Document Dv5K58wrOodEqVd0LjgeLVjRn

TRAM3L0CATICN H3CHA" ISMS CF PCD'S U' FHE3H WATER: A FIELD STUDY mons 05030V CONTENTS INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................. 1. Uptake of Soluble Polychlorinated Diphenyls,.................. 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 29 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 r'ish............................ C* The Relationship of Vet Weight to Polychlorinated Biphenyl Concentration in Fish.................................. .. D. Species Differences in Polychlorinated Biphenyl Accumulation ............... E. Metabolic Differences amongSpecies*...................................... 45 53 96 113 IV, DISCUSSION............................................................................................................ 119 HONS 030305 TA3LES Table 1- Hexane E3xtrc.ct.ion Recovery, ...,........................................ Table 2- Compositionof Aroclfcr*'1242................................................... Table 3" Compositionof Aroclor 1254................................................... Table 4- Compositionof Aroclor 1260....,,..................................... Table 5" Resportse Factors for Feaks 11-146 from Aroclor 1242 Standard, a 1 ppm Concentration............. Table 6- Response Factors for Peaks 70-l?4 frcm Aroclor 1234 Standard, a 1 ppm Concentration.................. .. Table 7- Response Factors for Feaks 203 to 528 frcm Aroclor 1260 Standard, a 1 ppm Concentre Men............ Table 8- Calculation for PCB Content of Sample ,V7r, Campcstoma p.p,, Station 2, Fall......................................... Table 9~ Calculation for PCB Content of Cample ^293 T.epomls sp., Station 1, Spring............................................. Table 10-7-Way "Analysis of Variance (So. Carolina rrorran) Genus vs. Station, Season and W^i.^ht.............................. Table 11-2-Way Analysis of Variance (SPSS Fropram) Genus vs. Station, Season and Weight....................... .. Table 12-2-Way Analysis of Variance (SFG3 Frc^-rnrO Station vc. Weight and Species....................................... Table 13-*<?rcent of All Aroclcrs with Birtence fr'*n the Outfall In 4 Gnnera,f-Fish.................................... Table 14-Humic and Fluvic Acid Content of Sedimor1 from Stations 1 to 6 .............................. Table 15" The Organic Carbon Content of Sediment from Station 1 to 6................ ............................................ .. Table 16-Water Quality................................................................................. Table 17-Water USGS Stations cn Choccolo.co Creek ond the Coosa River.......................................................................... .. Table 18-Farticle Sloe of the Sediment............................................. Table 1?-Linear Correlation Analysis of All Speci.-n Combined at Each Station on the Weight v?. 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 Sta-t ion....... Table 22-Tho Linear Correlation of Weight and ppm FC3 in Each Genus" at Each Station and Season. Table 23-The Linear Correlation of Log Weight and Log prn FCB in Each Conus at Each Station and Season............ Table 24-The Multiple Regression Analysis of Weight and FCS in Each Genus at Each Station and Season at the Weight Squared Level......... .. 16 38 39 40 41 41 42 4} 44 47 40 30 35 <:2 `~2 t:3 -? 70 78 82 S3 67 69 c4 HONS 050306 Table 25" Lint of Centra, from Highest f'e?.n Accu-n:] at; cn of FCB to Lowest at Each Station and Season Alcnr with Their Trephic Level and Spawning Season*.............. Table 26- Lipid Content of Several Fish.................................................. Table 27- Food Classification of Genera of Fish Col' sc ted* Appendix A- FCB Residue Levels of All Samples..................................... Appendix B- Capsulation of the Benthos Field ........................... Appendix C- Average FCB Concentration of Each Genus on. a Station and Season Basis.................................... }(-U 112 112 125 l';Q 151 HONS 05030? FIGURES Figure 1. Chromatogram cf Sample #293 Logon< - y^-\] otjn * Station 1, Spring Collection................................................ 22 Figure 2. Collecting Station.?- FCB Survey, Anniston, Alabama,. 26 Figure 3* Chroma terrain of Aroclor 1242 Standard*........................... 33 Figure 4. Chromatogram of Aroclor 1254 Standard................................. it* Figure 5* Chromatogram of Aroclor 1260 Standard................................... 33 Figure 6* Chromatogram of DOS Standard.......................................,........... 36 Figure 7* Chromatogram of Sample #7& Campos tor-a rp,, Station 2, Fall Collection......................................................... 37 Figure 8, Histogram of the Kean Total FCB Leva's in Lc.r~:-cr.a r>p on a Station and Seasonal Saris.................................... 58 Figure 9. Histogram of the dean Total FCB Levels, in Lfj 5 rp, on a Station and Seasonal Basis*................................. 39 Figure 10. Histogram of the "ean Total FCB Lev** 1? in vi cropterur rp. on a Station ans Sean-.-1 -a-i,-.......... 60 Figure 11. Histogram cf the Moan Total ICC Levels in Potrotds sr* cn a Station ar.d -ea:, ;' ..1 .................... 61 Figure 12* Hy rometor a id Sieve Analysis- Crain Sine Curves for Sediment from Stations 1 and 2, Ja-'.. nor! 3 Per per ti v--." y........................................................................... 70 Figure 13* Hydrometer a.-*! .11:.vo An-uys Sr re Curvis . D and E Respectively,..........,................................. ...................... Figure 14, Hydrometer and Sieve Analysis- Crain Sine Gurv'r for Sedinent from Stations 6 and G, gvpL-n ? 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 K........................... .. Figure 17 The Linear Correlation of Weight vs, ppm FCB and Log Weight vs* Log ppm ?C3 in All Firh Found at Station 2*................. Figure 18, The Linear Correlation of 'Weight vs. pp~. PCS and Log Weight vs. Log ppm FCB in All Fish Found at Station Figure 19* The Linear Correlation of Weight and ppm PCB and Log Weight vs* Log ppm FCB in Dorocona no. frem Station 4.......................................... Figure 2^, The Linear Correlation of Weight and ppm FCB and Log Weight vs. Log ppm FCB in All O.n'-'u-ir. fp, found at Station 2*................................................ Figure 21* The linear Correlation of Log Weight vc. Log rrm PCB in All Lcromlr 50, and Gsmhurla r-p Found at Station 2................................. *.......................................................... Figure 22* The Linear Correlation of Weight vs, ppm FCB and Log Weight vs. Log ppm PC3 in Lero-i* r~, from the Winter Collection at Station 2..*..............*............. 73 74 75 76 80 61 64 85 1 92 HQNS 05G30* Figure 23. The Linear Correlation of Weight vs. pin FS3 and Leg Weight vr. Lor ppm FC3 in Xicroi'4~,>r,:r: r>p. iron the Fall Collection at Station ?........................................... 93 Figure 24. Histogram of the Fean Total FC3 Levels of All Genera fron Station 2 In All Seasons................................ 97 Figure 25 Histogram of the Kean Total FC3 Levels of All Genera* from Station 4 in All Seasons........................ 98 Figure 26. Histograms of the Fean ppm of Arocl^r:: 12^-3, 12;4 and 1260 in Sororcma so. from All $tat: in /.ll Seasons................. 115 Figure 27* Histograms of the Fean ppm of AroclO'-r, 1242, 12f4 and 1260 in Lecon1^ so. from All Stations in All Seasons*..%............................... 116 Figure 23. Histograms of the Fean ppm of Arocl nrn 1 li-l', 1254 and 1260 In Ficrocterus sp. frer, All St lions In All Seasons...................... 117 Figure 29* Histograms of the Fean ppm cf Arcelor:: 1141, I2yl Seasons......................................... .......................................................... 11.3 HONS 050309 EiTPOSUCTICN PCBVs are a class of aromatic, chemically inert, nonflam mable chlorinate^ hydrocarbons. They por.--ss high bi'-lectric cpr.stants, low^oitlts^Df volatility, are not hydrolired by water, and resists" alkalies, acids and other corm-ive chemical (Feakall, lc~0), Their boiling points range from for Aroclor -1221 to 415C for A-'Oclor 1263. All IC3*s -re stable at l^O^C. Tho lower chi or' naled cor rounds are nor'' soluble in water than the more highly chlorinated or.es and arc rrpfcr- entiilly distilled at atmospheric pressure without r-r"CLari'-' decomposition (Hutoingcr, Final, 1CT2), P-p- 'rr-n ' rd '/heeler (cited in Panel, 1'*'!'.?) found that the -oir j.1 ' * 0: Aroclorr 12^2, 12^6, l?fu, i:6C and 1016 -re 20 --b, ICO --t, 50 ppb, 2^ ppb and 2fO rob, respectively, However, the true solubility is difficult to determine accurately, and there values r.ny he subject to chanrre, FCH's are v?r; soluble in lipids, but the solubilities are not known. Since their^sysnth^sis in 1881 and manufacture in lc30, thousands of tons of PCS's have escaped into our wp.tervfays. Upon ente^r^)-* streams and shallow lakes, FC.Vn arf> adsorbed to the sediment and onto particulate matter (Choi, i^^). MGNS C50310 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 or less which is In the silt-clay range. Experimental evidence shows that the total organic carbon as well as humic sediment bears a linear relation ship to the chlorinated hydrocarbon concentration and the amount of organic material in 3urficial sediments is directly proportional to the clay size fraction. Pine silts and clays are closely associated with hunic substances) they exist as orranoclay complexes and have a high adsorbtive capacity for PCB's. There is some environmental verification for the above experimental findings. PCB's were found associated with the top 2-3 cm In Escambia Bay, Florida (Duke, 1??0) FCB's were also concentrated in the to? 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(ieland,197?) Cnee FC3*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 ?C3 is probably negligible. Due to these properties, high concentrations of FC3*s are usually found near points of discharge. Therehas been, however, little environmental docu mentation of the movement of PCB's through a system from a MGNS 050311 point source or of 11? half-life of PC.-'n in n 'u-'n nyrtom. The sediment of Escambia Bay was shown to hav ? or.t much of lt*s contamination within 0 months of the initial findi--' of c) r* the pollutant, Munson et a].j(l9?6) showed that are.'1: of hifh- est contamination in ih upper Chesapeake 3av have con formed to the currents fron the initial point '-mures. rCI?'s in the water, suspended solids and redi.nen tr are available for bioaccuoulation by means of direct in'-?-T,icn and/ or absorption through the reneral intarument and u<:|rosr. the Cills. The main rout: of entry is difficult to a-c^rtoin* 1, Uptake of Soluble PCP* s Many have irru.-rti .ted the biocor.centrutlon of soluble PCB, It his roon di*n ~r.r inn*>* j in laboratory experiments that both invertebrntcr r.rA -h can accumulate PCB's to levels of 10J to 10' tin^r, the levels in the -ambient water (Federal Re~I07"'). In v of the low solubility and h:.;h adsorptive caraclty, the uptake of soluble ?7~'s by plankton and invertebrates nay be a rro{> cess involving the initial adsorption followed by *4rcrpticr. into the cell ( Soderrren, 1973)* Tetrabvmena nyriforals. a ciliated protozoa^ accumulated Aroclor 125^ to 60 tines the dosed water level cr l6?.?ppb ' Aroclor I2f4 (dry weight) when exposed to lOpob for 7 d'tvs (Cooley, 19?2). Environmental plankton ramnl-s tak^n from the Atlantic Ccean by Hisobrourh containing median drv and wet weipht concentration!-, cn the oHpr of f.^ml O.rtrn resrec- MQNS 05Q312 tively and phytoplankton rich samples taken by Harvey with a mean of Ijppm.wet weight, confirm that uptake of ?C~'s in the environment does occur and to a greater degree than seen in experimental results. Urey showed that both tetrachloro-- and hexachlorobiphenyl were concentrated by dead ChInrpI?a cells by 6,000 and 15(000 times the water ccncentration>re- spectltfely. These amounts were greater than in his experi ments with living cellni which seems to indicate that the concentration of K12 by Chlorella may be a renult of a simple chemical partition between the water and tr.e lipid in the cells The short term exposure of invertebrates to Arcelor 125k resulted in the hicaccumulation of 160 to 6,300 times the ambient water concentrations ( Walker, 1976), This factor is even greater after long tern exposure, Cysters exposed to fjpb Aroclor 125^ for weeks accumulated 425/ippn or 85,000 times the water concentration (Lowe,1^2). In lb day exposures, Ganrarus fasclat.us concentrated y.rodcr I2yb to 2?000 times the water level (l,6ur/l) and :1a-hnia con centrated Aroclor 12b8 to b8,0C0 tines the nom'nal water con centration of 30^ur/l (Nefcefcer,197*0, The initial ti'accumula- tion of PC? by invertebrates is rapid and appears to reach a steady state after the first week of (talker, 1975/ MOWS 050313 The adsorption of FC'r'r to, and the afr^rrtio'' the general interuxent and through the (tills of chri ,!.avp teen "^ited as possible mechanisms of invertebrate uptake of solu ble FCH'n (Kh2n,l??6j:;i --0,1971,1??^), Fish also exhibit h rapid initial uptake of ft.; fol lowed by a gradual decrease in the rate until o state Is approached (Fed. Fee. ., 1977; Hansen , 1 f^l; do ire: f) quick initial uptake vrs, de-rytrated by Hanson*- (l.e iorto^ur xanthum) ^ in which brot accumulated 7,7 x 10 tir^s the a">; `^ level in 1^ to 2B day-. Lonr tern studies with f (pln^phale? prone l '* n) ninno'ws showed that residue* v<*r ? to t tin-r- The 0 -ront.hr trap they w?'-n f] rh t-arnT`lr.: after "5f' : (Mc'ck"r, 1^75; Fed. res; . ,1^7?; V**: th, 1 -"*0 ). In "" my ryporur--, clr. r.nel [ *ct'-.l-Ur;.ipi punc10) catfish ^.concentrated".^rocl or 1.7^ end 175^ to nr. d 61,170 times th.0 concentration in tn* w.iter, r .nrectiv*--' y, with t;-e more chlorinated compounds accur.ultinr -ore t- t.-.o lens chlorinated ones (Hansen, 1^76) The urtuke of r:.'fo;e rJ2'r fray be due to the permeability of the fish rcdy )r .;ill rur- face and it's v/ ability to partition TCB direct!/ * ;rcr< xr.r water. Chlorinated hydrocarbons have very hi. h partition co efficients, that is, they are much more soluble in lipid than in water. Those nore highly chlorinated PCIl's havo hiyher partition coefficients than the lower chlorir.it c orer, ihe Vhivher the cart ion coefficient, the rr^ater the .ability to C^ HONS 050314 6 bicaccumuiate (Re inert, lT^O), Thin uptake rvch r.i'-n h,-*.s i^on postulated to be a major pathway of F'JA entry into fresh wafer fish (SoderL'ren, 197}). It can result in birh acr-.-Mantior. in (ciTCS I* A a vry short period of tire, Frondas and Andersen *''~und that - c, r# 1L ajter a f minute exposure to Lrpm C -labeled 3~r, Atlantic falmon concentrated 1,56nm in the liver and n'r?n. After one hour cf exposure thin value reached m ------------- ;-- --- , 2% rioncnc^ntr^y on of PCB *o from Su'-v^r'-'- In view of the hifth adsro-ptivu capacity of FC3'^ to r~r- tlcles and organic rusrtances, suspended sol id?. >y a1-? be a major source of FCE's to orranicms. There arc, however, nc laboratory experiment.:- to confirm their invnl h:- ' field data Given ccnfl ic.tinG evidence. -1. th.e A Chesapeake Eay study by Munson (l/Tf) sh'uwd t.hut the T'13 concentration in TU.-pcndcd solid? < i sedi.->> varied greatly from station to statics in the* '-are collect in'" period and in the name station at different o->l1 ectisr perlods. In reneral, those water sampler >11)] hi h suspended solids also had hir;h PTE concentrations which us-wOly resem bled Aroclor 125^ and 1262 with some Arcelor \ZL2 und 12^8, The concentration^in the suspend d solids (dry weight) were U to 10 tines hlrhor t'-an in the redlu^-t (dry va* 1.`h i), Munson theorized that this was probably because t'-.e riv^i-aro ", n HQI*S 05O315 Crain size in the sun ."ended solids is ~v.:ch mailer th:-.r. the botton sediment an-) also because pry toplnsk t.nn a In eluded In the suspended solids sampler;, l-iunson estimated from his data that FCP'n are bloconcentratea in passirp fron suspended solids to zooplankton by a factor ~f f.'-i and in passing from suspended solids and plank ten to shellfish by a factor of UtQCC\, This estimate, however, did not take into account any concentration of soluble FCB that n?.y have occurred. Lata on a system involving the Mlr.sisni ppi "'v*r and a lake fed by it rhnw/''bi.--;her FCH levels- in f' :-h ,'r, r' of hi''hcr turbidity ru ;entin/-: that stranded - ' 1 sry play a role in the hio^ccumulation of rJl by f'.rr \ ". v.c^ ) Tn i si-.: lor study area in Michigan, hcvmver, >*. - n (i found the opposite results* La experiments n*wd \o ;e cone to determine the bioconcer.treticn factor-- of c- ims ir. re- lar. !on to suspended solids, as suspended solids arc a very important vehicle for FC3 distribution. 3* Untake of FC3 frev the Ted' rent; Tedimcnt. -rves as a sink for PC3 accumulation. In general, FCJ5 levels are higher in the biota than in the sediments, as confirmed both lab '' (V'.no'-'U- duorarr;) oratorv and field data. 1'inr-o* exposed ^ir.k shrimo yud fiddler r" \ * */' crabs to various concurt.rnticr.s of Aroclcr IT.5^ on silt. UpA MOMS 050316 take was directly related to the amount in the sediment. The hepatopancrease of shrimp and fiddler crabs exposed to sed iment containing 6ljppm FC3 for 30 days had an average of 240^pm and POjppm^resFectively, resulting in btoconcentration factors of 4 and 1.3 respectively ("inno,l7]). Caged shrimp { in Sscamhia Bay, Florida, exposed to it''Ts' contaminated sed iments also accumulated FCD's, however/-2'their accumulation appeared to reach a plateau which was. not demonstrated in the lab (Nimmc,l?7l), Field data from Sacantla Bay showing that burrowing shrimp contain higher residue levels than non burrowing ones, and samples collected from the Milwaukee River and other areas where organisms collected from stations ' high residue levels in the sediment had higher ^concentrations than those found ir. 