NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-NE-167

Assessment and Characterization

of Salt Marshes in the Arthur Kill

(New York and New Jersey)

Replanted after a Severe Oil Spill

U. S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

National Marine Fisheries Service

Northeast Region

Northeast Fisheries Science Center

Woods Hole, Massachusetts

December 2001
155. Food of Northwest Atlantic Fishes and Two Common Species of Squid. By Ray E. Bowman, Charles E. Stillwell, William

L. Michaels, and Marvin D. Grosslein. January 2000. xiv + 138 p., 1 fig., 7 tables, 2 app. NTIS Access. No. PB2000-106735.

156. Proceedings of the Summer Flounder Aging Workshop, 1-2 February 1999, Woods Hole, Massachusetts. By George

R. Bolz, James Patrick Monaghan, Jr., Kathy L. Lang, Randall W. Gregory, and Jay M. Burnett. May 2000. v + 15 p., 5 figs.,

5 tables. NTIS Access. No. PB2000-107403.

157. Contaminant Levels in Muscle of Four Species of Recreational Fish from the New York Bight Apex. By Ashok D.

Deshpande, Andrew F.J. Draxler, Vincent S. Zdanowicz, Mary E. Schrock, Anthony J. Paulson, Thomas W. Finneran, Beth

L. Sharack, Kathy Corbo, Linda Arlen, Elizabeth A. Leimburg, Bruce W. Dockum, Robert A. Pikanowski, Brian May, and

Lisa B. Rosman. June 2000. xxii + 99 p., 6 figs., 80 tables, 3 app., glossary. NTIS Access. No. PB2001-107346.

158. A Framework for Monitoring and Assessing Socioeconomics and Governance of Large Marine Ecosystems. By

Jon G. Sutinen, editor, with contributors (listed alphabetically) Patricia Clay, Christopher L. Dyer, Steven F. Edwards, John

Gates, Tom A. Grigalunas, Timothy Hennessey, Lawrence Juda, Andrew W. Kitts, Philip N. Logan, John J. Poggie, Jr.,

Barbara Pollard Rountree, Scott R. Steinback, Eric M. Thunberg, Harold F. Upton, and John B. Walden. August 2000. v

+ 32 p., 4 figs., 1 table, glossary. NTIS Access. No. PB2001-106847.

159. An Overview and History of the Food Web Dynamics Program of the Northeast Fisheries Science Center, Woods

Hole, Massachusetts. By Jason S. Link and Frank P. Almeida. October 2000. iv + 60 p., 20 figs., 18 tables, 1 app. NTIS

Access. No. PB2001-103996.

160. Measuring Technical Efficiency and Capacity in Fisheries by Data Envelopment Analysis Using the General

Algebraic Modeling System (GAMS): A Workbook. By John B. Walden and James E. Kirkley. October 2000. iii + 15 p.,

9 figs., 5 tables. NTIS Access. No. PB2001-106502.

161. Demersal Fish and American Lobster Diets in the Lower Hudson - Raritan Estuary. By Frank W. Steimle, Robert

A. Pikanowski, Donald G. McMillan, Christine A. Zetlin, and Stuart J. Wilk. November 2000. vii + 106 p., 24 figs., 51 tables.

NTIS Access. No. PB2002-105456.

162. U.S. Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico Marine Mammal Stock Assessments – 2000. Edited by Gordon T. Waring, Janeen

M. Quintal, and Steven L. Swartz, with contributions from (listed alphabetically) Neilo B. Barros, Phillip J. Clapham, Timothy

V.N. Cole, Carol P. Fairfield, Larry J. Hansen, Keith D. Mullin, Daniel K. Odell, Debra L. Palka, Marjorie C. Rossman, U.S.

Fish and Wildlife Service, Randall S. Wells, and Cynthia Yeung. November 2000. ix + 303 p., 43 figs., 55 tables, 3 app. NTIS

Access. No. PB2001-104091.

163. Essential Fish Habitat Source Document: Red Deepsea Crab, Chaceon (Geryon) quinquedens, Life History and

Habitat Characteristics. By Frank W. Steimle, Christine A. Zetlin, and Sukwoo Chang. January 2001. v + 27 p., 8 figs.,

1 table. NTIS Access. No. PB2001-103542.

164. An Overview of the Social and Economic Survey Administered during Round II of the Northeast Multispecies Fishery

Disaster Assistance Program. By Julia Olson and Patricia M. Clay. December 2001. v + 69 p., 3 figs., 18 tables, 2 app.

NTIS Access. No. PB2002-105406.

165. A Baseline Socioeconomic Study of Massachusetts’ Marine Recreational Fisheries. By Ronald J. Salz, David K.

Loomis, Michael R. Ross, and Scott R. Steinback. December 2001. viii + 129 p., 1 fig., 81 tables, 4 app. NTIS Access. No.

PB2002-108348.

166. Report on the Third Northwest Atlantic Herring Acoustic Workshop, University of Maine Darling Marine Center,

Walpole, Maine, March 13-14, 2001. By William L. Michaels, editor and coconvenor, and Philip Yund, coconvenor.

December 2001. iv + 18 p., 14 figs., 2 app. NTIS Access. No. PB2003-101556.

Recent Issues in This Series:
U. S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Donald L. Evans, Secretary

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

Conrad C. Lautenbacher, Jr., Administrator

National Marine Fisheries Service

William T. Hogarth, Assistant Administrator for Fisheries

Northeast Region

Northeast Fisheries Science Center

Woods Hole, Massachusetts

December 2001

NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-NE-167

This series represents a secondary level of scientifiic publishing. All issues employ thorough internal

scientific review; some issues employ external scientific review. Reviews are -- by design -- transparent

collegial reviews, not anonymous peer reviews. All issues may be cited in formal scientific communications.

National Marine Fisheries Serv., 74 Magruder Rd., Highlands, NJ 07732

David B. Packer, Editor

Assessment and Characterization

of Salt Marshes in the Arthur Kill

(New York and New Jersey)

Replanted after a Severe Oil Spill
Editorial Notes

Species Names: The NEFSC Editorial Office’s policy on the use of species names in all technical communications is

generally to follow the American Fisheries Society’s lists of scientific and common names for fishes (i.e., Robins et al.

1991aa

,bb) mollusks (i.e., Turgeon et al. 1998c), and decapod crustaceans (i.e., Williams et al. 1989d), and to follow the

Society for Marine Mammalogy's guidance on scientific and common names for marine mammals (i.e., Rice 1998e).

Exceptions to this policy occur when there are subsequent compelling revisions in the classifications of species, resulting

in changes in the names of species (e.g., Cooper and Chapleau 1998f, McEachran and Dunn 1998g).

Statistical Terms: The NEFSC Editorial Office’s policy on the use of statistical terms in all technical communications is

generally to follow the International Standards Organization’s handbook of statistical methods (i.e., ISO 1981h

).

Internet Availability: This issue of the NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-NE series is being copublished, i.e., as

both a paper and Web document. The Web document, which will be in HTML (and thus searchable) and PDF formats,

can be accessed at: http://www.nefsc.noaa.gov/nefsc/publications/.

a

Robins, C.R. (chair); Bailey, R.M.; Bond, C.E.; Brooker, J.R.; Lachner, E.A.; Lea, R.N.; Scott, W.B. 1991. Common and scientific names

of fishes from the United States and Canada. 5th ed. Amer. Fish. Soc. Spec. Publ. 20; 183 p.

b

Robins, C.R. (chair); Bailey, R.M.; Bond, C.E.; Brooker, J.R.; Lachner, E.A.; Lea, R.N.; Scott, W.B. 1991. World fishes important to

North Americans. Amer. Fish. Soc. Spec. Publ. 21; 243 p.

c

Turgeon, D.D. (chair); Quinn, J.F., Jr.; Bogan, A.E.; Coan, E.V.; Hochberg, F.G.; Lyons, W.G.; Mikkelsen, P.M.; Neves, R.J.; Roper, C.F.E.;

Rosenberg, G.; Roth, B.; Scheltema, A.; Thompson, F.G.; Vecchione, M.; Williams, J.D. 1998. Common and scientific names of aquatic

invertebrates from the United States and Canada: mollusks. 2nd ed. Amer. Fish. Soc. Spec. Publ. 26; 526 p.

d

Williams, A.B. (chair); Abele, L.G.; Felder, D.L.; Hobbs, H.H., Jr.; Manning, R.B.; McLaughlin, P.A.; Pérez Farfante, I. 1989. Common

and scientific names of aquatic invertebrates from the United States and Canada: decapod crustaceans. Amer. Fish. Soc. Spec. Publ. 17;

77 p.

e

Rice, D.W. 1998. Marine mammals of the world: systematics and distribution. Soc. Mar. Mammal. Spec. Publ. 4; 231 p.

f

Cooper, J.A.; Chapleau, F. 1998. Monophyly and interrelationships of the family Pleuronectidae (Pleuronectiformes), with a revised

classification. Fish. Bull. (Washington, DC) 96:686-726.

g

McEachran, J.D.; Dunn, K.A. 1998. Phylogenetic analysis of skates, a morphologically conservative clade of elasmobranchs

(Chondrichthyes: Rajidae). Copeia 1998(2):271-290.

h

ISO [International Organization for Standardization]. 1981. ISO standards handbook 3: statistical methods. 2nd ed. Geneva, Switzerland:

ISO; 449 p.
Page iii

Contents

Preface ................................................................................................................................................................................ vii

Abstract ................................................................................................................................................................................i x

I. Introduction ................................................................................................................................................................. 1

II. Trace Metal Contaminants in Sediments and Ribbed-Mussels (Geukensia demissa) ................................................. 7

Anthony J. Paulson, Vincent S. Zdanowicz, Beth L. Sharack, Elizabeth A. Leimburg, and David B. Packer

III. Petroleum Hydrocarbons in Sediments and Ribbed-Mussels (Geukensia demissa) ..................................................33

Ashok D. Deshpande, Bruce W. Dockum, and Amy M. Tesolin

IV. Sediment Biogeochemistry ......................................................................................................................................... 65

Vincent G. Guida and Andrew F. J. Draxler

V. Age, Growth, and Allometric Relationships of Ribbed-Mussels (Geukensia demissa) ............................................. 89

Joseph J. Vitaliano and Allen J. Bejda

VI. Benthic Invertebrates ................................................................................................................................................. 97

Joseph J. Vitaliano, Robert N. Reid, Ann B. Frame, David B. Packer, Linda Arlen, and John N. Sacco

VII. Food Habits of the Mummichog (Fundulus heteroclitus) ....................................................................................... 101

Frank W. Steimle, Jr.

VIII. Conclusions ............................................................................................................................................................. 111

Acknowledgments ............................................................................................................................................................. 113

Appendices

Appendix A. Principal Component Analysis of Trace Metals ....................................................................................... 115

Appendix B. Sample Characteristics for Analysis of Petroleum Hydrocarbons ............................................................ 117

Appendix C. Quality Control for Analysis of Petroleum Hydrocarbons ........................................................................ 125

Appendix D. Individual and Total Petroleum Hydrocarbon Concentrations ................................................................. 149

Appendix E. Chromatograms for Analysis of Petroleum Hydrocarbons ....................................................................... 197

Appendix F. Redox Values .............................................................................................................................................215

Figures

Figure 1. Map showing the general location of the Arthur Kill within the Hudson-Raritan Estuary, and the location of the

Sandy Hook reference site on Sandy Hook, New Jersey .................................................................................... 4

Figure 2. Map of the Arthur Kill showing station locations and the point of origin of the 1990 oil spill ........................... 5

Figure 3. Concentration of major phases of sediments collected in September 1996 and May 1997: A) fines (<0.063 mm),

B) OC, C) Fe, and D) Mn ................................................................................................................................... 13

Figure 4. Trace metal concentrations in sediments collected in September 1996 and May 1997: A) Zn, B) Cu, C) Cr, and D)

Pb ...................................................................................................................................................................... 14

Figure 5. Trace metal:Fe ratios in sediments collected in September 1996 and May 1997: A) Zn, B) Cu, C) Cr, and D)

Pb ...................................................................................................................................................................... 15

Figure 6. Concentrations in mussels collected in September 1996 and May 1997 for the metals exhibiting the greatest

seasonal differences: A) Ni, B) Cr, C) Hg, and D) Ag ......................................................................................16

Figure 7. Concentrations in mussels collected in September 1996 and May 1997 for the metals exhibiting the least seasonal

differences: A) Cu, B) Fe, C) Zn, and D) Cd ..................................................................................................... 17

Figure 8. Principal component analysis of data for Fe, Cr, Cu, Ni, Zn, Mn, Pb, and OC data for sediments collected in

September 1996 and May 1997 ..........................................................................................................................18

Figure 9. Principal component analysis of data for Fe, Cr, Cu, Ni, Zn, Mn, Pb, and grain size for sediments collected in

September 1996 ................................................................................................................................................. 19

Figure 10. Principal component analysis of data for Ag, Cd, Cr, Cu, Ni, Zn, Hg, and Fe for mussels collected in September

1996 and May 1997 ........................................................................................................................................... 20

Figure 11. Sediment core sectioning device ...................................................................................................................... 48

Figure 12. Mussel length distribution for each site for the Arthur Kill September 1996 collection and for the Sandy Hook

Bay February 1997 collection ............................................................................................................................ 49

Figure 13. Mussel length distribution for each site for the Arthur Kill May 1997 collection ............................................50
Page iv

Figure 14. Full GC-FID calibration chromatogram of all individual hydrocarbons and internal standards ........................ 51

Figure 15. Chromatogram of a solution of the Restek diesel fuel oil #2 standard in methylene chloride with internal

standards added ............................................................................................................................................... 52

Figure 16. Chromatograms of Sandy Hook ribbed-mussel homogenate spiked with 1000 μg of Restek diesel fuel oil #2

standard ............................................................................................................................................................ 53

Figure 17. TPH concentrations for Old Place Creek and Mill Creek sediment samples ..................................................... 54

Figure 18. TPH concentrations for Con Ed Tower sediment samples ................................................................................55

Figure 19. Average TPH concentrations in surface sediments by site .............................................................................. 56

Figure 20. Average TPH concentrations in ribbed-mussels by site .................................................................................. 57

Figure 21. Box plot of the TPH concentrations in surface sediments ................................................................................58

Figure 22. Correlation between TPH concentrations and TOC concentrations in Arthur Kill surface sediments from Old

Place Creek, Con Ed Tower, and Mill Creek marshes ........................................................................................ 59

Figure 23. Correlation between TPH concentrations, mussel length, and percent lipid for Tufts Point ribbed-mussels......... 60

Figure 24. Correlation between TPH concentrations and percent lipid in Saw Mill Creek North ribbed-mussels, correlation

between mussel length and percent lipid in Saw Mill Creek South ribbed-mussels, and correlation between

mussel length and percent lipid in Mill Creek ribbed-mussels ..........................................................................61

Figure 25. Diagramatic view of DIW equilibration device in soil ....................................................................................... 76

Figure 26. Depth profiles of redox potential for stations at replanted marsh sites in fall 1996 and spring 1997, including

duplicate profiles for each station ....................................................................................................................77

Figure 27. Depth profiles of redox potential for stations at reference marsh sites in fall 1996 and spring 1997, including

duplicate profiles for each station ....................................................................................................................78

Figure 28. Depth profiles of redox potential for stations at unplanted marsh sites in fall 1996 and spring 1997, including

duplicate profiles for each station ....................................................................................................................79

Figure 29. Seasonal patterns in interstitial soluble sulfide from replanted marsh stations ................................................80

Figure 30. Seasonal patterns in interstitial soluble sulfide from unplanted marsh stations ............................................... 81

Figure 31. Seasonal patterns in interstitial soluble sulfide from reference marsh stations ................................................82

Figure 32. Seasonal values of TOC in surface sediments arranged by station, site, and replanting treatment................. 83

Figure 33. Mean LC in surface sediments taken from two stations per site in May 1998 ..................................................84

Figure 34. Log10 soluble sulfide plotted against mean redox potential for all nonzero sulfide values grouped by marsh

replanting status ............................................................................................................................................... 85

Figure 35. Relationship between sediment surface TOC and silt/clay content ................................................................. 86

Figure 36. Age-frequency distribution of ribbed-mussels collected at Old Place Creek and Saw Mill Creek North, Saw Mill

Creek South and Con Ed Tower, and Tufts Point and Mill Creek in September 1996 ....................................... 92

Figure 37. Length-frequency distribution of ribbed-mussels collected at Old Place Creek and Saw Mill Creek North, Saw

Mill Creek South and Con Ed Tower, and Tufts Point and Mill Creek in September 1996 ................................93

Figure 38. Growth of 2-, 3-, and 4-yr-old ribbed-mussels collected at the six Arthur Kill sites during September 1996 ........... 94

Tables

Table 1. Trace metal quality assurance data ...................................................................................................................21

Table 2. Metal concentrations in sediments in September 1996 .....................................................................................22

Table 3. Metal concentrations in sediments in May 1997 .............................................................................................. 24

Table 4. Trace metal statistics for sediments from the Arthur Kill and other areas in the region ................................... 26

Table 5. Metal concentrations in ribbed-mussels in September 1996 ............................................................................. 27

Table 6. Metal concentrations in ribbed-mussels in May 1997 ......................................................................................29

Table 7. Trace metal statistics for ribbed-mussels from the Arthur Kill and other areas in the region ........................... 31

Table 8. Correlations between metals and sediment characteristics, and among metals, in ribbed-mussels, where r

>0.80 ................................................................................................................................................................. 32

Table 9. Concentrations of total petroleum hydrocarbons and of the total of the individual petroleum hydrocarbons for

surface sediments ............................................................................................................................................. 62

Table 10. Concentrations of total petroleum hydrocarbons and of the total of the individual petroleum hydrocarbons for

sediment core sections .....................................................................................................................................63

Table 11. Concentrations of total petroleum hydrocarbons and of the total of the individual petroleum hydrocarbons for

ribbed-mussels ..................................................................................................................................................64
Page v

Table 12. Arthur Kill marsh biogeochemistry by treatment, site, station, and season ..................................................... 87

Table 13. Average shell dimensions, shell dry weight, meat dry weight, and shell shape and body size relationships for

2-, 3-, and 4-yr-old ribbed-mussels collected at the six Arthur Kill sites during September 1996 ...................... 95

Table 14. Invertebrate taxa collected at the six study sites in the Arthur Kill .................................................................. 99

Table 15. Means/7-cm2

 core for the abundances of all benthic invertebrates, oligochaetes, nematodes, and Manayunkia

aestuarina at each of the six study sites and two sampling dates in the Arthur Kill ..................................... 100

Table 16. Percent frequency of occurrence of items or prey in mummichog stomachs from the six Arthur Kill sites during

September 1996 ............................................................................................................................................... 106

Table 17. Mean percent stomach volume estimates of items or prey in mummichog stomachs from the six Arthur Kill sites

during September 1996 .................................................................................................................................... 107

Table 18. Percent frequency of occurrence of items or prey in mummichog stomachs from the six Arthur Kill sites during

May-August 1997 ........................................................................................................................................... 108

Table 19. Mean percent stomach volume estimates of items or prey in mummichog stomachs from the six Arthur Kill sites

during May-August 1997 ............................................................................................................................... 109

Acronyms

AAS = atomic absorption spectrophotometry

ANOVA = analysis of variance

BOD = biological oxygen demand

CPI = carbon preference index

DARP = (NOAA) Damage Assessment and Restoration Program

DDI = double de-ionized

DIW = de-ionized water

FID = flame ionization detection (detector)

GC = gas chromatography (chromatogram)

GC-FID = gas chromatography - flame ionization detection

GC/MS = gas chromatography/mass spectrometry

HDPE = high-density polyethylene

HP = Hewlett-Packard

LC = labile carbon

MDL = method detection limit

MS = mass spectrometry

nd = not detected

NIST = (U.S. Department of Commerce) National Institute of Standards and Technology

NJDEP = New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection

NMFS = (U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA) National Marine Fisheries Service

NRC = National Research Council

NYCDEP = New York City Department of Environmental Protection

OC = organic carbon

PAH = polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon

PCA = principal component analysis

PD = percent difference

QA = quality assurance

RPD = relative percentage difference

RSD = relative standard deviation

SMRT = (New York City Department of Parks and Recreation) Salt Marsh Restoration Team

SRM = standard reference material

TIPH = total of individual petroleum hydrocarbons

TOC = total organic carbon

TPH = total petroleum hydrocarbons

WI = weathering index
Page vi
Page vii

PREFACE

For further information on the oil spill in the Arthur Kill, as well as pictures of the marsh sites and plantings, see the

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Damage Assessment and Restoration Program (DARP), Exxon

Bayway Wetland Acquisition and Restoration webpage (http://www.darp.noaa.gov/neregion/exbw.htm). DARP is a collaborative effort among NOAA’s National Ocean Service, National Marine Fisheries Service, and the Office of General

Counsel. DARP’s mission is to restore coastal and marine resources that have been injured by releases of oil or hazardous

substances and to obtain compensation for the public’s lost use and enjoyment of these resources.
Page viii
Page ix

ABSTRACT

On January 1 and 2, 1990, a 576,000-gal oil spill seriously damaged the salt marshes of the Arthur Kill, the strait

separating Staten Island, New York, from New Jersey. The New York City Salt Marsh Restoration Team (SMRT) implemented

a multiyear restoration and monitoring project to restore those parts of the marshes directly impacted by the oil spill.

Restoration activities included successfully reintroducing Arthur-Kill-propagated saltmarsh cordgrass, Spartina alterniflora,

and monitoring several parameters both in oiled marshes that were replanted and in oiled marshes that were left for natural

recovery. Those parameters included: peak standing biomass, stem and flower density, and height of S. alterniflora;

sediment total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH); density of ribbed-mussels (Geukensia demissa); fish abundance and diversity; and wading bird (i.e., egret) foraging success.

Results of the monitoring suggest that the replanting of S. alterniflora was very important for recovery and restoration

of the saltmarsh ecosystem. This replanting of S. alterniflora provides much of the structural component of the marsh;

restoring this component to levels found elsewhere in the Arthur Kill is important to the other members of the food web, such

as the mussels, mummichogs, and birds. It is particularly significant in an urbanized landscape, where habitats are few and

isolated.

However, questions remain as to the ecological viability and functional equivalency of these marshes. The problem is

compounded because not only was almost every low marsh within the Arthur Kill affected to some extent by the 1990 spill,

but this estuary is heavily urbanized and degraded; its marshes are continuously impacted by contaminants and other

anthropogenic influences. In 1996 and 1997, the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) sought to supplement the SMRT

monitoring efforts via a preliminary characterization and assessment of marshes that were oiled and replanted, marshes that

were oiled but not planted, and nearby pre-existing S. alterniflora reference marshes, with a view toward noting any

differences among the marshes, especially those that might be attributable to the replanting efforts. The measured parameters include trace metal and hydrocarbon contaminants in ribbed-mussels and sediments, sediment biogeochemistry, age

and growth of ribbed-mussels, macrobenthic distribution and abundance, and diets of the mummichog (Fundulus heteroclitus).

Sampling occurred in fall 1996 and spring-summer 1997.

Results of the NMFS study are less clear than those of the previous SMRT monitoring effort with regard to the benefits

of replanting, or even to the differences among sites. Trace metal concentrations in the sediments at each marsh were site

specific and more dependent upon the general characteristics of the sediment, such as the percentage of fine-grained

sediments and iron content, than upon whether or not the marsh was replanted. Compared to concentrations from a reference

marsh outside the Arthur Kill, metal concentrations in sediments from the entire Arthur Kill were elevated. There were no

consistent differences in metal concentrations in mussels collected from replanted and unplanted marshes, while concentrations of many metals in mussels from two of three reference marshes were significantly lower. However, as with the metal

concentrations in the sediments, replanting may not have had a great effect on the levels of trace metals in the mussels.

The TPH concentrations in surface sediments from the southernmost reference marsh were numerically the lowest,

those from the northernmost oiled and replanted marsh were intermediate, and those from one oiled but unplanted barren

marsh were the highest; residual oil is still evident in sediments at this latter marsh. The lower levels of oil at the reference and

replanted marshes may be due to oxidation and weathering of the oil, perhaps caused by the physical disturbance of planting

and by the mineralization of oil by microbes around the roots of S. alterniflora. The TPH concentrations in mussels from all

marshes were low, were not significantly different, and showed no temporal trend; thus, replanting efforts do not appear to

have affected the levels of TPH in the mussels.

For biogeochemistry, the spatio-temporal patterns of porewater redox potential, soluble sulfide, and total organic

carbon in the marsh sediments showed statistically significant differences with depth and season. However, these differences were not meaningful for assessment of replanting success because they appeared to owe more to the peculiarities of

individual sampling stations within each of the marshes than to replanting status. Quantitative differences among station

data within each marsh were so large, and distributions of values at those stations were so skewed, as to render differences

uninterpretable in terms of replanting. No patterns characteristic of replanted, unplanted, or reference marshes were identified, nor were characteristic differences among sites fitting these treatment categories evident. The biogeochemistry appears

to be mediated by factors not clearly related to replanting. The marshes were heterogeneous with respect to these factors,

confounding efforts to identify replanting-specific effects. Among those confounding factors were differences in grain size

distribution, surface and subsurface hydrology, macrobiotic activity, and anthropogenic influences.

Ribbed-mussels from the replanted sites were younger, smaller, weighed less, and grew slower than mussels from the

southernmost Arthur Kill reference site. The older, larger mussels collected at the reference marsh represent cumulative

growth processes over many generations at a mature and relatively undisturbed marsh that was minimally affected by the oil

spill. The younger, smaller mussels collected at the replanted sites most likely reflect growth processes since replanting.

Although the chronic effect of oil from the spill and the disturbance caused by the replanting process may have affected

growth rates at the replanted sites, other natural and anthropogenic site-specific factors may also have been responsible.
Page x

The invertebrate taxa found within the sediments of the Arthur Kill marshes appear to be similar to invertebrate taxa

found in S. alterniflora marshes elsewhere. Abundances of most taxa were highest in the spring. Although there may be

similarities in invertebrate abundances between the replanted and reference marshes, quantitative evaluation was confounded due to the low number of replanted and reference sites sampled and to the high variability in the data, which is

typical of benthic surveys.

The high percentages of detritus and algae, as opposed to live prey, in the mummichog stomachs may indicate a poor

diet in a polluted environment, as suggested by previous studies. The mummichog diets may or may not have been site

specific. A more thorough investigation would be necessary to discern such patterns in the data, as has been demonstrated

for several of our other investigations.

In conclusion, although replanting of the oil-damaged Arthur Kill marshes by SMRT may have successfully “restored”

them, at least structurally, to the level of the existing marshes found within the Arthur Kill, because this is an urban estuary,

the extent to which the ecological functions of these marshes have been restored is more difficult to ascertain due to

confounding factors such as pollution and other anthropogenic impacts. Also, the time span of the NMFS studies may have

been too short and the number of treatment sites chosen may have been too small to accurately assess the performance of

the replanted marshes, especially given the many scales of natural spatial and temporal variability and anthropogenic

perturbations inherent in this ecosystem. Nevertheless, SMRT continues to replant and monitor these marshes where

necessary, insuring that this vital habitat is protected from further loss and degradation.
Page 1

I. INTRODUCTION

wetland restoration projects exist even today,” although

authors such as Short et al. (2000) are in the process of

developing success criteria for estuarine restoration

projects. In fact, the term “restored” itself is not quite correct: most current research in this field focuses on created

or constructed salt marshes [marshes created in response

to mitigation efforts; e.g., Zedler et al. (1997)], rather than

those that have been restored or rehabilitated as a result

of a severe environmental impact. Thus, although the replanting of S. alterniflora in the Arthur Kill was considered

both successful and exceptional, and some SMRT monitoring results showed increased aquatic faunal and avian abundances at replanted sites (C. Alderson et al., Salt Marsh

Restoration Team, Natural Resources Group, New York City

Parks, 200 Nevada Ave., Staten Island, NY, pers. comm. and

unpubl. data), questions remain as to the ecological viability and functional equivalency of these marshes.

The problem is compounded because not only was almost every low marsh within the Arthur Kill affected to

some extent by the 1990 spill, but this estuary is also heavily

urbanized, and the marshes are continuously impacted by

urban runoff, contaminants, floatables, bank erosion, and

illegal dumping which together can severely restrict natural

recolonization of S. alterniflora. Thus, it may be difficult to

detect differences in the ecosystem functions between the

replanted marshes and the pre-existing marshes within the

Arthur Kill. Even if differences are detected, it may be impossible to attribute these differences to the replanting efforts or to the oil from the spill after so many years. These

difficulties are often encountered when undertaking environmental impact or restoration studies, particularly in urban wetland habitats (Ehrenfeld 2000). Thus, as a first step,

Ehrenfeld (2000) states: “Measures of restoration success

and functional performance [in urban wetlands] must start

with an appreciation and assessment of the particular conditions imposed by the urban environment. These conditions can be identified, measured, and incorporated into

assessment protocols for individual wetland functions.”

Therefore, the primary goal of this study is to supplement the SMRT monitoring efforts via a preliminary characterization and assessment of marshes that were oiled and

replanted, marshes that were oiled but not planted, and

nearby pre-existing S. alterniflora reference marshes, with

a view toward noting any differences among sites, especially those that might be attributable to the replanting efforts. Measured parameters include trace metals and hydrocarbon contaminants in ribbed-mussels and sediments,

sediment biogeochemistry, age and growth of ribbed-mussels, macrobenthic distribution and abundance, and diets

of the common mummichog (Fundulus heteroclitus). Monitoring by itself often centers only on the structural attributes

of the wetland; explicit measures of function, such as biogeochemistry and the trophic linkages between the fish and

benthic communities (e.g., Moy and Levin 1991) can proOn January 1 and 2, 1990, an oil spill of 576,000 gal of

No. 2 heating oil from an underwater Exxon pipeline seriously affected wildlife and aquatic plant communities of the

Arthur Kill, the strait separating Staten Island, New York,

from New Jersey (Burger 1994; Figures 1 and 2). The leak

occurred at Morses Creek in the northern reach of the Kill,

and affected areas as far north as the Kill van Kull and

Newark Bay, and as far south as the Outerbridge Crossing.

The total petroleum hydrocarbon (TPH) content of sediments in the area was as high as 120,000 μg/g, and exceeded

1000 μg/g in about 50% of the sediments tested (Louis

Berger and Associates 1991). In areas closest to the spill,

the dominant vegetation of the low marsh -- saltmarsh

cordgrass (Spartina alterniflora) -- was eradicated, and

mussel beds were heavily damaged, locally experiencing up

to 100% mortality (Louis Berger and Associates 1991).

Approximately 700 aquatic birds were killed outright, and

the 1990 breeding season was seriously disrupted.

The New York City Department of Parks and Recreation’s

Salt Marsh Restoration Team (SMRT) implemented a

multiyear restoration and monitoring project to restore those

parts of the marshes directly impacted by the 1990 oil spill.

Restoration activities included the successful reintroduction of over 9 acres of Arthur Kill-propagated S. alterniflora

(Bergen et al. 2000). The SMRT has been monitoring several parameters both in oiled marshes that were replanted

and in oiled marshes that were left for natural recovery.

Those parameters included: peak standing biomass, stem

and flower density, and height of saltmarsh cordgrass; sediment TPH; density of ribbed-mussels (Geukensia demissa);

fish abundance and diversity; and wading bird (egret) foraging success (Bergen et al. 2000; C. Alderson et al., Salt

Marsh Restoration Team, Natural Resources Group, New

York City Parks, 200 Nevada Ave., Staten Island, NY, pers.

comm. and unpubl. data).

Understanding the development and functional value

of restored salt marshes requires an understanding of how

natural salt marshes function. There have been several

studies comparing the relative and functional value of restored marshes to natural marshes (e.g., Cammen 1976; Race

and Christie 1982; Pacific Estuarine Research Laboratory

1990; LaSalle et al. 1991; Minello and Zimmerman 1992;

Zedler 1993; Matthews and Minello 1994; Sacco et al. 1994;

Havens et al. 1995; Thompson et al. 1995; Levin et al. 1996;

Simenstad and Thom 1996; see also Kentula 2000). However, many restored wetlands have not been scientifically

evaluated for their success in approaching the equivalent

functional levels of natural wetland habitats; indeed, determining the “functional equivalency” of a restored wetland

compared to a natural wetland is very difficult, and appraising the success of a restoration is problematic (e.g., see

Simenstad and Thom 1996; Kentula 2000; Zedler and

Callaway 2000). Lewis (2000) noted that “no generally accepted and applied criteria for establishing goals for coastal
Page 2

vide a more integrated assessment of ecosystem processes,

as well as measure the progress of restoration (Simenstad

and Thom 1996). Thus, this preliminary characterization,

although limited, both complements and goes beyond the

current monitoring studies of New York’s SMRT, and may

allow us to better evaluate our ability to restore the functional attributes of this habitat, as well as to identify potential indicators of habitat and living marine resource health,

impacts, and recovery within a heavily urbanized and degraded estuary.

SITE DESCRIPTIONS

Six Arthur Kill marshes were selected: two oiled and

replanted, two oiled but unplanted, and two pre-existing S.

alterniflora reference marsh sites (Figures 1 and 2). For the

trace metals and hydrocarbon analysis studies, mussels were

collected farther south and east in the relatively pristine

Sandy Hook Bay (Figure 1) to use as an additional reference.

Sampling occurred in September 1996 and May 1997.

Mummichogs were scarce in spring 1997, so that year, sampling for those fish occurred from May until early August.

Replanted and Unplanted Sites

Old Place Creek and marsh surrounds the Goethal’s

Bridge in the northern end of the Arthur Kill between

Elizabethport Reach and Gulfport Reach. The site is almost

directly across from the origin of the spill and was heavily

oiled, with replanting occurring around 1993. Oily residues

were still found at this site in 1996-97. The shoreline was

heavily impacted by tugboat and wind-generated waves.

The combination of wave energy and Old Place Creek’s

close proximity to the Bayway Refinery have left parts of

the shoreline devoid of both vegetation and the thick layers of peat generated since the last glaciation. Some parts

of the marsh (outside of our study area) were fouled by an

asphalt spill in the 1980s, and the substrate was later

stripped. For a further description of this marsh, the impact

of the oil spill, and subsequent replanting, see Bergen et al.

(2000), as well as Blanchard et al. (2001).

The Consolidated Edison Tower (i.e., “Con Ed Tower”)

site is located at the junction of the northern end of Prall’s

Creek and the Arthur Kill. The area was not replanted (although it may be in the near future) and was barren; the

substrate consisted of a combination of asphalt-covered

peat, exposed peat, and sand-and-gravel-covered peat or

asphalt. The substrate still had oily residues at the time of

our sampling.

The Saw Mill Creek North marsh site is located on the

northern shoreline of Saw Mill Creek. The replanted site

occupied a narrow 3-6 m wide band which ran 91 m in length

from the mouth of the creek east into the full marsh. Damage and destruction by oil at this site consisted of the loss

of S. alterniflora and subsequent erosion of peat and adjacent high marsh. Replanting occurred in 1992.

The unplanted Saw Mill Creek South site is on the opposite (south) shore of the creek. The width of the denuded area was not as wide as that on the north shore.

Since the oil spill, erosion of the denuded south banks has

occurred, but S. alterniflora has re-established itself without the need for replanting. Unlike the barren Con Ed Tower

site, the unplanted Saw Mill Creek South site was visually

indistinguishable from the replanted Saw Mill Creek North

site by 1996.

Reference Sites

Many authors have noted the importance of choosing

reference sites that adequately reflect the conditions of the

restoration site, and that encompass the known variation of

the group of wetlands in the study (e.g., Brinson and

Rheinhardt 1996; Kentula 2000; Short et al. 2000). Reference sites in urban areas will, and should, reflect the realities of the urban context [see Ehrenfeld (2000) and authors

cited therein for an extended discussion of reference sites

in urban wetland restoration studies]. Thus, at least one of

the two pre-existing S. alterniflora reference marshes we

chose was affected to some degree by the oil spill, and both

are continually affected by anthropogenic impacts, as are

all marshes within the Arthur Kill itself. In fact, it would not

have been possible or even feasible to find or use a “pristine” marsh within the Arthur Kill.

The first site, Tufts Point, is located midway on the

New Jersey side, and extends out into the Kill where it turns

sharply to the west between Fresh Kills Reach and Port

Reading Reach. After the oil spill, the site suffered some

“medium oiling” according to Louis Berger and Associates

(1991). There was a high mortality of the ribbed-mussel, a

common bivalve mollusk residing in the low marsh and predominantly attached to the stems and roots of S.

alterniflora. Nevertheless, relative to the more northern

marshes, the site did not suffer extensive damage after the

1990 spill, and was considered by SMRT to be in good

condition. Therefore, we considered it as a reference marsh.

The second reference site, Mill Creek marsh, is located

in the Outerbridge Reach, just to the south of the Outerbridge

Crossing on Staten Island. It was our southernmost site.

The study marsh itself was located on an island right at the

mouth of the creek; at very low tides the water over the

surrounding mudflats was shallow enough to allow easy

access to the mainland. Although Mill Creek marsh was

located in the “lightly-impacted” zone (Louis Berger and

Associates 1991) of the 1990 spill, Louis Berger and Associates (1991) nevertheless observed no oiling there, and

declared it a control site.

The Sandy Hook reference site used for contaminant

analyses was located on the western shoreline of the barrier beach peninsula, in Sandy Hook Bay (Figure 1), where

there are a series of marshes and mud flats that are exposed
Page 3

during periods of low tide in an area south of Spermaceti

Cove and north of Plum Island. The site was considered to

be relatively clean, especially compared to the Arthur Kill.

REFERENCES CITED

Bergen, A.; Alderson, C.; Bergfors, R.; Aquila, C.; Matsil,

M.A. 2000. Restoration of a Spartina alterniflora salt

marsh following a fuel oil spill, New York City, NY. Wetlands Ecol. Manage. 8:185-195.

Blanchard, P.P., III; Kerlinger, P.; Stein. M.J. 2001. An

islanded nature -- natural area conservation in western

Staten Island, including the Harbor Herons Region.

Washington, DC: The Trust for Public Land, and, New

York City Audubon Society; 224 p.

Brinson, M.M.; Rheinhardt, R. 1996. The role of reference

wetlands in functional assessment and mitigation. Ecol.

Appl. 6:69-77.

Burger, J., editor. 1994. Before and after an oil spill: the

Arthur Kill. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers Univ. Press;

305 p.

Cammen, L.M. 1976. Abundance and production of

macroinvertebrates from natural and artificially established salt marshes in North Carolina. Am. Midl. Nat.

96:487-493.

Ehrenfeld, J.G. 2000. Evaluating wetlands within an urban

context. Ecol. Eng. 15:253-265.

Havens, K.J.; Varnell, L.M.; Bradshaw, J.G. 1995. An assessment of ecological conditions in a constructed tidal

marsh and two natural reference tidal marshes in coastal

Virginia. Ecol. Eng. 4:117-141.

Kentula, M.E. 2000. Perspectives on setting success criteria for wetland restoration. Ecol. Eng. 15:199-209.

LaSalle, M.W.; Landin, M.C.; Sims, J.G. 1991. Evaluation of

the flora and fauna of a Spartina alterniflora marsh

established on dredged material in Winyah Bay, South

Carolina. Wetlands 11:191-208.

Levin, L.; Tally, D.; Thayer, G. 1996. Succession of

macrobenthos in a created salt marsh. Mar. Ecol. Prog.

Ser. 141:67-82.

Lewis, R.R., III. 2000. Ecologically based goal setting in

mangrove forest and tidal marsh restoration. Ecol. Eng.

15:191-198.

Louis Berger and Associates, Inc. 1991. Arthur Kill oil

discharge study. Vol 1. Final report, and, Vol. 2. Appendices. Submitted to: New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection and Energy, Trenton, NJ.

Matthews, G.A.; Minello, T.J. 1994. Technology and success in restoration, creation, and enhancement of

Spartina alterniflora marshes in the United States. Vol.

1 -- Executive summary and annotated bibliography.

NOAA Coast. Ocean Prog. Decision Anal. Ser. 2.

Minello, T.J.; Zimmerman, R.J. 1992. Utilization of natural

and transplanted Texas salt marshes by fish and decapod crustaceans. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 90:273-285.

Moy, L.D.; Levin, L.A. 1991. Are Spartina marshes a replaceable resource? A functional approach to evaluation of marsh creation efforts. Estuaries 14:1-16.

Pacific Estuarine Research Laboratory. 1990. A manual for

assessing restored and natural coastal wetlands with

examples from southern California. Calif. Sea Grant

Rep. T-CSGCP-021.

Race, M.S.; Christie, D.R. 1982. Coastal zone development:

mitigation, marsh creation, and decision-making.

Environ. Manag. 6:317-328.

Simenstad, C.A.; Thom, R.M. 1996. Functional equivalency trajectories of the restored Gog-Le-Hi-Te estuarine wetland. Ecol. Appl. 6:38-56.

Sacco, J.N.; Seneca, E.D.; Wentworth, T.R. 1994. Infaunal

community development of artificially established salt

marshes in North Carolina. Estuaries 17:489-500.

Short, F.T.; Burdick, D.M.; Short, C.A.; Davis, R.C.; Morgan, P.A. 2000. Developing success criteria for restored eelgrass, salt marsh and mud flat habitats. Ecol.

Eng. 15:239-252.

Thompson, S.P.; Paerl, H.W.; Go, M.C. 1995. Seasonal patterns of nitrification and denitrification in a natural and

a restored salt marsh. Estuaries 18:399-408.

Zedler, J.B. 1993. Canopy architecture of natural and planted

cordgrass marshes: selecting habitat evaluation criteria. Ecol. Appl. 3:123-138.

Zedler, J.B.; Callaway, J.C. 2000. Evaluating the progress of

engineered tidal wetlands. Ecol. Eng. 15:211-225.

Zedler, J.B.; Williams, G.D.; Desmond, J.S. 1997. Wetland

mitigation: can fishes distinguish between natural and

constructed wetlands? Fisheries 22:26-28.
Perth

Amboy

Sandy Hook

Sandy Hook

reference site

Staten Island,

New York City

Brooklyn,

New York City

New Jersey

New Jersey

Raritan Bay

Arthur Kill

Hudson

River

Sandy Hook

Bay

Page 4

Figure 1. Map showing the general location of the Arthur Kill within the Hudson-Raritan Estuary, and the location of the

Sandy Hook reference site on Sandy Hook, New Jersey.
74o 16’ 74 74o 12’ 74o 10’ o 14’

40o 38’

40o 32’

40o 30’

40o 34’

40o 36’

Goethal’s

Bridge

Morses Creek 

(origin of spill)

Old Place

Creek/marsh (R)

Con Ed Tower

marsh (U) Pralls Creek

Fresh Kills

Rahway River

Woodbridge

Creek

Mill Creek marsh (Re)

Outerbridge Crossing

Perth

Amboy

Tottenville

(R) = Replanted

(U) = Unplanted

(Re) = Reference

Tufts Point marsh (Re)

Pralls Island

Saw Mill Creek/

marsh: (R) - north

of creek; (U) -

south of

creek

Page 5

Figure 2. Map of the Arthur Kill showing station locations and the point of origin of the 1990 oil spill.
Page 6
Page 7

II. TRACE METAL CONTAMINANTS

IN SEDIMENTS AND RIBBED-MUSSELS (Geukensia demissa)

Anthony J. Paulson1, 2, 4, Vincent S. Zdanowicz3, 5, Beth L. Sharack1, 6,

Elizabeth A. Leimburg1, 7, and David B. Packer1, 8

Postal Addresses: 1National Marine Fisheries Serv., 74 Magruder Rd., Highlands, NJ 07732; 3U.S.

 Customs Serv., 7501 Boston Blvd., Ste. 113, Springfield, VA 22153

Current Address: 2

U.S. Geological Survey, 1201 Pacific Ave., Ste. 600, Tacoma, WA 98402

E-Mail Addresses: 4apaulson@usgs.gov; 5Vincent.Zdanowicz@customs.treas.gov; 6Beth.Sharack@noaa.gov; 7

Elizabeth.Leimburg@noaa.gov; 8Dave.Packer@noaa.gov

INTRODUCTION

Bioaccumulation of metals in mussels depends not only

on metal concentrations in the sediments (Hummel et al.

1997), but also the physiological state of the organism (e.g.,

season and environmental factors) and the biogeochemistry of the sediments (e.g., iron (Fe) content, organic carbon

(OC) content, and oxidation-reduction condition). Trace

metals were analyzed in mussels and sediments in the Arthur

Kill to determine if the biogeochemical processes that control bioaccumulation were affected by replanting of S.

alterniflora at the previously oiled sites. Since the replanted

sites were not sampled before replanting, pairs of unplanted,

replanted, and reference sites in the Arthur Kill were sampled

for mussels and sediments in September 1996 and May 1997.

Sampling at the unplanted sites (i.e., Con Ed Tower and Saw

Mill Creek South sites) occurred 6 yr after the 1990 Exxon

Bayway oil spill. At the time of initial sampling, S. alterniflora

planted in 1992 had been growing at the Saw Mill Creek

North site for 4 yr, while the S. alterniflora planted at the

Old Place Creek site in 1993 had been growing for 3 yr. Two

Arthur Kill reference sites (i.e., Tufts Point and Mill Creek)

and a regional reference site (i.e., Sandy Hook) were also

sampled.

This chapter only addresses: 1) the level of contamination of Arthur Kill sediments and mussels, and 2) whether

replanting is the dominant factor controlling metal concentrations in sediment and mussels. More specific interactions between bioaccumulation in mussels and sediment

geochemistry will not be addressed in this chapter.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

All implements and plastic containers used for collecting, transporting, processing, and storing sediment and

mussel samples for metals analyses were decontaminated

by rinsing in dilute, ultrapure nitric acid, then doubly in deionized (DDI) water.

Sediments

For collecting sediment samples, four stations were selected along a transect at 0.2 m above the mid-tide level at

each of the six sites within the Arthur Kill. Locations with

equal tidal height were chosen to minimize station-to-station differences in surface (tidal) hydrology. The positions

of the stations along the transect were chosen based on the

need to minimize disturbance to the site. Also, access to

the specific sites was affected by unique logistical difficulties. For this reason, distances between stations along the

transect at a site ranged from 2 to 20 m apart, and the total

length of the transects among sites ranged from 12 m at Saw

Mill Creek South to 39.5 m at Old Place Creek. At the replanted and reference marsh sites, stations along the

transect were located within the vegetated zone. At Con Ed

Tower, the transect was in a wide unvegetated area, and

stations were located in mud and peat that contained chunks

of asphalt. At Saw Mill Creek South, the transect was along

the edge of the cordgrass and barren mud and peat banks.

Sediment samples for grain size analysis were collected

at each of the four stations within each of the six sites in

September 1996 (one core per station) by using 28-mm-internal-diameter, plastic-core tubes, and were frozen for transport back to the laboratory. The particle size distribution of

the sediment mineral fraction was determined by modifying

the standard wet and dry sieving procedures of Ingram

(1971), Galehouse (1971), and Folk (1980). The particle upper size limit chosen was > -2φ (i.e., pebble/granule boundary), and the particle lower size limit was >4φ (i.e., mud,

composed of silt and clay). The top 5 cm of each frozen

core were extracted, treated with several milliliters of 30%

H2O2, and heated to digest any organic material. The samples

often contained large sections of S. alterniflora rhizomes

and stems, which were removed. Each sample was then wet

sieved with a 63-μm sieve to separate the coarse sediment

from the mud. While the mud remained in distilled water,

the coarse fraction was dried and mechanically sieved

through different-sized sieves to separate out the various
Page 8

coarse size fractions, plus any remaining mud. After weighing the dried coarse fractions, the mud from both wet and

dry sieving procedures was combined, dried, and weighed.

For samples from the Con Ed Tower site, deposits of tar

prevented us from performing any grain size analysis.

For determination of total OC in the sediments, see Chapter IV, “Sediment Biogeochemistry.”

For trace metal analyses, sediment cores were collected

with 31-mm-diameter acrylic tubes at the four representative locations within each of the six Arthur Kill sites and at

two locations within the regional reference site (i.e., Sandy

Hook). The top 1-cm section from each core was dried

overnight at 60-65°C, the debris was removed, and the remaining sample was pulverized. Ten milliliters of trace-metalgrade concentrated HCl was added to a 100-ml Pyrex beaker

containing 1-10 g of dried sediment, and was allowed to

react with the sediment for 15 min (Zdanowicz et al. 1995).

After the addition 10 ml of concentrated HNO3

, the sediment slurry was then allowed to stand for 2 hr. The slurry

was then taken to dryness over low heat. After the addition

of 25 ml of 0.1-M aqua regia, this slurry stood overnight at

room temperature. The volume of liquid was reduced to

about 10 ml over low heat, and the slurry was filtered through

acid-cleaned, #41 Whatman filter paper using additional

DDI to rinse the beaker. DDI was added to bring the filtrate

to a final volume of 25 ml.

The resulting solutions were analyzed for iron (Fe),

chromium (Cr), copper (Cu), nickel (Ni), zinc (Zn), manganese (Mn), and lead (Pb) by using flame atomic absorption

spectrophotometry (AAS). Six procedural blanks and five

replicates of standard reference material (SRM) NIST 1645

(river sediment) obtained from the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) were also analyzed by the

same procedure. Table 1 shows the quality assurance data

for the trace metals. Except for Ni and Pb in the May 1997

Sandy Hook samples, metal values in the sediments were

above detection limits (see Table 2). Recoveries for NIST

1645 ranged between 90 and 98% . Within the Arthur Kill

samples, outliers were identified using the Grubbs test (Sokal

and Rohlf 1981), and were not used to calculate any statistical parameter. Differences in mean metal concentrations

among groups of samples from different sites for each year

were investigated using analysis of variance (ANOVA; P =

0.05) and Duncan’s multiple range test.

Mussels

Ribbed-mussels were collected randomly at each site in

September 1996 and May 1997. Owing to the sparse density of the mussels, to the limited time available for sampling (i.e., between high tides), and to the desire not to

disturb the sites any more than necessary, the first 60-70

specimens that were found were collected. At the Saw Mill

Creek South site, sampling was impeded by tall S.

alterniflora, so it was possible to collect only 34 specimens

in 1996.

After being transported to the NMFS James J. Howard

Marine Sciences Laboratory in Sandy Hook, New Jersey, in

plastic bags under ice, mussels from each site were separated by size into two roughly identical groups, one for

metals analysis and one for hydrocarbon analysis. In order

to obtain specimens of comparable size at each site for metal

analysis, a length range between 55 and 67 mm was selected. This was the smallest size range that provided at

least five individuals per site. At sites where there were

more than five specimens within this range, samples were

selected using the following procedure. The size range was

divided into five bins. One specimen per bin was selected

randomly. If a bin contained no specimens, an alternate bin

was selected at random, and a specimen was selected randomly from it. For the given length range, the average wet

weight (15.65±2.70 g) of tissue collected in May 1997 from

the Mill Creek site was significantly greater than the weights

of samples for the 13 other collections (13.32±2.10 g).

Mussel specimens for metal analysis were allowed to

depurate overnight in ambient, laboratory supplied seawater at 4°C. After removing extraneous material from the shell

(mud, barnacles, etc.), total weight and length were recorded

for each specimen. The tissue (i.e., soft parts) was then

excised, and stored in a vial at -20°C until analysis. Five or

six individual samples per site were analyzed for metals.

After thawing, the entire soft tissue was placed in a Teflon

vial and weighed. The tissue was dried overnight at 60-

65°C and reweighed to obtain a dry weight. Five milliliters

of ultrapure concentrated HNO3

 was added to the sample

which was typically 1 g. The vials were allowed to stand at

room temperature for 2-4 hr. Vials were then capped and

placed inside Teflon-lined bombs, and the tissue was digested overnight at 120°C. After cooling, bombs were

vented, the vials were removed, and the digests were allowed to degas at room temperature overnight. The digests

were then quantitatively transferred to 25-ml glass graduated cylinders and brought to volume using DDI water. The

resulting solutions were analyzed for Fe, Cu, and Zn by

using flame AAS, for Cr, Ni, silver (Ag),and cadmium (Cd)

by using graphite furnace AAS, and for mercury (Hg) by

using cold-vapor AAS. Nine procedural blanks and nine

replicates of NIST 1566a (freeze-dried oyster tissue) were

also analyzed using the same procedure. Details of the

sample digestion and analysis procedure can be found in

Zdanowicz et al. (1993).

Values for all specimens were above detection limits.

Average SRM recoveries ranged from 96-102% (Table 1). A

majority of variables for two Con Ed Tower samples collected in May 1997 were found to be outliers, and all data

from these two samples were disregarded (see Table 6).
Page 9

RESULTS

Sediments

The general characteristics of the sediments analyzed

in this study differ significantly (Tables 2 and 3). The sediments at the two Saw Mill Creek sites, the Tufts Point site,

and the Mill Creek site in 1996 were predominately fine

grained (i.e., on average, between 71.3 and 98.3% of samples,

by weight, were <63 μm by weight), and had OC content

that ranged, on average, between 5.8 and 11.1% by weight

(Figure 3; results of the OC analyses are from Chapter IV,

“Biogeochemistry”). In contrast, the Old Place Creek and

Sandy Hook sites contained, on average, 11.9 and 2.8% fine

material, respectively; the Old Place Creek site contained,

on average, 1.3% or less OC. The size distribution of the

Con Ed Tower site could not be determined because the OC

content of the sediments in 1996 averaged 35.0%, a significant portion of this OC being oil. The average Fe content of

the four fine-grained sediment sites (i.e., Saw Mill Creek

North and South, Tufts Point, and Mill Creek) ranged between 3.29 and 3.91% by weight. The coarser nature of the

Old Place Creek and Sandy Hook sediments was reflected

in their lower average sediment Fe concentrations of 0.9

and 0.3% by weight, respectively. The mere dilution of finegrained material by the presence of abundant organic matter (i.e., over 40% by weight OC at some stations) at the Con

Ed Tower site also reduced Fe concentrations. Similar to

Fe, Mn concentrations at the Old Place Creek and Sandy

Hook sites were also low. However, there was considerable

variability in the Mn concentrations at the fine-grained sites,

with the southern sites (i.e., Tufts Point and Mill Creek)

having significantly higher Mn concentrations.

The sediment texture was also reflected in the concentrations of Cu, Zn, Cr, and Pb in sediment, with the sites

with coarser sediments (i.e., Old Place Creek and Sandy

Hook) having significantly lower concentrations (Figure 4).

However, there was considerable variation in metal concentrations among the sites having fine-grained sediments.

These metal concentrations are within the range reported

for Arthur Kill sediments by other investigators (Meyerson

et al. 1981; Adams et al. 1998). Cr, Cu, Zn, and Pb were

significantly higher in all Arthur Kill samples (Table 4) relative to marine sediments with similar Fe concentrations collected from sparsely populated coasts (Daskalakis and

O’Connor 1995). Ni concentrations of Arthur Kill sediments

(Tables 2 and 3) were lower or similar to marine sediments

collected from less-impacted coasts. The Cu, Zn, and Pb

concentrations at the Mill Creek reference site were significantly higher than the New York Harbor, Western Long Island Sound, and Newark Bay averages (Table 4).

Trace metals generally concentrate on the Fe, Al, and

Mn oxide and OC coatings of sediments (Olsen et al. 1982).

Fe concentrations in these Arthur Kill sediments were significantly larger than Mn concentrations, suggesting the

Fe oxides were the dominant oxide coating of the surfaces

of sediment particles. Normalization of Cu, Zn, Cr, and Pb

concentrations to Fe accounts for the differences in sediment texture of each individual sediment sample. These

normalized concentrations were used to determine significant differences in metal concentrations among sites. The

normalized concentrations of Cu, Zn, and Pb were lower at

the Sandy Hook station compared with the Arthur Kill sites

(Figure 5), while normalized Cr concentrations at Sandy Hook

were not significantly difference than those at Old Place

Creek, Tufts Point, and Mill Creek sites. Normalized Cu, Zn,

and Pb concentrations at Mill Creek in 1996 were significantly higher than those of most of the other Arthur Kill

sites. In general, normalized concentrations of metals at the

unplanted, planted, and Tufts Point (reference) sites were

similar, with the exception of higher normalized concentrations of Zn at Tufts Point in 1997, higher Cr at the Saw Mill

Creek North and Con Ed Tower sites in 1996, and higher Ni

at Con Ed Tower sites in 1996 (not shown). There was little

difference in the normalized metal concentrations between

the two adjacent Saw Mill Creek sites, except for the higher

Pb value at the restored Saw Mill Creek North site.

Mussels

The metal data for mussels also indicate that Tufts Point

was not a suitable reference site, but rather reflected the

higher metal concentrations as a result of the overall pollution of the Arthur Kill, including oil spills (Tables 5 and 6).

For instance, the highest Cd concentrations found in any

specimen in each season were from specimens collected

from Tufts Point. Fe, Cr, Ni, Zn and Hg concentrations from

Tufts Point were not significantly different than the concentrations from the oiled sites. Therefore, the Tufts Point

sample is grouped with the other Arthur Kill sites in the

following discussion.

The range of metal concentration data from September

1996 was wide, resulting in much overlap in ranges among

sites. However, some significant seasonal differences were

found (Figures 6 and 7). The unplanted Saw Mill Creek

South site was anomalous in that the Ni concentration in

mussels was greater in May 1997 than in September 1996,

but there were no significant seasonal differences found

for the other seven elements. In contrast, concentrations

of Cr, Ag, and Hg at four other Arthur Kill sites were generally higher in September, and highly variable.

The decrease in Ag, Cr, Cu, and Hg concentrations in

mussels from the oiled sites between September and May

might be a result of natural processes. A significant seasonal difference in metal concentrations between the replanted and unplanted sites was observed only for Cu.

Therefore, it is unlikely that the seasonal difference in metal
Page 10

concentrations in mussels was influenced by the replanting effort.

Only the May data were used to determine geographical differences in metal concentrations in mussels, since

the September data were so highly variable. Relative to the

oiled sites, Cr, Cu, and Hg concentrations in mussels were

significantly lower at the Mill Creek and Sandy Hook sites,

while Fe and Cu were significantly lower only at the Sandy

Hook site. The range of concentrations of Ag, Ni, and Zn in

mussels at both these reference sites significantly overlapped the concentrations of some of the oiled sites.

For all elements in mussels, there were no clear differences between the replanted and unplanted sites. The

mussels from the unplanted Saw Mill Creek South site contained the highest concentrations of Fe, Cr, Cu, Ni, Ag, and

Hg. The close proximity and similar sediment characteristics (i.e., % fines and OC content) of the unplanted Saw Mill

Creek South and the replanted Saw Mill Creek North sites

provide a valid comparison to test the effects of replanting.

The concentrations of Ag and Cd were significantly higher

(P <0.05) at the unplanted Saw Mill Creek South site, while

the concentrations of Zn were significantly higher at the

Saw Mill Creek North site. No significant differences were

found for Cr, Cu, Ni, Hg, and Fe.

Although mussels have been used extensively in marine monitoring programs, these programs primarily use the

blue mussel, Mytilus edulis. In one of the few studies in

which the accumulation of metals was compared in different species of mussels, Nelson et al. (1995) state, “these

findings highlight the fact that metal uptake in bivalves is a

complicated process that can be affected by many exogenous and endogenous factors.” In keeping with their caution, our ribbed-mussel data were compared only with other

ribbed-mussel data (Table 7). Cr, Cu, and Zn concentrations in ribbed-mussels from Sandy Hook are comparable

with those from a clean site in East Sandwich, MA (Nelson

et al. 1995). In contrast, the metal concentrations in ribbedmussels from the Arthur Kill are similar to those from the

polluted New Bedford Harbor, Massachusetts, and Inner

Mystic River Estuary, Connecticut (Nelson et al. 1995; Miller

1988).

DISCUSSION

Sediments

Correlations among metal concentrations, grain size, and

OC content were determined by two separate analyses because of incomplete data. No correlations, though, could

be calculated for the Sandy Hook site because of lack of

sufficient grain size data and lack of any OC data. In the

first analysis, correlations were determined for the metal

and OC data from each site for both 1996 and 1997 sampling

periods. In the second analysis, correlations were determined for the metal and grain size data from each site except

the Con Ed Tower site for just the 1996 sampling period.

For the Old Place Creek site, the significant variability

in both metal and OC concentrations among individual sediment samples appears to be related to the portion of finegrained sediments found in each sample. The 1996 metal

data from Old Place Creek, excluding Mn and Cu, were correlated with the percentage of fine-grained sediment found

in each sample. When the entire Old Place Creek data set is

subjected to correlation analysis using OC data (Table 8),

the entire correlation matrix table is significant (r>0.80). For

the fine-grained-sediment sites (i.e., Saw Mill Creek North

and South, Mill Creek, and Tufts Point), no significant correlations were found between Fe vs. Cr, Ni, Cu, Zn, or Pb.

This lack of correlation is not surprising since Fe concentrations within a site varied only over a very small range

(Figure 3). For these fine-grained sediments, correlations

among trace metals are not controlled by the concentrations of Fe oxides, but are controlled by how the trace metals interact with the Fe oxide coating or by phases other

than Fe oxides.

Different subsets of trace metals were highly correlated

for the data sets from different sites. For instance, significant correlations were found among Pb, Cr, and Cu at the

Saw Mill Creek North site (Table 8). It is interesting to note

that these three metals were negatively correlated with the

percentage of fine-grained sediments. This negative correlation suggests that Pb, Cr, and Cu are associated with a

coarser type of particle. Significant correlations were also

found among Cr, Ni, and Zn at the Con Ed Tower site, and

among Cr, Cu, Ni, and Pb at the Saw Mill South site.

The entire metals data set was subjected to principal

components analysis (PCA) using both the OC and grain

size data (see eigenvectors in Appendix Tables A1 and A2).

When OC data are used, both sampling periods could be

analyzed, but without the Sandy Hook site. The Old Place

Creek site is distinguished because of its lower metal concentration (Figure 8). Except for one sample, the Mill Creek

site is separated from the other fine-grained stations in the

Arthur Kill. Although the 1996 Con Ed Tower site is separated from the rest of the sites with finer sediment, there is

no distinct difference in replanted and unplanted sites.

When only the 1996 metal data set was used with percentage of fine-grained sediment data (Figure 9), the Sandy Hook

and Old Place Creek sites again are differentiated from the

fine-grained sediment sites. Among the fine-grained sediment sites, only Mill Creek is distinguished.

Mussels

Trace metal concentrations in mussels were higher and

more highly variable in September 1996 than in May 1997.

Of the eight metals analyzed, four (i.e., Cr, Ni, Cd, and Hg)

were significantly lower in mussels at both reference sites

relative to the other Arthur Kill sites, and two others (i.e., Fe

and Cu) were significantly lower only at the Sandy Hook

reference site. Five metals showed higher concentrations

in mussels at the unplanted Saw Mill Creek South site com-
Page 11

pared to the nearby replanted Saw Mill Creek North site.

The lack of strong and consistent trends required higherlevel statistical analysis of the data in order to draw any

conclusions concerning the effects of replanting. Correlations among metal concentrations in mussels were examined for each station to determine if biogeochemical processes were causing similar trends for a subset of the metals studied. In addition, the entire mussel data set was

subjected to PCA to determine if the data were separable by

type (i.e., unplanted, planted, or reference).

A few significant correlations between the concentration of pairs of metals in mussels within a site were found at

three of the five oiled sites, and at both reference sites (i.e.,

Mill Creek and Sandy Hook; Table 8). Although length and

weight of mussels were highly correlated, only one out of

the possible 108 correlations between metals and these

physical characteristics of mussels is >0.80 (i.e., Zn was

negatively correlated with length at Saw Mill Creek South).

Zn is correlated with Cd in mussels at Sandy Hook and the

replanted Old Place Creek sites. Fe is correlated with Cr at

the Saw Mill Creek North replanted site and the Mill Creek

reference site, and with Ni at the Con Ed Tower unplanted

site. Metal concentrations in mussels at the Saw Mill Creek

North site were the most coherent, with four metal pairs

having correlations >0.80; however, the Ag is negatively

correlated with Cr. Hg is correlated with Zn at Old Place

Creek and Mill Creek, and also with Cr at Saw Mill Creek

North. No significant correlations were found in mussels at

the unplanted Saw Mill Creek South site, which tended to

have the highest concentrations in May.

Only the metal data from the entire data set were subjected to PCA because the correlations of metals with length

or weight for the individual sites were weak. Among the

metals data, the highest correlation (r = 0.65) was found

between Zn and Cd. The eigenvectors of the first principal

component (Appendix Table A3) ranged between 0.29 for

Fe and 0.43 for Hg. A plot of the first principal component

versus the second principal component clearly distinguished

the two reference sites, Mill Creek and Sandy Hook, to the

left (Figure 10). The replanted and unplanted sites could

not be distinguished from points plotted in the middle of

the plot. The principal component analysis and Duncan

multiple range tests suggest that the five oiled sites were

not significantly different from each other; the means for

mussels from these five sites are given in Table 7. The Fe

and Cu concentrations in Sandy Hook mussels were lower

than those at the Mill Creek reference site.

CONCLUSIONS

Metal concentrations in the sediments at each site depended more on the general characteristics of the sediment,

such as the percentage of fine-grained sediments and Fe

content, than on whether or not the site was replanted.

Compared to concentrations from the regional reference sites

and from other regional studies, metal concentrations in

sediments from the entire Arthur Kill were elevated. In fact,

the Mill Creek reference site farthest from the location of

the spill had the highest concentrations of Cu and Pb when

normalized to the sediment Fe content. Higher levels at Mill

Creek may have been due to past industrial discharges in

this area of the Kill (C. Alderson et al., Salt Marsh Restoration Team, Natural Resources Group, New York City Parks,

200 Nevada Ave., Staten Island, NY, pers. comm.).

For each site, concentrations of groups of metals were

highly correlated, but the correlations were not consistent

among sites. For instance, concentrations of Pb, Ni, Cu,

and Zn were highly correlated at the Mill Creek reference

site, while Pb, Cr, Ni, and Cu were highly correlated at the

Saw Mill Creek South site. The negative correlation of Cr,

Cu, and Pb with the percentage of fine-grained sediments

present at the Saw Mill Creek South site suggests that these

metals were associated with coarse sediment. PCA distinguished the two coarse-grained sediment sites, but there

was no distinction between replanted and unplanted sites.

There were no consistent differences in metal concentrations in mussels collected from replanted and unplanted

sites. Concentrations of many metals in mussels from the

southernmost Arthur Kill reference site (Mill Creek) were

significantly lower than those in mussels from the other

five Arthur Kill sites. PCA distinguished the Mill Creek

reference site as well as the Sandy Hook regional reference

site, but replanted and unplanted sites affected by the spill

were not distinguished. Cr, Hg, and Ag concentrations in

mussels from many of the Arthur Kill sites were lower in

spring than in fall, while Ni concentrations were lower in

fall. Since this Arthur Kill reference site and the regional

reference site did not show the same seasonal differences

in mussel metal concentrations, the differences found for

the affected Arthur Kill sites were probably a result of the

availability of metal contaminants to the mussel rather than

due to any endogenous factors.

