Document B8Y8bVL44OXZzYQ76a1VK33Rj

THAN3L0CATIC" H2C)> A" 1SMS OF PCD'S H? FR33H WATER: A FIELD STUDY osw 030671 STLCOPCB4014633 CONTENTS INTRODUCTION................................................................................................................... 1* Uptake of Soluble Polychlorinated Biphenyls.................... 2. Bioconcentration of Polychlorinated Biphenyls................. 3. Uptake of Polychlorinated Biphenyls from Sediment........................ 4. Uptake of Poltchlorinated Biphenyls from Food.......... .. 1 3 6 7 8 I. COLLECTION AND ANALYTICAL PROBLEMS....................................................... 14 II. IN-FIELD STUDY OF POLYCHLORINATED BIPHENYL CONTAMINATION.. A Methodology.............................................................................. B. Chemical Analyses...,................................................ '........................ C. PCB Analyses........................................................... D. Interpretation of Cromatograms........................................................ 23 23 27 30 III. RESULTS......................................................................................... 45 A . Data Summary ....................................................................... B. The Distribution of Folychlorinated Biphenyls in the River-Reservoir System as Reflect by the Residue Levels of Four Species of Fish............... ............. C The Relationship of Wet Weight to Polychlorinated Biphenyl Concentration in Fish.................................................... Do Species Differences in Polychlorinated Biphenyl Accumulation.......... ........................ E. Metabolic Differences among Species 45 53 ?7 96 113 IV, DISCUSSION.................................................................................................................. 119 DSW 030672 STLCOPCB4014634 TABLES Table 1- Hexane Extraction Recover:."........................... Table 2- Composition of Aroclibr"1242....................................................... Table 3" Composition of Aroclor 1254....................................................... Table 4- Composition of Aroclor 1260...................................... Table 5~ Response Factors for Feaks 11-146 from Aroclor 12.42 Standard, a 1 ppm Concentration................. ............. Table 6- Response Factors for Peaks 79-l?4 from Aroclor 1234 Standard, a 1 ppm Concentration............................... Table 7" Response Factors for Feaks 203 to 528 from Aroclor 1260 Standard, a 1 ppm Concentration,,.... Table 8- Calculation for PCB Content of Sample V78, Campostoma so., Station 2, Fall........................................... Table 9" Calculation for PCE Content of Sample ?2?J I.epomis sp, Station 1, Spring............ ........... .................. .... Table IC-S-Way Analysis of Variance (So, Carolina Program) Genus vs. Station, Season and Weight.................. Table 11-2-Way Analysis of Variance (SPSS Program) Genus vs. Station, Season and Weight................. .............. Table 12-2-Way Analysis of Variance (SPSS Program) Station vs. Weight and Species................................. Table 13-lcrcent of All Aroclcrs with Distance from the Cut fall in 4 Genera, of .Fish.......... .......................................... Table 14-Humic and Fluvic Acid Content of SedimonJ from Stations 1 to 6 ............................................. ............. .. Table 15" The Organic Carbon Content of Sediment from Station 1 to 6.................................. ....................... Table l6-Water Quality..................................................................................... Table 17-Water USGS Stations cn Choccolovoo Creek and the Coosa River,.................. .................. .............................. Table lB-Tarticle Sine of the Sediment............................................ Table 19-Lir.ear Correlation Analysis of All Species Combined at Each Station on the Weight vs, ppm and Log Weight vs. Log ppm FCB Basis............. .. Table 20-The Linear Correlation of Weight and ppm FCB of Each Genus of Fish per Station......................... Table 21- The Linear Correlation of Log Weight and Log ppm PCB of Each Genus., of Fish per Station,,..... Table 22-The Linear Correlation of Weight and ppm FCB in Each Genus" at Each Station and Season................. Table 23"The Linear Correlation of Log Weight and Log ppm FCB in Each Genus at Each Station and Season...... Table 24-The multiple Regression .Analysis of Weight and PCB in Each Genus at Each Station and Sea.son at the Weight Squared Level.............................................. .. 16 38 39 40 41 41 42 43 44 47 43 50 55 cl 62 63 67 70 78 82 S3 E? 9 c4 DSW 030673 STLCOPCB4014635 Table 25~ List of Genera from Hichest Mean Accumulation cf FC3 to Lowest at Bach Station and Season Along with Their Trophic Level and Spawning Season................. Table 26- Lipid Content of Several Fish...................................... Table 2?- Food Classification of Genera of Fish Collected..... Appendix A- FC3 Residue Levels of All Samples................................. .... Appendix B~ Capsulation of the Benthos Field Data,,,,................... Appendix C- Average FC3 Concentration of Each Genus on.. a Station and Seascn Basis...................................... .. lOlt 112 112 125 Ibp 151 OSW 03067** STLCOPCB4014636 FIGURES Figure 1* Chromatogram cf Sample #293, I.eponl*- nggalotl-, Station 1, Spring Collection....................................................., Figure 2. Collecting Station?- PC3 Survey, Ann inter., Alabama,. Figure 3 Chromatogram of Aroclor 1242 Standard..................... Figure 4. Chromatogram of Aroclor 1254 Standard............................... .. Figure 5 Chromatogram of Aroclor 1260 Standard................................ .. Figure 6. Chromatogram of DDE Standard............................... .. Figure 7. Chromatogram of Sample #78, Can nostoma rp., Station 2, Fall Collection.,.................................... .................. Figure 8, Histogram of the Mean Total FCB Levels in Pcrmcna sp. on a Station and Seasonal Basis.................................... .. Ficure 9 Histogram of the Lean Total TC3 Levels in Lonc~iis so. on a Station and Seasonal Basis..................................... Figure 10. Histogram of the Lean Total FCB Levels in VI cro uterus *--p. on a Station ans Searc-r.] Ban in.......... Figure 11. Histogram cf the Mean Total ICS Levels in Hotrods so, cr. a Station ar.d >-eano:r'.l d is........ Figure 12. Hy rometer a.id Sieve Analysis- Grain Sine Curves 'for Sediment from Stations 1 and 2, Sardes A and 3 Fesivct.iv.-dy .............................................................................. Figure 13 Hydrometer n;d Sd.vo Analysir- Gr.\in Sure Curves for Scdirv-rt :.?j-Ctat.v-.nr- 314 and,5, W.-hyi^r- C, . D and E Respectively ......................................... .. Figure 14,..Hydrometer and Sieve Analysis- Grain Sine Curves for Sediment from Stations 6 and G, Samd--s ? and G Respectively .......................................................................... .. Figure 15 Hydrometer and Sieve Analysis- Grain Sine Curves for Sediment from Stations H and I............................ .. Figure 16, Hydrometer and Sieve Analysis- Grain Sine Curves for Sediment from Stations J and X......................................... Figure 17* The Linear Correlation of Weight vs, ppm FC3 and Log Weight vs. Log ppm FC3 in All Fish Found at Station 2......................... .............. ........................................................... Figure 18, The Linear Correlation of Weight vs. ppm FC5 and Log Weight vs. Log ppm FCB in All Fish Found at Station 4,............................... ................................ ................................ Figure 19 The Linear Correlation of Weight and ppm PCB and Log Weight vs. Log ppm FCB in Dorosoma so, frem Stat i on 4,........................ ............................................................... Figure 2. The Linear Correlation of Weight and par. FC3 and Log Weight vr. Log ppm FCB in All Gam curia sp, found at Station 2............... ................................ ............. .. Figure 21. The linear Correlation of Log Weight vs. Log rpm PC3 in All Lcnomis 5p0 and Gamhuria r-p. Found at Station 2........................................................................................... Figure 22, The Linear Correlation of Weight vs. ppm FCB and Log Weight vs. Log ppm FCB in Leno-is m. from the Winter Collection at Station 2................................. oF. ^ L. 26 33 3L 36 37 38 59 60 61 73 74 75 76 80 81' 64 85 91 92 DSW 030675 STLCOPCB4014637 Figure 23. The Linear Correlation of Weight vs. prn rC3 end Leg Weight vc. Lor ppm FC3 in Xicroi'xer".rr sr iron the Fall Collection at Station 7............................. .. Figure 24. Histogram of the Mean Total FC3 Levels of All Genera from Station 2 in All Seasons.................... Figure 25* Histogram of the Mean Total FC3 Levels of All Genera'from Station 4 in All Seasons.............................. Figure 26, Histograms of the Mean ppm of Aroclors 123-2, 1254 and 1260 in Moroscma so. from All Stations in All Seasons......................................................... .................. Figure 27. Histograms of the Mean ppn of Aroclors 1242, 1.254 and 1260 in Leeon 1s so. from All Stations in All Seasons ................................................................................................ .. Figure 23. Histograms of the Mean ppm of Aroclors lid;;, 1254. and 1260 In Microcterus sp. from All St: Liens in All Seasons..................................................... .. Figure 29. Histograms of the Mean ppm cf Arcelor:: 12~1, 125.4 r.nrl 1260 in M,?tro~:~: .0 r-r, from All Stati'-nr in All Seasons.................................................................................... ................ 93 97 98 115 116 117 113 OSW 030676 STLCOPCB4014638 E/TFODUCTICN PCB's are a class of aromatic, chemically inart, nonflam mable chlorinated hydrocarbons. They pose-'ss high di'-lectric constants, low^ointsT^of volatility, are not hydrolired, by water, and resists' alkalies, acids and other corro-ive chemicals (Feakall, lc^0). Their boiling points range from 7"?C for Aroclor 1221 to 415C for Aroclor 1263. All iCfs arc stable at l^O C. The lower chi or'nated compounds arc nor" no tu i m water than the more highly chlorinated ones and arc prefer entially distilled at atmospheric pressure wit!',cut appreciable decomposition (Hutsingcr, ]9?45 Far.el, 1?72). ?ar~ eor~e nd './heeler (cited in Panel, 1~72) found that the rain' j.! ; tier of Aroelorn 12^2, 1248, 12C|'-, l2bC and lOlo = re 20 ppb, ICO ppb, fO ppb, 25 p?b and 2j0 ffb, respectively, iiowever, the tree solubility in difficult to determine accurately, and there values may be subject to change. FCF's are very soluble in lipids, but the solubilities are not known. Since their sysnthW.iis in 1B01 and manufacture in 1730, thousands of tons of PC5's have escaped into our watervrays, Upon ente^r^)'g streams and shallow lakes, FCfs irn adsorbed to the sediment and onto particulate matter (Choi, ly?^). DSW 030677 STLCOPCB4014639 found that the chlorinated hydrocarbon concentration in sediment is closely related to both organic content and particle size. It has a great affinity for particles ^um or less which is in the silt-clay range. Experimental evidence shows that the total organic carbon as well as humic and luv/c acid content In sediment bears a linear relationship to the chlorinated hydrocarbon concentration^and the amount-of organic material in surficial sediments is directly proportional to the clay size fraction. Fine silts and clays are closely associated with humic substancesJ they exist as organoclay complexes and have a high adsorbtive capacity for PCB'so There is some environmental verification for the above experimental findings. PGB's were found associated with the top 2-3 cm in Escambia Bay, Florida (Duke, 19?0), FCB's were also concentrated in the top 2-3 cm, but occurred commonly at 6"12 cm in the sediment of southern Lake Michigan and the highest concentrations were found associated with small particles (2un) and high organic content(tslami ,1972). Cnee FCD's have adsorbed to sediments, there is little leaching (Haque,19?6). PC3's are probably transported on the suspended solids. Due to it's low solubility, the transport of soluble PCS is probably negligible. Due to these properties, high concentrations of FC3's are usually found near points of discharge. Therchas been, however, little environmental docu mentation of the movement of FCE's through a system from a DSW 030678 STLCOPCB4014640 point source or of tie half-life of PC'.-'o in given ovoter;. The sediment of Escambia Bay was shown to have loot ouch of it's contamination within 0 months of the initial finding- of r) ' the pollutant, Munson et al.j(lG76) showed that areas of high est contamination in th upper Chesaseoke 2av i>->7 have con formed to the currents fron the initial point source, " rCf's in the water, suspended solids and sediments are available for bioaccurulation by means of direct inrest ion and/ or absorption through the general internment and neurons the gills. The main route of entry is difficult to ascertain. 1, Untske of OoluMc FOB 's i Many have invert! 'oated the biocor.centration of soluble FC3. It has neon rie'iT.sirnt^-j in laboratory experiments that both invertebrates and fish nS can accumulate PCD o to levels of liV to 10' tlm^s the levels in the ambient water (Federal Re.",, Ip?"). In vie;; of the low solubility and high adsorptive capacity, the uptake of soluble POF's by plankton and invertebrates nay be a pro " y. cess involving the initial adsorption followed ry absorption into the cell ( Sodergren, 1?73) > fV Tetrahymena pyriform is, a cillfiated protozoa,, accumulated Aroclor 125^ to 60 tines the dosed water level cr l67*9?pb ' Arodor 12=4 (dry weight) when exposed to lOppb for 7 days (Cooley, 1972). Environmental plankton ram pi s tak'-n from the Atlantic Ccean by Risebrough containing median dry and wet weight concentrations, cn the order of F.^nd O.fbrm^ rescec- OSW 030679 1 STLCOPCB4014641 6 tively and phytoplankton rich samples taken by Harvey with a mean of Zjppm.uet weight, confirm that uptake of PCB's in the environment does occur and to a greater degree than seen in experimental resists. Urey showed that both tetrachloro-- and hexachlorobiphenyl were concentrated by dead Cklorl!a cells by 6,000 and 15000 times the water ccncentration^respectlvely. These amounts were greater than in his experi ments with living cells, which seems to indicate that the concentration of FC3 by Chlorella may be a result of a simple chemical partition between the water and the lipid in the cells. The short term exposure of invertebrates to Arcelor 125k resulted in the bicaccumulation of 160 to 6,p00 times the ambient water concentrations ( Walker, 1976). This factor is even greater after long tern exposure. Oysters exposed to 5^pb Aroclor 125^ for ?M weeks accumulated b-25/ppm or 85,000 times the water concentration (Lowe,1972). in lbday exposures, Ganrarv.s fasclatus concentrated Procter 1254 to 27,000 times the water level (l,6ur/l) and Ua-hnia cor,rentrated Aroclor 1240 to 48,000 tines the nominal water con centration of 30Uug/l (Nebeker,1974). The initial fc ^accumula tion of PC7 by invertebrates is rapid and appears to reach a steady state after the first week of exposure j(Walker,1975) DSW 030680 STLCOPCB4014642 The adsorption of FC;:'r to, and the absorption aom-s the general integument and through the ;i21r of shrimp ,havo teen '|ited as possible mechanisms of invertebrate uptake of solu ble FC2'n (Khan, 1??6 |Tir.ro, 1971,1??^). Fish also exhibit a rapid initial uptake of FOB fol lowed by a rradual decrease in the rate until a steady sirite is approached (Fed. aeq.. ,1977 j Hansen ,1 91; He inert, l?-?0 '. The j quick initial uptake car. de-titrated by Hansen':' everincnU- (I.e i or-tonus xan thum*--) ^ in which s.rot accumulated T.7 X 10 tires the ambl**-1 wite" `h level in Ik to 28 d<v;r. Lonr tern studios with fat headed^ (pi710rhales pror.e 1 as) minno'ws snowed that residues were 2 to b tires r:r: - after P tran. they wer 0 t r 3nh ramulet til cO bars (ifcfcek' . sen;., 177; '/=; th,l 0 ''0). Ln : (?>: "h ~ - :rer, cut. r.ne t o Inrun pun r +;. i.X-:) .concentrated ,\r odor lfuF and 1,Z$k to .Cc,..T70 and 61, r- concentration in t he water, r . spect:;vr\ y, with: tine orinated compou nd s a ccur.ultinr :tore t' - -h r> tr.e lens chlorinated ones (Hansen ,I076 ) , The ur.fnlxe 01 mav be due to the oerr.eabil 1 tv of the fish rcdv or .pill sur ' \k.>-6 * " ` face and it's ability to partition FCB directly iron t.ne water. Chlorinated hydrocarbons have very hirh partition co efficients, that is, they are much more soluble in lipid than in water. Those rare h.irhly chlorinated FCF's hove hiyher partition coefficients than the lower chi orinnt- ones. The \> higher the partion coefficient, the rrater the ability to C - (* DSW 030681 STLCOPCB4014643 ticaccumulate (Reinert, 1970) This uptake r.ech.-r.i-m has teen postulated to be a major pathway of FOB entry into fresh water fish (Sodergren, 1973) It can result in high accumulation in (c/TCO A a very short period of tire, Frendas and Anderson^found that It after a f minute exposure to l(ppm C -labeled djl, At! an tic falmon concentrate'.' 1,56ppn in the liver and spleen. After A >'r one hour cf exposure this value reached; Jljr?TM * '--------- 2. "ioccncentrat* on of FCB's from Sur rerr<-b do! In view of the high adsorptive capacity of FCB's to r~ par ticles and organic substances, suspended solids :-y a1 so be a major source of FCB's to organisms. Th.ere are, however, nc laboratory experiment.:- to confirm their involves ^r.t. -and the field data -rrr; given conflicting evidence. A Chesapeake Bay study by Munson oho'.vd that the FC3 concentration in suspended solids c i c-ediruv.t samples varied greatly from station to statics. in the same collect ing period and in the same station at different collecting periods. In general, those water samples with hi do suspended solids also had high PCF ccncentrv.tions which usually resem bled Aroclor 125^ and 1262 with some Aroclor 11^2 and 12^8, The concentratiorf in the suscend d solids (dr-/ weight) were A- ' 6 to 10 times higher t'-ar In the sedine-t (dry weight). Munson theorized that this '-as probaolv because the average A. n y. DSW 030682 STLCOPCB4014644 Crain size in the suspended solids is much mailer than the bottom sediment and also because phytoplankton was in eluded in the suspended solids samples. Munson estimated from his data that FCP's are bioconcentrated in passing from suspended solids to zooplankton by a factor cf 5.lx and in passing from suspended solids and plankton to shellfish by a factor of 4,000, This estimate, however, did net take into account any concentration of soluble ?CB that nay have occurred. lata on a system involving the Mississippi n!. v-r and a lake fed bv it show*''higher PCS level in f :=h r>-:r' areas of higher turbidity su -restin'-: that suspended re' ' ]. nay play a role in the bio-accumulation of PCI r.y f ink ( -uck , lb-7 _), Tn a similar study are1', in Michigan, however, 7 h (l~~0) id A found the opposite results. Lab^experiments r.ed to : e done to determine the bioconcer.tratier, factors - of or- --rims in re lao'-on to suspended solids, as suspended solids are a very i m mortar, t vehicle for FCB distribution. 2 Untake of FCB fro-- the Bed : rent: Sediment, serves as a sink for PC3 accumulation. In general, FCB levels are higher in the biota than in the sediments, as confirmed by both lah- ' 1' (F.-'.na^xir dnornrum) oratorv and field data. ?!'