CATALOG DOCUMENTATION
EMAP-ESTUARIES PROVINCE LEVEL DATABASE
CAROLINIAN PROVINCE 1994-1997
SEDIMENT CHEMISTRY DATA
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. DATA SET IDENTIFICATION
2. INVESTIGATOR INFORMATION
3. DATA SET ABSTRACT
4. OBJECTIVES AND INTRODUCTION
5. DATA ACQUISITION AND PROCESSING METHODS
6. DATA MANIPULATIONS
7. DATA DESCRIPTION
8. GEOGRAPHICAL AND SPATIAL INFORMATION
9. QUALITY CONTROL/QUALITY ASSURANCE
10. DATA ACCESS
11. REFERENCES
12. TABLE OF ACRONYMS
13. PERSONNEL INFORMATION
1. DATA SET IDENTIFICATION
1.1 Title of Catalog Document
EMAP-Estuaries Province Level Database
Carolinian Province
Sediment Chemistry Data
1.2 Authors of the Catalog entry
Timothy R. Snoots,
Dr. Jeffrey L. Hyland
1.3 Catalog Revision Date
September 10, 1998
1.4 Data Set Name
CP_CHM_D.DAT, CP_CHM_A.TXT
-------
1.5 Task Group
Estuari es
1.6 Data set identification codes
5, 6
1.7 Version
001
1.8 Requested Acknowledgment
If you plan to publish these data in any way, EPA requires
a standard statement for work it has supported:
"Although the data described in this article have been
funded wholly or in part by the U. S. Environmental
Protection Agency through its EMAP-Estuaries Program, it
has not been subjected to Agency review, and therefore does
not necessarily reflect the views of the Agency and no official
endorsement should be inferred."
2. INVESTIGATOR INFORMATION
2.1 Principal Investigator
J. Hyland (N0AA/N0S/NCC0S/CCMA) - Carolinian Province Manager
A. Ringwood (SCDNR) - Lead P.I. for SC/GA region team
C. Hackney (UNC-W) - Lead P.I. for NC region team
G. McRae, G. Nelson, J. McKenna, J. Landsberg (FLDEP) -
Lead P.I.s for FL region team (depending on year)
2.2 Investigation Participant - Sample Collection
Field Sample Collection
T. Alphin, J. Bichy, S. Bowen, C. Byrum, D. Dye, A.
Gospodarek, J. Grace, J. Grimley, C. Hackney, C. Powell, C.
Preziosi, H. Riley, S. Roberts, M. Smith, K. Stokesbury,
D. Tremain, T. Wheeler (UNC-W); S. Ross (NCNERR);
M. Armstrong-Taylor, J. Jones, M. Levinson, P. Powers,
A. Ringwood, T. Snoots, G. Steele (SCDNR); L. Balthis,
T. Herrlinger, C. Keppler, M. Wert (UC); D. Adams,
K. Amendola, D. Cook, C. Harnden, B. Heagey, J. Mckenna,
G. Nelson, C. Nowicki, R. Paperno, B. Rosenblatt,
M. Wessel (FLDEP); J. Hyland, S. Kokkinakis
(N0AA/N0S/0RCA);
Field Training and Coordination
S. Kokkinakis (N0AA/N0S/0RCA); J. Macauley (EPA-GED);
T. Hei tmuller (USGS-GB); D. Keith (EPA-AED)
-------
2.3 Sampling Processing -
Principal Investigator
Program Management and Coordination
J. Hyland, A. Robertson (NOAA/NOS/NCCOS/CCMA); K. Summers
(EPA); F. Holland, A. Ringwood (SCDNR); C. Hackney,
T. Wheeler (UNC-W); S. Ross (NCNERR) ; J. Landsberg, J.
McKenna, G. McRae, G. Nelson, R. Paperno (FLDEP)
Contaminant Analyses
P. Boothe, J. Brooks, G. Denoux, B. Presley,
T. Wade (TAMU/GERG)
QA/QC
T. Heitmuller (USGS-GB), S. Kokkinakis (NOAA/NOS/ORCA)
Data Management and Statistical Support
T. Snoots, F. Holland, R. VanDolah (SCDNR); L. Balthis,
T. Herrlinger (UC); J. Rosen, L. Zimmerman (TPMC);
S. Rathbun (UGA); M. Adams, L. Harwell (JCWS);
V. Engle (EPA-GED); Z. Malaeb (USGS-GB);
S. Hale (EPA-AED); K. Summers (EPA); T. Wilson (CU)
3. DATA SET ABSTRACT
3.1 Abstract of the Data set
The CP_CHM_D.DAT data set reports a suite of chemical
concentrations from analyses of a surface sediment sample
(upper 2-3 cm) composited from multiple grabs at each sampling
station in the Carolinian Province from 1994-1997. Individual
and analyte group summary concentrations are reported. A total
of 17 inorganic trace elements, 4 butyltins, 27 aliphatic
hydrocarbons, 44 polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), 20
polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) , 23 pesticides, Total Organic
Carbon (TOC), and several summary (totals) concentrations are
reported for each station.
