NOAA Technical Memorandum NOS ORCA 88

_________________________________________________________________

National Status and Trends Program

for Marine Environmental Quality

 Magnitude and Extent of Sediment Toxicity in

the Hudson-Raritan Estuary

Silver Spring, Maryland

August, 1995

noaa National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

_____________________________________________________________________

National Ocean Service

Office of Ocean Resources Conservation and Assessment

Coastal Monitoring and Bioeffects Assessment Division

NOAA Coastal Ocean Office

1

2

3

4

5 6

7A

7B

7C

8A

8B

9

10

11

17

16

15

14

13

12

18

19

28 29

30

20

21 22

23 24

25

26

27

31 32

37

33

34 38 35

36

39B

40B

41

42C

57

55 56

49 54

50

51 52 48

47

46

44

Staten Island

Upper

New York

Harbor

Passaic River

Percent Amphipod Survival

Significantly Toxic (p < .05)

Highly Toxic (< 80 % Survival)

Non-toxic (p>.05)

0.0 % Survival

Newark

Bay

Arthur

Kill

Hackensack River

∆

∆

∆

1

2

3

4

5

6

8 7

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24 25 26

27

28

29

30

31 32 33

34

35

36

37

38

39

Stations significantly different

from controls

Non-toxic stations

Stations significantly different

from controls and <80% of

control response

0

1

2

3

4

5

Hg, ug/g

Staten Island

Upper

New York

Harbor

Newark Bay

Passaic River

Hackensack River

57

56

36

31

26

21

20

17

14

12 1

3

5 7a7b

7c

8a8b

10

11
Coastal Monitoring and Bioeffects Assessment Division

Office of Ocean Resources Conservation and Assessment

National Ocean Service

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

U.S. Department of Commerce

N/ORCA2, SSMC4

1305 East-West Highway

Silver Spring, MD 20910

Notice

This report has been reviewed by the National Ocean Service of the National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and approved for publication. Such approval does not

signify that the contents of this report necessarily represents the official position of NOAA or

of the Government of the United States, nor does mention of trade names or commerical

products constitute endorsement or recommendation for their use.
NOAA Technical Memorandum NOS ORCA 88

Magnitude and Extent of Sediment Toxicity in

the Hudson-Raritan Estuary

Edward R. Long

National Ocean Service, Office of Ocean Resources Conservation

and Assessment, Seattle, WA

Douglas A. Wolfe

National Ocean Service, Office of Ocean Resources Conservation

and Assessment, Silver Spring, MD

K. John Scott and Glen B. Thursby

Science Applications International Corporation

Narragansett, RI

Eric A. Stern

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

New York, New York

Carol Peven

Battelle Ocean Sciences

Duxbury, MA

Ted Schwartz

National Biological Survey

Washington, D.C.

Silver Spring, Maryland

August, 1995
Table of Contents

List of Tables ..................................................................................................................................................i

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

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

I. Introduction ............................................................................................................................................. 2

Contaminant Concentrations .............................................................................................................. 4

Potential for Toxicant Effects .............................................................................................................. 5

Previously Measured Biological Effects ............................................................................................. 8

II. Methods and Materials .......................................................................................................................... 15

Sampling Methods............................................................................................................................ 19

Sediment Testing Methods ............................................................................................................... 20

Estimates of the Spatial Extent of Toxicity ........................................................................................ 22

Chemical Analyses: Phase 1 ............................................................................................................ 23

Chemical Analyses: Phase 2 ............................................................................................................ 25

Data Analyses .................................................................................................................................. 27

III. Results .................................................................................................................................................. 28

Solid-Phase Amphipod Tests ............................................................................................................ 28

Elutriate/Liquid Phase Bivalve Larvae Tests .................................................................................... 38

Microbial Bioluminescence Tests of Organic-Extracts ...................................................................... 50

Polychaete and Sand Dollar Growth Tests ....................................................................................... 57

Estimates of Spatial Extent of Toxicity .............................................................................................. 58

Concentrations and Distribution of Contaminants in Sediments: Phase 1 ....................................... 60

Concentrations and distribution of Contaminants in Sediments: Phase 2........................................ 62

Relationships Between Toxicity and Physical-Chemical Parameters: Phase 1 ................................ 76

Relationships Between Toxicity and Physical-Chemical Parameters: Phase 2 ................................ 96

IV. Discussion ............................................................................................................................................ 111

Incidence and Severity of Toxicity ................................................................................................... 111

Spatial Extent of Toxicity .................................................................................................................117

Spatial Patterns in Toxicity ..............................................................................................................117

Correlations Among Toxicity Tests .................................................................................................. 121

Summary of Chemistry/Toxicity Relationships ............................................................................... 122

V. Conclusions ........................................................................................................................................ 126

Potential for Toxicity ....................................................................................................................... 126

Incidence of Toxicity ....................................................................................................................... 126

Spatial Patterns in Toxicity ............................................................................................................. 127

Spatial Extent of Toxicity ................................................................................................................ 127

Chemistry/Toxicity Relationships .................................................................................................... 127

Acknowledgments .................................................................................................................................... 128

References ............................................................................................................................................... 129

Appendices .............................................................................................................................................. 134
List of Tables

1. Regions of the Hudson-Raritan Estuary in which the concentrations of selected

toxicants in sediments exceeded respective effects ranges of Long and Morgan

(1990). Adapted from Squibb et al. (1991) ........................................................................................... 6

2. Spearman-rank correlations (Rho) between percent survival of A. abdita (n=9) and the

concentrations of trace metals normalized to dry wt., aluminum and total organic carbon

(TOC). From U.S. EPA EMAP monitoring data, 1990 (Schimmel et al., 1994) .................................. 11

3. Mean percent mortality of Eohaustorius estuaries in sediments from Arthur Kill,

Kill van Kull, and Newark Bay (from Aqua Survey, Inc., 1990a, 1990b) ............................................. 12

4. Locations of sites in the Hudson-Raritan Estuary sampled during Phase 1 ....................................... 15

5. Locations of stations in Newark Bay and vicinity sampled during Phase 2 ........................................ 18

6. Mean percent survival of A. abdita in 10-day solid-phase toxicity tests of sediments from

the Central Long Island Sound (CLIS) control site (n = 5), 117 sampling stations (n = 5)

and 39 sites (n = 3) and of Diporeia spp. in 9 samples from the Hudson-Raritan Estuary ................. 31

7. Mean percent amphipod (A. abdita) survival in the 1993 Newark Bay survey performed

during Phase 2 ................................................................................................................................... 36

8. Mean percent survival and normal morphological development (expressed as percent of

controls) in 48-hour tests of elutriates with the larvae of Mulinia lateralis .......................................... 41

9. Results of MicrotoxTM tests of microbial bioluminescence in organic extracts of

sediments; mean EC50's (n = 2) and 95% confidence intervals for stations, and mean

EC50's (n = 3) for sites ....................................................................................................................... 50

10. Results of microbial bioluminescence (MicrotoxTM) tests of sediments from the

Hudson-Raritan estuary performed with three kinds of sediment extracts (from

DeMuth et al., 1993) ........................................................................................................................... 57

11. Results of polychaete (Armandia brevis) impaired growth tests, and sand dollar

(Dendraster excentricus) impaired growth tests of sediment from the Hudson-Raritan

estuary (from Rice et al., in press)...................................................................................................... 58

12. Estimates of the spatial extent of toxicity* (km2 and percent of total area) in the

Hudson-Raritan Estuary based upon the cumulative distribution functions of

data from each of four test end-points ................................................................................................ 59

13. Estimates of concordance in the spatial extent of toxicity* (km2 and percent of total area)

in the Hudson-Raritan estuary among the four toxicity test end-points .............................................. 59

14. Estimates of the spatial extent of toxicity* (km2 and percent of total area) in Newark Bay

and vicinity, based upon the cumulative distribution function of data from amphipod

survival tests ....................................................................................................................................... 60

15. Concentrations of TCDD-equivalents (pg/g) in whole extracts and extract fractions

determined in H4IIE rat hepatoma bioassays of sediments from Newark Bay................................... 75

16. Spearman-rank (rho, corrected for ties) correlations between dioxin equivalents

determined in chemical analyses and dioxin equivalents (tcdd-eqs) determined in

rat hepatoma bioassays of sediment extracts .................................................................................... 76

i
ii

17. Spearman-rank correlations (Rho, corrected for ties) between four toxicity

end-points (as percent of controls) and the concentrations of trace elements in

Hudson-Raritan estuary sediments (n=38) ......................................................................................... 80

18. Spearman-rank correlations (Rho, corrected for ties) between four toxicity end-points

(as percent of controls) and the concentrations of acid-volatile sulfides (AVS) and

simultaneously extracted trace metals (SEM) in Hudson-Raritan Estuary sediments (n=38) ............ 80

19. Spearman-rank correlations (Rho, corrected for ties) between four toxicity end-points

(as percent of controls) and the concentrations of PCBs and pesticides in hudson-Raritan

Estuary sediments (n=38)................................................................................................................... 81

20. Spearman-rank correlations (Rho, corrected for ties) between four toxicity end-points

(as percent of controls) and the concentrations of PAHs in Hudson-Raritan Estuary

sediments (n=38) ................................................................................................................................ 82

21. Samples from the Hudson-Raritan estuary (Phase 1) stations that equalled or exceeded

the respective ERM or SQC guideline concentrations for teach major substance or class

of compounds. Stations in which the concentration exceeded the guideline by >2x are

listed in bold (n=38)..... ....................................................................................................................... 83

22. Average trace metal concentrations (ppm, dry wt. or μmole/g ± s.d.) in samples that

were not toxic, significantly toxic (p<0.05), and highly toxic (percent survival <80%

of controls) in amphipod tests, ratios between the averages, and ratios of highly toxic

averages to SQGs .............................................................................................................................. 89

23. Average pesticide and PCB concentrations in samples that were not toxic, significantly

toxic, and highly toxic in the amphipod tests, ratios between the averages, and ratios of

highly toxic averages to SQGs ........................................................................................................... 90

24. Average PAH concentrations in samples that were not toxic, significantly toxic, and

highly toxic in the amphipod tests, ratios between the averages, and ratios between hi

ghly toxic averages and respective SQGs.......................................................................................... 92

25. Average trace metal concentrations in samples that were not toxic, significantly toxic,

and highly toxic in microtox tests, ratios between the averages, and ratios of highly toxic

averages to SQGs .............................................................................................................................. 93

26. Average pesticide and PCB concentrations in samples that were not toxic, significantly

toxic, and highly toxic in the Microtox tests, ratios between the averages, and ratios of

highly toxic averages to SQGs ........................................................................................................... 94

27. Average PAH concentrations in samples that were not toxic, significantly toxic, and highly

toxic in the Microtox tests, ratios between the averages, and ratios between highly toxic

averages and respective SQGs.......................................................................................................... 95

28. Spearman-rank correlations between percent amphipod survival and the concentrations

of total trace metals and with the ratios of simultaneously extracted metals to

acid-volatile sulfides in Phase 2 sediments ........................................................................................ 96

29. Spearman-rank correlations between percent amphipod survival and the concentrations

of chlorinated organic compounds in Newark Bay ............................................................................. 97

30. Spearman-rank correlations between percent amphipod survival and the concentrations

of chlorinated dibenzo dioxin and dibenzo furan compounds in Newark Bay sediments ................... 98

31. Spearman-rank correlations between percent amphipod survival and the concentrations

of polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons in Newark Bay sediments ...................................................... 99
32. Samples from the Phase 2 stations that equalled or exceeded the respective ERM or

SQC values for each major substance or class of compounds ........................................................ 100

33. Average concentrations of 2,3,7,8-tcdd and total cumulative dioxin TEQs in highly toxic

and nontoxic samples from Newark Bay, ratios between the averages, and ratios

between the highly toxic averages and the respective SQG ............................................................ 108

34. Average concentrations of pesticides and PCBs in highly toxic and nontoxic samples

from Newark Bay, ratios between the averages, and ratios between the highly toxic

averages and the respective SQGs.................................................................................................. 108

35. Average concentrations of total extractable and AVS simultaneously extracted trace

metals in highly toxic and nontoxic samples from Phase 2, ratios between the averages,

and ratios between the highly toxic averages and the respective SQGs ......................................... 110

36. Average concentrations of PAHs in highly toxic and nontoxic samples from Phase 2, ratios

between the averages, and ratios between the highly toxic averages and the respective SQGs .... 111

37. Summary of toxicity test results for each station and site sampled during Phase 1 ......................... 112

38. Summary of the numbers of Phase 1 stations and sites indicated as significantly toxic

and numerically significant in each of four sediment toxicity test endpoints..................................... 116

39. Spearman rank correlation coefficients for the four toxicity test end-points tested

 in Phase 1 as percent of controls .................................................................................................... 121

40. Summary of toxicity/chemistry relationships for those chemicals that were significantly

correlated with toxicity in the Phase 1 samples ................................................................................ 123

41. Summary of toxicity/chemistry relationships for those chemicals that were significantly

correlated with toxicity in the Phase 2 samples ................................................................................ 125
List of Figures

iii

1. The Hudson-Raritan Estuary study area .................................................................................................. 3

2. Sampling sites in which sediments were significantly toxic to: (1) nematode growth;

(2) amphipod survival in static tests; (3) A. abdita in flow-through tests; and (4) A. abdita in

static tests ............................................................................................................................................... 10

3. Sampling stations in which survival was significantly different from referer materials in

tests of either grass shrimp, polychaetes, or clams during pre-dredging studies ................................... 14

4. Boundaries of sampling zones and locations of sampling sites within each zone.................................. 17

5. Stations sampled in the Passaic River, HackensackRiver, Newark Bay, upper Arthur Kill,

Kill van Kull, and upper New York Harbor during Phase 2 ..................................................................... 24

6. Sampling stations in which the sediments were significantly toxic to Ampelisca abdita survival............ 29

7. Sampling sites in which the sediments were significantly toxic to Ampelisca abdita survival................. 30

8. Distribution of stations in Newark Bay and vicinity that were toxic, highly toxic, and

non-toxic in amphipod (A. abdita) survival tests ..................................................................................... 39

9. Sampling stations in which the sediment elutriates were significantly toxic to

Mulinia laterlis larvae survival ................................................................................................................. 46

10. Sampling sites in which the sediment elutriates were significantly toxic to

Mulinia lateralis larvae survival ............................................................................................................... 47

11. Sampling stations in which the sediment elutriates were significantly toxic to

Mulinia lateralis larvae normal development .......................................................................................... 48

12. Sampling sites in which the sediment elutriates were significantly toxic to

Mulinia lateralis larvae normal development .......................................................................................... 49

13. Sampling stations in which the sediment extracts were significantly toxic to

microbial bioluminescence ..................................................................................................................... 55

14. Sampling sites in which the sediment extracts were significantly toxic to microbial

bioluminescence ..................................................................................................................................... 56

15. Percent fine-grained sediments at selected stations in the Hudson-Raritan Estuary ............................. 61

16. Percent total organic carbon in selected stations in the Hudson-Raritan Estuary .................................. 63

17. Mercury concentrations in selected stations in the Hudson-Raritan Estuary ......................................... 64

18. Ratios of total simultaneously-extracted metals concentrations to acid-volatile

sulfide concentrations in selected stations in the Hudson-Raritan Estuary ............................................ 65

19. Total PCB concentrations in selected stations in the Hudson-Raritan Estuary ...................................... 66

20. Concentrations of total PAHs at selected stations in the Hudson-Raritan Estuary ................................. 67

21. Concentrations of cadmium at selected stations in Newark Bay and vicinity ......................................... 69
iv

22. Concentrations of mercury at selected stations in Newark Bay and vicinity ........................................... 70

23. Ratios of total simultaneously-extracted metals to total acid-volatile sulfides at

selected stations in Newark Bay and vicinity .......................................................................................... 71

24. Concentrations of total PCBs at selected stations in Newark Bay and vicinity ....................................... 72

25. Concentrations of total 2,3,7,8-tcdd toxicity equivalency quotients at selected stations

in Newark Bay and vicinity ...................................................................................................................... 73

26. Concentrations of 2,3,7,8-tcdd at 53 selected stations in Newark Bay and vicinity................................ 77

27. TCDD equivalents from H4IIE bioassays of whole sediment extracts from selected

stations in Newark Bay and vicinity ........................................................................................................ 78

28. Relationship of total cumulative tcdd toxicity equivalents from chemical analyses and

TCDD toxicity equivalent from H4IIE bioassays of the F12 fraction ....................................................... 79

29. Relationship of the concentrations of total PAHs to the concentrations of the TCDD

toxicity equivalents in the H4IIE bioassays of the F5 fraction ................................................................. 79

30. Relationship of amphipod survival to mercury concentrations in sediments .......................................... 85

31. Relationship of microbial bioluminescence EC50s to 4,4-DDE concentrations in sediments ................ 85

32. Relationship of amphipod survival to total low molecular weight PAH concentrations

in sediments ........................................................................................................................................... 86

33. Relationship of amphipod survival and total PAH concentrations in sediments ..................................... 86

34. Relationship of amphipod survival to flouranthene concentrations in sediments ................................... 87

35. Relationship of amphipod survival to phenanthrene concentrations in sediments ................................. 87

36. Relationship of amphipod survival to the concentrations of un-ionized ammonia in the

overlying water of the test chambers ...................................................................................................... 98

37. Relationship of amphipod survival to the concentrations of p, p'-DDE in Newark Bay

sediment samples................................................................................................................................. 102

38. Relationship of amphipod survival to the concentrations of total PCB congeners

in Newark Bay sediment samples ........................................................................................................ 102

39. Relationship between amphipod survival and the concentrations of 2,3,7,8-TCDD

toxicity equivalency quotients for the co-planar PCB congeners in Newark Bay sediments ................ 103

40. Relationship of amphipod survival to the concentrations of 2,3,7,8-TCDD in Newark

Bay sediment samples ......................................................................................................................... 103

41. Relationship between amphipod survival and the concentration of total cumulative

2,3,7,8-TCDD toxicity equivalency quotients in Newark Bay sediments .............................................. 104

42. Relationship of amphipod survival to the concentrations of total lead in

Newark Bay sediment samples ............................................................................................................ 104

43. Relationship of amphipod survival to the concentrations of total zinc in

Newark Bay sediment samples ............................................................................................................ 105
44. Relationship of amphipod survival to the concentrations of total high molecular

weight PAHs in Newark Bay sediment samples ................................................................................... 105

45. Relationship of amphipod survival to the concentrations of fluoranthene in

Newark Bay sediment samples ............................................................................................................ 106

46. Sampling stations in which the toxicity test results were significantly different from

controls in at least one of the four toxicity tests or not toxic in any test ................................................ 118

47. Sampling sites in which the mean toxicity test results were significantly different

from controls in at least one of the four tests or not toxic in any test.................................................... 119
1

Magnitude and Extent of Sediment Toxicity in

the Hudson-Raritan Estuary

Edward R. Long (NOAA), Douglas A. Wolfe (NOAA), K. John Scott (SAIC), Glen B. Thursby

(SAIC), Eric A. Stern (U.S. EPA), Carol Peven (Battelle), and Ted Schwartz (NBS)

ABSTRACT

A survey of the toxicity of sediments was performed by NOAA’s National Status and Trends (NS&T)

Program throughout the Hudson-Raritan Estuary. The objectives of the survey were to determine the

spatial patterns of toxicity, the spatial scales (magnitude) of toxicity, the severity (frequency) of toxicity, and the relationships among measures of toxicity and chemical substances in the sediments. This

survey was conducted as a part of a nationwide program supported by NOAA’s Coastal Ocean Program

and the NS&T Program, in which the biological effects of toxicants are determined in selected estuaries and bays.

The survey was conducted in two phases: 117 samples were collected throughout the entire estuary

during 1991 (Phase 1) and an additional 57 samples were collected in Newark Bay and vicinity during

1993 (Phase 2). Relatively sensitive toxicity tests were performed under controlled laboratory conditions with portions of each sample. During Phase 1, three independent tests were performed: (1) a 10-

day, acute survival test of solid-phase sediments with the amphipod Ampelisca abdita; (2) a 48-hour

liquid phase test of elutriates with the embryos of the bivalve Mulinia lateralis in which both percent

survival and normal embryological development were recorded; and (3) a 15-minute microbial bioluminescence test (Microtoxtm) of organic solvent extracts. Only the amphipod tests were performed on

the samples collected during Phase 2. Chemical analyses of selected samples were performed and the

concentrations of trace elements, polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), chlorinated pesticides

and other hydrocarbons were reported. Also, during Phase 2 the concentrations of numerous chlorinated dioxins and furans were determined.

Toxicity test results were compared with responses in controls to determine statistical significance.

During Phase 1, 46.2% of the samples were significantly toxic (i. e., different from controls) in the

amphipod tests, 26.6% were significantly toxic in either of the bivalve embryo tests, and 40.5% were

significantly toxic in the microbial bioluminescence tests. Overall, 69.2% of the samples were toxic in

at least one of the four test end-points.

Each toxicity test indicated somewhat different patterns in toxicity, possibly reflecting their different

sensitivities to the substances in the samples. Overall, toxicity was most severe in the East River and

diminished eastward into Long Island Sound and southward into upper New York Harbor. Also, toxicity was relatively high in Newark Bay, Arthur Kill, and western Raritan Bay and diminished southward

and eastward toward the mouth of the estuary. Toxicity was relatively low in the lower Hudson River,

upper New York Harbor, and portions of lower New York Harbor and northern Raritan Bay, especially

in samples that were relatively high in sand content.

During Phase 2, 48 of 57 samples (84.2%) from Newark Bay and vicinity were significantly toxic in

the amphipod survival tests. Amphipod survival was very low in most samples from the lower Passaic

River, much of Newark Bay, and most samples from the northern reaches of Arthur Kill. A few samples
2

from the lower Hackensack River and one sample from upper New York Harbor were not significantly

toxic in this test.

During Phase 1 the entire survey area covered approximately 350 km2. By attributing the toxicity data

to the spatial scales of each sampling stratum, the spatial extent of toxicity (kilometers2) was estimated

for each test. The amphipod survival test indicated that approximately 133 km2 (38.1% of the total

area) was toxic. The amphipod survival and microbial bioluminescence tests, together, indicated that

approximately 34.2 km2 (9.8% of the total area) was toxic. All four test end-points, together, indicated

approximately 19.9 km2 (5.7% of the total area) was toxic. During Phase 2, approximately 10.8 km2

(85.0% of the total survey area of 12.7 km2 in Newark Bay and vicinity) was toxic relative to the

controls.

The causes of the toxicity were not determined. However, in the Phase 1 samples, amphipod survival

and microbial bioluminescence diminished and were significantly correlated with increasing concentrations of numerous PAHs. Also, the average concentrations of the PAHs in the toxic samples greatly

exceeded the average concentrations in the nontoxic samples and applicable toxicity thresholds. These

strong relationships between the two measures of toxicity and the concentrations of the PAHs were

driven, in large part, by the samples from the upper East River that were highly toxic and highly

contaminated with the PAHs. To a lesser degree the concentrations of some trace elements and chlorinated pesticides were correlated with the inhibition of microbial bioluminescence. The results of the

bivalve embryo tests were rarely correlated with the concentrations of any of the potentially toxic

substances that were measured.

In contrast to the results from Phase 1, amphipod survival in the Phase 2 samples diminished with and

was highly correlated with increasing concentrations of chlorinated hydrocarbons, especially the PCBs,

pesticides, and dioxins. The concentrations of the sum of PCB congeners were very high in many of

the samples in which amphipod survival was low or zero. Also, amphipod survival decreased with

increasing concentrations of lead, mercury, and zinc in the samples. In contrast to the observations in

Phase 1, amphipod survival was not correlated with the concentrations of the PAHs in Phase 2.

INTRODUCTION

The Hudson-Raritan Estuary is a very large, highly urbanized estuarine system. It is bounded to the

east by the New York Bight and Long Island Sound, and bounded to the west, south and north by highly

urbanized and industrialized areas of New York and New Jersey. It is a mixing zone for four major

rivers and many wastewater treatment, point-source discharges. As defined in this report, it includes

the waters of the extreme western Long Island Sound, the East River, the lower Hudson River, upper

and lower New York Harbors, Kill van Kull, Arthur Kill, the lower Passaic River, the lower Hackensack

River, Newark Bay, the lower Raritan River, Raritan Bay, Sandy Hook Bay and the waters of the outer

harbor east to the Rockaway-Sandy Hook transect (Figure 1).

This estuary has been highly impacted by many human-induced factors (NOAA, 1988a). Many of the

historical wetlands have been filled, many water bodies have been channelized for navigation, and

huge industrial and residential complexes have been built along the shores. Contaminants have been

discharged from wastewater treatment plants, combined sewer overflows, urban runoff, stormwater,

petrochemical factories, illegal dumping, atmospheric deposition, and accidental spills.
3

Long Island Sound

Hudson River

Manhattan

lower East River

Brooklyn

Hackensack R.

Passaic R.

Newark Bay

upper

N.Y.

Harbor

Staten 

Island Arthur Kill

Kill van Kull

lower

N.Y.

Harbor

Jamaica Bay

New York Bight

Raritan Bay

Raritan River

Sandy

Hook

Bay

Figure 1. The Hudson-Raritan Estuary study area.

Rockaway

upper East River

Throg's 

Neck

Gowanus

Canal

Sandy Hook

Mueller et al. (1982) estimated that wastewater treatment discharges contributed 40-60 percent of the

total input of several trace metals into the estuary. They estimated that 20-40 percent were contributed

by the tributary rivers, and 10-30 percent by urban runoff. The data available for estimating sources of

toxic organic compounds were less complete than those for metals. Based on the data available, wastewater and the tributaries each contributed about 40 percent of the total PCB load, a substantial portion

being transported by the Hudson River.
4

In 1988 it was estimated that 6.8 million gallons per day of untreated sewage was discharged into the

estuary, primarily from Manhattan, Staten Island, and Brooklyn (Gottholm et al., 1993). With the

implementation of better source controls at key sewage treatment plants, the rate of discharge from the

city of New York decreased to less than 1.0 million gallons per day by 1992.

Over 1,453 accidental incidents, resulting in the release of more than 18 million U.S. gallons of hazardous materials and petroleum products, occurred throughout Newark Bay between 1982 and 1991 (Gunster

et al., 1993). The majority of these spills consisted of petroleum products, including fuel oils and

gasoline. Many of them occurred in the lower Passaic River, Arthur Kill, Newark Bay, and Kill van

Kull.

Data collected by numerous investigators, including the National Status and Trends Program, have

indicated that the concentrations of many potentially toxic chemicals are highly elevated in the HudsonRaritan Estuary. The objectives of this report are to describe the magnitude (severity, multiplicity,

incidence) of toxicity, the spatial patterns of toxicity, the spatial extent of toxicity of sediments, and the

relationship(s) between sediment toxicity as a measure of toxicant-associated biological effects and

potentially toxic substances.

Contaminant Concentrations. Many different assessments have been conducted to determine the

presence, concentration, and distribution of toxic chemicals within the estuary. These assessments

have been performed by many independent investigators and have shown that toxicants occur throughout the estuary in mixtures that differ from place to place. The toxicants that occur above background

levels include PCBs, PAHs, DDT, other pesticides, many trace metals, radioisotopes, dioxins and furans.

It is not the purpose of this report to review the results of all of these efforts. Several excellent reports

summarize the data on concentrations and distributions of toxicants in the Hudson-Raritan Estuary

(e.g., Olsen et al., 1984; Breteler, 1984; NOAA, 1988a; Bopp and Simpson, 1989; Squibb et al., 1991;

City of New York, 1987; Huntley et al., 1993; Bonnevie et al., 1993; New York-New Jersey Harbor

Estuary Program, 1995).

Based upon the available data from these many studies, several generalized patterns are apparent in the

distribution of elevated concentrations of toxicants. These generalities are tempered by many observations of heterogeneity attributable to patchiness in sediment properties, sedimentation rates, scouring,

dredging, and proximity to sources and other processes that influence the fate of toxicants. Nevertheless, areas in which relatively high concentrations of different toxicants have been observed frequently

include Newark Bay, Arthur Kill, lower Passaic River, lower Hackensack River, Gowanus Canal, western Raritan Bay south of Staten Island, and the bays adjoining the upper East River/western Long

Island Sound. Intermediate levels of many toxicants often have been reported for parts of central

Raritan Bay, upper New York Harbor, lower Harlem River near Ward’s Island, and the lower Passaic

River. Relative to these areas, toxicant concentrations often have been lowest in lower New York

Harbor south of Coney Island and northwest of Sandy Hook, the East River, Harlem River, lower

Hudson River, and eastern Raritan Bay.

Extremely high concentrations of dioxins and furans in sediments and marine biota have been reported

for the lower Passaic River (Pruell et al., 1990; Bopp et al., 1991; Tong et al., 1990; Belton et al., 1985).

The concentrations of these compounds gradually diminish downstream into Newark Bay and New

York Harbor. In addition, the concentrations of PAHs and many trace elements were found in very high

concentrations in samples collected in the lower Passaic River, lower Hackensack River, and Newark

Bay (Huntley et al., 1993; Bonnevie et al., 1993).
5

Sediments, mussels, and fish livers from the Hudson-Raritan Estuary analyzed by NOAA as a part of

the NS&T Program consistently have contained relatively high concentrations of DDT, other pesticides, PCBs, PAHs, cadmium, chromium, lead, mercury, nickel, tin, and other substances. The concentrations of these and other chemicals often were the highest or among the highest measured at about

250 sites nationwide (NOAA, 1987; 1988b; 1989; 1991; Long and Morgan, 1990). Samples with

particularly high concentrations of toxicants were collected near the Throg’s Neck Bridge in western

Long Island Sound, in the upper New York Harbor near Ellis Island, and in central Raritan Bay. For

each of the analytes quantified, NOAA ranked the sediment sites sampled nationwide according to the

highest concentrations (NOAA, 1988b: O’Connor and Ehler, 1991; Robertson et al., 1991). Collectively, the sediment and mussel samples from the Hudson/Raritan Estuary ranked the highest overall in

contaminant concentrations among the many estuaries sampled by the NS&T Program. The average

concentrations of several trace metals appeared to increase in mussel tissues during the period from

1986 through 1988 at several sites in the estuary, whereas the concentrations of several organic compounds decreased during the same period (NOAA, 1989). Sediment samples collected at several sites

in 1986 and 1987 had relatively high concentrations of 13 toxicants, compared to concentrations nationwide (NOAA, 1991).

Potential for Toxicant Effects. Some of the sites sampled by the NS&T Program were determined to

have toxicant concentrations in sediments that equalled or exceeded known toxicity thresholds (O’Connor

and Ehler, 1991). Some of the samples with high chemical concentrations were collected within the

Hudson-Raritan Estuary (Gottholm et al., 1993). The concentrations of PAHs, PCBs, mercury, silver,

arsenic, and zinc mostly frequently equalled or exceeded the thresholds nationwide.

Long and Morgan (1990) ranked the NS&T Program sites according to their potential to cause toxicity

in sediments attributable to elevated concentrations of analytes quantified by the Program. Based upon

available data from laboratory-spiked bioassay studies, equilibrium-partitioning models, and matching

chemical and biological data from field surveys, they determined the ranges in chemical concentrations that were associated with adverse effects. The Effects Range-Low (ERL) value was identified as

the 10th percentile of the database associated with adverse biological effects. The Effects RangeMedian (ERM) was identified as the 50th percentile (median) of these data. Long and Morgan (1990)

then compared the ambient data from the NS&T Program sites with the ERL and ERM values. Those

sites that equalled or exceeded the effects ranges for the most analytes nationwide were ranked highest.

Among the 200+ sites that they evaluated, Long and Morgan (1990) ranked site HRUB in New York

Upper Harbor as number 1, the highest. Site LITN near Throg’s Neck was ranked number 3, site

NYSH in Sandy Hook Bay was ranked number 5, and site HRLB in lower New York Harbor was

ranked number 7. All six of the sediment sampling sites located within the estuary were ranked among

the top sites nationwide in potential for toxicity. The concentrations of as many as 20 analytes in

Hudson-Raritan Estuary sites equalled or exceeded the respective effects ranges. The concentrations

of many PAHs were expecially highly elevated compared to the effects ranges.

Breteler (1984) estimated that numerous trace metals, petroleum hydrocarbons, pesticides, and halogenated hydrocarbons posed ecological and/or human health risks in the Hudson-Raritan Estuary. Squibb

et al. (1991) compiled and evaluated existing contaminant data from analyses of water, tissues, and

sediments from the Hudson-Raritan Estuary performed during the 1980s. They compared the ambient

data with several different water quality standards for the protection of marine life, wildlife, and human

health. Many trace metals, pesticides, industrial solvents, PCBs, and aromatic hydrocarbons equalled

or exceeded these standards in water samples collected in the estuary. Similarly, they compared the
6

ambient concentrations of toxicants in finfish and shellfish tissues with existing standards. The concentrations of PCBs, tcdd (dioxin), mercury, chlordane, and dieldrin in samples from the estuary often

exceeded the standards and were noted as chemicals of high concern. Other contaminants listed as

chemicals of moderate concern included arsenic, tDDT, heptachlor, heptachlor epoxide,

hexachlorobenzene, lindane, numerous aromatic hydrocarbons, and tcdf (furans).

In the absence of any applicable sediment quality standards, Squibb et al. (1991) compared ambient

concentrations of contaminants in sediments with the ERL and ERM values identified by Long and

Morgan (1990). In their investigation, Squibb et al. (1991) evaluated data from many different studies,

merged the data for selected regions within the estuary, and compared the average, maximum, and

minimum concentrations within each region with the effects ranges of Long and Morgan (1990). Where

the abundance of data warranted, they treated four subregions of Raritan Bay separately: (I) Western

Raritan Bay at the confluence of the Raritan River and Arthur Kill; (II) central Raritan Bay stretching

from Staten Island to Sandy Hook Bay; (III) northern Raritan Bay bordering the lower New York

Harbor; and (IV) southern Raritan Bay along the New Jersey shore.

Squibb et al. (1991) determined that the concentrations of eight trace metals, PCBs, tDDT, chlordane,

dieldrin, tPAHs, and six aromatic hydrocarbons exceeded the ERM concentrations in samples from at

least one area within the estuary. In addition, the concentrations of six other aromatic hydrocarbons

exceeded the ERLs, but not the ERMs. Squibb et al. (1991) concluded that there was a substantial

potential for toxicant-associated biological effects in the sediments of the estuary.

Table 1 summarizes the patterns in exceedances of the ERL and ERM values described by Squibb et al.

(1991). Exceedances of the effects ranges were largest and most frequent in sediments collected (in

decreasing order) in Newark Bay, Arthur Kill, Gowanus Canal, Hackensack River, lower Jamaica Bay,

and near Ward’s Island (at the mouth of the Harlem River) (Table 1). The areas in which the chemical

concentrations least frequently exceeded the effects ranges were the Harlem River, southern Raritan

Bay, and northern Raritan Bay.

Table 1. Regions of the Hudson-Raritan Estuary in which the concentrations of selected toxicants in sediments exceeded respective effects ranges of Long and Morgan (1990). Adapted from

Squibb et al. (1991).

Region Cd Cr Cu Hg Ni Pb Zn tPCB tDDT tPAH

East River - * * * - *** * ** * nd

East R. bays * *** * *** * *** *** *** nd nd

Harlem River - - - * - *** * * nd nd

Wards Island * *** *** ** * *** *** *** nd nd

Hudson River - * * * - *** * ** nd -

Upper Bay - * * *** * ** * ** nd *

Gowanus Canal *** *** * *** *** *** *** nd nd nd

Kill van Kull * nd nd *** nd *** *** nd nd *

Newark Bay ** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

Hackensack R. ** *** ** *** *** *** *** nd nd nd

Passaic River * *** * ** ** *** ** *** nd ***

Arthur Kill ** * *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *

Raritan Bay nd nd nd *** nd nd nd ** * *
7

Table 1 continued.

Region Cd Cr Cu Hg Ni Pb Zn tPCB tDDT tPAH

W. Raritan Bay(I) ** *** *** nd * *** *** nd nd nd

C. Raritan Bay(II) * ** ** nd * *** *** nd nd nd

N. Raritan Bay(III) * ** * nd * ** ** nd nd nd

S. Raritan Bay(IV) - ** * nd * ** ** nd nd nd

Lower Bay ** * * ** nd * nd ** * *

Jamaica Bay(I) - ** * ** * *** ** ** * nd

Jamaica Bay(II) - ** * ** - ** * ** * *

*** Average concentration > ERM value;

 ** Only maximum concentration > ERM value;

 * ERL value < maximum concentration < ERM value;

 - maximum concentration <ERL value;

nd - no data.

Based upon the multiplicity and degree of exceedances of the effects range values in Table 1, it appears

that sediments in some regions of the estuary have a very high potential for causing toxicity. Also,

based upon the number and degree of exceedances of the effects values, it appears that the potential for

toxicity differs among the regions. The regions evaluated by Squibb et al. (1991) are hypothesized to

have the following relative potentials for toxicant-associated effects:

•Extremely high potential for toxicity:

• Newark Bay;

• Arthur Kill.

•High potential for toxicity:

• East River bays;

• vicinity of Ward’s Island;

• Upper Bay;

• Gowanus Canal;

• lower Hackensack River;

• lower Jamaica Bay.

•Moderate potential for toxicity:

• East River;

• Hudson River;

• Kill van Kull;

• lower Passaic River;

• western Raritan Bay;

• central Raritan Bay;

• Lower Bay;

• upper Jamaica Bay.

•Lowest potential for toxicity:

• Harlem River;

• northern Raritan Bay;

• southern Raritan Bay.
8

The minimum concentration of mercury in the lower Hackensack River (4 ppm) reported by Squibb et

al. (1991) exceeded the ERM value (1 ppm) listed by Long and Morgan (1990); the maximum concentration (50 ppm) exceeded this value by a factor of 50-fold. Maximum concentrations of lead in Newark Bay and Arthur Kill exceeded the ERM concentration (110 ppm) by factors of about 8- to 10-fold.

The concentrations of DDT, PCBs, total PAHs, chlordane, and dieldrin in Newark Bay, Arthur Kill,

and/or the Passaic River were very high relative to concentrations previously associated with toxic

effects.

Long and Morgan (1990) reported that in numerous studies the types of biological effects observed in

association with exceedances of the effects ranges included high mortality in amphipods, other crustaceans, bivalve larvae, polychaetes, and fish in either spiked-sediment bioassays or toxicity tests of

ambient sediments; or altered infaunal community structures and/or reduced abundance of infauna; or

acute or chronic effects in aquatic species as predicted by equilibrium-partitioning models.

Both Long and Morgan (1990) and Squibb et al. (1991) recognized the uncertainty in applying the

effects ranges as predictors of toxic effects. Many factors control the bioavailability of sedimentassociated toxicants and, as a consequence, bulk sediment concentrations often are poor predictors of

toxic effects. Both reports recommended that surveys to determine the presence of toxicant-associated

effects should be conducted to verify the potential for these effects.

In more recent studies, the concentrations of a number of different substances, notably total PAHs,

mercury, lead, and zinc were found in concentrations that exceeded the ERL and ERM concentrations

in samples collected in the lower Passaic River, lower Hackensack River, and Newark Bay (Huntley et

al., 1993; Bonnevie et al., 1993). These are areas previously identified as highly contaminated.

Previously Measured Biological Effects. The adverse biological effects of toxicants in the HudsonRaritan Estuary have been apparent for many years (Gottholm et al., 1993). Pearce (1988) reported

that portions of the estuary were severely degraded as early as the U.S. Civil War. In the early 1900s

some fish were unfit to eat because of high contamination and in the 1920s the shellfish populations

crashed due to the effects of wastewaters. Based upon the summaries prepared by several contributors

to NOAA (1988a), the major categories of toxicant-associated biological effects reported for the estuary include:

•alterations to resident microbial communities, including increased resistance to toxicants through

 long-term continual exposure;

•alterations and shifts in phytoplankton community structures and diminished species diversity;

•reduced densities and species diversity of benthic communities;

•severely reduced abundances of ampeliscid amphipods in benthic communities;

•elevated prevalences of fin erosion and other diseases in bottom-dwelling fish;

•elevated prevalences of tumors and other histopathological disorders of bottom-dwelling fish;

•elevated prevalences of a variety of diseases in crabs, lobsters and shrimp;

•tissue contamination leading to closures of fisheries and advisories against fish consumption;

•increased resistance of resident killifish and soft-shelled clams to the effects of subsequent doses of

toxicants.

In Mayer (1982), several contributors reported that diminished commercial landings of some species

have occurred in the estuary, and that increased prevalences of histopathological disorders and a number of other diseases in fish in the adjacent New York Bight have been recorded. The causes of some of

these conditions are unknown, while the cause of others are known or suspected.
9

During the 1980s and 1990s, numerous fish kills were reported within the estuary; marine mammals

that were found stranded often had a variety of different lesions; and anglers were advised to avoid

consuming large amounts of fish from the estuary (Gottholm et al., 1993). In addition, in studies

performed by the NS&T Program, the prevalence of liver lesions in demersal fish caught in the estuary

were significantly elevated relative to reference sites (Gottholm et al., 1993).

Tietjen and Lee (1984) reported that sediments from all of their 10 sampling sites in the HudsonRaritan Estuary were significantly toxic to the growth of nematodes (Chromadorina germanica) in

laboratory toxicity tests (Figure 2). Sediments from the lower Hudson River, lower East River, upper

New York Harbor, Kill van Kull, Newark Bay, Arthur Kill, Raritan Bay, Sandy Hook Bay and the lower

New York Harbor were toxic in these tests. In addition, most of the samples were toxic to another

species of nematode, Diplolaimella punicea. Tietjen and Lee (1984) reported that toxicity to the growth

of both nematodes was correlated with the concentrations of PCB, PAH, and mercury in the test sediments (correlation coefficients of 0.68 to 0.90, p=0.05).

Scott et al. (1990) tested sediments from 10 locations in the estuary for toxicity to two species of

amphipods, Ampelisca abdita and Rhepoxynius hudsoni. A range of 12% to 100% mortality was reported for A. abdita, compared to 1% to 8% mortality in reference and control sediments. Eight of the

10 samples were significantly different from controls (Figure 2) and five of the samples caused 100%

mortality in A. abdita. Toxic samples were collected in Newtown Creek adjacent to the lower East

River, Gowanus Canal, Newark Bay, Arthur Kill, and western Raritan Bay. Similarly, a range of 9% to

100% mortality was recorded for the tests with R. hudsoni, compared to 3% to 11% mortality in reference and control sediments. Of the 10 samples, four collected in northern Arthur Kill, southern Arthur

Kill, Gowanus Canal, and Newtown Creek were toxic to R. hudsoni.

Scott et al. (1990) reported that mortality to A. abdita was significantly correlated with the concentrations of total PCBs, total PAHs, several pesticides, copper, zinc, chromium, lead, nickel, and cadmium

in the test sediments (correlation coefficients of 0.70 to 0.90, p<0.05). Also, they reported that mortality to R. hudsoni was correlated with the concentrations of total PCBs, total PAHs, lead, and cadmium

in the sediments (correlation coefficients of 0.50 to 0.69, p<0.05). Mortality to A. abdita, but not to R.

hudsoni, also was correlated with silt and Total Organic Carbon (TOC) content (correlation coefficients of 0.69 to 0.70, p<0.05). In addition, Scott et al. (1990) reported that the concentrations of

toxicants in samples that were toxic to the amphipods often equalled or exceeded the ERL-ERM ranges

of Long and Morgan (1990). The samples that were most toxic had chemical concentrations that

exceeded the ERM values for many analytes to the greatest degree.

The Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program (EMAP) of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) tested sediments from nine locations within the study area in 1990 for chemical

concentrations and for survival of the amphipod, A. abdita (Schimmel et al., 1994). Five of the nine

samples (55%) were significantly different from controls. The toxic samples were collected in the

lower Hackensack River, lower Passaic River, upper Newark Bay, upper Arthur Kill, and western Long

Island Sound near Hempstead Bay (Figure 2). Two of the nontoxic samples were collected in the basin

of western Long Island Sound. The samples from the Hudson River and upper New York Harbor near

St. George were nontoxic. Mean percent mortality ranged from 2.5±4.3% to 99.0±2.2%, whereas that

in the controls ranged from 6% to 9%. The samples from the Arthur Kill and the lower Passaic River

caused the highest mortalities (99.0% and 78.0%, respectively).
10

Nematode (Chromadorina germanica) growth

Amphipod (Ampelisca abdita) survival

Ref. 2

Ref. 3

Ref. 4

Toxic Stations

Non-toxic stations

Refs. 1-4

Ref. 1

Figure 2. Sampling sites in which sediments were significantly toxic to: (1) nematode

(Chromadorina germanica) growth (from Tietjen and Lee, 1984); (2) amphipod 

(Ampelisca abdita) survival in static tests (from Scott et al., 1990); (3) A. abdita in 

flow-through tests (from Brosnan and O'Shea, 1993); and (4) A. abdita in static tests 

(from U.S. EPA EMAP, 1990).
11

Correlations between percent survival of A. abdita and the concentrations of trace metals and total

organic carbon in the EMAP samples are summarized in Table 2. Survival would be expected to

diminish among amphipods exposed to increasing concentrations of toxicants, resulting in negative

correlation coefficients. The correlations were conducted with the trace metals data normalized to dry

weight, aluminum concentrations, and TOC concentrations. A significant negative correlation between survival and chemical concentrations normalized to dry weight was observed only for antimony

(Rho = -0.480, p<0.05, n=9). The correlations between percent survival and trace metals concentrations improved when the chemical data were normalized to TOC content; the correlations with lead,

cadmium, antimony, and tin were significant. When the trace metals data were normalized to the

aluminum concentrations, many of the correlations became highly significant. For example, the correlations between percent survival and the concentrations of cadmium, copper, antimony, and tin were

highly significant, and those with nickel, zinc, and selenium were significant. The correlations between percent survival and the concentrations of aluminum and TOC content, however, were not significant.

Table 2. Spearman-rank correlations (Rho) between percent survival of A. abdita (n=9) and the

concentrations of trace metals normalized to dry wt., aluminum, and total organic carbon (TOC).

From U.S. EPA EMAP monitoring data, 1990 (Schimmel et al., 1994).

Concentration/ Concentration/ Concentration/

Chemical dry weight aluminum TOC

Aluminum +0.385 nd nd

TOC +0.133 nd nd

Chromium +0.093 -0.181 -0.016

Copper -0.052 -0.705** -0.275

Iron +0.283 nd nd

Manganese +0.292 nd nd

Nickel +0.088 -0.549* -0.017

Lead -0.332 -0.433 -0.607*

Zinc -0.002 -0.540* -0.127

Arsenic +0.044 -0.198 -0.058

Cadmium -0.343 -0.831*** -0.747**

Antimony -0.480* -0.680** -0.495*

Selenium +0.019 -0.538* -0.114

Tin -0.190 -0.738** -0.552*

Mercury -0.044 -0.438 -0.230

* p< 0.05 nd = no data

** p < 0.01

*** p < 0.001

These relatively high correlations between amphipod survival and chemical concentrations were unexpected since the nine samples were collected in widely separated portions of the study area. They were

not collected near each other within the zone of influence or dilution gradient of one point source.

Battelle Pacific Northwest Laboratories tested sediment samples from 20 locations in the estuary for

the City of New York (Tom Brosnan, City of New York, personal communication; Brosnan and O’Shea,

1993). The samples were collected throughout the estuary in February, 1992 and tested with a flow-
12

through, 10-day, amphipod survival test, using A. abdita. Portions of the same 20 samples were analyzed for only trace metals concentrations. Nine of the 20 samples were significantly toxic (Figure 2).

The toxic samples were collected in western Long Island Sound, upper East River, lower East River,

lower Passaic River, Newark Bay near Shooters Island, lower New York Harbor and the New York

Bight. Sediments collected near Shooters Island indicated 0.0% survival, and those from the lower

Passaic River 11.0% survival, compared to 90% survival in the controls. The concentrations of total

simultaneously extracted trace metals (SEM) (umoles/g) never equalled or exceeded the concentrations of acid volatile sulfide (umoles/g), suggesting that trace metals had a minor role in contributing to

toxicity.

Aqua Survey, Inc. (1990a, 1990b) tested intertidal and subtidal sediments from numerous locations in

the Arthur Kill, Kill van Kull, and Newark Bay for the Exxon Company. The sediments were tested

with the estuarine amphipod Eohaustorius estuarius, collected from Yaquina Bay, Oregon. Sediments

were held at 4°C for approximately one month before the tests were initiated. Nine to 27 samples were

tested from each location. No site location map accompanied the toxicity data. Also, no statistical

analyses of the data were performed to quantify significant differences between test sediments and

controls. The qualitative results are summarized in Table 3.

Table 3. Mean percent mortality of Eohaustorius estuarius in sediments from Arthur Kill, Kill

van Kull, and Newark Bay (from Aqua Survey, Inc., 1990a, 1990b).

Sampling Sample Mean Number of

Location Description Mortality Samples

Yaquina Bay, Oregon Coarse control 7.5±6.5 18

Yaquina Bay, Oregon Coarse control 6.9±6.1 8

Yaquina Bay, Oregon Fine control 8.3±7.4 9

Hackensack River - 57.0±29.3 27

Arthur Kill

Mill Creek - 44.1±27.7 27

Rahway River - 27.0±19.2 27

Elizabeth River - 36.1±22.7 27

Sawmill Creek - 52.6±33.2 27

Sawmill Creek 50.4±24.9 27

NW Pralls Island Sand 27.8±10.6 9

NW Pralls Island Mud 38.3±14.9 9

NW Pralls Island Subtidal 51.7±31.9 9

E. Pralls Island Subtidal 61.1±14.9 9

Old Place Creek Subtidal 31.7±17.3 9

Isle of Meadows Sand 18.9±9.1 9

Isle of Meadows Mud 43.9±34.5 9

Kill van Kull

Constable Hook - 18.8±10.4 26

Shooters Island Subtidal 29.4±12.6 9

Newark Bay

Elizabethport Subtidal 32.2±16.0 9

West Bayonne Sand 34.4±9.6 9

West Bayonne Mud 40.0±27.1 9
13

The mean mortality in all locations exceeded that of the Yaquina Bay controls. Sediments from eastern

Pralls Island, the Hackensack River, northwest Pralls Island and Sawmill Creek caused the highest

mortality. The results within each of the areas were highly variable, except in the sand sediments from

West Bayonne. Lowest mortality was observed in the sandy sediments from Isle of Meadows and

Constable Hook. In all three cases in which sand and mud from the same general location were tested,

mean mortality was higher in the mud.

In summarizing the data from these small, disparate surveys, several patterns in toxicity seem to emerge.

The data from the two Aqua Survey, Inc. surveys generally agree with those from Tietjen and Lee

(1984), Scott et al. (1990), the City of New York (Brosnan and O’Shea, 1993), and EPA’s EMAP

surveys (Schimmel et al., 1994). That is, all five studies indicated that sediments from the Arthur Kill,

Newark Bay, the lower Passaic River, and Kill van Kull were highly toxic. Moreover, all five studies

indicated that samples from the northern reach of Arthur Kill (from Isle of Meadows to Shooters Island) were particularly toxic. Several of the studies indicated that samples from the lower Hudson

River and the upper New York Harbor were not toxic. Also, toxicity to amphipods generally diminished eastward into the western Long Island Sound. Some samples from the lower reaches of the

estuary and inner New York Bight were toxic in at least one test.

Numerous small studies of sediment toxicity have been conducted by or for the Army Corps of Engineers throughout the estuary as requirements for ocean disposal dredging permits. These toxicity tests

were performed with consistent protocols, and, together, provide internally comparable data for much

of the study area. Usually, one to several samples were tested in each study, each consisting of sediments collected in one or more long sediment cores. Data were available and compiled from 76 reports

(Public Notices for Dredged Material Disposal, U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1985-1993). Tests

were conducted with the shrimp Palaemonetes pugio, the polychaete Nereis virens, and the clam

Mercenaria mercenaria exposed to solid phase sediments for 10 days, using U.S. EPA/ACOE (1977)

protocols. Test results were compared to those from an offshore reference site to determine significant

toxicity. Sediments were tested from shipyards, marine terminals, industrial waterways, harbors, sewage outfalls, navigation channels, barge berthing sites, petroleum docks, military docks, tributary rivers, and creeks in all of the major regions of the estuary (Figure 3).

Ninety-two samples were tested with the three bioassays, for a total of 276 individual tests. The majority of the samples did not cause significantly elevated mortality in the test organisms. However, mortality significantly different from the reference materials was indicated in sediments from the lower

Raritan River, Arthur Kill, Kill van Kull, Keyport Harbor in Raritan Bay, Gowanus Bay/Canal, and the

upper East River near Riker’s Island (Figure 3). The samples that were toxic in these tests were collected in many of the same areas in which sediments either were estimated to be highly contaminated

(e.g., Squibb et al., 1991) or were toxic in tests performed with other taxa (Figure 2).

Tatem et al. (1991) tested sediments from three sites—Westchester Creek adjoining the upper East

River, central Arthur Kill, and Gowanus Creek —for toxicity to the mysid, Mysidopsis bahia. The

sediments were held for differing periods of time, from 8 days to 40 weeks, before testing was initiated.

In the tests performed with sediments held for fewer than 8 days, the samples from Westchester Creek

and Arthur Kill were significantly more toxic than offshore reference samples. The Gowanus Creek

samples were not toxic.
14

Toxic samples

Non-toxic samples

Figure 3. Sampling stations in which survival was significantly different from reference

materials in tests of either grass shrimp, polychaetes, or clams during pre-dredging 

studies (from Army Corps of Engineers Public Notices, 1985-1993).

Raritan R.

Raritan Bay

Gowanus Bay

Arthur Kill

Kill van Kull

Newark Bay

Hudson R.

East River
15

METHODS AND MATERIALS

NOAA initiated an area-wide survey of sediment toxicity in 1991 to provide internally consistent data

on the spatial extent and severity of toxicity to relatively sensitive taxa. The intent of this survey was

to sample all of the major regions of the study area, collect surficial fine-grained sediments, and test

them to determine the degree of toxicity to laboratory organisms.

Based upon available sedimentological, chemical and biological data from numerous studies, a stratified sampling design was prepared that embraced areas previously identified as highly, moderately,

and slightly contaminated. To ensure that samples were collected throughout the entire estuary, the

study area was stratified into 13 contiguous regions designated as zones A through M (Figure 4). These

zones were established following review of available bathymetric, physiographic and sedimentological information to represent conditions within major components of the study area. For example, zones

A and G were intended to represent conditions in the lower reaches of the Hudson and Raritan rivers,

respectively. Zones C and D were intended to represent conditions in the upper and lower reaches of

the East River, respectively. Zones H through K were selected to represent the different sedimentological and bathymetric regimes reported in Raritan Bay. Samples from zones B and M were intended to

provide information from suspected reference areas.

Three sites were sampled within each zone (Figure 4) to provide information on environmental variability. Most sites were chosen based upon reviews of data from previous sedimentological and chemical analyses (e.g., City of New York, 1987). Where no historical data were available, the sites were

selected based upon bathymetric and sedimentological information published on applicable navigation

charts. The coordinates for the center of each site are listed in Table 4. Similar to the method used in

NOAA’s Mussel Watch Program (NOAA, 1987), three stations were sampled and tested independently

within each site. Sediments from a total of 39 sites and 117 stations were sampled and tested.

Table 4. Locations of sites in the Hudson-Raritan Estuary sampled during Phase 1.

Regional Site Depth Latitude Longitude

Zone Number (m) (°N) (°W)

A. Lower Hudson River

1 14-15 40°54’52"N 73°54’53"W

2 12-16 40°52"42"N 73°55’53"W

3 11-13 40°46’50"N 73°59’28"W

B. Western Long Island Sound

4 14-15 40°53’40"N 73°42’15"W

5 23-27 40°52’00"N 73°45’00"W

6 17-19 40°49’59"n 73°46’42"W

C. Upper East River

7 33-35 40°47’58"N 73°47’13"W

8 6-14 40°48’16"N 73°58’01"W

9 10-12 40°47’46"N 73°52’42"W

D. Lower East River

10 6-11 40°47’58"N 73°54’04"W

11 3-6 40°44’39"N 73°57’37"W

12 3-16 40°42’31"N 73°58’14"W
16

Table 4 continued.

Regional Site Depth Latitude Longitude

Zone Number (m) (°N) (°W)

E. Upper New York Harbor

13 16-18 40°42’16"N 74°01’34"W

14 15 40°38’38"N 74°03’17"W

15 6-8 40°36’22"N 74°02’44"W

F. Newark Bay/Arthur Kill

16 11-12 40°42’24"N 74°07’06"W

17 10-14 40°38’43"N 74°10’20"W

18 9-13 40°34’09"N 74°12’41"W

G. Lower Raritan River

19 2 40°21’01"N 74°20’54"W

20 3-4 40°30’34"N 74°18’13"W

21 3-5 40°29’50"N 74°16’38"W

H. Western Raritan Bay

22 3 40°30’37"N 74°15’25"W

23 5-6 40°29’12"N 74°15’30"W

24 5 40°29’20"N 74°13’30"W

I. Central Raritan Bay

25 6 49°29’26"N 74°10’52"W

26 8-9 40°30’06"N 74°09’07"W

27 9-10 40°29’33"N 74°06’55"W

J. Sandy Hook Bay

28 7 40°28’30"N 74°04’24"W

29 6 40°27’23"N 74°02’00"W

30 6 40°25’30"N 74°00’42"W

K. Southern Raritan Bay

31 3 40°28’05"N 74°13’20"W

32 4 40°28’02"N 74°09’30"W

33 6-7 40°28’02"N 74°05’52"W

L. Lower New York Harbor

34 6-7 40°30’35"N 74°06’05"W

35 10-12 40°29’40"N 74°02’40"W

36 4-7 40°33’42"N 74°03’08"W

M. Outer Bay/New York Bight

37 4-7 40°30’00"N 73°58’37"W

38 8-10 40°28’00"N 73°56’00"W

39 20-22 40°25’57"N 73°53’43"W

Three toxicity tests were performed on the samples. These tests included a 10-day, solid phase test of

survival with the amphipod Ampelisca abdita, a 48-hour, elutriate/liquid phase test of normal development and survival with the larvae of the clam Mulinia lateralis, and a 15-minute, organic extract test of

bioluminescence with the bacterium Photobacterium phosphoreum (the Microtoxtm test). The battery

of four test end-points, together, were intended to provide information with which to evaluate the

relative toxicity of the sediments.
17

1

2

3

4

5

6

8 7 9 10

11

12 13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23 24 25

26

27 28

29

30

31 32

33

34 35

36

37

38

39

Zone A

Zone B

Zone C Zone D

Zone E

Zone F

Zone G

Zone H

Zone I

Zone J

Zone K

Zone L

Zone

 M

Figure 4. Boundaries of sampling zones (A-M) and locations of sampling sites (1-39) 

within each zone.
18

Following the initial survey in 1991, a follow-up Phase 2 was conducted that focused on the Newark

Bay area. Sediment samples were collected at 57 randomly chosen stations. The study area was divided into strata that were approximately equal in size such that the data from each sample would have

approximately equal spatial weight. Station location coordinates were chosen randomly within each

stratum with the aid of EPA’s EMAP software and hardware. Locations of the stations within the

Passaic River, Hackensack River, Newark Bay, Kill van Kull, and Arthur Kill are listed in Table 5.

Unlike Phase 1, the samples collected during Phase 2 were not replicated in the field; that is, only one

sample was collected at each station. However, unlike Phase 1, the station locations were selected with

a totally random approach.

Table 5. Locations of stations in Newark Bay and vicinity sampled during Phase 2.

Depth (m) (°N) (°W)

Passaic River

1. 5 40°47.36' 74°08.77'

2. 5 40°46.28' 74°09.28'

3. 7 40°45.28' 74°09.91'

4. 7 40°44.07' 74°09.36'

5. 4 40°44.18' 74°08.70'

6. 4 40°44.36' 74°08.56'

7a. 2 40°44.51' 74°07.99'

7b. 4 40°44.49' 74°08.11'

7c. 5 40°44.45' 74°08.30'

8a. 5 40°44.52' 74°07.41'

8b. 6 40°44.51' 74°07.59'

9. 5 40°44.28' 74°07.05'

10. 3 40°43.52' 74°07.16'

11. 4 40°43.33' 74°07.23'

Hackensack River

12. 6.5 40°47.83' 74°04.30'

13. 6 40°47.62' 74°04.62'

14. 5 40°47.46' 74°04.74'

15. 3 40°46.97' 74°05.13'

16. 4 40°46.28' 74°05.30'

17. 6 40°44.95' 74°05.15'

18. 6 40°43.56' 74°05.95'

Newark Bay

19. 4 40°43.06' 74°06.32'

20. 10 40°42.57' 74°06.50'

21. 12 40°42.48' 74°07.08'

22. 3 40°42.28' 74°07.08'

23. 8 40°42.37' 74°07.17'

24. 5 40°42.17' 74°07.08'

25. 4 40°42.13' 74°07.11'

26. 6 40°41.59' 74°07.29'

27. 13 40°41.44' 74°07.37'

28. 14 40°42.90' 74°09.14'

29. 12 40°41.81' 74°08.80'
19

Table 5 continued.

Depth (m) (°N) (°W)

30. 12 40°41.65' 74°08.33'

31. 14 40°41.12' 74°07.90'

32. 14 40°41.27' 74°09.53'

33. 10 40°41.28' 74°08.30'

34. 14 40°41.04' 74°07.99'

35. 14 40°40.90' 74°08.08'

36. 13 40°40.67' 74°08.14'

37. 12 40°41.03' 74°09.16'

38. 15 40°40.65' 74°08.36'

39. 12 40°40.41' 74°08.25'

40. 13 40°40.40' 74°08.32'

41. 15 40°39.97' 74°08.57'

42. 14 40°39.50' 74°08.76'

43. no sample collected

44. 14 40°39.55' 74°09.37'

45. no sample collected

Arthur Kill

46. 2 40°37.02' 74°12.17'

47. 6 40°37.07' 74°12.16'

48. 10 40°38.44' 74°11.60'

49. 2 40°38.69' 74°11.20'

Kill van Kull

50. 9 40°38.63' 74°10.09'

51. 11 40°38.97' 74°09.79'

52. 6 40°38.56' 74°09'.22'

53. no sample collected

54. 5 40°38.56' 74°08’89'

55. 5 40°38.56' 74°09.07'

56. 10 40°38.56' 74°08.89'

Upper New York Harbor

57. 15 40°38.68' 74°09.26'

Sampling Methods. In Phase 1, samples were collected with a modified Van Veen grab sampler (also

known as a Young sampler) operated aboard the research vessel Mysidopsis. Samples were collected

in five periods: March 18-22; April 1-5; April 15-18; April 28-May 2; and May 13-16, 1991. The

center of each site was located with LORAN-C and Global Positioning System units. At each site, a

buoy was dropped at the coordinates provided by NOAA. Then, the vessel was moved approximately

100 m. away from the buoy for each of the three stations sampled at the site. The location of each

station was determined with Loran and GPS, along with radar ranges and hand-held compass bearings.

Generally the stations at each site were equidistant from the site center and about 250 m. apart from

each other. In most cases the stations formed a triangle around the site center, but, where conditions

dictated otherwise, the stations were arranged in a straight line. Situations were avoided where considerably different environments were sampled at an individual site. For example, stations were located at

a site such that all three were in similar depths and had sediments with similar-appearing grain sizes.

Stations were not selected to represent conditions off known point or non-point discharges, waste

dump sites, etc.
20

About 5 liters of sediment were collected at each station, requiring repeated deployments of the sampler. The upper 2 cm. of sediment were removed from each sample. The sediments from each station

were homogenized thoroughly by stirring. Portions of each sample were placed in polyethylene containers for the toxicity tests and in glass jars for the chemical analyses. The grab sampler and sampling

utensils, pans, and other equipment were washed with seawater and acetone between sites, and with

seawater between stations. Samples were rejected for any of the following reasons: presence of sediments dropped from previous deployments of the sampler, excessive sediment escaping from grab lids,

excessive sand or gravel content (>75%), excessive amount of shells or rocks, or over-penetration of

the sampler. One sample from the East River was rejected because of the presence of a leg bone caught

in the jaws of the sampler. Only a few stations were relocated to avoid gravel, coarse sand, mussel

beds, etc.

At all 117 stations, additional sediments were collected for possible future benthic community analyses. The benthic samples are currently in storage.

