U.S. Department of the Interior

U.S. Geological Survey

Data Series 123

Prepared in cooperation with the 

New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection

Organic Compounds, Trace Elements, Suspended Sediment, 

and Field Characteristics at the Heads-of-Tide of the Raritan, 

Passaic, Hackensack, Rahway, and Elizabeth Rivers, 

New Jersey, 2000-03
Organic Compounds, Trace Elements, 

Suspended Sediment, and Field 

Characteristics at the Heads-of-Tide of the 

Raritan, Passaic, Hackensack, Rahway, 

and Elizabeth Rivers, New Jersey, 2000-03

By Jennifer L. Bonin and Timothy P. Wilson

Prepared in cooperation with the 

Data Series 123

U.S. Department of the Interior

U.S. Geological Survey

New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection
U.S. Department of the Interior

Dirk Kempthorne, Secretary

U.S. Geological Survey

P. Patrick Leahy, Acting Director

U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia: 2006

For product and ordering information:

World Wide Web: http://www.usgs.gov/pubprod

Telephone: 1-888-ASK-USGS

For more information on the USGS--the Federal source for science about the Earth, its natural and living resources, 

natural hazards, and the environment:

World Wide Web: http://www.usgs.gov

Telephone: 1-888-ASK-USGS

Any use of trade, product, or firm names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the 

U.S. Government.

Although this report is in the public domain, permission must be secured from the individual copyright owners to 

reproduce any copyrighted materials contained within this report.
iii

Contents

Abstract...........................................................................................................................................................1

Introduction.....................................................................................................................................................1

Purpose and Scope ..............................................................................................................................4

Description of Study Area ...................................................................................................................4

Description of data ...............................................................................................................................4

Methods of Sample Collection and Analysis ............................................................................................5

Field Methods........................................................................................................................................5

Sampling-Station Equipment .....................................................................................................5

Sampler Configuration ................................................................................................................7

Quality-Assurance Samples ....................................................................................................12

Sample Handling........................................................................................................................12

Laboratory Methods...........................................................................................................................12

Organic Compounds, Trace Elements, Suspended Sediment, and Field and Other Selected 

Characteristics................................................................................................................................16

Organic Compounds and Trace Elements.......................................................................................16

Qualifiers and Detection Limits ...............................................................................................16

Co-elutions of Polychlorinated Biphenyls .............................................................................18

Quality Assurance and Quality Control Samples..................................................................18

Suspended Sediment, Organic Carbon, and Nitrogen .................................................................19

Field Characteristics...........................................................................................................................20

Calculation of Concentrations from Analytical Results................................................................22

Normalized Concentrations .....................................................................................................23

Particulate Organic Carbon Normalized Concentrations in Sediment.............................23

Concentrations in composite samples...................................................................................23

Trace-element concentrations in sediment from grab samples........................................23

Data Evaluation ............................................................................................................................................24

Analysis of Standard Reference Materials Results......................................................................24

Estimation of Uncertainty in Concentrations .................................................................................24

Error in the Calculation of Dissolved Concentrations..........................................................25

Error in the Calculation of Constituent Concentrations in the Particulate Phase...........25

Limitations of the Data .......................................................................................................................29

Summary........................................................................................................................................................30

Acknowledgments.......................................................................................................................................30

References Cited..........................................................................................................................................31
iv

Figures

1-2. Maps showing—

1. Location of surface-water sampling sites on the Raritan, Passaic, 

 Hackensack, Rahway, and Elizabeth Rivers, N.J ...........................................................2

2. Land use in the five-river-basin study area, N.J ............................................................6

3. Water-quality sampling station on the Passaic River at Little Falls, N.J.............................9

4. Schematic diagram showing the configuration of the automatic samplers ......................9

5. A Trace Organic Platform Sampler (TOPS) used to collect water samples .....................10

6. Schematic diagram of a Trace Organic Platform Sampler (TOPS) ....................................11

Tables

1. Description of the surface-water sampling sites on the Raritan, Passaic,

Hackensack, Rahway, and Elizabeth Rivers, New Jersey.....................................................3

2. Hydrologic and land-use attributes at selected discharge gages in the Raritan,

Passaic, Hackensack, Rahway, and Elizabeth River basins, New Jersey..........................5

3. Description of sample types collected from, and equipment used in, the Raritan,

Passaic, Hackensack, Rahway and Elizabeth Rivers, New Jersey .....................................7

4. Sample identifiers, collection dates, and sites for samples collected from the

Raritan, Passaic, Hackensack, Rahway and Elizabeth Rivers, New Jersey ......................8

5. Carbon-13 and chlorine-37 labeled field surrogates used with the XAD-resin

columns ........................................................................................................................................12

6. Description of blank samples used for quality assurance...................................................13

7. Field characteristics measured during sample collection at sites on the Raritan, 

Passaic, Hackensack, Rahway, and Elizabeth Rivers, New Jersey................................. CD

8. Constituents in sediment and water samples collected from the Raritan, Passaic,

Hackensack, Rahway, and Elizabeth Rivers, New Jersey...................................................14

9. Methods used for analysis of water and sediment samples ..............................................16

10. Results of quality-assurance and quality-control sample analyses................................ CD

11. Results of National Institute of Standards and Technology/National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration quality-assurance sample analyses................................... CD

12. Results of XAD-2 resin quality-control sample analyses................................................... CD

13. Mass of polychlorinated biphenyl congeners recovered in samples of suspended 

sediment and water from the Raritan, Passaic, Hackensack, Rahway, and 

Elizabeth Rivers, New Jersey ................................................................................................. CD

14. Mass of dioxins and furans recovered in suspended sediment filtered from water 

samples collected from the Raritan, Passaic, Hackensack, Rahway, and Elizabeth 

Rivers, New Jersey .................................................................................................................. CD

15. Mass or concentration of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons recovered from 

samples of suspended sediment and water collected from the Raritan, Passaic, 

Hackensack, Rahway, and Elizabeth Rivers, New Jersey................................................. CD

16. Mass of organochlorine pesticides recovered in samples of suspended sediment 

and water collected from the Raritan, Passaic, Hackensack, Rahway, and 

Elizabeth Rivers, New Jersey ................................................................................................. CD
17. Concentrations of trace elements in samples of suspended sediment and water 

collected from the Raritan, Passaic, Hackensack, Rahway, and Elizabeth Rivers, 

New Jersey................................................................................................................................ CD

18. Description of data qualifiers included in analytical results...............................................17

19. Ranges of reported estimated detection limits (EDLs) and method detection limits

(MDLs) for trace elements and organic compounds in field and equipment blanks ......18

20. Description of co-eluting polychlorinated biphenyl congener sets...................................19

21. Description of standard reference materials used in the quality assurance/quality

control plan..................................................................................................................................20

22. Summary of quality assurance and quality control analyses .............................................21

23. Concentrations of suspended sediment, dissolved and particulate organic carbon, 

and other measured constituents in samples collected from the Raritan, Passaic, 

Hackensack, Rahway, and Elizabeth Rivers, New Jersey................................................. CD

24. Concentrations of suspended sediment, dissolved and particulate organic carbon, and 

other measured constituents in samples collected from the Raritan, Passaic, Rahway, 

and Elizabeth Rivers, New Jersey ......................................................................................... CD

25. Location of precipitation stations in New Jersey river basins. ..........................................22

26. Means and variances for polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons measured in standard

reference materials....................................................................................................................26

27. Means and variances for polychlorinated biphenyls measured in standard

reference materials....................................................................................................................27

28. Means and variances for pesticides measured in standard reference materials..........28
vi

Conversion Factors and Abbreviated Water-Quality Units

Multiply By To obtain

Length

millimeter (mm) 0.03937 inch (in)

centimeter (cm) 0.3937 inch (in)

meter (m) 3.281 foot (ft)

kilometer (km) 0.6214 mile (mi)

Area

square meter (m2) 0.0002471 acre

square kilometer (km2) 0.3861 square mile (mi2)

Volume

liter (L) 3.785 gallon (gal)

milliliter (mL) 3,785 gallon (gal)

cubic meter per second (m3/s) 35.31 cubic feet per second (ft3/s)

cubic meter per second (m3/s) 15,850 gallons per minute (gal/min)

Mass

gram (g) 0.03527 ounce, avoirdupois (oz)

Vertical coordinate information is referenced to the National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929 

(NGVD of 1929).

Horizontal coordinate information is referenced to the North American Datum of 1983 (NAD83).

Altitude, as used in this report, refers to distance above the vertical datum.

Water quality abbreviations

PCB Polychlorinated biphenyl

PAH Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons

XAD Chemical exchange resin

SS Suspended sediment

POC Particulate organic carbon

DOC Dissolved organic carbon

μg microgram

ng nanogram

pg picogram
Organic Compounds, Trace Elements, Suspended 

Sediment, and Field Characteristics at the Heads-ofTide of the Raritan, Passaic, Hackensack, Rahway, and 

Elizabeth Rivers, New Jersey, 2000-03

By Jennifer L. Bonin and Timothy P. Wilson

Introduction

The estuaries of the Newark and Raritan Bays in New 

Jersey and the Hudson River estuary in New York have long 

been major shipping ports and manufacturing areas in northeastern United States. Five major tributaries discharge to New 

Jersey estuaries and bays-- the Raritan, Passaic, Hackensack, 

Rahway, and Elizabeth Rivers (fig. 1). Because sediment is 

deposited by these rivers, the bays need to be dredged continually to maintain their use as shipping ports. Discharges 

of industrial and waste-related chemicals associated with the 

extensive urbanization and industrialization in these river 

basins have resulted in the contamination of the river water 

and sediment. Inputs from point and non-point sources in the 

basins and riverine storage of previously released chemicals 

supply contaminants to the sediment in the estuaries and harbors. The chemicals associated with the sediment pose significant threats to ecologic and human health. When removed by 

dredging, the contaminated sediment is difficult and expensive 

to treat and dispose of (New York/New Jersey Harbor Estuary 

Program Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan, 

1996).

In an attempt to restore these estuaries and to reduce the 

need for continual dredging of contaminated sediment from 

the ports, the States of New Jersey and New York began a 

cooperative research project to evaluate the loads of toxic 

chemicals and sediment to the Newark and Raritan Bays, and 

to the Hudson River estuary (New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, 2001). This program, the Contaminant 

Assessment and Reduction Program (CARP), was established 

to characterize the types and concentrations of contaminants 

in the rivers and to prioritize the riverine inputs by determining loads of the constituents and sediment so that future efforts 

can focus on remediation of the sources of contamination. 

The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) has monitored water 

discharge and water-quality constituents, such as concentrations of suspended sediment, in New Jersey tributaries for 

many years (table 1). Buxton and others (1998) compiled 

Abstract

Concentrations of suspended sediment, particulate and 

dissolved organic carbon, trace elements, and organic compounds were measured in samples from the heads-of-tide of 

the five tributaries to the Newark and Raritan Bays during 

June 2000 to June 2003. The samples were collected as part of 

the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection Toxics Reduction Workplan/Contaminant Assessment Reduction 

Program. Samples of streamwater were collected at waterquality sampling stations constructed near U.S. Geological 

Survey gaging stations on the Raritan, Passaic, Hackensack, 

Rahway, and Elizabeth Rivers. Sampling was conducted 

during base-flow conditions and storms. Constituent concentrations were measured to determine the water quality and to 

calculate the load of sediment and contaminants contributed to 

the bays from upstream sources.

Water samples were analyzed for suspended sediment, 

dissolved organic carbon, particulate organic carbon, and 

specific conductance. Samples of suspended sediment and 

water were analyzed for 98 distinct polychlorinated biphenyl 

congeners, 7 dioxins, 10 furans, 27 pesticides, 26 polycyclic 

aromatic hydrocarbons, and the trace elements cadmium, lead, 

mercury, and methyl-mercury. Measurements of ultra-low 

concentrations of organic compounds in sediment and water 

were obtained by collecting 1 to 3 grams of suspended sediment on glass fiber filters and by passing at least 20 liters of 

filtered water through XAD-2 resin. The extracted sediment 

and XAD-2 resin were analyzed for organic compounds by 

high- and low-resolution gas chromatography mass-spectrometry that uses isotope dilution procedures. Trace elements in 

filtered and unfiltered samples were analyzed for cadmium, 

lead, mercury, and methyl-mercury by inductively coupled 

charged plasma and mass-spectrometry.

All constituent concentrations are raw data. Interpretation 

of the data will be completed in the second phase of the study.
0 5 10 MILES

0 5 10 15 KILOMETERS

41

40

30'

74 30' 74 15' 74 73 45'

40

45'

01389500

01378500

01378522

01404100

01395000

01393400

74

40

41

39

75

Area of detail

0 10 20 MILES

0 10 20 KILOMETERS

NEW

JERSEY

NEW

YORK

BERGEN

ESSEX

PASSAIC

MORRIS

ROCKLAND

WESTCHESTER

BRONX

BROOKLYN

QUEENS

MANHATTAN

NEW YORK BIGHT

MONMOUTH ATLANTIC OCEAN

MIDDLESEX

STATEN

ISLAND

Upper

New

York N

Bay

ewark Bay

Whippany River

Passaic River

Passaic

River

Hackensack River

Hudson River

East River

Lower New York Bay

Raritan Bay

Sandy

Hook Bay

Jamaica Bay

Long Island Sound

Navesink River

Shrewsbury River

Swimming River Dam

Sandy Hook—Rockaway Point Transect

Kill Van Kull

Raritan River

Arthur Kill

Rahway

River

UNION

NEW JERSEY HUDSON

Harlem

Rive

Dundee Dam r

Passaic River Oradell Dam

Piedmont

Marsh

Tappan Zee

Bridge

NEW YORK

Surface-water sampling site 

01389500 and site identification number

EXPLANATION

Elizabeth

River

Figure 1. Location of surface-water sampling sites on the Raritan, Passaic, Hackensack, Rahway, and Elizabeth Rivers, N.J. (From: 

New York/New Jersey Harbor Estuary Final Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan, March 1996.)

   Constituents and Field Characteristics—Raritan, Passaic, Hackensack, Rahway, and Elizabeth Rivers, 2000-03
Table 1. Description of the surface-water sampling sites on the Raritan, Passaic, Hackensack, Rahway, and Elizabeth Rivers, New Jersey.

[USGS, U.S. Geological Survey; NGVD of 29, National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929; N.J., New Jersey; NA, not applicable; Horizontal datum is North American Datum of 1983]

USGS sampling 

site 

identification 

number

Sampling site 

identifier

Sampling site name Sampling site 

type

Sampling site 

latitude

(degrees, 

minutes, and 

seconds)

Sampling site 

longitude

(degrees, 

minutes, and 

seconds)

USGS gaging 

station 

identification 

number

USGS gaging 

station datum 

(feet above 

NGVD of 29)

Position of sampling 

site in relation to 

gaging station

01389500 PASSAICHOT Passaic River at 

Little Falls, N.J.

