i

NISTIR 7029

SEABIRD TISSUE ARCHIVAL AND MONITORING PROJECT: 

Egg Collections and Analytical Results for 1999 - 2002 

Stacy S. Vander Pol1

Steven J. Christopher1

David G. Roseneau2

Paul R. Becker1

Russell D. Day1

John R. Kucklick1 

Rebecca S. Pugh1

Kristin S. Simac3

Geoff W. York3 

1

National Institute of Standards and Technology, Chemical Science and Technology Laboratory, 

Hollings Marine Laboratory 

2

U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Alaska Maritime National 

Wildlife Refuge 

3

U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey, Alaska Science Center 

 

July 23, 2003 
ii

Contents 

List of Tables ................................................................................................................................. iii 

List of Figures................................................................................................................................ iii 

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ............................................................................................................. iv 

DISCLAIMER................................................................................................................................ v 

BACKGROUND ............................................................................................................................ 1 

THE SEABIRD EGG AS A MATRIX FOR MARINE ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING.......................... 1 

GOAL AND OBJECTIVES ............................................................................................................... 4 

THE VALUE OF SPECIMEN BANKING ............................................................................................ 4 

SPECIES AND COLONY LOCATIONS .............................................................................................. 5 

PROTOCOL DEVELOPMENT........................................................................................................... 6 

BASELINE CHEMICAL ANALYSIS................................................................................................... 6 

METHODS ..................................................................................................................................... 8 

COLLECTING AND PROCESSING EGGS .......................................................................................... 8 

BANKING SPECIMENS................................................................................................................... 8 

PERSISTENT ORGANIC POLLUTANT ANALYSIS............................................................................. 8 

Sample Extraction.................................................................................................................. 8 

Sample Analysis................................................................................................................... 10 

Data Analysis....................................................................................................................... 11 

MERCURY ANALYSIS ................................................................................................................. 12 

Sample Preparation and Spike Calibration......................................................................... 12 

ID-CV-ICPMS Measurements ............................................................................................. 13 

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION................................................................................................... 15 

EGG COLLECTIONS, 1999 – 2002 ............................................................................................... 15 

PERSISTENT ORGANIC POLLUTANTS .......................................................................................... 15 

Quality Control.................................................................................................................... 15 

Analytical Results................................................................................................................. 15 

Geographic Comparisons.................................................................................................... 18 

Species Comparisons........................................................................................................... 23 

Temporal Comparisons........................................................................................................ 24 

Literature Comparisons....................................................................................................... 25 

Human Health and Ecological Implications........................................................................ 28 

MERCURY .................................................................................................................................. 29 

Isotope Dilution Method ...................................................................................................... 29 

Error Magnification and ICPMS Isotope Ratio Measurements.......................................... 29 

Method Accuracy, Reproducibility and Uncertainty ........................................................... 32 

Data Analysis and Geographic Comparisons...................................................................... 35 

Literature Comparisons....................................................................................................... 36 

Human Health and Ecological Implications........................................................................ 37 

CONCLUSIONS .......................................................................................................................... 39 

REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................. 40 

APPENDICES .............................................................................................................................. 47 

APPENDIX A: STAMP PROTOCOLS FIELD COLLECTION SUPPLEMENTAL INSTRUCTIONS .......... 47 

APPENDIX B: EGG COLLECTION INVENTORY ............................................................................. 53 

APPENDIX C: CHLORINATED HYDROCARBON DATA.................................................................. 60 

APPENDIX D: MERCURY DATA .................................................................................................. 75 
iii

List of Tables 

TABLE 1. Persistent organic pollutants in Alaska murre eggs ................................................... 21 

TABLE 2. Temporal comparisons of persistent organic pollutants in Alaska murre eggs ......... 24 

TABLE 3. Literature values for persistent organic pollutants in murre eggs.............................. 26 

TABLE 4. Canadian acceptable or tolerable daily intakes.......................................................... 28 

TABLE 5. Literature values for total mercury in murre eggs...................................................... 38 

List of Figures

FIGURE 1. Locations of seabird colonies identified for egg collections...................................... 7 

FIGURE 2. Transient mercury profiles ....................................................................................... 14 

FIGURE 3. Number of STAMP egg clutched collected in 1999-2002 ....................................... 15 

FIGURE 4. Representative F1 chromatograms of a murre egg................................................... 16 

FIGURE 5. Representative F2 chromatogram of a murre egg .................................................... 17 

FIGURE 6. Concentrations of major persistent organic pollutants in eggs................................. 19 

FIGURE 7. Fraction of PCB Congeners to ΣPCBs ..................................................................... 20 

FIGURE 8. Principal components analyses................................................................................. 22 

FIGURE 9. Mercury error magnification factor.......................................................................... 30 

FIGURE 10. Mercury radar plot.................................................................................................. 31 

FIGURE 11. Control chart for mercury mass fraction in SRM 2976.......................................... 33 

FIGURE 12. Mercury mass fraction values and expanded uncertainties .................................... 34 

FIGURE 13. Mercury mass fraction values by colonies ............................................................. 36 
iv

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 

The following individuals are acknowledged for their contributions in developing and 

conducting the Seabird Tissue Archival and Monitoring Project (STAMP): Lyman Thorsteinson 

(USGS), G. Vernon Byrd (USFWS), Barbara J. Porter (NIST), Scott Hatch (USGS), David Irons 

(USFWS), Kevin Winker (University of Alaska Museum), Alan M. Springer (University of 

Alaska and FALCO), Edward C. Murphy (University of Alaska), C. Loren Buck (University of 

Alaska), Earl Kingik (Point Hope IRA Council), Little Diomede Island Villagers, Laura 

Greffenius (USFWS), Susan Hatch (USFWS), Arthur B. Kettle (USFWS), Dean Kildaw 

(USFWS), Laurie Ness (USFWS), Alexis Paul (USFWS), Nora Rojek (USFWS), Leslie Slater 

(USFWS), Kent Sundseth (USFWS), Cleveland Cowles (MMS) and Steve Treacy (MMS). John 

Fauth (College of Charleston) and Lori Schwacke (NOAA) provided much needed assistance 

with statistics. 
v

DISCLAIMER 

Certain commercial equipment or instruments are identified in this paper to specify adequately the 

experimental procedures. Such identification does not imply recommendations or endorsement by the 

National Institute of Standards and Technology nor does it imply that the equipment or instruments are 

the best available for the purpose. 
1

BACKGROUND 

In 1998, the U.S. Geological Survey Biological Resources Division (USGS-BRD), the U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Alaska Maritime National Wildlife Refuge (AMNWR), and the 

National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) began the Seabird Tissue Archival and 

Monitoring Project (STAMP) to collect and cryogenically bank tissues from seabirds in Alaska 

for future retrospective analysis of anthropogenic contaminants. The approach of STAMP was 

similar to that of the Alaska Marine Mammal Tissue Archival Project (AMMTAP). AMMTAP was 

started in 1987 by NIST and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) as part 

of the Outer Continental Shelf Environmental Assessment Program sponsored by the Minerals 

Management Service. Presently sponsored by the USGS-BRD, AMMTAP continues its work as 

part of a larger national program, the Marine Mammal Health and Stranding Response Program. 

AMMTAP developed carefully designed sampling and specimen banking protocols. Since 1987, 

AMMTAP has collected tissues from marine mammals taken in Alaska Native subsistence hunts and 

has cryogenically banked these tissues at the NIST National Biomonitoring Specimen Bank (NBSB). 

Through its own analytical work and working in partnership with other researchers both within and 

outside Alaska, AMMTAP has helped to develop a substantial database on contaminants in Alaska 

marine mammals. In contrast, data and information is limited on contaminants in Alaska seabirds, 

which are similar to marine mammals in that they feed near the top of the food chain and have the 

potential for accumulating anthropogenic contaminants. 

During its early planning stages, STAMP managers identified the seabird egg as the first tissue 

of choice for study by the project. There is a relatively long history of using bird eggs for 

environmental monitoring and for investigating the health status of bird populations. Since 

1998, protocols for collecting and processing eggs, and cryogenically banking egg samples have 

been developed by STAMP (see York et al. 2001). Eggs are being collected on an annual basis 

for several species at nesting colonies throughout Alaska. Aliquots of these egg samples are 

being analyzed on a regular basis for persistent organic pollutants and mercury. Results of this 

work have been published in scientific journals (Christopher et al. 2002) and in conference 

proceedings (Kucklick et al. 2002; Vander Pol et al. 2002a, 2002b). 

The intent of this report is to provide an up-to-date description of STAMP. The report contains 

the most recent egg collection inventory, analytical data, preliminary interpretations based on 

these data, and a discussion of possible future directions of the project. 

THE SEABIRD EGG AS A MATRIX FOR MARINE ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING

The term “persistent organic pollutants” or POPs is well accepted by the environmental 

chemistry community to denote long-lived organic compounds that bioaccumulate and have 

toxic effects. Examples of such compounds are polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), chlorinated 

pesticides (i.e., DDT, chlordane, toxaphene, hexachlorocyclohexane [HCH], and dieldrin), 

hexachlorobenzene (HCB), dioxins and furans. Although restricted or banned in many 

developed countries, POPs are still manufactured for export and remain in use in many 

developing countries. POPs can also appear in the environment many thousands of kilometers 
BACKGROUND (CONT.) 

2

from their points of release due to atmospheric transport as gases and aerosols. Based on the 

“Global Fractionation and Cold Condensation” theory of Wania and Mackay (1996), POPs may 

be fractionated based on the physical properties of the individual compounds and be globally 

transported at different rates, undergoing condensation and deposition in low-temperature 

regions, and eventually depositing in the cold polar regions. 

Mercury is similar to POPs in that it can be atmospherically transported globally from points of 

release to remote regions. Bioavailability of mercury depends on microbial conversion of the 

inorganic mercury to methylmercury, which is fat-soluble, bioaccumulates much like POPs, and 

is toxic. Although the majority of emissions of mercury to the atmosphere is natural (volcanic 

emissions), the greatest source of anthropogenic emissions to Arctic atmosphere occurs from 

stationary fossil fuel combustion (particularly coal) and waste incineration (AMAP, 2002). 

The analysis of seabird tissues, particularly eggs, has played an important role in temporal and 

spatial environmental monitoring of POPs and mercury. For example, since the 1970s seabird 

eggs have been used to monitor contaminants in the Canadian Arctic (Muir et al. 1999). 

Temporal changes in PCB, chlorinated pesticide, and mercury concentrations have been 

documented in the eastern Canadian high arctic (see Braune et al. 2001), and in the Barents and 

Baltic seas (see Barrett et al. 1996 and Bignert et al. 1995, respectively) using eggs from several 

colonial nesting species. Analyses of northern fulmar (Fulmarus glacialis), black-legged 

kittiwake (Rissa tridactyla), and thick-billed murre (Uria lomvia) eggs from colonies on Prince 

Leopold Island in the eastern Canadian arctic suggest that most POP levels have decreased and 

mercury levels have increased in this region since the mid-1970s (Braune et al. 2001). This 

finding is consistent with other pollutant studies that suggest mercury is increasing in the 

environment worldwide. 

The international Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme (AMAP) identified eggs from 

the seabird family Alcidae (murres, murrelets, auklets, guillemots, puffins, dovekies, and 

razorbills) as key materials for circumpolar monitoring of POPs by all arctic nations (AMAP 

Scientific Experts Workshop, Girdwood, Alaska, April 1998). The first AMAP report on the 

state of the arctic environment summarized information on POPs and mercury levels in seabirds 

living in northern regions of Canada and Scandinavia (AMAP, 1998). This report, which is 

currently being updated, contains data indicating that POPs levels in seabird eggs were higher in 

the Scandinavian arctic than in the Canadian arctic. Within Canada, levels were greater in the 

high eastern arctic regions than in the lower western arctic regions. Also, PCB concentrations 

approaching levels known to affect hatching success were found in thick-billed murre, common 

murre (U. aalge), puffin (Fratercula spp.), black guillemot (Cepphus grylle), and black-legged 

kittiwake eggs from northern Canada and Norway (AMAP 1998). 

Extrapolating POPs and mercury values from the Canadian arctic database to Alaska is not 

appropriate, because contaminant sources for Alaska are different. The Bering and Chukchi seas 

are not only under the influence of airborne contaminants transported across the pole from 

Eastern Europe, but also from atmospheric and oceanic transport from Asia across the Pacific 

Ocean. Overall contaminant patterns and levels in Alaskan seabirds are probably influenced by 

atmospheric transport of contaminants from Asia eastward and northward into the Gulf of 

Alaska, oceanic transport from Asia via the eastward flowing North Pacific Current, and the 
BACKGROUND (CONT.) 

3

transport of substances into the Bering and Chukchi seas from the Northern Gulf of Alaska via 

the westward moving Alaskan Stream and Alaskan Coastal Current (Stabeno et al. 1999; Li et al.

2002). Local point source contamination from existing and former military installations may 

also contribute to “hot spot” pollution patterns in Alaska. 

Some biological, physical, and chemical factors that have to be considered when interpreting 

concentrations in seabird eggs include: 

• Incorporation from lipids during egg formation 

• Length of time on colony before egg laying begins 

• Seasonal movements of the nesting birds 

• Variation among individual eggs of a clutch 

• Feeding strategy and prey types 

• Atmospheric and oceanic transport patterns 

• Physical and chemical behavior of the contaminants 

Concentrations of contaminants in the egg reflect burdens in the female at the time the egg is laid 

(Braune and Norstrom 1989). Fat reserves in the female are mobilized during egg formation and 

the fat, with its associated lipophilic contaminants, is transferred to the egg. However, it is not 

known what percentage of these fat reserves with their associated contaminant residues reflect 

what has been assimilated by the female at the nesting location before and during egg formation, 

versus what has been previously assimilated at other feeding locations during the year (such as 

what is assimilated in the wintering areas). 

For species that lay more than one egg per clutch (i.e., kittiwakes, gulls, and guillemots), the 

first-laid egg may have substantially different concentrations of contaminants than subsequently 

laid eggs. This variability could be eliminated by only collecting first-laid eggs, or by pooling 

individual eggs in a clutch as a single sample. Both of these approaches have drawbacks. The 

first approach requires that the collector be at the nest when the first egg is laid, which in the 

remote and hazardous locations of these seabird colonies is not always practical. The second 

approach requires that the collector is sure that all eggs in a clutch have been collected and that 

all eggs in a collected clutch are not broken in shipment; or that, if an egg is broken in shipment, 

the collector knows within what order it was laid. Even more of a problem, multiple egg 

clutches may include one, two, or three eggs, which may vary among birds of a colony. If an 

egg is lost at a nest before collection (knocked off the ledge or taken by a predator), the collector 

might never know that the clutch collected is not really a full clutch. This could introduce an 

unrecognized variability to the specimen collections. 

The various feeding strategies of seabirds can be characterized by “guilds” described by trophic 

analysis. For example, murres are pursuit divers, diving to depths of up to 200 m to feed on fish 

and invertebrates. Kittiwakes in comparison are surface-feeding piscivores that feed on forage 

fish that are generally smaller in size than those preyed on by the murres. Storm petrels 

(Oceanodroma spp.) are surface plankton feeders. These three groups of seabirds feed at 

different trophic levels and in different parts of the water column; thus their vulnerability to 

exposure by contaminants that biomagnify is quite different. Contaminant pathways may vary 

by seasons due to seabird movements and shifts in diet. Prey-shifts can occur in seabird 
BACKGROUND (CONT.) 

4

populations for many reasons including reproductive failure of the predominant prey, 

environmental changes in the oceanic regime, etc. A temporal change in contaminant 

concentrations in eggs may, therefore, be linked to many biological and oceanogeographic 

effects in addition to their concentrations in the environment. 

Although a substantial amount of recent research has been conducted on contaminants in 

Alaskan marine mammals, few data exist on colonial seabirds nesting in Alaska. Kawano et al.

(1988) reported chlordane concentrations in thick-billed murres collected in the North Pacific 

and Gulf of Alaska in 1980 and 1982 and Ohlendorf et al. (1982) provided information on a 

limited number of organochlorine analytes measured in seabird eggs collected from Alaskan 

colonies in the 1970s. Like marine mammals, seabirds are an important group of upper trophic 

level marine organisms with a potential for accumulating lipophilic contaminants. Recognizing 

the value of colonial seabirds in environmental monitoring and the lack of recent data from 

Alaskan seabird colonies, the USGS-BRD, USFWS-AMNWR and NIST initiated protocol 

development and testing for STAMP in 1998. 

GOAL AND OBJECTIVES

The original goal of STAMP (as stated in York et al. 2001) was to archive a representative 

collection of tissues from Alaskan colonial seabird species for future contaminant analyses and 

documentation of long-term trends in environmental quality. The goal has now expanded to 

include routine chemical analysis of aliquots of egg samples collected and banked by the project. 

Also for geographic comparisons and trend analyses, seabird colonies outside of Alaska are 

being considered for inclusion in the project. The revised goals of STAMP are to monitor longterm trends in environmental quality by (1) collecting eggs (and other tissues) at seabird colonies 

using carefully designed and standard protocols, (2) processing and banking the samples under 

conditions that ensure chemical stability during long-term (decadal) storage, and (3) analyzing 

subsamples of the stored material for determination of anthropogenic contaminants. 

THE VALUE OF SPECIMEN BANKING

The cryogenic banking of seabird specimens for retrospective analysis is an important 

component of STAMP. The long-term storage of carefully selected, representative samples in an 

environmental specimen bank is an important complement to the real-time monitoring of the 

environment. Properly banked specimens permit (1) the use of subsequently developed 

innovative analytical technology that was not available at the time the samples were archived, for 

clear state-of-art identification and quantification of analytes of interest, (2) the identification and 

quantification of analytes that are of subsequent interest but that were not of interest at the time 

the samples were banked, and (3) the comparison of present and past analytical techniques and 

values, providing continued credibility of past analytical values, and allowing flexibility in 

environmental monitoring programs. 

Two good examples of the value of specimen banking in environmental monitoring result from 

the use of seabird eggs banked by the Canadian Wildlife Service (CWS). The CWS successfully 

documented temporal changes in PCBs and pesticides in the Great Lakes by analyzing herring 
BACKGROUND (CONT.) 

5

gull (Larus argentatus) eggs that were collected and banked as part of its Wildlife Toxicology 

Program (see Mineau et al. 1984, Elliott 1985, Wakeford and Kasserra 1997). Also, the decrease 

in PCBs and chlorinated pesticides and the increase in mercury shown by Braune et al. (2001) 

for the Prince Leopold Island area are based on a reanalysis of archived samples of seabird eggs 

collected between 1975 and 1998. 

SPECIES AND COLONY LOCATIONS

During the early development of STAMP, specific seabird species were identified as being ideal 

for egg collections at nesting colonies in the AMNWR area of interest based on feeding 

strategies and prey usage. Study species include: 

• Deep-diving fish eaters - common and thick-billed murres 

• Surface feeding fish eaters - black-legged kittiwakes 

• Surface feeding plankton eaters - fork-tailed storm petrels (Oceanodroma furcata) 

• Scavengers - glaucous and glaucous-winged gulls (Larus hyperboreus and L. 

glaucescens) 

Black guillemots are also being considered by STAMP, since they are recommended by AMAP 

as a primary circumpolar monitoring species. If this species is added, the most logical location 

for egg collections is from the largest nesting colony in Alaska, Cooper Island in the Beaufort 

Sea near Barrow (Figure 1). This is also the site of a long-term nesting and population study. 

STAMP cooperators are currently collecting eggs from three widely distributed piscivorous 

species: common and thick-billed murres and black-legged kittiwakes (black-legged kittiwakes 

were integrated into project in 2002). These three species use different feeding strategies. 

Black-legged kittiwakes are surface-feeders preying on forage fish (e.g., Pacific sand lance, 

Ammodytes hexapterus; capelin, Mallotus villosus; small cod, gadidae) in the upper 0.5 meter of 

the water column (e.g., see Springer et al. 1984, 1986, 1987; Baird 1994). In contrast, murres 

are divers capable of reaching depths of 150 m or more (see Piatt and Nettleship 1985, Burger 

and Simpson 1986). Common and thick-billed murres also prey on sand lance, capelin, and cod; 

however, thick-billed murres tend to feed at greater depths than common murres and often prey 

on benthic species, including some invertebrates, that they catch on or near the bottom (e.g., 

pricklebacks [Stichaeidae], sculpins [Cottidae], flounder [Pleuronectidae], and pandalid and 

crangonid shrimp), while common murres tend to feed closer to shore at shallower depths on 

mid-water fishes (e.g., see Springer et al. 1984, 1986, 1987). Murre eggs are harvested in many 

rural Alaskan coastal communities where they play a role in local subsistence diets (e.g., see 

Iknokinok and Georgette, 1997). 

Both murres and kittiwakes spend most of their time at sea, coming ashore to breed in large 

colonies on precipitous sea cliffs and headlands. Commonly, the same colony locations support 

both kittiwakes and murres. Although the range of the thick-billed murre extends further north 

than that of the common murre and the range of the common murre extends further south, these 

closely related species overlap to a great degree in Alaska, with both species often nesting at the 

same location. 
BACKGROUND (CONT.) 

6

More than 95% of the seabirds breeding in the continental United States nest at colonies located 

in the Bering and Chukchi seas and Gulf of Alaska (see USFWS 1992); of these birds about 80% 

breed at colonies on Alaska Maritime National Wildlife Refuge (AMNWR) lands (G.V. Byrd, 

pers. comm.). The AMNWR consists of 4.5 million acres on more than 2,400 islands, headlands, 

rocks, islets, spires and reefs on the Alaskan coast. This refuge extends from Cape Lisburne in 

the Chukchi Sea to the tip of the Aleutian Islands and eastward to Forrester Island on the border 

of British Columbia. Due to the importance of the AMNWR to seabirds and the opportunity for 

collecting eggs in the refuge through the USFWS observer program, STAMP has concentrated 

on AMNWR murre and kittiwake colonies. 

Current STAMP sampling sites (Figure 1) are seabird colonies at Cape Lisburne and Cape 

Thompson in the eastern Chukchi Sea; Little Diomede Island in Bering Strait; Bluff in Norton 

Sound; St. Lawrence and St. George islands in the Bering Sea; Bogoslof Island in the eastern 

Aleutians; Chiniak Bay near Kodiak Island; East Amatuli, Middleton, and St. Lazaria islands in 

the Gulf of Alaska; and Shoup Bay in Prince William Sound. Several additional sampling 

locations are being considered to further geographic coverage including Chamisso-Puffin islands 

and Cape Deceit in Kotzebue Sound; Buldir Island in the western Aleutian Islands; Aiktak Island 

in the eastern Aleutian Islands (Unimak Pass); Chowiet Island in the southwestern Gulf of 

Alaska; and Chisik-Duck and Gull islands in Cook Inlet and Kachemak Bay. STAMP planning 

also calls for adding glaucous-winged and glaucous gulls to the project in 2004-2005. The eggs 

of both species are important human subsistence resources in Alaska and, due to their scavenging 

nature, have the potential for having higher concentrations of bioaccumulative contaminants than 

murres or kittiwakes. 

PROTOCOL DEVELOPMENT 

Protocols for collecting, sampling, processing, transporting, and cryogenically banking murre 

eggs were developed and tested in 1998 – 1999, when murre eggs were obtained from Cape 

Lisburne, Little Diomede, St. George, Bogoslof, East Amatuli, and St. Lazaria islands (Figure 1). 

These protocols, which emphasize carefully documented standard procedures, the use of noncontaminating materials for handling specimens, adherence to chain of custody procedures, and 

storage under conditions that ensure long-term sample stability, were published in York et al.

(2001). However, it became apparent after these protocols were published that the egg collectors 

needed more detailed collection protocols. These instructions, which were produced as STAMP 

Field Collection Supplemental Instructions, are found in Appendix A of this report. 

BASELINE CHEMICAL ANALYSIS

Murre egg samples from colonies at St. Lazaria, East Amatuli, Bogoslof, St. George, and Little 

Diomede islands were selected for initial analysis to begin establishing baseline contaminant 

values for use in long-term studies of POPs and mercury levels in Alaskan seabirds. After 

baselines are generated for all of the STAMP study sites, a contaminants monitoring plan based 

on rotating egg collection schedules for the colonies at 5 to 10 year intervals will be 

implemented. Unanalyzed portions of the eggs will be cryogenically banked at the NBSB for 

long-term storage and future retrospective research. 
BACKGROUND (CONT.) 

7

Figure 1. Locations of seabird colonies identified for egg collections. 

BERING SEA

GULF OF ALASKA

CHUKCHI SEA

BEAUFORT SEA

Cape Lisburne

Cape Thompson

Little Diomede I.

St. Lawrence I. Bluff

St. George I.

Bogoslof I.

St. Lazaria I.

Middleton I.

Shoup Bay 

E. Amatuli I.

Kodiak I.

Kukpuk R.

Chamisso-Puffin Is.

Cape Deceit

Chowiet I.

Gull I. 

Chisik-Duck I. 

Buldir I. Aiktak I.

BERING SEA

GULF OF ALASKA

CHUKCHI SEA

BEAUFORT SEA

Cape Lisburne

Cape Thompson

Little Diomede I.

St. Lawrence I. Bluff

St. George I.

Bogoslof I.

St. Lazaria I.

Middleton I.

Shoup Bay 

E. Amatuli I.

Kodiak I.

Kukpuk R.

Chamisso-Puffin Is.

Cape Deceit

Chowiet I.

Gull I. 

Chisik-Duck I. 

Buldir I. Aiktak I.
8

METHODS 

COLLECTING AND PROCESSING EGGS 

Eggs were collected by AMNWR, USGS-BRD, USFWS Office of Migratory Bird Management 

(MBM), and University of Alaska Fairbanks (UAF) biologists and community residents using 

NIST-published protocols (see York et al. 2001) and additional supplemental guidelines that are 

found in the Appendix A of this report. Entire clutches were collected for murres (1 egg) and 

black-legged kittiwakes (1-2 eggs). These eggs were sent to the USGS-BRD Alaska Science 

Center (ASC) in Anchorage, Alaska, where the contents were separated from the shells and 

frozen in clean Teflon containers. Two-egg clutches had their contents combined to form a 

single specimen representing the total clutch. The dried shells were shipped to the UAF Museum 

in Fairbanks, Alaska, and the frozen contents were sent to NIST’s National Biomonitoring 

Specimen Bank (NBSB) at the Hollings Marine Laboratory in Charleston, South Carolina. 

BANKING SPECIMENS

At the NBSB, the frozen egg contents were cryogenically homogenized, divided into ‘A’ and ‘B’ 

subsamples, and stored in permanently labeled, cataloged Teflon containers in liquid nitrogen 

vapor freezers at -150o C. The ‘A’ subsamples are specifically earmarked for long-term storage 

for future research projects that will explore new questions and concerns about persistent 

bioaccumulative contaminants using more advanced, yet-to-be developed techniques and 

methodologies, and the ‘B’ subsamples are available for immediate analysis. 

PERSISTENT ORGANIC POLLUTANT ANALYSIS

Sample Extraction 

Methods used to extract and analyze the frozen egg content samples were similar to methods 

reported by Kucklick et al. (2002). Approximately three grams of frozen material were removed 

from each storage vial and individually mixed with 30 g of Na2SO4 (batches 1-3; samples 1-30) 

or 8 g diatomaceous earth (batches 4 and 5; samples 31-67) that had been combusted at 700 o

C 

for 24 h and then cooled in a desiccator prior to use. Diatomaceous earth was substituted for 

Na2SO4 in order to remove more water from the samples during extraction. The samples, 

including the associated Na2SO4 or diatomaceous earth, were transferred to 33 mL pressurized 

fluid extractor cells (PFE; Dionex, Sunnyvale, CA). Aliquots of SRM 1946 ‘Lake Superior Fish 

Tissue’, six calibration solutions, and a blank were analyzed with each batch. Aliquots of frozen 

Lake Ontario herring gull egg homogenate reference material from the CWS (obtained from 

Bryan Wakeford) was analyzed with batches 4 and 5. Although this material has not been 

certified for organochlorine values, the CWS has used it for over 10 years. The homogenate was 

prepared in 1989 from a batch of 138 herring gull eggs taken from a nesting colony on Lake 

Ontario. The eggs were homogenized and several hundred 6 g aliquots were prepared and stored 

frozen at -35 o

C at the main CWS freezer complex. To test the homogeneity of the murre egg 
METHODS (CONT.) 

9

samples, three aliquots from sample 42, a thick-billed murre egg from St. George Island, were 

analyzed in batch 5. 

Calibration solutions were prepared by placing weighed portions of SRMs 2261 (Chlorinated 

Pesticides in Hexane), 2262 (Chlorinated Biphenyl Congeners in 2,2,4-trimethylpentane), 2274 

(Chlorinated Biphenyl Congeners in Isooctane II), 2275 (Chlorinated Pesticides in Hexane II), 

and PCB solution 3 (Schantz, 2001) into a weighed portion of isooctane. From 0.3 ng to 300 ng 

of each analyte were gravimetrically added to the individual PFE cells that were packed with 

clean Na2SO4 or diatomaceous earth. A mixed internal standard solution containing 4,4’-DDTd8, 4,4’-DDE-d8, 4,4’-DDD-d8, endosulfan I-d4, PCB 103 and PCB 198, and a coplanar PCB 

internal standard solution containing mass-labelled PCB 77, PCB 126, and PCB 169 (batches 1-

3; samples 1-30), or combined PCB and coplanar PCB mixed internal standard solution 

containing all the above compounds except endosulfan I-d4 (batches 4 and 5; samples 31-67) 

were also gravimetrically added to the PFE cells. Samples were extracted with CH2Cl2 using the 

PFE. Conditions were as follows: cell temperature 100 o

C, equilibration 5 min, static time 5 min, 

cell pressure 2000 psi, and there were 3 cycles (one-third of the solvent each time, 35 mL total). 