Sediments from a Central Long Island Sound (CLIS) site were used as negative (nontoxic) controls in

the toxicity tests. This site had been previously tested and found to be nontoxic (survival of A. abdita

consistently exceeded 90%) and the concentrations of toxicants were relatively low.

During Phase 2 of the survey, samples were collected by U.S. EPA Region 2 personnel during two legs.

The first sampling leg (January 2-12, 1993) was conducted aboard the U.S. EPA Ocean Survey Vessel

Peter W. Anderson. Samples were collected in central Newark Bay, northern Arthur Kill, Kill van Kull

and upper New York Harbor. Each sampling position was recorded by LORAN C, which had been

calibrated with the on-board Global Positioning System unit. The second sampling leg was conducted

during the period of March 16-29, 1993 aboard the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE) Survey

Vessel Hudson. During this leg, samples were collected in upper Newark Bay, the lower Passaic River,

and the lower Hackensack River by personnel from EPA and the ACOE. Positions were recorded by a

Northstar LORAN C unit.

Phase 2 samples were collected with a stainless steel modified van Veen grab sampler. At each station,

approximately 8 liters of sediment from the upper 2 cm were collected in multiple deployments of the

sampler. A kynar-coated spatula was used to carefully remove the upper 2 cm of sediment. The

sediments were completely homogenized before aliquots were prepared for each laboratory. All equipment used in the collection of samples was rinsed with acetone and site water between sampling stations. Samples were rejected if the jaws of the sampler were not completely shut or if the sample

consisted of only gravel and sand.

Sediment Testing Methods. Testing methods followed previously published protocols to ensure comparability of the results to previously collected data. The tests with the amphipods and bivalve larvae

were performed with fresh, unfrozen sediments, while the Microtox tests were performed with previously frozen sediments. The holding times for the sediments tested with amphipods were 2 to 9 days

for nine of the test series and 27-28 days for test series number 10. A number of unavoidable problems

were encountered at the initiation of the bivalve larvae tests, causing delays in the completion of these

tests. As a result, sediments tested with bivalve larvae were held for 93 to 163 days.

The amphipod test with Ampelisca abdita followed the protocols of ASTM (1990) and was conducted

in both phases by Science Applications International Corporation. Test animals were collected from

tidal flats in the Pettaquamscutt (Narrow) River, a small estuary of the Narragansett Bay, RI. They
21

were held in the laboratory and acclimated for 2 to 10 days before testing. Test sediments were presssieved through a 2.0 mm mesh sieve and homogenized. Test chambers were quart-size glass canning

jars with inverted glass dishes as covers. Two hundred of sediments were added to each test chamber

and covered with 600 mL of laboratory seawater. Aeration was continuous via a glass tube, lighting

was continuous during the 10-day static exposures, and temperatures were maintained at 20°C. Five

replicate tests were performed with the sediments from each station and the control, using 20 animals

in each test chamber. Exposure chambers were checked daily and the number of individuals that were

dead, or moribund, on the sediment surface, and/or on the water surface were recorded. Dead animals

were removed daily. Amphipods were considered to be dead when they did not respond to a gentle

prod with a glass rod.

Six samples collected during Phase 2 were suspected to be highly contaminated with dioxins, and,

therefore hazardous. The amphipod survival tests of these samples were performed by Aqua Survey,

Inc., using the same ASTM (1990) protocols. The amphipods were obtained from East Coast Amphipod Co., Narragansett, RI (from the same site used by SAIC) and acclimated to test water for 96 hours.

The bivalve larvae test with Mulinia lateralis generally followed the protocols of the U.S. EPA/ACOE

(1991) with some modifications. Adult male and female clams were induced to spawn by temperature

manipulation. Egg stocks of about 1,200 eggs per mL and sperm stocks of about 4 million sperm per

mL were prepared. To prepare the embryo stock, 100 uL of sperm stock was added to every mL of egg

stock and fertilization was allowed to proceed for about 35 min. The embryos were then retained on a

10 um screen, and then resuspended. Next, 0.75 mL of embryo stock was added to vials containing 15

mL of sample or control. Initial embryo counts were performed on the contents of six vials containing

15 mL of seawater. Elutriates were prepared by adding 100 g (wet wt.) of homogenized sediment to

500 mL of laboratory seawater in clean glass jars. The elutriates were mixed for 30 min. using heavy

aeration with manual stirring every 10 min. After 30 min., the suspensions were allowed to settle for at

least one hour. At least 80 mL of supernatant was gently poured into a 0.4 um filter housing and

vacuum filtered until there was enough filtered sample for 5 replicates of 15 mL each. Static test

exposures of the liquid phase samples were conducted for 48 hours at 22°C. After 48 hours the tests

were terminated by adding 0.75 mL of 50% buffered formalin to each vial. The total number of embryos and the number of normal-appearing embryos were counted.

The Microtoxtm tests followed an adaptation of the protocols prepared by U.S. EPA Region 10 (1990).

The tests were performed with organic extracts of the sediments. Three grams (wet wt.) of each sediment sample were weighed into a 100 mL Pyrex centrifuge tube with a Teflon lined top. Each sample

was centrifuged for 10 min. at 1,750 RPM and the water discarded. Fifteen grams of sodium sulfate

was mixed in, then 50 mL of dichloromethane (DCM) was added and mixed. The samples were shaken

overnight; centrifugation was repeated; and the supernatant was collected in a 200 mL flask. The

extraction steps were repeated twice and the extract solutions collected in a flask. The solutions were

evaporated under nitrogen to a volume of about one mL. Undenatured ethanol was added and the

volumes reduced to just below one mL in a 100°C water bath. The final volumes were adjusted to 1 mL

with undenatured ethanol. An ethanol reagent blank was prepared as above but contained no sediment.

Lyophilized bacteria (Photobacterium phosphoreum) were reconstituted with 1 mL of deionized water

and placed in a Microtoxtm cuvette at 4°C. Tests were performed with 10-fold serial dilutions (representing 10, 1.0, 0.1, and 0.01 uL of sediment extract) prepared in seawater. Blanks were prepared at the

same concentrations by similar dilutions of the ethanol reagent blank. All dilutions were conducted in

test cuvettes in temperature-controlled incubation wells. Reconstituted bacteria were added to each at

30-sec. intervals and mixed well to initiate the tests. Exactly five minutes later, light emission was
22

measured at 30-sec. intervals in the same sequence as the tests were initiated. Between each extract

dilution level, the blank of the corresponding concentration was used to adjust the photometer for the

contribution of the extraction solvent. To conclude the tests, light emission was measured again at 15

min., and these data were used to calculate the 50% inhibition concentrations (i.e., the EC50s).

In addition to the tests described above that were performed with all of the samples, several others were

performed on selected samples as a part of methods development. Tests of the growth of a polychaete

(Armandia brevis) and an adult sand dollar (Dendraster excentricus) were performed with 17 of the

samples (Rice et al., in press). Also, nine of the samples were tested with the freshwater amphipod

Diporeia spp. by the Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory (Dr. Peter Landrum). The test

animals were acclimated to 20 ppt salinity seawater by the addition of 5 ppt seawater/day and held for

48 hours. Two cm of sieved sediments, in replicates of three per sample, were placed into one-liter

beakers, containing 600 mL of seawater at 20 ppt salinity. Twenty animals were used in each replicate.

Tests were performed at 4°C, maintained by a constant temperature water bath. The amphipods were

monitored daily for sediment avoidance, signs of stress, and mortality. Avoidance of the sediment was

observed as the absence of burrowing and migration to the water surface, which resulted in adherance

to the surface film. Stress was observed as animals lay on the sediment surface. Dead animals were

recorded and removed from the exposure chambers. After 28 days, the beakers were removed from the

water bath and the sediment was wet sieved through a 1 mm screen. The numbers of live and dead

animals were recorded and the percent mortality and percent survival were calculated.

Estimates of the Spatial Extent of Toxicity. The spatial extent of toxicity within the survey area was

estimated using methods similar to those of the Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program

(EMAP) of the U.S. EPA (Schimmel et al., 1994). However, the design of the sampling plans differed

between Phases 1 and 2. During Phase 1, the dimensions of each sampling zone (Figure 4) were

outlined on navigation charts during the design phase. The locations of each sampling site were determined a priori to represent conditions within each zone. These site locations were chosen following a

review of existing information of sediment types, bathymetry, and proximity to previously sampled

sites. The size of each zone was determined with a planimeter. The toxicity data were weighted to the

size of each zone (divided by three, the number of sites in each zone), and the cumulative distribution

functions of these data were prepared. Using critical values of toxicity results less than 80% of the

control responses (as in the EMAP) and less than 20% of controls (reciprocal of 80%), the size(s) of the

area(s) that were significantly toxic and highly toxic, respectively, were estimated.

The principles of a probabalistic sampling design require that the sampling locations be chosen randomly and without knowledge of site-specific conditions (Schimmel et al., 1994). However, that type

of sampling design was not strictly adhered to in Phase 1 of this survey. The boundaries and dimensions of each zone were established a priori, but the locations of the sampling sites were not selected

with a strictly random process. Some sites were chosen to coincide with the locations of sites previously sampled by other investigators. However, none were chosen to represent conditions near any

point sources or waste disposal sites. All sites were chosen to represent conditions in the nearby

vicinity of the sampling location and within the respective zone. The locations of the individual sampling stations at each site were chosen by the vessel operator in the field as three points on a compass

radiating from the site center.

Highly disturbed areas that obviously had been recently dredged were avoided. Also, samples with

excessive amounts of coarse sandy materials were avoided, where possible. Within each site, attempts

were made in the field to avoid a mixture of stations from deep, dredged channels and shallow, undredged
23

flats. The boundaries of the sampling zones were chosen based upon major physiographic features,

such as points of land and the dimensions of individual waterways. Because of these possible sources

of bias in the data, the estimates of the spatial extent of toxicity prepared during Phase 1 must be

interpreted as rough estimates, and not as absolutes.

During Phase 2 of this survey, the probabalistic, random-stratified sampling design used by the EMAP

(Schimmel et al., 1994) was used within the boundaries of the Phase 2 survey area (Figure 5). During

the design phase, the area was subdivided into strata roughly equal in size. The dimensions of these

strata were outlined on a navigation chart, the chart was digitized, and the coordinates for the individual stations were selected randomly with the aid of a computer program. One station (one sample)

was sampled within each stratum. The toxicity results were weighted to the size of each stratum, the

cumulative distribution function prepared, and using <80% of controls as the critical value, the size

(and percent) of the area that was toxic was determined.

Chemical Analyses: Phase 1. Sediment samples were chosen for chemical analyses based upon an

examination of the toxicity test results. Samples were chosen that represented gradients in the toxicity

results and that also represented contiguous geographic strings of stations. Sediments were extracted

by Battelle Ocean Sciences in two batches containing approximately 19 field samples each. One procedural blank, one standard reference material, a matrix spike sample, and a matrix spike duplicate

sample were extracted with each batch. Each field sample contained 30 g to 50 g of sediment. Sediment dry weight was determined using approximately 5 g of sample material. Analyses were performed for total trace metals, simultaneously extracted metals (SEM), acid-volatile sulfides (AVS),

PCB congeners, pesticides, and polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs). Also, analyses were performed for total organic carbon (TOC) and sediment grain size.

Extraction and analytical methods followed those of Peven and Uhler (1993). Sediment was weighed

into pre-weighed Teflon jars; surrogate internal standards (to monitor extraction efficiency), sodium

sulfate, and 1:1 methylene chloride (DCM):acetone were added to each jar. Samples were extracted

with the solvent mixture three times using shaker table techniques. After each extraction, the jar was

centrifuged, and the overlying solvent decanted into a labelled Erlenmeyer flask. Solvent from each of

the three extractions was combined in the flask. The combined extract was chromatographed through

a 20 g alumina column eluted with dichloro-methane (DCM). After column cleanup, the sample extract was concentrated to approximately 900 uL and further processed using a size-exclusion high

performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) procedure. Six hundred microliters of the extract were

fractionated in this procedure, and the remaining 300 uL archived. After HPLC cleanup, the sample

extract was concentrated to approximately 1,000 uL and recovery internal standards were added to

quantify surrogate recovery. The final sample was split in half by volume; one half was dedicated to

GC/MS analysis of PAHs and the other half was solvent-exchanged with isooctane and analyzed by

GC/ECD for PCBs and pesticides.

The analytical methods for the trace metals followed those of Crecelius et al. (1993). Samples were

completely digested with 4:1 HNO3/HClO4 and heated. The digestates were analyzed either by graphite furnace atomic absorption (Ag, Cd, Se), or cold vapor atomic absorption (Hg), or x-ray fluorescence

(Al, As, Cr, Cu, Fe, Mn, Ni, Zn), or inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry (Sb, Sn). Two

reagent blanks and three standard reference materials were analyzed in each analytical string of 50

samples.
24

1

2

3

4

5

6 7 8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

Stations for toxicity tests and 

 chemical analyses

Stations for toxicity

 tests only

19

20 21 22

23 24

25

26

27

28

29

30

32 31

33

3435 36

3738

39 4041

42

43 44

45

46

47

48

49 50

51

52

53

54

55

56

57

Figure 5. Stations sampled in the Passaic River, Hackensack River, Newark Bay,

upper Arthur Kill, Kill van Kull, and upper New York Harbor during Phase 2.

Arthur Kill

Staten Island

Newark Bay

Passaic River

Hackensack River

upper

New York

Harbor

Kill van Kull
25

The concentrations of acid volatile sulfides (AVS) and simultaneouslyextracted metals (SEM) were

determined in the samples. The analytical methods employed selective generation of hydrogen sulfide

by acidifying the sample with 1N HCl, cryogenic trapping of the evolved H2S, and gas chromatographic separation with photoionization detection. This method gives high sensitivity, low detection

limits and very limited chemical interference with minimal sample handling. The AVS analytical

system is made of glass and Teflon because of the reactivity of sulfide with metals. The filtered acid

solution resulting from the AVS analysis was subsequently analyzed for SEM using graphite furnace

atomic absorption, cold-vapor atomic absorption, and inductively coupled mass spectrometry.

Sediment samples were analyzed for total organic carbon (TOC) and total carbonate (TIC) by Global

Geochemistry Corporation, Canoga Park, CA. Before the samples were analyzed, LECO filtration

crucibles were precombusted for at least 2 hours at 450°C and allowed to cool. Between approximately 175 mg and 250 mg of dried, finely ground and homogenized sample was placed in a pretreated

crucible, and 6N HCl added to remove inorganic carbon. After approximately 1 hr, deionized water

was flushed through the crucible removing the acid, and the sample was dried overnight. Immediately

prior to sample analysis, iron and copper chips were added to accelerate the combustion. A LECO

model 761-100 carbon analyzer was used to determine both the TOC and TIC content. The analyzer

converts all carbon in the sample to CO2 at high temperature in the presence of oxygen. The CO2 was

then quantified by thermal conductivity detection. Before sample analysis for TIC, the filtration crucibles were precombusted for at least 2 hrs at 450°C and allowed to cool. Between approximately 175

mg and 250 mg of dried, finely ground, homogenized sample was placed in a pretreated crucible, and

the sample placed in a 450°C oven for 2 hrs to remove organic carbon.

The methods used to determine sediment grain size are those according to Folk (1974). Briefly, coarse

and fine fractions were seperated by wet-sieving. The fine fractions (silt and clay) were further separated by suspending the sediment in a deflocculant solution and taking aliquots of the settling sediment

at timed intervals after the solution was thoroughly mixed. The coarse fraction (sand and gravel) was

dried and then separated by sieving through a 2 mm screen.

Chemical Analyses: Phase 2. In Phase 2 of the study, chemical analyses were performed by the

National Biological Service, Midwest Science Center laboratory in Columbia, MO. Analyses were

performed for total trace elements; SEM, AVS, PAHs; chlorinated pesticides; PCB congeners; and a

number of dioxins and furans.

Five-gram subsamples of wet sediment were analyzed for SEM/AVS by treatment with 100 ml 2N HCl

for 1 hr in a nitrogen atmosphere. A sulfide-specific electrode was used to measure sulfide liberated

from the HCl treatment. The remaining sediment and acid was filtered through a 0.4 um polycarbonate

membrane for metals determination. A second 5 g subsample was taken for analysis of percent moisture by oven-drying at 95° C. The remainder of the sample was lyophilized to a constant weight and

the dry sediment was utilized for digestion and analysis for total metals and organic carbon. A portion

of each filtered SEM extract (6 mL) was diluted with 5.7% nitric acid prior to Zeeman furnace atomic

absorption spectroscopy (AAS) to reduce the high chloride ion matrix. Another portion of the SEM

extract was similarly diluted and stored in a glass container, which was later used for the determination

of mercury by flow injection AAS. A final portion of the SEM extract was subjected to a nitric acid wet

digestion/magnesium nitrate dry ash procedure to prepare a digestate suitable for the determination of

arsenic and selenium.
26

For total trace metals, a 0.5 g subsample of dried sediment was placed in a Teflon vessel and digested

with nitric acid, hydrochloric acid, and hydrogen peroxide for analysis of total mercury. A second 0.5

g portion of dried sediment was treated with nitric, perchloric, and hydrofluoric acids to prepare a

digestate suitable for total metals determination. This latter digestate was diluted with 5.7% nitric acid

prior to Zeeman furnace or flow injection AAS. A final portion of dried sediment was placed in a

Coulometrics total carbon apparatus and combusted in pure oxygen for the determination of total organic carbon.

Various instrumental approaches were used for the determination of elements in the total recoverable

extractions, as well as the SEM fraction. Aluminum and iron in SEM extracts and aluminum, chromium, copper, iron, and zinc in the total sediment digestates were determined by inductively coupled

plasma spectroscopy (ICP). Zinc in SEM extracts was determined by flame atomic absorption. Arsenic and selenium in SEM extracts and total sediment digestates were determined by flow injection

hydride generation atomic spectroscopy. Mercury was determined on total recoverable digestates by

flow injection cold vapor AAS. All remaining analytes (cadmium, chromium, copper, lead, nickel,

silver, antimony, and tin in SEM extracts, and cadmium, lead, nickel, silver, antimony, and tin in total

sediment digestates) were determined by Zeeman furnace AAS.

For the analyses of organic compounds, the sediments were dried, homogenized, and extracted according to NBS Midwest Science Center procedures. Different sample aliquot sizes were extracted for

each class of compounds. In all cases the appropriate internal standards were spiked into the sample

before extraction. Sediment samples were mixed with anhydrous sodium sulfate and column-extracted

with methylene chloride (MeCl).

For the organochlorine pesticides, sample extracts were injected onto an automated, high-performance

gel permeation chromatography (HPGPC) system that was eluted with 80/20 hexane/MeCl. The collected portion then went through serial fractionation on Florisil and silica gel columns. One of the

resultant three fractions (the first fraction of the silica gel) was treated for sulfur with acid-activated

copper. The three fractions were then analyzed by GC/ECD on two different phase 30-m columns,

DB-1 (methyl silicone) and OV-17 (50% phenyl-50% methylsilicone). All GC analyses were cool oncolumn injections.

For the polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), the sample extracts were taken through a potassium silicate (KS) cleanup and the HPGPC system. Extracts were treated for sulfur with acid activated

copper. The extracts went through a second KS cleanup and then were fractionated on a silver nitrate

treated benzenesulfonic acid cartridge which separated chlorinated aromatics from the PAHs. The

PAH fractions were analyzed by GC/MS on a quadrapole system in full scan mode. The column was a

60-m DB-5 (5% phenyl-95% methylsilicone). Compounds were determined by comparison of peak

retention times to those of a standard and by checking the mass spectra. The concentrations of 12 low

molecular weight (2- and 3-ring) PAHs and 12 high molecular weight (4- and 5-ring) PAHs were

quantified. Recoveries were determined by deuterated internal standard spikes.

Samples extracted for polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB congeners, mono-ortho, and non-ortho) and

polychlorinated dibenzodioxins and dibenzofurans (PCDDs and PCDFs) were taken through two stages

of reactive column cleanup followed by HPGPC. After GPC cleanup the extracts were fractionated on

an automated C-18/PX-21 carbon column system. Four fractions were collected from the carbon column corresponding to congener PCBs (F1), mono-ortho PCBs (F2), non-ortho (F3) and PCDD/PCDFs

(F4).
27

The congener PCB fractions (F1) were analyzed by GC/ECD on a 60-m DB-5 column; the concentrations of 80 congeners were quantified. The mono-ortho PCB fractions (F2) were analyzed by GC-ECD

on a 3-m DB-1 phase column.

For the non-ortho PCB fractions (F3), the analyses were done by capillary gas chromatography interfaced to high resolution mass spectrometry (GC/HRMS). Samples were injected by cool on-column

technique onto a retention gap connected to an Ultra-1 (DB-1 equivalent) 50-m capillary column. The

MS system resolution was tuned to 10,000. Selected ion monitoring of two mass windows was done

for Cl3 and Cl4 biphenyls, and Cl5-Cl6 biphenyls.

The PCDD/PCDF fractions (F4) went through a final cleanup step on activated basic alumina to remove possible chlorinated co-contaminants. The fractions were then analyzed by capillary GC coupled

to HRMS. The column used was a 50-m Ultra-2 (Hewlett-Packard DB-5 equivalent) capillary column.

The MS system resolution was tuned to 10,000. Eighteen compounds were detected by selected ion

monitoring with five mass windows to measure Cl1-Cl8 PCDDs and PCDFs.

The H4IIE rat hepatoma cell bioassay was performed with extracts of the samples from the same 20

samples characterized in the chemical analyses. The induction of cytochrome P450 in the whole extract (F1) was measured following methods of Tillitt et al. (1991). Also, the toxicity of six fractions of

the whole extract was determined in each sample: a PAH fraction (F5); a dioxin/furan fraction (F12); a

combined PCB fraction (F11); and three planar/co-planar PCB fractions (F7, F8, F9).

Data Analyses. Results of the toxicity tests performed with the amphipods and bivalve embryos were

arcsin-square root transformed and compared with the controls with one-tailed, unpaired, t-tests to

determine significant differences (n=5 replicates, alpha = 0.05). The tests were conducted in 10 batches,

the control sediment was tested along with the environmental samples in each batch, and the results

from each test of the control were used in the statistical analyses for each batch. To determine if the

mean percent survival at any sites (n=3) were significantly different from mean survival in controls, the

untransformed data were evaluated with one-tailed t-tests (alpha=0.05).

The Microtoxtm test data were analyzed using a linear interpolation technique to determine concentrations of the extract that inhibited luminescence by 50%. This value (expressed as uL of extract per mL

of Microtoxtm exposure volume) was then converted to mg/mL using the wet weight of sediment in the

original extract. To determine differences from controls, a pairwise comparison was made between

test samples and LIS controls, using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA). Both the concentrations and

response data were log-transformed prior to the analysis to linearize the data. The ANCOVA was first

used to determine if the two lines had equal slopes (alpha=0.05), and if they did, it was used to check

for equal Y-intercepts (alpha=0.05). To determine which sites were significantly different from controls, the three EC50 values for each site were compared to the control values with a one-way t-test

(alpha=0.05).

The relationships between measures of toxicity and the concentrations of physical-chemical variables

in the samples were determined in several steps. First, simple, non-parametric, Spearman-rank correlations were performed (Statview 4.0 software). Where the correlations appeared to be significant, the

data were examined in bivariate scatterplots to confirm the distribution pattern. Next, to determine

which chemicals were most elevated in concentration in the toxic samples, the average concentrations

in both toxic and nontoxic samples were compared. Finally, to determine which, if any, toxicants were

sufficiently elevated in concentration to cause or contribute to toxicity, the average concentrations in

the toxic samples were compared with applicable, effects-based sediment guideline values.
28

RESULTS

Solid-Phase Amphipod Tests. Results of the amphipod test performed with Ampelisca abdita are

summarized in Table 6. Tests were performed in a series of 10 batches. The results of the tests of the

Central Long Island Sound control sediments are listed first, followed by mean survival data for each

station and site. Mean percent survival in the LIS sediments ranged from 83.2% to 99.0%. Normally,

an acceptable survival rate in control sediments is 85% or greater. The mean percent survival in the

controls in test series 3 and 6 were 83.2% and 85.0%, respectively. In both series, there was no pattern

of unusually low survival in tests of the Hudson-Raritan Estuary samples; therefore, the data were

accepted and re-testing was not conducted. Furthermore, in series 3 amphipod survival in the test

samples was either very high or very low; therefore, the relatively low survival in the controls probably

had no effect upon the tests of significance. However, in series 6 amphipod survival approximated

80% in several samples and the tests of significance may have been affected by the results of the tests

of the controls.

The sediments from 54 of the 117 stations (46%) were significantly toxic (i.e., different from controls)

in the amphipod tests. A total of 16 of the 39 sites (41%) was significantly toxic in this test. Mean

percent survival ranged from 0.0 to 99.0% among the 117 stations. Mean percent survival in most of

the 117 samples ranged from 80 to 99%, but a considerable number (48) of the test results were in the

range of 0 to 79% survival. Among all 117 samples, 0.0% survival was observed in three samples (9-

B, 10-A, and 18-C) and 0.1-10.0% survival was observed in five samples (9-A, 9-C, 12-A, 18-C, and

34-B).

Based upon considerable previous experience with this test, differences in amphipod survival between

controls and test samples of 20% or more are significantly different in approximately 90% of the cases.

Also, the 20% or greater difference from controls was used by EMAP (Schimmel et al., 1994) as a

critical value in the interpretation of amphipod bioassay data. Therefore, stations and sites in which

mean amphipod survival was equal to or less than 80% of the controls are identified with two asterisks

in Table 6.

Of the 43 samples in which amphipod survival was 80% or less of controls, 42 (98%) were significantly different from the controls. Mean amphipod survival in 10 sites was 80% or less of controls and

significantly different from controls. There is a lower probability that test results in which mean survival was greater than 80% of the controls were actually significantly different from controls. Therefore, in some samples with relatively high amphipod survival (>80%) the results of the t-tests, alone,

may over estimate the incidence of toxicity in these tests.

Sediments from Zone F, Newark Bay/Arthur Kill/Kill van Kull, were most toxic (Table 6). All nine

stations and all three sites were significantly toxic to amphipods in this zone. Also, zones C and D,

upper East River and lower East River, respectively, were highly toxic. In the upper East River area, all

nine stations and two of the three sites were toxic. In the lower East River, abd eight of nine stations

were toxic. Sediments from zones B (western Long Island Sound), I (Central Raritan Bay), and K

(southern Raritan Bay) were least toxic; none of the stations was toxic in these zones. Sediments from

Zone A, lower Hudson River, were relatively low in toxicity. Some of the sediments in Zone M in New

York Bight were toxic, especially those from site 39 in the southern portion of this zone.

Several spatial patterns in toxicity were apparent, based upon the data from this test (Figures 6, 7).

First, toxicity was very high in the upper East River and rapidly decreased eastward out into western
29

1

2

3

4

5

6

8 7

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24 25 26

27

28

29

30

31 32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

Non-toxic stations

Stations significantly different

from controls

Figure 6. Sampling stations in which the sediments were significantly toxic to

Ampelisca abdita survival (n=5, alpha <0.05).

Stations significantly different 

from controls and <80% of

control response
30

1

2

3

4

5

6

8 7

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24 25 26

27

28

29

30

31 32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

Figure 7. Sampling sites in which the sediments were significantly toxic to

Ampelisca abdita survival (average of three stations, alpha <0.05).

Non-toxic Sites

Sites significantly different 

from controls

Sites significantly different 

from controls and <80% of

control response
31

Long Island Sound. Second, toxicity was relatively high in samples from the lower East River, and

decreased southward through upper New York Harbor, lower New York Harbor, and eastward into the

entrance of the estuary. Third, toxicity was extremely high in the Newark Bay/Kill van Kull/Arthur

Kill area and diminished southeastward through Raritan Bay. Sediments from the lower Raritan River

and Sandy Hook Bay were moderately toxic, and this toxicity diminished into central Raritan Bay and

eastward into the entrance to the estuary.

Table 6. Mean percent survival of A. abdita in 10-day solid-phase toxicity tests of sediments from

the Central Long Island Sound (CLIS) control site (n=5), 117 sampling stations (n=5), and 39

sites (n=3) and of Diporeia spp. in 9 samples from the Hudson-Raritan Estuary.

 A. abdita Diporeia spp.

Regional Sampling Test mean % % of Signif- mean % SignifZone Site/Station Series survival control icance survival icance

CLIS Control 1 92.0 -

Control 2 89.5 -

Control 3 83.2 -

Control 4 91.0 -

Control 5 99.0 -

Control 6 85.0 -

Control 7 92.0 -

Control 8 98.0 -

Control 9 98.0 -

Control 10 92.0 -

1-A 3 89.5 107.6 ns

1-B 3 85.3 102.5 ns

1-C 3 88.4 106.3 ns

Site 1 Mean 3 87.7 105.5 ns

2-A 3 90.8 109.2 ns

2-B 3 91.6 110.1 ns

2-C 3 84.2 101.3 ns

Site 2 Mean 3 88.9 106.9 ns

3-A 2 89.5 100.0 ns

3-B 2 45.3 50.6 **

3-C 2 42.1 47.1 **

Site 3 mean 2 59.0 65.9 ns

Zone B 4-A 3 98.9 119.0 ns

4-B 3 95.8 115.2 ns

4-C 3 93.7 112.7 ns

Site 4 mean 3 96.1 115.6 ns

5-A 3 96.9 116.6 ns

5-B 3 92.9 111.8 ns

5-C 3 94.7 113.9 ns

Site 5 mean 3 94.8 114.1 ns
32

Table 6 continued.

 A. abdita Diporeia spp.

Regional Sampling Test mean % % of Signif- mean % SignifZone Site/Station Series survival control icance survival icance

6-A 4 93.0 102.2 ns

6-B 4 84.0 92.3 ns 76.7 *

6-C 4 92.0 101.1 ns

Site 6 mean 4 89.7 98.5 ns

Zone C 7-A 4 30.0 33.0 ** 58.7 *

7-B 4 16.0 17.6 **

7-C 4 10.0 11.0 **

Site 7 mean 4 18.7 20.5 **

8-A 4 80.0 87.9 *

8-B 4 39.0 42.9 **

8-C 4 37.0 40.7 **

Site 8 mean 4 52.0 57.2 ns

9-A 4 3.0 3.3 **

9-B 4 0.0 0.0 ** 0.0 *

9-C 4 2.0 2.2 **

Site 9 mean 4 1.7 1.8 **

Zone D 10-A 4 0.0 0.0 **

10-B 4 17.0 18.7 **

10-C 4 72.0 79.1 **

Site 10 mean4 29.7 32.6 ns

11-A 1 77.0 83.7 *

11-B 1 71.0 77.2 ** 13.7 *

11-C 1 70.0 76.1 **

Site 11 mean1 72.7 79.0 **

12-A 1 2.0 2.2 **

12-B 1 70.0 76.1 **

12-C 1 86.0 93.5 ns

Site 12 mean1 52.7 57.3 ns

Zone E 13-A 2 76.8 85.9 ns

13-B 2 80.0 89.4 ns

13-C 2 84.2 94.1 ns

Site 13 mean2 80.3 89.8 *

14-A 2 93.7 104.7 ns

14-B 2 81.1 90.6 ns

14-C 2 92.6 103.5 ns

Site 14 mean2 89.1 99.6 ns
33

Table 6 continued.

 A. abdita Diporeia spp.

Regional Sampling Test mean % % of Signif- mean % SignifZone Site/Station Series survival control icance survival icance

15-A 5 77.9 78.7 **

15-B 5 89.0 89.9 *

15-C 5 70.0 70.7 **

Site 15 mean5 79.0 79.8 **

Zone F 16-A 2 61.1 68.2 **

16-B 2 26.3 29.4 **

16-C 2 30.5 34.1 **

Site 16 mean2 39.3 43.9 **

17-A 1 16.0 17.4 **

17-B 1 13.0 14.1 **

17-C 1 18.0 19.6 **

Site 17 mean1 15.7 17.0 **

18-A 2 32.6 36.5 **

18-B 2 4.2 4.7 ** 55.0 *

18-C 2 0.0 0.0 **

Site 18 mean2 12.3 13.7 *

Zone G 19-A 7 82.0 89.1 ns

19-B 7 89.0 96.7 ns

19-C 7 77.0 83.7 *

Site 19 mean7 82.7 89.8 ns

20-A 9 86.0 87.8 *

20-B 9 89.0 90.8 *

20-C 9 51.0 52.0 **

Site 20 mean9 75.3 76.9 ns

21-A 7 85.0 92.4 ns

21-B 7 84.0 91.3 ns

21-C 7 92.0 100.0 ns

Site 21 mean7 87.0 94.6 ns

Zone H 22-A 6 47.1 55.4 **

22-B 6 64.3 75.7 ** 25.0 *

22-C 6 32.0 37.7 **

Site 22 mean6 47.8 56.3 **

23-A 6 59.2 69.6 ns

23-B 6 76.1 89.6 ns

23-C 6 65.7 77.3 **

Site 23 mean6 67.0 78.8 **
34

Table 6 continued.

 A. abdita Diporeia spp.

Regional Sampling Test mean % % of Signif- mean % SignifZone Site/Station Series survival control icance survival icance

24-A 5 87.8 88.7 *

24-B 7 89.0 96.7 ns

24-C 7 89.0 96.7 ns

Site 24 mean5/7 88.6 94.0 ns

Zone I 25-A 9 99.0 101.0 ns 70.0 *

25-B 9 93.0 94.9 ns

25-C 9 95.0 96.9 ns

Site 25 mean9 95.7 97.6 ns

26-A 7 94.1 102.3 ns

26-B 7 93.0 101.0 ns

26-C 7 93.0 101.0 ns

Site 26 mean7 93.4 101.4 ns

27-A 9 96.0 98.0 ns

27-B 9 95.0 96.9 ns

27-C 9 93.0 94.9 ns

Site 27 mean9 94.7 96.6 ns

Zone J 28-A 6 70.3 82.7 ns

28-B 6 68.0 80.0 ** 76.2 *

28-C 6 66.0 77.6 **

Site 28 mean6 68.1 80.1 *

29-A 10 81.0 88.0 ns

29-B 10 85.0 92.4 ns

29-C 10 87.0 94.6 ns

Site 29 mean10 84.3 91.7 *

30-A 10 87.0 94.6 ns

30-B 10 84.0 91.3 *

30-C 10 47.0 51.1 **

Site 30 mean10 72.7 79.0 ns

Zone K 31-A 7 95.0 103.3 ns

31-B 7 94.0 102.2 ns

31-C 7 94.0 102.2 ns

Site 31 mean7 94.3 102.6 ns

32-A 10 93.0 101.1 ns

32-B 10 92.0 100.0 ns

32-C 10 86.0 93.5 ns

Site 32 mean10 90.3 98.2 ns
35

Table 6 continued.

 A. abdita Diporeia spp.

Regional Sampling Test mean % % of Signif- mean % SignifZone Site/Station Series survival control icance survival icance

33-A 10 84.0 91.3 ns

33-B 10 88.0 95.7 ns

33-C 10 88.0 95.7 ns

Site 33 mean10 86.7 94.2 *

Zone L 34-A 7 80.0 87.0 ns

34-B 7 3.0 3.3 **

34-C 7 27.0 29.3 **

Site 34 mean7 36.7 39.9 ns

35-A 6 58.3 68.6 **

35-B 6 73.5 86.4 ns

35-C 6 63.4 74.6 **

Site 35 mean6 65.1 76.5 **

36-A 5 92.3 93.2 ns

36-B 5 93.0 93.9 *

36-C 5 80.4 81.2 *

Site 36 mean5 88.6 89.4 ns

Zone M 37-A 8 95.0 96.9 ns

37-B 8 91.0 92.9 ns

37-C 8 91.0 92.9 ns

Site 37 mean8 92.3 94.3 *

38-A 8 95.0 96.9 ns 85.0 ns

38-B 8 89.0 90.8 ns

38-C 8 90.0 91.8 *

Site 38 mean8 91.3 93.2 *

39-A 8 68.0 69.4 **

39-B 8 31.0 31.6 **

39-C 8 80.0 81.6 *

Site 39 mean8 60.0 60.9 ns

ns - Not significantly different from controls (alpha >0.05).

* - Statistically significantly different from controls (alpha < 0.05).

** - Mean response significantly different from controls and 80% or less than control response.

Usually, when all of the stations at a site were determined to be significantly toxic, the site mean also

was different from the controls. When none of the stations was significantly different from controls, in
36

most cases the site mean also was not different. For example, the sediments from all nine stations in

western Long Island Sound (sites 4, 5, and 6) were not different from controls. Correspondingly, none

of these three site means was different from controls. Similarly, all nine stations and all three site

means in Newark Bay/Arthur Kill were significantly different from controls. However, there were

some deviations from these patterns. For example, all three stations sampled at site 13 were not significantly different from the controls, but the site mean was significantly different. The same situation

occurred in sites 29, 33, 37. The variances among the five replicates tested for each station were high,

but the variances among the three stations sampled at these sites were small, resulting in a significant

difference from the controls. Conversely, all of the stations at sites 10, 20 and 39 were significantly

toxic, but due to high variability among stations, the site means were not different from the controls.

Eight of the nine samples tested with the freshwater amphipod Diporeia spp. by the Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory (Dr. Peter Landrum) were significantly more toxic than controls (Table

6). Mean percent survival in Florissant Soil controls ranged from 88.7 to 100 (n=4, 4 or 8 replicates

each). The sample from station 38-A was nontoxic in both amphipod tests. Among the eight samples

toxic to Diporeia spp., seven also were toxic to Ampelisca abdita. Sample 9-B caused zero survivors in

both tests. Avoidance of all but samples 38-A and 6-B was significant relative to controls. Avoidance

was greatest of samples 18-B and 9-B.

The results of the amphipod toxicity tests performed during Phase 2 with 57 samples are summarized

in Table 7. All except 6 samples were tested by SAIC in Narragansett, R. I. Because of the suspected

hazardous condition of samples 7-A, 7-B, 7-C, 8-A, 8-B, and 10, they were tested separately by Aqua

Survey, Inc. in Flemington, N. J. Tests organisms used by both SAIC and Aqua Survey were obtained

from the same source. In the controls and 6 test samples, water pH ranged from 7.7 to 8.6, temperature

ranged from 19.0 to 21.5°C, dissolved oxygen ranged from 5.1 to 7.5 ppm, and salinity ranged from

24.0 to 28.5 ppt in the test samples and 29.5 to 32.5 ppt in the LIS controls. The 96-hr LC50 for the

reference toxicant, cadmium chloride, was 0.33 mg/L as chloride. Mean survival (n=5) in the LIS

control was 89±5.8% (range of 85-100%).

The amphipod survival in the control sediments ranged from 79% to 95% in the six test series. Usually,

acceptable amphipod survival in controls is 85% or greater. However, the data from test series 5, in

which survival was 79%, were accepted since survival in all the test samples was either very high or

very low. The results would not have changed significantly if the samples had been retested.

Amphipod survival ranged from 0.0% in two samples to 100% in one sample (Table 7). In 48 (84%) of

the 57 samples that were tested, mean amphipod survival was 80% of controls or less. In 46 (96%) of

the 48 samples in which amphipod survival was 80% of controls or less, the results were significantly

different from the controls.

Table 7. Mean percent amphipod (A. abdita) survival in the 1993 Newark Bay survey performed

during Phase 2.

Mean % Significantly

Station Test survival Percent less than control <80% of

Number Series ± std. dev. of Control (alpha=0.05) Control

LIS Control 1a 95.0±5.0 100 - -

LIS Control 2a 95.0±5.0 100 - -
37

Table 7 continued.

Mean % Significantly

Station Test survival Percent less than control <80% of

Number Series ± std. dev. of Control (alpha=0.05) Control

LIS Control 3 96.0±2.2 100 - -

LIS Control 4 97.0±4.5 100 - -

LIS Control 5 79.0±10.8 100 - -

LIS Control 6b 89.0±6.2 100 - -

1 3 73±2.7 76.0 * *

2 3 22±16.8 22.9 * *

3 3 30±9.4 31.3 * *

4 5 21±13.4 26.6 * *

5 5 23±11.5 29.1 * *

6 5 25±11.7 31.6 * *

7A 6 31±8.2 34.8 * *

7B 6 29±10.8 32.6 * *

7C 6 8±4.5 9.0 * *

8A 6 17±13.0 19.1 * *

8B 6 13±7.6 14.6 * *

9 5 22±7.6 27.8 * *

10 6 18±13.5 20.2 * *

11 5 41±6.5 51.9 * *

12 5 76±6.5 96.2 ns -

13 5 59±15.6 74.7 * *

14 5 61±17.8 77.2 ns *

15 5 65±12.7 82.3 ns -

16 5 65±15.4 82.3 ns -

17 5 57±19.2 72.2 * *

18 4 76±12.9 78.4 * *

19 4 66±18.5 68.0 * *

20 4 77±6.7 79.4 * *

21 4 17±8.4 17.5 * *

22 4 77±10.4 79.4 * *

23 4 53±13.5 54.6 * *

24 4 74±6.5 76.3 * *

25 4 84±8.2 86.6 * -

26 3 0±00 * *

27 4 19±5.5 19.6 * *

28 2a 75±10.0 83.3 * -

29 2 57±2.9 63.0 * *

30 2 62±18.9 68.5 * *

31 1a 50±8.7 52.6 * *

32 1 35±10.0 36.8 * *

33 1 60±13.2 63.2 * *

34 1 75±17.3 78.9 ns *

35 1 62±5.8 64.9 * *

36 1 65±5.0 68.4 * *
38

Table 7 continued.

Mean % Significantly

Station Test survival Percent less than control <80% of

Number Series ± std. dev. of Control (alpha=0.05) Control

37 1 55±5.0 57.9 * *

38 1 53±20.2 56.1 * *

39B 1 68±7.6 71.9 * *

40B 2 78±10.4 87.0 ns -

41 2 87±7.6 96.3 ns -

42C 2 70±5.0 77.8 * *

43 No sample collected

44 2 60±5.0 66.7 * *

45 No sample collected

46 3 8±17.9 8.3 * *

47 3 0±00 * *

48 1 57±12.6 59.6 * *

49 1 18±10.4 19.3 * *

50 3 35±6.1 36.5 * *

51 2 70±5.0 77.8 * *

52 3 22±14.0 22.9 * *

53 No sample collected

54 3 31±5.5 32.3 * *

55 3 2±4.5 2.1 * *

56 2 75±15.0 83.3 ns -

57 2 100±0.0 111.1 ns -

a Tests of each sample in series 1 and 2 were tested with three replicates, instead of the usual

five replicates tested in all of the other samples.

b Samples in series 6 were tested by Aqua Survey, Inc.

Amphipod survival was very low in the samples from much of the lower Passaic River and throughout Newark Bay (Figure 8). Samples that were toxic to amphipods were collected throughout the

Phase 2 study area. The six samples from the lower Hackensack River were less toxic to the amphipods than those from the lower Passaic River. Two samples—one from central Newark Bay and one

from the upper Arthur Kill—caused zero percent survival. In contrast, the sediment from station 57 in

upper New York Harbor was not toxic in this test. Station 57 in Phase 2 and site 14 in Phase 1 were

located at the same coordinates and were not toxic to amphipod survival in either phase.

Elutriate/Liquid Phase Bivalve Larvae Tests. The sediments from 109 of the 117 stations were

tested with the larvae of Mulinia lateralis. Insufficient material from 8 stations remained following the

performance of the amphipod and Microtox tests to allow performance of the bivalve embryo tests.

Percent survival and percent normal morphological development were measured. Percent survival and

percent normal development data (as decimal equivalents) for each station (n=5) were arcsin-square

root transformed and evaluated with one-tailed, unpaired, t-tests to determine statistically significant

differences from the respective controls (n=5, alpha=0.05). To determine if the mean percent survival

at any sites (n=3) were significantly different from mean survival in controls, the untransformed data

were evaluated with one-tailed t-tests (alpha=0.05).
39

1

2

3

4

5

6

7A

7B

7C

8A

8B

9

10

11

17

16

15

14

13

12

18

19

28

29

30

20

21 22

23 24

25

26

27

31

32

37

33

34

38 35

36

39B

40B

41

42C

57

55 56

49 54

50

51 52 48

47

46

44

Staten Island

Upper

New York

Harbor

Passaic River

Percent Amphipod Survival

Significantly Toxic (p < .05)

Highly Toxic (< 80 % Survival)

Non-toxic (p>.05)

0.0 % Survival

Newark

Bay

Arthur

Kill

Hackensack River

∆

∆

∆

Figure 8. Distribution of stations in Newark Bay and vicinity that were toxic, highly 

toxic, and non-toxic in amphipod (A. abdita) survival tests.
40

 Results of tests of seawater controls and Central Long Island Sound control sediments are followed by

the results of the tests from each study site (Table 8). Data from test samples are listed as percent of

controls for both end-points. Stations and sites that were significantly different from the respective

CLIS controls (t-tests, alpha = 0.05) are indicated with asterisks and those that, additionally, were 80%

or less than the control response are listed with two asterisks. Tests were performed in a series of seven

batches of samples. Several unavoidable problems were encountered after the samples were collected,

necessitating the storage of the samples for 93 to 175 days before the tests were initiated, well beyond

the normal allowable storage time of 14 days. The long holding times may have caused some changes

in the toxicity of the samples, but do not, alone, invalidate the results.

As observed in the amphipod percent survival data, survival of bivalve larvae was >80% of controls in

the majority of the stations. Percent survival relative to controls ranged from 17.6% in sediments from

station 39-B to >100% in many samples. Several samples caused 20-30% survival. In 29 of the sites

the results from all samples that were tested indicated agreement as to toxic or nontoxic conditions

within the site. In some samples (e.g., station 18-A) variability was very high among the laboratory

replicates, and as a consequence, no statistically significant difference was observed from controls.

Also, in a few cases variance among stations was relatively small, and despite relatively high mean

percent survival, there was a significant difference from the control. Station means that were 80% of

controls or less were frequently (21 of 29 samples, 72.4%) significantly different from controls.

Percent larvae survival was significantly lower than controls in sediments from 23 of 109 stations

(21%) and 7 of 39 sites (18%) (Table 8). Percent survival was significantly lower than controls, and in

addition, less than 80% of controls in 21 stations and 4 sites. Based upon this test, toxicity was highest

in sediments from site 6 (western Long Island Sound), site 7 (upper East River), site 11 (lower East

River), site 17 (mouth of Newark Bay), site 20 (lower Raritan River), site 30 (Sandy Hook Bay), and

site 37 (mouth of the estuary). At least one of the stations and the site mean were significantly different

from controls at these sites. Toxicity generally was lowest in sediments from the lower Hudson River,

western Long Island Sound, lower New York Harbor, and much of Raritan Bay.

Percent normal embryo development ranged from 0.0% in samples from Site 30 to >100% in numerous samples (Table 8). Between 90% to 100% normal development occurred in 47 of the samples.

Percent normal development was significantly lower than controls in sediments from 21 of 109 stations (19%) and 6 of 39 sites (15%). Also, percent normal development was significantly lower than

controls, and additionally, less than 80% of controls in 19 of the samples and 4 of the sites. Based upon

this test end-point, toxicity was highest in sediments from sites 5 and 6 (western Long Island Sound),

site 7 (upper East River), and 30 (Sandy Hook Bay). At least one of the stations and the site mean were

significantly different from controls at these sites. Toxicity generally was lowest in sediments from the

lower Hudson River, upper and lower New York Harbor, and much of Raritan Bay.

Both end-points of this test indicated that sediments from sites 6, 7 and 30 were significantly toxic

(Table 8). Based upon the t-tests, the data from the two tests indicated 95 of the same stations were

either nontoxic or toxic. Also, based upon the results of the t-tests, the two end-points indicated agreement on the presence and absence of toxicity in 30 of 39 sites. At 32 of the 39 sites both survival and

normal development were either greater than 80% or both were less than 80% of controls. Sediments

from some stations (e.g., 7-A, 7-B, 34-B, 39-B) were highly toxic to both end-points.
41

Table 8. Mean percent survival and normal morphological development (expressed as percent of

controls) in 48-hour tests of elutriates with the larvae of Mulinia lateralis.

Regional Sampling Test Percent Percent

Zone Site/station Series Survivala Normal

SEAWATER CONTROL 1 98.6 81.0

2 74.1 99.3

3 100.9 99.2

4 97.7 99.6

5 95.0 92.6

6 88.0 100.0

7 89.0 98.2

CLIS CONTROL 1 81.1 95.7

2 91.2 99.1

3 73.4 98.3

4 94.1 100.0

5 87.0 99.7

6 84.0 100.0

7 91.5 99.2

Zone A 1-A 3 105.7 101.7

1-B 3 121.1 101.7

1-C 3 117.3 101.7

Site 1 mean 114.1 101.7

2-A 3 100.0 101.7

2-B 3 135.6 101.7

2-C 3 nd nd

Site 2 mean 117.8 101.7

3-A 2 94.8 99.5

3-B 2 99.5 100.9

3-C 2 103.4 99.9

Site 3 mean 99.2 100.1

Zone B 4-A 4 89.5 95.6

4-B 4 71.1 92.2

4-C 4 88.8 94.7

Site 4 mean 83.1 94.2*

5-A 4 82.3 23.2**

5-B 4 93.7 37.3**

5-C 4 55.9** 12.0**

Site 5 mean 77.3 24.2**

6-A 4 75.7** 85.0*

6-B 4 56.6** 46.5**

6-C 4 59.2** 37.6**

Site 6 mean 4 63.8** 56.4**
42

Table 8 continued.

Regional Sampling Test Percent Percent

Zone Site/station Series Survivala Normal

Zone C 7-A 4 40.2** 10.5**

7-B 4 22.4** 2.8**

7-C 4 51.8** 10.9**

8-A 4 81.0* 92.4

8-B 4 99.4 44.5**

8-C 4 60.6** 93.2

Site 8 mean 80.3 76.7

9-A 5 99.1 100.3

9-B 5 82.4 87.4

9-C 5 92.0 100.3

Site 9 mean 91.2 96.0

Zone D 10-A 5 24.6** 13.3**

10-B 5 53.5** 12.7**

10-C 5 83.4 93.0

Site 10 mean 53.8 39.7

11-A 2 88.0 100.3

11-B 2 76.1** 97.9

11-C 2 88.0 94.3*

Site 11 mean 84.0* 97.5

12-A 1 118.9101.8

12-B 1 97.8 97.8

12-C 1 73.5 34.8**

Site 12 mean 96.7 78.1

Zone E 13-A 3 110.5 100.7

13-B nd nd

13-C 3 71.1 101.7

Site 13 mean 90.8 101.2

14-A 3 127.8 101.0

14-B 3 132.7 100.9

14-C 3 95.1 100.1

Site 14 mean 118.5 100.7

15-A 5 89.8 98.1

15-B 5 88.6 95.8

15-C 5 88.5 100.3

Site 15 mean 89.0* 98.1
43

Table 8 continued.

Regional Sampling Test Percent Percent

Zone Site/station Series Survivala Normal

Zone F 16-A 3 139.4 101.7

16-B 3 122.1 101.0

16-C 3 143.2 100.3

Site 16 mean 134.9 101.0

17-A 2 75.5 99.1

17-B 2 74.5** 100.9

17-C 2 53.4** 95.6

Site 17 mean 67.8** 98.5

18-A 2 65.9 99.6

18-B 2 112.0 99.0

18-C 2 97.7 99.1

Site 18 mean 91.9 99.2*

Zone G 19-A 6 96.0 98.5

19-B 6 109.7 99.8

19-C 6 96.0 99.3

Site 19 mean 100.6 99.2

20-A 7 96.9 100.1

20-B 7 94.5 100.8

20-C 7 91.5* 100.0

Site 20 mean 94.3* 100.3

21-A 6 102.1 100.0

21-B 6 119.8100.0

21-C 6 108.4 100.0

Site 21 mean 110.1100.0

Zone H 22-A 5 95.6 99.5

22-B 5 92.0 nd

22-C 5 68.4 63.2

Site 22 mean 85.3 87.7

23-A 5 97.7 98.2

23-B 5 87.0 90.0

23-C 5 87.5 99.8

Site 23 mean 90.7 96.0

24-A 5 82.4 83.6

24-B nd nd

24-C 5 111.1 99.1

Site 24 mean 96.7 91.3
44

Table 8 continued.

Regional Sampling Test Percent Percent

Zone Site/station Series Survivala Normal

Zone I 25-A 7 112.9100.8

25-B 7 102.3 100.8

25-C 7 119.3100.8

Site 25 mean 111.5100.8

26-A 7 71.3** 17.6**

26-B 7 113.1 100.8

26-C 7 104.6 100.8

Site 26 mean 96.3 73.1

27-A 7 77.5 100.8

27-B 7 95.3 99.9

27-C 7 90.7 99.0

Site 27 mean 87.8 99.9

Zone J 28-A 6 97.9 100.0

28-B nd nd

28-C nd nd

Site 28 mean 97.9 100.0

29-A 6 110.4 93.7

29-B 6 91.2 55.2**

29-C 6 109.5 100.3

Site 29 mean 103.7 82.8

30-A 6 70.1** 0.0**

30-B 6 73.5** 0.0**

30-C nd nd

Site 30 mean 71.8** 0.0**

Zone K 31-A 7 98.5 100.8

31-B 7 116.3 100.8

31-C 7 94.5 100.8

Site 31 mean 103.1 100.8

32-A 6 102.1 100.0

32-B 6 105.7 97.8

32-C 6 118.4 98.3

Site 32 mean 108.7 98.7

33-A 6 118.4 100.0

33-B 6 115.7 99.3

33-C 6 105.5 100.0

Site 33 mean 113.3 99.8

Zone L 34-A nd nd

34-B 5 50.2* 20.9

34-C 89.5 98.2

Site 34 mean 69.9 59.5
45

Table 8 continued.

Regional Sampling Test Percent Percent

Zone Site/station Series Survivala Normal

35-A 6 115.0 99.5

35-B nd

35-C 6 119.9 100.0

Site 35 mean 117.4 99.8

36-A 5 78.4 72.4

36-B 5 97.7 99.6

36-C 5 79.4 85.6

Site 36 mean 85.2 85.9

Zone M 37-A 7 73.4** 100.8

37-B 7 92.7 100.6

37-C 7 81.9 72.0

Site 37 mean 82.7* 91.1

38-A 7 96.9 100.5

38-B 7 97.7 100.0

38-C 7 80.7 99.7

Site 38 mean 91.8 100.1

39-A 7 60.7** 6.7**

39-B 7 17.6** 11.5**

39-C 7 95.3 100.5

Site 39 mean 57.9 39.6

a Percent survival relative to seawater controls.

* Significantly different from controls (t-test, alpha = 0.05).

** Significantly different from controls and 80% or less than the control response.

The spatial patterns in toxicity for the two end-points of this test are illustrated in Figures 9 through 12.

As with the pattern seen in the Ampelisca abdita survival test, the bivalve larvae survival test indicated

relatively high toxicity in the upper East River stations, diminishing eastward into western Long Island

Sound (Figure 9). Also, samples from Kill van Kull (site 17), inner Sandy Hook Bay (site 30), and two

offshore sites (37 and 39) were toxic in this test. Based upon the site means, toxicity in this test was

high in sites 6, 7, 17, and 30 (Figure 10).

The percent normal development end-point also indicated high toxicity in sediments from sites 5-8 in

the upper East River and western Long Island Sound (Figure 11). However, toxicity to this test did not

diminish nearly as much into western Long Island Sound as in the amphipod and bivalve survival tests.

Sediments from sites 4 and 5 were more toxic to bivalve normal development than to amphipod or

bivalve embryo survival. The very high toxicity indicated by the amphipod survival test in the Newark

Bay/Arthur Kill area (sites 16-18) was not as apparent in the bivalve larvae development tests. Sediments from site 16 at the head of Newark Bay were very toxic to amphipods, but not to bivalve larvae.

Site 17 sediments were toxic in the survival test, but not in the development test.
46

1

2

3

4

5

6

8 7

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24 25 26

27

28

29

30

31 32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

Figure 9. Sampling stations in which the sediment elutriates were significantly toxic 

to Mulinia lateralis larvae survival (n=5, alpha <0.05).

Non-toxic stations

Stations significantly different

from controls

Stations significantly different

from controls and <80% of

control response
47

1

2

3

4

5

6

8 7

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24 25 26

27

28

29

30

31 32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

Figure 10. Sampling sites in which the sediment elutriates were significantly toxic to

Mulinia lateralis larvae survival (average of three stations, alpha <0.05).

Non-toxic sites

Sites significantly different

from controls

Sites significantly different

from controls and <80% of

control response
48

1

2

3

4

5

6

8 7

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24 25 26

27

28

29

30

31 32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

Figure 11. Sampling stations in which the sediment elutriates were significantly toxic

to Mulinia lateralis larvae normal development (n=5, alpha <0.05).

Non-toxic stations

Stations significantly different

from controls

Stations significantly different

from controls and <80% of

control response
49

1

2

3

4

5

6

8 7

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24 25 26

27

28

29

30

31 32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

Figure 12. Sampling sites in which the sediment elutriates were significantly toxic 

to Mulinia lateralis larvae normal development (average of three stations, alpha <0.05).

Non-toxic sites

Sites significantly different

from controls

Sites significantly different

from controls and <80% of

control response
50

Toxicity to bivalve development was not nearly as high in lower Raritan River sediments (site 20) as in

the amphipod test. All three of the stations at site 39 were significantly toxic to amphipods and two of

the three were toxic to both end-points of the bivalve larvae test, but the site mean was not significantly

different from controls in any of the three test end-points. Two of the three samples from site 30 in

Sandy Hook Bay were toxic to all three test end-points and toxicity diminished northeastward out into

lower New York Harbor.

Microbial Bioluminescence Tests of Organic-Extracts. An initial range-finding experiment was

conducted with sediments previously tested with the amphipods. Each of the sediments that indicated

high, intermediate, and low toxicity to the amphipods were tested with three sediment concentrations

(3, 10, and 15 g wet weight of sediment) to provide a dilution series. This experiment showed that

extracts from 3 g of sediments were sufficient to cause a 50% reduction in light output by the Microtoxtm

bacteria. In addition, separation and precipitation of extract phases occurred in the vials during the

extraction procedures with the 10 and 15 g extracts from both the intermediate and high toxicity samples.

These results indicated that the 10 and 15 g concentrations were too high and would lead to spurious

light attenuation. A total of 116 of the 117 sediment samples was tested with Microtoxtm. The sediment concentrations (EC50s) that caused 50% light inhibition were determined, along with the 95%

confidence limits, for the Central Long Island Control and each test sediment. Duplicate tests were run

for each sample. Mean EC50 values (mg sediment/mL) and the 95% confidence intervals are listed in

Table 9. Samples that were significantly different from controls are listed with one asterisk. Those

samples in which the mean EC50 was 80% or less of the control are listed with two asterisks.

The mean EC50s of the two tests of the controls were 2.02 and 2.1 mg/mL (Table 9). Of the 116

samples that were tested, 47 (41%) were significantly toxic (i.e., different from controls) in this test.

Many of the samples (32) caused EC50 values of 1.6 mg/mL or less (80% of controls). However, in

some cases the test samples were less toxic than the CLIS controls (as indicated by EC50 values greater

than 2.1). This test indicated that 19 of the 39 sites (49%) were significantly different from controls.

The mean EC50s for 14 sites were significantly different from controls and 80% of the control response or less.

All three of the sites in zones C and D were significantly different from controls, whereas none of the

sites in zones A, G, and M were toxic in this test. Stations 6-C, 9-B, 28-A, and 36-B were the most

toxic, as indicated by the lowest mean EC50s. All but one of the nine stations in zone B (western Long

Island Sound), and zone D (lower East River) were different from controls in this test. None of the

stations in zone A (lower Hudson River) and zone M (New York Bight) were toxic, and only one each

in zone E (Upper New York Harbor) and zone L (Lower New York Harbor) was different from controls.

Table 9. Results of Microtoxtm tests of microbial bioluminescence in organic extracts of sediments; mean EC50’s (n=2) and 95% confidence intervals for stations, and mean EC50’s (n=3) for

sites.

Regional Sampling Mean EC50 95% Confidence

Zone Site/station (mg/mL) Interval

CLIS Control 1 2.02 2.00-2.03

2 2.11 2.01-2.16

Mean 2.06 n/a
51

Table 9 continued.

Regional Sampling Mean EC50 95% Confidence

Zone Site/station (mg/mL) Interval

Zone A 1A 16.33 15.81-16.84

1B 11.80 10.49-13.11

1C 14.13 13.88-14.45

Site 1 mean 14.09 ns

2A 15.34 14.90-15.80

2B 2.12 2.07-2.15

2C 15.58 15.40-15.78

Site 2 mean 11.01 ns

3A 2.16 2.14-2.20

3B 2.02 1.98-2.05

3C 1.90 1.84-1.94

Site 3 mean 2.03 ns

Zone B 4A 1.72* 1.68-1.76

4B 1.58** 1.57-1.59

4C 1.46** 1.41-1.51

Site 4 mean 1.59**

5A 1.38** 1.38-1.38

5B 1.69* 1.65-1.72

5C 1.65* 1.61-1.67

Site 5 mean 1.57**

6A 2.14 2.11-2.19

6B 1.41** 1.34-1.47

6C 0.30** 0.29-0.45

Site 6 mean 1.28 ns

Zone C 7A 1.86 1.86-1.86

7B 1.54 1.51-1.58

7C 1.35 1.30-1.39

Site 7 mean 1.58**

8A 1.80 1.77-1.84

8B 1.27** 1.26-1.30

8C 1.64** 1.62-1.67

Site 8 mean 1.57**

9A 1.54** 1.49-1.59

9B 0.72** 0.69-0.74

9C 1.34 1.29-1.39

Site 9 mean 1.20**

Zone D 10A 1.38** 1.37-1.38

10B 1.64** 1.59-1.70

10C 1.66* 1.66-1.67

Site 10 mean 1.56**

11A 1.84 1.83-1.84

11B 1.53** 1.45-1.59

11C 1.73* 1.71-1.74

Site 11 mean 1.70*
52

Table 9 continued.

Regional Sampling Mean EC50 95% Confidence

Zone Site/station (mg/mL) Interval

12A 1.51** 1.35-1.62

12B 1.48** 1.45-1.50

12C 1.48** 1.44-1.49

Site 12 mean 1.49**

Zone E 13A 1.68 1.58-1.75

13B 2.28 2.25-2.33

13C 1.86 1.60-2.07

Site 13 mean 1.94 ns

14A 22.23 20.93-23.59

14B 11.27 11.19-11.36

14C 7.23 6.90-7.55

Site 14 mean 13.58 ns

15A 1.57 1.48-1.65

15B 1.87 1.86-1.89

15C 1.69* 1.69-1.69

Site 15 mean 1.71*

Zone F 16A 2.05 2.03-2.07

16B 1.75* 1.73-1.76

16C 1.59** 1.58-1.61

Site 16 mean 1.80 ns

17A 1.35 1.25-1.45

17B 1.33 1.31-1.34

17C 1.49 1.44-1.51

Site 17 mean 1.39**

18A 1.76 1.69-1.80

18B 1.46** 1.45-1.48

18C 1.81 1.61-1.89

Site 18 mean 1.68*

Zone G 19A 2.38 2.37-2.38

19B 1.82* 1.80-1.83

19C 1.79* 1.79-1.79

Site 19 mean 2.00 ns

20A 2.39 2.31-2.44

20B 1.85 1.78-1.89

20C 1.73 1.71-1.75

Site 20 mean 1.99 ns

21A 1.72* 1.70-1.74

21B 1.65 1.64-1.66

21C 2.32 2.23-2.42

Site 21 mean 1.90 ns
53

Table 9 continued.

