# ES/ER/TM-96/R2 

# Toxicological Benchmarks for Screening Potential Contaminants of Concern for Effects on Aquatic Biota:

1996 Revision

This document has been approved by the K-25 Site Technical Information Office for release to the public. Date:

## This report has been reproduced directly from the best available copy. Available to DOE and DOE contractors from the Office of Scientific an d Technical Information, P.O. Box 6 2, Oak Ridge, TN 37831; prices available from 423-576-8401 (fax 423-576-2865). Available to the public from the National Technical Information Service, U.S. Department of Commerce, 5285 Port Royal Rd., Springfield, VA 22161.

# ES/ER/TM-96/R2



# Toxicological Benchmarks for Screening Potential Contaminants of Concern for Effects on Aquatic Biota:

1996 Revision

G. W. Suter II C. L. Tsao

Date Issued—June 1996
Prepared by Risk Assessment Program Health Sciences Research Division Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37831 Prepared for the U.S. Department of Energy Office of Environmental Management under budget and reporting code EW 20 LOCKHEED MARTIN ENERGY SYSTEMS, INC.

managing the Environmental Management Activities at the Oak Ridge K-25 Site Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant Oak Ridge Y-12 Plant Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant Oak Ridge National Laboratory under contract DE-AC05-84OR21400

for the U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

## iii 

# AUTHOR AFFILIATIONS G. W. SuterII is a member of the Environmental Sciences Division, Oak Ridge Nationa l Laboratory, Oak Ridge, Tennessee. C. L. Tsao is affiliated with the School of the Environment, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina.

# PREFACE The purpose of this report is to present and analyze alternate toxicological benchmarks fo r screening chemicals for aquatic ecological effects. This work was performed under Work Breakdown Structure 1.4.12.2.3. 04.05.04 (Activity Data Sheet 8304, “Technical Integration—Risk Assessment”). Publication of this document meets a milestone for the Environmental Restoration (ER) Risk Assessment Program. Since the prior edition of this report (Suter and Mabrey 1994), both the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response and EPA Region IV have developed sets of scr eening benchmarks for water. This report includes those values and updates the othe r benchmarks that were presented in the last edition.

# CONTENTS

AUTHOR AFFILIATIONS
........................................................ iii PREFACE
...................................................................... v TABLES
....................................................................... ix ACRONYMS
................................................................... xi EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
........................................................ xiii 1. INTRODUCTION
.............................................................. 1 2. METHODS FOR DERIVING BENCHMARKS
...................................... 1 2.1 TYPES OF BENCHMARKS
................................................ 1 2.2 WATER QUALITY CRITERIA
............................................. 2 2.3 TIER II VALUES
........................................................ 13 2.4 LOWEST CHRONIC VALUES
............................................ 14 2.5 ESTIMATED LOWEST CHRONIC VALUES
................................ 14 2.6 TEST EC20s
............................................................ 14 2.7 ESTIMATED TEST EC20s
................................................ 15 2.8 SENSITIVE SPECIES TEST EC20s
......................................... 15 2.9 POPULATION EC25s
.................................................... 15 2.10 ECOTOX THRESHOLDS
................................................ 16 2.11 REGION IV SCREENING VALUES
....................................... 16 2.12 BACKGROUND CONCENTRATIONS
.................................... 16 3. CHEMICAL-SPECIFIC INFORMATION
......................................... 22 3.1 INORGANICS
.......................................................... 23 3.2 ORGANICS
............................................................ 27 4. APPLICATION OF BENCHMARKS
............................................. 34 5. REFERENCES
............................................................... 35 Appendix A DATA USED FOR TIER II CALCULATIONS
............................ A-1 Appendix B METHODS FOR DERIVATION OF TIER II VALUES
..................... B-1 Appendix C TABLE SHOWING CONCENTRATIONS ESTIMATED

TO CAUSE A 20% REDUCTION IN THE RECRUIT ABUNDANCE OF LARGEMOUTH BASS, WITH UPPER AND LOWER 95% CONFIDENCE BOUNDS
........................... C-1

# TABLES

1 Summary of conventional benchmarks for priority contaminants in fresh water
............ 3 2 Summary of alternative benchmarks for priority contaminants in fresh water based on levels of chronic effects
...................................................... 9 3 Summary of OSWER threshold values for aquatic life (EPA 1996) and Region IV screening values for freshwater surface water
.......................... 17 A.1 Data and calculated results for derivation of Tier II values
........................... A-3 B.1 Factors for estimation of the Tier II values
....................................... B-6 C.1 Concentrations estimated to cause a 20% reduction in the recruit abundance of largemouth bass, with upper and lower 95% confidence bounds
.................... C-3

# ACRONYMS

ACRs acute chronic ratios ARARs applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act CV Chronic Value EC50 median effective concentration EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ETs Ecotox Thresholds FACR Final Acute-Chronic Ratio FAV Final Acute Value FCV final chronic value GLWQI Great Lakes Water Quality Initiative GMAV genus mean acute value LC50 median lethal concentration LOEC Lowest Observed Effect Co MATC Maximum Acceptable Toxicant Concentration NAWQC National Ambient Water Quality Criteria NOEC No Observed Effect Concentration OSWER Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response RI Remedial Investigation SACR secondary acute chronic ratio SAV Secondary Acute Values SCV Secondary Chronic Value SS sensitive species SVs screening values

# EXECUTIVE SUMMARY One of theinitial stages in ecological risk assessment of hazardous waste sites is the screening of contaminants t o determine which, if any, of them are worthy of further consideration; this process i s termed contaminant screening. Screening is performed by comparing concentrations in ambient media to benchmark concentrations that are either indicative of a high likelihood of significant effects (upper screening benchmarks) or of a very low likelihood of significant effects (lower screening benchmarks). Exceedance of an upper screening benchmark indicates that the c hemical in question is clearly of concern and remedial actions are likely to b e needed. Exceedance of a lower screening benchmark indicates that acontaminant is of concern unless other information indicates that the data are unreliable or th e comparisonis inappropriate. Chemicals with concentrations below the lower benchmark are not o f concern if the ambient data are judged to be adequate. This report presents potential screening benchmarks for protection of aquatic life fro m cont aminants in water. Because there is no guidance for screening benchmarks, a set of alternativ e benchmarks is presented herein. The alternative benchmarks are based on different conceptua l approaches to estimating concentrations causing signifi cant effects. For the upper screening benchmark, there are the acute National Ambient Water Quality Criteria (NAWQC) and the Secondary Acute Values (SAV). The SAV conc entrations are values estimated with 80% confidence not to exceed the unknown acute NAWQ C for those chemicals with no NAWQC. The alternative chronic benchmarks are th e chronic NAWQC, the Secondary Chronic Value (SCV ), the lowest chronic values for fish and daphnids, thelowest EC20 for fish and daphnids from chronic toxicity tests, the estimated EC20 for a sensitive species, and the concentration estimated to cause a 20% reductio n in the recruit abundance of largemouth bass. It is recommended that amb ient chemical concentrations be compared to all of these benchmarks. If NAW QC are exceeded, the chemicals must be contaminants of concern because the NAWQC ar e applicable or relevant and app ropriate requirements (ARARs). If NAWQC are not exceeded, but other benchmarks are, contaminants should be selected on the basis of the number of benchmarks exceeded and the conservatism of the particular benchmark values, as discussed in the text. To the extent that toxicity data are available, this report presents the alternative benchmarks fo r chemicals that have been detected on the Oak Ridge Reservation. It also presents the data used t o calculate the benchmarks and the sources of the data. It compares the benchmarks and discusses their relative conservatism and utility. This report supersedes a prior aquatic benchmarks report (Suter and Mabrey 1994). It adds two newtypes of benchmarks. It also updates the benchmark values where appropriate, adds some ne w benchmark

values, replaces secondary sources with primary sources, and provides more complet e documentation of the sources and derivation of all values.

# 1. INTRODUCTION An important early step in the assessment of ecological risks posed by a contaminated site is the screening of contaminants. In many cases, concentrations in water will be reported for more than 100 chemicals, most of which will be reported as undetecte d at some defined limit of detection. The assessor must decide which of the detected chemicals con stitute an ecological hazard and which of the undetected chemicals may pose a hazard at concentrations below the reported detection limits. This screening is doneb y comparing the reported concentrations to toxicological benchmarks. If concentrations of a chemicalexceed its benchmark for a particular medium, then it is worthy of further measurement and assessment. If not, it can be ignored (assuming that the analytical data are adequate). In practice, a series of benchmarks of differing conservatism may be used. Exceedance of an upper screening benchmark would suggest a severe hazard and a need for urgent action. Nonexceedance of all lower screening benchmarks would suggest no hazard. Exceedance of an increasing number o f benchmarks would constitute increasing evidence of the need for measurement and assessment. I n addition to providing a better indi cation of the magnitude of the hazard, the use of multiple benchmarks provides information about the nature of the h azard which can be used in development of the conceptual model and in plannin g the Remedial Investigation (RI). For example, is the chemical at concentrations thatare toxic to only daphnids, to daphnids and fish, to fish and aquatic plants, etc.? Are they a t concentrations that have b een demonstrated to be toxic or do they exceed only benchmarks that include conservative factors? Th e purpose of this report is to present and analyze alternate toxicological benchmarks fo r screening chemicals for aquatic ecological effects. Since the prior edition of this report (Suter an d Mabrey 1994 ), both the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Office of Solid Waste an d Emergency Response (OS WER) and EPA Region IV have developed sets of screening benchmarks for water. This report includes those values and updates the other benchmarks that were presented in the last edition. This compilation is limited to chemicals th at have been detected on the Oak Ridge Reservation and to benchmarks derived from studies of toxic effects on fresh water organisms. The list of chemical s detectedon the Oak Ridge Reservation includes 45 metals and 105 industrial chemicals. Only fou r pesticides occur o n the list, and those are persistent and wide-spread (chlordane, DDT, heptachlor, and lindane). 

# 2. METHODS FOR DERIVING BENCHMARKS

2.1 TYPES OF BENCHMARKS The simplest screening benchmarks are toxicity test endpoints. A test endpoint is a statisticall y derived numeric summary of the results of a toxicity test. Test endpoints can be calculated in two ways. Firs t, a level of effect can be estimated by fitting a function such as the probit or logit to th e concentration-response data to derive a concentration-response model. Then by inverse regression, a concen trationcan be estimated that causes a particular level of effect such as the median letha l concentration (LC50). Second, hypothesis testing statistics can be used to determine whether each of the tested concentrations c aused an effect that was statistically significantly different from the controls. Thelowest concentration causing such an effect is termed the Lowest Observed Effect Concentration

## 2 (LOEC); the highest concentration for which there were no such effects is termed the No Observed Effect Concentration (NOEC). The geometric mean of the LOEC and NOEC is te rmed the Chronic Value (CV) and was formerly termed the Maximum Acceptable Toxicant Concentration (MATC). Toxicity tests are conventionally divided into acute and chronic tests. Standard acute aquati c toxicity tests are 48 or 96 hours in duration and use juvenile or adult organisms; the test endpoints are themedian lethal concentration (LC50) or median effective concentration (EC50) for death or som e equivalent effect (e.g., immobilization). Standard chronic tests include all or most of the lifecycle of the test organisms, and they include observations of growth, deformities, and reproductive success as well as lethality. The standard endpoint for chronic tests is the CV. Ano ther important distinction is between response-specific and integrative endpoints
. Conventionally, NOECs and LOECs are calculated for each response parameter, and the results for the most statistical ly sensitive parameter are reported. Because effects on populations and ecosystems are aresult of th e integrated effects of the toxicant on all life stages, it is more sensible to integrate th e responses in the test when calculating the test endpoint. Integrative endpoints may be simple arithmetic combinations of effects such as the proportional mortality across all tested life stages or populatio n parameters derived from simple models such as the intrinsic rate of natural increase, r . Benchmarks may be combinations of multiple test en dpoints. An example is the chronic NAWQC, which are derived from at least eight LC50s and three CVs. Fi nally, benchmarks may be derived by using mathematical models to simulate an assessmen t endpoint, a specific environmental characteristic that is valued and is at risk due to the contamination or disturbance that is being assessed (Suter 198 9). For example, in this study we present concentrations estimated to correspond to a 20% reduction in recruit abundance for largemouth bass ( Micropteru s salmoides) because production of fish, particularly game fish, is an assessment endpoint for Oak Ridge Reservation ecological risk assessments (Suter et al. 1992). Conventional aquatic benchmarks, which are based o n regulatory criteria or standard test endpoints usedto derive criteria, are listed in Table 1. Unconventional aquatic benchmarks, which are based on levels of effects on integrative endpoints, are listed in Table 2. 2.2 WATER QUALITY CRITERIA The National Ambient Water Quality Criteria (NAWQC) are appl icable or relevant and appropriate requirements (ARARs); therefore, they provide the basis for the screening benchmarks for contaminants in water. The acute NAWQ C are calculated by the EPA as half the Final Acute Value (FAV), which is thefifth percentile of the distribution of 48- to 96-hour LC50 values or equivalent median effectiv e concentration (EC50) value s for each criterion chemical (Stephan et al. 1985). The acute NAWQC are intendedto correspond to concentrations that would cause less than 50% mortality in 5% of expose d populations in a brief exposure. The y may be used as a reasonable upper screening benchmark because waste site assessments are concerned with sublethal effects and largely with continuous exposures, rather th anthe lethal effects and episodic exposures to which the acute NAWQC are applied. The chroni c NAWQC are the FAVs divided by the Final Acute- Chronic Ratio (FACR), which is the geometric mean of quotients of at least three LC50/CV3 

### Table 1. Summary of conventional benchmarks for priority contaminants in fresh water (all values in micrograms per liter)

Chemical NAWQ Criteria Tier II Values Lowest Chronic Value for:
Acute Chronic Secondary Secondary Fish Daphnids Non- Aquatic All OrganAcute Chronic Daphnid Plants isms Value Value Invertebrates Aluminum 750 87 3,288 1,900 460 460 Ammonia pH and temperature 1.7 630 2,400 1.7 dependent Antimony 180 30 1,600 5,400 610 610 i i Arsenic III 360 190 2,962 914.1 2,320 914.1 Arsenic V 66 3.1 892 *450 48 48 Barium 110 4.0 Beryllium 35 0.66 *57 5.3 100,000 5.3 Boron 30 1.6 8,830 8,830 Cadmium 3.9+ 1.1+ 1.7 0.15 2 0.15 Calcium 116,000 116,000 Chromium III 1,700+ 210+ 68.63 <44 397 <44 Chromium VI 16 11 73.18 6.132 2 2 Cobalt 1500 23 290 5.1 5.1 Copper 18+ 12+ 3.8 0.23 6.066 1 0.23 Cyanide 22 5.2 7.8 18.33 30 7.8 Iron 1,000 1,300 158 158 Lead 82+ 3.2+ 18.88 12.26 25.46 500 12.26 Lithium 260 14 Magnesium 82,000 82,000 Manganese 2,300 120 1780 <1,100 <1,100 Mercury, inorganic or total 2.4 1.30 <0.23 0.96 5 <0.23 a Mercury, methyl 0.099 0.0028 0.52 <0.04 0.8-4.0 <0.04 Molybdenum 16,000 370 880 880

### Table 1. (continued)

Chemical NAWQ Criteria Tier II Values Lowest Chronic Value for:
Acute Chronic Secondary Secondary Fish Daphnids Non- Aquatic All OrganAcute Chronic Daphnid Plants isms Value Value Invertebrates45 Nickel 1,400+ 160+ <35 <5 128.4 5 <5 Potassium 53,000 53,000 Selenium 20 5 88.32 91.65 100 88.32 Silver 4.1+ 0.36 0.12 2.6 30 0.12 Sodium 680,000 680,000 Strontium 15,000 1,500 42,000 42,000 Thallium 110 12 57 130 100 57 Tin 2,700 73 350 350 Uranium 46 2.6 *142 *142 Vanadium 280 20 80 1,900 80 Zinc 120+ 110+ 36.41 46.73 >5,243 30 30 Zirconium 310 17 *548 *548 Organics Acenaphthene 80 23 74 *6,646 227 520 74 e e Acetone 28,000 1,500 *507,640 1,560 *507,640 Anthracene 13 0.73 *0.09 <2.1 *0.09 Benzene 2,300 130 >98,000 525,000 525,000 Benzidene 70 3.9 *134 *134 Benzo(a)anthracene 0.49 0.027 *0.65 *0.65 Benzo(a)pyrene 0.24 0.014 *0.30 *0.30 Benzoic acid 740 42 *12,976 *12,976 Benzyl alcohol 150 8.6 *589 *589 BHC (lindane) 2 0.08 14.6 14.5 3.3 500 3.3

### Table 1. (continued)

Chemical NAWQ Criteria Tier II Values Lowest Chronic Value for:
Acute Chronic Secondary Secondary Fish Daphnids Non- Aquatic All OrganAcute Chronic Daphnid Plants isms Value Value Invertebrates6 BHC (other) 39 2.2 *95 *95 Biphenyl 14 f Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate 27 3.0 912 912 4-Bromophenyl phenyl ether 1.5 f Butylbenzyl phthalate 19 f 2-Butanone 240,000 14,000 *282,170 *1,394,927 *282,170 Carbon disulfide 17 0.92 *9,538 *244 *244 Carbon tetrachloride 180 9.8 1,970 *5,580 1,970 Chlordane 2.4 0.17 1.6 16 1.09 1.09 a Chlorobenzene 1,100 64 *1,203 *15,042 224,000 *1203 Chloroform 490 28 1,240 *4,483 1,240 DDD p,p' 0.19 0.011 *1.69 *1.69 DDT 1.1 0.013 0.73 *0.016 0.3 0.3 bf c Decane 880 49 *7,874 *7,874 Di-n-butyl phthalate 190 35 717 697 697 d Diazinon 0.17 0.043 g g Dibenzofuran 66 3.7 *1,003 *1,003 1,2-Dichlorobenzene 260 14 f f 1,3-Dichlorobenzene 630 71 f f 1,4-Dichlorobenzene 180 15 f f 1,1-Dichloroethane 830 47 *14,680 *14,680 1,2-Dichloroethane 8,800 910 41,364 15,200 15,200 1,1-Dichloroethene 450 25 >2,800 *4,720 >798,000 >2,800

### Table 1. (continued)

Chemical NAWQ Criteria Tier II Values Lowest Chronic Value for:
Acute Chronic Secondary Secondary Fish Daphnids Non- Aquatic All OrganAcute Chronic Daphnid Plants isms Value Value Invertebrates7 1,2-Dichloroethene 1,100 590 *9,538 *9,538 1,3-Dichloropropene 0.99 0.055 244 *805 4,950 244 Dieldrin 0.18 0.062 e e Diethyl phthalate 1,800 210 85,600 85,600 Di-n-octyl phthalate 3,822 708 708 Endosulfan, all isomers 0.051 f Endrin 0.095 0.061 e e Ethyl benzene 130 7.3 >440 *12,922 >438,000 >440 Fluoranthene 33.6 6.16 30 15 54400 15 e e Fluorene 70 3.9 f f Heptachlor 0.125 0.0069 1.26 *3.18 26.7 1.26 g,h b,g Hexachloroethane 210 12 e f Hexane 10 0.58 *65,712 *65,712 2-Hexanone 1,800 99 *32,783 *32,783 Methoxychlor 0.019f 1-Methylnaphthalene 37 2.1 *526 *526 4-Methyl-2-pentanone 2,200 170 77,400 77,400 2-Methylphenol 230 13 *489 *1,316 *489 Methylene chloride 26,000 2,200 108,000 *42,667 *42,667 Naphthalene 190 12 620 *1,163 33,000 620 4-Nitrophenol 1,200 300 *481 7,100 4190 *481 N-Nitrosodiphenylamine 3,800 210 *332 *1,042 *332 2-Octanone 150 8.3

### Table 1. (continued)

Chemical NAWQ Criteria Tier II Values Lowest Chronic Value for:
Acute Chronic Secondary Secondary Fish Daphnids Non- Aquatic All OrganAcute Chronic Daphnid Plants isms Value Value Invertebrates8 PCBs total 2.0 0.14 0.2 2.1 0.8 0.144 0.1 Aroclor® 1221 5.0 0.28 *60 *60 b
Aroclor® 1232 10 0.58 *124

— *124 Aroclor® 1242 1.2 0.053 9.00 4.9 300 4.9 Aroclor® 1248 1.4 0.081

— Aroclor® 1254 0.60 0.033 2.9 0.1 0.1 Aroclor® 1260 1,700 94 <1.3

— 2.3 Pentachlorobenzene 8.4 0.47 f f 1-Pentanol 2,000 110 *30,493 *30,493 Phenanthrene 30 6.3 200 200 e e Phenol 3,600 110 <200 *2,005 20,000 <200 g g 2-Propanol 130 7.5 *590 *590 1,1,2,2 Tetrachloroethane 2,100 610 2,400 9,900 136,000 2,400 Tetrachloroethene 830 98 840 750 >816,000 750 Tetrachloromethane 4,400 240 f f Toluene 120 9.8 *1,269 *25,229 245,000 *1,269 Tribromomethane 2,300 320 f f 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene 700 110 f f 1,1,1-Trichloroethane 200 11 *3,493 >669,000 *3,493 1,1,2-Trichloroethane 5,200 1,200 9,400 18,400 9,400 Trichloroethene 440 47 11,100 *7,257 *7,257 Vinyl acetate 280 16 *810 *810 Xylene 230 13 *62,308 *62,308

m -Xylene 32 1.8 f f

### Table 1. (continued)

Notes: + Hardness dependent criterion normalized to 100 mg/L * Numbers preceded by * are estimates. Methods of estimation are described in the text. The chronic NAWQC for chlordane (0.0043 g/L) and mercury (0.012 μg/L), are based on the final residue values. FCVs are used as benchmarks to protect aquatic life. a 

### The chronic NAWQC for DDT (0.001 g/L), total PCBs (0.014 μg /L), and heptachlor (0.0038 μg/l) are is based on the final residue values; for benchmarks to protect aquatic b 