The CP_CHM_A.TXT data set reports full descriptive analyte names
for each of the ANAL codes used to represent analytes in the
CP_CHM_D.DAT data set.
The following reports are products of these and other data
collected during the 1994-1997 Sampling period in the Carolinian
Province. These reports may contain additional information and
summary statistics that are not contained in this data set
catalog or its respective data sets. We therefore recommend
referring to them when using these data.
Hyland, J.L., T.J. Herrlinger, T.R. Snoots, A.H. Ringwood, R.F.
Van Dolah, C.T. Hackney, G.A. Nelson, J.S. Rosen, and
S.A. Kokkinakis. 1996. Environmental quality of
estuaries of the Carolinian Province: 1994. Annual
-------
statistical summary for the 1994 EMAP-Estuaries
Demonstration Project in the Carolinian Province.
NOAA Technical Memorandum NOS ORCA 97. NOAA/NOS,
Office of Ocean Resources Conservation and Assessment,
Silver Spring, MD. 102 p.
Hyland, J.L., L. Balthis, C.T. Hackney, G. McRae, A.H. Ringwood,
T.R. Snoots, R.F. Van Dolah, and T.L. Wade. 1998.
Environmental quality of estuaries of the Carolinian
Province: 1995. Annual statistical summary for the 1995
EMAP-Estuaries Demonstration Project in the Carolinian
Province. NOAA Technical Memorandum NOS ORCA 123
NOAA/NOS, Office of Ocean Resources Conservation and
Assessment, Silver Spring, MD. 143 p.
Balthis, W.L., J.L. Hyland, and T.R. Snoots. 1998. Compendium of
environmental data for estuaries sampled in the North Carolina
portion of the EMAP Carolinian Province during summer 1994-1996.
Unpublished report, May 1998. 62 p.
See Also: GERG (1995a), GERG (1995b), GERG (1996), GERG (1997a),
GERG (1997b), GERG (1998).
3.2 Keywords for the Data Set
CP_CHM_D.DAT
Sediment contaminants, sediment chemistry, DDT, inorganic analytes,
organic analytes, PAH, PCB, pesticides, TOC, trace metals, butyltin,
EMAP Carolinian Province
CP_CHM_A.TXT
Sediment contaminants, analyte codes, analyte names,
EMAP Carolinian Province
4. OBJECTIVES AND INTRODUCTION
4.1 Program Objective
EMAP has three primary objectives:
1. To estimate the current status, extent, changes, and trends
in indicators of the Nation's ecological resources on a
regional basis;
2. To monitor indicators of pollutant exposure and habitat
condition, and to seek correlative relationships between
human-induced stresses and ecological condition that
identify possible causes of adverse effects; and
3. To provide periodic statistical summaries and interpretive
reports on ecological status and trends to the EPA
Administrator and to the public.
-------
4.2 Data Set Objective
The objective of the CP_CHM_D.DAT data set is to report the
results of sediment contaminant analyses at each of the stations
sampled in the Carolinian Province from 1994-1997.
4.3 Data Set Background Information
Contaminant and TOC concentrations were measured at each station
from subsamples of composited surface sediment (upper 2-3 cm)
collected with a 0.04-m2 Young grab sampler. Subsamples were
taken from the same sediment composite used for toxicity testing
and the analysis of other physical/chemical characteristics.
Multiple grabs were taken at each station to produce enough
composited surface sediment to support all of the various kinds
of sediment analyses. Stations were represented usually by
unreplicated samples, with the exception of duplicates that were
run for ~ 10% of the stations as part of the quality control
program.
All contaminant analyses were performed at Texas A&M University.
A total of 17 inorganic metals, 4 butyltins, 27 aliphatic
hydrocarbons, 44 polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs),
20 polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), and 23 pesticides, total
organic carbon (TOC), and several summary (totals) concentrations
were measured at each of the stations sampled in the Carolinian
Province from 1994-1997. The table that follows summarizes the
measurement units, target detection limits, analytical methods,
and protocol references for each of these analyte groups.
Summary of analytical methods for the analyses of contaminants
in sediments.
Analyte Target DL
Uni ts
Method
Reference
Si 10,000
ug/g
FAA
Taylor and
Presley
1993
A1 1500
ug/g
FAA
Taylor and
Presley
1993
Fe
500
ug/g
INAA
Taylor and
Presley
1993
C r
5.0
ug/g
INAA
Taylor and
Presley
1993
Zn (' 94-'96)
2.0
ug/g
FAA
Taylor and
Presley
1993
Zn (in 1997)
2.0
ug/g
INAA
Taylor and
Presley
1993
Mn
1.0
ug/g
FAA
Taylor and
Presley
1993
Cu
5.0
ug/g
GFAA
Taylor and
Presley
1993
As
1.5
ug/g
INAA
Taylor and
Presley
1993
Ni
1.0
ug/g
GFAA
Taylor and
Presley
1993
Pb
1.0
ug/g
GFAA
Taylor and
Presley
1993
Sb
0.2
ug/g
INAA
Taylor and
Presley
1993
Se (in 1994)
0.1
ug/g
INAA
Taylor and
Presley
1993
Se ('95-'97)
0.1
ug/g
GFAA
Taylor and
Presley
1993
Sn
0.1
ug/g
GFAA
Taylor and
Presley
1993
Cd
0.05
ug/g
GFAA
Taylor and
Presley
1993
Ag
0.01
ug/g
GFAA
Taylor and
Presley
1993
Hg
0.01
ug/g
CVAA
Taylor and
Presley
1993
Butylti ns
1.0
ng Sn/g
GC/FPD
Wade et al
1990
PAHs
5.0
ng/g
GC/MS-SIM
Wade et al
1993
A1i phati cs
25
ng/g
GC/FID
Wade et al
1994
Pesti ci des
0.1
ng/g
GC/ECD
Wade et al
1993
PCBs
0.1
ng/g
GC/ECD
Wade et al
1993
-------
Notes:
* Units are based on dry wt.
