NOAA Technical Memorandum NOS ORCA 88 National Status and Trends Program for Marine Environmental Quality Magnitude and Extent of Sediment Toxicity in the Hudson-Raritan Estuary Silver Spring, Maryland August, 1995 nOdd National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration ■-PWMOS^ National Ocean Service Office of Ocean Resources Conservation and Assessment Coastal Monitoring and Bioeffects Assessment Division NOAA Coastal Ocean Office Coastal Monitoring and Bioeffects Assessment Division Office of Ocean Resources Conservation and Assessment National Ocean Service National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration U.S. Department of Commerce N/ORCA2, SSMC4 1305 East-West Highway Silver Spring, MD 20910 - . m Notice This report has been reviewed by the National Ocean Service of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and approved for publication. Such approval does not signify that the contents of this report necessarily represents the official position of NOAA or of the Government of the United States, nor does mention of trade names or commerical products constitute endorsement or recommendation for their use. NOAA Technical Memorandum NOS ORCA88 Magnitude and Extent of Sediment Toxicity in the Hudson-Raritan Estuary Edward R. Long National Ocean Service, Office of Ocean Resources Conservation and Assessment, Seattle, WA Douglas A. Wolfe National Ocean Service, Office of Ocean Resources Conservation and Assessment, Silver Spring, MD K. John Scott and Glen B. Thursby Science Applications International Corporation Narragansett, Rl Eric A. Stern U.S. Environmental Protection Agency New York, New York Carol Peven Battelle Ocean Sciences Duxbury, MA Ted Schwartz National Biological Survey Washington, D.C. Silver Spring, Maryland August, 1995 Table of Contents List of Tables i List of Figures iii Abstract 1 I. Introduction 2 Contaminant Concentrations 4 Potential for Toxicant Effects 5 Previously Measured Biological Effects 8 II. Methods and Materials 15 Sampling Methods 19 Sediment Testing Methods 20 Estimates of the Spatial Extent of Toxicity 22 Chemical Analyses: Phase 1 23 Chemical Analyses: Phase 2 25 Data Analyses 27 III. Results 28 Solid-Phase Amphipod Tests 28 Elutriate/Liquid Phase Bivalve Larvae Tests 38 Microbial Bioluminescence Tests of Organic-Extracts 50 Polychaete and Sand Dollar Growth Tests 57 Estimates of Spatial Extent of Toxicity 58 Concentrations and Distribution of Contaminants in Sediments: Phase 1 60 Concentrations and distribution of Contaminants in Sediments: Phase 2 62 Relationships Between Toxicity and Physical-Chemical Parameters: Phase 1 76 Relationships Between Toxicity and Physical-Chemical Parameters: Phase 2 96 IV. Discussion 111 Incidence and Severity of Toxicity 111 Spatial Extent of Toxicity 117 Spatial Patterns in Toxicity 117 Correlations Among Toxicity Tests 121 Summary of Chemistry/Toxicity Relationships 122 V. Conclusions 126 Potential for Toxicity 126 Incidence of Toxicity 126 Spatial Patterns in Toxicity 127 Spatial Extent of Toxicity 127 Chemistry/Toxicity Relationships 127 Acknowledgments 128 References 129 Appendices 134 List of Tables 1 . Regions of the Hudson-Raritan Estuary in which the concentrations of selected toxicants in sediments exceeded respective effects ranges of Long and Morgan (1990). Adapted from Squibb et al. (1991) 6 2. Spearman-rank correlations (Rho) between percent survival of A. abdita (n=9) and the concentrations of trace metals normalized to dry wt., aluminum and total organic carbon (TOC). From U.S. EPA EMAP monitoring data, 1990 (Schimmel et al., 1994) 11 3. Mean percent mortality of Eohaustorius estuaries in sediments from Arthur Kill, Kill van Kull, and Newark Bay (from Aqua Survey, Inc., 1990a, 1990b) 12 4. Locations of sites in the Hudson-Raritan Estuary sampled during Phase 1 15 5. Locations of stations in Newark Bay and vicinity sampled during Phase 2 18 6. Mean percent survival of A. abdita in 10-day solid-phase toxicity tests of sediments from the Central Long Island Sound (CLIS) control site (n = 5), 117 sampling stations (n = 5) and 39 sites (n = 3) and of Diporeia spp. in 9 samples from the Hudson-Raritan Estuary 31 7. Mean percent amphipod (A. abdita) survival in the 1993 Newark Bay survey performed during Phase 2 36 8. Mean percent survival and normal morphological development (expressed as percent of controls) in 48-hour tests of elutriates with the larvae of Mulinia lateralis 41 9. Results of Microtox™ tests of microbial bioluminescence in organic extracts of sediments; mean EC50's (n = 2) and 95% confidence intervals for stations, and mean EC50's (n = 3) for sites 50 10. Results of microbial bioluminescence (Microtox™) tests of sediments from the Hudson-Raritan estuary performed with three kinds of sediment extracts (from DeMuth et al., 1993) 57 11 . Results of polychaete (Armandia brevis) impaired growth tests, and sand dollar (Dendraster excentricus) impaired growth tests of sediment from the Hudson-Raritan estuary (from Rice et al., in press) 58 12. Estimates of the spatial extent of toxicity* (km 2 and percent of total area) in the Hudson-Raritan Estuary based upon the cumulative distribution functions of data from each of four test end-points 59 13. Estimates of concordance in the spatial extent of toxicity* (km 2 and percent of total area) in the Hudson-Raritan estuary among the four toxicity test end-points 59 14. Estimates of the spatial extent of toxicity* (km 2 and percent of total area) in Newark Bay and vicinity, based upon the cumulative distribution function of data from amphipod survival tests 60 1 5. Concentrations of TCDD-equivalents (pg/g) in whole extracts and extract fractions determined in H4IIE rat hepatoma bioassays of sediments from Newark Bay 75 16. Spearman-rank (rho, corrected for ties) correlations between dioxin equivalents determined in chemical analyses and dioxin equivalents (tcdd-eqs) determined in rat hepatoma bioassays of sediment extracts 76 17. Spearman-rank correlations (Rho, corrected for ties) between four toxicity end-points (as percent of controls) and the concentrations of trace elements in Hudson-Raritan estuary sediments (n=38) 80 18. Spearman-rank correlations (Rho, corrected for ties) between four toxicity end-points (as percent of controls) and the concentrations of acid-volatile sulfides (AVS) and simultaneously extracted trace metals (SEM) in Hudson-Raritan Estuary sediments (n=38) 80 1 9. Spearman-rank correlations (Rho, corrected for ties) between four toxicity end-points (as percent of controls) and the concentrations of PCBs and pesticides in hudson-Raritan Estuary sediments (n=38) 81 20. Spearman-rank correlations (Rho, corrected for ties) between four toxicity end-points (as percent of controls) and the concentrations of PAHs in Hudson-Raritan Estuary sediments (n=38) 82 21 . Samples from the Hudson-Raritan estuary (Phase 1 ) stations that equalled or exceeded the respective ERM or SQC guideline concentrations for teach major substance or class of compounds. Stations in which the concentration exceeded the guideline by >2x are listed in bold (n=38) 83 22. Average trace metal concentrations (ppm, dry wt. or umole/g ± s.d.) in samples that were not toxic, significantly toxic (p<0.05), and highly toxic (percent survival <80% of controls) in amphipod tests, ratios between the averages, and ratios of highly toxic averages to SQGs 89 23. Average pesticide and PCB concentrations in samples that were not toxic, significantly toxic, and highly toxic in the amphipod tests, ratios between the averages, and ratios of highly toxic averages to SQGs 90 24. Average PAH concentrations in samples that were not toxic, significantly toxic, and highly toxic in the amphipod tests, ratios between the averages, and ratios between hi ghly toxic averages and respective SQGs 92 25. Average trace metal concentrations in samples that were not toxic, significantly toxic, and highly toxic in microtox tests, ratios between the averages, and ratios of highly toxic averages to SQGs 93 26. Average pesticide and PCB concentrations in samples that were not toxic, significantly toxic, and highly toxic in the Microtox tests, ratios between the averages, and ratios of highly toxic averages to SQGs 94 27. Average PAH concentrations in samples that were not toxic, significantly toxic, and highly toxic in the Microtox tests, ratios between the averages, and ratios between highly toxic averages and respective SQGs 95 28. Spearman-rank correlations between percent amphipod survival and the concentrations of total trace metals and with the ratios of simultaneously extracted metals to acid-volatile sulfides in Phase 2 sediments 96 29. Spearman-rank correlations between percent amphipod survival and the concentrations of chlorinated organic compounds in Newark Bay 97 30. Spearman-rank correlations between percent amphipod survival and the concentrations of chlorinated dibenzo dioxin and dibenzo furan compounds in Newark Bay sediments 98 31 . Spearman-rank correlations between percent amphipod survival and the concentrations of polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons in Newark Bay sediments 99 32. Samples from the Phase 2 stations that equalled or exceeded the respective ERM or SQC values for each major substance or class of compounds 1 00 33. Average concentrations of 2,3,7,8-tcdd and total cumulative dioxin TEQs in highly toxic and nontoxic samples from Newark Bay, ratios between the averages, and ratios between the highly toxic averages and the respective SQG 108 34. Average concentrations of pesticides and PCBs in highly toxic and nontoxic samples from Newark Bay, ratios between the averages, and ratios between the highly toxic averages and the respective SQGs 108 35. Average concentrations of total extractable and AVS simultaneously extracted trace metals in highly toxic and nontoxic samples from Phase 2, ratios between the averages, and ratios between the highly toxic averages and the respective SQGs 110 36. Average concentrations of PAHs in highly toxic and nontoxic samples from Phase 2, ratios between the averages, and ratios between the highly toxic averages and the respective SQGs .... 111 37. Summary of toxicity test results for each station and site sampled during Phase 1 112 38. Summary of the numbers of Phase 1 stations and sites indicated as significantly toxic and numerically significant in each of four sediment toxicity test endpoints 116 39. Spearman rank correlation coefficients for the four toxicity test end-points tested in Phase 1 as percent of controls 121 40. Summary of toxicity/chemistry relationships for those chemicals that were significantly correlated with toxicity in the Phase 1 samples 123 41 . Summary of toxicity/chemistry relationships for those chemicals that were significantly correlated with toxicity in the Phase 2 samples 125 List of Figures 1 . The Hudson-Raritan Estuary study area 3 2. Sampling sites in which sediments were significantly toxic to: (1 ) nematode growth; (2) amphipod survival in static tests; (3) A. abdita in flow-through tests; and (4) A. abdita in static tests 10 3. Sampling stations in which survival was significantly different from referer materials in tests of either grass shrimp, polychaetes, or clams during pre-dredging studies 14 4. Boundaries of sampling zones and locations of sampling sites within each zone 17 5. Stations sampled in the Passaic River, HackensackRiver, Newark Bay, upper Arthur Kill, Kill van Kull, and upper New York Harbor during Phase 2 24 6. Sampling stations in which the sediments were significantly toxic to Ampelisca abdita survival 29 7. Sampling sites in which the sediments were significantly toxic to Ampelisca abdita survival 30 8. Distribution of stations in Newark Bay and vicinity that were toxic, highly toxic, and non-toxic in amphipod (A. abdita) survival tests 39 9. Sampling stations in which the sediment elutriates were significantly toxic to Mulinia laterlis larvae survival 46 10. Sampling sites in which the sediment elutriates were significantly toxic to Mulinia lateralis larvae survival 47 11. Sampling stations in which the sediment elutriates were significantly toxic to Mulinia lateralis larvae normal development 48 12. Sampling sites in which the sediment elutriates were significantly toxic to Mulinia lateralis larvae normal development 49 13. Sampling stations in which the sediment extracts were significantly toxic to microbial bioluminescence 55 14. Sampling sites in which the sediment extracts were significantly toxic to microbial bioluminescence 56 15. Percent fine-grained sediments at selected stations in the Hudson-Raritan Estuary 61 16. Percent total organic carbon in selected stations in the Hudson-Raritan Estuary 63 17. Mercury concentrations in selected stations in the Hudson-Raritan Estuary 64 18. Ratios of total simultaneously-extracted metals concentrations to acid-volatile sulfide concentrations in selected stations in the Hudson-Raritan Estuary 65 19. Total PCB concentrations in selected stations in the Hudson-Raritan Estuary 66 20. Concentrations of total PAHs at selected stations in the Hudson-Raritan Estuary 67 21. Concentrations of cadmium at selected stations in Newark Bay and vicinity 69 iii 22. Concentrations of mercury at selected stations in Newark Bay and vicinity 70 23. Ratios of total simultaneously-extracted metals to total acid-volatile sulfides at selected stations in Newark Bay and vicinity 71 24. Concentrations of total PCBs at selected stations in Newark Bay and vicinity 72 25. Concentrations of total 2,3,7,8-tcdd toxicity equivalency quotients at selected stations in Newark Bay and vicinity 73 26. Concentrations of 2,3,7,8-tcdd at 53 selected stations in Newark Bay and vicinity 77 27. TCDD equivalents from H4IIE bioassays of whole sediment extracts from selected stations in Newark Bay and vicinity 78 28. Relationship of total cumulative tcdd toxicity equivalents from chemical analyses and TCDD toxicity equivalent from H4IIE bioassays of the F12 fraction 79 29. Relationship of the concentrations of total PAHs to the concentrations of the TCDD toxicity equivalents in the H4IIE bioassays of the F5 fraction 79 30. Relationship of amphipod survival to mercury concentrations in sediments 85 31. Relationship of microbial bioluminescence EC50s to 4,4-DDE concentrations in sediments 85 32. Relationship of amphipod survival to total low molecular weight PAH concentrations in sediments 86 33. Relationship of amphipod survival and total PAH concentrations in sediments 86 34. Relationship of amphipod survival to flouranthene concentrations in sediments 87 35. Relationship of amphipod survival to phenanthrene concentrations in sediments 87 36. Relationship of amphipod survival to the concentrations of un-ionized ammonia in the overlying water of the test chambers 98 37. Relationship of amphipod survival to the concentrations of p, p'-DDE in Newark Bay sediment samples 102 38. Relationship of amphipod survival to the concentrations of total PCB congeners in Newark Bay sediment samples 102 39. Relationship between amphipod survival and the concentrations of 2,3,7,8-TCDD toxicity equivalency quotients for the co-planar PCB congeners in Newark Bay sediments 103 40. Relationship of amphipod survival to the concentrations of 2,3,7,8-TCDD in Newark Bay sediment samples 103 41 . Relationship between amphipod survival and the concentration of total cumulative 2,3,7,8-TCDD toxicity equivalency quotients in Newark Bay sediments 104 42. Relationship of amphipod survival to the concentrations of total lead in Newark Bay sediment samples 104 43. Relationship of amphipod survival to the concentrations of total zinc in Newark Bay sediment samples 105 44. Relationship of amphipod survival to the concentrations of total high molecular weight PAHs in Newark Bay sediment samples 105 45. Relationship of amphipod survival to the concentrations of fluoranthene in Newark Bay sediment samples 106 46. Sampling stations in which the toxicity test results were significantly different from controls in at least one of the four toxicity tests or not toxic in any test 118 47. Sampling sites in which the mean toxicity test results were significantly different from controls in at least one of the four tests or not toxic in any test 119 Magnitude and Extent of Sediment Toxicity in the Hudson-Raritan Estuary Edward R. Long (NOAA), Douglas A. Wolfe (NOAA), K. John Scott (SAIC), Glen B. Thursby (SAIC), Eric A. Stern (U.S. EPA), Carol Peven (Battelle), and Ted Schwartz (NBS) ABSTRACT A survey of the toxicity of sediments was performed by NOAA's National Status and Trends (NS&T) Program throughout the Hudson-Raritan Estuary. The objectives of the survey were to determine the spatial patterns of toxicity, the spatial scales (magnitude) of toxicity, the severity (frequency) of toxic- ity, and the relationships among measures of toxicity and chemical substances in the sediments. This survey was conducted as a part of a nationwide program supported by NOAA's Coastal Ocean Program and the NS&T Program, in which the biological effects of toxicants are determined in selected estuar- ies and bays. The survey was conducted in two phases: 117 samples were collected throughout the entire estuary during 1991 (Phase 1) and an additional 57 samples were collected in Newark Bay and vicinity during 1993 (Phase 2). Relatively sensitive toxicity tests were performed under controlled laboratory condi- tions with portions of each sample. During Phase 1, three independent tests were performed: (1) a 10- day, acute survival test of solid-phase sediments with the amphipod Ampelisca abdita; (2) a 48-hour liquid phase test of elutriates with the embryos of the bivalve Mulinia lateralis in which both percent survival and normal embryological development were recorded; and (3) a 15-minute microbial biolu- minescence test (Microtox tm ) of organic solvent extracts. Only the amphipod tests were performed on the samples collected during Phase 2. Chemical analyses of selected samples were performed and the concentrations of trace elements, polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), chlorinated pesticides and other hydrocarbons were reported. Also, during Phase 2 the concentrations of numerous chlori- nated dioxins and furans were determined. Toxicity test results were compared with responses in controls to determine statistical significance. During Phase 1, 46.2% of the samples were significantly toxic (i. e., different from controls) in the amphipod tests, 26.6% were significantly toxic in either of the bivalve embryo tests, and 40.5% were significantly toxic in the microbial bioluminescence tests. Overall, 69.2% of the samples were toxic in at least one of the four test end-points. Each toxicity test indicated somewhat different patterns in toxicity, possibly reflecting their different sensitivities to the substances in the samples. Overall, toxicity was most severe in the East River and diminished eastward into Long Island Sound and southward into upper New York Harbor. Also, toxic- ity was relatively high in Newark Bay, Arthur Kill, and western Raritan Bay and diminished southward and eastward toward the mouth of the estuary. Toxicity was relatively low in the lower Hudson River, upper New York Harbor, and portions of lower New York Harbor and northern Raritan Bay, especially in samples that were relatively high in sand content. During Phase 2, 48 of 57 samples (84.2%) from Newark Bay and vicinity were significantly toxic in the amphipod survival tests. Amphipod survival was very low in most samples from the lower Passaic River, much of Newark Bay, and most samples from the northern reaches of Arthur Kill. A few samples from the lower Hackensack River and one sample from upper New York Harbor were not significantly toxic in this test. During Phase 1 the entire survey area covered approximately 350 km 2 . By attributing the toxicity data to the spatial scales of each sampling stratum, the spatial extent of toxicity (kilometers 2 ) was estimated for each test. The amphipod survival test indicated that approximately 133 km 2 (38.1% of the total area) was toxic. The amphipod survival and microbial bioluminescence tests, together, indicated that approximately 34.2 km 2 (9.8% of the total area) was toxic. All four test end-points, together, indicated approximately 19.9 km 2 (5.7% of the total area) was toxic. During Phase 2, approximately 10.8 km 2 (85.0% of the total survey area of 12.7 km 2 in Newark Bay and vicinity) was toxic relative to the controls. The causes of the toxicity were not determined. However, in the Phase 1 samples, amphipod survival and microbial bioluminescence diminished and were significantly correlated with increasing concen- trations of numerous PAHs. Also, the average concentrations of the PAHs in the toxic samples greatly exceeded the average concentrations in the nontoxic samples and applicable toxicity thresholds. These strong relationships between the two measures of toxicity and the concentrations of the PAHs were driven, in large part, by the samples from the upper East River that were highly toxic and highly contaminated with the PAHs. To a lesser degree the concentrations of some trace elements and chlori- nated pesticides were correlated with the inhibition of microbial bioluminescence. The results of the bivalve embryo tests were rarely correlated with the concentrations of any of the potentially toxic substances that were measured. In contrast to the results from Phase 1 , amphipod survival in the Phase 2 samples diminished with and was highly correlated with increasing concentrations of chlorinated hydrocarbons, especially the PCBs, pesticides, and dioxins. The concentrations of the sum of PCB congeners were very high in many of the samples in which amphipod survival was low or zero. Also, amphipod survival decreased with increasing concentrations of lead, mercury, and zinc in the samples. In contrast to the observations in Phase 1 , amphipod survival was not correlated with the concentrations of the PAHs in Phase 2. INTRODUCTION The Hudson-Raritan Estuary is a very large, highly urbanized estuarine system. It is bounded to the east by the New York Bight and Long Island Sound, and bounded to the west, south and north by highly urbanized and industrialized areas of New York and New Jersey. It is a mixing zone for four major rivers and many wastewater treatment, point-source discharges. As defined in this report, it includes the waters of the extreme western Long Island Sound, the East River, the lower Hudson River, upper and lower New York Harbors, Kill van Kull, Arthur Kill, the lower Passaic River, the lower Hackensack River, Newark Bay, the lower Raritan River, Raritan Bay, Sandy Hook Bay and the waters of the outer harbor east to the Rockaway-Sandy Hook transect (Figure 1). This estuary has been highly impacted by many human-induced factors (NOAA, 1988a). Many of the historical wetlands have been filled, many water bodies have been channelized for navigation, and huge industrial and residential complexes have been built along the shores. Contaminants have been discharged from wastewater treatment plants, combined sewer overflows, urban runoff, stormwater, petrochemical factories, illegal dumping, atmospheric deposition, and accidental spills. Hackensack R. Figure 1. The Hudson-Raritan Estuary study area. Mueller et al. (1982) estimated that wastewater treatment discharges contributed 40-60 percent of the total input of several trace metals into the estuary. They estimated that 20-40 percent were contributed by the tributary rivers, and 10-30 percent by urban runoff. The data available for estimating sources of toxic organic compounds were less complete than those for metals. Based on the data available, waste- water and the tributaries each contributed about 40 percent of the total PCB load, a substantial portion being transported by the Hudson River. In 1988 it was estimated that 6.8 million gallons per day of untreated sewage was discharged into the estuary, primarily from Manhattan, Staten Island, and Brooklyn (Gottholm et al., 1993). With the implementation of better source controls at key sewage treatment plants, the rate of discharge from the city of New York decreased to less than 1.0 million gallons per day by 1992. Over 1,453 accidental incidents, resulting in the release of more than 18 million U.S. gallons of hazard- ous materials and petroleum products, occurred throughout Newark Bay between 1982 and 1991 (Gunster et al., 1993). The majority of these spills consisted of petroleum products, including fuel oils and gasoline. Many of them occurred in the lower Passaic River, Arthur Kill, Newark Bay, and Kill van Kull. Data collected by numerous investigators, including the National Status and Trends Program, have indicated that the concentrations of many potentially toxic chemicals are highly elevated in the Hudson- Raritan Estuary. The objectives of this report are to describe the magnitude (severity, multiplicity, incidence) of toxicity, the spatial patterns of toxicity, the spatial extent of toxicity of sediments, and the relationship(s) between sediment toxicity as a measure of toxicant-associated biological effects and potentially toxic substances. Contaminant Concentrations. Many different assessments have been conducted to determine the presence, concentration, and distribution of toxic chemicals within the estuary. These assessments have been performed by many independent investigators and have shown that toxicants occur through- out the estuary in mixtures that differ from place to place. The toxicants that occur above background levels include PCBs, PAHs, DDT, other pesticides, many trace metals, radioisotopes, dioxins and furans. It is not the purpose of this report to review the results of all of these efforts. Several excellent reports summarize the data on concentrations and distributions of toxicants in the Hudson-Raritan Estuary (e.g., Olsen et al., 1984; Breteler, 1984; NOAA, 1988a; Bopp and Simpson, 1989; Squibb et al., 1991; City of New York, 1987; Huntley et al., 1993; Bonnevie et al., 1993; New York-New Jersey Harbor Estuary Program, 1995). Based upon the available data from these many studies, several generalized patterns are apparent in the distribution of elevated concentrations of toxicants. These generalities are tempered by many observa- tions of heterogeneity attributable to patchiness in sediment properties, sedimentation rates, scouring, dredging, and proximity to sources and other processes that influence the fate of toxicants. Neverthe- less, areas in which relatively high concentrations of different toxicants have been observed frequently include Newark Bay, Arthur Kill, lower Passaic River, lower Hackensack River, Gowanus Canal, west- ern Raritan Bay south of Staten Island, and the bays adjoining the upper East River/western Long Island Sound. Intermediate levels of many toxicants often have been reported for parts of central Raritan Bay, upper New York Harbor, lower Harlem River near Ward's Island, and the lower Passaic River. Relative to these areas, toxicant concentrations often have been lowest in lower New York Harbor south of Coney Island and northwest of Sandy Hook, the East River, Harlem River, lower Hudson River, and eastern Raritan Bay. Extremely high concentrations of dioxins and furans in sediments and marine biota have been reported for the lower Passaic River (Pruell et al., 1990; Bopp etal., 1991;Tongetal., 1990; Beltonetal., 1985). The concentrations of these compounds gradually diminish downstream into Newark Bay and New York Harbor. In addition, the concentrations of PAHs and many trace elements were found in very high concentrations in samples collected in the lower Passaic River, lower Hackensack River, and Newark Bay (Huntley et al., 1993; Bonnevie et al., 1993). Sediments, mussels, and fish livers from the Hudson-Raritan Estuary analyzed by NOAA as a part of the NS&T Program consistently have contained relatively high concentrations of DDT, other pesti- cides, PCBs, PAHs, cadmium, chromium, lead, mercury, nickel, tin, and other substances. The concen- trations of these and other chemicals often were the highest or among the highest measured at about 250 sites nationwide (NOAA, 1987; 1988b; 1989; 1991; Long and Morgan, 1990). Samples with particularly high concentrations of toxicants were collected near the Throg's Neck Bridge in western Long Island Sound, in the upper New York Harbor near Ellis Island, and in central Raritan Bay. For each of the analytes quantified, NOAA ranked the sediment sites sampled nationwide according to the highest concentrations (NOAA, 1988b: O'Connor and Ehler, 1991; Robertson et al., 1991). Collec- tively, the sediment and mussel samples from the Hudson/Raritan Estuary ranked the highest overall in contaminant concentrations among the many estuaries sampled by the NS&T Program. The average concentrations of several trace metals appeared to increase in mussel tissues during the period from 1986 through 1988 at several sites in the estuary, whereas the concentrations of several organic com- pounds decreased during the same period (NOAA, 1989). Sediment samples collected at several sites in 1986 and 1987 had relatively high concentrations of 13 toxicants, compared to concentrations na- tionwide (NOAA, 1991). Potential for Toxicant Effects. Some of the sites sampled by the NS&T Program were determined to have toxicant concentrations in sediments that equalled or exceeded known toxicity thresholds (O'Connor and Ehler, 1991). Some of the samples with high chemical concentrations were collected within the Hudson-Raritan Estuary (Gottholm et al., 1993). The concentrations of PAHs, PCBs, mercury, silver, arsenic, and zinc mostly frequently equalled or exceeded the thresholds nationwide. Long and Morgan (1990) ranked the NS&T Program sites according to their potential to cause toxicity in sediments attributable to elevated concentrations of analytes quantified by the Program. Based upon available data from laboratory-spiked bioassay studies, equilibrium-partitioning models, and matching chemical and biological data from field surveys, they determined the ranges in chemical concentra- tions that were associated with adverse effects. The Effects Range-Low (ERL) value was identified as the 10th percentile of the database associated with adverse biological effects. The Effects Range- Median (ERM) was identified as the 50th percentile (median) of these data. Long and Morgan (1990) then compared the ambient data from the NS&T Program sites with the ERL and ERM values. Those sites that equalled or exceeded the effects ranges for the most analytes nationwide were ranked highest. Among the 200+ sites that they evaluated, Long and Morgan (1990) ranked site HRUB in New York Upper Harbor as number 1, the highest. Site LITN near Throg's Neck was ranked number 3, site NYSH in Sandy Hook Bay was ranked number 5, and site HRLB in lower New York Harbor was ranked number 7. All six of the sediment sampling sites located within the estuary were ranked among the top sites nationwide in potential for toxicity. The concentrations of as many as 20 analytes in Hudson-Raritan Estuary sites equalled or exceeded the respective effects ranges. The concentrations of many PAHs were expecially highly elevated compared to the effects ranges. Breteler (1984) estimated that numerous trace metals, petroleum hydrocarbons, pesticides, and haloge- nated hydrocarbons posed ecological and/or human health risks in the Hudson-Raritan Estuary. Squibb et al. (1991) compiled and evaluated existing contaminant data from analyses of water, tissues, and sediments from the Hudson-Raritan Estuary performed during the 1980s. They compared the ambient data with several different water quality standards for the protection of marine life, wildlife, and human health. Many trace metals, pesticides, industrial solvents, PCBs, and aromatic hydrocarbons equalled or exceeded these standards in water samples collected in the estuary. Similarly, they compared the ambient concentrations of toxicants in finfish and shellfish tissues with existing standards. The con- centrations of PCBs, tcdd (dioxin), mercury, chlordane, and dieldrin in samples from the estuary often exceeded the standards and were noted as chemicals of high concern. Other contaminants listed as chemicals of moderate concern included arsenic, tDDT, heptachlor, heptachlor epoxide, hexachlorobenzene, lindane, numerous aromatic hydrocarbons, and tcdf (furans). In the absence of any applicable sediment quality standards, Squibb et al. (1991) compared ambient concentrations of contaminants in sediments with the ERL and ERM values identified by Long and Morgan (1990). In their investigation, Squibb et al. (1991) evaluated data from many different studies, merged the data for selected regions within the estuary, and compared the average, maximum, and minimum concentrations within each region with the effects ranges of Long and Morgan (1990). Where the abundance of data warranted, they treated four subregions of Raritan Bay separately: (I) Western Raritan Bay at the confluence of the Raritan River and Arthur Kill; (II) central Raritan Bay stretching from Staten Island to Sandy Hook Bay; (III) northern Raritan Bay bordering the lower New York Harbor; and (IV) southern Raritan Bay along the New Jersey shore. Squibb et al. (1991) determined that the concentrations of eight trace metals, PCBs, tDDT, chlordane, dieldrin, tPAHs, and six aromatic hydrocarbons exceeded the ERM concentrations in samples from at least one area within the estuary. In addition, the concentrations of six other aromatic hydrocarbons exceeded the ERLs, but not the ERMs. Squibb et al. (1991) concluded that there was a substantial potential for toxicant-associated biological effects in the sediments of the estuary. Table 1 summarizes the patterns in exceedances of the ERL and ERM values described by Squibb et al. (1991). Exceedances of the effects ranges were largest and most frequent in sediments collected (in decreasing order) in Newark Bay, Arthur Kill, Gowanus Canal, Hackensack River, lower Jamaica Bay, and near Ward's Island (at the mouth of the Harlem River) (Table 1 ). The areas in which the chemical concentrations least frequently exceeded the effects ranges were the Harlem River, southern Raritan Bay, and northern Raritan Bay. Table 1. Regions of the Hudson-Raritan Estuary in which the concentrations of selected toxi- cants in sediments exceeded respective effects ranges of Long and Morgan (1990). Adapted from Squibb et al. (1991). Region Cd Ci Cu HS Hi Pb Zn tPCB tDDT tPAH East River - * * * _ *** * ** * nd East R. bays * *** * *** * *** *** *** nd nd Harlem River - - - * - *** * * nd nd Wards Island * *** *** ** * *** *** *** nd nd Hudson River - * * * - *** * ** nd - Upper Bay - * * *** * ** * ** nd * Gowanus Canal *** *** * *** *** *** *** nd nd nd Kill van Kull * nd nd *** nd *** *** nd nd * Newark Bay ** *** t. • * *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Hackensack R. ** *** ** *** *** *** *** nd nd nd Passaic River * *** * ** ** *** ** *** nd *** Arthur Kill ** * *** *** *** *** *** *** *** * Raritan Bay nd nd nd *** nd nd nd ** * * Table 1 continued. Re gion Cd £r Cu Hg Ni Pb Zn tPCB tDDT tPAH W. Raritan Bay(I) ** *** *** nd * *** *** nd nd nd C. Raritan Bay(II) * ** ** nd * *** *** nd nd nd N. Raritan Bay(III) * ** * nd * ** ** nd nd nd S. Raritan Bay(IV) - ** * nd * ** ** nd nd nd Lower Bay ** * * ** nd * nd ** * * Jamaica BaydD ** * ^ ^ * ** * * *** Average concentration > ERM value; ** Only maximum concentration > ERM value; * ERL value < maximum concentration < ERM value; - maximum concentration 75%), excessive amount of shells or rocks, or over-penetration of the sampler. One sample from the East River was rejected because of the presence of a leg bone caught in the jaws of the sampler. Only a few stations were relocated to avoid gravel, coarse sand, mussel beds, etc. At all 117 stations, additional sediments were collected for possible future benthic community analy- ses. The benthic samples are currently in storage. Sediments from a Central Long Island Sound (CLIS) site were used as negative (nontoxic) controls in the toxicity tests. This site had been previously tested and found to be nontoxic (survival of A. abdita consistently exceeded 90%) and the concentrations of toxicants were relatively low. During Phase 2 of the survey, samples were collected by U.S. EPA Region 2 personnel during two legs. The first sampling leg (January 2-12, 1993) was conducted aboard the U.S. EPA Ocean Survey Vessel Peter W. Anderson. Samples were collected in central Newark Bay, northern Arthur Kill, Kill van Kull and upper New York Harbor. Each sampling position was recorded by LORAN C, which had been calibrated with the on-board Global Positioning System unit. The second sampling leg was conducted during the period of March 16-29, 1993 aboard the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE) Survey Vessel Hudson. During this leg, samples were collected in upper Newark Bay, the lower Passaic River, and the lower Hackensack River by personnel from EPA and the ACOE. Positions were recorded by a Northstar LORAN C unit. Phase 2 samples were collected with a stainless steel modified van Veen grab sampler. At each station, approximately 8 liters of sediment from the upper 2 cm were collected in multiple deployments of the sampler. A kynar-coated spatula was used to carefully remove the upper 2 cm of sediment. The sediments were completely homogenized before aliquots were prepared for each laboratory. All equip- ment used in the collection of samples was rinsed with acetone and site water between sampling sta- tions. Samples were rejected if the jaws of the sampler were not completely shut or if the sample consisted of only gravel and sand. Sediment Testing Methods. Testing methods followed previously published protocols to ensure com- parability of the results to previously collected data. The tests with the amphipods and bivalve larvae were performed with fresh, unfrozen sediments, while the Microtox tests were performed with previ- ously frozen sediments. The holding times for the sediments tested with amphipods were 2 to 9 days for nine of the test series and 27-28 days for test series number 10. A number of unavoidable problems were encountered at the initiation of the bivalve larvae tests, causing delays in the completion of these tests. As a result, sediments tested with bivalve larvae were held for 93 to 163 days. The amphipod test with Ampelisca abdita followed the protocols of ASTM (1990) and was conducted in both phases by Science Applications International Corporation. Test animals were collected from tidal flats in the Pettaquamscutt (Narrow) River, a small estuary of the Narragansett Bay, RI. They 20 were held in the laboratory and acclimated for 2 to 10 days before testing. Test sediments were press- sieved through a 2.0 mm mesh sieve and homogenized. Test chambers were quart-size glass canning jars with inverted glass dishes as covers. Two hundred of sediments were added to each test chamber and covered with 600 mL of laboratory seawater. Aeration was continuous via a glass tube, lighting was continuous during the 10-day static exposures, and temperatures were maintained at 20°C. Five replicate tests were performed with the sediments from each station and the control, using 20 animals in each test chamber. Exposure chambers were checked daily and the number of individuals that were dead, or moribund, on the sediment surface, and/or on the water surface were recorded. Dead animals were removed daily Amphipods were considered to be dead when they did not respond to a gentle prod with a glass rod. Six samples collected during Phase 2 were suspected to be highly contaminated with dioxins, and, therefore hazardous. The amphipod survival tests of these samples were performed by Aqua Survey, Inc., using the same ASTM (1990) protocols. The amphipods were obtained from East Coast Amphi- pod Co., Narragansett, RI (from the same site used by SAIC) and acclimated to test water for 96 hours. The bivalve larvae test with Mulinia lateralis generally followed the protocols of the U.S. EPA/ACOE (1991) with some modifications. Adult male and female clams were induced to spawn by temperature manipulation. Egg stocks of about 1,200 eggs per mL and sperm stocks of about 4 million sperm per mL were prepared. To prepare the embryo stock, 1 00 uL of sperm stock was added to every mL of egg stock and fertilization was allowed to proceed for about 35 min. The embryos were then retained on a 10 «m screen, and then resuspended. Next, 0.75 mL of embryo stock was added to vials containing 15 mL of sample or control. Initial embryo counts were performed on the contents of six vials containing 15 mL of seawater. Elutriates were prepared by adding 100 g (wet wt.) of homogenized sediment to 500 mL of laboratory seawater in clean glass jars. The elutriates were mixed for 30 min. using heavy aeration with manual stirring every 10 min. After 30 min., the suspensions were allowed to settle for at least one hour. At least 80 mL of supernatant was gently poured into a 0.4 «m filter housing and vacuum filtered until there was enough filtered sample for 5 replicates of 15 mL each. Static test exposures of the liquid phase samples were conducted for 48 hours at 22°C. After 48 hours the tests were terminated by adding 0.75 mL of 50% buffered formalin to each vial. The total number of em- bryos and the number of normal-appearing embryos were counted. The Microtox tm tests followed an adaptation of the protocols prepared by U.S. EPA Region 10 (1990). The tests were performed with organic extracts of the sediments. Three grams (wet wt.) of each sedi- ment sample were weighed into a 100 mL Pyrex centrifuge tube with a Teflon lined top. Each sample was centrifuged for 10 min. at 1,750 RPM and the water discarded. Fifteen grams of sodium sulfate was mixed in, then 50 mL of dichloromethane (DCM) was added and mixed. The samples were shaken overnight; centrifugation was repeated; and the supernatant was collected in a 200 mL flask. The extraction steps were repeated twice and the extract solutions collected in a flask. The solutions were evaporated under nitrogen to a volume of about one mL. Undenatured ethanol was added and the volumes reduced to just below one mL in a 100°C water bath. The final volumes were adjusted to 1 mL with undenatured ethanol. An ethanol reagent blank was prepared as above but contained no sediment. Lyophilized bacteria (Photobacterium phosphoreum) were reconstituted with 1 mL of deionized water and placed in a Microtox tm cuvette at 4°C. Tests were performed with 10-fold serial dilutions (repre- senting 10, 1.0, 0.1, and 0.01 uL of sediment extract) prepared in seawater. Blanks were prepared at the same concentrations by similar dilutions of the ethanol reagent blank. All dilutions were conducted in test cuvettes in temperature-controlled incubation wells. Reconstituted bacteria were added to each at 30-sec. intervals and mixed well to initiate the tests. Exactly five minutes later, light emission was 21 measured at 30-sec. intervals in the same sequence as the tests were initiated. Between each extract dilution level, the blank of the corresponding concentration was used to adjust the photometer for the contribution of the extraction solvent. To conclude the tests, light emission was measured again at 15 min., and these data were used to calculate the 50% inhibition concentrations (i.e., the EC50s). In addition to the tests described above that were performed with all of the samples, several others were performed on selected samples as a part of methods development. Tests of the growth of a polychaete (Armandia brevis) and an adult sand dollar (Dendraster excentricus) were performed with 17 of the samples (Rice et al., in press). Also, nine of the samples were tested with the freshwater amphipod Diporeia spp. by the Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory (Dr. Peter Landrum). The test animals were acclimated to 20 ppt salinity seawater by the addition of 5 ppt seawater/day and held for 48 hours. Two cm of sieved sediments, in replicates of three per sample, were placed into one-liter beakers, containing 600 mL of seawater at 20 ppt salinity. Twenty animals were used in each replicate. Tests were performed at 4°C, maintained by a constant temperature water bath. The amphipods were monitored daily for sediment avoidance, signs of stress, and mortality. Avoidance of the sediment was observed as the absence of burrowing and migration to the water surface, which resulted in adherance to the surface film. Stress was observed as animals lay on the sediment surface. Dead animals were recorded and removed from the exposure chambers. After 28 days, the beakers were removed from the water bath and the sediment was wet sieved through a 1 mm screen. The numbers of live and dead animals were recorded and the percent mortality and percent survival were calculated. Estimates of the Spatial Extent of Toxicity. The spatial extent of toxicity within the survey area was estimated using methods similar to those of the Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program (EMAP) of the U.S. EPA (Schimmel et al., 1994). However, the design of the sampling plans differed between Phases 1 and 2. During Phase 1, the dimensions of each sampling zone (Figure 4) were outlined on navigation charts during the design phase. The locations of each sampling site were deter- mined a priori to represent conditions within each zone. These site locations were chosen following a review of existing information of sediment types, bathymetry, and proximity to previously sampled sites. The size of each zone was determined with a planimeter. The toxicity data were weighted to the size of each zone (divided by three, the number of sites in each zone), and the cumulative distribution functions of these data were prepared. Using critical values of toxicity results less than 80% of the control responses (as in the EMAP) and less than 20% of controls (reciprocal of 80%), the size(s) of the area(s) that were significantly toxic and highly toxic, respectively, were estimated. The principles of a probabalistic sampling design require that the sampling locations be chosen ran- domly and without knowledge of site-specific conditions (Schimmel et al., 1994). However, that type of sampling design was not strictly adhered to in Phase 1 of this survey. The boundaries and dimen- sions of each zone were established a priori, but the locations of the sampling sites were not selected with a strictly random process. Some sites were chosen to coincide with the locations of sites previ- ously sampled by other investigators. However, none were chosen to represent conditions near any point sources or waste disposal sites. All sites were chosen to represent conditions in the nearby vicinity of the sampling location and within the respective zone. The locations of the individual sam- pling stations at each site were chosen by the vessel operator in the field as three points on a compass radiating from the site center. Highly disturbed areas that obviously had been recently dredged were avoided. Also, samples with excessive amounts of coarse sandy materials were avoided, where possible. Within each site, attempts were made in the field to avoid a mixture of stations from deep, dredged channels and shallow, undredged 22 flats. The boundaries of the sampling zones were chosen based upon major physiographic features, such as points of land and the dimensions of individual waterways. Because of these possible sources of bias in the data, the estimates of the spatial extent of toxicity prepared during Phase 1 must be interpreted as rough estimates, and not as absolutes. During Phase 2 of this survey, the probabalistic, random-stratified sampling design used by the EMAP (Schimmel et al., 1994) was used within the boundaries of the Phase 2 survey area (Figure 5). During the design phase, the area was subdivided into strata roughly equal in size. The dimensions of these strata were outlined on a navigation chart, the chart was digitized, and the coordinates for the indi- vidual stations were selected randomly with the aid of a computer program. One station (one sample) was sampled within each stratum. The toxicity results were weighted to the size of each stratum, the cumulative distribution function prepared, and using <80% of controls as the critical value, the size (and percent) of the area that was toxic was determined. Chemical Analyses: Phase 1. Sediment samples were chosen for chemical analyses based upon an examination of the toxicity test results. Samples were chosen that represented gradients in the toxicity results and that also represented contiguous geographic strings of stations. Sediments were extracted by Battelle Ocean Sciences in two batches containing approximately 19 field samples each. One pro- cedural blank, one standard reference material, a matrix spike sample, and a matrix spike duplicate sample were extracted with each batch. Each field sample contained 30 g to 50 g of sediment. Sedi- ment dry weight was determined using approximately 5 g of sample material. Analyses were per- formed for total trace metals, simultaneously extracted metals (SEM), acid-volatile sulfides (AVS), PCB congeners, pesticides, and polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs). Also, analyses were per- formed for total organic carbon (TOC) and sediment grain size. Extraction and analytical methods followed those of Peven and Uhler (1993). Sediment was weighed into pre-weighed Teflon jars; surrogate internal standards (to monitor extraction efficiency), sodium sulfate, and 1:1 methylene chloride (DCM):acetone were added to each jar. Samples were extracted with the solvent mixture three times using shaker table techniques. After each extraction, the jar was centrifuged, and the overlying solvent decanted into a labelled Erlenmeyer flask. Solvent from each of the three extractions was combined in the flask. The combined extract was chromatographed through a 20 g alumina column eluted with dichloro-methane (DCM). After column cleanup, the sample ex- tract was concentrated to approximately 900 wL and further processed using a size-exclusion high performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) procedure. Six hundred microliters of the extract were fractionated in this procedure, and the remaining 300 uL archived. After HPLC cleanup, the sample extract was concentrated to approximately 1,000 uL and recovery internal standards were added to quantify surrogate recovery. The final sample was split in half by volume; one half was dedicated to GC/MS analysis of PAHs and the other half was solvent-exchanged with isooctane and analyzed by GC/ECD for PCBs and pesticides. The analytical methods for the trace metals followed those of Crecelius et al. (1993). Samples were completely digested with 4: 1 HNO3/HCIO4 and heated. The digestates were analyzed either by graph- ite furnace atomic absorption (Ag, Cd, Se), or cold vapor atomic absorption (Hg), or x-ray fluorescence (Al, As, Cr, Cu, Fe, Mn, Ni, Zn), or inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry (Sb, Sn). Two reagent blanks and three standard reference materials were analyzed in each analytical string of 50 samples. 23 Stations for toxicity tests and chemical analyses Stations for toxicity tests only Figure 5. Stations sampled in the Passaic River, Hackensack River, Newark Bay, upper Arthur Kill, Kill van Kull, and upper New York Harbor during Phase 2. 24 The concentrations of acid volatile sulfides (AVS) and simultaneouslyextracted metals (SEM) were determined in the samples. The analytical methods employed selective generation of hydrogen sulfide by acidifying the sample with IN HC1, cryogenic trapping of the evolved H2S, and gas chromato- graphic separation with photoionization detection. This method gives high sensitivity, low detection limits and very limited chemical interference with minimal sample handling. The AVS analytical system is made of glass and Teflon because of the reactivity of sulfide with metals. The filtered acid solution resulting from the AVS analysis was subsequently analyzed for SEM using graphite furnace atomic absorption, cold-vapor atomic absorption, and inductively coupled mass spectrometry. Sediment samples were analyzed for total organic carbon (TOC) and total carbonate (TIC) by Global Geochemistry Corporation, Canoga Park, CA. Before the samples were analyzed, LECO filtration crucibles were precombusted for at least 2 hours at 450°C and allowed to cool. Between approxi- mately 175 mg and 250 mg of dried, finely ground and homogenized sample was placed in a pretreated crucible, and 6N HC1 added to remove inorganic carbon. After approximately 1 hr, deionized water was flushed through the crucible removing the acid, and the sample was dried overnight. Immediately prior to sample analysis, iron and copper chips were added to accelerate the combustion. A LECO model 761-100 carbon analyzer was used to determine both the TOC and TIC content. The analyzer converts all carbon in the sample to CO2 at high temperature in the presence of oxygen. The CO2 was then quantified by thermal conductivity detection. Before sample analysis for TIC, the filtration cru- cibles were precombusted for at least 2 hrs at 450°C and allowed to cool. Between approximately 175 mg and 250 mg of dried, finely ground, homogenized sample was placed in a pretreated crucible, and the sample placed in a 450°C oven for 2 hrs to remove organic carbon. The methods used to determine sediment grain size are those according to Folk (1974). Briefly, coarse and fine fractions were seperated by wet-sieving. The fine fractions (silt and clay) were further sepa- rated by suspending the sediment in a deflocculant solution and taking aliquots of the settling sediment at timed intervals after the solution was thoroughly mixed. The coarse fraction (sand and gravel) was dried and then separated by sieving through a 2 mm screen. Chemical Analyses: Phase 2. In Phase 2 of the study, chemical analyses were performed by the National Biological Service, Midwest Science Center laboratory in Columbia, MO. Analyses were performed for total trace elements; SEM, AVS, PAHs; chlorinated pesticides; PCB congeners; and a number of dioxins and furans. Five-gram subsamples of wet sediment were analyzed for SEM/ AVS by treatment with 100 ml 2N HC1 for 1 hr in a nitrogen atmosphere. A sulfide-specific electrode was used to measure sulfide liberated from the HC1 treatment. The remaining sediment and acid was filtered through a 0.4 um polycarbonate membrane for metals determination. A second 5 g subsample was taken for analysis of percent mois- ture by oven-drying at 95° C. The remainder of the sample was lyophilized to a constant weight and the dry sediment was utilized for digestion and analysis for total metals and organic carbon. A portion of each filtered SEM extract (6 mL) was diluted with 5.7% nitric acid prior to Zeeman furnace atomic absorption spectroscopy (AAS) to reduce the high chloride ion matrix. Another portion of the SEM extract was similarly diluted and stored in a glass container, which was later used for the determination of mercury by flow injection AAS. A final portion of the SEM extract was subjected to a nitric acid wet digestion/magnesium nitrate dry ash procedure to prepare a digestate suitable for the determination of arsenic and selenium. 25 For total trace metals, a 0.5 g subsample of dried sediment was placed in a Teflon vessel and digested with nitric acid, hydrochloric acid, and hydrogen peroxide for analysis of total mercury. A second 0.5 g portion of dried sediment was treated with nitric, perchloric, and hydrofluoric acids to prepare a digestate suitable for total metals determination. This latter digestate was diluted with 5.7% nitric acid prior to Zeeman furnace or flow injection AAS. A final portion of dried sediment was placed in a Coulometrics total carbon apparatus and combusted in pure oxygen for the determination of total or- ganic carbon. Various instrumental approaches were used for the determination of elements in the total recoverable extractions, as well as the SEM fraction. Aluminum and iron in SEM extracts and aluminum, chro- mium, copper, iron, and zinc in the total sediment digestates were determined by inductively coupled plasma spectroscopy (ICP). Zinc in SEM extracts was determined by flame atomic absorption. Ar- senic and selenium in SEM extracts and total sediment digestates were determined by flow injection hydride generation atomic spectroscopy. Mercury was determined on total recoverable digestates by flow injection cold vapor AAS. All remaining analytes (cadmium, chromium, copper, lead, nickel, silver, antimony, and tin in SEM extracts, and cadmium, lead, nickel, silver, antimony, and tin in total sediment digestates) were determined by Zeeman furnace AAS. For the analyses of organic compounds, the sediments were dried, homogenized, and extracted accord- ing to NBS Midwest Science Center procedures. Different sample aliquot sizes were extracted for each class of compounds. In all cases the appropriate internal standards were spiked into the sample before extraction. Sediment samples were mixed with anhydrous sodium sulfate and column-extracted with methylene chloride (MeCl). For the organochlorine pesticides, sample extracts were injected onto an automated, high-performance gel permeation chromatography (HPGPC) system that was eluted with 80/20 hexane/MeCl. The col- lected portion then went through serial fractionation on Florisil and silica gel columns. One of the resultant three fractions (the first fraction of the silica gel) was treated for sulfur with acid-activated copper. The three fractions were then analyzed by GC/ECD on two different phase 30-m columns, DB-1 (methyl silicone) and OV-17 (50% phenyl-50% methylsilicone). All GC analyses were cool on- column injections. For the polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), the sample extracts were taken through a potas- sium silicate (KS) cleanup and the HPGPC system. Extracts were treated for sulfur with acid activated copper. The extracts went through a second KS cleanup and then were fractionated on a silver nitrate treated benzenesulfonic acid cartridge which separated chlorinated aromatics from the PAHs. The PAH fractions were analyzed by GC/MS on a quadrapole system in full scan mode. The column was a 60-m DB-5 (5% phenyl-95% methylsilicone). Compounds were determined by comparison of peak retention times to those of a standard and by checking the mass spectra. The concentrations of 12 low molecular weight (2- and 3-ring) PAHs and 12 high molecular weight (4- and 5-ring) PAHs were quantified. Recoveries were determined by deuterated internal standard spikes. Samples extracted for polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB congeners, mono-ortho, and non-ortho) and polychlorinated dibenzodioxins and dibenzofurans (PCDDs and PCDFs) were taken through two stages of reactive column cleanup followed by HPGPC. After GPC cleanup the extracts were fractionated on an automated C-18/PX-21 carbon column system. Four fractions were collected from the carbon col- umn corresponding to congener PCBs (Fl), mono-ortho PCBs (F2), non-ortho (F3) and PCDD/PCDFs (F4). 26 The congener PCB fractions (Fl) were analyzed by GC/ECD on a 60-m DB-5 column; the concentra- tions of 80 congeners were quantified. The mono-ortho PCB fractions (F2) were analyzed by GC-ECD on a 3-m DB-1 phase column. For the non-ortho PCB fractions (F3), the analyses were done by capillary gas chromatography inter- faced to high resolution mass spectrometry (GC/HRMS). Samples were injected by cool on-column technique onto a retention gap connected to an Ultra- 1 (DB-1 equivalent) 50-m capillary column. The MS system resolution was tuned to 10,000. Selected ion monitoring of two mass windows was done for Cl 3 and Cl 4 biphenyls, and C1 5 -C1 6 biphenyls. The PCDD/PCDF fractions (F4) went through a final cleanup step on activated basic alumina to re- move possible chlorinated co-contaminants. The fractions were then analyzed by capillary GC coupled to HRMS. The column used was a 50-m Ultra-2 (Hewlett-Packard DB-5 equivalent) capillary column. The MS system resolution was tuned to 10,000. Eighteen compounds were detected by selected ion monitoring with five mass windows to measure Cli-Clg PCDDs and PCDFs. The H4IIE rat hepatoma cell bioassay was performed with extracts of the samples from the same 20 samples characterized in the chemical analyses. The induction of cytochrome P450 in the whole ex- tract (Fl) was measured following methods of Tillitt et al. (1991). Also, the toxicity of six fractions of the whole extract was determined in each sample: a PAH fraction (F5); a dioxin/furan fraction (F12); a combined PCB fraction (Fl 1); and three planar/co-planar PCB fractions (F7, F8, F9). Data Analyses. Results of the toxicity tests performed with the amphipods and bivalve embryos were arcsin-square root transformed and compared with the controls with one-tailed, unpaired, t-tests to determine significant differences (n=5 replicates, alpha = 0.05). The tests were conducted in 10 batches, the control sediment was tested along with the environmental samples in each batch, and the results from each test of the control were used in the statistical analyses for each batch. To determine if the mean percent survival at any sites (n=3) were significantly different from mean survival in controls, the untransformed data were evaluated with one-tailed t-tests (alpha=0.05). The Microtox tm test data were analyzed using a linear interpolation technique to determine concentra- tions of the extract that inhibited luminescence by 50%. This value (expressed as wL of extract per mL of Microtox tm exposure volume) was then converted to mg/mL using the wet weight of sediment in the original extract. To determine differences from controls, a pairwise comparison was made between test samples and LIS controls, using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA). Both the concentrations and response data were log-transformed prior to the analysis to linearize the data. The ANCOVA was first used to determine if the two lines had equal slopes (alpha=0.05), and if they did, it was used to check for equal Y-intercepts (alpha=0.05). To determine which sites were significantly different from con- trols, the three EC50 values for each site were compared to the control values with a one-way t-test (alpha=0.05). The relationships between measures of toxicity and the concentrations of physical-chemical variables in the samples were determined in several steps. First, simple, non-parametric, Spearman-rank corre- lations were performed (Statview 4.0 software). Where the correlations appeared to be significant, the data were examined in bivariate scatterplots to confirm the distribution pattern. Next, to determine which chemicals were most elevated in concentration in the toxic samples, the average concentrations in both toxic and nontoxic samples were compared. Finally, to determine which, if any, toxicants were sufficiently elevated in concentration to cause or contribute to toxicity, the average concentrations in the toxic samples were compared with applicable, effects-based sediment guideline values. 27 RESULTS Solid-Phase Amphipod Tests. Results of the amphipod test performed with Ampelisca abdita are summarized in Table 6. Tests were performed in a series of 10 batches. The results of the tests of the Central Long Island Sound control sediments are listed first, followed by mean survival data for each station and site. Mean percent survival in the LIS sediments ranged from 83.2% to 99.0%. Normally, an acceptable survival rate in control sediments is 85% or greater. The mean percent survival in the controls in test series 3 and 6 were 83.2% and 85.0%, respectively. In both series, there was no pattern of unusually low survival in tests of the Hudson-Raritan Estuary samples; therefore, the data were accepted and re-testing was not conducted. Furthermore, in series 3 amphipod survival in the test samples was either very high or very low; therefore, the relatively low survival in the controls probably had no effect upon the tests of significance. However, in series 6 amphipod survival approximated 80% in several samples and the tests of significance may have been affected by the results of the tests of the controls. The sediments from 54 of the 117 stations (46%) were significantly toxic (i.e., different from controls) in the amphipod tests. A total of 16 of the 39 sites (41%) was significantly toxic in this test. Mean percent survival ranged from 0.0 to 99.0% among the 117 stations. Mean percent survival in most of the 117 samples ranged from 80 to 99%, but a considerable number (48) of the test results were in the range of to 79% survival. Among all 117 samples, 0.0% survival was observed in three samples (9- B, 10-A, and 18-C) and 0.1-10.0% survival was observed in five samples (9-A, 9-C, 12-A, 18-C, and 34-B). Based upon considerable previous experience with this test, differences in amphipod survival between controls and test samples of 20% or more are significantly different in approximately 90% of the cases. Also, the 20% or greater difference from controls was used by EMAP (Schimmel et al., 1994) as a critical value in the interpretation of amphipod bioassay data. Therefore, stations and sites in which mean amphipod survival was equal to or less than 80% of the controls are identified with two asterisks in Table 6. Of the 43 samples in which amphipod survival was 80% or less of controls, 42 (98%) were signifi- cantly different from the controls. Mean amphipod survival in 10 sites was 80% or less of controls and significantly different from controls. There is a lower probability that test results in which mean sur- vival was greater than 80% of the controls were actually significantly different from controls. There- fore, in some samples with relatively high amphipod survival (>80%) the results of the t-tests, alone, may over estimate the incidence of toxicity in these tests. Sediments from Zone F, Newark Bay/Arthur Kill/Kill van Kull, were most toxic (Table 6). All nine stations and all three sites were significantly toxic to amphipods in this zone. Also, zones C and D, upper East River and lower East River, respectively, were highly toxic. In the upper East River area, all nine stations and two of the three sites were toxic. In the lower East River, abd eight of nine stations were toxic. Sediments from zones B (western Long Island Sound), I (Central Raritan Bay), and K (southern Raritan Bay) were least toxic; none of the stations was toxic in these zones. Sediments from Zone A, lower Hudson River, were relatively low in toxicity. Some of the sediments in Zone M in New York Bight were toxic, especially those from site 39 in the southern portion of this zone. Several spatial patterns in toxicity were apparent, based upon the data from this test (Figures 6, 7). First, toxicity was very high in the upper East River and rapidly decreased eastward out into western 28 O Non-toxic stations • Stations significantly different from controls O Stations significantly different from controls and <80% of control response «Q ™ Figure 6. Sampling stations in which the sediments were significantly toxic to Ampelisca abdita survival (n=5, alpha <0.05). 29 O Non-toxic Sites \Jy 9 Sites significantly different from controls 4 o O Sites significantly different from controls and <80% off control response \ 2 jol / 5 \ 6 / \ J / 7 ZjN 7 \ \ rX 11 16 k/ law i7 \ a < 12 ^17^^0(15 rV y O 36 N) /-^34 19^PH0L^4 25 O _ J 35 3 ^ / V X fv/ 2 *\ 33 -"X^* O) #37 ) 038 30^ 1 O 39 Figure 7. Sampling sites in which the sediments were significantly toxic to Ampelisca abdita survival (average of three stations, alpha <0.05). 