.mmo-exrosei rink shrimo .:rd fiddler C` \ ` crabs to various concentrations of Aroclcr 122~ on r.ilt, Up,A OSW 030683 STLCOPCB4014645 take was directly related to the amount in the sediment. The hepatopancrease of shrimp and fiddler crabs exposed to sed iment containing 6lfppm FC3 for 30 days had an average of 2^Cjppm and cOjnpn^respectively, resulting in bloconcer.tration factors of 4 and 1.3 respectively ("immo,l7]), Caged shrimp ( in Sscambia 3ay, Florida, exposed to itjTs' contaminated sed iments also accumulated FCB's, however^their accumulation appeared to reach a plateau which was not demonstrated in the lab^Nimmo,1971) Field data from Fscantia Bay showing that burrowing shrimp contain higher residue levels than nonburreving ones, and samples collected from the Milwaukee River and other areas where organisms collected from stations trf ' high residue levels in the sediment had higher-^concentrations than those found in other areas, confirm that sediment plays a large role in mediating PCB's. The accumulation of PC?.'s from the sediments may be due either to contact and absorp tion through the skin and gills, or by ingestion. b. Untake of FCU'n from Food i Food is of major ir.pcr~ V. tance in the bioaccumulation cf PCS's,Channel catfish ex nosed to Fynnm Aroclor 17.42 in food for 3 51 dovs accunuia led rCB's exponentially with expos.ure time and remained relative ly constant during periods of FC3-free feed after 84 days of exposure (U.xnsen,1"6). Coho salmon f^d Aroci'r iPjd for 240 days at concentrations of lb, 5 to 14,300 ug/l.g body weight per day accumulated 0,0 to 3 times the exposure levels on a whole body weight basis, the highest level- reached V^ing DSW 030684 STLCOPCB4014646 "COprm (stalling,1-73). A Laboratory experiments seem to point to direct uptake of soluble fC3's from water as the major route of entrv into organisms. However, food exposure may rose the Vi;j;.:est threat in the environment, Although the bioacr.umulatics factor*- are lower for food exposure, the greater dorado in f-od (both j. y*s ,, v *1 ' in the environment and lab^experiments) lead.- to euumlly hi.yh or hiyher concen'1 rations in the ->r posed nr.;- r.l.vs?, and does not appear to reach a steady state condi-.; n in the uptake cf soluble FC2'n Also, the FC2': which or o:-f-ns are exposed to in the water are generally those f i cnlori - nation (hither solubility). In contrast, the ci , rv <i!1 ' ' of FCB 'r- f''cm food ;**> -tenoral 1 v these hi 'her ve' '' ' iN '.nitration t IP's which have a hither partition cooff iciest, ar-1 " r-* -.11 ff icul t to metabolize and ther1"o;>-/'have a hither r.r-t - n ,,' ? 1 for bio ;' accumulai ion in the food choir,, Svider.ce for food chain relationships in . fi ~ ccyu'a- t.ion have been found in the environment. PCS r:--i lues in fish have been directly rel ate ' to their feedinc habit* a.od 1 ip id content. Carp in the Mississippi River contained d to 5 times the level of their food organism, . the may fly (fauk, . Similar trends involvin'- mussels up throu./h fish, mammals ar.d birds have al so be-m found (Zberhardt,!""7-; iilmrin , ; Feakall, l"-on), DSW 030685 STLCOPCB4014647 10 I Others have found that bioconcentratier. dc^-- occur, but that the residue levels of organisms in the trophic pyramid have no relationship (Hirvev,197?) Rirebrourh found that plankton eating fish in the Atlantic Ocean had hiyhev con centrations than those occupying higher trophic 'cv^ls, lias found that plankton had residue levels an ordr of rr.-ritude <L higher than the planktivores, flying firh(^ited jn f iretrough, 1972) i'ur.con (l9?5) and Fouler (l??8) also found ev Hence against the food chain relationship, fi These inconsistent results are dup to a err.r 'rati 'n of both the availability and retention of 1CB ' s 7h/ "va i 1 ab 5.1 Uy of FCB's to each o reranirn is influenced rv such Vilr.rr as rise, peerorpholory, flow and lubldity of the wo tor system, in conjunction with each organism's hone range, feeding habits and behavior patterns, as previously discussed. The retention ( l/ftO towlf'-'j') of PCB's is a result of the storage and metabolic capabili ties of the organism. Also, much of the above data has been ? accumulated in the laboratory and/or assertions have been A based on analyses - of pooled data collected in many parts of the world. Therefore, the nodes of entry of ICf'r, into acuatic ,C orranisms hair. beer, va.rue and the relative importar.ee of each mode of entry has not pet been ascertained0 DSW 030686 STLCOPCB4014648 11 After uptake, PCB's are stored in the lipid. This fact introduces many variables. The effect of lipids on the con centration of PCB's found in fish may be the cause of the varia tion seen in concentrations with other factors such as weight and season within species, and the variation of residue levels between species. It has been suggested that PC3 ccr.centration increases with size, age or weight. Bache et jal- (1972) found that PCS' concentration correlated significantly to age, length and weight of trout from Cayuga Lake. PC2 concentrations were noted to be more variable among older fish than younger. By contrast, o^4-;0?;found that PCB's in the muscle of souid (Loliro forcesl) tended .to decrease in concentration with in creased body weight. Clson et al (1973) reported no correla tion of PC3 levels in muscle of Ssox luclus to age or weight <Lusing either wet or lipid weight basis. Thsr^are, there fore, no generalizations which can be made on this weirhtppm subject. However, from these contradictory results, it is clear that the lipid - weight theory, based on DSW 030687 STLCOPCB4014649 12 the partitioning of PC2 directly from the water, is not the only contributing factor for increases or decreases in FCB concentration with weight. The possibility of uptake rates being different in teleosts of different ages or sizes, but of the same species^ may also be a contributing factor to the variability of residues of fish. Lab^, studies have shown that the uptake of C^DUT was much faster by smaller fish than larger. This up take rate difference may be related to their different meta- bolic rates FCB's 1_________ ____ ____________ .. ,, .. ____ . Qinerences m rue concentration. mis nay re cue to a (in ference in the lipid metabolism of fish of different size with season, or a shift in lipid content due to spawning or environmental stress. The differences in FCB content in fish in the environ ment are probably related to all of the above factors* and thus they must be sorted out to determine which are the major factors in PC3 accumulation. . '.his study was undertaken to determine the ccr.- lamination of a river-reservoir system with distance from a point source of contamination as reflected by the residue levels in fish; determine the half-life'of PC5 in this OSW 030688 STLCOPCB4014650 system; to determine whether a wet weight-FC3 correlation exists either on a weight-ppn or log-log basis and whether there are seasonal effects on these relationships; to de termine whether there are species differences in fCT; con centration; to correlate these differences with feeding habits, abiotic parameters and lipid content, thereby determinjting the major route of entry to fish; and to the sample chromatograms to determine whether there are great metabolic differences between the fish that may account for species differences in FCE concentration. OSW 030689 STLCOPCB4014651 14 _f. COLLiCTIC" A'lD ANALYTICAL PROBLEMS All species of fish were not .. tV* Lo !' r` r? v A. '/Lv-N ) at all stations and seasons. Therefore, there is a very "f\h\alL- num ber of samples in some cases. This limited both the statisti c cal applications-t^- the data and the statistical significance of many of the results. , In the laboratory/`'the fall and winter samples were hexane extracted 2 times and the spring and summer samples were ex- f t r c c r> f tracted 3 times (see methods). It was thought that the % re '' A covery of each method may cause some problems in the compara bility of the species 'nd seasons. Table 1 gives the percent recovery from the 2-wash and 3-uash methods in fish from the spring collection, r--sSZTLSjr'teUT.J-, %t appears that the first 2 washes resulted in high recovery rates (?0-9B;^)in most cases. The lowest percent recoveries were samples of /f S ^ - ''dn Le pom island those fish of very low PC 13 content. There, is no con sis tjfnt recovery level, either as related to station, species or size of the sample and ,therefore, no correction factor for lack of recovery has been used in the data. The differences in recovery between the seasons do not aopear to affect the relationship within or between species, stations or seasons. For example, in many cases those fish collected DSW 030690 STLCOPCB4014652 in the fall and winter have the highest residue levels and the accumulation by each species relative to the others is consistent throughout the year^i.e. Lepomis generally ac cumulates FCB to lower levels than other fish in all seasons. It must, however, be kept in mind when comparing FCB con centrations on a seasonal basis^that the fall and winter ' levels may be slightly low. Reduction of DDE suspected peakt Sample #293 a sample of Lepomis mePtalotis from station 1) spring "collection (Figure l). ' shows great height in a peak which may be DDE or some other substance aside from FCB.4 This large peak occurs almost ex clusively at t<n tion 1, a control station next to an agri cultural and cattle field. *fter analyzing nan;; camples from other stations and comparing them to the standards, it was found that the PCI peak (98-104) which is overlapped by DDE usually constitutes from 20-30^ of the Aroclor 125^ measur- ed. Therfore, t O -- bias 'the station 1 samples, this peak was reduced to 'Z$% of the Aroclor 125^ measured in all samples where it was found to be higher than that. The residual was thought to be DDE, All samples which had this reduction are mark'd in the data sheets presented in Appendix A, An example of the calculations is presented in the section on analytical methods. DSW 030691 STLCOPCB4014653 Table 1 Hexane Extraction Recoverv Sample 392, Station 3 Phenj/cobius SO. , 5 grans ppm Aroclor 12^2 ppm Aroclor 1254 ppm Aroclor 1260 ppm Total FCE First 2 washes 19.04 47.74 14.71 65.42 3rd wash 2.04 4.82 0,16 7.03 Total 21.09 52.57 14.67 72.45 Recovered in First 2 wa 00 90.8 . 99 90.3 Sample 393. Station 3, Fhendcobiu:a rp., 4.1 grans ppm Aroclor 1242 ppn Aroclor 1254 rrrm Aroclor 1.2o0 ppm Total TG3 tr irst 2 washes 3.66 9.84 6.72 20.22 3rd wash 0.30 0.73 0.24 1.28 Td^l 10.58 6.06 21.51 )6 Recovered in First 2 washes 92 93 96 94 (,V Sample 394, Station 3,Fher.dcobius so,, 0,68 grain? ' ppm Aroclor 12^-2 ppm Aroclor 1254 ppm Aroclor 1260 ppm Total FCE First 2 washes 7.75 12.09 3.19 23.04 ^rd wa r,h 0.?1 0.82' 0.16 1.70 Total 8,52 12.92 3.35 2^.75 <rf 40 Recovered in First 2 washes 90.9 9^ 93 Sample 414, Station 5i Flmerhales sp., 0.5 grans ppm Aroclor 12^2 ppm Aroclor 125^ ppm Aroclor 1260 ppm Total PC3 First ? washes 0.0? 0.24 0.13 1.11 3rd wash 0.05 0,20 0.02 0.2? TMnl 0.1a 0.S4 0.15 1.39 53 Recovered in First 6.5 CP 34 80 DSW 030692 STLCOPCB4014654 ^Table 1 (continued) Sample 422, Station 5, Qorosoma cepedianum, 4.7 grams ppm Aroclor 1242 ppm Aroclor 1254 ppm Aroclor 1260 ppm Total FC3 First 2 washes 0,11 0.55 0.04 0,?1 3rd wash 0.02 0.06 0,00 0.09 Total 0.13 0.62 0.04 0.80 % Recovered in First 2 washes 83 69 Q0 88.6 Sample 507. Station 2, Lenomis sp. , 4 prams ppm Aroclor 1242 ppm Aroclor 1254 ppm Aroclor 1260 ppm Total PC3 First 2 washes 14,49 14.37 4,op 33.78 3rd waeh 7.10 4.58 0.57 12.27 Total 21.60 18.95 5.49 46.05 fj Recovered in First 2 washes 67 75.8 89 73 Sample 532, Station 7, Lemmas 50, , 7 grams ppm Aroclor 12.42 ppm Aroclor 1254 ppm Aroclor 1260 ppm Total PC3 First 2 washes 0,31 0.99 0,27 I.58 3rd wash 0.54 0.78 0.14 1.48 Total 0.85 1,78 0.42 3.06 fo Recovered in First 2 washes 36 65 51.6 Sample 192. Station 2, Lecomis so. , 14. grams ppm Aroclor 1242 ppm Aroclor 1254 ppn Aroclor 1260 ppm Total PC3 First 2 washes 1.86 4.47 5.77 12.11 3rd wash 2.78 2.39 0,36 5.54 Total 4,64 6.87 6.14 17.65 fa Recovered in First 2 washes 40 65 94 63 DSW 030693 STLCOPCB4014655 Table 1 (continued) Sample 401, Station 8, Roccus sp. First 2 washes ppm Aroclor 1242 o,c6 " ppm Aroclor 1254 0.?4 ppm Aroclor 12o0 0.05 ppm Total FOB 0.47 , 12 grans 3rd wash 0.03 0.10 0.02 0.16 Total 0.09 0.45 0.08 0,63 % Recovered in First 2 washes 69 76 72 74 Sample 49?, Station 2, Notrools on,, 1,4 grans ppm Aroclor 124?. ppm Aroclor 1254 ppm Aroclor I2o0 ppm Total FCB First 2 washes 21.33 24.43 9.58 55.36 3rd wash 6.10 4.88 0.63 11.63 Total 27.44 29.32 10.22 66.99 Recovered in First : washes 77.7 83 93.7 32.6 Sample 4?4, Station 2, Kotrapls so., 1,4 grams ppm Aroclor 1242 ppm Aroclor 12?4 ppm Aroclor 1260 ppm Total P03 First 2 washer. 13.67 15.24 7.82 36.74 3rd wash 3.72 3.04 6.38 7.16 Total 17.90 16.29 8.20 43.91 5 Recovered in First 78. A 63 95 83.6 Sample 497, ;Station 2, Leoomis sd.. 13 grams ppm Aroclor 1242 rpm Aroclor 1259 ppm Aroclor 1260 ppm Total FC3 First 2 washes 9.39 7.48 3.10 19.99 3rd wash 4.84 2.50 0.15 7.51 Total lb.24 9.99 3.26 27.50 % Recovered in First 2 washes 65 74.9 95 72.7 OSW 030694 STLCOPCB4014656 Table 1 (continued) Sample 698, Station 2, L?nonis so., ,19 grams ppm Aroclor 12^2 ppm Aroclor 1254 ppm Aroclor 1260 ppm Total FOB First 2 washes 6.33 4,65 1.22 10.21 9rb wash l.pl 1.02 0.21 2.75 Total 5.86 5.67 1.64 12.96 % Recovered in First 2 washes 74 81.9 85 ' 78.7 Sample 499, Sta tion 2, Genbusia affinir, .7 -r-^p 0 m <? ppm Aroclor 1242 ppm Aroclor 1256 ppm Aroclor 1260 ppm Total FC3 First 2 washes; 10.47 10.71 2.26 23.65 8rd wash 3.62 1.81 0,41 5.85 Total 16,10 12.53 2.6? 29.31 ri Recovered in First 2 washes 7'a PcC-y ^c 86.6 80 Sample 502, Station 2, Notroris so.. 18 grams pom Aroclor 1262 ppm Aroclor 125^ ppm Aroclor 12.60 ppm Total PCB First 2 washes 14.16 10.75 30.95 3rd wash 2.63 1 * -y 1.69 11.47 Total 8.67 21,51 12.26 62.62 Recovered in First 2 washes 69 65.8 87.8 72.9 Sample 428, Stati on 4, Doros ona ceoedianum, 2.7 prams ppm Aroclor 1262 ppm Aroclor 1256 ppm Aroclor 12.60 ppm Total FOB First 2 wa '-hen 2.26 2.92 0,82 6.01 3rd wash 0.24 0.20 0.03 0.68 To* el 2.50 3.13 0.55 6.69 ;'a Recovered in First 2 washes CO 3 96 92.6 DSW 030695 STLCOPCB4014657 Table 1 (continued) Sample 429 Station 4, Dorosoma.ceredlar.um. 3*8 rrams First 7 washes 3rd wash * Total ppm Aroclor 1242 ppm Aroclor 125^ ppm Aroclor 1260 ppm Total PCB 1.93 2.53 0.71 5.17 0.18 0.15 0,02 0.35 2.11 2.68 0.73 5.53 % Recovered in First ; 91 94 97 93.6 Sample 475, Station 6, Microoterus sp., 79 crams prm Aroclor 1242 ppm Aroclor 1254 ppm Aroclor 12b0 ppm Total PG3 First 2 washes 0,41 1.98 0.46 2.86 3rd wash 0.08 0.34 0.04 0.67 Total C.69 2.32 C.51 3.34 Recovered in First 2 washes 8l,6 85 >=0 85.8 Sample ^78, Station o, Micronterus sn,, 2.7 l"ran? ppm Aroclor 12^2 ppm Aroclor 1254 T>rm Aroclor 1260 ppm Total PG3 Fir? t 2 washes 0.33 1.35 0.33 2.02 7-d '-'ash 0.10 0.33 0.03 0.47 Total c,63 1.69 0.37 2.50 r/o Recovered in First 2 washes ?o.B 80 ?-9 80.8 Sample 4801 Station 6, Mcropterus an., 33 L'rams ppm Aroclor 1262 opm Aroclor 1254 pun Aroclor 1260 ppm Total FC3 First 2 washes 0,26 1.34 0.24 1.85 3rd wash 0,05 0.13 0.02 0,25 Total C.32 1.52 0.27 2.11 'fa Recovered in First ? washes 86 88 90 87.7 OSM 030696 STLCOPCB4014658 Table 1 (continued) V Sample 489t Station 2 Fhen^coblus sp., 1.0 fjrams ppm Aroclor 1242 ppm Aroclor 1254 ppm Aroclor 1260 ppm Total PCS First 2 washes 2lo09 14.01 4.30 39o4l 7rR wash 3.37 1.44 0.11 4.93 Tot.?' 24.47 15.^6 4,42 44.35 % Recovered in First 2 washes 65 90 97 ' 88,8 DSW 030697 STLCOPCB4014659 I I STLCOPCB4014660 23 II. IN-FIELD STUDY OF PCB CONTAMINATION It has been established that PCB's are very hazardous to aquatic organisms. Attempts to characterize PCB behavior in the aquatic systems by comparison of data by different investi gators, collected at different locations and times of the year and taken from areas of unconfined, ill-defined contamination (oceans and lakes) have led to only partial success. The study of many components of a more well defined area, such as this segment of stream and reservoir, previously heavily contaminat ed by FC3 from a known point source, should lead to more con clusive results. A. Methodology! ' A stream-reservoir system in Anniston, Alabama was chosen for this study. This site was the location of a major manufac turer of PCB's which resultie^.n high quantities of release in to the stream. The study area is approximately PO miles long including a 51 mile section of Choccolocco Creek and a 30 nile section of the Coosa River and Logan Martin Lake.(see Figure 2). The collecting sites were as follows: Station 1: Choccolocco Creek, Highway 9 bridge crossing (control) Station 21 Choccolocco Creek, Highway 109 bridge crossing Station 3! Cheaha Creek, Highway 10 bridge crossing Station' 4: Choccolocco Creek, Highway 77 bridge crossing Station 5: Coosa River, Highway 72 bridge crossing (control) Station 6: Coosa River, Stemely Bridge, Logan Martin Reservoir Station 7: Logan Martin Reservoir, above Logan Martin Dam Station Logan Martin Reservoir, below Logan Martin Reservoir Station 9: Choccolocco Creek,Highway 109 bridge crossing Station 10 :Choccolocco Creek, Highway 63 bridge crossing Station ll:Houth of Choccolocco creek Station 12:Coosa River, Just below the mouth of Poorhouse Creek DSW 0 3 0 6 9 9 STLCOPCB4014661 (thor ,is.no.pe. 25) Station 13: Station 1^: Logan Marti:; bridge Logan Marti:: bridge Hoservoir, Heservoir, 3 miles south 6 miles south of Highway of Highway 14 aii Thin wa a'6ne yea o'survey with quarterly fish samples.taken from Stations 1 to 8.an:l one summer collection was taken at Station 9. Stations 1,3 and 3 : control stations and all others were stations of possible PC;1 contamination. Quarterly 'water ar.d sediment camples were t;'.ken from Station 1 to 6. Dredged sediment samples were taken at Ttations 10 to 14 during the summer col lecting. period only. Abiotic ChToor.ents: PCS 's have low solubility and a high ad- sorptive capacity for rvadinents and suspended '-ol' dr-, 1. Soil from the banks <of the river was collected by r-kimmi.ng off surface sol"1 into glass jars. 2. Water for PC3 and v; tor quality analyses was t.">. 300 ml EOD bottles. ir: 4 3. The fine surface sod mentr were skimmed off r-l n. arm 4. To obtain suspended solids a pump w gallons of subsurface water in prewa metal cans and later filtered on ^5 dT'^to" collect 5) rolye thylencg ss filters';' DSW 030700 STLCOPCB4014662 DSW 0 3 0 7 0 1 STLCOPCB4014663 Biotic Conscr.entsi To study the tioconcer.tration of FCf's, 12 genera of fish representing .different trophic levels were collected. The fish were identified to species, but only the genera were used in the statistical analyses. The following gerera. were collected with a 10 foot seine: Canrostoma so. Dorosoma sn. Gar.busia sc. Hvp.m t.elium sc. lecom i r. so. ''i'-root srus ^o, Hotmnigonus so .! roh +cirons <= n, loro inn sp.' Thenncobius sc. Fir*" r. hales ~ c ceens sp. The species are listed in Appendix A. Plankton was collected by pumping 10 rail on.- of water through a pi ankter. net. Hue to lack of plankton, it was col lected in the fall only. B . Chemical Analyses,: Standard water quality measurements of dissolved oxygen, alkalinity, pH, color, chloride.turbidity, sulfite, total iron, conductivity, suspended solids, and carbon dioxide were made with the D.O. meter and Hach Kit. The organic carbon, humic and ^flu^ic acid concentrations were measured by the Calklev-Black Method and Chen's techniques^ respectively. The particle sice analyses were done by _=an S7?f'o4*-D smvt +- I? >VvCJ -t> If r* 6 ,x5 . The extraction, and cleanup methods for PCI analyses DSW 030702 STLCOPCB4014664 of the sedimentsoil and fish were done according to Veith's and SPA's methods^respectively. A Microtek 220 gas chromatograph equipped with a Ni-63 electron capture detector, a 6 foot x 0.25 inch o.d. glass U-shaped tube packed with 0V-101 and a nitrogen carrying gas. The flow rate of the nitrogen carrying gas was 20 to 25ml/minute. The inlet, column oven and detector were operate! <9 225, 200 and 350 C.respectively. The chromatograms were interpreted by the Webb-HcCall Method. All of the above mentioned methods are presented in . 