Regional Sampling Mean EC50 95% Confidence

Zone Site/station (mg/mL) Interval

Zone H 22A 1.59** 1.57-1.62

22B 1.83 1.79-1.86

22C 1.73 1.65-1.76

Site 22 mean 1.72*

23A 1.43** 1.41-1.47

23B 1.41** 1.36-1.45

23C 1.58 1.28-1.78

Site 23 mean 1.47**

24A 1.56** 1.52-1.59

24B 2.07 2.04-2.10

24C 2.13 2.05-2.22

Site 24 mean 1.92 ns

Zone I 25A 1.98 1.92-2.02

25B 1.80 1.77-1.83

25C 2.01* 1.94-2.08

Site 25 mean 1.93 ns

26A 1.96* 1.90-2.02

26B 1.82* 1.78-1.87

26C 1.56** 1.54-1.58

Site 26 mean 1.78 ns

27A 1.49** 1.46-1.51

27B 1.57** 1.54-1.59

27C 1.50** 1.50-1.50

Site 27 mean 1.52**

Zone J 28A 0.28** 0.27-0.28

28B 1.27** 1.25-1.29

28C 1.33** 1.32-1.34

Site 28 mean 0.96**

29A 2.14 2.07-2.22

29B 2.22 2.13-2.32

29C 2.32 2.29-2.34

Site 29 mean 2.23 ns

30A 1.45** 1.36-1.51

30B 1.54** 1.45-1.58

30C 1.68* 1.64-1.71

Site 30 mean 1.56**

Zone K 31A 1.47** 1.41-1.53

31B 1.47 1.40-1.52

31C 1.77 1.74-1.80

Site 31 mean 1.57**

32A 2.00 1.95-2.03

32B 1.75* 1.73-1.78

32C 1.86 1.84-1.87
54

Table 9 continued.

Regional Sampling Mean EC50 95% Confidence

Zone Site/station (mg/mL) Interval

Site 32 mean 1.87 ns

33A 2.00 1.95-2.05

33B 1.45** 1.42-1.48

33C 2.44 2.38-2.52

Site 33 mean 1.96 ns

Zone L 34A 1.56 1.29-1.77

34B 2.10 1.96-2.22

34C 2.61 2.60-2.61

Site 34 mean 2.09 ns

35A 1.79 1.76-1.82

35B no data

35C 1.78 1.76-1.80

Site 35 mean 1.79*

36A 1.57 1.54-1.60

36B 1.03** 0.95-1.12

36C 1.50 1.44-1.58

Site 36 mean 1.37**

Zone M 37A >29.80 n/a

37B >32.60 n/a

37C >29.60 n/a

Site 37 mean >30.77 ns

38A 20.12 19.99-20.19

38B 21.55 21.10-22.12

38C 22.00 21.85-22.17

Site 38 mean 21.22 ns

39A 2.45 2.41-2.48

39B 2.61 2.59-2.64

39C 17.89 17.49-18.29

Site 39 mean 7.65 ns

* Station or site mean significantly different from controls (alpha=0.05).

** Mean response significantly different from controls and 80% or less than control response.

ns Mean response not significantly different from controls.

The data from this test indicated several spatial patterns in toxicity among the stations and sites (Figures 13 and 14). Many of the stations and sites in the lower East River, upper East River, and western

Long Island Sound were toxic, whereas none were toxic in the adjacent lower Hudson River and only

one was toxic in the upper New York Harbor. Second, many of the stations and sites in Arthur Kill,

western Raritan Bay, central Raritan Bay, and Sandy Hook Bay were toxic, whereas only one of the

stations in adjacent lower New York Harbor and outer bay/New York Bight was toxic. Also, none of

the three sites in lower Raritan River was toxic. There was considerable heterogeneity in toxicity

within Raritan Bay, but not in the outer bay/New York Bight, where all samples and sites were nontoxic.
55

1

2

3

4

5

6

8 7

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24 25 26

27

28

29

30

31 32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

Figure 13. Sampling stations in which the sediment extracts were significantly toxic 

to microbial bioluminescence (n=5, alpha <0.05).

Stations significantly different

from controls

Non-toxic stations

Stations significantly different

from controls and <80% of

control response
56

1

2

3

4

5

6

8 7

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24 25 26

27

28

29

30

31 32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

Figure 14. Sampling sites in which the sediment extracts were significantly toxic to

microbial bioluminescence (average of three stations, alpha <0.05).

Sites significantly different

from controls

Non-toxic sites

Sites significantly different

from controls and <80% of

control response
57

In December 1989, the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) collected sediments from 19 locations in the estuary and tested them for toxicity with the Microtoxtm bioluminescence test (DeMuth et

al, 1993). Tests were performed with three types of extracts: (1) saline solution extracts; (2) sequential

saline and organic extracts; and (3) organic extracts. Duplicate tests were performed with most samples.

The effective concentrations (EC50s) that caused 50% reductions in light output were determined for

each of the three tests.

As judged by the lowest EC50 values, the Microtoxtm tests indicated that the sediments from Newtown

Creek (a tributary of the lower East River); Throg’s Neck (upper East River); and Shooters Island

(Arthur Kill) were among the most toxic (Table 10). Samples from Rockaway Bay, Fall Hook Channel, Ambrose Channel, and Jamaica Bay were the least toxic in the Microtoxtm tests.

Table 10. Results of microbial bioluminescence (Microtoxtm) tests of sediments from the HudsonRartian estuary performed with three kinds of sediment extracts (from DeMuth et al., 1993).

Samping Saline Sequential Organic

Sites EC50a organic EC50b EC50c

1. Throg’s Neck 1.7±0.1 3400±500 1170±24

2. Mt. St. Vincent ns 14600 1750±270

3. Union City ns 12600±1400 4370±910

4. The Battery 1.0, ns 10600±200 3300±1700

5. Newtown Creek 0.7±0.3 500±200 1200±300

6. The Narrows 1.7, ns 11200 4200±900

7. Newark Bay ns 7600±1700 3550

8. Shooters Island 0.8, ns 9200±600 1280±100

9. Deep Point ns 8600±6500 6300±1300

10. Ward Point ns 8900±5700 2260±120

11. East Reach ns 18700±1720 4420±1160

12. Chapel Hill Channel 1.5, ns 4200±4100 1600±300

13. Sandy Hook Bay ns 1700±300 1820

14. Rockaway Bay 3.6, ns 46800±2800 49600±5500

15. Fall Hook Channel 8.7±4.5 25300±14000 7880±3820

16. Ambrose Channel 1.7, ns 29100±19400 8630±1140

17. Jamaica Bay 5.1±4.3 10900±3200 4100±2840

aResults of tests performed with saline extracts, reported as the amount of sediment equivalents (g) that

decreased light output by 50%.

bResults of tests performed with organic extracts previously extracted with saline solution, reported as

amount of sediment equivalents (ug) that decreased light output by 50%.

cResults of tests performed with organic extracts, reported as the amount of sediment equivalents (ug)

that decreased light output by 50%.

Polychaete and Sand Dollar Growth Tests. In 1991, the NMFS (Rice et al., in press) tested 17 of the

117 samples collected in Phase 1 of the present survey (Table 11). In these samples, impaired growth

was measured among polychaetes (Armandia brevis) and adult sand dollars (Dendraster excentricus).

Both species were collected from Puget Sound for the tests. Significant reductions in growth were

quantified by comparisons of the data with animals exposed to unspecified controls. The sediments
58

from Throg’s Neck (site 7) were significantly toxic to polychaete growth, causing 0.0% growth relative

to the controls (the lowest rate of growth observed). Also, sediments from site 28 in East Reach

(western Raritan Bay) and site 29 in Sandy Hook Bay were significantly toxic and caused very low

rates of growth. The polychaete test appeared to be more sensitive than the sand dollar test, indicating

13 of 17 samples were significantly different from controls, as compared to 8 of 17 in the sand dollar

test. Sediment from only two of the sites were not significantly toxic in both tests: those from site 36 in

lower New York Harbor and site 37 in the entrance to the estuary. Sediments from five of the sites were

toxic to both species. The observations of toxicity in site 11 (East River), site 17 (near Shooters Island), site 16 (Newark Bay), site 20 (lower Raritan River), and site 29 (Sandy Hook Bay) were consistent with those of previous investigators. Also, they were consistent with the results of the Microtoxtm,

bivalve larvae, and amphipod tests.

Table 11. Results of polychaete (Armandia brevis) impaired growth tests, and sand dollar

(Dendraster excentricus) impaired growth tests of sediments from the Hudson-Rartian estuary

(from Rice et al., in press).

Polychaete Sand dollar

Samping Growth Growth

Sites (percent) (percent)

1. Lower Hudson River 50.3* 88.7*

3. Lower Hudson River 74.6* ns

6. Western Long Island Sound 51.4* ns

7. Upper East River 0.0* ns

11. Lower East River ns 71.1*

13. Upper New York Harbor ns 78.0*

14. Upper New York Harbor ns 82.0*

16. Newark Bay 39.4* 71.9*

17. Arthur Kill 59.2* 36.9*

20. Lower Raritan Bay 55.2* 71.8*

22. Western Raritan Bay 81.2* ns

25. Central Raritan Bay 69.4* ns

28. Sandy Hook Bay 15.0* 85.7*

29. Sandy Hook Bay 10.5* ns

36. Lower New York Harbor ns ns

37. Outer Bay ns ns

38. Outer Bay 52.1* ns

*Significantly reduced growth compared to controls (percent growth observed relative to normal controls).

Estimates of Spatial Extent of Toxicity. The spatial extent of toxicity was estimated separately with

the data from both Phases 1 and 2 (Tables 12, 13 and 14). The size of the entire survey area sampled

during Phase 1 was estimated at 350 km2. During Phase 2, the survey area covered approximately 12.7

km2, some of which overlapped with the area sampled during Phase 1. The area in which toxicity test

results were less than 80% of the control responses was determined.
59

Based upon separate analyses of the data from the four test end-points in Phase 1, 89.4 to 136.1 km2

were estimated to be toxic (i.e., toxicity test results were less than 80% of the control responses). These

areas represented approximately 25% to 39% of the total study area. Based upon a critical value of less

than 20% of controls (the reciprocal of 80%), the area estimated to be highly toxic ranged from 0 to 16

km2, representing from 0% to 4.6% of the survey area.

Table 12. Estimates of the spatial extent of toxicity* (km2 and percent of total area) in the HudsonRaritan Estuary based upon the cumulative distribution functions of data from each of four test

end-points.

Toxic Area Highly Toxic Area

(<80% of controls) (<20% of controls)

Amphipod survival 133.3 km2 12.0 km2

(38.1%) (3.4%)

Bivalve larvae survival 87.4 km2 0

(25.0%)

Bivalve larvae development 103.8 km2 16.1 km2

(30.0%) (4.6%)

Microtox bioluminescence 136.1 km2 0

(38.9%)

* Based upon critical values of <80% and <20% of control responses.

Total survey area: 350 km2

Based upon the amphipod survival test performed in Phase 1, approximately 133 km2 of the HudsonRaritan Estuary were toxic (Table 12). Since toxicity was most widespread in the amphipod tests, the

results of the other three end-points were compared to it to determine concordance in the estimates of

the spatial extent of toxicity. Toxicity was second most widespread in the microbial bioluminescence

test. Based upon both the amphipod and microbial bioluminescence tests (Table 13), approximately 34

km2 were toxic (9.8% of the total). Based upon these data and, using the critical value of less than 80%

of control responses, site 7 (located near Throg’s Neck), site 10 (located in the upper East River), and

site 30 (located in Sandy Hook Bay) were significantly toxic in all four test end-points, representing

about 20 km2 (5.7% of the total area).

Table 13. Estimates of concordance in the spatial extent of toxicity* (km2 and percent of total

area) in the Hudson-Raritan estuary among the four toxicity test end-points.

Toxic Area

Kilometer2 Percent

Amphipod survival 133.3 38.1%

Amphipod survival and microbial

bioluminescence 34.2 9.8
60

Table 13 continued.

Toxic Area

Kilometer2 Percent

Amphipod survival, microbial

bioluminescence, and bivalve

development 23.6 6.7

Amphipod survival, microbial

bioluminescence, bivalve

 development and survival 19.9 5.7

* Based upon a critical value of <80% of control responses.

The spatial extent of toxicity in Phase 2 of the survey was calculated separately since the survey design

was different from that used in Phase 1 (Table 14). The study area in Phase 2 covered approximately

12.7 km2. Within that area, about 10.8 km2 were significantly toxic (<80% of controls) and about 1.2

km2 were highly toxic (<20% of controls) in the amphipod survival tests. These areas represented

approximately 85% and 9.7% of the total, respectively.

Table 14. Estimates of the spatial extent of toxicity* (km2 and percent of total area) in Newark

Bay and vicinity, based upon the cumulative distribution function of data from amphipod survival tests.

Significantly Highly

Toxic Toxic

(<80% of controls) (<20% of controls)

Amphipod survival 10.8 km2 1.2 km2

(85.0%) (9.7%)

* Based upon a critical values of <80% and <20% of control responses.

Total survey area: 12.7 km2

Concentrations and Distribution of Contaminants in Sediments: Phase 1. Following a review of

the data from the toxicity tests, chemical analyses were performed on 38 selected samples from Phase

1. Samples selected for chemical analyses were not chosen randomly; rather, they were chosen to

represent toxicity gradients within selected regions of the study area. Concentrations of trace elements,

acid-volatile sulfides, simultaneously extracted metals, polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs),

PCBs, pesticides, organic carbon, carbonate, and sediment grain sizes are listed in Appendices A-E.

Patterns in the distribution of selected chemicals among the stations sampled in Phase 1 are illustrated

in Figures 15-20.

The portion of the sediments consisting of fine-grained materials (silt + clay) in the selected samples

varied from 0.0% at stations 37B and 38B to 76.7% at station 17B (Figure 15). The samples from

western Long Island Sound (sites 4-6), the Hudson River (sites 1 and 2), East River (sites 10 and 12),

upper Arthur Kill (site 17), western Raritan Bay (sites 23 and 24), and the lower New York Harbor (site
61

1

2

3

4

5

6

8 7

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23 24

25

26 27

28

29

30

31 32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

Figure 15. Percent fine-grained sediments (silt + clay) at selected stations in the 

Hudson-Raritan Estuary.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Percent fines
62

36) had relatively high percent fine-grained materials (over 50%). Samples with relatively low percent

fines were collected in the upper East River (site 7), lower Hudson River (site 13), upper New York

Harbor (site 14), upper Newark Bay (site 16), and in the lower New York Harbor (sites 26, 34, 35, 37,

and 38).

The concentrations of total organic carbon (TOC) ranged from 0.7% (at sites 37 and 38) to 3.6-4.8% (at

sites 11 and 12) up to a maximum of 5.0% at site 9 (Figure 16). Curiously, sample 7B had low percent

fines (10.4%), but very high TOC content (4.4%). In most samples the TOC content ranged from 2%

to 3% with very few samples having less than 1% TOC. Multiple samples from most sites had similar

concentrations of TOC. However, the two samples from sites 7 and 10 had considerably different

concentrations, reflecting within-site heterogeneity. The two samples collected in the mouth of the

estuary (sites 37 and 38) had extremely low TOC content and consisted entirely of sand (100% sand).

Also, the sample from site 14 in upper New York Harbor was 98.5% sand and had only 0.25% TOC.

The concentrations of mercury in most samples ranged from 1.0 to 2.5 ug/g (Figure 17). Samples from

sites 7, 9, and 10 had 4.7 to 5.0 ug/g Hg. Sample 18C from the Arthur Kill had 15 ug/g Hg, considerably higher than any of the other samples. Samples with relatively low mercury concentrations were

those from western Long Island Sound, the lower Hudson River, upper New York Harbor, lower New

York Harbor, and near the Sandy Hook-Rockaway Point transec.

In most samples, the molar ratios of total simultaneously extracted metals (SEM) to total acid volatile

sulfides (AVS) ranged from 0.04 to 0.22 (Figure 18). However, in sample 34B the ratio was 0.74, in

sample 14A it was 0.80, and in sample 2A it was 2.42. In sandy samples 37B and 38B, the concentrations of AVS were very low, and the SEM/AVS ratios were 9.32 and 5.47, respectively. There were no

consistent spatial patterns in the SEM/AVS ratios throughout the study area.

In most samples, the concentrations of total PCBs (sum of 20 congeners) ranged from 100 ng/g to 200

ng/g (Figure 19). The PCB concentrations were relatively high in a few samples, notably the sample

from station 12A in the East River which had 1972.8 ng/g. The concentrations of total PCBs exceeded

450 ng/g in samples from stations 1A, 11B, 12B, 17B, 17C, and 18C. The relatively high PCB concentrations in the samples from the East River gradually decreased into the western Long Island Sound.

Also, the relatively high concentrations in the Arthur Kill gradually diminished towards the Sandy

Hook-Rockaway Point transect at the estuary entrance.

In most samples, the concentrations of total PAHs (sum of 24 PAHs) ranged from 4,000 ng/g to 20,000

ng/g (Figure 20). However, the samples from sites 7, 8, 9, 10, and 11 in the East River and site 17 in

Kull van Kull had concentrations that exceeded 20,000 ng/g total PAH. The concentration of total PAH

in sample 9B from the upper East River was 1,123,355 ng/g. The high concentrations of PAHs in the

East River decreased considerably eastward into Long Island Sound. Also, the moderate concentrations of PAHs in the Arthur Kill diminished eastward toward the Sandy Hook-Rockaway Point transect

at the estuary entrance. The lowest concentrations of these compounds were found in samples collected in the upper New York Harbor and beyond the estuary entrance.

Concentrations and Distribution of Contaminants in Sediments: Phase 2. In Phase 2 of the survey, sediments from 20 of the 57 sampling stations in Newark Bay and vicinity were analyzed for

chemical concentrations. These 20 stations included station 57 in upper New York Harbor, which was

sampled during Phase 1 (listed as Site 14 in Phase 1). A full suite of trace elements, organo chlorine
63

1

2

3

4

5

6

8 7

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23 24

25 26 27

28

29

30

31 32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

Figure 16. Percent total organic carbon (TOC) in selected stations in the 

Hudson-Raritan Estuary.

0

1

2

3

4

5

Percent TOC
64

1

2

3

4

5

6

8 7

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23 24

25 26 27

28

29

30

31 32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

0

3

6

9

12

15

Mercury, ug/g

Figure 17. Mercury concentrations in selected stations in the Hudson-Raritan 

Estuary.
65

1

2

3

4

5

6

8 7

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23 24

25 26 27

28

29

30

31 32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

0

2

4

6

8

10

Total SEM/AVS ratio

Figure 18. Ratio of total simultaneously-extracted metals concentrations (umole/g) to 

acid-volatile sulfide concentrations (umole/g) in selected stations in the 

Hudson-Raritan Estuary.
66

1

2

3

4

5

6

8 7

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23 24

25 26 27

28

29

30

31 32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

0

500

1000

1500

2000

Total PCBs, ng/g

Figure 19. Total PCB concentrations (sum of 20 individual congeners, ng/g) in 

selected stations in the Hudson-Raritan Estuary.
67

1

2

3

4

5

6

8 7

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23 24

25 26 27

28

29

30

31 32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

0

10000

20000

30000

40000

50000

101,667

1,123,355

Sum of total PAHs, ng/g

Figure 20. Concentrations of total PAHs (sum of 24 compounds) at selected stations 

in the Hudson-Raritan Estuary.
68

compounds, and PAHs were quantified along with dioxins and furans. The 20 samples selected for

chemical analyses were chosen before the samples were collected. Samples were chosen to represent

suspected pollution gradients based upon data (especially from analyses of dioxins) from previous

studies. As expected from the results of the Phase 1 analyses, the sample from station 57 was sandy and

had very low concentrations of all substances.

The concentration of cadmium was relatively low in the sample from station 57, a reference station in

upper New York Harbor (Figure 21). Also, the cadmium concentration was relatively low in the samples

from the Hackensack River and much of Newark Bay. In contrast, the cadmium concentrations in

many of the samples from the lower Passaic River were 4 to 6 ppm. In addition, the sample from

station 26 midway down Newark Bay had a cadmium concentration of 4.2 ppm.

The concentrations of mercury in the Newark Bay samples followed a distributional pattern similar to

that of cadmium (Figure 22). Mercury concentrations were relatively low in the reference sample from

upper New York Harbor, in most of the samples from Newark Bay, in two of the Hackensack River

samples, and at the upstream station in the Passaic River. In contrast, mercury concentrations were 3-

5 ppm in samples from the lower Passaic River, a station in the Hackensack River in the vicinity of

Berry’s Creek, and at station 26 midway down Newark Bay. At station 14 near Berry’s Creek, the

mercury concentration was 4.3 ppm.

The SEM/AVS ratios ranged from 0.07 to 2.85 and were less than 1.0 at all but three stations (Figure

23). The sample from station 1 in the Passaic River had the highest ratio, 2.85, followed by station 8 in

the lower Passaic River and station 56 in lower Newark Bay, in which the ratios were 1.02 and 1.04,

respectively. The total SEM concentrations were based upon sums of the Cd, Cu, Pb, Ni, and Zn

concentrations.

The concentrations of total PCBs ranged from 105 ng/g at station 57 in upper New York Harbor to 2318

ng/g at station 26 in Newark Bay and 2850 ng/g at station 3 in the lower Passaic River (Figure 24).

Total PCB concentrations exceeded 1,000 ng/g in all of the Passaic River stations except station 1. In

contrast, the concentrations of total PCBs ranged from 110 to 671 ng/g at the three stations in the

Hackensack River.

The concentrations of 18 dioxins and furans were quantified by NBS. Also, the concentrations of four

co-planar PCBs were quantified. Based upon the toxicity equivalency factors (TEF) derived for mammalian systems by Kutz et al. (1990) for the dioxins and furans and by Barnes et al. (1991) for the coplanar PCBs, the cumulative, total 2,3,7,8-tcdd toxicity equivalency quotients (TEQ) were calculated

and plotted (Figure 25). Total 2,3,7,8-tcdd TEQs ranged from 13 pg/g at station 57 in upper New York

Harbor to 874 pg/g at station 7c in the lower Passaic River. All samples except five from stations in the

Hackensack River and Newark Bay had concentrations of 100 pg/g or greater. In addition, sample 26

from Newark Bay had a concentration of 723 pg/g total TEQ.

With funding provided to U.S. EPA Region 2 from the U.S. EPA Office of Science and Technology, the

concentrations of 17 dioxin and furan congeners were determined in an additional 35 samples. Twelve

samples were analyzed by Pacific Analytical, Inc. and the remaining 23 samples were analyzed by

Midwest Research Institute. Both laboratories prepared the samples and conducted the analyses in

accordance with EPA Method 1613. However, the comparability of the data from the NBS, Pacific

Analytical, Inc., and Midwest Research Institute laboratories was not determined.
69

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

Cd, ug/g

Hackensack River

Passaic River

Newark Bay

Staten Island

Upper

New York

Harbor

Figure 21. Concentrations of cadmium at selected stations in Newark Bay and 

vicinity.

1

3

5 7a

7b7c 8

10

11

12

14

17

20

21

26

31

36

56 57
70

0

1

2

3

4

5

Hg, ug/g

Staten Island

Upper

New York

Harbor

Newark Bay

Passaic River

Hackensack River

Figure 22. Concentrations of mercury at selected stations in Newark Bay and 

vicinity.

57

56

36

31

26

21

20

17

14

12 1

3

5 7a

7b

7c

8a8b

10

11
71

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

SEM/AVS Ratios

Staten Island

Upper New

York

Harbor

Newark Bay

Hackensack River

Passaic River

Figure 23. Ratios of total simultaneously-extracted metals(SEM) to total 

acid-volatile sulfides (AVS) at selected stations in Newark Bay and vicinity.

1

3

5 7a7b7c8a8b

10

11

12

14

17

21

20

26

31

36

56

57
72

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

tPCB, ng/g

Staten Island

Newark Bay

Upper

New York

Harbor

Passaic River

Hackensack River

Figure 24. Concentrations of total PCBs at selected stations in Newark Bay and

vicinity.

1

3

5 7a

7b

7c

8a

8b

10

11

12

14

17

20

21

26

31

36

56

57
73

Staten Island

Newark Bay

Upper

New York

Harbor

Passaic River

Hackensack River

Sum total 2378-tcdd

TEQ, pg/g

Figure 25. Concentrations of total 2,3,7,8-tcdd toxicity equivalency quotients 

(TEQ) at selected stations in Newark Bay and vicinity.

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1

3

5 7a

7b

7c

8a8b 10

11

12

14

17

20

21

26

31

36

56 57
74

The concentrations of 2,3,7,8-tcdd reported by the three laboratories are plotted in Figure 26. Note that

the scales in Figures 25 and 26 are different. The spatial pattern in the concentrations of 2,3,7,8-tcdd in

all 55 samples corresponded with that for total dioxin equivalents in the 20 samples analyzed by NBS.

The relatively high concentrations (280-620 pg/g) of this isomer in the lower Passaic River stations

contrasts with the relatively low levels in the Hackensack River (62 pg/g or less). Except for station 26

located in central Newark Bay, the concentrations of 2,3,7,8-tcdd generally decreased down Newark

Bay from the mouth of the Passaic River toward Staten Island. The concentrations of this congener

were 100-150 pg/g in many of the samples collected near the Port Newark Terminal.

In addition to the chemical analyses of dioxins and furans, the Midwest Science Center of NBS determined the concentrations of these and other compounds in H4IIE rat hepatoma bioassays, following

the protocols of Tillitt et al. (1991). The toxicity of whole sediment extracts (F1) and fractions of the

extracts were determined and reported in units of 2, 3, 7, 8 -tcdd equivalents (pg/g). Seven fractions,

representing dioxins, furans, PCBs, and PAHs, were tested (Table 15). The toxicity of the F5 fraction

(PAHs) was considerably greater than that of all of the other fractions. In many of the samples, the

tcdd-equivalent concentrations of the PAHs exceeded the concentrations observed in the whole extracts. This observation suggests that the toxicity of these compounds may not be strictly additive, and

alternatively, some antagonistic effects may occur, thus reducing the cumulative toxicity of these mixtures. Also, the tcdd equivalent concentrations of the F12 fractions (dioxins, furans) were relatively

high. The contributions of the PCB fractions (F7 - F11) to toxicity were relatively minor.

The concentrations of the tcdd equivalents in the whole extracts were highest in the samples from the

lower Passaic River, particularly at stations 3, 6, 7, and 8 (Figure 27). Concentrations diminished

rapidly down Newark Bay and were relatively low in the Hackensack River. Concentrations were very

low in the sample from station 57 in the upper New York Harbor. This distribution pattern differed

from that observed in the chemical analyses; specifically, tcdd equivalent concentrations were relatively low at stations 7 and 26, whereas the chemical analyses indicated that dioxin concentrations

were relatively high at these stations.

The concordance between the concentrations of the planar hydrocarbons determined in chemical analyses

and in the rat hepatoma bioassays was very good for some fractions (Table 16). Spearman-rank correlations were determined for the concentrations of the PCB-TEQs, dioxins/furans-TEQs, and total cumulative TEQs (pg/g) versus the tcdd-eqs (pg/g) determined for each extract fraction in the rat hepatoma

bioassays. The correlations between the cumulative TEQs determined in chemical analyses and the

tcdd-equivalent concentrations in the F12 fraction (dioxins, furans) were particularly strong.
75

Table 15. Concentrations of TCDD-equivalents (pg/g) in whole extracts and extract fractions determined in

H4IIE rat hepatoma bioassays of sediments from Newark Bay. F 1 fraction = whole extract. F 5 fraction = PAH

fraction. F 7 fraction = bulk (>2 - ortho - chloro - substituted) PCB fraction. F 8 = mono - ortho - chloro - substituted PCB

fraction. F 9 = non - ortho - chloro - substituted PCB fraction. F 11 = combined total PCB fraction. F 12 = PCDD/PCDF

fraction.

Station No. F1 fraction F5 fraction F7 fraction F8 fraction F9 fraction F11 fraction F12 fraction

1. 380 5800 0.1 2.2 7 82 156

3. 40000 6000 0.1 1.4 20 96 520

5. 42000 22000 0.0 7.4 49 151 856

7a. 12000 19000 0.2 16.8 113 96 762

7b. 8500 5400 0.2 11.3 155 61 806

7c. 6700 5500 1.4 13.3 17 63 1261

8a. 42000 7200 0.1 5.0 85 332 1047

8b. 93000 7000 3.3 18.4 192 391 648

10. 9300 4800 2.0 8.2 2 16 1017

11. 10000 21000 0.3 4.7 68 204 911

12. 500 650 0.2 0.7 1 11 45

14. 650 18000 0.1 4.1 22 42 424

17. 5000 4900 0.2 1.9 5 52 105

20. 710 11000 0.1 5.6 14 80 164

21. 4500 8500 0.1 4.0 18 111 275

26. 3000 7000 0.1 18.1 86 162 857

31. 1700 4500 0.4 3.6 17 19 274

36. 3200 2000 0.2 4.0 10 47 222

56. 7100 2400 0.3 4.7 12 62 130

57. 170 87 0.1 0.3 2 2 15

Based upon means where replicates were tested.
76

Table 16. Spearman-rank (rho, corrected for ties) correlations between dioxin equivalents determined in chemical analyses and dioxin equivalents (tcdd-eqs) determined in rat hepatoma bioassays of sediment extracts. F 1 fraction = whole extract. F 5 fraction = PAH fraction. F 7

fraction = bulk (>2 - ortho - chloro - substituted) PCB fraction. F 8 = mono - ortho - chloro -

substituted PCB fraction. F 9 = non - ortho - chloro - substituted PCB fraction. F 11 = combined total PCB fraction. F 12 = PCDD/PCDF fraction.

Sediment extract Cumulative Cumulative Cumulative

fraction PCB TEQs dioxin/furan TEQs total TEQs

F1 +0.633* +0.605* +0.616*

F5 +0.428 ns +0.524* +0.506*

F7 +0.116 ns +0.038 ns +0.053 ns

F8 +0.738* +0.750* +0.746*

F9 +0.634* +0.650* +0.649*

F11 +0.530* +0.577* +0.574*

F12 +0.962*** +0.962*** +0.959***

*p<0.05, **p<0.001, ***p<0.0001

This relationship between the total cumulative tcdd equivalents from the chemical analyses and the

tcdd equivalents from the H4IIE rat hepatoma bioassays of the F12 fraction is illustrated in Figure 28.

The relationship is very strong and nearly linear.

Also, there was a relatively strong correlation and relationship between the concentrations of total

PAHs in the sediments and the tcdd equivalents determined in the H4IIE bioassays of the F5 (PAHs)

fraction (Figure 29). This relationship was not as strong as that observed with the dioxins and would be

improved by deletion of the data from two samples. Nevertheless, a strong pattern was obvious between the chemical estimate and the bioassay estimate of PAH concentrations.

Relationships Between Toxicity and Physical-Chemical Parameters: Phase 1. The relationships

between the four measures of toxicity and the concentrations of potential contaminants and other parameters were compared using non-parametric, Spearman-rank correlations (Tables 15-18). Although

the correlation analyses cannot be interpreted as evidence of cause-effect relationships, they can identify patterns in co-variance or concordance between dependent variables (i.e., toxicity) and independent variables (i.e., potential toxicants). The correlation coefficients are accompanied by the level of

significance of the correlations. To account for Type 1 errors in the correlations, the significance level

(p=0.05) should be divided by the number of variables and the adjusted significance level used as the

critical p value.

The total concentrations of most trace metals were not significantly correlated with amphipod survival,

bivalve survival, or bivalve normal development (Table 17). In contrast, most of the metals were

weakly (but significantly) correlated with the microbial bioluminescence EC50s. Only the concentrations of mercury and tin were significantly negatively correlated with amphipod survival. None of the

metals or other parameters were correlated with bivalve survival and only the concentration of carbonate was correlated with bivalve normal development. In the microbial bioluminescence test, all of the

potentially toxic trace metals (i.e., Ag, Cr, Cd, Cu, Hg, Pb, Sn, and Zn) were significantly (p<0.05)

correlated with toxicity. Also, the Microtox test results were correlated with the total organic carbon

content (% TOC). Only those correlations shown with “**” would remain significant if the number of

variables (18) were taken into account.
77

Upper

New York

Harbor

Staten Island

Newark Bay

Passaic River

Hackensack River

2378-tcdd

pg/g

Figure 26. Concentrations of 2,3,7,8-tcdd at 53 selected stations in Newark Bay 

and vicinity.

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

1

2

3

4

5 6

7a

7b

7c

8a

8b9 10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

21 20

22 23 24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32 33 34

36 35

37 39 38

40 41

44

46

48 49 51

54

55 56

57
78

Staten Island

Newark Bay

Upper

New York

Harbor

Passaic River

Hackensack River

Figure 27. TCDD equivalents (pg/g) from H4IIE bioassays of whole (F1) sediment 

extracts from selected stations in Newark Bay and vicinity.

1

3

5 7a

7b

7c

8a8b 10

11

12

14

17

20

21

26

31

36

56 57

0

10000

20000

30000

40000

50000

TCDD-EQ (pg/g) 
79

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

H4IIE F12 fraction TCDD-EQ, pg/g

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900

Total Cumulative TCDD-TEQ, pg/g

Newark Bay

Rho = -0.959***

Figure 28. Relationship of total cumulative tcdd toxicity

equivalents from chemical analyses and TCDD toxicity

equivalents from H4IIE bioassays of the F12 fraction.

1 0

100

1000

10000

100000 H4IIE F5 fraction TCDD-EQ, pg/g

100 1000 10000 100000 1000000

Sum of total PAH, ng/g

Newark Bay

Rho = -0.730*

Figure 29. Relationship of the concentrations of total 

PAHs to the concentrations of the TCDD toxicity equivalents

in the H4IIE bioassays of the F5 (PAH) fraction.
80

Table 17. Spearman-rank correlations (Rho, corrected for ties) between four toxicity end-points

(as percent of controls) and the concentrations of trace elements in Hudson-Raritan estuary sediments (n=38).

Amphipod Bivalve Bivalve Microbial

Survival Survival Development Bioluminescence

Silver +0.206 ns -0.029 ns -0.096 ns -0.363 *

Aluminum +0.177 ns +0.245 ns -0.040 ns -0.201 ns

Arsenic -0.153 ns -0.050 ns -0.287 ns -0.305 ns

Chromium +0.025 ns +0.207 ns +0.001 ns -0.351 *

Cadmium -0.264 ns -0.126 ns -0.205 ns -0.472 *

Copper -0.255 ns -0.048 ns -0.091 ns -0.449 *

Iron +0.233 ns +0.138 ns -0.181 ns -0.320 ns

Mercury -0.437 * -0.096 ns -0.119 ns -0.377 *

Manganese +0.494 * -0.128 ns -0.142 ns -0.105 ns

Nickel -0.095 ns +0.017 ns -0.081 ns -0.451*

Lead -0.295 ns -0.068 ns -0.150 ns -0.478 *

Antimony -0.239 ns +0.013 ns -0.052 ns -0.355 *

Selenium -0.067 ns +0.010 ns -0.047 ns -0.217 ns

Tin -0.342 * -0.061 ns -0.130 ns -0.427 *

Zinc -0.134 ns +0.012 ns -0.208 ns -0.433 *

Sum of Cd/Cu

Hg/Pb/Zn -0.240 ns -0.040 ns -0.153 ns -0.465 *

% TOC -0.151 ns -0.231 ns -0.318 ns -0.581 **

% TIC -0.281 ns -0.233 ns -0.343 * -0.415 *

% fines +0.196 ns +0.063 ns +0.120 ns -0.347 *

*p<0.05, **p<0.001, ***p<0.0001

The concentrations of individual and total simultaneously extracted metals (SEM) were not significantly correlated with the results of the tests of amphipod survival, bivalve survival, and bivalve development (Table 18). Similarly, the SEM/AVS ratios were not significantly correlated with any of the

tests, and, improbably, a positive association was indicated with amphipod survival, bivalve survival,

bivalve development, and microbial bioluminescence. However, the concentrations of many of the

individual simultaneously extracted metals, notably lead, were significantly correlated with the Microtox

results. Although the correlations between microbial bioluminescence and both total AVS and total

SEM concentrations were significantly negative, the correlation with the SEM/AVS ratios was significantly positive. Only those correlations shown with “**” would remain significant if the number of

variables (9) were taken into account.

Table 18. Spearman-rank correlations (Rho, corrected for ties) between four toxicity end-points

(as percent of controls) and the concentrations of acid-volatile sulfides (AVS) and simultaneously

extracted trace metals (SEM) in Hudson-Raritan Estuary sediments (n=38).

Amphipod Bivalve Bivalve Microbial

Survival Survival Development Bioluminescence

Total AVS -0.150 ns -0.133 ns -0.323 ns -0.544 **

SE Cd -0.149 ns -0.113 ns -0.229 ns -0.393 *

SE Cu -0.105 ns -0.015 ns -0.096 ns -0.351 *
81

Table 18 continued.

Amphipod Bivalve Bivalve Microbial

Survival Survival Development Bioluminescence

SE Hg +0.292 ns +0.231 ns +0.189 ns +0.309 ns

SE Ni +0.060 ns +0.125 ns +0.075 ns -0.234 ns

SE Pb -0.234 ns +0.001 ns -0.086 ns -0.482 *

SE Zn -0.050 ns +0.040 ns -0.216 ns -0.340 *

Total SEM -0.130 ns +0.039 ns -0.192 ns -0.417 *

SEM/AVS ratios +0.197 ns +0.118 ns +0.264 ns +0.454 *

*p<0.05, **p<0.001, ***p<0.0001

Most of the correlations between toxicity and the concentrations of chlorinated organic compounds

were not significant (Table 19). Only cis-chlordane, trans-nonachlor, 2,4’-DDD, 4,4'-DDE, 4,4’-DDT,

and the sum of total indeno-pesticides were significantly negatively correlated with any of the toxicity

tests. These compounds were significantly correlated with the microbial bioluminescence test results.

In addition, 4,4’-DDT was significantly correlated with amphipod survival. However, none of these

correlations would remain significant if the number of variables (20) were taken into account.

Table 19. Spearman-rank correlations (Rho, corrected for ties) between four toxicity end-points

(as percent of controls) and the concentrations of PCBs and pesticides in Hudson-Raritan Estuary sediments (n=38).

Amphipod Bivalve Bivalve Microbial

Survival Survival Development Bioluminescence

HCB -0.013 ns +0.281 ns +0.144 ns -0.052 ns

Lindane -0.082 ns -0.172 ns -0.062 ns -0.030 ns

Heptachlor < mdl < mdl < mdl < mdl

Aldrin -0.075 ns -0.004 ns +0.031 ns +0.087 ns

Heptachlor epoxide -0.232 ns +0.234 ns +0.031 ns -0.120 ns

2, 4-DDE -0.125 ns -0.157 ns +0.036 ns -0.295 ns

Cis-chlordane -0.204 ns -0.059 ns -0.007 ns -0.384 *

Trans-nonachlor -0.150 ns -0.065 ns -0.018 ns -0.402 *

Dieldrin -0.058 ns +0.285 ns +0.101 ns +0.014 ns

4,4-DDE -0.287 ns +0.074 ns +0.105 ns -0.406 *

2,4-DDD -0.197 ns +0.249 ns +0.286 ns -0.066 ns

Endrin < mdl < mdl < mdl < mdl

4,4-DDD -0.189 ns -0.019 ns +0.036 ns -0.314 ns

2,4-DDT -0.118 ns +0.112 ns +0.189 ns -0.049 ns

4,4-DDT -0.476 * -0.077 ns +0.069 ns -0.341 *

Mirex +0.281 ns -0.024 ns -0.033 ns +0.039 ns

Indeno pesticides -0.197 ns -0.054 ns -0.021 ns -0.395 *

Total DDTs -0.311 ns +0.132 ns +0.163 ns -0.271 ns

Total PCBs -0.124 ns +0.134 ns +0.239 ns -0.306 ns

Total non-DDT pests. -0.146 ns +0.130 ns +0.079 ns -0.250 ns

*p<0.05, **p<0.001, ***p<0.0001

< mdl = all samples below method detection limit
82

The correlations between the concentrations of polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) and both

amphipod survival and microbial bioluminescence were very strong and highly significant (Table 20).

The PAHs showed consistently negative correlations with these end-points in sharp contrast with the

correlations with metals and chlorinated compounds. The correlations with the sum of the low molecular weight (2- and 3-ring) PAHs were particularly significant. Also, the concentrations of petroleumrelated compounds and microbial bioluminescence were highly correlated. However, the correlations

between the bivalve test results and the PAHs were very weak and frequently not significant. Bivalve

survival was correlated with the concentrations of only five low molecular weight compounds. Accounting for the number of variables (32), only those correlations shown with “**” or “***” would

remain significant.

National sediment quality criteria (SQC) have been proposed for three aromatic hydrocarbons (U.S.

EPA, 1994): fluoranthene, acenaphthene, and phenanthrene expressed in units of organic carbon. The

correlations between these three compounds normalized to TOC content and both amphipod survival

and microbial bioluminescence were significant (Table 20). The correlation between amphipod survival and acenaphthene improved when the chemical concentrations were normalized to the TOC content (Rho = -0.595** vs. Rho =-0.641***). Otherwise, normalization to TOC content tended to diminish the correlative strength between the concentrations of these three compounds and amphipod survival and microbial bioluminescence.

Table 20. Spearman-rank correlations (Rho, corrected for ties) between four toxicity end-points

(as percent of controls) and the concentrations of PAHs in Hudson-Raritan Estuary sediments

(n=38).

Amphipod Bivalve Bivalve Microbial

Survival Survival Development Bioluminescence

naphthalene -0.524* -0.220 ns -0.198 ns -0.577**

2-methylnaph. -0.512* -0.289 ns -0.294 ns 0.653***

1-methylnaph. -0.552** -0.306 ns -0.291 ns -0.673***

biphenyl -0.537* -0.246 ns -0.263 ns -0.640***

2,6-methylnaph. -0.567** -0.337* -0.320 ns -0.695***

acenaphthylene -0.414* -0.247 ns -0.208 ns -0.652***

acenaphthene -0.595** -0.272 ns -0.224 ns -0.620**

1,6,7-trimethylnaph. -0.673*** -0.342* -0.258 ns -0.625***

fluorene -0.623*** -0.310 ns -0.270 ns -0.634***

phenanthrene -0.579** -0.331* -0.240 ns -0.641***

anthracene -0.576** -0.321 ns -0.283 ns -0.673***

1-methylphenanth. -0.579** -0.371* -0.252 ns -0.636***

fluoranthene -0.574** -0.264 ns -0.163 ns -0.608**

pyrene -0.589** -0.327* -0.233 ns -0.615**

benz(a)anthracene -0.561** -0.279 ns -0.188 ns -0.604**

chrysene -0.522* -0.292 ns -0.184 ns -0.526*

benzo(b)fluoranth. -0.582** -0.283 ns -0.215 ns -0.615**

benzo(k)fluoranth. -0.464* -0.160 ns -0.100 ns -0.489*

benzo(e)pyrene -0.592** -0.262 ns -0.233 ns -0.631***

benzo(a)pyrene -0.538* -0.279 ns -0.228 ns -0.615**

perylene -0.580** -0.289 ns -0.236 ns -0.563**

indeno(1,2,3)pyrene -0.549** -0.207 ns -0.165 ns -0.587**
83

Table 20 continued.

Amphipod Bivalve Bivalve Microbial

Survival Survival Development Bioluminescence

dibenzo(a,h)anth. -0.549** -0.291 ns -0.224 ns -0.628***

benzo(g,h,i)perylene -0.480* -0.249 ns -0.196 ns -0.630***

Group A(petroleum) -0.468* -0.293 ns -0.315 ns -0.625***

Group B(combustion) -0.576** -0.294 ns -0.206 ns -0.602**

sum low PAHs -0.592** -0.320 ns -0.266 ns -0.650***

sum high PAHs -0.471* -0.128 ns -0.060 ns -0.512*

sum total PAHs -0.495* -0.312 ns -0.241 ns -0.603**

acenaphthene/toc -0.641*** -0.164 ns -0.083 ns -0.437*

phenanthrene/toc -0.571** -0.178 ns -0.055 ns -0.398*

fluoranthene/toc -0.559** -0.139 ns -0.022 ns -0.418*

*p<0.05, **p<0.001, ***p<0.0001

The concentrations of some substances equalled or exceeded the respective ERM guideline values of

Long et al. (1995) or Long and Morgan (1990), or the proposed National SQC of U.S. EPA (1994) in

some of the samples. The ERM guidelines are the concentrations above which toxicity or other effects

frequently occurred in previous studies (Long et al., 1995). The SQCs are the concentrations determined by equilibrium-partitioning models to be protective of benthic organisms. In this study, it was

assumed that substances that were correlated with toxicity and equalled or exceeded either the respective ERM or SQC values may have contributed to the observed toxicity. Table 19 summarizes the

frequency of guideline exceedances for those chemicals or classes of chemicals that indicated a significant negative correlation with toxicity in at least one of the tests.

None of the samples had concentrations of silver, arsenic, or cadmium that equalled or exceeded the

respective ERM values (Table 21). The ERM value for chromium was exceeded only in one sample

(12a from the East River). The guideline values for mercury, p,p’-DDT, p,p’-DDE, fluoranthene,

phenanthrene, and total high molecular weight PAHs were equalled or exceeded most frequently. Although the ERM value for mercury was exceeded in 30 samples, Long et al. (1995) reported only a

moderate degree of confidence in this guideline. The SQC values for fluoranthene and phenanthrene

were exceeded in many samples, often by a considerable amount. Many of the chemicals quantified in

samples 7b, 9b, 11b, 12a, 17c, and 18c equalled or exceeded their respective guideline concentrations,

often by a factor of 2x or greater.

Table 21. Samples from the Hudson-Raritan estuary (Phase 1) stations that equalled or exceeded

the respective ERM or SQC guideline concentrations for each major substance or class of compounds. Stations in which the concentration exceeded the guideline by >2x are listed in bold

(n=38).

Number of samples Samples in which

Chemical in which ERM or SQC the ERM or SQC

substance values were exceeded was exceeded

Silver (ERM=3.7a) 0

Arsenic (ERM=70a) 0

Cadmium (ERM=9.6a) 0

Chromium (ERM-370a) 1 12a
84

Table 21 continued.

Number of samples Samples in which

Chemical in which ERM or SQC the the ERM or SQC

substance values were exceeded was exceeded

Copper (ERM = 270a) 2 12a, 18c

Mercury (ERM = 0.71a) 30 1a, 6c, 7b, 8c, 9b, 10a, 10b, 11b,

12a, 12b,13a, 16a, 16b, 17b, 17c,

18a, 18c, 22c, 23a, 24c, 25a, 26a,

26c, 29a, 30a, 30b, 30c, 33b, 36c

Nickel (ERM = 51.6a) 3 11b, 12a, 17c

Lead (ERM = 218a) 8 8c, 9b, 12a, 10b, 11b, 12b, 17c, 18c

Zinc (ERM = 410a) 5 9b, 12a, 18c, 30a, 33b

p,p’-DDE (ERM = 27a) 12 9b, 11b, 12a, 12b, 17b, 17c, 18a,

18c, 22c, 23a, 24c, 33b

p,p’-DDT (ERM = 7b) 14 9b, 11b, 12a, 12b, 16a, 16b, 17b,

17c, 18a, 18c, 22c, 23a, 29a, 36c

total PAHs (ERM = 44792a) 4 7b, 8c, 9b, 10b

total Low PAHs (ERM = 9 7b, 8c, 9b, 10b, 11b, 12a, 12b,

 3160a) 16a, 17c

total High PAHs (ERM = 14 7b, 8c, 9b, 10b, 11b, 12a, 12b,

 9600a) 14a, 16a, 16b, 17b, 17c, 23a, 26c

Fluoranthene/toc 20 7b, 7c, 8c, 9b, 10b, 11b, 12a,

 (SQC = 300c) 12b, 13a, 14a, 16a, 16b, 17b,

17c, 18a, 18c, 22c, 23a, 35a, 36c

Acenaphthene/toc 2 9b, 10b

 (SQC = 240c)

Phenanthrene/toc 14 7b, 8c, 9b, 10b, 11b, 16a, 17c

 (SQC = 240c)

aEffects Range-Median values from Long et al. (1995)

bEffects Range-Median values from Long and Morgan (1990)

cSediment Quality Criteria from U.S. EPA (1994)

Mercury was among the few trace elements that were correlated with amphipod survival. Also, many

of the samples exceeded the ERM value for mercury. The relationship between amphipod survival and

mercury concentrations in the sediments is illustrated in Figure 30. Amphipod survival decreased

relatively steadily with increasing mercury concentrations, especially when the levels exceeded the

ERM value of 0.71 (Long et al., 1995).

Microbial bioluminescence EC50s were very low in all of the samples in which the concentrations of

4,4’-DDE were above the ERM value of Long and Morgan, 1990 (Figure 31). Although the Microtox

test results and the DDE concentrations were significantly correlated (Rho = -0.405, p<0.05), the pattern in response was not nearly as clear as with other toxicity tests and chemicals (i.e., amphipod

survival correlated with the PAHs).

The correlations between amphipod survival and the concentrations of all the PAHs were consistent

and clear. Also, the concentrations of these compounds often exceeded their respective guidelines.

The relationships between amphipod survival and selected PAHs are illustrated in Figures 32-35. At

concentrations of total low molecular weight PAHs below the ERM value of Long et al. (1995), amphi-
85

0

2 0

4 0

6 0

8 0

100

120

140

Amphipod survival (% of controls)

0 1 2 3 4 5 6

 Hg, ug/g

Hudson-Raritan Estuary

15

Rho = -0.435,

p<0.05

Figure 30. Relationship of amphipod survival to 

mercury concentrations in sediments.

ERM=0.71

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

Microtox EC50 as percent of control

0 2 0 4 0 6 0 8 0 100 120 140 160 180 200

 4,4-DDE, ng/g

Hudson-Raritan Estuary

Rho =-0.405,

ERM = 15 p<0.05

Figure 31. Relationship of microbial bioluminescence

EC50s to 4,4-DDE concentrations in sediments.
86

0

2 0

4 0

6 0

8 0

100

120

140

Amphipod survival (% of control)

0 20000 40000 60000 80000 100000 120000

Sum of total PAHs, ng/g

Hudson-Raritan Estuary

Rho = -0.603,

p<0.001

Figure 33. Relationship of amphipod survival and total

PAH concentrations in sediments.

>1,000,000

ERM = 44792

ERL = 4022

0

2 0

4 0

6 0

8 0

100

120

140

Amphipod survival (% of control)

0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000

Sum of low molecular weight PAH, ng/g

Hudson-Raritan Estuary

Rho = -0.650,

p<0.0001

Figure 32. Relationship of amphipod survival to total

low molecular weight PAH concentrations in sediments.

ERM = 3160

571845
87

0

2 0

4 0

6 0

8 0

100

120

140

Amphipod survival (% of control)

0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000

Fluoranthene, ug/goc

Hudson-Raritan Estuary

Rho = -0.418,

p<0.05

Figure 34. Relationship of amphipod survival to fluoranthene 

concentrations (ug/goc) in sediments.

SQC = 300

21561

0

2 0

4 0

6 0

8 0

100

120

140

Amphipod survival (% of controls)

0 250 500 750 1000 1250 1500 1750 2000

Phenanthrene, ug/goc

Hudson-Raritan Estuary

38713

Rho = -0.398,

p<0.05

Figure 35. Relationship of amphipod survival to

phenanthrene concentrations (ug/goc) in sediments.

SQC = 240
88

pod survival was highly variable (Figure 32). Relatively high survival occurred in many of the samples.

In the samples in which these compounds equalled or exceeded the ERM value, however, amphipod

survival was universally low and significantly different from controls. Amphipod survival was 0.0% in

one sample from the East River that had extremely high concentrations of PAHs.

Amphipod survival was very high in all except two samples in which the total PAH concentrations

were below the ERL value of Long et al. (1995). Amphipod survival was relatively low in many of the

samples with total PAH concentrations above the ERL. Amphipod survival ranged from 0.0% to 40%

in the four samples with total PAH concentrations above the ERM guideline. The data in Figure 30

illustrate a relatively consistent decrease in amphipod survival with increasing concentrations of total

PAHs, in agreement with the significant correlation (Rho = -0.603, p<0.001).

The concentrations of both fluoranthene and phenanthrene normalized to TOC content were significantly correlated with amphipod survival and the concentrations in many samples equalled or exceeded their respective proposed National SQC (U.S. EPA, 1994). The relationships between these

two compounds and amphipod survival are illustrated in Figures 34 and 35. In both cases amphipod

survival was relatively high in most samples with chemical levels below the SQC, and decreased steadily

as the concentrations exceeded the respective SQCs.

In tables 22-24 the average concentrations of toxicants in the samples that were toxic to amphipod

survival are compared to those in the samples that were not toxic. Also, the average concentrations in

the toxic samples were divided by the average concentrations in the nontoxic samples and these ratios

were compared among chemicals. Finally, the average concentrations in the toxic samples were compared with the sediment quality guidelines (SQG) of Long et al. (1995), or Long and Morgan (1990), or

the proposed National SQC (EPA, 1994). No SQG were available for substances such as aluminum

and iron. We assumed that chemicals that contributed substantially to the observed toxicity would be

correlated with toxicity and highly elevated in concentration in the toxic samples, and the average

concentrations in the highly toxic samples would exceed applicable ERM or SQC values. In the amphipod tests 17 samples analyzed for chemical substances were not significantly toxic (i.e., different

from controls), 2 were significantly different from controls (but survival exceeded 80% of controls),

and 19 samples caused amphipod survival in less than 80% of controls. Average amphipod survival

was 98.4% in the nontoxic samples and 30.1% in the highly toxic samples.

The average concentrations of all the trace metals were very similar in the nontoxic, significantly toxic,

and highly toxic samples, based upon the results of the amphipod tests (Table 22). The ratios in average concentrations between the nontoxic samples and either the significantly toxic or highly toxic

samples ranged from 0.1 to 2.2. Most ratios were 1.0 or thereabouts. The concentrations of mercury in

the highly toxic samples were the most elevated of the metals, exceeding the concentrations in the

nontoxic samples by a factor of 2.2, and exceeding the ERM value of 0.71 ppm (Long et al., 1995) by

a factor of 4.5. The average concentrations of most metals exceeded the ERL values in both the

nontoxic and the toxic samples, illustrating the relative similarity in concentrations among the samples.

The mean total SEM concentrations exceeded the total AVS concentrations only in the nontoxic samples

(a result of two nontoxic, sandy samples). Most of the variability in the SEM/AVS ratios was contributed by the concentrations of zinc in the samples.

The average concentrations of chlorinated organic compounds (PCBs and pesticides) in the toxic samples

often were very similar (i.e., ratios of about 1.0) to the concentrations in the significantly toxic samples

(Table 23). However, the ratios in chemical concentrations between nontoxic and highly toxic samples

often exceeded 2.0 and ranged upwards to 20.3 in the highly toxic samples. The average concentra-
89

Table 22. Average trace metal concentrations (ppm, dry wt. or umole/g ± s.d.) in samples that were not toxic,

significantly toxic (p<0.05), and highly toxic (percent survival < 80% of controls) in amphipod tests, ratios between the averages, and ratios of highly toxic averages to SQGs.

Non-toxic Significantly Ratio of Highly toxic Ratio of Ratio of

(98.4±11.1% toxic toxic to (30.1±26.3% toxic to highly

survival, (86.2±5.0% non-toxic survival, non-toxic toxic avg.

n=17) survival, n=2) averages n=19) averages to SQG

Silver 2.0±1.0* 2.1±0.05* 1.1 1.9±0.7* 0.9 0.5Aluminum (%) 5.7±2.2 5.4±0.1 0.9 5.1±1.1 0.9Arsenic 18.6±10.3* 24.5±3.5* 1.3 20.7±12.0* 1.1 0.3Chromium 116.1±50.2* 115.0±5.0* 1.0 128.7±81.6* 1.1 0.3

Cadmium 1.2±0.6* 1.7±0.4* 1.4 2.2±1.7* 1.9 0.2Copper 111.3±62.8* 88.5±9.5* 0.8 174.4±139.0* 1.6 0.6

Iron (%) 3.7±1.4 4.2±0.7 1.1 3.3±1.0 0.9Mercury 1.4±1.0** 1.3±0.05** 0.9 3.2±3.1** 2.2 4.5Manganese 849.4±344.4 610.0±50.0 0.7 556.5±178.8 0.7Nickel 34.9±14.2* 32.0±3.0* 0.9 41.0±24.7* 1.2 0.8Lead 131.4±67.6* 110.0±10.0* 0.8 191.4±123.8* 1.5 0.9Antimony 1.5±1.0 1.4±0.0 0.9 2.5±2.1 1.6Selenium 1.0±0.4 0.7±0.2 0.8 1.1±1.0 1.1Tin 16.3±9.3 15.0±2.0 0.9 27.2±21.5 1.7Zinc 264.6±123.1* 285.0±65.0* 1.1 330.9±278.8* 1.2 0.8SE molar Cd 0.007±0.005 0.009±0.003 1.2 0.010±0.008 1.5SE molar Cu 0.593±0.337 0.597±0.009 1.0 0.633±-0.528 1.1SE molar Hg <0.0001±0.0 <0.0001±0.0 1.0 <0.0001±0.0 0.5SE molar Ni -0.05±0.055 0.100±0.004 1.0 0.094±0.067 1.0SE molar Pb 0.418±0.228 0.396±0.037 1.0 0.542±0.330 1.3SE molar Zn 2.185±1.181 2.641±0.920 1.2 2.102±0.936 1.0Total SEM 3.299±1.683 3.74±0.87 1.1 3.380±1.643 1.0SEM/AVS ratios 1.21±2.41*** 0.16±0.06 0.1 0.16±0.15 0.1

Total molar AVS 25.4±22.6 24.3±5.8 1.0 31.6±20.4 1.2

*Concentration equals or exceeds ERL value (Long et al., 1995). **Concentrations equals or exceeds ERM value (Long etal., 1995). *** Exceeds ratio of 1.0.
90Table 23. Average pesticide and PCB concentrations (ppb, dry wt. ± s.d.) in samples that were not toxic, significantly toxic (p<0.05), and highly toxic (percent survival < 80% of controls) in the amphipod tests, ratios between

the averages, and ratios of highly toxic averages to SQGs.

Non-toxic Significantly Ratio of Highly toxic Ratio of Ratio of

(98.4±11.1% toxic toxic to (30.1±26.3% toxic to highly

survival, (86.2±5.0% non-toxic survival, non-toxic toxic avg.

n=17) survival, n=2) averages n=19) averages to SQG

Hexachlorobenzene 4.8±4.8 3.6±2.9 0.7 5.0±5.9 1.0

Lindane 0.099±0.0 0.099±0.0 1.0 0.16±0.25 1.6

Heptachlor 0.271±0.0 0.271±0.0 1.0 0.271±0.0 1.0

Aldrin 0.9±2.0 3.2±3.0 3.4 1.2±3.2 1.3

Heptachlor epoxide 0.23±0.0 0.23±0.0 1.0 0.52±1.22 2.3

2,4-DDE 4.7±4.2 4.1±2.7 0.9 17.3±23.2 3.7

Cis-chlordane 3.3±2.0 2.8±0.1 0.9 6.4±5.6 2.0

Trans-nonachlor 2.5±1.5 2.1±0.3 0.8 5.0±4.7 2.0

Dieldrin 2.8±2.6 2.8±0.9 1.0 3.4±3.8 1.2

4,4-DDE 10.8±8.9* 11.5±3.4* 1.1 43.7±53.5** 4.0 1.6

2,4-DDD 6.1±7.0 6.6±1.4 1.1 28.8±43.6 4.7

Endrin 0.6±0.0 0.6±0.0 1.0 0.6±0.0 1.0

4,4-DDD 17.5±19.2* 14.9±2.6* 0.8 86.4±131.2** 4.9 4.3

2,4-DDT 1.8±2.4 1.6±0.8 0.9 13.6±31.3 7.7

4,4-DDT 7.4±19.0** 7.6±6.9** 1.0 151.2±370.8** 20.3 21.6

Mirex 0.5±1.0 0.2±0.0 0.5 0.2±0.0 0.5

Sum indeno-pesticides 6.3±3.5 5.5±0.3 0.9 12.2±10.7 1.9

Sum DDTs 48.4±43.6** 46.3±17.8** 1.0 231.8±312.6** 4.8 5.0

Sum PCB congeners 195.7±131.9 173.1±59.9 0.9 370.0±436.3 1.9

Total PCBs 391.4±263.8** 346.2±119.8** 0.9 740.0±872.6** 1.9 4.1

Sum non-DDT pesticides 16.0±9.3 16.0±0.5 0.9 22.8±17.7 1.4

*Concentration equals or exceeds ERL value (Long et al., 1995 or Long and Morgan, 1990). **Concentration equals or

exceeds ERM value (Long et al., 1995 or Long and Morgan, 1990).
91

tions of parent 4,4'-DDT in the highly toxic samples exceeded the average concentration in the nontoxic samples by a factor of 20.3 and exceeded the ERM value of Long and Morgan (1990) by a factor

of 21.6. The other isomers of DDT were highly elevated in the highly toxic samples and often exceeded respective ERM guideline values. The sums of the quantified PCB congeners were multiplied

by 2.0 to estimate the concentration of total PCB (NOAA, 1989). The average concentrations of total

PCBs in the highly toxic samples exceeded the average concentration in the nontoxic samples by a

factor of 1.9 and exceeded the ERM value of Long et al. (1995) by a factor of 4.1.

The concentrations of all categories of PAHs were considerably elevated in the samples that were

highly toxic to the amphipods relative to the samples that were not toxic (Table 24). The concentrations of organic carbon, inorganic carbon, and fine-grained sediment particles were not elevated in the

highly toxic samples to the same degree as the PAHs. The average concentrations of total low molecuar

weight PAHs in the toxic samples (34,672 ppb) exceeded the average concentrations in the nontoxic

samples (922 ppb) by a factor of 37.6 and exceeded the ERM value for LPAH of Long et al. (1995) by

a factor of 11.0. Also, both the high molecular weight compounds and total PAHs were elevated in

concentration in the toxic samples relative to the nontoxic samples. The concentrations of both

fluoranthene and phenanthrene in the highly toxic samples exceeded both the average concentrations

in the nontoxic samples and the respective SQC concentrations by a considerable amount. Although

the average concentration of acenaphthene in the toxic samples exceeded the nontoxic average by a

factor of 58.7, it exceeded the SQC by a factor of only 2.8.

In tables 25-27 the average concentrations of chemicals in samples that were toxic to microbial bioluminescence were compared with those that were not toxic. As observed in the amphipod tests, the

average trace metals concentrations were relatively similar in the toxic and nontoxic samples, as indicated by ratios between the averages of 1.0 or therabouts (Table 25). Among the metals that were

quantified, the concentrations of zinc were most elevated in the highly toxic samples; the average

concentration of 442 ppm in the highly toxic samples exceeded the average in the nontoxic samples

(240.7 ppm) by a factor of 1.8. Also, the concentration of lead in the highly toxic samples (average of

224 ppm) exceeded the average concentration in the nontoxic samples (132.4 ppm) by a factor of 1.7.

The average concentrations of both lead and zinc in the highly toxic samples were very similar to the

ERM values (218 and 410 ppm, respectively). The average concentrations of mercury in all three

categories were very similar (2.0-2.4 ppm) and exceeded the ERM value of 0.71 ppm. The concentrations of trace elements simultaneously extracted with the acid-volatile sulfides were very similar among

the three toxicity categories. The SEM/AVS ratios averaged 1.0 in the nontoxic samples and 0.1 in the

significantly toxic and highly toxic samples.

Again, as observed in the amphipod tests, most of the pesticides and other chlorinated organics occurred in similar concentrations in both the toxic and nontoxic samples (Table 26). The concentrations

of some compounds, such as heptachlor were below the detection limits in all samples, as indicated by

standard deviations of 0.0 in all categories. The average concentrations of many compounds (e.g., 4,4'-

DDE, 4,4'-DDT) actually were considerably lower in the highly toxic samples than in the nontoxic

samples, despite the significant Spearman-rank correlations observed with these data. However, the

concentrations in the highly toxic samples often exceeded the respective ERM values. The average

concentrations of total PCBs were relatively high, exceeding the ERM value of 180 ppb, in all categories. One highly toxic sample from site 12 in the East River had a detectable concentration of heptachlor epoxide, thus driving up the average for that compound.
92

Table 24. Average PAH concentrations (ppb, dry wt. ± s.d.) in samples that were not toxic, significantly toxic

(p<0.05), and highly toxic (percent survival < 80% of controls) in the amphipod tests, ratios between the averages, and ratios between highly toxic averages and respective SQGs.