30 Long Island Sound. Second, toxicity was relatively high in samples from the lower East River, and decreased southward through upper New York Harbor, lower New York Harbor, and eastward into the entrance of the estuary. Third, toxicity was extremely high in the Newark Bay/Kill van Kull/Arthur Kill area and diminished southeastward through Raritan Bay. Sediments from the lower Raritan River and Sandy Hook Bay were moderately toxic, and this toxicity diminished into central Raritan Bay and eastward into the entrance to the estuary. Table 6. Mean percent survival of A. abdita in 10-day solid-phase toxicity tests of sediments from the Central Long Island Sound (CLIS) control site (n=5), 117 sampling stations (n=5), and 39 sites (n=3) and of Diporeia spp. in 9 samples from the Hudson-Raritan Estuary. A. abdita Diporeia spp. Regional Sampling Test mean % %of Signif- mean % Signif- Zone Site/Station Series survival control icance survival icance CLIS Control 1 92.0 _ Control 2 89.5 - Control 3 83.2 - Control 4 91.0 - Control 5 99.0 - Control 6 85.0 - Control 7 92.0 - Control 8 98.0 - Control 9 98.0 - Control IQ 92.0 2 1-A 3 89.5 107.6 ns 1-B 3 85.3 102.5 ns 1-C 3 88.4 106.3 ns Site 1 Mean 3 87.7 105.5 ns 2-A 3 90.8 109.2 ns 2-B 3 91.6 110.1 ns 2-C 3 84.2 101.3 ns Site 2 Mean 3 88.9 106.9 ns 3-A 2 89.5 100.0 ns 3-B 2 45.3 50.6 ** 3-C 2 42.1 47.1 ** Site 3 mean 2 59.0 65.9 ns ZoneB 4-A 3 98.9 119.0 ns 4-B 3 95.8 115.2 ns 4-C 3 93.7 112.7 ns Site 4 mean 3 96.1 115.6 ns 5-A 3 96.9 116.6 ns 5-B 3 92.9 111.8 ns 5-C 3 94.7 113.9 ns Site 5 mean 3 94.8 114.1 ns 31 Table 6 continued. A. abdita Diporeia spp. Regional Sampling Test mean % %of Signif- mean % Signif- Zone Site/Station Series survival control icance survival icance 6-A 4 93.0 102.2 ns 6-B 4 84.0 92.3 ns 76.7 * 6-C 4 92.0 101.1 ns Site 6 mean 4 89.7 98.5 ns Zone C 7-A 4 30.0 33.0 ** 58.7 * 7-B 4 16.0 17.6 ** 7-C 4 10.0 11.0 ** Site 7 mean 4 18.7 20.5 ** 8-A 4 80.0 87.9 * 8-B 4 39.0 42.9 ** 8-C 4 37.0 40.7 ** Site 8 mean 4 52.0 57.2 ns 9-A 4 3.0 3.3 ** 9-B 4 0.0 0.0 ** 0.0 * 9-C 4 2.0 2.2 ** Site 9 mean 4 LI L8 ** Zone D 10- A 4 0.0 0.0 ** 10-B 4 17.0 18.7 ** 10-C 4 72.0 79.1 ** Site 10 mean4 29.7 32.6 ns 11-A 1 77.0 83.7 * 11-B 1 71.0 77.2 ** 13.7 * 11-C 1 70.0 76.1 ** Site 1 1 mean 1 72.7 79.0 ** 12-A 1 2.0 2.2 ** 12-B 1 70.0 76.1 ** 12-C 1 86.0 93.5 ns Site 12 meanl 52.7 57.3 ns ZoneE 13- A 2 76.8 85.9 ns 13-B 2 80.0 89.4 ns 13-C 2 84.2 94.1 ns Site 13 mean2 80.3 89.8 * 14-A 2 93.7 104.7 ns 14-B 2 81.1 90.6 ns 14-C 2 92.6 103.5 ns Site 14 mean2 89.1 99.6 ns 32 Table 6 continued A. abdita Diporeia spp. Regional Sampling Test mean % %of Signif- mean % Signif- 7nne Site/Station Series survival control icance survival icance 15-A 5 77.9 78.7 ** 15-B 5 89.0 89.9 * 15-C 5 70.0 70.7 ** Site 15 mean5 79.0 79.8 ** ZoneF 16- A 2 61.1 68.2 ** 16-B 2 26.3 29.4 ** 16-C 2 30.5 34.1 ** Site 16 mean2 39.3 43.9 ** 17-A 1 16.0 17.4 ** 17-B 1 13.0 14.1 ** 17-C 1 18.0 19.6 ** Site 17 meanl 15.7 17.0 ** 18-A 2 32.6 36.5 ** 18-B 2 4.2 4.7 ** 55.0 * 18-C 2 0.0 0.0 ** Site 18 mean2 12.3 13.7 * Zone G 19- A 7 82.0 89.1 ns 19-B 7 89.0 96.7 ns 19-C 7 77.0 83.7 * Site 19 mean7 82.7 89.8 ns 20-A 9 86.0 87.8 * 20-B 9 89.0 90.8 * 20-C 9 51.0 52.0 ** Site 20 mean9 75.3 76.9 ns 21-A 7 85.0 92.4 ns 21-B 7 84.0 91.3 ns 21-C 7 92.0 100.0 ns Site 21 mean7 87.0 94.6 ns Zone H 22-A 6 47.1 55.4 ** 22-B 6 64.3 75.7 ** 25.0 * 22-C 6 32.0 37.7 ** Site 22 mean6 47.8 56.3 ** 23-A 6 59.2 69.6 ns 23-B 6 76.1 89.6 ns 23-C 6 65.7 77.3 ** Site 23 mean6 67.0 78.8 ** 33 Table 6 continued. A. abdita Diporeia spp. Regional Sampling Test mean % %of Signif- mean % Signif- Zone Site/Station Series survival control icance survival icance 24-A 5 87.8 88.7 * 24-B 7 89.0 96.7 ns 24-C 7 89.0 96.7 ns Site 24 mean 5/7 88.6 94.0 ns Zone I 25-A 9 99.0 101.0 ns 70.0 * 25-B 9 93.0 94.9 ns 25-C 9 95.0 96.9 ns Site 25 mean9 95.7 97.6 ns 26-A 7 94.1 102.3 ns 26-B 7 93.0 101.0 ns 26-C 7 93.0 101.0 ns Site 26 mean7 93.4 101.4 ns 27-A 9 96.0 98.0 ns 27-B 9 95.0 96.9 ns 27-C 9 93.0 94.9 ns Site 27 mean9 94.7 96.6 ns Zone J 28-A 6 70.3 82.7 ns 28-B 6 68.0 80.0 ** 76.2 * 28-C 6 66.0 77.6 ** Site 28 mean6 68.1 80.1 * 29-A 10 81.0 88.0 ns 29-B 10 85.0 92.4 ns 29-C 10 87.0 94.6 ns Site 29 mean 10 84.3 91.7 * 30-A 10 87.0 94.6 ns 30-B 10 84.0 91.3 * 30-C 10 47.0 51.1 ** Site 30 mean 10 72.7 79.0 ns ZoneK 31 -A 7 95.0 103.3 ns 31-B 7 94.0 102.2 ns 31-C 7 94.0 102.2 ns Site 31 mean7 94.3 102.6 ns 32-A 10 93.0 101.1 ns 32-B 10 92.0 100.0 ns 32-C 10 86.0 93.5 ns Site 32 mean 10 90.3 98.2 ns 34 Table 6 continued. A. abdita Diporeia spp. Regional Sampling Test mean % %of Signif- mean % Signif- Zone Site/Station Series survival control icance survival icance 33-A 10 84.0 91.3 ns 33-B 10 88.0 95.7 ns 33-C 10 88.0 95.7 ns Site 33 mean 10 86.7 94.2 * Zone L 34-A 7 80.0 87.0 ns 34-B 7 3.0 3.3 ** 34-C 7 27.0 29.3 ** Site 34 mean7 36.7 39.9 ns 35-A 6 58.3 68.6 ** 35-B 6 73.5 86.4 ns 35-C 6 63.4 74.6 ** Site 35 mean6 65.1 76.5 ** 36-A 5 92.3 93.2 ns 36-B 5 93.0 93.9 * 36-C 5 80.4 81.2 * Site 36 mean5 88.6 89.4 ns Zone M 37-A 8 95.0 96.9 ns 37-B 8 91.0 92.9 ns 37-C 8 91.0 92.9 ns Site 37 mean8 92.3 94.3 * 38-A 8 95.0 96.9 ns 85.0 ns 38-B 8 89.0 90.8 ns 38-C 8 90.0 91.8 * Site 38 mean8 91.3 93.2 * 39-A 8 68.0 69.4 ** 39-B 8 31.0 31.6 ** 39-C 8 80.0 81.6 * Site 39 mean8 60.0 60.9 ns ns - Not significantly different from controls (alpha >0.05). * - Statistically significantly different from controls (alpha < 0.05). Mean response significantly different from controls and 80% or less than control response. ** Usually, when all of the stations at a site were determined to be significantly toxic, the site mean also was different from the controls. When none of the stations was significantly different from controls, in 35 most cases the site mean also was not different. For example, the sediments from all nine stations in western Long Island Sound (sites 4, 5, and 6) were not different from controls. Correspondingly, none of these three site means was different from controls. Similarly, all nine stations and all three site means in Newark Bay/ Arthur Kill were significantly different from controls. However, there were some deviations from these patterns. For example, all three stations sampled at site 13 were not signifi- cantly different from the controls, but the site mean was significantly different. The same situation occurred in sites 29, 33, 37. The variances among the five replicates tested for each station were high, but the variances among the three stations sampled at these sites were small, resulting in a significant difference from the controls. Conversely, all of the stations at sites 10, 20 and 39 were significantly toxic, but due to high variability among stations, the site means were not different from the controls. Eight of the nine samples tested with the freshwater amphipod Diporeia spp. by the Great Lakes Envi- ronmental Research Laboratory (Dr. Peter Landrum) were significantly more toxic than controls (Table 6). Mean percent survival in Florissant Soil controls ranged from 88.7 to 100 (n=4, 4 or 8 replicates each). The sample from station 38-A was nontoxic in both amphipod tests. Among the eight samples toxic to Diporeia spp., seven also were toxic to Ampelisca abdita. Sample 9-B caused zero survivors in both tests. Avoidance of all but samples 38-A and 6-B was significant relative to controls. Avoidance was greatest of samples 18-B and 9-B. The results of the amphipod toxicity tests performed during Phase 2 with 57 samples are summarized in Table 7. All except 6 samples were tested by SAIC in Narragansett, R. I. Because of the suspected hazardous condition of samples 7-A, 7-B, 7-C, 8-A, 8-B, and 10, they were tested separately by Aqua Survey, Inc. in Flemington, N. J. Tests organisms used by both SAIC and Aqua Survey were obtained from the same source. In the controls and 6 test samples, water pH ranged from 7.7 to 8.6, temperature ranged from 19.0 to 21.5°C, dissolved oxygen ranged from 5.1 to 7.5 ppm, and salinity ranged from 24.0 to 28.5 ppt in the test samples and 29.5 to 32.5 ppt in the LIS controls. The 96-hr LC50 for the reference toxicant, cadmium chloride, was 0.33 mg/L as chloride. Mean survival (n=5) in the LIS control was 89±5.8% (range of 85-100%). The amphipod survival in the control sediments ranged from 79% to 95% in the six test series. Usually, acceptable amphipod survival in controls is 85% or greater. However, the data from test series 5, in which survival was 79%, were accepted since survival in all the test samples was either very high or very low. The results would not have changed significantly if the samples had been retested. Amphipod survival ranged from 0.0% in two samples to 100% in one sample (Table 7). In 48 (84%) of the 57 samples that were tested, mean amphipod survival was 80% of controls or less. In 46 (96%) of the 48 samples in which amphipod survival was 80% of controls or less, the results were significantly different from the controls. Table 7. Mean percent amphipod (A. abdita) survival in the 1993 Newark Bay survey performed during Phase 2. Station Test Number Series LIS Control 1* LIS Control 2 a Mean % survival ± std. dev. 95.0±5.0 95.015.0 Percent of Control 100 100 Significantly less than control (alpha=0.05) <80% of Control 36 Table 7 continued. Mean % Significantly Station Test survival Percent less than control Number Series ± std. dev. of Control falpha=0.05) LIS Control 3 96.0±2.2 100 - LIS Control 4 97.0±4.5 100 - LIS Control 5 79.0±10.8 100 - LIS Control 6b 89.016.2 100 - 1 3 73±2.7 76.0 * 2 3 22±16.8 22.9 * 3 3 30±9.4 31.3 * 4 5 21±13.4 26.6 * 5 5 23±11.5 29.1 * 6 5 25±11.7 31.6 * 7A 6 31±8.2 34.8 * 7B 6 29±10.8 32.6 * 7C 6 8±4.5 9.0 * 8A 6 17+13.0 19.1 * 8B 6 13±7.6 14.6 * 9 5 22±7.6 27.8 * 10 6 18±13.5 20.2 * 11 5 41±6.5 51.9 * 12 5 76±6.5 96.2 ns 13 5 59±15.6 74.7 * 14 5 61±17.8 77.2 ns 15 5 65±12.7 82.3 ns 16 5 65115.4 82.3 ns 17 5 57±19.2 72.2 * 18 4 76±12.9 78.4 * 19 4 66±18.5 68.0 * 20 4 77±6.7 79.4 * 21 4 17±8.4 17.5 * 22 4 77±10.4 79.4 * 23 4 53±13.5 54.6 * 24 4 74±6.5 76.3 * 25 4 84±8.2 86.6 * 26 3 0±0 * 27 4 19±5.5 19.6 * 28 2 a 75±10.0 83.3 * 29 2 57+2.9 63.0 + 30 2 62±18.9 68.5 * 31 l a 50±8.7 52.6 * 32 35±10.0 36.8 * 33 60±13.2 63.2 * 34 75+17.3 78.9 ns 35 62±5.8 64.9 * 36 65±5.0 68.4 * <80% of Control * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * + * * * * * * * * * * 37 Table 7 continued. Mean % Significantly Station Test survival Percent less than control <80% of Number Series ± std. dev. of Control (alpha=0.05) Control 37 1 55±5.0 57.9 * * 38 1 53±20.2 56.1 * * 39B 1 68±7.6 71.9 * * 40B 2 78±10.4 87.0 ns - 41 2 87±7.6 96.3 ns - 42C 2 7015.0 77.8 * * 43 No sample collected 44 2 60±5.0 66.7 * * 45 No sample collected 46 3 8±17.9 8.3 * * 47 3 0±0 * * 48 1 57112.6 59.6 * * 49 1 18±10.4 19.3 * * 50 3 35±6.1 36.5 * * 51 2 70±5.0 77.8 * * 52 3 22114.0 22.9 * * 53 No sample collected 54 3 3115.5 32.3 * * 55 3 214.5 2.1 * * 56 2 75115.0 83.3 ns - 5Z 2 10010.0 111.1 ns - a Tests of each sample in series 1 and 2 were tested with three replicates, instead of the usual five replicates tested in all of the other samples. b Samples in series 6 were tested by Aqua Survey, Inc. Amphipod survival was very low in the samples from much of the lower Passaic River and through- out Newark Bay (Figure 8). Samples that were toxic to amphipods were collected throughout the Phase 2 study area. The six samples from the lower Hackensack River were less toxic to the amphi- pods than those from the lower Passaic River. Two samples — one from central Newark Bay and one from the upper Arthur Kill — caused zero percent survival. In contrast, the sediment from station 57 in upper New York Harbor was not toxic in this test. Station 57 in Phase 2 and site 14 in Phase 1 were located at the same coordinates and were not toxic to amphipod survival in either phase. Elutriate/Liquid Phase Bivalve Larvae Tests. The sediments from 109 of the 117 stations were tested with the larvae of Mulinia lateralis. Insufficient material from 8 stations remained following the performance of the amphipod and Microtox tests to allow performance of the bivalve embryo tests. Percent survival and percent normal morphological development were measured. Percent survival and percent normal development data (as decimal equivalents) for each station (n=5) were arcsin-square root transformed and evaluated with one-tailed, unpaired, t-tests to determine statistically significant differences from the respective controls (n=5. alpha=0.05). To determine if the mean percent survival at any sites (n=3) were significantly different from mean survival in controls, the untransformed data were evaluated with one-tailed t-tests (alpha=0.05). 38 Figure 8. Distribution of stations in Newark Bay and vicinity that were toxic, highly toxic, and non-toxic in amphipod (A. abdita) survival tests. 39 Results of tests of seawater controls and Central Long Island Sound control sediments are followed by the results of the tests from each study site (Table 8). Data from test samples are listed as percent of controls for both end-points. Stations and sites that were significantly different from the respective CLIS controls (t-tests, alpha = 0.05) are indicated with asterisks and those that, additionally, were 80% or less than the control response are listed with two asterisks. Tests were performed in a series of seven batches of samples. Several unavoidable problems were encountered after the samples were collected, necessitating the storage of the samples for 93 to 175 days before the tests were initiated, well beyond the normal allowable storage time of 14 days. The long holding times may have caused some changes in the toxicity of the samples, but do not, alone, invalidate the results. As observed in the amphipod percent survival data, survival of bivalve larvae was >80% of controls in the majority of the stations. Percent survival relative to controls ranged from 17.6% in sediments from station 39-B to >100% in many samples. Several samples caused 20-30% survival. In 29 of the sites the results from all samples that were tested indicated agreement as to toxic or nontoxic conditions within the site. In some samples (e.g., station 18-A) variability was very high among the laboratory replicates, and as a consequence, no statistically significant difference was observed from controls. Also, in a few cases variance among stations was relatively small, and despite relatively high mean percent survival, there was a significant difference from the control. Station means that were 80% of controls or less were frequently (21 of 29 samples, 72.4%) significantly different from controls. Percent larvae survival was significantly lower than controls in sediments from 23 of 109 stations (21%) and 7 of 39 sites (18%) (Table 8). Percent survival was significantly lower than controls, and in addition, less than 80% of controls in 21 stations and 4 sites. Based upon this test, toxicity was highest in sediments from site 6 (western Long Island Sound), site 7 (upper East River), site 1 1 (lower East River), site 17 (mouth of Newark Bay), site 20 (lower Raritan River), site 30 (Sandy Hook Bay), and site 37 (mouth of the estuary). At least one of the stations and the site mean were significantly different from controls at these sites. Toxicity generally was lowest in sediments from the lower Hudson River, western Long Island Sound, lower New York Harbor, and much of Raritan Bay. Percent normal embryo development ranged from 0.0% in samples from Site 30 to >100% in numer- ous samples (Table 8). Between 90% to 100% normal development occurred in 47 of the samples. Percent normal development was significantly lower than controls in sediments from 21 of 109 sta- tions (19%) and 6 of 39 sites (15%). Also, percent normal development was significantly lower than controls, and additionally, less than 80% of controls in 19 of the samples and 4 of the sites. Based upon this test end-point, toxicity was highest in sediments from sites 5 and 6 (western Long Island Sound), site 7 (upper East River), and 30 (Sandy Hook Bay). At least one of the stations and the site mean were significantly different from controls at these sites. Toxicity generally was lowest in sediments from the lower Hudson River, upper and lower New York Harbor, and much of Raritan Bay. Both end-points of this test indicated that sediments from sites 6, 7 and 30 were significantly toxic (Table 8). Based upon the t-tests, the data from the two tests indicated 95 of the same stations were either nontoxic or toxic. Also, based upon the results of the t-tests, the two end-points indicated agree- ment on the presence and absence of toxicity in 30 of 39 sites. At 32 of the 39 sites both survival and normal development were either greater than 80% or both were less than 80% of controls. Sediments from some stations (e.g., 7-A, 7-B, 34-B, 39-B) were highly toxic to both end-points. 40 Table 8. Mean percent survival and normal morphological development (expressed as percent of controls) in 48-hour tests of elutriates with the larvae of Mulinia lateralis. Regional Sampling Test Percent Percent Zone Site/station Series Survival 3 Normal SEAWATER CONTROL 1 98.6 81.0 2 74.1 99.3 3 100.9 99.2 4 97.7 99.6 5 95.0 92.6 6 88.0 100.0 7 89.0 98.2 CLIS CONTROL 1 81.1 95.7 2 91.2 99.1 3 73.4 98.3 4 94.1 100.0 5 87.0 99.7 6 84.0 100.0 7 91.5 99-2 Zone A 1-A 3 105.7 101.7 1-B 3 121.1 101.7 1-C 3 117.3 101.7 Site 1 mean 114.1 101.7 2-A 3 100.0 101.7 2-B 3 135.6 101.7 2-C 3 nd nd Site 2 mean 117.8 101.7 3-A 2 94.8 99.5 3-B 2 99.5 100.9 3-C 2 103.4 99.9 Site 3 mean 99.2 100.1 ZoneB 4-A 4 89.5 95.6 4-B 4 71.1 92.2 4-C 4 88.8 94.7 Site 4 mean 83.1 94.2* 5-A 4 82.3 23.2** 5-B 4 93.7 37.3** 5-C 4 55.9** 12.0** Site 5 mean 77.3 24.2** 6-A 4 75.7** 85.0* 6-B 4 56.6** 46.5** 6-C 4 59.2** 37.6** Site 6 mean 4 63.8** 56.4** 41 Table 8 continued. Regional Sampling Test Percent Percent Zone Site/station Series Survival 2 Normal ZoneC 7-A 4 40.2** 10.5** 7-B 4 22.4** 2.8** 7-C 4 51.8** 10.9** 8-A 4 81.0* 92.4 8-B 4 99.4 44.5** 8-C 4 60.6** 93.2 Site 8 mean 80.3 76.7 9-A 5 99.1 100.3 9-B 5 82.4 87.4 9-C 5 92.0 100.3 Site 9 mean 91.2 96.0 Zone D 10- A 5 24.6** 13.3** 10-B 5 53.5** 12.7** 10-C 5 83.4 93.0 Site 10 mean 53.8 39.7 11-A 2 88.0 100.3 11-B 2 76.1** 97.9 11-C 2 88.0 94.3* Site 1 1 mean 84.0* 97.5 12-A 1 118.9101.8 12-B 1 97.8 97.8 12-C 1 73.5 34.8** Site 12 mean 96.7 78.1 Zone E 13-A 3 110.5 100.7 13-B nd nd 13-C 3 71.1 101.7 Site 13 mean 90.8 101.2 14-A 3 127.8 101.0 14-B 3 132.7 100.9 14-C 3 95.1 100.1 Site 14 mear I 118.5 100.7 15-A 5 89.8 98.1 15-B 5 88.6 95.8 15-C 5 88.5 100.3 Site 15 mear i 89-0* 98.1 42 Table 8 continued. Regional Sampling Test Percent Percent Zone Site/station Series Survival 3 Normal ZoneF 16- A 3 139.4 101.7 16-B 3 122.1 101.0 16-C 3 143.2 100.3 Site 16 mean 134.9 101.0 17-A 2 75.5 99.1 17-B 2 74.5** 100.9 17-C 2 53.4** 95.6 Site 17 mean 67.8** 98.5 18- A 2 65.9 99.6 18-B 2 112.0 99.0 18-C 2 97.7 99.1 Site 18 mean 919 99-2* Zone G 19- A 6 96.0 98.5 19-B 6 109.7 99.8 19-C 6 96.0 99.3 Site 19 mean 100.6 99.2 20-A 7 96.9 100.1 20-B 7 94.5 100.8 20-C 7 91.5* 100.0 Site 20 mean 94.3* 100.3 21-A 6 102.1 100.0 21-B 6 119.8100.0 21-C 6 108.4 100.0 Site 2 1 mean 110.1100.0 Zone H 22-A 5 95.6 99.5 22-B 5 92.0 nd 22-C 5 68.4 63.2 Site 22 mean 85.3 87.7 23-A 5 97.7 98.2 23-B 5 87.0 90.0 23-C 5 87.5 99.8 Site 23 mean 90.7 96.0 24-A 5 82.4 83.6 24-B nd nd 24-C 5 111.1 99.1 Site 24 mean 96.7 91.3 43 Table 8 continued. Regional Sampling Test Zone Site/station Series Zone I 25 -A 7 25-B 7 25-C 7 Site 25 mean 26-A 7 26-B 7 26-C 7 Site 26 mean 27-A 7 27-B 7 27-C 7 Site 27 mean Zone J 28-A 6 28-B 28-C Site 28 mean 29-A 6 29-B 6 29-C 6 Site 29 mean 30-A 6 30-B 6 30-C Site 30 mean ZoneK 31 -A 7 31-B 7 31-C 7 Site 3 1 mean 32-A 6 32-B 6 32-C 6 Site 32 mean 33-A 6 33-B 6 33-C 6 Site 33 mean Zone L 34-A 34-B 5 34-C Site 34 mean Percent Percent Survival 3 Normal 112.9100.8 102.3 100.8 119.3100.8 111.5100.8 71.3** 17.6** 113.1 100.8 104.6 100.8 96.3 73.1 77.5 100.8 95.3 99.9 90.7 99.0 87.8 99.9 97.9 100.0 nd nd nd nd 97.9 100.0 110.4 93.7 91.2 55.2** 109.5 100.3 103.7 82.8 70.1** 0.0** 73.5** 0.0** nd nd 71.8** 0.0** 98.5 100.8 116.3 100.8 94.5 100.8 103.1 100.8 102.1 100.0 105.7 97.8 118.4 98.3 108.7 98.7 118.4 100.0 115.7 99.3 105.5 100.0 113.3 99.8 nd nd 50.2* 20.9 89.5 98.2 69.9 59.5 44 Table 8 continued. Regional Sampling Test Percent Percent Zone Site/station Series Survival 3 Normal 35-A 6 115.0 99.5 35-B nd 35-C 6 119.9 100.0 Site 35 mean 117.4 99.8 36-A 5 78.4 72.4 36-B 5 97.7 99.6 36-C 5 79.4 85.6 Site 36 mean 85.2 85.9 Zone M 37-A 7 73.4** 100.8 37-B 7 92.7 100.6 37-C 7 81.9 72.0 Site 37 mean 82.7* 91.1 38-A 7 96.9 100.5 38-B 7 97.7 100.0 38-C 7 80.7 99.7 Site 38 mean 91.8 100.1 39-A 7 60.7** 6.7** 39-B 7 17.6** 11.5** 39-C 7 95.3 100.5 Site 39 mean 57.9 39.6 a Percent survival relative to seawater controls. * Significantly different from controls (t-test, alpha = 0.05). ** Significantly different from controls and 80% or less than the control response. The spatial patterns in toxicity for the two end-points of this test are illustrated in Figures 9 through 12. As with the pattern seen in the Ampelisca abdita survival test, the bivalve larvae survival test indicated relatively high toxicity in the upper East River stations, diminishing eastward into western Long Island Sound (Figure 9). Also, samples from Kill van Kull (site 17), inner Sandy Hook Bay (site 30), and two offshore sites (37 and 39) were toxic in this test. Based upon the site means, toxicity in this test was high in sites 6, 7, 17, and 30 (Figure 10). The percent normal development end-point also indicated high toxicity in sediments from sites 5-8 in the upper East River and western Long Island Sound (Figure 1 1 ). However, toxicity to this test did not diminish nearly as much into western Long Island Sound as in the amphipod and bivalve survival tests. Sediments from sites 4 and 5 were more toxic to bivalve normal development than to amphipod or bivalve embryo survival. The very high toxicity indicated by the amphipod survival test in the Newark Bay/Arthur Kill area (sites 16-18) was not as apparent in the bivalve larvae development tests. Sedi- ments from site 16 at the head of Newark Bay were very toxic to amphipods, but not to bivalve larvae. Site 17 sediments were toxic in the survival test, but not in the development test. 45 Figure 9. Sampling stations in which the sediment elutriates were significantly toxic to Mulinia lateralis larvae survival (n=5, alpha <0.05). 46 O Non-toxic sites ijy 4) Sites significantly different from controls 4 O O Sites significantly different from controls and <80% of » / 5 i / O / control response \ / \12r^/t \ 6 / >. J i / J/ 3 o 2/ 9 Y\ "11 7 \ \ 16 ID 1 3Q/ry il r^^ 2 J / "^14 \ rv / O 36 Nl /^34 2i. W 22 ^T^ 26 O ZY 2K0 O u H-. 23 XQ ,.0^^280 V\ • 37 O 38 3oSfl n 39 Figure 10. Sampling sites in which the sediment elutriates were significantly toxic to Mulinia lateralis larvae survival (average of three stations, alpha <0.05). 47 Non-toxic stations # Stations significantly different from controls O Stations significantly different from controls and <80% of control response Q 39 Figure 11. Sampling stations in which the sediment elutriates were significantly toxic to Mulinia lateralis larvae normal development (n=5, alpha <0.05). 48 O Non-toxic sites \jj w Sites significantly different from controls Sites significantly different ( from controls and <80% of \ control response 1 j\ 2 Xl / 5 L / OU 4 • xj / vS^XAi \ 6 A 1 \\ 7 3/y N 9V\ 7 \ \ ^/ii 16 u 1 Ij // ■ 1/ 1 a ( J / ^14 V, 12 Q O 36 4 3 as 27 O ,28 O ^\ O 37 O 38 30S 1 n 39 Figure 12. Sampling sites in which the sediment elutriates were significantly toxic to Mulinia lateralis larvae normal development (average of three stations, alpha <0.05). 49 Toxicity to bivalve development was not nearly as high in lower Raritan River sediments (site 20) as in the amphipod test. All three of the stations at site 39 were significantly toxic to amphipods and two of the three were toxic to both end-points of the bivalve larvae test, but the site mean was not significantly different from controls in any of the three test end-points. Two of the three samples from site 30 in Sandy Hook Bay were toxic to all three test end-points and toxicity diminished northeastward out into lower New York Harbor. Microbial Bioluminescence Tests of Organic-Extracts. An initial range-finding experiment was conducted with sediments previously tested with the amphipods. Each of the sediments that indicated high, intermediate, and low toxicity to the amphipods were tested with three sediment concentrations (3, 10, and 15 g wet weight of sediment) to provide a dilution series. This experiment showed that extracts from 3 g of sediments were sufficient to cause a 50% reduction in light output by the Microtox tm bacteria. In addition, separation and precipitation of extract phases occurred in the vials during the extraction procedures with the 10 and 15 g extracts from both the intermediate and high toxicity samples. These results indicated that the 10 and 15 g concentrations were too high and would lead to spurious light attenuation. A total of 1 16 of the 117 sediment samples was tested with Microtox tm . The sedi- ment concentrations (EC50s) that caused 50% light inhibition were determined, along with the 95% confidence limits, for the Central Long Island Control and each test sediment. Duplicate tests were run for each sample. Mean EC50 values (mg sediment/mL) and the 95% confidence intervals are listed in Table 9. Samples that were significantly different from controls are listed with one asterisk. Those samples in which the mean EC50 was 80% or less of the control are listed with two asterisks. The mean EC50s of the two tests of the controls were 2.02 and 2.1 mg/mL (Table 9). Of the 116 samples that were tested, 47 (41%) were significantly toxic (i.e., different from controls) in this test. Many of the samples (32) caused EC50 values of 1.6 mg/mL or less (80% of controls). However, in some cases the test samples were less toxic than the CLIS controls (as indicated by EC50 values greater than 2.1). This test indicated that 19 of the 39 sites (49%) were significantly different from controls. The mean EC50s for 14 sites were significantly different from controls and 80% of the control re- sponse or less. All three of the sites in zones C and D were significantly different from controls, whereas none of the sites in zones A, G, and M were toxic in this test. Stations 6-C, 9-B, 28-A, and 36-B were the most toxic, as indicated by the lowest mean EC50s. All but one of the nine stations in zone B (western Long Island Sound), and zone D (lower East River) were different from controls in this test. None of the stations in zone A (lower Hudson River) and zone M (New York Bight) were toxic, and only one each in zone E (Upper New York Harbor) and zone L (Lower New York Harbor) was different from con- trols. Table 9. Results of Microtox 1 " 1 tests of microbial bioluminescence in organic extracts of sedi- ments; mean EC50's (n=2) and 95% confidence intervals for stations, and mean EC50's (n=3) for sites. Regional Sampling Mean EC50 95% Confidence Zone Site/station (m g/mL) Interval CLIS Control 1 2.02 2.00-2.03 2 2.11 2.01-2.16 Mean 2.06 n/a 50 Table 9 continued Regional Sampling Mean EC50 95% Confidence Zone Site/station (mg/mL) Interval Zone A 1A 16.33 15.81-16.84 IB 11.80 10.49-13.11 1C 14.13 13.88-14.45 Site 1 mean 14.09 ns 2A 15.34 14.90-15.80 2B 2.12 2.07-2.15 2C 15.58 15.40-15.78 Site 2 mean 11.01 ns 3A 2.16 2.14-2.20 3B 2.02 1.98-2.05 3C 1.90 1.84-1.94 Site 3 mean 2.03 ns Zone B 4A 1.72* 1.68-1.76 4B 1.58** 1.57-1.59 4C 1.46** 1.41-1.51 Site 4 mean 1.59** 5A 1.38** 1.38-1.38 5B 1.69* 1.65-1.72 5C 1.65* 1.61-1.67 Site 5 mean 1.57** 6A 2.14 2.11-2.19 6B 1.41** 1.34-1.47 6C 0.30** 0.29-0.45 Site 6 mean 1.28 ns Zone C 7A 1.86 1.86-1.86 7B 1.54 1.51-1.58 7C 1.35 1.30-1.39 Site 7 mean 1.58** 8A 1.80 1.77-1.84 8B 1.27** 1.26-1.30 8C 1.64** 1.62-1.67 Site 8 mean 1.57** 9A 1.54** 1.49-1.59 9B 0.72** 0.69-0.74 9C 1.34 1.29-1.39 Site 9 mean 1.20** £oneD 10A 1.38** 1.37-1.38 10B 1.64** 1.59-1.70 IOC 1.66* 1.66-1.67 Site 10 mean 1.56** 11A 1.84 1.83-1.84 11B 1.53** 1.45-1.59 11C 1.73* 1.71-1.74 Site 11 mean 1.70* 51 Table 9 continued. Regional Sampling Mean EC50 95% Confidence Zone Site/station (mgJmL) Interval 12A 1.51** 1.35-1.62 12B 1.48** 1.45-1.50 12C 1.48** 1.44-1.49 Site 12 mean 1.49** ZoneE 13A 1.68 1.58-1.75 13B 2.28 2.25-2.33 13C 1.86 1.60-2.07 Site 1 3 mean 1.94 ns 14A 22.23 20.93-23.59 14B 11.27 11.19-11.36 14C 7.23 6.90-7.55 Site 14 mean 13.58 ns 15A 1.57 1.48-1.65 15B 1.87 1.86-1.89 15C 1.69* 1.69-1.69 Site 15 mean 1.71* ZoneF 16A 2.05 2.03-2.07 16B 1.75* 1.73-1.76 16C 1.59** 1.58-1.61 Site 16 mean 1.80 ns 17A 1.35 1.25-1.45 17B 1.33 1.31-1.34 17C 1.49 1.44-1.51 Site 17 mean 1.39** 18A 1.76 1.69-1.80 18B 1.46** 1.45-1.48 18C 1.81 1.61-1.89 Site 18 mean 1.68* ZoneG 19A 2.38 2.37-2.38 19B 1.82* 1.80-1.83 19C 1.79* 1.79-1.79 Site 19 mean 2.00 ns 20A 2.39 2.31-2.44 20B 1.85 1.78-1.89 20C 1.73 1.71-1.75 Site 20 mean 1.99 ns 21A 1.72* 1.70-1.74 21B 1.65 1.64-1.66 21C 2.32 2.23-2.42 Site 21 mean 1.90 ns 52 Table 9 continued. Regional Sampling Mean EC50 95% Confidence Zone Site/station fmg/mL) Interval Zone H 22A 1.59** 1.57-1.62 22B 1.83 1.79-1.86 22C 1.73 1.65-1.76 Site 22 mean 1.72* 23A 1.43** 1.41-1.47 23B 1.41** 1.36-1.45 23C 1.58 1.28-1.78 Site 23 mean 1.47** 24A 1.56** 1.52-1.59 24B 2.07 2.04-2.10 24C 2.13 2.05-2.22 Site 24 mean 1.92 ns Zone I 25A 1.98 1.92-2.02 25B 1.80 1.77-1.83 25C 2.01* 1.94-2.08 Site 25 mean 1.93 ns 26A 1.96* 1.90-2.02 26B 1.82* 1.78-1.87 26C 1.56** 1.54-1.58 Site 26 mean 1.78 ns 27A 1.49** 1.46-1.51 27B 1.57** 1.54-1.59 27C 1.50** 1.50-1.50 Site 27 mean 1.52** Zone J 28A 0.28** 0.27-0.28 28B 1 27** 1.25-1.29 28C 1.33** 1.32-1.34 Site 28 mean 0.96** 29A 2.14 2.07-2.22 29B 2.22 2.13-2.32 29C 2.32 2.29-2.34 Site 29 mean 2.23 ns 30A 1.45** 1.36-1.51 30B 1.54** 1.45-1.58 30C 1.68* 1.64-1.71 Site 30 mean 1.56** ZoneK 31A 1.47** 1.41-1.53 31B 1.47 1.40-1.52 31C 1.77 1.74-1.80 Site 3 1 mean 1.57** 32A 2.00 1.95-2.03 32B 1.75* 1.73-1.78 32C 1.86 1.84-1.87 53 Table 9 continued. Regional Sampling Mean EC50 95% Confidence Zone Site/station (mg/mL) Interval Site 32 mean 1.87 ns 33A 2.00 1.95-2.05 33B 1.45** 1.42-1.48 33C 2.44 2.38-2.52 Site 33 mean 1.96 ns Zone L 34A 1.56 1.29-1.77 34B 2.10 1.96-2.22 34C 2.61 2.60-2.61 Site 34 mean 2.09 ns 35A 1.79 1.76-1.82 35B no data 35C 1.78 1.76-1.80 Site 35 mean 1.79* 36A 1.57 1.54-1.60 36B 1.03** 0.95-1.12 36C 1.50 1.44-1.58 Site 36 mean 1.37** Zone M 37A >29.80 n/a 37B >32.60 n/a 37C >29.60 n/a Site 37 mean >30.77 ns 38A 20.12 19.99-20.19 38B 21.55 21.10-22.12 38C 22.00 21.85-22.17 Site 38 mean 21.22 ns 39A 2.45 2.41-2.48 39B 2.61 2.59-2.64 39C 17.89 17.49-18.29 Site 39 mean 7.65 ns * Station or site mean significantly different from controls (alpha=0.05). ** Mean response significantly different from controls and 80% or less than control response. ns Mean response not significantly different from controls. The data from this test indicated several spatial patterns in toxicity among the stations and sites (Fig- ures 13 and 14). Many of the stations and sites in the lower East River, upper East River, and western Long Island Sound were toxic, whereas none were toxic in the adjacent lower Hudson River and only one was toxic in the upper New York Harbor. Second, many of the stations and sites in Arthur Kill, western Raritan Bay, central Raritan Bay, and Sandy Hook Bay were toxic, whereas only one of the stations in adjacent lower New York Harbor and outer bay/New York Bight was toxic. Also, none of the three sites in lower Raritan River was toxic. There was considerable heterogeneity in toxicity within Raritan Bay, but not in the outer bay/New York Bight, where all samples and sites were non- toxic. 54 O Non-toxic stations £ Stations significantly different from controls O Stations significantly different from controls and <80% of control response Figure 13. Sampling stations in which the sediment extracts were significantly toxic to microbial bioluminescence (n=5, alpha <0.05). 55 O Non-toxic sites \Jy 4) Sites significantly different from controls J~~ 4 r ° O Sites significantly different from controls and <80% of ( 2 X( / 5 I / o / control response V. 6 / \ / l) / \l!t«l4~~ / J/ z ri 7 \ \ 16 \j 1 50/< 1 7 \ a < 12 J / ^14 \ 4 ft f^ ^* m ~* \s i^ ^ t*^ /-^P /^ O 36 ^^ 20 r^ m 72 ^* 26 o i2^VF-^0 O 27 * 35 jO^VOo ° O ^ 23 XP ^° ^28© ^\ 3> W N ^/ 29 o\ ^ 33 "X.^" A\ O 37 I O 38 30^ \ n 39 Figure 14. Sampling sites in which the sediment extracts were significantly toxic to microbial bioluminescence (average of three stations, alpha <0.05). 56 In December 1989, the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) collected sediments from 19 loca- tions in the estuary and tested them for toxicity with the Microtox 1 ™ bioluminescence test (DeMuth et al, 1993). Tests were performed with three types of extracts: (1) saline solution extracts; (2) sequential saline and organic extracts; and (3) organic extracts. Duplicate tests were performed with most samples. The effective concentrations (EC50s) that caused 50% reductions in light output were determined for each of the three tests. As judged by the lowest EC50 values, the Microtox tm tests indicated that the sediments from Newtown Creek (a tributary of the lower East River); Throg's Neck (upper East River); and Shooters Island (Arthur Kill) were among the most toxic (Table 10). Samples from Rockaway Bay, Fall Hook Chan- nel, Ambrose Channel, and Jamaica Bay were the least toxic in the Microtox tm tests. Table 10. Results of microbial bioluminescence (Microtox tm ) tests of sediments from the Hudson- Rartian estuary performed with three kinds of sediment extracts (from DeMuth et al., 1993). Samping Saline Sequential Organic Sites EC503 organic EC50b EC50£ 1. Throg's Neck 1.7±0.1 3400±500 1170124 2. Mt. St. Vincent ns 14600 17501270 3. Union City ns 12600±1400 43701910 4. The Battery 1.0, ns 10600±200 330011700 5. Newtown Creek 0.7±0.3 500±200 12001300 6. The Narrows 1.7, ns 11200 42001900 7. Newark Bay ns 760011700 3550 8. Shooters Island 0.8, ns 92001600 12801100 9. Deep Point ns 860016500 630011300 10. Ward Point ns 890015700 22601120 11. East Reach ns 1870011720 442011160 12. Chapel Hill Channel 1 .5, ns 420014100 16001300 13. Sandy Hook Bay ns 17001300 1820 14. Rockaway Bay 3.6, ns 4680012800 4960015500 15. Fall Hook Channel 8.7±4.5 25300114000 788013820 16. Ambrose Channel 1.7, ns 29100119400 863011140 17. Tamaica Bay 5.1±4.3 1090013200 410012840 a Results of tests performed with saline extracts, reported as the amount of sediment equivalents (g) that decreased light output by 50%. D Results of tests performed with organic extracts previously extracted with saline solution, reported as amount of sediment equivalents (ug) that decreased light output by 50%. c Results of tests performed with organic extracts, reported as the amount of sediment equivalents (wg) that decreased light output by 50%. Polychaete and Sand Dollar Growth Tests. In 1991, the NMFS (Rice etal., in press) tested 17ofthe 117 samples collected in Phase 1 of the present survey (Table 11). In these samples, impaired growth was measured among polychaetes (Armandia brevis) and adult sand dollars (Dendraster excentricus). Both species were collected from Puget Sound for the tests. Significant reductions in growth were quantified by comparisons of the data with animals exposed to unspecified controls. The sediments 57 from Throg's Neck (site 7) were significantly toxic to polychaete growth, causing 0.0% growth relative to the controls (the lowest rate of growth observed). Also, sediments from site 28 in East Reach (western Raritan Bay) and site 29 in Sandy Hook Bay were significantly toxic and caused very low rates of growth. The polychaete test appeared to be more sensitive than the sand dollar test, indicating 13 of 17 samples were significantly different from controls, as compared to 8 of 17 in the sand dollar test. Sediment from only two of the sites were not significantly toxic in both tests: those from site 36 in lower New York Harbor and site 37 in the entrance to the estuary. Sediments from five of the sites were toxic to both species. The observations of toxicity in site 11 (East River), site 17 (near Shooters Is- land), site 16 (Newark Bay), site 20 (lower Raritan River), and site 29 (Sandy Hook Bay) were consis- tent with those of previous investigators. Also, they were consistent with the results of the Microtox tm , bivalve larvae, and amphipod tests. Table 11. Results of polychaete (Armandia brevis) impaired growth tests, and sand dollar (Dendraster excentricus) impaired growth tests of sediments from the Hudson-Rartian estuary (from Rice et al., in press). Polychaete Sand dollar Samping Growth Growth Sites (percent) (percent) 1. Lower Hudson River 50.3* 88.7* 3. Lower Hudson River 74.6* ns 6. Western Long Island Sound 51.4* ns 7. Upper East River 0.0* ns 11. Lower East River ns 71.1* 13. Upper New York Harbor ns 78.0* 14. Upper New York Harbor ns 82.0* 16. Newark Bay 39.4* 71.9* 17. Arthur Kill 59.2* 36.9* 20. Lower Raritan Bay 55.2* 71.8* 22. Western Raritan Bay 81.2* ns 25. Central Raritan Bay 69.4* ns 28. Sandy Hook Bay 15.0* 85.7* 29. Sandy Hook Bay 10.5* ns 36. Lower New York Harbor ns ns 37. Outer Bay ns ns 38. Outer Bav 52.1* ns *Significantly reduced growth compared to controls (percent growth observed relative to normal con- trols). Estimates of Spatial Extent of Toxicity. The spatial extent of toxicity was estimated separately with the data from both Phases 1 and 2 (Tables 12, 13 and 14). The size of the entire survey area sampled during Phase 1 was estimated at 350 km 2 . During Phase 2, the survey area covered approximately 12.7 km 2 , some of which overlapped with the area sampled during Phase 1. The area in which toxicity test results were less than 80% of the control responses was determined. 