were 600 and 360 times those for Richmond Channel, In comparison, results from a similar sediment contamination survey of the area conducted in 1993 yielded site concentration ratios of 250:1 for EDDT and 270:1 for ------- dieldrin (4). Large ratios also were obtained between average contamination levels at these two sites (Table VI) for EDDT concentrations in the water (50:1), mussel (72:1), Gobiid (42:1), and surfperch (75:1) samples. Corresponding ratios for dieldrin were >18:1, 24:1, 33:1, and 195:1. These results indicate a relatively small degree of mixing of water or specimens of these two fishes from Lauritzen and Richmond channels. Bioconcentration Factors. Tissue/water bioconcentration factors (BCF) for both EDDT and dieldrin in the intertidal byssal mussel, the epibenthic Gobiid fish, and the pelagic surfperch (TableVH) were remarkably similar for the three channel areas. Relative standard error values for EDDT in the three estuarine organisms were 13 %, 14%, and 13%, respectively. Corresponding RSE values for dieldrin were 32%, 17%, and 1 %. These results indicate that, in addition to the byssal mussel, the two fishes were relatively non-motile, and came to quasi-equilibrium in each of the exposure environments of the three channels. Thus, all three organisms would appear to be useful bioindicators of organochlorine contaminated sites in estuaries. Acknowledgments We thank David Speeht, Kathy Sercu, and other scientists of the U.S. EPA laboratory at Newport, OR, and the on-site technical contractor AScI, for assistance in this research. We also thank Dr. Jay Davis, San Francisco Estuary Institute (CA), and Dr. Renee Falconer, Youngstown State University (OH) for their guidance. Finally, the support of Dr. Andrew Lincoff, U.S. EPA Region DC (San Francisco, CA) throughout this study is gratefully acknowledged. ------- Literature Cited 1. "Ecological Risk Assessment of the Marine Sediments at the United Heckathorn Superfund Site"; Lee II, H., Ed.; Final Report to U.S. EPA Region EX, ERL-N-269 (May 20, 1994); U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Research and Development. Environmental Research Laboratory: Newport, OR, 1994; EPA- 6QO/X-94/Q29. 2. Ozretich, R.J.; Schroeder, W. P. Anal. Chem. 1986,58,2041-2048. 3. "United Heckathorn Superfund Site Study"; Lee II, H,, Ed.; Planning Document No. ERL-N -199; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Research and Development. Environmental Research Laboratory: Newport, OR, 1991; EPA- 600/X-91/121. 4. Pereira, W.E.; Hostettler, F.D.; Rapp, J.B. Mar. Environ. Res. 1996, 41, 299-314. 5, Venkatesan, M.I.; deLeon, R.P.; van Geer, A.; Luoma, S.N. Mar. Chem. 1999, 64, 85-97. 6. Young, D.R.; Heesen, T.C.; McDermott, DJ. Mar. Pollut. Bull 1976, 7,156-159. 7, "Contaminant Concentrations in Fish from San Francisco Bay - 1997"; Technical Report of the San Francisco Estuary Regional Monitoring Program for Trace Substances, RMP Contribution No. 3 5 (May 1999); San Francisco Estuary Institute: Richmond, CA, 1999. 