To remove extra water, the sample extracts were mixed with clean Na2SO4 (batches 1-3; samples 

1-30) or filtered by a 125 mm phase separation paper (Whatman, Ann Arbor, MI) funnel that had 

been sonicated in CH2Cl2 three times and dried (batches 4 and 5; samples 31-67). The phase 

separation paper funnel was filled with a scoop of clean Na2SO4 to enhance water removal. The 

extract (known weight) was transferred to Turbovap tubes (Zymark, Hopkinton, MA) and 

reduced to approximately 10 mL by evaporating it in a stream of purified N2 using a Turbovap. 

Nonvolatile solvent extractable material (“lipid”) analyses were run on the samples by 

gravimetrically weighing 2 mL of the extract into preweighed aluminum dishes and allowing the 

solvent to evaporate before reweighing to constant weight. 

 

Samples 44, 46, and 48 (thick-billed murre eggs from St. George Island) all had strong odors and 

large amounts of water/protein and were analyzed for lipids by the phase separation paper 

method. Lipid values for these eggs were low (4.92%, 3.75%, and 5.20%, respectively). Due to 

a batch of samples that had to be discarded because of a bad lot of solvent, samples 46 and 48 

were previously analyzed using the Na2SO4 method. Results were 9.24% and 11.1% lipid, 

respectively. All other samples that had lipid percentages determined by both methods did not 

vary by more than 15% RSD. 

Samples 44, 46, and 48, and sample 41, a common murre egg from East Amatuli Island that had 

a low lipid percentage and was only analyzed by the phase separation paper method, were 

analyzed by a third method that involved removal of water by centrifuging the sample at 1500 

rpm for 2 min and pipetting off the sample. The centrifuge technique produced values similar to 

the Na2SO4 analysis of samples 46 and 48, and to the phase separation paper analysis of sample 

41. The percent lipid used for samples 41, 46, and 48 was the average of the percentages 

obtained by similar methods. The percent lipid obtained by the centrifuge method was used for 

sample 44. 

After lipid percentages were determined, the samples were reduced to between 0.5 mL -1 mL in 

the Turbovap. Lipids were separated from organochlorines by using a 600 mm x 25 mm (10 μm 

particle size with 100 Å diameter pores) PLGel column (Polymer Labs, Amherst, CA; Schantz et 
METHODS (CONT.) 

10

al., 1992). The solvent, CH2Cl2, was delivered at 10 mL/min. Absorbance was monitored at 254 

nm using a UV/VIS detector (Linear, model 200, San Jose, CA). Samples were injected (0.5-1 

mL) and the first 175 mL of CH2Cl2 containing high molecular mass material were discarded. 

The next 100 mL, containing the analytes of interest, were collected and retained. The CH2Cl2

fractions were reduced in volume using the Turbovap and the solvent was exchanged to hexane 

and then further reduced to 0.5 mL. The extract was fractionated into relatively lower and higher 

polarity fractions (F1 and F2, respectively) by using a semi-preparative aminopropylsilane 

column (μBondaPak or YMC Pak; Waters, Milford, MA). The column was changed between 

batch 3 and 4. The F1 consisted of either 42 mL (batches 1-3; samples 1-30) or 52 mL (batches 

4 and 5; samples 31-67) of hexane, and F2 consisted of 60 mL of 25% CH2Cl2:hexane. F1 

compounds included PCBs, heptachlor, 2,4’-DDE, 4,4’-DDE, 2,4’-DDT, HCB, oxychlordane, 

and mirex. F2 analytes included 4,4’-DDT, cis- and trans-chlordane, cis- and trans-nonachlor, 

α-, β-, and γ-HCH, heptachlor epoxide, 2,4’-DDD, 4,4’-DDD, and dieldrin. However, β-HCH 

remained on the column in batches 4 and 5. 

Sample Analysis 

Amounts of organochlorine compounds in sample extracts were determined by injecting each of 

the samples twice into a gas chromatograph (GC) with dual micro-electron capture detectors 

(ECD) (Hewlett Packard 6890, Palo Alto, CA). Organochlorines in F1 and F2 from the 

aminopropylsilane column were separated using a 60 m DB-5 with 0.25 mm internal diameter 

and 0.25 μm film thickness (J&W Scientific, Folsom, CA) and a 60 m DB-XLB with 0.25 mm 

internal diameter and 0.25 μm film thickness (J&W Scientific). The GC was configured by 

installing a 5 m x 0.25 mm internal diameter retention gap to the inlet and attaching a glass Y 

connector to the free end. The columns connected to the Y splitter, then to the ECDs. The 

injector and detector temperatures were set at 220 oC and 325 oC, respectively, and the carrier 

and makeup gasses were H2 (constant velocity of 30 cm/s) and N2 (60 mL/min), respectively. 

Samples were injected into the GC (2 μL, splitless injection), and the oven was programmed to 

run from an initial 90 o

C (1 min hold) to 170 oC at 18 oC/min, then increased in temperature to 

260 oC at 1 oC/min, and then increased again to 300 oC at 15 oC/min (10 min hold; 107 min run 

time). Amounts of each compound in the unknowns were calculated by using the mass of 

internal standard that was added to the sample and the slope and intercept of the six-point 

calibration curve generated from the response of the calibration solutions. The same column was 

used for individual contaminants in all of the samples. If there was no known coelution, the 

average of the DB5 and DB-XLB columns was used if there was at least 75% agreement 

between the columns. If there was more than 25% non-agreement between the columns, the 

column with the lowest result was used because there may have been unknown coelution on the 

other column. In the F1, the average of the internal standards PCB 103, PCB 198, and 4,4’-

DDE-d8 was used to quantify all compounds on the DB-5 column and the average of the internal 

standards PCB 103 and PCB 198 was used to quantify all compounds on the DB-XLB column. 

The average of the DB-5 and DB-XLB columns was reported for PCB congeners 28, 66, 99, 118, 

146, 153, 105, and 180, and HCB and 4,4'-DDE. The DB-5 column was used to quantify PCB 

congeners 56+60, 70+76, 82, 92+84+89, 101+90, 107, 151, 156+202+171, 157, 158,193, 194, 

and 201, and 2,4'-DDE. The DB-XLB column was used to quantify PCB congeners 8, 18, 31, 
METHODS (CONT.) 

11

44, 45, 49, 52, 63, 74, 87, 95, 110, 128, 132, 138, 149, 163, 170, 174, 183, 187, 195, 206, and 

209, and 2,4’DDT, heptachlor, mirex, and oxychlordane. In the F2, 4,4’-DDD-d8 was used as 

the internal standard to quantify all compounds. Peak areas obtained from the DB-5 column 

were used to quantify the F2 compounds. A detection limit of 0.100 ng/g wet mass was 

determined based on the lowest concentration of the calibration curve. 

GC/mass spectrometry (MS; Hewlett Packard 6890/5973, Palo Alto, CA) was used to reanalyze 

oxychlordane from batch 2 and 4,4’-DDT from batch 3 due to these compounds splitting 

between the two aminopropylsilane LC fractions as determined from SRM 1946 results. The F1 

and F2 fractions were recombined and reduced in volume to approximately 0.05 mL before 

GC/MS analysis. For oxychlordane, the GC/MS was operated in the negative chemical 

ionization (NCI) mode. Samples were injected (2 μL) into a 60 m DB-5 capillary column with 

0.25 mm internal diameter x 0.25 μm film thickness (on-column mode; J&W Scientific, Folsom, 

CA). Helium was used as the carrier gas at a constant flow rate of 30 cm/s. Methane was used 

as the reagent gas. The source temperature was held at 136 o

C. The initial column temperature 

was 60 o

C; the temperature was then increased to 150 oC at 25 oC/min, then to 200 oC at 0.75 o

C/min, then again to 240 oC at 2 oC/min, and finally to 300 oC at 10 oC/ min (10 min hold; 107 

min run time). For 4,4’-DDT, the GC/MS was operated in the electron impact ionization (EI) 

mode. All conditions were similar to the oxychlordane analysis described above with the 

exception of the run conditions. From the initial column temperature of 60 oC; the temperature 

was increased to 170 oC at 25 oC/min, then to 200 oC at 1 oC/min, then again to 240 oC at 2 o

C/min, and finally to 300 oC at 10 oC/min (10 min hold; 71.4 min run time). 

Data Analysis 

Due to significant differences in lipid concentrations of the eggs at two colonies (Table 1; 

Appendix C), statistical analyses were conducted on lipid corrected wet mass concentrations. To 

meet the assumptions of the parametric tests, all data were log + 1 transformed because several 

values were close to zero. To reduce type I errors, multivariate analyses of variances tests 

(MANOVAs; Profile type, Wilks’ λ) were run on common murre eggs (including the samples 

from Little Diomede Island) to test for geographical differences among colonies. These tests 

were also run on the samples from Bogoslof and St. George islands to test for differences 

between species (two-factor MANOVA). 

Analysis of variances (ANOVAs) with Tukey-Kramer HSD for geographical differences and 

two-factor ANOVAs for species differences were conducted post-hoc on individual POP 

compounds to determine which ones contributed to the significant MANOVAs. Only 

compounds that had less than half of the values below the detectable limit (<0.100 ng/g) were 

analyzed for geographic differences. Values below the detectable limit were assigned half the 

detection value (0.0500 ng/g). For the species comparison, only compounds with no values 

below detectable limit were used because of degree of freedom problems caused by small sample 

sizes. All statistical tests were conducted using JMP (SAS Institute, Cary, NC) software and 

plotted using SigmaPlot (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL) software. 
METHODS (CONT.) 

12

Principal components analyses (PCAs) were performed as described by Zitko (1989) and 

Kucklick et al. (1997) to help visualize the degree of geographical and species differences in 

three-dimensions. PCAs were conducted on the fractions of total PCBs and organochlorine 

pesticides for each egg based on lipid corrected wet mass concentrations. Compounds with 

values below the detectable limit were removed from the PCAs. The eigenvectors for each 

compound from the first three principal components were multiplied by the fraction of the total 

for that compound. The results from each egg sample were summed and the principal 

components were plotted. 

Two-tailed t-tests were used to compare temporal changes between current concentrations of 

individual POPs in common murre eggs from Bogoslof and St. George islands with 

concentrations reported in the 1970s. 

MERCURY ANALYSIS

Sample Preparation and Spike Calibration 

Samples were run in 12 analytical batches of six samples, each of which consisted of four eggs, 

one control sample and one method blank. The sample dissolution procedures used multiple 

iterations of microwave digestion. For each digestion batch, approximately 0.9 g sample aliquots 

of homogenized egg tissue were digested along with one approximately 0.6 g control sample 

aliquot of SRM 2976 Mussel Tissue (Trace Elements and Methylmercury) and a procedural 

blank. The certified value for total Hg in SRM 2976 is 0.0610 μg/g ± 0.0036 μg/g. Each 

analytical sample was spiked with a known quantity of isotopically enriched mercury (201Hg 

enriched isotopic spike) prior to addition of the 5 mL nitric acid decomposition medium. The 

amount of spike delivered to the blank vessels was reduced to curtail errors due to overspiking. 

All samples were digested in a Perkin-Elmer (Shelton, CT) Multiwave microwave oven at the 

highest possible temperatures (up to 300 °C) and pressures (up to 8 MPa) in order to equilibrate 

the spiked mercury with the natural mercury present in the samples. The resulting digests were 

vented and diluted with high purity water to a total volume of approximately 40 mL and nonquantitatively transferred into 60 mL polyethylene bottles. Further sample dilutions ranging 

from 1:3 to 1:40 were required prior to analysis. 

SRM 3133 Mercury Spectrometric Solution was used to calibrate the isotopic spike solution 

prior to its use. First, an approximately 100 ng/g 201Hg isotopic spike solution was prepared 

using 3% (mass fraction) HNO3 and 0.5% (mass fraction) K2Cr2O7 as the diluent to reduce loss 

of elemental mercury. Two approximately 100 ng/g natural mercury solutions were 

quantitatively prepared from SRM 3133 in 3% (mass fraction) HNO3 only. The natural and 

enriched Hg solutions were then mixed (by mass) to obtain four spike calibration solutions 

having a target 201Hg/202Hg ratio of 2:1. Thus, the mean spike concentration obtained from the 

four spike calibration mixes was used as the working concentration for the spike solution. The 

spike solution was periodically re-calibrated with freshly prepared SRM 3133 as even the 

K2Cr2O7 stabilizer could not indefinitely postpone the liberation of elemental Hg from the spike 

solution. The variability in the spike calibration (expressed as the percent relative standard 
METHODS (CONT.) 

13

deviation of the working spike concentration ± 1s) as calculated from four spike calibration 

mixes for n = 5 separate spike calibration experiments was 0.22% ± 0.03%. 

ID-CV-ICPMS Measurements 

The mercury reduction chemistry and sample introduction system has been described previously 

(Christopher et al., 2001) and is only briefly summarized here. The mercury in each sample 

solution was reduced to elemental Hg using a reductant solution of 10% (mass fraction) SnCl2 in 

7% (mass fraction) HCl in water. A gas-liquid separator was used to strip the Hg from the 

sample digest solutions using a stream of Ar gas (approximately 250 mL/min.). Delivery of Hg0

to the mass spectrometer was achieved by plumbing the gas output of the gas-liquid separator 

into the ICPMS injector line. A mass flow controller (AALBORG Model GFC 171, Greenwich, 

CT), controlled with LabView software and National Instruments (Austin, TX) data 

acquisition hardware, regulated gas flow through the gas-liquid separator. 

Numerous 201Hg/202Hg isotope ratio pairs were collected for all calibration and analytical 

samples using a Thermo Elemental PQ3 ICPMS operating in the time resolved analysis mode. 

The ICP power was maintained at 1350 W forward power and Ar gas flow rates were 13.5 

L/min., 0.85 L/min. and 0.81 L/min. for the coolant, auxiliary and injector lines, respectively. 

Each analytical run produced a temporal profile that consisted of a 240 s data collection window. 

Measurements during the first 20 s to 40 s of the profile when a 5% (mass fraction) HNO3 wash 

solution (and not a sample) was present in the gas-liquid separator established the reference 

baselines. A typical isotope-time profile is depicted in Fig. 2 for a spiked egg sample from East 

Amatuli Island. The mean of eight baseline-corrected 10 s integration windows was used to 

establish the measured 201Hg/202Hg isotope ratio for all spike calibration, blank, control and 

unknown samples. All data were corrected for detector dead time and mass discrimination using 

the methods outlined by Vanhaecke and coworkers (1998). 
METHODS (CONT.) 

14

Figure 2. Transient profiles for 201Hg (top trace) and 202Hg (bottom trace) and overlay of 

corresponding 201Hg/202Hg isotope ratio pairs for a 201Hg spiked common murre egg sample. 

Time (s)

0

100000

200000

300000

400000

500000

600000

700000

800000

900000

Intensity (CPS)

1.5

1.75

2

2.25

2.5

2.75

3

3.25

3.5

3.75

201Hg/202Hg Ratio

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240
15

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 

EGG COLLECTIONS, 1999 – 2002 

A total of 222 common and thick-billed murre and black-legged kittiwake egg clutches were 

collected between 1999 and 2002 from 12 different locations (Figure 3, Appendix B). 

Figure 3. Number of STAMP egg clutches collected in 1999 – 2002. Colors indicate colony 

locations (see Figure 1) and patterns indicate species. Abbreviations are standard for the project (see 

Appendix D): BOGO = Bogoslof Island; STGE = St. George Island; STLW = St. Lawrence Island; 

BLUF = Bluff; DIOM = Little Diomede Island; CLIS = Cape Lisburne; CTOM = Cape Tompson; 

STLA = St. Lazaria Island, MIDD = Middleton Island; SHBY = Shoup Bay; EAAM = East Amatuli 

Island; CHBY = Chiniak Bay; COMU = common murre; TBMU = thick-billed murre; BLKI = 

black-legged kittiwake; UNMU = murre species. 
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION (CONT.) 

15

PERSISTENT ORGANIC POLLUTANTS

Quality Control 

SRM 1946 and the Canadian Wildlife Service herring gull egg homogenate reference material 

values were within the standard deviations of the mean reported values for most compounds. 

The exceptions were slightly higher values (within 10%) in SRM 1946 for PCB congeners 105, 

118, and 195 and slightly lower values (within 10%) for cis- and trans-chlordane compared to 

the certified and reference values reported by Poster et al. (2003). For the herring gull egg 

homogenate, variances ranging from 6% to 69% were found for PCB congeners 44, 95, 66, 87, 

149, 158, 157, and heptachlor, oxychlordane, mirex, cis-nonachlor and 4,4’-DDT. β-HCH was 

not quantified in East Amatuli Island eggs and in eggs collected in 2000. The three aliquots of a 

thick-billed murre egg from St. George Island varied by less than 12% for all compounds (see 

Vander Pol 2002). 

Analytical Results 

Representative chromatograms of a murre egg are shown in Figures 4 and 5. The chlorinated 

hydrocarbon analytical data are presented in Appendix C. The major compounds in Alaskan 

murre eggs were 4,4’-DDE, ΣPCB (sum of the 46 congeners), HCB, β-HCH, and ΣCHL (sum of 

oxychlordane, trans-chlordane, cis-chlordane, trans-nonachlor, cis-nonachlor, and heptachlor 

epoxide). All values are presented on a lipid mass basis unless otherwise noted. The range of 

values were 387 ng/g to 1,376 ng/g for 4,4’-DDE in the Bering Sea (BS) colonies of Little 

Diomede, St. George, and Bogoslof islands and 713 ng/g to 3,687 ng/g for 4,4’-DDE in the Gulf 

of Alaska (GoA) colonies of East Amatuli and St. Lazaria islands, for ΣPCB: 293 ng/g to 1,603 

ng/g in the BS and 587ng/g to 2,966 ng/g in the GoA, for HCB: 196 ng/g to 677 ng/g in the BS 

and 321 ng/g to 1,057 ng/g in the GoA, for β-HCH: 73.3 ng/g to 283 ng/g in the BS and 59.0 

ng/g to 225 ng/g in the GoA, and for ΣCHL: 34.1 ng/g to 276 ng/g in the BS and 50.3 ng/g to 

321 ng/g in the GoA (Figure 6; Table 1). PCB congeners 153, 118, 138, 99, and 151 were major 

contributors to ΣPCBs, with ranges of 43.1 ng/g to 337 ng/g in the BS and 95.8 ng/g to 642 ng/g 

in the GoA for congener 153, 43.9 ng/g to 155 ng/g in the BS and 58.2 ng/g to 289 ng/g in the 

GoA for congener 118, 18.6 ng/g to 199 ng/g in the BS and 33.8 ng/g to 346 ng/g in the GoA for 

congener 138, 14.9 ng/g to 146 ng/g in the BS and 33.5 ng/g to 184, ng/g, in the GoA for 

congener 99, and <0.100 ng/g to 199 ng/g, in the BS and 9.16 ng/g to 183 ng/g in the GoA for 

congener 151 (Figure 7). On average, oxychlordane comprised 69.6% of all chlordane 

compounds, ranging from 37.5 ng/g to 197 ng/g in the BS and 20.7 ng/g to 141 ng/g in the GoA. 
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION (CONT.) 

16

Figure 4. Representative F1 chromatograms of a murre egg. The top chromatogram is from the 

DB-5 column and the bottom chromatogram is the DB-XLB column. .
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION (CONT.) 

17

Figure 5. Representative F2 chromatogram of a murre egg from the DB-5 column. 

20 25 30 35 40 45 

Hz

200400600800

10001200

 A-HCH

 B-HCH

 G-HCH

 HEPT.EPOX.

 TRANS-CHLOR

 D4 Endosulfan I

 CIS-CHLOR

 TRANS-NONA

 DIELDRIN

 ENDRIN

 Endosulfan II
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION (CONT.) 

18

Geographic Comparisons 

There were significant differences in chlorinated hydrocarbon concentrations observed among 

colonies (Wilks' λ = 0.0157, F28,142 = 11.0, p < 0.0001; Table 1). Except for HCB and β-HCH, 

contaminant concentrations tended to be significantly higher in eggs from St. Lazaria Island 

(Figure 6; Table 1). In addition, the pattern of contaminants varied among colonies as visualized 

by PCA. For the PCA of geographic differences in chlorinated hydrocarbon patterns among 

common murre egg colonies (including Little Diomede Island, Figures 8a and 8b), the first three 

principal components (PCs) accounted for 70% of the total variation. Samples with high 

concentrations of HCB, 4,4’-DDE, and dieldrin had low loadings on PCs 1 to 3, respectively, 

while high concentrations of PCB congeners 170 and 180, congeners 99 and 188, and congeners 

105 and 118 caused high loadings on PCs 1 to 3, respectively (Figure 8b). PC 1 appears to be 

related to vapor pressure. The PCA plot clearly shows the separation of the GoA colonies (upper 

right group consisting of East Amatuli and St. Lazaria islands) from the BS colonies (lower left 

group consisting Little Diomede and St. George islands), with Bogoslof Island (upright triangles) 

intermediate between the two areas (Figure 8a). The higher chlorinated hydrocarbon 

concentrations in the eggs from GoA colonies are similar to the pattern observed a quarter of a 

century ago in (Ohlendorf et al., 1982). 

The geographic difference in chlorinated hydrocarbon levels between the GoA and the BS 

colonies may be due to different foraging locations and concentration differences in the food 

webs. In addition, regionally specific differences in atmospheric and oceanic transport patterns, 

POPs source locations, and the role of over wintering areas for the individual colonies should 

also be considered. 
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION (CONT.) 

19

Figure 6. Concentrations (mean bars with 1 standard deviation error lines) of major persistent 

organic pollutants in eggs collected at murre (Uria spp.) colonies in 1999 and 2000. BO = 

Bogoslof Island, EA = East Amatuli Island, LD = Little Diomede Island, SG = St. George Island, 

and SL = St. Lazaria Island. CO = common murre eggs, TB = thick-billed murre eggs, and SP = 

murre species eggs. 
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION (CONT.) 

20

Figure 7. Fraction of PCB congeners to ∑PCBs separated by homolog group. Congener 

numbers based on IUPAC system. Abbreviations are the same as in Figure 6. 8 18 28 29 31 44 45 49 52 56+60 63 66 70+76 74 82 87 92+84+89 95 99 101+90 105 107 110 118 128 132 138 146 149 151 153 157 158 163 170 174 180 183 

187 193 194 195 201 206 209 

156+202+171 

9Cl 

2Cl 3Cl 4Cl 5Cl 6Cl 7Cl 8Cl 

10Cl 

6+8+7Cl 

BOCO

BOTB 

SGCO 

LDSP 

EACO

SGTB 

SLCO 

PCB Congeners and Homolog Groups

Fraction of 

ΣPCBs 

0.20 

0.15 

0.10 

0.05 

0.20 

0.15 

0.10 

0.05 

0.20 

0.15 

0.10 

0.05 

0.20 

0.15 

0.10 

0.05 

0.20 

0.15 

0.10 

0.05 

0.20 

0.15 

0.10 

0.05 

0.20 

0.15 

0.10 

0.05 
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION (CONT.) 

21

Table 1. Persistent organic pollutants in Alaska murre eggs. Values are means ± 1 SD in ng/g lipid corrected wet mTukey-Kramer HSD post-hoc tests were conducted to determine geographical differences. Colonies that do not share 

significantly different (p < 0.05). Post-hoc 2-factor ANOVAs were conducted to compare species differences. 

conducted on log + 1 transformed values to meet parametric assumptions. Abbreviations are the same as in Figure 6. 

% lipid1 12.8 ± 2.3 A 12.3 ± 1.6 A 10.9 ± 1.5 AB 8.97 ± 1.4 B 12.3 ± 0.87 A 10.5 ± 1.4 11.0 ± 1.4 

4,4'-DDE 572 ± 180 C 594 ± 150 C 712 ± 140 C 1570 ± 740 B 2440 ± 800 A 914 ± 170 1030 ± 240 

dieldrin 40.2 ± 17 A 32.6 ± 26 A 21.5 ± 6.0 A 21.6 ± 12 A 35.7 ± 31 A 23.3 ± 18 38.3 ± 27 HCB 685 ± 190 A 679 ± 68 A 576 ± 170 AB 478 ± 98 B 316 ± 72 C 510 ± 120 466 ± 84 α-HCH 10.0 ± 5.5 B 11.0 ± 4.5 B 22.3 ± 7.2 A 16.2 ± 7.5 AB 9.51 ± 4.0 B 17.4 ± 9.1 17.3 ± 4.0 β-HCH1 183 ± 63 161 ± 64 143 ± 50 0

γ-HCH 3.74 ± 3.1 AB 3.10 ± 2.5 AB 6.27 ± 1.3 A 15.9 ± 2.5 B 3.00 ± 1.3 B 5.9 ± 1.7 6.0 ± 1.6 

mirex 22.6 ± 14 A 14.5 ± 6.0 A 6.30 ± 3.4 B 20.6 ± 11 A 25.2 ± 14 A 6.3 ± 2.9 8.5 ± 5.1 ΣCHL 165 ± 67 133 ± 66 113 ± 30 132 ± 64 106 ± 65 93.7 ± 36 102 ± 28 ΣPCBs 758 ± 310 BC 695 ± 340 C 699 ± 200 BC 1130 ± 380 B 1970 ± 800 A 876 ± 320 811 ± 220 

DDE/PCB1 0.783 ± 0.14 B 0.937 ± 0.25 B 1.08 ± 0.34 AB 1.38 ± 0.42 A 1.33 ± 0.30 A 1.11 ± 0.26 1.30 ± 0.20 

β-HCH/ΣHCH1 0.928 ± .053 0.910 ± 0.068 0.919 ± 0.049 0

1 Compound not included in MANOVAs

* p > 0.05

BOTB 

2 Welch ANOVA used due to unequal variances.

Compound Lipid corrected wet mass means ± SD (ng/g) Ge

LDSP SGCO BOCO EACO SLCO SGTB
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION (CONT.) 

22

Figure 8. (a) Principle components analysis (PCA) showing geographical separation of Alaskan 

common murre (Uria aalge) eggs. Circles = Little Diomede Island (U. spp.), squares = St. 

George Island, triangles = Bogoslof Island, diamonds = East Amatuli Island, and upside-down 

triangles = St. Lazaria Island. (b) Geographical component loadings where numbers are PCB 

congeners based on IUPAC system. (c) PCA showing species separation of common murre (U. 

aalge, white) and thick-billed murre (U. lomvia, black) eggs from Bogoslof Island (triangles) St. 

George Island (circles). (d) Species component loadings where numbers are PCB congeners 

based on IUPAC system. 

-0.04

-0.02

0.00

0.02

0.04

0.06

0.08

0.10

-0.10

-0.05

0.00

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

0.25

-0.10

-0.08

-0.06 -0.04 -0.02 0.00 0.02 0.04

PC 3

PC 1

PC 2

-0.6

-0.4

-0.2

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

-0.4

-0.3

-0.2

-0.1

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

-0.3

-0.2

-0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4

P

C 3

PC 1

PC 2

 3 15

138

180 170

146

183

99

163

187

4,4'DDE

118

dieldrin

105

56+60

66

a-HCH

oxychlordane

28

HCB

a) b)

-0.10

-0.08

-0.06

-0.04

-0.02

0.00

0.02

0.04

-0.10

-0.08

-0.06

-0.04

-0.02

0.00

0.02

0.04

0.06

0.08

0.10

-0.10 -0.08 -0.06 -0.04 -0.02 0.00

PC 3

PC 1

PC 2

-0.4

-0.2

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

-0.6

-0.4

-0.2

0.0

0.2

0.4

-0.4

-0.2

0.0

0.2

0.4

PC 3

PC 1

PC 2

 0 18

138

170+190

153 183

187+182

4,4'-DDE

99

163

dieldrin

146

a-HCH

105

118

oxychlordane

56+60

HCB

66

28

c) d)
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION (CONT.) 

23

Species Comparisons 

Significant differences in chlorinated hydrocarbon concentrations were observed between the 

two closely related murre species (Wilks’ λ = 0.0853, approximate F12,80 = 10.2, p = <0.0001; 

Table 1). While it is difficult to see differences between species based on the concentrations 

(Figure 6, Table 1), the pattern of contaminants visualized by PCA shows much clearer 

separation (Figure 8c and 8d), with the first three PCs accounting for 71% of the total variation. 

Samples with high concentrations of HCB loaded low on PC1 and high concentrations of 4,4’-

DDE resulted in low loadings on PCs 2 and 3, while high concentrations of PCB congeners 180 

and 138, 187+182 and 170+190, and 66 and 28 resulted in high loadings and PCs 1 to 3, 

respectively (Figure 8d). While the PCA was conducted between common and thick-billed 

murre eggs, the colony locations are included in the plot of the PCA for ease of interpretation 

(Figure 8c). There was some separation of the common and thick-billed murre eggs when 

combining data from both colony locations and both species. However, species separation 

became more evident when examining colonies from Bogoslof and St. George islands 

individually as there was some separation between colonies within the species groupings (Figure 

8c). 

The separation observed in chlorinated hydrocarbon levels between common and thick-billed 

murre eggs may be due to species differences in foraging diving depth, type of prey, foraging 

areas, and/or over-wintering locations. Although common and thick-billed murres are both 

pursuit diving piscivores, there can be diet differences as reported for murres in the Bering Sea in 

the early 1980’s (Springer et al., 1986). Both common and thick-billed murres feed on sand 

lance, capelin, and cod. However, thick-billed murres tend to feed farther from shore at greater 

depths (> 61 m; Cramp, 1985) compared to common murres (>45 m; Cramp, 1985) and often 

prey on benthic species, such as pricklebacks, sculpins, and pandalid and crangonid shrimp, 

while common murres tend to feed closer to shore at shallower depths on mid-water fishes (e.g., 

Springer et al., 1984; Springer et al., 1986; Springer et al., 1987; Ehrlich et al., 1988; Kaufman, 

1996; Barrett et al., 1997). More hydrophobic compounds, such as DDT, tend to sorb to 

particles that sink and accumulate in sediments and benthic food webs (Bard, 1999) possibly 

explaining the higher concentrations of these POPs in eggs of the deeper diving thick-billed 

murre eggs. The different food preferences and diving depths combined result in resource 

partitioning by the two species and may help explain the separation in chlorinated hydrocarbon 

levels in the eggs. 