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 infection. 4, *J ptake of FC3 V, from Food t Food in of major inner- r-1f * tance in the bioaccumulation cf ?CB's, Channel catfish ev- rosed to 77nnn Aroclor 1742 in food for 757 davr. accumulated *J FC3*s exponentially with exposure time and remained relative ly constant during periods of FCB-free feed after 64 days of exposure (.!'*nsen ,1 Q~6', Coho salmon f^rl Aroci -r 17;^ for fhQ days at concentrations of 1-B.5 to 14,^00 ug/hg brdv welpr, t per day accumulated 0,7 to 5 times the exposure levels or. a whole body v;ight basis, the highest level- r?:,c:,D-! Vning HONS 0503X7 'roppn (stallir.u, ;~7p). A Labumory eyU'r !. meets seem to point to dimct uptake of solubl.-j PC .Vs from water ar, the major route of entry into organisms. However, food exposure nay ro.-.e the :! . ,est threat in the environment. Although the bioacnurulfi tior f-.ctor- art' lower for fond evp-*s;uv?, the freater io'-a-? in r od (both ] i i/; h or hiyher concon'rotlorr in the nr .mi does not appear to reach a steady stot? cord:*.; \ !n the uptake cf soluble PCI'-. Also, the PC3'.- which or n :' ;-*nr? are expored to in the water are ycner'il iv th. f I-.w onlor'-- nition (hl-'h^r solur i 1 ' ty) In contract, the r `..v. t ior of FCVs r?r'?:n fond reneral 1 v there hi'her -v' ' Is i! '3 which hive a hirher partition coefficient, a:-- - :Wiculi to netabo: i ze^ar.d ther*'for*-'have a hWer pv - ` ' 1 "nr Vlo- .'.ccunula4'ion in the food choir.. Hividcrce for food chain re 1 at ions- i rs lr. . f ;i- lion have been found in the environment. FCE iu-'o in fish have teen directly relate to their fe^-;inr h<-hia-.i li;id content. Carp in the hisnisnippi River contained -- to 5 timer? the level of their food or;-;anirm,. the may fly ("auk, IV?) Similar trends Involvin'' mussels up thmurh fir.h, namnaln and birds have also t-'n found (iberhardt F^kall,l"^n)t ; iil:~nn , IV'C 5 MQNS 050318 I Others have found that bioconcentr'- tion dc'- occur, but that the residue levo1-^ of organisms in tee trop ic pyramid hove no rein tiensh1 ? (`(arvo ' ,lc?3) 'dir^br.r.-V'h tr/` + plankton mating fish in the Atlantic Ccean had highe** con centrations than thor-o occupying higher trophic Jla~ found th-' t plankton hai residue levels an ord"!' : ' ri*ude <L higher than the planktivorer, flying firh(^it"*l r.\ r'rcbrourh 1?2). J'uncon (l9?5) and Fowler (1978) also feu*".! **" 'verve against the food chain relationship* There inconsi s i^p. t 'ppults are du*~ io a c'-r^vt: n of both the availability and retention of 7C2*s* Th- 1 3 abil it of FCB*s to each orvar : r,n is influenced ay rue'', v:\---r nine, gecncrpholory, flow and tubidity of tr.e v.-. *- rye' -n, in conjunction with each organism's hone range, iin/j habit and behavior patterns, an previously discussed. The retention {I/1-1C1 to^TEvr) of PCB's is a result of the storage and metabolic capabili ties of the organism. Also,nuch of the above data has ren ? accumulated in the laboratory and/or anrurtions have ben A. based on analyses of pooled data collected in many parts of the world. Therefore, the nodes of entry of 1CT '.n into aguati x organisms hat. beer vague and the relative ing^r^nree of each node of entry has not yet been ascertained. HONS 050319 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 PCE concentration increases with size, age or weight. Eache et (lQ?2) found that FCB concentration correlated significantly to age, length and weight of trout from Cayuga lake. FC2 concentrations were A noted to be more variable among older fish than younger, Sy contrast, found that PCB's in the muscle of squid (Loliro forresi) tended-to decrease in concentration with in creased body weight. Clson et al (1973) reported no correla tion of PC2 levels in muscle of Ssox luclus to ae or weight e. using either wet or lipid weight basis. Thar^are, there fore, no /fenerallzations which can be made on this weirht- ppm subject. However, from these contradictory results, it is clear that the lipid - weight theory, based on MQKS 050320 the partitioning of PC.' directly from the water, in not the only contributing factor for increases or decreases in FCC 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. Lafystudies have shown that the uptake of 1U C DDT was much faster by smaller fish than larger# This up take rate difference may be related to their different meta- bollc ntM* &X.J ^ /iAfUy", if*S) FC3's have not only been shown to vary with size and species of fish, jfcome have also found that there .are seasonal (\........... 'i differences in PC3 concentration. This nay be due to a dif 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 PCD content lr. 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 PCS accumulation. .""^his study was undertaken to determine the con tamination of a river-reservoir system with distance from a point source of contamination as reflected by the residue levels In fishi determine the half-lifetof PC3 in this HONS 050321 system; to determine whether a wet weight-PC3 correlation exists either on a weight-ppn or log-lo- basis and whether there are seasonal effects on these relationships; to de termine whether there are species differences in ?C.~> con centration; to correlate these differences with feeding habits, abiotic parameters and lipid content, thereby de- ^. terminjinc 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 PCB concentration* HONS 050322 11*. COLLiCi IC < AND AUAL'/TIC/Ji rROBL. ^v* i U ' ? f? <t, ,'dv-*N ) All species of fish were not afee t^MMk^ect at all stations and seasons* Therefore, there is a very f!**/}LL. num ber of samples in some cases. This United both the statistl*> cal applications-^^ 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 sprirtc and summer samples were ex- traded 3 times (see methods). It was thought that the % re A covery of each method nay cause some problems in the compara bility of the specien 'nd seasons. Table 1 gives the percent recovery from the 2"wash and 3"*,ash methods in fish from the 3prin/j collection, r first 2 washes resulted in hi^h recovery rates (?0-96j)in most cases. The lowest percent recoveries were samples of ST* *./'*i :> Lepomis)and those fish of very low PC3 content. There.is no consistent recovnry 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 arpear to affect the relationship within or between species, stations or seasons. For example, in many cases those fish collected HONS 050323 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 peak i Sample HZ*}*) a sample of Lepomis megalotis from station li spring collection (Figure 1). 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 ^tdtion 1, a control station next to an agri cultural and cattle field. *fter analyzing nan;; sample? from other stations and comparing them to the standards, it was found that the PCI peak (98-104) which ic overlapped by DDE usually constitutes from 20-30# of the Aroclor 125^ measur ed. Therfore, "td bias^the station 1 samples, this peak was reduced to '25# 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 presenter! in the section on analytical methods* MGNS 050324 Table 1 Hexane Extraction Recoverv Sample 392, Stat ion 3 Fhenycobius' *? . 5 grans ppm Aroclor 1242 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 14.87 72.45 Jo Recovered in First 2 1 90 40.8 99 90.3 Sample 393 Station 3* rhendcobius f?. 4.1 grams ppm Aroclor 12bp ppn Aroclor 1254 prm Aroclor 1260 ppm Total TCS lrst 2 washes 3.66 9.84 6.72 20.22 3rd wash 0.30 0.73 0.24 1.23 TV-1 '3.96 10.5s 6 *c6 21.51 Recovered in First ? washes 92 9036 94 tV Sample 394, Station l.Fher.tfcobius so., f\68 grams ppm Aroclor 1242 ppm Aroclor 1254 ppm Aroclor 1260 ppm Total FOE First ? wishes 7.75 12.09 3.19 23.04 3rd wash 0.71 0.82' 0.16 1.70 Total 6.32 1 ">_0O 7.75 24.75 fS Recovered in First 2 washes GO,9 on oc 93 Samole 414, Station 5. Flraerhales np., 0.5 grans npm Aroclor 1342 ppm Aroclor 1354 ppm Aroclor 1260 ppm Total PCS First ? wishes 0,09 0.24 0.13 1.11 3rd wash 0.05 0.20 0,02 0.27 T-"*M! 0,14 0.4b 0.13 1 .39 f Recovered In First 2 washes 65 c4 04 SO HONS 050325 Table 1 (continued) Sample 422, Station 5, Doronoma ceoedlanum 4,7 crams ppm Aroelor 1242 ppm Aroelor 1254 ppm Aroelor 1260 ppm Total FCB First 2 washes 0.11 0.55 0.04 o.?i 3rd wash 0.02 0.06 0,00 0,09 Total 0.11 0.62 0.04 0.80 % Recovered in First 2 washes S3 89 90 83.6 Sample 507, Station 2. LeDonis so. , 4 crams ppn Aroelor 1242 ppm Aroelor 1254 ppm Aroelor 1760 ppm Total PCS First ? washes 14.49 14.37 4,01 33.78 3rd wash ,10 4.58 0.57 12.27 Total 21.60 18.95 *.mLQ 46.05 f> Recovered lr. First 2 washes 07 75.8 39 73 Sample 532* Station 7, Leontis so,.* 7 rrams pom Aroelor 1242 ppm Aroelor 125^ ppn Aroelor 1260 ppn Total PCS Fi.rst 2 washes 0.31 0,99 0.27 1.58 7rd va-h 0,54 0.78 0.14 1.43 Total Q,t6 1.78 0.42 3.06 .s' f$ Recovered in First 2 washes 3* 55 65 51.6 Sample 192. Station 2. Lecor.ls so. * 14. crams ppn Aroelor 1242 ppm Aroelor 1254 ppn Aroelor 1260 ppm Total PC3 First 2 washes 1.86 4.47 5.77 12.11 3rd wash 2.78 2.39 0,?6 5.54 Total 4,64 6,87 6.14 17.65 ? Recovered in First 2 washes 40 65 34 63 HONS 050326 Table 1 (continued) Sample 401, 'Station 8, Roccus so. ppm Aroclor 1242 pan Aroclor 12f4 ppm Aroclor 120 ppm Total FOB * First 2 washer. oTcS 0.14 0.65 0.47 1 12 prana 3rd wash 0.03 0.10 0.02 0.16 Total O.O9 0.45 0.08 0.63 % fiecovered 72 74 Sample 493 Station 2, Notronls oT>,f 1.4 rrans ppm Aroclor 1?M2 ppm Aroclor 1254 ppm Aroclor 1260 ppm Total FOB Firfmt 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 S? Recovered 77.7 83 c3.7 82.6 Sample 494, station 2, Kotracts so.. 1.4 rraims ppm Aroclor 1242 ppm Aroclor 12*4 ppm Aroclor 1260 ppm Total PCS First 2 washes 13.67 15.24 7.82 36.74 ?rd ward 3.72 3.04 0.38 7.16 Total 17.40 15.2 8.20 43.91 !'j Recovered !n First 7 washes 7d,s 83 ' 5 83.6 Sample 407. Station 2* Leoomls so.,, 13 grams ppm Aroclor 1242 ppm Aroclor 1254 ppm Aroclor 1260 ppm Total FC3 First 2 washes 9.39 7.48 3.10 1?*99 3rd wa*h 4,84 ?.*0 0.15 7.51 Total 14,24 q#oq 3.26 27.50 % Recovered In First 2 washes 74.0 o<; 72.7 HONS 050327 Table 1 (continued) Sample 998, Station 2, Lgroni? sc.. .19 ^rams ppm Aroclor 1?^2 ppm Aroclor 125** ppm Aroclor 1260 ppm Total FCB First 2 washes 9.33 9.65 1.22 10.21 "^rd w??h 1.51 1.02 0.21 2.75 Total 5. Ha 5.67 1.94 12.96 % Recovered in First 2 washes 74 81.9 85 '8.7 Sample 499, Sta tlon 2. Cantu?la afflnir, .7 ppm Aroclor 1242 ppm Aroclor 1254 ppm Aroclor 1260 ppm Total FCB First 2 washes 10.97 10.71 2.26 23.95 2rd wash 3.62 1.81 0.91 5-85 Total 1".10 12. c3 2.67 29.31 :S Recovered in First 2 w.irhes 79 85.5 89.6 0 Sample 502, S tation 2. ^otroris rt?,t 18 rrar pom Aroclor 1292 ppn Aroclcr 125** ppm Aroclor 1260 ppm Total PCB First ?. washes 753 19.16 10.75 30.95 3rd wash 2.63 7.35 1.49 11.97 Total fi.c7 21.51 12 ,?4 92,92 % Recovered in First ?. washes 69 6^.8 87.8 72*9 Sample 428* Station 4, Dorosoma cecediarv-m, ;: *7 crams ppm Aroclcr 1292 prm Aroclcr 17AU ppm Aroclcr I2o0 pern Total FCB First 2 washes 2.26 2 #92 0.82 6.01 ^rd wnsh 0,24 0.20 0.03 0,98 To`-->l 2,c0 3.13 O.Ss 6.99 Recovered in First 2 washes co 3 <=6 92.6 HONS 050328 Table 1 (continued) Sample 429* Station 4, Dortsoma.ceredianum, 3*8 rrams ppm Aroclor 1242 ppm Aroclor 1254 ppm Aroclor 1260 ppm Total PCB First ? washes 1.93 2*53 0.71 5.17 ^rd wash 0.18 0.15 0.02 0.35 Total 2.11 2.68 0.73 5.53 /> Recovered in. First : 91 94 97 93.6 Sample 475. Station 6, Microuterus sp,, 79 *rra. prm Aroclor 1292 ppm Aroclor 1259 ppm Aroclor 1260 ppm Total PC3 First 2 washes 0.91 1.98 0.96 2.86 3rd wash 0.08 0.19 0.09 0.47 Tot'nl C.99 2.32 c.n 3.39 Recovered in First ; 53,6 85 85.8 Sample 4?8, Station 6, Micront-rus sn, f 2.7 ppm Aroclor 1292 ppm Aroclor 1259 ppm Aroclor 1260 ppm Total PCB First 2 washes 0.33 1.35 0.33 2.02 3rd wp.rh 0.10 0.33 0.03 0.97 Total c.43 1.69 0,37 2.50 Recovered in First 2 washes 7o.8 eo 89 80.8 Sample 980, Sta tlon 6. Microoterus so., 3.3 ^ r<ms ppm Aroclor 1292 ppm Aroclor 1254 ppm Aroclor 1260 ppm Total FCS First 2 washes 0,26 1.39 0.29 1.85 3rd wash 0,05 0.13 0.02 0.25 Total C.32 1.52 0,?7 2.11 ft Recovered in Flr-'-t ? washes 64 88 co 67.7 MONS 050329 Table 1 (continued) Sample 489, Station 2, FheniScoblus so,, 1.0 (prams ppm Aroclor 1242 ppm Aroclor 1254 prm Aroclor 1260 ppm Total PC3 First 2 washes 21.09 14.01 4.30 39.41 Ire* wash 3.37 l.Uh 0.11 4.93 Tot?l 24,47 15.46 4,42 44.35 % Recovered In First 2 washes --------- EE------------------- 90 97 ee.8 HONS 050330 HONS 050331 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 this segment of stream and reservoir, previously heavily contaminat ed by PCB from a known point source, should lead to more con clusive results. A. Methodologyi A stream-reservoir system in Anniston, Alabama was chosen for this study. This site was the location of a major manufac turer of FCD's which result n high quantities of release in to the stream. The study area is approximately r0 miles long including a $1 mile section of Choccolocco Creek and a 30 mile 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 2t Choccolocco Creek, Highway 109 bridge crossing Station 31 Cheaha Creek, Highway 10 bridge crossing Station Choccolocco Creek, Highway 77 bridge crooning Station 5* Coosa River, Highway 72 bridge crossing (control) Station 6i Coosa River, Stemely Bridge, Logan Martin Reservoir Station 7* Logan Martin Reservoir, above Logan Martin Dam Station 81 Logan Martin Reservoir, below Logan Martin Reservoir Station 9* Choccolocco Creek,Highway 109 bridge crossing Station 10:Choccolocco Creek, Highway 63 brid ;e crossing Station lliMouth of Choccolocco creek Station !2*Coosa River, Just below the mouth of Foorhouse Creek MONS 0 5 0 3 3 2 (th.or ls.no.pg. 25) Station 13? Logan Martin Reservoir, 3 miles south of Highway 14 bridge Station 3A: Logan r.artir. P.enervoir, 6 miles south of Highway 14 bridge This wafc a'6ne yenr'survey with quarterly fish .-anplcs.taken from Stations 1 to 8.and one summer collection unr. t:ikon at Station 9. Stations 1,3 nd 5 wor: control stations md all "tr.`?rc wer? stations of possible PCI? contamination* Quarterly vvter ar.d sediment samples were taken from Station 1 to 6# Pro'Iged sediment samples were taken at stations 10 to 14 during the s\ rr'cr col- lecting period only. Abiotic Componentst FC3'r, have low solubility and a \ irh ad- sorptive capacity for rudiments and suspended ml Mr 1* Soil frop the banks of the river was collected ;/ mi.ng off surface soil into glass jars* 2. Water for PC3 and vf-V*r quality analyses w- t 300 ml DOD bottles " 3. The fine surface comment- were skircr off ir. 4, To obtain suspended ml Mg a pump was u^erfto col' gallons of subsurface water in prewaptfed rolyethyl metal cans and later filtered on glass filtej KONS 050333 r MOMS 050394 21 otic Con-ergots: To study the tioconcentration of iC''s, 12 genera of fish representing .different trophic levels were collected. The fish were Identified to species, but only the genera were ur,ed in the statistical analyses* The following gesera '^*r collected with a 10 foot seine: Camrontona sr? fcoro'-'-oma %t>, G-3r.hu r la sr, Hypn t`j llupi r,r, T,, rr>n y>-pt *' l^mpterus 'C, Noteni ;onu pr, hotropis gp, Vorsin sp. "^h en icoblus n n. Finrhilen so* The species are listed in Appendix A* Plankton was collected by punping 10 nllor sf w.itir through a plankton net* Due to lack of plankton, it wap col lected in the fall only* B Chenlnl Analyses ? Standard water quality "'easurements of dir,solved oxygen, alkalinity, pH, color, chloride,turbidity, sulfite, total iron, conductivity, suspended solids, and carbon dioxide were made with the D.0, meter and Hach Kit* The organic carbon, humic andjTlu^ic acid concentrations were measured by the '..'alkley-llack Method and Chen's techniques, respectively. The particle sice analyses were done by Jsas. ' ,). The extraction and cleanup methods for PC!1 analyses 4 J<TVk' HONS 0S0335 of the sediment,-soil and fish were done according to Veith's and 2PA*s methods^respectively. . A Microtek 220 gas chromatograph equipped with a Nl-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 225 200 and 35 C.respectively. The chromatograms were interpreted by the Webb-McCall Method. All of the above mentioned methods are presented in the following pages. MQftS 0503.36 C. PCB Analyses: In the PC3 analyses, the samples must first be extracted and then cleaned of other impultles 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 ) '7 r-sO ' Soil and Sediment Extraction* Use 10 to $0 ftwet weight) of soil or sediment. Soxlet extract for 12 to 24 hours with 750 ml naograde hexane. Suspended solid extraction: Take glass filters previously used to filter 5 gallons of sample water# Extract for 12 to 24 hours in a soxlet extractor with 250 ml nanograde hexane# Fish Tissue Extraction (EPA Method): A composite sample of fish (several fish of the same species and similar length and weight) weighing'5 to 15'g (wet weight) is put into a^skre^tpo/ teflon capped test tube (155 nuu x 25 mm). /' 1# Add 5 ml acetonitrile and blend on a polytron for 1 minute 2# Centrifuge and decant liquid into 200 mm x 25 mm skre^ topped,'teflon capped test tube '/ 3# Repeat steps 1 and 2 4* Add 5 ml acetonitrile and vortex mix for 30 seconds 5# Centrifuge and decant# Add liquid to the above 6. Repeat steps 1 to 5 MONS 05033} 7 Add 25 ml of 20% aqueous sodium sulfate solution and 5 ml of nanograde hexane to decanted liquid 8, Shake for one minute. Remove top hexane layer with pipet and transfer to 25 ml Xudema Danish Concentrator Tube, 9* Repeat steps 7 and 8 two more times 10, Concentrate hexane to 0.5 ml 2# Florlsll Cleanup Florisil PreparationtActivate florlsll by heating at 130 C over night. Add 20 g^o a size "B" chromaflex column and top with 2 g of anhydrous sodium sulfate. Sediment, Soil and Suspended Solid Cleanupi The extracts of the sediment, soil and suspended solids are transferred directly to the florisil column. Tissue Extract Cleanup: The tissue extract is transferred to the florisil column with 40 ml of 5$ ethyl ether in hexane solution, D, Interpretation of Chromatograms The Webb-McCall method (1973)# "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 FC3'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 HONS 050338 Aroclors (Figures 3.