### life, we use SCVs. The CV for DDT in Jarvinen et al. 1977 of 0.9 μg/l is the arithmetic mean of the NOEC and LOEC. We used the geometric mean which is 0.73. c 

### For fish di-n-butyl phthalate lowest CV, the geometric m ean of the measured concentrations for the NOEC and LOEC rather than the nominal concentrations used by the authors d 

### (McCarthy and Whitmore 1985) was used herein. These numbers are Final Acute Values and Final Chronic Values calculated by the EPA for use in the derivation of sediment quality criteria (EPA 1993b). e 

### Values calculated for OSWER (1996). f

### Values calculated by the Great Lakes Water Quality Initiative (EPA 1993d). g 

### SAV was calculated by the Great Lakes Water Quality Initiative because some data used to derive FAV were questionable (EPA 1992)

. h 

### These values are draft FAV and FCV values (EPA 1988b). I

## 9 Table 2. Summary of alternative benchmarks for priority contaminants in fresh water based

on levels of chronic effects (all values in micrograms per liter)

Chemical Species Test EC Lowest Test EC for:

20 

### Sensitive Population

EC 20 20 

### Fish Daphnids
Aluminum 4,700 540 75 Antimony 2,310 1,900 79 Arsenic III 2,130 633 55 1,995 Arsenic V 1,500 >932 185 Barium Beryllium *148 3.8 21 Boron 7,000 Cadmium 1.8 0.75 0.013 4.3 a 

### Calcium Chromium III 89 8.44 126 Chromium VI 51 0.5 0.266 316 Cobalt 810 <4.4 3.98 Copper 5 0.205 0.26 8.6 Cyanide 5.3 1.17 11 Fluorine *5,336 3,706 1,080 Iron 16 Lead 22 0.35 71 Magnesium Manganese 1,270 <1,100 112 Mercury, inorganic 0.87 0.87 0.18 0.32 Mercury, methyl <0.03 0.87 0.28 Molybdenum 360 Nickel 62 45 11 215 a 

### Potassium Selenium 40 25 2.60 Silver 0.20 <0.56 0.14 0.32 a 

### Sodium Strontium Thallium 81 64 67

### Table 2. (continued) 

## 10

Chemical Species Test EC Lowest Test EC for:

20 

### Sensitive Population

EC 20 20 

### Fish Daphnids
Tin Uranium *455 27 Vanadium 41 430 32 Zinc 47 21 80 Zirconium *2,396 251 Organics Acenaphthene <197 Acetone *161,867 23,714 Anthracene *0.35 >8.2 Benzene 21 229 Benzidene *158 68 Benzo(a)anthracene Benzo(a)pyrene >2.99 Benzoic acid *7,409 1,259 Benzyl alcohol *550 375 BHC (lindane) <1.1 11 0.11 BHC (other) Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate >54 <3 50 2-Butanone *98,772 17,783 Carbon disulfide *5719 1,000 Carbon tetrachloride 65 224 Chlordane <0.25 12.1 0.50 0.71 Chlorobenzene 1,002 165 Chloroethane Chloroform 8,400 562 DDD p,p' *3.99 0.61 DDT 0.35 0.008 Decane

### Table 2. (continued) 

## 11

Chemical Species Test EC Lowest Test EC for:

20 

### Sensitive Population

EC 20 20 

### Fish Daphnids Di-n-butyl phthalate 270 500 251 Dibenzofuran 1,1-Dichloroethane *8,219 1,585 1,2-Dichloroethane 29,000 <11,000 1,259 1,1-Dichloroethene 447 1,2-Dichloroethenes *5,719 1,3-Dichloropropene *350 40 Diethyl phthalate 1,000 Di-n-octyl phthalate <100 310 1,995 Ethyl benzene 398 Fluoranthene 32 Heptachlor 0.86 0.004 0.1 Hexane *28,995 2-Hexanone *16,155 1,259 1-Methylnaphthalene *500 31.62 4-Methyl-2-pentanone 1,585 2-Methylphenol *470 74 Methylene chloride 410 1,259 Naphthalene 450 >600 1,000 4-Nitrophenols *464 5,000 60 N-Nitrosodiphenylamine *339 40 3-Octanone *3571 PCBs total 0.4 1.2 0.63 Aroclor® 1221 *80 10 Aroclor® 1232 *148 16 Aroclor® 1242 <2.9 1.58 Aroclor® 1248 0.4 2.5 1.26 Aroclor® 1254 0.52 1.2 0.63 Aroclor® 1260 2.1 316 1-Pentanol *15,200 3,548

### Table 2. (continued) 

## 12

Chemical Species Test EC Lowest Test EC for:

20 

### Sensitive Population

EC 20 20 

### Fish Daphnids
Phenanthrene 110 Phenol <230 4,467 2-Propanol *35,381 3,162 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane 1,400 <420 1,585 Tetrachloroethene 500 510 50 Toluene <26 200 1,1,1-Trichloroethane *2,457 1,300 251 1,1,2-Trichloroethane 14,800 13,000 15,849 Trichloroethene 5758 232 Vinyl acetate *718 108 Xylene 2680 Notes: * Numbers preceded by * are estimates. Methods of estimation are described in the text. Study LC50's were used rather than species mean LC50s so water hardness would correspond to EC20 values. a 

## ratiosfrom tests of different families of aquatic organisms (Stephan et al. 1985). It is intended t o prevent significant toxic effects in chronic exposures and is used in this assessment as one possible lower screening benchmark. The NAWQC are listed in Table 1. NAWQ C for several metals are functions of water hardness; the criteria are lower for lowe r hardness levels. The criteria for 100 mg/L hardness as reported by the EPA are presented in this report. Thathardness is near the lower end of the range of hardness values reported for the Oak Ridg e Reserva tion, so it is moderately conservative. For sites with different water hardnesses, site-specifi c criterias hould be calculated. The formulas for hardness correction are listed in the discussions o f individual chemicals. Many readers will note that the EPA's compilations of NAWQC contain values for many chemicals th athave no NAWQC listed herein (EPA 1986b); the EPA lists lowest CVs for those chemicals fo r whichthere is not enough data to calculate a criterion but for which there is at least one CV. Lowes t CVs are treated as a separate category of benchmarks in this compilation. Some chronic NAWQC are based on protection of humans or other piscivorous organisms rather than protection of aquatic orga nisms. Those criteria are not included herein because screening for risks to wildlife or humans is performed by other methods. However, if sufficient data were available t o calcu latea final chronic value (FCV) for those chemicals, then the FCV are presented in place of th e chronic NAWQC in Table 1, and its derivation is noted. For particular chemicals, the lower s creening benchmark could be lower than the chronic NAWQC for any one of the following reasons. First, the chronic NAWQC are based on a threshold for statistical significance rather than biological significance. In som e chronic tests, because of highly variable results, the statistical threshold corresponds to greater than 50% effect on a response

## 13 parameter(Stephan and Rogers 1985, Suter et al. 1987). Second, not all important responses ar e included in the subchronic toxici ty tests that are used to calculate many chronic NAWQC. In particular, eff ectson fecundity, which is the most sensitive response parameter on average in fish toxicity test s (Suter et al. 1987), are often not included. Third, the chronic NAWQC are based on the mos t statistically sensitive of the measured response parameters in each chronic or subchronic test. Therefore, cumulative effects ov er the lifecycle of fish and invertebrates are not considered. Fourth, the NAWQC are set at a level that protects "most species most of the time." Finally, many of the NAWQC have not beenrevised s ince 1980 so they do not incorporate recent data that are included in the calculation o f other benchmarks. These concerns are supported by the recent finding that nickel concentrations (on the OakRidge Reservation) that are below chronic NAWQC are nonetheless toxic to daphnids (Kszos et al. 1992).
2.3 TIER II VALUES If NAWQC were not available for a chemical, the Tier II method described in the EPA's Proposed Water Quality Guidance for the Great Lakes System was applied (EPA 1993a). Tier II values were developed so that aquatic benchmarks could be established with fewer data than are required for th e NAWQC. The Tier II values are concentrations that would be expected to be higher than NAWQC in no more than 20% of cases. Tier II values calculated by the EPA are listed in Table 1, and the sources are cited. Other Tier II values are derived as described in the following text. The Tier II values equivalent to the FAV and FCV are the Secondary Acute Values (SAVs) and Secondary Chronic Values (SCVs), respectively. The sources of data for the Tier II values are listed in AppendixA, and the procedure and factors used to calculate the SACs and SCVs are in Appendix B. The methods described herein differ from EPA's (19 93a) in one respect. The Great Lakes SAVs require an LC50 for a daphnid, but that requirement would severely restrict t he number of benchmarks that could becalculated. The EPA has provided factors for calculating SAVs when no daphnid LC50s ar e available, and these factors are used herein (Stephan 1991). Some of the SAVs and SCVs presented in this report differ from t hose presented in the prior edition (Suterand Mabrey 1994) for three reasons. First, in the previous report we included all data tha t occurredin E PA water quality criteria documents. However, much of the data included in criteri a docu ments issued prior to 1985 are no longer considered acceptable by the EPA. Second, some dat a from the EPA’s AQUIRE data set were used by Suter and Mab rey (1994) that appeared to be acceptable based on the information provided in the data base an d the EPA’s rating of the data. It has become clear that much of that data would not be acceptable to the EPA for calculating criteria. Therefore, w e obtained all original pu blications and independently reviewed them against the criteria in Stephan et al. (1985). Those criteria are summarized in Appendix B. Finally, some new data have been found an d incorporated. Only hig h quality standard data are used in this document if such values are available for a chemical. That is, if even one test that meets the criteria in Stephan et al (1985) was found, al l nonconforming tests were exclu ded. However, when no such values are available, nonstandard or lower quality test results which were judged by the auth ors to be reliable were used. Values derived using data that did not meet the Stephan et al. (1985) criteria are noted.

## 14 2.4 LOWEST CHRONIC VALUES The lowest chronic values for fish and invertebrates reported in the literature are potential lower benchmarks. Chronic values are used to calculate the chronic NAWQC, but the lowest chronic value may be lower than the chroni c NAWQC. Because of the short generation time of algae and the relative lack of stand ard chronic tests for aquatic plants, EPA guidelines are followed in using any algal test of at least 96-hour duration and any biologically meaningful response for the plant values.
2.5 ESTIMATED LOWEST CHRONIC VALUES Estimated lowest chronic values for fish and invertebrates are another set of potential lowe r be nchmarks. Estimated chronic values were extrapolated from 96-hour LC50s using equations fro m Suter et al. (1987) and Suter (1993). The equations are as foll ows where LC50 equals the lowest species mean 96-hour LC50 for fish and 48-hour EC50 for daphnids, and CV equals the estimated chronic value forthat taxon. The 95% prediction interval at the mean is log CV ± the PI value (95% predictio n intervals contain 95% of observations versus 95% confidence intervals which contain the mean with 95% confidence). Fish CV for a metallic contaminant: (1) log CV = 0.73 log LC50 - 0.70

PI = 1.2 Fish CV for a nonmetallic contaminant: (2) log CV = 1.07 log LC50 - 1.51

PI = 1.5 Daphnid CV for a metallic contaminant: (3) log CV = 0.96 log LC50 - 1.08

PI = 1.56 Daphnid CV for a nonmetallic contaminant: (4) log CV = 1.11 log LC50 - 1.30

PI = 1.35
2.6 TEST EC20s Another potential lower benchmar k is the test EC20 for fish, which is defined as the highest tested concentration causing less than 20% reduction in (1) the weight of young fish per initial female fish in a lifecycle or partial life-cycle test or (2) the weight of you ng per egg in an early life-stage test. A similar pot entiallower benchmark is the test EC20 for daphnids, which is the highest tested concentratio n causing lessthan 20% reduction in the product of growth, fecundity, and survivorship in a chronic test with a daphnid species. (Daphnids include members of the genera Daphnia, Ceriodaphnia, and Simocepha lus .) These benchmarks are intended to be indices of population production. They ar e equivalent to chronic values in that they are simply a summary of the results of chronic toxicity tests, and in most cases the same test supplied the lowest chronic value and the lowest test EC20. However, the test EC20s are based on a level of biological effect rather than a level of statistical significance, and they integrate all of the stages of the toxic ity test rather than treating each response independently. The 20% figure was chosen as approximately the mean level of effect on individual response parameters observed

## 15 atCVs and as a minimum detectable difference in population characteristics in the field (Suter et al
. 1987, 1992). These values are listed in Table 2.
2.7 ESTIMATED TEST EC20s The estimated test E C20 is another potential benchmark. The estimated values were extrapolated from96-hou r LC50 values using equations from Suter (1992). The equation for the lowest fish tes t EC20 is as follows where LC50 equals the lowest species mean 96-hour LC50 for fish, and the EC25 for weight of juveniles per egg is used as an estimate of the test EC20 value. (The difference between 20% and 25% effect is trivial given the uncertainties in these estimates and the steepness of th e concentration- response curves.) The log-scaled 95% prediction interval at the mean is log EC25 ± the PI value: log EC25 = 0.90 log LC50 - 0.86 (5) PI = 1.6 These values are listed in Table 2 for those chemicals that have no empirical test EC20.
2.8 SENSITIVE SPECIES TEST EC20s The s ixth potential benchmark is the EC20, adjusted to approximate the fifth percentile of th e species sensitivity distributi on. It is calculated in the same way as the chronic NAWQC except that the test EC20s are used in place of CVs, and salt water species were not included. The FAV for each of the criterion chemicals was divided by the geometric m ean of ratios of LC50s to EC20s. These benchmarks are referred to as sensitive species (SS) test EC20s, and are listed in Table 2.
2.9 POPULATION EC25s The last potential benchmark is an estimate of the continuous concentration that would cause a 20% reduction in the recruit abundance of largemouth bass. The method used was described by Barnthouse etal. (1990) and is briefly summarized herein. The recruit abundance estimates are generated by a matrix model of a reservoir largemouth bass population (Bart ell 1990). The fecundity, hatching success, larval survival, and post-larval survival of the model population are each decremented by a valu e generated from statistica l extrapolation models. For each life stage for which a concentration-response relationshi pcould be calculated, that relationship was adjusted for the relative sensitivity of the tes t species and the bass. For those life stages with no concentration-response relationship, the relationship was e stimated using life stage to life stage extrapolation models, and the taxonomic adjustment wa s made. However, if the authors of the study reported that life stage was unaffected, the decrement for that life stage wa s set to zero. If no chronic test data were available, extrapolations from LC50s to chronic responses of each life stage were performed. Uncertainties in a ll of these extrapolations were propagated through the models to generate estimates of uncertainty. For each chemical, each available freshwater fishchronic te st was used to parameterize a model run. If no chronic test data were available, eac h av ailablefreshwater fish LC50 was used to parameterize a model run. The results are presented i n Appendix C . The geometric mean of all population EC25 estimates for each chemical is reported i n Table 2.

## 16 2.10 ECOTOX THRESHOLDS The EPA’s OSWER has published Ecotox Thresholds (ETs) which are intended to be used fo r screening contaminants at Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) sites (OSWER 1996); these values are available for 20 meta ls and 47 organics in fresh water andfor 10 metals and 7 organics in marine waters. The fresh water values are presented in Table 3
. Their derivation is briefly explained in the following text. In general, chronic NAWQC values are preferred as aqueous ETs. However, as with th e benchmarks in Table 1, criteria that are based on fish consumption rather than aquatic toxic effect s (DDT, heptachlor, and toxaphene) are not used. Tier II values are presented in their place. For diazinon, the FCV calculated by the Great Lakes Water Quality Initiative (GLWQI) was used as a criterion value (EPA 1992). OSWER reco mmends the use of dissolved concentrations of metals. Therefore, the metho d described in Prothro (1993) is use d to correct for dissolved phase concentrations, which causes some of the metals criteria values used as ETs to differ slightly from the criteria listed in Table 1 or in the Region IV values. SCVs are used when NAWQCs are not avai lable. Four of these SCVs are from the GLWQI (EPA 1992), 34 are from the prior e dition of this document (Suter and Mabrey 1994), and 18 were calculated byOS WER (1996). Three chemicals with OSWER-derived SCVs (endosulfan, methoxyclor, an d malathion) had NAWQCs, but the c riteria were judged to be old and unreliable. Tier II values were not derived if no daphnia acute values were available.
2.11 REGION IV SCREENING VALUES EPA Region IV has published acute and chronic ecologica l screening values (SVs) for fresh surface water(Waste Management Division 1995); they are presented in Table 3. The acute SVs consist o f acute NAWQCs or, for chemicals with no acute NAWQC, of low est acute LC50 or EC50 values divided by10. T he chronic SVs consist of chronic NAWQCs or, for chemicals with no chronic NAWQC, o f lowest CVs divided by 10. If there were no CVs, the acute S V is divided by 10 to obtain the chronic SV. These divisions by 10 serve the same purpose as the models used to calculate Tier II values, but without the scientific or statistical basis and without using the full available data set. For some chemicals, the SVs are based on effects on fish eaters or irrigated plants rather than aquatic life. Region I V acknowledges that oth er values have greater ecological relevance (Waste Management Division 1995). As explained previously, there are separate benchmarks to address effects on plants and wildlife and an entirelyseparate set of risk assessment methods to protect humans who eat fish. Finally, the hardness dependentcriteria are adjusted to 50 mg/L which is unrealistically low for the Oak Ridge Reservation and most other sites.
2.12 BACKGROUND CONCENTRATIONS Background water concentrations should be used as a check for these benchmarks. That is, because some of these benchmarks are quite conservative and because the measured concentrations in ambient watermay include forms that are not bioavailable, benchmark concentrations may be lower tha n background water concentrations. If the background concentrations are valid and represent a n uncontaminated state and if exposed site does not contain forms of the chemicals that are mor e

## 17 bioav ailableor toxic than the forms at background sites, then screening benchmarks lower than th e background concentration should not be used. Table 3. Summary of OSWER threshold values for aquatic life (EPA 1996) and Region IV screening

values for freshwater surface water (Region IV 1995) (All values are μg/L) OSWER Values Region IV Values 3


### Chemical or FCV Tier II Screening Values

NAWQC Acute Chronic Screening

`1 2 

### Values Metals Aluminum 750 87 Antimony 1300 (2s) 160 (2s) Arsenic III 190 360 190 Arsenic V 8.1 * Barium 3.9 * Beryllium 5.1 * 16 (6s) 053 (1s) Boron

-- 750 4 

### Cadmium 1.0 h 1.79 h 0.66 h Chromium III 180 h 984.32 h 117.32 h Chromium VI 10 16 11 Cobalt 3.0 * Copper 11 h 9.22 h 6.54 h Iron 1000

-- 1000 Lead 2.5 h 33.78 1.32 Manganese 80 * Mercury 2.40 0.0123 Mercury, inorganic 1.3 Mercury, methyl 0.003 * Molybdenum 240 * Nickel 160 h 789.00 h 87.71 h Selenium 5.0 20.00 5.00 Silver 1.23 h 0.012 (1s) Thallium 140.00(3s) 4.00 (2s)

### Table 3. (continued) 

## 18

OSWER Values Region IV Values 3


### Chemical or FCV Tier II Screening Values

NAWQC Acute Chronic Screening

`1 2 

### Values Vanadium 19 * Zinc 100 h 65.04 h 58.91 h Organic Compounds Acenaphthene 23 S 170 (2s) 17 Acrolein 6.8 (3s) 2.1 (1s) Acrylonitrile 755 (4s) 75.5 Aldrin 3 0.3 Benzene 46 * 530 (7s) 53 Benzidine 250 (4s) 25 Benzo(a)pyrene 0.014 * a-BHC

-- 500 6 

### b-BHC

-- 5000 6 

### g-BHC (Lindane) 0.08 2 0.08 Biphenyl 14 # Bis(2-chloroethyl) ether 23800 (1s) 2380 Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate 32 * 1110 (2s) <0.3 (2s) Bromoform 2930 (2s) 293 4-Bromophenylphenyl ether 1.5 # 4- Bromophenylphenyl phthalate 36 (2s) 12.2 (1s) Butylbenzyl phthalate 19 # 330 (4s) 22 (2s) Carbon tetrachloride 3520 (3s) 352 Chlordane 2.4 0.0043 5 

### Chlorobenzene 130 * 1950 (5s) 195 2-Chloroethylvinyl ether 35400 (1s) 3540 Chloroform 2890 (3s) 289 2-Chlorophenol 438 (5s) 43.8 Chloropyrifos 0.083 0.041

### Table 3. (continued) 

## 19

OSWER Values Region IV Values 3


### Chemical or FCV Tier II Screening Values

NAWQC Acute Chronic Screening

`1 2 

### Values 4,4'-DDT 0.013 + 1.1 0.001 4,4'-DDE 105 (1s) 10.5 4,4'-DDD 0.064 (8s) 0.0064 Demeton

-- 0.1 Diazinon 0.043 F Dibenzofuran 20 * 1,2-Dichlorobenzene 14 # 158 (4s) 15.8 (3s) 1,3-Dichlorobenzene 71 # 502 (3s) 50.2 1,4-Dichlorobenzene 15 # 112 (5s) 11.2 1,1-Dichloroethane 47 * 1,2-Dichloroethane 11800 (3s) 2000 (1s) 1,1-Dichloroethylene 3030 (3s) 303 2,4-Dichlorophenol 202 (3s) 36.5 (1s) 1,2-Dichloropropane 5250 (3s) 525 Dichloropropylene (cis and 606 (2s) 24.4 (1s) trans) Dieldrin 0.062 S 2.5 0.0019 5 

### Diethyl phthalate 220 * 5210 (2s) 521 2,4-Dimethylphenol 212 (3s) 21.2 Dimethyl phthalate 3300 (2s) 330 Di-n-butyl phthalate 33 * 94 (6s) 9.4 2,4-Dinitrophenol 62 (3s) 6.2 2,4-Dinitrotoluene 3100 (2s) 310 Dioxin (2,3,7,8-TCDD) 0.1 0.00001 5 