An additional factor that may be contributing to the differences observed in chlorinated 

hydrocarbon levels is over-wintering locations. However, because murres move into the 

breeding grounds several weeks prior to laying eggs (Ehrlich et al., 1988; Gaston and Hipfner, 

2000) and yolks are formed in 8-12 days (Roudybush et al., 1979) eggs should be indicative of 

contaminant concentrations at the breeding location, but the female may offload to the egg some 

residual contaminants obtained while at the wintering location. More data is needed for murres 

to determine the energetics of egg production. 
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION (CONT.) 

24

Temporal Comparisons 

Common murre colonies on St. George and Bogoslof islands were also included in a survey of 

contaminants in seabird eggs collected from 1973 to 1976 (Ohlendorf et al., 1982). Not all 

compounds measured in the current study were included in this earlier study. Also, the method 

for measuring PCBs during the 1970s (packed column GC, Aroclor method) is such that direct 

comparisons of our PCB values from the current study with this older data is not recommended 

(Eganhouse and Gossett, 1991; Turle et al., 1991). However, for other analytes that are common 

between the two data sets, comparisons can be made. 

At Bogoslof Island, Ohlendorf et al. (1982) determined 4,4’-DDE, cis-nonachlor, dieldrin, HCB, 

heptachlor epoxide, and oxychlordane concentrations in common murre eggs. All concentrations 

are reported as mean ± 1 SD on a wet mass basis. While concentrations of dieldrin were lower in 

the current study and thus did appear to be declining (34 ng/g ± 49 ng/g to 2.28 ng/g ± 0.50 

ng/g), only cis-nonachlor (8 ng/g ± 10 ng/g to 0.773 ng/g ± 0.43 ng/g) and 4,4’-DDE (119 ng/g 

± 15 ng/g to 77.0 ng/g ± 18 ng/g) were significantly (p < 0.05) lower in the current data set 

(Table 2). At St. George Island, the same compounds, except for cis-nonachlor were analyzed 

by Ohlendorf et al. (1982). The lower values of the current study suggest a significant decline 

for 4,4’-DDE (273 ng/g ± 270 ng/g to 73.5 ng/g ± 22 ng/g) and heptachlor epoxide (12 ng/g ± 

5.1 ng/g to 2.89 ng/g ± 1.3 ng/g) concentrations (Table 2). The lower concentrations observed in 

common murre eggs from both Bogoslof and St. George islands compared to values reported for 

the same locations by Ohlendorf et al. (1982) mirrors the declining trend of ΣDDT from the early 

1970’s to late1980’s reported for common murre eggs in the Baltic (Bignert et al., 1995) and for 

thick-billed murre eggs from Prince Leopold Island in the eastern Canadian high Arctic (Braune 

et al., 2001). 

Table 2. Temporal comparisons of persistent organic pollutants in Alaska murre eggs: results 

(ng/g wet mass) from the study by Ohlendorf et al. (1982) compared to results from current 

study. Results in bold were significant (p < 0.05). Abbreviations are the same as in Figure 6. 

Ohlendorf et al.(1982) This Study 

BOCO SGCO BOCO SGCO 

Collection Date 1973-1976 1973-1976 2000 1999 

Number of Eggs 7 11 9 11 

BOCO SGCO 

Compound 

Mean 

± SD 

Mean 

± SD 

Mean 

± SD 

Mean 

± SD t14 p t20 p 

4,4'- DDE 119 ± 15 273 ± 270 77.0 ± 18 73.5 ± 22 4.90 0.0002 2.45 0.0240

HCB 66 ± 43 79 ± 32 62.2 ± 20 83.7 ± 16 0.234 0.819 0.433 0.670 

cis-nonachlor 8 ± 10 0.773 ± 0.43 2.21 0.0459 

dieldrin 34 ± 49 9 ± 12 2.28 ± 0.50 4.16 ± 3.5 1.99 0.0677 1.28 0.214 

heptachlor epoxide 4 ± 4.1 12 ± 5.1 1.63 ± 1.2 2.89 ± 1.3 1.67 0.124 5.75 <0.001

oxychlordane 5 ± 3.7 18 ± 10 7.74 ± 2.3 9.70 ± 2.5 1.77 0.100 1.95 0.0649
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION (CONT.) 

25

The concentration of HCB appears to have remained fairly constant (means ranged from 62.2 

ng/g to 83.7 ng/g) for the past quarter century in common murre eggs at both Bogoslof and St. 

George islands (Table 2). This is likely due to continued HCB production as a by-product in the 

production of several industrial chemicals and waste incineration (ATSDR, 1996). While 

declining, the estimated global production of HCB from developed countries in the mid-1990’s 

was still 23,000 kg/yr (Bailey, 2001). Oxychlordane was not significantly different at either 

colony, but only at St. George Island did it appear to have declining concentrations (18 ng/g ± 10 

ng/g to 9.70 ng/g ± 2.5 ng/g; Table 2). Since chlordane compounds were banned for use in the 

U.S. in only 1988 (ATSDR, 1994), more time may be needed to observe a decrease in 

oxychlordane. All uses of aldrin and its breakdown product, dieldrin, were banned in the U.S. in 

1987 (ATSDR, 1993a) and since levels of dieldrin have declined (Table 2), but not significantly; 

these compounds may slowly be degrading from the environment as may heptachlor epoxide, the 

metabolite of heptachlor that was banned in the U.S. in 1988 (ATSDR, 1993b). A decline in 

heptachlor epoxide was observed at both colonies (Table 2), but this decline was only 

statistically significant at St. George Island. There was a significant decline of cis-nonachlor at 

Bogoslof Island (Table 2), but this compound was not reported by Ohlendorf et al. (1982) for St. 

George Island. 

Literature Comparisons 

Due to changes in methods, it is very difficult to make direct comparisons with literature values 

for contaminants in murre eggs. This is especially true for PCBs, as many of the early values 

were obtained using Aroclor standards and now most values are based on the sum of PCB 

congeners. Turle et al. (1991) reported concentrations of Aroclor 1254/1260 (1:1) were slightly 

more than twice the concentration of the sum of 41 PCB congeners in herring gull (Larus 

aegentatus) eggs. The sum of PCB congeners causes its own problems for comparison as 

different PCB congeners and different numbers of congeners are used to obtain the sum. 

However, several general observations for many contaminants can be made by comparing the 

current data with literature values (Table 3). All values are reported on a wet mass basis. 

Concentrations of contaminants were generally higher in eggs from Scandinavia than those from 

eastern Canada and Alaska. For example, 4,4’-DDE means ranged from 510 ng/g to 1070 ng/g 

in common murre eggs collected from Norway in 1972 versus 119 ng/g to 273 ng/g in Alaskan 

common murre eggs collected from 1973-1976. ΣCHL concentrations in the Alaska murre eggs 

from the current study (means ranged from 9.55 ng/g to 19.6 ng/g ) were generally lower than 

values from Canada or Norway in 1992 to 1998 (means ranged from 21 ng/g to 63 ng/g; Table 

3). Similar results were found for ΣPCBs in polar bears and ringed seals where lower levels 

were found in Alaska and highest levels were found in Scandinavia (Muir and Norstrom, 2000). 

The percent lipid in murre eggs generally appeared to be consistent among studies at 

approximately 12%, although the common murre eggs from East Amatuli Island in our study 

may be below average (8.97% ± 1.4%; Table 3). Thick-billed murre eggs in our study had 

concentrations of 4,4’-DDE (means were 94.6 ng/g and 115 ng/g) and HCB (means were 51.7 

ng/g and 52.5 ng/g) that were similar to the 1998 northeastern Canadian thick-billed murre eggs 

(means ranged from 100 ng/g to 141 ng/g and 53 ng/g to 54 ng/g for 4,4’-DDE and HCB, 

respectively; Table 3). Values of ΣHCHs in eggs from the current study where β-HCH was 

measurable were similar to concentrations reported in Canadian murre eggs collected in 1993 

and 1998 (means ranged from 19.1 ng/g to 25.0 ng/g versus 10 to 23 ng/g, respectively; Table 3).
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION (CONT.) 

26

Table 3. Literature values for POPs concentrations in murre (Uria spp.) eggs compared to current study. Meth

were either not stated in the methods (NS), based on Aroclor standards 1254 or 1:1 1254/1260 (A), or rep

congeners (∑ followed by number of congeners used). All values are in ng/g wet mass. References: 1. NFimreite et al., 1977, 3. Bignert et al., 1995, 4. Barrett et al., 1985, 5. Gabrielsen et al., 1995, 6. Barrett et al., 

1979, 8. Nettleship and Peakall, 1987, 9. Noble and Elliot, 1986, 10. Braune et al., 2001, 11. Braune et al., 20021982. 

Date Species Location PCB 

Collected Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Method Mean SD Mean SD Mea

Western Europe

1969-1972 U. aalge Skomer (SW Wales) 1570 1701 8500 12401 NS 

1969-1972 U. aalge Scare Rocks (SW Scotland) 1710 2151 12520 22101 NS 1969-1972 U. aalge St. Kilda (NW Scotland) 600 501 490 3351 NS 

May 1972 U. aalge 71o05'N-Hjelmsoy, Norway 132 8.5-253 740 180 2010 760 NS 

May 1972 U. aalge 70o20'N-Hornoy, Norway 132 8.5-253 1070 480 3230 1500 NS 

May 1972 U. aalge 67o30'N- Rost, Norway 132 8.5-253 890 420 2080 1190 NS 

May 1972 U. aalge 62o25'N-Runde, Norway 132 8.5-253 510 160 1450 510 NS 

1974-76&79 U. aalge Stora Karlso, Central Baltic 12.1 0.56 290 86 230 56 NS 

1980 U. aalge Skomer (SW Wales) 1010 2251 2350 17701 NS 

1980 U. aalge Scare Rocks (SW Scotland) 1230 801 5450 8201 NS 1980 U. aalge St. Kilda (NW Scotland) 990 2051 1520 4601 NS 1983 U. aalge E. Finnmark (Norway) 11 1 940 230 640 180 A 170 40 134 

1983 U. aalge W. Finnmark (Norway) 12.2 3.6 690 240 700 290 A 130 40 74 1983 U. aalge S. Troms/N. Nordland (Norway) 10.5 1.4 490 90 360 120 A 90 10 64 1983 U. aalge Lofoten (Norway) 11.1 2.1 330 70 790 340 A 130 40 54 1990 U. spp. Bear I., Svalbard 14.30 2.69 229 54 465 210 Σ 21 83 21 235 15 2 

1992-1993 U. aalge E. Finnmark (Norway) 11.77 1.28 250 30 480 60 Σ 21 90 10 40 10 2.27

1992-1993 U. lomvia E. Finnmark (Norway) 11.26 0.76 340 50 530 140 Σ 21 110 10 50 10 3.591992-1993 U. aalge Kola Pen. (Norway) 11.73 1.59 310 190 980 280 Σ 21 100 20 40 10 2.881992-1993 U. lomvia Kola Pen. (Norway) 11.39 1.24 290 40 920 80 Σ 21 100 10 40 0 4.111992-1993 U. lomvia Svalbard (Norway) 12.36 0.41 400 170 500 70 Σ 21 70 20 40 20 5.82

Eastern Canada

1971 U. aalge 50o10'-60oN-Ile Ste-Marie, Quebec 17 2030 2210 A 

1975 U. lomvia Prince Leopold I. 12.6 310 720 A 

1975 U. lomvia Prince Leopold I. 12.6 0.65 297 152 708 267 A 97 39 18.45 6.4 3.54 

1976 U. lomvia Prince Leopold I. 12.4 1.21 2326 281 360 591 Σ 67 1427 181 36 31 12 

1976 U. lomvia Prince Leopold I. 14.3 440 1010 A 

1976 U. lomvia Prince Leopold I. 14.3 340 230 A 127 305 104 

1977 U. lomvia Prince Leopold I. 11.7 0.41 2326 221 346 451 Σ 67 1177 211 26 81 11 

1977 U. lomvia Prince Leopold I. 12.6 390 910 A 

1 SE 2 Mean for group 3 Range 4 β-HCH 5 Oxychlordane 6 ΣDDT 7 ΣChlorobenzenes

% lipid 4,4'-DDE ΣPCB HCB ΣCHL Σ
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION (CONT.) 

27

Table 3 (Cont.). Literature values for POPs concentrations in murre eggs compared to current study. Methods t

either not stated in the methods (NS), based on Aroclor standards 1254 or 1:1 1254/1260 (A), or reported as sum 

followed by number of congeners used). All values are in ng/g wet mass. References: 1. Newton et al., 1981, 2

3. Bignert et al., 1995, 4. Barrett et al., 1985, 5. Gabrielsen et al., 1995, 6. Barrett et al., 1996, 7. Pearce et al., 1

Peakall, 1987, 9. Noble and Elliot, 1986, 10. Braune et al., 2001, 11. Braune et al., 2002, 12. Ohlendorf et al., 19

Date Species Location PCB 

Collected Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Method Mean SD Mean SD Mea

Eastern Canada (Cont.)

1977 U. lomvia Prince Leopold I. 12.64 1.43 377 152 854 434 A 109 35 245 8.1 114 

1987 U. lomvia Prince Leopold I. 11.4 0.91 1566 191 210 251 Σ 67 857 101 33 21 19 

1988 U. lomvia Prince Leopold I. 10.8 0.51 1046 161 167 271 Σ 67 857 21 33 31 13 1993 U. lomvia Prince Leopold I. 11.4 0.41 1396 211 149 201 Σ 67 547 61 24 31 20 

1993 U. lomvia Prince Leopold I. 13.5 0.51 1346 141 155 81 Σ 42 497 81 21 21 22 1993 U. lomvia Coburg I. 12.2 0.21 3096 371 420 181 Σ 42 787 81 39 11 18 1993 U. lomvia Digges I. 12.5 0.11 3116 291 434 381 Σ 42 1297 71 63 61 18 1993 U. lomvia Coats I. 14.5 0.31 3266 351 360 391 Σ 42 1247 91 58 41 23 1998 U. lomvia Coats I. 12.4 0.21 1416 81 172 111 Σ 42 547 51 24 21 10 1998 U. lomvia Prince Leopold I. 12.9 0.41 1006 81 129 81 Σ 42 537 31 29 41 17 1998 U. lomvia Prince Leopold I. 12.9 0.41 1006 71 130 91 Σ 67 537 21 30 41 17 

Alaska

1973 U. aalge Bogoslof I. (Aleutian Islands) 9.312 0.17 119 15 126 46 A 66 40 55 4 

1974&1976 U. lomvia Ugaiushak I. (Gulf of Alaska) 9.082 0.22 147 41 259 301 A 195 18 

1974 U. aalge Ugaiushak I. (Gulf of Alaska) 9.312 0.17 202 213 168 300 A 27 15 85 7 

1975 U. aalge St. George I. (Bering Sea) 9.312 0.17 273 266 270 85 A 79 32 185 10 

1975 U. aalge St. Paul I. (Bering Sea) 9.312 0.17 135 56 205 73 A 80 29 265 11 1976 U. aalge Middleton I. (Gulf of Alaska) 9.312 0.17 649 518 1050 1371 A 425 15 1976 U. aalge Bluff (Seward Peninsula) 9.312 0.17 141 63 182 77 A 111 49 235 16 1976 U. lomvia King I. (Bering Sea) 9.082 0.22 166 74 307 124 A 98 54 215 8 

1999 U. aalge St. Lazaria I. (Gulf of Alaska) 12.3 0.87 298 91 241 99 Σ 46 38.7 7.8 11.5 9.8 19.1 

1999 U. aalge East Amatuli I. (Gulf of Alaska) 8.97 1.4 142 79 99.1 31 Σ 46 42.2 9.5 11.7 6.1 1.79 1999 U. aalge St. George I. (Bering Sea) 12.3 1.6 73.5 22 86.4 45 Σ 46 83.7 16 15.0 7.6 21.5 1999 U. spp. Little Diomede I. (Bering Sea) 12.8 2.3 70.3 12 92.8 25 Σ 46 85.5 19 19.6 5.6 25.0 2000 U. aalge Bogoslof I. (Aleutian Islands) 10.9 1.5 77.0 18 76.2 25 Σ 46 62.2 20 12.0 2.9 3.09 2000 U. lomvia Bogoslof I. (Aleutian Islands) 11.0 1.4 115 33 90.6 29 Σ 46 51.7 12 11.3 3.4 2.55 2000 U. lomvia St. George I. (Bering Sea) 10.5 1.4 94.6 14 88.8 22 Σ 46 52.5 10 9.55 2.5 2.31 

1 SE 2 Mean for group 3 Range 4 β-HCH 5 Oxychlordane 6 ΣDDT 7 ΣChlorobenzenes

% lipid 4,4'-DDE ΣPCB HCB ΣCHL Σ
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION (CONT.) 

28

Human Health and Ecological Implications 

Overall, the levels of POPs in the Alaskan murre eggs were relatively low. Many studies have 

documented the declines in eggshell thickness in birds exposed to DDE (e.g., Hickey and 

Anderson, 1968). Pyle et al. (1999) found that oxychlordane, but not DDE, was significantly 

correlated with eggshell thinning in common murre eggs at concentrations between 6-12 ng/g. 

Although concentrations of oxychlordane in murre eggs collected during this study were similar 

to these levels, neither oxychlordane nor 4,4’-DDE concentrations were correlated with shell 

thickness (R2

 = -0.11, p = 0.373 and R2 = -0.13, p = 0.304, respectively). In addition, the 

concentrations of POPs found in murre eggs in this study are lower than concentrations found to 

affect birds (U.S. Department of the Interior, 1975; Gilman et al., 1978; U.S. Department of the 

Interior, 1984; Barron et al., 1995; Sanderson and Bellward, 1995; Fox et al., 1998). 

The contaminant risks to human health from consumption of murre eggs appear to be lower than 

those associated with marine mammals. Based on the Health Canada acceptable or tolerable 

daily intake (ADI/TDI) levels (Van Oostdam et al., 1999), a 50-kg person could consume more 

than one murre egg per day from any colony without exceeding the recommendation for any 

compound (Table 4). The mass range of murre eggs are almost twice the average mass range of 

USDA classified “large” chicken eggs (Agriculture Marketing Service, 1995). For many POPs, 

a large mass (> 90 g based on mean egg content mass and lowest number of eggs safely 

consumed) of murre eggs must be consumed daily to exceed the ADI/TDI. These calculations 

consider murre eggs as the only source of POPs in the daily diet of a 50-kg person. If that person 

were also ingesting other sources of contaminants, such as marine mammal fat, which has much 

higher levels of many POPs, then the additional POPs consumed in murre eggs may cause 

concern for some pollutants such as chlordanes and HCB. 

Table 4. Canadian acceptable or tolerable daily intakes (ADI/TDI) for several contaminants 

(Van Oostdam et al., 1999). The ADI/TDIs have been extrapolated to determine the maximum 

number of murre eggs a 50-kg person could consume based on the mean concentration of 

contaminants from the colonies in this study and not exceed the ADI/TDI. Abbreviations are the 

same as in Figure 6. 

Canada ADI/TDI max # eggs a 50-kg person can consume under Canada ADI/TDI Contaminant 

(ng*kg body wt-1*day-1) LDSP SLCO SGCO EACO SGTB BOTB BOCO 

ΣDDT 20,000 144 38 135 76 116 96 148 

ΣPCBs 1000 5 2 6 5 6 6 7 

ΣHCH 300 6 9 7 63 71 67 57 

ΣCHL 50 1 2 2 2 3 2 2 

ΣHeptachlor 100 11 21 19 25 46 14 36 

HCB 270 1 4 1 3 2 3 2 

Aldrin/dieldrin 100 10 13 13 29 24 12 26 

Mirex 70 14 13 21 21 63 41 62 

Mercury 714 7 2 15 2 
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION (CONT.) 

29

MERCURY 

Isotope Dilution Method 

Isotope dilution techniques such as ID-CV-ICPMS for Hg determinations are often used at NIST 

for high-accuracy measurements needed for the certification of analytes in NIST Standard 

Reference Materials. Analytical uncertainties are robustly determined and the precision of the 

technique allows heterogeneity of reference material batches to be assessed. However, many 

laboratories view isotope dilution methods unsuited for routine environmental measurements that 

typically feature large sample numbers and wide-ranging differences in analyte concentration. 

For example, the natural variation of Hg mass fraction in the 41 common murre eggs studied 

here ranged from approximately 0.010 μg/g to 0.360 μg/g, making it challenging to design an 

optimal ID experiment for each “unique” sample. A discussion follows that considers the use of 

ID-CV-ICPMS under conditions with wide ranging variability in Hg burdens. 

Error Magnification and ICPMS Isotope Ratio Measurements 

The ID-CV-ICPMS experiments involve measuring 201Hg/202Hg isotopic ratios of spiked 

samples. The uncertainty in ratio measurement is propagated non-linearly in the calculated 

concentration; the sensitivity factor is called the “error magnification factor.” Ideally, a sample 

should be spiked with the amount of 201Hg that minimizes the error magnification factor. For the 

201Hg spike used here, the error magnification factor is plotted against isotope dilution 

201Hg/202Hg ratios in Fig. 9. The error magnification blows up if the sample is either 

“underspiked” or “overspiked” (Fassett and Paulsen, 1989). The effective dynamic range for 

spiking and ratio measurement (where the error magnification factor is between 1.2 and 2) 

extends over roughly a range from 0.8 to 50. Practically, there are other considerations that 

favor ratio measurements of 1.00. Figure 10 shows the measured 201Hg/202Hg ratios collected for 

all batches of unknown, blank and control samples in the form of a radar plot. The experiment 

was designed so that most of the samples were spiked at a 201Hg/202Hg ratio between 1.5 and 10, 

coinciding with the lowest part of the error magnification curve in Fig. 9. Allowing for some 

variability in the measured ratios greatly improves the ability to automate the spiking process, 

using the same quantity of spike aliquot for each sample, with the exception of the blank, where 

the size of the aliquot is reduced to minimize the error magnification factor. Nonetheless, the 

blank samples remain overspiked indicating that there is only a small amount of contamination 

introduced from the analytical method. Blank corrections are on the order of approximately 1% 

to 4% for most of the egg samples, with a typical blank having an absolute value of 

approximately 0.3 ng. For some of the lowest Hg content eggs collected from Little Diomede 

and Saint George Islands, the typical uncertainty of the blank correction (approximately 0.17 

ng/g) is on par with the uncertainty obtained from the ratio measurement, whereas for the higher 

Hg content eggs, the uncertainty due to the blank correction is nearly an order of magnitude 

lower than the ratio measurement uncertainty. 

 
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION (CONT.) 

30

33.4

24.7

12.4

8.5

3.8

2.2 1.8 1.3 1.2 1.2 1.3 1.9

5.9

38.8

-5

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

0.1 1 10 100

Measured 201Hg/202Hg Ratio

Error Magnification Factor

Figure 9. Error magnification factor as a function of measured 201Hg/202Hg ratio. 
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION (CONT.) 

31

Figure 10. Radar plot showing all measured 201Hg/202Hg isotope dilution ratios (log axis) for 

each sample batch. 

0.1

1

10

100

Little Diomede

St. Lazaria

St. George

E. Amatuli

SRM 2976

Blank

2

3

4

5

8 6

7

9

10

11

12
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION (CONT.) 

32

Method Accuracy, Reproducibility and Uncertainty 

A control chart for SRM 2976 (Fig. 11) verifies the method accuracy across multiple analysis 

batches (project duration approximately 3 months). A method reproducibility study was 

conducted on two egg samples to help establish an uncertainty budget for the remaining eggs that 

were subjected to only a single determination. Method reproducibility results expressed as 

percent relative standard deviation (RSD) for single homogenized egg samples from Little 

Diomede Island (representing a low Hg concentration sample) and East Amatuli Island 

(representing a high Hg concentration sample) were 1.25% and 0.64%, respectively. Each result 

is based on four sample aliquots taken through the analytical spiking, weighing, digestion and 

measurement processes. The measurement reproducibility reflects the precision of ratio 

measurement, sample homogeneity, and other sources of variability in the isotope dilution 

method, including weighing precision and sample contamination. 

The Hg mass fraction values and corresponding expanded uncertainties for each egg are 

presented in Fig. 12 and Appendix D. The individual components of uncertainty for Hg in each 

egg sample were determined according to ISO guidelines (Taylor and Kuyatt, 1994). Type A 

uncertainty components included sample measurement, spike calibration and blank correction. 

Type B uncertainty contributions included weighing measurements on a balance possessing 

0.001 g resolution, uncertainty in concentration for the NIST SRM 3133 calibrant and instrument 

mass discrimination. 

The Type A uncertainty contributions for each egg sample were first compiled in relative terms 

before conversion into absolute mass fraction terms. The reproducibility data presented in the 

previous paragraph were used to estimate the sample measurement repeatability for each egg 

sample where only a single measurement was collected (n = 1 measurement, 3 degrees of 

freedom). The RSD of 1.25% was used to estimate the measurement reproducibility for all of 

the eggs collected on Little Diomede and Saint George Islands, i.e., the eggs from the islands in 

the Bering Sea that possessed low relative Hg content. Similarly, an RSD of 0.64% was used to 

estimate the measurement reproducibility for all of the eggs collected on East Amatuli and Saint 

Lazaria Islands, i.e., the eggs from the islands in the Gulf of Alaska that possessed a high relative 

Hg content. The RSD obtained from the measurement of four spike calibration mixes was used 

to estimate the contribution of uncertainty from the spike concentration. Finally, the standard 

deviation for 11 blank measurements was ratioed to each egg’s Hg concentration to obtain a 

blank uncertainty component based on a single measurement with 10 degrees of freedom for the 

blank correction. 

The Type B uncertainty contributions for each egg sample were also compiled in relative terms 

before conversion into absolute mass fraction terms. The calibrant certification uncertainty is 

derived from the expanded uncertainty reported in the certificate of SRM 3133. The reported 

expanded uncertainty was converted to a standard uncertainty by dividing by 2 and expressed in 

relative terms by dividing by the concentration of Hg in the SRM. The uncertainty contribution 

from mass discrimination (0.34% RSD) was derived from experimental biases observed over the 

course of the project while collecting dead time-corrected 201Hg/202Hg isotope ratios for 

approximately 1 ng/g solutions of SRM 3133. 
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION (CONT.) 

33

0.048

0.052

0.056

0.06

0.064

0.068

0.072

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Batch Number

Hg Mass Fraction (

μg/g)

Figure 11. Control chart for mercury mass fraction (μg/g) in SRM 2976 Mussel Tissue (Trace 

Elements and Methylmercury), total mercury certified value = 0.0610 μg/g ± 0.0036 μg/g. 
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION (CONT.) 

34

0.000

0.050

0.100

0.150

0.200

0.250

0.300

0.350

0.400

Saint George Saint Lazaria Little Diomede East Amatuli

Hg Mass Fraction (

μg/g)

Figure 12. Mass fraction value (μg/g) and expanded uncertainty for each individual mercury 

wet mass fraction determination. 
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION (CONT.) 

35

Data Analysis and Geographic Comparisons 

The mercury analytical data are presented in Appendix D. The mercury mass fraction data plot 

for the eggs collected from each colony (Fig. 13) shows that the colony means and medians are 

similar. This suggests that the data are normally distributed, an atypical result for environmental 

contaminant data. Constructing normal plots (quartile vs. mercury mass fraction) for the data 

and applying the Shapiro-Wilk test for non-normality formally tested the normality assumption. 

For example, a normal plot generated for the 11 eggs collected from Saint George Island showed 

a high degree of linearity (y = 121.06x - 3.06, R2

 = 0.975). This indication of data normality was 

also confirmed by the output of the corresponding Shapiro-Wilk test (coefficient = 0.9748 and p 

= 0.934 at 95% confidence level). Applying normality tests to the remaining colonies produced 

similar results. A one-way analysis of variance (F = 38.6, p < 0.0001) and pair-wise 

comparisons across the four colonies indicate that the eggs collected from the two colonies in the 

Gulf of Alaska (Saint Lazaria and East Amatuli Islands) are significantly higher in mercury 

content than the eggs collected from the two colonies in the Bering Sea (Little Diomede and 

Saint George Islands). This pattern is similar to that of PCBs, 4,4’-DDE, and ΣCHL, with the 

eggs from the GoA having significantly higher concentrations than eggs from the BS (refer to the 

results presented previously in this report). 

The normally distributed data of this study implies that the female birds (and eggs) of a particular 

colony are exposed to mercury that is ubiquitously incorporated in local food webs. However, 

the differences in common murre egg mercury content in the Bering Sea versus the Gulf of 

Alaska imply that either the quantity or bioavailability of regionally deposited mercury is 

significantly different in the two regions. One factor that may be influencing mercury uptake 

and deposition in common murre eggs is differences in rates of wet and dry deposition of 

mercury into coastal Alaska. Mercury deposition will be influenced by meteorology, gas phase 

chemistry and terrain. The Alaskan coast along the Bering Sea features a relatively flat, rocky 

coastline when compared to the coastline bordering the Gulf of Alaska, which possesses a more 

mountainous and heavily forested topography, with higher annual precipitation (Sugden, 1982; 

AMAP, 1998). Although the propensity for mercury to be deposited through wet and dry 

scavenging events and washed into Low Arctic wetlands and the coastal zone through 

precipitation and snowmelt events is necessarily higher in the Gulf of Alaska region, deposited 

mercury must become bioavailable through methylation processes before it can accumulate in 

the foodweb of seabirds. We speculate that mercury deposition and methylation rates are greater 

in the coastal area of the Gulf of Alaska than that of the Bering Sea. An increase in Hg 

methylation efficiency would presumably result from greater microbial activity in a more 

seasonally temperate climate with higher surface air (Parkinson et al., 1987) and water (Wilson 

et al., 1998) temperatures that possesses a higher percentage of organic matter at the forest soilsurface water interface (Schroeder and Munthe, 1998). 