Replanting of S. alterniflora has little effect on the trace

metal concentrations in sediments affected by oil spills. Oil

contamination is generally not a major source of metals. In

contrast, bioaccumulation of metals by mussels from the

sediments is affected by biogeochemical properties of the

sediments. Planting of S. alterniflora can produce subtle

changes in the sediments that affect bioaccumulation. In

this study, increases in Cu concentrations in mussels collected from the replanted sites were the only significant and

consistent change that appeared to be related to replanting.

REFERENCES CITED

Adams, D.A.; O’Connor, J.S.; Weisburg, S.B. 1998. Sediment

quality of the NY/NJ harbor system: an investigation under the Regional Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program (R-EMAP). Final report. EPA Doc. 902-R98-001; 110 p. Available from: EPA Region II, Edison, NJ.

Daskalakis, K.D.; O’Connor, T.P. 1995. Normalization and elemental sediment contamination in the coastal United
Page 12

States. Environ. Sci. Technol. 29:470-477.

Folk, R.L. 1980. Petrology of sedimentary rocks. Austin,

TX: Hemphill Pub. Co.; 182 p.

Galehouse, J.S. 1971. Sedimentation analysis. In: Carver,

R.E., ed. Procedures in sedimentary petrology. New

York, NY: John Wiley & Sons; p. 69-108.

Giblin, A.E.; Valiela, I.; Teal, J.M. 1982. The fate of metals

introduced into a New England salt marsh. Water Air

Soil Poll. 20:81-98.

Hummel, H.; Modderman, R.; Amiard-Triquet, C.; Rainglet,

F.; van Duijn, Y.; Herssevoort, M.; de Jong, J.; Bogaards,

R.; Bachelet, G.; Deprez, M.; Marchand, J.; Sylvand, B.;

Amiard, J.C.; Rybarczyk, H.; de Wolf, L. 1997. A comparative study on the relation between copper and condition in marine bivalves and the relation with copper

in the sediment. Aquat. Toxicol. (Amst.) 38:165-181.

Ingram, R.L. 1971. Sieve analysis. In: Carver, R.E., ed.

Procedures in sedimentary petrology. New York, NY:

John Wiley & Sons; p. 49-68.

Miller, E.R. 1988. Physiological, exfoliative, cytological,

histological, and biochemical response of Geukensia

demissa (Mollusca) exposed to dissolved Cu at various salinities. Ph.D. dissertation. Univ. of Connecticut, Storrs, CT. 230 p.

Meyerson, A.L.; Luther, G.W., III; Krajewski, J.; Hires, R.

1981. Heavy metal distribution in Newark Bay sediments. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 12:244-250.

Nelson, W.G.; Bergen, B.J.; Cobb, D.J. 1995. Comparison of

PCB and trace metal bioaccumulation in the blue mussel, Mytilus edulis, and the ribbed-mussel, Modiolus

demissus, in New Bedford Harbor, Massachusetts.

Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 14:513-521.

Olsen, C.R.; Cutshall, N.H.; Larsen, I.L. 1982. Pollutantparticle associations and dynamics in coastal marine

environments: a review. Mar. Chem. 11:501-533.

Sokal, R.R.; Rohlf, J.F. 1981. Biometry: the principles and

practice of statistics in biological research. 2nd ed. San

Francisco, CA: W.H. Freeman and Company; 859 p.

Zdanowicz, V.S.; Finneran, T.W.; Kothe, R. 1993. Digestion

of fish tissue and atomic absorption analysis of trace

elements. In: Lauenstein, G.G.; Cantillo, A.Y., eds. Sampling and analytical methods of the National Status

and Trends Program, National Benthic Surveillance and

Mussel Watch Projects, 1984-1992. Vol. 3. Comprehensive descriptions of elemental analytical methods. NOAA

Tech. Memo. NOS ORCA 71; 219 p.

Zdanowicz, V.S.; Cunneff, S.L.; Finneran, T.W. 1995. Reduction in sediment metal contamination in the New

York Bight Apex with the cessation of sewage sludge

dumping. In: Studholme, A.L.; O’Reilly, J.E.; Ingham,

M.C., eds. Effects of the cessation of sewage sludge

dumping at the 12-mile site. 12-Mile Dumpsite Symposium, Long Branch, New Jersey, June 1991. NOAA Tech.

Rep. NMFS 124:89-99.
Page 13

Figure 3. Concentration of major phases of sediments collected in September 1996 and May 1997: A) fines (<0.063 mm), B)

OC, C) Fe, and D) Mn.
Page 14

Figure 4. Trace metal concentrations in sediments collected in September 1996 and May 1997: A) Zn, B) Cu, C) Cr, and D)

Pb.
Page 15

Figure 5. Trace metal:Fe ratios in sediments collected in September 1996 and May 1997: A) Zn, B) Cu, C) Cr, and D) Pb.
Page 16

Figure 6. Concentrations in mussels collected in September 1996 and May 1997 for the metals exhibiting the greatest

seasonal differences: A) Ni, B) Cr, C) Hg, and D) Ag.
Page 17

Figure 7. Concentrations in mussels collected in September 1996 and May 1997 for the metals exhibiting the least seasonal

differences: A) Cu, B) Fe, C) Zn, and D) Cd.
Page 18

Figure 8. Principal component analysis of data for Fe, Cr, Cu, Ni, Zn, Mn, Pb, and OC data for sediments collected in

September 1996 and May 1997 (bold symbols). (Unplanted = Con Ed Tower and Saw Mill Creek South; Replanted

= Old Place Creek and Saw Mill Creek North; and AK Reference = Tufts Point and Mill Creek. No OC data available

for Sandy Hook reference site.)
Page 19

Figure 9. Principal component analysis of data for Fe, Cr, Cu, Ni, Zn, Mn, Pb, and grain size for sediments collected in

September 1996. (Unplanted = Con Ed Tower and Saw Mill Creek South; Replanted = Old Place Creek and Saw

Mill Creek North; AK Reference = Tufts Point and Mill Creek; and Regional Reference = Sandy Hook. No grain

size data in 1997.)
Page 20

Figure 10. Principal component analysis of data for Ag, Cd, Cr, Cu, Ni, Zn, Hg, and Fe in mussels collected in September 1996

and May 1997 (bold symbols). (Unplanted = Con Ed Tower and Saw Mill Creek South; Replanted = Old Place

Creek and Saw Mill Creek North; AK Reference = Tufts Point and Mill Creek; and Regional Reference = Sandy

Hook.
Table 1. Trace metal quality assurance (QA) data

Composition

(wt %) Concentration (mg/kg)

Parameter / QA measurement Fe Cr Cu Ni Zn Mn Pb Hg Ag Cd

Sediments

Detection limita 0.0001 1.2 1.2 2.0 0.3 0.6 4.6

NBS 1645 standard reference material:

Certified 11.3 29,600 109 45.8 1720 785 714+/- 1.2 2800 19 2.9 170 97 28Observed mean (n = 5) 10.5 28,585 107 43.4 1674 708 693Std. dev. 0.3 248 2.6 0.9 74 23 6Recovery (%) 93 97 98 95 97 90 97

Mussels

Detection limitb 2.0 0.008 0.6 0.06 0.2 0.0054 0.003 0.002

NBS 1566A standard reference material:

Certified 539 1.43 66.3 2.25 830 0.0654 1.68 4.15+/- 15 0.46 4.3 0.44 57 0.0067 0.15 0.38Observed mean (n = 9) 528 1.42 67.3 2.22 838 0.0650 1.63 3.97Std. dev. 14 0.07 1.5 0.19 37 0.0035 0.08 0.14Recovery (%) 98 100 102 99 101 99 97 96

aBased on three standard deviations of the six processing blanks, a typical sample weight of 1 g, and a volume of 25 ml.bBased on three standard deviations of the nine processing blanks, a typical sample weight of 1 g, and a volume of 25 ml.

Page 21
Table 2. Metal concentrations in sediments in September 1996

Sediment Composition (wt %) Metal Concentration (μg/g)

Station Fines Fe OC Cr Cu Ni Zn Mn Pb a

Con Ed Tower (unplanted)

A 1.82 46.6 195 326 62 231 141 294

B 2.28 48.6 206 281 96 309 164 239

C 3.08 10.7 253 265 112 285 545 290

D 2.23 34.2 202 336 86 283 203 235

Mean (n = 4) 2.35 35.0 214 302 89 277 263 265

Std. dev. 0.45 17.4 23 30 18 29 164 28

Coef. of var. 19% 50% 11% 10% 21% 10% 62% 10% b

Saw Mill Creek South (unplanted)

A 99.0 3.93 6.2 191 461 49 406 298 275

B 98.5 3.91 5.5 206 459 49 408 358 279

C 98.0 4.28 5.4 164 385 46 410 404 249

D 97.8 3.52 6.1 174 421 45 383 288 248

Mean (n = 4) 98.3 3.91 5.8 184 431 47 402 337 263

Std. dev. 0.5 0.31 0.4 19 36 2 12 54 17

Coef. of var. 0.6% 8.0% 7.0% 10.0% 8.0% 4.0% 3.0% 16% 6.0% b

Old Place Creek (replanted)

A 2.1 0.64 0.2 9 37 6 23 117 22

B 20.6 1.18 1.3 37 101 17 97 118 83

C 11.6 0.91 0.4 27 79 12 57 96 49

D 13.3 0.76 0.8 23 141 10 68 85 53

Mean (n = 4) 11.9 0.87 0.7 24 90 11 61 104 52

Std. dev. 7.6 0.23 0.5 12 43 4 30 16 25

Coef. of var. 64% 26% 73% 49% 48% 40% 50% 16% 48% b

Saw Mill Creek North (replanted)

A 96.4 3.53 9.8 321 485 103 247 267 499

B 96.0 4.77 7.1 292 516 53 186 281 459

C 96.5 3.44 5.4 237 517 56 313 252 458

D 98.1 3.35 6.1 141 313 39 252 270 210

Mean (n = 4) 96.7 3.77 7.1 248 458 63 250 267 406

Std. dev. 0.9 0.58 1.9 73 85 25 83 17 129

Coef of var. 1% 15% 27% 29% 18% 40% 33% 6% 32% b

Page 22
Table 2. (Cont.)

Sediment Composition (wt %) Metal Concentration (μg/g)

Station Fines Fe OC Cr Cu Ni Zn Mn Pb a

Tufts Point (Arthur Kill reference)

A 97.3 4.12 9.4 107 53 37 292 633 257

B 96.4 2.70 9.2 86 72 39 602 146 225

C 96.7 3.35 11.7 104 514 57 503 626 312

D 86.1 3.22 13.8 75 230 34 295 828 282

Mean (n = 4) 94.1 3.35 11.1 93 217 42 423 558 269

Std. dev. 5.4 0.58 2.2 15 213 10 155 290 37

Coef. of var. 6% 17% 20% 16% 98% 24% 37% 52% 14% b

Mill Creek (Arthur Kill reference)

A 76.3 2.97 9.5 64 740 36 491 780 597

B 92.2 3.72 7.9 90 908 43 531 360 733

C 81.1 3.92 7.7 82 796 41 556 1840 650

D 35.8 9.50 9.1 74 422 60 794 315 636 c

Mean (n = 4) 71.3 3.54 8.5 78 717 45 593 824 654

Std. dev. 24.6 0.50 0.9 11 209 11 137 709 57

Coef. of var. 35% 14% 10% 14% 29% 24% 23% 86% 9% b

Sandy Hook (regional reference)

A 3.2 0.20 3.2 1.4 0.8 7.1 5.8 2.3

B 2.4 0.47 9.3 3.5 1.3 12.9 7.5 7.9

Mean (n = 2) 2.8 0.33 6.2 2.4 1.0 10.0 6.7 5.1

Std. dev. 0.5 0.19 4.4 1.4 0.3 4.0 1.2 4.0

Coef. of of var. 19% 57% 70% 59% 33% 40% 18% 78% b

Fines are sediment <0.063 mm. a

Coefficient of variance is represented by the standard deviation divided by the mean. b

Value is outlier determined by using the Grubbs test, and is not included in the average. c

Page 23
Table 3. Metal concentrations in sediments in May 1997

Sediment

Composition

(wt %) Metal Concentration (μg/g)

Station Fe OC Cr Cu Ni Zn Mn Pb

Con Ed Tower (unplanted)

A 2.39 15.7 110 293 39 178 222 219

B 2.91 8.4 135 225 32 213 276 353

C 2.10 13.5 98 239 37 227 282 229

D 3.61 7.7 202 336 86 283 203 235

Mean (n = 4) 2.47 11.3 114 252 36 206 260 267

Std. dev. 0.33 3.9 15 29 3 21 27 61

Coef. of var. 14% 34% 13% 12% 8% 10% 10% 23% a

Saw Mill Creek South (unplanted)

A 3.60 7.7 242 510 57 451 324 295

B 3.40 7.4 197 398 44 365 357 237

C 3.77 6.6 145 270 43 388 569 217

D 3.66 7.8 139 295 41 343 540 217

Mean (n = 4) 3.61 7.4 181 368 46 387 447 241

Std. dev. 0.16 0.5 48 110 7 47 125 37

Coef. of var. 4% 7% 27% 30% 16% 12% 28% 15% a

Old Place Creek (replanted)

A 0.35 0.1 7 19 4 17 64 14

B 1.36 2.6 47 136 20 104 116 96

C 2.90 8.0 93 248 35 243 475 162 b

D 0.33 1.2 10 27 4 18 56 28

Mean (n = 4) 1.24 1.3 39 107 16 96 178 75

Std. dev. 1.21 1.2 40 108 15 106 200 68

Coef. of var. 98% 95% 102% 100% 92% 111% 112% 91% a

Saw Mill Creek North (replanted)

A 3.61 7.7 214 455 42 228 285 460

B 2.80 8.4 153 457 47 242 291 399

C 3.55 7.8 161 216 45 252 293 351

D 3.18 6.2 97 248 36 262 380 206

Mean (n = 4) 3.29 7.5 156 344 42 246 312 354

Std. dev. 0.35 0.9 56 135 8 93 40 97

Coef. of var. 11% 13% 36% 39% 19% 38% 13% 28% a

Page 24
Table 3. (Cont.)

Sediment

Composition

(wt %) Metal Concentration (μg/g)

Station Fe OC Cr Cu Ni Zn Mn Pb

Tufts Point (Arthur Kill reference)

A 3.62 6.4 98 240 46 428 960 233

B 3.67 7.2 101 354 84 1062 698 374

C 3.37 13.1 113 795 94 1044 498 461

D 3.18 12.1 89 250 38 312 1647 236

Mean (n = 4) 3.46 9.7 100 410 66 712 951 326

Std. dev. 0.23 3.4 10 262 28 398 502 111

Coef. of var. 7% 35% 10% 64% 42% 56% 53% 34% a

Mill Creek (Arthur Kill reference)

A 4.68 16.2 77 598 31 432 2764 478

B 3.49 10.7 80 1038 44 575 361 705

C 3.04 17.4 80 420 33 453 393 374

D 3.46 9.1 75 636 34 343 816 512

Mean (n = 4) 3.67 13.4 78 673 36 451 1083 517

Std. dev. 0.70 4.1 2 261 6 95 1140 138

Coef. of var. 19% 31% 3% 39% 16% 21% 105% 27% a

Sandy Hook (regional reference)

A 0.15 3.9 2.0 <MDL 8.9 32.3 6.9

B 0.38 9.5 1.8 <MDL 7.5 18.6 <MDL

Mean (n = 2) 0.27 6.7 1.9 8.2 25.4

Std. dev. 0.16 3.9 0.1 1.0 9.7

Coef. of var. 62% 58% 7% 12% 38% a

Coefficient of variance is represented by the standard deviation divided by the mean. a

Value is outlier determined by using the Grubbs test, and is not included in the average. b

Page 25
Table 4. Trace metal statistics for sediments from the Arthur Kill and other areas in the region

Composition

(wt %) Concentration (μg/g)

Site (depth section of core) Statistic Fe Cr Cu Ni Zn Pb Reference

Arthur Kill

Arthur Kill (upper 1 cm) Average (n = 39) 2.84 136 299 46 308 251 This study

Std. dev. 1.15 79 171 26 221 127Coef. of var. 40% 58% 57% 57% 72% 50%

Mill Creek (upper 1 cm) Average (n = 7) 3.61 78 695 40 522 586 This study

Std. dev. 0.58 7 220 9 133 122Coef. of var. 16% 10% 32% 23% 25% 21%

Arthur Kill (upper 5 cm) Minimum 80 160 Meyerson et al. 1981

Maximum 2300 3209

Arthur Kill (upper 2 cm) Minimum 3.73 110 283 45 349 229 Adams et al. 1998

Maximum 4.52 195 650 85 523 440

Unimpacted regions based 69 16 56 24 24 Daskalakis and O’Connor 1995

on Mill Creek Fe content

Other Areas within the Region

Sandy Hook (upper 1 cm) Average (n = 4) 0.30 6.5 2.2 1.1 9.1 5.4 This study

Std. dev. 0.15 3.4 0.9 0.6 2.6 2.6Coef. of var. 50% 52% 41% 51% 29% 48%

Newark Bay (upper 5 cm) Minimum 120 70 Meyerson et al. 1981

Maximum 1100 530

Newark Bay (upper 2 cm) Area-weighted average 3.4 137 227 51 308 194 Adams et al. 1998

Minimum 0.84 27 10 10 46 12Maximum 4.71 244 66 65 786 550

New York Harbor (upper 2 cm) Area-weighted average 2.35 78 72 24 170 78 Adams et al. 1998

Minimum 0.69 26 4 6 29 19Maximum 4.28 171 1030 65 342 246

Western Long Island Sound Area-weighted average 2.81 81 70 27 177 57 Adams et al. 1998

 (upper 2 cm) Minimum 0.67 25 10 7 47 15

Maximum 4.01 135 136 42 280 130

Page 26
Table 5. Metal concentrations in ribbed-mussels in September 1996

Mussel Size

Length Weight Mussel Concentration (μg/g)

Sample (mm) (g) Fe Cr Cu Ni Zn Hg Ag Cd

Con Ed Tower (unplanted)

Specimen 1 54.1 10.42 140 1.18 28.3 0.51 73 0.28 0.85 3.57

Specimen 2 58.2 12.86 301 3.02 13.5 0.57 62 0.30 0.61 3.48

Specimen 3 60.6 13.24 380 15.38 31.8 0.66 65 0.33 0.89 5.38 b

Specimen 4 62.8 14.51 198 5.28 15.2 0.49 68 0.26 1.19 3.67

Specimen 5 65.2 17.40 298 1.66 15.0 0.58 57 0.26 1.19 2.67

Mean (n = 5) 60.2 13.69 263 2.78 20.7 0.56 65 0.29 0.95 3.75

Std. dev. 4.3 2.55 95 1.84 8.6 0.07 6 0.03 0.25 0.99

Coef. of var. 19% 36% 66% 42% 12% 9% 11% 26% 26% a

Saw Mill Creek South (unplanted)

Specimen 1 56.1 11.53 461 1.10 13.5 0.54 61 0.38 0.68 5.81

Specimen 2 62.5 14.00 290 0.82 14.1 0.31 72 0.36 1.03 6.46

Specimen 3 62.6 12.17 532 1.19 12.1 0.49 59 0.38 1.03 6.60

Specimen 4 65.8 16.89 399 1.03 12.8 0.44 57 0.32 0.89 5.20

Specimen 5 66.8 13.66 317 1.16 16.3 0.40 69 0.02 1.08 6.19

Mean (n =5) 62.8 13.65 400 1.06 13.8 0.43 64 0.29 0.94 6.05

Std. dev. 4.2 2.08 100 0.15 1.6 0.09 7 0.16 0.16 0.56

Coef. of var. 15% 25% 14% 12% 20% 10% 53% 17% 9% a

Old Place Creek (replanted)

Specimen 1 54.8 11.33 361 9.50 28.5 0.68 85 0.35 0.96 4.07

Specimen 2 55.1 9.21 314 2.09 25.8 0.81 85 0.47 1.00 4.42

Specimen 3 58.5 14.75 283 1.70 73.7 0.52 85 0.43 0.40 3.74 b

Specimen 4 58.7 12.54 157 3.31 66.1 0.82 76 0.47 1.34 4.77

Specimen 5 65.1 19.06 194 2.22 19.4 0.41 63 0.35 1.16 2.52

Mean (n = 5) 58.4 13.38 262 3.76 35.0 0.65 79 0.41 0.97 3.90

Std. dev. 4.1 3.76 85 3.26 21.1 0.18 10 0.06 0.36 0.86

Coef. of var. 28% 32% 87% 60% 28% 12% 15% 37% 22% a

Saw Mill Creek North (replanted)

Specimen 1 54.9 10.00 272 0.77 39.0 0.61 75 0.33 0.74 6.70

Specimen 2 56.2 9.67 293 1.14 14.4 0.54 68 0.35 0.62 6.25

Specimen 3 59.1 11.44 269 0.89 18.1 0.56 72 0.33 0.49 5.93

Specimen 4 62.7 14.40 235 3.82 72.7 0.52 75 0.31 0.66 4.83 b

Specimen 5 66.5 15.76 1331 7.27 29.6 1.47 82 0.47 1.34 6.86 b b

Mean (n = 5) 59.9 12.25 267 2.78 20.2 0.56 74 0.36 0.77 6.11

Std. dev. 4.8 2.71 24 2.81 14.9 0.04 5 0.07 0.33 0.81

Coef. of var. 22% 9% 101% 74% 6% 7% 19% 43% 13% a

Page 27
Table 5. (Cont.)

Mussel Size

Length Weight Mussel Concentration (μg/g)

Sample (mm) (g) Fe Cr Cu Ni Zn Hg Ag Cd

Tufts Point (Arthur Kill reference)

Specimen 1 54.0 11.66 179 2.48 15.3 0.67 60 0.15 0.68 4.34

Specimen 2 55.6 9.00 227 2.84 14.3 0.71 73 0.23 0.64 7.50

Specimen 3 55.5 12.61 147 1.15 15.8 0.61 68 0.15 0.70 8.64

Specimen 4 56.5 12.73 153 1.97 16.7 0.65 60 0.18 0.61 4.71

Specimen 5 61.5 15.10 193 1.79 19.2 0.38 66 0.20 0.83 4.06

Mean (n = 5) 56.6 12.22 180 2.04 16.2 0.60 65 0.18 0.69 5.85

Std. dev. 2.9 2.20 32 0.65 1.8 0.13 6 0.03 0.09 2.08

Coef. of var. 18% 18% 32% 11% 21% 8% 17% 13% 36% a

Mill Creek (Arthur Kill reference)

Specimen 1 58.4 14.93 92 0.43 22.3 0.19 41 0.04 0.21 1.29

Specimen 2 58.7 11.72 82 0.19 9.8 0.31 56 0.07 0.12 1.54

Specimen 3 59.1 13.86 144 0.35 19.5 0.36 58 0.08 0.41 1.78

Specimen 4 61.1 14.59 88 0.31 8.3 0.21 45 0.06 0.10 1.89

Specimen 5 67.0 14.53 137 0.42 12.2 0.82 71 0.07 0.20 2.44

Mean (n = 5) 60.9 13.93 109 0.34 14.4 0.38 54 0.06 0.21 1.79

Std. dev. 3.6 1.29 29 0.10 6.1 0.26 12 0.02 0.12 0.43

Coef. of var. 9% 27% 28% 43% 67% 22% 23% 60% 24% a

Sandy Hook (regional reference)

Specimen 1 55.7 10.44 75 0.29 7.2 0.28 32 0.09 0.21 0.49

Specimen 2 56.9 11.78 46 0.65 11.1 0.26 36 0.12 0.32 0.46

Specimen 3 57.4 10.30 57 0.54 10.2 0.33 43 0.10 0.29 0.53

Specimen 4 58.6 14.23 109 2.26 13.6 0.48 51 0.15 0.64 1.26

Specimen 5 60.2 12.58 88 0.58 12.4 0.37 49 0.13 0.67 0.69

Specimen 6 62.0 12.88 1392 2.56 14.1 1.56 60 0.17 0.52 1.59 b b

Mean (n = 6) 58.5 12.03 75 1.15 11.4 0.34 45 0.13 0.44 0.84

Std. dev. 2.3 1.51 25 0.99 2.6 0.09 10 0.03 0.19 0.47

Coef. of var. 13% 33% 86% 22% 26% 23% 26% 44% 57% a

Coefficient of variance is represented by the standard deviation divided by the mean. a

Value is outlier determined by using the Grubbs test, and is not included in the average. b

Page 28
Table 6. Metal concentrations in ribbed-mussels in May 1997

Mussel Size

Length Weight Mussel Concentration (μg/g)

Sample (mm) (g) Fe Cr Cu Ni Zn Hg Ag Cd

Con Ed Tower (unplanted)

Specimen 1 56.6 11.15 952 3.27 49.3 1.65 94 0.36 2.25 12.22 bbbbbbbbbb

Specimen 2 57.7 12.15 465 1.93 18.5 1.20 83 0.26 0.20 4.56

Specimen 3 58.7 14.00 228 1.02 16.6 0.55 58 0.21 0.23 3.04

Specimen 4 59.9 13.51 235 0.80 16.8 0.49 80 0.18 0.45 5.21

Specimen 5 61.9 14.43 140 0.80 12.5 0.52 65 0.19 0.39 6.19

Specimen 6 62.2 15.44 1218 4.34 83.3 18.62 268 0.23 0.45 3.07 bbbbbbbbbb

Mean (n = 4) 59.6 13.52 267 1.14 16.1 0.69 71 0.21 0.32 4.75

Std. dev. 1.8 0.99 139 0.54 2.5 0.34 12 0.19 0.36 4.81

Coef. of var. 7% 52% 47% 16% 49% 17% 92% 112% 101% a

Saw Mill Creek South (unplanted)

Specimen 1 56.9 9.26 681 1.94 12.9 1.17 74 0.41 0.50 8.52

Specimen 2 57.6 11.58 318 1.30 17.3 1.24 61 0.38 1.22 5.18

Specimen 3 59.1 13.75 369 0.94 23.4 0.99 55 0.22 0.55 2.97

Specimen 4 59.0 11.96 474 1.87 20.5 1.42 69 0.32 0.66 5.46

Specimen 5 60.7 15.15 384 1.38 24.5 0.78 11 0.23 0.52 3.93

Specimen 6 62.0 13.84 432 1.68 18.2 0.93 66 0.30 0.68 5.95

Mean (n = 6) 59.2 12.59 443 1.52 19.5 1.09 56 0.31 0.69 5.34

Std. dev. 1.9 2.10 128 0.38 4.3 0.23 23 0.08 0.27 1.91

Coef. of var. 17% 29% 25% 22% 21% 41% 25% 39% 36% a

Old Place Creek (replanted)

Specimen 1 55.3 14.38 196 1.93 16.4 0.70 64 0.22 0.54 3.26

Specimen 2 55.5 14.26 231 0.80 16.8 0.63 50 0.20 0.60 2.31

Specimen 3 55.0 12.61 145 1.12 19.3 0.54 63 0.30 1.55 4.09

Specimen 4 57.9 13.95 331 1.06 14.8 0.78 55 0.20 0.54 3.64

Specimen 5 58.8 15.78 134 1.35 18.3 0.57 52 0.27 0.46 2.51

Specimen 6 59.3 13.43 116 0.56 17.8 0.47 48 0.21 0.35 2.39

Mean (n = 6) 57.0 14.07 192 1.14 17.2 0.61 55 0.23 0.67 3.03

Std. dev. 1.9 1.06 80 0.47 1.6 0.11 7 0.04 0.44 0.74

Coef. of var. 8% 42% 42% 9% 18% 12% 18% 65% 25% a

Saw Mill Creek North (replanted)

Specimen 1 56.5 12.82 405 1.32 18.1 1.03 77 0.26 0.21 3.43

Specimen 2 57.9 13.41 249 0.95 13.0 0.88 79 0.24 0.41 4.91

Specimen 3 58.7 12.89 138 0.59 13.4 0.47 69 0.20 0.96 4.13

Specimen 4 62.6 13.83 491 1.68 16.5 0.63 72 0.29 0.25 5.33

Specimen 5 65.9 16.21 142 0.75 12.5 0.50 65 0.22 0.57 4.58

Specimen 6 65.7 16.44 333 1.29 17.1 0.64 73 0.22 0.36 4.30

Mean (n = 6) 61.2 14.27 293 1.10 15.1 0.69 73 0.24 0.46 4.45

Std. dev. 4.1 1.64 143 0.41 2.4 0.22 5 0.03 0.28 0.66

Coef. of var. 11% 49% 37% 16% 32% 7% 13% 60% 15% a

Page 29
Table 6. (Cont.)

Mussel Size

Length Weight Mussel Concentration (μg/g)

Sample (mm) (g) Fe Cr Cu Ni Zn Hg Ag Cd

Tufts Point (Arthur Kill reference)

Specimen 1 56.5 13.45 226 1.09 16.7 0.78 68 0.18 0.34 9.58

Specimen 2 57.5 12.93 145 0.70 13.7 0.50 57 0.15 0.29 3.67

Specimen 3 58.5 12.43 379 2.01 19.2 0.90 74 0.20 0.60 9.26

Specimen 4 62.5 15.21 249 0.79 14.6 1.14 60 0.16 0.39 5.32

Specimen 5 64.8 15.78 188 0.91 23.1 0.75 66 0.11 0.27 5.11

Specimen 6 65.6 15.77 116 0.45 12.8 1.05 58 0.16 0.18 4.98

Mean (n = 6) 60.9 14.26 217 0.99 16.7 0.85 64 0.16 0.35 6.32

Std. dev. 3.9 1.50 93 0.54 3.9 0.23 7 0.03 0.14 2.47

Coef. of var. 11% 43% 55% 23% 27% 11% 19% 41% 39% a

Mill Creek (Arthur Kill reference)

Specimen 1 56.7 12.07 153 0.29 17.5 0.63 65 0.10 0.35 1.49

Specimen 2 56.8 13.52 32 0.09 7.8 0.18 29 0.05 0.37 0.22

Specimen 3 57.5 12.99 34 0.12 12.1 0.60 46 0.08 0.66 0.35

Specimen 4 58.9 13.16 73 0.19 7.1 0.53 42 0.11 0.51 0.35

Specimen 5 59.8 11.04 21 0.07 8.3 0.19 26 0.05 0.48 0.25

Specimen 6 60.9 17.66 162 0.37 6.5 0.65 39 0.12 0.52 0.68

Mean (n = 6) 61.7 15.65 151 0.39 14.2 0.40 46 0.07 0.25 1.37

Std. dev. 4.2 2.70 114 0.33 4.5 0.17 14 0.02 0.09 0.39

Coef. of var. 17% 76% 85% 32% 43% 31% 29% 37% 28% a

Sandy Hook (regional reference)

Specimen 1 55.7 9.49 65 0.28 13.4 0.83 59 0.09 0.71 0.36

Specimen 2 56.8 13.52 32 0.09 7.8 0.18 29 0.05 0.37 0.22

Specimen 3 57.5 12.99 34 0.12 12.1 0.60 46 0.08 0.66 0.35

Specimen 4 58.9 13.16 73 0.19 7.1 0.53 42 0.11 0.51 0.35

Specimen 5 59.8 11.04 21 0.07 8.3 0.19 26 0.05 0.48 0.25

Specimen 6 60.9 17.66 162 0.37 6.5 0.65 39 0.12 0.52 0.68

Mean (n = 6) 58.3 12.98 65 0.19 9.2 0.50 40 0.08 0.54 0.37

Std. dev. 2.0 2.76 52 0.12 2.8 0.26 12 0.03 0.12 0.17

Coef. of var. 21% 81% 62% 31% 53% 29% 34% 23% 45% a

Coefficient of variance is represented by the standard deviation divided by the mean. a

Value is outlier determined by using the Grubbs test, and is not included in the average. b

Page 30
Table 7. Trace metal statistics for ribbed-mussels from the Arthur Kill and other areas in the region

Concentration (μg/g)

Site Statistic Fe Cr Cu Ni Zn Hg Ag Cd Reference

Arthur Kill – All Sites Except Mill Creek

Old Place Creek, Saw Mill Mean (n = 53) 274 1.8 19 0.67 66 0.27 0.68 4.9 This study

Creek North & South, Std. dev. 129 1.6 9 0.26 12 0.10 0.33 1.7Con Ed Tower, & Coef. of var. 47% 91% 46% 39% 18% 36% 49% 35%Tufts Point

Arthur Kill – Mill Creek Site Only

Mill Creek Mean (n = 11) 132 0.4 14 0.39 50 0.07 0.23 1.6 This study

Std. dev. 86 0.2 5 0.20 13 0.02 0.10 0.4Coef. of var. 65% 66% 35% 52% 27% 26% 45% 28%

Other Areas within the Region with Contaminated Sediments

Inner Mystic River Mean 300-450 15-70 65-75 Miller 1988

Estuary, CT

New Bedford Harbor, Mean 198 1.94 15 0.25 51 Nelson et al. 1995

MA

Other Less-Impacted Areas within the Region

Sandy Hook Mean (n = 12) 69 0.7 10 0.43 43 0.11 0.49 0.6 This study

Std. dev. 40 0.8 3 0.21 11 0.04 0.16 0.4Coef. of var. 58% 126% 27% 49% 25% 35% 33% 69%

Outer Mystic River Mean 150 15 55 Miller 1988

Estuary, CT

Great Sippewissett Mean 126 0.8 14 53 4.1 Giblin et al. 1982

Marsh, MA

East Sandwich, MA Mean 202 0.5 8 0.14 34 1.1 Nelson et al. 1995

Page 31
Table 8. Correlations between metals and sediment characteristics, and among metals, in ribbed-mussels, where r 0.80 a

Sediments

Site With Organic Carbon (OC) in 1996 and 1997 With % Fines in 1996 Mussels b

Con Ed Tower Cr vs. Ni (0.94) and Zn (0.80) (no % fine data) Fe vs. Ni (0.86)

Ni vs. Zn (0.89)

Saw Mill Creek South Cr vs. Cu (0.91) and Ni (0.90) % fines vs. Ni (0.85) None

Cu vs. Ni (0.86), Mn (-0.91), and Pb (0.95)Pb vs. Ni (0.94), Zn (0.84), and Cr (0.89)Ni vs. Zn (0.91)

Old Place Creek All metals with all metals and with OC % fines vs. Fe (0.90), Cr (0.98), Ni (0.95), Zn vs. Cd (0.80) and Hg (0.82)

 Zn (0.99), and Pb (0.99)

Saw Mill Creek North Pb vs. Cr (0.86) and Cu (0.82) % fines vs. Cr (-0.89), Cu (-0.97), and Pb (-0.94) Fe vs. Cr (0.94) c

Cr vs. Ag (-0.83) and Hg (0.94)Ni vs. Zn (0.83)

Tufts Point Ni vs. Zn (0.94) and Cu (0.82) % fines vs. Cr (0.82) None

Pb vs. Cu (0.97), Ni (0.93), and Zn (0.83)Fe vs. Mn (0.83)

Mill Creek Pb vs. Cu (0.96), Ni (0.90), and OC (-0.80) % fines vs. Fe (-0.93) and Zn (-0.92) Fe vs. Cr (0.93)

Ni vs. Zn (0.82) Zn vs. Hg (0.80)

Sandy Hook (no OC data) (insufficient % fines data) Cd vs. Zn (0.84) and Cr (0.93)

Correlations between two metals are not repeated. For instance, in the correlations that included OC data for Con Ed Tower, the 0.94 correlation between Cr vs. Ni in the a

first row is not repeated as a Ni vs. Cr correlation in the second row.

Only the correlations with % fines are shown, not the correlations among metals.

b

The correlation coefficient for Cr vs. Cu is 0.79.

c

Page 32
Page 33

III. PETROLEUM HYDROCARBONS

IN SEDIMENTS AND RIBBED-MUSSELS (Geukensia demissa)

Ashok D. Deshpande9, 11, Bruce W. Dockum9, 12, and Amy M. Tesolin-Gee9, 10, 13

Postal Address: 9National Marine Fisheries Serv., 74 Magruder Rd., Highlands, NJ 07732

Current Address: 10Dow Chemical Co., 2030 Dow Center, Midland, MI 48667

E-Mail Addresses: 11Ashok.Deshpande@noaa.gov; 12Bruce.Dockum@noaa.gov; 13AMTesolin-

 Gee@dow.com

One surface sediment sample from Sandy Hook was collected during August 1997.

Mussel Collection, Processing, and Selection for

Analysis

Mussels were collected randomly at each site in the

Arthur Kill during September 1996 and May 1997. The number of mussels available for collection varied by site and

sampling period. Thus, 17-34 mussels were collected at

each site in September 1996, while only 6-15 mussels were

collected at each site in May 1997. Sandy Hook mussels

were collected during February 1997.

Live mussels were brought to the Howard Laboratory,

and placed overnight in a 4°C, temperature-controlled room.

Material for the determination of method detection limits

(MDLs) in the mussels was obtained by overnight depuration of 12 additional Sandy Hook mussels in aerated seawater at 4°C. All mussels were dissected within 24 hr using

implements cleaned with methylene chloride. After removal

of extraneous materials from mussel shells (mud, barnacles,

etc.), the physical characteristics were recorded for each

specimen (Appendix Table B2). Mussel tissues were then

excised, placed in precleaned glass containers, and archived

at the Howard Laboratory at -80°C.

The length of an individual mussel was assumed to be

related to its age, and possibly, the contaminant body burden. Since the length-frequency distribution of mussels

varied by site and sampling period (Figures 12 and 13), a

length range of 55-74 mm (inclusive) -- visually identified to

be common to all sampling periods -- was selected as the

bin range for analyses.

Five mussels at each site in the Arthur Kill were targeted for analyses. The bin range was divided into five

groups (i.e., 55-58 mm, 59-62 mm, 63-66 mm, 67-70 mm, and

71-74 mm), ensuring that mussels of different lengths were

included in the analyses. Each mussel was assigned a random number. Mussels with the highest random numbers

were sequentially selected from each group. When there

were no mussels in one or more groups, mussels were selected in a two-step procedure. In step 1, the mussel with

the highest random number within each group containing

mussels was selected. In step 2, the mussel with the highest random number from all remaining mussels within the

INTRODUCTION

The goal of our study was to assess the effectiveness

of the replanting effort for removing petroleum hydrocarbon contaminants from the Arthur Kill marshes, and to assess the usefulness of ribbed-mussels as possible

biomarkers of petroleum-related spills. Our field protocol

included collection of sediment and ribbed-mussel samples

from the six saltmarsh sites in the Arthur Kill and from one

saltmarsh site on Sandy Hook (Appendix Table B1). Samples

from Sandy Hook provided a relatively uncontaminated regional reference for samples from the Arthur Kill marshes.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

Sediment Collection and Sectioning

Four stations were selected at each marsh site in the

Arthur Kill. Each station was located 0.2 m above the midtide, and the stations were spaced within 2-20 m of each

other (see description of the sampling transect in Chapter

II, “Trace Metal Contaminants in Sediments and RibbedMussels”). No cores were collected at the Sandy Hook

site. All sediment samples were archived at the Howard

Laboratory either at -20°C or at -80°C.

During September 1996, one sediment core was taken

by hand at each station using a chrome-plated copper tube

(3.8-cm o.d. × 22.9-cm length). A total of 24 sediment cores

(i.e., 6 sites × 4 stations per site × 1 core per station) were

collected. Sediment cores from Old Place Creek, Con Ed

Tower, and Mill Creek were sectioned using a core-sectioning device built at the Howard Laboratory (Figure 11). The

cores contained large amounts of diverse plant and other

materials that prevented precise sectioning. Each core was

sectioned into five individual sections, with each section

being approximately 1-cm thick and weighing approximately

10 g. With four stations at each site and five sections per

core per station, a total number of 60 core sections were

prepared for the three marsh sites.

Diverse plant and other materials in the sediments prevented precise sampling of the Arthur Kill surface sediments. During May 1997, an approximately 1-cm section of

surface sediment was collected at four stations at each of

the six sites in the Arthur Kill using a stainless steel spoon.
Page 34

bin range was selected. Step 2 was repeated until the requirement of five mussels per site was met.

Seven out of the 12 undepurated mussels from Sandy

Hook were targeted for analyses. The bin range was divided into seven groups (i.e., 55-56 mm, 57-58 mm, 59-60

mm, 61-62 mm, 63-64 mm, 65-66 mm, and 67-68 mm), and

random numbers were assigned to each mussel. Mussels

with the highest random number in each group were selected for analysis.

Extraction of Hydrocarbons in Sediments

Twenty core sections each from Old Place Creek, Con

Ed Tower, and Mill Creek; four surface scoop samples each

from Old Place Creek and Con Ed Tower; and a single surface scoop sample from Sandy Hook were processed in

four extraction batches (Appendix Table B3). All sediment

samples were dried with sodium sulfate before extraction.

In the first batch, we extracted the sediments by shaking

them with methylene chloride in an Erlenmeyer flask. The

shaking/extraction procedure was manual and laborious,

and did not save as much on extraction time or glassware as

we initially thought. Therefore, Batches 2-4 samples were

extracted with methylene chloride using automated Soxhlet

extraction systems.

Batch 1 sediment samples were extracted by shaking

sodium-sulfate-dried sediments with methylene chloride.

Approximately 10 g of each Batch 1 sediment sample were

placed into a mortar, then mixed by pestle with 60-80 g of

anhydrous sodium sulfate until the mixture was dry. Approximately, 5 cc of activated copper were added to the

sample for the bulk removal of elemental sulfur, and the

mixture was transferred to an Erlenmeyer flask. Surrogate

internal standard (20 μg of o-terphenyl) and any other spiking solutions, as appropriate, were added to the sample.

Approximately 60 ml of methylene chloride were added to

the Erlenmeyer flask, and the sample was shaken overnight.

Methylene chloride was decanted, and the procedure was

repeated two more times. The combined extract was concentrated to approximately 40 ml.

Batches 2-4 sediment samples were dried with sodium

sulfate, and extracted with a Soxhlet extraction apparatus.

Approximately 10 g of each sample from Batches 2-4 were

placed into a mortar, then mixed by pestle with 60-80 g of

anhydrous sodium sulfate until the mixture was dry. The

sample was then transferred to a cellulose thimble. Surrogate internal standard (20 μg of o-terphenyl) and any other

spiking solutions, as appropriate, were added to the sample.

The thimble was then transferred to a labeled Soxhlet extraction apparatus. Hydrocarbons were extracted with methylene chloride for 18-24 hr. Activated copper gauze was

placed in the extraction apparatus for the bulk removal of

elemental sulfur. The methylene chloride extract was concentrated to approximately 40 ml.

Initially, we experimented with the volume of concentrate from each site to ensure that the flame ionization detector (FID) did not become overloaded during gas chromatographic (GC) analyses. We assumed that all potential

interfering compounds in the 40-ml extract were at a very

low level, and that they would not cause any chromatographic problems. Therefore, we injected 1 μL of this extract directly into a gas chromatographic column without

any additional cleanup. The samples in which hydrocarbons were not detected were concentrated in a stepwise

manner until the hydrocarbons were detected. After completing the screening of representative samples from each

site, the methylene chloride extracts of all samples were

subjected to silica-alumina glass column chromatographic

removal of polar biogenic interferences. Column-cleaned

extracts were then concentrated to appropriate final volumes for the GC analyses. GC internal standard (5-α-androstane) was added to each final extract before GC analyses.

Extraction of Hydrocarbons in Mussels

A total of 60 mussels from six Arthur Kill sites and seven

mussels from one Sandy Hook site were processed in three

extraction batches (Appendix Table B4).

Each mussel sample (3.2-15.4 g) was placed into a mortar, then mixed by pestle with 80 g of anhydrous sodium

sulfate until the mixture was dry. The sample was then

transferred to a cellulose thimble, and surrogate internal

standard (20 μg of o-terphenyl) and any other spiking solutions, as appropriate, were added to the sample. The thimble

was then transferred to a labeled Soxhlet extraction apparatus. Hydrocarbons in mussels were extracted with methylene chloride over 18-24 hr.

In Batch 1, we experimented with the volume of concentrate to ensure that the FID did not become overloaded

during GC analyses. Initially, our total extract volume was

50 ml, and we used 10 ml of this extract for the lipid determination. We assumed that all potential interfering compounds

in the remaining 40 ml of extract were at a very low level, and

that they would not cause any chromatographic problems.

Therefore, we injected 1 μL of this extract directly into the

GC column without any additional cleanup. Contrary to our

expectations based on the oil spill history in the Arthur Kill

marshes, we barely observed any peaks in this dilute mussel extract. The remaining mussel extract was eluted through

a silica-alumina glass column for the removal of polar lipids

and other polar biogenic interferences, and the sample was

concentrated to a volume of 5 ml. Surprisingly, a 1-μL injection of this extract did not overload the FID either, and the

peak sizes were still very minute. This initial work suggested that our standard protocol of concentrating the

sample to a final volume of 1 ml was also suitable for Arthur

Kill and Sandy Hook mussels. All mussel extracts were
Page 35

then subjected to silica-alumina glass column chromatographic cleanup. The column-cleaned extract was concentrated to about 700-750 μL, the GC internal standard was

added (200 μL of 5-α-androstane, 20 μg total), and the final

sample volume was brought to 1 ml using methylene chloride.

Gas Chromatographic Analyses of Hydrocarbons

Instrument Operating Parameters

Sediment and mussel samples were analyzed for a total

of 33 normal-chain hydrocarbons and two branched-chain

hydrocarbons (Appendix Table B5) using a Hewlett Packard

(HP) 5880A GC-FID. One microliter of the final sample extract was injected into a fused silica capillary column in

splitless mode using an HP 7673A autosampler. Extracts of

all mussel samples and extracts of sediment samples from

Batches 1, 2 (excluding the nine samples from Con Ed Tower),

and 3 were injected into an HP-5 (0.32-mm i.d. × 30-m length

× 0.25-μm film thickness) capillary column. Extracts of Batch

2 sediment samples from the Con Ed Tower site and extracts

of sediments from Batch 4 were injected into a J&W DB-5

(0.45-mm i.d. × 30-m length × 0.42-μm film thickness) capillary column. The injector port temperature was set at 300°C,

while the detector temperature was set at 280°C. An initial

purge time of 1 min was used to maximize the amount of

higher-boiling hydrocarbons that reached the top of the GC

column. The column oven temperature was held at 50°C for

1 min after sample injection, and then programmed to reach

310°C at a rate of 3°C/min. The oven temperature was held

at the final temperature of 310°C for 30 min, resulting in a

total run time of 120 min. We used 5-α-androstane as a time

reference standard and as a GC internal standard for monitoring sample-to-sample variation in peak retention time and

sample-to-sample variation in GC-FID response. We used

o-terphenyl as a time reference standard and as a surrogate

internal standard for assessing analyte recoveries. The

chromatographic peaks were recorded with an HP 5880A

Series GC terminal. The data in the electronic format were

collected with a Perkin-Elmer Nelson 970 interface and

Perkin-Elmer Nelson Turbochrom 4.0 chromatographic software. Generation of calibration curves, identification of

peaks, and integrations were done with the Turbochrom

software. The text files generated by Turbochrom software

were imported into a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet for the

determination of final analyte concentrations. The analyte

concentrations are expressed as μg/g (ppm) on a wet-weight

basis.

Chromatographic Performance Evaluation

New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection

(NJDEP 1995) guidelines were employed in the evaluation

of chromatographic performance. The evaluation criteria

included chromatographic separation of analytes, resolution of critical pairs of peaks, mass discrimination, and curve

correlation coefficients.

Separation of Individual Analytes and Internal

Standards

The GC temperature program successfully separated all

35 hydrocarbon peaks (i.e., n-C8

 to n-C40, including pristane

and phytane) and two internal standard peaks in a midpoint calibration mixture (i.e., a mixture in which all hydrocarbon and internal standard concentrations are 10 ng/μL;

Figure 14), and all identifiable hydrocarbon peaks and two

internal standard peaks in a diesel fuel oil #2 standard (Figure 15).

Resolution of Critical Pairs of Peaks

Resolution (R) of critical pairs of peaks of hydrocarbons was calculated as:

R = 2(RT2

-RT1)/(W1+W2) Eq. 1

where RT = retention time and W = baseline peak width of

the respective hydrocarbon (NJDEP 1995). The R values

for the n-C17/pristane pair and the n-C18/phytane pair were

>0.8 for all mussel chromatographic batches. Resolutions

for the two pairs of hydrocarbons for the sediment

chromatographic batches were verified only visually and

were found to be satisfactory.

Mass Discrimination

The NJDEP guideline for mass discrimination in the injector port (n-C32 peak area/n-C20 peak area >0.8) was met in

all mussel and sediment chromatographic batches.

Calibration Curve Correlation Coefficients

Correlation coefficient squares (r2

) for each analyte in

the five-point (i.e., 2, 5, 10, 20, and 50 ng/μL; internal standards at 10 ng/μL) calibration curves were consistently >0.99

for all mussel and sediment batches.

Typical Gas Chromatographic Batch

A series of sequential steps were performed at the beginning of the study and prior to the analyses of a fresh

batch of samples. First, we replaced the GC injection port
Page 36

septum, injection port liner, gold-plated seal, and the ring.

Then we verified background cleanliness of overall instrument components using an instrument blank solution that

contained only the GC internal standards. The GC column

resolution check was followed by the verification of a minimum mass discrimination criterion using the ratio of the nC32 peak area to the n-C20 peak area. Finally, a five-point

calibration curve was generated for the identification and

quantification of all detectable analytes.

Before beginning the analyses, column performance and

detector stability were verified using a mid-point calibration solution that contained the analytes and GC internal

standards at a concentration of 10 ng/μL. We then injected

a set of 4-5 unknown samples. The instrument performance

was verified after completing the analyses of these 4-5

samples. These steps, including the analyses of a set of

unknown samples and the verification of instrument performance, were repeated until the remaining samples were analyzed. This sequence of steps provided a calibration chromatogram for every 4-5 samples or 10-12 hr of instrument

operation. An HP 5880A controller program limited the maximum number of injections in a sequence to 26.

Quantification of Hydrocarbons in Sediments

The GC-FID chromatograms of sediment extracts were

often complex, and exhibited areas of unresolved envelops

(Appendix Figures E1-E14). Chromatographic complexities

also created a potential for coelution of internal standards

with unknown interfering compound(s). Sediment extracts

were quantified using an external standard calculation

method due to uncertainties in the identifications of

internal standards.

A second-order curve equation was used to fit the

hydrocarbon calibration data:

Y = C0

+C1X+C2X2 Eq. 2

where, Y is the response of the analyte in the calibration

sample, X is the amount of analyte in the calibration sample,

and C0

, C1, and C2 are various curve coefficients for each

analyte. For a given value of Y in an unknown sample, the

Turbochrom software uses the first quadratic solution to

Equation 2 to calculate the amount X near the origin of the

curve:

X = {-C1

+ [C1

2

-4C2(C0-Y)] 1⁄2}/2C2 Eq. 3

Calculations Using Individual Hydrocarbons

For each hydrocarbon analyte, a second-order curve

given by Equation 2 was used to fit the calibration data.

Values of r2

 >0.99 were obtained for each analyte fit.

In an unknown sample, the analyte amount X is calculated from Equation 3 given the measured analyte peak area

Y. Amount X in this equation represents the analyte amount

in 1 μL of the injected sample. The actual concentration of

analyte in the sample is then calculated by multiplying X by

a factor that incorporates the final extract volume and sample

weight.

Calculations Using the Sum of Individual

Hydrocarbons

In this method of calculation, X is defined as the sum of

individual hydrocarbon amounts, and Y is defined as the

sum of peak areas for individual hydrocarbons ranging from

n-C8

 to n-C40, including pristane and phytane. The X and Y

values for each calibration solution were then used in Equation 2 to determine the new curve coefficients. Values of r2

>0.99 were obtained for this fit.

The total alkyl hydrocarbon concentrations in an unknown sample were calculated using Equation 3 with a new

set of curve coefficients and the value of Y defined as the

sum of peak areas for individual hydrocarbons.

Calculations Using the Sum of All Peaks Eluting

between n-C8

 and n-C40

In this method of calculation, all peaks eluting between

n-C8 and n-C40 were assumed to be a mixture of various

normal-chain hydrocarbons, branched-chain hydrocarbons,

and cyclic hydrocarbons. In Equation 2, X is defined as the

sum of individual hydrocarbon amounts, and Y is defined

as the sum of peak areas for the individual hydrocarbons nC8

 to n-C40, including pristane and phytane. The X and Y

values for each calibration solution were used in Equation 2

to determine the curve coefficients.

For an unknown sample, the value for Y was calculated

as Y = A-(B+C), where A is the sum of the areas for “all”

peaks eluting between n-C8

 and n-C40, B is the peak area for

o-terphenyl, and C is the peak area for 5-α-androstane. We

assumed that other hydrocarbons did not coelute with oterphenyl and 5-α-androstane. The peak summation window began 15 sec before the retention time of the n-C8

 peak

and ended 15 sec after the retention time of the n-C40 peak.

The value for X in Equation 2 is the sum of amounts of

individual hydrocarbons, including n-C8 to n-C40, pristane,

and phytane, in the individual hydrocarbon calibration mixture. The values for curve coefficients for the sum of individual hydrocarbons were used in Equation 3, to calculate

TPH concentrations after applying an appropriate multiplication factor characteristic of sample weight and final volume of sample extract.

Quantification of Soil SRM 765

Soil SRM (i.e., SRM 765) obtained from Environmental

Resource Associates was extracted with each sediment ex-
Page 37

traction batch. A one-point linear calibration was prepared

using a standard solution of diesel fuel oil #2 from Restek

Corporation. The linear equation Y = mX+C was used in

this quantification. In this equation, Y was calculated as Y

= A-(B+C), where A is the sum of areas for “all” peaks eluting between n-C8

 and n-C40, B is the peak area for o-terphenyl,

and C is the peak area for 5-α-androstane. We assumed

that other hydrocarbons did not coelute with o-terphenyl

and 5-α-androstane. The peak summation window began

15 sec before the retention time of the n-C8

 peak and ended

15 sec after the retention time of the n-C40 peak. Also in this

equation, X is the amount of Restek diesel fuel oil in a 1-μL

injection, m is the slope of the line, and C is the intercept

(where C = 0 because the line is forced through the origin).

The concentration of diesel fuel oil in SRM 765 was calculated by multiplying X by a factor that incorporated the

final extract volume and sample weight.

Quality Assurance for Sediment Analyses

Quality assurance criteria listed in Appendix Table C1

were used for evaluating the quality of sediment data. Results of quality assurance of sediment analyses are summarized for method detection limit, laboratory method blanks,

surrogate internal standard recovery, matrix spike recovery,

soil standard reference material analyses, and replicate sediment analyses.

Method Detection Limit

The target MDL value for TPH was 10 μg/g, and was

based on the New Jersey Department of Environmental

Protection’s quality assurance document (NJDEP 1995). We

spiked each replicate MDL sediment matrix with 20 μg of

each hydrocarbon in approximately 10-g MDL replicate sediment samples. With 35 hydrocarbons used for spiking, and

20 μg spiked per hydrocarbon, the total spiked hydrocarbon amount was 700 μg, or 70 μg/g of sediment. The MDL

for sediments was calculated as MDL = σ t; where σ is the

standard deviation of seven replicate measurements and t

is Student’s t value of 3.143 with six degrees of freedom

(EPA 1984). The MDL values for sediments varied from

analyte to analyte, and ranged from 0.53 to 8.25 μg/g, wet

weight, with a majority of MDL values between 1 and 2 μg/

g (Appendix Table C2). Since n-C8

 was not detected in

MDL samples, its MDL was not determined.

 The EPA (1984) protocol for MDL determination recommends that the spiked amount be approximately 2-5 times

greater than the target MDL. Our spiked amounts were 1.4-

3.5 times greater than the EPA-recommended amounts in

order to accommodate the poor sensitivity of the GC/FID.

Most relative standard deviation (RSD) values for MDL

determinations in the present study were around 10%, indicating a good precision in hydrocarbon determinations.

[Relative standard deviation is the standard deviation divided by the mean, and is expressed as a percentage.]

Laboratory Method Blanks

For laboratory method blank samples, 134 out of 136

values were less than three times the MDL (data not provided). The blank criterion was not applied to n-C8

 because

this compound was not detected in the MDL study.

Surrogate Internal Standard Recovery

Forty-four of 94 samples exceeded the surrogate internal standard recovery criterion (Appendix Tables C3-C6),

with the exceedances mostly occurring in the Con Ed Tower

samples containing complex chromatograms. The high values probably resulted from the coelution of surrogate standards with interfering peaks which increased peak area of

the surrogate standard.

Matrix Spike Recovery

Matrix spike recoveries for four sediment extraction

batches are listed in Appendix Table C7. We added 100 μg

of each hydrocarbon to the Batch 1-3 matrix spike samples,

and 50 μg of each hydrocarbon to the Batch 4 matrix spike

sample.

In Extraction Batch 1, 25 of 33 analytes met the matrix

spike recovery criterion. Matrix spike recovery values were

below the lower criterion value of 50% for n-C9

 and for n-C34

to n-C40, with recoveries ranging from 12.5 to 42.2%. Hydrocarbons n-C8

 and n-C29 were not detected in any of the

Batch 1 sediment samples.

In Extraction Batch 2, 20 of 35 analytes met the matrix

spike recovery criterion. Matrix spike recovery values were

below the lower criterion value of 50% for n-C8

 to n-C16 and

for n-C35 to n-C40, with recoveries ranging from 23.4 to 47.8%.

In Extraction Batch 3, 29 of 35 analytes met the matrix

spike recovery criterion. The matrix spike recovery value

was below the lower criterion value of 50% for n-C8 (28.6%),

while the recovery values were higher than the upper criterion value of 120% for n-C31 (122%) and for n-C19 to n-C22,

with recoveries ranging from 121 to 123%.

In Extraction Batch 4, 4 of 35 analytes met the matrix

spike recovery criterion. Matrix spike recovery values were

below the lower criterion value of 50% for n-C8

 to n-C19,with

recoveries ranging from 2.58 to 46.7%, and for n-C24 to nC40, with recoveries ranging from 17.8 to 47.7%.

Soil Standard Reference Material Analyses

Except for Batch 1, the SRM analyses in all batches

gave recovery values that were lower than the lower criterion recovery value of 70% (Appendix Table C8). The SRM

analyses in Batch 2 and two of the three replicate SRM

analyses in Batch 4 gave slightly lower recoveries (58.7-

63.1%) than the lower criterion value of 70% recovery. The
Page 38

SRM analyses for Batch 3 and for the third SRM replicate in

Batch 4 (a suspected outlier which was not included in any

calculations) gave lower recoveries than the lower criterion

recovery value of 70%. The average SRM recovery for five

replicates was 58.4% with an RSD of 21.7%. Since the diesel fuel standard used in the preparation of soil SRM was

not available for instrument calibration, a diesel fuel standard from Restek Corporation was used in instrument calibration. The difference in the types of two diesel fuels, and

possibly their hydrocarbon contents, may have resulted in

the lower recovery values.

Replicate Sediment Analyses

Seven replicates of spiked sediments were used in the

MDL determination study (Appendix Table C2). Except for

a slightly higher RSD value for n-C9

 (27.06%), all other hydrocarbons met the replicate analysis criterion of 25% RSD.

Octane hydrocarbons (i.e., n-C8

) were not detected in any

of the seven replicates. Three replicates of Soil SRM 765

were additionally extracted in Batch 4 (Appendix Table C9).

One soil SRM replicate gave poor recovery (2.5%) of diesel

oil, and was discarded from further discussion. The percentage difference for the two remaining soil SRM replicates was 3.9, based on the total diesel oil concentration.

On an individual hydrocarbon basis, 13 of 35 hydrocarbons

met the replicate criterion, 21 hydrocarbons were undetected, and although n-C8

 was detected, no MDL value was

measured for this hydrocarbon.

Quantification of Hydrocarbons in Mussels

Mussel GC-FID chromatograms were considerably less

complex than sediment chromatograms, and the internal standards were easily identifiable (Appendix Figures E15 and

E16). Hydrocarbons in mussel extracts were therefore quantified using the more accurate method of internal standard

calculation.

A second-order calibration curve was used to calculate

the concentrations of hydrocarbons in mussels. In Equation 2, Y is the ratio of the response of the analyte to the

response of the internal standard in the calibration sample,

and X is the ratio of the amount of the analyte to the amount

of the internal standard in the calibration sample. For an

unknown sample, the first quadratic solution to Equation 2

provides a value for X for a given Y (Equation 3). The final

determination of analyte concentration required additional

calculations.

Calculations Using Individual Hydrocarbons

In Equation 2, Y is the ratio of the individual hydrocarbon peak area to the GC internal standard (5-α-androstane)

peak area, and X is the ratio of the individual hydrocarbon

amount to the GC internal standard (5-α-androstane) amount.

Values of r2

 >0.99 were obtained for each analyte fit.

For a measured-area-ratio Y in an unknown sample, the

amount-ratio X is determined from Equation 2. The amount

of analyte in an unknown sample is calculated by multiplying X by the amount of 5-α-androstane added to the unknown sample. Amount X in this equation represents the

analyte amount in 1 μL of the injected sample. The actual

amount of analyte in the unknown sample is calculated by

multiplying X by a factor that incorporates the final extract

volume, aliquot of sample extract taken for lipid determination, and sample weight.

Calculations Using the Sum of Individual

Hydrocarbons

In Equation 2, Y is the ratio of the sum of peak areas for

the individual hydrocarbons (n-C8

 to n-C40, including pristane and phytane) to the peak area of 5-α-androstane, and

X is the ratio of the sum of amounts of individual hydrocarbons (n-C8

 to n-C40, including pristane and phytane) to the

amount of 5-α-androstane. The curve coefficients were

obtained by first calculating the values of X and Y for each

calibration solution, and then by using these values in a fit.

Values of r2

 >0.99 were obtained for this fit.

Total alkyl hydrocarbon concentrations were then calculated using Equation 3. The amount of 5-α-androstane

added to the sample and other sample factors were used in

the calculations.

Calculations Using the Sum of All Peaks Eluting

between n-C8

 and n-C40

The TPH concentrations for mussel samples were determined using a procedure similar to that used for sediment samples. The curve coefficients used in Equation 2

were the same as those calculated for the sum of individual

hydrocarbons in mussels using the internal standard

method.

For an unknown sample, the value for Y was calculated

as Y = [A-(B+C)]/C, where A is the sum of the areas for “all”

peaks eluting between n-C8

 and n-C40, B is the peak area for

o-terphenyl, and C is the peak area for 5-α-androstane. It

was assumed that other hydrocarbons did not coelute with

o-terphenyl and 5-α-androstane. The peak summation window began 15 sec before the retention time of the n-C8

 peak

and ended 15 sec after the retention time of the n-C40 peak.

The calculated value for X from Equation 3 is the ratio of the

sum of amounts of “all” hydrocarbons eluting between nC8

 and n-C40 to the amount of 5-α-androstane. When the

value of X is calculated from Equation 3, the concentration

is determined by multiplying X by the amount of 5-α-androstane in the sample and other sample-related factors.
Page 39

Quality Assurance for Mussel Analyses

Quality assurance criteria listed in Appendix Table C1

were used for evaluating the quality of mussel data. Results of quality assurance of mussel analyses are summarized for MDL, laboratory method blanks, surrogate internal standard recovery, matrix spike recovery, diesel fuel spike

recovery, mussel SRM analyses, and replicate mussel analyses. Possible anomalies are also covered.

Method Detection Limit

The MDL for mussels was calculated as MDL = σ t;

where σ is the standard deviation of seven replicate measurements and t is Student’s t value of 3.143 with six degrees of freedom (EPA 1984). The MDL values for individual hydrocarbon analytes ranged from 0.06 to 2.47 μg/g,

wet weight, with numerous values around 0.1 μg/g (Appendix Table C10).

The MDL guideline for hydrocarbons in mussels is not

specified in the NJDEP protocol. Since mussel extracts were

expected to be relatively cleaner than sediment extracts, we

assumed a target MDL of 1 μg/g for mussels, which was 10

times less than a target MDL of 10 μg/g for sediments.

We spiked mussels with higher-than-recommended

amounts of hydrocarbons to accommodate the higher detection limits of GC-FID. A majority of RSD values around

10% indicated good precision, but the higher spiked

amounts gave higher values for standard deviations that

resulted in approximately five-times-greater MDL values.

Laboratory Method Blanks

For laboratory method blank samples, 95 out of 105 values were less than three times the MDL (data not provided).

Surrogate Internal Standard Recovery

Eighty-two of 86 internal surrogate values met the criterion for surrogate internal standard recovery (Appendix

Tables C11-C13).

Matrix Spike Recovery

Matrix spike recoveries for the three mussel extraction

batches are listed in Appendix Table C14. For Extraction

Batch 1, 26 of 35 analytes met the matrix spike recovery

criterion. As expected from the relatively low boiling points

of n-C8

, n-C9, and n-C10, poor recoveries were obtained for

these three relatively volatile hydrocarbons. If these three

hydrocarbons were not included in the data, 81% of values

would meet the matrix spike recovery criterion.

For Extraction Batch 2, seven replicate mussel samples

were spiked with individual hydrocarbons (total spiked

amount per analyte = 4 μg) for the MDL determination. Similar to Batch 1 sample results, we decided not to include the

data for n-C8

, n-C9, and n-C10. If these hydrocarbons are not

included in the data, 180 of 224 values (80%) met the matrix

spike recovery criterion.

For Extraction Batch 3, 26 of 35 analytes (74%) met the

matrix spike recovery criterion. If recoveries for n-C8

, n-C9,

and n-C10 are not included, 26 of 32 analytes (81%) met the

matrix spike recovery criterion.

Diesel Fuel Spike Recovery

In Batch 2, diesel fuel oil #2 was spiked into Sandy

Hook mussel homogenate. Chromatograms of background

mussel extract, spiked mussel extract, and Restek diesel fuel

oil #2 used in spiking the mussels are depicted in Figure 16.

Matrix spike recovery was calculated for individual hydrocarbons as well as diesel fuel (Appendix Table C14). Recoveries of individual hydrocarbons were calculated by

comparing the areas of hydrocarbons in mussel homogenate with the areas of hydrocarbons in the diesel fuel standard. Recoveries of hydrocarbons from n-C11 to n-C20, including pristane and phytane, ranged from 52% to 100%.

Recoveries of other hydrocarbons did not meet the data

quality objectives criterion due to interfering peaks.

To calculate the recovery of diesel fuel, the sum of areas of representative hydrocarbon peaks in the matrix spike

sample was compared with that in the diesel fuel standard.

We selected n-C12, n-C13, n-C14, n-C15, n-C17, and pristane as

representative hydrocarbons based on their GC-FID responses in the spiked sample and diesel fuel calibration

standard, and minimal interference in the vicinity of these

respective hydrocarbons. The matrix spike recovery of diesel fuel oil #2 was then calculated to be 76.8%.

