A Multi-Metric Assessment of Environmental Contaminant 

Exposure and Effects in an Urbanized Reach of the 

Charles River near Watertown, Massachusetts

Open-File Report 2012–1195

U.S. Department of the Interior

U.S. Geological Survey
ii

Cover photo credits Steven Smith and Patrick Anderson, U.S. Geological Survey. 
A Multi-Metric Assessment of Environmental Contaminant 

Exposure and Effects in an Urbanized Reach of the 

Charles River near Watertown, Massachusetts 

By, Stephen B. Smith, Patrick J. Anderson, Paul C. Baumann, Lawrence R. Deweese, Steven L. Goodbred, 

James J. Coyle, David R. Smith

Open-File Report 2012–1195

U.S. Department of the Interior

U.S. Geological Survey
U.S. Department of the Interior

KEN SALAZAR, Secretary

U.S. Geological Survey

Marcia K. McNutt, Director

U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia 2012 

For product and ordering information:

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

Telephone: 1-888-ASK-USGS

For more information on the USGS—the Federal source for science about the Earth,

its natural and living resources, natural hazards, and the environment:

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

Telepone: 1-888-ASK-USGS

Suggested citation: Smith, S.B., Anderson, P.J., Baumann, P.C., Deweese, L.R., Goodbred, 

S.L., Coyle, J.J ., and Smith, D.R., 2012, A multi-metric assessment of environmental contaminant 

exposure and effects in an urbanized reach of the Charles River near Watertown, Massachusetts: 

U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2012–1195, 116 p.

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

endorsement by the U.S. Government.

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

owners to reproduce any copyrighted material contained within this report.
iii

Contents

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

Introduction and Background......................................................................................................................................... 2

Goals and Objectives..................................................................................................................................................... 3

Study Area Description.................................................................................................................................................. 3

NAWQA & BEST Objectives and Methods .................................................................................................................... 3

Supplemental Methods and Measurements .................................................................................................................. 6

Field Methods and Laboratory Analyses.......................................................................................................................13

Fish Collection ..........................................................................................................................................................13

On-Site Fish Processing ...........................................................................................................................................13

Determining Fish Age ...............................................................................................................................................14

Sediment and Water Chemistry ................................................................................................................................14

Semi-Permeable Membrane Device (SPMD) and Polar Organic Contaminant Integrated Sampler (POCIS) .......14

Whole-Sediment Residue Chemistry.....................................................................................................................15

Inorganic Chemistry Analysis of Sediments ..........................................................................................................15

Organic Chemistry Analysis of Sediments.............................................................................................................15

Gas Chromatographic Analysis of PCBs...............................................................................................................16

Gas Chromatographic Analysis of OCPs and PBDEs ...........................................................................................16

Gas chromatographic/Mass Spectrometric Analysis (GC/MS) of PAHs ................................................................17

Pore Water Chemistry ...........................................................................................................................................18

Fish Residue Chemistry............................................................................................................................................18

Fish Tissue Homogenization and Compositing .....................................................................................................18

Fish Tissue Inorganic Contaminant Analyses........................................................................................................18

Fish Tissue Organic Contaminant Analyses (PCBs, OCPs, and Toxaphene).......................................................18

Muscle Plug Hg Chemistry ....................................................................................................................................19

Bile Metabolites.....................................................................................................................................................19

Plasma Chemistry .................................................................................................................................................19

Toxicity Tests Associated with Sediment and Extracts from SPMD and POCIS Samplers.......................................20

Whole-Sediment Chronic Toxicity .........................................................................................................................20

Microtox® Bioassay ...............................................................................................................................................21

Fish Health Biomarkers.............................................................................................................................................21

Quantitative Organism-Level Indicators ................................................................................................................21

Sex Steroid Hormones: 17 B Estradiol and 11 Ketotestosterone ..........................................................................21

Yeast Assay ..........................................................................................................................................................22

Vitellogenin ............................................................................................................................................................22

Histological Determination of Sexual Maturation...................................................................................................23

Fecundity...............................................................................................................................................................24

Sperm Quality........................................................................................................................................................24

Histopathology.......................................................................................................................................................24

Bacteria and Viruses Collected from Fish..............................................................................................................25

Comet Assay.........................................................................................................................................................25

Indicators of Chemical Exposure...........................................................................................................................25

Fish Immune System Responses..........................................................................................................................27

Fish and Invertebrate Communities ..........................................................................................................................27

Invertebrates Communities....................................................................................................................................27

Fish Communities..................................................................................................................................................28

Results..........................................................................................................................................................................28
iv

Field Fish Health Assessment...................................................................................................................................28

Sediment and Water Chemistry ................................................................................................................................28

Fish Residue Chemistry............................................................................................................................................28

Toxicity of Sediments and Extracts from SPMD and POCIS Samplers.....................................................................29

Fish Health Biomarkers and Indicators of Chemical Exposure .................................................................................29

Fish and Invertebrate Communities ..........................................................................................................................29

Acknowledgments ......................................................................................................................................................109

References Cited........................................................................................................................................................109

Figures

1. The sampling reach for this study is located in upper portions of the lower Charles River Watershed near 

Watertown, Mass................................................................................................................................................... 4

2. Semi-permeable membrane devices (SPMD) and polar organic contaminant integrated samplers (POCIS) 

were placed at Sites A and B................................................................................................................................. 6

Tables

1. Drainages and dominant land use of the lower Charles River, Mass., from the Watertown Dam to the 

Brighton drainage outlet ........................................................................................................................................ 5

2. Methods used by the Biomonitoring of Environmental Status and Trends (BEST) and National Water-Quality

Assessment (NAWQA) programs used to assess contaminant exposure and effects in fish residing in the 

Charles River, Mass .............................................................................................................................................. 7

3. Charles River sampling locations and retrieval dates for data collected by semi-permeable membrane 

devices (SPMD) and polar organic contaminant integrated samplers (POCIS) and collection of bed 

sediments and associated pore water ................................................................................................................... 9

4. Supplementary methods and measurements used to assess ecological condition, invertebrate and fish 

communities, and contaminant exposure and effects in fish residing in the Charles River, Mass ....................... 10

5. Gender, body weight, length, and age of fish collected from the Charles River sorted by species and 

gender ................................................................................................................................................................. 30

6. Location and number of fish with lesions, anomalies, and parasites observed during the field health 

assessment in common carp, largemouth bass, and white suckers from the Charles River (August, 2005)....... 33

7. Types of lesions and anomalies and their frequency of detection in common carp, largemouth bass, and 

white suckers from the Charles River (August, 2005).......................................................................................... 34

8. Organosomatic indices, condition factor, and health assessment index (HAI) for common carp, largemouth 

bass, and white suckers collected from the Charles River (August, 2005).......................................................... 35

9. Organochlorine pesticide (OCP) and total polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB) analyte concentrations from 

semi-permeable membrane devices (SPMD) collected from the Charles River after 33 days of deployment 

(August, 2005)..................................................................................................................................................... 39

10. Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon (PAH) analyte concentrations from semi-permeable membrane devices 

(SPMDs) collected from the Charles River after 33 days of deployment (August, 2005)..................................... 41

11. Pesticide and hormone concentrations from polar organic chemical integrative samplers (POCIS) collected 

from the Charles River after 33 days of deployment (August, 2005). .................................................................. 43

12. Analytes associated with total polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), organochlorine pesticides (OCPs), and 

polybrominated diphenyl ether (PBDE) concentrations (ng/g dry weight) from three sediment samples 

collected from the Charles River (August, 2005)................................................................................................. 45

13. Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbon (PAH) analyte concentrations (ng/g dry weight) from three sediment 

samples collected from the Charles River (August, 2005)................................................................................... 46
v

14. Measured concentrations (ng/mL) of elements in filtered sediment pore water from the Charles River 

(August, 2005)..................................................................................................................................................... 47

15. Measured concentrations (μg/g dry weight) of total recoverable elements in Charles River sediments 

collected August, 2005 ........................................................................................................................................ 49

16. Concentration (ng/g wet weight) of total polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) and organochlorine pesticides 

(OCPs) and percent lipids in composite samples of whole fish collected from the Charles River 

(August, 2005)..................................................................................................................................................... 51

17. Concentrations of inorganic contaminants (μg/g dry weight) in composite samples of whole fish 

collected from the Charles River (August, 2005)................................................................................................. 52

18. Mercury concentrations (μg/g dry weight) as determined from muscle tissue (plug) collection from 

largemouth bass collected from the Charles River (August, 2005)...................................................................... 54

19. Concentration (ng/g wet weight) of total polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) and organochlorine pesticides 

(OCPs) and percent lipids in individual whole white suckers (WS) collected from the Charles River 

(August, 2005)..................................................................................................................................................... 55

20. Bile concentrations (μg/mL) of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon (PAH) metabolites from common carp, 

largemouth bass, and white suckers collected from the Charles River (August, 2005) ....................................... 59

21. Concentrations of contaminants (ng/g wet weight) in plasma from white suckers (WS), common carp 

(CC), and largemouth bass (LMB) collected from the Charles River (August, 2005)........................................... 62

22. Concentrations (ng/g wet weight) of organochlorines, polybrominated diphenyl ether (PBDE), and 

polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) in plasma from white suckers (WS), common carp (CC), and largemouth 

bass (LMB) collected from the Charles River (August 2005)............................................................................... 72

23. Mean survival and growth of the amphipod Hyalella azteca in 28-day exposures and of the midge 

Chironomus dilutus in 10-day exposures to sediment samples from the Charles River and to a control 

sediment.............................................................................................................................................................. 84

24. Potential toxicity of extracts from semi-permeable membrane devices (SPMD) and from polar organic 

contaminant integrated samplers (POCIS) using the Microtox® bioassay and the yeast estrogen screen 

(YES) bioassay.................................................................................................................................................... 85

25. Gender, stage, sex steroid hormones, vitellogenin, and thyroid hormones in blood plasma of common carp 

(CC), largemouth bass (LMB), and white suckers (WS) collected from the Charles River (August, 2005).......... 86

26. Fecundity (estimated total number of oocytes per gonad) of female common carp collected from the 

Charles River (August, 2005) ............................................................................................................................. 90

27. Sperm-quality metrics estimated for male common carp collected from the Charles River (August, 2005)......... 91

28. Types of lesions and anomalies observed during histological examination and the percentage of common 

carp, largemouth bass, and white suckers affected............................................................................................. 92

29. Density and mean surface size of melanomacrophage centers (MMC)1 located in the liver, spleen, 

and renal kidney from common carp, largemouth bass, and white suckers collected from the Charles River

(August, 2005). ................................................................................................................................................... 93

30. Comet assay measurements taken on blood and liver cells collected from common carp (CC) and white 

suckers (WS) from the Charles River (August, 2005).......................................................................................... 95

31. H4IIE bioassay-derived 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin equivalents (TCDD-EQ), standard deviation, 

limit of detection (LOD), and limit of quantitation (LOQ) of composite fish samples collected from the Charles 

River (August, 2005)............................................................................................................................................ 97

32. Mean hepatic ethoxyresorufin-o-deethylase (EROD) activity rate determined from liver samples collected 

from common carp (CC) and largemouth bass (LMB) in the Charles River (August, 2005). (pmols/min/mg, 

picomole per minute per milligram; SD, standard deviation; SE, standard error; CV, coefficient of variation; 

LOD, limit of detection; LOQ, limit of quantitation)............................................................................................... 98
vi

33. Cytochrome P4501A enzyme activity measured as ethoxyresorufin-o-deethylase (EROD) activity in gill 

filament tips from white suckers (WS), common carp (CC), and largemouth bass (LMB) collected from the 

Charles River (August, 2005) .............................................................................................................................. 99

34. Concentration of vitamin C (ascorbic acid, AA) and vitamin E (α–tocopherol) as measured in liver tissue 

from from common carp and white suckers collected from the Charles River (August, 2005) .......................... 100

35. Abundance of invertebrates collected from depositional areas from the Charles River on August 25, 2005 ..... 102

36. Abundance of invertebrates collected from riffles as part of the National Water-Quality Assessment 

(NAWQA) protocol from the Charles River during 2002 and 2003 (NAWQA Station 01104615........................ 104

37. Abundance of fish collected as part of the National Water-Quality Assessment (NAWQA) protocol from 

the Charles River during 2002 and 2003 (NAWQA Station #01095220) ........................................................... 108
vii

Conversion Factors 

Inch/Pound to SI

Multiply By To obtain

Length

inch (in.) 2.54 centimeter (cm)

inch (in.) 25.4 millimeter (mm)

foot (ft) 0.3048 meter (m)

mile (mi) 1.609 kilometer (km)

mile, nautical (nmi) 1.852 kilometer (km)

yard (yd) 0.9144 meter (m)

Area

acre 4,047 square meter (m2)

acre 0.4047 hectare (ha)

acre 0.4047 square hectometer (hm2) 

acre 0.004047 square kilometer (km2)

square foot (ft2) 929.0 square centimeter (cm2)

square foot (ft2) 0.09290 square meter (m2)

square inch (in2) 6.452 square centimeter (cm2)

section (640 acres or 1 square mile) 259.0 square hectometer (hm2) 

square mile (mi2) 259.0 hectare (ha)

square mile (mi2) 2.590 square kilometer (km2) 

Volume

barrel (bbl), (petroleum, 

1 barrel=42 gal)

0.1590 cubic meter (m3) 

ounce, fluid (fl. oz) 0.02957 liter (L) 

pint (pt) 0.4732 liter (L) 

quart (qt) 0.9464 liter (L)

gallon (gal) 3.785 liter (L) 

gallon (gal) 0.003785 cubic meter (m3) 

gallon (gal) 3.785 cubic decimeter (dm3) 

million gallons (Mgal) 3,785 cubic meter (m3)

cubic inch (in3) 16.39 cubic centimeter (cm3) 

cubic inch (in3) 0.01639 cubic decimeter (dm3) 

cubic inch (in3) 0.01639 liter (L)

cubic foot (ft3) 28.32 cubic decimeter (dm3) 

cubic foot (ft3) 0.02832 cubic meter (m3) 

cubic yard (yd3) 0.7646 cubic meter (m3) 
viii

cubic mile (mi3) 4.168 cubic kilometer (km3) 

acre-foot (acre-ft) 1,233 cubic meter (m3)

acre-foot (acre-ft) 0.001233 cubic hectometer (hm3) 

Mass

ounce, avoirdupois (oz) 28.35 gram (g) 

pound, avoirdupois (lb) 0.4536 kilogram (kg) 

ton, short (2,000 lb) 0.9072 megagram (Mg) 

ton, long (2,240 lb) 1.016 megagram (Mg) 

ton per day (ton/d) 0.9072 metric ton per day

ton per day (ton/d) 0.9072 megagram per day (Mg/d)

ton per day per square mile 

[(ton/d)/mi2]

0.3503 megagram per day per square

kilometer [(Mg/d)/km2]

ton per year (ton/yr) 0.9072 megagram per year (Mg/yr)

ton per year (ton/yr) 0.9072 metric ton per year

Temperature in degrees Celsius (°C) may be converted to degrees Fahrenheit (°F) as follows:

°F=(1.8×°C)+32 

Specific conductance is given in microsiemens per centimeter at 25 degrees Celsius (μS/cm at 25°C).

Concentrations of chemical constituents in water are given either in milligrams per liter (mg/L) or micrograms per liter (μg/L).
ix

Acronyms Used in This Document 

AHTN Tonalide, a polycyclic musk used in fragrances (6-Acetyl-1,1,2,4,4,7-Hexamethyltetraline, and related 

isomers)

AMTL Army Materials Technology Laboratory

ASE Accelerated solvent extractor

AVS Acid volatile sulfide

BDE Brominated diphenyl ether 

BEST Biomonitoring of Environmental Status and Trends project 

BHIA Brain heart infusion agar

BKD Bacterial kidney disease

BRD Biological Resources Discipline (of the U.S. Geological Survey) 

CBP Contaminant Biology Program 

CC Common carp 

CERC Columbia Environmental Research Center

CF Condition factor

CPRG Chlorophenol red-β-D-galactopyranoside

DAD Diode array detector (with high-performance liquid chromatography; see HPLC below)

DDE Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethylene

DMA Direct mercury analysis

DMSO Dimethylsulfoxide

EC Effect concentration

ECD Electron-capture detection 

ECNICI Electron-capture negative ion chemical ionization 

ELISA Enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay

EPA Environmental Protection Agency

EQ Equivalents

EROD Ethoxyresorufin-O-deethylase

FWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

GC Gas chromatograph

GC–MSD Gas chromatography with mass selective detector

GS/MS Gas chromatography/mass spectroscopy

GSI Gonadosomatic index

HAI Health assessment index

HC HEPES-Cortland buffer 

HHCB Galoxolide, a polycyclic musk used in fragrances (1,3,4,6,7,8-hexahydro-4,6,6,7,8,8-

hexamethylcyclopenta-γ-2-benzopyran and related isomers) 

HPLC High-performance liquid chromatograph with diode array detector 

HPSEC High-pressure size-exclusion chromatography

HSI Hepatosomatic index

ICC Immunocytochemistry

IIS Instrumental internal standards

IPA Isopropanol

KT Ketotestosterone

LMB Largemouth bass

LOD Limit of detection

LOI Loss on ignition

LOQ Limit of quantitation
x

MDL Method detection limit

MMC Melano-macrophage centers

MQL Method quantitation limit

NAWQA National Water-Quality Assessment

NCI Negative charge ionization

NWQL National Water Quality Laboratory

OCP Organochlorine pesticide

PAH Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons

PBDE Polybrominated diphenyl ether

PCB Polychlorinated biphenyl

PHH Planar halogenated hydrocarbons

POCIS Polar organic contaminant integrated sampler

PSI Pounds per square inch

RIA Radioimmunoassay

SEM Simultaneously extractable metals

SPMD Semi-permeable membrane device

SSI Splenosomatic index

TBST Tris-buffered saline (containing 0.5 percent Tween)

TCDD-EQ 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin equivalents

TU Toxic units 

USGS U.S. Geological Survey 

WRD Water Resources Discipline 

WS White sucker

YES Yeast estrogen screen
1 

A Multi-Metric Assessment of Environmental 

Contaminant Exposure and Effects in an Urbanized 

Reach of the Charles River near Watertown, 

Massachusetts

By Stephen B. Smith, Patrick J. Anderson, Paul C. Baumann, Lawrence R. Deweese, Steven L. Goodbred, 

James J. Coyle, David R. Smith1

Abstract 

The Charles River Project provided an opportunity to simultaneously deploy a 

combination of biomonitoring techniques routinely used by the U.S. Geological Survey National 

Water-Quality Assessment Program, the Biomonitoring of Environmental Status and Trends 

Project, and the Contaminant Biology Program at an urban site suspected to be contaminated 

with polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons. In addition to these standardized methods, additional 

techniques were used to further elucidate contaminant exposure and potential impacts of 

exposure on biota. The purpose of the study was to generate a comprehensive, multi-metric data 

set to support assessment of contaminant exposure and effects at the site. Furthermore, the data

set could be assessed to determine the relative performance of the standardized method suites 

typically used by the National Water-Quality Assessment Program and the Biomonitoring of 

Environmental Status and Trends Project, as well as the additional biomonitoring methods used 

in the study to demonstrate ecological effects of contaminant exposure. The Contaminant Effects 

Workgroup, an advisory committee of the U.S. Geological Survey/Contaminant Biology 

Program, identified polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons as the contaminant class of greatest 

concern in urban streams of all sizes. The reach of the Charles River near Watertown, 

Massachusetts, was selected as the site for this study based on the suspected presence of 

polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon contamination and the presence of common carp (Cyprinus 

carpio), largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides), and white sucker (Catostomus commersoni). 

All of these fish have extensive contaminant-exposure profiles related to polycyclic aromatic 

hydrocarbons and other environmental contaminants. This project represented a collaboration of 

universities, Department of the Interior bureaus including former components of the USGS 

 

1

Stephen B. Smith, U.S. Geological Survey, Biological Resources Dicipline, Reston, Va. (retired)

Patrick J. Anderson,U.S. Geological Survey, Fort Collins Science Center, Fort Collins, Colo.

Paul C. Baumann, U.S. Geological Survey, Leetown Science Center, Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio

(retired)

Lawrence R. DeWeese, U.S. Geological Survey, Biological Resources Discipline, Denver, Colo. (retired)

Steven L. Goodbred, U.S. Geological Survey, Biologcal Resources Discipline, Sacramento, Calif. (retired)

James J. Coyle, U.S. Geological Survey, Fort Collins Science Center, Fort Collins, Colo. (retired)

David R. Smith, U.S. Geolocal Survey, Leetown Science Center, Leetown, W. Va. 
2 

(Biological Resources Discipline and Water Resources Discipline Science Centers, the 

Contaminant Biology Program, and the Status and Trends of Biological Resources Program), and 

the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Samples for analyzing water chemistry, sediment chemistry 

and toxicity, fish community structure, tissue chemistry, and fish (20 carp, 20 bass, and 40 white 

sucker) and invertebrate pathology were collected in late August, 2005. This report provides 

results from the analyses of fish pathology, biomarkers of exposure and effects (reproductive, 

carcinogenic, genotoxic, and immunologic), sediment chemistry, toxicity, and fish and 

invertebrate community structure. 

Introduction and Background 

Anthropogenic sources of pollution are recognized as a global problem that contributes to the 

degradation of ecosystem quality, loss of numerous plant and animal species, and adverse human 

health effects. Freshwater ecosystems are the ultimate sink for many anthropogenic chemicals that 

potentially affect aquatic communities and the terrestrial species that depend on them (Gross and 

others, 2003; Hoffman and others, 2003; Schmitt, Zajicek and others, 1999). There are multiple 

sources of these environmental contaminants with both point and non-point inputs from agriculture, 

industry, and residences. Increasingly, emerging contaminants (for example, pharmaceuticals 

including antibiotics, psychotropic medications, human reproductive modulators, pesticides, and 

personal care products) are suspected of contributing to adverse ecological effects. Changing 

demographics of the U.S. population have resulted in rapid urbanization of many areas with water 

resources being used for multiple purposes. For example, treated wastewater increasingly represents a 

significant source of riparian recharge water used for recreation, consumption, and maintaining viable 

ecosystems (Alvarez and others, 2006). 

This study provided an opportunity to simultaneously collect data using two method suites 

used by two operational aquatic monitoring and assessment programs of the U.S. Geological Survey 

(USGS) along with additional selected measurements of exposure and effect. The deployment of these 

techniques was conducted at an urban site presumably impacted by polyaromatic hydrocarbons 

(PAHs). The two method suites applied at the site were derived from the USGS National WaterQuality Assessment (NAWQA) Program and the Biomonitoring of Environmental Status and Trends 

(BEST) Project of the former Biological Resources Discipline (BRD). In addition to these method 

suites, a set of additional assessment techniques was applied to document contaminant exposure or 

effects at the site. The additional techniques were selected based on best professional judgment 

relative to the anticipated contaminant profile of the selected site. Aside from the technical value of 

this comparative study, it also provided comparative data which could be used to address USGS 

programmatic recommendations to assess the compatibility of the method suites and minimize 

redundancy and maximize integration between two ongoing aquatic monitoring and assessment efforts 

within the agency. 

The upper reach of the lower Charles River near Watertown, Mass., was selected as the study 

site based on documentation of past PAH contamination and the presence of common carp (Cyprinus 

carpio), largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides), and white sucker (Catostomus commersoni), which 

have extensive contaminant exposure profiles related to PAHs and other contaminants. This reach is 

also considered “impaired” by state regulators because of contaminants contributed upstream by 18 

combined sewer overflows serving heavily urbanized areas. Acute sediment toxicity and 

bioaccumulation of organic contaminants in fish from the Lower Charles River also have been 

reported (Friorentino and others, 2000). 
3 

This project (hereafter the Charles River Project) addressed recommendations of an internal 

USGS review, which strongly encouraged additional interaction between USGS programs to monitor 

fish health (Contaminant Biology Program, 2002). 

Goals and Objectives

River ecosystems are influenced by multiple chemical (that is, contaminants), physical (that is,

habitat alteration), and biological (that is, exotic species) stressors. Understanding the relative 

importance of these various stressors is fundamental for effective resource management.

Unfortunately, inferences about the relative importance of these stressors often are complicated due to 

spatial and temporal data gaps. Existing data gaps can be alleviated by the application of appropriate 

ecotoxicological indicators that demonstrate contaminant effects. 

The objectives of the Charles River Project included (1) deploying the operational BEST and 

NAWQA trends site bioassessment methods plus additional techniques capable of documenting PAH 

exposure and effects; (2) assessing toxicological, chemical, biological, and physical measurements in 

relation to sources and exposure pathways; and (3) generating an expanded data set to document 

exposure and effects at the site. 

Study Area Description

The Charles River is a small river fed by numerous smaller brooks and streams and by several 

major aquifers. The Charles River meanders for 129 kilometers (km) (starting at Echo Lake in 

Hopkinton, Mass.) to the Boston Harbor (fig. 1). It is often considered one of the most densely 

populated river basins in New England (Weiskel and others, 2005). Most of the Charles River 

watershed includes high-density residential and commercial developments (table 1). 

Sampling locations were based on their proximity to known pollutant sources and urban 

development. Near the upper end of the sampling reach and just downstream of the Watertown dam is 

Laundry Brook, which drains areas of high- and medium-density housing with high percentages of 

impervious surfaces (roads, parking lots, and buildings). The Army Materials Technology Laboratory 

(AMTL) Superfund site is located near the lower end of the sampling reach (near site 3 in fig. 2).

Established in 1816, the original 47-acre AMTL facility was used for the storage, cleaning, repair, and 

issuance of small arms. From the mid-1800s until after World War II, the AMTL continued to expand, 

ultimately encompassing 131 acres and 53 buildings and structures and employing over 10,000 

workers. Arms Manufacturing continued until an operational phase-down was initiated in 1967. A 

nuclear research reactor was constructed at the site to investigate molecular and atomic structure and 

operated until it was decommissioned in 1992 and removed in 1994. The AMTL was officially closed 

in 1995. Contaminants of concern on-site included polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), PAHs, metals, 

semi-volatiles and volatile organics, and pesticides (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2001).

NAWQA & BEST Objectives and Methods

The objective for the Status and Trends component of the NAWQA program is to provide an 

assessment of the ecological condition of the sampled reach. Existing protocols are used to sample 

biological communities and describe basic reach- and transect-level habitat (Moulton and others, 2002; 

Fitzpatrick and others, 1998). 

The objective of the BEST Program large river fish-health assessments was to document the 

presence of contaminants in fish tissue and to measure contaminant-related biological effects in fish 

inhabiting selected reaches. This information can identify reaches where contaminant threats to 
4 

Figure 1. The sampling reach for this study is located in upper portions of the lower Charles River 

Watershed near Watertown, Mass. 
5 

Table 1. Drainages and dominant land use of the lower Charles River, Mass., from the Watertown Dam to the Brighton drainage outlet. Table 

adapted from Weiskel and others (2005).

Drainage Drainage area (acres) Dominant land uses 

Laundry Brook 3,038 High-density, single-family residential; medium-density, singlefamily residential; forested

Watertown West local drainage 153 High-density, single-family residential; urban open space; 

commercial

Watertown Square drainage 560 High-density, single-family residential; urban open space

Newton West local drainage 71 High-density, single-family residential; commercial

Hyde Brook 439 High-density, single-family residential; urban open space

Newton East local drainage 58 High-density, single-family residential; transportation; spectator or 

participant recreation

Watertown Central local drainage 205 High-density, single-family residential; industrial

Watertown East local drainage 97 Transportation; spectator or participant recreation

Brighton local drainage 190 High-density, single-family residential; transportation; commercial
6 

Figure 2. Semi-permeable membrane devices (SPMD) and polar organic contaminant integrated 

samplers (POCIS) were placed at Sites A and B. Sediments, pore water, and invertebrates were obtained 

at sampling sites 1, 2, and 3. Fish were sampled along the entire reach (Charles River, Watertown, Mass.). 

biological resources warrant further investigation. The information can also provide evidence regarding 

the effectiveness of guidelines set for the protection of species and their habitats. Results from the large

river fish health assessments are integrated with information from other sources to better understand 

potential associations between contaminant exposures and impacts to the nation’s biological resources 

and habitat quality (National Research Council, 1995, National Research Council, 2002). The methods 

used in the fish health assessments include 20 individuals with at least ten individuals of each sex from 

both a benthic and a piscivorous species, age, histopathology, somatic indices, biomarkers of 

reproductive effects (for example, plasma hormones), biomarkers of biochemical response to 

contaminant exposure (for example, ethoxyresorufin O-deethylase [EROD] activity, H4IIE rat hepatoma 

assay), and composite fish residue analysis for persistent and bio-accumulative organic and inorganic 

contaminants (Schmitt, Blazer and others, 1999; Schmitt and Dethloff, 2000). Established NAWQA and 

BEST methods used in this study are provided in table 2. 

Supplemental Methods and Measurements

In addition to the established NAWQA and BEST methods, additional supplemental methods 

were used in the Charles River study to augment the assessment of ecological conditions in the sampled 

reach. Water chemistry was supplemented with semi-permeable membrane devices (SPMD) and polar 

organic contaminant integrated samplers (POCIS) and the collection and analyses of bed sediments and 

associated pore water are provided in table 3. Supplementary methods and measurements used to assess 

ecological condition, invertebrate and fish communities, and contaminant exposure and effects in fish 

that are not currently used by NAWQA or BEST are provided in table 4.
7 

Table 2. Methods used by the Biomonitoring of Environmental Status and Trends (BEST) and National Water-Quality Assessment (NAWQA) 

programs used to assess contaminant exposure and effects in fish residing in the Charles River, Mass. 

Method Description Metric Reference

BEST Program 

Gonadal stage Evaluation of gonad development Histological examination of testis or 

ovary

Goodbred and others (1997), 

Schmitt, Blazer and others (1999)

Fish tissue chemical residue 

analyses

Measurements of a suite of inorganic 

and organic chemicals in fish tissue

Concentrations of OCPs, total PCBs, 

elements and priority metals in whole 

body composites based on species and 

gender

Orazio and others (2006), May and 

others (2006)

EROD activity Enzyme induction by planar 

hydrocarbons

PCBs; chlorinated dioxins and furans; 

PAHs as measured from liver tissue

Pohl and Fouts (1980); Kennedy 

and Jones (1994); Whyte and 

others (2000)

Necropsy-based fish health 

assessment

Assessment of anomalies as they 

relate to overall health

Visual assessment of external and 

internal anomalies on skin, fins, gills, 

peritoneal cavity, and select organs and 

overall condition factor

Adams and others (1993); Adams 

(1990); Smith, Donahue and others 

(2002)

Somatic indices Indication of overall health and 

growth

SSI, HSI, GSI Grady and others (1992)

Histopathology Indication of chemical exposure Microscopic examination for the 

presence of lesions and anomalies

Hinton and others (1992); Hinton 

(1993); Goodbred and others 

(1997)

Macrophage aggregate analyses Cellular immune response to multiple 

contaminants including PAHs and 

metals

Density and mean surface size of 

melanomacrophage cell centers located 

in the liver, spleen, and renal kidney 

Blazer and others (1994, 1997)

Vitellogenin A protein precursor of egg yolk, 

normally synthesized in the liver of 

female fish. Elevation in male fish 

indicates exposure to endocrinemodulating substances

Concentration of vitellogenin in plasma 

(male and female)

Denslow and others (1999)
8 

Table 2. Methods used by the Biomonitoring of Environmental Status and Trends (BEST) and National Water-Quality Assessment (NAWQA) 

programs used to assess contaminant exposure and effects in fish residing in the Charles River, Mass.—Continued

Method Description Metric Reference

NAWQA Program 

Water chemistry

Fish communities

Invertebrate communities

Measurement of a suite of water 

quality parameters and select 

nutrients and organic and inorganic 

chemicals

Measurement of fish communities 

associated with riffle habitats

Measurement of invertebrate species 

collected in riffle areas of defined 

reaches

Analyte dependent

Abundance and number of species 

collected associated with riffle 

habitats

Abundance and number of species 

collected

Shelton (1994)

Moulton and others (2002)

Moulton and others (2002), Cuffney 

and others (1993)

(EROD, ethoxyresorufin O-deethylase; GSI, mass of gonad; HSI, mass of liver; OCP, organochlorine pesticides; PCB, polychlorinated biphenyls; PAH, 

polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons; SSI, mass of spleen)
9 

Table 3. Charles River sampling locations and retrieval dates for data collected by semi-permeable membrane devices (SPMD) and polar 

organic contaminant integrated samplers (POCIS) and collection of bed sediments and associated pore water. 

 Site Sample Collection date Deployment duration

(days)

Latitude

(N)

Longitude

(W)

Depth

(meters)

SPMD/POCIS 

Site A SPMD A 08/22/2005 33 42:36:373 71:18:758 2.4

Site B SPMD B 08/22/2005 33 42:36:481 71:18:685 2.4

Site A POCIS A 08/22/2005 33 42:36:373 71:18:758 2.4

Site B POCIS B 08/22/2005 33 42:36:481 71:18:685 2.4

Bed Sediment

Site 1 sample 1 (a, b, c) 08/25/2005 not applicable 42:36:069 71.18.168 0.8

Site 2 sample 2 08/25/2005 not applicable 42:35:997 71:17:196 0.9

Site 3 sample 3 08/25/2005 not applicable 42:36:007 71:16:534 0.9
10

Table 4. Supplementary methods and measurements used to assess ecological condition, invertebrate and fish communities, and contaminant 

exposure and effects in fish residing in the Charles River, Mass. Acronyms used in table are footnoted below.

Method Description Metric Reference

Fish Health 

Sperm quality Sperm quality assessment 

(reproductive health)

Sperm motility, activation, movement, 

and concentration collected from 

common carp

Patino and others (2003), Kime 

and Nash (1999)

Fecundity Egg quality and quantity 

(reproductive health)

Examination and measurements of eggs 

collected from ovaries of common carp

Patino and others (2003)

Comet assay (fish blood / liver) DNA integrity as an indicator of 

contaminant exposure

Examination and measurements of 

genetic damage of blood and liver cells

Meier and others (2001)

Vitamins C & E (fish liver) Indicator of reproductive and overall 

health

Concentrations of vitamins C (ascorbic 

acid) and E (α–tocopherol) in liver 

tissue as an indicator for reproductive 

function

Dabrowski and Hinterleitner 

(1989)

Thyroid hormones Indication of growth and metabolic 

function

Concentrations of triiodothyronine (T3) 

and hyroxine (T4) in plasma 

Grau (1987)

Fish tissue organic-chemical 

residue analyses

Direct measurement of a suite of 

organic chemicals in fish tissue

Concentrations of OCPs, total PCBs in 

individual white suckers 

Orazio and others (2006)

Mercury residue analyses of fish 

muscle plugs

Direct measurement of methyl 

mercury in fish muscle plugs

Concentration of methyl mercury in 

muscle plugs extracted from 

largemouth bass 

May and others (2006)

Fish plasma residue chemistry Direct measurement of contaminants 

in blood plasma

Concentrations of emerging 

contaminants and select 

pharmaceuticals in plasma

Leiker and others (2006)
11

Table 4. Supplementary methods and measurements used to assess ecological condition, invertebrate and fish communities, and contaminant 

exposure and effects in fish residing in the Charles River, Mass. Acronyms used in table are footnoted below.—Continued

Method Description Metric Reference

Bile metabolites Indication of recent exposure to PAH 

contaminants

Concentrations of PAH metabolites in 

bile from gall bladder

Yang and others (2003)

EROD activity Indication of exposure to planar 

hydrocarbons

PCBs; chlorinated dioxins and furans; 

PAHs as measured from gill tissue

Jonsson and others (2002)

Fish pathogens Evaluation on the presence of fish 

pathogens associated with lesions 

and internal organs

Presence of bacteria and viruses 

associated with lesions and the kidney, 

spleen, and air bladder

Coll (2006)

YES Evaluation on the presence of 

estrogenic active substances 

Measurement of color change 

(calculated as EC50, a 50 percent 

change in color) of yeast cells after 

exposure to SPMD and POCIS extracts 

Alvarez and others (2006)

Biotic Community Assessments

Invertebrate community Assessment of benthic invertebrates 

residing in depositional sediments as 

an indication of habitat health and 

contaminant exposure

Species abundance and diversity, and 

contaminant tolerance

Neilson and others (2003)

Fish community Assessment of fish communities 

associated with depositional habitats

Species abundance and diversity 

associated with depositional habitats 

Moulton and others (2002)

Chironomid deformities Determination of head capsule 

deformities as an indication of 

exposure to contaminants

Number of chironomid head capsule 

deformities for each species

Moulton and others (2000)

Sediment and Water Chemistry

Organic analysis—bulk sediments Direct measurement of organic 

contaminants associated with 

sediment

Concentrations of total PCBs, OCPs, 

PBDEs, and PAHs

Orazio and others (2006)
12

Table 4. Supplementary methods and measurements used to assess ecological condition, invertebrate and fish communities, and contaminant 

exposure and effects in fish residing in the Charles River, Mass. Acronyms used in table are footnoted below.—Continued

Method Description Metric Reference

Artificial Samplers

SPMD Hydrophobic organic compounds 

associated with water column

Measurement of PCBs, PAHs, and 

OCPs passively accumulated from 

surface water over 33 days

Alvarez and others (2006)

POCIS Water-soluble organic compounds 

associated with water column

Measurement of water-soluble (polar) 

organic compounds accumulated by 

passive sampler placed in surface water 

for a minimum of 33 days

Alvarez and others (2006)

Biotic Toxicity

Toxicity tests—bulk sediment Growth and survival of aquatic 

invertebrates after direct exposure to 

contaminants associated with 

sediment 

Growth and survival of Hyalella azteca

and Chironomus dilutus after 10-day 

and 28-day exposures

Ingersoll (1995)

Microtox® bioassay on SPMD 

and POCIS extracts

Evaluation of toxicity of extracts 

from SPMD and POCIS samplers

Measurement of bioluminescent output 

of bacteria following exposure to 

extracts expressed as EC 50 

(concentration of extract producing a 

50 percent reduction in light compared 

to controls) 

Alvarez and others (2006)

(EC, effect concentration; EROD, ethoxyresorufin O-deethylase; OCP, organochlorine pesticides; PAH, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons; PCB, polychlorinated 

biphenyls; PBDE, polybrominated diphenyl ethers; POCIS, polar organic contaminant integrated sampler; SPMD, semi-permeable membrane device; YES, yeast 

estrogen screen)
13

Field Methods and Laboratory Analyses

Fish Collection 

The fish collection and processing procedures used for the Charles River Project followed those 

applied in previous BEST projects (Schmitt, 2002; Schmitt and others, 2004; Smith, Donahue, and 

others, 2002; Hinck and others, 2004). Two trophic guilds of fish (benthic and piscivorous) were 

targeted for sampling to reflect different contaminant exposure profiles associated with feeding 

strategies. Benthic-feeding fish tend to be exposed to persistent hydrophobic contaminants accumulated 

in sediments, whereas piscivorous fish are exposed to contaminants that accumulate in their prey. The 

BEST studies have focused on collecting common carp (Cyprinus carpio) as the benthic species and 

largemouth or smallmouth bass (Micropterus salmoides and M. dolomieu) as the piscivorous species. 

For this study, the white sucker (Catostomus commersoni, which is also a benthic species) was sampled 

since it is locally prevalent and has been used as a sentinel species to document contaminant 

pathologies, particularly in the Great Lakes and Canada. These species were selected because of their 

availability throughout the Charles River and their previously reported biomarker responses (Baumann 

and others, 1996). These species also correspond to guild selection criteria established by the BEST 

Program’s Large River Program. The collection goal for each site was ten target species of each sex (ten 

males and ten females for a total n = 20 per species). Fish were collected by electrofishing from a boat 

along both sides of the shoreline covering the entire river reach during August 8–23, 2005. Fish were 

held in live-wells prior to having their length and weight measured. 

On-Site Fish Processing 

Fish examination and tissue collection procedures are described in detail in previously published 

field protocols (Schmitt, Blazer, and others, 1999; Smith, Gross, and others, 2002). Approximately 5 

milliliters (mL) of whole blood was obtained from each fish via caudal vein puncture using a 

heparinized needle and syringe. One mL of the whole blood was placed in a sealable plastic vial, stored 

on wet ice, and shipped chilled (0 to 4°C in coolers by overnight express mail to the U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Ecological Exposure Research Division / National Exposure Research Laboratory in 

Cincinnati, Ohio) for the comet assay used to assess genetic damage. The remainder of the blood was 

centrifuged, and plasma from each fish was transferred to a labeled cryovial and then immediately 

frozen on dry ice for assessing levels of vitellogenin (an egg yolk protein) and sex steroid hormones (17 

β estradiol and 11 ketotestosterone). 

