Document dYRd2pNEq7Xz34obyvQ2LmaQ0

AR2RE -- 1364 A SURVEY OF SELECTED FLUOROCHEMICALS IN THE DECATUR ALABAMA AREA 2002 SAMPLING Preparedfor: 3M St. Paul, Minnesota Prepared by: Entrix, Inc. John P. Giesy, Ph.D. JEaoshtn LLa. nNseinwgs,teMdi,chPih.gDa.n Project No. 178401 July, 2003 001714 \ TAOFBCONLTENETS 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARYwomens 2 INTRODUCTIONccs 3 FIELD SAMPLING corse 6 3.1 SITEDESCRIPTION ccc smm--0 32 FIELD SAMPLINGLOGISTICS vss 33 SAMPLECOLLECTION coca 8 3.3.1 WaterandSedimentCollection tn 8 3.3.2 3.3.3 FFiisshhFCiOlllletECPHrOoNcescsci.ng and Sample Preparaion............ nmin9 4 IDENTIFICATIONANDQUANTIFICATION OF FLUOROCHEMICALS 11 41 WATER ANALYSIS cron smn 42 SEDIMENTANALYSIS......... wmmmm--------1 43 FISHFILLETANALYSS....... A -- 8 QAIC unum AS 6 STATISTICAL ANALYSES vss 13 FA TC CS -------------------- 7.0 WATER QUALITY PARAMETERS... nme TF 7.2 FLUOROCHINESUMRFIACCEWAATLERSS. wns Bh 7.3 SEDIMENTCONCENOTFFRLUAOTROICHOENMISCALS.....cvsvcres 14 LR = A---------- is 7.57.4C.1OMPAFiRsIhSFOiNlTle02co0n0ce0nDtrEaCtAioTnUsoRfMPOFNOIST,ORFIONSGA, PFOA, PSTUFDY..HSandPFBS. 16 18 7.51 Sufacewater... ------------------ 18 7.52 Sediment...coormrorr I 753 Fish emmmnene 2 REFERENCEScss 22 9 APPENDICES commission13 92 APPENDIXB... I-- wna 2B Le ------------ 9.4 APPENDIDX .cocesrnnssrssssssssssssss I 9.5 APPENDIXE. A ------------ 36 001715 2 TABLES Table 1. Location and identificationofsediment and water samples collected from the Tennessee RIVET in ABDAMA.........ersns 8 Table 2. Sample identification and locationofindividual Tennessee RIVEE........crrre fish collected from the -- Table 3. WaRitveerr,quianlitthye pDaercaamteutreArslafboramsaamaprleeas. cVoallluecetsedarferroempotrhteeTdeansneassisnegele Table 4. CJ oncentration of fluorochemicals in surface watersof the Tenness--ee:----L Table 5. Concentrationoffluorochemicals in sediments ofthe Tennessee River in the DECAtUr, AIabAIA ATE. rors 1S Table 6. MTeeannneslesnegethR,iwveeirg(hCto,lalnedctceodndointi0o4n/15fa/c0t2o-r04f/o1r8f1i0s2h)c.ollectee d frr om the e s 16 Table7. WfhisohlceolbloedcytecdofnrceonmttrhaetiToennsn(ewsesteeweRiigvhetr)oifn tsheeleDcetceadtfulruAolroacbhaemmaicaarlesa.in*.. 17 Table 8. Mean concentration of fluorochemicals in surface watersofthe `Tennessee River near Decatur, Alabama. *...... essmmm------ `Table 9. Mean fluorochemical concentrations in sedimentsofthe Tennessee River near Decatur, Alabama. nmmmsmmm-------------- Table 10. Mean tissue fluorochemical concentrations Tennessee River near DECAtur ADAIR. in fish sampled from the .......msns 21 FIGURES Figure 1. Tennessee River and sampling locations evaluated during Study. ......... 7 001716 3 : 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY A monitoring study was conducted to determine the concentrations of selected fluorochemicals fish, water and sediments within the Tennessee River in the vicinity of the 3M facility in Decatur Alabama. Samples were analyzed for five fluorochemicals: perfluorooctanesulfonate~~ (PEOS), perfluorooctanesulfonamide~~ (FOSA), perfluorooctanate (PFOA), perfluorohexane sulfonate (PFHS), and perfluorobutane sulfonate (PFBS). Three primary locations were sampled during the survey. These included a location upstreamofthe 3M facility (LOC-3) near river mile 307.5,a location across the River from the 3M facility near river mile 301 (LOC-2), and a location downstreamofthe 3M facility near river mile 296 (LOC-1). All surface water, sediment and fish samples were collected according to standard procedures and analyzed for fluorochemicals according to 3M Environmental Laboratory methods. Conductivity and pH were greater in surface Waters from the downstream location (LOC1) when compared upstream locations (LOC-3 and LOC-2). However, these differences were minor and fell within the range of water quality parameters measured in the Tennessee River near Decatur, AL. Surface water concentrations of targeted fluorochemicals were less than limits of quantitation at LOC-2 and LOC-3. In contrast, PFOS, PFOA, PFHS and PFBS were detected in surface water collected downstream of the 3M facility (LOC-1) but were less than 0.6 pg/L. In sediments, PFOS concentrations ranged from 0.42 pg/kg to 3.1 pg/kg (wet weight) for LOC-3 and LOCI, respectively. In addition to PFOS, concentrations of FOSA, PFOA, PHS and PFBS in sediments were also greater at the downstream location (LOC-1) when compared to measured concentrations at LOC-2 and LOC-3. However, due to the small sample size (N=1), statistical analysis were not conducted to evaluate the differences between sample locations. In general, concentrations of fluorochemicals in water and sediment were greater downstream of the 3M facility as compared to concentrations measured across (LOC-2) or upstream (LOC-3) of the 3M facility. In a qualitative analysis, concentrations of fluorochemicals in river water tended to be less in 2002 as compared to 2000 in the Tennessee River. However, due to differences in sample locations and analytical methods, no conclusions about temporal trends could be made. 001717 4 Fish collected from LOC-1 contained quantifiable levels of PFOS, FOSA and PFOA while at LOC-2 and LOC-3, the only quantifiable fluorochemical in fish was PFOS. The least concentration of fluorochemicals were observed in fish from LOC-2 and LOC-3, across from and upstream of the 3M facility while the greatest concentrations were observed in fish collected downstream of the facility, at LOC-1. For instance, in fish fillets from LOC-3, the average concentration of PFOS was 7.6 pg/kg while FOSA, PFOA, PFHS, PFBS concentrations were <LOQ (wet weigh). For fish collected at LOC-1, average fillet concentrations for PFOS, FOSA, and PFOA were 305 ugk, 32 ng/kg and 9.1 pg/kg (wet weight), respectively. The concentration of PFHS and PFBS were <LOQ (wet weight). While differences in the concentrations of fluorochemicals were observed between catfish and largemouth bass at the different