-S) and DDE (Figure the data tables (Tables 2-V) 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 FCB's, chromatograph known amounts of the standards. Measure the area for each peak. Using the Tables 2-Ydetermine the Response Factor (ng FCE/area) for each peak.(Tables 5^) Chromatograph the sample and measure the area of each peak, Multiply the area of each peak by the Response Factor for that peak Environmental Samples Containing More Than One Aroclon Most FCB-*contaminated fish, water and sediment sampler, contain residues of several Aroclors. Usually the sample chromatogram can simply be divided into 3 serrate 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*1 correspond ing in Aroclor 1242, peaks with retention times of 84-174 are A. compared to the corresponding peaks in Aroclor 125Zi 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 for each peak mean weight ! ( represented each peak area of the standard HONS 050339 2. ng FC3 in sample peak = (area of sample peak}(be3sense factorJ 3. ppm PCS _ /total r.r in sample \ / total vn] `inp of sam si o (nls) j In sample* V ul tested / V total weight of sample tgmoj/ Table 8 is an example of the FOB calculation for sample tr'?8t (r^* ^ Camrostern sp fron station^ fall collection. As described earlier In 'Collection and Analytical Problems', there were numerous samples which contained an unusually larye peak at retention time 100 (Figure f). Mont of tie***' occurred at staions 1,3 and 5, all controls iferiocnt-^l nrr arrJculturrl and cattle fields. This peek generally conr.il tuer. 20- ?0;' of the Aroclor 125^ found,in both standards trvi samples. In those samples where it is large (greater t.iu.n of the Aroclor 125^) it is adjusted to represent no of the Aroclor 125*+ measured. Table 9 shows how this was dcm*. The residual was thought to be IDS. HONS 050340 4 HONS 050341 3* :1 HONS 050342 MONS 0503*4 HONS 0 5 0 3 4 5 Table 2 Composition of Aroclor 1242 (Webb-McCall, 1973) RRT Mean Weight Percent Relative Std. Dev. No. of Chlmines' .u 'hs 28 32 37 40 47 54 58 70 78 84 98 104 125 146 Total 1.1 2.9 11.3 11.0 . . 4 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 S.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 i 23% 3j7o% 3 3 3 4 3% 33% 4 167% 4 4~ 90% 5__j 10% 4 5 b 5 5~j 85% 6 115% 3~] 75% 6 ! 25% Retention time relative to p.p'-DDR=100. Measure*! from first appearance of solvent 'Standard deviation of six results as a percentage of the mean of the result?. From GC/MS data. Teaks containinjr mislmos f isomers of different chlorine numhevs arc bvavU^tcd. MOMS 050346 Table 3 Composition of Aroclor 125** (Webb-McCall, 1973) RRTJ Mean Weight Percent Relative Std. Dev.*> No. of Chlorines1* 47 54 58 70 SI 98 104 125 146 160 174 :on 222 Total ^8.9' 1.4 13.2 17.3 7.5 13.6 15.0 10.1 1.3 8.4 1.8 1.0 100.0 3.7 2.6 2.8 2.7 Z.9 5.3 3.8 2.4 2.7 8.1 5.5 18.6 26.1 4 4 4 4~ 2 V% 5J7.j% 5 5 5 5 i 70?; o__i o' ioo"; . CJ 70% \\ 6 6 7 'Retention time relative to p.p`-I)DE=:100. Measured from first appearance of solvent. 'Standard deviation of six results as a perccnla^u of the mean of the results. 1`ruto Gt'/MS data. Peak* containing mixtures of isomer* are bracketed. * HONS 05034? Table k Conpesition of Aroclor 1260 (Wcbb-HcCall, 1973) RRT Mean Weight Percent Relative Sid. Dcv.b No. of Chlorines 70 84 I- 98 [_104 117 125 148 160 174 203 i~232 l_2 280 332 372 448 52S ToUl 2.7 4.7 3.8 3.3 12.3 14.1 4.9 12 1 9.3 9.S 11.0 4 4.0 .6 1.5 98.6 6.3 1.6 3.5 6.7 3.3 3.6 2.2 2.7 - 4.0 3.4 2.4 5.0 8.G 25.3 10.2 5 5 5 ;go% 6 '40% 0 5~~i 13% G 1 S577, C f>" r.or, 7 i 50% 6 7__. 90; ,10" 7 J 90% 7 7 8 3 8 'Retention time relative to prp'-DDK=I00. Measured from first appearance of solvent. Overlapping peaks that are quantitated as cine peak are bracketed. `Standard deviation of six results as a mean of the results. 'From GC/MS data. Teaks containing mixtures of isomers of different chlorine numbers are lira* kcied. `Composition determined at the renter of peak lot 'Composition determined at the center of peak 232. MOMS 050348 Feak tt 11-21 28-32 37-ito 4? 54-58 70 7^-Ph 58-104 125 3 46 Table 5 Response Factors for Peaks 11 to 14> from Aroclor 12^2 Standard a lppn Concentration (3/Z2/79) u' 1 area of peak atattenuation" 6k 0.028 0.062 0.169 0.070 0.101 0.107 0.061 ' 0.040 0.010 0,007 mean rwf eight 15.3 17.1 22.6 ' 8.6 12.4 10.3 6.3 3,r. 1.6 1.0 Response Factor 27.321 13.790 6.686 3.236 6.139 4.813 4,164 4.750 8.000 7.143 Teak # 70 84 ?8-104 125 146-160 Table $ Reasponoe Factors for Peaks ?0 to 17k from Aroclor 125^ Standard (.' 'w C y\ a Ippm Concentration (3/22/7S) ' area of peak at attenuation x6k 0.034 0.019 0.127 0.177 0.300 0,188 meanrfweight 6,2 S#3 13.2 17.3 21.1 15.0 Reagpona Factor 9.118 11.316 . 5.197 4.387 3.517 3.939 HONS 050349 Table 7 Response Factor for Peaks 203 to 528 from Aroclor 1260 Standard (/-'/ v/t c' i'j a lppn Concentration (3/22/78) Feak t> 203 232-244 280 332 372 448 328 area of peak at attenuation 128 0.190 0.212 0.296 0.114 0.114 0.010 0.043 area of peak at attenuation 64 0.380 0.424 0,592 0.228 0.228 0,070 0.086 near, weight 9,3 9.8 11.0 4,2 4,0 0,6 1.5 Response Factor 1.224 1.156 0.929 0.921 0.877 1.500 0.372 HONS 050350 Table B Calculation for PCS Content of Sample #78 <"'-'/<o'/tf Camoostoma so.. Station 2, Fall Sample Volume 34.5mls Sample Weight x 11*83 grams (3/22/78) Peak # n-21 28-32 37-32 47 54-58 70 78-84 98-104 125 146-160 174 203 223-244 2P0 -n? T?2 448 578 Total area at att. 512! 0.068 0.157 0.270 0.241 0.274 0.310 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 27575 3.072 1.936 1.928 1.360 0.568 0.320 0.368 0.064 0.112 --- - -- Bespose Factor 27.321 13.790 6.686 6.286 6.139 5.187 43^ 3.517 3.989 3.343 3.000 1.224 1.156 0.029 0.921 0.887 1.500 0.872 nr; PCB 14.863 17.320 14.442 12.119 13.457 12.864 12.589 10.804 7.723 6.445 4.ngo 0.SQ5 0.370 0.042 0*059 0.099 --- -- 127.929 1242 Standard 85.1107m' A174? 1254 Standard 41,f41.-jr A1254 1260 Standard 1.56 She A1260 Using Equation 3 above 1 Aroclor 1242 . in sample " ?4.5 ml 11.83 crams 49.6289ppi Aroclor 1254 in sample * '>4,'; ml 11.83 grams 24,2808ppm Aroclor 1260. in sample * -)?4.5 ml 11.S3 grams 0.9125?"" Total PCB 127.929np\/34." ml A . 74.597pm" 5 ul }( 11.63 gramsj * HONS 0503S1 Table 9 Calculation for PCS Content'of Sanole ,v;-^3 ( A'/f. y// Lenomir. - e^slotis, Station 1, Srir.r Sample Volume S 3<4,,is Sample '.'eight ~ 2.59gms (9/30/78) Feak 37 47 54 70 84 *38-104 125 146 174 209 p'x? ?"0 mo Total Area at Att. 8 0,004 0.016 0,005 0.02? 0.0f2 0.128 0,0?9 0,07? o.c6o o.f'65 0.035 0,030 c.033 0.01< Area at Att. 128 0*0002 0.0010 0.0003 0.0016 0.0032 o.ooeo 0.0049 0.0049 o,00?7 0.002a o,on?i 0.0018 0.0020 0.0000 Resconne Factor 9.04 7.71 7.60 7.73 5.17 4,22 4.07 3,4 r> f-'? 3.94 3.55 2.04 2.50 ?,?6 " n." FC3 o.coie 0.0077 0.0022 0.0123 O.01c5 0.0337 o.oi^o 0.C173 n.ooan 0.0110 0.0^74 0.n0r,2 0.01)30 * Peak 9*3-104 retr^!-Dn'/.' erprnxir.at.cly 34^ of 'ool-'r \?.$b nr^-ured, It i:-tth'*rr.:fore, reduced to '"il;; 7 5' of the Aroo2or 1254 and it's now value is O.C22n:, The mount cf Aroclor IT9'^- feund ip therefore, O.C955~f and the total is 0.l404ng ?C3. A1242 Standard 0,024.1- Al?54 Standard 0,072np; A1260 Standard 0,030?n.- The new flruroa are then used in Squat ion 3 as in Table 9 to yield the following resultsi 0.04fi6ppm Aroclor 1242 0,1768prm Aroclor 1254 0*0639rpro Aroclor 1260 0.2903p?ffl Total FGB MOWS 050352 HL. psnrrs A. DATA SUllHAPY Tabler 10 and U r.how the result? of the ~-mv Analysis of Variance* Two different programs were used, bcth yielding similar results. TnMi* 10, from the South Carol!-.a Ir^-ram, shows that both the r'ntion location and collectin'- r^ror. have a. ri/nificant* influence on the accumulation of F12 by l-M orortorwr and Nntro~* *. The weight of the f\-b ,-rontly had no effect# The accumulation of FC; by I.--><-* j - nj'fect- ry* by both the station location and w->l *ht, but -r* by n.;er,cn, Cnly I.eroo \ r t Micro and hotrord r~ '-ere t* -1 ^ f In `hi;-. Table 11,1s the SF33 Ar.cva Tabjc. 2-w<-y -1 ynir. virin/; total PCB by weight with station and season was done cm 3?ror'Or? i Oanhun ia , Hvrer.tclinr, heronis, -,i rrny t'-rus and Itntr^ls* There is a. significant relatior.nhi retv;een weight and FC3 concentration in all tested sxc?f+ Hvuentellum. The station location is - significant in all 6 //*** while the season is significant in the accumulation of TCP by Doreroma . V * oront'-rw-. cr.d V^tro yi r- Table 12' is th .inova from another analysis of variance (SPSS FyO'*ran) to determine whether thre in a r: .~r. \ f icnr.t difference in the accumulation of PC2 ^ ^oroso^a , ^enomjs, Mior^rternn and Tint-p^im ?t stations Si/mifleant- p< O.Of MOMS 050353 1,2,^,5 and all ^ genera fron stations 6,7 and 8 cc lloctively Again it shows that weight is significant in the ac cunulation of PCn by there genera at all stations except rl. 1 t also shows that there are significant differences in the ncan residue levels of these k genera at stations 2 and All of these analyses, therefore, show that th e accumula% tion of PC3 by fish is related to station location, w-iGht, season and species of fish. MOWS 050354 Station Season Weight Table 10 2-Way Analysis of Variance , ( So. Carolina Progran) Lepomin sp. DF l-'S 7 .2.172 3 0.1?6 1 0.05 F 35.1co 3.176 0,0*7 T3 Q.0UC1 ".0293 0,667b Station reason w } h t Flcrcpterun ?b. DF 7 2.172 3 0.1^6 1 O.O59 to,09? 3.623 1.093 r.1 'V':.vT Station Season Weight Notroply m. DF :\s 7 9.^18 3 0.125 1 0.726 11*7,507 1.910 16.212 O.Cl'Ol C.12W* 0.0005 DF- Decrees of Freedom KS- Fean Square p- rl,;r. 1 ficanoe of F MCNS 050355 Table 11 2-Way Analysis of Var lance (SPSS Program) Station Season We isrht Dorcrom?. r*1?. DF >i$ p li 1.122 20.1*36 3 P.170 3.099 i 0.306 5.579 _E_ 0.001 (\0&: 0.027 Station Season W"i~ht. Canbunifl affinis DF vs V 3 3.766 2 0.031* 6.1*11* 1 1.779 21.1*1-5 "ef'2 Station Season Vei^ht Station Season Weight Hy rental i.:n sn, DF >:s F 2 2.1*56 12%uih 2 0.021 o.ios 1 0.285 1,W n 0.001 0.0] 0,251 leronir? rn* DF ,t(7 F r 7 ~752 l'*2.837 0.001 3 0.P67 1.280 0.283 1 8.389 122.866 0.001 MONS 0503S6 tabl ? 11 (continued) Station Season Weight Station Season Weight Hlcropterus sp DF MS F 7 1.936 29.010 3 0.240 3.601 1 2.291 3^.32? p 0.001 0.020 0.001 Kotropls so. DF MG F p 5 8.333 152082 0,001 3 0.293 5.354 0.003 1 1.325 27.887 0.C01 DF- Degrees of Freedom MS- Mean Square p- Significance of F HONS 050357 Table 12 2-Way Analysis of Variance (SPSS Program) Weight Species (5.6,8) Station 1 DF US 1 oTSTi 2 0.1x5 F 37727 0.704 p 0.059 0.499 Weight Species (5.6,8) Station 2 DF US 1 0.303 2 0.170 F 5.709 3.203 p 0.020 0.048 Weight Species (2,5.6) Station 4 DF KS 1 0.329 2 0.099 F 7.414 2.223 n 0.008 0.116 Weight Species (2,5,6,8) Station 5 US 2.336 0.364 F 3T7536 4.959 p 0.001 0.004 MONS 050358 TaMe 12 (continued) Stations 6,7 and 8 DF Weicht 1 Species (2,J,6,8) 3 US 0.68? 0.15k r 87ni 1 *809 D 0,005 0,150 DF- Decrees of freedon MS- Mean Square p- significance of F Species 2- Dorcsoma p, 5- Lenomls rr> 6- Micropterus so, 8- Notronlg r? HONS 050359 9. the DirTnisuTiCN c? res in the Rr/sn-asninvcii? syetih as R2FL3CT23 3Y THE RESIDUE LEVELS 0? U SPECIES CF FISH PCB levels of all samples are presented in Appendix A. The ean Aroclor 12^2, 125^, 1260 and total FC3 for each species at each station and season are presented in Appendix S. Figures to if are histo^r^ms dis playing`these mean residue levels (total PCE) of Foroncxa, .v Lepcmls, Flcropterus and hotrods stations 1 to 3 and all k seasons. In general, fish collected at control stition ffl on Choccolocco Creek have very low FCB levels (<lprr), Fish from the other control station (,^5) on the Coosa .liver arc in the 2rrm range. There are 2 exceptions. One fish r-ampie c-.ch of --n--o--r-o--s-o-----'-a and -H---i-c--r-o--u--t-e---r--u--n---- from stations 1 and j5 ) rennectivelv->. are in the lOppn range. Very high levels arc found in firh from a sample ,* p station 2. They ranre from 7^in*L--e^----c--n---i-r--rUr.o l6ct*^ in-V------o---l-r--o- --r--i------- - V' v sample with nears ranging from oppn in leronlr to 9 rm \r. Canr.ostoma. These levels decrese with increasin'; <i irtnnee from the outfall to Logan Martin Dam (-Station 7).where near, levels are in the 3ppn range. However, there is a sli'ht increase oV' ic station 8, just below Logan iiartin Dam in all L ronera. There is no apparent high accumulation of rC3 in the reservoir Citations 6 and 7). Table 13 shows the )i decrease from station to station in all h species. > ' Table and 15 show the hamic and fluwic ncid content, and the organic carbon content of the sediment from Stntiorn 1 to & Tables. 16 and 17 give the water quality diti collected at the survey sites and the US33 site^reprectively (see Pi', 1 for collecting siter). Table IB and Figures 1JL to ] show the MONS 050360 particle size analysis of the sediment. The differences ir particle size, organic content and humic and fluvic acid contents of the sedimentsMo not appear to affect the distribution of FCB in this system. The water quality fluctuation?- do r.ct seem to affect the distribution of FCB m the system eitnvr, C&.rrtonnrt The effect of water quality on the upta.' e of FCB %f ii IP Vi, Lr!S?.i r- is wjTeHBf5T^i in section D, Therefore, either the fish con centrations do not indicate the abiotic FC2 content, cf the stream or^flr thede parameters measured, humic an.: : T,,:vic acid, organic content and various water quality analyser, do not In this system, ffrnf't.ly lnfluencp the distribution of FCT In this vr*en, The' FC^-io each station is closely related to t.ht* -i * ? t. :t - fr.-n the outfall. HONS 05036X Table 13 Percent Decrease of All Aroclors with ijir-'tance from tne Cutiall In k Orrerac of Fish (Dorosona, L^-nnls, Micro rrtcrun, N'otrc^: ~) 55' Station ft. Fall Station 6, rail Poronoma cp Aroclor l.?U2 bpm fS _ 10.58. >S7 l.Uo, Aroclor l?.5l- t>rx fS 13.70. . >75 3.35. Aroclor 1260 OCX 1 ' 3.12 >82 0.^7 Total fc; OCX 87 27 .ft ' > e' 5.y Station ft, Vinter 5.30 \ 89 Station 7, Vinter 0,6lr 6,<1 ' >57 2.16 ft.Cft \ Cii 0.26 15.8 >>E 3.06 LenonIs pn, Aroclor 12^2 nor. Station ?. ''inter m,70. >75 Station \ Winter 2.62 Aroclor 125ft TMrn '"} 10.=?. > 60 U.,uA Aroclor 12*0 b,Z? \68 2,02^ Total PC 20 > 7.1 Station 2, Spring Station h, Spring Station c, Spring Station ", Spring 11.7 ft; I- FC3 Increase HONS 050362 Table 13 (continued) leto^l? no. Aroclor 1?A? on f Station 2, Summer S tu 11 on 4, Sumner Station 6, Summer Station Summer C7 pA ' 1,1>86/1/ /96 > 63/ 0.66/ Aroclor 12*4 6.15 '?N. > 'il/ >66-/ 1.31/ .Aroclor 1260 pra______ ft * a K-\V, "Vl^x i.e'i "i\ > 6/ l.o/ / >?/ 7/ TD*al fi arm \ 20.6-X >/ 12.3 ? > 51/ 6.0^ >6/ 2.0/ Arcelor 124c Station ''inter Station 6, 'flntsr Station 7, ''inter 1 ' -iN >/ CO >?6/ 0,12/ Arcelor 1254 iiB<i ci, >:y 0, / A roc'or 1'60 '> X. CP > ?5/ r,, 1 , / Total I1 ">V 10.7 c: >/ 1 .?/ Station 2, Spring '"tntion 4, Spring Station r, Spring 11 .o^x >/- 1.62 ^ c-y/ 0,3/ 11 /v > ?x p ,('6 r4 > 3V' 5,34/ (, ,arxs^^ 2/1 7^/ 2.08/ 2.K > UN, 17.7 ^ >5y 7.9/ Station Summer , Station 4, Sumner 6.00 >3 O.43 5.35 > 71 1.70 2.37 > 66 0.39 16.3 > 66 2.2 * I- FCj Increare HONS 050363 Table 13 (continued) Station 2, Fall Station 6, Fall Notrools SO, Aroclor 1242 own'- ft 14*66 >98 0.36 Aroclor 125^ rrm f, 19, >91 1.82 Aroclor 1260 nnn f? > 96 0.24 Total FC3 nrn % 48.1 > 95' 2.4 Station 2, Sumner Station 6, Sunner 0.76 99 >6p^ Station 8, Sumner 0.27^ le.oov. 2,30 04 > yy" 1.^0^ n,06 . >9V 0.45 95" >X 0.41/ 42.9 v > 9K. 3.6 5 >y HONS 0503*4 " >; A F/C UAL ir f TCT.1L f<LC- L'VeS 0 0/t 0 SC ss* /9 sr/9T/s^ + i I t *> . .i,r; r**' fe4tO/vf lA/t* ^A/ZKt'Q t - /''AIL + - Uff^JITK J - ZA/liM G U - ,.C" tj A* *i f ft. ACCV*' 4rAC/t ` SAX-', HONS 050345 ? ,*-**.' rcTXL />cc l)/SiS ttrS'Csl /s f/ 0r^ * i 7/? T/ 0 *o ffyfJ/S 59 3 no bC 'M , a Jv 1 JV J^SkL c ST/fT/C^S & 9 t?HbtO$ s>/lr yn<Af/) *<f*V~ P*cri '. i /' PALL, i- ut i-vreiz 0 ' SS/l!'* ( 1- HONS 0503*6 Sample Number 212 204 206 205 214 215 208 217 207 216 213 253 252 251 250 249 211 210 209 247 210 218 Table 13 './Inter 1/16/73 Station 4 Species L. megalotis LM .macro chirus I. I* L.megalotis * M L. macrochlrus L. megalotis L.macrochirus L. mogalotis n" " H " *' L. macrochlrus D* cttp-dianm "M .. .. *! cccsie " Average Weight .9900 1.2290 1.3254 1.7458 1.6308 2.1524 2.4059 2.5511 3.4132 4.1435 5.1205 23.2148 29.8491 39.3579 49.6747 64.3015 7.3?37 7.53;`l IO.II91 34.1144 9.78J9 14,4093 1242 1.7594 .5055 .9949 1.3363 2.3300 2.8515 1.1450 1.4196 1.2149 3.5729 1-5357 5.279= 6.1021 6.2332 3.1502 4.7863 6.2321 2.6004 7.6749 5*6968 3*5215 1254 4.0724 2.4306 2.6212 3.4833 4.3323 5.9119 2.7679 3.7281 3.5610 3.9721 2.9533 7.5718 7.7304 7.6711 4.0404 6.2385 6.626s 2.9532 10.2486 5.6985 3.5215 1260 lTSToO .6466 1.2132 1.9391 2.0640 4.1437 1.4338 1.3360 2.2212 1.7201 .9904 3*5540 2.3695 3.0546 1.S112 4.1031 3.7603 .7361 7.4723 4.6225 1.9400 Total 7.7079 3.7323 4.3294 6.7639 8.7769 12.9071 5.3459 6.4839 6.9971 9.2652 5.4800 16.4054 16.2020 16.9891 3.7019 15.1279 16.6690 6.2383 25-3959 Is.0314 7.4264 Sample Number "332 333 331 320 330 328 327 326 334 sr*nlea L. margi.natus L. ranorochimo L. marginal'.13 "" ;; " - ' "" " N. punctulatjs iable 14 Spring tyl4/78 ation 4 Average Weight 2.7325 3*324? 