After blood samples were drawn, fish were euthanized with MS-222, and remaining tissue 

samples were collected in the order described below. Samples of gill tissue were taken for analysis of 

EROD activity, an indicator of biochemical response to exposure to planar hydrocarbons. A subsample 

of axial muscle from largemouth bass was collected for mercury analysis. After gill and muscle plug 

samples were removed, fish were examined externally using a quantitative evaluation for external gross 

anomalies (Smith, Gross, and others, 2002). Skin growths and other external pathology were preserved 

in 10-percent buffered formalin for subsequent histopathology. 

Necropsy procedures (Baumann and others, 1990) followed the external exam. Bile was 

extracted from the gall bladder via syringe and frozen in liquid nitrogen or dry ice for PAH metabolite 

analysis. Prior to examination for abnormalities, whole organs were weighed to the nearest gram using 

an electronic scale. Spleens and gonads were weighed for all three species, but livers (hepatosomatic 

index) were weighed only for bass. Samples of liver, spleen, gonad, kidney (both head and trunk), gill, 
14

and any lesion were taken and preserved for histopathological examination. An immunocytochemistry

analysis was conducted on liver tissue to determine whether oncogenes (ras) and tumor suppressor genes 

(Rb and p53) were present. Sections from the liver, spleen, and head kidney were examined 

microscopically to measure the proliferation of melanomacrophage centers (MMC). Gonad samples 

were examined for fecundity (females), stage of maturation, and the presence of anomalies. Duplicate 

sub-samples of liver tissue from each fish were obtained and frozen immediately in a dry ice/ethanol 

slurry for analysis of EROD activity, another indicator of exposure to planar hydrocarbons. Additional 

liver sub-samples also were frozen for assays of vitamins C and E. Spleen tissue was examined for 

macrophage aggregates. 

Otoliths and scales were collected and labeled for subsequent age determination in the 

laboratory. Carp and bass carcasses were composited according to species and gender (10 samples per 

site) and frozen for analysis of persistent organochlorine compounds and metals. Organic extracts were 

also assayed for exposure to dioxin and dioxin-like compounds by using the H4IIE rat hepatoma 

bioassay. All other metrics were measured on individual fish. 

Determining Fish Age

Ages of largemouth bass, carp, and white suckers were determined by counting annual rings on 

scales collected from the base of the dorsal fin above the lateral line or from the otoliths (Popper and Lu, 

2000) collected from the brain cavity. Otoliths grow by the continuous deposition of calcium carbonate 

with no evidence of resorption. The age of the fish is estimated by counting the annuli, or opaque bands, 

with the aid of a dissecting microscope. The darker bands represent periods of fast growth. The lighter 

bands represent periods of slower growth. Fish scales grow annually and are used to determine fish age 

in much the same way annual growth rings are counted on otoliths. Typically, at least two separate 

readings of annual rings are performed and reconciled to confirm the ages determined from otoliths and 

scales (Campana and Nielson, 1985). 

Sediment and Water Chemistry

Semi-Permeable Membrane Device (SPMD) and Polar Organic Contaminant Integrated Sampler

(POCIS)

The semi-permeable membrane devices (SPMD) are designed to mimic key aspects of the 

bioconcentration process, which results in elevated contaminant concentrations in organism tissues after 

exposure to trace hydrophobic organic contaminants in aquatic environments. Sampling of compounds 

with moderate to high octanol-water partition coefficients (Kow) greater than 3 is integrative (that is, 

extracted residues are constantly accumulated without significant losses back into the environment) and 

analyte concentrations are reported as time-weighted averages. Like the (SPMD), the polar organic 

contaminant integrated sampler (POCIS) is designed to mimic key aspects of the bioconcentration 

process and an organism’s exposure to hydrophilic organic contaminants. The POCIS consists of a 

solid-phase sorbent or mixture of sorbents contained between two sheets of a microporous 

polyethersulfone membrane. Sampling compounds with low to moderate octanol-water partition 

coefficients (Kow) less than 3 is integrative and analyte concentrations are reported as time-weighted 

averages (Alvarez and others, 2006). 

Both SPMD and POCIS (two replicates of each type) were deployed at a depth of 2.5 m in July, 

2005, and recovered after 33 days (August 22, 2005). Locations where the devices were deployed are 

shown in figure 2. 
15

Whole-Sediment Residue Chemistry

Whole-sediment residue chemistry identifies contaminants present in depositional sediments that

may be toxic to aquatic biota. Bulk sediments were collected using methods described below in the “Fish 

and Invertebrate Communities” Section of this report. Several samples were homogenized into a single 

bulk sample, chilled on wet ice, and shipped to the Columbia Environmental Research Center (CERC), 

Columbia, Missouri. Methods for metal, organic, and inorganic chemical residue analysis and related 

information are found in Fishman and others (1994), Furlong and others (1996), Olson and others (2004), 

Skougstad and others (1979), and Van Metre and others (2000). Locations of bulk sediments used for 

sediment chemistry, toxicity, pore-water chemistry, and depositional invertebrate samples are shown in 

figure 2. Location coordinates are provided in table 3. 

Inorganic Chemistry Analysis of Sediments

Sediments were homogenized and approximately 5-mL aliquots were analyzed for acid volatile 

sulfide (AVS) and simultaneously extractable metals (SEM). To quantify AVS, homogenized sediment 

aliquots were reacted for one hour with 1N hydrochloric acid in an oxygen-free atmosphere. The resulting 

hydrogen sulfide was purged with nitrogen into a sodium hydroxide trapping solution. Free sulfide ion is 

rapidly formed in the trap and measured by a sulfide-specific electrode. During the AVS sample 

preparation, an SEM fraction was generated (Brumbaugh and Arms, 1996). Forty mL of each extract was 

filtered through a 0.45-micrometer (μm) pore-size polypropylene cartridge. A portion of each filtered SEM 

extract (10 mL) was heated in a microwave oven with nitric acid/hydrogen peroxide. Evaporative digestion 

utilizing 50 mL Zymark1 tubes was performed on the extracts. Final dilution volume for the digestates was 

100 mL in a matrix of one percent nitric acid.

An aliquant of homogenized sediment was dried at 95°C to constant weight in a convection oven to 

determine percent moisture. The dried sediment was then placed in a muffle furnace to find loss on 

ignition at 450°C (expressed as percent of dry weight). The remainder of each wet sediment sample was 

lyophilized, and then homogenized in a glass container by stirring with a glass rod until a uniform material 

was produced. To measure total recoverable metals, homogenized aliquots (approximately 0.25 gram (g)) 

were digested in 50-mL quartz reaction vessels by adding 5.5 mL HNO3 and 0.5 mL HCl. The sealed 

vessel was heated in a Perkin-Elmer multiwave oven. This digestion procedure allows one to measure total 

recoverable metals only, as it will not dissolve refractory mineral phases. The digestate liquid and all 

undissolved mineral components were transferred into a 125-mL polyethylene bottle with ultrapure water 

to a final weight of 101.5 g (100 mL). The final acid matrix was 5.5 percent HNO/0.5 percent HCl (percent 

by volume). An additional aliquant (approximately 0.25 g), of each dried sediment was subjected to a 

magnesium nitrate-nitric acid dry-ashing procedure followed by hydrochloric acid reduction for the 

amounts of arsenic (As) and selenium (Se). Samples were boiled with nitric acid to solubulize and partially 

oxidize inorganic target analytes and were then ashed at 500°C with magnesium nitrate to complete the 

oxidation and decompose remaining organic matter. HCl was added to dissolve the ash and reduce Se to 

the Se+4 oxidation state required for hydride generation. Following reduction, digestates were diluted to 

approximately 25 mL (fish) or 100 mL (other matrices) with deionized water, yielding a final acid matrix 

of 10 percent hydrochloric acid (May and others, 2006). 

Organic Chemistry Analysis of Sediments

The sediment samples were analyzed for PAHs, organochlorine pesticides (OCPs), polybrominated 

diphenyl ethers (PBDEs), and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). Separate 5-g portions (dry weight) of 
16

sediment were prepared for the PCB and OCP analyses. Ten-g (dry weight) aliquots were required for 

PAH/PBDE analysis. Sediment portions of similar consistency were sampled, although the portions of 

sample taken for analysis had visibly varying amounts of rock, silt, sand, and detritus. The samples were 

added to baked glass fiber soxhlet thimbles, spiked with deuterated surrogate standards, and extracted for 

20 hours (hr) with 300 mL of dichloromethane with a cycle of 16 minutes (min). The extracts were rotary 

evaporated in a 35°C water bath to approximately 2 mL and quantitatively transferred to test tubes. The 

volume was reduced to 1 mL under a stream of nitrogen (N2), and then any remaining dichloromethane 

was removed by adding 2 mL of hexane and once again reducing the volume to 1 mL under an N2 stream. 

Separate portions of extracts required different clean-up methods. 

Gas Chromatographic Analysis of PCBs 

Sample extracts were adjusted to a volume of 1 mL. Extracts were spiked with PCB congeners 030 

and 207 (40 nanograms (ng) each) as instrumental internal standards (IIS). Total PCBs were measured by 

gas chromatograph/electron-capture detection (GC/ECD). Analyses were performed using HewlettPackard 5890 Series II GCs with cool on-column capillary injection systems and Hewlett-Packard model 

7673 autosamplers. For all analyses, a 3-m section of a 0.53-mm (interior diameter) uncoated and 

deactivated capillary retention gap (Agilent, Palo Alto, California) was attached to each analytical column 

by a Press-Tight® (Restek Corp., Bellefonte, Pennsylvania) union. The analytical column was packed with 

DB-17HT (0.25μm 50 percent phenyl-, 50 percent methylsilicone; Agilent, Palo Alto, Calif.). The H2-

carrier gas was pressure regulated at 25 pounds per square inch (psi). The temperature program for the 

PCB analysis was as follows: initial temperature 60°C, immediately increased to 150°C at 15°C per minute 

(min), then raised to 260°C at 1°C/min, and finally raised to 300°C at 10°C/min, and held for 15 min. 

Electron capture detector temperature was 330°C.

Polychlorinated biphenyls were determined by the sum of congener’s method using a GC capillary 

column. The capillary GC/ECD data were collected and archived in digital form. Data were processed 

using a PerkinElmer chromatography data system, which included the model 970 interface and version 6.2 

of Totalchrom Workstation chromatography microcomputer software. A mixture of several Aroclors is 

used to produce the PCB calibration standards. These standards have been quantified based on pure 

primary PCB standards (Accustandard, New Haven, Connecticut) and are used as secondary standards. Up 

to nine levels of calibration are used to quantify total PCBs in the samples. The PCB calibration curve 

spanned from 10 to 8,000 ng/mL. 

Gas Chromatographic Analysis of OCPs and PBDEs 

Organochlorine pesticides were determined in the two fractions of each set at a final volume of 1 

mL. PBDEs and toxaphene was determined in fraction SODS-2. Internal standards for PCBs 030 and 207 

were added. Individual OCPs were measured by GC/ECD. Analyses were performed using HewlettPackard 5890 Series II GCs with cool on-column capillary injection systems and Hewlett-Packard model 

7673 autosamplers. For all analyses, a 3-m section of 0.53-mm (interior diameter) uncoated and 

deactivated capillary retention gap (Agilent, Palo Alto, Calif.) was attached to each analytical column by a 

Press-Tight® (Restek Corp., Bellefonte, Penn.) union. The analytical columns were 60-m × 0.25-mm ×

0.25-μm DB-5 and DB-17HT phase columns. The H2-carrier gas was pressure regulated at 25 psi. The 

temperature program for the pesticide analysis was as follows: initial temperature 60°C, immediately 

raised to 150°C at 15°C/min, then increased to 260°C at 1°C/min, and finally raised to 300°C at 10°C/min, 

and held for 15 min. Electron capture detector temperature was 330°C.
17

The dual column GC/ECD method is used to identify and quantify OCP peaks from one column or 

the other based upon known standards. The GC/ECD data were collected, archived in digital form, and 

processed using a PerkinElmer chromatography data system. The system included model 970 interface and 

Version 6.2 Totalchrom Workstation Chromatography software. Six levels of OCP standards (29 

components) were used for calibration, with each pesticide at concentrations ranging from 0.1 to 80 

ng/mL. Organochlorine pesticide results are presented in tables designated by their CERC database 

number and are cross-referenced to their field identification number. Concentrations are expressed as 

nanograms of analyte per gram (ng/g) of sample (wet weight). Detection limits were calculated as 

discussed above for PCBs. Nine PBDE congeners were quantified by GC/ECD: PBDEs #28, #47, #66, 

#85, #99, #100, #153, #154, and #183. These are the typical congeners of the penta-BDE and oct-BDE 

formulations accumulated in fish tissue. These PBDEs were separated from the pesticides by the dual 

column GC/ECD method. Total toxaphene concentrations were determined semi-quantitatively in the 

SODS-2 fraction on the DB17HT column. The method quantifies twenty significant peaks in the standards 

as a group. Four levels of toxaphene standards were used for calibration, ranging from 50 to 500 ng/mL

concentrations. Detection limits were calculated from the procedure blanks run with these samples by 

using the method of Keith and others (1983). 

Gas chromatographic/Mass Spectrometric Analysis (GC/MS) of PAHs 

The PAH fraction was adjusted to a final volume of approximately 100 microliters (μL) to which 

the instrumental internal standard p-terphenyl-d14 (100 ng) was added. The sixteen perdeuterated and 

twenty-seven native PAHs were measured by GC/MS using a CE Instruments 8000Top GC with cool oncolumn capillary injection system and an AS800 auto-sampler (2 μL injected) interfaced with a Voyager 

quadrupole mass spectrometer (Thermo-Finnigan Corp., San Jose, Calif.) A 2.5-m section of 0.53-mm 

(internal diameter) uncoated and deactivated (Restek Corp., Bellefonte, Penn.) capillary retention gap was 

attached to the front of each analytical column by a Press-Tight® (Restek Corp., Bellefonte, Penn.) union. 

The analytical column was a 50-m ×0.20-mm Ultra-2 (0.11 μm 5 percent phenyl-, 95 percent methylsilicone, Agilent, Palo Alto, Calif.). Helium carrier gas was flow regulated at 1 mL per minute. The 

temperature program for the PAH analysis was as follows: initial temperature 60o

C, hold time 2.5 min, 

increased to 300o

C at 5oC/min, and held for 15 min. The direct transfer line to the mass spectrometer was 

maintained at 305o

C. 

The mass-spectrometric method acquired full scan data mass and archived in digital form, and 

processed using the Thermo-Finnigan XCalibur GC/MS data system. Depending on the dynamic range 

required, calibration of up to eleven levels of calibration standards, ranging from 1–2,500 picograms per 

microliter (pg/μL), were analyzed with an analytical set. Method detection limits were estimated from lowlevel standards and determined by both the signal-to-noise ratio of the peak in the quantitation ion channel 

and the gradual loss of unique characteristics of the background-corrected mass spectrum.

The concentration of PAHs contained in the 100 μL of final extract prepared from the fieldcollected sediment samples were too concentrated and were diluted and analyzed again by GC/MS for 

accurate quantification. Sediment extracts were analyzed with recovery-tracking deuterated PAHs. 

However, due to the extremely high levels of native PAHs in the sediments, and the need to dilute the 

extracts, recoveries could not be monitored in each sample as is typically the case. Recovery information 

was obtained from the quality control samples. 
18

Pore Water Chemistry

Inorganic Chemistry Analysis

Filtered sediment pore-water samples were digested for subsequent analysis by inductively coupled 

plasma mass spectroscopy (ICP–MS), both quantitative and semi-quantitative, by placing 5 mL of sample 

into a 50-mL quartz reaction vessel, adding 1 mL nitric acid, and heating the sealed high pressure vessel 

assembly in a PerkinElmer Multiwave oven according to specifications in a pre-programmed method. 

After cooling, digestates were transferred to a storage container and diluted to a final volume of 

approximately 50 mL. Final acid matrix was 2 percent (by volume) nitric acid (May and others, 2006). 

Fish Residue Chemistry

Fish Tissue Homogenization and Compositing 

Chemical residues in resident fish tissues provide evidence as to whether or not sediment-bound 

contaminants are cycling through the food web. Whole-fish chemical residue analyses reflect a mixture of 

contaminants and metabolites absorbed from three sources: diet, water, and contact with sediments. These 

body burdens may relate to toxicity, biomarker responses, and changes in fish health/community structure 

(Hoffman, 1996). Composite tissue samples prepared from whole fish for carp, largemouth bass, and white 

suckers were analyzed for metals and other inorganic contaminants. Composite tissue samples prepared 

from whole fish for carp and largemouth bass, and 30 individual white sucker tissue samples prepared 

from whole fish, were analyzed for organic contaminants. 

Individual fish were partially thawed, sliced into 3- to 5-cm sections, and passed through a Hobart®

commercial meat grinder equipped with an extrusion disk with approximately 0.5-cm orifices. The 

resultant ground tissue was then re-mixed and passed through the grinder again. After three cycles of 

grinding and mixing, the samples were refrozen. Processed tissues from the three species (carp, white 

sucker, and largemouth bass) were composited by gender and prepared by weighing equal portions of each 

individual ground fish followed by manual mixing. 

Fish Tissue Inorganic Contaminant Analyses

To prepare digestates of whole-body fish composites for analysis by ICP–MS semi-quantitative 

scan, an aliquant of each dried sample (about 0.25 g) was heated with 6 mL nitric acid in a sealed, lowpressure Teflon vessel in a microwave oven. The cooled digestate liquid was transferred into a 125-mL

polyethylene bottle with ultrapure water to a final weight of 101.5 g (100 mL). Final acid matrix was 6

percent HNO3. To prepare a digestate for As and Se, about 0.25 g of dried whole-body fish was dry-ashed 

following the same procedures as described previously for sediment samples. For the determination of Hg, 

no chemical preparation was required, as the tissue was combusted directly as part of the analytical 

sequence (May and others, 2006). 

Fish Tissue Organic Contaminant Analyses (PCBs, OCPs, and Toxaphene) 

Ten-gram aliquots of the fish samples were dehydrated by blending with anhydrous sodium sulfate. Tissue 

mass was recorded to 0.01-g accuracy. After drying, recovery compounds were added and fish samples 

were thoroughly extracted in glass columns with dichloromethane. A 1-percent portion of the extract was 

used to gravimetrically determine percent lipid after evaporation of solvent. Lipids and co-extracted 

biogenic materials were removed from the extracts by low-pressure gel permeation chromatography, 

followed by high-pressure size-exclusion chromatography (HPSEC) for total PCBs and OCP analyses. The 
19

extracts were then applied to a two-layered octadecyl silica/activated silica (SODS) gel column and 

separated into two fractions: one fraction containing PCBs and six of the targeted OCPs (SODS-1), and a 

second fraction containing the remainder of the OCPs (SODS-2) (Orazio and others, 2006). 

Muscle Plug Hg Chemistry

Ten muscle-plug samples (Waddel and May, 1995) from each largemouth bass were combusted 

directly to a dried tissue state for the determination of Hg. A DMA-80 analyzer was used to conduct direct 

mercury analysis (DMA) of fish tissue. The process incorporates thermal combustion, amalgamation, and 

atomic absorption spectroscopy. Quality control included calibration verification checks, reference tissues, 

replicates, method spikes, and blanks. All quality control results were tabulated to provide an overview of 

quality assurance and to facilitate interpretation. Reference fish tissues were used to confirm calibration of 

the DMA-80. Dried samples (30–40 mg) were combusted in a stream of oxygen. All Hg in the samples 

was volatilized and trapped by amalgamation on a gold substrate, followed by thermal desorption and 

quantification by using atomic absorption spectrophotometry (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

2000). The entire sequence was conducted with a Milestone DMA-80 analyzer equipped with an 

automated sample carousel. Hg produced recoveries ranging from 97 to 108 percent. Spikes of Hg in a 

reference muscle tissue ranged from 86 to 119 percent. The detection level for mercury in muscle plugs 

was 0.005 micrograms per gram (μg/g) dry weight (May and others, 2006). 

Bile Metabolites 

Since PAHs are metabolized by vertebrates, tissue concentrations in fish are not correlated with 

exposure. However, PAH metabolites in bile indicate exposure and correlate well to abnormalities and 

tumors associated with PAHs (Yang and others, 2003). Estimation of selected metabolites of aromatic 

compounds in bile followed the reverse phase HPLC technique with fluorescence detection reported in 

Krahn and others (1984). The fluorescence detectors were set at excitation/emission wavelength pairs for 

both benzo[a]pyrene and naphthalene. PAH metabolite concentrations were normalized to protein content 

by a modified Lowry method (Lowry and others, 1951). 

Plasma Chemistry 

Chlorinated organic compounds in fish plasma were extracted and analyzed with gas 

chromatography/mass spectroscopy (GS/MS) according to the following procedures. A 2-g (about 2 mL) 

sample of plasma was stirred with 27 g of granular anhydrous sodium sulfate to remove water from the 

sample. Extraction cells of a DionexR Model 200 Accelerated Solvent Extractor (ASE) were prepared by 

adding 5 g of florisil. The sodium sulfate homogenate was then added to the top of the extraction cell. Two 

fractions were generated using the ASE. The first fraction was produced by extracting the 2-g sample of 

plasma with hexane. The sample was then re-extracted on the ASE using a 5-percent isopropanol/hexane 

(IPA/hexane) solution to produce a second fraction. Fraction 1 (hexane extraction) contained PCBs, DDEs, 

BDEs, and other nonpolar organics. Fraction 2 (IPA/hexane) contained endosulfan compounds and other, 

more polar, organic compounds. Both fractions were combined and concentrated to a volume of 500 uL by 

using a Kuderna-Danish (K-D) apparatus, followed by nitrogen evaporation. Duplicate analysis of target 

compounds was performed using capillary-column GC/MS detection under electron-capture negative ion 

chemical ionization (ECNICI) conditions (Lieker and others, 2008). 
20

Toxicity Tests Associated with Sediment and Extracts from SPMD and POCIS Samplers

Whole-Sediment Chronic Toxicity 

The potential toxicity of sediments to resident biological organisms can be assessed using a variety 

of approaches. In the current study, sediment toxicity was assessed by exposing lab-cultured, sediment 

dwelling macroinvertebrates to field collected sediment samples under controlled laboratory conditions 

(Ingersoll, 1995). Toxicity tests were performed on three field collected sediment samples collected from 

depositional zones within the study area. Each bed sediment sample represented a composite of three 

sediment grabs taken in close proximity to one another (fig. 2). The toxicity of the field-collected sediment 

samples was evaluated using two macroinvertebrates species: an amphipod (Hyalella azteca) and the larval 

form of a midge (Chironomus dilutus). Laboratory analysis included the use of control sediments as 

described by Ankley and others (1994) and Ingersoll and others (2005). All sediment toxicity tests were 

started within three weeks of sample collection from the field. Sediments were not sieved to remove 

indigenous organisms during homogenization of samples in the laboratory before the start of the toxicity 

test. 

Whole sediment toxicity tests were conducted with Hyalella azteca for 28 days according to

methods described in American Society for Testing and Materials (2007) and Burton and others, (1996). 

Endpoints measured in the amphipod exposures included survival and growth (length) on Day 28. Test 

sediments were homogenized and added to exposure beakers one day before test organisms were added. 

Amphipods were exposed to 100 mL of sediment with 175 mL of overlying water in 300-mL beakers. A 

total of eight replicates/sediment treatments were conducted. The photoperiod was 16 hr of light: 8 hr of 

dark at an intensity of about 200 lux at the surface of the exposure beakers. The exposure temperature was 

23°C. Each beaker received 2-volume additions/day of overlying water starting on Day -1, and then 50 mL

of water was delivered automatically to each beaker every 4 hr (plus or minus 15 min). Tests were initiated 

(Day 0) by placing 10 amphipods into each beaker using an eyedropper. Amphipods in each beaker were 

daily fed 1.0 mL of Yeast-Cerophyll-trout chow (YCT; 1.7 to 1.9 grams per liter (g/L) in a water 

suspension. Beakers were observed daily for the presence of animals, signs of animal activity (burrowing), 

and to monitor test conditions (mainly water clarity). On Day 28, amphipods were recovered from each 

beaker by decanting overlying water, gently swirling remaining water and upper layer of sediment, and 

washing the sediment through a no. 50 (300-μm opening) U.S. standard stainless steel sieve. The retained 

materials were washed into a glass pan and the surviving amphipods were removed. Amphipods from 4 

replicates of each sediment sample were counted and preserved in 8-percent sugar formalin for subsequent 

length measurements (Ingersoll and others, 2002). The length of amphipods was measured along the dorsal 

surface from the base of the first antenna to the tip of the third uropod along the curve of the dorsal 

surface. Amphipod length measurements were made using an EPIX imaging system (PIXCI® SV4 

imaging board and XCAP software; EPIX Inc., Buffalo Grove, Illinois) connected to a computer and a 

microscope (Ingersoll and others, 2002). 

Midge exposures were similar to amphipod exposures with the following exceptions: (1) due to 

collection time, only 2 field collected samples were evaluated, (2) exposures were 10 days, (3) midge were 

fed 1.5 mL of Tetrafin, and (4) the grow endpoint was ash-free dry weight. On Day 10, surviving midge 

were collected following procedures described above and placed into a pre-weighed weigh pan (organisms 

that had reached the pupal stage were counted as surviving but not used in growth determination). Samples

were dried at 60°C for 24 hr and weighed (dry weight). Samples were then ashed for 2 hr at 550o

C and 

then reweighed.
21

Microtox® Bioassay

The Microtox assay uses a suspension of luminescent marine bacteria: Vibrio fischeri (NRRL B11177, also referred to as Photobacterium phosphoreum, Strategic Diagnostics, Inc., Newark, Delaware).

V. fischeri produces light as a by product of cellular respiration. When exposed to certain toxicants, the 

rate of light production is reduced in proportion to the sample toxicity. The Microtox® bioassay was 

completed on subsamples extracted from SPMD and POCIS samples. An aliquot of the bacterial 

suspension was transferred to a test vial containing the standard diluent (2 percent NaCl) and equilibrated 

at 15°C using a temperature-controlled photometer. Light readings of each test vial were taken before the 

addition of test samples and following a 5-min and 15-min incubation period. Light loss was expressed as 

a gamma value and defined as the ratio of light loss to light remaining. The relative sensitivity of 

Microtox® has been reported by Kaiser and Palabrica (1991) and Johnson and Long (1998). To determine 

the dose response and the concomitant toxicity, each sample solution was diluted into four test 

concentrations. The log of the gamma values from these four dilutions was plotted and compared with the 

log of the sample concentrations. The concentration of the extract that was determined to inhibit 

luminescence by 50 percent after the 5-min exposure period (EC50) was determined and expressed as mg 

equivalent of sample. Data were analyzed using the Microtox Omni software package (version 1.18, 

Strategic Diagnostics, Inc., Newark, Del.). Phenol was used as the positive toxicity control for the 

Microtox® bioassay. Dimethylsulfoxide (DMSO) was used as the carrier vehicle for the samples and as the 

negative control. Results are reported in terms of an effective concentration (EC), which is the estimated 

concentration of sample required to produce the desired level of metabolic inhibition (light loss). The EC50

value is the typical endpoint used to report and compare Microtox® data. EC50 values were reported as the 

means of three replicate determinations with variability expressed as standard deviations. 

Fish Health Biomarkers

Quantitative Organism-Level Indicators

Gross pathologies were selected for consistency with other monitoring programs (Fournie and 

others, 1996). Gross abnormalities included grossly visible disorders of the eye (exophthalmia, 

hemorrhage, opacity, emboli), opercles (shortening, deformities, parasites), body surface (ulcers, parasites, 

discolored areas, raised growths), and disorders of the fins and skeleton. The health assessment index 

(HAI) was the method used to identify internal and external lesions for each fish during field necropsy. 

Numerical values were assigned to internal and external observations of anomalies and lesions recorded in 

the field, and a necropsy-based fish health assessment index (HAI) score was calculated for each fish by 

summing these values for all organs (Blazer and others, 2002). Body and organ weights were used to 

compute condition factor (CF) and organosomatic indices according to the following formulae: CF = body 

weight in g/(length in cm)3

; hepatosomatic index (HSI) = liver weight/(total body weight – gonad weight) 

× 100; splenosomatic index (SSI) = spleen weight/(total body weight – gonad weight) × 100; and 

gonadosomatic index (GSI) = (gonad weight/total body weight) × 100. The weight of the gonads was 

subtracted from the body weight to minimize the effect of the reproductive cycle on the HSI and SSI. The 

HSI was calculated only for fish species that have a discreet liver (largemouth bass). 

Sex Steroid Hormones: 17 B Estradiol and 11 Ketotestosterone

Plasma samples from largemouth bass were analyzed for 17ß-estradiol and 11-ketotestosterone 

using radioimmunoassay (RIA) procedures. Plasma samples (50 μl) were extracted twice with 5-mL

diethyl ether prior to RIA analysis. Each sample was analyzed in duplicate for both 17ß-estradiol and 11-
22

ketotestosterone and corrected for extraction efficiencies of 92 plus or minus 2.8 percent and 86 plus or 

minus 3.3 percent, respectively. Standard curves were prepared in a buffer with known amounts of 

radioinert 17ß-estradiol or 11-ketotestosterone (1, 5, 10, 25, 50, 100, 250, 500, and 1,000 picograms (pg). 

The minimum concentration detectable was 6.4 pg/mL for 17ß-estradiol and 8.1 pg/mL for 11-

ketotestosterone. Cross-reactivities with other steroids for the 17ß-estradiol antiserum were as follows: 

11.2 percent for estrone, 1.7 percent for estriol, less than 1.0 percent for 17α-estradiol and 

androstenedione, and less than 0.1 percent for all other steroids examined. Cross-reactivities of the 11-

ketotestosterone antiserum with other steroids were 9.7 percent for testosterone, 3.7 percent for adihydrotestosterone, less than 1.0 percent for androstenedione, and less than 0.1 percent for all other 

steroids examined. A pooled sample (approximately 275 pg of 17ß-estradiol/mL and 220 pg of 11-

ketotestosterone/mL) was assayed serially in 10-, 20-, 30-, 40-, and 50-μl volumes (final volume of 50 μl 

with charcoal-stripped plasma). Further characterization of the assays involved measurement of known 

amounts (1, 2, 5, 10, 25, 50, 100, 250, and 500 pg) of 17ß-estradiol or 11- ketotestosterone in 50 μl of 

charcoal-stripped plasma. Correlation values (R2

) between actual and measured amounts during the 

calibration were 0.93 for 17ß-estradiol and 0.88 for 11-ketotestosterone. Inter-assay and intra-assay 

coefficients of variation were 7.3 and 9.5 percent for plasma 17ß-estradiol, respectively, and 9.1 and 8.7 

percent for plasma 11-ketotestosterone, respectively (Bevans and others, 1996; Goodbred and others, 

1997; Schmitt and Dethloff, 2000). 

Yeast Assay 

The yeast estrogen screen (YES) uses recombinant yeast cells transfected with the human estrogen 

receptor. The recombinant yeast cells also contain expression plasmids carrying a reporter gene (lac-z). 

Following the binding of a suitable agonist, the yeast cells undergo a cascade of events that results in the 

release of β-galactosidase into the growth media. The β-galactosidase interacts with a chromogenic 

substrate (chlorophenol red-β-D-galactopyranoside [CPRG]) in the media, producing a color change that 

can be measured spectrophotometrically. This color change is a measure of the estrogenic potential of 

chemicals in the sample.

Yeast cultures were removed from storage and grown for 24 hr at 30°C to determine their viability 

prior to inoculating the test plates. Sample extracts were solvent exchanged into ethanol to prevent damage 

to the test plate. The test plates were prepared by adding a positive control in the first row and alternating 

negative controls (200 μL ethanol) and test sample (100 μL extract diluted with 100 μL ethanol in 

triplicate) in the following rows. All samples and controls were then serially diluted across the test plate. 

The liquid in each well was allowed to evaporate prior to adding 200 μL of assay medium containing 

approximately 4 × 107 recombinant yeast cells and CPRG. The plates were gently agitated, sealed, and 

incubated at 30°C for up to 72 hr. Each day, the plates were inspected for the conversion of CPRG in the 

positive controls to determine the speed of plate development. After 48 hr, the plates were allowed to 

finish developing at room temperature. The plates were read using a Labsystems Multiskan MS type 352 

with the Genesis II software (Labsystems, Finland) measuring the absorbance at 540 and 620 nanometers 

(nm) (Alvarez and others, 2006). 

Vitellogenin 

Vitellogenin concentrations in largemouth bass plasma were assayed and quantified by an EnzymeLinked Immunosorbent Assay (ELISA), as described by Goodbred and others (1997) and summarized 

below. Initially, vitellogenin from bass was purified by ion-exchange chromatography (Denslow and 

others, 1999) for use in the standard. The monoclonal antibody Mab HL 1080 1C8-3C11 was used in the 
23

ELISA assay. This antibody reacts specifically to largemouth bass vitellogenin and not with other plasma 

proteins. Purified antibody was diluted to 10 milligrams per milliliter (μg/mL) in phosphate-buffer saline 

and coated onto 96-well plates (50 μg/mL/well), and stored overnight at 4°C. Plates were washed with trisbuffered saline containing 0.05 percent Tween (TBST) blocked with 0.1 percent bovine serum albumin in 

TBST for 2 hr at room temperature, and thoroughly washed again three times with TBST. Plasma samples 

were diluted from 1:100 to 1:5,000 in 0.1 percent bovine serum albumin in TBST, and 50 micrograms (μg) 

of these samples were added in duplicate to plate wells and incubated overnight. Standard curves were 

from 10 to 1,000 ng/mL, and were constructed in male plasma at the same dilution as the sample to be 

analyzed. Of this solution, only 50 μg were placed in the well. Although the assay itself is very sensitive, 

plasma samples need to be diluted at least to 1:100 to eliminate interferences that affect the assay, thus 

making the assay sensitive to 0.001 milligrams per milliliter (mg/mL). Male control plasma was made 

from composites of plasma from fish collected at an uncontaminated site, which was shown by Western 

Blot assay to have no vitellogenin. The next day, plates were washed with TBST, incubated with 50 μg per 

well rabbit anti-vitellogenin polyclonal antibody UF114 (produced and characterized by the University of 

Florida), diluted to 1:500, and incubated for 2 hr at room temperature. This discloses the vitellogenin 

captured by the monoclonal antibody in the first step. The polyclonal antibody was in turn disclosed 

by a goat anti-rabbit immunoglobulin (IgG) linked to alkaline phosphatase and incubated for 2 hr at 

room temperature. 

After a final series of washes with TBST, 100 μg of p-nitro-phenyl-phosphate in carbonate buffer 

(pH 9.6) was added to each well and incubated for 30 min. The intensity of yellow color that developed 

was quantified at 405 nm with an automated ELISA reader. Vitellogenin concentrations were calculated 

from standard curves after subtracting the small nonspecific color reaction (around 0.2 A, 405 nm) with 

male control plasma. The ELISA assay used in this study can detect between 10 and 100 ng of vitellogenin 

per well, resulting in a sensitivity of about 0.001 mg/mL. Each ELISA assay included a positive control 

(plasma with a known vitellogenin concentration) to test for inter-assay and intra-assay variation. The 

coefficient of variation was calculated for each duplicate sample and, if it exceeded 10 percent, samples 

were rerun. Standard curves fit by linear regression were used to calculate vitellogenin concentration, with 

R2

 values usually between 0.95 and 0.99 (Denslow, Chow, Chow, and others, 1996; Denslow, Chow, 

Kroll, and others, 1996; Denslow and others, 1997; Schmitt and Dethloff, 2000). 

Histological Determination of Sexual Maturation 

Samples of male and female gonads were dissected in the field, fixed in Bouins' solution or 10 

percent neutral buffered (sodium phosphate) formalin, and transferred to 100-percent ethanol in the 

laboratory prior to processing. Testes were cut longitudinally and ovaries were cut transversely. Samples 

were embedded in paraffin, sectioned to 5 μm, and stained with hematoxylin and eosin for histological 

evaluation. All tissue slides were evaluated for reproductive stage, anomalies, and gonadal parasites. 

Gonads of female fish were classified according to four stages of sexual maturation, based on 

evaluation of histological slides (Blazer, 2002). Ovaries containing mostly perinucleolar oocytes at various 

stages of pre-vitellogenic growth were classified as undeveloped (stage 0). Ovaries showing a mixture of 

both perinucleolar and cortical alveoli oocytes were classified as early vitellogenic (stage 1). Ovaries 

classified as early–mid vitellogenic (stage 2) had some vitellogenic oocytes of various sizes and 

development, with few to moderate numbers of vitelline granules, and few fully developed oocytes. Late 

vitellogenisis was classified as stage 3 or 4: ovaries in which most oocytes were at or near maximum size 

and contained numerous, densely packed vitelline granules. Stage 4 ovaries were considered vitellogenic 

but post-ovulatory. Stage 5 females were post vitellogenic.
24

Male gonads were classified according to three stages of sexual maturation. Undeveloped testes 

with no spermatogenesis were considered Stage 0. Testes that were classified as early spermatogenic (stage 

1) had thick germinal epithelium, with diffuse, pronounced proliferation and maturation of spermatozoa. 

Mid-spermatogenic (stage 2) testes had germinal epithelium of moderate thickness, with diffuse moderate 

proliferation and maturation of sperm. Testes classified as late spermatogenic (stage 3) had mostly thin 

germinal epithelium, with only scattered spermatogenic activity characteristic of testes during late stage 

maturity (Goodbred and others, 1997; Schmitt and Dethloff, 2000). 

Fecundity 

The total yearly production of viable eggs in female fish is a critical factor in maintaining 

sustainable populations. Many studies have shown that exposure to contaminants increases the number of 

atretic (non-viable) eggs, reduces egg size (which reduces chances of fertilization and larval success), and 

lowers the gonadosomatic index (the weight of the ovaries as a percent of body weight; Kumar and Pant, 

1988; Rastogi and Kulshrestha, 1990; Collier and others, 1992). In addition, the body burdens of 

environmental contaminants in adult female fish are transferred to developing eggs. An estimate of 

potential fecundity (number of viable eggs likely to be produced) can be derived by taking sub-samples 

from the ovary in the field; preserving the tissue; and conducting assessments of egg numbers, size 

distribution, and stage of gonadal maturation (Patino and others, 2003). 

Sperm Quality 

Successful reproduction is essential to maintaining viable fish populations. Recent studies have 

shown that male fish exposed to environmental contaminants have impaired reproduction and sperm 

quality (Patino and others, 2003; Sepulveda and others, 2003; Toft and others, 2003). Detailed methods 

used to evaluate sperm quality have been developed for fish by Kime and Nash (1999). Sperm can be 

collected easily in the field at appropriate times of the year by using abdominal palpation. Semen was 

placed in a salt solution and analyzed with a field microscope to determine activation and several 

additional measurements: sperm motility (estimate of percent of total sperm actively moving), sperm 

progressive status (estimate of sperm movement/status on a scale of 1 to 5), sperm concentration 

(utilization of fixed sample for cell counts), and sperm morphology (evaluation of fixed and stained 

preparation to evaluate for normal versus abnormal morphology). 

Histopathology 

Histopathology is crucial in linking carcinogenic contaminants to tumors and other pathology in 

fish. Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons have been associated with tumors in seven species of freshwater 

fish from 17 different wild populations in eastern North America (Baumann, 1998). Preparation of tissues 

for histopathology followed the protocol of the Registry of Tumors in Lower Animals as previously 

published (Baumann and others, 1990). Tissue samples were taken from all visible lesions, and from the 

liver, gonad, spleen, and kidney, and preserved in 10 percent buffered formalin. After 5–7 weeks of 

fixation, tissue samples were processed for paraffin embedding, sectioned at 4-mm thickness, mounted on 

glass slides, and stained with hematoxylin and eosin. Three to six slides were examined for each fish.

Additional diagnostic techniques, such as immunocytochemistry (ICC), including markers for oncogenes 

(ras) and tumor suppressor genes (Rb and p53), were applied to evaluate histological lesions. 

Commercially available ICC reagent was applied according to manufacturer’s directions. Representative, 

tumor-free organ samples from the same fish were used as negative controls; positive controls consisted of 

appropriate tumor samples from the collection of vertebrate tumors in the archives of the Veterinary 
25

Diagnostic Laboratory, University of Connecticut. In addition, sections from the liver, spleen, and head 

kidney were examined morphometrically to measure the proliferation of MMCs. The areas of MMC were 

calculated within 10 randomly chosen, high-power fields HPF (400 magnification) in each section (3 

sections per organ per fish), 30 fields for each organ. The mean value of all 30 measurements constitutes 

the final result for each fish. A digital camera and morphometric software (SPOT Insight and SPOT 

SOFTWARE 4.1, Diagnostic Instruments, Inc., Sterling Heights, Michigan) were used. All tissues were 

examined blindly by a veterinary pathologist using an Olympus BX41 light microscope with the SPOT 

Insight camera. Slides are archived at the Northeastern Research Center for Wildlife Diseases at the 

University of Connecticut, and sections of tumors will be archived at the Registry of Tumors in Lower 

Animals, at the Environmental Pathology Laboratories, Sterling, Virginia. 