Non-toxic Significantly Ratio of Highly toxic Ratio of Ratio of

(98.4±11.1% toxic toxic to (30.1±26.3% toxic to highly

survival, (86.2±5.0% non-toxic survival, non-toxic toxic avg.

n=17) survival, n=2) averages n=19) averages to SQG

Sum petroleum-related 2057±6659 448±125 0.2 12858±46456 6.3Sum combustion-related 3526±2257 4214±1158 1.2 44715±118799 12.7Sum LPAH 922±583* 1167±220* 1.3 34672±126721** 37.6 11.0

Sum HPAH 6808±8278* 4379±1202* 0.6 48142±120134** 7.1 5.0

Sum total PAH 5427±3838* 5547±1422* 1.0 80270±246981** 14.8 1.8Percent TOC 2.4±1.1 2.2±0.3 0.9 2.8±1.4 1.2Percent TIC 0.2±0.3 0.05±0.02 0.2 0.7±0.8 2.9Percent fines 41.4±24.2 41.3±14.6 1.0 37.2±18.8 0.9

Fluoranthene/toc 474.0±956.3*** 299.9±54.9 0.6 2161.7±4672.8*** 4.6 7.2Acenaphthene/toc 11.4±7.1 12.9±4.3 1.1 667.5±2489.8*** 58.7 2.8

Phenanthrene/toc 123.1±125.0 151.1±16.4 1.2 2491.1±8548.2*** 20.2 10.4

*Concentration equals or exceed ERL value (Long et al., 1995). **Concentrations equals or exceeds ERM value (Longet al., 1995). ***Concentration equals or exceeds proposed SQC (EPA, 1994).
93

Table 25. Average trace metal concentrations (ppm, dry wt. or umole/g ± s.d.) in samples that were not toxic,

significantly toxic (p<0.05), and highly toxic (percent survival < 80% of controls) in Microtox tests, ratios betweenthe averages, and ratios of highly toxic averages to SQGs.

Non-toxic Significantly Ratio of Highly toxic Ratio of Ratio of

(EC50s toxic (EC50s toxic to (EC50s toxic to highly

6.3±8.8, 1.7±0.04, non-toxic 1.3±0.4, non-toxic toxic avg.

n=22) n=6) averages n=10) averages to SQG

Silver 1.8±0.9* 2.0±0.7* 1.1 2.4±0.1* 1.4 0.6Aluminum (%) 5.1±2.0 5.4±0.7 1.1 6.0±1.1 1.2Arsenic 18.0±11.2* 23.1±13.5* 1.3 22.5±7.7* 1.2 0.3Chromium 108.0±54.1* 107.0±16.9* 1.0 163.1±90.7* 1.5 0.4Cadmium 1.6±1.5* 1.6±0.8* 1.0 2.1±1.3* 1.3 0.2Copper 123.7±112.7* 124.5±42.7* 1.0 191.4±123.5* 1.5 0.7Iron (%) 3.1±1.3 3.7±1.0 1.2 4.3±0.7 1.3Mercury 2.4±3.1** 2.0±1.4** 0.8 2.2±1.2** 0.9 3.1Manganese 626±275 730±298 1.2 808±333 1.3Nickel 32.3±15.4* 35.7±6.2* 1.1 51.3±27.4* 1.6 1.0Lead 132.4±80.5* 156.5±84.3* 1.2 224.0±127.9** 1.7 1.0Antimony 1.9±1.7 1.3±0.6 0.7 2.7±2.0 1.4Selenium 1.1±0.9 0.8±0.4 0.7 1.1±0.5 1.0Tin 18.6±13.1 19.3±8.2 1.0 30.1±25.2 1.6Zinc 240.7±131.5* 273.3±89.8* 1.1 442.0±327.3** 1.8 1.1

SE molar Cd 0.0100±0.0100 0.0102±0.0062 1.0 0.0103±0.0062 1.0SE molar Cu 0.5800±0.5000 0.5539±0.3818 1.0 0.7117±0.2783 1.2

SE molar Hg <.0001±0.0001 <.0001±0.0001 1.0 <.0001±0.0001 1.0SE molar Ni 0.1000±0.0700 0.0768±0.0351 0.8 0.0972±0.0297 1.0SE molar Pb 0.4100±0.2500 0.3494±0.1530 0.9 0.7065±0.2985 1.7SE molar Zn 1.9900±1.0900 1.7569±0.7411 0.9 2.7930±0.8585 1.4

Total SEM 3.1±1.8 2.7±1.2 0.9 4.3±1.0 1.4SEM/AVS ratios 1.0±2.2 0.1±0.1 0.1 0.1±0.1 0.1

Total molar AVS 22.1±18.4 33.1±27.4 1.5 39.7±16.6 1.8

*Concentration equals or exceeds ERL value (Long et al., 1995). **Concentrations equals or exceeds ERM value (Longet al., 1995).
94Table 26. Average pesticide and PCB concentrations (ppb, dry wt. ± s.d.) in samples that were not toxic,

significantly toxic (p<0.05), and highly toxic (percent survival < 80% of controls) in the Microtox tests, ratiosbetween the averages, and ratios of highly toxic averages to SQGs.

Non-toxic Significantly Ratio of Highly toxic Ratio of Ratio of

(EC50s toxic (EC50s toxic to (EC50s toxic to highly

6.3±8.8, 1.6±0.04, non-toxic 1.3±0.4, non-toxic toxic avg.

n=22) n=6) averages n=10) averages to SQG

hexachlorobenzene 4.8±5.1 1.9±1.8 0.4 6.6±6.3 1.4lindane 0.1±0.0 0.3±0.4 2.9 0.1±0.0 1.0heptachlor 0.3±0.0 0.3±0.0 1.0 0.3±0.0 1.0aldrin 1.6±3.3 0.2±0.0 0.1 0.9±2.0 0.5heptachlor epoxide 0.2±0.0 0.2±0.0 1.0 0.8±1.6 3.42,4'-DDE 12.8±19.0 3.1±1.1 0.2 11.6±19.3 0.9cis-chlordane 4.9±5.2* 2.9±1.5* 0.6 5.7±3.4* 1.1trans-nonachlor 3.7±4.1 2.4±0.6 0.6 4.6±3.4 1.2dieldrin 2.8±2.2* 1.7±2.2* 0.6 4.6±4.7* 1.74,4'-DDE 34.3±50.9** 6.4±4.5* 0.2 24.2±22.6* 0.7 0.92,4'-DDD 25.5±41.2 2.6±2.9 0.1 8.9±9.7 0.3endrin 0.6±0.0* 0.6±0.0* 1.0 0.6±0.0* 1.04,4'-DDD 71.8±124.7** 8.4±5.0* 0.1 33.7±36.1** 0.5 1.72,4'-DDT 12.5±29.2 0.5±0.4 <0.1 1.4±1.5 0.14,4'-DDT 129.5±349.0** 7.8±14.2** 0.1 11.8±12.8** 0.1 1.7mirex 0.2±0.0 0.9±1.5 3.6 0.2±0.0 1.0total indeno- pesticides 9.2±9.3 5.8±2.0 0.6 11.3±8.3 1.2

total DDTs 192.3±299.9** 28.8±23.4* 0.1 91.7±84.6** 0.5 2.0total PCB congeners 258.0±215.8 116.8±37.0 0.5 432.4±527.5 1.7total PCBs 516.0±431.6**233.6±74.0** 0.5 864.8±1055.0** 1.7 4.8

total non-DDT pesticides 19.4±14.8 11.3±4.6 0.6 24.3±15.1 1.3

*Concentration equals or exceeds ERL value (Long et al., 1995 or Long and Morgan, 1990). **Concentrationequals or exceeds ERM value (Long et al., 1995 or Long and Morgan, 1990).
95

Table 27. Average PAH concentrations (ppb, dry wt. ± s.d.) in samples that were not toxic, significantly toxic (p<0.05),

and highly toxic (percent survival < 80% of controls) in the Microtox tests, ratios between the averages, and ratios between highly toxic averages and respective SQGs.

Non-toxic Significantly Ratio of Highly toxic Ratio of Ratio of

(EC50s toxic (EC50s toxic to (EC50s toxic to highly

6.3±8.8, 1.7±0.04, non-toxic 1.3±0.4, non-toxic toxic avg.

n=22) n=6) averages n=10) averages to SQG

Sum petroleum-related 845±1380 6701±10076 7.9 22135±62558 26.2Sum combustion-related 9332±16650 13910±14373 1.5 62917±160149 6.7Sum LPAH 2337±4389* 4518±5300** 1.9 59824±170688** 25.6 18.9Sum HPAH 10311±17071** 18502±15735** 1.8 70134±160861** 6.8 7.3Sum of total PAH 11948±21406* 21146±18495* 1.8 123875±333291** 10.4 2.8percent TOC 2.2±1.2 2.7±0.8 1.2 3.6±1.0 1.6

percent TIC 0.4±0.6 0.3±0.3 0.8 0.7±0.8 1.9percent fines 34.3±24.0 47.4±13.5 1.4 45.2±15.0 1.3

fluoranthene/toc 672.3±927.1*** 951.9±829.8*** 1.4 2922.7±6319.5*** 4.3 9.7acenaphthene/toc 33.6±48.1 110.6±151.8 3.3 1149.9±3357.7*** 34.2 4.8

phenanthrene/toc 293.6±385.9*** 422.6±427.9*** 1.4 4073.2±11548.0*** 13.9 17.0

*Concentration equals or exceed ERL value (Long et al., 1995). **Concentrations equals or exceeds ERM value (Long et al.,1995). ***Concentration equals or exceeds proposed National SQC (EPA, 1994).
96

All of the classes of PAHs were considerably elevated in concentration in the samples that were highly

toxic to microbial bioluminescence (Table 27). The average concentration of LPAH in the highly toxic

samples exceeded the average concentration in the nontoxic samples by a factor of 25.6 and exceeded

the ERM value by a factor of 18.9. Also, the concentrations of petroleum-related compounds,

acenaphthene, and phenanthrene were very high in the highly toxic samples. All three of the individual

PAHs exceeded the proposed National SQCs (U.S. EPA, 1994) in the highly toxic samples. The concentrations of organic carbon, inorganic carbon, and fine-grained sediments were slightly higher in the

highly toxic samples relative to the nontoxic samples.

Relationships between Toxicity and Physical-Chemical Parameters: Phase 2. The Spearman-rank

correlations between amphipod survival in the Phase 2 samples and the concentrations of trace metals

are compared in Table 28. The correlations were performed for the concentrations of total individual

metals, total acid-volatile sulfides (AVS), and the SEM/AVS ratios. The correlations between percent

amphipod survival and total metals concentrations were significant for all elements except arsenic,

aluminum, iron, nickel, and antimony. The concentrations of total cadmium were most strongly correlated with amphipod survival. Also, amphipod survival was significantly correlated with increasing

concentrations of AVS. However, the ratios of total SEM to total AVS were not correlated with amphipod survival. If the number of variables (16) were taken into account, only correlations listed as “**”

would remain significant.

Table 28. Spearman-rank correlations (Rho, corrected for ties) between percent amphipod survival and the concentrations of total trace metals and with the ratios of simultaneously extracted

metals (SEM) to acid-volatile sulfides (AVS) in Phase 2 sediments (n=20).

Total metals SEM/AVS

(ug/g dry wt.) (u moles/g)

Silver -0.585*

Arsenic -0.332 ns

Aluminum -0.095 ns

Cadmium -0.777**

Chromium -0.673*

Copper -0.723*

Iron -0.209 ns

Mercury -0.612*

Nickel -0.137 ns

Lead -0.681*

Antimony -0.378 ns

Tin -0.734*

Selenium -0.647*

Zinc -0.534*

Total AVS -0.565*

SEM/AVS ratios +0.248 ns

ns = not significant (p>0.05). * p<0.05 ** p<0.001

SEM = (sum of Cd, Cu, Pb, Ni, Zn)

The Spearman-rank correlation coefficient for amphipod survival and the concentration of un-ionized

ammonia in the overlying water in the amphipod test chamber was not significant (Rho = -0.105,
97

p>0.05, n=50). The concentration of un-ionized ammonia exceeded the detection limit (0.35 ug/l) in

seven of the samples and the maximum recorded concentration was 620 ug/l. Three of the samples

exceeded the no- observed-effects concentration and none equalled or exceeded the unionized ammonia LC50 for A. abdita (Figure 36) reported by Kohn et al. (1994).

The correlations between amphipod survival and the concentrations of chlorinated organic compounds

and total organic carbon are listed and compared in Table 29. Nearly all of the pesticides and PCB

groups were significantly correlated with toxicity to the amphipods. Compounds that were very highly

correlated with amphipod survival included dieldrin (expressed both in dry weight and organic carbon), p, p’-DDE, and total PCBs (estimated by GC, as the total of quantified congeners, and by GC/

MS). Amphipod survival was more highly correlated with the DDE isomers than with the DDT isomers. The correlations with endrin were not significant. The correlations with total organic carbon

also were not significant. If the number of variables tested (18) were accounted for, only those correlations shown with “**” would be significant.

Table 29. Spearman-rank correlations (Rho, corrected for ties) between percent amphipod survival and the concentrations of chlorinated organic compounds in Newark Bay sediments (n=20).

Chemical Correlation Chemical Correlation

name coefficient name coefficient

hexachlorobenzene -0.633* pentachloro anisole -0.599*

alpha-BHC -0.234 ns lindane -0.242 ns

beta-BHC +0.174 ns heptachlor -0.100 ns

delta-BHC -0.487* dacthal -0.289 ns

oxychlordane -0.633* heptachlor epoxide -0.680*

trans-chlordane -0.705* trans-nonachlor -0.699*

cis-chlordane -0.677* o, p’-DDE -0.707*

dieldrin -0.848** p, p’-DDE -0.800**

o, p’-DDD -0.629* endrin -0.437 ns

cis-nonachlor -0.707* o, p’-DDT -0.576*

p, p’-DDD -0.597* p, p’-DDT -0.253 ns

mirex -0.569* total GC PCBs -0.802**

total DDTs -0.576* sum of total PCBs -0.783**

percent TOC -0.205 ns endrin/toc -0.253 ns

dieldrin/toc -0.841**

ns = not significant (p>0.05). *p<0.05, **p<0.001

The correlations between amphipod survival and the concentrations of nearly all the dioxin and furan

compounds were highly significant (Table 30). The concentrations were expressed as units of dry

weight for individual compounds. Also, the concentrations of selected compounds were multiplied by

the respective 2,3,7,8-tcdd toxicity equivalency factors of Barnes et al. (1991) for co-planar PCBs and

Kutz et al. (1990) for dioxins and furans and summed to estimate the total toxicity equivalency quotients (TEQ). The correlations were particularly strong for 2,3,7,8-tcdd, 2,3,7,8-tcdf, the cumulative

2,3,7,8-tcdd TEQ for total PCBs, and the total cumulative TEQ for dioxins, furans, and PCBs. Amphipod survival was significantly correlated with tcdd-equivalent concentrations determined in H4IIE rat

hepatoma bioassays of the whole F1 extract and several of the extract fractions, but not with the F5

fraction (PAHs). If the number of variables tested (28) were accounted for, only those correlations

shown with “**” would be significant.
98

0

2 0

4 0

6 0

8 0

100

120

Percent amphipod survival

-100 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900

Un-ionized ammonia in overlying water, ug/l

Newark Bay

LC50 =

830 ug/l

Rho = -0.105 ns

NOEC

Figure 36. Relationship of amphipod survival to the

concentrations of un-ionized ammonia (ug/l) in the

overlying water of the test chambers.

Table 30. Spearman-rank correlations (Rho, corrected for ties) between percent amphipod

survival and the concentrations of chlorinated dibenzo dioxin and dibenzo furan compounds in

Newark Bay sediments (n=20).

Chemical Correlation Chemical Correlation

name coefficient name coefficient

2378-tcdd -0.868** 12378-pcdd -0.683*

12478-pcdd -0.539* 123478-hcdd -0.725*

123678-hcdd -0.761** 123789-hcdd -0.684*

1234678-hcdd -0.734* octodichloro-dd -0.675*

2378-tcdf -0.863** 12378-pcdf -0.714*

23478-pcdf -0.731* 123478-hcdf -0.639*

123678-hcdf -0.677* 123789-hcdf -0.584

234678-hcdf -0.558* 1234678-hcdf -0.618*

1234789-hcdf -0.654* octochloro-df -0.613*

total dioxins TEQ -0.866** total PCBs TEQ -0.850**

total cumulative TEQ -0.865** total F1 extract -0.614**

F5 fraction -0.393 ns F7 fraction -0.128 ns

F8 fraction -0.659** F9 fraction -0.599**

F11 fraction -0.630** F12 fraction -0.815***

ns = not significant (p>0.05), *p<0.05, **p<0.001
99

None of the correlations between amphipod survival and the concentrations of PAHs were statistically

significant (Table 31). These results are in sharp contrast with those from the Phase 1 samples, in

which the PAHs were highly correlated with toxicity to amphipods.

Table 31. Spearman-rank correlations (Rho, corrected for ties) between percent amphipod survival and the concentrations of polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) in Newark Bay sediments (n=20).

Chemical Correlation Chemical Correlation

name coefficient name coefficient

naphthalene -0.149 ns benzo(b)thiophene -0.394 ns

2-methyl naphthalene -0.313 ns 1-methyl naphthalene -0.262 ns

biphenyl -0.131 ns 2,6/2,7 dimethyl naphthalene +.023 ns

acenaphylene -0.212 ns acenapthene -0.162 ns

fluorene -0.131 ns dibenzothiophene -0.402 ns

phenanthrene -0.212 ns anthracene +0.013 ns

fluoranthene -0.244 ns pyrene -0.359 ns

benzo(a)anthracene -0.145 ns chrysene -0.209 ns

benzo(b)fluoranthene -0.138 ns benzo(k)fluoranthene -0.206 ns

benzo(e)pyrene -0.186 ns benzo(a)anthracene -0.147 ns

perylene -0.122 ns indeno(1,2,3)pyrene -0.185 ns

dibenzo(a,h)anthracene -0.188 ns benzo(g,h,i)perylene -0.203 ns

total LPAH -0.098 ns total HPAH -0.203 ns

sum total PAH -0.194 ns acenaphthene/toc -0.152 ns

phenanthrene/toc -0.241 ns fluoranthene/toc -0.346 ns

ns = not significant (p>0.05)

The concentrations of many of the chemicals quantified in Phase 2 equalled or exceeded respective

guideline values (Table 32). In particular, the concentrations of many chlorinated organic compounds,

such as 2,3,7,8-tcdd, the isomers of DDT, and total PCBs, equalled or exceeded the respective guidelines in many of the samples. The concentrations of 2,3,7,8-tcdd exceeded the proposed sediment

guideline (100 pg/g, parts per trillion) for the protection of benthic organisms (U.S. EPA, 1993) and

human health receptors (New York Sate Department of Environmental Conservation, 1993) by more

than two fold in many samples. The cumulative 2378-tcdd toxicity equivalency quotients (TEQ) for all

of the dioxins, furans, and PCBs also exceeded the guideline value by factors of up to four fold. All

three p,p- isomers of DDE, DDD, and DDT equalled or exceeded the respective ERM values (Long et

al., 1995; Long and Morgan, 1990) in many samples. However, the authors of these reports expressed

only a moderate degree of confidence in these guidelines. The concentrations of total PCB congeners

exceeded the ERM value of 180 ppb in most of the samples.

The concentrations of many of the chlorinated organic compounds were elevated, frequently by >2X,

in many of the Phase 2 samples. In comparison, the concentrations of most trace elements were not

particularly elevated in these samples (Table 32). None of the samples had concentrations of arsenic,

cadmium, copper, or chromium that exceeded the respective ERM values. Although many of the

samples had mercury concentrations that exceeded the ERM value of 0.71 ppm, Long et al. (1995) had

only a moderate degree of confidence in this ERM value. Lead and zinc concentrations equalled or

exceeded the respective ERM values in 10 samples, but never by a factor of two fold or greater. The
100

concentrations of both low and high molecular weight PAHs were elevated in many samples; however,

the concentrations of total PAHs exceeded the ERM value in only two samples. The PAH concentrations were particularly high in the sample from station 1 in the Passaic River. The samples collected in

the Passaic River (stations 1-11) and the sample from station 26 (central Newark Bay) had elevated

concentrations of many chemicals.

Table 32. Samples from the Phase 2 stations that equalled or exceeded the respective ERM or

SQC values for each major substance or class of compounds. Stations in which the concentration exceeded the guideline by >2x are listed in bold (n=20).

Number of samples Samples in which

Chemical in which guideline the ERM or SQC

substance values were exceeded was exceeded

2378-tcdd (SQG = 100 ppta) 11 3, 5, 7a, 7b, 7c, 8a, 8b, 10,

11, 21, 26

total cum. PCB TEQ 2 7c, 26

 (SQG = 100 ppta)

total dioxins TEQ 14 1, 3, 5, 7a, 7b, 7c, 8a, 8b, 10, 11, (SQG = 100

ppta) 11, 14, 21, 26, 31

total cumulative TEQ 15 1, 3, 5, 7a, 7b, 7c, 8a, 8b, 10, 11, (SQG = 100

ppta) 11, 14, 21, 26, 31, 36

p,p’ - DDE (ERM = 27 ppbb) 13 3, 5, 7a, 7b, 7c, 8a, 8b, 10, 11,

26, 31, 36, 56

total PCBs (ERM = 180 ppbb) 16 1, 3, 5, 7a, 7b, 7c, 8a, 8b, 10,

11, 14, 21, 26, 31, 36, 56

p, p’ - DDD (ERM = 20 ppbc) 15 1, 3, 5, 7a, 7b, 7c, 8a, 8b, 10,

11, 14, 26, 31, 36, 56

p, p’ - DDT (ERM = 7 ppbc) 14 1, 3, 5, 7a, 7b, 7c, 8a, 8b, 10,

11, 14, 31, 36, 56

total DDTs (ERM = 46.1 ppbb) 15 1, 3, 5, 7a, 7b, 7c, 8a, 8b, 10,

11, 14, 26, 31, 36, 56

dieldrin/oc (SQC = 20 ug/gocd) 0 none

endrin/oc (SQC = 0.76 ug/gocd) 0 none

silver (ERM = 3.7 ppmb) 7 5, 7a, 7b, 7c, 8a, 8b, 10

arsenic (ERM = 70 ppmb) 0 none

cadmium (ERM = 9.6 ppmb) 0 none

chromium (ERM = 370 ppmb) 0 none

copper (ERM = 270 ppmb) 0 none

mercury (ERM = 0.71 ppmb) 17 3, 5, 7a, 7b, 7c, 8a, 8b, 10,

11, 14, 17, 20, 21, 26, 31, 36, 56

nickel (ERM = 51.6 ppmb) 3 10, 11, 56

lead (ERM = 218 ppmb) 10 3, 5, 7a, 7b, 7c, 8a, 8b, 10,

11, 14

zinc (ERM = 410 ppmb) 10 3, 5, 7a, 7b, 7c, 8a, 8b, 10,

11, 20

total LPAH (ERM = 3160 ppbb) 9 1, 3, 5, 7a, 7b, 8b, 14, 20, 21

total HPAH (ERM - 9600 ppbb) 13 1, 3, 5, 7a, 7b, 7c, 8a, 8b, 11, 14, 17, 20, 21
101

Table 32 continued.

Number of samples Samples in which

Chemical in which guideline the ERM or SQC

substance values were exceeded was exceeded

total PAH (ERM = 44792 ppbb) 2 1, 3

acenaphthene (SQC = 0 none

 230 ug/gocd)

phenanthrene (SQC = 1 1

 240 ug/gocd)

fluoranthene (SQC = 3 1, 20, 21

 300 ug/gocd)

aSediment Quality Guidelines from U.S. EPA (1993).

bEffects Range Median values from Long et al. (1995)

cEffects Range Median values from Long and Morgan (1990)

dSediment Quality Criteria from U.S. EPA (1994)

The relationships between amphipod toxicity and the concentrations of a number of toxic chemicals in

the samples are plotted in the following graphs (Figures 37-45). In addition, each graph includes the

Spearman-rank correlation coefficient for that particular chemical and the respective sediment quality

guideline value.

Amphipod survival decreased steadily with increasing concentrations of p,p’-DDE in the samples (Figure

37). In the two samples with very high amphipod survival, the concentrations of p,p’-DDE were very

low (<10 ng/g). In the sample that caused zero amphipod survival, the concentration of p,p’-DDE was

the highest among the 20 samples (>70 ng/g). In most of the samples in which p,p’-DDE concentrations were less than the ERM value (27 ng/g, Long et al., 1995), amphipod survival was relatively high

(>70% in all but one sample). In contrast, amphipod survival was relatively low (<70%) in all but one

sample in which the concentrations of p,p’-DDE exceeded the ERM value. However, MacDonald

(1994) estimated a Sediment Effect Concentration (SEC) of 6.58 mg/kg dry wt. (6580 ng/g) for the

sum of DDEs, two orders of magnitude greater than the highest concentrations observed in the Phase 2

samples. Based upon a database compiled from studies focused upon the effects of the DDTs, the SEC

of MacDonald (1994) probably is more reliable than the ERM of Long et al. (1995). Therefore, although amphipod survival was strongly correlated with the concentrations of p,p’-DDE, this compound probably contributed minimally to the toxicity since the concentrations were far below a reliable

threshold concentration.

Although the correlation between amphipod survival and the concentrations of the sum of the six DDT

isomers was significant (Rho = -0.576, p<0.05), the concentrations of these compounds were relatively

low. Total DDT concentrations ranged from 9.5 to 287.4 ng/g (median = 169.0 ng/g), considerably

lower than the estimated SEC of 7120 ng/g (MacDonald, 1994). Expressed in units of organic carbon,

total DDT concentrations ranged from 0.6 to 12.0 ug/goc (median = 4.4 ug/goc); again well below the

10-day toxicity threshold in laboratory bioassays (300 ug/goc) and the 10-day LC50 (2500 ug/goc) in

field-collected sediments for the amphipod Eohaustorius estuarius (Swartz et al., 1994).

There was a very strong relationship between amphipod survival and the concentrations of total PCB

congeners, as illustrated by a Spearman-rank correlation of 0.802. The concentrations of total PCBs
102

0

2 0

4 0

6 0

8 0

100

120

Percent amphipod survival (% of control)

0 1 0 2 0 3 0 4 0 5 0 6 0 7 0 8 0

p,p'-DDE, ng/g

Newark Bay

Rho = -0.800**,

p<0.001

ERM = 27

Figure 37. Relationship of amphipod survival to the

concentrations of p, p' - DDE in Newark Bay sediment 

samples.

0

1 0

2 0

3 0

4 0

5 0

6 0

7 0

8 0

Percent amphipod survival (% of control)

0 250 500 750 1000 1250 1500 1750 2000 2250

Total PCBs, ng/g

Newark Bay

Rho = -0.802 **,

p<0.001

ERM = 180

Figure 38. Relationship of amphipod survival to the

concentrations of total PCB congeners in Newark Bay

sediment samples.
103

0

2 0

4 0

6 0

8 0

100

120

Percent amphipod survival (% of control)

0 2 0 4 0 6 0 8 0 100 120 140 160

Cumulative PCB TEQs, pg/g

Newark Bay

Rho = 0.850**

SQC=100

Figure 39. Relationship between amphipod survival and the

concentrations of 2,3,7,8-TCDD toxicity equivalency quotients

for the co-planar PCB congeners in Newark Bay sediments.

0

2 0

4 0

6 0

8 0

100

120

Percent amphipod survival (% of control)

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700

2,3,7,8-tcdd, pg/g

Newark Bay

Rho = -0.868**,

p<0.001

SQG = 100

Figure 40. Relationship of amphipod survival to the 

concentrations of 2,3,7,8-TCDD in Newark Bay sediment

samples.
104

0

2 0

4 0

6 0

8 0

100

120

Percent amphipod survival (% of controls)

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800

Total cumulative 2378-tcdd TEQ, pg/g

Newark Bay

Rho = 0.865**,

p<0.001

SQG=100

Figure 41. Relationship between amphipod survival

and the concentration of total cumulative 2,3,7,8-TCDD

toxicity equivalency quotients in Newark Bay sediments.

0

2 0

4 0

6 0

8 0

100

120

Percent amphipod survival (% of control)

0 5 0 100 150 200 250 300 350 400

Total Pb, ug/g

Newark Bay

Rho = -0.681*,

p<0.05

ERM = 218

Figure 42. Relationship of amphipod survival to the

concentrations of total lead in Newark Bay sediment 

samples.
105

0

2 0

4 0

6 0

8 0

100

120

Percent amphipod survival (% of control)

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800

total Zn, ug/g

Newark Bay

Rho = -0.534*,

p<0.05

ERM = 410

Figure 43. Relationship of amphipod survival to the

concentrations of total zinc in Newark Bay sediment

samples.

0

2 0

4 0

6 0

8 0

100

120

Percent amphipod survival (% of control)

0 20000 40000 60000 80000 100000 120000 140000

Total HMPAH, ng/g

Newark Bay

Rho = -0.203 ns

ERM = 9600

Figure 44. Relationship of amphipod survival to the

concentrations of total high molecular weight PAHs

in Newark Bay sediment samples.
106

exceeded the ERM value of 180 ng/g (Long et al., 1995) in all except three samples, and most of these

samples were highly toxic to the amphipods (Figure 38). Total PCB concentrations ranged from 105.5

to 2,850.2 ng/g (median = 879.2 ng/g). Amphipod survival was zero in a sample with approximately

1,400 ng tPCB/g. MacDonald (1994) estimated the SEC for total PCBs as 0.592 mg/kg dry wt (592 ng/

g). All of the samples that equalled or exceeded a total PCB concentration of 592 ng/g caused 50% or

less amphipod survival. One sample had over 2,800 ng tPCB/g and caused less than 40% amphipod

survival. It appears that the PCBs may have made a major contribution to the toxicity to the amphipods.

The concentrations of four co-planar PCBs were normalized to (multiplied by) the toxicity equivalency

factors (TEFs) (Barnes et al., 1991) for each congener and the sums of those quotients were calculated.

The cumulative toxicity equivalency quotients (TEQ) for the co-planar PCBs were highly correlated

with amphipod survival (Figure 39). There is no consensus toxicity threshold value for these quotients.

Many different estimates have been made of critical or threshold values and they differ from each other

by many orders of magnitude (Iannuzzi et al., 1995). In two samples the cumulative TEQs for the PCB

congeners were higher than one estimate of a threshold, 100 pg/g for fish and human receptors (U.S.

EPA, 1993; New York State DEC, 1993, respectively), but the reliability of this threshold value is

unknown. The sample from station 26 caused 100% amphipod mortality and had about 140 pg/g

cumulative TEQs for the co-planar PCBs. Among all the chemicals quantified, only the concentrations

of these compounds and p,p’-DDE were highest in the sample from station 26 where amphipod survival was zero.

0

2 0

4 0

6 0

8 0

100

120

Percent amphipod survival (% of control)

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200

fluoranthene, ug/goc

Newark Bay

Rho = -0.346 ns

SQC = 300

Figure 45. Relationship of amphipod survival to the

concentrations of fluoranthene in Newark Bay sediment

samples.
107

Among all of the substances quantified in Phase 2, the concentrations of the dioxins were most highly

correlated with amphipod survival. The scatterplot of the data showed a consistent pattern of decreasing survival with increasing 2,3,7,8-tcdd concentrations (Figure 40). All of the samples that were

highly toxic to the amphipods had 2,3,7,8-tcdd concentrations that exceeded the 100 pg/g guideline

proposed by the U.S. EPA (1993).

The concentrations of all the dioxin, furan, and PCB congeners for which toxicity equivalency factors

were available (Barnes et al., 1991; Kutz et al., 1990) were normalized to (multiplied by) the appropriate TEFs and the total cumulative TEQs were determined. Amphipod survival was highly correlated

with the total cumulative TEQs (Figure 41). Also, all of the samples that exceeded the U.S. EPA

(1993) guideline of 100 pg/g were highly toxic to the amphipods. Amphipod survival dropped to 50%

or less in samples with total dioxins TEQs of 150 pg/g or more. However, the sample with the highest

TEQ concentration was not sample 26, in which amphipod survival was zero.

The relationships between amphipod survival and the concentrations of both lead and zinc were relatively strong and consistent (Figures 42-43). All of the samples with lead concentrations that exceeded

the ERM value (Long et al., 1995) were highly toxic (survival <80%). Also, all except one sample with

zinc concentrations above the ERM value were highly toxic. Long et al. (1995) reported relatively

high confidence in the ERM values for both of the elements. However, two samples in which survival

was 0.0% and 20% had relatively low concentrations of both lead and zinc. The very high concentrations of PCBs, dioxins, and other chlorinated hydrocarbons probably were more important in these

samples than the trace elements. Also, one sample with a very high concentration of zinc (>700 ug/g)

had relatively high amphipod survival (80%). Based upon these data, lead and zinc may have contributed to the observed toxicity in some of the samples.

The correlations between the concentrations of PAHs and amphipod survival were relatively poor,

especially when compared to the strong correlations observed in the data from Phase 1. The concentrations of high molecular weight PAHs were relatively high in the samples that caused low amphipod

survival; however, this pattern was not consistent (Figure 44). For example, the HPAH concentration

in sample 26 was relatively low (less than the ERM value of 9600 ng/g) and one sample in which

amphipod survival was relatively high had the highest concentration of these compounds. Among the

three compounds for which EPA has developed SQCs, fluoranthene was most strongly correlated with

amphipod survival. However, the correlation between amphipod survival and fluoranthene concentrations was not significant and the pattern was inconsistent (Figure 45). Three samples had fluoranthene

concentrations that either equalled or exceeded the SQC; amphipod survival was relatively high in one

and very low in the other. Based upon these data, it does not appear that the PAHs contributed substantially to the observed toxicity in many of the Newark Bay samples.

Of the 20 samples that were subjected to chemical analyses, 4 were not significantly different from

controls in the tests of amphipod survival, whereas 16 were significantly different from controls and

amphipod survival was less than 80% of the control survival. The average concentrations of the 2,3,7,8-

tcdd and dioxin TEQs that co-occurred with the nontoxic and the toxic samples are compared in Table

33. In addition, the average concentrations of these compounds in the toxic samples were compared

with the sediment guideline proposed by the U.S. EPA (1993). The average concentration of 2,3,7,8-

tcdd in the toxic samples exceeded the average concentration in the nontoxic samples by a factor of

10.6 and exceeded the guideline by a factor of 2.7. The concentrations of the dioxin TEQs, co-planar

PCB TEQs, and total cumulative TEQs in the toxic samples exceeded the concentrations in the non-
108

toxic samples by factors of 6.5, 2.8, and 5.4, respectively. In addition, the average concentrations of the

dioxin TEQs and the total cumulative TEQs in the toxic samples exceeded the guideline value of 100

pg/g by factors of 3.5 and 4.2, respectively.

Table 33. Average concentrations (pg/g, dry wt.) of 2,3,7,8-tcdd and total cumulative dioxin TEQs

in highly toxic (<80% survival) and nontoxic samples from Newark Bay, ratios between the averages, and ratios between the highly toxic averages and the respective SQG*.

Nontoxic Highly toxic Ratio of Ratio of highly

(91.9 ± 13.0% (38.0 ± 24.7% highly toxic toxic avg.

survival, survival, to nontoxic to the

n = 4) n = 16) averages SQG

2378-tcdd 25.8±23.2 273.9±177.9 10.6 2.7

cum. dioxins TEQ 55.0±50.8 355.1±217.1 6.5 3.5

cum. PCB TEQ 22.1±16.6 62.0±34.5 2.8 <1.0

total cum. TEQ 77.2±66.9 417.1±249.0 5.4 4.2

*SQG = 100 pg/g (U.S. EPA, 1993)

The average concentrations of pesticides and total PCBs in the toxic and nontoxic samples are compared in Table 34. The average concentrations of nearly all of these compounds were higher in the

toxic samples than in the nontoxic samples. The ratios of the averages ranged from 0.9 to 6.2. The

concentrations of some chlordane isomers, hexachlorobenzene, and the sum of the PCB congeners

were elevated to the greatest degree (>5.0X) in the toxic samples. Sediment guidelines were not available for most compounds. Among those substances for which guidelines exist, the average concentrations in the toxic samples often were lower than the guidelines. However, the concentrations of p,p’-

DDE and total PCB congeners were highly elevated relative to the ERM values (Long et al., 1995).

Also, the average concentration of total PCBs (758 ng/g) in the toxic samples exceeded the SEC (562

ng/g) calculated by MacDonald (1994). However, the average concentration of total DDTs in the toxic

samples (5.8 ug/goc) was far lower than the toxicity threshold (300 ug/goc) identified by Swartz et al.

(1994) for the amphipod R. abronius.

Table 34. Average concentrations (ng/g, dry wt.) of pesticides and PCBs in highly toxic (<80%

survival) and nontoxic samples from Newark Bay, ratios between the averages, and ratios between the highly toxic averages and the respective SQGs.

Nontoxic Highly toxic Ratio of Ratio of highly

(91.9 ± 13.0% (38.0 ± 24.7% highly toxic toxic avg.

survival, survival, to nontoxic to the

n = 4) n = 16) averages SQG

hexachlorobenzene 1.0±1.0 4.8±2.4 5.0 na

pentachloro-anisole 0.3±0.2 0.6±0.2 2.2 na

alpha-BHC 1.1±0.5 0.7±0.5 1.6 na

lindane 0.2±0.2 0.3±0.3 1.3 na

beta-BHC 0.4±0.3 0.3±0.3 0.9 na

heptachlor 0.1±0.0 0.2±0.3 2.0 na

delta-BHC 1.3±0.7 2.4±1.1 1.9 na

dacthal 1.7±0.5 2.3±0.7 1.4 na
109

Table 34 contd.

Nontoxic Highly toxic Ratio of Ratio of highly

(91.9 ± 13.0% (38.0 ± 24.7% highly toxic toxic avg.

survival, survival, to nontoxic to the

n = 4) n = 16) averages SQG

oxychlordane 0.2±0.1 0.5±0.3 2.6 na

heptachlor epoxide 1.4±1.0 6.6±4.4 4.9 na

trans-chlordane 3.8±3.0 23.4±16.0 6.2 na

trans-nonachlor 2.8±2.1 13.5±8.8 4.9 na

cis-chlordane 4.7±3.7 28.2±20.6 6.0 na

o, p’ - DDE 3.4±3.3 8.3±4.3 2.5 na

dieldrin 2.7±1.9 10.6±5.9 3.9 1.3a

p, p’ - DDE 16.8±14.1 44.4±19.0 2.7 1.6b

o, p’ - DDD 6.8±6.5 21.5±12.5 3.2 na

endrin 0.4±0.2 0.9±0.7 2.2 0.02a

cis-nonachlor 1.3±0.9 6.2±4.2 4.8 na

o, p’ - DDT 1.2±0.8 5.3±3.4 4.6 na

p, p’ - DDD 15.8±14.1 45.9±22.2 2.9 2.3a

p, p’ - DDT 31.5±40.6 40.7±35.0 1.3 5.8a

mirex 2.4±1.3 10.8±7.2 4.6 na

sum of DDTs 75.2±65.7 166.2±73.7 2.2 3.6b

sum of PCB congeners 148.1±123.0 757.8±527.4 5.1 4.2b

percent TOC 2.2±1.4 3.1±1.5 1.4 na

dieldrin (ug/goc) 0.1±0.1 0.4±0.2 2.7 0.02c

endrin (ug/goc) 0.3±0.3 0.3±0.4 1.1 0.4c

p, p’ - DDE (ug/goc) 0.7±0.5 1.6±0.8 2.1 na

sum of DDTs (ug/goc) 2.9±1.6 5.8±2.8 2.0 0.03d

sum of PCBs (ug/goc) 5.6±2.2 25.1±16.2 4.5 na

a Long and Morgan (1990) na = no applicable guidelines

b Long et al. (1995)

c U.S. EPA (1994)

d Swartz et al. (1994)

The average concentrations of the trace metals in the toxic samples rarely exceeded the averages in the

nontoxic samples by a great degree, and, except for mercury, were lower than the respective ERM

value (Table 35). The toxic/nontoxic ratios ranged from 0.8 to 2.9 for the metals. The toxic/nontoxic

ratios for each element were similar whether quantified as total extractable metal or as AVS simultaneously extracted metal. Although the average concentration of mercury in the toxic samples was

elevated relative to the ERM value, Long et al. (1995) reported only a moderate degree of confidence

in this guideline, suggesting that it should be higher. The concentrations of un-ionized ammonia were

lower in the toxic samples than in the nontoxic samples.
110

Table 35. Average concentrations of total extractable and AVS simultaneously extracted trace

metals (ppm, dry wt.) in highly toxic (<80% survival) and nontoxic samples from Phase 2, ratios

between the averages, and ratios between the highly toxic averages and the respective SQGs.

Nontoxic Highly toxic Ratio of Ratio of highly

(91.9 ± 13.0% (38.0 ± 24.7% highly toxic toxic avg.

survival, survival, to nontoxic to the

n = 4) n = 16) averages SQG

total silver 2.4±1.1 3.6±1.6 1.5 1.0a

total arsenic 10.7±3.3 10.4±3.9 1.0 0.15a

total cadmium 1.1±0.9 3.3±1.8 2.9 0.3a

total chromium 102.9±68.1 141.1±56.3 1.4 0.4a

total copper 68.9±46.5 142.6±67.0 2.1 0.5a

total mercury 1.6±1.6 2.4±0.9 1.4 3.4a

total nickel 45.1±17.9 39.7±11.8 0.9 0.8a

total lead 88.8±42.9 208.0±102.9 2.3 0.9a

total tin 16.5±9.6 46.4±24.2 2.8 na

total selenium 0.5±0.4 0.9±0.3 1.7 na

total zinc 166.2±93.1 403.9±191.9 2.4 1.0a

total AVS (umol/g) 2.2±1.4 3.1±1.5 1.4 na

SE silver 0.4±0.3 0.4±0.2 1.0 na

SE arsenic 2.0±1.2 1.6±0.6 0.8 na

SE cadmium 0.9±0.7 2.7±1.4 2.9 na

SE chromium 33.4±28.0 67.4±35.8 2.0 na

SE copper 26.5±24.2 36.9±20.2 1.4 na

SE mercury 0.06±0.0 0.06±0.0 1.0 na

SE nickel 6.3±3.1 8.6±3.6 1.4 na

SE lead 69.0±41.1 164.7±81.5 2.4 na

SE zinc 147.3±55.8 293.6±161.2 2.0 na

SEM/AVS ratios (umol/g) 0.5±0.4 0.5±0.7 1.0 na

Un-ionized ammonia (ug/l) 155.3±268.3 102.7±164.4 0.7 na

a Long et al. (1995)

na = no applicable guidelines

The concentrations of the classes of PAHs and three individual hydrocarbons were higher in the toxic

samples than in the nontoxic samples, but not to a great degree (Table 36). Also, the average concentrations of the sums of both the low and high molecular weight compounds exceeded the respective

ERM values, but again, not by a large amount. Among the three compounds for which there are

proposed criteria, phenanthrene was most elevated in concentration in the toxic samples, but the average concentrations of all three compounds were considerably lower than the respective SQGs.
111

Table 36. Average concentrations of PAHs (ng/g, dry wt.) in highly toxic (<80% survival) and

nontoxic samples from Phase 2, ratios between the averages, and ratios between the highly toxic

averages and the respective SQGs.

Nontoxic Highly toxic Ratio of Ratio of highly

(91.9 ± 13.0% (38.0 ± 24.7% highly toxic toxic avg.

survival, survival, nontoxic to the

n = 4) n = 16) averages SQG

sum of LPAH 1736±1730 5822±9350 3.4 1.8a

sum of HPAH 12100±15868 31709±30761 2.6 3.3a

sum of PAH 13836±17576 37532±39671 2.7 0.8a

acenaphthene (ug/goc) 2.4±1.7 12.5±20.7 5.3 0.05b

phenanthrene (ug/goc) 17.0±12.8 123.0±294.6 7.2 0.5b

fluoranthene (ug/goc) 51.0±49.8 208.9±260.2 4.1 0.7b

a Long et al. (1995)

b U.S. EPA (1994)

DISCUSSION

Incidence and Severity of Toxicity. In previous studies and surveys of the Hudson-Raritan Estuary,

many investigators have reported that portions of this area were highly contaminated with a variety of

potentially toxic chemicals (O’Connor and Ehler, 1991; Breteler, 1984; Squibb et al., 1991; Long and

Morgan, 1990; Schimmel et al., 1994). The concentrations of many substances equalled or exceeded

known toxicity thresholds and exceeded concentrations observed in many other estuaries in the USA.

Therefore, based upon these historical chemical data, there was a potential for contaminant-induced

toxicity in water, sediments, and resident biota.

The spatial patterns in chemical concentrations compiled by Squibb et al. (1991) suggested that Newark Bay and Arthur Kill would be highly toxic. Based upon the data from the present survey, many of

the samples from these two areas, indeed, appeared to be toxic. The data assembled by Squibb et al.

(1991) also suggested that the following areas would be moderately toxic: East River bays, East River

in the vicinity of Ward’s Island, upper New York Harbor, Gowanus Canal, lower Hackensack River,

and lower Jamaica Bay. Among these areas, samples were collected in the present survey in the upper

East River near Ward’s Island, upper New York Harbor, and the lower Hackensack River. The samples

collected in the East River were highly toxic, those from the lower Hackensack River were moderately

toxic, and those from the upper New York Harbor were not toxic at one site and moderately toxic at

another site. The northern and southern portions of Raritan Bay, which were highly sandy, were expected to be among the least toxic areas according to the data compiled by Squibb et al. (1991), and that

was confirmed in the present survey. Although conditions in all of these areas were heterogeneous, the

overall patterns in toxicity suggested by the chemical data from previous surveys generally were confirmed by the toxicity tests in the present survey.

Previous investigators have documented toxicity in sediment samples collected throughout the estuary.

The toxicity of sediments to nematode growth (Tietjen and Lee, 1984) was reported in all ten samples

that were tested. Toxicity to amphipods was reported in 8% of 10% samples tested in 1990 (Scott et al.,

1990). Nine of 20 samples collected in 1992 and tested in flow-through tests with amphipods were
112

toxic (Brosnan and O’Shea, 1993). In 18 samples tested in 1990 from the Arthur Kill and vicinity,

amphipod mortality ranged from 18 to 61% (Aqua Survey, 1990a, 1990b). Five of nine samples collected in 1990 were toxic to amphipods during the first phase of the EMAP survey conducted by U.S.

EPA (Schimmel et al., 1994).

During Phase 1 of this survey, toxicity in 117 sediment samples was determined with three complimentary tests performed in the laboratory. Four toxicity end-points were determined among the three tests.

Toxicity end-points included survival of amphipods, survival of bivalve larvae, morphological development of bivalve larvae, and metabolic activity of a bioluminescent bacterium. During Phase 2, 57

additional samples from Newark Bay and vicinity were tested with the amphipod survival test.

All four test end-points provided a wide range in response from the least toxic to the most toxic station.

In Phase 1, amphipod survival ranged from 0.0% in three samples to 99.0%. In Phase 2, amphipod

survival ranged from 0.0% in two samples to 100%. Bivalve embryo survival ranged from 16.1% to

over 100% relative to controls. Bivalve normal development ranged from 0.0% in two samples to

100% in many samples. The Microtox EC50s ranged from 0.30 mg/ml to over 32.6 mg/ml. All four

end-points indicated that some of the stations and some of the sites were significantly more toxic than

the control sediments.

The toxicity data developed for each station and site during Phase 1 are summarized in Table 37. A

single asterisk was assigned to those stations and sites that were significantly different from controls in

each test. Two asterisks were assigned where the numerical results were significantly different from

controls and were less than or equal to 80% of the control response.

Based upon the results of all four test end-points combined, the samples from zones A (lower Hudson

River), G (lower Raritan River), I (central Raritan Bay), K (southern Raritan Bay), and M (outer bay,

New York Bight) were among the least toxic. Samples from these areas often were not toxic in any of

the tests, or in only one or two of them. Furthermore, toxicity test results rarely were less than 80% of

the control responses. Among the most toxic samples were those from zones B (western Long Island

Sound), C (upper East River), D (lower East River), and F (Newark Bay/Arthur Kill). Samples from

these areas often were highly toxic as indicated by toxicity in multiple tests and responses less than

80% of the control response.

Table 37. Summary of toxicity test results for each station and site sampled during Phase 1.

Bivalve

Regional Sampling Amphipod Bivalve develop- Microbial

zone site/station survival survival ment bioluminescence

Zone A 1-A - - - -

1-B - - - -

1-C - - - -

Site 1 mean - - - -

2-A - - - -

2-B - - - -

2-C - nd nd -

Site 2 mean - - - -
113

Table 37 continued.

Bivalve

Regional Sampling Amphipod Bivalve develop- Microbial

zone site/station survival survival ment bioluminescence

3-A - - - -

3-B ** - - -

3-C ** - - -

Site 3 mean - - - -

Zone B 4-A - - - *

4-B - - - *

4-C - - *

Site 4 mean - - * *

5-A - - ** **

5-B - - ** *

5-C - ** ** *

Site 5 mean - - ** **

6-A - ** * -

6-B - **  

6-C - **  ** **

Site 6 mean -   -

Zone C 7-A **  ** ** -

7-B   **  -

7-C **   -

Site 7 mean **  ** ** **

8-A * * - -

8-B ** -  

8-C **  ** - *

Site 8 mean - - - **

9-A ** - - *

9-B ** - - **

9-C ** - - -

Site 9 mean ** - - **

Zone D 10-A   **  **

10-B   **  *

10-C ** - - *

Site 10 mean - - - **

11-A * - - -

11-B ** ** - *

11-C ** - * *

Site 11 mean ** ** - *

12-A ** - - *

12-B ** - - *

12-C - - ** *

Site 12 mean - - - **

Zone E 13-A - - - -

13-B - nd nd -

13-C - - - -

Site 13 mean * - - -
114

Table 37 continued.

Bivalve

Regional Sampling Amphipod Bivalve develop- Microbial

zone site/station survival survival ment bioluminescence

14-A - - - -

14-B - - - -

14-C - - - -

Site 14 mean - - - -

15-A ** - - -

15-B * - - -

15-C ** - - *

Site 15 mean ** * - *

Zone F 16-A ** - - -

16-B ** - - *

16-C ** - - *

Site 16 mean ** - - -

17-A ** - - -

17-B   - -

17-C **  ** - -

Site 17 mean   - ** 

18-A ** - - -

18-B ** - - *

18-C ** - - -

Site 18 mean ** - * *

Zone G 19-A - - - -

19-B - - - *

19-C * - - *

Site 19 mean - - - -

20-A * - - -

20-B * - - -

20-C ** * - -

Site 20 mean - * - -

21-A - - - *

21-B - - - -

21-C - - - -

Site 21 mean - - - -

Zone H 22-A ** - - *

22-B ** - - -

22-C   - -

Site 22 mean **  - - *

23-A - - - **

23-B - - - **

23-C ** - - -

Site 23 mean ** - - **

24-A * - - *

24-B - nd nd -

24-C - - - -

Site 24 mean - - - -
115

Table 37 continued.

Bivalve

Regional Sampling Amphipod Bivalve develop- Microbial

zone site/station survival survival ment bioluminescence

Zone I 25-A - - - -

25-B - - - -

25-C - - - *

Site 25 mean - - - -

26-A - ** ** *

26-B - - - *

26-C - - - *

Site 26 mean - - - -

27-A - - - *

27-B - - - *

27-C - - - *

Site 27 mean - - - **

Zone J 28-A - - - **

28-B ** nd nd **

28-C ** nd nd **

Site 28 mean * - - **

29-A - - - -

29-B - - ** -

29-C - - - -

Site 29 mean * - - -

30-A - ** ** **

30-B * ** ** *

30-C ** nd nd *

Site 30 mean - ** ** **

Zone K 31-A - - - *

31-B - - - -

31-C - - - -

Site 31 mean - - - **

32-A - - - -

32-B - - - *

32-C - - - -

Site 32 mean - - - -

33-A - - - -

33-B - - - -

33-C - - - _

Site 33 mean * - - -

Zone L 34-A - nd nd -

34-B **   -

34-C **  - - -

Site 34 mean - - - -

35-A ** - - -

35-B - nd nd nd

35-C ** - - -

Site 35 mean ** - - *
116

Table 37 continued.

Bivalve

Regional Sampling Amphipod Bivalve develop- Microbial

zone site/station survival survival ment bioluminescence

36-A - - - -

36-B * - - **

36-C * - - -

Site 36 mean - - - **

Zone M 37-A - ** - -

37-B - - - -

37-C - - - -

Site 37 mean * * - -

38-A - - - -

38-B - - - -

38-C * - - -

Site 38 mean * - - -

39-A **   -

39-B **  ** ** -

39-C * - - -

Site 39 mean - - - -

* Significantly different from controls (alpha=0.05).

** Significantly different from controls and 80% or less of controls.

- Not significantly different from controls.

nd - No data.

Significantly elevated toxicity was observed in samples from 54 stations and 16 sites in the amphipod

survival test; 23 stations and 6 sites in the bivalve larvae survival test; 21 stations and 6 sites in the

bivalve larvae development test; and 47 stations and 19 sites in the Microtox test (Table 38). Test

results were significantly different from controls and 80% or less of the control in samples from 42

stations and 10 sites in the amphipod tests; in 21 stations and 4 sites in the bivalve survival tests; in 19

stations and 4 sites in the bivalve development tests; and in 32 stations and 14 sites in the Microtox

tests. A total of 81 stations out of 117 (69%) and 27 sites out of 39 (69%) were indicated as significantly toxic in at least one of the test end-points during Phase 1. A total of 54 stations (46%) and 19

sites (49%) were significantly toxic and indicated responses of 80% or less than the controls in at least

one of the tests. During the Phase 2 tests, amphipod survival was significantly lower than controls in

48 of 57 samples (84.2%).

Table 38. Summary of the numbers of Phase 1 stations and sites indicated as significantly toxic

(different from controls) and numerically significant (80% controls or less) in each of four sediment toxicity test endpoints.

Number of Stations Number of Sites

Toxicity Statisticallya Numericallyb Statisticallya Numericallyb

Test/Endpoint Significant Significant Significant Significant

Ampelisca abdita

• survival (n=117) 54 42 16 10
117

Table 38 continued.

Number of Stations Number of Sites

Toxicity Statisticallya Numericallyb Statisticallya Numericallyb

Test/Endpoint Significant Significant Significant Significant

Mulinia lateralis

• survival (n=109) 23 21 6 4

• normal (n=109)

 development 21 19 6 4

Microtoxtm

• Inhibition of

 bioluminescence 47 32 19 14

 (n=116)

All tests combined 81 54 27 19

a Statistically significantly different from controls (alpha=0.05).

b Significantly different from controls (alpha=0.05) and mean value 80% or less of the control response.

Spatial Extent of Toxicity. Using test results of <80% of control responses as a critical value, the

spatial extent of toxicity was estimated. Approximately 25% of the study area exhibited toxic samples

in the bivalve survival tests, 30% was toxic in the bivalve embryo development tests, 38% was toxic in

the amphipod tests, and approximately 39% of the area was toxic to microbial bioluminescence. Approximately 5.7% of the area was toxic in all four of these tests. These estimates are similar to the

estimate of the spatial extent of sediment toxicity to amphipod survival (21%) for the entire Virginian

province of EMAP, which includes the present study area (Schimmel et al., 1994). However, the

estimated spatial extent of toxicity to amphipods within the Newark Bay region of the study area (85%)

was much higher than that for the remainder of the study area or the Virginian province.

These calculations of the spatial extent of toxicity must be viewed as rough estimates, since a number

of factors could have contributed to bias in the analyses. Although the Phase 1 survey area was stratified a priori, the selection of the boundaries for each stratum could have affected the results. Since

many of the sampling sites were selected with some knowledge of the site from previous studies, there

may have been some bias in the site selection. Each station within a site was chosen by the vessel

operator with no attempt to sample near known sources; nevertheless, there could have been bias in the

station selections. The coordinates for each sampling station were not selected with a probabalistic,

random method (Schimmel et al., 1994). On the other hand, there was no attempt to bias the site and

station selections to over- or under estimate the toxicity of the area.

During Phase 2 of the survey, the samples were chosen randomly with a probabalistic, random-stratified sampling design similar to that used by the EMAP. As a consequence, the estimate of the spatial

extent of toxicity (85%) within the Newark Bay area should be more accurate than that calculated for

the entire survey area.

Spatial Patterns in Toxicity. The area-wide patterns in toxicity, as determined by the four test endpoints measured in Phase 1, collectively, are illustrated for the station means in Figure 46 and for the

site means in Figure 47. Stations and sites were depicted as toxic when at least one of the four test endpoints indicated a statistically significant elevation in toxicity relative to the controls. These two fig-
118

1

2

3

4

5

6

8 7

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24 25 26

27

28

29

30

31 32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

Figure 46. Sampling stations in which the toxicity test results were significantly 

different from controls in at least one of the four toxicity tests or not toxic in any tes

Stations in which toxicity results

were significant in at least one test

Non-toxic stations
119

1

2

3

4

5

6

8 7

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24 25 26

27

28

29

30

31 32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

Figure 47. Sampling sites in which the mean toxicity test results were significantly 

different from controls in at least one of the four tests or not toxic in any test 

(average of three stations).

Sites in which toxicity results

were significant in at least one test

Non-toxic sites
120

ures depict the presence/absence of toxicity, not the relative degree of toxicity, based upon statistical

differences from the controls.

Based upon the data depicted in Table 37 and Figures 46 and 47, it appears that the spatial limits of

toxicity were not determined. Toxicity to at least one of the tests was evident throughout most of the

study area and extended to its outer limits. There were no clear limits or boundaries beyond which only

nontoxic sediments were consistently encountered. All of the samples from western Long Island Sound,

the upper East River, the lower East River, Newark Bay, Arthur Kill, and inner-most Sandy Hook Bay

were toxic in at least one of the tests. Also, many of the samples from the lower Raritan River and

western Raritan Bay were toxic in at least one test. In contrast, only two of the 15 samples in the lower

Hudson River/upper New York Harbor area were toxic in any of the tests. In addition, only two of the

stations in sites 31, 32, and 33 in southern Raritan Bay were toxic in all tests. All three samples from

site 39 in New York Bight were significantly different from controls in at least one test, but the site

mean was not significantly different from controls in any of the tests.

The spatial pattern in toxicity illustrated by the site means (Figure 47) is similar to that identified by the

station means (Figure 46). Figure 47 illlustrates the sites in which the mean toxicity results for any of

the tests were significantly different from the respective controls. As observed with the station means,

these data indicate that the sites in western Long Island Sound, upper East River, lower East River,

Newark Bay, Arthur Kill, much of western Raritan Bay, and Sandy Hook Bay were different from

controls. However, these data also suggest that site 13 in the lower Hudson River; sites 31 and 33 in

southern Raritan Bay; and sites 36, 37, and 38 in the mouth of the estuary were significantly different

from controls in at least one test. As observed with the station means, the site means indicated that sites

1-3 in the lower Hudson River, site 14 in upper New York Harbor, and several sites in north-central

Raritan Bay were not toxic in any of the tests.

Figure 48 depicts the relative toxicity of the sites, based upon the number of significant toxic responses

determined at each site, using the tests of statistical differences from controls. Sites are identified in

which there was no toxic response relative to controls among the four test end-points, and sites in

which there was one response, two, three, or four. It was assumed that sediments that caused four

significantly elevated toxic responses were more degraded than those that elicited, say, one or two

significant responses.

The site means for all four tests were significantly different from the controls only at site 7 (Figure 48).

Note: based upon a critical value of <80% of controls, three sites were indicated as toxic in all tests in

the calculations of the spatial extent of toxicity (Table 13). However, based upon the statistical tests of

significance, only one site (site 7) was different from controls in all four tests. That is, in all four test

end-points, the measures of toxicity were sufficiently high and consistent to provide mean results that

were significantly different from the controls. In addition, the numerical results of the three invertebrate tests were 80% or less than the controls. Among the 17 samples tested with the polychaete

growth test, sediments from site 7 were the most toxic. This site was clearly the most toxic among all

39 sites sampled during Phase 1.

Sites 11, 15, 17, 18, and 30 located in lower East River, upper New York Harbor, Newark Bay, Arthur

Kill, and Sandy Hook Bay, respectively, were highly toxic in three of the four test end-points (Figure

48). Sites 1-3, 14, 19, 21, 24-26, 32, 34, and 39 were not toxic to any of the tests.
121

Based upon all of the data from both phases and all four test end-points, there are several patterns in

toxicity in the study area. First, toxicity was very high in the upper and lower East River samples, and

generally (but not consistently) diminished eastward into western Long Island Sound and southward

into the New York Harbor. Second, toxicity was relatively high in the lower Passaic River, Newark

Bay, and Arthur Kill, gradually diminished somewhat into western Raritan Bay, and diminished additionally into north-central Raritan Bay and the mouth of the estuary. Third, toxicity was high in the

inner portions of Sandy Hook Bay, diminished into lower New York Harbor, the outer bay, and the

mouth of the estuary.

 Areas in which the sediments were toxic in the present survey also were toxic in one or more historical

surveys in which sediments were tested with either amphipods or nematodes (Tietjen and Lee, 1984;

Schimmel et al., 1994; Scott et al., 1990; Brosnan and O’Shea, 1993; Aqua Survey, 1990a, 1990b;

Tatem et al., 1991). These areas included the lower East River, Newark Bay, Arthur Kill, Kill van Kull,

lower Passaic River, western Raritan Bay, and Sandy Hook Bay.

Correlations Among Toxicity Tests. It was apparent from these data that the four test end-points did

not always agree on the relative toxicity of all the samples. While some stations and sites were toxic in

more than one test, there were many cases where the tests did not agree as to which samples were toxic.

Table 39 summarizes the Spearman-rank correlations (Rho) among the four test end-points. All except

the correlations between amphipod survival and bivalve normal development were significant. The

strongest relationship, as expected, was between normal development and survival of the bivalve larvae (Rho = 0.741, p<0.0001). The results of the Microtox test were correlated with the results of the

three other tests. These data indicate that, while the four tests suggested different patterns in toxicity,

they did overlap to a significant degree.

These correlation coefficients illustrate the advantage of determining toxicity with a battery of tests

and end-points. The spatial pattern of toxicity indicated with one assay may not necessarily represent

patterns in toxicity to other organisms and/or end-points. The study area has many different sources of

contamination, the mixtures and concentrations of contaminants differ remarkably from place to place,

and the relative bioavailability of the different chemicals probably varies spatially. The different toxicity tests, therefore, would be expected to differ spatially in their responses to the various sources of

contamination.

Table 39. Spearman rank correlation coefficients (Rho) for the four toxicity test end-points tested

in Phase 1 as percent of controls (n=117).

Amphipod Bivalve Bivalve

survival survival development

Bivalve survival 0.368*

Bivalve development 0.252ns 0.741***

Microbial bioluminescence 0.377* 0.432** 0.496**

*p<0.05, **p<0.01, ***p<0.001
122

Another source of variability in results among the tests is the exposure medium that was tested. The

amphipods are tube-dwelling, epifaunal organisms and were exposed to solid phase sediments for 10

days. The clam larvae were planktonic and exposed to liquid phase samples for 48 hours. The bacteria

were cultured in laboratory equipment and exposed for 5 minutes to an organic extract of the sediments. The solvent extraction elutes potentially toxic contaminants from the sediments, and, therefore,

enhances their apparent availability. The Microtox tests probably provide an estimate of the toxicity

potential of the total bulk contaminant content of the sediments, instead of the biologically available

fraction.

Summary of Chemistry/Toxicity Relationships. The data from Phase 1 of the Hudson-Raritan Estuary survey were examined to determine (1) which chemicals were correlated significantly with the

measures of toxicity; (2) which chemicals also were elevated in concentration in the highly toxic samples

versus the nontoxic samples; and (3) which chemicals in the highly toxic samples also were elevated in

concentration above applicable, effects-based, sediment quality guidelines. A summary of the data

from these three tiers of analyses are listed in Table 40. The substances included in Table 40 are those

that were significantly correlated with two measures of toxicity: amphipod survival and microbial

bioluminescence. There were no strong, significant correlations between toxicity to the bivalve embryos and any of the chemicals or chemical classes, so the data from those tests were not included in

Table 40.

Amphipod survival was significantly correlated with two metals, mercury and tin, in the sediments.

Microtox test results were significantly correlated with 10 metals. Generally, the average concentrations of all 10 trace metals in the highly toxic samples were slightly higher than in the nontoxic samples

in both of the toxicity tests. For most of the metals, the average concentrations in the highly toxic

samples were lower than the respective ERM values of Long et al. (1995). The concentrations of

mercury, lead, and zinc in the highly toxic samples either equalled or slightly exceeded the applicable

ERM values. Thirty of the 38 samples equalled or exceeded the mercury ERM concentration. However, Long et al. (1995) reported that they had only a moderate degree of confidence in the ERM value

for mercury, whereas they reported a relatively high degree of confidence in the values for lead and

zinc. Therefore, the exceedances of the mercury ERM concentration in most samples probably were

not very meaningful.