Sampling and stream gage

40° 53’ 06.57” 74° 13’ 32.23” 01389500 120.00 Immediately adjacent 

to the gaging station

01378500 HACKENHOT Hackensack River at 

New Milford, N.J.

Sampling (freshwater) and 

stream gage

40° 56’ 54” 74° 01’ 37” 01378500 6.25 Immediately adjacent 

to the gaging station

01378522 HAC4 Hackensack River at 

Oradell, N.J.

Sampling (tidal) 40° 56’ 36.2” 74° 01’29.65” 01378500 6.25 0.5 miles downstream 

from the gaging station

01404100 RARITANHOT Raritan River near 

South Bound Brook, N.J.

Sampling 40° 32’ 26.04” 74° 30’ 49.71” 01403060 0.00 0.75 miles downstream 

from the gaging station

01395000 RAHWAYHOT Rahway River at 

Rahway, N.J.

Sampling and 

stream gage

40° 37’ 07.48” 74° 16’ 53.20” 01395000 8.77 0.1 miles downstream 

from the gaging station

01393400 ELIZABHOT Elizabeth River at 

Hillside, N.J.

Sampling 40° 41’ 20.95” 74° 14’ 16.13” 01393450 0.00 0.5 miles upstream 

from the gaging station

Abstract   
previously collected data to evaluate trends between stream 

discharge and sediment, and constituent concentrations, in 

grab samples. The earlier sampling programs did not measure 

trace organic and inorganic constituents in the rivers nor did 

the earlier data provide the information needed to calculate 

sediment and carbon loads.

The USGS, in cooperation with the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP), conducted a 

study as part of the CARP to determine which constituents 

were present in water that moved across the head-of-tide, 

which is the uppermost point in the tributary where water 

levels are affected by daily oceanic tides, of each of the five 

major tributaries to the estuary system. (The New Jersey 

study, referred to as NJ-CARP, was carried out by the USGS 

New Jersey Water Science Center.) Analyses were conducted 

to determine the concentrations of the constituents in water 

and sediment and to calculate the fluxes of the constituents in 

water and sediment into the system from above the heads-oftide. Concurrent with the sampling reported here and in conjunction with the CARP, water samples were collected at many 

locations within the estuary and bays and at many sewagetreatment facilities and stormwater outfalls within the estuary 

system. Samples were analyzed for polychlorinated biphenyl 

congeners, dioxins, furans, pesticides, polycyclic aromatic 

hydrocarbons, and trace elements in an effort to characterize the inputs, storage components, and outputs to the harbor 

system as a whole (New Jersey Department of Environmental 

Protection, 2001). In 1998, the New York State Department of 

Environment and Conservation undertook a similar program 

in the Hudson River basin (New York State Department of 

Environment and Conservation, 1998).

The results of analyses for the constituents noted above 

are reported as raw data. A second phase of this study focuses 

on the interpretation of the constituent data.

Purpose and Scope

The purpose of this report is to describe sample collection 

techniques, analytical methods, and quality-assurance procedures, and to present data on organic compounds, organic 

carbon, trace elements, and suspended sediment in samples 

collected at six sampling sites on the 5 major rivers in New 

Jersey that discharge to the New York-New Jersey Harbor 

Estuary-- the Raritan, Passaic, Hackensack, Rahway, and 

Elizabeth Rivers-- from June 2000 to June 2003.

Description of Study Area

The study area consists of the Hackensack and Passaic Rivers, which flow into Newark Bay; the Elizabeth and 

Rahway Rivers, which flow into the Arthur Kill; and the 

Raritan River which flows into Raritan Bay (fig. 1; table 1). 

The Passaic and Raritan Rivers drain large basins of more than 

700 mi2. The flow in these rivers typically remains elevated 

for several days after precipitation occurs. The Hackensack, 

Rahway, and Elizabeth Rivers drain much smaller basins of 

less than 100 mi2 that consequently have small discharges. 

Flow in these rivers typically remains elevated for less than a 

day after precipitation ends (table 2). Flow on all of these rivers is affected by flow-control and diversion structures, such 

as dams and reservoirs, and by inputs from sewers and other 

outfalls, all of which greatly affect the responses of these rivers to precipitation.

Land use in these river basins, as determined from the 

NJDEP Geographic Information Systems Database for the part 

of the basin upstream from the sampling sites, provides useful 

insight into the characteristics of these basins. All of the basins 

are classified mainly as urban, although about 20 percent of 

the land use in the Raritan River basin is agricultural or lowdensity rural housing. In the Passaic and Raritan River basins, 

36 and 27 percent, respectively, of the land is forested. The 

high degree of urbanization is reflected in the large number 

of dischargers and waste-treatment plants that are permitted 

to release effluent into the surface-water system in each basin 

(fig. 2). The number of stormwater discharge sites in each 

basin is unknown but is likely to be much greater than the 

number of permitted discharge sites.

Description of data

In this study, the concentrations of suspended sediment, 

persistent trace organic compounds, and trace elements were 

measured in samples from the five rivers during base flow and 

stormflow from June 2000 to June 2003 (tables 3 and 4). The 

constituents of concern were identified in the New York/New 

Jersey Harbor Estuary Program Final Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan (New York/New Jersey Harbor 

Estuary Program, 1996). The sample types are suspended 

sediment collected on filters, dissolved organic compounds 

collected on exchange XAD-2 resin, composite whole-water 

samples, and discrete grab whole-water samples (table 3). 

The data on organic compounds reported here are the masses 

associated with the dissolved and particulate phases of organic 

compounds recovered in flow-weighted composite samples 

that were collected with automatic samplers. A flow-weighted 

composite sample is produced by processing set volumes (aliquots) of river water that were collected each time a specified 

volume of river water passed the sampling station. Analysis 

of the composite sample produces an average constituent 

concentration that represents the entire storm or base-flow 

interval. In contrast, concentrations of suspended sediment 

(SS) and dissolved (DOC) and particulate (POC) organic carbon were measured in individual (discrete) samples collected 

each time the specified river volume passed. This allowed the 

variation in concentrations of these analytes during storms to 

be observed, and the geometric mean of the concentrations of 

SS, POC, and DOC in these discrete sample concentrations 

represents the flow-weighted average concentration in the 

river. Concentrations of trace elements were measured in grab 

 Constituents and Field Characteristics—Raritan, Passaic, Hackensack, Rahway, and Elizabeth Rivers, 2000-03
Table 2. Hydrologic and land-use attributes at selected discharge gages in the Raritan, Passaic, Hackensack, Rahway, and Elizabeth 

River basins, New Jersey.

[Land-use data were obtained from the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) Geographic Information Systems database; ft3/s, cubic 

feet per second; ~, approximately; Hydrologic data are from Reed and others, 2004.]

Attribute Raritan Passaic Hackensack Rahway Elizabeth

USGS gaging station identification number 01403060 013895000 01378500 01395000 01393450

Drainage area, in square miles 785 762 113 40.9 16.9

Period of record 1944-present 1897-present 1921-present 1908-1915, 

1921-present

1921-present

Mean annual flow, ft3/s 1,189 1,132 90.4 49.1 25.9

10-percent exceedance flow, ft3/s 2,580 2,740 264 100 51

50-percent exceedance flow, ft3/s 615 625 15 19 11

90-percent exceedance flow, ft3/s 165 118 0.00 3.6 5.6

Number of reservoirs 2 9 4 3 0

Number of water diversions in basin 5 ~10 7 3 1

Land-use, in percent of area in basin:

Agricultural 26.51 1.66 0.97 0.16 0.07

Urban 29.58 33.27 69.37 79.28 92.07

Barren 1.41 0.98 0.26 0.58 0.10

Forested 30.26 48.85 20.46 16.45 4.79

Water 1.68 4.34 5.10 1.02 0.26

Wetlands 10.57 10.90 3.84 2.50 2.71

Number of NJDEP permitted discharge sites 198 300 71 84 39

Number of public-owned water-treatment 

plants discharging to river

47 42 4 12 1

samples collected near the peak flow during storms. Baseflow samples were collected by sampling continuously over a 

6-hour period.

A unique identification number (CARP identifier) was 

assigned to each sample type (New Jersey Department of 

Environmental Protection, 2001). To simplify the tracking of 

samples, the various analyses of all samples collected from 

a single site on a particular date or during a particular storm 

were assigned the same USGS identifier. The USGS identifiers 

and the corresponding CARP identifiers are listed in table 4.

Methods of Sample Collection and 

Analysis

The equipment and methods used to collect streamflow 

and quality-assurance samples are described in this section. 

Methods of analysis used in the laboratory also are described.

Field Methods

This section describes the sampling equipment used in 

the field as well as the configuration of the equipment as it 

was deployed at each site along the various rivers. This section 

also contains information on quality-assurance samples collected in this study.

Sampling-Station Equipment

Water-quality sampling stations were constructed 

adjacent to previously installed USGS stream-gaging stations located near the head of tide on each river (table 1). The 

stream-gaging stations are actively maintained and provide 

real-time discharge data. The sampling apparatus are housed 

in a concrete bunker equipped with electrical service (fig. 3). 

Two polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) and one polypropylene 

tubing line, all encased in a protective plastic or steel pipe 

containing an electrical heating coil for cold weather use, 

Methods of Sample Collection and Analysis 
39 0 10 20 MILES

0 10 20 KILOMETERS

NEW JERSEY

75

41

74

40 Study area

0 10 20 KILOMETERS

0 10 20 MILES

41

40

45'

40

37'

30"

40

52'

30"

74 15'

74 07'30"

74

74 22'30"

74 30'

EXPLANATION

LAND USE, 1995-97

Urban

Agriculture

Forest

Water

Wetlands

Barren

USGS surface-water sampling site

Sewage-treatment plant

Site of permitted discharge to surface water

Elizabeth

Hackensack

Rahway

Raritan

Passaic

Basin boundary

Figure 2. Land use in the five-river-basin study area, N.J.

 Constituents and Field Characteristics—Raritan, Passaic, Hackensack, Rahway, and Elizabeth Rivers, 2000-03
Table 3. Description of sample types collected from, and equipment used in, the Raritan, Passaic, Hackensack, Rahway and Elizabeth 

Rivers, New Jersey.

[TOPS, Trace Organic Platform Sampler; XAD, chemical exchange resin; ISCO, automatic sampler; PCB, Polychlorinated biphenyl; PAH, polycyclic aromatic 

hydrocarbon]

Type of sample Collection equipment Analytes

Suspended sediment flow-weighted 

composited sample

Filters installed in TOPS PCBs, dioxins, furans, pesticides, and PAHs

Dissolved flow-weighted composited 

sample

XAD-resin columns installed in TOPS PCBs and pesticides

Composite flow-weighted sample ISCO #1 automatic sampler Dissolved PAHs and total trace elements

Discrete grab sample ISCO #2 automatic sampler Dissolved and suspended organic carbon, suspended 

sediment

Discrete grab sample Peristaltic pump on the station inlet line Dissolved and total trace elements

run from each station to the thalweg of the river. The tubing 

extends 1 to 2 feet downstream from the end of the protective casing. The tubing is buried underground between the 

streambank and the sampling stations. The inlet tubing for all 

sampling stations, except the one on the Elizabeth River, is 

connected to a large peristaltic pump that allows the streamwater to be continually pumped into the station during sampling. This pump is activated by the automatic sampler used to 

monitor river stage. 

The type of sampling that was conducted was called point 

sampling, which means the intake was at one point in the river. 

The USGS preferred method of sampling is done by using 

equal width interval (EWI) or equal discharge interval (EDI) 

sampling that results in a representative sample over the cross 

section of the river. In order for point sampling to elicit representative samples, the river must be well-mixed. A separate 

study was executed to determine whether the rivers studied 

in this project were well-mixed and single-point sampling 

methods were appropriate. (Data are on file at the USGS New 

Jersey Water Science Center.) The end result was that all five 

rivers were well-mixed and single point sampling fell within 

the range of EWI samples in terms of conductivity, suspended 

sediment concentration, particulate organic carbon concentrations, and dissolved organic carbon concentrations.

Sampler Configuration

Each station contains two ISCO-6700 automatic samplers (ISCO #1 and #2 samplers), a Trace Organic Platform 

Sampler (TOPS), and telecommunication and control equipment (fig. 4). The ISCO #1 sampler is connected to a pressure 

transducer, buried in the streambed, that senses the river stage. 

The sampler records the stage at 5-minute intervals and converts the stage reading to a discharge value. The stage reading 

monitored by the ISCO #1 sampler was used to activate the 

other samplers. The stage-discharge relation from the adjacent USGS gaging station was used to program the ISCO #1 

sampler at all sampling stations except the one on the Elizabeth River. Because the gaging station is downstream from the 

sampling station, the stage-discharge relation at the Elizabeth 

River sampling station was measured independently.

The three samplers were configured to collect different 

types of samples, as described in detail in the USGS Standard 

Operating Procedures (SOP) in the New Jersey Toxics Reduction Workplan SOP (New Jersey Department of Environmental 

Protection, 2001). The ISCO #1 sampler recorded stage, and 

instantaneous and cumulative discharge, and served to activate 

itself, the station’s peristaltic pump, and the other samplers 

when the river stage rose above a preset level (typically 0.2 

feet above the pre-storm stage). To produce flow-weighted 

average composite samples, the ISCO #1 sampler tracked the 

cumulative river discharge and, when the preset volume had 

passed the station, started the other samplers to collect river 

water. The flow interval volumes were approximated with 

historical hydrographs and by trial-and-error, with the goal of 

collecting and compositing 40 aliquots of river water during 

each storm. For base-flow sampling, the TOPS was run continuously until the target volume of water had been processed 

(at least 50 L had passed through the XAD-resin columns 

during an approximate 6-hour period), whereas the other automatic samplers collected at least four discrete aliquots spaced 

equally throughout the sampling period.