* target DL = Minimum allowable detection limits (based on sample
size of 0.2 g for metals and 15 g for organics).
* GC/ECD = Gas Chromatography/Electron Capture Detection
* GC/MS-SIM = GC/Mass Spectroscopy - Selective Ion Monitoring Mode
* GC/FID = GC/Flame Ionization Detection
* CVAA = Cold Vapor Atomic Absorption
* GFAA = Graphite Furnace Atomic Absorption
* INAA = Instrumental Neutron Activation Analysis
* FAA = Flame Atomic Absorption
* GC/FPD = GC/Flame Photometric Detection.
* Butyltins: mono-, di-, tri-, tetra-
* PAHs: 44 parent compounds & alkylated homologues, Tot. PAHs
* Aliphatics: C100C34 alkanes, Tot. Alk., pristane, phytane
* Pesticides: DDD (2,4'& 4,4'), DDE (2,4' & 4,4'), DDT (2,4' & 4,4'),
Total DDD/DDE/DDT, aldrin, chlordane (alpha-, gamma-, oxy-),
dieldrin, heptachlor, heptachlor epoxide, hexachlorobenzene,
BHC (alpha-, beta-, gamma-, delta-), mirex, trans- &
cis-nonachlor, endrin, endosulfan, toxaphene
* PCBs: Congener Nos. 8, 18, 28, 44, 52, 66, 77/110, 101, 105,
188/108/149, 126, 128, 138, 153, 170, 180, 187/182/159, 195, 206,
209, Tot. PCBs
Measurements of T0C were obtained from ~ 5 to 10 mg samples of
dried sediment that were acidified (with 1M H3P04) to remove
carbonates, sonicated, and filtered. Filters containing the
sediment were dried and combusted (Salonen 1979) on either a CHN
or elemental analyzer to determine T0C concentration (expressed
as percent T0C per gram of dried sediment). T0C analyses were
performed by different labs depending on year and station
location. In 1994, each cooperator analyzed samples from their
respective regions (i.e., UNC-W analyzed all stations from NC,
SCDNR analyzed all stations from SC and GA, and FLDEP analyzed
all stations from FL). In 1995, SCDNR analyzed all stations
from NC, SC and GA, and FLDEP analyzed all stations from FL.
In 1996 and 1997, all T0C analyses were performed by GERG, with
the exception of Chowan River samples (CP97345-CP97354) which
were analyzed by EPA.
4.4 Summary of Data Set Parameters
A code for each compound is given under the variable ANAL.
Concentrations are reported in dry weight, in the variable C0NC.
The units of the results reported in C0NC are reported in the
variable called UNIT. Quality Assurance/Quality Control issues
are coded and reported in the variable called QA. QA code
descriptions are given in section 5.2.4 (Sample Processing Quality
Control) of this file. Method detection limits for each analysis
are reported in the variable DETLMT.
4.5 Year-Specific Information about Data
-------
5. DATA ACQUISITION AND PROCESSING METHODS
5.1 Data Acqui si ti on
5.1.1 Sampling Objective
Collect sediment samples suitable for the analysis of organic
and inorganic compounds, and TOC. One composite sediment
sample was expected to be collected at each station.
5.1.2 Sample Collection Method Summary
A 1/25 m2, Kynar-coated stainless steel, Young Grab sampler
was used to collect sediments. This grab sampled an area of
440 cm2 and a maximum depth of penetration in the sediment
of 10 cm. Stainless steel utensils were used to remove the
top two cm of sediment from a grab. The sediment was removed
to a stainless steel bowl and placed in a cooler of ice to
remain cold, but unfrozen. The grab sampler was rinsed and
re-deployed. This procedure was repeated until the volume of
sediment required for all contaminant, toxicity, and sediment
characteristics analyses had been collected.. The sediment
was mixed by hand until thoroughly homogenized, and aliquots
were placed immediately into pre-cleaned glass jars
(for organics) or plastic containers (for inorganics). The
samples were immediately stored on ice following collection.
5.1.3 Beginning Sampling Dates
30 June 1994
05 July 1995
09 July 1996
07 July 1997
5.1.4 Ending Sampling Dates
31 August 1994
14 September 1995
19 September 1996
25 August 1997
5.1.5 Platform
Samples were collected from various gasoline or diesel
powered boats equipped with at least the following
equipment: "A" frame boom or davit, winch, L0RAN-C or
GPS for location, and a depth finder.