Bacteria and Viruses Collected from Fish

All fish were sampled for microbiology as soon after collection as possible. Fish were euthanized 

upon collection and held on ice until samples could be taken. Between individuals sampled, dissecting 

tools and surfaces were cleaned and then disinfected with 70 percent isopropyl alcohol. Bacteriological 

samples were taken first to reduce the chance of contamination. When external lesion(s) were observed, a 

brain heart infusion agar (BHIA) slant was streaked directly from the lesion, using a sterile inoculating 

loop. The loop and recap slant were discarded, leaving the cap loosened. With sterile scissors or scalpel, a 

cut into the abdomen was made at the base of the pectoral fin and continued dorsally to just below lateral 

line. The incision was started again at the base of the pectoral fin and continued towards the posterior of 

the fish along the ventral abdominal wall to the vent. The kidney was then stabbed with the sterile loop end 

and streaked onto BHIA slant. Small amounts of kidney tissue from each fish were collected and combined 

with kidney tissues from other fish for a total of five tissue samples in a Whirlpak bag. Samples were kept 

chilled on ice (4°C) during collection and shipment. Virology samples for bass included kidney, spleen, 

and air bladder (K/S/A); samples for carp and white sucker included only kidney/spleen (K/S). Samples 

were kept on ice during sampling and shipment (Coll, 2006). 

Comet Assay 

Using whole blood cells, this assay has been developed as a sensitive marker of contaminantcaused genetic damage in fish (Meier and others, 2001). The single cell gel or “comet assay” uses 

electrophoresis to separate and measure intact and fragmentary DNA within a single cell nucleus. The term 

“comet” comes from the shape the genetic material forms during the assay, with the intact DNA in a tight 

center sphere while the fragmentary pieces stream back like a comet tail. The comet assay was performed 

at the EPA National Exposure Research Laboratory, Cincinnati, Ohio, and was based on the method 

developed by Singh and others (1988). Two slides were prepared for each fish and 50 cells scored on each 

slide. Slides were put into a lysing solution, immersed in electrophoresis buffer to allow unwinding of 

DNA, and then subjected to electrophoresis and stained. Slides were observed under a fluorescent 

microscope and image analysis was used to quantify tail length and percent tail DNA.

Indicators of Chemical Exposure 

Liver EROD Activity 

Measurement of ethoxyresorufin-O-deethylase (EROD) activity in fish is a well-established 

biomarker of exposure and response to certain planar halogenated hydrocarbons (PHHs) and PAHs and 

other structurally similar compounds (Whyte and others, 2000). Liver EROD activity is performed on 
26

small liver samples dissected from fish immediately after being euthanized. Liver tissue was immediately 

cryogenically frozen in the field and stored at -78°C until it could be processed at the laboratory. The 

procedures for laboratory preparation and analysis are described by Schmitt and others (2002).

H4IIE Bioassay

The H4IIE rat hepatoma cell line bioassay is used to detect and semi-quantify specific classes of 

PHHs and related compounds. The H4IIE bioassay was performed on the fish composite-sample extracts 

according to the method described by Birke and Tillitt (2000). Use of quality control techniques, 

development of standard dose-response curves, and the establishment of toxic equivalents are detailed in 

Schmitt and others (2002). 

Gill EROD

Gill cytochrome P4501A activity was measured as EROD by modifying the method of Jonsson and 

others (2002). Gill EROD may be more sensitive to low concentrations of water-borne planar hydrocarbon 

contaminants than liver EROD (Jonsson and others, 2006). Gill filaments were collected in two ways to 

determine which was optimal for field collections. For half the fish, whole gill arches were taken, two per 

fish, one arch from each side. Arches were placed inside tissue cassettes and immersed in a bottle 

containing ice-cold HEPES-Cortland (HC) buffer (0.38 g of KCl, 7.74 g of NaCl, 0.23 g of MgSO4-7H2O, 

0.23 g of CaCl2-2H2O, 0.41 g of NaH2PO4-H2O, 1.43 g of HEPES, and 1 g of glucose per L of dH2O; pH 

7.7). For the remaining fish, filament tips approximately 2 mm long were clipped from the gill arches 

immediately above the septum and placed in vials containing ice-cold HC buffer, at a ratio of one vial per 

fish. Gill filaments and arches were maintained at 4°C for 48 hours prior to processing. The 2-mm-long 

gill filament tips appeared healthier (bright pink to red, little to no mucus coating) than the filaments on the 

whole arches and were used for all assays. For each fish, 10 filament tips of 2-mm length were placed into 

each of two wells in a 12-well plate (CoStar, Corning #3512) containing HC buffer and kept on ice. 

Once all filaments were in the plates, the HC buffer was replaced with 0.5 mL of reaction buffer 

(HC buffer supplemented with 10-6 M 7-ethoxyresorufin [the substrate for CYP1A, resorufin ethyl ether, 

Sigma] and 10-5M dicoumarol; both solutions were prepared from stocks made in DMSO). Filaments were 

pre-incubated with continuous shaking in the dark at room temperature (to reflect the temperature of the 

water from which the fish were collected). After 10 min, the reaction buffer was discarded and replaced 

with 0.7 mL of fresh reaction buffer. Because all fish were assumed to have fairly low CYP1A activities, 

filaments were incubated for 50 min, the longest time period described in Jonsson and others (2002) 

protocol, with 200-μL aliquots removed after 30 and 50 min. Aliquots were transferred to a 96-well plate 

(FluoroNunc/LumiNunc white polystyrene plates, untreated). A resorufin (resorufin sodium salt, Sigma) 

stock solution (10 millimolar concentration in methanol) was used to prepare standard solutions in reaction 

buffer; these were run as a standard curve, in duplicate, on each plate along with duplicate wells of 

reaction buffer alone. Fluorescence was measured in a multi-well plate reader (Perkin Elmer Fusion) with

535/590 EX/EM filters. EROD activity was calculated as picomoles of resorufin per filament tip per 

minute using the following formula: (fluorescence signal of 50-min aliquot minus fluorescence signal of 

30-min aliquot) divided by 20 min; multiplied by 0.0005L (correction factor for initial 0.5-mL volume in 

well); divided by the slope of the resorufin (pmol RR) standard curve; divided by the number of gill 

filament tips in the well; multiplied by 1,000 pmol RR/nmol RR (converting fluorescence signal from 

nmol resorufin standard curve to pmol resorufin). 
27

Fish Immune System Responses

Vitamins C and E (ascorbate and α-tocopherol) Assay 

Vitamins C and E are known to be important antioxidants in fish as well as in mammals. Reduced 

levels of vitamin C can cause reproductive dysfunction in fish (Dabrowski and Ciereszko, 2001), while 

vitamin E is necessary for the immune system. Samples of liver were used to assess α-tocopherol (αT) 

metabolism and long-term storage (White and others, 1993). Liver αT concentration was measured using a 

reverse-phase HPLC method coupled to a fluorescence detector. Ascorbate concentrations were also 

analyzed in fish liver. Total ascorbate was determined using the colorimetric method (Roe and Kuether, 

1943), modified as in Dabrowski and Hinterleitner (1989). 

Thyroid Hormones (T3 and T4)

The thyroid system in fish regulates many metabolic processes that are critical during embryonic 

growth, metamorphosis, and reproduction in adults. Disruption or modulation of thyroid function from 

environmental contaminants could severely compromise fitness and survival. A review of this potential 

(Zhou and others, 2000; Brown and others, 2004) has indicated that numerous environmental contaminants 

(including chlorinated hydrocarbons, PAHs, PCBs, pesticides, phenols, metals, and pharmaceuticals) are 

likely to impact thyroid function. Thyroid biomarkers serve as indicators of exposure and potential effects. 

Two important thyroid hormones, the tetra-iodinated form (T4), and the tri-iodinated form (T3), were 

measured in fish plasma using standard RIA or enzyme immunoassay procedures (Grau, 1987). 

Fish and Invertebrate Communities

Invertebrates Communities 

Riffle Habitat

Collections from riffle substrates were made using a modified Surber sampler following methods 

outlined by Moulton and others (2002). Each sample was taken from a 0.25-square meter area immediately 

upstream from the sampler. The area was disturbed by digging or shuffling to dislodge organisms to wash 

them downstream into the sampler. Five sub samples were collected in the same type of habitat to compose 

a single composite sample. These samples were rinsed and placed in a container with buffered formalin. 

Identification and enumeration were made by the National Water Quality Laboratory (NWQL), Denver, 

Colorado. 

Depositional Habitat

Grab samplers, such as Ponar and Eckman, were used to collect the depositional sediments.

Individual grab samples were composited in a decontaminated stainless-steel container. Each of the 

samples to be composited was taken within the same in-stream habitat type but at a distance sufficient for 

avoiding interference among samples. The bulk sediments collected for chemistry were homogenized and 

subsampled for invertebrates and placed in a sample jar with 10 percent neutral buffered (sodium 

phosphate) formalin for preservation. The invertebrates were identified and enumerated by the NWQL, 

Denver, Colo.
28

Depositional Zone Invertebrate Deformities

The presence of mouthpart deformities in benthic species provides evidence of exposure and sublethal effects in the primary consumers of streamfood webs. Chironomid deformities were evaluated from 

benthic samples collected in depositional zones. Deformities were assessed on all individuals mounted as a 

routine part of sample identification and enumeration by using published methods for members of subfamily Tanypodinae and the family Chironomidae (Dermott, 1991; Dickman and others, 1992). 

Fish Communities 

Boat-based electrofishing was used to collect fish in the Charles River. Two separate passes, one 

along each bank, were made in the designated reach. Fish collected in the first pass were processed before 

the second electrofishing pass. The fishcommunity data for each pass were kept separate (Moulton and 

others, 2002). 

Results

Field Fish Health Assessment

Twenty common carp, 20 largemouth bass, and 40 white suckers were collected in the study area. 

We were able to obtain 10 male and 10 female common carp and 12 male and 8 female largemouth bass. 

Twenty-nine of the 40 white suckers collected were female. Length, weight, and age for common carp, 

largemouth bass, and white sucker collected for this study are provided in table 5. The number, location, 

and type of lesions, anomalies, and parasites observed during the field health assessment of common carp, 

largemouth bass, and white suckers are provided in tables 6 and 7. The condition factor, calculated somatic 

indices, and health assessment index scores are provided in table 8. 

Sediment and Water Chemistry

Organochlorine pesticide concentrations, total PCB concentrations, and PAH concentrations (ng/L) 

are provided in tables 9 and 10 for SPMD samples, and pesticide and hormone concentrations (ng/L) are 

reported in table 11 for POCIS samples. Total PCBs, organochlorine pesticides, PBDE, and PAH 

concentrations (ng/g dry weight) from sediment samples are reported in tables 12 and 13. Measured 

concentrations (ng/mL) of elements in filtered sediment pore water are provided in table 14, and 

concentrations of total recoverable elements (μg/g dry weight) in Charles River sediments are reported in 

table 15. 

Fish Residue Chemistry

To determine the concentration of PCBs, organochlorine pesticides, and inorganic contaminants, 

fish were composited by species and gender. Concentrations (ng/g wet weight) of PCBs and 

organochlorine pesticides are reported in table 16, and concentrations (μg/g dry weight) of inorganic 

contaminants are reported in table 17. In addition to the mercury concentrations measured from 

composited samples, mercury also was measured in muscle tissue collected from largemouth bass (table 

18). Individual white suckers were analyzed for concentration (ng/g wet weight) of total PCBs and 

organochlorine pesticides (table 19). PAH metabolite concentrations (μg/mL) associated with the bile of 

common carp, largemouth bass, and white sucker are provided in table 20. Concentrations of 

organochlorines, PBDEs, and PCBs and other contaminants associated with plasma of common carp, 

largemouth bass, and white sucker are provided in tables 21 and 22. 
29

Toxicity of Sediments and Extracts from SPMD and POCIS Samplers

Information on the survival and growth of the amphipod Hyalella azteca and the midge 

Chironomus dilutus after being exposed to sediment extracts are provided in table 23. The Microtox® 

acute toxicity screen and the yeast estrogen screen (YES) were conducted on sediment and passive sampler 

extracts. Table 24 provides a comparison between controls and the potential toxicity of extracts from 

SPMDs and POCISs using the Microtox® bioassay and the YES bioassay. 

Fish Health Biomarkers and Indicators of Chemical Exposure

Reproductive biomarkers associated with common carp, largemouth bass, and white sucker are 

provided in tables 25 through 27. Biomarkers associated with histological examination of tissues are 

provided in tables 28 and 29. Results from comet assay measurements taken on blood and liver cells 

collected from common carp and white suckers are reported in table 30. H4IIE bioassay-derived 2,3,7,8-

tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin equivalents (TCDD-EQ) and cytochrome P4501A enzyme activity measured 

as EROD activity in liver and in gill filament tips from white suckers, common carp, and largemouth bass 

are reported in tables 31 through 33. Concentration of vitamin C (ascorbic acid and vitamin E (αtocopherol), as measured in liver tissue from common carp and white suckers, are reported in table 34. 

Fifty-nine bacterial cultures obtained from 8 largemouth bass, 13 common carp, and 9 white 

suckers were isolated and investigated biochemically. The majority of these were motile aeromonas

bacteria, which are commonly found in water. None of the listed bacterial pathogens were identified. 

Kidney tissues also were assayed for Renibacterium salmoninarum, the causative agent for bacterial 

kidney disease (BKD). As is often the case with running this test on non-salmonids, the preliminary 

ELISA test was positive for the presence of a component of this bacterium; however, the collaboratively 

run specific DNA-based test (polymerase chain reaction [PCR]) was negative, so the BKD status of these 

fish were determined to be negative.

Fish and Invertebrate Communities

Invertebrate diversity and abundance associated with depositional habitats are presented in table 35. 

Chironomid species collected from these samples were evaluated for contaminant related head capsule 

deformities. All of the 68 specimens examined had structural symmetry and none of the typical deformities 

associated with chemical contamination. The NAWQA Program has previously collected information on 

invertebrates from riffle areas in the Charles River near Laundry Brook (NAWQA Station 01104615) 

during the course of their ongoing studies. The last two years in which data were collected from this site 

were 2002 and 2003. Results from these efforts are provided in table 36. Fish were also collected from 

NAWQA Station 01095220 as part of our study and as part of the NAWQA Program’s study protocols 

(table 37). 
30

Table 5. Gender, body weight, length, and age of fish collected from the Charles River sorted by species and 

gender. (g, grams; mm, millimeters) 

Species Gender Fish ID Collection date Body 

weight (g)

Body 

length 

(mm)

Age 

(years)

Common carp F CC03 8/23/2005 4,095 646 4

Common carp F CC04 8/23/2005 4,625 678 8

Common carp F CC06 8/23/2005 3,245 612 7

Common carp F CC07 8/23/2005 4,195 665 5

Common carp F CC09 8/23/2005 6,045 648 6

Common carp F CC16 8/24/2005 4,860 644 7

Common carp F CC17 8/24/2005 3,905 678 3

Common carp F CC18 8/24/2005 3,665 637 6

Common carp F CC19 8/24/2005 1,725 475 5

Common carp F CC20 8/24/2005 3,200 595 7

Common carp M CC01 8/23/2005 2,685 573 3

Common carp M CC02 8/23/2005 4,145 652 4

Common carp M CC05 8/23/2005 3,955 635 3

Common carp M CC08 8/23/2005 3,315 595 3

Common carp M CC10 8/23/2005 4,920 682 6

Common carp M CC11 8/23/2005 3,890 660 7

Common carp M CC12 8/23/2005 3,915 645 4

Common carp M CC13 8/23/2005 4,485 651 6

Common carp M CC14 8/23/2005 3,125 586 3

Common carp M CC15 8/23/2005 5,555 699 7

Largemouth bass F LMB01 8/23/2005 1,610 457 14

Largemouth bass F LMB02 8/23/2005 710 363 6

Largemouth bass F LMB03 8/23/2005 1,360 462 10

Largemouth bass F LMB07 8/23/2005 225 257 2

Largemouth bass F LMB11 8/24/2005 465 322 3

Largemouth bass F LMB12 8/24/2005 1,285 432 9

Largemouth bass F LMB14 8/24/2005 705 355 3

Largemouth bass F LMB16 8/24/2005 1,040 415 5

Largemouth bass M LMB04 8/23/2005 835 396 13

Largemouth bass M LMB05 8/23/2005 595 347 4

Largemouth bass M LMB06 8/23/2005 245 259 2

Largemouth bass M LMB08 8/23/2005 375 297 3
31

Table 5. Gender, body weight, length, and age of fish collected from the Charles River sorted by species 

and gender. (g, grams; mm, millimeters) —Continued

Species Gender Fish ID Collection date Body 

weight (g)

Body 

length 

(mm)

Age 

(years)

Largemouth bass M LMB09 8/23/2005 295 277 2

Largemouth bass M LMB10 8/24/2005 1,275 427 6

Largemouth bass M LMB13 8/24/2005 685 369 5

Largemouth bass M LMB15 8/24/2005 740 391 5

Largemouth bass M LMB17 8/24/2005 605 344 6

Largemouth bass M LMB18 8/24/2005 320 293 4

Largemouth bass M LMB19 8/24/2005 530 334 2

Largemouth bass M LMB20 8/24/2005 445 315 4

White sucker F WS01 8/23/2005 1,201 494 15

White sucker F WS02 8/23/2005 1,455 518 17

White sucker F WS03 8/23/2005 1,460 519 16

White sucker F WS04 8/23/2005 1,405 527 15

White sucker F WS05 8/23/2005 1,145 488 9

White sucker F WS06 8/23/2005 1,395 519 14

White sucker F WS07 8/23/2005 1,320 516 13

White sucker F WS08 8/24/2005 1,105 475 9

White sucker F WS09 8/24/2005 1,455 522 12

White sucker F WS10 8/24/2005 885 422 7

White sucker F WS11 8/24/2005 1,305 515 8

White sucker F WS12 8/24/2005 1,030 448 7

White sucker F WS13 8/24/2005 1,280 512 9

White sucker F WS14 8/24/2005 1,175 491 10

White sucker F WS15 8/24/2005 1,045 464 10

White sucker F WS17 8/24/2005 1,340 497 6

White sucker F WS18 8/24/2005 1,150 486 12

White sucker F WS19 8/24/2005 1,045 486 9

White sucker F WS21 8/24/2005 1,245 492 13

White sucker F WS24 8/24/2005 1,005 469 6

White sucker F WS25 8/24/2005 955 484 14

White sucker F WS26 8/24/2005 745 406 5

White sucker F WS29 8/24/2005 895 442 15

White sucker F WS30 8/24/2005 1,470 518 15
32

Table 5. Gender, body weight, length, and age of fish collected from the Charles River sorted by species 

and gender. (g, grams; mm, millimeters) —Continued

Species Gender Fish ID Collection date Body 

weight (g)

Body 

length 

(mm)

Age 

(years)

White sucker F WS31 8/24/2005 775 405 4

White sucker F WS32 8/24/2005 1,315 521 17

White sucker F WS34 8/24/2005 1,065 470 6

White sucker F WS34 8/24/2005 1,670 551 15

White sucker F WS37 8/24/2005 1,165 475 5

White sucker M WS16 8/24/2005 1,060 481 15

White sucker M WS20 8/24/2005 1,130 474 10

White sucker M WS22 8/24/2005 835 445 13

White sucker M WS23 8/24/2005 1,040 468 17

White sucker M WS27 8/24/2005 810 431 5

White sucker M WS28 8/24/2005 845 422 5

White sucker M WS33 8/24/2005 825 437 5

White sucker M WS35 8/24/2005 985 455 10

White sucker M WS38 8/24/2005 975 473 14

White sucker M WS39 8/24/2005 770 408 7

White sucker M WS40 8/24/2005 895 443 6
33

Table 6. Location and number of fish with lesions, anomalies, and parasites observed during the field health assessment in common carp, 

largemouth bass, and white suckers from the Charles River (August, 2005). (n, total number of fish examined) 

Species n 

Location and number of lesions, anomalies, and parasites on fish

Body Eyes Opercles Gills Fins Liver Gonads Spleen Kidney Peritoneal 

cavity

Common carp 20 0 0 0 0 7 15 2 0 0 0 

Largemouth 

bass 20 1 0 0 4 14 7 3 2 2 9 

White sucker 40 4 1 3 3 10 7 2 1 3 2 
34

Table 7. Types of lesions and anomalies and their frequency of detection in common carp, largemouth 

bass, and white suckers from the Charles River (August, 2005). The body surface, eyes, opercula, gills, fins, 

liver, gonad, spleen, and kidney of each fish were examined during the health assessment for the presence of 

lesions, parasites, and anomalies. 

Lesions and anomalies

Frequency of detection

Common carp Largemouth bass White sucker

Body surface (skin)

Lesions 0 1 1

Focal discoloration 0 0 1

Scale anomalies 0 0 2

Eyes

Exophthalmia 0 0 1

Opercula

Slight shortening 0 0 2

Severe shortening 0 0 1

Gills

Frayed, ragged appearance 0 0 1

Pale, very light color 0 1 2

Parasites 0 3 1

Fins

Frayed 5 12 4

Mild erosion 0 4 1

Sever erosion 1 1 1

Deformed/damaged rays 5 1 3 

Nodules 0 0 1

Liver

“Fatty liver” 13 0 7

Focal discoloration 0 5 0

Nodules 0 2 0

Parasites 2 3 1

Gonads

Asymmetric 1 0 0

Egg adhesions 1 0 0

Parasites 0 3 2

Spleen

Granular 0 1 0

Nodular 0 1 0

Enlarged 0 0 1

Kidney

Swollen 0 0 2

Mottled 0 1 0

Granular 0 1 1

Peritoneal cavity

Mesenteric nodules\cysts 0 2 0

Parasites 0 9 2
35

Table 8. Organosomatic indices, condition factor, and health assessment index (HAI) for common carp, largemouth bass, and white suckers 

collected from the Charles River (August, 2005). (ND, not determined) 

Species Fish ID

Organosomatic indices1

Condition 

factor HAI 2

Hepatosomatic index

(HSI)

Gonadosomatic 

index (GSI)

Splenosomatic index

(SSI)

Common carp CC01 ND 4.57 0.24 1.43 0

Common carp CC02 ND 7.17 .21 1.50 30

Common carp CC03 ND 3.53 .17 1.52 10

Common carp CC04 ND 3.35 .15 1.48 10

Common carp CC05 ND 3.82 .16 1.54 0

Common carp CC06 ND 7.09 .14 1.42 30

Common carp CC07 ND 6.45 .15 1.43 30

Common carp CC08 ND 3.47 .21 1.57 30

Common carp CC09 ND 14.14 .15 2.22 40

Common carp CC10 ND 5.10 .14 1.55 30

Common carp CC11 ND 7.19 .17 1.35 70

Common carp CC12 ND 6.69 .25 1.46 30

Common carp CC13 ND 5.00 .15 1.63 30

Common carp CC14 ND 3.62 .11 1.55 30

Common carp CC15 ND 4.71 .18 1.63 40

Common carp CC16 ND 7.07 .18 1.82 30

Common carp CC17 ND 4.71 .12 1.25 30

Common carp CC18 ND 4.33 .14 1.42 10

Common carp CC19 ND 12.37 .09 1.61 30

Common carp CC20 ND 4.79 .17 1.52 30

Largemouth bass LMB01 0.57 .70 .13 1.69 10

Largemouth bass LMB02 0.86 .75 .06 1.48 0

Largemouth bass LMB03 0.70 .85 .08 1.38 30

Largemouth bass LMB04 0.69 .13 .20 1.34 10

Largemouth bass LMB05 0.80 .11 .21 1.42 100
36

Table 8. Organosomatic indices, condition factor, and health assessment index (HAI) for common carp, largemouth bass, and white suckers 

collected from the Charles River (August, 2005). (ND, not determined)—Continued

Species Fish ID

Organosomatic indices1

Condition 

factor HAI 2

Hepatosomatic index 

(HSI)

Gonadosomatic 

index (GSI)

Splenosomatic index 

(SSI)

Largemouth bass LMB06 0.71 .07 .07 1.41 0

Largemouth bass LMB07 0.91 .50 .30 1.33 0

Largemouth bass LMB08 .76 .07 .06 1.43 0

Largemouth bass LMB09 .66 .10 .08 1.39 10

Largemouth bass LMB10 .81 .15 .08 1.64 10

Largemouth bass LMB11 1.04 .52 .11 1.39 0

Largemouth bass LMB12 .74 .77 .09 1.59 10

Largemouth bass LMB13 .79 .06 .08 1.36 10

Largemouth bass LMB14 .84 .60 .10 1.58 10

Largemouth bass LMB15 1.38 .17 .11 1.24 40

Largemouth bass LMB16 .64 .65 .08 1.46 40

Largemouth bass LMB17 .77 .06 .13 1.49 10

Largemouth bass LMB18 .76 .04 .27 1.27 0

Largemouth bass LMB19 .61 .08 .11 1.42 10

Largemouth bass LMB20 .85 .04 .05 1.42 20

White sucker WS01 ND 2.45 .17 1.00 0

White sucker WS02 ND 1.54 .07 1.05 100

White sucker WS03 ND 1.70 .09 1.04 30

White sucker WS04 ND 2.07 .23 .96 60

White sucker WS05 ND .35 .21 .99 10

White sucker WS06 ND 1.63 .08 1.00 10

White sucker WS07 ND 2.01 .15 .96 60

White sucker WS08 ND 2.42 .16 1.03 30

White sucker WS09 ND 2.22 .20 1.02 0

White sucker WS10 ND 2.42 .14 1.18 100

White sucker WS11 ND 3.55 .15 .96 0
37

Table 8. Organosomatic indices, condition factor, and health assessment index (HAI) for common carp, largemouth bass, and white suckers 

collected from the Charles River (August, 2005). (ND, not determined)—Continued

Species Fish ID

Organosomatic indices1

Condition 

factor HAI 2

Hepatosomatic index 

(HSI)

Gonadosomatic 

index (GSI)

Splenosomatic index 

(SSI)

White sucker WS12 ND 2.33 .07 1.15 30

White sucker WS13 ND 2.66 .19 .95 0

White sucker WS14 ND 3.54 .18 .99 30

White sucker WS15 ND 2.92 .29 1.05 0

White sucker WS16 ND .71 .19 .95 10

White sucker WS17 ND 2.68 .23 1.09 0

White sucker WS18 ND 2.80 .24 1.00 0

White sucker WS19 ND 2.88 .12 .91 30

White sucker WS20 ND 1.74 .14 1.06 0

White sucker WS21 ND 2.24 .13 1.05 0

White sucker WS22 ND .76 .20 .95 0

White sucker WS23 ND 1.54 .26 1.01 10

White sucker WS24 ND 2.20 .22 .97 40

White sucker WS25 ND 2.74 .26 .84 0

White sucker WS26 ND 2.63 .17 1.11 0

White sucker WS27 ND 1.58 .23 1.01 0

White sucker WS28 ND .64 .23 1.12 10

White sucker WS29 ND 2.38 .24 1.04 0

White sucker WS30 ND 1.92 .23 1.06 0

White sucker WS31 ND 2.51 .17 1.17 10

White sucker WS32 ND 3.16 .12 .93 30

White sucker WS33 ND 1.16 .27 .99 0

White sucker WS34 ND 1.58 .13 1.03 0

White sucker WS35 ND 2.07 .29 1.05 0

White sucker WS36 ND 3.70 .15 1.00 0

White sucker WS37 ND 1.60 .18 1.09 10
38

Table 8. Organosomatic indices, condition factor, and health assessment index (HAI) for common carp, largemouth bass, and white suckers 

collected from the Charles River (August, 2005). (ND, not determined)—Continued

Species Fish ID

Organosomatic indices1

Condition 

factor HAI 2

Hepatosomatic index 

(HSI)

Gonadosomatic 

index (GSI)

Splenosomatic index 

(SSI)

White sucker WS38 ND 2.21 .18 .92 10

White sucker WS39 ND .49 .11 1.13 0

White sucker WS40 ND 1.18 .22 1.03 30

1

The Organosomatic index scores were calculated by dividing an organ’s weight by the fish’s body weight. Somatic indices were calculated for the liver (HSI), 

gonads (GSI), and spleen (SSI). HSI was only calculated only for fish species (largemouth bass) that have a discreet liver. 

2

Numerical values were assigned to internal and external observations of anomalies and lesions recorded in the field, and a necropsy-based fish HAI score was 

calculated for each fish by summing these values for all organs.

 
39

Table 9. Organochlorine pesticide (OCP) and total polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB) analyte concentrations from semi-permeable membrane 

devices (SPMD) collected from the Charles River after 33 days of deployment (August, 2005). (ND, not determined; ng/SPMD, nanograms per 

SPMD; pg/L, picograms per liter; <, concentrations below the reporting limits; MDL, method detection limit; MQL, method quantitation limit) 

Analyte1 MDL2

(ng/SPMD)

MQL3 

(ng/SPMD)

Replicate #1

(ng/SPMD)

Replicate #2

(ng/SPMD)

Mean

(ng/SPMD)

Mean aqueous 

concentration 

(pg/L)

Trifluralin 0.05 0.25 0.42 0.35 0.39 ND

Hexachlorobenzene .18 .47 13.00 14.00 14.00 96

Pentachloroanisole .20 1.00 58.00 72.00 65.00 240

α-BHC 3.20 9.50 <9.50 <9.50 <9.50 ND

Diazinon 5.80 17.00 <5.80 25.00 <17.00 ND

Lindane 3.50 6.60 <3.50 <3.50 <3.50 ND

β-BHC .20 1.00 1.30 1.80 1.50 46

Heptachlor .20 1.00 <.20 <.20 <.20 ND

δ-BHC 5.90 16.00 <5.90 <5.90 <5.90 ND

Dacthal .30 .89 24.00 26.00 25.00 650

Chlorpyrifos .23 .67 <.23 <.23 <.23 ND

Oxychlordane .89 4.30 20.00 23.00 21.00 150

Heptachlor epoxide .46 1.10 26.00 28.00 27.00 270

trans-Chlordane 1.20 2.50 87.00 98.00 93.00 540

trans-Nonachlor .20 1.00 56.00 63.00 59.00 360

o,p'-DDE .20 1.00 <.20 <.20 <.20 ND

cis-Chlordane 1.20 3.00 150.00 170.00 160.00 880

Endosulfan .20 1.00 <.20 <.20 <.20 ND

p,p'-DDE 5.10 9.20 52.00 62.00 57.00 210

Dieldrin 3.40 9.10 62.00 66.00 64.00 380

o,p'-DDD 6.50 17.00 32.00 37.00 34.00 230

Endrin 3.30 8.90 <3.30 <3.30 <3.30 ND

cis-Nonachlor 2.30 6.40 23.00 25.00 24.00 180

o,p'-DDT .20 1.00 12.00 14.00 13.00 150
40

Table 9. Organochlorine pesticide (OCP) and total polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB) analyte concentrations from semi-permeable membrane 

devices (SPMD) collected from the Charles River after 33 days of deployment (August, 2005). (ND, not determined; ng/SPMD, nanograms per 

SPMD; pg/L, picograms per liter; <, concentrations below the reporting limits; MDL, method detection limit; MQL, method quantitation limit)

—Continued

Analyte1 MDL2

(ng/SPMD)

MQL3 

(ng/SPMD)

Replicate #1

(ng/SPMD)

Replicate #2

(ng/SPMD)

Mean

(ng/SPMD)

Mean aqueous 

concentration 

(pg/L)

p,p'-DDD 5.60 15.00 70.00 79.00 74.00 440

Endosulfan-II 1.20 2.10 43.00 48.00 46.00 ND 

p,p'-DDT 1.40 1.90 51.00 59.00 55.00 520

Endosulfan Sulfate .89 2.60 8.70 4.80 6.80 ND 

Methoxychlor 1.80 4.90 9.50 5.70 7.60 140

Mirex .20 1.00 <.20 <.20 <.20 ND

cis-Permethrin 5.30 15.00 <5.30 <5.30 <5.30 ND

trans-Permethrin 340.00 930.00 <340.00 <340.00 <340.00 ND

Total PCBs 17.00 43.00 380.00 440.00 410.00 4,400 

 1OCPs and total PCBs determined by dual-column, high-resolution capillary gas chromatography with electron-capture detector. Total PCB aqueous 

concentration was estimated based on a water temperature of 18°C due to the lack of replicate data at 26°C. The actual concentration may have been somewhat 

greater due to increased sampling at increased temperatures. Pyrene-d10 (keprc = 0.014 d-1) was used for the replicate adjustments.

2

MDL is defined as the mean of procedural field blanks plus three standard deviations of coincident peaks in field blanks (Keith, 1991). 

 3MQL is defined as the mean of procedural field blanks plus ten standard deviations of coincident peaks in field blanks (Keith, 1991).
41

Table 10. Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon (PAH) analyte concentrations from semi-permeable membrane devices (SPMDs) collected from the 

Charles River after 33 days of deployment (August, 2005). (ND, not determined; ng/SPMD, nanograms per SPMD; ng/L, nangrams per liter; <, 

concentrations below the reporting limits; MDL, method detection limit; MQL, method quantitation limit)

Analyte1 MDL2

(ng/SPMD)

MQL3 

(ng/SPMD)

Replicate #1

(ng/SPMD)

Replicate #2

(ng/SPMD)

Mean

(ng/SPMD)

Mean aqueous 

concentration 

(ng/L)

Naphthalene 4 20 <4 <4 <4 ND

Acenaphthylene 4 20 <4 <4 <4 ND

Acenaphthene 4 20 90 150 120 1.40

Fluorene 4 20 100 150 130 .90

Phenanthrene 26 76 1,300 1,500 1,400 11.00

Anthracene 4 20 230 200 220 1.10

Fluoranthene 26 76 8,800 9,800 9,300 67.00

Pyrene 26 76 5,700 6,200 6,000 39.00

Benz[a]anthracene 4 20 690 800 750 7.00

Chrysene 4 20 3,500 3,700 3,600 25.00

Benzo[b]fluoranthene 4 20 870 1,000 940 14.00

Benzo[k]fluoranthene 4 20 680 820 750 6.30

Benzo[a]pyrene 4 20 260 290 280 2.60

Indeno[1,2,3-c,d]pyrene 26 76 170 180 180 1.90

Dibenz[a,h]anthracene 26 76 <76 <76 <76 ND

Benzo[g,h,i]perylene 26 76 170 180 180 3.60

Benzo[b]thiophene 4 20 <4 <4 <4 ND 

2-Methylnaphthalene 4 20 <4 <20 <20 ND

1-Methylnaphthalene 4 20 <4 <20 <20 ND

Biphenyl 4 20 <4 <4 <4 ND

1-Ethylnaphthalene 4 20 <4 <4 <4 ND

1,2-Dimethylnaphthalene 240 680 <240 <240 <240 ND

4-Methylbiphenyl 4 20 <4 <4 <4 ND 
42

Table 10. Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon (PAH) analyte concentrations from semi-permeable membrane devices (SPMDs) collected from the 

Charles River after 33 days of deployment (August, 2005). (ND, not determined; ng/SPMD, nanograms per SPMD; ng/L, nangrams per liter; <, 

concentrations below the reporting limits; MDL, method detection limit; MQL, method quantitation limit)—Continued

Analyte1 MDL2

(ng/SPMD)

MQL3 

(ng/SPMD)

Replicate #1

(ng/SPMD)

Replicate #2

(ng/SPMD)

Mean

(ng/SPMD)

Mean aqueous 

concentration 

(ng/L)

2,3,5-Trimethylnaphthalene 4 20 70 70 70 .62

1-Methylfluorene 26 76 90 110 100 .93

Dibenzothiophene 4 20 50 70 60 .49

2-Methylphenanthrene 4 20 360 410 390 3.50 

9-Methylanthracene 4 20 <4 <4 <4 ND

3,6-Dimethylphenanthrene 4 20 100 140 120 1.40

2-Methylfluoranthene 4 20 320 350 340 4.10

Benzo[b]naphtha-[2,1-d]thiophene 4 20 440 460 450 ND 

Benzo[e]pyrene 4 20 700 710 710 19.00

Perylene 4 20 70 90 80 ND 

3-Methylcholanthrene 4 20 <4 <4 <4 ND 

1

Determined by dual-column, high-resolution, capillary gas chromatography with mass selective detector (GC-MSD). 

2

MDL is defined as the mean of procedural field blanks plus three standard deviations of coincident peaks in field blanks (Keith, 1991). 

 3MQL is defined as the mean of procedural field blanks plus ten standard deviations of coincident peaks in field blanks (Keith, 1991).

 
43

Table 11. Pesticide and hormone concentrations from polar organic chemical integrative samplers (POCIS) collected from the Charles River after 

33 days of deployment (August, 2005). (ND, not determined; ng/POCIS, nanograms per POCIS; ng/L, nanograms per liter; <, concentrations below 

the reporting limits; MDL, method detection limit; MQL, method quantitation limit)

Analyte1 MDL2

(ng/POCIS)

MQL3 

(ng/POCIS)

Replicate #1 

(ng/POCIS)

Replicate #2

(ng/POCIS)

Mean

(ng/POCIS)

Mean aqueous 

concentration 

(ng/L, n=2)

Pesticides

Atrazine 1 3 <1 <1 <1 ND

Ametryn 15 20 <15 <15 <15 ND

Atraton 33 57 <33 <33 <33 ND

Metribuzin 12 17 <12 <12 <12 ND

Prometon 23 47 <23 <23 <23 ND

Prometryn 19 23 <19 <19 <19 ND

Propazine 5 10 <5 <10 <10 ND

Simazine 3 17 <17 <17 <17 ND

Simetryn 15 20 <15 <15 <15 ND

Terbuthylazine 9 13 <13 <13 <13 ND

Terbutryne 22 27 <22 <22 <22 ND

Desethylatrazine 3 17 <3 <3 <3 ND

Desisopropylatrazine 7 33 <7 <7 <7 ND

Acetochlor 1 3 <1 <1 <1 ND

Alachlor 12 17 <12 <12 <12 ND

Metolachlor 15 20 <15 <20 <20 ND

Chlorpyrifos 1 3 13 13 13 ND

Diazinon 12 17 <12 <12 <12 ND

Fonofos 12 17 <12 <12 <12 ND

Malathion 3 17 <3 <3 <3 ND

Methyl Parathion 1 3 <1 <1 <1 ND

Dacthal 5 10 <5 <5 <5 ND

EPTC 1 3 <1 <1 <1 ND

Fipronil 25 30 <25 <25 <25 ND

Pendimethalin 1 3 47 47 47 5.5

Trifluralin 1 3 30 30 30 ND

Hormones- HPLC Method

17β-Estradiol 13 67 <13 <13 <13 ND

17α-Ethynylestradiol 13 67 <13 <13 <13 ND

Estriol ND ND ND ND ND ND
44

Table 11. Pesticide and hormone concentrations from polar organic chemical integrative samplers (POCIS) collected from the Charles River after 

33 days of deployment (August, 2005). (ND, not determined; ng/POCIS, nanograms per POCIS; ng/L, nanograms per liter; <, concentrations below 

the reporting limits; MDL, method detection limit; MQL, method quantitation limit)—Continued

Analyte1 MDL2

(ng/POCIS)

MQL3 

(ng/POCIS)

Replicate #1 

(ng/POCIS)

Replicate #2

(ng/POCIS)

Mean

(ng/POCIS)

Mean aqueous 

concentration 

(ng/L, n=2)

Estrone 13 67 <13 <13 <13 ND

Hormones- GC-MSD Method

17β-Estradiol 13 37 <13 <13 <13 ND

17α-Ethynylestradiol 13 37 <13 <13 <13 ND

Estriol 10 33 <10 <10 <10 ND

Estrone 13 37 <13 <13 <13 ND

 1Pesticides determined by dual-column, high-resolution, capillary gas chromatography with mass selective detector (GC-MSD). Hormones determined by GCMSD and liquid chromatograph with diode array detector (HPLC).

2

MDL is defined as the mean of procedural field blanks plus three standard deviations of coincident peaks in field blanks (Keith, 1991). 