The ISCO #1 sampler collected two 100-mL aliquots 

during each sampling cycle that were pumped into two 4-L, 

class-A level clean, glass bottles. One sample was analyzed 

for total trace elements and the second for dissolved polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs). The sample analyzed for 

PAHs was needed because the XAD-2 resin used in the TOPS 

is known to produce naphthalene-based compounds over 

time, which would interfere with analysis for PAHs (David 

Methods of Sample Collection and Analysis 
Table 4. Sample identifiers, collection dates, and sites for samples collected from the Raritan, Passaic, Hackensack, Rahway and Elizabeth Rivers, New Jersey

[USGS, U.S. Geological Survey, CARP, Contaminant Assessment Reduction Program; TOPS, Trace Organic Platform Sampler; XAD, chemical exchange resin; PAHs, Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons; NC, sample not collected]

USGS Sample Information CARP Sample Identifiers

USGS Sample 

Identifier

Date 

collected

River Flow 

regime

TOPS XAD-resin 

sample analyzed for 

organic compounds, 

dissolved in water

TOPS filter sample 

analyzed for organic 

compounds in 

sediment

Composite sample 

analyzed for PAHs, 

dissolved

Composite sample 

for total trace 

elements

Grab sample for 

dissolved- and 

particulate- phase 

trace elements

PASS0602200 6/22/00 Passaic Base flow 1USG00011SA 1USG00012SA 1USG00013SC NC 1USG00016SAHACK062300 6/23/00 Hackensack 

(freshwater)

Base flow 1USG00001SA 1USG00005SA 1USG00007SC NC 1USG00009SA

RARI062700 6/27/00 Raritan Base flow 1USG00017SA 1USG00018SA 1USG00019SC NC 1USG00021SARAHW062800 6/28/00 Rahway Base flow 1USG00022SA 1USG00023SA 1USG00024SC NC 1USG00026SAELIZ062900 6/29/00 Elizabeth Base flow 1USG00027SA 1USG00028SA 1USG00029SC 1USG00030SC 1USG00031SAPASS121500 12/15/00 Passaic Variable 1USG00032SA 1USG00034SA 1USG00036SC NC 1USG00037SAHAC4031301 3/13/01 Hackensack 

(tidal)

Tidal 1USG00040SA 1USG00043SA 1USG00044SC 1USG00046SC 1USG00048SA

PASS031401 3/14/01 Passaic Stormflow 1USG00051SA 1USG00053SA 1USG00055SC 1USG00057SC 1USG00059SARARI041301 4/13/01 Raritan Stormflow 1USG00062SA 1USG00065SA 1USG00067SC 1USG00069SC 1USG00071SAELIZ042501 4/25/01 Elizabeth Base flow 1USG00074SA 1USG00075SA 1USG00076SC 1USG00078SC 1USG00080SARAHW042501 4/25/01 Rahway Base flow 1USG00083SA 1USG00085SA 1USG00087SC 1USG00089SC 1USG00091SARAHW052201 5/22/01 Rahway Stormflow 1USG00093SA 1USG00096SA 1USG00098SC 1USG00100SC 1USG00102SAELIZ052201 5/22/01 Elizabeth Stormflow 1USG00105SA 1USG00106SA 1USG00107SC 1USG00109SC 1USG00111SARARI100401 10/4/01 Raritan Base flow 1USG00113SA 1USG00116SA 1USG00118SC 1USG00119SC 1USG00121SAPASS101701 10/17/01 Passaic Base flow 1USG00124SA 1USG00125SA 1USG00126SC 1USG00128SC 1USG00129SAHACK101901 10/19/01 Hackensack 

(freshwater)

Base flow 1USG00131SA 1USG00132SA 1USG00133SC 1USG00135SC 1USG00136SA

RARI030302 3/3/02 Raritan Stormflow 1USG00138SA 1USG00141SA 1USG00142SC 1USG00144SC 1USG00145SARARI032102 3/21/02 Raritan Stormflow 1USG00155SA 1USG00156SA 1USG00157SC 1USG00158SC 1USG00159SARAHW042802 4/28/02 Rahway Stormflow 1USG00162SA 1USG00163SA 1USG00164SC 1USG00166SC 1USG00167SAHACK071902 7/19/02 Hackensack 

(freshwater)

Base flow 1USG00172SA 1USG00173SA 1USG00174SC NC NC

ELIZ060403 06/04/03 Elizabeth Stormflow 1USG00175SA 1USG00177SA 1USG00178SC 1USG00179SC 1USG00180SA

 Constituents and Field Characteristics—Raritan, Passaic, Hackensack, Rahway, and Elizabeth Rivers, 2000-03
Figure 3. Water-quality sampling station on the Passaic River at 

Little Falls, N.J.

Thal, Severn Trent Laboratories, written commun., 1999). 

Every second or third cycle, an additional two aliquots (100 

mL each) were pumped into a second set of 4-L bottles. If the 

storm lasted longer than expected or if the streamflow interval 

was set too low, then this second set of samples was available 

for analysis.

After the sample aliquots were collected by the ISCO #1 

sampler, the TOPS was activated, followed by the ISCO #2 

sampler. The ISCO #2 sampler collected two individual 1-L 

samples for analysis for suspended sediment (SS) and DOC 

and POC. The sample volumes collected by the ISCO #1 and 

#2 samplers were measured periodically during the storm 

to verify that an accurately composited sample was being 

produced.

The TOPS (figs. 5 and 6), modified from a sampler 

designed by the New York State Department of Environmental 

Conservation (1998), is used to collect large volumes of river 

water with suspended sediment that are required for analysis 

of trace amounts of dissolved and suspended constituents such 

as dioxins and pesticides. After the ISCO #1 sampler collected 

a sample, the TOPS pumped preset volumes of river water 

Electrical

control box

Out to waste

Raw river

water inlet

ISCO #2 ISCO #1 TOPS Peristaltic pump, 

if needed, to draw 

continuous flow 

into sampling shed

ISCO #2 –

collects pairs of

discrete samples

each cycle, one

for suspended

sediment and one

for organic

carbon analysis

ISCO #1 –

Determines river

stage level,

controls other

samplers and

composites

samples for polycyclic

aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH)

and trace

element analysis

Trace Organic

Platform Sampler (TOPS) –

Composites suspended

sediment and uses XAD

to extract trace levels of

dissolved-phase organic

compounds

Electrical connection

Figure 4. Schematic diagram showing the configuration of the automatic samplers.

Methods of Sample Collection and Analysis   
through filters and chemical exchange XAD-resin columns. 

Suspended sediment was collected on a 0.5-micron nominal 

pore-size glass fiber (GFF) canister filter, 5 cm in diameter 

and 10 cm in length. Repeated measurements of suspended 

sediment concentrations in the outflow demonstrated that the 

canister filter efficiency was 90 percent. The filtered water 

then was split into two streams, one stream (90 percent) went 

to waste and the second stream (10 percent) passed through 

a 1.0-micron pore-size, 142-mm diameter glass fiber flat 

filter, then through two XAD-resin columns connected in 

series. Each column contained approximately 125 grams of 

pre-cleaned XAD-2 resin held in place with a pre-cleaned 

PTFE screen. The columns are designed to sequester dissolved organic compounds from large volumes of water. For 

analysis, the XAD-2 resin from both columns was removed 

and combined in a Soxhlet extractor, then extracted using a 

hexane-acetone solvent mixture that can be analyzed using gas 

chromatography (GC). The XAD-2 resin was not used again 

for sample collection. The XAD resin used in these columns, 

Supelco Amberlite XAD Type 2, is a polyaromatic chemical exchange resin of hydrophobic cross-linked polystyrene 

copolymers, existing as 20 to 60 mesh-sized beads formulated 

to absorb hydrophobic compounds up to 20,000 molecular 

weight. The beads are an agglomeration of microspheres 

that produce a continuous gel phase and a continuous pore 

phase. The open-cell porous structure allows water to easily 

penetrate pores. In the adsorption process, the hydrophobic 

part of the adsorbate molecule is preferentially adsorbed onto 

the hydrophobic polystyrene surface of the XAD-2 resin, 

whereas the hydrophilic compounds remain in the aqueous 

phase. Adsorbed compounds do not penetrate the surface 

of the microsphere but remain on the surface of the XAD-2 

resin beads where they can be eluted with organic solvents. 

The selectivity and extent of adsorption of soluble organic 

compounds by XAD-2 resin increases as the hydrophobicity 

of the adsorbate molecule increases. The XAD-2 resin has an 

approximate pore volume of 0.65 mL/g, a wet density of 1.02 

gram per milliliter, a mean surface area of 300 square meters 

per gram, a mean pore diameter of 90 Angstroms, and a mesh 

size of 20 to 60. (New York Department of Environmental 

Conservation, 1998)

The columns were prepared at a certified laboratory by 

back-washing the XAD-2 resin into each column, then spiking 

the inflow end of selected columns with carbon-13 (13C) and 

deuterated labeled internal standards that represent each class 

of compound studied (table 5). Labeled field surrogates are 

used to give an indication of the trapping and recovery efficiency of the columns and analytical methods, and results are 

reported for the dissolved phase, in units of percent recovered.

Two pumps drive water through the TOPS, a peristaltic 

pump that pulls water from the inlet line and pushes it through 

the canister filter and a piston pump that pulls water from the 

canister outfall through the XAD-resin columns (fig. 6). The 

volume of effluent water controls the operating time of the 

respective pumps. Typically during each cycle of the sampler, 

9.5 L of water was pumped through the canister filter at a rate 

of approximately 1.5 L/min and collected in a control reservoir; 1.5 L of this filtered water was pumped through the flat 

filter and XAD-resin columns at a rate of approximately 100 

to 150 mL/min and collected in a second control reservoir. 

After the required volume was collected in the two reservoirs, 

the pumps were shut off and solenoid valves were opened 

to allow the reservoirs to drain into large collection carboys. 

The volume of the processed water was carefully measured 

at the conclusion of the sampling event to determine the total 

volume that passed through the filters and columns. Target 

volumes of 500 L of water for passage through the canister 

filter and 50 L for passage through the XAD-resin columns, 

along with the analytical methods, were used to set the minimum level of mass of the constituents that could be observed. 

In practice, the total volume collected was dependent upon 

the ultimate length of the storm and the choice of the preset 

streamflow interval volume. The final total volume processed 

through the XAD-resin columns was used to calculate concentrations of dissolved constituents. The mass of suspended 

sediment trapped on the filters was calculated using the total 

volume of water processed and the corresponding geometric 

mean of the suspended sediment concentrations in the discrete 

grab samples collected in the ISCO #2 sampler. Most of the 

samples collected in the TOPS required the use of one canister 

filter and multiple flat filters. All filters were combined for 

analysis.

In addition to the composite samples collected in the 

ISCO #1 sampler for analysis for total trace elements and 

PAHs, individual grab samples were collected for analysis for 

total and dissolved trace elements. Typically, these samples 

were collected near the peak of the river stage during a 

storm. Samples were collected by connecting a short piece of 

pre-cleaned PTFE tubing to the inlet line and using a small 

peristaltic pump to draw a sample into a pre-cleaned PTFE 

Figure 5. A Trace Organic Platform Sampler (TOPS) used to 

collect water samples.

10 Constituents and Field Characteristics—Raritan, Passaic, Hackensack, Rahway, and Elizabeth Rivers, 2000-03
Electrical connection

Direction of water flow

Peristaltic pump 

Electrical

control

15-Liter reservoir

with float switch

Solenoid valve

208-Liter

collection

drum

25-Liter

collection

carboy

Solenoid valve

1-Liter

reservoir

with float 

switch

Positive

displacement pump 

Unspiked

XAD-resin

column

0.5 micron x 4 inch

GFF (glass fiber)

canister fiber

Spiked

XAD-resin

column

Electrical

control

Water inlet

from river

1 micron x 

142 millimeter

diameter

GFF flat filter

Figure 6. Schematic diagram of a Trace Organic Platform Sampler (TOPS).

Methods of Sample Collection and Analysis 11
bottle. Filtered samples were collected by attaching a precleaned 0.45-micron capsule filter to the tubing and slowly 

(approximately 100 mL/min) pumping water directly into a 

PTFE bottle. Unfiltered samples were collected for analysis of 

total trace elements (cadmium (Cd), lead (Pb), mercury (Hg), 

and methyl-mercury (MeHg)), whereas filtered samples were 

collected for analysis for dissolved trace elements. The pump 

tubing, filters, bottles, and PTFE tubing that were used were 

provided acid-cleaned by the contract laboratory. Each grab 

sample consisted of one 500-mL sample of unfiltered water 

for analysis for total trace elements, one unfiltered 500-mL 

sample for total methyl-mercury, one filtered 500-mL sample 

for dissolved trace elements, and one filtered 500-mL sample 

for dissolved MeHg. 

Quality-Assurance Samples

Many field and equipment blanks were collected during 

the sampling to demonstrate the integrity and quality of the 

samples collected from the rivers (table 6). The field blanks 

are used to determine whether contaminants are present in 

the XAD-2 resin and filtering media prior to sampling, and 

to demonstrate whether contaminants are derived from the 

sampling environment. Equipment blanks were used to demonstrate the cleanliness of the TOPS, the tubing, and the filters 

provided for analysis for trace elements, and to determine 

whether cross contamination occurred between the composite 

samples collected with the ISCO #1 sampler. Because of the 

high cost of analysis, all of the field and equipment blanks collected were not analyzed for each sampling site for each storm 

or base-flow event. Equipment blanks, for example, were 

made by cleaning all of the TOPS together, and randomly 

selecting one for use in collecting an equipment blank that 

served for the next TOPS deployments (3 or 4 storms or baseflow events). Field blanks were collected on a schedule of one 

blank for one to three storm or base-flow events. The various 

blanks and their associated samples are identified in the field 

data in table 7 (on CD at end of report).

Sample Handling

At the conclusion of a storm or a base-flow event, the 

samples were labeled and returned to the USGS New Jersey 

Water Science Center (WSC) laboratory for processing and 

shipping to the various certified contract laboratories. The 

sample handling and chain-of-custody requirements were 

developed by the NJDEP for CARP. The filters and XAD-resin 

columns were wrapped in new, clean aluminum foil and sealed 

in polyethylene bags, and together with sample bottles were 

kept on ice or refrigerated. Samples were shipped in coolers, 

typically within 48 hours of collection.

Samples for analysis for SS collected with the ISCO 

#2 sampler were sent directly to the USGS Kentucky WSC 

Sediment Laboratory. Samples to be analyzed for POC (also 

collected with the ISCO #2 sampler) were processed in the 

New Jersey WSC laboratory by filtering a known volume 

of water through three 25-mm pre-baked glass fiber filters. 

The filters were wrapped in pre-baked foil, double bagged, 

and frozen before shipping. At least 60 mL of filtered water 

to be analyzed for DOC was collected in pre-baked, amber 

glass bottles, acidified with 1 mL of ultrapure concentrated 

(4.5N) sulfuric acid and sent to the National Water Quality 

Laboratory in Denver, Colorado. Samples for analysis of total 

trace elements and dissolved PAHs were prepared by vigorously shaking, then pouring water directly from the 4-L glass 

collection bottles into pre-cleaned PTFE and glass bottles, 

respectively. At least 2 L of water was submitted for analysis 

of PAHs, and 500 mL was submitted for analysis of trace elements.