3.7239 4.5344 4.8337 10.5141 13.5351 20.9773 12"2 1.3951 1.0077 2.8256 5.0344 2.6229 1.3624 3-2574 3.0563 1254 5.9581 3.2516 4.6230 12.3239 5-5414 4.94?0 6.4473 4.4313 IO.93O6 1.6337 0.O657 1260 4.7051 1.1659 2.2723 7.3262 2. SC-32 3.4673 3.0783 2.1692 8.0135 Total H.5565 5.4254 9.9215 24.714s 10.5021 9.7783 12.7832 9.6;68 17.7230 MOMS 050465 Sample Number --m- 427 430 429 426 425 424 448 441 41*6 447 435 442 445 443 444 43m 440 431 434 433 432 433 4?9 437 Table 15 , Summer 8/3/78 ' Station 4 Specleo D* cepedianum "" C. affinlo L* mncrochiru* L. rp. L* cyanelltjL.inacrochl---5 L* nicrolopr.*\3 " L. margins tu. L. cynoell'io L* L. cyan--? Hun 1.. megaloiin "" Average Weight 2.7493 2.7939 3.5307 3.8151 4.5503 4.9130 5.0733 ... .2959 .3751 .4205 .5133 7155 .7596 .8277 .9332 1.0C6? 1.0406 1.0986 2.2295 3.1657 3.9559 6.7307 10.9361 10. 9448 11.8181 1242 2.508? 3.3218 2.3174 2.1136 2.6393 3.4383 2.4676 3.3761 l.oo72 .9603 1.3356 1.0776 1.5593 2.3~.'3 3.3934 2.2563 1.3977 2.7614 1.8219 3.0221 IO.9560 3.5268 4.0612 3.9904 4.3049 1254 3.131C 4.8182 3.7065 2.6S63 2.7223 4.94-36 2.6231 11.6575 2.4526 2.95)5 3.2366 5.7723 4.7164 3.3317 9.2246 3.528i 4.0--,7 7.5557 7.5676 5.9782 21.2076 6.6905 7.4943 7.1512 7.3076 I860 .8505 1.6121 1.2610 .7325 .7027 1.6573 .6272 4.3333 S934 1.0793 1.3057 2.4993 1.7223 1.4975 3.9S05 1.0476 1.5519 7.6531 4.6134 :.7736 8.3046 4.0644 3.0473 ?.3818 3.553S Total 6.4903 9.7521 6.1887 5.5326 6.0649 10.01)42 5.7161 19.5970 4.3533 5.OC67 5.8-eo 10.1443 7.0987 7.7266 6.8273 7.4734 12.9*353 14.0231 1) .2 )2-7 40.4707 15.4973 14.5236 15.1663 HONS 050466 Sample Number 141 142 123 146 144 143 149 32 147 31 150 129 143 137 133 116 13" 134 138 135 132 131 125 128 127 140 130 33 Species L* mncrochirus ' M L.microlophus . L. megalotis L. macrochirus L. megalotis "V L. mlcrolophus L.megalotis L. mlcrclopbus L. megalotis L. mlcrolopbus L. roacrochlrua Plmephales sp. "M M M MM H . M *' "" D# ceFeilar.u? N* cryrolsuc'-E N. venuotus M. punclulatus P, caprodea Table l6 Fall 10/5/77 Staxlon 5 Average Weight .9060 1.4070 2.0400 2.0894 2.4353 2.7171 2.7849 2.8858 3.1929 3.5555 4.2160 5.9076 11.4299 .1343 .1952 .9163 2.1683 2.2174 2.3221 2.4670 2.314s 3.3437 5.0149 17.3150 1.5495 1.4312 5.0548 12.1416 1242 .IS74 .1057 .1187 .I636 .2172 ..12 .1817 .0799 .710 .1225 .1517 .2684 .1082 .1390 .1244 .2433 .1857 .1718 .3382 .3901 .1939 .5022 ^4273 .8754 .1474 .1557 .1245 .4592 1254 .8733 .6410 .5043 .8622 2.0555 .7393 ,9?6z .4947 1.0579 .8136 .7006 1.3913 1.3015 1.1514 *9^28 1. s606 1.6201 1.7474 1.9543 2.9067 1.5354 4.3069 1.7355 2.4517 .2065 I.8590 2.0564 2.1071 1250 .0572 .0477 .0641 0664 .2130 .0603 .0915 .024? .0950 .0411 .1342 .1339 .1740 .0567 .0376 .0642 .0908 .1055 .1771 .0706 .*260 .0966 .0866 .3045 .3538 .0977 Total 1.0979 .7945 .7072 1.1124 2.5003 .9552 1.2495 .5994 1.3362 .9772 ,9366 1.7937 I.5S19 2.521? 1.1362 1.668? 1.5967 1.4o:4 2.3952 3.4742 1.6000 5.OVS0 2.3157 3.4237 .6530 2.3201 2.5370 2.6640 DOS X X X X X X X X MOMS 050467 Sample Number 227 228 226 221 225 222 223 224 257 229 232 233 270 230 254 220 255 256 Specle3 L. macrochlrus l ' "" L. mefialotls II M II M L. macrochlrus MM D. cepedlanum m it i H HM W. punctulatup M. salmoldes Roccus chrysorirs Table 17 Winter 1/16/73 Station 5 Average Weight .3950 .6707 1.0992 1.361? 1 .9669 2.0925 3.2926 3.6123 30.7078 4.2895 4.9291 5.5039 6.3879 9.5379 26.1044 2,7074 21.446? 40.7712 1242 .0032 .0086 .0248 .0291 .0318 .0506 035? .O33O 5084 1^56 .0430 , .1849 .4611 .6271 .5547 .6700 .7059 5618 2.5102 .2153 .1866 .7791 .5442 .0452 1.0286 .0403 .2243 1.2418 1.2946 1.8635 1.9934 .4733 2.6953 1.0657 1.3765 .3351 3.0676 1250 OOfcO .0316 0644 .1036 .0786 .0700 .1059 .0614 .65.33 .0742 1.201? .6976 .1681 .0495 .4944 .1631 .3692 .8420 Total .0523 .2250 .5504 .7599 .665O .7908 .8476 .6?63 3.6770 1.5314 1.6013 3.5403 2.7077 -503 4.2184 1.2691 1.9701 4.2348 HONS 050468 Sample Number 350 351 378 352 379 360 359 368 3^7 36" 353 357 358 366 365 36b 354 353 355 377 356 Specia3 M. punctulatus K* coosae "" D. cepedlanm .. L. macroohlrus M * li margir.atur L.symnmcrJcur h. marptniv::E. symititric'irC. marlM M > u ti It M H .. L* nacrs^hlrus ** L. "" W. venu-tT/:*? Table 18 Spring 4/lk/Tc Station 5 Average Weight 5.7950 12.6682 35.5947 16.2935 28.0201 1.5761 2.6700 2.8486 3.0063 .3.5924 3.8784 4,7420 4.8337 5.6412 5.6246 7.1031 7.9334 a. 11.8463 20.2748 3.7516 1242 .0520 1355 3345 3431 4.0385 .1299 .1144 .0510 0559 .0795 .0135 .1268 ,0909 .0351 .0675 .0** ic .1713 .0493 .0913 .1379 .4o 63 1254 .6282 1.7023 2.9622 .8664 10.7762 .eo56 .7775 .8673 .7594 .6065 .3663 .8169 1.2377 .7949 1.2764 6367 2.9654 1.0757 1.0712 3.6656 1260 .0972 3807 5359 .0936 1.3719 .1126 .1440 .1206 .0707 .OQ47 -O95B .OS52 .1554 .0562 .0824 .O56O .3105 .2538 .1176 .1301 .6533 To tal .7775 2.2186 3.8329 1.3031 16.1667 1.0482 1.0369 1.0395 .8862 .7808 .4162 1.0290 1.4931 .8654 1.4264 .7265 3.4473 1.3763 2.1 6'J2 1.2570 4.6145 hcns 050469 Sample Number 412 till 406 410 407 423 418 420 421 422 405 402 404 409 403 413 417 415 416 414 408 Table 19 Summer 8/3/78 Station 3 Species Si punctulatus 1. ' ? salmoldes M. punctulatus M* salmoldes. D. cepsdlanu.ii 1 >1 11 ** " "" I.. macroch.lru3 M 11 . .. OM )u. nlo^olophus macrcchiruo I., meaalotts L. n^cvccft'rus Pir-aph-r-lan sp. Average Weirht 1.7578 2.6233 9.1917 9.5690 II.099S .3889 2.2079 3.401C 3.7027 4.7950 .4697 .6123 .7680 1.0464 1.8527 7.8234 8.3556 10,7245 13.0243 0221 1.4726 .1242 .1004 .1064 .C083 .C66Q .0812 .1664 .2506 .1352 .1165 0?C? .0844 .0662 .1560 1333 .2794 .0614 .0337 .1470 .1&63 j.254 .5194 .6=04 .6453 .6233 3.4234 .8107 1.0308 5659 ,5010 .7436 .4564 1.3139 9^61 1.9357 .5951 e21c9 .41,30 1.7726 1260 .1430 .1695 .1132 .1264 .1612 .1934 .1482 .0462 .1051 .151U .0690 .0370 .113-3 .1227 .10^4 .1003 .0327 .1547 .3663 Total .7829 1.1665 .8474 816^ 3.665s **T . 1.1907 1.4798 .7470 .7236 .9658 60?0 .7519 i.6238 1.2222 2.3176 7306 . 2-J'Vj 1.3907 2.3009 HONS 050470 Table 20 Fall 10/5/78 Station San pie Humber 20 21 156 U6 154 153 45 152 151 155 44 260 262 261 263 49 51 4b 0 47 Suedes N. venustus Fimephales rd. I.. megalotis I.maeroehirun L. negalotls MM L. macrochirus I,, megalo^'.s II ' "" L. marrochiruo L* megnlotls MM D. cerediar.'a M* pun^tulit'ir. "" M ** t " , M Average Weight 1.3038 2.7464 3.'*635 4.1023 5.1669 6.3954 7.6449 7.9668 8.5113 10.3570 11.6250 I8.4357 - 12.2170 14.7443 49.3427 2.6333 3.185'.' 4.0227 L,\u+? 7.6627 1242 .- 12c4 3032 l.tiicO .3780 5^64 .7046 .4553 .0943 1.3462 3733 .5706 1.4133 .3672 .9768 1.34QB 1-3533 1.6336 1.9760 2.0330 1.3305 .1901 3.7566 i .0065 4.4?2 5.062a 2.1;O0 2.4140 3.6983 3.9384 1.4215 3.3546 .1415 1591 .3700 ..1397 1.0463 2.1361 ?.4943 2.688s 2.1072 9.63o9 1^0 .2473 .1266 .*ion .1627 .1034 .I'ca .3517 .0136 .6314 .3074 .n .3936 .557? .'V'1-29 .5754 .0700 )120 .C706 Total 2.Vr3Q 2.1380 2.8656 z.^oio 1.3594 .4351 6.6120 1.3935 5.fc03 7.2835 3.6.750 3-7366 '.5061 5.9347 5.3537 2.3980 2.7460 3.7210 2.0270 i 1 .5570 Sample Number 349 346 4S 345 Table 21 Spring k/lU/y& Station 6 Scecles H. pur.otul-Ttus L. marginatum . I., r.agalotl; L. marglnatus Average Weight 4.0055 6.3393 7.2934 8.0027 1242 .5521 .4003 1.1566 .4532 17^ 5.3405 2.067-1 L. 6*8 so 7.3495 1260 2.0333 . S-il? 1.118S 1.0753 Total 7.9420 3.0878 . 6 .r6U2 4.5762 HONS 050*J1 Table 22 Saw.ftr 8/3/78 Station 6 f>*TT! plo Kuntor Snecins 485 ' 1. macrochlrus 484 " 486 L. cysnellus 482 L. macrochlrus 483 L. cyanellus 481 " M 469 L. marglnatu3 469 L. raagalotls 470 H M 553 L. mnrglnatus 544 * 1* 540 L. me^alotis 543 L. marijlnatus 539 L, meKalotls 541 L. raarginatus 542 L. sf. .. Average Wairrht 1.1801 1.8,r03 1.8782 2.6563 3.1444 5.1142 12.5237' 130776 16.4201 25.1057 25.71'*6 28.8143 41.3426 43.0192 59.6801 99.6445 479 478 480 474 475 472 473 471 556 M, punctulatun MH MM M * M M* salrroHa:1* H .. M # punrt.uln tus 2.7292 2.7482 3.3104 6.9894 7.9340 14.4216 18.374? I8.49C9 19.6608 557 P. caprcA^ 22.1916 477 N, venurtur 476 > .6520 1.4901 1242 3o35 .2730 .2970 .2739 .6700 I.6963 1.0508 : .992? .6467 1.1121 ',4409 1.8109 4.1164 2.8694 1.5359 7645 .5610 .4374 .3200 .4976 .2062 .1367 .5050 .7796 .9386 .6244 .8961 1254 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 7.73S0 3.3056 2.6573 2.0910 I.6903 1-5235 2.3272 1.4644 .6652 1.4651 2.1851 2.1023 2.384.6 2.4113 1280 .2318 .1532 .2039 .1674 .3173 .7069 .9796 1.2183 .1357 .7539 .'4*34 3.4453 3.5746 3.1994 .5176 .3375 .0733 3723 .2730 5164 .4292 .2072 .0233 .5641 .2267 4740 .4350 Tctal 1.9531 1-5519 1.7315 1.5132 2.6635 6.9950 6.0621 6.3877 3.0892 5.9756 3.0249 15.1274 18.3193 13.8263 5.4092 3.9595 3.0259 2.5003 2.1167 3.3416 '.1298 1.2057 2.3148 3.5283 3.2678 3.4327 3-7425 HONS 050472 Sample Humber 34 163 162 160 161 159 158 157 35 236 Srecles M. puntulatus L. nepalctis Table 23 FiiU IO/5/77 Station 7 Average Veigbt 1.34o3" 2.5153 3.6025 3.7813 4.9055 5.7606 6.5510 8.9292 17.9243 22.6666 1242 1.031S 3365 4535 .3239 .226' .4372 .2158 .1205 *4066 .6484 Table 24 Winter l/l 6/78 Station 7 1254 4.1133 1.5306 1.5518 1.3692 .6316 1.4710 .9001 .616 I.0550 2.6942 1260 .310? .2180 .2767 .1334 .1538 .1701 .0966 .3188 0369 .4(74Z Total 5.4550 2.0852 2.2821 1.8735 1.3122 2.0384 1.2146 1.3009 1.4990 3.8269 Sample HumVcr 2J" 23/ 236 235 Si'cclc;-. [!. S'unoiuiri'iys D. rej^-Jlvnum "" Saw pl 0 Number 373. 337 342 ^43 391 340 33 333 S''cirr I.* r:: !:r?]oD'*us * L* cy-jn-?ITiir. M* p'jp.c^u.l itur, MM .1 .. M M MH Aver-i.y? V'rj Ir:; t 2.4159 5.4146 6,3366 8,1677 1?M? *1295 .694?. 1864 9923 Table 25 Spring 4/14/78 Statl.cn 7 Average Weight. 16.3' 05 2.9353 3.0968 4,0181 4.4433 6.821=6 9.0797 1292 .23 02 .1364 ,2790 .1982 2343 .4427 ,3114 .2932 12 Si szn 2.3e? 1.7399 2.3642 176'! 1371 .3547 3063 Ta'al 1.2514 3.2404 2.2326 3.6640 1264 2~fjl .3740 1.6152 1-3367 3.1776 2.050S 1.1642 1.3471 1250 i-l'i .l?n.8 .4293 .2351 .3593 .3995 .3515 .4261 HONS 050473 Sample Velitht 465 464 663 462 U66 461 459 660 458 457 455 450 652 436 446 651 653 53: 531 536 538 534 530 535 533 Table 26 fflaer 8/3/78 Station 7 Spades M punctulatus M" "" II N* nalnoldca M. punctulatus M" L. cyar.ellus LM mact.rochiruL* L. megalati? L. ma?*'- Inatus L* nacrDchlru:-. I.. nacrochij-us L. ne^ilotir, L1 . marMtlnatus L* micrdnchits L. cyanslluL.. . meralMi;; L. nar.'lnat'Jo L. cyanellv.s I-. macTDoh \r:.~ L. nlcrslopivis Average Weight 1*00/0 2.0490 2.7576 2.9852 3.2956 3.7885 6.0870 1.2132 2.3444 8.9947 Hi.99 57 11.0062 . 13.4303 14.0507 14.6839 15-9581 17.2815 17.9965 20.3733 23.59 56 27.0535 30.3050 31-3732 30.7443 40.4944 63.1710 1242 .1973 .1570 .3307 2336 .1296 .2901 .3774 1254 1.5275 .5894 .6605 .9309 .50->4 .8080 1.6627 .2352 ,3061 .2453 .5855 .3386 .3415 .5471 ,3182 .1474 6457 .3036 ,8609 ,5487 1905 ,9314 .7744 ,2c0? .7329 .085? .0520 .5710 .5715 1.3924 .9235 .7042 1.3796 1.1504 .4533 1.5513 .8311 1.7808 1.1421 . 554c 3.1651 2.2126 3.1279 3.4929 1.00?3 MM . 2026 .1054 .173? .0546 .1548 .2018 .2085 .0672 .0747 .2100 0955 .0772 .2559 .1821 .1320 *5001 .2098 .4740 .170 1 .1038 Mr/; . 2?C? .2273 .932" .4204 To til 1.3242 .9491 1.0967 1.3344 .7277 1.2530 2.2417 1.2958 '^5 .3515 2.1618 1.3577 1.1251 2.1842 1.6508 .7329 7.6573 1.3856 '.0633 I.3691 .8543 4.5864 4.2639 1.6162 5.1662 1.515 HONS 050474 Sample Number 165 23 265 264 268 267 266 Snecles M. punctulatus L. megalotls D. cefedInnuni HH occus chryMaopa Table 27 Fall 10/5/77 Station 8 Average Weight "6.63 58 7.1522 22.1526 35.5650 56.6175 57.2133 88.5009 1262 .6666 1.3382 .3810 1.6662 .6601 .6686 .9506 12^t 27oi56 6.6170 1.7335 6.3738 2.5863 2.3096 2.2579 1260 5570 .6805 3316 .9312 .8066 1.1377 .6218 Total 3.0155 6.2360 2.6512 6.9692 3.8516 6.6658 3.6315 Sample Humber 239 260 261 Sr^:5 ?; D* Cl:' j V'. .ill ft X Table 28 Winter 1/16/78 Station 8 Average Veisht 6.6766 6.8650 6,2158 1262 .2669 .7636 5."625 y } c/>. 575629 2.5732 5.2261 1260 .27-1 .3956 1.0617 Total 6.0860 3.6974 11.7285 HONS 050*19 Sun pi* Jtahsr 372 371 .376 Species N. chysocephalus H. punctulatus D. cepedianum Table 29 Spring 4/14/78 Station 6 Average Weight 12.(5296 10.7703 23.B0J1 1292 .1739 .3537 .7003 1.279 .5525 2.2609 3.0632 1250 .5196 .6903 Total .0314 3.1413 4.9594 F.nple H\:nbsr 309 393 307 900 397 395 401 558 Species purvjtulilus M" M salnoi.iac N. chynocRphal'JS Koccus chr}sops .< Table 30 Stoner 6/3/73 Station 3 Average Wel-ht 2.91:09" 3.9332 4.4937 5.2360 5.8758 7.5952 12.0549 20.9416 .214: .6433 .9553 .1114 .2975 .2715 .0955 2476 1234 1.2031 1.5945 3.2201 1.3734 2.2362 1.5315 1 IZfo .3206 .7593 .5035 .6755 .4126 .Or.OT TstiL l1c393 2.5134 4.9349 2.0134 3.2093 2.2213 .6365 J..0712 MQNS 050476 Sample Mumkis r 390 304 386 330 383 387 382 394 393 392 Suede* N* ntiiblus * * N. venustus L. megalotls L. mlcroloprms L. macrochlrus Rienacoklu* sp. MM HH Table 31 Sumner 8/3/70 Station 9 Average Weight 3753 2.5037 3.7144 4.2972 4.20ie 5.7074 13.8732 .6877 4.1457 5-6137 1242 4.4734 5.9270 2.8695 8.7061 4.I5II .1894 3.5664 8.5290 3.9644 21.0910 1254 8.5007 13.9479 5.6703 9.1120 2.7002 1.0516 5-9833 12.9233 10.5334 52.5743 1260 3.5733 4.iaco 2.8450 3.4903 1.6764 1648 2.3669 3-3595 6.063a 14.6725 Total 10.6379 24.0549 11.3354 21.4094 11.4334 1.4052 12.3166 24.7527 21.5117 72.4554 HONS 050477 APPENDIX B. CAPSULATION OF THE BENTHOS FIELD DATA MONS 050478 Tabla 32 Capsulation of Current Benthos Informatioi Benthos Data* Sampling Station Concentration of PCBs (ppm) SpeciesPeriodTotal 12421254\2&p L Corbrlcula sp. (bivalve musk) 1" 2 it 2u Fall of 1977 Winter of 1977 Fall of 1977 Winter of 1977 2 Sphaerldae sp. (native clam) 5A Corbrlcula so. Winter of 1977 Winter of 1977 6- Fall of 1977 6 Anodonta lmbicillis Fall 1977 (native mussel) 6 Corbrlcula sp. Winter of 1977 6 Anodonta lmbicillis Winter 1977 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 (1.35) 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 HONS 050479 AVERAGE FCB CCNCENTIUTrCN OF EACH GENUS ON A STATION FEH SEASON BASIS HONS 050480 CamDostoma Station Z fall spring Station 3 fall spring * A1242 21.91 14.06 0.52 0.14 Al??4 . 18.67 25.58 1.54 o.;4 ais*:o 6.3a 4.27 0.21 0.20 T^t.al fCB 46.93 82.67 C.88 Dorosoma Station k fall wintor summer Station 5 fall winter spring summer Station 6 fall Station 7 winter Station 8 fall winter spring 10.50 5.33 2.68 O.65 0.46 2.19 0,19 1.42 0.62 1.02 2.17 0.70 13.7? 6.51 3.51 2.09 1.59 5.S2 0.81 3.12 4.01 1.06 0.31 0.48 0.73 0.12 3.35 . 0.57 2.16 0.26 3.05 3.76 3.06 0.63 0.s6 0.69 27.41 1^.8? 7.11 . 9A r.36 0.74 1.13 5.35 3.06 4.71 6.50 ii ,ilo Gamburvin Station 1 fall sprinr summer 0.10 0.05 0.05 0.07 0.22 c.io c. 00 0 ,0o 0.04 0.18 O.35 O.25 HONS 050481 Gambusia Station 2 fall sprit),; summer Station 3 fall Station k sunrer A1242 A1254 A1260 22.35 11.78 10.25 0.69 3.3? 24.03 11.53 9.13 1.10 ` 11.88 1.62 3.64 1 .T7 0.08 * 4.33 Total FC3 26.96 21.15 2.26 19.59 Hyoente?. \ urn Station 1 fall winter sunner Station 2 winter Station 3 fall winter 0.11 0.36 0.05 25.76 0.06 0.03 0.08 0.35 0.26 22.40 0.22 0.13 0.00 0,14 0.02 o.O? t'.oa 0.07 0.20 0.87 0.35 'r. , 0,3? 0,22 Le 00m Is Station 1 fall winter spring summer Station 2 fall winter rprin/? summer 0.04 0,0? 0,05 0.05 9.29 10.71 5.01 9,^5 0.06 0.33 0.21 0.14 8.13 10,?9 9,61 8.14 0.00 0,06 0.04 0.03 2*?0 6,27 0.6 3.46 0.11 0,Jj8 0.31 0,?3 l^.oo 29.41 20.39 HONS 050482 Leronls Station 3 fall winter spring Station 4 fall winter spring summer Station 5 fall winter prints summer Station 6 fall nprin.^ summer Station 7 fall spring summer Station 8 fall Station 9 Sunmer Al2t*2 0.11 0.24 0.11 4.68 2.62 2.53 2.97 0.13 0.00 0.08 0.11 O.85 0.69 1.18 0.52 0.17 0.44 1.38 2.63 A1254 0.47 0.37 0.35 *>'52 4.46 5.94 6.55 0.96 0.70 1.06 0.81 2.67 3.36 3.88 1.97 1.27 1.31 4.41 3.21 A1?*0 0.14 0.11 0.16 0,77 7.0? 3.27 2.84 0.0Q 0,19 0.12 0.10 0.35 0,91 1.00 0.26 0.51 0.26 0.48 1.56 Total PCP 0.73 0.73 0.63 11.20 3.10 11.79 12.37 1.Z0 0,cl 1.26 1.0.1 6.09 2^6 1 *9? 2.62 6.2? 8.38 Micronterup Station 1 fall winter summer 0.15 1.71 0.06 O.Wi 6.58 0.29 0,00 l.ca. 0.07 0.61 10.25 0,42 HONS 050483 MicroDterus Station Z fall winter spring summer Station 3 fall spring Station- 4 fall winter spring Station 5 fall winter spring summer Station 6 fall spring summer Station 7 fall winter spring summer Station 8 fall spring summer A124? 18.57 19.14 11.39 6.08 0.01 0.14 5.87 2.86 1.63 0.1Z 0.13 0.17 0.08 0.40 0.55 0.43 0.39 0.12 0.29 0.24 0.44 0.35 0.44 A1254 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 4.32 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 FOB 42.30 42.14 29.19 14.30 0.17 1.91 17.52 10.75 17.72 2.53 3 .