58 Based upon separate analyses of the data from the four test end-points in Phase 1, 89.4 to 136. 1 km 2 were estimated to be toxic (i.e., toxicity test results were less than 80% of the control responses). These areas represented approximately 25% to 39% of the total study area. Based upon a critical value of less than 20% of controls (the reciprocal of 80%), the area estimated to be highly toxic ranged from to 16 km 2 , representing from 0% to 4.6% of the survey area. Table 12. Estimates of the spatial extent of toxicity* (km 2 and percent of total area) in the Hudson - Ra r it an Estuary based upon the cumulative distribution functions of data from each of four test end-points. Amphipod survival Bivalve larvae survival Bivalve larvae development Microtox bioluminescence Toxic Area Highly Toxic Area (<80% of controls) (<20% of controls) 133.3 km 2 12.0 km 2 (38.1%) (3.4%) 87.4 km 2 (25.0%) 103.8 km 2 16.1km 2 (30.0%) (4.6%) 136.1km 2 G8.9%) * Based upon critical values of <80% and <20% of control responses. Total survey area: 350 km 2 Based upon the amphipod survival test performed in Phase 1, approximately 133 km 2 of the Hudson- Raritan Estuary were toxic (Table 12). Since toxicity was most widespread in the amphipod tests, the results of the other three end-points were compared to it to determine concordance in the estimates of the spatial extent of toxicity. Toxicity was second most widespread in the microbial bioluminescence test. Based upon both the amphipod and microbial bioluminescence tests (Table 13), approximately 34 km 2 were toxic (9.8% of the total). Based upon these data and, using the critical value of less than 80% of control responses, site 7 (located near Throg's Neck), site 10 (located in the upper East River), and site 30 (located in Sandy Hook Bay) were significantly toxic in all four test end-points, representing about 20 km 2 (5.7% of the total area). Table 13. Estimates of concordance in the spatial extent of toxicity* (km 2 and percent of total area) in the Hudson-Raritan estuary among the four toxicity test end-points. Toxic Area Kilometer 2 Percent Amphipod survival 133.3 38.1% Amphipod survival and microbial bioluminescence 34.2 9.8 59 Table 13 continued. Toxic Area Kilometer 2 Percent Amphipod survival, microbial bioluminescence, and bivalve development 23.6 6.7 Amphipod survival, microbial bioluminescence, bivalve development and survival 19.9 5.7 * Based upon a critical value of <80% of control responses. The spatial extent of toxicity in Phase 2 of the survey was calculated separately since the survey design was different from that used in Phase 1 (Table 14). The study area in Phase 2 covered approximately 12.7 km 2 . Within that area, about 10.8 km 2 were significantly toxic (<80% of controls) and about 1.2 km 2 were highly toxic (<20% of controls) in the amphipod survival tests. These areas represented approximately 85% and 9.7% of the total, respectively. Table 14. Estimates of the spatial extent of toxicity* (km 2 and percent of total area) in Newark Bay and vicinity, based upon the cumulative distribution function of data from amphipod sur- vival tests. Amphipod survival Significantly Highly Toxic Toxic (<80% of controls) (<20% of controls) 10.8 km 2 1.2 km 2 (85.0%) (9.7%) * Based upon a critical values of <80% and <20% of control responses. Total survey area: 12.7 km 2 Concentrations and Distribution of Contaminants in Sediments: Phase 1. Following a review of the data from the toxicity tests, chemical analyses were performed on 38 selected samples from Phase 1. Samples selected for chemical analyses were not chosen randomly; rather, they were chosen to represent toxicity gradients within selected regions of the study area. Concentrations of trace elements, acid-volatile sulfides, simultaneously extracted metals, polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), PCBs, pesticides, organic carbon, carbonate, and sediment grain sizes are listed in Appendices A-E. Patterns in the distribution of selected chemicals among the stations sampled in Phase 1 are illustrated in Figures 15-20. The portion of the sediments consisting of fine-grained materials (silt + clay) in the selected samples varied from 0.0% at stations 37B and 38B to 76.7% at station 17B (Figure 15). The samples from western Long Island Sound (sites 4-6), the Hudson River (sites 1 and 2), East River (sites 10 and 12), upper Arthur Kill (site 17), western Raritan Bay (sites 23 and 24), and the lower New York Harbor (site 60 80 70 60 50 40 30- 20- 10- L Percent fines Figure 15. Percent fine-grained sediments (silt + clay) at selected stations in the Hudson-Raritan Estuary. 61 36) had relatively high percent fine-grained materials (over 50%). Samples with relatively low percent fines were collected in the upper East River (site 7), lower Hudson River (site 13), upper New York Harbor (site 14), upper Newark Bay (site 16), and in the lower New York Harbor (sites 26, 34, 35, 37, and 38). The concentrations of total organic carbon (TOC) ranged from 0.7% (at sites 37 and 38) to 3.6-4.8% (at sites 11 and 12) up to a maximum of 5.0% at site 9 (Figure 16). Curiously, sample 7B had low percent fines (10.4%), but very high TOC content (4.4%). In most samples the TOC content ranged from 2% to 3% with very few samples having less than 1% TOC. Multiple samples from most sites had similar concentrations of TOC. However, the two samples from sites 7 and 10 had considerably different concentrations, reflecting within-site heterogeneity. The two samples collected in the mouth of the estuary (sites 37 and 38) had extremely low TOC content and consisted entirely of sand (100% sand). Also, the sample from site 14 in upper New York Harbor was 98.5% sand and had only 0.25% TOC. The concentrations of mercury in most samples ranged from 1.0 to 2.5 ug/g (Figure 17). Samples from sites 7, 9, and 10 had 4.7 to 5.0 ug/g Hg. Sample 18C from the Arthur Kill had 15 ug/g Hg, consider- ably higher than any of the other samples. Samples with relatively low mercury concentrations were those from western Long Island Sound, the lower Hudson River, upper New York Harbor, lower New York Harbor, and near the Sandy Hook-Rockaway Point transec. In most samples, the molar ratios of total simultaneously extracted metals (SEM) to total acid volatile sulfides (AVS) ranged from 0.04 to 0.22 (Figure 18). However, in sample 34B the ratio was 0.74, in sample 14A it was 0.80, and in sample 2A it was 2.42. In sandy samples 37B and 38B, the concentra- tions of AVS were very low, and the SEM/AVS ratios were 9.32 and 5.47, respectively. There were no consistent spatial patterns in the SEM/AVS ratios throughout the study area. In most samples, the concentrations of total PCBs (sum of 20 congeners) ranged from 100 ng/g to 200 ng/g (Figure 19). The PCB concentrations were relatively high in a few samples, notably the sample from station 12A in the East River which had 1972.8 ng/g. The concentrations of total PCBs exceeded 450 ng/g in samples from stations 1 A, 1 IB, 12B, 17B, 17C, and 18C. The relatively high PCB concen- trations in the samples from the East River gradually decreased into the western Long Island Sound. Also, the relatively high concentrations in the Arthur Kill gradually diminished towards the Sandy Hook-Rockaway Point transect at the estuary entrance. In most samples, the concentrations of total PAHs (sum of 24 PAHs) ranged from 4,000 ng/g to 20,000 ng/g (Figure 20). However, the samples from sites 7, 8, 9, 10, and 1 1 in the East River and site 17 in Kull van Kull had concentrations that exceeded 20,000 ng/g total PAH. The concentration of total PAH in sample 9B from the upper East River was 1,123,355 ng/g. The high concentrations of PAHs in the East River decreased considerably eastward into Long Island Sound. Also, the moderate concentra- tions of PAHs in the Arthur Kill diminished eastward toward the Sandy Hook-Rockaway Point transect at the estuary entrance. The lowest concentrations of these compounds were found in samples col- lected in the upper New York Harbor and beyond the estuary entrance. Concentrations and Distribution of Contaminants in Sediments: Phase 2. In Phase 2 of the sur- vey, sediments from 20 of the 57 sampling stations in Newark Bay and vicinity were analyzed for chemical concentrations. These 20 stations included station 57 in upper New York Harbor, which was sampled during Phase 1 (listed as Site 14 in Phase 1). A full suite of trace elements, organo chlorine 62 5 4 3 2 1 - 0- Percent TOC Figure 16. Percent total organic carbon (TOC) in selected stations in the Hudson-Raritan Estuary. 63 Figure 17. Mercury concentrations in selected stations in the Hudson-Raritan Estuary. 64 Figure 18. Ratio of total simultaneously-extracted metals concentrations (umole/g) to acid-volatile sulfide concentrations (umole/g) in selected stations in the Hudson-Raritan Estuary. 65 Figure 19. Total PCB concentrations (sum of 20 individual congeners, ng/g) in selected stations in the Hudson-Raritan Estuary. 66 Figure 20. Concentrations of total PAHs (sum of 24 compounds) at selected stations in the Hudson-Raritan Estuary. 67 compounds, and PAHs were quantified along with dioxins and furans. The 20 samples selected for chemical analyses were chosen before the samples were collected. Samples were chosen to represent suspected pollution gradients based upon data (especially from analyses of dioxins) from previous studies. As expected from the results of the Phase 1 analyses, the sample from station 57 was sandy and had very low concentrations of all substances. The concentration of cadmium was relatively low in the sample from station 57, a reference station in upper New York Harbor (Figure 21). Also, the cadmium concentration was relatively low in the samples from the Hackensack River and much of Newark Bay. In contrast, the cadmium concentrations in many of the samples from the lower Passaic River were 4 to 6 ppm. In addition, the sample from station 26 midway down Newark Bay had a cadmium concentration of 4.2 ppm. The concentrations of mercury in the Newark Bay samples followed a distributional pattern similar to that of cadmium (Figure 22). Mercury concentrations were relatively low in the reference sample from upper New York Harbor, in most of the samples from Newark Bay, in two of the Hackensack River samples, and at the upstream station in the Passaic River. In contrast, mercury concentrations were 3- 5 ppm in samples from the lower Passaic River, a station in the Hackensack River in the vicinity of Berry's Creek, and at station 26 midway down Newark Bay. At station 14 near Berry's Creek, the mercury concentration was 4.3 ppm. The SEM/AVS ratios ranged from 0.07 to 2.85 and were less than 1.0 at all but three stations (Figure 23). The sample from station 1 in the Passaic River had the highest ratio, 2.85, followed by station 8 in the lower Passaic River and station 56 in lower Newark Bay, in which the ratios were 1.02 and 1.04, respectively. The total SEM concentrations were based upon sums of the Cd, Cu, Pb, Ni, and Zn concentrations. The concentrations of total PCBs ranged from 105 ng/g at station 57 in upper New York Harbor to 2318 ng/g at station 26 in Newark Bay and 2850 ng/g at station 3 in the lower Passaic River (Figure 24). Total PCB concentrations exceeded 1,000 ng/g in all of the Passaic River stations except station 1. In contrast, the concentrations of total PCBs ranged from 110 to 671 ng/g at the three stations in the Hackensack River. The concentrations of 18 dioxins and furans were quantified by NBS. Also, the concentrations of four co-planar PCBs were quantified. Based upon the toxicity equivalency factors (TEF) derived for mam- malian systems by Kutz et al. (1990) for the dioxins and furans and by Barnes et al. (1991) for the co- planar PCBs, the cumulative, total 2,3,7,8-tcdd toxicity equivalency quotients (TEQ) were calculated and plotted (Figure 25). Total 2,3,7,8-tcdd TEQs ranged from 13 pg/g at station 57 in upper New York Harbor to 874 pg/g at station 7c in the lower Passaic River. All samples except five from stations in the Hackensack River and Newark Bay had concentrations of 100 pg/g or greater. In addition, sample 26 from Newark Bay had a concentration of 723 pg/g total TEQ. With funding provided to U.S. EPA Region 2 from the U.S. EPA Office of Science and Technology, the concentrations of 17 dioxin and furan congeners were determined in an additional 35 samples. Twelve samples were analyzed by Pacific Analytical, Inc. and the remaining 23 samples were analyzed by Midwest Research Institute. Both laboratories prepared the samples and conducted the analyses in accordance with EPA Method 1613. However, the comparability of the data from the NBS, Pacific Analytical, Inc., and Midwest Research Institute laboratories was not determined. 68 Figure 21. Concentrations of cadmium at selected stations in Newark Bay and vicinity. 69 Figure 22. Concentrations of mercury at selected stations in Newark Bay and vicinity. 70 Figure 23. Ratios of total simultaneously-extracted metals(SEM) to total acid-volatile sulfides (AVS) at selected stations in Newark Bay and vicinity. 71 Figure 24. Concentrations of total PCBs at selected stations in Newark Bay and vicinity. 72 Figure 25. Concentrations of total 2,3,7,8-tcdd toxicity equivalency quotients (TEQ) at selected stations in Newark Bay and vicinity. 73 The concentrations of 2,3 ,7,8-tcdd reported by the three laboratories are plotted in Figure 26. Note that the scales in Figures 25 and 26 are different. The spatial pattern in the concentrations of 2,3,7,8-tcdd in all 55 samples corresponded with that for total dioxin equivalents in the 20 samples analyzed by NBS. The relatively high concentrations (280-620 pg/g) of this isomer in the lower Passaic River stations contrasts with the relatively low levels in the Hackensack River (62 pg/g or less). Except for station 26 located in central Newark Bay, the concentrations of 2,3,7,8-tcdd generally decreased down Newark Bay from the mouth of the Passaic River toward Staten Island. The concentrations of this congener were 100-150 pg/g in many of the samples collected near the Port Newark Terminal. In addition to the chemical analyses of dioxins and furans, the Midwest Science Center of NBS deter- mined the concentrations of these and other compounds in H4IIE rat hepatoma bioassays, following the protocols of Tillitt et al. (1991). The toxicity of whole sediment extracts (Fl) and fractions of the extracts were determined and reported in units of 2, 3, 7, 8 -tcdd equivalents (pg/g). Seven fractions, representing dioxins, furans, PCBs, and PAHs, were tested (Table 15). The toxicity of the F5 fraction (PAHs) was considerably greater than that of all of the other fractions. In many of the samples, the tcdd-equivalent concentrations of the PAHs exceeded the concentrations observed in the whole ex- tracts. This observation suggests that the toxicity of these compounds may not be strictly additive, and alternatively, some antagonistic effects may occur, thus reducing the cumulative toxicity of these mix- tures. Also, the tcdd equivalent concentrations of the F12 fractions (dioxins, furans) were relatively high. The contributions of the PCB fractions (F7 - Fl 1) to toxicity were relatively minor. The concentrations of the tcdd equivalents in the whole extracts were highest in the samples from the lower Passaic River, particularly at stations 3, 6, 7, and 8 (Figure 27). Concentrations diminished rapidly down Newark Bay and were relatively low in the Hackensack River. Concentrations were very low in the sample from station 57 in the upper New York Harbor. This distribution pattern differed from that observed in the chemical analyses; specifically, tcdd equivalent concentrations were rela- tively low at stations 7 and 26, whereas the chemical analyses indicated that dioxin concentrations were relatively high at these stations. The concordance between the concentrations of the planar hydrocarbons determined in chemical analyses and in the rat hepatoma bioassays was very good for some fractions (Table 16). Spearman-rank corre- lations were determined for the concentrations of the PCB-TEQs, dioxins/furans-TEQs, and total cu- mulative TEQs (pg/g) versus the tcdd-eqs (pg/g) determined for each extract fraction in the rat hepatoma bioassays. The correlations between the cumulative TEQs determined in chemical analyses and the tcdd-equivalent concentrations in the F12 fraction (dioxins, furans) were particularly strong. 74 c I II oj o T5 5 ■D *" (0 "> C LL .2 . re co t* DO LL O Q Q- O T3 CL CO .O 3 CO i o o -C o *? m O Q Q O CL II CM c g o CO w t "- o f o c " co c w .2 JO «j 00 X ~ CD , ~ ■c CO 5 m c .* •— l- ^ CO ^>« c >- tu - CO *■» > c a % cr c g8 0*5 •^ w o £ CO O 0. o T3 CD c !q E o o II c o o CO CQ *~ O"- ^c T3 .2 5 o 3 CO co Q. 1 "D O CD i— •*—> O 3 .C '^= O CO , -Q 2 3 o c o to CO o (0 .Q c 2 o g. o • o |i II o C ' o c I 8 2 ii iC CD J2 To • • 0) uj .Q .2 .2 £-■000 -C\JCT>|--.CMC\JI ■^■inco^co-i-TtcD NOOCOlONinCMCOCO CVJ^-T-Lni-COCT) CD ojin^ootoNOwwi CM 1- i- CO i- i- i- cvj^^cccocoo^cM^r^^cDcDO-^cqoh-iCOi c\j T-^r^cbT^coificoro^o^^io^cocoTt-^ol ^^OC\JCNJ- * CM CVJ oooooooooooooooooooo cooooooooooomo-r-ooooor^ coooomr^oocooinccior^mor^-cMT-,- oc\jc\jcococ\jcocno in t co t- co s * * i- * CT> t- . CO .Q O CO .Q O COinNNSCOCOi- t- CM * NOi-IDt-ID(DN i-CMCMCMCOCOUOLOl £ CO B CD CD $ CO To o "5. CD i— CD i_ CD .C § CO c CO CD E c o a. CD CO CO CD 75 Table 16. Spearman-rank (rho, corrected for ties) correlations between dioxin equivalents deter- mined in chemical analyses and dioxin equivalents (tcdd-eqs) determined in rat hepatoma bioas- says of sediment extracts. F 1 fraction = whole extract. F 5 fraction = PAH fraction. F 7 fraction = bulk (>2 - ortho - chloro - substituted) PCB fraction. F 8 = mono - ortho - chloro - substituted PCB fraction. F 9 = non - ortho - chloro - substituted PCB fraction. F 11 = com- bined total PCB fraction. F 12 = PCDD/PCDF fraction. Sediment extract Cumulative Cumulative Cumulative fraction PCB TEOs dioxin/furan TEOs total TEOs Fl +0.633* +0.605* +0.616* F5 +0.428 ns +0.524* +0.506* F7 +0.116 ns +0.038 ns +0.053 ns F8 +0.738* +0.750* +0.746* F9 +0.634* +0.650* +0.649* Fll +0.530* +0.577* +0.574* F12 +0.962*** +0.962*** +0.959*** *p<0.05, **p<0.001, ***p<0.0001 This relationship between the total cumulative tcdd equivalents from the chemical analyses and the tcdd equivalents from the H4IIE rat hepatoma bioassays of the F12 fraction is illustrated in Figure 28. The relationship is very strong and nearly linear. Also, there was a relatively strong correlation and relationship between the concentrations of total PAHs in the sediments and the tcdd equivalents determined in the H4IIE bioassays of the F5 (PAHs) fraction (Figure 29). This relationship was not as strong as that observed with the dioxins and would be improved by deletion of the data from two samples. Nevertheless, a strong pattern was obvious be- tween the chemical estimate and the bioassay estimate of PAH concentrations. Relationships Between Toxicity and Physical-Chemical Parameters: Phase 1. The relationships between the four measures of toxicity and the concentrations of potential contaminants and other pa- rameters were compared using non-parametric, Spearman-rank correlations (Tables 15-18). Although the correlation analyses cannot be interpreted as evidence of cause-effect relationships, they can iden- tify patterns in co-variance or concordance between dependent variables (i.e., toxicity) and indepen- dent variables (i.e., potential toxicants). The correlation coefficients are accompanied by the level of significance of the correlations. To account for Type 1 errors in the correlations, the significance level (p=0.05) should be divided by the number of variables and the adjusted significance level used as the critical p value. The total concentrations of most trace metals were not significantly correlated with amphipod survival, bivalve survival, or bivalve normal development (Table 17). In contrast, most of the metals were weakly (but significantly) correlated with the microbial bioluminescence EC50s. Only the concentra- tions of mercury and tin were significantly negatively correlated with amphipod survival. None of the metals or other parameters were correlated with bivalve survival and only the concentration of carbon- ate was correlated with bivalve normal development. In the microbial bioluminescence test, all of the potentially toxic trace metals (i.e., Ag, Cr, Cd, Cu, Hg, Pb, Sn, and Zn) were significantly (p<0.05) correlated with toxicity. Also, the Microtox test results were correlated with the total organic carbon content (% TOC). Only those correlations shown with "**" would remain significant if the number of variables (18) were taken into account. 76 800 700 / [/ 600 500 Ann 300 200 100 ^ 2378- tcdd pg/g Figure 26. Concentrations of 2,3,7,8-tcdd at 53 selected stations in Newark Bay and vicinity. 77 Figure 27. TCDD equivalents (pg/g) from H4IIE bioassays of whole (F1) sediment extracts from selected stations in Newark Bay and vicinity. 78 Newark Bay ■ i I a. a UJ 6 c o •5 2 »•- UJ 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 Total Cumulative TCDD-TEQ, pg/g 900 Figure 28. Relationship of total cumulative tcdd toxicity equivalents from chemical analyses and TCDD toxicity equivalents from H4IIE bioassays of the F12 fraction. Newark Bay 100000 i "§> 10000 o" UJ 6 Q O I- 1000 o UJ 100 1 10 1 i i i i i ml • ■ * ' 100 1000 Rho = -0.730* ooo° oce 4 o "T 10000 100000 1000000 Sum of total PAH, ng/g Figure 29. Relationship of the concentrations of total PAHs to the concentrations of the TCDD toxicity equivalents in the H4IIE bioassays of the F5 (PAH) fraction. 79 Table 17. Spearman-rank correlations (Rho, corrected for ties) between four toxicity end-points (as percent of controls) and the concentrations of trace elements in Hudson-Raritan estuary sedi- ments (n=38). Amphipod Bivalve Bivalve Microbial Survival Survival Development Bioluminescence Silver +0.206 ns -0.029 ns -0.096 ns -0.363 * Aluminum +0.177 ns +0.245 ns -0.040 ns -0.201 ns Arsenic -0.153 ns -0.050 ns -0.287 ns -0.305 ns Chromium +0.025 ns +0.207 ns +0.001 ns -0.351 * Cadmium -0.264 ns -0.126 ns -0.205 ns -0.472 * Copper -0.255 ns -0.048 ns -0.091 ns -0.449 * Iron +0.233 ns +0.138 ns -0.181 ns -0.320 ns Mercury -0.437 * -0.096 ns -0.119 ns -0.377 * Manganese +0.494 * -0.128 ns -0.142 ns -0.105 ns Nickel -0.095 ns +0.017 ns -0.081 ns -0.451* Lead -0.295 ns -0.068 ns -0.150 ns -0.478 * Antimony -0.239 ns +0.013 ns -0.052 ns -0.355 * Selenium -0.067 ns +0.010 ns -0.047 ns -0.217 ns Tin -0.342 * -0.061 ns -0.130 ns -0.427 * Zinc -0.134 ns +0.012 ns -0.208 ns -0.433 * SumofCd/Cu i Hg/Pb/Zn -0.240 ns -0.040 ns -0.153 ns -0.465 * %TOC -0.151 ns -0.231 ns -0.318 ns -0.581 ** %TIC -0.281 ns -0.233 ns -0.343 * -0.415 * % fines +0.196 ns +0.063 ns +0.1 20 ns -0.347 * *p<0.05, **p<0.001, ***p<0.0001 The concentrations of individual and total simultaneously extracted metals (SEM) were not signifi- cantly correlated with the results of the tests of amphipod survival, bivalve survival, and bivalve devel- opment (Table 18). Similarly, the SEM/AVS ratios were not significantly correlated with any of the tests, and, improbably, a positive association was indicated with amphipod survival, bivalve survival, bivalve development, and microbial bioluminescence. However, the concentrations of many of the individual simultaneously extracted metals, notably lead, were significantly correlated with the Microtox results. Although the correlations between microbial bioluminescence and both total AVS and total SEM concentrations were significantly negative, the correlation with the SEM/AVS ratios was signifi- cantly positive. Only those correlations shown with "**" would remain significant if the number of variables (9) were taken into account. Table 18. Spearman-rank correlations (Rho, corrected for ties) between four toxicity end-points (as percent of controls) and the concentrations of acid-volatile sulfides (AVS) and simultaneously extracted trace metals (SEM) in Hudson-Raritan Estuary sediments (n=38). Amphipod Bivalve Bivalve Microbial Survival Survival Development Bioluminescence Total AVS -0.150 ns -0.133 ns -0.323 ns -0.544 ** SECd -0.149 ns -0.113 ns -0.229 ns -0.393 * SECu -0.105 ns -0.015 ns -0.096 ns -0.351 * 80 Table 18 continued. Amphipod Bivalve Bivalve Microbial Survival Survival Development Bioluminescence SEHg +0.292 ns +0.23 1 ns +0.189 ns +0.309 ns SENi +0.060 ns +0.125 ns +0.075 ns -0.234 ns SEPb -0.234 ns +0.001 ns -0.086 ns -0.482 * SEZn -0.050 ns +0.040 ns -0.216 ns -0.340 * Total SEM -0.130 ns +0.039 ns -0.192 ns -0.417 * SEM/AVS ratios +0.197 ns +0.118 ns +0.264 ns +0.454 * *p<0.05, **p<0.001 *p<0.0001 Most of the correlations between toxicity and the concentrations of chlorinated organic compounds were not significant (Table 19). Only cis-chlordane, trans-nonachlor, 2,4'-DDD, 4,4'-DDE, 4,4'-DDT, and the sum of total indeno-pesticides were significantly negatively correlated with any of the toxicity tests. These compounds were significantly correlated with the microbial bioluminescence test results. In addition, 4,4'-DDT was significantly correlated with amphipod survival. However, none of these correlations would remain significant if the number of variables (20) were taken into account. Table 19. Spearman-rank correlations (Rho, corrected for ties) between four toxicity end-points (as percent of controls) and the concentrations of PCBs and pesticides in Hudson-Raritan Estu- ary sediments (n=38). Amphipod Bivalve Bivalve Microbial Survival Survival Development Bioluminescence HCB -0.013 ns +0.281 ns +0.144 ns -0.052 ns Lindane -0.082 ns -0.172 ns -0.062 ns -0.030 ns Heptachlor < mdl < mdl < mdl < mdl Aldrin -0.075 ns -0.004 ns +0.031 ns +0.087 ns Heptachlor epoxide -0.232 ns +0.234 ns +0.03 1 ns -0.120 ns 2, 4-DDE -0.125 ns -0.157 ns +0.036 ns -0.295 ns Cis-chlordane -0.204 ns -0.059 ns -0.007 ns -0.384 * Trans-nonachlor -0.150 ns -0.065 ns -0.018 ns -0.402 * Dieldrin -0.058 ns +0.285 ns +0.101 ns +0.014 ns 4,4-DDE -0.287 ns +0.074 ns +0.105 ns -0.406 * 2,4-DDD -0.197 ns +0.249 ns +0.286 ns -0.066 ns Endrin < mdl < mdl < mdl < mdl 4,4-DDD -0.189 ns -0.019 ns +0.036 ns -0.314 ns 2,4-DDT -0.118 ns +0.112 ns +0.189 ns -0.049 ns 4,4-DDT -0.476 * -0.077 ns +0.069 ns -0.341 * Mirex +0.281 ns -0.024 ns -0.033 ns +0.039 ns Indeno pesticides -0.197 ns -0.054 ns -0.021 ns -0.395 * Total DDTs -0.311 ns +0.132 ns +0.163 ns -0.271 ns Total PCBs -0.124 ns +0.134 ns +0.239 ns -0.306 ns Total non-DDT pests. -0.146 ns +0.1 30 ns +0.079 ns -0.250 ns *p<0.05, **p<0.001, ***p<0.0001 < mdl = all samples below method detection limit 81 The correlations between the concentrations of polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) and both amphipod survival and microbial bioluminescence were very strong and highly significant (Table 20). The PAHs showed consistently negative correlations with these end-points in sharp contrast with the correlations with metals and chlorinated compounds. The correlations with the sum of the low molecu- lar weight (2- and 3-ring) PAHs were particularly significant. Also, the concentrations of petroleum- related compounds and microbial bioluminescence were highly correlated. However, the correlations between the bivalve test results and the PAHs were very weak and frequently not significant. Bivalve survival was correlated with the concentrations of only five low molecular weight compounds. Ac- counting for the number of variables (32), only those correlations shown with "**" or "***" would remain significant. National sediment quality criteria (SQC) have been proposed for three aromatic hydrocarbons (U.S. EPA, 1994): fluoranthene, acenaphthene, and phenanthrene expressed in units of organic carbon. The correlations between these three compounds normalized to TOC content and both amphipod survival and microbial bioluminescence were significant (Table 20). The correlation between amphipod sur- vival and acenaphthene improved when the chemical concentrations were normalized to the TOC con- tent (Rho = -0.595** vs. Rho =-0.641***). Otherwise, normalization to TOC content tended to dimin- ish the correlative strength between the concentrations of these three compounds and amphipod sur- vival and microbial bioluminescence. Table 20. Spearman-rank correlations (Rho, corrected for ties) between four toxicity end-points (as percent of controls) and the concentrations of PAHs in Hudson-Raritan Estuary sediments (n=38). Amphipod Bivalve Bivalve Microbial Survival Survival Development Bioluminescence naphthalene -0.524* -0.220 ns -0.198 ns -0.577** 2-methylnaph. -0.512* -0.289 ns -0.294 ns 0.653*** 1-methylnaph. -0.552** -0.306 ns -0.291 ns -0.673*** biphenyl -0.537* -0.246 ns -0.263 ns -0.640*** 2,6-methylnaph. -0.567** -0.337* -0.320 ns -0.695*** acenaphthylene -0.414* -0.247 ns -0.208 ns -0.652*** acenaphthene -0.595** -0.272 ns -0.224 ns -0.620** 1 ,6,7-trimethylnaph. -0.673*** -0.342* -0.258 ns -0.625*** fluorene -0.623*** -0.310 ns -0.270 ns -0.634*** phenanthrene -0.579** -0.331* -0.240 ns -0.641*** anthracene -0.576** -0.321 ns -0.283 ns -0.673*** 1-methylphenanfh. -0.579** -0.371* -0.252 ns -0.636*** fluoranthene -0.574** -0.264 ns -0.163 ns -0.608** pyrene -0.589** -0.327* -0.233 ns -0.615** benz(a)anthracene -0.561** -0.279 ns -0.188 ns -0.604** chrysene -0.522* -0.292 ns -0.184 ns -0.526* benzo(b)fluoranth. -0.582** -0.283 ns -0.215 ns -0.615** benzo(k)fluoranth. -0.464* -0.160 ns -0.100 ns -0.489* benzo(e)pyrene -0.592** -0.262 ns -0.233 ns -0.631*** benzo(a)pyrene -0.538* -0.279 ns -0.228 ns -0.615** perylene -0.580** -0.289 ns -0.236 ns -0.563** indeno(l,2,3)pyrene -0.549** -0.207 ns -0.165 ns -0.587** 82 Table 20 continued. Amphipod Bivalve Bivalve Microbial Survival Survival Development Bioluminescence dibenzo(a,h)anth. -0.549** -0.291 ns -0.224 ns -0.628*** benzo(g,h,i)perylene -0.480* -0.249 ns -0.196 ns -0.630*** Group A(petroleum) -0.468* -0.293 ns -0.315 ns -0.625*** Group B(combustion) -0.576** -0.294 ns -0.206 ns -0.602** sum low PAHs -0.592** -0.320 ns -0.266 ns -0.650*** sum high PAHs -0.471* -0.128 ns -0.060 ns -0.512* sum total PAHs -0.495* -0.312 ns -0.241 ns -0.603** acenaphthene/toc -0.641*** -0.164 ns -0.083 ns -0.437* phenanthrene/toc -0.571** -0.178 ns -0.055 ns -0.398* fluoranthene/toc -0.559** -0.139 ns -0.022 ns -0.418* *p<0.05, **p<0.001, ***p<0.0001 The concentrations of some substances equalled or exceeded the respective ERM guideline values of Long et al. (1995) or Long and Morgan (1990), or the proposed National SQC of U.S. EPA (1994) in some of the samples. The ERM guidelines are the concentrations above which toxicity or other effects frequently occurred in previous studies (Long et al., 1995). The SQCs are the concentrations deter- mined by equilibrium-partitioning models to be protective of benthic organisms. In this study, it was assumed that substances that were correlated with toxicity and equalled or exceeded either the respec- tive ERM or SQC values may have contributed to the observed toxicity. Table 19 summarizes the frequency of guideline exceedances for those chemicals or classes of chemicals that indicated a signifi- cant negative correlation with toxicity in at least one of the tests. None of the samples had concentrations of silver, arsenic, or cadmium that equalled or exceeded the respective ERM values (Table 21). The ERM value for chromium was exceeded only in one sample (12a from the East River). The guideline values for mercury, p,p'-DDT, p,p'-DDE, fluoranthene, phenanthrene, and total high molecular weight PAHs were equalled or exceeded most frequently. Al- though the ERM value for mercury was exceeded in 30 samples, Long et al. (1995) reported only a moderate degree of confidence in this guideline. The SQC values for fluoranthene and phenanthrene were exceeded in many samples, often by a considerable amount. Many of the chemicals quantified in samples 7b, 9b, lib, 12a, 17c, and 18c equalled or exceeded their respective guideline concentrations, often by a factor of 2x or greater. Table 21. Samples from the Hudson-Raritan estuary (Phase 1) stations that equalled or exceeded the respective ERM or SQC guideline concentrations for each major substance or class of com- pounds. Stations in which the concentration exceeded the guideline by >2x are listed in bold (n=38). Number of samples Samples in which Chemical in which ERM or SQC the ERM or SQC substance values were exceeded was exceeded Silver (ERM=3.7 a ) Arsenic (ERM=70 a ) Cadmium (ERM=9.6 a ) Chromium (ERM-370 3 ) 1 12a 83 Table 21 continued. Chemical substance Copper (ERM = 270 a ) Mercury (ERM = 0.71 a ) Number of samples in which ERM or SQC values were exceeded 2 30 Nickel (ERM = 5 1.6 a ) Lead(ERM = 218 a ) 3 8 Zinc(ERM = 410 a ) p,p'-DDE (ERM = 27 a ) 5 12 p,p'-DDT (ERM = 7 b ) 14 total PAHs (ERM = 44792 a ) total Low PAHs (ERM = 3160 a ) total High PAHs (ERM = 9600 a ) Fluoranthene/toc 4 9 14 20 (SQC = 300 c ) Acenaphthene/toc (SQC = 240 c ) Phenanthrene/toc 2 14 (SOC = 240 c ) Samples in which the the ERM or SQC was exceeded 12a, 18c la, 6c, 7b, 8c, 9b, 10a, 10b, lib, 12a, 12b,13a, 16a, 16b, 17b, 17c, 18a, 18c, 22c, 23a, 24c, 25a, 26a, 26c, 29a, 30a, 30b, 30c, 33b, 36c lib, 12a, 17c 8c, 9b, 12a, 10b, lib, 12b, 17c, 18c 9b, 12a, 18c, 30a, 33b 9b, lib, 12a, 12b, 17b, 17c, 18a, 18c, 22c, 23a, 24c, 33b 9b, lib, 12a, 12b, 16a, 16b, 17b, 17c, 18a, 18c, 22c, 23a, 29a, 36c 7b, 8c, 9b, 10b 7b, 8c, 9b, 10b, lib, 12a, 12b, 16a, 17c 7b, 8c, 9b, 10b, lib, 12a, 12b, 14a, 16a, 16b, 17b, 17c, 23a, 26c 7b, 7c, 8c, 9b, 10b, lib, 12a, 12b, 13a, 14a, 16a, 16b, 17b, 17c, 18a, 18c, 22c, 23a, 35a, 36c 9b, 10b 7b, 8c, 9b, 10b, lib, 16a, 17c a Effects Range-Median values from Long et al. (1995) b Effects Range-Median values from Long and Morgan (1990) c Sediment Quality Criteria from U.S. EPA (1994) Mercury was among the few trace elements that were correlated with amphipod survival. Also, many of the samples exceeded the ERM value for mercury. The relationship between amphipod survival and mercury concentrations in the sediments is illustrated in Figure 30. Amphipod survival decreased relatively steadily with increasing mercury concentrations, especially when the levels exceeded the ERM value of 0.71 (Long et al., 1995). Microbial bioluminescence EC50s were very low in all of the samples in which the concentrations of 4,4'-DDE were above the ERM value of Long and Morgan, 1990 (Figure 31). Although the Microtox test results and the DDE concentrations were significantly correlated (Rho = -0.405, p<0.05), the pat- tern in response was not nearly as clear as with other toxicity tests and chemicals (i.e., amphipod survival correlated with the PAHs). The correlations between amphipod survival and the concentrations of all the PAHs were consistent and clear. Also, the concentrations of these compounds often exceeded their respective guidelines. The relationships between amphipod survival and selected PAHs are illustrated in Figures 32-35. At concentrations of total low molecular weight PAHs below the ERM value of Long et al. (1995), amphi- 84 Hudson-Raritan Estuary 140 2 120 C o ° 100 - o b Z^ 80 1 > "> 60 3 (A ■D 40 - O Q. q. 20 E < o c u i_ 3 (A T3 O Q. !E Q. E < 80 60 40 " 20 €DO O O o o oo o ERL = 4022 O _Q_ • ■ ' ■ i i t- Rho = -0.603, p<0.001 O ERM = 44792 ' '"I " ' ■ I 20000 40000 60000 80000 Sum of total PAHs, ng/g • i ' > • r 100000 120000 o >1, 000,000 Figure 33. Relationship of amphipod survival and total PAH concentrations in sediments. 