 3MQL is defined as the mean of procedural field blanks plus ten standard deviations of coincident peaks in field blanks (Keith, 1991).
45

Table 12. Analytes associated with total polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), organochlorine pesticides 

(OCPs), and polybrominated diphenyl ether (PBDE) concentrations (ng/g dry weight) from three sediment 

samples collected from the Charles River (August, 2005). (ND, not determined; ng/g, nanograms per gram; 

<, concentrations below the reporting limits)

Analytes1

Method 

detection 

limit 2

Method 

quantitation 

limit 3

Sample 1 Sample 2 Sample 3

Total PCBs 68.00 74.00 110.00 3,400.00 5,000.00

Pentachloro-benzene .20 .29 <.20 .56 .92

Hexachloro-benzene .18 .31 .53 .76 1.60

Pentachloro-anisole .17 .25 .24 .64 .97

α-BHC(a-HCH) .11 .15 <.11 <.11 <.11

β-BHC(b-HCH) .16 .23 1.70 14.00 8.10

Lindane(g-HCH) .11 .16 .13 1.80 1.00

δ-BHC(d-HCH) .11 .19 <.11 <.11 <.11

Heptachlor .14 .19 <.14 <.14 <.14

Heptachlor epoxide .14 .16 <.14 <.14 <.14

Aldrin .11 .12 <.11 <.11 <.11

Dacthal .21 .37 <.21 <.21 <.21

Dieldrin .13 .17 3.10 11.00 3.10

Endrin .14 .19 1.90 5.70 4.10

Oxychlordane .14 .14 <.14 <.14 <.14

cis-Chlordane .17 .26 10.00 97.00 34.00

trans-Chlordane .31 .64 11.00 122.00 54.00

cis-Nonachlor .14 .19 2.10 18.00 11.00

trans-Nonachlor .15 .20 7.30 46.00 18.00

o,p’-DDE .14 .18 <.14 20.00 10.00

o,p’-DDD .24 .48 13.00 233.00 79.00

o,p’-DDT .19 .36 <.19 <.19 <.19

p,p’-DDE .13 .18 9.10 240.00 130.00

p,p’-DDD .12 .19 22.00 1,044.00 330.00

p,p’-DDT .25 .51 8.10 30.00 94.00

Endosulfan I .16 .25 <.16 <.16 <.16

Endosulfan II .16 .25 <.16 <.16 <.16

Endosulfate .14 .20 <.14 <.14 <.14

Methoxychlor .16 .21 <.16 <.16 <.16

Mirex .21 .30 <.21 1.90 .64

Toxaphene 12.00 28.00 84.00 227.00 98.00

PBDE-28 2.10 ND <2.10 <2.10 <2.10

PBDE-47 2.70 ND <2.70 <2.70 <2.70

PBDE-85 3.20 ND <3.20 <3.20 <3.20

PBDE-66 3.40 ND <3.40 <3.40 <3.40

PBDE-99 4.60 ND <4.60 <4.60 1.60

PBDE-100 5.50 ND <5.50 <5.50 <5.50

PBDE-153 3.90 ND <3.90 <3.90 <3.90

PBDE-154 5.70 ND <5.70 <5.70 <5.70

PBDE-183 4.10 ND <4.10 <4.10 <4.10

1

PCBs, OCPs, and PBDEs determined by dual-column, high-resolution capillary gas chromatography with electroncapture detector. 

2

Method detection limit (MDL) is defined as the mean of procedural field blanks plus three standard deviations of 

coincident peaks in field blanks (Keith, 1991). 

 3Method quantitation limit (MQL) is defined as the mean of procedural field blanks plus ten standard deviations of 

coincident peaks in field blanks (Keith, 1991).
46

Table 13. Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbon (PAH) analyte concentrations (ng/g dry weight) from three sediment samples collected from the 

Charles River (August, 2005). Priority PAH compounds are presented in bold text (Eisler, 1987). Sample 1 was divided prior to sample analysis into 

thirds (1A, 1B, and 1C) because of the non-homogenous nature (stone material composition) of the sediment sample. (ng/g, nanograms per gram; 

<, concentrations below the reporting limits) 

Analyte1 Field blank2

(2.5 g EQ)

Sample 1A

(0.05 g EQ) 

Sample 1B

(0.05 g EQ)

Sample 1C

(0.05 g EQ)

Sample 2 

(0.05 g EQ)

Sample 3 

(0.05 g EQ)

Naphthalene 5 340 130 1,200 1,700 970

2-Methyl_Naphthalene 13 130 78 360 1,100 1,100

1-Methyl_Naphthalene 7 63 55 240 650 760

Acenaphthylene < 1 110 41 170 180 160

Acenaphthene < 1 170 72 1,200 1,200 2,900

Fluorene 1 440 130 1,100 1,600 2,900

Dibenzothiophene < 1 330 96 680 1,200 1,500

Phenanthrene 6 4,300 1,500 6,900 6,400 9,300

Anthracene < 1 2,250 220 2,400 3,300 4,400

2-Methyl_Anthracene < 1 770 70 490 1,100 1,400

45-Methylene_Phenanthrene < 1 1,310 300 1,900 3,200 4,100

1-Methyl_Phenanthrene < 1 840 180 850 2,200 2,600

Fluoranthene 2 5,400 2,600 8,300 8,400 11,000

Pyrene 3 5,700 3,000 8,000 9,100 12,500

Retene < 1 29 27 30 530 860

1-Methyl_Pyrene < 1 640 410 640 1,600 1,800

Chrysene 1 5,400 2,200 8,000 8,300 8,200

Benzo[b]naphtho[21-d]thiophene < 1 1,120 390 1,800 2,000 2,700

Benz[a]anthracene < 1 5,900 2,100 7,900 8,500 10,600

Benzo[b]fluoranthene < 1 7,500 3,300 12,100 13,800 16,900

Benzo[k]fluoranthene < 1 3,200 1,300 4,200 4,100 7,600

Benzo[e]pyrene 1 4,600 2,000 7,100 7,800 8,600

Benzo[a]pyrene < 1 8,500 4,000 12,200 15,400 19,400

Perylene < 1 2,020 860 3,400 2,800 3,200

Indeno[123-cd]pyrene < 1 4,800 1,900 8,100 9,000 11,200

Dibenz[ah]anthracene < 1 1,240 480 2,000 1,700 2,300

Benzo[ghi]perylene < 1 5,800 2,500 10,200 12,100 16,000

1

Determined by dual-column, high-resolution capillary gas chromatography with mass selective detector (GC-MSD). 2

Equivalents (EQ) derived from a split and diluted sample mass.
47

Table 14. Measured concentrations (ng/mL) of elements in filtered sediment pore water from the Charles 

River (August, 2005). Priority pollutants are presented in bold. Method detection limits (MDL) and method 

quantitation limits (MQL) are provided for elements determined by inductively coupled plasma mass 

spectroscopy ICP–MS quantitative scan. All other elements determined by ICP–MS semi-quantitative scan.

(NA, not applicable, ng/mL, nanogram per milliliter; <, concentrations below the reporting limits) 

 Elements MDL1 MQL2 Sample 1 Sample 2 Sample 3

Li NA NA 2 0.9 2

Be NA NA < .1 < .1 < .1

Na NA NA 80 60 90

Mg NA NA 10 30 20

Al NA NA 20 100 100

K NA NA 5 4 5

Ca NA NA 60 70 40

Ti NA NA 3 8 7

V NA NA .6 4 .9

Cr NA NA 200 8 400

Mn NA NA 7,000 700 1,000

Fe NA NA 200 20 1,000

Co NA NA 3 .3 .3

Ni .35 1.16 1.44 1.52 1.59

Cu 1.90 6.27 < 1.9 <6.27 <6.27

Zn 25.00 82.50 < 25.00 < 25.00 < 25.00

Ga NA NA 1 .3 .3

As NA NA 3 7 3

Se NA NA 1 < 1 3

Ge NA NA < .1 .7 .1

Rb NA NA 5 2 5

Sr NA NA 400 400 300

Y NA NA < .1 .1 .1

Zr NA NA .6 .4 .7

Nb NA NA < .1 < .1 < .1

Mo NA NA 3 3 1

Ru NA NA .2 < .1 < .1

Pd NA NA < .1 < .1 < .1

Ag NA NA < .1 .1 .8

Cd .08 .26 .2 .7 .2

In NA NA < .1 < .1 < .1

Sn NA NA .2 1 .8

Sb NA NA .2 7 1

Te NA NA < .1 < .1 < .1

Cs NA NA .2 < .1 .1

Ba NA NA 200 100 50

La NA NA < .1 .1 .1

Ce NA NA < .1 .2 .2

Pr NA NA < .1 < .1 < .1

Nd NA NA < .1 .1 .1

Sm NA NA < .1 < .1 < .1

Eu NA NA < .1 < .1 < .1

Gd NA NA < .1 < .1 < .1

Tb NA NA < .1 < .1 < .1

Dy NA NA < .1 < .1 < .1
48

Table 14. Measured concentrations (ng/mL) of elements in filtered sediment pore water from the Charles 

River (August, 2005). Priority pollutants are presented in bold. Method detection limits (MDL) and method 

quantitation limits (MQL) are provided for elements determined by inductively coupled plasma mass 

spectroscopy ICP–MS quantitative scan. All other elements determined by ICP–MS semi-quantitative scan.

(NA, not applicable, ng/mL, nanogram per milliliter; <, concentrations below the reporting limits) 

—Continued 

 Elements MDL1 MQL2 Sample 1 Sample 2 Sample 3

Er NA NA < .1 < .1 < .1

Tm NA NA < .1 < .1 < .1

Yb NA NA < .1 < .1 < .1

Lu NA NA < .1 < .1 < .1

Hf NA NA < .1 < .1 < .1

Ta NA NA < .1 .1 < .1

W NA NA .2 1 .4

Re NA NA < .1 < .1 < .1

Os NA NA < .1 < .1 < .1

Ir NA NA < .1 < .1 < .1

Pt NA NA < .1 < .1 < .1

Au NA NA < .1 < .1 < .1

Tl NA NA < .1 < .1 < .1

Pb .18 .59 .6 10 8

Bi NA NA < .1 < .1 < .1

U NA NA 2 .6 .2

1

MDL, computed as 3 × (SDb

2 + SDst2

)

1/2 where SDb = standard deviation of a reagent blank diluted 10 × (n = 3) and 

SDst = standard deviation of a low level standard diluted 100 × (n = 3).

2

MQL, computed as 3.3 × the MDL.
49

Table 15. Measured concentrations (μg/g dry weight) of total recoverable elements in Charles River 

sediments collected August, 2005. Priority pollutants are presented in bold. Method detection limits (MDL) 

and method quantitation limits (MQL) are provided for elements determined by quantitative methods. (NA, 

not applicable; μg/g, microgram per gram; <, concentrations below the reporting limits) 

 Elements 1 MDL2 MQL3 Sample 1 Sample 2 Sample 3

Li NA NA 10 20 20

Be NA NA .60 1 .80

Na NA NA 300 500 700

Mg NA NA 4,000 6,000 6,000

Al NA NA 9,000 15,000 16,000

K NA NA 1,000 3,000 3,000

Ca NA NA 4,000 7,000 7,000

Ti NA NA 400 400 600

V NA NA 30 70 80

Cr NA NA 30 100 100

Mn NA NA 400 300 400

Fe NA NA 12,000 15,000 17,000

Co NA NA 6 10 10

Ni NA NA 10 40 50

Cu NA NA 30 200 300

Zn NA NA 100 500 500

Ga NA NA 7 10 10

As .034 .11 3.29 9.29 11.8

Se .036 .12 .13 .97 .93

Ge NA NA .20 .50 .40

Rb NA NA 7 20 20

Sr NA NA 30 70 70

Y NA NA 8 10 10

Zr NA NA 4 10 10

Nb NA NA < .04 < .04 < .04

Mo NA NA .70 1 2

Ru NA NA < .04 < .04 < .04

Pd NA NA .10 < .04 < .04

Ag NA NA .09 5 20

Cd NA NA .30 20 10

In NA NA < .04 .70 .40

Sn NA NA 5 30 20

Sb NA NA .20 .06 < .04

Te NA NA < .04 .30 < .04

Cs NA NA .50 1 1

Ba NA NA 50 200 200

La NA NA 7 20 20

Ce NA NA 20 30 40

Pr NA NA 2 5 6

Nd NA NA 8 20 20

Sm NA NA 2 3 4

Eu NA NA .40 .80 .80
50

Table 15. Measured concentrations (μg/g dry weight) of total recoverable elements in Charles River 

sediments collected August, 2005. Priority pollutants are presented in bold. Method detection limits (MDL) 

and method quantitation limits (MQL) are provided for elements determined by quantitative methods. (NA, 

not applicable; μg/g, microgram per gram; <, concentrations below the reporting limits)—Continued 

 Elements 1 MDL2 MQL3 Sample 1 Sample 2 Sample 3

Gd NA NA 2 4 4

Tb NA NA .30 .50 .50

Dy NA NA 2 3 3

Ho NA NA .30 .50 .50

Er NA NA .80 1 1

Tm NA NA .20 .20 .20

Yb NA NA .70 1 1

Lu NA NA .09 .20 .20

Hf NA NA .10 .30 .30

Ta NA NA < .04 < .04 < .04

W NA NA < .04 .60 < .04

Re NA NA < .04 < .04 < .04

Os NA NA < .04 < .04 < .04

Ir NA NA < .04 < .04 < .04

Pt NA NA < .04 < .04 < .04

Au NA NA < .04 .06 .06

Tl NA NA .10 .30 .30

Pb NA NA 60 600 500

Hg .007 .022 .042 .94 .94

Bi NA NA .10 .80 .80

U NA NA .80 2 2

1

As and Se determined by flow injection hydride generation atomic absorption spectroscopy. Hg determined by 

combustion-gold amalgamation atomic absorption spectroscopy. All other elements determined by ICP–MS semiquantitative scan. 

2

MDL, computed as 3 × (SDb

2 + SDs2

)

1/2 where SDb = standard deviation of a blank and SDs = standard deviation of 

a low level sample or spiked sample (n = 3).

3

MQL (ng/mL), computed as 3.3 × the MDL.
51

Table 16. Concentration (ng/g wet weight) of total polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) and organochlorine 

pesticides (OCPs) and percent lipids in composite samples of whole fish collected from the Charles River 

(August, 2005). (n, number of fish in composite sample; NA, not applicable; ng/g, nanogram per gram; <, 

concentrations below the reporting limits) 

Analytes1

Method 

detection 

limit2

Method 

quantitation limit3

Female 

Common 

carp

(n = 10)

Male 

common 

carp

(n = 10)

Female 

largemouth 

bass

(n = 8)

Male 

largemouth 

bass

(n = 12)

Percent lipid NA NA 8.14 9.11 2.79 1.68

Pentachloro-benzene .19 .31 1.31 1.51 .57 .38

Hexachloro-benzene .17 .23 3.47 4.99 1.16 .84

Pentachloro-anisole .16 .25 4.56 7.27 1.14 .96

α-BHC .12 .21 4.6 .33 .14 < .12

β-BHC .17 .33 .94 < .17 < .17 < .17

Lindane .11 .15 < .11 .64 < .11 < .11

δ-BHC .12 .23 < .12 < .12 < .12 < .12

Heptachlor .12 .15 .20 .22 < .12 < .12

Heptachlor epoxide .14 .20 4.87 6.04 3.09 1.97

Aldrin .41 1.00 < .41 < .41 < .41 < .41

Dacthal .18 .32 < .18 < .18 < .18 < .18

Dieldrin .17 .38 14.03 16.38 9.01 6.03

Endrin .29 .71 < .29 < .29 .82 < .29

Oxychlordane .14 .18 7.72 9.52 10.90 9.75

cis-Chlordane .36 .99 75.67 88.46 29.44 19.50

trans-Chlordane .30 .83 45.42 50.12 11.57 7.98

cis-Nonachlor .17 .49 25.80 30.68 22.33 23.73

trans-Nonachlor .37 .96 57.18 71.45 51.57 53.76

o,p’-DDE .87 1.60 3.52 5.36 2.37 1.55

o,p’-DDD .25 .71 25.02 26.57 11.49 6.49

o,p’-DDT .13 .36 7.16 6.98 4.60 3.25

p,p’-DDE 6.30 15.00 230.00 310.00 180.00 230.00

p,p’-DDD 1.10 3.00 160.00 200.00 92.87 72.95

p,p’-DDT .12 .37 5.17 6.97 15.28 16.92

Endosulfan I .22 .66 < .22 < .22 < .22 < .22

Endosulfan II .45 1.30 .62 < .45 < .45 < .45

Endosulfate .28 .83 .35 .34 < .28 < .28

Methoxychlor .56 1.50 < .56 < .56 < .56 < .56

Mirex .15 .17 1.29 1.98 1.24 1.42

Toxaphene 19.00 52.00 54.56 99.94 40.01 26.18

Total PCBs 28.00 59.00 2,166.67 2,500.00 1,800.00 2,100.00

1

Total PCBs and OCPs determined by dual-column, high-resolution, capillary gas chromatography with electroncapture detector. 

2

Method detection limit (MDL) is defined as the mean of procedural field blanks plus three standard deviations of 

coincident peaks in field blanks (Keith, 1991). 

 3Method quantitation limit (MQL) is defined as the mean of procedural field blanks plus ten standard deviations of 

coincident peaks in field blanks (Keith, 1991).
52

Table 17. Concentrations of inorganic contaminants (μg/g dry weight) in composite samples of whole 

fish collected from the Charles River (August, 2005). n, number of fish in composite; μg/g, microgram per 

gram; <, concentrations below the detection limit) 

 Elements1

Female 

common 

carp

(n = 10)

Male 

common 

carp

(n = 10)

Female 

largemouth 

bass

(n = 8)

Male largemouth

Bass

(n = 12)

Female 

white sucker

(n = 29)

Male 

white sucker

(n = 11)

Li < 0.04 < 0.04 < 0.04 < 0.04 < 0.04 0.10

Be < .04 < .04 < .04 < .04 < .04 < .04

Na 3,000 3,000 5,000 5,000 4,000 4,000

Mg 1,000 1,000 2,000 2,000 1,000 2,000

Al 30 10 10 30 50 50

K 9,000 9,000 11,000 12,000 10,000 10,000

Ca 22,000 15,000 43,000 38,000 28,000 48,000

Ti 20 20 40 40 30 40

V .20 .20 .08 .10 .80 .40

Cr 1 1 2 5 2 3

Mn 10 10 8 20 30 40

Fe 90 80 50 70 300 100

Co .10 .10 .06 .10 .10 .10

Ni .40 < .40 1 2 .90 2

Cu 5 4 3 2 2 2

Zn 200 200 50 60 70 90

Ga .20 .20 .20 .20 .20 .30

As2 .41 .42 .40 .12 .29 .21

Se2 1.64 1.48 1.74 1.42 1.34 1.44

Hg2 .20 .26 1.18 .93 .46 .45

Ge < .04 < .04 < .04 < .04 < .04 < .04

Rb 6 6 10 10 7 7

Sr 60 40 80 70 50 70

Y < .04 < .04 < .04 < .04 .05 .06

Zr .07 < .04 .20 < .04 .04 < .04

Nb < .04 < .04 < .04 < .04 < .04 < .04

Mo .06 .1 .07 .08 .07 .1

Ru < .04 < .04 < .04 < .04 < .04 < .04

Pd < .04 < .04 < .04 < .04 < .04 < .04

Ag < .04 < .04 < .04 < .04 < .04 < .04

Cd .1 .2 < .04 .05 .1 .07

In < .04 < .04 < .04 < .04 < .04 < .04

Sn 5 10 1 .10 .20 .20

Sb < .04 < .04 < .04 < .04 < .04 < .04

Te < .04 < .04 < .04 < .04 < .04 < .04

Cs < .04 < .04 .10 .10 .07 .06

Ba 5 4 3 4 4 5

La < .04 < .04 < .04 < .04 .06 .05

Ce < .04 < .04 < .04 < .04 .10 .09

Pr < .04 < .04 < .04 < .04 < .04 < .04

Nd < .04 < .04 < .04 < .04 .05 .04

Sm < .04 < .04 < .04 < .04 < .04 < .04

Eu < .04 < .04 < .04 < .04 < .04 < .04

Gd < .04 < .04 < .04 < .04 < .04 < .04

Tb < .04 < .04 < .04 < .04 < .04 < .04

Dy < .04 < .04 < .04 < .04 < .04 < .04
53

Table 17. Concentrations of inorganic contaminants (μg/g dry weight) in composite samples of whole 

fish collected from the Charles River (August, 2005). n, number of fish in composite; μg/g, microgram per 

gram; <, concentrations below the detection limit)—Continued

 Elements1

Female 

common 

carp

(n = 10)

Male 

common 

carp

(n = 10)

Female 

largemouth 

bass

(n = 8)

Male largemouth

Bass

(n = 12)

Female 

white sucker

(n = 29)

Male 

white sucker

(n = 11)

Ho < .04 < .04 < .04 < .04 < .04 < .04

Er < .04 < .04 < .04 < .04 < .04 < .04

Tm < .04 < .04 < .04 < .04 < .04 < .04

Yb < .04 < .04 < .04 < .04 < .04 < .04

Lu < .04 < .04 < .04 < .04 < .04 < .04

Hf < .04 < .04 < .04 < .04 < .04 < .04

Ta < .04 < .04 < .04 < .04 < .04 < .04

W < .04 < .04 < .04 < .04 < .04 < .04

Re < .04 < .04 < .04 < .04 < .04 < .04

Os < .04 < .04 < .04 < .04 < .04 < .04

Ir < .04 < .04 < .04 < .04 < .04 < .04

Pt < .04 < .04 < .04 < .04 < .04 < .04

Au < .04 < .04 < .04 < .04 < .04 < .04

Tl < .04 < .04 < .04 < .04 < .04 < .04

Pb 2 2 .30 .60 20 3

Bi < .04 < .04 < .04 < .04 < .04 < .04

U < .04 < .04 < .04 < .04 < .04 < .04

1

As and Se determined by flow injection hydride generation atomic absorption spectroscopy. Hg determined by 

combustion-gold amalgamation atomic absorption spectroscopy. All other elements determined by ICP–MS semiquantitative scan. 

2

Method detection limit (MDL) for As and Se is 0.029 and 0.005 for Hg. Method quantitation limit (MQL) is 0.1 for 

As and Se and 0.02 for Hg. MDL computed as 3 × (SDb

2 + SDs2

)

1/2 where SDb = standard deviation of a blank and

SDs = standard deviation of a low-level sample or spiked sample (n = 3). MQL is computed as 3.3 × the MDL.
54

Table 18. Mercury concentrations (μg/g dry weight) as determined from muscle tissue (plug) collection from 

largemouth bass collected from the Charles River (August, 2005). (mm, millimeters; g, grams; Hg, mercury; 

μg/g, microgram per gram) 

Fish ID Gender Length (mm) Weight (g) Age (years) Hg muscle plug1

LMB01 F 457 1,610 14 3.42

LMB02 F 363 710 6 1.14

LMB03 F 462 1,360 10 4.36

LMB04 M 396 835 13 4.43

LMB05 M 347 595 4 1.00

LMB06 M 259 245 2 .46

LMB07 F 257 225 2 .52

LMB08 M 297 375 3 .41

LMB09 M 277 295 2 .59

LMB10 M 427 1,275 6 3.21

LMB11 F 322 465 3 .51

LMB12 F 432 1,285 9 2.48

LMB13 M 369 685 5 .92

LMB14 F 355 705 3 .57

LMB15 M 391 740 5 2.93

LMB16 F 415 1,040 5 1.41

LMB17 M 344 605 6 1.32

LMB18 M 293 320 4 .69

LMB19 M 334 530 2 .81

LMB20 M 315 445 4 .54

1

Hg determined by combustion-gold amalgamation atomic absorption spectroscopy. Method detection limit (MDL) for 

Hg is 0.005 (μg/g dry weight). Method quantitation limit (MQL) is 0.02 (μg/g dry weight). MDL computed as 3 ×

(SDb

2 + SDs2

)

1/2 where SDb = standard deviation of a blank and SDs = standard deviation of a low-level sample or 

spiked sample (n = 3). MQL is computed as 3.3 × the MDL.
55

Table 19. Concentration (ng/g wet weight) of total polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) and organochlorine pesticides (OCPs) and percent lipids in individual 

whole white suckers (WS) collected from the Charles River (August, 2005). (NA, not applicable; ng/g, nanogram per gram; <, concentrations below the 

detection limit) 

Contaminant1

Method 

detection 

limit2

Method 

quantitation 

limit3

WS01 WS02 WS03 WS04 WS05 WS06 WS07 WS08 WS09 WS10

Percent lipid NA NA 9.57 5.27 12.10 7.00 10.85 2.95 4.94 3.65 6.25 8.50

Pentachlorobenzene .19 .31 1.55 1.05 1.81 1.44 1.76 .68 1.09 1.06 1.18 1.39

Hexachlorobenzene .17 .23 4.06 2.24 6.34 3.31 3.65 1.58 1.99 1.79 1.70 2.58

Pentachloroanisole .16 .25 9.61 5.14 10.04 8.77 7.96 4.35 4.93 3.74 3.71 6.67

α-BHC .12 .21 .49 .31 .24 .47 .54 .27 .56 < .12 .13 .36

β-BHC .17 .33 .88 .31 1.50 1.46 1.04 .35 .51 1.50 .19 .66

Lindane .11 .15 < .11 < .11 < .11 < .11 < .11 < .11 < .11 < .11 < .11 < .11

δ-BHC .12 .23 < .12 < .12 < .12 < .12 < .12 < .12 < .12 < .12 < .12 < .12

Heptachlor .12 .15 .48 .24 .64 .51 .54 .29 .40 .31 .31 .54

Heptachlorepoxide .14 .20 6.20 4.09 7.40 6.49 9.04 3.64 5.12 3.88 5.56 6.23

Aldrin .41 1.00 < .41 < .41 < .41 < .41 .42 < .41 .47 < .41 < .41 < .41

Dacthal .18 .32 < .18 < .18 < .18 < .18 < .18 < .18 < .18 < .18 < .18 < .18

Dieldrin .17 .38 170.00 14.35 210.00 27.18 43.03 11.58 20.92 11.85 20.51 20.44

Endrin .29 .71 1.02 < .29 .91 .40 < .29 < .29 < .29 < .29 < .29 < .29

Oxychlordane .14 .18 9.30 12.65 17.68 17.11 16.50 6.34 10.04 9.20 11.54 14.59

cis-Chlordane .36 .99 68.98 73.46 96.90 96.78 102.49 36.51 69.08 43.50 65.77 72.70

trans-Chlordane .30 .83 36.32 28.50 40.67 51.73 59.14 19.98 39.32 27.06 35.56 46.66

cis-Nonachlor .17 .49 24.50 36.94 38.14 36.28 30.12 11.70 24.65 16.41 21.75 22.08

trans-Nonachlor .37 .96 52.68 90.07 84.29 77.87 73.57 24.96 66.95 41.32 55.48 54.30

o,p’-DDE .87 1.60 1.49 1.61 3.49 3.35 3.10 < .87 1.69 < .87 < .87 1.48

o,p’-DDD .25 .71 17.19 15.51 24.75 16.16 21.94 6.01 15.06 7.91 8.83 14.28

o,p’-DDT .13 .36 11.77 9.94 17.46 10.67 12.31 4.12 10.11 5.65 8.17 9.67

p,p’-DDE 6.30 15.00 180.00 320.00 260.00 280.00 220.00 96.37 240.00 150.00 180.00 160.00

p,p’-DDD 1.10 3.00 120.00 180.00 200.00 130.00 160.00 50.46 130.00 66.45 75.43 89.78

p,p’-DDT .12 .37 43.97 70.48 68.37 53.27 50.91 20.07 54.37 29.99 42.13 34.84

Endosulfan I .22 .66 < .22 < .22 < .22 < .22 < .22 < .22 < .22 < .22 < .22 < .22

Endosulfan II .45 1.30 .68 1.33 1.47 1.58 .53 .73 .58 < .45 1.01 .61

Endosulfate .28 .83 .53 < .28 .57 .33 .45 < .28 < .28 < .28 < .28 < .28
56

Table 19. Concentration (ng/g wet weight) of total polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) and organochlorine pesticides (OCPs) and percent lipids in individual 

whole white suckers (WS) collected from the Charles River (August, 2005). (NA, not applicable; ng/g, nanogram per gram; <, concentrations below the 

detection limit)—Continued 

Contaminant1

Method 

detection 

limit2

Method 

quantitation 

limit3

WS01 WS02 WS03 WS04 WS05 WS06 WS07 WS08 WS09 WS10

Methoxychlor .56 1.50 < .56 < .56 < .56 < .56 < .56 < .56 < .56 < .56 < .56 < .56

Mirex .15 .17 .87 1.38 1.52 1.29 .92 .55 1.27 .75 .90 .68

Toxaphene 19.00 52.00 78.13 47.45 65.64 74.58 40.88 18.33 36.20 < 19 51.30 25.92

Total PCBs 28.00 59.00 1,700.00 2,600.00 2,900.00 2,500.00 2,100.00 1,023.33 1,700.00 960.00 1,300.00 1,100.00

Contaminant1

Method 

detection

limit2

Method 

quantitation 

limit3

WS11 WS12 WS13 WS14 WS15 WS16 WS17 WS18 WS19 WS20 WS21

Percent lipid NA NA 7.16 7.73 3.93 12.17 10.85 2.78 9.43 8.10 8.56 11.15 9.87

Pentachlorobenzene .19 .31 1.73 1.36 .76 2.03 1.85 .71 2.08 1.74 1.90 1.82 1.93

Hexachloro-benzene .17 .23 2.21 3.43 1.74 7.07 3.10 1.08 4.00 8.18 6.65 5.06 5.71

Pentachloro-anisole .16 .25 6.04 6.86 3.34 7.34 8.79 3.56 12.52 7.56 4.56 7.73 8.12

α-BHC .12 .21 .30 .32 .23 .71 .69 .39 .96 .83 .78 .50 .87

β-BHC .17 .33 < .17 < .17 < .17 < .17 < .17 < .17 < .17 < .17 < .17 < .17 1.80

Lindane .11 .15 < .11 < .11 < .11 < .11 < .11 < .11 < .11 < .11 < .11 < .11 < .11

δ-BHC .12 .23 < .12 < .12 < .12 < .12 < .12 < .02 < .12 < .12 < .12 < .12 < .12

Heptachlor .12 .15 .49 .42 .32 .55 .56 .31 .82 .46 .56 .33 .72

Heptachlor epoxide .14 .20 5.68 5.11 3.57 9.20 8.33 3.28 9.24 7.08 6.97 8.71 6.99

Aldrin .41 1.00 < .41 < .41 < .41 < .41 .45 < .41 < .41 < .41 < .41 < .41 .56

Dacthal .18 .32 < .18 < .18 < .18 < .18 < .18 < .18 < .18 < .18 < .18 < .18 < .18

Dieldrin .17 .38 19.75 62.32 15.17 40.32 26.47 10.43 32.42 34.32 32.16 100.00 53.35

Endrin .29 .71 .80 < .29 < .29 < .29 .77 < .29 < .29 < .29 < .29 < .29 .30

Oxychlordane .14 .18 13.67 7.04 7.44 21.49 21.59 8.49 45.44 16.22 14.05 19.93 12.68

cis-Chlordane .36 .99 70.79 43.76 45.29 93.08 105.70 46.00 141.49 72.49 80.14 89.22 79.59

trans-Chlordane .30 .83 40.89 27.45 26.11 39.83 64.84 22.44 51.17 31.97 41.18 32.11 45.75

cis-NoNDchlor .17 .49 23.08 12.44 15.64 30.76 37.39 20.49 59.11 22.74 24.48 36.31 27.25

trans-NoNDchlor .37 .96 55.32 31.46 38.05 72.82 89.58 51.55 160.00 54.23 62.95 73.80 56.12

o,p’-DDE .87 1.60 3.20 2.08 .98 3.85 4.29 ND 4.01 4.49 3.21 3.21 5.75

o,p’-DDD .25 .71 13.15 11.41 7.35 20.55 21.44 6.01 23.04 23.62 19.94 20.18 27.61
57

Table 19. Concentration (ng/g wet weight) of total polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) and organochlorine pesticides (OCPs) and percent lipids in 

individual whole white suckers (WS) collected from the Charles River (August, 2005). (NA, not applicable; ng/g, nanogram per gram; <, concentrations 

below the detection limit)—Continued

Contaminant1

Method 

detection 

limit2

Method 

quantitation 

limit3

WS11 WS12 WS13 WS14 WS15 WS16 WS17 WS18 WS19 WS20 WS21

o,p’-DDT .13 .36 7.81 6.47 4.82 10.96 11.95 4.26 17.96 16.16 8.14 12.00 6.90

p,p’-DDE 6.30 15.00 180.00 99.39 120.00 250.00 280.00 230.00 450.00 170.00 210.00 300.00 170.00

p,p’-DDD 1.10 3.00 100.00 78.22 73.73 160.00 160.00 70.86 250.00 140.00 160.00 210.00 160.00

p,p’-DDT .12 .37 45.99 21.84 25.11 49.09 55.76 44.83 120.00 44.68 40.35 62.69 29.82

Endosulfan I .22 .66 < .22 < .22 < .22 < .22 < .22 < .22 < .22 < .22 < .22 < .22 < .22

Endosulfan II .45 1.30 < .45 .46 < .45 .57 .91 ND 1.10 .99 .67 < .45 .83

Endosulfate .28 .83 < .28 < .28 < .28 .35 .31 < .28 .34 .34 .29 .48 .37

Methoxychlor .56 1.50 < .56 < .56 < .56 < .56 < .56 < .56 < .56 < .56 < .56 < .56 < .56

Mirex .15 .17 .89 .44 .59 1.05 1.26 1.46 2.03 .84 .82 1.39 .86

Toxaphene 19.00 52.00 42.56 29.72 < 19 39.19 87.94 33.58 46.48 72.38 48.67 41.68 52.95

Total PCBs 28.00 59.00 1,700.00 1,100.00 1,200.00 2,300.00 2,100.001,600.00 3,000.00 1,800.00 2,600.00 2,500.00 2,100.00

Contaminant1

Method 

detection 

limit2

Method 

quantitation

limit3

WS22 WS23 WS24 WS25 WS26 WS27 WS28 WS29 WS30

Percent lipid NA NA 5.08 9.50 8.25 9.37 8.54 7.17 8.23 12.51 5.71

Pentachlorobenzene .19 .31 1.58 1.48 1.51 1.53 1.33 1.22 1.34 1.94 .76

Hexachlorobenzene .17 .23 1.80 3.85 4.98 2.55 2.63 2.05 5.48 3.85 2.51

Pentachloroanisole .16 .25 6.87 7.05 6.66 8.85 7.30 6.75 8.12 10.85 4.81

α-BHC .12 .21 .49 .24 .54 .47 .50 .55 .49 .92 .44

β-BHC .17 .33 .89 1.05 1.12 1.76 1.86 1.68 2.12 1.81 2.44

Lindane .11 .15 < .11 < .11 < .11 < .11 < .11 < .11 < .11 < .11 < .11

δ-BHC .12 .23 < .12 < .12 < .12 < .12 < .12 < .12 < .12 < .12 < .12

Heptachlor .12 .15 .68 .30 .31 .29 .36 .23 .57 1.12 .20

Heptachlor 

epoxide .14 .20 4.63 6.12 6.51 7.92 5.82 5.57 5.38 8.56 3.27

Aldrin .41 1.00 < .41 < .41 < .41 < .41 < .41 < .41 .47 < .41 < .41

Dacthal .18 .32 < .18 < .18 < .18 < .18 < .18 < .18 < .18 < .18 < .18
58

Table 19. Concentration (ng/g wet weight) of total polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) and organochlorine pesticides (OCPs) and percent lipids in 

individual whole white suckers (WS) collected from the Charles River (August, 2005). (NA, not applicable; ng/g, nanogram per gram; <, concentrations 

below the detection limit)—Continued

Contaminant1

Method 

detection 

limit2

Method 

quantitation 

limit3

WS22 WS23 WS24 WS25 WS26 WS27 WS28 WS29 WS30

Dieldrin .17 .38 14.48 160.00 43.95 96.16 33.49 29.78 110.00 29.26 92.38

Endrin .29 .71 < .29 .70 < .29 .31 ND < .29 .69 .50 .47

Oxychlordane .14 .18 17.61 14.63 12.48 12.34 9.64 11.09 11.55 30.00 7.33

cis-Chlordane .36 .99 75.18 73.52 66.51 61.84 53.18 51.60 54.60 128.94 39.74

trans-Chlordane .30 .83 31.20 25.55 35.49 23.42 27.64 30.23 35.05 72.78 18.09

cis-NoNDchlor .17 .49 38.94 30.42 23.51 22.78 14.96 16.15 16.22 51.86 16.31

transNoNDchlor .37 .96 110.00 58.49 52.23 46.41 35.57 39.30 37.29 130.00 30.77

o,p’-DDE .87 1.60 3.43 3.64 4.43 3.28 3.43 4.01 2.56 7.88 2.31

o,p’-DDD .25 .71 14.64 18.30 16.78 12.70 14.97 11.69 14.73 22.10 10.91

o,p’-DDT .13 .36 7.61 6.68 6.02 6.07 4.66 5.16 4.00 12.39 4.25

p,p’-DDE 6.30 15.00 490.00 250.00 160.00 160.00 92.80 140.00 130.00 480.00 150.00

p,p’-DDD 1.10 3.00 170.00 160.00 120.00 98.18 93.11 90.38 89.37 190.00 86.50

p,p’-DDT .12 .37 92.22 49.04 33.14 37.80 17.56 24.77 19.70 98.72 31.55

Endosulfan I .22 .66 < .22 < .22 < .22 < .22 < .22 < .22 < .22 < .22 < .22

Endosulfan II .45 1.30 .54 .46 .66 < .45 ND .50 .90 2.04 < .45

Endosulfate .28 .83 < .28 .54 < .28 .52 < .28 < .28 .31 .37 < .28

Methoxychlor .56 1.50 < .56 < .56 < .56 < .56 < .56 < .56 < .56 < .56 < .56

Mirex .15 .17 2.22 1.57 .61 .81 .35 .48 .47 1.87 .66

Toxaphene 19.00 52.00 86.18 65.01 32.57 64.72 34.81 31.25 29.91 100.00 43.73

Total PCBs 28.00 59.00 3,300.00 2,500.00 2,200.00 1,700.00 1,100.00 1,300.00 1,700.00 3,600.00 1,500.00

1

Total PCBs and OCPs determined by dual-column, high-resolution, capillary gas chromatography with electron-capture detector. 2

Method detection limit (MDL) is defined as the mean of procedural field blanks plus three standard deviations of coincident peaks in field blanks (Keith, 1991). 

3

Method quantitation limit (MQL) is defined as the mean of procedural field blanks plus ten standard deviations of coincident peaks in field blanks (Keith, 1991).
59

Table 20. Bile concentrations (μg/mL) of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon (PAH) metabolites from 

common carp, largemouth bass, and white suckers collected from the Charles River (August, 2005).

Concentrations determined by reverse phase HPLC with fluorescence detection (Krahn and others, 1984). 

Method detection limits were 0.6 and 0.05 (μg/mL) for naphthalene and benzo[a]pyrene metabolites 

respectively. (ND, not determined; μg/mL, micrograms per milliliter) 

Species Fish ID Naphthalene 

(μg/mL)

Benzo[a]pyrene 

(μg/mL)

Naphthalene1

(μg/mL protein)

Benzo[a]pyrene1

(μg/mL protein)

Common carp CC01 150 1.6 93.8 1

Common carp CC022 21 0.1 0.6 0 

Common carp CC03 160 1.5 106.1 1 

Common carp CC04 240 2.1 258.8 2.26

Common carp CC05 130 1.2 51.7 0.48

Common carp CC06 130 0.9 182 1.27

Common carp CC07 120 1 223.8 1.83

Common carp CC08 92 0.8 29.9 0.27

Common carp CC09 170 1.5 167.1 1.47

Common carp CC10 160 1.6 147.4 1.47

Common carp CC11 91 1 71.9 0.79

Common carp CC12 150 1.2 181.5 1.45

Common carp CC13 160 1.6 217.2 2.17

Common carp CC14 160 1.4 152.2 1.33

Common carp CC15 240 1.5 68.5 0.43

Common carp CC16 160 0.9 15.5 0.09

Common carp CC17 ND ND ND ND

Common carp CC18 180 1.6 256 2.28

Common carp CC19 140 1.8 80 1.03

Common carp CC20 190 1.8 160 1.52

Largemouth bass LMB01 890 17 98.6 1.88

Largemouth bass LMB02 410 5.7 81.4 1.13

Largemouth bass LMB03 510 12 58 1.36

Largemouth bass LMB04 430 6.3 77 1.13

Largemouth bass LMB05 360 5.8 90.8 1.46

Largemouth bass LMB06 280 3.3 119.3 1.41

Largemouth bass LMB07 260 3.2 47.2 0.58

Largemouth bass LMB08 ND ND ND ND

Largemouth bass LMB09 ND ND ND ND
60

Table 20. Bile concentrations (μg/mL) of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon (PAH) metabolites from 

common carp, largemouth bass, and white suckers collected from the Charles River (August, 2005). 