*1 2.27 1.45 4.47 ?.?6 2.52 2.17 1.25 2.17 1.34 3.oi 3.14 2.87 Notroris Station 1 fall winter soring summer 0.01 0.33 0.06 0.20 0.08 0.32 0.23 0.41 0.01 0.26 0.67 0,11 0.11 0.73 0,36 0.73 HONS 050484 ?totroPl3 Station 2 fall winter spring summer Station 3 fall winter spring Station 5 fall spring Station 6 fall summer Station 8 spring summer Station ? summer A1262 A1256 Alz60 lk,66 lk.66 8.91 15.91 0.U9 0.60 0.63 0.15 0,60 0,16 0.76 0.17 0.27 5.60 19.39 13.15 7.05 18.03 1.86 1.16 2.65 2.10 3.66 1.82 2.39 0.55 1.53 9.35 5.63 U.CO 2.20 8.9** 0.26 0.65 0.73 0.30 0.65 0.2** 0,H< 0.00 0,*il 3.52 Total FOB 68.15 32.60 18.17 62.90 2.60 2.02 ?.?6 2 ,66 6^81 Z.lih 3.61 O.fil 15.3? HONS 05040 5 BIBLIOGRAPHY Anonymous, "PC3 Degradation", Mar. Poll. Bull., Vol. 7, no. 5, 1976. Anonymous, "U.S. Water Pollution Standards for PCB'si FCB's in the Hudson River", Mar. Poll. Bull., Vol. 7, no. 11, 1976. Bache, C.A., "Polychlorinated Biphenyl Residues! Accumulation in Cayuga Lake Trout with Age", Sci., Vol. 177, 1972. Ballschmlter.K,, Zell, M.and Neu, H.J., "Perslstance of FCB's in the Ecospheret Will Some PCB Components "Never" De grade?", Chemoophere, No.2, 1978. Bldleman, T.F., "Chlorinated Hydrocarbons in the Sargasso Sea, Atmosphere and Surface Water", Sci., Vol. 183, 1974, Boyle, R.H.,"Poisoned Fish, Troubled Waters (PCB's in Rivers and Lakes)", Sports 111., Sept. 1, 1975. Boyle, R.H.," The Soreadinc Menace of PCB", Sports 111., Dec. 1, 1975- Bunce, J! .J. and Kumar, Y.,"An Assessment of the Impact of Solar Degradation of FCB's in the Aquatic ^environment", Chemosphere, No. 2, 1978. ' Burdick, C.S.,"lhe Accumulation of DDT in Lake Trout and the Effect on Reproduction", Trans Am. Fish. Soc., Vol. 93, no. 2, 1964, Carlander, K.D.," Handbook of Freshwater Fishery Biology", Vol, 1, Iowa State University Press, Ames, Iowa, 1969. Carlander, K.D., "Handbook of Freshwater Fisher;.' Biology", Vol. 2, Iowa State University Press, Ames, Iowa, 1977. Chau, A.SY..and Sampson, R.C.J.,"Electron Capture Gas Chromatographic Methodology for Cuantitation of PC3's. Survey and Compromise", Snvim, Letters, Vol, 8, no. 2, 1975. Chen, Chiou, T. Cary,"Partition Coefficient and Bioaccumulation", Envlr. Sci. and Tech., Vol.11, no. 5, 1977. MONS 050486 Choi, W.J, 2nd Chen, XI.,"Associations cf Chlorinated Hydro* carbons with Fin-; Particles and Humic Substances in Near shore Curficial Sediments", Environ, Sci. and Tech., Vol 10, no. 00, 1Q?6. Cooley, N.R., Keltner, J,*!. Jr, and Forester, J.," Direr and Aroclor 125*M Effect on and Accumulation by T^trah-nena pyrifomis. Strain W", J. of Protozoology/, Vcl, 19, no, 4, 1972. Cooley, N.R"Effects cf Aroclor 1?48, a PC5, on -growth of Populations of Totrahymer.a irrlfcrrIs", A S3 vull, Vol, 1 no. 2, 1972. Crump-weisner, H.J., Feltz, H.R. and Yates, v:.L., "A Study of the Distribution of PCB's in the Agnatic Environment", Pest. lionit, J,f Vol. 9, no. 157, 1774. Dennis,-D,3.," FC3*s in the Surface Waters and ?o"tc--. Sx1. '.r.-^nis of the Ye jar Drainage Pasins of the 'nite-l Stator", Nat. Conf. cn PCB's, 1975; SPA Hat. Tech. Info. Service, M253- Duke, T.V., "A PCB (A12^?) in the Pater, ."ediment n.rri Biota of Escabia Pay, Fla.", Bull. Envir. Cent, and Tor., Vol. 5, lp?0. Du!:?, T.W. ar.d Wilson, A.J, Jr., "Chlcrir-ted H. dmcar! or-r in Livr? of Fishes from the Northeastur. Pac'flc tce:.n", Font, i'onit. Jour., Vcl, 5, no. 2, ^1. Ebe^hardt, L,I.,,"Sore Methodology for Ay raisin'- Cin4nnir.',nlp in Aouitlc Systems", J. Fish, Res. 'ard Jan., Vol. ?2, no. 10, 1975. Ernst, V/., "Residues of Chlorinated Hydrocarbons in Marins Organisms in Relation ti Size and Ecological Parameters: 1. PC?, D37T and DDD in Fishes and Deliuses from the English Channel", Pull, Env. Cont. and Tox., Vol. 13, no. 1, 1??6. Federal Register,"PCB Toxic Pollutant Effluent Standards", Fed. Reg., Vol. 42, no. 22, 1977. Fowler, 3.N. and Elder, D.1,,"FCB and DDT Residues ir. Mediter ranean Pelagic Food Chair.", Bull. Env. Cert, and Tox., Vol. 19, no. 2, tn78. Full:, R.," Laboratory Study of the Aelearo cf Pesticide and FC3 istarials to the Water Column During Dredging ar.d Disposal Operations", Dredged Material Research Program; Contract Report Number D-75-6, 1975. HOMS ObO,^ Gaffney, P.E.,"Carpet and Hug Industry Cane 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 Sheerhead Minnowsi 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, P.R. and Forester, J.."Aroclor 1016: Toxicity to and Uptake by Estuarine Animals", Environ. Res., Vol 7, 1974a. Hansen, D.3.,"Aroclor 1016i Toxicity to and Uptake by Estuarine Animals", Environ. Res., Vol. 7, 1974. Hansen, D.J., Schlmmel, S.C. and Matthews, E,,"Avoidance of Aroclor 1254 by Shrimp and Fishes", bull. 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, 1??5. Hansen, D.J., Schlmmel,; C.S. and Forester, J.,"Effects of Aroclor 1016 on Embryos, Fry', Juveniles and Adults of Sheepshead Minnows (Cynrlnodon varleaatus)" Trans. Am. Fish. Soc., Vol. 104, no. 3, 1975* Hansen, D.J. et al,"Effects of Dietary Aroclor 1242 on Channel Catfish (ictalurus ounctatun) and the Selective Accumulation of ?CB Comoonents", J. Res. Board Can., Vol. 33, 1976. Haque, R. and Schmedding, D., "Studies on the Ailnorbtion of Selected PCB's on Several Surfaces", J. Environ. Sci. Health, Dll(2), 1976. Harvey, G.R.,"PC3'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. HOMS 050488 Hlns, R* and M&tsumura, F,."Comparative Metabolism of FCF Isomers by Three Species of Fish and the Pat", Bull, Environ. Cont. and Tox., Vol. 18, no. 5, 1977. Hutzir.ver, C,, Safe, S.,and Zitko, V.,"The Chemistry of FCB's", Cleveland CRC Press, 1974. Iwata, Y. '.ler.tlake, H.3. and Gunther, F.A."Varying' Tersirtence of FCB's in 6 California Soils Under Laboratory Conditions", Bull. Environ. Cont. and Tox., Vol.9, no.4, 1973, Jensen, 2., "A Hew Chemical Hazard", New Sci., Vol. 32, 196C. Kelso, J.R. and Frank, R,,"Crpanochlorine Residues, Mercury, Copper and Cadmium in Yellow Perch, '..'hite jar-s and Snailmouth Bess, Lom; Toint Lav, Lake Erie", Trnnr, Am, Fish. Soe., Vol. 3, 1974. Khan, ''.A., "Adsorption of FCB (A1254) on Shrimp", full, Snvlr. Cont. and Tox., Vol. 16, no. 4, 1976. Lawler, K.F."Ichthyology" 2nd ed., John 'Hley and Sons Inc., 1977 Lei and, H."., Bruco, , and Shir.p, ! .P."Chlorine to i Hydro- carkonlnsecticider in Sediments of Southern Take iohirr.n", Environ. Sci. and Tech., Vol. 7, no. 9, 1"7J. Love, R.Ti." The Chemical liolc'jf of Fishes", Acadcnic Press, HewYork, 1970. " Lowe, J.I. et al,"Effects of ?C3(Aroclor 1239) on the niierican Oyster, Orasrostrea virr-j-.ica". TTar. Biol., Vol. 17, no. % 1972. Nauck, V'.L. and Clson, L.E.,"FC3's in Adult Mayflies (Hexaner.ia hllineata) from the Upper Mississippi River", Full. Tnvir. Cont. and Tox., Vol. 17, no. 4, 1977. Munson, T.O. et al,"Transport of Chlorinated Hydrocarbons in the Upper Chesapeake Bay", Nat. Conf. on FC3's, 1975* SPA Nat. Tech Info. Service, FB253-248, ilebekor, A.7, and Puplini, F.A.,"Effect of FCD's on Survival and Reproduction of Dvhnia, Canname and Tar tarsus". Trans. Am. Fish. Soc., No, 4, 1374. HONS 050489 Nebeker, A.V./'Summary of Recent Information Regarding Effects of FCB's on Freshwater Organisms", Nat. Conf, on FCB's, 1975( EFA Nat. Tech. Info. Service, F3253-2U3. Nlmmo, D.H.,"PCB's Absorbed from Sediments by Fiddler Crabs and Pink Shrimp", Nature, Vol.231, 1971. Nlmmo, D.R. et al,"Toxicity and Distribution of Aroclor 12JU in the Pink Shrimp, Penaeus duorarum". Mar. Biol., Vol.ll, no. 3, 1971. Nimmo, D.R. et al,"Accumulations of Aroclor 1251* in Grass Shrimp (Palaemonete3 ruglo) in Laboratory and Field Exposures", Bull. Envir. Cont. and Tox., Vol. 11, 1979. Nisbet, I.C.T., Saraflm,"Rates and Routes of Transport of FCB's In the Environment", Envir. Health Fersp., Experim. Issue 1, 1972. Olson, Panel on Hazardous Trace Substances, "FCP's* Environmental Impact", Environ. Research, Vol. 5, 1972. Parrish, P.R., Hansen, D.J. and Couch, J.N.,"Effects of Aroclor 1251*, a PCB, on Oysters, Crassostrea virgin!ca", AS3 Bull,, Vol. 19, no. 2, 1972. Parrl3h, F.R.,"Aroclor 12Jh, DDT and Dieldrlni Accumulation and Loss by American Oysters (Crassostrea vlnrlnlca) Exposed Continually for J6 Weeks", Proceedings of the Nat. Shellfish Ass., Vol. 64, No. 7, 1974, Peakall, D.P. and Llncer, J.L.,"FCB'si Another Longlife Widespread Chemical in the Environment", BioScl., Vol. 20, no. 17, 1970. Peakall, D.P.,"FCB'si Occurrence and Biological Effects", Res. Rev., Vol. 44, 1972. Fhilllps, D.J.H.,"Use of Biological Indicator Organisms to Quantitate Organochlorine Pollutants in Aquatic En vironments- A Review", Environ. Foil., Vol. 16, 1978. Relnert, R.E.."Pesticide Concentrations in Great Lakes Fish", Pest. Monlt. Jour., Vol. 3, 1970. Rlsebrough R.W., et al,"FCB's in the Global Ecosystem", Nature, Vol. 220, I960. HONS 050490 Risebrough, R.W. and deLappe, 3.,"Accumulation of PCI-''s in Ecosystems",Environ. Health Fersp., Exper. Issue 1, 1972. Risebrough, R.V!., et al,"Bioaceumulation 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 Creen Sunfish, Leoonls cyar.ellus". Bull. Envlr. Cont. and Tor., 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 Mayer, F.L. Jr,,"Roxiclty of FCB's to Fish and Environmental Residues in Fish", Environ. Health Fersp., Vol. 1, 1972. Sundstroem, G., Hutzlnger, 0, and Safa, S.,"Metabolism of Chlorobiphenyl3i Review,",Chanoshere, Vol. 5, no. 5j 1976. Thuroton, 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 FC3'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 FCE Isomers by Chlorella TOnrenoldosa". Bull. Envir. Cont. and Tox., Vol. ?, 1971. Veith, C.D. and Lee, G.F.,"A Review of Chlorinated Biphenyl Contamination in Natural Waters", Water Research, Vol. 4, 1970. Veith, C.D. and Lee, G.F.,"?CB's in Fish from the Milwaukee Region", Proc. 14th Conf. Great Lakes Research, 1971. Veith, G.D.,"Basellne Concentrations of FCB's and DDT in Lake Michigan Fish, 1971", Pest. L'onit. Jour,, Vol. 9, no. 1, 1975. Walker, C.R.,"Pre-19?2 Knowledge of Nonh'.man Effects of PC3's", Hat. Conf. on PC3's, 1975! EPA Nat. Tech. Info. Service, F3 253-243. HONS 050491 Walker, C.R.,"The Occurrence of PCB in the National Fish and Wildlife; Monitoring Program", Nat, Conf. on FCB's, 1975? SFA flat. Tech, Info. Service, PD253-248, Walker, C.R.,"PCB's and Fishery Resources", Flsherler, 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-J, Water Xear.1978* . Webb, R.G. and McCall, A.C.,"Identities of FC3 Isomers In Aroclora", J, of the AOAC, Vol. 55t no, 1972, Webb, R.G. and McCall, A.C.,"Quantitative PCB Standards for Electron Capture Gas Chronatograohy", J. Chrom. Sci., Vol. 11, 1973. Wilford, W.A. et al,"Trends of PCB's in Three Lake Michigan Fishes", Nat. Conf. on FC3's, 1975! SPA Hat. Tech. Info. Service, FB253-248. HONS 050492 -wo / <?/v w ir^T'/t'0 r i~/9J0-v'f/i /Q^StS 60, 4. * STz+T/O-'1! 6 7* 'S&sai's .**-^CVt' *'*t* <?'** t - PrfLL j. - u'/^rftz J- JS>/tV"Cy ~ *F i/^T/n ^ HONS 05036? rcr*i /c/i .^cj/zcsyj j/c Cs>j - srs*r/tsv fJ" t1>iC*-'.*} L. V-J/.J HONS 050368 M <f TA3LE 14 Humic and Fluvic Acid Content of Sed'ren.t From Station 1 to 6 (Chen, 1972) Station 1 2 3 4 5 6 Fluvic Acid v./ mc/l arA* 117 140 49 53 62 74 175 123 210 147 77 92 Humic tcid mil 152 nn&r 133 221 265 173 214 1J4 161 137 144 141 16 ^ TABLE 15 Organic Carbon (Walkley-Black Method) of Uji.,,avr r *0'*\ Sruncf-s / to 4> Station Z Carbon 1 0.711 2 0.197 3 O.251 U >0.3 5 0.720 6 0.155 HONS 050369 Table 16 Water Quality Station 1 2 3 4 5 6 Flail Survey (Oct. 14, 1977) DO 53T 7.7 9.1 7.3 7.5 6.6 Aik " 66" 90 no 90 60 60 Temp. 16.6 16.7 16.7 18.8 26.0 25.5 oH 7.1 7.5 7.9 7.6 8.2 7.3 Total Station Turb* Cl SO,, Fe 1 13 2.5 '0 0.35 2 19 20 14 0.22 3 16 0 e 2 0.20 4 18 10 4 0.16 5 24 2.5 7 0.20 6 24 5 9 0.23 Color 20 48 30 45 95 55 Cond* 115 220 200 1Q0 150 160 Station 1 2 3 4 5 6 SS T~ 10 11 8 12 17 CO, T?o 20.0 12.0 12.0 4.0 12.0 TOC 8.3 11.5 12.9 8.0 14.1 DO- Dissolved Oxygen (mg/l) Aik- Alkalinity In ng/l as CaCO^ Temp- Temperature C Color- APHA Platinum Cobalt Standard Turb- Turbidity in FTU Fornazin Turbidity Units Cl- Chlorid (mr/i)* S0U- Sulfate (mg/l) Fe- Iron (ng/l) Cond.- Conductivity (umhos/cni) SS- Suspended Solids (mg/l) CO,- Carbon Dioxide (mg/l) TCC- Total Organic Carbon (ng/l) HONS 050370 T^ble 16 (continued) Station 1 2 3 4 5 6 Winter Survey (Jan. ll, 1978) ^r 9.3 8.9 9.7 9.2 9.5 Aik, 30 35 65 50 90 70 Temn, 4.4 4.4 6.6 4.9 8.8 9.9 cH 6.8 7.0 7.4 7.4 7.4 7.4 Cl 2.0 n.5 2.0 8.0 3.0 3.5 Total Fe 6.48 ' 0.89 0.20 0.39 O.50 0.52 Conr! 07 130 150 140 155 112 Station 1 2 3 4 5 6 cc,, ir 12 20 16 24 16 Color 55 105 72 08 88 160 21 22 38 18 22 HONS 050371 Table, 16 (continued) Station 1 2. 3 4 5 6 Spring Survey ( April 14, 1978) DO O" e.? 9.0 7.9 12.2 7.7 Aik.. 80 100 130 120 160 80 TfilUCt 15.8 18.8 19.0 21.0 24.0 22.0 oH 7.0 7.1 7.5 7.5 9.4 8.3 Color 120 OQ 140 70 180 300 Station i 2 3 4 5 6 Turb. 42 49 32 24 64 88 Cl 5 20 5 20 5 10 Total SO,, Fe . Cond. 3 0.15 11? 18 O.25 220 2 0.42 152 15 0.12 230 3 0*^9 183 8 0.07 138 Station . 1 2 3 4 5 6 ss 155 245 140 122 202 182 C0-a 4 4 8 8 0 8 MOMS 050372 TW 16 (continued) Summer Survey ( Aug. 13, 1978) 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 Temu. 5S" 23,5 26 32 32 30 O **3 70 7.7 8.7 7.0 6.9 Station 1 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 0.02 105 35 470 290 200 180 Coli 20 10 10 30 5 3 ss 2 3 5 8 3 Station 1 2 3 4 5 6 COS4 4 8 0 4 4 MONS 050373 / MOIUI alVE* M5IN ' 02404400 CtlOCCOLOCCO cmt AT JACKSON SHOALS, hear LINCOLN. AL ? V LOCATION.--lat >1*22'S4", lone lO'OS'O", In SON toe. IS, T. IT S.. A. $ E., TallaJe|t County, Hydroloille Unit *. 03110106, on loft bank at foot of Jackson Shoals, SO ft (IS ) upetrean froo Alobana Por Company Jackson Shoals tronsforaar station, 900 ft (274 ) upatraao fron highway bridge. l.B ni (2.9 k) downetreen Iron lattahofi Croak, end 4.S ol (T.J ka) southaast of Lincoln. ORAINAGE AREA.40a at1 (1.2J4 k*)- PERIOD OP RECORD.`-October 1976 to current year. REMARKS.Mltcallanoous aanploa of chonical Oats published for water years 196S-6I, 1974. COOPERATION.-Natar>quallty tanplas were collected by tho U.S. Geological Survay and ware analysed by tho Coologleal Survey of Alabana. WATER-QUALITY DATA, WATER YEAR OCTOBER 1977 TO SEPTEMBER 107I (NO danotaa constituent not detected) iun OCT 0... NOV 10... JAM VO.. Its 2J... MAH 31... NAT )o... JON 3u... auu 51... blK 12... Tint Stmlan- L0v. I NS IAN* IanEuuA IUSI SMICl> 1C cun* Duct* *NCt iMicwu* HHUSI WN UMMLM- aruwt tUNlfSI IUlu Cl OAYUtN. oik* socvlu IMO/Lt hamONtSS <NO/L AS CACOJI nOMU* Ntss* NONCAM- DUNAlt IMU2C CACIMI caccio" UlS* SUCVtv IMU/C Ak CAI MAUNt* klU" lISkOCVED (U/L AS Wl IcBO UJV 1300 I2lb iceo UJu ilia I0b lbJO 2BJ OVO AVI bio via loao jau 22* 2*0 200 o.U Ib.b V.j 2Jt '.0 to,0 a.B foo r.9 V.O |).0 2S> l.B 7.0 11.0 2S2 1.0 17.0 10.J lB.0 B.O JS2 7.0 20.0 7.3 OJU 7.0 20.9 7.V o2b o.o 20.0 O.o V7 *0 VO V3 VO bO no no 120 la iv o lo 10 20 0 IV -- 21 0 12 o 23 o 23 13 2b 12 0.2 V.2 || V.2 0.3 12 13 |o DATE oci oo. NOV 10. JAN 0*. Ill 23. 31. NOT le. JON 90. S3. SEN id. StlUlUN, Ulk- swevtu IMU2C AS NAI VUUlUM MtHCtNt VUUlUM AO- SOMH* (ION MAI 10 HU T AS* SION. Oik* SOLVED IMU/C AS n l me am* UUNAIL tNV/L AS. NC031 CAWBOMATE INU/C AS CU3I ALRA- UNITY IMU/C Ak CACUJI CamuOn DiUalUL OIS* bOCVEO IMv/C AS CU2I SUlfAlt OISSOLvtu IMO/C AS SOol CmcOHlut* Ols* SuevLU imu/L AS CLI 17 2V .0 1.0 -- 2S .S l.o 73 <7 3b 1.1 l.o 120 3 1.1 1.7 130 3V l.o |.b 130 02 l.B 7, ro 2.j n 02 2.0 10 Vo J.u 13 00 0.0 VO 7.0 107 10 7 32 o2 30 20 II lb 20 oo <e? MONS 050370 TrtQie /? uct WAN *a*rt. it* MOOtLI ItVfR IAS IN 02404400 CHOCCOIOCCO CREEK AT JACKSON SHOALS. NEAR LINCOLN. AL -Cont Uuod VATE*qUALm OATA, WATER YEAR OCTOII* I9TT to SEPTEMBER j*T| (HO donotts conatttuont not Ootoctod) LUO- xtOt. UlS* Solvlo IMfa/L as n SILICA. utSSOLVED <t*o/L AS Slot) SowIDS* sum or COMMtuinll* ols> SOLVtO iMOAi SULIuS. 01S- SOLVLO ITU*S m ac-m HltNOSOLiOS. OfcL. Oil* MIIhaII JOtVtO Olt* (TUNS SULVLU wi* iwo/l u*r> as * MT-O- Ul*. NJTt.AU UtSSOl.tO 1"0/L AS NtIJJ AStN|L UtSSOL.tkJ IUU/L h ASi CAVMlun U1SSOL.fcu IUU/L AS CO* o 0.0 us .lo or.i 4.0 v.V 0.0 tu IT do/ .o i.r .1 T.o 101 .oi aoo .#V .Ad .1 0.0 tao to I vo .OV A| .0 ' T.O 00 .13 Itv .00 l.A 3.0 0.3 .1 II 1*1 .33 1*0 .1 0.0 111 .31 1*0 .01 t.r AA .01 r.A l.V L~NUlu". Uls- SUL.tU IUWL AS COt NU NC u UAtL COBALT. uls* SULVlU IU0/L A| CO) OCT 0... I I HAH 91. MOV I 1 IU d I 03... iso 11... l 1 IKON. MS* SUL.iU IU0/L as rti 40 140 30 to TO 11# *0 oa 10 LLAU. Ult* SUL.tU IWO/l as r | nanOa. Mt It i VtOCUMV UlS- DIO* SULVlU SUL.tU IgO/L iUb/L AS NNI AS Nil 30 MU ot 10 .S 90 .* S1HUN* TIU". Uls* SUL.tU IUO/L AS SHI 21 **C. uls- SOL.tU lUf./L AS /Nl C*LU<*- Wt*l* WH.tUN Cug* UA<"*K ILUUHUM IHU/H4I l*llw- W<*tUN ch*uhu* S.A.RU ILuUHwH I../A.I 00 dV TO so HONS 050375 T/mie '7 fca-v^o^o) MOIIII RIVtR IASIH M04ILI RIVtR MAIN STEM 4340T040 COOSA RIV1R AT OHLDfUIURG. AL-CantU4 VATSR-QUAIITT RSCOROS PIRIOO OS RSC0R4.--0tafc*r 1941 ta curraat yaar. PIRIOD OP DAILY RSCORD.* NATOS TtNPBSATOSISi Octakar till ta etirrnc yatf. (NSTRIMINTATtOlf. -*Taaparatara rttiritr line* Octotar 1941. COOPISATtON.^NtMr-AwaHtr uaptaa aara C0ilta4 Or M U.S. CaaU|Ual Svraay an* ata tnalytaO Oy tHi CaalaaUal larvap at AUkiM. imwu FOR PIRIOD OP DAILY RRCORD." *YDS TIMPIRATVRtSi Maalawa, )4.0*C July 4. 194| alaiawa. ].0*C aa a*aral 4ay> 1a January I9TT. IXTRIMII POR CURSINT TEAR.** NATIS TMPIRATVRDSi Naalawa, SJ.S'C July 4; ataiawa, J.S*C Jan. It. Put. 4. I. VAflR*QUALITY DATA, ATBR T1AR OCTOSIR 19TT TO SRPTEMRCR 197| (NO Otaataa coRititunt not latie(rt) NAIL ll... Tint SIMCAN'LOa* iNStANTANCOut ICPSl mU 1C CUNWil* AaCt INKHO' HNMtl ** tUMIISi TtMPtN* ATuM (Caw ci UATfeM* ulk* iosvto lMO/LI HMO* MASS I Ma/C 4 CACOJI r*AMUMASS* MUNCAa. auM*U NU/k LAtUJl CALCIUM U14SOL.li/ INWL AS CA1 *</*( SlUN* UlSMlLvtrf IMU/L AS MSI ims urn 4*34 ssoo iw r.i u.a ii.j 144 as * J is a la ' OAU 4U0IUM* Ult14k*40 INMPL AS MAI 400IUM MMCSMI SOUIUM AU- ***HUM RATIO AOTASHUM* 014* 40s *10 IMU/L A4 AI klCAN* amri ia*/k A$ MCOJ CahtflMII IMO/L At emi ALALiMirr IHO/k At cacooi LAttaOM UIUAIOS UI4- SOSVAW MM/L AS LU> SULPaTS OiSSWLvAW IMO/S At tOAt IS. MM* II. 0.3 IT a.A U .3 l.| .3 l.a 04 0.1 T.t 4 oa 1.4 *.a OATS Case- HIM* OIS40LVC0 l0/k At CLI PkuO- Nil*. Oil441*14 IMO/L At Pi SILICA. 01440LVCU IMO/S AS 41041 SOSI04. MN* OP CONST I* ruSMTI. OIS40k *40 INO/kT 4OU04. 0IS- 40k*40 Huns MN- . AC*/T) MkiUI* ult- 40SVC0 homo *(N OAVI MlTMOWN* NlfNAfR OISSOL VAU INO/k A$ Ml Ml{MO MM. N|THAIS OIStUSVkU IMU/L AS N03I AMStMIC 14SUL.AU IW*/k A A4I 4.4 1.4 l.t 0.3 OAf( CAUMlUM 014- 101*0 WO/k AS CUI alUM* OISSOkvlU IWO/k At CNI COOAkT. OIS- 40kVkO IUO/L A| C0> IRON. ois- SOkMO IU0/L AS PCI LCAO. ois- SOkVCU lUO/k AS NSI mamoaN44C t uisSOkMD lUS/k AS MMI MShCuHV eitOOkVlW <UO/k AS HMl SInOM- TlUM* UISSUkVtll lUS/k AS Ml 4INC* *14SULViU tWS/L As {Ml IS. MU -- Of Ik J 134 * II 10 141 .0 44 04 HONS 050376 Station i 2 3 4 5 6 c H I j K Tabls 18 Particle Size of the Sediment (See Fig. 1 for Station Locations) % silt or finer ( .0.074u) 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 ( 0.00 Stum) 0.5 8-13 10 18-38 0.5 10-19 12-31 12-25 2-6 23-56 7-10 HONS 050377 PARTICLE st;:z ANALYSIS CP SA.