5.1.6 Sampling Equipment
A 1/25 m2, Kynar-coated stainless steel, Young Grab sampler.
This grab sampled an area of 440 cm2 and a maximum depth
of penetration in the sediment of 10 cm.
5.1.7 Manufacturer of Sampling Equipment
Ted Young
Falmouth, MA
-------
5.1.8 Key Variables
5.1.9 Sample Collection Method Calibration
The sampling gear does not require any calibration.
It required inspection for deformities incurred due to
mishandling or impact on rocky substrates.
5.1.10 Sample Collection Quality Control
Field technicians were trained to follow Standard Operating
Procedures to insure the collection of representative,
uncontaminated and high quality samples. QA/QC measures
were taken in the field to avoid or reduce contamination
and insure the collection of representative samples. These
included: use of stainless steel instruments, thorough
cleaning of the sampler between grabs, use of pre-cleaned
containers for sediment storage and ensuring that engines
were shut down when a sample was exposed to the air.
A successful grab had relatively level, intact sediment over
the entire area of the grab and a sediment depth of 7-10
centimeters. Unacceptable grabs included those: containing
no sediments, which were partially filled or had shelly
substrates or grossly slumped surfaces. Grabs completely
filled to the top, where the sediment was oozing out of the
hinged top, were also unacceptable.
See: Kokkinakis et al. (1994a)
5.1.11 Sample Collection Method References
See: Hyland et al. (1996),
Hyland et al. (1998),
Kokkinakis et al. (1994b)
5.1.12 Sample Collection Method Deviations
None
5.2 Data Preparation and Sample Processing
5.2.1 Sample Processing Objective
Process sediment samples for characterization of
contaminants and TOC.
5.2.2 Sample Processing Methods Summary
5.2.2.1 Field Summary
NA
5.2.2.2 Laboratory Summary
See section 4.3 (Data Set Background Information),
GERG (1995a, 1995b, 1996, 1997a, 1997b, 1998)
-------
5.2.3 Sample Processing Method Calibration
See: GERG (1995a, 1995b, 1996, 1997a, 1997b, 1998)
5.2.4 Sample Processing Quality Control
Quality control procedures for the analysis of sediment
contaminants consisted of: (1) participation in a series of
intercalibration exercises (minimum of two intercalibrations
per year for metals and three intercalibrations per year for
organics); (2) continuous checks on analytical precision and
accuracy from the analysis of Standard Reference Materials
(SRMs) with each batch of samples; (3) initial and ongoing
instrument calibration checks (ongoing checks performed
minimally at the middle and end of each sample batch);
(4) analysis of laboratory reagent blanks (one with each
sample batch); (5) analysis of laboratory fortified sample
matrix spikes and laboratory fortified sample matrix
duplicates; (6) analysis of sample duplicates in -10% of the
samples; and (7) analysis of internal surrogate and injection
standards with each sample. With respect to the analysis of
SRMs, if analytical results deviated by more than ( 20% from
the certified values for metals, or by more than ( 30% for the
organics in the SRM, then a re-analysis of those samples was
required. These procedures are consistent with the general
quality control requirements of both EMAP-E (Heitmuller and
Valente 1993, see Table 5-4 therein) and the NOAA National
Status and Trends Program (Lauenstein and Cantillo 1993).
Portions of the TOC samples, one for each batch of 25 or
fewer samples, were run in duplicate as tests of analytical
precision. Measurement differences could not exceed 20%.
Quality control procedures for TOC also included the analysis
of acetanilide standards and certified reference sediments.
The following QA codes, stored under the variable QA,
flag QA issues in the sediment and tissue chemistry data
sets. Note that all values reported in the CP_CHM_D.DAT
data set that do not have any QA codes assigned, met all
QA/QC guidelines and are acceptable without further
quali fi cati on.
QA Description
ND Non Detect - Indicates that the concentration of an
analyte was too low to detect. In these cases, the
QA code of ND is used, and the concentration is
reported as 0. Although the actual concentration is
unknown (but likely very low to none), reporting a
concentration of 0 serves as a place holder.
J Just Detected - Indicates that an analyte was detected
in the sample, but at a concentration below the method
detection limit for the sample. In these cases, you can
be confident that the analyte is present in the sample,
but there is a high degree of uncertainty in the reported
concentration. Therefore, values flagged with the J
-------
QA code should be considered estimates only, and used
with discretion.
SC-B Just Detected - Indicates that an analyte was detected
in the sample, but at a concentration below the method
detection limit for the sample. In these cases, you can
be confident that the analyte is present in the sample,
but there is a high degree of uncertainty in the reported
concentration. Therefore, values flagged with the J
QA code should be considered estimates only, and used
with discretion.
M Matrix Interference - Indicates that the reported
concentration is questionable due to interference from
other compounds in the sample. Therefore, values
flagged with the M QA code should be used with
di screti on.
Q QA problem - Indicates cases where required quality
assurance guidelines were not met by the lab. If no
concentration is reported, then the QC problem was
judged to be severe enough to invalidate the result
for that analyte. If however a concentration is
reported for an analyte with a Q code, then the overall
data quality was judged to be reliable enough to be used
with discretion.