86 Hudson-Raritan Estuary 1 . ... i ...■■-. ■ ■ ■ ■ Rho = -0.418, p<0.05 C o o 120 "3 100 ■ ^ 80 5 > 2. 3 V) ■a o o. !E a E < 60 " 40 20 <9> i i w o o o o o o SQC = 300 (9 "f i >' i i i i i i i i i 1000 2000 ■ ■ ■ I i 3000 4000 Fluoranthene, ug/goc 5000 O 21561 Figure 34. Relationship of amphipod survival to fluoranthene concentrations (ug/goc) in sediments. Hudson-Raritan Estuary 140 2 120 "|o c o ° 100 - ^ 80 1 > > 60 " i_ 3 (0 TJ 40 " O Q. q. 20 1 E < o <§to m o CD O SQC = 240 |8 ■P- _i_ Rho = -0.398, p<0.05 — i 1 1 1 1 1 250 500 750 1000 1250 1500 1750 2000 Phenanthrene, ug/goc Figure 35. Relationship of amphipod survival to phenanthrene concentrations (ug/goc) in sediments. O 38713 87 pod survival was highly variable (Figure 32). Relatively high survival occurred in many of the samples. In the samples in which these compounds equalled or exceeded the ERM value, however, amphipod survival was universally low and significantly different from controls. Amphipod survival was 0.0% in one sample from the East River that had extremely high concentrations of PAHs. Amphipod survival was very high in all except two samples in which the total PAH concentrations were below the ERL value of Long et al. ( 1 995). Amphipod survival was relatively low in many of the samples with total PAH concentrations above the ERL. Amphipod survival ranged from 0.0% to 40% in the four samples with total PAH concentrations above the ERM guideline. The data in Figure 30 illustrate a relatively consistent decrease in amphipod survival with increasing concentrations of total PAHs, in agreement with the significant correlation (Rho = -0.603, p<0.001). The concentrations of both fluoranthene and phenanthrene normalized to TOC content were signifi- cantly correlated with amphipod survival and the concentrations in many samples equalled or ex- ceeded their respective proposed National SQC (U.S. EPA, 1994). The relationships between these two compounds and amphipod survival are illustrated in Figures 34 and 35. In both cases amphipod survival was relatively high in most samples with chemical levels below the SQC, and decreased steadily as the concentrations exceeded the respective SQCs. In tables 22-24 the average concentrations of toxicants in the samples that were toxic to amphipod survival are compared to those in the samples that were not toxic. Also, the average concentrations in the toxic samples were divided by the average concentrations in the nontoxic samples and these ratios were compared among chemicals. Finally, the average concentrations in the toxic samples were com- pared with the sediment quality guidelines (SQG) of Long et al. (1995), or Long and Morgan (1990), or the proposed National SQC (EPA, 1994). No SQG were available for substances such as aluminum and iron. We assumed that chemicals that contributed substantially to the observed toxicity would be correlated with toxicity and highly elevated in concentration in the toxic samples, and the average concentrations in the highly toxic samples would exceed applicable ERM or SQC values. In the am- phipod tests 17 samples analyzed for chemical substances were not significantly toxic (i.e., different from controls), 2 were significantly different from controls (but survival exceeded 80% of controls), and 19 samples caused amphipod survival in less than 80% of controls. Average amphipod survival was 98.4% in the nontoxic samples and 30.1% in the highly toxic samples. The average concentrations of all the trace metals were very similar in the nontoxic, significantly toxic, and highly toxic samples, based upon the results of the amphipod tests (Table 22). The ratios in aver- age concentrations between the nontoxic samples and either the significantly toxic or highly toxic samples ranged from 0. 1 to 2.2. Most ratios were 1 .0 or thereabouts. The concentrations of mercury in the highly toxic samples were the most elevated of the metals, exceeding the concentrations in the nontoxic samples by a factor of 2.2, and exceeding the ERM value of 0.71 ppm (Long et al., 1995) by a factor of 4.5. The average concentrations of most metals exceeded the ERL values in both the nontoxic and the toxic samples, illustrating the relative similarity in concentrations among the samples. The mean total SEM concentrations exceeded the total AVS concentrations only in the nontoxic samples (a result of two nontoxic, sandy samples). Most of the variability in the SEM/ AVS ratios was contrib- uted by the concentrations of zinc in the samples. The average concentrations of chlorinated organic compounds (PCBs and pesticides) in the toxic samples often were very similar (i.e., ratios of about 1 .0) to the concentrations in the significantly toxic samples (Table 23). However, the ratios in chemical concentrations between nontoxic and highly toxic samples often exceeded 2.0 and ranged upwards to 20.3 in the highly toxic samples. The average concentra- 88 o « c »- 5 Si *- Q. CO "£ « Q. E « « c ■- ■- ^ t o ■O i: +i 8 f o o ^ c o * v (3 O « O * E 2 4-1 U) E" C (0 o. o £ ci ro in B o I £ 8 B O v i_ *_< «^ * a) .c .5* o -c "5 j2 5.2 E lo >- W S c o ° s ra v « i- O- - d) o ra >< ra L_ O *- CD — CD < — BJ . C 0) as- Sip o >^0| o Z « O .2 = 1 a X CO __- -^ +i -C T- .5>d « I co o CO V CD o U 01 1 1— C_ 0) O > c 01 o o .2 .y To g >» ^p CM ^ ^ II g .2 w _: £ £ +1 CB ~ O CM > * ^3 2 ?- _- o jz > I s - c ±! £ Ti O ^ 3 C Z CO « m CO CO C\J CD in co cd o o o o o <<* o o 00 d o w o o o O X o a rfl 1 CD y- ffl X 1 c C1J d d t- r o o c > CO i-cDcoc^cvjr^cMLOco^i^cMLo^ioqcqqqT-CMi * * cp CD +1 O cu + CO * i-: q c\i + r*- d CO q ■IE * CO 1^ co C\J O +1 +i +1 +i +i +i co +l C\l +1 CvJ +1 +\ 03 ■*-; I s - CvJ • o ^t ■^ ID o CM CO CM CvJ I s - CO co d LO LD 5- a> T P -r^ C\J +1 ID T^- T^ C\j + 1 10 „ CO 5H c^l + 1 +i coCoCOqi^ocDco CvJ CvJ d co co o o d +i o CM ID O I +1 CO CO CD o +1 o o o d V CD CO CO ^t O CO O) CD d d i^ o +1 CD o +1 CM LD +1 CM o d CM +1 CD O O CM CO o co T-o)coo^cor-o)NO)cqfficoo)r-wqoqq T-'d-i^T^t-^di-'dddddddT^T^T^T^T^-r^ CM b CM S3 o i^. CM W ■K * '^f CO rS CM d + CD CO CM ■^ * * U) O +1 CvJ CD ^— co +1 CD +1 +1 +1 +1 Tf +i T_ C) r^ <<* CO CD T- £ CO ■1— ,,— CO CM +1 O) CO CD CD +1 co o Tt r d +i +i ID O CO CO CD CM +1 1 — ro +1 d CO co CM LO O O d +1 o o co CO d +1 CO CD LO o o o +1 o o o d V i- 1- Ol ^ d t-1 o * * co CD o -t k o * * * q « + * q q q o o d +1 o co CM I s - co CO LD •i— ID + Tf LD r^ LO d o d o CM d o o o o CD co o O d d d +l o d +i d d q LD +i o d d d CM +1 q CD d d d d d d d LD +1 CO d +i +1 +i +i d +i +i +i +i +1 +l +1 o +i +i +1 +1 +l +i Tt LD LD CM +i q o "* (->- o CD I s - o o CD T — ■ £ c 'E < |> "D3D)._J3c OJ*^ CD OOXZCLN^ *- J= romium dmium pper i (%) rcury nganes kel o .3 coc3nic3ronJLLI>0 OOOOOOC/)<£ T3 CO 1 s o E £ £ £ £ E «i^ x: co o o CD CO u C CD c c LULUlULULLILUoLLJ^ O O O J= -> ^ Z _l < C7D 1- Kl COC/)C/)CD „ n « co O >, > ^3 tox atio o .c CO O co -p CO X 2 c «J 0) to co CD » 2" o E q. co .d.) in sam ols) in the X CO . S CD -^ +1 JZ 1- •2>d CO > CO s c co ~ I CO +!§ b, dry wt 80% of c (0 - - fa g X ■*— 1 1 c c CO CD O CO — CD > CO a_ — ' TO O V) > o _>» ^5 cm II o *- *-■ c O c co w Cfl CO O « X IT) +1 "cO c F O) *= CO > (0 c *- m CD 1_ 05 CD E onc< perc 0) > CO CO co^ 3 co o ^ u cq o X ° 2 o ^5 .9 ^ Q. © >. - "5 > £ X II CO > p e ar ighl !E «: 3 c o 2 & CO « 5 (A co CO o 0) - "•P o-tn (0 k. 0) o 1?° ■o c CO v CO Q. „ :> w CO 3. A oxic 0) en ra k_ CM O m >• > i> S CO -Q C CD .CO w JZ CD CO t* CD CM O t-; ID Tt 0(DOCOCOSOOC\1 T^T^i^T^cvico'cvJcvir^ ONOO)SCOU)0)000)0)^| CO ID CT> CM ID +1 O ID O +1 CD O O +1 CO T- +1 h- C\J CM ' CM CM CM C\J CO cd r^ co t- CM ID +1 +1 +1 OJ CO o o LD O ^ +1 o Tfr CD ID CO LO CO LO +1 ) 9 ■ o +1 ^ CO S2 cd cr> co 9 o o 6 °. +1 CO +1 CM CO o p +1 CO CM d coo^^ococo*oco CM O +1 +1 o o +1 +1 CO +1 +1 O CM +1 ±1 ■ CD ■1— C0t-C01OcOCDO)cO 't'wcvlcvi'-iod't^ ?cp o +1 1- h» o +1 n CD 1 g » 10 CO o d cr> c CO a> ■d c CO CD c o w OJ LO 0) CD t- CD . T- C - CO -=. en 2 O CD ^ CO-o 5 c Q co 35 5 L. =i id CL a, UJ CD co T ~ T3 r CD CD 8 CD CD CO CO c o _co ^, CO CD CD CO s! 2 LJJ C CO CD "O O CD c o o CD o X CD 90 tions of parent 4,4'-DDT in the highly toxic samples exceeded the average concentration in the non- toxic samples by a factor of 20.3 and exceeded the ERM value of Long and Morgan (1990) by a factor of 21.6. The other isomers of DDT were highly elevated in the highly toxic samples and often ex- ceeded respective ERM guideline values. The sums of the quantified PCB congeners were multiplied by 2.0 to estimate the concentration of total PCB (NOAA, 1989). The average concentrations of total PCBs in the highly toxic samples exceeded the average concentration in the nontoxic samples by a factor of 1.9 and exceeded the ERM value of Long et al. (1995) by a factor of 4.1. The concentrations of all categories of PAHs were considerably elevated in the samples that were highly toxic to the amphipods relative to the samples that were not toxic (Table 24). The concentra- tions of organic carbon, inorganic carbon, and fine-grained sediment particles were not elevated in the highly toxic samples to the same degree as the PAHs. The average concentrations of total low molecuar weight PAHs in the toxic samples (34,672 ppb) exceeded the average concentrations in the nontoxic samples (922 ppb) by a factor of 37.6 and exceeded the ERM value for LPAH of Long et al. (1995) by a factor of 11.0. Also, both the high molecular weight compounds and total PAHs were elevated in concentration in the toxic samples relative to the nontoxic samples. The concentrations of both fluoranthene and phenanthrene in the highly toxic samples exceeded both the average concentrations in the nontoxic samples and the respective SQC concentrations by a considerable amount. Although the average concentration of acenaphthene in the toxic samples exceeded the nontoxic average by a factor of 58.7, it exceeded the SQC by a factor of only 2.8. In tables 25-27 the average concentrations of chemicals in samples that were toxic to microbial bi- oluminescence were compared with those that were not toxic. As observed in the amphipod tests, the average trace metals concentrations were relatively similar in the toxic and nontoxic samples, as indi- cated by ratios between the averages of 1.0 or therabouts (Table 25). Among the metals that were quantified, the concentrations of zinc were most elevated in the highly toxic samples; the average concentration of 442 ppm in the highly toxic samples exceeded the average in the nontoxic samples (240.7 ppm) by a factor of 1 .8. Also, the concentration of lead in the highly toxic samples (average of 224 ppm) exceeded the average concentration in the nontoxic samples (132.4 ppm) by a factor of 1.7. The average concentrations of both lead and zinc in the highly toxic samples were very similar to the ERM values (218 and 410 ppm, respectively). The average concentrations of mercury in all three categories were very similar (2.0-2.4 ppm) and exceeded the ERM value of 0.71 ppm. The concentra- tions of trace elements simultaneously extracted with the acid-volatile sulfides were very similar among the three toxicity categories. The SEM/AVS ratios averaged 1 .0 in the nontoxic samples and 0. 1 in the significantly toxic and highly toxic samples. Again, as observed in the amphipod tests, most of the pesticides and other chlorinated organics oc- curred in similar concentrations in both the toxic and nontoxic samples (Table 26). The concentrations of some compounds, such as heptachlor were below the detection limits in all samples, as indicated by standard deviations of 0.0 in all categories. The average concentrations of many compounds (e.g., 4,4'- DDE, 4,4'-DDT) actually were considerably lower in the highly toxic samples than in the nontoxic samples, despite the significant Spearman-rank correlations observed with these data. However, the concentrations in the highly toxic samples often exceeded the respective ERM values. The average concentrations of total PCBs were relatively high, exceeding the ERM value of 180 ppb, in all catego- ries. One highly toxic sample from site 12 in the East River had a detectable concentration of hep- tachlor epoxide, thus driving up the average for that compound. 91 ° X > o ra .2 0) • • S 2 o *- c w d) *s 5 g. «Z ^ a ** E 8 5 • Q.JO ra c W ^^ w © w +i o 2 ^ CO flj til iA > ra .2 w x m «- O C O -^ O $> CD o o c 381 Q- :». -S — § « n v o o >^ en > <5I o .c 03 o '^ CD o 00 co x: X o o o (0 B o X 0) 7~T o o o {J co X 1 c CD DC o o > c 03 x co *8S* .sT +| -C -I- ^d I co o o as DC Q -5 o X o c o c >* ^p CVJ *- o II C O c 8 -^ in _■ ^ X +| re ~ o C\J > (0 CO a ?- _- o ™ K > N +1 3 CO w cd i- LO t^ CvJ CO , ^' cvi i- cor^co-i-coc\jo>a>cof^cvj dcvir^r^Tf^cvid'^cod 1- CO t- 5 5 - "^CD ^co •^r T— CO CO i — CD T^- o co CVJ "3- 1 1 — Cvl + 1 +1 +1 CO CVJ o C\j It r^ T CVJ CO o ^r CO lO CvJ °° CO «H CvJ ~ CO '. co r- S ■* O i- CD 2 in l> CVJ +| ™ -H o s ^ m r w <° cvi CO CO oo IT) in CvJ t- +i +i oo ■** CVJ CVJ CVJ o CM CVJ CO ^ O O y- +1 +1 +1 + 1 CO £ h- "t CVJ CO lO ■* in O ,J d -<* cd r^ . in in ^ co oo n. co trs r\\ ii ■ "■ J ^ CM CO CVJ CO eg ^ in co co + 1 r -H +1 +1 +1 £ ^ cvj oo r^ in cvj ^ O CVJ 4J M +1 +1 +1 w co co in T3 £ « CO Q "o3 ' Cvj o cvj cvj d i— CO in CD +1 el =J co CD 3 E < < (D oQ-i Q. O _l X E E E E 3 3 3 3 CO 00 00 CO I < CL o E 3 CO 8o CVJCVJCOCDOO)CvJOCOi-CVJ| di- : -i- : d'r J dd'r J dT-'i^| CO +1 +1 +1 -i-i -i-i -i-i rn oi i- C cvj in co °? °? *T CT) cvi cd i- in Cvj i- * : o « - io CVJ +1 +1 9 X co ■"^ CVJ I-- T- CD c w: -c 1=: -c o o c CD c CD O i_ CD CL c CD O CD CL a. c CO CO c c CD CD O -C < 0- CJ) c o CD _3 CO > DC LU w T3 CD o X CD 1— O CO 3 CT CD W C "co v_ c o c o O LU L° SW O) T3 i- CD _ W -J O CL O CD £ 03 Q) CD GO o CD _3 CO > 00 DC LU T3 O Q) CO CO 3 CT c o o c CO C 3 O °"0 * * c * o "co in" CD c o c o O CD CO 92 .S 0) X o S£ *- O Si c w 0) o "- ss l« £ w *- » X » o E 2 ra o w i E .E (A o +l£ U) o "25 » o'S 1^ *• o ■- oo o v n . - w S a£o So M w « % "J .2 (0 X > .fc O re c ~ o >» "3 S-ffr, — TJ € 4) (0£ rao.2 w V *-> ** o. re o w *- re 'x c fe o « < >* o • = re in re £ cm u a> m 5 s > «•? (0 ■g O) o ,re .— ^ or«0 = root/) o +■« * 2 x i () CO X o o m k_ c_ 0) O > c 03 o o O o re g cc 2 -f°co I" ^_ o to o o o ,5o2 « re X c a) "-ere c iQ re O o E o r-~ o >< o °° -1 o LU • c £~ CD CO d co •<* c\j h- dodo t- o o CO f- 1 t^ ^WWincOifiCOrotOCDN^O(OfflOC\IOOS , t , t'-;Oq| ;_ t- r-; o +1 C\j +1 LO CO LO CO CM +1 +1 CO C\J CO rvj ^J M r/-» t\j v" co co CO +1 gco c\j co CM CO to CM +i o ^r CM CM o c\i CM cm n ?! +i co cm CM CO t— N in LO CO on o CO CO 00 O h> o CM CT> en O CM o o CM CO O o o O o o +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +i CO r~- T— CM LO o o o h- CD CO T T— o CT> o CD o r^ o O N h- O i- m •r^ d +i +i co t- •<* d ""* O O V O O CM i-(OOOOWCONi-NSNOi- •r^-i^^T-^T^-r^d^T^T^dd^T^ OOO00050)0)'-ifi| •r^-r^-r^ddddd-H o +i o CM co co +i o o o CD CM +1 LO CM * ^ * co ^,oo ^cmcocqoo+i 00 CM 00 CO T- o oo o co , o o o +i & -y +| +i co & +| +| +| +loMfiCOOOvCOCMO)i- JcOLnmJ^Cn^OCOO - LO CD CM I s - CO LO o ^1 LO O LO d d LO co o d +1 00 CD 1^ o o CO LO i- I s * CM d s CM +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 ^•cnsT-r- CM en co LO co CO V o o *- O) d +1 oo CM $ +1 T o LO cb LO +1 o CO o LO CM CO LO +i +i +i ION r t-^ CO <^> CM : io ^r •r- I s - LO Pi ^J CM . CM^CMg LO o o 1^ CD t^ d +1 +1 O) T- o 00 +1 CM t- co co "T O +1 co 00 o +1 o o o d o o o LO d 4-1 o o 00 LO o o o o o o Mnro o d +i o o o CM O CO CM +1 o o CT> +1 O V O O t- o +1 o ° ^ CO t— CD J d oo O r- m r^ CM CM E D E o = .=2 tl' i: E CO < E D E ■o re o § » re < ^_ k_ ^ CO re II •> o S) < b re ^ re n LU n - C/J 1- c o re > DC LU to T3 O X _co re cr to c o re i— c o c o O LO CT> re CD c o re > _i CC LU to o X t_ o w re cr c .2 re to" C 05 t- O . C _: o re 93 «8 o c (A g 0) 0) X 1° :■ 0) E c «j — .E o (A +1 C o o ' _ w 0) 3| 03 c o > * 5.2 O X >* U 0£ O T * C3-D.2 o ra 2 o lo c Q- q. o en o < 5 x a> S m 5= .C . C *- to ra c N U o o Z « O ~= cd o CO S z 1a o o .2 .y cr 2 o 2 o ^ S| "E ° co II X C) to X o a) o 05 i— c_ 0) o > c CO o o .2 o "to * DC 2 c lo co O 9 LU O CO X ~ co c o c o CD ^ o C o CD CO o o x -S2 oo —, 2 ° d SH OLU ^ C -r —CD CD d o oo ^qoin^O)T-t\ss(ooini-i-otMinssco| co o co o +1 CD +1 CD cd d o o to d * ssi +i +l CO +1 CO CD CO to r*~ d d d T" 1 iri CO +1 CD * * to i-- * o * ID * + CO o CO +i CD C\J CM +1 CM d +i d +i CD d co +l +1 CM +1 CO d +l CM 00 +1 CO -* CM 00 d CO co " d *" CD oo CD ^' CM ID +1 ■<3- CM CO ID ID W °5 +1 CO °° ^r Tf CM CD 00 co ■<* r^ d +l +l O) CO r^ O i- o d d +1 +1 CO i- o o d d +i +i CO CM CM d d d co cvj cm o t- d t^ +i +1 ID tp CM ^ 2 c\i +i ±' +i *"" CD "* LO O? +1 +1 5! CD d W O O o +1 CD d d +1 ID d ID O CD 00 d lo CM +| 00 ,— CM 1- co d 1 +1 o , H d cm Q r-. LO t- Jk. O) Tf O O 1- +1 +1 4.1 +1 CO CD CM 00 J, h~ d cm ^ d CM CM +1 00 CM O LO +1 LO CO CM +1 LO CM CM O d 2 +1 <2 ^L^ - ^d CM Ti CO o co d d +1 +1 CM CM d d d CD CM + 1 CO CO d o siS CD C a> CD ■a N X 1_ C 0) a. CD <~ -O CD C 1— i_ CO CO ^ |uj ■0 1~ c c LU a Q £Z CD -C ■go c O Q CO c CO td C co Q 1 CO T3 a I a 1 C D 1 X CD T3 C CD T3 %\ 1 to CO CD ^t ti- -O c ^f- ^= ^ (0 s: cm L_ TD "* CM~ CD ■^r Q Q 1 cm" Q Q x .' CD E co CD ■g co CD a. I o C .CO T3 Q .£ Q co c CD c o CO m m o o 0. D. o o ^j. ^ (J U CJ (_> u O O ^cflOT-qcvicoiDcDcNT-OT-T-i-cocDT-mmtDi dw^d^dddddd^dddridddddl •-; cd CD « d ^ co CM * CD 00 +1 3* +1 °> CM T_ ■>- LO CO CD ■g o "oo CD Q I- Q Q I c o c c o 1 c CD o c O o o 0) c CO en S ^ W CT) cn »- § 5 _l CO O o C3) T3 ^ CO 10 ? CD i_ C O °ld ^i CD 2 _g CO — i " > CO Lr ® UJ g 5 CO O "D _l CD — CD CD 8 "5 O CO ° ^ jo q; CO LU g- co CD T3 O o •^ X CO CD C O S^ C CO O 3 ST * CD 94 In 5 © (0 © o V o. u TJ X C O (0 «■* >» w" *•> 0) c en «J n o 0) ;t > c ra O) 0) "5> u c x « o i is 0) CO £ o *< „ «- co co jB i* £ 2 i o (0 O .S'S *T fl) TJ £ • ** W C +1 ~ 5 o to £»£ O ■o 5 O ° k. ■o c n CO go o°° — V w (0 c 0) o c o o > I CO < ** en (0 a> > c < " Q. o cc X ♦* cn o I 2 * ■= § .Q "O ,03 C > o >N >£l g .C cc O "■•-* cn o co CO x !c I fl o o o toxic ages "co X o C Q) X o > C CO co i! g >< co 2 o -^O X o o 73 g ^o c m co O .y lu c o CO o o w X o CD o CO k_ c CD o > c CO 1* o . +1 il o c ° co ii £ —CO O) CO CO CO 1^ Csj sooo d -^ r^ WNCOOO^CDOICOCOCOO) CN CM t- ■^ CO CO t- 00 LO LO CM co +1 in CO CVJ C\J "3- o CO +i o> CM co CO T— CO CO CO CO o o l> CO T T— +1 +1 ■* ■tf CM co CO T CD o m f- CD C^J _ CO O CO -rJ °2 + 1 +1 CO in i^ oo co C\J CO CO d d LO r^ o d r^ d ■r- LO i — co CO +i co CO CM +l +1 LO h*; CD ^f CVJ d CVJ t cn CVJ T- +1 CM d o 0)LOO)cocqcMco^t^tco^t| co o o +i co CO T- ° o o CO +1 *p, o co +i 00 in S CO co I s " ^ LO co. +i +i CM CM o LO CO CO d +i CO d LO 00 co d co LO CM CD O CM CO +1 +l co LO »- CD CM <* +i CO cvi CM ■* CM i- CM +1 +l J! oo CO CD +1 CM cvi CD d +1 d + * * * * * o ■J— T— CD ■ X LU V) T5 CD O X JO CO 3 cr CO c O CD CO CD o 0- c HI —^ OO 1 O .CO LO "CO S c CD o - "co "CO 2 ♦- TJ 3>S It --' Q. 0J (0 ^ TJ CO > I ° X LU >- TJ ° CD JO CO U 3 g" ° § JO ~ CO CO 3 .b cr c c o 03 c o c o o c o O LO O cn 95 All of the classes of PAHs were considerably elevated in concentration in the samples that were highly toxic to microbial bioluminescence (Table 27). The average concentration of LPAH in the highly toxic samples exceeded the average concentration in the nontoxic samples by a factor of 25.6 and exceeded the ERM value by a factor of 18.9. Also, the concentrations of petroleum-related compounds, acenaphthene, and phenanthrene were very high in the highly toxic samples. All three of the individual PAHs exceeded the proposed National SQCs (U.S. EPA, 1994) in the highly toxic samples. The con- centrations of organic carbon, inorganic carbon, and fine-grained sediments were slightly higher in the highly toxic samples relative to the nontoxic samples. Relationships between Toxicity and Physical-Chemical Parameters: Phase 2. The Spearman-rank correlations between amphipod survival in the Phase 2 samples and the concentrations of trace metals are compared in Table 28. The correlations were performed for the concentrations of total individual metals, total acid-volatile sulfides (AVS), and the SEM/AVS ratios. The correlations between percent amphipod survival and total metals concentrations were significant for all elements except arsenic, aluminum, iron, nickel, and antimony. The concentrations of total cadmium were most strongly corre- lated with amphipod survival. Also, amphipod survival was significantly correlated with increasing concentrations of AVS. However, the ratios of total SEM to total AVS were not correlated with amphi- pod survival. If the number of variables (16) were taken into account, only correlations listed as "**" would remain significant. Table 28. Spearman-rank correlations (Rho, corrected for ties) between percent amphipod sur- vival and the concentrations of total trace metals and with the ratios of simultaneously extracted metals (SEM) to acid-volatile sulfides (AVS) in Phase 2 sediments (n=20). Total metals SEM/AVS (Mg/g drv wt.) (u moles/g) Silver -0.585* Arsenic -0.332 ns Aluminum -0.095 ns Cadmium -0.777** Chromium -0.673* Copper -0.723* Iron -0.209 ns Mercury -0.612* Nickel -0.137 ns Lead -0.681* Antimony -0.378 ns Tin -0.734* Selenium -0.647* Zinc -0.534* Total AVS -0.565* SEM/AVS ratios +0.248 n ns = not significant (p>0.05). * p<0.05 ** p<0.001 SEM = (sum of Cd, Cu, Pb, Ni, Zn) The Spearman-rank correlation coefficient for amphipod survival and the concentration of un-ionized ammonia in the overlying water in the amphipod test chamber was not significant (Rho = -0.105, 96 p>0.05, n=50). The concentration of un-ionized ammonia exceeded the detection limit (0.35 wg/1) in seven of the samples and the maximum recorded concentration was 620 «g/l. Three of the samples exceeded the no- observed-effects concentration and none equalled or exceeded the unionized ammo- nia LC50 for A. abdita (Figure 36) reported by Kohn et al. (1994). The correlations between amphipod survival and the concentrations of chlorinated organic compounds and total organic carbon are listed and compared in Table 29. Nearly all of the pesticides and PCB groups were significantly correlated with toxicity to the amphipods. Compounds that were very highly correlated with amphipod survival included dieldrin (expressed both in dry weight and organic car- bon), p, p'-DDE, and total PCBs (estimated by GC, as the total of quantified congeners, and by GC/ MS). Amphipod survival was more highly correlated with the DDE isomers than with the DDT iso- mers. The correlations with endrin were not significant. The correlations with total organic carbon also were not significant. If the number of variables tested (18) were accounted for, only those corre- lations shown with "**" would be significant. Table 29. Spearman-rank correlations (Rho, corrected for ties) between percent amphipod sur- vival and the concentrations of chlorinated organic compounds in Newark Bay sediments (n=20). Chemical Correlation Chemical Correlation name coefficient name coefficient hexachlorobenzene -0.633* pentachloro anisole -0.599* alpha-BHC -0.234 ns lindane -0.242 ns beta-BHC +0.174 ns heptachlor -0.100 ns delta-BHC -0.487* dacthal -0.289 ns oxychlordane -0.633* heptachlor epoxide -0.680* trans-chlordane -0.705* trans-nonachlor -0.699* cis-chlordane -0.677* o, p'-DDE -0.707* dieldrin -0.848** p, p'-DDE -0.800** o, p'-DDD -0.629* endrin -0.437 ns cis-nonachlor -0.707* o, p'-DDT -0.576* p, p'-DDD -0.597* p, p'-DDT -0.253 ns mirex -0.569* total GC PCBs -0.802** total DDTs -0.576* sum of total PCBs -0.783** percent TOC -0.205 ns endrin/toc -0.253 ns dieldrin/toc -0.841** ns = not significant (p>0.05). *p<0.05, **p<0.001 The correlations between amphipod survival and the concentrations of nearly all the dioxin and furan compounds were highly significant (Table 30). The concentrations were expressed as units of dry weight for individual compounds. Also, the concentrations of selected compounds were multiplied by the respective 2,3,7,8-tcdd toxicity equivalency factors of Barnes et al. (1991) for co-planar PCBs and Kutz et al. (1990) for dioxins and furans and summed to estimate the total toxicity equivalency quo- tients (TEQ). The correlations were particularly strong for 2,3,7,8-tcdd, 2,3,7,8-tcdf, the cumulative 2,3,7,8-tcdd TEQ for total PCBs, and the total cumulative TEQ for dioxins, furans, and PCBs. Amphi- pod survival was significantly correlated with tcdd-equivalent concentrations determined in H4IIE rat hepatoma bioassays of the whole Fl extract and several of the extract fractions, but not with the F5 fraction (PAHs). If the number of variables tested (28) were accounted for, only those correlations shown with "**" would be significant. 97 Newark Bay ■ Rho = -0.105 ns o ra > 100 ■ (> £ ■ 3 (A 80 " ■o O o Q. JZ a. 60 ■ ■ b «s • ** c 0) u 1- 40 " $ o 0) a. i o o 20 " 8 ° LC50 = - NJEC 830 ug/l ■ 1 J S7 ■ ■ I -100 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 Un-ionized ammonia in overlying water, ug/l Figure 36. Relationship of amphipod survival to the concentrations of un-ionized ammonia (ug/l) in the overlying water of the test chambers. Table 30. Spearman-rank correlations (Rho, corrected for ties) between percent amphipod survival and the concentrations of chlorinated dibenzo dioxin and dibenzo furan compounds in Newark Bay sediments (n=20). Chemical Correlation Chemical Correlation name coefficient name coefficient 2378-tcdd -0.868** 12378-pcdd -0.683* 12478-pcdd -0.539* 123478-hcdd -0.725* 123678-hcdd -0.761** 123789-hcdd -0.684* 1234678-hcdd -0.734* octodichloro-dd -0.675* 2378-tcdf -0.863** 12378-pcdf -0.714* 23478-pcdf -0.731* 123478-hcdf -0.639* 123678-hcdf -0.677* 123789-hcdf -0.584 234678-hcdf -0.558* 1 234678-hcdf -0.618* 1234789-hcdf -0.654* octochloro-df -0.613* total dioxins TEQ -0.866** total PCBs TEQ -0.850** total cumulative TEQ -0.865** total Fl extract -0.614** F5 fraction -0.393 ns F7 fraction -0.128 ns F8 fraction -0.659** F9 fraction -0.599** Fl 1 fraction -0.630** F12 fraction -0.815*** ns = not significant (p>0.05), *p<0.05, **p<0.001 98 None of the correlations between amphipod survival and the concentrations of PAHs were statistically significant (Table 31). These results are in sharp contrast with those from the Phase 1 samples, in which the PAHs were highly correlated with toxicity to amphipods. Table 31. Spearman-rank correlations (Rho, corrected for ties) between percent amphipod sur- vival and the concentrations of polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) in Newark Bay sedi- ments (n=20). Chemical Correlation Chemical Correlation name coefficient name coefficient naphthalene -0.149 ns benzo(b)thiophene -0.394 ns 2-methyl naphthalene -0.313 ns 1 -methyl naphthalene -0.262 ns biphenyl -0.131 ns 2,6/2,7 dimethyl naphthalene +.023 ns acenaphylene -0.212 ns acenapthene -0.162 ns fluorene -0.131 ns dibenzothiophene -0.402 ns phenanthrene -0.212 ns anthracene +0.013 ns fluoranthene -0.244 ns pyrene -0.359 ns benzo(a)anthracene -0.145 ns chrysene -0.209 ns benzo(b)fluoranthene -0.138 ns benzo(k)fluoranthene -0.206 ns benzo(e)pyrene -0.186 ns benzo(a)anthracene -0.147 ns perylene -0.122 ns indeno( 1 ,2,3)pyrene -0.185 ns dibenzo(a,h)anthracene -0.188 ns benzo(g,h,i)perylene -0.203 ns total LPAH -0.098 ns total HPAH -0.203 ns sum total PAH -0.194 ns acenaphthene/toc -0.152 ns phenanthrene/toc -0.241 ns fluoranthene/toc -0.346 ns ns = not significant (p>0.05) The concentrations of many of the chemicals quantified in Phase 2 equalled or exceeded respective guideline values (Table 32). In particular, the concentrations of many chlorinated organic compounds, such as 2,3,7,8-tcdd, the isomers of DDT, and total PCBs, equalled or exceeded the respective guide- lines in many of the samples. The concentrations of 2,3,7,8-tcdd exceeded the proposed sediment guideline (100 pg/g, parts per trillion) for the protection of benthic organisms (U.S. EPA, 1993) and human health receptors (New York Sate Department of Environmental Conservation, 1993) by more than two fold in many samples. The cumulative 2378-tcdd toxicity equivalency quotients (TEQ) for all of the dioxins, furans, and PCBs also exceeded the guideline value by factors of up to four fold. All three p,p- isomers of DDE, DDD, and DDT equalled or exceeded the respective ERM values (Long et al., 1995; Long and Morgan, 1990) in many samples. However, the authors of these reports expressed only a moderate degree of confidence in these guidelines. The concentrations of total PCB congeners exceeded the ERM value of 180 ppb in most of the samples. The concentrations of many of the chlorinated organic compounds were elevated, frequently by >2X, in many of the Phase 2 samples. In comparison, the concentrations of most trace elements were not particularly elevated in these samples (Table 32). None of the samples had concentrations of arsenic, cadmium, copper, or chromium that exceeded the respective ERM values. Although many of the samples had mercury concentrations that exceeded the ERM value of 0.71 ppm, Long et al. (1995) had only a moderate degree of confidence in this ERM value. Lead and zinc concentrations equalled or exceeded the respective ERM values in 10 samples, but never by a factor of two fold or greater. The 99 concentrations of both low and high molecular weight PAHs were elevated in many samples; however, the concentrations of total PAHs exceeded the ERM value in only two samples. The PAH concentra- tions were particularly high in the sample from station 1 in the Passaic River. The samples collected in the Passaic River (stations 1-11) and the sample from station 26 (central Newark Bay) had elevated concentrations of many chemicals. Table 32. Samples from the Phase 2 stations that equalled or exceeded the respective ERM or SQC values for each major substance or class of compounds. Stations in which the concentra- tion exceeded the guideline by >2x are listed in bold (n=20). Number of samples Samples in which Chemical in which g uideline the ERM or SQC substance vah jes were exceeded was exceeded 2378-tcdd (SQG = 100 ppt a ) 11 3, 5, 7a, 7b, 7c, 8a, 8b, 10, 11,21,26 total cum. PCB TEQ 2 7c, 26 (SQG = 100 ppt a ) total dioxins TEQ 14 1,3, 5, 7a, 7b, 7c, 8a, 8b, 10, 11, (SQG= 100 ppt a ) 11, 14,21,26,31 total cumulative TEQ 15 1,3,5, 7a, 7b, 7c, 8a, 8b, 10, 11,(SQG= 100 ppt a ) 11, 14,21,26,31,36 p,p' - DDE (ERM = 27 ppb b ) 13 3, 5, 7a, 7b, 7c, 8a, 8b, 10, 11 26,31,36,56 total PCBs (ERM = 180 ppb b ) 16 I, 3, 5, 7a, 7b, 7c, 8a, 8b, 10, II, 14,21,26,31,36,56 p, p' - DDD (ERM = 20 ppb c ) 15 1,3, 5, 7a, 7b, 7c, 8a, 8b, 10, 11, 14,26,31,36,56 p, p' - DDT (ERM = 7 ppb c ) 14 1,3,5, 7a, 7b, 7c, 8a, 8b, 10, 11,14,31,36,56 total DDTs (ERM = 46. 1 ppb b ) 15 1,3, 5, 7a, 7b, 7c, 8a, 8b, 10, 11,14,26,31,36,56 dieldrin/oc (SQC = 20 wg/goc d ) none endrin/oc (SQC = 0.76 wg/goc d ) none silver (ERM = 3.7 ppm b ) 7 5, 7a, 7b, 7c, 8a, 8b, 10 arsenic (ERM = 70 ppm b ) none cadmium (ERM = 9.6 ppm b ) none chromium (ERM = 370 ppm b ) none copper (ERM = 270 ppm b ) none mercury (ERM = 0.71 ppm b ) 17 3, 5, 7a, 7b, 7c, 8a, 8b, 10, 11,14, 17,20,21,26,31,36, 56 nickel (ERM = 51.6 ppm b ) 3 10, 11,56 lead (ERM = 218 ppm b ) 10 3, 5, 7a, 7b, 7c, 8a, 8b, 10, 11, 14 zinc (ERM = 410 ppm b ) 10 3, 5, 7a, 7b, 7c, 8a, 8b, 10, 11,20 total LPAH (ERM = 3 160 ppb b ) 9 1, 3, 5, 7a, 7b, 8b, 14,20,21 total HPAH (ERM - 9600 ppb b ) 13 1, 3, 5, 7a, 7b, 7c, 8a, 8b, 11, 14, 17, 20, 21 100 Table 32 continued. Number of samples Samples in which Chemical in which guideline the ERM or SQC substance values were exceeded was exceeded total PAH (ERM = 44792 ppb b ) 2 1,3 acenaphthene (SQC = none 230 wg/goc d ) phenanthrene (SQC = 1 1 240 «g/goc d ) fluoranthene (SQC = 3 1,20,21 300 wg/gocd) a Sediment Quality Guidelines from U.S. EPA (1993). b Effects Range Median values from Long et al. (1995) c Effects Range Median values from Long and Morgan (1990) d Sediment Quality Criteria from U.S. EPA (1994) The relationships between amphipod toxicity and the concentrations of a number of toxic chemicals in the samples are plotted in the following graphs (Figures 37-45). In addition, each graph includes the Spearman-rank correlation coefficient for that particular chemical and the respective sediment quality guideline value. Amphipod survival decreased steadily with increasing concentrations of p,p'-DDE in the samples (Figure 37). In the two samples with very high amphipod survival, the concentrations of p,p'-DDE were very low (<10 ng/g). In the sample that caused zero amphipod survival, the concentration of p,p'-DDE was the highest among the 20 samples (>70 ng/g). In most of the samples in which p,p'-DDE concentra- tions were less than the ERM value (27 ng/g, Long et al., 1995), amphipod survival was relatively high (>70% in all but one sample). In contrast, amphipod survival was relatively low (<70%) in all but one sample in which the concentrations of p,p'-DDE exceeded the ERM value. However, MacDonald (1994) estimated a Sediment Effect Concentration (SEC) of 6.58 mg/kg dry wt. (6580 ng/g) for the sum of DDEs, two orders of magnitude greater than the highest concentrations observed in the Phase 2 samples. Based upon a database compiled from studies focused upon the effects of the DDTs, the SEC of MacDonald (1994) probably is more reliable than the ERM of Long et al. (1995). Therefore, al- though amphipod survival was strongly correlated with the concentrations of p,p'-DDE, this com- pound probably contributed minimally to the toxicity since the concentrations were far below a reliable threshold concentration. Although the correlation between amphipod survival and the concentrations of the sum of the six DDT isomers was significant (Rho = -0.576, p<0.05), the concentrations of these compounds were relatively low. Total DDT concentrations ranged from 9.5 to 287.4 ng/g (median = 169.0 ng/g), considerably lower than the estimated SEC of 7120 ng/g (MacDonald, 1994). Expressed in units of organic carbon, total DDT concentrations ranged from 0.6 to 12.0 wg/goc (median = 4.4 Mg/goc); again well below the 10-day toxicity threshold in laboratory bioassays (300 Mg/goc) and the 10-day LC50 (2500 Mg/goc) in field-collected sediments for the amphipod Eohaustorius estuarius (Swartz et al., 1994). There was a very strong relationship between amphipod survival and the concentrations of total PCB congeners, as illustrated by a Spearman-rank correlation of 0.802. The concentrations of total PCBs 101 Newark Bay c o u n > 3 ■D O Q. !E a. E n Q. 120 100 . o o 80 " 60 40 c 2 °1 0) u o °o Rho = -0.800* p<0.001 CP ERM = 27 -Cl o -f - ' ■ f 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 p,p-DDE, ng/g Figure 37. Relationship of amphipod survival to the concentrations of p, p 1 - DDE in Newark Bay sediment samples. Newark Bay 80 +■ "5 70 " w C 8 60 o £ 50 - "5 > > 4 0-1 T3 O Q. 30 Q. 20 E CO c 10 5 u O opk o <5P. < Q- Newark Bay 120 ^ 100 80 m 60 40 20 1 o o o o SQC=100 Rho = 0.850" 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 Cumulative PCB TEQs, pg/g 160 Figure 39. Relationship between amphipod survival and the concentrations of 2,3,7,8-TCDD toxicity equivalency quotients for the co-planar PCB congeners in Newark Bay sediments. Newark Bay 120 O 100 c o u o > E 3 (/> ■o o Q. !E o. E « o 80 1 O 60 " 40 20 ' O O o o J_ Rho = -0.868" p<0.001 cP o SQG = 100 o o ■Or 100 200 300 400 500 2,3,7,8-tcdd, pg/g i— i— i— i— •— f- 600 700 Figure 40. Relationship of amphipod survival to the concentrations of 2,3,7,8-TCDD in Newark Bay sediment samples. 