-.PLSS TAXES dcritg THE SUIILER COLLECTING PERIOD Sample Ai Station i Bi Station 2 Ci Station 3 Di Station u El Station 5 Fi Station 6 G: Station 10 Hi Station n Ii Station 12 Ji Station 13 K: Station in HONS 050378 MONS 0 5 0 3 7 9 !*--/C t'/iC / GRAIII SIZE CURVES HYDROMETER l SIEVE ANALYSIS FURNISHED SAMPLES 1/16/79 DEPARTMENT OF ENVIROMENTAL HEALTH SCIENCES TULAHE UNIVERSITY llfw ORLEANS, t CHI si "IA V. 'j COflC ENGINEERING, INC. S9fL AMO FOUNDATION INVCJTICATIONJ HYOROMETER t SIEVE ANALYSIS FURNISHED SAMPLES t/16/79 DEPARTMENT OF ENVIROMENTAL HEALTH SCIENCES TULANE UNIVERSITY rtpjPMK MONS 0503il It, /J~  i HYDROMETER L SIEVE ANALYSIS FURNISHED SAMPLES 1/16/79 DEPARTMENT OF ENVIROMENTAL HEALTH SCIENCES TULANE UNIVERSITY MOMS 050383 C. THE RELATIONSHIP OF WET WEIGHT TO PCB CONCENTRATION. /'t-S** Figures IT and iy compare the weight-ppm and log weightlog ppm correlations of all species combined at Stations 2 and 4. The statistics for all stations are summarized in Table 1.9* The weight vs ppm plots are significant at 5 stations; 112,4,5 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, ^ of 6 stations show a signif icant correlation between weight and ppm PCB, -Stations 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* a The significance levels are not consistently better in either model. The correlation coefficientsjT also are not greatly af fected by either model. Four of the 5 significant correlations show a positive relationship between tcdy weight and PCB con centration (Xtaticns 1,4,5 and 6) while station 2. has a weak but significant negative correlation. From this analysis-then,.there appears tc be an Increase of PCB level with weightfwith the exception of Station 2* How ever the mixture of species causes the correlations to be very /c weak and in the care 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 MOMS 050384 Ta-ble 19 Linear Correlation Analysis of All Species Conbined at Each Station on the Weight vs ppm\and Log Weight vs Log ppnwEasis PC3 PC3 Station 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Weight vti arm FOB Carr. a 0.40 -0.28 Pn 0.0001.* 80 0.006 * 74 -0.13 0.15 57 0.19 0.51 0.35 0.21 0.042 78 0.00001* 86 0.005* 52 0,067 49 0.07 0.37 a Lo<t Weixht vs Lof* PYfflt FOB Corr.R p 0.05 0.31 -o.3l 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 HONS 050385 The statistics are summarized in Tables 20 and 2! and Figures l^andJ,Oare plots of 2 of the significant relationships* Again, there are highly significant correlations between wet weight and ppm FC3 with both lihear models* Thirteen of 29 cases or 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* Cf the 13 significant cases 9 have a positive correlation and U are negative* These negative correlations are not specific to any one station or species. The correlation coefficients are greater when analyzing each species separately than when they were all analyzed together at each station* The log-log model gives t. slightly stronger and mor^highly significant results* In summary, there is a tendency for FCB to accur.'jlate 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 wc this weight--ppm relationship! therefore, the data was^analyz- ed on the species per station per season basis* The results are shown in Tables and Figures 21-23 are plots of some of the significant cases* This breakdown cf the data re suited in some very small sample sizes and the? if^ra^ only those cases with 5 or more points were analyzed* Of b\ anal yses 12, cr 30/S^were significant* Of the 12, 6 were signifl- HQHS 050366 nt PkOTs W 4U micaeTtckuNrna*iiieor It.CillO. D*Tr . 01/17/791 IOOwn) toof ft.Ort 7.00 .00 10.00 1 t 1 . *.00 _* . 1 t ! 8.00 * 7.00 I I 1 . /e* -. . I 6*00..t : -I j * s^> w//Mr rj R Of R88i*f <ftr Att . $MA 3_ (ftCROftS) 1.00*7. ft.00 8.00 10*00 (7*00 tft.00 i\ T\ I1 \1 11 II 1t 11 1t (1 /Q Pft6t | 1ft.00 11.00 1 1 1 t 1 1 i ' i i r 1 t ft .00 * 1 1 _____________________ I_______ l ! 1 I 1 1 i i I .......... 3300. i1 1 l! , 7.00 ` 1.00 I "" 79599?1* I 3 ?)?.2 * 22 IS................... 3 l .. I I I I 1 I 0.00 I 1 i.oo i.OA J.00 5*00 ___ . _ ...... 7.00 OtOO I 1 1 | .I 1 1 I l?0O |3*00 i i f i i i ------------------------- ti 10 *0 1700 l*00 10,no a.no 7.60 5*00 4 n0 0. 2*00 l.ftO HONS 050388 1* > > > __ > ft ft ft > 8 ft ft ft 9 $ t ./ Ci T** SJ+Sdtm not* rite <iom<hC tcition_oTr scittciinA* n> (Bonn ) met 80 >*00 0ft / <444 ^' 4*90 <k 4 4MmI> 4hi/li/rt V,_44^. 44V440MJ ; "cmIji lntT * ftO 10(00 19.00 14.00 4 1* 14.00 tl.00 I' lo.oo t ! ! I ._____ ___ Q0._*_ I t ii 10(00 f f I 1 2 t ' ' 4 1 OiOC I r.oo r r !. 11 11 I 1 4 OiftO \> 1 1 . 1 7 ioO I* 4d<j . i 12 t 1 6v-.-) | I 1 i 1 9.00 1 1 2 1 *oo 1 .I ! 1 __ 3 >00_. 1 2 1I 11 1 9(00 i 1I 1 2> Ii ioO 1 ---------- 2 1I 1I 1I ! ----------- 3(00 -- 1 2 > > 2 7*00 2*ft0 i I 1 9*9 I .1 .2* 7.904*2 - I- fToo 9 #39*1 I 1 MUl.i 1 _..........l lI i --0.00 - l .. .1 ... ___ ....... .. 2 | I 2 t 1 (AO 2 1 1 ----------0 (AO .... ______ j j - t. 00 l.on 3*00 9(00 7(00 0(00 11(00 17(00 19(00 17(00 >00 L ( 4^ . y4 ^ HONS 0503(9 Table 20 The Linear Correlation of Weight and ppm PCB of Each Genus'.:- of Fiah per Station Soecles Campostoma Dorosoma Gambusia Hypenteliiim Leponis it "H "M Micropterus If M M It llotropls Fercina Phenocobius Plnephales Station 2 3 b 5 8 1 2 1 3 1 2 1 b' 5 6 7 1 2 b 5 6 7 8 1 2 3 1 2 5 * Significant, p<0,05 Corr, R t0.4d -0.19 O.56 0.70 -0.10 0.01b 0.96 -0.3b -0,0b 0.003 -0.36 0,36 0.20 0.56 0,1? 0.32 0.35 -0.51 -0.68 0.66 -0.15 -0.118 0.206 0.635 -0.25 0.018 -0.5b -O.bl 0.579 0 0.21 0.26 0.01* 0.003# 0.b2 n 5 13 lb 13 6 0.35 0.004* 0.15 0.b5 9 5 11 8 O.bo 0.03# 0.15 0.06 0.000O2* 0,019* 0.067 25 oc, 10 b7 31 23 0.10 0.) 8 0,0b5 0.013# 0.302 0.295 0.328 8 5 6 11 lb 23 7 0.001 0.95 0.b7 20 29 17 0.13 6 0.2bb 0.030 * 5 11 MOWS 050391 Table 21 The Linear Correlation of Log Weight and Log Don PCS of Each 'Semis. of Fish per Station Soecles Campostcma Dorosona Gambusia Hypentellum lepomls "" "M n "M Klcropterus 1 II II H "" H I II Notropis Forcina Phenocoblus Pinephales Station 2 3 4 5 8 1 2 i 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 4 5 6 7 8 1 2 3 1 2 5 * Significant, p < 0.05 Corr. R -0.50 -0.26 0.70 0.58 -0.09 -0.10 0.97 -0.56 0.04 -0.18 -0.14 0.42 0.46 0.52 0.58 0.34 0.06 -0.68 -0.61 0.59 -0.14 -0.077 0.404 0.35 -0.41 -0.06 -0.38 -0.28 0.43 TJ 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 25 2R 10 52 46 31 23 O.Uil 0.0? 0.07 0.02* 0.312 O.36 0.18 8 5 7 11 14 23 7 0.061 0.013* 0.408 20 28 17 0.22 6 0.32 5 0.089 11 MOMS 05C392 Figure 19' The Linear Correlation of Weight and ppm FCB and Log Weight-Log ppm FCB in Doroeoma sp from station k ** a ai x in in ';j WM HONS 050393 __ Z*s.___ ______________ c*n*uti*ijcsa-^r____ e/T___ *otw *a* not* f=Ou*J O ,wt,/" 'Hi H jfile_ *oi (cttiTInN .ou_. SCitTE.tO.O or i bowm ) Lost *o*on >*00 ________ ar 0*00 0*00 JT-a-r-. a ^___4 . (icao.s) 1001 0*00 10*00 i. 0 w.oo lo.OO 10.00 --ia**"*"" tfi*.li!*U.-*i**i*i,i lo.oo % 'C HONS 0 5 0 3 9 4 0.00 * -1,00 oOn I# 00 5^00 7.00 ,00 11*00 11*00 15,00 17.00 |, ^06 ' fC aa {<9jsz .^ r ^ 'V 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 FCB 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 PGB's to accumulate with vreight* The Increased strength of the correlations In these analyses indicates that season does influence the relationship between wet weight and PC3 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 PCB by fish* It . generally gives slichtly higher correlation coefficients and greater significance levels than the simple wet weightppm or mCiltiple regression models do* Both the strength of correlation and the significance levels are affected by the MOMS 050396 Table 22 The Linear Correlation of Weight and ppm PCB In Each Genus n at Each Station and Season Species Station Campostoma * ii 3 3 Doroaoma n i ft 5 Hypentelium M" , ', 1 1 3 Lspomis H i M II H It M II II II II II ' " II II M II I II 1 II 1 II II M II II Micrpoterus i it HH mn ii ii it it ii .. ii 1 1 2 2 3ft ft ft ft 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 P O.32 0.25 O.ftl 0.11 -0,1ft 0.30 0.06 'n 5 6 6 7 5 5 5 0.ft9 -0.2ft -O.36 -O.36 O.83 0.51 0.62 -0.12 0.3ft 0.32 0.9P 0.32 -0.006 O.ftO 0.32 0.37 -0.13 0.50 0.95 -0.17 -0.70 0.06 0.50 0.31 0.08 0 0.23 n 0.20 0.12 7 12 0.0ft 0.0ft* 5 12 0.006* 15 0.38 8 0.08 17 0.1ft 13 0,00001* 9 0.11 0.4Q 15 9 0.09 0.11 12 16 0.050* 19 0,41 0.19 0,005* 0.3ft 0.02* 0.49 0,12 0,30 5 5 5 8 8 6 7 5 * Significant, p 0,05 HONS 050397 Table: 22 (continued) Species Notropis NH 1 II II II II ft Station 1 1 2 2 2 2 3 3 Fhenocobius 2 Plmephales 5 Season spring summer fall winter spring summer fall spring summer fall Corr. R -0.07 0.71 -o.6l 0.26 -0.09 -0.10 -0.74 -0.08 -0.41 0.53 T> o`.43 o.o;* 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 MONS 050398 Table 23 The Linear Correlation of Log Weight and Log ppm PC3 In Each Senna-: at Each Station and Season Secies Station Campostoma 3 3 Dorosoma 4 5 Hypentellum " .H 1 1 3 Lepomis t u ** "M 1 t M "" 1* II H ' II || 1* I* 1 1 2 2 3 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 6 6 7 Kicrpoterus "" t II I* H II II II H II 1 5 6 6 7 7 7 8 Season fall sprlne 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 0.26 -0.53 -0.43 0.66 -0.40 -0.28 -0.30 0.07 0.0 0.30 0.69 0.03 0.69 0.36 0.89 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* 0.46 0.001 0.11 0.0005* 0.056 0.49 0.09 0,001* 0.03 * 9 11 7 12 5 12 15 8 17 13 9 15 9 12 16 19 0.30 0.24 0.C1* 0.28 0,002* 0.37 0.23 0.24 5 5 K 8 8 6 7 5 # Significant, p 0.05 HONS 050399 Table 23 (continued) Stjeciea No1 tropls Station i i 2 2 2 2 3 3 Fhenocobius 2 Fisiephiler, 5 Season spring simmer fall winter spring summer fin spring summer fall Corr. R -0.11 0.29 -0.73 0.45 -002 0.02 -0.81 -0.24 -0.28 009 D o\uo 0.25 0.07 0.15 0.21 0.47 0.04 0.23 0.32 0.14 n 7 6 5 7 7 7 5 11 5 O MONS 050400 [ n "** L/*> tr**. <L e *--* nu udmamc (cRcitioM oiTr o/ir/ri nClTTtMIU* W------TOciiMl CtBT < 1.00 *.Oe 15.00 r-s ~ as 7*- ^ ,_ s'"s >1.00 9*00 w^/tfA>r_______ 5U!_____ s*** - **Ca____________ I 7- - i ~u'eacHsl` 53.00 3.00 " *5.00 SJ.dO 97.00 "TCTTS rue npNitir --I?iTfrtHi ftp -* d/' AOi **l `4 >#IT imt*# t*J ****+ ecRcitfON otr o/ir/ri f 6ou*f lodT ' fliOA PAO 4*00 --*^r' " ^ * (KidtsrLnfii iiOA 00 10*00 lOi 0 <V '73T7 o/tr/7* Pi 14.00 14*00 M" 10*00 10*00 ! ___ o.oo_ L____ . *?2 *.? ;. l*oo i.oft i.oo 5oo f.oo o.oo 11 oa ii.oo i9*ao ir.oo _________4* n0_ u.oo MOMS 050402 Figure 22 The Linear Correlation of Weight and ppm FC3 and Log Weight-Log ppm FC3 MOMS 050403 Figure 23 U S TOTH. PCS TOTH. P(M ( H M height cue: MONS 050404 Table 24 The Multiple Regression Analysis of Vlelght and FCB in Each Genus at Each Station and Season at the Weight^ Level Species Lepomis Station 4 Lepomls 4 tepomis 4 Lepomis T.epomis 5 6 Leponi3 ? Micropterus 7 Notropis 1 Season fall F 7.26 Multiple R 0 *?li winter .17.00 0.E6 summer '5.9 winter 103.0 0.6? 0.^5 summer 6.9 0.71 summer 3,63 0.56 fall 8.5 summer 76.2 0.57 c.=? R2 oTnl 0.74 0.45 0,97 0,51 0.71 0,7^ os:. n 11 14 16 3 15 ?S 7 5 HONS 050405 number of points per pl.->t, the species and season of collection. As the data are considered in terms of station, speci.es and seasoni the sample numbers decrease and so do the ruin her of significant cases* However, greater spcificity incre*? nes both the correlation coeffient and the significance levels . In general, FC3's increase with increased weight in all species* HONS 050*06 D. SPECIES DIFFERENCES IK 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 {if 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 fluifuating 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 fishi By comparing the water quality analyses (Table 16') 61' with the fluctuating FC3 concentrations of flch (Figures 3It and 2^-25) the influences of the abiotic pDrnneterr' on " the uptake of PCB by fish may be identified# The changes ir. residue levels of Dorosoma. Lorcmis, Mlcronterur and d irectly ^otropls throughout the stations and reasons do nct*ccincide with the fluctuations in dissolved oxygen, nsrocs dioxide, temperature or alkalinity. For example, although temperature MOHS 050407 t'l I HA r1 >/ _ r. :'V . /. ,i/*v . ' vr/ **./. / r t iwwi m> r o '"`itf *.*C/* / */. : . -f '* ' '4us,i J It > 't sTeLjO** ' 'l/J J,* '' ' "-'''''J V MOMS 050406 7~07??L fC/J VX ALL /vC(Ul J7Ar/C^-> f ALL 'C'V-S 40 H J 0-1 /yL*~ /"Cd t. I '^ vWTEfi. SS'lg/'VO HONS 050409 _ __ *** "f X J/iE Ifto 4!f *>Anniro `tflCut' t~-icn <j/*/Z ' i*M > -r- * Z' - may somehow be affecting the uptake of FCB, the circr ir. tem perature in the winter coincides with an increase in residue level in Klcropterus and Le pom is at Station 2, and a decrease of the mean FCB levels in the same.2 species at Station U Therfore, no generalisations about the effect cf these para meters can be made* The pH levels are fairly consistent throughout the survey and therefore probably have little to do with the chances of FCB found in the fish. Turbidity and suspended solids have the same seasonal trendn. They are low in the summer and fall ?nd hi^h in the winter and r.;rir'j. The suspended solids as a mediator of FCB would mcr.t .jrsntly af fect Pompom*. a filter feeder* Since Pcrcrom^s* hi^hert neon FCB levels most frequently occur in the fall r-rr-mro/'' suspended solids rrocarly do r.ot greatly affect } uptake by fish. The limited number of TOC analyses mak*/ 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 in highest at station 2 ar.d decreases with increasing distance from the outfall in all reasons* The 2 control stations have similarly low levels of both chloride C and FCB* However, an increase in chloride at urtation 5 in the summer does not coincide with an increased FCB concentration at that station and season. Iron also follows the sane rat- HQNS 050410 100. tern of decreased concentration with increased dist.anceJln 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 ny variable. Seasonally, the iron concentration increases from fall to winter, and decreases from winter to summer. Again these <*V trends cannot be correlated with the flujhUatlons in FC3 levels In any species at any station or season. There is no correlation of sulfate or conductivity with the seasonal fluctuations in fish, but again, they follow similar spacial & trends which do correlate with FCB levels. In summary, the mean FCE concentration in each species A at each station flu/juates with the seasons. Those seasonal changes in each species vary from station to station, and a (fc comparison of the seasonal filiations of all species at the same station show that leroinis and Klcropterus have similar trends atj^tations 2 and 4, and Ganbus {a and Notrcnis have a similar trend at Static 2,(Figures 24-25)* The seasonal et 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 by fish are chloride, iron, sulfate and other lens de tected in the conductivity measurements* MOMS 050411 2* Feeding patterns and ?C3 accumulations Both the troph.'c relationships of flch and the different methods of food collection may be related to their FC2 oio- concentrntlon* The method of feed collection, especially *hat of filter feeders^may be importany*when considered in conjunction with tee transport of FCB in water* Suspended have often been surrested as ? major source cf PCS to flr.h* If thir i true, -the filter fed-rs would fc moot rro-itly affected .rsd should reflect the cr.rrvf'es seen in turbidity ^rv rs'.;y*>v;ed solids* Ar seen in the previous section, `he r un: ended solids and the mean FCB concentrations of Po^-ocra do not correlate. Therefor0, suspended while they nay be a methed of PC? tron-r^rt, dr -.rt ayje^r to be a najor source of FC3 con tamination to fish* Table lists fXa firh 'iot; each -t .tlr: r.A Z't-rzr. In orner from the highest mean concentration (total id?.} to tr.o lowest slon<5 with their trophic relationships and. spawning seasons* Although the -season'-? tre'-'d-' :v -ur7 are notrelntsd to PCb concentration In fi^h, pnottoyrtr.htic or srlnnn, however, an a major food source of PC- to flrh have no* beer, ruled out, A close lock az tuc y;.* 1f (T-via". 16-inj <=*,,*;-* * sprinr collection l J*.r. t ion ? \:'A toe sv",".