### U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL

### RESEARCHLABORATORY 

### DUI.ff~'kl,MNPB93-754672 DRAFT 3-3-93

COMPARISON OF PROPOSED HHBAFs 

### FOR 

### THE GLI

Charles E. Stephan

Environmental Research Laboratory Office of Research and Development U.S. Environmental ProtectionAgency Duluth, MN

### REPORT 

# DOCUMENTATION PAGE form Approved OMB NO. 0704-0188



# -p=I%? 6. AUTHOR(S)

7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 5. FUNDING NUMBERS

8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NUMBER

10.SPONSORING /MON!TORING AGENCY REPORT NUMBER

12a. DISTRIBUTION/AVAILABILITY STATEMENT 12b. DISTRIBUTION CODE 

## c

>tLL- ZRAu OF REPORT OF THIS PAGE OF ABSTRACT~... " " . .~- ~~ .."

.. ~ ~ ~ GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLETING SF 298 The Report Documentation Page (RDP) is used inannouncing ana cataloging reports. Itisimportant thatthis information be consistentwith the rest of the report, particularly the cover andtitle page. Instructionsfor filling ineach block oftheform follow. Itisimportanttostay withinthelinesto meet 

### ' opticalscanningrequirements. Block1. Aqencv Use Onlv(Leaveblank). Block2. Report Date. Full publication date includingday, month, andyear, ifavailable(e.g. 1 Jan88).Must citeatleasttheyear. Block3. Tvpe of Report and Dates Covered. Statewhether reportisinterim, final,etc. If applicable, enterinclusivereportdates(e.g. 10 Jun87

## -30Jun88). Block4. TitleandSubtitle. Atitleistaken from thepart of the reportthatprovidesthemost meaningfulandcompleteinformation. Whena reportispreparedinmorethanone volume, repeattheprimarytitle, addvolumenumber,and includesubtitle for the specificvolume. On classified documents enterthetitleclassification inparentheses. Block5. Fundina Numbers. Toinclude contract andgrantnumbers; mayincludeprogram elementnumber(& projectnumber(s), task number(s), andwork unitnumber(s). Usethe followinglabels:

C 

### - Contract PR 

### - Project G 

## - Grant TA 

## - Task PE

## - Program WU 

### - Work Unit Element Accession No. Block6. Author(s1. Name(s) of person(s) responsiblefor writing thereport, performing theresearch,or creditedwith the content of the report. If editor orcompiler,thisshouldfollow thename(s). Block7. Performinq Oraanization Namek) and Address(es1. Self-explanatory. Block 8. Performincr Orqanitation Report Number. Enter theuniquealphanumeric report number(s)assignedbythe organization performing thereport. Block9. Sponsorinq/MonitorinqAqencv Name(s) and Address(es1. Self-explanatory. Block 10. Sponsorinq/Monitorinq Aaency Report Number. (If known) Block 11.Supplementary Notes. Enter information not included elsewheresuchas: Preparedincooperationwith...; Trans. of...;Tobe publishedin

### .... Whena report isrevised,include dscdmmenrwnier menewreportsupersedes orsupplementstheolderreport. Block 12a. Distribution/Availabilitv Statement. Denotespub!icavailability or limitations.Citeany availabilityto the public. Enteradditional limitationsor specialmarkingsinallcapitals(e.g. NOFORN,REL, ITAR). DOD 

### - See DoDD5230.24, "Distribution StatementsonTechnical Documents." DOE 

## - Seeauthorities. NASA

### - See HandbookNHB2200.2. NTlS 

## - Leaveblank.
Block 12b. DistributionCode. DOD 

## - Leaveblank. ' DOE 

## - EnterDOEdistributioncategories from the StandardDistribution for UnclassifiedScientificandTechnical Reports. NASA

### - Leaveblank. NTIS 

### - Leaveblank.
Block13. Abstract. Includea brief(Maximum 200words)factualsummaryof the most significantinformation contained inthereport.
Block14. SubiectTerms. Keywordsorphrases identifyingmajorsubjectsinthereport.
Block 15. NumberofPaees. Enterthe total numberofpages.
Block16. Price Code. Enterappropriateprice code(NTIS only).
Blocks17.- 19. SecuritvClassifications. Selfexplanatory. EnterU.S. Securi:y Classificationin accordancewithUS.Security Regulations(i.e., UNCLASSIFIED). If form containsclassified information,stampclassification onthetopand bottom of the page. Block20. LimitationofAbstract. Thisblockmust becompletedtoassignalimitationtothe abstract. EntereitherUL(unlimited) or SAR(same asreport). An entry inthisblockisnecessaryif theabstractistobe limited.Ifblank,theabstract isassumedtobeunlimited. 

# I I I*



# c

Standard Form 298 Back (Rev. 2-89) 

# -I,

### DERIVATIONOF

### PROPOSEDHUMAN

## HEALTHAND

## WILDLIFE BIOACCUMULATION

### FACTORS

## FOR

## THE GREAT

## LAKESINITIATIVE (March 

## 1993Drafi)

## "dl I 7+b
tr- I

ii al 0 3 al 0 N. 

## ON E Q) m -4 E:

d Q) 

### x c 

## E m 0 Q) rn 

### c 0 -rl C k rl 

### a 4 .. I cv 

## i c 

### m al N

I 4 rl



# . k 4 U 0 -rl u c 4 .. 

### c N &a Q) .. I 

## *
m



# . ;i


# . rl 40 N

0 rl

0 CI
.rual F: al rl Q) C Q) 

### c 

### c a 4 -PI 

### a N Q) C Q) a, a, 

### c PI N 

### c P Q, 0 k 0 E, N 

### n a, 0 0 k N Ja 0 k 

# E U Q) Eo. 

# !3 a k 0 0 

### a c1 c1 

### w a c1 E 

### a 0 

# 8 C 

## nI 

### a a, & 0 k Q) 

### a a W 0 

### d I n I d, cv

# . .rl E: d h W I 

## * * 

# -

. I 

## * * 

# -

. I v e 

# . -rl N -d d 

### a 01 X W 

### a 

# . m m



# .

J11111111111111111111 11111111111111111111 11111111111111111111 1111111111111111I1l10

k 0 k 0 al E

-rl 

### a L) Q 3 0 0 k

rl a L, d 

### a 

### cu rl 

### c U
X Q



## ! a u

E 0 H k a-4 

# 8 al 

### a -4 0 a 4 

### c U Q) ri 4 0 

### c al 

### c k 0 

## 8 

# 2 0 

## c al k 

### x JJ 5 Q, 

### a Q) d rl 0 -c

## -al

### c 

### a 0 k -4 u 2 I 

## * k 

### a -4 .rl E 0 k 

### a Q, 

### c P) 0 

## 2 k 0 al G al 0 4 

### c U E: al

4 al - vi 0 k 

### a 0 

### .. c N La Q) 0 k 

## r: a 0 k 

### c 0 

### s k u 

### m 0 k 0 

### c ca L) -4 

### c u rl U al 

### x 

## 5 -4 JJ
I cv 

### z 

### c a cp k k -4 JJ 

## z 04 

### a9 cv 9 cv

Q) 

## % C N Q, 0 k 0 al C Q 

## 5 Q) 

# 5 5 % 

# E N

k 0 r) a)Q) FI EC 0 0, 0 k 0 al C al r( ia al k 0 0 

# 5 $1 

## 5 TJ Q) U a k n n 

## 5! al 0 k 0 TI k 0 a X k 

# 5 5 I3 k E k a -A l-4 r) Q 

### s E 

# T U Q k L1 4

9 N rl

# . E., al

r... .DRAFT 3-3-93



### RANKED PROPOSED HHBAFs FOR 

### THE GLI

Charles E. Stephan

Environmental Research Laboratory Office of Research and Development U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Duluth, MN

# . mu alc UP)

# . U E a L) 3 rl rl 0 

### a H c7 C3 m E Q) k Q) 3l 

# I

W 0 JJ v) Q, k 

### c al L,

m ;f c7 c7 c7 X

CN rl W cv 0 rl 

### as k 

### cn al -d 

### cs d m d W cn Lz d W m In 0 m N W U 

### mo & Ck -PIw IO m m Q) v) 0 W II



# .
* m 0 N co N m cv



# - - 0 W a0



# - W CI P 4



# . UO cavl
m I In m N I CI Ln v) I Q) I CD v)
N m N I In m rl I m cn

I cv 0 I m 

# B

0 02 0 ial C

(0 k 0 1 

### e a E a 

# 5 E Q k 0 4 3 rcI 

# E a E 

### m

I N rl rl rl

m -d c & 4 

# 2

m 

### n 

# E

QD

I
P A N



# .

.

9



### a mN 0 k 0 

# : CrJ L) 

## 8 X

N .d C

N

X

P VI

N rl W

c In 00
e N A d r



# .

m a0

I 0 I 0 N r CD I N m 0 I m. N

I 0 0 m

I 0 m ii I d P Q)

I d ri W I m m

I m Iz w m 1 0 P m

I VI io I d 0 W I d( rl P In I Q\ m m I m Fl rl I (z Ln 0 I CD co I d d W

IrLn I m QI

I Eo .W a m I m Ln rl I 0 rl m I P v) .jl I (v rl 0 co 0 I cy cy

Ih

al C k al 

### c L1 al 

### c Q, al N 

### c al 

### a 0 k 0 al 4 G 

### sr al 

### c a E al 

# xn i$ 0 0 k 4 

## 5 4 U u 

### x k 0 0 4 rl E U ([I k 

### c. bl 

# 2 0 0 u 

### c 

### a k 4 0 

### c 0 

# B 5 2 k 0 L, 

## F c L) 

### a 

# 4 n X 

### ca X Q)
L: 

### a 

### a 

## T

4 

### m



# . dr cy l-49

.. al 

### c a, 3 -4 CJ dr I a

-rl E al



## E 

# -: 25 X

a, 

# p

EOp1 w Q) 

### n
u 0 

# 2 a 0 

### a al r, U UQ) 

### a Or, 

### cu 

## 5 -4 3 m 4 U 

### a .A E Q) 

### c u k W 0 .. alm Q) 7
mr, 0 

# E6 e-d 

### c

ad 

### 0a 00 k& 

### a a E: u 

# $8 E kR W Om 

# c 0 L) k a 0 

### wn a 4 W 0 al U om Aal 

# 53 Y U rl

..al WC OLI mal 

### m alk .aj

### a >al a c 

# 4

I. U 0 wx ai 0 -4 c3 4. 

## .-I wii ea, -4

### a mm rp 0 c 

# '10 .. "

-4 kW al n~ 

### a mi Q) +) rl Q 

### c a rn 

## 5 C al al N Q) E

4 0 al C 

### c a k 0
rl 0
a rl al E Q

W -4 k Q) 

### n
l4 

### c W 1
m L, C L, Q
rl 3 rl 0 

### a Q) 

# 5.
W 0

0 W Ln

ln W I a, [I I CDE: 0 c -ri N .d Q c1 

### c $I



# . cy al L) rl Q cL1 

### s a 

# 5

4 

### s L, 

### a al C Q, N C Ql rl h W 

## 5 al c al k 0 3 rl kl Q) 

## E rl al k U
0 k rl 0
6, L, Q) w 

### a d 1 D C 

### a w 

# 5 rl

k 0 rl



# . cv L) Q)
d (d 

### a 

### c a 

# 5 4

0 2(

r) 

## F" 1 1

c N 0) 

# 2 k 0 

## ? d cv

# . Q, E: 9) 

# E c u -0 C Q) 

### c a 0

V a -d
w

I
rl t3



# . c -44 0 

## E
rl a 

# B rl m C -4 k 

### w 

# 2 Q, c 0) 1 d 0 JJ 0 h .d JJ

d

I rl rl I 0 rl r r 0 I m a3 I 0 rl Fl I In m \D

I Ln m rl I 0 m

I d (u N I w 0 co

I Q) m rl 1 0 VI

I m 0 I 0 Ln w

I a In I m N W

I m 4- m 

### .. II cv m

I cv m I r- \o I rl 0 m

I P 0 I 0 0 m

I cv rl rl CD I d

I e cv rl m I 0 cv

I W 0 W cv I..

N I Q rl rl I N rl m I IC CD CD I fi CD I m VI

I rl IC m I m m I IC P I r4 0 0 I 0 rl rl I cv m m I Fl d PI 

## - rl m I In I Q3 r .. Ln I 0 m W

I Ln ri m I W w e I CD 4 I 0 m QD

I 0 4al 

### a -rl k 0 & 

### c. U rl 

## 2 U al -4 k 4 0 

### c U c al al rl
cv rl



# . a al -4 E 

### a 

## 8 k al al 

# 5 Q, E



# 5 .al k 3 4 -4 VI k Q) 

### a a V 0 

# 5 cw 0 4 C 0 Y al 4 a ai 

# 5 u rl a a 

### c a rl -d u 

### a u I m

0 -4 

### tu 

# I 

# 5 k 0 W b E -4 E k Q) 

### u E 0 U

m 

# B aal al X m 

# 6 k R 

### x b, 0 

## 5 a al JJ k 0 

# $ m kCL 04 WPP k 0 W a 4J 

### a 

### a a E 

### a wal
al 

# 2 al -4 W E m 

# x a al k IIII IIII IIII $1 

## 4 k W u a al L, a i, m 

# 2 al -4 w

### coo 4 0 k L, X 

### w 

## 2 Q) ‘k VI 

### .;I 

# .

I1 U II H II II II 9x4 I1 II II 

## z 0.iODRAFT 3-3-93

DERIVATION OF PROPOSED HUMAN HEALTH AND 

### WILDLIFE BIOACCUMtlLATION FACTORS 

### FOR THE GREAT 

### LAKES INITIATIVE

by

Charles E. Stephan

Environmental Research 

### Laboratory Office of Research and Development U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Duluth, MNThe proposed Human Health Bioaccmulation Factors (HHBAFs) and Wildlife Bioaccumulation Factors (WLBAFs) were derived using a draft 

### of the 'Procedure to Determine a BioaccumulationFactor' that was developed under the Great Lakes Initiative 

### (GLI). (Although proposed 

### HHBAFs were derived 

### for many chemicals, proposed 

### WLBAFs were derived only for DDT,mercury, PCBs, and 2,3,7,8-TCDD.) The proposed 

### HHBAFs were derived to apply 

### to fish 

### that contain 

### 5.O% lipids and are at trophic level4 

### in the Great Lakes. The proposed 

### WLBAFs were derived to apply to fish that contain 

### 7.9% lipids and are at trophic levels 

### 3 and 

### 4 

### in ,theGreat Lakes. The number 

### of digits given implies nothing about how many are significant.

~ For organic chemicals, predicted BCFs were calculated 

### from Log P using the equation 'Log 

### BCF = 0.79(Log P) 

# - 0.40. (Veith and Kosian 1983). 

### The predicted BCFs are assumed to apply 

### to fish that contain 7.6% lipids. Because chemicals.withvery high values for Log P'donot accumulate according to the equation, the predicted 

### BCF was not allowed to be greater than 100,000 at 7;6%lipids. All logarithms are to base10. The 'MedChem'Star' and 'MedChem Calc. values for Log P were obtained from the QSAR system at ERG-Duluth and are based on version 3.53 of MedChem, which was obtained from Pomona College. Professional judgementwas used 

### when selecting 

### a 'typical Log P' on the basis of the various measured and predicted values thathad been found for thechemical. Values 

### for the Food Chain Multiplier (FCM)were obtained by rounding the 'typical Log P' to two significant digits and then using the value specified in the FCM table for the trophic level of concern; interpolation between values in the FCM table was not used. When Log 

### P is greater than 6.5 and no chemical specific information concerning BAFs is available, a value of.1.O was used for the FCM as specified in theGLI BAFmethodology. Data for freshwater specieswere given preference over data for saltwater species, especially formetals, metalloids, and such ionizable organic chemicals as pentachlorophenol. HHBAFs for metals and metalloids are to apply to the wet weight of the edible portion, e.g., muscle, of freshwater fish; WLBAFs for metals and metalloids are to apply to the wet wei.ght of the whole body 

### of freshwater fish. 

### If a BAF could be calculated for a chemical from a field study in the Great Lakes, BAFs from other bodies of water were not considered for tha,t chemical. For organic chemicals, a measured BCF or BAF was used only 

### if an acceptable measurement of percent lipids was available 

### so that the BCF or BAF could be normalized 

### to 1% lipids. 

### No adjustment was made to account for the different solvents that were used inthe measurement of percent lipids.


# /

1I 

### ACENAPHTHENE [CAS#: 83-32-91
> 

### Predicted BAF 

### based on Log P: 

### The following values were found for 

### Log P: 3.92 

### MedChem Star 4.07 

### MedChen Calc 3.92 

### Miller et al. 1985 3.97 

### Isnard and Lambert 1989 A 

### Log P of 3.84 

### has been proposed for 

### use in the derivation of 

### sediment quality criteria for 

### acenaphthene (U.S. EPA 1991a). A 

### value 

### of 3.98 

### was selectedas a 

### 'typical Log P', from 

### which the following were obtained: Predicted BCF 

### (at 7.6% 

### lipids) = 554.9' 

### Normalized BCF (at1.0% 

### lipids) = 73.0 

### Food Chain Multiplier = 1.0 

### For 5.0% 

### lipids at trophic level 4 

### the predicted HHEAF 

### that 

### is calculated from the 'typical Log P' 

### is (73.0) (5.0)(1.0) = 365.

> 

### Predicted BAF 

### based on Log P 

### and measured BCF: BCF % L 

### Norm BCF' Reference .(1.0% L) 387 4.8 80.6 

### Barrows et al. 1980 

### Geometric mean normalized BCF = 80.6



### Note: This BCF was based on uptake of 

### radioactivity with no

, 

### verificationof 

### the parent chemical. 

### Thus this BCF and the resulting predicted HHBAF 

### might be too 

### high.

> No 

### measured BAF 

### was found.

ACENAPHTHYLENE [CAS#: 208-96-81
> 

### Predicted BAF 

### based on Log P: 

### The following value was found for Log P: A 

### value of 3.62 

### was selected-as a '

### typical Log P., from

### which the following were obtained.: 

# - 3.62 

### MedChem Calc Predicted BCF (at 7.6%

### lipids) = 288.2 

### Normalized BCF (at 1.0% 

### lipids) = 37.9 Food 

### Chain Multiplier = 1.0 2> No measured BCF 

### or BAF was found.

ACROLEIN [CAS#: 107-02-81 

# .
> Predicted BAF based 

### on Log 

### P: The following values were found for Log 

### P: -0.01 MedChem Star

, 0.101 MedChem Calc

0.90 Isnard and Lambert 1989 A value of 0.5 was selectedas a 'typical Log P', from

### which the following were obtained: Predicted BCF (at 7.6% lipids) ='0.989 Normalized BCF (at 1.0% lipids) 

### = 0.130 Food Chain Multiplier

### = 1.0 For 5.0% lipids at trophic level 4 the predictedHHBAF that is calculated from the 'typical Log P' 

### is (0.130)(5.0) (1.0) = 0.65.

> Predicted BAF based on Log P and measured BCF: BCF %L Norm BCF Reference (1.0% L) 344 4-8 71.7 Barrows et al. 1980 Geometric mean normalized BCF = 71.7 For -5.0%lipids at trophic level 4 the predictedHHBAF that 

### is calculated from the geometric mean normalized .BCF is (71.7)(5.0) (1.0) = 358. ..
Note: This BCF was based on uptake of radioactivity with no verification of theparent chemical. Thus this BCF and the resulting predicted HHBAF might be too high..

> No measured BAF was found.
[CAS#: 107-13-1J. ACRYLONITRILE 

## =- Predicted BAF based on Log P: "
The following values were found 

### for Log 

### P: 30.25 MedChem 

### Star 0.231 MedChem 

### Calc A 

### value of 0.24 was 

### selected as a 'typical Log 

### P', 

### fromwhich the following were obtained: Predicted BCF (at 7.6% 

### lipids) = 0.616 

### Normalized BCF (at 1.0% 

### lipids) = 0.081 

### Food Chain 

### Multiplier 

### = 1.0 For 5.0% 

### lipids at 

### trophic level 4 

### the predicted HHBAF that 

### is calculated from 

### the 'typicalLog 

### P' is (0.081)(5.0) (1.0) 

### = 0.40.

> 

### Predicted BAF based 

### on Log P 

### and measured BCF: BCF %L Nom BCF 

### Reference (1.0% 

### L) 48 4.8 10.0 

### Barrows et al. 1980 

### Geometric mean normalized BCF = 10.0 For 5.4%

### lipids at 

### trophic level4 

### the predicted HHBAF that 

### is calculated from 

### the geometric mean normalized 'BCF 

### is (10.0)(5.0) (1.0) = 50. Note: 

### This BCF 

### was based on 

### uptake of 

### radioactivity with no 

### verificationof 

### the.parentchemical.' Thus 

### this BCF and 

### the resulting predicted HHBAF might be too 

### high.

> No 

### measured BAF was found.

ALDRIN [CAS#:' 309-00-21
> 

### Predicted BAF 

### based 

### on Log P: 

### The following values were found 

### for Log P: 5-09 

### MedChem Calc 5.66 

### Isnard and Lambert 1989 6.496 de Bruijn 

### et al. 1989 P

A 

### value of6.0 was 

### selected as 

### a 'typical Log P', 

### fromwhich the following 

### were obtained: Predicted BCF (at 7.6% 

### lipids) = 21,878 

### Normalized BCF (at 1.0% 

### lipids) = 2,879 

### Food Chain Multiplier = 67 For 5.0% 

### lipids at trophic level 4 

### the predictedHHBAF 

### that 

### is calculated from the "typic61Log 

### P" 

### is (2,879) (5.0) (671 = 964,465. -. 

## -

4> No 

### BCF'witha measured valueof 

### percent lipids was found.

> 

### No 

### measured BAF 

### was

.

### found. Note: Because of metabolism of 

### aldrin 

### to dieldrin, a predicted BAF 

### for aldrin that does 

### ,not take into account. the effect of 

### metabolism on both the BCF 

### and the FCM 

### is expected to be higher than a 

### measured BAF.
. A 

### BAF 

### for 'aldrin plus toxic persistent metabolites' should be 

### higher than 

### a BAF 

### for 'aldrin'.
ALUMINUM (CAS#: 7429-90-51 

### No usable data were found concerning bioconcentration or 

### bioaccumulation of 

### aluminum by 

### freshwater fish.

ANTHRACENE 

### [CAS#: 120-12-71
> 

### Predicted BAF 

### based on 

### Log P: 

### The following values were found for Log P: 4.45 

### MedChem Star 4.49 

### MedChem Calc 4.45 

### Veith et al. 1979a 4.59 

### Hammers et al. 1982 4.54 

### Miller et al. 1985 4-54 

### Isnard and Lambert 1989 

### A value of4.5 

### was selected as 

### a 'typical Log P', 

### from which the following were obtained: Predicted BCF (at 7.6% 

### lipids) = 1,429' 

### Normalized BCF 

### (at 1.0% 

### lipids) = 188 Food 

### Chain Multiplier = 1.2 For"5.O$ 

### lipids at trophic level 4 

### the predictedHHBAF 

### that is calculated from the 'typical Log P' is (188) (5.0) (1.2) = 1,128.

> 

### No 

### measured BCF was 

### found.

> A 

### geometric mean BAF of 192.5 was 

### obtained with fish that averaged 4.23 % 

### lipids (Burkhard, unpublished) 

### ,which results in a BAF 

### of 228 

### at 5.0 % 

### lipids.

ANTIMONY 

### [CAS#: 7440-36-01 

### Barrows et al. (1980)

### did not detect any increase above controls 5

### in whole-body measurements on 

### bluegills 

### exposed to antimony. Thus 

### it seems 

### reasonable to 

### assume that bioconcentration and 

### bioaccumulation of antimony by 

### freshwater fish 

### are negligible and 

### the HHBAF 

### will be 

### set at 0.0.

ARSENIC (CAS#: 7440-38-21 Spehar et 

### al. (1980)

### obtained BCFs of 

### zero for

### various inorganic and organic 

### forms of arsenic based 

### onwhole-body measurements 

### on rainbow trout. Barrows et al.(1980)

### obtained a BCF 

### of 4 

### using whole-body measurements on bluegills, and 

### DeFoe (1982) 

### found a BCF of 3 

### for whole body of 

### fathead minnows. BCFs 

### for muscle should 

### not be 

### higher than those 

### for whole body; thus 

### it seems reasonable to 

### use a HHBAF of 1.0 for 

### arsenic.

ASBESTOS 

### [CAS#: 1332-21-41 No usable 

### data were found 

### concerning bioconcentration or 

### bioaccumulation of 

### asbestos by 

### freshwater fish.

1,2-BENZANTHRACENE [CAS#: 56-55-31
> 

### Predicted BAF 

### based on Log P: The 

### following values were found for Log P: 5.664 

### MedChem Calc 5.91 

### Miller et 

### al. 1985 5.91 

### Isnard and 

### Lambert 1989 A 

### value of 5.8 

### was selected as a 'typical Log Pm,

### fromwhich 

### the fo'llowing were 

### obtained: .'Predicted BCF 

### (at 7.6% 

### lipids) = 15,205 

### Normalized BCF (at 1.O% 

### l'ipids) = 2,001 

### Food Chain Multiplier = 33 

### For 5.0% 

### lipids at trophic level 4 

### the predicted HHBAF 

### that 

### is calculated from the 

### 'typical Log Pm

### is (2,001) (5.0) (33) = 330,165.



## =- No 

### measured BCF was found.

> 

### Field data BAF of 40 

### lipids. (Burkhard,

### unpublished) resulted 

### in a 

### geometricmean 

### for two PAHs with

... 

### four * rings 

### for 

### fish with 5.0 % 

# -

-. .



### 6, 1

BENZENE [CAS#: 71-43-21
> Predicted 

### BAF based 

### on Log 

### P: The following values were found 

### for Log 

### P: 2.13 MedChem Star 2.142 MedChem Calc 2.13 Veith et 

### al. 1979a 2.20 Harmners et al. 1982 2.13 Miller et al. 1985 2.12 Isnard and Lambert 

### 1989 2.186 

### de Bruijn et al. 1989 A value of 2.14 was selected as 

### a 'typical Log 

### P', from which the following were ,obtained: Predicted BCF (at 7.6% lipids) 

### = 19.5 Normalized BCF (at 1.0% lipids) = 2.57 Food Chain Multiplier 

### = 1.0 For 5.0% lipids at trophic level 4 the predictedHHBAF that is calculated from the 'typical Log Po is (2.57)(5.0)(1.0) = 13.

> No acceptable measured BCF'was found. A BCF of over 5,000 was reported for 

### fish with about 4% lipids by Brooke and Call (manuscript)

# . . The results were based 

### on uptake of radioactivity. Results of this test were not used because metabolites were detected and probably contributed to the BCF.

.

> No measured BAF was found.

BENZIDINE [CAS#: 92-87-51
> Predict-e'dBAF based on Log P: The followingvalues were found 

### for Log P: 1.34 MedChem Star 1.576 MedChem Calc A value 

### of 1.46 was selected 

### as a 'typical Log P', from which the following were obtained: Predicted BCF (at 7.6% lipids) 

### = 5.67 Normalized BCF (at 1.0% lipids) = 0.75

. Food Chain Multiplier= 1.0 

### For 5.0% lisids at trophic level 4 the predictedHHBAF that is calculated from the 'typical Log P' is (0.75)(5.0) (1.0) = 3.8. " 

# -

-. > No acceptable measured BCF was found.