D or d Dilution Required - Indicates the sample required
dilution prior to analysis. This has no effect on
reported concentrations and is not a problem.
Values with this code can be used with no further
quali fi cati on .
AL-P Algae Present - Indicates that the presence of algae
in the sample prevented accurate measurement of TOC.
Samples with the AL-P code will have a missing value
for TOC.
B Blank Interference - Indicates that there was an
interference detected in the blank which would
interfere with the accurate determination of an
analytes concentration. Results for observations
with the B code should be considered questionable
and used with discretion.
See: Hyland et al. (1996),
Hyland et al. (1998),
Kokkinakis et al. (1994a),
GERG (1995A, 1995B, 1996, 1997A, 1997B, 1998)
-------
5.2.5 Sample Processing Method Reference
See: Hyland et al. (1996),
Hyland et al. (1998),
Kokkinakis et al. (1994b),
Section 4.3 (Data Set Background Information)
Standard Operating Procedures of the Geochemical and
Environmental Research Group of Texas A&M University,
GERG (1995A, 1995B, 1996, 1997A, 1997B, 1998)
5.2.6 Sample Processing Method Deviations
See: GERG (1995A, 1995B, 1996, 1997A, 1997B, 1998)
6. DATA ANALYSIS AND MANIPULATIONS
6.1 Name of New or Modified Value
The following analytes (ANAL codes) were not measured directly.
These values are summary values calculated from the
concentrations of several individually measured analytes:
T0T_PAH, CHLORDAN, T0T_ALKA, T0T_BHC, T0T_PCB, T0T_DDT
6.2 Data Manipulation Description
T0T_PAH = Total PAHs
Sum of 38 PAHs (not including perylene)
[ACENTHE, ACENTHY, ANTHRA, BENANTH, BENAPY, BENEPY, BENZOBFL,
BENZOKF L, BGHIPERY, BIPHENYL, C1CHRYSN, C1DIBENZ, C1FLU0RA,
C1FLU0RE, C1NAPH, C1PHENAN, C2CHRYSN, C2DIBENZ, C2FLU0RE,
C2NAPH, C2PHENAN, C3CHRYSN, C3DIBENZ, C3FLU0RE, C3NAPH,
C3PHENAN, C4CHRYSN, C4NAPH, C4PHENAN, CHRYSENE, DIBENZAH,
DIBENZO, FLUORANT, FLUORENE, INDENO, NAPH, PHENANTH, PYRENE]
CHLORDAN = Total Chlordane
Sum of Alpha-, Gamma-, and Oxy- chlordane
[ALPHACHL, GAMMACHL, OXYCHL]
T0T_ALKA = Total Alkanes
Sum of 27 Aliphatic Hydrocarbons
[C10_ALKA, C11_ALKA, C12_ALKA, C13_ALKA, C14_ALKA,
C15_ALKA, C16_ALKA, C17_ALKA, C18_ALKA, C19_ALKA,
C20_ALKA, C21_ALKA, C22_ALKA, C23_ALKA, C24_ALKA,
C25_ALKA, C26_ALKA, C27_ALKA, C28_ALKA, C29_ALKA,
C30_ALKA, C31_ALKA, C32_ALKA, C33_ALKA, C34_ALKA,
PHYTANE, PRISTANE]
T0T_BHC = Total BHC
Sum of Alpha BHC, Beta BHC, Delta BHC, and
Gamma BHC (lindane)
[ALPHABHC, BETABHC, DELTABHC, LINDANE]
-------
TOT_DDT = Total DDTs
Sum of 2,4'DDD, 4,4'DDD, 2,4'DDE, 4,4'DDE,
2,4'DDT, and 4,4'DDT
[D D D 24, DDD_44, DDE_24, DDE_44, DDT_24, DDT_44]
T0T_PCB = Total PCBs
(Sum of (18 PCB congeners - any interferences) * 2.19) + 2.19
[ PCB8, PCB18, PCB28, PCB44, PCB52, PCB66, PCB101,
PCB105, PCB118, PCB128, PCB138, PCB153, PCB170, PCB180,
PCB187, PCB195, PCB206, PCB209]
6.3 Data Manipulation Examples
7. DATA DESCRIPTION
7.1 Description of Parameters
Variable Type Format Label
STA_NAME Char 7. Carolinian Province Office Station Name
DATE Num YYMMDD6. Sample collection date (YYMMDD)
ANAL Char 8. Carolinian Province Office analyte code
CONC Num 12.3 Analyte concentration (dry wt.)
UNIT Char 8. CONC units
QA Char 4. Quality assurance code
DETLMT Num 12.3 Method detection limit
Note the conventions used in the Format column above:
For character (Char) variables, the number given is the
maximum width (number of characters) for that variable.
For numeric (Num) variables, the format is given in W.D
format, where W = maximum width (number of characters)
for the number (including all digits and the decimal
point), and D = number of digits to the right of the
decimal point.
7.1.6 Precision to which values are reported
Variables CONC, and DETLMT are reported to 0.001 units.