'the following pages. DSW 030703 STLCOPCB4014665 C. PCB Analyses* In the PC3 analyses, the samples must first be extracted and then cleaned of other impuities before being analyzed by gas chromatography. ". ' . 1. Extraction Water Extraction: Take 200 ml filtered water, shake in separatory funnel with 50 ml of hexane (Veith, 1971) Soil and Sediment Extraction: Use 10 to 5 ;o /w<et weight) of soil or sediment . Soxlet extract for 12 to 24 hours with 250 ml n^ograde hexane. Suspended solid extraction: Take glass filters previously used to filter 5 gallons of sample water. Extract for 12 to 24 hours in a soxlet extractor with 250 ini nanograde hexane. Fish Tissue Extraction (EPA Method): A composite sample of fish (several fish of the same species and similar length ant^ weight) weighing 5 to -15- g (wet weight) is put into a^skrew^tpo/^ teflon capped test tube (155 nun x 25 mm). ! '' ' 1. Add 5 ml acetonitrile and blend on a polytron for 1 minute 2, Centrifuge and decant liquid into 200 mm x 25 mm skre topped,'teflon capped test tube ' 3 Repeat steps 1 and 2 4* Add 5 ml acetonitrile and vortex mix for 30 seconds 5. Centrifuge and decant. Add liquid to the above 6. Repeat steps 1 to 5 ^ 03g704 STLCOPCB4014666 7. Add 25 ml of 20% aqueous sodium sulfate solution and 5 ml of nanograde hexane to decanted liquid 8, Shake for one minute* Remove top hexane layer with pipet and transfer to 25 ml Kudema Danish Concentrator Tube, 9* Repeat steps 7 and 8 two more times 10. Concentrate hexane to 0.5 ml 2# Florlsll Cleanup Florisil PreparationtActivate florisil by heating at 130 C over night. Add 20 g^o a size "B" chromaflex column and top with 2 g of anhydrous sodium sulfate. . Sediment, Soil and Suspended Solid Cleanup: The extracts of the sediment, soil and suspended solids are transferred directly to the florisil column. Tissue Extract Cleanup: The tissue extract is transferred to the florisil column with 40 ml of 5/ ethyl ether in hexane solution. D. Interpretation of Chromatograms: The Webb-HcCall method (l973)t "Quantitative PCB Standards for Electron Capture Gas Chromatography; A Technique to Quantitate FCB's in Environmental Samples" was used to interpret the samples. . The chromatograms of FCB's from environmental samples usual ly show some evidence of degradation or metabolism. A sample may contain a single partially degraded Aroclor or a combination of Aroclors. Such samples can be quantitated by using the standard OSW 030705 STLCOPCB4014667 31 Aroclors (Figures 3.-S) and DDE (Figure ), the data tables (Tables 2-H) and some computational rules. The key principle is that the total amount of PCB present is the sum of the amounts from all individual peaks. To quantitate PCB's, chromatograph known amounts of the standards. Measure the area for each peak. Using the Tables 2-.V determine the Response Factor (ng FCE/area) for each peak . (Tables 5~*f) Chromatograph the sample and measure the area of each peak. Multiply the area of each peak by the Eesponse Factor for that peak Environmental Samples Containing More Than One Aroclorj Most FC3-contaminated fishj water and sediment samples contain residues of several Aroclors. Usually the sample chromatogram can simply be divided into 3 separate areas and the peaks in each area quantitated by using the appropriate Aroclor. Feaks with the retention times of 11-70 are compared individually to'lcorrespondfc > ing in Aroclor 1242, peaks with retention times of 84-174 are A compared to the corresponding peaks in Aroclor 125^ and peaks of larger retention time are compared with those peaks in Aroclor 1260, The peak areas of the samples are multiplied by the Respose Factors from the peaks of the appropriate standard. The following calculations were usedi 1. for each peak mean weight ! represented each oeak area of the standard DSW 030706 STLCOPCB4014668 nir PHP 3. ppm FCB in sample /total nr In sample \ ul tested total volume of sample total weight of sample Table 8 is an example of the FCB calculation for sam~ple rf?8, Camrostenn so, from station , fall collecticn. o As described earlier in 'Collection and Analytical Problems', there were numerous samples which contained an unusually larye peak at retention time 100 (Figure I), Most of the-" occurred * -& at staions 1,3 and 5, all controls f&Tlocated ne~r agricultural and cattle fields. This peak generally conr.titues 20- 30^ of the Aroclor 1254 found,in both standards and "t.i.er samples. In those samples where it is large (greater than of the .Aroclor 125*0 it is adjusted to represent no 7.cr- of the Aroclor 12J.4 measured. Table 9 shows how this was dene. The residual was thought to be D32 OSW 030707 STLCOPCB4014669 STLCOPCB4014670 3 "V ) STLCOPCB4014671 DSW 0 3 0 7 1 0 STLCOPCB4014672 STLCOPCB4014673 / < ( \ \ \ N' ' I -O > s' f\ o I J T . - ,ii_ : _> / - o :~vl -ini - ! c IU~> DSW 030712 STLCOPCB4014674 ^S L Table 2 Composition of Aroclor 1242 (Webb-McCall, 1973) RRT* Mean Weight Percent Relative Std. Dev.'1 No. of Chlorines' .11 ^6 28 32 37 40 47 54 58 70 78 84 98 104 125 146 Total 1.1 2.9 11.3 11.0 . . 11.5 11.1 8.8 6.8 5.6 10.3 3.6 2.7 1.5 2.3 * 1.6 1.0 9S.5 35.7 4.2 3.0 5.0 4.7 5.7 6.2 4.3 2.9 3.3 2.8 4.2 9.7 9.1 16.4 20.4 19.9 1 2 2 21 25% 3_j 75% 3 3 3 4 vo---i1 non* O'J . o 4j67% 4 41 90% 5_j 10% 4 5 0 5 5 j 85% 6 115% O j 4 5'Jr* G !25% `Retention time relative to p.p'-DDE = 100. Measured from first appearance of solvent. ''Standard deviation of six results as a percentage of the mean of the results. `From GC/MS data, l'enks containing- mixtures f - isomers of different chlorine numbers are bracketed. DSW 030713 STLCOPCB4014675 Table 3 Composition of Aroclor 125^ (Webb-McCall, 1973) RPv.Ta Mean Weight Percent Relative Std. Dev.h No. of Chlorines'- 47 54 58 70 SI 9S 104 125 1-16 160 174 202 232 Total h.2 St.9 ' 1.4 13.2 17.3 7.5 13.6 15.0 10.4 1.3 8.4 1.8 1.0 100.0 3.7 2.6 2.8 2.7 1.9 5.3 3.8 2.4 2.7 8,1 5.5 18.6 26.1 4 4 4 4 j 25% 5J 75% 5 5 5 5"", 70% 6J 30% 5" } 30% . CJ 70% 6 6 6 7 'Ketention time relative to p.p'-l)DE=100. Measured from first appearance of solvent. ''Standard deviation of six results as a percentage of the mean of the results. 'From GC/IUS data. Peaks containing mixtures of isomers arc bracketed. ` ! I QSW 030714 STLCOPCB4014676 Table ^ Composition of Aroclor 1260 (Webb-McCall, 1973) RRT* Mean Weight Percent Relative Std. Dev.b No. of Chlorines' 70 84 |~ 98 j_104 117 125 146 160 174 203 l~232 L.2 280 332 372 448 52S Total 2.7 4.7 3.8 3.3 12.3 14.1 4.9 12,1 9.3 9.S 11.0 <O 4.0 .6 1.5 98.6 6.3 ` 1.6 3.5 6.7 3.3 3.G 2.2 2.7 4.0 3.4 2.4 5.0 3.6 25.3 10.2 5 5 ---1. \) 5 ! 60% 6 1 40% 6 5 i 15% 6 ' S5% 6 6" 50 % 7 1 50% G c~; 16% 7 ti>0% --- 6 ; io% 7 J 90% 7 8 8 8 "Retention time relative to p,p'-DD3i = 100. Measured from first appearance of solvent. Overlapping peals that are quantitated as one peak are bracketed. 'Standard deviation of six results as a mean of the results. "From GC/MS data. Peaks containing: mixtures of isomers "of different chlorine numbers arc bracketed. 'Composition dciermined at iho tenter of peak 101. 'Composition determined at Die center of peak 232. DSW 030715 STLCOPCB4014677 Feak # 11-21 28-32 37-40 47 54-58 70 7-3b 78-104 185 Table 5 Response Factors for Peaks 11 to 146 from Aroclor 1242 Standard (f;:Gj`\ a lpcm Concentration (3/22/78) : area of peak atattenuation" 64 0.028 0.062 0.169 0.070 0.101 0.107 0.06l ' 0.040 0.010 0.007 mean weight cf ,0 15.3 17.1 22.6' 8.6 12.4 10.3 6.3 3.r1.6 1.0 Response Factor 27.321 13.790 6.686 6.236 6.139 4.813 4.164 4,750 8.000 7.143 Feak # 70 84 98-104 125 146-160 174 Table 6; Reasponne Factors for Peaks 70 to 174 from Aroclor 1254 Standard ( ,i .7,^ F YJ a lppm Concentration (3/22/78) area of peak at attenuation - 64 0.034 0.019 0.127 0.177 0,300 0.188 mean weight ^ 6.2 4.1 13.2 17.3 21.1 15.0 sO H r* 0 n 0 s (/> a Reasponse Factor 9.118 11.316 , 5.197 4.867 3.517 3.939 $ --1 1 STLCOPCB4014678 Table 7 Response Factor for Peaks 203 to 528 from Aroclor 1260 Standard ( / u a lppm Concentration (3/22/78) N 5} Feak # 203 232-244 280 332 372 uhn 528 r'v -00d area of peak at attenuation 128 0.190 0.212 0.296 0.114 0.114 0.010 area of peak at attenuation 64 0.380 0.424 0.592 0.228 0.228 0,020 0.086 near, weight r f 9.3 9.8 11.0 4.2 4.0 0.6 1.5 Respon: Factor 1.224 1.156 0.929 0.921 0.877 1.500 0,572 DSW 030717 STLCOPCB4014679 Table B Calculation for PCS Content of Sample ffjQ Camnostoma so.. Station 2, Fall Sample Volume ~ 345mls Sample Weight 2r 11,83 grams (3/22/78) /r-c/i ^ 7) Peak # 11-21 28-32 37-32 47 54-58 70 78-84 98-104 125 146-160 174 203 223-244 2n0 332 7?2 448 528 Total area at att. 512 6,06 8 0.157 0,270 0.241 0.274 ... '310 0.322 0.384 0.242 0.241 0.170 0.071 0.040 0.046 0,008 0.014 ----- area at att, 64 0.544 1.256 2.160 1.928 2.192 2.480 2.576 3.072 1.936 1.928 1.360 0.568 0.320 0.368 0.064 0.112 --- -- Resoose Factor 27.321 13.790 6,686 6,286 6.139 5.187 4,887 3.517 3.989 3.3^3 3.000 1.224 1.156 0.Q29 0.921 0.887 1.500 0.872 ng PCB 14.S63 17.320 14,442 12.119 13.457 12.864 12,589 10.804 7.723 6.445 4.080 0.695 0.370 0.342 0.059 0.099 ----- 127.929 1242 Standard 85.!107nr A1242 1254 Standard 4l.64ln.v A12S4 1260 Standard 1.565ns A1260 Using Equation 3 above: Aroclor 1242 . ( 85.11.OS ) / 34.5 ml \ _ 49.6289ppm in sample ~ \ 5 ul j ( 11.83 grams/ Aroclor 1254 - (41.641 ng \ /?4.5 ml ) _ 24.2808ppm in sample ~ \ 5ul J ^ 11.83 grams / " Aroclor 1260. in sample " ( I.565 ng \ /74,5 ml N - 0.9l25?rm ( 5 ul / ^ 'll. 63 grans / Total PCB - f 127.?2nE\ /34.5 ml \ . 74.597pm ( 5 ul j ( II.63 grams/ " DSW 030718 STLCOPCB4014680 Table 9 Calculation for FC3 Content'0:f San pi e 7703 / f . .> y ^ ,, Le 00m i r. e^alotfst Station 1, Srir.G Sample Volume - 3^'ls Sample '/eight - 2 .S9ems (0/30/78) \ /} Feak 4 37 47 54 70 84 *98-104 125 1 i'4> 17 4 203 Of O' n. 20 OO9 pno Total Area at Att. 8 0,004 0.016 0.005 0.027 O.O52 0.128 0.079 0.077 0.060 0.045 C.035 0.030 0.033 0.015 Area at Att. 128 0.0002 0.0010 o,ooc3 0,0016 0.0032 o.ooeo 0.004? 0.004? 0,0037 0.0026 0,0021 0.0018 0,0020 0.000 Hesronse Factor 9.04 7.71 7.60 7.73 5.1? 4.22 4.07 3.54 ' 3.35 2.4 2.50 2.56 nr FCB 0.0016 0.0077 0,0022 0,0173 0.0165 0.0337 O.OI99 O.C173 0,000 0.0110 0.CO74 O.7052 o.o050 n, ^0^9 0,1521 * Fcak Q8- 104 repres 343 of ih--' : oel >'r 12 54 non cured. It is,therefore, reduced to nnly 7 5 of* the Aron lor 1254 and it's new value is 0.022n-; Th 9 amount c f Aroclor in'-1 found is thernfore, O.C355o c and the total is 0',1404ng ?C3 A1242 Standard 0,024nr A1254 Standard 0,0?2ng A1260 Standard 0.030np The new fi rures rire then used in Squat ion 3 as ir. Ta.ble 9 to yield the following results J 0,04S6ppm Aroclor 1242 0,1768ppTn Aroclor 1254 0.0639rpm Aroclor 1260 0.2903ppm Total FOB DSW 030719 STLCOPCB4014681 ^3 UL FFFl'T.TS A. DATA SUHHAPY Tables and H r.how the result? of the f-'-ay Analysis of Variance. Two different programs were used, both, yielding similar results. Tab!*' 10, from the South Carolina :'r~'~ram, .shows that both the station location and coll oct in." season have a, significant* influence on the accumulnticn of F12 by Fi oronte ms and Notro"' - . The weight of the f `h. ; arontly had no effect. The accumulation of FCP by ?r"r'T i~ we m affect ed by both the station location and vM -h +, but r! by nijar.cn. Cnly Ler--.r i r-, Micro rt ams and h'otrord s were le-ted in this nreyrer Table 11, is the :jF33 An ova Table. A 2-way indydr, urine: total PC3 by veirht with station and season was done cn Dorosore , Gar.bus ia , ih/ter tel 3 ur , l,ererun, 1' i crop mrus and IFotroots. There is a. simnificar.t relationship between weight and FC3 concentration in all tectrtd except Fvtont?lturn. The station location is significant in all 3 while the season is significant in the accumulation of TCP by Pompoms . y oront -mu- and VT^tresis. Table 12' is the .inova from another analysis of variance (SPSS Ppopran) to determine whether there is a r : nr. if leant difference in the accumulation of FCP brtre~r. h "noropoma . T emom 5s. F \ cm rterus and Fctmri s at stations A; ` Significant- p< 0.05 OSW 030720 STLCOPCB4014682 1,2,4,5 and all 4 genera from stations 6,? and 8 collectively. Again it shows that weight is significant in the accumulation of PCT3 by these genera at all stations except "1. It also shows that there are significant differences in the mean residue levels of these 4 genera at stations 2 and 5 All of these analyses, therefore, show that the accumula* tion of PCB by fish is related to station location, weight, season and species of fish. DSW 030721 STLCOPCB4014683 Station Sea son Weight Table 10 2-Way Analysis of Variance . ( So. Carolina Program) Leoomis sp. DF PS 7 .2.172 3 0.196 1 0.059 F 35.150 3.176 0,059 n 0.6001 n,0293 0,5 o76 St? tion sea son v!<? i 'ht ' Pie rent, eras pe. DF 7 7.3 72 3 0,1-6 1 0,059 00.097 3.623 1.093 n p. "(] :a;s Station Season Weight Netroeis m. PS 9,618 0.125 0.926 ? 167,509 1.930 36,212 _2__ 0,C('01 C.3266 0.0005 DF- Degrees of Freedom MS- Fean Square p- significance of F k? osw 030722 STLCOPCB4014684 Table 11 2-Way Analysis of Variance (SPSS Program) Station Season Weight ooroTOma so. DF MS 4 1.3 22 20.436 3 0.170 3.09? 1 0.306 5.573 p 0.001 O.Otfc 0.027 Station Season Weight Ganbusia affinis DF MS V 3 3.786 45.347 2 0.034 0.41 4 1 1.779 21.416 P r ,rni 0.674 0,002 Station Season Weight Hvrenteli'.:n s^. DF F 2 2.^56 12 gAOA 2 0.021 0.105 1 0.285 1.443 n 0.001 C.901 0,231 Station Season Weight I.eroni 5 rn, DF MS F 7 0.752 1427837 0.001 3 0.087 1.280 O.283 1 8.389 122.866 0.001 DSW 030723 STLCOPCB4014685 mio-ir (continued) Station Season Weight Station Season Weight Hicropterus sp DF MS . F 7 1.936 29.010 3 0.240 3.601 1 2.291 34.329 p 0.001 0.020 0.001 Notronls gp. DF ms F _2__ 5 8.333 152=382 0.001 3 0.293 5.354 0.003 1 1.525 27.887 0.C01 DF- Degrees of Freedom MS- Mean Square p- Significance of F DSW 030724 STLCOPCB4014686 Table 12 2-Way Analysis of Variance (SPSS Program) Weight Species (5*6,8) Station 1 DF MS 1 0.611 2 0.115 F 3.727 0.704 p 0,059 0.499 Weight Species (5,6,8) Station 2 DF MS 1 0.303 2 0.170 F 5.709 3.203 p 0.020 0.0U8 Weight Species (2,5,6) Station 4 MS 0.329 0.099 F 7.414 2.223 n 0.006 0.116 Weight Species (2,5,6,8) DF 1 3 Station 5 MS 2.336 0.364 F 31.836 4.959 p 0.001 0.004 DSW 030725 STLCOPCB4014687 Table 12 (continued) Stations 6,7 and 8 Weight Species (2,5,6,8) DF 1 3 MS 0,689 0.15d F 8.111 1,809 D 0.005 0.150 DF- Degrees of freedom MS- Mean Square P~ significance of F Species 2- Dorcsoma sp. 5~ Le nomis s1"1. 6- Micropterus sn. 8- Notronis r.r. DSlnl 030726 STLCOPCB4014688 B. THE DTrT!?IBUTICN CF FCB IN THE RIVHn-RECEnYCTR SYSTEM MO REFLECTED BY THE RESIDUE LEVELS CF 4 SPECIES CF FISH PCB levels of all samples are presented in Appendix A. The mean Aroclor 1242, 1254. 1260 and total FCB for each species at each station and season are presented in Appendix B. Figures $ to if are histograms dis playing `these mean residue levels (total PCE) of Doroscma, C* -V\. Leocmls, F.icropterus and Uotropis "La stations 1 to 3 and all 4 seasons. In general, fish collected at control station #1 on Choccolocco Creek have very low FCB levels (<lprr.). Fish from the ether control station (#5) on the Coosa River are in the 2prm range. There are 2 exceptions. Or.e fish sample each of Lorosoma and Hicrooterus from stations 1 and 5 resrectivolv are ----------------' ------------- )' '> in the lOppm range. Very high levels are found in fish from a sample a station 2. They range from 7 ln*Ler'cnls ?to lbCppm in^ Hot, renin /7*^ Vsample with means ranging from 7pPn in Lop cm is to 7:.*; pm in Camnostoma. These levels decrese with increasing distance from the outfall to Logan Martin Dam (-Station 7).where mean levels are in the 3p?ro range. However, there is a slight increase ic station 8, just below Logan iiartin Dam in all b genera. There is no apparent high accumulation of FCB in the reservoir Citations 6 and 7). Table ~l3 shows the )i decrease from station to station in all 4 species. Tableftl4 and 15 show the humic and fluvnic acid content, and the organic carbon content of the sediment from Stations 1 to Tables 16 and 17 give the water quality d\itn collected at the survey sites and the UCG3 site resrectivelv (see p.g.1 for collecting siter^. Table IB and Figures 1JL to l show the DSW 030727 STLCOPCB4014689 particle size analysis of the sediment. The differences in particle size, organic content and humic and fluvic acid contents ,.vf Ui-'J' of the sediments'do not appear to affect the distribution of FCE in this system. The water quality fluctuations do net seem to affect the distribution of FCB In the system either, X^TTtr C^rr3drornac7f the effect of water aualitv on the untake of FCB ,,f i (, c v 5 $<. <-> // --' >- nr-".1! ii . is in section D. Therefore, either the fish con centrations do not indicate the abiotic FCB content cf the stream or^'W thedo parameters measured, humic and fluvic acid, organic content and various water quality analyses, do not In this system, crently influence the distribution of FC? in this ~.ysteni. The FCB "So each station is closely related to the d: ntv nv from the outfall. OSW 030728 STLCOPCB4014690 Table 13 Percent Decrease of" All Aroclors with instance from tne Guttall in 4 Gterrerac of Fish (Dorosona, Lem-; is, Wicrortcms, Notrc^r-) Station b, Fall Sta tion 6, Fall Dorosoma sr. Aroclor 12^-2 bpm % _ 10,58. ^>87 1.42. Aroclor 3 25*1 brm % 13.70. A >5 3.35. Aroclor 1260 com % ' 3.12 >82 0.57 55 Total PC. orm c/ ?i 27.4 > 8' 50 Station 4, Winter Station 7, Winter 5.33 > *9 0.62 6.<l >67 2.16 l.Ch y9u 0,7 6 15.8 3.06 Le non 1 r Aroclor 124? rrr. Station .?, '.'inter 10,70 Station 4( Winter 2.62 Aroclor 1254 pm '1 >10.== 60 4, AA Arcelor 1260 -""n [Z \ 68 2.02^ Total PC pt 2P.4 ;j >5- 7.1 I- PCS Increase QSW 030729 STLCOPCB4014691 Table 13 (continued) Lerori3 sd, Aroclor 124? Station 2, Summer Station 4, Sumner Station 6, Summer Station 7 Summer > 61/ 96 1.18/ / > 63/ 0/4-" Aroclor 12/ H3..... .... /____ .idsv > .53 /\ >^ 3.RP- " > 66 1.31 Aroclor 1260 rrm ;3 Total f 1 pom 7 20.6^ > 4 12.3 7' . /> 51/ 60 6 7, 2.0- Hi cm r'fnr,jr % Station Vinter Station 4( V in ter Station 7, "inter A^rcelor t f124? 1 . ' tx > 8>\ 2.~6 co >r?S 0.12/ Arcelor 1334 it.i K 4/1 cii o.//^ "po ' or- ] ` 'h' p ' t *. \ > -) r> 0 oP > ?5/ . 1 ' Total I' > 75"/ 10.7 c-; >88/ 1^/ Station 2, 3nrire 11. so rtation 4, Serin a 1.63 Station 6, Spring 0 ot^ ll/o. > P,C6 r4 > 3^ 3/4" Station 2, Summer Station 4f Summer 6.08 >93 0/3 5.95 >71 1.70 2.37 >84 0.38 14.3 > 84 2.2 * I- FC3 Increase OSW 030730 STLCOPCB4014692 Dt . Table 13 (continued) Station 2, Fall Station 6, Fall Notroois sp. Aroclor 1242 ppm'14.06 > 98 O.36 Aroclor 1254 rr.m fj 190? > 91 1.82 Aroclor 1260 ppm f? > ?6 0.24 Total FC3 urn % 48.1 > 95 . 2.4 Station O f Summer 15'^ Station 6. Sumner 0.76 99 Station 8. Summer 0.27-^ 18. PCS. >8^ 20q 4 i .5>0*y^ y .?6 v 0.4S> 9>0^\ 0.41> /y 42.9\ > ?2\ 3.6 2.2/ DSW 030731 STLCOPCB4014693 * muat- <p AsV TCT,1L . L e ViFA J X^ p 0/2 a scs>7/} / cs? jr/prs*-^ + S/.-s9<5 0sO/P 2. <p9<S/3 V0- PT~ /'c a 5" I v" . ' / ST&Tl S Tht~ S460/\>-S' iA/tr" yn^/iKt'O / _ A'ALL A ~ Uff^TLrK <3 - S //l/s' U - ^ f'/?. /t<oo vt' /?crt fiA/2-; osw 030?32 STLCOPCB4014694 9 rc7**. see is vns Hr-^C^ Af <T/' s+ s j-/?- r/o^ J&SOsV /*-6Wj/S 59. rt$ r/CT StStsU$ aslc ^sz/zKtTD y+qcvc /~ FsQL l~ <*>/'vrefZ 0 ~ 'SS'/Z/'V 6 Y ~ (5* U -*n . -vn h ^ <Z : QSW 030733 STLCOPCB4014695 . \/J snir rt-'ALuS ja> o/o w j f' SAT/9SC'V'4*- /C^s/S I JL ST^-r/O^ 5 w <?**--*>*m0 ^CCVf tr'*c# ^/e- / - F~/?i.J- ~ J- J//Zss*'Cy -- tf CSs^t/*! C /Z- DSW 030734 N O STLCOPCB4014696 - V...' rdr^c /c/] 1/0 /QC7AICA'/J <1/* 0sO /f <SJT/9 7/ ^ h OsO/?/- 4p?-J/.J 61 DSW 030735 1.1 V STLCOPCB4014697 TA3LE 1U Humic and Fluvic Acid Content of Sediment From Station 1 to 6 (Chen, 1972) Station 1 2 3 4 5 6 Fluvic Ac id mn/l 117 140 49 53 62 74 175 210 123 147 77 92 H v rp 2. c Acid mk/l r.r/ki 152 183 221 265 178 214 134 161 137 I->4 141 1c 3 TABLE 15 Organic Carbon (Walkley-Black Method) Of F / ro fo Station fo Carbon 0.711 2 0.197 3 0.251 4 >0.3 5 0.720 6 0.155 DSW 030736 STLCOPCB4014698 Table IS Water Quality- Station 1 2 3 4 5 6 Fall Survey (Oct. 14, 1977) DO Aik Tern p. uH 9.6 60 16.6 7.1 7.7 90 16.7 7.5 9.1 110 16.7 7.9 7.3 90 18.8 7.6 7.5 60 26.0 8.2 6.6 60 25-5 7.3 Station 1 Oi- 3 4 5 6 T'jrb. 13 19 16 18 24 24 Cl . so,, 2.5 '0 20 14 2.5 2 10 4 2.5 7 59 Total Fe 0.35 0.22 0.20 0.16 0.20 0,23 Color 20 48 30 ^5 95 55 Cond. 115 220 200 10 150 160 Station 1 2 3 4 5 6 SS ~tr 10 11 8 12 17 C0,, "870 20.0 12.0 12.0 4.0 12.0 TCC 8.3 11.5 12.9 8.0 14.1 -- DC- Dissolved Oxygen (mg/l) Aik- Alkalinity in mg/l as CaCO^ Temp- Temperature C Color- AFHA Platinum Cobalt Standard Turb- Turbidity in FTU Fomazin Turbidity Units Cl- Chiorid (mg/l)' SC^- Sulfate (mg/l.) Fe- Iron (mg/l) 'Cond.