Mussel Standard Reference Material Analyses

Concentrations of various hydrocarbons listed for NIST

Mussel SRM 1974a are noncertified values, and range in

the low ng/g (ppb) levels. NIST scientists determined the

concentrations of these hydrocarbons using gas chromatography / mass spectrometry (GC/MS), and these concentrations are <10 times the MDLs of this study. In addition,

hydrocarbon analyses in the present study were performed

using GC/FID, which is 1-2 orders of magnitude less sensitive than the GC/MS. We concluded that SRM 1974a was

not an appropriate SRM for the evaluation of the quality of

our mussel data. Hydrocarbons detected above MDL were

considered false positives based on relatively low values

reported by NIST (Appendix Table C15). Quality assurance

criteria other than those based on SRM were therefore used

in the validation of mussel data.
Page 40

Replicate Mussel Analyses

Thirty of 34 hydrocarbons met the replicate analysis

criterion of 25% RSD in the mussel MDL determination

study (Appendix Table C10). In addition, one large mussel

from Mill Creek weighing 35.2 g was homogenized, and the

homogenate was extracted in triplicate. None of the individual hydrocarbon values in the mussel homogenates were

>10 times the MDL (Appendix Table C16). Therefore, replicate analysis criteria were not applicable to these mussel

homogenates.

Possible Anomalies

One mussel sample from the Con Ed Tower site and one

mussel sample from the Mill Creek site contained relatively

higher concentrations of n-C31. After examining the concentrations of other hydrocarbons in these mussels, as well

as concentrations of n-C31 in other mussels from these sites,

it appeared that the higher concentrations of n-C31 are possible anomalies. One additional mussel from Con Ed Tower

appeared to have relatively elevated, but possibly anomalous, concentrations of n-C21 and n-C23. One mussel sample

from Sandy Hook also appeared to have relatively elevated,

but possibly anomalous, concentrations of n-C29 and n-C30.

We hypothesized that some of these elevated

concentrations may have arisen from contributions of

hydrocarbons from natural sources, including terrestrial

plants, phytoplankton, and algae (Blumer et al. 1971, 1973;

Prahl et al. 1980; Douglas et al. 1981; Sauer and Uhler 1994).

Indicators of Hydrocarbon Source and Weathering

Hydrocarbon patterns and ratios of certain hydrocarbons were used to examine the hydrocarbon source, weathering/biodegradative losses of spilled hydrocarbons, and

contribution of biogenic hydrocarbons to the petrogenic

hydrocarbons.

Farnsane (2,6,10-trimethyldodecane), 2,6,10-

trimethyltridecane, nor-pristane, pristane, and phytane represent a class of branched-chain hydrocarbons that degrade

slowly compared to normal-chain hydrocarbons (Wang and

Fingas 1997; Atlas 1981; Atlas et al. 1981). Since farnsane,

2,6,10-trimethyltridecane, and nor-pristane were not included

in the instrument calibration mixture, the discussion of hydrocarbon weathering was limited to pristane and phytane,

the dominant hydrocarbons in partially weathered petroleum products (Broman et al. 1987). Typical ratios used as

indicators of hydrocarbon source and weathering are given

for the three petroleum products listed in Appendix Table C17.

Ratio of Pristane to n-C17 and of Phytane to n-C18

Ratios of pristane to n-C17 and of phytane to n-C18 indicate the extent of degradation of normal-chain hydrocarbons, with higher ratios suggesting greater losses of normal-chain hydrocarbons (Cripps 1989; reciprocals of these

ratios used by Wang and Fingas 1995). Since natural sources

of pristane (e.g., copepods) may alter the pristane to n-C17

ratio in the sediments, this ratio should be interpreted with

caution (NRC 1985; Douglas et al. 1996).

Ratio of Pristane to Phytane

Because of the resistance of pristane and phytane to

biodegradation, the pristane-to-phytane ratio is used as a

marker in measuring the early degradation rate of oil (Sauer

and Uhler 1994). The ratio of pristane to phytane can also

be used to examine if the hydrocarbon mixtures from different locations or from different sediment core sections originated from a common source. Since natural sources of pristane (e.g., copepods) may alter the pristane-to-phytane ratio in sediment, this ratio should be interpreted with caution. Also, pristane and phytane are lost at different rates in

the later stages of biodegradation that may confound the

identification of source oil (Douglas and Uhler 1993).

Carbon Preference Index

Carbon preference index (CPI) is a ratio of the sum of

odd-numbered hydrocarbons to the sum of even-numbered

hydrocarbons (Farrington and Meyers 1975; NRC 1985).

Hydrocarbon mixtures originating from plant materials show

a predominance of odd-numbered carbon chains with CPI

values >5-7 (Farrington and Tripp 1977). A CPI value of 1.0

indicates a petrogenic origin of the hydrocarbons. Values

of CPI >1.0 indicate the contribution of odd-numbered hydrocarbons of biogenic origin (Choiseul et al. 1998).

Weathering Index

The weathering index (WI) is a ratio of the sum of n-C8

,

n-C10, n-C12, and n-C14 to the sum of n-C22, n-C24, n-C26, and

n-C28 (Wang and Fingas 1994; Wang et al. 1994). A lower

value for WI indicates weathering losses of the lower-boiling hydrocarbons. We did not include n-C8

 in the calculation of WI because: 1) it was not recovered in the spiked

replicates used in the MDL determination (Appendix Tables

C2 and C10), 2) coelution of n-C8

 with unknown interferences resulted in its inadequate quantification, 3) artifact
Page 41

concentrations of n-C8 were not internally consistent with

concentrations of other homologs for the Old Place Creek

sediments, and 4) the ratios for Old Place Creek sediments

were solely driven by n-C8 concentrations.

Total Organic Carbon

Guida and Draxler in the following chapter, “Sediment

Biogeochemistry,” describe the determination of total organic carbon (TOC) in the surface sediments.

Reporting of Hydrocarbon Concentrations

In addition to calculating the concentrations of individual petroleum hydrocarbon components, the sums of

the concentrations of such compounds were calculated for

the following groups in each sample: 1) total of individual

petroleum hydrocarbons (TIPH); 2) branched-chain hydrocarbons (i.e., pristane + phytane); 3) odd-numbered, normal-chain hydrocarbons; 4) even-numbered, normal-chain

hydrocarbons (starting with n-C10); 5) representative lowerboiling-point, normal-chain hydrocarbons (i.e., n-C10 + nC12 + n-C14); and 6) representative higher-boiling-point, normal-chain hydrocarbons (i.e., n-C22 + n-C24 + n-C26 + n-C28).

If an analyte was not detected in a particular sample,

then that analyte was not included in the aforementioned

summations nor in any of the subsequent hydrocarbon ratios. If an analyte concentration determined for a particular

sample was less than the MDL, then that analyte is reported

as “not detected” (nd). Only analyte values above the MDL

are reported. For “not detected” analytes, a concentration

value equal to one-half of the MDL value was used in the

summations and subsequent statistical calculations. The

core and station averages for sediments and the station

averages for mussels for a given analyte are reported as

“nd” if a given analyte was absent in all samples used for

averaging. If the concentration of a given analyte was

greater than the MDL in at least one sample, then one-half

of the MDL value was used for the “not detected” samples

in that particular group for the calculation of the average

concentration value. If the average concentration value

was less than the MDL, then it is reported as “<MDL.”

Only averages greater than the MDL are reported.

 The MDL for TPH was determined as MDL = σ t; where

σ is the standard deviation of seven replicate TPH measurements, and t is Student’s t value of 3.143 with six degrees of freedom (EPA 1984). Those TPH concentrations

below the TPH MDL are reported as “<MDL”; only TPH

concentrations above the MDL are reported.

Group MDLs, such as those for TIPH, branched-chain

hydrocarbons, odd-numbered normal-chain hydrocarbons,

even-numbered normal-chain hydrocarbons, representative

lower-boiling-point normal-chain hydrocarbons, and representative higher-boiling-point normal-chain hydrocarbons,

were calculated by summation of individual MDLs in a given

group.

Hydrocarbon analyses were performed on sections of

sediment cores from the first collection period and on surface sediments from the second collection period. A slight

uncertainty in the precise measurement of 1-cm-thick core

sections and 1-cm-deep surface scoops was inevitable because of the complex nature of the sediment matrix in the

Arthur Kill marshes. Since this uncertainty varies from station to station and from site to site in an unknown way, the

correction factors to compensate for this uncertainty could

not be determined. This uncertainty is presumed to be minimal and insignificant in the interpretation of the data.

Statistics

One-half of the MDL value was used for “not detected”

values for the purpose of statistical analyses. Since replicate sediment samples were not collected for any given

station, intrastation differences could not be examined. The

nonparametric, Kruskal-Wallis, one-way, analysis-of-variance (ANOVA)-on-ranks test was used to detect differences

among sites with respect to hydrocarbon concentrations.

If differences were detected in the Kruskal-Wallis test, then

pairwise, multiple-comparison tests (i.e., Dunn’s and Student-Newman-Keuls) were performed, post hoc, to isolate

the group(s) that differed from others. Correlation analyses

were performed to examine if there existed any relationships

between: 1) TPH and TOC in sediments, 2) TPH and lipid

contents of mussels, 3) TPH in mussels and TPH in sediments, 4) TPH in mussels and TOC in sediments, 5) TPH in

mussels and length of mussels, and 6) length of mussels

and lipid content of mussels.

RESULTS

Hydrocarbons in Sediment Core Sections

The concentrations for individual and total hydrocarbons detected in the core sections from the cores collected

in September 1996 were compared. These comparisons were

done between sections of the same core and sections of

cores from other stations from the site.
Page 42

Old Place Creek -- Oiled and Replanted Site

When the GC-FID chromatograms were integrated over

the entire envelope of peaks ranging from n-C8 to n-C40, the

TPH concentrations ranged from “not detected” to 3280

μg/g (Figure 17). The TPH concentrations were highest for

the bottom two core sections from Station D (Appendix

Table D1; 3280 μg/g for the 3-4 cm deep section, and 2910

μg/g for the 4-5 cm deep section). The next highest concentration of about 1000 μg/g was for 2-3 cm deep section from

Station D and the bottom-most section from Station B.

Stations A and C

With a few exceptions, most individual hydrocarbons

were below the MDL values in sediment core sections from

the first collection period. The hydrocarbon n-C31 was detected in all core sections from Station C (Appendix Table

D1).

Station B

Hydrocarbons n-C14 to n-C21, including pristane and

phytane, were most consistently detected in the bottom

four core sections from Station B (Appendix Table D1).

Hydrocarbons n-C31 and n-C32 were detected in three out of

five core sections at this station. Other hydrocarbons were

detected only occasionally. The highest TPH concentration was generally found in the bottom core section; the

TPH concentration in the top section was negligibly small.

The TIPH and TPH values in the 2-3 cm deep core section

and the 3-4 cm deep core section were similar, suggesting

that these two sections are actually subsamples of one contiguous sediment section.

The CPI value of 1.22 for the 3-4 cm deep core section

indicated a slight contribution of biogenic hydrocarbons to

the petroleum hydrocarbons. Ratios of pristane to phytane, pristane to n-C17, and phytane to n-C18 were similar in

the 2-3 cm deep core section and the 3-4 cm deep core section, indicating identical and approximately equally degraded

hydrocarbon mixture in these core sections.

Station D

Hydrocarbons n-C11 to n-C21, including pristane and

phytane, were most consistently detected in the bottom

three core sections from Station D. There was no particular

pattern related to the other hydrocarbons. The TPH concentrations in the 3-4 cm deep core section and the 4-5 cm

deep core section were approximately three times greater

than those in the 2-3 cm deep core section. The TPH concentrations in the top two core sections were negligible.

The CPI index for the 2-3 cm deep core section was

significantly >1.0, indicating a contribution from the oddnumbered biogenic hydrocarbons. The CPI indices for the

3-4 cm deep core section and the 4-5 cm deep core section

were approximately 1.0, indicating hydrocarbons of

petrogenic origin. Ratios of phytane to n-C18 in the bottom

three sections were similar, indicating the presence of a

similarly degraded hydrocarbon mixture. Ratios of pristane

to phytane, and of pristane to n-C17, were inconclusive,

probably due to the biogenic contribution of pristane.

Con Ed Tower -- Oiled and Unplanted Site

Individual as well as TPH concentrations in core sections from the Con Ed Tower marsh were generally higher

than those from all other sections analyzed in this study

(Figure 18; Appendix Table D2). The lowest hydrocarbon

concentrations were found in the top three sections from

Station C, and n-C36 was consistently absent in all core

sections.

Stations A and B

With the exception of n-C36, the target hydrocarbons

were generally detected in sections of sediment cores from

Stations A and B. The TPH concentrations increased with

depth for Station A. A similar trend was observed for Station B except for the TPH concentration in the bottom-most

section which was between the concentrations in the top

two core sections (Figure 18; Appendix Table D2). The

TPH concentrations in core sections from Station A and

Station B were higher than the TPH concentrations in the

corresponding sections from Station C and Station D.

A CPI value of about 1.0 in the top four core sections

from Station A and the 0-1 cm, 1-2 cm, and 3-4 cm core

sections from Station B indicated hydrocarbons related to a

petroleum product. A CPI value of 1.0 is considered to have

a petrogenic origin. The CPI value increases with contributions from the biogenic sources. A clear-cut differentiation

between petrogenic and biogenic origins can be subjective, although a CPI value >3 is considered to be dominated

by the biogenic sources (Farrington and Tripp 1977; Sauer

and Uhler 1994; Ramirez 1997). Higher values of CPI in the

bottom-most core sections indicated the contributions of

hydrocarbons of biogenic origin. Based upon

pristane:phytane ratios, Stations A and B appear to have

experienced input of different petroleum products in different core sections. Both stations showed similar patterns of

pristane:phytane ratios in core sections of similar depths.

Generally, lower WI values for the bottom sections compared to the top section indicated weathering of lighter

hydrocarbons in the bottom core sections for Stations A

and B.
Page 43

Station C

With a few exceptions, individual hydrocarbons were

not detected in the top two core sections from Station C

(Appendix Table D2). With two exceptions, the hydrocarbons n-C9

 to n-C14 were not detected in any core sections.

The hydrocarbon n-C17 was the only one detected in all

core sections. The TPH concentrations increased with depth

of the sediment core.

A CPI value of about 1.0 for the bottom three core sections indicated hydrocarbons of petroleum origin.

The low WI value of 0.19 for the bottom-most section

indicated high degradation of lighter hydrocarbons.

Station D

Besides the total absence of hydrocarbons n-C31, n-C33,

and n-C36, the distribution of other hydrocarbons did not

exhibit any particular pattern in the sediment core sections

from Station D (Appendix Table D2). An increasing gradient of TPH concentrations was observed with depth.

A CPI value of near 1.0 for the middle three core sections indicated the presence of petroleum-related hydrocarbons in these sections. A higher value of CPI for the 4-

5 cm deep core section indicated a contribution of hydrocarbons of biogenic origin.

Low WI values for the middle three sections indicated

degradative losses of lighter hydrocarbons. The bottommost core section seemed less weathered than the middle

three sections.

Mill Creek -- Reference Site

With the exception of hydrocarbons n-C29, n-C31, n-C33,

and n-C36, a large majority of hydrocarbons were not detected in the sediment core sections from Stations A-C (Figure 17; Appendix Table D3). The bottom three sections

from Station D generally contained low concentrations of

hydrocarbons n-C13 to n-C20, including pristane and phytane. The hydrocarbon n-C17 was present in all core sections from Station D.

The TPH concentrations for Stations A-C were all below the MDL of 181 μg/g. The TPH concentrations in the

bottom three sections from Station D were higher than the

concentration in the 1-2 cm deep core section (Figure 17).

The TPH concentration in the top core section from Station

D was below the MDL

Because many hydrocarbons were not detected, CPI

and WI values were noncalculable, unreliable, or inconclusive.

Hydrocarbons in Surface Sediments

Surface sediments from Old Place Creek and Con Ed

Tower marshes from the May 1997 collection were compared with the top core sections from sediment cores collected in September 1996. Mill Creek surface sediments

were not analyzed for the 1997 collection, thus there is no

comparison for that site. Concentrations of individual as

well as total hydrocarbons in surface sediments from Old

Place Creek and Con Ed Tower were generally similar to

those in the top sections of sediment cores from the 1996

collection (Figure 18). The average TPH concentration from

the top core sections from Con Ed Tower was higher than

the average concentrations from all other top core sections

and surface sediments (Figure 19).

Old Place Creek -- Oiled and Replanted Site

Except for a few isolated values, the concentrations of

individual hydrocarbons in all surface sediment samples

from Old Place Creek were below the MDL values (Figure

17; Appendix Table D1). The TPH concentration was above

the MDL of 181 μg/g only for the surface sediment from

Station B.

Con Ed Tower -- Oiled and Unplanted Site

Except for a few hydrocarbon values for Station A, and

some isolated values for Stations C and D, the concentrations of individual hydrocarbons in surface sediments from

Con Ed Tower were below the MDL values (Figure 18; Appendix Table D2). Except for Station A, the TIPH concentrations in surface sediments from all stations were below the

MDL of 59 μg/g.

Sandy Hook -- Reference Site

One surface sediment sample from Sandy Hook was analyzed during sediment MDL determination. With the exception of hydrocarbons n-C29, n-C31, and n-C32, the concentration

of all other individual hydrocarbons in surface sediment

samples from Sandy Hook were below the MDL values (Appendix Table D4). The TPH and TIPH concentrations were

below the MDL of 181 and 59 μg/g, respectively.

Hydrocarbons in Ribbed-Mussels

Concentrations of individual hydrocarbons (TIPH) in

almost all ribbed-mussels analyzed in this study were low,
Page 44

and the sum of n-C8 to n-C40 hydrocarbons was in the low

μg/g range.

The average TPH concentrations in mussels from both

collection periods are compared for each site in the Arthur

Kill and Sandy Hook marshes (Figure 20). The TPH concentrations overall ranged from 20.6 to 541 μg/g. These

TPH values included target hydrocarbon analytes and other

unidentified compounds assumed to be a variety of

branched-chain hydrocarbons and cyclic hydrocarbons.

Although the significance of the method used to determine

TPH concentrations in mussels is unclear, the method permitted the correlation analyses of mussel and sediment data.

Old Place Creek -- Oiled and Replanted Site

With the exception of one sample, hydrocarbons n-C10

to n-C16, n-C18, n-C20, n-C22 to n-C25, n-C29, and n-C30 were

absent in mussels from both collection periods in the Old

Place Creek marsh (Appendix Table D5). For the first collection period, the hydrocarbon patterns in mussels were dominated by the heavier hydrocarbons, suggesting exposure

to highly weathered petroleum mixtures. Comparatively few

heavier hydrocarbons were detected in mussels from the

second collection period.

For the second collection period, the TPH concentration was above the MDL of 53.6 μg/g for only one mussel.

The CPI values >1.0 suggested the contribution of oddnumbered biogenic hydrocarbons in mussels from the first

collection period.

Con Ed Tower -- Oiled and Unplanted Site

With a few exceptions, hydrocarbons n-C10 to n-C16, nC18, n-C20, n-C22, and n-C24 to n-C30 were absent in mussels

from both collection periods from the Con Ed Tower marsh

(Appendix Table D6). For the first collection period, the

hydrocarbon patterns in mussels were dominated by heavier

hydrocarbons, suggesting exposure to highly weathered

petroleum mixtures. Comparatively few heavier hydrocarbons were detected in mussels from the second collection

period.

The CPI values >1.0 in mussels from both collection

periods suggested contributions of odd-numbered biogenic

hydrocarbons.

Saw Mill Creek North -- Oiled and Replanted Site

With a few exceptions, hydrocarbons n-C10 to n-C15, nC18, n-C20, and n-C24 to n-C30 were absent in mussels from

both collections from Saw Mill Creek North (Appendix Table

D7). For the first collection period, the hydrocarbon patterns in mussels were dominated by heavier hydrocarbons,

suggesting exposure to highly weathered petroleum mixtures.

The CPI values >1.0 in mussels from both collection

periods indicated contributions of odd-numbered biogenic

hydrocarbons.

Saw Mill Creek South -- Oiled and Unplanted Site

With a few exceptions, hydrocarbons n-C10 to n-C16, nC18 to n-C20, n-C22 to n-C26, n-C30, n-C34, n-C37, and pristane

were absent in mussels from both collection periods from

Saw Mill Creek South (Appendix Table D8). For the first

collection period, mussel averages for individual hydrocarbons were mostly below the MDL values.

The TPH concentrations were comparatively higher in

mussels from the second collection period (Figure 20).

Higher CPI values for two mussels from the second

collection period indicated contributions of odd-numbered

biogenic hydrocarbons.

Tufts Point -- Reference Site

With a few exceptions, hydrocarbons n-C10 to n-C16, nC18, n-C20, n-C22 to n-C25, n-C30, pristane, and phytane, were

absent in mussels from both collections from Tufts Point

(Appendix Table D9). For the first collection period, hydrocarbon patterns in mussels were dominated by heavier hydrocarbons, suggesting exposure to highly weathered petroleum mixtures. Relatively few heavier hydrocarbons were

detected in mussels from the second collection period.

The CPI values did not exhibit any particular trend for

mussels in the first collection period. The CPI values >1.0

for four mussels from the first collection period indicated

contributions of odd-numbered biogenic hydrocarbons.

Mill Creek -- Reference Site

With a few exceptions, hydrocarbons n-C10 to n-C15, nC18, n-C20, n-C23 to n-C30, and pristane were absent in mussels from both collection periods from Mill Creek (Appendix Table D10). For the first collection period, hydrocarbon

patterns in mussels were dominated by heavier hydrocarbons, suggesting exposure to highly weathered petroleum

mixtures. Relatively few heavier hydrocarbons were detected in mussels from the second collection period.

The CPI values >1.0 in mussels from both collections

indicated contributions of odd-numbered biogenic hydrocarbons.

Sandy Hook -- Reference Site

With a few exceptions, hydrocarbons n-C10 to n-C16, nC18, n-C20, n-C23 to n-C36, pristane, and phytane were absent

in mussels from Sandy Hook (Appendix Table D11).
Page 45

A CPI value >1.0 indicated contributions of odd-numbered biogenic hydrocarbons in one mussel sample. Component hydrocarbons for the determination of CPI values

were below the MDL values in other mussels from Sandy

Hook.

Lipids in Mussels

Lipid contents of ribbed-mussels varied from mussel to

mussel and ranged from 0.4 to 2.97% (Appendix Table B2).

While the average lipid contents in mussels from Old Place

Creek, Saw Mill Creek North, Tufts Point, and Mill Creek

from the September 1996 collection were greater than those

from the May 1997 collection, a reverse trend was observed

for mussels from Con Ed Tower and Saw Mill Creek South.

DISCUSSION

Hydrocarbons in Sediments

Surface Sediments

The TIPH and TPH concentrations in surface sediments

from three Arthur Kill marsh sites from both collection periods and in those from Sandy Hook varied by station, site,

and collection period (Table 9), and the concentrations exhibited non-normal distributions (P = <0.001). Median TIPH

and TPH values for Con Ed Tower surface sediments from

the first collection period were higher than the corresponding values for all other sites and collection periods (Figure

21 for TPH). Since only one data point was collected for

Sandy Hook, further statistical analyses were limited only

to the Arthur Kill marshes.

In a nonparametric, Kruskal-Wallis, one-way, ANOVAon-ranks test, the differences in median values among Arthur

Kill sites were greater than would be expected by chance.

Therefore, the median TPH values were considered significantly different (H = 10.396 with 4 degrees of freedom, P =

0.034). The Kruskal-Wallis, one-way, ANOVA-on-ranks test

examines the hypothesis of no difference between several

treatment groups, but does not determine which groups

may be different, or the size of any differences.

Dunn’s all-pairwise, multiple-comparison test was performed, post hoc, to isolate the sites that differed from the

others. The TPH concentration in surface sediments from

Con Ed Tower from the first collection period was found to

be significantly different from surface sediments from Mill

Creek (difference of ranks = 11.000, P = 5, Q = 2.968, and P

<0.05). However, this difference was insignificant when the

data were analyzed, post hoc, by the Student-Newman-Keuls

all-pairwise, multiple-comparison test. The lower power of

the Kruskal-Wallis, one-way, ANOVA-on-ranks test (P =

0.034) apparently resulted in contradictory results from two

separate, all-pairwise, multiple-comparison tests. The numerical difference between these two sites was therefore

considered to be a borderline significant difference. Statistical differences in TPH concentrations in surface sediments

were not detected among other sites or other collections.

The TPH and TOC in surface sediments from Old Place

Creek, Con Ed Tower, and Mill Creek had a correlation coefficient value (r) of 0.756 (P = 0.05) and a negative intercept

on the Y-axis (Figure 22). Thus, total hydrocarbons in sediments increased with TOC, but in a proportion less than the

corresponding increment in the TOC value.

Sediment Cores

Average TPH and TIPH concentrations for individual

sediment cores from Old Place Creek, Con Ed Tower, and

Mill Creek varied by station and site (Table 10). In contrast

to the surface sediments, the TPH concentrations in sediment cores exhibited a normal distribution pattern (P = 0.057).

The differences in median TPH concentrations among the

three sites were greater than would be expected by chance

in a parametric ANOVA test (P = 0.003), as well as in nonparametric Kruskal-Wallis, one-way, ANOVA-on-ranks test

(H= 8.140 with 2 degrees of freedom, P = 0.005).

The average TPH concentration for sediment cores from

Con Ed Tower was significantly higher than that for Mill Creek

in a post hoc Dunn’s all-pairwise, multiple-comparison procedure (P <0.05). The Con Ed Tower average concentration was

significantly higher than both Mill Creek and Old Place Creek

average concentrations in post hoc Tukey test (P <0.05) and

Student-Newman-Keuls test (P <0.05).

A statistically significant difference in average TPH was

not detected between sediment cores from Mill Creek and

Old Place Creek (P <0.05).

Hydrocarbons in Mussels

The TIPH and TPH concentrations in mussels from six

Arthur Kill marshes from both collection periods and in

those from Sandy Hook varied by site and collection period

(Table 11), and exhibited non-normal distributions (P =

<0.001). In nonparametric Kruskal-Wallis, one-way, ANOVAon-ranks test, the differences in median TIPH and TPH values for mussels from different marshes from different collection periods were greater than the differences that would

be expected by chance. Median values of TIPH and TPH

were thus found to be significantly different (TIPH: P =

0.025, H = 24.677 with 13 degrees of freedom; TPH: P =

0.041, H = 21.709 with 12 degrees of freedom). Since we

analyzed five mussels at each site in the Arthur Kill, and

seven mussels in the Sandy Hook marsh, the group sizes

available for statistical comparison became unequal. In

Dunn’s all-pairwise, multiple-comparison test, the only available post hoc test for isolating groups of unequal size, no

mussel groups were significantly different from one another.

The TPH concentrations in mussels from Tufts Point

and Saw Mill Creek North covaried with lipid content (Tufts

Point:r = 0.875, P = 0.05, Figure 23B; Saw Mill Creek North:
Page 46

r = 0.872, P = 0.05, Figure 24A). Similar correlation was not

detected for mussels from other marsh sites. Surprisingly,

there was no correlation between TPH concentrations in

mussels and TPH concentrations in sediments for both collection periods (r = 0.101, P = 0.05). Also, there was no

correlation between TPH concentrations in mussels and

TOC concentrations in sediments (r = 0.084, P = 0.05 for

September 1996 collection; r = 0.084, P = 0.05 for May 1997

collection). Except for a negative correlation between TPH

concentrations in mussels and mussel length for Tufts Point

(r = 0.746, P = 0.05, Figure 23A), there was no relationship

between mussel length and TPH concentrations in mussels. Lipid content and mussel length correlated positively

for Mill Creek (r = 0.707, P = 0.05, Figure 24C); however,

they correlated negatively for Saw Mill Creek South (r =

0.787, P = 0.05, Figure 24B) and Tufts Point (r = 0.629, P =

0.05, Figure 23C).

CONCLUSIONS

The TPH concentrations in surface sediments from Mill

Creek (i.e., a reference site) were numerically the lowest,

those from Old Place Creek (i.e., an oiled and replanted site)

were intermediate, and those from Con Ed Tower (i.e., an

oiled but unplanted site) were the highest. Residual oil can

easily be seen, felt, and smelled in the sediments at the

latter site. The lower background levels at the Mill Creek

and Old Place Creek sites may be due to oxidation and

weathering of the oil, perhaps caused by the physical disturbance of planting (at Old Place Creek) and by the mineralization of oil by microbes around the roots of S.

alterniflora. For the 1996 collection, surface sediments

from Con Ed Tower and Mill Creek were statistically different in one post hoc test; however, the power of this test

was considerably low (P = 0.034). Surface sediments from

other sites were not statistically different from one another.

Hydrocarbon patterns and concentrations in sediment

core sections varied by core section for a given station

within a given site, suggesting heterogeneity of sediment

composition, sediment deposition, and possibly, oil spillage chronology. Deeper core sections of Con Ed Tower

sediments generally contained higher levels of hydrocarbons compared to the surface and subsurface core sections. The core average for TPH concentrations in sediment cores from Con Ed Tower was significantly higher

than that in Mill Creek, and possibly to a smaller degree,

than that in Old Place Creek.

The TPH concentrations in mussels from all Arthur Kill

sites and the Sandy Hook marsh were at low levels, these

concentrations were not significantly different, and there

was no temporal trend for the two collection periods. When

detectable concentrations were present, the mussel hydrocarbon patterns were dominated by heavier hydrocarbons,

suggesting the exposure of these mussels to the highly

weathered petroleum mixtures.

Lack of a distinct hydrocarbon pattern in any sediment

or mussel sample may have resulted from a combination of

factors, including extensive weathering of diesel fuel oil

spilled in January 1990, and other reported and unreported

oil spills in the Arthur Kill.

The TPH concentrations in sediments correlated with

TOC concentrations in sediments with a correlation coefficient of 0.763. The TPH concentrations in mussels correlated with lipid content for Tufts Point and Saw Mill Creek

North only. An absence of correlation between either TPH

or TOC concentrations in sediments and TPH concentrations in mussels suggests a limited utility of this technique

for the monitoring of old petroleum spills.

Except for Tufts Point mussels, the TPH concentrations

did not correlate with mussel length, which contradicted

our assumption that the hydrocarbon concentration is directly proportional to the mussel length and its age. Given

that oil spills occur relatively frequently in the Arthur Kill,

the coincidental timing of the sampling with the timing, location, and extent of an oil spill appears to be a major determining factor in finding hydrocarbon contaminants in mussels. The factor of chronic exposure of mussels to low

levels of hydrocarbons in relatively pristine habitats that

plausibly leads to gradual biomagnification of contaminants

and a positive length (age) - contaminant relationship appears to be less significant for the Arthur Kill mussels.

The CPI of about 1.0 for the top sections of sediment

cores from Con Ed Tower suggests petroleum origin, possibly

from fresh input(s). The higher CPI values in the bottom sediments indicated biogenic hydrocarbon contributions.

Except for the first collection period for Tufts Point, the

CPI for all ribbed-mussels was >1.0, indicating contributions of biogenic hydrocarbons.

Ratios of pristane to phytane, pristane to n-C17, and

phytane to n-C18 indicated degradation of normal-chain

hydrocarbons, and were useful in discerning petroleum origins in some sediment core sections.

Generally lower values of WI in the bottom sediment

core sections indicated weathering losses of lower-boilingpoint petroleum hydrocarbons.

REFERENCES CITED

Atlas, R.M. 1981. Microbial degradation of petroleum hydrocarbons: an environmental perspective. Microbiol. Rev.

45:180-209.

Atlas, R.M.; Boehm, P.D.; Calder, J.A. 1981. Chemical and

biological weathering of oil from the Amoco Cadiz oil

spillage within the littoral zone. Estuarine Coastal Mar.

Sci. 12:589-608.

Blumer, M.; Ehrhardt, M.; Jones, J.H. 1973. The environmental

fate of stranded crude oil. Deep-Sea Res. 20:239-259.

Blumer, M.; Guillard, R.R.L.; Chase, T. 1971. Hydrocarbons of

marine phytoplankton. Mar. Biol. (Berlin) 8:183-189.

Broman, D.; Colmsjö, A.; Ganning, B.; Näf, C.; Zebühr, Y.;

Östman, C. 1987. ‘Fingerprinting’ petroleum hydrocarbons in bottom sediments, plankton, and sediment trap

collected seston. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 18:380-388.
Page 47

Choiseul, V.; Wilson, J.G.; Nixon, E. 1998. The distribution of

hydrocarbons on the east and south-west Irish coasts

and in the Liffey Estuary. Biol. Environ. 98B(2):75-86.

Cripps, G.C. 1989. Problems in the identification of anthropogenic hydrocarbons against natural background levels in

the Antarctic. Antarct. Sci. 1:307-312.

Douglas, G.; Hall, P.B.; Bowler, B.; Williams, P.F.V. 1981. Analysis of hydrocarbons in sediments as indicators of pollution. Proc. R. Soc. Edinb. Sect. B (Biol.) 80B:113-34.

Douglas, G.S.; Bence, A.E.; Prince, R.C.; McMillan, S.I.; Butler,

E.L. 1996. Environmental stability of selected petroleum

hydrocarbon source and weathering ratios. Environ. Sci.

Technol. 30:2332-2339.

Douglas, G.S.; Uhler, A.D. 1993. Optimizing EPA methods for

petroleum-contaminated site assessments. Environ. Test.

Anal. May/June 1993:46-53.

EPA [U.S. Environmental Protection Agency]. 1984. Rules and

regulations. Appendix B to Part 136--definition and procedure for the determination of the method detection limit.

Revision 1.11. Fed. Regist. 49(209):198-199.

Farrington, J.W.; Meyers, P.A. 1975. Hydrocarbons in the

marine environment. In: Eglington, G., ed. Environmental

chemistry. London, England: The Chemical Society; p.

109-136.

Farrington, J.W.; Tripp, B.W. 1977. Hydrocarbons in western

North Atlantic surface sediments. Geochim. Cosmochim

Acta 41:1627-1641.

NJDEP [New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection].

1995. Quantification and identification of semi-volatile

petroleum products in water, soil, sediment and sludge.

Revision 2. N.J. Dept. Environ. Protect. Off. Qual. Assur.

Anal. Meth. Doc. OQA-QAM-018-10/91.

NRC [National Research Council]. 1985. Oil in the sea: inputs,

fates and effects. Washington, DC: National Academy

Press; 601 p.

Prahl, F.G.; Bennet, J.T.; Carpenter, R. 1980. The early diagenesis of aliphatic hydrocarbons and organic matter in sedimentary particulates from Dabob Bay, Washington.

Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta 44:1967-1976.

Ramirez, P., Jr. 1997. Environmental contaminants in the aquatic

bird food chain of an oil refinery wastewater pond. U.S.

Fish Wildl. Serv. Contam. Rep. R6/712C/97; 28 p. Available from: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Cheyenne, WY.

Sauer, T.C.; Uhler, A.D. 1994. Pollutant source identification

and allocation: advances in hydrocarbon fingerprinting.

Remediation 5:25-46.

Wang, Z., Fingas, M. 1995. Differentiation of the source of

spilled oil and monitoring the oil weathering process using gas chromatography-mass spectrometry. J.

Chromatogr. A 712:321-343.

Wang, Z.; Fingas, M. 1997. Developments in the analysis of

petroleum hydrocarbons in oils, petroleum products, and

oil-spill-related environmental samples by gas chromatography. J. Chromatogr. A 774:51-78.

Wang, Z.; Fingas, M.; Sergy, G. 1994. Study of 22-year old

Arrow oil samples using biomarker compounds by GC/

MS. Environ. Sci. Technol. 28:1733-1748.

Wang, Z.D.; Fingas, M. 1994. Study of the effects of weathering on the chemical compositions of ASMB oil. In: Proceedings of the 17th Arctic and Marine Oil Spill Program

(AMOP) Technical Seminar, June 8-10, 1994, Vancouver,

BC, Canada. Ottawa, ON: Environment Canada; p. 133-

172.
Chrome-Plated Copper Sediment Core 

Extruded Sediment 

Serrated Plunger 

Wooden Support for Sectioning Device 

Core Support 

Plunger Handle 

Crank Handle with Lock-in Plate

Page 48

Figure 11. Sediment core sectioning device.
Page 49

Figure 12. Mussel length distribution for each site for the Arthur Kill September 1996 collection and for the Sandy Hook Bay

February 1997 collection. (Mussels for analysis were chosen within the length range designated by the dotted

lines (55-74 mm).)

Mussel Length (mm)

0

1

2

3

4

5

323436384042444648505254565860

626466

68

70

72

74

76

78

80

82

84

86

88

90

92

94

96

98

100102

Con Ed Tower

0

1

2

3

4

5

3234

3638

4042

4446

48

50

52

54

56

586062

64

66

6870

72

74

76

7880

82

848688

90

92

94

9698

100102

Old Place Creek

0

1

2

3

4

5

3234363840424446

48

50

52

54

565860

62

64

66

68

70

72

7476

7880

82

84

86

88

90

92

94

96

98

100102

Saw Mill Creek North

0

1

2

3

4

5

32

3436

38

404244

46

48

50

52

5456

58

60

6264

66

6870

72

74

76

78

80

82

84

86

88

909294

96

98

100

102

Saw Mill Creek South

0

1

2

3

4

5

32

3436

38

40

4244

46

48

50

52

545658

60

62

64

66

68

70

7274

76

7880

82

84

86

88

90

92

94

96

98

100

102

Tufts Point

0

1

2

3

4

5

32

3436

38

404244

46

4850

52

54

56

586062

64

666870

72

74

7678

80

82

84

86

88

90

92

9496

98

100

102

Mill Creek

0

1

2

3

4

5

32

3436

38

404244

46

4850

5254

5658

6062

64

6668

70

72

7476

78

80

8284

86

88

9092

94

96

98

100

102

Sandy Hook Bay

No. of Mussels
Page 50

Figure 13. Mussel length distribution for each site for the Arthur Kill May 1997 collection. (Mussels for analysis were

chosen within the length range designated by the dotted lines (55-74 mm). No additional mussels were collected

at Sandy Hook Bay during May 1997.)

Mussel Length (mm)

0

1

2

3

4

5

323436384042444648505254565860626466687072747678

80828486889092949698

100

Con Ed Tower

0

1

2

3

4

5

32343638404244464850525456586062646668707274767880828486889092949698

100

Old Place Creek

0

1

2

3

4

5

323436384042444648505254565860

6264666870

727476

78

808284

868890

92

94

96

98

100

Saw Mill Creek North

0

1

2

3

4

5

3234

3638404244464850525456

58

60626466

68

70

72

7476788082

8486889092

94

9698

100

Saw Mill Creek South

0

1

2

3

4

5

323436384042

4446485052

54

56

58

606264

66

68

70

7274

76

78

8082

84

8688

9092

9496

98

100

Tufts Point

0

1

2

3

4

5

3234363840424446485052545658606264666870727476788082848688909294

96

98

100

Mill Creek

No. of Mussels
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Time (min)

8 n-C

9 n-C

10 n-C

11 n-C

12 n-C

13 n-C

14 n-C

15 n-C

16 n-C

17 n-C

18 n-C

(A)

(B)

19 n-C

20 n-C

22 n-C

40 n-C

24 n-C

26 n-C

28 n-C

30 n-C

32 n-C

34 n-C

36 n-C

38 n-C

(D) (C)

21 n-C

23 n-C

25 n-C

27 n-C

29 n-C

31 n-C

33 n-C

35 n-C

37 n-C

39 n-C

Page 51

Figure 14. Full GC-FID calibration chromatogram of all individual hydrocarbons and internal standards. (The hydrocarbons n-C20 and n-C32 are used to monitor mass

discrimination in the calibration chromatograms. (A) = pristane; (B) = phytane; (C) = o-terphenyl, an internal standard; and (D) = 5-

α-androstane, also an internal

standard.)
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

Time (min)

o-terphenyl (IS)

5-

D-androstane (IS)

n-C19

n-C20

n-C21

n-C12

n-C13 n-C14 n-C15

n-C16

n-C11

n-C10

pristane

phytane

n-C17

n-C18

Page 52

Figure 15. Chromatogram of a solution of the Restek diesel fuel oil #2 standard (unweathered, Cat 31233) in methylene chloride with internal standards added. ((A) = 2,6,10,14-

tetramethyldodecane; (B) = 2,6,10,14 tetramethyltridecane; (C) = norpristane; and IS = internal standard.)
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

Time (in min.)

Restek Diesel Fuel #2 Standard

n-C20

n-C21

n-C22

n-C19

n-C15

n-C17

n-C23 n-C24

n-C18

n-C25

n-C16

n-C14

n-C11

n-C12

n-C13

n-C10

5-D-Androstane (IS)

o-Terphenyl (IS)

Phytane

Pristane

C B

A

C - Norpristane

A - 2,6,10,14-Tetramethyldodecane

B - 2,6,10,14-Tetramethyltridecane

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

Spiked Sandy Hook Mussel 

Homogenate

n-C15

n-C17

n-C18

n-C16

n-C14

n-C11

n-C12

n-C13

n-C10

5-D-Androstane (IS)

o-Terphenyl

(IS)

Area Sum-Hydrocarbon Peaks

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

Sandy Hook Mussel Homogenate 

Background

o-Terphenyl (IS)

5-D-Androstane (IS)

Area Sum-Hydrocarbon Peaks

Page 53

Figure 16. Chromatograms of Sandy Hook ribbed-mussel homogenate spiked with 1000 μg of Restek diesel fuel oil #2

standard. (“Area Sum - Hydrocarbon Peaks” = sum of peak areas for n-C12, n-C13, n-C14, n-C15, n-C16, and n-C17

only.)
Old Place Creek - Station A

0 1000 2000 3000 4000

4 to 5 cm

3 to 4 cm

2 to 3 cm

1 to 2 cm

0 to 1cm

SC

Core Section

Concentration (μ g/g)

< MDL

Old Place Creek - Station B

0 1000 2000 3000 4000

4 to 5 cm

3 to 4 cm

2 to 3 cm

1 to 2 cm

0 to 1cm

SC

Core Section

Concentration (μ g/g)

< MDL

Old Place Creek - Station C

0 1000 2000 3000 4000

4 to 5 cm

3 to 4 cm

2 to 3 cm

1 to 2 cm

0 to 1cm

SC

Core Section

Concentration (μ g/g)

< MDL

< MDL

Old Place Creek - Station D

0 1000 2000 3000 4000

4 to 5 cm

3 to 4 cm

2 to 3 cm

1 to 2 cm

0 to 1cm

SC

Core Section

Concentration (μ g/g)

< MDL

Mill Creek - Station D

0 1000 2000 3000 4000

4 to 5 cm

3 to 4 cm

2 to 3 cm

1 to 2 cm

0 to 1cm

SC

Core Section

Concentration (μ g/g)

< MDL

Page 54

Figure 17. TPH concentrations (μg/g, wet weight) for Old Place Creek and Mill Creek sediment samples. (Each analyzed

sediment sample, either core section or surface scoop, is represented by a bar. The bars for samples in which

concentrations exceed the MDL value of 181 μg/g are filled with different patterns to identify the type or location

of the sample. The bar is unfilled for samples in which the concentration is less than the MDL. Each core section

from Mill Creek marsh was analyzed except for core section 5 from Station A which was lost during sample

processing. All core section from all stations, except for Station D, had TPH values less than the MDL. The plot

of the distribution of TPH values for Station D is given in the figure. No surface scoop samples were analyzed for

Mill Creek marsh. SC = surface scoop sample.)
Con Ed Tower - Station A

0 5000 10000 15000 20000

4 to 5 cm

3 to 4 cm

2 to 3 cm

1 to 2 cm

0 to 1cm

SC

Core Section

Concentration (μ g/g)

Con Ed Tower - Station B

0 5000 10000 15000 20000

4 to 5 cm

3 to 4 cm

2 to 3 cm

1 to 2 cm

0 to 1cm

SC

Core Section

Concentration (μ g/g)

Con Ed Tower - Station C

0 5000 10000 15000 20000

4 to 5 cm

3 to 4 cm

2 to 3 cm

1 to 2 cm

0 to 1cm

SC

Core Section

Concentration (μ g/g)

Con Ed Tower - Station D

0 5000 10000 15000 20000

4 to 5 cm

3 to 4 cm

2 to 3 cm

1 to 2 cm

0 to 1cm

SC

Core Section

Concentration (μ g/g)

Page 55

Figure 18. TPH concentrations (μg/g, wet weight) for Con Ed Tower sediment samples. (Each analyzed sediment samples is

represented by a bar. The bars for samples in which concentrations exceed the MDL value of 181 μg/g are filled

with different patterns to identify the type or location of the sample. The bar is unfilled for samples in which the

concentration is less than the MDL. SC = surface scoop sample.)
0

4000300020001000

Old Place Con Edison

Tower

Mill Creek Sandy Hook Bay

Site

g/g)

P TPH Concentration ( <MDL

MDL

Sept 1996 CollectionMay 1997 Collection

Old Place Creek Con Ed Tower

Page 56

Figure 19. Average TPH concentrations (μg/g, wet weight) in surface sediments by site. (Concentrations for the September 1996 collection were from the top-most core

sections (i.e., depth = 0-1 cm) for each station. Concentrations for the May 1997 collection were from individual surface scoops from each station. No sediment

surface scoop samples from Mill Creek marsh were analyzed. Only one set of sediment samples was collected from Sandy Hook Bay. All concentrations in thefigures are greater than or equal to the MDL value of 181 μg/g.)
0

50

500450400350300250200150100

Old Place Con Edison Tower Saw Mill North Saw Mill South Tufts Point Mill Creek Sandy Hook Bay

Sites

Concentration

Sept 1996 Collection at Arthur 

Kill

May 1997 Collection at Arthur 

Kill

Collection at Sandy Hook Bay

MDL

Old Place Creek Saw Mill Creek South Saw Mill Creek North

Page 57

Figure 20. Average TPH concentrations (μg/g, wet weight) in ribbed-mussels by site. (One set of ribbed-mussels was collected at Sandy Hook Bay between the collection

dates for the two sets of Arthur Kill samples. To calculate the average where some members had values less than the MDL, one-half of the MDL was used. Whenthe average value exceeded the MDL, the bars are filled. The average for the Saw Mill Creek South September 1996 collection was less than the MDL (53.6 μg/g).The value for the MDL was used in the plot, and the bar was not filled.)
-500

500

4500350025001500

OP: Sept 96 OP: May 97 CET: Sept 96 CET: May 97 MC: Sept 96 SH

Non-Outlier MaxNon-Outlier Min75%25%MedianExtremes

Page 58

Figure 21. Box plot of the TPH concentrations (μg/g, wet weight) in surface sediments. (OP = Old Place Creek; CET = Con Ed Tower; MC = Mill Creek; and SH = Sandy Hook

Bay.)
0

50004000300020001000

0 100 200 300 400 500 600

TOC (mg/g)

g/g)

P TPH (

TPH = -232.9 + (4.728 x TOC)r 2 = 0.542

r = 0.736P = 0.05

Page59

Figure 22. Correlation between TPH concentrations (μg/g) and TOC concentrations (mg/g) in Arthur Kill surface sediments from Old Place Creek, Con Ed Tower, and Mill Creek

marshes. (All TPH values used for this analysis were greater than the MDL (181 μg/g). The TPH values used for the September 1996 cores are from the top-mostcore sections (i.e., depth = 0-1 cm). The stations used for the September 1996 collection were: Old Place Creek - Station C; and Con Ed Tower - all stations. The

stations used for the May 1997 collection were: Old Place Creek - Station B; and Con Ed Tower - all stations.)
TPH = (-18.415 x ML) + 1273.2

r 2

 = 0.556; P = 0.05

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

50 55 60 65 70 75

Mussel Length (mm)

TPH Concentration (

Pg/g)

Sept. 1996 Collection

+ May 1997 Collection

TPH = (124.7 x PL) + 27.889

r 2

 = 0.765

P = 0.05

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0

Percent Lipid

TPH Concentration (

Pg/g)

ML = (-3.6302 x PL) + 63.824

r 2

 = 0.395

P = 0.05

50

55

60

65

70

75

0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0

Percent Lipid

Mussel Length (mm)

Page 60

Figure 23. Correlation between TPH concentrations (μg/g), mussel length (mm), and percent lipid for Tufts Point ribbedmussels. (The mussel MDL value is 54 mg/g. ML = mussel length (mm); and PL = percent lipid.)
Saw Mill Creek South Marsh

ML = (-17.263 x PL) + 75.661

r 2

 = 0.619

r = 0.787

P = 0.05

50

55

60

65

70

75

0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2

Percent Lipid

Mussel Length ( mm)

Mill Creek Marsh

ML = (10.421 x PL) + 51.332

r 2

 = 0.500

r = 0.707

P = 0.05

50

55

60

65

70

75

0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8

Percent Lipid

Mussel Length (mm)

Saw Mill Creek North Marsh

TPH = (170.16 x PL) - 63.84

r 2

 = 0.760

r = 0.872

P = 0.05

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5

Percent Lipid

TPH Concentration (

Pg/g)

Sept 1996 Collection

+ May 1997 Collection

Page 61

Figure 24. Correlation between TPH concentrations (μg/g) and percent lipid in Saw Mill Creek North ribbed-mussels, correlation between mussel length (mm) and percent lipid in Saw Mill Creek South ribbed-mussels, and correlation

between mussel length (mm) and percent lipid in Mill Creek ribbed-mussels. (The mussel MDL value is 54 mg/g.

ML = mussel length (mm); and PL = percent lipid.)
Table 9. Concentrations of total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH) and of the total of the individual petroleum hydrocarbons

(TIPH) for surface sediments. (TPH MDL = 181μg/g, wet weight; TIPH MDL = 59.0 μg/g, wet weight; and nd

= not detected.)

_________________________________________________________________________________________________

Collection No. of Concentration (μg/g, wet weight)

Site Period Station Samples TPH TIPH a b

_________________________________________________________________________________________________

Old Place marsh September 1996 A 1 nd nd c

B 1 nd nd

C 1 203 nd

D 1 nd nd

Mean 4 <MDL <MDL

Std. dev. - -

May 1997 A 1 nd nd d

B 1 494 nd

C 1 nd nd

D 1 nd nd

Mean 4 192 <MDL

Std. dev. 202 -

Con Ed Tower marsh September 1996 A 1 1360 213 c

B 1 3840 646

C 1 198 nd

D 1 677 61.6

Mean 4 1520 237

Std. dev. 1620 284

May 1997 A 1 1100 71 d

B 1 194 nd

C 1 225 nd

D 1 357 nd

Mean 4 468 <MDL

Std. dev. 425 -

Mill Creek marsh September 1996 A 1 nd nd c

B 1 nd nd

C 1 nd nd

D 1 nd nd

Mean 4 nd nd

Std. dev. - -

Sandy Hook Bay marsh February 1997 1 153 nd e

_______________

TPH = sum of all peaks eluting within the range of the target hydrocarbon analytes (see Appendix Table A5). a

TIHC = sum of target hydrocarbon analytes. b

Values are for core section 1 (i.e., depth 0-1 cm). c

Values are for the surface scoops. d

Only one surface sediment sample from Sandy Hook Bay was analyzed. e

_________________________________________________________________________________________________

Page 62
Table 10. Concentrations of total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH) and of the total of the individual petroleum hydrocarbons

(TIPH) for sediment core sections. (TPH MDL = 181μg/g, wet weight; TIPH MDL = 59.0 μg/g, wet weight; and

nd = not detected.)

_________________________________________________________________________________________________

Concentration (μg/g, wet weight)

No. of TPH TIPH a b

Site Station Samples Mean Std. Dev. Mean Std. Dev. c c

_________________________________________________________________________________________________

Old Place marsh A 5 <MDL - nd -

B 5 697 354 59.4 17.3

C 5 193 61.0 nd -

D 5 1480 1530 115 96.9

Mean 20 629.1 908.4 <MDL -

Con Ed Tower marsh A 5 6900 4560 587 285

B 5 10,900 5040 998 574

C 5 3150 3910 239 277

D 5 4980 3080 377 245

Mean 20 6490 4860 550 449

Mill Creek marsh A 4 nd - nd -

B 5 nd - <MDL -

C 5 nd - <MDL -

D 5 1310 1110 73.6 41.1

Mean 19 413 1030 <MDL -

_______________

TPH = sum of all peaks eluting within the range of the target hydrocarbon analytes (see Appendix Table A5). a

TIPH = sum of target hydrocarbon analytes. b

Values are the average of all core sections at that station. When the values for all core sections are below the MDL, the c

average is given as “nd.” When some of the values are below the MDL, 1⁄2 MDL is used instead of these values. The average

is given as “<MDL” when this average is less than the MDL.

_________________________________________________________________________________________________

Page 63
Table 11. Concentrations of total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH) and of the total of the individual petroleum hydrocarbons

(TIPH) for ribbed-mussels. (TPH MDL = 53.6 μg/g, wet weight; and TIPH MDL = 8.2 μg/g, wet weight.)

_________________________________________________________________________________________________

Concentration (μg/g, wet weight)

Collection No. of TPH TIPH a b

Site Period Samples Mean Std. Dev. Mean Std. Dev. c c

_________________________________________________________________________________________________

Old Place Creek marsh September 1996 5 150 39.1 11.0 1.70

May 1997 5 72.2 47.1 8.20 6.64

Con Ed Tower marsh September 1996 5 106 70.0 22.5 31.9

May 1997 5 181 69.5 17.8 18.3

Saw Mill Creek North marsh September 1996 5 149 87.2 10.3 3.93

May 1997 5 203 209 13.1 8.40

Saw Mill Creek South marsh September 1996 5 <MDL - <MDL -

May 1997 5 138 37.0 12.5 2.86

Tufts Point marsh September 1996 5 235 108 16.5 5.75

May 1997 5 123 43.7 <MDL -

Mill Creek marsh September 1996 5 113 33.6 23.0 26.2

May 1997 5 162 61.4 10.9 4.58

Sandy Hook Bay marsh February 1997 7 164 281 15.4 23.0

TPH = sum of all peaks eluting within the range of the target hydrocarbon analytes (see Appendix Table A5). a

TIHC = sum of target hydrocarbon analytes. b

Values are the average of all mussels at that site. When the values for all mussels are below the MDL, the average is given c

as “nd.” When some of the values are below the MDL, 1⁄2 MDL is used instead of these values. The average is given as

“<MDL” when this average is less than the MDL.

_________________________________________________________________________________________________

Page 64
Page 65

IV. SEDIMENT BIOGEOCHEMISTRY

Vincent G. Guida14, 15 and Andrew F. J. Draxler14, 16

Postal Address: 14National Marine Fisheries Serv., 74 Magruder Rd., Highlands,

NJ 07732

E-Mail Addresses: 15Vincent.Guida@noaa.gov; 16Andrew.Draxler@noaa.gov

The aforementioned characteristics are those of established, functioning wetland soils. The re-establishment of

productive stands of S. alterniflora has clearly been successful in the replanted salt marshes of the Arthur Kill

(Bergen et al. 2000). We have sought to determine if the reestablishment of normal wetland soil characteristics has

been as successful. Indeed, we seek to understand to what

extent oiling and other urban influences have affected these

unseen, but vital biogeochemical features of the Arthur Kill

salt marshes.

Previous studies found that created wetlands had lower

OC and nitrogen content, but higher redox potential values

(measured as Eh

) and higher manganese and iron content,

than natural wetlands (Craft et al. 1991; Zedler 1993). Other

studies have shown that sediment organic content appears

to develop slowly in newly created salt marshes, and may

take years to reach natural levels (LaSalle et al. 1991; Moy

and Levin 1991; Minello and Zimmerman 1992). Likewise,

development of saltmarsh nitrogen cycling rates can require years (Thompson et al. 1995). These differences between newly created and established wetlands are related

to the low organic matter content of soils used for de novo

wetland creation as compared with that of natural marsh

soil. Such findings suggest that marshes planted on

nonwetland soils cannot immediately duplicate the biogeochemical functions of older, natural systems.

Unlike wetlands that have been “created” though, the

Arthur Kill marshes such as the one at Old Place Creek have

been replanted on old wetland soils, although ones which

have been highly altered in this urban environment. Prior

to replanting, those sites were denuded due to the oil spill,

and were barren for a few years until replanted. By comparing these replanted wetlands with the denuded areas that

were not replanted and with areas that were not denuded,

we hoped to investigate what effect these varied histories may

have had on the organic matter essential for soil function.

The abundance of soluble inorganic sulfide, primarily

in the forms of the dissolved hydrosulfide ion (HS-

) and

hydrogen sulfide (H2S), is of particular interest because it is

an indicator of microbial activity and recent redox history,

and because it has a strong influence on primary production. Soluble sulfide is a product of a bacterial respiratory

pathway that utilizes the abundant sulfate ion (SO4

-2) in

saline interstitial water as a source of oxidizing power where

other oxidants (including O2 and NO3

-

) have been depleted.

Sulfate reduction is a major form of respiration in salt marshes

(Howarth and Giblin 1983), and the sulfide produced is

INTRODUCTION

Knowledge of soil biogeochemistry in salt marshes is

essential to an understanding of the role of these wetlands

in promoting fisheries. Biogeochemistry is the chemistry

that mediates interactions among atmosphere, water, minerals, microbiota, and higher organisms in the environment.

It is characterized by both linear and cyclic transformations

of materials, yielding deposits of end products for some

materials, a dynamic steady state for other materials, and

the generation of metabolic energy that sustains the structure of the ecosystem.

Organic wetland soils (i.e., hydric histosols) such as

those in salt marshes have a great capacity for transformations of forms of carbon, nitrogen, phosphorus, sulfur, and

transition metals. These transformations are essential to

the productivity and structure of salt marshes, and thereby

to the functioning of these marshes as critical fisheries habitat (Boesch and Turner 1984). The same transformations

are also critical as exporters of production to adjacent waters (Haines 1979).

Saturation of wetland soils with water impedes the diffusion of gaseous atmospheric oxygen into such soils.

Water, through which oxygen diffuses slowly, fills the interstices between solid particles that would otherwise be filled

with gas, through which oxygen diffuses rapidly. At the

same time, water saturation facilitates the diffusion of nongaseous water-soluble materials. The result is a sharp decline in the reducing-oxidizing (i.e., redox) potential with

depth that is characteristic of wetland soils, and one that

leads to other characteristics typical of wetland soils (Mitsch

and Gosselink 1986).

Some of these other characteristics include anoxia which

allows the net accumulation of organic matter from dead

plant parts that cannot be converted entirely to carbon dioxide and water without an oxidant, thus allowing the development and maintenance of the characteristically high

organic matter content of the histosol. Another characteristic resulting from the abundant organic matter and redox

potential gradient is the variety of microenvironments favoring an array of microbiota with extremely diverse metabolic capabilities. These capabilities include the cyclic redox transformations of nitrogen, sulfur, iron, and manganese that are essential to maintaining primary production,

and a variety of organic decay mechanisms that allow transfer of energy from refractory lignocellulose plant remains

into the trophic web (Howes et al. 1984; Newell 1993).
Page 66

known to inhibit root uptake of nitrogen in S. alterniflora

and other wetland plants (Bradley and Morris 1990a; Koch

et al. 1990). In the case of S. alterniflora, sulfide inhibition

of nitrogen uptake, along with salinity inhibition, are potentially important sources of productivity limitation since

growth of this grass appears to be nitrogen-limited in most

Gulf and Atlantic Coast marshes (Bradley and Morris 1992).

While measurement of sulfide deals with a narrow set

of redox species, measurement of soil Eh

 integrates the influence of many such chemical species (e.g., O2 , Fe+3, Fe+2,

Mn+4, Mn+2, NH4

+

, NO3

-

, H2S, HS-, CH4, H2, etc.). Typical

depth profiles for Eh in saltmarsh soils have high positive

values at the surface, indicating the penetration of hydrospheric and atmospheric O2

. This surface layer is underlain

by a rapid decline in values within the first few centimeters,

indicating exhaustion of O2

. Below this rapid decline, there

is a continuous slow decline in Eh toward values characterizing sulfide presence, perhaps underlain by still lower values indicating exhaustion of sulfate substrate and supporting only fermentative metabolism (Howes et al. 1981).

Aside from depth in the soil, Eh

 values are influenced

by the presence or absence of vegetation, the type of vegetation, and the seasonal state (i.e., dormancy vs. active

growth) of vegetation (de la Cruz et al. 1989). During the

growing season, S. alterniflora oxidizes marsh soil (increases Eh

) by conducting oxygen downward into its roots

and by diffusion to the adjacent soil root zone via specialized aerenchyma tissues. In addition, the grass lowers soil

water saturation levels by transferring interstitial water to

the atmosphere via evapotranspiration (Howes et al. 1981).

Such processes are not active during the dormant season

(fall-winter) or where grass has been intentionally burnt or

clipped or has died back of other causes; such factors result in lower Eh

 values that appear to inhibit recolonization

in dieback areas where rhizosphere oxidation cannot be reestablished simply by reactivation of existing root and rhizome systems (Bertness 1991). On the other hand, low Eh

values can also result in the release into interstitial water of

dissolved inorganic nutrients essential to plant growth

(DeLaune et al. 1981).

The presence of living S. alterniflora, with its seasonal

oxidizing influence (i.e., raising Eh

 values) and release of

soluble organic materials into soils, has important consequences for the biogeochemistry of salt marshes. In addition to raising the Eh

, the microzones around cordgrass

roots: 1) exhibit lower pH; 2) accumulate and immobilize

forms of such potentially toxic metals as copper, zinc, and

lead, presumably due to the tight binding of such metals to

abundant organic ligands (Caçador et al. 1996); 3) oxidize

sulfide (Howes et al. 1981); 4) mobilize iron (Kostka and

Luther 1995); and 5) facilitate the redox cycling of iron via

organic ligand complexes (Luther et al. 1992). These alterations in cordgrass root microzones form a positive feedback on the growth of cordgrass, for which iron is essential

and sulfide and excess heavy metals are toxic. Such biogeochemical functions are presumably lost when cordgrass

roots die, resulting in greater mobility of heavy metals, higher

sulfide levels, and immobilization of iron, making soil less

suitable for re-establishment and growth of S. alterniflora.

Finally, there is the effect of residual petroleum contamination on biogeochemical functions in Arthur Kill

marshes. Early research with crude oil suggested that this

substance may not be very toxic to such important microbial processes as the fixation of nitrogen (Thomson and

Webb 1984), the reduction of nitrate, manganese, iron, and

sulfate, and the production of methane and ammonia

(DeLaune et al. 1979). However, subsequent work with

specific oil components has shown that naphthalene can

inhibit sulfate reduction in saltmarsh sediments while increasing methanogenesis (Keine and Capone 1984). Indeed, there is evidence that fuel oil can increase detrital

decay rates (Hershner and Lake 1980), and that low levels

of a light hydrocarbon mixture can stimulate CO2

 production, methanogenesis, nitrogen fixation, and denitrification

in saltmarsh soils (Li et al. 1990).

Because of the key roles played by soil organic matter,

sulfide, and redox potential in controlling saltmarsh structure and productivity, we have chosen to measure total and

labile (i.e., readily degraded by aerobic microbiota) organic

matter in soil, and soluble sulfide and Eh

 values in interstitial water, as means of characterizing and assessing the

comparative biogeochemical condition of Arthur Kill

marshes and the possible efficacy of the replanting efforts.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

At each of the six sites, four stations were selected at

0.2 m above mid-tide. The separation between replicate

stations at a site ranged between 2 and 20 m (see description of the sampling transect in Chapter II, “Trace Metal

Contaminants in Sediments and Ribbed-Mussels”). In order to take into account seasonal variations, sampling regimes were performed during two intervals: SeptemberOctober 1996 representing fall, and May 1997 representing

spring.

Redox Potential

Duplicate vertical profiles of redox potential (measured

as Eh

) were taken in situ within 10 cm of each other at each

station using a Fisher Scientific Model 640 portable pH/

millivolt meter. The instrument was calibrated to within 1

mV at 10, 100, and 1000 mV using a Cole-Parmer pH-mV

calibrator (#5657-10). A platinum electrode (Thomas Scientific #4096-D20) with a band of platinum (6-mm dia. × 4-mm

height) was used as the sample electrode. The reference

electrode was a Fisher Scientific (#13-639-62) sleeve-junction calomel electrode. This system was calibrated using

three K3

Fe(CN)6-K4Fe(CN)6 solutions of differing redox potentials (ZoBell 1946; Orion Research, Inc. 1983).

Depth in the sediment was measured to the center of

the band except for the “zero” reading which was made with
Page 67

the band just immersed in the sediment. Before each profile, the electrode system was equilibrated in water collected

in the Arthur Kill adjacent to the site. In the first profile,

measurements were made in overlying surface water at 1 cm

above the soil surface, at the soil surface (0), 0.5 cm below

the surface, and 1-5 cm below the surface at 1-cm intervals,

soil penetrability permitting. In the second profile, measurements were made 1-10 cm below the soil surface at 1-cm

intervals, soil penetrability permitting. Readings at each

depth interval were accepted when the rate of change was

<1 mV in 10 s.

Soluble Sulfide

Samples for porewater sulfide determination were obtained with the use of de-ionized water (DIW) equilibration

devices, or “peepers” (Hesslein 1976; C. Wigand, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 27 Tarzwell Dr.,

Narragansett, RI, pers. comm.; Figure 25). These devices

obtained time-integrated, particulate-free samples of water

with the same dissolved chemical composition as interstitial water by allowing an extended period of equilibrations

between water outside the peeper and DIW inside the peeper

across membranes with molecule-sized pores. Each peeper

consisted of a body and two face plates (one on each side)

of high-density polyethylene (HPDE) held together with

stainless steel screws and washers. Sandwiched between

the body and face plates and enclosing five pairs of cylindrical equilibration chambers (each 2.54-cm dia. × 1.9-cm

depth, with a capacity of 9.7 ml) were two cellulose dialysis

membranes (Spectra/Por1) made from regenerated cellulose

and having a molecular weight cutoff of 6000-8000 Daltons.

In order to avoid contamination of subsurface soil and

porewater with molecular oxygen from the peepers, the

HPDE peeper parts were soaked for 25 days in DIW which

had been continuously sparged with N2

 gas in order to

remove adsorbed O2 prior to assembly. To minimize O2 absorption before insertion in marsh soil, peeper chambers

were filled with N2-sparged DIW, and the assembled peepers were wrapped in polyvinylidine chloride film and were

transported in N2

-sparged water. Peepers used in 1996 had

a single set of vertical chambers, while those used in 1997

had two sets, as depicted in Figure 25. As each chamber

spanned 2.54 cm in the vertical dimension, samples from the

five pairs of samples represent conditions from the following height/depth ranges (+ is above the soil surface and - is

below): 1) +3.2 to +0.6 cm (mean = +1.9 cm); 2) -0.6 to -3.2 cm

(mean = -1.9 cm); 3) -4.4 to -7.0 cm (mean = -5.7 cm); 4) -8.3 to

-10.8 cm (mean = -9.5 cm); and 5) -13.3 to -15.9 cm (mean =

-14.6 cm).