Four chlorinated organic compounds were significantly correlated with microbial bioluminescence

and one was correlated with amphipod survival (Table 40). No applicable guidelines were available

for cis-chlordane and trans-nonachlor. Both of these isomers of chlordane were slightly elevated in the

highly toxic samples relative to the nontoxic samples. The concentrations of p,p’-DDT were significantly correlated with both measures of toxicity. However, the average concentrations of this isomer of

DDT were much more elevated in the samples that were toxic to the amphipods (exceeded the ERM by

a factor of 21.6) than in those that were toxic to microbial bioluminescence (exceeed the ERM by a

factor of 1.7). Long et al. (1995) reported a moderate degree of confidence in the ERM values for total

DDT and p,p’-DDE and Long and Morgan (1990) reported a low degree of confidence in the ERM for

p,p’-DDT. Therefore, the slight exceedance of the ERM value for p,p’-DDT in the samples that were

highly toxic to microbial bioluminescence probably is meaningless. The concentrations of the DDT

isomers in these samples were one to two orders of magnitude lower than the respective Sediment

Effect Concentrations (SECs) of MacDonald (1994).

All of the compounds and classes of PAHs were significantly correlated with the results of the amphipod and Microtox tests the concentrations in the highly toxic samples exceeded the concentrations in
123

Table 40. Summary of toxicity/chemistry relationships for those chemicals that were significantly correlated with toxicity in the Phase 1 samples.

Spearman Ratio of highly Ratio of highly No. of samples

rank correlation toxic averages to toxic averages to that equalled or

coefficients non-toxic averages respective SQGs exceeded

Amphipod Microtox Amphipod Microtox Amphipod Microtox SQGs

silver ns -0.363* 0.9 1.4 <1.0 <1.0 0chromium ns -0.351* 1.1 1.5 <1.0 <1.0 1cadmium ns -0.472* 1.9 1.3 <1.0 <1.0 0copper ns -0.449* 1.6 1.5 <1.0 <1.0 2mercury -0.437* -0.377* 2.2 0.9 4.5 3.1 30nickel ns -0.451* 1.2 1.6 <1.0 <1.0 3lead ns -0.478* 1.5 1.7 <1.0 1.0 8antimony ns -0.355* 1.6 1.4 na na natin -0.342* -0.427* 1.7 1.6 na na nazinc ns -0.433* 1.2 1.8 <1.0 1.1 5cis-chlordane ns -0.384* 2.0 1.1 na na natrans-nonachlor ns -0.402* 2.0 1.2 na na na4,4'-DDE ns -0.406* 4.0 0.7 1.6 <1.0 124,4'-DDT -0.476* -0.341* 20.3 0.1 21.6 1.7 14total indeno- pesticides ns -0.395* 1.9 1.2 na na napetroleum PAHs -0.468* -0.625*** 6.3 26.2 na na nacombustion PAHs -0.576** -0.602** 12.7 6.7 na na nasum of LPAHs -0.592** -0.650*** 37.6 25.6 11.0 18.9 9sum of HPAHs -0.471* -0.512* 7.1 6.8 5.0 7.3 14sum of total PAHs -0.495* -0.603** 14.8 10.4 1.8 2.8 4fluoranthene/toc -0.559** -0.418* 4.6 4.3 7.2 9.7 20acenaphthene/toc -0.641*** -0.437* 58.7 34.2 2.8 4.8 2

phenanthrene/toc -0.571** -0.398* 20.2 13.9 10.4 17.0 14

*p<0.05, **p<0.001, ***p<0.0001
124

the nontoxic samples (often by a considerable amount), and they exceeded the applicable guidelines

(Table 40). The concentrations of the low molecular weight PAHs, in particular, corresponded very

well with the toxicity results. The concentrations of the petroleum-related compounds were very high

in the samples that were toxic in the Microtox tests, whereas the combustion-related compounds were

relatively high in the samples that were toxic in the amphipod tests. The concentrations of acenaphthene

were correlated with toxicity, and were highly elevated in the toxic samples, but they exceeded the

applicable SQC by only a factor of 2.8 and 4.8, respectively, in the two tests. Also, phenanthrene was

correlated with toxicity and elevated in concentration in the toxic samples; in addition, it was elevated

relative to the applicable SQC by factors of 10.4 and 17.0, respectively, in the two tests.

In summary, these data from the Phase 1 portion of the survey suggest that the toxicity observed in the

samples was in strong correspondence with the concentrations of the PAHs in the samples. To a considerably lesser degree, toxicity corresponded with the concentrations of some trace metals and chlorinated organic compounds.

In the samples analyzed during Phase 2 of the survey, a considerable number of chemicals co-varied

with amphipod survival (Table 41). Nine trace elements were correlated with toxicity to the amphipods; however, the concentrations of most of these metals were not highly elevated relative to applicable guidelines. For example, cadmium, chromium, and copper were correlated with amphipod survival, but the concentrations of these substances were below the ERM values. The concentrations of

mercury were elevated relative to the ERM values, but Long et al. (1995) reported only a moderate

degree of confidence in the guidelines for mercury.

Whereas the concentrations of PAHs were highly correlated with amphipod survival in Phase 1, the

concentrations of PCBs, 2,3,7,8-tcdd, and many other chlorinated hydrocarbons were highly correlated

with amphipod survival in Phase 2 (Table 41). The strong correlations with are particularly interesting

since dioxins generally are not especially toxic to invertebrates in short-term acute exposures. No

applicable guidelines are available for many of these compounds. The concentrations of dieldrin were

far below the applicable sediment guideline values, whereas the concentrations of the p,p’-DDE and

total DDT isomers were high relative to the ERM values of Long et al (1995), but were far below the

respective SECs of MacDonald (1994).

The PAH concentrations in some samples exceeded the sediment guidelines of Long et al. (1995) or the

U.S. EPA (1994) and the average concentrations in the toxic samples exceeded the average in the

nontoxic samples. However, amphipod survival was not correlated with those compounds, and, therefore, they were not included in Table 41. Nevertheless, they may have been important in contributing

to toxicity in some specific samples in which the PAH concentrations were particularly high.

In previous studies conducted within this study area, measures of sediment toxicity were highly correlated with a number of different chemicals. Scott et al. (1990) reported that amphipod mortality in

samples from the Hudson-Raritan Estuary was correlated with the concentrations of total PCBs, total

PAHs, several pesticides, copper, zinc, chromium, lead, nickel, and cadmium. Also, the concentrations

of many of these chemicals in the highly toxic samples equalled or exceeded the respective ERM

values. The correlations between amphipod mortality and the concentrations of trace metals normalized to the aluminum content were highly significant in the EMAP samples (Schimmel et al., 1994). In

samples collected by the City of New York (Brosnan and O’Shea, 1994), amphipod mortality was

correlated with total SEM/AVS ratios.
125

Table 41. Summary of toxicity/chemistry relationships for those chemicals that were significantly correlated with toxicity in the Phase 2 samples.

Spearman Ratio of highly Ratio of highly Number of samples

rank correlation toxic averages to toxic averages to that equalled or

coefficients non-toxic averages SQGs exceeded SQGs

Trace elements

silver -0.585* 1.5 1.0 7

cadmium -0.777** 2.9 0.3 0

chromium -0.673* 1.4 0.4 0

copper -0.723* 2.1 0.5 0

mercury -0.612* 1.4 3.4 17

lead -0.681* 2.3 0.9 10

tin -0.734* 2.8 na na

selenium -0.647* 1.7 na na

zinc -0.534* 2.4 1.0 10

Chlorinated hydrocarbons

sum of PCB congeners -0.783* 5.1 4.2 16

cumulative PCB TEQ -0.850** 2.8 <1.0 2

2378-tcdd -0.868** 10.6 2.7 11

cumulative dioxin TEQ -0.866** 6.5 3.5 14

total cumulative TEQ -0.865** 5.4 4.2 15

Pesticides

hexachlorobenzene -0.633* 5.0 na na

delta-BHC -0.487* 1.9 na na

oxychlordane -0.633* 2.6 na na

trans-chlordane -0.705* 6.2 na na

cis-chlordane -0.677* 6.0 na na

dieldrin (dry wt.) -0.848** 3.9 na na

dieldrin (oc) -0.841** 2.7 0.02 0

o, p’ - DDD -0.629* 3.2 na na

pentachloro anisole -0.599* 2.2 na na

heptachlor epoxide -0.680* 4.9 na na

trans-nonachlor -0.699* 4.9 na na

o, p’ - DDE -0.707* 2.5 na na

p, p’ - DDE -0.800** 2.7 1.6 13

cis-nonachlor -0.707* 4.8 na na

o, p’ - DDT -0.576* 4.6 na na

p, p’ - DDD -0.597* 2.9 na na

mirex -0.569* 4.6 na na

sum of total DDTs -0.576* 2.2 3.6 15

*p<0.05, **p<0.001. na = no applicable SQGs available.
126

As observed in this survey, many contaminants co-vary with each other in the sediments. Therefore,

correlation analyses alone do not provide great insight into the potential causes of toxicity. A much

stronger weight of evidence is provided by the complementary measures of correlative strength, concentrations gradients between toxic and nontoxic samples, and comparisons with applicable effectsbased, numerical guidelines.

CONCLUSIONS

This survey was intended to provide information on the possible biological effects of toxic chemicals

in the sediments of the Hudson-Raritan estuary. Standardized laboratory toxicity tests were performed

on 174 samples collected throughout the study area. Some of the important conclusions derived from

this survey follow:

Potential for Toxicity

• The concentrations and mixtures of toxicants quantified in previous studies differed among the

many different waterways, tributaries, harbors, and basins of this study area.

• The concentrations of many substances quantified during previous studies exceeded the concentrations previously associated with toxicity, occasionally by a great amount, and therefore, suggested that

sediments in this area may be toxic.

 • The concentrations of polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) were extremely high in some

samples from the East River collected during the present survey. The concentrations of chlorinated

hydrocarbons, such as PCBs, pesticides, and dioxins, were very high in some samples from the lower

Passaic River and Newark Bay. The concentrations of total simultaneously extracted metals exceeded

the acid-volatile sulfide concentrations in a few of the samples.

• Based upon historical data, those areas included in the present survey in which the highest toxicity

was predicted included Newark Bay and Arthur Kill. As expected, many samples from these two

adjacent areas were highly toxic. Portions of the East River and lower Passaic River, which were

expected to be moderately toxic, often were moderately to highly toxic in the laboratory tests.

Incidence of Toxicity

The significance of the toxicity data was determined in statistical comparisons of the test results with

the respective controls.

• Out of 58 sediment samples tested in previous studies, 45 (77.6%) were highly toxic to either

nematode growth or amphipod survival.

• All four test end-points measured in the present survey indicated results significantly different

from controls in samples collected throughout the estuary.

• Of the 117 stations that were sampled in Phase 1 of the present survey, test results for 81 stations

(69% of the total tested) were significantly different from controls in at least one of the test end-points.

• Of the 117 samples, 46% were significantly different from controls in the amphipod survival tests.

• Of 109 samples tested, 27% were significantly different from controls in the tests of bivalve embryo survival or normal development.

• Of 116 samples tested, 41% were significantly different from controls in the bacterial bioluminescence tests.

• Of 57 samples from Newark Bay and vicinity tested during Phase 2, 48 (84%) were significantly

toxic to amphipod survival.
127

• In tests of growth, 13 of 17 samples were toxic to the polychaete Armandia brevis and 8 of 17

samples were toxic to the sand dollar Dendraster excentricus. Also, 8 of 9 samples were toxic in tests

of survival with the freshwater amphipod Diporeia spp.

Spatial Patterns in Toxicity

• Toxicity extended throughout much of the study area and no clear boundary or limit to toxicity was

apparent.

• The data from each of the individual tests were correlated with each other to different degrees and

indicated overlap in the patterns of toxicity.

• 100% mortality of amphipods was observed in samples from Newark Bay, Arthur Kill, and the

East River.

• Regions of the study area in which highly toxic sediments were collected included the East River,

the vicinity of the Verrazano Narrows Bridge, Kill van Kull near Shooter’s Island, Arthur Kill, central

Newark Bay, lower Passaic River, and Sandy Hook Bay.

• Sediments that were consistently not toxic or the least toxic in all tests were collected in the lower

Hudson River off Manhattan Island, in the center of upper New York Harbor, in southern Raritan Bay,

and in some regions of north-central Raritan Bay.

• Based upon the distance from the metropolitan New York City area, the sediments collected in the

mouth of the estuary and New York Bight were expected not to be toxic or among the least toxic.

However, some of the samples from these areas were toxic in some of the tests.

• The relatively high toxicity observed in the East River generally diminished eastward into Long

Island Sound and southward into upper New York Harbor.

• The relatively high toxicity in the lower Passaic River, Newark Bay, and Arthur Kill generally

diminished into central Raritan Bay.

• The relatively high toxicity in innermost Sandy Hook Bay generally diminished into central Raritan

Bay and the mouth of the estuary.

Spatial Extent of Toxicity.

• Approximately 25% of the study area exhibited toxicity in the bivalve embryo survival tests; 30%

was toxic in the bivalve embryo development tests; 38% was toxic in the amphipod survival tests; and

approximately 39% of the area was toxic to microbial bioluminescence. Approximately 5.7% of the

area was toxic in all four of these tests. Since a probabalistic, random-stratified sampling design was

not used in Phase 1, the estimates of the spatial extent of toxicity may not be accurate.

•Within the Newark Bay/lower Passaic River/lower Hackensack River/northern Arthur Kill region,

however, 85% of the area was toxic to amphipod survival. Since a probabalistic, random-stratified

sampling was used in Phase 2, the estimate of the spatial extent of toxicity in the Newark Bay area may

be much more accurate that the estimate for the entire survey area.

Chemistry/Toxicity Relationships.

• The chemistry/toxicity relationships differed among regions of the study area.

• Toxicity to amphipod survival and microbial bioluminescence in samples from the East River and

vicinity was highly correlated with the concentrations of polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs).

The concentrations of these compounds in highly toxic samples often exceeded effects-based guidelines or toxicity thresholds.
128

• Toxicity to amphipod survival in samples from the lower Passaic River, Newark Bay and vicinity

was highly correlated with the concentrations of PCBs, dioxins, and pesticides, the concentrations of

which often exceeded effects-based guidelines or toxicity thresholds. In this area, toxicity was not

correlated with the concentrations of PAHs.

• Toxicity to amphipod survival was not highly correlated with the concentrations of ammonia in the

samples.

• Toxicity to amphipod survival was not significantly correlated with total SEM:AVS ratios.

• Toxicity to amphipod survival and microbial bioluminescence were moderately correlated with

some trace metals, such as lead and zinc.

• Generally, the correlations between the results of the bivalve embryo tests and the concentrations

of all chemicals were poor.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

During Phase 1, the following personnel performed the chemical analyses of the sediment samples:

Daniel Bardon, George Desreuisseau, Bernadette Koczwara, Robert Lizotte, Richard Restucci, and

Julie Seavey (Battelle Ocean Sciences). During Phase 2, the following personnel participated in the

sample collections: Douglas Pabst (Chief Survey Scientist), Matthew Masters, Helen Grebe, and Robert Rosenner (U.S. EPA); and Captain Harry Rydquist and Thomas Wyche (U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, New York District). During Phase 2, the following personnel participated in the chemical analyses of the samples: Donald Tillitt, Bill Brumbaugh, Kathy Echols, Robert Gale, John Meadows, Diane

Nicks, and Paul Peterman (National Biological Service, Midwest Science Center). Donald Tillitt performed the H4IIE rat hepatoma bioassays. Peter Landrum (NOAA Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory) conducted toxicity tests with Diporeia spp. Edmundo Casillas (NMFS) provided

data from tests of growth impairment and microbial bioluminescence. Kevin McMahon and Pam

Rubin (NOAA) edited and Sophie Bowen provided correction assistance. Andrew Robertson and Jay

Field (U.S. NOAA/NOS) and Joel O’Connor and Darvene Adams (U.S. EPA, Region 2) provided

technical reviews and helpful comments on an initial draft of this report. Jo Linse and Heather Boswell

prepared some of the data figures for the report.
129

REFERENCES

Aqua Survey, Inc. 1990a. Solid phase 10-day static sediment tests for control, reference and test

sediments. Job #9094. August 17, 1990. Prepared for Exxon Company, U.S.A., Linden, NJ. 112 pp.

Aqua Survey, Inc. 1990b. Solid phase 10-day static sediment tests for control, reference and test

sediments. Job #9205. November 30, 1990. Prepared for Exxon Company, USA, Linden, NJ. 84 pp.

ASTM. 1990. Standard guide for conducting 10-day static sediment toxicity tests with marine and

estuarine amphipods. Guide E, pp. 1367-90. American Society for Testing Materials, Philadelphia,

PA. 9 pp.

Barnes, D., A. Alford-Stevens, L. Birnbaum, F.W. Kutz, W. Wood and D. Patton. 1991. Toxicity

equivalency factors for PCBs? Quality Assurance: Good Practice, Regulation and Law 1(1):70-81.

Belin, J. S. and D. G. Barnes. 1989. Interim procedures for estimating risks associated with exposures to mixtures of chlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins and -dibenzofurans (CDDs and CDFs) and 1989

update. U.S. EPA/625/3-89/016. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC. 29 pp.

Belton, T.J., R. Hazen, B.E. Ruppel, K. Lockwood, R. Mueller, E. Stevenson, and J.J. Post. 1985. A

study of dioxin (2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin) contamination in select finfish, crustaceans and

sediments of New Jersey Waterways. New Jersey Dept. of Environmental Protection, Trenton, NJ.

102 pp.

Bonnevie, N.L., R.J. Wenning, S.L. Huntley and H. Bedbury. 1993. Distribution of inorganic compounds in sediments from three waterways in northern New Jersey. Bulletin of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology 51:672-680.

Bopp, R.F. and H.J. Simpson. 1989. Contamination of the Hudson River - The sediment record. In:

Contaminated marine sediments - assessment and remediation: 401-416. National Academy of Sciences, Washington, DC. 493 pp.

Bopp, R.F., M.L. Gross, H. Tong, H.J. Simpson, S.J. Monson, B.L. Deck and F.C. Moser. 1991. A

major incident of dioxin contamination: Sediments of New Jersey estuaries. Environmental Science

Technology 25:951-956.

Breteler, R.J. (ed.) 1984. Chemical pollution of the Hudson-Raritan Estuary. NOAA Tech. Memo.

NOS OMA 7. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Rockville, MD. 72 pp.

Brosnan, T.M. and M.L. O’Shea. 1993. New York Harbor Water Quality Survey: 1991-1992.

Executive summary. New York City Dept. of Environmental Protection, Wards Island. New York, NY.

29 pp.

City of New York. 1987. New York Harbor Water Quality Survey, 1987. New York City, , Dept. of

Environmental Protection, New York, NY. 19 pp.

Crecelius, E., C. Apts, L. Bingler, O. Cotter, S. Kiesser and R. Sanders. 1993. Analysis of marine

sediment and bivalve tissue by x-ray fluorescence, atomic absorption, and inductively coupled plasma
130

mass spectrometry. In: Sampling and analytical methods of the National Status and Trends Program

National Benthic Surveillance and Mussel Watch Projects 1984-1992. Vol 3: III.187-III.212. Comprehensive descriptions of elemental analytical methods. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Silver Spring, MD.

DeMuth, S., E. Casillas, D.A. Wolfe and B. B. McCain. 1993. Toxicity of saline and organic solvent

extracts of sediments from Boston Harbor, Massachusetts and the Hudson-Raritan Estuary, New York

using the Microtox bioassay. Archives of Environmental Contamination Toxicology 25:377-386.

Folk, 1974. Petrology of Sedimentary Rocks. Hemphill Publishing Company, Austin, TX. 184 pp.

Gottholm, B.W., M.R. Harmon and D.D. Turgeon. 1993. Assessment of chemical contaminants in

the Hudson-Raritan Estuary and coastal New Jersey area. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Silver Spring, MD. 19 pp.

Gunster, D.G., C.A. Gillis, N.L. Bonnevie, T.B. Abel and R. J. Wenning. 1993. Petroleum and

hazardous chemical spills in Newark Bay, New Jersey, USA from 1982-1991. Environmental Pollution 82:245-253.

Huntley, S. L., N. L. Bonnevie, R. J. Wenning. 1993. Distribution of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) in three northern New Jersey waterways. Bulletin of Environmental Contamination and

Toxicology 51: 865-872.

Jannuzzi, T.J., N.L. Bonnevie, and R.J. Wenning. 1995. An evaluation of current methods for developing sediment quality guidelines for 2,3,7,8 tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin. Archives of Environmental

Contamination and Toxicology 28: 366-377.

Kohn, N.P., J.Q. Word, D.K. Niyogi, L.T. Ross, T. Dillon and D.W. Moore. 1994. Acute toxicity of

ammonia to four species of marine amphipod. Marine Environmental Research 38:1-15.

Kutz, F.W., D.G. Barnes, D.P. Bottimore, H. Greim and E. W. Bretthauer. 1990. The International

toxicity equivalency factor (I-REF) method of risk assessment for complex mixtures of dioxins and

related compounds. Chemosphere 20(7-9):751-757.

Long, E.R. and L.G. Morgan. 1990. The potential for biological effects of sediment-sorbed contaminants tested in the National Status and Trends Program. NOAA Tech. Memo. NOS OMA 52.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Seattle, WA. 175 pp.

Long, E.R., D.D. MacDonald, S.L. Smith, and F.D. Calder. 1995. Incidence of adverse biological

effects within ranges of chemical concentrations in marine and estuarine sediments. Environmental

Management 19(1):81-97.

MacDonald, D.D. 1994. Sediment injury in the Southern California Bight: Review of the toxic

effects of DDTs and PCBs in sediments. Report prepared by MacDonald Environmental Sciences, Ltd.

for NOAA Damage Assessment Program - Southwest Region, Long Beach, CA. 96 pp.

Mayer, Gary E. (ed.) 1982. Ecological stress and the New York Bight: Science and management.

Estuarine Research Federation, Columbia, SC. 715 pp.
131

Mueller, J.A., T.A. Gerrish and M.C. Casey. 1982. Contaminant inputs to the Hudson-Raritan

Estuary. NOAA Tech. Memo. OMPA-21. 192 pp.

National Marine Fisheries Service. 1994. Bioassays to assess sublethal toxicity of sediments from

the Hudson-Raritan Estuary, New York. Quarterly Report (April-May-June, 1994). Northwest Fisheries Science Center, National Marine Fisheries Service, Seattle, WA. 22 pp.

New York-New Jersey Harbor Estuary Program. 1995. Proposed comprehensive conservation and

management plan. U.S. EPA, Region 2, New York, NY.

New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. 1993. Technical guidance for screening contaminated sediments. NYSDEC Division of Fish and Wildlife, Albany, NY.

NOAA. 1987. National Status and Trends Program for Marine Environmental Quality Progress

Report. A summary of selected data on chemical contaminants in tissues collected during 1984, 1985,

and 1986. NOAA Tech. Memo. NOS OMA 38. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,

Rockville, MD. 23 pp.

NOAA. 1988a. Hudson/Raritan Estuary: Issues, Resources, Status, and Management. NOAA

Estuary-of-the-Month Seminar Series No. 9. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Washington, DC. 170 pp.

NOAA. 1988b. National Status and Trends Program for Marine Environmental Quality Progress

Report. A summary of selected data on chemical contaminants in sediments collected during 1984,

1985, 1986, and 1987. NOAA Tech Memo. NOS OMA 44. Rockville, MD. 15 pp.

NOAA. 1989. National Status and Trends Program for Marine Environmental Quality Progress

Report. A summary of data on tissue contamination from the first three years (1986-1988) of the

mussel watch project. NOAA Tech. Memo. NOS OMA 49. Rockville, MD. 22 pp.

NOAA. 1991. National Status and Trends Program for Marine Environmental Quality Progress

Report. Second summary of data on chemical contaminants in sediments from the National Status and

Trends Program. NOAA Tech. Memo. NOS OMA 59. Rockville, MD. 29 pp.

O’Connor, T.P. and C.N. Ehler. 1991. Results from the NOAA National Status and Trends Program

on distribution and effects of chemical contamination in the coastal and estuarine United States. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 17:33-49.

Olsen, C.R., I.L. Larsen, R.H. Brewster, N.H. Cutshall, R.F. Bopp and H.J. Simpson. 1984. A

geochemical assessment of sedimentation and contaminant distributions in the Hudson-Raritan Estuary. NOAA Tech. Report NOS OMS 2. Rockville, MD. 101 pp.

Pearce, J.B. 1988. Changing patterns of biological responses to pollution in the New York Bight.

In: Hudson/Raritan Estuary: Issues, Resources, Status, and Management: 1-26. NOAA Estuary-ofthe-Month Seminar Series No. 9. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Washington,

D.C. 170 pp.

Peven, C.S. and A.D. Uhler. 1993. Analytical procedures followed by Battelle Ocean Sciences and

Science Applications International Corporation to quantify organic contaminants. In: Sampling and
132

Analytical Methods of the National Status and Trends Program Benthic Surveillance and Mussel Watch

Projects 1984-1992. Volume IV. Comprehensive descriptions of trace organic analytical methods.

NOAA Tech. Memo. NOS ORCA 71. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Rockville,

MD.

Pruell, R.J., N.I. Rubinstein, B.K. Taplin, J.A. LiVolsi, and C.B. Norwood. 1990. 2,3,7,8-TCDD,

2,3,7,8-TCDF and PCBs in marine sediments and biota: Laboratory and field studies. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Narragansett, R.I. Report No. EPA/600/8-90/068 prepared for U.S. Army

Corps of Engineers, New York District. 75 pp.

Rice, C.A., P.D. Plesha, E. Casillas, D.A. Misitano, and J.P. Meador. In press. Growth and survival

of three marine invertebrate species in sediments from the Hudson-Raritan Estuary, New York.

Robertson, A., B.W. Gottholm, D.D. Turgeon and D.A. Wolfe. 1991. A comparative study of

contaminant levels in Long Island Sound. Estuaries 14(3):290-298.

Schimmel, S.C., B.D. Melzian, D.E. Campbell, C.J. Strobel, S.J. Benyi, J.S. Rosen, and H.W. Buffum.

1994. Statistical summary EMAP-Estuaries Virginian Province - 1991. Report No. EPA/620/R/94/

005. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Narragansett, RI. 77 pp.

Scott, J., W. Berry, D. Cobb, D. Keith, G. Tracey, and N. Rubinstein. 1990. The application of the

amphipod ten-day sediment toxicity test for dredged material evaluations. Submitted to U.S. EPA

Region 2 by U.S. EPA Environmental Research Laboratory-Narragansett, RI.. ERL-Narragansett Contribution #1181. 25 pp.

Squibb, K.S., J.M. O’Connor and T.J. Kneip. 1991. New York/New Jersey Harbor Estuary Program. Module 3.1: Toxics Characterization Report. Prepared by Institute of Environmental Medicine,

New York University Medical Center for U.S. EPA Region 2, New York City, N.Y. 188 pp.

Swartz, R.D., F.A. Cole, J.O. Lamberson, S.P. Ferraro, D.W. Schults, W.A. DeBen, H.Lee II and

R.J.Ozretich. 1994. Sediment toxicity, contamination and amphipod abundance at a DDT- and dieldrin-contaminated site in San Francisco Bay. Environmental Toxicology & Chemistry 13(6):949-962.

Tatem, H.E., D.L. Brandon, C.R. Lee, A. S. Jarvis and R.G. Rhett. 1991. Effects of storage on

sediment toxicity, bioaccumulation potential, and chemistry. Miscellaneous Paper EL-91-2. U.S. Army

Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS. 35 pp.

Tietjen, J.H. and J.J. Lee. 1984. The use of free-living nematodes as a bioassay for estuarine

sediments. Marine Environmental Research 11:233-251.

Tillitt, D.E., J.P. Giesy and G.T. Ankley. 1991. Characterization of the H4IIE rat hepatoma cell

bioassay as a tool for assessing toxic potency of planar halogenated hydrocarbons (PHHs) in environmental samples. Environmental Science Technology 25:87-92.

Tong, H.Y., S.J. Monson, M.L. Gross, R.F. Bopp, H.J. Simpson, B.L. Deck and F.C. Moser. 1990.

Analysis of dated sediment samples from the Newark Bay area for selected PCDD/Fs. Chemosphere

20:1497-1502.
133

U.S. EPA. 1990. Recommended protocols for conducting laboratory bioassays on Puget Sound

sediments. Revised April, 1990. Puget Sound Estuary Program, U.S. EPA Region 10, Seattle, WA. 79

pp.

U.S. EPA. 1993. Interim report on data and methods for assessment of 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzop-dioxin risks to aquatic life and associated wildlife. EPA/600/R-93/055. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, Washington, DC.

U.S. EPA. 1994. Notice of sediment quality criteria. Federal Register 59 (11):2652-2656. U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC.

U.S. EPA/ACOE. 1977. Ecological evaluation of proposed discharge of dredged material into

ocean waters. Implementation Manual for Section 103 of Public Law 92-532. U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency/U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Washington, DC.

U.S. EPA/ACOE. 1991. Evaluation of dredged material proposed for ocean disposal. Testing

Manual. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency/U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Washington, DC.

EPA-503/8-91/001.
134

Appendix A. Phase 1 field notes.

Appendix B. Trace metals concentrations: Phase 1.

Appendix C. Acid-volatile sulfides and simultaneously extracted metals: Phase 1.

Appendix D. Polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbon concentrations : Phase 1.

Appendix E. PCB and pesticides concentrations: Phase 1.

Appendix F. Percent organic carbon, percent carbonate, and grain size: Phase 1.

Appendix G. Concentrations of all chemicals in Newark Bay samples: Phase 2.

Appendix H. Concentrations of dioxins and furans in Newark Bay samples: Phase 2.

Appendix I. Concentrations of tcdd-equivalents (pg/g) in H4IIE rat hepatoma bioassays of Newark

Bay sediment extracts.

Appendix
Station

APPENDIX A. Field Notes

Latitude Longitude Depth

Num. (°N) (°W) (m) Sediment description 1a 40°54'52" 73°54'53" 14.3 Very fine watery brown mud; RPD 5 cm. deep; deep sediment with H2S odor.1b 40°54'46" 73°54'58" 15.5 Brown watery mud with some small shell fragments; RPD 4 cm. deep.1c 40°54'58" 73°54'52" 14.9 Soft brownish green mud with small shell fragments. 2a 40°52'42" 73°55'53" 14.3 Watery brown mud in top 1 cm.; RPD 3 cm. deep; few oil droplets.2b 40°52'40" 73°55'52" 15.8 Soft brown silt in upper 3-4 cm. 2c 40°52'44" 73°55'55" 12.5 Fine watery brown silt in upper 4 cm. 3a 40°46'55" 73°59'25" 13.1 Watery mud; RPD <1 cm. deep; clay beneath; oil droplets. 3b 40°46'50" 73°59'28" 11.6 Soft brown silt; RPD <0.5 cm. deep; black clay beneath; oil droplets.3c 40°46'44" 73°59'31" 11 Soft brown silt; RPD <0.5 cm. deep; black clay beneath; oil droplets.4a 40°53'46" 73°42'21" 14.3 Brown flocculent surface layer; puddy-like green silt; RPD 1 cm. deep.4b 40°53'45" 73°42'08" 14.6 Brown flocculent surface layer; puddy-like green silt; RPD 1 cm. deep.4c 40°53'35" 73°42'19" 15.2 Puddy-like olive green silt; RPD 1 cm. deep. 5a 40°52'04" 73°44'54" 27.4 Brown-green silt w/shell fragments and amphipod tubes; RPD 1 cm. deep.5b 40°51'53" 73°44'55" 25.9 Brown-green silt; flocculent on surface; RPD 0.5 cm. deep; few oil droplets.5c 40°52'00" 73°45'04" 23.2 Brown-green silt; flocculent on surface; RPD 1 cm. deep; several oil droplets.6a 40°50'04" 73°46'41" 18.6 Gooey brown-green surface mud; RPD 0.3 cm. deep; bottom mud oily black with anaerobic odor.6b 40°49'56" 73°46'42" 18.6 Brown mud on top with flocculent and lots of shell fragments; RPD 0.5-1.0 cm.6c 40°49'59" 73°46'34" 17.4 Light brown flocculent layer on top; RPD 0.25 to 0.50 cm. deep; dark anaerobic mud below.7a 40°48'02" 73°47'14" 35.4 Loose fine sand and mud with floc. on surface; tube worms and shell fragments.7b 40°48'01" 73°47'10" 35.4 Clean brown mud; light floc. on surface; RPD 1.0-2.5 cm. deep; high water content.7c 40°47'56" 73°47'08" 32.9 Brown mud w/fine sand, shells, worm tubes, sea anemones crabs & clams; RPD 2-3 cm. deep.8a 40°48'15" 73°50'17" 13.7 Brown muddy, silty sand with detritus & floc. on top; DPR 2-3 cm. deep.8b 40°48'20" 73°50'25" 5.5 Gooey brwn mud w/ black depositional layer, oily smell, shell fragments; RPD 1 cm. deep.8c 40°48'21" 73°50'19" 6.1 Brownish dense mud w/ scallop shells on surface; oily smell; RPD 0.5-1.0 cm. deep.9a 40°47'46.2" 73°52'42" 9.7 Muddy, silty sand-dark green top w/black layer underneath; oily smell; RPD 1 cm.9b 40°47'48" 73°52'51" 11.6 Brown sandy top w/thick mud; rust colored patches; light floc.; oily smell; RPD 1 cm. deep.9c 40°47'44" 73°52'38" 11.6 Dark brown sandy top w/black oily mud below; RPD 1 cm. deep.10a 40°47'58" 73°54'04" 10.7 Brown mud w/worm tubes and oily smell; RPD 2 cm. deep; dark black gooey mud below.10b 40°47'56" 73°54'06" 7 Very thick, sticky mud with rust colored spots and shell fragments; RPD 2 cm. deep.
Station

APPENDIX A (contd.)

Latitude Longitude Depth

Num. (°N) (°W) (m) Sediment description 10c 40°47'54" 73°54'02" 5.5 Brown coarse top mud w/worm tubes; RPD 2 cm. deep w/darker, oily smelling mud below.11a 40°44'38" 73°57'38" 4.1 Silty clay, amphipod tubes, mussels and sea grass; visible oil sheen on last grab of composite.11b 40°44'39" 73°57'37" 6.2 Soft silty clay; amphipod tubes, polychaetes and gold flecks present; RPD <1 cm. deep.11c 40°44'43" 73°57'35" 3.1 Silty sand with polychaetes and gold flecks; RPD 2 cm.12a 40°42'33" 73°58'19" 16.5 Soft clay, amphipod tubes, snails, polychaetes, and oxidized material; RPD <1 cm.12b 40°42'35" 73°58'13" 6.2 Soupy silt; RPD 2 cm. deep; worm tubes & hydroids in composite grab; benthic grab azoic.12c 40°42'31" 73°58'14" 3.3 Soupy silt, almost clay; RPD 1 cm. deep; all grabs appeared azoic.13a 40°42'11" 74°01'25" 15.5 Silty mud with black clay-like sediment below the RPD at <0.5 cm. depth.13b 40°42'21" 74°01'34" 18 Soft silt with black clay-like sediment below the RPD at <0.5 cm. depth.13c 40°42'11" 74°01'41" 19 Soft silt with black silt beneath the RPD at <1 cm. depth; shells, mussels and crabs.14a 40°38'32" 74°03'12" 14.9 Fine sand w/slight RPD of 1 cm. deep; white specks, shells, polychaete worms; 1 razor clam shell.14b 40°38'42" 74°03'14" 14.9 Fine sand, white specks, shells; RPD 1.5cm. deep; benthic grab- RPD 2.3 cm. deep.14c 40°38'35" 74°03'24" 15.2 Fine sand, shells, white specks, worms; RPD 1.5 cm. deep; benthic grab- no visible RPD.15a 40°36'42" 74°02'03" 6.4 Silty, sandy mud; shells, one crab, small tubes; rust colored spots; oil sheen; RPD 0.5 cm. deep.15b 40°36'47" 74°02'30" 7.9 Dark brwn mud, light floc.. on top, small tubes; RPD 0.5 cm. deep; black mud below with oily sheen.15c 40°36'59" 74°02'40" 6.1 Brown silty, sandy mud with mussel shells; RPD 0.5cm. deep.16a 40°42'29" 74°07'02" 11 Sandy mud, shells, pebbles, worm tubes; RPD 1 cm. deep (RPD 3 cm. on one grab); oily sheen.16b 40°42'27" 74°07'12" 11 Sandy mud, siltier below surface; RPD 0.5 to 1 cm. deep; oily sheen; benthic grab RPD 3 cm. deep.16c 40°42'24" 74°07'06" 11.6 Silty sediment; RPD <0.5 cm. deep; oily sheen in composite.17a 40°38'43" 74°10'20" 14.2 Fine silt with oil sheen on surface; small bivalves and polychaetes.17b 40°38'43" 74°10'31" 11 Very fine silt with oil sheen on surface; small bivalves and polychaetes.17c 40°38'41" 74°10'11" 9.5 Very fine silt with oil sheen on surface; small bivalves and polychaetes.18a 40°34'11" 74°12'38" 12.8 Silty, petroleum odor; RPD 0.5 cm. deep; benthic grab- RPD 1.5 cm deep w/dark black silt beneath.18b 40°34'09" 74°12'41" 11.6 Silty w/blk silt under RPD of 0.5 cm deep; oil sheen,organic matter, benthic grab- RPD 1cm deep.18c 40°34'06" 74°12'42" 9.1 Soft black silt; RPD very close to surface; oil sheen; very small clams.19a 40°29'01" 74°21'00" 1.9 Fine to coarse sand and fine silt on surface; bivalve shells, sticks, rocks; no distinct RPD.19b 40°21'01" 74°20'54" 1.8 Medium brown soft silt and fine sand; RPD 0.5 cm. deep.19c 40°29'02" 74°20'49" 1.8 Medium and dark brown silt with some fine sand; uneven surface; RPD 1 cm. deep.20a 40°30'34" 74°18'13" 2.9 Medium brwn, fine, soupy silt with a few tar balls; worms, oysters, clam shells; RPD 2.5 cm deep.
Station

APPENDIX A (contd.)

Latitude Longitude Depth

Num. (°N) (°W) (m) Sediment description 20b 40°30'32" 74°18'19" 3.7 Fine brown silt with some mixed bivalve shells and worms; RPD 1 cm. deep.20c 40°30'35" 74°18'06" 3 Fine brown silt with mixed bivalve shells and small crabs; RPD 2 mm. deep.21a 40°29'55" 74°16'42" 3 Soupy light brown silt with bivalve shells and grass shrimp; RPD located at 4 cm. 21b 40°29'52" 74°16'32.9" 2.8 Brown fine soupy silt; grass shrimp & bivalve shell bits; hydrogen sulfide smell; RPD 2.5 cm deep.21c 40°29'46" 74°16'41" 4.9 Very fine brown silt with amphipod tubes and occasional bivalve and shell bits; RPD 3 cm. deep. 22a 40°30'43" 74°15'16" 3 Thin brown mud layer; RPD 2.5cm. deep; black mud layer below with anoxic, oily smell.22b 40°30'39" 74°15'18" 2.7 Brown mud w/ shell bits and worm tubes; RPD 1.5-2.5 cm.; black silt and sand below.22c 40°30'34" 74°15'21" 3 Drk brwn mud; top floc.; shell bits & organic matter; RPD 1.5 cm.; blck mud below w/anoxic smell.23a 40°29'15.0" 74°15'33.6" 6.4 Soft oozey mud with small dead bivalve spat; RPD 2.5 cm. with darker mud below.

23b 40°29'14" 74°15'26" 6.4 Soft oozey mud with bivalve spat; RPD 2.5 cm. 

23c 40°29'08" 74°15'32" 4.9 Silty brwn mud w/shells,worm tubes,crabs, worms;deeper grab-blk tarry sand;RPD3 cm.24a 40°29'23" 74°13'35" 4.9 Dark brwn mud w/shell bits, worm tubes, snails, shrimp; RPD 0.5 cm. w/drk black mud below.24b 40°29'16" 74°13'31" 4.9 Green-brown silty mud with many worm tubes on top; RPD 0.5 cm. w/dark black mud underneath.24c 40°29'23" 74°13'25" 4.6 Green-brown silty mud with shell bits on top; RPD 0.5 cm. with black mud underneath.25a 40°29'24" 73°10'59" 6.1 Fine silt w/high density of amphipod tubes, shrimp, shell bits; high water content; RPD 4 cm.25b 40°29'31" 74°10'47" 6.1 Fine brwn silt w/worm tubes, gastropods, amphipods, ice-cream cone worms; high water content.25c 40°29'22" 74°10'45" 6.1 Fine brwn silt w/high density of amphipod tubes, gastropods; high water content; RPD 4 cm.26a 40°30'03" 74°09'02" 9.4 Soft brwn silt w/amphipods, amphipods tubes, gastropods; soupy & solid sediment mixed together.26b 40°30'09" 74°09'11" 7.9 Light brown silt and fine sand w/some bivalve shell bits, amphipod tubes; one large hard clam.26c 40°30'06" 74°09'00" 8.2 Brwn silt w/ worm tubes, amphipods, bivalve shells, two large hard clams; RPD 2.5 cm.27a 40°29'35" 74°06'56" 10.1 Med-brwn silt w/amphipod tubes, bivalve shells, amphipods, gastropods; RPD 3 cm. (varied)27b 40°29'34" 74°06'45" 9.7 Medium-brown sticky silt with numerous amphipod tubes and amphipods on surface; RPD 3 cm.27c 40°29'40" 74°06'58" 9.1 Medium-brown silt with amphipod tubes at surface; RPD 4 cm.28a 40°28'35" 74°04'22" 7.31 Green-brown soupy mud with worm tubes on the surface and some shell bits; RDP 1cm.28b 40°28'26" 74°04'29" 6.7 Green-brown silty mud with high density of worm tubes on surface.28c 40°28'27" 74°04'16" 6.7 Brown silty mud with worm tubes on the surface.29a 40°27'23" 74°02'00" 6.4 Dark brown silt w/amphipod tubes at surface, large hard clam; very sticky; RPD 3 cm.29b 40°27'21" 74°02'04" 6.1 Medium to dark brown silt with amphipods & gastropods; razor clam shells; RPD 3 cm.29c 40°27'27" 74°02'04" 6.1 Dark-med brwn silt & fine sand w/amphipod tubes, amphipods, gastropods, clico crab; RPD 3 cm.
Station

APPENDIX A (contd.)

Latitude Longitude Depth

Num. (°N) (°W) (m) Sediment description 30a 40°25'34" 74°00'48" 5.5 Brown silt & fine sand w/amphipod tubes, gastropods & undecomposed organic matter.30b 40°25'33" 74°00'38" 5.8 Med-dark brown silt; fine sand w/amphipod tubes, amphipods; cohesive (drops out of grab easily).30c 40°25'27" 74°00'46" 5.8 Med-dark brown silt; fine sand w/amphipod tubes, gastropods, bivalves, undecomposed Ulva.31a 40°28'03" 74°13'14" 3.3 Medium brown silt; fine sand with amphipod tubes, large bivalve fragments.31b 40°28'08" 74°13'17" 3.3 Brown silt; fine sand with amphipod tubes, large & small shell bits; RPD 2 cm.31c 40°28'06" 74°13'24" 3.3 Brown silt and fine sand with bivalve shell fragments.32a 40°28'06" 74°09'33" 3.7 Brown silt; fine sand w/bivalve shell bits; patchy uneven surfaces; RPD 2 cm. (varied).32b 40°28'03.7" 74°09'24.8" 3.7 Medium brown sand and silt w/large & small bivalve fragments; shallow and sharp; RPD 1 cm.

32c 40°27'57.8" 74°09'33.5" 3.7 Light brown, fine sand and silt with bivalve shell bits; RPD varied (2-4 cm).

33a 40°28'01" 74°05'52" 5.5 Medium brown silt w/fine sand, amphipod tubes, shrimp, amphipods; RPD 3 cm.33b 40°28'03" 74°05'59" 7 Medium to dark brown silt and fine sand with bivalve shell bits & amphipod tubes; RPD 3cm.33c 40°28'02" 74°05'47" 6.7 Med. to dark brwn silt & fine sand w/amphipod tubes, amphipods, shrimp & gastropods; RPD 3cm.34a 40°30'41" 74°06'04" 6.4 Green-brwn silty mud w/ worm tubes; soft mud w/high water content; hard clams; no clear RPD.34b 40°30'35" 74°06'05" 7.3 Green-brwn watery mud w/worm tubes, razor clams & hard clams; no visible RPD.34c 40°30'37" 74°06'13" 6.7 Green-brwn silty mud w/worm tubes; no visible RPD.

35a 40°29'40" 74°02'40" 11.9 Brown silty, sandy mud w/shell bits, worm tubes; RPD 1-3 cm.; dark blk mud underneath.35b 40°29'35" 74°02'42" 11.9 Brown sandy mud w/shell bits & worm tubes; RPD 1cm. with dark black mud underneath.35c 40°29'26" 74°02'42" 9.7 Brown sandy mud with shell bits & worm tubes; RPD 1-2 cm.36a 40°33'42" 74°03'08" 7.3 Fine silty mud; light at top, dark brown below; RPD 2-3 cm.36b 40°33'41" 74°03'19" 7.6 Light brown silty mud on top with worm tubes; sharp RPD 1cm. dark black mud below.36c 41°33'35" 74°03'08" 8.2 Brown, silty mud with shell bits; oily/anoxic smell; sharp RPD 1.0-1.5 cm.37a 40°29'56" 73°58'35" 6.7 Medium-grained & fine sand with amphipods on top and shell bits.37b 40°30'05" 73°58'29" 4.3 Medium-grained sand with small shell fragments.37c 40°30'01" 73°58'41" 5.5 Medium-grained sand with small shell fragments.38a 40°27'58" 73°55'56" 10.1 Fine sand w/bivalve shells, worms, red and calico crabs; no visible RPD.38b 40°28'07" 73°55'59" 9.1 Fine sand with bivalve shells; no visible RPD.38c 40°28'01" 73°56'10" 8.2 Fine and med-grained sand with shell bits; medium-sized (10 cm) surf clams.39a 40°25'59" 73°53'32" 20.3 Silt & fine sand underlain by med-grained sand; shell bits, hard clam spat & worms; RPD 7cm.39b 40°25'57" 73°53'43" 22.2 Silt and fine sand with small clams, one oyster drill; RPD 7 cm.39c 40°25'59" 73°53'36" 20.4 Silt, fine sand and medium-grained sand with amphipod tubes at top, worms and amphipods.
MSL Code

Appendix B. Trace Metals Concentrations (ug/g); Phase 1.

Rep Sponsor ID Ag Al(%) As Cr Cd Cu Fe(%) Hg Mn Ni Pb Sb Se Sn Zn

GFAA XRF XRF XRF GFAA XRF XRF CVAA XRF XRF XRF ICP/MS GFAA ICP/MS XRF

574MW-1 NOAA 1-A 2.5 4.8 9.2 9 9 0.96 76 3.6 1.0 1000 31 96 1.2 0.59 11 190

574MW-2 NOAA 4-1 2.0 4.4 1 0 110 1.2 110 3.3 0.6 800 3 4 9 2 0.81 0.68 11 240574MW-3 NOAA 6-C 2.6 3.9 1 4 1 1 0 2.1 1 5 0 3.5 1.0 1700 39 140 0.97 0.8 16 290574MW-4 NOAA 9-B 2.5 5.4 2 8 1 3 0 1 .9 2 6 0 3.4 5.0 5 8 0 4 5 4 0 0 6.4 1.8 4 6 4 4 0574MW-5 NOAA 7-B 1.5 4.5 7.2 7 3 1.2 6 6 2.5 5.0 7 0 0 2 7 9 5 1.2 0.32 12 170

574MW-6 NOAA 7-C 1.1 2.9 4.2 5 0 0.71 44 2.7 0.7 710 25 68 0.7 0.21 9.8 110574MW-7 NOAA 10-B 1.1 4.6 4 1 9 6 0.51 140 4.2 4.7 600 43 300 1.2 0.64 30 210574MW-8 NOAA 8-C 1.9 5.9 2 7 1 0 0 3.1 2 0 0 3.2 2.5 6 0 0 4 1 2 4 0 2.2 1.1 3 1 3 7 0574MW-9 NOAA 10-A 2.3 5.5 1 1 8 1 0.8 9 6 3.1 1.0 810 3 4 110 0.85 0.43 9.8 170574MW-10 NOAA 11 -B 2.4 5.4 1 9 180 1.6 210 4.1 2.1 760 5 6 250 2.2 0.69 23 290

574MW-11 NOAA 13-A 2.4 5.6 2 1 170 1.6 240 3.8 1.6 700 3 9 210 1.4 0.59 16 250

574MW-12 NOAA 14-A 0.2 2.1 4.2 1 9 0.18 11 0.7 0.1 270 8.5 30 0.16 0.43 3.2 43574MW-13 NOAA 12-A 2.4 6.3 2 4 420 5.6 520 4.9 3.4 590 130 510 6.3 1.4 100 1400

574MW-14 NOAA 16-B 1.1 5.1 7.4 8 6 1.4 5 7 2.2 1.7 320 2 4 6 7 0.73 <.16 14 140574MW-15 NOAA 17-C 2.2 6.8 2 1 160 3.1 190 3.8 3.9 590 5 4 240 2.7 1.4 3 4 400574MW-16 NOAA 16-A 0.5 4.0 6.9 8 3 0.8 3 1 1.5 1.1 224 1 5 4 1 0.46 <.16 7.5 77574MW- 17 NOAA 18-A 2.0 3.9 1 6 8 7 2.1 160 2.7 2.4 300 3 1 130 2.8 1.4 2 3 210574MW-18 NOAA 18-C 2.1 6.1 3 8 190 6.4 520 3.4 15.0 340 53 300 7.8 4.3 55 460574MW-19 NOAA 22-C 2.2 6.0 4 1 110 4.5 230 3.3 2.2 360 3 9 200 4.3 3 3 2 400574MW-20 NOAA 23-A 2.3 7.9 3 6 130 1.6 180 4.7 2.5 660 4 8 190 3.6 1.9 2 7 370574MW-21 NOAA 24-C 1.8 7.8 2 8 150 1.2 170 4.8 2.6 760 4 6 200 2.9 1.7 2 9 370574MW-22 NOAA 25-A 1.8 7.9 2 7 150 1.1 150 4.9 2.6 740 4 4 210 2.3 1.3 2 8 370574MW-23 NOAA 26-A 2.5 7.3 2 6 170 1.3 140 4.7 2.6 930 4 9 190 2.1 1.3 2 5 340574MW-24 NOAA 26-C 2.6 7.8 1 7 160 0.96 120 4.4 2.5 1100 46 200 2.0 1.4 25 340

574MW-25 NOAA 29-A 3.4 7.5 2 6 140 1.6 9 8 4.3 1.7 660 3 8 130 1.7 1.1 1 7 300574MW-26 NOAA 30-A 2.6 6.3 3 1 130 2.5 8 9 5.3 1.4 630 3 5 110 1.5 1.1 1 6 420574MW-27 NOAA 30-B 2.2 5.3 2 8 110 2.1 7 9 5.0 1.3 560 2 9 100 1.4 0.50 13 350

574MW-28 NOAA 33-B 2.4 8.1 3 2 180 1.3 150 5.2 2.9 930 5 0 210 2.9 1.5 2 9 420574MW-29 NOAA 37-A 0.01 1.2 <1.7 < 12 0.03 5.3 0.63 0.03 750 4.5 1 6 0.13 0.48 1.2 3 8

574MW-30 NOAA 17-B 2.7 5.0 2 4 167 3 200 4.0 3.9 580 4 8 210 2.6 1.2 3 2 360574MW-31 NOAA 2-A 3.0 6.2 1 4 100 0.91 69 4.0 0.7 1300 37 83 1.3 0.79 8.6 200574MW-32 NOAA 5-B 2.6 6.4 1 4 1 1 0 1.5 1 3 0 3.8 0.6 1300 38 110 0.86 0.96 12 280
MSL CODE

Appendix B. Trace Metals Concentrations (ug/g); Phase 1 contd.

Rep Sponsor ID Ag Al(%) As Cr Cd Cu Fe(%) Hg Mn Ni Pb Sb Se Sn Zn

GFAA XRF XRF XRF GFAA XRF XRF CVAA XRF XRF XRF ICP/MS GFAA ICP/MS XRF

574MW-33 NOAA 30-C 3 5.9 3 9 1 40 1.7 11 0 5.5 1.6 7 6 0 3 4 1 3 0 1.9 1.3 1 8 4 0 0

574MW-34 NOAA 34-B 1.6 3.3 1 1 5 9 0.39 3 9 2.2 0.76 720 1 7 6 2 0.68 0.79 9.8 190574MW-35 NOAA 12-B 2.3 6.6 1 7 180 2.2 210 4.2 2.3 690 5 1 230 1.9 1 2 5 350574MW-36 NOAA 36-C 2.1 5.6 2 1 120 1.3 9 8 3.5 1.4 660 3 5 120 1.4 1 1 7 220574MW-37 NOAA 35-A 0.86 3.5 1 0 5 4 0.93 3 0 1.7 0.58 340 1 3 5 4 0.48 0.32 5.9 140

574MW-38 NOAA 38-B 0.04 2.4 6 3 3 0.04 3.3 1.3 0.06 210 6.2 1 7 0.13 0.47 2.2 3 8

Blank 0.02 NA NA NA NA NA NA 0.007 NA NA NA 0.01 <0.16 0.41 NABlank 1.02 NA NA NA NA NA NA 0.005 NA NA NA 1.01 <0.17 0.02 NABlank 2.02 NA NA NA NA NA NA 0.006 NA NA NA 2.01 <0.18 < 0.01 NASTANDARD REFERENCE MATERIAL

1646 1 0.09 7.0 1 2 6 5 < 0.01 1 7 3.5 0.092 340 34 29 0.41 0.58 3.1 130

1646 2 0.10 6.5 1 2 6 5 < 0.2 1 8 3.3 0.084 340 3 3 2 6 0.44 0.38 3 1301646 3 0.09 6.0 1 2 6 3 < 0.3 1 7 3.3 0.089 370 3 2 2 7 0.4 0.43 2.8 130

certified value NC 6.25 11.6 7 6 0.36 1 8 3.35 0.063 3 7 5 3 2 28.2 NC NC NC 1 3 8

range NC ±0.20 ±1.3 ± 3 ±0.07 ± 3 ±0.10 ±0.012 ± 2 0 ± 3 ±1.8 NC NC NC ± 6

574MW-12Amount Spiked 2 NS NS NS 2 NS NS 2 NS NS NS 2.0 2.0 2.0 NS

MATRIX SPIKE RESULTS

NOAA 14-A 0.20 NS NS NS 0.18 NS NS 0.14 NS NS NS 0.16 0.43 3.2 NS

574MW-12 + Spike 1.9 NS NS NS 2.4 NS NS 2.1 NS NS NS 2.2 0.37 4.9 NSAmount Recovered 1.7 NS NS NS 2.2 NS NS 2.0 NS NS NS 2.1 0.00 1.7 NSPercent Recovery 83% NS NS NS 110% NS NS 100% NS NS NS 103% 0% 85% NS
MSL CODE

Appendix B. Trace Metals Concentrations (ug/g); Phase 1 contd.

REP SPONSOR ID Ag Al(%) As Cr Cd Cu Fe(%) Hg Mn Ni Pb Sb Se Sn Zn

GFAA XRF XRF XRF GFAA XRF XRF CVAA XRF XRF XRF ICP/MS GFAA ICP/MS XRF

574MW-24Amount Spiked 2 NS NS NS 2 NS NS 2 NS NS NS 2 2 2 NS

MATRIX SPIKE RESULTS

NOAA 26-C 2.6 NS NS NS 0.96 NS NS 2.5 NS NS NS 2 1.4 2 5 NS

Amount Recovered574MW-24 + Spike 2.6 NS NS NS 3.1 NS NS 4.6 NS NS NS 3.8 1.6 2 7 NS

0.01 NS NS NS 2.1 NS NS 2.1 NS NS NS 1.8 0.17 2 NS

Percent Recovery 1% NS NS NS 105% NS NS 105% NS NS NS 92% 9% 100% NS574MW-36Amount Spiked 2 NS NS NS 2 NS NS 2 NS NS NS 2 2 2 NS

NOAA 36-C 2.1 NS NS NS 1.3 NS NS 1.4 NS NS NS 1.4 1 1 6 NS

Amount Recovered574MW-36 + Spike 2.4 NS NS NS 3.3 NS NS 3.9 NS NS NS 3.4 1.1 1 8 NS

0.29 NS NS NS 2.1 NS NS 2.5 NS NS NS 2 0.06 1.7 NS

Percent Recovery 15% NS NS NS 104% NS NS 125% NS NS NS 100% 3% 85% NS574MW-38Amount Spiked 2 NS NS NS 2 NS NS 2 NS NS NS 2 2 2 NS

NOAA 38-B 0.04 NS NS NS 0.04 NS NS 0.06 NS NS NS 0.13 0.47 2.2 NS

574MW-38 + Spike 1.6 NS NS NS 2.4 NS NS 2.2 NS NS NS 2.2 0.59 4.4 NSAmount Recovered 1.6 NS NS NS 2.3 NS NS 2.1 NS NS NS 2.1 0.12 2.2 NSPercent Recovery 80% NS NS NS 116% NS NS 106% NS NS NS 104% 6% 111% NSNS = Not spikedNC = Not certifiedNA = Not applicable
Appendix C. Acid-Volatile Sulfides and Simultaneously-Extracted 

 Metals: Phase 1.

MSLCode Sponsor ID AVS SEM

μmole/g Ratio*

574MW-1 NOAA 1-A 4.39 0.0067

574MW-1 DUP NOAA 1-A 4.96 0.0074

574MW-2 NOAA 4-A 61.05 0.0028

574MW-3 * * NOAA 6-C 51.77 0.0029

574MW-4 NOAA 9-B 69.32 0.0042

574MW-5 * * NOAA 7-B 14.17 0.0212

574MW-5 * * DUP NOAA 7-B 12.66 0.0092

574MW-6 NOAA 7-C 27.54 0.0087

574MW-7 * * NOAA 10-B 25.84 0.0068

574MW-8 * * NOAA 8-C 21.98 0.0099

574MW-9 NOAA 10-A 7.23 0.0128

574MW-10 NOAA 11-B 59.78 0.0041

574MW-11 NOAA 13-A 43.92 0.0051

574MW-12 NOAA 14-A 0.63 0.0291

574MW-13 NOAA 12-A 51.58 0.0049

574MW-14 NOAA 16-B 15.13 0.0125

574MW-15 NOAA 17-C 23.72 0.007

574MW-15 DUP NOAA 17-C 18.58 0.0065

574MW-16 NOAA 16-A 10.16 0.0196

574MW-17 NOAA 18-A 56.73 0.0063

574MW-18 ** NOAA 18-C 63.45 0.0056

574MW-19 NOAA 22-C 54.71 0.0058

574MW-20 NOAA 23-A 35.37 0.004

574MW-21 ** NOAA 24-C 12.24 0.0073

574MW-22 NOAA 25-A 14.57 0.0066

574MW-23 NOAA 26-A 22.57 0.0068

574MW-23 DUP NOAA 26-A 20.14 0.0045

574MW-24 NOAA 26-C 19.32 0.0067

574MW-25 NOAA 29-A 30.12 0.0058

574MW-26 NOAA 30-A 25.9 0.0035

574MW-27 NOAA 30-B 20.53 0.0072

574MW-28 NOAA 33-B 29.21 0.0051

574MW-29 NOAA 37-B <0.036 0.0365

574MW-30 ** NOAA 17-B 20.78 0.005

574MW-31 ** NOAA 2-A 1.08 0.0055

574MW-32 NOAA 5-B 79.71 0.0012

574MW-33 NOAA 30-C 18.44 0.0087

574MW-34 NOAA 34-B 3.63 0.0148

574MW-35 NOAA 12-B 37.86 0.007

574MW-36 ** NOAA 36-C 28.08 0.0062

574MW-37 NOAA 35-A 18.76 0.0108

574MW-37 DUP NOAA 35-A 20.42 0.009

574MW-38 NOAA 38-B 0.05 0.0495

574MW Blank-1 0 NA

574MW Blank-2 0 NA

*Sediment/acid volume

** = Sample jar received broken.
Appendix C. Acid-Volatile Sulfides and Simultaneously-Extracted 

 Metals: Phase 1 contd.

MSLCode CADMIUM CADMIUM COPPER COPPER MERCURY

μg/g μmole/g μg/g μmole/g μmole/g

574MW-1 0.602 0.0054 32.67 0.5141 0.0048

574MW-1 0.467 0.0042 28.53 0.4491 0.0066

574MW-2 1.07 0.0095 17.66 0.278 0.00048

574MW-3 1.09 0.0097 50.2 0.79 0.00052

574MW-4 0.939 0.0084 44.52 0.7006 <0.00024

574MW-5 0.781 0.0069 20.62 0.3245 0.00091

574MW-5 0.712 0.0063 23.4 0.3683 0.0024

574MW-6 0.404 0.0036 9.089 0.143 0.00005

574MW-7 0.218 0.0019 62.89 0.9897 0.003

574MW-8 1.67 0.015 82.13 1.293 0.00074

574MW-9 0.321 0.0029 31.59 0.4972 0.0021

574MW-10 0.771 0.0069 15.79 0.2485 0.0014

574MW-11 0.922 0.0082 47.89 0.7537 0.0034

574MW-12 0.171 0.0015 3.279 0.0516 0.0014

574MW-13 2.84 0.025 79.75 1.255 0.00084

574MW-14 0.817 0.0073 11.74 0.1847 0.0015

574MW-15 1.59 0.014 50.44 0.7938 0.004

574MW-15 1.78 0.016 54.02 0.8502 0.0036

574MW-16 0.515 0.0046 6.388 0.1005 0.00098

574MW-17 1.41 0.013 12.38 0.1948 0.0023

574MW-18 3.71 0.033 141.3 2.224 0.0172

574MW-19 1.89 0.017 28.13 0.4428 0.0022

574MW-20 0.933 0.0083 56.34 0.8866 0.0065

574MW-21 0.685 0.0061 70.68 1.112 0.014

574MW-22 0.571 0.0051 66.14 1.041 0.017

574MW-23 0.643 0.0057 56.9 0.8954 0.0093

574MW-23 0.646 0.0057 56.77 0.8934 0.015

574MW-24 0.507 0.0045 46.74 0.7356 0.0053

574MW-25 0.918 0.0082 32.92 0.5181 0.0088

574MW-26 1.89 0.017 33.84 0.5325 0.0048

574MW-27 1.39 0.012 37.33 0.5875 0.0099

574MW-28 0.757 0.0067 57 0.8971 0.012

574MW-29 <0.007 <0.00007 0.9984 0.0157 0.0049

574MW-30 1.67 0.015 66.34 1.044 0.0077

574MW-31 0.579 0.0052 38.82 0.6109 0.013

574MW-32 2.36 0.021 27.43 0.4317 0.0032

574MW-33 0.944 0.0084 45.95 0.7231 0.0065

574MW-34 0.207 0.0018 20.07 0.3158 0.0046

574MW-35 1.02 0.0091 24.85 0.3911 0.002

574MW-36 0.621 0.0055 38.53 0.6064 0.0029

574MW-37 0.635 0.0056 9.608 0.1512 0.0021

574MW-37 0.637 0.0057 9.514 0.1497 0.0021

574MW-38 0.023 0.0002 0.9516 0.015 0.0025

574MW Blank-1 0.042 0.0004 0.0631 0.001 1.36

574MW Blank-2 0.038 0.0003 0.2358 0.0037 2.27

*Sediment/acid volume

** = Sample jar received broken.
Appendix C. Acid-Volatile Sulfides and Simultaneously-Extracted 

 Metals: Phase 1 contd.