locations, due to the among individual variability and small sample sizes these differences were not statistically significant. In addition, while fish have been sampled in the Tennessee River near the 3M facility, a comparison between the previous monitoring study could not be done due to differences in sampling locations, fish age and size, and the types of fish tissues analyzed in each of the studies. Therefore, a trend analysis was not conducted with the fish fluorochemical data 001718 5 2 INTRODUCTION Entrix, Inc. (ENTRIX) is providing a report on activities to assess the distribution of fluorochemicals in the Tennessee River in the Decatur Alabama area. The results of this study are part of a larger effort to ascertain the spatial and temporal behavior of fluorochemicals in the Tennessee River that may have been discharged from the 3M. Decatur Alabama Facility. The results of the 2002 sampling season were compared qualitatively to the results the 2000 sampling season to examine any potential trends in the distribution and magnitude of the fluorochemicals in water, sediment and biota Water, sediment, and fish were collected from three locations upstream, across and downstreamofthe 3M Facility. Fluorochemicals selected for evaluation in this study included: perfluorooctanesulfonate ~ (PFOS), perfluorooctanesulfonamide ~ (FOSA), perfluorooctanoate (PFOA), perfluorohexane sulfonate (PFHS) and perfluorobutane sulfonate (PFBS) (see Appendix A). 3 FIELD SAMPLING 3.1 SiteDescription The sampling locations selected as part of the 2002 sampling program were representativeofareas used by recreational and commercial fishermen. At each of three locations selected for this field investigation, water, sediment, and fish samples were collected. Sampling areas consistedof a location across the River from the 3M point of discharge, a location downstream of the 3M facility, and a location upstream of the 3M facility. The Riverwalk Marina (Marina) located on the northeast side of the river at approximately river mile 305 was used for river access. The downstream sampling location (LOC-1) was in the vicinity of Fox Creek (approximately river mile 296). The sampling location across the river from the 3M facility (LOC-2) was located approximately at river mile 301 while the upstream location (LOC-3) was at river mile 307.5 (upstream of the 3M discharge, the city of Decatur, and the Highway 31 bridge) (Figure 1; see Appendix B). 001719 6 ERY Th 5 ZANE Frc fo andre: Es Hi 7X I RePE iNoenaal yo sg5 BACaLo We ap We XK J Bs. idl Toh i: Soy a Lan Si Ly { >{ 7 Stith 5 LaAE p Bss d|pl4 vs g 2H he Sg 7p 3 CE "1 NE et Eats | SEA Sih TF 2122 EE : AR = / ~ Re o ls / 7 ok Z 2 e ranCd g Re eS E) n L e8f er Ee \ HgiElN i spl .. 8 : ] Sess T2 oi iictdi 3.2 Field Sampling Logistics Sampling at selected sites on the Tennessee River was initiated on April 15, 2002 by ENTRIX. Collection of water and sediment samples continued until April 16, 2002. Fish collection was initiated on April 15 and continued through April 18, 2002. Water, sediment, and fish were collected as outlined in the General Project Outline (GPO) provided by 3M. 33 SAMPLE COLLECTION 3.3.1 Water andSediment Collection Water samples were collected using standard sampling protocols from a total of 3 locations (Table 1: Appendix C). At each location, water quality parameters were measured using YSI Model 63 and 95 meters. One sample was collected from each of the locations. ~All sampling locations were documented using TRIMLBE PRO-XRS Global Positioning Satellite technology and these locations were recorded on topographic: maps. Samples were labeled, stored on ice at 4C, and delivered to the 3M Environmental Laboratory, St. Paul, MN. Sediment samples were collected from the same locations as the water samples (Table 1). A totalof 3 grab samples were collected from the Tennessee River. Sediments were collected by use of a PONAR dredge following standard protocols (Appendix C). Sediments were placed into labeled LDPE containers, stored on ice at 4C, and shipped to the 3M Environmental Laboratory, St. Paul, MN. Table 1. Location and identification of sediment and water samples collected from the Tennessee River in Alabama Water Sediment Sample Sample Tocation River Mile Code SW-01 SW-02 SED-01 SED-02 Downstream, Across River 296 301 LOC-T LOC2 SW-03 SED-03 Upstream 3075 Loca 001721 8 . 3.3.2 Fish Collection Fish were collected from three locations (Figure 1). These three locations wer in close proximity to where water and sediments were collected. Fish were collected using a boat mounted Smith-Root type VIA electroshocking device. According to the GPO, a `minimum of six bass (preferably largemouth) and six catfish were to be collected from eachofthe three sites. For this investigation, only the desired fish species caught at each ofthe sampling locations were retained for analysis. Collected fish were measured (total length), weighed, and immediately wrapped in aluminum foil and placed in Ziplock storage bags (Table 2). Samples were labeled, placed on ice, and shipped via overnight FedEx to the ENTRIX office in East Lansing, Michigan, and then transported immediately to freezer facilities in the Aquatic Toxicology Laboratory (ATL) at Michigan State University. Upon completion of sampling activities, the Alabama Department of Wildlife and Freshwater Fisheries was notified that sampling was complete and their required notification form was completed and mailed to them. 3.3.3 Fish Fillet Processingand Sample Preparation ENTRIX conducted the fish processing and preparation of fillets. Procedures described in the 3M GPO and the Alabama Department of Environmental Management Standard Operating Procedures Volume Ill were followed in fish fillet preparation (USEPA 2000) Fillets included the tissue from behind the head to the tail on both sidesofeach fish. Each fillet was removed from the fish and the skin removed using a fillet knife. The rib bones were either avoided during