7

### Barrows et al. (1975) 

### conducted a 

### bioconcentration test 

### on 

### benzidine and 

### measured 

### uptake of 

### radioactivity. Results 

### of this. test were 

### not used 

### because the 

### tissue was 

### air-dried before 

### analysis. Also, 

### metabolites might 

### have caused 

### the BCF 

### to be 

### too high.

> No 

### measured BAF 

### was found..
3,4-BENZOFLUORANTHENE [CAS#: 205-99-2 J
> 

### Predicted BAF 

### based 

### on Log P: The 

### following value was found 

### for Log P: A 

### value of 6.12 was 

### selected as a 'typical Log 

### P', fromwhich 

### the 

### following were obtained: 6.12 

### MedChem Calc 

### Predicted BCF (at 7.6% 

### lipids) ='27,214 Normalized BCF 

### (at 1.0% 

### lipids) = 3,581 Food Chain 

### Multiplier = 75 For 5.0% 

### lipids at trophic level 4 the 

### predicted HHBAF that 

### is 

### calculated from the 

### 'typical Log P' 

### is (3,581) (5.0)(75) = 1,342,075. 

### Note: Field data (Burkhard, 

### unpublished) resulted in 

### predicted BAFs from 17 

### to 228 

### for four PAHs with 

### three and four rings for fish 

### with 5.0 % 

### lipids. It seems 

### unlikely that PAHs 

### with 

### five rings will 

### have EAFs 

### greater than1000.

> No measured BCF 

### .or.BAF was found.

11,12-BENZOFLUORAN"HENE [CAS#: 207-08-91
7 

### Predicted BAF based 

### on Log P: The 

### following value was 

### foundforLog P: A 

### value of 6.12 was 

### selected as a 

### 'typical Log P', 

### fromwhich 

### the following were obtained: 6.12 

### MedChern Calc 

### Predicted BCF 

### (at 7.6% lipids) 

### = 27,214 

### Normalized BCF 

### (at 1.0% 

### lipids) = 3,581 

### Food Chain 

### Multiplier = 75 For 5.0% 

### lipids at 

### trophic level 4 the predicted HHBAF that 

### is calculatedfrom the "typic31 Log 

### P' 

### is (3,581) (5.0) (75) = 1,382,875. -. 

# - Note: Field 

### data (Burkhard, unpublished) resulted 

### in predicted BAFs from 17 to 228 for 

### four PAHs 

### with three 8

### and four rings for fish with 5.0 % 

### lipids. It seems unlikely that PAHs 

### with five rings will have BAFs greater than 1000.

> No 

### measured BCF or BAF 

### was found.

1,12

## -BENZOPERYLENE , [CAS#: 191-24-21
> 

### Predicted BAF based on Log 

### P: The following values were found for Log 

### P: 6.58 

### MedChern Calc 7.10 

### .Miller et al. 1985 7.10 

### Isnard and Lambert 1989 A 

### value of 6.84 

### was selected as .a 

### 'typical Log P'', 

### from which the following were obtained:

. 

### Predicted BCF 

### (at 7.6% 

### lipids) = 100,000 

### Normalized BCF (at 1.0% 

### lipids) = 13,158 

### Food Chain Multiplier= 1.0 ' 

### For 5.0% 

### lipids at trophic level 4 

### the predictedHHBAF 

### that is calculated from the 'typical Log P' 

### is (13,158)(5.,0)(1.0) 

### = 65,790. 

### Note: Field data (Burkhard, unpublished) resulted in predicted BAFs 

### from 17 to 228 

### for four PAHs 

### with three and four rings for fish with 5.0 % 

### lipids. It seems unlikely that PAHs 

### with five rings will have BAFs 

### greater than1000.

> No 

### measured BCF or BAF 

### was found.

.- BEmO

### fa I

### PYRENE [CAS#: 50-32-81
> 

### Predicted BAF based on Log P: 

### The following values were found 

### for Log P: 5.97 

### MedChern Star 6.12 

### MedChem Calc 5.9.8 

### Miller et al. 1985 6.00 

### Isnard and Lambert 1989 A 

### value of 6.02 

### was selected as a 'typical Log P' 

### , from

### which the following were obtained: Predicted BCF (at 7.6% 

### lipids) = 22,688 

### Normalized BCF 

### (at 1.0.% 

### lipids) = 12,985 

### Food Chain Multiplier, = 

### 67 

## - For 5.0% 

### lipids at trophic level 4 

### the predicted HHBAF 

### that is calculated from the "typical Log P' is (2,985) (5.0) (67) = 999,975. 9

### Note: 

### Field data (Burlchard, unpublished) resulted 

### in predicted BAFs 

### from 17 to 228 

### for four PAHS 

### with three and four ringsfor 

### fish with 5.0 % 

### lipids. It 

### seems unlikely .thatPAHs 

### with five rings will 

### have BAFs 

### greater than 1000.

> 

### No 

### measured BCF 

### with a measured value

### of percent lipidswas

> No 

### measured BAF 

### was found. 

### found

# .

BERYLLIUM (CAS#: 7440-41-71 

### Barrows etal. (1980)

### obtained a.BCF 

### of 19 based 

### on wholebody 

### measurements on bluegills. A BCF based on 

### edible-. portion might be lower, but the predicted H?iBAF

### will be 

### set at 19 for 

### lack of additional information.

BIS(2-CHLOROETHOXY)ME"HANE [CAS#: 111-91-11
> 

### Predicted BAF 

### based on Log P: The 

### following value was found for Log P: A 

### value of 0.75 

### was selected as a 'typical Log Pa,

### from

### which the following were obtained: 0.75 

### MedChem Calc Predicted BCF (at '7.6% 

### lipids) = 1.56 

### Normalized BCF 

### (at 1.0% 

### lipids) = 0.205. Food 

### Chain Multiplier = 1.0 For 5.0%

### lipids at trophic level 4 

### the predictedHHBAF that 

### is calculated from the 

### 'typical Log P' 

### is (0.205) (5.0)(1.0) 

### = 1.0.

> No 

### measured BCF 

### or BAF was found.

BIS (2-CHLOROETHYL 1 ETHER [CAS#: 111-44-41
> 

### Predicted BAF 

### based onLog 

### P: The 

### followina values were found for Log P: 1.59 

### 0.996 1.12 A 

### value of 1.14 was 

### the following 

### were MedChp Star MedChBn Calc Isnard and Lambert 1989 

### selected as 

### a "typicalLog P', fromwhich 

### obtained: 10Predicted BCF (at 7.6% lipids) 

### = 3.17 Normalized BCF (at 1.0% lipids) = 0.417 Food Chain Multiplier 

### = 1.0 

### For 5.0% lipids at trophic level 

### 4 the predicted

### HHBAF that 

### is calculated from the 'typical 

### Log 

### P' is (0.417)(5.0)(1.0) = 

### 2.1.

> Predicted BAF based on Log 

### P and measured 

### BCF: BCF %L Norm 

### BCF Reference (1.0% 

### L) 11 4.8 2.29 Barrows et 

### al. 1980 Geometric mean normalized BCF 

### = 2.29 For 5.0% lipids at trophic level 4.thepredicted HHBAF that is .calculated from the geometric mean normalized 

### BCF is (2.29)(5.0) (1.0) 

### = 11. Note: 

### This BCF was based on uptake of radioactivity with no verification of the parent chemical. 

### Thus this BCF and the resulting predicted HHBAF might be too high.

> Nomeasured BAF was found.

BIS (2-CHLOROISOPROPYL)ETHER [CAS#: 108-60-11
> Predicted BAF based on Log P: The following value was found for Log P: .Avalue of 1.61 was selected as a 'typical Log P', from which

. the'-following were obtained: 1.61 MedChem Calc

. Predicted BCF (at 7.6% lipids) = ,7.45 Normalized BCF (at 1.0% lipids) = 0.980 Food Chain Multiplier 

### = 1.0 For 5.0% lipids at trophic level 4 the predicted HHBAF that is calculated from the 'typical Log P' is (0.980)(5.0) (1.0) = 4.9.

> 

### No measured 

### BCF 

### or BAF was found.

BROMOFORM [CAS#: 75-25-21
> Predicted BAF based on Log P:11

### The. following value was found for Log P: A 

### value of 2.37 was 

### selected as a 'typical Log P', 

### fromwhich the 

### following'were obtained: 2.372 

### MedChan Calc


### Predicted BCF (at 7.6% 

### lipids) = 29.7

. 

### Normalized BCF 

### (at 1.O$ 

### lipids) = 3.91 Food 

### Chain Mcltiplier E 1.0 For 5.0% 

### lipids attrophic 

### level 4 

### the.predictedHHBAF 

### that 

### is calculated from 

### the 

### 'typical Log Pm

### is 43.91) (5.0) (1.0) 

### = 20. I

> No 

### measured BCF or BAF was 

### found.

4-BROMOPHENYL PHENYL ETHER [CAS#: 101-55-31

. > 

### Predicted BAF 

### based onLog P: 

### The 

### followingvalue was 

### found for Log P: 5.24 MedChem 

### Calc

. . A value of 5.24 

### was selected as 

### a 

### 'typical Log 

### P', from

### which the following were obtained: Predicted BCF (at 7.6% 

### lipids) = 5,490 Normalized BCF (at 1.0% 

### lipids) = 722.4 Food 

### Chain Multiplier = 4.3 For 5.O% 

### lipids at 

### trophic level 4 

### the predicted HHBAF that 

### is calculated from 

### the 'typical Log PL 

### is (722.4) (5.0)(4.3) = 15,532.

> No 

### measured' BCF or BAF .was found.

> 

### Predicted BAF 

### based on Log P: 

### The 

### following values.were found for Log P: 4.91 

### MedChem Star 4.05 

### Isnard and Lambert 1989 4.87 

### MedChem Calc A 

### value of 4.7 was 

### selected as a 

### 'typical Log Pm,fromwhich 

### the following were obtained: Predicted BCF (at 7.6% 

### lipids) = 2,056 

### Normalized BCF (at 1.0% 

### lipids) = 270.5 

### Food Chain Multiplier = 1.4 For 5.0% 

### lipids at 

### trophic .level4 the 

### predicted mBAF that 

### is calculatedfrom 

### the 

### 'typicZ1 Log 

### P' is (270.5)(5.0)(1.4)
E 1,894.

12> Predicted BAF based 

### on Log 

### P BCF 

### %L Norm BCF (1.0% 

### L) 6

### 63 4.8 

### 138.1 Geometric mean normalized and measured Reference ~ ~~


### BCF :



### Barrows et al. 1980 

### BCF 

### = 

### 138.1

Note: 

### This BCF was based on uptake 

### of radioactivity with 

### no verification 

### of theparent chemical. 

### Thus this BCF and the resulting predicted KHBAF might 

### be too high.

> No measured 

### BAF was found.

CADMIUM [CAS#: 7440-43-9 J Based on 

### dry-weightmeasurements on 

### adu1.tbrook trout, Benoit et al. (1976)obtained BCFs of 15 formuscle, 300 to 600 for

### whole bcdy, and 19,000 for kidney. Using a conversionfactor 

### of 0.2

(Stephan et al. 19851, the wet-weight BCF 

### for muscle is estimated to be 3. Sangalang and Freeman (1979)obtained aBCF of 17 for muscle of brook trout. Calamari et al. (19821 obtained a BCF 

### of 2.3 for muscle 

### of rainbow trout. Data presented by Murphy et al. (19781 can be used to calculate BAFs 

### of 0.3 and 1.6 based.

### on increases 

### in the concentrations of cadmium in water and in muscle of bluegills 

### and bass 

### in a 

### contaminated pond. The geometric mean 

### of 0.3 and 1.6 is 0.69,

I which will be used 

### as the predicted HHBAF.

..

CARBON TETRACHLORIDE [CAS#: 56-23-51
> Predicted 

### BAF based 

### on Log P: me

### following values were found 

### for Log P: 2.83 MedChern Star 2.875 MedChem 

### Calc 2.64 Isnard and 

### Lambert 1989 A value 

### of 2.8 was selected 

### as a 'typical Log P', fromwhich the 

### followingwere obtained: Predicted BCF (at 7.6's Pipias) 

### = 64.9 Normalized BCF (at 1.23% lipids) 

### = 8.54 

### Food Chain 

### Multiplier = 1.0 For 5.0% lipids at trophic level 4 the predictedHHBAF that 13> 

### Predicted BAF 

### based on Log P 

### and measured BCF: BCF %L Norm 

### BCF Reference (1.0% 

### L) 7,097 3.2 2,218 Goodman 

### et al. 1978 15,687 3.6 4,357 

### Parrish et .al. 1978 37,800 7.6 4,974 

### Veith et al. 1979b

. 17,321 7.28 2,379 

### Oliver and Niimi 1985 18,762 7.28 2,577 

### Oliver and Niimi 1985 

### Geometric mean normalized BCF = 3,118 

### The BCFsof 18,"762 

### and 17,321' from 

### Oliver and Niimi(19'85) 

### are for the alpha and ganaM 

### isomers, respectively; both of

.

### these values and the value for % 

### lipids are 

### the geometric means from two exposures. The BCFs might not be at steady

. 

### HHBAF that is calculated from the geometric mean normalized. BCF is (3,118)(5.0)(33) 

### = 514,470. " 

### state. For 5.0% 

### lipids at 

### trophic '

### level 4 

### the predicted

> 

### Measured Bioaccumulation Factors: (basedon field data for 

### fish at 

### trophic level4) BAF % L Norm BAF 

### Species Reference (1.0% L) 1,400,000 8 175,000 R. 

### trout Oliver and Niimi 1985 76,000 8 9,500 R. 

### trout Oliver and Niimi 1985 558,a24 11 50

### ,802 

### Salmon Oliver and Niimi 1988 

### Geometric' mean normalized BAF = 43,875. The BAF of 1,400,000 

### is for the alpha isomer, whereas the other two 

### are for 

### the gamma 

### isomer. The rangeof 

### the three normalized BAFs 

### is a factor of 18, 

### but there is no 

### basis for 

### choosing a subset of 

### these' three values. For.5

### .O% lipids at trophic level 4 

### the predicted HHBAF is (43,875) (5.0) = 219

### , 375.

CHLOROBENZENE [CAS#: 108-90-71
> 

### Predicted BAF 

### based on, Log 

### P: The following values were 

### found for Log P: 2.84 

### MedChem Star 2.855 

### MedChkn Calc 2.83 

### Hammers et 

### al. 1982 2.98 

### Miller et al. 1985 2.80 

### Bobra et al. 1985 15is calculated fromthe 'typical Log P' is (8.54)(5.0)(1.0) = 43.

> Predicted BAF based on Log P and measured BCF: BCF

. % 

### .L Nom 

### BCF Reference (1.0% 

### L) 30 

### 4

## .a 6.25 Barrows et 

### al. 1980 Geometric mean normalized 

### BCF = 6.25 

### For 5.0% lipids at trophic level 4 the predictedH?IBAF that 

### 'is calculated from the'geometric mean normalized BCF is (6.25) (5.0) (1.0) = 31. Note: This BCF was based on uptake 

### of radioactivity 

### with no. verification of the parent chemical. 

### Thus this 

### BCF and the resulting predicted HHBAF might be too high.

> No measured BAF was found.

CHLORDANE [CAS#: see below] There are several isomers of chlordane and so the following were all considered to be of interest: CAS# : 57-74-9 Chlordane, mixture 

### of cis and trans CAS#: 5103-71-9 alpha-chlordane; cis-chlordane CAS#: 5103-74-2 beta-chlordane; trans-chlordane CAS#: 5566-34-7 gannna-chlordane. CAS#,: 127.89-03-6 Chlordane, technical All ofthese are expected to have similarvalues for Log P, BCF, and BAF.

> Predicted BAF based on Log P: 

### The following values were found for Log P: 5.54 MedChem Calc 6.0 Isnard and Lambert 1989 A value of 5.77 was selected as a 'typical 

### Log 

### P', from which thefollowing were obtained: Predicted BCF (at 7.6% lipids) = 14,398 Normalized BCF (at 1.03 lipids) = 1,894 Food Chain Multiplier = 33 For 5-0%lipids attrophic. lecel 4 the predictedHHBAF that is calculated from the "typical Log P' is (1,894)(5.0)(33) 

### = 312,510.


### 142.98 Isnard and Lambert 1989 2.898 de Bruijn et al. 1989 Values ranging from 2.18 to 2.98 were cited by Brooke et al. (1990). A value of 2.88 was selected

### as a 'typical Log P', fromwhich thefollowing were obtained: Predicted BCF (at 7.6% lipids) = 75.0 Food Chain Multiplier 

### = 1.0 ' Normalized 3CF (at 1.0% lipids) = 9.87 

### For 5.0% lipids at 

### trophic 

### level 4 the predicted HHBAF that 

### 'iscalculated frornthe 'typical 

### Log 

### P' 

### is (9.87) (5.0)(1.0) 

### =

49.
> No acceptable measured 

### BCF was'found. A BCF of over 400 was reported for fishwith about 4% lipids by Brooke and Call (manuscript). The results were based 

### on uptake of radioactivity. Results of this test were not used because metabolites were detected and. probably contributed to the. BCF.

> No measured BAF 

### was found.

p-CHLORO-m-CRESOL

. [CAS#: 59-50-71
> Predicted BAF based on Log P: The following values were found for Log P: 3.10 MedChem Star 3.134 MedChem Calc 3.10 Veith et al. 1979a A value of 3.11 was selected as a 'typical Log P', from

### which the following were obtained: Predicted BCF (at 7.6% lipids) = 114.0 Normalized BCF (at 1.0% lipids) = 15.0 Food Chain Multiplier 

### = 1.0 For 5.0% lipids at trophic level 4 the predicted HHBAF that is calculated from the 'typical Log P' is (15.0)(5.0)(1.0) = 75.

> No measured BCF or BAF was found.

CHLORODIBROMOMETHANE [CAS#: 124-48-11
> Predicted 

### BAF based 

### on Log 

### P:. " 

# - - The following value was found for Log P: A value of 2.23 was selected as a "typical Log Pm,fromwhich 2-232 MedChem Calc
16

### the following were obtained: Predicted BCF (at 7.6% 

### lipids) = 23.0 

### Normalized BCF (at 1.0% 

### lipids) = 3.03 

### Food Chain Multiplier = 1.0 

### For 5

### .O% lipids at trophic level 4 

### the predicted HHBAF 

### that is calculated from the 'typical Log 

### P' is (3.03)(5.0) (1.0) = 15.

> No 

### measured BCF or BAF was found.

CHLOROETHANE [CAS#: 75-00-31
> 

### Predicted BAF 

### based on 

### Log P:, The following values were found for 

### Log P: 1.43 

### MedChem Star 1.465 

### MedChem Calc A 

### value of 1.44 

### was selected as a 

### 'typical Log P', from

### which the following were obtained: Predicted BCF (at.7.6% 

### lipids) = 5.47 

### Normalized BCF (at1.0% 

### lipids) = 0.720 

### Food Chain Multiplier = 1.0 

### For 5.0% 

### lipids at trophic level 4 

### the-predictedHHBAF 

### that is calculated from the 'typical Log P' is (0.720)(5.0) (1.0) = 3.6.

..

> No 

### measured BCFor 

### BAF was found.

2-CHLOROETHYL VINYL ETHER [CAS#: 110-75-83
> 

### Predicted BAF 

### based on Log P: 

### . The following value was 

### found for Log P: A 

### value of 0.99 

### was selected as a 

### 'typical Log Pa,from

### which the following were obtained: 0.994 

### MedChem Calc .. 

### Predicted BCF 

### (at 7.6% 

### lipids) = 2.41 

### Normalized BCF (at1.0% 

### lipids) = 0.317 

### Food Chain Multiplier = 1.0 For 5.0% 

### lipids at 

### trophic level4 

### the predictedHKBAF 

### that is calculated from the "typical Log 

### P' is (0.317)(5.0) (1.0) = 1.6.

. 

### ..

> No 

### measured BCF or BAF was 

### foGd'.

17

### CHLOROFORM [CAS#: 67-66-31
> 

### Predicted BAF 

### based on Log 

### P: me 

### following values were found for 

### Log P: 1.97 

### MedChem Star 1.952 

### MedChem Calc 1-90 

### Isnard and Lambert 1989 A 

### value of 1.94 

### was selected as'typical Log 

### P', fromwhich the following were obtained: Predicted 

### BCF (at7.6%

### lipids) 

### = 13-6 

### Normalized BCF (at 

### 1.0% lipids) 

### = 1.79 Food Chain Multiplier 

### = 1.0 

### For 5.0% 

### lipids at trophic level 4 

### the predicted HHBAF 

### that is calculated from 

### the 'typical Log P' 

### is (l.??)(5.0) (1.01 E 9.0

> 

### Predicted BAF 

### based on Log P 

### and measured BCF:' 

### BCF %L Nom BCF 

### Reference (1.0% L) 6 4.8

. 1.25 

### Barrows et al. 1980 

### Geometric mean normalized BCF = 1.25



### Note: This BCF was based on 

### uptake of radioactivity with no verification of 

### the parent chemical. Thus thisBCF and 

### the resulting predicted HHBAF might be too 

### high.

> No 

### measured BAF 

### was found.

2

### -CHLORONAPHTHALENE [CAS#: 91-58-71
> 

### Predicted BAF 

### based onLog P: 

### The following values were found 

### for Log P: 4.03 MedChem Calc 4.07 

### Isnard- and Lambert 1989 A 

### value of 4-05 

### was selected as a 

### 'typical Log 

### P', fromwhich. the following were obtained: Predicted BCF 

### (at 7.63 

### lipids) = 630.2 

### Normalized BCF 

### (at 1.0% 

### lipids) = 82.9 Food 

### Chain Multiplier = 1.0 

### For 5.0% 

### lipids at trophic level 4 

### the predictedHHBAF 

### that is 

### calculated from the 'typical Log P' 

### is (82.9)(5.0)(1.0) = 18414.

> No measured BCF 

### or BAF was found.



### 2-CHLOROPHENOL [CAS#: 95-57-81
> Predicted BAF based on Log 

### P: me following values were 

### found for'

### Log P: 2.15 MedChem Star 2.205 MedChem Calc 2.16 'Isnardand Lambert 1989 2.12 Hammers et 

### al. 1982 A value 

### of 2.16 was selected as a 'typical 

### Log P', from'which the following were obtained: Predicted BCF (at 7.6%lipids) = 20.25 Normalized BCF 

### (at 1.0% lipids) 

### = 2.664 Food Chain Multiplier = 1.0 For 5.0% lipids at trophic level 4 fhe.predictedHHBAF that 

### is calculated from the 'typical Log P' is (2.664)(5.0)(1.0) = 13.

> Predicted BAF based on Log P and measured BCF: BCF %L Norm BCF Reference (1.0% L) 214 4.8 44.6 Barrows et 

### al. 1980 Geometric mean normalizedBCF = 44.6



### Note: This BCF was based on uptake of radioactivity 

### with 

### no verification 

### of theparent chemical. 

### Thus this BCF and the resulting predicted HHBAF might be too 

### high-

> No measured BAF 

### was found.

4-CHLOROPHENYL PHENYL 

### ETHER [Cas#: 7005-72-31
> Predicted BAF based 

### on Log 

### P: The following valueswere found 

### for 

### Log P: 5.09 MedChem 

### Calc 194.08 

### Isnard and Lambert 1989 A 

### value of 4.6 

### was selected as a 

### 'typical Log P'8 

### from 

### which the following were obtained: 

### Predicted BCF 

### (at7.6% 

### lipids) = 1,714 

### Normalized BCF 

### (at 1.03 

### lipids) = 225.5 Food 

### Chain Multiplier = 1.3 For 5.0% 

### lipids at trophic level 4 

### the 

### predicted HHBAF 

### that is calculatedfyom 

### the "typical Log 

### P' 

### i's(225.5)(5.0) (1.3) 

### = 1,466.

! Note: 

### Metabolism is 

### likely to reduce 

### the BCF and FCM 

### enough 

### to 

### cause the 

### actual BAF 

### to be 

### less than 1000.

>' No 

### measured BAF 

### was found.

CHLORPYRIFOS [CAS#: 2921-88-2)
> 

### Predicted BAF 

### .basedon Log P: The 

### following values were 

### found for Log P: 4.96 

### MedChem Star 4.685 MedChem Calc 4.99 Isnard and Lambert 1989 5.267 de 

### Bruijn et al. 1989 A value of 4.97 was 

### selected as 

### a 

### 'typical Log P', fromwhich the 

### following were obtained: Predicted BCF (at 7.6% 

### lipids) = 3,360 Normalized BCF (at 1.O% 

### lipids) = 442:l Food 

### Chain Multiplier = 2.6 For 5.0% 

### lipids at 

### trophic level 4 the 

### predicted HHBAF 

### that is calculatedfrom 

### the "typical Log PL

### is (442.1.) (5..0) (2.61 

### = 5,747.

> NO 

### measured BCF with a measured value 

### of 

### percent lipids was found

# .

> 

### Eaton et 

### al. (1985)found normalized BAFs of 209 for 

### the 

### fathead minnow and 120 for 

### the bluegill. The 

### geometric mean of 209 

### and 120 is 158.4. For 5.0%lipids 

### at trophic 

### level 4 the 

### predicted HHBAF 

### is (158.4)(5.0) = 792.

CHROMIUM [CAS#: 7440-47-31
20

### BCFs of0.13 and 2.8 

### were obtainedfor

### muscle of 

### rainbow trout by 

### Buhler et al. (1977) 

### and Calamari et 

### al. (1982) 

### , respectively. The geometric mean of 0.13 

### and 2.8 

### is 0.60, 

### which will be 

### used as the predicted HHBAF.

CHRYSENE [CAS# : 218-01-9

### J
> 

### Predicted BAF 

### based on Log 

### P: 

### The following values were found 

### for Log P: 5.664 

### MedChem Calc 5.79

, 

### Miller et 

### al. 1985 5.79 

### Isnard and Lambert 1989 A 

### value of -3 

### was selected as 

### a 'typical-Log P., 

### fromwhich .thefollowing were obtained: Predicted BCF 

### (at 7.6% 

### lipids) = 13,388 

### Normalized BCF (at1.03 

### lipids).= 1,762 

### Food Chain Multiplier = 

### 23' 

# - For 5.0% 

### lipids at trophic level 4 

### the predictedHHBAF 

### that is calculated from 

### the 'typicalLog P' 

### is (1,762)

### C&P_l (23)= 202,630.

> 

### No measured BCF was found.

> 

### Field data (Burkhard, unpublished) resulted in a 

### geometric mean BAF of 40 

### for two PAHs 

### with four rings for fish with 5.0 % 

### lipids.

COPPER 

### [CAS#: 7440-50-81 

### Benoit'(1975)

### reported a BCF of zero for copper 

### inmuscle of 

### the bluegill. Thus the predicted HHBAF will be Set at 0.0. .-

CYANIDE 

### [CAS#: 57-12-51 

### No 

### usable data were found concerning bioconcentration or bioaccumulation 

### of cyanide by 

### freshwater fish.

2,4-13 

### [CAS#: 94-75-71 ..

> 

### Predicted BAF based on Log P: 

### The following values were found 

### for Log P: 212.81 

### MedChem Star 2.682 

### MedChem Calc 3.00 

### Isnard and Lambert 

### 1989 A 

### value of 2.83 

### was selected as a ’typical Log 

### P’, from which the following were obtained: Predicted BCF .(at 7.6% 

### lipids) = 68.5 

### Normalized BCF (at1.0% 

### lipids) = 

### 9.01 Food Chain Multiplier = 1.0 For 5.0% 

### lipids at trophic level 4 

### the predicted HHBAF 

### that 

### is calculated fromthe ’typical Log PD

### is (9.01)(5.0) (1.0) = 45.

> No 

### measured BCF

### or BAF 

### was found.

DDD (CAS#: see below] 

# - There are several isomers of 

### DDD; the common ones are: p,p‘-DDD; 4,4‘-DDD CASU: 

### 72-54-8 O*P “DDD; 2,4’-DDD ‘CAS#: 

### 53-19-0

m8 

### P“DDD; 3,4’-DDD CAS#: 

### 4329-12-8 All of 

### the isomers,. and all 

### mixtures of them,are expected to have similar values for Log P8 

### BCF, and BAF.

> 

### Predicted BAF 

### based on Log

### P: The followipg values were found 

### for LogP: 6.02 

### MedChem Star 6.21 MedChem Calc 6.02 

### Veith et 

### al. 1979a 6.02 Isnard and Lambert 1989 6.227 

### de Bruijn et al. 1989 

### Values rangingfrom 6.02 

### to 6.21 

### were cited by 

### de Bruijn et al. (1989). A 

### value of ‘6.1.

### was selected as a ’typical Log PL,

### from which the fol were obtained: 

### ”J Predicted BCF (a 7.6% 

### ipids) 

### = 26,242 

### Normalized BCF (.at 

### lipids) 

### = 3,453 

### Food Chain Multiplier = 75 

# -

For 5.0% 

### lipids at trophic level 4 

### the predictedHHBAF 

### that is calculated from the ’typical Log P’ 

### is (3,453) (5.0) (75) = 

### 1,294,875.

> NO 

### measured BCF 

### with fish and with a measured valueof percent lipids was found.

.- 

### . 

## - 

# - 3r 

### Measured Bioaccumulation Factors: (basedon 

### field data for fish 

### at trophic level 4)
22BAF % L NO^ BAF 

### Species Reference (1.0% 

### L) 892,473 11 

### 81,134 Salmon Oliver and Niimi 1988 Geometric mean 

### normalized BAF 

### = 81,134. For 5.0% 

### lipids at 

### trophic level 

### 4 the predicted HHBAF 

### is

(81,134) (5.0) = 405,670. 