Laboratory Methods

Four laboratories were used in this project, each for a 

different type of analysis (table 8). Concentrations of SS were 

measured by filtration and gravimetric analysis at the USGS 

Kentucky WSC Sediment Laboratory in Louisville, Kentucky 

(Sholar and Shreve, 1998). Concentrations of DOC and POC 

were measured at the USGS National Water Quality Laboratory in Denver, Colorado, using infrared (IR) spectroscopy 

methods (Zimmermann and others, 1997; Burkhardt and 

others, 1997). Concentrations of total and dissolved trace 

elements were measured by a contract laboratory, Frontier 

Geosciences. Concentrations of Cd and Pb were measured 

using inductively coupled plasma-mass spectrometry (ICPMS). Concentrations of Hg were measured using cold-vapor 

atomic fluorescence spectrometry (CV-AFS), and concentraTable 5. Carbon-13 and chlorine-37 labeled field surrogates used 

with the XAD-resin columns

[BZ#, Ballschmiter and Zell number; L, liter; TCDD, Tetrachlorodibenzo-pdioxin; BHC, Benzenehexachloride]

Compound 

class

Labeled standard 

compound (BZ#)

Mass of spiking solution 

added to first column 

(nanograms)

Polychlorinated 

Biphenyls

13C12- 31L 80 

Polychlorinated 

Biphenyls

13C12- 95L 80 

Polychlorinated 

Biphenyls

13C12- 153L 80

Dioxins 37Cl-2,3,7,8-TCDD .8 

Pesticides 13C6-Alpha-BHC 80 

12 Constituents and Field Characteristics—Raritan, Passaic, Hackensack, Rahway, and Elizabeth Rivers, 2000-03
Table 6. Description of blank samples used for quality assurance

[XAD, chemical exchange resin; PCBs, Polychlorinated biphenyls; PAHs, Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons; L, liter; mL, milliliter] 

Type of Blank Analytes Summary of method

XAD-resin equipment blank Dissolved pesticides and PCBs After cleaning, 50 L of organic-free, de-ionized water is pumped through a 

spiked XAD-resin column in the laboratory.

XAD-resin field blank Dissolved pesticides and PCBs When XAD-resin columns are installed in the field, a second set of two 

columns is opened and exposed to the same conditions as the sampling 

columns.

Filter pack field blank Particulate pesticides, PCBs, 

dioxin/furans, and PAHs

When filters are installed in the field, a second set of one canister and one 

flat filter is exposed to the same conditions as the sampling filters.

Auto-sampler field blank Total trace elements or PAHs One 500-mL bottle filled with organic-free de-ionized laboratory water is 

opened and placed in the center of the automatic sampler’s rosette. The 

bottle is left uncapped during the time the sample is being collected.

Grab equipment blank Dissolved trace elements Before collection of a grab sample for analysis for trace elements, 500-mL 

of organic-free, de-ionized laboratory water is pumped through the precleaned tubing and filter in the field.

Grab equipment blank Dissolved methyl-mercury Before collection of a grab sample for analysis for dissolved trace elements, 500-mL of organic-free, de-ionized laboratory water is pumped 

through the pre-cleaned tubing and filtered in the field.

Grab field blank Total trace elements When a grab sample is collected for analysis for total trace elements, one 

500-mL bottle of organic-free, de-ionized laboratory water is opened and 

exposed to the same field conditions as the samples.

Grab field blank Total methyl-mercury When a grab sample is collected for analysis for total trace elements, one 

500-mL bottle of organic-free, de-ionized laboratory water is opened and 

exposed to the same field conditions as the sample.

tions of MeHg were measured using aqueous phase ethylation, 

isothermal GC separation, and CV-AFS detection. Concentrations of organic compounds in the dissolved and particulate 

phases were determined by Severn Trent Laboratories.

Analysis for organic compounds included measurement 

of the individual congeners of PCBs, and a suite of dioxins, 

furans, PAHs, and pesticides (table 8). The analytical methods 

used in this study for trace organic compounds (table 9) were 

modified from NYSDEC and U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency (USEPA) methods and involve the use of the isotope dilution/internal standard methods. The isotope dilution 

method uses various 13C and deuterated labeled internal standards that are added to each sample before extraction, before 

cleanup of the extract, and before injection. High-resolution 

gas chromatography and mass spectrometry (HR GC/MS) was 

used for the analysis for PCBs, dioxins, and pesticides, and 

low resolution GC/MS was used for analysis for PAHs. For 

the individual dioxins and PAHs, and for the PCB homolog 

groups, directly analogous labeled standards were available. 

For some pesticides, however, directly analogous labeled 

compounds (analogs) were not available, so closely related 

labeled compounds were used instead. As a result, the pesticide method is more properly termed a “standard addition” 

analysis. These methods are predicated on the assumption that 

the labeled standards and the native compounds behave identically in the preparation and analysis steps. This has been demonstrated for dioxins, PCBs, and PAH compounds. The lack 

of direct labeled analogs for pesticide analysis (for example, 

compound-fragmentation in the GC column) added to the 

uncertainty of some of the pesticide results. Recoveries of the 

internal standards for all analytes generally were within the 

range of 20 to 150 percent, which is considered an acceptable 

range for internal standard recovery. Exceptions include some 

of the pesticides and a few PCBs. For recoveries for PCBs and 

dioxins as low as 10 percent, the analytic results probably can 

be considered accurate (Dave Thal, Severn Trent Laboratories, 

oral commun., 2001).

Mass spectrometry methods provide unambiguous 

identification of compounds along with high sensitivity for 

the compounds sought in the samples; however, some of the 

PCB congeners do not separate on the column selected by the 

CARP (Supelco Phase-Bonded-Octyl column, 60-meters long) 

and co-elute as mixtures of isomers. Individual congeners 

in co-elutions cannot be distinguished on the basis of mass 

Methods of Sample Collection and Analysis 13
Name or IUPAC PCB number CAS number

Monochlorobiphenyls

3 2051-62-9

Dichlorobiphenyls

4 13029-08-85 16605-91-78 34883-43-710 33146-45-111 2050-67-115 2050-68-2

Trichlorobiphenyls

16 38444-78-917 37680-66-318 37680-65-219 38444-73-420 38444-84-722 38444-85-825 55712-37-326 38444-81-427 38444-76-728 7012-37-531 16606-02-333 38444-86-937 38444-90-5

Tetrachlorobiphenyls

40 38444-93-842 36559-22-543 70362-46-844 41464-39-545 70362-45-746 41464-47-547 2437-79-8

Name or IUPAC PCB number CAS number

48 70362-47-949 41464-40-850 62796-65-052 35693-99-353 41464-41-956 41464-43-159 74472-33-660 33025-41-162 54230-22-763 74472-34-764 52663-58-866 32598-10-070 32598-11-174 32690-93-075 32598-12-277 32598-13-381 70362-50-4

Pentachlorobiphenyls

82 52663-62-483 60145-20-284 52663-60-285 65510-45-486 55312-69-187 38380-02-890 68194-07-091 68194-05-892 52663-61-395 38379-99-697 41464-51-199 38380-01-7101 37680-73-2

Name or IUPAC PCB number CAS number

104 56558-16-8105 32598-14-4109 74472-35-8110 38380-03-9114 74472-37-0118 31508-00-6119 56558-17-9123 65510-44-3126 57465-28-8

Hexachlorobiphenyls

128 38380-07-3132 38380-05-1134 52704-70-8135 52744-13-5136 38411-22-2137 35694-06-5138 35065-28-2141 52712-04-6146 51908-16-8147 68194-13-8149 38380-04-0151 52663-63-5153 35065-27-1154 60145-22-4156 38380-08-4157 69782-90-7158 74472-42-7166 41411-63-6167 52663-72-6168 59291-65-5169 32774-16-6

Table 8. Constituents in sediment and water samples collected from the Raritan, Passaic, Hackensack, Rahway, and Elizabeth Rivers, New Jersey [CAS, Chemical Abstract Service; IUPAC, International Union of Physical and Analytical Chemistry; PCB, Polychlorinated biphenyl; n/a, not applicable]

Name or IUPAC PCB number CAS number

Heptachlorobiphenyls

170 35065-30-6171 52663-71-5172 52663-74-8174 38411-25-5177 52663-70-4178 52663-67-9179 52663-64-6180 35065-29-3183 52663-69-1185 52712-05-7187 52663-68-0189 39635-31-9190 41411-64-7191 74472-50-7

Octachlorobiphenyls

194 35694-08-7195 52663-78-2196 42740-50-1198 68194-17-2199 52663-75-9200 52663-73-7201 40186-71-8203 52663-76-0205 74472-53-0

Nonachlorobiphenyls

206 40186-72-9207 52663-79-3208 52663-77-1

Decachlorobiphenyls

209 2051-24-3

14  Constituents and Field Characteristics—Raritan, Passaic, Hackensack, Rahway, and Elizabeth Rivers, 2000-03
Name or IUPAC PCB number CAS number

Dioxins

2,3,7,8-Trichlorodioxin 1746-01-61,2,3,7,8-Pentachlorodioxin 40321-76-41,2,3,7,8,9-Hexachlorodioxin 19408-74-31,2,3,4,7,8-Hexachlorodioxin 39227-28-61,2,3,6,7,8-Hexachlorodioxin 57653-85-71,2,3,4,6,7,8-Heptachlorodioxin 35822-46-9Octachlorodioxin 3268-87-9Furans2,3,7,8-Trichlorodifuran 51207-31-91,2,3,7,8-Pentachlorodifuran 57117-41-62,3,4,7,8-Pentachlorodifuran 57117-31-41,2,3,4,7,8-Hexachlorodifuran 70648-26-92,3,4,6,7,8-Hexachlorodifuran 60851-34-51,2,3,7,8,9-Hexachlorodifuran 72918-21-91,2,3,6,7,8-Hexachlorodifuran 57117-44-91,2,3,4,7,8,9-Heptachlorodifuran 55673-89-71,2,3,4,6,7,8-Heptachlorodifuran 67562-39-4Octachlorodifuran 39001-02-0

Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons

Perylene 198-55-0Phenanthrene 85-01-8Pyrene 129-00-01-Methylnaphthalene 90-12-01-Methylphenanthrene 832-69-92,3,5-Trimethylnaphthalene 2245-38-72,6-Dimethylnaphthalene 581-42-02-Methylnaphthalene 91-57-6Acenaphthene 83-32-9Acenaphthylene 208-96-8Anthracene 120-12-7

Name or IUPAC PCB number CAS number

Benzo(a)anthracene 56-55-3Benzo(a)pyrene 50-32-8Benzo(b)fluoranthene 205-99-2Benzo(e)pyrene 192-97-2Benzo(ghi)perylene 191-24-2Benzo(k)fluoranthene 207-08-9Biphenyl 92-52-4Chrysene 218-01-9Dibenz(a,h)anthracene 53-70-3Fluoranthene 206-44-0Fluorene 86-73-7Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene 193-39-5Naphthalene 91-20-3C2 Alkylnaphthalenes n/aC3 Alkylnaphthalenes n/a

Pesticides

2,4’-DDD 53-19-02,4’-DDE 3424-82-62,4’-DDT 789-02-64,4’-DDD 72-54-84,4’-DDE 72-55-94,4’-DDT 50-29-3Aldrin 309-00-2alpha-BHC 319-84-6beta-BHC 319-85-7gamma-BHC (Lindane) 58-89-9alpha-Chlordane 5103-71-9gamma-Chlordane 5103-74-2oxy-Chlordane 27304-13-8alpha-Endosulfan 959-98-8beta-Endosulfan 33213-65-9

Name or IUPAC PCB number CAS number

cis-Nonachlor 5103-73-1trans-Nonachlor 39765-80-5Dieldrin 60-57-1Endosulfan sulfate 1031-07-8Endrin 72-20-8Endrin aldehyde 7421-93-4Endrin ketone 53494-70-5Heptachlor 76-44-8Heptachlor epoxide 1024-57-3Hexachlorobenzene 118-74-1Methoxychlor 72-43-5Mirex 2385-85-5

Trace Elements

Cadmium 7440-43-9Lead 7439-92-1Mercury 7439-97-6

Other

Methyl-mercury n/aCarbon, organic n/aSuspended sediment n/a

Table 8. Constituents in sediment and water samples collected from the Raritan, Passaic, Hackensack, Rahway, and Elizabeth Rivers, New Jersey—Continued. [CAS, Chemical Abstract Service; IUPAC, International Union of Physical and Analytical Chemistry; PCB, Polychlorinated biphenyl; n/a, not applicable]

Methods of Sample Collection and Analysis 15
characteristics, thus the unique congeners cannot be positively 

identified. Of the 209 individual PCB congeners, 39 congeners 

co-elute on the Supelco Phase-Bonded-Octyl column. This 

study identified 114 congeners of which 16 congeners coelute. As discussed, in the section “Co-elutions of Polychlorinated Biphenyls,” the co-eluting congeners are identified in 

the data sets.

Organic Compounds, Trace Elements, 

Suspended Sediment, and Field and 

Other Selected Characteristics

Organic Compounds and Trace Elements

Data on organic compounds and trace elements are listed 

in tables 10 to 17 (on CD at end of report) by analyte group. 

Dissolved and particulate phases of PCBs, dioxins, pesticides, 

and PAHs are reported as mass recovered from the XAD-resin 

columns and the TOPS GFF canister and flat filters. Values 

for composited dissolved PAHs, total trace elements, and trace 

elements in grab samples are reported as concentrations (mass 

per liter of water). A detection limit and a qualifying flag are 

reported, if necessary, for each constituent.

Qualifiers and Detection Limits

Results of analyses received from the contract laboratories include data qualifiers or “flags” that indicate the presence 

of contamination in laboratory blanks; the relation between 

the result and the standardization or quantification curve used; 

the possible presence of interfering compounds, as indicated 

by suppression of the chromatographic curve; and an indication that the concentration was calculated using a dilution of 

an initial extraction volume when necessary (table 18). The 

laboratory that conducted the analyses for organic compounds 

reported an estimation of the lower and upper quantifications 

limits, termed “minimum levels” (ML) and “upper calibration levels” (UCL), respectively. ML and UCL are described 

in detail in the references for analytical methods listed in 

table 9. The ML is defined as the lowest level at which the 

Table 9. Methods used for analysis of water and sediment samples.