The migration patterns of both the birds and their prey must be considered as well. In the nonbreeding season, common murres tend to stay north in their respective habitats (Cramp, 1985; 

Kaufman, 1996), so migration of the birds themselves is not likely to account for the differences 

in mercury content among the Bering Sea and Gulf of Alaska colonies. The roles that prey 

migration and food web effects have on contaminant uptake in Alaskan common murres need to 

be studied. Finally, the Alaska Coastal Current may also provide a waterborne influx of 
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION (CONT.) 

36

nutrients and contaminants to the Gulf of Alaska region, which may indirectly impact mercury 

methylation efficiencies. 

Figure 13. Mercury mass fraction data: mean ± 95% confidence interval and median (dashed 

line) plotted as a function of island location. 

Literature Comparisons 

The concentrations of mercury in common murre eggs from Alaska were compared with 

previously published data published (Table 5). The mean concentrations of mercury in the Gulf 

of Alaska common murres (the two colonies with the highest concentrations) were slightly lower 

but within the same order of magnitude as was most recently reported in murre eggs from Prince 

Leopold Island, Canada (Braune et al., 2001 and 2002). The levels in the Gulf of Alaska 

common murres were the same as levels reported by Barrett et al. (1996) for thick-billed murre 

eggs collected in the early 1990s from Svalbard and in common murre eggs from Farrallon 

Islands off the coast of California in 1993 (Sydeman & Jarman, 1998). 

0.000

0.025

0.050

0.075

0.100

0.125

0.150

0.175

0.200

0.225

0.250

0.275

0.300

Saint George Little Diomede East Amatuli Saint Lazaria

Hg Mass Fraction (

μg/g)

Gulf of Alaska Colonies

Bering Sea Colonies
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION (CONT.) 

37

Mercury levels in the thick-billed murre eggs, which have been monitored at Prince Leopold 

Island since the mid-1970s, indicate that a significant increase in this metal has occurred over the 

last 30 years. In comparison, common and thick-billed murre eggs from the Barents Sea have 

been monitored since 1983; however, there has been little change in the level of mercury for 

these colonies (Barrett et al. 1996), while mercury concentrations decreased in common murre 

eggs from 1969-1972 to 1980 in Norway (Newton et al., 1981). Additional monitoring of the 

Alaskan colonies will be required to determine which trend is occurring in the Bering Sea and 

Gulf of Alaska 

Human Health and Ecological Implications 

Based on the Health Canada ADI/TDI for total mercury of 714 ng·kg body wt-1·day-1 (Van 

Oostdam et al., 1999) a 50 kg person could safely consume at least two murre eggs per day 

(Table 4). The amount of safe consumption will most likely decrease after methylmercury 

values are assigned to the murre eggs. The Health Canda ADI/TDI for methylmercury is 470 

ng·kg body wt-1·day-1 (Van Oostdam et al., 1999) and large percentage (>85%) of total mercury 

is expected to be methylmercury based on other studies of methylmercury in northern aquatic 

bird species eggs (Paasivrta et al., 1981; Scheuhammer et al., 2001). Exposure to mercury may 

cause adverse effects to the nervous system, particularly brain function, digestive system, and 

kidneys, and exposure to fetuses and young children may cause developmental disabilities 

(ATSDR, 1999). 

In birds, mercury causes reproductive problems including reduced egg weight, reduced 

hatchability, increased embryo and chick abnormalities, and reduced survival. Mercury levels of 

at least 500 ng/g wet mass in eggs are usually associated with these effects (see review by Burger 

and Gochfeld, 1997). The levels of mercury in murre eggs from this study ranged from 11 – 357 

ng/g wet mass and thus should not have a reproductive effect on the population. In deed, the 

mercury concentration was not correlated with egg mass (R2

 = 0.00, p = 0.995). 
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION (CONT.) 

38

Table 5. Literature values for total mercury (ng/g wet mass) in common (U. aalge) and thickbilled (U. lomvia) murre eggs compared to current study. 

Date Species Location Number Reference

Collected Mean SD of eggs

Western Europe

1969-1972 U. aalge Skomer (SW Wales) 4370 3501 10 Newton et al. (1981)

1969-1972 U. aalge Scare Rocks (SW Scotland) 8050 12651 10 Newton et al. (1981)

1969-1972 U. aalge St. Kilda (NW Scotland) 1500 2001 10 Newton et al. (1981)

1980 U. aalge Skomer (SW Wales) 1040 1951 10 Newton et al. (1981)

1980 U. aalge Scare Rocks (SW Scotland) 2940 2201 10 Newton et al. (1981)

1980 U. aalge St. Kilda (NW Scotland) 760 751 10 Newton et al. (1981)

1983 U. aalge E. Finnmark (Norway) 120 40 10 Barrett et al. (1985)

1983 U. aalge W. Finnmark (Norway) 110 60 9 Barrett et al. (1985)

1983 U. aalge S. Troms/N. Nordland (Norway) 130 40 7 Barrett et al. (1985)

1983 U. aalge Lofoten (Norway) 80 10 8 Barrett et al. (1985)

1992-1993 U. aalge E. Finnmark (Norway) 100 40 5 Barrett et al. (1996)

1992-1993 U. aalge Kola Pen. (Norway) 80 10 5 Barrett et al. (1996)

1992-1993 U. lomvia Kola Pen. (Norway) 70 20 5 Barrett et al. (1996)

1992-1993 U. lomvia Svalbard (Norway) 200 60 5 Barrett et al. (1996)

1992-1993 U. lomvia E. Finnmark (Norway) 100 20 5 Barrett et al. (1996)

Eastern Canada

1971 U. aalge Ile Ste-Marie (Quebec) 120 51 4 Pearce et al. (1979)

1977 U. lomvia Prince Leopold I.2 150 13 3 pools of 3 Braune et al. (2001)

1987 U. lomvia Prince Leopold I.2 269 16 3 pools of 3 Braune et al. (2001)

1988 U. lomvia Prince Leopold I.2 268 8 3 pools of 3 Braune et al. (2001)

1993 U. lomvia Prince Leopold I.2 303 27 5 pools of 3 Braune et al. (2001)

1993 U. lomvia Prince Leopold I.2 295 27 5 pools of 3 Braune et al. (2002)

1993 U. lomvia Coburg I.2 423 6 5 pools of 3 Braune et al. (2002)

1993 U. lomvia Digges I.2 238 30 5 pools of 3 Braune et al. (2002)

1993 U. lomvia Coats I.2 237 12 5 pools of 3 Braune et al. (2002)

1998 U. lomvia Prince Leopold I.2 330 19 5 pools of 3 Braune et al. (2001)

1998 U. lomvia Prince Leopold I.2 332 28 5 pools of 3 Braune et al. (2002)

1998 U. lomvia Coats I.2 176 25 5 pools of 3 Braune et al. (2002)

Western United States

1993 U. aalge Farrallon I. (California)2 154 62 12 Jarman et al. (1996)

1993 U. aalge Farrallon I. (California)2 196 70 15 Sydeman & Jarman (1998)

1999 U. aalge St. Lazaria I. (Alaska) 207 57 10 This study

1999 U. aalge East Amatuli I. (Alaska) 200 76 11 This study

1999 U. aalge St. George I. (Alaska) 26 8.1 11 This study

1999 U. spp. Little Diomede I. (Alaska) 53 20 9 This study

1

Standard Error

2

Published dry mass concentrations converted to wet mass using mean moisture content published for colony

Hg
39

CONCLUSIONS 

In the three years since its inception, STAMP has collected 222 Alaskan seabird egg clutches 

from three species (common murres, thick-billed murres, and black-legged kittiwakes) over a 

large geographic area from southeast Alaska near Sitka to the Aleutian Islands in the west and to 

Cape Lisburne in the north. These specimens are available for research now and a portion of 

each has been banked for future researchers. Current analyses of murre eggs have shown 

significant geographical differences in concentrations of POPs and mercury. Analysis of eggs 

from mixed colonies of common and thick-billed murres eggs have also revealed species 

differences. Comparison of our results to data published on eggs collected from the same 

colonies in the 1970s, suggests that some compounds might be decreasing in the environment 

(i.e., 4,4’-DDE, some chlordane compounds, and possibly PCBs) This is consistent with what 

has been reported by Braune et al. (2001) for seabird colonies in the high Canadian arctic. 

The application of ID-CV-ICPMS to the measurement of mercury in seabird eggs had several 

benefits including: high accuracy, good method reproducibility, and the ability to estimate errors 

and uncertainty for a single analytical determination. The accuracy and uncertainty of critical 

environmental mercury measurements must be verified as this information may ultimately be 

used by wildlife health assessors to determine the impact of mercury contamination on colonial 

seabirds in the Alaska Maritime National Wildlife Refuge and by organizations concerned with 

identifying health issues that impact native Alaskan peoples. 

A major factor in differences between murre species and geographic differences among the same 

species may be food web related. Determining carbon and nitrogen stable isotope ratios and 

fatty acid profiles should help to ascertain if trophic level differences exist between species and 

colonies. The effect of over-wintering locations and feeding during over-wintering on 

concentrations in eggs is also poorly understood. Gut content analysis of female murres, tagging 

or tracking of the female birds and their prey to determine winter distributions, and analyzing 

prey items for POPs and mercury may help to explain some of the geographical and species 

differences. Also, there is always some question regarding identifying the species of origin for a 

murre egg when it is collected from a mixed colony of both common and thick-billed murres. 

Genetic analysis of the eggshells would be helpful in verifying the species collected as eggs 

appear very similar. This would also be useful for determining if any hybrids were among the 

eggs analyzed. As for the temporal changes, STAMP will continue to collect and bank eggs, 

while expanding the number of species and colonies, so future analyses can use the stored 

samples to eliminate methodological differences, thus enabling accurate temporal comparisons. 
40

REFERENCES 

Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR). 1993a. Toxicological profile for 

aldrin and dieldrin. Atlanta, GA: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health 

Service. 

Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR). 1993b. Toxicological profile for 

heptachlor and heptachlor epoxide. Atlanta, GA: U.S. Department of Health and Human 

Services, Public Health Service. 

Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR). 1994. Toxicological profile for 

chlordane (update). Atlanta, GA: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health 

Service. 

Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR). 1996. Toxicological profile for 

hexachlorobenzene. Atlanta, GA; U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health 

Service. 

Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR). 1999. Toxicological profile for 

mercury. Atlanta, GA: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service. 

Agricultural Marketing Service. 1995. “How to buy eggs” Home and Garden Bulletin No. 264. 

United States Department of Agriculture. http://www.ams.usda.gov/howtobuy/eggs.htm (March 

4, 2002). 

AMAP. 1998. AMAP Assessment Report: Arctic Pollution Issues. Arctic Monitoring and 

Assessment Programme (AMAP), Oslo, Norway. 

AMAP. 2002. Arctic Pollution 2002. Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme (AMAP), 

Oslo, Norway. 

Bailey, R. E. 2001. Global hexachlorobenzene emissions. Chemosphere 43:167-182. 

Baird, P. H. 1994. Black-legged kittiwake (Rissa tridactyla). In The Birds of North America, No. 92 

(A. Poole and F. Gill, eds.). Philadelphia: The Academy of Natural Sciences; Washington D.C: The 

American Ornithologists’ Union. 

Bard, S. M. 1999. Global transport of anthropogenic contaminants and the consequences for the 

Arctic marine ecosystem. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 35(5):356-379. 

Barrett, R. T., M. Asheim, and V. Bakken. 1997. Ecological relationships between two sympatric 

congeneric species, common murres and thick-billed murres, Uria aalge and U. lomvia, breeding in 

the Barents Sea. Can. J. Zool. 75:618-631. 
REFERENCES (CONT.) 

41

Barrett, R. T., J. U. Skaare, and S. W. Gabrielsen. 1996. Recent changes in levels of persistent 

organochlorines and mercury in eggs of seabirds from the Barents Sea. Environ. Poll. 92:13-18. 

Barrett, R. T., J. U. Skaare, G. Norheim, W. Vader, and A. Frøslie. 1985. Persistent 

organochlorines and mercury in eggs of Norwegian seabirds 1983. Environ. Pollut. (Ser. A). 

39:79-93. 

Barron, M. G., H. Galbraith and D. Beltman. 1995. Comparative reproductive and developmental 

toxicology of PCBs in birds. Comp. Biochem. Physiol. 112C:1-14. 

Bignert, A., K. Litzén, T. Odsjö, M. Olsson, W. Persson, and L. Reutergårdh. 1995. Time-related 

factors influence the concentrations of sDDT, PCBs and shell parameters in eggs of Baltic 

guillemot (Uria aalge), 1861-1989. Environ. Pollut. 89:27-36. 

Braune, B. M., G. M. Donaldson, K. A. Hobson. 2002. Contaminant residues in seabird eggs 

from the Canadian Arctic. II. Spatial trends and evidence from stable isotopes for intercolony 

differences. Environ. Pollut. 117:133-145. 

Braune, B. M., G. M. Donaldson, and K. A. Hobson. 2001. Contaminant residues in seabird eggs 

from the Canadian Arctic. Part I. Temporal trends 1975-1998. Environ. Pollut. 114:39-54. 

Braune, B. M., and R. J. Norstrom. 1989. Dynamics of organochlorine compounds in herring 

gulls: III Tissue distribution and bioaccumulation in Lake Ontario gulls. Env. Toxicol. Chem.

8:957-968. 

Burger, A. E. and M. Simpson. 1986. Diving depths of Atlantic puffins and common murres. Auk

103:828-830. 

 

Christopher, S. J., S. E. Long, M. S. Rearick, and J. D. Fassett. 2001. Development of Isotope 

Dilution Cold Vapor Inductively Coupled Plasma Mass Spectrometry and its application to the 

certification of mercury in NIST Standard Reference Materials. Anal. Chem. 73 (10):2190-2199. 

Christopher, S. J., S. S. Vander Pol, R. S. Pugh, R. D. Day, and P. R. Becker. 2002. 

Determination of mercury in the eggs of common murres (Uria aalge) for the seabird tissue 

archival and monitoring project. J. Anal. At. Spectrom. 17:780-785. 

Cramp, S. 1985. Handbook of the Birds of Europe, the Middle East, and North Africa. Oxford 

University Press: New York, NY, Vol. IV, p 170. 

Eganhouse, R. P., and R. W. Gosset. 1991. Sources and Magnitude of Bias Associated with 

Determination of Polychlorinated Biphenyls in Environmental Samples. Anal. Chem., 63:2130-

2137. 

Ehrlich, P. R., D. S. Dobkin, and D. Wheye. 1988. The birder’s handbook: a field guide to the 

natural history of North American birds. Simon & Schuster Inc: New York, p 196. 
REFERENCES (CONT.) 

42

Elliott, J. E. 1985. Specimen banking in support of monitoring for toxic contaminants in 

Canadian wildlife. In: International Review of Environmental Specimen Banking, S.A. Wise and 

R. Zeisler (eds.). U.S. Dept. of Commerce, National Bureau of Standards. Spec. Publ. 706. 4-12. 

Fassett, J. D. and P. J. Paulsen. 1989. Isotope Dilution Mass Spectrometry for accurate elemental 

analysis. Anal. Chem., 61:643A-649A. 

Fimreite, N., J. E. Bjerk, N. Kveseth, and E. Brun. 1977. DDE and PCBs in eggs of Norwegian 

seabirds. Astarte. 10(1):15-20. 

Fox, G. A., S. Trudeau, H. Won, and K. A. Grasman. 1998. Monitoring the elimination of 

persistent toxic substances from the Great Lakes: Chemical and physiological evidence from 

adult herring gulls. Environ. Monit. Assess. 53:147-160. 

Gabrielsen, G. W., J. U. Skaare, A. Polder, and V. Bakken. 1995. Chlorinated hydrocarbons in 

glaucous gulls (Larus hyperboreus) in the southern part of Svalbard. Sci. Total Environ. 

160/161:337-346. 

Gaston, A. J.and J. M. Hipfner. 2000. Thick-billed murre (Uria lomvia). In: The Birds of North 

America, No. 497; Poole. A; Gill, F; Eds; The Birds of North America, Inc.: Philadelphia, PA, p. 

12. 

Gilman, A. P., D. J. Hallett, G. A. Fox, L. J. Allan, D. B. Peakall. 1978. Effects of injected 

organochlorines on naturally incubated herring gull eggs. J. Wildl. Manage. 42(3):484-493. 

Hickey, J. J. and D. W. Anderson. 1968. Chlorinated hydrocarbons and eggshell changes in 

raptorial and fish-eating birds. Science 162:271-273. 

Iknokinok, S. and S. Georgette. 1997. St. Lawrence Island’s bounty of birds: More than 20,000 

birds caught by hunters in 1996: a summary of the St. Lawrence Island migratory bird harvest 

survey by Kawerak, Inc. and the Alaska Department of Fish and Game 

(http://www.state.ak.us/adfg/subsist/download/sliwfowl.pdf). 

Jarman, W. M., K. A. Hobson, W. J. Sydeman, C. E. Bacon, and E. B. McLaren. 1996. 

Influence of trophic position and feeding location on contaminant levels in the Gulf of the 

Faralllones food web revealed by stable isotope analysis. Environ. Sci. Technol. 30(2):654-660. 

Kaufman, K. Lives of North American Birds, Houghton Mifflin: New York, NY, 1996, p. 269. 

Kawano, M., T. Inoue, T. Wada, H. Hidaka, and R. Tatsukawa. 1988. Bioconcentration and 

residue patterns of chlordane compounds in marine mammals: invertebrates, fish, mammals and 

seabirds. Environ. Sci. Technol. 22:792-797. 

Kucklick, J. R., S. S. Vander Pol, P. R. Becker, R. S. Pugh, K. Simac, G. W. York, and D. G. 

Roseneau. 2002. Persistent organic pollutants in murre eggs from the Gulf of Alaska and Bering 

Sea. 22nd International Symposium on Halogenated Environmental Organic Pollutants and 
REFERENCES (CONT.) 

43

Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs), Barcelona, Spain, August 11-16, 2002. Organohalogen 

Compounds 59:13-16. 

Li, Y.-F., R. W. Macdonald, L. M. M. Jantunen, T. Harner, T. F. Bidleman, and W. M. J. 

Strachan. 2002. The transport of β-hexachlorocyclohexane to the western Arctic Ocean: a 

contrast to α-HCH. Sci. Total Environ. 291:229-246. 

Mineau, P., G. A. Fox, R. J. Nordstrom, D. V. Weseloh, D. J. Hallett, and J. A. Ellentonl. 1984. 

Using the Herring Gull to monitor levels of organochlorine contaminants in the Canadian Great 

Lakes. Chap. 19 in Toxic Contaminants in the Great Lakes, J.O. Nriagu and A.S. Simmon (eds.). 

Muir, D., B. Braune, B. DeMarch, R. Norstrom, R. Wagemenn, L. Lockahart, B. Hargrave, D. 

Bright, R. Addison, J. Payne, and K. Reimer. 1999. Spatial and temporal trends and effects of 

contaminants in the Canadian Arctic marine ecosystem: a review. Sci. Total Environ. 230:83-

144. 

Muir, D. C. G. and R. J. Norstrom. 2000. Geographical differences and time trends of persistent 

organic pollutants in the Arctic. Toxicol. Lett. 112-113:93-101. 

Nettleship, D. N. and D. B. Peakall. 1987. Organochlorine residue levels in three high Arctic 

species of colonially-breeding seabirds from Prince Leopold Island. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 

18(8):434-438. 

Newton, I., M. B. Haas, and A. A. Bell. 1981. Pollutants in guillemot eggs. Institute Of 

Terrestrial Ecology Annual Report 1981. 57-59. 

Noble, D. G. and J. E. Elliott. 1986. Environmental contaminants in Canadian seabirds, 1968-

1984: Trends and effects. Technical Report Series No. 13. Canadian Wildlife Service, Ottawa. 

Ohlendorf, H. M., J. C. Bartonek, G. J. Divoky, E. E. Klaas, and A. J. Krynitsky. 1982. 

Organochlorine Residues in Eggs of Alaskan Seabirds. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Spec. 

Scientific Rept.-Wildlife No. 245, Wash. D.C. 41 pp. 

Parkinson, C. L., J. C. Comiso, H. J. Zwally, D. J. Cavalieri, P. Gloersen, and W. J. Campbell. 

1987. Arctic Sea Ice, 1973-1976: Satellite Passive-Microwave Observations. NASA SP-489, pp. 

32-33. 

Paasivirta, J., J. Sarkka, J. Pellinen, Jukka;and T. Humppi. 1981. Biocides in eggs of aquatic 

birds. Completion of a food chain enrichment study for DDT, PCB and mercury. Chemosphere 

10(7):787-94. 

Pearce, P. A., D. B. Peakall, and L. M. Reynolds. 1979. Shell thinning and residues of 

organochlorines and mercury in seabird eggs, Eastern Canada, 1970-76. Pestic. Monit. J. 

15(2):61-68. 

Piatt, J. F. and D. N. Nettleship. 1985. Diving depths of four alcids. Auk 102:293-297. 
REFERENCES (CONT.) 

44

Poster, D. L., J. R. Kucklick, M. M. Schantz, B. J. Porter, S. D. Leigh, and S. A. Wise. 2003. 

Determination of polychlorinated biphenyl congeners and chlorinated pesticides in a fish tissue 

standard reference material. Anal. Bioanal. Chem. 375:223-241. 

Pyle, P., W. J. Sydeman, and E. McLaren. 1999. Organochlorine concentrations, eggshell 

thickness, and hatchability in seabirds of central California. Waterbirds 22(3):376-381. 

Roudybush, T. E., C. R. Grau, M. R. Petersen, D. G. Ainley, K. V. Hirsch, A. P. Gilman, and S. 

M. Patten. 1979. Yolk formation in some Charadriiform birds. Condor 81:293-298. 

Sanderson J. T. and G. D. Bellward. 1995. Hepatic microsomal ethoxyresorufin O-deethylaseinducing potency in ovo and cytosolic Ah receptor binding affinity of 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzop-dioxin: comparison of four avian species. Toxicol. Appl. Pharmacol. 132: 131-145. 

Schroeder, W. H. and J. Munthe. 1998. Atmospheric mercury-An overview. Atmospheric 

Environ. 32(5):809-822. 

Scheuhammer, A. M., J. A. Perrault, and D. E. Bond. 2001. Mercury, methylmercury, and 

selenium concentrations in eggs of common loons (Gavia immer) from Canada. Environ. Monit. 

Assess. 72(1):79-94. 

Springer, A. M., D. G. Roseneau, E. C. Murphy, and M. I. Springer. 1984. Environmental 

controls of marine food webs: food habits of seabirds in the eastern Chukchi Sea. Can. J. Fish 

Aquat. Sci. 41: 1202-1215. 

Springer, A. M., D .G. Roseneau, D. S. Lloyd, C. P. McRoy, and E. C. Murphy. 1986. Seabird 

responses to fluctuating prey availability in the eastern Bering Sea. Marine Ecol. Prog. Ser. 32: 

1-12. 

Springer, A. M., E. C. Murphy, D. G. Roseneau, C. P. McRoy, and B. A. Cooper. 1987. Paradox 

of pelagic food webs in the northern Bering Sea - I. Seabird food habits. Cont. Shelf Res. 7: 895-

911. 

Stabeno, P.J., J.D. Schumacher, and K. Ohtani. 1999. The physical oceanography of the Bering 

Sea. In: Dynamics of the Bering Sea, T.R. Loughlin and K. Ohtani, Editors. University of Alaska 

Sea Grant, Fairbanks, AK. pages 1-28. 

Sugden, D. 1982. Arctic and Antarctic: A Modern Geographical Synthesis. Basil Blackwell, 

Oxford. 

Sydeman, W. J. and W. M. Jarman. 1998. Trace metals in seabirds, steller sea lion, and forage 

fish and zooplankton from central California. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 36(10):828-832. 

Taylor. B. N. and C. E. Kuyatt. 1994. Guidelines for Evaluating and Expressing the Uncertainty 

of NIST Measurement Results, NIST Technical Note 1297. 
REFERENCES (CONT.) 

45

Thompson, D. R., R. W. Furness, R. W., and R. T. Barrett. 1992. Mercury concentrations in 

seabirds from colonies in the Northeast Atlantic. Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 23(3):383-

389. 

Turle, R., R. J. Norstrom and Collins, B. 1991. Comparison of PCB quantitation methods: Reanalysis of archived specimens of herring gull eggs from the Great Lakes. Chemosphere 22(1-

2):201-213 

U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Bureau of Sports Fisheries and 

Wildlife. 1975. Lethal dietary toxicities of environmental pollutants to birds. Special Scientific 

Report - Wildlife No. 191. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. 

U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. 1984. Handbook of toxicity of 

pesticides to wildlife. Resource Publication 153. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing 

Office. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1992. Alaska Seabird Management Plan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, Div. of Migratory Birds. Anchorage, AK. 

Vander Pol, S. S. 2002. Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs) in Alaskan Murre (Uira spp.) 

Eggs. M.S. Thesis, College of Charleston. 

Vander Pol, S. S., P. R. Becker, J. R. Kucklick, R. S. Pugh, D. G. Roseneau, K. Simac, and G. 

W. York. 2002a. Trends in concentrations of persistent organic pollutants in eggs from Alaskan 

murre colonies. Second AMAP International Symposium on Environmental Pollution of the 

Arctic, Rovaniemi, Finland, October 1-4, 2002. Extended abstract 0-025. AMAP Rept. 2002.2, 

Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Program (AMAP), Oslo, Norway. 

Vander Pol, S. S., S. J. Christopher, R. Day, R. S. Pugh, P. R. Becker, D. G. Roseneau, K. 

Simac, and G. W. York. 2002b. Trends in concentrations of mercury in eggs from Alaskan murre 

colonies. Second AMAP International Symposium on Environmental Pollution of the Arctic, 

Rovaniemi, Finland, October 1-4, 2002. Extended abstract P-M40. AMAP Rept. 2002.2, Arctic 

Monitoring and Assessment Program (AMAP), Oslo, Norway. 

Vanhaecke, F., G. de Wannemacker, L. Moens, R. Dams, C. Latkoczy, T. Prohaska, and G. 

Stingeder. 1998. Dependence of detector deadtime on analyte mass number in Inductively 

Coupled Plasma Mass Spectrometry. J. Anal. At. Spectrom. 13(6):567-571. 

Van Oostdam, J., A. Gilman, E. Dewailly, P. Usher, B. Wheatley, H. Kuhnlein, S. Neve, J. 

Walker, B. Tracy, M. Feeley, V. Jerome, and B. Kwavnick. 1999. Human health implications of 

environmental contaminants in Arctic Canada: a review. Sci. Total Environ. 230(1-3):1-82. 

Wakeford, B. J. and M. T. Kasserra. 1997. The relationship between the Canadian Wildlife 

Service Specimen Bank and the Wildlife Toxicology Program: the effect on specimen collection. 

Chemosphere 34(9/10): 1933-1938. 
REFERENCES (CONT.) 

46

Wania F. and D. Mackay. 1996. Tracking the distribution of persistent organic pollutants. 

Environ. Sci. Technol. 30(0): 390A- 396A. 

Wilson, S. J., J. L. Murray, and H. P. Huntington. 1998. AMAP Assessment Report: Arctic 

Pollution Issues. Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme, Oslo, Norway, Chapter 2, pp. 

9-23 

York, G.W., B.J. Porter, R.S. Pugh, D.G. Roseneau, K. Simac, P.R. Becker, L.K. Thorsteinson, 

and S.A. Wise. 2001. Seabird Tissue Archival and Monitoring Project: Protocol for Collecting 

and Banking Seabird Eggs. NISTIR 6735, U.S. Dept. Commerce, NIST, Gaithersburg, MD. 25 

pp. 
APPENDIX A: STAMP PROTOCOLS FIELD COLLECTION SUPPLEMENTAL INSTRUCTIONS

47

INSTRUCTIONS FOR COLLECTING THICK-BILLED MURRE, COMMON MURRE, 

AND BLACK-LEGGED KITTIWAKE EGGS FOR THE STAMP PROGRAM IN 2002 

(A Supplement to the Published NISTIR 6735 Egg Collecting and Banking Protocol)

Each STAMP collecting kit consists of a plastic tote containing materials and protocols for 

collecting thick-billed murre (Uria lomvia), common murre (U. aalge), and black-legged 

kittiwake (Rissa tridactyla) eggs for contaminant analyses and long-term banking of tissue 

samples for future research on pollutant levels. Please read the enclosed protocol (NIST Report 

NISTIR 6735) in addition to the supplementary information presented below before collecting 

and shipping eggs (particularly pages 15-17; for egg collections made in 2002, ignore all 

references to white plastic buckets with o-ring sealing lids in the NISTIR 6735 document —totes 

similar to the one you have just opened are now being used as shipping containers instead). 

Some totes have been set up for collecting murre eggs and some for collecting kittiwake eggs 

(e.g., “Murre 1”, “Kittiwake 1”). Murre egg totes contain the following items packaged in 

Ziploc bags: 16 Teflon bags, 35 quart-size Ziploc bags, and a supply of printed labels (extra 

Teflon and Ziploc bags have been included in case seams tear or closures fail). These totes also 

contain a large amount of shredded paper, 1 role of duct tape, 1 box of clean disposable gloves, 1 

black Sharpie marker, 1 pencil, copies of the appropriate USFWS and ADF&G collecting 

permits, and 1 coat hanger or length of heavy wire (see below). Kittiwake egg totes are similar; 

however, because they have been set up to handle larger sample sizes, they contain 30 Teflon 

bags and 55 quart-size Ziploc bags (again, extra bags have been provided in case seams tear or 

closures fail). 

 

Collecting Eggs: In 2002, eggs will be needed in the following numbers from the following 

colonies and species: 

• Cape Lisburne: 12 thick-billed murre eggs and 12 complete clutches of black-legged kittiwake 

eggs (only collect clutches containing 1-2 eggs; see below). 