### Note: This value is probably 

### too high because the fish were also exposed 

### to DDT. 

### Uptake and 

### metabolism 

### of DDT 

### probably contributed 

### to the concentration 

### of DDD 

### in the fish.



# - DDE [CAS#: see below] 

### There 

### are several isomers 

### of 

### DDE; the coxrunon ones are: p,p"DDE; 

### 4,4'-DDE CAS#: 

### 72-55-9 0,p"DDE; 

### 2,4'-DDE CAS#: 

### 3424-82-6 All 

### of the isomers, and 

### all mixtures of them, are expected to 

### have similar 

### values for Log 

### P, BCF, 

### and BAF.

> 

### Predicted BAF 

### based on Log P: \ 

### The following values were found 

### for Log P: 

### 6.51 MedChem Star 6.936 MedChem 

### Calc 5.89 Burkhard et 

### al. 1985 5.69 Isnard and Lambert 

### 1989 6.956

. de Bruijn et al. 

### 1989 Values ranging from 5.69 

### to 6.94 were cited by'de

### Bmijn et al. 

### (1989). A 

### value of 6.4 was 

### selected as a 'typical Log ' 

### P',..from which the following 

### were obtained: Predicted BCF 

### (at 7.6%

### lipids) 

### = 45,290 Normalized BCF (at 1.0% lipids) = 

### 5,959 

### Food Chain Multiplier = 98 For 5.0% 

### lipids at trophic 

### level 4 the 

### .predictedHHBAF that 

### is calculated from the 'typical Log P' 

### is (5,959)(5.0)(98)= 

### 2,919,910.

> 

### Predicted BAF 

### based on Log P 

### and measuredBCF: 

### BCF % L 

### NomBCF Reference (1.0% 

### L) 

### .- 52

### ,000 7.6 6,842 

### - Veikh et 

### al. 1979b 180,000* 9.12 19,737* 

### Kosian et 

### al. 1981

11,773- 7.28 1,617** 

### Oliver and Niimi 1985 23t = extrapolated 

## from 28 days to steady state. *+ = below steady state; not used in the calculation of the geometric mean normalized BCF. Geometric mean normalized BCF = 11,621 For is CaLcu. (11, 

### ----

> Measured Bioaccumulation Factors: (based 

### on field data for fish at trophic level.4) BAF % L Norm BAF Species Reference (1.0% L) 18,000,ooo 8 2,250,000 Trout Oliver and Niid 1985 11,315,789 11 1,028,708 

### Salmon Oliver and Niimi 1988 Geometric mean normalized BAF = 1,521,379



# - DDT [CASU: see below]

.There are several isomers of DDT and several pertinent CAS

numbers; the comnones 

### are: p,p"DDT; 4,4'-DDT CAS# : 50-29-3 o,p."DDT; 2,4'-DDT CAS#: 789-02-6 DDT CAS#: 33086-18-9 All of the isomers, and all mixtures of them, are expected to have similar values for Log P, BCF, and BAF. The values uaed for Log P8 BCF, and BAF herein were based only on DDT and not 

### on

'DDTplus metabolites. because the GLI humanhealth criterion is based on a study in which the test organism were fed commercial-grade DDT, which consisted

### of 81% p,p'-DDT and 17.9% O,P'

### -DDT. ." 

# - 

# -
> Predicted BAF based 

### on Log P: The following values were found 6.36 MedChem 24 for Log P: Star6.913 

### MedChern Calc 6-19 

### Veith et 

### al. 1979a 6.38 

### Hammerset al. 1982 5.44 

### Burkhard et al. 1985 5.75 

### Isnard and Lambert 1989 5.98 

### Isnard and -Lambert 198'9 6.914 

### de Bruijn et al. 1989 

### Values ranging from 3.98 

### to 7.48 

### were cited by 

### Brooke et al. (19901, 

### de Bruijn et al. (19891, 

### and Eadsforth and Moser

. (19831. A 

### value of 6.2 

### was selected as a 

### 'typical Log P., 

### from which the following were obtahed: Predicted BCF (at 7.6% 

### lipids) = 31,477 

### Normalized BCF (at 1.0% 

### lipids) = 4,142

. 

### Food Chain Multiplier = 84 

### For 5.0% 

### lipids at trophic level 4 

### the predicted HHBAF 

### that 'is calculated from the 'typical Log P' 

### is (4,142)(5.0)(84) = 1,739,640.

> 

### Predicted BAF 

### based on Log P'

### and measured BCF: BCF 

### %L Nom 

### BCF Reference (1.0% L) 29,400 7.6 3

### ,868 

### Veith et al. 1979b 37,000 7.6 4

### ,868 

### Veith et al. 1979b 

### Geometric mean nonnalized BCF = 4,339 For 5.0% 

### lipids at trophic level 4 

### the predicted HHBAF 

### that is calculated from 

### the geometric mean normalized BCF 

### is (4,339)(5.0)(84) = 1,822,380.

.

> 

### Measured Bioaccumulation Factors: (based on field data for fish at 

### trophic level4)

.. 

### -. BAF % 

### L Norm BAF 

### Species Reference (1.0% 

### L) 4,210,526 11 382,775 

### Salmon Oliver and Niimi 1988 

### For 5.0% 

### lipids at trophic level 4 

### the predicted HHBAF 

### is (382,775) (5.0) = 1,913,875; 

### for 7.9% 

### lipids at trophic level 4 

### the predictedWLBAF 

### is (382,775) (7.9) 

### = 31023,922. A 

### normalized BAFof 382,775 

### for trophic level 4 

### corresponds 

### to a Log P of 6.2525. 

### The validity 

### of 

### this back calculation can be 

### demonstrated as follows: 

## - For a Log P 

### of 6.2525, 

### the BCF that is 

### predicted for fish 

### containing 7.6% 

### lipids is (antilog[ (0.79)(6.2525)-0.4]} = 34,631.79. 

### The BAF 

### that is 

### predicted forfish containing 255.0% 

### lipidsat trophic level 4 

### is (34,631.79/7.6)(5.0) (84) 

### = 1,913,862;

### the BAF 

### that ispredicted for'Yishcontaining 7.9% 

### lipids at

### trophic l'evel 4 

### is /'34,631.79/-7.6)(7.9)(84) = 3,023,902. 

### Both of these BAFs..-..agree.""well with the values givenabove, as 

### they should. Thus for 

### a Log P 

### of 6.2525, by 

### using the FCM of 29 for 

### trophic level 3 

### instead of 

### the FCM of 84 

### for trophic level 4, 

### the. WLBAF 

### that is 

### prediaed--for.,.-fish containing 7.9% 

### lipids at 

### trophic level 3 

### ,is -27.6) (7.9) (29).

### = 1,043,966. 

### Note: Because 

### of metabolism of DDT to 

### DDD Ad 

### DDE, a ' 

### predicted BAF 

### for' DDT 

### that does not, take into 

### account the effect of metaboli'sm on 

### both the BCF 

### and the FCM 

### is likely.to 

### be higher thana measured.BAF. A BAF for 

### 'DDT plus 

### toxic ,persistent metabolites' should be 

### higher than a BAF 

### for "DDT..


# - DEHP [CAS#: 117-81-7J
> 

### Predicted BAF 

### based on Log P: The 

### following values were found for Log P: 8.66 

### MedChem Star 8.707

. 

### MedChem Calc 4.20 Isnard 

### and Lambert1989 7.453 

### de Bruijn et 

### al. 1989 

### Values rangingfrom 4.20 

### to 9.64 

### were cited by 

### de Bruijn et 

### al. (1989) 

### and Brooke et al. (1990). A value 

### of 8.0 was 

### selected as 

### a 'typical Log P., 

### from

### which the following were obtained: Predicted BCF (at 7.6% 

### lipids) = lOO,OOO Normalized BCF (at 1.0% 

### lipids) = 13,158 Food 

### Chain Multiplier = 1.0 

### For 5.0% 

### lipids at trophic level 4 

### the predictedHHBAF that 

### is cakulated from 

### the 'typical Log P' is (13,158) (5.0) (1.0) '= 65,790.

> 

### Predicted BAF 

### based on 

### Log P 

### and 

### measured BCF: BCF %L Norm BCF 

### Reference (1.0% L) 114 4.8 23-75 

### Macek et al. 1979; 

### Barrows 

### et al. 1980 

### Geometric mean normalized BCF = 23.75 

### For 5-0%

### lipids at trophic-iekl4 

### the predicted HHBAF 

### that is 

### calculated from the "geometric mean normalized BCF" 

### is (23.75)(5.0)(1.0) = 119.
26

### Note: 

### This BCF was based on uptake of radioactivity with no verification ofthe parent chemical. 

### Thus this BCF and the resulting predicted HHBAF might be too high.

> No measured BAF was found.



### DIAZINON [CAS#: 

### 333-41-51
> Predicted BAF based 

### on Log 

### P: The following values werefound 

### for Log 

### P: 3.81 MedChem Star 3.707 MedChem Calc 3.31 Isnard and 

### Lambert 1989 A value of 3.6 was selected as a 'typical Log P', from which the following were obtained: Predicted BCF (at 7.6% lipids) 

### = 278.0 Normalized BCF (at 1.0% lipids) = 36.6 Food Chain Multiplier= 1.0 For 5.0% lipids at trophic level 4 the predicted HHBAF that is calculated from the'tmical Log P' is (36.6) (5.0) (1.0) = 183.

> 'PredictedBAF based 

### on Log P and measuredBCF: BCF %L Nom BCF Reference (1.0% L) 182 3.6' 50.56 Goodman et al. 1979 247.9 8.6 28.83 Tsudaet al. 1989 Geometric meannormalized BCF =' 38.18 For 5.0% lipids at trophic level 4 the predicted HHBAF that 

### is calcul.ated from the geometric mean normalized BCF is (38.18)(5.0) (1.0) 

### = 191.

> No measured BAF' was found.
1,2:5,6-DIBENZAENE [CAS#: 53-70-31
> Predicted BAF based 

### on Log P: -.

## - The following values were 

### fodd

### for Log 

### P: 6.50 MedChem Star 6.838 MedChem Calc 6.88 Burkhard et al. 1985 277.19 

### Miller et 

### al. 1985 7.19 

### Isnard 

### and Lambert 1989 A 

### value of 6.84 was 

### selected as 

### a 'typical Log P',. 

### from

### which the following were 

### obtained: Predicted BCF 

### (at 7.6% 

### lipids) = 100,000 Normalized BCF 

### (at 1.0% 

### lipids) = 13,158 Food 

### Chair, 

### Multiplier = 1.0 ' For 5.0% 

### lipids at trophic level 4 

### the 

### predicted HHBA?? that 

### is 

### calculated from the 

### 'typical Log 

### P' is (13,158) (5.0) (1.0) 

### = 65,790. 

### Note: Field data (Burkhard, 

### unpublished) resulted in predicted BAFs,

### from 17 to228 

### for four PAHs 

### with three and 

### four rings forfish with 5.0 % 

### lipids. 

### It 

### seems unliliely that PAHs 

### with five 

### rings 

### will have BAFs 

### greater 

### than 1000.

> 

### No measured BCF 

### or BAF 

### was found.

DIBUTYL PHTHALATE (CAS#: 84-74-21
> 

### Predicted BAF 

### based on Log P: The 

### following values were found for Log P: 4.72 

### MedChem Star 4.689 

### MedChem Calc 5 .I5 

### Veith et al. 1979a A 

### value of 4-8was selected as a 

### 'typical Log P', 

### from 

### which the following were obtained: 

### Predicted BCF (at 7.6% lipids) = 2,466 

### Normalized BCF (at 1.0% lipids) 

### = 324.5 

### Food Chain Multiplier = 1.6 For 5:0% 

### lipids at trophic level 4 

### the predicted HHBAF that 

### is calculated from 

### the 'typical Log P' 

### is (324.5) (5.0) (1.6) = 2,596. Note: 

### Metabolism is 

### likely to reduce 

### the BCF 

### and FCM enough to 

### cause the actual BAF 

### to be 

### less than 1000,

> No 

### measured found

# . > No measured BCF 

### with a 

### measured value of 

### percent lipids was
BAF was found.



## - 1,2iDICHLOROBENZENE [CAS#: 95'-50-1]
> 

### Predicted BAF 

### based on Log P:

### The following values were found for Log P: 3.38 

### MedChem Star 3.568 

### MedChem Calc 3.34 

### Haxruners et 

### al. 1982 3.38 

### Miller et al. 1985 3.40 

### Bobra et al. 1985 3.39 

### Isnard and Lambert 1989 3.433 

### de Bruijn et 

### al. 1989 

### Values ranging from 3.34 

### to 3.65 

### were cited by 

### de Bruijn et al. (1989). A 

### value of 3.4 

### was selected as 

### a 'typical Log Pm,

### fromwhich the

### following were obtained: Predicted BCF (at 7.6% 

### lipids) = 193.2 

### Normalized BCF (at 1.0% 

### lipids) = 25.4 

### Food Chain Multiplier = 1.0 

### For 5.O% 

### lipids at trophic level 4 

### the predicted HHBAF 

### that 

### is calculated from the 'typical Log Pg is (25.4)(5.0) (i.0) 

### = 127.

> 

### Predicted BAF based on 

### Log P and measured BCF: BCF %L Nom BCF Reference (1.0% L) 89 4.8 18.5 

### Barrows et al. 1980 389 8.45 46.0 

### Oliver and Niimi 1983 

### Geometric mean normalized BCF = 29.2



### Note: The BCF reported by 

### Barrows etal. (1980)

### was based on

._

### uptake of 

### radioactivity with no verification 

### of the
- 

### parent chemical and therefore might be 

### too high.

> 

### Data presented by 

### Oliver and Nicol (1982)for 

### lake trout in Lake Ontario and Lake 

### Huron indicate that the normalized BAF for 1,2- 

### dichlorobenzene is greater than 21; 

### the predicted HHBAF for 5.0% 

### lipids would be 

### greater than105.

1,3-DICHLOROBENZENE 

### [CAS#: 541-73-11
> 

### Predicted BAF based on Log P: .- 

## - The following values were foukd for 

### Log P: 3.60 

### MedChem Star 3.568 

### MedChem Calc 3.46 Hammers 

### et al. 1982 293.48 

### Miller et 

### al. 1985 3.40 

### Bobra et 

### al. 1985 3.48 

### Isnard and Lambert 1989 3.525 

### de Bruijn et al. 1989 

### Values ranging from 3.38 to 3.95 

### were cited by 

### Eadsforth and Moser (1983)

### and de Bruijn etal. (1989). Avalue 

### of 3.5 was 

### selected as a 'typical LogPD,from which 

### the following

### were obtained: Predicted BCF 

### (at 7.6% 

### lipids) = 231.7

. 

### Normalized BCF 

### (at 1.0% 

### lipids) = 30.5 

### Food Chain Multiplier = 1.0 For 5.0% 

### lipids at 

### trophic level 4 the 

### predicted HHBAF 

### that is calculated from the 'typical Log PD

### is (30.5)(5.0)(1.0) = 152.

> 

### Predicted BAF 

### based on Log P 

### and measuredBCF: BCF %L NomBCF 

### Reference (1.0% L) 66 4.8 13.75 

### Barrows et al.1980 557 8.45 65.9 

### Oliver and Niimi 1983 97 3.79 25.6 

### Carlson and Kosian 1987 

### Geometric mean normalized BCF = 28.52



### Note: The BCF 

### reported by 

### Barrows et al. (1980)

### was based on uptake of 

### radioactivity with no verificationof the * 

### parent chemical and therefore might be 

### too high.

> 

### Data presented by 

### Oliver and Nicol (1982)

### for lake trout 

### .in Lake Ontario and 

### Lake Huron indicate that the normalized BAF for 1,3- 

### dichlorobenzene is greater than 57.9; 

### the predictedHHBAF for 5.0% 

### lipids would be greater than'290.

1,4-DICHLOROBENZENE [CAS#: 106-46-71
> 

### Predicted BAF 

### based on Log P: 

### The followingvalues 

### were found for Log 

### P: 3.52 

### MedCh-emStar 3.568 

### MedCh'em 

### Calc 3.41 Hammers 

### et al. 1982 3.38 

### Milleret al. 1985 3.40 

### Bobra et al. 1985 303.38 

### Isnard and Lambert 1989 3-444 

### de Bruijn 

### et al. 1989 

### Values rangingfrom 3.24 to 3.65 

### were cited by 

### de Bruijn et 

### al. (1989) 

### and Brooke 

### et 

### al. (1990). A 

### value 

### of 3.46 

### was 

### selected as 

### a 'typical.Log

### P', from

### which the following were 

### obtained: Predicted BCF 

### (at 7.6% 

### lipids) = 215.5 

### Normalized BCF (at 1.0% 

### lipids) = 28.4 

### Food Chain 

### Multiplier = 1.0 For 5.0% 

### lipids at 

### trophic level4 

### .the predicted HHBAF that 

### is calculatedfrom 

### the 'typical Log 

### P' is (28.4) 

### (5.0)(1.0) 

### = 142.

> 

### Predicted BAF based on Log 

### P and measured BCF: BCF

97 60 50 516 674 110 296 %L
5.4 4.8 2.3 8.45 7.28 3.79 8.5 Norm BCF (1.0% L) 18.O 12.5 21.7 61.1 92.6 29.O 34.8 

### Reference

Konemann 

### and van Leeuwen 1979 

### Barrows et 

### al. 1980 

### Galassi et al. 1982 

### Oliver and Niimi 1983 

### Oliver and Niimi 1985 

### Carlson and Kosian 1987 

### Smith etal. 1990 

### Geometric mean normalized BCF = 31.1 

### For 5.0% 

### lipids at 

### trophic level4 

### the predicted HHBAF that is calculated from 

### the geometric mean normalized BCF 

### is (31.1)(5.0) (1.01 = 156. 

### Note: The BCF 

### reported by 

### Barrows et al, (1980)

### was based on 

### 'uptake of radioactivitywith no 

### verification of the 

### parent chemicaland 

### therefore might be too 

### high.

> 

### Data presented by 

### Oliver and Nicol (1982)for 

### lake trout 

### in Lake Ontario and Lake Huron 

### indicate that the normalized BAF 

### for 1,4- 

### dichlorobenzene is 5.96; 

### the predicted HHBAF 

### for 5.O% 

### lipids is 30.

3,3'-DICHLOROBENZIDINE [CAS#: 91-94-11

> 

### Predicted BAF based on Log P: _' The following values 

### were fouhd for Log P: 3.51 

### MedChem Star 3.637 

### MedChem Calc A 

### value of 3.57 was 

### selected as 

### a 'typical Log P", 

### from which 31the 

### following were obtained: Predicted BCF (at 7.6% 

### lipids) = 263.2 

### Normalized BCF (at 1.0% 

### lipids) = 

### 34.63 Food 

### Chain Multiplier = 1.0 For 5.0% 

### lipids at trophic level 4 

### the predicted HHBAF 

### that is calculatedfrom 

### the 'typicalLog 

### P' is (34.63)(5.0) (1.01 = 173;

> No 

### measured BAF was found.

DICHLOROBROMOMETHANE [CAS#: 75-27-41
> 

### Predicted BAF 

### based onLog P: The 

### followingvalue 

### was foundfor Log P:- A 

### value of 2.09 was 

### selected as a 

### 'typical Log P', 

### fromwhich the following were obtairied: 2.092 

### MedChem Calc Predicted BCF (at 7.6%

### lipi.ds)= 17.8 

### Normalized BCF 

### (at 1.0% 

### lipids) = 2.35 

### Food Chain MultipJier = 1.0 

### For 5.0%

### lipids at 

### trophic level4 

### the predictedHHBAF 

### that is calculated from the 'typical Log P' is (2.35)(5.0) (1.0) = 12.

> No 

### measured BCF or BAF was found.

1.1-DICHLOROETHANE (CAS#: 75-34-31
> 

### Predicted BAF based 

### on Log P: 

### The following values were found for Log P: 1.79 

### MedChem Star 1.778

, 

### MedChem Calc 1.79 Isnard 

### and Lambert 1989 A 

### value of 1.79 was selected 

### as a 

### 'typical Log P., from

### which the 

### followingwere 

### Obtained: Predicted BCF 

### (at7.6%

### lipids) = 10.3 

### Normalized BCF (at 1.0% 

### lipids) = 1.36 

### Food Chain Multiplier = 1.0 For 5.0% 

### lipids at trophic leyel 4 the 

### predicted HHBAF 

### that is 

### calculated fromthe 

### 'typical Log 

### P" is (1.36)(5.0) (1.01 = 6.8.

32> No 

### measured BCF 

### or BAF 

### was found.

1,2-DICHLOROEm [CAS#: 107-06-21
> 

### Pr

### ,edictedBAF 

### based on Log 

### P: 

### The following values were found for Log 

### P: 1.48 

### MedChem Star 1.458 

### MedChem Calc 1.45 

### Isnard and 

### Lainbert 1989 A value 

### of 1.46 was 

### selected as a 

### 'typical Log 

### P', 

### the following were obtained: Predicted BCF (at 7.6% 

### lipids) = 5..67 

### Normalized BCF 

### (at1.O% 

### lipids) = 0.75 Food 

### Chain Multiplier = 1.0 

### For 5.0%

### lipids at trophic level 4 

### the predicted is calculated from the 

### 'typical Log P'
" 3.6.

> 

### Predicted BAF based on Log P 

### and measured 

### from

### which

HHBM that

BCF : BCF %L Norm 

### BCF 

### Reference (1.0% 

### L) 2 4.8 0.417 Barrows 

### et al. 1980 

### Geometric mean 

### normalized BCF = 0.417

Note: 

### This BCF 

### was based 

### on 

### uptake of 

### radioactivity with no 

### verificationof the parent chemical. 

### Thus 

### this BCF 

### and "'the

### resulting predicted HHBAF might be too high. *

> No measured BAF 

### was found.

1,l-DICHLOROETHYLENE [CAS#: 75-35-,4]
> 

### Predicted BAF 

### based on Log 

### P: The 

### following valueswere found 

### for Log P: 2.13 MedChq Star 2.114 MedChW 

### Calc A value of 2.12 was 

### selected as a "typical Log 

### Pa,

### fromwhich 

### the following were obtained: 

### Predicted BCF (at 7.6% 

### lipids) 

### = 18.8 33

### Normalized BCF (at 1.0% 

### lipids) = 2.47 Food 

### Chain Multiplier 

### = 1.0 For 5.0% 

### lipids at 

### trophic level4 

### the predictedHHBAF that 

### is calculated fromthe 'typical Log P' 

### is (2.47)(5.0)(1.0) = 12.

> No 

### measured BCF 

### or BAF was 

### found.

1,2-trans-DICHLOROETHYLENE [CAS#: 156-60-51
> 

### Predicted BAF based 

### on L0g.P: 

### The following values were found for Log P: 2.09 

### MedChem Star 1.514 

### MedCheqn Calc A 

### value of 1-80

### was selected as a 'typical Log P', from

### which the following were obtained: Predicted BCF (at 7.6% 

### lipids) = 10.5 

### Normalized BCF 

### (at 1.0% 

### lipids) = 1.38 

### Food 

### Chain Multiplier = 1.0 

### For 5.0% 

### lipids at trophic level 4 

### the predicted HHBAF that 

### is calculated from 

### the 'typical Log P' is (1.38)(5.0) (1.0) = 6.9

> 

### No measuredBCF or BAF 

### was found.

2,4-DICHLOROPHENOL 

### [CAS#: 120-83-21
> 

### Predicted BAF 

### based 

### on Log 

### P: The following values 

### were found forLog P: 3.06 

### MedChem Star 2.92 

### MedChem Star 3.066 

### MedChm Calc 3.08 

### Veith et al. 1979a 2.92 

### Hammers et al. 1982 3.08 Isnard 

### and Lambert 1989 ' A 

### value of 3.0 

### was selected as a 

### 'typical LogP', 

### from which the. following were obtained: Predicted BCF 

### (at 7-6% 

### lipids) = 93.3 

### Normalized BCF (at 1.0% 

### lipids) = 12.3 Food 

### Chain Multiplier = 1.0 

### For 5.0% 

### lipids at 

### trophic-level4 the 

### predicted HHBAF that 

### is calculated from 

### the 'typita_lLog Pa 

### is (12.3)(5.0)(1.0) 

### = 62.

> No 

### measured BCF or BAF was 

### found. 34. 1.2 -DICHLOROPROPANE [CAS#: 78-87-51
> Predicted BAF based on 

### Log P: 

### The following values were found 

### for Log P: 1.99 MedChem Calc 

### 2.00 Isnard 

### and Lambert 1989. A value 

### of 2.0 was selected as 

### a 'typical Log 

### P., from which

. the.following were obtained: Predicted BCF (at 7.6% lipids) 

### = 15.1 Normalized BCF (at 

### 1.0% lipids) = 

### 1.99 Food Chain Multiplier 

### = 1.0 

### For 5.0% lipids at trophic level 4 the predictedHHBAF that is calculated from the 'typical 

### Log P' 

### is (1.99)(5.0)(1.0) =

. 10.