### 1,2-Diphenylhydrazine 27 (2s) 2.7 Endosulfan, mixed isomers 0.051 # Endosulfan, alpha 0.051 # 0.22 0.056 Endosulfan, beta 0.051 # 0.22 0.056

### Table 3. (continued) 

## 20

OSWER Values Region IV Values 3


### Chemical or FCV Tier II Screening Values

NAWQC Acute Chronic Screening

`1 2 

### Values Endrin 0.061 S 0.18 0.0023 5 

### Ethylbenzene 290 * 4530 (5s) 453 Fluoranthene 8.1 S 398 (2s) 39.8 Fluorene 3.9 # Guthion

-- 0.01 Heptachlor 0.0069 + 0.52 0.0038 5 

### Heptachlor epoxide 0.52 0.0038 5 

### Hexachlorobutadiene 9 (5s) 0.93 (1s) Hexachlorocyclopentadiene 0.7 (4s) 0.07 Hexachloroethane 12 # 98 (5s) 9.8 Isophorone 11700 (2s) 1170 Lindane (see g-BHC) Malathion 0.097

-- 0.01 Methoxychlor 0.019 #

-- 0.03 Methyl bromide 1100 (1s) 110 Methyl chloride 55000 (1s) 5500 3-Methyl-4-chlorophenol 3 (1s) 0.3 (p-Chloro-m-cresol) 2-Methyl-4, 6-dinitrophenol 23 (4s) 2.3 (4,6- Dinitro-o-cresol) Methylene chloride 19300 (3s) 1930 Mirex

-- 0.001 Naphthalene 24 * 230 (4s) 62 (1s) Nitrobenzene 2700 (2s) 270 2-Nitrophenol

-- 3500 4-Nitrophenol 828 (3s) 82.8 n-Nitrosodiphenylamine 585 (2s) 58.5 Parathion 0.065 0.013

### Table 3. (continued) 

## 21

OSWER Values Region IV Values 3


### Chemical or FCV Tier II Screening Values

NAWQC Acute Chronic Screening

`1 2 

### Values PCB (total polychlorinated 0.19 * biphenyls) PCB-1242 0.2 (7s) 0.014 PCB-1254 0.2 (7s) 0.014 PCB-1221 0.2 (7s) 0.014 PCB-1232 0.2 (7s) 0.014 PCB-1248 0.2 (7s) 0.014 PCB-1260 0.2 (7s) 0.014 PCB-1016 0.2 (7s) 0.014 Pentachlorobenzene 0.47 # 250 50 Pentachlorophenol 13 pH 20 pH 13 pH Phenol 1020 (16s) 256 (1s) Polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons Phenanthrene 6.3 S 1,2,4,5-Tetrachlorobenzene 250 50 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane 420 * 932 (3s) 240 (1s) Tetrachloroethylene 120 * 528 (5s) 84 (1s) Tetrachloromethane 240 # Toluene 130 * 1750 (5s) 175 Toxaphene 0.011 # 0.73 0.00025 1,2-Trans-Dichloroethylene, 13500 (1s) 1350 Tribromomethane 320 # Tributyltin

-- 0.026 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene 110 # 150 (4s) 44.9 (1s) 1,1,1-Trichloroethane 62 * 5280 (2s) 528 1,1,2-Trichloroethane 3600 (3s) 940 (1s) Trichloroethylene 350 *

### Table 3. (continued) 

## 22

OSWER Values Region IV Values 3


### Chemical or FCV Tier II Screening Values

NAWQC Acute Chronic Screening

`1 2 

### Values 2,4,6-Trichlorophenol 32 (3s) 3.2 m-Xylene 1.8 # Other Chloride 860,000 230,000 Chlorine (total residual - TRC) 19 11 Cyanide 5.2 22 5.2 pH -2.5 Oil and Grease

-- 0.01 (Low LC ) 50 

### Sulfide (S -, HS-)

-- 2

2 

### Notes: EPA derived NAWQC or final chronic values (FCVs). 1 

### Values calculated using the GLWQI Tier II methodology. 2 

### Based on EPA Region IV Water Management Division, Water Quality Standards Unit’s Screening List. Those 3 

### followed by (n s) are derived by Region IV using safety factors. For long-term irrigation of sensitive crops (minimum standard). 4 

### Based on the marketability of fish. The use of other values which may have greater ecological 5 

### significance may be considered. Lowest plant value reported. 6 

### ( n s) = number of species h = hardness-dependent ambien t water quality criterion (100 mg/L as CaCO used for OSWER thresholds and 3 

### 50 mg/L for Region IV values). pH = pH-dependent ambient water quality criterion (7.8 pH used for OSWER thresholds and 6.0 for Region IV values). S = FCV derived for EPA Sediment Quality Criteria documents. F = FCV calculated using GLWQI Tier 1 methodology. t = value is for total of all chemical forms. * = value as calculated in Suter and Mabrey (1994). + = Value with EPA support documents. # = value calculated by OSWER.



# 3. CHEMICAL-SPECIFIC INFORMATION

This sectio n describes the sources of information and procedures that are specific to individua l elements. Except where noted, the sourc es of data for estimating chronic values and test EC20s for fish arethe same. All data used to calculate Tier II values and estimated chronic values and EC20s ar e presented in Appendix A.

## 23
3.1 INORGANICS Aluminum . There are NAWQC foraluminum. The toxicity of aluminum has been shown to vary widely with water hardness and pH (Ingersoll et al., 1990a 1990b; Woodward et al., 1989; Sadler and Lynam, 1988; and Cleveland et al. 19 86; and others). The benchmarks were calculated using only tests incircumneutral water. Lowest chronic and test EC20 values for fish are from 28-day embryo-larval tests with Pimephales promelas . Kimball (n.d.) presented a CV of 5800 μg/L, however, after further analysis of

Kimball’s data, the EPA (1988a) offered another value of 3288 μg/L as the CV fo r aluminum. Lowest chronic and test EC20 values for daphnids are from McCauley et al. (1986). The EPA (1988a) gives a 4-day test EC50 for Selenastrum capricornu tumwhich is used as the plant chronic value. Ammonia. The test EC20 value for fish is from an embryo-larval test with fathead minnow s (Thurston et al . 1986). The chronic value for fish is from an early life stage test with pink salmon , Onc orhynchusgorbuscha(Rice and Bailey 1980). The chronic value for daphnids is from EP A (1985a ). Chronic values were determined using Daphnia magnain life-cycle tests. EPA (1985a ) provided the chronic value for aquatic plants, in which Chlorella vulgarisexperienced growth inhibition (EC50). The NAWQC for a mmonia are functions of temperature (T) and pH. The acute NAWQC for ammonia is 0.52/FT/FPH/2, and the chronic NAWQC for ammonia is 0.80/FT/FPH/Ratio, where:

FT = 10 ; TCAP T 30

0.03(20-TCAP) 

## 10 ; 0 T TCAP 0.03(20-T) 

## FPH = 1; 8 pH 9

1 + 10 ; 6.5 pH 8

7.4-pH 

## 1.25
Ratio = 16; 7.7 pH 9

= (24) 10 ; 6.5 pH 7.7

7.7-pH 

## 1 + 10 7.4-pH 

## TCAP = 20 C for acute criteria and 15 C for chronic criteria when Salmonids or other sensitive

o o 

## cold water species are present

= 25 C for acute criteria and 20 C for chroniccriteria when Salmonids and other sensitive o o 

## coldwater species are absent These criteria are presented in greater detail in EPA (1985a and 1986b). Antimony
. Chronic and test EC20 v alues for antimony are from Kimball (n.d.). The chronic tests of Pimephales promelaswere embryo-larval, and 28- day life-cycle tests were used for Daphnia magna
. The EPA (1978) gives a 4-day EC50 for chlo rophyll A inhibition in Selenastrum capricornutumwhich is used as the pla nt value. The SAV and SCV listed in this report are draft FAV and FCV value s (EPA 1988b). Arsenic III . NAWQC are listed for arsenic III. The lowest chronic values for fish and daphnids aregiven by Call et al. (1983) and Lima et al. (1984). Early life stage tests were used on Pimephales promelasand life-cycle tests were used on Daphn ia magna . Cowell (1965) provides the lowest chronic valu e for the algae Spirogyra , Cladophora , and Zygnemawhich is a concentration that produced a

## 24 100% kill in 2 weeks. Th e test EC20 value is derived from Lima et al. (1984) for fish and from Call et al. (1983) and Lima et al. (1984) for daphnids. ArsenicV . The c hronic and test EC20 values for fish are from an early life stage test wit h Pimephales promelas(DeFoe 1982) , and the test EC20 for daphnids is from Spehar et al. (1980). The estimated chronic value for daphnids was calculated with a Daphnia magnaLC50 from EPA (1985b) using Equation (3). Vocke (1 980) provides the plant value from a 14-day EC50 test with Scenedesmus obli quus . The SAV and SCV listed in this report are lower than the acute and chronic LOEL value s listed in the Water Quality Criteria Summary (EPA 1986b). Barium
. The chronic value for daphnids is from a 21 -day test on Daphnia magnaby Biesinger and Christensen (1972) which resulted in 16% reproductive impairment. Beryllium
. The chronic and test EC20 values for Daphnia magnaare from a life-cycle test i n Kimball (n.d.). Karlander and Krauss (1972) provide the plant value for Chlorella vannieli , a 10 to 20% reduction in autotrophic growth rates. The est imated chronic and test EC20 values for fish were derived using data for Pimephales promelasfrom EPA (1980f) in Equations (1) and (5). The derived SAV and SCV listed in this report are lower than the lowest CV listed in the Water Quality Criteria Summar y (EPA 1986b) and the acute and chronic LOEL values listed in the Water Quality Criteria Summary (EPA 1986b). Boron
. The EC20 value for daphnids was based on a 21-day test on Daphnia magnaby Gerisch (1984). A 21-day test of Daphnia magnaby Lewis and Valentine (1981) provided the lowest daphnid chronic value. Cadmium
. The NAWQC for cadmium are functions of water hardness. The equations for these aree for the chronic value and e for the acute value (EPA 1986b)
. (0.7852[ln(hardness)]-3.490 (1.128[ln(hardness)]-3.828) 

## Thelowest chronic value for fish is from Sauter et al. (1976) and Chapman et al. (n.d.) for daphnids. Earlylife stage tests were performed on brook trout, and life-cycle tests were performed on Daphnia magna . The test EC20 value is from Carlson et al. (1982) for fish and Elnabarawy et al. (1986) fo r daphnids. The value for aquatic plants is from Conway (1977) . A relatively low cadmium concentration reduced the population growth rate of Asterionella formosaby an order of magnitude. Cal cium.The chronic value for daphnids is a concentration causing a 16% reduction i n reproduction of Daphnia magnaexposed to CaCl •2H O (Biesinger and Christensen 1972). Because 2 2 

## the highly conservative secondary values were below commonl y occurring ambient concentrations of this macronutrient, they were judged to be inappropriate and are not presented. ChromiumIII . The NAWQC for chromium III are functions of water hardness. The equations aree for the chronic value and e for the acute value. The lowest (0.8190[ln(hardness)]+1.5161) (0.8190[ln(hardness)]+3.688) 

## chronic value for fish is from an early life stage test by Stevens and Chapman (1984) on rainbow trout. Chapman et al. (n.d.) provide a chronic value from a life-cycle test of Daphnia magna . The plant value for chromium III is from a 4-day chronic test in which there was a 50% inhibition of growth o f Selenastrum capricornutum(EPA 1985c). Stevens and Chap man (1984) also provided data for the test EC20 value for fish. Chromium VI . There are NAWQC for chromium VI. The chronic and test EC20 values for fish are from Sauter et al. (1976). An early life stage test produced the chronic value for rainbow trout. For da phnids, a life-cycle chronic test was run by Mount (1982) on Daphnia magna , and the test EC20 is fromEln abarawy et al. (1986). Microcystis aeruginosa , used for the aquatic plant value, showe d incipient inhibition in tests reported by the EPA (1985c).

## 25 Cobalt
. The chronic and test EC20 values for cobalt are from Kimball (n.d.). Daphnia magna were used in 28-day life-cycle tests, and Pimephales promelaswere used in embryo-larval tests. Copper
. The NAWQC for copper are functions of water hardness. The equations ar e e for the chronic value and e for the acute value. The chronic and (0.8545[ln(hardness)]-1.465) (0.9422[ln(hardness)]-1.464) 

## test EC20 values for fish are from an early life stage test with brook trout by Sauter et al. (1976). The daphnid chronic value is from Chapman (n.d.). The test EC20 value for daphnids is derived from Dave (1984a). A 21-day test LC50 on Da phnia magnaprovided the chronic value for daphnids. Arthur and Leon ard(1970) provided a chronic value through 6-week tests on the amphipod, Gammarus pseudolimnaeus
. Steeman-Nielsen and Wium-Anderson (1970) provide a plant value based on a lag in growth of the alga, Chlorella pyrenoidosa
. Cyanide
. There are NAWQC for cyanide. The chronic and test EC20 values for fish were both from a brook trout life-cycle test by Koenst et al. (1977). Oseid and Smith (1979) provide full life-cycle test on Gammarus pseudolimnaeus , an amphipod. The alga, Scenedesmus quadricauda , showe d incipient inhibition in chronic tests by the EPA (1985e). Iron
. The NAWQ C for iron is based on a field study at a site receiving acid mine drainage and is not consistent with the current method fo r deriving criteria. The lowest chronic value for daphnids (158 μg/L) is a threshold for reproductive effects from a 21-day test of FeCl with Daphnia magna(Dave 2 

## 1984c). It is considerably lower than the 438 0 μg/L concentration causing 16% reproductive decrement in another test of FeCl with D. magna(Biesinger and Christensen 1972). Dave (1984c) argued that his 2 

## result was more applicable to a situation in which "an acidic iron-containing waste water is discharged into a lake or a river" where it is neutralized, but Biesinger and Christensen's (1972) result "is probably morec lose to the steady-state situation in natural freshwater without any point source of iron." Th e lowestchronic value for fish is a concentration that caused 100% larval mortality in an embryo-larval test with rainbow trout exposed to dissolved iron salts (Amelung 1981). Lead
. The NAWQC for lead are functions of water hardness. The equations are e (1.273[ln(hardness)]-4.705) 

## for the chronic value and e for the acute value. The lowest chronic value for fish was (1.273[ln(hardness)]-1.460) 

## provided by an early life stage test on rainbow trout by Davi es et al. (1976). Daphnia magnawere used in 21-day tests to determine lowest chronic toxicity by Chapman et al. (manuscript). Borgmann et al. (1978) provided a chronic value for a life-cycle test on Lymnaea palastris , a snail. Chlorella vulgaris , Scenedesmus quadricauda , and Selenastrum capricornutumexperienced 53%, 35%, and 52% growth inhibition, respectively, at the plant chronic value (EPA 1985f). The test EC20 value for fish is from Sauteret al. (1976). The acute-EC20 ratio from which the SS test EC20 was calculated had to b e obtainedusing a species mean acute value for Salmo gairdneri(EPA 1985f) since no acute value was reported by Sauter et al. (1976). Magnesium.The chronic value for daphnids is a concentration causing a 16% reduction i n reproduction of Da

phnia magnaexposed to MgCl •6H O (Biesinger and Christensen 1972). Because 2 2 

## the highly conservative secondary values were below commonl y occurring ambient concentrations of this nutrient element, they were judged to be inappropriate and are not presented. Manganese
. All chronic and test EC20 values for manganese are from Kimball (n.d.). The fish chronic value is from a 28-day early life-stage test with Pimephales promelas
. Mercury, inorganic ,or total . Mercury has N AWQC. However, the chronic criterion for mercury isbased on the final residue value derived from a methyl mercury bioconcentration factor. To protect aquatic life, the secondary values were derived from the EPA's (1985f) final acute and chronic values.

## 26 The chronic and test EC20 values for fish are from Call et al. (1983), and those for daphnids are from Biesingeret al. (1982). The chronic tests for fish were run on Pimephales promelesthroughout their embryo-larval stage. Daphnia magnawere used in flow through life-cycle tests. The plant value is for incipient inhibition of Microcystis aeruginosain an 8-day test(EPA 1985f). The acute-EC20 ratio used to calculate the SS test EC value had to be derived using a s pecies mean acute value (EPA 1985g) since 20 

## no acute value was reported in Biesinger et al. (1982). Mercury, methyl . The chronic and test EC20 values for fish are from McKim et al. (1976). Brook trout were used in three gen eration life-cycle tests. The test EC20 value for daphnids is from Biesinger et al. (1982). The alga, Chlorella vulgaris , wasused in 15-day EC50 (growth) tests by Rai et al. (1981) to determine chronic toxicity values for aquatic plants. Molybdenum
. The chronic and te st EC20 values for daphnids are from Kimball (n.d.). Daphnia magnawere used in a 28-day life-cycle test to determine the chronic value. Nickel
. T he NAWQC for nickel are functions of water hardness. The equation for these ar e e for the chronic value and e for the acute value. However, nickel (0.8460[ln(hardness)]+1.1645) (0.8460[ln(hardness)]+3.3612) 

## concentrations of 10 μg/L in Oak Ridge Reservation stream water (considerably below the chroni c NAWQC for nickel but similar to t he lowest of the alternate benchmarks) reduced 7-day Ceriodaphnia dubia survivorship to 60% (Kszos et al. 1992). The chronic and test EC20 values for fish are fro m Nebek er et al. (1985). The chronic value for fish was determined through an early life stage test o n rainbow trout. For d aphnids, the chronic value was from Lazareva (1985) and the test EC20 was from Münzinger (199 0). Daphnia magnawere used in a life-cycle test to determine the chronic value. The caddisfly, Clistoronia magnifica , was used in life-cycle tests by Nebeker et al. (1984) to determine the chronicvalue. The plant chronic toxicity values were provided by the EPA (1986a) for Microcystis aeruginosa , which showed incipient inhibition. Potassiu m.The chronic value for daphnids is a concentration causing a 16% reduction i n reproduction of Daphnia magnaexposed to KC l (Biesinger and Christensen 1972). Because the highly conserva tivesecondary values were below commonly occurring ambient concentrations of thi s macronutrient, they were judged to be inappropriate and are not presented. Selenium.NAWQC are listed for selenium. The chronic and test EC20 values for fish are from Goettl and Davies (1976). Their tests were during the early life stage of rainbow trout. The chroni c value for daphnids is from Kimball ( n.d.), and the test EC20 is from Johnston (1987). These tests were run for 28 days on Daphnia magna . The green alga, Scenedesmus obliquus , exhibited reduced growth in the 14-day chronic toxicity tests (Vo cke et al. 1980). The acute-EC20 ratio used in calculation of the SS EC20 value had to be derived using a species mean acute value for Daphnia magna(EPA 1987a) because no acute value was reported by Johnston. Silver
. The acute NAWQC for silver, which is a function of water hardness, is given by th e equatione . The SCV was estimated from the FAV and acute-chronic ratios for thre e

(1.72[ln(hardness)]-6.52) 

## specie s. Although questions about two of these ratios prompted the EPA to refrain from calculating a final chronic value, we judged them to be better tha n the default value. The lowest chronic value for fish isbased on an early life stage test on rainbow trout by Davies et al. (1978). The lowest chronic value for daphnids and the test EC20 for fish are from Nebeker et al. (1983). The daphnid CV is from a test with Daphnia magna . The test EC20 for daphnids is from Elnabarawy et al. (1986). The plant value is for growth inhibition in Chlorella vulgaris(EPA 1980y).

## 27 Sodium
. The chronic value for daphnids is a concentration causing a 16% reduction in reproduction of Daphnia magnaexposed to NaCl (Biesinger and Christensen 1 972). Because the highly conservative secondaryvalues were below commonly occurring ambient concentrations of this macronutrient, they were judged to be inappropriate and are not presented. Strontium.

The chronicvalue for daphnids is from 21-day tests on Daphnia magnaby Biesinger and Christensen (1972) which resulted in 16% reproductive impairment. T hallium . Chronic and test EC20 values are from Kimball (n.d.). Embryo-larval tests were run on Pimephales promelas , and 28-day chronic tests were run on Daphnia magna . The aquatic plan t valueis a 4 -day EC50 which reduced the cell numbers of the alga, Selenastrum capricornutu m (EPA 1978). Tin
. Th e chronic value is from Biesinger and Christensen (1972). It caused 16% reproductiv e impairment in Daphnia magnain 21 days. Uranium
. The chronic value for fish is an estimate based on a fathead minnow LC50 fro m Cushman et al. (1977) used in Equation (1). The test EC20 is an estimate based on the same data ; however, Equation (5) was used. Vanadium
. The lowest chronic and test EC20 values for fish are from Holdway and Spragu e (1979) and for daphnids from Kimball (n.d.). Zinc
. T he NAWQC for zinc are functions of water hardness. The equations ar e e for the chronic value and e for the acute value. The chronic and (0.8473[ln(hardness)]+0.7614) (0.8473[ln(hardness)]+0.8604) 

## test EC20 values for fish are from Spehar (1976), and the chronic value for daphnids is from Chapman etal. (n.d.). Life-cycle tests were run on Jordanella floridaeand Daphnia magna . Nebeker et al
. (1984 ) provided chronic values from life-cycle tests on the caddisfly, Clistoronia magnifica . Bartlett etal. (1974 ) ran 7-day tests on Selenastrum capricornutum . These aquatic plants showed incipien t inhibition of growth. Zirconiu m . The chronic and test EC20 values for fish are estimates based on an LC50 fo r Pimephales promelasfrom Cushman et al. (1977). These values were calculated using Equations (1) and (5).
3.2 ORGANICS Acenaphthene
. Although the full data requirements are not met for acenaphthene, the EPA has presented f

inal acute and chronic values for derivation of sediment quality criteria which are presented inthe criter ia columns (EPA 1993b). The fish chronic value is from an early life-stage test wit h Pimep halespromelas , and the non-daphnid chronic value is from a life-cycle test with a midg e Paratanytarsus sp . (EPA 1993b). The plant value is from EPA (1978). Selenastrum capricornutum were used in 96-hour EC50 (50% reduction in cell numbers). Acetone. The test EC20 value for fish is an estimate based on an LC50 for rainbow trout. Th e chronic value for Daphnia magna is a 28-day life-cycle test from LeBlanc and Surprenant (1983).