• Cape Thompson: 12 common murre eggs, 12 thick-billed murre eggs, and 12 complete 

clutches of black-legged kittiwake eggs (only collect clutches containing 1-2 eggs; see below). 

• Bluff: 12 common murre eggs and 12 complete clutches of black-legged kittiwake eggs (only 

collect clutches containing 1-2 eggs; see below). 

• St. Lawrence Island: 12 common murre eggs, 12 thick-billed murre eggs, and 12 complete 

clutches of black-legged kittiwake eggs (only collect clutches containing 1-2 eggs; see below). 

• St. George Island: 12 common murre eggs, 12 thick-billed murre eggs, and 12 complete 

clutches of black-legged kittiwake eggs (only collect clutches containing 1-2 eggs; see below). 

• Chowiet Island: 12 common murre eggs and 12 complete clutches of black-legged kittiwake 

eggs (only collect clutches containing 1-2 eggs; see below). 

• East Amatuli Island: 12 common murre eggs and 12 complete clutches of black-legged 

kittiwake eggs (only collect clutches containing 1-2 eggs; see below). 

• Kodiak Island: 12 complete clutches of black-legged kittiwake eggs (only collect clutches 

containing 1-2 eggs; see below). 
APPENDIX A: STAMP PROTOCOLS FIELD COLLECTION SUPPLEMENTAL INSTRUCTIONS 

(CONT.) 

48

• Middleton Island: 12 common murre eggs and 12 complete clutches of black-legged kittiwake 

eggs (only collect clutches containing 1-2 eggs; see below). 

• Shoup Bay: 12 complete clutches of black-legged kittiwake egg (only collect clutches 

containing 1-2 eggs; see below). 

• St. Larzaria Island: 12 thick-billed murre eggs. 

Note: If you cannot obtain more than 10 common murre or 10 thick-billed murre eggs, or more 

than 10 clutches of kittiwake eggs, these are still adequate samples; however, if this is the case, 

please be particularly careful when packing the eggs to minimize their chances of breaking 

during shipping. 

The eggs should be obtained within 14 days of being laid to avoid collecting relays, and in the 

case of kittiwakes, complete clutches should be taken to avoid the problem of only collecting 

second or third eggs laid, which typically contain smaller amounts of contaminants (all kittiwake 

eggs taken from the same nest must be clearly labeled as coming from that nest because they will 

be pooled prior to analysis—see below). Only collect complete kittiwake clutches that contain 1 

or 2 eggs— please do not take 3-egg clutches. When you collect eggs, always try to use the 

gloves provided in the tote (i.e., put one of the gloves on before you pick up an egg—whenever 

possible, avoid touching the eggs with your bare hands, and if you do, please note this on the 

label made for that egg—see below). In some cases, eggs can be collected from hard to reach 

places by using the following technique. First, thread one of the small Ziploc bags onto an openended loop of heavy wire or coat hanger, duct tape it in place, and then close the loop by bending 

the two free ends of the wire together. Next, firmly duct tape the free ends of the wire to a long 

pole. The free ends of the wire should extend at least 6 inches beyond the loop to help support it 

when they are taped to the pole (taping the free ends of the wire to opposite sides of the pole may 

provide the best support). Don’t make the loop too large, because the bigger you make it, the 

easier it will bend. The wire loop can be adjusted to help scoop up eggs (e.g., you can flatten one 

side). If necessary, you can strengthen the Ziploc bag by applying strips of duct tape to the 

outside. When you attempt to scoop up an egg with the wire loop on the pole, try moving the 

loop back and forth in a gentle "sawing" motion as you slide it under the egg. If you use the pole 

technique, remember to put on a glove before taking any eggs out of the bag. 

Bagging the Eggs: Using a gloved hand, put the eggs in the enclosed Teflon bags (1 per bag) as 

soon as you can. Be careful when you do this, because the seams of the bags are not particularly 

strong. Close the bags by folding the open ends over several times while gently squeezing most 

of the air out, and then seal them shut with duct tape. When you seal the bags, apply tape along 

the full length of the folded ends and let the tape-ends overlap around the backs of the bags so 

that if the eggs break during shipment, the contents will not leak out. Next, put the Teflonbagged eggs into the enclosed Ziploc bags (1 egg per bag) and gently squeeze most of the air out 

before sealing them. After preparing labels for the eggs (see below), put the doubled-bagged 

eggs and their respective labels into the remaining Ziploc bags (1 label and egg per bag; again, 

squeeze most of the air out before sealing them). Finally, write the appropriate colony names 

and egg identification numbers on the outsides of these last Ziploc bags with the enclosed 

Sharpie before packing them for shipping. 
APPENDIX A: STAMP PROTOCOLS FIELD COLLECTION SUPPLEMENTAL INSTRUCTIONS 

(CONT.) 

49

Labeling the Eggs: Complete one of the enclosed blank labels for each of the eggs that you 

have collected and put it in the last Ziploc bag used to protect that egg (i.e., the second Ziploc; 

see above). Print the following information on the labels in pencil (please print clearly and don’t 

write too small). 

 Collected By: ______________(your full name with middle initial)_________________ 

 Date and Time of Collection: _____________(e.g., 28 June 02, 1500 hrs_____________ 

 Species: ___________________(write "thick-billed murre", etc.)___________________ 

 Sample Type: ________________________(write "egg")_________________________ 

 Colony Name: _______________(e.g., St. George, East Amatuli, etc.)_______________ 

 Site ID No./Name: ______________________(see below)________________________ 

 Egg ID No.: _________________________(see below)__________________________ 

Note: Use the same sample number (e.g., 01) and add “A” or “B” to the end of the Egg 

ID number (e.g., ...2002A, ...2002B), as needed, for eggs belonging to 2-egg kittiwake 

clutches taken from the same nest—see below. 

 Temporary Storage Notes: _______(how stored; e.g., "in tote in snow bank"__________ 

 Other Notes: ___________(e.g., “egg handled with bare ungloved hand”)____________ 

 Date and Time Shipped from Study Site: ______(e.g., 5 July 02, about 1200 hrs)______ 

Note: Fill this part of the label out just before packing and shipping the eggs, or write 

 the information on a piece of paper and put it on top of the eggs in the tote so that the 

 recipient can complete it out later.

Use the Site ID No./Name to identify what general part of the colony the eggs came from. If no 

name or number exists, create one and record it in your notes (e.g., "West Arch", "Spire Rock"). 

In most cases, existing study plot numbers can be used at most colonies. For example, if the 

colony has been divided into population census plots and an egg came from one of them, you can 

use the plot number with CP in front of it for that egg (e.g., "CP10", if the egg came from 

population census plot 10). Sections of some colonies may have names that have been coined 

and used over the years. For example, some parts of the Cape Lisburne colony have been named 

"First Beach", "Tiny Beach", "East Kittiwake Beach", West Kittiwake Beach", and Grizzly Bear 

Beach" on plot photos and figures in past reports. If you collect eggs from one of these 

subsections of the colony, the existing name can be used (e.g., "Tiny Beach"). However, you do 

it, the point of the Site ID No./Name is to more closely identify the general locations in the 

colony where the eggs came from so that samples can be collected from these same general areas 

in future years. 

Use the following 14 digit alphanumeric codes for the Egg ID Nos. The first 4 letters indicate the 

colony (CLIS = Cape Lisburne, CTOM = Cape Thompson, DIOM – Little Diomede Island, 

STLW = St. Lawrence Island, BLUF = Bluff, STGE = St. George Island, BOGO = Bogoslof 

Island, CHOW = Chowiet Island, KODK = Kodiak Island, EAAM = East Amatuli Island, MIDD 

= Middleton Island, SHBY = Shoup Bay, and STLA = St. Lazaria Island), the first 2 numbers

indicate the sample number (01 through 12, if 12 eggs are obtained), the next 4 letters indicate 

the species (COMU = common murre, TBMU = thick-billed murre, and BLKI = black-legged 

kittiwake), and the last 4 numbers indicate the year (2002)—also see page 9 in NIST Report 

NISTIR 6735). Examples of the Egg ID Nos. that should be used for the 11 study colonies 
APPENDIX A: STAMP PROTOCOLS FIELD COLLECTION SUPPLEMENTAL INSTRUCTIONS 

(CONT.) 

50

where pollutant levels in eggs will be monitored as part of the long-term STAMP program are 

listed below (see the first paragraph under “Collecting Eggs” for specific 2002 sample needs). 

• For Cape Lisburne: “CLIS01TBMU2002...................................CLIS12TBMU2002” 

 For Cape Lisburne: “CLIS01BLKI2002......................................CLIS15BLKI2002” 

• For Cape Thompson: “CTOM01COMU2002..........................CTOM12COMU2002” 

 For Cape Thompson: “CTOM01TBMU2002...........................CTOM12TBMU2002” 

 For Cape Thompson: “CTOM01BLKI2002..............................CTOM15BLKI2002” 

• For Little Diomede Island: “DIOM01COMU2002.....................DIOM12COMU2002” 

 For Little Diomede Island: “DIOM01TBMU2002......................DIOM12TBMU2002” 

 For Little Diomede Island: “DIOM01BLKI2002.........................DIOM15BLKI2002” 

• For St. Lawrence Island: “STLW01COMU2002.......................STLW12COMU2002” 

 For St. Lawrence Island: “STLW01TBMU2002.....................STLW12TBMU2002” 

 For St. Lawrence Island: “STLW01BLKI2002...........................STLW15BLKI2002” 

• For Bluff: “BLUF01COMU2002.............................................BLUF12COMU2002” 

 For Bluff: “BLUF01BLKI2002.................................................BLUF15BLKI2002” 

• For St. George Island: “STGE01COMU2002............................STGE15COMU2002” 

 For St. George Island: “STGE01TBMU2002............................STGE15TBMU2002” 

 For St. George Island: “STGE01BLKI2002............................STGE15BLKI2002” 

• For Bogoslof Island: “BOGO01COMU2002............................BOGO12COMU2002” 

 For Bogoslof Island: “BOGO01TBMU2002.............................BOGO12TBMU2002” 

 For Bogoslof Island: “BOGO01BLKI2002................................BOGO15BLKI2002” 

• For Chowiet Island: “CHOW01COMU2002...........................CHOW12COMU2002” 

 For Chowiet Island: “CHOW01BLKI2002...............................CHOW15BLKI2002” 

• For Kodiak Island: “KODK01BLKI2002............................... KODK15BLKI2002” 

• For East Amatuli Island: “EAAM01COMU2002.....................EAAM12COMU2002” 

 For East Amatuli Island: “EAAM01BLKI2002........................EAAM15BLKI2002” 

• For Middleton Island: “MIDD01COMU2002...........................MIDD12COMU2002” 

 For Middleton Island: “MIDD01BLKI2002................................MIDD15BLKI2002” 

• For Shoup Bay: “SHBY01BLKI2002........................................SHBY15BLKI2002” 

• For St. Lazaria Island: “STLA01COMU2002............................STLA12COMU2002” 

 For St. Lazaria Island: “STLA01TBMU2002.................. ..........STLA12TBMU2002” 

Also, when labeling eggs from kittiwake nests containing two eggs, use the same sample number

for both eggs in the clutch and add A and B to the end of the respective Egg ID Nos. to clearly 

link the eggs to the same nest (e.g., eggs from a 2-egg clutch collected from the 5th nest sampled 

at Shoup Bay would be labeled SHBY05BLKI2002A and SHBY05BLKI2002B). 

Storage in the Field: If you don’t have access to a refrigerator (the ideal temporary storage 

method), try to keep the eggs as cool as possible until you can ship them to Anchorage or send 

them to Homer (see below). For example, you can temporarily store the bagged samples in 

containers that have been buried in snow banks or placed under boards in holes in the ground 
APPENDIX A: STAMP PROTOCOLS FIELD COLLECTION SUPPLEMENTAL INSTRUCTIONS 

(CONT.) 

51

(the totes don’t necessarily have to be used as temporary storage containers—plastic buckets and 

ammo cans with lids can also be used for this purpose). You can also partially submerge 

containers in cold water or keep them in the shade under a tarp. If you opt to put containers in 

cool streams or ponds, try to keep them in the shade and make sure that they are securely 

anchored to the shore to prevent them from floating away during periods of high water. If you 

put the containers in cool shady places and put light colored canvas tarps over them and keep the 

tarps wet, the evaporating water will help keep the temperature down. If canvas tarps aren’t 

available, wet moss or grass placed around the sides and over the top of containers will serve 

almost as well. Standard blue field tarps or other types of plastic coated tarps won’t absorb 

water, but they can be used for shade. 

Shipping: Try to ship the eggs to Anchorage or Homer via aircraft or boat as soon as possible 

after collecting them. Only ship eggs to Homer if you can’t ship them directly to Geoff York in 

Anchorage (see below). 

• Cape Lisburne field crews should ship their eggs to Anchorage on Bering Air and Alaska 

Airlines. 

• Cape Thompson collectors should take their eggs to Point Hope when they return to the 

village by boat and then ship them to Anchorage on Bering Air and Alaska Airlines. 

• Little Diomede Island field crews may be able to send their eggs to Wales on a local boat and 

then have them forwarded to Anchorage on Bering Air and Alaska Airlines. They also may 

be able to send them to Nome via helicopter, where they can be transferred to Alaska Airlines. 

• St. Lawrence Island researchers should ship their eggs to Anchorage on Bering Air and 

Alaska Airlines. 

• Bluff field crews should take their eggs to Nome on their chartered aircraft and then ship them 

to Anchorage on Alaska Airlines. 

• St. George Island researchers should ship their eggs to Anchorage on Penn Air or Northern 

Air Cargo. 

. • Bogoslof Island personnel may be able to send their eggs to Homer via the R/V Tiglax (if so, 

have the vessel crew store the egg containers in cool, shady places). 

• Chowiet Island field crews may be able to send their eggs to Homer on the R/V Tiglax (if so, 

have the vessel crew store the egg containers in cool, shady places). 

• Kodiak Island researchers can bring their eggs to Kodiak and ship them to Anchorage on 

Alaska Airlines. 

• East Amatuli Island field crews can bring their eggs to Homer on their contract vessel when 

they return from their first field trip. 

• Middleton Island researchers can probably send their eggs to Anchorage on a chartered 

aircraft. 

• Shoup Bay personnel can probably send their eggs to Valdez via boat and then have them 

shipped to Anchorage on ERA Airlines. 

• St. Lazaria Island researchers can probably send their eggs to Sitka on a charter-boat and then 

have them shipped to Anchorage via Alaska Airlines. 
APPENDIX A: STAMP PROTOCOLS FIELD COLLECTION SUPPLEMENTAL INSTRUCTIONS 

(CONT.) 

52

Use the plastic totes for shipping containers (one tote per 12 murre eggs or per 12 clutches of 

kittiwake eggs). To prepare the bagged and labeled eggs for transport, wrap them individually in 

several layers of the shredded paper that came with the tote (if more packing material is needed, 

crumpled paper, clean rags, or even dry moss or grass can be used). Next, pad the bottom of the 

tote with several inches of shredded paper and then arrange several bags containing eggs firmly 

in it so that they can’t shift around during shipping. Add another layer of shredded paper to the 

tote and arrange more bags containing eggs in it. Try to avoid stacking the bagged samples 

directly on top of one another as you build up the layers of eggs. Also, push paper down 

between the bags and the sides of the tote, as needed, when building up the layers of eggs. 

Always use enough paper around the samples to make sure they can't shift around inside the tote 

during handling (you don’t necessarily have to use large quantities of packing material to protect 

the eggs—the real secret is to use enough material to keep them spread apart and firmly in place

during shipping). Also, don’t put too much shredded paper or other packing material on top of 

the last layer of eggs—cramming in too much packing material just to get rid of it might put 

undue pressure on the eggs when the tote lid is closed (again, you just want to use enough 

material to keep the eggs firmly in place and protect them from direct contact with the hard 

inside surfaces of the container). After closing the fully packed tote, tape it securely shut by 

wrapping at least three layers of duct tape around it in at least two places in both directions (i.e., 

run the tape completely around the container several times in several places both length-wise and 

cross-wise). Next, apply the enclosed pre-addressed self-sticking shipping label and 

“FRAGILE” and “THIS SIDE UP” stickers to the duct tape bands sealing the tote (they will not 

stick as good if applied directly to the plastic surfaces of the container). Also, you should find 

the USFWS federal permit number preprinted on the address label—if it is not, write it on one of 

the bands of duct tape sealing the tote with the enclosed Sharpie. If the pre-addressed shipping 

label and “FRAGILE” and “THIS SIDE UP” stickers are missing, also print this information on 

the duct tape sealing the container (shipping addresses are listed below). Left over paper packing 

material can be burned or used for other shipping purposes. 

Eggs collected at the Cape Lisburne, Cape Thompson, Little Diomede, St. Lawrence, Bluff, St. 

George, Kodiak, Middleton, Shoup, and St. Lazaria colonies should be sent to Geoff York in 

Anchorage (address the tote to Geoff York, Alaska Science Center, USGS Biological Research 

Division, 1011 East Tudor Road, Anchorage, Alaska 99503-6199; phone 907/786-3928). East 

Amatuli, Chowiet, and Bogoslof eggs should be delivered to Dave Roseneau or Vern Byrd at the 

Alaska Maritime National Wildlife Refuge office in Homer (address the tote to Dave Roseneau 

& Vern Byrd, USFWS, 2355 Kachemak Bay Drive, Homer, Alaska 99603-8021; phone 907/235-

6546). Dave or Vern will forward them to Geoff. REMEMBER, FOR THOSE OF YOU 

SHIPPING EGGS BY AIR TO GEOFF YORK IN ANCHORAGE—PLEASE CONTACT 

HIM AT (907) 786-3928 BEFORE SHIPPING THEM. If Geoff is not available, contact 

Dave Roseneau or Vern Byrd (phone 907/235-6546) or radio (KOD654 Homer on 5907.5 or 

3215.0 upper side-band) Also, Geoff will pay transportation costs for eggs shipped via 

airlines (e.g., using his Fed-X and airline account numbers, or asking you to ship freight 

collect). This will save you the problem of having to pay at your end and getting 

reimbursed later. 
APPENDIX B: EGG COLLECTION INVENTORY 

53

Egg Storage ID Field ID Location Collection Species Content Height Width Eggshel

# Date Mass (g) (cm) (cm) Thickness (1 ST01E001C DIOM01COMU99 65o43.2'N/168o55.2'W 1-Jul-99 Uria spp. 98.34 7.93 5.43 0.26 

2 ST01E002C DIOM02COMU99 65o43.2'N/168o55.2'W 1-Jul-99 U. spp. 98.11 8.61 5.31 0.26 

3 ST01E003C DIOM03COMU99 65o43.2'N/168o55.2'W 1-Jul-99 U. spp. 98.78 8.44 5.28 0.27 4 ST01E004C DIOM04COMU99 65o43.2'N/168o55.2'W 1-Jul-99 U. spp. 88.14 7.94 5.13 0.28 5 ST01E005C DIOM05COMU99 65o43.2'N/168o55.2'W 1-Jul-99 U. spp. 94.73 8.19 5.15 0.29 6 ST01E006C DIOM06COMU99 65o43.2'N/168o55.2'W 1-Jul-99 U. spp. 83.00 8.43 5.12 0.26 7 ST01E007C DIOM07COMU99 65o43.2'N/168o55.2'W 1-Jul-99 U. spp. 97.64 8.78 5.12 0.28 8 ST01E008C DIOM08COMU99 65o43.2'N/168o55.2'W 1-Jul-99 U. spp. 79.01 8.26 4.97 0.26 9 ST01E009C DIOM09COMU99 65o43.2'N/168o55.2'W 1-Jul-99 U. spp. 78.18 7.76 5.13 0.26 

10 ST01E010C STLA01COMU99 56o59.1'N/135o42.2'W 23-Jul-99 U. aalge 86.16 8.25 5.08 0.23 11 ST01E011C STLA02COMU99 56o59.1'N/135o42.2'W 23-Jul-99 U. aalge 80.61 7.89 4.94 0.24 12 ST01E012C STLA03COMU99 56o59.1'N/135o42.2'W 23-Jul-99 U. aalge 93.72 8.58 5.32 0.27 13 ST01E013C STLA04COMU99 56o59.1'N/135o42.2'W 23-Jul-99 U. aalge 81.11 7.93 4.95 0.27 14 ST01E014C STLA05COMU99 56o59.1'N/135o42.2'W 23-Jul-99 U. aalge 87.68 8.29 5.10 0.26 15 ST01E015C STLA06COMU99 56o59.1'N/135o42.2'W 23-Jul-99 U. aalge 94.15 8.89 5.22 0.27 16 ST01E016C STLA07COMU99 56o59.1'N/135o42.2'W 23-Jul-99 U. aalge 90.94 8.57 5.10 0.26 17 ST01E017C STLA08COMU99 56o59.1'N/135o42.2'W 23-Jul-99 U. aalge 85.58 7.94 4.96 0.25 18 ST01E018C STLA09COMU99 56o59.1'N/135o42.2'W 23-Jul-99 U. aalge 80.36 8.55 5.11 0.26 19 ST01E019C STLA10COMU99 56o59.1'N/135o42.2'W 23-Jul-99 U. aalge 77.24 8.58 5.29 0.27 20 ST01E020C STGE01COMU99 56o36.2'N/169o32.9'W 25-Jun-99 U. aalge 97.28 7.63 5.01 0.25 21 ST01E021C STGE02COMU99 56o36.2'N/169o32.9'W 25-Jun-99 U. aalge 76.99 8.06 5.01 0.26 22 ST01E022C STGE03COMU99 56o36.2'N/169o32.9'W 25-Jun-99 U. aalge 79.84 8.39 4.96 0.27 23 ST01E023C STGE04COMU99 56o36.2'N/169o32.9'W 25-Jun-99 U. aalge 95.50 8.46 5.16 0.28 24 ST01E024C STGE05COMU99 56o36.2'N/169o32.9'W 25-Jun-99 U. aalge 107.00 8.24 5.44 0.26 

25 ST01E025C STGE06COMU99 56o36.2'N/169o32.9'W 25-Jun-99 U. aalge 83.02 8.25 4.80 0.24 

26 ST01E026C STGE07COMU99 56o36.2'N/169o32.9'W 25-Jun-99 U. aalge 91.42 7.89 5.11 0.25 27 ST01E027C STGE08COMU99 56o36.2'N/169o32.9'W 1-Jul-99 U. aalge 94.30 8.24 5.15 0.24 28 ST01E028C STGE09COMU99 56o36.2'N/169o32.9'W 1-Jul-99 U. aalge 76.02 7.75 4.97 0.26 29 ST01E029C STGE10COMU99 56o36.2'N/169o32.9'W 1-Jul-99 U. aalge 93.44 8.07 5.26 0.26 30 ST01E030C STGE11COMU99 56o36.2'N/169o32.9'W 1-Jul-99 U. aalge 97.72 7.94 5.28 0.27 31 ST01E031C EAAM01COMU99 58o55.05'N/152o00.21'W 7-Jul-99 U. aalge 94.06 8.58 5.31 0.26 32 ST01E032C EAAM02COMU99 58o55.05'N/152o00.21'W 7-Jul-99 U. aalge 94.83 8.40 5.15 0.24 33 ST01E033C EAAM03COMU99 58o55.05'N/152o00.21'W 7-Jul-99 U. aalge 83.55 8.43 4.98 0.29 34 ST01E034C EAAM04COMU99 58o55.05'N/152o00.21'W 7-Jul-99 U. aalge 95.64 8.40 5.42 0.26 35 ST01E035C EAAM05COMU99 58o55.05'N/152o00.21'W 7-Jul-99 U. aalge 91.47 8.39 5.14 0.26 
APPENDIX B: EGG COLLECTION INVENTORY (CONT.) 

54

Egg Storage ID Field ID Location Collection Species Content Height Width Eggsh

# Date Mass (g) (cm) (cm) Thicknes

36 ST01E036C EAAM06COMU99 58o55.05'N/152o00.21'W 7-Jul-99 U. aalge 90.43 8.26 5.26 0.2

37 ST01E037C EAAM07COMU99 58o55.05'N/152o00.21'W 7-Jul-99 U. aalge 92.08 8.28 5.14 0.238 ST01E038C EAAM08COMU99 58o55.05'N/152o00.21'W 7-Jul-99 U. aalge 88.31 7.91 5.11 0.239 ST01E039C EAAM09COMU99 58o55.05'N/152o00.21'W 7-Jul-99 U. aalge 70.90 7.61 4.66 0.240 ST01E040C EAAM10COMU99 58o55.05'N/152o00.21'W 7-Jul-99 U. aalge 85.81 8.58 5.13 0.241 ST01E041C EAAM11COMU99 58o55.05'N/152o00.21'W 7-Jul-99 U. aalge 80.61 7.93 5.13 0.242 ST02E42C STGE01TBMU00 56o36.1'N/169o30.2'W 26-Jun-00 U. lomvia 102.54 8.32 5.33 0.5

43 ST02E43C STGE02TBMU00 56o36.1'N/169o30.2'W 22-Jun-00 U. lomvia 88.17 8.10 5.20 0.5

44 ST02E44C STGE03TBMU00 56o36.1'N/169o30.2'W 22-Jun-00 U. lomvia 83.60 7.85 5.08 0.445 ST02E45C STGE05TBMU00 56o36.1'N/169o30.2'W 26-Jun-00 U. lomvia 89.77 7.50 5.30 0.546 ST02E46C STGE06TBMU00 56o36.1'N/169o30.2'W 26-Jun-00 U. lomvia 81.58 8.05 5.15 0.547 ST02E47C STGE08TBMU00 56o36.1'N/169o30.2'W 22-Jun-00 U. lomvia 92.46 8.05 5.21 0.448 ST02E48C STGE10TBMU00 56o36.1'N/169o30.2'W 3-Jul-00 U. lomvia 76.80 8.19 5.07 0.549 ST02E49C BOGO01TBMU00 53o56.09'N/168o02.20'W 18-Jun-00 U. lomvia 67.07 7.91 5.25 0.250 ST02E50C BOGO02TBMU00 53o56.09'N/168o02.20'W 18-Jun-00 U. lomvia 84.79 7.60 5.13 0.251 ST02E51C BOGO03TBMU00 53o56.09'N/168o02.20'W 18-Jun-00 U. lomvia 97.52 8.09 5.44 0.252 ST02E52C BOGO04TBMU00 53o56.09'N/168o02.20'W 18-Jun-00 U. lomvia 88.68 8.24 5.10 0.253 ST02E53C BOGO05TBMU00 53o56.09'N/168o02.20'W 18-Jun-00 U. lomvia 84.85 7.43 5.15 0.254 ST02E54C BOGO06TBMU00 53o56.09'N/168o02.20'W 18-Jun-00 U. lomvia 85.81 7.91 5.14 0.255 ST02E55C BOGO07TBMU00 53o56.09'N/168o02.20'W 18-Jun-00 U. lomvia 90.25 8.00 5.15 0.256 ST02E56C BOGO08TBMU00 53o56.09'N/168o02.20'W 18-Jun-00 U. lomvia 91.86 7.91 5.25 0.257 ST02E57C BOGO09TBMU00 53o56.09'N/168o02.20'W 18-Jun-00 U. lomvia 92.59 8.01 5.11 0.258 ST02E58C BOGO10TBMU00 53o56.09'N/168o02.20'W 18-Jun-00 U. lomvia 85.29 7.44 5.13 0.259 ST02E59C BOGO01COMU00 53o56.09'N/168o02.20'W 17-Jun-00 U. aalge 103.10 8.26 5.44 0.2

60 ST02E60C BOGO02COMU00 53o56.09'N/168o02.20'W 17-Jun-00 U. aalge 88.84 8.05 5.30 0.2

61 ST02E61C BOGO03COMU00 53o56.09'N/168o02.20'W 17-Jun-00 U. aalge 91.46 8.41 5.11 0.262 ST02E62C BOGO04COMU00 53o56.09'N/168o02.20'W 17-Jun-00 U. aalge 50.54 7.60 4.93 0.263 ST02E63C BOGO05COMU00 53o56.09'N/168o02.20'W 17-Jun-00 U. aalge 72.03 8.12 5.44 0.264 ST02E64C BOGO07COMU00 53o56.09'N/168o02.20'W 17-Jun-00 U. aalge 88.13 7.91 5.12 0.265 ST02E65C BOGO08COMU00 53o56.09'N/168o02.20'W 17-Jun-00 U. aalge 81.78 0.266 ST02E66C BOGO09COMU00 53o56.09'N/168o02.20'W 17-Jun-00 U. aalge 86.68 7.92 4.96 0.267 ST02E67C BOGO10COMU00 53o56.09'N/168o02.20'W 17-Jun-00 U. aalge 95.48 8.09 5.32 0.268 ST03E068C STLA01COMU01 56o59.1'N/135o42.2'W 10-Jul-01 U. aalge 95.89 8.60 5.18 0.569 ST03E069C STLA02COMU01 56o59.1'N/135o42.2'W 10-Jul-01 U. aalge 93.06 8.16 5.24 0.770 ST03E070C STLA03COMU01 56o59.1'N/135o42.2'W 10-Jul-01 U. aalge 100.42 8.69 5.14 0.6

not measured
APPENDIX B: EGG COLLECTION INVENTORY (CONT.) 