- Conductivity (umhos/cm) SS- Suspended Solids (mg/l) C0o- Carbon Dioxide (mg/l) TCC- Total Organic Carbon (mg/l) DSW 030737 STLCOPCB4014699 Table 16 (continued) Station 1 2 3 4 5 6 Winter Survey (Jan, 11, 1978) DO 6.9 9.3 8.9 9.7 9.2 9.5 Aik. 30 35 65 50 90 70 Temp. 4,4 4,d 6.6 4.9 8.8 4.9 cH 6.8 7.0 7.4 7.4 7.4 7.4 Station 1 2 3 4 5 6 Turb. 62 75 42 60 55 68 Cl 2.0 11.5 2.0 8.0 3.0 3.5 Total Fe 0.48 0.89 0.20 0.39 0.50 0.52 Ccnd. o7 130 150 140 155 112 Color 55 105 72 Q8 88 160 SS "T" 21 22 38 18 22 Station 1 2 3 4 5 6 cc,, 15* 12 20 16 24 16 DSW 030738 STLCOPCB4014700 Table, 16 (continued) Station 1 2. 3 4 5 6 Spring Survey ( April 14, 1978) DO 8.8 8.7 9.0 7.9 12.2 7.7 Aik.. 80 100 130 120 160 80 Temp. 15.8 18.8 19.0 21.0 24.0 22.0 pH 7.0 7.1 7.5 7.5 9.4 8.3 Color 120 99 140 70 180 300 Station 1 2 3 4' 5 6 Turb. 42 49 32 24 64 88 Cl 5 20. 5 20 5 10 . s_0J( 3' 18 2 15 3 8 Total Fe . 0.15 0.25 0.42 0.12 0.49 0.07 Cond. 119 220 152 230 183 138 Station 1 2 3 4 5 6 SS 152 245 '140 '122 202 182 COo 4 4 8 8 0 8 DSW 030739 STLCOPCB4014701 Table 16 (continued) Summer Survey ( Aug. 13, 19?8) Station 1 2 3 4 5 6 DO 6.1 7.2 6.0 10.4 7.4 6,4 Aik. 60 140 140 130 90 100 Temn. 26 25.5 26 32 32 30 oH --5------- T 0.0 7.3 7.7 8.7 7.0 6.9 Station 1 2 3 4 5 6 Turb, 5 10 10 30 5 3 Cl 5 90 60 30 15 10 Total Fe 0.19 0.08 0.05 0.08 0.01 0.02 Cond. 105 305 470 290 200 180 Color 20 10 10 30 5 3 SS 2 3 -- 5 8 3 Station 1 2 3 4 5 6 C0o 44 8 0 4 4 DSW 030740 STLCOPCB4014702 MOBILE RIVER RASIM 02404400 CHOCCOLOCCO CREEK AT JACKSON SHOALS. NEAR LINCOLN, AL 97 LOCATION.--Let 53*J2'54", lonj BB'OSMS'', in SCi sec. IS, T. 17 S.. R. 5 E., Talltdega County, Hydrolonlc Unit Q31S0106, on left benk t foot of Jackson Shoals, 50 ft (15 .) upatream froo Alabama Power Company Jackaon Shoals tnnj f o rmer station, 900 ft (774 m) upitrtie from highway bridge, l.g mi (2.9 km) dovnstroam from Eastaboga Creek, and 4.S ai (7.2 kB) southeast of Lincoln. DRAINAGE AREA.--4S4 ml1 (1,254 km'). PERIOD OF RECORD.--October 197S to current year. REMARKS.--Miscellaneous samples of chemical data published for water years 1965-68, 1974. COOPERATION.--Nater-quality samples were collected by the U.S. Geological Survey and were anaiyiod by the Geological Survey of Alabama. WATER-qUALITY DATA, WATER TEAR OCTOBER 1977 TO SEPTEMBER 1978 (ND denotes constituent not detected) UMl OCT 00 nOv 1. . JAN 00. . F t 2J. . . HAH Jl... HAT it>.. . JUN 3o.. AUU 03. . SlK U.ee T INL STwCAHt LOw. JNSIAN" lANtUUS ICF SI SPCCU 1C CUN- Out T ANCt IMiCNUHHUb) Pn iunirsi UmPLHA 1 UHL IDtvj Cl QXYOtN, DIS SOLVED IMO/L1 HAWO- NtSS (MU/L AS CACOJ) MAWUNtbS. NUNCAHbUNAit <MD2L CACUJI CACClUM ulsbucvtu tMG/L AS CAJ maonCSiUM. DIS SOLVED (MO/L AS MO) UOO 1230 1300 121b 1200 12JU lllb lO-b l b 30 203 6V0 AVI b36 01b tObO 3b0 22S *4<j 200 2 31 240 2Ss 2b2 ... JS2 43U 42b 0.U 7.0 /.V 7. a 7.0 7.4 7.4 7*0 6.0 lb.b 14.0 V.O 7.0 17.0 U.O 26.0 26.0 24.0 V. 3 6.0 11. B 1 1 .6 10.3 b.a 7.3 7.V 6.4 V7 76 vb V3 VO b6 no 110 120 lb IV 4. 1 6 lb 24 0 IV -- 21 0 12 b 23 4 23 13 2b 12 9.2 V.2 11 V.2 6.3 12 13 14 UAH. SODIUM, u I sSUtVLU >Kb/t AS NA} SUUlUM AUSUHP- SOUlUM T ION ` NATIO PtHCtNl uci 00 * NOV 10, JAN Oo rto 23... HAW 31... HA T 1O JVN 30. .. AUO U J. . . M.P U,T. b.o 1b 10 U 17 uv 27 -0 3o 10 .2 2V .7 26 . 7 1 6 2V ,d Zb .5 3b 1 .1 A3 1.7 3V 1 .4 POTAS SIUM, UlbSOLVED 1MO/L AS M bicahbUNA T t IMO/L AS . NC03) CAWbONATt IMO/L AS C03) ALKA LINITY THO/L AS CACUJI CAwdON DiO*lot OlSSOLVtU (Mu/L AS CU21 SUtf AU DIS SOLVE 1MO/L AS S04) 1.2 1 .b 1.2 1.1 1.0 1.4 1.4 1.7 l.b 100 VO 1 00 120 -73 120 130 130 0 02 1.6 7.2 0 74 2. J 11 0 b2 2.0 lb 0 Vb 3.0 13 -- -- 14 0 60 4.6 6.** 0 v# 7.6 -- 0 107 3. J 42 0 107 33 36 CmlOlut. UlSSoLVtU MO/L AS CD 4.0 14 20 U lb V.2 20 40 43 DSW 030741 STLCOPCB4014703 rfidiLE n ( d 'j yj MOBILE RIVER BASIN 01404*00 CH0CC0L0CC0 CREEK AT JACKSON SHOALS, NEAR LINCOLN, AL--Continu.d WATER-QUALITY DATA, WATER YEAR OCTOBER 1977 TO SEPTEMBER 1978 (NO d.not.a conitituent not d.t.ct.d) 0* Tt OCT Oli*.. NOV l6 JAN 06... Ha 21... MAH 31m NAT 16* JON 10... AUO OJ* StH 12 LOO- MOt, UiSSULVtO (HO/L AS f) SILICA, UlSSulvEU (MWL. AS $102) SOLIDS* SON or CONSTI TUENTS. uisSULVCO IMU/U SUUUS. 01S- SOLVtO t TONS PtN Ac-m SOLIUS. U1SSOLVtO \ Tons PtN U*T) nIThOOLN. NtTHATt ois- SOLVtU INO/L AS M N|TwQOtN, NlTNATt UISVOtvtD (NO/L AS NOJI Ah St N}L U1SSOLVtU IUO/L AS AS) CAUHlU" U1S- SOLvtu iUO/L AS CUT 0 * 116 16 AT.9 2.0 B. V 1 <1 * } 1.9 122 .17 22/ AO 7 NU 1 1 7.9 1S1 21 200 .OV .*2 t <1 .1 % 116 U 1V6 0v . A | <1 1 .1 i.7 -- 90 3.A <1 l 0 ' 7. .13 26V 1.6 6.3 NU 1 .1 V.t -- - -- .00 .91 i 1 .1 10 .ji 1*0 . 1 A.V I2Y ill l* 1.7 *J t.a 1 *v i 1 <\ LnOH|u" OISSOLVCU UO/L AS CPI <1 NU NU <t Nu NU NU l NO L*Il CO.AL T a Ul>- BULVtU IUL/L AS cut OCT 06 NOV 16 JAN 06* fl9 23... MAH ii... MAY U... JUN 30. AUO 91... 16I> 12. l 1 4) 1 NU 2 i <i i IKON. U1S- SOLvkU tUU/L AS fii d0 220 3u 20 70 no AO 66 10 WtAU. ui$ SULYtU 1UU/U A| Pd> 2 1 k NO i J NU i A hanOaNtSL. UiSSULvtu luo/c AS *N| MtOCUNY DISSOLttU IU0/L AS nOI 36 NO 4 2 30 2 17 2 76 A 60 62 <2 26 .5 32 <2 STHONTJu*i ms* SULvtU IUO/L AS SHi 60 7g SO no so AO JO 70 AO ZINC, uisSOLYiw 1 UC./L AS INI CHLUW-A FLnIKHT TUN c**u*o* OhAhi-i | U > LUUNON L'nlUN-6 *S*IMhyTUn UM fckH t U 7 LoU*u* 1 20 * AO - U .620 ,0u(j VO 1 AO -- " " 60 -- -- 20 -- SO -- * < "" "* DSW 030742 STLCOPCB4014704 mie '7 (co-v'7/"'jeo) * HOULE RIVER BASIN HOII LB RIVER MAIN STEM 02407000 COOSA RIVER AT CHHDBRSIURC, AL-*Contlnued WATER-QUALITY RECORDS PERIOD OR RICORD.--October 1042 to current year. RERIOD OR DAILY RECORD.-- WATER TEMPERATURES: October 1082 to current year. INSTRUMENTATION.--Teaperature recorder tlnce October 192. COOPERATION.-Weter-qua 11 ty taaplea uert collected by the U.S. Ceolojlcel Surrey and were analysed by the Ceoloilcal Surrey of Althaea. EXTREHES ROR PERIOD OP DAILY RECORD.-WATER TEMPERATURES: Haxinun, 34.0'C July 8, 1080; aininun, 2.0*C on eereral days in January 1977. EXTREMES FOR CURRENT YEAR.-WATER TEMPERATURES: Mexiaua, SJ.S*C July 4; alnlaua, ].5*C Jan. 22. Feb. I. 9. WATER-QUALITY DATA. WATER YEAR OCTOBER 1977 TO SEPTEMBER 1971 (ND denote! conetituent not detected) out MAW lb... APk 11 * TIME SThEANFLOW. Instan taneous ICFSt Ll> 1C CUNDVUANCt IM1LWQ* <u*frs> TtNNtM- AtUNE IIItU C) OATGtN* uls- SOLVtU IMG/U nanoHSt (*u/L AS CAC03I nanoNESS. h\jHCAwVU*A?t imo/l LAC03* CALClUN Ul$SOLVtU <*WL AS CAi haonCSlim, DIS SOLVE <*WC AS HO) 0**S 1J700 0030 8100 7.3 U.S u.j ISO /.7 l*.S bb 0** J lb i 4.3 OAU SU01UM, UlSSDLVCt) IMO/L A$ HA) SOOtU* BtWCtMT MAW IS... APW u... S.3 A.B i? u SOUlVM AO- SOWW1 I Of* BAT 10 .3 3 potas sium. 015soeveo lmi/L AS At BlCAflMUNATt (MWL AS HC03I CAwOma ft (*G/L Af CU3> ALA- LlNlfV CMO/L AS CAC03) CAktfON UlUAlOt UIS- SOtnVtU (*0/L AS LU2I SUCFATt OiSSulvtU 1*G/L AS SOM i.i i. BA B* 0 se S.l r.o 0 SB 2.4 V.B OAtE HAA IS... APH 1la. CMtOWtut. DIS SOLVED 1G/L AS CL) s.o S.2 rmowiut. 011SOLVtU (HG/L as r) SILICA. 01SSOLVCU IMB/L AS S!0*> touot. Suee OP CONSTI TUENTS. OISSOUrtO (NO/L) solids. SOLIUS* OIS- UlS- SOLVtU SOLVCO (Tums (TONS BtW- - PCM AC-f Tt OAVI NKTttOGIN. Ml TMaTC oisSOLVtU U*G/L A$ Ml HI fMQULNi Ml TMATt DIS SOLVED <*Ml/L AS N03 amscnic o ISSUL VtU (OWL A AS) i 7.2 .i b.J 7# .it 2171 % .12 1SOO 23 i.i 1. 4.9 1 1 DATE CAOMtUM DIS SOLVED tUO/L Af CU) MAW it... APB ii... l i CmBU* MlUM. 015SOLvlO (UG/L AS CK) CO.AU T . 01bSOUVIO IU0/L At CO) MU ... NU i IRON. 011- I0UVE0 1U0/L At PE) SB 20 LEaO. Ult- tOLVEU (UO/L At P.) MANGA- NtSCl vis- SOLvCO (UG/L AS **) NENCUNt OIS- tOurEu iuo/u AS No) 1 MO too J .5 StwONmum. UJS- SOLVlU (UG/L AS SA> 130 00 ZinC. U1S- fULVtU (UG/L AS IN) *V to OSW 030743 STLCOPCB4014705 Station 1 2 3 4 5 6 G H i. J K Table 18 Particle Size of the Sediment (See Fig. 1 for Station Locations) % silt or finer ( v 0o0?4mm) .0,5-3 13-55 10-13 38-65 0.5 19-56 31-79 25-75 ' 6-42 56-100 10-42 % clay or finer ( 0.005mm) ' 0.5 8-13 10 18-38 0.5 10-19 12-31 12-25 2-6 23-56 7-10 DSirt 030744 STLCOPCB4014706 ANALYSIS CK SAMPLES TAX S' DllIITG THY g'jk:::r COLLECTING PERIOD Sample A: Station 1 Bj Station 2 C: Station 3 Di Station U Es Station 5 Fj Station 6 G: Station 10 H: Station 11 l! Station 12 J: Station 13 K: Station 1^ DSW 030745 STLCOPCB4014707 byf i w Weight /"/ Cc'/cC / V__i f~o u> o "O -r GRAIN SIZE CURVES cr HYDROMETER t SIEVE ANALYSIS FURNISHED SAMPLES 1/16/79 DEPARTMENT OF ENV1ROMENTAL HEALTH SCIENCES TULANE UNIVERSITY HEW ORL EANS . t Oil 5 I '-`(A U. % SUoOKd Smw Op**w\fi m kithri ro Si 'J U. s SiM Finw by W *h( GORE E N G IN E E R IN G , IN C . SOU. AND FOUNDATION INVESTIGATIONS O l/> s: o w o o p- Z* =' h GRAVEL SAND GRAIN SIZE CURVES SILT HYDROMETER & SIEVE ANALYSIS FURNISHED SAMPLES 1/16/79 ' DEPARTMENT Of ENVIROMENTAL HEALTH SCIENCES TULANE UNIVERSITY NEW ORLEANS, LOUISIANA CLAY STLCOPCB4014710 /y GRAIN SIZE CURVES HYDROMETER & SIEVE ANALYSIS FURNISHED SAMPLES 1/16/79 DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRCMENTAL HEALTH SCIENCES TULANE UNIVERSITY ip./ noi c'.mc i ri i i c i r. i*' Ftn*r by I i i i STLCOPCB4014711 1 11 p P ji<r\ LL, /J GRAIN SIZE CURVES HYDROMETER & SIEVE ANALYSIS FURNISHED SAMPLES 1/16/79 DEPARTMENT OF ENVIROMENTAL HEALTH SCIENCES TULANE UNIVERSITY NEW ORLEANS, LOUISIANA i by I ' '\ i< K i / by Weight GRAIN SIZE CURVES HYDROMETER St EVE ANALYSIS FURNISHED SAMPLES 1/16/79 *n DEPARTMENT OF ENVIROMENTAL HEALTH SCIENCES u3 TULANE UNIVERSITY n t " ti r '' ' r I < r ft i I ll f( C. THE RELATIONSHIP CF WET WEIGHT TO PCB CONCENTRATION. I'0 ^>SH Figures IT and ly compare the weight-ppm and log weight- log ppm correlations of all species combined at Stations 2 and 4, The statistics for all stations are summarized in Table 19. The weight vs ppm plots are significant at 5 stations; 1,2,4,5 and 6, Four of the 8 stations are signifi cant in the log-log model; 2,4,5 and 6. Therefore, combin ing the results of both methods, 5 of 8 stations show a signif-. leant correlation between weight and ppm PCB, itatlons 1,2,4, 5 and 6. Station 1 is significant in the weight-ppm model only and stations 7 and 8 are not significant in either. e The significance levels are not consistently better in either model. The correlation coefficientsf also are not greatly af fected by either mcdel. Four of the 5 significant correlations show a positive relationship between fcedy weight and PCB con centration (Jhtaticns 1,4,5 and 6) while station 2 has a weak but significant negative correlation. From this analysis.then,.there appears to be an increase of PCB level with weight,with the exception of Station 2 How ever the mixture of species causes the correlations to be very 7c weak and in the case of station 2, to be negative. To determine the accumulation trends of each species, - these linear analyses were done on each species at each station. OSw 030751 STLCOPCB4014713 Table! 19 Linear Correlation Analysis of All Species Combined at Each Station on the Weight vs ppm^and Log Weight vs Log ppm^Easis PC3 PC3 Station 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Weight vs prm FCB Corr. R p n 0.40 0,Q001> 80 -0,28 0.006 * 74 -0.13 0.15 57 0.19 0.042 * 78 0.51 0.00001 * 86 0.35 0,005* 52 0.21 0.067 49 0.07 0.37 21 Lo<r Weight vs Log pom FCB Corr.R D 0.05 0.31 -0.31 0.003 * -0.21 0,052 0.35 0,42 0.0007 * 0.00002 * 0.43 0,0006 * 0.16 0.12 0.10 0.33 * Significant, p < 0,05 DSW 030752 STLCOPCB4014714 79. The statistics are summarized in Tables 20 and 21 and Figures and <2,0 are plots of 2 of the significant relationships. Again, there are highly significant correlations between wet weight and ppm FC3 with both linear models. Thirteen of 29 cases or kk% were significant when combining the results of both models. Six of the 13 were significant in both models, 9 in the log-log model and 10 in the weight-ppm model. Of the 13 significant cases 9 have a positive correlation and 4 are negative. These negative correlations are not specific to any one station or species. The correlation coefficients are A*'* greater when analyzing each species sepjL'ately than when they were all analyzed together at each station. The leg-log model gives slightly stronger and mor^highly significant results. In summary, there is a tendency for PCB to accumulate with weight and the log-log model is a slightly better description of the relationship than the weight-ppm model. To determine whether there are seasonal influences cn Vx. C <r`- this weight--ppm relationshipj therefore, the data wa-s^analyzed on the species per station per season basis. The results are shown in Tables 22and23' and Figures 21-23 are plots of some of the significant cases. This breakdown of the data re- .A i suited in some very small sample sizes and thrrre-f--ce^ only those cases with 5 or wore points were analyzed. Of 41 anal yses 12, cr 30/S^were significant. Of the 12, 6 were signifi- DSW 030753 STLCOPCB4014715 O O 'UO J 00*06 00*08 0 Q*U2 00*09 00*05 0 0 *U 00*0* 00*02 O O 'O t 00*0 STLCOPCB4014716 J 'V3 f ao o c 3 *" 9-- $ I *1I * ;i f o o - ;i D ** i oO ?l|i - .1 ill X. i %5 W O ' X 1 1CC f*. fi ' -1 -- t1 : <i! b~ :i t* t T'KoO fIii ft u o I ~ ** * t. vM* 0 5 0! 'i I c = >* $I % J <*> o OI < 11 5 M o OI l v * *-x $ < M r\ t oa t * f- 2 . -t C Wcc Oa O U x, c X* 9 Lu O 2 * 3T 2: < ca JC vJ I *>> p* * 'J* Qo a c m % I ^ i i c/ c '<r O o c? I t I } -X * o o ! to* *- ---------- ! I I o CP i | | ! ii 'i I i o o * % !* S-* I c o !k ! IO i f o o Ox i ! ;o io o o 4 i i <0* I x9 ? O i o o i i : i , CM U"> ! cm rvj r" r"> <\> CM CV s* <\ cv r> <n* * * *i * t4r<**\ *-> .: I fx. . * I C o o o OSW 030755 STLCOPCB4014717 I I o o Ci . c. c ' c o 0I .1 *-* -* *- * aLd oO O 0 . O w C 1 ' *T Oo *\ "S oo c > c. 1 fvj O I I I * * # *M I !I oo o i iI I i ( I i j i i o f r ! i ! C i 5 o I I/ oo Om oo K I 4 i I* i ; o i o i I <S f *t <V 4* iI a oo ma DSW 030756 . 1 STLCOPCB4014718 *j / - f STLCOPCB4014719 Table. 20 The Linear Correlation of Weight and pan PCB of Each Genus-.;: of1 Fish per Station Snecies Gampostoma MM Dorosoma <1 II It * Gambusia II 4t Hypentelium II tl Leponis H It II II II II II II II H It II Micronterus II II It It II II It II M It It II Notropis n ll II Fercina Fhenocobius Flnephales Station 2 3 4 5 8 1 2 1 3 1 2 a 4' 5 6 7 1 2 45 6 7 8 1 2 3 1 2 5 * Significant, p<0,05 Corr. R t04o -0.19 O.56 0.70 -0.10 0.014 0,96 -0.34 -0.04 0.003 -O.36 0.36 0.20 0,56 0.17 0.32 0.35 -0.51 -0.68 0.66 -0.15 -0.118 0.206 0.635 -0.25 0.018 -0.54 -0.41 0.579 0.21 0.26 0.01* 0.003* 0.42 n 5 13 14 13 6 0.35 0.004* 0.15 0.45 9 5 11 8 0.49 0.03* 0.15 0.06 0.000O2* 0.019* 0.067 25 10 47 hS 31 23 0.19 0,} 8 0.045* 0,013* 0,302 0.295 0.328 8 5 6 11 14 23 7 0.001 * 0.95 0.47 20 29 17 0.13 6 0.244 0.030 * 5 11 QSW 030758 STLCOPCB4014720 Table 21 The Linear Correlation of Log Weight and Log ppm PCB of Each TGeruis. of Fish per Station Srecies Campostcma M Dor0soma It ft tf It Gambusia M It Hypentelium II tt Lepomis tt tt tf II tt tt It It M It I* Micropterus ft ft (1 tt it tt ft If It It tt II Notropis tt It ft M Fereina Fhenocobius Fimephales Station 2 3 4 5 8 1 2. 1 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 4 5 6 7 8 1 2 3 1 2 3 * Significant, p 0.05 Corr0 R -0,50 ' -0.26 0.70 0.58 -0.09 -0.10 0.97 -O.56 0.04 -0.18 -0.14 O.bg 0.46 0,52 0,68 0.34 0.06 -0.68 -0,61 0.59 -0.14 -OoO?? 0.404 0.35 -0.41 -0.06 -O.38 -0.28 O.43 T> 0,19 0.18 0.002* 0.01* 0.42 n 5 13 14 13 6 0.38 0.002* 0,03* 0.45 9 5 11 8 0.19 0.24 ' 0.11 0.0002* 0.00009* 0.0003* 0.0519 0.4b 0,09 0.07 0.02* 0.312 O.36 0.18 25 25 10 52 46 31 23 8 3 7 11 14 23 7 0,061 0.013* 0.408 20 28 17 0.22 6 0.32 5 0,089 11 DSW 030759 STLCOPCB4014721 Figure 19 The Linear Correlation of Weight and ppm FOB and Log Weight-Log ppm PC3 STLCOPCB4014722 r *- rw ' OO * .1-2 w o o. - * C 0'. KO o w e! j e1*-' #j STLCOPCB4014723  o 'c O' 1 o I I >I i II lo.oo i*.oo 2n.ooi it.n o 5.on io.no a 4oo 6.oo ! Ii II *.oo ?.oo o.oo OSW 030762 S_>* ' J t o o ! I STLCOPCB4014724 86. cant in both models, 8 in the weight-ppm model and 10 in the log-log model. Ten of the 12 showed a positive relationship between wet weight and ppm FGB and 2 had negative correla tion coefficients. Both of the negative correlations were in different species and stations. From these analyses we again see that there is a tendency for PCB's to accumulate with weight. The increased strength of the- correlations in these analyses indicates that season does influence the relationship between wet weight and FCB concentration. To determine whether a more complex curvilinear model could better describe the weight-PC3 relationship, multiple regression analyses were done on the fish on a species by station by season basis. Of the 41 analyses, 8 had a signifimultiple R at the weight squared level (Table 24)* All 8 were also highly significant on the log-log model. Therefore, there appears to be no reason to use a more complex model. In summary, the analysis of data collected on a riverreservoir system in Alabama shows that the log-log linear model best describes the accumulation of PC3 by fish. It . generally gives slightly higher correlation coefficients and greater significance levels than the simple wet weightppm or multiple regression models do. Both the strength of correlation and the significance levels are affected by the DSW 030763 STLCOPCB4014725 Table 22 The Linear Correlation of Weight and ppm PCB in Each Genus ~ at Each Station and Season Species 1Station Campostoma 3 If II 3 Dorosoma II II 4 5 Hypentelium II II II II i.1 1 1 3 Ispomis II tl II II It II It it tf tl If II II II H it tl It tl 11 II tl 11 II H 11 It M 11 11 Micrpoterus 11 II H 11 M II It II It M IS H It tl 1 1 2 2 3 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 6 6 7 1 5 6 6 7 7 7 8 Season fall spring summer winter fall winter winter fall spring winter summer fall fall winter spring summer fall winter spring summer fall summer summer fall summer fall Summer fall .. spring summer summer Corr. R -0.20 -0.33 -0.09 -0.57 -0.70 -0.31 0.76 0.49 -0.24 "O.36 -0.36 O.83 0.51 0.62 -0.12 0.34 0,32 0,98 0.32 -0.006 0.40 0.32 0.37 -0.13 0.50 0.95 -0.1? -0.70 0.06 0.50 0.31 V 0.32 0,25 0.41 0.11 -0.14 0.30 0,06 'n 5 6 6 7 5 5 5 0.08 Q 0.23 0,20 0.12 11 7 12 0,04* 0,04* 0.006* 0.38 5 12 15 8 0.08 17 0.14 13 0,00001* 9 0.11 15 0.4o 9 0.09 0.11 12 16 0.050* 19 0.41 0,19 0,003* 0.34 0,02* 0.49 0,12 0.30 5 5 5 8 8 6 7 5 * Significant, p 0.05 DSW 030764 STLCOPCB4014726 Table 22 (continued) Species Notropis II II M 11 II M II It It II II II ft Station 1 1 2 2 2 2 3 3 Fhenocobius 2 Pimephales 5 Season spring summer fall winter spring summer fall spring summer fall Corr. R -0.07 0.71 -0,61 0.26 -0.09 -0.10 -0.74 -0.08 -0.41 0.53 p 0.45 0.05* 0.13 0.29 0.41 0.40 0.07 0.39 0.24 0.06 n 7 6 5 7 7 7 5 11 5 9 DSW 030765 STLCOPCB4014727 Table 23 The Linear Correlation of Log Weight and Log ppm PCS in Each enus--' at Each Station and Season Species Station Campostoma M It 3 3 Dorosoma l It Hypentelium II . M It II 4 5 1 1 3 Lepomis M II II It II II II If It It H II It II II It ft H II It It I* It M It It II (t <1 II 1 1 2 2 3 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 6 6 7 Eicrpoterus It It 11 H tl It II II ft II It II If ft 1 5 6 6 7 7 7 8 Season fall spring summer winter fall winter winter fall spring winter summer fall fall winter spring summer fall winter spring summer fall summer summer fall summer fall summer fall spring summer summer Corr, R -0,21 -0.38 -0.15 O.26 -0.53 -0.43 0,66 -0,40 -0,28 -0,30 0.07 0,90 0.30 O.69 0.03 0.69 O.36 0,8Q 0,42 -0.001 0.40 0.69 0.41 -0.30 0.41 0.91 -0,23 -0.87 0.16 0.26 0.41 D 0.31 0.22 n 5 6 0,36 0.30 6 7 0.23 0.23 0.10 5 5 5 0.14 0.20 0.25 0.47 0,01* 0.17 0.001* O.iJo 0.001* 0.11 0,0003* 0.056 0.49 0.09 0,001* 0.03 * Q 11 7 12 5 12 15 8 17 13 9 15 0 s 12 16 19 0,30 0.24 0.01* 0.28 0.002* 0,37 0.28 0.24 5 5 * 8 8 6 7 5 * Significant, p 0.05 DSW 030766 STLCOPCB4014728 Table 23 (continued) Suedes Notropis It It If l It It It tt II M II It t II Station 1 1 2 2 2 2 3 3 Fhenocobius 2 Hmephales 5 dgb son spring summer fall winter spring summer fall spring summer fall Corr. R -0.11 0.29 -0.73 0.65 -0.32 0.02 -0.81 -0.24 -0.20 0.39 p 0.60 0.28 0.07 0.15 0,21 0.67 0.06 0.23 0.32 0.14 n 7 6 5 7 7 7 5 11 5 o qSW 030767 STLCOPCB4014729 STLCOPCB4014730 ?