## 28 Anthracene.

The chronic value for daphnids ( Daphnia magna) was estimated using an EC50 from Holst and Giesy (1989). The chronic and test EC20 values for fish are an estimate based on an LC50 for bluegill from Oris and Giesy (1985). Calcu lations were performed using Equations (2), (4), and (5). Benzene
. The low est chronic value for daphnids is given by EPA (1978). Daphnia magnawere used in life-cycle tests. The lowest chronic value for aquatic plants is given by Kauss and Hutchinson (1975), which was a 48-hour test EC50 on Chlorella vulgaris
. The chronic value for fish is an estimate based on data for the rainbow trout from EPA (1980d) and Equation (2). The test EC20 value for fish is derived from Black and Birge (1982). The reade r should note that Black and Birge conducted a series of screening tests for a large number of chem icals on several freshwater organisms. Larval fish survival was recorded to only 4 days post-hatch, and LOECs and NOECs were not determined. These tests, then, didnot generate standard chronic values and are not equivalent to the other chronic tests cited in thi s report. The test EC20 values based on tests by Black and Birge may be high relative to those fro m conventional chronic tests. Benzidene.

The chronic and EC20 v alue for fish are an estimate based on data for red shiner from EPA (1980c). Calculations were performed using Equations (2) and (5). Benzo(a)anthracene.The chronic value for daphnids is an estimate based on data for Daphnia magnafrom Trucco et al. (1983) used in Equation (4). Benzo(a)pyrene . The tes t EC20 for fish is derived from Hannah et al. (1982). The chronic value fordaphnids is an estimate based on data for Daphnia magnafrom Trucco et al. (1985) used i n Equation (4). BenzoicAcid. The chronic value for fish is an estimate based on data for the mosquitofish from AQUIRE used in Equation (2). The estimated test EC20 for fish is b ased on the same data, but Equation (5) was used. Benzyl Alcohol.The chronic and test EC20 v alues for fish are estimates based on data for bluegill from Dawson et al. (1977). The calculations were performed using Equations (2) and (5) . BHC (lindane)

. There are NAWQC for lindane. The chronic values for daphnids, fish, and nondaphnid invertebrates are all from Macek et al. ( 1976a). The test EC20 values for daphnids and fish are also from Macek et al. (1976a). The chronic values were derived from life-cycle tests run on Pimephales p r omelas , Daphnia magna , and the midge Chironimus tentans . The chronic value for aquatic plants is from Krishnakumari (1977); Scenedesmus acutusexhibited 20% growth inhibition in 5 days. The acute-EC20 ratio from which the SS EC20 wa s calculated was derived using a species mean acute value for Salvelinus fontinalis(EPA 1980s) since no acute data were reported by Macek et al. (1976a). BHC (other).The chroni c value for daphnids was estimated using a Daphnia magnaEC50 from AQUIRE in Equation (4). Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate

. The chronic and test EC20 values for fish are from a rainbow trout early life-stage test (Mehrle and Mayer 1976). A much lower value was reported in the previous edition of this report, but the results of that study are now believed to be incorrect (Knowles et al. 1987). The new value i s supported by a CV of 912 μg/L from Adams and Heidolph (1985). That study is used in the derivation of the SCV because, unlike the K nowles et al. (1987) study, it has an accompanying acute value (48-hr EC50). No test EC20 for daphnids was calculate d because insufficient detail was presented by Adams and Heidolph (1985) and Knowles et al. (1987).

## 29 2-But anone. The chronic values for fish and daphnids are estimates based on data from Veith et al. (1 983) and Randall and Knopp (1980), respectively. Equation (4) was applied to the data fo r Daphniamagna , and Equation (2) was applied to the data for Pimephales promelas . The test EC20 value for fish is also an estimate using Equation (5) and an LC50 from Veith et al. (1983). Ca rbondisulfide.The chronic and test EC20 values for fish are estimates based on data fo r mosquitofish from AQUIRE using equation s (2) and (5). The chronic value for daphnids is an estimate for Daphnia magnausing data from Van Leeuwen (1985) in Equation (4). Carbon tetrachloride . The chronic value for fish is a rainbow trout embryo-larval LC50 (Black and Birge 1 982); therefore, it may be too high. However, it is lower than values presented by Kimball et al. (n.d.) and EPA (1980 h) for fathead minnows. The same test was used to derive the test EC20 for fish (see the comments on benzene). The chronic value for daphnids is from a 7-day reproduction test with Daphnia magna(Kimball et al. n.d.). None of the subchronic tests could be used in the calculation of the SCV. Chlordane
. The chronic NAWQC for chlordane is based on the final residue value. For a criterion to protect aquatic life ra ther than its use, the FCV is reported. The lowest chronic and test EC20 values are derived from Daphnia magna , bluegill, and Chironomus tentanslife-cycle tests (Cardwell et al
. 1977). Chlorobenzene.The chronic v alues for fish and daphnids are estimates based on data for bluegill and Daphnia magnaf

rom EPA (1980j). The values were calculated using Equations (2) and (4). The plant value is a 96-hour EC50 for cell number with Selenastrum capricornutum(EPA 1980j). Chloroform . The test EC20 value for fish is from Black and Birge (1982). (Refer to the section on benzene). The chronic value is a 27 -day LC50 for rainbow trout (embryo-larval) from EPA (1980l). The EPA (1986b) gives th is value as a lowest observed effect value in lieu of a NAWQC. The chronic value f or daphnids is an estimate based on data for Daphnia magnafrom EPA (1980l) and calculated from Equation (4). DDD. The chronic and EC20 values for fish are estimates based on data for largemouth bass from Mayer and Ellersieck (1986) and are calculated using Equations (2) and (5). DDT
. The acute NAWQC for DDT is used. The chronic NAWQC, however, is not used because it is based on the final residue value. T o protect aquatic life, an SCV is presented. The test EC20 value f or fish is derived from Jarvinen et al. (1977). The fish chronic value is from a Pimephales promelas life-cycle test (EPA 1980 m). The chronic value for daphnids is an estimate based on data for Daphnia pulexfr om EPA (1980m) and calculated with Equation (4). The aquatic plant chronic value is fro m Sodergreen (1968). Chlorella vulgariswas affected in growth and morphology. Deca ne.The chronic value for daphnids is an estimate based on data for Daphnia magnafro m LeBlanc (1980) used in Equation (4). Di-n-butyl phthalate . All chronic and test EC20 val ues are from McCarthy and Whitmore (1985). The chronic value for daphnids is based on the geometric means of the observed concentration of fresh solutions and age d solutions. Daphnia magnawere used in life-cycle tests, and Pimephales promelas were used in early life stage tests.

## 30 Dibenzofuran.

The chronic value for daphnids is an estimate based on data for Daphnia magna from LeBlanc (1980) and used in Equation (4). 1,1-Dichloroethane. The chronic and test EC20 values for fish are estimates based on an LC50 for guppy from Koneman (1981) and calculated using Equations (2) and (5). 1,2-Dichloroethane
. The chronic value for fish is from Ahmad et al. (1984). Early life stage tests were conducted on Pimephales promelas . The test EC20 value for fish is from Benoit et al. (1982). The chronic and test EC20 values for daphnids are from Daphnia magna28-day life-cycle tests (Richter et al. 1983). 1,1-Dich loroethene
. The chronic values for fish and aquatic plants are from EPA (1978)
. Pimephalespromelaswere used in embryo-larval tests. The alga, Selenastrum capricornutum , wa s used in a 96-hour EC50 where it exhibited loss of chlorophyll A and cell numbers. The chronic value for daphnids is an estimate based on data for Daphnia magnafrom EPA (1980n) used in Equation (4). 1,2-Dichlo roethene.The chronic and test EC20 values for fish are estimates based on data fo r bluegill from EPA (1980n). These values were derived using Equations (2) and (5). 1,3-Dichloropropene
. The test EC20 for fish was estimated using an LC50 for bluegill from EPA (19 80o) in Equation (5). The chronic values for fish and aquatic plants are from EPA (1978)
. Pimephales promelaswere used in an embryo-larval test, and Selenastrum capricornutumwere used in a 96-hour E C50. The alga showed chlorophyll A and cell loss. The chronic value for daphnids was estimated using an EC50 for Daphnia magnafrom EPA (1980o) in Equation (4). Diethylphthalate.The plant value is a 96-hour EC50 for Selenastrum capricornutu m (EPA 1978). Di-n-octyl phthalate.All chronic and test EC 20 values are from McCarthy and Whitmore (1985). Chronic values were based on Pimephales promelas in early life stage tests and Daphnia magnain lifecycle tests. There are no Tier II values for di-n-octyl phthalate because LC50s were not available. Ethylbe nzene . The chronic value for aquatic plants is from EPA (1978). Selenastru m capricornutumdisplayed chlorophyll A inhibition in 96-hour EC50. T he chronic value for daphnids was estimated using an EC50 for Daphnia magnafrom EPA (1980p) in Equation (4). Fluoranthene.

Although the full d ata requirements are not met for fluoranthene, the EPA (1993c) has derived an FAV and FCV as a part of the derivation of sediment quality criteria which are presented in Table 1. The fish CV is from an early l ife-stage test with Pimephales promelas , and the daphnid CV is from a life-cycle test with Daphnia magnaEPA (1993c). Heptachlor . The acute NAWQC for heptachlor is used. Because the chronic NAWQC is based on the final residue value, an SCV is reported herein. The c hronic and test EC20 values for fish are from Macek et al. (1976b). Pimephales promelaswere used in life-cycle tests to determine the chronic value for fish. The SS test EC20 value was calculated using an acute-EC20 ratio that was derived from a species mean acute value for Pimephales promelas(EPA 1980r) because no acute data are availabl e fromM acek et al. (1976b). The chronic value for aquatic plants is from EPA (1980r). Growt h inhibitionwas exhibited by Selenastrum capricornutumin 96-hour EC50. The chronic value fo r daphnids is an estimate based on data for Daphnia pulexfrom EPA (1980r) using Equation (4).

## 31 Hexane. The chronic v alue and test EC20 value for fish are estimates based on LC50s for golden orfe from AQUIRE and calculated using Equations (2) and (5). 2-Hexanon e.The chronic value and test EC20 value are estimates based on an LC50 fo r Pimephales promelasfrom Geiger et al. (1986) and calculated using Equations (2) and (5). 1-Methylnaphthalene. The chronic and test EC20 values for fish are estimates based on data for Pimephales promelasfrom Mattson (1976). The values were calculated with Equations (2) and (5). 4-Meth yl-2-pentanone
. The chronic value for fish is from Call et al. (1985). Pimephale s promelasembryos, larva, and juveniles were exposed for 31 to 33 days. 2-Methylphenol.

The chronic value for daphnid s is an estimate based on data for Daphnia magna from Adema (1978) and Canton and Adema ( 1978). The value was calculated using Equation (4). The chronic andtest EC20 values for fish were estimated using an LC50 for rainbow trout from DeGraeve et al. (1980) in Equations (2) and (5). Methylene chloride . The chronic value for fish is from Dill et al. (1987). Pimephales promelas we re used in 32-day embryo-larval tests. The chronic value for daphnids is an estimate based on data for Daphnia magnafrom LeBlanc (1980) used in Equation (4). The test EC20 value for fish is from Black and Birge (1982). (Refer to the section on benzene concerning data from this source.) Naphthalene
. The chronic and test EC20 values for fish are from DeGraeve et al. (1982), and the te st EC20 value for daphnids is from Geiger and Buikema (1982). Pimphales promelaswere used in emb ryo-larvaltests to determine chronic toxicity. The chronic value for aquatic plants is from EP A (1980t). The alga, Chlorella vulgaris , exhibited inhibited cell numbers in 48-hour EC50. The chronic value for daphnids is an estimate based on data for Daphnia magnafrom EPA (1980t) used in Equation (4). 4-Nitrophenol
. The chronic and test EC20 values for daphnids are from Francis et al. (1986). The chronic and test EC20 values for fish are estimates based on data for bluegill from Buccafusco et al
. (1981) an d used with Equations (2) and (5). The EPA (1978) is the source for the chronic value fo r aquatic plants. Selenastrum capricornutumexhibited chlorophyll A reduction in 96-hour EC50. N-nitros odiphenylamine
. The source for the estimated fish and daphnid chronic values ar e Buccafusc oet al. (1981) and LeBlanc (1980), respectively. Equation (2) was used to calculate th e estimated fish (bluegi ll) value, and Equation (4) was used for the estimated daphnid ( Daphnia magna ) value. The test EC20 value for fish is also an estimate. Buccafusco et al. (1981) provided the LC50 for bluegill used with Equation (5) to estimate the EC20. PCBs: Total . There are NAWQC for PCBs , but the chronic criterion is based on the final residue value. Since that value is intended to protect the use of aquatic life, an SCV is calculated to protect the aquatic life itsel f. The fish lowest chronic value and test EC20 are from a full life-cycle test of fathead minnows by DeFoe (1978). The lowest chronic value and test EC20 for daphnids are from a 2-week continuous flow test with Daphnia magna(Nebeker and Puglisi 1974). The lowest chronic value for non-daphni d

invertebrates is from a 3-week LC50 for Tanytarsis dissimilisby Nedeker and Puglis i (1974). The lowest plant value is for reduction in carbon fixation by Scenedesmus quadricaudatain a 24-hour test (Laird 1973).

## 32 PCBs: Aroclor 1221.The chronic and test EC20 fish values are estimates based on data fo r ® 

## cutthroat trout by Stalling and Mayer (1972). Equations (2) and (5) were used to determine the EC20 value for fish. The chronic value for aquatic plants is a 48-hour LC50 for Euglena gracilis (Ewald et al. 1976). PCB s: Aroclor 1232. The chronic and test EC20 fish values are estimates based on data fo r ® 

## cutthroat trout by Stalling and Mayer (1972) and AQUIRE. The geometric mean was derived from these two values and then placed into Equations (2) and (5). PCBs: Aroclor 1242 . The chronicand test EC20 values for fish are from Nebeker et al. (1974). ® 

## Pimephales promelaswere used in full life-cycle tests. The chronic values for non-daphnid invertebrates are from Nebeker and Puglisi (1974). Gammar us pseudolimnaeuswere exposed to PCBs for 2 months ina con tinuous-flow system. The chronic value for aquatic plants is a 24-hour test in whic h Scenedesmus obtusiusculusshowed growth inhibition (Larsson and Tillberg 1975). PCBs: Aroclor 1248 . The chronic and test EC20 values for fish are from DeFoe et al. (1978), ® 

## and the chronic and test EC20 values for daphnids are from Nebeker and Puglisi (1974). The chronic values fo r fish were full life-cycle tests carried out on Pimephales promelas . The chronic value fo r daphnids was determined through 3-week exposures that created a 16% reproductive impairment i n Daphnia magna . The chronic value for a non-daph nid invertebrate is from Nebeker and Puglisi (1974). Gammarus pseudolimnaeuswas exposed for 2 months. PCBs: Aroclor 1254 . The chronic value for fish is from a brook trout life-cycle test (Mauck et ® 

## al. 1978), and the test EC20 value is from a fathead minnow life-cycle test (Nebeker et al. 1974). The chronic and test EC20 values for daphnid s are from Nebeker and Puglisi (1974). Daphnia magnawere exposed for 2 weeks in a continuous-flow environment. The lowest chronic value for nondaphni d invert ebrates is from a 3-week LC50 for Tanytarsis dissimilisby Nedeker and Puglisi (1974). Th e lowest plant value is for reduction in carbon fixation by Scenedesmus quadricaudatain a 24-hour test (Laird 1973). PCBs: Aroclor 1260 . The chronic and test EC20 values for fish are from DeFoe et al. (1978). ® 

## The chronic value is ambiguous because significant effects occurred at the lowest concentration tested in a 30-day fathead minnow larval test at the lowest concentrations t ested (1.3 μg/L) but not in a 240-day lifecycle at the highest concentration tested (2.1 μg/L). 1-Pentan ol.The chronic and test EC20 values for fish are estimates based on data for rainbo w trout from AQUIRE and calculated using Equations (2) and (5). Phenan threne
. The chronic and test EC20 values for daphnids are from Geiger and Buikem a (1982). The chronic value was determined using Daphnia pulexin full life-cycle tests. Phenol
. The chronic and test EC20 values for fish are from fathead minnow embryo-larval tests (DeGraeve et a l. 1980). The chronic value for daphnids is an estimate based on data for Daphnia longispinafrom EPA ( 1980v) and calculated using Equation (4). The chronic value for aquatic plants is f rom Reynolds (1975). Selenastrum capricornutumexhibited 60% reduction in cell numbers an d 12% growth inhibition. 2-Propanol.

The chronic and test EC20 values for f ish are estimates based on data for Pimephales promelasfrom AQUIRE and Veith et al. (1983). The geometric mean of these LC50s was used i n Equations (2) and (4).

## 33 1,1,2,2 -Tetrachloroethane
. The chronic and test EC20 values for fish are from Ahmad et al
. (1984), and the values for daphnids are from Richter et al. (1983). The chronic values for fish wer e derivedfro m embryo-larval tests on Pimephales promelas . The chronic values for daphnids wer e derivedfrom 28-day tests run on Daphnia magna
. The chronic value for aquatic plants is from EPA (1978). Selenastrum capricornutumexhibited chlorophyll A inhibition in 96-hour EC50. Tetrachloroethene
. The chronic value for fish is an embryo-larval test on fathead minnows (EPA 1980aa). The test EC20 value for fish is from Ahmad et al. (1984). The chronic and test EC20 values for daphnids are from Richter et al. (1983). These were 28-day tests on Daphnia magna . The plan t valu e is from EPA (1978). Selenastrum capricornutumdecreased in cell number and chlorophyll A during the 96-hour EC50. Toluene
. The chronic value is an estimate based on data for Daphnia magnafrom EPA (1980cc) andcalculated using Equation (4). The chronic value from Pimephales promelasis from Devli n etal. (198 2). The test EC20 value for fish is from Black and Birge (1982). (Refer to the section o n benzene.) Chlorella vulgariswas used in 10-day tests by Kauss and Hutchinson (1975) to determine the chronic value for aquatic plants. 1,1,1-Trichloroet

hane
. The chronic value and test EC20 value for daphnids are from Thompson and Carmichael (1989). Daphnia magnaw ere used in 17-day chronic tests. The chronic value and test EC20 for fish were estimated based on data for Pimephales promelasfrom Alexander et al. (1978) and calculated using E quation (2). The chronic value for aquatic plants is from EPA (1978). Selenastrum capricornutumdecreased in chlorophyll A and cell numbers in the 96-hour EC50. 1,1,2-Tr ichloroethane
. The chronic value and test EC20 values for fish are from Ahmad et al
. (19 84) and the chronic and test EC20 values for daphnids are from Richter et al. (1983). The chronic value for fish is base d on 32-day embryo-larval tests on Pimephales promelas , while the chronic value for daphnids is based on 28-day tests on Daphnia magna
. Trichloroethe ne . The chronic and test EC20 values for fish are from Smith et al. (1991)
. Jordanel lafloridae , the flagfish, was used in 28-day embryo-larval tests. The chronic value fo r dap hnidsis an estimate based on data for Daphnia pulexfrom EPA (1980dd) and calculated usin g Equation (4). Vin ylacetate.The chronic and test EC20 values for fish are estimates based on an LC50 fo r Pimephales promelasfrom AQUIRE calculated using Equations (2) and (5). Xylene
. T he chronic value for fish is an estimate based on an LC50 for common carp fro m AQUIRE and calculated using Equation (2). The test EC20 value for fish is from Black and Birg e (1982). (Refer to the section on benzene.)

## 34 

# 4. APPLICATION OF BENCHMARKS Use of these aquatic scr eening benchmarks requires that the assessor choose which benchmarks to employ and which water concentrations to apply them to. The choice of benchmarks depends on th e interpretation of the benchmarks, their regulatory standing, and their degree of conservatism. Each of the alternative ben chmarks has a different interpretation. Exceedances of NAWQC create a regulatory imperative for action under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) because they are ARARS . Exceedance of a Tier II value implies a greater than 20% chance that the NAWQC, if their value wer e known, would be exceeded. Exceedance of a CV indicates that the field concentration is greater than a concentration dividing statistically insignificant from significant effects in a chronic toxicity test. Exceedance of a test EC20 indicates that biologically significanteffects levels were exceeded in a chronic toxicity test. Exceedance of the SS test EC2 0 indicates that a biologica lly significant effect level may be exceeded in a sensitive species. Exceedance of a population EC20 indicates that a signif icant reduction in a largemouth bass population could occur. Therefore, exceedance of either the acute or chronic NAWQC indicates a need for action. Exceedance of an SCV implies a low risk. Exceedance of any of the other benchmarks indicates a risk of real effects that should le ad to additional data collection and assessment. However, these inferences all depend on comparison of the benchmarks to appropriate water concentrations. Contaminantscreening is not a regulatory process, but managers at some sites prefer to use only values that have regulatory standing. The NAWQC are clearly regula tory values in that they are ARARS and have been adopt ed by Tennessee and most other states as water quality standards. Lowest chronic values (the last column in Table 1) hav e been presented by the EPA in place of NAWQC (EPA 1986b), butthey are not criteria. They merely indicate that the EPA believes toxic effects may occur at tha t concentration. The Tier II values (SAV and SCV) are proposed by the EPA as values that could be used for regulatory enforcement in the Great Lakes (EPA 1993a). Th ey are more conceptually consistent with theNAWQC than lowest chronic values and may come to have the same standing as NAWQC, bu t currently they are only proposed by the EPA. OSWER’s Ecotox Thresholds and Region IV’s screening values (or values proposed by othe r region s) are alternative benchmark sets derived by the EPA. Both are based on NAWQC values ; however, Region IV uses values adjusted to 50 ppm hardness which is unrealistically conservative for mostsites, while OSWER adjusts to dissolved-phase concentrations which are not available for most screening assessments. In addit ion, Region IV uses NAWQCs based on fish marketability which is not relevant to protecting aquatic life. Therefore, the standard EPA Office of Water NAWQC values and FCVs in Table 1 will be more useful in most cases. When NAWQCs are not available, the ET s correspond to SCVs, but some of the SCVs hav e been superseded by values presented in Table 1 of this document. When NAWQCs are not available, the SVs are based on divisions of lowest toxic values by 10or 100 which is equivalent to derivation of SAVs and SCVs but is not as scientifically defensible. Therefore, for the Oak Ridge Reservation and many other sites, the NAWQCs and Tier II values listed in Table 1 are generally preferable to either the ETs or SVs. Asdiscussed in the introduction, the chronic benchmarks are to be used as lower screenin g benchmarks. The ac ute NAWQC and SAVs are to be used as upper screening benchmarks. However, because of their conservatism, exceedance of the SAV cannot be taken to indicate that severe effects are like lyto be occurring. If an SAV is exceeded, the assessor should examine the acute values used t o generate the Tier II values (Appendix A) and judge whether in fact severe effects are likely.