[PCB, Polychlorinated biphenyl; PAHs, Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons; HR GC/MS, High resolution gas chromatography/mass spectrometry; ICP-MS, 

Inductively coupled plasma- mass spectrometry; CV-AFS, Cold vapor- atomic fluorescence spectrometry; IR, Infrared; USEPA, U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency; CEPA-ARB, California Environmental Protection Agency Air Resources Board; SOP, Standard operating procedures; FGS, Frontier Geosciences] 

Analyte Method Reference

PCBs HR GC/MS Modified USEPA Method 1668A (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1999)

PAHs LR GC/MS STL KNOX ID-0016, modified from CEPA-ARB Method 429 (California Environmental Protection Agency Air Resources Board, 1997)

Dioxin/furans HR GC/MS USEPA Method 1613B (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1994)

Pesticides HR GC/MS STL KNOX ID-0014, modified from USEPA Methods 1613 and 1668A, and SW-846 

Method 8081(U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1994, 1999b, and 1998a)

Cadmium and lead ICP-MS Modified USEPA Method 1638 (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1996b)

Mercury CV-AFS USEPA Method 1631B (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1999a)

Methyl-mercury GC, CV-AFS USEPA Method 1630 (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1998b)

Dissolved organic 

carbon

IR-spectrometry USEPA Method 440.0 (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1997) and USGS 

Open-File Report 97-380 (Burkhardt and others, 1997)

Particulate organic 

carbon

IR-spectrometry USEPA Method 440.0 (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1997) and USGS 

Open-File Report 97-380 (Burkhardt and others, 1997)

Suspended Sediment Filtration and gravimetric 

analysis

USGS Open-File Report 98-384 (Sholar and Shreve, 1998)

16  Constituents and Field Characteristics—Raritan, Passaic, Hackensack, Rahway, and Elizabeth Rivers, 2000-03
analytical instrument provides a reliable signal and an acceptable calibration point. In this work, the ML is the concentration or mass of analyte at the lowest calibration level used 

in the initial calibration after corrections for method-specific 

sample weights, dilution and concentration volumes, and other 

modifications in the procedures were made. The ML provides 

a reasonable estimate of the lowest concentration that can be 

assumed to be accurate. Organic compounds that are present 

at less than the ML but greater than the estimated detection 

limit (EDL, described below) are considered to be estimates 

and are flagged with a “J.” For most of the organic compounds 

analyzed for this study, the response of the analytical methods 

was sufficient to allow a mass to be reported even though the 

value was less than the ML. The reported masses for analytes 

that are J flagged have a larger analytical error associated with 

them than those that are not J flagged, but the J flagged masses 

are still sufficiently accurate to allow their use in determining 

concentrations. The results for dissolved PAHs in samples collected in June 2000 were censored at the lower reporting limit 

of 25 ng/L (nanograms per liter). Samples collected after June 

2000 were not subjected to this censoring.

The Upper Calibration Level (UCL) is defined as the 

concentration equivalent to the highest calibration standard 

used, assuming all method-specific weights, volumes, and 

clean up procedures are used. Results for samples containing 

analytes that exceed the UCL were flagged with an “E.” These 

samples were diluted and reanalyzed, and the reported diluted 

concentrations were flagged with a “D.” This occurred for 

analysis of PAH compounds in sediment.

The GC/MS analytical methods used in this study generate an estimated detection limit (EDL) for each analyte that 

is specific to each sample. An EDL for an organic compound 

not present in a sample is calculated as 2.5 times the sum of 

the peak-to-peak noise of the quantitation ion signal in the 

region of the ion chromatogram where the compound of interest would elute. The EDL for organic compounds present in a 

sample are calculated using the noise immediately surrounding 

the peak of interest. For PCBs that are present in a sample, 

the EDL is the sum of all noise in the elution time window 

for the corresponding homolog group. In this manner each 

compound listed in tables 10 to 17 has an EDL reported in 

units equivalent to the result (mass or concentration depending on the organic analyte and type of sample). Ideally, the 

EDLs are normalized in the same manner as the reported mass 

recovered. For example, when calculating the dissolved concentration, the mass of compound recovered in the XAD-resin 

column extraction is divided by the volume of water processed 

through the XAD-resin columns. If no compound is recovered 

(U flag), the detection limit is defined as the EDL divided by 

the volume of water that passed through the XAD-resin columns. A similar manipulation of the EDL is made for constituent concentrations associated with the SS, which is calculated 

using the mass of SS captured by and on the filters.

Results of analyses for trace elements, POC, and DOC 

include the estimated Method Detection Limits (eMDLs), 

which are calculated from studies performed by the contract 

laboratory. These eMDLs change only if a dilution or concentration of a sample was required for the analysis. Minimum 

levels for mercury, as defined in EPA Method 1631B, are the 

lowest level at which the entire analytical system will give a 

recognizable signal and acceptable calibration point for the 

analyte (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1999a). As 

with the analyses for organic compounds, the eMDL for trace 

elements is generally the lowest calibration point. The eMDL 

was set at 3.18 times the MDL. The eMDLS and MDLs for 

each constituent are listed adjacent to the masses reported by 

the laboratory. Typical ranges for these eMDLs and MDLs 

Table 18. Description of data qualifiers included in analytical results.

Qualifier flag Description

J The reported result is an estimate. The value is less than the minimum calibration level but greater than the estimated detection limit (EDL).

E The reported result is an estimate for a dilution of a sample. In the non-diluted sample, the amount is greater than the upper 

calibration level.

D Result was obtained from the analysis of a dilution.

B The analyte is present in the associated method blank at a reportable concentration level.

Q or K Estimated maximum possible concentration. The result on the chromatogram does not meet qualitative criteria for a positive 

identification.

S Ion suppression is evident. The concentration is estimated.

C Co-elution is suspected. The peak on the chromatogram indicates the likelihood of a co-eluting interference. See description 

in the section titled “Co-Elutions of Polychlorinated Biphenyls.”

U The constituent was not detected in the sample at the estimated detection level (EDL). No indication was observed that the 

analyte is present in the sample.

V The concentration of the trace element was verified by laboratory Quality Assurance/Quality Control inspection.

NR The analyte was not reported because of problems in sample preparation or analysis.

Organic Compounds, Trace Elements, Suspended Sediment, and Field and Other Selected Characteristics 17
in the field and equipment blanks are listed adjacent to the 

concentrations in table 19.

Co-elutions of Polychlorinated Biphenyls

The chromatographic analysis for PCBs was affected by 

co-elution of several congeners, which made it impossible 

to uniquely identify them in the sample. An initial study was 

performed to verify the retention times and elution order for 

all 209 PCB congeners and to identify the co-eluting congener 

sets that affect the PCB set used by NJ CARP (table 20). Values for all co-elutions are reported and are flagged with a “C.” 

The lowest numbered congener in a co-elution set is flagged 

with “C.” No value is reported for the higher numbered 

congeners in the set, but the congeners are flagged with a “C” 

followed by the lowest numbered congener in the co-elution 

set. For example, if 100 pg is detected at the retention time of 

PCB 26, and PCB 29 co-elutes with PCB 26, then the results 

are presented as: 

PCB 26 100 C

PCB 29 -- C26

Quality Assurance and Quality Control Samples

The contract laboratories were required to operate a 

quality assurance and quality control (QA/QC) program to 

demonstrate initial precision and other data-quality objectives 

in addition to the internal proprietary checks that occur as part 

of the contract laboratory operations. The samples for QA/QC 

(tables 21 and 22) included Standard Reference Materials 

(SRMs), which are National Institute of Standards and Testing (NIST) materials that have certified concentrations and 

are spiked into solids or aqueous matrices. QA/QC samples 

also included environmental sediment provided as part of 

the National Institute of Standards and Technology/National 

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration program (National 

Institute of Standards and Technology/National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration, 1998; 2001). In this program, 

homogeneous samples of Chesapeake Bay (Sediment IX) and 

Hudson River bottom sediment (Sediment X and XI) were 

analyzed. These samples contained unknown constituents 

and were analyzed in triplicate as part of an interlaboratory 

analysis program to produce certified concentrations for these 

materials. In addition to these sediment samples containing 

unknown concentrations of unknown constituents, samples 

for performance evaluation (PE) (NIST Sediments 1941a and 

1944) were analyzed by the contract laboratory. The results of 

the QA/QC sample analyses are presented in tables 10 to 12.

A number of other steps were taken to ensure the quality 

and integrity of the analyses, including (1) the evaluation of 

the cleanliness of the XAD-2 resin batch before it was packed 

into the columns, (2) analysis of the field blanks from XADresin columns, GFF filters, and bottles that were opened and 

handled in the field exactly as samples were and (3) analysis 

of the equipment blanks from samplers, tubing, and filters. 

Results for all types of blanks are reported along with the 

corresponding results of analyses of water and suspended sediTable 19. Ranges of reported estimated detection limits (EDLs) and method detection limits (MDLs) for trace elements and organic 

compounds in field and equipment blanks.

 [ng, nanograms; pg, picograms; L, liters; e, estimated]

Constituent Phase Type Typical range of minimum limits or method detection limits

Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) Sediment EDL 100 to 2,000 pg/sample

Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) Dissolved EDL 10 to 1,000 pg/sample

Pesticides Sediment EDL 0.01 to 4.0 ng/sample

Pesticides Dissolved EDL 0.01 to 11 ng/sample

Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs) Sediment EDL 5 to 10 ng/L1

Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs) Dissolved EDL 1.0 to 45 ng/L1

Dioxin/furans Sediment EDL 3 to 15 pg/sample2

Cadmium Total and dissolved eMDL 1.5 ng/L

Lead Total and dissolved eMDL 1.2 ng/L

Mercury Total and dissolved eMDL 0.02 ng/L

Methyl-mercury Total and dissolved eMDL 0.006 ng/L

1

Program reporting limits were initially set at 25 ng/L for dissolved PAH compounds and 12 ng/sample for particulate PAH compounds. During the program, 

the lowest calibration standards (EDLs) were adjusted to 12 ng/L and 12 ng/sample for solids; however, the method was capable of reporting concentrations as 

small as 0.1 ng/sample for these compounds. 

2

Dioxin/furans were measured only in sediment. 

18  Constituents and Field Characteristics—Raritan, Passaic, Hackensack, Rahway, and Elizabeth Rivers, 2000-03
ment samples in tables 13 to 17 (on CD-ROM at the end of the 

report.

The results of analyses for SRMs and NIST/NOAA samples are presented in table 12. Results for some SRMs were 

reported only if they fell outside recovery limits, in which case 

the laboratory recalibrated the analytical instruments.

Suspended Sediment, Organic Carbon, and 

Nitrogen

The field data set also includes the concentrations of SS, 

POC, and DOC; specific conductance (SC); and concentrations of particulate nitrogen, in the various discrete and composite samples. These data, listed in tables 23 and 24 (on CD 

at end of report), are used individually or as average values 

to characterize the water quality of the rivers. These uses are 

listed below.

The geometric mean of the concentrations of the SS, 

POC, and DOC in samples collected throughout the storm 

can be used to calculate SS, POC, and DOC loads. For 

many of the storms, the collection of discrete samples 

spans the entire length of the storm. Beginning and ending 

times are listed in table 7.

The geometric means of the concentrations of SS, POC, 

and DOC in discrete samples collected during the time 

when composite samples were collected by the TOPS and 

the ISCO #1 sampler are used to calculate mass of SS and 

POC either trapped on the GFF filters or contained in the 

composite trace-element samples. 

1.

2.

Table 20. Description of co-eluting polychlorinated biphenyl congener sets.

[NJ CARP, New Jersey Contaminant Assessment Reduction Program; PCB, Polychlorinated biphenyl; --, not applicable; BZ#, Ballschmiter and Zell number; 

the congeners in bold type are those in the subset of PCBs studied in the NJ CARP]

PCB homolog 

group

Congener numbers in 

the homolog group1

Co-eluting congener sets that affect 

the NJ CARP data set2

Other known co-eluting congeners

in the chlorination level group3

Mono-CB 1-3 -- --

Di-CB 4-15 -- 12/13

Tri-CB 16-37 20/33/21

24/27 (samples after 2/1/02)

26/29

--

Tetra-CB 38-81 44/62/75;

40/64;

70/74/76;

43/69; 45/51; 47/695; 52/73

41/71;

58/67

Penta-CB 82-126 86/87/97/125;

83/99;

90/101/116;

108 (BZ# 109)/119;

95/100; 110/115; 114/122

82/107/111/124/108B; 89/121;

98/102;

116/117

Hexa-CB 127-169 147/149;

135/151/154;

153/168;

134/143;

138/163

129/160;

139/140;

146/161;

150/152

Hepta-CB 170-191 171/173;

180/193

--

Octa-CB 192-205 198/199/201 --

Nona-CB 206-208 -- --

Deca-CB 209 -- --

1

The range of PCB congeners in each chlorination level, identified by their International Union of Physical and Analytical Chemistry number, is shown in this 

column.

2

The known co-elution groups, listed with their lowest PCB congener number first, are listed in this column. Congeners in the subset of PCBs studied for the 

NJ CARP are in bold type.

3

Other known co-elution sets that are not reported in the NJ CARP data set are listed in this column.

Organic Compounds, Trace Elements, Suspended Sediment, and Field and Other Selected Characteristics 19
To calculate the constituent concentrations in the particulate phase of the sediment collected with the TOPS, 

the mass of the constituent trapped on the TOPS filters is 

divided by the mass of SS or POC retained on the filter. 

During most storms and base-flow events, a single TOPS 

filter was used for the entire sampling event. The mass 

of SS on the TOPS filter is, therefore, equal to the mean 

SS concentration recorded for the event multiplied by the 

volume pumped through the GFF canister and flat filters, 

and XAD-resin columns. For some events, however, 

multiple filters were used and only the first filter was 

sent to the laboratory for analysis. In these cases, the SS 

and POC concentrations during the event and during the 

interval sampled using the TOPS are not the same. Mean 

concentrations of SS and POC in the samples are reported 

in tables 23 and 24 for the entire event, the interval of 

the composite sampling, and the interval of the TOPS 

sampling for constituents present in the SS. As discussed 

below, a correction for the efficiency of the TOPS GFF 

canister filter is applied when calculating the mass of SS 

retained on the filter.

Concentrations of SS, POC, and DOC in the grab samples 

that were analyzed for trace elements were estimated from 

3.

4.

the samples collected by the ISCO #2 sampler nearest to 

the time the samples for trace elements were collected. 

The sampling times for the grab samples for trace elements and the corresponding discrete ISCO #2 samples 

are indicated in tables 23 and 24.

Field Characteristics

Several characteristics were measured and recorded in the 

field during sample collection either manually or with automatic data loggers. These data provide the basic information 

needed to calculate constituent concentrations from the laboratory-measured contaminant masses. The use of field data 

facilitates the temporal alignment of the constituent concentrations in water and sediment and the suspended sediment data 

with the river stage during a storm or base flow.

The field data include dates and times the samples were 

collected, the river conditions (stage, discharge, and cumulative volume passing the station), characteristics measured with 

the TOPS (volumes pumped, flow rates), and identification of 

the various field and equipment blanks associated with each 

sample. Continuous precipitation amounts were recorded 

at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

Table 21. Description of standard reference materials used in the quality assurance/quality control plan.