~r collection -re:: Station - h~ve hi y ii 1- ; MONS 050412 1Q2. oxygen and tubidity and low carbon dioxide w^ch suggests that there nay be a great amount of algae or phytoplankton present* Dorosoma, a plankton feeder, however, shows hi/:h levels of PC3 in the spring at station 5 (based on one sample) but low levels summer, there is also no increase in'PCB ln,Lepbnls. which also do some filter feeding, at these same 2 stations* Therefore, although Dorosona 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 FC3 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 Z and ?, those moat highly contaninated stations, a similar relationship exists. However, the detritavore accumulates FCB to the highest level. At station U, Dorosoma accumulates the highest levels and the relationship is herbivore, carnivore, omnivore. As seen above, Dorosoma however,7probably does not accumulate the major portion of ft-S* t`is PCB 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 L ('<> O') stationslon Choccolocco Creek* Stations 6,7 and^B-, however,-are much more variable. At these- stations leronls. the onnivore, HONS 0504X3 accumulates more FCB, relative to the other species, than they did on Choccolocco Creek* There 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 Dorosona. there are other factors which influence the accumu lation of FCB by fish. HONS 050411* Tahle 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 Micrpterur, Trophic Level tert. earn Feeding Type site Spawnin'' sp-su Mean FCB (ppm) 0.61 Percina t-cam site. 0.41 Hypentelium detrit sucker so 0.20 Gambusia 1st earn grazer sp-fl 0.18 Notropls Lepomls omni. omni. grazer gra2er su-fl sp-fl 0.11 0.11 Wintor Micropterus Trophic Level t-cam Feeding Type site Spawning Sp-3U l ean FG3 (ppm) 10.25 Hypentelium detrit. sucker sp 0.87 Notropin onni. grazer su-fl 0.73 I.eponis omni. grazer sp-fl 0.48 Spring Fercina Trophic Level t-cam Feeding Type site Spawning Mean PCB (ppm) 0.57 Notropis omni grazer su-fl 0.36 Gambusia 1st cam grazer sp-fl 0.35 Lepomls omn i grazer so-n 0.31 Summer Trophic Level Feeding Type Spawning Kean FC3 (ppm) Notropis Fhenocobius omni detrit grazer sucker su-fl sp-su 0.73 0.65 Micropterus t-carn site sp-su 0.42 Hypentelium detrit sucker sp O.35 Gambusia omni grazer sp-fl 0,25 l c 0 fl- fall w- winter sp- spring su- summer HONS 050415 Table 25, (continued) Station 2 Fall Campostoma Trophic Level detrlt Feeding Type sucker Spawning KU-fl Mean FCB (ppm) 82.67 Cambusla 1st cam eraser sp-fl 51.66 Motropis onnl grazer 5U-fl 48.15 Mlcropterus t-cam site so-su 42.30 Lepomis omnl grazer sp-fl 19.69 Winter Hypentellun Trophic Level rietrit Feeding Type sucker Spawning sp Mean FCB (ppm) 56.83 Mlcropterus t-cam site sp-su 42.14 iN'otropis onni grazer 3U-fl 32.60 Leponis omnl grazer sp-fl 28.41 Spring Campostoma Trophic Level detrlt Feeding Type sucker Spawning SUrfJ Mean FCB (ppm) 46.93 Mlcropterus t-cam site sprsu 29.19 Cambusla 1st cam grazer spt1 26.96 "otroots omnl grazer SUr.fl 18.17 lepomis omnl grazer Sp-fl 9.32 Summer Motropis Trophic Level omnl Feeding Type grazer Spawning su-fl Mean FCB (ppm) 42.90 Fhenocobius detrit sucker sp-su 37.59 Gambusia 1st cam grazer sp-fl 21.16 Lepomis omni gra zer sp-fl 20.89 Mlcropterus t-cam site sp-su 14,30 HONS 050*16 Table 25 (continued) Station 4 Fall Dorosoma Trophic Level pi ank Feeding Type filter Spawning sp Mean PCS (ppm) 27 M Percina t-cam site 22.71 Micropterus t-cam site sp-su 17.52 Lepomis onni grazer sp-fl 11.20 NotemtgonSus onni w grazer sp-au U.39 Winter Trorhic Level Feeding Type Spawning Kean PCB (ppm) Dorosoma plank filter so 15.87 Micropterus t-cam site sp-su 10.75 Lepomis omni grazer so-fl ?.10 Spring Micropterus Trophic Level t-cam Feeding Type site Spawning ap-su Mean FC3 (ppm) 17.72 Lepomis omni grazer sp-fl 11.79 Summer Gambusia Trophic Level 1st cam Feeding Type grazer Spawnlng sp-fl Mean FC3 (ppm) 19.59 Lepomis omni grazer so-fl 12.37 Dorosoma plank filter sp 7.11 HONS 050417 Table 25 (continued) Station 5 Fall Dorosoma Perclna Microp. Trophic Level plank t-cam t-cam Feeding Type filter site site SpavnIns *P Mean PCB (ppm) 2.86 2.66 sp-su 2.53 Pimeph dfttrit sucker sp-su 2.32 N'otrop. omni grazer su-fl 2.66 Lep. Notem. omnl omni graz grazer su-fl sp-su 1.20 O.65 Vinter Roccus Trophic Level t-cam Feeding Type site Spawning Mean FCB (ppm) 2.86 Dorosoma Micropteruc plank t-cam filter site sp 2.36 Sp-SU 1.61 Loromis cmni rrar.cr sp-n 0.91 Spring Dorosoma Trophic Level plank Feeding Type Spawning filter sp Mean PC3 (ppm) 8.74 Notropis omnl grazer su-fl 4.81 Micropterus t-cam site sp-su 2.27 Lepomis onni era2er sp-fl 1.26 Summer Plmephales Trophic Level detrit Feeding Type sucker Spawning sp-su Mean PCD (ppm) 1.84 Mlcropterus t-cam site sr-su 1.45 Dorosoma plank filter sr 1.13 Lepomis onni grazer sp-fl 1.02 HONS 050418 Table 25 (continued) Station 6 Fall Dorosoma Trophic Level plank Feeding Type filter Spawning sp Mean PC3 (ppm) 5.35 Micrpoterus t-carn site sp-su I.eponls omnl grazer sp-fl 4.03 N'otropls omnl grazer su-fl 2.41* Pimephales detrit sucker sp-su 2.13 Spring Hlcropterus Trophic Level t-cam Feeding Type site Spawning sp-3U Mean FJS (ppm) 7.98 . Lepomis omnl grazer sp-fl U.Q7 Perclna t-cam site 3.88 Summer Lepomis Trophic Level omni Feeding Type grazer Spawning - sp-fl Mean FCB (ppm) 6.09 N'otropis omnl grazer su-fl 3.61 Fercina t-cam site 3.88 Micropterus t-cam site sp-su 2.52 HONS 050419 Table 25 (continued) Fall Trophic Level Feeding Tyre Spawning Mean FCB (pen) Station 7 Lepomis onni sra 7','v sp-fl 2.o6 Micropterus t-cam site np-su 2.17 '< Inter Trophic Level Feedinr Type Spawning Mean FCB (ppn) Dororcra plank filtor RD 3.C6 . Micro nterus t-cam site sp-su 1.25 Spring Trophic Level Feeding Type Srawn ing Mean FC3 (ppm) Micropterus t-cam site sp-su 2.17 Lepomis omni grazer sp-fl 1.97 Summer Trophic Level Feeding Type Spawning . Mean FC3 (ppm) Lepomis omni *razer sp-fl 2.02 Micropterus t-cam site s o-su l`.34 HONS 050420 Table 2JJ (continued) Statlom 8 Fall Trophic I.evel Feeding Type Spawning Mean FC3 (ppm) Le pon i s omni grazer sp-fl 6.20 Dor0soma plank filter sp 4.71 Roccus t-cam grazer 4.04 Hicropterus t-carn site sp-su 3.01 Vinter Trophic Level Feedim? Tyre Spawning Kean FC3 (n~) Dorosona plank filter sp 6.50 Spring Trophic Level Feeding Type Spawning Moan FC3 (ppm) Doron oma plank filter sp 4,4 Mic ropieru s t-carn site so-su 3,14 Mo tro r i s omni grazer su-fl 0.83 Summer Trophic Level Feeding Type Spawnlne Kean FCB (ppm) Mlcropterus t-cam site sp-su 2.87 ]*otropis omni grazer su-fl 2.22 Roccus t-carn site 1.25 HONS 090421 3* Lipids and spawning as related to ?CB concentration! The Anova Tables (10 and 11) show that there is a sig nificant correlation between season and FC3 concentration in Mlcropterus Dorosoma .and Notropls. but not in Lpt-qt^ st Gamhusla or Kyoentellum* These correlations nay be due to changes in lipid during spawning seasons* Table 25 includes both the mean FCB concentration of each species and its spawning season* Just prior to spawning, lipid percentage should be highest and therefore FC3's should also be highest, if one accepts the lipid-water partition theory ar; the main route of PCD entry to firh. Even though some fish in this study are very snail, the san^ weight fluctions do occur during spawning season (Lov* ,1^1), Pierouterus spavm in tho spring and summer. Figures lCf 24 and 25 show that the highest FCB concentrations in Micropteruc at Stations 4, 6 and 8 and nearly the hirhest concentrations at Stations 5 and 7 do occur in the spring collections. ffotrcpls spawn in the summer and falland the highest average residue levels are also found in these seasons (see Figures 11, 24 and 25),* ' Doroscna spawn in the spring relating its spawning season with the correlation between season and FCB concentration seen in Anova Table 11. Lepoml-- spawn from spring to fall (April to October). Their high residue levels occur over'aH"* seasons. There is no MOMS 050422 correlation between season and FCB content in Lercnls. The lack of correlation between season and FCB concentra tion in Ganbusla and Hvrentellum 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 FC2 content at least in some species* The differences in FCB accumulation between species nay also be due, in part, to species differences in lipid content. Table 26 shows the lipid content of various firh. An seen in earlier sections, Eorosoma generally accumulate FC"';? to great er levels than other sfccies.ar.d this accumulation in probably not food related. Ebrorona*s high 7CD content are rrccably re-- lated'to their relatively high lipid content. Therefore, the lipid partitioning means of uptake must ce very irvortant in the PC? 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 PC3 content must be related to factors other than lipid partitioning. (NCTEi I am having difficulty finding the lipid contents of many of my species. Vhen I an abl* to find the information, Table r will be expanded and the last para graph' above will be clarified.) Sreoics Doroscna ceredianum Campostoma sp, Ferca flavier.ee Table 26 (Thueton, 1959) The Lipid Content of Several Fish (Central States Area) % Oil 23.1 1.2-1.9 0.9-1.1 HONS 050423 U3 E. HETABOIIC DIFFSBENCSS IN SPECIES Figures 2show the seasonal differences in the accumu lation of each Aroclor (1242, 1254 and 1260) at stations 1 to 8 in fiorosoma, Lepomls, Micropterus and Notropi* respectively* All 4 species accumulate similar relative amounts of the 3 Aroclors at all stations* All Aroclors decrease with increasing JV> 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 or changes in their relative heights* F Imres 30-3Y dunostrate "~ 'a that all fish of the same species collected at the same station and season have the same peaks in their chromatograms* Figures 35-38 compare all species pre^nt at Station 2, fall-collectdon Again all have the same peaks* Figures 3?-42 , samples of (Ndtrocis, , 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 f-'* also very similar. Finally, rh^n the same species from ( Hicrorterus. stations 2,4 and 6, fall collections) the same season but different stations * (Figures 4-3-45.) show1* \ r loss of some of the peaks of lower retention time with increased HONS 050424 distance from stations 2 to 6 Otherwise all' peaks are the seme with similar relative heights. Therefore, the differences seen In species accumulation of PCB (see section A fJtJL protafcly not due to differences in * metabolic aMifcfcfcp/* HONS 050425 f ' sttoc.LVrZ I rt- "C.4^ Ai'l't'lf ,fr '.'A-.-C - /- ' '-^A, U'V 4+* 6 jjc t *> oc/taj g, * V*. s,<_L *r+r,c.'--S X. JL 47 I il i, 7 if" .,1 *: a r> ^tVc/.. <VL tHX ; /* * V /. <-;<- <. 1 ./. il, /i"y /v < - I .v y. . \ A 1 ar HONS 050427 > ~r'A, Ij~y n/ c a: c/W/t. <-'J '*-!./ s*> to W/Ct p/l t 1C --tti_____ i *- Xj Afli d1 ,t H t. r"C ****eo 9y *y y * r i `/c , .. 4 **44/c: J~ u'/ 'Sf/l J ' f/*>r / vf V trsi > ' > 7 J. ' "> <fr- MOMS 050428 ' fA 't /fKcuon <vlJ) 03 ///'.' >7<! /-"/ 7. /-_f t V .'v.VC, / -V^( /*.! v * " -V-ir ( .v a/JVC*'*J' J>* /*/*. <? -V f,5 <.'j- ' 1. .1 <, JL * f7-^S7.<-J' ? JVJ - t* H /*V<i t . - n MOMS 0SQ434 HONS 0 8 0 * 3 5 |0- J. - ^ A*T*o/*s Jvf. szzsra^ c'*`4c c HONS 0 5 0 4 4 1 I r XE\ xscus3ic:f V Thir jePpfff wa ^nti^rtcV.er. r.-? th" - -IrrMp of the ccr.V-n'rjated .VricV.c ccr. portents r'\v.VF?'.tiO'i "Olirir) with tho bloacmir.r j ? r. ' or. of .-Jr b; fishj to the half-life of ?C2*n ir thir v'"l*ly con- t?rin-?.tel vhrear.; to -.'otor-ine whether the rr: v r--: r h--, octcd nr a "h.ink" for FC~i *c'*v?,\s]?ttor. ?nd r*icr:. *. k' `-r-lro whether wet weirht-FCi? corceniruticr, rolati c-i' r ard vrefh^r it fl mo V. > *..r - r.n th" re v-"'* r 5 v - lv o whether t; rre are ciffarf,no"r ir. srecie: -.ccm: vi -. if "o, vrot.rrr the;' ".nr.\ jloro]r rr'-trd 1 ?.'!-*:- Lr*..; r'M:kv'r` i :tj-, food r'r.->ir. ml ationshi rn , rer.ce;:. ir. liyid cor.err traticr.r *.r r:tch rrecies cr 1 Iffer *r 'r - belie ability of each rfeeler. ,'11 Ir, order to acooryiJ-h th5;;, thr da*?. W- r'.r-- The rurr.ary of the riara rr^rertrei ir "h" .novr. Tabler 1(Tahlor ^-Vd`r.orv^trot ther *>re a cert'')'' -a!- vhi'T. ^rfl'ierco the accumulation of ?3H by fJrh. Zr, ini- *.;?lor, the r.+ntior. location ^.r.d ir r.cre ci.ren, the -el. ' rf ore ?rr^r.i?n ar ; rr" ron of celled ? rfr.^ct th>s I r'.coi: "i -"'r1: ''ar't.crs r.r `hr1:* '*'' or each, ''roier. w* *.!'er UTtdrrtr.h.on to better decor*'; ' ' vr`l ati or.- HONS 050*45 120, ships# >!any papers, hav attempted tc show tha t there is a cor- relation 'between length, weight or are of f irh and their FCB residue levels (Reinert, 1570: Kelso, 19?^i Bach, lp?"). Bache found that all three parameters were significantly correlated to PCB concentration in treut fron Cayuga Lake* There was, however, considerable variabllit,v arcs.g older firh than younger and In areas of higher ?C ? contamination than in*areas of lesser. In contrast, Clsor 2i H.,(157?) reported no correlation of PCS levels in r.\. scle of pike (?)sox lisclug)to age or weight using either wet cr lipid weight based concentrations. Eberhardt (1975) has suggested that , if them is a correlation between weight and FCB concentra+icn, a linear model using leg weignt vs log PCE concentre, ticn describes the relationship better than the simple weight vs FCj ccrcer.trntion model# Thus, the influence of fish weight or. ?C3 accurul*ticn was examined at each station in this system using no*h the leg weight vs log ppm FOB and weight vs ppm FCB module. The data were analyzed, first using weight as a ha`is for PC3 ac cumulation regardless of species, followed hy each species at each station and then on a species per seas,cn '*asis. HONS 050446 121 The f* rst analysis PCS accunul aticn of el! fish com bined. at each station was done to determine whether weight alone If the determining factor in FC3 hcck-m? atlcn or whether a cluster.1 r.(~ of each species would become afferent. There was no clusterin'' evident, however, the weight ar.d ?Lh concentra tions. were s*ffnlficentlv correlated, even thourh their correla tion coefficients w^re very low. This surrest* that the lipid- water partitioning of PCS may be contribute n-- to the PC? con centration, but that other factors rr.ay also h?ve an influence on rc*3 uptake. To determine whether differences 1r. species were influencin'; this relationship, the data arjalvcerl on a seeder per station basis. In *>.* c-res the line-r fit be came nuch cl^rer, however, there were many which showed no c.*rUMrioA'. Therefore, the difference", in ^terie" on .^ffect the wei^ht-ppr. relationshin, but there ",unt be othr factors involved. It van thought that neescnal charms in 1 lpi:i ccr.- + ant nay be a fcaior cav.se of the deviation of species fren tne 'i''ear models, Thus, the data w. broken dewn emln to the species per station per season level ?.*r.d f-' lim-r ar:;'v-.v, '*'** r a m* J n performed. The linear fit cr tr. r.l. n!f`cant canes became cl ore*-, however, of the carrn wer- r 1 mf ioar.t- tv corns'! .< cd The results of in study nm.ov t.-e:. ,ir \m` -.r.e loo-lop; ~odel is 3. heater ds?~eri` ti rn -f the .p i.'.t t-r; r re- HONS 0504*1 latlonship than the simple wel^ht-ppm model, ar.d that., in gen eral, FCD 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 tc 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 FC2 concentra tion with increased weight theory is based on the assumption that the lipid percentage increases with fi-h growth. Thin i? not always true. In wild trout, there was r.o direct correla tion between body lipid content and si2e (i.ove, l?"7!). This may account for the lack of any correlation or lack cf sig nificance in many of the cases* The ur-e of regression models to determine whether a mer* complicated relationship between weight and rCU concentration exists did not improve the overall results. Cne can conclude from the above that the "Mp'd-water partitioning of FC3 nay be a route of entry to fJrh, but that other factors may be influencing this uptake. As it was ascertained that the weight vs. p*r. FCB re lationship is variable, ar.d the range of fir-h sizer, is general ly small, the mean values cf FT3 residue in fish wer* used tc describe the contamination of the river system rv: '? r.r.vj he influence of station location which was hovn to V a major effect on FC? cmcertrnticn in the Aaova Tables This stream war, heavily contaminated with FCc's from to The firh residues. indicated that the strain i?- ''.ill MOMS 050448 highly co'-fnn'nat.ed r.etr the prior scurve of 7C2 nr.0 decrcif-or with inc**r-9 r. 5 n~ distance from the source. It yp^ars tret there is no major build-up cf FCH in the reservoir. These findings indicate that. the rCS's "'re h'rbly irroril", \r van : ' y ohovr in the lab^oy Choi Altncuyh Ft.:'-- hv-e a h; ;h affinity for clay, the differences in r.Hi.uer.t ty:-?r, do not ~ia appear to have a /yreat effect cr it s d Istrl :,y;.'. v. in this system| ie fish fro- irenr* of hirh clay ern'o:* t 'hjtp ti:r.r. k and <'}c do not have hi h^r ?'.? concent 's- t.u'- trose from are:<r cf lower clay content (^t?.t;".r Pc' trilvs cf confined the type, are^s of men lor^Rtandirv VC" c* "`nina- tion runt a resul* of PC? '.trore tier to o ir. * ; *".r ry r'lh- rt )ncr*s in those areor, Thus, the major r-w-r** / to ff-rh tU'-t -i tho - .i->t* how then are FC:?'~ 'f*:n y* Hat ed *r,? red!* ' ish? In i`. 1;Iy 'h-^-: o. rc'uci'-* Ff3 bclnr 1-v.ich-d toe rudiment,and surrey :er.tly -aborted through the skin, cn the suryer.dcd ncj^dc, a-norhed threurh tr e f'ilJs or directly inrer.ted? The first step in study in?; these -'yen*, i o-r : ~ to determine whether there are specie^ differences in >7. ^ccur.ulatior. * The A -ova T.'iv'Vr (Tables -how that the-s <' "if:cart l<t.-r,,roru.ftr '-peeler core*-' tr? t Ley at j."*: .....A.'' : 1 ;?re evident v;her. ernrv-r: nr all ; - - : -1 -.he ot;->>r stations in the hiotcn'rayp (r i.yurer if-1/ ' i 't-;'1'. HONS 050449 "ince FCb'-- are t.hcurhf v: re transported neinjy cr. 'u: card ed rolidc the suspended mlHr nay ce a route ?f onto;., <rto fish, especially f)]tr ^eederr* A conreri.ton of fluctua tions in turbidity and r,urpended solids and the FfP: iov?:? of )rr:"u, a filter feeder, chow that ther is r*,o r'' n t to---.r l o, n~d therefor", suspended roller probable dc r,o^ .--o"`1v in fluence FT? uptake by f'~h. A comparison of the fVictustienr In other water quality paraneters and the chanr-** in fl*h PCB concentrations show the*, or.ly chloride, "rlfate or.-5 ''^h'*r ionr imy effect + ho conceo r tion of FC3 fcv fi-h. I'l..... ',** rr.*-r, car!-on di--rl iv, alkalinity and. ten pen t'.:**^ r^r.~ t -> ro r. 1 ati on.^hlp to the di ffennc0*-. 'n FCB in ri.-. in Pearson*, The trophic rein ti '--"h? r.- were thv. 9] 1 species wore not frurf at -11 statin'* .1 *l -m n *; trophic ranVi**`;r> of tr\~ * th-t were found an ~*('n;vr - (f 1-1 Th f'** ? hr'V *';** t +^r>rrC paoi ar ^ >,- '--irllar Men are r^renlly cetrltnverer, plankt Ivrrcr. nr.i tertlory oarnivorer, followed by 1st carnivores ~r.d o,,*"ivoror. Th1.- !vr-- evidence of a strong food chain relationship for ?Z':i concurtn- tion* Table 27 .shows the general feed classification of those f.