Each peeper was driven into the soil with a rubber mallet at one (1996) or two (1997) randomly chosen stations

from among the four stations at each site so that four sets

of chambers were below the surface of the soil and one

above (Figure 25). The peepers were left undisturbed to

equilibrate with the porewater for 13-14 days. Upon retrieval, the cellulose membranes covering each chamber were

punctured with a Teflon needle (reused after flushing with

surface seawater), and samples were withdrawn from the

chamber with disposable syringes and transferred to 1.5-ml

polypropylene centrifuge tubes for immediate addition of

colorimetric reagents and dilution water (i.e., N2

-sparged,

filtered seawater). Sample dilution by 10- or 100-fold was

necessary to overcome the limitations of the analytical

method.

Analysis was performed by a micromethod derived from

the method of Strickland and Parsons (1972), with reagents

calibrated against iodometric titration, and standardization

performed using serial dilutions of sulfide-enriched, N2

-

sparged seawater. Optical absorbance of the samples was

determined with a Perkin Elmer Lambda 3B spectrophotometer within 4 hr of collection. Tests of this microprocedure

have shown a 2.07±3.04% (i.e., mean ± standard deviation;

n = 8) decrease in absorbance of samples after 7 hr of reaction time. Total procedural error for the method was ±10%

(n = 26) for sulfide values up to 900 μM. Values between

900 and 3000 μM were ±30%. Values beyond 3000 could

not be estimated by our method, and were recorded as

“>3000 μM.”

Total Organic Carbon

Sediment samples for the determination of TOC were

manually collected in 28-mm (internal diameter) butyrate

cores, one core per station, to an average depth of 10 cm.

Care was taken to prevent disturbance of the sediment surface layer by maintaining the cores upright on ice for the

return to the laboratory, where they were frozen at -20°C

until processed. Frozen sediment cores were transferred to

a 4°C cold room and defrosted. The cored sediment was

extruded; the surface layer (to a depth of 1 cm) was collected in individual precleaned glass containers. Due to the

vegetated nature of the collection sites, sectioning of the

sediment was accomplished with a serrated stainless steel

blade. Sectioned sediments were dried overnight at 50°C.

All large carbonaceous fragments (>1 mm) were removed;

samples were then homogenized with a glass rod. A 100-mg

subsample was transferred into an acid-cleaned, uncapped

scintillation vial. The acidification technique of Yamamuro

and Kayanne (1995) was employed to remove carbonate,

while avoiding the dissolution of acid-soluble organic material.

Aliquots, ranging from 10 to 50 mg, were taken from the

acidified samples, placed into tin combustion cups, and

sealed in preparation for organic carbon and nitrogen analyses by flash combustion in oxygen at 1020°C on a Carlo

Erba 1108 elemental analyzer equipped with a 120-position

autosampler. Combustion products pass over a catalyst

and then over copper to remove excess oxygen and to reduce the nitrogen oxides to elemental nitrogen. Upon separation by gas chromatography, the CO2

 and N2 eluent peaks

are integrated and reported as organic carbon and nitrogen.
Page 68

Instrument calibration was maintained by performing a series of linear regressions using an acetanilide standard.

These standard and additional TOC SRMs (e.g., PACS-1)

were placed into the sample rotation for further verification

of optimal operation.

Labile Carbon

The 0.1-cm3

 sediment surface samples for labile carbon

(LC) analysis were obtained by coring marsh sediments using

disposable 10-ml plastic syringes with the tapered end cut

off. These cores included the upper 1 cm of the soil column.

Duplicate samples were taken at each of two randomly chosen stations at each site during May 1997.

The LC content of these samples was estimated via

measurement of dissolved oxygen consumption by the

microbiota during a 13-day incubation of the sample in a

300-ml BOD (biological oxygen demand) bottle filled with

natural seawater and maintained at 20°C (Draxler 1995).

Sediment oxygen consumption was compared with oxygen

consumption by D-glucose under the same conditions.

Therefore, sediment LC, hereafter reported as “μM-C/cm3

,”

signifies micromoles of glucose carbon equivalents per cubic centimeter of sediment.

Data Analysis

Statistical analyses of data were performed with the aid

of Jandel Scientific SigmaStat 2.0. Procedures included the

use of Kruskal-Wallis, one-way ANOVA and the MannWhitney rank sum test for site-by-site comparison of redox

potential, sulfide concentrations, and TOC content of soil,

with the use of Tukey, Dunn’s, or Student-Newman-Keuls

pairwise tests, as appropriate, and of Student’s t-tests, for

seasonal comparison of redox potential.

RESULTS

Redox Potential

A total of 965 measurements of Eh

 were made for the

purpose of creating duplicate depth profiles for redox potential in soil at four stations (designated A through D) at

each of the six sites in each of two seasons: fall 1996 and

spring 1997 (Figures 26-28). Depths in the soil in these and

all subsequent presentations are indicated in terms of negative (-) elevations, with a zero value denoting the soil surface. Most, though not all, sites demonstrated the classic

declining gradient in Eh

 with depth, described in the introduction to this chapter. The highest values were generally

at the surface. In most cases, a zone of rapid decline of

redox potential was within a depth of 2 cm, with more slowly

declining values between -2 and -5 cm, then consistently

low values below -5 cm.

Values of Eh

 for surface water collected adjacent to the

sites were +268±37 mV (n = 47) during fall 1996, and +314±23

mV (n = 46) during spring 1997 (Figures 26-28). Since the Eh

range of oxygenated pure water is above +350 mV, these

low values suggest poor quality in water overlying the marsh

during high tide (i.e., little dissolved oxygen and/or an abundance of reductants such as organic matter).

Beneath the soil surface, some profiles within each station diverged from the classic pattern, yielding both extraordinarily low and extraordinarily high Eh

 values at depth

(e.g., Figure 26A). While replanted sites appeared more

prone to high subsurface values (Figure 26), this phenomenon was not uniformly demonstrated at all stations nor in

all seasons within that treatment group, nor was it exclusively present there (Figures 27 and 28). Of the 40 highest

values (+374 to +478 mV), 26 were taken at Old Place Creek

- Station A during both fall and spring, and 11 from Saw Mill

Creek North - Station B in spring, making these the stations

with the most oxic sediments. Paradoxically, Old Place Creek

(a replanted site) was also the site where the lowest (i.e.,

most reduced) values of the study were recorded. Of the 21

lowest values (>-251 mV), 16 came from Old Place Creek -

Stations B, C, and D (replanted), making the deeper layers

at these stations the most anoxic sediments of the study --

a sharp contrast to the highly oxic character of sediments at

Old Place Creek - Station A. Extremely low values were

evident at the reference sites (e.g., Figure 27A) as well.

While Eh

 declined with depth in the soil at most stations, it increased with depth in a few profiles, including

those for Old Place Creek - Station A (replanted), Saw Mill

Creek North - Station B (replanted), and Tufts Point - Station C (reference) in both fall and spring, and for Con Ed

Tower - Stations A and C (unplanted) in spring only. Other

stations at those sites did not exhibit this pattern.

Unequal variances and deviations from normality prevented the use of parametric, three-way ANOVA of Eh

 data

to detect significant differences by depth, season, restoration status, and station. Therefore, a separate nonparametric test (i.e., the Kruskal-Wallis, one-way, ANOVA-on-ranks

test) for depth, restoration status, and station, and another

(i.e., the Mann-Whitney rank sum test) for season, were

employed to test the significance of each of these factors.

There was a significant difference associated with depth (P

<0.001), and indeed, a significant linear correlation with that

factor (r2

 = 0.433, P <0.01). There were also significant

differences by season, by treatment, and by station (all P

<0.001). Spring Eh

 values were significantly higher than fall

values. Dunn’s pairwise comparison test showed significant differences (P <0.05) between replanted and unplanted

sites, and between replanted and reference sites; replanted

marshes had significantly higher redox potentials than

unplanted or reference marshes.

While the last finding suggests an effect of replanting

status upon redox potentials, that pattern was not borne

out by examination of Eh

 values by station. Dunn’s pairwise

comparison test demonstrated that high redox values for

replanted marshes were driven largely by exceptionally high
Page 69

values from Old Place Creek. Despite some very low values, Old Place Creek (replanted) had significantly higher

median redox potential than Mill Creek (reference), Con Ed

Tower (unplanted), and Saw Mill Creek South (unplanted)

sites (all P <0.05), while redox potential values from Saw

Mill Creek North, the other replanted site, were only significantly greater than Mill Creek (reference) values (P <0.05).

The only other significant comparison was between the

two marshes in the reference treatment group, Tufts Point

and Mill Creek; Tufts Point had the higher values. Site was

more influential than treatment.

The possible effect of replanting on patterns of seasonal shifts in redox potential (i.e., treatment × seasonal

effects) was also investigated. Seasonal changes in redox

values from fall to spring included cases of significant increases, significant decreases, and no significant change.

Statistical comparison of Eh

 data across seasons in the face

of strong depth gradients was accomplished by performing

Student’s t-tests on mean data for the three depth zones

(i.e., 0 to -2 cm, -3 to -5 cm, and below -5 cm) suggested by

the zonation patterns mentioned previously. The Eh

 values

in 24 of the 72 site-depth zone combinations (33%) were

significantly greater (more oxidized) in spring 1997 than in

fall 1996 (P <0.05). This phenomenon occurred at all depths

and at sites under all treatment regimes, including Con Ed

Tower (unplanted), but not at all stations. Eight combinations (11%) had more oxidized conditions in the fall, including Old Place Creek (replanted) - Stations A and B , Con Ed

Tower (unplanted) - Station C, and Saw Mill Creek South

(unplanted) - Stations A and C. In terms of magnitude of

significant changes, increases also predominated over decreases. Seasonal changes in redox potential were significantly larger where they increased (|ΔEh

| = 243±148 mV)

from fall to spring than where they decreased (|ΔEh| = 79±51

mV) during that interval (P = 0.005). However, with the

largest number of station-depth zone combinations (32 of

the 72, or 44%), no significant seasonal change in redox

potential was found.

The stations with the most consistently reducing conditions between -3 and -10 cm despite the change of seasons were Saw Mill Creek South (unplanted) - Stations A

and B and Mill Creek (reference) - Stations B and C. Values

for soil measurements organized by depth zone, and the

results of seasonal statistical comparisons, are summarized

by station in Appendix Tables F1-F3. As with EH values and

profile shapes, seasonal redox changes did not sort into

recognizable patterns by replanting status. Rather, patterns in seasonal change or lack thereof appear to be station specific.

Soluble Sulfide

Soluble sulfide was measured in 120 “peeper” water

samples. As with the related Eh

 measurements, interstitial

sulfide concentrations demonstrated distinct and fairly consistent patterns with respect to depth and season. Sulfide

increased with depth (P <0.05) and was more abundant in

fall 1996 than in spring 1997 at four of the six sites (Figures

29-31) The exceptions were Con Ed Tower (unplanted) and

Tufts Point (reference).

At all stations within all sites, soluble sulfide concentrations above the soil surface were <2 μM, and were <80

μM within 3 cm of the sediment interface. With these data

removed, site-to-site comparisons of sulfide showed significant differences (P <0.05), but treatment-to-treatment

comparisons did not (i.e., Kruskal-Wallis, one-way, ANOVAon-ranks test). Below the 5-cm depth in fall, Old Place Creek

- Station C (replanted) had concentrations exceeding the

analytical limit of the analysis employed (>3000 μM). Elsewhere, sulfide concentration approached this level only

deeper than 14 cm in fall at Mill Creek - Station C (reference;

2700 μM) and at Saw Mill Creek South - Station D (unplanted;

2650 μM). In spring, values at Old Place Creek - Station A

for all depths were <2 μM, while Old Place Creek - Station B

contained 1250 μM below 14 cm in depth. Values at Saw

Mill Creek North - Station C (also replanted) never exceeded

200 μM in fall, or 100 μM in spring. At the Con Ed Tower

(unplanted) and especially Tufts Point (reference) sites, the

concentration pattern seen elsewhere of high fall and low

spring values was reversed. The most similar pairs of patterns did not share common replanting status: Saw Mill

Creek South (unplanted) - Mill Creek (reference) (Figures

30B and 31B), and Con Ed Tower (unplanted) - Saw Mill

Creek North (replanted) (Figures 30A and 29B).

Total Organic Carbon

Marked differences among TOC values for surface soils

from the Arthur Kill sites showed a closer association with

site identity than with replanting treatment status (Figure

32). Comparison of TOC values by site demonstrated significant differences (Kruskal-Wallis, one-way, ANOVA-onranks test; P <0.001). Pairwise comparison of sites showed

all pairs except Tufts Point:Mill Creek (reference stations)

to be significantly different (Student-Newman-Keuls test,

P <0.05).

Apparent loss of TOC at Con Ed Tower over the September-to-May interval (Figure 32) was significantly greater

(P <0.05) than at any other site. Indeed, most stations at

other sites show small increases in TOC from September to

May. Site-to-site differences in levels and seasonal patterns of organic matter content obscured any underlying

pattern by replanting treatment.

Labile Carbon

The LC content of sediment surface samples from two

stations at each site yielded no significant differences by

treatment (P = 0.091) or by station (P = 0.152; Kruskal-Wallis,

one-way, ANOVA-on-ranks test), although the highest mean

values occurred at Con Ed Tower (Figure 33). Mean May
Page 70

LC values correlated weakly, but significantly, with May

values for %TOC (r2 = 0.413; n = 12; P = 0.024).

The LC content of tidewater samples from all sites (Saw

Mill Creek North and Saw Mill Creek South are combined

due to proximity to one another) was remarkably uniform:

160±28 μM-C/cm3

 (mean ± standard deviation; n = 5). Standard deviations for replicate values from each site were

within 10% of mean values for the same site except in the

case of the Saw Mill Creek samples (standard deviation =

41% of mean).

Summary of Results

A brief summary of all of the biogeochemical data arranged by treatment, site, station, and season (Table 12)

indicates the wide variation of values for median Eh

, median

sulfide concentration, and LC concentrations within sites

and/or within treatments. Soil surface TOC was somewhat

more consistent by site (e.g., low values at Old Place Creek

and high values at Con Ed Tower), but not between sites

within treatment groups. Expected patterns of treatmentrelated values were nowhere evident.

Seasonal changes in Eh

, median sulfide, and TOC values also illustrated no discernable patterns associated with

replanting status.

DISCUSSION

The Arthur Kill provides a locus for the study of an

urban gradient system, with unique opportunities to investigate spatio-temporal scales of ecological patterning, the

roles of disturbance, and the integral role of humans in the

larger ecology of the system (McDonnell and Pickett 1990).

Anthropogenic effects include continuous waste discharge

into the air and water, episodic pollution events, upland

and shoreline alteration, channel dredging, and maritime

traffic effects. While the Arthur Kill salt marshes have much

in common with salt marshes in other locations, they have a

unique character that results from the interaction of such

influences with the natural system, as well as from a very

deliberate attempt to maintain estuarine wetland systems

along a heavily populated, industrialized, and trafficked urban waterway. Extremely high and low soil redox potentials

in close proximity, extremely high soil OC levels, and reversals of normal seasonal trends in soil organic carbon were

found co-existing with values and trends more typical of

systems that are clearly fulfilling wetlands ecological functions, including the provision of fisheries habitat.

Spatio-temporal patterns of porewater redox potential,

soluble sulfide, and OC in marsh soils did not correspond

with replanting status alone. Statistically significant differences were found for these biogeochemical measures with

depth and season. However, these differences were not

meaningful for assessment of replanting success because

they appeared to owe more to the peculiarities of individual

stations than to any common characteristics of replanted,

unplanted, and reference marshes, or the particular sites in

question (Table 12). Furthermore, quantitative differences

among station data within each site were so large, and distributions of values at those stations were so skewed, as to

render statistical differences uninterpretable in terms of replanting. No patterns characteristic of replanted, unplanted,

or reference marshes were identified, nor were characteristic differences among sites fitting these treatment categories evident. Redox potentials, soluble sulfide and organic

levels, depth profile shapes, and seasonal patterns appeared

to be mediated by smaller-scale gradients in factors not

clearly related to replanting. Our stations and sites were

heterogeneous with respect to these factors, likely confounding our efforts to identify replanting-specific effects.

Among those likely confounding factors were differences

in grain size distribution (see Table 2 for results of grain size

analysis), differences in surface and subsurface hydrology,

differences in macrobiotic activity, and anthropogenic influences.

Influence of Grain Size Distribution

One possible confounding factor that could explain

some of the variation in biogeochemical characteristics is

difference in grain size distribution (see Table 2 for results

of grain size analysis). Osgood and Zieman (1993) and

Osgood et al. (1995) found that sandy marsh sediments

associated with newly-developed natural marshes in Virginia had higher redox potentials, lower interstitial sulfide

concentrations, and lower organic content than older, siltier

sites nearby. Similarly, it appears that the upper layers of

sediment at Old Place Creek and probably also Con Ed Tower

have been maintained in relatively “young” condition by

exposure to strong currents and by wave action associated

with wakes from large vessels. Air enters the interstices

among the grains of rigid (incompressible) sandy deposits

as water drains or evaporates away during low tide, promoting penetration of oxic conditions to the extent allowed

by soil column drying. Soils composed largely of silt and

clay compress (collapse) as they lose water, leaving no airfilled interstices. Such soils continue to have low permeability to oxygen during subaerial exposure despite water

loss, allowing anaerobic conditions to persist during low

tide. Soils of intermediate grain size composition exhibit

partial compression. Indeed, compressibility has been

found to be linearly correlated to silt-clay content (Bradley

and Morris 1990b).

Sediments from Arthur Kill marshes span the gamut of

textures represented in the compressibility vs. silt-clay content regression of Bradley and Morris (1990b). The high

energy sediments at Old Place Creek (replanted) - Station A

fall at the totally incompressible end of the relationship

(compressibility = 0%). Assuming a rapid rate of lateral
Page 71

drainage for this site as a result of proximity to a porous

creekbank (Howes and Goehringer 1994), the presence of

high redox potential well beneath the surface, the low organic content, and the lack of sulfide at this site are not

surprising, even if the actual values of Eh

 (up to +450 mV)

are beyond the maximum values generally reported for

saltmarsh soils (e.g., Howes et al. 1986; de la Cruz et al.

1989; Craft et al. 1991; Osgood and Zieman 1993; Osgood et

al. 1995; Thompson et al. 1995; Ewing et al. 1997; Madureira

et al. 1997).

All stations at Saw Mill Creek North, Saw Mill Creek

South, Tufts Point, and Mill Creek, with the exception of

Mill Creek - Station D, fit near the totally compressible end

(compressibility = 89%) of the regression, which should

result in low Eh

 and sulfide values beneath the surface layers. While this is true in many cases, paradoxically high Eh

and low sulfide values at some of these sites (e.g., Saw Mill

Creek North - Station C in fall and Saw Mill Creek North -

Station B in spring) must be the result of factors not associated with grain size distribution and its influence on compressibility and porosity. Predicted compressibility values

for the remaining Old Place Creek and Mill Creek stations lie

toward the incompressible end (Old Place Creek - Station B

= 20%, Old Place Creek - Station C = 9%, Old Place Creek -

Station D = 11%, and Mill Creek - Station D = 39%), and

might thus be expected to have intermediate values of Eh

,

sulfide, and organic content. This is true of most OC content values at Old Place Creek (Station C in spring excepted),

but not for Mill Creek - Station D, and not true regarding Eh

or sulfide. Exceptionally low redox values (Old Place Creek

- Stations B and C) and high sulfide levels (Old Place Creek

- Station C) at these stations must again be attributed to

factors other than grain size distribution.

While grain size determinations on Con Ed Tower sediments were not possible (see Chapter II, “Trace Metal Contaminants in Sediments and Ribbed-Mussels”), that site’s

exposed location along the Arthur Kill navigational channel suggests sandy/gravelly sediments similar to Old Place

Creek - Station A, which fit with high redox potentials and

low sulfide concentrations at Con Ed Tower - Station C in

fall and Con Ed Tower - Stations A and D in spring. Although the TOC and LC methods used here did not allow

us to distinguish between petroleum hydrocarbons and

“natural” (e.g., algal, root/rhizome, detrital, and microbiological) organic matter, extraordinarily high OC levels at Con

Ed Tower undoubtedly resulted from high levels of residual

petroleum hydrocarbons (see Chapter III, “Petroleum Hydrocarbons in Sediments and Ribbed-Mussels”), visible as

a tarry crust.

Subsurface Hydrology

Air can enter saltmarsh soil as a result of water removal

by means of lateral subsurface drainage, which is a dominant mechanism along creekbanks, and by evapotranspiration as mediated by S. alterniflora and other vascular plants

(Howes et al. 1986). Indeed, lateral drainage is the more

rapid process where conditions permit, and its rate increases

with proximity to the nearest creekbank (Howes and

Goehringer 1994).

A pattern of exceptionally high Eh

 values (> +350 mV)

that increase with depth regardless of season was observed

at two of the eight replanted stations: Old Place Creek -

Station A and Saw Mill Creek North - Station B. This type of

redox profile has not been reported from natural marshes,

but has occurred in marsh soil that had been experimentally

drained of interstitial water for an extended period (Portnoy

and Valiela 1997). Old Place Creek - Station A and Saw Mill

Creek North - Station B, unlike other stations at those sites,

were evidently subject to very rapid drainage and air entry

during low tide. We believe that these processes occurred

because these stations were closer to creekbanks than the

other stations, despite all of the stations being at the same

intertidal elevation. In the case of Old Place Creek - Station

A, rapid drainage was facilitated by a very coarse grain size

distribution (i.e., complete incompressibility). In the case

of Saw Mill Creek North - Station B, it appears that drainage

was promoted by the heavy riddling of the adjacent bank

by fiddler crab burrows.

Surface Hydrology

Care was taken to ensure that each station was located

at the same tidal height (i.e., 0.2 m above mean sea level) so

as to eliminate possible variations in biogeochemistry stemming from differing frequency and duration of tidal flooding that attend small differences in elevation (Cahoon and

Reed 1995). However, our six stations were subject to differing wave and current regimes, and to differing surface

water quality. Old Place Creek and Con Ed Tower were

subject to the greatest wave and current energies (wind-,

tide-, and vessel-driven), as indicated by the low silt/clay

content of Old Place Creek sediments. Differences in silt/

clay content among stations within Old Place Creek suggest hydrological differences on a scale of a few meters or

less at that site, resulting in differences in deposition of

detrital material that contributes to TOC and LC. Sediments

at more sheltered sites (e.g., Saw Mill Creek North and Saw

Mill Creek South) have more uniform sediment textures and

relatively less variable TOC values. Less uniformity at Tufts

Point and Mill Creek suggest at least occasional episodes

of higher energy, despite sheltered locations.

During 1998, there were also north-to-south gradients

in average water quality measures in the Arthur Kill, including dissolved oxygen, inorganic nutrients, fecal coliform

counts, and degree of water column stratification (NYCDEP

1998). Gradients in these or other unmeasured water quality parameters could result in biogeochemical differences

among sites. Considering the high level of LC in the water

adjacent to these sites, tidal inundation may dominate bio-
Page 72

geochemical processes in this urban marsh complex, with

the greatest effect being exerted in the north.

Macrobiotic Activity

Leaving aside those sites with heterogeneous sediment

texture, the remaining sites -- based on their porewater Eh

and soluble sulfide values -- demonstrated large differences

among stations within site. Two elements of site macrobiota

may be influencing these differences: saltmarsh cordgrass

and burrowing crabs. At all vegetated sites except Con Ed

Tower, the redox and sulfide profile differences may be attributable to highly localized variations in soil aeration associated with variations in density of S. alterniflora roots

and rhizomes (Luther and Church 1988; Madureira et al.

1997), despite station-to-station similarity in above-ground

biomass (C. Alderson et al., Salt Marsh Restoration Team,

Natural Resources Group, New York City Parks, 200 Nevada

Ave., Staten Island, NY, unpubl. data). Soil aeration via

diffusion from S. alterniflora roots may explain our frequent observation of higher redox values in spring as compared with fall in irregular, narrow depth bands (regions of

maximum root density) at vegetated sites (see Figures 26-

28), and as also reported elsewhere (Howes et al. 1981; de la

Cruz et al. 1989).

The same kind of fall-spring redox increases at Con Ed

Tower are not explainable in terms of cordgrass aeration; there

was no cordgrass. We suspect that subsurface drainage of

presumably incompressible, sandy sediments there was more

evident during our spring visit than during our fall one, thus

mimicking the redox behavior of vegetated sites.

Some sites (i.e., Saw Mill Creek North and Tufts Point)

were heavily populated by mixed populations of two fiddler

crab species: the Atlantic marsh fiddler, Uca pugnax, and

the redjointed fiddler, U. minax. Fiddler crabs contribute

substantially to increasing Eh

 values and decreasing soluble

sulfide along inner-marsh-to-creekbank gradients (Gardner

et al. 1988). This effect is due to the increase in surface area

(Katz 1980), and hence gas exchange (Montague 1981), promoted directly by the presence of the burrows, and indirectly by the increase in production of cordgrass (Bertness

1985) with its attendant increase in soil aeration potential.

Close to the creekbank, we suspect an added effect due to

a propensity for burrows to facilitate lateral drainage. These

burrow effects are probably the cause of extremely variable

Eh

 values at Saw Mill Creek North and Tufts Point, and of

low soluble sulfide values at all Saw Mill Creek North stations and at Tufts Point - Station D in fall. Those low fall

values at Tufts Point - Station D created an apparent reversal of the expected seasonal pattern of high fall - low spring

values. Results might have been different had another Tufts

Point station been utilized in September-October 1996. Lower

densities of fiddler crabs at Saw Mill Creek South resulted

in much less variable values of redox and soluble sulfide.

Anthropogenic Influences

Another confounding factor was continued anthropogenic impacts. The Arthur Kill marshes are receiving substantial and unequal organic matter subsidies (including

petroleum hydrocarbons) as a result of their location on an

urban waterway. This may be the cause of extremely low

redox and high TOC values at Old Place Creek - Station C.

Other authors have not reported Eh

 below -350 mV in

saltmarsh soils (e.g., Patrick and DeLaune 1977; Howes et

al. 1981; Armstrong et al. 1985; de la Cruz et al. 1989;

Bertness 1991; Osgood and Zieman 1993; Ewing et al. 1997;

Madureira et al. 1997). Given the unique history of the site,

extremely low redox values at Old Place Creek suggest pockets of very reduced organic material, probably petroleum of

patchy spatial distribution. Indeed, the occasional odor of

volatile petroleum components from soil at that site, and a

single exceptional value for TOC at Old Place Creek - Station C in spring (i.e., 8% among values ranging from 0.1% to

2.5%, and well above the maximum value predicted from

grain sizes), support the existence of such pockets. We

speculate that pockets of volatile hydrocarbons persisted

at Old Place Creek because spill remnants there were buried

soon after deposition, quite possibly by the replanting process itself. Burial prevented weathering, so volatile components persisted. By contrast, spilled petroleum left exposed

at Con Ed Tower was heavily weathered, leaving only

surficial tarry deposits that did not produce low redox values despite exceedingly high TOCs.

The very high TOC values (approaching 50%) at Con

Ed Tower exceed the values (~25-40%) in even very peaty

unaltered marsh soil in Massachusetts (Portnoy and Giblin

1997), and far exceed those reported from other saltmarsh

soils (Williams et al. 1994). The refractory nature of the

weathered petroleum that accounts for these high values at

Con Ed Tower is evident in the comparison of LC at Con Ed

Tower stations with that at other stations with far lower

TOC values. While TOC values are as much as five times

higher at Con Ed Tower than at other sites, LC values are

only marginally higher than at most other sites, and are

statistically indistinguishable from all of the other sites as a

whole. Apparently, the excessive OC at Con Ed Tower cannot be metabolized readily by the microbiota, even under

aerobic circumstances.

We found no evidence for persistent derangement of

biogeochemical metabolic processes resulting from the 1990

oiling of the Arthur Kill marshes. Heterotrophic bacterial

activity, and presumably biogeochemical function, in salt

marshes can become highly disturbed by oiling (Vacelet et

al. 1985). In particular, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons

(PAHs) are known to inhibit sulfate reduction while stimulating methanogenesis, probably via elimination of substrate

competition between sulfate-reducing and methanogenic

bacteria (Keine and Capone 1984). If acute effects like these

persisted as chronic conditions in the Arthur Kill marshes,
Page 73

especially at Old Place Creek and Con Ed Tower, the result

should be low Eh values associated with fermentative methane production but without sulfide production. Where such

disturbances were expected to be minimal (i.e., reference

marshes), a loose correlation would therefore be expected

between Eh

 and soluble sulfide, since sulfate reduction is a

major metabolic process in sulfate-rich marine waters in

contact with organic matter in the absence of molecular

oxygen. Any disturbance in the Eh

:sulfide relationship in

other treatment groups or at other sites, as evidenced by

significantly different regressions, would indicate an important shift in biogeochemical function. The relationships

between soluble sulfide concentrations and mean Eh

 in the

Arthur Kill salt marshes were logarithmic, as anticipated

from the Nernst equation (Figure 34). All regressions by

treatment were significant (P <0.003).

Analysis of covariance with these three regressions

demonstrated no significant difference (P = 0.52) in the relationship when data were plotted by treatment. Neither did

the six regressions calculated by station demonstrate any

significant difference (P = 0.68). Thus, no persistent disturbance was evident in the Eh

:sulfide relationship associated

with replanting status or stations, providing no evidence

for inhibition of sulfate reduction. Indeed, the higher soluble

sulfide levels in the Arthur Kill marshes (3+ mM) were toward the high end of values reported for saltmarsh soil

interstitial water, but within values (approaching 6 mM) reported for Massachusetts (Teal and Howes 1996). Sufficient data were not available for analysis of relationships

grouped by individual stations.

While we found no metabolic disturbance attributable

to oiling, the gross composition of sediments at some

unplanted and replanted sites was measurably different from

that of all of the other sites. Extraordinarily high TOC values resulted from petroleum residues. The OC at Con Ed

Tower, and possibly at Old Place Creek - Station C, presumably residual petroleum at least in part, was not subject to

the same deposition, sorting, retention, and loss processes

as elsewhere. When plotted against percent silt/clay content, most %TOC values fell below the line defined by the

equation, %TOC = 0.20 × %silt/clay, which is roughly consistent with the positions of most Old Place Creek and spring

Mill Creek values (Figure 35). The data from Old Place

Creek and Mill Creek (spring only) were chosen for regression to represent a “maximum biogenic TOC limit,” because

they were from stations exhibiting high TOC over a wide

range of grain size distributions, and from sites that were

not visibly tarry. The Old Place Creek - Station C spring

value, which has more than twice the predicted TOC content, is an exception to this scheme. The TOC values for

Con Ed Tower were also beyond predictions. While Con Ed

Tower values were not plotted due to the inability to perform grain size analysis, the %TOC for Con Ed Tower -

Stations A, B, and D in fall and Station A in spring (35-49%)

was 10-24% beyond the predicted maximum of 25% for pure

silt/clay sediments. The TOC values (8-16%) for the remaining Con Ed Tower station-date combinations suggest

either substantial silt content, or sandy sediments with values exceeding predictions.

Hydrocarbon contamination of salt marshes decreases

naturally over time, as demonstrated by long-term monitoring of the Ile Grande marsh damaged by the Amoco Cadiz

spill in 1978 (Mille et al. 1998). Recent laboratory investigations have indeed suggested that bacterial community structure in oil-contaminated saltmarsh soil returns toward that

of uncontaminated soil as oil components are degraded

(Bachoon 1999), suggesting a concomitant restoration of

biogeochemical function. Paradoxically, the urban environs of the Arthur Kill marshes may have aided this recovery of soil microbiological function. Fertilization of oil-contaminated saltmarsh soil with inorganic nitrogen has been

shown to accelerate the bacterial metabolism of alkane and

PAH fractions (Jackson and Pardue 1999), as well as to directly stimulate growth of S. alterniflora (Lin and

Mendelssohn 1998). High nutrient levels associated with

urban discharges may well have aided these processes in

this case. Average dissolved inorganic nitrogen (i.e., ammonium + nitrate + nitrite) for the waters of the northern end

of the Arthur Kill during the summer of 1998 was in the

range of 72-89 μg-at/L, and total phosphorus for the same

area and time was in the range of 7-10 μg-at/L (NYCDEP

1998).

CONCLUSIONS

Had confounding factors not been active, we still might

have had difficulty detecting clear differences in marsh biogeochemistry attributable to the replanting efforts. We believe that previous investigators readily found such distinctions because the soils in their restoration sites were

not originally marsh soils with previous exposure to regular

tidal inundation (e.g., Craft et al. 1991; Thompson et al.

1995). At our Arthur Kill sites, by contrast, restoration was

attempted by replanting S. alterniflora in formerly vegetated marsh soil which had been, and continued to be,

exposed to regular tidal inundation (i.e., without hydrological regime alteration).

While it may require years for nonmarsh soils to attain

the organic content and other biogeochemical characteristics of natural marsh soil, we propose that it also requires

years for marsh soil to lose its organic content, corresponding redox and sulfide profiles, and perhaps other biogeochemical properties if the hydrological regime remains

unaltered. Our data suggest that Arthur Kill soils have

retained their biogeochemical characteristics for several

years despite oiling damage and subsequent periods of

barrenness. This, in part, may explain why replanting has

been extraordinarily successful in re-establishing vegetation in oil-damaged salt marshes in this location.
Page 74

REFERENCES CITED

Armstrong, W.; Wright, E.J.; Lythe, S.; Gaynard, T.J. 1985.

Plant zonation and the effects of spring neap tidal cycle

on soil aeration in a Humber salt marsh. J. Ecol. 73:323-339.

Bachoon, D. 1999. Changes in salt marsh sediment microbial

community structure in response to petroleum contamination. Diss. Abstr. Int. B Sci. Eng. 60:473.

Bergen, A.; Alderson, C.; Bergfors, R.; Aquila, C.; Matsil, M.A.

2000. Restoration of a Spartina alterniflora salt marsh

following a fuel oil spill, New York City, NY. Wetlands

Ecol. Manag. 8:185-195.

Bertness, M.D. 1985. Fiddler crab regulation of Spartina

alterniflora production on a New England salt marsh.

Ecology 66:1042-1055.

Bertness, M.D. 1991. Zonation of Spartina patens and

Spartina alterniflora in a New England salt marsh.

Ecology 72:138-148.

Boesch, D.F.; Turner, R.E. 1984. Dependence of fishery

species on salt marshes: the role of food and refuge.

Estuaries 7:460-468.

Bradley, P.M.; Morris, J.T. 1990a. Influence of oxygen and

sulfide concentration on nitrogen uptake kinetics in

Spartina alterniflora. Ecology 71:282-287.

Bradley, P.M.; Morris, J.T. 1990b. Physical characteristics

of salt marsh sediments: ecological implications. Mar.

Ecol. Prog. Ser. 61:245-252.

Bradley, P.M.; Morris, J.T. 1992. Effect of salinity on the

critical nitrogen concentration of Spartina alterniflora

Loisel. Aquat. Bot. 43:149-161.

Caçador, I.; Vale, C.; Catarino, F. 1996. Accumulation of Zn,

Pb, Cu, Cr and Ni in sediments between roots of the

Tagus estuary salt marshes, Portugal. Estuarine

Coastal Shelf Sci. 42:393-403.

Cahoon, D.R.; Reed, D.J. 1995. Relationships among marsh

surface topography, hydroperiod, and soil accretion in

a deteriorating Louisiana salt marsh. J. Coastal Res.

11:357-369.

Craft, C.B.; Seneca, E.D.; Broome, S.W. 1991. Porewater

chemistry of natural and created marsh soils. J. Exp.

Mar. Biol. Ecol. 152:187-200.

de la Cruz, A.; Hackney, C.T.; Bhardwaj, N. 1989. Temporal

and spatial patterns of redox potential (Eh

) in three tidal

marsh communities. Wetlands 9:181-190.

DeLaune, R.D.; Patrick, W.H., Jr.; Buresh, R.J. 1979. Effect

of crude oil on a Louisiana Spartina alterniflora marsh.

Environ. Pollut. 20:21-31.

DeLaune, R.D.; Reddy, C.N.; Patrick, W.H., Jr. 1981. Effect

of pH and redox potential on concentration of dissolved

nutrients in an estuarine sediment. J. Environ. Qual.

10:276-279.

Draxler, A.F.J. 1995. Changes in sediment biogeochemistry

resulting from cessation of sewage sludge dumping in

the New York Bight. In: Studholme, A.L.; O’Reilly, J.E.;

Ingham, M.C., eds. Effects of the cessation of sewage

sludge dumping at the 12-mile site: 12-Mile Dumpsite

Symposium, Long Branch, New Jersey, June 1991.

NOAA Tech. Rep. NMFS 124:133-143.

Ewing, K.; McKee, K.L.; Mendelssohn, I.A. 1997. A field

comparison of sublethal stress in the salt-marsh grass

Spartina patens. Estuaries 20:48-65.

Gardner, L.R.; Wolaver, T.G.; Mitchell, M. 1988. Spatial variations in the sulfur chemistry of salt marsh sediments at

North Inlet, South Carolina. J. Mar. Res. 46:815-836.

Haines, E.B. 1979. Interactions between Georgia salt

marshes and coastal waters: a changing paradigm. In:

Livingston, R.J, ed. Ecological processes in coastal

and marine systems. New York, NY: Plenum Press; p.

35-46.

Hershner, C.; Lake, J. 1980. Effects of chronic oil pollution on

a salt-marsh community. Mar. Biol. (Berl.) 56:163-173.

Hesslein, R.H. 1976. An in situ sampler for close interval

porewater studies. Limnol. Oceanogr. 21:912-914.

Howarth, R.W.; Giblin, A. 1983. Sulfate reduction in the salt

marshes of Sapelo Island, Georgia. Limnol. Oceanogr.

28:70-82.

Howes, B.L.; Dacey, J.W.H.; Goehringer, D.D. 1986. Factors controlling the growth of Spartina alterniflora:

feedbacks between above-ground production, sediment

oxidation, nitrogen and salinity. J. Ecol. 74:881-898.

Howes, B.L.; Goehringer, D.D. 1994. Porewater drainage

and dissolved organic carbon and nutrient losses

through the intertidal creekbanks of a New England

salt marsh. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 114:289-301.

Howes, B.L.; Howarth, R.W.; Teal, J.M.; Valiela, I. 1981.

Oxidation-reduction potentials in a salt marsh: spatial

patterns and interactions with primary production.

Limnol. Oceanogr. 26:350-360.

Howes, B.L.; Dacey, J.W.H.; King, G.M. 1984. Carbon flow

through oxygen and sulfate reduction pathways in salt

marsh sediments. Limnol. Oceanogr. 29:1037-1051.

Jackson, W.A.; Pardue, J.H. 1999. Potential enhancement

of biodegradation of crude oil in Louisiana salt marshes

using nutrient amendments. Water Air Soil Pollut.

109:343-355.

Katz, L.C. 1980. Effects of burrowing by the fiddler crab,

Uca pugnax (Smith). Estuarine Coastal Mar. Sci.

11:233-237.

Keine, R.P.; Capone, D.G. 1984. Effects of organic pollutants on methanogenesis, sulfate reduction and carbon

dioxide evolution in salt marsh sediments. Mar.

Environ. Res. 13:141-160.

Koch, M.S.; Mendelssohn, I.A.; McKee, K.L. 1990. Mechanism for the hydrogen sulfide-induced growth limitation in wetland macrophytes. Limnol. Oceanogr. 35:399-

408.

Kostka, J.E.; Luther, G.W., III. 1995. Seasonal cycling of Fe

in saltmarsh sediments. Biogeochemistry 29:159-181.

LaSalle, M.W.; Landin, M.C.; Sims, J.G. 1991. Evaluation of

the flora and fauna of a Spartina alterniflora marsh

established on dredged material in Winyah Bay, South

Carolina. Wetlands 11:191-208.
Page 75

Li, Y.; Morris, J.T.; Yoch, D.C. 1990. Chronic low level

hydrocarbon amendments stimulate plant growth and

microbial activity in salt-marsh microcosms. J. Appl.

Ecol. 27:159-171.

Lin, Q.; Mendelssohn, I.A. 1998. The combined effects of

phytoremediation and biostimulation in enhancing restoration and oil degradation of petroleum contaminated

wetlands. Ecol. Eng. 10:263-274.

Luther, G.W., III; Church, T.M. 1988. Seasonal cycling of

sulfur and iron in porewaters of a Delaware salt marsh.

Mar. Chem. 23:295-309.

Luther, G.W., III; Kostka, J.E.; Church, T.M.; Sulzberger, B.;

Stumm W. 1992. Seasonal iron cycling in the saltmarsh sedimentary environment: the importance of

ligand complexes with Fe(II) and Fe(III) in the dissolution of Fe(III) minerals and pyrite, respectively. Mar.

Chem. 40:81-103.

Madureira, M.J.; Vale, C.; Simões Gonçalves, M.L. 1997.

Effect of plants on sulphur geochemistry in the Tagus

salt-marshes sediments. Mar. Chem. 58:27-37.

McDonnell, M.J.; Pickett, S.T.A. 1990. Ecosystem structure and function along urban-rural gradients: an

unexploited opportunity for ecology. Ecology 7:1232-

1237.

Mille, G.; Munoz, D.; Jacquot, F.; Rivet, L.; Bertrand, J.-C.

1998. The Amoco Cadiz oil spill: evolution of petroleum hydrocarbons in the Ile Grande salt marshes (Brittany) after a 13-year period. Estuarine Coastal Shelf

Sci. 47:547-559.

Minello, T.J.; Zimmerman, R.J. 1992. Utilization of natural

and transplanted Texas salt marshes by fish and decapod crustaceans. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 90:273-285.

Mitsch, W.J.; Gosselink, J.G. 1986. Wetlands. New York,

NY: Van Nostrand Reinhold; 539 p.

Montague, C.L. 1981. The influence of some larger animals

on subsurface metabolic processes in intertidal sediments. Estuaries 4:289.

Moy, L.D.; Levin, L.A. 1991. Are Spartina marshes a replaceable resource? A functional approach to evaluation of marsh creation efforts. Estuaries 14:1-16.

Newell, S.Y. 1993. Decomposition of shoots of a salt-marsh

grass: methodology and dynamics of microbial assemblages. Adv. Microb. Ecol. 13:301-326.

NYCDEP [New York City Department of Environmental Protection]. 1998. New York Harbor Water Quality Survey. 1998. New York, NY: New York City Department of

Environmental Protection; 74 p.

Orion Research, Inc. 1983. Instruction manual platinum

redox electrodes. Cambridge, MA: Orion Research.

Osgood, D.T.; Santos, M.C.V.; Zieman, J.C. 1995. Sediment

physico-chemistry associated with natural marsh development on a storm-deposited sand flat. Mar. Ecol.

Prog. Ser. 120:271-283.

Osgood, D.T.; Zieman, J.C. 1993. Spatial and temporal patterns of substrate physicochemical parameters in different-aged barrier island marshes. Estuarine Coastal

Shelf Sci. 37:421-436.

Patrick, W.H., Jr.; DeLaune, R.D. 1977. Chemical and biological redox systems affecting nutrient availability in

coastal wetlands. Geosci. Man 18:131-137.

Portnoy, J.W.; Giblin, A.E. 1997. Effect of historic tidal

restriction on salt marsh sediment chemistry. Biogeochemistry 36:275-303.

Portnoy, J.W.; Valiela, I. 1997. Short-term effects of salinity

reduction and drainage on salt-marsh biogeochemical

cycling and Spartina (cordgrass) production. Estuaries 20:569-578.

Strickland, J.D.H.; Parsons, T.R. 1972. A practical handbook of

seawater analysis. Bull. Fish. Res. Board Can. 167.

Teal, J.M.; Howes, B.L. 1996. Interannual variability of a

salt-marsh ecosystem. Limnol. Oceanogr. 41:802-809.

Thompson, S.P.; Paerl, H.W.; Go, M.C. 1995. Seasonal patterns of nitrification and denitrification in a natural and

a restored salt marsh. Estuaries 18:399-408.

Thomson, A.D.; Webb, K.L. 1984. The effect of chronic oil

pollution on salt-marsh nitrogen fixation (acetylene reduction). Estuaries 7:2-11.

Vacelet, E.; Mille, G.; Le Campion-Alsumard, T.; Plante-Cuny,

M.-R. 1985. Evolution des populations bacteriennes

dans les sediments des marais maritimes de l’Ile Grande

pollues par l’Amoco Cadiz. Int. Rev. Gesamt. Hydrobiol.

70:815-827.

Williams, T.P.; Bubb, J.M.; Lester, J.N. 1994. Metal accumulation within salt marsh environments: a review. Mar.

Pollut. Bull. 28:277-290.

Yamamuro, M.; Kayanne, J. 1995. Rapid direct determination of organic carbon and nitrogen in carbonate-bearing sediments with a Yanaco MT-5 CHN analyzer.

Limnol. Oceanogr. 40:1001-1005.

Zedler, J.B. 1993. Canopy architecture of natural and planted

cordgrass marshes: selecting habitat evaluation criteria. Ecol. Appl. 3:123-138.

ZoBell, C.E. 1946. Studies of redox potential of marine

sediments. Bull. Am. Assoc. Petrol. Geol. 30:477-513.
Page 76

Figure 25. Diagramatic view of DIW equilibration device (peeper) in soil.

screws

face plates body

longitudinal

section

plane

DEIONIZED WATER EQUILIBRATION

DEVICE (PEEPER)

deionized

water

equilibration

chambers

membranes

FRONT VIEW

LONGITUDINAL

SECTION

SOIL SURFACE

SOIL

Scale in cm

0 5 10 15 20
Page 77 Figure 26. Depth profiles of redox potential (Eh) for stations at replanted marsh sites in fall 1996 and spring 1997, including duplicate (short) profiles for each station.

10

-1-2-3-4-5-6-7-8-9

-10-11-12

0 200 400 600 -200 -400 -600

Station AStation BStation CStation D

10

-1-2-3-4-5-6-7-8-9

-10-11-12

0 200 400 600 -200 -400 -600

Station A Station B Station C Station D 

10

-1-2-3-4-5-6-7-8-9

-10-11-12

0 200 400 600 -200 -400 -600

Station AStation BStation CStation D

A. Old Place Creek: Fall B. Old Place Creek: SpringC. Saw Mill Creek North: Fall D. Saw Mill Creek North: Spring

REPLANTED SITES

10

-1-2-3-4-5-6-7-8-9

-10-11-12

0 200 400 600 -200 -400 -600

Station A Station B Station C Station D 
Page 78

Figure 27. Depth profiles of redox potential (Eh) for stations at reference marsh sites in fall 1996 and spring 1997, including duplicate (short) profiles for each station.

A. Tufts Point: Fall B. Tufts Point: SpringC. Mill Creek: Fall D. Mill Creek: Spring

REFERENCE SITES

10

-1-2-3-4-5-6-7-8-9

-10-11-12

0 200 400 600 -200 -400 -600

Station A Station B Station C Station D 

10

-1-2-3-4-5-6-7-8-9

-10-11-12

0 200 400 600 -200 -400 -600

Station AStation BStation CStation D

10

-1-2-3-4-5-6-7-8-9

-10-11-12

0 200 400 600 -200 -400 -600

Station A Station B Station C Station D 

10

-1-2-3-4-5-6-7-8-9

-10-11-12

0 200 400 600 -200 -400 -600

Station A Station B Station C Station D 
Page 79 Figure 28. Depth profiles of redox potential (Eh) for stations at unplanted marsh sites in fall 1996 and spring 1997, including duplicate (short) profiles for each station.

A. Con Ed Tower: Fall B. Con Ed Tower: SpringC. Saw Mill Creek South: Fall D. Saw Mill Creek South: Spring

UNPLANTED SITES

10

-1-2-3-4-5-6-7-8-9

-10-11-12

0 200 400 600 -200 -400 -600

Station AStation BStation CStation D

10

-1-2-3-4-5-6-7-8-9

-10-11-12

0 200 400 600 -200 -400 -600

Station AStation BStation CStation D

10

-1-2-3-4-5-6-7-8-9

-10-11-12

0 200 400 600 -200 -400 -600

Station AStation BStation CStation D

10

-1-2-3-4-5-6-7-8-9

-10-11-12

0 200 400 600 -200 -400 -600

Station AStation BStation CStation D
Page 80

Figure 29. Seasonal patterns in interstitial soluble sulfide from replanted marsh stations.

A. Old Place Creek B. Saw Mill Creek North

REPLANTED SITES

20

-2-4-6-8

-10-12-14-16

DISTANCE fm SOIL SURFACE (cm)

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000

SOLUBLE SULFIDE CONCENTRATION (μM)

Fall: Sta CSpring: Sta ASpring: Sta B

>=

SPRING RANGE

20

-2-4-6-8

-10-12-14-16

DISTANCE FROM SOIL SURFACE (cm)

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000

SOLUBLE SULFIDE CONCENTRATION (μM)

Fall: Sta C

Spring: Sta ASpring: Sta B

>=

SPRING RANGE
Page 81 Figure 30. Seasonal patterns in interstitial soluble sulfide from unplanted marsh stations.

A. Con Ed Tower B. Saw Mill Creek South

UNPLANTED SITES

20

-2-4-6-8

-10-12-14-16

DISTANCE FROM SOIL SURFACE (cm)

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000

SOLUBLE SULFIDE CONCENTRATION (μM)

Fall: Sta CSpring: Sta ASpring Sta D

>=

SPRING RANGE

20

-2-4-6-8

-10-12-14-16

DISTANCE FROM SOIL SURFACE (cm)

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000

SOLUBLE SULFIDE CONCENTRATION (μM)

Fall: Sta DSpring: Sta ASpring: Sta D

>=

SPRING RANGE
Page 82

Figure 31. Seasonal patterns in interstitial soluble sulfide from reference marsh stations.

A. Tufts Point B. Mill Creek

REFERENCE SITES

20

-2-4-6-8

-10-12-14-16

DISTANCE FROM SOIL SURFACE (cm)

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000

SOLUBLE SULFIDE CONCENTRATION (μM)

Fall: Sta CSpring: Sta ASpring: Sta C

 >=

SPRING RANGE

20

-2-4-6-8

-10-12-14-16

DISTANCE FROM SOIL SURFACE (cm)

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000

SOLUBLE SULFIDE CONCENTRATION (μM)

Fall: Sta DSpring: Sta ASpring: Sta C

>=

SPRING RANGE
Page 83

Figure 32. Seasonal values of TOC in surface sediments arranged by station, site, and replanting treatment. (CET = Con Ed Tower; MC = Mill Creek; OP = Old Place Creek;

SMN = Saw Mill Creek North; SMS = Saw Mill Creek South; and TP = Tufts Point.)

OP-A

OP-B

OP-C

OP-D

SMN-A

SMN-B

SMN-C

SMN-D

CET-A

CET-B

CET-C

CET-D

SMS-A

SMS-B

SMS-C

SMS-D

TP-A

TP-B

TP-C

TP-D

MC-A

MC-B

MC-C

MC-D

0

605040302010

Fall '96 Spring '97

Unplanted Reference Replanted

Site-Station
Page 84

Figure 33. Mean LC in surface sediments taken from two stations per site in May 1998. (Error bars = ±1 standard deviation (n = 2). CET = Con Ed Tower; MC = Mill Creek; OP

= Old Place Creek; SMN = Saw Mill Creek North; SMS = Saw Mill Creek South; and TP = Tufts Point.)

OP-A

OP-B

SMN-A

SMN-B

CET-A

CET-D

SMS-A

SMS-D

TP-A

TP-C

MC-A

MC-D

Site-Station

0

800600400200

12001000

Labile Carbon (moles/cm )3
Page 85 Figure 34. Log10 soluble sulfide (in mM) plotted against mean redox potential (Eh in mV) for all nonzero sulfide values grouped by marsh replanting status.

0 100 200 300 400 -100 -200

43210

-300

-1

Treatment

Replanted Reference Unplanted

Referencer = 0.6824

Replantedr = 0.8919

Unplantedr = 0.8628
Page 86

Figure 35. Relationship between sediment surface TOC and silt/clay content. (A = reference line defined by equation, %TOC = 0.20 × %silt/clay; B = regression of Old Place

Creek data -- both spring and fall -- and Mill Creek spring data; OP = Old Place Creek; and MC = Mill Creek. Old Place Creek - Station C in May (circled) lies outsideof the zone delineated by all other Old Place Creek station-season combinations. Con Ed Tower data are not plotted due to lack of grain size data. Grain size data

0 20 40 60 80 100

are from Chapter II, “Trace Metal Contaminants in Sediments and Ribbed-Mussels.”)

50

201510

....Fall '96 ....Spring '97 

OP-C May

MC-D Sep & May

MC-C May

MC-A May

OP

A

B
Table 12. Arthur Kill marsh biogeochemistry by treatment, site, station, and season

Biogeochemical Factor

h Median E Median Sulfide Surface TOC Surface LC

(mV) (μM) (% of dry wt.) (μM/cm )3

Treatment Site Station Fall Spring Fall Spring Fall Spring SpringReplanted Old Place Creek A +410 +382 0 0.18 0.11 65

B -175 -203 570 1.25 2.57 509

C -63 +152 >3000 0.37 8.05

D -91 +302 0.84 1.20

Saw Mill Creek North A +9 +9 0 9.81 7.78 282

 B +217 +387 0 7.13 8.37 295

 C +65 +227 140 7.30 7.85

 D -195 +191 6.06 6.17

Unplanted Con Ed Tower A -157 +221 0 45.58 42.72 846

 B -141 +110 48.59 15.69

 C +103 -39 68 10.69 8.41

 D -140 +262 3 34.15 13.47 767

Saw Mill Creek South A -127 -159 92 6.19 7.69 306

 B -117 -110 5.52 7.39

 C +46 +21 5.43 6.61

 D -160 +107 1000 14 6.01 7.82 613

Reference Tufts Point A -137 +125 1250 9.45 6.34 335

 B -43 +112 9.24 7.20

 C +181 +165 1 11.73 13.13 640

 D +135 +71 81 13.81 12.11

Mill Creek A +88 +106 121 9.50 16.17 251

 B -109 -36 7.88 10.74

 C -153 -105 820 90 7.71 17.43

 D -190 +28 9.09 9.04 284

Page 87
Page 88
Page 89

V. AGE, GROWTH, AND ALLOMETRIC RELATIONSHIPS

OF RIBBED-MUSSELS (Geukensia demissa)

Joseph J. Vitaliano17, 18 and Allen J. Bejda17, 19

Postal Address: 17National Marine Fisheries Serv., 74 Magruder Rd., Highlands,

 NJ 07732

E-Mail Addresses: 18Joseph.Vitaliano@noaa.gov; 19Allen.Bejda@noaa.gov

mussel population. Mussels were also needed for determination of trace metals and hydrocarbon concentrations in

the mussel meats (see “Methods” in Chapters II, “Trace

Metal Contaminants in Sediments and Ribbed-Mussels,”

and III, “Petroleum Hydrocarbons in Sediments and RibbedMussels). To minimize damage to the replanted marsh sites

and also to the unplanted and reference sites in the already

impacted Arthur Kill, we attempted to make a single mussel

collection at each site based on the sampling protocols

needed for contaminant analysis of mussels. The mussel

shells would be used for age and growth determinations,

and the mussel meats would be used for contaminant analyses. This attempt failed to yield adequate numbers of mussels and it was necessary to make another collection for the

age-and-growth portion of the study.

A minimum of 60 ribbed-mussels were randomly collected at each of the six sites during September 1996. At the

reference sites, dense aggregations of mussels were found

within a narrow area in the S. alterniflora zone. At the

unplanted sites, mussels were sparse and had to be collected from both vegetated and unvegetated locations over

a much larger area of the marsh and undoubtedly from different tidal levels. At the replanted sites, sampling was

restricted to areas within the replanted zone, but away from

permanent quadrats set up by SMRT to monitor the S.

alterniflora.

In the laboratory, the sediment, epiphytes, and byssal

threads were removed from each shell, the mussel was

opened, and its tissue was removed. Dry weights for both

shell and tissue were determined after drying to a constant

weight at 60°C. After weighing, each mussel was measured

with vernier calipers to determine shell length (maximum

anterior-posterior dimension), width (maximum lateral dimension), and height (maximum dorsal-ventral dimension).

Each mussel was aged by counting external growth rings

(annuli). Length at age was determined by measuring the

maximum anterior-posterior dimension at each annulus.

RESULTS

The information presented below summarizes the measurements made on mussels collected from each site. Since

INTRODUCTION

The ribbed-mussel is a dominant species in tidal salt

marshes of the eastern United States. This bivalve mollusk attaches by byssal threads to the stems and roots of

S. alterniflora and other substrates, and is usually most

abundant within the tall S. alterniflora along the marsh

edge (Bertness 1984). The ribbed-mussel enhances the

survival of S. alterniflora by binding the root mat together, effectively stabilizing the substrate and strengthening the plant and the entire marsh against erosion

(Bertness 1984). The ribbed-mussel also plays a major

role in the food web and in the cycling of carbon, nutrients, and minerals through the saltmarsh ecosystem. This

bivalve is a filter feeder on phytoplankton and suspended

detritus (much of which is dead S. alterniflora), and a

considerable amount of its fecal matter is deposited on

the marsh surface. The ribbed-mussel is preyed upon by

blue crabs (Callinectes sapidus), other crustaceans, gastropods, and birds (Bertness 1980, 1984).

Since ribbed-mussels are important in the ecology of

tidal salt marshes, site-specific differences in abundance,

biomass, age structure, growth rate, and the allometric relationships of ribbed-mussel populations can be explored as

indicators of the success of marsh replanting. Sampling

problems and restrictions, however, prevented us from quantitatively sampling the populations of ribbed-mussels at

our replanted, unplanted, and reference sites in the Arthur

Kill. We will therefore restrict data presentation and analysis to descriptive comparisons of several variables based

on measurements of mussels taken from each site.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

A preferred method to sample ribbed-mussel populations quantitatively is to place quadrats of known dimensions randomly at similar tidal heights within the S.

alterniflora zone at each site (Bertness 1980). The mussels

are then destructively removed from each quadrat for enumeration and measurement. This sampling protocol could

not be implemented in this study. We were not allowed to

destructively sample directly in the replanted areas with the

magnitude required to obtain quantitative samples of the
Page 90

sampling was not quantitative, rigorous statistical comparisons among the sites were not performed.

The collections yielded 64 mussels at Old Place Creek,

60 at Saw Mill Creek North, 67 at Saw Mill Creek South, 53 at

Con Ed Tower, 92 at Tufts Point, and 69 at Mill Creek. Agefrequency histograms (Figure 36) indicated that the distributions of ribbed-mussels from Old Place Creek and Saw

Mill Creek North (replanted) were skewed toward younger

individuals, while the distributions of mussels from Saw

Mill Creek South (unplanted) and Mill Creek (reference)

were more evenly distributed among age classes. Lengthfrequency histograms (Figure 37) indicated that Saw Mill

Creek South (unplanted) and Mill Creek (reference) had

larger individuals (up to 100 mm) compared to the other

sites, and that the distributions of mussels from Con Ed

Tower (unplanted) and Mill Creek (reference) were skewed

toward larger individuals.

To reduce the variability associated with year-class differences when summarizing data on average shell dimensions, shell weight, meat weight, and allometric relationships, and when estimating growth rates, we only summarized data for individuals that were in the same age class.

Based on the number of individuals in each age class at

each site (Figure 36), we chose to compare separately these

measures for the 2-, 3-, and 4-yr-old mussels.

For each age class, the average shell length, width, and

height, shell weight, and body weight were greater at Mill

Creek (reference) than at any other site (Table 13). Mussels

from Mill Creek (reference) had the highest growth rates in

all three age classes, while mussels from Saw Mill Creek

North (replanted) had virtually the lowest growth rates in

those age classes (Figure 38).

Although differences detected in the absolute growth

of ribbed-mussels among sites may be due to the influence

on growth of site-specific environmental factors, allometric

growth measures may or may not reflect these same differences (Seed 1980). Two-, three-, and four-year-old mussels

collected from Mill Creek consistently had higher bodyweight-to-shell-weight ratios compared to Old Place Creek

(Table 13). No large differences among sites were found in

the other allometric ratios.

DISCUSSION

We will limit our discussion to a descriptive comparison of the mussel data from the two replanted sites, Old

Place Creek and Saw Mill Creek North, and from the reference site, Mill Creek. Since all mussels from these three

sites were collected within the S. alterniflora zone, there is

a greater possibility that differences found in mussel measures indicate actual differences among these sites. There

is less confidence that the data from mussels collected at

Con Ed Tower and Saw Mill Creek South (both unplanted

sites) accurately describe differences either between these

sites or among all sites. At Con Ed Tower and Saw Mill

Creek South, mussels were sampled over a wide tidal area

that included both vegetated and unvegetated habitats.

Tufts Point is not discussed because, although it is a reference site, it was affected to some degree by the oil spill; in

certain areas, marsh grasses and mussels were destroyed,

while in adjacent areas, there was no apparent effect.

The smaller, younger mussels collected at the replanted

sites reflect life cycle and growth processes since the disturbance caused by the replanting procedures in 1992 and

1993. The older, larger mussels at Mill Creek (reference)

represent cumulative life cycle processes over many generations at a site presumably unaffected by this particular

oil spill.

Two-, three-, and four-year-old mussels from Mill Creek

(reference) grew faster than same-age mussels at the two

replanted sites. The slower growth rates at the replanted

sites could be due to the longer-term effects of the oil spill,

the disturbance caused by the replanting process, and/or

the stage of maturity of the replanted marsh compared to

the reference marsh. Other site-specific factors, ultimately

controlled by differences in physical factors, may have also

influenced growth rates. Other studies have attributed

among-site variability in growth rates of ribbed-mussels to

differences in shore level, temperature, salinity, current exposure, quantity and quality of food resources, and stress

from contaminants (Seed 1980; Bertness 1984; Franz 1993;

Franz and Tanacredi 1993). There are site-specific differences in current exposure, salinity, etc., in the Arthur Kill (C.

Alderson et al., Salt Marsh Restoration Team, Natural Resources Group, New York City Parks, 200 Nevada Ave.,

Staten Island, NY, unpubl. data) but it is unknown to what

extent, if any, these factors may have influenced growth

rates of the ribbed-mussels compared to the effects of replanting.

 Consistent with differences found in growth rates between the reference and replanted sites, mussels from Mill

Creek (reference) were larger and weighed more than the

same-age mussels at the planted sites. The lower meatweight-to-shell-weight ratio found in mussels at Old Place

Creek (replanted) compared to Mill Creek (reference) could

be due to differences in stress levels among the sites that

may cause mussels to differentially secrete and dissolve

shell material related to weight fluctuations (Bertness 1984;

Franz 1993).

Shell-shape allometric ratios do not appear to be sensitive measures of differences among marsh sites in the Arthur

Kill, despite differences found in growth rates and overall

size of ribbed-mussels at our sites. Similar results were

reported by Bertness (1984) for three different sites along

the Maryland coast, and by Franz (1993) in relationships at

two shore levels in Jamaica Bay, New York.

The assessment of replanting success at sites in the

Arthur Kill using measures of ribbed-mussel age structure,

size-and-shape relationships, and growth rates was prob-
Page 91

lematic due to sampling difficulties, and was confounded

by site-specific differences in environmental factors. Depressed growth rates and sizes in mussels of the same age

may be typical of the northern reaches of the Arthur Kill

[Old Place Creek and Saw Mill Creek North (replanted)] compared to the southern areas [Mill Creek (reference)].

REFERENCES CITED

Bertness, M.D. 1980. Growth and mortality in the ribbedmussel, Geukensia demissa. Veliger 23:62-69.

Bertness, M.D. 1984. Ribbed-mussels and Spartina

alterniflora production in a New England salt marsh.

Ecology 64:1794-1807.

Franz, D.R. 1993. Allometry of shell and body weight in

relation to shore level in the intertidal bivalve

Geukensia demissa (Bivalvia: Mytilidae). J. Exp. Mar.

Biol. Ecol. 174:193-207.

Franz, D.R.; Tanacredi, J.T. 1993. Variability in growth and

age structure among populations of ribbed-mussels,

Geukensia demissa (Dillwyn) (Bivalvia: Mytilidae), in

Jamaica Bay, New York (Gateway NRA). Veliger

36:220-227.

Seed, R. 1980. Shell growth and form in the Bivalvia. In:

Rhoads, D.; Lutz, R., eds. Skeletal growth of aquatic

organisms. New York, NY: Plenum Press; p. 23-65.
OLD PLACE

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

AGE

NUMBER OF MUSSELS

N = 64

SAW MILL NORTH

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

AGE

NUMBER OF MUSSELS

N = 60

SAW MILL SOUTH

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

AGE

NUMBER OF MUSSELS

N = 67

CON ED TOWER

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

AGE

NUMBER OF MUSSELS

N = 53

TUFTS POINT 

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

AGE

NUMBER OF MUSSELS

N = 92

MILL CREEK

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

AGE

NUMBER OF MUSSELS

N = 69

Page 92

Figure 36. Age-frequency distribution of ribbed-mussels collected at Old Place Creek and Saw Mill Creek North (replanted),

Saw Mill Creek South and Con Ed Tower (unplanted), and Tufts Point and Mill Creek (reference) in September

1996.
OLD PLACE

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

LENGTH(mm)

NUMBER OF MUSSELS

N = 64

SAW MILL NORTH

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

LENGTH (mm)

NUMBER OF MUSSELS

N = 60

SAW MILL SOUTH

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

LENGTH (mm)

NUMBER OF MUSSELS

N = 67

TUFTS POINT

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

LENGTH (mm)

NUMBER OF MUSSELS

N = 92

MILL CREEK

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

LENGTH (mm)

NUMBER OF MUSSELS

N = 69

CON ED TOWER

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

LENGTH (mm)

NUMBER OF MUSSELS

N = 53

Page 93

Figure 37. Length-frequency distribution of ribbed-mussels collected at Old Place Creek and Saw Mill Creek North (replanted), Saw Mill Creek South and Con Ed Tower (unplanted), and Tufts Point and Mill Creek (reference) in

September 1996.
GROWTH OF 2 YEAR OLDS

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

012345

AGE

LENGTH(MM)

MC

CE

OP

TP

SMS

SMN

GROWTH OF 3 YEAR OLDS

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

012345

AGE

LENGTH(MM)

MC

SMS

OP

CE

SMN

TP

GROWTH OF 4 YEAR OLDS

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

01234

AGE

LENGTH(MM)

MC

CE

TP

OP

SMS

SMN

Page 94

Figure 38. Growth of 2-, 3-, and 4-yr-old ribbed-mussels collected at the six Arthur Kill sites during September 1996. (CET =

Con Ed Tower; MC = Mill Creek; OP = Old Place Creek; SMN = Saw Mill Creek North; SMS = Saw Mill Creek

South; and TP = Tufts Point.)
Page 95

Table 13. Average shell dimensions, shell dry weight, meat dry weight, and shell shape and body size relationships for 2-, 3-, and 4-yr-old ribbed-mussels collected at the

six Arthur Kill sites during September 1996.