[PCB, Polychlorinated biphenyl; PAH, Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons; Pb, Lead; Cd, Cadmium; Hg, Mercury; MeHg, Methyl Mercury; SRM, Standard 

Reference Material; NIST, National Institute of Standards and Technology; NOAA, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration]

Name Description of test Compound class NIST Standard Reference Materials used

SRM #1 Periodic check of lowest calibration level standard PCBs, pesticides, PAHs, 

and dioxin/furans

Laboratory certified standards

SRM #2 Recovery of SRM solutions spiked onto XAD-resin 

columns, taken into the field and returned for analysis

PCBs and pesticides PCB: NIST SRM #2262; Pesticides: SRM 

#2261

SRM #3 Recovery of SRM solution spiked onto clean silica sand Dioxin/furans NIST SRM #1614

SRM #4 Recovery of SRM solution spiked into laboratory water, 

taken to the field, and returned for analysis

PAHs NIST SRM #1491

SRM #5 Recovery of low-level dissolved concentrations of metals 

in water

Pb, Cd, and Hg NIST SRM #1643d (Pb, Cd), NIST 1641d 

(Hg), and NRCC DORM-2 (MeHg)

NIST/

NOAA

Composite marine bottom sediment from the Hudson 

River and Chesapeake Bay, along with an SRM 

sample of marine bottom sediment having a known 

composition

PCBs, pesticides, PAHs, 

and dioxin/furans

QA97SED7, QA01SEDX, and QA02SEDXI, each analyzed with NIST 

SRM #1944

20 Constituents and Field Characteristics—Raritan, Passaic, Hackensack, Rahway, and Elizabeth Rivers, 2000-03
Table 22. Summary of quality assurance and quality control analyses.

[SRM, Standard Reference Material; MDL, Method Detection Limits; DCM, Dichloromethane; PCBs, Polychlorinated biphenyls; PAHs, Polycyclic aromatic 

hydrocarbons; NIST/NOAA, National Institute of Standards and Technology/National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration]

Sample lot 

number

Date 

analyzed Identifier Analytes and description of test

H0H210125 8/21/00 1SRM2LPCB, 1SRM2LPST, 1SRM2LDXN PCBs, pesticides, dioxins spiked onto XAD-resin column, first 

test

H0G190188 7/19/00 1SRM1LDXN, 1SRM3LDXN Dioxin SRM spiked onto XAD-resin column, second test

H0G140197 6/23/00 1SRM1LPAH, 1SRM4LPAH PAHs, first check

H0G190176 9/15/00 1XAD4LPCB-1380 PCBs in XAD LOT 1380

H1H300117 8/30/01 3SRM1LPCB, 1SRM1LPCB, 3SRM1LPEST, 

3SRM1LPAH, 3SRM1LDXN

Low-level calibration check for PCBs, pesticides, PAHs, and 

dioxins, third test

H1C220223 4/23/01 2SRM3LDXN Dioxin SRM spiked into clean silica sand, second test

H1K290114 11/29/01 2SRM3LDXN, 3SRM3LDXN Dioxin/furan SRM spiked in clean silica sand, third test (SRM 

is EDF-2513 CIK)

H1C270162 5/9/01

2SRM4LPAH, 2SRM4FPAH, 2SRM2FPCB, 

2SRM2FPST

SRMs 1491, 1941A, and 1944

PAHs recovery of SRM spiked into 1 L of water, 1 in field, 1 

in lab, second test; PCB and pesticide spike, in field

H2C010104 3/1/02 Sample 1-8 MDL study Pesticide MDL study

H2C01013 3/1/02 Sample 1-8 MDL study Pesticide MDL study

H2D05011 4/16/02 SRM 1944 DCM and acetone/hexane extraction Pesticides and PAHs in SRM sediment, extraction test

H0A050104 6/1/99

QA00 Sed X,

Jars 210, 212, and 215.

SRM 1941A- Jar 494

PCBs, PAHs, and pesticides in three NIST/NOAA unknown 

samples of sediment X, plus SRM sediment

H2C130251 3/13/02 SRM1941A 1 and 2 gram extractions Pesticides in SRM sediment, two different extraction weights 

analyzed

H0K290173

11/29/00

QA00 Sed X, Jars 165 and 199

PCBs, PAHs, and pesticides in three NIST/NOAA samples of 

sediment X, plus SRM sediment H0K290177 Jar 217

H0K290180 SRM1944

H1H270101 8/27/01 QA00 Sed X, Jars 174, 179, and 180

SRM1944

Repeat of pesticides in three NIST/NOAA samples of sediment X, plus SRM sediment

H1K300116 9/1/01

QA00 Sed XI, Jars 105,150,180

SRM 1944

PCBs, PAHs, and pesticides in three NIST/NOAA samples of 

sediment XI, plus SRM sediment

1XAD4LPCB-1380, 1XAD4LPST-1380 PCBs and pesticides in new XAD-resin batch

H1C220221 3/20/01 XAD lot 1531-DXN Dioxins in new XAD-resin batch

H1C220192 3/20/01 XAD lot 1531-PCB, XAD lot 1531-PEST PCBs and pesticides in new XAD-resin batch

H1H160101

8/16/01 XAD lot 1540-DXN, XAD lot 1540-PCB, XAD 

lot 1540-PEST

Dioxins, PCBs, and pesticides in new XAD-resin batch

11/01/01 XAD lot 1581-DXN, XAD lot 1581-PCB, XAD 

lot 1581-PEST

Organic Compounds, Trace Elements, Suspended Sediment, and Field and Other Selected Characteristics 21
automatic sampling stations (table 25), and continuous stream 

discharge was recorded at the USGS gaging stations (table 1). 

Both characteristics were used to assess the magnitude and 

duration of hydrologic events.

The beginning and ending times of various functions are 

listed below and with the field data in table 7. These times 

were used for some calculations, such as flow rates and loads.

The start and end of the hydrologic event (storm or baseflow event), defined as the time when each river’s stage 

began to rise in response to an input of precipitation and 

the time when conditions returned to near pre-event stage.

The start and finish times when composite samples were 

collected.

The start and finish times for use of the filters and XADresin columns that were sent to the laboratory for chemical analysis.

The start and finish times when discrete samples for POC, 

and DOC were collected.

The time when the grab samples for trace elements were 

collected.

Concentrations of SS, DOC, and POC differ depending 

on the starting and ending times of sample collection. Care 

was taken to use the correct characteristic value when these 

data were incorporated with the results of analyses. The reason for more than one concentration for SS, DOC, and POC 

is that the samples were collected throughout the storm or 

base-flow event so as to effectively characterize the sediment 

and organic carbon transported in the river during the sample 

collection. The total volume of water obtained for the different 

types of samples was used in three different ways as described 

below.

The total volume of water that passed through the TOPS 

filters that were sent to a laboratory for analysis was used 

to calculate sediment-bound constituent concentrations.

The total volume of water that passed through the XADresin columns that were sent to a laboratory for analysis 

was used to calculate constituent concentrations in the 

dissolved phase.

The total volume of water that passed the sampling station during the hydrologic event was used to calculate 

suspended sediment and other constituent loads for that 

event.

The field data include the equipment blank sample identification information that matches each equipment blank to its 

associated TOPS, composite, or grab sample. The data from 

each equipment blank sample were correlated with the associated sampling media and then used to evaluate the cleanliness 

of sampling media.

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

1.

2.

3.

Calculation of Concentrations from Analytical 

Results

The analytical results for organic compounds (tables 13 

to 17) are recorded as masses of analytes recovered from the 

SS phase (the analyzed extract from the combined canister and 

flat filters) and the dissolved phase (the analyzed extract from 

the two combined XAD-resin columns). Results for composite 

and grab samples, analyzed for trace elements and dissolved 

PAHs, and results for samples collected for SS, POC, and 

DOC are reported as concentrations in 1 L of water that had 

the same density as the raw sample. The specific conductance 

of the samples (tables 23 and 24) indicates that all samples, 

with the possible exception of the sample from the Hackensack River tidal area (H4), can be considered freshwater.

 Information required to convert masses of constituents 

into concentrations, either per unit volume (liter) of water or 

unit mass of SS (typically grams), is included in the field data 

(table 7). The data needed to make the conversions are (1) the 

volume of raw river water that passed through the canister filter and the associated SS and POC concentrations and (2) the 

volume of filtered water that passed through the XAD-resin 

columns and the associated DOC concentrations. Because 

the canister filter has a trapping efficiency of 90 percent, the 

constituent concentrations in the dissolved phase, determined 

using the XAD-resin column technique, would be biased high 

by the presence of fine-grained sediment that passed through 

the canister filter and became entrapped in the XAD-resin 

columns. For this reason, flat filters were installed in the 

sampling lines immediately before the XAD-resin columns. 

Additional testing showed that using slow flow rates and 

processing smaller volumes of water (hence the target of 50 L 

through the XAD-resin columns) results in a concentration of 

SS in the filtered water entering the columns that is below the 

level that can be accurately quantified by the laboratory (<0.5 

mg/L). As a result, the concentrations of SS in the dissolved 

phase could not be adjusted for the small amount of sediment 

that may have passed through the flat filter and entered the 

columns.

Table 25. Location of precipitation stations in New Jersey river 

basins.

River basin Precipitation station

Passaic River Little Falls

Elizabeth and Rahway Rivers Newark Airport

Elizabeth and Rahway Rivers Canoe Brook

Elizabeth and Rahway Rivers Essex Fells

Hackensack River Woodcliff Lake

Raritan River Bound Brook

Raritan River Somerville

Raritan River Clinton

22 Constituents and Field Characteristics—Raritan, Passaic, Hackensack, Rahway, and Elizabeth Rivers, 2000-03
The mass of SS collected on the canister and flat filter 

also requires adjustment for breakthrough. As stated earlier, 

the canister filter has a trapping efficiency rating of 90 percent. 

A further reduction of the mass of sediment trapped on the 

filters also occurs where the filter outfall is split; 90 percent of 

the flow goes to waste and 10 percent is directed through the 

flat filters and columns (fig. 4). Because it was not possible 

to quantify the mass of sediment that was collected on the flat 

filter, the assumption was made that the entire mass of sediment that was not captured on the canister filter was sent to 

waste. The calculated mass of sediment (and organic carbon) 

on the TOPS filters (canister and flat combined) submitted 

for analysis was reduced by 10 percent. Therefore, sediment 

mass calculated from the SS (and from the organic carbon, 

the POC) concentration and the volume processed, adjusted 

for a 90 percent trapping efficiency, is a conservative estimate 

of the amount of sediment captured on the filters. The “corrected” masses of sediment and organic carbon on the filter are 

listed in table 7.

Normalized Concentrations

The dissolved concentrations of constituents recovered in 

the XAD-resin columns can be calculated using

Cd = Mxad / Vxad , (1)

where

Cd = dissolved concentration, in mass per liter 

of water;

Mxad = mass of constituent recovered from the 

XAD-2 resin sample, in ng or pg; and

Vxad = volume of water processed through the 

XAD columns, in liters.

 The concentration of organic compounds in the suspended sediment can be calculated using

Cp = Mf / (Vf * SS * f * 1000 ), (2)

where

Cp = concentration in sediment, in mass per 

gram of sediment;

Mf	 =	 mass of constituent recovered in the filter

sample, in pg or ng;

SS = mean suspended sediment concentration, 

in milligram of sediment per liter; 

Vf	 =	 volume of water passed through filter; and

f	 =	 filter efficiency, 0.9.

Particulate Organic Carbon Normalized 

Concentrations in Sediment

POC normalized concentrations are calculated using

Cpc = Mf / ( Vf * POC * f * 1000 ), (3)

where

Cpc = concentration of constituent normalized to 

mass of particulate organic carbon, in mass 

per gram of organic carbon;

Mf	 =	 mass of constituent recovered on filter, in

pg or ng;

Vf	 =	 volume of water passed through filter;

POC = mean particulate organic carbon content, in 

mg C per liter; and

f	 =	 filter efficiency, 0.9.

The fraction of particulate organic matter (fom) is calculated using

f

om = ( POC / SS ) * 1000, (4)

where

f

om = particulate organic carbon content of the 

suspended sediment, in mg of C/ per gram 

of sediment;

POC = mean particulate organic carbon content, in 

mg C per liter; and 

SS = mean suspended sediment concentration, 

in mg of sediment per liter.

Concentrations in composite samples

Analytical results for trace elements and PAHs in composite samples are reported in concentration units of mass per 

unit volume of water and require no further reduction.

Trace-element concentrations in sediment from 

grab samples

Concentrations of trace elements in the particulate phase 

can be determined as the difference between the total and dissolved trace element concentrations using

pM = (t

M - dM) * 1000 / SS, (5)

where 

pM = particulate trace element concentration in 

nanograms per liter;

t

M = total trace element concentration in 

nanograms per liter;

dM = dissolved trace element concentration, in 

nanograms per liter; and 

SS = concentration of suspended sediment in 

milligrams per liter.

Particulate trace element concentrations can be normalized to POC using the fraction of particulate organic matter 

equation noted above (5). Concentrations of dissolved trace 

elements are in units of nanograms per liter and can be normalized to DOC.

Organic Compounds, Trace Elements, Suspended Sediment, and Field and Other Selected Characteristics 23
Data Evaluation

Analysis of Standard Reference Materials 

Results

The quality-assurance program used in this study 

included the analysis of SRMs. These analyses provide insight 

into the accuracy and precision of the analysis of river water 

and sediment which, in turn, allows limits to be placed on the 

constituent concentrations measured in the samples from the 

rivers and on the confidence that can be placed in conclusions 

made when interpreting the results. These analyses were made 

throughout the study and provide an indication of the ongoing quality of the analytical methods. In this study, repeated 

measurements were made for the NIST SRM 1944 for PAHs, 

PCBs, and pesticides, along with two analyses of SRM 1941a 

for pesticides. The results of these measurements are listed in 

tables 26 to 28.

Accuracy of the measurement of any individual compound can be determined by comparing the measured and 

certified values. Typically, a measured value can be considered 

accurate if it is within one to three Z scores of the certified 

value, where the Z score is calculated as:

Z = (x - X) / σ , (6)

where 

x = concentration measured,

X = mean concentration of multiple 

measurements of the standard, and

σ = target value standard deviation.

The choice of σ is dependent upon the data-quality objectives of the particular program (National Institute of Standards 

and Technology/National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 2001). The σ can be fixed or estimated. For some 

compounds, the results were within one to three Z scores of 

the certified value. For other compounds, a wide discrepancy 

was obtained. The SRM measurements were reviewed by 

NJDEP as part of CARP.

The precision of the analyses is represented by the standard deviation of the mean of the measured concentrations 

(tables 26 to 28), which provides an estimate of the analytical 

uncertainty for each compound or class that was measured. 

Values for the standard deviation, when converted to a percentage, range from less than 1 percent to slightly greater than 

30 percent. The magnitude of this range demonstrates the difficulty in measuring some compounds in natural non-homogeneous materials. For example, the precision of the analyses for 

PCBs indicates that it is apparently more difficult to accurately 

analyze lower numbered PCB congeners than higher numbered PCB congeners. This could be the result of increased 

volatility and presence in the atmosphere (a source of laboratory contamination) of the lower numbered congeners. Some 

extreme variations occur for the pesticide compounds, both in 

accuracy and precision of the SRM measurements, which limits the usefulness of the pesticide data set. These variations can 

be explained by problems associated with the isotope method 

and the fragmentation of pesticides in the GC column (David 

Thal, Severn Trent Laboratories, oral commun., 2002). Not all 

the pesticide compounds are affected by difficulties with accuracy and precision, however, and some of the data can be used 

with confidence. In general, for most of the compounds, the 

precision ranged from 5 to 15 percent of the mean, which is 

similar to uncertainties reported by the contract laboratory for 

other studies and reported in USEPA methods for environmental analyses (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1999b).