fillting or removed from each fillet so that only edible portions ofthe fillet remained. The carcass of each fish, the skin, and rib bones from each fillet were then wrapped in aluminum foil (dull side to fish), labeled with ts sample: location and ID number, placed in a pre-labeled Ziploc bag and stored at -20C. The fillet was cut into small pieces to expedite the grinding process. A hand grinder was used for the larger fish and a stainless steel blender for samples with less tissue. In all cases, the ground tissues were thoroughly mixed with stainless steel spatulas and mortar and pestle to ensure adequate homogenization. Once homogenized, the tissue was massed to the nearest hundredth gram and placed in Nalgene HPDPE containers. A label detailing the sample location, ID number, date processed, sample identity (bass or catfish) and 001722 9 mass of the tissue was placed on each container. All containers were placed in preIabeled Ziploc bags and stored in coolers at -20C. All tools and homogenizers were washed with detergent and warm water, then rinsed with methanol followed bya deionized water rinse to avoid cross contamination between each fish sample. Table 2. Sample identification and location of individual fish collected from the Tennessee River. Sample 1d Location Fish Type SLSoLlO-1-LLMMoo2T DDoowwnnssttrreeaamm ((NNeeaarr FFooxx CCrroecekk)) LTaarrggeemmoouutthh BBaassss SSLLOOII-LLMMOO3s DDoowwnnssttrreeaamm ((NNeeaarr FFooxx CCrreeeekk)) LLaarrggeemmoouutthh BBaassss SSLLOOII-LLMMOo6S. DDoowwnnssttrreeaamm ((NNeeaarr FFooxx CCrreecckk)) LLaarrggeemmoouutthh BBaassss SSLLOOLICCAATTOO!2 DDoowwnnssttrreeaamm ((NNeeaarr FFooxx CCrreeeekk)) CCaatffiisshh SLSLO0I1..CCAATTOO34 DDoowwnnssttrreeaamm ((NNeeaarr FFooxx CCrreeeekk)) CCaattffiisshh SSLLOOIICCAATTOOSS DDoowwnnssttrreeaamm ((NNeeaarr FFooxx CCrreecekk)) CCaattffiisshh SSLLoo22--LLMMBBrOU2 A`Accrroossss RRiivveerr ffrroomm 33MM.. LLaarrggeemmoouutthh BBaussss SSLLOO22-LLMMBBOO3S ``AAccrtoosss RRiivveerr ffrroomm 33MM LLaarrggeemmoouutthh BBaassss SSLLOO22.-CLAMTBOOLI ``AAccrroossss RRiivveerr ffrroomm 33MM.. CLaatrfgieshmouth Bass SSLL0022..CCAATTOO23 ``AAccrroossss RRiivveerr ffrroomm 33MM.. CCaattffiisshh SSLLOO22.-CCAATTOOS! ``AAccrroossss RRiivveerr ffrroomm 33MM.. CCaattffiisshh SSLLOO22.-CCAATTOO?S ``AAccrroossss RRiivveerr ffrroomm 33MM.. CCaatfsishh SSLLOO3-LLMMBBOOU2 UUppssttrreeaamm LLaarrggeemmoouutthh BBaassss SSLLOOLLMMBBO03S UUppssttrreeaamm LLaarrggeemmoouutthh BBaassss SSLLOO3L-MLBMBOOSS UUppssttrreeaamm LLaarrggeemmoouutthh BBaassss SLSOL3O-3-SLMMoBIO7 UUppssttrreeaamm L`Samraglelmmoouutthh BBaassss SSLLOO3S..CCAATTOO!2 UUppssttrreeaamm CCaattffiisshh SSLLOO33.-CCAATTOO4 UUppssttereeaamm CCaattffiisshh SSLLOO33.CCAATTOOSG UUppssttrreeaamm CCaattffiisshh 0017723 io 4 IDENTIFICATION AND QUANTIFICATION OF FLUOROCHEMICALS Water and sediment were collected from the Tennessee River and analyzed by the 3M Environmental Laboratory (Study No. 02-0443). The analytical methods used for the analysis of water samples were validated by the 3M Environmental Laboratory. HPLC- Electrospray/Mass Spectrometry (HPLC/ES/MS) characterization of fluorochemicals was conducted at the 3M Environmental Laboratory. Summariesofeachprotocol are given: 41 WaterAnalysis Solid phase extraction was used to prepare the samples for HPLC/ES/MS analysis. A forty-milliliter portion of river water was passed through a preconditioned Cis SPE cartridge and the column was allowed to dry for at least 3 min. The cartridge was eluted with 2 ml of methanol into autovials. The eluate was collected for analysis by LC/MS/MS. Water extracts were analyzed by use of a Hewlett-Packard HP1100 HPLC system coupled to a Hewlett-Packard Series 1100 APIMass Spectrometer Detector HPLC conditions and ES/MS methods were based on ETS-8-155.1 "Analysis of waste stream, water extracts or other systems using HPLC-Electrospray/Mass Spectrometry". 4.2 SedimentAnalysis For sediment samples, a 20 g portion was extracted into 35 ml of 1% acetic acid in capped centrifuge tubes. The samples were shaken for 60 min and then centrifuged. The aqueous solutions then passed through pre-conditioned SPE cartridge and the eluate was. discarded. Methanol was then added to the sediment and the mixture was shaken for 30 min and centrifuged. The methanol was passed through the SPE cartridge and the eluate was discarded. The SPE cartridge eluted with 4 ml methanol and the collected methanol was then added to approximately 200m of ASTM Type I water. This solution was then passed through a new pre-conditioned SPE cartridge and the aqueous eluates were discarded. The analytes were eluted from the SPE cartridge with 2.0 ml methanol in to autovials for analysis. The extracts were analyzed by use ofa Hewlett-Packard HP1100 HPLC system coupled to a Hewlett-Packard Series 1100 APUMass Spectrometer Detector. HPLC conditions and ES/MS methods were based on ETS-8-155.1 "Analysis of waste stream, water extracts or other systems using HPLC-Electrospray/Mass Spectrometry". 001724 n 4.3 FishFilletAnalysis Fluorochemicals were extracted from fish fillets using a solid phase extraction (SPE) method. Briefly, 2 g homogenized fillet tissues were diluted with ASTM Type I, mixed and aliquoted in to triplicate samples. Matrix spikes were prepared for each sample and were spiked with 10 pL of a 100 pg/mL spike solution of cach test substance. Acetonitrile is added to extract the fluorochemicals and to precipitate proteins that can interfere with the analysis. After mixing and centrifugation, the supematant is then passed through apre-conditioned Ci SPE cartridge. Finally, the analytes are eluted from the SPE cartridge with methanol into autovials. The extracts were analyzed by HPLCES/MS/MS. Details of the analytical procedure have been outlined in the 3M Environmental Laboratory (St. Paul, MN) standard operating procedures (ETS-8-231.1) for the analysis of fluorochemicals in tissues. 