## 35 All of these benchmarks are based on toxicity tests conducted in the laboratory. Therefore, the y should becompared to water concentrations that are as equivalent as possible to concentrations in test water which is nearly all dissolved. The EPA Office of Water has decided that for metals the appropriate comparison is to con centrations in 0.1 to 0.45 μm filtered ambient water (HECD 1992, Prothro 1993). Acidsol uble or even total recoverable concentrations, rather than dissolved concentrations, are ofte n reported because they are requi red for human health risk assessments. In addition, Region IV and most other EPA regional offices require use of acid soluble concentrations in ecological risk assessments for the sakeof conservatism. However, acid soluble concentrations of metals typically include 30 to 95% particle bound material (HECD 1992). Therefore, acid soluble c oncentrations should be used for aquatic ecological risk assessments to satisfy the regional regulators, but dissolved concentrations should also be used if possible for a realistic screening of the chemicals and to make realistic estimates of risk. TheNAWQC for hardness dependent metals are based on a hardness of 100 mg/L, which i s appropriately c onservative for ambient waters on the Oak Ridge Reservation. If these benchmarks are applied to a s ite with hard or soft water, the NAWQC for those metals should be recalculated a s recommended by the EPA. 

# 5. REFERENCES Adams, W. J. and B. B. Heidolph. 1985. Short-cut chroni c toxicity estimates using Daphnia magna . pp. 87–102. in R. D. Cardwell, R. Purdy, and R. C. Bahner (eds.), Aquatic Toxicity and Hazar d Assessment, Seventh Symposium. ASTM, Philadelphia, PA. Adams, W. J., G. R. Biddinger, K. A. Robillard. 1995. A summary of the acute toxicity of 14 phthalate esters to representative aquatic organisms. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 14:1569–1574. Adelman, I. R., L. L. Smith, and G. D. Siesennop. 1976. Chronic toxicity of Guthion to the fathea d minnow (Pimephales promelasRafinesque). Bull. Environ. Contam. Toxicol . 15:726–733. Ad ema, D. M. M. 1978. Daphnia magnaas a test animal in acute and chronic toxicity tests
. Hydrobiologia . 59:125–134. Adema, D. M. M. and I. G. J. Vink. 1981. A comparative study of the toxicity of 1,1,2-trichloroethane, dieldrin, pentachlorophenol and 3,4 dichloroaniline for marine and fresh water organisms
. Chemosphere . 10:533–554. Ad ema, D. M. M., J. H. Canton, W. Slooff, and A. O. Hanstveit. 1981. Research for a usefu l combinat ionof test methods to determine the aquatic toxicity of environmentally dangerou s chemicals. Rep. No. CL81/100, Natl. Inst. Public Health Environ. Hyg., the Netherlands. Ahmad, N. et al. 1984. Aquatic toxicity tests to characterize the hazard of volatile organic chemicals in wate r: A toxicity data summary—Parts I and II. EPA-600/3-84-009. U.S. Environmenta l Protection Agency, Duluth, Minn. Alexan der, H. C., W. M. McCarthy, and E. A. Bartlett. 1978. Toxicity of perchloroethylene , trichloroethylene, 1,1,1-trichloroethane, and m ethylene chloride to fathead minnows. Bull. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 20:344–352.

## 36 Allison, D. T. and R. O. Hermanutz. 1977. Toxicity of diazinon to brook trout and fathead minnows
. EPA-600/3-77-060. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Duluth, Minn. Amelung, M. 1981. Auswirkungen gelöster Eisenverbindungen auf die Ei- und Larvalentwicklung von Salmo gairdneri(Richardson). Arch. Fisch Wiss . 32:77–87. Anderson, D. R. and E. B. Lusty. 1980. Acute toxicity and bioaccumulation of chloroform to four species of freshwater fish. PNL-3046. NUREG/CR-0893. Repo rt No. CR-0893, U.S. Nuclear Reg. Comm., Washington, D. C. Arthur, J. W. and E. N. Leonard. 1970. Effects of copper on Gammarus pseudolimnaeus , Physa integra , and Campeloma decisumin soft water. J. Fish. Res. Bd. Canada . 27:1277–1283. Arthur, J. W. and J. G. Eaton. 1970. Effects of copper on Gammarus pseudolimnaeusand the fathead minnow (Pimephales promelas ). J. Fish. Res. Board Canada . 28:1841–1845. Bailey, H. C., D. H. W. Liu, and H. A. Javitz. 1985. Time/toxicity relationships in short-term static, dynamic, and plug-flow bioassays. in R. C. Bahner and D. J. Hansen (eds.), Aquatic Toxicology and Hazard Assessment, Eighth Symposium, ASTM STP 891, Philadelphia, PA. Barnthouse, L. W., G. W. Suter II, and A. E. Rosen. 1990. Risks of toxic contaminants to exploited fish populations: influence of life hist ory, data uncertainty and exploitation intensity. Environ. Toxicol. Chem . 9:297–311. Bartell, S. M. 1990. Ecosystem context fo r estimating stress-induced reductions in fish populations, pp. 167–182, in American Fisheries Society Special Symposium 8 . Bethesda, MD. Bartlett, L. and F. W. Rabe. 1974. Effects of copper, zinc, and cadmium on Selenastru m capricornutum
. Water Res . 8:179–185. Ben oit, D. A. 1975. Chronic effects of copper on survival, growth, and reproduction of the bluegil l (Lepomis macrochirus ). Trans. Am. Fish. Soc . 104:353–358. Benoit, D. A., and G. W. Holcombe. 1978. Toxic effects of zinc on fathead minnows Pimephale s promelasin soft water. J. Fish Biol . 13:701–708. Benoit, D. A., F. A. Puglisi, and D. L. Olson. 1982. A fathead minnow Pimephales promelas early life stage toxicity test method evaluatio n and exposure to four organic chemicals. Environ. Pollut. Ser. A Ecol. Biol. 28:189–197. Biesinger, K. E., L. E. Anderson, and J. G. Eaton. 1982. Chronic effects of inorganic and organi c mercury on Daphnia magna : toxicity, accumulation, and loss. Arch. Environm. Contam. Toxicol
. 11:769–774. Bie singer, K. E. and G. M. Christensen. 1972. Effects of various metals on survival, growth , reproduction, and metabolism of Daphnia magna
. J. Fish. Res. Bd. Canada . 29:1691–1700. Birge, W. J., J. A. Black, and A. G. W esterman. 1978. Effects of polychlorinated biphenyl compounds and proposed PCB-replacement products on embryo-larval stages of fish and amphibians . Res. Rep. No. 118, University of Kentucky, Water Resour. Res. Inst., Lexington, KY.

## 37 Black, J . A. and W. J. Birge. 1982. The aquatic toxicity of organic compounds to embryo-larva l stagesof fish and amphibians . University of Kentucky, Water Resources Research Institute , Lexington, Kentucky. Bluzat, R., O. Junot, G. Lespinasse, and J. Seuge. 1979. Chronic toxicity of acetone in the fresh water snail Lymnea stagnalis
. Toxicology . 14:179–190. Borgmann, U., O. Kramar, and C. Loveridge. 19 78. Rates of mortality, growth, and biomass production of Lymnaia palustrisduring chronic exposure to lead. J. Fish. Res. Board Can . 35:1109–1115. Brooke, L. T., D. J. Call, D. L. Geiger, and C. E. Nort hcott. 1984. Acute toxicities of organic chemicals to fathead minnows(Pimephales promelas ), Vol. 1. Center for Lake Superior Environmenta l Studies, University of Wisconsin, Superior, WI. Brungs, W. A. 1969. Chronic toxicity of zinc to the fathead minnow Pimephales promelasRafinesque. Trans. Am. Fish. Soc . 98:272–279. B uccafusco, R. J., S. J. Ells, and G. A. LeBlanc. 1981. Acute toxicity of priority pollutants to bluegill (Lepomis macrochirus ). Bull. environ. Contam. Toxicol. 26:446–452. Buhl, K. J. and S. J. Hamilton. 1990. Comparative toxic ity of inorganic contaminants released by placer mining to early life stages of Salmonids. Ecotoxicol. Enviorn. Saf. 20:325–342. Bu ikema, A. L. Jr., J. Cairns, Jr., and G. W. Sullivan. 1974. Evaluation of Philodina acuticornis (Rotifera) as bioassay organisms for heavy metals. Water Resour. Bull. Am. Water Res. Assoc. 10:648–661. Cairns, J. Jr a nd A. Scheier. 1968. A comparison of the toxicity of some common industrial wast e components tested individually and combined. Prog. Fish-Cult . 30:3–8 Call, D. J., L. T. Brook, N. Ahmad, a nd J. E. Richter. 1983. Toxicity and metabolism studies with EPA priority pollutants and related chemicals in freshwater organisms . EPA-600/3-83-095
. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Duluth, Minn. Call, D. J., L. T. Brook, M.L. Knuth, S. H. Poirer, and M.D. Hoglund. 1985. Fish subchronic toxicity prediction model for industrial organic chemicals that produce narcosis. Environ. Toxic. and Chem
. 4:335–341. Call, D. J., L. T. Brooke, S. L. Harting, S. H. Poirier and D. J. McCauley. 1986. Toxicity o f phenan threneto several freshwater species. Report to Battelle Memorial Research Institute , Colum bus, OH, Subcontract No. F-4114 (8834)-411, Work Assignment No. 45. Center for Lake Superior Environmental Studies, University of Wisconsin-Superior, Superior, WI. Canton, J. H. and D. M. M. Adema. 1978. Reproducibility of short-term and reproduction toxicit y exp eriments with Daphnia magnaand comparison of the sensitivity of Daphnia magnawith Daphnia pulexand Daphnia cucullatain short-term experiments. Hydrobiologia59:135–140. Canton, J. H., P. A. Greve, W. Slooff, and G. J. Van Esch . 1975. Toxicity, accumulation and elimination studi esof alpha-hexachlorocyclohexane (alpha-HCH) with freshwater organisms of differen t trophic levels. Water Res. 9:1163–1169.

## 38 Cardwell, R. D., D. G. Foreman, T. R. Payne, and D. J. Wilbur. 1976. Acute toxicity of selecte d toxicants to six species of fish . EPA-600/3-76-008, U.S. EPA, Duluth, MN. Cardwell, R. D., D. G. Foreman, T. R. Payne, and D. J. Wilbur. 1977. Acute and chronic toxicity of chlordane to fish and invertebrat es , EPA-600/3-77-019. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Duluth, Minn. Carlson, A. R. and P. A. Kosian. 1987. Toxicity of chlorinated benzenes to fathead minnow s (Pimephales promelas ). Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol . 16:129–135. Carlson, A. R. et al. 1982. Cadmium and endrin toxicity to fish in waters containing mineral fibers , EPA-600/3-82-053. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Duluth, Minn. Chandler , J. H. Jr., and L. L. Marking. 1979. Toxicity of fishery chemicals to the Asiatic clam , Corbicula manilensis
. Prog. Fish-Cult. 41:148–151. Chapman, G. A., S. Ota, and F. Recht. n.d. Effects of water hardness on the toxicity of metals to Daphnia magna . U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Corvallis, Oregon. Cleveland, L., E. E. Little, S. J. Hamilton, D. R. Buckler, and J. B. Hunn. 1986. Interactive toxicity of aluminum and acidity to early life stages of brook trout. Trans. Amer. Fish. Soc . 115:610–620. Conway, H. L. 1977. Sorption of arsenic and cadmium and their effects on growth, micronutrien t utilization, and p hotosynthetic pigment composition of Asterionella formosa
. J. Fish. Res. Board Can . 35:26–294. Couture, P., C. Blaise, D. Cluis, and C. Bastien. 1989. Zirconium toxicity assessment using bacteria, algae and fish assays. Water Air Soil Pollut . 47:87–100. Cowell, B. C. 1965. The effects of sodium arsenite and sile x on the plankton populations in farm ponds. Trans. Am. Fish. Soc . 94:371–377. Cowgill, U. M. , I. T. Takahashi, and S. L. Applegath. 1985. A comparison of the effect of fou r benchmark

chemicals on Daphnia magnaand Ceriodaphnia dubia affinistested at two different temperatures. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 4:415–422. Cowgill, U. M. and D. P. Milazzo. 1991. The sensitivity of Ceriodaphnia dubiaand Daphnia magna to seven chemicals utilizing the three-bood test. Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 20:211–217. Cushman, R. M., S. G. Hildebrand, R. H. Strand, and R. M. Anderson. 1977. The toxicity of 35 trace elemen tsin coal to freshwater biota: a data base with automated retrieval capabilities
. ORNL/TM-5793. Oak Ridge National Laboratory. Dave, G. 1984a. Effects of copper on growth, reproduction, survival and haemoglobin in Daphnia magna . Comp. Biochem. Physiol . 78 C :439–443. Dave, G. 1984b. Effects of fluorid e on growth, reproduction, and survival in Daphnia magna
. Comp. Biochem. Physiol . 78 C :425–431.

## 39 Dave, G. 19 84c. Effects of waterborne iron on growth, reproduction, survival and haemoglobin i n Daphnia magna
. Comp. Biochem. Physiol . 78 C :433–438. Davies, P. H. , J. P. Goettl, Jr., and J. R. Sinley. 1978. Toxicity of silver to rainbow trout ( Salm o gairdneri). Water Res . 12:113–117. Davies, P. H., J. P. Goettl, Jr., J. R. Sinley, and Smith. 1976. Acute and chronic toxicity of lead t o rainbow trout Salmo gairdneri , in hard and soft water. Water Res . 10:199–206. Dawson, G. W., A. L. Jennings, D. D rozdowski, and E. Rider. 1977. The Acute toxicity of 47 Indistrial chemicals to fresh and saltwater fishes. J. Hazard. Mater. 1:303–318. DeFoe, D. L., G. D. V eith, and R. L. Carlson. 1978. Effects of Aroclor 1248 and 1260 on the fathead minnow (Pimephales promelas ). J. Fish. Res. Board Can . 7:997–1002. DeFoe, D. L. 198 2. Arsenic (V) Test Results. U.S. EPA, Duluth, MN (Memo to R. L. Spehar, U.S
. EPA, Duluth, MN). DeGra eve, G. M., D. L. Geiger, J. S. Meyer, and H. L. Bergman. 1980. Acute and embryo-larva l toxicity of phenolic compounds to aquatic biota. Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol . 9:557–568. DeGraev e, G. M., R. G.Elder, D. C.Woods, and H.L.Bergman. 1982. Effects of naphthalene an d benzene on fathead minnows and rainbow trout. Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 11:487–490. Devlin, E. W., J. D. Brammer, and R. L. Puyear. 1982. Acute toxicity of toluene to three age groups of fathead minnows ( Pimephales promelas ). Bull. Enviorn. Contam. Toxicol. 29:12–17. Dill, D. C., W. M. McCarthy, H. C. Alexander, and E. A. Bartlett. 1980. Toxicity of 1,1

- Dichloroethylene (Vinylidene chloride) to aquatic organisms. Ecol. Res. Ser., EPA-600/3-80-057, Environ. Res. Lab., U.S. EPA, Duluth, MN. Dill, D. C., P. G. Murphy, and M. A. Mayes. 1987. Toxicity of methylene chloride to life stages of the fathead minnow, Pimephales promelasRafinesque. Bull. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 39:869–876. Ding, S. R. 1980. Acute Toxicities of vanadium, nickel, and cobalt to several species of aquati c organisms. Environ. Qual. 1:17–21. Dominguez, S. E . and G. A. Chapman. 1984. Effect of pentachlorophenol on the growth and mortality of embryonic and juvenile steelhead trout. Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol . 13:739–743. Dwyer, W. P. , F. L. Mayer, J. L. Allen, and D. R. Buckler. 1978. Chronic and simulated use-patter n exposures of brook trout ( Salvelinus fontinalis ) to 3-trifluoromethyl-4-nitrophenol (TFM)
. Investigations in Fish Control . 84:1–6. Eaton, J. G. 1974. Chronic cadmium toxicit y to the bluegill ( Lepomis macrochirusRafinesque). Trans. Am. Fish. Soc . 103:729–735. Elnabar awy, M. T., A. N. Welter, and R. R. Robideau. 1986. Relative sensitivity of three daphni d species to selected organic and inorganic chemicals. Environ. Toxicol. Chem . 5:393–398.

## 40 EPA
. (n.d.). AQUIRE: Aquatic Information Retrieval Toxicity Data Base. National Technica l Information Service, Springfield, Va. EPA. 19 78. In-depth studies on health and environmental impacts of selected water pollutants
. Contract No. 68-01-4646, U . S. EPA, Duluth, MN (also known as C. E. Stephan's Table of Data). EPA. 1980a. Ambient water quality criteria for acenaphthene . EPA 440/5-80-015
. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C. EPA. 1980b. Ambient water quality criteria for antimony . EPA 440/5-80-020. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C. EPA. 1980c. Ambient wate r quality criteria for benzidene . EPA 440/5-80-023. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C. EPA. 1980d. Ambient water quality criteria for benzene . EPA 440/5-80-018. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C. EPA. 1980e. Ambient wate r quality criteria for benzidene . EPA 440/5-80-023. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C. EPA. 1980f. Ambient water quality criteria for beryllium . EPA 440/5-80-024. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C. EPA. 1980g. Ambient water quality criteria for cadmium . EPA 440/5-80-025. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C. EP A. 1980h. Ambient water quality criteria for carbon tetrachloride . EPA 440/5-80-026
. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C. EPA. 1980i. Ambient water quality criteria for chlordane . EPA 440/5-80-027. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C. EPA. 1980j. Ambient water quality criteria for chlorinated benzenes . EPA 440/5-80-028
. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C. EPA. 19 80k. Ambient water quality criteria for chlorinated ethanes . EPA 440/5-80-029
. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C. EPA. 1980l. Ambient water quality criteria for chloroform . EPA 440/5-80-033. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C. EPA. 1980 m. Ambient water quality criteria for DDT. EPA 440/5-80-038. U.S. Environmenta l Protection Agency, Washington, D.C. EPA
. 1980n. Ambient water quality criteria for dichloroethylenes . EPA 440/5-80-041
. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C. EPA. 198 0o. Ambient water quality criteria for dichloropropane and dichloropropene . EPA 440/5-80-043. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.

## 41 EPA. 1980p. Ambient water quality criteria for ethylbenzene
. EPA 440/5-80-048. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C. EPA. 1980q. Ambient water quality criteria for fluoranthene . EPA 440/5-80-049
. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C. EPA. 1980r. Ambient water quality criteria for heptachlor . EPA 440/5-80-052. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C. EPA. 1980s. Ambient water quality criteria for hexachlorocyclohexane . EPA 440/5-80-054
. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C. EPA. 1980t. Ambient water quality criteria for naphthalene . EPA 440/5-80-059. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C. EPA. 19 80u. Ambient water quality criteria for nitrophenols . EPA 440/5-80-063
. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C. EPA. 1980v. Ambient water quality criteria for phenol . EPA 440/5-80-066. U.S. Environmenta l Protection Agency, Washington, D.C. EPA. 1980 w. Ambient water quality criteria for phthalate esters . EPA 440/5-80-067
. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C. EPA. 1980x. Ambient water quality criteria for polychlorinated biphenyls . EPA 440/5-80-068
. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C. EPA. 1980 y. Ambient water quality criteria for silver . EPA 440/5-80-071. U.S. Environmenta l Protection Agency, Washington, D.C. EPA. 1980z. Ambient water quality criteria for beryllium . NTIS, Springfield, Virginia. EPA. 1980aa. Ambient water quality criteria for tetrachloroethylene . EPA 440/5-80-073
. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C. EPA. 1980bb. Ambient water quality criteria for thallium . EPA 440/5-80-074. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C. EPA. 1980cc. Ambient water quality criteria for toluene . EPA 440/5-80-075. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C. EP A. 1980dd. Ambient water quality criteria for trichloroethylene . EPA 440/5-80-077
. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C. EPA. 1980 ee. Ambient water quality criteria for nitrosamines . EPA 440/5-80-064
. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C. EPA. 1984a. Ambient water quality criteria for cadmium - 1984 . EPA 440/5-84-032
. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington , D. C.