103 (0 > 3 V) o Q. E o w 0) Q. Newark Bay 120 2 100 c o u o 80 " 60 40 20 8 cP SQG=100 i I i i i I i i ■ i t- Rho = 0.865- p<0.001 <2> o o o f ■ ■ ■ 'i ■ ■ ■ i ■ ■ ■ i ■ ■ » i ■ ■ ■ i 100 200 300 400 500 600 Total cumulative 2378-tcdd TEQ, pg/g 700 800 Figure 41. Relationship between amphipod survival and the concentration of total cumulative 2,3,7,8-TCDD toxicity equivalency quotients in Newark Bay sediments. Newark Bay 120 o i= 100 ■ c o u ° 80 - a > 60 ■ l. 3 (A ■o | 40 !c a. E « 20 a. o f ■ 'o o o _Q_ ■ I ■ I ■ T ' ' I I i L Rho = -0.681*, p<0.05 6> ERM = 218 •—I ■ I T »- 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 Total Pb, ug/g Figure 42. Relationship of amphipod survival to the concentrations of total lead in Newark Bay sediment samples. 400 104 c o u ■o o Q. !c Q. E ca s Q- Newark Bay 120 -i ■ ■ ■ ' ^ 100 ■ 80 « 60 5 40 " 20 " f T jO- Rho = -0.534*. p<0.05 ERM = 410 O T T 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 total Zn, ug/g Figure 43. Relationship of amphipod survival to the concentrations of total zinc in Newark Bay sediment samples. 120 Newark Bay -\ ■ ■ O 100 " re > (A ■o o g. f Q. E re o w 0) Q. O o o •S 80 1 60 " 40 " 20 " t a c o 6> p ERnP= 9600 T T Rho = -0.203 ns T T 20000 40000 60000 80000 100000 120000 140000 Total HMPAH, ng/g Figure 44. Relationship of amphipod survival to the concentrations of total high molecular weight PAHs in Newark Bay sediment samples. 105 Newark Bay 120 100 o u •K 80 lo o TO > 3 Cfl T3 O a !E a E TO *-* C d> o k- 0) a. 60 40 20 o f-w o oo o o o o o a — o , o i I i i i It Rho = -0.346 ns O SQC = 300 i I i i i I i i i I i 200 400 600 800 fluoranthene, ug/goc 1000 *— T 1200 Figure 45. Relationship of amphipod survival to the concentrations of fluoranthene in Newark Bay sediment samples. exceeded the ERM value of 180 ng/g (Long et al., 1995) in all except three samples, and most of these samples were highly toxic to the amphipods (Figure 38). Total PCB concentrations ranged from 105.5 to 2,850.2 ng/g (median = 879.2 ng/g). Amphipod survival was zero in a sample with approximately 1 ,400 ng tPCB/g. MacDonald ( 1 994) estimated the SEC for total PCBs as 0.592 mg/kg dry wt (592 ng/ g). All of the samples that equalled or exceeded a total PCB concentration of 592 ng/g caused 50% or less amphipod survival. One sample had over 2,800 ng tPCB/g and caused less than 40% amphipod survival. It appears that the PCBs may have made a major contribution to the toxicity to the amphi- pods. The concentrations of four co-planar PCBs were normalized to (multiplied by) the toxicity equivalency factors (TEFs) (Barnes et al., 1991) for each congener and the sums of those quotients were calculated. The cumulative toxicity equivalency quotients (TEQ) for the co-planar PCBs were highly correlated with amphipod survival (Figure 39). There is no consensus toxicity threshold value for these quotients. Many different estimates have been made of critical or threshold values and they differ from each other by many orders of magnitude (Iannuzzi et al., 1995). In two samples the cumulative TEQs for the PCB congeners were higher than one estimate of a threshold, 100 pg/g for fish and human receptors (U.S. EPA, 1993; New York State DEC, 1993, respectively), but the reliability of this threshold value is unknown. The sample from station 26 caused 100% amphipod mortality and had about 140 pg/g cumulative TEQs for the co-planar PCBs. Among all the chemicals quantified, only the concentrations of these compounds and p,p'-DDE were highest in the sample from station 26 where amphipod sur- vival was zero. 106 Among all of the substances quantified in Phase 2, the concentrations of the dioxins were most highly correlated with amphipod survival. The scatterplot of the data showed a consistent pattern of decreas- ing survival with increasing 2,3,7, 8-tcdd concentrations (Figure 40). All of the samples that were highly toxic to the amphipods had 2,3, 7, 8-tcdd concentrations that exceeded the 100 pg/g guideline proposed by the U.S. EPA (1993). The concentrations of all the dioxin, furan, and PCB congeners for which toxicity equivalency factors were available (Barnes et al., 1991; Kutzet al., 1990) were normalized to (multiplied by) the appropri- ate TEFs and the total cumulative TEQs were determined. Amphipod survival was highly correlated with the total cumulative TEQs (Figure 41). Also, all of the samples that exceeded the U.S. EPA (1993) guideline of 100 pg/g were highly toxic to the amphipods. Amphipod survival dropped to 50% or less in samples with total dioxins TEQs of 150 pg/g or more. However, the sample with the highest TEQ concentration was not sample 26, in which amphipod survival was zero. The relationships between amphipod survival and the concentrations of both lead and zinc were rela- tively strong and consistent (Figures 42-43). All of the samples with lead concentrations that exceeded the ERM value (Long et al., 1995) were highly toxic (survival <80%). Also, all except one sample with zinc concentrations above the ERM value were highly toxic. Long et al. (1995) reported relatively high confidence in the ERM values for both of the elements. However, two samples in which survival was 0.0% and 20% had relatively low concentrations of both lead and zinc. The very high concentra- tions of PCBs, dioxins, and other chlorinated hydrocarbons probably were more important in these samples than the trace elements. Also, one sample with a very high concentration of zinc (>700 ug/g) had relatively high amphipod survival (80%). Based upon these data, lead and zinc may have contrib- uted to the observed toxicity in some of the samples. The correlations between the concentrations of PAHs and amphipod survival were relatively poor, especially when compared to the strong correlations observed in the data from Phase 1 . The concentra- tions of high molecular weight PAHs were relatively high in the samples that caused low amphipod survival; however, this pattern was not consistent (Figure 44). For example, the HPAH concentration in sample 26 was relatively low (less than the ERM value of 9600 ng/g) and one sample in which amphipod survival was relatively high had the highest concentration of these compounds. Among the three compounds for which EPA has developed SQCs, fluoranthene was most strongly correlated with amphipod survival. However, the correlation between amphipod survival and fluoranthene concentra- tions was not significant and the pattern was inconsistent (Figure 45). Three samples had fluoranthene concentrations that either equalled or exceeded the SQC; amphipod survival was relatively high in one and very low in the other. Based upon these data, it does not appear that the PAHs contributed substan- tially to the observed toxicity in many of the Newark Bay samples. Of the 20 samples that were subjected to chemical analyses, 4 were not significantly different from controls in the tests of amphipod survival, whereas 16 were significantly different from controls and amphipod survival was less than 80% of the control survival. The average concentrations of the 2,3,7,8- tcdd and dioxin TEQs that co-occurred with the nontoxic and the toxic samples are compared in Table 33. In addition, the average concentrations of these compounds in the toxic samples were compared with the sediment guideline proposed by the U.S. EPA (1993). The average concentration of 2,3,7,8- tcdd in the toxic samples exceeded the average concentration in the nontoxic samples by a factor of 10.6 and exceeded the guideline by a factor of 2.7. The concentrations of the dioxin TEQs, co-planar PCB TEQs, and total cumulative TEQs in the toxic samples exceeded the concentrations in the non- 107 toxic samples by factors of 6.5, 2.8, and 5.4, respectively. In addition, the average concentrations of the dioxin TEQs and the total cumulative TEQs in the toxic samples exceeded the guideline value of 100 pg/g by factors of 3.5 and 4.2, respectively. Table 33. Average concentrations (pg/g, dry wt.) of 2,3,7,8-tcdd and total cumulative dioxin TEQs in highly toxic (<80% survival) and nontoxic samples from Newark Bay, ratios between the aver- ages, and ratios between the highly toxic averages and the respective SQG*. Nontoxic Highly toxic Ratio of Ratio of highly (91.9 ±13.0% (38.0 ± 24.7% highly toxic toxic avg. survival, survival, to nontoxic to the n = 4) n=16) averages SQG 2378-tcdd 25.8±23.2 273.9±177.9 10.6 2.7 cum. dioxins TEQ 55.0±50.8 355.1±217.1 6.5 3.5 cum. PCB TEQ 22.1±16.6 62.0±34.5 2.8 <1.0 total cum. TEO 77.2166.9 417.1±249.0 5A £2 *SQG = 100 pg/g (U.S. EPA, 1993) The average concentrations of pesticides and total PCBs in the toxic and nontoxic samples are com- pared in Table 34. The average concentrations of nearly all of these compounds were higher in the toxic samples than in the nontoxic samples. The ratios of the averages ranged from 0.9 to 6.2. The concentrations of some chlordane isomers, hexachlorobenzene, and the sum of the PCB congeners were elevated to the greatest degree (>5.0X) in the toxic samples. Sediment guidelines were not avail- able for most compounds. Among those substances for which guidelines exist, the average concentra- tions in the toxic samples often were lower than the guidelines. However, the concentrations of p,p'- DDE and total PCB congeners were highly elevated relative to the ERM values (Long et al., 1995). Also, the average concentration of total PCBs (758 ng/g) in the toxic samples exceeded the SEC (562 ng/g) calculated by Mac Donald (1994). However, the average concentration of total DDTs in the toxic samples (5.8 wg/goc) was far lower than the toxicity threshold (300 wg/goc) identified by Swartz et al. (1994) for the amphipod R. abronius. Table 34. Average concentrations (ng/g, dry wt.) of pesticides and PCBs in highly toxic (<80% survival) and nontoxic samples from Newark Bay, ratios between the averages, and ratios be- tween the highly toxic averages and the respective SQGs. Nontoxic Highly toxic Ratio of Ratio of highly (91.9 ±13.0% (38.0 ± 24.7% highly toxic toxic avg. survival, survival, to nontoxic to the n = 4) n = 16) averages SQG hexachlorobenzene l.Otl.O 4.8±2.4 5.0 na pentachloro-anisole 0.3±0.2 0.6±0.2 2.2 na alpha-BHC 1.1±0.5 0.7±0.5 1.6 na lindane 0.2±0.2 0.3±0.3 1.3 na beta-BHC 0.4±0.3 0.3±0.3 0.9 na heptachlor 0.1±0.0 0.2±0.3 2.0 na delta-BHC 1.3±0.7 2.4±1.1 1.9 na dacthal 1.7±0.5 2.3±0.7 1.4 na 108 Table 34 contd. Nontoxic Highly toxic Ratio of Ratio of highly ( ;91.9±13.0% (38.0 1 24.7% highly toxic toxic avg. survival, survival, to nontoxic to the n = 4) n = 16) averages SQG oxychlordane 0.2±0.1 0.510.3 2.6 na heptachlor epoxide 1.4±1.0 6.614.4 4.9 na trans-chlordane 3.8±3.0 23.4116.0 6.2 na trans-nonachlor 2.8±2.1 13.518.8 4.9 na cis-chlordane 4.7±3.7 28.2120.6 6.0 na o, p' - DDE 3.4±3.3 8.314.3 2.5 na dieldrin 2.7±1.9 10.615.9 3.9 1.3 a p, p' - DDE 16.8±14.1 44.4119.0 2.7 1.6 b o, p' - DDD 6.8±6.5 21.5112.5 3.2 na endrin 0.4±0.2 0.910.7 2.2 0.02 a cis-nonachlor 1.3±0.9 6.214.2 4.8 na o, p' - DDT 1.210.8 5.313.4 4.6 na p, p' - DDD 15.8114.1 45.9122.2 2.9 2.3 a p, p' - DDT 31.5140.6 40.7135.0 1.3 5.8 a mirex 2.411.3 10.817.2 4.6 na sum of DDTs 75.2165.7 166.2173.7 2.2 3.6 b sum of PCB congeners 148.11123.0 757.81527.4 5.1 4.2 b percent TOC 2.211.4 3.111.5 1.4 na dieldrin (wg/goc) 0.110.1 0.410.2 2.7 0.02 c endrin (wg/goc) 0.310.3 0.310.4 1.1 0.4 C p, p' - DDE (wg/goc) 0.710.5 1.610.8 2.1 na sum of DDTs (wg/goc) 2.9±1 .6 5.812.8 2.0 0.03 d sum of PCBs (wg/goc) 5.6±2.2 25.1116.2 4.5 na a Long and Morgan (1990) b Long et al. (1995) c U.S. EPA (1994) d Swartz et al. (1994) na = no applicable guidelines The average concentrations of the trace metals in the toxic samples rarely exceeded the averages in the nontoxic samples by a great degree, and, except for mercury, were lower than the respective ERM value (Table 35). The toxic/nontoxic ratios ranged from 0.8 to 2.9 for the metals. The toxic/nontoxic ratios for each element were similar whether quantified as total extractable metal or as AVS simulta- neously extracted metal. Although the average concentration of mercury in the toxic samples was elevated relative to the ERM value, Long et al. (1995) reported only a moderate degree of confidence in this guideline, suggesting that it should be higher. The concentrations of un-ionized ammonia were lower in the toxic samples than in the nontoxic samples. 109 Table 35. Average concentrations of total extractable and AVS simultaneously extracted trace metals (ppm, dry wt.) in highly toxic (<80% survival) and nontoxic samples from Phase 2, ratios between the averages, and ratios between the highly toxic averages and the respective SQGs. Nontoxic Highly toxic Ratio of Ratio of highly (91.9 ±13.0% (38.0 1 24.7% highly toxic toxic avg. survival, survival, to nontoxic to the n = 4) n = 16) averages SOG total silver 2.4±1.1 3.611.6 1.5 1.0 a total arsenic 10.7±3.3 10.413.9 1.0 0.15 a total cadmium 1.1±0.9 3.311.8 2.9 0.3 a total chromium 102.9±68.1 141.1156.3 1.4 0.4 a total copper 68.9±46.5 142.6167.0 2.1 0.5 a total mercury 1.611.6 2.410.9 1.4 3.4 a total nickel 45.1117.9 39.7111.8 0.9 0.8 a total lead 88.8142.9 208.01102.9 2.3 0.9 a total tin 16.519.6 46.4124.2 2.8 na total selenium 0.510.4 0.9±0.3 1.7 na total zinc 166.2193.1 403.91191.9 2.4 1.0 a total AVS (wmol/g) 2.211.4 3.111.5 1.4 na SE silver 0.410.3 0.410.2 1.0 na SE arsenic 2.011.2 1.610.6 0.8 na SE cadmium 0.910.7 2.711.4 2.9 na SE chromium 33.4128.0 67.4135.8 2.0 na SE copper 26.5124.2 36.9120.2 1.4 na SE mercury 0.0610.0 0.06+0.0 1.0 na SE nickel 6.313.1 8.613.6 1.4 na SE lead 69.0141.1 164.7181.5 2.4 na SE zinc 147.3155.8 293.61161.2 2.0 na SEM/AVS ratios (wmol/g) 0.510.4 0.510.7 1.0 na Un-ionized ammonia (ug/1) 155.31268.3 102.71164.4 0.7 na a Long et al. (1995) na = no applicable guidelines The concentrations of the classes of PAHs and three individual hydrocarbons were higher in the toxic samples than in the nontoxic samples, but not to a great degree (Table 36). Also, the average concen- trations of the sums of both the low and high molecular weight compounds exceeded the respective ERM values, but again, not by a large amount. Among the three compounds for which there are proposed criteria, phenanthrene was most elevated in concentration in the toxic samples, but the aver- age concentrations of all three compounds were considerably lower than the respective SQGs. 110 Table 36. Average concentrations of PAHs (ng/g, dry wt.) in highly toxic (<80% survival) and nontoxic samples from Phase 2, ratios between the averages, and ratios between the highly toxic averages and the respective SQGs. Nontoxic Highly toxic Ratio of Ratio of highly (91.9 ±13.0% (38.0 1 24.7% highly toxic toxic avg. survival, survival, nontoxic to the n = 4) n=16) averages SOG sum of LPAH 1736±1730 582219350 3.4 1.8 a sum of HPAH 12100±15868 31709130761 2.6 3.3 a sum of PAH 13836±17576 37532139671 2.7 0.8 a acenaphthene (wg/goc) 2.411.7 12.5120.7 5.3 0.05 b phenanthrene (ug/goc) 17.0112.8 123.01294.6 7.2 0.5 b fluoranthene (wg/goc) 51.0149.8 208.91260.2 u 07j2 a Long et al. (1995) b U.S. EPA (1994) DISCUSSION Incidence and Severity of Toxicity. In previous studies and surveys of the Hudson-Raritan Estuary, many investigators have reported that portions of this area were highly contaminated with a variety of potentially toxic chemicals (O'Connor and Ehler, 1991; Breteler, 1984; Squibb et al., 1991; Long and Morgan, 1990; Schimmel et al., 1994). The concentrations of many substances equalled or exceeded known toxicity thresholds and exceeded concentrations observed in many other estuaries in the USA. Therefore, based upon these historical chemical data, there was a potential for contaminant-induced toxicity in water, sediments, and resident biota. The spatial patterns in chemical concentrations compiled by Squibb et al. (1991) suggested that New- ark Bay and Arthur Kill would be highly toxic. Based upon the data from the present survey, many of the samples from these two areas, indeed, appeared to be toxic. The data assembled by Squibb et al. (1991) also suggested that the following areas would be moderately toxic: East River bays, East River in the vicinity of Ward's Island, upper New York Harbor, Gowanus Canal, lower Hackensack River, and lower Jamaica Bay. Among these areas, samples were collected in the present survey in the upper East River near Ward's Island, upper New York Harbor, and the lower Hackensack River. The samples collected in the East River were highly toxic, those from the lower Hackensack River were moderately toxic, and those from the upper New York Harbor were not toxic at one site and moderately toxic at another site. The northern and southern portions of Raritan Bay, which were highly sandy, were ex- pected to be among the least toxic areas according to the data compiled by Squibb et al. ( 1 99 1 ), and that was confirmed in the present survey. Although conditions in all of these areas were heterogeneous, the overall patterns in toxicity suggested by the chemical data from previous surveys generally were con- firmed by the toxicity tests in the present survey. Previous investigators have documented toxicity in sediment samples collected throughout the estuary. The toxicity of sediments to nematode growth (Tietjen and Lee, 1984) was reported in all ten samples that were tested. Toxicity to amphipods was reported in 8% of 10% samples tested in 1990 (Scott et al., 1990). Nine of 20 samples collected in 1992 and tested in flow-through tests with amphipods were 111 toxic (Brosnan and O'Shea, 1993). In 18 samples tested in 1990 from the Arthur Kill and vicinity, amphipod mortality ranged from 18 to 61% (Aqua Survey, 1990a, 1990b). Five of nine samples col- lected in 1990 were toxic to amphipods during the first phase of the EMAP survey conducted by U.S. EPA (Schimmel et al., 1994). During Phase 1 of this survey, toxicity in 1 17 sediment samples was determined with three complimen- tary tests performed in the laboratory. Four toxicity end-points were determined among the three tests. Toxicity end-points included survival of amphipods, survival of bivalve larvae, morphological devel- opment of bivalve larvae, and metabolic activity of a bioluminescent bacterium. During Phase 2, 57 additional samples from Newark Bay and vicinity were tested with the amphipod survival test. All four test end-points provided a wide range in response from the least toxic to the most toxic station. In Phase 1, amphipod survival ranged from 0.0% in three samples to 99.0%. In Phase 2, amphipod survival ranged from 0.0% in two samples to 100%. Bivalve embryo survival ranged from 16.1% to over 100% relative to controls. Bivalve normal development ranged from 0.0% in two samples to 1007o in many samples. The Microtox EC50s ranged from 0.30 mg/ml to over 32.6 mg/ml. All four end-points indicated that some of the stations and some of the sites were significantly more toxic than the control sediments. The toxicity data developed for each station and site during Phase 1 are summarized in Table 37. A single asterisk was assigned to those stations and sites that were significantly different from controls in each test. Two asterisks were assigned where the numerical results were significantly different from controls and were less than or equal to 80% of the control response. Based upon the results of all four test end-points combined, the samples from zones A (lower Hudson River), G (lower Raritan River), I (central Raritan Bay), K (southern Raritan Bay), and M (outer bay, New York Bight) were among the least toxic. Samples from these areas often were not toxic in any of the tests, or in only one or two of them. Furthermore, toxicity test results rarely were less than 80% of the control responses. Among the most toxic samples were those from zones B (western Long Island Sound), C (upper East River), D (lower East River), and F (Newark Bay/Arthur Kill). Samples from these areas often were highly toxic as indicated by toxicity in multiple tests and responses less than 80% of the control response. Table 37. Summary of toxicity test results for each station and site sampled during Phase 1. Bivalve Regional Sampling Amphipod Bivalve develop- Microbial zone site/station survival survival ment bioluminescence Zone A 1-A . . - _ 1-B - - - - 1-C - - - - Site 1 mean - - - - 2-A - - - - 2-B - - - - 2-C - nd nd - Site 2 mean _ . - - 112 Table 37 continued. Regional Sampling Amphipod zone site/station survival 3-A - 3-B ** 3-C ** Site 3 mean ; ZoneB 4-A - 4-B - 4-C - Site 4 mean - 5-A - 5-B - 5-C - Site 5 mean - 6-A - 6-B - 6-C - Site 6 mean - ZoneC 7-A ** 7-B ** 7-C ** Site 7 mean ** 8-A * 8-B ** 8-C ** Site 8 mean - 9-A ** 9-B ** 9-C ** Site 9 mean ** ZoneD 10- A ** 10-B ** 10-C ** Site 10 mean - 11-A * 11-B ** 11-C ** Site 1 1 mean ** 12-A ** 12-B ** 12-C - Site 12 mean - Zone E 13-A - 13-B - 13-C - Site 1 3 mean * Bivalve Bivalve develop- survival ment ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** * ** ** nd * ** ** ** * ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** nd Microbial bioluminescence * * * ** * * ** ** ** ** ** * ** * ** ** ** * ** * * * ** 113 Table 37 continued. zone Zone F ZoneG Zone H Bivalve Sampling Amphipod Bivalve develop- Microbial site/station survival survival ment bioluminescence 14-A _ . _ _ 14-B - - - - 14-C - - - - Site 14 mean - - - - 15-A ** - - - 15-B * - - - 15-C ** - - * Site 15 mean ** * = * 16- A ** - - - 16-B ** - - * 16-C ** - - * Site 16 mean ** - - - 17-A ** - - - 17-B ** ** - - 17-C ** ** - - Site 17 mean ** ** - ** 18-A ** - - - 18-B ** - - * 18-C ** - - - Site 18 mean ** - * * 19- A - - - - 19-B - - - * 19-C * - - * Site 19 mean - - - - 20-A * - - - 20-B * - - - 20-C ** * - - Site 20 mean - * - - 21-A - - - * 21-B - - - - 21-C - - - - Site 21 mean ; - - - 22-A ** - - * 22-B ** - - - 22-C ** ** - - Site 22 mean ** - - * 23-A - - - ** 23-B - - - ** 23-C ** - - - Site 23 mean ** - - ** 24-A * - - * 24-B - nd nd - 24-C - - - . Site 24 mean ; - - - 114 Table 37 continued. Bivalve Regional Sampling Amphipod Bivalve develop- Microbial zone site/station survival survival ment hioluminescence Zone I 25-A - - - - 25-B - - - ~ 25-C - - - * Site 25 mean - - - ~ 26-A - ** ** * 26-B - - - * 26-C - - - * Site 26 mean - - - - 27-A - - - * 27-B - - - * 27-C - - - * ** Site 27 mean - - 1 ** Zone J 28-A - " ~ 28-B ** nd nd ** 28-C ** nd nd ** Site 28 mean * - - ** 29-A - - - - 29-B - - ** - 29-C - - - - Site 29 mean * - - - 30-A - ** ** ** 30-B * ** ** * 30-C ** nd nd * Site 30 mean - ** ** ** ZoneK 31-A - - - * 31-B - - - ■ 31-C - - - ** Site 31 mean - - ■* 32-A - - - - 32-B - - - * 32-C - - - - Site 32 mean - - - - 33-A - - - - 33-B - - - - 33-C - - - - Site 33 mean * z 2 - Zone L 34-A - nd nd - 34-B ** ** ** - 34-C ** - - - Site 34 mean - - - - 35-A ** - - - 35-B - nd nd nd 35-C :|t* - - - Site 35 mean ** - - * 115 Table 37 continued. Bivalve Regional Sampling Amphipod Bivalve develop- Microbial zone site/station survival survival ment bioluminescence 36-A _ _ . _ 36-B * - - ** 36-C * - - - Site 36 mean ** Zone M 37-A - ** - - 37-B - - - - 37-C - - - - Site 37 mean * * - - 38-A - - - - 38-B - - - - 38-C * - - - Site 38 mean * - - - 39-A ** ** ** - 39-B ** ** ** - 39-C * - - - Site 39 mean 1 - - 1 * Significantly different from controls (alpha=0.05). ** Significantly different from controls and 80% or less of controls. - Not significantly different from controls. nd - No data. Significantly elevated toxicity was observed in samples from 54 stations and 16 sites in the amphipod survival test; 23 stations and 6 sites in the bivalve larvae survival test; 21 stations and 6 sites in the bivalve larvae development test; and 47 stations and 19 sites in the Microtox test (Table 38). Test results were significantly different from controls and 80% or less of the control in samples from 42 stations and 10 sites in the amphipod tests; in 21 stations and 4 sites in the bivalve survival tests; in 19 stations and 4 sites in the bivalve development tests; and in 32 stations and 14 sites in the Microtox tests. A total of 81 stations out of 1 17 (69%) and 27 sites out of 39 (69%) were indicated as signifi- cantly toxic in at least one of the test end-points during Phase 1. A total of 54 stations (46%) and 19 sites (49%) were significantly toxic and indicated responses of 80% or less than the controls in at least one of the tests. During the Phase 2 tests, amphipod survival was significantly lower than controls in 48 of 57 samples (84.2%). Table 38. Summary of the numbers of Phase 1 stations and sites indicated as significantly toxic (different from controls) and numerically significant (80% controls or less) in each of four sedi- ment toxicity test endpoints. Number of Stations Number of Sites Toxicity Statistically 11 Numerically Statistically 3 Numerically Test/Endpoint Significant Significant Significant Significant Ampelisca abdita • survival (n= 117) 54 42 16 10 116 Table 38 continued. Number of Stations Number of Sites Toxicity Statistically 3 Numerically" Stati stically a Numerically" Test/Endpoint Significant Significant Sign ificant Sign ficant Mulinia lateralis • survival (n=109) 23 21 6 4 • normal (n=109) development 21 19 6 4 Microtox tm • Inhibition of bioluminescence 47 32 19 14 (n=116) All tests combined 81 54 27 19 a Statistically significantly different from controls (alpha=0.05). D Significantly different from controls (alpha=0.05) and mean value 80% or less of the control re- sponse. Spatial Extent of Toxicity. Using test results of <80% of control responses as a critical value, the spatial extent of toxicity was estimated. Approximately 25% of the study area exhibited toxic samples in the bivalve survival tests, 30% was toxic in the bivalve embryo development tests, 38% was toxic in the amphipod tests, and approximately 39% of the area was toxic to microbial bioluminescence. Ap- proximately 5.7% of the area was toxic in all four of these tests. These estimates are similar to the estimate of the spatial extent of sediment toxicity to amphipod survival (21%) for the entire Virginian province of EMAP, which includes the present study area (Schimmel et al., 1994). However, the estimated spatial extent of toxicity to amphipods within the Newark Bay region of the study area (85%) was much higher than that for the remainder of the study area or the Virginian province. These calculations of the spatial extent of toxicity must be viewed as rough estimates, since a number of factors could have contributed to bias in the analyses. Although the Phase 1 survey area was strati- fied a priori, the selection of the boundaries for each stratum could have affected the results. Since many of the sampling sites were selected with some knowledge of the site from previous studies, there may have been some bias in the site selection. Each station within a site was chosen by the vessel operator with no attempt to sample near known sources; nevertheless, there could have been bias in the station selections. The coordinates for each sampling station were not selected with a probabalistic, random method (Schimmel et al., 1994). On the other hand, there was no attempt to bias the site and station selections to over- or under estimate the toxicity of the area. During Phase 2 of the survey, the samples were chosen randomly with a probabalistic, random-strati- fied sampling design similar to that used by the EMAP. As a consequence, the estimate of the spatial extent of toxicity (85%) within the Newark Bay area should be more accurate than that calculated for the entire survey area. Spatial Patterns in Toxicity. The area-wide patterns in toxicity, as determined by the four test end- points measured in Phase 1, collectively, are illustrated for the station means in Figure 46 and for the site means in Figure 47. Stations and sites were depicted as toxic when at least one of the four test end- points indicated a statistically significant elevation in toxicity relative to the controls. These two fig- 117 # Stations in which toxicity results were significant in at least one test O Non-toxic stations 20- & 22 J ftp 21' 25 a « w A&l s *- O -C Sgo U) mco .c g o o CD > > *< o re V re CD .2 Q CC X co O CD ■s CO CO O £- O) CD fc 2> 55 cd x: re o o re CC > re o X o o Q E o O q Q E < CD X o co E nan elation co c o o 1^ CD 5 t (5 O re o o 8 T3 O >. re o Q *-• o z Q tox pies E < o E Oi-ocmococo re rem CO c c re cm -«t C t- i- re c re cd ^t ti- o c\j c i- c\j o o o o f- o o t-^^i-^^COt^i^ CO V V V V V c ooqqinqo v 'v v v v v c i- o 1^ CD CO CO h- CO o re c T_ C0 c re c V *" re c re c re c 00 h- C\J CD - c o Q n CD TJ b o 3 E T) E CJ CM Q CL DC in 1— O TJ O CO o. CD fl) -—' 0) Q. 0) Q. o q in o 0) CO c CO CO re o CO *- re CC w E re o 08 (0 Q. CO CD TJ F Q CL CC cn" E o q Q CL CC CL CC CD O O CD CM I Xj Q. 0) 0) tj CO X c CD E O) • in d n "55 E (0 b cn o d o re X) 5 *-* c 0) E E o M- 0) CL o ■D — u. o TJ O O I— TJ O E o E o Q CL rr 5 CD CO CD > CD C/3 LL CO c CD Q. CD 0) TJ TJ c 03 CO P CL CD CD TJ X) re o CO CD c o CO 1 CM CC CL Q re cl •fc CC .>» Q. CD CD TJ 1— re TJ h" c 0) E cn co -c g j= TJ Q 'o 5 o in o E fl) CO CD C g> O TJ CD Q. CD 0) TJ in -*— « c 0) 0) C Q) id Q. CD 2 TJ '5 if 03 0) 0) c - »- CJ> U) LL Q) Q) w i2 — o o o CD CD CD fl) TJ E o Q CL CC '55 c 0) CO ^ CJ) fl) > o CD m CC rr o < n .. XI t4— CO c -* X) ■ - CO c g g o CO 0) TJ •*-* C CD E xj 0) E o in Q Q. CC ■D E c 3 o k_ X> 0) 03 5 d) 0) X: w re E w 0) E o co -C -•— ' TJ E cT 0) OB 5 Q) W To E cn JZ ■*— ' T> 3 E c 0) Q) D) x: cn 'c n CO Q 0. CC E o Q. O TJ 3 E c o -Q E o 1 CO CD Q. Q. 3 C '55 c 5 n E o 0) Q. Q. 3 C '55 c o cr 0) re Q) JD >> 03 O a. 0) CO TJ E o 'v Q 0. CC ■o 3 E 03 n 0) fl) TJ E o in d V Q CL CC ■ c o co X) a. CD fl) TJ E o in d V Q QL DC 'w c o >* TJ TJ 3 Q. LT CO >> _co 0) o co T: 3 CO c Q) 3 O O o >> TJ TJ 3 Q. LT fl) >> ro 0) o co t 3 CO *-« c CD 3 CJ o o TJ C co « c fl) E en co v_ 0) x: w '55 c CD CD i_ cn fl)" o co t 3 co c o c CD 3 O O o *-* 'w c fl) CD D) o CO t 3 CO c o *-• c CO 3 CJ o o '55 c CD fl) O) Q CL CC TJ" 3 E o co t 3 CO c CD CD k_ C3J C o X) TJ c CO c CD 3 O O o X I Q. O O TJ 3 E CL CC ci o c o I— CO >» re c CD 3 O | c o CO O re t 3 co c o 6 o x: cn tj" 3 E c o n 3 E o g w "53 x: CO CO c 1 TJ 3 E o3 CO 3 ™ Q) TJ x: TJ C re CO >% 'co >i TJ TJ 3 E re c o **^ 'co o Q. CD TJ O re XI TJ 3 E c X) o jn "co X cn o. O re o cn TJ 3 E CD cn % TJ x: cn , silty sand-dark green top w/blac sandy top w/thick mud; rust colo TJ 3 E _>, '6 CJ 03 X) 3 Q. O TJ C re cn I "55 E in >. '5 TJ c re cn CD X) 3 E o ! ■§ E TJ CD i_ O o o X I TJ 3 E CJ o c n cr n 5 cr n n c c >% c C c >« c X) fl) c c >» CD O O c >< TJ 3 c -Q ci- A) 5 o o d) 03 o d) c 0) 03 o o 5 o 1_ 5 o TJ TJ 3 5 o 5 o 5 o CD O o 5 o x: CD CO o n re Q) o k— o 5 o 2 re 3 > 2c5 CO > CD CO co Li. CO CO CO m CL m CO m O m _J _i o CO CO O CO ^ r- m CO CO CD > x: Q. CD "e CO in in O) CO M" oo in in CM 1— CO CD CO <* CD CM m cn in CM CO CD co CO 00 1^ in in O) CM 1^ CO in ,- |x d U CM CM CM •»- T~ T* CO CO CO '- in CO cn T- 1- ^~ IX. CO 00 CM CO CM in in 00 T~ 00 O) ■* m ■* T™ CM M- ^ o 00 h- io 05 CM 00 ■* CO (0 TJ 3 in in in in in in CM CM CO CM o I— in m O ■* ■* CO T- Y— o y- CM T- M- m CO o O fl) rt ■>* tj- in in in O) O) O) CM CM CM tj- ■«* in CD CO CO h- r^ h» O o o CM CM CM ■«t ■* o o> in in in in in in m in in rf ■<*• "* ■* ■<* •* M- •* M- M- ■* Tt in in in in in in m in z r £ o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO TJ _i ^- rx |x rx |x. |x r- c«« 1^ 1^- r^ h~ h- r^ r- h- r^ r>- h~ r^ r^- r^> l*» h> N- r- |x IX. IX rx CD il CM co 00 CM o ■* m o ■>t CO in m ■* co o ■* co O) CM T" CO in o CM CO 00 ■* 00 CO < ci> in ■* m "3- ■* M- m in ■* ■<* ■o- CO o in o o in in O o in T- CM CM M- ■ o CO X) u re X) o 03 X) o re X) CJ re o X) o to ^ ^ ^~ CM CM CM CO CO CO ■* ■<* ■* in in in CO CO CD r^ (X r~> 00 00 00 o CO o *- *- 135 c o o oj T3 c CD E T3 CD co Q. a) Q a) to o a. « I ■° 8 E ° CI J3 cw ■D ■ r- °> a CD Q) CO ~ 11 ^3 to CO CC o * CO > ■o 2 Z Q. E E o CM S tr to" j£ o _CD TJ O CD ■D c CO to CD cd re x o ^. o CL o "o N re XI 2 CD o ■^-> c a> x x re cd to o a. E o o ■o CD N -o X .!= ° CO ■D TJ re >- w >> CD ' CD re x o a. CD ■o E o in 6 v re to x re — o T3 C re co CD CD -o E o _OT >; CO >v X o Q. CO CD X ^ E O E o D Q. CC >. re o c\j .- re & £ re CC w o -Q x re ~ o> $ = o re cd CD •£ 3 E 1 to CD CD CO re o o c o CD 3 CO c o C O < >< Q Z UJ a. Q. < re —^ CJ to >» ~ x O Q.Q. E CC re CO CO c 5 2 CO CO >> re o o CO en CD CD 1 o CJ re x x CL CD X5 E O LO 6 V ■^- re D 0_ * E CD O fiU- 5l V O, OB ~£ c CC CD IS T3 ** CD X 05 re CD CD ^ C = CD re *j % ° re _ca x x «S re x o _^ o Q. C CD CD r u. CD CD >^ ■D o Q E o X I 0. in CC CD X o Q Q. 5 o CD n to > CC T3 -1 o c CD CD E x £ CD x E > ° s in cL ,_ a) q o CO ^ x o a. to CD Q. CD CD "O Q. CD -2 ■D O . O c CO in ^-_ T- W CL 3 cc Z CL CC _C0 Q) X trt" j<: o CD CL to CO E o 5 co" 2£. o CD CL to CD !M ® 5 -g CL CD O CD d E a uH c^° .. Q p E co CO Q. CO p s c E o CD CD X CO _>, o X re k— o> CD c o c o E o co a a. DC CL CD CD "° E o T— Q Cl DC co" CD X CL CD CD ■D E o co Q 0- CC x re o> o x c CD X c CD CD X to >. CD CO Q. O CD Cl 0) E O E ° o c CD CD c> x x i > — ^_ > — = -o WW 3 >v >v E CL CL 3 3 >> O O = CO CO CO CD CD ^ "D a) I X T3 CO co ■<* W CO as c o o co co T3 X re re w w CD CD c c CO o> O! O C\J CO CO o o t re w co CD T3 3 Ej C 4 "D 3 E >^ C re o 5 co" fl) X X CD CL ^" CD to 0) re x o I Cl "O C re CO CD > re > x ^1 E CO CO CD CD re x o o CL CO CD a3 re x <-> o CL Cl CD CD "D E o LO d v , X Q ^ CL CD CC a; w w X 1— re Q CD T3 d E >. T3 c re CO c E E E =5 -^ ? >> w 1 >* re ^= CO CO CD ■D T3 C C re i re w w CD CD .> > re re > > x x re re E E w w o_ c CD CD c _ S o CD ^ cd re X > W x> CD CD •a E o c> Q CL CC o o X X 5 5 t 5 5 w w o C\J CD CD c c CD CD > > CO II E 3 3 ~ £ CO CO CO O CD . - O cd re o t re 3 t w 3g o »- c-E CM CD Ovj T3 c re DC w ■ - CD •= w w re .