5 QAlQC Standard operating procedures for sample collection and preparation were maintained during the entire project. Proper QA/QC samples, as required by 3M, were collected in the field (Appendix D). Field blanks and Trip blanks were collected and shipped with the samples. Field matrix spikes and field control samples were collected at each location along with a Field duplicate. Field matrix spike solutions were prepared by collecting one literofsite water and spiking with a stock solution containing PFOS, FOSA, PFOA, PFHS and PFBS. The same procedure was followed to spike one liter of distilled water to prepare the field spike control samples. All samples were shipped under ENTRIX chain of custody forms and a field book was used to document conditions and activities Picturesofall locations were taken to provide a visual record of the conditionsofthe site during the sampling events. Since the method detection limit (MDL) and lowest limit of quantification (LLOQ) are analyte and matrix specific, method and matrix blanks along with matrix spikes were used to determine accuracy and precision of the extractions and final chemical determination. Data quality objectives were also established for cach sample matrix (river water, sediment, and fish). In general, the Data Quality Objectives were: (1) all samples were analyzed in triplicate and the %RSD should be < 25% (2) matrix spikes should be = 30% of expected value, (3) water blanks should be less than < % LLOQ for each analyte, and (4) extraction blanks should be < % LLOQ. Water and 001725 sediment concentrations were not corrected for either matrix spike recoveries or for purity of the fluorochemical standards. In addition, ambient water quality parameters, such as temperature, conductivity, salinity, pH and dissolved oxygen were measured at each location during each sampling event. 6 STATISTICAL ANALYSES Statistical analyses were preformed with SAS (Version 8, SAS Institute, Cary NC, USA). Where relevant, General linear models (PROC GLM) were used to test for differences among locations for all analyte concentrations in fish measured in the study. If values of F tests indicated a significant difference, Tukey's HSD test for multiple comparisons was used to compare means of the different locations. ~All fish samples were included in the statistical analysis. For samples where fluorochemicals concentrations were less than their limit of quantitation, the limit of quantitation was substituted as a conservative estimateofthe fish fluorochemical concentrations 7 RESULTS 7.1 Water quality parameters Surface water quality parameters from each location are reported (Table 3). Dissolved oxygen, pH, conductivity, and temperature were relatively constant for the Upstream (LOC-3) and Across (LOC-2) locations. However, at the downstream location (LOC-1), PH and conductivity were slightly greater than those recorded at the other locations. `These minor differences may be due to the fact that sampling locations LOC-2 and LOC3 were within or near the Tennessee River channel whereas LOC-1 was located in the mouth a small bay at the mouth of Fox Creek. As result, LOC-I most likely was influenced by the water quality of the creek. Regardless, all values fell within historical water quality parameters measured in the Tennessee River in the Decatur Alabama area (Giesy and Newsted, 2001). 0017726 3 . Table 3. Water quality parameters for samples collected from the Tennessee River, in the Decatur Alabama area. Values arereportedas a single value* DO Conductivity Temperate pH Location (mg/L) S) Q (su) Upstream (LOC-3) 107 1394 18.1 72 Across River (LOC2) ~~ 936 1389 210 73 Downstream (LOC-1) - 1623 218 94 Wifrocmaeanadchsntlaoncdsaatridon.deviations could no be Qeermined Since nly 8 gle spe was colested 7.2 Fluorochemicals in Surface waters Fluorochemicals were detected in all surface waters collected from the sample locations in the Tennessee River (Table 4) (Ellefson, 2003). At LOC-2 and LOC-3, all surface water concentrations of PFOS, FOSA, PFOA, PFHS, PFBS were less than the limit of quantitation. In contrast, all targeted fluorochemicals were quantifiable in surface water collected from LOC-1, downstream of the 3M facility. However, in samples where fluorochemicals were quantified (LOC-1), the concentrations were less than 0.6 ug/L. Due to the small sample size (N=1), statistical analyses of the data was not conducted to evaluate differences among the sample locations. Table 4. Concentration of fluorochemicals in surface watersofthe Tennessee River in the Decatur, Alabama area. * PFOS FOSA PFOA PFHS PFBS Location Gg) (gL) (uel) gl) (ug/l) Upstream <013 <0025 <005 <0.025 <005 (LOC-3) AcrossRiver ~~ <013 <0025 <005 <0025 <005 (LOC-2) Downstream 049 0.025 055 020 0.08 Loc) Since oly a single sample was colleocmteeacdh TocnoSaasisaoerenport,ed. 7.3 Sediment concentrationsoffluorochemicals Fluorochemicals were detected in sediments collected from all three locations within the study site (Table 5). Least concentrationsoffluorochemicals in sediment were observed 001727 14 at LOC-3, upstreamofthe 3M Facility while the greatest concentrations were observed in sediments collected near Fox Creek (LOC-1), downstream of the 3M facility. Sediment concentrations of PFOS, FOSA, PFOA, PFHS, and PFBS were 7.52-fold, 21.2-fold, 5.59-fold, 2.6-fold, and 1.28-fold greater at LOC-1 as compared to LOC-3, respectively. In contrast, sediment concentrations ofPFOS, FOSA, PFOA, PFHS, and PFBS were only 1.10-fold, 2.07-fold, 0.38-fold, 1.00-fold, and 0.97-fold greater at the LOC-2 as compared to LOC3, respectively. Thus, while there was insufficient data to conduct a statistical comparison among the sampling locations, these data indicate that concentrations of fluorochemmicals in sediments were greater downstream of the 3M facility as compared to the upstream or across the river locations in the Tennessee River. Table 5. Concentration of fluorochemicals in sedimentsofthe Tennessee River in the Decatur, Alabama area. * PFOS FOSA PFOA PFHS