## 42 EPA. 1985 a. Ambient water quality criteria for ammonia - 1984 . EPA 440/5-85-001
. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C. EP A. 1985b. Ambient water quality criteria for arsenic - 1984 . EPA 440/5-84-033
. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C. EPA. 198 5c. Ambient water quality criteria for chromium - 1984 . EPA 440/5-84-029
. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C. EPA. 1985d
. Ambient water quality criteria for copper - 1984 . EPA 440/5-84-031
. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C. EPA. 1985e. Ambient water quality criteria for cyanide - 1984 . EPA 440/5-84-030
. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C. EPA. 1985f. Ambient water quality criteria fo r lead - 1984 . EPA 440/5-84-027. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C. EPA. 1985g. Ambient water quality criteria for mercury - 1984 . EPA 440/5-84-026
. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C. EPA. 1986a. Ambient water quality criteria for nickel - 1986 . EPA 440/5-86-004
. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C. EPA. 1986b. Quality criteria for water . EPA 440/5-86-001. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C. EPA. 1987a. Ambient water quality criteria for selenium, 1987 . EPA 440/5-87-006
. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C. EPA. 1987b. Ambient water qualitycriteria for zinc, 1987 . EPA 440/5-87-003. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C. EPA. 1988 a. Ambient water quality criteria for aluminum - 1988 . EPA 440/5-86-008
. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C. EPA. 19 88b. Ambient water quality criteria for antimony(III) . Draft. August 30th, 1988
. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C. EPA. 1992. Great Lakes Water Quality Initiative Tier II water quality values for protection o f aquatic life in ambient water. Support documents. November 23, 1992. EPA. 1993a. Water quality guidance for the Great Lakes System and correction; Proposed rules
. Federal Register . 58(72):20802-21047. EPA. 1993b. Sediment quality criteria for the pr otection of benthic organisms - acenaphthene . EPA822-R-93-013. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C. EPA. 1993c. Sediment quality criteria for the protection of benthic organisms - fluoranthene . EPA822-R-93-012. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.

## 43 EPA. 1993d. Great Lakes Water Quality Initiative Criteria documents for the protection of aquatic life in ambient water (February 1993 Draft) . PB93-154656. National Technical Informatio n Service. Springfield, VA. Erben, R. and Z. Pisl. 199 3. Acute toxicity for some evaporating aromatic hydrocarbons for freshwater snails and crustacenas. Int. Rev. Gesamten Hydrobiol . 78:161–167. Ernst, W. R. an d E. T. Garside. 1987. Lethal effects of vanadium to two life stages of brook trou t Salvelinus fontinalis
. Can. J. Zool . 65:628–634. Ewald, W. G., J. E. French, and M. A. Champ. 1976. Toxicity of Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) to Euglen a gracilis : Cell Population Growth, Carbon Fixation, Chlorophyll Level, Oxyge n Consumption, and Protein and Nucleic Acid Synthesis. Bull. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 16:71–80. Ewell, W. S., J. W. Gorsuch, R. O. kringle, K. A. Robillard, and R. C. Spiegel. 1986. Simultaneous evaluationof the acute effects of chemicals on seven aquatic speices. Environ. Toxicol. Chem
. 5:831–840. Fargasova, A. 1994. Toxicity of metal s on Daphnia magnaand Tubifex tubifex
. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 27:210–213. Finlayson, B. J., and K. M. Verrue. 1985. Toxicities of butoxyethanol ester and propylene glycol butyl etherester formulations of 2,4-dichlorophenoxy acetic acid (2,4-D) to juvenile salmonids. Arch
. Environ. Contam. Toxicol . 14:153–160. Francis, P. C., D. W. Grot he, and J. C. Scheuring. 1986. Chronic toxicity of 4-nitrophenol to Daphnia magna Strausunder static-renewal and flow-through conditions. Bull. Environ. Contam. Toxicol
. 36:730–737. Geiger, J. G. an d A. I. Buikema, Jr. 1982. Hydrocarbons depress growth and reproduction of Daphnia pulex (Cladocera). Can. J. Fish. Aquati. Sci. 39:830–836. Geiger, D. L., C. E. Northcott, D. J. Call, and L. T. B rooke. 1985. Acute toxicities of organic chemicals to fathead minnows(Pimephales promelas ), Vol. 2. Center for Lake Superior Environmenta l Studies, University of Wisconsin, Superior, WI. Geiger, D. L., D. J. Call, and L. T. Brooke. 1988. Acute toxicities of organic chemicals to fathea d minnows (Pimephales promelas ), Vol. 4. Center for Lake Superior Environmental Studies , University of Wisconsin, Superior, WI. Geiger, D. L., L. T. Brooke, and D. J. Call. 1990. Acute toxicities of organic chemicals to fathea d minnows (Pimephales promelas ), Vol. 5. Center for Lake Superior Environmental Studies , University of Wisconsin, Superior, WI. Geiger, D. L., S. H. Poirier, L. T. Brooke, and D. J. Call. 1986. Acute toxicities of organic chemicals to fathead minnows (Pimephales promelas ), Vol. 3. Center for Lake Superior Environmenta l Studies, University of Wisconsin, Superior, WI. Gersich, F. M. 1984. Evaluation of a static renewal chronic toxicity test method for Daphnia magn a straus using boric acid. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 3:89–94.

## 44 Glas si, S., M. Mingazzini, L. Vigano, D. Cesareo, and M. L. Tosato. 1988. Approaches to modelin g to xicresponses of aquatic organisms to aromatic hydrocarbond. Ecotoxicol. Enviornn. Saf
. 16:158–169. Goettl, J. P., Jr. and P. H. Davies. 1976. Water pollution studies. Federal Aid Project F-33-R-11
. Department of Natural Resources, Colorado Division of Wildlife. Hamelink, J. L., D. R. Buckler, f. L. Mayer, D. U. Palawski, and H. O. Sanders. 1986. Toxicity o f fluoridone to aquatic invertebrates and fish. Environ. Toxicol. Chem . 5:97–94. Hamilton, S . J. 1995. Hazard assessment of inorganics to three endangered fish in the Green River , Utah. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 30:134–142. Hamilton. S. J. and K. J. Buhl. 1990. Safe ty assessment of selected inorganic elements to fry of chinook salmon ( Oncorhynchus tshawytscha ). Ecotoxicol. Enviorn. Saf. 20:307–324. Hannah , J. B., J. E. Hose, M. L. Landolt, B. S. Miller, S. P. Felton, and W. T. Iwaoko. 1982
. Benzo(a)pyrene-induced morphologic and developmental abnormalities in rainbow trout. Arch
. Environ. Contam. Toxicol . 11:727–734. Hazel, C. R. and S. J. Meith. 1970. Bioass ay of king salmon eggs and sac fry in copper solutions. Calif. Fish Game . 2:121–124. HECD (Health and Criteria Division). 1992. Interim guidance on interpretation and implementation of aquatic life criteria for metals . U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C. Hermanutz, R. O., R. H. Mueller, and K. D. Kempfer. 1973. Captan toxicity to fathead minnow s (Pimephales promelas), bluegills (Lepomis macrochirus ), and brook trout ( Salvelinus fontinalis ). J. Fish. Res. Board Can . 30:1811–1817. Hodson, P. V., R. Parisella, B. Blunt, B. Gray, K. L. E. Kaiser. 1991. Quantitative structure-activity re lationshipsfor chronic toxicity of phneol, p-chlorophenol, 2,4-dichlorophenol , pentachlorophenol, p-nitrophenol, and 1,2,4-trichlorobenzene to early life stages of rainbo w trout ( Oncorhynchus mykiss ). Can. Tech. Rep. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 1784. Hodson, P. V., D. G. Dixon, and K. L. E. Kaiser. 1984. Measurement of median lethal dose as a rapid indication of contaminant toxicity to fish. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 3:243–254. Holcombe, G. W., D. A. Benoit, E. N. Leonard, and J. M. McKim. 1976. Long term effects of lea d exposure on three generations of brook trout ( Salvelinus fontinalis ). J. Fish. Res. Board Can
. 33:1731–1741. Holcombe, G. W., G. L. Phipps, and J. T. Fiandt. 1982. Effects of phenol, 2,4-dimethylphenol,2,4

- dich lorophenol, and pentachlorophenol on embryo, larval, and early-juvenile fathead minnow s (Pimephales promelas ). Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol . 11(1):73–78. Holcomb e, G. W., G. L. Phipps, and J. T. Fiandt. 1983. Toxicity of selected priority pollutants t o various aquatic organisms. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf . 7400–7409.

## 45 Ho lcombe, G. W., G. L. Phipps, M. L. Knuth, and T. Felhaber. 1984. The acute toxicity of selecte d substituted phenols, benzenes and benzoic acid esters to fathead minnows Pimephales promelas
. Environ. Pollut. Ser. A Ecol. Biol. 35:367–381. Holdw ay, D. A. and J. B. Sprague. 1979. Chronic toxicity of vanadium to flagfish. Water Res
. 13:905–910. Holman, W. F., and K. J. Macek. 1980. An aquatic safety assessment of linear alkylbenzsulfonat e (LAS): chronic effects on fathead minnows. Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. 109:122–131. Holst, L. L. and J. P. Giesy. 1989. Chronic effects of the photoenhanced toxicity of anthracene o n Daphnia magnareproduction. Environ. Toxicol. Chem . 8:933–942. Howe, G . E., L. L. marking, T. D. Bills, J. J. Rach, and F. L. Mayer, Jr. 1994. Effects of wate r temperature and pH on tox icity of terbufos, trichlorfon, 4-nitrophenol and 2,4-dinitrophenol to the amph ipod Gammarus pseudolimnaeusand rainbow trout ( Onchorhynchus mykiss ). Environ
. Toxicol. Chem. 13:51–56. Ing ersoll, C. G. et al. 1990a. Aluminum and acid toxicity to two strains of brook trout ( Salvelinu s fontinalis ). Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci . 47:1641–1648. Ingersoll, C. G. et al. 1990b. Effects of pH, alum inum, and calcium on survival and growth of eggs and fry of brook trout ( Salvelinus fontinalis ). Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci . 47:1580–1592. Jarvinen, A. W., M. J. Hoffman, and T. W. Thorslund. 1977. Long-term toxic effects of DDT food and water exposure on fathead minnows ( Pimephales promelas ). J. Fish. Res. Board Can
. 34:2089–2103. Jarvinen, A. W., B. R. Nordling, and M. E. Henry. 1983. Chronic toxicity of dursban (chlorpyrifos) to thefathead minnow ( Pimephales promelas ) and the resultant acetylcholinesterase inhibition
. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Safety . 7:423–434. Johnson, W. W. andM. T. Finley. 1980. Handbook of acute toxicity of chemicals to fish and aquatic invertebrates. Resour. Publ. 137, Fish Wildl. Serv., U.S. D.I., Washington, D.C. Johnston, P. A. 1987 . Acute toxicity of inorganic selenium to Daphnia magna(Straus) and the effect of sub-acute exposure upon growth and reproduction. Aquat. Toxicol . 10:335–352. Karlander, E. P. and R. W. Krauss. 1972. Ab sorption and toxicity of beryllium and lithium in Chlorella vannieliiShihira and Krauss. Chesapeake Science . 13:245–253. Kau ss, P. B. and T. C. Hutchinson. 1975. The effects of water-soluble petroleum components on th e growth of Chlorella vulgarisBeijerinck. Environ. Pollut . 9:157–174. Keen, R., and C. R. B aillod. 1985. Toxicity to Daphnia of the end products of wet oxidation of phenol and substituted phenol. Water Res. 19:767–772. Khangarot, B. S. 1991. Toxicity of metals to a freshwater tubificid worm, Tubifex tubifex
. Bull
. Environ. Contam. Toxicol . 46:906–912.

## 46 Khangarot, B. S., A. Sehgal, and M. K. Bhasin. 1985. Man and biosphere--Studies on the Sikki m Himalayas. Part 5: Acute toxicity of selected heavy metals on the tadpoles of Rana hexadactyla
. Acta Hydrochim. Hydrobiol. 13:259–263. Kimball, G. n.d. The effects of lesser known metals and one organic to fathead minnows [ Pimephales promelas ] and Daphnia magna . U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Duluth, MN. Kleiner, C. F., R. L. Anderson, and D. K. Tanner. 1984. Toxicity of fenitrothion to fathead minnow s (Pimephales promelas ) and alternate exposure duration studies with fenitrothion and endosulfan. Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol . 13:573–578. K oenst, W. M., L. L. Smith, Jr., and S. J. Broderius. 1977. Effect of chronic exposure of brook trout to sublethal concentrations of hydrogen cyanide. Environmental Science and Technology 11:883–886. Könemann , H. 1981. Quantitative structure-activity relationships in fish toxicity studies. Part 1 : Relationship for 50 industrial pollutants. Toxicology. 19:209–221. Kouyoumjian, H. H. and R. F. Uglow. 1974. Some aspects of the toxicity of p,p'-DDT, p,p'-DDE and p,p'-DDD to the freshwater planarian Polycelis felina(Tricladida). Environ. Pollut. 7:103–109. Krishn akumari, M. K. 1977. Sensitivity of the alga Scenedesmus acutusto some pesticides. Lif e Sciences . 20:1525–1532. Kszos, L. A., A. J. Stewart, and P. A. Taylor. 1992. An evaluation of nickel toxicity to Ceriodaphnia dubia and Daphnia magnain a contaminated stream and in laboratory tests. Environ. Toxicol
. Chem . 11:1001–1012. Kühn,R., M. Pattard, K. Pernak, and A. winter. 1989. Results of the harmful effects of selected water pollutants (anilines, phenol, aliphatic compounds) to Daphnia magna
. Water Res. 23:495–499. Kühn, R., M. Pattard, K. Pernak, and A. Winter. 1989 . Results of the harmful effects of water pollutants toDaphnia magnain the 21 day reproduction test. Water Res. 23:501–510. Larsson, L. and J. Tillberg. 1975. Effects of the Commercia l Polychlorinated Biphenyl Mixture Aroclor 1242 on Growth, Viability, Phosphate Uptake, Res piration and Oxygen Evolution in Scenedesmus
. Physiol. Plant

33:256–260. Lazareva, L. P. 1985. Chan ges in biological characteristics of Daphnia magnafrom chronic action of copper and nickel at low concentrations. Hydrobiol. J. 21(5):59–62. LeBlanc, G . A. 1980. Acute toxicity of priority pollutants to water flea ( Daphnia magna ). Bull
. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 24:684–691. LeBlanc, G. A. and D. C. Surprenant. 1983. The acute and chronic toxicity of acetone, dimethy l formamide, and triethylene glycol to Daphnia magna(Straus). Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 12:305–310.

## 47 Le Blanc, G. A., J. D. Mastone, A. P. Paradice, B. F. Wilson, H. B. Lockhart, Jr., and K. A. Robillard. 198 4. The influence of speciation on the toxicity of silver to fathead minnow ( Pimephale s promelas ). Environ. Toxicol. Chem . 3:37–46. Leduc, G. 197 8. Deleterious effects of cyanide on early life stages of atlantic salmon ( Salmo salar). J. Fish. Res. Board Can . 35:166–174. Lewis, M. A . and L. C. Valentine. 1981. Acute and chronic toxicities of boric acid to Daphnia magna Straus. Bull. Environ. Contam. Toxicol . 27:309–315. Lima, A. R. et a l. 1984. Acute and chronic toxicities of arsenic (III) to fathead minnows, flagfish , daphnids, and an amphipod. Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol . 13:595–601. Lind, D., K. A lto, and S. Chatterton. 1978. Regional copper-nickel study; aquatic toxicology study
. Minnesota Environmental Quality Board. Lock, R. A. C. and A. P. van Overbeeke. 1981. Effects of me rcuric chloride and methylmercuric chloride onmucus secretion in rainbow trout, Salmo gairdneriRichardson. Comp. Biochem. Physiol
. 69C:67–74. Luard, E. J. 1973. Sensitivity of Dunaliellaand Scenedesmus( Chlorphyceae ) to Chlorinate d hydrocarbons. Phycologia12:29–33. Macek, K. J., K. S. Buxton, S . K. Derr, J. W. Dean, and S. Sauter. 1976a. Chronic toxicity of lindane to s elected aquatic invertebrates and fish . EPA-600/3-76-046. U.S. Environmental Protectio n Agency, Duluth, Minn. Macek, K. J., M. A. Lindberg, S. Sauter, K. Buxton, and P. A. Costa. 1976b. Toxicity of fou r pesticidesto water fleas and fathead minnows . EPA-600/3-76-099. U.S. Environmenta l Protection Agency, Duluth, Minn. McCarthy, J. F. and D. K. Whitmore. 1985. Chronic toxicity of di-n-butyl and di-n-octyl phthalate to Daphnia magnaand the fathead minnow. Environ. Toxicol. Chem . 4:167–179. McCauley, D . J., L. T. Brooke, D. J. Call, and C. A. Lindberg. 1986. Acute and chronic toxicity o f alumin umto Ceriodaphnia dubiaat various pH's . Center for Lake Superior Environmenta l Studies, University of Wisconsin-Superior, Superior, Wis. McK im, J. M., and D. A. Benoit. 1971. Effects of long-term exposures to copper on survival, growth, and reproduction of brook trout ( Salvelinus fontinalis ). J. Fish. Res. Board Can . 28:655–662. Mc Kim, J. M., G. F. Olson, G. W. Holcombe, and E. P. Hunt. 1976. Long-term effects o f meth ylmercuric chloride on three generations of brook trout ( Salvelinus fontinalis ): toxicity , accumulation, distribution, and elimination. J. Fish. Res. Board Can. 33:2726–2739. Martin, T. R. and D. M. Holdich. 1986. The Acute lethal toxicity of heavy metals to peracari d crustacea ns(with particular reference to fresh-water Asellids and Gammarids). Water Res
. 20:1137–1147.

## 48 Mattson, V. R., J. W. Arthur, and C. T. Walbridge. 1976. Acute toxicity of selected organic compounds to fathead minnows . Ecol. Res. Ser. EPA-600/3-76-097, Environ. Res. Lab., U.S. EPA, Duluth, MN. Mauck, W. L., P. M. Mehrle, and F. L. Mayer. 1978. Effects of the polychlorinated biphenyl Aroclor ® 

## 1254 on growth, survival, and bone development in brook trout (Salvelinus fontinalis ). J. Fish. Res. Board Can . 35:1084–1088. Mayer, F. L., Jr., P. M. Mehrle, Jr., and W. P. Dwyer. 1975. T oxaphene effects on reproduction, growth and mortality of brook trout. EPA-600/3-75-013. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Duluth, Minn. Mayer, F. L., Jr., P. M. Mehrle, H. O. Sanders. 1977. Residue dynamics and biological effects o f polychlorinated biphenyls in aquatic organisms. Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol . 5:501–511. Mayer, F. L., Jr., and H. O. Sanders. 1973. Toxicology of phthalic acid esters in aquatic organisms. Environmental Health Perspectives5:153–157. Mayer, F. L., Jr. and M. R. Ellersieck. 1986. Manual of acute toxicity: interpretation and data base for 410 chemicals and 66 species of freshwater organisms . Resource Publication 160. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C. Mayes, M. A., H. C. Alexander, D. L. Hopkins, P. B. Latvaitis. 1986. Acute and chronic toxicity o f ammonia to freshwater fish: a site-specific study. Environ. Toxicol. Chem . 5:437–442. Mehrle, P. M., and F. L. Mayer. 1976. Di-2-ethylhexyl phthalate: residue dynamics and biologica l effects in rainbow trout and fathead minnows. Trace Subst. Env. Health10:519–524. Millemann, R. E., W. J. birge, J. A . Black, R. M. Cushman, K. L. Daniels, P. J. Franco, J. M. Giddings, J. F. McC arthy, and A. J. Stewart. 1984. Comparative acute toxicity to aquatic organisms o f components of coal-derived synthetic fuels. Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. 113:74–85. Moles,A., S. D. Rice, and S. Korn. 1979. Sensitivity of Alaskan freshwater and anadromous fishes to Prudhoe Bay crude oil and benzene. Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. 108:408–414. Mount, D. I. 1968. Chronic to xicity of copper to fathead minnows ( Pimephales promelasRafinesque). Water Res . 2:215–223. Mount, D. I. 1982. Memorandum to Charles E. Spehar. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency , Duluth, Minn. June 7. Mount, D. I ., and C. E. Stephan. 1969. Chronic toxicity of copper to the fathead minnow ( Pimephales promelas ) in soft water. J. Fish. Res. Board Can . 26:2449–2457. Munoz, M. J. and J. V. Tarazona. 1993. Synergistic effect of two- and four-component combinations of the polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons: Phenanthrene, anthracene, naphthalene and acenapthene on Daphnia magna
. Bull. Enviorn. Contam. Toxicol. 50:363–368. Münzinger, A. 19 90. Effects of nickel on Daphnia magnaduring chronic exposure and alterations in the toxicity to generations pre-exposed to nickel. Wat. Res . 24:845–852.