Estimation of Uncertainty in Concentrations

The magnitude of potential error associated with the data 

collected in this study is incorporated into the comparisons, 

the calculation of ratios, and other data-reduction techniques. 

The error derives from random variations in the analytical and 

sampling methods. Errors can be summed to provide an estimate of total minimum error using the propagation methods 

described by Shoemaker and others (1974). No systematic 

errors are known to have affected the field measurements or 

reported analytical results; therefore, these types of errors 

require no further consideration. The following error propagation example demonstrates how the uncertainty associated 

with any of the constituent concentration data generated in this 

study can be estimated. The error propagation equations that 

are used are taken from Shoemaker and others (1974). 

Final calculated values (F), such as concentrations normalized to a liter of water or a gram of sediment, are derived 

from raw data, such as the measured volume of water that was 

processed or the measured mass of constituent in an XADresin column, or from intermediate values that are calculated 

from measured values, such as mass of sediment collected 

on filters. Random error (λx,y,z, ...), associated with each raw 

or intermediate variable (x,y,z, ...), is combined to obtain an 

error for the final value (λF). The calculation made to obtain 

the final value represents a function for which different forms 

of error propagation equations exist, depending on the operations in the function. For the commonly incurred function of 

the form

F = ax + by + cz + ... , (7)

the error propagation equation is

λ2

F

 = a2λ2

x

 + b2λ2

y

 + c2λ2

z

 . (8)

Another common function and its error equation is

F = axyz... (or xyz/a, axy/z or ax/yz or a/xyz) (9)

λ2

F

 / F2 = λ2

x

 / x2 + λ2

y

 / y2 + λ2

z

 / z2 ,

24  Constituents and Field Characteristics—Raritan, Passaic, Hackensack, Rahway, and Elizabeth Rivers, 2000-03
where 

	 F	 =	 the final calculated value of the function;

x, y, z, ... = measured or intermediate variables;

a, b, c, ... = constants values; 

λ(x, y, z) = the estimated error for intermediate 

variables x, y, z; and 

λF	 =	 the estimated error in the final calculated

value.

To propagate the random error, each step of the samplecollection and -analysis procedure must be evaluated and the 

random error assigned to each variable in the procedure. Typically, the error is replaced with a measure such as the variance 

of replicate analysis or measurements, the tolerance of the 

glassware, other similar measurements, or best guesses. This 

can be an involved process, especially for the analytical measurements, because the error is evaluated for each step of the 

analysis. For example, the random error associated with the 

reported mass of contaminant includes error introduced by the 

standards, glassware, balances, syringes, and other analytical 

equipment, and the error introduced from the standard curve 

used in the laboratory analysis. Similar consideration applies 

to the analyses of SS and organic carbon. It is not possible 

without detailed information on the laboratory procedures 

to calculate the error associated with the chemical measurements. Laboratories often provide an estimate of the analytical 

uncertainty; typically, the precision of repeated measurements 

of SRMs is used as an estimate of error. Several types of fieldmeasured data are required to calculate concentrations. These 

include the volumes of water pumped through the XAD-resin 

columns or filters. Each of these data types has an error or 

uncertainty associated with it.

The following example serves to illustrate the procedures 

that would be used to estimate a minimum error in the concentration calculated for PCB congener 66 in a water sample 

collected from the Raritan River on 3/21/02.

Error in the Calculation of Dissolved 

Concentrations

The volume of water that passed through the XAD-resin 

columns or filters was determined by collecting the processed 

water in carboys and measuring it using a 1-L graduated cylinder with an error of +/- 20 mL. For the Raritan River sample, 

31.2 L of water passed through the XAD-resin columns and 

was measured into 31.2 1-L samples. The volume of water 

processed and its estimated minimum error is

31.2 L = 31.2 * 1 L 

λ2

F

 = a2λ2

x

λ2

F

 = 31.22 * 0.022 = 0.389 L

λ = 0.624 L

or a relative minimum error of (0.624 / 31.2 ) * 100 = 2 percent of the total volume.

The mass of PCB #66 measured in this XAD-2 resin 

sample was 568 pg. Using the standard deviation of the multiple measurements of PCB #66 in the SRM 1944 (6.7 percent, 

table 27) as the analytic error, the error in the PCB mass measured in the sample is

38 pg = 568 pg * 0.067 .

The error in the concentration of dissolved PCB #66 is 

the sum of the analytic error and the error in the volume of 

water processed:

18.2 pg/L = 568 pg / 31.2 L

λ2

F

 / F2 = λ2

x

 / x2 + λ2

y

 / y2 + λ2

z

 / z2

λ2

F

 /18.22 = 382 / 5682 + 0.6242 / 31.22

λ2

F

 / 18.22 = 0.0045 + 0.0004 = 0.0049

λF = (0.0049 * 18.22)1/2 = 1.3 pg/L

for a relative error of (1.3 / 18.2) * 100 = 7 percent of the 

reported concentration.

There are two points to be made regarding the error 

associated with concentrations measured in samples collected 

by using large-volume sampling methods. First, the error in 

the measured concentration is the sum of the error in a field 

measurement (the volume of water collected) and an error in 

the analytical work (estimated by the variance in the SRM 

analyses). Accurate measurements made in the field are of 

the utmost importance in order to minimize the error in the 

volumes of water processed and to keep the total volume processed through the columns and filters as small as possible so 

that this error is not magnified by a large volume. Second, the 

analytical error can vary greatly depending on the chemical 

species studied. This is shown by the large spread in precision 

for the SRM analytes (tables 26 to 28). Some pesticides, for 

example, are difficult to measure precisely and have analytical 

variances larger than 30 percent (table 28). A QA/QC program 

that includes multiple measurements of representative SRMs 

is one reliable method to demonstrate the precision of the 

analytical measurements. 

Error in the Calculation of Constituent 

Concentrations in the Particulate Phase

Concentrations of sediment-bound constituents are calculated from the recovered mass of the constituent, the volume 

of water that passed through the filters, and the SS or POC 

concentration. The error associated with the particulate-bound 

constituents is calculated as the sum of the error associated 

with the analysis of each of these intermediate variables.

The error associated with the analysis for SS is calculated 

first. A total of 58 discrete samples were analyzed for SS, and 

a geometric mean concentration of 292.5 mg/L was calculated. 

Analysis of SS involves weighing the filter, measuring and 

filtering the entire collected sample, drying the filtrate, and 

re-weighing the filter. The USGS Kentucky WSC LaboraData Evaluation 25
Table 26. Means and variances for polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons measured in standard reference materials .

[SRM, Standard Reference Material; NA, Not applicable; PCB, Polychlorinated biphenyl; ng/g, nanogram per gram]

Compound SRM 1944 certified 

concentration

(ng/g)

SRM 1944 mean 

measured1

(ng/g)

SRM 1944 standard 

deviation1

(ng/g)

Precision (relative 

standard deviation)

(in percent)

1-Methylnaphthalene 2520 +/- 30 184 9.80 5.3

1-Methylphenanthrene 21700 +/- 100 629 18.9 3.0

2,3,5-Trimethylnaphthalene NA 167 11.4 6.8

2,6-Dimethylnaphthalene NA 244 17.5 7.2

2-Methylnaphthalene 2950 +/- 50 270 41.5 15

Acenaphthene 2570 +/- 30 174 6.60 3.8

Acenaphthylene NA 471 111 23

Anthracene 31770 +/- 330 643 88.1 14

Benzo(a)anthracene 34720 +/- 110 1,800 60.6 3.4

Benzo(a)pyrene 34300 +/- 130 1,652 130 7.9

Benzo(b)fluoranthene 33870 +/- 420 1,195 100 8.4

Benzo(e)pyrene 33280 +/- 110 1,357 103 7.6

Benzo(ghi)perylene 32840 +/- 100 1,110 65.8 5.9

Benzo(k)fluoranthene 32300 +/- 200 1,630 165 10

Biphenyl 4320 +/- 70 103 29.6 29

Chrysene 34860 +/- 100 2,470 117 4.7

Dibenz(a,h)anthracene 3424 +/- 69 322 20.1 6.2

Fluoranthene 38920 +/- 320 2,960 73.2 2.5

Fluorene 4850 +/- 30 186 9.9 5.3

Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene 32780 +/- 100 974 66.7 6.8

Naphthalene 31650 +/- 310 612 100 16

Perylene 31170 +/- 240 384 7.9 2.1

Phenanthrene 35270 +/- 220 2,160 34.0 1.6

Pyrene 39700 +/- 420 3,000 68.1 2.3

1

Mean and standard deviation were calculated for four analyses.

2

Concentration reported but not certified in SRM.

3

Concentration is certified in SRM.

4

Measured concentration of PCB could include a co-eluting congener

26  Constituents and Field Characteristics—Raritan, Passaic, Hackensack, Rahway, and Elizabeth Rivers, 2000-03
Table 27. Means and variances for polychlorinated biphenyls measured in standard reference materials.

[SRM, Standard Reference Material; PCB, Polychlorinated biphenyl; --, not applicable; ng/g nanogram per gram]

PCB number SRM 1944 certified 

concentration,

 (ng/g)

SRM 1944 mean measured 

concentration1

(ng/g)

SRM 1944 measured 

standard deviation1

(ng/g)

Precision (relative 

standard deviation) 

(in percent)

8 222.3 +/- 2.3 21 0 --

18 251 +/- 2.6 59.6 17.6 29

28 280.8 +/- 2.7 81.6 2.1 2.5

31 278.7 +/- 1.6 79.8 2.5 3.1

44/62/75 260.2 +/- 2 48.2 5.4 11

49 253.0 +/- 1.7 50.3 6.7 13

52 279.4 +/- 2 67.2 9.6 14

66 271.9 +/- 4.3 64.0 4.3 6.7

95/100 265 +/- 8.9 50.7 13.2 26

99/83 237.5 +/- 2.4 41.9 7.3 17

90/101/113 273.4 +/- 2.5 70.4 16.4 23

105 224.5 +/- 1.1 21.7 .9 4.1

118 258.0 +/- 4.3 52.2 4.0 7.6

128 27.47 +/- 0.28 9.84 .4 4.1

138/163 2,362.1 +/- 3.0 58.2 4.0 6.9

147/149 249.7 +/-1.2 54.0 4.3 7.9

153/168 274.0 +/- 2.9 58.9 3.0 5.1

156 26.52 +/- 0.66 5.17 .1 1.9

170 2,322.6 +/- 1.4 14.2 1.1 7.7

180/193 244.3 +/- 1.2 37.9 3.0 7.9

187 2,325.1 +/- 1.0 23.5 2.4 10

194 211.2 +/- 1.4 9.22 .1 1.1

195 23.75 +/- 0.39 3.63 .2 5.5

206 29.21 +/- 0.51 6.59 .6 9.1

209 26.81 +/- 0.33 5.86 .2 3.4

Average 9.6

1

Mean and standard deviation calculated for three analyses.

2

Concentration is certified in SRM.

3

Measured concentration of PCB could include a co-eluting congener.

Data Evaluation 27
Table 28. Means and variances for pesticides measured in standard reference materials.

[SRM, Standard Reference Material; PCB, Polychlorinated biphenyl; ng/g, nanogram per gram]

Compound SRM 1944

certified 

concentration 

(ng/g)

SRM 1941 

certified 

concentration 

(ng/g)

SRM 1944

Mean 

measured 

concentration1

(ng/g)

SRM 1944

Standard 

deviation1

(ng/g)

Precision 

(relative 

standard 

deviation, in 

percent)

SRM 1941 

Mean measured 

concentration2

(ng/g)

2,4’-DDD 338 +/- 8 NA 47.8 8.1 17 1.05

2,4’-DDE 319 +/- 3 0.653 +/-0.058 16.6 1.3 7.8 .48

2,4’-DDT NA NA 11.4 9.6 84 .16

4,4’-DDD 3108 +/- 16 5.16+/-0.47 109.1 13.8 13 4.97

4,4’-DDE 386 +/- 12 6.33 +/-0.35 76.0 4.6 6.0 5.56

4,4’-DDT 4119 +/- 11 1.25 +/-0.12 214 3.7 1.7 .51

Aldrin NA NA NA NA NA .17

alpha-BHC 2.0 +/- 0.3 NA .324 .057 18 .08

alpha-Chlordane 416.51 +/- 0.83 1.99 +/-0.21 21.2 1.4 6.6 1.67

alpha-Endosulfan NA NA NA NA NA NA

beta-BHC NA NA .3 .043 14 .03

beta-Endosulfan NA NA 4.5 .021 .5 2.6

cis-Nonachlor 33.7 +/- 0.7 NA 5.5 1.9 34 .67

Endrin NA NA NA NA NA NA

Endrin aldehyde NA NA NA NA NA NA

Endrin ketone NA NA NA NA NA NA

gamma-BHC (Lindane) NA NA .153 .043 28 .06

gamma-Chlordane 38 +/- 2 NA 25.0 2.0 8.0 1.69

Heptachlor NA NA .1 NA NA NA

Hexachlorobenzene 46.03 +/- 0.35 58.6+/- 8.6 6.8 1.5 22 65.2

Mirex NA NA 11.9 21.9 180 .05

oxy-Chlordane NA 2.59 +/-0.22 NA NA NA .04

trans-Nonachlor 48.20 +/- 0.51 1.21+/- 0.12 13.0 1.4 10 .95

Dieldrin NA 1.26 +/-0.55 16.8 11.3 19 .98

Endosulfan sulfate NA NA NA NA NA NA

Heptachlor epoxide NA NA 1.5 1.3 60 .01

Methoxychlor NA NA 140.9 15.6 14 .45

1

Mean and standard deviation were calculated for four analyses.

2

Mean calculated for two analyses.

3

Concentration reported but not certified in SRM.

4

Concentration is certified in SRM.

28  Constituents and Field Characteristics—Raritan, Passaic, Hackensack, Rahway, and Elizabeth Rivers, 2000-03
tory conducts a yearly performance test and has reported that 

SS concentrations in the range reported here typically have a 

precision of +/-0.5 mg/L. The mean concentration of SS and 

its associated error is calculated using

292.5 mg/L = sum of the individual SS concentrations / 58

λ2

F

 = a2λ2

x

λ2

F

 = 582 * 0.52 = 841

λF = 29.0 mg/L

or a relative uncertainty of (29.0 / 292.5) * 100 = 9.9 percent 

of the mean SS concentration.