Mercury Nickel Nickel Lead Lead

MSLCode μg/g μg/g μmole/g μg/g μmole/g

574MW-1 0.000024 4.875 0.08304 63.89 0.3084

574MW-1 0.000033 3.953 0.06734 57.45 0.2773

574MW-2 2.40E-06 7.822 0.13323 58.76 0.2836

574MW-3 2.60E-06 3.886 0.06619 77.96 0.3763

574MW-4 <0.0000001 5.752 0.09797 272.1 1.313

574MW-5 4.50E-06 2.29 0.039 51.62 0.2492

574MW-5 0.000012 4.142 0.07054 51.28 0.2475

574MW-6 2.00E-07 2.188 0.03726 38.09 0.1839

574MW-7 0.000015 2.929 0.04988 201.3 0.9717

574MW-8 3.70E-06 3.185 0.05426 132.8 0.641

574MW-9 0.00001 2.499 0.04257 54.03 0.2608

574MW-10 7.10E-06 6.753 0.115 149.6 0.7219

574MW-11 0.000017 5.456 0.09293 111.O 0.5356

574MW-12 6.80E-06 0.5996 0.01021 16.31 0.07874

574MW-13 4.20E-06 9.769 0.1664 207.9 1.003

574MW-14 7.50E-06 1.928 0.03284 46.15 0.2228

574MW-15 0.00002 6.714 0.1144 147.1 0.7102

574MW-15 1.77E-05 6.911 0.1177 158.1 0.7629

574MW-16 4.90E-06 2.461 0.04192 30.36 0.1465

574MW-17 0.000012 3.996 0.06806 79.09 0.3817

574MW-18 0.000086 14.96 0.25478 189.7 0.9155

574MW-19 0.000011 6.472 0.1102 93.18 0.4497

574MW-20 0.000033 6.593 0.1123 130.7 0.6307

574MW-21 0.00007 6.178 0.1052 131.4 0.6344

574MW-22 0.000086 8.145 0.1387 162.3 0.7833

574MW-23 0.000047 5.592 0.09526 132.3 0.6388

574MW-23 0.000075 8.853 0.1508 133.4 0.6436

574MW-24 0.000027 5.742 0.0978 132.8 0.6411

574MW-25 0.000044 4.97 0.08464 81.8 0.3948

574MW-26 0.000024 5.117 0.08715 73.19 0.3533

574MW-27 0.000049 5.623 0.09578 74.38 0.359

574MW-28 0.000059 7.816 0.1331 145.9 0.7042

574MW-29 0.000025 2.158 0.03676 4.919 0.0237

574MW-30 0.000038 15.64 0.2664 132.6 0.6399

574MW-31 0.000064 15.15 0.2581 62.21 0.3003

574MW-32 0.000016 4.444 0.0757 79.54 0.3839

574MW-33 0.000033 6.65 0.1133 78.91 0.3808

574MW-34 0.000023 3.246 0.05528 50.92 0.2458

574MW-35 0.00001 4.929 0.08395 144 0.6952

574MW-36 0.000014 6.132 0.1044 89.66 0.4328

574MW-37 0.000011 2.446 0.04166 35.15 0.1696

574MW-37 0.00001 3.032 0.05164 39.03 0.1884

574MW-38 0.000013 0.712 0.01213 8.71 0.04204

574MW Blank-1 0.0068 0.1405 0.00239 0.0700 0.0003 0.00034

574MW Blank-2 0.0013 0.3324 0.00566 0.0724 0.0003 0.00035

*Sediment/acid volume

** = Sample jar received broken.
Appendix C. Acid-Volatile Sulfides and Simultaneously-Extracted

 Metals: Phase 1 contd.

Zinc Zinc Total SEM SEM/AVS

MSLCode μg/g μmole/g umole/g ratio

574MW-1 95.74 1.465 2.38 0.54

574MW-1 87.67 1.341 2.14 0.43

574MW-2 122.7 1.877 2.58 0.04

574MW-3 120.9 1.85 3.09 0.06

574MW-4 190.7 2.917 5.04 0.07

574MW-5 80.72 1.235 1.85 0.13

574MW-5 83.41 1.276 1.97 0.16

574MW-6 52.71 0.8063 1.17 0.04

574MW-7 98 1.499 3.51 0.14

574MW-8 143.8 2.199 4.2 0.19

574MW-9 56.11 0.8583 1.66 0.23

574MW-10 131.5 2.011 3.1 0.05

574MW-11 127.6 1.951 3.34 0.08

574MW-12 23.74 0.3632 0.51 0.8

574MW-13 225.3 3.447 5.9 0.11

574MW-14 70.56 1.079 1.53 0.1

574MW-15 198.1 3.03 4.66 0.2

574MW-15 209.2 3.2 4.95 0.27

574MW-16 47.02 0.7194 1.01 0.1

574MW-17 126.9 1.942 2.6 0.05

574MW-18 233.4 3.571 7 0.11

574MW-19 240.4 3.677 4.7 0.09

574MW-20 206.8 3.163 4.8 0.14

574MW-21 209.4 3.203 5.06 0.41

574MW-22 211.9 3.241 5.21 0.36

574MW-23 174.4 2.668 4.3 0.19

574MW-23 180.3 2.759 4.45 0.22

574MW-24 180.5 2.761 4.24 0.22

574MW-25 155.1 2.373 3.38 0.11

574MW-26 291 4.452 5.44 0.21

574MW-27 232.7 3.56 4.61 0.22

574MW-28 247.8 3.791 5.53 0.19

574MW-29 16.93 0.2591 0.34 9.32

574MW-30 164.4 2.515 4.48 0.22

574MW-31 94.31 1.443 2.62 2.42

574MW-32 136.3 2.085 3 0.04

574MW-33 183.2 2.803 4.03 0.22

574MW-34 134.4 2.055 2.67 0.74

574MW-35 148.4 2.27 3.45 0.09

574MW-36 112.4 1.72 2.87 0.1

574MW-37 84.72 1.296 1.66 0.09

574MW-37 89.6 1.371 1.77 0.09

574MW-38 13.34 0.2041 0.27 5.47

574MW Blank-1 1.225 0.0187

574MW Blank-2 1.417 0.0217
Appendix C. Acid-Volatile Sulfides and Simultaneously-Extracted 

 Metals: Phase 1 contd.

MSL Code Sponsor ID AVS Cadmium

STANDARD REFERENCE MATERIAL (μg/L) μmole/g μg/L

1643c-1 NA 9.72

1643c-2 NA 9.93

certified value NA 12.2

range NA 1

1641 b- 1 NA NA

1641 b- 2 NA NA

1641 b- 3 NA NA

certified value NA NA

range NA NA

SPIKE RESULTS (μg/L)

Amount Spiked NA 250

574MW- 1 NOAA 1-A NA 4.4

574MW-1 + Spike NA 251.31

Amount Recovered NA 246.91

Percent Recovery x100 NA 99.00%

Amount Spiked NA 250

574MW-7 NOAA 10-B NA 1.85

574MW-7 + Spike NA 234.74

Amount Recovered NA 232.89

Percent Recovery x100 NA 93%

Amount Spiked NA 250

574MW-16 NOAA 16-A NA 10.49

574MW-16 + Spike NA 251.18

Amount Recovered NA 240.69

Percent Recovery NA 96%

Amount Spiked NA 250

574MW-24 NOAA 26-C NA 3.76

574MW-24 + Spike 1 NA 237.46

Amount Recovered NA 233.7

Percent Recovery NA 93%

Amount Spiked NA 500

574MW-24 NOAA 26-C NA 3.76

574MW-24 + Spike 2 NA 521.31

Amount Recovered NA 517.55

Percent Recovery NA 104%
Appendix C. Acid-Volatile Sulfides and Simultaneously-Extracted 

 Metals: Phase 1 contd.

MSL Code Copper Mercury Nickel

STANDARD REFERENCE MATERIAL (μg/L) μg/L μg/L μg/L

1643c-1 18.92 NA 57.23

1643c-2 19.33 NA 57.21

22.3 NA 60.6

2.8 NA 7.3

1641 b- 1 NA 1550 NA

1641 b- 2 NA 1600 NA

1641 b- 3 NA 1580 NA

NA 1520 NA

NA 4 0 NA

SPIKE RESULTS (μg/L)

Amount Spiked 250 0.136 250 250

574MW- 1 219.2 0.049 34.76 426.63

574MW-1 + Spike 489.37 0.1798 284.57 699.25

Amount Recovered 270.17 0.1308 249.81 272.62

Percent Recovery x100 108.00% 96.00% 100.00% 109.00%

Amount Spiked 250 0.136 250 250

574MW-7 425.91 0.0375 22.03 1359.65

574MW-7 + Spike 620.79 0.1742 255.7 1464.32

Amount Recovered 194.88 0.1367 233.67 104.67

Percent Recovery x100 78% 101% 93% .42#

Amount Spiked 250 0.136 250 250

574MW-16 126.79 0.0366 50.55 596.44

574MW-16 + Spike 362.81 0.1745 287.21 825.7

Amount Recovered 236.02 0.1379 236.66 229.26

Percent Recovery 94% 1.01 95% 92%

Amount Spiked 250 0.136 250 250

574MW-24 313.02 0.053 40.54 886.16

574MW-24 + Spike 1 538.44 0.2214 275.95 1110.32

Amount Recovered 225.42 0.1684 235.41 224.16

Percent Recovery 90% 124% 94% 90%

Amount Spiked 500 NS 500 500

574MW-24 313.02 NS 40.53 886.16

574MW-24 + Spike 2 858.68 NS 563.42 1505.04

Amount Recovered 545.66 NS 522.89 618.88

Percent Recovery 1.09 NS 105% 124%
Appendix C. Acid-Volatile Sulfides and Simultaneously-Extracted 

 Metals: Phase 1 contd.

Lead Zinc

STD. REF. MAT. μg/L μg/L

1643c-1 25.09 60.41

1643c-2 24.47 67.52

35.3 73.9

0.9 0.9

1641 b- 1 NA NA

1641 b- 2 NA NA

1641 b- 3 NA NA

NA NA

NA NA

SPIKE RESULTS (μg/L)

Amount Spiked 250

574MW- 1 650.91

574MW-1 + Spike 959.53

Amount Recovered 308.62

Percent Recovery x100 123.00%

Amount Spiked 250

574MW-7 674.11

574MW-7 + Spike 850.64

Amount Recovered 176.53

Percent Recovery x100 71%

Amount Spiked 250

574MW-16 935.46

574MW-16 + Spike 1162.29

Amount Recovered 226.83

Percent Recovery 91%

Amount Spiked 250

574MW-24 1216.04

574MW-24 + Spike 1 1473.25

Amount Recovered 257.21

Percent Recovery 103%

Amount Spiked 500

574MW-24 1216.04

574MW-24 + Spike 2 1893.06

Amount Recovered 677.02

Percent Recovery 135%

Appendix C. Acid-Volatile Sulfides and Simultaneously-Extracted 

 Metals: Phase 1 contd.

REPLICATE ANALYSES (mg/g)

MSLCode

574MW-1 NOAA 1-A 4.39 0.602

574MW-1 DUP NOAA 1-A 4.96 0.467

RPD % 12% 25%

574MW-5 NOAA 7-B 14.17 0.781

574MW-5 DUP NOAA 7-B 12.66 0.712

 RPD % 11% 9%

574MW-15 NOAA 17-C 23.72 1.59

574MW-15 DUP NOM 17-C 18.58 1.78

24% 11%

574MW-23 NOAA 26-A 22.57 0.643

574MW-23 DUP NOAA 26-A 20.14 0.646

RPD % 11% 0%

574MW-37 NOAA 35-A 18.76 0.635

574MW-37 DUP NOAA 35-A 20.42 0.637

RPD % 8% 0%
Appendix C. Acid-Volatile Sulfides and Simultaneously-Extracted 

 Metals: Phase 1 contd.

REPLICATE ANALYSES (mg/g)

MSLCode

32.67 0.00476 4.88 63.89 95.7

28.53 0.00664 3.95 57.45 87.7

14% 33% 21% 11% 9%

20.62 0.00091 2.29 51.62 80.7

23.4 0.00236 4.14 51.28 83.4

13% 89% 58% 1% 3%

50.44 0.00398 6.71 147.14 198.06

54.02 0.00356 6.91 158.07 209.19

7% 0.11 3% 7% 5%

56.9 0.00934 5.59 132.34 174.39

56.77 0.01509 8.85 133.36 180.34

0% 47% 45% 1% 3%

9.61 0.00214 2.45 35.15 84.72

9.51 0.00208 3.03 39.03 89.6

1% 0.03 21% 10% 6%
Appendix D. Polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbon concentrations (ng/g).

Sample ID MJ32PB NOAA 12 BNOAA 13 A NOAA 14 A 

Dry Weight (g) 1.000 11.725 14.345 22.762

naphthalene 7.54 431.29 278.53 15.24

2-methylnaphthalene 0.44 ND 340.55 200.17 10.55

1-methylnaphthalene 0.43 ND 161.41 84.58 4.28

biphenyl 0.58 ND 109.97 62.83 3.02

2,6-dimethylnaphthalene 0.60 ND 140.07 71.08 3.99

acenaphthylene 0.68 ND 298.17 138.08 5.44

acenaphthene 0.52 ND 159.85 65.58 6.23

1,6,7-trimethylnaphthalene 0.67 ND 89.14 30.55 3.67

fluorene 0.42 ND 192.59 102.36 15.03

phenanthrene 0.70 ND 923.19 510.89 145.05

anthracene 0.66 ND 601.30 327.38 74.56

1-methylphenanthrene 0.87 ND 346.23 125.38 21.34

fluoranthene 1.27 2095.38 1043.36 241.05

pyrene 1.61 2506.57 1240.71 207.12

benz[a]anthracene 0.74 ND 1247.92 650.12 110.95

chrysene 1.15 1075.53 538.75 94.37

benzo[b]fluoranthene 0.70 ND 1660.51 833.27 112.53

benzo[k]fluoranthene 0.83 ND 596.99 315.75 13824.00

benzo[e]pyrene 4.15 964.49 504.84 61.41

benzo[a]pyrene 4.99 1519.02 815.13 110.17

perylene 24.20 545.31 292.34 31.62

indeno[1,2,3-c,d]pyrene 1.18 ND 777.33 435.73 50.32

dibenz[a,h]anthracene 0.69 ND 200.35 105.65 12.31

benzo[g,h,i]perylene 1.28 ND 822.59 448.09 45.29

GROUP A (Petroleum Related) 10.97 1701.28 892.65 74.09

GROUP B (Cumbustion Related) 18.58 13466.68 6931.39 1099.51

GROUP C (Total PAHs) 56.90 17805.73 9221.13 1439.52

Surrogate Recoveries,%

naphthalene-d8 81.63 53.57 56.28 55.54

acenaphthene-d10 78.76 60.40 62.31 63.81

benzo[a]pyrene-d12 67.09 66.95 72.01 74.01

Procedural Blank Reported in Total ng.

ND - Non Detected

NA - Not Applicable

& - Surrogate Recovery outside criteria (50-150%)
Appendix D. Polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbon conc. (ng/g) contd.

Sample ID NOAA 16 ANOAA 16 BNOAA 18 A NOAA 22 C NOAA 23 A

Dry Weight (g) 22.651 21.094 17.219 15.591 11.373

naphthalene 379.98 163.29 109.57 168.12 185.2

2-methylnaphthalene 100.9 76.05 77.88 106.44 125.28

1-methylnaphthalene 58.49 36.68 35.4 48.21 51.08

biphenyl 39.29 31.11 24.8 34.31 45.28

2,6-dimethylnaphthalene 33.14 30.09 38.83 43.37 50.76

acenaphthylene 236.52 107.24 49.57 87.12 89.44

acenaphthene 159.74 79.52 31.5 50.8 41.37

1,6,7-trimethylnaphthalene 21.47 21.45 23.83 27.19 19.7

fluorene 215.09 78.73 65.52 85.05 75.07

phenanthrene 1056 373.9 405.87 668.27 367.32

anthracene 952.5 217.34 151.75 300.28 186.44

1-methylphenanthrene 134.64 93.42 86.13 96.8 82.16

fluoranthene 2938.9 1384 998.9 1378.29 12547

pyrene 2620.7 1230.5 913.2 1668.63 850.3

benz[a]anthracene 1439.8 562.5 343.26 779.99 401.26

chrysene 1281.9 438.02 312.08 634.44 -32767

benzo[b]fluoranthene 1804.9 797 529.7 1056.52 691.8

benzo[k]fluoranthene 737.8 272.65 214.54 352.22 274.37

benzo[e]pyrene 927.1 430.98 312.41 761.98 410.94

benzo[a]pyrene 1613.4 670.5 356.04 957.04 503.26

perylene 419.15 199.25 137.41 273.49 242.61

indeno[1,2,3-c,d]pyrene 783.4 22785 241.31 493.87 367.8

dibenz[a,h]anthracene 192.86 85.96 61.51 141.85 81.41

benzo[g,h,i]perylene 731.7 343.26 257.19 607.54 388.45

GROUP A (Petroleum Related) 943.7 499.7 437.16 575.19 589.2

GROUP B (Combustion Related) 15072 6560.4 4540.2 8832.4 5170.6

GROUP C (Total PAHs) 18879 8068.4 5778.2 10821.8 6732.2

Surrogate Recoveries,%

naphthalene-d8 62.15 59.02 54.65 56.06 63.55

acenaphthene-d10 70.82 70.36 65.08 64.8 73.53

benzo[a]pyrene-d12 85.95 79.48 72.6 73.23 83.25

Procedural Blank Reported in Total ng.

ND - Non Detected

NA - Not Applicable

& - Surrogate Recovery outside criteria (50-150%)
Appendix D. Polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbon conc. (ng/g) contd.

Sample ID NOAA 25 ANOAA 26 ANOAA 26 C NOAA 29 A NOAA 30 BNOAA 30 C

Dry Weight (g) 10.816 11.761 12.237 13.598 12.769 10.622

naphthalene 176.9 190.67 210.35 129.62 80.98 115.37

2-methylnaphthalene 122.57 135.98 140.32 84.88 59.3 86.06

1-methylnaphthalene 47.61 51.52 58.47 34.59 23.54 40.62

biphenyl 42.16 47.05 50.2 27.72 21.54 28.35

2,6-dimethylnaphthalene 46.1 46.71 58.11 30.87 25.31 31.91

acenaphthylene 77.96 76.46 109.96 67.94 54.62 52.41

acenaphthene 27.39 32.62 51.25 32.51 16.61 24.64

1,6,7-trimethylnaphthalene 14.85 15.54 17.65 12.26 7.85 13.6

fluorene 53.86 61.62 89.21 52.98 83.72 52.43

phenanthrene 240.44 289.25 500.26 286.43 261.44 311.87

anthracene 131.51 153.95 224.1 146.86 270.09 112.9

1-methylphenanthrene 50.59 74.84 79.83 60.35 41.94 63.34

fluoranthene 503.65 591 816.9 569.6 475.22 620.7

pyrene 563.3 673.2 874.56 572.6 497.2 665.8

benz[a]anthracene 289.43 305.24 494.17 311.52 248.44 249.85

chrysene 288.37 305.06 462.31 268.52 254.72 293.7

benzo[b]fluoranthene 525.8 509.65 741.54 433.88 427.52 488.63

benzo[k]fluoranthene 196.84 202.13 262.66 177.1 139.56 185.23

benzo[e]pyrene 314.29 311.59 426.25 251.23 231.97 273.66

benzo[a]pyrene 453.74 455.33 641.96 395.33 324.8 365.19

perylene 176.95 203.9 -2048 133.01 122.78 135.83

indeno[1,2,3-c,d]pyrene 285.27 284.99 389.94 220.79 211.23 248.81

dibenz[a,h]anthracene 65.03 65.81 92.87 52.26 45.19 55.34

benzo[g,h,i]perylene 301.62 299.11 31745 224.84 199.59 245.53

GROUP A (Petroleum Related) 512.5 576.9 653.94 405.54 322.65 403.33

GROUP B (Cumbustion Related) 3787.3 4003.2 5583.17 3477.6 3055.4 3692.5

GROUP C (Total PAHs) 4996.2 5383.3 7420.87 4577.6 4125.1 4761.8

Surrogate Recoveries,%

naphthalene-d8 60.24 54.52 61.37 64.65 60.95 67.25

acenaphthene-d10 70.13 62.39 66.43 69.7 68.09 70.87

benzo[a]pyrene-d12 76.22 74.57 72.39 82.52 75.8 82.69

Procedural Blank Reported in Total ng.

ND - Non Detected

NA - Not Applicable

& - Surrogate Recovery outside criteria (50-150%)
Appendix D. Polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbon conc. (ng/g) contd.

Sample ID NOAA 33 B NOAA 34 B NOAA 35 A NOAA 37 B NOAA 38 B 

Dry Weight (g) 12.687 17.520 20.614 23.377 22.906

naphthalene 217.03 60.53 45.63 0.68 1.35

2-methylnaphthalene 158.1 44.77 32.23 0.35 0.68

1-methylnaphthalene 60.43 17.99 13.41 0.23 0.34

biphenyl 52.50 14.97 10.23 0.17 0.28

2,6-dimethylnaphthalene 57.62 17.46 12.36 0.60 ND 0.15

acenaphthylene 87.69 22.44 21.48 0.68 ND 0.39

acenaphthene 35.84 11.41 13.56 0.10 0.16

1,6,7-trimethylnaphthalene 16.93 5.22 4.41 0.67 ND 0.67 ND

fluorene 70.81 21.02 19.9 0.11 0.21

phenanthrene 321.21 91.44 109.12 0.39 1.18

anthracene 174.52 48.64 50.91 0.15 0.7

1-methylphenanthrene 65.83 21.89 28.36 0.08 0.43

fluoranthene 638.56 166.74 208.74 0.31 4.36

pyrene 789.83 203.95 228.65 0.37 4.61

benz[a]anthracene 319.59 86.14 114.29 0.29 3.18

chrysene 312.51 82.31 100.22 0.22 2.43

benzo[b]fluoranthene 605.17 160.36 169.54 0.23 3.69

benzo[k]fluoranthene 220.27 59.8 64.83 0.11 1.5

benzo[e]pyrene 356.71 98.35 114.1 0.3 1.97

benzo[a]pyrene 492.8 126.25 163.55 0.2 3.48

perylene 225.48 72.86 60.4 0.34 1.15

indeno[1,2,3-c,d]pyrene 356.63 86.98 87.02 0.15 1.57

dibenz[a,h]anthracene 78.75 19.48 21.75 0.69 ND 0.37

benzo[g,h,i]perylene 354.65 88.31 95.43 0.45 2.23

GROUP A (Petroleum Related) 646.74 188.89 156.3 2.73 3.83

GROUP B (Cumbustion Related) 4525.45 1178.67 1274 3.32 29.39

GROUP C (Total PAHs) 6069.42 1629.31 1696 7.89 37.08

Surrogate Recoveries,%

naphthalene-d8 59.53 68.12 54.42 74.75 72.82

acenaphthene-d10 64.37 110.01 63.67 74.11 71.91

benzo[a]pyrene-d12 75.06 126.19 68.75 69.94 74.82

Procedural Blank Reported in Total ng.

ND - Non Detected

NA - Not Applicable

& - Surrogate Recovery outside criteria (50-150%)
Appendix D. Polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbon conc. (ng/g) contd.

Sample ID MJ38PB NOAA10A NOAA10B

Dry Weight (g) 1.000 19.252 17.473

naphthalene NA 5.32 423.11 2905.29

2-methylnaphthalene 2MN 2.63 290.93 915.93

1-methylnaphthalene 1MN 1.96 133.67 626.88

biphenyl B 0.58 ND 84.53 624.16

2,6-dimethylnaphthalene DMN 0.60 ND 92.65 155.71

acenaphthylene AC 2.96 151.72 636.88

acenaphthene ACN 0.52 ND 71.45 1133.37

1,6,7-trimethylnaphthalene TMN 0.67 ND 33.79 65.39

fluorene F 0.42 ND 101.29 652.70

phenanthrene PH 5.02 510.36 3217.40

anthracene AN 1.53 300.87 2212.95

1-methylphenanthrene 1MP 0.87 ND 128.61 474.94

fluoranthene FL 17.40 961.03 5769.79

pyrene PY 29.04 1259.06 6921.67

benz[a]anthracene BAN 20.11 634.32 2707.69

chrysene CY 19.04 526.07 2396.60

benzo[b]fluoranthene BBF 33.21 754.40 3092.41

benzo[k]fluoranthene BKF 14.37 270.43 1038.76

benzo[e]pyrene BEP 16.86 451.74 2371.45

benzo[a]pyrene BAP 8.85 723.53 -7153.00

perylene PER 6.94 221.23 774.12

indeno[1,2,3-c,d]pyrene IN 15.44 359.30 1946.91

dibenz[a,h]anthracene DBA 3.12 92.50 340.75

benzo[g,h,i]perylene BP 20.18 358.88 2537.97

GROUP A (Petroleum Related) 12.47 1204.05 5796.82

GROUP B (Cumbustion Related) 197.62 6391.25 33191.99

GROUP C (Total PAHs) 227.64 8935.44 47587.69

Surrogate Recoveries,%

naphthalene-d8 73.45 42.73 & 59.75

acenaphthene-d10 70.49 47.12 & 66.30

benzo[a]pyrene-d12 79.47 56.40 73.24
Appendix D. Polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbon conc. (ng/g) contd.

Sample ID NOAA11B NOAA12A NOAA17B NOAA17C

Dry Weight (g) 12.663 15.081 15.232 13.334

naphthalene 656.84 663.30 307.71 490.92

2-methylnaphthalene 639.73 600.15 192.68 383.34

1-methylnaphthalene 377.41 280.49 84.08 215.80

biphenyl 112.25 166.59 66.13 90.28

2,6-dimethylnaphthalene 211.17 271.45 98.50 134.22

acenaphthylene 548.87 249.30 154.63 792.14

acenaphthene 347.93 266.19 114.73 221.22

1,6,7-trimethylnaphthalene 113.54 172.92 64.33 96.35

fluorene 394.93 299.36 178.10 296.95

phenanthrene 2745.66 1248.98 835.23 1933.53

anthracene 1183.29 619.61 485.21 1370.22

1-methylphenanthrene 1045.45 354.83 187.26 837.29

fluoranthene 4591.76 2013.27 2076.62 4356.75

pyrene 5527.88 2274.18 1972.39 6415.16

benz[a]anthracene 2876.35 1196.34 907.27 3748.46

chrysene 2781.68 1017.97 840.20 3418.87

benzo[b]fluoranthene 2989.70 1437.13 1298.59 3590.44

benzo[k]fluoranthene 1079.38 529.40 486.02 1359.53

benzo[e]pyrene 1803.85 22019.00 744.39 2283.47

benzo[a]pyrene 3265.49 1303.08 1067.83 4770.75

perylene 627.59 387.68 370.55 798.20

indeno[1,2,3-c,d]pyrene 1433.34 711.49 616.57 1814.68

dibenz[a,h]anthracene 360.74 191.58 146.72 468.83

benzo[g,h,i]perylene 1416.88 717.40 605.13 -3322.00

GROUP A (Petroleum Related) 3439.07 2642.49 1112.67 2454.87

GROUP B (Cumbustion Related) 28127.04 12245.83 10761.72 34005.93

GROUP C (Total PAHs) 37131.69 17826.66 13900.86 41666.38

Surrogate Recoveries,%

naphthalene-d8 58.64 45.56 & 56.92 58.42

acenaphthene-d10 65.72 45.56 & 61.27 62.59

benzo[a]pyrene-d12 81.90 47.51 & 74.42 81.02
Appendix D. Polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbon conc. (ng/g) contd.

Sample ID NOAA18C NOAA1A NOAA24C NOAA2A NOAA30A

Dry Weight (g) 17.395 15.406 14.519 9.722 14.631

naphthalene 185.67 173.36 53.03 76.14 79.86

2-methylnaphthalene 133.01 49.54 31.11 46.52 57.56

1-methylnaphthalene 70.89 21.84 13.12 21.38 35.86

biphenyl 48.18 17.61 11.04 18.53 25.76

2,6-dimethylnaphthalene 84.38 15.77 11.14 18.49 30.15

acenaphthylene 77.92 57.67 40.64 69.15 65.83

acenaphthene 104.03 26.34 10.54 19.29 32.59

1,6,7-trimethylnaphthalene 114.40 9.12 4.58 9.41 10.86

fluorene 125.53 39.82 18.33 37.31 58.37

phenanthrene 349.75 271.11 105.98 252.69 334.09

anthracene 340.12 86.07 54.30 93.93 134.47

1-methylphenanthrene 126.10 53.54 30.53 85.01 82.79

fluoranthene 1379.56 511.38 273.09 663.85 612.20

pyrene 1443.84 519.95 300.08 631.73 658.95

benz[a]anthracene 596.52 220.65 139.91 275.63 256.65

chrysene 621.07 230.49 141.11 350.23 246.33

benzo[b]fluoranthene 957.55 330.56 230.41 397.17 414.46

benzo[k]fluoranthene 288.03 117.76 86.89 159.79 163.12

benzo[e]pyrene 542.66 187.49 141.99 215.64 234.43

benzo[a]pyrene 704.14 301.73 219.82 343.22 336.17

perylene 220.61 137.12 67.35 163.01 113.77

indeno[1,2,3-c,d]pyrene 452.89 176.67 131.75 196.66 206.96

dibenz[a,h]anthracene 116.66 40.85 30.41 47.83 47.93

benzo[g,h,i]perylene 545.74 168.82 136.33 181.34 250.90

GROUP A (Petroleum Related) 839.97 362.99 161.85 294.26 355.44

GROUP B (Cumbustion Related) 7648.65 2806.33 1831.79 3463.09 3428.10

GROUP C (Total PAHs) 9629.22 3765.23 2283.48 4373.94 4490.04

Surrogate Recoveries,%

naphthalene-d8 63.56 43.53 & 57.62 56.86 51.01

acenaphthene-d10 64.60 47.39 & 64.02 63.60 57.72

benzo[a]pyrene-d12 87.14 67.14 86.99 88.65 81.27
Appendix D continued.

Sample ID NOAA36C NOAA4A NOAA5B NOAA6C

Dry Weight (g) 15.505 16.532 7.570 10.234

naphthalene 171.49 31.01 103.26 145.58

2-methylnaphthalene 115.15 20.53 77.18 106.90

1-methylnaphthalene 48.12 9.58 34.44 62.21

biphenyl 40.71 5.72 23.84 29.74

2,6-dimethylnaphthalene 44.24 7.81 31.30 49.29

acenaphthylene 97.69 33.72 86.96 302.68

acenaphthene 43.10 7.58 26.11 73.28

1,6,7-trimethylnaphthalene 19.83 3.25 9.78 25.73

fluorene 70.38 11.66 39.55 79.67

phenanthrene 418.74 83.79 269.51 477.72

anthracene 214.12 32.27 104.50 363.16

1-methylphenanthrene 103.57 19.45 72.49 187.22

fluoranthene 886.95 200.53 610.59 1144.11

pyrene 960.91 219.48 662.45 1566.87

benz[a]anthracene 486.38 89.86 248.29 895.81

chrysene 421.62 98.49 249.57 808.56

benzo[b]fluoranthene 655.24 167.48 465.98 1004.68

benzo[k]fluoranthene 240.39 61.16 171.32 346.90

benzo[e]pyrene 381.99 100.55 281.88 623.30

benzo[a]pyrene 593.97 140.92 408.94 1218.39

perylene 208.93 29.59 87.07 216.62

indeno[1,2,3-c,d]pyrene 334.74 98.72 262.75 544.34

dibenz[a,h]anthracene 78.21 22.49 59.08 138.11

benzo[g,h,i]perylene 332.02 102.37 268.23 513.66

GROUP A (Petroleum Related) 572.78 103.29 28673.00 656.59

GROUP B (Cumbustion Related) 5372.43 1302.03 3689.08 8804.73

GROUP C (Total PAHs) 6968.50 15878.00 4655.07 10924.51

Surrogate Recoveries,%

naphthalene-d8 52.77 52.70 55.18 56.63

acenaphthene-d10 58.94 61.05 63.69 64.03

benzo[a]pyrene-d12 75.96 83.33 86.16 84.78
Appendix D continued.

Sample ID NOAA7B NOAA7C NOAA8C NOAA9B

Dry Weight (g) 20.641 21.164 17.383 14.912

naphthalene 1350.21 186.74 1047.53 17414.18

2-methylnaphthalene 995.26 117.62 1003.15 15556.60

1-methylnaphthalene 613.09 49.85 468.48 48783.50

biphenyl 250.57 38.07 207.46 9095.85

2,6-dimethylnaphthalene 370.06 60.18 319.73 27888.59

acenaphthylene 2984.66 70.11 777.71 12915.13

acenaphthene 609.08 56.51 439.36 56337.88

1,6,7-trimethylnaphthalene 260.17 41.64 188.90 6806.37

fluorene 1043.15 96.74 499.93 54208.65

phenanthrene 6430.44 478.57 2395.37 194342.88

anthracene 4338.97 298.71 1551.70 89365.95

1-methylphenanthrene 2088.39 111.47 1201.39 39129.60

fluoranthene 13079.92 1097.29 5457.95 108236.19

pyrene 16052.43 1105.77 6452.17 143131.57

benz[a]anthracene 8452.82 472.66 3647.63 59298.22

chrysene 6577.55 535.97 3519.73 60330.78

benzo[b]fluoranthene 7997.26 767.93 3758.01 39168.09

benzo[k]fluoranthene 3087.22 297.47 1481.92 15749.82

benzo[e]pyrene 4898.81 449.45 2282.92 22676.21

benzo[a]pyrene 9368.31 623.09 4336.47 54861.52

perylene 1894.46 233.39 799.80 8606.85

indeno[1,2,3-c,d]pyrene 4064.36 391.29 1838.73 18024.98

dibenz[a,h]anthracene 955.37 94.64 466.93 4533.87

benzo[g,h,i]perylene 3904.74 396.18 1783.38 16891.42

GROUP A (Petroleum Related) 6720.32 664.23 4729.12 209787.50

GROUP B (Cumbustion Related) 78438.78 6231.73 35025.84 542902.67

GROUP C (Total PAHs) 101667.28 8071.32 45926.35 1123354.70

Surrogate Recoveries,%

naphthalene-d8 40.26 & 53.49 46.89 & 32.69

acenaphthene-d10 48.29 & 57.25 52.49 33.31

benzo[a]pyrene-d12 78.86 72.57 64.35 30.57
& - Surrogate Recovery outside criteria (50 - 150%)

NA - Not ApplicibleND - Non DetectedProcedural Blank Reported in Total ng.CL7(180) 0.000 ND 20.625 9.800 0.314 17.939 5.259 11.292CL6(128) 0.000 ND 11.803 5.817 0.343 5.035 3.234 4.137CL7(187) 0.000 ND 9.849 5.674 0.358 38.666 3.024 5.519CL5(126) 0.000 ND 0.301 ND 0.301 ND 0.301 ND 0.301 ND 0.301 ND 0.301CL6(138) 0.000 ND 33.861 18.528 0.805 17.667 8.550 24.4994,4-DDT 0.000 ND 24.640 1.015 0.094 14.628 39.438 532.201CL5(105) 0.000 ND 12.240 7.208 0.326 3.906 3.714 8.983CL6(153) 0.000 ND 46.776 23.822 0.898 71.742 11.524 28.8002,4-DDT 0.000 ND 2.226 1.275 0.089 1.393 0.906 19.8014,4-DDD 0.000 ND 29.410 15.907 0.847 10.132 12.859 193.732CL5(118) 0.000 ND 27.620 15.269 0.539 10.645 7.524 19.532ENDRIN 0.000 ND 0.569 ND 0.569 ND 0.569 ND 0.569 ND 0.569 ND 0.5692,4-DDD 0.000 ND 12.649 6.602 0.349 31.662 6.964 82.401CL4(77) 0.000 ND 0.299 ND 0.299 ND 0.299 ND 0.299 ND 0.299 ND 0.2994,4-DDE 0.000 ND 20.683 14.241 0.519 8.650 13.394 71.551DIELDRIN 0.000 ND 13.597 3.112 0.432 1.632 2.309 3.900TRANS-NONACHLOR 0.000 ND 4.577 2.144 0.138 1.975 2.938 6.004CIS-CHLORDANE 0.000 ND 7.190 3.483 0.170 3.072 4.634 10.391CL5(101) 0.000 ND 41.391 21.351 0.717 24.438 13.215 30.6422,4-DDE 0.000 ND 2.859 1.903 0.161 ND 2.123 3.298 21.229CL4(66) 0.000 ND 44.186 29.456 0.946 7.811 12.345 19.189HEPTACHLOREPOXIDE 0.000 ND 0.230 ND 0.230 ND 0.230 ND 0.230 ND 0.230 ND 0.230CL4(44) 0.000 ND 25.397 14.784 0.430 6.876 9.799 14.530ALDRIN 0.000 ND 0.208 ND 0.208 ND 0.208 ND 0.208 ND 0.208 ND 0.208CL4(52) 0.000 ND 34.562 20.878 0.545 17.209 13.033 20.134HEPTACHLOR 0.000 ND 0.271 ND 0.271 ND 0.271 ND 0.271 ND 0.271 ND 0.271CL3(28) 0.000 ND 90.035 62.870 1.362 11.572 18.490 26.888CL3(18) 0.000 ND 20.342 12.135 0.238 ND 4.646 7.060 8.063LINDANE 0.000 ND 0.099 ND 0.099 ND 0.099 ND 0.099 ND 0.099 ND 0.099HEXACHLOROBENZENE 0.000 ND 19.413 11.240 0.177 3.301 3.387 10.843CL2(08) 0.000 ND 14.824 8.759 0.435 ND 1.849 3.275 3.662Dry Weight (g) 1.0000 11.725 14.345 22.762 22.651 21.094 17.219Sample ID MJ32PB NOAA 12 B NOAA 13 A NOAA 14 A NOAA 16 A NOAA 16 B NOAA 18 A

Appendix E. PCB and Pesticides Concentrations (ng/g).
& - Surrogate Recovery outside criteria (50 - 150%)

NA - Not ApplicibleND - Non DetectedProcedural Blank Reported in Total ng.CL7(180) 12.578 10.857 5.146 6.241 7.310 3.506 3.452CL6(128) 7.443 4.436 3.756 4.077 4.447 3.216 3.270CL7(187) 6.370 5.978 4.326 4.694 5.019 3.011 3.513CL5(126) ND 0.301 ND 0.301 ND 0.301 ND 0.301 ND 0.301 ND 0.301 ND 0.301CL6(138) 39.706 18.603 11.860 13.795 16.075 7.811 7.8454,4-DDT 75.579 14.555 1.499 1.385 1.054 82.231 0.706CL5(105) 13.315 6.842 6.278 6.891 8.114 4.179 4.314CL6(153) 45.153 27.465 15.796 17.142 19.685 10.492 10.0572,4-DDT 2.275 2.846 1.270 1.187 1.806 1.919 0.8224,4-DDD 127.740 83.663 18.953 14.935 19.751 14.509 12.304CL5(118) 36.829 18.020 12.720 13.355 15.677 8.550 9.159ENDRIN ND 0.569 ND 0.569 ND 0.569 ND 0.569 ND 0.569 ND 0.569 ND 0.5692,4-DDD 31.798 27.178 7.813 6.869 8.180 5.172 5.201CL4(77) ND 0.299 ND 0.299 ND 0.299 ND 0.299 ND 0.299 ND 0.299 ND 0.2994,4-DDE 94.695 33.995 12.889 12.025 14.441 7.393 8.077DIELDRIN 4.687 8.771 6.658 4.458 6.400 3.215 3.719TRANS-NONACHLOR 2.698 5.395 3.266 2.633 3.058 1.654 1.865CIS-CHLORDANE 5.236 7.030 4.421 3.532 4.280 2.102 2.813CL5(101) 56.944 25.097 17.395 18.464 19.810 10.931 10.3952,4-DDE 26.064 7.692 3.014 2.066 2.345 1.335 1.409CL4(66) 35.618 29.318 23.450 25.826 32.266 13.967 14.088HEPTACHLOREPOXIDE ND 0.230 ND 0.230 ND 0.230 ND 0.230 ND 0.230 ND 0.230 ND 0.230CL4(44) 27.613 14.471 10.206 11.689 11.131 5.712 6.845ALDRIN ND 0.208 ND 0.208 ND 0.208 ND 0.208 ND 0.208 ND 0.208 ND 0.208CL4(52) 41.076 20.780 13.587 15.432 17.346 7.849 7.049HEPTACHLOR ND 0.271 ND 0.271 ND 0.271 ND 0.271 ND 0.271 ND 0.271 ND 0.271CL3(28) 41.283 42.474 38.133 47.539 61.186 22.664 17.662CL3(18) 14.130 9.286 8.186 10.151 8.445 5.464 4.936LINDANE ND 0.099 ND 0.099 ND 0.099 ND 0.099 ND 0.099 ND 0.099 ND 0.099HEXACHLOROBENZENE 20.221 16.334 7.020 9.288 7.672 8.717 6.414CL2(08) 5.777 7.616 9.377 9.924 9.590 6.469 4.969Dry Weight (g) 15.591 11.373 10.816 11.761 12.237 13.598 12.769Sample ID NOAA 22 C NOAA 23 A NOAA 25 A NOAA 26 A NOAA 26 C NOAA 29 A NOAA 30 B

Appendix E. PCB and Pesticides Concentrations (ng/g) contd.
& - Surrogate Recovery outside criteria (50 - 150%)

NA - Not ApplicibleND - Non DetectedProcedural Blank Reported in Total ng.CL7(180) 4.508 6.311 2.387 1.289 0.243 ND 0.243 ND 18.072CL6(128) 3.506 5.323 1.800 1.490 0.172 ND 0.172 ND 6.628CL7(187) 3.473 6.261 1.924 1.382 0.292 ND 0.292 ND 14.187CL5(126) ND 0.301 ND 0.301 ND 0.301 ND 0.301 ND 0.301 ND 0.301 ND 0.301 NDCL6(138) 10.731 18.825 6.318 4.024 0.227 ND 0.227 ND 23.2274,4-DDT 1.543 4.659 1.436 0.321 0.312 ND 0.312 ND 3.200CL5(105) 5.632 10.018 3.177 2.065 0.298 ND 0.298 ND 10.075CL6(153) 13.348 24.559 7.175 4.841 0.409 ND 0.409 ND 31.7982,4-DDT 1.216 1.557 0.692 5.737 0.183 ND 0.183 ND 1.8334,4-DDD 15.959 25.719 7.778 4.025 0.292 ND 0.292 ND 7.481CL5(118) 12.216 20.310 5.988 4.044 0.223 ND 0.223 ND 15.131ENDRIN ND 0.569 ND 0.569 ND 0.569 ND 0.569 ND 0.569 ND 0.569 ND 0.569 ND2,4-DDD 6.312 10.770 3.230 2.161 0.247 ND 0.247 ND 5.474CL4(77) ND 0.299 ND 0.299 ND 0.299 ND 0.299 ND 0.299 ND 0.299 ND 0.299 ND4,4-DDE 10.068 17.151 5.278 3.473 0.127 ND 0.127 ND 9.779DIELDRIN 6.335 5.628 4.264 0.468 0.200 ND 0.200 ND 3.432TRANS-NONACHLOR 2.152 2.754 0.918 0.643 0.209 ND 0.209 ND 1.108CIS-CHLORDANE 3.140 4.074 1.205 0.913 0.195 ND 0.195 ND 2.612CL5(101) 13.019 19.452 5.938 4.771 0.244 ND 0.244 ND 32.8442,4-DDE 1.041 3.700 0.398 0.742 0.161 ND 0.161 ND 2.167CL4(66) 15.683 28.170 9.974 6.784 0.217 ND 0.217 ND 15.782HEPTACHLOREPOXIDE ND 0.230 ND 0.230 ND 0.230 ND 0.230 ND 0.230 ND 0.230 ND 3.370CL4(44) 7.069 9.864 3.533 2.715 0.336 ND 0.336 ND 12.496ALDRIN ND 0.208 ND 0.208 ND 0.208 ND 0.208 ND 0.208 ND 0.208 ND 0.208 NDCL4(52) 8.206 13.776 5.253 3.736 0.129 ND 0.129 ND 17.032HEPTACHLOR ND 0.271 ND 0.271 ND 0.271 ND 0.271 ND 0.271 ND 0.271 ND 0.271 NDCL3(28) 18.331 43.174 18.487 8.127 0.117 ND 0.117 ND 15.539CL3(18) 4.485 7.959 3.281 1.988 0.238 ND 0.238 ND 7.626LINDANE ND 0.099 ND 0.099 ND 0.099 ND 0.099 ND 0.099 ND 0.099 ND 0.648HEXACHLOROBENZENE 4.531 8.384 0.748 3.163 0.140 ND 0.140 ND 29.878CL2(08) 6.493 7.346 4.600 2.178 0.435 ND 0.435 ND 0.435 NDDry Weight (g) 10.622 12.687 17.520 20.614 23.377 22.906 7.026Sample ID NOAA 30 C NOAA 33 B NOAA 34 B NOAA 35 A NOAA 37 B NOAA 38 B MJ36SSRM

Appendix E. PCB and Pesticides Concentrations (ng/g) contd.
& - Surrogate Recovery outside criteria (50 - 150%)

NA - Not ApplicibleND - Non DetectedProcedural Blank Reported in Total ng.CL5(112) 76.520 63.244 64.620 69.398 79.277 77.846 75.258DBOFB 84.363 54.120 43.148 & 67.428 62.471 56.110 46.974Surrogate Recoveries,%Total non-DDT pest. 46.4010 21.6030 2.5410 11.6040 14.8920 32.7620TOTAL PCB (NO MDL) 0.000 456.237 269.769 7.583 253.578 126.591 237.202SUM OF DDT (NO MDL) 0.000 92.467 40.943 1.898 68.588 76.859 920.915GROUP D (NO MDL) 0.000 11.767 5.627 0.308 5.047 7.572 16.395TOTAL PCB 0.000 456.237 269.769 9.687 253.578 126.591 237.202SUM OF DDT 0.000 92.467 40.943 2.059 68.588 76.859 920.915GROUP D (INDENO PEST) 0.000 12.268 6.128 0.809 5.548 8.073 16.896CL10(209) 0.000 ND 4.703 3.281 0.314 ND 0.727 1.685 1.363CL9(206) 0.000 ND 5.083 2.855 0.480 ND 2.422 1.001 1.465CL8(195) 0.000 ND 2.974 1.819 0.303 ND 2.994 0.645 1.528CL7(170) 0.000 ND 9.966 5.463 0.334 ND 7.434 3.214 6.976MIREX 0.000 ND 0.247 ND 0.247 ND 0.247 ND 0.247 ND 0.247 ND 0.247Dry Weight (g) 1.0000 11.725 14.345 22.762 22.651 21.094 17.219Sample ID MJ32PB NOAA 12 B NOAA 13 A NOAA 14 A NOAA 16 A NOAA 16 B NOAA 18 A

Appendix E. PCB and Pesticides Concentrations (ng/g) contd.
& - Surrogate Recovery outside criteria (50 - 150%)

NA - Not ApplicibleND - Non DetectedProcedural Blank Reported in Total ng.CL5(112) 64.559 79.545 71.688 69.148 71.698 70.176 67.630DBOFB & 35.912 & 58.401 46.883 & 45.618 & 42.210 & 47.847 & 56.746Surrogate Recoveries,%Total non-DDT pest. 34.4660 39.1540 22.9890 21.5350 23.0340 17.3120 16.4350TOTAL PCB (NO MDL) 401.443 256.636 189.562 214.656 247.368 116.489 113.162SUM OF DDT (NO MDL) 358.151 169.929 45.438 38.467 47.577 112.559 28.519GROUP D (NO MDL) 7.934 12.425 7.687 6.165 7.338 3.756 4.678TOTAL PCB 401.443 256.636 189.562 214.656 247.368 117.586 113.162SUM OF DDT 358.151 169.929 45.438 38.467 47.577 112.559 28.519GROUP D (INDENO PEST) 8.435 12.926 8.188 6.666 7.839 4.257 5.179CL10(209) 3.504 2.788 2.069 1.914 2.136 0.314 ND 1.118CL9(206) 2.035 2.580 1.900 1.865 2.462 0.480 ND 0.957CL8(195) 4.693 2.647 1.448 1.457 1.791 0.303 ND 0.947CL7(170) 7.376 7.378 3.929 4.200 4.878 2.668 2.586MIREX ND 0.247 ND 0.247 ND 0.247 ND 0.247 ND 0.247 ND 0.247 ND 0.247Dry Weight (g) 15.591 11.373 10.816 11.761 12.237 13.598 12.769Sample ID NOAA 22 C NOAA 23 A NOAA 25 A NOAA 26 A NOAA 26 C NOAA 29 A NOAA 30 B

Appendix E. PCB and Pesticides Concentrations (ng/g) contd.
& - Surrogate Recovery outside criteria (50 - 150%)

NA - Not ApplicibleND - Non DetectedProcedural Blank Reported in Total ng.CL5(112) 76.368 73.478 71.631 61.166 72.013 73.250 60.520DBOFB 68.185 48.625 & 34.919 & 58.866 79.929 85.344 56.893Surrogate Recoveries,%Total non-DDT pest. 17.7820 22.4640 8.7590 6.8110 2.3680 2.3680 42.3430TOTAL PCB (NO MDL) 134.621 238.544 83.976 53.425 0.000 0.000 251.432SUM OF DDT (NO MDL) 36.139 63.556 18.812 16.459 0.000 0.000 29.934GROUP D (NO MDL) 5.292 6.828 2.123 1.556 0.000 0.000 7.090TOTAL PCB 134.621 238.544 83.976 53.425 5.011 5.011 251.867SUM OF DDT 36.139 63.556 18.812 16.459 1.322 1.322 29.934GROUP D (INDENO PEST) 5.793 7.329 2.624 2.057 0.905 0.905 7.361CL10(209) 1.571 5.223 1.018 1.528 0.314 ND 0.314 ND 9.770CL9(206) 1.296 3.220 0.837 0.543 0.480 ND 0.480 ND 9.315CL8(195) 1.256 2.793 0.455 0.457 0.303 ND 0.303 ND 3.229CL7(170) 3.798 5.960 1.831 1.463 0.334 ND 0.334 ND 8.681MIREX ND 0.247 ND 0.247 ND 0.247 ND 0.247 ND 0.247 ND 0.247 ND 0.247 NDDry Weight (g) 10.622 12.687 17.520 20.614 23.377 22.906 7.026Sample ID NOAA 30 C NOAA 33 B NOAA 34 B NOAA 35 A NOAA 37 B NOAA 38 B MJ36SSRM

Appendix E. PCB and Pesticides Concentrations (ng/g) contd.
Sample ID MP31PB NOAA1A-R NOAA2A NOAA4A-R

Appendix E. PCB and Pesticides Concentrations (ng/g) contd.

 NOAA5B-R NOAA6C-R NOAA7B-R

Surrogate Recoveries,%& - Surrogate Recovery outside criteria (50 - 150%) NA - Not Applicible

ND - Non DetectedProcedural Blank Reported in Total ng.CL6(128) 0.000 ND 3.960 1.868 1.225 0.172 ND 3.511 0.172CL7(187) 0.000 ND 7.673 3.549 2.669 5.842 9.757 7.145CL5(126) 0.000 ND 0.301 ND 0.301 ND 0.301 ND 0.301 ND 0.301 ND 0.301CL6(138) 0.000 ND 20.087 10.628 6.672 15.129 23.566 10.2894,4-DDT 0.000 ND 3.468 4.275 1.320 0.312 ND 3.793 5.304CL5(105) 0.000 ND 19.908 9.432 4.903 9.974 18.168 8.294CL6(153) 0.000 ND 17.186 8.686 5.563 11.232 19.080 9.7372,4-DDT 0.000 ND 1.858 0.614 0.183 ND 0.183 ND 0.183 ND 0.1834,4-DDD 0.000 ND 12.933 5.516 4.713 10.510 15.420 20.754CL5(118) 0.000 ND 22.239 9.902 5.160 10.443 16.684 13.032ENDRIN 0.000 ND 0.569 ND 0.569 ND 0.569 ND 0.569 ND 0.569 ND 0.5692,4-DDD 0.000 ND 3.126 2.101 1.631 0.247 ND 0.247 ND 0.247CL4(77) 0.000 ND 8.873 0.299 ND 0.299 ND 0.299 ND 0.299 ND 0.2994,4-DDE 0.000 ND 8.873 4.358 3.476 8.069 10.148 6.811DIELDRIN 0.000 ND 1.922 0.966 0.837 0.200 ND 0.200 ND 0.200TRANS-NONACHLOR 0.000 ND 2.642 0.945 2.424 3.520 3.893 4.369CIS-CHLORDANE 0.000 ND 2.318 1.619 1.997 4.879 5.307 5.126CL5(101) 0.000 ND 33.072 16.579 8.292 10.423 21.771 14.0012,4-DDE 0.000 ND 14.219 6.961 4.642 3.378 6.814 5.065CL4(66) 0.000 ND 65.696 25.602 7.581 9.950 24.605 13.047HEPTACHLOREPOXIDE 0.000 ND 0.230 ND 0.230 ND 0.230 ND 0.230 ND 0.230 ND 0.230CL4(44) 0.000 ND 34.104 16.152 1.726 0.336 ND 7.008 4.620ALDRIN 0.000 ND 0.208 ND 5.886 0.208 ND 0.208 ND 0.208 ND 0.208CL4(52) 0.000 ND 55.416 25.615 4.872 5.363 11.394 11.129HEPTACHLOR 0.000 ND 0.271 ND 0.271 ND 0.271 ND 0.271 ND 0.271 ND 0.271CL3(28) 0.000 ND 179.938 54.088 7.649 11.632 17.791 16.642CL3(18) 0.000 ND 41.633 17.895 8.220 12.743 6.849 7.537LINDANE 0.000 ND 0.099 ND 0.099 ND 0.099 ND 0.099 ND 0.099 ND 0.099HEXACHLOROBENZENE 0.000 ND 1.450 0.457 3.079 0.140 ND 0.140 ND 0.140CL2(08) 0.000 ND 32.188 14.635 38.479 0.435 ND 28.348 0.435Dry Weight (g) 1.0000 5.227 9.722 5.183 2.450 3.951 7.932
Sample ID

Appendix E. PCB and Pesticides Concentrations (ng/g) contd.

NOAA7C-R NOAA8C-R NOAA9B-R NOAA10A NOAA10B-R NOAA11B-R NOAA12A-R

Surrogate Recoveries,%& - Surrogate Recovery outside criteria (50 - 150%)NA - Not Applicible

ND - Non DetectedProcedural Blank Reported in Total ng.CL6(128) ND 1.229 3.037 0.172 ND 1.954 0.172 ND 5.808 15.921CL7(187) 4.258 10.305 15.236 3.947 3.586 17.028 28.585CL5(126) ND 0.301 ND 0.301 ND 0.301 ND 0.301 ND 0.301 ND 0.301 ND 0.301CL6(138) 8.666 12.628 16.189 10.921 1.022 37.341 125.4434,4-DDT 3.037 3.808 43.322 1.970 0.312 ND 11.017 13.111CL5(105) 6.411 11.141 0.298 ND 8.970 1.532 28.910 114.207CL6(153) 7.861 12.400 13.417 9.438 2.127 30.157 94.1352,4-DDT ND 0.183 ND 0.183 ND 0.183 ND 0.851 0.183 ND 0.183 ND 0.1834,4-DDD 7.318 4.697 0.292 ND 10.342 1.787 32.990 120.159CL5(118) 12.875 8.762 0.223 ND 9.155 2.913 42.830 123.937ENDRIN ND 0.569 ND 0.569 ND 0.569 ND 0.569 ND 0.569 ND 0.569 ND 0.5692,4-DDD ND 0.247 ND 0.247 ND 0.247 ND 3.447 0.247 ND 0.247 ND 26.527CL4(77) ND 0.299 ND 0.299 ND 0.299 ND 0.299 ND 0.299 ND 0.299 ND 0.2994,4-DDE 4.942 2.244 30.730 6.613 1.088 23.211 86.299DIELDRIN ND 0.784 0.200 ND 0.200 ND 0.912 0.200 ND 0.200 ND 10.628TRANS-NONACHLOR 1.362 1.800 0.209 ND 2.713 1.731 7.976 13.022CIS-CHLORDANE 1.398 1.048 0.195 ND 3.838 1.654 9.122 13.501CL5(101) 5.200 12.723 0.244 ND 12.553 1.654 37.020 207.4782,4-DDE 1.975 3.791 0.161 ND 4.173 2.433 13.280 68.428CL4(66) 5.016 6.926 8.712 14.501 2.466 48.703 47.040HEPTACHLOREPOXIDE ND 0.230 ND 0.230 ND 0.230 ND 0.230 ND 0.230 ND 0.230 ND 5.676CL4(44) 2.678 3.485 0.336 ND 8.530 1.447 25.317 184.699ALDRIN ND 0.208 ND 0.208 ND 0.208 ND 6.863 0.208 ND 0.208 ND 0.208CL4(52) 4.063 8.472 0.129 ND 12.878 1.715 38.060 248.261HEPTACHLOR ND 0.271 ND 0.271 ND 0.271 ND 0.271 ND 0.271 ND 0.271 ND 0.271CL3(28) 6.704 10.007 56.246 25.459 7.543 84.207 424.806CL3(18) 2.993 5.039 20.207 8.182 0.238 ND 30.345 161.625LINDANE ND 0.099 ND 1.234 0.099 ND 0.099 ND 0.099 ND 0.099 ND 0.099HEXACHLOROBENZENE ND 0.140 ND 0.140 ND 0.140 ND 0.931 0.140 ND 1.464 6.668CL2(08) ND 5.503 11.152 0.435 ND 7.371 0.435 ND 34.521 63.050Dry Weight (g) 7.321 6.358 5.021 19.252 6.048 4.302 6.078
Sample ID NOAA17B-R

Appendix E. PCB and Pesticides Concentrations (ng/g) contd.

NOAA17C-R NOAA18C-R NOAA24C-R NOAA30A-R NOAA36C-R MP35SSRM

Surrogate Recoveries,%& - Surrogate Recovery outside criteria (50 - 150%)NA - Not Applicible

ND - Non DetectedProcedural Blank Reported in Total ng.CL6(128) 6.727 6.735 5.146 3.362 1.795 2.547 3.814CL7(187) 19.136 19.033 13.024 14.303 5.349 7.240 14.117CL5(126) ND 0.301 ND 0.301 ND 0.301 ND 0.301 ND 0.301 ND 0.301 ND 0.301 NDCL6(138) 47.968 47.942 38.112 23.872 10.829 18.131 24.0494,4-DDT 1614.974 357.773 128.417 2.410 3.892 14.540 0.312 NDCL5(105) 37.800 37.887 35.145 22.691 10.855 14.836 21.470CL6(153) 40.440 39.406 39.293 23.568 10.692 19.588 23.9622,4-DDT ND 131.344 33.314 57.902 10.141 4.779 2.446 0.183 ND4,4-DDD 380.209 461.650 199.220 40.667 13.197 17.432 10.274CL5(118) 40.129 26.102 35.831 21.864 10.777 18.343 21.036ENDRIN ND 0.569 ND 0.569 ND 0.569 ND 0.569 ND 0.569 ND 0.569 ND 0.569 ND2,4-DDD 128.953 145.881 64.651 17.814 4.807 8.015 0.247 NDCL4(77) ND 0.299 ND 0.299 ND 0.299 ND 0.299 ND 0.299 ND 0.299 ND 0.299 ND4,4-DDE 181.917 142.493 115.370 27.337 8.327 14.857 8.730DIELDRIN 0.200 ND 6.884 6.480 3.099 1.617 1.879 2.260TRANS-NONACHLOR 12.356 12.886 14.792 5.078 3.171 2.441 0.209 NDCIS-CHLORDANE 15.186 15.829 18.965 6.235 3.598 2.828 0.195 NDCL5(101) 49.968 50.428 92.097 22.862 14.975 15.527 19.0922,4-DDE 58.819 51.288 61.652 12.919 8.959 6.755 6.535CL4(66) 58.795 54.374 96.418 29.026 26.281 21.366 14.082HEPTACHLOREPOXIDE 0.230 ND 0.230 ND 0.230 ND 0.230 ND 0.230 ND 0.230 ND 0.230 NDCL4(44) 38.477 38.420 84.733 14.322 7.225 10.601 7.897ALDRIN ND 0.208 ND 0.208 ND 13.164 7.030 0.208 ND 6.194 0.208 NDCL4(52) 52.380 52.877 132.403 21.760 14.155 15.600 14.882HEPTACHLOR ND 0.271 ND 0.271 ND 0.271 ND 0.271 ND 0.271 ND 0.271 ND 0.271 NDCL3(28) 87.922 90.871 136.844 42.445 33.266 43.261 15.789CL3(18) 32.240 30.629 61.411 11.360 21.924 10.127 6.465LINDANE ND 0.099 ND 0.099 ND 0.099 ND 0.099 ND 0.099 ND 0.099 ND 10.346HEXACHLOROBENZENE 5.863 5.553 8.430 0.636 6.723 0.711 38.621CL2(08) 24.674 25.476 26.633 15.867 0.435 ND 16.653 0.435 NDDry Weight (g) 4.987 4.915 6.005 5.988 5.363 6.911 7.050
Sample ID MP31PB NOAA1A-R NOAA2A NOAA4A-R

Appendix E. PCB and Pesticides Concentrations (ng/g) contd.

 NOAA5B-R NOAA6C-R NOAA7B-R

CL5(112) 69.448 74.121 75.990 71.328 77.478 68.352 68.532DBOFB 69.977 54.506 61.470 53.086 59.247 71.496 64.485Surrogate Recoveries,%& - Surrogate Recovery outside criteria (50 - 150%)NA - Not Applicible

ND - Non DetectedProcedural Blank Reported in Total ng.Total non-DDT pest. 9.9560 11.2890 13.9540 10.3630 11.1640 11.4590TOTAL PCB (NO MDL) 0.000 569.890 226.958 112.709 120.250 251.580 135.649SUM OF DDT (NO MDL) 0.000 44.477 23.825 15.782 21.957 36.175 37.934GROUP D (NO MDL) 0.000 4.960 2.564 4.421 8.399 9.200 9.495TOTAL PCB 0.000 569.890 227.752 112.709 122.290 251.580 137.353SUM OF DDT 0.000 44.477 23.825 15.965 22.699 36.605 38.364GROUP D (INDENO PEST) 0.000 5.461 3.065 4.922 8.900 9.701 9.996CL10(209) 0.000 ND 5.124 0.314 ND 1.120 0.314 ND 4.577 0.314CL9(206) 0.000 ND 7.430 0.480 ND 0.653 0.480 ND 7.682 0.480CL8(195) 0.000 ND 3.729 0.754 0.408 0.303 ND 3.417 0.303CL7(170) 0.000 ND 10.489 6.590 4.672 11.565 18.792 15.836MIREX 0.000 ND 0.247 ND 0.247 ND 4.240 0.247 ND 0.247 ND 0.247CL7(180) 0.000 ND 10.018 4.983 2.845 5.954 8.580 4.340Dry Weight (g) 1.0000 5.227 9.722 5.183 2.450 3.951 7.932
Sample ID

Appendix E. PCB and Pesticides Concentrations (ng/g) contd.

NOAA7C-R NOAA8C-R NOAA9B-R NOAA10A NOAA10B-R NOAA11B-R NOAA12A-R

CL5(112) 80.877 74.028 80.541 56.275 75.097 75.506 72.950DBOFB 69.906 77.715 107.814 49.014 & 71.492 63.739 54.434Surrogate Recoveries,%& - Surrogate Recovery outside criteria (50 - 150%)NA - Not Applicible

ND - Non DetectedProcedural Blank Reported in Total ng.Total non-DDT pest. 5.3080 5.9470 2.3680 16.6730 5.3490 20.3860 50.8890TOTAL PCB (NO MDL) 87.403 162.075 180.177 148.540 39.700 507.135 1972.846SUM OF DDT (NO MDL) 17.272 14.540 74.052 27.396 5.308 80.498 314.524GROUP D (NO MDL) 2.760 2.848 0.000 6.551 3.385 17.098 32.199TOTAL PCB 88.197 162.869 183.354 149.334 41.885 508.232 1972.846SUM OF DDT 17.702 14.970 74.935 27.396 6.050 80.928 314.707GROUP D (INDENO PEST) 3.261 3.349 0.905 7.052 3.886 17.599 32.470CL10(209) ND 0.314 ND 0.314 ND 0.314 ND 0.314 ND 0.314 ND 0.314 ND 20.352CL9(206) ND 0.480 ND 0.480 ND 0.480 ND 0.480 ND 0.480 ND 0.480 ND 15.518CL8(195) ND 0.469 17.765 0.303 ND 0.975 0.303 ND 0.303 ND 8.358CL7(170) 8.584 21.264 50.170 7.270 13.695 26.507 33.249MIREX ND 0.247 ND 0.247 ND 0.247 ND 0.247 ND 0.247 ND 0.247 ND 0.247CL7(180) 4.893 6.969 0.243 ND 6.436 0.243 ND 20.381 56.182Dry Weight (g) 7.321 6.358 5.021 19.252 6.048 4.302 6.078
Sample ID NOAA17B-R

Appendix E. PCB and Pesticides Concentrations (ng/g) contd.