Concentrations determined by reverse phase HPLC with fluorescence detection (Krahn and others, 1984). 

Method detection limits were 0.6 and 0.05 (μg/mL) for naphthalene and benzo[a]pyrene metabolites 

respectively. (ND, not determined; μg/mL, micrograms per milliliter)—Continued 

Species Fish ID Naphthalene 

(μg/mL)

Benzo[a]pyrene 

(μg/mL)

Naphthalene1

(μg/mL protein)

Benzo[a]pyrene1

(μg/mL protein)

Largemouth bass LMB10 300 3.7 144.5 1.78

Largemouth bass LMB11 100 1.2 101.7 1.22

Largemouth bass LMB12 500 6.5 125.4 1.63

Largemouth bass LMB13 ND ND ND ND

Largemouth bass LMB14 470 5.9 113.9 1.43

Largemouth bass LMB15 400 5 123.1 1.54

Largemouth bass LMB16 1,000 15 199.4 2.99

Largemouth bass LMB17 290 3.9 88.9 1.2

Largemouth bass LMB18 500 5.6 112.9 1.26

Largemouth bass LMB19 540 7.3 80.6 1.09

Largemouth bass LMB20 280 2.6 184.3 1.71

White sucker WS01 1,200 15 172.5 2.16

White sucker WS02 870 10 151.9 1.75

White sucker WS03 600 7.3 114.3 1.39

White sucker WS04 280 3.7 117.5 1.55

White sucker WS05 430 5.3 119.2 1.47

White sucker WS06 320 5 84.4 1.32

White sucker WS07 380 5.6 113.9 1.68

White sucker WS08 270 3.8 69.1 0.97

White sucker WS09 ND ND ND ND

White sucker WS10 ND ND ND ND

White sucker WS11 340 3.2 169.5 1.6

White sucker WS12 350 3.9 143.2 1.6

White sucker WS13 420 5 44.2 0.53

White sucker WS14 370 2.9 159.4 1.25

White sucker WS15 490 4.4 138.8 1.25

White sucker WS16 490 4.4 153.9 1.38

White sucker WS17 490 5.7 130.2 1.51

White sucker WS18 1,000 15 110 1.65

White sucker WS19 650 5.5 174.5 1.48
61

Table 20. Bile concentrations (μg/mL) of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon (PAH) metabolites from 

common carp, largemouth bass, and white suckers collected from the Charles River (August, 2005). 

Concentrations determined by reverse phase HPLC with fluorescence detection (Krahn and others, 1984). 

Method detection limits were 0.6 and 0.05 (μg/mL) for naphthalene and benzo[a]pyrene metabolites 

respectively. (ND, not determined; μg/mL, micrograms per milliliter)—Continued

Species Fish ID Naphthalene 

(μg/mL)

Benzo[a]pyrene

(μg/mL)

Naphthalene1

(μg/mL protein)

Benzo[a]pyrene1

(μg/mL protein)

White sucker WS20 550 4.9 209.2 1.86

White sucker WS21 370 8.3 75.4 1.69

White sucker WS22 ND ND ND ND

White sucker WS23 1,600 36 167.8 3.77

White sucker WS24 250 4.8 100.3 1.93

White sucker WS25 ND ND ND ND

White sucker WS26 190 3.8 145.3 2.91

White sucker WS27 400 11 70.5 1.94

White sucker WS28 350 7.8 123.2 2.74

White sucker WS29 470 10 107.1 2.28

White sucker WS30 320 8 74.5 1.86

White sucker WS31 280 6.9 66.2 1.63

White sucker WS32 890 15 88.5 1.49

White sucker WS33 830 15 141.4 2.56

White sucker WS34 280 3.7 30.8 0.41

White sucker WS35 210 4.2 66.5 1.33

White sucker WS36 930 14 247 3.72

White sucker WS37 610 12 105.4 2.07

White sucker WS38 320 7.3 118.9 2.71

White sucker WS39 380 8 65.1 1.37

White sucker WS40 290 6.8 50.1 1.18

1

PAH metabolite concentrations were normalized to protein content by a modified Lowry method.

2

Sample was contaminated with other biological tissues resulting in having significantly higher levels of protein 

content.
62

Table 21. Concentrations of contaminants (ng/g wet weight) in plasma from white suckers (WS), common carp (CC), and largemouth bass (LMB) 

collected from the Charles River (August, 2005). Concentrations determined from electron ionization gas chromatography/mass spectrometry. Analytes: 

Anthracene to d-Limonene. (MQL, method quantitation limit; ng/g, nanogram per gram; <, values below the detection level; BHA, Butylated 

Hydroxyanisole) 

Sample Anthracene Anthraquinone BHA Benzo(a)pyrene Benzophenone Bisphenol A Caffeine Cotinine Cumene d-Limonene

MQL 12.5 25 50 25 12.5 1,000 25 25 12.5 12.5

Blank 1 <12.5 < 25 <50 <12.5 <12.5 <1,000 < 25 < 25 <12.5 <12.5

Blank 2 <12.5 < 25 <50 <12.5 <12.5 <1,000 < 25 < 25 <12.5 <12.5

Blank 3 <12.5 < 25 <50 <12.5 <12.5 <1,000 < 25 < 25 <12.5 <12.5

Blank 4 <12.5 < 25 <50 <12.5 <12.5 <1,000 < 25 < 25 <12.5 <12.5

Blank 5 <12.5 < 25 <50 <12.5 <12.5 <1,000 < 25 < 25 <12.5 <12.5

WS02 <12.5 < 25 <50 <12.5 128.2 <1,000 < 25 < 25 <12.5 <12.5

WS03 <12.5 < 25 <50 <12.5 106.3 <1,000 < 25 < 25 <12.5 <12.5

WS04(#1) <12.5 < 25 <50 <12.5 <12.5 <1,000 < 25 < 25 <12.5 <12.5

WS04(#2) <12.5 < 25 <50 <12.5 158.4 <1,000 < 25 < 25 <12.5 <12.5

WS05 <12.5 < 25 <50 <12.5 <12.5 <1,000 < 25 < 25 <12.5 <12.5

WS06(#1) <12.5 < 25 <50 <12.5 <12.5 <1,000 < 25 < 25 <12.5 <12.5

WS06(#2) <12.5 < 25 <50 <12.5 116.2 <1,000 < 25 < 25 <12.5 <12.5

WS07(#1) <12.5 < 25 <50 <12.5 <12.5 <1,000 < 25 < 25 <12.5 <12.5

WS07(#2) <12.5 < 25 <50 <12.5 727.8 <1,000 < 25 < 25 <12.5 <12.5

WS08(#1) <12.5 < 25 <50 <12.5 <12.5 <1,000 < 25 < 25 <12.5 <12.5

WS08(#2) <12.5 < 25 <50 <12.5 1,175.0 <1,000 < 25 < 25 <12.5 <12.5

WS09 <12.5 < 25 <50 <12.5 <12.5 <1,000 < 25 < 25 <12.5 <12.5

WS11 <12.5 < 25 <50 <12.5 <12.5 <1,000 < 25 < 25 <12.5 <12.5

WS12(#1) <12.5 < 25 <50 <12.5 <12.5 <1,000 < 25 < 25 <12.5 <12.5

WS12(#2) <12.5 < 25 <50 <12.5 191.2 <1,000 < 25 < 25 <12.5 <12.5

WS13 <12.5 < 25 <50 <12.5 <12.5 <1,000 < 25 < 25 <12.5 <12.5

WS16 <12.5 < 25 <50 <12.5 <12.5 <1,000 < 25 < 25 <12.5 <12.5

WS17(#1) <12.5 < 25 <50 <12.5 <12.5 <1,000 < 25 < 25 <12.5 <12.5

WS17(#2) <12.5 < 25 <50 <12.5 1083.3 <1,000 < 25 < 25 <12.5 <12.5

WS21(#1) <12.5 < 25 <50 <12.5 <12.5 <1,000 < 25 < 25 <12.5 <12.5

WS21(#2) <12.5 < 25 <50 <12.5 328.2 <1,000 < 25 < 25 <12.5 <12.5

WS23 <12.5 < 25 <50 <12.5 <12.5 <1,000 < 25 < 25 <12.5 <12.5

WS26 <12.5 < 25 <50 <12.5 <12.5 <1,000 < 25 < 25 <12.5 <12.5
63

Table 21. Concentrations of contaminants (ng/g wet weight) in plasma from white suckers (WS), common carp (CC), and largemouth bass (LMB) 

collected from the Charles River (August, 2005). Concentrations determined from electron ionization gas chromatography/mass spectrometry. Analytes: 

Anthracene to d-Limonene. (MQL, method quantitation limit; ng/g, nanogram per gram; <, values below the detection level; BHA, Butylated 

Hydroxyanisole)—Continued

Sample Anthracene Anthraquinone BHA Benzo(a)pyrene Benzophenone Bisphenol A Caffeine Cotinine Cumene d-Limonene

WS27(#1) <12.5 < 25 <50 <12.5 <12.5 <1,000 < 25 < 25 <12.5 <12.5

WS27(#2) <12.5 < 25 <50 <12.5 128.1 <1,000 < 25 < 25 <12.5 <12.5

WS30(#1) <12.5 < 25 <50 <12.5 <12.5 <1,000 < 25 < 25 <12.5 <12.5

WS30(#2) <12.5 < 25 <50 <12.5 <12.5 <1,000 < 25 < 25 <12.5 <12.5

WS35 <12.5 < 25 <50 <12.5 313.9 <1,000 < 25 < 25 <12.5 <12.5

WS36 <12.5 < 25 <50 <12.5 <12.5 <1,000 < 25 < 25 <12.5 <12.5

WS37 <12.5 < 25 <50 <12.5 289.7 <1,000 < 25 < 25 <12.5 <12.5

WS39 <12.5 < 25 <50 <12.5 <12.5 <1,000 < 25 < 25 <12.5 <12.5

CC01 <12.5 < 25 <50 <12.5 71.7 <1,000 < 25 < 25 <12.5 33.3

CC02 <12.5 < 25 <50 <12.5 <12.5 <1,000 < 25 < 25 <12.5 <12.5

CC04 <12.5 < 25 <50 <12.5 103.6 <1,000 < 25 < 25 <12.5 <12.5

CC05 <12.5 < 25 <50 <12.5 <12.5 <1,000 < 25 < 25 <12.5 <12.5

CC07 <12.5 < 25 <50 <12.5 <12.5 <1,000 < 25 < 25 <12.5 <12.5

CC09 <12.5 < 25 <50 <12.5 108.0 <1,000 < 25 < 25 <12.5 <12.5

CC10 <12.5 < 25 <50 <12.5 <12.5 <1,000 < 25 < 25 <12.5 <12.5

CC13 <12.5 < 25 <50 <12.5 <12.5 <1,000 < 25 < 25 <12.5 39.4

CC16 <12.5 < 25 <50 <12.5 <12.5 <1,000 < 25 < 25 <12.5 <12.5

CC17 <12.5 < 25 <50 <12.5 107.3 <1,000 < 25 < 25 <12.5 <12.5

LMB01 <12.5 < 25 <50 <12.5 126.7 <1,000 < 25 < 25 <12.5 <12.5

LMB02 <12.5 < 25 <50 <12.5 116.8 <1,000 < 25 < 25 <12.5 39.0

LMB05 <12.5 < 25 <50 <12.5 125.0 <1,000 < 25 < 25 <12.5 133.7

LMB12 <12.5 < 25 <50 <12.5 167.6 <1,000 < 25 < 25 <12.5 <12.5
64

Table 21. Concentrations of contaminants (ng/g wet weight) in plasma from white suckers (WS), common carp (CC), and largemouth bass (LMB) 

collected from the Charles River (August, 2005). Concentrations determined from electron ionization gas chromatography/mass spectrometry. 

Analytes: Equilenin to Menthol. (MQL, method quantitation limit; ng/g, nanogram per gram; <, values below the detection level; BHA, Butylated 

Hydroxyanisole) —Continued

Sample Equilenin Fluoranthene Galoxolide (HHCB) Indole Isoborneol Isophorone Isoquinoline Metalaxyl Menthol

MQL 500 25 25 12.5 25 12.5 12.5 50 25

Blank 1 <500 <25 <25 <12.5 <25 <12.5 <12.5 <50 <25

Blank 2 <500 <25 <25 <12.5 <25 <12.5 <12.5 <50 <25

Blank 3 <500 <25 <25 <12.5 <25 <12.5 <12.5 <50 <25

Blank 4 <500 <25 <25 <12.5 <25 <12.5 <12.5 <50 <25

Blank 5 <500 <25 <25 <12.5 <25 <12.5 <12.5 <50 <25

WS02 <500 <25 <25 <12.5 <25 <12.5 <12.5 <50 <25

WS03 <500 <25 <25 <12.5 <25 <12.5 <12.5 <50 <25

WS04(#1) <500 <25 <25 <12.5 <25 <12.5 <12.5 <50 <25

WS04(#2) <500 <25 <25 <12.5 <25 <12.5 <12.5 <50 <25

WS05 <500 <25 <25 <12.5 <25 <12.5 <12.5 <50 <25

WS06(#1) <500 <25 <25 <12.5 <25 <12.5 <12.5 <50 <25

WS06(#2) <500 <25 <25 <12.5 <25 <12.5 <12.5 <50 <25

WS07(#1) <500 <25 <25 <12.5 <25 <12.5 <12.5 <50 <25

WS07(#2) <500 <25 <25 <12.5 <25 <12.5 <12.5 <50 <25

WS08(#1) <500 <25 <25 <12.5 <25 <12.5 <12.5 <50 <25

WS08(#2) <500 <25 <25 <12.5 <25 <12.5 <12.5 <50 <25

WS09 <500 <25 <25 <12.5 <25 <12.5 <12.5 <50 <25

WS11 <500 <25 <25 <12.5 <25 <12.5 <12.5 <50 <25

WS12(#1) <500 <25 <25 <12.5 <25 <12.5 <12.5 <50 <25

WS12(#2) <500 <25 <25 <12.5 <25 <12.5 <12.5 <50 <25

WS13 <500 <25 <25 <12.5 <25 <12.5 <12.5 <50 <25

WS16 <500 <25 <25 <12.5 <25 <12.5 <12.5 <50 <25

WS17(#1) <500 <25 <25 <12.5 <25 <12.5 <12.5 <50 <25

WS17(#2) <500 <25 <25 <12.5 <25 <12.5 <12.5 <50 <25

WS21(#1) <500 <25 <25 <12.5 <25 <12.5 <12.5 <50 <25

WS21(#2) <500 <25 <25 <12.5 <25 <12.5 <12.5 <50 <25

WS23 <500 <25 <25 <12.5 <25 <12.5 <12.5 <50 <25

WS26 <500 <25 <25 <12.5 <25 <12.5 <12.5 <50 <25

WS27(#1) <500 <25 <25 <12.5 <25 <12.5 <12.5 <50 <25

WS27(#2) <500 <25 <25 <12.5 <25 <12.5 <12.5 <50 <25
65

Table 21. Concentrations of contaminants (ng/g wet weight) in plasma from white suckers (WS), common carp (CC), and largemouth bass (LMB) 

collected from the Charles River (August, 2005). Concentrations determined from electron ionization gas chromatography/mass spectrometry. 

Analytes: Equilenin to Menthol. (MQL, method quantitation limit; ng/g, nanogram per gram; <, values below the detection level; BHA, Butylated 

Hydroxyanisole) —Continued

Sample Equilenin Fluoranthene Galoxolide (HHCB) Indole Isoborneol Isophorone Isoquinoline Metalaxyl Menthol

WS30(#2) <500 <25 <25 <12.5 <25 <12.5 <12.5 <50 <25

WS35 <500 <25 <25 <12.5 <25 <12.5 <12.5 <50 <25

WS36 <500 <25 <25 <12.5 <25 <12.5 <12.5 <50 <25

WS37 <500 <25 <25 <12.5 <25 <12.5 <12.5 <50 <25

WS39 <500 <25 <25 <12.5 <25 <12.5 <12.5 <50 <25

CC01 <500 <25 <25 <12.5 <25 <12.5 <12.5 <50 <25

CC02 <500 <25 <25 <12.5 <25 <12.5 <12.5 <50 <25

CC04 <500 <25 <25 <12.5 <25 <12.5 <12.5 <50 <25

CC05 <500 <25 <25 <12.5 <25 <12.5 <12.5 <50 <25

CC07 <500 <25 <25 <12.5 <25 <12.5 <12.5 <50 <25

CC09 <500 <25 <25 <12.5 <25 <12.5 <12.5 <50 <25

CC10 <500 <25 <25 <12.5 <25 <12.5 <12.5 <50 <25

CC13 <500 <25 <25 <12.5 <25 <12.5 <12.5 <50 <25

CC16 <500 <25 <25 <12.5 <25 <12.5 <12.5 <50 <25

CC17 <500 <25 <25 <12.5 <25 <12.5 <12.5 <50 <25

LMB01 <500 <25 <25 <12.5 <25 <12.5 <12.5 <50 <25

LMB02 <500 <25 <25 <12.5 <25 <12.5 <12.5 <50 <25

LMB05 <500 <25 <25 <12.5 <25 <12.5 <12.5 <50 <25

LMB12 <500 <25 <25 <12.5 <25 <12.5 <12.5 <50 <25
66

Table 21. Concentrations of contaminants (ng/g wet weight) in plasma from white suckers (WS), common carp (CC), and largemouth bass (LMB) 

collected from the Charles River (August, 2005). Concentrations determined from electron ionization gas chromatography/mass spectrometry. 

Analytes: Methyl salicylate to Penta-chlorophenol. (MQL, method quantitation limit; ng/g, nanogram per gram; <, values below the detection level; 

BHA, Butylated Hydroxyanisole)—Continued

Sample Methyl 

salicylate Naphthalene NPEO-1 NPEO-2 OPEO Oxybenzone Para-cresol Para-nonylphenol Pentachlorophenol

MQL 12.5 12.5 1,000 1,000 500 25 12.5 1,000 250

Blank 1 <12.5 <12.5 <1,000 <1,000 <500 <25 12.5 <1,000 <250

Blank 2 <12.5 <12.5 <1,000 <1,000 <500 <25 12.5 <1,000 <250

Blank 3 <12.5 <12.5 <1,000 <1,000 <500 <25 12.5 <1,000 <250

Blank 4 <12.5 <12.5 <1,000 <1,000 <500 <25 12.5 <1,000 <250

Blank 5 <12.5 <12.5 <1,000 <1,000 <500 <25 12.5 <1,000 <250

WS02 <12.5 <12.5 <1,000 <1,000 <500 <25 12.5 <1,000 <250

WS03 <12.5 <12.5 <1,000 <1,000 <500 <25 12.5 <1,000 <250

WS04(#1) <12.5 <12.5 <1,000 <1,000 <500 <25 12.5 <1,000 <250

WS04(#2) <12.5 <12.5 <1,000 <1,000 <500 <25 12.5 <1,000 <250

WS05 <12.5 <12.5 <1,000 <1,000 <500 <25 12.5 <1,000 <250

WS06(#1) <12.5 <12.5 <1,000 <1,000 <500 <25 12.5 <1,000 <250

WS06(#2) <12.5 <12.5 <1,000 <1,000 <500 <25 12.5 <1,000 <250

WS07(#1) <12.5 <12.5 <1,000 <1,000 <500 <25 12.5 <1,000 <250

WS07(#2) <12.5 <12.5 <1,000 <1,000 <500 <25 12.5 <1,000 <250

WS08(#1) <12.5 <12.5 <1,000 <1,000 <500 <25 12.5 <1,000 <250

WS08(#2) <12.5 <12.5 <1,000 <1,000 <500 <25 12.5 <1,000 <250

WS09 <12.5 <12.5 <1,000 <1,000 <500 <25 12.5 <1,000 <250

WS11 <12.5 <12.5 <1,000 <1,000 <500 <25 12.5 <1,000 <250

WS12(#1) <12.5 <12.5 <1,000 <1,000 <500 <25 12.5 <1,000 <250

WS12(#2) <12.5 <12.5 <1,000 <1,000 <500 <25 12.5 <1,000 <250

WS13 <12.5 <12.5 <1,000 <1,000 <500 <25 12.5 <1,000 <250

WS16 <12.5 <12.5 <1,000 <1,000 <500 <25 12.5 <1,000 <250

WS17(#1) <12.5 <12.5 <1,000 <1,000 <500 <25 12.5 <1,000 <250

WS17(#2) <12.5 <12.5 <1,000 <1,000 <500 <25 12.5 <1,000 <250

WS21(#1) <12.5 <12.5 <1,000 <1,000 <500 <25 12.5 <1,000 <250

WS21(#2) <12.5 <12.5 <1,000 <1,000 <500 <25 12.5 <1,000 <250

WS23 <12.5 <12.5 <1,000 <1,000 <500 <25 12.5 <1,000 <250
67

Table 21. Concentrations of contaminants (ng/g wet weight) in plasma from white suckers (WS), common carp (CC), and largemouth bass (LMB) 

collected from the Charles River (August, 2005). Concentrations determined from electron ionization gas chromatography/mass spectrometry. 

Analytes: Methyl salicylate to Penta-chlorophenol. (MQL, method quantitation limit; ng/g, nanogram per gram; <, values below the detection level; 

BHA, Butylated Hydroxyanisole)—Continued

Sample Methyl 

salicylate Naphthalene NPEO-1 NPEO-2 OPEO Oxybenzone Para-cresol Para-nonylphenol Pentachlorophenol

WS26 <12.5 <12.5 <1,000 <1,000 <500 <25 12.5 <1,000 <250

WS27(#1) <12.5 <12.5 <1,000 <1,000 <500 <25 12.5 <1,000 <250

WS27(#2) <12.5 <12.5 <1,000 <1,000 <500 <25 12.5 <1,000 <250

WS30(#1) <12.5 <12.5 <1,000 <1,000 <500 <25 12.5 <1,000 <250

WS30(#2) <12.5 <12.5 <1,000 <1,000 <500 <25 12.5 <1,000 <250

WS35 <12.5 <12.5 <1,000 <1,000 <500 <25 12.5 <1,000 <250

WS36 <12.5 <12.5 <1,000 <1,000 <500 <25 12.5 <1,000 <250

WS37 <12.5 <12.5 <1,000 <1,000 <500 <25 12.5 <1,000 <250

WS39 <12.5 <12.5 <1,000 <1,000 <500 <25 12.5 <1,000 <250

CC01 <12.5 <12.5 <1,000 <1,000 <500 <25 12.5 <1,000 <250

CC02 <12.5 <12.5 <1,000 <1,000 <500 <25 12.5 <1,000 <250

CC04 <12.5 <12.5 <1,000 <1,000 <500 <25 12.5 <1,000 <250

CC05 <12.5 <12.5 <1,000 <1,000 <500 <25 12.5 <1,000 <250

CC07 <12.5 <12.5 <1,000 <1,000 <500 <25 12.5 <1,000 <250

CC09 <12.5 <12.5 <1,000 <1,000 <500 <25 12.5 <1,000 <250

CC10 <12.5 <12.5 <1,000 <1,000 <500 <25 12.5 <1,000 <250

CC13 <12.5 <12.5 <1,000 <1,000 <500 <25 12.5 <1,000 <250

CC16 <12.5 <12.5 <1,000 <1,000 <500 <25 12.5 <1,000 <250

CC17 <12.5 <12.5 <1,000 <1,000 <500 <25 12.5 <1,000 <250

LMB01 <12.5 <12.5 <1,000 <1,000 <500 <25 12.5 <1,000 <250

LMB02 <12.5 <12.5 <1,000 <1,000 <500 <25 12.5 <1,000 <250

LMB05 <12.5 <12.5 <1,000 <1,000 <500 <25 12.5 <1,000 <250

LMB12 <12.5 <12.5 <1,000 <1,000 <500 <25 12.5 <1,000 <250
68

Table 21. Concentrations of contaminants (ng/g wet weight) in plasma from white suckers (WS), common carp (CC), and largemouth bass (LMB) 

collected from the Charles River (August, 2005). Concentrations determined from electron ionization gas chromatography/mass spectrometry. 

Analytes: Phenanthrene to Triphenyl phosphate. (MQL, method quantitation limit; ng/g, nanogram per gram; <, values below the detection level; 

BHA, Butylated Hydroxyanisole)—Continued

Sample Phenanthrene Pyrene Tonalide 

(AHTN)

tris-(2-Chloroethyl)-

phosphate

tris (2-Butoxyethyl)-

phosphate

TributylphosphateTriclosan 

(Irgesan)

Triphenyl 

phosphate

MQL 12.5 25 25 50 50 12.5 500 12.5

Blank 1 <12.5 <25 <25 <50 <50 <12.5 <500 <12.5

Blank 2 <12.5 <25 <25 <50 <50 <12.5 <500 <12.5

Blank 3 <12.5 <25 <25 <50 <50 <12.5 <500 <12.5

Blank 4 <12.5 <25 <25 <50 <50 <12.5 <500 <12.5

Blank 5 <12.5 <25 <25 <50 <50 <12.5 <500 <12.5

WS02 <12.5 <25 <25 <50 <50 <12.5 <500 <12.5

WS03 <12.5 <25 <25 <50 <50 <12.5 <500 <12.5

WS04(#1) <12.5 <25 <25 <50 <50 <12.5 <500 <12.5

WS04(#2) <12.5 <25 <25 <50 <50 <12.5 <500 <12.5

WS05 <12.5 <25 <25 <50 <50 <12.5 <500 <12.5

WS06(#1) <12.5 <25 <25 <50 <50 <12.5 <500 <12.5

WS06(#2) <12.5 <25 <25 <50 <50 <12.5 <500 <12.5

WS07(#1) <12.5 <25 <25 <50 <50 <12.5 <500 <12.5

WS07(#2) <12.5 <25 <25 <50 <50 <12.5 <500 <12.5

WS08(#1) <12.5 <25 <25 <50 <50 <12.5 <500 <12.5

WS08(#2) <12.5 <25 <25 <50 <50 <12.5 <500 <12.5

WS09 <12.5 <25 <25 <50 <50 <12.5 <500 <12.5

WS11 <12.5 <25 <25 <50 <50 <12.5 <500 <12.5

WS12(#1) <12.5 <25 <25 <50 <50 <12.5 <500 <12.5

WS12(#2) <12.5 <25 <25 <50 <50 <12.5 <500 <12.5

WS13 <12.5 <25 <25 <50 <50 <12.5 <500 <12.5

WS16 <12.5 <25 <25 <50 <50 <12.5 <500 <12.5

WS17(#1) <12.5 <25 <25 <50 <50 <12.5 <500 <12.5

WS17(#2) <12.5 <25 <25 <50 <50 <12.5 <500 <12.5

WS21(#1) <12.5 <25 <25 <50 <50 <12.5 <500 <12.5

WS21(#2) <12.5 <25 <25 <50 <50 <12.5 <500 <12.5

WS23 <12.5 <25 <25 <50 <50 <12.5 <500 <12.5
69

Table 21. Concentrations of contaminants (ng/g wet weight) in plasma from white suckers (WS), common carp (CC), and largemouth bass (LMB) 

collected from the Charles River (August, 2005). Concentrations determined from electron ionization gas chromatography/mass spectrometry. 

Analytes: Phenanthrene to Triphenyl phosphate. (MQL, method quantitation limit; ng/g, nanogram per gram; <, values below the detection level; 

BHA, Butylated Hydroxyanisole)—Continued

Sample Phenanthrene Pyrene Tonalide 

(AHTN)

tris-(2-Chloroethyl)-

phosphate

tris (2-Butoxyethyl)-

phosphate

TributylphosphateTriclosan 

(Irgesan)

Triphenyl

phosphate

WS26 <12.5 <25 <25 <50 <50 <12.5 <500 <12.5

WS27(#1) <12.5 <25 <25 <50 <50 <12.5 <500 <12.5

WS27(#2) <12.5 <25 <25 <50 <50 <12.5 <500 <12.5

WS30(#1) <12.5 <25 <25 <50 <50 <12.5 <500 <12.5

WS30(#2) <12.5 <25 <25 <50 <50 <12.5 <500 <12.5

WS35 <12.5 <25 <25 <50 <50 <12.5 <500 <12.5

WS36 <12.5 <25 <25 <50 <50 <12.5 <500 <12.5

WS37 <12.5 <25 <25 <50 <50 <12.5 <500 <12.5

WS39 <12.5 <25 <25 <50 <50 <12.5 <500 <12.5

CC01 <12.5 <25 <25 <50 <50 <12.5 <500 <12.5

CC02 <12.5 <25 <25 <50 <50 <12.5 <500 <12.5

CC04 <12.5 <25 <25 <50 <50 <12.5 <500 <12.5

CC05 <12.5 <25 <25 <50 <50 <12.5 <500 <12.5

CC07 <12.5 <25 <25 <50 <50 <12.5 <500 <12.5

CC09 <12.5 <25 <25 <50 <50 <12.5 <500 <12.5

CC10 <12.5 <25 <25 <50 <50 <12.5 <500 <12.5

CC13 <12.5 <25 <25 <50 <50 <12.5 <500 <12.5

CC16 <12.5 <25 <25 <50 <50 <12.5 <500 <12.5

CC17 <12.5 <25 <25 <50 <50 <12.5 <500 <12.5

LMB01 96.2 70.9 <25 <50 <50 <12.5 <500 <12.5

LMB02 <12.5 <25 <25 <50 <50 <12.5 <500 <12.5

LMB05 35.9 40.0 <25 <50 <50 <12.5 <500 <12.5

LMB12 <12.5 <25 <25 <50 <50 <12.5 <500 <12.5
70

Table 21. Concentrations of contaminants (ng/g wet weight) in plasma from white suckers (WS), common carp (CC), and largemouth bass (LMB) 

collected from the Charles River (August, 2005). Concentrations determined from electron ionization gas chromatography/mass spectrometry. 

Analytes: 2-Methyl naphthalene to 4-Cumylphenol. (MQL, method quantitation limit; ng/g, nanogram per gram; <, values below the detection level; 

BHA, Butylated Hydroxyanisole)—Continued

Sample 2-Methyl 

naphthalene

3,4-Dichlorophenyl

isocyanate

1-Methyl 

naphthalene

3-Methyl-1(H)-

indole (skatol)

2,6-Dimethyl

naphthalene

5-Methyl-1Hbenzotriazole4-Tertoctylphenol4-

Octylphenol

4-

Cumylphenol

MQL 12.5 500 12.5 12.5 12.5 250.0 125.0 125.0 125.0

Blank 1 <12.5 <500 <12.5 <12.5 <12.5 <250 <125 <125 <125

Blank 2 <12.5 <500 <12.5 <12.5 <12.5 <250 <125 <125 <125

Blank 3 <12.5 <500 <12.5 <12.5 <12.5 <250 <125 <125 <125

Blank 4 <12.5 <500 <12.5 <12.5 <12.5 <250 <125 <125 <125

Blank 5 <12.5 <500 <12.5 <12.5 <12.5 <250 <125 <125 <125

WS02 <12.5 <500 <12.5 <12.5 <12.5 <250 <125 <125 <125

WS03 <12.5 <500 <12.5 <12.5 <12.5 <250 <125 <125 <125

WS04(#1) <12.5 <500 <12.5 <12.5 <12.5 <250 <125 <125 <125

WS04(#2) <12.5 <500 <12.5 <12.5 <12.5 <250 <125 <125 <125

WS05 <12.5 <500 <12.5 <12.5 <12.5 <250 <125 <125 <125

WS06(#1) <12.5 <500 <12.5 <12.5 <12.5 <250 <125 <125 <125

WS06(#2) <12.5 <500 <12.5 <12.5 <12.5 <250 <125 <125 <125

WS07(#1) <12.5 <500 <12.5 <12.5 <12.5 <250 <125 <125 <125

WS07(#2) <12.5 <500 <12.5 <12.5 <12.5 <250 <125 <125 <125

WS08(#1) <12.5 <500 <12.5 <12.5 <12.5 <250 <125 <125 <125

WS08(#2) <12.5 <500 <12.5 <12.5 <12.5 <250 <125 <125 <125

WS09 <12.5 <500 <12.5 <12.5 <12.5 <250 <125 <125 <125

WS11 <12.5 <500 <12.5 <12.5 <12.5 <250 <125 <125 <125

WS12(#1) <12.5 <500 <12.5 <12.5 <12.5 <250 <125 <125 <125

WS12(#2) <12.5 <500 <12.5 <12.5 <12.5 <250 <125 <125 <125

WS13 <12.5 <500 <12.5 <12.5 <12.5 <250 <125 <125 <125

WS16 <12.5 <500 <12.5 <12.5 <12.5 <250 <125 <125 <125

WS17(#1) <12.5 <500 <12.5 <12.5 <12.5 <250 <125 <125 <125

WS17(#2) <12.5 <500 <12.5 <12.5 <12.5 <250 <125 <125 <125

WS21(#1) <12.5 <500 <12.5 <12.5 <12.5 <250 <125 <125 <125

WS21(#2) <12.5 <500 <12.5 <12.5 <12.5 <250 <125 <125 <125

WS23 <12.5 <500 <12.5 <12.5 <12.5 <250 <125 <125 <125
71

Table 21. Concentrations of contaminants (ng/g wet weight) in plasma from white suckers (WS), common carp (CC), and largemouth bass (LMB) 

collected from the Charles River (August, 2005). Concentrations determined from electron ionization gas chromatography/mass spectrometry. 

Analytes: 2-Methyl naphthalene to 4-Cumylphenol. (MQL, method quantitation limit; ng/g, nanogram per gram; <, values below the detection level; 

BHA, Butylated Hydroxyanisole)—Continued

Sample 2-Methyl 

naphthalene

3,4-Dichlorophenyl

isocyanate

1-Methyl 

naphthalene

3-Methyl-1(H)-

indole (skatol)

2,6-Dimethyl

naphthalene

5-Methyl-1Hbenzotriazole4-Tertoctylphenol4-

Octylphenol

4-

Cumylphenol

WS26 <12.5 <500 <12.5 <12.5 <12.5 <250 <125 <125 <125

WS27(#1) <12.5 <500 <12.5 <12.5 <12.5 <250 <125 <125 <125

WS27(#2) <12.5 <500 <12.5 <12.5 <12.5 <250 <125 <125 <125

WS30(#1) <12.5 <500 <12.5 <12.5 <12.5 <250 <125 <125 <125

WS30(#2) <12.5 <500 <12.5 <12.5 <12.5 <250 <125 <125 <125

WS35 <12.5 <500 <12.5 <12.5 <12.5 <250 <125 <125 <125

WS36 <12.5 <500 <12.5 <12.5 <12.5 <250 <125 <125 <125

WS37 <12.5 <500 <12.5 <12.5 <12.5 <250 <125 <125 <125

WS39 <12.5 <500 <12.5 <12.5 <12.5 <250 <125 <125 <125

CC01 <12.5 <500 <12.5 <12.5 <12.5 <250 <125 <125 <125

CC02 <12.5 <500 <12.5 <12.5 <12.5 <250 <125 <125 <125

CC04 <12.5 <500 <12.5 <12.5 <12.5 <250 <125 <125 <125

CC05 <12.5 <500 <12.5 <12.5 <12.5 <250 <125 <125 <125

CC07 <12.5 <500 <12.5 <12.5 <12.5 <250 <125 <125 <125

CC09 <12.5 <500 <12.5 <12.5 <12.5 <250 <125 <125 <125

CC10 <12.5 <500 <12.5 <12.5 <12.5 <250 <125 <125 <125

CC13 <12.5 <500 <12.5 <12.5 <12.5 <250 <125 <125 <125

CC16 <12.5 <500 <12.5 <12.5 <12.5 <250 <125 <125 <125

CC17 <12.5 <500 <12.5 <12.5 <12.5 <250 <125 <125 <125

LMB01 <12.5 <500 <12.5 <12.5 <12.5 <250 <125 <125 <125

LMB02 <12.5 <500 <12.5 <12.5 <12.5 <250 <125 <125 <125

LMB05 <12.5 <500 <12.5 <12.5 <12.5 <250 <125 <125 <125

LMB12 <12.5 <500 <12.5 <12.5 <12.5 <250 <125 <125 <125
72

Table 22. Concentrations (ng/g wet weight) of organochlorines, polybrominated diphenyl ether (PBDE), and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) in 

plasma from white suckers (WS), common carp (CC), and largemouth bass (LMB) collected from the Charles River (August 2005). Concentrations 

determined from negative charge ionization (NCI) gas chromatography/mass spectrometry. Values with a less than sign (<) are below the method 

quantitation limit (MQL). Analytes: Aldrin to DCPA (Dacthal).