8. Young, D.R.; McDermott, D.J.; Heesen, T.C. J. Wat. Pollut, Contr. Fed. 1976, 48, 1919-1928. 9. Stall, J.K.; Swift, D.J.P.; Niedoroda, A.W. Sci. Tot. Environ. 1996, ; 79,73-90. 10. Zeng, E.Y.; Venkatesen, M.I. Sci. Tot. Environ. 1999,229,195-208. ------- Table I, EDDT (with Percent Composition) and Dieldrin in Surface" Sediment (/^g/kg dry wt.) Station1' I 2 3 4 13 5 6 14 15 16 7 17 8 18 009 9 19 20 22 21 23 roe 2.38 1.78 1.73 1.46 1.55 1.49 2,98 1.51 1.46 1.35 1.08 1.34 1.18 1.25 1.22 0.87 1.14 1.10 0.76 1.05 1.02 EDDT 77,700 47,800 26,000 2,740 556 420 2,340 730 522 696 368 132 82 38 24 12 17 15 11 18 15 2,4'-DDE 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.5 0.8 0.6 1.5 0.4 0,4 0.4 0.6 0.5 0.7 1.6 1.2 0.9 2.4 2.7 2.7 3.2 2.7 4,4'-DDE 2.0 1.8 2.5 4.0 8.7 11.0 24.8 7.3 5.9 5.7 7.4 7.3 11.5 12.2 15.4 17.2 18.1 17.8 10.7 15.1 17.1 2,4'-DDD 8.2 5.3 9.6 7.9 11.1 9.6 10.2 10.8 9.8 6.9 9.5 8.7 9.9 9.6 11.7 11.2 9.6 9.6 14.3 12.4 10.3 4,4'-DDD 42.1 32.8 58.9 55.5 67.5 57.5 40.6 69.4 65.4 49.2 59.6 54.7 56.0 63.5 58.3 45.7 41.0 41.8 43.8 52.4 34.2 2,4'-DDT 3.3 2.3 0.6 0.0 0.0 1.2 2.8 0.0 0.9 0.5 0.5 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 9.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4,4'-DDT 44.4 57.6 28.4 32.1 11.9 20.0 20.1 12.1 17.6 37.3 22.4 28.9 21.3 13.3 14.2 25.9 21.1 28.8 28.6 18.4 35.6 Dieldrin 748 528 442 36 17 5.5 78 17 9,4 11 9.5 3.0 1.7 0.0 0.0 0,6 2.4 1.9 0.0 0.0 3.4 a. Sediment layer: 0-10 cm b. Lauritzen Ch: Sta.1-4; Santa Fe Ch.: Sta. 13, 5,6, c. Percent dry wt. 14,15,16; Richmond Ch.: Sta. 7, 17, 8,18, 009, 9; Outer Ch.: Sta. 19-23 (Figure 1) ------- Table HA: EDDT and Dieldrin in Near-surface Water" (ng/liter) Channel Lauritzen Ave S.E Santa Fe Ave, S.E, Richmond Ave, S.E. Proc. Blank6 Channel Lauritzen Santa Fe Richmond Oct Tide" 6.0 4.9 2.1 5.7 5.5 2.0 6.1 2.9 2.2 Table SDDT1 50 8.6 1.0 Repl Oct. 1 60 2 22 3 68 50 15 1 9.3 2 5.1 3 14 9.4 2.5 1 <0.2 2 0,3 3 1.5 0.6 0.5 0.7 SDDT Dieldrin Feb. Combined Oct. Feb. 54 50 47 50 50 2 6 9.8 6.6 6.7 7.7 8.6 1.1 1.3 1.5 1.5 1.3 1.4 1.0 0.1 0.3 0.2 IIB. Average Percent Composition 2,4'-DDE 4,4'-DDE 0.4 3.7 1.6 5.1 0.0 4.6 2,4'-DDD 16.4 20.2 29.1 19 16 10 15 34 13 21 15 7 1 2.8 1.7 3.1 1.7 <1.0 1.7 2.0 1.7 1.0 0.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 -. <1.0 <1.0 ofEDDTinWater* 4,4'-DDD 2,4'-DDT 54.7 8.0 57.8 5.8 57.4 0.0 Combined 18 3 1.8 0.4 <1.0 — . 4,4'-DDT 16,8 9.5 8.8 a. Unfiltered samples: water depth 0.3 m b. Surface water elevation (ft.) above Mean Lower Low Water c. Concentrations not corrected for procedural blank values d. Units: ng/liter ------- Table IIIA. EDDT and Dieldrin in Intertidal Mussels" Gug/kg wet wt.) Channel Oct. Lauritzen Med. 2,600 Ave, 5,100 S.E. 1,700 (n) (5) Santa Fe Med, 480 Ave. 520 S.E. 42 (n) (5) Richmond Med, 40 Ave. 40 S.E, 12 (n) (5) Control" (OR