## 49 Nebeker, A. V., C. K. McAuliffe, R. Mshar, and D. G. Stevens. 1983. Toxicity of silver to steelhead and rainbow trout, fathead minnows, and Daphnia magna
. Environ. Toxicol. Chem . 2:95–104. Nebeker, A. V., C. Savonen, R. J. Baker, J. K. McCrady. 1984. Effects of copper, nickel, and zinc on thelifecycle of the caddisfly Clistoronia magnifica(Limnephilidae). Environ. Toxicol. Chem
. 3:645–649. Nebeker, A. V., C. Savonen, and D. G. Stevens. 1985. Sensitivity of rainbow trout early life stages to nickel chloride. Environ. Toxicol. Chem . 4:233–239. Nebeker, A. V., and F. A. Puglisi. 1974. Effect of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) on survival and reproduction of Daphnia , Gammarus , and Tanytarsus
. Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. 103:722–728. Nebeker, A. V., F. A. Puglisi, and D. L. DeFoe. 1974. Effect of polychlorinated biphenyl compounds onsurviv al and reproduction of the fathead minnow and flagfish. Trans. Am. Fish. Soc
. 103:562–568. Oris, J. T., J. P. Giesy Jr. 1985. The pho toenhanced toxicity of anthracene to juvenile sunfish ( Lepomis sp.). Aquat. Toxicol . 6:133–146. Oseid, D. M., L. L. Smith Jr. 1979. The effects of hydrogen cyanide on Asellus communisand Gammaruspseudolimnaeusand changes in their competitive response when expose d simultaneously. Bull. Environ. Contam. Toxicol . 21:439–447. OSWER (Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response). 1996. Ecotox thresholds. ECO Update3 (2):1–12. Palawski, D., J. B. Hunn, and F. J. Dwyer. 1985. Sensitivity of young striped bass to organic an d inorganic contaminants in fresh and saline waters. Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. 114:748–753. P a rkhurst, B. R., R. G. Elder, J. S. Meyer, D. A. Sanchez, R. W. Pennak, and W. T. Waller. 1984. An environmental hazard evaluation of uranium in a R ocky Mountain stream. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 3:113–124. Passino, D. R. M. and A. J. Novak. 1984. Toxicity of Arsenate and DDT to the Cladoceran Bosmina logirostris
. Bull. Environ. contam. Toxicol. 33:325–329. Passino, D. R. M. and J. M. Kramer. 1980. Toxicity of arsenic and PCBs to fry of deepwater ciscoes (Coregonus). Bull. Environ. Contam. Toxicol . 24:527–534. Passino, D . R. M and S. B. Smith. 1987. Acute bioassays and hazard evaluation of representativ e contaminants detected in Great Lakes fish. Enviorn. Toxicol. Chem . 6:901–907. Phipps, G. L., G. W. Holcombe, and J. T. Fiandt. 1981. Acute toxicity of phenol and substituted phenols to the fathead minnow. Bull. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 26:585–593. Pickering, Q. H. 19 74. Chronic toxicity of nickel to the fathead minnow and flagfish. Trans. Am. Fish. Soc . 103:562–568.

## 50 Pickering, Q. H. 1980. Chronic toxicity of hexavalent chromium to the fathead minnow ( Pimephales promelas ). Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol . 9:405–413. Pickering, Q. H. and C. Henderson. 1966. Acute toxicity of some important petrochemicals to fish. J. Water Pollut. Control Fed. 38:1419–1429. Pickering, Q. H. and M. H. Gas t. 1972. Acute and chronic toxicity of cadmium to the fathead minnow (Pimephales promelas ). J. Fish. Res. Board Can . 29:1099–1106. Pickering, Q. H. and W. T. Gilli am. 1982. Toxicity of aldicarb and fonofos to the early life-stage of the fathead minnow. Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol . 11:699–702. Pickering, Q. H., and T. O. Thatcher. 1970. The chronic toxicity of linear allcylate sulfonate (LAS) to Pimephales promelas , Rafinesque. J. Water Pollut. Control Fed . 42:243–254. Prothro, M. G. 1993. Office of Water Policy and Technical Guidance on Interpretation an d Implement ationof Aquatic Life Metals Criteria. Memorandum to Water Management Divisio n Directors and Environmental Services Division Directors, Regions I-X, October 1, 1993. Rai, L. C., J. P. Gaur, H. D. Kumar. 1981. Protective effects of certain environmental factors on th e toxicity of zinc, mercury, and methylmercury to Chlorella vulgaris
. Environ. Res . 25:250–259. Randall, T . L. and P. V. Knopp. 1980. Detoxification of specific organic substances by wet oxidation. J. Water Pollut. Control Fed . 52:2117–2130. Region IV. 1995. Ecological screening values. Ecological Risk Assessment Bulletin No. 2. Wast e Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region IV, Atlanta, GA. Reynolds, J. H., E. J. Mid dlebrooks, D. B. Porcella, W. J. Grenney. 1975. Effects of temperature on oil refinery waste toxicity. J. Water Poll. Control Fed . 47:2674–2693. Rhodes, J. E, W. J. Adams, G. R. Biddinger. 1995. Chronic toxicity of 14 phthalate esters to Daphnia magnaand rainbow trout ( Oncorhynchus mykiss ). Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 14:1967–1976. Richter, J. E., S. F. Peterson, and C. F. Kleiner. 1983. Acute and chronic toxicity of some chlorinated benzenes, chlorinated ethanes, and tetrachloroethylen e to Daphnia magna
. Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol . 12:679–684. Roghair, C. J., A. Buijze, E. S. E. Yedema, and J. L. M. hermens. 1994. A QSAR for base-line toxicity to the midge Chironomus riparius
. Chemosphere 28:989–997. Sanders, H. O., 1970. Pestic ide toxicities to tadpoles of the western chorus frog Peseudacris triseriata and flowler's toad Bufo woodhousii fowleri
. Copeia 2:246–251. Sanders, H. O. 1969. Toxicity of pesticides to the crustacean Gammarus lacustris. Tech. Paper No. 25, Bur. Sports Fish. Wildl., Fish Wildl. Serv., U.S.D.I. Sanders, H. O. 1972. Toxicity of some insecticides to four species of malacostracan crustaceans
. Tech. Paper No. 66, Bur. Sports Fish. Wildl., Fish Wildl. Serv., U.S.D.I.

## 51 Sanders , H. O., F. L. Mayer, Jr., and D. F. Walsh. 1973. Toxicity, residue dynamics, and reproductive effects of phthalate esters in aquatic invertebrates. Environ. Res. 6:84–90. Sanders, H. O. and O. B. Cope. 1968. The relative toxicities of several pesticides to naiads of three species of stoneflies. Limnol. Oceanogr. 13:112–117. Sadler, K. and S. Lynam. 19 88. The influence of calcium on aluminum-induced changes in the growth rate and mortality of brown trout, Salmo trutta L
. J. Fish Biol . 33:171–179. Sauter, S., K. S. Buxton , K. J. Macek, and S. R. Petrocelli. 1976. Effects exposure to heavy metals on sele cted freshwater fish . EPA-600/3-76-105. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency , Duluth, Minn. Seim, W. K., L. R. Cur tis, S. W. Blenn, and G. A. Chapman. 1984. Growth and survival of developing steelhead trout ( Salmo gairdneri) continuously or intermittently exposed to copper. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci . 41:433–438. Shubat, P. J ., S. H. Poirier, M. L. knuth, and L. T. Brooke. 1982. Acute toxicity of tetrachloroethylene and tetrachloroethylene with dimethylformamide to rainbow tro ut ( Salmo gairdneri). Bull. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 28:7–10. Sinley , J. R., J. P. Goettl, Jr., and P. H. Davies. 1974. The effects of zinc on rainbow trout ( Salm o gairdneri) in hard and soft water. Bull. Environ. Contam. Toxicol . 12:193–201. Sloff, W. 1983. Benthic macroinvertebrates and water quality assessment: Some toxicologica l considerations. Aquat. Toxicol . 4:73–82. Slonim, A. R. and E. E. Ray. 1975. Acute toxicity of berylliu m sulfate to salamander larvae ( Ambystoma sp.). Bull. Enviorn. Contam. Toxicol . 13:307–312. Slonim , C. B. and A. R. Slonim. 1973. Effect of water hardness on the tolerance of the guppy t o beryllium sulfate. Bull. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 10:295–301. Smith, A. D., A. Bharath, C. Mallard, D. Orr, K. Smith, J. A. S utton, J. Vukmanich, L. S. McCarthy, and G. W. Ozburn. 1991. The acute and chronic toxicity of ten chlorinated organic compounds to the American flagfish ( Jordanella floridae ). Arch. Enviorn. Contam. Toxicol. 20:94–102. Smith, L . L., S. J. Broderius, D. M. Oseid, G. L. Kimball, W. M. Koenst, and D. T. Lind. 1979. Acute and chronic toxicity of HCN to fish and invertebrates . EPA-600/3-79-009. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Smith, L. R., T. M. Holsen, N. C. Ibay, R. M. Block, and A. B. de Leon. 1985. Studies on the acute toxicity of fluoride ion to stickleback, fathead minnow, and rainbow trout. Chemosphere 14(9):1383–1389. Smith, S. B., J. F. Savino, and M. A. Blouin. 1988. Acute toxicity to Daphnia pulexof six classes of chemicalcompounds potentially hazardous to Great Lakes aquatic biota. J. Great Lakes Res
. 14:394–404.

## 52 Snarski, V. M., and G. F. Olson, 1982. Chronic tox icity and bioaccumulation of mercuric chloride in the fathead minnow ( Pimephales promelas ). Aquat. Toxicol . 2:143–156. Spehar, R. L . 1976. Cadmium and zinc toxicity to flagfish, Jordanella floridae
. J. Fish. Res. Board Can . 33:1939–1945. Spehar, R. L., J. T. Fiandt, R. L. Anderson, and D. L. DeFoe. 1980. Comparative toxicity of arsenic compounds and their accumulation in invertebrates and fish. Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol
. 9:53–63. Spehar, R. L., D. K. Tanner, and B. R. Nordling. 1983. Toxici ty of the synthetic pyrethroids, permethrin, and AC 222,705 and their accumulation in early life stages of fathead minnows and snails. Aquat. Toxicol . 3:171–182. Stallin g, D. L. and F. L. Mayer, Jr. 1972. Toxicities of PCBs to fish and environmental residues
. Environ. Health Perspect. 1:159–164. St eeman-Nielsen, E. and S. Wium-Andersen. 1970. Copper ions as poison in the sea and freshwater
. Marine Biology . 6:93–97. Stephan, C. E. 1991. Letter to Mr. Jim Grant. Michigan Department of Natural Resources. Stephan, C. E. , D. I. Mount, D. J. Hansen, J. H. Gentile, G. A. Chapman, and W. A. Brungs. 1985
. Gu idelines for deriving numerical national water quality criteria for the protection of aquatic organi smsand their uses . PB85-227049. National Technical Information Service , Springfield, Va. Stephan, C. E., and J. R. Rogers. 1985. Advantages of using regression analysis to calculate results of chronic toxi city tests, pp. 328-339 in Aquatic Toxicology and Hazard Assessment: Eighth Symposi um , R. C. Bahner and D. J. Hansen (eds.), American Society for Testing and Materials , Philadelphia. Stephan, E. E. and R. J. Erickson. n.d. Gu idelines for deriving an aquatic life pesticide concentration
. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Environmental Research Laboratory, Duluth, MN , unpublished document. Stevens, D. G. and G. A. Chapman. 1984. Toxicity of trivalent chromium to early life stages o f steelhead trout. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 3:125–133. Streufert, J. M., J. R. Jones, and H. O. Sa nders. 1980. Toxicity and biological effects of phthalate esters on midges ( Chironomus plumosus ). Trans. Mo. Acad. Sci . 14:33–40. Su ter, G. W. II. 1989. Ecological endpoints, pp. 2-1–2-28, in Ecological Assessment of Hazardou s Waste Sites: A Field and Laboratory Reference Documen t . EPA 600/3-89/013. W. Warren-Hicks, B. R. Parkhurst, and S. S. Baker, Jr. ( eds.). Corvallis Environmental Research Laboratory, Oregon. Suter, G. W., II, M. A. Futrell, G. A. Kerchner. 1992. Toxicological benchmarks for screening o f poten tialcontaminants of concern for effects on aquatic biota on the Oak Ridge Reservation, Oak Ridge, Tennessee . ORNL/ER-139. Oak Ridge National Laboratory.

## 53 Suter, G. W., II, A. E. Rosen, E. Linder, and D. F. Parkhurst. 1987. End points for responses of fish to chronic toxic exposures. Environ. Toxicol. Chem . 6:793–809. Suter, G. W., II. 1992. Ecological Risk Assessment . Lewis Publishers, Chelsea, MI. Suter, G. W ., II, A. Redfearn, R. K. White, and R. A. Shaw. 1992. Approach and strategy fo r perfo rmingecological risk assessments for the Department of Energy Oak Ridge Field Offic e Environmental Restoration Program . ES/ER/TM-33. Environmental Restoration Division, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN. Thompson, R. S., and N. G. Carmichael. 1989. 1,1,1-Trichloroethane: medium-term toxicity to carp, daphnids, and higher plants. Ecotox. Environ. Safety17:172–182. Thurston, R.V. , R. C. Russo, E. L. Meyn, and R. K. Zajdel. 1986. Chronic toxicity of ammonia t o fathead minnows. Trans. Amer. Fish. Soc . 115:196–207. Trucco, R. G., F. R. Engelhardt, an d B. Stacey. 1983. Toxicity, accumulation and clearance of aromatic hydrocarbons in Daphnia pulex
. Environ. Pollut. Ser. A. Ecol. Biol. 31:191–202. van den Dikkenberg, R. P., H. H. Canton, L. A. M. Mathijssen-Spiekman, and C. J. Roghair. 1989. The usefulness o

f gasterosteus aculeatus-the three-spined stickleback-as a test organism in routine toxicity testing. Rep. No. 718625003, Natl . Inst. Public Health Environ. Protection, Bilthoven, the Netherlands. Van der Schalie, W. H. 1983. The acute and chronic to xicity of 3,5-dinitroaniline, 1,3-dinitrobenzene, and 1,3,5-trinitrobenzene to freshwater aquatic organisms . Technical Report 8305. U.S. Army Medical Bioengineering Research and Development Laboratory, Fort Detrick, Frederick, MD. Van Leeuwen, C. J. and H. Maas. 1985. The aquatic toxicity of 2,6-dichlorobenzamide (BAM), a degradation product of the herbicide dichlobenil. Environ. Pollut. Ser. A. 37:105–115. Van Leeuwen, C. J., J . L. Maas-Diepeveen, G. Niebeek, W. H A. Vergouw, P. S. Griffioen, and M. W. Luijken. 1985. Aquatic toxicolog ical aspects of dithiocarbamates and related compounds. I. Shortterm toxicity tests. Aquat. Toxicol. 7:145–164. Vareille-Morel, C. and J. Debord. 1990. Sensibil ité du Mollusque prosobranche Potamopyrgus jenkinsi Smith à l'action de chlorur es métalliques (ZnCl , BaCl , CuCl )et d'un molluscicide de synthèse, la 2 2 2 

## N-tributyl-morpholine. Ann Rech. Vét. 21:111-118. Veith, G. D., D. J. Call, L. T. Brooke. 1983. Estimating the acute toxicity of narcotic industria l chemi calsto fathead minnows, pp. 90-97, in Aquatic Toxicol. and Hazard Assessment: Sixth Sympos ium. W. E. Bishop, R. D. Cardwell, and B. B. Heidolph (eds.), ASTM STP 802 , Philadelphia. Veith, G. D., D. J. Call, and L. T. Brooke. 1983. Structur e-toxicity relationships for the fathead minnow, Pimephales promelas : narcotic industrial chemicals. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci . 40:743–748. Villar, D., M. H. Li, and D. J. Schaeffer. 1993. Toxicity of organophosphorus pesticides to Dugesia dorotocephala
. Bull. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 51:80–87.

## 54 Vincent, M., J. Debord, and B. Penicaut. 1986. Comparative studies on the toxicity of metal chlorides and of a synthetic organic molluscicide, N-trityl-Morpholine, upon two aquatic amphipods : Gammarus pulex

and Echinogammarus berilloni
. Ann. Rech. Vét. 17:441–446. Vocke, R. W., K. L. Sears, J. J. O'Toole, R. B. Wildha m. 1980. Growth responses of selected freshwater algaeto trace elements and scrubber ash slurry generated by coal-fired power plants. Water Res
. 14:141–150. Walbridge, C. T., J. T. Fiandt, G. L. Phipps, and G. W. Holcombe. 1983. Acute toxicity of te n chlorinated aliphatic hydro carbons to the fathead minnow ( Pimephales promelas ). Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol . 12:661–666. Wallen, I. E., W. C. Greer, and R. Lasater. 1957. Toxici ty to Gambusia affinisof certain pure chemicals in trubid waters. Sewage Ind. Wastes29:695–711. Ward, T. J ., and R. L. Boeri. 1991a. Early Life Stage Toxicity of Di-n-Butyl Phthalate (DnBP) to the rainb ow Trout ( Oncorhynchus mykiss) Under Flow-Through Conditions . 9102-CMA. Chemica l Manufacturers Association, Washington, D.C. Waste Management Div ision. 1995. Ecological screening values, Ecological Risk Assessment Bulletin No. 2. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region IV. Atlanta, Georgia. Williams, P.L. and D.B.Dusenbery. 1990. Aquatic toxicity testing using the nematode, Caenorhabditis elegans
. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 9:1285–1290 Woodward, D. F., A. M. Farag, M. E. Mueller, E. E. Little, F. A. Vertucci. 1989. Sensitivity of endemic Snake River cutthroat trout to acidity and elevated aluminum. Trans. Amer. Fish. Soc. 118:630–643. Ziegen fuss, P. S., W. J. Renaudette, and W. J. Adams. 1986. Methodology for assessing the acut e toxicity of chemicals sorbed to sediments: Testing t he equilibrium partitioning theory. in T. M. Poston and R. Purdy (eds.), Aquatic Toxicology and Environmental Fate, Ninth Volume. ASTM , Philadelphia, PA.

# Appendix A DATA USED FOR TIER II CALCULATIONS

### Table A.1. Data and calculated results for derivation of Tier II values (all values in μg/l). Requirements are listed in App. B.2; other terms are defined in the text Compound Genus/species Requirement Endpoint Concentration GMAV A-C Ratio Reference b c INORGANICS Arsenic V Bosmina longirostris 4 EC50 850 850 Passino and Novak, 1984 Daphnia pulex 4 LC50 3,600 3,600 Jurewicz and Buikema, 1980 Gambusia affinis 2,3 LC50 49,000 49,000 Jurewicz and Buikema, 1980 Morone saxatilis 2,3 LC50 40,500 Palawski et al., 1985 Morone saxatilis 2,3 LC50 30,500 35,150 Palawski et al., 1985 Oncorhynchus kisutch 1 LC50 43,600 Buhl and Hamilton, 1990 Oncorhynchus kisutch 1 LC50 58,500 Buhl and Hamilton, 1990 Oncorhynchus mykiss 1 LC50 28,000 Palawski et al., 1985 Oncorhynchus mykiss 1 LC50 67,500 46,860 Buhl and Hamilton, 1990 Pimephales promelas 2,3 LC50 42,000 Palawski et al., 1985 Pimephales promelas 2,3 LC50 25,600 32,790 DeFoe, 1982 Pimephales promelas CV 892 28.7 DeFoe, 1982 Thymallus arcticus 1 LC50 5,020 Buhl and Hamilton, 1990 Thymallus arcticus 1 LC50 5,500 5,255 Buhl and Hamilton, 1990 Tubifex tubifex 7,8 LC50 127,360 127,360 Fargasova, 1994

Tier II Parameters Tier II Values FAVF 12.9
SAV 65.89
SACR 20.95
SCV 3.1 The eight acute data requirements. a Genus Mean Acute Value. bAcute-Chronic Ratio. c

### Table A.1. (continued) Compound Genus/species Requirement Endpoint Concentration GMAV A-C Ratio Reference Barium Daphnia magna 4 LC50 410,000 410,000 LeBlanc, 1980 Daphnia magna EC16 5,800 70.69 Biesinger and Christensen, 1972 a Echinogammarus berilloni 5 LC50 122,000 122,000 Vincent et al., 1986 Gammarus pulex 5 LC50 238,000 238,000 Vincent et al., 1986 Potamopyrgus jenkinsi 7,8 LC50 1,700 Vareille-Morel, 1990 Potamopyrgus jenkinsi 7,8 LC50 930 Vareille-Morel, 1990 Potamopyrgus jenkinsi 7,8 LC50 1,800 Vareille-Morel, 1990 Potamopyrgus jenkinsi 7,8 LC50 1,400 Vareille-Morel, 1990 Potamopyrgus jenkinsi 7,8 LC50 1,100 Vareille-Morel, 1990 Potamopyrgus jenkinsi 7,8 LC50 440 Vareille-Morel, 1990 Potamopyrgus jenkinsi 7,8 LC50 330 Vareille-Morel, 1990 Potamopyrgus jenkinsi 7,8 LC50 1,300 976.6 Vareille-Morel, 1990

Tier II Parameters Tier II Values FAVF 8.6
SAV 113.6
SACR 28.29
SCV 4.0 In the absence of any experimental value, EC16 is used to calculate an A-C ratio. a

### Table A.1. (continued) Compound Genus/species Requirement Endpoint Concentration GMAV A-C Ratio Reference Beryllium Asellus intermedius 5 LC50 10,000 10,000 Ewell et al., 1986 Dugesia tigrina 7,8 LC50 10,000 10,000 Ewell et al., 1986 Gammarus fasciatus 5 LC50 700 700 Ewell et al., 1986 Helisoma trivolvis 7,8 LC50 10,000 10,000 Ewell et al., 1986 Lumbriculus variegatus 7,8 LC50 10,000 10,000 Ewell et al., 1986 Pimephales promelas 2,3 LC50 10,000 10,000 Ewell et al., 1986 Ambystoma maculatum 2,3 LC50 3,150 Slonim and Ray, 1975 Ambystoma maculatum 2,3 LC50 18,200 Slonim and Ray, 1975 Ambystoma maculatum 2,3 LC50 8,020 Slonim and Ray, 1975 Ambystoma maculatum 2,3 LC50 8,320 Slonim and Ray, 1975 Ambystoma opacum 2,3 LC50 3,150 4,977 Slonim and Ray, 1975 Caenorhabditis elegans 7,8 LC50 140 140 Williams and Dunsenbery, 1990 Carassius auratus 2,3 LC50 55,900 55,900 Cardwell et al., 1976 Daphnia magna 4 EC50 2,410 Kimball n.d. Daphnia magna 4 EC50 2,450 2,430 Kimball n.d. Daphnia magna CV 5.267 461.4 Kimball n.d. Jordanella floridae 2,3 LC50 46,300 Cardwell et al., 1976 Jordanella floridae 2,3 LC50 41,100 Cardwell et al., 1976 Jordanella floridae 2,3 LC50 41,100 42,760 Cardwell et al., 1976 Pimephales promelas 2,3 LC50 37,900 Cardwell et al., 1976 Pimephales promelas 2,3 LC50 17,900 Kimball n.d. Pimephales promelas 2,3 LC50 17,500 22,810 Kimball n.d. Poecilia reticulata 2,3 LC50 1,330 Slonim and Slonim, 1973 Poecilia reticulata 2,3 LC50 160 Slonim and Slonim, 1973 Poecilia reticulata 2,3 LC50 190 Slonim and Slonim, 1973