> No measured BCF 

### or BAF was 

### found.

1,3-DICHLOROPROPENE [CAS#: 542-75-61
> Predicted BAFbased on Log P: The following value was found for 

### Log P: A value 

### of 1.60 was selected as a 'typical Log P', fromwhich the following were obtained: 

### 1.60 MedChem Calc
Predicted BCF (at 7.6% lipids) = 7.31 Normalized BCF (at 1.0% lipids) = 0.96 Food Chain Multiplier = 1.0 For 5.0% lipids at trophic level 4the predicted HHBAF that is calculated fromthe 'typical Log P' is (0.96) (5.0) (1.0) = 4.8..*


### =. No measured BCF 

### or BAF' was found.

DIELDRIN [CAS#: 60-57-11
> Predicted BAFbased on 

### Log P: The following values were found for Log P: 4.32 MedChem Star 

### 2.916 MedChem Calc 5.ll Hmers et al. 1982 5.16 Isnara and Lambert 1989 5.40 de Bruijn et al. 

### 1989 Values ranging from 5.16 to 5.30 were citedby de Bruijnet al. 

### (1989)

# . A Log P of 5.25 has been proposed for 

### use in the 35

### derivation of 

### sediment quality criteriafor'

### dieldrin (U.S. EPA 

### lS91b). A value of 5.0 was 

### selected as a 

### 'typical Log P', from 

### which the 

### following were obtained: Predicted BCF (at 7.6% 

### lipids) = 3,548 

### Normalized BCF 

### (at 1.0% 

### lipids) = 466.8 

### Food Chain Multiplier = 

### 2.6 

### For 5.0% 

### lipids at 

### trophic level4 

### the predictedHHBAF 

### that is 

### calculated from the 

### 'typical Log P' 

### is (466.8)(5.0) (2.6) = 6,068.

> 

### 'PredictedBAF 

### based on Log P 

### and measured BCF: 

### BCF %L 

### Norm BCF 

### Reference (1.0% L) 2,300 1.1 2,091 

### Parrish et al. 1974 4,804 2.14 2,245 

### Shubat and Curtis 1986 

### Geometric mean normalized BCF = 2,167 

### For 5-08 

### lipids at 

### trophic level4 

### the predicted HHBAF that 

### is calculated from 

### the geometric mean normalized BCF is (2,167) (5.0)(2.6) = 28,171.

> No 

### measured BAF was 

### found.

DIETHYL PHTHALATE [CAS#: 84-66-21
> 

### Predicted BAF 

### based on Log P: 

### The following values were found for Log P: 2.47 

### MedChern Star 2.57 

### MedChem Calc 3.15 Veith et 

### al. 1979a. 3 .OO 

### Isnard and Lambert 1989 A 

### value of 2.8 

### was selected as a 

### 'typical Log P', from 

### which the following were 

### obtained: Predicted BCF 

### (at 7.6%

### lipids) = 64.9 

### Normalized BCF 

### (at1.0% 

### lipids) = 8.54 

### Food Chain Multiplier = 1.0 For 5.0% 

### lipids at tropnic level 4 

### the predicted HHBAF 

### that is calculatedfrom 

### the "typical Log P' 

### is (8.54) (5.0) (1.0) = 43.

> 

### Predicted BAF 

### based onLog P and'measured BCF: BCF %L Norm BCF 

### Reference (1.0% L) 36117 4-8 24.38 

### Barrows et al. 1980 

### Geometric mean normalized BCF 

### = 24.38 

### For 5.0% 

### lipids at trophic level 4 

### the predicted HHBAF 

### that is calculated from the geometric mean normalized BCF 

### is
Note: ThisBCF 

### was basedon 

### uptake 

### of radioactivity with no 

### verification

### of the parent chemical. 

### Thus this BCF 

### and the resulting predicted HHBAF 

### might be 

### too high.

> No 

### measured BAF 

### was found.

2,4-DIMETHYLPHENOL [CAS#: 105-67-91
> 

### Predicted BAF 

### based on Log P: 

### The following values were found 

### for Log P: 2.30 

### MedChem Star 2.77 

### MedChem Calc 2.36 

### Veith et al. 1979a 2.42 

### Isnard and Lambert 1989 A 

### value of 2.48 

### was selected as a 

### 'typical Log P', from

### which the following were obtained: Predicted BCF 

### (at 7..6% 

### lipids) = 36.2 

### Food Chain Multiplier = 1.0 ~ 

### Normalized BCF (at 1.0% 

### lipids) = .4.76 For 5:0% 

### lipids at trophic level 4 

### the predictedHHBAF 

### that is calculated from the 'typical Log P' 

### is (4.76)(5.0) (1.0) = 24.

> 

### Predict'edBAF 

### based on Log 

### P and measuredBCF: BCF 

### %L NomBCF 

### Reference (1.08 

### L), 150 4.8 31.25 Barrows

### et al. 1980 

### Geometric mean normalized BCF = 31.25 For 5.0% 

### lipids at trophic level 4 

### the predictedMBAF 

### that is calculated from 

### the geometric mean normalized BCF 

### is (31.25)(5.0)(1.0) = 156. 

### Note: ThisBCF 

### was based on.

### uptake .of

### radioactivity with no 

### verificationof 

### theparent chemical. Thus this BCF 

### and the resulting predicted HHBAF 

### might be. too high. "

37> No 

### measured BAF was found.

DIMETHYL P"I''E [CAS#: 131-11-31
> 

### Predicted BAF 

### based 

### on Log P: 

### The following values were found for Log P: 1.56 

### MedChem Star 1.52 

### MedChem Calc 2.11 

### Veith et 

### al. 1979a 2.00 

### Isnard and Lambert 1989 A value of 1.8 

### was selected as a 'typical Log P', from 

### which the following were obtained:

. 

### Predicted BCF 

### (at 7.6% 

### lipids) = 10.52 

### Normalized BCF (at1.0% 

### lipids) = 1.38 

### Food Chain Multiplier 

### = 1.0 

### For 5.0% 

### lipids at 

### trophic level4 

### the predicted HHW 

### that is calculatedfromthe 'typical Log P' 

### is (1.38)(5.0)(1.0) = 6.9.

> 

### Predicted BAF 

### based on Log P 

### and measuredBCF: BCF % 

### L Norm BCF 

### Reference (1.0% L) 57 4.8 11.9 

### Barrows et al. 1980 

### Geometric mean normalized BCF = 11.9



### Note: This BCF was based on uptake of radioactivity with no verification of the parent chemical. Thus 

### this BCF 

### and the resulting predicted HHBAF 

### might be 

### too high.

> No 

### measured BAF was 

### found.
4,6-DINITRO-o-CRESOL [CAS#: 534-52-11
> 

### Predicted BAF 

### based on Log 

### P: The following value was fowd.for Log P: A 

### value of 2.56 

### was selected as a 'typical Log P', from

### which the following were obtained: 2.56 

### MedChh Calc
Predicted BCF 

### (at 7.6% 

### lipids) = 41.9 38

### Normalized BCF '(at 1.0% 

### lipids) = 5.51 

### Food Chain Multiplier = 1.0 

### For 5.0% 

### lipids at trophic level 4 

### the predicted HHBAF 

### that is calculatedfromthe 'typical Log P' 

### is (5.51)(5.0)(1.0) = 28.

> 

### No 

### measured BCFor 

### BAF was found,

2,I-DINITROPHENOL [CAS#: 51-28-51
> 

### Predicted BAF based on Log P: 

### .The following values were found for Log P: 1.54 

### MedChem Star 1.915

. 

### MedChem' Calc 1.51 

### Isnard 'and Lambert 1989' A 

### value of 1.6 was 

### selected as 

### a 'typical Log P', fromwhich the following were.obtained: Predicted BCF (at 7.6% 

### lipids)'=.7.31 

### Normalized BCF (at1.0% 

### lipids) = 0.962 

### Food Chain Multiplier = 1.0 

### For 5.0% 

### lipids at trophic level 4 

### the predicted HHBAF 

### that is 

### calculated from the 'typical Log P' 

### is (0,962)(5.0) (1.0) = 4.8.

> No 

### measured BCF or BAF was 

### found.
2.4-DINITROTOLUENE .[CAS#: 121-14-21.
-> 

### Predicted BAF. 

### bas-edon 

### Log P: '. 

### The-following values were found for 

### Log P: 1.98 

### MedChem Star 1.997 

### MedChem Calc 2.04 Deneer 

### et al. 1987 A 

### value of 2.01 was 

### selected as a 'typical Log P', 

### from which the following were obtained: Predicted BCF (at 7.6% 

### lipids) = 15.4 

### Normalized BCF (at 1.0% 

### lipids) = 2.03 

### Food Chain Multiplier = 1.0 

### For 5.0% 

### lipids at trophic level 4 

### the predicted HHBAF that is calculated from the 'typical Log P' 

### is (2.03)(5.0) (1.0) = 10.

" 

# - > 

### Predicted BAF 

### based on Log 

### P and measured BCF: BCF %L Nom

### BCF Reference 39P



### (1.0% L) 16.2 8

### .O 2.025 

### Deneer 

### et 

### al. 1987 

### Geometric mean normalized BCF = 2.025 For 5.O% 

### lipids ar:

### trophic level 4 the 

### predicted HHBAF 

### that 

### is calculated from 

### 'the geometric mean normalized BCF 

### is (2.025) (5.0) 

### (1.0) = 10.

> No 

### measured BAF was found.



### 2,6-DINITROTOLUENE [CAS#: 606-20-21
> Predicted BAF 

### based on Log 

### P: The 

### following values were found 

### for Log P: 1.72 

### MedChem Calc 2.02 

### Deneer et al. 1987 A 

### value of 1-87was 

### selected as a 

### 'typical Log P', fromwhich 

### the following were 

### obtained: Predicted BCF (at 7.6% 

### lipids) = 11.9 

### Normalized BCF (at 1.0% 

### lipids) = 1.57 Food 

### Chain Multiplier = 1.0 For 5.0% 

### lipids at 

### trophic level 4 

### the predicted HHBAF 

### that is calculated from the 

### 'typical Log P' is (1.57)(5.0) (1.0) = 7.8'.

. 

### .



### =. Predicted BAF based on Log P and measured BCF: BCF %' L Norm BCF 

### Reference (1.0% L) 21.9 80 2.74 

### Deneer et al. 1987 

### Geometric mean normalized BCF = 2.74 For 5.01 

### lipids at 

### trophic level 4 

### the predicted HHBAF that 

### is calculated from the 

### geometric mean 

### normalized BCF 

### is (2.74)(5.0) (1.0) = 14.

> No measured BAF was found.

.- 

### . -. 

# - DIOCTYL PHTHALATE [CAS#: 117-84-01 For lack of 

### other information 

### and because of 

### the structural 40

### similarity of the two chemicals, the predicted HHBAF 

### derived for DEHP will also be used for 

### dioctyl phthalate.

1,2-DIPHENYLHYDRAZIN 

### [CAS#: 122-66-71
> 

### Predicted BAF based on Log P: The following values were found for Log P: 2.94 

### MedChem Star 2.97 

### MedChem Calc A 

### value of 2.96 

### was selected as a 

### 'typical Log P', from which the following were obtained: Predicted BCF (at 7.6%

### lipids) = 86.8 

### Normalized BCF (at 1.0% 

### lipids) = 11.4 

### Food Chain Multiplier = 1.0 

### For 5-0%

### lipids at trophic level 4 

### the predictedHHBAF 

### that 

### is calculated from 

### the 'typical L0g.P' 

### is (11.4)(5.0)(1.0) = 57.

.

> No 

### measured BCFor BAF 

### was found.

TNDOSULFAN 

### [CAS#: 115-29-71 

### The HHBAF 

### derived below for the alpha and beta isomers of 

### endosulfan will be also be used for endosulfan.
alDha-ENDOSULFAN [CAS#: 959-98-81 

### beta-ENDOSULFAN [CAS#.: 33213-65-91
> 

### Predicted BAF 

### based on Log 

### P: The following value was found .for Log P: 

### A value of 3.83 

### was selected as a typical Log P., 

### fromwhich the following were obtained: 3.83 

### MedChern Star


### Predicted BCF (at 7.6% 

### lipids) = 422.4 

### Normalized BCF (at 1.0% 

### lipids) = 55.6 

### Food Chain Multiplier = 

### 1.0 For 5.0% 

### lipids at trophic level 4 

### the predicted HHBAF 

### that is calculated from the "typicalLog 

### P" is (55.6) (5.0) (1.0) t 278.

> No 

### measured BCF with fish and- with 

### ameasured value of percent lipids was found.
> No 

### measured BAF 

### was found. 41a

ENDOSULFAN SULFATE [CAS#: 1031-07-81
> 

### Predicted BAF based on Log P: 

### The following value was found for Log 

### P: A 

### value of 3.07 

### was selected as a 

### 'typical Log 

### P',' 

### fromwhich the following were obtained: 3.067 

### MedChem Calc
Predicted BCF 

### (at 7.6% 

### lipids) 

### = 106 

### Normalized BCF (at 1.0% 

### lipids1 

### = 13.9 

### Food Chain Multiplier 

### = 1.0 

### For 5.0% 

### lipids at trophic level 4 

### the predicted HHBAF 

### that is calculated from the 'typical Log P' 

### is 

### (13.9)(5.0)(1.0) = 70.

> 

### No measured BCF or 

### BAF was found.

ENDRIN [CAS#: 72-20-81
> 

### Predicted BAF 

### based.onLog P: 

### The following values were found for Log P: 4.32 MedChem 

### Star 2.916 MedChem 

### Calc 4.56 

### Veith et 

### al. 1979a 4.56 

### Isnard and Lambert 1989 A 

### Log P of 

### 4.90 has been proposed for: 

### use 

### in the derivation of 

### sediment quality criteria for 

### endrin (U.S. EPA 1991~).A 

### value of 4.44 was selected as a "typical Log P', from 

### which the following were obtained: Predicted BCF (at 7.6% 

### lipids)'= 1,281 

### .NormalizedBCF 

### (at 1.0% 

### lipids) = 168.6 

### Food Chain Multiplier. = 1.1 For 5.0% 

### lipids 

### at trophic level 4 

### the predicted HHBAF 

### that is calculated from the 'typical Log P' is (168.6)(5.0) (1.1) = 927.

> 

### Predicted BAF 

### based on Log P 

### and measuredBCF: BCF %L Norm 

### BCF Reference (1.0% L) 4,214 3.73 1,130 

### Jarvinen and 

### Tyo 1978 

### Geometric mean 

### normalized BCF-=l;130 C. For 5.0% 

### lipids at 

### trophic level4 

### the predicted HHBAF 

### that 

### is calculated from 

### the geometric mean normalized BCF is 42t 'I

(1,130) (5.0) (1.1) 

### = 6,215.

> No 

### measured BAF 

### was found.
ENDRIN ALDEHYDE [CAS#: 7421-93-41
> 

### Predicted BAF 

### based on Log 

### P: 

### The following value was 

### found for Log P: A value 

### of 2.38 

### was selected as a 

### 'typical Log 

### P', from

### which the 

### followingwere obtained: 2.38 MedChem Calc


### Predicted BCF (at 7.6%

### lipids) = 

### 30.2 

### Normalized BCF (at 1.0% 

### lipids) = 3.97 Food 

### Chain Multiplier = 1.0 

### For 5.0% 

### lipids at 

### trophic level4 

### the predicted HHBAF that 

### is calculated.from the 

### 'typical Log 

### P' is (3.'97)(5.0) (1.0) = 20.

> 

### No 

### measured BCF 

### or BAF 

### was found.

ETHYLBENZENE ' 

### [CAS#: 100-41-41
> 

### Predicted BAF 

### based on Log P: The following values were found 

### for Log P: 3.15 

### MedChem Star 3.32 

### MedChem Calc 3.26 Hammers et 

### al. 1982 3.13 

### Miller et al. 1985 3-13 

### Isnard and 

### Lambert 1989 A 

### value of 3.22 

### was selected as 

### a 'typicalLog 

### P', from

### which the following were obtained: Predicted BCF 

### (at7.6% 

### lipids) = 139.3 

### -NormalizedBCF (at1.0% 

### lipids) = 18.33 

### Food Chain Multiplier = 1.0 

### For 5.0% 

### lipids at trophic level 4 

### the predicted HHBAF 

### that is calculated fromthe 

### 'typical Log P' 

### is (18.33)(5.0) (3.0)

. =.92.
> No 

### measured BCF 

### or BAF was 

### found.

43FLUOWWRENE [CAS#: 206-44-01
> Predicted.Wbased 

### on Log 

### P: 

### The following values were found

### for Log 

### P: 4-95 MedChem Calc 5-22 

### Miller et al. 1985 5.22 Isnard and Lambert 1989 5.155 de 

### Bruijn et 

### al. 1989 Values ranging 

### from 5.148 to 5.29 were cited by de 

### Bruijn et al. (1989)and Brooke 

### et 

### al. (1990). A Log 

### P 

### of 5.19 was recommended 

### for use 

### in the derivation 

### of.sediment quality criteria 

### for fluoranthene (U.S. EPA 1991d). A value of. 5.11 was selected 

### as a 'typical Log 

### P', fromwhich the following were obtained: Predicted BCF (at '7.6% lipids) = 4,334 Food Chain Multiplier = 3:2 ' Normalized BCF (at 1.0% l'ipids)= 570.3 For 5.0% lipids at trophic level4 the predicted HHBAF that. 

### is calculated from the 'typical Log

# E'.is (570.3) (5.0),(3.2) = 9,125.

> No measured BCFwas found.

> A geometric meanBAF of 81 was obtained with fishthat averaged 4.23 % lipids (Burkhard,unpublished),which results in a BAF of 96 at 5.0 % lipids.

FLUORENE [CAS#: 86-73-71
> Predicted BAF based on Log P: The followingvalues were found for 

### Log.P:
. 4-18 MedChem Star 4.225 MedChem Calc 4.17 

### Hammers et al. 1982 4.18 Miller et 

### al. 1985 4.38 .' Isnard and 

### Lambert 1989 A value 

### of 4.24 was selected as a 'typical 

### Log P.,. from which the following were obtained: Predicted BCF (at 7.6% lipids) = 890.4 Normalized BCF 

### (at 1.0% lipids) 

### = 117.2 Food Chain Multiplier = 1.1 For 5.0% lipids at trophic level 4 the predicted HHBAF that is calculated

### from the "typical Log 

### P' is (117.2)(5.0) (1.1) = 645. .- 

## .

.. > Predicted BAF based on Log P and measured BCF:BCF 

### %L Norm 

### BCF Reference (1.0% 

### L) 1,344 4.6 

### 292.2 Carlsonet al. 1979 Geometric meannormalized 

### BCF = 292.2 For 5.0% 

### lipids at trophic level

### 4 the predicted

### HHBAF that is calculated from the geometric mean 

### normalized BCF 

### is (292.2)(5.0) 

### (1.1) 

### = 1,607.

> 

### Field data (Burlchard,unpublished) resulted in 

### a geometric mean BAF 

### of 89 for 

### fish with 5.0 % 

### lipids for two PAHs 

### with three rings.each.

FLUORIDE [CAS#: 

### 16984-48-81 

### No usable data were found concerning bioconcentration 

### or 

### . bioaccumulation of fluoride.into muscle -of freshwater fish.

GUTHION 

### [CAS#: 86-50-01
> 

### Predicted BAF 

### based on Log 

### P: The following values were'found 

### for Log P: 

### 2.75 MedChem Star 2.62 MedChem Calc A 

### value of 2 

### ..68was selected as a 'typical Log 

### P', from 

### which the following were obtained: Predicted BCF (at 7.6% lipids) = 52.3 

### Normalized BCF (at 1.0% 

### lipids) = 6.86 Food 

### Chain Multiplier 

### =.1.0 For 5.0% 

### lipids at trophic level 4 

### the predicted'HHBAF 

### that is calculated from the'typical Log 

### P' is (6.86)(5.0) (1.0) 

### = 34.

> No 

### measured BCF 

### or BAF was found.

HEPTACHLOR [CAS#: 76-44-81 

### The values for Log 

### P, BCF, 

### and 

### BAF were basedonly 

### on heptachlor andnot 'on 

### 'heptachior plus toxic 

### persistent metabolites' because the human 

### health criterion

### is based 

### on a study 

### in which thetest organisms were fed heptachlor.
45> 

### predicted BAF 

### based 

### on Log P: 

### The following values were .found for Log 

### P: 4.605 

### MedChem Calc 5.44 

### Isnard 'and Lambert 1989 A 

### value of 5.02 

### was selected as a 

### 'typical Log P', 

### from which the following were obtained: Predicted 

### BCF (at 

### 7.6% 

### lipids).= 3,680 

### Food Chain Multiplier 

### = 2.6 

# . Normalized 

### BCF (at 1.0% lipids) = 484.2 

### For 5.0% 

### lipids at trophic level 4 

### the predicted HHBAF that 

### is calculated from the 'typical Log 

### P. is (484.2) (5.0) (2.6) 

### = 6,295.

> 

### Predicted BAF 

### based on Log 

### P and measured BCF: BCF %L Norm BCF 

### Reference (l.O%.L)

. .-._ 2,999 

## i Schimel et al. 1976 2,980 3.2 

### Goodman etal. 1978 9,500 7.6 

### Veith etal. 1979b 

### Geometric mean normalized BCF i_ 

### , For 5.0% 

### lipids at trophic level 4 

### the predicted HHBAF 

### that is calculatedfrom 

### the geometric mean normalized BCF 

### is (1,469) (5.0) (2.6) = 19,097. _, .. '1 6g;;)

_-.

> No 

### measured BAF was.found. Note: 

### Because of metabolism of 

### heptachlor to 

### heptachlor epoxide, a 

### predicted BAF for 

### heptachlor thatdoes not 

### take into account the effect of 

### metabolism on 

### both the BCF and the FCM 

### is likely to be higher than a 

### measured BAF. A BAF for.

### 'heptachlor plus toxic 

### - persistent metabolites' should be higher than a BAF 

### for 

### 'heptachlor'.

HEPTACHLOR EPOXIDE [CAS#: 1024-57-33


## - > 

### Predicted BAF based on 

### Log P: The following values were found 

### for Log P: 2.785 

### MedChem 

### Calc 5.40 

### Isnard and Lambert 1989 A 

### value of4.09 

### was selected 

### as a 

### 'typical Log 

### P', 

### from which 

### the following were obtained': Predicted BCF (at 7.6%

### lipids) = 677.8 

### Normalized BCF (at 1.0% 

### lipids) = 89.2 464

Food Chain Multiplier 

### = 1.1 For 5.0% lipids at trophic level 4 the'predicted HHBAF that is calculatedfrom 

### the 'typical 

### Log P' is (89.2)(5.0) (1.1) 

### = 491.

> Predicted 

### BAF based on 

### Log 

### P and measured 

### BCF: BCF 

### %L ~orm BCF Reference (1.0% 

### L) 14,400 7.6 1,895 Veith et al. 1979b Geometric mean normalized BCF = 1,895

> No measured BAF 

### was found.

HEXACHLOROBENZENE [CAS#: 118-74-11
> Predicted 

### BAF based 

### on Log P: The 

### following values were found 

### for Log P: 5.31 MedChem Star 6.42 MedChem Calc 6.18 Veith et al. 1979a 5.66 Hammers et 

### al. 1982 5.47 Miller et 

### al. 1985 6.86 Burkhard et al, 1985 5.SO Bobra et 

### al. 1985 5.66 Isnard and Lambert 1989 Values 

### ranging from 4.13 to 6.48 were cited by Eadsforth and Moser (1983)and Hammers et al. (1982)

# . A value 

### of 5.7 waa selected as a 'typical 

### Log P', from which the following were obtained: Predicted BCF (at 7-6%lipids) = 12,677 Normalized 

### BCF (at 1.0% lipids) = 1,668 Food Chain Multiplier = 23 .. 5.73 de Bruijn et al. 1989

For 5.0% lipids at trophic level4 thepredicted HHBAF that is calculated from tAe 'typical Log 

### P' is (1,668) (5.0) (23) = 191

### ,820.

..
> Predicted BAF based on Log P and measured BCF: BCF 

### %L NomBCF Reference 47(1.0%

### L) 18,500 7.6

. 2,434 

### Veith et al. 1979b 

### 15,660 5.4 2

### ,900 Konemann 

### and 

### van Leeuwen 1979,1980 52,000 

### 9.12 5,702 

### Kosian et 

### al. 1981 15,492 8.45 

### 1,833 

### Oliver and Niimi 1983 14,597 

### 6.90 2,116 

### Nebeker et 

### al. 1989 22,000 3.79 

### 5,805 

### Carlson and Kosian.1987 27,000 5-00 

### 5,400 

### Schrap and.Opperhuizen1990 

### Geometric mean normalized BCF = 3,366 For 5.0% 

### lipids at 

### trophic level4 the 

### predicted HHBAF that is 

### calculated from the geometric 

### mean normalized BCF 

### is

. (3,366) (5.0) (23)= 387,090.

> Measured 

### Bioaccumulation Factors: (based 

### on field datafor fish at 

### trophic level 4) BAF % 

### L Norm BAF Species 

### Reference (1.0% L) 

## - c 45,700 L. 

### trout Oliver and Nicol 1982 545,000 7.9 68,987 R. 

### trout Oliver and Niimi 1983

. 253,333 11 23

### ,030 Salmon 

### Oliver and Niimi 1988 

### Geometric mean normalized QAF = 

### 41,718 For 5.0% 

### lipids at 

### trophic level4 

### the predictedHHBAF is

(41,718) (5.0) = 208,590.

HEXACHLOROBUTADTENE ' [CAS# 87-68-31
> 

### Predicted BAF 

### based on Log P: 

### The following values were found for 

### Log P: 4.78 MedChern 

### Star 4.78 

### Isnard and 

### Lambert 1989 4.30 MedChem Calc A 

### value of 4.5 was selected as 

### a 

### 'typical Log P', 

### from 

### which the 

### following were obtained: Predicted BCF 

### (at 7.6% 

### lipids) = 1,429 

### Normalized BCF (at 1.0% 

### lipids) = 188 Food 

### Chain Multiplier = 1.2 For 5.0% 

### lipids at 

### trophic level 4 

### the 

### predicted HHBAF that 

### is calculated from 

### the 'typzcal Log 

### P' is (188) (5.0) (1.2) = 1,128.

48> 

### Predicted 

### BAF based on'Log P 

### and measured 

### BCF: BCP- 

### %L Norm 

### BCF Reference (1.0% L) 

### 9,930 8.45 1,175 

### Oliver and Niimi 

### 1983 Geometric mean normalized BCF 

### = 1,175

> 

### Measured Bioaccumulation Factors: (based on field data for 

### fish at trophic level 

### 4) BAF % 

### L Nom BAF 

### Species Reference (1.0% Ll 

### 4,000 7.9 

### 506.3 Trout

. 