However, the precision of the values reported are analyte
dependent as follows:
Analyte Type Precision
TOC 0.01
Aromatic HCs 0.1
Aliphatic HCs 0.1
Pesticides 0.01
PCBs 0.01
Butyltins 0.01
-------
7.1.6 Precision to which values are reported, continued
Analyte Type Precision
Trace Metals
Ag
A1
Cd
Cu
Mn
Ni
Pb
Se
Si
Sn
Zn
As
Cr
Fe
Sb
T1
Hg
0.01
1
0.001
0.01
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.01
1
0.01
0.1
0.01
1
0.01
0.01
0.001
1
Also note that the following QA codes associated with some
observations may effect precision:
ND (Non Detect) - Indicates that the concentration of an
analyte was too low to detect. In these cases the
concentration is reported as 0. Although the actual
concentration is unknown (but likely very low to none),
reporting a concentration of 0 serves as a place holder.
J (Just Detected) - Indicates that an analyte was detected
in the sample, but at a concentration below the method
detection limit for the sample. In these cases, you can
be confident that the analyte is present in the sample,
but there is a high degree of uncertainty in the reported
concentration. Therefore, values flagged with the J
QA code should be considered estimates only, and used
with discretion.
7.1.7 Minimum Value in Data Set
Variable Minimum
C0NC 0.000
DETLMT 0.000
7.1.8 Maximum Value in Data Set
Variable Maximum
C0NC 536950.040
DETLMT 10000.000
-------
7.2 Data Record Example
7.2.1 Column Names for Example Records
CP_CHM_D.DAT
STA_NAME;DATE;ANAL;CONC;UNIT;QA;DETLMT
CP_CHM_A.DAT
ANAL;A_NAME
CP_CHM_QJ)AT
Contains descriptive text not formatted as a data set.
7.2.2 Example Data Records
CP_CHM_D.DAT
CP94001;940815;ACENTHE;0.070;ng/g;J;5.000
CP94001;940815;ACENTHY;0.210;ng/g;J;5.000
CP94001;940815;AG;0.030;ug/g; ;0.010
CP94001;940815;AL;9843.901;ug/g; ;355.000
CP94001;940815;ALDRIN;0.039;ng/g;J;0.100
CP94001;940815;ALPHABHC;0.000;ng/g;ND;.
CP94001;940815;ALPHACHL;0.000;ng/g;ND;0.100
CP_CHM_A.DAT
ACENTHE;Acenaphthene
ACENTHY;Acenaphthylene
AG;SiIver
AL;Alumi num
ALDRIN;Aldri n
ALPHABHC;Alpha HCH (Alpha BHC)
8. GEOGRAPHIC AND SPATIAL INFORMATION
8.1 Minimum Longitude
-81 Degrees, 43.83 Minutes West Longitude
8.2 Maximum Longitude
-75 Degrees, 33.82 Minutes West Longitude
8.3 Minimum Latitude
27 Degrees, 12.07 Minutes North Latitude
8.4 Maximum Latitude
36 Degrees, 43.43 Minutes North Latitude
-------
8.5 Name of area or region
Coastal distribution of sampling is along the southeastern US
from Cape Henry, VA, through St. Lucie Inlet, FL. States
represented: Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia,
and Florida.
9. QUALITY CONTROL/QUALITY ASSURANCE
9.1 Measurement Quality Objectives
See: Hyland et al. (1996),
Hyland et al. (1998),
Kokkinakis et al. (1994a)
9.2 Quality Assurance/Control Methods
See section 5.2.4 (Sample Processing Quality Control) above,
GERG (1995A, 1995B, 1996, 1997A, 1997B, 1998)
9.3 Quality Assessment Results
Unless flagged by one of the QA codes defined in section
5.2.4 (Sample Processing Quality Control), or specifically
mentioned in GERG (1995A, 1995B, 1996, 1997A, 1997B, 1998),
all data reported in the CP_CHM_D.DAT data set met the QA/QC
guidelines given above and are acceptable without further
quali fi cati on.
10. DATA ACCESS
10.1 Data Access Procedures
Data can be downloaded from the WWW site.
10.2 Data Access Restrictions
Data can only be accessed from the WWW site.
10.3 Data Access Contact Persons
For programmatic/policy matters, contact:
Dr. Jeffrey L. Hyland
N0AA/N0S National Centers for Coastal Ocean Science
Center for Coastal Monitoring and Assessment - Charleston Lab
217 Fort Johnson Rd. (P.O. Box 12559)
Charleston, SC 29422-2559
(843)762-5415 (Tel.)
(843)762-5110 (FAX)
jeff.hyland0noaa.gov (e-mail)
-------
For data-related questions, contact:
Dr. W. Leonard Balthis
NOAA/NOS National Centers for Coastal Ocean Science
Center for Coastal Monitoring and Assessment - Charleston Lab
217 Fort Johnson Rd. (P.O. Box 12559)
Charleston, SC 29422-2559
(843)762-5652 (Tel.)