 Sample Aldrin Benfluralin Chlorpyrifos trans-chlordane cis-chlordane trans-nonachlor cisnonachlor Oxychlordane DCPA 

(dacthal)

MQL 10 5 10 10 5 5 5 25 5

Blank 1 <10 <5 <10 <10 <5 <5 <5 <25 <5

Blank 2 <10 <5 <10 <10 <5 <5 <5 <25 <5

Blank 3 <10 <5 <10 <10 <5 <5 <5 <25 <5

Blank 4 <10 <5 <10 <10 <5 <5 <5 <25 <5

Blank 5 <10 <5 <10 <10 <5 <5 <5 <25 <5

WS02 <10 <5 <10 <10 <5 <5 <5 <25 <5

WS03 <10 <5 <10 <10 <5 <5 <5 <25 <5

WS04(#1) <10 <5 <10 19.3 24.1 20.2 16.7 <25 <5

WS04(#2) <10 <5 <10 <10 <5 <5 <5 <25 <5

WS05 <10 <5 <10 21.4 27.6 22.0 17.6 <25 <5

WS06(#1) <10 <5 <10 19.7 25.0 19.5 16.6 <25 <5

WS06(#2) <10 <5 <10 <10 <5 <5 <5 <25 <5

WS07(#1) <10 <5 <10 22.6 31.0 23.8 18.1 <25 <5

WS07(#2) <10 <5 <10 <10 <5 <5 <5 <25 <5

WS08(#1) <10 <5 <10 <10 <5 <5 <5 <25 <5

WS08(#2) <10 <5 <10 <10 <5 <5 <5 <25 <5

WS09 <10 <5 <10 <10 <5 <5 <5 <25 <5

WS11 <10 <5 <10 18.2 <5 <5 <5 <25 <5

WS12(#1) <10 <5 <10 <10 <5 <5 <5 <25 <5

WS12(#2) <10 <5 <10 <10 <5 <5 <5 <25 <5

WS13 <10 <5 <10 <10 <5 <5 <5 <25 <5

WS16 <10 <5 <10 <10 <5 <5 <5 <25 <5

WS17(#1) <10 <5 <10 <10 <5 <5 <5 <25 <5

WS17(#2) <10 <5 <10 <10 <5 <5 <5 <25 <5

WS21(#1) <10 <5 <10 <10 <5 <5 <5 <25 <5

WS21(#2) <10 <5 <10 <10 <5 <5 <5 <25 <5

WS23 <10 <5 <10 <10 <5 <5 <5 <25 <5
73

Table 22. Concentrations (ng/g wet weight) of organochlorines, polybrominated diphenyl ether (PBDE), and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) in 

plasma from white suckers (WS), common carp (CC), and largemouth bass (LMB) collected from the Charles River (August 2005). Concentrations 

determined from negative charge ionization (NCI) gas chromatography/mass spectrometry. Values with a less than sign (<) are below the method 

quantitation limit (MQL). Analytes: Aldrin to DCPA (Dacthal). —Continued 

Sample Aldrin Benfluralin Chlorpyrifos trans-chlordane cis-chlordane trans-nonachlor cisnonachlor Oxychlordane DCPA 

(dacthal)

WS26 <10 <5 <10 <10 <5 <5 <5 <25 <5

WS27(#1) <10 <5 <10 <10 <5 <5 <5 <25 <5

WS27(#2) <10 <5 <10 <10 <5 <5 <5 <25 <5

WS30(#1) <10 <5 <10 <10 <5 <5 <5 <25 <5

WS30(#2) <10 <5 <10 <10 <5 <5 <5 <25 <5

WS35 <10 <5 <10 <10 <5 <5 <5 <25 <5

WS36 <10 <5 <10 <10 <5 <5 <5 <25 <5

WS37 <10 <5 <10 <10 <5 <5 <5 <25 <5

WS39 <10 <5 <10 <10 <5 <5 <5 <25 <5

CC01 <10 <5 <10 <10 <5 <5 <5 <25 <5

CC02 <10 <5 <10 <10 <5 <5 <5 <25 <5

CC04 <10 <5 <10 <10 <5 <5 <5 <25 <5

CC05 <10 <5 <10 <10 <5 <5 <5 <25 <5

CC07 <10 <5 <10 <10 <5 <5 <5 <25 <5

CC09 <10 <5 <10 <10 <5 <5 <5 <25 <5

CC10 <10 <5 <10 <10 <5 <5 <5 <25 <5

CC13 <10 <5 <10 <10 <5 <5 <5 <25 <5

CC16 <10 <5 <10 <10 <5 <5 <5 <25 <5

CC17 <10 <5 <10 <10 <5 <5 <5 <25 <5

LMB01 <10 <5 <10 <10 <5 20.4 12.0 <25 <5

LMB02 <10 <5 <10 <10 <5 <5 <5 <25 <5

LMB05 <10 <5 <10 <10 <5 <5 <5 <25 <5

LMB12 <10 <5 <10 <10 <5 <5 <5 <25 <5
74

Table 22. Concentrations (ng/g, nanogram per gram wet weight) of organochlorines, polybrominated diphenyl ether (PBDE), and polychlorinated 

biphenyls (PCBs) in plasma from white suckers (WS), common carp (CC), and largemouth bass (LMB) collected from the Charles River (August, 

2005). Concentrations determined from negative charge ionization (NCI) gas chromatography/mass spectrometry. Analytes: p,p'-DDE to endrin 

ketone. (MQL, method quantitation limit; ng/g, nanogram per gram; <, values below the detection level)—Continued

 Sample p,p'-DDE o,p'-DDE o,p'-DDD o,p'-DDT p,p'-DDT Dieldrin Endosulfan I Endosulfan II Endrin ketone

MQL 100 25 75 100 100 25 10 5 75

Blank 1 <100 <25 <75 <100 <100 <25 <10 <5 <75

Blank 2 <100 <25 <75 <100 <100 <25 <10 <5 <75

Blank 3 <100 <25 <75 <100 <100 <25 <10 <5 <75

Blank 4 <100 <25 <75 <100 <100 <25 <10 <5 <75

Blank 5 <100 <25 <75 <100 <100 <25 <10 <5 <75

WS02 <100 <25 <75 <100 <100 <25 <10 <5 <75

WS03 <100 <25 <75 <100 <100 <25 <10 <5 <75

WS04(#1) <100 <25 <75 <100 <100 <25 <10 <5 <75

WS04(#2) <100 <25 <75 <100 <100 <25 <10 <5 <75

WS05 <100 <25 <75 <100 <100 <25 <10 <5 <75

WS06(#1) <100 <25 <75 <100 <100 <25 <10 <5 <75

WS06(#2) <100 <25 <75 <100 <100 <25 <10 <5 <75

WS07(#1) <100 <25 <75 <100 <100 <25 <10 <5 <75

WS07(#2) <100 <25 <75 <100 <100 <25 <10 <5 <75

WS08(#1) <100 <25 <75 <100 <100 <25 <10 <5 <75

WS08(#2) <100 <25 <75 <100 <100 <25 <10 <5 <75

WS09 <100 <25 <75 <100 <100 <25 <10 <5 <75

WS11 <100 <25 <75 <100 <100 <25 <10 <5 <75

WS12(#1) <100 <25 <75 <100 <100 <25 <10 <5 <75

WS12(#2) <100 <25 <75 <100 <100 <25 <10 <5 <75

WS13 <100 <25 <75 <100 <100 <25 <10 <5 <75

WS16 <100 <25 <75 <100 <100 <25 <10 <5 <75

WS17(#1) <100 <25 <75 <100 <100 <25 <10 <5 <75

WS17(#2) <100 <25 <75 <100 <100 <25 <10 <5 <75

WS21(#1) <100 <25 <75 <100 <100 <25 <10 <5 <75

WS21(#2) <100 <25 <75 <100 <100 <25 <10 <5 <75

WS23 <100 <25 <75 <100 <100 <25 <10 <5 <75
75

Table 22. Concentrations (ng/g, nanogram per gram wet weight) of organochlorines, polybrominated diphenyl ether (PBDE), and polychlorinated 

biphenyls (PCBs) in plasma from white suckers (WS), common carp (CC), and largemouth bass (LMB) collected from the Charles River (August, 

2005). Concentrations determined from negative charge ionization (NCI) gas chromatography/mass spectrometry. Analytes: p,p'-DDE to endrin 

ketone. (MQL, method quantitation limit; ng/g, nanogram per gram; <, values below the detection level)—Continued

Sample p,p'-DDE o,p'-DDE o,p'-DDD o,p'-DDT p,p'-DDT Dieldrin Endosulfan I Endosulfan II Endrin ketone

WS26 <100 <25 <75 <100 <100 <25 <10 <5 <75

WS27(#1) <100 <25 <75 <100 <100 <25 <10 <5 <75

WS27(#2) <100 <25 <75 <100 <100 <25 <10 <5 <75

WS30(#1) <100 <25 <75 <100 <100 <25 <10 <5 <75

WS30(#2) <100 <25 <75 <100 <100 <25 <10 <5 <75

WS35 <100 <25 <75 <100 <100 <25 <10 <5 <75

WS36 <100 <25 <75 <100 <100 <25 <10 <5 <75

WS37 <100 <25 <75 <100 <100 <25 <10 <5 <75

WS39 <100 <25 <75 <100 <100 <25 <10 <5 <75

CC01 <100 <25 <75 <100 <100 <25 <10 <5 <75

CC02 <100 <25 <75 <100 <100 <25 <10 <5 <75

CC04 <100 <25 <75 <100 <100 <25 <10 <5 <75

CC05 <100 <25 <75 <100 <100 <25 <10 <5 <75

CC07 <100 <25 <75 <100 <100 <25 <10 <5 <75

CC09 <100 <25 <75 <100 <100 <25 <10 <5 <75

CC10 <100 <25 <75 <100 <100 <25 <10 <5 <75

CC13 <100 <25 <75 <100 <100 <25 <10 <5 <75

CC16 <100 <25 <75 <100 <100 <25 <10 <5 <75

CC17 <100 <25 <75 <100 <100 <25 <10 <5 <75

LMB01 <100 <25 <75 <100 <100 <25 <10 <5 <75

LMB02 <100 <25 <75 <100 <100 <25 <10 <5 <75

LMB05 <100 <25 <75 <100 <100 <25 <10 <5 <75

LMB12 <100 <25 <75 <100 <100 <25 <10 <5 <75
76

Table 22. Concentrations (ng/g, nanpgram per gram wet weight) of organochlorines, polybrominated diphenyl ether (PBDE), and polychlorinated 

biphenyls (PCBs) in plasma from white suckers (WS), common carp (CC), and largemouth bass (LMB) collected from the Charles River (August, 

2005). Concentrations determined from negative charge ionization (NCI) gas chromatography/mass spectrometry. Analytes: Fipronil to 

Octachlorostyrene. (MQL, method quantitation limit; ng/g, nanogram per gram; <, values below the detection level)—Continued

Sample Fipronil α-HCH β-HCH γ-HCH δ-HCH Heptachlor 

epoxide HCB Mirex Octachlorostyrene

MQL 25 10 50 25 25 25 5 10 5

Blank 1 <25 <10 <50 <25 <25 <25 <5 <10 <5

Blank 2 <25 <10 <50 <25 <25 <25 <5 <10 <5

Blank 3 <25 <10 <50 <25 <25 <25 <5 <10 <5

Blank 4 <25 <10 <50 <25 <25 <25 <5 <10 <5

Blank 5 <25 <10 <50 <25 <25 <25 <5 <10 <5

WS02 <25 <10 <50 <25 <25 <25 <5 <10 <5

WS03 <25 <10 <50 <25 <25 <25 <5 <10 <5

WS04(#1) <25 <10 <50 <25 <25 <25 <5 <10 <5

WS04(#2) <25 <10 <50 <25 <25 <25 <5 <10 <5

WS05 <25 <10 <50 <25 <25 <25 <5 <10 <5

WS06(#1) <25 <10 <50 <25 <25 <25 <5 <10 <5

WS06(#2) <25 <10 <50 <25 <25 <25 <5 <10 <5

WS07(#1) <25 <10 <50 <25 <25 <25 <5 <10 <5

WS07(#2) <25 <10 <50 <25 <25 <25 <5 <10 <5

WS08(#1) <25 <10 <50 <25 <25 <25 <5 <10 <5

WS08(#2) <25 <10 <50 <25 <25 <25 <5 <10 <5

WS09 <25 <10 <50 <25 <25 <25 <5 <10 <5

WS11 <25 <10 <50 <25 <25 <25 <5 <10 <5

WS12(#1) <25 <10 <50 <25 <25 <25 <5 <10 <5

WS12(#2) <25 <10 <50 <25 <25 <25 <5 <10 <5

WS13 <25 <10 <50 <25 <25 <25 <5 <10 <5

WS16 <25 <10 <50 <25 <25 <25 <5 <10 <5

WS17(#1) <25 <10 <50 <25 <25 <25 <5 <10 <5

WS17(#2) <25 <10 <50 <25 <25 <25 <5 <10 <5

WS21(#1) <25 <10 <50 <25 <25 <25 <5 <10 <5

WS21(#2) <25 <10 <50 <25 <25 <25 <5 <10 <5

WS23 <25 <10 <50 <25 <25 <25 <5 <10 <5
77

Table 22. Concentrations (ng/g, nanpgram per gram wet weight) of organochlorines, polybrominated diphenyl ether (PBDE), and polychlorinated 

biphenyls (PCBs) in plasma from white suckers (WS), common carp (CC), and largemouth bass (LMB) collected from the Charles River (August, 

2005). Concentrations determined from negative charge ionization (NCI) gas chromatography/mass spectrometry. Analytes: Fipronil to 

Octachlorostyrene. (MQL, method quantitation limit; ng/g, nanogram per gram; <, values below the detection level)—Continued

Sample Fipronil α-HCH β-HCH γ-HCH δ-HCH Heptachlor 

epoxide HCB Mirex Octachlorostyrene

WS26 <25 <10 <50 <25 <25 <25 <5 <10 <5

WS27(#1) <25 <10 <50 <25 <25 <25 <5 <10 <5

WS27(#2) <25 <10 <50 <25 <25 <25 <5 <10 <5

WS30(#1) <25 <10 <50 <25 <25 <25 <5 <10 <5

WS30(#2) <25 <10 <50 <25 <25 <25 <5 <10 <5

WS35 <25 <10 <50 <25 <25 <25 <5 <10 <5

WS36 <25 <10 <50 <25 <25 <25 <5 <10 <5

WS37 <25 <10 <50 <25 <25 <25 6.9 <10 6.2

WS39 <25 <10 <50 <25 <25 <25 <5 <10 <5

CC01 <25 <10 <50 <25 <25 <25 <5 <10 <5

CC02 <25 <10 <50 <25 <25 <25 <5 <10 <5

CC04 <25 <10 <50 <25 <25 <25 <5 <10 <5

CC05 <25 <10 <50 <25 <25 <25 <5 <10 <5

CC07 <25 <10 <50 <25 <25 <25 <5 <10 <5

CC09 <25 <10 <50 <25 <25 <25 <5 <10 <5

CC10 <25 <10 <50 <25 <25 <25 <5 <10 <5

CC13 <25 <10 <50 <25 <25 <25 <5 <10 <5

CC16 <25 <10 <50 <25 <25 <25 <5 <10 <5

CC17 <25 <10 <50 <25 <25 <25 <5 <10 <5

LMB01 <25 <10 <50 <25 <25 <25 <5 <10 <5

LMB02 <25 <10 <50 <25 <25 <25 <5 <10 <5

LMB05 <25 <10 <50 <25 <25 <25 <5 <10 <5

LMB12 <25 <10 <50 <25 <25 <25 <5 <10 <5
78

Table 22. Concentrations (ng/g, nanogram per gram wet weight) of organochlorines, polybrominated diphenyl ether (PBDE), and polychlorinated 

biphenyls (PCBs) in plasma from white suckers (WS), common carp (CC), and largemouth bass (LMB) collected from the Charles River (August, 

2005). Concentrations determined from negative charge ionization (NCI) gas chromatography/mass spectrometry. Analytes: PCA to PBDE 183. (MQL, 

method quantitation limit; ng/g, nanogram per gram; <, values below the detection level)—Continued

Sample PCA Trifluralin PBDE 

47 PBDE 66 PBDE 71 PBDE 85 PBDE 99 PBDE 100

PBDE 

138

PBDE 

153

PBDE 

154

PBDE 

183

MQL 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5

Blank 1 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5

Blank 2 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5

Blank 3 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5

Blank 4 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5

Blank 5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5

WS02 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5

WS03 <5 <5 14.5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5

WS04(#1) <5 <5 9.3 <5 <5 <5 6.7 5.5 <5 <5 <5 <5

WS04(#2) <5 <5 10.3 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5

WS05 <5 <5 17.5 <5 20.4 <5 7.0 6.5 <5 <5 <5 <5

WS06(#1) <5 <5 17.6 18.3 19.8 <5 6.6 6.2 <5 <5 <5 <5

WS06(#2) <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5

WS07(#1) <5 <5 25.0 19.7 24.4 <5 7.2 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5

WS07(#2) <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5

WS08(#1) <5 <5 7.7 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5

WS08(#2) <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5

WS09 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5

WS11 <5 <5 5.0 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5

WS12(#1) <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5

WS12(#2) <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5

WS13 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5

WS16 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5

WS17(#1) <5 <5 5.9 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5

WS17(#2) <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5

WS21(#1) <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5

WS21(#2) <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5

WS23 <5 <5 13.1 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5
79

Table 22. Concentrations (ng/g, nanogram per gram wet weight) of organochlorines, polybrominated diphenyl ether (PBDE), and polychlorinated 

biphenyls (PCBs) in plasma from white suckers (WS), common carp (CC), and largemouth bass (LMB) collected from the Charles River (August, 

2005). Concentrations determined from negative charge ionization (NCI) gas chromatography/mass spectrometry. Analytes: PCA to PBDE 183. (MQL, 

method quantitation limit; ng/g, nanogram per gram; <, values below the detection level)—Continued

Sample PCA Trifluralin PBDE 

47 PBDE 66 PBDE 71 PBDE 85 PBDE 99 PBDE 100

PBDE 

138

PBDE 

153

PBDE 

154

PBDE 

183

WS26 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5

WS27(#1) <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5

WS27(#2) <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5

WS30(#1) <5 <5 4.9 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5

WS30(#2) <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5

WS35 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5

WS36 <5 <5 11.6 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5

WS37 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5

WS39 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5

CC01 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5

CC02 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5

CC04 <5 <5 7.7 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5

CC05 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5

CC07 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5

CC09 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5

CC10 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5

CC13 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5

CC16 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5

CC17 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5

LMB01 <5 <5 16.9 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5

LMB02 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5

LMB05 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5

LMB12 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5
80

Table 22. Concentrations (ng/g, nanogram per gram wet weight) of organochlorines, polybrominated diphenyl ether (PBDE), and polychlorinated 

biphenyls (PCBs) in plasma from white suckers (WS), common carp (CC), and largemouth bass (LMB) collected from the Charles River (August, 

2005). Concentrations determined from negative charge ionization (NCI) gas chromatography/mass spectrometry. Analytes: PCB 70 to PCB 180. 

(MQL, method quantitation limit; ng/g, nanogram per gram; <, values below the detection level)—Continued

Sample PCB 70 PCB 101 PCB 110 PCB 118 PCB 138 PCB 146 PCB 149 PCB 151 PCB 170 PCB 174 PCB 177 PCB 180

MQL 100 75 75 5 5 5 25 10 5 5 5 5

Blank 1 <100 <75 <75 <5 <5 <5 <25 <10 <5 <5 <5 <5

Blank 2 <100 <75 <75 <5 <5 <5 <25 <10 <5 <5 <5 <5

Blank 3 <100 <75 <75 <5 <5 <5 <25 <10 <5 <5 <5 <5

Blank 4 <100 <75 <75 <5 <5 <5 <25 <10 <5 <5 <5 <5

Blank 5 <100 <75 <75 <5 <5 <5 <25 <10 <5 <5 <5 <5

WS02 <100 <75 <75 13.5 24.2 <5 <25 <10 6.84 <5 <5 9.79

WS03 <100 <75 <75 13.7 20.5 <5 <25 <10 <5 <5 <5 8.33

WS04(#1) <100 <75 <75 24 39.5 13 <25 <10 13.8 14.9 <5 13.9

WS04(#2) <100 <75 <75 17.9 31.6 <5 <25 <10 7.82 <5 <5 11.2

WS05 <100 <75 <75 31.6 63.6 14.7 <25 <10 16.3 17.9 12.2 17.4

WS06(#1) <100 <75 <75 28.8 47.2 13.5 <25 <10 14.4 15.5 <5 14.1

WS06(#2) <100 <75 <75 12.9 21.3 <5 <25 <10 <5 <5 <5 8.54

WS07(#1) <100 <75 <75 37 73.2 15.6 <25 <10 16.9 19.2 12.7 20.4

WS07(#2) <100 <75 <75 <5 <5 <5 <25 <10 <5 <5 <5 <5

WS08(#1) <100 <75 <75 25.6 44.4 13.6 <25 <10 14.3 15.5 11.1 13.7

WS08(#2) <100 <75 <75 <5 <5 <5 <25 <10 <5 <5 <5 <5

WS09 <100 <75 <75 <5 26.6 <5 <25 <10 11.9 12.9 <5 9.4

WS11 <100 <75 <75 23.5 37.7 <5 <25 <10 13.2 14.7 11 12.6

WS12(#1) <100 <75 <75 <5 <5 <5 <25 <10 <5 <5 <5 <5

WS12(#2) <100 <75 <75 <5 <5 <5 <25 <10 <5 <5 <5 5.38

WS13 <100 <75 <75 <5 <5 <5 <25 <10 <5 <5 <5 8.2

WS16 <100 <75 <75 <5 32.9 12.7 <25 <10 13.4 14.7 10.8 12.5

WS17(#1) <100 <75 <75 22 32.4 <5 <25 <10 12.5 13.8 <5 10.4

WS17(#2) <100 <75 <75 <5 <5 <5 <25 <10 <5 <5 <5 <5

WS21(#1) <100 <75 <75 <5 <5 <5 <25 <10 <5 <5 <5 <5

WS21(#2) <100 <75 <75 <5 <5 <5 <25 <10 <5 <5 <5 <5

WS23 <100 <75 <75 <5 33.6 <5 <25 <10 12.7 14.2 <5 11.4

WS26 <100 <75 <75 <5 <5 <5 <25 <10 <5 <5 <5 8.88

WS27(#1) <100 <75 <75 <5 28.9 <5 <25 <10 <5 <5 <5 9.24
81

Table 22. Concentrations (ng/g, nanogram per gram wet weight) of organochlorines, polybrominated diphenyl ether (PBDE), and polychlorinated 

biphenyls (PCBs) in plasma from white suckers (WS), common carp (CC), and largemouth bass (LMB) collected from the Charles River (August, 

2005). Concentrations determined from negative charge ionization (NCI) gas chromatography/mass spectrometry. Analytes: PCB 70 to PCB 180. 

(MQL, method quantitation limit; ng/g, nanogram per gram; <, values below the detection level)—Continued

 Sample PCB 70 PCB 101 PCB 110 PCB 118 PCB 138 PCB 146 PCB 149 PCB 151 PCB 170 PCB 174 PCB 177 PCB 180 

WS27(#2) <100 <75 <75 <5 16.3 <5 <25 <10 5.61 <5 <5 6.67

WS30(#1) <100 <75 <75 <5 <5 <5 <25 <10 <5 <5 <5 <5

WS30(#2) <100 <75 <75 <5 <5 <5 <25 <10 <5 <5 <5 5.93

WS35 <100 <75 <75 10.3 16.9 <5 <25 <10 5.73 <5 <5 7.21

WS36 <100 <75 <75 <5 <5 <5 <25 <10 <5 <5 <5 <5

WS37 <100 <75 <75 7.1 13.2 <5 <25 <10 <5 <5 <5 <5

WS39 <100 <75 <75 <5 <5 <5 <25 <10 12.7 <5 <5 11.2

CC01 <100 <75 <75 25.7 50.8 <5 <25 <10 11.4 <5 <5 18.2

CC02 <100 <75 <75 <5 18.4 <5 <25 <10 <5 <5 <5 7.72

CC04 <100 <75 <75 15.6 32.7 <5 <25 <10 8.98 <5 <5 14.4

CC05 <100 <75 <75 <5 <5 <5 <25 <10 <5 <5 <5 <5

CC07 <100 <75 <75 <5 <5 <5 <25 <10 <5 <5 <5 6.18

CC09 <100 <75 <75 <5 <5 <5 <25 <10 <5 <5 <5 <5

CC10 <100 <75 <75 <5 <5 <5 <25 <10 <5 <5 <5 <5

CC13 <100 <75 <75 <5 <5 <5 <25 <10 <5 <5 <5 5.01

CC16 <100 <75 <75 <5 <5 <5 <25 <10 <5 <5 <5 <5

CC17 <100 <75 <75 <5 <5 <5 <25 <10 <5 <5 <5 <5

LMB01 <100 <75 <75 31.9 57.2 8.91 <25 <10 12.8 8.86 <5 25.6

LMB02 <100 <75 <75 10.6 15 <5 <25 <10 5.39 <5 <5 6.66

LMB05 <100 <75 <75 47 78.4 12.1 <25 <10 14.2 11.1 <5 27.9

LMB12 <100 <75 <75 13.9 20.5 <5 <25 <10 5.83 <5 <5 10.8
82

Table 22. Concentrations (ng/g, nanogram per gram wet weight) of organochlorines, polybrominated diphenyl ether (PBDE), and polychlorinated 

biphenyls (PCBs) in plasma from white suckers (WS), common carp (CC), and largemouth bass (LMB) collected from the Charles River (August, 

2005). Concentrations determined from negative charge ionization (NCI) gas chromatography/mass spectrometry. Analytes: PCB 183 to PCB 206.

(MQL, method quantitation limit; ng/g, nanogram per gram; <, values below the detection level)—Continued

 Sample PCB 183 PCB 187 PCB 194 PCB 206

MQL 5 5 5 5

Blank 1 <5 <5 <5 <5

Blank 2 <5 <5 <5 <5

Blank 3 <5 <5 <5 <5

Blank 4 <5 <5 <5 <5

Blank 5 <5 <5 <5 <5

WS02 <5 6.2 <5 <5

WS03 <5 5.51 <5 <5

WS04(#1) <5 <5 <5 <5

WS04(#2) <5 7.56 <5 <5

WS05 <5 <5 <5 <5

WS06(#1) <5 <5 <5 <5

WS06(#2) <5 5.4 <5 <5

WS07(#1) 16.2 16.3 <5 <5

WS07(#2) <5 <5 <5 <5

WS08(#1) <5 <5 <5 <5

WS08(#2) <5 <5 <5 <5

WS09 <5 <5 <5 <5

WS11 <5 <5 <5 <5

WS12(#1) <5 <5 <5 <5

WS12(#2) <5 <5 <5 <5

WS13 <5 <5 <5 <5

WS16 <5 <5 <5 <5

WS17(#1) <5 <5 <5 <5

WS17(#2) <5 <5 <5 <5

WS21(#1) <5 <5 <5 <5

WS21(#2) <5 <5 <5 <5

WS23 <5 <5 <5 <5

WS26 <5 <5 <5 <5

WS27(#1) <5 <5 <5 <5
83

Table 22. Concentrations (ng/g, nanogram per gram wet weight) of organochlorines, polybrominated diphenyl ether (PBDE), and polychlorinated 

biphenyls (PCBs) in plasma from white suckers (WS), common carp (CC), and largemouth bass (LMB) collected from the Charles River (August, 

2005). Concentrations determined from negative charge ionization (NCI) gas chromatography/mass spectrometry. Analytes: PCB 183 to PCB 206.

(MQL, method quantitation limit; ng/g, nanogram per gram; <, values below the detection level)—Continued

 Sample PCB 183 PCB 187 PCB 194 PCB 206

WS27(#2) <5 <5 <5 <5

WS30(#1) <5 <5 <5 <5

WS30(#2) <5 <5 <5 <5

WS35 <5 <5 <5 <5

WS36 <5 <5 <5 <5

WS37 <5 <5 <5 <5

WS39 <5 <5 <5 <5

CC01 <5 12.2 <5 <5

CC02 <5 5.17 <5 ND

CC04 <5 9.37 <5 ND

CC05 <5 <5 <5 <5

CC07 <5 <5 <5 <5

CC09 <5 <5 <5 <5

CC10 <5 <5 <5 <5

CC13 <5 <5 <5 <5

CC16 <5 <5 <5 <5

CC17 <5 <5 <5 <5

LMB01 7.79 16 9.14 7.86

LMB02 <5 4.68 <5 <5

LMB05 9.13 22.1 7.68 6.37

LMB12 <5 6.71 5.46 <5
84

Table 23. Mean survival and growth of the amphipod Hyalella azteca in 28-day exposures and of the midge 

Chironomus dilutus in 10-day exposures to sediment samples from the Charles River and to a control 

sediment. Standard deviation is reported within the parentheses (n = 3 replicate assays; mm, millimeters; mg, 

milligrams). 

Treatment Hyalella azteca Chironomus dilutus

Survival (percent) Growth (mm) Survival (percent) Growth (mg)1

Control 93 (9.57) 3.76 (0.40) 85 (12.58) 1.10 (0.48)

Charles River sample 1 90 (14.14) 4.01 (.59) 78 (18.93) .72 (.19)

Charles River sample 2 58 (23.63) 3.35 (.68) 78 (5.00) .29 (.12)

Charles River sample 3 80 (8.16) 3.49 (.61) 98 (17.32) .26 (.04)

1

Ash free dry weight.
85

Table 24. Potential toxicity of extracts from semi-permeable membrane devices (SPMD) and from polar organic contaminant integrated samplers 

(POCIS) using the Microtox® bioassay and the yeast estrogen screen (YES) bioassay. Standard deviations derived from three replicates are 

reported within the parentheses for the Microtox® bioassay. The concentration of the extract that inhibited luminescence by 50 percent after a 5-

minute exposure period (the EC50) was determined and expressed as milligram (mg) equivalent sediment wet weight. The 17β-estradiol equivalents 

(EEQ) screened by the YES bioassay are shown for SPMD and POCIS extracts. (NA, not applicable; mg/mL, milligrams per milliliter; mL, milliliter; 

ng/mL, nanogram per milliliter) 

Bioassay treatment

SPMD POCIS

Field SPMD 

blank 

Deployed 

SPMD #1

Deployed 

SPMD #2

Phenol 

(toxicity 

surrogate)

Field 

POCIS 

blank

Deployed 

POCIS #1

Deployed 

POCIS #2

Phenol 

(toxicity 

surrogate)

Microtox®

EC50 (mg/mL) 58(16) 21(3.6) 19(2.4) 0.02(0.002) 18(6.8) 4.2(3.5) 7.3(1.5) 0.02(0.001)

TU50 (mg/mL) 1 1.76 4.99 5.42 4,720 5.7 24 14 6,580

Yeast Estrogen Screen (YES)

EC50 E2 (M E2) 2 6.7×10-10 1.2×10-9 6.7×10-10 NA 1.1×10-9 1.2×10-9 1.2×10-9 NA

EC50 E2 (ng/mL E2) 180 330 180 NA 290 310 310 NA

EC50 test(mg SPMD or mg POCIS)

 3 510 140 61 NA 77 4.4 4.2 NA

EC50 test (percent SPMD or percent

POCIS) 11 3.1 1.4 NA 19 1.1 1 NA

EEQ (ng E2/SPMD or ng E2/POCIS) 4 1.6 11 13 NA 1.5 29 30 NA

1

Toxic units (TU) = (1/EC50) × 100. This provides a measure of toxicity in the extract. Higher TU number indicates more potential toxicity. 

2

EC50 E2: effective median concentration of 17β-estradiol producing 50 percent of the maximum response for the expression of lac-Z reporter gene of the 

yeast assay.

3

EC50 test: concentration of sample needed to give a response equivalent to the EC50 E2.

4

EEQ (ng E2/sampler) = EC50 E2 (ng E2/mL)/EC50 test (sampler/mL), where sampler/mL = percent sampler × 1 mL sample.
86

Table 25. Gender, stage, sex steroid hormones, vitellogenin, and thyroid hormones in blood plasma of common carp (CC), largemouth bass 

(LMB), and white suckers (WS) collected from the Charles River (August, 2005). (E2, 17ß-estradiol; 11KT, 11-ketotestosterone; T3, triiodothyronine; 

T4, hyroxine; ND, Not Determined; pg/mL, picograms per millilitre; mg/mL, milligrams per milliliter; ng/mL, nanograms per milliter)

Species Gender Stage1 Fish ID

Sex steroid hormones2

Vitellogenin3

(mg/mL)

Thyroid hormones4

E2

(pg/mL)

11KT 

(pg/mL) E2/11KT T3 (ng/mL) T4(ng/mL)

Common carp F 3 CC03 266 371 0.72 2.739 10.4 1.1

Common carp F 3 CC04 354 120 2.95 3.021 11.1 3.4

Common carp F 3 CC06 284 333 .85 3.3 12.7 9.9

Common carp F 3 CC07 471 169 2.79 3.598 11.1 12.3

Common carp F ND CC09 316 148 2.14 5.148 8.9 14.5

Common carp F 3 CC16 328 229 1.43 5.594 8 8.7

Common carp F 3 CC17 599 279 2.15 1.59 9.9 15.9

Common carp F 3 CC18 409 155 2.64 4.183 8.2 20.9

Common carp F 3 CC19 290 264 1.1 2.383 12.4 17.5

Common carp F 3 CC20 277 284 .98 2.727 12.4 30.2

Common carp M 2 CC01 287 374 .77 .017 1.9 14.2

Common carp M 3 CC02 334 404 .83 .008 1.8 4.4

Common carp M 3 CC05 266 261 1.02 .002 13.2 12.5

Common carp M late 2 CC08 180 154 1.17 .004 9.1 6.2

Common carp M 2 CC10 203 102 1.99 .006 8.5 14.3

Common carp M 3 CC11 453 150 3.02 .007 6.8 22.8

Common carp M 3 CC12 517 824 .63 .005 5.7 13.6

Common carp M late 2 CC13 187 104 1.8 .005 7 19.4

Common carp M 2 CC14 195 356 .55 .009 6 9.3

Common carp M late 2 CC15 144 119 1.21 .012 10.5 34.3

Largemouth bass F 1 LMB01 407 407 1 0 38.3 9.5

Largemouth bass F 2 LMB02 373 448 .83 0 30.2 13.1

Largemouth bass F 3 LMB03 298 429 .69 0 39.5 9.9

Largemouth bass F 0 LMB07 345 397 .87 0 26.4 9.8
87

Table 25. Gender, stage, sex steroid hormones, vitellogenin, and thyroid hormones in blood plasma of common carp (CC), largemouth 

bass (LMB), and white suckers (WS) collected from the Charles River (August, 2005). (E2, 17ß-estradiol; 11KT, 11-ketotestosterone; T3, 

triiodothyronine; T4, hyroxine; ND, Not Determined; pg/mL, picograms per millilitre; mg/mL, milligrams per milliliter; ng/mL, nanograms 

per milliter)—Continued

Species Gender Stage1 Fish ID

Sex steroid hormones2

Vitellogenin3

(mg/mL)

Thyroid hormones4

E2

(pg/mL)

11KT 

(pg/mL) E2/11KT T3(ng/mL)

T4

(ng/mL)

Largemouth bass F 1 LMB11 329 347 .95 0 42.1 8.9

Largemouth bass F 0 LMB12 482 454 1.06 0 41.5 5.7

Largemouth bass F 1 LMB14 ND ND ND 0 36.5 7.8

Largemouth bass F 2 LMB16 379 351 1.08 .003 25.6 4.6

Largemouth bass M 3 LMB04 328 470 .7 0 15.4 10.5

Largemouth bass M 3 LMB05 302 471 .64 0 28.9 12.6

Largemouth bass M 2 LMB06 370 559 .66 0 34.6 7.5

Largemouth bass M 2 LMB08 385 366 1.05 0 25.3 13.3

Largemouth bass M 2 LMB09 339 478 .71 0 31.5 7.9

Largemouth bass M 2 LMB10 381 389 .98 .03 43.8 10.5

Largemouth bass M 3 LMB13 431 449 .96 0 31.7 6.9

Largemouth bass M 1 LMB15 405 416 .97 0 35.3 5.6

Largemouth bass M 1 LMB17 278 312 .89 0 19.9 3.3

Largemouth bass M 3 LMB18 ND ND ND .011 29.9 9.9

Largemouth bass M 2 LMB19 333 218 1.53 0 54.5 20.5

Largemouth bass M 1 LMB20 ND ND ND 0 1.1 13.4

White sucker F 2 WS01 380 179 2.12 .466 6 12.2

White sucker F 2 WS02 445 128 3.48 .38 3.2 5.4

White sucker F 2 WS03 647 136 4.76 .726 5.5 11.5

White sucker F 2 WS04 398 123 3.24 .314 8.9 7.6

White sucker F late 2 WS05 412 142 2.9 2.26 19.9 19.4

White sucker F 2 WS06 383 122 3.14 .066 7.6 7.5

White sucker F late 2 WS07 411 124 3.31 .244 5.5 6.7

White sucker F late 2 WS08 226 419 .54 .563 9.7 1.5
88

Table 25. Gender, stage, sex steroid hormones, vitellogenin, and thyroid hormones in blood plasma of common carp (CC), largemouth 

bass (LMB), and white suckers (WS) collected from the Charles River (August, 2005). (E2, 17ß-estradiol; 11KT, 11-ketotestosterone; T3, 

triiodothyronine; T4, hyroxine; ND, Not Determined; pg/mL, picograms per millilitre; mg/mL, milligrams per milliliter; ng/mL, nanograms 

per milliter)—Continued

Species Gender Stage1 Fish ID

Sex steroid hormones2

Vitellogenin3

(mg/mL)

Thyroid hormones4

E2

(pg/mL)

11KT 

(pg/mL) E2/11KT T3(ng/mL)

T4

(ng/mL)

White sucker F 2 WS09 752 193 3.9 .69 8.1 5.9

White sucker F late 2 WS10 286 120 2.38 .504 11.5 6.9

White sucker F late 2 WS11 116 217 .53 .074 13.4 11.5

White sucker F 2 WS12 207 195 1.06 .722 11.2 15.4

White sucker F 2 WS13 432 163 2.65 .35 10.8 12.6

White sucker F late 2 WS14 289 134 2.16 .552 10.7 12.9

White sucker F 2 WS15 212 125 1.7 .846 15.1 10.3

White sucker F 2 WS17 226 506 .45 .624 8.9 11.8

White sucker F ND WS18 254 95 2.67 .584 11 14.8

White sucker F 2 WS19 266 157 1.69 .845 6.1 17.5

White sucker F 2 WS21 126 161 .78 0 12.3 22.7

White sucker F 2 WS24 315 451 .7 1.35 10.7 11.9

White sucker F 2 WS25 225 241 .93 .243 4.4 4.5

White sucker F 2 WS26 114 303 .38 .907 20.2 17.9

White sucker F late 2 WS29 159 735 .22 .695 5.7 20.5

White sucker F 2 WS30 226 105 2.15 .415 7.3 5.5

White sucker F 2 WS31 155 127 1.22 .982 6.6 10.3

White sucker F 2 WS32 174 873 .2 .456 2.6 7.1

White sucker F early 2 WS34 153 136 1.13 1.159 8.1 21.3

White sucker F early 2 WS36 35 118 .3 .664 4.8 11.1

White sucker F 2 WS37 260 101 2.57 1.114 4.6 2.9

White sucker M 1 WS16 438 224 1.96 0 8.1 16.4

White sucker M early 1 WS20 360 983 .37 0 2.4 20.7

White sucker M early 1 WS22 47 1099 .04 0 5.1 5.9

White sucker M early 1 WS23 184 514 .36 .009 2.1 10.1
89

Table 25. Gender, stage, sex steroid hormones, vitellogenin, and thyroid hormones in blood plasma of common carp (CC), largemouth 

bass (LMB), and white suckers (WS) collected from the Charles River (August, 2005). ((E2, 17ß-estradiol; 11KT, 11-ketotestosterone; 

T3, triiodothyronine; T4, hyroxine; ND, Not Determined; pg/mL, picograms per millilitre; mg/mL, milligrams per milliliter; ng/mL, 

nanograms per milliter)—Continued

Species Gender Stage1 Fish ID

Sex Steroid Hormones2

Vitellogenin3

(mg/mL) 

Thyroid Hormones4

E2

(pg/mL)

11KT 

(pg/mL) E2/11KT T3(ng/mL)

T4

(ng/mL)

White sucker M early 1 WS27 174 866 .20 0 9.2 21.0

White sucker M early 1 WS28 218 491 .44 0 6.2 14.2

White sucker M 1 WS35 288 297 .97 0 6.7 25.4

White sucker M late 1 WS38 159 731 .22 0 2.2 19.3

White sucker M early 1 WS39 107 1,142 .09 0 3.9 4.4

White sucker M 1 WS40 452 735 .61 .005 12.0 21.7

1

Females: Stage 0 = undeveloped ovaries; Stage 1= early vitellogenic; Stage 2 = early-mid vitellogenic; Stage 3 = late vitellogenic; Stage 4 = late vetellogenic, 

post ovulatory; Stage 5 = post vitellogenic. Males: Stage 0 = undeveloped; Stage 1 = early spermatogenic; Stage 2 = mid spermatogenic; Stage 3 = late 

spermatogenic.

2

17ß-estradiol (E2) and 11-ketotestosterone (11KT) determined using radioimmunoassay (RIA). 3

Vitellogenin assayed and quantified by capture ELISA (enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay). Level of detection was 0.001 mg/mL for bass and 0.0005 mg/mL

for carp and white suckers. 4

T3 and T4 were determined using RIA and ELISA procedures.
90

Table 26. Fecundity (estimated total number of oocytes per gonad) of female common carp collected 

from the Charles River (August, 2005). (ND, Not Determined; g, grams)

Fish ID Stage1 Age (years) Ovary weight (g) Fecundity

CC03

CC07

CC09

CC16

CC17

CC18

CC19

CC20

3

5 

ND

3 

3 

3 

3 

3

4

7 

6 

7 

3 

6 

5 

7

144.7

270.6

855.0

343.7

184.1

158.5

213.4

153.3

226,094

465,749

467,213

533,696

481,937

170,797

229,957

189,259

1

Stage 0 = undeveloped ovaries; Stage 1= early vitellogenic; Stage 2 = early-mid vitellogenic; Stage 3 = late 

vitellogenic; Stage 4 = late vetellogenic, post ovulatory; Stage 5 = post vitellogenic. 
91

Table 27. Sperm-quality metrics estimated for male common carp collected from the Charles River 

(August, 2005). (g, grams)

Fish ID Testes 

weight (g) Age Stage Sperm concentration1 Progressive status2

Percent

motility3

CC01 122.7 3 2 intermediate 2.5 45

CC02 297.0 4 3 high 4 80

CC05 151.0 3 3 high 2 65

CC08 115.0 3 late 2 high 2.5 75

CC10 251.0 6 2 high 3 55

CC12 261.8 4 3 high 3.5 85

CC13 224.1 6 late 2 high 3.5 70

CC14 113.2 3 2 high 2.5 55

CC15 261.7 7 late 2 high 2 45 1

Qualitative estimate of sperm concentration based on a fixed sample. 2

Estimate of sperm movement/status on a scale of 1 to 5. 3

Estimate of the percent of total sperm actively moving.
92

Table 28. Types of lesions and anomalies observed during histological examination and the percentage 

of common carp, largemouth bass, and white suckers affected. 