# 2 STLCOPCB4014731 Figure 22 The Linear Correlation of Weight and ppm FC3 and Log Weight-Log ppm PCS QSW 030770 STLCOPCB4014732 Figure 23 The Linear Correlation of Weight and ppm PCB and. Log Weight-Logppm PCB LD5 HEiatTH U E TOTH. PCH TOTH. PCB IPFW3H VCl&fT cem53 DSW 030771 STLCOPCB4014733 Table 24 The Multiple Regression Analysis of Weight and FCB in Each Genus . at Each Station and Season at the Weight*" Level Species Lepomis Station 4 Lepomis 4 Le pomis 4 Lepomis lepomis 5 6 Lepomis 7 Micropterus 7 Notropis 1 Season fall F 7726 Multiple R 0.7 winter .17.00 0.E6 summer '5.9 0.6? winter 103.0 0.98 summer 6.8 0.71 summer 3,63 0.56 fall 8.5 0.67 summer 76,2 c,,c~ R2 0.61 0.74 0.45 0.97 0.51 0.31 O.?0 0or-7 n 11 14 16 3 15 7 5 DSW 030772 STLCOPCB4014734 number of points per plot, the species and season of collection As the data are considered in terms of station, species and season, the sample numbers decrease and so do the number of significant cases. However, greater spcificity increases both the correlation coeffient and the significance levels. In general, FC3's increase with increased weight in all spec ies. OSW 030773 STLCOPCB4014735 D. SPECIES DIFFERENCES IN PCB ACCUMULATION Figures 24 and 25 are histograms comparing the mean FC3 levels of each species in all seasons at stations 2 and ^re spectively. They show that there are large differences in species accumulation. As seen in the Anova Table (# 12), the PCB concentrations of 4 species are significantly different at stations and 5 Although the relationship of each species to the others is not consistent throughout all seasons and stations, there are generalizations about the accumulation of ' PCB by fish that can be drawn. The differences in residue ft levels between the species, and the fluctuating levels of each > species with station and season may be related to feeding patterns, lipid contents or water Quality changes, 1. Water quality as related to the accumulation of PCB by fishj . By comparing the water quality analyses (Table I6T) ci with the fluctuating FC3 concentrations of fish (.Figures and 24-25) the influences of the abiotic parameters on ~ the uptake of PCB by fish may be identified. The changes in residue levels of Dorosoma. Loncmis. Kicrortornr and dIrectly Notropis throughout the stations and seasons do not'coincide with the fluctuations in dissolved oxygen, carter, dioxide, temperature or alkalinity. For example, although temperature DSW 030774 STLCOPCB4014736 vr 7<-/. S.-J ' , SSi'c /<:' `V'ff c.QtJ-l fir, : > * j; ^ ^pO&yCs* ,-f * ' * > " <J L>J / .* ' U > ft '`I'Oi.JOs*i ' '' O J/*>_ ' >, : ^c..v,. V Sr. OSW 030775 STLCOPCB4014737 ... tO 0 . 'rVr/?sO TV7??L Ac/j V/C A At-; V?/-C/6'.J /vcio^i j/^/-/{V y /*)LL SA'/P<SC^lJ \T HO - I 30 ot. /v<? I i l 30??6 b.f,) \ M _, .........._............................sfAiSevS * XUS ~^A/lnlFO TtfT'T? -Sr X* - c^TeTr (pATJ 4? o> Q STLCOPCB4014738 may somehow be affecting the uptake of FC3, the circs ir. tern- perature in the winter coincides with an increase in residue level in Mlcropterus and Lepools at .Station and a decrease / of the mean FCB levels in the same.2 species at ^station d, Therfore, no generalizations about the effect of these pnra- meters can be made. The pH levels are fairly consistent throughout the survey and therefore probably have little to do with the changes of FC3 found in the fish. Turbidity and suspended solids have the same seasonal trends. They are low in the summer and fall ?nd high in the winter and spring. The suspended solids as a mediator of FCB would most greatly af fect Dorpf_oma, a filter feeder* Since Ccrcscm''3, hirher t. mean FCB levels most frequently occur in the fall nn-d--`-r--rrfn-re g'"' ' r> suspended solids probably do not greatly affect }' J2 uptake bvv fish. The limited number of TOC analyv ses makeA* it difficult to draw any conclusions about ItS possible effects on rC3 uptake. The chloride content follows the same pattern a? the FCB contamination. It is highest at Station 2 and decreases with increasing distance from the outfall in all seasons. The 2 control stations have similarly low levels of both chloride c and FCB. However, an increase in chloride at station 5 in the summer does not coincide with an increased FCB concentration at that station and season. Iron also follows the sane pat- DSW 030777 STLCOPCB4014739 loo tern of decreased concentration with increased distance Jin the spring and summer. In the fall and winter, however, ^station 6 has slightly higher levels than Station 4ar.d the iron concentration at stations 1 and 5 is wey* variable. Seasonally, the iron concentration increases from fall to winter, and decreases from winter to summer. Again these trends cannot be correlated with the flu/sUations in FC3 levels in any species at any station or season. There is no correlation of sulfate or conductivity with the seasonal cA" flu^uatior.s in fish, but again, they follow similar spacial etrends which do correlate with FCB levels. In summary, the mean FCE concentration in each species A' at each station flu^uates with the seasons. These seasonal changes in each species vary from station to station, and a comparison of the seasonal fliquations of all species at the same station show that Lepomis and Hlcropterus have similar trends at Stations 2 and 4, and Gambusia and Notropls have a similar trend at Station 2.(Figures 24-25) The seasonal fluctuations of PCB concentrations do not appear to be direct ly related to seasonal changes in dissolved oxygen, carbon dioxide, temperature, alkalinity, pH, turbidity,or'suspended solids. Those water quality parameters that may affect PCB vfTAkf by fish are chloride, iron, sulfate and s^jreS other ions de- <*\ tected in the conductivity measurements. OSW 030778 STLCOPCB4014740 2. Feeding patterns and PC3 accumulation'. Both the trophic relationships of fish and the different methods of food collection may be related to their FC3 bio concentration . The method of feed collection, especially that of filter feoders^may be important when considered in conjunction with the transport, of FC3 in water. Suspended ml ids have often been surgested as ?. major source of PC3 to fish. If this is true, -the filter feeders would be most rroat.lv affected and should reflect the changes seen in turbidity and suspended solids. As seen in the previous section, the sup:ended solids and the mean FC3 concentrations, of Pomsor.c. do not correlate. Therefor", suspended ml ids, while they may be a method of PCI: tmn-pirt, do net appear to be a major source of PC3 con tamination to fish. Table I'O lists f.Ke fish 'bro;: each : .fisc: . r.d season in order from the highest mean concentration (total Id?;} be the lowest along with their trophic relationships and spawning seasons. Although the -eason:-! trend- in "us : ` * are notirelated to PCB concentration In fish* v.notcsyntreble / or -an Ians, however, as a major food sourer? of PCs. to fish have no4 beer, ruled out, A clone lock at tun w-i -"** fus 1 ty (T'-Vl a- 16-12) shows ts n t sprinr collection, i". Jnation 1 ..r.d the summer collectin'; "ror. Station ~ :v~v.e hips di;- lv ; DSW 030779 STLCOPCB4014741 192 oxygen and tubidity and low carbon dioxide Wjich suggests that there may be a great amount of algae or phytoplankton present. Dorosoma, a plankton feeder, however, shows high levels of PC3 in the spring at station 5 ("based on one sample) but low levels at jstaicn 4, summer, "fchere is also no increase in'FCB in.LeDonls, A - --------- which also do some filter feeding, at these same 2 stations. Therefore, although Dorosoma accumulate PC3 to a higher level than other fish, it does not appear to be related to either suspended solid organo-clay complexes or phytoplankton. A look at the other trophic relationships gives the following results; At station 1, the order from highest to lowest FCB level is tertiary carnivore, detritavore, 1st carnivore and omnivore. In this low contaminated control station, there is a nearly normal food chain'relationship with detritavore being second in importance to tertiary carnivore. At stations 2 and ?, those most highly contaminated stations, a similar relationship exists. However, the detritavore accumulates FCB to the highest level. At station 4, Dorosoma accumulates the highest levels and the relationship is herbivore, carnivore, omnivore. As seen above, Dorosoma however,!probably does not accumulate the major portion of iH* FCB from food. Therefore, the food relationship probably does not hold at this station. Station 5 the control station on the Coosa River, shows the same trophic relationship as the other stationsTon Choccolocco Creek. Stations 6,7 and^-8-, however,-are much more variable. At these- stations Leoonls. the omnivore, DSW 030780 STLCOPCB4014742 accumul-tes more FCB, relative to the other species, than they did on Choccolocco Creek* Thei'e are no samples of bottom feeders at these stations, so their relationshipto the other species is not know. It is assumed, however, that they would be relatively high* It appears, then, that bioconcentration is occurring in this system and a trophic relationship is evident with sediment playing a large role in transmitting PCB to fish along with higher food organisms, while suspended solids probably play only a small role. As shown by the high concentrations of ' Dorosoma. there are other factors which influence the accumu lation of FCB by fish. DSW 030781 STLCOPCB4014743 Table 25 List of Genera from Highest Mean Accumulation of FC3 to Lowest at Bach Station and Season Along with Their Trophic Level and Spawning Season Station 1 Fall Micrpterus Trophic Level tert. cam Feeding Type site Spawninr sp-su Mean rCB (ppm) 0.61 Percina t-cam site. 0.41 Hypentel turn detrlt sucker sp 0.20 Gambusia 1st cam grazer sp-fl 0.18 Notropis Lepomis onni. omni. grazer grazer su-f'l sp-fl 0.11 0.11 Winter Micropteru: Trophic Level t-cam Feeding Type site Spawning sp-su Lean FG3 (ppm) 10.25 Hypentelium detrit, sucker sp 0.87 Notropis onni. grazer su-fl 0.73 I.eoonis omni. grazer sp-fl 0.48 Spring Fercina Trophic Level t-cam Feeding Type site Spawning Mean PC3 (ppm) 0.57 Notropis omni grazer su-fl 0.36 Gambusia 1st cam grazer sp-fl 0.35 Lepomis omni grazer so-fl 0*,31 Summer Notropis Trophic Level omni Feeding Type grazer Spawning su-fl Mean FC3 (ppm) 0,73 Fhenocobius detrit sucker sp-su 0.65 Micropterus t-carn site sp-su 0.42 Hypentelium detrit sucker sp 0.35 Gambusia omni grazer sp-fl 0.25 L c 0 fl- fall w- winter sp- spring su- summer DSW 030782 '0 rt; STLCOPCB4014744 Table- 25. (continued) Station 2 Fall Campostoma Trophic Level detrit Feeding Type sucker Spawning su-fl Mean FCB (ppm) 82*67 Gambusia 1st cam grazer sp-fl 51 *66 Fotropis onni grazer su-fl 48,15 Micropterus t-cam site SD-SU 42*30 Lepomis Omni grazer sp-fl 19*69 Winter Hypentelturn Trophic Level detrit Feeding Type sucker Spawning sp Kean FCB (ppm) 56.83 Micropterus t-cam site sp-su 42.14 Fotropis onni grazer 3U-f 1 32.60 Lepomis omni grazer sp-sl 28.41 Spring Campostoma Trophic Level detrit Feeding Type sucker Spawning SU-rfJ Mean PCB (ppm) 46.93 Micropterus t-cam site sp^rsu 29.19 Cambusia 1st cam grazer spTfl 26.96 omni grazer SUrfl 18.17 Lepomis omni grazer so-fl 9.32 Summer Notropis Trophic Level omni Feeding Type grazer Spawning su-fl Mean FCB (ppm) 42.90 Fher.ocobius detrit sucker sp-su 37.59 Gambusia 1st cam grazer sp-fl 21.16 Lepomis omni grazer sr-fl 20.89 Micropterus t-cam site sp-su 14.30 OSW 030783 STLCOPCB4014745 Table 25 (continued) Station 4 Fall Dorosoma Trophic Level plank Feeding Type filter Spawning sp Mean PCS (ppm) 27.41 Percina t-cam site 22.71 Micropterus t-cam site sp-su 17.52 Lepomis omni grazer sp-fl 11.20 Kotemtgon^us omni *' grazer sp-su 4.39 Winter Dorosoma Trophic Level plank Feeding Type filter Spawning sp Kean PCB (ppm) 15*^7 Micropterus t-cam site sp-su 10.75 Lepomis omni grazer so-fl 9.10 Spring Micropterus Trophic Level t-cam Feeding Type site Spawning sp-su Mean FC3 (ppm) 17.72 Lepomis omni grazer sp-fl 11.79 Summer Gambusia Trophic Level 1st cam Feeding Type grazer Spawning sp-fl Mean FC3 (ppm) 19.59 Lepomis omni grazer so-fl 12.37 Dorosoma plank filter sp 7.11 OS W 030784 STLCOPCB4014746 Table 25 (continued) Station 5 Fall Dorosoma Fercina Microp. Trophic Level plank t-cam t-cam Feeding Type filter site site Spawning sp sp-su Kean PCB (ppm) 2.86 2.66 ?*53 Fime ph. detrit sucker sp-su 2*.32 Notrop, omni grazer su-fl 2.66 Lep. Notem. omni omni' graz grazer su-fl sp-su 1.20 0.65 Vinter Roccus Trophic Level t-cam Feeding Type site Spawning Kean FC3 (ppm) 2.86 Dorosoma Micropterus plank t-cam filter site sp sp-su 2.36 1.61 Lepomis omni rrazer sp-fl 0.91 Spring Dorosoma Trophic Level plank Feeding Type filter Spawning sp Kean FC3 (ppm) 8.74 Notropis omni grazer su-fl 4.81 Micropterus t-cam U ut? sp-su 2.27 Leromis omni grazer sp-fl 1.26 Summer Pimephales Trophic Level detrit Feeding Type sucker Spawning st>-su Kean PCD (ppm) l`.84 Micropterus t-cam site sr-su 1.45 Dorosoma plank filter so 1.13 Lepomis omni grazer sp-fl 1.02 DSW 030785 STLCOPCB4014747 Table 25 (continued) Station 6 Fall Dorosoma Trophic Level plank Feeding Type filter Spawning sp Mean PCS (ppm) 5.35 Hicrpoterus t-cam site sp-su 8.47 Leponis omni grazer sp-fl 4*03 Notropi omni grazer su-fl 2.44 Pimephales detrit sucker sp-su 2.13 Spring Micropterus Trophic Level t-cam Feeding Type site Spawning sp-su Mean PCS (ppm) 7.98 . Lepomis omni grazer sp-fl 4.97 Percina t-cam site 3.88 Summer Lepomis Trophic Level omni Feeding Type grazer Spawning sp-fl Mean FCB (ppm) 6.09 Notropis omni grazer su-fl 3.61 Fercina t-cam site 3.88 Micropterus t-cam site sp-su 2.52 DSW 030786 STLCOPCB4014748 Table 25 (continued) Fall Trophic Level Feeding Type Spawning Mean FOB (ppm) Station 7 Lepomis onni 70 T sr-fl 2'.66 Hicropterus t-cam site np-su 2.17 V inter Trophic Level Feeding Type S]N2wnin,g Kean FSB (prn) Dororcr.a plank filter so 3,Co Micro nter1. t-cam site sp-su 1.25 Spring Trophic Level Feeding Type Srawning Mean FC3 (ppm) Kicrcpterus t-cam site SD-SU 2.17 Lepomis omn 1 grazer sp-fl 1.97 Summer Trophic Level Feeding Type Spawning . Mean FC3 (ppm) Lepomis omni grazer so-fl 2.02 Kicrcpterus t-carn site sn-su l`.3^ OSW 030787 STLCOPCB4014749 Table 2% (continued) Statiom 8 Fall Trophic Level Feeding Type Spawning Mean FC3 (ppm) Leponis omni grazer st>-fl 6.28 Dorosoma plank filter sp 4`.71 Roccus t-cam grazer d.crn Hlcropterus t-cam site sp-su 3.01 VI inter Trophic Level Feeding Tyre Spawning Mean FC3 (ppm J Dorosona plank filter sp 6.50 Spring Trophic Level Feeding Type Spawning Mean FC3 (prn) Doronoma plank filter sp U.L6 Hicropterus t-carn site sp-su 3`.14 Motropis nmni grazer su-fl 0.83 Summer Trophic Level Feeding Type Spawning Mean FOB (ppm) Micropterus t-cam site sp-su 2.S? Fotropis omni grazer su-fl 2.22 IlOCCUo t-carn site 1.25 DSW 030788 STLCOPCB4014750 Ill 3. Lipids and spawning as related to PCB concentration! Hie Anova Tables (10 and 11) show that there is a sig nificant correlation between season and PC3 concentration in Mlcropterus, Dorosoma.and Notropis, but not in Lpt-qtis, Gamhusia or Kypentelium. These correlations nay be due to . changes in lipid during spawning seasons. Table 25 includes both the mean PCB concentration of each species and its spawning season. Just prior to spawning, lipid percentage should be highest and therefore FCB's should also be highest* if one accepts the lipid-water partition theory an the main route of FC3 entry to fish. Even though some fish in this study are very snail, the sam" weight fluctions do occur during spawning season (Love,l7l) Microuterus spawn in tho spring and cummer. Figures 10, 24 and 25 show that the highest FOB concentrations in Mlcropterus at Stations 4, 6 and 8 and nearly the highest concentrations at Stations 5 and 7 do occur in the spring collections. Notrepis spawn in the summer and falland the highest average residue levels are also found in these seasons (see Figures 11, 24 and 25),. Dorosoma spawn in the spring relating its spawning season with the correlation between season and FC2 concentration seen in Anova Table 11. Lepom 1s spawn from spring to fall (April to October), Their high residue levels occur over'all'' seasons. There is no DSW 030789 STLCOPCB4014751 112 correlation between season and FCB content in I-e-renin. The lack of correlation between season and FCB concentra tion In Ganhusla and Hvpentellum Is probably due to a lack of samples and therefore, no conclusions can be drawn. In conclusion, it seems likely that the fluctuations in lipid content due to spawning does affect the FCB content at least in some species. The differences in FCB accumulation between species may also be due, in part, to species differences in lipid content. Table 26 shows the lipid content of various fish. As seen in earlier sections, Eorosoma generally accumulate FCB' s to great er levels than other species.and this accumulation is probably not food related. Leror-ona ' 5 high ICE content are pro sally re lated" to their relatively high lipid content. Therefore, the lipid partitioning means of uptake must re very important in the FCE accumulation by this species. The differences in lipid content among the other species is probably not very great and, therefore, their large dif- ,, ferences in FCB content must be related to factors other than lipid partitioning. (NCTEj I am having difficulty finding the lipid contents of many of my species. When I an able to find the information, Table 26 will be expanded and the last para graph' above will be clarified.) Table 26 (Thuston, 1?5?) The Lipid Content of Several Fish (Central States Area) Srecies Doroscna ceredlanum Campostoma sp. Ferca flavier.ee % Oil 23.1 1.2-1.9 0.8-1.1 DSW 030790 STLCOPCB4014752 113 E. METABOLIC DIFFERENCES IN SPECIES Figures Zb-29 show the seasonal differences in the accumu lation of each Aroclor (1242, 1254 and 1260) at stations 1 to 8 in florosoma, Lepomis, Micropterus and Notropie^ respectively. All 4 species accumulate similar relative amounts of the 3 Aroclors at all stations. All Aroclors decrease with increasing P-*' distance from the outfall. Table '13 shows the pe^ent decrease of each Aroclor from station to station In each species. Aroclors 1242 and 1260 decrease most rapidly with distance, while 1254 , Thus, dissipates more gradually, there.are no metabolic differences evident in the amounts of Aroclors accumulated by each species. A comparison of chromatograms can show possible metabolic differences by the absence or presence of different peaks 4 or changes in their relative heights. Figures 30-3V denostrate ' ~ A that all fish of the same species collected at the same station and season have the same peaks in their chromatograms. Figures 25-38 compare all species present at Station 2, .fall"collection. Again all have the same peaks Figures J.9-42 , samples of (Notrocls. , station 2, all season: the same species from the same station but in different seasons 1 show that there are no seasonal differences in the peaks present. The relative heights of all chromatograms discussed above are A. C t*y*n*'*; -f~,V also very similar. Finally, the same species from ( Hicrortenis, stations 2,4 and 6, fall collections) the same season but different stations^(Figures 43~45- ) show^a loss of some of the peaks of lower retention time with increased QSW 030791 STLCOPCB4014753 114 distance from Stations 2 to 6* Otherwise all' peaks are the same with similar relative heights. Therefore, the differences seen in species accumulation of PCB (see section DJ "is- protatly not due to differences in metabolic OSW 030792 STLCOPCB4014754 /J-9A| ; lo'V 4-^q Jt).