(843)762-5110 (FAX)
len.balthis0noaa.gov (e-mail)
Data Librarian, EMAP-Estuaries
Melissa M. Hughes
OAO Corporation
U.S. EPA NHEERL-AED
27 Tarzwell Drive
Narragansett, RI 02882-1197
(401) 782-3184 (Tel.)
(401) 782-3030 (FAX)
hughes.melissa0epa.gov (e-mail)
10.4 Data file Format
Delimited ASCII Text
10.5 Information Concerning Anonymous FTP
Not accessible
10.6 Information Concerning Gopher and WWW
Data can be downloaded from the WWW.
10.7 EMAP CD-ROM Containing the Data file
Data not available on CD-ROM.
11. REFERENCES
Balthis, W.L., J.L. Hyland, and T.R. Snoots. 1998. Compendium of
environmental data for estuaries sampled in the North Carolina
portion of the EMAP Carolinian Province during summer 1994-1996.
Unpublished report, May 1998. 62 p.
1995a. Analytical Report, EMAP Near Coastal -
Carolinian Province 1994. Texas A&M University - Geochemical
and Environmental Research Group, College Station, TX.
1995b. EMAP Carolinian 1994 Final Sediment Trace Element Data
Report. Texas A&M University - Trace Element Research Laboratory,
College Station, TX.
1996. Carolinian Province EMAP project, 1995 sediment samples.
Analytical report No. 5C688-A. Texas A&M University - Geochemical
and Environmental Research Group, College Station, TX.
1997a. Carolinian Province EMAP project, 1995 sediment samples.
Analytical report No. 5C688-B. Texas A&M University - Geochemical
and Environmental Research Group, College Station, TX.
GERG.
GERG.
GERG.
GERG.
-------
GERG. 1997b. Carolinian Province EMAP project, 1996 sediment samples.
Analytical report No. 6A058-A. Texas A&M University - Geochemical
and Environmental Research Group, College Station, TX.
GERG. 1998. Carolinian Province EMAP project, 1997 sediment samples.
Analytical report No. 79385-A. Texas A&M University - Geochemical
and Environmental Research Group, College Station, TX.
Heitmuller, P.T. and R. Valente. 1993. EMAP - Estuaries Louisianian
Province - 1993 Quality Assurance Project Plan. U.S. EPA
Environmental Research Laboratory, Gulf Breeze, FL.
Hyland, J.L., T.J. Herrlinger, T.R. Snoots, A.H. Ringwood, R.F.
Van Dolah, C.T. Hackney, G.A. Nelson, J.S. Rosen, and S.A.
Kokkinakis. 1996. Environmental quality of estuaries of the
Carolinian Province: 1994. Annual statistical summary for the
1994 EMAP-Estuaries Demonstration Project in the Carolinian
Province. NOAA Technical Memorandum NOS ORCA 97. NOAA/NOS,
Office of Ocean Resources Conservation and Assessment,
Silver Spring, MD. 102 p.
Hyland, J.L., L. Balthis, C.T. Hackney, G. McRae, A.H. Ringwood,
T.R. Snoots, R.F. Van Dolah, and T.L. Wade. 1998.
Environmental quality of estuaries of the Carolinian Province:
1995. Annual statistical summary for the 1995 EMAP-Estuaries
Demonstration Project in the Carolinian Province. NOAA Technical
Memorandum NOS ORCA 123 NOAA/NOS, Office of Ocean Resources
Conservation and Assessment, Silver Spring, MD.
Kokkinakis, S.A., C. Mageau, and A. Robertson. 1994a. Carolinian
Demonstration Project - 1994 Quality Assurance Project Plan.
Joint National Status and Trends/Environmental Monitoring and
Assessment Program. N0AA/N0S/0RCA, Silver Spring, MD.
Kokkinakis, S.A., J.L. Hyland, and A. Robertson. 1994b. Carolinian
Demonstration Project - 1994 Field Operations Manual. Joint
National Status and Trends/Environmental Monitoring and
Assessment Program. N0AA/N0S/0RCA, Silver Spring, MD.
Lauenstein, G.G. and A.Y. Cantillo (eds.). 1993. Sampling and
analytical methods of the National Status and Trends Programs,
National Benthic Surveillance and Mussel Watch Projects, 1984-1992.
NOAA Technical Memorandum, NOS ORCA 71.
Salonen, K. 1979. A versatile method for the rapid and accurate
determination of carbon by high temperature combustion. Limnol.
Oceanogr., 24: 177-183.
Strobel, C.J., S.J. Benyi, D.J. Keith, H.W. Buffum, and E.A.
Petrocelli. 1994. Statistical summary: EMAP - Estuaries
Virginian Province - 1992. U.S. EPA Office of Research
and Development, Environmental Research Laboratory, Narragansett,
RI. EPA/620/R-94/019.
Summers, J.K., J.M. Macauley, P.T. Heitmuller, V.D. Engle, A.M. Adams,
and G.T. Brooks. 1993. Annual statistical summary: EMAP -
Estuaries Louisianian Province - 1991. U.S. EPA Office of
Research and Development, Environmental Research Laboratory,
Gulf Breeze, FL. EPA/600/R-93/001.