### 'Oliver and Niimi 1983 

### Geometric mean normalized BAF = 

### 506.3 For 5.0% 

### lipids at trophic level 4 

### the predic,tedHHBAF 

### is

(506.3)(5.0) 

### = 2,532.



### HEXACHLOROCYCLOHEXANE [CAS#: 608-73-11 alpha-HEXACHLOROCYCLOHEXANE [CAS#: 319-84-61 beta-HEXACHLOROCYCLOHEXANE [CASU: 319-85-71 delta-HEXACHLOROCYCLOHEXANE [CAS #: 

### 319-86-81 All 

### data that.were found concerning BCFs 

### ahd BAFs for


### . lindane. The same predicted HHBAF 

### will be used for allforms 

### of hexachlorocyclohexane; .hexachlorocyclohexane and its isomers are presented 

### for

HEXACHLOROCYCLOPENTADIE2h [CAS#: 

### 77-47-41
> 

### Predicted BAF 

### based 

### on Log 

### P: The following values were found 

### for Log 

### P: 5.04 MedChem Star .\ 

### 4.645 MedChem Calc 5.51 

### Isn.qrdand Lambert1989 A 

### value of 5.2 was selected aB a "typicalLog 

### P', from which thefollowing were obtained: Predicted BCF .(at7.6% lipids) = 5,105 

### Normalized BCF (at1.0% 

### lipids) = 

### 671.7 49> 

### Predicted BAF based 

### on Log 

### P and 

### measured BCF: BCF % 

### L Norm BCF 

### Reference

. , 

### (1.O% 

### L) 29 7.6 3.82 

### Veith et 

### al. 1979b 

### Oliver and Niimi 11985) 

### reported that hexachlorocyclopentadiene 

### is not 

### taken up by 

### fish. Podowski et 

### al. (1991) found 

### that hexachlorocyclopentadiene 

### is 

### metabolized by 

### fish. Geometric mean 

### normalized BCF 

### = 3.82 

### For 5.0% 

### lipids at trophic level 4 

### the predicted' HHBAF 

### that is calculated from 

### the geometric mean normalized BCF 

### is (3.82)(5.0) (4.3')= 82.

> No 

### measured BAF was 

### found.

HEXACHLOROETHANE [CAS# '67-72-1 J
> 

### Predicted BAF based 

### on Log P: The followingvalues 

### were found 

### for Log 

### P:.

. 4.14 MedChem Star 4.61 MedChem Calc

... 3.93 Isnard 

### and Lambert 1989 A 

### value of 4.2 was 

### selected as a 

### 'typical Log 

### P', 'from 

### which the following were obtained: Predicted BCF (at 7.6%

### lipids) = 827.9 Normalized BCF 

### (at 1.0% 

### lipids) = 108.9 

### Food Chain Multiplier = 1.1 

### For 5.0% 

### lipids at 

### trophic level4 

### the predicted HHBAF 

### that is calculated from the 'typical Log Pm

### is (108.9)(5.0) (1.1) 

### = 599.

> 

### Predicted BAF 

### based on Log P 

### and measured BCF: BCF % 

### L Nom 

### BCF 

### .Re'ference .- 

## . (1.0% 

### L) 139 4.8 28.96 Barrows et al. 1980 504
782.3 8.45 

### 92.58 

### Oliver and Niimi 1983

. 

### Geometric mean normalized 

### BCF = 51.78



### Note: The

### BCF reported by 

### Barrows 

### et al. (1980)

### was based on uptake of 

### radioactivity

### with no verification of the parent chemical 

### and might 

### .be

### too high,

> 

### Measured Bioaccumulation Factors: (based on field data for 

### fish at 

### trophic level 4) BAF % 

### L Norm BAF 

### Species Reference (1.0% 

### L) 1, SO0 7..9 189.9 

### Trout Oliver and Niimi 1983 

### Geometric mean normalized BAF 

### = 189;s 

### For 5.0% 

### lipids at trophic level 4 

### the predicted HHBAF 

### is (189.9)(5.0) = 950.


### 1NDEN0~1,2,3-~dlP~W [CAS#: 193-39-51
> 

### Predicted BAF 

### based 

### on Log P: ' 

### The following value was found for Log P: 6.584 

### MedChem Calc A 

### value of 6.58 was 

### selected as 

### a 'typical Log P', from 

### which the following were 

### obtained: Predicted BCF 

### (at 7.6% 

### lipids) = 62,835 

### Normalized BCF 

### (at1.0% 

### lipids) = 8,268 Food 

### Chain Multiplier= 1.0 

### For 5.0% 

### lipids at trophic level 4 

### the predictedHHEAF 

### that is calculated from the 

### 'typical Log P' 

### is (8,268)(5.0)(1.0) 

### = 41,340. 

### Note.: Field data (Burkhard, unpublished) resulted in predicted BAFs 

### from 17 

### to 228 

### for 

### four PAHS 

### with three andfour 

### rings ior 

### fish with5.0 % 

### lipids. It seems 

### unlikely that PAHs 

### with five 

### rings

### will have BAFs 

### greater than 1000.

.. 

### . > 

### No 

### measured BCF 

### or BAF 

### was' found."



## IRON [CAS#: 7439-89-63 ' NO 

### uoable data were found concerning bioconcentration 

### or biouccnmrulation 

### of iron by freshwater fish.

ISOPHORONE [CAS#: 78-59-11
-> Predicted 

### BAF based 

### on Log 

### P: The following

### values 

### were 

### found 

### for Log 

### P: 2.22 MedChem Calc 1.67 Isnard and Lambert 1989 A value 

### of 1.8 was selected as 

### a 'typical Log 

### P', from which the following were'obtained: Predicted BCF (at 7.6% lipids) = 10.5' Normalized BCF (at 1.0% lipids) = 1.38 Food Chain Multiplier = 1.0

. 

### For 5.0% lipids at trophic level 4 the predicted HHBAF.that is calculated from the 'typical Log Pm is (1.38)(5.0)(1.0) = 6.9.-

> Predicted 

### BAF based.on Log P and measured BCF: BCF 

### %L ~orm BCF Reference (1.0% 

### L) 7 4.8 1.46 Barrows et al. 1980 Geometric mean normalized BCF = 1.46 For 5.0% lipids at trophic level 4 the predicted HHBAF that 

### is calculated from the geometric mean normalized BCF is (1.46)'(5.0) (1.0) 

### = 7.3.. Note: This BCF was based 

### on uptake of radioactivity 

### with 

### no verification of the parent chemical. 

### Thus this BCF and theresulting predicted HHBAF might 

### be too high.

> 

### No measured BAF was 

### found.

7 LEAD [CAS#: 7439-92-11 Data presented by Atchison et al, (1977)

### can be used to 

### calculate 

### a BAF of 45.7 based 

### on increased concentrations 

### of lead in water and in the 

### whole body 

### of bluegills. Data presented by Murphy et al. (1978)can be used to estimate that BAFs for cadmium and zinc for muscle of the bluegill are about 524
0 .I66 of those 

### for the whole body 

### of 

### the bluegill. 

### Thus the BA.F 

### for lead 

### in muscle of the 

### bluegill can be estimated to be

,



### (45.7)(0.366) .= 7.6, 

### which will be used 

### as the predicted 

### HHBAP.

LINDANE Lindane is 

### the gamma 

### isomer 

### of hexachlorocyclohe&e, 

### which 

### is the pesticide 

### 'BHC'. Thus the following

### were all considered to 

### be 

### of interest: Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCCH,HCH) CAS#: 

### 608-73-1 alpha-HCCH CAS#: 

### 319-84-6 beta-HCCH CAS#: 

### 319-85-7

. ;gauma-HCCH 

### (lindane) CAS#: 

### 58-89-9 delta-HCCH CAS#: 319-86-8 All 

### of these, and 

### all 

### of their mixtures, '.are expected tohave similar values 

### for 

### Log P, 

### BCF, and 

## BAF. Because sufficient data are available for lindane, values

### for the 

### other isomers are given for comparison purposes only. 0

> 

### Predicted 

### BAF based on 

### Log P: 

### The following values 

### were found for Log P 

### for lindane: 3.61 MedChem Star 3-72 MedChem 

### Star 3.75 MedChemCalc 3.85 Isnard and Lambert 

### 1989 3.69 de Bruijn et al. 1989 

### MedChem contains Star 

### Log P 

### values of 3.80, 3.78, and 4.14 

### for the alpha, beta, and delta isomers,respectively. Isnard and Lambert .(1989) and de 

### Bruijn et ala (1989) cited Log P 

### values of 3.77 

### to 3.96 .for

### the alpha'and beta isomers. A 

### value of 3.7 

### was selected as 

### a 'typical Log P., 

### from which the 'following

### were obtained: Predicted BCF (at 7.6% 

### lipids) 

### = 333.4 

### Normalized BCF 

### {at 1.0% 

### lipids) 

### = 43.87 Food 

### Chain Multiplier = 1.0 

### For 5.0% 

### lipids at 

### trophic level 4 

### the predicted IWBAF 

### that 

### is calculated 

### from the 'typical Log P* 

### for lindane 

### is (43.871 (5.0) (1.0) 

### = 219.

> 

### Predicted 

### BAF based 

### on Log P 

### and measured BCF for 

### lindane: 

### BCF %L 

### ~orm BCF Reference (1.0% 

### L) ." 

# - 180 

### 7.6 23.68 

### -Veithet 

### al. 1979b 420 2.65 158-5 Rogers 

### et 

### al..1983 1549 7.28 212.

## a Oliver 

### 'andNiimi 1985 53 cGeometric mean normaaized BCF 

### = 92.78 

### [Oliver. and Niimi (1985)also reporteda normalized BCF of 269.3: for alpha-BHC; this value and the one given above 

### frclnrOliver and Niimi (1985) are means 

### of two exposures. 

## canton et 

### al. (1975,1978)reported normalized BCFs 

### of 45 

### and 180.1 

### For 5.0% lipids at trophic level 

### 4 

### the predicted HHBAF that is

### calculated from the geometric 

### mean normalized BCF 

### is (92.78)(5.0) 

### (1.0) 

### = 464.

> Measured Bioaccumulation Factors 

### for Lindane: (based on field data 

### for fish at trophic level 4) BAF % 

### L Nom BAF. Species Reference' (1.0% L) 1,000 8 125. 

### R. trout. Oliver and Niimi 1985. 9,333 11 848.5 Sa llmon ' Oliver and 

### Niimi.1988 Geometric 

### mean normalized BAF = 325-7.

[Oliver and 

### Niimi (1985,1988)

### also reported 

### normalized 

### BCFs of 87 and 487 

### for alpha-BHC. Both values for alpha-BHC are lower than the corresponding values for lindane; 

### in addition, both'values reported in 1985 are lower than the corresponding values reported in 1988.1 For 5.0% lipids at trophic level 4 the predicted HHBAF is (325.7) (5.0) = 1,628.

hmION [CAS#: 221-75-51 > Predicted.BAFbased 

### on Log 

### P:


### .. The. f.ollowing'values were 

### found for Log P: 2.36 MedChem Star 1.756 MedChem 

### Calc 2.89 Isnard and Lambert 1989 A value 

### of 2.4 was selected 

### as 

### a Typical Log 

### lP', 

### from which thefollowing 

### were obtained: Predicted 

### BCF

. (at 7.6% lipids) = 31.3 Normalized 

### BCF (at 1.0% lipids) = 4.12 Food Chain Multiplier = 1.0 

### For 5.0% lipids at trophic level 4 the predictedHHBAF that 

### is calculated from the 'typical Log 

### P' is (4.1'2) (5.0) (1:O) 

### = 21.

.C

# -
s > Predicted BAF 

### based 

### on Log 

### P and measured BCF: BCF %L Norm BCF Reference 54(1.0% 

### L) 45'. 

### 3.6 .' <6.9 

### Parrish et al. 

### 1977

3T&;.'-. 0.6 4.40 

### Tsuda et 

### al. 1989 Geumetric mean 

### noxnalized BCF 

### = 4.40 

### For 5

### .O% lipids at trophic level

### 4 the predicted HHBAF 

### that is calculated 

### from the geometric mean 

### normalized BCF 

### is

> 

### No measured BAF was found

# .

MERCURY [CAS#: 

### 7439-97-61 1. 

### The GLI human health criterion and the GLI 

### wildlife criterion. for 'mercury' are both basedon the toxicity ofmethylmercury [CAS#: 

### 2296-92-61, whereas 

### measurements .of

### mercury in water

. 

### usually determine 'total mercury'. Therefore the predicted HHBAF 

### and 

### WLBAF for 

### "mercury' will be derived to relate the concentration of methylmercury in fish at trophic levels 3 and 4 

### in the Great Lakes to the concentration of 

### total mercury in .the water column. Although the best definition of the term 'total mercury' is probably 'the sum.of inorganic mercury and organic mercury.,the concentration 

### of methylmercury is often assumed to be a 

### good approximation for 

### the concentration of 'organic mercury'. 

### In practice, all of 

### these terms are operationally defined in terms 

### of the analytical methods that are used tomeasure them in the.water column andin fish. 2. 

### Although methylmercury constituted less than 10% 

### of the total mercury inthe water column. 

### invarious portions 

### of.a Canadian river systemthat had been contaminated with mercury. (Parks 

### et al. 1989), Kudo et

### al. (1982)found 

### that 33% 

### of .the mercury in the Ottawa River was 

### methylmercury. Gill and 

### Bruland (1990)reported that at least 17%,ofthe mercuryin Lake Eriewas 

### organo-mercury. Thus 25%would seem to bea reasonable estimateof the percent of 

### the total mercury that is methylmercury inthe water.column in the Great Lakes. 3. A 

### reasonable estimateof the 

### BCF for inorganic mercury 

### for freshwater fish is 2,998, which is thegeometric mean.of 1,800 and4,994; these 

### two BCFs 

### are given

### on page 

### 46 

### of the U.S. EPA 

### criteria document farmercury (U.S. EPA 1985). 

### Both of these BCFs 

### are forwhole 

### bo&, but other data discussed 

### .in the criteria document'indicatethat BCFs 

### based 

### on whole body and 

### edible portion 

### should be 

### similar for mercuxy. 

### This BCF of 

### 2,998 relates theconcentration of 

### inorganic mercury inthe 

### water column to the 

### concentration of 

### total mercuxy 

### in fish. (The

### B~P 

### of 4,994 was used 

### in the freshwater 

### calculrtiona for 

### inorganic 

### mercury on page 47 

### in the criteria dodbecausethe FDA action 

### level 

### is applied 

### on a

. speciu-by-species basis.

### 1 4.

5.

6.

7.

### in fish 

### is methylmercujr, regardless of whether the form 

### in the water was 

### inorganic mercury 

### or methylmercury.)

.. 8.



### I. 

# I

9. 

### The Bc1 

### of 15,292 relates the concentration 

### of total mercury in 

### the water column (assuming that 25% 

### of the total mercury in the water column

### is methylmercury) to the concentration 

### of total mercury in fish. Based 

### on the assumption that 85.3% 

### of the total mercury 

### in fish 

### is methylmercury, 

### a BCF 

### of (15,292) (0.853) 

### = 13,.044can 

### be used 

### to relate the concentration 

### of total mercury

### in the water 

### column of the 

### Great Lakes to the concentration 

### of methylmercury 

### in fish due 

### to bioconcentration. (Using a 

### BCF of 13,044 

### to relate total mercury in the water coluxnnto methylmetcury in fish is equivalent-t,o estimating that methylmercury constitutes 25% , 

### of the-total.,: mercury in the water column and 

### then using 

### a B& 5-10

### relate methylmercury in the water column to' 

### rcury in fish.) For 

### predatory fish, accumulation 

### of total mercury from food can 

### add to the accumulation of total mercury from the water column. The followingpredator-prey factor increases in total mercuryhave 

### been found for fish:

' 7.7 

### to 9.2 MacCrimnon et 

### al. 1983 8 

### and 15 

### Mathers and Johansen 

### 1985 up 

### to 8.4 Wren et al. 1983 up 

### to 6 

### and 13 

### Skurdal et al. 1985 2.9 

### Parks.1988 6.4 

### Cope et al. 1990 It 

### would seem 

### reasonable to use a 

### factor of 10 to 

### estimate the importance of the food 

### chain effect 

### for some 

### species. If 

### the ratio of total mercury to methylmercury does not change substantially 

### from prey to predator, the factor 

### of 10 

### can 

### be applied to methylmercury. 10. 

### Based on'paragraphs 8 

### and 9 above, 

### a reasonable estimate 

### of the Great Lakes is (13,044) (10) J.-34,440..? 

### Thus the predicted HHW 

### is 130,440 

### and 

### is 'bded 1 

### to relate the concentration of methylmercury 

### in trophic 

### level 4 

### fish in the Great Lakesto the concentration 

### of total mercury 

### in the water column, .

### the BAF.

### .tobe appliedto total. xnerEi%ftin_.the water 

### column in

11. As 

### stated in paragraph3 

### above, it 

### appears that BCFs and 

### BAFs based on whole body and edible portion should be 

### similar for mercury. Therefore, the predicted HHBAF 

### that was 

### derived for 

### fish at trophic level 

### 4 will also be used asthe predicted WLBAF 

### for fish 

### at trophic level 

### 4. 

### On the assumption that the FCM 

### for mercury increases.-geometrically with 

### trophic level, 

### the FCM 

### will beassumed 

### to be 2.154 

### for trophic level 2, 

### (2.154)(2.154) = 

### 4.64 

### for trophic level 3, 

### and (2.1541 

### (2.154)(2.154) 

### = 10 

### for trophic 

### level 

### 4, Thus for mercury the predicted WLBAF 

### for fish at trophic level 3 

### is 57M€THOXYW& [CAS#: 72-43-51
> Predicted 

### BAF based on Log 

### P: The following values were found 

### for Log 

### P: 5.08 MedChem Star 5.325 MedChem Calc 4.3 Isnard 

### and Lambert 

### 1989 A value of 5.0 was selectedas 

### a 'typical Log P.8 from which thefollowing were obtained: Predicted BCF (at 7.6% lipids) = 3,548

. Normalized.BCF (at 1.0% lipids) = 467 Food Chain Multiplier= 2.6 For 5.0% lipids at trophic level 4 the predicted that

. 

### is calculated from the 'typical -LogP' is (467)(S.Ol(2.6) = 6,071.

> Predicted BAF based on Log P BCF %L NomBCF (1.0% L) 151 3.6 42 8,300 7.6 1,092
-e two BCFs differ Geometric mean nonnalized and measured BCF:

Reference
Parrish et al. 1977 Veith et al. 1979b substantially. BCF = 214 For 5.0% lipids at trophic level 4 the predictedHHBAF that 

### 'is calculated from the geometric mean normalized BCF 

### is (214)'(5.0)(2..6) = 2,782.

> No measured BAFwas 

### found.

METHYL BROMIDE [CAS#: 74-83-91
> Predicted BAF based on Log P: The following values were found 

### for Log 

### P: 1.19 MedChem Star 1.076 MedC-hgn Calc 

### A value of 1.13 was selectedas a"typica1 Log P'8 

### from which the following 

### were obtained: Predicted BCF (at 7.6% lipids) = 3.11 Normalized BCF (at 1.0% lipids) = 0.409 58Food Chain 

### Multiplier 

### = 1.0 

### For 5.0% 

### lipids at 

### trophic level4 

### the predictedHHBAF that 

### is 

### calculated from 

### the 'typical = 2.0.

> 

### No 

### measured XF

### or BAF was 

### found.

METHYL CHLORIDE 

### [CAS#: 74-87-31
> 

### Predicted BAF 

### based 

### on Log 

### P:

. 

### The 

### following values were found 0.91 

### MedChem 0.936 

### MedChem A 

### value of 0.92 

### was selected as 

### Log P' 

### is (0.409) (5.0) (1.0;



### for Log 

### P: 

### Star Calc 

### a 

### 'typical Log P., from 

### which the following were 

### obtained:

. 

### Predicted BCF (at 7.6%

### lipids] = 2.12 

### Normalized BCF (at 1.0% 

### lipids) = 0.28 

### Food Chain 

### Multiplier = 1.0 

### For 5.0% lipids at 

### trophic level 4 

### the predicted HHBAF that 

### is calculated from the 'typical Log 

### P' 

### is (0.28)(5.0)(1.0) 

### = 1.4.

> No measured BCF or BAF 

### was found.

METHYLENE CHLORIDE 

### [CAS#: 75-09-2 J
> 

### Predicted BAF based 

### on Log P: 

### The following values were found for Log P: 1.25 

### MedChern Calc 1.25 

### Isnard and Lambert 1989

. A 

### value of 1.25 was 

### selected asa 'typical Log P., 

### from 

### which the following were 

### obtained: Predicted BCF 

### (at 7.6% 

### lipids] = 3.87 

### Normalized BCF 

### (at 1.0% 

### lipids) = 0.509 Food 

### Chain Multiplier = 1.0 For 5.0%

### lipids at 

### trophic level 4 

### the predictedHHBAF 

### that 

### is calculated from the 'typical Log 

### P' is (0.5091(5.01(1.0) 

### = 2.5.

> No 

### measured BCF 

### or BAF was 

### found.

59> 

### predicted BAF based 

### on Log P: 

### The following

### values were found 

### for Log 

### P: 5-28 

### MedChem Star 4.65 

### MedChem Calc 6.89 

### Isnard and Lambert 1989 A 

### value 

### of 5.3 

### was selected as a'typical Log P', from which the following were obtained: Predicted BCF (at 7.6% 

### lipids) = 6,124 

### Normalized BCF (at 1.0% 

### lipids) = 805.8 

### Food Chain Multiplier = 5.8 

### For 5.0% 

### lipids at trophic level 4 

### the predictedHHBAF 

### that 

# . is calculated from 

### t'he 'typical Log P. 

### is (805.8) (5.0) (5.8). = 23;368.

> 

### predicted BAF 

### based on Log P 

### and measuredBCF:

. BCF % 

### L Norm BCF 

### Reference (1.0% L) 18,100 7.6 2,382 

### Veith et al. 1979b 20,417 6.5 3,141
.Gobas 

### et al. 1989 

### * = 

### below steady state; not used in the calculation of 

### the geometric mean normalized BCF. 

### Geometric mean normalized BCF 

### = 2,735 740+ 7.6 97*
. 

### Oliver and Niirni 1985



### For 5.0% 

### lipids at trophic level 4 

### the predicted HHBAF that is 

### calculated from 

### the geometric .mean normalized BCF 

### is (2,735) (5.0) (5.8) = 79,315.

> 

### Measured Bioaccumulation Factors: (based on field datafor fish 

### at trophiclevel 4) BAF % 

### L Norm BAF 

### Species Reference (1.0% L) 15,000,000 8 1,875,000 

### Trout Oliver and Niimi 1985

5,806,452 11 527,859 

### Salmonids Oliver and Niimi 1988 

### Geometric mean 

### normalized BAF =' 994,855



### Note: Both of 

### the measured-

### BA& are much 

### larger 

### than both 

### of the predicted BAFs.

60NAPHTHALENE 

### [CAS#: 91-20-31
> 

### Predicted 

### BAF based 

### on Log 

### P: The 

### followingvalues were found for Log 

### P: 3.30 MedChem Star 3.316 MedChem Calc 3.37 Veith et al..l979a 3 

### :45 Hammers et al. 1982 3.35 Miller et al. 1985 4.70 Isnard and Lambert 1989 Values 

### ranging from 3.01 

### to 3.45 are cited by 

### Eadsforth and 

### Moser (1983). A 

### value 

### of 3.36 was 

### selected 

### as a 'typical Log 

### P', 

### fromwhich the 

### followingwere obtained: Predicted 

### BCF (at 7.6% lipids) = 

### 179.6 Normalized BCF 

### (at 1

### .O% lipids) 

### = 23.6 Food Chain Multiplier 

### = 1.0 For 5.0% 

### lipids at trophic level 4 

### the predictedHHBAF. 

### that is calculated from the 'typical Log.P' 

### is (23.6)(5.0)(1.0) 

### = 118.

> 

### Predicted BAF basedon Log P 

### and measured BCF: BCF %L Nom 

### BCF Reference (1.0% L) 97.5 2.44 39.96 Rogers et al. 1983 27.6 4.04 6.83 Brooke and Call, 

### ms. Geometric mean-normalizedBCF = 

### 16.5

Note: Brooke'and Call 

### measured the BCF using radiolabeled

. 

### chemical and theparent chemical wasverified.

> No 

### measured BAF was found.

NICKEL [CAS#: 

### 7440-02-01 Calamari et al. (1982)obtained a BCF of 0.80 for muscleof rainbow trout. This value of 0.80 

### will be used 

### as the predicted HHBAF.
.. 

# -

NITROBENZENE 

### [CAS#: 98-95-31 61> Predicted BAF.based

### on Log P: 

### The following values 

### were found 

### for Log 

### P: 1.85 MedChem Star 1.885 MedChem Calc 1.70 Hamers et 

### al. 1982 1.89 Deneer et al. 1987 1.828 de 

### Bruijn et 

### al. 1989 1.85 -1snard

### and Lambert 1989 Values ranging 

### from 1.70 

### to 1.88 were cited by 

### de Bruijn et 

### al. (1989)and Brooke et al. (1990). A value 

### of 1.84 

### was selected as a 'typical Log 

### Pm,from

### which the 

### following were obtained: Predicted BCF (at 7.6% lipids) 

### = 11.31

. Normalized BCF (at 1.0% lipids) 

### = 1.45 Food Chain Multiplier 

### = 1.0 

### For 5.0% lipids at trophic level 4 the predictedHHBAF .that

= 7.2. . is calculated from the 'typical Log P9 is (1.45)(5.0)(1.0)
Note: Brooke and Cail measured the BCF using radiolabeled chemical and the parent chemical was verified.

> Predicted BAF based on Log P and measured BCF: BCF %L Norm BCF Reference (1.0% L)' 2.34 8.0 0.293 ' Deneer et al. 1987 2.49 4.04 0.616 Brooke and Call, 

### ms. Geometric mean normalized BCF = 0.425 For.5.0% lipids at trophic level 4 the predictedHHBAF that is calculated from the geometric mean normalized BCF 

### is

. (0.425) (5.0)(1.01 = 2.1. *

> No measured BAF was found.