* o o o X "- o .E CO CD CM O) CL CD CD ■D E CJ ^5 Q. c w a oj CD -o E o in c\i Q CL DC _w "CD X w E re CJ 52 CD W 0J T3 , oj |£i 5 .E 1 5 - a re : Ei X o to CD C re CO a. Ie x re E E E 3 3 3 CO CD 0J 2 2 co C\j co CO 0J "D 3 ■^ re CO CJ r O) (O •^ O O ■* ■* CO ■* CO CO co b co a O c o re -t—f CO E 3 re o O CO m| co re o CM 136 CL CD CD TJ E o c o o w CD TJ C CD E tj CD CO Q 0_ tr co" E W O TJ C CO w "cd CD > CO > xt TJ CD X c 2 is CD c Ll ex CD Q) TJ E E CM D D. DC 0» XI 2 o re E 05 TJ c re _co "co x CO CO > re > lo TJ CD X E o • re > la a CD a> TJ E o cm Q Q. cr CD E CO CD TJ 3 CO c CD o> o i_ TJ >J CO *-< xi "cd x CO CD > re > XI 08 Cl E k_ x w CO CO re O) a. CD 0) TJ E o CO a cc CO ♦-* xt © x: CO TJ C re CD > re > x> re c g CO re o o o TJ c re CO CD XI 3 *- TJ O g. x CL E re co c o a. 3 O CO CD E to o X o c CO X ■*— • 5 o CD X) w CD >. re TJ E o re XI Q. CD CD TJ E o in eg Q CL DC 5 o CD X) TJ C re w TJ c re CD E CO o X o c re •5 o CD X) TJ 3 E CO o re E o lO 0) CL 3 o w CD c CD re TJ 3 E c o CD . > I "8 O CD X) TJ 3 E re > XI TJ re CD TJ re E (0 E o in cm D Cl DC re a. (0 CD > re > XI E o CO a a. DC Tj" C re CO re XI i X) re i— CD Q- CD CD TJ W E o ? co" XI re 5 _o CD Xt TJ 3 E o re X) TJ 3 E CD N o o «: o CO TJ 3 E >. CD N o o o CO XI >. CO re a> c u_ CD TJ C 3 TJ 3 E o re E u •* Q CL (X. CD ♦* C o o I— CD re 5 CJ) TJ E o m b a CL cc d. E i— x: CO JO re c co to" CD X) 3 O co" X) "5 x CO E o in d Q o. DC cL o c o CO CD XI CD TJ c 3 TJ 3 E o re XI c CD -•— - c o o 1— re x gj !c co" o >. c re E o LO d Q cc CL o c o CO XI <5 x CO CD X CO CL E CO CD X) 3 *- TJ O g. X CL E re E o CD C o o E re CD i— o I CD o CO TJ o g. x Q. E re co" TJ o CL o i— CO re O) co" CD X 3 TJ 3 E TJ 3 E c Q) C O O i_ CD re x g> x co" TJ O CL O u- w re O) co" CD XI 3 TJ O g. X CL E re CJ CO c CD TJ TJ 3 E XI re Q c CD CD O c CD CD O to c CD TJ • X CJ) : CO CD C CO c o> CD Xj D) O TJ 0) X >v CL 3 O CO co" TJ o CL o 00 re o co" CD X) 3 *- CO TJ O g. x CL E re to" TJ O g. X CL E re CD re CD c o co" CD XI 3 •*-> TJ O g. x CL E re k_ re o m 0) X CO CD > re > XI co" TJ O CL X CL E re to CD X 3 E o CO Q a. LX. 0) TJ o CL 2 *-» CO re CJ> co" TJ O g. x CL E re w "CD X CO CD > re > X) co" CD XI 3 *-» TJ O g. X CL E re 5 E o CO Q CL DC cd" o re t 3 W c o 0) TJ O QJ !c CL E re TJ C re to CD XI 3 TJ O g. X CL E re CO 3 O k_ CD E 3 C E o ■ TJ 3 E CL 3 O CO c c XI CO c o CO CD XI 3 E o CO Q CL DC o to CD > E re o TJ re X CD CJ)| re CD* o re tz 3 CO ^- re CO CD X 3 TJ O g. CL E re 5 E o CO O CL DC . E o Q CO CO CD CO 0. CO F a LL F co CO > 3 o b o CO a. cc 1— co CD X JC o 1 1— 0) (0 E o 'c CD *•— o *-* o w Q. 2 CD > CO CD x o TJ CD CO O D. E o o TJ g co Q 0- cc Q. k. CO E a Q. (Z CO CD n co" TJ o Q. o *-« CO CO u o c to" E co Q Q_ cc CD .a '55 ■> o c co" CO a) c i— CD TJ c 3 CO CD c \— CD TJ c 3 5 o CD X TJ 3 u fl- CC io" o X a E co TJ c co 2> o -o CD co o a. E CD TJ c 3 co" CD > CO > c CD E CD CO E o cvj Q 0- CL co E o cvj Q Q. DC CO TJ c CO o "co F o 1 TJ o CO Q a. cc co" TJ n 3 TJ o o. JE Q. E CO CD 08 ex E CO o TJ i— CO JC •** c CD *-* c: TJ 3 E JD jit: CO TJ TJ 3 E o CO JD jx: b o CO X J£ h- CO TJ E CJ in 1 o co Q 0. cc 0) CO E co o •c 3 CO E o o OCJ ■•-' CO CL CO E CO co E o 5 d o o o CD TJ c zs o io" TJ O Q. X co" TJ O Q. CD > CO > X x "55 jz CD o co t: 3 CO (0 w" c CD E CD CO .g CO > a Q. !c Q. E co 08 CO !5 TJ o Q. 9i o CJ k- CD co E co o "5 E o CO CO TJ X "3 E o E F o n Q CL DC X X CO ■> o o TJ k_ CO X E o 1^ CO CO CD X 3 "55 X JO co E CO c CD > CD a. cc in Q. E CD -C CO 01 E $ c id £ co" .g> ^ Q CL CC CD n 'co > o c CO" CD JD 3 E I— o n E o cvj 1 n u CO ■ cvj 0. cc Q. Q. co X TJ c CO io" X (0 u CD N 'to CO X o cc TJ o Q. O Q. O — CO (0 o> co" CD X TJ O O. lc Q. E co co" CD x 3 ♦^ TJ O Q. x Q. E CO TJ C co (0 CD C co" CD X 3 TJ O g. x o. E CO jC TJ C CO (0 0) C/J 08 CD o> « CO" CD x 3 *-< TJ O O- x a. E CO x c CD E CD co "33 X CO CD > co > X TJ c 3 o ** co a. co" JO "55 jr CO CD > co > TJ c CO CO CD c CD > co > JO "co E CO c0 CD CD ro co TJ Q) JZ co CD > co > JD CO TJ c CO CO co" CD j2> 3 TJ o !c Q. E CO TJ" c co CO CD c > co > JC TJ c CO CO CD c TJ c CO +-» "in CD 3 ^^ TJ o a. E CO TJ c co co CD _c .c TJ 3 E o c < X c m "C TJ k. 0J w o CD c o co" E CO o "CO E CO X Q. E CO X I TJ c co CO TJ CD c CO V— Ol 1 E 3 T) c o g o co CD TJ TJ C co co CD C e>8 **— «-* '55 c o "55 c o c 'co c 5 TJ C co CO CD c CO CO 0) c TJ c CO TJ c CO CO c TJ c co co CD c 1 "55 c 5 c $ o JD co TJ o '55 c JO TJ 3 E >» 'co E 0) OB 5 TJ 3 E >« +-> CO 3 E >> TJ c CO CO CO TJ 3 E TJ 3 E CO ♦^ X CD TJ" -J TJ 3 E '55 X I? E CD c oc5 TJ CD c TJ c co CO TJ CD c TJ c co 10 TJ CD c X CO CD > CO > X CD > CO > X X TJ CD c CO — CD 1 T> 01 \— CD TJ c 3 TJ c m X I TJ c CO co CD E TJ c CO TJ c co 10 X o k— ^^ co i-J" o c o JO o i— co TJ c c c TJ c co TJ C C >» CO CO c c > •** *- *- « >> o "s °> 9> CO '— CD TJ TJ E TJ c co CD CD c 1_ CD (A CO l_ co F CO CO CO F F F o -O -Q XI 1 CO CO CO ^ 2 - E E E l_ CO l_ co t- TJ CD E TJ 11) c TJ TJ -j c c c -J -J -J * f c c c c c C CO c 3 : ■3 CO c CO oS l_ o 1 TJ CD 1 TJ CD TJ CD 5 o o 5 o TJ CD JC CD TJ CD T) CD TJ CD CD CD CD CD CD CD o o 5 o CD c X CD 5 2 TJ CD TJ CD TJ CD CD c CD c CD c CO ^- co co :> :> I> CO m m ^ _l ^ :> :> (D CD (5 CD m CO u. _l CO 2> i= i> Li. LL LL in CO CO X Q. C3) O) .,_ CO cvj ■* n m 00 CO CO CO CO h- h- r»- in f~~ ■* CO o- l r- CO CO CVJ !>■ CO m o 1— CVJ o (M r! Q m in m CO CO CO CO co co in r>- CO (O h~ co 1- •I- o 1^ 1^ CO CO ■«t in CJ) CO CM CM CVJ CD oo CO CO ■* N. TJ- CO CO In CO cvj C3) r- ^t in CO o cvj CM 00 o> 00 in O) T— CO O) o CM CO CO TJ 3 ■* CO ■* ^- T" cvj CO Cvj CO m in -* o o I- ■* ■* ■* o ^ o CO cvj Tl- m in »" CO ■* C) o o o CO CO CO O) O) O) in in in CO CO CO cvj cvj cvj CO CO CO CO CO 00 m in CO CO CO CO ra o o o T— T— T— o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o in in m m m in m m If) ^^^ r* 5 o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o ■o c o o ■<* ■«*■ t ■* ■<* Tt ■* »t 1 ^ ■* ■«t Tf ■* ■«t ■* ■>t CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO _i r^ h- 1^ t» 1^ h- r-- r» 1^ t-» r»- h- t^ r^ r^ r- 1^ 1^ r» r»- h» 1^ h. r^ r*. r>- I s - 1^ 1^ h- i>. rn u s s s 5 s s : = s a s s s 3 3 3 s s 3 s s ■* CO h- CO CO CO CO CO r>. ^ CO CVJ T— in 1^ o in CO CVI v— m CO in T— 00 r^ ^ O) r^ CJ) < en CO CO CVJ o o o o o in o o o ^ > CO CO ■«t CO cvj ■* rt CO m o o m o o m m in TJ in in m 00 00 CO 00 00 h- CO 00 00 o o o O) O) a> CO CO CO cr> o o r»- 00 00 m in in X -) CM CVI CVJ cvj cvj cvj CM CVJ CVJ cvj CVJ CVJ CO CO CO cvj CVI CVJ CO CO CO CVJ CO CO CVJ CVJ CM CM CM CM ■*■ z o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o u m O O O o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o T— o o o o o o o o o Hi Q. D. < _i ■<* •* ■* •* ■<* "J- ■<* ■* t ■»* ■>t t -a- ■* ■* "■U- ■*■ ■* •* ■* ■* •<* ■* c o E (0 JD o CO x> u co JD o CO £} o CO .a u CO X) o CO X o co X o CO X o CO X o 3 ° o o ^ •w— cvj cvj CVJ CO CO CO •t ■* ■* in m in CO CO co !>•» 1^ h- CO 00 00 CJ) CT> o> CO ^ 1 to CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO co CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO co CO CO co CO CO CO 138 i5 ft o o CM o cn CVJ o ■"3- o o o CM o CO o o O) CM o in CM CO o o o •* o o r-. o CM o CD o o o co O r- co O CO o CO o CO CO o CVJ o m to o CVJ CO CO o CO CO o o cvj o 00 CVJ <5i co i o «■ *" co CD CVJ oo d o co co co d CO CVJ co CM d o o co in CO CVJ in in CVJ CO CVJ en CM CO CVJ in CVI in Cvj CD CO CJ> CVJ CVJ cvj CO CO d CVI « i a in 6 CO CO o CO d co CVI CO d CVJ d CD d -' CO d CO d in d co d ■fl- CD V •* CO V T CO CO en CO CO ■* - ▼— o in d in 00 d CVI o> d CD cn d « co i o CM co 6 cn d CD CVJ d CM CVJ cvj in co d CM CM ■f CD d co d CO d CM CO d oo CM 00 CO CD CO cn CM co Cvj Cvj o cvj r^ in t cn Cvj CO d CO CM CO CD 00 d £ ft en CVJ o © O in co CD o O CO o CVJ o O in CM o CM o CO o in CD o CM ■ o o CD o o o in o in o in CM o CVJ CD O CO N co - CVJ o in ^ — CVJ CVJ in CM CD CM CD CM CO CM in Cvl r~- *■ CO cn CM CO o cn co o co o 3? ft CD CO cr> CO in co co in CVJ N CM CVJ CM CO co T oo CO o en CM CM CO CO in r-- Cvj CO CO co oo en ■* ■* co CO in o in CM in CO o o o 00 CO <3 ft CD o 1— o in o CD CM co co o o o CVJ CD o CVI o CVJ »— o CM in in o en co o CD o CVJ in o co CVJ o co o o in o o CVJ co cn cn 00 cn o in CO in o o CVJ en CD o CO fl> V) (0 £ Q. 8 i a CD CD d CVJ cvj 03 CM d in o CO co d CD CD oo o CD in •* d co o T— CM d in * •<* CT> CO in m C7) CM CD cn in in m in CD in CM CO CO m co co o O) CO CO o CD en CO 1^- en i~~ CO CO in CO CD CO in oo cvj o in CVJ co CO < i a lO CVJ o C\J CD CM in CVJ m - - cn CO CVJ CM CM CM O ■«■ in CO in CVJ co ■«»■ in 139 r5 ft o o o O in o CM o co co 2 1 2 o co O co O CO CO co CD -H s s s s 2 t co OJ T— & CO I o co co in OJ r~ OJ in CM c\i 6 CM O 6 o 6 V CO CO CO CM 2 z o CM CM CO a ■"3- r- in 00 « 1 CO o T— CM co d •<3- 6 ID o V d V co o V co m o co CO o CO o z y O CM CO • co CD 6 a> co 6 CO b O 6 o o CM o o ■a- o S a O CM CD d CM OJ CM CO o £ 1 o CO OJ ID o co O OJ in r- I z 1 OJ CM CD CM OJ CM CO s 2 z 1 2 2 T" CM OJ -H z ft CO r-~ in in CO co CM ID < z < z < z CO CO CO OJ CO OJ CO CO 2 S s 2 2 c ft O o o o o O < ID ^r T- z Z z ^r ■* r- r~~ CM z z ^ z z r- r-- (O ID CO (M CO CO co CO -H C7> 5 CD CD CO ■ 6 6 O o o O o o o o o o o o O d d o o o -H 5~ ft in in OJ OJ OJ in CO r~- CO < z < z < z in CO co CO CO CO in CO o s 2 s 2 2 CD co- o LL -H a ft o CO o 1 — CNJ co OJ o CO CO CO < z < z < z r- CO l>. co CO -H 2 S 2 2 2 ■ri c 3 I r- CJ1 CM CO CO T < < «r ,- CM CO CD r~~ CM oo ■* OJ 5? o ,_ CO f\i ,_ a> O z z z o o o CO o *" OJ CM O u o o o S 3 co < ft CO T— t^ OJ o (O < z < z < z CM OJ OJ CO CO 2 2 s 2 2 *- +1 OT C o n 5~ < ft ID CO CO (D ID CO in in CO CM < z < z < z O in CD o d in CM CD o OJ o -H S2 2 s z 1 2 C 0> u c o o < i CO »■ O CM o CM o CM o o o o z 1 a CM o CM r-- ~8 CO o o o T— CM o O o o 00 (0 ^ a pp 7 Q F S o g a CO Q. ID O co m o < CD ^ < o o CO s C\J ID CO in CO CO CO UJ P ■o- ra 2 2 i 3 2 2 m _j CO III i CD Q. CO + TJ o o o o O o m CD P" CL z z z Z z Z i CL TJ CD CI z CM CD > o o CD O O (1) 111 X CO * in (D 1^ CO *" CM CO CD =1 CO > en r TJ )A| CO CO CO co CO CO CD CD CD E CO ■"7 DC cr c 0) a Q. < 8 § 5 5 5 5 5 CD CD CD TJ c § ^ c c i 3> rr in in tj- m 1^ in 2: in in c 3 m c J? CD c CO m I tr cu u I -J o E < in 5 r- in _j o E < CD CD 0. 140 ,5 fc s 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 <55 « CM m h- CM ft? C\l CO co o ft S 2 2 9 2 2 2 2 2 ^ 2 1 2 2 2 Q. • - * c in < ft 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 ^ 2 <£ 2 2 2 o s9 B 5 ft 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 ^ 2 9. 2 2 2 CO k. < c o c o o < ? C\J CD CM CD c\i o ft? CM CM C\J cn CM ^8 in CM o co co ft-- o (3 d o *~ o oo w CO Q pr 2 g O O m 0> ^ P in ID CO u o CM CO CO 1- I Li D CO 111 cr i T3 2 O z Q. CO + a > O o <» CD > O o cd — CD n 2 O 2 co CD CL co + CD > O o CD CD > o o <1) — T3 O o CD & O O CD ra o Q. Q. as CD CD CJ CD Q X ■o c § CO 1 CM I 5 eg CC. c tr c CO c CO CO CC c CO C CO 5 CO CL c CC c o z o z O z Q. a < i 1 3 o E 2 3 o E a) 0> 3 o E 2: 2 3 O E CD CD 3 O E :> 2 3 o E cm r--' CM CD CD CO CO -3" CO d 05 a> o d CO CD O 00 CO CO CO CO CM N CM o CO d CM CO o CM d o CO LO o CO CM d 05 00 d O) CM CM CM CM CO d CO 05 CO d o o CD 8 en CO LO LO O) O) CM O o t CM 00 05 CD LO d CM CO LO d CM CO CO 05 o 00 d o o CO d CM CO 00 05 d T— o CM C\i CO LO 05 05 CM o CO d 05 LO LO CO CM 05 CM Q z Q Z a z Q z Q Z Q Z Q Z CD CD T— o z 05 q cm LO N CM CO N CO CO CO CO O d O CO O o o> 00 CM O CO CO o CO CO o CM d o> 05 d o CO CM d LO CO CM CO 05 CM CO LO CM CO CO CO CO CO O) CM co o CO CM O) CO CO O) CM d CD 05 d 05 CD LO d CM LO 05 LO 00 CM 8 O) d CM LO d CO CO d CO o LO LO d 5 CO d CM O d CO CM d 05 LO CM d a z Q Z Q Z a z Q Z Q Z Q Z < CD i o z LO CO c\i 05 ■a- CO T— o CO CO 05 o d CO CD CM s ID CM d O) o CM s 00 o CM d CD N CO CD o CO CM d CO CM CM CO CO CM CM o CO LO N en CM CO CD ▼— o LO CD 00 05 O) CM d CM CO CO CO 05 CO LO d LO CD d CM CO d CO CO CM "* T— s 8 O) d 00 CM CO 1^ CO CO 1^ T— o CO d CD CO CO d CO LO CO o d 05 CO 05 Q z a z Q Z Q Z a z a z Q z Q Z z Q Z < I z CM CD N oJ CM ID CO c! d C5 o d CD CO CM d CM CD CO CM d LO LO d 00 o CM O O CO ■<*■ d o CO CM d CD O) d CD d d o d CO CO d CM CO d en T— LO d 05 05 CM d 05 CO d 05 CD LO d 05 CO LO d •f 00 d 05 CO O d co en 00 d CD CM CO d 05 o o LO o 00 d o CO d 00 LO CO d CO CO d CO d Q Z a z Q Z a z Q Z Q Z Q Z CO c o ra u. c O c o o (A 0) ■D O ss V) 05 o d in CO CM o co CM CD N CM d CO CO d CM 00 o CM d CO o CO CM d CD LO d CM CO o O) LO CO CM CO CO CO CM CM CO 5 CM T— OS CM d CM o CD d 05 CO LO d 05 CD CM LO o O) LO LO CM CM CM CO d CM CO o CM LO q 00 CM LO d o CO d CO d CO d 8 00 d Q Z Q Z Q Z a z Q Z Q Z Q Z m CM 3 o z m CL CM CO ~) 2 lo CM N i— O o o o "* CM CO T— Q z o o o d CO cri Q z o o o d O) O) o d Q Z o o o o CM CO d CM ID CO o d 05 eg d CM CD LO "?' CO 00 o CM d 05 CO LO CM o CO CM d CO 00 05 LO CO CM T— O) CO 5 o 05 LO 05 LO CO CO CO CO d CM 05 05 CM d 05 CO CM 05 CO LO o o CM CD CM o d CM CD CM CM CM CD d o CM CM o CD ■*' CM CO CO CO CO o CO d O) CO CT5 CO o 55 LO CM CD d CM ^5 c5 LO o LO CO •c CD ^- •c o CD ■D '05 O ^ CD 8 X a> CD o fc CO oS Q z o o o d Q Z o o o d Q Z o o o d Q Z o o o d Q z o o o o Q Z a z Q Z a z a z Q Z Q Z Q Z Q Z Q z Q z Q z Q z Q Z Q Z Q Z Q Z Q z Q z Q z Q Z o z Q z o o o o o o o d o o o o o o o d o o o o o o o d o o o d o o o o o o o d o o o d o o o d o o o d o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o d o o o d o o o d o o o d o o o o o o o o o o o o 8 o d 05 c o H c ■D Q5 •n o O- Q5 X c CC m D ■d X Q o Q. E CO co § en 5 Q CO o 9 o LU z LU N Z LU CD O x O _j I o LU I LU z < a z CO CO —I o CO CM CO —I O DC O _i X O < Dl LU X CM LO_ _i O z cr a < * O LU a X O CL w DC o _J I O < fc- Q_ LU I & CO O LU a a 1 CM o LO _l o LU z < Q X o _l I o co o cr O _i X O < z O z CO z < X 1- z X q LU Q LU Q q § O Q Q Q f cm" z X Q z LU co ID _J O Q Q Q 1 H Q Q 1 cm' CO LO CD o LO o LO _i O Q 9 tt" CO CO CD —I o CD CM LO -J o 00 —I o CO CM T— ID -1 o o CO -J O s i 0) O c o z • Q Z CD y < O z 1 < z 160 CO o> Id) ■ CO CM O CM 00 CM o •<* CO 00 CO r^ o CM CM in t— CO 00 o CO h- 00 CO in CM ■* c\i «* CO b 4 f- d K d CO d "* i — d CM ^ d 00 d in d d CM d d - •*' |J d ■* CM r- d d d d CM T— CO Q Q Q Q Q Q Q z Z Z Z Z Z Z o r^ O CM 05 in CO T- CD CO ,- o CD in o O CO o i — 05 O O) h- ,_ CO in * t in ,_ o> r^ o CO OJ r» 05 9 CO (^ 5 o CO CO CD T ■r- 00 m o ■* 05 00 CD h« in o 00 in r^ o t}- to CM O z C\J in CD o «* T— CM CO CM T" CM CM CO CO CM o ■* ^r CM !— in CD N cq CD r- o o CO o •<*■ CO CM d h-' d CO •r-' d K d ■>- O CM CM d ■* CO d ■* d d d d d t— d d ^ d d d rr r^ CO CO »™ Q Q Q Q D Q Q Z z Z Z z Z Z — < T- -<* CO 05 r- CD ,- CM CO 05 o CO CD ■* CM CO CO in 05 CD 05 in in r^- CM y- in in ,_ <* r~~ ,_ co CM CO cd m CO N CO o CO CO CM CO CO CO CO m CM O) CO CO m CO 00 ■* CD CO CD o O) r^- ■g- CO CM O z r^ 05 CM o f m CM ■* CM CD CM 00 o >* in CO Tf O CM CO in CO CD 00 CO r- CO CD o CM T^ en d d d r^ d in d ^-' d iri CM CO CO CM ■ c o o CO CO O o T— *■ CM in CM CM CM xf o CO •* CM CD 00 CM CO in N CD CM r^ CM xr cq CO CO r^ d d r^ d CO CO d CO d d d CO CO N ■* CO d CM d 1^ d CM 00 T- d d T- i — d Tf d d *~ CO T ~ ,_ CM *— *~ T " ,_ ,_ •" o o> z "a> — c Q D Q Q Q Q Q (0 c Z Z Z Z Z Z Z — < CO CO ■ ;g Q Q Q Q a Q Q Z Z z z z Z Z c (0 CD c LU Z LU LU Q cc TO CD •c o CO *-• o 2" O 0. N Z LU CD X O o_ LU LU z o _l X o < z o z 1 Q- 0) X it CD CD .a CD g o CD ui ^ o x Lt < c CO CQ "co 3 O CD *— » CD Q c o z 1 Q 'o X X ■D C q 3 X 2 X o 3 LU LU Z < Q Z o X o z DC Q _l O _l X o LU , , Q X O _i z X Q _l LU LU Q z 00 Q 1— CO in i- S~ co" P CD o~ CL < o z 1 < CD o Q. < CD Q. E CO CD CO o 3 0C? CO _l CM CO < h- 0. LU cm" m t _i 5" < H- CL LU CD CD t Q Q 1 o in _i X o cri z < X Q Q i _j Q q 4 X Q z T— m _i Q Q 4 Q Q 1 m CD o in _i Q 9 4 CO T— CD CM _i 00 _) CM CD CO 8 D CO 1 CO Q o I _i O O I O < o X Oj cm" O o H Q * O cm" LU O 4 cm" O O 4 O O O O O ct Z z 08 161 Q z a z Q Z Q Z Q Z D z 2 x CO CO co co CM o d eo f- CO d CM 3 co d co CNJ CD o CO m iri CM d CM CO O 00 o CM d CD CD ■ CO m d CO CM CM d CM CD CM d CO 00 d s d 00 CD CM d CM CO d CM CM d o CO d CM CD CM d CM d co CM d Q Z Q Z a z a z Q z Q Z Q Z Q z Q Z Q z Q Z Q Z Q z Q Z a z Q z Q z D Z a z D z a z a z Q Z Q Z a z a z Q Z D Z a z a z Q z CO cr> o z CO CO CsJ 8 d o d en CD o d 00 CO CM d d eg d CD CM d CO o CM d CO CO CO d o CO CM d CM d CD d CM d m CD d CD O CM d o o CM d r- CM d O) *- c to o c o o (A 0) ■o o ■-S 0) Q. ■o c (0 m O 0. ui X TJ C & < CO o z O C\J in 8 CO 5 d 01 o d CO CM CO CO 00 CM d CO in CM cri 00 o CM d CO CO in CO o CO CM d CD d 00 CD CO d CO CO CD iri in o CM 00 CD O CO CM 00 CM d CD CD CM d O CO CM d CD CD in d 00 CO a> d CO CM CD CD d d CD CO CO CO CD o CO d CM CD O o 00 C0 CO CM U z z u z U z U z z z GO CO CO O z CO CD CM T— CO ■<* CO s CO CO CD CD O d cd in CD N T— CO •3- CM d CO CO CO o CM d CO CO d o CO CM d o CO CM o o d CM m d r- o in CM CO CM CD iri in en CD CM d o d 05 CO m d o CO d CM CD i — r- d CM in in CD in in CM 00 T— o d CD m CO in CM CO ao 1 — o CO o CM CO CO CM CO d CO CD Z Z z z z a z a z O m I o in eo •c 2 •c o CD T3 o CD X CD « I 3 1 o8 o o CO o z CM CNi CD O CO CD CO CO CO CD cd o d s CO CO 00 CM d 8 CM 00 CO o CM d CD CO o o CO CM d CO CO CD iri T— o CD O d o d CM in CM in CO CO d 00 co o d CD CD CM d CM CO d CD CD in d CO CM CM CD in CD d CD CM 00 ■^■ CO d CM CO CO d CO iq CO d T— o CO d CO d 8 in d 00 o m CD c c 1 o a. CO CM in IT) CO CO CO co CD a> CO d in 5) d CM CM o CM si co CM in CO d in y— o> d CM CM O CM CO CM o CM CD r- c\i co CD d 00 in CM d Q Z CD CD i o z 8 cm ■** CM d CM CO CO T CD d O O w CO CD CO o 00 o> d a> in d CM CM in CO d in d CM o CM O) co o d in CO 3 O z < CD i o z in CD c\i CM CM d co O) CM CM CM CM CM d 00 in d co CO in d CD co m d in CM o in co 00 in d CO co i^ in d in CM o o to CM CO CM d Q Z Q Z Q z Q z a z < i o z CM CD 1^ CM CM CM d CO co d CO o CO d o oo d co d CD o CO d in o cvi oo CO d 00 o CO d co CO co CO m o in CM CO CM CO 00 CO d CD C o o 1 c Cfl c o ♦3 (Q C o o c o o (A 0) T3 O "^ 0) 0. ■o c (0 CD O 0. ui X '■5 c & Q. < Q Z 08 < CO i o z w CM d CO CD in 05 5 in lO CO CM co CM co 00 CM d co •t O) d co r-- d CO CM i~- CM CO d co "Cf 0) d en CD d CD CM o co o CO CM 00 d o CM CO «t CD Q Z CO T— o z in CM ■« CM d CO CD d r-- CM co CO o iri CO o CO CD CM CM CD ■«* CM O) co CM d in CD co CM o> co CM d in o o d •<* o CM CM d CO 5 O in 1 o in CO 'C £ o CD ■D V) "5 o CD > o o CD CC £ o k_ CO 1 Q Z a z Q Z Q Z Q Z CD 0. (M CO -> 2 o 8 p § o d o o o d o o o d o o o d 8 o d O O O d O O O d 8 o d 8 o d 8 o d 8 o d CO CO CO 00 o CM in d c ? c CD ■C o CL 0) □c c CO CO "« 3 "O CD 0. q CD Q. E CO CO 3 CD Q X LU CC 2 o _i o CO co _i O CO o CM _J o ST o CM o Ij O P CO 111 a. O z LU a z Q 0- 3 O DC O 1- Q Q LU o 3 CO m o a. _i < l- O l- ~3 Q O z Q Cl o CC CD D O z Q a LL o 3 CO 3" O O z CO o cu _l < 1- o 1- *-* co CD Q. 1- o o c o c « o H ^9 d- CO CD 'C CD > O CC 0) « k_ k- 3 CO m u. O CO Q CM Ln" _i O "D CD O CD CD D c o z 1 Q Z CD o Q. < o z ■ < z 163 CD O co o z CD CM •fl- CM O co CO in CM d m d 00 it* r-. iri O) in 00 CM CM CO CO oo CO a in oo CM CM CO CO o in 5 CO CO fl- CO m c^ CO CD £0 z z z z ofl < CM O z CO LO CO •fl- CM d co co co CM co o CO d o oo a d A T— CO d in CM a : o> in m CM CO CO LO 1^ CO in CO o> in in CM co co o CM CO 1^' s fl- CD d O z oes o co O z co CM CM •fl- CM d oo CO 55 CM co a CM CO CO CM co 00 r-- in a 00 CO CO 1^ A CM °3 CO CO 1^ in a co CO co ■fl- CM O CO o CO CM o CM CM fl- co CD Q Z 08 < co CM o z CD CM d 8 CM w • o c o o (A a> ■o o ss (0 0) Q. "O c CO m o Q. ui X ■D C s. Q. < < in CM O z co CO d ■fl- CM d 05 CM co co a- a- 8 Oi CD O CM oo oo oo CO co ■fl- irt A CM CO LO oS CO 00 CO co CO •fl- in a CM co in oS oo O Ol 00 O") CM CM CO 00 00 CD fl- CO CO CD Q Z < CO CM 2 O z CO N CO ■fl- CM d CO co •fl- CO CM o oo in CM 00 00 CM CO CM O) CM CM CD 0) co CO CO CO CO LO CM in CM a CM O) CM a> oi co co co CO co in CM O fl" m CO O fl- ed LO LO fl- m &> o in I o in o o CO cc s o i_ CO 1 08 a z CO- o CM CM 2 o z LO •fl- CM d co co CO O) co A in co o CM A o in CO in co A co in 00 m co CO A ■A CD A A co O) in CO m CO co •fl- ■fl; 5 •fl- o CD CO "<* •* CO CM O) LO CO cn in in CD CO c o H c -D CD t O CL CD DC c CO m IB i_ ■o CD s o_ a z 08 Q CO a. E _i O | CM O Ij o P CO 111 O z w Q z Q CL => O cc 1- Q Q u_ o CO m o a. _) < o h- IT a o z o 0- => o cr O Q O z 1- Q a u. O Z> CO Q o z m o a. _i < o 1- CO a> a. \- Q Q i C o c *— o s8 » "»— 0J > o 8 CL s i k_ CO m Li. o m Q CM iO —1 O T3 CD CD a c o z a z CD -O O Q. CL < O z 1 < z 164 Q z 2 cc CO (0 to r^ ,_ O) in o T— ■t t^ O t CM O CO o C\J ■* co CM T— 1^ CD CO CD O) CO CO CO C7) CM o CM CO CM CO t^ CO o> 00 o a> ■* ^r 00 in N d ad CO a! O) r^ C» T- 1^ O) *- CO CO d CM m CM in CM in CD (O CO CM CM • CM CO CO 1- CO CT> CO O o o o CO CO CM C\j d d d d d d r- in d d d co u-i CO 5 O cm CM 00 r- Z Q Q Q Q a Z Z Z Z z O) co m t-~ f» ■*■ co o •* in CM T— 8 o 8 o r- ■<* CO o CO ^— o CM T— o 00 CM ^ co CO CM CO CO ■<* CO a> CO o o o o CD O) o CO d d d d d d *J in d d d CO d in o ■* co in ■s- CM in in CM m m CM T— CD CO in CO CD CM T ■* m in o Ti- >* in -r ■*■ y— CO ■*— d d y^ d d ,-! CM ed CO ^Z cb co oo CO r^ < < O CM *~ in ' - m co in CD z a z 08 ■ m o r>- y— in r- 00 ■* CM CD m CM CO d CD T— "D CM t CO in CO ^ C\J ^ r-- CM ^- i*- O) y— CO C o o co in CM CO m- 00 q CD CO a> r— CO O) in a> CD r*- d vJ d d ,-! CM co CO CM' CO CO r>~ TT T- s CO *~ CO CO CO t~~ O O) z "3> V) z o3 CD r~ N o co o CO CT> CD ■* CO CD ■a o in 00 c CO Tt CD o> CM CM CM m ■* i- CM 1^ o 33 n co co CD CM CM d iri cvi CM CO CM iri CO m co in CO 00 d in CO in CO CD •«3- CO CO CO < co CO CD CO CM ^3- r- < CM CM CM *-> o c z 0) o a Ga" c o o z O in o CM t^. oo co CO ,— CO a> ,— CM O) ^ O in CO CM tj- o> in 05 i^ O) co C\J 00 CO C\J CM CO CD Cfl 0) JO o o co CD CM h- CM CM in h~ T— CD CM f" CO 00 i — CO ■ d d co tJ T— ^ in CD <* in CD ■<*' t^ 00 CD o in CO ■c < < O CO CO CO co h-i CD r- CD C "S z 0) 0) re o Q Z 0- H cu ■a TJ c w C l- "O 3 n co ^_^ cu o CD UJ a. Q C? i8 0^ o cT O O z LU Q Z Q a. D o cc cr 2 Q co cu Q. CU cu > Q. UJ X TJ c 0) a a g o o CO c? I— D m LL o CD CM in CC c CO CO "CO i— ■D O z < o o cu cc cu +—> CO en o CO 1 < co Q 2 o O O o a CO H CD CO H H CO a O a. Z z 08 165 x m Z cm CO CD O | d O d co in eg s CD CM d CD CNJ 00 o CNJ d o CM CD o CO CM d s CO in 8 iri 8 CD CNJ in CD CO CO 4 8 CM d CO d CD CD CNJ d CM d CD CD in d CM co o d in N d CNJ | d CO d CD CM d S CO d CD 00 CM d o co d S ^ d Q Z Q z a z a z a z Q Z Q Z Q z Q Z Q Z Q Z x i o CD o z in CO co s CO cm o d o d cd 00 d a! CNJ d cd CO 00 O CM d 00 8 o CO CM d m o CD •** CM d CM o CO d CO CD 00 d 8 CM d 00 T— d CD CD CM d CM d CD CD in d CO CD d o CM d CO CO d o 00 o d 00 CD d CO CD r-- d CD CD in d CM o CO d 1^ in CD in d Q Z Q Z Q Z Q Z Q Z Q z Q Z Q Z z Q Z Q Z a z Q Z Q Z Q Z x m in o z o m •<* cm in CO d o d CD CD o d CO c\i CNJ co CD T— CNJ d co CD CO in CO o CM d CD CO CO d o CO CM d o in a> CT> 00 CO CO CO CM d CD 00 o CM in d 8 CM d CD CD O d CD CD CNJ o -3- CM d CD CD in d CO 3 d o in d CO 00 d CM CO CM CD d CM CO d CD CM d o CO d CM CO d CM d Q Z Q z a z a z Q Z Q Z a z Q Z QC 1 < o z CO 00 d CD 00 CO CD o CO CD cd O d o CNJ CNJ CO CD CD CNJ d CM 00 CO o CM d CD CM i — o CO CM d CD in CNJ CD CNJ cd CM d CD CD •f— CM CM co 00 d CD "3- d CD CD CNJ d CO CD CD CO in d o CD d CO CO CO d CO CD in d CO o CD o CM CO CM co d o CO d CD CD CD CM m CM CM • c o o 1 c (A c o (0 k. c a> o c o O (A fl) TJ O (A 0) 0. 73 C CO CD U 0- ui X a < a z D Z a z a z a z O z o z CM CM r- d in CO CD m d CD en o d in CD CO 00 00 O in CNJ d in 5 in CNJ CO 00 CO in CM in d o CO CM d cm o CO in CNJ T— CO CD d CD r- in d CD CO in CD d CD CD CD d 00 in CO CD CD CNJ d O T— CM CD CD in d CNJ o CD CD CO in d CO d CD CO CO d CM CO d m CM 00 CM CD d o CO d CD m d CO CD CO a z Q Z a z a z Q z Q Z < i o z CM CM d 00 00 Cvj CO o m T— CD CD o d CO CO CD 5 00 CO d CM d CD in m 00 o CM d o T— CO o CO CM d CO en CD in CD cd CM CM o d CO 00 T— CO CM CM CD CM CM CM CD CO CO d CO r-- 00 d CD CNJ d CD CO in d CD CO CM CM CM CO CO CD CM 00 in cq CO 00 CO o CD d 00 CD d co o d CNJ o CO o CO r- CD o CO CD d -5 O in 1 o in. CO •c CD +-• ■c o CD ■o o CD X CD CO §1 t cn q8 8 •c CD > X CD (0 1 3 co a z a z a z a z Q z a z Q z a z Q Z a z Q Z Q Z a z Q Z Q Z Q Z a z a z a z a z a z Q Z Q Z a z Q Z Q Z a z a z Q Z a z m Cl CO 2 o 8 q 8 o d 8 o d o o o d 8 o d 8 o d 8 o d o o o d 8 o d 8 o d 8 o d 8 o d o o o d 8 o d o o o d 8 o d o o o d o o o d 8 o d 8 o d 8 o d 8 o d o o o d o o o d 8 o d 8 o d 8 o d 8 o d 8 o d 8 o d 8 o d c « o H •D CD ■c o Q- a. 1 CO 3 ■^ sz en CD $ c^ D CO o O lu z w N z LU m O cc O _i I o LU J- LU Z < a z _i CO co" _l o CO CO o CC 3 X o < 0. LU X CM ^* _i O z CC a < | _i a LU Q X o Q. LU cc o _l X o < H 0_ LU I CO CO _i O LU Q Q ■ -<* cm" o in _i O LU z < a X o _l X o co o X o X o < z o z CO z < X H z X Q _l LU Q LU Q q 4 § _i O a a Q t cm" z X Q Z LU CO in _i O a a o i H Q a cm" CO m co' _i O in o iTf _i O l- O Q ■ ■*" CO CO S' _l O CD* CM in _i O CO _i o 00 CM T— CO _l o X3 CD I Q Q c o z ■ a z CD -Q Q. < O z < z 166 cc i i o Z 00 o d o 8 CO CD 00 co CO CD cd cd o d in C\J CD CD s 00 CM d CO eg eg 00 o eg d CD CD CO CO CO CD in O § CO eg <» 00 CO 00 o CM o in CO eg eg o CO 00 CM CO d CD CD CM d 00 CD CD CM d CM in d CM CD co m d co CD CO CM CD in d CM s d in CO •*' CD O CM d CO d CM o CO d in 00 in d CM eg CD d Li z (J z (J Z z Z LI z z z z Z DC 1 CO i O z CO eg in ■<* CO CD cd en o d in CO d CO o eg 00 eg d o 8 od CO CO o eg d co in C\J o CO eg o CO o CO o CO eg CO o CM O CO eg eg d CD CD 8 eg d CM CO CM CD CD CM d CM d CD CO in d o CO CO eg o CD CD CM CO CO CO d m d CO o CD d CM q 1— CO CO o CO d CO CM o CO o CO d Q Z Q Z D Z Q Z Q Z Q Z Q Z Q Z Q Z a z a z Q Z Q Z O z Q Z QC CO O i o z co o CO in CO "* O o d CD CD O d CO CO C\J d CO m T— cm d in ^5 CO o eg d o CO C\J d CO CD CM CO CO c\j "J in CO T— in CO CO 8 CM d CO CO q CD CD CM d eg d CD CO in d CO CD CM CO CO CO d CM CM CM CO in eg CO d CM eg q o CO d CO CO in d CM d z Q Z a z a z a z a z < o i o z C\J Lf> CM d CO CO CD d CD CD O d C\J 00 CO CD m in CNJ CM d 00 oo c\i CO CD CO d o CO in CO o CO eg d O in CO CO m m eg 00 CO CO CO CO CM eg CD d CO CO d CD CD CM d CO CD CD in d in in CD CM CO o in CO d CO CO d o CD d o N CD T— CM CD d o CO d (D d in CD D Z Q Z Q z a z a z a z Q Z a z Q Z Q Z a z Q Z Q Z O z Q Z a z Q Z Q Z Q Z D Z D Z Q Z •6 c o o 1 v> c o CO i- *- c CD Q. "O C CO m o Q. UJ X t5 c & a < oc 1 CO cd O z CM O d in CO d o ■3- d CD CD O d o (M d C\J CD C\J CD m CvJ d CD eg d 00 o CM d CD CO CO d o CO eg d CM CO CO d eg d in CD d CD O CM d o o CM d o CO r- d CO CD CD CM d 1^ CM d CD CO in d CO CM CM d CM CD CM d CO CO d N T— d 1 — 00 CD CM d CM CM CO d ■3- CD CO CD o CO d CO CO eg d CM i — d Q Z Q z Q z a z a z O z Q Z a z Q Z a z cc 6 CO o Z CO CO CO CO cm m o d CO CVj CD CO o in o o d CM d eg od CO o eg d in CO CO o CO CM d CD eg CD d co CO CM eg CO q o o CO o o CM d eg eg CD CD CM d CM d CD CO m d CM CO d CD CD CO CO d o o CM 5" CO o CO d CO CM CD eg o CO d in o CO d CO o d ^9 O in 1 o in co cu «^- 'C o a> T3 CO ■^* o cu > o o 0) oc CD CO CD O k_ I— 05 i °8 V) (V '»- 0) > o cc CD CO B 1— 3 0) Q Z a z O z Q Z Q z a z Q Z Q z Q Z Q Z CC 1 o o z eg CO CO o in iri o o CD CD o d CO CD CD CM o CD CNJ d CO CD O 00 o eg d CO CO eg o CO eg d CD o in in N OS o o CM in CO CD CO eg CO CO C0 d eg CD CD CD CM d CM d CD CO in d in r- 00 CM 00 CO CO 00 d CO CO 5 d CO o d CD CO CO d o CO d CO in eg CD CM T— c o c ■D Q) C o Q. OJ OC c CO CO ■D E 0. Q Z Q z a z a z a z a z Q Z a z Q z D z D z Q Z Q Z Q a> Q. E CO CO 3 CD ® Q CO o 3 O LU z LU N Z LU m 2 X o LU I LU z < a z _l CO co" _l o CO CM CO _l CC o _l X o < h- CL LU I in _i O z cc Q < _j O LU a X O 0. LU OC 2 I o < H 0- LU I co CO ^— - _j O LU a a i eg" o o LU Z < Q CC O _l I o go o CC O _i I O < z o z go z < oc h- z cc Q _J LU a LU o Q 1 _i O Q a a i eg' z oc Q z LU _i O Q Q Q i H Q Q 1 cm" CO in CO _J O in o _i O a Q ■ 00 CO T— co' o CO CM in _i O CO _i O CO eg CO _i O ■o o Q) Q) Q c o Z a z .O O Q. CX < o z 1 < z 167 Q Z Q Z a z Q Z Q Z Q z a z Q Z Q Z a z a z Q Z cc CO CO 5 s O 8 d CM CD CD s d in CO **• CO en 00 d CM d CM s 00 o CM d en 00 o CO CM d CM 00 o in d CM s d in cn d S CM d o CD CM CM o CO d cn cn CM d CM d cn CO in d CD CO q CM CM d s d CM s d CM o ■<*■ CM CM CO d s CM T— o CO d r-- TT CO d a z Q z Q Z Q Z Q Z D Z cc 6 CO CO o z a> d CO to CD CO d en a> o d CM d CD CM CO CM d o o CD in Ti- en r— d o CD d o CO CM d CD CD CO CM in m d CM in d 00 CM 00 C\i CM en 00 in 00 cn cn CM d in T— o d CO m o CO d CM CO CO CM 00 00 m d CD CO 00 o in CO d o CO d O CM in CM Q z Q Z a z a z a z a z Q Z D Z cc 1 en O z CO CD CO d 8 <* d CO CM cb en en o d CM en cm CD CD CM CO CO CM O in m 00 o CM d in CM CM o CO CM d CO CM d CM en in en d m en 00 cn in d d CO CM CO d cn cn CM d o CO C7) CO in d d en d cn CM en CD d in in 00 d T— CM cn 00 d O) CM CO d o CO d a> CO d in en a z Q Z a z a z a z a z DC 1 o o z CO CO en d CO CO ud CO CO CO d cn o o o CD CO in CM >* CM d o CD s CM o CO o CM CM CO ■ cn o d CO CO CM cn cn CM d 5 en CD in d CD CO CM CD CD d 5 d CO CD in d CM CD CM CM o CM CM CO d CM T— o CO d CO o CO CM CO CO d O z a z a z a z Q Z Q z •6 c o o 1 cc 6 00 i o z in o o CO CO CO CD CO CM o CO CO en en o d T— CO 1 00 CD CO CM d CO O •<* CM CO CO CO CO CO N 00 o CO CM d 00 d en CM m CO CO o CM cn in CD cn d CM cn N o 00 d O co d cn cn CM d in CO CO CD CO in d CO 00 d CO o CM CM d cn CM o cn in CO en CM d CO in d CO 1^ d CM CM d CO o CO d Tf CM O d CO d c o *■* CO i- *•• c 0) o c o o v> 0> o ■5 CD Q. ■o c (0 CO o Q. ui X I a < a z a z Q Z Q z Q z a z Q Z cc 1 o i o ■z ID a CO d CM CO in in in en en o d CM CD d CO CO d en CM d r- co CM in CO o CM d o CM -3- 00 CO o CO CM d r- co in CO CO CM T— in 00 CM d in a> CM CO d CD 00 00 CM 00 CO d CO en CM cn en CM d CO CO d T— cn CO in d CM o d CM o in CD CO d CO CO o d CO 00 00 CO CO r- in CO CM en o CO d CO CO o d m CO d Q Z o z a z a z a z Q Z Q Z Q Z o m ■ o in CO •c CD ♦— •c o i i2 O 2- CD > DC CD « CO t 08 8 'C CD CC CD 1 w cc 1 CD I z CO CD CM CO CD CO ih en en o d o CM CM CO CM CM en 00 CM d o 8 CM in CO o CM d cb CO o CO CM d in en 00 in en CO d in 00 CD cn d CD 00 in CO in CO CM 8 CM d cn CO en cn CM d CO in cn d CM cn CO in d cn CM d cn o CM d CO CO 5 CO CO o d o o 00 CO CD CO CD cn o CO d CO CO d T— CM d cn c 1 c ■o d) t: o Q. CO DC .