Allometric Relationship

Physical Measure Shell Height/

Shell Shell Shell Shell Meat Dry Meat Dry Weight Shell Width Shell Height Shell Width

No. of Length Width Height Weight Weight vs. vs. vs. vs.

Site Samples (mm) (mm) (mm) (g) (g) Shell Weight Shell Length Shell Length Shell Length

Age 2

Old Place Creek 23 31.7 19.8 13.3 3.01 0.15 0.049 0.63 0.42 0.021Saw Mill Creek North 21 28.0 20.9 14.3 3.10 0.17 0.056 0.75 0.51 0.025Saw Mill Creek South 11 30.1 23.3 15.4 3.53 0.22 0.064 0.77 0.51 0.022Con Ed Tower 8 38.0 23.2 16.5 4.52 0.23 0.052 0.61 0.44 0.019Tufts Point 12 30.3 19.8 13.5 3.09 0.15 0.050 0.65 0.44 0.022Mill Creek 7 40.4 26.5 19.1 6.30 0.58 0.087 0.66 0.47 0.018

Age 3

Old Place Creek 15 37.9 21.8 15.1 4.07 0.18 0.045 0.58 0.40 0.018Saw Mill Creek North 13 33.6 21.6 14.3 3.15 0.18 0.057 0.64 0.42 0.020Saw Mill Creek South 9 41.3 26.5 17.9 5.21 0.39 0.073 0.64 0.43 0.016Con Ed Tower 4 37.3 21.3 16.8 4.95 0.21 0.044 0.57 0.45 0.021Tufts Point 30 32.9 19.2 13.8 3.00 0.14 0.049 0.58 0.42 0.022Mill Creek 8 44.9 27.8 20.2 6.76 0.46 0.066 0.62 0.45 0.016

Age 4

Old Place Creek 1 43.0 22.6 15.4 4.42 0.21 0.046 0.52 0.36 0.016Saw Mill Creek North 9 37.2 22.4 14.8 3.36 0.20 0.061 0.60 0.40 0.018Saw Mill Creek South 10 41.6 27.6 19.6 6.32 0.38 0.060 0.66 0.47 0.017Con Ed Tower 20 46.1 23.2 16.9 4.59 0.23 0.052 0.50 0.37 0.016Tufts Point 18 44.5 23.3 16.8 4.99 0.24 0.051 0.52 0.38 0.016Mill Creek 10 56.1 30.8 22.4 9.53 0.62 0.064 0.55 0.40 0.013
Page 96
Page 97

VI. BENTHIC INVERTEBRATES

Joseph J. Vitaliano20, 22, Robert N. Reid20, 23, Ann B. Frame20,

David B. Packer20, 24, Linda Arlen20, 25, and John N. Sacco21, 26

Postal Addresses: 20National Marine Fisheries Serv., 74 Magruder Rd., Highlands, NJ 07732; 21New

Jersey Dept. of Environmental Protection, 501 E. State St., P.O. Box 404, Trenton,

NJ 08625-0404

E-Mail Addresses: 22Joseph.Vitaliano@noaa.gov; 23Robert.Reid@noaa.gov; 24Dave.Packer@noaa.gov; 25Linda.Arlen@noaa.gov; 26John.Sacco@dep.state.nj.us

the saltmarsh ecosystem (Sacco et al. 1994; Levin et al.

1998), a 0.3-mm sieve was used in this study to retain a

portion of these smaller invertebrates. Both the meiofauna

and macrofauna retained on the 0.3-mm sieve will be referred to as “benthic invertebrates.”

RESULTS

Forty-one taxa were identified in the study collections.

Oligochaetes were the most abundant taxon, comprising

60% of all individuals counted. Nematodes were the next

most abundant taxon, comprising 20% of all individuals

counted, followed by the small tube-building fan worm,

Manayunkia aestuarina, comprising 14% of all individuals

counted. Together these three taxa made up approximately

94% of all individuals in the samples. Although most of the

individuals found are considered meiofauna, juveniles of

larger invertebrates, including the ribbed-mussel, were also

present. Larger amphipods, isopods, and aquatic insects

were found at most sites (Table 14).

There were greater mean abundances of benthic invertebrate individuals at all sites in the May samples compared

to the September samples. Oligochaetes contributed most

to this seasonal increase, except at Con Ed Tower

(unplanted) where nematodes contributed the most, and at

Saw Mill Creek North (replanted) where M. aesturina contributed the most. In the September survey, M. aesturina

was found in greatest abundance at Con Ed Tower, while in

the May survey, it was found in greatest abundances at the

replanted sites Old Place Creek and Saw Mill Creek North.

In September, Old Place Creek had the largest numbers of

taxa (19), while both Con Ed Tower and Sawmill Creek South

(unplanted) had the lowest numbers of taxa (10); in May,

there were 22 taxa at Tufts Point (reference) and only eight

taxa at Sawmill Creek North (Table 15).

DISCUSSION

The invertebrate taxa found at the six marsh sites (Table

15) appear to be typical of invertebrates found in tidal S.

alterniflora marshes elsewhere. Most of these invertebrates increase in abundance in late spring to early summer,

INTRODUCTION

Benthic invertebrates are important members of the

saltmarsh ecosystem since they are part of detrital food

webs linking marsh productivity to resource species (Moy

and Levin 1991; Minello and Zimmerman 1992). The effects

of oil or its components on invertebrates and their habitats

are well documented (Saunders et al. 1980; Suchanek 1993;

Burger 1994; Jewett et al. 1999). There is also considerable

information available on the benthic invertebrates of created salt marshes compared to those of nearby natural

marshes (Moy and Levin 1991; Minello and Zimmerman

1992; Sacco et al. 1994; Levin et al. 1996). Little information

is available, however, about the benthic invertebrate assemblages at restored S. alterniflora marshes that were not

only destroyed by an oil spill, but also historically affected

by petroleum products, trace metals, and other contaminants similar to the sites studied in the Arthur Kill.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

Sampling methods for benthic invertebrates follow

those of Sacco et al. (1994). A 3-cm-diameter (7 cm2

) metal

coring tube was used to collect 5-cm-deep sediment samples

from the marsh surface. During each sampling month and

at low tide, two core samples were taken at each of the four

stations along the transect at each site, for a total of eight

core samples per site per sampling month. Sediments and

biota were removed from the core and fixed in 10% buffered

Formalin in seawater with rose bengal added to aid in sorting and identification of the invertebrates. Prior to sorting,

samples were sieved through a 0.3-mm stainless steel sieve.

The retained sediments and invertebrates were transferred

to 70% ethanol with 5% glycerin, and were examined using

dissecting microscopes. All organisms were removed, identified to the lowest practicable taxonomic level, and counted.

Benthic invertebrates are often divided by size and/or

taxonomy into: 1) meiofauna (usually defined as organisms

passing through a 0.5-mm-mesh sieve, and dominated by

nematodes, harpactacoid copepods, oligochaetes, and small

polychaetes); or 2) macrofauna (larger polychaetes, crustaceans, mollusks, echinoderms, etc.) that are retained on the

0.5-mm sieve. Since oligochaetes are important members of
Page 98

and decrease in abundance in late summer to early fall

(Tables 14 and 15). Predation, species-specific reproductive strategies, and the availability of food are important

interactive factors controlling fluctuations in densities (Rader

1984; Moy and Levin 1991; Minello and Zimmerman 1992;

Sacco et al. 1994; Sarda et al. 1994, 1995, 1998; Levin et al.

1996, 1998; Posey et al. 1997).

The variability in the data, which is typical of benthic

invertebrate studies, the site-specific differences, and the

low number of sites sampled confounded the determination

of the effect of replanting of S. alterniflora on benthic invertebrate abundances in the Arthur Kill. Similarities were

observed, however, in the abundances of all invertebrates,

oligochaetes, and M. aestuarina between the replanted site,

Old Place Creek, and at the reference site, Tufts Point, both

in September and May (Table 15). Although these preliminary findings suggest, in terms of benthic fauna, structural

similarities between the replanted and reference sites in the

Arthur Kill, the functional equivalency of these marsh sites

could not be determined.

REFERENCES CITED

Burger, J. 1994. Immediate effects of oil spills on organisms in

the Arthur Kill. In: Burger, J., ed. Before & after an oil spill:

the Arthur Kill. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers Univ. Press;

p. 115-129.

Jewett, S.C.; Dean, T.A.; Smith, R.O.; Blanchard, A. 1999.

‘Exxon Valdez’ oil spill: impacts and recovery in soft bottom benthic community in and adjacent to eelgrass beds.

Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 185:59-83.

Levin, L.; Tally, D.; Thayer, G. 1996. Succession of

macrobenthos in a created salt marsh. Mar. Ecol. Prog.

Ser. 141:67-82.

Levin, L.; Tally, T.S.; Hewitt, J. 1998. Macrobenthos of Spartina

foliosa (Pacific cordgrass) salt marshes in southern California: community structure and comparison to a Pacific

mudflat and a Spartina alterniflora (Atlantic smooth

cordgrass) marsh. Estuaries 21:129-144.

Minello, T.J.; Zimmerman, R.J. 1992. Utilization of natural and

transplanted Texas salt marshes by fish and decapod crustaceans. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 90:273-285.

Moy, L.D.; Levin, L.A. 1991. Are Spartina marshes a replaceable resource? A functional approach to evaluation of

marsh creation efforts. Estuaries 14:1-16.

Posey, M.H.; Alphin, T.D.; Powell, C.M. 1997. Plant and infaunal communities associated with a created marsh. Estuaries 20:42-47.

Rader, D.N. 1984. Salt-marsh benthic invertebrates: smallscale patterns of distribution and abundance. Estuaries

7:413-420.

Sacco, J.N.; Seneca, E.D.; Wentworth, T.R. 1994. Infaunal

community development of artificially established salt

marshes in North Carolina. Estuaries 17:489-500.

Sarda, R.; Forman, K.; Valiela, I. 1994. Long-term changes of

macroinfaunal assemblages in experimentally enriched salt

marsh tidal creeks. Biol. Bull. (Woods Hole) 187:282-283.

Sarda, R.; Forman, K.; Valiela, I. 1995. Macroinfauna of a

Southern New England salt marsh: seasonal dynamics

and production. Mar. Biol. (Berl.) 121:431-445.

Sarda, R.; Forman, K.; Werme, C.E.; Valiela, I. 1998. The impact

of epifaunal predation on the structure of macrofaunal

invertebrate communities of tidal saltmarsh creeks. Estuarine Coastal Shelf Sci. 46:657-669.

Saunders, H.L.; Grassle, J.F.; Hampson, G.R.; Morse, L.S.; Garner-Price, S.; Jones, C.C. 1980. Anatomy of an oil spill:

long-term effects from the grounding of the barge Florida

off West Falmouth, Massachusetts. J. Mar. Res. 38:265-

280.

Suchanek, T.H. 1993. Oil impacts on marine invertebrate populations and communities. Am. Zool. 33:510-533.
Page 99

Table 14. Invertebrate taxa collected at the six study sites

in the Arthur Kill

Platyhelminthes

unidentified

Nemertinea

unidentified

Nematoda

unidentified

Mollusca

unidentified bivalve

Anadara sp.

Mytilus edulis

Geukensia demissa

Siliqua costata

Annelida

Eteone heteropoda

Eumida sanguinea

Nereis grayi

Drilonereis longa

Polydora sp.

Polydora websteri

Streblospio benedicti

Polydora cornuta

Pygospio elegans

Spio filicornis

Capitella spp.

Manayunkia aestuarina

Oligochaeta

Arthropoda

Halacarus sp.

Scaptognathus sp.

unidentified copepods

Leptochelia savignyi

Cyathura polita

Edotea triloba

Gammarus palustris

Gammarus mucronatus

Elasmopus levis

Ampelisca abdita

Ampithoe valida

Jassa marmorata

Sesarma reticulatum

Anurida maritima

Thysanoptera

Ceratopogonidae

Chironomidae larvae

Dolichopodidae

Tabanidae

Muscidae
Page 100

Table 15. Means (+/- one standard deviation)/7-cm core (n = 8) for the abundances of all benthic invertebrates, oligochaetes, nematodes, and Manayunkia aestuarina 2

at each of the six study sites and two sampling dates in the Arthur Kill. (Also given are the total number of taxa in all cores for each site and sampling

month.)

Site

Old Place Saw Mill Saw Mill Con Ed

Taxa Creek Creek North Creek South Tower Tufts Point Mill Creek

September 1996

All invertebrates 55.8 (21.1) 14.9 (7.7) 107.8 (30.2) 155.3 (63.0) 79.0 (69.9) 43.3 (20.7)Oligochaetes 21.3 (12.7) 3.6 (1.7) 83.9 (22.3) 86.5 (35.1) 48.3 (45.0) 24.3 (13.6)Nematodes 2.4 (1.5) 0 11.4 (5.7) 19.9 (8.7) 0.4 (0.4) 5.4 (4.3)Manayunkia aestuarina 22.3 (11.8) 1.9 (1.0) 5.8 (3.5) 46.1 (22.5) 22.6 (22.6) 6.6 (3.7)Total taxa 19 15 10 10 16 15

May 1997

All invertebrates 276.1 (85.7) 95.0 (34.2) 189.4 (70.5) 300.9 (106.6) 215.6 (29.3) 123.0 (36.8)Oligochaetes 185.8 (58.3) 36.4 (12.0) 161.4 (61.3) 67.4 (24.7) 168.5 (23.7) 106.5 (31.9)Nematodes 32.3 (15.2) 15.6 (7.6) 21.9 (10.2) 211.0 (91.6) 4.3 (1.4) 6.0 (2.9)Manayunkia aestuarina 35.3 (11.2) 39.6 (15.2) 4.9 (1.4) 15.3 (7.8) 29.4 (12.2) 2.0 (0.7)Total taxa 12 8 9 12 22 12
Page 101

VII. FOOD HABITS OF THE

MUMMICHOG (Fundulus heteroclitus)

Frank W. Steimle, Jr.

Postal Addresses: National Marine Fisheries Serv., 74 Magruder Rd.,

 Highlands, NJ 07732

E-Mail Address: Frank.Steimle@noaa.gov

Gut content analysis can also support and enhance the

results of stable isotope analysis for understanding trophodynamics. For example, Kneib et al. (1980) and Hughes

and Sherr (1983) used isotopic analysis to show two main

sources of plant carbon being incorporated into mummichog tissue, and Griffin and Valiela (2001) used isotopic

analysis to show that the mummichog moves up approximately one step within the benthic trophic food web during

a single growing season, consistent with an increase in

length. Analysis of stomach contents can define the original and intermediate transfer of these and possibly other

sources of plant carbon, as was true for the Griffin and

Valiela (2001) study. Examination of the diet of the mummichog, the most common bottom fish along the marsh fringe,

contributes to interpreting algal and benthic invertebrate

community structures at restoration study sites, as these

structures can be altered by the feeding of mummichogs

(Vince et al. 1976; Kneib and Stiven 1982).

The functional evaluation of restored salt marshes is

important for the assessment and improvement of restoration efforts. Presence or absence of predators such as fish,

and variations in their abundances in restored habitats, are

valuable indicators of general habitat suitability, but these

variables can only suggest that the habitat has recovered

its normal ecological function. Trophic relationships and

biological energy transfers are considered useful functional

endpoints to a restoration, i.e., the diet and feeding of a

forage species such as the mummichog can indicate the

restoration of an important ecosystem link (Kelly and Harwell

1990). In addition, the mummichog is, as Halpin (1997) states,

an “excellent model for studying not only the ecology of

saltmarsh fish but rules governing the invasion of marginal

habitats by mobile animals.”

The mummichog is also an ideal candidate for this study

because of its assumed fidelity to the study sites. It is

thought to have a limited home range, generally <36 m of

shoreline/marsh fringe (Lotrich 1975), although a recent

study shows that its home range can be quite a bit larger

(Sweeney et al. 1998). However, Halpin (1997) shows that

this species is restricted to areas representing a very small

proportion of the total available habitat; it also displays

fine-scale differences of habitat usage, with patterns of habitat usage varying seasonally (Allen et al. 1994), and appears to remain and feed within the small estuaries in which

it was hatched (Griffin and Valiela 2001).

INTRODUCTION

The intertidal salt marsh is used as a source of food or

feeding grounds for a number of estuarine organisms, including fish and invertebrates. Some of these organisms

are in turn prey for larger organisms. The mummichog, or

common killifish, Fundulus heteroclitus, lives along the

saltmarsh fringe and is generally considered an important

link in the estuarine food web supporting valued biological

resources. The mummichog uses the tidally flooded marsh

to access S. alterniflora stems as a refuge from predation,

and to feed on whatever (e.g., detritus, algae, fish larvae,

amphipods, tanaids, copepods, and insects) is available

(Kneib and Stiven 1978; Weisberg et al. 1981; Werme 1981;

Abraham 1985; Moy and Levin 1991; Allen et al. 1994; Kneib

and Wagner 1994; Halpin 2000).

Within the ecologically stressed Arthur Kill, the mummichog is considered the only widely abundant fish (Howells

and Brundage 1977). It can be an important prey item for

protected wading birds and for larger fish such as American

eel (Anguilla rostrata), juvenile bluefish (Pomatomus

saltatrix), summer flounder, (Paralichthys dentatus), and possibly striped bass (Morone saxatilus) that are common in the

Arthur Kill area (Rountree and Able 1992; Parsons 1994; Wilk

et al. 1996). Thus, it serves as an important energy transfer

mechanism between the Arthur Kill marshes and their adjacent

waters (Valiela et al. 1977; Weisberg and Lotrich 1982; Kneib

1986; Kneib and Wagner 1994).

Given the mummichog’s close association with salt

marshes, it is possible that residual effects of the 1990 oil

spill, or any differences among the replanted, unplanted, or

reference marshes, may be reflected in its diet. The potential or actual impact of oil on fishery resources and their

food have been recognized since the earliest part of this

century (Gutsell 1921), but studies on the interactions between these impacts and habitat restoration have just begun. Brzorad and Burger (1994) suggest that the diet of the

mummichog in the Arthur Kill has been altered in these

polluted waters by restricting the availability of its prey.

However, the mummichog is moderately tolerant of oil contamination, except under thermal or osmotic stress (Abraham

1985). The mummichog diet can also suggest pathways by

which oil and other anthropogenic contaminants can be

transferred from sediments, substrates, and lower biological levels of the marsh ecosystem to higher trophic levels.
Page 102

This chapter presents and discusses the results of a

preliminary examination of the diets of the mummichogs

collected as part of the Arthur Kill study in fall 1996 and

spring-summer 1997. The diets of these fish were examined

for differences which might be correlated with the replanting efforts following the 1990 oil spill.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

Fish were collected in September 1996 and between May

and early August 1997 with standard, tubular, galvanizedwire-mesh killitraps with open funnels at either end, baited

with either a fish-based, orange-colored, canned cat food

or freshly broken whole northern quahogs (Mercenaria

mercenaria) or Atlantic surfclams (Spisula solidissima).

The bait was contained within ultrafine synthetic mesh

bags. Some trap samples from the Old Place Creek and Con

Ed Tower marsh sites were obtained from cooperative collections with SMRT; SMRT used bread as bait in their traps.

These baits were readily identifiable in the stomachs, thus

allowing separation from the other stomach contents when

the fish actually ingested the bait.

Traps were required for collection as seining was not

feasible because of conditions at most sites. Since the

objective of this study was to examine how mummichogs

were using the marshes for feeding, and since the fish mostly

fed in the marsh at high tide, the traps were deployed at the

marsh fringe just before high tide. Saltmarsh fringes are

considered important factors for fish in marsh restorations

(Peterson and Turner 1994). The traps were left for 2-3 hr

and were retrieved when water had retreated from the marsh

surface so that stomach contents of trapped fish would

best represent recent feeding on the marsh surface. Butner

and Brattstrom (1960) and Allen et al. (1994) reported that

mummichog stomachs are mostly full at or after high tide.

Upon trap retrieval, at least 30 mummichogs of mixed

sizes were removed and preserved in 10% Formalin. The

spring-summer 1997 collections were problematic as an unusually cool spring seemed to retard the mummichog’s return to all of the marshes, and required an extended collection period to obtain sufficient samples at all sites. In colder

months, mummichogs tend to remain higher up in creeks or

in saltmarsh tide pools (Fritz et al. 1975; Smith and Able

1994; Halpin 1997).

In the laboratory, 30 fish were selected from each of the

six sites for both collection periods, for a total of 360 fish.

Each set of 30 fish contained 10 each of the largest-, smallest-, and intermediate-sized fish. Fish were measured to

total length and were sexed, then their stomachs and intestines were removed and examined under a dissecting microscope. The total stomach volume was estimated, then the

contents were examined and separated into definable food

types. Organismal prey were identified to the lowest practical taxonomic level, their proportional contribution to the

total volume was visually estimated, and countable items

were enumerated. Because meiofauna were found in the

stomachs, the contents were specifically examined for copepods, foraminifera, nematodes, oligochaete fragments, and

diatoms. These latter taxa could provide clues to specific

microhabitat use, such as feeding on the algal mats growing at the base of S. alterniflora stems (Werme 1981). A

variety of estuarine invertebrate taxonomic keys were used

to identify stomach contents, e.g., Wilson (1932), Gosner

(1971), Bousfield (1973), and Weiss (1995). When bait was

detected in the stomachs, it was noted and the upper intestine was also examined in case the bait had pushed natural

food out of the stomachs. Gastrointestinal evacuation can

be fairly rapid for mummichogs, often on the order of several hours (C.L. MacKenzie, National Marine Fisheries Serv.,

74 Magruder Rd., Highlands, NJ, 07732, pers. comm.).

Comparative analysis of the diets among sites and treatments for this preliminary study included the percent frequency of occurrence of specific food items or prey in the

stomachs, and the estimated mean percentage of total stomach volume associated with a specific food item or prey.

Numerical analysis was not feasible because of the abundance of noncountable material in the stomachs (e.g., detritus, algal material). The small sample sizes, especially per

fish length class, and the preliminary nature of the study,

precluded the use of extensive statistical treatments.

RESULTS

As the focus of this preliminary study is on possible

differences among collection sites and treatments and not

on seasonal or interannual variability, the results for each

collection period are presented separately.

September 1996

The sizes of the 180 mummichogs examined for this sampling period ranged from 3.3-10.5 cm. This size range was

consistent among sampling sites. The results of the stomach content analysis among sites and treatments for this

period are presented in Tables 16 and 17.

The data on percent frequency of occurrence (Table 16)

shows that detritus was the most commonly occurring material at all sites and treatments. Algae, both strands (mixed

chains of diatoms or variously colored filamentous tubes)

and macrophytes, were next in overall, but variable, importance, especially at Con Ed Tower (unplanted), Tufts Point

(reference), and Mill Creek (reference) sites. Insects, mostly

fragments of adult forms, but including Diptera larvae, were

eaten at all sites at a low frequency. Decapod shrimp (mostly

Palaemonetes fragments) commonly occurred only at Tufts

Point, while the marsh hopper amphipod, Orchestia grillus,

commonly occurred only at Mill Creek. The shrimp
Page 103

Palaemonetes sp. was also often collected in the fish traps

at some sites, but was found only in the stomachs of the

larger fish.

The data on mean percent stomach volume (Table 17)

show that detritus was less important and occurrence of

bait was more obvious. The use of detritus was highest at

the two northernmost sites, Old Place Creek and Con Ed

Tower. The occurrence of bait in stomachs was generally

highest at all four oiled sites, and is a sampling artifact,

although it may indicate limited food availability. Algal

strands and blades were important at the two reference sites.

Again, decapod shrimp were notable only at Tufts Point,

while Orchestia grillus was notable only at Mill Creek.

Microscopic items in the stomachs (e.g., foraminifera) appear to be minor contributors to the food requirements of

the mummichog.

May-August 1997

The sizes of the 180 fish examined for this sampling

period ranged from 3.2 to 9.9 cm, which is similar to the

previous sampling period. The results of the stomach examinations for this period are presented in Tables 18 and 19.

The most frequently occurring item was amphipod fragments, probably Gammarus sp., with detritus being next in

frequency; detritus was less frequent at the two reference

sites (Table 18). Insects again and nematodes occurred at

all sites. Algal strands were found only at the unplanted

and reference sites, while algal blades were found only at

the oiled (both replanted and unplanted) sites. Some new

food items appeared in this collection period, but only the

occurrence of some unidentified invertebrate eggs (perhaps

crustacean) at Mill Creek was notable. Harpacticoid copepods commonly occurred only at Tufts Point. Items that

were relatively frequent in September, but that were rare or

undetected in this period, were foraminifera, the marsh snail

Melampus bidentatus, Orchestia grillus, decapod shrimp,

spiders, and bait.

As contributors to total stomach volume, amphipod fragments and detritus were about equal, combined to make up

about half (49.9%) of the total estimated stomach volumes,

and were notable at all sites (Table 19). Algal strands were

found only at the unplanted and reference sites, while algal

blades were found only at the oiled sites and were 2-3 fold

higher at the oiled/replanted sites. The reference sites differed from the oiled sites in the volume of detritus, algal

blades, insects (i.e., all three items being higher at the oiled

sites), and of harpacticoid copepods and invertebrate eggs

(i.e., both items basically occurring only at reference sites).

DISCUSSION

There are some suggested differences in the mummichog diets between the replanted (i.e., Old Place Creek and

Sawmill North) and unplanted (i.e., Con Ed Tower and Sawmill South) marshes, and between all the oiled marshes and

the reference sites (i.e.,Tufts Point and Mill Creek). The

following discussion on diets focuses on a few diet items to

highlight those suggested differences.

In September 1996 (Table 16), the greatest differences

(i.e., greater than or equal to a factor of 2, at levels >5%,

with a “+” after a diet item indicating that the highest value

for that item was associated with a replanted site) between

replanted and unplanted sites were in the mean percent

frequency of occurrence of algal strands, algal blades (+),

plant fragments, foraminifera (+), nematodes (+), insects

(+), Oithonia (+), Gammarus lawrencianus (+), G.

mucronatus, and organic matter (+). In 1997, algal strands,

nematodes, organic matter, and crab fragments showed

strong differences in mean percent frequency of occurrence

at the replanted and unplanted sites (Table 18). On a mean

percent stomach volume basis, strong differences (i.e., same

criteria as those for mean percent frequency of occurrence)

between replanted and unplanted sites in September 1996

were noted for algal strands, spiders, and organic matter

(Table 17), and in 1997 for algal strands, algal blades (+),

organic matter, and Cirolana (+) (Table 19). The other differences among diet items at the replanted and unplanted

sites were for items of minor importance (<5%) or were differences less than a factor of 2. The use of the 5% level of

importance and a factor of 2 as suggesting meaningful differences is tentative, but probably reasonable given the

natural expected variability in diets.

There were greater differences in mean percent frequency of occurrence and mean percent total stomach volume values when comparing the four oiled sites with the

two reference sites. For September 1996, there were notable

differences (i.e., greater than or equal to a factor of 2, at

levels >5%, with a “+” after a diet item indicating that the

highest value for that item was associated with a reference

site) between the oiled and reference sites in the mean percent frequency of occurrence of algal strands (+), algal blades

(+), foraminifera, Melampus bidentatus, insects, harpacticoid

copepods, Orchestia grillus (+), and decapod shrimp (+)

(Table 16). For 1997, these differences in mean percent

frequency of occurrence were notable for detritus, algal

strands (+), algal blades, insects, harpacticoid copepods

(+), invertebrate eggs (+), and slug-like items (+) (Table 18).

In September, notable (i.e., same criteria as those for mean

percent frequency of occurrence) mean percent stomach

volume differences are suggested for detritus, algal strands

(+), algal blades (+), Orchestia grillus (+), decapod shrimp

(+), and organic matter (Table 17). In 1997, there were differences for detritus, algal blades, insects, harpacticoid copepods (+), organic matter, invertebrate eggs (+), and sluglike items (+) (Table 19).

Overall, the diets of the mummichogs collected in the

Arthur Kill at the various sites appear similar to the diets

reported in previous studies (e.g., Vince et al. 1976; Kneib

et al. 1980; Abraham 1985; Joyce and Weisberg 1986; Allen
Page 104

et al. 1994). Much of the material or prey found in the

Arthur Kill mummichog stomachs, such as the algal strands,

insects, spiders, marsh snails (Melampus bidentatus), marsh

amphipods (Orchestia grillus), Gammarus, decapod

shrimp, and the detritus may have easily been obtained

within the flooded marsh, the small drainage channels on

the marsh surface, the marsh fringe, and in the adjacent

marsh creeks and channels. The seasonal differences in

the diets are expected and have been reported in other studies (Werme 1981; Valiela et al. 1977).

The relatively high mean percent frequency of occurrence and/or mean percent stomach volume levels for detritus, algae, and other plant material at all sites may indicate a

poor diet (Prinslow et al. 1974; Targett 1979; Kneib et al.

1980; Allen et al. 1994; Brzorad and Burger 1994). The Arthur

Kill suffers from multiple-source pollution, and previous

studies have demonstrated that mummichogs from Piles

Creek, a mercury-polluted tributary of the Arthur Kill, show

reduced longevity and rates of prey capture, feeding, growth,

and fin regeneration, as well as increased vulnerability to

predation by blue crabs, compared to conspecifics from

uncontaminated reference sites (Toppin et al. 1987; Weis

and Khan 1990, 1991; Smith and Weis 1997). The guts of

fish from an unpolluted site on the southern New Jersey

shore contained five times as much freshly killed prey by

weight as those of fish from Piles Creek, and twice the

amount of shrimp (Smith and Weis 1997). The vast bulk

(85%) of the Piles Creek fishes’ diet consisted of detritus.

However, Allen et al. (1994) suggest that the ingestion of

detritus and algae may sometimes be deliberate and may

contribute to the nutrition of the fish, and Jeffries (1972)

concluded from fatty acid analysis of mummichog gut contents and muscles that a reasonable diet for this species

included five times as much detritus as marsh invertebrates.

Moy and Levin (1991) found that the diet of mummichogs

from a created marsh in North Carolina consisted mostly of

polychaetes and algae, while a large percentage of the diets

of fishes from natural marshes consisted of detritus and

insects. Moy and Levin (1991) suggest that this difference

in diet is due to differences in macrofaunal composition

between their natural and created sites; oligochaetes were

actually abundant in the natural marshes, but inaccessible

to the mummichogs. This may be true for the mummichogs

from the Arthur Kill, as oligochaetes were fairly abundant

as macrofauna at all of the sites except perhaps for Saw Mill

Creek North (see Chapter VI, “Benthic Invertebrates”), but

were almost completely absent from the stomachs. In any

case, it appears that the highest use of detritus in this study

was in the northern reaches of the Arthur Kill.

The preliminary results and discussion presented here

are just that, and a more detailed analysis would be required

to confirm that any of the differences among the sites suggested here were significant or real and related to habitat

quality or to the replanting efforts.

REFERENCES CITED

Abraham, B.J. 1985. Species profiles: life histories and environmental requirements of coastal fishes and invertebrates

(Mid-Atlantic) -- mummichog and striped killifish. U.S.

Fish Wildl. Serv. Biol. Rep. 82 (11.40); U.S. Army Corps

Eng. Tech. Rep. EL-82-4.

Allen, E.A.; Fell, P.E.; Peck, M.A.; Geig, J.A.; Guthke, C.R.;

Newkirk, M.D. 1994. Gut contents of common mummichogs, Fundulus heteroclitus L., in a restored impounded

marsh and in natural reference marshes. Estuaries 17:462-

471.

Bousfield, E.L. 1973. Shallow-water gammaridean Amphipoda

of New England. Ithaca, NY: Cornell Univ. Press.

Brzorad, J.N.; Burger, J. 1994. Fish and shrimp populations in

the Arthur Kill. In: Burger, J., ed. Before & after an oil spill:

the Arthur Kill. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers Univ. Press;

p. 178-200.

Butner, A.; Brattstrom, B.H. 1960. Local movements in Menidia

andFundulus. Copeia 1960:139-141.

Fritz, E.S.; Meredith, W.H.; Lotrich, V.A. 1975. Fall and winter

movements and activity level of the mummichog, Fundulus heteroclitus, in a tidal creek. Chesapeake Sci. 16:211-

214.

Gosner, K.L. 1971. Guide to identification of marine and estuarine invertebrates, Cape Hatteras to the Bay of Fundy.

New York, NY: J. Wiley & Sons; 693 p.

Griffin, M.P.A.; Valiela, I. 2001. δ15 isotope studies of life history and trophic position of Fundulus heteroclitus and

Menidia menidia. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 214:299-305.

Gutsell, J.S. 1921. Danger to fisheries from oil and tar pollution

of waters. U.S. Bur. Fish. Doc. 910 (Appendix VII, Report

of the U.S. Commissioner of Fisheries for 1921); p. 3-10.

Halpin, P.M. 1997. Habitat use patterns of the mummichog,

Fundulus heteroclitus, in New England. 1. Intramarsh

variation. Estuaries 20:618-625.

Halpin, P.M. 2000. Habitat use by an intertidal salt-marsh fish:

trade-offs between predation and growth. Mar. Ecol. Prog.

Ser. 198:203-214.

Howells, R.G.; Brundage, H.M., III. 1977. Fishes of Arthur Kill.

Proc. Staten Island Inst. Arts Sci. 29:3-6.

Hughes, E.H.; Sherr, E.B. 1983. Subtidal food webs in a Georgia estuary: 13C analysis. J. Exp. Mar. Biol. Ecol. 67:227-

242.

Jeffries, H.P. 1972. Fatty-acid ecology of a tidal marsh. Limnol.

Oceanogr. 17:433-440.

Joyce, A.A.; Weisberg, S.B. 1986. The effects of predation by

the mummichog Fundulus heteroclitus (L.), on the abundance and distribution of the saltmarsh snail, Melampus

bidentatus (Say). J. Exp. Mar. Biol. Ecol. 100:295-306.

Kelly, J.R.; Harwell, M.A. 1990. Indicators of ecosystem recovery. Environ. Manag. 14:527-545.

Kneib, R.T. 1986. The role of Fundulus heteroclitus in salt

marsh trophic dynamics. Am. Zool. 26:259-269.
Page 105

Kneib, R.T.; Stiven, A.E. 1978. Growth, reproduction, and

feeding of Fundulus heteroclitus (L.) in a North Carolina

salt marsh. J. Exp. Mar. Biol. Ecol. 31:121-140.

Kneib, R.T.; Stiven, A.E. 1982. Benthic invertebrate responses

to size and density manipulations of the common mummichog, Fundulus heteroclitus, in an intertidal salt marsh.

Ecology 63:1518-1532.

Kneib, R.T.; Stiven, A.E.; Haines, E.B. 1980. Stable carbon

isotope ratios in Fundulus heteroclitus (L.) muscle tissue

and gut contents from a North Carolina Spartina marsh.

J. Exp. Mar. Biol. Ecol. 46:89-98.

Kneib, R.T.; Wagner, S.L. 1994. Nekton use of vegetated

marsh habitats at different stages of tidal inundation. Mar.

Ecol. Prog. Ser. 106:227-238.

Lotrich, V.A. 1975. Summer home range and movements of

Fundulus heteroclitus (Pisces: Cyprinodontidae) in a tidal

creek. Ecology 56:191-198.

Moy, L.D.; Levin, L.A. 1991. Are Spartina marshes a replaceable resource? A functional approach to evaluation of

marsh creation efforts. Estuaries 14:1-16.

Parsons, K.C. 1994. The Arthur Kill oil spills: biological effects

in birds. In: Burger, J., ed. Before & after an oil spill: the

Arthur Kill. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers Univ. Press; p.

215-237.

Peterson, G.W.; Turner, R.E. 1994. The value of salt marsh

edge vs interior as a habitat for fish and decapod crustaceans in a Louisiana tidal marsh. Estuaries 17:235-262.

Prinslow, T.E.; Valiela, I.; Teal, J.M. 1974. The effect of detritus

and ration size on the growth of Fundulus heteroclitus

(L.). J. Exp. Mar. Biol. Ecol. 16:1-10.

Rountree, R.A.; Able, K.W. 1992. Foraging habits, growth,

and temporal patterns of salt-marsh creek habitat use by

young-of-year summer flounder in New Jersey. Trans.

Am. Fish. Soc. 121:765-776.

Smith, G.M.; Weis, J.S. 1997. Predator prey relationships in

mummichogs (Fundulus heteroclitus (L.)): effects of living in a polluted environment. J. Exp. Mar. Biol. Ecol.

209:75-87.

Smith, K.J.; Able, K.W. 1994. Salt-marsh tide pools as winter

refuges for the mummichog, Fundulus heteroclitus, in

New Jersey. Estuaries 17:226-234.

Sweeney, J.; Deegan, L.; Garrin, R. 1998. Population size and

site fidelity of Fundulus heteroclitus in a macrotidal

saltmarsh creek. Biol. Bull. (Woods Hole) 195:238-239.

Targett, T.E. 1979. The effect of temperature and body size on

digestive efficiency in Fundulus heteroclitus (L.). J. Exp.

Mar. Biol. Ecol. 38:179-186.

Toppin, S.V.; Heber, M.; Weis, J.S.; Weis, P. 1987. Changes in

reproductive biology and life history in Fundulus

heteroclitus in a polluted environment. In: Vernberg, W.;

Calabrese, A.; Thurberg, F.; Vernburg, F.J., eds. Pollution

physiology of estuarine organisms. Columbia, SC: Univ.

of South Carolina Press; p. 171-184.

Valiela, I.; Wright, J.E.; Teal, J.M.; Volkmann, S.B. 1977. Growth,

production and energy transformations in the salt-marsh

killifishFundulus heteroclitus. Mar. Biol. (Berl.) 40:135-

144.

Vince, S.; Valiela, I.; Backus, N.; Teal, J.M. 1976. Predation by

the salt marsh killifish Fundulus heteroclitus (L.) in relation to prey size and habitat structure: consequences for

prey distribution and abundance. J. Exp. Mar. Biol. Ecol.

23:255-266.

Weis, J.S.; Khan, A.A. 1990. Effects of mercury on the feeding

behavior of the mummichog, Fundulus heteroclitus, from

a polluted habitat. Mar. Environ. Res. 30:243-249.

Weis, J.S.; Khan, A.A. 1991. Reduction in prey capture ability

and condition of mummichogs from a polluted habitat.

Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. 120:127-129.

Weisberg, S.B.; Lotrich, V.A. 1982. The importance of an

infrequently flooded intertidal marsh surface as an energy source for the mummichog Fundulus heteroclitus:

an experimental approach. Mar. Biol. (Berl.) 66:307-310.

Weisberg, S.B.; Whalen, R.; Lotrich, V.A. 1981. Tidal and

diurnal influence on food consumption of a salt marsh

killifishFundulus heteroclitus. Mar. Biol. (Berl.) 61:243-

246.

Weiss, H.M. 1995. Marine animals of Southern New England

and New York, identification keys to common nearshore

and shallow water macrofauna. State Geol. Nat. Hist.

Surv. Conn. Bull. 115.

Werme, C.E. 1981. Resource partitioning in a salt marsh community. Ph.D dissertation, Boston Univ., Boston, MA.

132 p.

Wilk, S.J.; MacHaffie, E.M.; McMillan, D.G.; Pacheco, A.J.;

Pikanowski, R.A.; Stehlik, L.L. 1996. Fish,

megainvertebrates, and associated hydrographic observations collected in the Hudson-Raritan Estuary, January

1992-December 1993. U.S. Dep. Commer. Northeast Fish.

Sci. Cent. Ref. Doc. 96-14; 95 p.

Wilson, C.B. 1932. The copepods of the Woods Hole region

Massachusetts. Bull. U.S. Nat. Mus. 158; 623 p.
Page 106

Table 16. Percent frequency of occurrence of items or prey in mummichog stomachs from the six Arthur Kill sites

during September 1996. (n = 30 at all sites.)

Replanted Sites Unplanted Sites Reference Sites

Old Place Saw Mill Con Ed Saw Mill Tufts Mill

Item/Prey Creek Creek North Tower Creek South Point Creek

Detritus 70 70 90 33 57 70

Algal strands 7 0 47 3 70 27

Algae, green blade 13 0 3 0 23 37

Plant fragments 7 0 10 7 0 7

Foraminifera 17 20 10 0 0 7

Nematodes 7 3 3 0 0 10

Melampus bidentatus 3 13 0 30 0 7

Oligochaetes 333000

Polychaetes 0 0 3 0 0 0

Spider, small brown 0 10 0 7 0 7

Springtail, Anurida 000300

Insect fragments 30 7 3 13 3 7 a

Copepod, harpacticoid 13 0 20007

Copepod, Argulus sp. 0 0 0 3 0 0

Copepod, Oithonia sp. 7 0 0 0 0 0

Gammarus lawrencianus 13 7 7 0 0 7

G. mucronatus 007003

Amphipod, Photis sp. 7 0 0 0 0 0

Orchestia grillus 7 0 0 0 0 43

Decapod shrimp 0 0 0 0 43 0 b

Pagurus sp. Fragments 0 0 0 0 3 0

Organic matter 0 3 3 33 3 7

Bait only 17 23 0 10 0 0

Artifacts, human 3 0 3 0 7 7

Includes Orthoptera, Coleoptera, Hymenoptera, and Diptera fragments and larvae. a

Mostly Palaeomonetes sp. b
Page 107

Table 17. Mean percent stomach volume estimates of items or prey in mummichog stomachs from the six Arthur Kill

sites during September 1996. (n = 30 at all sites.)

Replanted Sites Unplanted Sites Reference Sites

Old Place Saw Mill Con Ed Saw Mill Tufts Mill

Item/Prey Creek Creek North Tower Creek South Point Creek

Detritus 34.9 5 51 6.8 10 14.9

Algal strands <0.1 0 13 <0.1 36.8 11.8

Algae, green blade 4.1 0 0.3 0 11.8 16.8

Plant fragments <0.1 0 3.3 0.8 0 1

Foraminifera <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 0 0 <0.1

Nematodes <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 0 0 <0.1

Melampus bidentatus <0.1 <0.1 0 3.8 0 <0.1

Oligochaetes <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 0 0 0

Polychaetes 0 0 <0.1 0 0 0

Spider, small brown 0 <0.1 0 6.2 0 <0.1

Springtail, Anurida 0 0 0 <0.1 0 0

Insect fragments 0.4 <0.1 1 3 1.2 <0.1 a

Copepod, harpacticoid <0.1 0 0.3 0 0 <0.1

Copepod, Argulus sp. 0 0 0 <0.1 0 0

Copepod, Oithonia sp. 0 0 0 <0.1 0 0

Gammarus lawrencianus 3.4 <0.1 0.2 0 0 3.3

G. mucronatus 0 0 3.7 0 0 <0.1

Amphipod, Photis sp. <0.1 00000

Orchestia grillus 0 0 0 0 0 21.9

Decapod shrimp 0000 26.8 0 b

Pagurus sp. fragments 0 0 0 0 2.2 0

Organic matter 0 3.3 2.3 26.3 <0.1 2.3

Bait only 57.1 91.7 24.6 53.1 11.2 28

Artifacts, human <0.1 0 0.3 0 <0.1 <0.1

Includes Orthoptera, Coleoptera, Hymenoptera, and Diptera fragments and larvae. a

Mostly Palaeomonetes sp. b
Page 108

Table 18. Percent frequency of occurrence of items or prey in mummichog stomachs from the six Arthur Kill sites

during May-August 1997. (n = 30 at all sites.)

Replanted Sites Unplanted Sites Reference Sites

Old Place Saw Mill Con Ed Saw Mill Tufts Mill

Item/Prey Creek Creek North Tower Creek South Point Creek

Detritus 47 57 63 30 17 20

Algal strands 0 0 17 3 3 20

Algae, green blade 20 13 17 20 0 0

Plant fragments 7 7 17037

Nematodes 7 7 17 20 13 23

Melampus bidentatus 300003

Oligochaetes 003000

Polychaetes 1007030 a

Spider 003000

Insect fragments 33 10 27 27 0 17 b

Copepod, harpacticoid 0 0 0 0 50 0

Gammarus sp. 7 0 10 0 3 0

Amphipod fragments 70 33 50 53 17 47 c

Decapod shrimp 003000 d

Organic matter 0 10 20 30 3 20

Fish eggs 0 0 0 0 0 13

Invertebrate eggs 3 0 3 3 0 57

Clam fragments 300000

Cirolana 13 0 7 0 0 0

Crab fragments 007000

Slug-like 0 3 0 0 27 0

Cyathura 030303

Mostly Nereis succinea. a

Includes Orthoptera, Coleoptera, Hymenoptera, and Diptera fragments and larvae. b

Mostly Gammarus sp. c

Mostly Palaemonetes sp. d
Page 109

Table 19. Mean percent stomach volume estimates of items or prey in mummichog stomachs from the six Arthur Kill

sites during May-August 1997. (n = 30 at all sites.)

Replanted Sites Unplanted Sites Reference Sites

Old Place Saw Mill Con Ed Saw Mill Tufts Mill

Item/Prey Creek Creek North Tower Creek South Point Creek

Detritus 20.3 43.4 39.1 24.0 13.9 14.1

Algal strands 0 0 9.2 0.2 0.4 2.7

Algae, green blade 8.8 8.7 2.7 3.8 0 0

Plant fragments 0.7 0.7 1.7 0 1.9 0.4

Nematodes 0.3 0.1 0.3 0.5 0.7 0.5

Melampus bidentatus 2.5 0 0 0 0 0.1

Oligochaetes 0 0 <0.1 0 0 0

Polychaetes 2.4 0 3.1 0 2.9 0 a

Spider 0 0 <0.1 0 0 0

Insect fragments 8.3 1.8 3.6 8.2 0 2.0 b

Copepod, harpacticoid 0 0 0 0 42.9 0

Gammarus sp. 2.5 0 1.0 0 3.8 0

Amphipod fragments 43.3 20.5 15.9 32.3 9.8 22.5 c

Decapod shrimp 0 0 3.3 0 0 0 d

Organic matter 0 6.0 9.4 23.8 0.8 8.2

Fish eggs 0 0 0 0 0 4.1

Invertebrate eggs <0.1 0 <0.1 <0.1 0 34.8

Clam fragments 0.8 0 0 0 0 0

Cirolana 6.5 0 0.5 0 0 0

Crab fragments 0 0 3.7 0 0 0

Slug-like 0 0.2 0 0 22.9 0

Cyathura 0 1.7 0 0.3 0 0.3

Mostly Nereis succinea. a

Includes Orthoptera, Coleoptera, Hymenoptera, and Diptera fragments and larvae. b

Mostly Gammarus sp. c

Mostly Palaemonetes sp. d
Page 110
Page 111

VIII. CONCLUSIONS

Creek. This increased foraging success suggests that there

were greater numbers of prey (i.e., mummichogs) available

to the birds at the replanted site. Thus, the replanted site

appears to provide better foraging habitat for the wading

birds. Supplementary data show that the heterogeneity of

the habitat in the replanted marsh is positively correlated

with improved foraging success.

These monitoring studies by the SMRT suggest that

the replanting of S. alterniflora after the 1990 oil spill was

very important for the recovery and restoration of the

saltmarsh ecosystem, especially at Old Place Creek, and

even in such a heavily urbanized and degraded estuary as

the Arthur Kill. The S. alterniflora provides much of the

structural component of the marsh; restoring this component is important to the other members of the food web,

such as the mussels, mummichogs [e.g., as a refuge from

predation (Moy and Levin 1991; Halpin 2000)], and birds. It

is particularly important in an urbanized landscape where

habitats are isolated and their availability is limited

(Simenstad and Thom 1996; Ehrenfeld 2000), and where restoration is critical for species of particular concern such as

the great and snowy egrets.

NMFS STUDY

Bearing in mind that the NMFS assessment was limited

in scope, our results are less clear in terms of the benefits of

replanting, or even in evaluating the differences among the

sites. Ehrenfeld (2000) stated that in urban wetlands, the

range of variability, both within and among wetlands, is

much higher than in nonurban wetlands, and this is certainly true in the Arthur Kill. For example, for the benthic

infauna, while there may be similarities in invertebrate abundances between the replanted and reference sites, quantitative evaluation was confounded by the high variability in

the data and the low number of replanted and reference

sites sampled. What is clear is that many of the fauna

found in these marshes appear to be tolerant of contaminants; however, this pollution and other anthropogenic

impacts may affect their overall health and longevity (e.g.,

mummichogs). While it is true that the ribbed-mussels from

the Mill Creek reference marsh grew faster and were larger

and heavier than mussels from both replanted sites, this is

more likely due to the relative undisturbed nature of this

mature marsh, as well as differences in site-specific factors.

All the Arthur Kill marshes are polluted of course, as

evidenced by, for example, the residual oil in the sediments

(see also Bergen et al. 2000), and as suggested by the high

percentages of detritus and algae as opposed to live prey in

the mummichog stomachs, which may indicate a poor diet

due to a polluted environment. However, the levels of contaminants are often site specific, depending, for example, as

with sediment trace metals, on the types of sediment found

Before discussing the overall conclusions of the NMFS

study, it is important to summarize the monitoring results

and conclusions of the SMRT study for S. alterniflora biomass and stem densities, ribbed-mussel densities, mummichog abundances, and wading bird foraging success.

SMRT STUDY

The following summary of the SMRT study is based on

Bergen et al. (2000) and Alderson et al. (Salt Marsh Restoration Team, Natural Resources Group, New York City Parks,

200 Nevada Ave., Staten Island, NY, pers. comm. and unpubl.

data). No specific numbers will be given, and the results are

confined to Old Place Creek and Con Ed Tower. In terms of

S. alterniflora, above-ground biomass at Old Place Creek -

- an oiled and replanted site -- has reached levels comparable to those reported in other studies at this latitude. In

comparison, little or no S. alterniflora has been found at

Con Ed Tower -- an oiled and unplanted site; natural

recolonization via rhizomatous growth and seedling recruitment has failed to re-establish vegetation there. At Old

Place Creek, annual increases in stem densities, and the

height of S. alternilfora plants, indicate that the conditions

for seed dispersal and possible germination, as well as the

baffling and accretion of sediments, are being met at that

site. The replanting of grass to areas at Old Place Creek

denuded by oil, and the subsequent success of the seedlings and transplants, were not suggested by previous studies; indeed, at the time of the spill, managers considered

replanting unnecessary (C. Alderson et al., Salt Marsh Restoration Team, Natural Resources Group, New York City

Parks, 200 Nevada Ave., Staten Island, NY, pers. comm.). At

Con Ed Tower, though, the grass does not appear to be able

to return on its own, and a net loss of marsh greater than

that caused by the oil spill may in fact be occurring due to

erosion of the denuded shoreline (C. Alderson et al., Salt

Marsh Restoration Team, Natural Resources Group, New

York City Parks, 200 Nevada Ave., Staten Island, NY, pers.

comm.).

Densities of mussels at Old Place Creek have increased

annually, while the mussels at Con Ed Tower are still at very

low densities.

Greater numbers of mummichogs were trapped at Old

Place Creek, suggesting a preference by that species for the

heterogeneous habitat provided by the replanted S.

alterniflora as compared to the bare surface of the Con Ed

Tower site. Other studies have also shown greater direct

use of salt marshes by fishes in comparison with

nonvegetated habitat (e.g., Rozas and Minello 1998).

For snowy (Egretta thula) and great egrets

(Casmerodius albus), the number and duration of foraging

visits, the number of strike attempts, and the number of

successful strikes were significantly greater at Old Place
Page 112

at each site. Replanting may have reduced the amount of

TPH in the sediments -- compare Old Place Creek to Con Ed

Tower, and see also Bergen et al. (2000); however, replanting may not have had a great effect on the levels of other

contaminants, such as trace metals in both sediments and

mussels, and TPH in mussels.

Some measures of ecological function, such as biogeochemistry, also appear to be site specific, but are subject to many confounding factors, and it is questionable

whether the biogeochemistry was affected by replanting.

Others measures, such as mummichog food habits, may or

may not be site specific, but a more thorough investigation

would be necessary to discern any real patterns in the data,

as has been demonstrated for several of our other investigations.

COMBINED STUDIES

In conclusion, replanting the oil-damaged marshes of

the Arthur Kill may have successfully “restored” them, at

least structurally, to the level of the existing marshes found

within the Kill. Because this is an urban estuary, the extent

to which the ecological functions of these marshes have

been restored is more difficult to ascertain due to confounding factors such as pollution and other anthropogenic impacts.

Also, the time span of this preliminary assessment program may have been too short and the number of treatment

sites chosen may have been too small to assess accurately

the performance of the replanted marshes, especially given

the many scales of natural spatial and temporal variability

and anthropogenic perturbations inherent in this ecosystem. A number of habitat restoration investigators have

also noted the value and importance of long-term studies of

ecosystem processes in restoration research in order to

obtain a better understanding of the time required to achieve

functional equivalency and to also take into account this

kind of variability (e.g., Simenstad and Thom 1996; Kentula

2000; West et al. 2000). Nevertheless, New York City’s SMRT

continues to replant and monitor these marshes where necessary, insuring that this vital habitat is protected from further loss and degradation.

REFERENCES CITED

Bergen, A.; Alderson, C.; Bergfors, R.; Aquila, C.; Matsil, M.A.

2000. Restoration of a Spartina alterniflora salt marsh

following a fuel oil spill, New York City, NY. Wetlands

Ecol. Manage. 8:185-195.

Ehrenfeld, J.G. 2000. Evaluating wetlands within an urban

context. Ecol. Eng. 15:253-265.

Halpin, P.M. 2000. Habitat use by an intertidal salt-marsh fish:

trade-offs between predation and growth. Mar. Ecol. Prog.

Ser. 198:203-214.

Kentula, M.E. 2000. Perspectives on setting success criteria

for wetland restoration. Ecol. Eng. 15:199-209.

Moy, L.D.; Levin, L.A. 1991. Are Spartina marshes a replaceable resource? A functional approach to evaluation of

marsh creation efforts. Estuaries 14:1-16.

Rozas, L.P.; Minello, T.J. 1998. Nekton use of salt marsh,

seagrass, and nonvegetated habitats in a south Texas

(USA) estuary. Bull. Mar. Sci. 63:481-501.

Simenstad, C.A.; Thom, R.M. 1996. Functional equivalency

trajectories of the restored Gog-Le-Hi-Te estuarine wetland. Ecol. Appl. 6:38-56.

West, T.L.; Cough, L.M.; Ambrose, W.G., Jr. 2000. Assessment

of function in an oligohaline environment: lessons learned

by comparing created and natural habitats. Ecol. Eng.

15:303-321.
Page 113

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

NMFS funding was provided by the NMFS Office of Habitat Conservation/Restoration Center. The authors would

particularly like to express their appreciation to New York City’s Salt Marsh Restoration Team: Carl Alderson, Andrew

Bergen, Robbin Bergfors, and others from that office who helped us with the study and allowed us access to their

restoration sites.

We thank Beth Leimburg and others for help in the field with sampling of ribbed-mussels during the age, growth, and

allometric relationships phase of this study. We greatly appreciate the work of Vickie Bejda and her students in the

Advanced Biology Class at Ocean Township High School, Ocean Township, New Jersey, for doing the weight and length

measurements and compiling those data. We also thank Bob Reid and Anthony Paulson for helpful comments on earlier

drafts of the chapter on age, growth, and allometric relationships of ribbed-mussels.

We thank Andrew Draxler for help with sampling the benthic invertebrates, and Fred Triolo for sorting most of those

samples.
Page 114
Page 115

APPENDIX A

PRINCIPAL COMPONENT ANALYSIS OF TRACE METALS

Table A1. Eigenvectors for trace metals and organic carbon content in sediments from the September 1996 and May 1997

collections, excluding the Sandy Hook site

Table A2. Eigenvectors for trace metals and % fines in sediments from the September 1996 collection, excluding the Con

Ed Tower site

Table A3. Eigenvectors for trace metals in ribbed-mussels from the September 1996 and May 1997 collections
Table A1. Eigenvectors for trace metals and organic carbon content in sediments from the

September 1996 and May 1997 collections, excluding the Sandy Hook site

 Principal Vector 

Component 1 2 3 4

Fe 0.428 -0.111 -0.273 0.438

Cr 0.293 0.510 -0.401 0.304

Cu 0.423 -0.220 -0.074 -0.418

Ni 0.366 0.457 0.066 0.002

Zn 0.381 -0.169 0.129 -0.279

Mn 0.224 -0.447 0.437 0.618

Pb 0.440 -0.200 -0.070 -0.279

Org. C 0.171 0.449 0.737 -0.057

Table A2. Eigenvectors for trace metals and % fines in sediments from the September 1996

collection, excluding the Con Ed Tower site

 Principal Vector 

Component 1 2 3 4

Fe 0.399 -0.116 -0.266 0.157

Cr 0.310 -0.556 0.180 0.259

Cu 0.359 0.242 0.549 -0.255

Ni 0.367 -0.345 0.097 0.134

Zn 0.351 0.262 -0.436 -0.543

Mn 0.244 0.594 -0.145 0.712

Pb 0.377 0.228 0.451 -0.118

% fines 0.395 -0.163 -0.415 -0.100

Table A3. Eigenvectors for trace metals in ribbed-mussels from the September 1996 and

May 1997 collections

 Principal Vector 

Component 1 2 3 4

Ag 0.288 0.541 -0.413 -0.258

Cd 0.384 -0.292 -0.145 -0.387

Cr 0.315 0.336 -0.086 0.786

Cu 0.291 0.396 0.731 -0.165

Ni 0.321 -0.431 0.363 0.233

Zn 0.393 -0.070 0.149 -0.187

Hg 0.435 0.106 -0.191 -0.112

Fe 0.373 -0.387 -0.276 0.190

Page 116
Page 117

APPENDIX B

SAMPLE CHARACTERISTICS FOR ANALYSIS OF PETROLEUM HYDROCARBONS

Table B1. The location and collection dates for sediment and ribbed mussels from the Arthur Kill and Sandy Hook Bay

Table B2. Date of collection, physical parameters, and percent lipid for analyzed ribbed mussels

Table B3. Members of each batch for cleanup and analysis of Arthur Kill sediments

Table B4. Members of each batch for cleanup and analysis of Arthur Kill mussels

Table B5. Aliphatic hydrocarbons analyzed
Table B1. The location and collection dates for sediment and ribbed mussels from the 

Arthur Kill and Sandy Hook Bay.

Sediments1

Latitude Longitude

Collection

Period 1

Collection

Period 2

Old Place Marsh2 40o

 38.13' 74o 11.79' September 04, 1996 May 01, 1997

Con Edison Tower Marsh2 40o

 37.13' 74o 12.00' September 04, 1996 May 01, 1997

Saw Mill North Marsh 40o

 36.77' 74o 11.75' September 09, 1996 May 01, 1997

Saw Mill South Marsh 40o

 36.66' 74o 11.84' September 09, 1996 May 01, 1997

Tufts Point Marsh 40o

 33.72' 74o 13.24' September 05, 1996 May 01, 1997

Mill Creek Marsh2 40o

 31.34' 74o 14.36' September 06, 1996 May 01, 1997

Sandy Hook Bay Marsh2 40o

 26.90' 73o 59.91' Collected August 11, 1997

Ribbed Mussels

Latitude Longitude

Collection

Period 1

Collection

Period 2

Old Place Marsh 40o

 38.13' 74o 11.79' September 06, 1996 May 08, 1997

Con Edison Tower Marsh 40o

 37.13' 74o 12.00' September 05, 1996 May 05, 1997

Saw Mill North Marsh 40o

 36.77' 74o 11.75' September 10, 1996 May 07, 1997

Saw Mill South Marsh 40o

 36.66' 74o 11.84' September 11, 1996 May 07, 1997

Tufts Point Marsh 40o

 33.72' 74o 13.24' September 12, 1996 May 05, 1997

Mill Creek Marsh 40o

 31.34' 74o 14.36' September 13, 1996 April 30, 1997

Sandy Hook Bay Marsh 40o

 26.90' 73o 59.91' Collected February 20, 1997

1

 Sediment cores were obtained during the first collection period while surface sediment samples were 

obtained during the second.

2

 Sediment samples collected from these Arthur Kill sites were analyzed.

Page 118
Table B2. Date of collection, physical parameters, and percent lipid for analyzed ribbed 

mussels.

Sample ID

Length

(mm)

Width

(mm)

Thickness

(mm)

Total Weight 

(g)

Tissue

Weight (g)

Lipid

Percent

Old Place Marsh - A Replanted Site 

First Collection: Collected September 06, 1996

197020410 54.4 26.5 17.3 9.6 3.7 1.58

197020413 54.9 27.3 17.2 9.3 3.6 1.34

197020412 60.1 27.1 19.5 11.9 4.8 0.75

197020411 60.5 29.8 18.4 10.3 3.4 1.31

197020414 65.1 32.1 21.2 15.9 6.4 1.15

Second Collection: Collected May 08, 1997

497051411 65.2 30.8 20.0 13.2 5.3 1.22

497051412 62.3 30.4 21.0 17.8 9.8 0.66

497051413 56.3 25.5 17.1 10.5 5.9 0.63

497051414 55.4 28.8 17.5 11.0 4.0 1.10

497051415 55.6 26.1 17.4 12.1 6.4 0.93

Con Edison Tower Marsh - An Unplanted Site 

First Collection: Collected September 05, 1996

197020421 58.0 28.9 17.1 10.6 5.3 1.18

197020422 61.5 29.2 19.7 13.1 5.2 1.22

197020423 63.0 32.1 18.8 15.5 7.2 0.66

197020425 70.6 34.1 27.9 28.6 14.4 0.55

297031701 69.8 34.6 20.3 16.2 6.0 1.50

Second Collection: Collected May 05, 1997

497051422 66.5 32.0 21.0 13.7 5.0 1.45

497051423 56.2 26.9 17.3 9.5 3.8 1.22

497051424 61.6 27.6 21.4 14.4 6.9 0.90

497051425 57.5 25.6 18.3 11.7 5.6 1.19

497051426 59.2 28.1 20.0 12.6 5.8 1.11

Saw Mill North Marsh - A Replanted Site 

First Collection: Collected September 10, 1996

197020415 55.8 27.4 17.0 8.3 3.2 1.49

197020409 65.5 31.6 21.8 13.0 4.1 1.48

197020401 67.1 32.5 21.9 14.7 5.4 1.51

197020402 67.4 34.0 23.1 15.5 4.8 1.17

297031702 69.9 32.4 20.7 17.5 8.1 0.72

Second Collection: Collected May 07, 1997

497051405 58.4 27.4 17.3 13.4 6.7 0.56

497051406 60.1 25.7 19.4 13.4 6.9 0.92

497051409 67.1 30.0 24.7 24.1 11.1 0.66

497051407 58.3 28.5 18.7 10.6 3.8 2.01

497051410 62.4 29.6 21.4 18.1 9.7 0.91

Page 119
Table B2. Continued. 

Sample ID

Length

(mm)

Width

(mm)

Thickness

(mm)

Total Weight 

(g)

Tissue

Weight (g)

Lipid

Percent

Saw Mill South Marsh - An Unrestored Site 

First Collection: Collected September 11, 1996

197020426 67.3 33.2 21.0 17.9 10.5 0.48

297031703 70.6 32.8 19.6 18.0 10.6 0.42

297031704 71.0 34.4 24.8 26.1 15.0 0.43

297031705 71.8 34.0 24.3 25.4 15.4 0.43

297031706 73.5 32.0 23.2 21.9 12.4 0.40

Second Collection: Collected May 07, 1997

497051432 62.9 28.0 18.0 14.1 7.3 1.03

497051401 61.5 26.1 18.5 12.5 6.7 0.77

497051402 57.2 26.0 16.9 10.9 5.9 1.01

497051403 56.5 24.9 17.0 10.6 5.6 1.08

497051404 56.9 23.5 17.4 8.9 4.4 0.80

Tufts Point Marsh - A Reference Site 

First Collection: Collected September 12, 1996

197020403 54.2 24.0 15.4 7.1 3.2 1.49

197020404 56.5 24.2 18.0 10.1 4.6 1.21

197020405 56.1 24.9 17.1 9.1 3.3 2.97

197020408 60.3 26.9 18.5 11.7 6.4 0.99

197020406 63.2 27.2 19.0 13.1 5.8 0.62

Second Collection: Collected May 05, 1997

497051427 66.6 26.7 21.7 17.4 9.3 0.83

497051428 56.8 25.1 16.5 10.2 4.0 1.26

497051429 58.3 26.6 17.7 11.2 5.5 1.04

497051430 58.6 27.0 17.7 12.6 6.4 1.19

497051431 63.7 29.6 20.4 15.1 7.6 0.52

Mill Creek Marsh - A Reference Site 

First Collection: Collected September 13, 1996

197020407 54.2 24.3 17.8 8.1 3.3 2.47

197020417 58.5 26.5 17.3 11.4 5.6 1.22

197020418 65.2 29.1 19.6 12.3 4.8 1.52

197020420 71.7 28.0 22.0 18.5 10.5 1.58

197020419 69.5 32.4 24.1 18.9 8.9 1.31

Second Collection: Collected April 30, 1997

497051417 60.3 28.8 20.6 14.8 7.9 0.75

497051418 58.7 28.7 19.2 15.0 8.3 0.52

497051419 63.8 26.5 19.0 13.8 6.8 1.04

497051420 57.3 26.3 17.9 11.3 5.5 1.03

497051421 62.2 27.5 20.7 13.9 6.5 1.13

Sandy Hook Bay Marsh - A Reference Site 

First Collection: Collected February 20, 1997

297031715 55.4 22.7 18.0 10.8 5.1 1.33

297031711 67.2 26.7 19.7 14.9 7.1 1.29

297031714 57.7 25.5 19.3 12.3 5.7 1.01

297031716 60.5 26.0 20.7 14.8 6.3 1.22

297031710 65.0 27.7 18.8 11.9 6.1 2.22

297031712 59.7 28.0 21.2 15.2 7.0 1.36

297031713 62.7 25.7 19.4 13.7 6.1 1.29

Page 120
Table B3. Members of each batch for cleanup and analysis of Arthur Kill sediments. 

Batch 1 contained a total of 19 samples:

 4 surface scoop sediments from Old Place Marsh collected May 1997, 

 4 surface scoop sediments from Con Edison Tower Marsh collected May 1997, 

 1 Sandy Hook Bay sediment, 

 7 Sandy Hook Bay sediments used for determination of method detection limit 

 spiked with 20 Pg of each hydrocarbon, 

 1 SRM - ERA SRM 765 – Diesel Oil in Soil, 

 1 matrix spike – Sandy Hook Bay sediment spiked with 100 Pg of each 

 hydrocarbon, and, 

1 method blank sample. 

Batch 2 contained a total of 32 samples:

 20 core sections from Old Place Marsh collected September 1996, 

 9 core sections from Con Edison Tower Marsh collected September 1996, 

1 SRM - ERA SRM 765 – Diesel Oil in Soil, 

1 matrix spike – Sandy Hook Bay sediment spiked with 100 Pg of each 

 hydrocarbon, and, 

1 method blank sample. 