Coast) Med. Ave. S.E. (n) Anal. Blank Table IIIB EDDT % Lipid Feb. % Lipid Combined 670 1,600 1.42 680 0.48 2,900 150 1,100 (5) (10) 1 10 440 2.27 180 0.86 350 67 69 (5) (10) 36 38 1.71 40 0.95 40 6 6 (5) (10) 1,5 1.4 1.05 0.1 (5) <3.8 . Average Percent Composition of EDDT Dieldrin Oct. Feb. Combined 100 23 57 170 25 97 56 3 36 (5) (5) (10) 32 6 18 30 8 19 32 4 (5) (5) (10) <2 3 3 254 1 2 1 (5) (5) (10) <1.7 <1.7 — (5) <1.7 in Mussels" Channel £DDTC 2,4'-DDE 4,4'-DDE 2,4'-DDD 4,4'-DDD 2,4'-DDT 4,4'-DDT Lauritzen 2,900 Santa Fe 350 Richmond 40 0.8 11.1 11.4 42.4 1.0 14.8 11.3 54.9 1.5 21.2 . 10.4 43.9 11.6 22.8 4.7 13.8 4.2 18,8 a. Mytttm galloprovincialis; whole soft tissue b. Mytilus californianus; whole soft tissue c. Units: Mg/kg wet wt. ------- Table IVA. EDDT and Dieldrin in Epibenthic Shrimp" and Gobiid Fish" wet wt.) Channel Lauritzen Med. Ave. S.E. (n) Santa Fe Med. Ave. S.E. (n) Richmond Med. Ave. S.E. (n) Shrimp ZDDT Dieldrirf 310 310 4 (2) 99 110 10 (3) 24 24 3 (2) 12 12 12 (2) 3 3 1 (3) 2 9 i. 2 (2) ZDDT 5,400 (1) 730 680 57 (5) 120 130 19 (3) Gobiid Dieldrin' 200 (1) 28 28 3 (5) 6 6 3 (3) % Lipid 2.2 2.9 1.1 Table IVB. Average Percent Composition of EDDT in Gobiid Fish" Channel EDDTd 2,4'-DDE 4,4'-DDE 2,4'-DDD 4,4'-DDD 2,4'-DDT 4,4'-DDT Lauritzen 5,400 0.1 44.0 0.6 45.9 0.4 9.0 Santa Fe 680 0.3 26.3 1.9 65.6 0.3 5.6 Richmond 130 L3 16.8 18 72.7 0.0 7.4 a. Crangon franciscorum; whole body (no lipid value) b. Probable Lepidogobius lepidus; whole body c. Values for October 1991 and February 1992 surveys combined d. Units: Mg/kg wet wt. ------- Table VA. EDDT and Dieldrin in Shiner Surf perch" and Anchoveta Fish (/^g/kg) wet wt.) Surjperch Anchoveta Channel Lauritzen Med. Ave. S.E. (n) Santa Fe (n=l) Richmond Med. Ave. S.E. (n) Table VB. Channel ZDDT Lauritzen 7,500 Santa Fe 920 Richmond 100 ZDDTb '8,300 7,500 1,500 (n) 920 91 100 21 (5) Diddrnf EDDTb Dieldrin" %Lipid 340 390 98 15 1.8 90 (5) (1) (1) 40 670 17 1.9 — 2 170 4 1.8 2 (5) (1) (1) Average Percent Composition of EDDT in Anchoveta Fish 2,4'-DDE 0.0 0.5 1.0 4,4'-DDE 2,4'-DDD 4,4'-DDD 2,4'-DDT 20.1 9.1 49.4 5.9 26.4 6.1 51.4 4.0 38,6 5.2 42.2 3.0 4,4'-DDT 15.5 11.6 10.0 a. Cymatogaster aggregate; whole body (no Hpid value) b. Values for October 1991 and February 1992 surveys combined c. Units: /^g/kg wet wt. ------- Table VI. Spatial Comparison of EDDT and Dieldrin Average Concentrations** Channel Lauritzen Santa Fe Richmond Lauritzen Santa Fe Richmond Sediment 50,500 1,010 84 570 29 1.6 Water 50 8.6 1.0 18 1.8 <1 Mussel 2,900 350 40 97 19 4 Shrimp SDDT 310 110 24 Dieldrin 12 3 2 Gobiid 5,400 680 130 200 28 6 Surfperch 7,500 920 100 390 40 2 Anchoveta 98 670 170 15 17 4 a. Sediment concentration average values based on stations included within or immediately bracketing trawl tracks (Figure 1) b. Water: ng/liter; sediment: /^g/kg dry wt; tissue: /^g/kg wet wt. Table VLL BCFs" for EDDT and Dieldrin in Biota Channel Lauritzen Santa Fe Richmond