Next, the error associated with the volume of water 

processed through the filters is calculated. A total volume of 

190 L was processed through the filters for this sample and 

was measured in 190 1-L increments each with an error of 

+/- 20 mL. The estimated error in the volume of water filtered 

is calculated using

190 L = 190 * 1 L

λ2

F

 = a2λ2

x

λ2

F

 = 1902 * 0.022 = 14.44

λ2

F

 = 3.8 L.

The error associated with the measured PCB masses 

and volume of water filtered is calculated using the equations shown for the constituent concentration in the dissolved 

phase. For the sample collected from the Raritan River, a total 

of 13,700 pg of PCB #66 was recovered. Using the variance 

in the measured concentration of PCB #66 in SRM 1944 (6.7 

percent) as a surrogate, the error in the mass for this congener 

is (13,700 pg * 0.067) = 918 pg.

 The estimated total error in the particulate phase for the 

concentration of PCB #66 is the sum of the analytical error in 

PCB measurement, the error in the SS concentration, and the 

error in volume processed through the filters. The error associated with the trapping efficiency (0.9) of the filter cannot be 

assessed. The calculated concentration and its associated error 

is

274 pg/g = 13,700 pg / (292.5 mg/L * 190 L * 0.9)

λ2

F

 / F2 = λ2

x

 / x2 + λ2

y

 / y2 + λ2

z

 / z2

λ2

F

 / F2 = 9182 / 13,7002 + 0.0292 / 0.2932 + 3.82 / 1902

λ2

F

 / 2742 = 0.0045 + 0.0098 + 0.0004 = 0.0147

λ2

F

 = 33.2 pg/g

or a relative error of (33.2 / 274) * 100 = 12 percent. This is 

roughly twice the error for the analytical measurement based 

on the variance in SRM measurements.

 In evaluating the SS concentrations, it is impossible to 

know precisely the mass of SS or organic carbon captured 

on the filters that were analyzed. This was addressed in this 

study by collecting a sample of the river water for each aliquot 

collected by the TOPS to obtain the best representative mean 

value for the SS concentration. Collecting fewer samples during the storm or base-flow event would increase the uncertainty in the captured SS mass.

Limitations of the Data

 With the exception of the concentrations of trace elements, SS, and organic carbon in the grab samples, the data 

presented in this report are flow-weighted average concentrations in water and sediment collected during storms. Samples 

collected during base flow also are considered average compositions because they were collected continuously over a period 

of several hours during which time streamflow remained 

steady. The character of these samples and the nature of rivers 

are noted when using these data, especially when comparing 

this data to data generated using different sampling techniques. 

Instantaneous grab samples collected from a river can contain 

concentrations that differ considerably from the flow-weighted 

average values produced in this study. The samples collected 

by the other researchers in the estuary during the storms were 

large-volume, time integrated grab samples that were collected 

by sampling continuously over 4 to 6 hours. This difference 

is noted when integrating the data presented in this work with 

the data of CARP.

The constituent data collected here are suitable only for 

evaluating concentrations and loads for the storms or baseflow events during which the rivers were actually sampled. 

It can be spurious to extrapolate the data from this study, for 

example, to calculate loads from past or future periods or to 

calculate loads when flow conditions are higher than those 

that were actually sampled. This caution arises because it is 

impossible to unequivocally know that these constituent inputs 

existed in the past or will exist in the future. The extrapolation 

to higher flows is also tenuous because of the changes that 

occur in river characteristics, such as SS content or sources of 

sediment to a river. The percentage of the total sediment load 

contributed by fine-grained materials can change considerably 

during storms because the river velocity is the principal control on the scouring and movement of various sized particles 

of sediment. During heavy storms, sediment from areas not 

normally scoured in a river will be mobilized (for example, 

sediment from higher in the flood plain), and these sediments 

could contain constituent concentrations or sources of constituents that differ from those observed previously. Because 

contaminants are most often associated with fine-grained 

particles (Schwarzenbach and others, 1993) whose abundance 

in the river water is sensitive to changes in the streamflow 

velocities, the quantity of particulate-bound contaminant 

concentrations may be a function of streamflow. Therefore, an 

average composition prepared from composite samples rather 

than grab samples is used when studying river chemistry.

An example of how concentrations can vary as a function 

of discharge, and why it is important to produce accurately 

composited samples for analysis, is provided by the PCB data 

from the sample collected during December 2000 from the 

Passaic River. The mass-normalized particulate-phase concenData Evaluation 29
trations in samples collected from this river during December 

2000 were almost 20 times higher than those for other samples 

collected from this river at other times. The sampling for the 

December 2000 storm began well after the peaks of streamflow and SS had occurred. Most likely only fine-grained material was present in the river during the receding limb of the 

hydrograph, when velocities had dropped off and the samples 

were collected. The December 2000 sample is not an accurate 

flow-weighted average composition for this storm and more 

accurately resembles a sample collected during base flow. 

This example demonstrates the difference between a grab 

sample that represents a “snap-shot” of the river’s chemistry 

and a composite sample that represents the chemistry over the 

course of a storm. When grab samples are collected during a 

storm, the constituent concentrations can vary considerably; 

therefore, the percentage of fine- and course- grained particulates and the high and low organic carbon content of the 

particulates that are contained in the sample also vary considerably. These variations can cause substantial differences in 

computations of constituent concentrations.

Summary

In an effort to characterize the inputs of contaminants and 

sediments to Newark and Raritan Bays, water samples were 

collected from the heads-of-tide on the five tributaries— the 

Raritan, Passaic, Hackensack, Rahway, and Elizabeth Rivers-

- that empty into the harbor estuaries. These flow-weighted 

composite samples were collected during storms of various 

magnitudes on each of the rivers and during base-flow conditions using a trace organic platform sampler (TOPS) that 

effectively separated the water into its two phases-- particulate 

and dissolved constituents. Other samples were collected using 

automatic samplers. The samples were analyzed for concentrations of suspended sediment, particulate and dissolved organic 

carbon, trace elements, and organic compounds (polychlorinated biphenyls, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, dioxins/

furans, and pesticides). Samples were collected and analyzed 

following protocols laid out by the Contaminant Assessment 

and Reduction Program under the direction of the New Jersey 

Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP). Extensive 

measures were taken to ensure the high quality, precision, 

and accuracy of the data. These quality-assurance and quality-control procedures are outlined in this document and in the 

NJDEP Standard Operating Procedures. Many field, trip, and 

equipment blanks were collected to determine and quantify 

possible sources of contamination that could have caused 

biased data results. As part of the quality assurance/quality 

control (QA/QC) program, some data were received from 

contract laboratories flagged, indicating areas where further 

investigation and data reduction were warranted. Another 

aspect of the QA/QC program included Standard Reference 

Materials, which are solutions of known compositions that are 

spiked onto sample-collection media and are used to ensure 

the quality and integrity of the analyses.

Data received from the laboratories were reported as 

masses and can be reduced and calculated into concentrations 

and loads of constituents and sediment using information collected and characteristics measured in the field. All constituent 

data obtained from analyses of water and sediment samples 

are raw data. Masses of constituents in the particulate phase 

can be normalized to sediment and particulate organic carbon. 

Masses of constituents measured in the dissolved phase can 

be reduced into concentrations using the volume of water that 

passed through the XAD-resin columns used in the TOPS. The 

dissolved concentrations of constituents then can be normalized further to dissolved organic carbon. Further calculations 

can be executed to estimate various uncertainties that exist 

within the data and to determine the accuracy and precision of 

any calculations made using the data. The data on polychlorinated biphenyls, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, dioxins 

and furans, pesticides, and trace elements presented in this 

report have myriad uses, such as predicting values of sediment 

and constituent loads discharged to bays and estuaries over a 

period of time and identifying possible sources of contamination to the area. Ideally, care is taken when extrapolating the 

data from a small scale to a broader overall perspective so as 

to ensure the limitations of the data are recognized and understood. The second phase of this study addresses the interpretation of the raw data.

Acknowledgments

The authors thank Joel Pecchioli, Gary Buchanan, and 

Floyd Genichola of the NJDEP for their guidance and direction under the New Jersey Toxics Reduction Program. Mr. 

Buchanan and Mr. Genichola are especially appreciated for 

their efforts in bringing ice to the field sites to keep the samples chilled. Scott Douglas of the Marine Resources Division 

of the New Jersey Department of Transportation is acknowledged for his direction at meetings throughout the duration of 

the project. The authors are grateful to Dave Thal of Severn 

Trent Laboratories for sharing his expertise in the analysis of 

organic compounds. The authors also acknowledge and thank 

Nicholas Smith and Pamela Jankowski of the USGS for their 

assistance with sampling. The authors also thank and acknowledge Jessica Hopple and Kara Watson of the USGS for their 

work using Geographical Information Systems to compile the 

land-use data presented in this report.

30 Constituents and Field Characteristics—Raritan, Passaic, Hackensack, Rahway, and Elizabeth Rivers, 2000-03
References Cited

Ballschmiter, Karlheinz, and Zell, M.G., 1980, Analysis of 

polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) by glass capillary gas 

chromatography. Composition of Technical Aroclor- and 

Clophen-PCB Mixtures: Fresenius Zeitschrift fuer Analytische Chemie, v. 302, p. 20-21.

Burkhardt, M.R., Kammer, J.A., Jha, V.K., O.Mara-Lopez, 

P.G., and M.T. Woodworth, 1997, Methods of analysis by 

the U.S. Geological Survey National Water Quality Laboratory- Determination of nonpurgeable suspended organic carbon by wet-chemical oxidation and infrared spectrometry: 

U.S. Geological Survey Open File Report 97-380, 12 p.

Buxton, D.E., Hunchak-Kariouk, Kathryn, and Hickman, R.E., 

1998, Relations of surface-water quality to streamflow in 

the Hackensack, Passaic, Elizabeth, and Rahway River 

basins, New Jersey, Water Years 1976-93: U.S. Geological 

Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 98-4049, 

102 p.

California Environmental Protection Agency Air Resources 

Board, 1997, Method 429, Determination of Polycyclic 

Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAH) emissions from stationary 

sources: California Environmental Protection Agency Air 

Resources Board, 121 p.

National Institute of Standards and Technology/National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 1998, NIST/NOAA 

NS&T/EPA EMAP Intercomparison exercise program for 

organic contaminants in the marine environment: Description and results of 1997 organic intercomparison exercises: 

NOAA Technical Memorandum NOS ORCA 134, U.S. 

Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Silver Spring, Md., 57 p.

New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, 2001, 

New Jersey toxics reduction workplan (NJTRWP) standard 

operating procedure (SOP) NJTRWP-01, Rev. 1.0, March 2, 

2001: New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, 

112 p.

New York/ New Jersey Harbor Estuary Program, 1996, Final 

Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan: New 

York/New Jersey Harbor Estuary Program, 122 p.

New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, 

1998, Workplan, Sources and loadings of toxic substances 

to New York harbor: New York Department of Environmental Conservation Division of Water, 17 p.

Reed, T.J., White, B.T., Centinaro, G.L., Dudek, J.F., Protz, 

A.R., Shvanda, J.C., and Watson, A.F., 2004, Water 

resources data for New Jersey- water year 2003, volume 

1. Surface-water data: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Data 

Report NJ-03-1, 368 p.

Schantz, M.M., Parris, R.M., and Wise, S.A., 2001, NIST 

Intercomparison exercise program for organic contaminants 

in the marine environment: Description and results of 2000 

organic intercomparison exercises, draft: Gaithersburg, Md., 

National Institute of Standards and Technology, 26 p.

Schwarzenbach, R.P., Gschwend, P.M., and Imboden, D.M., 

1993, Environmental Organic Chemistry: New York, John 

Wiley and Sons, 681 p.

Shoemaker, D.P., Garlan, C.W., and Steinfeld, J.I., 1974, 

Experiments in Physical Chemistry, (3d ed.): New York, 

McGraw-Hill, Inc., 725 p.

Sholar, C.J., and Shreve, E.A., 1998, Quality-Assurance Plan 

for the Analysis of Fluvial Sediment by the Northeastern 

Region: U.S. Geological Survey Open File Report 98-384, 

20 p.

Supelco Inc., 2000, Sigma-Aldrich Product information sheet 

for Amberlite XAD-2 exchange resin: Bellefonte, Pa., 1p.

Thibodeaux, L.J., 1979, Chemodynamics: Environmental 

Movement of Chemicals in Air, Water, and Soil: New York, 

John Wiley and Sons, 501p.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 1994, USEPA Method 

1613: Tetra- through octa- chlorinated dioxins and furans by 

isotope dilution HRGC/HRMS: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Water, EPA Report Number EPA/821/

B-94/005, 86 p.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1996a, USEPA 

Method 1669: Sampling ambient water for trace metals 

at EPA water quality criteria levels: U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency Office of Water, EPA Report Number 

EPA-821-R-96-011, 36 p.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1996b, USEPA 

Method 1638: Determination of trace elements in ambient 

waters by inductively coupled plasma-mass spectrometry: 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Water, 

EPA Report Number EPA/821/R-96-005, 46 p.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1998a, USEPA 

Method 8081: Organochlorine pesticides by GC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Water, EPA Report 

Number EPA/SW-846/Ch 4.3.1, 16 p.

References Cited 31
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1998b, USEPA 

Method 1630: Methyl mercury in water by distillation, 

aqueous ethylation, purge and trap, cold vapor atomic 

fluorescence spectrometer: U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency Office of Water, EPA Report Number EPA/R/01-

020, 49 p.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1999a, USEPA 

Method 1631, Revision B: Mercury in water by oxidation, 

purge and trap, and cold vapor atomic fluorescence spectrometry: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of 

Water, EPA Report Number EPA/821/R-99/005, 40 p.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1999b, USEPA 

Method 1668, Revision A: Chlorinated biphenyl congeners 

in water, soil, sediment, and tissues by HRGC/HRMS: U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency Office of Water, EPA 

Report Number EPA-821-R-00-002, 112 p.

Zimmermann, C.F., Keefe, C.W., and J. Bashe, 1997, Method 

440.0, Determination of carbon and nitrogen in sediment 

and particulates of estuarine/coastal waters using elemental 

analysis: Cincinnati, Ohio, U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency National Exposure Research Laboratory, Office of 

Research and Development, 10 p.

32 Constituents and Field Characteristics—Raritan, Passaic, Hackensack, Rahway, and Elizabeth Rivers, 2000-03
For additional information, write to:

Director

U.S. Geological Survey

New Jersey Water Science Center

Mountain View Office Park

810 Bear Tavern Rd., Suite 206

West Trenton, NJ 08628

or visit our Web site at:

http://nj.usgs.gov/
Bonin, J.L. and Wilson, T.P.—Organic Compounds, Trace Elements, Suspended Sediment, and Field Characteristics at the Heads-of-Tide of the Raritan, 

Passaic, Hackensack, Rahway, and Elizabeth Rivers, New Jersey, 2000-03—Data Series 123

Printed on recycled paper