( c- I/O oc/*-6<l c,*\ \;.. >5" </ <, 1 cT i<7` / , /*r* ?<K ,C ',cv> <tA^, J- issii V J , > 1J 13_____ ______M_ <!p 7 3" s ,r ~?r/s DSW 030793 STLCOPCB4014755 ,`A \ /I ^: a&- t.'/i //'/J nI /j. /. f. ' / i -.Oy /v <>'' I/ -fca. / Jhft. .v ; i iael 6 / STLCOPCB4014756 <'V` 'y.) * ~7'A, >jTV ? ^ 't-Sr I '' S/P "/ZLS s )'.?:-/ * 1 s t--/? Ssy\ MX Oy~) i&> '/I mAJEMm. n.J 'JJL x^ b nor/c^s I .X ,' V ..tt- __ JS*L it, H /f/6ct.r/i x,ry >0 4 STLCOPCB4014757 ' r,.\ ,> Ay >7^ 4 I' ./ tV' *' a rsTL / J *c V\ 'V I?- / i' 0V*^~) yt- I J. J w IBIHi Bill TTfWl I /J flNlMt, *>"' ? tV d- ;/v*'4~ Js?Ma.'S' <9/2 "9*AT/? g y Aj'/-^0/eS T'c/v &.9/Z. .' I~ A ~ tv?; j - J>>2/ ^ c J (y/11 /V, ( / J, DSW 030796 STLCOPCB4014758 STLCOPCB4014759 STLCOPCB4014760 STLCOPCB4014761 STLCOPCB4014762 STLCOPCB4014763 fi/4 */f<f JdT ****6vSts4 K ST<orso /v JV/**** 4/e A CSdtfctyfi/O DSW 0 3 0 8 0 2 > --' --I I STLCOPCB4014765 S V X Jl "M iuO M lU O j D m `$ D lfiO U iS IM u ir i STLCOPCB4014767 STLCOPCB4014768 STLCOPCB4014769 sw 030808 STLCOPCB4014770 STLCOPCB4014771 STLCOPCB4014772 STLCOPCB4014773 11 XT. 3ISCUS3ICM This V0 war undertaken ^ri-^+.- rm:r.e th re'1 = Morr.Mp of the cent---, ruinated a ole tic components (v-riwr, front, run pended -nil dr;) with the bioacrmr.vl =.t* or. of 1C.' by fish; to detenir.*! the half-life of FCT'c in thin re hi."hlv con- ierinated ntreor.; tc he tern: ine whether the rero-r'c :.r her, acted oo a "sink" for FC5 ar^iir^l c-t5.or. end r*-'lor::.;o; *: 'etorr.ir.o whether v:et vreirht-FC? concentration ref at: on:-: l r cxint: r* 'J P0 t. ' i_ f*2. ' I C * ' ' *' ~,r r" V 1 ^ f ' o r- ,-> * r- * ~ - ri r * '* i I- n whether there are differences in specie:' a ecu: -' >, j -. -ur: ^ f~ r> ' ru r- * ^ hcril 'r i'm' 1 er'( x y . - * h ,~x *- m. in.; rectv.ei , food chain re] ationshi r~. , :: i :"fc rer.ee;-. in. Z 1 cici cor.onn traticr.n in. each, species or differ-.nr-- in "ef?- hcZic ability of each species. iMl Ir, order t o acoon ~3- j rh this* the del:'. /"* "*. r~t run -- rori'/ed. The rurr.ary cf the data rrer-erted In. -\-n Ancvr. Tables (b p o 10-*} r;' 'f opow^ t" n * t b c" ;i c''t'n * " M 'oc.r*4 wr: t'** ' ......... '~ ' ' 0..................`A " " ' " "" " ' ' '' 4 r fZ.uer ce the accumulation of FT H by fish. I.1', thin oyster, the r-t-ation location .r.d in. r.cre carer., the vei.rt r.f the orr^r.iem -r- C0..1 ( ", t i p t n i c '-..'O' - * \ r\~ *.*'!* i.cor: i v*: ** r -r.:; * r.< * rr ; 1 '>ov- '^r*''"x\nr'- t.c OSW 030812 STLCOPCB4014774 120C ships* Kany paper;-, hava attempted tc show that there i 3 a cor- relation between length, weight or are of firh and their FCB residue levels (Reinert, 1970; Kelso, lc?^; Bache, 19?") Bache found that all three parameters were significantly correlated to PCB concentration in trcut from Cayuga Lake, There wap, however, considerable variability among older firh than younger and in areas of higher PC? contamination than in' areas of lesser. In contrast, Cl non e_*_ ?.l ., (l??3) reported no correlation of PCB levels in muscle of pike (F.oox 1 v.cius)to age or weight using either wet cr lipid weight based concentrations. Eberhardt (1975) has surgested that , if there is a correlation between weight and FCB concentration, a linear model, using log wei-ht vs log PCE concord ration describes the relationship better than the simple weight vs FCB concentration model, Thun, the influence of fish, weight on PC3 accumulation was examined at each station in this system using both the log weight vs log ppm FCB and weight vs ppm FCB models. The data were analyzed, first using weight as a basis for PCB ac cumulation regardless of species, followed by each species at each station ar.d then or. a species per season "ariso DSW 030813 STLCOPCB4014775 121 The first analysis of FCB accumulation of all fish com bined at each station was clone to determine whether weight, alone i?. the deterr.ininr factor in FCB accrm"0 ation or whether a clustering of each species would become apparent. There vas no clustering evident, however, the weight ar.d FCB concentra tions were significantly correlated, even though their correla tion coefficients w^re very low. This surrest^ that the lipid- water partitioning of FCB may be contributin'' to the PC? con- centra tier, , but that other factors may also have an influence on FCB untake. To determine whether differences in. suedes were influencing this relationship, the dot 7 d S f i < '" *< I j*' / c /? t a s cedes per station basis. In cares, the linear fit be came much closer, however, there were many which showed no Therefore, the difference^ in recien do j^ffect the weight-ppm. relationship, but there must be atr^r fan tore involved. It was thought that season:;! chan/'or in 1 l-1;:: cen- + ant nay he a fr.sjor cau.se of the deviation of srecies from the V# *. t A* 1 i near models, Thus, the data a,- broken down e. uin to the species rer station uer season level end th** 1 'near an.a.lvs:. ',* *y * ' ' 'T^sRf again performed. The linear fit o' t r. r.i. .n! f'cant cases uCdi-v' became closer, however, 5^'! - of the canes wer? :mf ?. dr. i f icar.t- ly corns1 a * rd The results of t k i ntv.dy sm.ow Ire r., in .a- ` -:r , the 1 oc--leg - ode! is a. better rie^cri di cm. of the vei.'.-.t-rrm re- OSW 030814 STLCOPCB4014776 latlonship than the simple weight-ppm model, and that, in gen eral, FCB concentration tends to increase with increasing weight and may be related to both species and season. Fitting data to a linear model is often difficult due to a lack of samples when the data are broken down to the necessary level of species per station per season, and the small variation in the size of the fish. Also, the increased FCB concentra tion with increased weight theory is based on the assumption that the lipid percentage increases with fi^h growth. This is not always true. In wild trout, there was r.o direct correla tion between body lipid content and size (i.ove, l?"l). This may account for the lack of any correlation or lack cf sig nificance in many of the cases. The use of regression models to determine whether a mere complicated relationship between, weight and FCB concern.trailer, exists did not improve the overall results. One can conclude from the above that the i i p-'d-water partitioning of FCB may be a route of entry to fish, but that other factors may be influencing this uptake. As it was ascertained that the weight vs. ppm FCB re lationship is variable, and the range of fish sizes is general ly small, the mean values cf FCB residue in fish v.-ere used to describe the contain inatlor. of the river system and *? r-.ro.-~ the influence of station location which was shown to V a major effect on FCB concentration in the Aaova Tables (l0-!.?). This stream was heavily contaminated with FCF's from 2-yO to l0"'!, r?r'iu\'Dr"i 1 pclic3."tiint. "tri? c*^0;:^ 'vcil.l DSW 030815 STLCOPCB4014777 1 hi~hly CO v * ryv ' r\ *n O T '' t he nrio r ro ur :'o of r\ n.n i , * o or 0 -a r- tn w i th 1 nc-r- p jr \ nr riistanc 0 fren th.e rou rce. 11, t.t' no nr Y to at there is no rr, ayor build -up of FCB in the reset".y;i r. The se f i n.d i nr; s shewn in ind i cate that + p. p PC 5's ltafc, po<o/ Jy- ' * ,or.n i ( 1 0,7 1). are h rhl y :or.or il. Al th ou?;h F J* :' h i * r VTc-O 3 h: :-U affini ty for clay, the difforonce r- in :iont ty * u0 n do r> ot r\ n " ^ ^ v* to hav e a rreat. eff ect cn iA r:i.rt r i.' u in t h i n f-yrter:, i.e. fish fro- areas of hirh clay era or. t (>jt? ticr.n }, L> andj *r-;'c dc nor have h! hnr Ffi ' ccncnr. t nr t.h there froil are-^r r-f icvirr clay content 'S t a t; - Ih Poc'r. r : 1 ?r ? c f ^C 0 /> fj + po rr Df] i - or * t y pe , a re "* r> of r 'tcit 1 hn.'c^pnrl | rw - --Y] 0 ' to ~ , . rrj * *** tion runt bo a result of PCF 'irorr tier to r.t rtrirn" in. those o-.rear. Thu;:, thr: neyor rr-rr S' 3 tbo '* '*ovr then 3.y^ to e iia t- J:r,` sedir FTIi ................................................... ' : . inr? Ir. .1-. " iriy t h n re' u cl r r.o ,por-t ,ar:i sur.ee''ner.tl v aborted ` "e throurh toe skin, cn the ruryer.ded sol ; ir . be5 : * a"Forked t.hrourh the rills or directly inrer.ted? The first step ir. rtucyi nr these "uest i or r : r- to he tern ire whether there 2-re snecis~ differences in h !. .'.ccur.u; o. ttor. , r.e A -ova Tf-'pr: (Tael er 1 0-12 N show that, tr.r'-e " re ** '*. f: cant d i *'rer n f-' s in r;j?cior c on c-~ ~ t r n h i m at yt ~ ~ 11 "'1 '* ,11,. n r : ' * 2 re >.. - ! -y-f.v'-o'- - ere evident when ccoi'v. r: nr all - 1 < - t, tr.e c- * r._ 4 * 7 lei t;ys r t n tcr~m~. r ^r'.mrer v. ; w--. OSM 030816 STLCOPCB4014778 Since ?fJL ' arc tk cur!:t v: re transported na in jy on ru.ocend- cd solids the suspended solids nay fee a route of en.trv i fish, especially filter feederr A comparison of 4 .he fluctua tions in turbidity and -urnended solids and the Fry of lornrcnn, a filter feeder, chow that then is r.o r-'l a t irrs.r i r, a-d therefore, suspended rolids probable dc r.ot .-re" Mv in fluence FC? uptake by f '* sh A com pari sen of the fluctuation:: in. other via ter quality parameters and the chanr-r. in fish Ffk concentrations show the*, only chloride, ".l fate ar.-i of her ions may affect 4he cor.crn ' r tion cf FC3 by fi.-.h. Di-r ' v < 1 rro'-rr., carbon dieri i, alk.al in tty and tenpera tv.'-" r,ir.r' }.- hvvo no re lationship to the differences in FCB 1 *>'?' - in "i.-d c.-.d -far.'" ir, seasons. 'piqrv + r-rj T*p \ C ?.] ' rp^cl^r* Vi Ol'O p^(4 yjc> >'<1 +pn- t JP;"! r- + .U, + h_ - e r- ,4 ^ . 1 1 i } -p, ^ t*r~phic ; -i-p of -a th"h were f nurd ^"ranh'-Vl * -! rilrr n ^ 1 # rfe (>' c.jqnv,' x f^ p c ja s poo] Pc r> -C ^ r- ;, eony]| i . + q OP. '1 T'fi o r- ti i_ 2. vf c e hr l tav ere r j jink "t lvo7rr' n csml vorer- foil owed Vy 1st carnivorer rr.d o^*v' ivornr . 7hi! vr-?; videnoe of a nirenr: fcod chain relationship for ;; concentra tion* Table 27 .shown the general feed classification of there f* * - " p *| T r p 4 ^ ft " ^P. P^ Cl' *'" ' '*"'o *- V- > J' ` . - *-\ ',' (' ' J ^ f a 1 ,-i t Flo's in the foil cw ir.j; order (fren ' ..? lowest': 1* CH rr 1 VCv'c> onr. iv one pl-nhtivcre DSW 030817 STLCOPCB4014779 The detritavcre is ranked so highly because the sed.ir.ent usual ly contains such high levels of FC3. This is the general order of accumulation found in this study. These relationships, however, may net be due to feeding habits alone. As seen above, Dorosoma accumulates very high leve1 s of FOB, This is similar to Risebrouwh 1 s findings (l9',2) in which a planktivore had greater FC2 residue levels than dis fish occupying higher positions in the trophic pyramid. Since Dorasoma do not attain most of their residue from either food or suspended solids and plar.ktivcres usually contain high lipid contents , their high accumulation is probably related to their high lipid cor tents(see Table 26), If accumulation is strictly lipid based, the fish would accumulate FCB's in the following order (from highest ic lowest): * Dorosoma Campostoma Micropte rue . This is also th approximate order found in this study, hewsver, when more data is available, the relaiienrh.i ps will hopefully become more clear. The correlation of FC33 concentration to weight cf ail gnicies ap.d the? npsLwr.inr* "O^.o of Dcmor , '!i c^c^t'V'\r and nlon.f3 "with the hirh aocun.vilat ion. ct thn tv the high lipid species, ~>rorcra, all give a very stverp case * 7^ * r in hr-p o on t.he data t'oun.d in Tat l1? /f* * DSW 030818 STLCOPCB4014780 for thelipid partitioning route of uptake by fish. It is difficult to determine whether the consistent relationships of PC? accumulation among fish shewn in Ta'cle 25 are a result of a food chain or lipid phenomenon.. Since Dorosoma have 12 to 7.0% more lipid than do Cn^po.-fcma while "both accumulate' similar levels of FCB, and the variation in lipid content of the other fish (.Cam post or. a included) is fairly small (based on only limited data) while the differences in PC3 accumulation are sometimes very large, it seems likely that the lipid content is net the only factor influencing FCB . accumulation by fish. Both food and lipid partitioning may be major routes of PC3 entry to fish. Beiritous feeders and tertiary carnivores picn up similar levels of FCB through their food (and seme 1irid partitioning) as do fatty fish (Pore -o~u) through mainly partition!nr. It seems likely, then,that fish of similar body co"position would accumulate similar amounts of FC3 from the water b-.y partitioning, and this accumulation is enhanced by that which is accumulated through the food. " To determine yhether differences in metabolism among specie^^ are causing the differences in species accumulation of } C?' n, many chromatograms, were compared and found to he a Its i identic! e both in number of peaks and relative p^nl: hoi ktr. Tt was there- foassumed that there are n.c great metabolic c irenews among the species. T- co"clusi0" , eg3 *e.'*~e epon ^ w0 immortle sw 030819 STLCOPCB4014781 nalntainlnr b.Lqh level.- near the source of the contamination and slowly declinip(t with increased distance free the outfall, even though the contamination was discontinued seven years prior to the study! the rCB's tend to increase -with increasing weight of the fish; the accumulation of FCB's by fish does not seem to he related to any water quality parameters except chloride, sulfate, iron and other ions which exhibit similar spacial pat terns of water concentration as do the FCu's (as reflected by the fish concentrations); there are species differences, in FCB accumulation; there differences are close!'-' related to both i nr- habits and 1 i rr d ^on tent, s; th e fo '-d chain has 'Jetritavore'~ and t^rtirr" cern.i'.rorec accusul.e.t ir.^ FCr's to th^ hirpoc.t levels ci ow*-_',i t"; "5 nt cav"-i're^ and omnivores ; the 11 n'd relat ior.-- ~V-> : - + ~ '?("'< jar'la t i on. 1 ? shown by the r. 1 -h a ccum:lot 5.en of y.y v.f (hi: K o *'* Vppq the tertiary carnivore'', the cor of r^s -31, on^v.'eirht and Hid cone e'tralion.and th correlation of rn-S'Cnel c'-ar.res in lipid content due to svawnirs and FC2 c on c ^ t11 nr. * and finallv, thr-re are nc rreat mt.abolio dif-- feren1-?'- e-rtc species which could account for tne differences in FIB r'~i lue levels. DSM 030820 STLCOPCB4014782 APPENDIX A PC3 RESIDUE LEVELS OF ALL SAMPLES osw 030821 STLCOPCB4014783 KEY FOR THE TABLES Fish Nomenclature C. anomalun.... * * * Canpostoma anomalum .... ft ft ft ft . .stonerollcr D. cepedianum,. a ft .Dorosoma cepedianum .... ft a ft ft ft ft ft ..gizzard shad G. af Finis,.... ft ft ft .Cambusia affinls ............... a ft a i ft mosquito fish H. otowanun.... a * Hyp-ant. el lum etowar.um..,, ft ft ft ft ft .hog-sucker 3j * sp # a *Hkpens sp# * ft a ft a a a a v . sunfish M i .Mic'-or)teru3 r.n.,.,,..,. ft ft ft ft ft ft ft . bass N. crysolnucas. a a * .Noteniysnus crvsolaucas. ft ft ft ft ft ft ft . golden shines N. stllblus.... a ft V No~.ropisti lb ius ...... ft ft ft ft a ft ft .silverstrice shiner N. teranus, . ... N. Vanuatu-,.. ,, a ft .Notrooir, ver.ustus ...... blackball shiner P. caorode-.... a * a .Porcino, canrcdes........... .. .log oorch V. nigrofacinta , rorci.na. higrofaciata.... ft ft ft a ft ft .blnekbandel darter Fbr.ocobius sp. ,minnows P! rephales up. Poseur, chrysops .while bass LOCATION OF THE STATIONS Station 1: Choccolocco Creek, Highway 9 Bridge cross inn;. (control) Station 2: Choccolocco Creek, Highway 109 Bridge crossing . Station 3: Cheeha Creek, Highway 109 3ridge crossing, (control; Station 4: Choccolocco Creek, Highway ?7 Bride crossing, Station Station u5r :J Coosa Coosa River, River; Highway 72 Bridge crossing (control) Stanley Bridge, Logon Martin Reservoir. Station 7; Logan Martin Reservoir, above Logan Martin Dan, Station 8. Logan Martin Reservoir, below Logan Martin Don Station 9> choccolocco Creek, Highway 109 Bridge crossing,(between station 2 and 4). OTHER COMMENTS 1) Average weight - the weight per fish from a composite sample of fish of approximately the same length & weight; given in grams wet wt. 2) All Aroclors are in ppm based on wet weight. DSW 030822 3) (--) in a column means that the data is not yet available. 4) The DDE column: an (X) is placed in this column if the ng of peak 100 (assumed to be DDE) represents greater than 30% of Aroclor 1254. When this occurred, the data was adjusted so that the peak (100) represented no more than 25% of the Aroclor 1254, and this data is presented in the table. (All) means that only DDE was found in the sample. (This hopefully eliminates a great DDE influence on the dam.) STLCOPCB4014784 Table 1 FALL 10/5/77 ' Station 1 far. pi 3 *.rU7l\}DT 50 61 (.2 ' 29 64 60 28 63 65 ' 57 58 56 54 55 66 6? 59 66 71 72 70 6o 75 74 73 52 53 Sp-ecian 1. macrochirus MH 1* It II L, megalotlo L. macrochirus it M t# M li II M. pur.ctulatus . cossae M, p.-notulntur. II It It ti H. elowarun M li * M l U, vcnurtus n li it ii *t F. nr^rrirciavi H It M t P, Cc: proler G. a: Tin!a Averorrr* Wci ht .273?.2770 .48.5 6 .5419 .7333 .8881 1.0163 1.7199 1.7672 4.8570 6.7548 O.603I 11.8104 12.9858 2.8954 4.=829 6.4714 7.4993 .3360 .468: .r'5^3 I.5I2I .t?M7 .8814 2.9405 4,2306 .40>J5 1242 .0000 1 .0742 .0169 .0000 .0276 .0852 .0213 .0329 .1199 1254 .0000 .0544 .0585 .0000 .1415 .0956 .O856 .0829 .0568 .1046 .0814 .5527 .0169 .0171 .1403 .196? 1.695.2 .0272 .1705 .4163 .0G?0 .0437 .OI54 1 .0343 .1016 .0753 .0096 -01 85 .0126 .0032 .0561 .0726 .1299 .0236 .0239 . 0201 .0633 * - wl v ,0170 . 2254 .0886 ,10?S .0779 1260 .0000 ,0070 .0070 .0000 .0041 .014? .0013 ,G06l .0034 .0061 .0169 .0145 .0007 .004? .0100 .0025 .0104 .?0':4 .02; -1 .('30L 'AO'l .00? 3 V ,02':',0 .0458 .0041 .0003 lo tal .0000 .1359 .0825 .0000 .1733 .1958 .1060 .1220 .1803 ,2pll .2972 2.2655 . 044? .1925 . .530? .020? .1553 or, no ^ /1-. .0013 .] 414 .o?:> 5 .1431 . 37]. On .099? .3314 .1523 .1681 DOS' all X X all X x X X X X X X X X X X X X X V X X X X DSW 030823 STLCOPCB4014785 Table 2 Winter l/l6/?8 Station 1 Sam pi e Number 175 170 173 172 171 Seeder? H. etowanum I* It II II l l II tl 167 168 16? L. macrochirus II It M < _ 1?6 175 1?9 8. venusie If M M II 166 M. punctr : ' t Average Weight .4960' 1,5400 1.9776 2.5081 3.4266 .2242 .418? ,5449 .104? .4980 2.1670 11.46 1242 .1201 1.4966 .0735 .1506 .0050 .0196 .1633 .1975 .1201 .6813 I.7I6I 1254 .2415 1.2519 .0977 .1548 .0320 .0675 .6067 .2003 .2415 .5436 6.5/0 1250 .0309 .5266 .0226 .O826 .Oi'jU .0010 .1190 .0438 .090-' 9;*o0 1.9476 10 tnl .4526 3.2774 .1940 .3669 .0502 .0634 .8691 .44).=; .4 32o 1.7224 10.2513 DDi X X X X X Sam pie Number 268 293 289 294 290 291 ?. 6-4 292 285 286 267 Spec? L. nacrcj ' 1 u L. megalo', :.s L. nacrochiru:;L. megalcr i ", L.macrocl!ru- It If Xj* rip * L. macroc Y* 4 s p M It ft ft 271 272 2?3 274 27? 270 275 N. venud ? i *1 > It 1* ii '!. texunu.- <1 fi N. venust. 'm Table 3 Spring 6/14/73 Station 1 Average Waig.c t 35--1 .4141 . 5613 66uo .?2G5 1.0221 1.2662 1.3543 1.4896 1.7472 2.5468 .3190 .6433 .Oo?3 1.8291 3.5472 3.9985 1249 .0800 .0525 .0632 .0308 .047/ .1655 .0375 .0357 .0220 .0253 .0372 .0406 .0794 .0755 .0592 .079; .0470 .0517 1284 ,108) .1902 .3326 .1022 .1931 .7499 .1646 .1351 .2016 .1078 .0760 .2317 .4023 .1532 ,1535 .1602 .2160 .2732 It AO ,C=.vc . O6.SO ,0S03 .0475 .04-26 .{prn .0*4.6 .0375 .O577 .0223 ,0055 .0570 12C7 .0650. .0411 f. 4 j1- ^ .0Gu6 .0355 To: al .1719 .3166 .4io2 .1605 .8 536 ,9905 .2453 .2534 . 5.Cl4 .1555 .i] 54 .3293 V ' 1 L C> .2748 . 2 ; 3 9 . 99 .335? .4106 OSM 030824 CDS X X / X X r. X :< X X X X X STLCOPCB4014786 Sample Number 27 8 ` 279 2 CO 231 282 283 Spicier* G. alflnls i t it .M M Average Vainh t. .3016 5290 .6122 .7755 P. nigrofaciata 1.2649 It M I.5836 Tab.ls 3 (continued) 1242 .0232 .0509 .0483 .1122 .O696 .1166 1254 .I638 .3015 .1730 .2700 3399 .3440 .1260 .0573 .1036 .0373 .0731 .1273 .1530 Total .2493 .4561 .2oj*j .4553 5374 .6137 DD3 X X X X Table 4 Summer 8/3/78 Station 1 Sample Number 524 523 522 521 513 517 514 518 515 516 500 510 511 590 5?S 527 519 506 Specie? G. affinis It 11 II H II M Average Weight .4732 .5721 .7652 1.1721 1242 .0537 0625 ' .0460 .0365 N. stilbius 11 M N. vemiatun N. stilbies N. vem:-'.')'