-------
Taylor, B.J. and B.J. Presley. 1993. GERG trace element quantification
techniques. In: G.G. Lauenstein and A.Y. Cantillo (eds.). Sampling
and analytical methods of the National Status and Trends Programs,
National Benthic Surveillance and Mussel Watch Projects, 1984-1992.
NOAA Technical Memorandum, NOS ORCA 71.
U.S. EPA. 1995. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program
(EMAP): Laboratory Methods Manual-Estuaries, Volume 1: Biological
and Physical Analyses. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Office of Research and Development, Narragansett, RI.
EPA/620/R-95/008.
Wade, T.L., J.M. Brooks, M.C. Kennicutt II, T.J. McDonald, J.L. Sericano,
and T.J. Jackson. 1993. GERG trace organics contaminant analytical
techniques. In: G.G. Lauenstein and A.Y. Cantillo (eds.). Sampling
and analytical methods of the National Status and Trends Programs,
National Benthic Surveillance and Mussel Watch Projects, 1984-1992.
NOAA Technical Memorandum, NOS ORCA 71.
Wade, T.L., B. Garcia-Romero, and J.M. Brooks. 1990. Butyltin in sediments
and bivalves from U.S. coastal areas. Chemosphere, 20: 647-662.
Wade, T.L., D.J. Velinsky, E. Reinharz, and C.E. Schekat. 1994. Tidal
river sediments in the Washington, D.C. area. II. Distribution and
sources of organic contaminants. Estuaries, 17: 321-333.
TABLE OF ACRONYMS
C Degrees Celsius
cc Cubic centimeters
cm2 Square centimeters
CMBAD Coastal Monitoring and Bioeffects Assessment Division
CU Clemson University
EMAP Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program
EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
EPA-AED EPA-Atlantic Ecology Division
EPA-GED EPA-Gulf Ecology Division
EPA-RTP EPA-Research Triangle Park, NC
FLDEP Florida Dept. of Environmental Protection
FMRI Florida Marine Research Institute
FTP File Transfer Protocol
GIS Geographical Information System
JCWS Johnson Controls Word Services
km2 Square kilometers
m2 Square meters
mg/L Milligrams per liter
mS/cm MilliSiemens per centimeter (equiv. to milliohms/cm)
MRRI Marine Resources Research Institute
NCNERR North Carolina National Estuarine Research Reserve
NCSU North Carolina State University, NC
NA Not Applicable
ng/g Nanograms per gram
NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
NOS National Ocean Service
ORCA Office of Ocean Resources Conservation and Assessment
QA/QC Quality Assurance/Quality Control
ppb Parts per billion (equiv. to ng/g)
ppm Parts per million (equiv. to ug/g)
-------
ppt
Parts per thousand
SAIC
Science Applications International Corporation
SCDNR
South Carolina Dept. of Natural Resources
TOC
Total Organic Carbon
TAMU/GERG
Texas A&M University, Geochemical and Environmental
Research Group
TPMC
Technology Planning and Management Corporation
ug/g
Micrograms per gram
um
Mi crometers
UC
University of Charleston, SC
UGA
University of Georgia, GA
UNC-W
University of North Carolina - Wilmington, NC
USGS-GB
US Geological Survey - Gulf Breeze, FL
wt.
Wei ght
WWW
World Wide Web -Internet
PERSONNEL INFORMATION
Dr. Courtney T. Hackney
University of North Carolina - Wilmington,
Wilmington, NC
Melissa M. Hughes
Data Librarian, EMAP-Estuaries
0A0 Corporation
U.S. EPA NHEERL-AED
27 Tarzwell Drive
Narragansett, RI 02882-1197
(401) 782-3184 (Tel.)
(401) 782-3030 (FAX)
hughes.melissa0epa.gov (e-mail)
For programmatic/policy matters, contact:
Dr. Jeffrey L. Hyland
NOAA/NOS National Centers for Coastal Ocean Science
Center for Coastal Monitoring and Assessment - Charleston Lab
219 Fort Johnson Rd.
Charleston, SC 29412-9110
(843)762-8652 (Tel.)
(843)762-8700 (FAX)
jeff.hyland0noaa.gov (e-mail)
For data-related questions, contact:
Dr. W. Leonard Balthis
NOAA/NOS National Centers for Coastal Ocean Science
Center for Coastal Monitoring and Assessment - Charleston Lab
219 Fort Johnson Rd.
Charleston, SC 29412-9110
(843)762-8654 (Tel.)
(843)762-8700 (FAX)
len.balthis0noaa.gov (e-mail)
Jan Landsberg
Florida Dept. of Environmental Protection
Florida Marine Research Institute
St. Petersburg, FL
-------
James McKenna
Florida Dept. of Environmental Protection
Florida Marine Research Institute
St. Petersburg, FL
Dr. Gil McRae
Florida Dept. of Environmental Protection
Florida Marine Research Institute
St. Petersburg, FL
Gary A. Nelson
Florida Dept. of Environmental Protection
Florida Marine Research Institute
St. Petersburg, FL
Dr. Amy H. Ringwood
South Carolina Dept. of Natural Resources,
Marine Resources Research Institute
Charleston, SC
------- |