Batch 3 contained a total of 24 samples:

 1 core section from Con Edison Tower Marsh collected September 1996, 

 20 core sections from Mill Creek Marsh collected September 1996, 

1 SRM - ERA SRM 765 – Diesel Oil in Soil, 

1 matrix spike – Sandy Hook Bay sediment spiked with 100 Pg of each 

 hydrocarbon, and, 

1 method blank sample. 

Batch 4 contained a total of 15 samples:

 10 core sections from Con Edison Tower Marsh collected September 1996, 

 3 replicate SRM samples - ERA SRM 765 – Diesel Oil in Soil, 

1 matrix spike – Sandy Hook Bay sediment spiked with 50 Pg of each 

 hydrocarbon, and, 

1 method blank sample. 

Page 121
Table B4. Members of each batch for cleanup and analysis of Arthur Kill mussels. 

Batch 1 contained a total of 32 samples:

 5 samples from Old Place Marsh collected September 1996, 

 5 samples from Con Edison Tower Marsh collected September 1996, 

 5 samples from Saw Mill North Marsh collected September 1996, 

 1 sample from Saw Mill South Marsh collected September 1996, 

 5 samples from Tufts Point Marsh collected September 1996, 

 5 samples from Mill Creek Marsh collected September 1996, 

 3 replicate samples - homogenized Mill Creek mussel #548141

,

 1 method blank sample, 

 1 matrix spike - SRM 1974a spiked with 25 Pg of each hydrocarbon, and, 

 1 SRM - NIST SRM 1974a - Organics in Mussel Tissue. 

Batch 2 contained a total of 24 samples:

 4 samples from Saw Mill South Marsh collected September 1996, 

 1 repeat sample from Con Edison Tower2

,

 1 repeat sample from Saw Mill North Tower3

,

 7 non-depurated mussels from the Sandy Hook Bay4

,

 1 method blank sample, 

 1 SRM - NIST SRM 1974a - Organics in Mussel Tissue 

 1 background check sample for method detection limit study samples5

, and 

 7 method detection limit samples spiked with 40 Pg of each hydrocarbon5

.

 1 matrix spike - mussel homogenate spiked with 1000 Pg No 2 diesel fuel oil6

.

Batch 3 contained a total of 32 samples:

 30 Arthur Kill mussels collected May 1997, 

 1 method blank, 

 1 matrix spike – Sandy Hook Bay mussel composite homogenate spiked with 25 

Pg of each hydrocarbon. 

1

 This mussel was the longest (100.5 mm) and the heaviest (35.2 g) of all mussels collected. 

2

 Two samples were repeated because of problems encountered during the cleanup of Batch 1 sample extracts. The repeat samples were 

taken from the same group as the original samples with the next highest random number assignment. 

3

 Two samples were repeated because of problems encountered during the cleanup of Batch 1 sample extracts. The repeat samples were 

taken from the same group as the original samples with the next highest random number assignment. 

4

 Seven non-depurated mussels from the Sandy Hook Bay were analyzed to examine for differences between the Arthur Kill sites and a 

non-Arthur Kill site. 

5 Twelve depurated Sandy Hook Bay mussel samples were composited to provide 7 replicate samples for MDL measurements, 1 sample as

MDL background sample, and 1 matrix sample for spiking with No 2 Diesel fuel oil. 

6 Sandy Hook Bay mussel homogenate was used as the tissue matrix for the oil spiking.

Page 122
Table B5. Aliphatic hydrocarbons analyzed. 

Chemical Name Abbreviation

 Normal Aliphatic Hydrocarbons

 n-Octane1 n-C8

 n-Nonane n-C9

 n-Decane n-C10

 n-Undecane n-C11

 n-Dodecane n-C12

 n-Tridecane n-C13

 n-Tetradecane n-C14

 n-Pentadecane n-C15

n-Hexadecane n-C16

n-Heptadecane n-C17

n-Octadecane n-C18

n-Nonadecane n-C19

n-Eicosane n-C20

n-Heneicosane n-C21

n-Docosane n-C22

n-Tricosane n-C23

n-Tetracosane n-C24

n-Pentacosane n-C25

n-Hexacosane n-C26

 n-Heptacosane n-C27

 n-Octacosane n-C28

 n-Nonacosane n-C29

 n-Triacontane n-C30

 n-Hentriacontane n-C31

 n-Dotriacontane n-C32

 n-Tritriacontane n-C33

n-Tetratriacontane n-C34

 n-Pentatriacontane n-C35

 n-Hexatriacontane n-C36

 n-Heptatriacontane n-C37

 n-Octatriacontane n-C38

n-Nonatriacontane n-C39

 n-Tetracontane n-C40

 Branched Aliphatic Hydrocarbons

 2,6,10,14-Tetramethylhexadecane Pristane 

 2,6,10,14-Tetramethylpentadecane Phytane

1

 The concentrations for n-C8 will be not reported, since it was difficult to identify this peak in samples and to 

determine MDL for n-C8.

Page 123
Page 124
Page 125

APPENDIX C

QUALITY CONTROL FOR ANALYSIS OF PETROLEUM HYDROCARBONS

Table C1. Data quality objectives for analyses of petroleum hydrocarbons in sediments and ribbed mussels

Table C2. Method detection limit analysis using sediment replicates from Sandy Hook Bay

Table C3. Percentage recoveries of the surrogate internal standard, o-terphenyl from sediment quality control samples

Table C4. Percentage recoveries of the surrogate internal standard, o-terphenyl from sediment samples collected from

Old Place marsh

Table C5. Percentage recoveries of the surrogate internal standard, o-terphenyl from sediment samples collected from

Con Edison Tower marsh

Table C6. Percentage recoveries of the surrogate internal standard, o-terphenyl from sediment samples collected from

Mill Creek and Sandy Hook Bay marshes

Table C7. Percentage recovery of individual hydrocarbons from spiked, Sandy Hook Bay sediment samples

Table C8. Total petroleum hydrocarbon concentration found in the soil SRM, Environmental Research Associates

Standard 765

Table C9. Analysis of individual hydrocarbons in soil SRM replicate samples

Table C10. Method detection limit analysis using ribbed mussel replicates from Sandy Hook Bay

Table C11. Percentage recoveries of the surrogate internal standard, o-terphenyl from the mussel quality control samples

Table C12. Percentage recoveries of the surrogate internal standard, o-terphenyl from Arthur Kill mussel samples

Table C13. Percentage recoveries of the surrogate internal standard, o-terphenyl from mussels from Sandy Hook Bay

Table C14. Percent recovery of individual hydrocarbons and diesel fuel from spiked ribbed mussel samples

Table C15. Individual hydrocarbon concentrations found in NIST SRM1974a

Table C16. Analysis of ribbed mussel replicate samples from Mill Creek marsh

Table C17. Hydrocarbon concentrations from different oil standards
Table C1. Data quality objectives for analyses of petroleum hydrocarbons in sediments 

and ribbed mussels.

Parameters/ Frequency Control Limit Criteria 

QC Measurements 

Method Detection Limit 1 per matrix Target MDL of 10 Pg/g for sediments 

Target MDL of 1 Pg/g for ribbed mussels 

 Warning limit - analyst should use 

 best judgement if measured MDLs exceed 

 the target MDLs 

Laboratory Method 1 per 20 samples Warning limit - analyst should use best 

Blank judgment if analytes are detected at or 

 up to 3 times the MDL. 

 Action limit - no analyte should be 

 detected at > 3 times the MDL. 

Surrogate Internal Each sample 40 -150% recovery. 

Standards Recommended control limit is < 50% (PD; 

 percent difference) between accuracy-based 

 material surrogate and sample surrogate 

recoveries. 

Matrix Spike 1 per 20 samples Recovery should be within 50 - 120% for at 

 least 80% of the analytes. 

Laboratory Triplicates 1 per 20 samples d25% relative standard deviation (RSD) for 

 analytes > 10 times the MDL. 

Accuracy-Based 1 per 20 samples d30% (PD) of certified or consensus value 

Materials on average for analytes > 10 times the MDL.

Page 126
Page 127

Table C2. Method Detection Limit (MDL) analysis using sediment replicates from Sandy Hook Bay. 1

Sample ID

)

9 Nonane (n-C

) 10 Decane (n-C

) 11 Undecane (n-C ) 12 Dodecane (n-C ) 13 Tridecane (n-C

) 14 Tetradecane (n-C

) 15 Pentadecane (n-C ) 16 Hexadecane (n-C ) 17 Heptadecane (n-C

Pristane

) 18 Octadecane (n-C

Phytane

) 19 Nonadecane (n-C) 20 Eicosane (n-C ) 21 Heneicosane (n-C) 22 Docosane (n-C ) 23 Tricosane (n-C

Sediment MDL Determination Using External Standard Calculations (g/g, wet wt.)

897081109 2.95 4.23 4.52 4.57 4.69 4.96 5.05 5.29 5.87 5.38 5.90 5.61 6.03 5.93 6.16 7.20 6.68897081110 4.31 3.78 4.39 4.69 4.63 4.92 4.94 4.90 5.32 4.94 5.07 4.96 5.29 5.22 5.30 5.39 5.44897081111 2.59 3.29 3.90 4.27 4.34 4.60 4.87 5.08 5.63 5.22 5.59 5.33 5.69 5.55 5.83 6.89 6.18897081112 3.36 3.24 3.70 4.01 4.07 4.23 4.58 4.69 5.19 4.81 5.00 4.90 5.26 5.16 5.31 5.28 5.40897081113 3.24 3.24 4.20 4.59 4.84 5.15 5.67 5.80 6.35 5.90 6.09 5.94 6.33 6.33 6.52 6.60 6.83897081114 1.61 2.16 2.59 2.89 3.05 3.36 3.95 4.40 5.12 4.77 5.22 5.02 5.42 5.40 5.57 5.65 5.82897081115 3.09 3.36 3.42 3.66 3.82 4.06 4.33 4.51 5.08 4.70 5.11 4.88 5.36 5.32 5.50 5.46 5.62

Average 3.02 3.33 3.82 4.10 4.21 4.47 4.77 4.95 5.51 5.10 5.43 5.23 5.63 5.56 5.74 6.07 6.00

Std Dev 0.82 0.63 0.67 0.64 0.63 0.63 0.55 0.49 0.47 0.43 0.44 0.41 0.41 0.43 0.46 0.80 0.58

%RSD or %CV 27.06 19.02 17.46 15.73 14.88 14.07 11.56 9.86 8.53 8.39 8.03 7.82 7.33 7.67 7.99 13.20 9.74

MDL2 2.57 1.99 2.09 2.03 1.97 1.98 1.73 1.53 1.48 1.35 1.37 1.29 1.30 1.34 1.44 2.52 1.84

1 The sediment was collected from Horseshoe Cove, Sandy Hook. The sediment was then mixed into a composite and portions of this composite was used for the MDL analysis. Each sample was

with 20 g of each individual hydrocarbon.

2 MDL = t; where  is the standard deviation and t is the Students t value. For 99% confidence level, 6 degrees of freedom (one-tailed), t = 3.143.
Page 128 Table C2. Continued. 

Sample ID

) 24 Tetracosane (n-C

) 25 Pentacosane (n-C ) 26 Hexacosane (n-C ) 27 Heptacosane (n-C ) 28 Octacosane (n-C ) 29 Nonacosane (n-C ) 30 Triacontane (n-C

) 31 n-Hentriacontane (n-C) 32 Dotriacontane (n-C ) 33 Tritriacontane (n-C ) 34 Tetratriacontane (n-C ) 35 Pentatriacontane (n-C ) 36 Hexatriacontane (n-C ) 37 Heptatriacontane (n-C ) 38 Octatriacontane (n-C ) 39 Nonatriacontane (n-C) 40 Tetracontane (n-C

Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons

2

Sediment MDL Determination Using External Standard Calculations (g/g, wet wt.)

897081109 6.19 6.68 6.08 7.46 6.53 12.39 5.79 9.01 5.21 8.07 2.33 2.40 1.30 1.04 0.84 0.71 0.60 464 897081110 5.33 5.77 5.36 6.33 5.39 10.89 5.29 8.79 5.63 4.17 2.55 2.58 1.45 1.33 1.08 0.92 0.81 361 897081111 5.82 6.32 5.60 6.88 5.89 12.37 5.70 8.40 4.78 6.35 3.05 3.46 1.77 1.61 1.39 1.20 1.08 340 897081112 5.26 5.64 5.14 6.34 5.56 11.97 5.46 9.00 5.27 3.68 2.56 2.27 1.68 1.26 1.08 0.92 0.79 341 897081113 6.49 7.04 6.32 7.92 6.07 13.63 6.16 10.22 5.86 10.76 2.68 2.34 1.80 1.50 1.17 1.01 0.91 389 897081114 5.53 5.83 5.36 6.49 5.06 11.13 5.20 8.21 4.36 5.24 2.45 2.56 1.22 1.03 0.82 0.71 0.56 281 897081115 5.41 5.79 5.28 6.45 5.69 10.97 5.40 8.82 5.43 3.77 2.65 2.56 1.65 1.26 1.05 0.90 0.76 323 

Average 5.72 6.15 5.59 6.84 5.74 11.91 5.57 8.92 5.22 6.00 2.61 2.59 1.55 1.29 1.06 0.91 0.79 357 

Std Dev 0.47 0.54 0.44 0.62 0.48 1.00 0.33 0.65 0.51 2.62 0.23 0.40 0.23 0.22 0.19 0.17 0.18 57.6 

%RSD or %CV 8.20 8.73 7.92 9.12 8.35 8.36 6.01 7.24 9.77 43.70 8.66 15.37 14.93 16.74 18.28 18.60 22.78 16.2 

MDL1 1.47 1.69 1.39 1.96 1.51 3.13 1.05 2.03 1.60 8.25 0.71 1.25 0.73 0.68 0.61 0.53 0.56 181 

1 MDL = t; where  is the standard deviation and t is the Students t value. For 99% confidence level, 6 degrees of freedom (one-tailed), t = 3.143.2 Determined from the total peak areas in the chromatogram from n-C8 to n-C40 minus any contributions from the internal standard areas.
Table C3. Percentage recoveries of the surrogate internal standard, o-terphenyl from sediment 

quality control samples.1

Sample ID Location Batch No

Percentage

Recovery

Samples for Method Detection Limit (MDL) Analysis 2

897081109 Sandy Hook Bay 1 122 

897081110 Sandy Hook Bay 1 108 

897081111 Sandy Hook Bay 1 116 

897081112 Sandy Hook Bay 1 114 

897081113 Sandy Hook Bay 1 262 

897081114 Sandy Hook Bay 1 107 

897081115 Sandy Hook Bay 1 116 

Samples for Matrix Spike Analysis 2,3

897081117 3A Sandy Hook Bay 1 112 

998021031 3A Sandy Hook Bay 2 79.8 

1098032330 3A Sandy Hook Bay 3 105 

1198082515 3B Sandy Hook Bay 4 41.2 

Standard Reference Material (SRM) Samples 4

897081118 - 1 131 

998021030 - 2 108 

1098032331 - 3 162 

1198082517 - 4 12.6 

1198082518 - 4 170 

1198082519 - 4 170 

Method Blank Samples 

897081119 5 - 1 99.6 

998021032 - 2 94.2 

1098032332 - 3 71.2 

1198082516 - 4 36.4 

1

 The values of the recoveries for the surrogate internal standards were determined using external standard calculations. 

2

 The sediment matrix used for each of the samples used for MDL and spiked analyte recoveries was collected at

Sandy Hook Bay. Each MDL sample was spiked with 20 Pg of each individual hydrocarbon. 3

 The spiking level for these samples were:

3A: 100 Pg of each individual hydrocarbon.

3B: 50 Pg of each individual hydrocarbon. 4

 The Standard Reference Material (SRM) used for this analysis was Diesel Fuel in Soil #765 from Environmental Resource

Associates.

5

 The recovery value was determined using internal standard calculations. 

Page 129
Table C4. Percentage recoveries of the surrogate internal standard, o-terphenyl from sediment 

samples collected from Old Place marsh.1

Sample ID Batch No Station Section No 2

Percentage

Recovery

September 1996 Collection

998021001 2 A 1 88.4 

998021002 2 A 2 95.2 

998021003 2 A 3 106 

998021004 2 A 4 80.8 

998021005 2 A 5 741 

998021006 2 B 1 158 

998021007 2 B 2 218 

998021008 2 B 3 189 

998021009 2 B 4 206 

998021010 2 B 5 173 

998021011 2 C 1 130 

998021012 2 C 2 133 

998021013 2 C 3 110 

998021014 2 C 4 118 

998021015 2 C 5 118 

998021016 2 D 1 138 

998021017 2 D 2 120 

998021018 2 D 3 168 

998021019 2 D 4 130 

998021020 2 D 5 599 

May 1997 Collection

897081101 1 A SC 104 

897081102 1 B SC 53.7 

897081103 1 C SC 120 

897081104 1 D SC 105 

1

 The values of the recoveries for the surrogate internal standards were determined using external standard calculations. 

2

 The meaning of the Section No is:

1: Core section with depth 0 to 1 cm.

2: Core section with depth 1 to 2 cm.

3: Core section with depth 2 to 3 cm.

4: Core section with depth 3 to 4 cm.

5: Core section with depth 4 to 5 cm.

SC: Surface Scoop.

Page 130
Table C5. Percentage recoveries of the surrogate internal standard, o-terphenyl from sediment 

samples collected from Con Edison Tower marsh.1

Sample ID Batch No Station Section No 2

Percentage

Recovery

September 1996 Collection

998021021 2 A 1 980 

998021022 2 A 2 1690 

998021023 2 A 3 965 

998021024 2 A 4 724 

998021025 2 A 5 1050 

998021026 2 B 1 1150 

998021027 2 B 2 2490 

998021028 2 B 3 6510 

998021029 2 B 4 9900 

1098032325 3 B 5 224 

1198082510 4 C 1 208 

1198082511 4 C 2 107 

1198082512 4 C 3 231 

1198082513 4 C 4 4470 

1198082514 4 C 5 6830 

1198082505 4 D 1 304 

1198082506 4 D 2 252 

1198082507 4 D 3 1700 

1198082508 4 D 4 2880 

1198082509 4 D 5 3580 

May 1997 Collection

897081105 1 A SC 37.2 

897081106 1 B SC 175 

897081107 1 C SC 144 

897081108 1 D SC 5.84

1

 The values of the recoveries for the surrogate internal standards were determined using external standard

calculations.

2

 The meaning of the Section No is:

1: Core section with depth 0 to 1 cm.

2: Core section with depth 1 to 2 cm.

3: Core section with depth 2 to 3 cm.

4: Core section with depth 3 to 4 cm.

5: Core section with depth 4 to 5 cm.

SC: Surface Scoop.

Page 131
Table C6. Percentage recoveries of the surrogate internal standard, o-terphenyl from sediment 

samples collected from Mill Creek and Sandy Hook Bay marshes.1

Sample ID Batch No Station Section No 2

Percentage

Recovery

Mill Creek Marsh - September 1996 Collection

1098032311 3 A 1 175 

1098032312 3 A 2 124 

1098032313 3 A 3 143 

1098032314 3 A 4 133 

1098032306 3 B 1 167 

1098032307 3 B 2 25.4 

1098032308 3 B 3 109 

1098032309 3 B 4 114 

1098032310 3 B 5 128 

1098032301 3 C 1 128 

1098032302 3 C 2 163 

1098032303 3 C 3 143 

1098032304 3 C 4 132 

1098032305 3 C 5 123 

1098032316 3 D 1 197 

1098032317 3 D 2 38.0 

1098032318 3 D 3 219 

1098032319 3 D 4 36.1 

1098032320 3 D 5 138 

Sandy Hook Bay Marsh - Collected August 11, 1997

897081116 1 - - 125 

1

 The values of the recoveries for the surrogate internal standards were determined using external standard

calculations.

2

 The meaning of the Section No is:

1: Core section with depth 0 to 1 cm.

2: Core section with depth 1 to 2 cm.

3: Core section with depth 2 to 3 cm.

4: Core section with depth 3 to 4 cm.

5: Core section with depth 4 to 5 cm.

SC: Surface Scoop.

Page 132
Table C7. Percentage recovery of individual hydrocarbons from spiked Sandy Hook Bay sediment samples. 1-3

Sample ID

Batch

)8 Octane (n-C

)9 Nonane (n-C

) 10 Decane (n-C

) 11 Undecane (n-C

) 12 Dodecane (n-C

) 13 Tridecane (n-C

) 14 Tetradecane (n-C

) 15 Pentadecane (n-C

) 16 Hexadecane (n-C

) 17 Heptadecane (n-C

Pristane

) 18 Octadecane (n-C

Phytane

) 19 Nonadecane (n-C

) 20 Eicosane (n-C

) 21 Heneicosane (n-C

) 22 Docosane (n-C

) 23 Tricosane (n-C

) 24 Tetracosane (n-C

897081117 4 1 ND 42.2 60.0 75.3 83.0 87.9 92.8 95.9 99.1 102 102 105 105 108 111 113 112 114 113 

998021031 4 2 30.7 30.4 31.8 28.3 23.4 24.9 29.5 39.2 47.8 59.7 59.7 64.7 67.8 72.2 73.9 77.4 78.1 80.8 78.0 

1098032330 4 3 28.6 62.3 75.4 82.0 86.0 90.8 93.6 95.4 97.8 104 101 112 106 121 122 123 121 119 116 

1198082515 5,6 4 9.66 2.58 4.72 6.83 8.01 9.30 11.0 13.5 17.1 25.2 24.8 37.0 34.2 46.7 51.6 53.0 52.2 50.9 47.7 

1 The sediment was collected from Horseshoe Cove, Sandy Hook. The sediment was then mixed into a composite and portions of this composite was used for the analysis 2 The concentrations were determined using external standard calculations. 3 Percent recovery is equal to: 100*(amount of analyte recovered) / (amount of analyte added to the sediment + background analyte amount in the sediment).

Since no background sample was run in Batches 2, 3, or 4, a value of 0 was used for the background analyte amount in the equation for these batches. 4 100 Pg of each individual hydrocarbon was spiked into sediments collected from Sandy Hook Bay.

5 50 Pg of each individual hydrocarbon was spiked into sediments collected from Sandy Hook Bay.6 The surrogate internal standard recovery for this sample was 41.2%.

Page 133
Table C7. Continued. 1,2

Sample ID

Batch

) 25 Pentacosane (n-C ) 26 Hexacosane (n-C ) 27 Heptacosane (n-C ) 28 Octacosane (n-C ) 29 Nonacosane (n-C ) 30 Triacontane (n-C

) 31 n-Hentriacontane (n-C) 32 Dotriacontane (n-C ) 33 Tritriacontane (n-C ) 34 Tetratriacontane (n-C ) 35 Pentatriacontane (n-C ) 36 Hexatriacontane (n-C ) 37 Heptatriacontane (n-C ) 38 Octatriacontane (n-C ) 39 Nonatriacontane (n-C) 40 Tetracontane (n-C

897081117 3 1 116 114 114 118 NDTV 6 99.4 85.5 69.9 75.4 36.8 30.4 23.7 19.6 16.1 14.2 12.5 

998021031 3 2 79.5 77.3 80.8 76.6 78.7 76.1 79.2 69.5 68.5 55.5 43.2 41.2 38.2 34.1 33.9 37.1 

1098032330 3 3 119 116 116 113 113 112 122 111 116 107 110 108 106 100 98.2 82.5 

1198082515 4,5 4 45.0 40.5 37.2 33.0 30.2 28.2 26.3 25.1 24.6 22.4 21.2 19.7 19.0 17.9 17.8 17.8 

1 The concentrations were determined using external standard calculations. 2 Percent recovery is equal to: 100*(amount of analyte recovered) / (amount of analyte added to the sediment + background analyte amount in the sediment).

Since no background sample was run in Batches 2, 3, or 4, a value of 0 was used for the background analyte amount in the equation for these batches.

3 100 Pg of each individual hydrocarbon was spiked into sediments collected from Sandy Hook Bay.4 50 Pg of each individual hydrocarbon was spiked into sediments collected from Sandy Hook Bay.5 The surrogate internal standard recovery for this sample was 41.2%.6 NDTV - the analyte was not detected and no percentage recovery could be calculated.

Page 134
Table C8. Total petroleum hydrocarbon concentration (Pg/g wet wt.) found in the 

soil SRM, Environmental Resource Associates Standard 765 (#2 Diesel in Soil). Sample ID Batch Concentration TPH 1

897081118 1 1020

998021030 2 834

1098032331 3 534

1198082518 4 862

1198082519 4 896

1198082517 4 35 4

Mean 829

Standard Deviation 180

%RSD 2 21.7

Certified Value 1420

RPD 3 41.6

1

 Concentration of total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH) was calculated with respect to the Restek

Diesel Fuel Oil #2 Standard (Cat. No. 31233) using the sum of the areas of all the peaks minus the

internal standard peak areas from the chromatograms of the SRM extract and known amount of the oil

standard.

2

 Percent relative standard deviation.

3

 Relative percent difference = 100 * (certified value - lab mean) / certified value.

4

 Value is suspected outlier and is not included in any calculations

Page 135
Page 136

Table C9. Analysis of Individual Hydrocarbons (Pg/g, wet weight) in Soil SRM Replicate Samples 1-3.

Sample ID

) 11 Undecane (n-C ) 12 Dodecane (n-C ) 13 Tridecane (n-C

) 14 Tetradecane (n-C

) 15 Pentadecane (n-C ) 16 Hexadecane (n-C ) 17 Heptadecane (n-C

Pristane

) 18 Octadecane (n-C

Phytane

) 19 Nonadecane (n-C) 20 Eicosane (n-C ) 21 Heneicosane (n-C

Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons (TPH)

1198082518 5.34 9.69 12.27 17.53 15.98 14.23 14.38 7.84 10.80 6.60 7.36 5.33 3.29 8621198082519 4.91 8.95 10.22 15.53 14.13 12.93 13.43 7.35 10.12 6.18 7.35 4.94 3.01 896

Average 5.1 9.3 11.2 16.5 15.1 13.6 13.9 7.6 10.5 6.4 7.4 5.1 3.1 879

RPD4 8.4 8.0 18.2 12.1 12.3 9.5 6.9 6.5 6.5 6.7 0.2 7.6 8.9 3.9

MDL 2.09 2.03 1.97 1.98 1.73 1.53 1.48 1.35 1.37 1.29 1.30 1.34 1.44 181

1 The concentrations were determined using external standard calculations. 2 n-C9, n-C10, and n-C22 through n-C40 were not detected.3 The soil SRM is Enviromental Resource Associates Standard 765 (#2 Diesel in Soil).4 RPD Relative Percentage Difference = 100*(abs(Replicate1 - Replicate2))/Average.
Page 137

Table C10. Method Detection Limit (MDL) Analysis Using Ribbed-Mussel Replicates from Sandy Hook Bay. 1

Sample ID

Total Sample Wt (in g) )9 Nonane (n-C ) 10 Decane (n-C ) 11 Undecane (n-C ) 12 Dodecane (n-C ) 13 Tridecane (n-C ) 14 Tetradecane (n-C ) 15 Pentadecane (n-C ) 16 Hexadecane (n-C ) 17 Heptadecane (n-C

Pristane

) 18 Octadecane (n-C

Phytane

) 19 Nonadecane (n-C) 20 Eicosane (n-C ) 21 Heneicosane (n-C) 22 Docosane (n-C ) 23 Tricosane (n-C

Mussel MDL Determination Using Internal Standard Calculations (Pg/g, wet wt.)

297031717 0.23 0.09 0.15 0.18 0.23 0.36 0.43 0.45 0.47 0.43 0.44 0.45 0.49 0.48 0.70 0.93 0.56297031718 0.02 0.11 0.19 0.25 0.30 0.40 0.44 0.43 0.44 0.40 0.40 0.41 0.47 0.45 0.72 0.95 0.83297031719 0.02 0.11 0.20 0.23 0.27 0.33 0.43 0.44 0.48 0.38 0.39 0.39 0.45 0.52 0.88 1.35 1.41297031720 0.02 0.09 0.15 0.19 0.25 0.36 0.43 0.46 0.48 0.45 0.45 0.46 0.51 0.56 0.74 1.19 1.68297031721 0.02 0.15 0.27 0.28 0.33 0.43 0.52 0.50 0.52 0.46 0.46 0.47 0.54 0.59 0.86 1.42 2.07297031722 0.02 0.11 0.19 0.24 0.30 0.42 0.49 0.51 0.51 0.47 0.47 0.46 0.53 0.61 1.04 0.99 2.58297031723 0.02 0.11 0.20 0.26 0.31 0.41 0.46 0.46 0.48 0.41 0.41 0.41 0.47 0.45 0.75 1.37 0.53

Average 0.05 0.11 0.19 0.23 0.28 0.39 0.46 0.46 0.48 0.43 0.43 0.44 0.50 0.53 0.81 1.17 1.38

Std Dev (V) 0.08 0.02 0.04 0.04 0.03 0.04 0.04 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.07 0.12 0.22 0.79

%RSD or %CV 147 18.6 20.1 15.8 12.2 9.33 7.73 6.18 5.50 7.40 7.35 6.94 6.98 12.6 15.0 18.5 56.9 

MDL2 0.24 0.06 0.12 0.12 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.09 0.08 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.11 0.21 0.38 0.68 2.47

1 The tissue matrix for these samples was prepared by combining together 12 depurated ribbed mussels collected at Sandy Hook Bay into a homogenate. Individual portions of this homogenate were then

 used for the MDL analysis. Each sample was spiked with 4Pg of each individual hydrocarbon.

2 MDL=Vt; where V is the standard deviation and t is the Students t value. For 99% confidence level, 6 degrees of freedom (one-tailed), t = 3.143.

Individual Analyte Recoveries from Mussel MDL Replicates3

Analyte Amounts (Pg) Added

3.99 3.99 3.96 4.03 4.03 3.99 4.03 3.99 4.02 4.01 4.03 4.00 4.03 4.02 4.04 4.02 4.04

Non-Spiked Mussel Sample Analyte Concentrations (Pg/g)

297031724 7.99 0.02 0.02 0.04 0.03 0.01 0.04 0.02 0.04 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.04 0.29 0.35 0.10

Mussel MDL Replicate Analyte Percent Recoveries

297031717 7.97 43.7 17.6 28.9 33.3 44.4 67.4 81.7 83.6 85.6 85.4 87.0 89.8 93.1 89.0 88.0 108 92.4 297031718 7.99 4.51 20.8 36.5 46.9 57.8 73.5 83.7 79.1 81.0 78.4 79.1 82.7 88.0 83.4 90.8 111 137 297031719 7.99 4.51 20.4 38.3 43.4 51.9 61.9 80.7 80.9 87.6 76.2 77.2 78.6 84.9 96.2 111 158 233 297031720 7.99 4.51 17.8 27.6 35.1 48.8 66.3 81.0 85.2 88.4 88.4 89.4 92.0 96.2 104 94.1 139 277 297031721 7.97 4.51 29.4 49.8 52.1 63.5 79.9 97.5 91.7 95.1 90.6 91.6 92.9 103 109 108 166 341 297031722 7.99 4.51 21.3 36.0 43.9 58.0 78.0 93.5 93.3 94.0 92.5 92.8 92.4 99.8 113 132 115 425 297031723 7.98 4.51 21.3 36.8 47.9 59.1 75.3 87.9 84.8 87.3 81.3 81.5 81.3 89.2 83.7 94.9 160 87.2 

3 The mussel analyte recoveries in each MDL replicate was calculated using the formula: Percent Recovery is calculated as 100 * AMTMDL / (AMNTADD + AMNTBKGRD) where

 AMNTMDL is the analyte amount measured followng extraction and cleanup of each MDL replicate, which is calculated as  (Sample Wt of the MDL Replicate in g) * (Analyte Concentration in Pg/g in the MDL Replicate); AMNTADD is the amount of analyte added to the unspiked mussel MDL replicate in Pg; and 

 AMNTBKGRD is the measured analyte amount in the non-spiked sample following extraction and cleanup, which is calculated as  (Non-spiked Sample Wt in g) * (Analyte Concentration in Pg/g in the Non-spiked Sample).
Page 138Table C10. (Continued).

Sample ID

Total Sample Wt (in g) ) 24 Tetracosane (n-C ) 25 Pentacosane (n-C ) 26 Hexacosane (n-C ) 27 Heptacosane (n-C) 28 Octacosane (n-C ) 29 Nonacosane (n-C ) 30 Triacontane (n-C

) 31 n-Hentriacontane (n-C) 32 Dotriacontane (n-C ) 33 Tritriacontane (n-C ) 34 Tetratriacontane (n-C ) 35 Pentatriacontane (n-C ) 36 Hexatriacontane (n-C ) 37 Heptatriacontane (n-C) 38 Octatriacontane (n-C ) 39 Nonatriacontane (n-C) 40 Tetracontane (n-C

Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons2

Mussel MDL Determination Using Internal Standard Calculations (Pg/g, wet wt.)

297031717 0.46 0.49 0.47 0.45 0.48 0.47 0.46 0.47 0.48 0.45 0.46 0.43 0.42 0.37 0.33 0.29 0.26 32.5297031718 0.43 0.52 0.43 0.42 0.43 0.43 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.41 0.42 0.39 0.37 0.50 0.29 0.27 0.23 35.6297031719 0.47 0.73 0.42 0.44 0.43 0.44 0.47 0.52 0.56 0.50 0.42 0.37 0.34 0.42 0.33 0.26 0.22 47.2297031720 0.49 0.49 0.47 0.46 0.49 0.50 0.49 0.48 0.50 0.46 0.45 0.44 0.39 0.50 0.29 0.25 0.24 33.9297031721 0.51 0.59 0.48 0.49 0.50 0.52 0.53 0.56 0.55 0.48 0.47 0.43 0.41 0.38 0.32 0.28 0.25 42.7297031722 0.69 0.62 0.52 0.44 0.62 0.92 0.88 0.49 0.52 0.48 0.47 0.44 0.41 0.49 0.31 0.28 0.25 81.2297031723 0.43 0.54 0.43 0.43 0.44 0.44 0.48 0.50 0.45 0.41 0.40 0.37 0.35 0.44 0.26 0.24 0.22 37.2

Average 0.50 0.57 0.46 0.45 0.48 0.53 0.54 0.50 0.50 0.45 0.44 0.41 0.38 0.44 0.30 0.27 0.24 44.3

Std Dev (V) 0.09 0.09 0.04 0.02 0.06 0.18 0.15 0.04 0.04 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.06 0.03 0.02 0.02 17.1

%RSD or %CV 18.3 15.1 7.94 5.51 13.4 33.4 28.4 7.29 8.62 7.41 6.34 7.98 7.98 12.8 8.67 6.73 7.45 38.5

MDL1 0.29 0.27 0.11 0.08 0.20 0.56 0.48 0.11 0.14 0.11 0.09 0.10 0.10 0.18 0.08 0.06 0.06 53.6

1 MDL=Vt; where V is the standard deviation and t is the Students t value. For 99% confidence level, 6 degrees of freedom (one-tailed), t = 3.143.2 Determined from the total peak areas in the chromatogram from n-C8 to n-C40 minus any contributions from the internal standard areas.

Individual Analyte Recoveries from Mussel MDL Replicates3

Analyte Amounts (Pg) Added

4.03 4.03 4.01 3.99 4.02 4.02 3.99 3.91 3.99 3.99 4.03 4.03 4.04 4.03 4.03 4.04 4.04

Non-Spiked Mussel Sample Analyte Concentrations (Pg/g)

297031724 7.99 0.01 0.07 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.03 0.04 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.06 0.07 0.09 0.10

Mussel MDL Replicate Analyte Percent Recoveries

297031717 7.97 88.9 85.1 91.6 89.5 93.4 93.2 86.9 88.4 94.9 85.9 88.1 81.0 76.4 64.9 57.1 49.0 42.9 297031718 7.99 82.8 91.2 84.9 83.7 84.0 84.6 84.5 84.8 90.0 78.4 80.0 73.5 67.9 88.4 51.7 45.0 37.4 297031719 7.99 90.0 127 82.3 87.6 84.0 86.3 89.6 97.7 111 94.9 80.7 68.6 62.7 74.3 58.3 44.0 35.8 297031720 7.99 94.4 86.5 93.6 92.8 96.8 99.0 92.2 89.9 100 88.5 85.8 82.9 70.7 89.1 50.0 42.9 39.3 297031721 7.97 98.2 102 94.7 98.7 96.9 102 99.6 105 110 90.9 90.5 81.0 73.8 66.9 55.2 47.3 40.6 297031722 7.99 134 109 102 88.7 120 183 165 92.3 104 91.0 89.1 81.8 75.1 86.2 53.6 47.1 42.1 297031723 7.98 83.1 94.1 83.9 86.4 86.4 86.2 89.6 93.3 90.7 78.1 76.5 69.8 63.2 77.6 44.9 40.1 35.9 

3 The mussel analyte recoveries in each MDL replicate was calculated using the formula: Percent Recovery is calculated as 100 * AMTMDL / (AMNTADD + AMNTBKGRD) where

 AMNTMDL is the analyte amount measured followng extraction and cleanup of each MDL replicate, which is calculated as  (Sample Wt of the MDL Replicate in g) * (Analyte Concentration in Pg/g in the MDL Replicate); AMNTADD is the amount of analyte added to the unspiked mussel MDL replicate in Pg; and 

 AMNTBKGRD is the measured analyte amount in the non-spiked sample following extraction and cleanup, which is calculated as  (Non-spiked Sample Wt in g) * (Analyte Concentration in Pg/g in the Non-spiked Sample).
Table C11. Percentage recoveries of the surrogate internal standard, o-terphenyl from the mussel 

quality control samples.1

Sample ID Location Batch No

Percentage

Recovery

Samples for Method Detection Limit (MDL) Analysis2

297031717 Sandy Hook Bay 2 111 

297031718 Sandy Hook Bay 2 107 

297031719 Sandy Hook Bay 2 115 

297031720 Sandy Hook Bay 2 115 

297031721 Sandy Hook Bay 2 117 

297031722 Sandy Hook Bay 2 116 

297031723 Sandy Hook Bay 2 116 

Samples Spiked with Analytes3

197020431 3A - 1 112 

297031709 3B Sandy Hook Bay 2 148 

497051416 3C Sandy Hook Bay 3 37.7 

Sample Used to Measure Analyte Background in MDL and

Matrix Spike Samples in Batch4

297031724 Sandy Hook Bay 2 22.9 

Standard Reference Material (SRM) Samples5

197020430 - 1 108 

297031707 - 2 112 

Sample for Replicate Analysis6

197020427 Mill Creek 1 118 

197020428 Mill Creek 1 123 

197020429 Mill Creek 1 136 

Method Blank Samples 

197020432 - 1 52.0 

297031708 - 2 87.1 

497051408 - 3 99.8 

1

 The values of the recoveries for the surrogate internal standards were determined using internal

standard calculations.

2

 These samples were prepared from a depurated ribbed mussel homogenate prepared from 12 ribbed 

mussels collected from Sandy Hook. Each sample was spiked with 40 Pg of each individual hydrocarbon. 3

 The tissue matrix and the spiking amount for these samples are:

3A: NIST SRM1974a (Organics in Mussel Tissue) spiked with 25 Pg of each hydrocarbon.

3B: The same mussel homogenate from Sandy Hook Bay used for the MDL analysis 

 spiked with 1000 Pg Restek No 2 Diesel fuel oil.

3C: The same mussel homogenate from Sandy Hook Bay used for the MDL analysis 

 spiked with 25 Pg of each individual hydrocarbon. 4

 The depurated mussel homogenate from Sandy Hook Bay used for the MDL analysis was used 

to measure the analyte background for the MDL and matrix spike analysis.

5

 The Standard Reference Material (SRM) used was NIST SRM1974a (Organics in Mussel Tissue).

6

 The tissue matrix for these replicate samples came from a large ribbed mussel found at Mill Creek Marsh 

during the September 1996 collection. Since the length of this mussel was longer (100.5 mm) and heavier

(35.2 g) than any mussel collected, it provided enough material for the replicate analysis. However, the

analysis results will only be used for quality control purposes, since the length for this mussel exceeds the 

length criteria of 54 to 75 mm used for choosing mussels for this study.

Page 139
Table C12. Percentage recoveries of the surrogate internal standard, o-terphenyl from Arthur Kill 

mussel samples.1

Sample ID Batch No

Percent

Recovery Sample ID Batch No

Percent

Recovery

1) Old Place Marsh 4) Saw Mill South Marsh

September 1996 Collection September 1996 Collection

197020410 1 110 197020426 1 121 

197020411 1 122 297031703 2 144 

197020412 1 122 297031704 2 124 

197020413 1 115 297031705 2 117 

197020414 1 122 297031706 2 126 

May 1997 Collection May 1997 Collection

497051411 3 94.3 497051401 3 92.3 

497051412 3 83.7 497051402 3 117 

497051413 3 84.0 497051403 3 104 

497051414 3 97.9 497051404 3 82.9 

497051415 3 105 497051432 3 105 

2) Con Edison Tower Marsh 5) Tufts Point Marsh

September 1996 Collection September 1996 Collection

197020421 1 124 197020403 1 119 

197020422 1 136 197020404 1 122 

197020423 1 88.2 197020405 1 123 

197020425 1 102 197020406 1 126 

297031701 2 124 197020408 1 125 

May 1997 Collection May 1997 Collection

497051422 3 98.6 497051427 3 95.0 

497051423 3 96.1 497051428 3 91.8 

497051424 3 93.4 497051429 3 100 

497051425 3 532 497051430 3 113 

497051426 3 95.4 497051431 3 94.5 

3) Saw Mill North Marsh 6) Mill Creek Marsh

September 1996 Collection September 1996 Collection

197020401 1 134 197020407 1 108 

197020402 1 123 197020417 1 129 

197020409 1 130 197020418 1 116 

197020415 1 114 197020419 1 115 

297031702 2 120 197020420 1 114 

May 1997 Collection May 1997 Collection

497051405 3 203 497051417 3 90.0 

497051406 3 98.2 497051418 3 91.9 

497051407 3 97.7 497051419 3 103 

497051409 3 92.9 497051420 3 90.6 

497051410 3 111 497051421 3 101 

1

 The values of the recoveries for the surrogate internal standards were determined using internal standard calculations.

Page 140
Table C13. Percentage recoveries of the surrogate internal standard, o-terphenyl from 

mussels from Sandy Hook Bay.1,2

Sample ID Batch No

Percent

Recovery

297031710 2 135 

297031711 2 142 

297031712 2 130 

297031713 2 136 

297031714 2 128 

297031715 2 131 

297031716 2 134 

1

 The values of the recoveries for the surrogate internal standards were determined using 

internal standard calculations.

2

 Each of these mussel samples is an individual, non-depurated, ribbed mussel taken

from Sandy Hook Bay on February 20, 1997.

Page 141
Table C14. Percent Recovery of Individual Hydrocarbons and Diesel Fuel from Spiked Ribbed Mussel Samples.

Sample ID

Batch No

Tissue Matrix

)9 Nonane (n-C

) 10 Decane (n-C

) 11 Undecane (n-C

) 12 Dodecane (n-C

) 13 Tridecane (n-C

) 14 Tetradecane (n-C

) 15 Pentadecane (n-C

) 16 Hexadecane (n-C

) 17 Heptadecane (n-C

Pristane

) 18 Octadecane (n-C

Phytane

) 19 Nonadecane (n-C

) 20 Eicosane (n-C

) 21 Heneicosane (n-C

) 22 Docosane (n-C

) 23 Tricosane (n-C

) 24 Tetracosane (n-C

) 25 Pentacosane (n-C

1970204311 1 NIST SRM1974a 10.3 41.3 54.9 68.7 78.0 83.6 86.4 87.4 84.9 86.8 88.0 87.0 93.6 89.7 80.1 88.2 90.8 91.4 92.4

297031709 2-4 2 Depurated Mussel 

Homogenate

 185 23.6 52.1 57.9 62.0 81.2 82.0 94.1 87.9 81.2 81.9 74.2 93.4 100 569 650 1740 318 0.00

497051416 5 3 Depurated Mussel 

Homogenate

 7.70 4.16 8.00 13.9 26.9 47.2 62.5 74.9 79.9 79.2 83.6 82.1 82.1 86.9 131 100 90.9 88.2 88.4 

1 25Pg of each individual hydrocarbon was spiked into a tissue matrix made from NIST SRM1974a (Organics in Mussel).2 1000Pg of Restek Diesel Fuel Oil #2 Standard (Cat. No 31233) was spiked into a mussel tissue homogenate prepared from ribbed mussels collected from Sandy Hook Bay.3 The fuel oil will elevate the levels of the individual hydrocarbons n-C8 through n-C26, pristane, and phytane only. The recoveries of only these hydrocarbons are significantly important. 4 The concentrations of the individual hydrocarbons were not determined. The recoveries of individual hydrocarbons were calculated by comparing the peak areas for the

 hydrocarbons in the spiked extract to those in the Restek oil standard. 5 25Pg of each individual hydrocarbon was spiked into a mussel tissue homogenate prepared from ribbed mussels collected from Sandy Hook Bay.

Page 142
Table C14. (Continued).

Sample ID

Batch No

Tissue Matrix

) 26 Hexacosane (n-C

) 27 Heptacosane (n-C ) 28 Octacosane (n-C ) 29 Nonacosane (n-C ) 30 Triacontane (n-C

) 31 n-Hentriacontane (n-C) 32 Dotriacontane (n-C ) 33 Tritriacontane (n-C ) 34 Tetratriacontane (n-C ) 35 Pentatriacontane (n-C ) 36 Hexatriacontane (n-C ) 37 Heptatriacontane (n-C ) 38 Octatriacontane (n-C ) 39 Nonatriacontane (n-C) 40 Tetracontane (n-C

Total Restek Oil

1970204311 1 NIST SRM1974a 92.5 90.5 91.2 91.5 89.4 85.4 79.9 69.7 60.5 46.0 37.5 34.0 29.0 26.2 23.0 -

297031709 2-6 2 Depurated Mussel 

Homogenate

 217 1880 1310 - - - - - - - - - - - - 76.8

497051416 7 3 Depurated Mussel 

Homogenate

87.5 87.2 85.8 85.0 85.3 85.3 84.9 83.7 81.9 79.1 74.3 66.4 56.2 45.0 34.6 -

1 25Pg of each individual hydrocarbon was spiked into a tissue matrix made from NIST SRM1974a (Organics in Mussel).2 1000Pg of Restek Diesel Fuel Oil #2 Standard (Cat. No 31233) was spiked into a mussel tissue homogenate prepared from ribbed mussels collected from Sandy Hook Bay.3 The fuel oil will elevate the levels of the individual hydrocarbons n-C 8 through n-C26, pristane, and phytane only. The recoveries of only these hydrocarbons are significantly important.4 The higher recoveries of n-C27 and n-C28 resulted from the contribution of matrix peaks at the retention times of these compounds.5 The concentrations of the individual hydrocarbons were not determined. The recoveries of individual hydrocarbons were calculated by comparing the peak areas for the

 individual hydrocarbons in the spiked extract to those in the Restek oil standard.

6 The recovery of the Restek oil standard from the spiked mussel sample is calculated by the summing of the peak areas for n-C 12 through n-C17 plus pristane

 for the spiked sample and the Rrestek oil standard and comparing them.

7 25Pg of each individual hydrocarbon was spiked into a mussel tissue homogenate prepared from ribbed mussels collected from Sandy Hook Bay.

Page 143
Table C15. Individual hydrocarbon concentrations (ng/g wet wt.) found in NIST 

SRM1974a (Organics in Mussel Tissue).1 Sample ID Heptadecane (n-C17) Nonadecane (n-C19) Docosane (n-C22)

Tetracosane (n-C24)

Hexacosane (n-C26)

Octacosane (n-C28)

Dotriacontane (n-C32)

Tritriacontane (n-C33)

Tetratriacontane (n-C34)

197020430 152 194 nd 471 130 997 407 456 596 

297031707 239 nd 737 nd nd nd nd nd nd 

Certified Value 2 31.8 4.6 5.3 6.5 5.6 7.3 6.4 3.3

MDL 3 83.7 108.7 681.2 286.3 114.5 203.8 135.7 105.7 88.1

1

 Only the individual hydrocarbons that have values above the MDL and have available certified or uncertified values

are listed. Concentration values below the MDL are designated with nd. Since all the MDL are much greater than the

certified values, all these numerical values are considered as false positives.

2 Uncertified values are used. 3 The units for the MDL are ng/g.

Page 144
Table C16. Analysis of ribbed mussel replicate samples (Pg/g, wet wt.) from Mill Creek marsh. 1,2

Sample ID

)

9 Nonane (n-C

) 16 Hexadecane (n-C

) 17 Heptadecane (n-C ) 19 Nonadecane (n-C ) 21 Heneicosane (n-C) 22 Docosane (n-C

) 31 n-Hentriacontane (n-C) 32 Dotriacontane (n-C ) 33 Tritriacontane (n-C ) 34 Tetratriacontane (n-C ) 35 Pentatriacontane (n-C ) 36 Hexatriacontane (n-C ) 37 Heptatriacontane (n-C ) 38 Octatriacontane (n-C ) 39 Nonatriacontane (n-C) 40 Tetracontane (n-C

Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons 

4

197020427 0.46 nd 0.16 0.20 0.88 nd 0.15 0.25 0.27 0.30 0.34 0.33 0.33 0.26 0.20 0.12 58.8 197020428 0.40 nd 0.16 nd 0.97 1.02 nd 0.20 0.22 0.27 0.32 0.32 0.32 0.26 0.19 0.12 64.5 197020429 0.96 0.15 0.17 nd 1.22 0.71 0.40 1.43 0.82 0.32 0.32 0.32 0.30 0.25 0.19 0.12 128 

Mean 0.61 < MDL 0.16 < MDL 1.02 0.69 0.20 0.63 0.44 0.30 0.33 0.32 0.31 0.25 0.19 0.12 83.7

Std Deviation 0.31 - 0.01 - 0.18 0.34 0.18 0.70 0.33 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.004 0.01 0.002 38.3

%RSD 3 50.5 - 5.8 - 17.4 49.2 88.4 110.9 75.9 7.4 3.3 2.7 4.9 1.6 3.8 1.9 45.8

MDL 0.24 0.09 0.08 0.11 0.38 0.68 0.11 0.14 0.11 0.09 0.10 0.10 0.18 0.08 0.06 0.06 53.6

1 This ribbed mussel from Mill Creek marsh was the longest (100.5 mm) and heaviest (35.2 g) collected in the Arthur Kill and provided enough tissue for triplicate analysis.2 The hydrocarbons n-C10 through n-C15, n-C18, n-C20, and n-C23 through n-C30 plus pristane and phytane were not detected in any mussel replicate samples and were not included in this table.3 %RSD - Percent relative standard deviation.4 Determined from the total peak areas in the chromatogram from n-C8 to n-C40 minus any contributions from the internal standard areas.

Page 145
Table C17. Hydrocarbon concentrations (Pg/ml) from different oil standards.1-4

)

9 Nonane (n-C

) 10 Decane (n-C

) 11 Undecane (n-C ) 12 Dodecane (n-C ) 13 Tridecane (n-C

) 14 Tetradecane (n-C

) 15 Pentadecane (n-C ) 16 Hexadecane (n-C ) 17 Heptadecane (n-C

Pristane

) 18 Octadecane (n-C

Phytane

) 19 Nonadecane (n-C) 20 Eicosane (n-C ) 21 Heneicosane (n-C) 22 Docosane (n-C ) 23 Tricosane (n-C

Restek Diesel Fuel Oil #2 Standard (Unweathered, Cat 31233) Dissolved in Methylene Chloride

 8.04 17.0 44.3 51.4 56.2 44.7 56.0 45.1 33.4 31.8 25.2 13.5 17.4 11.0 6.75 3.31 1.86 6.43 15.6 45.1 50.6 63.9 51.3 56.9 41.2 34.5 32.6 24.1 11.5 17.7 11.5 6.40 3.28 1.93 4.78 11.2 31.8 35.5 44.3 38.6 38.8 28.9 24.3 23.1 17.1 8.29 12.6 8.22 4.62 2.38 1.41 4.22 12.4 32.9 37.6 45.9 50.0 44.2 34.5 29.0 28.0 19.6 11.9 13.4 9.19 5.58 2.68 1.34 4.60 14.2 36.0 40.9 50.3 52.4 49.2 38.0 31.9 30.7 22.7 13.2 14.7 10.0 6.00 2.81 1.39

Average 5.61 14.1 38.0 43.2 52.1 47.4 49.0 37.6 30.6 29.2 21.8 11.7 15.2 10.00 5.87 2.89 1.59

Std. Dev. 1.60 2.31 6.31 7.39 8.03 5.74 7.74 6.22 4.11 3.84 3.34 2.08 2.30 1.34 0.82 0.40 0.28

Fuel Oil #2 from May 15, 1997 Oil Spill at the Arthur Kill Dissolved in Methylene Chloride

 12.9 17.8 41.2 45.5 66.5 97.3 136 97.7 102 61.7 81.8 34.5 83.7 53.9 37.9 23.5 14.5  12.1 21.7 38.8 46.6 69.5 126 112 85.9 89.0 64.4 68.1 44.6 58.4 48.2 38.0 25.9 16.5  12.1 21.7 38.8 46.5 71.0 124 112 79.6 88.8 64.0 67.4 44.5 58.1 48.3 38.2 26.4 17.1 

Average 12.3 20.4 39.6 46.2 69.0 116 120 87.7 93.2 63.3 72.5 41.2 66.7 50.1 38.0 25.3 16.1 

Std. Dev. 0.46 2.27 1.41 0.61 2.30 16.1 13.8 9.21 7.41 1.46 8.13 5.77 14.7 3.26 0.17 1.56 1.35

Home Heating Oil from January 19, 1996 North Cape Oil Spill at Rhode Island Dissolved in Methylene Chloride

 7.32 18.8 49.5 45.5 70.7 58.7 69.1 64.7 69.6 34.3 51.7 21.3 43.8 31.3 20.2 0.74 6.39

1 The concentrations of the individual aliphatic hydrocarbons and the total petroleum hydrocarbons were determined using external standard calculations.2 When an individual aliphatic hydrocarbon was not detected, its concentration was replaced by nd.3 MDL values were not determined for these standards. A value of 0 was used for each nondetected analyte in the summation formulae. When the value 

of the average and standard deviation for an individual hydrocarbon equals zero, these values are replaced by nd.

4 The concentrations for n-C8 will be not reported, since it was difficult to identify this peak in samples and to determine MDL for n-C8. A value of 0 was used

for n-C8 in summation formulae.

Page 146
Table C17. Continued.1-4

) 24 Tetracosane (n-C

) 25 Pentacosane (n-C ) 26 Hexacosane (n-C ) 27 Heptacosane (n-C ) 28 Octacosane (n-C ) 29 Nonacosane (n-C ) 30 Triacontane (n-C

) 31 n-Hentriacontane (n-C) 32 Dotriacontane (n-C ) 33 Tritriacontane (n-C ) 34 Tetratriacontane (n-C ) 35 Pentatriacontane (n-C ) 36 Hexatriacontane (n-C ) 37 Heptatriacontane (n-C ) 38 Octatriacontane (n-C ) 39 Nonatriacontane (n-C) 40 Tetracontane (n-C

Restek Diesel Fuel Oil #2 Standard (Unweathered, Cat 31233) Dissolved in Methylene Chloride

0.88 0.54 0.30 0.24 nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd1.03 0.69 0.44 nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd0.78 0.51 0.45 nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd0.38 0.10 nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd 0.56 0.30 0.570.38 0.03 nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd 0.18 0.29 nd

Average 0.69 0.37 0.24 0.05 nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd 0.15 0.12 0.11

Std. Dev. 0.30 0.29 0.22 0.11 nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd 0.24 0.16 0.25

Fuel Oil #2 from May 15, 1997 Oil Spill at the Arthur Kill Dissolved in Methylene Chloride

7.08 3.23 1.44 0.56 nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd7.62 3.24 0.74 nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd 0.29 nd8.11 3.65 1.01 0.13 nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd 0.29 nd

Average 7.60 3.37 1.06 0.23 nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd 0.19 nd

Std. Dev. 0.52 0.24 0.35 0.29 nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd 0.17 nd

Home Heating Oil from January 19, 1996 North Cape Oil Spill at Rhode Island Dissolved in Methylene Chloride

3.27 1.68 1.04 nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd

1 The concentrations of the individual aliphatic hydrocarbons and the total petroleum hydrocarbons were determined using external standard calculations.2 When an individual aliphatic hydrocarbon was not detected, its concentration was replaced by nd.3 MDL values were not determined for these standards. A value of 0 was used for each nondetected analyte in the summation formulae. When the value 

of the average and standard deviation for an individual hydrocarbon equals zero, these values are replaced by nd.

4 The concentrations for n-C8 will be not reported, since it was difficult to identify this peak in samples and to determine MDL for n-C8. A value of 0 was used

for n-C8 in summation formulae.

Page 147
Table C17. Continued.1-4

Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons 5

Total Concentrations of Individual 

Hydrocarbons

6

Total: Pristane + Phytane 

/Pristane 17 n-C

/Phytane 18 n-C

Pristane/Phytane

Total: Odd No Carbons 

7

Total: Even No Carbons 

8

Carbon Preference Index (CPI)9

14 -C 12 -C 10 Sum: C 10

28 -C 26 -C 24 -C 22 Sum: C 11

Weathering Index (WI) 12

Restek Diesel Fuel Oil #2 Standard (Unweathered, Cat 31233) Dissolved in Methylene Chloride

 1370 476 45.3 1.05 1.87 2.36 225 206 1.09 120 4.49 26.8  1270 478 44.1 1.06 2.10 2.83 233 201 1.16 119 4.74 25.2 

 903 339 31.4 1.05 2.07 2.79 163 145 1.13 86.6 3.61 24.0 

 1100 387 39.9 1.04 1.65 2.36 177 170 1.04 102 2.91 35.2  1200 422 43.9 1.04 1.72 2.32 194 184 1.06 110 3.18 34.5 

Average 1170 421 40.9 1.05 1.88 2.53 199 181 1.10 108 3.79 29.1 

Std. Dev. 179 59.7 5.70 0.01 0.20 0.26 30.2 25.0 0.05 13.9 0.80 5.32

Fuel Oil #2 from May 15, 1997 Oil Spill at the Arthur Kill Dissolved in Methylene Chloride

 2990 1020 96.2 1.65 2.37 1.79 498 426 1.17 161 32.0 5.02 2830 982 109 1.38 1.53 1.44 438 436 1.01 199 34.2 5.82 2830 977 109 1.39 1.51 1.44 440 429 1.03 198 35.5 5.57

Average 2880 993 105 1.47 1.80 1.56 459 430 1.07 186 33.9 5.47

Std. Dev. 89.8 23.6 7.22 0.15 0.49 0.20 34.2 4.91 0.09 21.9 1.79 0.41

Home Heating Oil from January 19, 1996 North Cape Oil Spill at Rhode Island Dissolved in Methylene Chloride

 2160 672 55.6 2.03 2.43 1.61 338 278 1.22 125 5.05 24.7 

1 The concentrations of the individual aliphatic hydrocarbons and the total petroleum hydrocarbons were determined using external standard calculations.2 When an individual aliphatic hydrocarbon was not detected, its concentration was replaced by nd.3 MDL values were not determined for these standards. A value of 0 was used for each nondetected analyte in the summation formulae. When the value 

of the average and standard deviation for an individual hydrocarbon equals zero, these values are replaced by nd.

4 The concentrations for n-C8 will be not reported, since it was difficult to identify this peak in samples and to determine MDL for n-C8. A value of 0 was used

for n-C8 in summation formulae.

5 Determined from the total peak areas in the chromatogram from n-C8 to n-C40 minus any contributions from the internal standard areas.6 Sum of the concentrations of the individual aliphatic hydrocarbons n-C9 through n-C40 plus the concentrations of pristane and phytane.7 The total of the concentrations of the aliphatic hydrocarbons with an odd number of carbon atoms.8 The total of the concentrations of the aliphatic hydrocarbons with an even number of carbon atoms.9 Carbon Preference Index (CPI) defined as the ratio of the total of the concentrations of the aliphatic hydrocarbons with an odd number of carbons to the total

concentration of the alphatic hydrocarbons with an even carbon number.

10 The total of the concentrations of n-C10, n-C12, and n-C14.

11 The total of the concentrations of n-C22, n-C24, n-C26, and n-C28.

12 Weathering Index (WI) defined as the ratio of the total concentration of n-C10, n-C12, and n-C14 to the total concentration of n-C22, n-C24, n-C26, and n-C28.