! II 11 H. etov-anu-. M ' it ' .4348 1.8439 2.1788 2.4117 6.0999 8.8915 1.0752 1.6602 .1694 .1055 .1382 .0316 Co?? .7235 .0685 .0490 T.. macrocr.'.ru-, i n 1* M 1.6672 3.0578 4.5279 .0233 .0210 .1151 M. punclujatur 1.5488 M. coo:n: 1.7708 .0465 .0764 Fher.acobius s?. .1766 1254 .2234 .1653 .1296 .1240 .3635 .3047 .3650 .1343 .2166 1.1080 .2753 . 2486 .1073 .1693 .1701 .3350 .2496 .3970 1260 ,0684 .0406 .0391 .0386 .0811 . O856 .0793 .0640 .0786 .2595 .0570 .0308 .0355 .0391 .0761 .0734 .0755 0 00 Total .3455 .2691 .2147 .2012 .6341 .4960 . 5626 . 2499 .3626 2.09U .3561 .3542 .1615 .2260 .3273 .4578 .3993 .6501 DOS X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X osw 030825 STLCOPCB4014787 Table 5 Fall 10/5/77 Station 2 Son pie Mun1 her ?M 243 244 2^6 , Species L. cyane.llus HH L. megalotis 1 (I 25 265 M. coosae * * 76 G. affinic. 79 G. an on a.1 uc 60 M '* 76 M II 77 I u 83 N. venuntno 84 n n B5 fl M 81 It M S2 U ' Average '.'eight 7.6603 25.3639 30.6782 35.9327 6.0728 19.3908 2.3741 2.0577 3.0577 5.9165 8.0441 .2466 .3571 .493? .6964 1.1029 1242 11.6756 6,7503 9.1720 9.5503 250950 11.7530 22.3513 53.4825 50.6953 49.6289 52.8870 78.1123 17.8611 20.7956 63.7689 5.3523 1259 12V3925 6.9504 6.3023 6.0926 27.5447 10.9691 24.9336 29.7584 23.9907 24.2808 26.2899 70.3948 21.3313 20.6274 30.4316 5.128? 1260 1.50 37 3.4557 1.8793 2.2384 3.1036 5.5532 1.6235 7.3000 3.8572 .9125 5.0390 20.9093 1.3897 1.4621 3.9556 , .4954 Total 25.5510 17.1591 17.3537 18.7319 56.3300 28.2756 51.6610 95-5410 78.5020 74.5970 82.0490 169.4165 40.5730 62.8971 93.1767 10.9797 Table 6 Winter I/I0/7S Station 2 San pi e Nunbsr I3j 132 181 1 80 179 17 8 177 134 1 "? 186 135 1O0 191 13 la2 133 Spec'en 11, ver.ustnn M il 41 H 4 HU ** H *1 <1 Average Weight .4979 .7639 1.490o 2.5873 3.006? 4.5071 9.0587 M. punctulatna 6.1C64 L, megaiotis II II <1 t> 44 It 1* M 1.7415 2.4113 3.7003 9.30S4 10.1466 11.963? 14.8733 H. e towar.''.i!\ 3.2172 12-4,2 9.2764 16,7666 17.2427 17.9524 11.8716 12.2032 15.9478 I9.I690 15.3324 15.2825 6.3014 10.7333 13.5570 8.5603 4.6448 25.2631 1254 7.8145 15.2037 16.2598 15.9606 l'.;.S635 11.7626 14.1500 16-1953 13.9744 15.3493 6.4746 11.5852 12.503? 10.223? 6.8723 22.4913 1260 1.52o? 4.2733 5.9139 4.7594 4.5554 7.1459 6.1547 6.8041 vO <M CO 0m 0 3.7511 4.1573 3.8782 3.3639 75076 10.1306 6.1404 3 <y> 0 Total 18.6159 36.2467 39.4166 39.2653 27.3157 31.1118 36.2385 42.1491 33-6252 37.7897 16.6583 30.6880 33-5684 23.9140 17.65?7 9.C760 56.3310 STLCOPCB4014788 Table 7 Spring 4/l4/?8 Station 2 Sanpie Number 295 296 297 302 301 300 303 304 299 28 305 305 373 Species C, anomalun Average Weight 6.2150" G. affin.ls 1.0331 N .venustus .8392 M It tt M 3.0358 3.6547 MM 5.4645 M. chysocephalus 5.4670 ~ tt - 6.8252 N. venustus 11.1818 *1 14.2448 L. megalotis tt li 5.6778 9.8023 M. coosae 80.0912 1242 ' 21.9168 11.7896 13.2897 7.8671 11.1193 8.2131 5.0636 5.8821 11.5900 8.2627 5.6467 4.3733 11.3965 1254 IB.6765 11.5362 11.5408 5.9867 7.9279 6.7937 3.3106 4.9030 10.2325.7536 4.4591 2.7771 11.4916 I260 6.3407 3.6411 3.7021 1.2732 1.7042 1.5121 .7802 1.2389 5.3543 2.0892 .9695 .4175 6.3075 Total 45.9342 26.9670 28.5327 15.1272 20.7514 16.5190 9.1544 12.0241 27.1773 16.1055 11.0718 7.5730 29.1956 Table 8 Summer 8/3/7-3 Station 2 Sample Number UQl 4oo 49c 488 467 4^6 405 403 404 UC? 504 503 502 Sue 'Phenacobius tt it M It sp. If tt 1 tt Average Weight 5723 .8847 1.0193 1.4740 1.7675 N. stilblus * it ft tt 11 N. venustus it it M tt .9782 1.1343 1.4902 1.4945 2.7637 4.8050 8,5410 18.1093 1242 17.31.31 22.0199 24.4709 17.9782 18,9130 14.1781 14,6003 21.3393 17.4077 21.1590 15.7528 14.1797 8.6714 3 294 13.0177 15.3359 15.4620 12.2432 12.9184 13.3S47 12.8022 24.4323 13.298? 24,1969 16,8469 12.296? 21.5163 1260 3.9533 5.0202 4.420? 3.5081 3-3914 5,0464 6.4638 9.5856 6.2092 11.6814 IO.432O 8.0094 12.2468 Total 34.2643 42.3762 44.3537 33.7345 33.2229 33*8792 33.8665 55.3603 43.9157 57.0674 43.031? 34.5044 42.4373 DSW 030827 STLCOPCB4014789 Sample Nunb~r 49 8 50? 505 506 497 549 552 551 547 54b 54 5 548 501 49Q 500 550 Species L. sp. L. marginatus L. megalotls M II L. macrochirus M II ft *1 L. cyanellus L. megalotis tt L. macrochirus C. affinJ.s l tl M. punciulatus Table 8 (continued) A Weight .1911 4.3067 8.8563 11.3385 13.3494 23.1021 25.6936 33.0074 33.7430 37.2835 46.8474 46.8784 1242 1254 5.8472 5.6764 21.6036 9.5920 8.0930 14.2405 . 10.9537 7.2379 7.1229 9.394? 7.8549 6.7656 8.6778 8.3582 ' 9.3672 5.4105 6.9748 5.4704 9.0745 2.8570 7.9290 5.7048 10.2453 8.C063 .2270 .7127 .8057 4.5827 14.1007 12.07C5 4.0006 12.3373 10.8732 34.8773 6.0809 3.8507 1260 1.4434 5.4981 2.7069 3.1260 3.2678 2.2593 5-5837 3.2930 2.6791 3.5940 4.6777 3.4511 .5993 2.6769 2.0470 2.3704 Total 12.9672 66.0557 19.5370 13.3445 27.5032 16.8793 21.6238 17.0618 15.1244 20.5976 13.2396 21.7628 9.1S27 29.3152 24.9910 14.3022 Sam pi e Number Q5 93 94 2 91 po 90 43 88 e? 4? 41 86 40 37 36 Specter N. sp. tt M II II II . 1 I II L. cyanellus it ll L. macrochirus L cyan ell u.? L. macroehi rur> H. e tov~ rrp H. eto'.-auum G. afflair, <* It M- coorae l* Table 9 Fall IO/5/77 Station 3 Average Vei-rht 1.2632 2.0157 2.0683 2.5253 4.4294 2.7989 4.0521 6.0652 7.4903 10.5992 1.B3V'7 3.9677 .2032 .3039 2.2372 4.9673 1242 1.2064 .4861 .2776 .2397 .2875 .0931 .1192 .0352 .1633 .1827 .1112 .0543 1.3330 .0592 .0352 .0000 1254 2.6538 2.5927 1.8724 1.0488 1.1371 .1519 .3067 .3754 1.0373 .5082 .2S90 .2502 1.9105 .2937 .pSyO .0000 1260 .8069 .3307 .2265 .1768 .1655 .0312 .0473 .0796 .116? .4328 .1020 .1179 .1318 .0458 .0299 .cono Total 4.1672 3.4590 2.3770 1.4253 1.5933 .2764 .4733 .49-00 1.3172 1.1233 .4720 .4220 3.3760 .3990 .3501 .0000 2.0s X X all osw 030828 STLCOPCB4014790 Sanpie Number 38 22 39 98 99 9? 100 101 96 102 Species P, nigrofaciata M tt . C. anomalim ll ll l M M It II M H II II M Table 9 (continued) Average Veight 2.8013 3.4142 4.6 897 1.5232 2.3961 3.2028 7.1151 9.5790 11.2848 14.1099 1242 2,3560 .0040 .7104 1.8991 .1163 .1229 .1182 .4790 .0470 .9091 1254 7.0063 .3403 4.4427 4,0808 .7078 .56OI 1.207? 1.7011 .4221 2.0795 1260 .9959 .0402 .6407 .5237 .0947 .0941 .2351 .1850 .0267 .3143 Total 10.95o0 .4132 4.6897 6.5003 .9166 .86?4 1.5616 2.3653 .4950 3.1632 Sannle Nur. her 262 203 201 200 199 198 197 196 195 269 104 Specie:H. etc-anun n 11 ti it ll ti * II t| L. megalotic * n t* II L. macrochirun N. ver.ustus Table 10 V,'inter 1/16/78 Station 3 Average V/eiirht 2.9003 3.0511 5.6232 7.9479 10.2373 19.0121 2.3470 3.9173 10.0416 70.3216 .4241 1242 .0336 .0117 .0296 .0289 .0947 .026? .5936 .024? .0992 .2530 .4094 1234 .0632 .1184 .083? .1285 . 2 560 .1753 .4614 .1265 .2371 .6691 1.1603 1260 .022o 0553 .1028 .0199 .1230 .0357 .1047 .0665 .0917 .1932 .4526 Total .137ci .1855 .1420 11V 7 4 .4?6d .2374 1.1795 .2170 .4281 1.1155 2.0225 DC a X X X X X X X X X X DSW 030829 STLCOPCB4014791 Table 11 Spring 4/14/78 Station 3 Sample Number 325 324 316 323 322 321 310 317 320 313 307 308 300 319 314 315 313 311 312 375 Average Specles WeIffht N, texanus i >1 1.7199 2.0627 N. stilbius N. texanus 2.3725 2.6045 (I 11 3.7161 N. stilbius 3.7572 N. chysocephal us4,00l6 fl. stilbius 6.0391 1* If If * 5.2842 5.3106 N. venust-us 4.5501 L rnacroebiru* 9.2246 M. COOSH' 6,2905 P. nigrc, fa cl a t a 1.2640 C. anonalum . II 1 t M 1 If II If II 2.7370 3.6313 4.2492 5.656? 7.9267 20.6925 1242 .325^ 1.2005 .5036 .2679 3149 .3609 .7019 .7624 1.9309 .243? .3290 .1136 .1490 .1918 .0343 .2991 .0701 .0407 .2333 .1319 1264 1.3664 3.4823 2.1819 1.8780 1.1389 l.o9?5 2.6689 3.4316 6.1734 1.1399 .4672 .3576 1.1311 .7353 .6013 1.3260 .3263 .2296 .4251 .3571 1260 .5551 1.1332 .7252 .5486 .2927 .3193 .9395 1.2379 1.7471 .3535 .2433 Total 2.26?5 5.8162 3.4158 2.6946 1.7466 3.060? 4.3104 5.4319 11.8515 1.7423 1.0402 .1633 .6351 .6397 1,9144 .3606 ' 1.2879 .1989 .6-824 . 2276 .0454 i860 .0701 . 866? 2.1066 .6241 .3160 .6435 .5593 DSW 030830 STLCOPCB4014792 Table 12 Fall 10/5/77 Station 4 Sample Number 104 105 106 27 117 no 120 103 122 123 118 124 26 116 109 109 107 111 110 112 113 114 115 Srecies L. nacrochlrus II It l >1 H II L. megalotls M 11 1 II L. macrochlru.'-j L. me";aiotir> If H II 1* II fl t.'. cryeoleucaa. it li D. coper lanum If li n i P. caprela.- It f' M. punc-: tl If 1 II %' M IJ Average welent 2.1966 2.9817 3.9124 4.8491 4.6733 6.3104 7.5744 8.7304 11.4249 13.7299 14.1414 14.8035 8.0749 8.4581 9.7376 10.0011 11.3499 I.9752 3.5513 4.4663 5.4354 8,6202 10.^935 1242 5.1913 6.5909 4.4537 4.5163 2.1054 3.0310 4.6382 4.2434 5-0564 7.1043 6.2773 5.2245 1.2370 1.3783 9.9501 14,2057 7.6043 6.4980 12.8138 5.3770 8.4165 6.0582 3.1286 1254 6.1254 6.60C6 4.2965 5.9431 1.664? 3.5581 4.5078 4.7139 3.6657 7.6212 9.6294 7.3584 2.3322 2.2531 14.2532 17.7011 9.5556 8.654m 17.236?. 7.6 828 13.~677 9.6792 8.3-247 1?60 . c 07 5 n 1 7CDJ . 5768 .630? .1751 .2401 .6783 . 567 4 .4783 1.4j03 1.5618 1.3774 .3340 1.1653 5.3103 3,1472 1.4833 1.9652 1.0050 2.1963 1.4042 1.8395 Total 11. '546 14.1610 9-3355 11.04 50 4.2250 7.4393 9,82439.5251 9.2008 1:5.2 363 17.6886 13.9904 3.r;o^0 4.8178 27.1362 34.9503 20.'200 16. '''.86 25.7790 14. 5702 24.3500 17.3417 13.7923 DSW 030831 STLCOPCB4014793 Table 13 './Inter l/l6/?8 Station 4 Sample Number 212 204 206 205 214 215 208 217 207 216 213 253 252 251 250 249 211 210 209 24? 210 218 Species L. megalotis L.macrochirus M * HM L.megalotis M L. macrochirus L megalotis L.macrochirus L. megalotis 11 it tf M M ! L. naerochIrus Average Weight .9900 1.2290 1.3254 1.7458 1.8308 2.1524 2.4059 2.5511 3.4132 4.1435 5*1205 . 23.2148 29.8491 39.3579 49.6747 64.3015 D. cep-*diana~i II t( II M t M 7.3637 7.5341 10.1191 34.1144 M 0 ccos-ie t h 9.7859 14.4093 1242 1.7594 .5055 .9949 1.3363 2.3300 2.8515 1.1450 1.4196 1.2149 3.5729 1.5357 -- 5-2796 6.1021 6.2332 3.1502 4.7863 6.2321 2.6004 7.o?49 5.6938 3.5215 1254 4.0724 2.4306 2.6212 3.4S33 4.3323 5.9119 2.7679 3.7281 3.5610 3.9721 2.9533 -- 7.5713 7.7304 7.6711 4.0404 6.2385 6.6265 2.9582 10.2486 5.6988 3.5215 1260 1.67oO .8466 1.2132 1.9391 2.0640 4.1437 1.4338 1.3360 2.2212 1.7201 .9904 -- 3.5540 2.3695 3.0846 1.5112 4.1031 3.7603 .7361 7.4723 4.6226 1.9400 Total 7.7079 3.7323 4.3294 6.7639 8.7769 12.9071 5.3^69 6.4339 6.9971 9.2652 5.4800 16.4054 16.2020 16.9891 3.7019 15.1279 16.6690 6,23^8 25.3959 1^.0314 7.4264 Sam pi e Number 332 333 331 32 330 328 327 326 334 Srecies L. marginatus L. macrochirus L. marginal us t* 11 1 > *' It * M, pen0tulatos Table 14 Spring 4/14/78 Station 4 Average Weight 12ilZ 2.7325 3.3242 3.7239 4.3344 4.358? 10.5X41 13*5351 20.9773 1.3951 1.007? 2.3256 5.064-4 2.6225 1.3624 3.2574 3.0563 1284 5*9531 3*2516 4.6230 12.3239 5*3414 4.9^90 6.4473 4.4313 10.9306 I.6367 8.0657 1260 4.?osi 1.1659 2.2723 7.3262 2.5062 3.S673 3.0733 2.1692 8.0135 Total 11.5588 5.4254 6.9215 24.714S to.5021 9.7783 12.7832 9.6568 17.7230 DSW 030832 STLCOPCB4014794 Sample Number 428 427 430 429 426 425 424 448 441 446 447 435 442 445 643 444 436 440 431 434 433 432 433 499 437 Table 15 Summer 8/3/78 Station 4 Species I), cepetilanum H 19 9* M < M M tt It G, affinis L. mucrocturus L. pp. II *( L. eye. melius L.macrochi L. nicroloph'is It 11 L. narglna tu> L. cyaneHus L. maer'ochi 'v-. L. cyan'11 us * ft II il It II I,, mage.lct.ln M it * IT Average Weight 2.7498 2.7939 3.5307 3.8151 4.5503 4.9130 5.0733 x .2359 .3751 .4205 .5133 .7155 .7596 .8277 6332 1,006? 1.0405 1.o986 2.2295 3.1657 3.9559 8.7307 10.9361 10. 9973 11.8181 1242 2.5087 3.3218 2.3174 2.1136 2.6393 3.4333 2.4676 3.3761 1.0072 .9603 1.3556 1.0776 1.559.6 2.3773 3 j i H 2.2563 1.3977 2.7614 1.8219 3.0221 10.9560 3.5708 4.0612 3.9904 4,3049 1254 3.1310 4.8182 3.7065 2.0S63 2.7223 4.9486 2.6231 11.68?5 2.4526 2.9645 3.2366 5.7723 4.7164 3.8517 9.2 2'rO 3.5231 4.52 57 7.5557 7.5876 5-9722 21.2076 6.8905 7.4993 7.1512 7.30?6 1260 .8504 1.6121 1.2610 .7325 .7027 1.6573 .6272 4.3333 .S936 1.0793 1.3057 2.4993 1.7223 1.4975 3.9805 1.0426 1.5519 2.6631 .6134 2.?236 8.3046 4.0644 3.4?3 3.3618 3.5538 Total 6.4903 9-7521 6.1897 5.5326 6.06 49 10,0442 5.71S1 19.5979 4.3533 5.0047 5.8760 10.1403 7.9967 7.7256 15.593? 6.3273 7.4?54 12.9853 14,0231 13.242? 40.4707 lacu.6.70 15.497s 1-4. ^236 15.1663 DSN 030833 STLCOPCB4014795 Sample Number 141 142 120 146 144 148 149 32 14? 31 150 129 143 137 133 176 139 134 138 135 13? 131 125 126 127 140 130 33 Species L. macrochirus If II L.microlophus . L. megalotis L. macrochirus megalotis M II L. microlophus L.megalotis L. microlophus L. megalotis L. microlophus L. macrochirus Pinephales sp. It M II I* 1 11 I* M II *> M II II >1 D, cepeuiar.um 1 M N. cry-deuce N. venustus M. puncLulatus P. caprodes Table l6 Fall 10/5/77 Staxion 5 Average Weight .9060 1.4070 2.0400 2.0894 2.4353 2.7171 2.7849 2.8858 3.1929 3.5555 4.2168 5.9076 11.4299 .1348 .1952 .9168 2.1683 2.2174 2.3221 2.4670 2.814S 3.3437 . 5.0749 17.3150 1.5495 1.4312 5.0548 12.1416 1242 .1674 .1057 .118? ,1636 .2172 ..12 .1817 .0799 .710 .1225 .1517 .2684 .1082 .1390 .1244 .2433 .1857 .1778 .3382 .3901 .1939 .5022 .4273 .8754 .1474 .1557 .1245 .4592 1254 .3733 .6410 .5043 . 8822 2.0555 .7393 .9762 .4947 1.0579 .8136 .7006 1.3913 1.3019 1.1514 .9428 1.5606 1.6201 1.2474 1.9543 2.906? 1.5354 4.3089 1.7355 2.4517 .2085 1.8598 2.0564 2.1071 1260 .0572 .0477 .0841 .0664 .2130 .0603 .0915 .024? .0950 .0411 1342 .1339 .1740 .0567 .0376 .0642 .C90S .0689 ,1055 .1771 .0?06 .2522 .5260 .0966 .0886 .3045 .3533 .0977 Total 1.0979 .7945 .7072 1.1124 2.5003 9552 1.2495 .5994 1.3362 .9772 9366 1.793? 1.5519 2.5217 1.1362 1.6689 1.5?67 1.4004 2.3982 3.4742 1.6000 5.0983 2.3157 3.4237 .6530 2.3201 2.5370 2.6640 DSW 030834 STLCOPCB4014796 Sample Number 22.7 228 226 221 225 222 223 224 257 229 232 233 270 230 254 220 255 256 Table 17 Winter l/l6/73 Station 5 Species L. macrochirus MM II II L. megalotis II If M If It II L. macrochirus il II D. cepedlanum II II II II II it * If ! M M. punctulatus M. salmoides Roccus chryr.ops Average Weight .3950 .8707 1.0992 1.3817 1.9668 2.0925 3.2926 3-6123 30.7078 4.2895 4.9291 5.5039 6.3879 9^5379 26.1044 2,7074 21.4469 40.7712 1242 .0032 .0084 .0248 .0291 .0318 .0506 .035? .0330 .5084 1^54 .0430 , .1849 .4611 .6271 .5547 .6700 .7059 .5618 2.510? .2153 .1864 .7791 .5442 ,0452 1.0286 1.2418 1.2946 1.8635 1.9984 .4733 2.6953 .0403 .2243 I.O657 1.3765 .3351 3.0676 1260 .0060 .0316 .0644 .1036 .0784 .0700 .1059 .0014 .6583 .0?42 1.201? .8976 .1681 .0498 .4944 .1631 .3692 .8420 Total .0523 .2250 5504 .7599 .6650 .7908 .8476 .6763 3.6770 1.5314 l.6013 3.5403 2.70?? .5603 4.2184 1.2691 1.9701 4.2548 DD5 x x X DSW 030835 STLCOPCB4014797 Sam pi e Number 350 351 379 352 379 3n0 359 368 369 960 383 387 358 366 3-85 364 354 353 355 377 356 Species M. punctulatus !'. ccosae II H D. cepedianim ! M L. macrochirus MM L. marginsiur. L.symnmtr:! curL, margirvitus symfte'.ric'Jo 0. marf1' mtus i l> l It l 1 u L. macroehIrus MM L. mega ! i n n N. venii'-i.rs Table 18 Spring 4/l4/?c Staxion 5 Average Weight 5.7950 12.6682 35.5847 1242 .0520 .1355 .3345 16.2935 28.0201 .3431 4.0385 1.5781 2.6700 2.8486 3.OO63 0.5924 3.8784 4.7420 4.8337 5.6412 5.8246 7.1031 7.9334 9,5?64 11.8663 - 20,2348 .1299 ,1144 .0510 .0559 .0795 .0135 .1268 .0999 .0351 .0675 .0319 .1713 .0493 .0913 .1379 3-7516 .4953 1254 .6282 1.7023 2.9622 .8664 10.7762 .8056 .7775 86?3 .7594 .6065 .JOOO .8169 1.2377 .7049 1,2764 .636? 2.9654 I.O757 I.0712 r .-71 3.6658 1260 .0972 .380? 5359 .0936 1.3719 .1126 .1449 .1206 .0707 .0967 .0358 .0552 .1554 .0362 .0324 .0560 .3105 .2538 .1176 .1301 .6533 To tal .7775 2.2186 3.6329 1.3031 16.186? 1.0432 1.0369 1.0395 .8662 .7808 .4162 1.0290 1.4931 .8864 1.4264 .7266 3 1.37 63 2.1802 1.2570 4.8145 DSW 030636 STLCOPCB4014798 Sample Number 412 411 406 410 40? 423 418 420 421 422 405 402 404 409 403 413 41? 41 c. 416 414 408 Table 19 Summer 8/3/78 Station 5 Species M. punctulatus 11 M ,v. salmoides M. punctulatus M. salmoides. D. cepedianum 11 II t II It ti 1 n L. macrochirus H 11 l it M It Y. nicfolophus I.. mncrcchirus L. megalotAa L. m e.c re ch i ru 3 it it Pimephalar, sp. It it Average Weifrht 1.7578 20o238 9.1917 9.5690 11.0995 .3889 2.2079 3.401C 3.7027 4,7050 .4697 .6123 .7680 1.0464 1.8527 7.0234 8.3556 10,7245 13.0243 .5221 1.4726 .1242 .1004 .1064 .0683 .C66Q .0812 .1864 .2506 .1352 .1165 .070? .0844 .0662 .1560 .1333 .2794 .0614 .0337 .1470 .1663 1214 5194 .6904 .6458 .6238 3*4234 .8107 1.0308 .5659 . 5019 .7436 .4564 ,5~8o 1.3139 .9c 61 1.9357 .5931 .2169 .4430 1.7726 1260 .1430 .1695 .1332 .1264 .1612 .1934 .1482 . 0**32 .1051 .1514 .0690 .0370 .1538 .1227 .1024 .1003 .032? .1547 .3683 Total .7629 1.1665 .8474 .8164 3.665S . --T 1.1907 1.4798 .7470 .7236 .9658 .6090 .7519 1.6238 1.2222 2.3176 .7106 .2845 1.3907 2.3009 OSH 030837 STLCOPCB4014799 Sample Humber 20 21 156 ho 154 153 45 152 151 155 44 260 262 261 263 49 51 48 50 47 Table 20 Fall 10/5/?8 Station [y Species N, venustus Fimephales sp. I.. megalotis I..macrochirur. L. megalotis 11 L. macrochirus L. megalotis M II II II L. marrochiruo L. megalotis II 11 II 11 D. cersdiar.em M. pun etui a tor. M II It II r'II II If 11 Average Weight. 1.3038 2.7464 3.4635 4.1023 5.1669 6.3954 7.6449 7.9668 8.5113 10.3570 11.6250 18.5657 12.2170 14.7443 49.3427 2.6733 3.1859 4.0227 4.1*167 7.6627 1242 .3632 1254 1.8260 .3780 1.6336 . 5864 .7046 .4553 .0943 1.3462 3733 .8706 1.4133 .3672 .9768 1.2498 1-3533 1.9760 2.0330 1.3305 .1901 3-7566 1.0065 4.4762 5.0628 2.15-0 2.4l40 3.6963 3.9364 1.4215 3.3566 .1^15 1591 .3700 .2397 1.0468 2.1361 ?.4943 2.6865 2.1032 9.63U9 I2c0 .2473 .1268 .2031 .1027 .1034 .1508 .3517 .0136 .6314 . 6O7 4 .2010 . 3436 .5599 .6429 .5754 .070;) .1120 .1822 . 05-'i4 .8706 To i si 2.4.430 2.1380 2.8656 2 .'"'010 1.3594 .4351 6.6120 1.3935 5.96.03 7.2835 3.8.760 3-7366 c.5061 5.9347 5.3537 2.3980 2 .?660 3..':i0 2.4270 11.5570 Sample Number 349 346 3*t S 34p Table 21 Spring 4/14/73 Station 6 Species M. pur.ctulatus . L. nngalcticL. margins tea Average Weight 4.005b 6.3393 7.2954 8.0027 1242 .5521 .4003 1.1566 .4532 5.34o5 2.063.I 4.6650 1.3495 1260 2.0333 .7633 1.1185 1.0753 Total 7.9620 3.0678 . 6.^602 h * i> ( 62 DSW 030838 STLCOPCB4014800 Table 22 Samner 8/3/78 Station 6 Sample Number Srecies 485 L. macrochlrus 484 l* *1 486 482 483 481 ^69 4o9 470 L. cyanellus L. macrochirus L. cyanellus ft M L. narglnatus L. megalotis II 553 544 540 543 539 541 542 L. marginatus II It L. megalotis L. martrinatus L. me.valot.ls L. narginatus L. sp. 479 478 480 474 475 472 473 4?1 556 557 M, punctulatun M tl M It M l M It M. salmoile:- M If M. p'Jnrt.ula tus M It X? r*fi V> J r- 4774?6 N, ver.'jftu;" tl < Average Weight 1.1801 1.8'-03 1.8782 2.6563 3.1444 5.1142 12.5237" 13.3776 16.4201 25.1057 25.7146 28.8143 41.3496 43.0192 59-6801 , 99.6445 2.7292 2.7482 3.3104 6.9894 7.9340 14.4216 18.374? 18.49C9 19.8603 22.1918 .6520 1.4901 1242 .3635 .2730 .2970 .2739 .6?00 I.6983 I.0508 : .9929 .6467 1.1121 ' >4409 1.8103 4.1164 2.8894 1.5359 7645 .5610 .4374 .3200 -- .4978 .2062 .1367 .5050 .7796 .9386 .6244 .8961 12 54 1.3205 1.1206 1.2305 1.0719 1.7011 4.5905 4.0314 4.1764 2.3066 4.1095 2.1405 9.8712 10.6233 7.7350 3.3056 2.6573 2.0910 1.6903 1.5235 -- 2.3272 1.4840 .6652 1.4851 2.1851 2.1023 2.3842 2.4113 1260 .2318 .1582 .2039 .1674 .3173 .7069 .9796 1.2183 .1357 .7539 .4434 3.4453 3.5746 3.1994 .5176 .3375 .3738 3723 .2730 .5164 .4292 .2077 .3238 .5641 .226? 4740 .4350 Tclal 1.9551 1.55T9 1.7315 1.5132 2.6885 6.9958 6.0621 6.387? 3.O.892 5.9756 3.0249 15.1274 13.3193 13.8268 .5*4092 3.9595 3.0259 2.5003 2.1167 3.3416 :'.12c3 1.2097 2.3143 3o5253 3.2678 3.4327 3-7425 sw 030839 STLCOPCB4014801 Sample Number 34 . 163 162 160 161 15? 158 157 35 2/6 Srecies M puntulatus t * It ft It ft ft t M HM t* ** L. regalotis t* tt Table 23 Full IO/5/77 Station 7 Average Weight Io3'*c0~ 2.5153 3.6025 3.7313 4.9055 5.7406 6.5510 8.9292 17.9248 22.6666 1242 1.031S 3365 .4535 .3239 .2267 .4372 .2158 .1205 .4C66 .6484 Table 24 Winter l/l6/7S Station 7 1254 4.1133 1.5308 1.5513 1.3692 .8316 1.4710 .9001 c6l6 I.0550 2.6942 I2n0 .3!-09 . 2130 .2767 .1354 .1538 .1701 .0986 .3188 ,0369 .4842 Total 5.4550 2.0852 2.2821 I.62S5 1.2122 2.0384 1.2146 1.30C9 1.4990 3.8269 San pi 3 Nunlnr "2T- 237 23o 235 Srcel nr. H. punatuiaius D. cej^-ii'inura tt t MM Sample Number 33 S . 33? 