PFBS Location g/kg) pkg) (gkg) (eke) (uke) Upstream 042 0.068 013 <0.10 045 Ac(rLoOsCs-R3i)ver 046 0141 <005 <010 044 (LOC-2) Downstream 313 144 073 013 0.8 LOC-1) Meraonmscaancdh sltoacantdiaornd. deAvlilatcioonncsenctorualtdiomnostrbeepdeotretromenidnaedwestcweeiognhlyba@siSs.ngle sample was colcied 7.4 Fish There were no significant differences in weight, length of either fish species among locations (Table 6; see Appendix E). Smallmouth bass were not included in statistical analyses due to the fact that only one fish was collected during the study. This fish was collected at LOC-3. Condition factors were calculated for each species and are given (Table 6). Statistical analysis of the condition factors showed no significant differences between sites for either fish species. The condition factor is a measure of the overall physiological health ofa fish as measured as a atioof weight to length. Resultsfromthe statistical analysis indicate no differences in fish health between the three locations as evaluated by the condition factor. 001728 15 Table 6. Mean length, weight, and condition factor for fish collected from the Tennessee River (Collected on 04/15/02-04/18/02).* `Sample ID Length Weight Condition Location (cm) (&) Factor" TBaarsgsemouth Upstream (LOC) @36.m3 639 9 1305 029) Across (LOC-2) 35894) 647 Gm) L432 (0208 Downstream (LOC-1) ~~ 34.5 591 Lal6 @o) (1) 126) Catfish Upstream (LOC) a55.1ne23) 86 (1.549688) Across (LOC2) 56.5 1942 1.049 @4) ) 0103) Downstream (LOC-1) ~~ 614 2920 L166 @30) (ed) 192) Smallmouth Upstream (LOC-3) 32.5 563 1640 Bass Valauremeeasns wih standard deviations (in parentheses). * Condition facto calculated ss (Weight 100)Lengih' 7.4.1 Fish Fillet concentrations ofPFOS, FOSA, PFOA, PFHS andPFBS Fluorochemicals were detected in all fish fillets collected at all three locations (Table 7). The least concentrations of fluorochemicals were observed in fish collected from the upstream location (LOC-3) while the greatest concentrations were observed in fish collected from the downstream location (LOC-1). At all three locations, the concentrations of PHS and PFBS in fish were less than the LOQ. FOSA and PFOA were detected only in fish collected from the downstream location (LOC-1), while PFOS was quantified in fish species collected from all three locations. The mean concentration of PFOS for all fish collected at LOC-1 was approximately 3.5-fold greater than that `measured in fish from LOC-2 and 40-fold greater than that measured in fish from LOC-3. In the smallmouth bass collected at LOC-3, all monitored fluorochemicals were less than their limitofquantitation (LOQ). 0017729 16 `Tabl7e. Whole body concentrations (wet weight) of selected fluorochemicals in fish collected from the Tennessee River in the Decatur Alabama area. * PFOS FOSA PFOA PFHS PFBS Species Nuk) (uke) (uke) (ugke) (ugkg) UpStream (LOC-3) Catfish 6 152 <25 <50 <25 <50 140) LargemouthBass 7 <50 <50 <50 <10 <25 SmallmouthBass 1 <25 <50 <50 <10 <25 Across (LOC-2) Catfish 7 <25 <25 <50 <25 <50 Largemouth Bass 4 169 <50 <50 <10 <25 @s5) Downstream (LOC-1) Catfish 6 3 61 <s0 <25 <50 "sy Qo Largemouth Bass 6 553 <5.0 1s <10 <25 @1) 4) *CoNncuenmtrobafteifoirnssh aarnealryezpoerdted 5 means and standard deviations. PFOS concentrations were significantly greater (p <0.05) in both catfish and largemouth bass collected from LOC-1 (downstream) as compared to fish from collected from across the river (LOC-2) or upstream (LOC3) the 3M facility. There were no statistically significant differences in the concentrations of PFOS in catfish and largemouth bass collected at LOC-2 and LOC-3. Thus, while largemouth bass from LOC-2 had PFOS concentrations that were greater than those measured in fish from LOC-3, the difference in concentration was not statistically significant due to the variability in the measured concentrations in fish from LOC-2 (Coefficient ofvariation =152%). The relatively great variability observed at LOC-2 was due to PFOS concentrations in largemouth bass that ranged from <LOQto 0.55 pg/kg,wetweight. o17 co 17 In catfish, FOSA concentrations were significantly greater (p <0.05) in fish from LOC-1 than in catfish collected from LOC-2 or LOC-3. The mean concentrations of FOSA in catfish from LOC-3 were not statistically different from those measured in catfish from LOC-2. Concentrations of FOSA in largemouth bass were not statistically different among any of the locations. No statistically significant differences were observed in PFOA, PFHS or PFBS concentrations for either catfish or largemouth bass among the three sampling locations. 7.5 Comparison to 2000 Decatur Monitoring Study To evaluate trends in fluorochemical concentrations in the Tennessee River, data from the 2000 and 2002 sampling programs were compared (Giesy and Newsted, 2001). However, while fluorochemical concentrations in sediment and surface water can be directly compared among years, concentrations in fish could not be compared du to differences in experimental design. In 2000, the study design was intended to evaluate the distribution and magnitude of fluorochemicals in biota of the vicinityofthe 3M facility and as a result fish concentrations were measured in whole body homogenates. In 2002, the objective of the study was to provide information on the potential exposure to humans consuming sport-caught fish and as a result, fish concentrations were measured only in homogenized fillets. Thus, a direct comparison of fluorochemicals in fish can not be made based on the different tissue targeted for analysis. 7.5.1 Surface water The concentration of fluorochemicals in surface waters remained relatively constant between the 2000 and 2002 sampling seasons (Table 8). For locations where a direct comparison could be made, WWTP to LOC3 and Fox Creek 1 to LOCI, the concentrations of fluorochemical in surface waters in 2002 were equal to or less than those measured in 2000. For instance, concentrations of PFOS, FOSA, PFOA and PFHS were 9%, 85%, 80% and 65% less in surface water collected at LOCI than that collected at Fox Creek 1, respectively. However, a direct comparison of fluorochemical concentrations between 2000 and 2002 was complicated by the fact that in 2000, the LOQs for all target analytes were approximately 2-fold less than those reported in 2002. 