Page 148
Page 149

APPENDIX D

INDIVIDUAL AND TOTAL PETROLEUM HYDROCARBON CONCENTRATIONS

Table D1. Individual hydrocarbon and total petroleum hydrocarbon concentrations for sediment taken from Old Place

marsh, a replanted site

Table D2. Individual hydrocarbon and total petroleum hydrocarbon concentrations for sediment taken from Con Edison

Tower marsh, an unplanted site

Table D3. Individual hydrocarbon and total petroleum hydrocarbon concentrations for sediment cores taken from Mill

Creek marsh, a reference site

Table D4. Individual hydrocarbon concentrations for sediment surface skims taken from Sandy Hook Bay marsh, a

reference site

Table D5. Individual hydrocarbon and total petroleum hydrocarbon concentrations for ribbed mussels taken from Old

Place marsh, a replanted site

Table D6. Individual hydrocarbon and total petroleum hydrocarbon concentrations for ribbed mussels taken from Con

Edison Tower marsh, an unplanted site

Table D7. Individual hydrocarbon and total petroleum hydrocarbon concentrations for ribbed mussels taken from Saw

Mill North marsh, a replanted site

Table D8. Individual hydrocarbon and total petroleum hydrocarbon concentrations for ribbed mussels taken from Saw

Mill South marsh, an unplanted site

Table D9. Individual hydrocarbon and total petroleum hydrocarbon concentrations for ribbed mussels taken from Tufts

Point marsh, a reference site

Table D10. Individual hydrocarbon and total petroleum hydrocarbon concentrations for ribbed mussels taken from Mill

Creek marsh, a reference site

Table D11. Individual hydrocarbon and total petroleum hydrocarbon concentrations for ribbed mussels taken from

Sandy Hook marsh, a reference site
Table D1. Individual hydrocarbon and total petroleum hydrocarbon concentrations (in 

Pg/g wet wt.) for sediment taken from Old Place 

marsh, a replanted site.1-3

Sample ID

Core Section No4

)9 Nonane (n-C

) 10 Decane (n-C

) 11 Undecane (n-C

) 12 Dodecane (n-C

) 13 Tridecane (n-C

) 14 Tetradecane (n-C

) 15 Pentadecane (n-C

) 16 Hexadecane (n-C

) 17 Heptadecane (n-C

Pristane

) 18 Octadecane (n-C

Phytane

) 19 Nonadecane (n-C

) 20 Eicosane (n-C

) 21 Heneicosane (n-C

) 22 Docosane (n-C

) 23 Tricosane (n-C

Station A

First Collection Period: Sediment Cores

998021001 1 nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd 998021002 2 nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd 998021003 3 nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd 998021004 4 nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd 998021005 5 2.58 nd nd nd nd nd nd nd 1.80 1.60 2.21 1.66 nd 1.91 2.08 nd nd 

Whole Core: Average5,6 < MDL nd nd nd nd nd nd nd < MDL < MDL < MDL < MDL nd < MDL < MDL nd nd 

Whole Core: Std. Dev. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

Second Collection Period: Sediment Surface Skims

897081101 nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd

Station B

First Collection Period: Sediment Cores

998021006 1 nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd 998021007 2 nd nd nd nd nd 3.00 2.73 2.84 5.07 4.86 2.98 4.94 1.64 9.37 1.98 nd nd 998021008 3 nd nd 2.19 2.60 3.04 2.18 1.97 3.72 10.8 7.35 2.67 4.29 nd 1.60 1.88 nd nd 998021009 4 nd nd nd nd nd 2.26 3.09 2.86 10.2 7.26 2.61 4.19 1.46 11.2 nd nd nd 998021010 5 nd nd nd 2.19 nd 3.39 3.48 6.07 9.88 6.95 3.35 4.49 2.16 nd 2.29 nd nd 

Whole Core: Average5,6 nd nd < MDL < MDL < MDL 2.36 2.43 3.25 7.35 5.42 2.46 3.71 1.31 4.70 1.52 nd nd 

Whole Core: Std. Dev. - - - - - 0.92 1.03 1.92 4.35 2.84 1.04 1.74 0.66 5.15 0.74 - - 

Second Collection Period: Sediment Surface Skims

897081102 nd nd nd nd nd nd nd 3.03 7.39 10.6 2.34 nd nd 1.76 nd nd nd 

MDL 2.57 1.99 2.09 2.03 1.97 1.98 1.73 1.53 1.48 1.35 1.37 1.29 1.30 1.34 1.44 2.52 1.84

Page 150
Table D1. Continued.1,2

Sample ID

Core Section No

4

) 24 Tetracosane (n-C

) 25 Pentacosane (n-C ) 26 Hexacosane (n-C ) 27 Heptacosane (n-C ) 28 Octacosane (n-C ) 29 Nonacosane (n-C ) 30 Triacontane (n-C

) 31 n-Hentriacontane (n-C) 32 Dotriacontane (n-C ) 33 Tritriacontane (n-C ) 34 Tetratriacontane (n-C ) 35 Pentatriacontane (n-C ) 36 Hexatriacontane (n-C ) 37 Heptatriacontane (n-C ) 38 Octatriacontane (n-C ) 39 Nonatriacontane (n-C) 40 Tetracontane (n-C

Station A

First Collection Period: Sediment Cores

998021001 1 nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd 998021002 2 nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd 998021003 3 nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd 998021004 4 nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd 998021005 5 nd nd nd nd nd nd nd 5.64 2.48 nd nd nd 1.23 1.09 1.35 1.34 1.13

Whole Core: Average5,6 nd nd nd nd nd nd nd < MDL < MDL nd nd nd < MDL < MDL < MDL < MDL < MDL

Whole Core: Std. Dev. -----------------

Second Collection Period: Sediment Surface Skims

897081101 nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd

Station B

First Collection Period: Sediment Cores

998021006 1 nd nd nd nd nd nd nd 4.90 3.27 11.2 nd nd 0.84 nd nd nd nd 998021007 2 nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd 998021008 3 nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd 998021009 4 nd nd nd nd nd nd nd 3.87 1.69 nd nd 2.29 nd nd nd nd nd 998021010 5 nd nd nd nd nd nd nd 2.40 2.02 nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd 

Whole Core: Average5,6 nd nd nd nd nd nd nd 2.64 1.72 < MDL nd < MDL < MDL nd nd nd nd 

Whole Core: Std. Dev. - - - - - - - 1.73 1.02 - - - - - - - - 

Second Collection Period: Sediment Surface Skims

897081102 nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd

MDL 1.47 1.69 1.39 1.96 1.51 3.13 1.05 2.03 1.60 8.25 0.71 1.25 0.73 0.68 0.61 0.53 0.56

Page 151
Table D1. Continued.1,2

Sample ID

Core Section No

4

Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons

7

Total Concentrations of Individual 

Hydrocarbons8,9,17

Total: Pristane + Phytane8,17

17 Pristane/n-C 18

18 Phytane/n-C 18

Pristane/Phytane18

Total: Odd No Carbons8,10,17

Total: Even No Carbons8,11,17

Carbon Preference Index (CPI)12,18

14 -C 12 -C 10 Sum: C 8,13,17

28 -C 26 -C 24 -C 22 Sum: C 8,14,17

Weathering Index (WI)15,18

Station A

First Collection Period: Sediment Cores

998021001 1 nd nd nd - - - nd nd - nd nd -998021002 2 nd nd nd - - - nd nd - nd nd -998021003 3 nd nd nd - - - nd nd - nd nd -998021004 4 nd nd nd - - - nd nd - nd nd -998021005 5 383 nd 3.26 0.89 0.75 0.96 nd nd - nd nd -

Whole Core: Average5,6 < MDL nd < MDL - - - nd nd - nd nd -

Whole Core: Std. Dev. - - ---- --- ---

Second Collection Period: Sediment Surface Skims

897081101 nd nd nd - - - nd nd - nd nd -

Station B

First Collection Period: Sediment Cores

998021006 1 nd nd nd - - - nd nd - nd nd -998021007 2 728 61.5 9.79 0.96 1.66 0.98 nd 26.3 - nd nd -998021008 3 826 64.0 11.6 0.68 1.61 1.71 nd nd - nd nd -998021009 4 834 73.3 11.5 0.71 1.60 1.73 34.0 27.9 1.22 nd nd -998021010 5 1010 68.6 11.4 0.70 1.34 1.55 nd 24.0 - 6.57 nd -

Whole Core: Average5,6 697 59.4 9.13 0.74 19 1.51 19 1.46 19 < MDL < MDL - < MDL nd -

Whole Core: Std. Dev. 354 17.3 4.43 - - - - - - - - -

Second Collection Period: Sediment Surface Skims

897081102 494 nd 11.2 1.43 - - nd nd - nd nd -

MDL 181 59.0 16 2.63 16 33.9 16 22.4 16 5.99 16 6.89 16

Page 152
Table D1. Continued.1-3

Sample ID

Core Section No

4

)

9 Nonane (n-C

) 10 Decane (n-C

) 11 Undecane (n-C ) 12 Dodecane (n-C ) 13 Tridecane (n-C

) 14 Tetradecane (n-C

) 15 Pentadecane (n-C ) 16 Hexadecane (n-C ) 17 Heptadecane (n-C

Pristane

) 18 Octadecane (n-C

Phytane

) 19 Nonadecane (n-C) 20 Eicosane (n-C ) 21 Heneicosane (n-C) 22 Docosane (n-C ) 23 Tricosane (n-C

Station C

First Collection Period: Sediment Cores

998021011 1 nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd 1.51 nd nd nd nd 998021012 2 nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd 1.61 nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd 998021013 3 nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd 998021014 4 nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd 998021015 5 nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd 1.53 nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd 

Whole Core: Average5,6 nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd < MDL nd nd nd < MDL nd nd nd nd 

Whole Core: Std. Dev. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

Second Collection Period: Sediment Surface Skims

897081103 nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd 

Station D

First Collection Period: Sediment Cores

998021016 1 nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd 998021017 2 nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd 998021018 3 nd nd 2.46 3.46 3.47 3.25 3.21 5.98 11.3 8.21 4.06 5.20 nd 2.54 2.31 nd nd 998021019 4 nd nd 12.9 13.8 5.04 10.1 11.4 6.57 15.7 15.8 23.0 30.6 15.2 2.86 3.85 4.27 3.98998021020 5 nd nd 6.48 5.78 10.8 13.4 9.05 20.2 38.1 31.0 13.9 19.6 6.08 31.3 3.97 2.70 1.94

Whole Core: Average5,6 nd nd 4.78 5.01 4.26 5.75 5.07 6.86 13.3 11.3 8.47 11.3 4.64 7.61 2.32 < MDL < MDL 

Whole Core: Std. Dev. - - 5.05 5.28 4.05 5.69 4.86 7.96 15.4 12.7 9.76 13.3 6.33 13.3 1.60 - - 

Second Collection Period: Sediment Surface Skims

897081104 nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd

MDL 2.57 1.99 2.09 2.03 1.97 1.98 1.73 1.53 1.48 1.35 1.37 1.29 1.30 1.34 1.44 2.52 1.84

Page 153
Table D1. Continued.1,2

Sample ID

Core Section No

4

) 24 Tetracosane (n-C

) 25 Pentacosane (n-C ) 26 Hexacosane (n-C ) 27 Heptacosane (n-C ) 28 Octacosane (n-C ) 29 Nonacosane (n-C ) 30 Triacontane (n-C

) 31 n-Hentriacontane (n-C) 32 Dotriacontane (n-C ) 33 Tritriacontane (n-C ) 34 Tetratriacontane (n-C ) 35 Pentatriacontane (n-C ) 36 Hexatriacontane (n-C ) 37 Heptatriacontane (n-C ) 38 Octatriacontane (n-C ) 39 Nonatriacontane (n-C) 40 Tetracontane (n-C

Station C

First Collection Period: Sediment Cores

998021011 1 nd nd nd nd nd nd nd 6.13 nd 10.3 nd nd nd nd nd nd nd 998021012 2 nd nd nd nd nd 3.14 nd 5.36 nd nd nd 1.26 nd nd nd nd nd 998021013 3 nd nd nd nd nd 3.47 nd 6.44 4.80 nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd 998021014 4 nd nd nd nd nd 3.50 nd 5.43 6.33 nd nd nd 0.74 nd nd nd nd 998021015 5 nd nd nd nd nd nd nd 4.46 6.35 nd nd 2.23 nd nd nd nd nd 

Whole Core: Average5,6 nd nd nd nd nd < MDL nd 5.56 3.82 < MDL nd < MDL < MDL nd nd nd nd 

Whole Core: Std. Dev. - - - - - - - 0.77 2.82 - - - - - - - - 

Second Collection Period: Sediment Surface Skims

897081103 nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd

Station D

First Collection Period: Sediment Cores

998021016 1 nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd 998021017 2 nd 4.11 nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd 998021018 3 nd nd nd nd nd nd nd 6.33 2.15 nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd 998021019 4 nd nd nd nd nd nd 3.46 nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd 998021020 5 nd nd nd nd nd nd nd 6.99 2.78 nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd 

Whole Core: Average5,6 nd < MDL nd nd nd nd 1.11 3.27 < MDL nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd 

Whole Core: Std. Dev. - - - - - - 1.31 3.10 - - - - - - - - - 

Second Collection Period: Sediment Surface Skims

897081104 nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd

MDL 1.47 1.69 1.39 1.96 1.51 3.13 1.05 2.03 1.60 8.25 0.71 1.25 0.73 0.68 0.61 0.53 0.56

Page 154
Table D1. Continued.1,2

Sample ID

Core Section No

4

Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons

7

Total Concentrations of Individual 

Hydrocarbons8,9,17

Total: Pristane + Phytane8,17

17 Pristane/n-C 18

18 Phytane/n-C 18

Pristane/Phytane18

Total: Odd No Carbons8,10,17

Total: Even No Carbons8,11,17

Carbon Preference Index (CPI)12,18

14 -C 12 -C 10 Sum: C 8,13,17

28 -C 26 -C 24 -C 22 Sum: C 8,14,17

Weathering Index (WI)15,18

Station C

First Collection Period: Sediment Cores

998021011 1 203 nd nd - - - nd nd - nd nd - 998021012 2 248 nd nd - - - nd nd - nd nd - 998021013 3 229 nd nd - - - nd nd - nd nd - 998021014 4 193 nd nd - - - nd nd - nd nd - 998021015 5 nd nd nd - - - nd nd - nd nd - 

Whole Core: Average5,6 193 nd nd - - - nd nd - nd nd -

Whole Core: Std. Dev. 61.0 - - - - - - - - - - -

Second Collection Period: Sediment Surface Skims

897081103 nd nd nd - - - nd nd - nd nd -

Station D

First Collection Period: Sediment Cores

998021016 1 nd - nd - - - nd nd - nd nd - 998021017 2 nd - nd - - - nd nd - nd nd - 998021018 3 1020 81.8 13.4 0.73 1.28 1.58 40.7 27.7 1.47 7.70 nd - 998021019 4 3280 195 46.4 1.01 1.33 0.52 79.0 69.3 1.14 24.9 nd - 998021020 5 2910 239 50.6 0.81 1.41 1.58 93.5 95.2 0.98 20.2 nd - 

Whole Core: Average5,6 1480 115 22.6 0.85 19 1.34 19 0.99 19 49.4 42.9 1.15 19 11.8 nd -

Whole Core: Std. Dev. 1530 96.9 24.2 - - - 35.4 37.6 - 10.2 - -

Second Collection Period: Sediment Surface Skims

897081104 nd - nd - - - nd nd - nd nd -

MDL 181 59.0 16 2.63 16 33.9 16 22.4 16 5.99 16 6.89 16

Page 155
Table D1. Continued. 

Footnotes:

1 The concentrations of the individual aliphatic hydrocarbons and the total petroleum hydrocarbons were determined using external standard calculations.2 When an individual aliphatic hydrocarbon was not detected, its concentration was replaced by nd.3 The concentrations for n-C8 will be not reported, since it was difficult to identify this peak in samples and to determine MDL for n-C8. A value of 0 was used

for each nondetected analyte in summation formulae.

4 For the sediment cores, these numbers represent the depths into each core: 1 - depth 0 to 1 cm; 2 - depth 1 to 2 cm; 3 - depth 2 to 3 cm; 4 - depth 3 to 4 cm;

and, 5 - depth 4 to 5 cm. For surface skims, the topmost 1 cm layer is removed from the sediment surface.

5 The Whole Core Average and Standard Deviation is calculated using the concentrations for each analyte over all core sections.6 If all concentrations are nd, the average is replaced with nd. When there is at least one number in the data set to be averaged, each nd is replaced 

with 1/2*MDL, and an average is calculated. If this numeric value is less than the MDL, the average is replaced by < MDL; otherwise, the average is thecalculated value. When a numeric value is found for the average, the standard deviation is then determined using the same number set used to calculatethe average.

7 Determined from the total peak areas in the chromatogram from n-C8 to n-C40 minus any contributions from the internal standard areas.8 These formulae use 1/2MDL values for each analyte not detected.9 Sum of the concentrations of the individual aliphatic hydrocarbons n-C9 through n-C40 plus the concentrations of pristane and phytane.10 The total of the concentrations of the aliphatic hydrocarbons with an odd number of carbon atoms.11 The total of the concentrations of the aliphatic hydrocarbons with an even number of carbon atoms. The contribution of n-C8 is not included in the total.12 Carbon Preference Index (CPI) defined as the ratio of the total of the concentrations of the aliphatic hydrocarbons with an odd number of carbons to the

total concentration of the alphatic hydrocarbons with an even carbon number.

13 The total of the concentrations of n-C10, n-C12, and n-C14.14 The total of the concentrations of n-C22, n-C24, n-C26, and n-C28.15 Weathering Index (WI) is defined as the ratio of the total concentration of n-C10, n-C12, and n-C14 to the total concentration of n-C22, n-C24, n-C26, and n-C28.16 These MDL values are calculated with the same summation formulae as the samples using the individual hydrocarbon MDL values.17 The summation totals for the samples are compared with calculated MDL values obtained using the same summation formulae as the samples.

When these sample totals were less than the total MDL, its value was replaced by nd. The averages and standard deviations for the totals weretreated in the same way as the individual hydrocarbons; see footnote 6.

18 Numerical values of the CPI, WI, and the ratios: pristane/n-C17, phytane/n-C18, and pristane/phytane, will be calculated only when the defined quantity

for each index or ratio has a numeric value.

19 These results are not true averages, instead they are the ratios of the averages of the defined quantities, if these averages exist.

Page 156
Table D2. Individual hydrocarbon and total petroleum hydrocarbon concentrations (in

Pg/g

wet wt.) for sediment taken from Con Edison 

Tower marsh, an unplanted site.1-3

Sample ID

Core Section No4

)9 Nonane (n-C

) 10 Decane (n-C

) 11 Undecane (n-C

) 12 Dodecane (n-C

) 13 Tridecane (n-C

) 14 Tetradecane (n-C

) 15 Pentadecane (n-C

) 16 Hexadecane (n-C

) 17 Heptadecane (n-C

Pristane

) 18 Octadecane (n-C

Phytane

) 19 Nonadecane (n-C

) 20 Eicosane (n-C

) 21 Heneicosane (n-C

) 22 Docosane (n-C

) 23 Tricosane (n-C

Station A

First Collection Period - Sediment Cores

998021021 1 5.62 nd nd 2.73 nd 2.75 3.09 2.15 28.9 6.13 2.76 9.26 11.4 nd 3.47 nd 7.57998021022 2 6.64 3.19 4.27 5.56 2.94 3.87 6.08 11.2 61.8 7.18 19.9 43.0 29.7 20.9 32.4 19.6 46.6 998021023 3 2.69 nd 4.48 15.2 3.67 11.9 34.5 26.4 62.5 nd 14.4 41.0 17.6 23.6 29.5 31.8 7.08998021024 4 nd nd 3.59 31.7 30.1 7.77 11.8 50.7 101 47.1 6.43 8.03 26.8 35.9 6.98 38.8 21.4 998021025 5 nd nd 7.15 26.0 47.3 15.2 19.4 39.1 119 67.7 nd 15.8 50.9 52.7 25.0 58.7 66.5 

Whole Core: Average5,6 3.50 < MDL 4.11 16.2 17.0 8.28 15.0 25.9 74.6 25.8 8.83 23.4 27.3 26.8 19.5 30.1 29.8 

Whole Core: Std. Dev. 2.49 - 2.18 12.6 20.7 5.25 12.6 19.8 35.6 29.9 8.10 17.2 15.1 19.3 13.3 21.5 26.0 

Second Collection Period - Sediment Surface Skims

897081101 nd nd nd nd nd 3.57 nd nd 3.27 12.8 4.66 8.64 2.70 5.99 nd nd nd 

Station B

First Collection Period - Sediment Cores

998021026 1 5.43 nd nd 4.24 2.52 11.3 20.7 32.5 97.4 53.2 35.9 75.7 26.7 9.99 21.9 8.15 20.5 998021027 2 12.6 8.70 12.3 8.12 nd 11.6 44.9 108 188 44.5 47.4 151 39.9 75.8 79.9 76.9 103 998021028 3 12.6 13.6 18.8 8.59 21.3 12.6 49.2 147 97.3 113 7.06 137 108 116 106 85.7 110 998021029 4 13.4 13.0 18.9 14.3 11.0 18.7 29.2 165 143 nd 29.6 238 21.2 134 139 84.1 142 

1098032325 5 nd nd nd nd 3.72 3.32 3.68 9.42 18.1 29.5 9.29 8.95 nd 2.92 3.22 7.50 3.98

Whole Core: Average5,6 9.06 7.47 10.4 7.26 7.90 11.5 29.5 92.5 109 48.1 25.9 122 39.3 67.7 70.0 52.5 75.9 

Whole Core: Std. Dev. 5.42 6.20 8.96 5.02 8.42 5.47 18.5 69.0 63.2 41.3 17.4 85.7 41.0 59.8 56.8 40.9 60.3 

Second Collection Period - Sediment Surface Skims

897081102 nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd 

MDL 2.57 1.99 2.09 2.03 1.97 1.98 1.73 1.53 1.48 1.35 1.37 1.29 1.30 1.34 1.44 2.52 1.84

Page 157
Table D2. Continued.1,2

Sample ID

Core Section No

4

) 24 Tetracosane (n-C

) 25 Pentacosane (n-C ) 26 Hexacosane (n-C ) 27 Heptacosane (n-C ) 28 Octacosane (n-C ) 29 Nonacosane (n-C ) 30 Triacontane (n-C

) 31 n-Hentriacontane (n-C) 32 Dotriacontane (n-C ) 33 Tritriacontane (n-C ) 34 Tetratriacontane (n-C ) 35 Pentatriacontane (n-C ) 36 Hexatriacontane (n-C ) 37 Heptatriacontane (n-C ) 38 Octatriacontane (n-C ) 39 Nonatriacontane (n-C) 40 Tetracontane (n-C

Station A

First Collection Period - Sediment Cores

998021021 1 nd 3.21 2.33 5.45 5.40 8.78 5.13 6.77 3.54 nd 58.5 4.00 nd 3.54 4.48 5.73 nd 998021022 2 7.98 23.2 8.54 35.8 nd 5.55 41.7 10.6 13.9 nd 69.6 nd nd 3.54 4.62 nd 9.37998021023 3 nd 5.48 4.45 18.7 2.53 5.61 23.4 nd 13.2 nd 13.9 nd nd 3.28 4.26 5.46 8.77998021024 4 29.1 26.8 51.8 12.8 15.3 55.2 45.8 27.0 11.8 21.3 9.83 4.18 nd 3.29 4.02 4.59 7.31998021025 5 13.3 52.8 61.3 24.6 nd 75.3 60.7 32.1 nd nd nd nd nd 2.92 4.01 4.99 nd 

Whole Core: Average5,6 10.4 22.3 25.7 19.5 4.95 30.1 35.4 15.5 8.65 < MDL 30.4 2.01 nd 3.32 4.28 4.21 5.20

Whole Core: Std. Dev. 11.7 20.0 28.5 11.6 6.09 32.9 21.5 13.4 6.04 - 31.3 1.90 - 0.25 0.27 2.25 4.55

Second Collection Period - Sediment Surface Skims

897081101 nd 3.35 nd nd nd nd nd 3.62 nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd 

Station B

First Collection Period - Sediment Cores

998021026 1 2.75 9.16 nd 8.45 4.40 7.82 7.57 15.1 4.14 21.2 114 5.91 nd 3.23 3.97 nd 8.35998021027 2 9.12 11.6 nd 33.5 19.8 15.7 51.7 18.3 14.0 26.7 84.3 nd nd 5.21 5.27 6.44 nd 998021028 3 35.6 36.6 40.4 59.8 4.39 27.6 34.4 nd 7.49 14.0 7.88 nd nd 2.70 nd nd 7.48998021029 4 57.1 28.5 13.8 15.6 nd 18.2 53.3 nd nd nd nd nd nd 3.97 5.22 6.24 nd 

1098032325 5 nd 3.12 3.29 4.70 nd 3.30 nd 16.9 7.38 nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd 

Whole Core: Average5,6 21.1 17.8 11.8 24.4 6.03 14.5 29.5 10.5 6.77 14.0 41.4 1.68 nd 3.09 3.01 2.69 3.33

Whole Core: Std. Dev. 24.5 14.1 16.9 22.7 7.93 9.43 24.5 8.70 4.90 10.1 53.9 2.36 - 1.80 2.53 3.33 4.19

Second Collection Period - Sediment Surface Skims

897081102 nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd

MDL 1.47 1.69 1.39 1.96 1.51 3.13 1.05 2.03 1.60 8.25 0.71 1.25 0.73 0.68 0.61 0.53 0.56

Page 158
Table D2. Continued.1,2

Sample ID

Core Section No

4

Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons

7

Total Concentrations of Individual 

Hydrocarbons8,9,17

Total: Pristane + Phytane8,17

17 Pristane/n-C 18

18 Phytane/n-C 18

Pristane/Phytane18

Total: Odd No Carbons8,10,17

Total: Even No Carbons8,11,17

Carbon Preference Index (CPI)12,18

14 -C 12 -C 10 Sum:C 8,13,17

28 -C 26 -C 24 -C 22 Sum: C 8,14,17

Weathering Index (WI)15,18

Station A

First Collection Period - Sediment Cores

998021021 1 1360 213 15.4 0.21 3.35 0.66 104 94.1 1.10 6.47 9.73 0.67998021022 2 4910 565 50.2 0.12 2.16 0.17 274 241 1.14 12.6 36.9 0.34998021023 3 5270 444 41.6 - 2.85 - 206 196 1.05 28.1 39.6 0.71998021024 4 10100 761 55.1 0.47 1.25 5.86 358 348 1.03 40.4 135 0.30998021025 5 12900 953 83.5 0.57 - 4.29 534 335 1.59 42.1 134 0.31

Whole Core: Average5,6 6903.23 587 49.2 0.34 19 2.65 19 1.10 19 295 243 1.22 19 25.9 71.0 0.37 19

Whole Core: Std. Dev. 4562.09 285 24.5 - - - 163 105 - 16.1 59.1 - 

Second Collection Period - Sediment Surface Skims

897081101 1100 71.2 21.5 3.92 1.85 1.48 - 23.1 - - - - 

Station B

First Collection Period - Sediment Cores

998021026 1 3840 646 129 0.55 2.11 0.70 267 249 1.07 16.6 16.0 1.04998021027 2 12000 1320 195 0.24 3.19 0.29 599 522 1.15 28.4 107 0.27998021028 3 12900 1440 249 1.16 19.4 0.82 666 529 1.26 34.8 166 0.21998021029 4 17300 1430 238 - 8.03 - 597 591 1.01 46.1 156 0.30

1098032325 5 8570 156 38.5 1.63 0.96 3.30 69.0 48.5 1.42 - 12.3 -

Whole Core: Average5,6 10900 998 170 0.44 19 4.72 19 0.39 19 440 388 1.13 19 25.8 91.3 0.28 19

Whole Core: Std. Dev. 5040 574 87.5 - - - 259 231 - 16.6 74.0 - 

Second Collection Period - Sediment Surface Skims

897081102 193.58 nd - 0.00 - - - - - - - -

MDL 181 59.0 16 2.63 16 33.9 16 22.4 16 5.99 16 6.89 16

Page 159
Table D2. Continued.1-3

Sample ID

Core Section No

4)

9 Nonane (n-C

) 10 Decane (n-C

) 11 Undecane (n-C ) 12 Dodecane (n-C ) 13 Tridecane (n-C

) 14 Tetradecane (n-C

) 15 Pentadecane (n-C ) 16 Hexadecane (n-C ) 17 Heptadecane (n-C

Pristane

) 18 Octadecane (n-C

Phytane

) 19 Nonadecane (n-C) 20 Eicosane (n-C ) 21 Heneicosane (n-C) 22 Docosane (n-C ) 23 Tricosane (n-C

Station C

First Collection Period - Sediment Cores

1198082510 1 nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd 5.30 nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd 1198082511 2 nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd 2.11 nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd 1198082512 3 nd nd nd nd nd nd nd 2.26 8.18 nd nd 7.43 1.55 5.71 6.80 5.66 2.031198082513 4 nd nd nd nd nd nd 2.05 39.2 51.2 nd 7.27 63.2 25.8 52.5 36.4 31.5 22.5 1198082514 5 nd nd 3.35 nd nd 12.6 6.96 15.2 71.6 nd 13.0 100 44.7 118 60.4 56.8 25.9 

Whole Core: Average5,6 nd nd < MDL nd nd 3.31 2.32 11.6 27.7 nd 4.47 34.4 14.7 35.5 21.0 19.3 10.5 

Whole Core: Std. Dev. - - - - - 5.20 2.65 16.6 31.7 - 5.57 45.1 19.9 50.9 26.5 24.5 12.6 

Second Collection Period - Sediment Surface Skims

897081103 nd nd nd nd nd nd 2.77 nd 7.08 nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd 

Station D

First Collection Period - Sediment Cores

1198082505 1 nd nd nd nd nd nd nd 3.35 2.56 18.9 nd nd nd nd nd nd nd 

1198082506 2 nd nd nd 8.33 nd 2.76 37.7 15.3 52.8 8.69 28.6 44.2 nd 24.0 22.9 24.4 nd 1198082507 3 nd 2.70 6.80 nd 7.78 10.0 9.85 6.97 52.8 nd nd 50.3 1.95 28.8 5.07 37.6 7.22

1198082508 4 3.18 12.7 9.58 nd 8.75 11.8 15.2 56.5 73.9 nd nd 96.0 3.65 nd 62.4 33.1 9.09

1198082509 5 4.34 5.13 10.4 nd 11.3 14.9 17.2 62.3 102 117 4.17 182 15.3 43.6 54.8 10.2 2.94

Whole Core: Average5,6 < MDL 4.51 5.77 2.48 5.97 8.10 16.2 28.9 56.8 29.2 6.96 74.7 4.44 19.5 29.2 21.3 4.22

Whole Core: Std. Dev. - 4.90 4.51 3.27 4.73 5.98 13.6 28.3 36.5 49.7 12.2 69.0 6.20 18.7 28.2 15.3 3.75

Second Collection Period - Sediment Surface Skims

897081104 nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd 4.01 nd nd nd 1.62 nd nd nd 

MDL 2.57 1.99 2.09 2.03 1.97 1.98 1.73 1.53 1.48 1.35 1.37 1.29 1.30 1.34 1.44 2.52 1.84

Page 160
Table D2. Continued.1,2

Sample ID

Core Section No

4

) 24 Tetracosane (n-C

) 25 Pentacosane (n-C ) 26 Hexacosane (n-C ) 27 Heptacosane (n-C ) 28 Octacosane (n-C ) 29 Nonacosane (n-C ) 30 Triacontane (n-C

) 31 n-Hentriacontane (n-C) 32 Dotriacontane (n-C ) 33 Tritriacontane (n-C ) 34 Tetratriacontane (n-C ) 35 Pentatriacontane (n-C ) 36 Hexatriacontane (n-C ) 37 Heptatriacontane (n-C ) 38 Octatriacontane (n-C ) 39 Nonatriacontane (n-C) 40 Tetracontane (n-C

Station C

First Collection Period - Sediment Cores

1198082510 1 nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd 2.89 nd nd nd nd nd nd 1198082511 2 nd nd nd nd nd nd nd 3.78 nd nd 9.49 nd nd nd nd nd nd 1198082512 3 4.38 nd nd 4.08 nd nd 4.60 nd nd nd 3.35 nd nd nd nd nd nd 1198082513 4 4.82 11.8 nd 19.4 nd nd 22.0 2.06 5.03 nd 2.34 nd nd 1.12 nd 1.73 3.321198082514 5 10.9 6.83 7.59 14.6 nd 17.5 31.1 nd nd nd nd nd nd 1.38 nd 2.26 3.77

Whole Core: Average5,6 4.32 4.23 2.07 8.00 nd 4.76 11.8 < MDL 1.65 nd 3.69 nd nd 0.70 nd 0.96 1.59

Whole Core: Std. Dev. 4.18 4.96 3.08 8.46 - 7.14 14.0 - 1.89 - 3.44 - - 0.51 - 0.96 1.79

Second Collection Period - Sediment Surface Skims

897081103 nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd 

Station D

First Collection Period - Sediment Cores

1198082505 1 nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd 7.35 nd 1.56 1.83 nd nd 

1198082506 2 nd nd nd 6.56 nd nd 23.5 nd nd nd 8.22 nd nd 1.71 2.22 2.57 3.751198082507 3 nd nd 5.32 4.30 nd nd 24.7 nd 6.36 nd nd nd nd 1.51 2.06 2.39 3.291198082508 4 5.48 2.62 3.60 nd 2.43 4.09 33.0 nd nd nd nd nd nd 1.93 2.40 3.32 3.98

1198082509 5 nd 17.3 9.80 3.39 nd nd 20.1 nd 1.78 nd nd nd nd 1.17 1.16 1.71 3.24

Whole Core: Average5,6 1.69 4.49 4.02 3.24 < MDL < MDL 20.4 nd 2.11 nd 1.93 1.97 nd 1.57 1.94 2.05 2.91

Whole Core: Std. Dev. 2.12 7.21 3.79 2.36 - - 12.1 - 2.41 - 3.52 3.01 - 0.28 0.48 1.15 1.50

Second Collection Period - Sediment Surface Skims

897081104 nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd 

MDL 1.47 1.69 1.39 1.96 1.51 3.13 1.05 2.03 1.60 8.25 0.71 1.25 0.73 0.68 0.61 0.53 0.56

Page 161
Table D2. Continued.1,2

Sample ID 

Core Section No

3

Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons

7

Total Concentrations of Individual 

Hydrocarbons8,9,17

Total: Pristane + Phytane8,17

17 Pristane/n-C 18

18 Phytane/n-C 18

Pristane/Phytane18

Total: Odd No Carbons8,10,17

Total: Even No Carbons8,11,17

Carbon Preference Index (CPI)12,18

14 -C 12 -C 10 Sum: C 8,13,17

28 -C 26 -C 24 -C 22 Sum: C 8,14,17

Weathering Index (WI)15,18

Station C

First Collection Period - Sediment Cores

1198082510 1 198 nd - - - - - - - - - -1198082511 2 233 nd - - - - - - - - - -1198082512 3 852 76.5 8.10 - - - 35.6 32.9 1.08 - 11.5 -1198082513 4 5660 421 63.9 - 8.69 - 184 173 1.06 - 37.8 -1198082514 5 8830 638 101 - 7.68 - 264 273 0.96 14.6 76.1 0.19

Whole Core: Average5,6 3150 239 35.1 - 7.69 19 - 103 100 1.03 19 < MDL 26.5 - 

Whole Core: Std. Dev. 3910 277 45.1 - - - 114 118 - - 31.1 - 

Second Collection Period - Sediment Surface Skims

897081103 225 nd - - - - - - - 6.19 - - 

Station D

First Collection Period - Sediment Cores

1198082505 1 677 61.6 19.5 7.39 - - - - - - - - 

1198082506 2 3670 336 52.9 0.16 1.55 0.20 137 145 0.94 12.1 26.6 0.451198082507 3 4790 292 50.9 - - - 109 132 0.83 13.7 44.5 0.311198082508 4 7260 470 96.7 - - - 204 169 1.21 25.6 44.6 0.571198082509 5 8510 728 300 1.15 43.8 0.64 249 180 1.39 21.1 21.5 0.98

Whole Core: Average5,6 4980 377 104 0.51 19 10.7 19 0.39 19 143 127 1.13 19 15.1 28.1 0.54 19

Whole Core: Std. Dev. 3080 245 113 - - - 89.6 67.6 - 8.70 17.3 - 

Second Collection Period - Sediment Surface Skims

897081104 357 nd 4.65 - - - nd nd - nd nd - 

MDL 181 59.0 16 2.63 16 33.9 16 22.4 16 5.99 16 6.89 16

Page 162
Table D2. Continued. 

Footnotes:

1 The concentrations of the individual aliphatic hydrocarbons and the total petroleum hydrocarbons were determined using external standard calculations.2 When an individual aliphatic hydrocarbon was not detected, its concentration was replaced by nd.3 The concentrations for n-C8 will be not reported, since it was difficult to identify this peak in samples and to determine MDL for n-C8. A value of 0 was used

for each nondetected analyte in summation formulae.

4 For the sediment cores, these numbers represent the depths into each core: 1 - depth 0 to 1 cm; 2 - depth 1 to 2 cm; 3 - depth 2 to 3 cm; 4 - depth 3 to 4 cm;

and, 5 - depth 4 to 5 cm. For surface skims, the topmost 1 cm layer is removed from the sediment surface.

5 The Whole Core Average and Standard Deviation is calculated using the concentrations for each analyte over all core sections.6 If all concentrations are nd, the average is replaced with nd. When there is at least one number in the data set to be averaged, each nd is replaced 

with 1/2*MDL, and an average is calculated. If this numeric value is less than the MDL, the average is replaced by < MDL; otherwise, the average is thecalculated value. When a numeric value is found for the average, the standard deviation is then determined using the same number set used to calculate

the average.

7 Determined from the total peak areas in the chromatogram from n-C8 to n-C40 minus any contributions from the internal standard areas.8 These formulae use 1/2MDL values for each analyte not detected.9 Sum of the concentrations of the individual aliphatic hydrocarbons n-C9 through n-C40 plus the concentrations of pristane and phytane.10 The total of the concentrations of the aliphatic hydrocarbons with an odd number of carbon atoms.11 The total of the concentrations of the aliphatic hydrocarbons with an even number of carbon atoms. The contribution of n-C8 is not included in the total.12 Carbon Preference Index (CPI) defined as the ratio of the total of the concentrations of the aliphatic hydrocarbons with an odd number of carbons to the

total concentration of the alphatic hydrocarbons with an even carbon number.

13 The total of the concentrations of n-C10, n-C12, and n-C14.14 The total of the concentrations of n-C22, n-C24, n-C26, and n-C28.15 Weathering Index (WI) is defined as the ratio of the total concentration of n-C10, n-C12, and n-C14 to the total concentration of n-C22, n-C24, n-C26, and n-C28.16 These MDL values are calculated with the same summation formulae as the samples using the individual hydrocarbon MDL values.17 The summation totals for the samples are compared with calculated MDL values obtained using the same summation formulae as the samples.

When these sample totals were less than the total MDL, its value was replaced by nd. The averages and standard deviations for the totals weretreated in the same way as the individual hydrocarbons; see footnote 6.

18 Numerical values of the CPI, WI, and the ratios: pristane/n-C17, phytane/n-C18, and pristane/phytane, will be calculated only when the defined quantity

for each index or ratio has a numeric value.

19 These results are not true averages, instead they are the ratios of the averages of the defined quantities, if these averages exist.

Page 163
Table D3. Individual hydrocarbon and total petroleum hydrocarbon concentrations (in 

Pg/g wet wt.) for sediment cores taken 

from the Mill Creek marsh, a reference site.1-4

Sample ID

Core Section No5

)9 Nonane (n-C

) 10 Decane (n-C

) 11 Undecane (n-C

) 12 Dodecane (n-C

) 13 Tridecane (n-C

) 14 Tetradecane (n-C

) 15 Pentadecane (n-C

) 16 Hexadecane (n-C

) 17 Heptadecane (n-C

Pristane

) 18 Octadecane (n-C

Phytane

) 19 Nonadecane (n-C

) 20 Eicosane (n-C

) 21 Heneicosane (n-C

) 22 Docosane (n-C

) 23 Tricosane (n-C

Station

A6

1098032311 1 nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd 2.11 nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd 1098032312 2 nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd 1098032313 3 nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd 1.57 nd 2.11 nd nd nd nd nd 1098032314 4 nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd 

Whole Core: Average7,8 nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd < MDL < MDL nd < MDL nd nd nd nd nd 

Whole Core: Std. Dev. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

Station B

1098032306 1 nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd 2.24 nd nd nd 3.21 nd nd nd nd 1098032307 2 nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd 1098032308 3 nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd 1098032309 4 nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd 1.53 nd nd nd nd 1098032310 5 nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd 

Whole Core: Average7,8 nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd < MDL nd nd nd 1.34 nd nd nd nd 

Whole Core: Std. Dev. - - - - - - - - - - - - 1.12 - - - - 

Station C

1098032301 1 nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd 1.73 nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd 1098032302 2 nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd 2.24 nd nd nd 2.13 nd nd nd nd 1098032303 3 nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd 1098032304 4 nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd 1098032305 5 nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd 

Whole Core: Average7,8 nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd < MDL nd nd nd < MDL nd nd nd nd 

Whole Core: Std. Dev. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

Station D

1098032316 1 nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd 2.03 nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd 1098032317 2 nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd 2.52 nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd 1098032318 3 nd nd nd nd 4.89 4.58 11.5 2.97 11.4 13.2 8.42 8.29 8.65 3.68 4.06 nd nd 1098032319 4 nd nd 2.56 3.06 5.08 19.6 nd 5.68 7.66 6.92 nd nd 6.04 nd nd 3.42 nd 1098032320 5 nd 8.66 nd 3.53 3.37 18.2 8.06 8.23 8.64 10.4 nd 3.16 1.58 1.37 nd nd nd 

Whole Core: Average7,8 nd 2.53 < MDL < MDL 3.06 8.87 4.43 3.68 6.45 6.37 2.23 2.68 3.51 1.41 < MDL < MDL nd 

Whole Core: Std. Dev. - 3.43 - - 2.01 9.29 5.03 3.25 4.06 5.65 3.46 3.32 3.64 1.30 - - - 

MDL 2.57 1.99 2.09 2.03 1.97 1.98 1.73 1.53 1.48 1.35 1.37 1.29 1.30 1.34 1.44 2.52 1.84

Page 164
Table D3. Continued.1-3

Sample ID

Core Section No5

) 24 Tetracosane (n-C

) 25 Pentacosane (n-C ) 26 Hexacosane (n-C ) 27 Heptacosane (n-C ) 28 Octacosane (n-C ) 29 Nonacosane (n-C ) 30 Triacontane (n-C

) 31 n-Hentriacontane (n-C) 32 Dotriacontane (n-C ) 33 Tritriacontane (n-C ) 34 Tetratriacontane (n-C ) 35 Pentatriacontane (n-C ) 36 Hexatriacontane (n-C ) 37 Heptatriacontane (n-C ) 38 Octatriacontane (n-C ) 39 Nonatriacontane (n-C) 40 Tetracontane (n-C

Station A6

1098032311 1 nd nd nd nd nd 3.66 nd 7.61 nd 17.9 nd nd nd nd nd nd nd 1098032312 2 nd nd nd nd nd 3.90 nd 7.02 nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd 1098032313 3 nd nd nd nd nd nd nd 5.26 nd 20.2 nd nd 1.52 nd nd nd nd 1098032314 4 nd nd nd nd nd 3.56 nd 6.29 nd nd nd nd 1.91 nd nd nd nd 

Whole Core: Average7,8 nd nd nd nd nd 3.17 nd 6.54 nd 11.6 nd nd 1.04 nd nd nd nd 

Whole Core: Std. Dev. - - - - - 1.08 - 1.01 - 8.67 - - 0.80 - - - - 

Station B

1098032306 1 nd nd nd nd nd 3.47 nd 8.38 nd 17.1 nd nd nd nd nd nd nd 1098032307 2 nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd 1098032308 3 nd nd nd nd nd 3.56 nd 7.45 nd 12.7 nd nd 0.91 nd nd nd nd 1098032309 4 nd nd nd nd nd nd nd 5.68 nd 32.0 nd nd 1.92 nd nd nd nd 1098032310 5 nd nd nd nd nd nd nd 5.73 nd 42.4 nd nd 1.42 nd nd nd nd 

Whole Core: Average7,8 nd nd nd nd nd < MDL nd 5.65 nd 21.7 nd nd 1.00 nd nd nd nd 

Whole Core: Std. Dev. - - - - - - - 2.84 - 15.4 - - 0.68 - - - - 

Station C

1098032301 1 nd nd nd nd nd nd nd 8.18 nd 18.2 nd nd nd nd nd nd nd 1098032302 2 nd nd nd nd nd 3.61 nd 8.02 1.89 17.6 nd nd nd nd nd nd nd 1098032303 3 nd nd nd nd nd 4.85 nd 8.03 2.21 nd nd nd 0.90 nd nd nd nd 1098032304 4 nd nd nd nd nd 5.27 nd 7.23 2.31 40.7 nd nd 0.94 nd nd nd nd 1098032305 5 nd nd nd nd nd 4.18 nd 7.66 1.95 nd nd nd 1.07 nd nd nd nd 

Whole Core: Average7,8 nd nd nd nd nd 3.90 nd 7.82 1.83 17.0 nd nd < MDL nd nd nd nd 

Whole Core: Std. Dev. - - - - - 1.45 - 0.38 0.60 15.0 - - - - - - - 

Station D

1098032316 1 nd nd nd nd nd 3.29 nd 8.66 2.51 10.3 nd nd nd nd nd nd nd 1098032317 2 nd nd nd nd 1.63 3.54 1.65 5.42 2.02 nd 0.74 nd nd nd nd nd nd 1098032318 3 nd nd 1.62 nd 3.04 4.42 3.75 3.05 nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd 1098032319 4 nd nd 1.89 2.03 1.74 3.98 2.77 2.57 nd nd 0.74 nd nd nd nd nd nd 1098032320 5 nd 2.13 nd nd 3.43 3.81 nd 3.01 nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd 

Whole Core: Average7,8 nd < MDL < MDL < MDL 2.12 3.81 1.85 4.54 < MDL < MDL < MDL nd nd nd nd nd nd 

Whole Core: Std. Dev. - - - - 1.10 0.43 1.42 2.56 - - - - - - - - - 

MDL 1.47 1.69 1.39 1.96 1.51 3.13 1.05 2.03 1.60 8.25 0.71 1.25 0.73 0.68 0.61 0.53 0.56

Page 165
Table D3. Continued.1-3

Sample ID

Core Section No5

Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons9

Total Concentrations of 

Individual Hydrocarbons10,11,19

Total: Pristane + Phytane10,19

17 Pristane/n-C 20

18 Phytane/n-C 20

Pristane/Phytane20

Total: Odd No Carbons10,12,19

Total: Even No Carbons10,13,19

Carbon Preference Index 

(CPI)14,20

14 -C 12 -C 10 Sum: C 10,15,19

28 -C 26 -C 24 -C 22 Sum: C 10,16,19

Weathering Index (WI)17,20

Station A6

1098032311 1 nd nd nd - - - 40.8 nd - nd nd -1098032312 2 nd nd nd - - - nd nd - nd nd -1098032313 3 nd nd 3.69 - - 0.75 37.3 nd - nd nd -1098032314 4 nd nd nd - - - nd nd - nd nd -

Whole Core: Average7,8 nd nd < MDL - - - < MDL nd - nd nd - 

Whole Core: Std. Dev. - - - - - - - - - - - - 

Station B

1098032306 1 nd nd nd - - - 43.3 nd - nd nd -1098032307 2 nd nd nd - - - nd nd - nd nd -1098032308 3 nd nd nd - - - 34.0 nd - nd nd -1098032309 4 nd 64.5 nd - - - 50.4 nd - nd nd -1098032310 5 nd 73.5 nd - - - 59.9 nd - nd nd -

Whole Core: Average7,8 nd < MDL nd - - - 40.9 nd - nd nd - 

Whole Core: Std. Dev. - - - - - - 16.4 - - - - - 

Station C

1098032301 1 nd nd nd - - - 39.2 nd - nd nd -1098032302 2 nd nd nd - - - 42.5 nd - nd nd -1098032303 3 nd nd nd - - - nd nd - nd nd -1098032304 4 nd 78.1 nd - - - 63.5 nd - nd nd -1098032305 5 nd nd nd - - - nd nd - nd nd -

Whole Core: Average7,8 nd < MDL nd - - - 35.8 nd - nd nd - 

Whole Core: Std. Dev. - - - - - - 19.6 - - - - - 

Station D

1098032316 1 nd nd nd - - - nd nd - nd nd -1098032317 2 210 nd nd - - - nd nd - nd nd -1098032318 3 2540 114 21.5 1.16 0.98 1.59 58.4 34.2 1.71 6.59 nd -1098032319 4 1660 91.2 7.56 0.90 - - 39.9 43.7 0.91 23.6 7.79 3.041098032320 5 2070 104 13.5 1.20 - 3.29 40.9 49.4 0.83 30.4 nd -

Whole Core: Average7,8 1310 73.6 9.04 0.99 21 1.20 21 2.38 21 34.6 29.9 - 13.3 < MDL 2.25 21

Whole Core: Std. Dev. 1110 41.1 8.61 - - - 17.7 18.0 - 12.8 - - 

MDL 181 59.0 18 2.63 18 33.9 18 22.4 18 5.99 18 6.89 18

Page 166
Table D3. Continued. 

Footnotes:

1 No surface skim samples were analyzed for Mill Creek Marsh.2 The concentrations of the individual aliphatic hydrocarbons and the total petroleum hydrocarbons were determined using external standard calculations.3 When an individual aliphatic hydrocarbon was not detected, its concentration was replaced by nd.4 The concentrations for n-C8 will be not reported, since it was difficult to identify this peak in samples and to determine MDL for n-C8. A value of 0 was used

for each nondetected analyte in summation formulae.

5 For the sediment cores, these numbers represent the depths into each core: 1 - depth 0 to 1 cm; 2 - depth 1 to 2 cm; 3 - depth 2 to 3 cm; 4 - depth 3 to 4 cm;

and, 5 - depth 4 to 5 cm.

6 The extract for core section 5 for Station A was lost during sample cleanup.7 The Whole Core Average and Standard Deviation is calculated using the concentrations for each analyte over all core sections.8 If all concentrations are nd, the average is replaced with nd. When there is at least one number in the data set to be averaged, each nd is replaced 

with 1/2*MDL, and an average is calculated. If this numeric value is less than the MDL, the average is replaced by < MDL; otherwise, the average is thecalculated value. When a numeric value is found for the average, the standard deviation is then determined using the same number set used to calculate

the average.

9 Determined from the total peak areas in the chromatogram from n-C8 to n-C40 minus any contributions from the internal standard areas.10 These formulae use 1/2MDL values for each analyte not detected.11 Sum of the concentrations of the individual aliphatic hydrocarbons n-C9 through n-C40 plus the concentrations of pristane and phytane.12 The total of the concentrations of the aliphatic hydrocarbons with an odd number of carbon atoms.13 The total of the concentrations of the aliphatic hydrocarbons with an even number of carbon atoms. The contribution of n-C8 is not included in the total.14 Carbon Preference Index (CPI) defined as the ratio of the total of the concentrations of the aliphatic hydrocarbons with an odd number of carbons to the

total concentration of the alphatic hydrocarbons with an even carbon number.

15 The total of the concentrations of n-C10, n-C12, and n-C14.16 The total of the concentrations of n-C22, n-C24, n-C26, and n-C28.17 Weathering Index (WI) is defined as the ratio of the total concentration of n-C10, n-C12, and n-C14 to the total concentration of n-C22, n-C24, n-C26, and n-C28.18 These MDL values are calculated with the same summation formulae as the samples using the individual hydrocarbon MDL values.19 The summation totals for the samples are compared with calculated MDL values obtained using the same summation formulae as the samples.

When these sample totals were less than the total MDL, its value was replaced by nd. The averages and standard deviations for the totals weretreated in the same way as the individual hydrocarbons; see footnote 8.

20 Numerical values of the CPI, WI, and the ratios: pristane/n-C17, phytane/n-C18, and pristane/phytane, will be calculated only when the defined quantity

for each index or ratio has a numeric value.

21 These results are not true averages, instead they are the ratios of the averages of the defined quantities, if these averages exist.

Page 167
Table D4. Individual hydrocarbon concentrations (in Pg/g wet wt.) for sediment surface skims taken 

from Sandy Hook Bay marsh, a reference site.1,2 Sample ID

Nonacosane (n-C29)

n-Hentriacontane (n-C31)

Dotriacontane (n-C32)

897081116 6.19 5.09 1.68

MDL 3.13 2.03 1.60

1

 The concentrations of the individual aliphatic hydrocarbons and the total petroleum hydrocarbons were determined

using external standard calculations.

2

 Only the concentrations for n-C29, n-C31, and n-C32 had concentrations above the MDL; all other analytes had

values below the MDL and are not reported.

Page 168
Table D5. Individual hydrocarbon and total petroleum hydrocarbon concentrations (in 

Pg/g wet wt.) for ribbed mussels taken from Old 

Place marsh, a replanted site.1-3

Sample ID

)9 Nonane (n-C

) 10 Decane (n-C

) 11 Undecane (n-C

) 12 Dodecane (n-C

) 13 Tridecane (n-C

) 14 Tetradecane (n-C

) 15 Pentadecane (n-C

) 16 Hexadecane (n-C

) 17 Heptadecane (n-C

Pristane

) 18 Octadecane (n-C

Phytane

) 19 Nonadecane (n-C

) 20 Eicosane (n-C

) 21 Heneicosane (n-C

) 22 Docosane (n-C

) 23 Tricosane (n-C

First Collection

197020410 nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd 0.17 0.12 nd nd nd nd 1.25 nd nd197020411 2.67 nd nd nd nd nd nd nd 0.15 0.12 nd nd 0.16 nd 1.60 nd nd197020412 0.50 nd nd nd nd nd nd nd 0.11 nd nd nd 0.22 nd 1.59 nd nd197020413 0.76 nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd 1.36 nd nd197020414 0.43 nd nd nd nd nd nd nd 0.18 0.12 nd nd nd nd 1.32 nd nd

Average4 0.90 nd nd nd nd nd nd nd 0.13 < MDL nd nd < MDL nd 1.43 nd nd

Std Dev 1.02 ------- 0.06 ----- 0.16 - -

Second Collection

497051411 0.31 nd nd nd nd nd nd nd 0.67 nd nd 0.10 0.30 0.54 1.05 1.35 nd497051412 nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd 0.32 0.11 nd nd 0.13 nd 0.65 nd nd497051413 nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd 0.28 nd nd nd nd nd 0.56 nd nd497051414 nd nd nd nd nd nd nd 0.13 0.57 0.17 nd 0.17 nd 0.36 nd 1.79 nd497051415 nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd 0.25 nd nd 0.10 nd nd nd nd nd

Average4 < MDL nd nd nd nd nd nd < MDL 0.42 < MDL nd < MDL 0.12 0.24 0.53 0.83 nd

Std Dev -------- 0.19 - - - 0.10 0.20 0.36 0.69 -

MDL 0.24 0.06 0.12 0.12 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.09 0.08 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.11 0.21 0.38 0.68 2.47

Page 169
Table D5. Continued.1-3

Sample ID

) 24 Tetracosane (n-C

) 25 Pentacosane (n-C ) 26 Hexacosane (n-C ) 27 Heptacosane (n-C ) 28 Octacosane (n-C ) 29 Nonacosane (n-C ) 30 Triacontane (n-C

) 31 n-Hentriacontane (n-C) 32 Dotriacontane (n-C ) 33 Tritriacontane (n-C ) 34 Tetratriacontane (n-C ) 35 Pentatriacontane (n-C ) 36 Hexatriacontane (n-C ) 37 Heptatriacontane (n-C ) 38 Octatriacontane (n-C ) 39 Nonatriacontane (n-C) 40 Tetracontane (n-C

First Collection

197020410 nd nd nd 0.26 0.42 nd nd 0.41 0.42 0.58 0.65 0.75 0.73 0.73 0.56 0.41 0.26197020411 nd nd 0.13 nd nd nd nd 0.55 0.43 0.56 0.59 0.72 0.68 0.68 0.52 0.39 0.24197020412 nd nd nd 0.19 0.33 nd nd 0.40 0.38 0.54 0.55 0.64 0.63 0.57 0.50 0.35 0.22197020413 nd nd 0.12 nd nd nd nd 0.52 0.55 0.76 0.75 0.84 0.76 0.73 0.59 0.42 0.25197020414 nd nd nd nd nd nd nd 0.34 0.56 0.20 0.36 0.41 0.38 0.39 0.31 0.23 0.14

Average4 nd nd < MDL 0.11 0.21 nd nd 0.44 0.47 0.53 0.58 0.67 0.64 0.62 0.49 0.36 0.22

Std Dev - - - 0.10 0.15 - - 0.08 0.08 0.20 0.15 0.16 0.15 0.14 0.11 0.08 0.05

Second Collection

497051411 nd nd nd nd nd nd nd 8.89 3.40 0.29 nd nd nd nd 0.09 nd nd497051412 nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd497051413 nd nd 0.12 nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd 0.09 nd nd497051414 nd nd 0.12 nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd 0.10 nd 0.12 0.07 nd497051415 nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd

Average4 nd nd < MDL nd nd nd nd 1.82 0.73 < MDL nd nd < MDL nd < MDL < MDL nd

Std Dev ------- 3.95 1.49 --------

MDL 0.29 0.27 0.11 0.08 0.20 0.56 0.48 0.11 0.14 0.11 0.09 0.10 0.10 0.18 0.08 0.06 0.06

Page 170
Table D5. Continued.1-3

Sample ID

Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons

5

Total Concentrations of Individual 

Hydrocarbons6,7,15

Total: Pristane + Phytane6,15

17 Pristane/n-C 16

18 Phytane/n-C 16

Pristane/Phytane16

Total: Odd No Carbons6,8,15

Total: Even No Carbons6,9,15

Carbon Preference Index (CPI)10,16

14 -C 12 -C 10 Sum: C 6,11,15

28 -C 26 -C 24 -C 22 Sum: C 6,12,15

Weathering Index (WI)13,16

First Collection

197020410 203 10.9 nd 0.73 - - 6.55 4.16 1.57 nd nd - 197020411 158 13.3 nd 0.84 - - 9.32 3.77 2.48 nd nd - 197020412 165 10.8 nd - - - 6.92 3.73 1.86 nd nd - 197020413 106 11.6 nd - - - 7.34 4.20 1.75 nd nd - 197020414 118 8.55 nd 0.63 - - 5.42 2.97 1.82 nd nd - 

Average4 150 11.0 nd - - - 7.11 3.77 1.89 17 nd nd - 

Std Dev 39.1 1.70 - - - - 1.43 0.49 - - - - 

Second Collection

497051411 152 20.0 nd - - - 13.5 6.29 2.15 nd 1.66 - 497051412 54.4 nd nd 0.33 - - nd nd - nd nd - 497051413 58.6 nd nd - - - nd nd - nd nd - 497051414 69.4 nd 0.34 0.29 - 0.96 nd 3.44 - nd 2.16 - 497051415 nd nd nd - - - nd nd - nd nd - 

Average4 72.2 8.20 < MDL - - - 5.18 < MDL - nd < MDL - 

Std Dev 47.1 6.64 - - - - 4.67 - - - - - 

MDL 53.6 8.1914 0.1914 5.0914 2.9114 0.2914 1.2914

Page 171
Table D5. Continued. 

Footnotes:

1 The concentrations of the individual aliphatic hydrocarbons and the total petroleum hydrocarbons were determined using external standard calculations.2 When an individual aliphatic hydrocarbon was not detected, its concentration was replaced by nd.3 The concentrations for n-C8 will be not reported, since it was difficult to identify this peak in samples and to determine MDL for n-C8.4 If all concentrations are nd, the average is replaced with nd. When there is at least one number in the data set to be averaged, each nd is replaced 

with 1/2*MDL, and an average is calculated. If this numeric value is less than the MDL, the average is replaced by < MDL; otherwise, the average is thecalculated value. When a numeric value is found for the average, the standard deviation is then determined using the same number set used to calculate

the average.

5 Determined from the total peak areas in the chromatogram from n-C8 to n-C40 minus any contributions from the internal standard areas.6 These formulae use 1/2MDL values for each analyte not detected.7 Sum of the concentrations of the individual aliphatic hydrocarbons n-C9 through n-C40 plus the concentrations of pristane and phytane.8 The total of the concentrations of the aliphatic hydrocarbons with an odd number of carbon atoms.9 The total of the concentrations of the aliphatic hydrocarbons with an even number of carbon atoms. The contribution of n-C8 is not included in the total.10 Carbon Preference Index (CPI) defined as the ratio of the total of the concentrations of the aliphatic hydrocarbons with an odd number of carbons to the

total concentration of the alphatic hydrocarbons with an even carbon number.

11 The total of the concentrations of n-C10, n-C12, and n-C14.12 The total of the concentrations of n-C22, n-C24, n-C26, and n-C28.13 Weathering Index (WI) is defined as the ratio of the total concentration of n-C10, n-C12, and n-C14 to the total concentration of n-C22, n-C24, n-C26, and n-C28.14 These MDL values are calculated with the same summation formulae as the samples using the individual hydrocarbon MDL values.15 The summation totals for the samples are compared with calculated MDL values obtained using the same summation formulae as the samples.

When these sample totals were less than the total MDL, its value was replaced by nd. The averages and standard deviations for the totals weretreated in the same way as the individual hydrocarbons; see footnote 4.

16 Numerical values of the CPI, WI, and the ratios: pristane/n-C17, phytane/n-C18, and pristane/phytane, will be calculated only when the defined quantity

for each index or ratio has a numeric value.

17 These results are not true averages, instead they are the ratios of the averages of the defined quantities, if these averages exist.

Page 172
Table D6. Individual hydrocarbon and total petroleum hydrocarbon concentrations (in 

Pg/g wet wt.) for ribbed mussels taken from Con 

Edison Tower marsh, an unplanted site.1-3

Sample ID

)9 Nonane (n-C

) 10 Decane (n-C

) 11 Undecane (n-C

) 12 Dodecane (n-C

) 13 Tridecane (n-C

) 14 Tetradecane (n-C

) 15 Pentadecane (n-C

) 16 Hexadecane (n-C

) 17 Heptadecane (n-C

Pristane

) 18 Octadecane (n-C

Phytane

) 19 Nonadecane (n-C

) 20 Eicosane (n-C

) 21 Heneicosane (n-C

) 22 Docosane (n-C

) 23 Tricosane (n-C

First Collection

197020421 0.41 nd nd nd nd nd nd 0.13 0.20 nd nd nd nd nd 1.36 nd nd 

197020422 1.21 nd nd nd nd nd nd 0.11 0.23 0.15 nd nd 0.19 nd 1.91 nd nd 197020423 0.73 nd nd nd nd nd nd nd 0.15 nd nd nd nd nd 0.88 nd nd 197020425 0.49 nd nd nd nd nd nd nd 0.08 nd nd nd nd nd nd 0.94 nd 297031701 nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd 0.26 0.12 nd 0.10 0.57 nd 0.94 nd 2.61

Average4 0.59 nd nd nd nd nd nd < MDL 0.18 < MDL nd < MDL 0.18 nd 1.06 < MDL < MDL 

Std Dev 0.41 - - - - - - - 0.07 - - - 0.22 - 0.64 - - 

Second Collection

497051422 0.25 nd nd nd nd nd nd nd 1.07 0.24 nd 0.18 0.92 nd 1.47 nd nd 

497051423 nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd 0.88 0.17 nd 0.12 0.14 nd 2.78 nd 2.50497051424 nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd 0.75 nd nd 0.15 nd nd 1.33 nd 2.80497051425 3.01 nd nd nd nd 0.13 0.16 nd 5.65 0.41 0.13 0.75 7.62 0.66 12.6 4.80 10.9 497051426 nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd 0.95 nd nd 0.14 0.15 nd 2.14 nd nd 

Average4 0.73 nd nd nd nd < MDL < MDL nd 1.86 0.18 < MDL 0.27 1.78 0.22 4.07 1.23 3.73

Std Dev 1.28 - - - - - - - 2.12 0.15 - 0.27 3.29 0.25 4.81 1.99 4.06

MDL 0.24 0.06 0.12 0.12 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.09 0.08 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.11 0.21 0.38 0.68 2.47

Page 173
Table D6. Continued.1-3

Sample ID

) 24 Tetracosane (n-C

) 25 Pentacosane (n-C ) 26 Hexacosane (n-C ) 27 Heptacosane (n-C ) 28 Octacosane (n-C ) 29 Nonacosane (n-C ) 30 Triacontane (n-C

) 31 n-Hentriacontane (n-C) 32 Dotriacontane (n-C ) 33 Tritriacontane (n-C ) 34 Tetratriacontane (n-C ) 35 Pentatriacontane (n-C ) 36 Hexatriacontane (n-C ) 37 Heptatriacontane (n-C ) 38 Octatriacontane (n-C ) 39 Nonatriacontane (n-C) 40 Tetracontane (n-C

First Collection

197020421 nd nd nd 0.08 nd nd nd 64.5 3.13 3.31 0.58 0.60 0.57 0.54 0.42 0.31 0.19

197020422 nd nd nd nd nd nd nd 0.52 0.89 0.65 0.49 0.55 0.51 0.52 0.39 0.29 0.18197020423 nd nd nd nd nd nd nd 0.23 0.20 0.28 0.32 0.39 0.37 0.36 0.30 0.22 0.14197020425 nd nd nd nd nd nd nd 0.13 nd 0.18 0.15 0.17 0.16 nd 0.12 0.09 0.06297031701 nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd 0.21 nd 0.12 nd nd 0.10 0.14 0.16

Average4 nd nd nd < MDL nd nd nd 13.1 0.87 0.93 0.32 0.37 0.33 0.32 0.27 0.21 0.15

Std Dev - - - - - - - 28.8 1.31 1.35 0.22 0.22 0.22 0.22 0.15 0.09 0.05

Second Collection

497051422 nd nd nd nd nd nd nd 0.24 0.81 0.34 nd 0.11 0.11 nd 0.15 0.06 nd 

497051423 nd nd nd nd nd nd nd 0.13 nd nd nd 0.14 0.12 nd 0.13 0.08 nd 497051424 nd nd nd 0.35 0.31 4.30 0.62 nd 0.22 nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd 497051425 0.44 0.95 0.45 nd nd nd nd 0.28 nd nd nd nd nd nd 0.10 0.06 nd 497051426 nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd 0.12 nd nd 0.10 0.06 nd 

Average4 < MDL 0.30 0.13 0.10 < MDL 1.08 < MDL 0.15 0.25 0.11 nd < MDL < MDL nd 0.10 0.06 nd 

Std Dev - 0.36 0.17 0.14 - 1.80 - 0.10 0.32 0.13 - - - - 0.04 0.02 - 

MDL 0.29 0.27 0.11 0.08 0.20 0.56 0.48 0.11 0.14 0.11 0.09 0.10 0.10 0.18 0.08 0.06 0.06

Page 174
Table D6. Continued.1-3

Sample ID

Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons

5

Total Concentrations of Individual 

Hydrocarbons6,7,15

TOTAL: Pristane + Phytane6,15

17 Pristane/n-C 16

18 Phytane/n-C 16

Pristane/Phytane16

Total: Odd No Carbons6,8,15

Total: Even No Carbons6,9,15

Carbon Preference Index (CPI)10,16

14 -C 12 -C 10 Sum: C 6,11,15

28 -C 26 -C 24 -C 22 Sum: C 6,12,15

Weathering Index (WI)13,16

First Collection

197020421 195 79.5 nd - - - 73.2 6.21 11.8 nd nd - 197020422 161 11.9 nd 0.64 - - 7.92 3.76 2.11 nd nd - 197020423 83.6 nd nd - - - 5.15 nd - nd nd - 197020425 nd nd nd - - - nd nd - nd nd - 297031701 63.1 nd 0.21 0.45 - 1.20 5.74 nd - nd nd - 

Average4 106 22.5 < MDL - - - 19.1 3.31 5.76 17 nd nd - 

Std Dev 70.0 31.9 - - - - 30.3 1.78 - - - - 

Second Collection

497051422 135 9.20 0.42 0.22 - 1.35 6.41 nd - nd nd - 497051423 144 9.44 0.29 0.19 - 1.43 7.54 nd - nd nd - 497051424 235 12.7 0.20 - - - 10.3 nd - nd nd - 497051425 274 50.4 1.16 0.07 5.66 0.55 41.8 7.37 5.68 nd 5.79 - 497051426 115 nd nd - - - 5.60 nd - nd nd - 

Average4 181 17.8 0.45 0.10 17 - 0.69 17 14.3 3.02 4.75 17 nd 1.71 - 

Std Dev 69.5 18.3 0.41 - - - 15.5 2.46 - - 2.28 - 

MDL 53.6 8.1914 0.1914 5.0914 2.9114 0.2914 1.2914

Page 175
Table D6. Continued. 

Footnotes:

1 The concentrations of the individual aliphatic hydrocarbons and the total petroleum hydrocarbons were determined using external standard calculations.2 When an individual aliphatic hydrocarbon was not detected, its concentration was replaced by nd.3 The concentrations for n-C8 will be not reported, since it was difficult to identify this peak in samples and to determine MDL for n-C8.4 If all concentrations are nd, the average is replaced with nd. When there is at least one number in the data set to be averaged, each nd is replaced 

with 1/2*MDL, and an average is calculated. If this numeric value is less than the MDL, the average is replaced by < MDL; otherwise, the average is thecalculated value. When a numeric value is found for the average, the standard deviation is then determined using the same number set used to calculate

the average.

5 Determined from the total peak areas in the chromatogram from n-C8 to n-C40 minus any contributions from the internal standard areas.6 These formulae use 1/2MDL values for each analyte not detected.7 Sum of the concentrations of the individual aliphatic hydrocarbons n-C9 through n-C40 plus the concentrations of pristane and phytane.8 The total of the concentrations of the aliphatic hydrocarbons with an odd number of carbon atoms.9 The total of the concentrations of the aliphatic hydrocarbons with an even number of carbon atoms. The contribution of n-C8 is not included in the total.10 Carbon Preference Index (CPI) is defined as the ratio of the total of the concentrations of the aliphatic hydrocarbons with an odd number of carbons to the

total concentration of the alphatic hydrocarbons with an even carbon number.

11 The total of the concentrations of n-C10, n-C12, and n-C14.12 The total of the concentrations of n-C22, n-C24, n-C26, and n-C28.13 Weathering Index (WI) is defined as the ratio of the total concentration of n-C10, n-C12, and n-C14 to the total concentration of n-C22, n-C24, n-C26, and n-C28.14 These MDL values are calculated with the same summation formulae as the samples using the individual hydrocarbon MDL values.15 The summation totals for the samples are compared with calculated MDL values obtained using the same summation formulae as the samples.

When these sample totals were less than the total MDL, its value was replaced by nd. The averages and standard deviations for the totals weretreated in the same way as the individual hydrocarbons; see footnote 4.

16 Numerical values of the CPI, WI, and the ratios: pristane/n-C17, phytane/n-C18, and pristane/phytane, will be calculated only when the defined quantity

for each index or ratio has a numeric value.

17 These results are not true averages, instead they are the ratios of the averages of the defined quantities, if these averages exist.