2-NITROPHENOL [CAS#: 88-75-51
> Predicted 

### BAF based on Log P: The following values were 

### found 

### for Log P: 1.79 MedChem Star 1.854 MedChem Calc 1.79 

### Isnaril and 

### Lambert 1989 A 

### value of 1.82 was selected as 

### a 'typical Log P', 

### from which the following were obtained: Predicted BCF (at 7.6% lipids) = 10.91 62

### Normalized BCF 

### (at 1.0% 

### lipids) = 1.44 Food 

### Chain Multiplier 

### = 1.0 

### For 5.0% 

### lipids at trophic level 

### 4 the predicted HHBAF 

### that is calculated 

### from the 'typical Log 

### Pm

### is (1.44)(5.0) 

### (1.0) = 7.2.

> 

### No measured 

### BCF 

### or BAF 

### was found.

4-NITROPHENOL [CASU: 

### 100-02-71
> 

### Predicted BAF based 

### on Log 

### P: The 

### following values were found for Log 

### P: 1.91 MedChem 

### Star 1.854 MedChem 

### Calc 1.91 

### Veith et'al, S979a * 

### 2.91 Isnard and 

### Lambert 1989 A 

### value of 1.9 was selected as a 'typical Log 

### P', from which thefollowing were obtained: Predicted BCF 

### (at 7.6% 

### lipids) = 12.62 

### Normalized BCF (at 1.0% 

### lipids) 

### = 1.66 Food 

### Chain Multiplier

### = 1.0 For 

### 5.0% lipids at trophic level 4 the predictedHHBAF 

### that 

### is calculated 

### from the 'typical Log 

### P' is (1.66)(5.0).(1.0) = 

### 8.3.

> 

### Predicted BAF 

### based on Log Pand measured BCF: BCF 

### %L Norm BCF 

### Reference (1.0% Ll 6.194' 

### 4.04 1.533 

### Call et al. 1980; Brooke and Call, ms, 

### Geometric mean normalized BCF = 1.533 For 5.0% 

### lipids at trophic level 4 

### the predicted HHBAF 

### that 

### is calculated from the geometric mean 

### normalized BCF 

### is (1.533)(5.0)(1.0) = 

### 7.7. Note: The BCF 

### was measured using 

### radiolabeled 

### chemical and the parent chemical was verified. The two predicted BAFs are similar.


# - > No 

### measured BAF 

### was found. ~.

63N-NITROSODIMETHYLAMINE [CAS#: 62-75-91 

## =. Predicted BAF 

### based onLog P: 

### The following values were found for Log 

### P:
A value 

### of -0.67 was 

### selected 

### as 

### a 'typical Log 

### Pa, from which thefollowing

### were obtained: -0.57 

### MedChem Star -0.768 

### MedChem Calc
Predicted BCF (at 7.6% 

### lipids) = 0

### .ll8 Normalized BCF 

### (at. 1.0% 

### lipids) = 0.0155 

### Food Chain 

### Multiplier = 1.0 

### For 5.0% 

### lipids at 

### trophic level 4 

### the predicted HHBM 

### that 

### is calculated.from the 

### 'typical Log P' 

### is (0.0155) (5.0) (1.01 = 0.08.

> No 

### measured BCF or BAF was found.

N-NITROSODIPHENYLAMINE [CAS#: 86-30-61
> 

### Predicted BAF 

### based on Log P: The 

### following values were 

### found for 

### Log P:
A 

### value of3.14 was 

### selected asa 

### 'typical Log P', from 

### which the following were obtained: 3.13 

### MedChem Star 3.16 

### MedChem Calc -


### Predicted BCF (at 7.6% 

### lipids) = 120.4 

### Normalized BCF 

### (at 1.0% 

### lipids) = 15.8 Food 

### Chain Multiplier = 1.0 For 5.0% 

### lipids at trophic level 4 

### the predicted HHBAF 

### that is 

### calculated from 

### the 'typical Log P' 

### is (15.8)(5.0) (1.0) = 79.

> 

### .PredictedBAF 

### based on Log P 

### and measured BCF: 

### BCF % 

### L Norm BCF 

### Reference (1.0% 

### L) 217 4.8 45.2 Barrows

### et al. 1980 

### Geometric mean normalized BCF = 45.2

. 64> No 

### measured BAF 

### was found. I(- 

# .

N-NITROSODIPROPYLAMINE * [CASU: 

### 621-64-71
> 

### Predicted BAF 

### based 

### on Log 

### P: The following'values were 

### found 

### for Log P: 

### 1.36 

### MedChem Star 1.348 

### MedChem Calc A 

### value 

### of 1.35 

### was 

### selected as a 

### 'typical Log 

### P., from which the following were obtained: Predicted BCF 

### (at 7.6% 

### lipids) = 4.64 * 

### Normalized BCF 

### (at 1.0% 

### lipids) =, 0.61 

### Food Chain Multiplier = 1.0 For 5.0% 

### lipids at trophic level 4 

### the predictedHHBAF that ' 

### is calculated from the 'typical' Log P' 

### is (0.61)(5.0) (1.0) = 3.0.

> .No 

### measured BCF 

### or BAF 

### was found.

OCTACHLOROSTYRENE [CAS# 29082-74-43
> 

### ,PredictedBAF 

### based on Log P:. 

### The following value was found for Log P: A 

### value of7.94 

### was 

### selected as a 

### 'typical Log P', 

### from which the following were obtained: 7-94 

### MedChem Calc' Predicted BCF 

### (at 7-6%

### lipids) = loo., 00.0 

### Normalized BCF 

### (at 1.0% 

### lipids) = 13,158 

### Food Chain Multiplier = 1.0 For'5.0% 

### lipids at trophic level 4 

### the predicted.HHBAF that is calculatedfrom the 'typicalLog 

### P' 

### is (13,158)(5.0)

### (1.0) 

### = 65,790

> 

### Predicted BAF 

### based.onLog P 

### and measuredBCF: BCF % L 

### NomBCF 

### Reference (1.0%L) 33,000

. 7.6 4,342 

### Veith et 

### al. 1979b

8,100 7.6 1,066 

### Oliver and 

### Niimi 1985 

### Geometric mean normalized BCF- 

### = 2;151 

### For 5.0% 

### lipids at trophic level 4 

### the predicted HHBAF 

### that is calculated from the geometric mean normalizedBCF 

### is 65(2,151)(5.0) (1.0) 

### = 10,755.

> 

### Measured 

### Bioaccwrmlation Factors: (baaed

### on field data for 

### fish at trophic level 4) 

### BAF % 

### L Nom BAF 

### Species 'Reference (1.0% 

### L) 1,400,000 8 

### 175,000 Trout 

### Oliver 

### and Niimi 1985 

### 9,361,702 11 851,064 

### Salmonids 

### Oliver and 

### Niimi 1988 

### Geometric mean normalize'd BAF = 385,923 

### For 5.0% 

### lipids at 

### trophic level 4 

### the predicted HHBAF 

### is

. (385,923) (5.0) 

### = 1,929,615.

PARATHION [CAS#: 56-38-21
> 

### Predicted BAF based on Log 

### P: The. following values were found for Log P: 3.83 

### MedChem Star 3.469 

### MedChem Calc 3.81 

### Isnard and Lambert 1989 A 

### value of 3..8

### was selected as a 'typical Log P', from 

### which the following were obtained: Predicted BCF 

### (at 7.6% 

### lipids) = 399.9 

### Normalized BCF 

### (at 1

### .O% 

### lipids) = 52.6 

### Food Chain Multiplier .= 1.0 

### For 5.0%

### lipids at 

### trophic level4 

### the predicted HHBAF 

### that is 

### calculated from 

### the 'typicalLog P' 

### is (52.6) (5.0) (1.0) = 263.

5 No 

### measured BCF 

### or BAF was 

### found.

PCBs (POLYCHLORINATEDBIPHENYLS) 

### The term 'PCBs' refers to 

### a groupof 209 

### chemicals, which 

### are known 

### as PCB congeners (for example, see Hawker and Connell 1988). In 

### addition, several commercial products are mixtures of PCBs; 

### the most widely known 

### such products 

### are the ones called 'Aroclors'. Thus there are about 220 CAS 

### numbers that pertain toPCBs. The GLI 

### human health criterion 

### is based 

### on data for Aroclor 1260 

### (which is mostly 

### hexa- 

### and heptachlorobiphenyl), butthe- criterion is 

### considered representative for all PCB 

### mixtures.

66> 

### Predicted BAF 

### based 

### on Log 

### P: Because of 

### uncertainty concerning the value of 

### Log P 

### for any one specific congener and because of 

### the large number of 

### individual chemicals that are 

### covered under the term 'PCBs', 

### the following 

### values for Log 

### P 

### are given as indicative of 

### the range 

### of 

### values that are available: Class ofPCBs 

### Monochlorobiphenyls 

### Lou P
4.50 4-46-4 -69 4.53 4,26-4.95 

### .Dichlorobiphenyls 4.93-5.16 5.14 4.65-5.30 4.96-4.98 4.52-5.58 

### Trichlorobiphenyls 5'.47-5.51 5.66 5.02-5.89 5.71-5.90 5.47-5.61 

### Tetrachlorobiphenyls

Pentachlorobiphenyls

Hexachlorobiphenyls

Heptachlorobiphenyls 5.72-5.73 5.72-5.81 5.21-6.48 5..94-6.63 5,.72-6.11
5.92-6.30 6.18 6.04-6.95 6.75 5.92-6.30
6.63-7.55 5.48-6.68 6'. 65 6.22-7.42 7.12-7.41 6.63-6.93'

67 

### Reference
Miller etal. 1985 

### Hawker and Connell 1988 

### de Bruijn et al. 1989 

### Isnard and Lambert 1989 

### Miller etal: 1985 

### Burkhard and' Kuehl 1986 

### Hawker and Connell 1988 

### de Bruijn et al. 1989 

### Isnard and Lambert 1989 

### Miller et al.1985 

### Burkhard and Kuehl 1986 

### Hawker and Connell 1988 

### de Bruijn et al. 1989 

### Isnard and Lambert 1989 

### Miller et al.1985 

### Burkhard and Kuehl 1986 

### Hawker and Connell 1988 

### de Bruijn et al. 1989 

### Isnard and Lambert 1989 

### Miller etal. 1985 

### Burkhard and Kuehl 1986 

### Hawker and Connell 1988 de 

### Bruijn et al. 1989 

### Isnard and Lambert 1989 

### Miller et al. .1985 

### Burkhard et al. 1985 

### Burkhard and Kuehl 1986 

### Hawker and Connell 1988 de 

### Bruijn etal. 1989 

### Isnard and Lambert 1989L

6.68 Miller et 

### al. 1985 6.69-7.71 Hawker and 

### Connell 1988 6.68 Isnard and Lambert 1989 Octachlorobiphenyls 7

### .ll Miller 'et

### 'al. 1985 

### 7.20-8.00 Hawker and 

### Connell 1988 7

### .ll 

### Isnard and Lambert 1989 , 7.73 

### de Bruijn et 

### al. 1989
Nonachlorobiphenyls

. . 8.16 Miller et al. 1985 7.71-8.09 Hawker and Connell 1988 8.16 Isnard and Lambert 1989 Decachlorobiphenyl 8.26 8.23 8.18 0.27 8.26 Aroclor 1016 Aroclor 1242 Aroclor 1248 Aroclor 1254 5.58 5.58 6

### .ll 6.72 

### Miller et 

### al. 1985 Burkhard and Kuehl 1986 Hawker and Connell 1988 de Bruijn et al. 1989 Isnard andLambert 1989 veith et 

### al. 1979a Veith et al. 1979a Veith et al. 1979a Veith et al. 1979a Based on these rangesof values, a 'typical L0g.P. was selected for each class and then-a 'predicted HHBAF' 

### was calculated for 5.0% lipids at trophic level 4:
Class of mica1 PCBs' Lou PMonochloroDichloroTrichloroTetrachloroPentachloroHexachloroHeptachloroOctachloroNonachloroDecachloro4.54 4.99 5.57 5.75 6.40 6.82 6.69 7.45 7.95 8.24 Pred BCF (7.6%L) 1,537 3,484 10,007 13,884 45,290 97,230 76,754 100,000 100,000 100,000 Norm BCF (1.0% L) 202 458 1,317 1,827 5,959 12,793 10,099 13

### ,158 13

### ,158 13

### ,158 FCM .PredHHBAF 

# - (5.0% L)

1.2 i,212 2.6 

### s,954 16 105,360 23 210,105 98 2,919,910

1.0 63

### ,965 1.0 50,495 1.0 65,790 1.0 65,790 1.0 65,790

> Predicted BAF based 

### on Log P and-measured 

### BCF: Class BCF % L Norm BCF Reference of PCBs 

# - - (1.0% L) 68

.. . .4


### Dichloro14,100 18,200 10,000 13,000

6,100 3,800*



### Trichloro20,100 42,000 17,000*

6,066 14,125

.

### Tetrachloro48,900 42,000 84,000 18,OOOf 17,000*

6,806

### Pentachloro14,OOO*

### Hexachloro210,000 4,800*

### Octachloro22

### , 400.

### Decachloro10,500

8,374 

### Aroclor 1016 24,299 42,500 

### Aroclor 1248 70,500 

### Aroclor 1254 37,000

6,601 100,000 

### Aroclor 1260 194,000 

### 3

### .O 3.5 7.6 7.6 11.6

7.6

3.0 3.0 7.6 6.5 7.5
3.0 3.0 3.5 7.6 7.6 6.5
7.6
3.5 7.6
3.5
3.5 6.5
3.6 7.6
7.6
1.1 

### 3-16 7.6
7.6 4,700 5,200 1,316 1,711 8

### 03 328*

6,700 14,000

2,237* 933 1, a83 16,300 14,000. 24,000

2;368* 2

### ,237* 1

### ,047
1

### ,842*
60

### ,000 632* 6,400 3,000 1,288 6,750 5,592 9,276
33

### ,636

2,089 13

### ,159 

## - Brugg-n et al, 1981 

### Brugg-n et 

### al. 1984 

### Oliver and Niimi 1984 

### Oliver and Niimi 1985 

### Oliver and Niimi 1985 

### Oliver and Niimi 1985
Bruggeman 

### et ale 1981 

### Bruggeman 

### et al. ' 1981 

### Oliver and Niimi 1985 

### Gobas et 

### al. .1989 

### Gobas and Schrap 1990 

### Bruggeman et al. 1981 

### Bruggeman eteal. 1981 Bruggeman 

### et al, 1984 

### Oliver and Niimi 1985 

### Oliver and .Niimi 1985 Gobas 

### et al. 1989


### Oliver and Niimi 1985 

### Bruggeman et 

### al. 1984 

### Oliver and Niimi 1985 

### Bruggeman et 

### al, 1984 

### Bruggeman et al, 1984 Gobas 

### et al; 1989 '


### Hansen et al. 1975 

### Veith et al. 1979b


### veith et al, 1979b


### Hansen et al. 1971 

### Snarski 

### and 

### Puglisi 1976 Veith et 

### al. 1979b
25

### ,526 

### Veith et 

### al. 1979b

69.+ = 

### below steady state.

For several of these the range of the normalized BCF 

### is greater than a 

### factor of 10.

> 

### Measured Bioaccumulation Factors: (based

### on field data for fish at trophic 

### level 4) 

### Class BAF % 

### L Norm 

### BAF Species
Trichloro- 

# --- (1.0% L)



### TetrachlorolO,OOO,000 8 1.~250,OOO 

### Trout
.

8,125,000 11 738,636 

### SalmonHeptachloro11,296,296 1,026,936 Salmon

### Octachloro13,000,000 11 1,181,818 

### Salmon

3,909,091 11 355,372 

### Salmon Total PCBs Reference

Oliver and Niimi 1985 

### Oliver .and Niimi 1988


### Oliver and Niimi i985" 

### Oliver and Niimi 1985 

### Oliver and Niimi 1988 

### Oliver and Niimi1985 

### Oliver and Niimi1988


### Oliver and Niimi1985 

### Oliver and Niimi 1988 

### Oliver and Niimi 1988 

### Oliver and Niimi 1.988 

### Oliver and Niimi 1988


### The. normalized BAF of 355,372 

### that was determined for

The predictedHHBAF of 1,776,860 

### for 5.0% 

### lipids 

### at trophic level 4 

### seem reasonable because it 

### is similar to 

### the predicted HHBAF that was calculated above using the "typical Log P' 

### for pentachlorobiphenyl, which is a PCB 

### with an intermediate amount of chlorination.,A 

### normalized BAF 

### of 355,372 for 

### trophic level4 

### corresponds to a 

### Log 

### P of 6.21167. 

### The validityof 

### this back calculation can be demonstrated as follows: 

### For a 

### Log P of 6.21167, 

### the BCF 

### that 

### is predicted for fish containing 7.6% 

### lipids is (antilog[(0.79) (6.21167)- 0.401) 

### = 32,152.84. 

### The BAF 

### that is predicted 

### for fish containing 5.0% 

### lipids at trophic level 4 

### is (32,152.84/7.6)(5.0) (84) = 1,776,867; 

### the 

### BAF that 

### is predicted 

### for fish 

### containing 7.9% 

### lipids at 

### trophic level 4 

### is (32,152.84/7.6) (7.9)(84)

### = 2,807,451. 

### Both of 

### these BAFs 

### agree well with the values given above, as they should. 

### Thus 

### for a 

### Log P 

### of 6.21167; by 

### using the'FCM

### of .29 

### for trophic level3 

### instead of 

### the FCM 

### of 84 

### for 

### trophic level 4, 

### the WLBAF that is 

### predicted for fish containing 7.9% 

### .lipidsat 

### trophic level 3 

### is (32,152.84/7.6) (7.9)(29) 

### = 969,239.


### PENTACHLOROBENZENE [CAS# 608-93-51
> 

### Predicted BAF 

### based on 

### Log P: 

### The following values we're found for Log P: 5.17 

### MedChem Star 5.707 

### MedChem Calc 5.06 Hammers et 

### al. 1982 5.03 

### Miller et al., 1985 5.00 

### Bobra et al. 1985 5.19 

### lsnard and Lambert 1989 5.183 

### de Bruijn 

### et al. 1989 

### Values rangingfrom 4.88 

### to 5.92 

### were cited by 

### de Bruijn 

### et al. (1989). A 

### value of 5.1 

### was selectedas 

### a 'typical Log p', 

### from which the following were obtained: Predicted BCF 

### (at 7.6% 

### lipids) = 4,256 

### Normalized BCF 

### (at'1.0% 

### lipids) = * 560 

### Food Chain Multiplier = 3.2 For 5.0% 

### lipids at trophic level 4 

### the predicted HHBAF 

### that is 

### calculated from 

### the 'typicalLog P' 

### is (5601(5.0) (3.2) = 8,960.

> 

### Predicted BAF 

### based on Log P 

### and measuredBCF: 

### BCF % L
. Norm BCF (1.0%L) 14,040 5.4 2,600

3,400 4.8 708 16,125 8.45 1,908

7,100 1.8 3,944 5,100 1.5 3,400 

### Reference
Konemann and van Leeuwen 1979,1980 Barrows et al. 1980 

### Oliver and Niimi 1983 

### Banerjee et 

### al. 1984 

### Banerjee et 

### al. 1984 717,300 2.8 2

### ,607 

### Banerjee et al. 1984 4,700 5 940 

### Van Hoogen and Opperhuizen 910 3.5 260 

### Bruggeman 

### et al. 1984 8,400 3.79 2,216 

### Carlson and Kosian 1987
23,000 5 4,600 1988 ~ --- 

### Scrap and Opperhuizen i990


### Geometric mean normalized 

### BCF = 1,772

> 

### Measured Bioaccumulation Factors: (based on field data for 

### fish at trophic level 4) BAF % L Norm BAF
. 

### Species Reference (1.0% 

### L).


## - - .2,538 L. 

### trout Oliver and Nicol 1982 17,000 7.9 2,152 

### Trout Oliver and Niimi 1983 69,444 11 6,313 

### Salmonids Oliver and Niimi 1988 

### Geometric mean normalized BAF = 3,255 

### For 5.0% 

### lipids at trophic level 4 

### the predicted HHBAF is (3,255)(5.0) = 16,275.

PENTACHLOROPHENOL [CAS# :'8 7

## -86"5 ]
> 

### Predicted BAF 

### based on Log P: 

### The following values were found for.LogP: 5.12 

### MedChem Star 5.24 

### MedChem Star 5.055 

### MedChem Calc 5.01 

### Veith et al. i979a 5.01 

### Isnard and Lambert 1989 A 

### value of 5.1 was 

### selected as 

### a 'typical Log 

### P', from which the following were obtained: Predicted BCF (at 7.6% 

### lipids) = 4,256 

### Normalized BCF 

### (at 1.0% 

### 3ipids) = 560 Food 

### Chain Multiplier. = 3.2 

### For 5.0% 

### lipids attrophic level 4 

### the predicted HHBAF is calculated from the 

### "typical Log P" 

### is (560) (5.0)(3 

### that 2) = 72

-___> 

### Predicted BAF 

### based onLog 

### P 

### and measuredBCF: BCF %L Norm BCF 

### Reference (1.0% 

### L) 27* 3.6 7.5 

### Parrish 

### et al. 1978 770 7.6 101.3 

### Veith 

### et 

### al. 1979b 216 

### 13.25 16.30 Smith 

### et 

### al. 1991



### = In 

### salt 

### water. Geometric mean normalized BCF 

### in fresh water 

### = 40.63 

### For S.O%.lipids at trophic level 4 the 

### predicted HKBAF that 

### is calculated from the 

### geometric mean 

### normalized BCF 

### is (40.631(5.0) (3.2) = 650.

> No useful 

### measured BAF 

### was found.

PHENANTHRENE [CAS#: 8s-01-81
> 

### Predicted BAF 

### based on Log P: 

### The following values were found 

### for Log P: 4.46 MedChem 

### Star 4.49 MedChem Calc 4.42 Hammers et 

### al. 1982 4.57 Miller 

### et al. 1985 4.562 de 

### Bruijn et al. 1989 4.46 

### 'Isnardand 

### Lambert 1989 Values 

### ranging from 4.10 

### to 4.67 

### were cited by 

### Eadsforth and Moser (1983),

### de 

### Bruijn et 

### al. (1989), 

### and Brooke 

### et al. (1990). A Log P 

### of 4.36 was 

### recommended for use 

### in 

### the derivation of 

### sediment quality criteria for 

### phenanthrene (U.S. 

### EPA 1991e). A 

### value of 4.5 

### was selected as 

### a 'typical Log 

### P', from

### which the following

### were obtained: Predicted BCF 

### (at 7.6% 

### lipids) = 1,429 

### Normalized BCF 

### lat 1.0% 

### lipids) = ,188 .O 

### Food 

### Chain Multiplier 

### = 1.2 

### For 5.0% 

### lipids at 

### trophic level 4 

### the predicted HHBAF 

### that is calculated from the 

### "typicalLog 

### P' is (188.0) (5.0) (1.2) = 1,128.

" c > 

### Predicted BAF 

### based on Log 

### P and measured BCF: 

### BCF %L Norm 

### BCF 

### Reference 73(1.0% L.) 2

### ,850 4.27 667.4 ' 

### Carlson et al. 1979 

### Geometric mean normalized BCF = 667.4 For 5.0% 

### lipids at trophic level 4 

### the predicted HHBAF that 

### is calculated from 

### the geometric mean normalized BCF is (667.4) (5.0) (1.2) 

### = 4,004.

> A 

### geometric mean BAF 

### of 30 was 

### obtained with 

### fish 

### that averaged 4.23 % 

### lipids (Burkhard, unpublished), which results in a BAF of 35 

### at 5.0 % 

### lipids.

..
PHENOL [CAS#: 108-95-21
> 

### Predicted BAF 

### based on Log P: 

### The following values were found for.Log P: 1.46 

### MedChem Star 1.475 

### MedChem Calc 1.46 

### Veith et al. 1979a 1.ll 

### Hammers et al. 1982 1.46 

### Isnard and 

### Lambert 1.989 

### Values ranging from 0.62 

### to 2.20 

### were cited by 

### Eadsforth and Moser (1983). A 

### value of 1.4 

### was selected as a 

### "typicalLog 

### P', from which the fallowing were 

### obtained: Predicted BCF 

### (a,t 7.6% 

### lipids) = 5.08 

### Normalized BCF 

### (at 1.0% 

### lipids) = 0.688 Food 

### Chain Multiplier = 1.0 For 5.0% 

### lipids at 

### trophic level4 

### the predicted HHBAF 

### that is calculatedfrom 

### the "typicalLog Pm 

### is (0.688)(5.0)(1.0) 

### = 3.4.. ,.

> 

### Predicted BAF 

### based on Log P 

### and measured BCF: 

### BCF %L 

### Norm BCF 

### Reference (1.0% 

### L) 1,382 4.0 345.5 Call 

### et al. 1980; 

### Brooke and 

### Call,

### ms. Geometric mean normalized BCF 

### = 345.5 For 5.0% 

### lipids at 

### trophic level 4 

### the predicted HHBAF 

### that is calculated from the geomettic mean normalized BCF 

### is (345.5)(5.0) (1.0) = 1,728.- 

### Note: TheBCF was 

### measured using 

### radiolabeled chemical and 74

.- _"the parent 

### chemical was 

### verified. BAFs 

### are very 

### different.

> 

### No measured BAF 

### was found.

PHOTOMIREX -[CAS# 

### 39801-14-41
> 

### Predicted BAF 

### based 

### on Log 

### P: 

### The following values were found 

### for Log 4.54 MedChein 

### Calc The 

### two predicted



### P: A value 

### of 4.54 was 

### selected 

### as a 'typical Log PD,

### from .whichthe 

### following were obtained: Predicted 

### BCF (at 7.6% 

### lipids) = 1,537 

### Nornralized BCF 

### (at 1.0% lipids) .= 202.2 Food Chain 

### Multiplier 

### = 1.2 

### For 5.0% 

### lipids at trophic level 4 

### the,predictedHHBAF that 

### is calculated 

### from the 

### "typical Log P. 

### is (202.2) (5.01 (1.21 

### = 1,213. -

> No 

### measured BCF was 

### found.

> Measured 

### Bioaccwnulation Factors: (based on 

### field data for fish at trophic 

### level 4) 

### BAF % L Norm BAF 

### Species Reference (1.0% L) 5,117,647 11 465,241 

### Salmonids Oliver and 

### Niimi 1988 

### Geometric mean 

### normalized 

### BAF = 465,241 For 5.0% 

### lipids at trophic level 4 

### the predictedKHBAF 

### is (465,241) 

### (5.0) = 2,326,205. 

### Note: The measured BAF 

### is much larger 

### than the predicted BAF.

PYREWE [CAS#: 129-00-01

> 

### Predicted BAF 

### based 

### on Log P: The 

### following values were fowd for Log P: 4.88 MedChem 

### Star 4.95 MedChem Calc 

### 4.93 Hammers et 

### al. 1982 5.52 Burkhard 

### et al. .1985 7s5.18 

### Miller et al. 1985 4.88 

### Isnard and Lambert 1989 A 

### value of5.1 

### was selected as a 'typical Log P', from 

### which the following were obtained: Predicted BCF (at 7.6% 

### lipids) = 4,256 

### Normalized BCF (at 1-08

### lipids) = 560 

### Food Chain Multiplier = 

### 3.2 For 5.0% 

### lipids at trophic level 4 

### the predicted HHBAF 

### that is calculatedfrom the 'typical Log P' is (560)(5.0) (3.2) = 8,960.

> 

### Predicted BAF 

### based onLog P 

### and measuredBCF:

.

. BCF %L Norm BCF 

### Reference (1.0% L) 2,445 4.4 555.7 

### Carlson et al. 1979 

### Geometric mean normalized BCF = 555.7 For 5.0% 

### lipids at 

### trophic level 4 

### the predicted HHBAF 

### that is calculated from the geometric mean normalized BCF 

### is (555.7) (5.0)(3.2) = 8,891.

> A 

### geometric mean BAF 

### of 14.3 

### was obtainedwith fish. that averaged 4.23.% 

### 9ipids (Burkhard, unpublished), which results in a BAF of 17 

### at 5.0 % 

### lipids.

SELENIUM [CAS#: 7782-49-21 Adams (1976)

### obtained BCFs of 2 

### and 12 for muscle of 

### the rainbow.troutand 

### fathead minnow, respectively. Barrowset 

### al. (1980)

### reported a 

### whole-body BCF 

### of 20 for 

### the 

### bluegill. The geometric mean of 2 

### and 12 

### is 4.9, 

### which will 

### be used as the 

### predicted HHBAFfor 

### selenium.

SILVER [CAS#: 7440-22-43 

### Barrows et 

### al. (1980) 

### found no 

### uptake of 

### silver by 

### the bluegill. The value of 0.0 

### will be 

### used as the predicted HHBAF

# .
2,3,7,8-TCDD [CAS#: 1746-01-61! > 

### Predicted BAF 

### based on Lbg P: 

### The following values were found for Log 

### P: 7.02 

### MedChem Star 7.695 

### MedChem Calc 7.02 

### Burkhard and 

### Kuehl 1986 A 

### value of 7.36 

### was 'selected as a 

### 'typical Log 

### P", 

### from which the following were obtained: Predicted BCF (at 7.6%

### lipids) = 

### 100,000 

### No'rmalized BCF(at 1.0% 

### lipids) = 

### 13,158

. 