0017731 18 . This was due to the fact that different analytical methods were used in each sampling event to quantitate fluorochemicals in river water. Thus,if one used the greater LOQs from 2002, a decreasing trend in fluorochemical concentrations is observed for surface waters above and below the 3M facility in Decatur. However, du to the small sample size in 2002, a statistical comparison could not be made for surface water fluorochemical concentrations in the Tennessee River. Finally, it is important to note that all concentrations of fluorochemicals in surface water collected in 2002 were less than 1.0 HL (ppb). `Table 8. Mean concentration of fluorochemicals in surface watersofthe Tennessee River near Decatur, Alabama. * River PFOS FOSA PFOA PFHS Year Station Mile g/L GEL) Gel) (el) 2000 Guntersville 370 <0.009 <0.004 <0008 <0.003 2000 WWTP 3035 0053 006 0028 0.006 2000 BakersCr2 301302 14 12 130 40 2000 FoxCr-l 296 054 0.17 27 057 2000 FoxCr-2 296 018 0055 1.00 017 2002 LOC3 3075 <003 <0025 <005 <0025 2002 LOC2 301 <013 <0025 <005 <0025 T 20A0l2SurfacLe wOaCteIr concentrations ep2o9r6icdRaTmean0v4aT l9ue, C Conce0ne t.r0a2i5onsTEveen a0ee5s5sTtaenC (4) a0re 2l0es than ther limitofquantitation (LOQ). 7.5.2 Sediment Concentrations of fluorochemicals in sediments upstream of the 3M facility (LOC3, WWTP and LOC?) did not differ greatly between the 2000 and 2002 sampling events. PFOS and FOSA concentrations at LOC-3 were approximately 0.42 -fold less than those: `measured at WWTP. In contrast, sediment PFOA concentrations at LOC-3 were 1.4-fold greater than those measured at WWTP. While differences in sediment fluorochemical concentrations of FOSA, PFOA and PFHS were observed between the three upstream sites (WWTP, LOC-3 and LOC-2), these differences were less than 1.5-fold and most likely are indicative of the natural variability in fluorochemical concentrations in the Tennessee River in the Decatur Alabama area. However, downstreamofthe 3M facility, 001732 19 concentrations of fluorochemicals in sediments were more variable. The mean concentration of PFOS and FOSA was approximately 2-fold greater at LOC-1 than that measured at Fox Creek 2 but were similar to those measured at Fox Creek 1. In contrast, no trend was evident for concentrations of PFOA or PFHS in sediment among these three: down stream locations. ~ Overall, the temporal differences in sediment fluorochemical concentrations did not differ greatly and due to the small sample size in 2002 (1 sample `per location), a trend in fluorochemical concentrations could not be statistically evaluated upstream or downstreamofthe 3M fclity. `Table 9. Mean fluorochemical concentrations in sedimentsofthe Tennessee River near Decatur, Alabama. * River PFOS FOSA PFOA PFHS Year Station Mile (ugke) gke) (uke) (uke) 2000 Guntersville 370 018 0.08 0.08 <020 2000 WWTP 303.5 098 01s 009 0.08 2000 BakersCr-2 301302 192 54.1 28 1s 2000 FoxCrol 296 258 170 181 02 2000 Fox Cr2 296 093 044 030 <020 2002 LOC3 3075 042 0.068 013 <0.10 2002 LOC2 301 046 014 <025 <010 20Al0l2surfracLeewOaCteIr concentraions re2p9or6TtedE23T mean3e v1al3ue.C Concente r1a4ti4onsPgivRe as0eT7e3ssThanS(4)ea01e6355 hantheir limit ofquantitation (LOQ). Al datarepoorntaweedt weight bass. 753 Fish Concentrations of fluorochemicals were less in fish collected upstreamofthe 3M facility as compared to fish collected at the two downstream locations. However, comparisons between sampling events is difficult due to differences in the tissue type analyzed each year and to the fact that fish were collected from different locations in the Tennessee River. Taking these differences into consideration, the mean concentration ofPFOS was less in fish collected from Guntersville, LOC-3 and LOC-2 than that observed in fish from the Outfall or LOC-1. This same trend was also observed for FOSA, PFOA and PFHS where concentrations in fish downstream of the 3M facility were greater than those. measured in fish upstream of the facility. The statistical significance of these differences 001733 20 can not be determined due to the fact that whole body homogenates were analyzed in 2000 while fillet homogenates were analyzed in 2002. Finally, for both 2000 and 2002, concentrations of fluorochemicals were different between species sampled at all locations. For PFOS, the concentrations in largemouth bass were greater than those `measured in catfish. However, for FOSA, PFOA and PFHS no species differences could be discerned due to variability in the data and due to the small sample size. `Table 10. Mean tissue fluorochemical concentrations in fish sampledfromthe: Tennessee River near Decatur Alabama Species Location PFOS _ FOSA (pkg) (okg) PFOA (uke) P(uFgHkSe) Largemouth Bass _Guntersville 230 838 <80 <5 Loc-3* <50 <50 <50 <10 Loc2 170 <50 <5.0 <10 Outfall* NQ 560 <80 <15 Loc-1 550 <50 15 <10 Catfish Guntersville* ~~ <7.5 <15 <80 <15 Loc3 <50 <25 <50 <25 Loc2 <25 <25 <50 <25 Outall* 1200 NQ 120 1 Loc-1 110 61 <50 <25 FFiisshh ccoolllleecctteeddiinn22000002.. AAllllvvaalluueessddeennootteeddwwiithh((<)9arrereeppoorrtieeddaaseTsesthhaannttheeiir liimiittooffqquuaannttiiaattioonn.. NAQlidsatnaorteqpuoarntteidfiaendaduwcetowediatgahtmbeatsisng quality control criteria. 001734 21 8 REFERENCES Ellefson, M.E. 2003. Tennessee River Valley Samples. 3M Environmental Laboratory Study No. E02-0443. p. 276. Giesy, 1.P. and J.L. Newsted. 2001. Selected fluorochemicals in the Decatur Alabama `Area. Report to 3M. Regan, W.K., 2002. Solid phase extraction and analysis of fluorochemical compounds from biological matrices. 