-" rMInctid, If a food ci",r .r ** fo]l'wdf th -h rrulb .?.'*------ 1 .*> *_ Flj'r- in the following order (fro-. L *.: lowest' oor. ivore plnnhtivore MONS 050450 The detritavcre Is ranked so highly because the sediment usual ly contains such high levels of ?C2. This is the general order of accumulation found in this study. These relationships, however, may net be due to feeding habits alor.e. An seen above, Dorosoma accumulator very high leve1? of FCB. This Is similar to Risebroutrh '* findings (l<-'72) in which a planktivore had greater FCB residue levels than din firh occupying higher positions in the trophic pyramid. Since Fomsoma do not attain most of their residue from either food or suspended solids and planktivores usually contain high lipid contents , their hieh accumulation is probably related to their high lipid cortents(see Table 26). If accumulation, is strictly lipid based, the fish would accumulate rC3*s in the following order (from highest tc lowed): * Dorosona Ca.mrostona Micropteras This is also th* approximate order fount !n this study, however, when more data is available, the relativrrhln will hopefully become more clear. The correlation of FCB concentration to weight o'* ill dpecies and the spawning ?a.ons of Pcr-*r-ni, Micro-t-vu.and ) otmp1. - along with, the high accumulation of the rd?, ty the hirn lipid species, l^r^scna, all give a v-=>ry rtverp care * Tv'*. s is bfl^ed on the United data found in Tad: HONS 050*51 12a. for thelipid partitioning route of uptake by fish. It la difficult to determine whether the consistent relationships of PCB accumulation among fish shown in Table 25 are a result of a food chain or lipid phenomenon,. Since Dorosora have 12 to 20e,o more lipid than do terra while both accumulate similar levels of FCB, and the variation in lipid content of the other fish CCanpostom included) is fairly snail (based or. only limited data) while the differences in PCB accumulation are sometimes very largp, it seers likely that the lipid content is net the only factor influencing PCS . accumulation by fish. Both feed and lipid partitioning my be major routes of PCB entry to fish. Detrltous feeders and tertiary carnivores picn up similar levels of F'J3 through thir feed (and r-c~c 11 pi-4 partitioning) ar do fatty firh. (Forr-c-v.) through mainly parti tier. * n.r It seems likely, then,that fish of sir! lor body composition would accumulate similar amounts of F13 from the water by parti tioning, and this accumul a tier. ir enhanced by that which is accumulated through the food. ' To determine yhether differences in metabolism amom species are causing the differences in species accumul?ticr. of ;C~'% nar.y chromatogram were compared and fcur.d to v '1-nrt identicle both in r.urd-er of yeal.r, and relative rmk hoi ht.s, "t was there in'--* assured that there are no great metabolic' h 5rnr.cr>'' among the specie:-. In conclusion, FC?'s are seen to Ke -el xtiv**'! inrcrll-? MOHS 050452 maintainin' hir;h level? near the source of the contamination and r-lowly declining with increased distance frzr the outfall, even though the contamination was discontinued never, yearr- prior to + he study; the rCB's tend to increase with increasing weight of the fish; the accumulation of FC3's by fish does net mem to be related to any water quality parameters except chloride, sulfate, iron and other ions which exhibit similar npacial pat terns of water concentration as do the FCd's (an reflected by the firh concentrations); there arc species differences in PCS accumu]'t!onj thrc differences am closely related to both fendin'- hobi+p and lipid non tents; the fo^d c*'*ir' ''?* ^ctritavomc and. Vr+i-v carnivore accurtulatine PCI's to th hi-;h"t levels fr1 lowed by 1st carnivore'* r.r.d cmr.ivorecj the lip1 d relationrh*r hr ?'" arcvrvlatlrn is shown by the ri~h 3cc'-r*.:]ati.?n of T'V nc:,-`scma (hirhrr then the tertiary carrbvere'', the ce.r- of m' t,: np1v:e\r*ht end hCd concentration and th~ ccrreletion of crTccel c;-e.n^en in lipid content due to ryav.-r.iry and FC2 conc?ntvn + inr.; and finally, there arc no rre^t metabolic diffe'/cn''?*- 2"?* epecier which could account for `nc d l fferoncer ir FC2 m-! *ue levels. HONS 050453 APPENDIX A PCS RESIDUE ISV3LS OF ALL SAMFL3S HONS 050454 Fish Nomenclature C. anomalura....... Canpostona anomalum XSY for the tables .stonerollcr D. cepedlanutn...., .Dorosoma cepedlar.'n ..gizzard shad C. afflnls................., .Cambusla afflnls .................... mosquito fish H. ctowanun....... Hypantaltum etowarv-m. ,.,., .hog-sucker L* sp................ .. .Lepcml* sp. .............................. sp..................... . .Klc ontorua SP. . sunfish . bass 2.* PTYROlOUCas..,, Notnlgnnua crysoloucas... . golden shiner N* ..., Xotropds stllbiur, .... N. tcranus.................. .Hotrool s texanmu . K. venn*t\n....... Nat oJL 3 ver.ustua silvsrstrice 3hiner .weed shiner black tail ch lr.er P. cawert^............ .F-rVi canrodis...... V, ni^rofaclnta.. . rorclna. higrofaclita.. log perch blackbanded darter Fh^r.acoblua nj>. minnows Pinephale.s up. m Ir.nowa Fnccnn chrynop-s white bass LOCATION OF THE STATIONS Station It Choccolocco Creek, Highway 9 Eriige crossing, (control) Station 2i Choccolocco Creek, Highway 1Q9 Bridge crossing . Station 3* Cheeha Creek, Highway 109 3rldge crossing. (co.:irol) Station 4: Choccolocco Creek, Highway 77 Bride crossing. Station 5* Coosa River, Highway 72 Bridge cm.v;i:;:r. (control) Station 6t Coosa River; Stanley Bridge, Login Martin Reservoir. Station 7i Logan Martin Reservoir, above Logan Martin pan, Station Bt Logan Martin Reservoir, below Logan Martin Bon Station 9i choccolocco Creek, Highway 109 Bridge crossing, (b^tw^en station 2 and 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. MOWS 050493 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 darn.) Tails 1 KAIL 10/5/77 ' Station 1 Tan pi 3 >!mb-T --30-- 61 62 2? 64 60 28 63 65 57 58 56 5* 55 66 67 59 6f> 71 72 70 6 75 73 53 53 Sracia* 1. macrochlrus M HM " L. megalotlc L. macrochirur. .. ' "" " ** M. punctula+.us y.. ccssae M runctulatur*. "M i " H, alowrru.1! M" Mu "" N. vonuj'tus * M '* " .. P. r.! 'riTr.clata .. .. MM P. cfc-vrol'!? C. a: i'lr.in Aver Vei^ht .2732 .2770 .685B 5^19 .7333 .8881 1.01D3 1.7199 1.7672 4.8570 6.7546 O.603I 11.SLOm12.9058 2.0984 4.5629 6.4714 7.4903 .336') 1.5151 .8514 2.9405 4.2306 .48 >'5 1242 . U'Jl.H.1 .0742 .0169 .0000 .0276 .0652 .0213 .0329 .1199 .1046 .0314 5527 .016? .0171 .4163 .00;0 .0437 .0154 ,0('9O .0145 .9126 ,0032 .0234 .02)9 .0201 .0633 .10?S l?*;4 .0000 .0545 .0595 .0000 .1415 .0456 .0S56 .0829 .0508 .1403 .1969 1.4982 .0272 .1705 .0343 .1016 n7 33 .0561 .0326 .1299 .1505 ,0474 2?5n 9'0-o .7779 1250 .000-0 .0070 .0070 .0000 .0041 .014? .0013 .0061 .0034 .0061 .018? .0145 .000? .(.049 .olOo .0029 .0104 .00-4 .0;'- 1 .0301 . ',v;7 ,'A.Ov f-'7 i ^ .02-:.'/ .0**53 .0;! 4.5. .0003 Total .0000 .1359 .0925 .OuOO .1733 .19jS .1060 .1770 .1803 .2511 a 29? 2 2.2655 0W-? .1925 .530? .1358 ,C-?2 .o-ni . ] ii /; .14 31 1.0657 .OV9.3310 .152? .lcill DC2 all X X all X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X V X X X X HONS 050496 Table 7. Winter l/l6/?8 Station 1 Sample* 'BP 170 l?3 172 171 Swcler. H. otowanra "" " *' HM MM 167 168 16? L. macrochirus " . M "* 176 175 176 ?' venus* " "M . 166 M. punctr' -tu'-. Average W- 1.5600 1.9776 2.5081 3.6266 .2262 .6187 .5667 .106? .6980 2.16?0 11.66 12*7. .1201 1.6965 0735 .1505 .0050 .0196 .1633 .1975 .1201 .6813 1.7163 1256 .26L5 1.2519 .0977 .1568 .0320 .0675 .6067 .2003 .2615 .5636 6.5670 1260 .o?o? .5266 .0226 0S2o .Oi'ju .0010 .1190 .0636 .090.9660 1.9676 .Total 3.2776 I960 3C69 .0.102 .0636 .S691 .6.'. 1.2 .6 326 l.?2S4 10.2513 ODi X X X X X Sam pin Nunbar 2iiT~ 293 289 994 290 2nl 286 pop 285 286 287 Spec? _ L. nacrot; '' u ; L. mcga'ciM.. L. nscroehlrur L. negalct: L.macroeh * r. "" L. ap. L. macrcx !.;r' L. sp. M " 1 271 272 27? 276 776 275 N. vcn'Js* 1 " "" "" N. toxanii* ' "" N. venus t". Tailo 3 Spring *r/lb/73 Station 1 Average sr .4141 .5611 .6660 .?2C5 1.07.21 1.2662 1.3563 1.6896 1.7672 2.5688 . 3190 .6633 -6673 1.8291 1-3935 3.5672 3.9985 M .052; Cu3z .0308 . 0477 .1655 .0375 .0357 .0220 .0253 .0372 .0606 .0796 .0755 .0592 .074 ; .0670 .0517 1256 .1003 .1007 .3326 .1022 .1931 .7609 .166-3 .1351 .2016 .10/8 .0760 .231? .6023 .1532 .1535 .1802 .2160 .2732 12::2 .(`O'". .0770 ,,0MH .0675 .06,-6 0375 .O577 .Qzn .0055 .0570 .12c7 .0611 . 0 L~ .090-. .0865 .^ir .3086 .663 2 .1505 .7536 .9 *-'5 ,2f'r5b .2536 .1555 .1156 .3893 ,oi i.6 .2707. .2; 59 .3.5? .6156 dbs X X / X X r. X :< X X X X X HONS 030457 Sam pi* Number 2? 8" 279 200 231 282 283 Specter, C. alTlnts "" "" "" Avcrag3 Weiirht .3016 .5290 .6122 -7755 P. nlgrofaclata 1.2699 "" 1.5936 Tabla 3 (continued) 129? .023? .0509 .0983 1122 .0696 .1166 1259 .1355 3015 .1730 .2700 3399 .3990 1260 .0573 .1036 .0373 .0731 .1273 .1530 Total .2993 .9561 2636 .6553 5379 .6137 Table 9 Summer 8/3/73 Station 1 Simple NuT>fc*r 529 523 522 521 513 517 519 518 515 516 509 510 5H 529 5?8 527 519 508 Stwc? OP G. imr.ls i. " "" Average ''eight .9732 -5721 .7652 1.1721 N. stilbius MM N. vent:?,tun N. atllbiJs N. venU'-Vj-; H H. 9tov.-i.nu-, i .9398 1.6939 2.1783 2.U117 6.09=9 3.8915 1.0752 1.6602 !,. macr-icr.-.run .. i. * H 1.66?2 3.0578 9,5279 puncluj.at*ic 1.5988 M. cnon'i? 1.7708 Fhar.acobiuo rp. 1292 .0537 0625 .0960 .0365 .1699 .1055 .1382 .0316 .06?? .7235 .0685 .0990 0233 .0210 .1151 .0465 .0769 .17o6 1259 .2235 .1653 .1296 .1240 .3635 .309? .3650 .1343 .2166 1.1030 .2753 ,2486 .1073 .1693 .1701 .3350 .2496 .3970 1260 Q6c4 .0406 .0391 .0326 .0311 ,0356 .0793 .0600 .0?o .2595 .0000 .0570 .0308 03s5 .0391 .0761 .0734 .0755 Total .3455 .7691 .2147 .2012 .6341 .4960 .5626 .2499 301:6 2.0311 .3561 .3542 .1615 .2260 .3273 .4578 3993 .6501 HONS 050458 Table 5 Fall 10/5/77 Station 2 Sin pis N'.ipViir 24 243 244 246 25 245 76 70 86 73 77 03 34 35 81 82 Species L. cyanellus L. megalotis K. coosae G. afflnio C. anonvlur N. venur-t':<! Averoga Weight 7.6303 25.3639 30.6702 35.9327 6.0728 19.3908 2.3741 2.0577 3.0577 5.9165 8.0441 .2466 3571 .4937 .6964 1.102? 1242 11.6756 ' 6.7503 9.1720 9 . 5503 1254 12.3925 6.9504 6.3023 6.0926 25.3959 11.7530 27.5447 10.9691 22.3513 24.9336 53.4325 .50.6953 49.6289 52.3870 73.1123 17.8613 20,7=56 63.7489 5-3523 29.7584 23.9907 24.2809 24.2899 70.3943 21.3313 20.6274 30.4316 5.128? 1260 1.5057 3.4557 1.3793 2.2394 3.1036 5.5532 I.6235 7.3000 3.8572 .9125 5.0390 20.9093 1.3797 1.4621 3.9356 .4954 Total 25.5510 17.1531 170537 IS.7319 53.3300 23.2/56. 51.3610 95-5410 73.5020 74.3970 82.0490 169.4165 40.3730 4.7.8971 93.1767 10.9797 Table 6 Winter 1/16/73 Station 2 San pi 3 '.Winter lOj 132 181 3 80 179 17.3 177 134 1--7 186 1.35 loo 191 13 192 183 Spsr\9r N* vemi3fu.7 Average ' Weight .4879 .7639 1.4906 2.5873 3.006? 4.5071 9.0587 K* punct'jlftt'iii 6.1C64 L. rnegeiptis H. 1.74:5 2.4115 3.7003 9.3054 10.1466 H.963? 14.8738 3.2172 126;' 9.2744 16,7666 17.242? 17.9524 11.8/16 12.2032 15-9476 15-3324 15-2925 6.30 54 10.?3:i3 13.5570 8.5607 4.6643 25-2931 1254 7.8l45 15.2037 16.259? 15.9606 l';.S835 11.7626 14.1500 I0.I953 13.9760. 15-3495 6 .i+~ho 11.5352 12.503? .10.223' 6.8723 22.4913 1260 1.52a? 4.2733 5.913? 4.7594 4.5554 7-1459 6.154? 6.041 3.7511 4.1573 3.8782 5.3639 7.5076 10.1305 6.1404 9.C760 Total 18.6159 36.2487 39.4166 39.2653 27.315? 31.1118 36.2325 42.1481 33-6252 37.7897 I6.6583 30.6380 33.56C4 73.9140 17.6577 56.3310 MQNS 050459 Table 7 Spring 4/14/78 Station 2 Sanpie Nunber 295 296 297 302 301 300 303 304 700 26 305 306 373 S cedes C, anomalun Average Weight 6.2150 C. affinis 1.0331 MIf venustU3 " " .6392 3.0350 3.651*7 5.1i645 11. chysocephalus 5*b6?Q *H 1 - 6.8252 N. venust.us 11.1818 "" 14,2448 L. me^ldts " 5.8776 a,8023 M. coo*.v\e 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 4.3783 11.3965 1254 18.6765 11.5362 11.5406 5.9867 7.9279 6.7937 3.3106 4.9030 10.2324 5.7536 4.4591 2.7771 11.4916 12.60 6*3407 3.6411 3-7021 1.2732 1e?0^2 1.5121 .7802 1.2339 5.3545 2.0692 .9695 .4175 6.3075 Total 46.9342 26.9670 28.5327 15.1272 20.7514 16*5190 9.1544 12.0241 27.1773 16.1055 11.0713 7.5730 29.1956 Table 8 Summer 8/3/79 Station 2 San pie Ninber "Sol 400 lino 488 467 fcati 405 403 kon UQ? 504 503 502 Sre ' Phenanbiuo sp. ** M "" "M "" Average Weight 5723 .8347 1.0193 1.4740 1.7675 N. stilbius M .* - ' ft* venustu3 " .9782 1.1343 1.4902 1.494t 2.7637 4.8050 8.5410 18.1093 1242 17.3131 22.0199 24,4709 17.9782 18.9130 14.1761 14.6008 21.3393 17.4077 21.1590 15.7529 14.1797 8.6714 1254 13.0177 15.3359 15.4o2C 12.2432 12.9184 13.8447 12.3022 24.4323 15.293? 24,1^69 16.846? 12 * 2Go 21.5163 1360 3.9533 5.0202 4.420? 3.5061 3.3914 5.0464 6.4638 9.59-0 8.2092 11.6314 10.4320 8*009^ 12.2463 Total 3^.7843 42.3762 44.3537 33.7345 33.2229 33.0792 33.8665 44.3503 43.9157 57.0674 43.0317 34.5044 ^2*^373 HONS 050460 San pie Nunber U9*i 507 505 505 497 549 552 551 547 5^6 545 548 501 409 500 550 Sueclns L* ap. L. margin&tus L. megalotis H 1. ' L* macrochlrus HH "" L, cyanallus L. megalotis * * L. macrochiru3 C. afflnJ.s * H. punciulilut Table 8 (continued) A'. Weight r?n 4,3067 8,8563 11.3395 13.3494 23*1021 25.6936 33.0074 33.7480 1242 5.8472 21.6036 9.5920 8.0930 14.2405 7.8549 8.6778 8.3582 6.9748 . 1254 5*6764 13.9537 7.2379 7.1229 9.3947 6.7656 9.3672 5.4105 5.4704 37.2835 48.847 b 9.0745 2.8570 7.9290 5.7048 46.8784 10.2453 8.0663 .2270 .7127 .8057 4.5827 14.1007 12.0703 4.COOS 12.5373 10,8732 34.8773 6.0809 5.850? 1260 1.4434 5.4931 2.70.69 3.1280 3.2678 2.2593 5.583? 3.2930 2.6791 3.5940 4.6777 3.4511 5993 2.6769 2.0470 2.3704 Total 12.9972 46 . 0557 18.3445 27.SO 32 16.8793 21.6233 17.0618 15.1244 20.5976 13.2376 21.7629 9.1827 29.3152 24.9910 14.3022 Snnple Nurber 5 93 94 Z 91 po 90 43 es 8? U3 41 86 40 37 36 8seci"n N. sp. " MM II . 1* 1 II L. cyanellus I* O L. macrochlres L.cyanelly. L, inacnchlrun H. etov-'r:^ H, eto^vuun C. afflnir, H 1* M. coor-u M *. Table 9 Fall 10/5/77 Station 3 Average Vet-xht 1.2632 2.0157 2.0683 2.5253 4.4294 2.7989 4.0521 6.0652 7.4903 10,5992 1.83''7 3-9677 .2032 .303? 2.23^2 4.9678 1242 1.2064 .2776 .2397 .2875 .0931 .1192 .0352 .1633 .1827 .1112 .0543 1.3330 .0592 .0352 .0000 12^ 2.6538 2.592? 1.8724 1.0488 1.1371 .1519 .3067 .3754 1.0373 .5082 .2 ,2;02 1.9105 .2937 .P3;0 .0000 1260 3069 .360? .2265 .1368 .1655 .1)312 .0473 .0796 .116? .4328 .1080 .1179 .1318 .0458 .0299 .cooo Total 4.1672 3.4590 2.37?c 1.4263 1.5933 .2764 .4733 .4900 1.3172 1.1238 3.3760 .3990 .3501 0C<;3 HONS 0504*1 Sanole tluatr yi 22 39 Species . P, nlgrofaclata . " 98 99 97 100 101 96 102 C. anoaaluji M - . M .. Table 9 (continued) Average Weight 2.8013 3.9192 9.6897 1.5232 2.3961 3.2028 7.U51 9.5790 11.2898 19.1099 1292 2.3520 .0090 .7109 1.8991 .1163 .1229 .1182 .9790 .0970 .9091 1259 7.bOo3 .3903 9.9*127 9.0808 .7073 .5601 1.207? 1.7011 .9221 2.0795 1260 .9959 .0402 .6907 .5237 .0997 .0991 .2351 .1850 .0267 0193 Total 1077550 .9132 9.6397 6.5003 .9166 .8679 1.5616 2.3653 .9930 3.1632 Sample thv.bor 203 20l 200 199 198 197 106 195 269 109 Specie:: H. etr.-ar.un ' H "" L. negalotla It II L, macrochirun N* ver.ustus Table 10 '..'inter 1/16/78 Station 3 Average Weight 2.9003 3.0511 5*6232 7.9979 10.2373 19.0121 2.3970 3.9173 10.0416 70.3216 .9291 1292 .0335 .0117 .0296 .0299 .0947 .0267 .5936 .029? .0992 .2530 .409^ 1259 .0632 .1189 .OOO? .I7b5 .2500 .1753 .9519 .1205 .2371 .6691 1.1603 I860 .022o .0;53 .1623 .0199 .1230 .0357 .1047 .066^ .0917 .1932 .95:6 Total .13^0 .1855 .1920 ?1?79 .976*1 .2379 1.1798 .2178 .9281 1.1155 2.0225 OP. X X X X X X X X X X HONS 050462 Table 11 Spring 4/14/78 Station 3 Ranpla Nunber 325 324 316 323 322 321 310 317 320 318 307 308 30<? 310 314 315 313 311 312 375 Species N* texanus .. .i n. stilbius N. texanus M" Average Weight 1.7199 2.0627 2.3725 2.9045 3.7161 M. stllblus 3.7572 N. chysocephal us4.00l6 N. sttlbius "H * tt 4.0391 5.2842 5.8106 N. vennnt.us .5501 L. nacroohlru* 9.2246 M. coorta* 6,2905 P. nigrr. t"ac*. ita 1.2640 C* anonilin . M * ' M ' 2.7370 3.6318 4.?4o? 5.6567 ?.q?8? 20.4925 1242 .3255 1.2005 .2o?Q 3149 .3609 .7019 .7624 1.9309 .2487 3290 .1136 .1490 .1918 .0843 .2991 .0701 .0407 .2333 .1319 1254 1736^4 3.4823 2.1819 1.8780 1.1369 1.0975 2.6689 3.4316 6.1734 1.1399 .4672 .3576 1.1311 .7353 .6033 1.3250 .3263 ,22?b .4251 .3571 1260 5551 1.1332 .7258 .5486 .2927 .3193 .9395 1.2379 1.7471 .3535 .2433 Total 2.2675 5.8162 3.4158 2*o94o 1.7466 3*060? 4.3104 5.4319 11.8515 1.7423 1.0402 .1633 .6351 .6347 1.9144 .3606 ' 1.2879 .1969 .4624 . ?;>?6 .0454 .1650 .0701 .8? 2.1066 .6241 .3160 .6435 .5593 MONS 0504*3 Table 12 Fail 10/5/77 Station 4 Sam pie Number 104 105 106 27 117 110 120 103 122 123 118 124 26 116 108 109 107 111 110 112. 113 13 4 115 Sxwcies L- nacrochirus "" H .* M L. me^alotls M" . L* macrochlru.1 L* metfalotlr. " ' M N. cry.eoleucjs. "" D. cepoalanusi " ** l P. capral;'.- M M punr* i *+ ] * *' h m t. Average welent 2-1966 2.9817 3.9124 4.8491 4.8783 6.3104 7.5744 8.7304 11.424? 13.7299 14.1414 14.8035 8.074? 8.458I 9.7376 10.0011 11.3499 1.9952 3.5613 4.4663 5.4>:4 8.6202 10.4935 1242 5.1918 6.5909 4.4537 4.5163 2.1854 3.0310 4.6382 4.2434 5.0564 7.1843 6.2773 5.2245 1.2370 1.3788 9.9501 14.2057 7.4043 6.4980 12.8138 5.8770 6.4165 6.0582 3.1286 12 54 6.1254 6.ECCS 4.2955 5.9431 1.8647 3.568I 4.5073 4.7139 3.6557 7-0212 9-c;;94 7.3534 2.3322 2-2531 16.2532 17.7011 9.3456 8.6;46 17.2^6? 7.6Sic 13.2677 9.87V2 8.6247 1760 cu?5 .7253 .610? .1751 .67 P7. .S6?4 .4763 1.4303 .1 1.3774 .3340 3.1650 8.9272 3.3103 3.1-72 ] .V: *37 1 T.Cf.vO 2.1933 1.4042 3.3335 Total 11 .*'546 14.1610 9.3355 31.0450 4.1250 7.4393 9,8243' 9.5251 9.2005 14.2363 1?.6986 13.9904 3 .r-6^0 4.6178 27.1362 34.9603 C0.LZ0C 10>. ''. 56 2b.7??0 14.<,702 24.3800 17.3U17 13.7923 HONS 050464