55

Egg Storage ID Field ID Location Collection Species Content Height Width Eggsh

# Date Mass (g) (cm) (cm) Thicknes

71 ST03E071C STLA04COMU01 56o59.1'N/135o42.2'W 10-Jul-01 U. aalge 100.45 8.17 5.45 0.6

72 ST03E072C STLA05COMU01 56o59.1'N/135o42.2'W 10-Jul-01 U. aalge 102.95 9.12 5.14 0.673 ST03E073C STLA06COMU01 56o59.1'N/135o42.2'W 10-Jul-01 U. aalge 104.90 8.46 5.42 0.674 ST03E074C STLA07COMU01 56o59.1'N/135o42.2'W 10-Jul-01 U. aalge 88.25 7.80 4.97 0.6

75 ST03E075C STLA08COMU01 56o59.1'N/135o42.2'W 10-Jul-01 U. aalge 89.11 8.04 5.15 0.676 ST03E076C STLA09COMU01 56o59.1'N/135o42.2'W 10-Jul-01 U. aalge 95.50 8.14 5.25 0.677 ST03E077C STLA10COMU01 56o59.1'N/135o42.2'W 10-Jul-01 U. aalge 82.99 8.04 5.02 0.678 ST03E078C STLA01TBMU01 56o59.1'N/135o42.2'W 10-Jul-01 U. lomvia 85.87 7.98 5.17 0.5

79 ST03E079C STLA02TBMU01 56o59.1'N/135o42.2'W 10-Jul-01 U. lomvia 80.57 8.98 4.96 0.580 ST03E080C STLA03TBMU01 56o59.1'N/135o42.2'W 10-Jul-01 U. lomvia 93.15 8.21 5.30 0.581 ST03E081C STLA04TBMU01 56o59.1'N/135o42.2'W 10-Jul-01 U. lomvia 97.59 8.09 5.17 0.582 ST03E082C STLA05TBMU01 56o59.1'N/135o42.2'W 10-Jul-01 U. lomvia 97.64 8.65 5.19 0.683 ST03E083C STLA06TBMU01 56o59.1'N/135o42.2'W 10-Jul-01 U. lomvia 90.84 8.37 4.99 0.684 ST03E084C STLA07TBMU01 56o59.1'N/135o42.2'W 10-Jul-01 U. lomvia 84.62 8.06 4.88 0.685 ST03E085C STLA08TBMU01 56o59.1'N/135o42.2'W 10-Jul-01 U. lomvia 84.68 8.09 5.05 0.686 ST03E086C STLA09TBMU01 56o59.1'N/135o42.2'W 10-Jul-01 U. lomvia 99.70 8.81 5.28 0.687 ST03E087C STLA10TBMU01 56o59.1'N/135o42.2'W 10-Jul-01 U. lomvia 82.70 7.84 4.98 0.588 ST03E088C STGE01TBMU01 56o36.1'N/169o30.2'W 28-Jun-01 U. lomvia 93.87 8.21 5.03 0.589 ST03E089C STGE02TBMU01 56o36.1'N/169o30.2'W 28-Jun-01 U. lomvia 69.23 7.73 4.80 0.590 ST03E090C STGE03TBMU01 56o36.1'N/169o30.2'W 28-Jun-01 U. lomvia 99.81 8.66 5.13 0.591 ST03E091C STGE04TBMU01 56o36.1'N/169o30.2'W 28-Jun-01 U. lomvia 86.51 8.46 5.10 0.592 ST03E092C STGE05TBMU01 56o36.1'N/169o30.2'W 28-Jun-01 U. lomvia 98.76 8.05 5.33 0.593 ST03E093C STGE06TBMU01 56o36.1'N/169o30.2'W 28-Jun-01 U. lomvia 93.21 8.47 5.10 0.694 ST03E094C STGE07TBMU01 56o36.1'N/169o30.2'W 28-Jun-01 U. lomvia 89.60 8.25 5.00 0.595 ST03E095C STGE08TBMU01 56o36.1'N/169o30.2'W 28-Jun-01 U. lomvia 75.75 7.91 5.07 0.596 ST03E096C STGE09TBMU01 56o36.1'N/169o30.2'W 28-Jun-01 U. lomvia 93.52 8.23 5.15 0.597 ST03E097C STGE10TBMU01 56o36.1'N/169o30.2'W 28-Jun-01 U. lomvia 85.45 8.23 5.10 0.698 ST03E098C STGE11TBMU01 56o36.1'N/169o30.2'W 28-Jun-01 U. lomvia 87.43 8.01 5.14 0.599 ST03E099C MIDD02BLKI01 59o26.1'N/146o19.4'W 5-Jun-01 Rissa tridactyla 27.42 5.69 4.06 0.1

100 ST03E100C MIDD03BLKI01 59o26.1'N/146o19.4'W 5-Jun-01 R. tridactyla 22.2+14.83 5.23 4.02 0.1

101 ST03E101C MIDD04BLKI01 59o26.1'N/146o19.4'W 5-Jun-01 R. tridactyla 20.52+20.60 5.55 4.07 0.1

102 ST03E102C MIDD05BLKI01 59o26.1'N/146o19.4'W 5-Jun-01 R. tridactyla 28.09+12.44 5.45 4.18 0.1

103 ST03E103C MIDD06BLKI01 59o26.1'N/146o19.4'W 5-Jun-01 R. tridactyla 30.42 5.43 3.99 0.1

104 ST03E104C MIDD07BLKI01 59o26.1'N/146o19.4'W 5-Jun-01 R. tridactyla 35.98 5.68 4.27 0.1105 ST03E105C MIDD08BLKI01 59o26.1'N/146o19.4'W 5-Jun-01 R. tridactyla 33.29 5.53 4.17 0.1
APPENDIX B: EGG COLLECTION INVENTORY (CONT.) 

56

Egg Storage ID Field ID Location Collection Species Content Height Width Eggsh

# Date Mass (g) (cm) (cm) Thicknes

106 ST03E106C MIDD09BLKI01 59o26.1'N/146o19.4'W 5-Jun-01 R. tridactyla 39.44 5.74 4.24 0.1

107 ST03E107C MIDD10BLKI01 59o26.1'N/146o19.4'W 5-Jun-01 R. tridactyla 25.25+12.26 5.60 4.21 0.1

108 ST03E108C MIDD11BLKI01 59o26.1'N/146o19.4'W 5-Jun-01 R. tridactyla 20.13 5.53 4.02 0.1

109 ST03E109C MIDD12BLKI01 59o26.1'N/146o19.4'W 5-Jun-01 R. tridactyla 41.39 5.38 4.19 0.1110 ST03E110C STGE01COMU01 56o36.1'N/169o30.2'W 28-Jun-01 U. lomvia 75.85 7.57 4.81 0.2

111 ST03E111C STGE12TBMU01 56o36.1'N/169o30.2'W 28-Jun-01 U. lomvia 66.53 8.27 5.12 0.2112 ST04E112C BLUF01COMU02 64o34.22'N/163o45.15'W 18-Jun-02 U. aalge 89.49 8.15 4.95 to be me

113 ST04E113C BLUF02COMU02 64o34.22'N/163o45.15'W 18-Jun-02 U. aalge 83.87 8.10 5.12 to be me114 ST04E114C BLUF03COMU02 64o34.22'N/163o45.15'W 18-Jun-02 U. aalge 101.00 8.45 5.20 to be me

115 ST04E115C BLUF04COMU02 64o34.22'N/163o45.15'W 18-Jun-02 U. aalge 86.59 7.95 4.97 to be me

116 ST04E116C BLUF05COMU02 64o34.22'N/163o45.15'W 18-Jun-02 U. aalge 96.30 8.41 5.08 to be me117 ST04E117C BLUF06COMU02 64o34.22'N/163o45.15'W 18-Jun-02 U. aalge 82.77 7.82 4.92 to be me118 ST04E118C BLUF07COMU02 64o34.22'N/163o45.15'W 18-Jun-02 U. aalge 95.29 8.23 5.11 to be me119 ST04E119C BLUF08COMU02 64o34.22'N/163o45.15'W 18-Jun-02 U. aalge 103.49 8.35 5.23 to be me

120 ST04E120C BLUF09COMU02 64o34.22'N/163o45.15'W 18-Jun-02 U. aalge 92.76 7.76 5.13 to be me

121 ST04E121C BLUF10COMU02 64o34.22'N/163o45.15'W 18-Jun-02 U. aalge 56.07 8.65 5.12 to be me122 ST04E122C BLUF11COMU02 64o34.22'N/163o45.15'W 18-Jun-02 U. aalge 87.82 4.85 8.40 to be me123 ST04E123C STGE01TBMU02 56o36.1'N/169o30.2'W 2-Jul-02 U. lomvia 95.99 8.50 5.10 to be me

124 ST04E124C STGE02TBMU02 56o36.1'N/169o30.2'W 2-Jul-02 U. lomvia 85.15 7.97 4.87 to be me125 ST04E125C STGE03TBMU02 56o36.1'N/169o30.2'W 2-Jul-02 U. lomvia 93.58 8.85 5.02 to be me126 ST04E126C STGE04TBMU02 56o36.1'N/169o30.2'W 2-Jul-02 U. lomvia 79.78 7.87 4.88 to be me127 ST04E127C STGE05TBMU02 56o36.1'N/169o30.2'W 2-Jul-02 U. lomvia 97.34 8.35 5.10 to be me128 ST04E128C STGE06TBMU02 56o36.1'N/169o30.2'W 2-Jul-02 U. lomvia 99.67 8.23 5.27 to be me129 ST04E129C STGE07TBMU02 56o36.1'N/169o30.2'W 2-Jul-02 U. lomvia 104.57 8.41 5.35 to be me130 ST04E130C STGE08TBMU02 56o36.1'N/169o30.2'W 2-Jul-02 U. lomvia 77.43 7.95 5.27 to be me131 ST04E131C STGE09TBMU02 56o36.1'N/169o30.2'W 2-Jul-02 U. lomvia 87.97 7.77 4.98 to be me132 ST04E132C STGE11TBMU02 56o36.1'N/169o30.2'W 2-Jul-02 U. lomvia 81.32 7.69 4.95 to be me133 ST04E133C STLA01TBMU02 56o59.1'N/135o42.2'W 6-Jul-02 U. lomvia 87.04 8.85 4.85 to be me134 ST04E134C STLA02TBMU02 56o59.1'N/135o42.2'W 6-Jul-02 U. lomvia 91.55 8.40 5.05 to be me135 ST04E135C STLA03TBMU02 56o59.1'N/135o42.2'W 6-Jul-02 U. lomvia 113.70 8.62 5.43 to be me136 ST04E136C STLA04TBMU02 56o59.1'N/135o42.2'W 6-Jul-02 U. lomvia 97.01 8.40 5.18 to be me137 ST04E137C STLA05TBMU02 56o59.1'N/135o42.2'W 6-Jul-02 U. lomvia 101.90 8.44 5.27 to be me138 ST04E138C STLA06TBMU02 56o59.1'N/135o42.2'W 6-Jul-02 U. lomvia 93.47 8.41 4.93 to be me139 ST04E139C STLA08TBMU02 56o59.1'N/135o42.2'W 6-Jul-02 U. lomvia 91.38 8.48 5.10 to be me140 ST04E140C STLA09TBMU02 56o59.1'N/135o42.2'W 6-Jul-02 U. lomvia 87.65 8.08 5.07 to be me
APPENDIX B: EGG COLLECTION INVENTORY (CONT.) 

57

Egg Storage ID Field ID Location Collection Species Content Height Width Eggs

# Date Mass (g) (cm) (cm) Thicknes

141 ST04E141C STGE01BLKI02 56o36.1'N/169o30.2'W 11-Jun-02 R. tridactyla 40.93 5.78 3.94 to be me

142 ST04E142C STGE02BLKI02 56o36.1'N/169o30.2'W 11-Jun-02 R. tridactyla 40.60 5.86 3.88 to be me143 ST04E143C STGE03BLKI02A 56o36.1'N/169o30.2'W 11-Jun-02 R. tridactyla 5.39 4.42 to be me

STGE03BLKI02B 5.50 4.21 to be me

144 ST04E144C STGE04BLKI02A 56o36.1'N/169o30.2'W 11-Jun-02 R. tridactyla 5.68 4.02 to be me

STGE04BLKI02B 5.52 4.13 to be me

145 ST04E145C STGE05BLKI02A 56o36.1'N/169o30.2'W 11-Jun-02 R. tridactyla 5.54 4.17 to be me

STGE05BLKI02B 5.47 4.03 to be me

146 ST04E146C STGE06BLKI02A 56o36.1'N/169o30.2'W 13-Jun-02 R. tridactyla 5.68 4.02 to be me

STGE06BLKI02B 5.90 4.02 to be me

147 ST04E147C STGE07BLKI02A 56o36.1'N/169o30.2'W 13-Jun-02 R. tridactyla 5.72 4.21 to be me

STGE07BLKI02B 5.71 4.29 to be me

148 ST04E148C STGE08BLKI02A 56o36.1'N/169o30.2'W 13-Jun-02 R. tridactyla 50.06 6.20 4.27 to be me

149 ST04E149C STGE09BLKI02A 56o36.1'N/169o30.2'W 13-Jun-02 R. tridactyla 6.19 4.27 to be me

STGE09BLKI02B 6.40 4.40 to be me

150 ST04E150C STGE10BLKI02A 56o36.1'N/169o30.2'W 13-Jun-02 R. tridactyla 5.70 4.23 to be me

STGE10BLKI02B 6.04 4.43 to be me

151 ST04E151C STGE11BLKI02A 56o36.1'N/169o30.2'W 13-Jun-02 R. tridactyla 5.56 4.20 to be me

STGE11BLKI02B 5.74 4.09 to be me

152 ST04E152C STGE12BLKI02A 56o36.1'N/169o30.2'W 13-Jun-02 R. tridactyla 6.02 4.32 to be me

STGE12BLKI02B 5.82 4.20 to be me

153 ST04E153C BLUF01BLKI02 64o34.22'N/163o45.15'W 18-Jun-02 R. tridactyla 42.97 5.60 4.01 to be me

154 ST04E154C BLUF02BLKI02 64o34.22'N/163o45.15'W 18-Jun-02 R. tridactyla 45.66 5.43 4.20 to be me155 ST04E155C BLUF04BLKI02 64o34.22'N/163o45.15'W 18-Jun-02 R. tridactyla 41.57 5.79 4.02 to be me156 ST04E156C BLUF05BLKI02 64o34.22'N/163o45.15'W 18-Jun-02 R. tridactyla 46.61 5.85 4.16 to be me157 ST04E157C BLUF06BLKI02 64o34.22'N/163o45.15'W 18-Jun-02 R. tridactyla 46.20 5.69 4.12 to be me158 ST04E158C BLUF07BLKI02 64o34.22'N/163o45.15'W 18-Jun-02 R. tridactyla 51.61 6.21 4.26 to be me159 ST04E159C MIDD01BLKI02 59o26.1'N/146o19.4'W 5-Jun-02 R. tridactyla 39.90 5.57 3.98 to be me160 ST04E160C MIDD02BLKI02A 59o26.1'N/146o19.4'W 5-Jun-02 R. tridactyla 5.39 4.05 to be me

MIDD02BLKI02B 5.15 4.01 to be me

161 ST04E161C MIDD03BLKI02B 59o26.1'N/146o19.4'W 5-Jun-02 R. tridactyla 43.06 5.57 4.04 to be me

162 ST04E162C MIDD04BLKI02B 59o26.1'N/146o19.4'W 5-Jun-02 R. tridactyla 53.26 6.03 4.28 to be me163 ST04E163C MIDD05BLKI02A 59o26.1'N/146o19.4'W 5-Jun-02 R. tridactyla 42.33 5.40 4.13 to be me

MIDD05BLKI02B 39.14 5.41 4.11 to be me

164 ST04E164C MIDD06BLKI02A 59o26.1'N/146o19.4'W 5-Jun-02 R. tridactyla 5.35 4.06 to be me

MIDD06BLKI02B 5.47 4.24 to be me

165 ST04E165C MIDD07BLKI02B 59o26.1'N/146o19.4'W 5-Jun-02 R. tridactyla 38.67 5.44 3.96 to be me

90.1789.3578.9083.8598.15

112.46100.08

92.29

101.78

77.5886.92
APPENDIX B: EGG COLLECTION INVENTORY (CONT.) 

58

Egg Storage ID Field ID Location Collection Species Content Height Width Eggsh

# Date Mass (g) (cm) (cm) Thicknes

166 ST04E166C MIDD08BLKI02A 59o26.1'N/146o19.4'W 5-Jun-02 R. tridactyla 43.69 5.58 4.12 to be me

167 ST04E167C MIDD09BLKI02A 59o26.1'N/146o19.4'W 5-Jun-02 R. tridactyla 5.60 4.12 to be me

MIDD09BLKI02B 5.60 4.20 to be me

168 ST04E168C MIDD10BLKI02A 59o26.1'N/146o19.4'W 5-Jun-02 R. tridactyla 39.47 5.30 4.06 to be me

MIDD10BLKI02B 35.69 4.91 3.94 to be me

169 ST04E169C MIDD11BLKI02A 59o26.1'N/146o19.4'W 5-Jun-02 R. tridactyla 5.62 4.09 to be me

MIDD11BLKI02B 5.55 4.07 to be me

170 ST04E170C MIDD12BLKI02 59o26.1'N/146o19.4'W 5-Jun-02 R. tridactyla 44.91 5.78 4.08 to be me

171 ST04E171C SHBY01BLKI02 61o7.54'N/146o35.02'W 14-Jun-02 R. tridactyla 39.61 5.68 4.00 to be me172 ST04E172C SHBY02BLKI02A 61o7.54'N/146o35.02'W 14-Jun-02 R. tridactyla 6.12 4.11 to be me

SHBY02BLKI02B 6.05 4.10 to be me

173 ST04E173C SHBY04BLKI02B 61o7.54'N/146o35.02'W 14-Jun-02 R. tridactyla 42.07 5.39 4.14 to be me

174 ST04E174C SHBY05BLKI02A 61o7.54'N/146o35.02'W 14-Jun-02 R. tridactyla 5.80 4.07 to be me

SHBY05BLKI02B 5.48 3.92 to be me

175 ST04E175C SHBY06BLKI02B 61o7.54'N/146o35.02'W 14-Jun-02 R. tridactyla 46.01 5.84 4.11 to be me

176 ST04E176C SHBY07BLKI02B 61o7.54'N/146o35.02'W 14-Jun-02 R. tridactyla 38.78 5.30 3.98 to be me177 ST04E177C SHBY08BLKI02 61o7.54'N/146o35.02'W 14-Jun-02 R. tridactyla 46.86 5.73 4.14 to be me178 ST04E178C SHBY10BLKI02 61o7.54'N/146o35.02'W 14-Jun-02 R. tridactyla 44.22 5.43 4.30 to be me179 ST04E179C SHBY11BLKI02 61o7.54'N/146o35.02'W 14-Jun-02 R. tridactyla 47.55 5.66 4.19 to be me180 ST04E180C CLIS01TBMU02 68o52.3'N/166o6.36'W 7-Jul-02 U. lomvia 82.72 7.70 5.09 to be me

181 ST04E181C CLIS02TBMU02 68o52.3'N/166o6.36'W 7-Jul-02 U. lomvia 85.57 8.18 4.92 to be me182 ST04E182C CLIS03TBMU02 68o52.3'N/166o6.36'W 7-Jul-02 U. lomvia 88.62 7.88 5.19 to be me183 ST04E183C CLIS04TBMU02 68o52.3'N/166o6.36'W 7-Jul-02 U. lomvia 95.64 8.19 5.20 to be me184 ST04E184C CLIS06TBMU02 68o52.3'N/166o6.36'W 7-Jul-02 U. lomvia 89.76 7.92 5.01 to be me185 ST04E185C CLIS07TBMU02 68o52.3'N/166o6.36'W 7-Jul-02 U. lomvia 90.29 8.08 5.07 to be me186 ST04E186C CLIS08TBMU02 68o52.3'N/166o6.36'W 7-Jul-02 U. lomvia 78.91 7.22 5.00 to be me187 ST04E187C CLIS09TBMU02 68o52.3'N/166o6.36'W 7-Jul-02 U. lomvia 101.42 8.47 5.26 to be me

188 ST04E188C CLIS12TBMU02 68o52.3'N/166o6.36'W 7-Jul-02 U. lomvia 84.92 7.71 5.02 to be me

189 ST04E189C STLW01COMU02 63o40.01'N/170o15.27'W 22-Jun-02 U. aalge 84.76 8.03 4.96 to be me190 ST04E190C STLW02COMU02 63o40.01'N/170o15.27'W 22-Jun-02 U. aalge 89.20 7.98 5.19 to be me191 ST04E191C STLW03COMU02 63o40.01'N/170o15.27'W 22-Jun-02 U. aalge 79.67 7.82 5.14 to be me192 ST04E192C STLW02TBMU02 63o40.01'N/170o15.27'W 20-Jun-02 U. lomvia 99.35 7.98 5.22 to be me193 ST04E193C STLW03TBMU02 63o40.01'N/170o15.27'W 20-Jun-02 U. lomvia 91.21 7.56 5.13 to be me194 ST04E194C STLW06TBMU02 63o40.01'N/170o15.27'W 20-Jun-02 U. lomvia 88.31 8.27 5.11 to be me195 ST04E195C STLW08TBMU02 63o40.01'N/170o15.27'W 20-Jun-02 U. lomvia 82.70 7.66 4.99 to be me196 ST04E196C STLW09TBMU02 63o40.01'N/170o15.27'W 20-Jun-02 U. lomvia 100.09 8.37 5.21 to be me

83.7993.5484.5594.97
APPENDIX B: EGG COLLECTION INVENTORY (CONT.) 

59

Egg Storage ID Field ID Location Collection Species Content Height Width Eggsh

# Date Mass (g) (cm) (cm) Thicknes

197 ST04E197C STLW10TBMU02 63o40.01'N/170o15.27'W 20-Jun-02 U. lomvia 88.90 8.05 5.12 to be me

198 ST04E198C STLW11TBMU02 63o40.01'N/170o15.27'W 20-Jun-02 U. lomvia 115.41 8.91 5.44 to be me

199 ST04E199C STLW12TBMU02 63o40.01'N/170o15.27'W 20-Jun-02 U. lomvia 99.27 8.14 5.26 to be me

200 ST04E200C CHBY02BLKI02 57o45.27'N/152o19.34'W 22-Jun-02 R. tridactyla 43.45 NM NM to be me

201 ST04E201C CHBY03BLKI02 57o45.27'N/152o19.34'W 22-Jun-02 R. tridactyla 49.78 5.83 4.20 to be me

202 ST04E202C CHBY04BLKI02 57o45.27'N/152o19.34'W 22-Jun-02 R. tridactyla 44.05 5.42 4.29 to be me

203 ST04E203C CHBY05BLKI02A 57o45.27'N/152o19.34'W 22-Jun-02 R. tridactyla 39.65 5.57 3.96 to be me

204 ST04E204C CHBY06BLKI02A 57o45.27'N/152o19.34'W 22-Jun-02 R. tridactyla 47.87 5.97 4.20 to be me

205 ST04E205C CHBY08BLKI02A 57o45.27'N/152o19.34'W 22-Jun-02 R. tridactyla 5.58 4.01 to be me

CHBY08BLKI02B 5.31 4.09 to be me

206 ST04E206C CHBY11BLKI02B 57o45.27'N/152o19.34'W 22-Jun-02 R. tridactyla 46.60 6.01 4.03 to be me

207 ST04E207C CHBY12BLKI02A 57o45.27'N/152o19.34'W 22-Jun-02 R. tridactyla 5.86 4.12 to be me

CHBY12BLKI02B 5.90 4.15 to be me

208 ST04E208C CTOM02COMU02 68o08.38'N/165o58.40'W 12-Jul-02 U. spp. 89.77 8.08 5.16 to be me

209 ST04E209C CTOM04COMU02 68o08.38'N/165o58.40'W 12-Jul-02 U. spp. 99.90 8.03 5.39 to be me210 ST04E210C CTOM05COMU02 68o08.38'N/165o58.40'W 12-Jul-02 U. spp. 75.76 7.34 4.86 to be me211 ST04E211C CTOM06COMU02 68o08.38'N/165o58.40'W 12-Jul-02 U. spp. 89.05 8.37 4.96 to be me212 ST04E212C CTOM08COMU02 68o08.38'N/165o58.40'W 12-Jul-02 U. spp. 89.51 8.14 5.01 to be me213 ST04E213C CTOM10COMU02 68o08.38'N/165o58.40'W 12-Jul-02 U. spp. 92.21 8.38 5.10 to be me214 ST04E214C CTOM11COMU02 68o08.38'N/165o58.40'W 12-Jul-02 U. spp. 84.48 7.72 5.15 to be me215 ST04E215C CTOM12COMU02 68o08.38'N/165o58.40'W 12-Jul-02 U. spp. 88.22 7.84 5.13 to be me216 ST04E216C EAAM01COMU02 58o55.05'N/152o00.21'W 31-Jul-02 U. aalge 77.62 7.78 5.05 to be me

217 ST04E217C EAAM02COMU02 58o55.05'N/152o00.21'W 31-Jul-02 U. aalge 88.28 7.98 5.14 to be me218 ST04E218C EAAM03COMU02 58o55.05'N/152o00.21'W 31-Jul-02 U. aalge 89.74 8.33 5.26 to be me219 ST04E219C EAAM06COMU02 58o55.05'N/152o00.21'W 31-Jul-02 U. aalge 67.05 8.10 4.94 to be me220 ST04E220C EAAM07COMU02 58o55.05'N/152o00.21'W 31-Jul-02 U. aalge 82.80 8.30 5.00 to be me221 ST04E221C EAAM12COMU02 58o55.05'N/152o00.21'W 31-Jul-02 U. aalge 83.69 8.20 5.01 to be me222 ST04E222C EAAM13COMU02 58o55.05'N/152o00.21'W 31-Jul-02 U. aalge 62.99 7.51 4.69 to be me

95.9089.60
APPENDIX C: CHLORINATED HYDROCARBON DATA. All data in ng/g wet mass. Mean and 1 

standard deviation shown for the colony. 

60

 

Compound 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Mean SD

%lipid 8.98 11.1 12.9 12.2 14.4 11.2 13.0 16.0 15.5 12.8 2.3

PCB 8 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 0.350 <0.100 <0.100 0.128 0.083

PCB 18 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100

PCB 29 0.480 <0.100 0.449 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 0.181 0.16

PCB 31 0.362 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 0.129 0.087

PCB 28 5.74 2.09 5.41 4.39 5.08 3.00 3.22 3.98 3.50 4.05 1.2

PCB 45 1.81 0.170 0.590 0.330 0.750 0.190 0.440 0.150 0.890 0.591 0.53

PCB 52 1.23 0.589 0.853 0.400 0.130 <0.100 0.157 <0.100 1.71 0.585 0.58

PCB 49 <0.100 0.210 <0.100 0.130 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 0.116 0.037

PCB 44 0.290 0.320 <0.100 0.210 0.260 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 0.176 0.094

PCB 74 3.05 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 0.428 0.98

PCB 63 <0.100 0.218 <0.100 0.289 0.665 <0.100 0.493 1.31 0.405 0.409 0.39

PCB 70+76 1.12 0.530 0.290 0.278 0.372 <0.100 0.197 <0.100 0.258 0.361 0.31

PCB 95 1.11 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 0.110 <0.100 0.230 <0.100 0.490 0.271 0.34

PCB 66 7.19 2.38 5.62 5.11 4.44 3.72 4.03 4.22 4.58 4.59 1.3

PCB 56+60 4.53 2.97 4.19 4.96 6.82 4.24 4.95 4.54 5.63 4.76 1.1

PCB 92+84+89 0.700 0.430 0.360 0.300 0.400 <0.100 0.160 <0.100 0.120 0.297 0.20

PCB 101+90 <0.100 1.81 <0.100 0.550 1.01 1.74 1.01 <0.100 1.63 0.894 0.72

PCB 99 9.23 3.95 9.44 9.14 12.0 6.63 8.05 5.18 8.13 7.97 2.4

PCB 87 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100

PCB 110 <0.100 0.960 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 0.500 0.240 0.30

PCB 82 0.420 0.180 <0.100 0.180 0.220 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 0.167 0.11

PCB 151 17.9 5.50 4.38 0.449 7.52 3.84 2.96 2.30 9.97 6.09 5.3

PCB 107 2.12 0.600 0.660 0.520 0.500 <0.100 0.500 0.600 0.230 0.648 0.58

PCB 149 0.590 1.29 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 0.147 <0.100 0.860 0.376 0.44

PCB 118 12.7 6.19 10.7 11.5 13.4 8.20 9.63 9.05 9.67 10.1 2.2

PCB 146 6.20 2.73 4.86 4.53 4.94 3.06 3.95 3.21 3.65 4.13 1.1

PCB 132 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 0.149 0.188 <0.100 <0.100 0.245 0.131 0.053

PCB 153 17.6 13.1 17.3 21.0 27.3 12.7 15.9 9.14 16.9 16.8 5.2

PCB 105 3.96 2.43 3.55 3.13 3.62 2.33 2.36 2.95 2.56 2.99 0.61

PCB 138 8.47 6.53 9.56 10.6 13.6 4.71 6.38 4.24 7.21 7.92 3.0

PCB 163 4.65 2.97 3.81 3.84 4.14 2.30 3.56 4.08 3.21 3.62 0.70

PCB 158 0.437 0.281 0.311 0.311 0.404 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 0.125 0.241 0.14

PCB 187 5.74 6.38 5.08 6.33 7.37 3.60 5.88 5.53 6.05 5.77 1.0

PCB 183 2.44 1.37 2.03 1.01 1.13 0.750 0.605 0.590 1.14 1.23 0.63

PCB 128 8.17 2.97 1.27 1.58 1.82 0.664 1.98 1.74 2.16 2.48 2.2

PCB 174 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100

PCB 201 0.379 0.368 0.230 0.295 0.338 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 0.223 0.12

PCB 156+202+171 1.00 0.700 0.900 0.600 0.700 0.300 0.200 0.300 0.200 0.544 0.30

PCB 157 0.280 0.320 0.170 0.300 0.330 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 0.200 0.11

PCB 180 2.94 4.03 2.88 2.75 3.92 1.67 2.26 0.937 2.86 2.69 0.98

PCB 193 0.460 0.414 0.370 0.370 0.412 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 0.270 0.16

PCB 170 1.28 1.14 0.970 0.770 0.810 0.500 0.750 0.550 0.610 0.820 0.27

PCB 195 0.277 <0.100 0.150 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 0.125 0.059

PCB 194 0.470 0.470 0.360 0.130 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 0.214 0.17

PCB 206 0.160 <0.100 0.180 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 0.116 0.031

PCB 209 <0.100 <0.100 0.161 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 0.107 0.020

ΣPCBs 135 76.6 97.1 96.3 125 64.3 80.4 64.6 95.5 92.8 25

Murre species eggs from Little Diomede Island

Egg Number
APPENDIX C: CHLORINATED HYDROCARBON DATA (CONT.) All data in ng/g wet mass. Mean 

and 1 standard deviation shown for the colony. 