3M Environmental Laboratory Method, Number ETS-8231.1 US EPA. 2000. Guidance for Assessing Chemical Contaminant Data for Use in Fish Advisories. Volume 1: Fish Sampling and Analysis, 3" Edition. United States Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water. EPA 823-B-00-007. 00173S 2 9 APPENDICES 0017736 2 : 9.1 APPENDIX A Selected Perfluorocarbons monitored in water, sediment and fish Collected from the `Tennessee River, Decatur Alabama. CMholeemciuclaalr sNtarmucet:ure: Molecular ion CiPeFriflSu0or3ooctane Sulfonate 499 0 CeFirI S--0' I PFOS MCohleemciuclaalr Nstarmuect:ure: Molecular ion: PCeirFfyluSoOr:ooNcHt,ane sulfonamide 498 i Cerf NH: o FOSA `Chemical Name: Molecular structure: Molecular ion: Perfluorooctanoate CF15CO0 413 Chemical Name: MMoolleeccuullaarr ion:structure: Perfluorohexanesulfonate 399CF13805" `MCohleemciuclaalr Nstarmucet:ure: Molecular ion: CFSOs Perfluorobutanesulfonate 1 CrF15CO PFOA 1 CFO- o PFHS cro" Po1737 24 9.2 APPENDIXB `Water, sediment and fish sampling locations for the 2002, 3M Tennessee River Project Water and Sediment [Eas[|ti Northn ing g| rDrownstream- Sample Location 1 | 490208 1 3836096 1 `Across 3M- Sample Location 2 498946 38357703 Upstream- Sample Location 3 505470 3827825 [rr rr [FishLocations | Fasting | Northing | rr 7 [Downstreamstart | 4%0601 | 3836210 491386 3834205 `Across 3M end 449989408433 3836283 3836387 505306 3827660 3824585 3828685 r1 r 1 3827705 Coordinate System- UTM- Zone 16 North-NAD 1927 001738 2 9.3 Appendix C 001739 2% 001740 2 StandarWdaOtpeerrSaatmipnlgiPnrgocedure `3MDecaturSampling Trip. `1Th0ePpuUrRpPoOsSeEof.thisStandard Operating Procedure (SOP)istoprovidedetailsfor thecollection `ogfewneartaelrpursoicendguraeMsafsotrrcFollelexctpieorniostfawlatticerpsuammppolress.omSpeecciofmipcasraambplleiunnigtd.eTtihlissshSoOuPlodubtelouitnlteihnseed iSnCthOesPiEte-specificwork planandqualityassuranceprojec planfo eachindividual project. `cWoamteprarsaabmlpeluensitco.lTlhecetseedsuanmdpelretrhsiasrSOfaPiarlryeti0mbpleetdaekveinwcietshthatMcoansstiesFtloefx tpuebriisntgaplutimcppuormspoamade Setuvbeirnagal roplleprsarrefdooersitpghneersdpewciiitfhiaicnprtthoejpeeucm.Tphheetaudbitongrfoliesowvitehtihnetugbreoionvaewciltohciknwithseepfausmhipobne.ad. tAusbtihnegaronldldeirssmpeolvsetoovenrthteheotthuebrestihdey.cTrheeasteeuavnaictuauemotphtaitmdarlafwostshuerwfsacteerveprtsharmopulgihntghien b`pceoarsutesisoewndheowrfietthhieeptauichmismpapcomorptmlaeensttoimhniactnoinotmlaiyczttehwaintsyehltrehicestskeoadftmcupoblnietn.agmcAionnmaeteiwsopinon.tcionotnacotfwpitrhtehe-slamtepulbsei.nngNceoadn EqEuQiUpImePnMtEaNndTsupplies nesdedmayinclude,butare not limited t thefollowing: + Oneboatorsampling bargefo hepurpose of clletin i parametrsand surfacewatesamples + teDmiprecrtartueraed, DanOd, ppHr,ocpoenrdlyuctciavlibtay,taenddswaaltienrityq(uaYlSityModsaemlpsli6n3ganidns9t5r)uments capable of recording + MaseFlex tubing pumpor somecomparabwliet + Samplecontainersandcoleswithwticforsample storage + Fielddat sheets,COCforms, and estedmaterials + claemmesr,nefaidme,df0iedlodncoutmeebnootkd,atpaecnosl,lseacmtpiloneacatbievli,tecsuasntodd1y0elsalbelsamplejars fo shipmen, including: + Persona ProtectiveEquipment PPEas requiredbythesicHealt ndSafetyOffice, + Decontaminationequipment mPecraialoisrbutrarottetdhheeeacwocalhtldeeacryt.iqouSanuoligftgysepusartrfaeamcdeeptaweraratsmeerattseearmaspcltheassra,gemdtpielrdfeescoatrrtiemoand.feiTehlaedmeistreerautsteevxriacldlhibseeanmdspmeltipnrelguosnymaetietidotnolntbse mayinbcut alrenoutlidmiteedto: Waterdepth (m) + Temperatu(r'Ce) + Dissolved oxygen (mg) Conductivity (urboslcm) MS Word 97 7 001741 28 : + suitCl) pHs) IFonsquoimreed.iWnsattaencreqsualhietcyomlleescteisontofoadldietiaodndailtwoenealrpqauralaimteytpearrswaimleltberesamdadyebdeawaersrdaentde.dor P1. RObCiEaDUtRheEsSunplelocationinformation rom eitherth scop-of-work,work outioe,o he saWmoprlkiPnglalnocTahtiiosn.maybei he formofa actual cordeor 8descriptionofthegoer 2. Phosaiytisonwtohreksafmrpolmintghbea.rmgoesotdboowtnosvterreathmelsoeclaetcitoends1amtphleemloocsatiuopns.tTrheeamilodcactrieownshleosd 3.Oonthcerewyioseadirvectedt.theproperlocationmeasuread ecnddep ofwerandrecordsample 4.IMoackeasnudrthetaltdtsihsdeefsnicoecrdresopnaonhdetsioatphleoiongrn1eg.sampling oto. 5. SaMteelaitsesthyessa)mp0lidngloorcdatsounmupslincothnedbiesneasvaoinlbhelestaemcphlnionlgog0y5.(globe posidoniog 6. Anfdrrewcaorrdmed. Tahndcdaleibhroatfiorneaodfitnhgesshieodumdertefrls,wahteedreqpuatlhitywphairacmhewtaertsewsialmpbleemsearseured Collectedsn 2 therrequirementsofesespecific orkpln. 7. Watesamples wllhebcollectedwingan spropistepump withpre-lsned bin. 5. Thbeispnecdiefpiecntdypoeanntdesdiezpofofbsianmgpfloe s0abmeplcionlgleschtoeud.ldbebiied.The eng of is 5. Wheeaavdiesthceomeblinygsiroeug.h hedesigaidsotothpump.Makesuetathepeislic 10.iLtoiweprritbmencedlo.fthe ube nthewer 0 hedesired deh.Tur he pump nndwaltfo 1.Rubninwga(tecr lroeuighbyhetkibneguhnelryaodusbaovfechoempblientgeadnsdtsesehnegelv-o1l7um.eaddinsofhe 12.yOonucressapmppeloeimstelythrevolumeadionshaverun rough he ing,begincollecting. 13.aSnanmupllaetceontcionntrasinislorbecsolle,dwiththeapropitccaps, abel,ad lacedonwetie in 14.SApecpifipcQrAPoC.OpCdrocuimeantattieon ill comth psamplaessnrequyired bythproject 15.Abftienrgcoalnledcntaivoingoaftettheosahmpnlee,x:seammopvlientghItoucbianngand discard. Ob newscti onof MSWord 7 8 001742 29 Pet`iteSPoneardaonrdiSEocmiklmSeaamnpnDlrisetgd.ge. Fo`rSttahned3arMdDOepceartautrinSgaPmrpolciendguTrrei.p. 10 PURPOSE `oTfhseuprufrapcoesseeodifmtehnitssSuusnindgaeridtOhpeerraateincgPrPoocnedauoreE(cSkOaPn)ainsDtroepdrgovei.dPerdoecteadiulrsefooutthleicnoeldbeetlioown dsaemtpillinthgegdeenveireasl.mAeltthhoodusgrhetqhueidreetdai0lcsololfescatmsuprlfeaccoelsleedctiimoennwtislalmbpeilnefsluuseinncgeedtbhyesirtoef-stpheecsiefic `dceosncdriitpitoinosn,cseorfteaqiuniapsmpeenctt,sfofesdampprloceecdolulreecst,iaonndcadnocbuemesnttaantdiaorndniezcee.sTshaersyetpocroollcecetdsuedgriiemvesents usineitherofthesemethods. 