Tissues examined Observations and types

of lesions and anomalies 

Percentage of fish affected1

Common 

carp

Largemouth 

bass

White sucker

Liver

Peritoneum

Gonads

Spleen

Kidney

Hepatocellular changes

Megalocytosis 

Karyomegaly

Diffuse vacuolation

Focal vacuolation

Spongiosis

Oval cell foci

Inflammation

Biliary Lesions

Tumors

Peritonitis (inflammation)

Parasitic Orchitis

Follicular Atresia

Necrosis/lymphoid depletion

Parasitic granulomas

Oval cell foci

Hemosiderosis

Hemorrhage

Hematomas

Sponiosis

Inflammation/necrosis

Calcinosis

Plerocercoids

Myxosporean

Nematode granulomas

Oval cell foci

Tubular/glomerular degeneration 

5 

1 

15

0 

5 

15

100

20

0 

85

70

38

5 

80

5 

5 

5 

0 

0 

37

5 

63

37

63

5 

0

5 

0 

5 

0 

0 

0 

65

20

5 

45

25

90

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

5 

5 

0 

0 

0 

0 

11

0 

11

0 

0 

55

18

18

33

40

45

7 

60

18

7 

0 

2.5

36

2.5

2.5

2.5

0 

2.5

0 

0 

0 

10

43

8

1

Number of fish examined for liver and peritoneum lesions and anomalies was: 20 largemouth bass, 20 common 

carp, and 40 white suckers. Spleen tissue from 20 largemouth bass, 19 common carp, and 40 white suckers was

examined. Kidney tissue from 19 largemouth bass, 19 common carp, and 40 white suckers was examined and gonad 

tissue from 20 largemouth bass, 20 common carp and 39 white suckers. Gonad tissue from 8 female largemouth 

bass, 10 female common carp, and 28 female was suckers were also examined for follicular atresia.
93

Table 29. Density and mean surface size of melanomacrophage centers (MMC) located in the liver, 

spleen, and renal kidney from common carp, largemouth bass, and white suckers collected from the 

Charles River (August, 2005). (NC, tissue not collected; NO, MMCs containing at least 12 cells were not 

observed) 

Species Fish ID

Liver Spleen Renal kidney

MMC1

density2

Mean 

surface3

MMC 

density2

Mean 

surface3

MMC 

density2

Mean 

surface3

Common carp CC01 3.9 6,420.5 8.0 9,638 NO NO

Common carp CC02 6.2 18,369.2 10.0 15,910.7 NC NC

Common carp CC03 1.9 10,105.5 14.2 17,973.7 .3 5,699.0

Common carp CC04 4.2 2,864.9 9.8 28,005.2 NC NC

Common carp CC05 .2 3,541.1 11.6 5,172.8 .7 15,518.0

Common carp CC06 .2 4,873.3 6.6 4,667.8 .2 6,403.5

Common carp CC07 2.8 2,589.5 9.0 8,862 NC NC

Common carp CC08 .6 4,451.7 6.1 5,784 1.3 4,614.4

Common carp CC09 1.7 4,525.7 10.7 12,541.7 1.9 5,508.2

Common carp CC10 3.1 7,464.6 10.9 12,793.7 NC NC

Common carp CC11 4.2 5,489.8 10.4 7,969.8 1.0 6,847.3

Common carp CC12 5.0 5,322.1 10.1 4,397 1.7 11,523.8

Common carp CC13 1.0 3,843.0 4.2 3,539.9 NC NC

Common carp CC14 1.3 5,131.8 1.9 1,940.7 1.0 5,585.8

Common carp CC15 2.0 5,773.1 12.2 6,023.7 2.6 4,196.5

Common carp CC16 1.0 4,206.2 5.6 5,404.1 NC NC

Common carp CC17 1.2 6,645.3 8.2 6,877.4 NC NC

Common carp CC18 1.2 3,168.9 9.3 11,077.4 NC NC

Common carp CC19 .4 2,625.3 NC NC NO NO

Common carp CC20 .6 4,848.2 8.3 11,161.3 NC NC

Largemouth bass LMB01 5.3 15,088.2 7.6 9,602.6 7.0 11,458.3

Largemouth bass LMB02 1.1 4,331.2 3.8 3,619.9 5.2 3,193.2

Largemouth bass LMB03 4.8 15,847.6 10.2 5,889.6 7.2 4,678.3

Largemouth bass LMB04 8.2 14,102.9 6.7 9,499.2 NC NC

Largemouth bass LMB05 .3 3,037.9 1.9 2,142.9 1.9 1,475.1

Largemouth bass LMB06 .0 1,824.0 2.7 1,502.4 .9 1,454.7

Largemouth bass LMB07 .0 5,426.0 .3 1,228.1 .4 1,399.0

Largemouth bass LMB08 .1 1,598.3 .9 1,418 1.6 1,711.9

Largemouth bass LMB09 .0 581.0 1.2 835.8 .9 1,338.1

Largemouth bass LMB10 3.7 9,612.1 11.4 5,177.3 10.9 6,199.7

Largemouth bass LMB11 1.2 3,705.9 4.3 2,773.3 NC NC

Largemouth bass LMB12 5.9 5,309.2 9.2 2,671.7 9.4 4,386.8

Largemouth bass LMB13 2.0 4,638.9 14.7 3,027.7 4.9 4,387.1

Largemouth bass LMB14 1.3 3,973.7 1.7 1,330.8 3.0 1,996.0

Largemouth bass LMB15 3.2 13,297.8 18.0 4,558.7 6.7 5,069.6

Largemouth bass LMB16 3.6 9,305.9 6.7 2,595.8 6.3 2,553.8

Largemouth bass LMB17 1.4 3,353.2 8.0 4,079.2 5.2 3,165.5

Largemouth bass LMB18 .6 2,964.5 4.8 3,471.7 2.6 2,786.0

Largemouth bass LMB19 1.4 5,411.2 8.2 2,877.3 3.4 2,950.0

Largemouth bass LMB20 .4 1,968.4 12.3 3,011.8 3.9 2,372.7

White sucker WS01 7.0 4,893.9 4.8 9,209.6 6.6 3,137.1

White sucker WS02 6.6 3,126.3 8.0 9,447 4.7 7,671.0
94

Table 29. Density and mean surface size of melanomacrophage centers (MMC)1 located in the liver, 

spleen, and renal kidney from common carp, largemouth bass, and white suckers collected from the 

Charles River (August, 2005). (NC, tissue not collected; NO, MMCs containing at least 12 cells were not 

observed)—Continued

Species Fish ID

Liver Spleen Renal kidney

MMC 

density2

Mean 

surface3

MMC 

density2

Mean 

surface3

MMC 

density2

Mean 

surface3

White sucker WS03 11.3 8,416.5 11.7 5,697.1 4.0 2,843.3

White sucker WS04 2.2 3,772.1 19.0 8,125.2 5.7 6,299.5

White sucker WS05 .1 992.0 19.8 3,210.7 4.0 1,804.9

White sucker WS06 3.3 1,643.1 12.4 6,073.4 7.9 4,039.5

White sucker WS07 .8 2,111.2 15.2 5,676.4 7.7 5,976.9

White sucker WS08 .0 702.0 15.1 2,496.6 2.8 2,704.3

White sucker WS09 2.8 2,355.4 17.0 3,901.3 3.9 4,011.2

White sucker WS10 NO NO 2.7 1,304.3 NO NO

White sucker WS11 NO NO 11.4 2,614.7 3.0 3,131.1

White sucker WS12 NO NO 6.0 1,836.1 .6 2,043.0

White sucker WS13 .2 1,081.0 9.1 5,290 2.1 2,707.4

White sucker WS14 NO NO 8.9 3,400.2 NC NC

White sucker WS15 .3 2,174.0 10.0 5,096.6 2.6 2,551.8

White sucker WS16 2.0 5,327.2 15.4 7,044.9 12.1 3,470.8

White sucker WS17 .3 3,894.1 14.9 18,569.1 5.9 4,849.3

White sucker WS18 .3 1,248.3 7.8 2,690.7 2.3 3,131.3

White sucker WS19 NO NO 5.2 3,240.8 7.6 4,230.0

White sucker WS20 1.4 19,030.4 15.4 4,752.5 6.9 4,658.8

White sucker WS21 NO NO 4.8 905.3 3.3 2,098.0

White sucker WS22 13.2 20,186.4 20.7 23,781.4 9.8 4,716.1

White sucker WS23 1.2 2,853.5 7.6 8,689.2 5.9 3,662.0

White sucker WS24 .7 14,416.3 8.6 5,221.1 .2 6,505.0

White sucker WS25 1.8 2,200.9 11.9 7,897.8 4.6 3,502.3

White sucker WS26 NO NO 2.3 2,294.1 .8 1,526.5

White sucker WS27 NO NO 12.2 2,981.2 2.9 2,129.0

White sucker WS28 .9 3,082.0 22.8 20,309.1 7.0 4,084.5

White sucker WS29 NO NO 10.1 4,824.8 2.1 1,950.3

White sucker WS30 5.3 4,074.8 10.3 2,850.9 4.4 2,536.8

White sucker WS31 .0 1,768.4 3.4 1,635.1 NO NO

White sucker WS32 3.1 15,392.2 15.1 7,104.7 5.9 5,154.4

White sucker WS33 4.3 5,424.9 18.6 4,424.2 2.6 3,787.1

White sucker WS34 2.3 2,421.7 8.6 2,655.9 3.1 2,341.9

White sucker WS35 1.7 8,745.1 14.1 8,930.5 5.1 2,742.0

White sucker WS36 2.7 2,564.8 10.4 8,519.9 1.6 2,171.4

White sucker WS37 13.6 7,836.2 8.1 2,359.7 2.7 2,497.4

White sucker WS38 10.2 6,954.5 12.2 5,748 6.2 3,580.8

White sucker WS39 NO NO 8.1 3,075.7 5.0 3,214.3

White sucker WS40 NO NO 5.8 2,713.4 3.1 2,857.6

1

MMC: melano-macrophage centers of at least 12 pigmented cells. 2

MMC density: calculated as average # of MMC in three fields in three sections (9 measurements) at 200×.

3

Mean surface: mean surface of 10 MMC fields (in microns) measured at 200×. 
95

Table 30. Comet assay measurements taken on blood and liver cells collected from common carp (CC) 

and white suckers (WS) from the Charles River (August, 2005). (TL, tail length; TEM, tail extent moment; 

TDNA, percent damaged or fragmented deoxyribonucleic acid in comet tail; μm, micrometer) 

Species Fish ID Blood TDNA

(percent) 

Blood TEM

(μm)

Blood TL

(μm)

Liver 

TDNA

(percent)

Liver TEM

(μm)

Liver TL

(μm)

Common carp CC01 21.63 11.63 37.19 19.71 7.58 25.77

Common carp CC02 41.66 29.94 65.35 14.19 4.71 20.38

Common carp CC03 16.38 8.62 37.22 21.20 10.12 37.43

Common carp CC04 13.21 4.83 25.40 19.89 8.79 32.99

Common carp CC05 8.41 1.13 6.98 26.86 13.37 38.87

Common carp CC06 24.12 13.21 45.75 22.07 8.81 26.72

Common carp CC07 19.54 10.51 34.37 22.11 8.98 27.35

Common carp CC08 20.67 9.61 30.22 22.61 10.28 31.58

Common carp CC09 15.16 7.83 35.36 24.17 10.35 28.64

Common carp CC10 24.42 12.69 35.43 35.57 14.97 34.58

Common carp CC11 24.44 10.48 28.43 18.24 7.43 32.17

Common carp CC12 21.81 10.04 29.57 15.67 5.81 23.30

Common carp CC13 27.95 14.96 38.92 14.05 6.90 32.75

Common carp CC14 25.47 12.10 37.46 20.93 7.60 26.62

Common carp CC15 26.02 12.03 35.43 26.52 11.17 33.41

Common carp CC16 19.66 10.16 33.33 29.78 14.38 41.95

Common carp CC17 24.52 13.97 44.54 34.01 17.40 41.58

Common carp CC18 12.40 4.93 27.92 22.11 11.19 41.41

Common carp CC19 13.21 5.16 28.85 27.99 12.66 36.32

Common carp CC20 12.95 4.90 28.59 20.97 7.61 29.25

White sucker WS01 12.46 4.46 30.18 15.31 7.40 24.83

White sucker WS02 20.62 8.52 31.63 22.53 8.76 30.14

White sucker WS03 18.89 8.00 32.21 15.12 5.74 28.93

White sucker WS04 8.76 2.54 22.41 25.41 13.26 39.32

White sucker WS05 8.44 2.10 19.10 15.41 6.79 28.12

White sucker WS06 9.55 3.52 29.45 9.65 5.58 55.45

White sucker WS07 8.43 1.95 15.14 19.41 10.37 35.96

White sucker WS08 12.29 4.61 31.03 15.53 6.88 37.78

White sucker WS09 41.60 31.27 62.27 9.65 5.58 55.45

White sucker WS10 10.85 4.36 28.41 23.43 9.40 27.07

White sucker WS11 14.68 6.09 38.42 12.06 4.34 23.01

White sucker WS12 16.27 7.32 39.24 9.24 2.46 22.57

White sucker WS13 15.79 6.76 38.20 16.90 8.54 31.58

White sucker WS14 11.18 3.83 29.27 15.32 5.92 25.90

White sucker WS15 8.60 1.86 18.09 15.98 6.60 24.00

White sucker WS16 9.44 3.44 33.21 12.30 3.92 18.59

White sucker WS17 10.76 3.58 29.77 19.32 8.26 32.15

White sucker WS18 9.90 2.29 18.53 10.15 2.94 19.71

White sucker WS19 10.35 2.71 22.83 14.85 5.90 25.04

White sucker WS20 8.93 2.12 20.07 13.96 5.20 24.54

White sucker WS21 6.64 1.14 14.09 8.62 2.34 17.62

White sucker WS22 7.49 1.22 13.29 10.15 2.93 17.35

White sucker WS23 8.04 1.78 20.51 15.25 4.98 25.49

White sucker WS24 6.11 1.75 20.86 11.20 3.77 20.07

White sucker WS25 8.16 2.03 20.17 18.96 7.74 26.73

White sucker WS26 6.98 2.04 24.26 21.75 10.69 35.79

White sucker WS27 11.00 3.27 23.76 23.82 12.57 34.11

White sucker WS28 8.26 2.39 26.17 14.85 5.90 22.99
96

Table 30. Comet assay measurements taken on blood and liver cells collected from common carp (CC) 

and white suckers (WS) from the Charles River (August, 2005). (TL, tail length; TEM, tail extent moment; 

TDNA, percent damaged or fragmented deoxyribonucleic acid in comet tail; μm, micrometer)—Continued

Species Fish ID Blood TDNA

( percent) 

Blood TEM

(μm)

Blood TL

(μm)

Liver 

TDNA

( percent)

Liver TEM

(μm)

Liver TL

(μm)

White sucker WS29 9.97 3.10 26.94 12.67 4.52 20.82

White sucker WS30 8.13 2.56 29.41 21.78 10.88 31.37

White sucker WS31 10.46 3.56 30.76 14.90 6.45 29.94

White sucker WS32 5.83 1.18 18.23 13.44 6.01 27.05

White sucker WS33 6.11 1.51 23.16 11.61 4.02 24.88

White sucker WS34 6.53 1.32 16.28 9.65 5.58 55.45

White sucker WS35 4.85 1.06 20.18 12.50 4.91 21.44

White sucker WS36 6.47 1.40 17.90 12.96 5.54 26.50

White sucker WS37 6.19 1.12 17.51 9.59 3.14 19.34

White sucker WS38 7.61 1.62 18.78 9.82 3.31 18.48

White sucker WS39 8.20 1.76 18.68 16.20 5.82 22.59

White sucker WS40 5.51 1.65 26.15 9.65 5.58 55.45
97

Table 31. H4IIE bioassay-derived 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin equivalents (TCDD-EQ), standard 

deviation, limit of detection (LOD), and limit of quantitation (LOQ) of composite fish samples collected from 

the Charles River (August, 2005). Composite samples were based on species and gender. (pg/g, picogram 

per gram) 

Sample Gender Number of fish LOD LOQ TCDD-EQ

(pg/g wet weight) 

Standard 

deviation

Common carp F 10 1.2 2.5 15.6 2.51

Common carp M 10 1.2 2.5 23.1 4.7

Largemouth bass F 8 1.2 2.5 17.0 3.6

Largemouth bass M 12 1.2 2.5 29.9 3.8

1

Indicates samples that were extracted in triplicate and assayed in triplicate; all other samples were assayed in 

duplicate.
98

Table 32. Mean hepatic ethoxyresorufin-o-deethylase (EROD) activity rate determined from liver 

samples collected from common carp (CC) and largemouth bass (LMB) in the Charles River (August, 

2005). (pmols/min/mg, picomole per minute per milligram; SD, standard deviation; SE, standard error; CV,

coefficient of variation; LOD, limit of detection; LOQ, limit of quantitation) 

Species Gender Fish ID

Mean 

EROD 

rate

SD CV LOD1 LOQ2

Common carp F CC16 20.4 2.2 10.8 0.4 1.5

Common carp F CC17 1.1 .1 8.5 .4 1.5

Common carp F CC18 42 4.1 9.9 .4 1.5

Common carp F CC19 53.7 6.2 11.6 .1 .8

Common carp F CC20 88.1 8.1 9.2 .1 .8

Common carp F CC3 81.6 1.6 2 .4 1.5

Common carp F CC4 57.3 1.3 2.3 .4 1.5

Common carp F CC6 6.6 .9 13.5 .4 1.5

Common carp F CC7 2.9 .6 19.3 .4 1.5

Common carp F CC9 54.5 5.4 10 .4 1.5

Common carp M CC1 73.4 13.5 18.4 .4 1.5

Common carp M CC10 25.6 4.2 16.2 .4 1.5

Common carp M CC11 85.4 16 18.7 .4 1.5

Common carp M CC12 106.5 17.8 16.7 .4 1.5

Common carp M CC13 108 16.4 15.2 .4 1.5

Common carp M CC14 1.8 .3 16.8 .4 1.5

Common carp M CC15 47.7 9.4 19.7 .4 1.5

Common carp M CC2 262.1 24.3 9.3 .4 1.5

Common carp M CC5 41.4 4.2 10.2 .4 1.5

Common carp M CC8 28.4 2.4 8.5 .4 1.5

Largemouth bass F LMB1 5 1.2 23.7 .1 .8

Largemouth bass F LMB11 6.3 1.2 19.2 .1 .8

Largemouth bass F LMB12 94.4 .9 .9 .1 .8

Largemouth bass F LMB14 79.5 5.4 6.9 .1 .8

Largemouth bass F LMB16 13.1 1.3 9.9 .1 .8

Largemouth bass F LMB2 153 14.6 9.5 .1 .8

Largemouth bass F LMB3 8 1.1 14.1 .1 .8

Largemouth bass F LMB7 136.5 8.8 6.5 .1 .8

Largemouth bass M LMB 19 53.9 11.6 21.6 0 .7

Largemouth bass M LMB 20 4.1 .9 21.8 0 .7

Largemouth bass M LMB10 210.7 14.6 6.9 .1 .8

Largemouth bass M LMB13 172.6 20.6 11.9 .1 .8

Largemouth bass M LMB15 6.2 .9 14.1 .1 .8

Largemouth bass M LMB17 166.5 29.4 17.7 .1 .8

Largemouth bass M LMB18 162.4 14.1 8.7 .1 .8

Largemouth bass M LMB4 223.4 28.5 12.8 .1 .8

Largemouth bass M LMB5 6.6 .5 7.5 .1 .8

Largemouth bass M LMB6 84.4 12.7 15 .1 .8

Largemouth bass M LMB8 171.1 17.1 10 .1 .8

Largemouth bass M LMB9 167.2 6.3 3.8 .1 .8

1

The LOD was calculated by adding the average basal EROD rate to three times the SD of that rate.

2

The LOQ was calculated by adding the average basal EROD rate to ten times the SD of that rate.
99

Table 33. Cytochrome P4501A enzyme activity measured as ethoxyresorufin-o-deethylase (EROD) 

activity in gill filament tips from white suckers (WS), common carp (CC), and largemouth bass (LMB) 

collected from the Charles River (August, 2005). Values are presented as mean plus or minus standard 

deviation (SD) for two replicate wells per fish. Activities are expressed as picomoles (pmols) of resorufin 

formed/min/filament.

Species Gender Fish ID Gill EROD

(pmol/min/filament) SD

Common carp F CC16 0.4751 0.041

Common carp F CC17 .4051 .102

Common carp F CC18 .5351 .09

Common carp F CC19 .223 .02

Common carp F CC20 .4881 .096

Largemouth bass F LMB11 .127 .031

Largemouth bass F LMB12 .257 .047

Largemouth bass F LMB13 .242 .005

Largemouth bass F LMB14 .302 .059

Largemouth bass F LMB15 .118 .008

White sucker F WS1 .175 .039

White sucker F WS10 .21 .006

White sucker F WS11 .181 .032

White sucker F WS12 .006 .001

White sucker F WS13 .115 .035

White sucker F WS2 .064 .022

White sucker F WS3 .101 .05

White sucker F WS31 .252 .052

White sucker F WS32 .235 .027

White sucker F WS34 .293 .022

White sucker F WS36 .747 .034

White sucker F WS37 .242 .033

White sucker F WS4 .261 .008

White sucker F WS5 .097 .012

White sucker F WS6 .111 .013

White sucker F WS7 .45 .166

White sucker F WS9 .362 .07

White sucker M WS16 .316 .011

White sucker M WS20 .182 .038

White sucker M WS22 .609 .205

White sucker M WS23 .359 .018

White sucker M WS27 .152 .008

White sucker M WS28 .303 .096

White sucker M WS33 .317 .126

White sucker M WS35 .474 .007

White sucker M WS38 .074 .021

White sucker M WS39 .121 .018 1.Exceeds highest value in standard curve.
100

Table 34. Concentration of vitamin C (ascorbic acid, AA) and vitamin E (α–tocopherol) as measured in liver tissue from common carp and 

white suckers collected from the Charles River (August, 2005). Standard deviation from two replicates is presented in parentheses. (TAA, total 

ascorbic acid; DHA, dehydroascorbic acid; μg/g, micrograms per gram)—Continued

Species Fish ID

Ascorbic acid1

(μg/g wet weight) Reduced AA 

(percent)

α –Tocopherol2

(μg/g wet weight) TAA DHA

Common carp

Common carp

Common carp

Common carp

Common carp

Common carp

Common carp

Common carp

Common carp

Common carp

Common carp

Common carp

Common carp

Common carp

Common carp

Common carp

Common carp

Common carp

Common carp

Common carp

White sucker

White sucker

White sucker

White sucker

White sucker

White sucker

White sucker

White sucker

White sucker

White sucker

White sucker

CC01

CC02

CC03

CC04

CC05

CC06

CC07

CC08

CC09

CC10

CC11

CC12

CC13

CC14

CC15

CC16

CC17

CC18

CC19

CC20

WS01

WS02

WS03

WS04

WS05

WS06

WS07

WS08

WS09

WS10

WS11

17.33 (± 3.00)

9.75 (± 3.15)

23.98 (± 3.16)

20.58 (± 2.81)

12.98 (± 1.20)

19.83 (± .95)

14.50 (± .48)

14.84 (± 3.27)

16.44 (± 3.00)

13.93 (± 2.24)

9.30 (± .42)

17.65 (± .42)

5.49 (± .98)

26.05 (± .86)

15.87 (± .61)

17.61 (± 2.62)

20.91 (± 2.31)

33.04 (± 3.32)

26.02 (± 1.72)

43.61 (± 1.55)

67.52 (± 3.31)

46.34 (± 2.18)

70.78 (± 3.65)

44.24 (± 2.68)

61.00 (± 3.45)

16.40 (± .77)

14.85 (± 1.82)

10.87 (± .24)

29.74 (± 6.20)

9.77 (± .45)

28.49 (± 1.84)

16.69 (± 1.79)

8.24 (± 2.10)

26.62 (± .79)

18.77 (± 7.70)

12.23 (± 1.00)

17.11 (± .69)

12.16 (± .44)

13.30 (± 1.87)

13.95 (± 2.55)

12.38 (± 1.19)

9.52 (± .36)

17.03 (± .10)

4.97 (± 2.91)

24.81 (± .90)

14.62 (± .67)

13.60 (± 1.89)

18.91 (± 2.43)

32.64 (± 5.22)

25.57 (± .75)

40.96 (± 2.59)

61.54 (± 7.90)

40.67 (± 1.75)

60.60 (± .09)

39.89 (± .67)

56.64 (± 4.81)

15.71 (± .18)

14.17 (± .38)

10.45 (± .22)

23.52 (± 7.54)

8.83 (± .36)

25.31 (± .25)

4.6 (± 6.4)

14.6 (± 6.0)

.0

14.1 (± 20.0)

8.3 (± 11.8)

13.5 (± 7.7)

16.0 (± .1)

11.9 (± 3.9)

18.5 (± 22.8)

12.7 (± 18.0)

1.8 (± 2.5)

6.3 (± 3.0)

26.4 (± 37.2)

4.7 (± 6.6)

7.9 (± .7)

22.5 (± .1)

9.6 (± 1.7)

4.0 (± 5.6)

2.3 (± 2.5)

6.1 (± 2.6)

15.7 (± 6.0)

12.3 (± .4)

14.3 (± 4.5)

5.4 (± 7.7)

7.3 (± 2.6)

5.7 (± 1.2)

5.3 (± 7.5)

6.5 (± .2)

21.9 (± 9.0)

9.7 (± .5)

15.8 (± 8.2)

1.25 (± .05)

2.04 (± .03)

1.63 (± .03)

.69 (± .14)

.84 (± .00)

1.47 (± .01)

2.15 (± .28)

1.88 (± .03)

.87 (± .00)

1.18 (± .30)

3.29 (± .37)

1.62 (± .11)

1.21 (± .00)

2.62 (± .03)

3.84 (± .02)

.64 (± .00)

.70 (± .18)

2.99 (± .07)

.88 (± .02)

2.20 (± .01)

12.89 (± .10)

1.73 (± .06)

4.26 (± .26)

2.39 (± .25)

2.56 (± .04)

2.77 (± .09)

2.06 (± .08)

2.83 (± .23)

3.35 (± .09)

3.89 (± .69)

4.03 (± .14)
101

Table 34. Concentration of vitamin C (ascorbic acid, AA) and vitamin E (α–tocopherol) as measured in liver tissue from common carp and 

white suckers collected from the Charles River (August, 2005). Standard deviation from two replicates is presented in parentheses. (TAA, total 

ascorbic acid; DHA, dehydroascorbic acid; μg/g, micrograms per gram)—Continued

Species Fish ID

Ascorbic acid1

(μg/g wet weight) Reduced AA 

(percent)

α –Tocopherol2

(μg/g wet weight) TAA DHA

White sucker

White sucker

White sucker

White sucker

White sucker

White sucker

White sucker

White sucker

White sucker

White sucker

White sucker

White sucker

White sucker

White sucker

White sucker

White sucker

White sucker

White sucker

White sucker

White sucker

White sucker

White sucker

White sucker

White sucker

White sucker

White sucker

White sucker

White sucker

White sucker

WS12

WS13

WS14

WS15

WS16

WS17

WS18

WS19

WS20

WS21

WS22

WS23

WS24

WS25

WS26

WS27

WS28

WS29

WS30

WS31

WS32

WS33

WS34

WS35

WS36

WS37

WS38

WS39

WS40

41.38 (± 6.50)

34.13 (± 1.85)

62.24 (±12.86)

55.27 (± 2.56) 

48.72 (± 2.79)

36.67 (± 4.39)

55.19 (± 9.15)

61.05 (± 8.37)

68.83 (± 5.23)

20.52 (± .62)

65.26 (± 1.41)

60.99 (± 2.95)

37.93 (± 1.63)

39.50 (± 4.96)

60.26 (± 2.29)

42.56 (± 8.94)

43.36 (± 1.30)

53.26 (± 3.48)

39.81 (± 3.16)

77.63 (± 4.23)

38.47 (± 3.33)

77.17 (± 1.51)

33.79 (± 6.33)

74.29 (± 1.53)

38.95 (± 1.90)

50.36 (± 1.57)

88.83(±12.76)

65.27 (± 1.13)

86.42 (± 1.29)

41.95 (± 2.44)

28.86 (± 6.31)

55.25 (± 2.97)

51.42 (± 3.71)

42.27(±11.99)

35.78 (± .78)

52.04 (± 6.52)

59.64 (± 6.38)

66.63 (± 7.20)

19.64 (± 1.85)

60.55 (± .52)

47.92(± 10.17)

35.69 (± .73)

34.55 (± 7.22)

58.94 (± 4.15)

29.45 (± 8.19)

37.13 (± .76)

35.95 (± .57)

26.17 (± 7.70)

76.59 (± 1.60)

30.86 (± 1.04)

44.07 (± .93)

30.57 (± 3.88)

71.72 (± .31)

31.52 (± 8.07)

46.52 (± 15.39)

83.45 (± 7.60)

47.94 (± 9.19)

81.19 (± 1.35)

7.1 (± 10.1)

15.6 (± 22.0)

17.1 (± 24.2)

30.2 (± 26.4)

41.8 (± 12.4)

7.5 (± 1.8)

11.5 (± 16.3)

2.7 (± 2.0)

4.1 (± 2.0)

6.3 (± 8.8)

7.2 (± 2.9)

21.0 (± 21.0)

5.86 (± 2.11)

12.3 (± 6.4)

2.2 (± 3.2)

31.2 (± 4.7)

14.4 (± .1)

32.3 (± 5.5)

34.3 (± 14.3)

1.7 (± 2.4)

19.0 (± 9.2)

42.9 (± 2.3)

9.0 (± 5.6)

3.8 (± .1)

19.6 (± 16.9)

15.4 (± 21.7)

5.7 (± 5.0)

26.6 (± 12.8)

6.1 (± .2)

3.91 (± .11)

4.12 (± .16)

4.47 (± .240

5.27 (± .100

4.81 (± .05)

2.28 (± .040

4.41 (± .05)

3.10 (± .34)

7.99 (± .04)

5.30 (± .05)

13.12 (± .38)

5.21 (± .29)

2.80 (± .52)

3.53 (± .06)

2.96 (± .04)

4.70 (± .00)

5.40 (± 1.08)

4.08 (± .05)

5.88 (± .21)

7.23 (± .41)

4.55 (± .05)

6.04 (± .09)

5.14 (± .14)

3.86 (± .02)

2.15 (± .04)

15.27 (± .24)

15.71 (± .70)

6.39 (± .04)

8.34 (± .19)
102

Table 35. Abundance of invertebrates collected from depositional areas from the Charles River on August 25, 2005. 

 Site Phylum Class Order Family Taxon Abundance

Site 1 Annelida Oligochaeta Tubificida Tubificidae Tubificidae 161

Site 1 Arthropoda Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Cladopelma sp. 39

Site 1 Arthropoda Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Procladius sp. 22

Site 1 Arthropoda Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Chironomini 13

Site 1 Nematoda Nematoda 10

Site 1 Arthropoda Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Polypedilum sp. 7

Site 1 Arthropoda Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Dicrotendipes sp. 4

Site 1 Arthropoda Arachnida Acari 3

Site 1 Arthropoda Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Cryptotendipes sp. 3

Site 1 Arthropoda Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Einfeldia sp. 3

Site 1 Mollusca Bivalvia Veneroida Corbiculidae Corbicula sp. 3

Site 1 Annelida Hirudinea Rhynchobdellae Glossiphoniidae Glossiphoniidae 1

Site 1 Annelida Hirudinea Rhynchobdellae Glossiphoniidae Desserobdella phalera 1

Site 1 Annelida Oligochaeta Tubificida Naididae Naididae 1

Site 1 Arthropoda Insecta Ephemeroptera Caenidae Caenis sp. 1

Site 1 Arthropoda Insecta Odonata Corduliidae Corduliidae 1

Site 1 Arthropoda Insecta Trichoptera Hydroptilidae Hydroptila sp. 1

Site 1 Arthropoda Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Chironominae 1

Site 1 Arthropoda Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Cryptochironomus sp. 1

Site 1 Arthropoda Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Paratendipes sp. 1

Site 1 Arthropoda Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Tribelos sp. 1

Site 1 Arthropoda Malacostraca Amphipoda Gammaridae Gammarus sp. 1

Site 1 Mollusca Bivalvia Bivalvia 1

Site 1 Mollusca Bivalvia Veneroida Sphaeriidae Pisidium sp. 1

Site 2 Annelida Oligochaeta Tubificida Tubificidae Tubificidae 28

Site 2 Arthropoda Arachnida Acari 5

Site 2 Nematoda Nematoda 5

Site 2 Arthropoda Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Cladopelma sp. 3

Site 2 Arthropoda Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Polypedilum sp. 3

Site 2 Mollusca Bivalvia Veneroida Corbiculidae Corbicula sp. 3

Site 2 Arthropoda Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Procladius sp. 2

Site 2 Mollusca Gastropoda Basommatophora Planorbidae Micromenetus dilatatus 2
103

Table 35. Abundance of invertebrates collected from depositional areas from the Charles River on August 25, 2005.—Continued 

 Site Phylum Class Order Family Taxon Abundance

Site 2 Mollusca Bivalvia Veneroida Sphaeriidae Sphaeriidae 2

Site 2 Annelida Hirudinea Hirudinea 1

Site 2 Arthropoda Insecta Ephemeroptera Caenidae Caenis sp. 1

Site 2 Arthropoda Insecta Coleoptera Elmidae Dubiraphia sp. 1

Site 2 Arthropoda Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Chironominae 1

Site 2 Arthropoda Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Cryptochironomus sp. 1

Site 2 Arthropoda Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Dicrotendipes sp. 1

Site 2 Mollusca Gastropoda Basommatophora Physidae Physa sp. 1

Site 3 Mollusca Bivalvia Bivalvia 107

Site 3 Arthropoda Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Tribelos sp. 38

Site 3 Mollusca Bivalvia Veneroida Corbiculidae Corbicula sp. 29

Site 3 Annelida Oligochaeta Tubificida Tubificidae Tubificidae 16

Site 3 Arthropoda Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Polypedilum sp. 10

Site 3 Arthropoda Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Cladopelma sp. 5

Site 3 Mollusca Bivalvia Veneroida Sphaeriidae Pisidium sp. 4

Site 3 Arthropoda Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Chironomus sp. 3

Site 3 Arthropoda Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Procladius sp. 3

Site 3 Annelida Hirudinea Rhynchobdellae Glossiphoniidae Glossiphoniidae 2

Site 3 Arthropoda Insecta Coleoptera Elmidae Stenelmis sp. 2

Site 3 Arthropoda Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Micropsectra/Tanytarsus sp. 2

Site 3 Arthropoda Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Tanytarsus sp. 2

Site 3 Mollusca Gastropoda Mesogastropoda Hydrobiidae Hydrobiidae 2

Site 3 Mollusca Gastropoda Basommatophora Planorbidae Micromenetus dilatatus 2

Site 3 Arthropoda Malacostraca Amphipoda Amphipoda 1

Site 3 Arthropoda Malacostraca Amphipoda Gammaridae Gammarus sp. 1

Site 3 Arthropoda Insecta Odonata Corduliidae Epitheca princeps 1

Site 3 Arthropoda Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Chironomini 1

Site 3 Arthropoda Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Orthocladiinae 1

Site 3 Mollusca Gastropoda Basommatophora Ancylidae Laevapex sp. 1

Site 3 Mollusca Gastropoda Basommatophora Planorbidae Planorbidae 1

Site 3 Mollusca Gastropoda Basommatophora Planorbidae Gyraulus sp. 1
104

Table 36. Abundance of invertebrates collected from riffles as part of the National Water-Quality Assessment (NAWQA) protocol from the Charles 

River during 2002 and 2003 (NAWQA Station 01104615). 