NOAA17C-R NOAA18C-R NOAA24C-R NOAA30A-R NOAA36C-R MP35SSRM

CL5(112) 71.871 77.526 98.320 76.483 72.001 77.027 59.708DBOFB 67.487 76.293 63.348 66.825 62.421 69.137 58.531Surrogate Recoveries,%& - Surrogate Recovery outside criteria (50 - 150%)NA - Not Applicible

ND - Non DetectedProcedural Blank Reported in Total ng.Total non-DDT pest. 35.2290 42.7760 63.2470 23.4940 16.7330 15.4690 53.1560TOTAL PCB (NO MDL) 616.380 583.107 836.636 303.056 184.946 231.876 231.898SUM OF DDT (NO MDL) 897.392 842.668 501.682 111.288 43.961 64.045 25.539GROUP D (NO MDL) 27.542 28.715 33.757 11.313 6.769 5.269 0.000TOTAL PCB 616.380 583.901 837.733 303.056 185.381 232.973 233.127SUM OF DDT 897.392 842.668 501.682 111.288 43.961 64.045 26.281GROUP D (INDENO PEST) 28.043 29.216 34.258 11.814 7.270 5.770 0.905CL10(209) 9.444 0.314 ND 0.314 ND 4.099 2.114 0.314 ND 0.314 NDCL9(206) 7.755 0.480 ND 0.480 ND 3.929 2.044 0.480 ND 0.480 NDCL8(195) 4.099 4.155 0.303 ND 3.612 1.303 0.303 ND 2.997CL7(170) 27.701 26.622 15.782 11.654 6.344 9.235 25.543MIREX ND 0.247 ND 0.247 ND 0.247 ND 0.247 ND 0.247 ND 0.247 ND 0.247 NDCL7(180) 30.725 32.150 23.764 12.460 5.018 8.821 16.703Dry Weight (g) 4.987 4.915 6.005 5.988 5.363 6.911 7.050
Appendix F. Percent organic carbon, percent carbonate, and grain size.

SAMPLE % TOC TOC Dup % TIC TIC Dup % Fines % GRAVEL % SAND % SILT % CLAY

NOAA 1-A 2.49 2.48 0.07 0.07 65.1 1.0 34.0 46.4 18.7

NOAA 2-A 2.67 0.22 72.7 0.0 27.4 53.2 19.5

NOAA 4-A 2.86 0.50 56.0 0.2 43.8 30.8 25.2

NOAA 5-B 3.09 0.03 67.5 0.0 32.4 38.3 29.2

NOAA 6-C 3.86 0.19 73.5 0.6 25.9 40.6 32.9

NOAA 7-B 4.44 2.38 10.4 2.6 87.1 5.6 4.8

NOAA 7-C 1.88 1.00 12.5 8.5 79.1 7.5 5.0

NOAA 8-C 3.47 1.02 42.5 3.0 54.5 23.8 18.7

NOAA 9-B 5.02 1.35 46.1 0.4 53.5 27.7 18.4

NOAA 10-A 4.44 2.55 24.7 9.1 66.1 14.2 10.5

NOAA 10-B 2.61 0.22 55.8 2.1 42.0 31.4 24.4

NOAA 11-B 3.99 4.23 0.62 0.65 45.1 0.0 54.8 29.8 15.3

NOAA 12-A 4.78 1.52 48.3 1.3 50.3 32.9 15.4

NOAA 12-B 3.63 0.10 64.1 0.0 35.8 40.9 23.2

NOAA 13-A 2.55 0.26 48.1 15.0 36.9 29.5 18.6

NOAA 14-A 0.25 0.00 1.5 0.0 98.5 1.2 0.3

NOAA 16-A 0.77 0.39 15.2 3.2 81.6 10.6 4.6

NOAA 16-B 0.95 0.07 32.3 6.7 61.1 22.6 9.7

NOAA 17-B 3.19 3.17 0.07 0.07 76.7 0.2 23.2 53.5 23.2

NOAA 17-C 2.98 0.15 65.4 0.3 34.4 47.1 18.3

NOAA 18-A 1.47 0.09 32.1 1.2 66.7 17.5 14.6

NOAA 18-C 1.98 0.07 35.8 12.8 51.3 22.7 13.1

NOAA 22-C 3.47 0.66 37.9 3.1 59.0 22.1 15.8

NOAA 23-A 2.98 2.93 0.51 0.50 51.3 32.5 16.2 31.8 19.5

NOAA 24-C 2.98 0.18 46.8 0.9 52.3 29.9 16.9

NOAA 25-A 3.21 0.09 51.0 0.1 48.9 33.8 17.2

NOAA 26-A 3.15 1.42 9.4 0.0 90.5 5.9 3.5

NOAA 26-C 3.02 0.09 43.7 0.7 55.6 29.4 14.3

NOAA 29-A 2.80 0.13 40.3 0.1 59.5 25.5 14.8

NOAA 30-A 2.20 0.25 28.5 0.5 70.9 16.8 11.7

NOAA 30-B 1.94 0.07 26.7 0.7 72.5 16.2 10.5

NOAA 30-C 3.05 0.06 30.4 2.0 67.6 18.6 11.8

NOAA 33-B 3.18 0.14 47.9 3.7 48.4 31.4 16.5

NOAA 34-B 1.00 0.00 17.2 0.0 82.8 7.4 9.8

NOAA 35-A 0.69 1.07 13.6 11.2 75.3 7.9 5.7

NOAA 36-C 2.50 0.03 55.8 0.0 44.2 37.5 18.3

NOAA 37-B 0.07 0.00 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0

NOAA 38-B 0.07 0.00 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0
Appendix G. Newark Bay all chem/toxicity

station no. Submitter Number, Sample Location: Rep. NFCR Lab no. DF07, Inj. No.

(Site No.)

NBS

1 Site 1 Upper Passaic R 9561 49

3 Site 3 Passaic River 9562 47

5 Site 5 Lower Passaic R, Upstream of Pt Source 9563 46

7a Site 7A Lower Passaic R Pt Source 9593 40

7b Site 7B Lower Passaic R Pt Source Ave(n=3) 9594

7c Site 7C Lower Passaic R Pt Source 9595 45

8a Site 8A Lower Passaic R Pt Source 9596 37

8b Site 8B Lower Passaic R Pt Source 9597 39

1 0 Site 10 Lower Passaic R Below Pt Sourc Ave(n=3) 9564

1 1 Site 11 Lower Passaic R Below Pt Source 9565 32

1 2 Site 12 Hackensack R, N of Berry's Creek 9566 27

1 4 Site 14 Hackensack R, N of Berry's Creek 9567 26

1 7 Site 17 Hackensack R,S of Berry's Ck, N of 9598 25

2 0 Site 20 Mouth of Hackensack River, Upper Newark Bay 9568 24

2 1 Site 21 Mouth of Passaic River, Upper Newark Bay 9569 31

2 6 Site 26 Upper Newark Bay 9570 22

3 1 Site 31 Upper-Mid Newark Bay 9526 17

3 6 Site 36 Lower-Mid- Newark Bay 9529 21

5 6 Site 56 Lower Newark Bay, Port Richmond 9528 20

5 7 Site 57 Upper New York Harbor 9527 19

57 gc/qms Site 57 Upper New York Harbor 9527 GC/QMS

7a gc/qms Site 7A Lower Passaic R Pt Source 9593 GC/QMS

7b rep 1 Site 7B Lower Passaic R Pt Source Replicate 1 9594-1 41

7b rep 2 Site 7B Lower Passaic R Pt Source Replicate 2 9594-2 42

7b rep 3 Site 7B Lower Passaic R Pt Source Replicate 3 9594-3 44

7b Site 7B Lower Passaic R Pt Source 9594-ave(n=3)

10 rep 1 Site 10 Lower Passaic R Below Pt SourcReplicate 1 9564-1 34

10 rep 2 Site 10 Lower Passaic R Below Pt SourcReplicate 2 9564-2 35

10 rep 3 Site 10 Lower Passaic R Below Pt SourcReplicate 3 9564-3 36

10 Ave Site 10 Lower Passaic R Below Pt SourcAve(n=3)
Appendix G. Newark Bay all chem/toxicity contd.

station no. % AmphSurv Stat. signif. UAN, ug/l 2,3,7,8-tcdd, kutz 90 TEF TEQ 1

(Site No.) Rel. to Ctls. Hit/Nohit pg/g

1 Site 1 7 6 H 330 9 9 1 9 9

3 Site 3 31.3 H 235 270 1 270

5 Site 5 29.1 H 460 450 1 450

7a Site 7A 34.8 H nd 390 1 390

7b Site 7B 32.6 H nd 376.67 1 376.67

7c Site 7C 9 H nd 620 1 620

8a Site 8A 19.1 H nd 440 1 440

8b Site 8B 14.6 H nd 300 1 300

1 0 Site 10 20.2 H nd 363.33 1 363.33

1 1 Site 11 51.9 H 0.35 280 1 280

1 2 Site 12 96.2 N 0.35 7.4 1 7.4

1 4 Site 14 77.2 N 0.35 62 1 62

1 7 Site 17 72.2 H 0.35 29 1 29

2 0 Site 20 79.4 H 0.35 38 1 38

2 1 Site 21 17.5 H 0.35 140 1 140

2 6 Site 26 0 H 0.35 470 1 470

3 1 Site 31 52.6 H 0.35 62 1 62

3 6 Site 36 68.4 H 0.35 55 1 55

5 6 Site 56 83.3 N 0.35 30 1 30

5 7 Site 57 111.1 N 620 3.6 1 3.6

57 gc/qms Site 57 2 1 2

7a gc/qms Site 7A 480 1 480

7b rep 1 Site 7B 430 1 430

7b rep 2 Site 7B 340 1 340

7b rep 3 Site 7B 360 1 360

7b Site 7B 376.667 1 376.67

10 rep 1 Site 10 310 1 310

10 rep 2 Site 10 350 1 350

10 rep 3 Site 10 430 1 430

10 Ave Site 10 363.33 1 363.33
Appendix G. Newark Bay all chem/toxicity contd.

station no. 1,2,3,7,8-pcdd, Kutz 90 TEF TEQ 2 1,2,4,7,8-pcdd, MDL

(Site No.) pg/g pg/g

1 Site 1 2.2 0.5 1.1 1.3

3 Site 3 4.4 0.5 2.2 1.1 NQ

5 Site 5 7.8 0.5 3.9 0.5 ND

7a Site 7A 8.1 0.5 4.1 1 3

7b Site 7B 8.833 0.5 4.4 9.93

7c Site 7C 1 2 0.5 6 2 3

8a Site 8A 1 0 0.5 5 1 3

8b Site 8B 7 0.5 3.5 8.5

1 0 Site 10 7.97 0.5 4 10.33

1 1 Site 11 9.1 0.5 4.6 1 2

1 2 Site 12 0.5 0.5 0.3 0.8

1 4 Site 14 3.3 0.5 1.7 3.4

1 7 Site 17 1 0.5 0.5 1.4 NQ

2 0 Site 20 1.2 0.5 0.6 1.6 NQ

2 1 Site 21 1.9 0.5 1 1.9

2 6 Site 26 6.5 0.5 3.3 8.6

3 1 Site 31 3 0.5 1.5 4.1

3 6 Site 36 4 0.5 2 5.4

5 6 Site 56 3 0.5 1.5 4

5 7 Site 57 0.7 0.5 0.4 0.8 NQ

57 gc/qms Site 57 1 0.5 0.5 3

7a gc/qms Site 7A 8 0.5 4 1 5

7b rep 1 Site 7B 8.3 0.5 4.15 9

7b rep 2 Site 7B 1 0 0.5 5 8.8

7b rep 3 Site 7B 8.2 0.5 4.1 1 2

7b Site 7B 8.833 0.5 4.4165 9.93

10 rep 1 Site 10 7.3 0.5 3.65 9.4

10 rep 2 Site 10 9.1 0.5 4.55 13

10 rep 3 Site 10 7.5 0.5 3.75 8.6

10 Ave Site 10 7.97 0.5 3.985 10.33
Appendix G. Newark Bay all chem/toxicity contd.

station no. TEQ 3 1,2,3,6,7, Kutz 90 TEF TEQ 4 1,2,3,7,8,

(Site No.) 8-hcdd, pg/g 9-hcdd, ng/g

1 Site 1 0.16 7.5 0.1 0.75 4.3

3 Site 3 0.41 33 0.1 3.3 4.5

5 Site 5 0.8 4 4 0.1 4.4 2 6

7a Site 7A 0.77 29 0.1 2.9 20

7b Site 7B 0.97 32.33 0.1 3.23 29.67

7c Site 7C 0.97 39 0.1 3.9 29

8a Site 8A 0.97 38 0.1 3.8 29

8b Site 8B 0.82 32 0.1 3.2 22

1 0 Site 10 0.74 33.67 0.1 3.37 23.33

1 1 Site 11 0.83 31 0.1 3.1 24

1 2 Site 12 0.07 2.9 0.1 0.29 2

1 4 Site 14 0.35 17 0.1 1.7 12

1 7 Site 17 0.12 4.1 0.1 0.41 2.8

2 0 Site 20 0.12 6.2 0.1 0.62 4

2 1 Site 21 0.23 8 0.1 0.8 5.9

2 6 Site 26 0.55 32 0.1 3.2 21

3 1 Site 31 0.32 15 0.1 1.5 11

3 6 Site 36 0.41 17 0.1 1.7 13

5 6 Site 56 0.32 16 0.1 1.6 12

5 7 Site 57 0.07 2.4 0.1 0.24 1.4

57 gc/qms Site 57 0.1 3 0.1 0.3 0.9

7a gc/qms Site 7A 0.8 5 7 0.1 5.7 2 8

7b rep 1 Site 7B 0.96 29 0.1 2.9 25

7b rep 2 Site 7B 1.1 3 7 0.1 3.7 3 9

7b rep 3 Site 7B 0.84 31 0.1 3.1 25

7b Site 7B 0.97 32.333 0.1 3.23 29.667

10 rep 1 Site 10 0.71 34 0.1 3.4 22

10 rep 2 Site 10 0.78 34 0.1 3.4 24

10 rep 3 Site 10 0.73 33 0.1 3.3 24

10 Ave Site 10 0.74 33.67 0.1 3.37 23.33
Appendix G. Newark Bay all chem/toxicity contd.

station no. Kutz 90 TEF TEQ 5 1,2,3,4,6,7, Kutz 90 TEF TEQ 6

(Site No.) 8-hcdd, ng/g

1 Site 1 0.1 0.43 180 0.01 1.8

3 Site 3 0.1 0.45 450 0.01 4.5

5 Site 5 0.1 2.6 720 0.01 7.2

7a Site 7A 0.1 2 590 0.01 5.9

7b Site 7B 0.1 2.97 753.3 0.01 7.53

7c Site 7C 0.1 2.9 790 0.01 7.9

8a Site 8A 0.1 2.9 870 0.01 8.7

8b Site 8B 0.1 2.2 780 0.01 7.8

1 0 Site 10 0.1 2.33 633.3 0.01 6.33

1 1 Site 11 0.1 2.4 660 0.01 6.6

1 2 Site 12 0.1 0.2 6 3 0.01 0.63

1 4 Site 14 0.1 1.2 400 0.01 4

1 7 Site 17 0.1 0.28 71 0.01 0.71

2 0 Site 20 0.1 0.4 110 0.01 1.1

2 1 Site 21 0.1 0.59 140 0.01 1.4

2 6 Site 26 0.1 2.1 620 0.01 6.2

3 1 Site 31 0.1 1.1 310 0.01 3.1

3 6 Site 36 0.1 1.3 350 0.01 3.5

5 6 Site 56 0.1 1.2 410 0.01 4.1

5 7 Site 57 0.1 0.14 42 0.01 0.42

57 gc/qms Site 57 0.1 0.09 55 0.01 0.55

7a gc/qms Site 7A 0.1 2.8 700 0.01 7

7b rep 1 Site 7B 0.1 2.5 740 0.01 7.4

7b rep 2 Site 7B 0.1 3.9 860 0.01 8.6

7b rep 3 Site 7B 0.1 2.5 660 0.01 6.6

7b Site 7B 0.1 2.97 753.333 0.01 7.53

10 rep 1 Site 10 0.1 2.2 630 0.01 6.3

10 rep 2 Site 10 0.1 2.4 660 0.01 6.6

10 rep 3 Site 10 0.1 2.4 610 0.01 6.1

10 Ave Site 10 0.1 2.33 633.33 0.01 6.33
Appendix G. Newark Bay all chem/toxicity contd.

station no. Octa chloro-dd, Kutz 90 TEF TEQ 7 2,3,7,8-tcdf, 

(Site No.) pg/g pg/g

1 Site 1 1,900 0.001 1.9 71

3 Site 3 4,800 0.001 4.8 160

5 Site 5 7,100 0.001 7.1 190

7a Site 7A 6,400 0.001 6.4 170

7b Site 7B 7800 0.001 7.8 220

7c Site 7C 8,100 0.001 8.1 230

8a Site 8A 8,700 0.001 8.7 230

8b Site 8B 7,700 0.001 7.7 170

1 0 Site 10 6300 0.001 6.3 233.33

1 1 Site 11 7,400 0.001 7.4 220

1 2 Site 12 1,200 0.001 1.2 10

1 4 Site 14 5,000 0.001 5 89

1 7 Site 17 1,100 0.001 1.1 29

2 0 Site 20 1,400 0.001 1.4 41

2 1 Site 21 1,800 0.001 1.8 140

2 6 Site 26 5,900 0.001 5.9 370

3 1 Site 31 3,100 0.001 3.1 92

3 6 Site 36 3,600 0.001 3.6 66

5 6 Site 56 4,800 0.001 4.8 56

5 7 Site 57 510 0.001 0.51 9.5

57 gc/qms Site 57 580 0.001 0.58 7

7a gc/qms Site 7A 5,960 0.001 5.96 190

7b rep 1 Site 7B 7,000 0.001 7 220

7b rep 2 Site 7B 9,700 0.001 9.7 270

7b rep 3 Site 7B 6,700 0.001 6.7 170

7b Site 7B 7800 0.001 7.8 220

10 rep 1 Site 10 6,700 0.001 6.7 250

10 rep 2 Site 10 6,300 0.001 6.3 230

10 rep 3 Site 10 5,900 0.001 5.9 220

10 Ave Site 10 6300 0.001 6.3 233.33
Appendix G. Newark Bay all chem/toxicity contd.

station no. Kutz 90 TEF TEQ 8 1,2,3,7,8-pcdf, Kutz 90 TEF TEQ 9

(Site No.) pg/g

1 Site 1 0.1 7.1 2.8 0.05 0.14

3 Site 3 0.1 1 6 8.7 0.05 0.435

5 Site 5 0.1 1 9 1 4 0.05 0.7

7a Site 7A 0.1 1 7 1 2 0.05 0.6

7b Site 7B 0.1 2 2 13.333 0.05 0.66665

7c Site 7C 0.1 2 3 1 9 0.05 0.95

8a Site 8A 0.1 2 3 1 6 0.05 0.8

8b Site 8B 0.1 1 7 1 1 0.05 0.55

1 0 Site 10 0.1 23.33 22.33 0.05 1.1165

1 1 Site 11 0.1 2 2 1 8 0.05 0.9

1 2 Site 12 0.1 1 1.3 0.05 0.065

1 4 Site 14 0.1 8.9 9 0.05 0.45

1 7 Site 17 0.1 2.9 2.7 0.05 0.135

2 0 Site 20 0.1 4.1 5.4 0.05 0.27

2 1 Site 21 0.1 1 4 5.2 0.05 0.26

2 6 Site 26 0.1 3 7 1 5 0.05 0.75

3 1 Site 31 0.1 9.2 1 0 0.05 0.5

3 6 Site 36 0.1 6.6 7.5 0.05 0.375

5 6 Site 56 0.1 5.6 6.4 0.05 0.32

5 7 Site 57 0.1 0.95 1.1 0.05 0.055

57 gc/qms Site 57 0.1 0.7 0.8 0.05 0.04

7a gc/qms Site 7A 0.1 1 9 1 3 0.05 0.65

7b rep 1 Site 7B 0.1 2 2 1 3 0.05 0.65

7b rep 2 Site 7B 0.1 2 7 1 4 0.05 0.7

7b rep 3 Site 7B 0.1 1 7 1 3 0.05 0.65

7b Site 7B 0.1 2 2 13.333 0.05 0.66665

10 rep 1 Site 10 0.1 2 5 2 3 0.05 1.15

10 rep 2 Site 10 0.1 2 3 2 2 0.05 1.1

10 rep 3 Site 10 0.1 2 2 2 2 0.05 1.1

10 Ave Site 10 0.1 23.33 22.33 0.05 1.1165
Appendix G. Newark Bay all chem/toxicity contd.

station no. 2,3,4,7,8-pcdf, Kutz 90 TEF TEQ 10 1,2,3,4,7, Kutz 90 TEF

(Site No.) pg/g 8-hcdf, pg/g

1 Site 1 6.2 0.5 3.1 1 9 0.1

3 Site 3 3 6 0.5 1 8 120 0.1

5 Site 5 3 3 0.5 16.5 220 0.1

7a Site 7A 2 7 0.5 13.5 170 0.1

7b Site 7B 29.333 0.5 14.67 220 0.1

7c Site 7C 4 1 0.5 20.5 370 0.1

8a Site 8A 4 3 0.5 21.5 350 0.1

8b Site 8B 2 5 0.5 12.5 170 0.1

1 0 Site 10 47.33 0.5 23.67 386.67 0.1

1 1 Site 11 4 0 0.5 2 0 380 0.1

1 2 Site 12 2 0.5 1 1 6 0.1

1 4 Site 14 2 2 0.5 1 1 230 0.1

1 7 Site 17 5.5 0.5 2.75 45 0.1

2 0 Site 20 8.4 0.5 4.2 7 5 0.1

2 1 Site 21 8.4 0.5 4.2 6 9 0.1

2 6 Site 26 3 6 0.5 1 8 200 0.1

3 1 Site 31 1 5 0.5 7.5 9 5 0.1

3 6 Site 36 1 4 0.5 7 9 0 0.1

5 6 Site 56 9.4 0.5 4.7 3 2 0.1

5 7 Site 57 1.4 0.5 0.7 4.3 0.1

57 gc/qms Site 57 0.3 0.5 0.15 3 0.1

7a gc/qms Site 7A 2 9 0.5 14.5 200 0.1

7b rep 1 Site 7B 2 9 0.5 14.5 230 0.1

7b rep 2 Site 7B 2 8 0.5 1 4 220 0.1

7b rep 3 Site 7B 3 1 0.5 15.5 210 0.1

7b Site 7B 29.333 0.5 14.67 220 0.1

10 rep 1 Site 10 4 7 0.5 23.5 340 0.1

10 rep 2 Site 10 5 2 0.5 2 6 460 0.1

10 rep 3 Site 10 4 3 0.5 21.5 360 0.1

10 Ave Site 10 47.33 0.5 23.67 386.67 0.1
Appendix G. Newark Bay all chem/toxicity contd.

station no. TEQ 11 1,2,3,6,7, 88-TEF TEQ 12 1,2,3,7,8,

(Site No.) 8-hcdf, pg/g 9-hcdf, ng/g

1 Site 1 1.9 5.5 0.1 0.55 0.4

3 Site 3 1 2 2 9 0.1 2.9 0.4

5 Site 5 2 2 4 7 0.1 4.7 0.9

7a Site 7A 1 7 4 0 0.1 4 1.5

7b Site 7B 2 2 4 7 0.1 4.7 1.167

7c Site 7C 3 7 7 4 0.1 7.4 1.2

8a Site 8A 3 5 6 8 0.1 6.8 1.4

8b Site 8B 1 7 3 8 0.1 3.8 1.2

1 0 Site 10 38.67 75 0.1 7.5 1.47

1 1 Site 11 3 8 7 2 0.1 7.2 1.5

1 2 Site 12 1.6 3.1 0.1 0.31 0.4

1 4 Site 14 2 3 3 6 0.1 3.6 0.8

1 7 Site 17 4.5 7.6 0.1 0.76 0.4

2 0 Site 20 7.5 1 4 0.1 1.4 0.4

2 1 Site 21 6.9 1 2 0.1 1.2 0.7

2 6 Site 26 2 0 3 5 0.1 3.5 1.2

3 1 Site 31 9.5 2 1 0.1 2.1 1.5

3 6 Site 36 9 1 7 0.1 1.7 0.7

5 6 Site 56 3.2 8.9 0.1 0.89 0.4

5 7 Site 57 0.43 1.2 0.1 0.12 0.4

57 gc/qms Site 57 0.3 0.9 0.1 0.09 5

7a gc/qms Site 7A 2 0 2 8 0.1 2.8 8

7b rep 1 Site 7B 2 3 4 9 0.1 4.9 1.2

7b rep 2 Site 7B 2 2 4 7 0.1 4.7 1.2

7b rep 3 Site 7B 2 1 4 5 0.1 4.5 1.1

7b Site 7B 2 2 4 7 0.1 4.7 1.167

10 rep 1 Site 10 3 4 7 0 0.1 7 1.5

10 rep 2 Site 10 4 6 8 4 0.1 8.4 1.5

10 rep 3 Site 10 3 6 7 1 0.1 7.1 1.4

10 Ave Site 10 38.67 75 0.1 7.5 1.47
Appendix G. Newark Bay all chem/toxicity contd.

station no. Kutz 90 TEF TEQ 13 2,3,4,6,7, Kutz 90 TEFTEQ 14 1,2,3,4,6,7,

(Site No.) 8-hcdf, pg/g 8-hcdf, pg/g

1 Site 1 0.1 0.04 4.2 0.1 0.42 82

3 Site 3 0.1 0.04 2.2 0.1 0.22 480

5 Site 5 0.1 0.09 9.4 0.1 0.94 940

7a Site 7A 0.1 0.15 19 0.1 1.9 830

7b Site 7B 0.1 0.12 14.1 0.1 1.41 1003.33

7c Site 7C 0.1 0.12 34 0.1 3.4 1,600

8a Site 8A 0.1 0.14 12 0.1 1.2 1,500

8b Site 8B 0.1 0.12 9.2 0.1 0.92 800

1 0 Site 10 0.1 0.15 30.33 0.1 3.03 1633.33

1 1 Site 11 0.1 0.15 30 0.1 3 1,600

1 2 Site 12 0.1 0.04 1.8 0.1 0.18 95

1 4 Site 14 0.1 0.08 14 0.1 1.4 950

1 7 Site 17 0.1 0.04 3.1 0.1 0.31 190

2 0 Site 20 0.1 0.04 5.6 0.1 0.56 320

2 1 Site 21 0.1 0.07 5.8 0.1 0.58 280

2 6 Site 26 0.1 0.12 18 0.1 1.8 750

3 1 Site 31 0.1 0.15 9.5 0.1 0.95 510

3 6 Site 36 0.1 0.07 9.7 0.1 0.97 380

5 6 Site 56 0.1 0.04 6.4 0.1 0.64 190

5 7 Site 57 0.1 0.04 1.2 0.1 0.12 23

57 gc/qms Site 57 0.1 0.5 0.5 0.1 0.05 14

7a gc/qms Site 7A 0.1 0.8 5 0.1 0.5 600

7b rep 1 Site 7B 0.1 0.12 9.8 0.1 0.98 1,100

7b rep 2 Site 7B 0.1 0.12 23 0.1 2.3 1,000

7b rep 3 Site 7B 0.1 0.11 9.5 0.1 0.95 910

7b Site 7B 0.1 0.12 14.1 0.1 1.41 1003.333

10 rep 1 Site 10 0.1 0.15 28 0.1 2.8 1,500

10 rep 2 Site 10 0.1 0.15 34 0.1 3.4 1,800

10 rep 3 Site 10 0.1 0.14 29 0.1 2.9 1,600

10 Ave Site 10 0.1 0.15 30.33 0.1 3.03 1633.33
Appendix G. Newark Bay all chem/toxicity contd.

station no. Kutz 90 TEF TEQ 15 1,2,3,4,7,8, Kutz 90 TEF TEQ 16

(Site No.) 9-hcdf, pg/g

1 Site 1 0.01 0.82 5.3 0.01 0.05

3 Site 3 0.01 4.8 19 0.01 0.19

5 Site 5 0.01 9.4 26 0.01 0.26

7a Site 7A 0.01 8.3 21 0.01 0.21

7b Site 7B 0.01 10.03 26.333 0.01 0.26

7c Site 7C 0.01 16 41 0.01 0.41

8a Site 8A 0.01 15 36 0.01 0.36

8b Site 8B 0.01 8 24 0.01 0.24

1 0 Site 10 0.01 16.33 37 0.01 0.37

1 1 Site 11 0.01 16 37 0.01 0.37

1 2 Site 12 0.01 0.95 2.4 0.01 0.02

1 4 Site 14 0.01 9.5 24 0.01 0.24

1 7 Site 17 0.01 1.9 4.8 0.01 0.05

2 0 Site 20 0.01 3.2 8.7 0.01 0.09

2 1 Site 21 0.01 2.8 6.6 0.01 0.07

2 6 Site 26 0.01 7.5 21 0.01 0.21

3 1 Site 31 0.01 5.1 18 0.01 0.18

3 6 Site 36 0.01 3.8 12 0.01 0.12

5 6 Site 56 0.01 1.9 6.7 0.01 0.07

5 7 Site 57 0.01 0.23 1 0.01 0.01

57 gc/qms Site 57 0.01 0.14 2 0.01 0.02

7a gc/qms Site 7A 0.01 6 28 0.01 0.28

7b rep 1 Site 7B 0.01 11 26 0.01 0.26

7b rep 2 Site 7B 0.01 10 27 0.01 0.27

7b rep 3 Site 7B 0.01 9.1 26 0.01 0.26

7b Site 7B 0.01 10.03 26.333 0.01 0.26

10 rep 1 Site 10 0.01 15 34 0.01 0.34

10 rep 2 Site 10 0.01 18 42 0.01 0.42

10 rep 3 Site 10 0.01 16 35 0.01 0.35

10 Ave Site 10 0.01 16.33 37 0.01 0.37
Appendix G. Newark Bay all chem/toxicity contd.

station no. Octa chloro df, Kutz 90 TETEQ 17 Cum dioxin TEQPCB 81 PCB 77

(Site No.) pg/g pg/g pg/g pg/g

1 Site 1 210 0.001 0.21 119.47 59 2200

3 Site 3 770 0.001 0.77 341.02 94 5200

5 Site 5 1,300 0.001 1.3 550.89 130 6100

7a Site 7A 1,200 0.001 1.2 475.88 110 4900

7b Site 7B 1333 0.001 1.33 480.77 120 5300

7c Site 7C 2,000 0.001 2 760.55 140 9500

8a Site 8A 1,800 0.001 1.8 575.67 150 7000

8b Site 8B 1,200 0.001 1.2 386.55 120 4900

1 0 Site 10 2000 0.001 2 502.55 173.33 6233.3

1 1 Site 11 2,100 0.001 2.1 414.6 160 5400

1 2 Site 12 180 0.001 0.18 15.389 28 480

1 4 Site 14 1,500 0.001 1.5 135.57 90 3500

1 7 Site 17 310 0.001 0.31 45.773 27 910

2 0 Site 20 490 0.001 0.49 64.087 23 1100

2 1 Site 21 430 0.001 0.43 176.28 78 2700

2 6 Site 26 1,200 0.001 1.2 581.28 320 12000

3 1 Site 31 970 0.001 0.97 108.77 76 2500

3 6 Site 36 640 0.001 0.64 97.785 76 3000

5 6 Site 56 330 0.001 0.33 61.207 67 2600

5 7 Site 57 4 4 0.001 0.04 8.029 13 370

57 gc/qms Site 57 3 3 0.001 0.03 6.143 20 260

7a gc/qms Site 7A 1,580 0.001 1.58 572.37 87 5400

7b rep 1 Site 7B 1,400 0.001 1.4 533.72 130 5500

7b rep 2 Site 7B 1,300 0.001 1.3 454.39 120 5300

7b rep 3 Site 7B 1,300 0.001 1.3 454.21 110 5100

7b Site 7B 1333.333 0.001 1.33 480.773 120 5300

10 rep 1 Site 10 2,000 0.001 2 443.9 170 6200

10 rep 2 Site 10 2,100 0.001 2.1 502.6 180 6300

10 rep 3 Site 10 1,900 0.001 1.9 561.17 170 6200

10 Ave Site 10 2000 0.001 2 502.553 173.33 6233.3
Appendix G. Newark Bay all chem/toxicity contd.

station no. Barnes 91 TEF TEQ 19 PCB 126 Barnes 91 TEF TEQ 20

(Site No.) pg/g

1 Site 1 0.01 22 35 0.1 3.5

3 Site 3 0.01 52 110 0.1 11

5 Site 5 0.01 61 170 0.1 17

7a Site 7A 0.01 49 130 0.1 13

7b Site 7B 0.01 53 176.67 0.1 17.67

7c Site 7C 0.01 95 170 0.1 17

8a Site 8A 0.01 70 190 0.1 19

8b Site 8B 0.01 49 150 0.1 15

1 0 Site 10 0.01 62.33 170 0.1 17

1 1 Site 11 0.01 54 140 0.1 14

1 2 Site 12 0.01 4.8 23 0.1 2.3

1 4 Site 14 0.01 35 90 0.1 9

1 7 Site 17 0.01 9.1 23 0.1 2.3

2 0 Site 20 0.01 11 19 0.1 1.9

2 1 Site 21 0.01 27 56 0.1 5.6

2 6 Site 26 0.01 120 210 0.1 21

3 1 Site 31 0.01 25 74 0.1 7.4

3 6 Site 36 0.01 30 74 0.1 7.4

5 6 Site 56 0.01 26 57 0.1 5.7

5 7 Site 57 0.01 3.7 9 0.1 0.9

57 gc/qms Site 57 0.01 2.6 19 0.1 1.9

7a gc/qms Site 7A 0.01 54 120 0.1 12

7b rep 1 Site 7B 0.01 55 240 0.1 24

7b rep 2 Site 7B 0.01 53 150 0.1 15

7b rep 3 Site 7B 0.01 51 140 0.1 14

7b Site 7B 0.01 53 176.667 0.1 17.67

10 rep 1 Site 10 0.01 62 180 0.1 18

10 rep 2 Site 10 0.01 63 180 0.1 18

10 rep 3 Site 10 0.01 62 150 0.1 15

10 Ave Site 10 0.01 62.33 170 0.1 17
Appendix G. Newark Bay all chem/toxicity contd.

station no. PCB 169 Barnes 91 TEF TEQ 21 Cum PCB TEQ Total Cum TEQ

(Site No.) pg/g

1 Site 1 5 0.05 0.25 25.75 145.22

3 Site 3 2 8 0.05 1.4 64.4 405.42

5 Site 5 1 1 0.05 0.55 78.55 629.44

7a Site 7A 2 2 0.05 1.1 63.1 538.98

7b Site 7B 19.667 0.05 0.98 71.65 552.42

7c Site 7C 2 8 0.05 1.4 113.4 873.95

8a Site 8A 3 2 0.05 1.6 90.6 666.27

8b Site 8B 1 8 0.05 0.9 64.9 451.45

1 0 Site 10 9.67 0.05 0.48 79.82 582.37

1 1 Site 11 5 0.05 0.25 68.25 482.85

1 2 Site 12 7 0.05 0.35 7.45 22.84

1 4 Site 14 5 0.05 0.25 44.25 179.82

1 7 Site 17 5 0.05 0.25 11.65 57.42

2 0 Site 20 5 0.05 0.25 13.15 77.24

2 1 Site 21 4 0 0.05 2 34.6 210.88

2 6 Site 26 1 4 0.05 0.7 141.7 722.98

3 1 Site 31 5 0.05 0.25 32.65 141.42

3 6 Site 36 5 0.05 0.25 37.65 135.44

5 6 Site 56 5 0.05 0.25 31.95 93.16

5 7 Site 57 5 0.05 0.25 4.85 12.88

57 gc/qms Site 57 1 0 0.05 0.5 5 11.14

7a gc/qms Site 7A 1 6 0.05 0.8 66.8 639.17

7b rep 1 Site 7B 3 1 0.05 1.55 80.55 614.27

7b rep 2 Site 7B 1 3 0.05 0.65 68.65 523.04

7b rep 3 Site 7B 1 5 0.05 0.75 65.75 519.96

7b Site 7B 19.667 0.05 0.98 71.65 552.42

10 rep 1 Site 10 1 1 0.05 0.55 80.55 524.45

10 rep 2 Site 10 9 0.05 0.45 81.45 584.05

10 rep 3 Site 10 9 0.05 0.45 77.45 638.62

10 Ave Site 10 9.67 0.05 0.48 79.82 582.37
Appendix G. Newark Bay all chem/toxicity contd.

NFCRC No. Field station ID Hexachloro- Pentachloro- Alpha-BHC, Lindane,

benzene, ng/g anisole, ng/g ng/g ng/g

9561 STATION #1 0.9 0.4 1.3 0.1

9562 STATION #3 3 0.7 1 0.7

9563 STATION #5 5.6 0.8 2.4 0.1

9593 STATION #7A 6.6 0.7 0.8 0.1

9594 STATION #7B 5.3 0.8 1.2 0.1

9595 STATION #7C 6.3 0.6 0.7 0.1

9596 STATION #8A 7.6 0.7 0.9 0.1

9597 STATION #8B 3.9 0.8 0.9 0.1

 9564* STATION #10 7 0.7 1.7 0.1

9565 STATION #11 10.1 0.6 2 0.1

9566 STATION #12 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1

9567 STATION #14 2.6 0.4 1.5 0.1

9598 STATION #17 1.6 0.3 0.6 0.1

9568 STATION #20 2 0.1 0.5 0.1

9569 STATION #21 2 0.4 0.4 0.9

9570 STATION #26 5.2 0.3 0.7 0.9

9526 STATION #31 5.6 0.5 1.5 0.9

9529 STATION #36 4 0.4 0.9 0.1

9528 STATION #56 1 0.4 0.6 0.6

9527 STATION #57 0.1 0.1 0.5 0.1

*Values are average of GC Replicate injections.

MDL = 0.11 ng/g; MQL = 0.26 ng/g.

DUP = Duplicate sample
Appendix G. Newark Bay all chem/toxicity contd.

NFCRC No. Field station ID Beta-BHC, Heptachlor, Delta-BHC, Dacthal, Oxychlordane,

ng/g ng/g ng/g ng/g ng/g

9561 STATION #1 0.1 0.1 1.2 2.3 0.3

9562 STATION #3 0.4 0.1 1 2 0.4

9563 STATION #5 0.5 0.1 3 2.3 0.8

9593 STATION #7A 0.1 0.1 3.8 2.4 0.6

9594 STATION #7B 0.1 0.1 3.5 1.6 0.5

9595 STATION #7C 0.1 0.1 3.1 2 0.5

9596 STATION #8A 0.7 0.1 3.2 1.5 0.5

9597 STATION #8B 0.3 0.5 3.5 2.1 1.3

 9564* STATION #10 0.1 0.1 3.2 2.1 0.3

9565 STATION #11 0.1 0.1 3.8 3.3 0.5

9566 STATION #12 0.1 0.1 0.1 1.2 0.1

9567 STATION #14 0.1 0.1 1.5 2.5 0.4

9598 STATION #17 0.8 1.3 0.6 2.7 0.1

9568 STATION #20 0.9 0.1 0.9 2.7 0.4

9569 STATION #21 0.3 0.1 1.6 2.8 0.6

9570 STATION #26 0.1 0.1 1.6 4.4 0.3

9526 STATION #31 0.1 0.1 2.7 1.4 0.1

9529 STATION #36 0.1 0.1 1.7 1.6 0.1

9528 STATION #56 0.7 0.1 1.9 1.8 0.1

9527 STATION #57 0.5 0.1 1.6 1.4 0.1

*Values are average of GC Replicate injections.

MDL = 0.11 ng/g; MQL = 0.26 ng/g.

DUP = Duplicate sample
Appendix G. Newark Bay all chem/toxicity contd.

NFCRC No. Field station ID Heptachlor epoxide, trans-chlordane, trans-nonachlor,

ng/g ng/g ng/g

9561 STATION #1 2.8 11.5 7.2

9562 STATION #3 8.5 31.7 15.8

9563 STATION #5 1 3 42.5 30.5

9593 STATION #7A 9.9 36.3 19.2

9594 STATION #7B 10.9 40.4 17.7

9595 STATION #7C 10.6 42.1 18.2

9596 STATION #8A 10.6 42.7 17.1

9597 STATION #8B 12.9 41.8 28.3

 9564* STATION #10 7 25.1 17.9

9565 STATION #11 8 26.5 16.9

9566 STATION #12 0.4 1.1 0.6

9567 STATION #14 2.9 7.7 5.6

9598 STATION #17 1.1 2.2 1.2

9568 STATION #20 0.9 2.4 1.7

9569 STATION #21 1 3.6 2.9

9570 STATION #26 4.7 13.8 12.4

9526 STATION #31 1.7 5.7 4.8

9529 STATION #36 1.7 6.3 4.1

9528 STATION #56 1.7 5.8 4

9527 STATION #57 0.4 0.6 0.9

*Values are average of GC Replicate injections.

MDL = 0.11 ng/g; MQL = 0.26 ng/g.

DUP = Duplicate sample
Appendix G. Newark Bay all chem/toxicity contd.

NFCRC No. Field station ID cis-chlordane, o,p'-DDE, Dieldrin, p,p'-DDE, o,p'-DDD,

ng/g ng/g ng/g ng/g ng/g

9561 STATION #1 12.3 1.9 4.9 13.8 8.8

9562 STATION #3 34.3 4 12.9 51.6 37.4

9563 STATION #5 59.7 16.7 21.2 60.7 40.4

9593 STATION #7A 42.3 5.9 12.7 49 31.2

9594 STATION #7B 48.7 6.4 13.3 53 27.2

9595 STATION #7C 53.2 16 15.6 57.7 35.5

9596 STATION #8A 49.2 7.1 13.9 55.6 31.3

9597 STATION #8B 56.6 8.7 19.1 50 31.1

 9564* STATION #10 28.8 11.2 10 71.8 26

9565 STATION #11 2 9 9.2 12.4 53.3 25.2

9566 STATION #12 1.4 0.8 0.9 3.9 0.8

9567 STATION #14 1 0 3.8 5.4 22.7 8.5

9598 STATION #17 2.6 1.5 1.7 9.5 2.2

9568 STATION #20 3.1 6.7 1.8 19.4 4.2

9569 STATION #21 3 8.4 5.5 24.4 4.4

9570 STATION #26 12.2 14.3 15.2 72.1 11.9

9526 STATION #31 7.2 8.3 3 37.1 14

9529 STATION #36 8.9 7 6.2 31.5 13.6

9528 STATION #56 6.3 8.6 3.6 37.1 16.7

9527 STATION #57 1 0.3 1 3.3 1.1

*Values are average of GC Replicate injections.

MDL = 0.11 ng/g; MQL = 0.26 ng/g.

DUP = Duplicate sample
Appendix G. Newark Bay all chem/toxicity contd.

NFCRC No. Field station ID Endrin, cis-nonachlor, o,p'-DDT, p,p'-DDD, p,p'-DDT,

ng/g ng/g ng/g ng/g ng/g

9561 STATION #1 3.3 2.7 1.4 25.8 8.2

9562 STATION #3 0.7 9.4 1.3 72.6 50.6

9563 STATION #5 1 9.4 8.6 74.4 38.9

9593 STATION #7A 0.8 10.2 7.1 63.3 38.6

9594 STATION #7B 1 10.8 14.1 61.8 125

9595 STATION #7C 1.2 1 2 2.7 72.6 25.2

9596 STATION #8A 1.3 1 1 4.9 67.2 64.1

9597 STATION #8B 0.9 1 1 4 60.5 27.7

 9564* STATION #10 1.2 6.8 2.8 51.5 29.4

9565 STATION #11 0.7 6.7 5.3 53.7 63.5

9566 STATION #12 0.1 0.4 0.3 2.8 0.9

9567 STATION #14 0.5 2.5 1 20.2 99.8

9598 STATION #17 0.1 0.7 1.7 8.2 2.6

9568 STATION #20 0.1 0.9 4.2 18.2 4.4

9569 STATION #21 0.3 0.7 7.5 16.1 4.7

9570 STATION #26 0.4 3.1 9.3 26.9 7.7

9526 STATION #31 0.4 2.3 7.6 30.9 54.2

9529 STATION #36 0.8 1.9 2.4 30.3 107.1

9528 STATION #56 0.6 1.7 0.8 36.9 23.9

9527 STATION #57 0.4 0.6 2.5 3.1 1.2

*Values are average of GC Replicate injections.

MDL = 0.11 ng/g; MQL = 0.26 ng/g.

DUP = Duplicate sample
Appendix G. Newark Bay all chem/toxicity contd.

NFCRC No. Field station ID mirex, total PCBs, total DDTs, Total cPCB, Total mPCB, 

ng/g ng/g ng/g ng/g ng/g

9561 STATION #1 8.4 320 59.8 208.91 23.39

9562 STATION #3 25.2 2850.2 217.5 2046.09 69.84

9563 STATION #5 23.1 1799.6 239.8 967.94 67.93

9593 STATION #7A 14.3 1206.3 195.1 622.49 52.14

9594 STATION #7B 12.8 1362.7 287.4 1038.48 85.31

9595 STATION #7C 1 4 1454.3 209.6 863.19 60.01

9596 STATION #8A 13.5 1609 230.2 891.56 68.16

9597 STATION #8B 19.6 1340.7 182 808.12 61.38

 9564* STATION #10 11.5 1324.3 192.6 1129.52 72.5

9565 STATION #11 11.4 1087.4 210.2 567.34 46.55

9566 STATION #12 0.7 109.7 9.5 43.68 5.77

9567 STATION #14 3.9 671 155.9 286.53 38.98

9598 STATION #17 2.4 206.7 25.8 76.46 10.12

9568 STATION #20 3.4 400 57.2 152.1 2.53

9569 STATION #21 3 539.4 65.3 238.24 19.29

9570 STATION #26 3.3 2318 142.2 1289.81 15.78

9526 STATION #31 3.2 564.9 152.2 243.53 23.35

9529 STATION #36 3.6 576.5 191.9 278.7 23.27

9528 STATION #56 3.2 484.9 124 181.79 16.97

9527 STATION #57 1.6 105.5 11.4 15.76 3

7b 942.78 77.22

7b 963.64 76.77

7b 1209.01 101.93

7b ave. 1038.48 85.31

10 1100.97 70.98

10 1219.92 75.96

10 1067.67 70.57

10 ave. 1129.52 72.5

*Values are average of GC Replicate injections.

MDL = 0.11 ng/g; MQL = 0.26 ng/g.

DUP = Duplicate sample
Appendix G. Newark Bay all chem/toxicity contd.

NFCRC No. Field station ID Total PCBs, % TOC %TOC/100 Dieldrin, Endrin, 

ng/g ng/goc ng/goc

9561 STATION #1 232.3 2 0.02 245 165

9562 STATION #3 2115.93 5 0.05 258 14

9563 STATION #5 1035.87 6.1 0.061 347.54 16.39

9593 STATION #7A 674.63 5.8 0.058 218.97 13.79

9594 STATION #7B 1123.79 2.4 0.024 554.17 41.67

9595 STATION #7C 923.2 2.3 0.023 678.26 52.17

9596 STATION #8A 959.71 2.4 0.024 579.17 54.17

9597 STATION #8B 869.51 2.4 0.024 795.83 37.5

 9564* STATION #10 1202.02 4.2 0.042 238.1 28.57

9565 STATION #11 613.89 5.1 0.051 243.14 13.73

9566 STATION #12 49.45 1.7 0.017 52.94 5.88

9567 STATION #14 325.51 4.3 0.043 125.58 11.63

9598 STATION #17 86.59 2.4 0.024 70.83 4.17

9568 STATION #20 154.63 1.7 0.017 105.88 5.88

9569 STATION #21 257.52 1.5 0.015 366.67 20

9570 STATION #26 1305.58 2.2 0.022 690.91 18.18

9526 STATION #31 266.89 2.1 0.021 142.86 19.05

9529 STATION #36 301.97 2.4 0.024 258.33 33.33

9528 STATION #56 198.76 2.5 0.025 144 24

9527 STATION #57 18.76 0.47 0.0047 212.77 85.11

7b 1020

7b 1040.41

7b 1310.95

7b ave. 1123.79

10 1171.95

10 1295.88

10 1138.24

10 ave. 1202.02

*Values are average of GC Replicate injections.

MDL = 0.11 ng/g; MQL = 0.26 ng/g.

DUP = Duplicate sample
Appendix G. Newark Bay all chem/toxicity contd.

NFCRC No. Field station ID Dieldrin, Endrin, p,p-DDE, p,p-DDE, tDDTs, ng/goc

ug/goc ug/goc ng/goc ug/goc

9561 Station 1, 3/93 0.245 0.165 690 0.69 2990

9562 Station 3, 3/93 0.258 0.014 1032 1.03 4350

9563 Station 5, 3/93 0.348 0.016 995.08 1 3931.15

9593 Sta. 7A, 3/93, h 0.219 0.014 844.83 0.84 3363.79

9594 Station 7B, 3/93 0.554 0.042 2208.33 2.21 11975

9595 Station 7C, 3/93 0.678 0.052 2508.7 2.51 9113.04

9596 Station 8A, 3/93 0.579 0.054 2316.67 2.32 9591.67

9597 Station 8B, 3/93 0.796 0.038 2083.33 2.08 7583.33

 9564* Station 10, 3/93 0.238 0.029 1709.52 1.71 4585.71

9565 Station 11, 3/93 0.243 0.014 1045.1 1.05 4121.57

9566 Station 12, 3/93 0.053 0.006 229.41 0.23 558.82

9567 Station 14, 3/93 0.126 0.012 527.91 0.53 3625.58

9598 Station 17, 3/93 0.071 0.004 395.83 0.4 1075

9568 Station 20, 3/93 0.106 0.006 1141.18 1.14 3364.71

9569 Station 21, 3/93 0.367 0.02 1626.67 1.63 4353.33

9570 Station 26, 3/93 0.691 0.018 3277.27 3.28 6463.64

9526 Sta. 31, 1/93, H 0.143 0.019 1766.67 1.77 7247.62

9529 Sta. 36, 1/93 0.258 0.033 1312.5 1.31 7995.83

9528 Sta. 56, 1/93, H 0.144 0.024 1484 1.48 4960

9527 Sta. 57, 1/93 0.213 0.085 702.13 0.7 2425.53
Appendix G. Newark Bay all chem/toxicity contd.

Lab no. Station No. tDDTs, tPCB, ng/goc tPCB, ug/goc TOC(%) total AVS,

ug/goc umol/g

9581 STATION #1 2.99 11615 11.62 2 0.98

9582 STATION #3 4.35 42319 42.32 5 13.9

9583 STATION #5 3.93 16981 16.98 6.1 29.6

9605 STATION #7A 3.36 11632 11.63 5.8 20.8

9607 STATION #7B 11.98 46825 46.82 2.4 33

9608 STATION #7C 9.11 40139 40.14 2.3 54.9

9609 STATION #8A 9.59 39988 39.99 2.4 62.9

9610 STATION #8B 7.58 36230 36.23 2.4 9.6

9584 STATION #10 4.59 28620 28.62 4.2 20.4

9585 STATION #11 4.12 12037 12.04 5.1 20.1

9586 STATION #12 0.56 2908.8 2.91 1.7 7.7

9587 STATION #14 3.63 7570 7.57 4.3 35

9611 STATION #17 1.08 3607.9 3.61 2.4 6.6

9588 STATION #20 3.36 9095.9 9.1 1.7 11.1

9589 STATION #21 4.35 17168 17.17 1.5 9

9590 STATION #26 6.46 59345 59.34 2.2 32.2

9535 STATION #31 7.25 12709 12.71 2.1 4.1

9539 STATION #36 8 12582 12.58 2.4 14.6

9538 STATION #56 4.96 7950.4 7.95 2.5 4

9536 STATION #57 2.43 3991.5 3.99 0.47 5.2

9606 STATION #7A 2.5 13.6

9534 STATION #31 2.8 6.7

9537 STATION #56 3.2 6.5

9163 STATION #57 2.2 32.6
Appendix G. Newark Bay all chem/toxicity contd.

Lab no. Station No. SE Ag, ug/g dw SE As, ug/g dw SE Al, ug/g dw

9581 Station 1, 3/93 0.113 0.61 577

9582 Station 3, 3/93 0.153 0.79 1509

9583 Station 5, 3/93 0.384 1.14 2528

9605 Sta. 7A, 3/93, homogenized 0.335 2.01 2613

9607 Station 7B, 3/93 0.42 1.56 2571

9608 Station 7C, 3/93 0.643 1.35 3226

9609 Station 8A, 3/93 0.678 1.16 3218

9610 Station 8B, 3/93 0.437 1.75 2399

9584 Station 10, 3/93 0.752 2.13 2933

9585 Station 11, 3/93 0.686 2.44 2869

9586 Station 12, 3/93 0.097 0.99 1168

9587 Station 14, 3/93 0.501 1.16 2028

9611 Station 17, 3/93 0.099 1.36 757

9588 Station 20, 3/93 0.218 1 1052

9589 Station 21, 3/93 0.113 1.44 882

9590 Station 26, 3/93 0.378 1.89 1787

9535 Sta. 31, 1/93, Homogenized 0.368 2.34 1295

9539 Sta. 36, 1/93 0.356 2.38 1743

9538 Sta. 56, 1/93, Homogenized 0.761 4.05 1921

9536 Sta. 57, 1/93 0.204 1.59 465

9606 STATION #7A 0.284 1.64 2009

9534 STATION #31 0.372 3.09 1757

9537 STATION #56 0.736 4.51 1976

9163 STATION #57 0.431 1.45 1573
Appendix G. Newark Bay all chem/toxicity contd.

Lab no. Station No. SE Cd, ug/g dw SE Cr, ug/g dw SE Cu, ug/g dw SE Fe, ug/g dw

9581 Station 1, 3/93 1.02 11 17.3 2720

9582 Station 3, 3/93 2.54 44.6 28.1 5870

9583 Station 5, 3/93 3.76 64.6 38.5 9810

9605 Sta. 7A, 3/93, homogenized 3.97 63.5 54.8 10300

9607 Station 7B, 3/93 3.62 61.4 42.2 9530

9608 Station 7C, 3/93 4.49 77.3 27.1 10900

9609 Station 8A, 3/93 4.86 81.7 23 11500

9610 Station 8B, 3/93 3.75 53.3 75.8 9550

9584 Station 10, 3/93 3.6 115 53.3 8510

9585 Station 11, 3/93 3.16 87.9 77.4 11100

9586 Station 12, 3/93 0.383 13.6 10.8 5970

9587 Station 14, 3/93 2.02 79 15.1 8280

9611 Station 17, 3/93 0.55 52.4 14 2950

9588 Station 20, 3/93 0.839 41.2 16.8 3660

9589 Station 21, 3/93 0.98 70.2 17.4 2590

9590 Station 26, 3/93 3.19 173 13.9 5220

9535 Sta. 31, 1/93, Homogenized 0.965 39.9 42.3 4230

9539 Sta. 36, 1/93 1.06 40.7 47.8 6610

9538 Sta. 56, 1/93, Homogenized 0.978 33.3 68.4 7260

9536 Sta. 57, 1/93 0.245 7.62 11.7 3060

9606 STATION #7A 2.92 45.7 53.8 9100

9534 STATION #31 1.24 53.1 61.2 6280

9537 STATION #56 1.25 40.3 80.8 7920

9163 STATION #57 0.934 29.1 35.5 6840
Appendix G. Newark Bay all chem/toxicity contd.

lab. no. station no. SE Hg, ug/g dw SE Hg (1/2 mdl) SE Ni, SE Pb, 

ug/g dw ug/g dw

9581 Station 1, 3/93 <0.125 0.0625 3.87 81.8

9582 Station 3, 3/93 <0.125 0.0625 7.88 196

9583 Station 5, 3/93 <0.125 0.0625 11.2 250

9605 Sta. 7A, 3/93, homogenized<0.125 0.0625 12.1 245

9607 Station 7B, 3/93 <0.125 0.0625 11.7 231

9608 Station 7C, 3/93 <0.125 0.0625 12.2 248

9609 Station 8A, 3/93 <0.125 0.0625 12.9 261

9610 Station 8B, 3/93 <0.125 0.0625 11.8 258

9584 Station 10, 3/93 <0.125 0.0625 11.4 201

9585 Station 11, 3/93 <0.125 0.0625 12.3 200

9586 Station 12, 3/93 <0.125 0.0625 3.62 34.3

9587 Station 14, 3/93 <0.125 0.0625 8.55 81.2

9611 Station 17, 3/93 <0.125 0.0625 3.06 33.4

9588 Station 20, 3/93 <0.125 0.0625 4.26 59.5

9589 Station 21, 3/93 <0.125 0.0625 2.99 57.8

9590 Station 26, 3/93 <0.125 0.0625 6.49 140

9535 Sta. 31, 1/93, Homogenized<0.125 0.0625 6.15 78.2

9539 Sta. 36, 1/93 <0.125 0.0625 7.06 94.1

9538 Sta. 56, 1/93, Homogenized<0.125 0.0625 10.1 131

9536 Sta. 57, 1/93 <0.125 0.0625 2.8 29.4

9606 Sta. 7A, 3/93, direct <0.125 0.0625 10.2 244

9534 Sta. 31, 1/93, Direct <0.125 0.0625 7.71 108

9537 Sta. 56, 1/93, Direct <0.125 0.0625 9.41 136

9163 Sta. 57, 10/27/92 <0.125 0.0625 18.6 91.7
Appendix G. Newark Bay all chem/toxicity contd.

lab. no. station no. SE Sb, SE Sb SE Sn, SE Se, SE Se 

ug/g dw (1/2mdl) ug/g dw ug/g dw (1/2 mdl)

9581 Station 1, 3/93 <2.0 1 9.55 <0.381 0.19

9582 Station 3, 3/93 <2.0 1 19.4 <0.381 0.19

9583 Station 5, 3/93 2.88 2.88 25.7 <0.381 0.19

9605 Sta. 7A, 3/93, homogenized 2.1 2.1 26.1 <0.381 0.19

9607 Station 7B, 3/93 2.01 2.01 25.6 <0.381 0.19

9608 Station 7C, 3/93 2.06 2.06 27.8 <0.381 0.19

9609 Station 8A, 3/93 2.16 2.16 33.4 <0.381 0.19

9610 Station 8B, 3/93 2.23 2.23 28.9 <0.381 0.19

9584 Station 10, 3/93 <2.0 1 24.8 <0.381 0.19

9585 Station 11, 3/93 3.28 3.28 23.7 <0.381 0.19

9586 Station 12, 3/93 <2.0 1 2.46 <0.381 0.19

9587 Station 14, 3/93 <2.0 1 8.93 <0.381 0.19

9611 Station 17, 3/93 <2.0 1 3.68 <0.381 0.19

9588 Station 20, 3/93 <2.0 1 8.34 <0.381 0.19

9589 Station 21, 3/93 <2.0 1 9.41 <0.381 0.19

9590 Station 26, 3/93 <2.0 1 9.81 <0.381 0.19

9535 Sta. 31, 1/93, Homogenized <2.0 1 19.6 <0.381 0.19

9539 Sta. 36, 1/93 <2.0 1 11 <0.381 0.19

9538 Sta. 56, 1/93, Homogenized <2.0 1 10.8 <0.381 0.19

9536 Sta. 57, 1/93 <2.0 1 2.48 <0.381 0.19

9606 Sta. 7A, 3/93, direct <2.0 1 23.5 <0.381 0.19

9534 Sta. 31, 1/93, Direct 2.26 2.26 11.9 <0.381 0.19

9537 Sta. 56, 1/93, Direct 2.05 2.05 13.5 <0.381 0.19

9163 Sta. 57, 10/27/92 2.41 2.41 7.76 <0.381 0.19
Appendix G. Newark Bay all chem/toxicity contd.

lab. no. station no. SE Zn, SEM/AVS ratio Cd as % SEM Cu as % SEM

ug/g dw

9581 Station 1, 3/93 134 2.85 108 57

9582 Station 3, 3/93 341 0.49 76 22

9583 Station 5, 3/93 444 0.3 7 8 1 7

9605 Sta. 7A, 3/93, homogenized 446 0.44 86 31

9607 Station 7B, 3/93 435 0.26 76 23

9608 Station 7C, 3/93 495 0.17 84 12

9609 Station 8A, 3/93 526 0.16 85 10

9610 Station 8B, 3/93 465 1.02 82 41

9584 Station 10, 3/93 353 0.36 78 26

9585 Station 11, 3/93 339 0.38 80 41

9586 Station 12, 3/93 5 6 0.16 80 35

9587 Station 14, 3/93 185 0.1 7 7 1 3

9611 Station 17, 3/93 74.3 0.24 87 45

9588 Station 20, 3/93 91.4 0.18 92 28

9589 Station 21, 3/93 99.8 0.069 70 21

9590 Station 26, 3/93 212 0.133 75 10

9535 Sta. 31, 1/93, Homogenized 115 0.71 80 51

9539 Sta. 36, 1/93 127 0.22 73 42

9538 Sta. 56, 1/93, Homogenized 149 1.04 19 59

9536 Sta. 57, 1/93 199 0.66 132 80

9606 Sta. 7A, 3/93, direct 401 0.61 89 38

9534 Sta. 31, 1/93, Direct 144 0.57 ---b ---

9537 Sta. 56, 1/93, Direct 163 0.71 --- ---

9163 Sta. 57, 10/27/92 122 0.098 76 39
Appendix G. Newark Bay all chem/toxicity contd.

lab. no. station no. Pb as % SEM Ni as % SEM Zn as % SEM total Ag, 

ug/g

9581 Station 1, 3/93 8 2 2 2 100 1.54

9582 Station 3, 3/93 8 0 2 2 8 3 1.99

9583 Station 5, 3/93 7 3 2 4 7 9 4.16

9605 Sta. 7A, 3/93, homogenized 8 5 2 5 9 9 4.98

9607 Station 7B, 3/93 8 1 2 4 8 1 4.39

9608 Station 7C, 3/93 8 0 2 6 8 3 5.5

9609 Station 8A, 3/93 8 4 2 6 8 2 5.74

9610 Station 8B, 3/93 7 3 2 7 8 3 5.64

9584 Station 10, 3/93 7 8 2 1 7 5 5.02

9585 Station 11, 3/93 8 3 2 4 7 9 3.11

9586 Station 12, 3/93 5 4 1 3 5 8 <0.73

9587 Station 14, 3/93 6 5 2 3 6 5 3.19

9611 Station 17, 3/93 8 1 1 1 7 4 <0.73

9588 Station 20, 3/93 6 8 1 9 1 3 1.39

9589 Station 21, 3/93 6 9 1 4 6 2 1.19

9590 Station 26, 3/93 8 8 2 4 6 9 3.43

9535 Sta. 31, 1/93, Homogenized 8 2 1 4 6 6 2.22

9539 Sta. 36, 1/93 7 6 1 4 5 9 2.89

9538 Sta. 56, 1/93, Homogenized 9 7 1 4 6 5 3.24

9536 Sta. 57, 1/93 9 3 7 356 0.843

9606 Sta. 7A, 3/93, direct 9 1 2 7 8 5 4.32

9534 Sta. 31, 1/93, Direct --- --- --- ---b

9537 Sta. 56, 1/93, Direct --- --- --- ---

9163 Sta. 57, 10/27/92 88 10 65 3.26
Appendix G. Newark Bay all chem/toxicity contd.

lab. no. station no. total As, ug/g total Al, ug/g total Cd, ug/g total Cr, ug/g

9581 Station 1, 3/93 1.94 32400 0.941 29.8

9582 Station 3, 3/93 4.68 39800 3.35 75.5

9583 Station 5, 3/93 9.17 54800 4.81 137

9605 Sta. 7A, 3/93, homogenized 10.2 54300 4.6 134

9607 Station 7B, 3/93 9.97 61900 4.73 137

9608 Station 7C, 3/93 11.4 61400 5.31 188

9609 Station 8A, 3/93 11.8 56000 5.69 174

9610 Station 8B, 3/93 8.03 50000 4.56 134

9584 Station 10, 3/93 15.1 64100 4.64 217

9585 Station 11, 3/93 15.8 62700 3.96 184

9586 Station 12, 3/93 8.19 45800 0.476 59

9587 Station 14, 3/93 14.2 62600 2.61 213

9611 Station 17, 3/93 7.06 38800 0.633 111

9588 Station 20, 3/93 8.02 51500 0.91 96.3

9589 Station 21, 3/93 12.8 39300 1.39 135

9590 Station 26, 3/93 16.7 47700 4.23 277

9535 Sta. 31, 1/93, Homogenized 9.83 55600 1.2 106

9539 Sta. 36, 1/93 13.4 65200 1.46 122

9538 Sta. 56, 1/93, Homogenized 13.6 64100 1.29 104

9536 Sta. 57, 1/93 6.64 32100 0.186 35.7

9606 Sta. 7A, 3/93, direct 7.71 46100 3.29 102

9534 Sta. 31, 1/93, Direct 14.1 --- --- ---

9537 Sta. 56, 1/93, Direct 15.4 --- --- ---

9163 Sta. 57, 10/27/92 12.4 53500 1.23 110
Appendix G. Newark Bay all chem/toxicity contd.

lab. no. station no. total Cu, ug/g total Fe, ug/g total Hg, ug/g total Pb, 

ug/g

9581 Station 1, 3/93 14700 0.359 100

9582 Station 3, 3/93 125 25100 3.16 246

9583 Station 5, 3/93 224 35000 2.4 344

9605 Sta. 7A, 3/93, homogenized 178 38800 2.28 289

9607 Station 7B, 3/93 184 38100 2.46 284

9608 Station 7C, 3/93 217 39500 2.91 310

9609 Station 8A, 3/93 232 41300 3.26 310

9610 Station 8B, 3/93 185 35600 2.09 353

9584 Station 10, 3/93 206 40900 3.58 259

9585 Station 11, 3/93 191 44400 3.18 241

9586 Station 12, 3/93 30.8 30400 0.665 63.5

9587 Station 14, 3/93 114 42700 4.29 125

9611 Station 17, 3/93 3 1 27300 1.07 41

9588 Station 20, 3/93 58.8 27500 1.92 87.2

9589 Station 21, 3/93 82.5 21900 1.9 84.2

9590 Station 26, 3/93 141 28500 3.89 159

9535 Sta. 31, 1/93, Homogenized 82.4 29300 1.51 95.9

9539 Sta. 36, 1/93 113 37200 1.89 124

9538 Sta. 56, 1/93, Homogenized 116 38600 1.46 135

9536 Sta. 57, 1/93 14.7 13800 0.14 31.7

9606 Sta. 7A, 3/93, direct 143 34700 2.23 268

9534 Sta. 31, 1/93, Direct --- --- 2.34 ---

9537 Sta. 56, 1/93, Direct --- --- 1.79 ---

9163 Sta. 57, 10/27/92 91.8 27600 1.18 104
Appendix G. Newark Bay all chem/toxicity contd.

lab. no. station no. total Sb, total Sb total Sn, total Se, total Zn, 

ug/g (1/2 mdl) ug/g ug/g ug/g

9581 Station 1, 3/93 <5.24 2.62 14 0.289 133

9582 Station 3, 3/93 <5.24 2.62 42.6 0.661 411

9583 Station 5, 3/93 <5.24 2.62 82.9 0.984 560

9605 Sta. 7A, 3/93, homogenized <5.24 2.62 64.5 1.11 450

9607 Station 7B, 3/93 <5.24 2.62 63.2 1.27 539

9608 Station 7C, 3/93 <5.24 2.62 68.6 1.21 593

9609 Station 8A, 3/93 <5.24 2.62 80.3 1.34 639

9610 Station 8B, 3/93 <5.24 2.62 68.5 0.976 562

9584 Station 10, 3/93 <5.24 2.62 71.1 1.07 471

9585 Station 11, 3/93 <5.24 2.62 52.1 1.18 429

9586 Station 12, 3/93 <5.24 2.62 9.6 0.328 97

9587 Station 14, 3/93 <5.24 2.62 28.9 1.01 284

9611 Station 17, 3/93 <5.24 2.62 15.5 0.306 101

9588 Station 20, 3/93 <5.24 2.62 20 0.421 720

9589 Station 21, 3/93 <5.24 2.62 25 1.08 160

9590 Station 26, 3/93 8.17 8.17 25.9 0.936 308

9535 Sta. 31, 1/93, Homogenized <5.24 2.62 21.8 0.552 173

9539 Sta. 36, 1/93 <5.24 2.62 25.6 0.713 214

9538 Sta. 56, 1/93, Homogenized <5.24 2.62 22.5 0.684 228

9536 Sta. 57, 1/93 <5.24 2.62 4.9 0.104 55.9

9606 Sta. 7A, 3/93, direct <5.24 2.62 51.8 0.972 471

9534 Sta. 31, 1/93, Direct --- --- 0.801 ---

9537 Sta. 56, 1/93, Direct --- --- 0.952 ---

9163 Sta. 57, 10/27/92 <5.24 2.62 19.4 0.62 188
Appendix G. Newark Bay all chem/toxicity contd.

lab no. station no. Cd SEM/AVS Cu SEM/AVS Pb SEM/AVS Ni SEM/AVS Zn SEM/AVS

9581 Station 1, 3/93 0.00925993 0.27782596 0.40286398 0.0672625 2.0917041

9582 Station 3, 3/93 0.00162575 0.03181591 0.06805695 0.0096561 0.3752849

9583 Station 5, 3/93 0.00113013 0.02047019 0.04076425 0.0064449 0.2294631

9605 Sta. 7A, 3/93, ho 0.00169809 0.04146389 0.05685046 0.0099086 0.3280145

9607 Station 7B, 3/93 0.00097595 0.02012571 0.03378541 0.0060389 0.2016494

9608 Station 7C, 3/93 0.00072763 0.00776872 0.02180271 0.0037851 0.1379286

9609 Station 8A, 3/93 0.00068742 0.0057548 0.02002724 0.0034932 0.1279254

9610 Station 8B, 3/93 0.00347531 0.12426555 0.12971186 0.0209362 0.7409745

9584 Station 10, 3/93 0.00157002 0.04111969 0.0475551 0.0095184 0.2647074

9585 Station 11, 3/93 0.0013987 0.0606035 0.04802475 0.0104231 0.2580032

9586 Station 12, 3/93 0.00044253 0.02207424 0.02149981 0.0080077 0.1112548

9587 Station 14, 3/93 0.00051347 0.00678987 0.01119745 0.0041609 0.0808584

9611 Station 17, 3/93 0.0007414 0.03338389 0.02442495 0.0078971 0.1722132

9588 Station 20, 3/93 0.00067247 0.02381985 0.02587171 0.0065369 0.1259635

9589 Station 21, 3/93 0.00096876 0.03042703 0.03099678 0.0056587 0.0006476

9590 Station 26, 3/93 0.00088139 0.00679378 0.02098473 0.003433 0.1007167

9535 Sta. 31, 1/93, Ho 0.002094 0.16237131 0.09205643 0.0255493 0.4290773

9539 Sta. 36, 1/93 0.00064593 0.05152617 0.03110771 0.0082364 0.1330676

9538 Sta. 56, 1/93, Ho 0.00217527 0.26912181 0.15806747 0.043008 0.5698333

9536 Sta. 57, 1/93 0.00041918 0.03541076 0.02728822 0.0091716 0.585425

0883PH

9606 Sta. 7A, 3/93, dir 0.00191019 0.06225814 0.08659287 0.0127747 0.4510524

9534 Sta. 31, 1/93, Dir 0.00164657 0.14375714 0.0778001 0.0196005 0.3287829

9537 Sta. 56, 1/93, Dir 0.00171092 0.19563691 0.10098497 0.0246584 0.3836152

9163 Sta. 57, 10/27/9 0.0002549 0.01713813 0.01357635 0.0097181 0.0572485
station no.

(Site No.)

