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
------- |