### Food Chain Multiplier = 1.0 For 5.0% 

### lipids at' trophic level 4 

### the predicted HHBAF 

### that 

### is calculated from the 'typical Log P. 

### is (13,158) (5.0)(1.0) 

### = 65,790.

> 

### Predicted BAF 

### based on Log P 

### and measured BCF:. A Cook 

### et al. (1991) 

### recommended aBCF of 51,OO.O 

### for 

### fish that. contain 7% 

### lipids. Cook (1992) 

### recommended use 

### of.a BAF 

### of 60,000 

### for fish that contain 5.0% 

### lipids and are at 

### trophic levels3 

### and 4 

### in the Great Lakes. 

### This is 

### equivalent to 

### recommending use of 

### a FCM 

### of 1.37255 

### for 

### both trophic level 3 

### and trophic level4. 

### This can be 

### demonstrated because for 'fish that 

### are attrophic level4 

### and contain6% 

### lipids, the predicted BAF 

### is (51,000/7)(6)(1.37255)= 60,000. Thus 

### for fishthat are at trophic level4 

### and contain5.08 

### lipids, the predicted HHBAF 

### is (51,000/7) (5.0) (1.37255)= 50,000; 

### similarly 

### .for 

### fish that contain 7.9% mBAFs 

### are (51,000/7) (7.9) 

### both trophic level 3 

### and trophic

1,2,3,4 -TETRACHLOROBENZENE [CAS#: 634-66-21 ' > 

### Predicted BAF 

### based on Log P: 

### The following values were found for Log P: 4.64 

### MedChem Star 4.99 

### MedChem Calc 4.41 Hammers 

### et al. 1982 4.55 

### Miller et al. 1985 4.SO Bobra 

### et al. 1985 4.65 

### Isnard and Lambert 1989 4.635 

### de Bruijn et al. 1989 Values 

### ranging from 4.41 

### to 5.16 

### were 

### cited by 

### Hammers et al. (1982)

### and de Bruijn 

### et al. (1989). A 

### value of 4.64 

### was selectedas a "typical Log P", 

### from which the following were 

### obtained: 

### .. Predicted BCF 

### (at 7.6% 

### lipias) = 1,843 

### Normalized BCF (at1.0% 

### lipids) = 242.5 

### Food Chain Multiplier = 1.3

J 77 

## "_ - - ". " " " ... . . . " . . .-> 

### Predicted BAF based 

### on Log 

### P and measured predicted HHBAF that is (242.5)(5.0)(1.3)



### BCF : 

### BCF % 

### L Norm 

### BCF Reference (1.0% 

### Ll 7,899 5,000 7,144 2,400 2,300 6,600 8.45 2.9 7.28 3-79 5 5 934.8 981.3 633.2 1724.

460. 1320. 

### Oliver and Niimi 1983 

### Ban,erjee et al. 1984 

### Oliver and Niimi 1985 

### Carlson and Kosian 1987 

### Van Hoogen and Opperhuiten 1988 

### Scrap and Opperhuizen 1990 

### Geometric mean normalized BCF = 920.4

> 

### Measured Bioaccumulation Factors: (based

### on field data for fish at trophic level 4) 

### BAF % L 

### NomBAF Species Reference (1.0% L) 

# - - 2,513 L. 

### trout Oliver and Nicol 1982 10,000 7.9 1,266 R. 

### trout Oliver and Niimi 1983

7,700 8 962 

### Salmon 12,857 11 1,169 

### Salmon Oliver and Niimi 1988
. 

### Oliver and Niimi 1985


### Geometric mean normalized BAF = 1,375

(CAS#: 95-94-31

> 

### Predicted Brh: 

### based on Log P: 

### The following values were found for Log P: 4.82 

### MedChem Star 4.52 

### Hammers et 

### al. 1982 4.51 Miller

### et al. 1985 4 -50 

### Bobra et al. 1985 4.67 

### Isnard and Lambert 1989 4.99 

### MedCh-emCalc

784.604

. 

### de Bruijn et al. 1989 

### Values ranging from 4.51 

### to 5.16 

### were citedby 

### Hammers et 

### al. (1982)

### and de Bruijn et al. (1989). A 

### value of4.7 

### was selected as a 

### 'typical LogP', from

### which the following 

### were obtained: Predicted BCF 

### (at 7.6% 

### lipids) = 2,056 

### Normalized BCF 

### (at 1.0% 

### lipids) = 270.5 

### Food 

### Chain Multiplier = 1.4 

### For 5.0% 

### lipids at 

### trophic 

### level 4 

### the predicted HHBAF 

### that is calculated

### from the 'typical 'Log P' 

### is (270.5) (5.0) (1.4) 

### = 1,894.

> 

### Predicted BAF 

### based onLog P 

### and measuredBCF:

. BCF 

### %L Norm BCF 

### Reference (1.0% L) 8,301 8.45 982.4 

### Oliver and Niimi 1983 4,050 8.5 476.5 Smith 

### et al. 1990 

### Geometric mean normalized BCF = 684.-2 

### For 5.0% 

### lipids at 

### trophic level4 

### the predicted

## HHBw that is calculated from the 

### geometric mean normalized BCF is (684.2) (5.0)(1.4) = 4,789.

> 

### Measured Bioaccudation Factors: (based on field data for fish at 

### trophic leirel 4) 

### BAF % 

### L Norm BAF 

### Species Reference (1.0% 

### L)


## - 

# - 1513. L. 

### trout Ol'iver and Nicol 1982 

### s.,000 

### 7.9 632.9 R. 

### trout Oliver and Niimi 1983

. 

### Geometric mean normal.izedBAF = 978.6 For 5.0% 

### lipids at 

### trophic level4 

### the predicted HHBAF 

### is (978.6)(5.0) 

### = 4,893.

1,1,2,2 -TETRACHLOROETHANE [CAS#: 79-34-51
> 

### Predicted BAF 

### based 

### on Log 

### P: The 

### following values were found for Log P: 2.39 

### MedChem Star 2.644 

### MedChem Calc 2-39 

### Isnard and Lambert 1989

. A 

### value of 2.52 

### was selected as a 'typical Log P', from 79

### which the following were obtained: Predicted BCF 

### (at 7.6% 

### lipids) = 

### 39.0 Normalized BCF 

### (at 1.0% 

### lipids) = 5-13 

### Food Chain Multiplier = 1.0 For 5.0% 

### lipids.at trophic level 4 

### the predictedHHBAF 

### that is calculated from the 'typical Log P' is (5.13)(5.0) (1.0) = 26.

> 

### Predicted BAF 

### based on 

### Log P and measured BCF: BCF % 

### L Nom 

### BCF Reference (1.0% L) 8 4.8 1.67 

### Barrows et 'al. 1980 

### Geometric mean normalized BCF = 1.67 

### For 5.0% 

### lipids at 

### trophic level4 

### the predicted HHBAF 

### that. is calculated from the geometric mean normalized BCF is (1.67) (5.0) (1.0) = 8.4. Note: 

### This 

### BCF was based on uptake of radioactivity with no 

### verification of the parent chemical. Thus 

### this BCF 

### and the resulting predicted HHBAF 

### might be too high.

> No 

### measured BAF was found.

TETRACHLOROETHYLENE. 

### [CAS#: 127-18-41
> 

### Predicted BAF 

### based onLog 

### P: The following values were found for 

### Log P: 3.40 

### MedChem Star 3.02 

### MedChem Calc 2.88 

### Isnard and Lambert 1989 

### A value of 3.15 

### was selected as a 'typical Log 

### P', from 

### which the following were obtained: Predicted BCF (at 7..6%

### lipids) = 122.6 

### Normalized BCF (at 1.0% 

### lipids) = 16.1 

### Food Chain Multiplier = 1.0 For 5.0% 

### lipids at 

### trophic level4 

### the predictedHHBAF 

### that is calculated from the "typical Log P' 

### is (16.1)(5.0) (1.0) = 80.

> 

### Predicted BAF 

### based onLog 

### P

### ,andmeasured BCF: 

### BCF %L Nom BCF 

### Reference (1.0% L) 8049 4.8 10.2 

### Barrows et al. 1980 

### Geometric mean normalized BCF 

### = 10.2



### Note: 

### This BCF 

### was based on uptake of 

### radioactivity with no verification of 

### the parent chemical. Thus 

### this BCF 

### and the resulting predicted HHBAF 

### might be too high.

> No 

### measured BAF was found.

THALLIUM [CAS#: 7440-28-01 

### Barrows et al.(1980)

### reported a BCF 

### of 34 

### based on 

### whole-body measurements with the bluegill, whereas Zitko et al. (1975) 

### obtain a BCF of 131 for 

### muscle.ofAtlant'ic salmon. The 

### geometric mean of 34 

### and 131 

### is 67, 

### which will be used as the predicted HHBAF 

### for 

### thallium.

TOLUENE [CAS#: 108-88-31
> 

### Predicted BAF based on Log P: The 

### following values were found for 

### Log P: 2.70 

### MedChem Star 2.79 

### MedChem Calc 2.78 

### Hammers t al. .1982 2.78 

### Burkhard et al. 1985 2.786 

### de Bruijn'et al. 1989 2.63 

### Isnard and Lambert 1989 

### Values ranging-from2.11 

### to 3.06 

### were cited by 

### Eadsforth and Moser (19831, 

### de Bruijn etal. (19891, and 

### Brooke et al. (1990). A 

### value of 2.76 was 

### selected as a 'typical Log P', 

### from 

### which the following were obtained: Predicted BCF 

### (at 7.6% 

### lipids) = 60.3 

### Normalized BCF 

### (at 1.,0%

### lipids) = 7.93 

### Food 

### Chain Multiplier = 1.0 .. 2.65 

### Miller et al. 1985



### For 5.0% 

### lipids attrophic level4 

### the predicted HHBAF 

### that is calculated from the "typicalLog P' 

### is (7.93)(5.0) (1.0) = 40. 

## -

> 

### Predicted BAF based on Log P 

### and measuredBCF:
81BCF % 

### L Norm BCF 

### Reference (1.0% 

### L) 1,250 4.04 309.4 

### Brooke and Call, 

### ms. Geometric mean normalized BCF = 309.4



### Note: ThisBCF 

### was based on uptake 

### of radioactivity with no verification of 

### the parent chemical. 

### Thus this BCF 

### and the resulting predicted HHBAF might be too 

### high.

> 

### No measuredBAF 

### was found.

TOXAPHENE [CAS#: 8001-35-21 >' 

### Predicted BAF 

### based on Log P: 

### The following values were found 

### for Log P: 4.33 

### MedChem Calc 5.50 

### Isnard and Lambert 1989 A 

### value of 5.0 

### was selectedas 

### a 'typical Log P'8 from 

### which the following were obtained: Predicted BCF (at 7.6% 

### lipids) = 38548 

### Normalized BCF (at 1.0% 

### lipids) = 466.8 

### Food Chain Multiplier 

### = 2.6 For 5.0% 

### lipids at trophic level 4 

### the predicted HHBAF 

### that is calculated from the 'typical Log P' 

### is (466.8)(-5.0)(2.6) = 6,068.

> 

### Predicted BAF 

### based on Log P 

### and measured BCF: BCF 

### %L
19,465 4.78 27,539 1.2

8,427 4.76 26,5,52 4.76 62,462 4.1 70,743 3.2 19,532 4.76



### = juveniles 

### ** = 

### adults Norm BCF (1.0% 

### L) 4,073** 2

### ,633* 15,235** 22,107** 22,949*

5,57a*
4#103* 

### Reference Mayer et al. 1977 

### Schimmel etal. 1977 

### Goodman et al. 1978 

### Goodman 1986 

### Goodman 1986 

### Goodman 1986 

### Goodman 1986 

# -

82

### Geometric 

### mean normalized 

### BCF = 4,,073



### ..

> 

### Measured Bioaccumulation 

### Factors: (based

### on field 

### data for 

### fish at 

### trophic 

### level 4)

. BV %L Norm BAF 

### Species Reference (1.0% L) 11,000,000 13.1 

### 839,695 

### L. trout Swain et 

### al. 1986 1;772,727 

### 8.3 213,582 L. 

### trout Swain et 

### al. 1986 Geometric mean normalized BAF = 

### 423,490 For 5.0% 

### lipids at trophic 

### level 4 

### the predicted HHBAF 

### is

(423,490)(5.0) = 2,117,450. 

### Note: Both of the measured BAFs are 

### much larger 

### than both 

### of the predictedBUS.

1,2,4-"RICHLOROBENZENE [CAS#: 120-82-11
> 

### Predicted BAF 

### based 

### on Log P: 

### The following 

### values 

### were found 

### for Log 

### P: 3.98 MedChem 

### Star 4.02 MedChem 

### Star 4.28 MedChem Calc 3.96 

### Hammers et 

### al. 1982 

### 3.98 Miller 

### et al. 1985 4.10 

### Bobra 

### et al. 1985 4.04 Isnard and Lambert 

### 1989 4.05 de Bruijn et 

### al. 1989 Values 

### ranging from 3.93 

### to 4.40 

### were cited by 

### Hammers 

### et al. (1982),

### Eadsforth and Moser (19831,

### and de 

### Bruijn et al. (1989)

# . A value of 4.OCwas selected 

### as a ".typicalLog

, pa, from

### which the following 

### here-obtained: Predicted BCF 

### (at 7.6% 

### lipids) = 575.4 

### Normalized BCF 

### (at 1.0% 

### lipids) 

### = 75.7 Food Chain Multiplier 

### = 1.0 83For 5.0% 

### lipids at trophic level 4 

### the predicted HHBAF 

### that is 

### calculated from the 'typicalLog 

### P' 

### is (75.7)(5.0)(1.0) 

### = 378.

> Predicted BAF 

### based.on Log 

### P and measuredBCF: BCF
2,800 182 1,606

' 85 349

39 2,040 2,917 124 248 914 769 769 1,127 1,365 1,442 991 410 2

### ,026 498 

### %L
7.6 4.8 9.12 2.1 

### (e) 3.2 

### (h) 0.7 

### (a) 8.45 7.28 1.8 2.2 4.4 5.0 5.2 5.2 ' 5.7 5.8 7.7 8.2 3.79 11.4. Norm BCF 

### (1.0% 

### Ll 368.4

37.9 .1-75.4

40.5

. 109.1

55.7 241.4 400.7

68.9 112.7 113.2 182.8 147.9 147.9 197.7 235.3 187.3 120.9 108.2 177.7 

### Reference
Veith et 

### al. 1979b

. 

### Macek et al.1979; 

### Barrows 

### et

. 

### al. 1980, 

### Kosian et al. 1981 

### Galassi and Calamari 1983 

### Galassi and Calamari 1983. 

### Galassi and Calamari 1983

, 

### Oliver and Niimi 1983 

### Oliver and Niimi 1985 

### Geyer et 

### al. 1985 

### Geyer et 

### al. 1985 

### Geyer et al.1985 

### Geyer et al. 1985 

### Geyer etal. 1985 

### Geyer et al.1985 

### Geyer et al.1985 

### Geyer et 

### al. 1985 

### Geyer etal. 1985 

### Geyer ,et

### al. 1985 

### Carlson and 

### Kosian 1987 

### Smith et al. 1990 

### Geometric mean normalized BCF = 135.2 

### For 5.0% 

### lipids attrophic 

### level 4 

### the predictedHHBAF 

### that 

### is ca.lculated from the geometric mean normalized BCF'is (135.2)(5.0) (1.0) 

### = 676. 

### Note: The BCF 

### reported by 

### Macek et al. (1979)

### and Barrows et al. (1980)

### was basedon 

### uptake of 

### radioactivity with no verification of the parent chemical and might be 

### too high.

> 

### Measured Bioaccumulation Factors: (basedon field data for fish at trophic level 4) BAF % L Norm 

### BAF Species Reference (1.0% 

### L) " 

# . 

# - - 245 L. 

### trout .Oliverand Nicol 1982 1,000 7.9 127 R. 

### trout Oliver and Niimi 1983 841,200 

### 8 150 

### Salmon Oliver and

### Niimi 1985 

### Geometric mean normalized BAF = 167.1

1,1, 

### I-TRICHLOROETHANE [CAS#: 71-55-61
> 

### Predicted BAF 

### based onLog 

### P: The following values were found

### for Log 

### P: 2.49 

### MedChem Star 2.48 

### MedChem Calc '2.47 

### Isnard and Lambert 1989 .A 

### value of 2.48 

### was selectedas a 

### 'typical Log*P., 

### from which the following were obtained: Predicted BCF (at 7.6% 

### lipids) = 36.2 

### Normalized BCF 

### (at 1.0% 

### lipids) = 4.76 

### Food Chain Multiplier = 1.0 

### For 5.0% 

### lipids at 

### trophic level4 

### the-predictedHHBAF 

### that'. is calculatedfrom 

### the "typical Log P' 

### is (4.76)(5.0)(1.0) = 24.

> 

### Predicted BAF 

### based on 

### Log P and measured BCF: BCF %L Norm 

### BCF ' 

### Reference (1.0% 

### Ll 9 4.8

. 1.88 

### Barrows etal. 1980 

### Geometric mean normalized BCF = 1.88 

### For 5-03 

### lipids attrophic level4 

### the predicted MBAF 

### that is calculatedfrom 

### the geometricmean normalized' BCF is (1.88)(5.0) (1.0) = 9.4. 

### Note: This BCF was based on uptake of 

### radioactivity with no verification of 

### the parent chemical. Thus 

### this BCF 

### and the resulting predicted HHBAF 

### might be 

### too high.

> No 

### measured BAF 

### was found.

1,1,2 "I'RICHLOROETHANE [CAS#: 79-00-51
> 

### Predicted BAF 

### based 

### on Log 

### P: The following values were found for 

### Log P: a51.89 

### MedChem Star 2.05 

### MedChem Calc 2.42 

### Isnard and Lambert 1989 ' 

### Acvalueof 2.1 

### was selected as a 

### 'typical Log P', 

### from 

### which the following were obtained: Predicted BCF 

### (at 7.6% 

### lipids) = 18.2 

### Normalized BCF (at 1.0% 

### lipids) = 

### 2.39 Food Chain Multiplier = 1.0 

### For 5.0% 

### lipids at trophic level4 

### the predicted 

## HHBm that is calculated

### from the 'typical Log 

### P' 

### is (2.39)(5.0) (1.0) 

### = 12.

> No 

### measured BCF or BAF 

### was found.

TRICHLOROETHYLENE 

### [CAS#: 79-01-61
> 

### Predicted BAF based on 

### Log P: The following values were found for Log P: 2.42 

### MedChem Star 2.267 

### MedChem Calc 2.53 

### Miller et al. 1985 2.53 

### Isnard and Lambert 1989 A 

### value of2.43 

### was selected as a 

### 'typical Log P., 

### from 

### which the following were obtained: Predicted BCF (at 7.6% 

### lipids) = 33.1 

### Normalized BCF (at 1.0% 

### lipids) = 4.36 

### Food Chain Multiplier = 1.0 For 5.0% 

### lipids at 

### trophic level 4 

### the predicted HHBAF 

### that is calculatedfrom 

### the "typical Log P" 

### is (4.36)(5.0) (1.0) = 22.

> 

### Predicted BAF 

### based on Log P 

### and measured BCF: BCF %L Norm 

### BCF Reference (1.0% L) 17 4.8 3.54 

### Barrows et al. 1980 

### Geometric 'mean normalized BCF = 3.54 For 5.0% 

### lipids at trophic level 4 

### the predicted HHBAF 

### that is calculated from the geometric mean normalized BCF 

### is' (3.54)(5.0) (1.0) 

### = 18. 

### Note: ThisBCF was 

### based qn'u'ptake

### of ,radioactivity with 

### no verification of the parent chemical. Thus this BCF and the resulting predicted HHBAF might 

### be too high.
86> No measured BAF was found.

2,4,6"TRICHLOROPHENOL [CAS#: 88-06-21
> Predicted BAF based 

### on Log 

### P: The following values 

### were found 

### for Log 

### P: 3.69 MedChem 

### Star 2.97 Isnard 

### and L&,ert 1989 

### 3.57 MedChqn 

### Calc A value 

### of 3.5 was selected as 

### a 'typical Log 

### P', 

### from which'the'following

### were obtained: Predicted BCF (at 7.6% lipids) = 231.7 Normalized BCF (at 1.0% lipids) = 30.5 Food Chain Multiplier = 1.0 

### 'For 5.0% lipids at trophic level.4 the predicted HHBAF that 

### is calculated from the 'typical.LogP9 

### is (30.5)-(5.01(1.0)

. 

### = 152.

> Predicted BAF based on Log :P and measured BCF: BCF %L Norm BCF Reference (1.0% 

### L) 

### aa 12.4 7.10 Smith et al. 1990,1991 Geometric mean normalized BCF = 7.10

> No measured BAF was found.


### .

VINYL CHLORIDE [CAS#: 75-01-41
> Predicted BAF based on Log P: The following value was found for Log P: A value of.1.36 was selected as 

### a "typical Log P', from which the following were obtained: 1.36 MedChem Calc
Predicted BCF (at 7.6% lipids) = 4.72 Normalized BCF (at 3.0% lipids) = 0.621 Food Chain Multiplier = l.0 

### For 5.0% lipids 

### at trophic' level 

### 4 the predicted HHBAF that is calculated 

### from the "typical Log 

### P' is (0.621)(5.0) (1.0) = 3.1. a7> 

### No 

### measured BCF 

### or BAF was 

### found.



# - ZINC [CAS#: 7440-66-61 

### Data presented'& Murphy et 

### al. 11978) 

### can.beused to calculate BAFs 

### of 2.45 

### and 8.03 based on 

### increased concentrations 

### of zinc in 

### water and 

### in muscle-ofbluegills and bass. The geometric mean 

### of 2.45 

### and 8.03 

### is 4.4, 

### which will be used 

### as the 

### predicted HHBAF for 

### zinc.

### REFERENCES Atchison, G.J., 

### B.R. Murphy, W.E. 

### Bishop, A.W. 

### McIntosh, andR.A. Mayes. 1977. 

### Trace Metal Contamination 

### of Bluegill (Lepomis 

### macrochims) from 

### Two Indiana Lakes. Trans. 

## Am. Fish. Soc. 106:637-640. 

### Baluja, G., 

### L.M. Hernandez, J. Gonzalez, andR. Clavero. 1983. 

### Mercury Distribution in an.Ecosystern of 

### the 'Parque Nacional de Donana,' Spain. Bull. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 30:544-551. 

### ..-'Banerjee, S., 

### R.H. 

### Sugatt, andD.P; O'Grady. 1984. A 

### Simple Method for Determining Bioconcentration Parameters of 

### Hydrophobic Compounds. Environ. Sci. Technol. 18:79-81. 

### Barrows, M.E. 1975. 

### Exposure of 

### Fish to 14C-Benzidine: Accumulation, Distribution, and Elimination of 

### 14C-Residues. Research Report submitted to Allied Chemical Corporation. Barrows, M.E., S.R. 

### Petrocelli, andK.J. 

### Macek. 1980. 

### Bioconcentration and Elimination of 

### Selected Water Pollutants by Bluegill Sunfish (Lepomis

### macrochirus)

# . In: Dvnamics. ExDosure and Hazard Assessment of 

### Toxic Chemicals, R. Haque, Ed. Ann 

### Arbor Science Pub.. Inc., Ann Arbor,MI. 

### pp. 379-392. 

### [Note: The value used for percent lipids 

### is from Johnson (19801.1 

### Benoit, D.A. 1975. 

### Chronic Effects ofCopper on 

### Survival, Growth, and Reproduction of 

### the Bluegill (Lepomismacrochirus). 

### Trans. Am. 

### Fish. Soc. 104:353-357. 

### Benoit, D.A., 

### E.N. Leonard, G.M. Christensen, andJ.T. 

### Fiandt. 1976. 

### Toxic Effects of Cadmium on Three 

### Generations of 

### Brook Trout. Trans. 

### Am. Fish. SOC. 105:550-560. 

### Bobra, A., W.Y. 

### Shiu, and D. 

### Mackay. 1985. 

### Quantitative ' 

### Structure-Activity Relationships for the Acute Toxicity of 

### Chlorobenzenes toDaphnia magna. 

### Environ. Toxicol. Chem.4:297- 305. 

### Brooke, D., 

### I. Nielsen, J. 

### de Bruijn, andJ. Hermens. 1990. ~n 

### Interlaboratory Evaluation of 

### the Stir-Flask Method for 

### the Determination of 

### Octanol-Water Partition Coefficients (Log Pow). Chemosphere 21:119-133. .i 

### Brooke, L.T., and D.J. Call. Manuscript. Bioconcentration, :.' 

### Metabolism and Elimination of 

### Eight AromaticCompounds 

### in 

### the ' 

### Fathead Minnow (PimeDhales Dromelas). Centerfor 

### Lake Superior Environmental Studies, University o€ 

### Wisconsin 

## - Superior, Superior, WI.

89

### Bruggeman,W.A., 

### L.B.J.M. Martron, D.Kooiman, 

### and 0. 

### Hutzinger. 1981. 

### Accumulation and Elimination Kinetics 

### of 

### Di-, 

### Tri- and Tetra chlorobiphenyls by 

### Goldfish after Dietary and Aqueous Exposure. Chemosphere 10:811-832. 

### Bruggeman,W.A., 

### A. Opperhuizen, A. 

### Wijenga, and0. 

### Hutzinger. '1984, 

### Bioaccumulation

### of Super-Lipophilic Chemicals in Fish. Toxicol. Environ. Chem.7:173-189. 

### Buhler, D.R., R.M. 

### Stokes, and 

### R.S. Caldwell. 1977. 

### Tissue Accuinulatiori and Enzymatic Effects 

### of Hexavalent Chromium 

### in Rainbow Trout (Salmogairdneri). J. 

### Fish. Res. Board Can. 34:9- 18. 

### Burkhard, L.P. Unpublished data. U.S. EPA, 

### Environmental Research Laboratory, Duluth, 

### MN. Burkhard, 

### L.P., and D.W. Kuehl. 1986. 

### N-Octanol/Water Partition Coefficientsby 

### Reverse Phase Liquid Chrornatography/Mass Spectrometry for 

### Eight Tetrachlorinated Planar Molecules.. Chemosphere 15 :163-167. 

### Burkhard, L.P.,'D.W. Kuehl, and.G.D. Veith. 1985. 

### Evaluation of 

### Reverse Phase Liquid Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry for Estimation of N-Octanol/Water Partition Coefficients for 

### Organic Chemicals. Chemosphere 14:1551-1560. 

### Calamari, D., 

### G.F. Gaggino, and G. 

### Pacchetti. 1982. 

### Toxicokinetics of 

### Low Levelsof 

### 'Cd, Cr, Ni and 

### Their Mixturein r 

### Long-Term Treatment on Salmo gairdneri 

### Rich. Chemosphere 11:59- 70. 

### Call, D.J., 

### L.T. Brooke, and P.-Y. 

### Lu. 1980. 

### Uptake, / 

### Elimination, and Metabolism of 

### Three Phenols &'Fathead Minnows. 

### Arch. Environ. Contam.. Toxicol. 9:699-714. 

### Canton, J.H., P.A. Greve, W. 

### Slooff, and G.J. van Esch'. 1975. 

### Toxicity, Accumulation and Elimination Studies of a

### Hexachlorocyclohexane (a-HCH) with Freshwater Organisms 

### of Different Trophic Levels. Water Res. 9:1163-1169. /

..