342 3*0 341 340 33 333 S cl nr L. r: 1 erel ep-us - L, cvenalluo ;!. pune + u.ltun It ti If * t 11 M II < II Aver.i Welrht 2.4159 5*41m6 6,33-66 8,1677 1 ear ,1295 .6942 1854 .9923 Table 25 Spring 4/14/78 Station 7 Average Veirh 9.In63 16,3`. 05 2.9953 3.0968 4.0181 4.4433 6,824b 9.0797 124.7 .2155 .1364 .2790 .1982 .2343 .4427 3114 .2932 ] 7 t; i ,r-bl 2 2.385 1.7394 n 4/- 9 1760 .1" .1371 .3547 .3063 : 0 tal 1.25-1-0 3c2404 8.2826 3.6649 7 n CLl 2~;rji .3740 1.5152 1.3357 2.1776 2.050S 1.1642 1.3471 1260 . t/'14 ,17^8 .4293 .2851 .3543 .3945 .3513 .4261 OSW 030840 STLCOPCB4014802 Sample Veisht 463 464 463 462 466 461 459 460 458 457 455 430 452 434 436 1&9 45]. 433 537 531 536 536 534 530 335 533 Species MM . punctulatus fl If M l> If M. r.almoldea M. punctulatus If if L. cyar.ellus M 11 L. macroehirur. H* L. megalot is L. marglnatua L. macrocniru-.I.. nacroonirus L. megalotis L. mar;; inatus H II L. micro!menus L. cyan e VI us L. megal ot i:> ti " L. narzInatus L. cyanellus L. macrooh 1 rum L. nicrolophus Table 26 Summer 8/3/78 Station 7 Average Weit 1.6076 2.0490 2.7576 2.9852 3.2986 3.7885 6.0870 1.2132 2.3444 8.9947 10.99.57 11.0062 13.4303 14.080? . 14,6639 15.9581 17,2815 17.9965 20.3733 23.50 36 27.0635 30.3C60 31.3732 38.7443 40,4944 65.1710 1242 .1973 .1570 .3307 .2334 .1296 .2901 .3774 1254 1.527 5 .5894 .6605 .9309 .50^4 .9080 1.6627 .2352 .3061 .2453 .5855 .3386 .3415 .5471 .3182 .1474 .6457 .3036 .9608 .5487 .1905 .9314 .7744 .2609 .7329 .085? .3520 .5710 .521.5 1.3924 .9235 .7062 1.3796 1.1504 .4533 1.5513 .8311 1.7908 1.1421 5548' 3.1851 2.2126 3 .127 9 3.4629 1.00?3 - 1260 .0993 . 2026 .1054 .1735 .09 46 .1548 .2018 .2085 .0672 .0747 .2100 .0955 .0772 .2559 .1821 .1320 . 5003 #w .4710 .176 1 .1098 .4697 . 2u';j ,2273 .9523 .6204 Total 1.8242 .9691 1.0967 1.3344 .727? 1.2530 2.2417 1.2953 .944 5 .0916 2.1818 1.3577 1.1251 2.1342 1.6 308 .7329 7.6973 1.3856 5.0538 ;.8691 .8568 4.5964 4.2689 1.6162 5.1662 1.5159 DSW 030841 STLCOPCB4014803 Sample number 165 23 265 264 268 267 266 Snecies M, punctulatus L. megalotis D. cepedinnum * H Roccus chrynops t II It . , M N Ram pie Number 239 240 241 Sr-':?D. ct:" >d } 1 l " Table 27 Fall 10/5/77 Station 8 Average Weight 6.4358 7.1522 22.1524 35.5650 54.6.175 57.2133 88.500? 1242 .4444 1.3882 .3810 1.6642 ,4601 .6634 .9504 1254 2.0140 4.4170 1.7335 4.3733 2.5863 2.8096 2.2578 1260 5570 .4805 .3316 .9312 .8046 1.1877 .4218 Total 3.0155 6.2360 2.4512 6.9692 3.8516 4.6658 3.6315 Table 28 Winter I/16/78 Station 8 Average Volant. 4.42.64" 4.8650 6.2158 l?*:-2 ,2o69 .78 36 5.4625 1" 3.5429 2*5232 5.2241 1260 .2?-1 .3856 1.0417 Total 4.0840 3.6974 11.728 DSW 030842 STLCOPCB4014804 Sample Nunbsr 37 Z 371 .376 Species N * chysocephalus M. punctulatus D. cepedianum Table 29 Spring k/lU/?8 Station 6 Average Vfeirni 12.8248 10.7733 235031 1242 1739 3537 7063 12 7'* .5525 2.26S4 3.0632 I2o0 .0930 .3196 .6903 Total .8354 3.1413 4.4644 Fanpie Wonher 309 393 307 400 397 395 401 558 Spcieo . punclui a Lus II H H II *f H Fu salnoi.iss N. chysocephalus F.occus chrysops 44 II Table 30 Sur.ner 6/'/3-n //t->< O 0 Station 3 Averse Weight. 2.90D9 3.9332 4.4987 5.2360 5*8753 7.5952 12.0349 20.9416 1263 .2141 ,6483 .9553 .1114 .2975 .2716 .0985 .2426 12 ',4 1.20'jl 1.5445 3.220J 1.3934 2,2362 1 t'91 < T, - V 1.3?\-8 1 2r O .2o20 .3206 7593 .5035 .6755 .4166 .0600 . 2 5? `3 Tcta'L lTc9?3 2.5134 4.9349 2.^134 3.2093 2.2218 .6*6s 1.8712 osw 030843 STLCOPCB4014805 Sample Humber 390 384 386 330 333 387 392 394 393 392 Sreciem N. stilblus M f* * N. venustur. L. megalotls L. microlop'nua L. macrochirus Rienacobius sp. M * 1 H Table 31 Sumner 8/3/7$ Station 9 Average W eight .3753 2.5037 3.7144 4.2972 4.2018 5.7074 13.8732 .687? 4.1457 5.6187 1242 4.4734 5.9270 2.8695 8.7061 4.1511 .1894 3.5664 8.5290 3.9644 21.0910 1254 8.5QO7 13.9479 5.6703 9.1020 2.7002 1.0516 5.8333 12*9233 10.5336 52.5743 1260 3.5733 4.1800 2.8450 3.4903 Total 16.6379 24.0549 11.3854 21.4094 1.6764 .1648 2.8069 11.4334 1.4052 12.3166 3.3595 6.063$ 14.6725 26.7527 21.5117 72.4556 OS W 030844 STLCOPCB4014806 APPENDIX B. CAPSULATION OF THE BENTHOS FIELD DATA DSW 030845 STLCOPCB4014807 Table 32 Capsulation of Current Benthos Information Benthos Data* Sampling S tation Species Period I Corbricula sp. (bivalve musk) 1 It Fall of 1977 Winter of 1977 2 If Fall of 1977 2 If Winter of 1977 2 Sphaeridae sp. (native clam) 5A Corbricula sp. Winter of 1977 Winter of 1977 6 If Fall of 1977 6 Anodonta Imbicillis Fall 1977 (native mussel) 6 Corbricula sp. Winter of 1977 6 Anodonta Imbicillis Winter 1977 Concentration of PCBs (ppm) Total 1242 1254 1260 0.14 (0.08) 0.14 (0.09) 5.65 (1.39) 7.72 (2.05) 1.95 4.51 (1.72) 1.36 (1.03) 0.25 (0.12) 7.97 (2.41) 2. 17 (1.19) 0.039 (0.036) 0.084 (0.064) 2.86 (0.77) 4.30 (1-23) 1.10 0.76 (0.35) 0.42 (0.32) 0.09 (0.11) 1.99 (0.71) 1.08 (1.08) 0.083 (0.044) 0.044 (0.021) 2.54 (0.67) 3.32 (0.70) 0.68 3.47 (1.46) 0.78 (0.76) 0.14 (0.02) 5.40 (1.85) 1.05 (0.14) 0.016 (0.013) 0.0071 (0.0059) 0.25 (0.09) 0.29 (0.10) 0.17 0.29 (0.18) 0.08 (0.07) 0.019 (0.016) 0.55 (0.23) 0.05 (0.02) *( ) ** One Standard Deviation DSW 030846 STLCOPCB4014808 AVERAGE FCB CCNCENTRATICN OF EACH GEHUS A STATION FSR SEASON BASIS DSW 030847 STLCOPCB4014809 Cnm-postorna Station 2 fall ' spring Station 3 fall spring * A1242 21.91 14.06 0.52 0.14 A12 54 'AI260 18.67 25.58 1.54 0.54 6.34 4.27 0.21 0.20 TMal FOB 46.93 82.67 C ,88 Dorosoma Station 4 fall winter summer Station 5 fall winter spring summer Station 6 fall Station 7 winter Station 8 fall winter spring 10.58 5.33 2.68 O.65 0.46 2.19 0.19 1.42 0.62 1.02 2.17 0.70 13.?? 6.51 3.51 2.09 1.59 5.82 0.31 3.12 4.01 1.06 0.31 0.48 0.73 0.12 3.35 . 2.16 0.57 0.26 3.05 3.76 3.06 0.63 0,56 0.69 27.41 15.87 7.11 2.86 2.36 8.?4 1.13 5-35 3.C6 1. 6.50 4.46 Gnmbusia Station 1 fall spring summer 0.10 0.05 0.05 0.07 0.22 C.lo c .00 0 ,o5 0.04 0.18 O.35 0.25 DSW 031 B STLCOPCB4014810 Gambusia Station 2 fall spring summer Station 3 fall Station 4 summer A1242 41254 A1260 22.35 11.78 10.25 0.69 * 3.3? 24.93 11.53 9.13 1.10 11.88 1.62 3.64 l .2? 0.06 * 4.33 Total FC3 SI .66 26.96 21.16 2.26 * 19.59 Hynentel5 urn Station 1 fall winter summer Station 2 winter Station 3 fall winter 0.11 O.36 0.05 25.26 0,,06 0.03 0.08 0.35 0.26 22.40 0.22 0.13 0.00 0,14 0.02 0,07 f\03 0.07 0.20 0,67 0.35 56.83 0.37 0.22 Le 00m i s Station 1 fall winter sprinr sumner Station 2 fall winter spring summer 0.04 0.09 0.05 0.05 9.29 10.71 5.01 9.45 0,06 0.33 0.21 0.14 9.13 10.99 3,61 0.14 0.00 0.06 0.04 0.03 2 ,?8 6.27 0 06o 3.46 0.11 0,48 0.31 0.23 1?.69 23.41 -,32 20.8? GSW 030 STLCOPCB4014811 Leponis Station 3 fall winter spring Station 4 fall winter spring summer Station 5 fall winter spring summer Station 6 fall spring summer Station 7 fall spring summer Station 8 fall Station 9 Summer Al2^2 0.11 0.24 0.11 4.88 2.62 2.5B 2.97 0.13 0.08 0,08 0.11 0.85 0,69 1.18 0.52 0.17 O.hlx 1.38 2.63 A1254 0.47 0,37 0.35 5.5 2 4M 5.94 6.55 0.Q6 0.70 1.C6 0.81 2.67 3.36 3.88 1.87 1.27 1.31 4.41 3.21 A1?^0 0.14 0.11 0.16 0.77 2.02 3.27 2.84 0.0Q 0.18 0.12 0.10 0.35 0.91 1.02 0.26 0.51 0,26 0.48 1.56 Total PC 3 0.73 O.73 O.63 11.20 3.10 11.79 12.37 1.20 O.cp 1.86 1 .02 A, 02 U.07 6.09 2.66 1.9? 2.02 6.30 8.38 Miereuterus Station 1 fall winter summer 0.15 1.71 0.06 0.A4 6.58 0.29 0.00 1 .cii 0.07 0.61 ic.25 0.42 OSW 030850 STLCOPCB4014812 Micropterus Station 2 fall winter spring summer Station 3 fall spring Station- 4 fall winter spring Station 5 fall winter spring summer Station 6 fall spring sumn er Station 7 fall winter spring summer Station 8 fall spring summer A1242 18.57 19.14 11.39 6.08 0,01 0.14 5.87 2.86 1.63 0.12 0.13 0.17 0.08 0.40 0.55 0.43 0.39 0.12 0.29 0.24 0.44 0.35 0,4^4 A125^ 19.25 16.19 11.49 5.85 0.14 1.13 10.03 4.61 8,06 2.05 1.22 l.?6 1.22 3.31 5.34 1.70 1.57 0.96 1.50 0.95 2.01 2.26 1.91 A1260 k.32 6.80 6.30 2.37 0,01 0.63 1.61 3.28 8.01 0.35 0.26 0.33 0.14 0.25 2.08 0.38 0,20 0.16 0.37 0.14 0.55 0.51 0.50 Total PCS 42.30 42.14 29.19 14.30 0.17 1.91 17.52 10.75 17.72 2.53 3 .61 2.27 1.45 4,^7 ?.?6 2.52 2.17 1.25 2.17 1.34 3.01 3.14 2.8? Notroris Station 1 fall winter spring summer 0.01 0.33 0.06 0.20 0.08 0.32 0.23 0.41 0.01 0.36 0o07 0,11 0.11 0.73 0,36 0.73 DSW 0 0 STLCOPCB4014813 Potroris Station 2 fall winter spring summer Station 3 fall winter spring Station 5 fall spring Station 6 fall summer Station 8 spring summer Station 9 summer A124? A1254 A1260 14,66 14.46 8.91 15.91 0.49 0.40 O.63 0.15 0.4Q 0.36 0.76 0.17 0.27 5.49 19.39 13.15 7.05 18.03 1.86 1.16 2.45 2.10 3.66 1.82 2.39 0.55 1.53 9.35 5.63 4.90 2.20 8.94 0.24 0.45 0.73 0.30 O.65 0.24 0,45 0,00 0.41 Total PC3 48015 32 06O 18.17 ^2.90 2.60 2.02 3.94 2.66 4.81 2,44 3.61 0,83 ^ O') 15.37 DSW 030852 STLCOPCB4014814 BIBLIOGRAPHY Anonymous, "PC3 Degradation", Mar. Poll. Bull., Vol, 7, no. 5* 1976. Anonymous, "U.S. Water Pollution Standards for PC3's: FCB's in the Hudson River", Mar. Poll. Bull., Vol. 7, no. 11, 197,6.% Bache, C.A., "Polychlorinated Biphenyl Residues 1 Accumulation in Cayuga Lake Trout with Age", Sci., Vol. 177, 1972. Ballschmiter,K,, Zell, M.and Neu, H.J., "Persistance of FCB's in the Ecospheres Will Some PCB Components "Never" De grade?", Chemosphere, No.2, 1978, Bidleman, T.F., "Chlorinated Hydrocarbons in the Sargasso Sea, Atmosphere and Surface Water", Sci., Vol, I83, 1974, Boyle, R,H.,"Poisoned Fish, Troubled Waters (PCB's in Rivers and Lakes)", Sports 111., Sept. 1, 1975. Boyle, R.H.," The Soreading Menace of PCB", Sports 111., Dec. 1, 1975. Bunce, N.J.and Kumar, Y.,"An Assessment of the Impact of Solar Degradation of FC3's in the Aquatic Environment", Chemoschere, No. 2, 1976. Burdick, G.E.,"The Accumulation of DDT in Lake Trout and the Effect on Reproduction", Trans Am. Fish. Soc,, Vol. 93> no. 2, 1964, Carlander, K.D.," Handbook cf Freshwater Fishery Biology", Vol. 1, Iowa State University Press, Ames, Iowa, 1969. Carlander, K.D., "Handbook of Freshwater Fishery Biology", Vol. 2, Iowa State University Press, Ames, Iowa, 1977. Chau, A.S.Y.,and Sampson, R.C.J.,"Electron Capture Gas Chromatograph,ic Methodology for Cuantitation of PC3's. Survey and Compromise", Envim, Letters, Vol. 8, no. 2, 1975. Chen, Chiou, T. Cary,"Partition Coefficient and Bioaccumulation", Envir. Sci. and Tech., Vol,11, no, 5 1977. CSW 030853 STLCOPCB4014815 Choi, W ,W. ar.d Chen, a .Y., "Associations cf Chlorinated Hydro carbons with Fine Particles and Humic Substances in Near shore Curficial Sediments", Environ, Sci. ar.d Tech., Vol. 10, no. 80, 1976. Cooley, N.R., Keltner, J.M. Jr. and Forester, J.f" Mirer and Aroclor 125^ < Effect on and Accumulation by Tat 'n^ns. pyriformis, Strain J, of Frotosoologv, Vcl, 19"," no. 4, 1972. " Cooley, N ,R., "Effects cf Aroclor 1?48, a FOB, or. Growth of Populations of Tctrnhyncr.a pyriforals". A03 vull,, Vol. 19 no. 2, 1972. ' Crump-weioner, H.J., Feltz, H.R. and Yates, H.L., "A Study of the Distribution of PCB's in the Aquatic Environment", Fest. F.onit, J., Vol. 9, no. 157, 1/74. Dennis, -D.3.," FCB's in the Surface Waters and Rotten S-vlir.nts of the F.ajor Drainage Basins of the ''nited Stater", Fat. Conf. on PCB's, 1975; 2?A Nat. Tech. Info. Service, 11253- Duke, T .'!., "A PCB (A1243) in the Water, Sediment and Dicta of Escabia Fay, Fla.", Bull, Envir. Cent, ar.d To::., Vcl, 5> 1970. Duke, T.N. and Wilson, A.J. Jr., "Chlcrirr ted K, drocarions in Livers of Fishes fro-, the Northeastern Factf:c ice an", Feat. W.onit. Jour., Vcl. 5 no. 2, 1 , Eberhardt, L,I. . ,"3ome Methodology for A in Aourtic Systems'*, J. Fish, Fes. no. 10, 1975. -> i ci nr P on Ln*-| > -nn I 9 'ard Can., Vol, 32, Ernst, V/,, "Residues of Chlorina ted Hydrocarbons ir. Narine Cayman ions in Relation t.i Size and Ecological Parameters: I. FCF, DDT and DDD in Fishes and Deliuses from the English Channel", Bull. EY;v, Cont. and Tox., Vol, 1?, no. 1, 1976. Federal Register,"PCB Toxic Follutant Effluent Standards", Fed. Reg., Vol. 42, no. 22, 1977. Fowler, 3.W. and Elder, D.L.,"PCB and DDT Residues ir rr^^Gcin I'3 2. p.~ic Food Chair.", Bull. Er.v, Cent, am.: T cx# t 31. 19. no . 2, 1978. Full:, R.," Laboratory Study of the Release cf Pesticide and FC3 Materials to the Water Column During Dredging ar.d Disposal Operations", Dredged Material Research Program; Contract Report Number D-75-6, 1975. OSW 030854 Gaffney, P.2.,"Carpet and Rug Industry Case Study I: Water and Wastewater Treatment Plant Operations", J, WFCF, Vol, 48, no. 11, 1976. * Gilman, D, and Lee, G.F.,"A Review of Chlorinated Biphenyl Contamination in Natural Waters", Water Research, Vol. 4, 1970. Hansen, D.J. et al,"Chronic Toxicity, Uptake and Retention of Aroclor 1254 in Two Estuarine Fishes", Bull, Env, Cont. and Tox., Vol, 6, no. 2, 1971* Hansen, D.J, et al,"Aroclor 1254 in Eggs of Sheephead Minnowsj Effect on Fertilization Success and Survival of Embryos and Fry", Proceedings of the 27th Anual Conference of the Southeastern Ass. of the Game and Fish Comm., 1973 Hansen, D.J. and Farrish, F.R. and Forester, J.,"Aroclor 1016: Toxicity to and Uptake by Estuarine Animals", Environ. Res., Vol 7, 1974a. Hansen, D.J.,"Aroclor 1016: Toxicity to and Uptake by Estuarine Animals", Environ. Res., Vol. 7, 1974. Hansen, D.J., Schimmel, S.C. and Matthews, E,,"Avoidance of Aroclor 1254 by Shrimp and Fishes", Dull. Env, Cont. and Tox., Vol. 12, 1974b, Hansen, D.J., "PCB's! Effects on and Accur.ulaion by Estuarine Organisms", Proceeding Mat. Conf on PCB's, 1975* Hansen, D.J., Schimmel,; C.S. and Forester, J./'Effects of Aroclor 1016 on Embryos, Fry'', Juveniles and Adults of Sheepshead Minnows (Cyorinodon varieaatus)", Trans. Am, Fish, Soc., Vol. 104, no. 3 1975* Hansen, D.J. et al,"Effects of Dietary,r Aroclor 1242 on Channel Catfish (ictalurus punstatus) and the Selective Accumulation of ?CB Components", J. Res. Board Can., Vol. 33, 1976. Haque, R. and Schnedding, D., "Studies on the Adsorbtion of Selected PCB's on Several Surfaces", J. Environ. Sci. Health, 311(2), 1976. Harvey, G.R.,"PCB's in North Atlantic Ocean Water", Sci., Vol. 180, 1972. Harvey, G.R. et al,"Observations on the Distribution of Chlorinated Hydrocarbons in Atlantic Ocean Organisms", J. Mar. Res,, Vol. 32, no. 2, 1973* osw 0855 STLCOPCB4014817 H in z, R. and MAtsumura, F., "Comparative Metabolism of FCR : Isomers by Three Species of Fish and the Rat", Bull. Environ. Cont. and Tox., Vol. 18, no. 5i 1977. Hutzinyer, C,, Safe, S.,and Zitko, V.,"The Chemistry of FCB's", Cleveland CRC Press, 1974. Iwata, Y. 'lestlake, W.S. and Gunther, F.A."Varying Persistence of FCB's in 6 California Soils Under Laboratory Conditions", Bull. Environ. Cont. and Tox., Vol,?, no.4, 1973, Jensen, S.,"A New Chemical Hazard", New Sci., Vol. 32, 1966, Kelso, J.R. and. Frank, R.,"Cryanochlorine Residues, iercir/, Copper and Cadmium in Yellow Perch, Uhite Rams and Small-- mouth Pass, Lon,'; Point Lav, Lake Erie", Trans, An, Fish, Soe., Vol. 3, 1974, " Khan, M.A., "Adsorption of ?C3 (Al25ii) on Shrimp", full, Envir. Cont. and Tox., Vol. 16, no. 4, 1976. Lanier, K .F."Ichthyology" 2nd ed., John '-:iley and Sens Inc., lc?7. Lei and, H."., Bruce, 'J.R. and Shir.p, !' ,r. "Chlorine to i Eydrocarbonlnoecticirier. in Sediments of Southern Rake Michigan", Environ. Sci. and Tech., Vol. 7, no. 9, lr'73* Love, R.H." The Chemical Biology of Fishes,", Academic Press, NewYork, 1970. " Lowe, J.I. et al,"Effects of ?C3(Aroclcr 1254) on the American Oyster, Crasr.ostrea virrinica", Mar, Biol., Yoi. 17, no. 3, 1972. Mauck, V/.L, and Clson, L.E.,"FCB's in Adult Mayflies (Hexaver.la bllLnenta) from the Upper Mississippi River", Bull, Envir. Cont. and Tox., Vol. 17, no. 4, 1977. Munson, T.O. et al,"Transport of Chlorinated Hydrocarbons in the Uprer Chesapeake Bay", Nat. Conf. on FC3's, 1975s EPA Nat. Tech Info, Service, PB253"248. Nebeker, A.7. and Puplini, F.A./'Effect of FCB's on Survival and Reproduction of Ba vhnia, Ganmarus and Tony tarsus", Trans. An. Fish. Soc,, No. 4, 1974. OSW 030856 STLCOPCB4014818 Nebeker, A,V.,"Summary of Recent Information Regarding Effects of FCD's on Freshwater Organisms", Nat. Conf. on FCB's, 1975? EPA Nat. Tech. Info, Service, EB253-2*+S. Nimmo, D.R.,"FCB's Absorbed from Sediments by Fiddler Crabs and Pink Shrimp", Nature, Vol.231* 1971. Nimmo, D.R. et al,"Toxicity and Distribution of Aroclor 125** in the Pink Shrimp, Penaeus duorarum", Mar. Biol., Vol.11, no. 3, 1971. Nimmo, D.R. et al,"Accumulations of Aroclor 125*+ in Grass Shrimp (Palaemonetes puglo) in Laboratory and Field Exposures", Bull, Envir. Cont, and Tox., Vol. 11, 197*+ Nisbet, I.C.T., Sarafim,"Rates and Routes of Transport of FCB's in the Environment", Envir, Health Persp., Experim. Issue 1, 1972. Olson, ' ,' ' " Panel on Hazardous Trace Substances, "FCB's: Environmental Impact", Environ. Research, Vol. 5, 1972. Parrish, P.R., Hansen, D.J. and Couch, J .N./'Effects of Aroclor 125*+, a PCB, on Oysters, Crassostrea virgin' ca", AS3 Bull., Vol. 19, no, 2, 1972. Parrish, F.R.,"Aroclor 125*i, DDT and Dieldrin: Accumulation and Loss by American Oysters (Crassostrea vlrginlca) Exposed Continually for 56 Weeks", Proceedings of the Nat. Shellfish Ass., Vol. 64, No. 7, 197*+. Peakall, D.P, and Lincer, J.L.."PCB's: Another Longlife Widespread Chemical in the Environment", BioSci., Vol. 20, no. 17, 1970. Peakall, D.P.,"FC3's: Occurrence and Biological Effects", Res. Rev., Vol. 4*S 1972. Fhillips, D.J.H.,"Use of Biological Indicator Organisms to Quantitate Organochlorine Pollutants in Aquatic En vironments- A Review", Environ. Foil., Vol. 16, 19780 Reinert, R.E.."Pesticide Concentrations in Great Lakes Fish", Pest. Monit. Jour., Vol. 3, 1970. Risebrough R.W., et al,"FCB's in the Global Ecosystem", Nature, Vol. 220, 1968. DSW 030857 STLCOPCB4014819 Risebrough, R.W, and deLappe, 3.,"Accumulation of PCI's in Ecosystems",Environ. Health Fersp., Sxper. Issue 1, 1972. Rlsebrough, R.W., et al,"Bioaccumulation Factors of Chlorinat ed Hydrocarbons Between Mussels and Seawater", Mar. Poll. Bull., Vol. 7, no. 12, 1976. Sanborn, J.R.,"Uptake of 3 FCB's, DDT and DDE by Green Sunfish, Le non is cyar.ellus", Bull, Envir, Cont. and Tox., Vol. 13* 1975. Sodcrgren, A.,"Transport, Distribution and Degradation of Chlorinated Hydrocarbon Residues in Aquatic Model Eco systems", Oikos, Vol, 24, 1973* Stalling, D.L. and Kayer, F.L. Jr.,"Roxicity of FCB's to Fish and Environmental Residues in Fish", Environ. Health Fersp,, Vol. 1, 1972. Sundstroem, G., Hutzinger, 0. and Safe, S.,"Metabolism of Chlorobiphenyls: Review,",Ch?;ioshere, Vol. 5, no, 5j 1976. * Thurston, C.E. et al,"Composition of Certain Species of Fish. II. Comparative Data for 21 Species of Lake and River Fish", Tucker, E.S.,"Migration of FCB's in Soil Induced by Per colating Cater", Bull, Envir. Cont. and Tox., Vol. 13, no. 1, 1975* Urey, J.C, et al,"Bioconcentration of 4 Pure FCB Isomers by Chiorella pyrenoidosa", Bull. Envir, Cont, and Tox,, Vol. ?, 1971. Veith, G.D, and Lee, G.F.,"A Review of Chlorinated Biphenyl Contamination in Natural Waters", Water Research, Vol. 4, 1970. Veith, G.D. and Lee, G.F.,"FCB's in Fish from the Milwaukee Region", Proc. 14th Conf. Great Lakes Research, 1971. Veith, G,D.,"Baseline Concentrations of FCB's and DDT in Lake Michigan Fish, 1971", Pest, Honit. Jour,, Vol. 9, no. 1, 175. Walker, C.R.,"Pre-1972 Knowledge of Nonhuman Effects of FCB's", Nat, Conf. on PC3`s, 19755 EDA Nat, Tech. Info. Service, F3 253~248. 03085a STLCOPCB4014820 Walker, C.R,,"The Occurrence of PCB in the National Fish and Wildlife; Monitoring Program", Nat, Conf, on FC3's, 1975? EFA Nat, Tech. Info. Service, PB253"248, Walker, C.R.,"PCB's and Fishery Resources", Fisherier, Vol, 1, no, 4, 1976, Walkley-and Black, "The Walkley-Black Method for Determining the Organic Carbon Content of Soil", Water Resources Data for.Alabama, U.S. Geological Survey Water Data Report, AL~78-1, Water Year.1978* . Webb, R.G, and McCall, A.C.,"Identities of PCB Isomers in Aroclors", J. of the AOAC, Vol. 55, no. 4, 1972. 'Webb, R.G. and McCall, A.C.,"Quantitative PCB Standards for Electron Capture Gas Chronatcgraohy", J. Chrom. Sci., Vol, 11, 1973. Wilford, W.A. et al,"Trends of PC3's in Three Lake Michigan Fishas", Nat. Conf. on PC3's, 1975? SPA Hat. Tech. Info, Service, PB253-248. DSW 030859 STLCOPCB4014821