* c CO CO To D t— 0. a z Q z a z a z Q Z Q Z Q Z Q CL 3 *-• .c en CD 8 o LU z LU N Z LU CD O cc o _l I o I LU Z < a z _i CO CO _l O So CM CO _l o cc X o < H 0- LU I CM in _i O z cc Q _l < 1 _l O LU a X o a. LU cc o —1 I o < H a. LU CO CD _l O LU Q Q cm" o Lo" _i O LU z < a cc O _i i o CO o cc O _i I O < z o z CO z i z cc Q _l LU Q LU Q Q g •<* _i o Q Q Q 1 ■<* cm" Z CC o z LU CO in _i O a a q H Q Q • cm" CO in CD _i O in o in _i O H Q Q 1 T •*" 1 CO _i O CO CM in _i O 00 _j O CO CM CD _l O •a CD CD Q c o z • a z CD n o "5. Q. < o Z 1 < z 168 oc CD r-- O z CM CO CD r-' •>r CM d CO s in CO o CO d o 00 •<* d CO d $ O) d CO co co in co co in CO • 00 T— CO CM CO CO in •<* o d in o co cb co o 00 w in CM 8 CM oS in CO co o 00 in LO CM o t CO CO CM 00 CO a z Q Z Q Z Q z cc 1 m in O z o CO cm in a> in CM d in CO in CO o CO d o 00 d CO o 8 CD CO O) CO CO CM CM o O) CM CM CM CO O) CO cb in CO CM o m CM d CM o CO CD CO d CM d in 00 cc 1 < o z CO CO LO in CO cm o CM CM CD 00 o d CO in CO d o CM CM CM m co CO in O CM CM CM oo iri CO o CM o in CO CD 00 o CO in CO CM CO ■ ■a *-> c o u 1 (A c o ■J (0 l_ *-< c 0) u c o o u 0) T3 o (A 0) a c (0 CO o 0. UJ X T3 C & a < Q Z Q Z D Z o z 81 d CO CO CM d o o> in d LO d o 00 d CO d in CD o CO m CM 00 CO CM CM in CM CM •*• CO in CM m CM co CO CM 00 in a> 00 CM o CO o CD O) Q Z cc 1 < o z CM CM in CO o d CM d O) 00 d CM CO o CO CM iri T— CD in <* o CO oS co in o CO a> •>* o o> 00 d co in o CD m d o in • o in CO •c CD *-< ■c o CD ■o o £r CD > O o CD CC a> "to a o »— h_ CO c0 CO o in ■*' in CM T— Q Z Q Z Q Z Q Z Q Z Q Z m 0. co o_ 2 o o o o o o o d o o o d o o o d o o o d o o o d o o o d o o o d o o o d o o o d o o o d o o o d o o o d cr c o H ,c •D a) •c o a a: c CO CD 76 h_ ■D CD 8 a. O) d CD 00 d CD g CD Q E (0 CO a a CD a o 00 _i o X - UJ DC 5 o _i O in T— CO _l O CO o CM a> _i O o CM o _l o P CO UJ a. O z LU Q z Q 0. D O CC 1- D Q LL. o =5 CO m O a. _i < o 1- 3 a o z Q 0. ■D o CC Q O z t- o Q LL o Z) CO 3 Q O z CO o Q. < o 1- co 0) a 1- Q Q ■ c o c o H •d CD ♦^ 0) Q c o z a z CD jD CJ "5. a < o z 1 < z 0^ co" CD 'l. CD > O c^ CC » CD m g t_ CO m u. O m Q CM Lo _J O 169 cc Si i o z CO r-- o d CM ao CO in CM 6 CD T CM CO CO ao in CO d CO in d CM in CO d CM o CM CO o •»* co CO oo cvi CD CT> O) CM co CM in CO co «r co CM o § d in CO ■ CD CD in 00 CM o> d CO CM co CM d o in 00 o co d CO in CO o in o CD CO CO d CM CD CO r- d CD CO o in m N a z Q Z Q Z Q Z D z cr CO o i o z co o CO CO CM d «* CM O in 0) CD CO CO o CO d o CO d CO d CO 00 CO d o in o d in 00 cq 5 in co co d co o CO d o o r- d co O CD CO in CM CD cn o in s D z a z Q Z oC < o i o z CM en CM en CD CO CD CM o o CM in d o CO d i — CO d CM in o co CO CM CO CO d LO in d co CD co CM o m d o CO h- CD CD o d m CM CD LO Q z Q Z Q Z Q z a z • ■o *- c o o 1 W c o 'J (0 c 0) o c o o (A V ■o O *3 (A 0) Q. TJ C (0 m o 0. uJ X '■& c 8. a < m CD O z T— CM O iri CO CM O "* CM O O d in CO o CO d o 00 d CO d in o cd d in CO in CO d 00 o o o d CM in o d CO o CO CD CO CM o 5 in o CO a z Q Z a z 00 CM o cc 1 o CO o z CO in co CD 0") CD CO CD CM d CD CM CM in CD s o CO d •*• CO d CD CO d o o> CD CO CO CM co CO co cvi o in in t-- o CM CO O in O in I o u> CO ■c a; ■c o CD "O o § O CU cr CO §■ h_ C75 08 1^ Q Z D Z Q Z cc 1 o s o z CM CO CO CO CM d CO in d CD CD d o CO <* o CO d co CM d CM o r- CD d CO o CO C\j CM CM CO o CO o CO O CO d cn c « *- o c •o cu t: o CL CO en & Q O CO _i O X LU CC 2 o _J O in" CD CO _j a CD O CM a> _J O ST o CM o o LU 0_ o Z LU Q Z Q CL o cc o \- Q Q LU o CO m O 0_ _i < l- O 1- 1j~ Q O z Q 0. o CC CO Q O z 1- Q Q LL o Z) CO Q O z m O 0. _i < i- O h- ■•— • to d) ex h- Q Q c o c B o 1- ■o 0) a c o z 1 Q z d) Q- < o z < z to CU CD > o cc a CO i CD LL O m Q CM in _j O 170 Q z Q Z Q Z 2 DC to co 5 o in o CO o cb CvJ d CO «t in in CM CT> CM o d CO d in o d oo CM cd CM r-. CM i CM d CO m d CM co o> cq co CM o CO in T— d m CO m d m oo d in Q z a z Q Z Q z cc 1 o co CO O 2 5J CO CM 00 00 CM d 8 CvJ d CO o CO d o 00 d CO d o iri ■* T— CM o CM co d ■ d o CO CM CM d in CO CM CO CO CM O) CO O ■ ■* d CM in CM CO d (D CO 00 d Q Z Q z Q Z Q z ■o +* c o o 1 tn c o n i- *- c » o c o o w a> T3 O "5 0) 0. "O C (0 CD O Q. ui X '■5 c & a < cc 6 CO i o z m o o CO ■f CO f^- CM CM d CM 00 ih CO o CO d o 00 •<*■ d CO d 00 in CM CO CM 00 CO o in co CO co oo in CO co CM 00 CO o in CO co CO d co 00 o CM d CO 00 CO d CD o CM CO d 05 a z Q Z O z cc 6 r-- o ■7 in o m c\i CO CM d CM CM CO d CM in in <* o CO d ■ti- ro d CD CM d CM oo co CO CM oo o o> co co in d CM co CO co CM oo o d 00 in o CD CM ■* CO CM d CO CM in Q Z O in y— i O in ■^-^ CO ■c 0) c o CD TJ CO ■•-' o ® o CD CC S CO 5 CO • 08 CC 1 CD I o z CO a in C\J t-- d CO CM d T— o cm o in m N •t ■* d CO ■>t O d CM CM co 00 o 00 CO d co CM in CM CM o> co 1^ O) oo o oo CO d co o CM CM d CO c To i2 c •D O- E (0 CO 00 5 cr Q o 00 T- h^ _l o X UJ cc 2 o h- is _i o in o> oo _i O CO o CM o> _i O 8 CM O Ij O P CO UJ a. O z UJ a z a a. => O cc CD i- Q Q u. O ID CO m O _i < i- O t- a o z a CL o CC o a o Z 1- o Q IX o CO _? Q o Z m o a. < H o t- *-» CO CD CL h- Q a • c o c « ■*-• o 1- CD i ♦^ Q c o z Q Z CD n 'o "5. Q. < o z 1 < Z ^9 <0 CD ■c CD > O s cc CD CO «? k- CO CD u. O CD Q in O 171 Appendix F. Percent organic carbon, percent carbonate, and grain size. SAMPLE % TOC TOC Dup % TIC TIC Dup % Fines % GRAVEL % SAND % SILT % CLAY NOAM -A 2.49 2.48 0.07 0.07 65.1 1.0 34.0 46.4 18.7 NOAA 2-A 2.67 0.22 72.7 0.0 27.4 53.2 19.5 NOAA 4-A 2.86 0.50 56.0 0.2 43.8 30.8 25.2 NOAA 5-B 3.09 0.03 67.5 0.0 32.4 38.3 29.2 NOAA 6-C 3.86 0.19 73.5 0.6 25.9 40.6 32.9 NOAA 7-B 4.44 2.38 10.4 2.6 87.1 5.6 4.8 NOAA 7-C 1.88 1.00 12.5 8.5 79.1 7.5 5.0 NOAA 8-C 3.47 1.02 42.5 3.0 54.5 23.8 18.7 NOAA 9-B 5.02 1.35 46.1 0.4 53.5 27.7 18.4 NOAA10-A 4.44 2.55 24.7 9.1 66.1 14.2 10.5 NOAA10-B 2.61 0.22 55.8 2.1 42.0 31.4 24.4 NOAA 11 -B 3.99 4.23 0.62 0.65 45.1 0.0 54.8 29.8 15.3 NOAA 12-A 4.78 1.52 48.3 1.3 50.3 32.9 15.4 NOAA12-B 3.63 0.10 64.1 0.0 35.8 40.9 23.2 NOAA13-A 2.55 0.26 48.1 15.0 36.9 29.5 18.6 NOAA 14-A 0.25 0.00 1.5 0.0 98.5 1.2 0.3 NOAA16-A 0.77 0.39 15.2 3.2 81.6 10.6 4.6 NOAA16-B 0.95 0.07 32.3 6.7 61.1 22.6 9.7 NOAA 1 7-B 3.19 3.17 0.07 0.07 76.7 0.2 23.2 53.5 23.2 NOAA 1 7-C 2.98 0.15 65.4 0.3 34.4 47.1 18.3 NOAA18-A 1.47 0.09 32.1 1.2 66.7 17.5 14.6 NOAA 1 8-C 1.98 0.07 35.8 12.8 51.3 22.7 13.1 NOAA 22-C 3.47 0.66 37.9 3.1 59.0 22.1 15.8 NOAA 23-A 2.98 2.93 0.51 0.50 51.3 32.5 16.2 31.8 19.5 NOAA 24-C 2.98 0.18 46.8 0.9 52.3 29.9 16.9 NOAA 25-A 3.21 0.09 51.0 0.1 48.9 33.8 17.2 NOAA 26-A 3.15 1.42 9.4 0.0 90.5 5.9 3.5 NOAA 26-C 3.02 0.09 43.7 0.7 55.6 29.4 14.3 NOAA 29-A 2.80 0.13 40.3 0.1 59.5 25.5 14.8 NOAA 30-A 2.20 0.25 28.5 0.5 70.9 16.8 11.7 NOAA 30-B 1.94 0.07 26.7 0.7 72.5 16.2 10.5 NOAA 30-C 3.05 0.06 30.4 2.0 67.6 18.6 11.8 NOAA 33-B 3.18 0.14 47.9 3.7 48.4 31.4 16.5 NOAA 34-B 1.00 0.00 17.2 0.0 82.8 7.4 9.8 NOAA 35-A 0.69 1.07 13.6 11.2 75.3 7.9 5.7 NOAA 36-C 2.50 0.03 55.8 0.0 44.2 37.5 18.3 NOAA 37-B 0.07 0.00 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 NOAA 38-B 0.07 0.00 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 172 Appendix G. Newark Bay all chem/toxicity station no. Submitter Number, Sample Location: Rep. NFCR Lab no. DF07, Inj. No. (Site No.) NBS 1 Site 1 Upper Passaic R 9561 49 3 Site 3 Passaic River 9562 47 5 Site 5 Lower Passaic R, Upstream of R Source 9563 46 7a Site 7A Lower Passaic R Pt Source 9593 40 7b Site 7B Lower Passaic R Pt Source Ave(n=3) 9594 7c Site 7C Lower Passaic R Pt Source 9595 45 8a Site 8A Lower Passaic R Pt Source 9596 37 8b Site 8B Lower Passaic R Pt Source 9597 39 10 Site 10 Lower Passaic R Below Pt Soun Ave(n=3) 9564 11 Site 1 1 Lower Passaic R Below Pt Source 9565 32 12 Site 12 Hackensack R, N of Berry's Creek 9566 27 14 Site 14 Hackensack R, N of Berry's Creek 9567 26 17 Site 17 Hackensack R,S of Berry's Ck, N of 9598 25 20 Site 20 Mouth of Hackensack River, Upper Newark Bay 9568 24 21 Site 21 Mouth of Passaic River, Upper Newark Bay 9569 31 26 Site 26 Upper Newark Bay 9570 22 31 Site 31 Upper-Mid Newark Bay 9526 17 36 Site 36 Lower-Mid- Newark Bay 9529 21 56 Site 56 Lower Newark Bay, Port Richmond 9528 20 57 Site 57 Upper New York Harbor 9527 19 57 gc/qms Site 57 Upper New York Harbor 9527 GC/QMS 7a gc/qms Site 7A Lower Passaic R Pt Source 9593 GC/QMS 7b rep 1 Site 7B Lower Passaic R Pt Source Replicate 1 9594-1 41 7b rep 2 Site 7B Lower Passaic R Pt Source Replicate 2 9594-2 42 7b rep 3 Site 7B Lower Passaic R Pt Source Replicate 3 9594-3 44 7b Site 7B Lower Passaic R Pt Source 9594-ave(n=3) 10 rep 1 Site 10 Lower Passaic R Below Pt Soun Replicate 1 9564-1 34 10 rep 2 Site 10 Lower Passaic R Below Pt Soun Replicate 2 9564-2 35 10 rep 3 Site 10 Lower Passaic R Below Pt Soun Replicate 3 9564-3 36 10 Ave Site 10 Lower Passaic R Below Pt Soun Ave(n=3) 173 Appendix G. Newark Bay all chem/toxicity contd. station no. % AmphSurv Stat, signif. UAN, ug/l 2,3,7,8-tcdd, kutz 90 TEF TEQ1 (Site No.) Rel. to Ctls. Hit/Nohit pg/g 1 Site 1 76 H 330 99 99 3 Site 3 31.3 H 235 270 270 5 Site 5 29.1 H 460 450 450 7a Site 7A 34.8 H nd 390 390 7b Site 7B 32.6 H nd 376.67 376.67 7c Site7C 9 H nd 620 620 8a Site 8A 19.1 H nd 440 440 8b Site 8B 14.6 H nd 300 300 10 Site 10 20.2 H nd 363.33 363.33 11 Site 11 51.9 H 0.35 280 280 12 Site 12 96.2 N 0.35 7.4 7.4 14 Site 14 77.2 N 0.35 62 62 17 Site 17 72.2 H 0.35 29 29 20 Site 20 79.4 H 0.35 38 38 21 Site 21 17.5 H 0.35 140 140 26 Site 26 H 0.35 470 470 31 Site 31 52.6 H 0.35 62 62 36 Site 36 68.4 H 0.35 55 55 56 Site 56 83.3 N 0.35 30 30 57 Site 57 111.1 N 620 3.6 3.6 57 gc/qms Site 57 2 2 7a gc/qms Site 7A 480 480 7b rep 1 Site 7B 430 430 7b rep 2 Site 7B 340 340 7b rep 3 Site 7B 360 360 7b Site 7B 376.667 376.67 10 rep 1 Site 10 310 310 10 rep 2 Site 10 350 350 10 rep 3 Site 10 430 430 10 Ave Site 10 363.33 363.33 174 Appendix G. Newark Bay all chem/toxicity contd. station no. 1,2,3,7,8-pcdd, Kutz 90 TEF TEQ2 1,2,4,7,8-pcdd, MDL (Site No.) pg/g pg/g 1 Site 1 2.2 0.5 1.1 1.3 3 Site 3 4.4 0.5 2.2 1.1 NQ 5 Site 5 7.8 0.5 3.9 0.5 ND 7a Site 7A 8.1 0.5 4.1 13 7b Site 7B 8.833 0.5 4.4 9.93 7c Site 7C 12 0.5 6 23 8a Site 8A 10 0.5 5 13 8b Site 8B 7 0.5 3.5 8.5 10 Site 10 7.97 0.5 4 10.33 11 Site 1 1 9.1 0.5 4.6 12 12 Site 12 0.5 0.5 0.3 0.8 14 Site 14 3.3 0.5 1.7 3.4 17 Site 17 1 0.5 0.5 1.4 NQ 20 1 Site 20 1.2 0.5 0.6 1.6 NQ 21 Site 21 1.9 0.5 1 1.9 26 Site 26 6.5 0.5 3.3 8.6 31 Site 31 3 0.5 1.5 4.1 36 Site 36 4 0.5 2 5.4 56 Site 56 3 0.5 1.5 4 57 Site 57 0.7 0.5 0.4 0.8 NQ 57 gc/qms Site 57 1 0.5 0.5 3 7a gc/qms Site 7A 8 0.5 4 15 7b rep 1 Site 7B 8.3 0.5 4.15 9 7b rep 2 Site 7B 10 0.5 5 8.8 7b rep 3 Site 7B 8.2 0.5 4.1 12 7b Site 7B 8.833 0.5 4.4165 9.93 10 rep 1 Site 10 7.3 0.5 3.65 9.4 10 rep 2 Site 10 9.1 0.5 4.55 13 10 rep 3 Site 10 7.5 0.5 3.75 8.6 10 Ave Site 10 7.97 0.5 3.985 10.33 175 Appendix G. Newark Bay all chem/toxicity contd. station no. TEQ3 1,2,3,6,7, Kutz 90 TEF TEQ4 1.2,3,7,8, (Site No.) 8-hcdd, pg/g 9-hcdd, ng/g 1 Site 1 0.16 7.5 0.1 0.75 4.3 3 Site 3 0.41 33 0.1 3.3 4.5 5 Site 5 0.8 44 0.1 4.4 26 7a Site 7A 0.77 29 0.1 2.9 20 7b Site 7B 0.97 32.33 0.1 3.23 29.67 7c Site 7C 0.97 39 0.1 3.9 29 8a Site 8A 0.97 38 0.1 3.8 29 8b Site 8B 0.82 32 0.1 3.2 22 10 Site 10 0.74 33.67 0.1 3.37 23.33 11 Site 1 1 0.83 31 0.1 3.1 24 12 Site 12 0.07 2.9 0.1 0.29 2 14 Site 14 0.35 17 0.1 1.7 12 17 Site 17 0.12 4.1 0.1 0.41 2.8 20 Site 20 0.12 6.2 0.1 0.62 4 21 Site 21 0.23 8 0.1 0.8 5.9 26 Site 26 0.55 32 0.1 3.2 21 31 Site 31 0.32 15 0.1 1.5 11 36 Site 36 0.41 17 0.1 1.7 13 56 Site 56 0.32 16 0.1 1.6 12 57 Site 57 0.07 2.4 0.1 0.24 1.4 57 gc/qms Site 57 0.1 3 0.1 0.3 0.9 7a gc/qms Site 7A 0.8 57 0.1 5.7 28 7b rep 1 Site 7B 0.96 29 0.1 2.9 25 7b rep 2 Site 7B 1.1 37 0.1 3.7 39 7b rep 3 Site 7B 0.84 31 0.1 3.1 25 7b Site 7B 0.97 32.333 0.1 3.23 29.667 10 rep 1 Site 10 0.71 34 0.1 3.4 22 10 rep 2 Site 10 0.78 34 0.1 3.4 24 10 rep 3 Site 10 0.73 33 0.1 3.3 24 10 Ave Site 10 0.74 33.67 0.1 3.37 23.33 176 Appendix G. Newark Bay all chem/toxicity contd. station no. Kutz 90 TEF TEQ5 1,2,3,4,6,7, Kutz 90 TEF TEQ6 (Site No.) 8-hcdd, ng/g 1 Site 1 0.1 0.43 180 0.01 1.8 3 Site 3 0.1 0.45 450 0.01 4.5 5 Site 5 0.1 2.6 720 0.01 7.2 7a Site 7A 0.1 2 590 0.01 5.9 7b Site 7B 0.1 2.97 753.3 0.01 7.53 7c Site 7C 0.1 2.9 790 0.01 7.9 8a Site 8A 0.1 2.9 870 0.01 8.7 8b Site 8B 0.1 2.2 780 0.01 7.8 10 Site 10 0.1 2.33 633.3 0.01 6.33 11 Site 1 1 0.1 2.4 660 0.01 6.6 12 Site 12 0.1 0.2 63 0.01 0.63 14 Site 14 0.1 1.2 400 0.01 4 17 Site 17 0.1 0.28 71 0.01 0.71 20 Site 20 0.1 0.4 110 0.01 1.1 21 Site 21 0.1 0.59 140 0.01 1.4 26 Site 26 0.1 2.1 620 0.01 6.2 31 Site 31 0.1 1.1 310 0.01 3.1 36 Site 36 0.1 1.3 350 0.01 3.5 56 Site 56 0.1 1.2 410 0.01 4.1 57 Site 57 0.1 0.14 42 0.01 0.42 57 gc/qms Site 57 0.1 0.09 55 0.01 0.55 7a gc/qms Site 7A 0.1 2.8 700 0.01 7 7b rep 1 Site 7B 0.1 2.5 740 0.01 7.4 7b rep 2 Site 7B 0.1 3.9 860 0.01 8.6 7b rep 3 Site 7B 0.1 2.5 660 0.01 6.6 7b Site 7B 0.1 2.97 753.333 0.01 7.53 10 rep 1 Site 10 0.1 2.2 630 0.01 6.3 10 rep 2 Site 10 0.1 2.4 660 0.01 6.6 10 rep 3 Site 10 0.1 2.4 610 0.01 6.1 10 Ave Site 10 0.1 2.33 633.33 0.01 6.33 177 Appendix G. Newark Ba' / all chem/toxiclty contd. station no. Octa chloro-dd, Kutz 90 TEF TEQ7 2,3,7,8-tcdf, (Site No.) pg/g pg/g 1 Site 1 1,900 0.001 1.9 71 3 Site 3 4,800 0.001 4.8 160 5 Site 5 7,100 0.001 7.1 190 7a Site 7A 6,400 0.001 6.4 170 7b Site 7B 7800 0.001 7.8 220 7c Site7C 8,100 0.001 8.1 230 8a Site 8A 8,700 0.001 8.7 230 8b Site 8B 7,700 0.001 7.7 170 10 Site 10 6300 0.001 6.3 233.33 11 Site 11 7,400 0.001 7.4 220 12 Site 12 1,200 0.001 1.2 10 14 Site 14 5,000 0.001 5 89 17 Site 17 1,100 0.001 1.1 29 20 Site 20 1,400 0.001 1.4 41 21 Site 21 1,800 0.001 1.8 140 26 Site 26 5,900 0.001 5.9 370 31 Site 31 3,100 0.001 3.1 92 36 Site 36 3,600 0.001 3.6 66 56 Site 56 4,800 0.001 4.8 56 57 Site 57 510 0.001 0.51 9.5 57 gc/qms Site 57 580 0.001 0.58 7 7a gc/qms Site 7A 5,960 0.001 5.96 190 7b rep 1 Site 7B 7,000 0.001 7 220 7b rep 2 Site 7B 9,700 0.001 9.7 270 7b rep 3 Site 7B 6,700 0.001 6.7 170 7b Site 7B 7800 0.001 7.8 220 10 rep 1 Site 10 6,700 0.001 6.7 250 10 rep 2 Site 10 6,300 0.001 6.3 230 10 rep 3 Site 10 5,900 0.001 5.9 220 10 Ave Site 10 6300 0.001 6.3 233.33 178 Appendix G. Newark Bay all chem/toxicity contd. station no. Kutz 90 TEF TEQ8 1,2,3,7,8-pcdf, Kutz 90 TEF TEQ9 (Site No.) pg/g 1 Site 1 0.1 7.1 2.8 0.05 0.14 3 Site 3 0.1 16 8.7 0.05 0.435 5 Site 5 0.1 19 14 0.05 0.7 7a Site 7A 0.1 17 12 0.05 0.6 7b Site 7B 0.1 22 13.333 0.05 0.66665 7c Site 7C 0.1 23 19 0.05 0.95 8a Site 8A 0.1 23 16 0.05 0.8 8b Site 8B 0.1 17 11 0.05 0.55 10 Site 10 0.1 23.33 22.33 0.05 1.1165 11 Site 1 1 0.1 22 18 0.05 0.9 12 Site 12 0.1 1 1.3 0.05 0.065 14 Site 14 0.1 8.9 9 0.05 0.45 17 Site 17 0.1 2.9 2.7 0.05 0.135 20 Site 20 0.1 4.1 5.4 0.05 0.27 21 Site 21 0.1 14 5.2 0.05 0.26 26 Site 26 0.1 37 15 0.05 0.75 31 Site 31 0.1 9.2 10 0.05 0.5 36 Site 36 0.1 6.6 7.5 0.05 0.375 56 Site 56 0.1 5.6 6.4 0.05 0.32 57 Site 57 0.1 0.95 1.1 0.05 0.055 57 gc/qms Site 57 0.1 0.7 0.8 0.05 0.04 7a gc/qms Site 7A 0.1 19 13 0.05 0.65 7b rep 1 Site 7B 0.1 22 13 0.05 0.65 7b rep 2 Site 7B 0.1 27 14 0.05 0.7 7b rep 3 Site 7B 0.1 17 13 0.05 0.65 7b Site 7B 0.1 22 13.333 0.05 0.66665 10 rep 1 Site 10 0.1 25 23 0.05 1.15 10 rep 2 Site 10 0.1 23 22 0.05 1.1 10 rep 3 Site 10 0.1 22 22 0.05 1.1 10 Ave Site 10 0.1 23.33 22.33 0.05 1.1165 179 Appendix G. Newark Bay all chem/toxicity contd. station no. 2,3,4,7,8-pcdf, Kutz 90 TEF TEQ10 1,2,3,4,7, Kutz 90 TEF (Site No.) pg/g 8-hcdf, pg/g 1 Site 1 6.2 0.5 3.1 19 0.1 3 Site 3 36 0.5 18 120 0.1 5 Site 5 33 0.5 16.5 220 0.1 7a Site 7A 27 0.5 13.5 170 0.1 7b Site 7B 29.333 0.5 14.67 220 0.1 7c Site7C 41 0.5 20.5 370 0.1 8a Site 8A 43 0.5 21.5 350 0.1 8b Site 8B 25 0.5 12.5 170 0.1 10 Site 10 47.33 0.5 23.67 386.67 0.1 11 Site 1 1 40 0.5 20 380 0.1 12 Site 12 2 0.5 1 16 0.1 14 Site 14 22 0.5 11 230 0.1 17 Site 17 5.5 0.5 2.75 45 0.1 20 Site 20 8.4 0.5 4.2 75 0.1 21 Site 21 8.4 0.5 4.2 69 0.1 26 Site 26 36 0.5 18 200 0.1 31 Site 31 15 0.5 7.5 95 0.1 36 Site 36 14 0.5 7 90 0.1 56 Site 56 9.4 0.5 4.7 32 0.1 57 Site 57 1.4 0.5 0.7 4.3 0.1 57 gc/qms Site 57 0.3 0.5 0.15 3 0.1 7a gc/qms Site 7A 29 0.5 14.5 200 0.1 7b rep 1 Site 7B 29 0.5 14.5 230 0.1 7b rep 2 Site 7B 28 0.5 14 220 0.1 7b rep 3 Site 7B 31 0.5 15.5 210 0.1 7b Site 7B 29.333 0.5 14.67 220 0.1 10 rep 1 Site 10 47 0.5 23.5 340 0.1 10 rep 2 Site 10 52 0.5 26 460 0.1 10 rep 3 Site 10 43 0.5 21.5 360 0.1 10 Ave Site 10 47.33 0.5 23.67 386.67 0.1 180 Appendix G. Newark Bay all chem/toxicity contd. station no. TEQ11 1,2,3,6.7, 88-TEF TEQ12 1,2,3,7,8, (Site No.) 8-hcdf, pg/g 9-hcdf, ng/g 1 Site 1 1.9 5.5 0.1 0.55 0.4 3 Site 3 12 29 0.1 2.9 0.4 5 Site 5 22 47 0.1 4.7 0.9 7a Site 7A 17 40 0.1 4 1.5 7b Site 7B 22 47 0.1 4.7 1.167 7c Site7C 37 74 0.1 7.4 1.2 8a Site 8A 35 68 0.1 6.8 1.4 8b Site 8B 17 38 0.1 3.8 1.2 10 Site 10 38.67 75 0.1 7.5 1.47 11 Site 11 38 72 0.1 7.2 1.5 12 Site 12 1.6 3.1 0.1 0.31 0.4 14 Site 14 23 36 0.1 3.6 0.8 17 Site 17 4.5 7.6 0.1 0.76 0.4 20 Site 20 7.5 14 0.1 1.4 0.4 21 Site 21 6.9 12 0.1 1.2 0.7 26 Site 26 20 35 0.1 3.5 1.2 31 Site 31 9.5 21 0.1 2.1 1.5 36 Site 36 9 17 0.1 1.7 0.7 56 Site 56 3.2 8.9 0.1 0.89 0.4 57 Site 57 0.43 1.2 0.1 0.12 0.4 57 gc/qms Site 57 0.3 0.9 0.1 0.09 5 7a gc/qms Site 7A 20 28 0.1 2.8 8 7b rep 1 Site 7B 23 49 0.1 4.9 1.2 7b rep 2 Site 7B 22 47 0.1 4.7 1.2 7b rep 3 Site 7B 21 45 0.1 4.5 1.1 7b Site 7B 22 47 0.1 4.7 1.167 10 rep 1 Site 10 34 70 0.1 7 1.5 10 rep 2 Site 10 46 84 0.1 8.4 1.5 10 rep 3 Site 10 36 71 0.1 7.1 1.4 10 Ave Site 10 38.67 75 0.1 7.5 1.47 181 Appendix G. Newark Bay all chem/toxicity contd. station no. Kutz 90 TEF TEQ13 2,3,4,6,7, Kutz 90 TE TEQ14 1,2,3,4,6,7, (Site No.) 8-hcdf, pg/g 8-hcdf, pg/g 1 Site 1 0.1 0.04 4.2 0.1 0.42 82 3 Site 3 0.1 0.04 2.2 0.1 0.22 480 5 Site 5 0.1 0.09 9.4 0.1 0.94 940 7a Site7A 0.1 0.15 19 0.1 1.9 830 7b Site 7B 0.1 0.12 14.1 0.1 1.41 1003.33 7c Site7C 0.1 0.12 34 0.1 3.4 1,600 8a Site 8A 0.1 0.14 12 0.1 1.2 1,500 8b Site 8B 0.1 0.12 9.2 0.1 0.92 800 10 Site 10 0.1 0.15 30.33 0.1 3.03 1633.33 11 Site 1 1 0.1 0.15 30 0.1 3 1,600 12 Site 12 0.1 0.04 1.8 0.1 0.18 95 14 Site 14 0.1 0.08 14 0.1 1.4 950 17 Site 17 0.1 0.04 3.1 0.1 0.31 190 20 Site 20 0.1 0.04 5.6 0.1 0.56 320 21 Site 21 0.1 0.07 5.8 0.1 0.58 280 26 Site 26 0.1 0.12 18 0.1 1.8 750 31 Site 31 0.1 0.15 9.5 0.1 0.95 510 36 Site 36 0.1 0.07 9.7 0.1 0.97 380 56 Site 56 0.1 0.04 6.4 0.1 0.64 190 57 Site 57 0.1 0.04 1.2 0.1 0.12 23 57 gc/qms Site 57 0.1 0.5 0.5 0.1 0.05 14 7a gc/qms Site 7A 0.1 0.8 5 0.1 0.5 600 7b rep 1 Site 7B 0.1 0.12 9.8 0.1 0.98 1,100 7b rep 2 Site 7B 0.1 0.12 23 0.1 2.3 1,000 7b rep 3 Site 7B 0.1 0.11 9.5 0.1 0.95 910 7b Site 7B 0.1 0.12 14.1 0.1 1.41 1003.333 10 rep 1 Site 10 0.1 0.15 28 0.1 2.8 1,500 10 rep 2 Site 10 0.1 0.15 34 0.1 3.4 1,800 10 rep 3 Site 10 0.1 0.14 29 0.1 2.9 1,600 10 Ave Site 10 0.1 0.15 30.33 0.1 3.03 1633.33 182 Appendix G. Newark Bay all chem/toxicity contd. station no. Kutz 90 TEF TEQ15 1,2,3,4,7,8, Kutz 90 TEF TEQ16 (Site No.) 9-hcdf, pg/g 1 Site 1 0.01 0.82 5.3 0.01 0.05 3 Site 3 0.01 4.8 19 0.01 0.19 5 Site 5 0.01 9.4 26 0.01 0.26 7a Site 7A 0.01 8.3 21 0.01 0.21 7b Site 7B 0.01 10.03 26.333 0.01 0.26 7c Site 7C 0.01 16 41 0.01 0.41 8a Site 8A 0.01 15 36 0.01 0.36 8b Site 8B 0.01 8 24 0.01 0.24 10 Site 10 0.01 16.33 37 0.01 0.37 11 Site 1 1 0.01 16 37 0.01 0.37 12 Site 12 0.01 0.95 2.4 0.01 0.02 14 Site 14 0.01 9.5 24 0.01 0.24 17 Site 17 0.01 1.9 4.8 0.01 0.05 20 Site 20 0.01 3.2 8.7 0.01 0.09 21 Site 21 0.01 2.8 6.6 0.01 0.07 26 Site 26 0.01 7.5 21 0.01 0.21 31 Site 31 0.01 5.1 18 0.01 0.18 36 Site 36 0.01 3.8 12 0.01 0.12 56 Site 56 0.01 1.9 6.7 0.01 0.07 57 Site 57 0.01 0.23 1 0.01 0.01 57 gc/qms Site 57 0.01 0.14 2 0.01 0.02 7a gc/qms Site 7A 0.01 6 28 0.01 0.28 7b rep 1 Site 7B 0.01 11 26 0.01 0.26 7b rep 2 Site 7B 0.01 10 27 0.01 0.27 7b rep 3 Site 7B 0.01 9.1 26 0.01 0.26 7b Site 7B 0.01 10.03 26.333 0.01 0.26 10 rep 1 Site 10 0.01 15 34 0.01 0.34 10 rep 2 Site 10 0.01 18 42 0.01 0.42 10 rep 3 Site 10 0.01 16 35 0.01 0.35 10 Ave Site 10 0.01 16.33 37 0.01 0.37 183 Appendix G. Newark Bay all chem/toxicity contd. station no. Octa chloro df, Kutz90T TEQ17 Cum dioxin TEC PCB81 PCB77 (Site No.) pg/g pg/g pg/g pg/g 1 Site 1 210 0.001 0.21 119.47 59 2200 3 Site 3 770 0.001 0.77 341.02 94 5200 5 Site 5 1,300 0.001 1.3 550.89 130 6100 7a Site7A 1,200 0.001 1.2 475.88 110 4900 7b Site 7B 1333 0.001 1.33 480.77 120 5300 7c Site7C 2,000 0.001 2 760.55 140 9500 8a Site 8A 1,800 0.001 1.8 575.67 150 7000 8b Site 8B 1,200 0.001 1.2 386.55 120 4900 10 Site 10 2000 0.001 2 502.55 173.33 6233.3 11 Site 1 1 2,100 0.001 2.1 414.6 160 5400 12 Site 12 180 0.001 0.18 15.389 28 480 14 Site 14 1,500 0.001 1.5 135.57 90 3500 17 Site 17 310 0.001 0.31 45.773 27 910 20 Site 20 490 0.001 0.49 64.087 23 1100 21 Site 21 430 0.001 0.43 176.28 78 2700 26 Site 26 1,200 0.001 1.2 581.28 320 12000 31 Site 31 970 0.001 0.97 108.77 76 2500 36 Site 36 640 0.001 0.64 97.785 76 3000 56 Site 56 330 0.001 0.33 61.207 67 2600 57 Site 57 44 0.001 0.04 8.029 13 370 57 gc/qms Site 57 33 0.001 0.03 6.143 20 260 7a gc/qms Site 7A 1,580 0.001 1.58 572.37 87 5400 7b rep 1 Site 7B 1,400 0.001 1.4 533.72 130 5500 7b rep 2 Site 7B 1,300 0.001 1.3 454.39 120 5300 7b rep 3 Site 7B 1,300 0.001 1.3 454.21 110 5100 7b Site 7B 1333.333 0.001 1.33 480.773 120 5300 10 rep 1 Site 10 2,000 0.001 2 443.9 170 6200 10 rep 2 Site 10 2,100 0.001 2.1 502.6 180 6300 10 rep 3 Site 10 1,900 0.001 1.9 561.17 170 6200 10 Ave Site 10 2000 0.001 2 502.553 173.33 6233.3 184 Appendix G. Newark Bay all chem/toxicity contd. station no. Barnes 91 TEF TEQ19 PCB 126 Barnes 91 TEF TEQ20 (Site No.) pg/g 1 Site 1 0.01 22 35 0.1 3.5 3 Site 3 0.01 52 110 0.1 11 5 Site 5 0.01 61 170 0.1 17 7a Site 7A 0.01 49 130 0.1 13 7b Site 7B 0.01 53 176.67 0.1 17.67 7c Site 7C 0.01 95 170 0.1 17 8a Site 8A 0.01 70 190 0.1 19 8b Site 8B 0.01 49 150 0.1 15 10 Site 10 0.01 62.33 170 0.1 17 11 Site 1 1 0.01 54 140 0.1 14 12 Site 12 0.01 4.8 23 0.1 2.3 14 Site 14 0.01 35 90 0.1 9 17 Site 17 0.01 9.1 23 0.1 2.3 20 Site 20 0.01 11 19 0.1 1.9 21 Site 21 0.01 27 56 0.1 5.6 26 Site 26 0.01 120 210 0.1 21 31 Site 31 0.01 25 74 0.1 7.4 36 Site 36 0.01 30 74 0.1 7.4 56 Site 56 0.01 26 57 0.1 5.7 57 Site 57 0.01 3.7 9 0.1 0.9 57 gc/qms Site 57 0.01 2.6 19 0.1 1.9 7a gc/qms Site 7A 0.01 54 120 0.1 12 7b rep 1 Site 7B 0.01 55 240 0.1 24 7b rep 2 Site 7B 0.01 53 150 0.1 15 7b rep 3 Site 7B 0.01 51 140 0.1 14 7b Site 7B 0.01 53 176.667 0.1 17.67 10 rep 1 Site 10 0.01 62 180 0.1 18 10 rep 2 Site 10 0.01 63 180 0.1 18 10 rep 3 Site 10 0.01 62 150 0.1 15 10 Ave Site 10 0.01 62.33 170 0.1 17 185 Appendix G. Newark Bay all chem/toxicity contd. station no. PCB 169 Barnes 91 TEF TEQ21 Cum PCB TEQ Total Cum TEQ (Site No.) pg/g 1 Site 1 5 0.05 0.25 25.75 145.22 3 Site 3 28 0.05 1.4 64.4 405.42 5 Site 5 11 0.05 0.55 78.55 629.44 7a Site 7A 22 0.05 1.1 63.1 538.98 7b Site 7B 19.667 0.05 0.98 71.65 552.42 7c Site 7C 28 0.05 1.4 113.4 873.95 8a Site 8A 32 0.05 1.6 90.6 666.27 8b Site 8B 18 0.05 0.9 64.9 451.45 10 Site 10 9.67 0.05 0.48 79.82 582.37 1 1 Site 11 5 0.05 0.25 68.25 482.85 12 Site 12 7 0.05 0.35 7.45 22.84 14 Site 14 5 0.05 0.25 44.25 179.82 17 Site 17 5 0.05 0.25 11.65 57.42 20 Site 20 5 0.05 0.25 13.15 77.24 21 Site 21 40 0.05 2 34.6 210.88 26 Site 26 14 0.05 0.7 141.7 722.98 31 Site 31 5 0.05 0.25 32.65 141.42 36 Site 36 5 0.05 0.25 37.65 135.44 56 Site 56 5 0.05 0.25 31.95 93.16 57 Site 57 5 0.05 0.25 4.85 12.88 57 gc/qms Site 57 10 0.05 0.5 5 11.14 7a gc/qms Site 7A 16 0.05 0.8 66.8 639.17 7b rep 1 Site 7B 31 0.05 1.55 80.55 614.27 7b rep 2 Site 7B 13 0.05 0.65 68.65 523.04 7b rep 3 Site 7B 15 0.05 0.75 65.75 519.96 7b Site 7B 19.667 0.05 0.98 71.65 552.42 10 rep 1 Site 10 11 0.05 0.55 80.55 524.45 10 rep 2 Site 10 9 0.05 0.45 81.45 584.05 10 rep 3 Site 10 9 0.05 0.45 77.45 638.62 10 Ave Site 10 9.67 0.05 0.48 79.82 582.37 186 Appendix G. Newark Bay ' all chem/toxicity contd. NFCRCNo. Field station ID Hexachloro- Pentachloro- Alpha-BHC, Lindane, benzene, ng/g anisole, ng/g ng/g ng/g 9561 STATION #1 0.9 0.4 1.3 0.1 9562 STATION #3 3 0.7 1 0.7 9563 STATION #5 5.6 0.8 2.4 0.1 9593 STATION #7A 6.6 0.7 0.8 0.1 9594 STATION #7B 5.3 0.8 1.2 0.1 9595 STATION #7C 6.3 0.6 0.7 0.1 9596 STATION #8A 7.6 0.7 0.9 0.1 9597 STATION #8B 3.9 0.8 0.9 0.1 9564* STATION #10 7 0.7 1.7 0.1 9565 STATION #1 1 10.1 0.6 2 0.1 9566 STATION #12 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 9567 STATION #14 2.6 0.4 1.5 0.1 9598 STATION #17 1.6 0.3 0.6 0.1 9568 STATION #20 2 0.1 0.5 0.1 9569 STATION #21 2 0.4 0.4 0.9 9570 STATION #26 5.2 0.3 0.7 0.9 9526 STATION #31 5.6 0.5 1.5 0.9 9529 STATION #36 4 0.4 0.9 0.1 9528 STATION #56 1 0.4 0.6 0.6 9527 STATION #57 0.1 0.1 0.5 0.1 'Values are average of GC Rep icate injections. MDL = 0.11 ng/g; MQL = 0.26 ng/g. DUP = Duplicate sample 187 Appendix G. Newark Bay all chem/toxicity contd. NFCRCNo. Field station ID Beta-BHC, Heptachlor, Delta-BHC, Dacthal, Oxychlordane, ng/g ng/g ng/g ng/g ng/g 9561 STATION #1 0.1 0.1 1.2 2.3 0.3 9562 STATION #3 0.4 0.1 1 2 0.4 9563 STATION #5 0.5 0.1 3 2.3 0.8 9593 STATION #7A 0.1 0.1 3.8 2.4 0.6 9594 STATION #7B 0.1 0.1 3.5 1.6 0.5 9595 STATION #7C 0.1 0.1 3.1 2 0.5 9596 STATION #8A 0.7 0.1 3.2 1.5 0.5 9597 STATION #8B 0.3 0.5 3.5 2.1 1.3 9564* STATION #10 0.1 0.1 3.2 2.1 0.3 9565 STATION #1 1 0.1 0.1 3.8 3.3 0.5 9566 STATION #12 0.1 0.1 0.1 1.2 0.1 9567 STATION #14 0.1 0.1 1.5 2.5 0.4 9598 STATION #17 0.8 1.3 0.6 2.7 0.1 9568 STATION #20 0.9 0.1 0.9 2.7 0.4 9569 STATION #21 0.3 0.1 1.6 2.8 0.6 9570 STATION #26 0.1 0.1 1.6 4.4 0.3 9526 STATION #31 0.1 0.1 2.7 1.4 0.1 9529 STATION #36 0.1 0.1 1.7 1.6 0.1 9528 STATION #56 0.7 0.1 1.9 1.8 0.1 9527 STATION #57 0.5 0.1 1.6 1.4 0.1 'Values are average of GC Replicate injections. MDL = 0.1 1 ng/g; MQL = 0.26 ng/g. DUP = Duplicate sample 188 Appendix G. Newark Bay all chem/toxicity contd. NFCRCNo. Field station ID Heptachlor epoxide, trans-chlordane, trans-nonachlor, ng/g ng/g ng/g 9561 STATION #1 2.8 11.5 7.2 9562 STATION #3 8.5 31.7 15.8 9563 STATION #5 13 42.5 30.5 9593 STATION #7A 9.9 36.3 19.2 9594 STATION #7B 10.9 40.4 17.7 9595 STATION #7C 10.6 42.1 18.2 9596 STATION #8A 10.6 42.7 17.1 9597 STATION #8B 12.9 41.8 28.3 9564* STATION #10 7 25.1 17.9 9565 STATION #1 1 8 26.5 16.9 9566 STATION #12 0.4 1.1 0.6 9567 STATION #14 2.9 7.7 5.6 9598 STATION #17 1.1 2.2 1.2 9568 STATION #20 0.9 2.4 1.7 9569 STATION #21 1 3.6 2.9 9570 STATION #26 4.7 13.8 12.4 9526 STATION #31 1.7 5.7 4.8 9529 STATION #36 1.7 6.3 4.1 9528 STATION #56 1.7 5.8 4 9527 STATION #57 0.4 0.6 0.9 'Values are average of GC Repl cate injections. MDL = 0.11 ng/g; MQL = 0.26 ng/g. DUP = Duplicate sample 189 Appendix G. Newark Bai f all chem/toxicity contd. NFCRCNo. Field station ID cis-chlordane, o.p'-DDE, Dieldrin, P.P'-DDE, O.p'-DDD, ng/g ng/g ng/g ng/g ng/g 9561 STATION #1 12.3 1.9 4.9 13.8 8.8 9562 STATION #3 34.3 4 12.9 51.6 37.4 9563 STATION #5 59.7 16.7 21.2 60.7 40.4 9593 STATION #7A 42.3 5.9 12.7 49 31.2 9594 STATION #7B 48.7 6.4 13.3 53 27.2 9595 STATION #7C 53.2 16 15.6 57.7 35.5 9596 STATION #8A 49.2 7.1 13.9 55.6 31.3 9597 STATION #8B 56.6 8.7 19.1 50 31.1 9564* STATION #10 28.8 11.2 10 71.8 26 9565 STATION #1 1 29 9.2 12.4 53.3 25.2 9566 STATION #12 1.4 0.8 0.9 3.9 0.8 9567 STATION #14 10 3.8 5.4 22.7 8.5 9598 STATION #17 2.6 1.5 1.7 9.5 2.2 9568 STATION #20 3.1 6.7 1.8 19.4 4.2 9569 STATION #21 3 8.4 5.5 24.4 4.4 9570 STATION #26 12.2 14.3 15.2 72.1 11.9 9526 STATION #31 7.2 8.3 3 37.1 14 9529 STATION #36 8.9 7 6.2 31.5 13.6 9528 STATION #56 6.3 8.6 3.6 37.1 16.7 9527 STATION #57 1 0.3 1 3.3 1.1 'Values are average of GC Replicate injections. MDL = 0.11 ng/g; MQL = 0.26 ng/g. DUP = Duplicate sample 190 Appendix G. Newark Bay all chem/toxicity contd. NFCRCNo. Field station ID Endrin, cis-nonachlor, 0,p'-DDT, P,P'-DDD, P.P--DDT, ng/g ng/g ng/g ng/g ng/g 9561 STATION #1 3.3 2.7 1.4 25.8 8.2 9562 STATION #3 0.7 9.4 1.3 72.6 50.6 9563 STATION #5 1 9.4 8.6 74.4 38.9 9593 STATION #7A 0.8 10.2 7.1 63.3 38.6 9594 STATION #7B 1 10.8 14.1 61.8 125 9595 STATION #7C 1.2 12 2.7 72.6 25.2 9596 STATION #8A 1.3 11 4.9 67.2 64.1 9597 STATION #8B 0.9 11 4 60.5 27.7 9564* STATION #10 1.2 6.8 2.8 51.5 29.4 9565 STATION #1 1 0.7 6.7 5.3 53.7 63.5 9566 STATION #12 0.1 0.4 0.3 2.8 0.9 9567 STATION #14 0.5 2.5 1 20.2 99.8 9598 STATION #17 0.1 0.7 1.7 8.2 2.6 9568 STATION #20 0.1 0.9 4.2 18.2 4.4 9569 STATION #21 0.3 0.7 7.5 16.1 4.7 9570 STATION #26 0.4 3.1 9.3 26.9 7.7 9526 STATION #31 0.4 2.3 7.6 30.9 54.2 9529 STATION #36 0.8 1.9 2.4 30.3 107.1 9528 STATION #56 0.6 1.7 0.8 36.9 23.9 9527 STATION #57 0.4 0.6 2.5 3.1 1.2 'Values are average of GC Replicate injections. MDL = 0.11 ng/g; MQL = 0.26 ng/g. DUP = Duplicate sample 191 Appendix G. Newark Bay all chem/toxicity contd. NFCRCNo. Field station ID mirex, total PCBs, total DDTs, Total cPCB, Total mPCB, ng/g ng/g ng/g ng/g ng/g 9561 STATION #1 8.4 320 59.8 208.91 23.39 9562 STATION #3 25.2 2850.2 217.5 2046.09 69.84 9563 STATION #5 23.1 1799.6 239.8 967.94 67.93 9593 STATION #7A 14.3 1206.3 195.1 622.49 52.14 9594 STATION #7B 12.8 1362.7 287.4 1038.48 85.31 9595 STATION #7C 14 1454.3 209.6 863.19 60.01 9596 STATION #8A 13.5 1609 230.2 891.56 68.16 9597 STATION #8B 19.6 1340.7 182 808.12 61.38 9564* STATION #10 11.5 1324.3 192.6 1129.52 72.5 9565 STATION #1 1 11.4 1087.4 210.2 567.34 46.55 9566 STATION #12 0.7 109.7 9.5 43.68 5.77 9567 STATION #14 3.9 671 155.9 286.53 38.98 9598 STATION #17 2.4 206.7 25.8 76.46 10.12 9568 STATION #20 3.4 400 57.2 152.1 2.53 9569 STATION #21 3 539.4 65.3 238.24 19.29 9570 STATION #26 3.3 2318 142.2 1289.81 15.78 9526 STATION #31 3.2 564.9 152.2 243.53 23.35 9529 STATION #36 3.6 576.5 191.9 278.7 23.27 9528 STATION #56 3.2 484.9 124 181.79 16.97 9527 STATION #57 1.6 105.5 11.4 15.76 3 7b 942.78 77.22 7b 963.64 76.77 7b 1209.01 101.93 7b ave. 1038.48 85.31 10 1100.97 70.98 10 1219.92 75.96 10 1067.67 70.57 10 ave. 1129.52 72.5 'Values are average of GC Replicate injections. MDL = 0.1 1 ng/g; MQL = 0.26 ng/g. DUP = Dup icate sample 192 Appendix G. Newark Ba> r all chem/toxicity contd. NFCRCNo. Field station ID Total PCBs, %TOC %TOC/100 Dieldrin, Endrin, ng/g ng/goc ng/goc 9561 STATION #1 232.3 2 0.02 245 165 9562 STATION #3 2115.93 5 0.05 258 14 9563 STATION #5 1035.87 6.1 0.061 347.54 16.39 9593 STATION #7A 674.63 5.8 0.058 218.97 13.79 9594 STATION #7B 1123.79 2.4 0.024 554.17 41.67 9595 STATION #7C 923.2 2.3 0.023 678.26 52.17 9596 STATION #8A 959.71 2.4 0.024 579.17 54.17 9597 STATION #8B 869.51 2.4 0.024 795.83 37.5 9564* STATION #10 1202.02 4.2 0.042 238.1 28.57 9565 STATION #1 1 613.89 5.1 0.051 243.14 13.73 9566 STATION #12 49.45 1.7 0.017 52.94 5.88 9567 STATION #14 325.51 4.3 0.043 125.58 11.63 9598 STATION #17 86.59 2.4 0.024 70.83 4.17 9568 STATION #20 154.63 1.7 0.017 105.88 5.88 9569 STATION #21 257.52 1.5 0.015 366.67 20 9570 STATION #26 1305.58 2.2 0.022 690.91 18.18 9526 STATION #31 266.89 2.1 0.021 142.86 19.05 9529 STATION #36 301.97 2.4 0.024 258.33 33.33 9528 STATION #56 198.76 2.5 0.025 144 24 9527 STATION #57 18.76 0.47 0.0047 212.77 85.11 7b 1020 7b 1040.41 7b 1310.95 7b ave. 1123.79 10 1171.95 10 1295.88 10 1138.24 10 ave. 1202.02 'Values are average of GC Replicate injections. MDL = 0.1 1 ng/g; MQL = 0.26 ng/g. DUP = Duplicate sample 193 Appendix G. Newark Bay all chem/toxicity contd. NFCRCNo. Field station ID Dieldrin, Endrin, P.P-DDE, P.P-DDE, tDDTs, ng/goc ug/goc ug/goc ng/goc ug/goc 9561 Station 1, 3/93 0.245 0.165 690 0.69 2990 9562 Station 3, 3/93 0.258 0.014 1032 1.03 4350 9563 Station 5, 3/93 0.348 0.016 995.08 1 3931.15 9593 Sta. 7A, 3/93, h 0.219 0.014 844.83 0.84 3363.79 9594 Station 7B, 3/9! 0.554 0.042 2208.33 2.21 11975 9595 Station 7C, 3/9! 0.678 0.052 2508.7 2.51 9113.04 9596 Station 8A, 3/9 0.579 0.054 2316.67 2.32 9591.67 9597 Station 8B, 3/9! 0.796 0.038 2083.33 2.08 7583.33 9564* Station 10, 3/9! 0.238 0.029 1709.52 1.71 4585.71 9565 Station 11, 3/9' 0.243 0.014 1045.1 1.05 4121.57 9566 Station 12, 3/9! 0.053 0.006 229.41 0.23 558.82 9567 Station 14, 3/9! 0.126 0.012 527.91 0.53 3625.58 9598 Station 17, 3/9! 0.071 0.004 395.83 0.4 1075 9568 Station 20, 3/9: 0.106 0.006 1141.18 1.14 3364.71 9569 Station 21, 3/9 0.367 0.02 1626.67 1.63 4353.33 9570 Station 26, 3/9: 0.691 0.018 3277.27 3.28 6463.64 9526 Sta. 31, 1/93, H 0.143 0.019 1766.67 1.77 7247.62 9529 Sta. 36, 1/93 0.258 0.033 1312.5 1.31 7995.83 9528 Sta. 56, 1/93, H 0.144 0.024 1484 1.48 4960 9527 Sta. 57, 1/93 0.213 0.085 702.13 0.7 2425.53 194 Appendix G. Newark Bay all chem/toxicity contd. Lab no. Station No. tDDTs, tPCB, ng/goc tPCB, ug/goc TOC(%) total AVS, ug/goc umol/g 9581 STATION #1 2.99 11615 11.62 2 0.98 9582 STATION #3 4.35 42319 42.32 5 13.9 9583 STATION #5 3.93 16981 16.98 6.1 29.6 9605 STATION #7A 3.36 11632 11.63 5.8 20.8 9607 STATION #7B 11.98 46825 46.82 2.4 33 9608 STATION #7C 9.11 40139 40.14 2.3 54.9 9609 STATION #8A 9.59 39988 39.99 2.4 62.9 9610 STATION #8B 7.58 36230 36.23 2.4 9.6 9584 STATION #10 4.59 28620 28.62 4.2 20.4 9585 STATION #1 1 4.12 12037 12.04 5.1 20.1 9586 STATION #12 0.56 2908.8 2.91 1.7 7.7 9587 STATION #14 3.63 7570 7.57 4.3 35 9611 STATION #17 1.08 3607.9 3.61 2.4 6.6 9588 STATION #20 3.36 9095.9 9.1 1.7 11.1 9589 STATION #21 4.35 17168 17.17 1.5 9 9590 STATION #26 6.46 59345 59.34 2.2 32.2 9535 STATION #31 7.25 12709 12.71 2.1 4.1 9539 STATION #36 8 12582 12.58 2.4 14.6 9538 STATION #56 4.96 7950.4 7.95 2.5 4 9536 STATION #57 2.43 3991.5 3.99 0.47 5.2 9606 STATION #7A 2.5 13.6 9534 STATION #31 2.8 6.7 9537 STATION #56 3.2 6.5 9163 STATION #57 2.2 32.6 195 Appendix G. Newark Bay all chem/toxicity contd. Lab no. Station No. SE Cd, ug/g dw SE Cr, ug/g dw SE Cu, ug/g dw SE Fe, ug/g dw 9581 Station 1, 3/93 1.02 11 17.3 2720 9582 Station 3, 3/93 2.54 44.6 28.1 5870 9583 Station 5, 3/93 3.76 64.6 38.5 9810 9605 Sta. 7A, 3/93, homogenizec 3.97 63.5 54.8 10300 9607 Station 7B, 3/93 3.62 61.4 42.2 9530 9608 Station 7C, 3/93 4.49 77.3 27.1 10900 9609 Station 8A, 3/93 4.86 81.7 23 11500 9610 Station 8B, 3/93 3.75 53.3 75.8 9550 9584 Station 10, 3/93 3.6 115 53.3 8510 9585 Station 11, 3/93 3.16 87.9 77.4 11100 9586 Station 12, 3/93 0.383 13.6 10.8 5970 9587 Station 14, 3/93 2.02 79 15.1 8280 9611 Station 17, 3/93 0.55 52.4 14 2950 9588 Station 20, 3/93 0.839 41.2 16.8 3660 9589 Station 21, 3/93 0.98 70.2 17.4 2590 9590 Station 26, 3/93 3.19 173 13.9 5220 9535 Sta. 31, 1/93, Homogenizec 0.965 39.9 42.3 4230 9539 Sta. 36, 1/93 1.06 40.7 47.8 6610 9538 Sta. 56, 1/93, Homogenizec 0.978 33.3 68.4 7260 9536 Sta. 57, 1/93 0.245 7.62 11.7 3060 9606 STATION #7A 2.92 45.7 53.8 9100 9534 STATION #31 1.24 53.1 61.2 6280 9537 STATION #56 1.25 40.3 80.8 7920 9163 STATION #57 0.934 29.1 35.5 6840 196 Appendix G. Newark Bay all chem/toxicity contd. Lab no. Station No. SE Ag, ug/g dw SE As, ug/g dw SE Al, ug/g dw 9581 Station 1, 3/93 0.113 0.61 577 9582 Station 3, 3/93 0.153 0.79 1509 9583 Station 5, 3/93 0.384 1.14 2528 9605 Sta. 7A, 3/93, homogenized 0.335 2.01 2613 9607 Station 7B, 3/93 0.42 1.56 2571 9608 Station 7C, 3/93 0.643 1.35 3226 9609 Station 8A, 3/93 0.678 1.16 3218 9610 Station 8B, 3/93 0.437 1.75 2399 9584 Station 10, 3/93 0.752 2.13 2933 9585 Station 11, 3/93 0.686 2.44 2869 9586 Station 12, 3/93 0.097 0.99 1168 9587 Station 14, 3/93 0.501 1.16 2028 9611 Station 17, 3/93 0.099 1.36 757 9588 Station 20, 3/93 0.218 1 1052 9589 Station 21, 3/93 0.113 1.44 882 9590 Station 26, 3/93 0.378 1.89 1787 9535 Sta. 31, 1/93, Homogenized 0.368 2.34 1295 9539 Sta. 36, 1/93 0.356 2.38 1743 9538 Sta. 56, 1/93, Homogenized 0.761 4.05 1921 9536 Sta. 57, 1/93 0.204 1.59 465 9606 STATION #7A 0.284 1.64 2009 9534 STATION #31 0.372 3.09 1757 9537 STATION #56 0.736 4.51 1976 9163 STATION #57 0.431 1.45 1573 197 Appendix G. Newark Bay all chem/toxicity contd. lab. no. station no. SE Hg, ug/g dw SE Hg (1/2 mdl) SENi, SEPb, ug/g dw ug/g dw 9581 Station 1, 3/93 <0.125 0.0625 3.87 81.8 9582 Station 3, 3/93 <0.125 0.0625 7.88 196 9583 Station 5, 3/93 <0.125 0.0625 11.2 250 9605 Sta. 7A, 3/93, homogenizec <0.125 0.0625 12.1 245 9607 Station 7B, 3/93 <0.125 0.0625 11.7 231 9608 Station 7C, 3/93 <0.125 0.0625 12.2 248 9609 Station 8A, 3/93 <0.125 0.0625 12.9 261 9610 Station 8B, 3/93 <0.125 0.0625 11.8 258 9584 Station 10, 3/93 <0.125 0.0625 11.4 201 9585 Station 11, 3/93 <0.125 0.0625 12.3 200 9586 Station 12, 3/93 <0.125 0.0625 3.62 34.3 9587 Station 14, 3/93 <0.125 0.0625 8.55 81.2 9611 Station 17, 3/93 <0.125 0.0625 3.06 33.4 9588 Station 20, 3/93 <0.125 0.0625 4.26 59.5 9589 Station 21, 3/93 <0.125 0.0625 2.99 57.8 9590 Station 26, 3/93 <0.125 0.0625 6.49 140 9535 Sta. 31, 1/93, Homogenizec <0.125 0.0625 6.15 78.2 9539 Sta. 36, 1/93 <0.125 0.0625 7.06 94.1 9538 Sta. 56, 1/93, Homogenizec <0.125 0.0625 10.1 131 9536 Sta. 57, 1/93 <0.125 0.0625 2.8 29.4 9606 Sta. 7A, 3/93, direct <0.125 0.0625 10.2 244 9534 Sta. 31, 1/93, Direct <0.125 0.0625 7.71 108 9537 Sta. 56, 1/93, Direct <0.125 0.0625 9.41 136 9163 Sta. 57, 10/27/92 <0.125 0.0625 18.6 91.7 198 Appendix G. Newark Bay all chem/toxicity contd. lab. no. station no. SESb, SESb SESn, SESe, SESe ug/g dw (1/2mdl) ug/g dw ug/g dw (1/2 mdl) 9581 Station 1, 3/93 <2.0 1 9.55 <0.381 0.19 9582 Station 3, 3/93 <2.0 1 19.4 <0.381 0.19 9583 Station 5, 3/93 2.88 2.88 25.7 <0.381 0.19 9605 Sta. 7A, 3/93, homogenized 2.1 2.1 26.1 <0.381 0.19 9607 Station 7B, 3/93 2.01 2.01 25.6 <0.381 0.19 9608 Station 7C, 3/93 2.06 2.06 27.8 <0.381 0.19 9609 Station 8A, 3/93 2.16 2.16 33.4 <0.381 0.19 9610 Station 8B, 3/93 2.23 2.23 28.9 <0.381 0.19 9584 Station 10, 3/93 <2.0 1 24.8 <0.381 0.19 9585 Station 11, 3/93 3.28 3.28 23.7 <0.381 0.19 9586 Station 12, 3/93 <2.0 1 2.46 <0.381 0.19 9587 Station 14, 3/93 <2.0 1 8.93 <0.381 0.19 9611 Station 17, 3/93 <2.0 1 3.68 <0.381 0.19 9588 Station 20, 3/93 <2.0 1 8.34 <0.381 0.19 9589 Station 21, 3/93 <2.0 1 9.41 <0.381 0.19 9590 Station 26, 3/93 <2.0 1 9.81 <0.381 0.19 9535 Sta. 31, 1/93, Homogenized <2.0 1 19.6 <0.381 0.19 9539 Sta. 36, 1/93 <2.0 1 11 <0.381 0.19 9538 Sta. 56, 1/93, Homogenized <2.0 1 10.8 <0.381 0.19 9536 Sta. 57, 1/93 <2.0 1 2.48 <0.381 0.19 9606 Sta. 7A, 3/93, direct <2.0 1 23.5 <0.381 0.19 9534 Sta. 31, 1/93, Direct 2.26 2.26 11.9 <0.381 0.19 9537 Sta. 56, 1/93, Direct 2.05 2.05 13.5 <0.381 0.19 9163 Sta. 57, 10/27/92 2.41 2.41 7.76 <0.381 0.19 199 Appendix G. Newark Bay all chem/toxicit) f contd. lab. no. station no. SEZn, SEM/AVS ratio Cdas%SEM Cuas%SEM ug/g dw 9581 Station 1, 3/93 134 2.85 108 57 9582 Station 3, 3/93 341 0.49 76 22 9583 Station 5, 3/93 444 0.3 78 17 9605 Sta. 7A, 3/93, homogenized 446 0.44 86 31 9607 Station 7B, 3/93 435 0.26 76 23 9608 Station 7C, 3/93 495 0.17 84 12 9609 Station 8A, 3/93 526 0.16 85 10 9610 Station 8B, 3/93 465 1.02 82 41 9584 Station 10, 3/93 353 0.36 78 26 9585 Station 11, 3/93 339 0.38 80 41 9586 Station 12, 3/93 56 0.16 80 35 9587 Station 14, 3/93 185 0.1 77 13 9611 Station 17, 3/93 74.3 0.24 87 45 9588 Station 20, 3/93 91.4 0.18 92 28 9589 Station 21, 3/93 99.8 0.069 70 21 9590 Station 26, 3/93 212 0.133 75 10 9535 Sta. 31, 1/93, Homogenized 115 0.71 80 51 9539 Sta. 36, 1/93 127 0.22 73 42 9538 Sta. 56, 1/93, Homogenized 149 1.04 19 59 9536 Sta. 57, 1/93 199 0.66 132 80 9606 Sta. 7A, 3/93, direct 401 0.61 89 38 9534 Sta. 31, 1/93, Direct 144 0.57 — b — 9537 Sta. 56, 1/93, Direct 163 0.71 — ... 9163 Sta. 57, 10/27/92 122 0.098 76 39 200 Appendix G. Newark Bay all chem/toxicity contd. lab. no. station no. Pbas%SEM Nias%SEM Znas%SEM total Ag, ug/g 9581 Station 1, 3/93 82 22 100 1.54 9582 Station 3, 3/93 80 22 83 1.99 9583 Station 5, 3/93 73 24 79 4.16 9605 Sta. 7A, 3/93, homogenized 85 25 99 4.98 9607 Station 7B, 3/93 81 24 81 4.39 9608 Station 7C, 3/93 80 26 83 5.5 9609 Station 8A, 3/93 84 26 82 5.74 9610 Station 8B, 3/93 73 27 83 5.64 9584 Station 10, 3/93 78 21 75 5.02 9585 Station 11, 3/93 83 24 79 3.11 9586 Station 12, 3/93 54 13 58 <0.73 9587 Station 14, 3/93 65 23 65 3.19 9611 Station 17, 3/93 81 11 74 <0.73 9588 Station 20, 3/93 68 19 13 1.33 9589 Station 21, 3/93 69 14 62 1.19 9590 Station 26, 3/93 88 24 69 3.43 9535 Sta. 31, 1/93, Homogenized 82 14 66 2.22 9539 Sta. 36, 1/93 76 14 59 2.89 9538 Sta. 56, 1/93, Homogenized 97 14 65 3.24 9536 Sta. 57, 1/93 93 7 356 0.843 9606 Sta. 7A, 3/93, direct 91 27 85 4.32 9534 Sta. 31, 1/93, Direct — — — — b 9537 Sta. 56, 1/93, Direct — — — — 9163 Sta. 57, 10/27/92 88 10 65 3.26 201 Appendix G. Newark