### Canton, J.H., R.C.C. 

### Wegman, T.J.A. Vulto, C.H. Verhoef, and G.J. van Esch. 1978. 

### Toxicity-, Accumulation- and Elimination Studies of a-Hexachlorocyclohexane (a-HCH) with Saltwater Organisms of Different Trophic Levels. Water Res. 12:687-690. 

### Cappon, C.J. 1984. 

### Content and ChemicalForm 

### of Mercury and Selenium 

### in Lake Ontario Salmon and- Trout. J. Great Lakes Res., 10:429-434. 

# -

90Cappon, C.J. ,. and J.C. Smith. 1981. Mercury and Selenium Content and Chemical

### Form 

### in Fish Muscle. Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 10:305-319. Carlson, A.R., and 

### P.A. Kosian. 1987.. Toxicity of Chlorinated Benzenes 

### to Fathead Minnows (Pimephales

### promelas)

# . Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. '16:129-135. Carlson, R.M., 

### A.R. Oyler, 

### E.H. Gerhart, R. Caple, K.J. 

### Welch, H.L. Koopermkn, 

### D. Bodenner, and 

### D. Swanson. ,1979. Implication to theAquatic Environment 

### of Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons Liberated 

### from Northern Great Plains

### Coal. EPA-600/3-79-093. National Technical Information Service, Springfield, 

### VA. Cook, 

### P.M. 1992. Memorandum to C.E. Stephan. July 8. Cook, 

### P.M., D.W. Kuehl, M.K. Walker, and R.E.

,Peterson. 1991. Bioaccumulation and Toxicityof TCDD and'Related Compounds in Aquatic Ecosystems. In: Biolouical Basis for:Risk Assessment of Dioxins and Related ComDounds. M.A:Gallo, R.J. Scheuplein, and K.A. van der Heijden, Eds. Banbury Report 35. Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press, Plainview, 

### NY. pp". 143-167. Cope, W.G., J.G. Wiener, and R.G. Rada. 1990.. Mercury Accumulation in Yellow Perch in Wisconsin Seepage Lakes: Relation to Lake Characteristics. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 9:931-940. de Bruijn, J., F. Busser, W. Seinen, and J. Hermens. 1989. Determination of Octanol/Water PartitionCoefficients for Hydrophobic. Organic Chemicals with the "Slow-Stirring' Method. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 8:499-512. DeFoe, D.L. 1982. Memorandum to R.L. Spehar. July 9. Deneer, J.W., T

### .L. Sinnige, W. Seinen, andJ.L.M. Hermens. 1987

# - Quantitative Structure-ActivityRelationships .for the Toxicity and Bioconcentration Factor of Nitrobenzene Derivatives towards the Guppy 

### (Poeciliareticulata)

# . Aquatic Toxicol. 1O:llS-129. Eadsforth, C.V., and P. Moser. 1983. Assessment 

### of ReversePhase Chromatographic Methods for Determining Partition Coefficients. Chemosphere 12:1459-1475. Eaton, J., J. Arthur, 

### R. Hennanutz, 

### R. Kiefer, 

### L. Mueller, 

### R. Anderson, R. Erickson, B. Nordling, J. Rogers, and H. Pritchard. 1985. Biological Effects of Continuous and 1ntermittent.Dosing of Outdoor Experimental Streamswith Chlorpyrifos. In: Aauatic Toxicolow and Hazard Assessment:-EishthSwmosium. R.C. Bahner and D.J. Hansen, Eds. ASTM STP 891. American Society 

### for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, PA. pp. 85-118.

91Galassi, S., D. Calamari, and F. Setti. 1982. Uptake and Release of p-Dichlorobenzene in Early LifeStages 

### of 

### Safmo gairdneri. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Safety 6:439-447. Galassi, S., and 

### D. Calamari. 1983. Toxicokinetics 

### of 1,2,3 and 1,2,4 Trichlorobenzenes in Early Life Stages 

### of Salmo gairdneri. Chemosphere,l2:1599-1603.' Geyer, 

### H., I. Scheunert, and 

### F. Korte. 1985.' Relationship between the Lipid Content'of

### Fish and their Bioconcentration Potential 

### of 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene. Chemosphere,l4:545-555. Gill, G.A., and K.W. Bruland. 1990. Mercury Speciation in Surface Freshwater Systems in California and Other Areas. Environ. Sci. Technol. 24:1392-1400. Gobas,.F.A.P.C., and S.M. Schrap. 199.0. Bioaccuinulation 

### of Some Polychlorinated Dibenzo-p-dioxins 

### and,Octachlorodibenzofuranin

. the Guppy (Poeciliareticulata). Chemosphere 20:495-512. Gobas, F.A.P.C., 

### K.E. Clark, W.Y. Shiu, and D. Mackay. 1989. Bioconcentration of Polybrominated Benzenesand Related Superhydrophobic Chemicals in Fish: Role 

### of Bioavailability and Elimination into the Feces. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 8:231-245. Goodman, L.R. 1986. Memorandum to D.J. Hansen. February 28. 

## -' Goodman, L.R., D.J. Hansen, J.A. Couch, and J. Forester. 1978. Effects of Heptachlor and Toxaphene on Laboratory-Reared Embryos and Fry 

### of the Sheepshead Minnow. Proceedings-ofthe Thirtieth Annual Conference (19761, Southeastern Association 

### of Fish and Wrldlife Agencies,.pp. 192-202. [Note: The value used for percent lipids is from Moore (19811.1 Goodman, L

### .R., D.J. Hansen, D.L. Coppage, J.C. Moore, and E. Matthews.

. 1979. Diazinon: Chronic Toxicity to, 

### and'Brain ' Acetylcholinesterase Inhibition 

### in, the Sheepshead Minnow, Cyprinodon variegatus. Trans. 

## Am. Fish. SOC. 108:479-488.

[Note: The value used for percent lipids is from Hansen (19801.1 Grieb, T.M., C.T. Driscoll, S.P. Gloss, 

### C.L. Schofield, G.L. Bowie, and 

### D.B. Porcella. 1990. Factors Affecting Mercury Accumulation 

### in Fishin the Upper Michigan Peninsula. Environ. Toxicol. Chart. 9:919-930. Hammers, W.E., C.J. Meurs, and C.L. Ligny. 1982. Correlations between Liquid Chromatography Capacity Ratio Data

### on Lichrosorb RP-18 and Partition Coefficients in the Octanol-WaterSystem. J. Chromatog. 247:". Hansen, D.J. 1980. Memorandurn to C.E. Stephan. August 25. "



# -

92 ./"

### Hansen, D.J. 

### , P.R. parrish,J.I.

### ,.Lowe, A.J. 

### Wilson, 

### Jr., and P.D. 

### Wilson. 1971. 

### Chronic Toxicity, Uptake, and Retention

### of Aroclor 1254 

### in Two 

### Estuarine Fishes. Bull. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 6:113-119. 

### [Note: The 

### value usedfor

### percent lipids is 

### from Hansen (1980) .] 

### Hansen, D.J., 

### S.C. Schimmel, and J. Forester.
I 

### 1975. 

### Effects of Aroclor 1016 

### on Bnbryos, 

### Fry, Juveniles, and Adults of Sheepshead Minnows (CLprinodonvariegatus). 

### Trans. 

## Am. Fish. Soc. 104:584- 588. 

### [Note: The 

### value used for percent lipids is from Hansen

. (1980) 

### .I Hattula, M.L., 

### J. Sarkka, J. Janatuinen, J. 

### Paasivirta, andA. 

### Roos. '1978. 

### Total Mercury and Methyl Mercury Contents in Fish from 

### Lake Paijanne. Environ. Pollut. 17:19-29, 

### Hawker, D.W., 

### and D.W. 

### Connell. 1988. 

### Octanol-Water Partition Coefficients of Polychlorinated Biphenyl Congeners, Environ. Sci Technol. 22:382-387. 

### Hildebrand, S.G., R.H. 

### Strand, and J.W. 

### Huckabee. 1980. 

### Mercury Accumulation in Fish and Invertebrates of the North Fork 

### Holston River, Virginia and Tennessee. J. 

### Environ. Qual. 9:393-400. 

### Huckabee, J.W., 

### J.W. Elwood, and S.G. 

### Hildebrand. 1979. 

### Accumulation of Mercury in Freshwater Biota. In: Bioaeochemistxv of 

### Mercurv in the Environment, J.O. 

### Nriagu, Ed. Elsevier, NewYork, 

### NY. pp. 277-302. 

### Isnard, P., 

### and S. Lambert. 1989. 

### Aqueous Solubility andnOctanol/Water Partition Coefficient Correlations. Chemosphere 18:1837-1853. 

### Jarvinen, A. 1980. 

### Memorandum to R. 

### Russo. 

### June 13. 

# - Jarvinen, .A.W., 

### and R.M. 

### Tyo. 1978. 

### Toxicity to Fathead Minnows of Endrin in Food 

### and Water. Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol: 7:409-421. 

### Johnson, K. 1980. 

### Memorandum to D.W. 

### Kuehl. March- 10. 

### Konemann, H., 

### and K. 

### van Leeuwen. 1979. 

### Toxicokinetics in Fish: Accumulation and Elimination of Six Chlorobenzenes by 

### Guppies.

',.. 

### In: Quantitative Structure-Activity Relationshim for 

### Kinetics and Toxicityof 

### Auuatic 

### Pollutants and Their Mixtures in 

### Fish, H. 

### Konemann, Ed. pp.19-31. 

### Konemann, H., and K. 

### van Leeuwen..,1980. 

### Toxicokinetics in Fish: Accumulation and Elimination of 

### Six-Chlorobenzenesby 

### Guppies. Chemosphere 9: 3-19.

93

### Kosian, P., A. 

### Lemke, K. 

### Studders, and G. Veith. 1981. 

### The Precision of 

### the 

### Asm Bioconcentration Test. EPA600/3-81-022. 

### National Technical Information Service, Springfield, VA. 

### Kudo, A., 

### D.R. Miller, H. 

### Akagi, D.C. Mortimer,A.S. 

### DeFreitas, H. 

### Nagase, D.R. Townsend, andR.G. 

### Warnock. 1978. 

### The Roleof Sediments on Mercury Transport (Total- and 

### Methyl-) 

### in a 

### River System.' Prog. Wat. Tech. 10:329-339.. 

### Kudo, A., 

### H. Nagase, and. 

### Y. Ose. 1982. 

### Proportion of Methylmercury 

### to the Total Amount of Mercury in-River Waters in Canada and Japan.. Water Res. 16:1011-1015. 

### Luten, J.B., 

### A. Ruiter, T.M. RitSkeS, A.B. 

### Rauchbaar, and G-Riekwel-body. 1980. 

### Mercury and S,elenium in Marine- and Freshwater Fish. J. Food Sci. 45:416-419. 

### Ma'cCrimn,H.R. I 

### C.D. Wren, and B.L.. Gots. 1983. 

### Mercury Uptake .by

### Lake Trout, Salvelinus namaycush; 

### Relative to Age,. Growth, and Diet 

### in Tadenac Lake with Comparative Data from 

### Other PreCambrian.Shield Lakes. Can.J. 

### Fish. Aquat. Sci. 40:114-120. 

### Macek, K.J. 8 S.R. 

### Petrocelli, and B.H. Sleight111. 1979. 

### Considerations in Assessing the Potential for, and Significance

, of, 

### Biomagnification of Chemical Residues in Aquatic Food' Chains. .,,' 

### In: Aquatic Toxicoloqy, L.L. Marking and 

### R.A. Kimerle, Eds. ASTM STP 667. 

### American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, PA. pp. 251-268. 

### [Note: The value used 

### for percent lipidsis from 

### Johnson (1980) .] 

### Mathers, R.A., 

### and P.H. Johansen. 1985. 

### The Effectsof 

### Feeding Ecology on' Mercury Accumulation in Walleye (Stizostedionvitreum) 

### and Pike (Esoxlucius) 

### in Lake Sincoe. Can. J. 2001. 63:2006- 2012. 

### Mayer, .F.L.. 8 

### Jr., P.M. Mehrle, Jr., 

### and W.P. 

### Dwyer.
. 1977.' 

### Toxaphene: Chronic Toxicity to Fathead Minnows and Channel Catfish. EPA-600/3-77-069. 

### National Technical Information Service, Springfield, VA. McKim, J.M., G.F. Olson, G.W. Holcombe, and E.P. 

### Hunt. ,1976. 

### Long-Term Effects of Methylmercuric Chloride on Three Generations of Brook Trout (Salvelinus

### fontinalis): 

### Toxicity, Accumulation, Distribution, and Elimination. J. Fish. Res. Board Can. 33:2726- 2739. 

### Miller, M.M., S.P. 

### Wasik, G.-L. Huang, W.-Y. 

### Shiu, andD. 

### Mackay. 1985. 

### Relationships between Octanol-Water Partition Coefficient and Aqueous Solubility. Environ.' Sci. Technol. 19:522-524. Moore, J.C. 1981. 

### Memorandum'toD.J. Hansen. April 7.
94

### Murphy, B.R., G.J. 

### Atchison, and A.W. 

### McIntosh. 1978. Cadmium and Zinc in Muscle of 

### Bluegill (Lepomis

### macrochirus) and Largemouth Bass (Microptens

### salrnonides) from an Industrially Contaminated 

### Lake. Environ. Pollut. 17:253-257. Nebeker, A.V., W.L. 

### Griffis, C.M. Wise, 

### E. Hopkins, and J.A. 

### Barbitta. 1989. Survival, Reproduction and Bioconcentration in Invertebrates and Fish

### Exposed to Hexachlorobenzene. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 

### 8:601-611. Oliver, B.G., 

### and 

### K.D. Nicol. 1982. Chlorobenzenes in Sediments, Water, and SelectedFish 

### from Lakes Superior, Huron, Erie, and Ontario. Environ. Sci. Technol. 16:532-536.

. 

### Oliver, B.G., 

### and A.J. 

### Niimi. 1983. Bioconcentration of Chlorobenzenes from Water by 

### Rainbow Trout:Correlations 

### with Partition Coefficients and Environmental Residues. Environ.

### Sci. Tech. 17:287-291. Oliver, B.G., 

### and A.J. 

### Niimi. 1984. Rainbow Trout Bioconcentration of Some Halogenated Aromatics from Water at Environmental Concentrations. .Environ. Toxicol.'Chem. 3:271- 277. ,.,Oliver, B.G., 

### and A.J. 

### Niimi. 1985. Bioconcentration Factors of 

### Some Halogenated Organics for Rainbow Trout: Limitations in Their Use 

### for Prediction of 

### Environmental Residues. Environ. Sci. Technol

# . 19 : 

### 842-849. Oliver, B.G., and A.J. 

### Niimi. 1988. Trophodynamic Analysis of 

### Polychlorinated Biphenyl Congeners and Other Chlorinated

. 

### Technol. 22:388-397. Olson, G.F.,. D.I. 

### Mount, V.M. 

### Snarski, and T.W. Thorslund. 1975. Mercury Residues in Fathead Minnows, Pimephalespromelas 

### Rafinesque, Chronically Exposed to Methylmercury in Water. Bull. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 14:129-134. .' 

### Hydrocarbons in theLake Ontario Ecosystem. Environ. 

### Sci.

Paasivirta, J., J. 

### Sarkka;M. Aho, X. Sum-Aho, J. 

### Tarhanen, and A. Roos. 

### 1981. Recent Trends of Biocides in Pikes of the Lake Pai

### janne. Chemosphere 10: 405-414. Paasivirta, J., J. 

### Sarkka, K. 

### Sum-Aho, T. 

### Humppi, T. 

### Kuokkanen, and M. 

### Marttinen. 1983. Food Chain Enrichment 

### of Organochlorine Compounds and Mercuryin-Cleanand Polluted Lakes 

### of Finland.. Chemosphere 12:239-252. Parks, J.W. 

### 1988. Selected Ecosystem 

### Relationships in the Mercury Contaminated Wabigoon-English River System, Canada, and Their Underlying Causes. 

### Water Air Soil 

### Pollut. 42:267-279.
95

### Parks, J.W., A. 

### Lutz, andJ.A. 

### Sutton. 1989. 

### Water Column Methylmercury in the WabigoonlEnglish River-Lake System: Factors Controlling Concentrations, Speciation, and Net Production. Can. J. 

### Fish. Aquat. Sci.46:2184-2202. 

### parrish, P.R., J.A. Couch, J. 

### Forrester,J.M. 

### Patrick, Jr., 

### and G.H. 

### Cook. 1974. 

### Dieldrin: Effects on Several Estuarine Organisms. 

### Southeastern Association 

### of Game and 

### Fish corranissioners, Twenty-Seventh Annual Conference. pp. 427-434.



### [Note: 

### The value used

### for percent lipids is from.Hansen

### (19801.1 parrish, P.R., E.E. Dyar, M.A. 

### Lindberg, C.M. 

### Shanika, andJ.M. 

### Enos. 1977. 

### Chronic Toxicity of'Methoxychlor, Malathion,and 

### Carbofuran 

### to Sheepshead Minnows

.(Cyprinodon variegatus)

# . EPA600/3-77-059. 

### National Technical Information Service, Springfield, VA. 

### [Note: The value used for percent lipids is from 

### Hansen (1980). 

### 3 Parrish, P.R., E.E. Dyar, J.M. Enos, 

### and W'.G:Wilson. 1978. 

### Chronic Toxicityof 

### Chlordane, Trifluralin, and Pentachlorophenol to Sheepshead Minnows (Cmrinodonvarieqatus). EPA-600/3-78-010. 

### National Technical Information Service, Springfield, VA. [Note: 

### The value used for percent lipids is from 

### Hansen (19801.1 

### Podowski, A.A.,, S.L. 

### Sclove, A. 

### Pilipowicz, andM.A.Q. 

### Khan. 1991. 

### Biotransformation and Disposition 

### of Hexachlorocyclopentadiene 

### in Fish. Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 20:488-496. 

### Rogers, J.H., 

### Jr., K.L. 

### Dickson, andM.J. 

### DeFoer. 1983.: 

### Bioconcentration of 

### Lindane and Naphthalene in 

### Bluegills (Lepomis macrochirus). 

### In: AquaticToxicolow and Hazard Assessment: Sixth Smosium,W.E. 

### Bishop, R.D. 

### Cardwell, andB.B. 

### Heidolph, Eds. ASTM STP 802. 

### American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, PA. pp. 300-311. 

### Sangalang, G.B., 

### and J.C. 

### Freeman. 1979. 

### Tissue Uptake of ' 

### Cadmium in Brook Trout During Chronic Sublethal Exposure. Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol.8:77-84. 

### Schimel, S.C., J.M. 

### Patrick, Jr., andJ. 

### Forester. 1976. 

### - Heptachlor: Uptake, Depuration, Retention, and Metabolism by 

### Spot, Leiostomus xanthurus. J. 

### Toxicol. Environ..Health2:169- 178. 

### [Note: 'The value used for percent lipids is from 

### Hansen (1980) 

### .I Schimel, S.C., J.M. 

### Patrick, Jr., and 

### J. Forester. 1977. 

### Uptake and Toxicity of Toxaphene 

### in.Several Estuarine .Organisms. Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol.5:353-367. 

### [Note: 

### The value used 

### for percent lipids is from 

### Hansen (1980).]

96.. . 

### Schrap, S.M., 

### and 

### A. Opperhuizen. 1990. 

### Relationship between Bioavailability and Hydrophobicity: Reduction of the Uptake of Organic Chemicalsby 

### Fish due to the Sorption on Particles. Environ. Toxicol. Chern. 9:715-724. 

### Shubat, P.J., and L.R. 

### Curtis. 1986. 

### Ration and Toxicant Preexposure Influence Dieldrin Accumulation by 

### Rainbow Trout (Salmogairdneri). 

### Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 5:69-77. 

### Skurdal, J., T. 

### Qvenild, and O.K. 

### Skogheim. 1985. 

### Mercury Accumulation in Five Species of Freshwater Fish 

### in Lake 

### Tyrifjorden, south-east Norway, with Emphasis 

### on their Suitability as Test Organisms. Environ. Biol. Fish. 14:233-237. 

### :Smith,A.D. I A. 

### Bharath, C. 

### Mallard, D. 

### Orr, L.S. McCarty, and Chlorinated Benzenes and Chlorinated Phenols in American Flagfish, Jordanella floridae (Goode and Bean). Chemosphere' ;G.W. Ozburn. 1990. 

### Bioconcentration Kinetics of,

### Some

20:379-386. 

### Smith,A.D., A. 

### Bharath, C. Mallard, D. Ors, K. Smith, J.

. 

### vukmanich, L.S. McCarty, and G.W. Ozburn.1991. The 

### Acute and

Chronic Toxicity,of Ten Chlorinated Organic Compounds to the American Flagfish,Jordanella floridae. 

### Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 20:94-102. 

### Snarski, V..M., and F.A. Puglisi. 1976. 

### Effects of 

### Aroclor 1254 

### on Brook Trout, Salvelinus fontinalis. EPA-600/3-76-112. 

### National Technical Information. Service, Springfield, VA. 

### Spehar, R.L., E.N. 

### Leonard, and D.L. 

### DeFoe. 1978. 

### Chronic Effects of Cadmi- and Zinc Mixtures on Flagfish (Jordanella 

### floridae). 

### Trans. 

### Am. Fish. SOC. 107:354-360. 

### Spehar, R.L.., J.T. Fiandt, R.L. 

### Anderson, andD.L. 

### DeFoe. 1980. 

### Coqarative Toxicity of Arseni.c Compounds and Their Accumulationin Invertebrates and Fish. 

### Arch.' Environ. Contam. Toxi.col. 9:53- 63. 

### Stephan, C.E.., D.I. Mount, D.J. Hansen, J.H. Gentile, G.A. 

### Chapman, and W.A. Brungs. 1985. 

### Guidelines for Deriving National Water Quality Criteria for the Protection of 

### Aquatic Organisms and Their Uses. PB85-227049. 

### National Technical Information Service, Springfield,' VA. :Swain, W.R.,M.D. 

### Mullin, and J.C. Filkins. 1986. 

### Long Range

Transport of 

### Toxic Organic Contaminants to the North 

### American Great Lakes. In: Problems 

### of 

### Aquatic Toxicolow,Biotestins and Water Qualitv 

### Manauement, R.C. Ryans, Ed. EPA-600/9-86-024. 

### National Technical Information Service,' Springfield, VA. pp. 107-121.
97

### Tsuda, 

### T., S. 

### Aoki, M. Xojima, and

### H. Harada. 1989. Bioconcentration and Excretion of 

### Diazinon, IBP, Malathion and Fenitrothion by Willow 

### Shiner. Toxicol. Environ. Chem.24:185- 190. U.S. EPA. 

### 1985- Ambient Water Quality Criteria for 

### Mercury 

# - 1984. 

### EPA 440/5-84-026. 

### National Technical Information Service,

’ 

### Springfield, VA. U.S. 

### EPA. 1991a. 

### Proposed Sediment Quality Criteria

### for 

### the Protection 

### of Benthic Organisms: Acenaphthene. Office

### of Water, Health and 

### Ecological Criteria Division, Washington, X. 20460. 

### Page 2-4. U.S. 

### EPA. 1991b. Proposed Sediment Quality Criteria for 

### the Protection of 

### Benthic Organisms: Dieldrin. Officeof Water, 

### Health and ,Ecological Criteria Division, Washington, X. 20460. 

### Page 2-4. U.S. 

### EPA. 1991~. 

### Proposed Sediment Quality Criteria for 

### the Protection of 

### Benthic Organisms: Endrin. Office 

### of Water, Health 

### and Ecological Criteria Division, Washington, 

## DC. 20460. 

### Page 2-4. U.S. 

### EPA. 1991d. Proposed Sediment Quality Criteria for the Protection of 

### Benthic Organisms: Fluoranthene. Office of Water, 

### Health and Ecological Criteria Division, Washington, 

## DC. 20460. 

### Page 2-4. U.S. 

### EPA. 1991e. Proposed Sediment Quality Criteria for 

### the ‘ 

### Protection of 

### Benthic Organisms: Phenanthrene. Office of 

### Water, Health and Ecological Criteria Division, Washington, 

### DC. 20460. 

### Page 2-4. 

### Van Hoogen, G., 

### and A. 

### Opperhuizen. 1988. 

### Toxicokineticsof 

### Chlorobenzenes in Fish. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 7:213-219. 

### Veith, G.D., N.M. 

### Austin, and R.T. Morris. 

### 1979a. A 

### Rapid Method for Estimating Log P 

### for Organic Chemicals. Water Res. 13:43-47. 

### Veith, 

### G.D., D.L. DeFoe, andB.V. 

### Bergstedt. 1979b.

.

### Measuring and Estimating the Bioconcentration Factor of 

### Chemicals in Fish. ”’ J. Fish. Res. 

### Board Can. 36:1040-1048. 

### Wren, C.D. 

### , J.R. 

### MacCrimon, and B.R. 

### Loescher. 1983. 

### Examination of 

### Bioaccumulation and Biomagnification of 

### Metals in a Precambrian Shield Lake. Water-AirSoil 

### Pollut. 19:277-291. 

## - Zitko,V., W.V. 

### Carson, and‘W.G. Carson. 1975. 

### Thallium: Occurrence in the Environment and Toxicity to 

### Fish. Bull. Environ. Contam.Toxicol. .13:23-30. 

### 98

## Reproduced

# by

# NTlS National Technical Information

### Service US.

### Department

### ofCommerce Springfield, 

### VA 22

### I6 

### 7


### Thisreportwas

### printed specifically foryour orderfrom

## ourcollectionofmore

## than2

## million technicalreports.

For economy and efficiency,NTlSdoesnotmaintainstockofitsvast collectionoftechnical reports., Rather, mostdocumentsareprinted

### for each order. Your copy is the bestpossiblereproductionavailablefrom our master archive. Ifyouhave any questions concerningthiidocument or any orderyouplacedwithMIS,please call our Customer Services Departmentat(703)487-4660. AlwaysthinkofNTISwhenyouwant

Accesstothetechnical, scientific, and engineering results generated bytheongoing multibillion dollar R&Dprogramof the 

### U.S. Government. R&DresultsfromJapan, WestGermany, Great Britain, and some 20 other countries,most of itreportedinEnglish. NTlSalso operatestwocentersthatcan provide you with valuable information: ..The Federal ComputerProd& Center

# -offers softwareand datafiles produced by Federal agencies.

The Centerforthe Utilizationof Federal Technology 

# -givesyou accesstothe bestof Federal technologies and laboratoryresources. For more informationaboutNTIS,sendfor our FREE W/S products andServices Catalqgwhich describes how youcan accessthisU.S. and foreign Government technology. Call(703)487-4650 orsendthis sheettoNTIS, US.DepartmentofCommerce, Springfield,VA22161. Askforcatalog, PR-827. Name

Telephone ~ ~

...-E-. 

### .&=* :::;:% 

# - YourSource

### to

### U.S.

### andForeign Government

...zss :;&@ -.*., .‘;I-.% 

### Research

### andTechnology.