20 SCOPE P"eTthietPeetPiotneaPronaris widelyusedinbothfreshandsalwatersforcollectingsedimentsfrom soto `rwheerlesaanbtdaarirddbvdorteetdolgmesys.wIitllsneostpewcoirakll.yTuhseefPuolnianrsainds,eglrfa-vcello,scionngssoalmipdlaetertdmhatrrleolreacsleasywbhotetotmhse uwneiittcwoemieghsitinscaopntparctowxitihmtahte55eskeldeyi.ment. Thesampleareawiththiswits15x15cmaodthe ETchkeEmcaknDmraendDrgeedgeis designed(0collctsamplesi so,finelydivided lors botoms. In syi`wsneletl.etomTsrhetelaeatishetatsvshepthrypiiigchnaalgmlyo-ullnotowsearodedfoddoeterodbstr.hTieshbooertdrtoooocrmkvsyabiroaetadteoosmpiseg,antnehdedsteoumcnelsiostseenttygipgeihcrta,lielynsweciaoltlmdonpowatnwsotshriekn1.g5 1Scmarea ofsediment. TshamipsliSnOgPdweivlilcceosvaenrdtthheesqpueicpimfiecnptrroecqeudiurreedsttohcaoltlaercetfsoeldliomweendt.samples singeitherofthese 30 EQUIPMENT `Equipmentandsuppliesneededmay include,butae otlimited othefollowing: + PetitePonarandEckmDraedgne. Sableboatorplatfboarrgme + Statielmnixilngceontsainesrs Stainlesssteel spoonsfor homogensiedzimienntgs + F`iSealmdpdlaetcaosnhteaeitnser(s(vpartoejeqctsupeacilfici)atnydccogoehlneeerrsawmlidtiahtwsesthteiyetes,f)orsamplestorage Chainofcustodyforms. MSWord97 001743 30 `hbeimpsmneeetdecdhtoindogc:ucmaemntedra,ta6cmol,lecetliodnsaectibvit,espneds (varbeelsiameprleacoantadinSehrasrfpioex), `PSearmspolneallabpreoltse,ccutisotnoduypsoeesnst requiredby he tcHeathandSayOffices cling. orgaDevapcorometeneqrusia(pmOmeVnMtSis)penifiacftor hiepoojnct Sa40ta SsAedMiPmeLnEtcColOlLecLtiEonCTsIiOnNhPeRPoOrCarEoDrUDrReEdgesamplers ilovetheflowing p1. roOWbcoseriksnPt:lhaens.Tahmipslmeacyabtieoinntfhoermfaotrimoonfsrnoamctthaecrohnensactoepeoasdeeski,pwtoirokn oafutthegoorehre 2. samplinglocation. Positionbesunplingburg orboat ovr he selected sample dient,the field crewsould sayswerkfrom themost dloowcnasttorne.aWhoecnastaimopnltoitnhge most 3. upseam ocaionnes Whensumpling sient otberwise dict. i deepwaters,temptto setthe bareinplace ith ier 8 vo orcenptouttatltehdeolwant(o5r. dpoucdsnpooed)ri.ftTwhhiislweslalmpplrionvgid.esomesail or heplato 4. Oonccaetiynoduerniivecatotnheipropeenrilofciatdioonnmeeassaumrplaindgroegco.rddepthofwateandrecordsample . 6. MMeakaeraerethtehsautmlpllitnalsohcaoteosncuosmiesnpotnhde boesttevcaolecescphinnlogglyo(cat,ionl. ol positioning 17. `Oatlealntehseysdeecmo)anmidnraetseodndseadmpgleeocrooprdrianat(edsepaenndthsensatphleisnegim0en.tsubstte ye). 2.Miadkeoefutreebtohaatt.thTehdirsidieoprrepvoennttahe nittshefrpoempnrpeomsaittuiroencndosslao.wlyOnlcoewehsteeimtsverrethe SaSmipglhingsiinb.mTerhgdw,eiglhetsosftthheeumnaitds sehtouhldemforlceltethmeiotttohe osfectiemseytstoemtyoo.uwe 5. feuesi)ng.thPlElckemiannDerteaudtg,nmdaekleessrthtehamteshseengietr.sOpnecgehtteomthee osteorne(auggseglroye on 10. doors,pul he Forth Poar, itof efor he otoandsowly ofthe ititingthe houghthewater theboat. sedimentshoudcause hepin holding the doorsopento less.Theeorewenyou ole iehoithe nil, hedorswill ose 1.O(nceetohelitthceissiaimnnptlheeg).ou, lace llhecontents noone ofthe esomaminatedsles tseedlimmeinxt.ingcotiners. Use 8deconsatilassmeei50n001a0 btoooegendze ,he 12pCroocnpteaeirnhseoram,mopgAletencimzoienndsimesert.hiisisscrlbieteiscsalhetoheuad5phc0oen0stnaaim0npplhseecsbasemupfflfoerciDie,tsdstsacam,mpptlleievbeoelcpuomllelcseecdtioedo,nthee intlofthpersonscollecting, nd typeofanalysisfortissample MSWard? 001744 al 001745 32 13. sCpoelcliefcitctwhoerapkpprloapnr.iateQAXQCsamplesssoutlinedintheQAPPatacbed10theproject 14. Complete thechainof-cusftoordmy. 15.Place allsamples i thepropersampleshipping/storgecontaioer,whichshouldcontain `sufficica wetio okeep he samples a temperature of4 Cuatl receiptbythe laboraory. `Slightmodificationsmaybe requiredi thefied,depending upoothetypeofsampletha is beingcollected.Theiedcrew willhayshaveworkingknowledgeoftheequipment priorfo `sampling,andwillbefilswiththespecific requirementsofheproject.Anymodificaions orchangesthat ar neededforsamplingspecificsysiemsshouldbedocumentedi fielddita sheets ndreflectedinthe fina report. MSWord97 Vu1746 3 vulva; 34 AEPS2ESgE] RA|BdlEg5SEs [ELS =3Is3l2g3| ||sSls2i[2lEzE] [[[=2]521 5 E L ERIEE| ES55i E51E21En4R2Ef E2e2E1R2n1e 2 ddE52Es1E9 2 o2t 22 21a[3|25|3|812|2(3|3| 812 3] 33 E52/E3 EEE2R2 leARlERe2R 2 2 | Ef A elelelelelelelzlelelslellels pozsuastmnnend|| ESEEESEEEEEESEEEEEEEEREEES x 218185853 EER Is ss < <2: H Jeso aeleesne BR3E][faEsEHhEREEEEEEn EgElgePEE E8I Fe1|3192a|5 5f5a52e82 =5nz22a)245n75a232252 585 z 2202818 a I5E <= =|z|Z|2|3(3|2|3|2[3(273 $2 8 =B2El32[2Elsls B7i2i1a2asin5a5dS x |CBREB HSR525EEEEEEEEAAEEEEEEEEEEEREEEae - voras 9.5 APPENDIX E PR PO rr 1 p Location [SLOI-LMOI |Downstream [SLOI-LM02 |Downstream |dl rr 71 1 I] Collected |4/15/02 | Typ | Largemouth Bass| (cm) 41 2 [872 | |4/15/02 |LargemouthBass| 36 |619 | [SLOI-LM06 |Downstream |4/16/02 |LargemouthBass| 31.2 | 478 | [SLOL-CATOI[Downstream |4/16/02 [Catfish | 61 |2222| [SLOI-CATO4|Downstream [4/1602 [Catfish [SLOI-CATOS|Downstream [4/1602 [Catfish | 74.1|6047| | 55 |1744| [SLO2-LMOI |Acrossfrom3M|4/18/02 [SL02-LM02 |Acrossfrom3M|4/18/02 |LargemouthBass| 30 |450_| |LargemouthBass| 45.5 |1097| [SLO2-LM03 [SLO2-LM04 |Acrossfrom3M |4/18/02 |Acrossfrom3M |4/18/02 |LargemouthBass| 33 |506 | |LargemouthBass| 33 |535 | [SLO2-CATO2 |Acrossfrom3M[4/1802 [Catfish [SLO2-CATO3|Acrossfrom3M[4/1802 |Catfish | 51 [ 1387| | 505 |2005 | [SL02-CATOS|Acrossfrom3M |4/18/02 [Catfish | 64 |3206 | [SL02-CATO7|Acrossfrom3M[4/18/02 [SLO3-LMOI |Upstream [4/17/02 [Catfish | 53 |1519 | |LargemouthBass| 30.5 |450_| [SLO3-LM03 |Upstream [4/17/02 |LargemouthBass| 38 |675 | [SLO3-LMOS |Upstream [SLO3-LM06 [Upstream [SLO3-LM07 |Upstream [SLO3-SMO1 |Upstream [SLOI-CATOI|Upsteam [SLO3-CATO2 [Upsteam [4/17/02 |LargemouthBass| 207|281 | [4/17/02 |LargemouthBass| 36 619| [4/17/02 |LargemouthBass| 42 [ 731| [4/17/02 |LargemouthBass| 32.5 |563| [4/1702 [Catfish | 322 | 816| [4/17/02 [Catfish | 57 |3516| [SL03-CATO4[Upsteam [4/18/02 [Catfish [SLO3-CATOS[Upstream [4/18/02 [Catfish | 61.5 | 2081| | 55 |1856| 0U1749 36