Collection Date Phylum Class Order Family Taxon Abundance

September 17, 2002 Arthropoda Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Rheotanytarsus sp. 3,705

September 17, 2002 Arthropoda Insecta Trichoptera Hydroptilidae Leucotrichia pictipes 3,351

September 17, 2002 Arthropoda Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Dicrotendipes sp. 2,735

September 17, 2002 Arthropoda Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Polypedilum sp. 2,206

September 17, 2002 Arthropoda Insecta Trichoptera Philopotamidae Chimarra sp. 1,678

September 17, 2002 Annelida Oligochaeta Tubificida Tubificidae Tubificidae 1,236

September 17, 2002 Nematoda Nematoda 1,235

September 17, 2002 Arthropoda Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Cricotopus sp. 1,148

September 17, 2002 Arthropoda Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Chironominae 1,146

September 17, 2002 Arthropoda Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Cricotopus/Orthocladius sp. 970

September 17, 2002 Mollusca Gastropoda Basommatophora Planorbidae Planorbidae 794

September 17, 2002 Arthropoda Insecta Trichoptera Hydropsychidae Cheumatopsyche sp. 619

September 17, 2002 Arthropoda Malacostraca Amphipoda Gammaridae Gammarus sp. 618

September 17, 2002 Annelida Oligochaeta Tubificida Naididae Naididae 530

September 17, 2002 Arthropoda Insecta Trichoptera Hydropsychidae Hydropsyche depravata group 442

September 17, 2002 Arthropoda Insecta Trichoptera Hydropsychidae Hydropsyche sp. 442

September 17, 2002 Mollusca Bivalvia Veneroida Sphaeriidae Musculium sp. 442

September 17, 2002 Arthropoda Arachnida Acari 354

September 17, 2002 Arthropoda Insecta Coleoptera Elmidae Stenelmis sp. 354

September 17, 2002 Arthropoda Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Tvetenia sp. 354

September 17, 2002 Arthropoda Insecta Diptera Empididae Hemerodromia sp. 353

September 17, 2002 Arthropoda Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Orthocladiinae 353

September 17, 2002 Mollusca Gastropoda Basommatophora Physidae Physa sp. 267

September 17, 2002 Arthropoda Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Chironomidae 265

September 17, 2002 Arthropoda Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Cricotopus bicinctus group 265

September 17, 2002 Arthropoda Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Thienemanniella sp. 265

September 17, 2002 Mollusca Gastropoda Basommatophora Physidae Physidae 265

September 17, 2002 Mollusca Gastropoda Basommatophora Ancylidae Ancylidae 264

September 17, 2002 Mollusca Gastropoda Basommatophora Ancylidae Laevapex fuscus 178

September 17, 2002 Mollusca Gastropoda Mesogastropoda Hydrobiidae Hydrobiidae 177

September 17, 2002 Annelida Oligochaeta Enchytraeida Enchytraeidae Enchytraeidae 176

September 17, 2002 Arthropoda Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Cardiocladius sp. 176

September 17, 2002 Arthropoda Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Chironomini 176

September 17, 2002 Arthropoda Insecta Trichoptera Hydropsychidae Hydropsychidae 176

September 17, 2002 Arthropoda Insecta Ephemeroptera Baetidae Baetidae 89

September 17, 2002 Arthropoda Insecta Trichoptera Hydroptilidae Hydroptila sp. 89

September 17, 2002 Arthropoda Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Pentaneura sp. 89
105

Table 36. Abundance of invertebrates collected from riffles as part of the National Water-Quality Assessment (NAWQA) protocol from the Charles 

River during 2002 and 2003 (NAWQA Station 01104615).—Continued 

Collection Date Phylum Class Order Family Taxon Abundance

September 17, 2002 Arthropoda Insecta Diptera Tipulidae Antocha sp. 88

September 17, 2002 Arthropoda Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Cricotopus trifascia group 88

September 17, 2002 Arthropoda Insecta Coleoptera Elmidae Elmidae 88

September 17, 2002 Arthropoda Insecta Trichoptera Hydroptilidae Hydroptilidae 88

September 17, 2002 Arthropoda Insecta Trichoptera Philopotamidae Philopotamidae 88

September 17, 2002 Mollusca Bivalvia Veneroida Sphaeriidae Sphaeriidae 88

September 17, 2002 Annelida Hirudinea Arhynchobdellae Erpobdellidae Erpobdellidae 3

September 17, 2002 Arthropoda Insecta Trichoptera Philopotamidae Chimarra obscura 2

September 17, 2002 Arthropoda Insecta Hemiptera Veliidae Rhagovelia obesa 2

September 17, 2002 Arthropoda Malacostraca Isopoda Asellidae Caecidotea sp. 2

September 17, 2002 Arthropoda Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Ablabesmyia sp. 1

September 17, 2002 Arthropoda Insecta Ephemeroptera Baetidae Baetis flavistriga 1

September 17, 2002 Arthropoda Insecta Ephemeroptera Baetidae Baetis intercalaris 1

September 17, 2002 Arthropoda Insecta Ephemeroptera Baetidae Baetis sp. 1

September 17, 2002 Arthropoda Insecta Hemiptera Belostomatidae Belostoma lutarium 1

September 17, 2002 Arthropoda Insecta Diptera Brachycera 1

September 17, 2002 Arthropoda Insecta Odonata Coenagrionidae Coenagrionidae 1

September 17, 2002 Arthropoda Insecta Odonata Corduliidae Corduliidae 1

September 17, 2002 Arthropoda Insecta Ephemeroptera Baetidae Heterocloeon sp. 1

September 17, 2002 Arthropoda Insecta Diptera Tipulidae Limonia sp. 1

September 17, 2002 Arthropoda Insecta Hemiptera Mesoveliidae Mesovelia sp. 1

September 17, 2002 Arthropoda Insecta Hemiptera Gerridae Metrobates hesperius 1

September 17, 2002 Arthropoda Insecta Coleoptera Elmidae Microcylloepus sp. 1

September 17, 2002 Arthropoda Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Parachironomus sp. 1

September 17, 2002 Arthropoda Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Phaenopsectra/Tribelos sp. 1

September 17, 2002 Arthropoda Insecta Hemiptera Nepidae Ranatra fusca 1

September 17, 2002 Arthropoda Insecta Coleoptera Scirtidae Scirtidae 1

September 17, 2002 Arthropoda Insecta Diptera Simuliidae Simuliidae 1

September 17, 2002 Arthropoda Insecta Diptera Simuliidae Simulium sp. 1

September 17, 2002 Arthropoda Insecta Ephemeroptera Heptageniidae Stenacron sp. 1

September 17, 2002 Arthropoda Insecta Ephemeroptera Leptohyphidae Tricorythodes sp. 1

September 17, 2002 Arthropoda Malacostraca Amphipoda Crangonyctidae Crangonyx sp. 1

September 17, 2002 Mollusca Gastropoda Basommatophora Planorbidae Helisoma anceps 1

September 17, 2002 Platyhelminthes Turbellaria Turbellaria 1

August 20, 2003 Arthropoda Insecta Trichoptera Philopotamidae Chimarra sp. 3,996

August 20, 2003 Arthropoda Insecta Trichoptera Hydropsychidae Hydropsyche depravata group 1,050

August 20, 2003 Arthropoda Insecta Trichoptera Hydropsychidae Hydropsychidae 1,048
106

Table 36. Abundance of invertebrates collected from riffles as part of the National Water-Quality Assessment (NAWQA) protocol from the Charles 

River during 2002 and 2003 (NAWQA Station 01104615).—Continued 

Collection Date Phylum Class Order Family Taxon Abundance

August 20, 2003 Arthropoda Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Rheotanytarsus sp. 969

August 20, 2003 Arthropoda Insecta Trichoptera Hydropsychidae Hydropsyche sp. 848

August 20, 2003 Arthropoda Insecta Trichoptera Hydroptilidae Leucotrichia pictipes 847

August 20, 2003 Arthropoda Insecta Trichoptera Hydroptilidae Hydroptila sp. 686

August 20, 2003 Arthropoda Insecta Trichoptera Hydropsychidae Cheumatopsyche sp. 565

August 20, 2003 Arthropoda Insecta Ephemeroptera Baetidae Baetidae 403

August 20, 2003 Arthropoda Malacostraca Amphipoda Gammaridae Gammarus sp. 364

August 20, 2003 Annelida Oligochaeta Tubificida Naididae Naididae 324

August 20, 2003 Arthropoda Insecta Trichoptera Hydroptilidae Hydroptilidae 323

August 20, 2003 Arthropoda Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Tvetenia sp. 283

August 20, 2003 Mollusca Bivalvia Veneroida Sphaeriidae Musculium sp. 283

August 20, 2003 Arthropoda Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Polypedilum sp. 243

August 20, 2003 Arthropoda Insecta Coleoptera Elmidae Stenelmis sp. 243

August 20, 2003 Mollusca Gastropoda Mesogastropoda Hydrobiidae Hydrobiidae 203

August 20, 2003 Arthropoda Arachnida Acari 202

August 20, 2003 Arthropoda Insecta Diptera Tipulidae Antocha sp. 202

August 20, 2003 Arthropoda Insecta Diptera Empididae Hemerodromia sp. 162

August 20, 2003 Annelida Oligochaeta Tubificida Tubificidae Tubificidae 161

August 20, 2003 Mollusca Bivalvia Veneroida Sphaeriidae Sphaeriidae 161

August 20, 2003 Mollusca Gastropoda Basommatophora Ancylidae Laevapex sp. 161

August 20, 2003 Arthropoda Insecta Trichoptera Philopotamidae Chimarra obscura 122

August 20, 2003 Arthropoda Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Cricotopus/Orthocladius sp. 122

August 20, 2003 Arthropoda Insecta Diptera Simuliidae Simuliidae 122

August 20, 2003 Nematoda Nematoda 122

August 20, 2003 Platyhelminthes Turbellaria Turbellaria 122

August 20, 2003 Arthropoda Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Cardiocladius sp. 121

August 20, 2003 Arthropoda Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Dicrotendipes sp. 121

August 20, 2003 Arthropoda Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Orthocladiinae 121

August 20, 2003 Arthropoda Insecta Diptera Simuliidae Simulium sp. 83

August 20, 2003 Arthropoda Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Chironomidae 81

August 20, 2003 Annelida Hirudinea Arhynchobdellae Erpobdellidae Erpobdellidae 43

August 20, 2003 Arthropoda Insecta Coleoptera Elmidae Macronychus glabratus 42

August 20, 2003 Mollusca Bivalvia Veneroida Sphaeriidae Pisidium sp. 41

August 20, 2003 Annelida Oligochaeta Enchytraeida Enchytraeidae Enchytraeidae 40

August 20, 2003 Arthropoda Insecta Diptera Empididae Hemerodromiinae 40

August 20, 2003 Arthropoda Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Pentaneura sp. 40

August 20, 2003 Arthropoda Insecta Trichoptera Glossosomatidae Protoptila sp. 40
107

Table 36. Abundance of invertebrates collected from riffles as part of the National Water-Quality Assessment (NAWQA) protocol from the Charles 

River during 2002 and 2003 (NAWQA Station 01104615).—Continued 

Collection Date Phylum Class Order Family Taxon Abundance

August 20, 2003 Mollusca Gastropoda Basommatophora Planorbidae Planorbidae 40

August 20, 2003 Nemertea Enopla Hoplonemertea Tetrastemmatidae Prostoma sp. 40

August 20, 2003 Annelida Hirudinea Rhynchobdellae Glossiphoniidae Glossiphoniidae 3

August 20, 2003 Arthropoda Insecta Coleoptera Elmidae Ancyronyx variegata 2

August 20, 2003 Annelida Hirudinea Rhynchobdellae Glossiphoniidae Helobdella stagnalis 1

August 20, 2003 Annelida Oligochaeta Lumbriculida Lumbriculidae Lumbriculidae 1

August 20, 2003 Annelida Oligochaeta Megadrile 1

August 20, 2003 Arthropoda Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Ablabesmyia sp. 1

August 20, 2003 Arthropoda Insecta Ephemeroptera Baetidae Baetis flavistriga 1

August 20, 2003 Arthropoda Insecta Ephemeroptera Baetidae Baetis intercalaris 1

August 20, 2003 Arthropoda Insecta Ephemeroptera Baetidae Baetis sp. 1

August 20, 2003 Arthropoda Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Cricotopus sp. 1

August 20, 2003 Arthropoda Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Cryptochironomus sp. 1

August 20, 2003 Arthropoda Insecta Coleoptera Elmidae Dubiraphia sp. 1

August 20, 2003 Arthropoda Insecta Coleoptera Elmidae Elmidae 1

August 20, 2003 Arthropoda Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Glyptotendipes sp. 1

August 20, 2003 Arthropoda Insecta Ephemeroptera Baetidae Heterocloeon sp. 1

August 20, 2003 Arthropoda Insecta Trichoptera Hydropsychidae Hydropsyche betteni 1

August 20, 2003 Arthropoda Insecta Ephemeroptera Heptageniidae Maccaffertium modestum 1

August 20, 2003 Arthropoda Insecta Coleoptera Elmidae Microcylloepus pusillus 1

August 20, 2003 Arthropoda Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Phaenopsectra sp. 1

August 20, 2003 Arthropoda Insecta Ephemeroptera Heptageniidae Stenacron sp. 1

August 20, 2003 Arthropoda Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Tanytarsus sp. 1

August 20, 2003 Arthropoda Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Tribelos sp. 1

August 20, 2003 Arthropoda Malacostraca Isopoda Asellidae Caecidotea sp. 1

August 20, 2003 Arthropoda Malacostraca Amphipoda Crangonyctidae Crangonyx sp. 1

August 20, 2003 Arthropoda Malacostraca Decapoda Cambaridae Orconectes sp. 1

August 20, 2003 Mollusca Bivalvia Veneroida Sphaeriidae Sphaerium sp. 1

August 20, 2003 Mollusca Gastropoda Basommatophora Planorbidae Helisoma anceps 1

August 20, 2003 Mollusca Gastropoda Basommatophora Ancylidae Laevapex fuscus 1

August 20, 2003 Mollusca Gastropoda Basommatophora Planorbidae Micromenetus sp. 1

August 20, 2003 Mollusca Gastropoda Basommatophora Physidae Physa sp. 1
108

Figure 37. Abundance of fish collected as part of the National Water-Quality Assessment (NAWQA) 

protocol from the Charles River during 2002 and 2003 (NAWQA Station #01095220). 

Collection Date Family Scientific name Common name Abundance

September 18, 2002 Cyprinidae Cyprinus carpio Common carp 65

September 18, 2002 Percidae Perca flavescens Yellow perch 24

September 18, 2002 Catostomidae Catostomus commersonii White sucker 22

September 18, 2002 Centrarchidae Lepomis macrochirus Bluegill 20

September 18, 2002 Centrarchidae Lepomis auritus Redbreast sunfish 19

September 18, 2002 Centrarchidae Micropterus salmoides Largemouth bass 18

September 18, 2002 Anguillidae Anguilla rostrata American eel 11

September 18, 2002 Centrarchidae Micropterus dolomieu Smallmouth bass 10

September 18, 2002 Centrarchidae Lepomis gibbosus Pumpkinseed 8

September 18, 2002 Clupeidae Alosa sapidissima American shad 6

September 18, 2002 Cyprinidae Carassius auratus Goldfish 3

September 18, 2002 Centrarchidae Lepomis cyanellus Green sunfish 2

September 16, 2003 Centrarchidae Lepomis macrochirus Bluegill 127

September 16, 2003 Catostomidae Catostomus commersonii White sucker 64

September 16, 2003 Moronidae Morone americana White perch 57

September 16, 2003 Clupeidae Alosa sapidissima American shad 30

September 16, 2003 Centrarchidae Lepomis gibbosus Pumpkinseed 26

September 16, 2003 Percidae Perca flavescens Yellow perch 26

September 16, 2003 Cyprinidae Cyprinus carpio Common carp 21

September 16, 2003 Centrarchidae Lepomis auritus Redbreast sunfish 21

September 16, 2003 Anguillidae Anguilla rostrata American eel 11

September 16, 2003 Centrarchidae Micropterus salmoides Largemouth bass 7

September 16, 2003 Cyprinidae Notemigonus crysoleucas Golden shiner 3

September 16, 2003 Centrarchidae Micropterus dolomieu Smallmouth bass 2

August 31, 2004 Cyprinidae Notropis hudsonius Spottail shiner 57

August 31, 2004 Catostomidae Catostomus commersonii White sucker 35

August 31, 2004 Percidae Perca flavescens Yellow perch 28

August 31, 2004 Cyprinidae Cyprinus carpio Common carp 25

August 31, 2004 Centrarchidae Lepomis auritus Redbreast sunfish 25

August 31, 2004 Anguillidae Anguilla rostrata American eel 18

August 31, 2004 Centrarchidae Micropterus dolomieu Smallmouth bass 14

August 31, 2004 Centrarchidae Micropterus salmoides Largemouth bass 12

August 31, 2004 Clupeidae Alosa aestivalis Blueback herring 11

August 31, 2004 Centrarchidae Lepomis macrochirus Bluegill 11

August 31, 2004 Moronidae Morone americana White perch 11

August 31, 2004 Centrarchidae Lepomis gibbosus Pumpkinseed 9

August 31, 2004 Centrarchidae Pomoxis nigromaculatus Black crappie 4

August 31, 2004 Moronidae Morone saxatilis Striped bass 2

August 31, 2004 Cyprinidae Notemigonus crysoleucas Golden shiner 2

August 31, 2004 Ictaluridae Ameiurus natalis Yellow bullhead 1

August 31, 2004 Ictaluridae Ameiurus nebulosus Brown bullhead 1

August 23, 2005 Centrarchidae Lepomis auritus Redbreast sunfish 54

August 23, 2005 Anguillidae Anguilla rostrata American eel 38

August 23, 2005 Centrarchidae Lepomis macrochirus Bluegill 37

August 23, 2005 Centrarchidae Lepomis gibbosus Pumpkinseed 22

August 23, 2005 Centrarchidae Micropterus dolomieu Smallmouth bass 21

August 23, 2005 Centrarchidae Micropterus salmoides Largemouth bass 12

August 23, 2005 Percidae Perca flavescens Yellow perch 9

August 23, 2005 Catostomidae Catostomus commersonii White sucker 7

August 23, 2005 Cyprinidae Cyprinus carpio Common carp 3
109

Acknowledgments

Many individuals provided invaluable field and laboratory expertise for a timely completion 

of the collections and analyses. This includes John Coll (Lamar Fish Health Center, Lamar, Penn), 

Carla Wieser, Tim Gross, Janet Scarborough associated with the USGS Florida Integrated Science 

Center at Gainesville, Fla., Tom May, Mike Walther, Bill Brumbaugh, Dave Alvarez, Walt 

Cranor, Stephanie Perkins, Vickie Schroeder, Randy Clark, Carl Orazio, John Meadows, George 

Tegerdine, Robert Gale, Kathy Echols, Chris Ingersoll, and Don Tillitt associated with the USGS 

Columbia Environmental Research Center, ) Adria Elskus from the USGS Field Reseach Station 

located at the University of Maine, Tom Leiker from the National Water Quality Laboratory, 

Lakewood, Colo., Kim Campo, Dave Armstrong, Megan Chaisson, Sara Flanegan and Jonathan 

Kennon Karen Beaulieu associated with the former USGS Northeast Area Offices, Jim Coles and 

John Meier with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 1 (New England), ; U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service (Concord, N.H.; Ken Munney, Drew Major); USGS S.C. Fish and Wildlife 

Cooperative Research Unit at Clemson University (Jeff Isley); Ohio State University (Konrad 

Dabrowski), University of Florida (Nancy Denslow, Kevin Kroll). We would also like to 

acknowledge and thank Tim Frick (WRD Conn.) and Deborah Iwanowicz (Leetown Science 

Center) for graciously reviewing the report. Numerous scientists with the National Water-Quality 

Assessment (NAWQA) Program were consulted and provided valuable insights. 

References Cited

Adams, S.M., 1990, Status and use of biological indicators for evaluating the effects of stress on 

fish, in Adams, S.M., ed, Biological indicators of stress in fish: American Fisheries Society 

Symposium 8, p. 1–8. 

Adams, S.M., Brown, A.M., Goede, R.W., 1993, A quantitative health assessment index for rapid 

evaluation of fish condition in the field: Transactions of the American Fisheries Society, v. 122, 

p. 63–73. 

Alvarez, D.A., Cranor, W.L., Perkins, S.D., Schroeder, V.L., and Clark, R.C.,2006, Use of passive 

samplers for monitoring organic contaminants in the Charles River: U.S. Geological Survey, 

Columbia Environmental Research Center, Columbia, Mo., Final Report, 45 p. 

Ankley, G.T., Benoit, D.A., Balogh, J.C., Reynoldson, T.B., Day, K.E., 1994, Evaluation of 

potential confounding factors in sediment toxicity tests with three freshwater benthic 

invertebrates: Enviornmental Toxicology and Chemistry, v. 13, no. 4, p. 627–635. 

American Society for Testing and Materials E729 – 96, 2007, Standard guide for conducting acute 

toxicity tests on test materials with fishes, macroinvertebrates, and amphibians: West 

Conshohocken, Penn., American Society for Testing and Materials. 

Baumann, P.C., Smith, I.R., and Metcalfe, C.D., 1996, Linkages between chemical contaminants 

and tumors in benthic Great Lakes fishes: Journal of Great Lakes Research, v. 22, no. 2, 

p.131–152. 

Baumann, P.C., 1998, Epizootics of cancer in fish associated with genotoxins in sediment and 

water—Reviews in mutation research: Mutation Research, v. 411, p. 227–233. 

Baumann, P.C., Harshbarger, J.C., and Hartman, K.J., 1990, Relations of liver tumors to age 

structure of brown bullhead populations from two Lake Erie tributaries: Science of the Total 

Environment, v. 94, p. 71–88. 
110

Bevans, H.E., Goodbred, S.L., Miesner, J.F., Watkins, S.A., Gross, T.S., Denslow, N.D., and 

Schoeb, T., 1996, Synthetic organic compounds and carp endocrinology and histology in Las 

Vegas wash and Las Vegas Callville Bays of Lake Mead, Nevada, 1992 and 1995: U.S. 

Geological Survey, Water Resources Investigations Report 96-4266, 12 p. 

Blazer, V.S., 2002, Histopathological assessment of gonadal tissue in wild fishes: Fish Physiology 

and Biochemistry, v. 26, p. 85–106. 

Blazer, V.S., Facey, D.E., Fournie, J.W., Courtney, L.A., and Summers, J.K.,1994, Macrophage 

aggregates as indicators of environmental stress, in Stolen, J.S., Fletcher, T.C., Modulators of 

fish immune responses, Volume 1—Models for enviromental toxicology, biomarkers, 

immunostimulators: Fair Haven, N.J., SOS publications, p. 169–186. 

Blazer, V.S., Dethloff, G.M., Wright, B., 2002, Fish health indicators: U.S. Geological Survey, 

Biological Resources Division, Information and Technology Report, USGS/BRD/ITR—2002-

0004, p. 89–134. 

Blazer, V.S., Fournie, J.W., Weeks-Perkins, B.A., 1997, Macrophage aggregates—Biomarker for 

immune function in fishes?, in Dwyer, F.J., Doane, T.R., Hinman, M.L., eds., Environmental 

toxicology and risk assessment—Modeling and risk assessment, Volume 6: Philadelphia, Penn., 

American Society for Testing and Materials, ASTM STP 1317, p. 360–375 

Birke, S.R., and Tillitt, D.E., 2000, Determination of 2,3,7,8-tetraclorodizenzo-p-diozin equivalents 

(TCDD-EQ) with H4IIE bioassay on fish tissue samples collected from the Columbia and Lower 

Rio Grande river basins as part of the 1997 Biomonitoring of Environmental Status and Trends 

(BEST) Program: U.S. Geological Survey, Biochemistry and Physiology Branch Report. 

Brown, S.B., Adams, B.A., Cyr, D.G., and Eales, J.G., 2004, Contaminant effects on the teleost 

fish thyroid: Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, v. 23, p. 1680–1701. 

Brumbaugh, W.G., Arms, J.W., 1996, Quality control considerations for the determination of acidvolatile sulfide and simultaneously extracted metals in sediments: Environmental Toxicology and 

Chemistry, v. 15, no. 3, p. 282–285. 

Burton, G.A., Jr., Norberg-King, T.J., Benoit, D.A., Ankley, G.T., Winger, P.V., Kubitz, J., 

Lazorchak, J.M., Smith, M.E., Call, D. l J., Ingersoll, C.G., Greer, E., Dwyer, F.J., Day, K.E., 

Kennedy, P., and Stinson , M., 1996, Interlaboratory study of precision—Hyalella azteca and 

Chironomus tentans freshwater sediment toxicity assays: Environmental Toxicology and 

Chemistry, v. 15, no. 8, p. 1335–1343. 

Campana, S.E., and Neilson, J.D., 1985, Microstructure of fish otoliths: Canadian Journal of 

Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, v. 42, p. 1014–1032. 

Coll, J.A., 2006, Fish health analyses for Charles River study: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Lamar, Penn., Lamar Fish Health Center Case 05-280. 

Collier, T.K., Stein, J.E., Sanborn, H.R., Hom, T., Meyers, M.S., and Varanasi, U., 1992, Field 

studies of reproductive success and bioindicators of maternal contaminant exposure in English 

sole (Parophyrys vetuslus): Science of the Total Environment, v. 116, p. 169–185. 

Contaminant Biology Program, 2002, From laboratory to landscape: U.S. Geological Survey, 

Biologial Resoources Dicipline, Program Review, 123 p. 

Cuffney, T.F., Gurtz, M.E., and Meador, M.R., 1993, Methods for collecting benthic invertebrate 

samples as part of the national water-quality assessment program: U.S. Geological Survey, OpenFile Report 93-406, 66 p. 

Dabrowksi, K., and Ciereszko, A., 2001, Ascorbic acid and reproduction in fish—Endocrine 

regulation and gamete quality: Aquaculture Research, v. 32, p. 623–638. 
111

Dabrowski, K., Hinterleitner, S., 1989, Simultaneous analysis of ascorbic acid, dehydroascorbic 

acid and ascorbic sulphate in biological materials: Analyst, v. 114, p. 83–87. 

Denslow, N.D., Chow, M., Chow, M.C., Folmar, L.C., Monomelli, S., Heppell, S.A., and Sullivan, 

C.V., 1996, Development of antibodies to teleost vitellogenins—Potential biomarkers for 

environmental estrogens, in Bengston, D.A., and Henshel, D.S., eds., Environmental toxicology 

and risk assessment: American Society for Testing and Materials, v. ASTM STP13065, p. 23–36. 

Denslow, N.D., Chow, M.C., Kroll, K.J., and Green, L., 1996, Vitellogenin as a biomarker of 

exposure for estrogen or estrogen mimics: Ecotoxicology, v. 8, p. 385–398. 

Denslow, N.D., Chow, M., Chow, M.C., Bonomelli, S., Folmar, L.C., Heppell, S.A., and Sullivan, 

C.V., 1997, Development of biomarkers for environmental contaminants affecting fish, in

Rolland, R M., Gilbertson, M., and Peterson, R.E., eds., Chemically induced alterations in 

functional development and reproduction of fishes: Pensacola, Fla., Society of Enviornmental 

Toxicology and Chemistry (SETAC) Press, p. 73–86. 

Denslow, N.D., Chow, M.C., Groll, K.F., and, Green, L., 1999, Vitellogenin as a biomarker for 

estrogen or estrogen mimics: Ecotoxicology, v. 8, p. 385–398. 

Dermott, R.M., 1991, Deformities in larval Procladius spp. and dominant Chironomini from the St. 

Clair River: Hydrobiologia, v. 219, p. 171–175. 

Dickman, M., Brindle, I., and Benson, M., 1992, Evidence of teratogens in sediments of the 

Niagara River Watershed as reflected by chironomid (Diptera: Chironomidae) deformities: 

Journal of Great Lakes Research, v. 18, p. 467–480. 

Eisler, R, 1987. Polyaromatic aromatic hydrocarbon hazards to fish, wildlife, and invertebrates: a 

synoptic review. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Report 85 (1:11). 

Fitzpatrick, F.A., Waite, I.R., Arconte, P.J., Meador, M. R., Maupin, M.A., and Gurtz, M.E., 1998, 

Revised methods for characterizing stream habitat in the National Water-Quality (NAWQA) 

program: U.S. Geological Survey, Water Resources Investigations Report 98-4052, 67 p. 

Fishman, M.J., Raese, J.W., Gerlitz, C.N., and Husband, R.A., 1994, U.S. Geological Survey 

approved inorganic and organic methods for the analysis of water and fluvial sediment, 1954–94: 

U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 94–351, 55 p. 

Fournie, J.W., Summers, J.K., and Weisberg, S.B., 1996, Prevalence of gross pathological 

abnormalities in estuarine fishes: Transaction of the American Fisheries Society, v. 125, 

p. 581–590. 

Friorentino, J.F., Kennedy, L.E., and Weinstein, M.J., 2000, Charles River watershed 1997/1998 

water quality assessment report: Boston, Mass., Massachusetts Department of Environmental 

Protection, report no. 72-AC-3. 

Furlong, E.T., Vaught, D.G., Merten, L.M., Foreman, W.T., and Gates, P.M., 1996, Methods of 

analysis by the U.S. Geological Survey National Water Quality Laboratory—Determination of 

semivolatile organic compounds in bottom sediment by solvent extraction, gel permeation 

chromatographic fractionation, and capillary-column gas chromatography/mass spectrometry: 

U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 95–719, 67p. 

Goodbred, S.L., Gilliom, R.J., Gross, T.S., Denslow, N.D., Bryant, W.B., and Schoeb T.R., 1997, 

Reconnaissance of 17β-estradiol, 11-ketotestosterone, vitellogenin, and gonad histopathology in 

common carp of United States streams—Potential for contaminant induced endocrine disruption: 

U.S. Geological Survey, Open File Report 96–627, 47 p. 

Grady A.W., McLaughlin R.M., Caldwell C.W., Schmitt C.J., Stalling D.L. 1992, Flow cytometry, 

morphometry and histopathology as biomarkers of benzo(a)pyrene exposure in brown bullheads 

(Ameiurus nebulosus): Journal of Applied Toxicology, v. 12, p. 165–77. 
112

Grau, E. G., 1987, Thyroid hormones, in Pang, P.K., and Schreibman, M.P., eds., Vertebrate 

endocrinology—Fundamentals and biomedical implications: San Diego, California, Academic 

Press, v. 2, p. 85–102. 

Gross, T.S., Arnold, B.S., Sepulevda, M.S.,and McDonald, K., 2003, Endocrine disrupting 

chemicals and endocrine active agents, in Hoffman, D.J., Rattner, B.A., Burton, G.A., Jr., and

Cairns, J., Jr, eds., Handbook of ecotoxicology: Washington, D.C., Lewis Publishers, p. 1033–

1098. 

Hinck, J.E., Schmitt, C.J., Bartish, T.M., Denslow, N.D., Blazer, V.S., Anderson, P.J., Coyle, J.J., 

Dethloff, G.M., and Tillitt, D.E., 2004, Biomonitoring of Environmental Status and Trends 

(BEST) Program—Environmental contaminants and their effects on fish in the Columbia River 

Basin: U.S. Geological Survey, Scientific Investigations Report 2004–5154, 125 p. 

Hinton, D.E., Teh, S.J., Okihiro, M.S., Cooke, J.B., and Parker, L.M., 1992, Phenotypically altered 

hepatocyte populations in diethylnitrosamine-induced medaka liver carcinogenesis—Resistance, 

growth, and fate: Marine Environmental Research, v. 34, p. 1–5. 

Hinton, D.E., 1993, Toxicologic histopathology of fishes—A systemic approach and overview, in

Couch, J.A., and Fournie, J.W., eds., Pathobiology of marine and estuarine organisms: Boca 

Raton, Fla., CRC Press, p. 177–215. 

Hoffman, D.J., Rattner, B.A., Burton, G.A., Jr., and Cairns, J., Jr., (eds.), 2003, Handbook of 

ecotoxicology: Boca Raton, Fla., Lewis Publishers, 1260 p. 

Hoffman, G.L., 1996, Methods of analysis by the U.S. Geological Survey National Water Quality 

Laboratory—Preparation procedure for aquatic biological material determined for trace metals: 

U.S. Geological Survey, Open-File Report 96–362, 42 p.

Ingersoll, C.G., 1995, Sediment tests, in Rand, G.M., ed., Fundamentals of aquatic toxicology: 

Washington, D.C., Taylor and Francis, p. 231–256. 

Ingersoll, C.G., Wang, N., Hayward, J.M.R., Jones, J.R., Jones, S.B. and Ireland, D.S., 2005, A 

field assessment of long-term laboratory sediment toxicity tests with the amphipod Hyalella 

azteca: Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, v. 24, no. 11, p. 2853–2870. 

Ingersoll, C.G., MacDonald, D.D., Brumbaugh, W.G., Johnson, B.T., Kemble, N.E., Kunz, J.L., 

May, T.W., Wang, N., Smith, J., Sparks, D., and Ireland, D.S., 2002, Toxicity assessment of 

sediments from the Grand Calumet River in Indiana Harbor Canal in northwestern Indiana, USA: 

Archives of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology, v. 43, no. 2, p. 156–167. 

Johnson, B.T., and Long, E.R., 1998, Rapid toxicity assessment of sediments from estuarine 

ecosystems—A new tandem in vitro testing approach: Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 

v. 17, p. 1099–1106. 

Jonsson, E.M., Brandt, I., and Brunstrom, B., 2002, Gill filament-based EROD assay for 

monitoring waterborne dioxin-like pollutants in fish: Environmental Science & Technology, v. 

36, no. 15. p. 3340–3344. 

Jonsson, E.M., Abrahamson, A., Brunstrom, B., Brandt, I., 2006, Cytochrome P4501A induction in 

rainbow trout gills and liver following exposure to waterborne indigo, benzo[a]pyrene and 

3,3',4,4',5-pentachlorobiphenyl: Aquatic Toxicology, v. 79, p. 226–232. 

Kaiser, K.L.E., and Palabrica, V.S., 1991, Photobacterium phosphoreum toxicity data index: Water 

Quality Research Journal of Canada, v. 26, no. 33, p. 361–431. 

Keith, L.H., 1991, Environmental sampling and analysis—A practical guide: Boca Raton, Fla., 

CRC Press, 160 p. 

Keith, L.H., Crummet, W., Deegan, J., Jr., Libby, R.A., Taylor, J.K., and Wentler, G., 1983, 

Principles of environmental analysis: Analytical Chemistry, v. 55, p. 2210–2218. 
113

Kennedy, S.W., and Jones, S.P., 1994, Simultaneous measurement of cytochrome P4501A catalytic 

activity and total protein concentration with a fluorescence plate reader: Analytical Biochemistry,

v. 222, no. 1, p. 217–223. 

Kime, D.E., and Nash, J.P., 1999, Gamete viability as an indicator of reproductive endocrine 

disruption in fish: The Science of the Total Environment, v. 233, p. 123–129. 

Krahn, M.M., Myers, M.S., Burrows, D.G., and Malins, D.C., 1984, Determination of metabolites 

of xenobiotics in bile of fish from polluted waterways: Xenobiotica, v. 14, p. 633–646. 

Kumar, S., and Pant, S.C., 1988, Comparative sublethal ovarian pathology of some pesticides in the 

telost, Punitius conchonius Hamilton: Bulletin of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology, 

v. 41, p. 227–232. 

Leiker, T.J., Madsen, J.E., Deacon, J.R., and Foreman, W.T., 1995, Methods of analysis by the 

U.S. Geological Survey National Water Quality Laboratory—Determination of chlorinated 

pesticides in aquatic tissue by capillary-column gas chromatography with electron-capture 

detection: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 94–710, 42 p. 

Leiker, T.J., Abney, S.R.,Goodbred, S.L., and Rosen, M.R., 2008, Identification of methyl triclosan 

and halogenated analogues in mail carp (Cyprinus carpio) from Las Vegas Bay and 

semipermeable membrane devices from Las Vegas Wash, Nevada: Science of the Total 

Environment, 13 p. 

Lowry, O.H., Rosbrough, N.J., Farr, A.L., and Randall, R.J., 1951: Journal of Biological 

Chemistry, v. 193, p. 265. 

May, T.W., Walther, M., and Brumbaugh, W.G., 2006, Determination of metals in pore water, 

sediment and fish from the Charles River, Massachusetts: U.S. Geological Survey, Columbia 

Environmental Research Center, Final Report CERC-8335-FY06-32-02, 15 p. 

Meier, J.R., Chang, L.W., Daniel, F.B., Franson, S.E., and Wernsing, P., 2001, Genetic damage 

indicators in fish exposed to varying stream conditions in an agricultural watershed: 

Environmental Molecular Mutagenesis, v. 37 (supplement 32), p. 52. 

Moulton, S.R., Kennen, J.G., Goldstein, R.M., and Hambrook, J.A., 2002, Revised protocols for 

sampling algal, invertebrate, and fish communities as part of the National Waster Quality 

(NAWQA) Program: U.S. Geological Survey Open File Report 02-150, 87 p. (Also available at 

http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2002/ofr-02-150/.) 

Moulton, S.R., Carter, J.L., Grotheer, S.A., Cuffney, T.F., and Short, T.M., 2000, Methods of 

analysis by the U.S. Geological Survey , National Water Quality Laboratory—Processing, 

taxonomy, and quality control of benthic macroinvertebrate samples: U.S. Geological Survey 

Open-File Report 00-212, 49 . 

Neilson, M.A., Painter, D.S., Warren, G., Hites, R.A., Basu, I., Wesehof, D.V.C., Whitte, D.M., 

Christic, G., Barbeiru, R., Tuchman, M., Johannsson, D.E., Nalepa, T.F., Edsall, T.A., Fleischer,

G., Bronte, C., Smith, S.B., and Baumann, P.C., 2003, Ecological monitoring for assessing the 

state of the nearshore and open waters of the Great Lakes: Environmental Monitoring and 

Assessment, v. 88, no. 1-3, p. 103–117. 

National Research Council, 2002, Opportunities to improve the U.S. Geological Survey National 

Water-Quality Assessment Program: Washington, D.C., National Academy Press, 238 p. 

National Research Council, 1995, A review of the biomonitoring of environmental status and 

trends program—The draft detailed plan: Committee to Review the Department of the Interior's 

Biomonitoring of Environmental Status and Trends Program Washington, D.C., National 

Academy Press, 74 p. 
114

Olson, M.C., Iverson, J.L., Furlong, E.T., and Schroeder, M.P., 2004, Methods of analysis by the 

U.S. Geological Survey National Water Quality Laboratory—Determination of polycyclic 

aromatic hydrocarbon compounds in sediment by gas chromatography /mass spectrometry: U.S. 

Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 03–4318, 45 p. 

Orazio, C., Echols, K., Meadows, J., Feltz, K., Tegerdine, G., Peterman, P., 2006, Organic 

contaminants in fish and sediments collected from the Charles River in 2005: U.S. Geological 

Survey, Columbia Environmental Research Center, Final Report, 15 p. [plus tables]. 

Patino, R., Goodbred, S.L., Draugelis-Dale, R., Barry, C.E., Foott, J.S., Wainscott, M.R., Gross, 

T.S., and Covay, K.J., 2003, Morpometric and histological parameters of gonadal development in 

adult common carp from contaminated and reference sites in Lake Mead, Nevada: Journal of 

Aquatic Animal Health, v. 15, p. 55–68. 

Popper, A.N., and Lu, Z., 2000, Structure-function relationships in fish otolith organs: Fisheries 

Research, v. 46, p.15–25. 

Pohl, R.J, and Fouts, J.R., 2007, A rapid method for assaying the metabolism of 7-ethoxyresorufin 

by microsomal subcellular fractions: Analytical Biochemistry, v. 107, no. 1, p. 150–155. 

Rastogi, A., and Kulshrestha, S.K, 1990, Effect of sublethal does of three pesticides on the ovary of 

a carp minnow Tasbora daniconius: Bulletin of Environmental Contaminantion and Toxicology, 

v. 45, p. 742–747. 

Roe, J.H., and Kuether, C.A., 1943, The determination of ascorbic acid in whole blood and urine 

through the 2,4-dinitrophenylhydrazine derivative of dehydroascorbic acid: Journal of Biological 

Chemistry, v. 147, p. 399–407. 

Schmitt, C.J., Blazer, V.S., Dethloff, G.M., Tillet, D.E., Gross, T.S., Bryant, W.L., Jr., DeWeese, 

V., Smith, S.B., Goede, R.W., Bartish, T.M., and Kubiak, T.J., 1999, Biomonitoring of 

Environmental Status and Trends (BEST) Program—Field procedures for assessing the exposure 

of fish to environmental contaminants: Columbia, Mo., U.S. Geological Survey, Biological 

Resources Division, Information and Technology Report, USGS/BRD-1999-000-7, 68 p. 

Schmitt, C.J., Zajicek, J.L., May, T.W., and Cowman, D.F., 1999, Organochlorine residues and 

elemental contaminants in U.S. freshwater fish, 1976-1986—National Contaminant 

Biomonitoring Program: Review of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology, v. 162, p. 

43–104. 

Schmitt, C.J., and Dethloff, G.M., 2000, Biomonitoring of Environmental Status and Trends 

(BEST) Program—Selected methods for monitoring chemical contaminants and their effects in 

aquatic ecosystems: Columbia, Mo., U.S. Geological Survey, Biological Resources Division, 

Information and Technology Report, USGS/BRD-2000-0005, 81 p. 

Schmitt, C.J., ed., 2002, Biomonitoring of Environmental Status and Trends (BEST) Program—

Environmental contaminants and their effects on fish in the Mississippi River Basin: U.S. 

Geological Survey, Biological Science Report 2002–0004. 

Schmitt, C., Dethloff, G., Hinck, J., Bartish, T., Blazer, V., Coyle, J., Denslow, N., Tillitt, D., 2004, 

Biomonitoring of Environmental Status and Trends (BEST) Program—Environmental 

contaminants and their effects on fish in the Rio Grande Basin: U.S. Geological Survey, 

Biological Resources Division, Scientific Investigations Report 2004–5108, 117 p. 

Sepulveda, M.S., Quinn, P.B., Denslow, N.D., Holm, S.E., and Gross, T.S., 2003, Effects of pulp 

and paper mill effluents on reproductive success of largemouth bass: Environmental Toxicology 

and Chemistry, v. 22, p. 205–213. 
115

Shelton, L.R., 1994, Field guide for collecting and processing stream-water samples for the 

National Water-Quality Assessment Program: U.S. Geological Survey, Open-File Report 94–

455, 42 p. 

Singh, N.P., McCoy, M.T., Tice, R.R., and Schneider, E.L., 1988, A simple technique for 

quantitation of low levels of DNA damage in individual cells: Experimental Cell Research, v. 

175, no. 1, p. 184–191. 

Skougstad, M.W., Fishman, M.J., Friedman, L.C., Erdmann, D.E., and Duncan, S.S., 1979, 

Methods for determination of inorganic substances in water and fluvial sediments: U.S. 

Geological Survey, Techniques of Water Resources Investigations, book 5, chap. A1, 626 p. 

Smith, S.B., Donahue, A.P., Lipkin, R.J., Blazer, V.S., Schmitt, C.J., and Goede, R.W., 2002, 

Illustrated field guide for assessing external and internal anomalies in fish: U.S. Geological 

Survey, Information and Technology Report 2002–0007, 46 p. 

Smith, S.B., Gross, T.S., and Denslow, N.D., 2002, Endocrine biomarkers in largemouth bass 

(Micropterus salmoides) related to polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) in Woods Pond, 

Housatonic River, Massachusetts: U.S. Geological Survey, Florida Integrated Science Center, 

Report 001-2002, 18 p. 

Toft, G., Edward, T.M., Baatrup, E., and Gillette, L.J., Jr., 2003, Disturbed sexual characteristics in 

male mosquitofish (Gambusia holbrooki) from a lake contaminated with endocrine disruptors: 

Environmental Health Perspectives, v. 11, p. 695–701. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2000, National guidance—Guidance for assessing 

chemical contaminant data for use in fish advisories—Volume 1—Sampling and analysis (3d 

ed.): Washington D.C., U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 823-B-00-007, 485 p. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2001, EPA Superfund Explanation of Significant 

Differences: US Army Material Technology Laboratory (USARMY) EPA ID: MA0213820939, 

Watertown MA. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 1 EPA/ESD/R01-01/014/2001, 

39 p. 

Van Metre, P.C., Mahler, B.J., and Furlong, E.T., 2000, Urban sprawl leaves its PAH signature: 

Environmental Science and Technology, v. 34, p. 4064–4070. 

Waddell, B., and May, T., 1995, Selenium concentrations in the razorback sucker (Xyrauchen 

texanus)—Substitution of non-lethal muscle plugs for muscle tissue in contaminant assessment: 

Archives of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology, v. 28, p. 321–326. 

Weiskel, P.K., Barlow, L.K., and Smieskel, T.W., 2005, Water resources and the urban 

environment, Lower Charles River watershed, Massachusetts, 1630–2005: U.S. Geological 

Survey Circular 1280, 46 p. 

White, A., Fletcher, T.C., Secombes, C.J., and Houlihan, D.F., 1993, The effect of different dietary 

levels of vitamins C and E on their tissue levels in the Atlantic salmon, Salmo salar L., in

Kaushik, S.J., and Luquet, P., eds., Fish nutrition in practice: Paris, Les Colloques, p. 203–207. 

Whyte, J.J., Jung, R.E., Schmitt, C.J., and Tillitt, D.E., 2000, Ethoxyresorufin-O-deethylase 

(EROD) activity in fish as a biomarker of chemical exposure: Critical Reviews in Toxicology, v. 

30, p. 347–570. 

Yang, X., Peterson, D.S., Baumann, P.C., and Lin, E.L.C., 2003, Fish biliary PAH metabolites 

estimated by fixed-wavelength fluorescence as an indicator of environmental exposure and 

effects: Journal of Great Lakes Research, v. 29, no. 1, p. 116–123. 

Zhou T., John-Alder, H.B., and Weis, J.S., 2000, Endocrine disruption—Thyroid dysfunction in 

mummichogs from a polluted habitat: Marine Environmental Research, v. 50, p. 393–397. 
116

Publishing support provided by: 

Denver Publishing Service Center

For more information concerning this publication, contact:

Center Director, USGS Fort Collins Science Center

2150 Centre Ave., Bldg. C

Fort Collins, CO 80526-8118

(970) 226-9398

Or visit the Fort Collins Science Center Web site at:

http://www.fort.usgs.gov/