Page 176
Table D7. Individual hydrocarbon and total petroleum hydrocarbon concentrations (in 

Pg/g wet wt.) for ribbed mussels taken from Saw 

Mill North marsh, a replanted site.1-3

Sample ID

)9 Nonane (n-C

) 10 Decane (n-C

) 11 Undecane (n-C

) 12 Dodecane (n-C

) 13 Tridecane (n-C

) 14 Tetradecane (n-C

) 15 Pentadecane (n-C

) 16 Hexadecane (n-C

) 17 Heptadecane (n-C

Pristane

) 18 Octadecane (n-C

Phytane

) 19 Nonadecane (n-C

) 20 Eicosane (n-C

) 21 Heneicosane (n-C

) 22 Docosane (n-C

) 23 Tricosane (n-C

 First Collection

197020401 0.66 nd nd nd nd nd 0.12 0.14 0.29 0.11 nd nd 0.23 nd 1.22 nd nd197020402 nd nd nd nd nd nd nd 0.11 0.23 0.16 nd 0.12 0.18 nd 1.62 nd nd197020409 nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd 0.20 nd nd nd 0.21 nd 1.54 nd nd197020415 0.65 nd nd nd nd nd nd nd 0.23 0.15 nd nd 0.12 nd 1.45 nd nd297031702 nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd 0.13 nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd

Average4 0.33 nd nd nd nd nd < MDL < MDL 0.22 0.11 nd < MDL 0.16 nd 1.20 nd nd

Std Dev 0.29 ------- 0.06 0.05 - - 0.07 - 0.59 - -

Second Collection

497051405 nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd 0.96 nd nd nd nd 0.24 2.52 1.01 4.53497051406 nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd 0.89 nd nd 0.13 0.12 nd 2.35 0.80 3.08497051407 0.52 nd nd nd nd 0.23 0.17 0.12 0.78 0.30 0.15 0.30 0.29 0.38 3.79 2.07 3.87497051409 nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd 0.84 nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd497051410 nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd 0.89 nd nd 0.12 0.17 nd nd nd nd

Average4 < MDL nd nd nd nd < MDL < MDL < MDL 0.87 0.10 < MDL 0.13 0.14 < MDL 1.81 0.91 2.79

Std Dev -------- 0.07 0.11 - 0.10 0.10 - 1.58 0.71 1.51

MDL 0.24 0.06 0.12 0.12 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.09 0.08 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.11 0.21 0.38 0.68 2.47

Page 177
Table D7. Continued.1-3

Sample ID

) 24 Tetracosane (n-C

) 25 Pentacosane (n-C ) 26 Hexacosane (n-C ) 27 Heptacosane (n-C ) 28 Octacosane (n-C ) 29 Nonacosane (n-C ) 30 Triacontane (n-C

) 31 n-Hentriacontane (n-C) 32 Dotriacontane (n-C ) 33 Tritriacontane (n-C ) 34 Tetratriacontane (n-C ) 35 Pentatriacontane (n-C ) 36 Hexatriacontane (n-C ) 37 Heptatriacontane (n-C ) 38 Octatriacontane (n-C ) 39 Nonatriacontane (n-C) 40 Tetracontane (n-C

 First Collection

197020401 nd nd 0.19 nd nd nd nd nd 3.13 3.65 0.32 0.43 0.39 0.41 0.32 0.24 0.15197020402 nd nd nd nd nd nd nd 0.55 1.27 0.22 0.40 0.45 0.43 0.44 0.34 0.25 0.16197020409 nd nd nd nd nd nd nd 0.40 0.33 0.41 0.46 0.52 0.50 0.49 0.39 0.29 0.18197020415 nd nd nd 0.21 0.39 nd nd 0.52 0.70 0.70 0.73 0.80 0.76 0.74 0.59 0.44 0.27297031702 nd nd nd nd nd nd nd 0.14 nd 0.12 nd nd nd nd nd 0.10 0.12

Average4 nd nd < MDL < MDL < MDL nd nd 0.34 1.10 1.02 0.39 0.45 0.43 0.43 0.34 0.26 0.18

Std Dev ------- 0.23 1.22 1.49 0.25 0.27 0.26 0.23 0.20 0.12 0.06

Second Collection

497051405 1.33 0.63 0.20 0.61 1.04 8.55 nd 0.42 0.72 0.20 nd nd 0.14 0.18 0.16 0.10 nd497051406 nd nd nd nd nd nd nd 0.12 nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd497051407 nd nd nd nd nd nd nd 0.60 3.31 0.29 nd 0.19 0.11 nd 0.14 0.08 nd497051409 nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd 0.17 nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd497051410 nd nd nd nd nd nd nd 0.30 1.60 0.14 nd nd nd nd nd nd nd

Average4 0.38 < MDL < MDL 0.15 0.29 1.93 nd 0.30 1.18 0.14 nd < MDL < MDL < MDL 0.09 < MDL nd

Std Dev 0.53 - - 0.26 0.42 3.70 - 0.22 1.34 0.10 ---- 0.06 - -

MDL 0.29 0.27 0.11 0.08 0.20 0.56 0.48 0.11 0.14 0.11 0.09 0.10 0.10 0.18 0.08 0.06 0.06

Page 178
Table D7. Continued.1-3

Sample ID

Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons

5

Total Concentrations of Individual 

Hydrocarbons6,7,15

Total: Pristane + Phytane6,15

17 Pristane/n-C 16

18 Phytane/n-C 16

Pristane/Phytane16

Total: Odd No Carbons6,8,15

Total: Even No Carbons6,9,15

Carbon Preference Index (CPI)10,16

14 -C 12 -C 10 Sum: C 6,11,15

28 -C 26 -C 24 -C 22 Sum: C 6,12,15

Weathering Index (WI)13,16

 First Collection

197020401 266 15.0 nd 0.40 - - 9.09 5.77 1.58 nd nd - 197020402 131 10.1 0.28 0.73 - 1.41 5.91 3.90 1.52 nd nd - 197020409 136 9.23 nd - - - 6.03 3.10 1.95 nd nd - 197020415 186 12.5 0.20 0.63 - - 7.69 4.58 1.68 nd nd - 297031702 nd nd nd - - - nd nd - nd nd - 

Average4 149 10.3 < MDL 0.49 17 - - 6.32 3.78 1.67 17 nd nd - 

Std Dev 87.2 3.93 - - - - 2.33 1.59 - - - - 

Second Collection

497051405 541 24.6 nd - - - 19.1 5.40 3.54 nd 3.58 - 497051406 103 9.62 nd - - - 7.54 nd - nd nd - 497051407 268 19.0 0.60 0.39 1.95 1.01 11.2 7.22 1.55 0.32 2.38 0.13497051409 nd nd nd - - - nd nd - nd nd - 497051410 77.9 nd nd - - - nd 2.99 - nd nd - 

Average4 203 13.1 0.23 0.11 17 - 0.77 17 9.01 3.82 2.36 17 < MDL 1.67 - 

Std Dev 209 8.40 0.21 - - - 6.48 2.42 - - 1.28 - 

MDL 53.6 8.1914 0.1914 5.0914 2.9114 0.2914 1.2914

Page 179
Table D7. Continued. 

Footnotes:

1 The concentrations of the individual aliphatic hydrocarbons and the total petroleum hydrocarbons were determined using external standard calculations.2 When an individual aliphatic hydrocarbon was not detected, its concentration was replaced by nd.3 The concentrations for n-C8 will be not reported, since it was difficult to identify this peak in samples and to determine MDL for n-C8.4 If all concentrations are nd, the average is replaced with nd. When there is at least one number in the data set to be averaged, each nd is replaced 

with 1/2*MDL, and an average is calculated. If this numeric value is less than the MDL, the average is replaced by < MDL; otherwise, the average is thecalculated value. When a numeric value is found for the average, the standard deviation is then determined using the same number set used to calculate

the average.

5 Determined from the total peak areas in the chromatogram from n-C8 to n-C40 minus any contributions from the internal standard areas.6 These formulae use 1/2MDL values for each analyte not detected.7 Sum of the concentrations of the individual aliphatic hydrocarbons n-C9 through n-C40 plus the concentrations of pristane and phytane.8 The total of the concentrations of the aliphatic hydrocarbons with an odd number of carbon atoms.9 The total of the concentrations of the aliphatic hydrocarbons with an even number of carbon atoms. The contribution of n-C8 is not included in the total.10 Carbon Preference Index (CPI) is defined as the ratio of the total of the concentrations of the aliphatic hydrocarbons with an odd number of carbons to the

total concentration of the alphatic hydrocarbons with an even carbon number.

11 The total of the concentrations of n-C10, n-C12, and n-C14.12 The total of the concentrations of n-C22, n-C24, n-C26, and n-C28.13 Weathering Index (WI) is defined as the ratio of the total concentration of n-C10, n-C12, and n-C14 to the total concentration of n-C22, n-C24, n-C26, and n-C28.14 These MDL values are calculated with the same summation formulae as the samples using the individual hydrocarbon MDL values.15 The summation totals for the samples are compared with calculated MDL values obtained using the same summation formulae as the samples.

When these sample totals were less than the total MDL, its value was replaced by nd. The averages and standard deviations for the totals weretreated in the same way as the individual hydrocarbons; see footnote 4.

16 Numerical values of the CPI, WI, and the ratios: pristane/n-C17, phytane/n-C18, and pristane/phytane, will be calculated only when the defined quantity

for each index or ratio has a numeric value.

17 These results are not true averages, instead they are the ratios of the averages of the defined quantities, if these averages exist.

Page 180
Table D8. Individual hydrocarbon and total petroleum hydrocarbon concentrations (in 

Pg/g wet wt.) for ribbed mussels taken from Saw 

Mill South marsh, an unplanted site.1-3

Sample ID

)9 Nonane (n-C

) 10 Decane (n-C

) 11 Undecane (n-C

) 12 Dodecane (n-C

) 13 Tridecane (n-C

) 14 Tetradecane (n-C

) 15 Pentadecane (n-C

) 16 Hexadecane (n-C

) 17 Heptadecane (n-C

Pristane

) 18 Octadecane (n-C

Phytane

) 19 Nonadecane (n-C

) 20 Eicosane (n-C

) 21 Heneicosane (n-C

) 22 Docosane (n-C

) 23 Tricosane (n-C

First Collection

197020426 nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd 0.08 nd nd nd nd nd 0.49 nd nd297031703 nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd 0.14 nd 0.46 nd nd297031704 nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd297031705 nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd297031706 nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd

Average4 nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd < MDL nd nd nd < MDL nd < MDL nd nd

Std Dev -----------------

Second Collection

497051401 nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd 1.75 nd nd 0.14 nd nd 2.28 0.68 2.82497051402 0.41 nd nd nd nd nd nd nd 2.18 0.11 nd 0.17 nd nd 1.49 nd nd497051403 nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd 2.54 0.16 nd 0.22 0.24 0.24 4.17 nd 4.85497051404 0.36 nd nd nd nd nd nd nd 1.30 nd nd 0.11 nd nd 2.07 0.75 nd497051432 0.91 nd nd nd nd nd nd nd 2.74 nd nd 0.14 nd nd 2.11 nd nd

Average4 0.39 nd nd nd nd nd nd nd 2.10 < MDL nd 0.16 < MDL < MDL 2.42 < MDL < MDL

Std Dev 0.32 ------- 0.59 - - 0.04 - - 1.02 - -

MDL 0.24 0.06 0.12 0.12 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.09 0.08 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.11 0.21 0.38 0.68 2.47

Page 181
Table D8. Continued.1-3

Sample ID

) 24 Tetracosane (n-C

) 25 Pentacosane (n-C ) 26 Hexacosane (n-C ) 27 Heptacosane (n-C ) 28 Octacosane (n-C ) 29 Nonacosane (n-C ) 30 Triacontane (n-C

) 31 n-Hentriacontane (n-C) 32 Dotriacontane (n-C ) 33 Tritriacontane (n-C ) 34 Tetratriacontane (n-C ) 35 Pentatriacontane (n-C ) 36 Hexatriacontane (n-C ) 37 Heptatriacontane (n-C ) 38 Octatriacontane (n-C ) 39 Nonatriacontane (n-C) 40 Tetracontane (n-C

First Collection

197020426 nd nd nd nd nd nd nd 0.20 0.15 0.19 0.20 0.22 0.24 0.23 0.20 0.15 0.08297031703 0.35 nd nd 0.28 0.57 5.98 nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd 0.07 0.08297031704 nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd 0.06297031705 nd nd nd 0.12 0.22 1.96 nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd 0.06297031706 nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd 0.06 0.07

Average4 < MDL nd nd 0.10 0.22 1.75 nd < MDL < MDL < MDL < MDL < MDL < MDL < MDL < MDL 0.07 0.07

Std Dev - - - 0.10 0.20 2.47 --------- 0.05 0.01

Second Collection

497051401 nd nd nd nd nd nd nd 0.32 0.97 0.13 nd nd 0.86 nd nd nd nd497051402 nd nd nd nd nd nd nd 0.34 1.02 nd nd nd 0.68 nd 0.09 nd nd497051403 nd 0.31 nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd 0.16 nd nd 0.11 0.06 nd497051404 nd nd nd 0.08 nd nd nd 0.78 4.69 0.49 0.28 0.34 0.35 0.42 0.35 0.32 0.16497051432 nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd

Average4 nd < MDL nd < MDL nd nd nd 0.31 1.36 0.15 0.09 0.13 0.40 < MDL 0.13 0.09 < MDL

Std Dev ------- 0.30 1.92 0.19 0.10 0.13 0.37 - 0.13 0.13 -

MDL 0.29 0.27 0.11 0.08 0.20 0.56 0.48 0.11 0.14 0.11 0.09 0.10 0.10 0.18 0.08 0.06 0.06

Page 182
Table D8. Continued.1-3

Sample ID

Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons

5

Total Concentrations of Individual 

Hydrocarbons6,7,15

Total: Pristane + Phytane6,15

17 Pristane/n-C 16

18 Phytane/n-C 16

Pristane/Phytane16

Total: Odd No Carbons6,8,15

Total: Even No Carbons6,9,15

Carbon Preference Index (CPI)10,16

14 -C 12 -C 10 Sum: C 6,11,15

28 -C 26 -C 24 -C 22 Sum: C 6,12,15

Weathering Index (WI)13,16

First Collection

197020426 nd nd nd - - - nd nd - nd nd - 297031703 131 11.2 nd - - - 8.88 nd - nd 1.31 - 297031704 nd nd nd - - - nd nd - nd nd - 297031705 nd nd nd - - - nd nd - nd nd - 297031706 nd nd nd - - - nd nd - nd nd - 

Average4 < MDL < MDL nd - - - < MDL nd - nd < MDL - 

Std Dev - - - - - - - - - - - - 

Second Collection

497051401 110 12.0 nd - - - 8.26 3.51 2.35 nd nd - 497051402 159 9.91 0.27 0.05 - 0.63 6.55 3.09 2.12 nd nd - 497051403 133 15.2 0.38 0.06 - 0.71 13.2 nd - nd nd - 497051404 189 15.7 nd - - - 8.04 7.47 1.08 nd nd - 497051432 97.9 9.60 nd - - - 7.95 nd - nd nd - 

Average4 138 12.5 0.24 - - - 8.79 3.44 2.56 17 nd nd - 

Std Dev 37.0 2.86 0.09 - - - 2.53 2.42 - - - - 

MDL 53.6 8.1914 0.1914 5.0914 2.9114 0.2914 1.2914

Page 183
Table D8. Continued. 

Footnotes:

1 The concentrations of the individual aliphatic hydrocarbons and the total petroleum hydrocarbons were determined using external standard calculations.2 When an individual aliphatic hydrocarbon was not detected, its concentration was replaced by nd.3 The concentrations for n-C8 will be not reported, since it was difficult to identify this peak in samples and to determine MDL for n-C8.4 If all concentrations are nd, the average is replaced with nd. When there is at least one number in the data set to be averaged, each nd is replaced 

with 1/2*MDL, and an average is calculated. If this numeric value is less than the MDL, the average is replaced by < MDL; otherwise, the average is thecalculated value. When a numeric value is found for the average, the standard deviation is then determined using the same number set used to calculate

the average.

5 Determined from the total peak areas in the chromatogram from n-C8 to n-C40 minus any contributions from the internal standard areas.6 These formulae use 1/2MDL values for each analyte not detected.7 Sum of the concentrations of the individual aliphatic hydrocarbons n-C9 through n-C40 plus the concentrations of pristane and phytane.8 The total of the concentrations of the aliphatic hydrocarbons with an odd number of carbon atoms.9 The total of the concentrations of the aliphatic hydrocarbons with an even number of carbon atoms. The contribution of n-C8 is not included in the total.10 Carbon Preference Index (CPI) is defined as the ratio of the total of the concentrations of the aliphatic hydrocarbons with an odd number of carbons to the

total concentration of the alphatic hydrocarbons with an even carbon number.

11 The total of the concentrations of n-C10, n-C12, and n-C14.12 The total of the concentrations of n-C22, n-C24, n-C26, and n-C28.13 Weathering Index (WI) is defined as the ratio of the total concentration of n-C10, n-C12, and n-C14 to the total concentration of n-C22, n-C24, n-C26, and n-C28.14 These MDL values are calculated with the same summation formulae as the samples using the individual hydrocarbon MDL values.15 The summation totals for the samples are compared with calculated MDL values obtained using the same summation formulae as the samples.

When these sample totals were less than the total MDL, its value was replaced by nd. The averages and standard deviations for the totals weretreated in the same way as the individual hydrocarbons; see footnote 4.

16 Numerical values of the CPI, WI, and the ratios: pristane/n-C17, phytane/n-C18, and pristane/phytane, will be calculated only when the defined quantity

for each index or ratio has a numeric value.

17 These results are not true averages, instead they are the ratios of the averages of the defined quantities, if these averages exist.

Page 184
Table D9. Individual hydrocarbon and total petroleum hydrocarbon concentrations (in 

Pg/g wet wt.) for ribbed mussels taken from Tufts 

Point marsh, a reference site.1-3

Sample ID

)9 Nonane (n-C

) 10 Decane (n-C

) 11 Undecane (n-C

) 12 Dodecane (n-C

) 13 Tridecane (n-C

) 14 Tetradecane (n-C

) 15 Pentadecane (n-C

) 16 Hexadecane (n-C

) 17 Heptadecane (n-C

Pristane

) 18 Octadecane (n-C

Phytane

) 19 Nonadecane (n-C

) 20 Eicosane (n-C

) 21 Heneicosane (n-C

) 22 Docosane (n-C

) 23 Tricosane (n-C

First Collection

197020403 0.90 nd nd nd nd 0.12 nd nd 0.20 nd nd nd 0.29 nd 2.55 nd nd197020404 0.97 nd nd nd nd nd nd nd 0.15 nd nd nd 0.20 nd 1.86 nd nd197020405 2.03 nd nd nd nd 0.19 nd nd 0.21 nd nd nd 0.34 nd 2.89 nd nd197020406 0.29 nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd 1.09 nd nd197020408 0.66 nd nd nd nd nd nd nd 0.16 nd nd nd nd nd 1.55 nd nd

Average4 0.97 nd nd nd nd < MDL nd nd 0.15 nd nd nd 0.19 nd 1.99 nd nd

Std Dev 0.65 ------- 0.07 - - - 0.13 - 0.73 - -

 Second Collection

497051427 nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd 0.25 nd nd nd nd nd 0.79 nd nd497051428 nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd 0.28 0.10 nd nd nd nd 1.54 nd nd497051429 nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd 0.31 nd nd nd 1.16 nd 1.59 nd nd497051430 nd nd nd nd nd nd nd 0.15 0.32 0.12 0.13 0.11 0.19 nd 2.70 nd 3.05497051431 nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd 0.14 nd nd nd nd nd 1.87 nd nd

Average4 nd nd nd nd nd nd nd < MDL 0.26 < MDL < MDL < MDL 0.30 nd 1.70 nd < MDL

Std Dev -------- 0.07 - - - 0.48 - 0.69 - -

MDL 0.24 0.06 0.12 0.12 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.09 0.08 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.11 0.21 0.38 0.68 2.47

Page 185
Table D9. Continued.1-3

Sample ID

) 24 Tetracosane (n-C

) 25 Pentacosane (n-C ) 26 Hexacosane (n-C ) 27 Heptacosane (n-C ) 28 Octacosane (n-C ) 29 Nonacosane (n-C ) 30 Triacontane (n-C

) 31 n-Hentriacontane (n-C) 32 Dotriacontane (n-C ) 33 Tritriacontane (n-C ) 34 Tetratriacontane (n-C ) 35 Pentatriacontane (n-C ) 36 Hexatriacontane (n-C ) 37 Heptatriacontane (n-C ) 38 Octatriacontane (n-C ) 39 Nonatriacontane (n-C) 40 Tetracontane (n-C

First Collection

197020403 nd nd 0.14 nd nd nd nd 1.52 6.13 0.43 0.80 0.89 0.89 0.81 0.68 0.50 0.31197020404 0.47 nd 0.13 0.40 1.00 9.82 nd 0.84 0.41 0.46 0.60 0.68 0.68 0.65 0.55 0.41 0.25197020405 0.48 nd 0.14 0.44 1.97 nd nd 0.55 0.68 0.69 0.77 0.86 0.87 0.80 0.68 0.50 0.31197020406 nd nd nd nd nd nd nd 0.60 1.31 0.60 0.40 0.43 0.43 0.40 0.33 0.24 0.15197020408 nd nd 0.15 nd nd nd nd 0.81 2.24 0.22 0.48 0.50 0.46 0.47 0.35 0.26 0.16

Average4 < MDL nd 0.12 0.19 0.66 2.19 nd 0.86 2.15 0.48 0.61 0.67 0.67 0.63 0.52 0.38 0.24

Std Dev - - 0.04 0.21 0.83 4.27 - 0.39 2.33 0.18 0.18 0.21 0.22 0.19 0.17 0.13 0.08

 Second Collection

497051427 nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd 0.12 0.07 nd497051428 nd nd nd 0.16 nd 0.79 nd nd nd nd nd 0.12 0.12 nd 0.14 0.08 nd497051429 nd nd nd nd nd nd nd 0.13 nd nd nd nd 0.11 nd 0.13 0.08 nd497051430 nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd 0.10 nd 0.12 0.07 nd497051431 nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd

Average4 nd nd nd < MDL nd < MDL nd < MDL nd nd nd < MDL < MDL nd 0.11 0.07 nd

Std Dev -------------- 0.04 0.02 -

MDL 0.29 0.27 0.11 0.08 0.20 0.56 0.48 0.11 0.14 0.11 0.09 0.10 0.10 0.18 0.08 0.06 0.06

Page 186
Table D9. Continued.1-3

Sample ID

Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons

5

Total Concentrations of Individual 

Hydrocarbons6,7,15

Total: Pristane + Phytane6,15

17 Pristane/n-C 16

18 Phytane/n-C 16

Pristane/Phytane16

Total: Odd No Carbons6,8,15

Total: Even No Carbons6,9,15

Carbon Preference Index (CPI)10,16

14 -C 12 -C 10 Sum: C 6,11,15

28 -C 26 -C 24 -C 22 Sum: C 6,12,15

Weathering Index (WI)13,16

First Collection

197020403 260 20.2 nd - - - 9.95 10.2 0.98 nd nd - 197020404 288 23.1 nd - - - 18.0 5.02 3.58 nd 1.95 - 197020405 370 18.2 nd - - - 11.1 6.96 1.60 nd 2.93 - 197020406 96.2 9.55 nd - - - 5.60 3.85 1.46 nd nd - 197020408 158 11.7 nd - - - 6.54 5.02 1.30 nd nd - 

Average4 235 16.5 nd - - - 10.2 6.21 1.65 17 nd 1.40 - 

Std Dev 108 5.75 - - - - 4.90 2.49 - - 1.01 - 

 Second Collection

497051427 99.8 nd nd - - - nd nd - nd nd - 497051428 143 nd nd 0.37 - - nd nd - nd nd - 497051429 118 nd nd - - - 5.44 nd - nd nd - 497051430 185 9.32 0.23 0.38 0.90 1.08 7.33 nd - nd nd - 497051431 69.9 nd nd - - - nd nd - nd nd - 

Average4 123 < MDL < MDL - - - < MDL nd - nd nd - 

Std Dev 43.7 - - - - - - - - - - - 

MDL 53.6 8.1914 0.1914 5.0914 2.9114 0.2914 1.2914

Page 187
Table D9. Continued. 

Footnotes:

1 The concentrations of the individual aliphatic hydrocarbons and the total petroleum hydrocarbons were determined using external standard calculations.2 When an individual aliphatic hydrocarbon was not detected, its concentration was replaced by nd.3 The concentrations for n-C8 will be not reported, since it was difficult to identify this peak in samples and to determine MDL for n-C8.4 If all concentrations are nd, the average is replaced with nd. When there is at least one number in the data set to be averaged, each nd is replaced 

with 1/2*MDL, and an average is calculated. If this numeric value is less than the MDL, the average is replaced by < MDL; otherwise, the average is thecalculated value. When a numeric value is found for the average, the standard deviation is then determined using the same number set used to calculate

the average.

5 Determined from the total peak areas in the chromatogram from n-C8 to n-C40 minus any contributions from the internal standard areas.6 These formulae use 1/2MDL values for each analyte not detected.7 Sum of the concentrations of the individual aliphatic hydrocarbons n-C9 through n-C40 plus the concentrations of pristane and phytane.8 The total of the concentrations of the aliphatic hydrocarbons with an odd number of carbon atoms.9 The total of the concentrations of the aliphatic hydrocarbons with an even number of carbon atoms. The contribution of n-C8 is not included in the total.10 Carbon Preference Index (CPI) is defined as the ratio of the total of the concentrations of the aliphatic hydrocarbons with an odd number of carbons to the

total concentration of the alphatic hydrocarbons with an even carbon number.

11 The total of the concentrations of n-C10, n-C12, and n-C14.12 The total of the concentrations of n-C22, n-C24, n-C26, and n-C28.13 Weathering Index (WI) is defined as the ratio of the total concentration of n-C10, n-C12, and n-C14 to the total concentration of n-C22, n-C24, n-C26, and n-C28.14 These MDL values are calculated with the same summation formulae as the samples using the individual hydrocarbon MDL values.15 The summation totals for the samples are compared with calculated MDL values obtained using the same summation formulae as the samples.

When these sample totals were less than the total MDL, its value was replaced by nd. The averages and standard deviations for the totals weretreated in the same way as the individual hydrocarbons; see footnote 4.

16 Numerical values of the CPI, WI, and the ratios: pristane/n-C17, phytane/n-C18, and pristane/phytane, will be calculated only when the defined quantity

for each index or ratio has a numeric value.

17 These results are not true averages, instead they are the ratios of the averages of the defined quantities, if these averages exist.

Page 188
Table D10. Individual hydrocarbon and total petroleum hydrocarbon concentrations (in 

Pg/g wet wt.) for ribbed mussels taken from Mill 

Creek marsh, a reference site.1-3

Sample ID

)9 Nonane (n-C

) 10 Decane (n-C

) 11 Undecane (n-C

) 12 Dodecane (n-C

) 13 Tridecane (n-C

) 14 Tetradecane (n-C

) 15 Pentadecane (n-C

) 16 Hexadecane (n-C

) 17 Heptadecane (n-C

Pristane

) 18 Octadecane (n-C

Phytane

) 19 Nonadecane (n-C

) 20 Eicosane (n-C

) 21 Heneicosane (n-C

) 22 Docosane (n-C

) 23 Tricosane (n-C

First Collection

197020407 0.98 nd nd nd nd nd 0.14 0.13 0.29 0.14 nd nd 0.24 nd 2.41 0.81 nd197020417 1.28 nd nd nd nd nd nd nd 0.12 nd nd nd 0.35 nd 1.52 1.03 nd197020418 0.61 nd nd nd nd nd nd 0.15 0.26 nd nd nd 0.13 nd 1.90 0.76 nd197020419 0.42 nd nd nd nd nd 0.12 nd 0.19 nd nd nd nd nd 0.69 1.78 nd197020420 nd nd nd nd nd nd nd 0.10 0.11 nd nd nd nd nd 1.04 nd nd

Average4 0.68 nd nd nd nd nd < MDL 0.09 0.19 < MDL nd nd 0.16 nd 1.51 0.95 nd

Std Dev 0.46 ------ 0.05 0.08 - - - 0.13 - 0.68 0.53 -

Second Collection

497051417 0.34 nd nd nd nd nd nd nd 0.76 nd nd 0.10 nd nd 1.31 nd nd497051418 0.42 nd nd nd nd nd nd nd 0.47 nd nd nd nd nd 1.18 nd nd497051419 0.27 nd nd nd nd nd nd nd 1.06 nd nd 0.11 0.15 nd 3.43 1.04 4.22497051420 nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd 1.29 nd nd nd nd nd 2.27 nd nd497051421 0.68 nd nd nd nd nd nd nd 1.15 nd 0.16 0.12 1.44 nd 1.85 nd nd

Average4 0.37 nd nd nd nd nd nd nd 0.95 nd < MDL < MDL 0.35 nd 2.01 < MDL < MDL

Std Dev 0.21 ------- 0.33 - - - 0.61 - 0.91 - -

MDL 0.24 0.06 0.12 0.12 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.09 0.08 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.11 0.21 0.38 0.68 2.47

Page 189
Table D10. Continued.1-3

Sample ID

) 24 Tetracosane (n-C

) 25 Pentacosane (n-C ) 26 Hexacosane (n-C ) 27 Heptacosane (n-C ) 28 Octacosane (n-C ) 29 Nonacosane (n-C ) 30 Triacontane (n-C

) 31 n-Hentriacontane (n-C) 32 Dotriacontane (n-C ) 33 Tritriacontane (n-C ) 34 Tetratriacontane (n-C ) 35 Pentatriacontane (n-C ) 36 Hexatriacontane (n-C ) 37 Heptatriacontane (n-C ) 38 Octatriacontane (n-C ) 39 Nonatriacontane (n-C) 40 Tetracontane (n-C

First Collection

197020407 nd 0.30 0.19 nd nd nd nd 0.48 0.64 0.68 0.75 0.83 0.77 0.80 0.56 0.45 0.26

197020417 nd nd nd 0.08 nd nd nd 0.52 0.56 0.58 0.59 0.63 0.57 0.53 0.43 0.31 0.18197020418 nd nd nd nd nd nd nd 0.23 0.36 0.42 0.44 0.50 0.49 0.44 0.40 0.28 0.17197020419 nd nd nd nd nd nd nd 0.16 0.24 0.26 0.27 0.32 0.32 0.32 0.25 0.18 0.11197020420 nd nd nd nd nd nd nd 56.6 5.12 2.11 0.22 0.25 0.24 0.26 0.19 0.14 0.09

Average4 nd < MDL < MDL < MDL nd nd nd 11.6 1.38 0.81 0.45 0.51 0.48 0.47 0.37 0.27 0.16

Std Dev - - - - - - - 25.1 2.09 0.74 0.22 0.23 0.21 0.21 0.15 0.12 0.07

Second Collection

497051417 nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd 

497051418 nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd 0.09 nd nd 497051419 nd nd nd nd nd nd nd 0.25 1.36 0.91 nd nd nd nd 0.08 nd nd 497051420 nd nd nd nd nd nd nd 0.84 4.89 2.09 nd nd nd nd 0.10 0.06 nd 497051421 nd nd nd nd nd nd nd 0.59 1.81 1.52 nd nd nd nd 0.08 nd nd 

Average4 nd nd nd nd nd nd nd 0.36 1.64 0.93 nd nd nd nd < MDL < MDL nd 

Std Dev - - - - - - - 0.35 1.97 0.90 - - - - - - - 

MDL 0.29 0.27 0.11 0.08 0.20 0.56 0.48 0.11 0.14 0.11 0.09 0.10 0.10 0.18 0.08 0.06 0.06

Page 190
Table D10. Continued.1-3

Sample ID

Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons

5

Total Concentrations of Individual 

Hydrocarbons6,7,15

Total: Pristane + Phytane6,15

17 Pristane/n-C 16

18 Phytane/n-C 16

Pristane/Phytane16

Total: Odd No Carbons6,8,15

Total: Even No Carbons6,9,15

Carbon Preference Index (CPI)10,16

14 -C 12 -C 10 Sum: C 6,11,15

28 -C 26 -C 24 -C 22 Sum: C 6,12,15

Weathering Index (WI)13,16

First Collection

197020407 148 14.4 nd 0.48 - - 9.28 4.90 1.89 nd nd - 197020417 99.9 12.1 nd - - - 7.72 4.24 1.82 nd 1.33 - 197020418 111 10.3 nd - - - 6.62 3.62 1.83 nd nd - 197020419 64.6 8.46 nd - - - nd 3.86 - nd 2.08 - 197020420 141 69.7 nd - - - 62.5 7.14 8.76 nd nd - 

Average4 113 23.0 nd - - - 18.1 4.75 3.81 17 nd <MDL - 

Std Dev 33.6 26.2 - - - - 24.9 1.42 - - - - 

Second Collection

497051417 110 nd nd - - - nd nd - nd nd - 497051418 90.0 nd nd - - - nd nd - nd nd - 497051419 208 14.7 nd - - - 11.1 3.48 3.18 nd 1.34 - 497051420 233 15.2 nd - - - 8.72 6.33 1.38 nd nd - 497051421 167 12.8 nd - 0.78 - 9.26 3.35 2.76 nd nd - 

Average4 162 10.9 nd - - - 7.59 3.23 2.35 17 nd < MDL - 

Std Dev 61.4 4.58 - - - - 3.01 1.99 - - - - 

MDL 53.6 8.1914 0.1914 5.0914 2.9114 0.2914 1.2914

Page 191
Table D10. Continued. 

Footnotes:

1 The concentrations of the individual aliphatic hydrocarbons and the total petroleum hydrocarbons were determined using external standard calculations.2 When an individual aliphatic hydrocarbon was not detected, its concentration was replaced by nd.3 The concentrations for n-C8 will be not reported, since it was difficult to identify this peak in samples and to determine MDL for n-C8.4 If all concentrations are nd, the average is replaced with nd. When there is at least one number in the data set to be averaged, each nd is replaced 

with 1/2*MDL, and an average is calculated. If this numeric value is less than the MDL, the average is replaced by < MDL; otherwise, the average is thecalculated value. When a numeric value is found for the average, the standard deviation is then determined using the same number set used to calculate

the average.

5 Determined from the total peak areas in the chromatogram from n-C8 to n-C40 minus any contributions from the internal standard areas.6 These formulae use 1/2MDL values for each analyte not detected.7 Sum of the concentrations of the individual aliphatic hydrocarbons n-C9 through n-C40 plus the concentrations of pristane and phytane.8 The total of the concentrations of the aliphatic hydrocarbons with an odd number of carbon atoms.9 The total of the concentrations of the aliphatic hydrocarbons with an even number of carbon atoms. The contribution of n-C8 is not included in the total.10 Carbon Preference Index (CPI) is defined as the ratio of the total of the concentrations of the aliphatic hydrocarbons with an odd number of carbons to the

total concentration of the alphatic hydrocarbons with an even carbon number.

11 The total of the concentrations of n-C10, n-C12, and n-C14.12 The total of the concentrations of n-C22, n-C24, n-C26, and n-C28.13 Weathering Index (WI) is defined as the ratio of the total concentration of n-C10, n-C12, and n-C14 to the total concentration of n-C22, n-C24, n-C26, and n-C28.14 These MDL values are calculated with the same summation formulae as the samples using the individual hydrocarbon MDL values.15 The summation totals for the samples are compared with calculated MDL values obtained using the same summation formulae as the samples.

When these sample totals were less than the total MDL, its value was replaced by nd. The averages and standard deviations for the totals weretreated in the same way as the individual hydrocarbons; see footnote 4.

16 Numerical values of the CPI, WI, and the ratios: pristane/n-C17, phytane/n-C18, and pristane/phytane, will be calculated only when the defined quantity

for each index or ratio has a numeric value.

17 These results are not true averages, instead they are the ratios of the averages of the defined quantities, if these averages exist.

Page 192
Table D11. Individual hydrocarbon and total petroleum hydrocarbon concentrations (in 

Pg/g wet wt.) for ribbed mussels taken from Sandy 

Hook marsh, a reference site.1-3

Sample ID

)9 Nonane (n-C

) 10 Decane (n-C

) 11 Undecane (n-C

) 12 Dodecane (n-C

) 13 Tridecane (n-C

) 14 Tetradecane (n-C

) 15 Pentadecane (n-C

) 16 Hexadecane (n-C

) 17 Heptadecane (n-C

Pristane

) 18 Octadecane (n-C

Phytane

) 19 Nonadecane (n-C

) 20 Eicosane (n-C

) 21 Heneicosane (n-C

) 22 Docosane (n-C

) 23 Tricosane (n-C

297031710 nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd 0.09 nd nd nd 0.47 nd 0.58 1.30 3.42297031711 0.47 nd 0.13 nd nd nd nd 0.10 0.13 nd nd nd 0.60 nd 1.21 1.27 nd297031712 0.34 nd nd nd nd nd nd nd 0.09 nd nd nd 0.31 nd 0.52 0.68 nd297031713 0.30 nd nd nd nd nd nd nd 0.12 nd nd nd nd nd 1.09 1.42 nd297031714 0.31 nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd 0.24 nd 0.93 0.95 nd297031715 0.34 nd nd nd nd nd nd nd 0.12 nd nd nd 0.39 nd 1.58 1.04 nd297031716 0.32 nd nd nd nd nd nd nd 0.12 nd nd nd 0.48 nd 0.89 0.72 nd

Average4 0.31 nd < MDL nd nd nd nd < MDL 0.10 nd nd nd 0.36 nd 0.97 1.06 < MDL

Std Dev 0.10 ------- 0.03 - - - 0.18 - 0.37 0.29 -

MDL 0.24 0.06 0.12 0.12 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.09 0.08 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.11 0.21 0.38 0.68 2.47

Page 193
Table D11. Continued.1-3

Sample ID

) 24 Tetracosane (n-C

) 25 Pentacosane (n-C ) 26 Hexacosane (n-C ) 27 Heptacosane (n-C ) 28 Octacosane (n-C ) 29 Nonacosane (n-C ) 30 Triacontane (n-C

) 31 n-Hentriacontane (n-C) 32 Dotriacontane (n-C ) 33 Tritriacontane (n-C ) 34 Tetratriacontane (n-C ) 35 Pentatriacontane (n-C ) 36 Hexatriacontane (n-C ) 37 Heptatriacontane (n-C ) 38 Octatriacontane (n-C ) 39 Nonatriacontane (n-C) 40 Tetracontane (n-C

297031710 1.91 nd 0.34 0.96 6.69 33.7 15.7 0.61 nd nd nd nd nd nd 0.11 0.15 0.17297031711 nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd 0.10 nd nd 0.38 0.10 0.11 0.13297031712 nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd 0.23 nd nd nd 0.21 0.09 0.12 0.14297031713 nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd 0.11 0.12 0.14297031714 nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd 0.14 nd nd nd 0.11 0.26 0.15 0.14 0.16297031715 nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd 0.24 0.11 0.14 0.16297031716 nd nd nd 0.12 nd nd nd nd nd 0.11 nd nd nd 0.19 0.09 0.11 0.12

Average4 0.40 nd < MDL 0.18 1.04 5.05 2.45 0.14 < MDL < MDL < MDL nd < MDL 0.21 0.11 0.13 0.15

Std Dev 0.67 - - 0.35 2.49 12.6 5.85 0.21 - - - - - 0.10 0.02 0.02 0.02

MDL 0.29 0.27 0.11 0.08 0.20 0.56 0.48 0.11 0.14 0.11 0.09 0.10 0.10 0.18 0.08 0.06 0.06

Page 194
Table D11. Continued.1-3

Sample ID

Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons

5

Total Concentrations of Individual 

Hydrocarbons6,7,15

Total: Pristane + Phytane6,15

17 Pristane/n-C 16

18 Phytane/n-C 16

Pristane/Phytane16

Total: Odd No Carbons6,8,15

Total: Even No Carbons6,9,15

Carbon Preference Index (CPI)10,16

14 -C 12 -C 10 Sum: C 6,11,15

28 -C 26 -C 24 -C 22 Sum: C 6,12,15

Weathering Index (WI)13,16

297031710 801 67.4 nd - - - 40.6 26.8 1.52 nd 10.2 - 297031711 62.4 nd nd - - - nd nd - nd 1.58 - 297031712 54.7 nd nd - - - nd nd - nd nd - 297031713 57.5 nd nd - - - nd nd - nd 1.72 - 297031714 nd nd nd - - - nd nd - nd nd - 297031715 71.3 nd nd - - - nd nd - nd 1.34 - 297031716 74.2 nd nd - - - nd nd - nd nd - 

Average4 164 15.4 < MDL - - - 9.46 5.84 1.62 17 < MDL 2.59 - 

Std Dev 281 23.0 - - - - 13.7 9.23 - - 3.38 - 

MDL 53.6 8.1914 0.1914 5.0914 2.9114 0.2914 1.2914

Page 195
Table D11. Continued. 

Footnotes:

1 The concentrations of the individual aliphatic hydrocarbons and the total petroleum hydrocarbons were determined using external standard calculations.2 When an individual aliphatic hydrocarbon was not detected, its concentration was replaced by nd.3 The concentrations for n-C8 will be not reported, since it was difficult to identify this peak in samples and to determine MDL for n-C8.4 If all concentrations are nd, the average is replaced with nd. When there is at least one number in the data set to be averaged, each nd is replaced 

with 1/2*MDL, and an average is calculated. If this numeric value is less than the MDL, the average is replaced by < MDL; otherwise, the average is thecalculated value. When a numeric value is found for the average, the standard deviation is then determined using the same number set used to calculate

the average.

5 Determined from the total peak areas in the chromatogram from n-C8 to n-C40 minus any contributions from the internal standard areas.6 These formulae use 1/2MDL values for each analyte not detected.7 Sum of the concentrations of the individual aliphatic hydrocarbons n-C9 through n-C40 plus the concentrations of pristane and phytane.8 The total of the concentrations of the aliphatic hydrocarbons with an odd number of carbon atoms.9 The total of the concentrations of the aliphatic hydrocarbons with an even number of carbon atoms. The contribution of n-C8 is not included in the total.10 Carbon Preference Index (CPI) is defined as the ratio of the total of the concentrations of the aliphatic hydrocarbons with an odd number of carbons to the

total concentration of the alphatic hydrocarbons with an even carbon number.

11 The total of the concentrations of n-C10, n-C12, and n-C14.12 The total of the concentrations of n-C22, n-C24, n-C26, and n-C28.13 Weathering Index (WI) is defined as the ratio of the total concentration of n-C10, n-C12, and n-C14 to the total concentration of n-C22, n-C24, n-C26, and n-C28.14 These MDL values are calculated with the same summation formulae as the samples using the individual hydrocarbon MDL values.15 The summation totals for the samples are compared with calculated MDL values obtained using the same summation formulae as the samples.

When these sample totals were less than the total MDL, its total was replaced by nd. The averages and standard deviations for the totals weretreated in the same way as the individual hydrocarbons; see footnote 4.

16 Numerical values of the CPI, WI, and the ratios: pristane/n-C17, phytane/n-C18, and pristane/phytane, will be calculated only when the defined quantity

for each index or ratio has a numeric value.

17 These results are not true averages, instead they are the ratios of the averages of the defined quantities, if these averages exist.

Page 196
Page 197

APPENDIX E

CHROMATOGRAMS FOR ANALYSIS OF PETROLEUM HYDROCARBONS

[Note: For Figures E1-E14, each chromatogram was normalized to the overall response expected for

1 g of material from each core section or surface scoop sample. The value for TPH is given for each

chromatogram. When the TPH value is smaller than the MDL value of 181μg/g, the symbol “<MDL” is

assigned to the TPH concentration, and the MDL is used to normalize the chromatogram.]

Figure E1. Normalized GC-FID chromatograms for Station A, Old Place Creek marsh sediment core sections (collected

September 1996) and surface scoop (collected May 1997)

Figure E2. Normalized GC-FID chromatograms for Station B, Old Place Creek marsh sediment core sections (collected

September 1996) and surface scoop (collected May 1997)

Figure E3. Normalized GC-FID chromatograms for Station C, Old Place Creek marsh sediment core sections (collected

September 1996) and surface scoop (collected May 1997)

Figure E4. Normalized GC-FID chromatograms for Station D, Old Place Creek marsh sediment core sections (collected

September 1996) and surface scoop (collected May 1997)

Figure E5. Normalized GC-FID chromatograms for Station A, Con Ed Tower marsh sediment core sections (collected

September 1996) and surface scoop (collected May 1997)

Figure E6. Normalized GC-FID chromatograms for Station B, Con Ed Tower marsh sediment core sections (collected

September 1996) and surface scoop (collected May 1997)

Figure E7. Normalized GC-FID chromatograms for Station C, Con Ed Tower marsh sediment core sections (collected

September 1996) and surface scoop (collected May 1997)

Figure E8. Normalized GC-FID chromatograms for Station D, Con Ed Tower marsh sediment core sections (collected

September 1996) and surface scoop (collected May 1997)

Figure E9. Normalized GC-FID chromatograms for Station A, Mill Creek marsh sediment core sections (collected

September 1996)

Figure E10. Normalized GC-FID chromatograms for Station B, Mill Creek marsh sediment core sections (collected

September 1996)

Figure E11. Normalized GC-FID chromatograms for Station C, Mill Creek marsh sediment core sections (collected

September 1996)

Figure E12. Normalized GC-FID chromatograms for Station D, Mill Creek marsh sediment core sections (collected

September 1996)

Figure E13. Normalized GC-FID chromatograms for Old Place Creek marsh and Sandy Hook Bay marsh surface scoop

samples

Figure E14. Normalized GC-FID chromatograms for Con Ed Tower marsh and Sandy Hook Bay marsh surface scoop

samples

Figure E15. Representative GC-FID chromatograms for Arthur Kill and Sandy Hook Bay ribbed-mussels collected in

September 1996

Figure E16. Representative GC-FID chromatograms for Arthur Kill ribbed-mussels collected in May 1997
Core Section 4 - Core Depth: 3 to 4 cm

TPH Conc < MDL

Core Section 3 - Core Depth: 2 to 3 cm

TPH Conc. < MDL

Core Section 5 - Core Depth: 4 to 5 cm

TPH Conc. = 382 Pg/g

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Retention Time (in min.)

Surface Scoop

TPH Conc. < MDL

Core Section 1 - Core Depth: 0 to 1 cm

TPH Conc. < MDL

Core Section 2 - Core Depth: 1 to 2 cm

TPH Conc. < MDL

Page 198

Figure E1. Normalized GC-FID chromatograms for Station A, Old Place Creek marsh sediment core sections (collected September

 1996) and surface scoop (collected May 1997)
Core Section 4 - Core Depth: 3 to 4 cm

TPH Conc. = 834 Pg/g

Core Section 3 - Core Depth: 2 to 3 cm

TPH Conc. = 826 Pg/g

Core Section 5 - Core Depth: 4 to 5 cm

TPH Conc. = 1009 Pg/g

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Retention Time (in min.)

Surface Scoop

TPH Conc. = 494 Pg/g

Core Section 1 - Core Depth: 0 to 1 cm

TPH Conc. < MDL

Core Section 2 - Core Depth: 1 to 2 cm

TPH Conc. = 728 Pg/g

Page 199

Figure E2. Normalized GC-FID chromatograms for Station B, Old Place Creek marsh sediment core sections (collected September 

 1996) and surface scoop (collected May 1997)
Core Section 4 - Core Depth: 3 to 4 cm

TPH Conc. = 192 Pg/g

Core Section 3 - Core Depth: 2 to 3 cm

TPH Conc. = 230 Pg/g

Core Section 5 - Core Depth: 4 to 5 cm

TPH Conc. < MDL

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Retention Time (in min.)

Surface Scoop

TPH Conc. < MDL

Core Section 1 - Core Depth: 0 to 1 cm

TPH Conc.= 203 Pg/g

Core Section 2 - Core Depth: 1 to 2 cm

TPH Conc. = 248 Pg/g

Page 200

Figure E3. Normalized GC-FID chromatograms for Station C, Old Place Creek marsh sediment core sections (collected September 1996)

 and surface scoop (collected May 1997)
Core Section 4 - Core Depth: 3 to 4 cm

TPH Conc. = 3285 Pg/g

Core Section 3 - Core Depth: 2 to 3 cm

TPH Conc. = 1016 Pg/g

Core Section 5 - Core Depth: 4 to 5 cm

TPH Conc. = 2906 Pg/g

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Retention Time (in min.)

Surface Scoop

TPH Conc. < MDL

Core Section 1 - Core Depth: 0 to 1 cm

TPH Conc < MDL

Core Section 2 - Core Depth: 1 to 2 cm

TPH Conc < MDL

Page 201

Figure E4. Normalized GC-FID chromatograms for Station D, Old Place Creek marsh sediment core sections (collected September 1996)

 and surface scoop (collected May 1997)
Core Section 4 - Core Depth: 3 to 4 cm

TPH Conc. = 10068 Pg/g

Core Section 3 - Core Depth: 2 to 3 cm

TPH Conc. 5273 Pg/g

Core Section 5 - Core Depth: 4 to 5 cm

TPH Conc. = 12900 Pg/g

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Retention Time (in min.)

Surface Scoop

TPH Conc. = 1098 Pg/g

Core Section 1 - Core Depth: 0 to 1 cm

TPH Conc. = 1363 Pg/g

Core Section 2 - Core Depth: 1 to 2 cm

TPH Conc.= 4914 Pg/g

Page 202

Figure E5. Normalized GC-FID chromatograms for Station A, Con Ed Tower marsh sediment core sections (collected September 1996) and

 surface scoop (collected May 1997)
Core Section 4 - Core Depth: 3 to 4 cm

TPH Conc. = 17300 Pg/g

Core Section 3 - Core Depth: 2 to 3 cm

TPH Conc. = 12910 Pg/g

Core Section 5 - Core Depth: 4 to 5 cm

TPH Conc. = 9060 Pg/g

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Retention Time (in min.)

Surface Scoop

TPH Conc. = 193 Pg/g

Core Section 1 - Core Depth: 0 to 1 cm

TPH Conc. = 3837 Pg/g

Core Section 2 - Core Depth: 1 to 2 cm

TPH Conc.= 11950 Pg/g

Page 203

Figure E6. Normalized GC-FID chromatograms for Station B, Con Ed Tower marsh sediment core sections (collected September 1996)

 and surface scoop (collected May 1997)
Core Section 4 - Core Depth: 3 to 4 cm

TPH Conc. = 5660 Pg/g

Core Section 3 - Core Depth: 2 to 3 cm

TPH Conc. = 852 Pg/g

Core Section 5 - Core Depth: 4 to 5 cm

TPH Conc. = 8830 Pg/g

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Retention Time (in min.)

Surface Scoop

TPH Conc. = 225 Pg/g

Core Section 1 - Core Depth: 0 to 1 cm

TPH Conc. = 198 Pg/g

Core Section 2 - Core Depth: 1 to 2 cm

TPH Conc. = 233 Pg/g

Page 204

Figure E7. Normalized GC-FID chromatograms for Station C, Con Ed Tower marsh sediment core sections (collected September 1996)

 and surface scoop (collected May 1997)
Core Section 4 - Core Depth: 3 to 4 cm

TPH Conc. = 7260 Pg/g

Core Section 3 - Core Depth: 2 to 3 cm

TPH Conc. = 4790 Pg/g

Core Section 5 - Core Depth: 4 to 5 cm

TPH Conc. = 8500 Pg/g

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Retention Time (in min.)

Surface Scoop

TPH Conc.= 357 Pg/g

Core Section 1 - Core Depth: 0 to 1 cm

TPH Conc. = 677 Pg/g

Core Section 2 - Core Depth: 1 to 2 cm

TPH Conc. = 3670 Pg/g

Page 205

Figure E8. Normalized GC-FID chromatograms for Station D, Con Ed Tower marsh sediment core sections (collected September 

 1996) and surface scoop (collected May 1997)
Core Section 3 - Core Depth: 2 to 3 cm

TPH Conc. < MDL

Core Section 1 - Core Depth: 0 to 1 cm

TPH Conc. < MDL

Core Section 2 - Core Depth: 1 to 2 cm

TPH Conc. < MDL

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Retention Time (in min.)

Core Section 4 - Core Depth: 3 to 4 cm

TPH Conc. < MDL

Page 206

Figure E9. Normalized GC-FID chromatograms for Station A, Mill Creek marsh sediment core sections (collected September 1996)
Core Section 4 - Core Depth: 3 to 4 cm

TPH Conc. < MDL

Core Section 3 - Core Depth: 2 to 3 cm

TPH Conc. < MDL

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Retention Time (in min.)

Core Section 5 - Core Depth: 4 to 5 cm

TPH Conc. < MDL

Core Section 1 - Core Depth: 0 to 1 cm

TPH Conc. < MDL

Core Section 2 - Core Depth: 1 to 2 cm

TPH Conc. < MDL

Page 207

Figure E10. Normalized GC-FID chromatograms for Station B, Mill Creek marsh sediment core sections (collected September 1996)
Core Section 4 - Core Depth: 3 to 4 cm

TPH Conc. < MDL

Core Section 3 - Core Depth: 2 to 3 cm

TPH Conc. < MDL

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Retention Time (in min.)

Core Section 5 - Core Depth: 4 to 5 cm

TPH Conc. < MDL

Core Section 1 - Core Depth: 0 to 1cm

TPH Conc. <MDL

Core Section 2 - Core Depth: 1 to 2 cm

TPH Conc. < MDL

Page 208

Figure E11. Normalized GC-FID chromatograms for Station C, Mill Creek marsh sediment core sections (collected September 1996)
Core Section 4 - Core Depth: 3 to 4 cm

TPH Conc. = 1665 Pg/g

Core Section 3 - Core Depth: 2 to 3 cm

TPH Conc. = 1893 Pg/g

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Retention Time (in min.)

Core Section 5 - Core Depth: 4 to 5 cm

TPH Conc. = 1400 Pg/g

Core Section 1 - Core Depth: 0 to 1 cm

TPH Conc. < MDL

Core Section 2 - Core Depth: 1 to 2 cm

TPH Conc. = 228 Pg/g

Page 209

Figure E12. Normalized GC-FID chromatograms for Station D, Mill Creek marsh sediment core sections (collected September 1996)
1

 Each chromatogram was normalized with respect to the overall response expected for 1 gram of each surface scoop sample. The value for TPH is given for each chromatogram.

2

 The TPH value for these samples is smaller than the MDL value of 181 Pg/g. The MDL value is used instead to normalize the chromatogram.

Old Place - Station C 2

 TPH Conc. <MDL

Old Place - Station A 2

TPH Conc. <MDL

Old Place - Station B 

 TPH Conc. = 494 Pg/g

Old Place - Station D 2

 TPH Conc. <MDL

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Retention Time (in min.)

Sandy Hook 2

Page 210

Figure E13. Normalized GC-FID chromatograms for Old Place Creek marsh and Sandy Hook Bay marsh surface scoop samples1
Con Edison Tower - Station B

 TPH Conc. = 194 Pg/g

Con Edision Tower - Station A

 TPH Conc. = 1097 Pg/g

Con Edision Tower - Station D

 TPH Conc. = 357 Pg/g

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Retention Time (in min.)

Sandy Hook Bay

 TPH Conc. <MDL

Con Edison Tower - Station C

 TPH Conc. = 225 Pg/g

Page 211

Figure E14. Normalized GC-FID chromatograms for Con Ed Tower marsh and Sandy Hook Bay marsh surface scoop samples
Tufts Point

5-D-Androstane (IS)

o-Terphenyl (IS)

Mill Creek

5-D-Androstane (IS)

o-Terphenyl (IS)

5-D-Androstane (IS)

o-Terphenyl (IS)

Con Edison Tower

Saw Mill South

5-D-Androstane (IS)

o-Terphenyl (IS)

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

Retention Time (in min.)

Sandy Hook Bay 5-D-Androstane (IS)

o-Terphenyl (IS)

Old Place Marsh

5-D-Androstane (IS)

o-Terphenyl (IS)

5-D-Androstane (IS)

o-Terphenyl (IS)

Saw Mill North

Page 212

Figure E15. Representative GC-FID chromatograms for Arthur Kill and Sandy Hook Bay ribbed-mussels 

 collected in September 1996
Saw Mill South 5-D-Androstane

(IS)

o-Terphenyl (IS)

Saw Mill North 5-D-Androstane (IS)

o-Terphenyl (IS)

5-D-Androstane (IS)

o-Terphenyl (IS)

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

Retention Time (in min.)

Mill Creek 

5-D-Androstane (IS)

o-Terphenyl (IS)

Con Edison Tower 

5-D-Androstane (IS)

o-Terphenyl (IS)

Tufts Point 5-D-Androstane (IS)

o-Terphenyl (IS)

Old Place Marsh

Page 213

Figure E16. Representative GC-FID chromatograms for Arthur Kill ribbed-mussels collected in May 1997
Page 214
Page 215

APPENDIX F

REDOX VALUES

Table F1. Summary of redox data by station, depth range, and season for the replanted marsh sites of Old Place Creek

and Saw Mill Creek North

Table F2. Summary of redox data by station, depth range, and season for the unplanted marsh sites of Con Ed Tower

and Saw Mill Creek South

Table F3. Summary of redox data by station, depth range, and season for the reference marsh sites of Tufts Point and

Mill Creek
h Table F1. Summary of redox data (E measured in mV, and listed as mean ± standard deviation) by station, depth range, and season for the replanted marsh sites

of Old Place Creek and Saw Mill Creek North. (Most oxic season per station and depth range indicated by underlining. If neither season is underlined,

then there was no significant difference between seasons.)

Depth Station

range A B C D

(cm) Fall ’96 Spring ’97 Fall ’96 Spring ’97 Fall ’96 Spring ’97 Fall ’96 Spring ’97

Old Place Creek

0 to -2 +398 ± 34 +336 ± 46 +105 ± 165 +70 ± 195 +143 ± 181 +157 ± 110 +197 ± 60 +307 ± 39

-3 to -5 +453 ± 19 +414 ± 20 -201 ± 22 -231 ± 21 -262 ± 245 -196 ± 16 -142 ± 39 +268 ± 193

-6 to -10 +421 ± 205 +346 ± 121 -269 ± 6 -267 ± 25 +398 ± 34 -168 ± 42 -270 ± 182 +41 ± 172

Saw Mill Creek North

0 to -2 +106 ± 80 +187 ± 152 +227 ± 97 +248 ± 74 +170 ± 93 +282 ± 80 +87 ± 247 +148 ± 146

-3 to -5 -35 ± 97 -57 ± 75 +70 ± 245 +405 ± 21 +17 ± 77 +76 ± 188 -204 ± 8 +86 ± 274

-6 to -10 -159 ± 17 -178 ± 13 -168 ± 17 +444 ± 8 -15 ± 61 -68 ± 55 -213 ± 8 -173 ± 4

Page 216
h Table F2. Summary of redox data (E measured in mV, and listed as mean ± standard deviation) by station, depth range, and season for the unplanted marsh sites

of Con Ed Tower and Saw Mill Creek South. (Most oxic season per station and depth range indicated by underlining. If neither season is underlined,then there was no significant difference between seasons.)

Depth Station

range A B C D

(cm) Fall ’96 Spring ’97 Fall ’96 Spring ’97 Fall ’96 Spring ’97 Fall ’96 Spring ’97

Con Ed Tower

0 to -2 +59 ± 161 +169 ± 99 +23 ± 123 +167 ± 104 +109 ± 44 +83 ± 113 +8 ± 113 +230 ± 74

-3 to -5 -206 ± 28 +52 ± 238 -184 ± 38 -139 ± 177 +56 ± 115 -118 ± 89 -156 ± 18 +143 ± 280

-6 to -10 -239 ± 10 +223 ± 24 -252 ± 9 -206 ± 32 -134 ± 9 -232 ± 8 -170 ± 21 -97 ± 212

Saw Mill Creek South

0 to -2 +113 ± 149 +103 ± 154 +161 ± 136 +133 ± 146 +188 ± 123 +144 ± 110 +109 ± 133 +103 ± 130

-3 to -5 -151 ± 15 -179 ± 18 -129 ± 40 -140 ± 24 -58 ± 65 -18 ± 36 -176 ± 12 +32 ± 148

-6 to -10 -191 ± 18 -184 ± 6 -201 ± 14 -198 ± 33 -6 ± 111 -129 ± 36 -205 ± 8 +61 ± 98

Page 217
h Table F3. Summary of redox data (E measured in mV, and listed as mean ± standard deviation) by station, depth range, and season for the reference marsh sites

of Tufts Point and Mill Creek. (Most oxic season per station and depth range indicated by underlining. If neither season is underlined, then there was

no significant difference between seasons.)

Depth Station

range A B C D

(cm) Fall ’96 Spring ’97 Fall ’96 Spring ’97 Fall ’96 Spring ’97 Fall ’96 Spring ’97

Tufts Point

0 to -2 +79 ± 182 +171 ± 103 +121 ± 109 +115 ± 95 +201 ± 89 +217 ± 160 +183 ± 123 +175 ± 86

-3 to -5 -165 ± 33 +75 ± 85 -173 ± 24 +153 ± 155 +11 ± 138 +38 ± 129 -98 ± 163 +6 ± 78

-6 to -10 -219 ± 42 No data -179 ± 22 +36 ± 170 +103 ± 65 +118 ± 107 -253 ± 155 -141 ± 67

Mill Creek

0 to -2 +173 ± 125 +149 ± 26 +78 ± 139 +188 ± 110 +76 ± 219 +74 ± 141 -130 ± 71 +175 ± 64

-3 to -5 -8 ± 117 +33 ± 75 -132 ± 19 -92 ± 44 -169 ± 11 -132 ± 26 -196 ± 6 -55 ± 64

-6 to -10 -150 ± 23 -137 ± 40 -181 ± 41 -137 ± 20 -197 ± 22 -173 ± 18 -209 ± 6 -191 ± 19

Page 218
Publishing in NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-NE

Manuscript Qualification

This series represents a secondary level of scientific

publishing in the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS).

For all issues, the series employs thorough internal scientific

review, but not necessarily external scientific review. For most

issues, the series employs rigorous technical and copy editing.

Manuscripts that may warrant a primary level of scientific

publishing should be initially submitted to one of NMFS's

primary series (i.e., Fishery Bulletin, NOAA Technical Report

NMFS, or Marine Fisheries Review).

Identical, or fundamentally identical, manuscripts should

not be concurrently submitted to this and any other publication

series. Manuscripts which have been rejected by any primary

series strictly because of geographic or temporal limitations

may be submitted to this series.

Manuscripts by Northeast Fisheries Science Center

(NEFSC) authors will be published in this series upon approval

by the NEFSC's Deputy Science & Research Director. Manuscripts by non-NEFSC authors may be published in this series

if: 1) the manuscript serves the NEFSC's mission; 2) the

manuscript meets the Deputy Science & Research Director's

approval; and 3) the author arranges for the printing and binding

funds to be transferred to the NEFSC's Research Communications Unit account from another federal account. For all

manuscripts submitted by non-NEFSC authors and published

in this series, the NEFSC will disavow all responsibility for the

manuscripts' contents; authors must accept such responsibility.

The ethics of scientific research and scientific publishing

are a serious matter. All manuscripts submitted to this series

are expected to adhere -- at a minimum -- to the ethical guidelines

contained in Chapter 1 ("Ethical Conduct in Authorship and

Publication") of the CBE Style Manual, fifth edition (Chicago,

IL: Council of Biology Editors). Copies of the manual are

available at virtually all scientific libraries.

edition of the United States Government Printing Office Style

Manual. That style manual is silent on many aspects of scientific

manuscripts. NEFSC publication and report series rely more on the

CBE Style Manual, fifth edition.

For in-text citations, use the name-date system. A special

effort should be made to ensure that the list of cited works contains

all necessary bibliographic information. For abbreviating serial

titles in such lists, use the guidance of the International Standards

Organization; such guidance is easily accessed through the various

Cambridge Scientific Abstracts’ serials source lists (see http://

www.public.iastate.edu/~CYBERSTACKS/JAS.htm). Personal communications must include date of contact and full name and mailing

address of source.

For spelling of scientific and common names of fishes, mollusks, and decapod crustaceans from the United States and Canada,

use Special Publications No. 20 (fishes), 26 (mollusks), and 17

(decapod crustaceans) of the American Fisheries Society (Bethesda,

MD). For spelling of scientific and common names of marine

mammals, use Special Publication No. 4 of the Society for Marine

Mammalogy (Lawrence, KS). For spelling in general, use the most

recent edition of Webster’s Third New International Dictionary of

the English Language Unabridged (Springfield, MA: G.&C.

Merriam).

Typing text, tables, and figure captions: Text, tables, and

figure captions should be converted to WordPerfect. In general,

keep text simple (e.g., don't switch fonts and type sizes, don't use

hard returns within paragraphs, don't indent except to begin

paragraphs). Also, don't use an automatic footnoting function; all

notes should be indicated in the text by simple numerical superscripts, and listed together in an "Endnotes" section prior to the

"References Cited" section. Especially, don't use a graphics

function for embedding tables and figures in text.

Tables should be prepared with a table formatting function.

Each figure should be supplied both on paper and on disk, unless

there is no digital file of a given figure. Except under extraordinary

circumstances, color will not be used in illustrations.

Manuscript Preparation

Organization: Manuscripts must have an abstract, table

of contents, and -- if applicable -- lists of tables, figures, and

acronyms. As much as possible, use traditional scientific

manuscript organization for sections: "Introduction," "Study

Area," "Methods & Materials," "Results," "Discussion" and/

or "Conclusions," "Acknowledgments," and "References Cited."

Style: All NEFSC publication and report series are

obligated to conform to the style contained in the most recent

Northeast Fisheries Science Center

Operations, Management & Information Services Staff

Research Communications Unit

Editorial Office

Manuscript Submission

Authors must submit one paper copy of the double-spaced

manuscript, one disk copy, and original figures (if applicable).

NEFSC authors must include a completely signed-off "NEFSC

Manuscript/Abstract/Webpage Review Form." Non-NEFSC authors who are not federal employees will be required to sign a

"Release of Copyright" form.

Send all materials and address all correspondence to: Jon A.

Gibson (Biological Sciences Editor), NMFS Northeast Fisheries

Science Center, 166 Water Street, Woods Hole, MA 02543-1026.
National Marine Fisheries Service

166 Water Street

Woods Hole, MA 02543-1026

Publications and Reports

of the

Northeast Fisheries Science Center

The mission of NOAA's National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) is "stewardship of living marine resources for the benefit of the

nation through their science-based conservation and management and promotion of the health of their environment." As the research

arm of the NMFS's Northeast Region, the Northeast Fisheries Science Center (NEFSC) supports the NMFS mission by "planning,

developing, and managing multidisciplinary programs of basic and applied research to: 1) better understand the living marine resources

(including marine mammals) of the Northwest Atlantic, and the environmental quality essential for their existence and continued

productivity; and 2) describe and provide to management, industry, and the public, options for the utilization and conservation of living

marine resources and maintenance of environmental quality which are consistent with national and regional goals and needs, and with

international commitments." Results of NEFSC research are largely reported in primary scientific media (e.g., anonymously-peerreviewed scientific journals). However, to assist itself in providing data, information, and advice to its constituents, the NEFSC

occasionally releases its results in its own media. Currently, there are three such media:

NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-NE -- This series is issued irregularly. The series typically includes: data reports of

long-term field or lab studies of important species or habitats; synthesis reports for important species or habitats; annual reports

of overall assessment or monitoring programs; manuals describing program-wide surveying or experimental techniques; literature

surveys of important species or habitat topics; proceedings and collected papers of scientific meetings; and indexed and/or

annotated bibliographies. All issues receive internal scientific review and most issues receive technical and copy editing.

Northeast Fisheries Science Center Reference Document -- This series is issued irregularly. The series typically includes: data

reports on field and lab studies; progress reports on experiments, monitoring, and assessments; background papers for, collected

abstracts of, and/or summary reports of scientific meetings; and simple bibliographies. Issues receive internal scientific review,

but no technical or copy editing.

Resource Survey Report (formerly Fishermen's Report) -- This information reportis a quick-turnaround report on the distribution

and relative abundance of selected living marine resources as derived from each of the NEFSC's periodic research vessel surveys

of the Northeast's continental shelf. There is no scientific review, nor any technical or copy editing, of this report.

OBTAINING A COPY: To obtain a copy of a NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-NE or a Northeast Fisheries Science Center

Reference Document, or to subscribe to the Resource Survey Report, either contact the NEFSC Editorial Office (166 Water St.,

Woods Hole, MA 02543-1026; 508-495-2228) or consult the NEFSC webpage on "Reports and Publications" (http://

www.nefsc.noaa.gov/nefsc/publications/).

ANY USE OF TRADE OR BRAND NAMES IN ANY NEFSC PUBLICATION OR REPORT DOES NOT IMPLY

ENDORSEMENT.

Media

 Mail