61

Compound 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 Mean SD

%lipid 11.6 14.1 12.9 12.8 12.7 12.3 13.6 10.8 14.4 11.0 9.05 12.3 1.6

PCB 8 0.960 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 0.178 0.26

PCB 18 0.897 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 0.172 0.24

PCB 29 0.406 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 0.128 0.092

PCB 31 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100

PCB 28 4.42 3.65 2.67 3.93 4.77 3.53 3.74 3.52 5.86 4.11 2.12 3.85 1.0

PCB 45 0.760 0.230 0.310 0.530 0.500 <0.100 0.170 0.150 0.480 0.870 <0.100 0.382 0.27

PCB 52 <0.100 <0.100 3.12 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 0.340 0.526 0.720 <0.100 0.491 0.90

PCB 49 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100

PCB 44 <0.100 0.220 0.310 0.280 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 0.146 0.082

PCB 74 <0.100 <0.100 6.40 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 0.673 1.9

PCB 63 0.520 0.156 0.390 0.150 0.390 0.310 0.199 <0.100 1.05 0.816 0.179 0.387 0.30

PCB 70+76 0.180 0.309 0.212 0.398 0.720 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 0.220 0.19

PCB 95 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100

PCB 66 5.06 3.91 2.63 4.07 5.51 4.23 4.55 4.09 6.33 4.38 1.75 4.23 1.3

PCB 56+60 3.88 3.94 3.48 4.63 4.48 4.92 4.99 4.40 6.97 6.33 2.23 4.57 1.3

PCB 92+84+89 0.200 0.290 1.55 0.330 0.250 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 0.293 0.43

PCB 101+90 <0.100 0.130 3.60 0.200 <0.100 <0.100 1.46 2.44 1.71 2.71 2.14 1.34 1.3

PCB 99 8.73 6.25 16.1 7.93 7.44 6.60 7.52 6.78 9.16 6.13 1.35 7.64 3.5

PCB 87 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100

PCB 110 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100

PCB 82 <0.100 0.180 0.300 0.250 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 0.139 0.072

PCB 151 5.03 3.41 16.0 8.35 3.27 3.12 5.18 3.35 7.47 4.40 <0.100 5.43 4.2

PCB 107 0.550 0.210 0.900 0.310 0.390 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 0.170 <0.100 <0.100 0.275 0.25

PCB 149 <0.100 <0.100 12.9 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 1.26 3.9

PCB 118 11.1 7.59 6.47 8.33 8.77 8.36 9.11 8.73 10.7 8.83 4.40 8.40 1.8

PCB 146 5.07 3.04 4.39 3.44 3.78 3.33 3.18 3.50 4.03 3.18 1.23 3.47 0.96

PCB 132 <0.100 <0.100 1.01 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 0.193 0.207 <0.100 <0.100 0.201 0.27

PCB 153 19.9 14.1 43.6 18.0 13.7 12.9 14.4 14.1 16.1 14.8 3.90 16.9 9.7

PCB 105 3.40 2.12 2.32 2.00 2.88 2.29 2.40 2.39 3.15 2.21 1.32 2.41 0.57

PCB 138 10.6 6.59 25.8 8.67 7.83 4.86 5.60 5.40 6.48 5.71 1.68 8.11 6.3

PCB 163 4.04 2.05 6.20 2.47 2.97 2.37 2.42 2.50 3.11 2.48 1.56 2.92 1.3

PCB 158 0.325 <0.100 1.06 <0.100 0.255 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 0.222 0.29

PCB 187 5.98 4.48 15.9 5.24 4.12 3.84 3.86 4.09 5.22 4.62 2.23 5.42 3.6

PCB 183 2.54 0.630 3.94 0.600 1.74 0.690 0.580 0.750 0.910 0.680 0.148 1.20 1.1

PCB 128 1.54 0.644 6.49 1.05 1.14 0.586 0.754 0.794 1.18 1.02 <0.100 1.39 1.7

PCB 174 <0.100 <0.100 1.60 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 0.236 0.45

PCB 201 0.240 0.261 0.572 0.330 0.160 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 0.197 0.15

PCB 156+202+171 0.900 0.400 <0.100 0.300 0.600 0.200 <0.100 0.300 0.400 <0.100 <0.100 0.318 0.25

PCB 157 0.190 0.260 0.360 0.280 0.150 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 0.167 0.093

PCB 180 4.27 2.02 11.3 2.75 2.54 2.00 2.11 2.33 2.44 2.30 0.150 3.11 2.9

PCB 193 0.370 0.328 0.720 0.369 0.280 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 0.120 <0.100 <0.100 0.244 0.20

PCB 170 1.14 0.410 3.45 0.460 0.730 0.540 0.490 0.600 0.641 0.466 0.144 0.825 0.90

PCB 195 0.260 <0.100 0.230 <0.100 0.140 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 0.130 0.058

PCB 194 0.370 <0.100 1.15 <0.100 0.250 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 0.234 0.32

PCB 206 0.140 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 0.120 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 0.105 0.013

PCB 209 0.108 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 0.101 0.0024

ΣPCBs 104 67.8 207 85.6 79.9 64.7 72.7 70.7 94.4 76.8 26.5 86.4 45

Common murre eggs from St. George Island

Egg Number
APPENDIX C: CHLORINATED HYDROCARBON DATA (CONT.) All data in ng/g wet mass. Mean 

and 1 standard deviation shown for the colony. 

62

Compound 42 mean 43 44 45 46 47 48 Mean SD

% lipid 10.9 12.9 8.25 11.0 9.72 9.92 10.6 10.5 1.4

PCB 8 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100

PCB 18 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100

PCB 29 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100

PCB 31 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100

PCB 28 1.58 3.64 3.68 2.00 3.33 2.65 2.90 2.83 0.81

PCB 45 <0.100 0.744 0.380 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 0.232 0.25

PCB 52 <0.100 1.20 4.16 <0.100 0.658 0.528 0.569 1.05 1.4

PCB 49 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100

PCB 44 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100

PCB 74 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100

PCB 63 <0.100 <0.100 0.245 <0.100 0.127 <0.100 <0.100 0.125 0.054

PCB 70+76 0.376 0.885 1.43 0.160 1.88 0.687 0.423 0.834 0.62

PCB 95 <0.100 <0.100 0.194 <0.100 0.301 <0.100 <0.100 0.142 0.078

PCB 66 2.04 3.51 4.04 2.10 3.97 3.42 2.53 3.09 0.85

PCB 56+60 2.68 5.74 9.84 3.35 9.38 4.42 4.02 5.63 2.9

PCB 92+84+89 <0.100 0.464 1.67 0.150 1.32 0.231 0.197 0.590 0.64

PCB 101+90 <0.100 0.787 2.69 <0.100 1.52 <0.100 <0.100 0.771 1.0

PCB 99 5.71 9.59 12.0 6.22 10.2 8.71 6.50 8.42 2.4

PCB 87 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100

PCB 110 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100

PCB 82 <0.100 0.137 0.893 0.122 0.910 0.313 0.283 0.394 0.36

PCB 151 4.06 11.6 13.2 8.49 7.08 9.86 3.22 8.22 3.7

PCB 107 <0.100 <0.100 0.703 <0.100 0.566 0.118 <0.100 0.255 0.26

PCB 149 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100

PCB 118 7.88 11.2 12.8 8.18 11.3 11.2 12.2 10.7 1.9

PCB 146 2.61 3.97 4.74 2.88 3.89 4.05 4.12 3.75 0.75

PCB 132 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100

PCB 153 12.1 18.6 20.1 13.3 16.6 18.7 12.1 15.9 3.4

PCB 105 2.64 3.43 3.71 2.58 2.47 3.23 4.10 3.17 0.63

PCB 138 7.02 8.92 9.48 7.20 8.61 8.79 7.29 8.19 0.99

PCB 163 1.70 2.76 3.11 1.99 2.90 2.91 4.20 2.80 0.81

PCB 158 0.342 0.551 0.978 0.849 1.18 0.786 0.896 0.797 0.28

PCB 187 2.56 3.71 4.01 2.82 3.99 3.73 5.16 3.71 0.85

PCB 183 0.850 1.36 1.24 0.970 1.12 1.10 1.11 1.11 0.17

PCB 128 0.185 0.570 0.664 0.217 0.769 0.548 1.13 0.583 0.33

PCB 174 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100

PCB 201 1.72 1.73 1.79 1.60 1.73 1.68 1.90 1.74 0.093

PCB 156+202+171 0.212 0.529 0.393 0.266 0.251 0.321 1.08 0.436 0.30

PCB 157 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100

PCB 180 2.32 3.40 3.74 2.62 3.09 3.51 2.08 2.97 0.64

PCB 193 <0.100 0.105 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 0.102 0.118 0.104 0.0066

PCB 170 0.309 0.785 0.808 0.450 0.643 0.632 0.806 0.633 0.19

PCB 195 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100

PCB 194 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100

PCB 206 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100

PCB 209 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100

ΣPCBs 58.9 99.9 123 68.5 100 92.2 78.9 88.8 22

Thick-billed murre eggs from St. George Island

Egg Number
APPENDIX C: CHLORINATED HYDROCARBON DATA (CONT.) All data in ng/g wet mass. Mean 

and 1 standard deviation shown for the colony. 

63

Compound 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 Mean SD

%lipid 8.74 13.0 10.2 9.12 12.5 11.0 11.5 9.91 11.7 10.9 1.5

PCB 8 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100

PCB 18 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 0.119 0.102 0.0063

PCB 29 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100

PCB 31 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100

PCB 28 1.68 3.14 1.47 1.63 2.41 1.94 2.79 1.86 3.80 2.30 0.79

PCB 45 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 0.179 <0.100 0.109 0.026

PCB 52 <0.100 0.443 <0.100 <0.100 0.224 <0.100 0.396 0.157 <0.100 0.191 0.14

PCB 49 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100

PCB 44 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100

PCB 74 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100

PCB 63 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100

PCB 70+76 0.659 1.29 0.748 0.706 1.07 0.568 1.60 0.836 0.733 0.912 0.34

PCB 95 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100

PCB 66 1.94 4.08 2.73 1.25 2.89 2.34 4.03 2.31 2.56 2.68 0.91

PCB 56+60 2.96 6.65 3.77 2.65 5.68 3.75 7.22 3.91 7.69 4.92 1.9

PCB 92+84+89 0.284 1.15 0.455 0.423 0.859 0.401 1.09 0.387 0.802 0.650 0.33

PCB 101+90 <0.100 2.00 0.503 0.208 1.58 0.695 2.46 0.335 0.530 0.935 0.86

PCB 99 6.02 8.56 4.99 1.37 6.99 3.61 8.56 7.74 8.99 6.31 2.6

PCB 87 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100

PCB 110 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100

PCB 82 <0.100 0.322 <0.100 <0.100 0.158 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 0.131 0.074

PCB 151 7.26 10.5 5.01 6.80 9.20 1.72 6.26 16.4 19.5 9.18 5.6

PCB 107 <0.100 0.151 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 0.106 0.017

PCB 149 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100

PCB 118 7.11 9.97 6.22 4.00 8.03 6.36 10.3 9.22 11.9 8.12 2.5

PCB 146 2.84 4.15 2.28 1.73 3.31 2.49 4.18 4.42 4.96 3.37 1.1

PCB 132 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100

PCB 153 14.4 17.5 10.9 4.55 13.7 7.37 18.3 21.3 22.2 14.5 6.0

PCB 105 1.94 2.88 1.92 2.22 2.33 1.99 2.91 2.40 4.17 2.53 0.72

PCB 138 6.85 7.38 5.86 3.07 6.29 4.88 7.55 8.32 8.13 6.48 1.7

PCB 163 2.06 2.75 1.35 2.59 2.08 2.48 2.96 3.14 3.28 2.52 0.61

PCB 158 0.411 0.421 0.323 0.304 0.377 0.361 0.464 0.607 0.722 0.443 0.14

PCB 187 3.33 4.05 2.51 3.70 3.23 3.82 4.30 4.85 4.37 3.80 0.70

PCB 183 0.440 0.835 0.276 0.648 0.603 0.361 0.784 0.893 0.955 0.644 0.24

PCB 128 0.227 0.352 <0.100 0.232 0.221 0.132 0.353 0.479 0.447 0.283 0.13

PCB 174 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100

PCB 201 1.69 1.71 1.84 1.68 1.63 1.66 1.74 1.77 1.74 1.72 0.063

PCB 156+202+171 0.128 0.440 <0.100 0.272 0.315 0.180 0.475 0.401 0.842 0.350 0.23

PCB 157 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100

PCB 180 2.67 3.07 2.06 1.17 2.54 1.41 3.28 4.08 3.71 2.67 0.99

PCB 193 <0.100 0.129 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 0.130 0.146 0.230 0.126 0.043

PCB 170 0.316 0.541 0.142 0.459 0.379 0.315 0.608 0.723 0.914 0.489 0.24

PCB 195 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100

PCB 194 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 0.303 0.123 0.068

PCB 206 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100

PCB 209 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 0.141 <0.100 0.128 0.162 <0.100 0.187 0.124 0.033

ΣPCBs 65.2 94.4 55.4 41.8 76.1 49.0 92.9 96.9 114 76.2 25

Common murre eggs from Bogoslof Island

Egg Number
APPENDIX C: CHLORINATED HYDROCARBON DATA (CONT.) All data in ng/g wet mass. Mean 

and 1 standard deviation shown for the colony. 

64

Compound 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 Mean SD

%lipid 13.4 10.2 11.1 13.2 9.50 11.8 10.5 9.71 11.3 9.74 11.0 1.4

PCB 8 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100

PCB 18 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100

PCB 29 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100

PCB 31 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100

PCB 28 2.67 2.68 1.53 4.13 2.26 2.75 2.27 1.63 3.42 1.72 2.51 0.82

PCB 45 <0.100 2.05 <0.100 0.815 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 0.367 0.63

PCB 52 <0.100 0.208 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 0.659 0.167 0.18

PCB 49 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100

PCB 44 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100

PCB 74 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100

PCB 63 <0.100 0.166 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 0.107 0.021

PCB 70+76 1.15 1.09 0.108 0.726 0.732 0.984 0.694 0.625 0.635 0.332 0.708 0.32

PCB 95 <0.100 1.26 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 0.473 0.253 0.37

PCB 66 3.34 3.44 1.89 4.50 2.64 4.13 2.53 2.00 4.62 2.66 3.18 0.99

PCB 56+60 5.88 6.41 2.89 7.41 5.02 6.97 4.17 3.03 6.24 3.52 5.15 1.7

PCB 92+84+89 0.497 0.727 0.117 0.500 0.481 0.807 0.350 0.338 0.444 0.327 0.459 0.20

PCB 101+90 0.338 2.32 <0.100 0.566 0.725 1.45 <0.100 <0.100 0.293 <0.100 0.609 0.73

PCB 99 9.99 11.8 4.99 12.1 5.09 9.41 5.98 5.36 9.45 3.98 7.82 3.0

PCB 87 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100

PCB 110 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100

PCB 82 <0.100 0.273 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 0.200 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 0.244 0.142 0.069

PCB 151 15.8 17.9 7.14 18.9 3.30 8.02 6.78 7.58 10.2 14.3 11.0 5.3

PCB 107 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 0.153 0.105 0.017

PCB 149 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100

PCB 118 13.2 13.7 7.53 15.7 9.97 13.7 8.60 7.10 13.5 8.02 11.1 3.2

PCB 146 4.87 4.92 2.91 5.86 3.55 5.00 3.14 2.62 5.15 2.95 4.10 1.2

PCB 132 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100

PCB 153 23.1 24.6 12.3 25.2 10.0 16.2 13.1 12.2 21.2 9.34 16.7 6.2

PCB 105 3.81 3.86 2.20 4.52 3.03 3.99 2.61 2.10 4.09 2.42 3.26 0.89

PCB 138 10.2 11.2 6.09 10.8 6.03 8.59 6.64 6.45 8.88 5.19 8.01 2.2

PCB 163 3.61 3.67 1.77 4.39 3.72 5.04 2.05 1.76 3.69 1.57 3.13 1.2

PCB 158 0.574 0.718 0.402 1.27 0.428 1.10 0.350 0.360 0.807 0.366 0.638 0.33

PCB 187 4.74 4.93 2.87 5.26 4.96 6.29 2.96 2.70 4.71 2.28 4.17 1.3

PCB 183 1.39 1.39 0.702 1.25 0.526 0.994 0.602 0.384 1.11 0.447 0.880 0.39

PCB 128 0.734 1.07 0.179 0.700 0.368 0.705 0.222 0.202 0.505 <0.100 0.479 0.32

PCB 174 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100

PCB 201 1.83 1.83 1.78 1.76 1.81 1.83 1.64 1.76 1.63 1.85 1.77 0.079

PCB 156+202+171 0.659 0.561 0.341 0.943 0.488 0.750 0.409 0.116 0.899 0.284 0.545 0.27

PCB 157 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100

PCB 180 4.36 4.78 2.43 4.13 1.78 2.63 2.36 2.19 3.51 1.56 2.97 1.1

PCB 193 0.141 0.114 0.137 0.177 <0.100 0.152 <0.100 <0.100 0.177 <0.100 0.130 0.031

PCB 170 1.00 1.08 0.227 1.09 0.636 1.09 0.380 0.157 0.929 0.164 0.675 0.41

PCB 195 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100

PCB 194 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 0.132 <0.100 0.103 0.010

PCB 206 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100

PCB 209 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 0.106 <0.100 0.101 0.0019

ΣPCBs 114 129 60.5 133 67.5 103 67.8 60.7 106 64.8 90.6 29

Thick-billed murre eggs from Bogoslof Island

Egg Number
APPENDIX C: CHLORINATED HYDROCARBON DATA (CONT.) All data in ng/g wet mass. Mean 

and 1 standard deviation shown for the colony. 

65

Compound 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 Mean SD

%lipid 7.56 8.22 9.27 6.94 7.73 9.45 9.56 11.9 9.61 10.4 8.01 8.97 1.4

PCB 8 0.786 0.672 0.667 0.645 1.00 0.744 0.684 0.773 0.581 0.573 0.664 0.708 0.12

PCB 18 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 0.145 0.118 <0.100 <0.100 0.125 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 0.108 0.015

PCB 29 1.08 1.04 1.03 1.07 1.26 1.11 1.05 1.16 1.11 1.06 1.22 1.11 0.075

PCB 31 1.23 0.991 1.07 1.57 1.42 1.06 1.03 1.08 1.08 0.980 1.16 1.15 0.19

PCB 28 2.32 2.45 3.20 2.63 1.56 2.32 2.77 2.53 2.62 1.99 2.33 2.43 0.42

PCB 45 0.982 0.652 0.863 2.00 1.35 0.880 0.741 0.878 1.01 1.50 0.945 1.07 0.39

PCB 52 0.624 <0.100 0.220 0.789 3.59 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 0.311 0.558 1.0

PCB 49 <0.100 <0.100 0.167 <0.100 0.172 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 0.140 0.116 0.029

PCB 44 0.833 1.21 0.663 1.14 1.14 0.844 1.11 1.28 0.935 1.55 1.05 1.07 0.24

PCB 74 1.82 1.77 1.73 3.87 1.76 1.67 1.62 1.69 1.98 2.03 1.82 1.98 0.64

PCB 63 1.19 1.24 1.26 1.39 1.13 1.18 1.15 1.10 1.22 1.26 1.06 1.20 0.091

PCB 70+76 0.193 <0.100 0.115 0.758 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 0.145 0.146 <0.100 0.178 0.19

PCB 95 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 1.18 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 0.233 <0.100 <0.100 0.210 0.32

PCB 66 3.50 2.34 4.73 4.62 2.39 4.08 4.55 2.26 3.18 3.62 3.05 3.48 0.93

PCB 56+60 2.16 1.93 4.01 2.93 0.761 3.19 2.93 1.48 2.04 2.04 1.70 2.29 0.91

PCB 92+84+89 1.57 0.312 0.694 0.860 0.110 0.128 0.240 0.193 0.214 0.410 0.297 0.457 0.44

PCB 101+90 0.867 0.586 1.01 6.94 0.366 0.454 0.449 0.254 0.614 1.64 0.479 1.24 1.9

PCB 99 7.13 8.14 9.94 12.2 3.31 9.02 8.92 3.99 8.10 5.35 7.79 7.63 2.6

PCB 87 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100

PCB 110 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100

PCB 82 0.688 <0.100 <0.100 0.952 0.659 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 0.102 0.216 0.309 0.311 0.31

PCB 151 5.24 1.30 6.89 11.1 7.91 4.52 6.87 1.09 11.1 18.9 5.53 7.31 5.0

PCB 107 0.829 0.504 0.673 0.467 0.788 0.570 0.473 0.530 0.331 1.23 0.992 0.672 0.27

PCB 149 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 1.33 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 0.212 0.37

PCB 118 7.25 6.91 12.2 10.2 4.92 11.4 11.0 6.93 8.17 14.9 8.48 9.31 2.9

PCB 146 2.27 2.48 5.54 4.63 1.97 5.61 4.77 2.89 3.77 8.41 3.75 4.19 1.9

PCB 132 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100

PCB 153 14.0 9.44 25.7 24.5 7.63 24.1 21.5 11.4 19.0 24.5 17.9 18.2 6.6

PCB 105 2.58 2.64 4.31 3.06 2.31 4.25 3.86 2.82 2.56 7.27 2.81 3.50 1.4

PCB 138 7.21 5.68 11.7 15.8 2.61 11.2 10.1 5.33 9.12 5.41 8.77 8.45 3.7

PCB 163 2.07 3.07 4.19 3.06 1.92 4.21 3.32 3.09 2.70 11.2 2.62 3.77 2.6

PCB 158 0.234 <0.100 0.113 0.466 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 1.04 <0.100 0.232 0.29

PCB 187 3.00 4.38 6.20 5.31 3.13 6.32 5.53 16.2 5.58 16.0 4.10 6.89 4.7

PCB 183 1.64 1.57 2.36 2.38 1.70 2.62 2.30 1.71 1.99 4.21 1.94 2.22 0.75

PCB 128 0.780 0.850 1.05 4.99 1.15 1.06 0.990 0.860 1.02 4.02 1.05 1.62 1.4

PCB 174 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 0.135 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 0.103 0.011

PCB 201 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100

PCB 156+202+171 <0.100 <0.100 0.293 <0.100 <0.100 0.371 0.131 <0.100 <0.100 1.25 <0.100 0.250 0.34

PCB 157 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100

PCB 180 1.40 1.11 5.79 4.76 1.15 5.23 3.90 1.40 3.77 7.15 3.12 3.53 2.1

PCB 193 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100

PCB 170 0.385 0.428 1.59 0.760 0.481 1.62 1.13 0.549 0.806 4.92 0.615 1.21 1.3

PCB 195 0.471 0.399 0.559 0.583 0.446 0.606 0.524 0.553 0.553 0.809 0.555 0.551 0.11

PCB 194 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 0.218 <0.100 0.111 0.036

PCB 206 <0.100 <0.100 0.227 <0.100 <0.100 0.133 <0.100 0.184 <0.100 0.591 <0.100 0.167 0.15

PCB 209 0.149 0.140 0.521 0.156 0.157 0.451 0.397 0.285 0.277 0.692 0.168 0.308 0.18

ΣPCBs 76.5 64.2 121 139 60.4 111 104 74.7 95.9 157 86.7 99.1 31

 Common murre eggs from East Amatuli Island

Egg Number
APPENDIX C: CHLORINATED HYDROCARBON DATA (CONT.) All data in ng/g wet mass. Mean 

and 1 standard deviation shown for the colony. 

66

Compound 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Mean SD

%lipid 13.3 12.1 12.4 13.0 11.7 11.5 11.8 11.8 14.1 11.6 12.3 0.87

PCB 8 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100

PCB 18 <0.100 <0.100 0.169 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 0.107 0.022

PCB 29 <0.100 <0.100 0.368 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 0.127 0.085

PCB 31 0.141 <0.100 0.141 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 0.108 0.017

PCB 28 3.15 1.30 4.73 2.10 2.95 3.44 2.95 4.19 2.15 2.57 2.95 1.0

PCB 45 1.59 <0.100 0.800 <0.100 0.600 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 0.160 0.130 0.378 0.49

PCB 52 0.611 <0.100 0.300 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 0.267 <0.100 0.188 0.17

PCB 49 0.620 0.103 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 0.152 0.16

PCB 44 0.400 0.250 0.300 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 0.270 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 0.182 0.11

PCB 74 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100

PCB 63 0.828 <0.100 0.778 0.126 0.551 0.330 0.167 0.357 <0.100 0.170 0.351 0.28

PCB 70+76 0.804 0.208 0.284 0.325 <0.100 <0.100 0.326 <0.100 0.130 <0.100 0.248 0.22

PCB 95 0.842 <0.100 0.253 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 0.190 0.23

PCB 66 7.94 2.49 10.9 4.62 6.53 9.50 5.87 8.05 4.66 5.28 6.58 2.5

PCB 56+60 9.44 2.78 14.2 5.40 7.12 11.0 7.39 10.0 6.37 8.24 8.19 3.2

PCB 92+84+89 0.500 0.190 0.400 0.300 <0.100 <0.100 0.300 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 0.219 0.15

PCB 101+90 8.50 <0.100 <0.100 0.920 2.50 <0.100 1.50 0.200 1.88 1.53 1.73 2.5

PCB 99 23.7 4.77 22.8 11.0 13.1 20.6 15.4 16.7 10.4 12.4 15.1 6.0

PCB 87 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100

PCB 110 0.500 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 0.140 0.13

PCB 82 0.560 0.240 <0.100 0.200 <0.100 <0.100 0.210 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 0.181 0.14

PCB 151 10.4 1.47 7.91 6.31 5.54 7.84 8.23 7.59 7.84 6.82 7.00 2.3

PCB 107 5.10 0.260 2.80 0.500 1.20 1.40 1.20 1.60 0.500 0.700 1.53 1.5

PCB 149 3.97 <0.100 0.570 0.150 <0.100 <0.100 0.330 <0.100 0.130 <0.100 0.565 1.2

PCB 118 28.7 7.65 35.4 18.0 23.3 33.3 22.0 26.1 15.6 18.3 22.8 8.4

PCB 146 15.0 3.97 19.8 9.88 14.9 18.7 12.4 14.3 7.36 9.83 12.6 4.9

PCB 132 0.610 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 1.67 2.48 <0.100 1.34 0.280 0.290 0.707 0.84

PCB 153 85.1 16.3 71.9 45.5 48.9 64.6 64.7 53.3 31.1 39.6 52.1 20

PCB 105 7.88 2.40 12.2 5.31 8.04 11.1 6.11 8.28 4.46 5.42 7.12 3.0

PCB 138 44.0 7.73 43.0 21.5 16.9 23.5 32.1 20.3 12.2 14.7 23.6 12

PCB 163 13.4 2.70 17.5 7.79 11.5 14.6 11.1 11.9 6.00 8.15 10.5 4.4

PCB 158 3.23 <0.100 2.15 0.730 0.520 1.18 1.41 0.944 0.500 0.709 1.15 0.93

PCB 187 29.9 4.75 27.4 15.0 19.3 23.4 20.9 19.5 10.4 13.4 18.4 7.7

PCB 183 9.26 1.39 6.61 3.62 6.84 6.58 5.42 5.68 2.40 3.38 5.12 2.4

PCB 128 19.0 0.709 6.64 2.88 2.88 4.94 3.91 4.07 3.11 3.11 5.12 5.1

PCB 174 0.400 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 0.130 0.095

PCB 201 0.925 0.287 1.00 0.551 0.312 0.257 0.651 0.272 <0.100 0.170 0.453 0.32

PCB 156+202+171 3.00 1.00 5.00 2.00 4.00 5.00 2.00 3.00 1.00 2.00 2.80 1.5

PCB 157 0.680 0.290 1.36 0.510 0.350 0.600 0.520 0.270 0.170 0.200 0.495 0.35

PCB 180 34.1 4.71 26.9 14.9 21.0 19.9 23.5 22.8 8.97 15.4 19.2 8.6

PCB 193 1.41 0.541 2.97 1.05 1.06 1.13 1.31 0.825 0.350 0.567 1.12 0.74

PCB 170 8.60 1.35 9.54 4.19 7.63 7.63 7.39 6.90 2.89 4.33 6.05 2.7

PCB 195 1.49 0.220 2.15 1.00 2.29 2.25 1.45 1.73 0.280 0.740 1.36 0.78

PCB 194 4.15 0.911 5.70 2.93 6.42 5.89 4.17 4.35 1.22 2.38 3.81 1.9

PCB 206 0.150 <0.100 2.06 0.130 2.09 2.58 0.150 1.70 0.110 0.480 0.955 1.0

PCB 209 0.865 <0.100 1.27 0.763 1.16 1.43 0.756 0.824 <0.100 0.127 0.740 0.49

ΣPCBs 391 71.0 368 190 241 305 266 257 143 181 241 99

Common murre eggs from St. Lazaria Island

Egg Number
APPENDIX C: CHLORINATED HYDROCARBON DATA (CONT.) All data in ng/g wet mass. Mean and 1 standar

for colony. 

67

Compound 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 M%lipid 8.98 11.1 12.9 12.2 14.4 11.2 13.0 16.0 15.5 12HCB 94.9 64.8 101 91.2 123 66.3 73.2 87.0 68.0 8heptachlor <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0

oxychlordane 17.7 11.30 10.5 12.9 16.4 8.02 10.6 14.5 15.2 132,4'-DDE 0.233 0.286 <0.100 0.172 0.300 <0.100 0.104 <0.100 <0.100 0.