Ave. S.E. Mussel 58,000 40,700 40,000 46,200 5,890 ZDDT Gobiid Surfperch 108,000 79,100 130,000 106,000 14.700 150,000 107,000 100,000 119,000 15,600 Anchoveta 1,960 77,900 170,000 83,300 48,600 Mussel 5,390 10,600 — 8,000 2,600 Dieldrin Gobiid Surfperch 11,100 15,600 — 13,400 2,250 21,700 22,200 — 22,000 250 Anchoveta 830 9,440 — 5,140 4,300 a. Bioconcentration Factor: Ratio of combined average concentration in tissue to combined average concentration in unfiltered water. ------- FIGURE CAPTION Figure 1. Collection sites in Richmond Harbor of San Francisco Bay, California. ------- 122°30' 122°00' RICHMOND LAURITZEN CHANNEL • UNITED HECKATHORN SITE- ' " - SANTA FE CHANNEL RICHMOND CHANNEL. OUTER CHANNEL Scale 250 500 750 1000 Meters Sediment Water, Mussels rawl Tracks ------- NHEIRL-COR-2378A ,„ H . TECHNICAL REPORT DATA (Please read instructions on the reverse before completing) 1 . REPORT NO. EPA 600/A-00/002 2. 4, TITLE AND SUBTITLE Delineation of Pacific Northwest SAVs from aerial photography: natural color or color infrared film? 7, AUTHOR(S) David Young1 , Robert kOzretich1 , Scott Ecols2 , John Frazier2 1 US EPA NHEERL WED 2 CH2M Hill 2111 SE Marine Science Drive Corvallis, OR 97330 Newport, OR 97365 12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS US EPA ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH LABORATORY 200 SW 35th Street Corvallis, OR 97333 5. REPORT DATE 6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE 8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO. 10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO. 1 1 . CONTRACT/GRANT NO. 13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED 14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE EPA/600/02 15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES: 1 6. Abstract: The paper reports concentrations of DDT residues and deldrin in surficial sediment, unfiltered near-surface water, intertidal mussels, and epibenthic and pelagic organism collected from Richmond Harbor more than 25 years after removal of the predominant local source of these contaminants. High concentrations were measured in most of the samples collected. Despite the large concentration gradients away from the source zone, relatively little variability in the tissue/water bioeoncentration factors for the mussel, a benthic Gobiid fish, and the pelagic shiner surf perch was observed. This indicates that these organisms are potentially useful bioindicators of organochlorine contamination in estuarine ecosystems. 17. a. DESCRIPTORS chlorinated hydrocarbon, pesticide, sediment, water, biot, biocentration, San Francisco, estuary. 18. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS b. IDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS 19. SECURITY CLASS (This Report) 20. SECURITY CLASS (This page) c. COSATI Field/Group 21. NO. OF PAGES: 15 22. PRICE EPA Form 2220-1 (Rev. 4-77) PREVIOUS EDITION IS OBSOLETE ------- |