1 Site 1 

3 Site 3 

5 Site 5 

7a Site 7A 

7b Site 7B 

7c Site 7C 

8a Site 8A 

8b Site 8B 

1 0 Site 10 

1 1 Site 11 

1 2 Site 12 

1 4 Site 14 

1 7 Site 17 

2 0 Site 20 

2 1 Site 21 

2 6 Site 26

3 1 Site 31 

3 6 Site 36 

5 6 Site 56 

5 7 Site 57 

57 gc/qms Site 57 

7a gc/qms Site 7A 

7b rep 1 Site 7B 

7b rep 2 Site 7B 

7b rep 3 Site 7B 

7b Site 7B 

10 rep 1 Site 10 

10 rep 2 Site 10 

10 rep 3 Site 10 

10 Ave Site 10 
Appendix G. Newark Bay all chem/toxicity contd.

Lab Number: GC/MS Number: Analysis date Submitter no. % toc %toc/100 Naphthalene

ng/g

9561 0902PH 1/26/94 Site 1 2 0.02 420

9562 0976PH 6/2/94 Site 3 5 0.05 430

9563 0977PH 6/2/94 Site 5 6.1 0.061 320

9593 0990PH 6/8/94 Site 7A 5.8 0.058 370

9594 0887PH 1/20/94 Site 7B 2.4 0.024 250

9595 0898PH 1/26/94 Site 7C 2.3 0.023 250

9596 0899PH 1/26/94 Site 8A 2.4 0.024 310

9597 0900PH 1/26/94 Site 8B 2.4 0.024 250

Ave. 10 4.2 0.04 266.67

Site 11 5.1 0.051 370

Site 12 1.7 0.017 120

9565 0980PH 6/2/94 Site 14 4.3 0.043 630

9566 0989PH 6/8/94 Site 17 2.4 0.024 350

9567 0979PH 6/2/94 Site 20 1.7 0.017 570

9598 0901PH 2/2/94 Site 21 1.5 0.015 600

9568 0988PH 6/8/94 Site 26 2.2 0.022 200

9569 0978PH 6/2/94 Site 31 2.1 0.021 190

9570 0991PH 6/8/94 Site 36 2.4 0.024 160

9526 0881PH 1/10/94 Site 56 2.5 0.025 120

9529b 0884PH 1/10/94 Site 57 0.47 0.0047 39

9528 0883PH 1/10/94

9527 0882PH 1/10/94

1941A 400

1941A 380

SRM Rep 1 0992PH 6/8/94 1941A 400

SRM Rep 2 0993PH 6 / 8 / 9 4 PC1 47.4646

SRM Rep 3 0994PH 6 / 8 / 9 4 PC2 61.3302

PC1 0975PH 6 / 2 / 9 4 MS1 390

PC2 0987PH 6 / 8 / 9 4 MS2 270

MS1 0974PH 6 / 2 / 9 4 MB1 11.7572

MS2 0986PH 6 / 8 / 9 4 MB2 8.3604

MB1 0973PH 6 / 2 / 9 4 PB1 0

MB2 0985PH 6 / 8 / 9 4 PB2 29.303

PB1 0972PH 6 / 2 / 9 4 PC1 1 5

PB2 0984PH 6/8/94
Appendix G. Newark Bay all chem/toxicity contd.

Lab Number: Submitter no. Benzo(b)thiophene 2-Methyl naphthalene

(1/2mdl), 1/2mdl, ng/g 1/2mdl, ng/g

9561 Site 1 8 1400

9562 Site 3 5 0 360

9563 Site 5 5 0 220

9593 Site 7A 5 0 290

9594 Site 7B 1 0 300

9595 Site 7C 1 0 180

9596 Site 8A 1 1 200

9597 Site 8B 1 2 230

Ave. 10 65.44 213.9

Site 11 5 0 200

Site 12 2 0 62.1

9565 Site 14 5 0 260

9566 Site 17 7 3 2

9567 Site 20 2 0 150

9598 Site 21 5 0 200

9568 Site 26 2 0 78.416

9569 Site 31 7 110

9570 Site 36 7 140

9526 Site 56 6 100

9529b Site 57 0.5 1 4

9528

9527

1941A 29.2756 220

1941A 23.8318 210

SRM Rep 1 1941A 20.6338 200

SRM Rep 2 PC1 2 59.321

SRM Rep 3 PC2 2 70.2892

PC1 MS1 380 540

PC2 MS2 260 300

MS1 MB1 2 5.425

MS2 MB2 2 5.4882

MB1 PB1 0 0

MB2 PB2 1 0 1 0

PB1 PC1 1 4 4

PB2
Appendix G. Newark Bay all chem/toxicity contd.

Lab Number: Submitter no. 1-Methyl-naphthalene Biphenyl 2,6-/ 2,7-Dimethyl1/2mdl, ng/g 1/2mdl, ng/g naphthalene, 1/2mdk, ng/g

9561 Site 1 2200 130 850

9562 Site 3 260 120 230

9563 Site 5 150 5 0 220

9593 Site 7A 110 5 0 5 0

9594 Site 7B 180 6 6 140

9595 Site 7C 7 7 4 6 1 5

9596 Site 8A 7 8 5 0 3 9

9597 Site 8B 130 5 1 5 2

Ave. 10 111.53 20 62

Site 11 130 5 0 170

Site 12 2 0 2 0 180

9565 Site 14 140 110 170

9566 Site 17 4 9 4 8 2 6

9567 Site 20 94.578 57.11 66

9598 Site 21 130 5 0 150

9568 Site 26 2 0 2 0 2 0

9569 Site 31 4 4 2 3 3 7

9570 Site 36 7 2 3 0 3 2

9526 Site 56 3 2 1 9 1 3

9529b Site 57 6 9 5

9528

9527

1941A 90.3906 67.5532 140

1941A 97.7296 61.3412 140

SRM Rep 1 1941A 83.1484 65.3144 150

SRM Rep 2 PC1 37.2004 25.8582 34

SRM Rep 3 PC2 38.1146 43.9196 61

PC1 MS1 550 380.398 790

PC2 MS2 300 360 740

MS1 MB1 2 2 2

MS2 MB2 2 2 2

MB1 PB1 0 28.179 1 0

MB2 PB2 1 0 1 0 71.888

PB1 PC1 2 2 1 1 0.5

PB2
Appendix G. Newark Bay all chem/toxicity contd.

Lab Number: Submitter no. Acenaphthylene Acenaphthene Fluorene Dibenzothiophene

1/2mdl, ng/g 1/2mdl, ng/g 1/2mdl, ng/g 1/2mdl, ng/g

9561 Site 1 280 1800 4000 1900

9562 Site 3 5 0 900 880 430

9563 Site 5 5 0 240 240 179.9

9593 Site 7A 5 0 200 260 170

9594 Site 7B 2 8 210 260 160

9595 Site 7C 5 1 160 230 110

9596 Site 8A 4 5 170 200 110

9597 Site 8B 5 6 250 320 210

Ave. 10 2 0 43.99 61.34 27.63

Site 11 5 0 120 190 5 0

Site 12 2 0 11.004 49.864 20

9565 Site 14 5 0 220 260 160

9566 Site 17 1 4 180 140 2 5

9567 Site 20 64.046 330 320.222 170

9598 Site 21 5 0 200 130 220

9568 Site 26 2 0 2 0 50.544 55.126

9569 Site 31 2 2 110 130 5 0

9570 Site 36 2 3 5 6 9 3 4 3

9526 Site 56 3 6 4 1 110 3 6

9529b Site 57 3.5 1 0 1 1 1 0

9528

9527

1941A 20.819 27.2312 73.01 41.1288

1941A 20.771 28.0662 67.7868 41.991

SRM Rep 1 1941A 22.6054 29.0584 73.4116 33.7054

SRM Rep 2 PC1 2 11.7422 21.671 17.1184

SRM Rep 3 PC2 4.6582 15.8232 28.2296 20.4504

PC1 MS1 400 410 440 400

PC2 MS2 370 410 410 290

MS1 MB1 2 2 2 2

MS2 MB2 2 2 2 10.819

MB1 PB1 1 0 1 0 26.626 1 0

MB2 PB2 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0

PB1 PC1 1 0 1.5 1 4 3 6

PB2
Appendix G. Newark Bay all chem/toxicity contd.

Lab Number: Submitter no. Phenanthrene Anthracene Fluoranthene Pyrene 

1/2mdl, ng/g 1/2mdl, ng/g 1/2mdl, ng/g 1/2mdl, ng/g

9561 Site 1 25100 2300 22800 29300

9562 Site 3 7400 2200 13900 12000

9563 Site 5 2400 420 6200 5600

9593 Site 7A 2200 430 4800 4400

9594 Site 7B 2000 390 5100 4800

9595 Site 7C 740 390 3300 3000

9596 Site 8A 800 460 3300 3100

9597 Site 8B 1800 580 4800 5400

Ave. 10 416.67 126.67 1400 1233.27

Site 11 1400 370 4100 3500

Site 12 110 43.11 340 310

9565 Site 14 1600 970 5900 4200

9566 Site 17 240 470 2500 2000

9567 Site 20 1800 960 5600 4600

9598 Site 21 770 630 5400 5700

9568 Site 26 260 150 1200 1100

9569 Site 31 550 400 900 680

9570 Site 36 520 310 1000 1000

9526 Site 56 480 490 640 700

9529b Site 57 2 6 3 1 100 150

9528

9527

1941A 250 95.2534 460 380

1941A 260 98.571 460 360

SRM Rep 1 1941A 250 82.0958 459.706 390

SRM Rep 2 PC1 190 23.7292 410 330

SRM Rep 3 PC2 200 30.393 330 330

PC1 MS1 420 380 460 420

PC2 MS2 340 290 360 350

MS1 MB1 6.4092 2 11.8636 8.0404

MS2 MB2 2 5.7188 9.7008 7.2562

MB1 PB1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0

MB2 PB2 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0

PB1 PC1 290 1 0 440 460

PB2
Appendix G. Newark Bay all chem/toxicity contd.

Lab Number: Submitter no. Benzo(a)-anthracene Chrysene Benzo(b)-fluoranthene

1/2mdl, ng/g 1/2mdl, ng/g 1/2mdl, ng/g

9561 Site 1 11300 14200 8000

9562 Site 3 7500 7400 7500

9563 Site 5 3000 3600 3400

9593 Site 7A 2600 3000 2900

9594 Site 7B 2000 2500 2600

9595 Site 7C 790 1300 1200

9596 Site 8A 1000 1500 1300

9597 Site 8B 1800 2800 1900

Ave. 10 613.31 733.33 819.99

Site 11 1800 2200 2400

Site 12 220 250 190

9565 Site 14 3400 3600 3800

9566 Site 17 770 670 720

9567 Site 20 3400 3100 2900

9598 Site 21 2900 3100 2500

9568 Site 26 600 650 600.372

9569 Site 31 640 760 160

9570 Site 36 660 810 850

9526 Site 56 410 540 650

9529b Site 57 5 8 7 9 8 8

9528

9527

1941A 280 350 610

1941A 270 350 670.244

SRM Rep 1 1941A 290 380 700

SRM Rep 2 PC1 190 260 270

SRM Rep 3 PC2 169.5394 230.446 250

PC1 MS1 400 420.156 460

PC2 MS2 350 360 440

MS1 MB1 2 5.7898 6.6024

MS2 MB2 2 5.3004 7.0114

MB1 PB1 1 0 1 0 1 0

MB2 PB2 1 0 1 0 1 0

PB1 PC1 230 380 350

PB2
Appendix G. Newark Bay all chem/toxicity contd.

Lab Number: Submitter no. Benzo(k)-fluoranthene Benzo(e)pyrene Benzo(a)pyrene

1/2mdl, ng/g 1/2mdl, ng/g 1/2mdl, ng/g

9561 Site 1 7700 8000 9800

9562 Site 3 6800 6800 7900

9563 Site 5 3300 3600 3600

9593 Site 7A 2900 2900 2900

9594 Site 7B 2300 2700 2100

9595 Site 7C 1300 1400 1000

9596 Site 8A 1400 1600 1300

9597 Site 8B 2000 2100 1700

Ave. 10 786.66 816.67 750

Site 11 2100 2200 2000

Site 12 220 269.578 250

9565 Site 14 3800 3800 4000

9566 Site 17 670 770 780

9567 Site 20 3000 2600 3200

9598 Site 21 2800 2600 2800

9568 Site 26 680 560 540

9569 Site 31 270 480 450

9570 Site 36 760 790 740

9526 Site 56 390 600 550

9529b Site 57 9 2 8 8 7 7

9528

9527

1941A 490 550.328 400

1941A 420 530 370

SRM Rep 1 1941A 580 630 400

SRM Rep 2 PC1 260 270 210

SRM Rep 3 PC2 220 230 190

PC1 MS1 480 460 460

PC2 MS2 420 420 409.874

MS1 MB1 7.8326 6.764 5.9786

MS2 MB2 8.15 2 8.3128

MB1 PB1 1 0 1 0 1 0

MB2 PB2 1 0 32.444 1 0

PB1 PC1 380 320 250

PB2
Appendix G. Newark Bay all chem/toxicity contd.

Lab Number: Submitter no. Perylene Indeno-123cd pyrene Dibenz(a,h)-anthracene

1/2mdl, ng/g 1/2mdl, ng/g 1/2mdl, ng/g

9561 Site 1 2200 7000 810

9562 Site 3 2000 6100 1300

9563 Site 5 740 2700 570

9593 Site 7A 640 2200 500

9594 Site 7B 660 2600 410

9595 Site 7C 750 1700 460

9596 Site 8A 820 1700 500

9597 Site 8B 920 2000 540

Ave. 10 196.67 563.33 166.7

Site 11 580 1700 520

Site 12 210 180 64.666

9565 Site 14 1300 2700 530

9566 Site 17 760 1300 250

9567 Site 20 859.616 2100 700

9598 Site 21 680 1800 370

9568 Site 26 140 360 100

9569 Site 31 440 630 210

9570 Site 36 300 590 120

9526 Site 56 290 360 120

9529b Site 57 1 3 4 7 2

9528

9527

1941A 269.56 510 140

1941A 250 480 150

SRM Rep 1 1941A 280 580 180

SRM Rep 2 PC1 110 210 41.7132

SRM Rep 3 PC2 100 180 48.7332

PC1 MS1 420 460 460

PC2 MS2 400 430 440

MS1 MB1 2 5.9982 2

MS2 MB2 7.476 5.7294 5.4408

MB1 PB1 1 0 1 0 1 0

MB2 PB2 1 0 1 0 1 0

PB1 PC1 160 190 2 8

PB2
Appendix G. Newark Bay all chem/toxicity contd.

Lab Number: Submit. no. Benzo(g,h,i)-perylene Total G-eq total LMPAH, total HMPAH, 

1/2mdl, ng/g analyzed ng/g ng/g

9561 Site 1 6000 5 40388 127110

9562 Site 3 5200 0.2 13310 84400

9563 Site 5 2400 0.2 4539.9 38710

9593 Site 7A 2100 0.2 4230 31840

9594 Site 7B 2100 5 3994 29870

9595 Site 7C 1100 5 2259 17300

9596 Site 8A 1100 5 2473 18620

9597 Site 8B 1400 5 3941 27360

Ave. 10 470 0.5 1435.83 8549.93

Site 11 1400 0.2 3150 24500

Site 12 140 0.5 676.078 2644.244

9565 Site 14 2400 0.2 4620 39430

9566 Site 17 890 5 1581 12080

9567 Site 20 1900 0.5 4601.956 33959.616

9598 Site 21 1400 0.2 3180 32050

9568 Site 26 380 0.5 914.086 6910.372

9569 Site 31 480 5 1673 6100

9570 Site 36 370 5 1486 7990

9526 Site 56 270 5 1483 5520

9529b Site 57 1 3 5 165 807

9528

9527

1941A 440 5 1454.6618 4879.888

1941A 430 5 1430.0886 4740.244

SRM Rep 1 1941A 510 5 1409.9732 5379.706

SRM Rep 2 PC1 190 5 472.105 2751.7132

SRM Rep 3 PC2 170.4846 5 576.208 2449.2032

PC1 MS1 450 5 5480.398 5350.156

PC2 MS2 409.69 5 4340 4789.564

MS1 MB1 5.6154 5 41.5914 70.485

MS2 MB2 5.3214 5 46.3864 73.6992

MB1 PB1 1 0 1 114.805 120

MB2 PB2 1 0 1 201.191 142.444

PB1 PC1 9 7 5 455 3285

PB2
Appendix G. Newark Bay all chem/toxicity contd.

Lab Number: Submitter no. sum total PAH, acenaphthene, acenaphthene, phenanthrene,

ng/g ng/goc ug/goc ng/goc

9561 Site 1 167498 90000 90 1255000

9562 Site 3 97710 18000 18 148000

9563 Site 5 43249.9 3934.43 3.93 39344.26

9593 Site 7A 36070 3448.28 3.45 37931.03

9594 Site 7B 33864 8750 8.75 83333.33

9595 Site 7C 19559 6956.52 6.96 32173.91

9596 Site 8A 21093 7083.33 7.08 33333.33

9597 Site 8B 31301 10416.67 10.42 75000

Ave. 10 9985.76 1047.4 1.05 9920.83

Site 11 27650 2352.94 2.35 27450.98

Site 12 3320.322 647.29 0.65 6470.59

9565 Site 14 44050 5116.28 5.12 37209.3

9566 Site 17 13661 7500 7.5 10000

9567 Site 20 38561.572 19411.76 19.41 105882.35

9598 Site 21 35230 13333.33 13.33 51333.33

9568 Site 26 7824.458 909.09 0.91 11818.18

9569 Site 31 7773 5238.1 5.24 26190.48

9570 Site 36 9476 2333.33 2.33 21666.67

9526 Site 56 7003 1640 1.64 19200

9529b Site 57 972 2127.66 2.13 5531.91

9528

9527

1941A 6334.5498

1941A 6170.3326

SRM Rep 1 1941A 6789.6792

SRM Rep 2 PC1 3223.8182

SRM Rep 3 PC2 3025.4112

PC1 MS1 10830.554

PC2 MS2 9129.564

MS1 MB1 112.0764

MS2 MB2 120.0856

MB1 PB1 234.805

MB2 PB2 343.635

PB1 PC1 3740

PB2
Appendix G. Newark Bay all chem/toxicity contd.

Lab Number: Submitter no. phenanthrene, fluoranthene, fluoranthene, 

ug/goc ng/goc ug/goc

9561 Site 1 1255 1140000 1140

9562 Site 3 148 278000 278

9563 Site 5 39.34 101639.34 101.64

9593 Site 7A 37.93 82758.62 82.76

9594 Site 7B 83.33 212500 212.5

9595 Site 7C 32.17 143478.26 143.48

9596 Site 8A 33.33 137500 137.5

9597 Site 8B 7 5 200000 200

Ave. 10 9.92 33333.33 33.33

Site 11 27.45 80392.16 80.39

Site 12 6.47 20000 20

9565 Site 14 37.21 137209.3 137.21

9566 Site 17 1 0 104166.67 104.17

9567 Site 20 105.88 329411.76 329.41

9598 Site 21 51.33 360000 360

9568 Site 26 11.82 54545.45 54.55

9569 Site 31 26.19 42857.14 42.86

9570 Site 36 21.67 41666.67 41.67

9526 Site 56 19.2 25600 25.6

9529b Site 57 5.53 21276.6 21.28

9528

9527
Appendix H. Concentrations of dioxins and furans (pg/g).

NFCR GC/MS Set:

Number: DF07, Inj.No. Submitter Number, Sample Location:

9561 49 Site 1 Upper Passaic R 

9562 47 Site 3 Passaic River 

9563 46 Site 5 Lower Passaic R, Upstream of Pt Source

9593 40 Site 7A Lower Passaic R Pt Source

9593 GC/QMS Site 7A Lower Passaic R Pt Source

9594-1 41 Site 7B Lower Passaic R Pt Source Replicate 1

9594-2 42 Site 7B Lower Passaic R Pt Source Replicate 2

9594-3 44 Site 7B Lower Passaic R Pt Source Replicate 3

9595 45 Site 7C Lower Passaic R Pt Source

9596 37 Site 8A Lower Passaic R Pt Source

9597 39 Site 8B Lower Passaic R Pt Source

9564-1 34 Site 10 Lower Passaic R Below Pt Source Replicate 1

9564-2 35 Site 10 Lower Passaic R Below Pt Source Replicate 2

9564-3 36 Site 10 Lower Passaic R Below Pt Source Replicate 3

9565 32 Site 11 Lower Passaic R Below Pt Source

9566 27 Site 12 Hackensack R, N of Berry's Creek

9567 26 Site 14 Hackensack R, N of Berry's Creek

9598 25 Site 17 Hackensack R,S of Berry's Ck, N of

9568 24 Site 20 Mouth of Hackensack River, Upper Newark Bay

9569 31 Site 21 Mouth of Passaic River, Upper Newark Bay

9570 22 Site 26 Upper Newark Bay

9526 17 Site 31 Upper-Mid Newark Bay

9529 21 Site 36 Lower-Mid- Newark Bay

9528 20 Site 56 Lower Newark Bay, Port Richmond,

9527 19 Site 57 Upper New York Harbor

9527 GC/QMS Site 57 Upper New York Harbor

QUALITY ASSURANCE SAMPLES

Proc Blank 1 GC/QMS Procedural Blank 1 

Proc Blank 1 5 Procedural Blank 1 

Proc Blank 2 6 Procedural Blank 2 

Matrix Blank 1 GC/QMS 356C Pond Sediment Blank 1 

Matrix Blank 1 7 356C Pond Sediment Blank 1 

Matrix Blank 2 9 356C Pond Sediment Blank 2 

Matrix Spike 1 GC/QMS 356C Pond Sediment Spike 1 50pg/g;250pg/g Cl◊d8Ÿ

Matrix Spike 2 GC/QMS 356C Pond Sediment Spike 2 50pg/g;250pg/g Cl◊d8Ÿ

Matrix Spike 1 10 356C Pond Sediment Spike 1 50pg/g;250pg/g Cl◊d8Ÿ

Matrix Spike 2 11 356C Pond Sediment Spike 2 50pg/g;250pg/g Cl◊d8Ÿ

Pos Ctrl 1 GC/QMS 235C Positive Control Sediment from Saginaw Bay

Pos Ctrl 1 12 235C Positive Control Sediment 1 from Saginaw Bay

Pos Ctrl 2 14 235C Positive Control Sediment 2 from Saginaw Bay

NIST 1941A GC/QMS NIST Standard Reference Material 1941A

NIST 1941A-1 15 NIST Standard Reference Material 1941A-1

NIST 1941A-2 16 NIST Standard Reference Material 1941A-2

PIA

24858 2

24859 4
Appendix H. Concentrations of dioxins and furans (pg/g) contd.

NFCR GC/MS Set: DIOXINS

Number: DF07, Inj.No. 2,3,7,8- 1,2,3,7,8- 1,2,4,7,8-

Tetrachloro-DD Pentachloro-DD Pentachloro-DD

9561 49 99 2.2 NQ 1.3

9562 47 270 4.4 NQ 1.1 NQ

9563 46 450 7.8 0.5 ND

9593 40 390 8.1 13

9593 GC/QMS 480 8 15

9594-1 41 430 8.3 9.0

9594-2 42 340 10 8.8

9594-3 44 360 8.2 12

9595 45 620 12 23

9596 37 440 10 13

9597 39 300 7.0 8.5

9564-1 34 310 7.3 9.4

9564-2 35 350 9.1 13

9564-3 36 430 7.5 8.6

9565 32 280 9.1 NQ 12

9566 27 7.4 0.5 NQ 0.8

9567 26 62 3.3 3.4

9598 25 29 1.0 NQ 1.4 NQ

9568 24 38 1.2 NQ 1.6 NQ

9569 31 140 1.9 NQ 1.9

9570 22 470 6.5 8.6

9526 17 62 3 NQ 4.1

9529 21 55 4.0 5.4

9528 20 30 3.0 4.0

9527 19 3.6 0.7 0.8 NQ

9527 GC/QMS 2 1 ND 3

QUALITY ASSURANCE SAMPLES

Proc Blank 1 GC/QMS 2 ND 1 ND 9 ND

Proc Blank 1 5 0.4 NQ 0.3 ND 0.3 ND

Proc Blank 2 6 0.3 NQ 0.3 ND 0.3 ND

Matrix Blank 1 GC/QMS 2 ND 4 ND 3 NQ

Matrix Blank 1 7 0.3 ND 0.5 NQ 0.5 NQ

Matrix Blank 2 9 0.4 0.5 ND 0.5 NQ

Matrix Spike 1 GC/QMS 64 46 66

Matrix Spike 2 GC/QMS 64 48 66

Matrix Spike 1 10 47 46 38

Matrix Spike 2 11 45 45 37

Pos Ctrl 1 GC/QMS 19 12 17

Pos Ctrl 1 12 25 14 13

Pos Ctrl 2 14 21 14 14

NIST 1941A GC/QMS 2 NQ 3 NQ 10

NIST 1941A-1 15 1.9 5.6 5.3

NIST 1941A-2 16 1.9 5.1 5.0

PIA

24858 32

24859 24
Appendix H. Concentrations of dioxins and furans (pg/g) contd.

NFCR GC/MS Set:

Number: DF07, Inj.No. 1,2,3,4,7,8- 1,2,3,6,7,8- 1,2,3,7,8,9-

Hexachloro-DD Hexachloro-DD Hexachloro-DD

9561 49 1.6 7.5 4.3 NQ

9562 47 4.1 NQ 33 4.5 NQ

9563 46 8.0 44 26

9593 40 7.7 29 20

9593 GC/QMS 8 57 28

9594-1 41 9.6 29 25

9594-2 42 11 37 39

9594-3 44 8.4 31 25

9595 45 9.7 39 29

9596 37 9.7 38 29

9597 39 8.2 32 22

9564-1 34 7.1 34 22

9564-2 35 7.8 34 24

9564-3 36 7.3 33 24

9565 32 8.3 31 24

9566 27 0.7 NQ 2.9 2.0

9567 26 3.5 17 12

9598 25 1.2 4.1 2.8

9568 24 1.2 6.2 4.0

9569 31 2.3 NQ 8.0 5.9 NQ

9570 22 5.5 32 21

9526 17 3.2 15 11

9529 21 4.1 17 13

9528 20 3.2 16 12

9527 19 0.7 NQ 2.4 NQ 1.4 NQ

9527 GC/QMS 1 NQ 3 0.9 NQ

QUALITY ASSURANCE SAMPLES

Proc Blank 1 GC/QMS 1 ND 0.9 ND 1 ND

Proc Blank 1 5 0.4 ND 0.3 ND 0.4 ND

Proc Blank 2 6 0.4 ND 0.8 NQ 0.4 ND

Matrix Blank 1 GC/QMS 2 ND 4 ND 4 ND

Matrix Blank 1 7 0.9 NQ 1.8 1.9

Matrix Blank 2 9 1.0 NQ 1.6 NQ 1.7

Matrix Spike 1 GC/QMS 80 69 76

Matrix Spike 2 GC/QMS 81 69 76

Matrix Spike 1 10 47 44 48

Matrix Spike 2 11 44 46 46

Pos Ctrl 1 GC/QMS 0.5 NQ 100 40

Pos Ctrl 1 12 7.5 43 24

Pos Ctrl 2 14 8.3 46 25

NIST 1941A GC/QMS 14 37 32

NIST 1941A-1 15 9.1 21 23

NIST 1941A-2 16 9.6 21 23
Appendix H. Concentrations of dioxins and furans (pg/g) contd.

NFCR GC/MS Set: FURANS

Number: DF07, Inj.No1,2,3,4,6,7,8- Octa 2,3,7,8-

Heptachloro-DD chloro-DD Tetrachloro-DF

9561 49 180 1,900 71

9562 47 450 4,800 160

9563 46 720 7,100 190

9593 40 590 6,400 170

9593 GC/QMS 700 5,960 190

9594-1 41 740 7,000 220

9594-2 42 860 9,700 270

9594-3 44 660 6,700 170

9595 45 790 8,100 230

9596 37 870 8,700 230

9597 39 780 7,700 170

9564-1 34 630 6,700 250

9564-2 35 660 6,300 230

9564-3 36 610 5,900 220

9565 32 660 7,400 220

9566 27 63 1,200 10

9567 26 400 5,000 89

9598 25 71 1,100 29

9568 24 110 1,400 41

9569 31 140 1,800 140

9570 22 620 5,900 370

9526 17 310 3,100 92

9529 21 350 3,600 66

9528 20 410 4,800 56

9527 19 42 510 9.5

9527 GC/QMS 55 580 7

QUALITY ASSURANCE SAMPLES

Proc Blank 1 GC/QMS 0.7 ND 3 0.7 ND

Proc Blank 1 5 1.0 NQ 17 1.3

Proc Blank 2 6 1.3 16 0.6 NQ

Matrix Blank 1 GC/QMS 79 2,610 0.5 ND

Matrix Blank 1 7 44 1,400 1 NQ

Matrix Blank 2 9 46 1,500 1 NQ

Matrix Spike 1 GC/QMS 150 2,390 75

Matrix Spike 2 GC/QMS 150 2,390 74

Matrix Spike 1 10 93 1,800 46

Matrix Spike 2 11 94 1,900 44

Pos Ctrl 1 GC/QMS 980 8,940 720

Pos Ctrl 1 12 840 7,400 1,400

Pos Ctrl 2 14 840 7,100 410

NIST 1941A GC/QMS 710 7,670 130

NIST 1941A-1 15 520 6,400 120

NIST 1941A-2 16 560 7,100 130
Appendix H. Concentrations of dioxins and furans (pg/g) contd.

NFCR GC/MS Set:

Number: DF07, Inj.No. 1,2,3,7,8- 2,3,4,7,8- 1,2,3,4,7,8-

Pentachloro-DF Pentachloro-DF Hexachloro-DF

9561 49 2.8 6.2 19

9562 47 8.7 NQ 36 120

9563 46 14 33 220

9593 40 12 27 170

9593 GC/QMS 13 29 200

9594-1 41 13 29 230

9594-2 42 14 28 220

9594-3 44 13 31 210

9595 45 19 41 370

9596 37 16 43 350

9597 39 11 25 170

9564-1 34 23 47 340

9564-2 35 22 52 460

9564-3 36 22 43 360

9565 32 18 40 380

9566 27 1.3 2.0 16

9567 26 9.0 22 230

9598 25 2.7 5.5 45

9568 24 5.4 8.4 75

9569 31 5.2 8.4 69

9570 22 15 36 200

9526 17 10 15 95

9529 21 7.5 14 90

9528 20 6.4 9.4 32

9527 19 1.1 1.4 4.3

9527 GC/QMS 0.8 NQ 0.3 NQ 3

QUALITY ASSURANCE SAMPLES

Proc Blank 1 GC/QMS 2 ND 2 ND 0.8 NQ

Proc Blank 1 5 0.4 0.4 1.5

Proc Blank 2 6 0.3 ND 0.3 ND 0.9

Matrix Blank 1 GC/QMS 1 ND 0.9 ND 2 ND

Matrix Blank 1 7 0.3 ND 0.5 NQ 0.7 NQ

Matrix Blank 2 9 0.4 NQ 0.5 NQ 1.1

Matrix Spike 1 GC/QMS 61 63 70

Matrix Spike 2 GC/QMS 62 65 69

Matrix Spike 1 10 45 46 46

Matrix Spike 2 11 43 43 45

Pos Ctrl 1 GC/QMS 480 320 360

Pos Ctrl 1 12 730 580 660

Pos Ctrl 2 14 190 150 220

NIST 1941A GC/QMS 210 57 440

NIST 1941A-1 15 140 48 320

NIST 1941A-2 16 150 51 350
Appendix H. Concentrations of dioxins and furans (pg/g) contd.

NFCR GC/MS Set:

Number: DF07, Inj.No. 1,2,3,6,7,8- 1,2,3,7,8,9- 2,3,4,6,7,8-

Hexachloro-DF Hexachloro-DF Hexachloro-DF

9561 49 5.5 0.4 ND 4.2

9562 47 29 0.4 ND 2.2

9563 46 47 0.9 NQ 9.4

9593 40 40 1.5 19

9593 GC/QMS 28 8 NQ 5 NQ

9594-1 41 49 1.2 NQ 9.8

9594-2 42 47 1.2 NQ 23

9594-3 44 45 1.1 9.5

9595 45 74 1.2 34

9596 37 68 1.4 12

9597 39 38 1.2 9.2

9564-1 34 70 1.5 28

9564-2 35 84 1.5 34

9564-3 36 71 1.4 29

9565 32 72 1.5 30

9566 27 3.1 0.4 ND 1.8

9567 26 36 0.8 14

9598 25 7.6 0.4 ND 3.1

9568 24 14 0.4 ND 5.6

9569 31 12 0.7 NQ 5.8

9570 22 35 1.2 NQ 18

9526 17 21 1.5 9.5

9529 21 17 0.7 9.7

9528 20 8.9 0.4 ND 6.4

9527 19 1.2 NQ 0.4 ND 1.2

9527 GC/QMS 0.9 NQ 5 NQ 0.5 NQ

QUALITY ASSURANCE SAMPLES

Proc Blank 1 GC/QMS 0.4 ND 2 NQ 1 NQ

Proc Blank 1 5 0.6 0.4 ND 0.5 NQ

Proc Blank 2 6 0.5 NQ 0.4 ND 0.4 ND

Matrix Blank 1 GC/QMS 2 ND 2 ND 1 ND

Matrix Blank 1 7 0.4 NQ 0.4 ND 0.4 NQ

Matrix Blank 2 9 0.8 0.4 ND 0.5 NQ

Matrix Spike 1 GC/QMS 63 64 69

Matrix Spike 2 GC/QMS 62 64 69

Matrix Spike 1 10 46 45 56

Matrix Spike 2 11 48 44 46

Pos Ctrl 1 GC/QMS 69 0.4 NQ 9

Pos Ctrl 1 12 120 9.8 60

Pos Ctrl 2 14 51 4.2 26

NIST 1941A GC/QMS 100 54 66

NIST 1941A-1 15 81 31 16

NIST 1941A-2 16 90 34 18
Appendix H. Concentrations of dioxins and furans (pg/g) contd.

NFCR GC/MS Set:

Number: DF07, Inj.No. 1,2,3,4,6,7,8- 1,2,3,4,7,8,9- Octa

Heptachloro-DF Heptachloro-DF chloro-DF

9561 49 82 5.3 210

9562 47 480 19 770

9563 46 940 26 1,300

9593 40 830 21 1,200

9593 GC/QMS 600 28 1,580

9594-1 41 1,100 26 1,400

9594-2 42 1,000 27 1,300

9594-3 44 910 26 1,300

9595 45 1,600 41 2,000

9596 37 1,500 36 1,800

9597 39 800 24 1,200

9564-1 34 1,500 34 2,000

9564-2 35 1,800 42 2,100

9564-3 36 1,600 35 1,900

9565 32 1,600 37 2,100

9566 27 95 2.4 180

9567 26 950 24 1,500

9598 25 190 4.8 310

9568 24 320 8.7 490

9569 31 280 6.6 430

9570 22 750 21 1,200

9526 17 510 18 970

9529 21 380 12 640

9528 20 190 6.7 330

9527 19 23 1.0 44

9527 GC/QMS 14 2 NQ 33

QUALITY ASSURANCE SAMPLES

Proc Blank 1 GC/QMS 0.7 ND 0.6 ND 1 ND

Proc Blank 1 5 1.7 0.7 NQ 3.7

Proc Blank 2 6 1.2 0.4 NQ 2.9

Matrix Blank 1 GC/QMS 3 2 ND 10

Matrix Blank 1 7 3.8 0.5 NQ 8.1

Matrix Blank 2 9 3.8 0.6 8.2

Matrix Spike 1 GC/QMS 60 60 360

Matrix Spike 2 GC/QMS 60 61 350

Matrix Spike 1 10 55 48 240

Matrix Spike 2 11 52 46 240

Pos Ctrl 1 GC/QMS 940 79 3,200

Pos Ctrl 1 12 1,400 70 2,100

Pos Ctrl 2 14 1,300 54 2,200

NIST 1941A GC/QMS 440 370 7,080

NIST 1941A-1 15 450 260 5,300

NIST 1941A-2 16 500 290 5,800
NFCRC Sample ID Field ID

Table 1. (F1) - Whole ExtractAppendix I. H4IIE rat hepatoma bioassay.

Site Description (pg/g) (SD) CV

9561 (10/25) Station #1 Upper Passaic R. 380 4 1 11%9562 (10/25) Station #3 Passaic R., upstream of point source 40000 5800 15%

9563 (10/25) Station #5 Lower Passaic R., immediately upstream 42000 7500 18%9593 (10/25) Station #7A Lower Passaic R., point source 12000 1500 13%9594-1 (10/25) Station #7B Lower Passaic R., point source 8300 1200 14%9594-2 (10/25) Station #7B Lower Passaic R., point source 8800 1700 19%

Sample Mean 8500 330 4%

9595 (10/25) Station #7C Lower Passaic R., point source 6700 1800 27%

Site Mean 9100 2600 29%

9596 (10/25) Station #8A Lower Passaic R., point source 42000 5400 13%

9597 (10/25) Station #8B Lower Passaic R., point source 8900 1400 16%9597 (10/25) Station #8B Lower Passaic R., point source 27000 5000 19%9597 (10/25) Station #8B Lower Passaic R., point source 93000 8900 10%

Site Mean 43000 36000 84%

9564-1 (10/25) Station # 10 Lower Passaic R., immediately below point source 11000 1600 15%

9564- 2 (10/25) Station # 10 Lower Passaic R., immediately below point source 11000 1100 10%9564-3 (10/25) Station # 10 Lower Passaic R., immediately below point source 5900 710 12%

Sample Mean 9300 2900 31%

9565 (10/25) Station #11 Lower Passaic R., below point source 10000 1000 10%

9566 (10/25) Station #12 Hackensack R., North of Berry's Creek 500 6 7 13%9567 (10/25) Station #14 Hackensack R., North of Berry's Creek 650 8 6 13%9598 (10/25) Station #17 Hackensack R., North of Berry's Ck./ N. of Newark Bay 5000 520 10%

9568 (10/25) Station #20 Mouth, Hackensack R./Upper Newark Bay 710 4 8 7%

9569 (10/25) Station #21 Mouth, Passaic R./Upper Newark Bay 4500 860 19%

9570 (10/25) Station #26 Upper Newark Bay 3000 360 12%

9526 (10/25) Station #31 Upper/Mid Newark Bay 1700 210 12%

9529 (10/25) Station # 36 Lower/Mid Newark Bay 4200 430 10%9529 (10/25) Station # 36 Lower/Mid Newark Bay 2900 290 10%

9529 (10/25) Station # 36 Lower/Mid Newark Bay 2500 300 12%

Sample Mean 3200 340 11%

9528 (10/25) Station #56 Lower Newark Bay, Port Richmond, Kill Van Kull 7100 840 12%

9527 (10/25) Station # 57 Upper New York Harbor 170 1 2 7%

* Means were used for site averages 13% Mean CV (precision)
NFCRC Sample ID

Table 2. (F5) - PAH fraction.Appendix I. H4IIE rat hepatoma bioassay contd.

Field ID Site Description

(pg/g)TCDD-EQ (SD)

CV

9561 (12/6) Station # 1 Upper Passaic R. 5800 1600 28%9562 (12/6) Station # 3 Passaic R., upstream of point source 6000 1600 27%9563 (12/6) Station # 5 Lower Passaic R., immediately upstream 22000 7600 35%9593 (12/6) Station # 7A Lower Passaic R., point source 19000 3300 17%

9594-1 (12/6) Station # 7B Lower Passaic R., point source 5400 970 18%9595 (12/6) Station # 7C Lower Passaic R., point source 5500 3500 64%

Site Mean 10000 7900 79%

9596 (12/6) Station # 8A Lower Passaic R., point source 7200 2800 39%9597 (12/6) Station # 8B Lower Passaic R., point source 7000 1200 17%

Site Mean 7100 160 2%

9564-1 (12/6) Station # 10 Lower Passaic R., immediately below point source 5000 1300 26%9564-2(12/6) Station # 10 Lower Passaic R., immediately below point source 5000 900 18%9564-3 (12/6) Station # 10 Lower Passaic R., immediately below point source 4500 1000 22%

Sample Mean 4800 280 6%

9565 (12/6) Station # 11 Lower Passaic R., below point source 21000 3800 18%9566a (12/6) Station # 12 Hackensack R., North of Berry's Creek 670 110 16%9566b (12/6) Station # 12 Hackensack R., North of Berry's Creek 1200 200 17%9566c (12/6) Station # 12 Hackensack R., North of Berry's Creek 6 4 1 8 28%

Bioassay Mean 6 5 0 5 7 0 88%

9567 (12/6) Station # 14 Hackensack R., North of Berry's Creek 18000 3300 18%9598 (12/6) Station # 17 Hackensack R., North of Berry's Ck./ N. of Newark Bay 4900 1200 24%9568 (12/6) Station # 20 Mouth, Hackensack R./Upper Newark Bay 11000 2200 20%9569a (12/6) Station # 21 Mouth, Passaic R./Upper Newark Bay 13000 2100 16%9569b (12/6) Station # 21 Mouth, Passaic R./Upper Newark Bay 8100 1700 21%9569c (12/6) Station # 21 Mouth, Passaic R./Upper Newark Bay 4800 860 18%

Bioassay Mean 8500 3800 45%

9570 (12/6) Station # 26 Upper Newark Bay 7000 1200 17%9526 (12/6) Station # 31 Upper/Mid Newark Bay 4500 3000 67%9529 (12/6) Station # 36 Lower/Mid Newark Bay 2000 440 22%9528 (12/6) Station # 56 Lower Newark Bay, Port Richmond, Kill Van Kull 2400 1300 54%9527 (12/6) Station # 57 Upper New York Harbor 8 7 2 3 26%* Means were used for site averages 27% Mean CV (precision)
NFCRC Sample ID

Table 3. (F7) - Bulk (>2-ortho-chloro-substituted) PCB fraction.Appendix I. H4IIE rat hepatoma bioassay contd.

Field ID Site Description

(pg/g)TCDD-EQ (SD)

CV

9561 (3/7) Station # 1 Upper Passaic R. 0.1 0.0 15%9562 (3/7) Station # 3 Passaic R., upstream of point source 0.1 0.1 116%

9563 (3/7) Station # 5 Lower Passaic R., immediately uptream 0.0 0.0 671%9593 (3/7) Station # 7A Lower Passaic R., point source 0.2 0.1 48%

9594 (3/7) Station # 7B Lower Passaic R., point source 0.2 0.0 19%9595 (3/7) Station # 7C Lower Passaic R., point source 1.4 0.2 14%

Site Mean 0.6 0.1 19%

9596a (3/7) Station # 8A Lower Passaic R., point source 0.0 0.0 123%

9596b (3/7) Station # 8A Lower Passaic R., point source 0.3 0.1 23%9596c (3/7) Station # 8A Lower Passaic R., point source 0.1 0.0 22%

Bioassay Mean 0.1 0.1 119%

9597 (3/7) Station # 8B Lower Passaic R., point source 3.3 0.4 13%

Site Mean 1.7 2.2 131%

9564 (3/7) Station # 10 Lower Passaic R., immediately below point source 2.0 0.3 15%9565a (3/7) Station # 11 Lower Passaic R., below point source 0.3 0.1 28%9565b (3/7) Station # 11 Lower Passaic R., below point source 0.1 0.0 31%9565c (3/7) Station # 11 Lower Passaic R., below point source 0.4 0.1 16%

Bioassay Mean 0.3 0.1 50%

9566-1 (3/7) Station # 12 Hackensack R., North of Berry's Creek 0.4 0.1 26%9566-2 (3/7) Station # 12 Hackensack R., North of Berry's Creek 0.0 0.0 23%

Sample Mean 0.2 0.2 118%

9567 (3/7) Station # 14 Hackensack R., North of Berry's Creek 0.1 0.0 14%9598 (3/7) Station # 17 Hackensack R., S. of Berry's Ck./N. of Newark Bay 0.2 0.1 24%9568 (3/7) Station # 20 Mouth, Hackensack R./Upper Newark Bay 0.1 0.0 22%9569 (3/7) Station # 21 Mouth, Passaic R./Upper Newark Bay 0.1 0.0 17%9570 (3/7) Station # 26 Upper Newark Bay 0.1 0.1 71%9526 (3/7) Station # 31 Upper/Mid Newark Bay 0.4 0.1 32%9529 (3/7) Station # 36 Lower/Mid Newark Bay 0.2 0.0 21%9528-1 (3/7) Station # 56 Lower Newark Bay, Port Richmond, Kill Van Kull 0.5 0.1 14%9528-2 (3/7) Station # 56 Lower Newark Bay, Port Richmond, Kill Van Kull 0.1 0.1 101%

Sample Mean 0.3 0.1 22%

9527 (3/7) Station # 57 Upper New York Harbor 0.1 0.0 32%* Means were used for site averages 60% Mean CV (precision)
ID

NFCRC Sample Table 4. (F8) - Mono-ortho-chloro-substituted PCB fraction.Appendix I. H4IIE rat hepatoma bioassay contd.

Field ID Site Description

(pg/g)TCDD-EQ (SD)

CV

9561a (2/18) Station # 1 Upper Passaic R. 1.6 0.2 11%9561b (2/18) Station # 1 Upper Passaic R. 2.6 0.3 10%9561c (2/18) Station # 1 Upper Passaic R. 2.5 0.3 11%

Bioassay Mean 2.2 0.6 26%

9562 (2/18) Station # 3 Passaic R., upstream of point source 1.4 0.2 12%9563 (2/18) Station # 5 Lower Passaic R., immediately upstream 7.4 0.8 11%9593 (2/18) Station # 7A Lower Passaic R., point source 16.8 1.9 11%9594 (2/18) Station # 7B Lower Passaic R., point source 11.3 1.3 12%

9595 (2/18) Station # 7C Lower Passaic R., point source 13.3 1.4 10%

Site Mean 13.8 2.8 20%

9596 (2/18) Station # 8A Lower Passaic R., point source 5.0 0.5 10%9597 (2/18) Station # 8B Lower Passaic R., point source 18.4 3.9 21%

Site Mean 11.7 9.5 81%

9564 (2/18) Station # 10 Lower Passaic R., immediately below point source 8.2 0.9 10%9565 (2/18) Station # 11 Lower Passaic R., below point source 4.7 0.5 11%9566-1 (2/18) Station # 12 Hackensack R., North of Berry's Creek 0.9 0.2 23%9566-2 (2/18) Station # 12 Hackensack R., North of Berry's Creek 0.5 0.1 12%

Sample Mean 0.7 0.2 34%

9567 (2/18) Station # 14 Hackensack R., North of Berry's Creek 4.1 0.4 10%9598 (2/18) Station # 17 Hackensack R., North of Berry's Ck./ N. of Newark Bay 1.9 0.2 10%9568a (2/18) Station # 20 Mouth, Hackensack R./Upper Newark Bay 2.8 0.3 11%9568b (2/18) Station # 20 Mouth, Hackensack R./Upper Newark Bay 5.7 0.6 10%9568c (2/18) Station # 20 Mouth, Hackensack R./Upper Newark Bay 8.2 1.0 12%

Bioassay Mean 5.6 2.7 49%

9569 (2/18) Station # 21 Mouth, Passaic R./Upper Newark Bay 4.0 0.4 10%9570 (2/18) Station # 26 Upper Newark Bay 18.1 2.6 15%9526 (2/18) Station # 31 Upper/Mid Newark Bay 3.6 0.4 10%9529 (2/18) Station # 36 Lower/Mid Newark Bay 4.0 0.4 11%9528-1 (2/18) Station # 56 Lower Newark Bay, Port Richmond, Kill Van Kull 6.6 0.7 10%9528-2 (2/18) Station # 56 Lower Newark Bay, Port Richmond, Kill Van Kull 2.7 0.3 10%

Sample Mean 4.7 2.8 59%

9527 (2/18) Station # 57 Upper New York Harbor 0.3 0.0 11%* Means were used for site averages 12% Mean CV (precision)
NFCRC Sample ID Field ID

Table 5. (F9) - Non-ortho-chloro-substituted PCB fraction.Appendix I. H4IIE rat hepatoma bioassay contd.

Site Description (pg/g)

TCDD EQ 

(SD) CV

9561 (3/11) Station # 1 Upper Passaic R. 7 3 39%9562 (3/11) Station # 3 Passaic R., upstream of point source 2 0 3 14%9563a (3/11) Station # 5 Lower Passaic R., immediately uptream 6 9 9 13%9563b (3/11) Station # 5 Lower Passaic R., immediately uptream 6 8 9 13%9563c (3/11) Station # 5 Lower Passaic R., immediately uptream 1 2 2 13%

Bioassay Mean 4 9 3 2 65%

9593 (3/11) Station # 7A Lower Passaic R., point source 113 2 4 21%9594 (3/11) Station # 7B Lower Passaic R., point source 155 2 6 17%9595 (3/11) Station # 7C Lower Passaic R., point source 1 7 3 16%

Site Mean 9 5 7 0 74%

9596a (3/11) Station # 8A Lower Passaic R., point source 7 8 1 2 15%9596b (3/11) Station # 8A Lower Passaic R., point source 9 7 1 6 16%9596c (3/11) Station # 8A Lower Passaic R., point source 8 1 1 1 14%

Bioassay Mean 8 5 1 0 12%

9597 (3/11) Station # 8B Lower Passaic R., point source 192 4 1 21%9564 (3/11) Station # 10 Lower Passaic R., immediately below point source 2 1 41%9565 (3/11) Station # 11 Lower Passaic R., below point source 6 8 1 2 17%9566-1 (3/11) Station # 12 Hackensack R., North of Berry's Creek 0 0 22%9566-2 (3/11) Station # 12 Hackensack R., North of Berry's Creek 2 0 14%

Sample Mean 1 1 118%

9567 (3/11) Station # 14 Hackensack R., North of Berry's Creek 2 2 3 16%9598 (3/11) Station # 17 Hackensack R., S. of Berry's Ck./N. of Newark Bay 5 1 20%9568 (3/11) Station # 20 Mouth, Hackensack R./Upper Newark Bay 1 4 3 20%9569 (3/11) Station # 21 Mouth, Passaic R./Upper Newark Bay 1 8 3 16%9570 (3/11) Station # 26 Upper Newark Bay 8 6 1 2 14%9526 (3/11) Station # 31 Upper/Mid Newark Bay 1 7 2 14%9529 (3/11) Station # 36 Lower/Mid Newark Bay 1 0 1 15%9528-1 (3/11) Station # 56 Lower Newark Bay, Port Richmond, Kill Van Kull 1 4 2 15%9528-2 (3/11) Station # 56 Lower Newark Bay, Port Richmond, Kill Van Kull 1 0 2 16%

Sample Mean 1 2 3 25%

9527 (3/11) Station # 57 Upper New York Harbor 2 0 15%

18% Mean CV (precision)

*Means were used for site averages
ID

NFCRC Sample Table 6. (F11) - Combined total PCB fraction.Appendix I. H4IIE rat hepatoma bioassay contd.

Field ID Site Description

(pg/g)TCDD-EQ (SD)

CV

9561a (3/18) Station # 1 Upper Passaic R. 1 0 3 8 8%9561b (3/18) Station # 1 Upper Passaic R. 5 7 5 9%9561c (3/18) Station # 1 Upper Passaic R. 8 7 6 7%

Bioassay Mean 8 2 2 3 28%

9562 (3/18) Station # 3 Passaic R., upstream of point source 9 6 8 9%9563 (3/18) Station # 5 Lower Passaic R., immediately uptream 151 1 0 6%9593 (3/18) Station # 7A Lower Passaic R., point source 9 6 7 8%9594 (3/18) Station # 7B Lower Passaic R., point source 6 1 4 6%9595 (3/18) Station # 7C Lower Passaic R., point source 6 3 5 8%

Site Mean 7 3 2 0 27%

9596 (3/18) Station # 8A Lower Passaic R., point source 332 3 4 10%9597 (3/18) Station # 8B Lower Passaic R., point source 391 3 4 9%

Site Mean 3 6 2 4 2 12%

9564 (3/18) Station # 10 Lower Passaic R., immediately below point source 1 6 1 7%9565 (3/18) Station # 11 Lower Passaic R., below point source 204 1 6 8%9566-1 (3/18) Station # 12 Hackensack R., North of Berry's Creek 8 1 8%9566-2 (3/18) Station # 12 Hackensack R., North of Berry's Creek 1 4 1 7%

Sample Mean 1 1 4 41%

9567 (3/18) Station # 14 Hackensack R., North of Berry's Creek 4 2 2 6%9598a (3/18) Station # 17 Hackensack R., S. of Berry's Ck./N. of Newark Bay 1 1 73%9598b (3/18) Station # 17 Hackensack R., S. of Berry's Ck./N. of Newark Bay 8 1 5 7%9598c (3/18) Station # 17 Hackensack R., S. of Berry's Ck./N. of Newark Bay 7 4 5 6%

Bioassay Mean 5 2 4 4 85%

9568 (3/18) Station # 20 Mouth, Hackensack R./Upper Newark Bay 8 0 8 10%9569 (3/18) Station # 21 Mouth, Passaic R./Upper Newark Bay 1 1 1 1 0 9%9570 (3/18) Station # 26 Upper Newark Bay 1 6 2 1 4 8%9526 (3/18) Station # 31 Upper/Mid Newark Bay 1 9 1 8%9529 (3/18) Station # 36 Lower/Mid Newark Bay 4 7 3 7%9528-1 (3/18) Station # 56 Lower Newark Bay, Port Richmond, Kill Van Kull 4 6 4 8%9528-2 (3/18) Station # 56 Lower Newark Bay, Port Richmond, Kill Van Kull 7 8 5 6%

Sample Mean 6 2 2 3 37%

9527 (3/18) Station # 57 Upper New York Harbor 2 0 9%* Means were used for site averages 10% mean CV (precision)
Sample ID Field ID

NFCRC 

Table 7. (F12) - PCDD/PCDF fraction.Appendix I. H4IIE rat hepatoma bioassay contd.

Site Description TEQ (pg/g) (pg/g)

TCDD-EQ 

9561 Site 1 Upper Passaic R 156 7 0

9562 Site 3 Passaic River 520 204

9563 Site 5 Lower Passaic R, Upstream of Pt. Source, 5g 856 3839593 Site 7A Lower Passaic R, Pt. Source, 5g 748 440

9593 Site 7A Lower Passaic R, Pt. Source, 5g 777

9594 Site 7B Lower Passaic R, Pt. Source, 5g, Rep 1 885 5439594 Site 7B Lower Passaic R, Pt. Source, 5g, Rep 2 7849594 Site 7B Lower Passaic R, Pt. Source, 5g, Rep 3 7489595 Site 7C Lower Passaic R, Pt. Source, 5g 1261 2929596 Site 8A Lower Passaic R, Pt. Source, 5g 1047 503

9597 Site 8B Lower Passaic R, Pt. Source, 5g 648 5419564 Site 10 Lower Passaic R, Below Pt Source, 5g, Rep 1 924 326

9564 Site 10 Lower Passaic R, Below Pt Source, 5g, Rep 2 1064

9564 Site 10 Lower Passaic R, Below Pt Source, 5g, Rep 3 1063

9565 Site 11 Lower Passaic R, Below Pt Source, 5g 911 305

9566 Site 12 Hackensack R, N of Berry's Creek, 5g 4 5 2 8

9567 Site 14 Hackensack R, N of Berry's Creek, 5g 424 6 3

9598 Site 17 Hackensack R, S of Berry's Creek, N of Newark Bay, 5g 105 2 0

9568 Site 20 Mouth of Hackensack R, Upper Newark Bay, 5g 164 3 2

9569 Site 21 Mouth of Passaic R, Upper Newark Bay, 5g 275 217

9570 Site 26 Upper Newark Bay, 5g 857 843

9526 Site 31 Upper-Mid-Newark Bay, 5g 274 3 6

9529 Site 36 Lower-Mid-Newark Bay, 5g 222 1239528 Site 56 Lower Newark Bay, Port Richmond, Kill Van Kull, 5g 130 134

9527 Site 57 Upper New York Harbor, 5g 1 7 7

9527 Site 57 Upper New York Harbor, 5g 1 2