4,4'-DDE 89.3 62.4 69.1 78.0 87.3 62.8 58.0 66.3 59.9 702,4'-DDT <0.100 0.827 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 0.

mirex 4.87 2.47 2.19 3.36 4.16 1.27 2.18 1.89 2.04 2α-HCH 2.02 0.962 1.43 1.70 0.861 0.760 0.856 0.803 1.51 1

β-HCH 17.8 14.3 9.45 30.4 39.6 17.7 28.7 23.9 29.4 23γ-HCH 0.842 0.307 0.618 0.323 0.296 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 0.122 0.

heptachlor epoxide 4.90 2.75 2.07 4.97 6.41 2.00 5.82 6.40 6.39 4

trans-chlordane <0.100 0.466 <0.100 0.243 0.172 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 0.

cis-chlordane <0.100 1.02 <0.100 0.442 0.370 <0.100 0.300 0.198 0.345 0.trans-nonachlor 1.14 2.56 <0.100 0.696 0.434 <0.100 0.718 0.538 0.390 0.7dieldrin 5.59 4.64 3.21 3.79 5.52 2.41 4.72 5.17 11.3 52,4'-DDD <0.100 0.350 <0.100 0.186 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 0.4,4'-DDD 3.38 0.742 3.39 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 0.9

cis- nonachlor 5.04 2.23 0.672 0.784 1.69 0.369 0.427 0.199 1.23 14,4'-DDT 1.70 2.44 1.06 2.84 2.44 <0.1001 <0.1001 <0.1001 0.9281 1

1 Values obtained using GC-MS

Egg Number

Murre species eggs from Little Diomede Island
APPENDIX C: CHLORINATED HYDROCARBON DATA (CONT.) All data in ng/g wet mass. Mean and 1 standar

for colony. 

68

Compound 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 %lipid 11.6 14.1 12.9 12.8 12.7 12.3 13.6 10.8 14.4 11.0 9.0HCB 75.7 83.6 86.3 86.1 81.2 82.7 95.2 69.3 123 79.3 58.

heptachlor <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.1oxychlordane 10.1 12.3 16.4 13.4 9.01 9.30 10.1 8.63 14.7 9.87 6.42,4'-DDE <0.100 0.199 0.439 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 0.166 <0.1

4,4'-DDE 72.2 71.6 129 65.5 58.8 76.3 70.5 68.5 93.1 63.0 40.2,4'-DDT <0.100 <0.100 2.27 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.1mirex 2.57 2.20 3.08 2.79 1.62 1.48 1.17 1.52 1.65 1.42 0.39α-HCH 1.99 0.757 1.22 0.589 1.77 1.15 2.08 1.11 2.12 1.67 0.50

β-HCH 9.80 15.1 20.3 18.5 9.34 23.7 23.6 20.1 34.4 31.1 11.

γ-HCH 0.927 0.295 0.407 0.324 0.865 0.127 0.189 <0.100 0.243 0.141 <0.1

heptachlor epoxide 2.59 2.30 5.30 4.28 1.74 1.87 2.49 1.71 3.57 4.22 1.7

trans-chlordane <0.100 0.115 0.234 0.143 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.1

cis-chlordane <0.100 0.268 1.41 0.310 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 0.14trans-nonachlor <0.100 0.288 13.9 0.366 <0.100 0.176 <0.100 <0.100 0.201 0.125 0.72

dieldrin 3.84 10.2 9.02 9.01 0.879 1.33 2.21 1.27 3.48 3.39 1.0

2,4'-DDD <0.100 <0.100 0.484 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.14,4'-DDD <0.100 <0.100 7.85 <0.100 3.16 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 0.15cis- nonachlor 0.606 0.619 2.93 1.29 0.321 0.120 0.213 0.163 0.328 0.479 0.104,4'-DDT 1.33 1.90 4.61 0.881 1.17 <0.1001 <0.1001 <0.1001 <0.1001 <0.1001 <0.1

1 Values obtained using GC-MS

Egg Number

Common murre eggs from St. George Island
APPENDIX C: CHLORINATED HYDROCARBON DATA (CONT.) All data in ng/g wet mass. Mean and 1 standar

for colony. 

69

Compound 42 mean 43 44 45 46 47 48 Mean % lipid 10.9 12.9 8.25 11.0 9.48 9.92 10.8 10.5 HCB 35.1 67.1 57.7 45.7 57.0 54.3 50.4 52.5 heptachlor <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100oxychlordane 4.10 8.03 8.69 5.95 7.12 8.23 7.93 7.15 2,4'-DDE <0.100 0.467 1.46 <0.100 0.857 <0.100 <0.100 0.455 4,4'-DDE 81.5 110 99.6 82.4 77.6 96.8 114 94.6 2,4'-DDT 1.81 1.70 1.79 1.67 1.84 1.83 1.96 1.80 mirex <0.100 0.573 0.813 0.205 0.685 0.837 0.636 0.550 

α-HCH 1.55 2.61 2.72 1.88 1.84 0.214 1.69 1.79 γ-HCH 0.530 0.710 0.766 0.526 0.547 <0.100 0.539 0.531 

heptachlor epoxide <0.100 <0.100 0.709 <0.100 2.25 <0.100 0.697 0.579 trans-chlordane 0.295 0.366 0.389 0.253 0.341 <0.100 0.346 0.299 

cis-chlordane 0.218 0.260 0.424 0.258 0.421 <0.100 0.256 0.277 trans-nonachlor 0.621 0.667 0.809 0.869 0.989 <0.100 0.547 0.657 

dieldrin 1.29 2.23 3.74 0.570 4.37 0.289 3.72 2.32 2,4'-DDD 0.845 0.825 1.01 1.23 1.07 <0.100 0.905 0.855 4,4'-DDD <0.100 <0.100 0.180 <0.100 0.105 <0.100 0.151 0.119 cis- nonachlor 0.271 0.643 1.43 0.507 1.49 <0.100 <0.100 0.649 

4,4'-DDT <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100

Thick-billed murre eggs from St. George Island

Egg Number
APPENDIX C: CHLORINATED HYDROCARBON DATA (CONT.) All data in ng/g wet mass. Mean and 1 standar

for colony. 

70

Compound 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 M%lipid 8.74 13.0 10.2 9.12 12.5 11.0 11.5 9.91 11.7 1HCB 53.0 74.2 39.6 68.2 53.2 47.9 61.0 53.8 109 6

heptachlor <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0oxychlordane 6.64 8.38 4.67 8.99 7.08 5.33 7.63 8.42 12.5 72,4'-DDE <0.100 0.653 0.398 0.145 0.472 0.445 0.736 <0.100 0.339 04,4'-DDE 58.0 89.0 58.4 78.5 70.6 62.1 99.7 68.0 109 72,4'-DDT 1.83 1.79 1.97 1.76 1.73 1.80 1.82 1.92 1.35 1mirex 0.393 0.649 <0.100 0.724 0.221 <0.100 0.990 1.19 0.497 0

α-HCH 2.26 3.47 2.16 1.22 1.42 2.00 2.66 2.53 4.06 2

γ-HCH 0.669 0.796 0.638 0.561 0.475 0.643 0.646 0.658 0.974 0

heptachlor epoxide 1.75 1.34 <0.100 1.20 <0.100 <0.100 0.279 3.58 <0.100 0

trans-chlordane 0.484 1.20 0.679 0.690 0.790 0.535 0.797 0.562 0.970 0cis-chlordane 0.413 0.516 0.442 0.349 0.489 0.481 0.394 0.323 0.706 0trans-nonachlor 0.961 1.16 1.30 1.21 1.10 3.46 0.988 0.869 1.54 1

dieldrin 2.29 2.63 1.95 2.37 2.30 1.51 2.10 3.33 2.07 22,4'-DDD 0.844 0.975 0.997 0.854 0.883 0.920 1.41 0.856 0.887 04,4'-DDD <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 0.198 <0.100 0.264 0.384 <0.100 <0.100 0

cis- nonachlor 0.882 0.781 0.393 0.597 0.627 0.213 0.727 1.70 1.04 04,4'-DDT <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0

Common murre eggs from Bogoslof Island

Egg Number
APPENDIX C: CHLORINATED HYDROCARBON DATA (CONT.) All data in ng/g wet mass. Mean and 1 standar

for colony. 

71

Compound 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 %lipid 7.56 8.22 9.27 6.94 7.73 9.45 9.56 11.9 9.61 10.4 7.6HCB 35.7 55.7 44.1 35.6 40.4 32.4 38.5 60.4 50.9 33.2 37.heptachlor <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.1oxychlordane 4.05 11.6 7.40 9.23 7.22 5.81 7.71 4.79 8.40 14.4 5.82,4'-DDE 0.663 <0.100 0.177 0.191 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.14,4'-DDE 85.5 102 209 115 69.7 185 189 84.9 82.5 330 105 

2,4'-DDT 2.64 2.52 2.41 2.76 2.68 2.54 2.52 2.73 2.66 2.65 2.7

mirex 1.20 1.12 1.71 1.63 1.50 0.980 1.80 1.18 1.93 5.34 1.8α-HCH 0.966 0.598 1.62 0.979 2.35 1.62 1.20 0.963 1.96 1.06 2.1γ-HCH 1.27 <0.100 1.21 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 1.3heptachlor epoxide 1.06 3.13 1.57 1.95 2.60 0.645 1.27 1.61 3.09 6.02 1.3

trans-chlordane <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.1cis-chlordane <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 0.102 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 0.179 <0.1trans-nonachlor 0.108 0.455 <0.100 0.814 0.127 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.1

dieldrin 0.937 3.01 1.44 1.26 2.69 1.23 1.18 0.642 3.13 4.17 1.22,4'-DDD 0.620 0.694 0.620 0.295 0.681 0.595 0.605 0.670 0.700 0.916 0.68

4,4'-DDD <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.1cis- nonachlor 0.233 <0.100 0.540 2.98 1.10 0.703 0.856 0.512 1.35 6.47 0.62

4,4'-DDT 4.70 1.80 1.66 4.15 2.51 1.67 2.01 2.31 2.87 4.31 1.6

 Common murre eggs from East Amatuli Island

Egg Number
APPENDIX C: CHLORINATED HYDROCARBON DATA (CONT.) All data in ng/g wet mass. Mean and 1 standar

for colony. 

72

Compound 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 %lipid 13.3 12.1 12.4 13.0 11.7 11.5 11.8 11.8 14.1 11.6 HCB 38.4 23.7 45.2 35.1 37.9 41.2 44.9 52.0 34.5 33.9 

heptachlor <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 

oxychlordane 13.4 2.50 9.04 6.63 7.95 9.88 9.87 7.15 7.97 8.26 

2,4'-DDE 0.258 <0.100 <0.100 0.191 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 

4,4'-DDE 333 141 433 285 305 425 276 340 206 234 

2,4'-DDT 0.147 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 

mirex 7.49 1.03 3.43 3.06 2.13 2.91 4.21 3.31 1.63 1.92 

α-HCH 2.01 0.818 1.47 1.38 0.663 0.985 1.19 0.875 2.21 0.377 

β-HCH 29.8 7.13 9.30 16.6 13.5 20.2 21.0 19.2 21.7 17.8 

γ-HCH 0.494 0.263 0.647 0.340 <0.100 <0.100 0.341 <0.100 0.191 <0.100 

heptachlor epoxide 9.85 0.685 1.93 2.19 1.05 1.88 2.98 1.88 2.76 1.96 trans-chlordane 0.312 0.127 <0.100 0.167 <0.100 <0.100 0.302 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 

cis-chlordane 0.394 0.213 <0.100 0.255 <0.100 <0.100 0.294 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 

trans-nonachlor 2.49 0.217 <0.100 0.266 <0.100 <0.100 0.299 0.124 <0.100 <0.100 

dieldrin 13.5 5.14 1.18 6.34 1.30 1.90 8.39 1.67 3.95 1.51 2,4'-DDD 0.255 0.198 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 

4,4'-DDD 0.144 <0.100 2.81 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 

cis- nonachlor 10.1 0.381 0.621 0.748 0.157 0.302 1.09 0.251 0.488 0.291 4,4'-DDT 6.54 3.77 2.36 0.181 <0.1001 <0.1001 1.97 <0.1001 <0.1001 <0.1001 

1 Values obtained using GC-MS

Egg Number

Common murre eggs from St. Lazaria Island
APPENDIX C: CHLORINATED HYDROCARBON DATA (CONT.) All data in ng/g wet mass. Mean 

and 1 standard deviation shown for all aliquots along with certified and reference values 

reported Poster et al. (2003). 

73

Certified Values Reference Values

Compound Batch 1 Batch 2 Batch 3 Batch 4 Batch 5 Mean SD Mean + SD Mean + SD 

% lipid 8.63 9.44 11.8 7.43 8.32 9.12 1.7 10.17 + 0.48

PCB 18 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 0.270 0.330 0.150 0.14 0.84 + 0.11

PCB 28 2.14 1.96 1.75 2.04 2.09 2.00 0.15 2.00 + 0.24

PCB 52 7.59 8.47 7.20 8.07 8.85 8.04 0.66 8.1 + 1.0

PCB 44 5.21 4.68 3.94 4.97 5.52 4.86 0.60 4.66 + 0.86

PCB 66 11.1 10.4 8.74 9.80 10.2 10.0 0.87 10.8 + 1.9

PCB 118 58.1 54.5 54.4 53.1 55.8 55.2 1.9 52.1 + 1.0

PCB 153 184 175 178 179 171 177 4.8 169.8 + 8.9

PCB 105 22.7 21.8 20.2 21.7 21.3 21.5 0.91 19.9 + 0.93

PCB 187 54.1 53.8 50.0 54.4 54.7 53.4 1.9 55.2 + 2.1

PCB 128 25.6 22.8 23.0 23.6 28.9 24.8 2.6 22.8 + 1.9

PCB 180 67.1 68.3 76.3 76.7 73.4 72.4 4.5 74.4 + 4.0

PCB 170 27.0 26.2 24.0 26.7 28.8 26.5 1.7 25.2 + 2.2

PCB 195 7.35 5.71 5.80 6.24 5.73 6.17 0.70 5.30 + 0.45

PCB 206 5.58 4.96 5.54 5.50 5.15 5.35 0.28 5.40 + 0.43

PCB 209 1.22 1.11 1.06 1.20 1.20 1.16 0.069 1.30 + 0.21

HCB 10.1 7.75 7.33 7.40 7.82 8.08 1.1 7.25 + 0.83

oxychlordane 18.0 20.11 19.4 19.8 21.5 19.8 1.3 18.9 + 1.5

2,4'-DDE 1.03 1.39 1.06 0.700 0.780 0.992 0.27 1.04 + 0.29 

4,4'-DDE 327 339 354 330 331 336 10.9 373 + 48 

2,4'-DDT 24.7 20.2 19.8 19.9 21.6 21.2 2.1 22.3 + 3.2

mirex 5.18 5.83 5.11 6.05 5.37 5.51 0.41 6.47 + 0.77

α-HCH 5.31 5.10 4.75 5.67 5.85 5.34 0.44 5.72 + 0.65

γ-HCH 1.26 0.762 0.857 1.48 0.973 1.07 0.30 1.14 + 0.18

heptachlor epoxide 5.96 6.02 5.61 4.64 4.05 5.26 0.87 5.50 + 0.23

trans-chlordane 7.22 8.10 7.34 6.16 7.65 7.29 0.72 8.36 + 0.91

cis-chlordane 27.2 31.4 28.8 24.2 28.7 28.1 2.6 32.5 + 1.8

trans-nonachlor 91.3 107 104 83.1 95.0 96.1 9.7 99.6 + 7.6

dieldrin 29.9 34.4 33.2 26.8 24.2 29.7 4.3 32.5 + 3.5 

2,4'-DDD 3.08 2.99 2.23 2.26 3.11 2.73 0.45 2.20 + 0.25

4,4'-DDD 16.2 20.4 17.2 13.1 14.8 16.3 2.7 17.7 + 2.8 

cis-nonachlor 54.2 72.8 60.0 45.1 53.6 57.1 10 59.1 + 3.6

4,4'-DDT 35.4 32.6 34.31 30.9 38.5 34.3 2.9 37.2 + 3.5

1

 Values obtained using GC-MS

Aliquots

SRM 1946
APPENDIX C: CHLORINATED HYDROCARBON DATA (CONT.) All data in ng/g wet mass. Mean 

and 1 standard deviation shown for all aliquots along with assigned value from Canadian 

Wildlife Service. 

74

Assigned Value

Compound Batch 1 Batch 2 Mean Mean + SD 

% lipid 8.92 8.98 8.95 10.4 + 0.75

PCB 28 4.55 3.88 4.22 4.51 + 1.40

PCB 52 14.0 14.8 14.4 13.5 + 27.0

PCB 49 1.19 1.21 1.20 1.66 + 1.61

PCB 44 3.46 3.58 3.52 0.642 + 0.476

PCB 74 12.4 12.5 12.4 12.8 + 2.75

PCB 70+76 0.519 0.584 0.552 0.522 + 0.821

PCB 95 0.416 0.492 0.454 1.86 + 0.382

PCB 66 22.2 20.7 21.5 45.9 + 11.2

PCB 56+60 5.69 5.62 5.65 4.97 + 1.171

PCB 92 4.21 4.67 4.44 4.88 + 0.637

PCB 101+90 19.2 19.9 19.6 20.2 + 5.07

PCB 99 57.2 63.8 60.5 55.8 + 13.1

PCB 87 2.97 2.86 2.91 8.45 + 1.48

PCB 110 17.6 16.8 17.2 16.4 + 2.92

PCB 151 4.86 5.29 5.08 3.84 + 1.69

PCB 149 28.6 29.1 28.9 21.4 + 3.74

PCB 118 81.9 86.4 84.1 76.5 + 12.2

PCB 153 48.7 48.1 48.4 48.5 + 10.7

PCB 105 281 254 268 252 + 39.1

PCB 138 33.7 31.2 32.5 31.4 + 5.04

PCB 158 152 153 152 188 + 26.8

PCB 187 14.7 15.3 15.0 14.2 + 2.09

PCB 183 87.4 89.6 88.5 78.7 + 13.5

PCB 128 39.9 40.1 40.0 39.0 + 5.76

PCB 174 23.9 24.6 24.3 23.5 + 4.07

PCB 201 3.57 3.42 3.49 5.53 + 2.09

PCB 156 27.9 23.3 25.6 23.9 + 3.87

PCB 157 12.1 12.0 12.0 19.4 + 2.95

PCB 180 4.31 4.14 4.22 5.42 + 2.06

PCB 170 151 144 148 137 + 21.8

PCB 195 55.0 56.8 55.9 53.4 + 7.48

PCB 194 7.14 7.88 7.51 6.27 + 1.56

PCB 206 23.4 20.9 22.2 20.0 + 3.39

PCB 209 6.08 5.14 5.61 6.32 + 1.19

ΣPCBs 1250 1230 1240 1440 + 203

HCB 4.37 4.10 4.23 3.78 + 2.42

heptachlor 2.20 0.606 1.40 3.71 + 0.859

oxychlordane 27.8 28.1 28.0 21.7 + 4.57

4,4'-DDE 350 358 354 389 + 54.5

mirex 76.9 77.4 77.1 55.7 + 10.6

heptachlor epoxide 3.63 4.04 3.84 3.71 + 0.859

trans-chlordane 0.0898 0.165 0.127 0.0256 + 0.160

cis-chlordane 1.01 0.869 0.938 0.858 + 0.286

trans-nonachlor 4.53 4.20 4.37 4.25 + 1.12

dieldrin 8.05 9.60 8.83 8.85 + 2.90

4,4'-DDD 1.80 1.55 1.67 1.12 + 1.06

cis- nonachlor 6.85 6.53 6.69 4.88 + 1.16

4,4'-DDT 4.57 4.93 4.75 1.49 + 0.561

Aliquots

CWS Herring Gull Egg RM
APPENDIX D: MERCURY DATA

75

Table 1. Summary of Batch Measurements for Murre Egg Samples 

ST01E001C-ST01E041C.

Batch No. Sample ID Island 

Location 

Measured [Hg] 

μg/g 

Blank 

Correction

SRM 2976 

Measurement Bias (μg/g) 

1 ST01E004C L. Diomede 0.0704 3.64% 

1 ST01E010C St. Lazaria 0.2547 1.00% 

1 ST01E030C St. George 0.0243 10.31% SRM 2976 Certified Value 

1 ST01E032C E. Amatuli 0.3481 0.74% [Hg] = 0.061 ± 0.0036 μg/g 

1 SRM 2976 - 0.0638 6.87% 0.0028 

2 ST01E005C-1 L. Diomede 0.0442 1.68% 

2 ST01E005C-2 L. Diomede 0.0448 1.61% 

2 ST01E005C-3 L. Diomede 0.0444 1.59% SRM 2976 Certified Value 

2 ST01E005C-4 L. Diomede 0.0435 2.65% [Hg] = 0.061 ± 0.0036 μg/g 

2 SRM 2976 - 0.0610 1.04% 0.0000 

3 ST01E006C L. Diomede 0.0395 0.69% 

3 ST01E016C St. Lazaria 0.2108 0.13% 

3 ST01E021C St. George 0.0280 0.95% SRM 2976 Certified Value 

3 ST01E034C E. Amatuli 0.1711 0.17% [Hg] = 0.061 ± 0.0036 μg/g 

3 SRM 2976 - 0.0626 0.65% 0.0016 

4 ST01E009C L. Diomede 0.0673 0.50% 

4 ST01E014C St. Lazaria 0.2662 0.11% 

4 ST01E027C St. George 0.0410 0.72% SRM 2976 Certified Value 

4 ST01E031C E. Amatuli 0.1948 0.16% [Hg] = 0.061 ± 0.0036 μg/g 

4 SRM 2976 - 0.0622 0.71% 0.0012 

5 ST01E002C L. Diomede 0.0770 0.30% 

5 ST01E013C St. Lazaria 0.1312 0.18% 

5 ST01E020C St. George 0.0326 0.70% SRM 2976 Certified Value 

5 ST01E033C E. Amatuli 0.1585 0.15% [Hg] = 0.061 ± 0.0036 μg/g 

5 SRM 2976 - 0.0627 0.56% 0.0017 

6 ST01E007C L. Diomede 0.0652 0.71% 

6 ST01E018C St. Lazaria 0.2172 0.21% 

6 ST01E022C St. George 0.0234 1.95% SRM 2976 Certified Value 

6 ST01E035C E. Amatuli 0.2194 0.20% [Hg] = 0.061 ± 0.0036 μg/g 

6 SRM 2976 - 0.0638 1.07% 0.0028 
APPENDIX D: MERCURY DATA (CONT.) 

76

Table 1 (continued). 

Batch No. Sample ID Island Location Measured [Hg] 

μg/g 

Blank 

Correction

SRM 2976 

Measurement Bias (μg/g) 

7 ST01E003C L. Diomede 0.0505 1.71% 

7 ST01E017C St. Lazaria 0.2513 0.34% 

7 ST01E024C St. George 0.0179 4.79% SRM 2976 Certified Value 

7 ST01E036C E. Amatuli 0.1678 0.49% [Hg] = 0.061 ± 0.0036 μg/g 

7 SRM 2976 - 0.0628 2.03% 0.0018 

8 ST01E001C L. Diomede 0.0558 1.71% 

8 ST01E019C St. Lazaria 0.1575 0.26% 

8 ST01E025C St. George 0.0134 3.13% SRM 2976 Certified Value 

8 ST01E037C E. Amatuli 0.1883 0.22% [Hg] = 0.061 ± 0.0036 μg/g 

8 SRM 2976 - 0.0629 0.99% 0.0019 

9 ST01E008C L. Diomede 0.0105 2.63% 

9 ST01E015C St. Lazaria 0.1891 0.14% 

9 ST01E028C St. George 0.0162 1.71% SRM 2976 Certified Value 

9 ST01E038C E. Amatuli 0.1141 0.24% [Hg] = 0.061 ± 0.0036 μg/g 

9 SRM 2976 - 0.0626 0.64% 0.0016 

10 ST01E012C St. Lazaria 0.2769 0.08% 

10 ST01E026C St. George 0.0318 0.75% 

10 ST01E029C St. George 0.0232 1.04% SRM 2976 Certified Value 

10 ST01E039C E. Amatuli 0.0900 0.27% [Hg] = 0.061 ± 0.0036 μg/g 

10 SRM 2976 - 0.0594 0.60% -0.0016 

11 ST01E011C St. Lazaria 0.1180 0.23% 

11 ST01E023C St. George 0.0291 0.90% 

11 ST01E040C E. Amatuli 0.2572 0.10% SRM 2976 Certified Value 

11 ST01E041C E. Amatuli 0.2778 0.09% [Hg] = 0.061 ± 0.0036 μg/g 

11 SRM 2976 - 0.0628 0.63% 0.0018 

12 ST01E032C-1 E. Amatuli 0.3549 0.09% 

12 ST01E032C-2 E. Amatuli 0.3600 0.09% 

12 ST01E032C-3 E. Amatuli 0.3573 0.08% SRM 2976 Certified Value 

12 ST01E032C-4 E. Amatuli 0.3555 0.09% [Hg] = 0.061 ± 0.0036 μg/g 

12 SRM 2976 - -* -* -* 

* SRM 2976 control not measured due to sample breech in microwave 
APPENDIX D: MERCURY DATA (CONT.) 

77

Table 2. Summary of Results for Mercury (μg/g) in Murre Egg Samples 

ST01E001C-ST01E041C. 

NBSB 

Sample ID 

Recommended 

Value 

Combined 

Type A 

Uncertainty

Combined 

Type B 

Uncertainty

Combined 

Uncertainty

Effective 

DF 

Coverage 

Factor 

Expanded 

Uncertainty

ST01E001C 0.0558 0.00081 0.00023 0.00084 6.16 2.45 0.0021 

ST01E002C 0.0770 0.00098 0.00031 0.00103 3.96 3.18 0.0033 

ST01E003C 0.0505 0.00066 0.00021 0.00069 4.28 2.78 0.0019 

ST01E004C 0.0704 0.00089 0.00029 0.00094 3.94 3.18 0.0030 

ST01E005C 0.0442 0.00047 0.00018 0.00050 16.94 2.12 0.0011 

ST01E006C 0.0395 0.00052 0.00016 0.00055 4.56 2.78 0.0015 

ST01E007C 0.0652 0.00084 0.00027 0.00088 4.06 2.78 0.0024 

ST01E008C 0.0105 0.00022 0.00004 0.00023 13.07 2.16 0.0005 

ST01E009C 0.0673 0.00087 0.00027 0.00091 4.10 2.78 0.0025 

ST01E010C 0.2547 0.00165 0.00104 0.00195 6.18 2.45 0.0048 

ST01E011C 0.1180 0.00082 0.00048 0.00095 7.36 2.36 0.0022 

ST01E012C 0.2769 0.00188 0.00113 0.00219 6.93 2.45 0.0054 

ST01E013C 0.1312 0.00087 0.00053 0.00102 6.58 2.45 0.0025 

ST01E014C 0.2662 0.00174 0.00108 0.00205 6.28 2.45 0.0050 

ST01E015C 0.1891 0.00125 0.00077 0.00146 6.42 2.45 0.0036 

ST01E016C 0.2108 0.00138 0.00086 0.00163 6.34 2.45 0.0040 

ST01E017C 0.2513 0.00164 0.00102 0.00193 6.28 2.45 0.0047 

ST01E018C 0.2172 0.00142 0.00088 0.00167 6.32 2.45 0.0041 

ST01E019C 0.1575 0.00104 0.00064 0.00122 6.51 2.45 0.0030 

ST01E020C 0.0326 0.00044 0.00013 0.00046 4.99 2.78 0.0013 

ST01E021C 0.0280 0.00039 0.00011 0.00041 5.35 2.57 0.0010 

ST01E022C 0.0234 0.00034 0.00010 0.00036 6.39 2.45 0.0009 

ST01E023C 0.0291 0.00041 0.00012 0.00042 5.49 2.57 0.0011 

ST01E024C 0.0179 0.00029 0.00007 0.00029 8.21 2.31 0.0007 

ST01E025C 0.0134 0.00025 0.00005 0.00025 11.02 2.20 0.0006 

ST01E026C 0.0318 0.00044 0.00013 0.00046 5.29 2.57 0.0012 

ST01E027C 0.0410 0.00054 0.00017 0.00057 4.49 2.78 0.0016 

ST01E028C 0.0162 0.00027 0.00007 0.00028 9.21 2.26 0.0006 

ST01E029C 0.0232 0.00034 0.00009 0.00036 6.68 2.45 0.0009 

ST01E030C 0.0243 0.00034 0.00010 0.00036 5.63 2.57 0.0009 

ST01E031C 0.1948 0.00128 0.00079 0.00151 6.37 2.45 0.0037 

ST01E032C 0.3569 0.00139 0.00145 0.00201 23.80 2.07 0.0042 

ST01E033C 0.1585 0.00105 0.00065 0.00123 6.45 2.45 0.0030 

ST01E034C 0.1711 0.00113 0.00070 0.00133 6.43 2.45 0.0032 

ST01E035C 0.2194 0.00144 0.00089 0.00169 6.30 2.45 0.0041 

ST01E036C 0.1678 0.00110 0.00068 0.00130 6.40 2.45 0.0032 

ST01E037C 0.1883 0.00124 0.00077 0.00146 6.43 2.45 0.0036 

ST01E038C 0.1141 0.00076 0.00046 0.00089 6.76 2.45 0.0022 

ST01E039C 0.0900 0.00063 0.00037 0.00073 7.74 2.36 0.0017 

ST01E040C 0.2572 0.00175 0.00105 0.00204 6.96 2.45 0.0050 

ST01E041C 0.2778 0.00189 0.00113 0.00220 6.94 2.45 0.0054