### Table A.1. (continued) Compound Genus/species Requirement Endpoint Concentration GMAV A-C Ratio Reference Poecilia reticulata 2,3 LC50 1,330 343.2 Slonim and Slonim, 1973 Tubifex tubifex 7,8 EC50 10,250 10,250 Khangarot, 1991

Tier II Parameters Tier II Values FAVF 4.0
SAV 35
SACR 52.88
SCV 0.66

### Table A.1. (continued) Compound Genus/species Requirement Endpoint Concentration GMAV A-C Ratio Reference Boron Daphnia magna 4 LC50 133,000 Gersich, 1984 Daphnia magna CV 9,330 Gersich, 1984 Daphnia magna 4 LC50 226,000 173,400 Lewis and Valentine, 1981 Daphnia magna CV 8,832 19.10 Lewis and Valentine, 1981 a Ptychocheilus lucius 2,3 LC50 279 Hamilton, 1995 Ptychocheilus lucius 2,3 LC50 >100 Hamilton, 1995 Ptychocheilus lucius 2,3 LC50 527 383.4 Hamilton, 1995 Xyrauchen texanus 2,3 LC50 >100 Hamilton, 1995 Xyrauchen texanus 2,3 LC50 233 Hamilton, 1995 Xyrauchen texanus 2,3 LC50 279 255.0 Hamilton, 1995 Gila elegans 2,3 LC50 >100 Hamilton, 1995 Gila elegans 2,3 LC50 280 Hamilton, 1995 Gila elegans 2,3 LC50 552 393.1 Hamilton, 1995

Tier II Parameters Tier II Values FAVF 8.6
SAV 29.65
SACR 18.29
SCV 1.6
The A-C Ratio for D. magnais the geometric mean of A-C Ratios from Gersich, 1987 and Lewis and Valentine, 1981. a

### Table A.1. (continued) Compound Genus/species Requirement Endpoint Concentration GMAV A-C Ratio Reference Cobalta Asellus intermedius 5 LC50 >100,000 Ewell et al., 1986 Carassius auratus 2,3 LC50 66,800 66,800 Ding, 1980 Cyprinus carpio 2,3 LC50 82,700 82,700 Ding, 1980 Daphnia magna 4 EC50 6,830 Kimball, 1978 Daphnia magna 4 EC50 5,150 5,931 Kimball, 1978 Daphnia magna CV 5.103 1,162 Kimball, 1978 Dugesia tigrina 7,8 LC50 25,000 25,000 Ewell et al., 1986 Gammarus fasciatus 5 LC50 >100,000 Ewell et al., 1986 Helisoma trivolvis 7,8 LC50 >100,000 Ewell et al., 1986 Lumbriculus variegatus 7,8 LC50 >100,000 Ewell et al., 1986 Philodina acuticornis 7,8 EC50 59,000 59,000 Buikema et al., 1974 Pimephales promelas 2,3 LC50 22,000 Ewell et al., 1986 Pimephales promelas 2,3 LC50 3,750 Kimball, 1978 Pimephales promelas 2,3 LC50 3,460 6,584 Kimball, 1978 Pimephales promelas CV 286.2 12.59 Kimball, 1978 Rana hexadactyla 3 LC50 17,590 17,590 Khangarot et al., 1985 Tubifex tubifex 7,8 EC50 139,320 139,320 Khangarot, 1991

Tier II Parameters Tier II Values FAVF 4.0
SAV 1,483
SACR 63.98
SCV 23
All data are for cobalt II. a

### Table A.1. (continued) Compound Genus/species Requirement Endpoint Concentration GMAV A-C Ratio Reference Lithium Ptychocheilus lucius 2,3 LC50 28,000 Hamilton, 1995 Ptychocheilus lucius 2,3 LC50 41,000 33,880 Hamilton, 1995 Xyrauchen texanus 2,3 LC50 53,000 Hamilton, 1995 Xyrauchen texanus 2,3 LC50 186,000 99,290 Hamilton, 1995 Gila elegans 2,3 LC50 62,000 Hamilton, 1995 Gila elegans 2,3 LC50 65,000 63,480 Hamilton, 1995 Tubifex tufifex 7,8 EC50 9,340 9,340 Khangarto, 1991

Tier II Parameters Tier II Values FAVF 36.2
SAV 258.0
SACR 17.9
SCV 14

### Table A.1. (continued) Compound Genus/species Requirement Endpoint Concentration GMAV A-C Ratio Reference Manganese a Asellus aquaticus 5 EC50 333,000 333,000 Martin and Holdich, 1986 Crangonyx pseudogracilis 5 EC50 694,000 694,000 Martin and Holdich, 1986 Daphnia magna 4 EC50 19,500 Kimball n.d. Daphnia magna 4 EC50 19,200 19,350 Kimball n.d. Pimephales promelas 2,3 LC50 30,600 Kimball n.d. Pimephales promelas 2,3 LC50 36,900 33,600 Kimball n.d. Pimephales promelas CV 1,775 18.93 Kimball n.d.

Tier II Parameters Tier II Values FAVF 8.6
SAV 2,250
SACR 18.24
SCV 120
All data are for manganese II. a

### Table A.1. (continued) Compound Genus/species Requirement Endpoint Concentration GMAV A-C Ratio Reference Mercury, methyl Oncorhynchus mykiss 1 LC50 24 24 Lock and van Overbeeke, 1981 Salvelinus fontinalis 1 LC50 65 McKim et al., 1976 Salvelinus fontinalis 1 LC50 84 74 McKim et al., 1976 Salvelinus fontinalis CV 0.5193 142.3 McKim et al., 1976

Tier II Parameters Tier II Values FAVF 242
SAV 0.09917
SACR 35.72
SCV 0.0028

### Table A.1. (continued) Compound Genus/species Requirement Endpoint Concentration GMAV A-C Ratio Reference Molybdenum a Daphnia magna 4 LC50 203,200 Kimball n.d. Daphnia magna 4 LC50 210,300 206,700 Kimball n.d. Daphnia magna CV 877.8 235.5 Kimball n.d. Pimephales promelas 2,3 LC50 628,000 628,000 Kimball n.d.

Tier II Parameters Tier II Values FAVF 13.2
SAV 15,660
SACR 42.26
SCV 370 All tests are for molybdenum VI. a

### Table A.1. (continued) Compound Genus/species Requirement Endpoint Concentration GMAV A-C Ratio Reference Strontium Daphnia magna 4 LC50 125,000 125,000 Biesinger and Christensen, 1972 Daphnia magna EC16 42,000 2.98 Biesinger and Christensen, 1972 a Tubifex tubifex 7,8 EC50 240,800 240,800 Khangarot, 1991 Caenorhabditis elegans 7,8 LC50 465,000 465,000 Williams and Dusenbery, 1990

Tier II Parameters Tier II Values FAVF 8.6
SAV 14,530
SACR 9.85
SCV 1,500 In the absence of any experimental chronic values, EC16 is used to calculate an A-C Ratio. a

### Table A.1. (continued) Compound Genus/species Requirement Endpoint Concentration GMAV A-C Ratio Reference Thallium a Daphnia magna 4 EC50 880 Kimball, n.d. Daphnia magna 4 EC50 930 905.0 Kimball, n.d. Daphnia magna CV 134.5 6.724 Kimball, n.d. Cyprinodon variegatus LC50 20,900 EPA, 1978 b Cyprinodon variegatus CV 6,010 3.478 EPA, 1978 Lepomis macrochirus 2,3 LC50 120,000 Buccafusco et al., 1981 Lepomis macrochirus 2,3 LC50 132,000 125,900 Dawson et al., 1977 Pimephales promelas 2,3 LC50 1,810 Kimball, n.d. Pimephales promelas 2,3 LC50 1,780 1,795 Kimball, n.d. Pimephales promelas CV 56.92 31.53 Kimball, n.d.

Tier II Parameters Tier II Values FAVF 8.6
SAV 105.2
SACR 9.034
SCV 12
All data are for thallium I. a Acute value of C. variegatus , a saltwater species, is used for SACR calculation only. b

### Table A.1. (continued) Compound Genus/species Requirement Endpoint Concentration GMAV A-C Ratio Reference Tin a Daphnia magna 4 LC50 55,000 55,000 Biesinger and Christensen, 1972 Daphnia magna EC16 350 157.1 Biesinger and Christensen, 1972 b

Tier II Parameters Tier II Values FAVF 20.5
SAV 2,683
SACR 36.93
SCV 73
All data are for tin II. a In the absence of any experimental chronic values, EC16 is used to calculate an A-C Ratio. b

### Table A.1. (continued) Compound Genus/species Requirement Endpoint Concentration GMAV A-C Ratio Reference Uranium Salvelinus fontinalis 1 LC50 5,500 Parkhurst et al., 1984 Salvelinus fontinalis 1 LC50 23,000 11,250 Parkhurst et al., 1984

Tier II Parameters Tier II Values FAVF 242
SAV 46.48
SACR 17.9
SCV 2.6

### Table A.1. (continued) Compound Genus/species Requirement Endpoint Concentration GMAV A-C Ratio Reference Vanadium a Daphnia magna 4 EC50 1,580 Kimball, n.d. Daphnia magna 4 EC50 1,460 Kimball, n.d. Daphnia magna 4 EC50 3,800 Bensen &Neven, 1987 Daphnia magna 4 EC50 2,900 Bensen &Neven, 1987 Daphnia magna 4 EC50 3,900 Bensen &Neven, 1987 Daphnia magna 4 EC50 3,600 Bensen &Neven, 1987 Daphnia magna 4 EC50 3,300 2,746 Bensen &Neven, 1987 Daphnia magna CV 1900 2 Bensen &Neven, 1987 b Gala elegans 2,3 LC50 8,800 Hamilton, 1995 Gala elegans 2,3 LC50 4,000 Hamilton, 1995 Gala elegans 2,3 LC50 3,000 4,727 Hamilton, 1995 Jordanella floridae 2,3 LC50 11,200 11,200 Holdway and Sprague, 1979 Jordanella floridae CV 83.49 134.1 Holdway and Sprague, 1979 Oncorhynchus tshawytscha 1 LC50 16,500 16,500 Hamilton and Buhl, 1990 Pimephales promelas 2,3 LC50 1,800 Kimball, n.d. Pimephales promelas 2,3 LC50 1,900 1,850 Kimball, n.d. Pimephales promelas CV 169.7 10.90 Kimball, n.d. Ptychocheilus lucius 2,3 LC50 7,800 Hamilton, 1995 Ptychocheilus lucius 2,3 LC50 3,800 Hamilton, 1995 Ptychocheilus lucius 2,3 LC50 4,300 5,032 Hamilton, 1995 Salvelinus fontinalis 1 LC50 7,000 Ernst and Garside, 1987 Salvelinus fontinalis 1 LC50 15,000 10,250 Ernst and Garside, 1987 Xyrauchen texanus 2,3 LC50 5,300 Hamilton, 1995

### Table A.1. (continued) Compound Genus/species Requirement Endpoint Concentration GMAV A-C Ratio Reference Xyrauchen texanus 2,3 LC50 2,200 Hamilton, 1995 Xyrauchen texanus 2,3 LC50 4,600 3,770 Hamilton, 1995

Tier II Parameters Tier II Values FAVF 6.5
SAV 284.6
SACR 14.29
SCV 20
All data are for vanadium V. a Since the experimental A-C Ratio is less than 2, the A-C Ratio of D. magnais et to 2 (Stephan et al., 1985). b

### Table A.1. (continued) Compound Genus/species Requirement Endpoint Concentration GMAV A-C Ratio Reference Zirconium Oncorhynchus mykiss 1 LC50 20,000 20,000 Couture et al., 1989 Tubifex tubifex 7,8 EC50 221,180 221,180 Khangarot, 1991

Tier II Parameters Tier II Values FAVF 64.8
SAV 308.6
SACR 17.9
SCV 17

### Table A.1. (continued) Compound Genus/species Requirement Endpoint Concentration GMAV A-C Ratio Reference ORGANICS Acetone Asellus intermedius 5 LC50 >100,000 >100,000 Ewell et al., 1986 Ceriodaphnia dubia 4 LC50 8,098,000 8,098,000 Cowgill and Milazzo, 1991 Chironomus tentans 6 LC50 46,900,000 46,900,000 Ziegenfuss et al., 1986 Corbicula manilensis 7,8 LC50 20,000,000 20,000,000 Chandler and Marking, 1979 Daphnia magna 4 EC50 13,500,000 13,500,000 Randall and Knopp, 1980 Daphnia magna 4 LC50 30,640 LeBlanc and Surprenant, 1983 a Daphnia magna CV 1,556 19.69 LeBlanc and Surprenant, 1983 Dugesia tigrina 7,8 LC50 >100,000 >100,000 Ewell et al., 1986 Gammarus fasciatus 5 LC50 >100,000 >100,000 Ewell et al., 1986 Helisoma trivolvis 7,8 LC50 >100,000 >100,000 Ewell et al., 1986 Lepomis macrochirus 2,3 LC50 8,300,000 8,300,000 Cairns and Scheier, 1968 Lumbriculus variegatus 7,8 LC50 >100,000 >100,000 Ewell et al., 1986 Oncorhynchus mykiss 1 LC50 5,540,000 5,540,000 Johnson and Finley, 1980 Pimephales promelas 2,3 EC50 7,280,000 Brooke et al., 1984 Pimephales promelas 2,3 EC50 8,120,000 Brooke et al., 1984 Pimephales promelas 2,3 EC50 6,210,000 7,160,000 Brooke et al., 1984

Tier II Parameters Tier II Values FAVF 3.6
SAV 27,780
SACR 18.48
SCV 1500 Since the acute test was part of the same study as the chronic test, the acute value was used to derive an ACR for D. magna . The LC50 value was not used as part of GMAV because EC50 for immobilization is available. a

### Table A.1. (continued) Compound Genus/species Requirement Endpoint Concentration GMAV A-C Ratio Reference Anthracene Daphnia magna 4 EC50 95 Munoz and Tarazona, 1993 Daphnia pulex 4 EC50 754 267.6 Smith et al., 1988

Tier II Parameters Tier II Values FAVF 20.5
SAV 13.06
SACR 17.9
SCV 0.73

### Table A.1. (continued) Compound Genus/species Requirement Endpoint Concentration GMAV A-C Ratio Reference Benzene Asellus aquaticus 5 LC50 254,000 254,000 Erben and Pisl, 1993
Carassius auratus 2,3 LC50 34,420 34,420 Pickering and Henderson, 1966 Chironomus thummi 6 LC50 100,000 100,000 Sloff, 1983 Cottus cognatus 2,3 LC50 13,500 13,500 Moles et al., 1979 Daphnia magna 4 LC50 200,000 LeBlanc, 1980 Daphnia magna 4 LC50 400,000 Canton and Adema, 1978 Daphnia magna 4 LC50 620,000 Canton and Adema, 1978 Daphnia magna 4 LC50 412,000 Canton and Adema, 1978 Daphnia magna 4 LC50 356,000 Canton and Adema, 1978 Daphnia magna 4 LC50 412,000 Canton and Adema, 1978 Daphnia magna 4 LC50 356,000 376,200 Canton and Adema, 1978 Daphnia pulex 4 LC50 345,000 Canton and Adema, 1978 Daphnia pulex 4 LC50 265,000 302,400 Canton and Adema, 1978 Gasterosteus aculeatus 2,3 LC50 21,800 21,800 Moles et al., 1979 Ictalurus punctatus 2,3 LC50 425,000 425,000 Johnson and Finley, 1980 Lepomis macrochirus 2,3 LC50 22,490 22,490 Pickering and Henderson, 1966 Oncorhynchus gorbuscha 1 LC50 4,630 Moles et al., 1979 Oncorhynchus kisutch 1 LC50 12,350 Moles et al., 1979 Oncorhynchus mykiss 2,3 LC50 5,300 DeGraeve et al., 1982 Oncorhynchus mykiss 1 LC50 21,600 Hodson et al., 1984 Oncorhynchus nerka 1 LC50 9,430 Moles et al., 1979 Oncorhynchus tshawytscha 1 LC50 10,280 9,008 Moles et al., 1979 Pimephales promelas 2,3 LC50 24,600 Geiger et al, 1990

### Table A.1. (continued)
Compound Genus/species Requirement Endpoint Concentration GMAV A-C Ratio Reference Pimephales promelas 2,3 LC50 12,600 17,600 Geiger et al, 1990 Poecilia reticulata 2,3 LC50 36,600 Pickering and Henderson, 1966 Poecilia reticulata 2,3 LC50 28,600 32,350 Galassi et al., 1988 Salvelinus malma 2,3 LC50 10,430 Moles et al., 1979 Salvelinus malma 2,3 LC50 10,480 10,450 Moles et al., 1979 Thymallus arcticus 2,3 LC50 12,890 12,890 Moles et al., 1979

Tier II Parameters Tier II Values FAVF 4.0
SAV 2,252
SACR 17.9
SCV 130

### Table A.1. (continued) Compound Genus/species Requirement Endpoint Concentration GMAV A-C Ratio Reference Benzidine Daphnia magna 4 EC50 600 600 Kuhn et al., 1989 Oncorhynchus mykiss 1 LC50 7,400 7,400 EPA, 1980c a Salmo trutta lacustris 1 LC50 4,350 4,350 EPA, 1980c a Notropis lutrensis 2,3 LC50 2,500 2,500 EPA, 1980c a

Tier II Parameters Tier II Values FAVF 8.6
SAV 69.77 SACR 17.9
SCV 3.9 The EPA criteria document was cited because the data come from an EPA internal investigation, which was not available. a

### Table A.1. (continued) Compound Genus/species Requirement Endpoint Concentration GMAV A-C Ratio Reference Benzo(a)anthracene Daphnia pulex 4 LC50 MOR 10 10 Trucco et al., 1983 a

Tier II Parameters Tier II Values

FAVF 20.5
SAV 0.4878
SACR 17.9
SCV 0.027 The test was based on a non-standard, but conservative, exposure of 96 hours. The standard exposure is 48 hr for daphnids. a The length of the Daphnid is 1.9-2.1 mm; the age of the Daphnid species is not available.

### Table A.1. (continued) Compound Genus/species Requirement Endpoint Concentration GMAV A-C Ratio Reference Benzo(a)pyrene Daphnia pulex 4 LC50 MOR 5 5 Trucco et al., 1983 a

Tier II Parameters Tier II Values

FAVF 20.5
SAV 0.2439
SACR 17.9
SCV 0.014 The test was based on a non-standard, but conservative, exposure of 96 hours. The standard exposure is 48 hr for daphnids. a The length of the Daphnid is 1.9-2.1 mm; the age of the Daphnid species is not available.

### Table A.1. (continued) Compound Genus/species Requirement Endpoint Concentration GMAV A-C Ratio Reference Benzoic acid Gambusia affinis 2,3 LC50 180,000 180,000 Wallen et al., 1957 a

Tier II Parameters Tier II Values FAVF 242
SAV 743.8
SACR 17.9
SCV 42 Done in turbid water. a

### Table A.1. (continued) Compound Genus/species Requirement Endpoint Concentration GMAV A-C Ratio Reference Benzyl alcohol Lepomis macrochirus 2,3 LC50 10,000 10,000 Dawson et al., 1977 Pimephales promelas 2,3 LC50 460,000 460,000 Mattson et al., 1976

Tier II Parameters Tier II Values FAVF 64.8
SAV 154.3
SACR 17.9
SCV 8.6

### Table A.1. (continued) Compound Genus/species Requirement Endpoint Concentration GMAV A-C Ratio Reference BHC (other than Lindane) Daphnia magna 4 EC50 800 800 Canton et al., 1975

Tier II Parameters Tier II Values FAVF 20.5
SAV 39.02
SACR 17.9
SCV 2.2

### Table A.1. (continued) Compound Genus/species Requirement Endpoint Concentration GMAV A-C Ratio Reference Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate Chironomus plumosus 6 EC50 >18,000 Streufert et al., 1980 Daphnia pulex 4 EC50 133 133 LeBlanc, 1980 Daphnia magna 4 LC50 2,000 Adams & Heidolph, 1985 a Daphnia magna CV 912 2.193 Adams & Heidolph, 1985 Gammarus pseudolimnaeus 4 LC50 >32,000 Sanders et al., 1973 Gasterosteus aculeatus 2,3 LC50 >300 van den Dikkenberg et al., 1989 Ictalurus punctatus 2,3 LC50 >100,000 Johnson and Finley, 1980 Jordanella floridae 2,3 LC50 >320 Adema et al., 1981 Lepomis macrochirus 2,3 LC50 >770,000 Buccafusco et al., 1981 Lepomis macrochirus 2,3 LC50 >100,000 Johnson and Finley, 1980 Oncorhynchus kisutch 1 LC50 >100,000 Johnson and Finley, 1980 Oncorhynchus mykiss 1 LC50 > 320 Adams et al., 1995 Pimephales promelas 2,3 LC50 >670 Adams et al., 1995 Pimephales promelas 2,3 LC50 >160 Adams et al., 1995 Rana pipiens 3 LC50 4,440 4,440 Birge et al., 1978

Tier II Parameters Tier II Values FAVF 5.0
SAV 26.60
SACR 8.890
SCV 3.0 This LC50 was used to calculate the A-C ratio, but not the GMAV because an EC50 was available. a

### Table A.1. (continued) Compound Genus/species Requirement Endpoint Concentration GMAV A-C Ratio Reference 2-Butanone Daphnia magna 4 EC50 5,091,000 5,091,000 Randall and Knopp, 1980 Pimephales promelas 2,3 LC50 3,200,000 3,200,000 Veith et al, 1983

Tier II Parameters Tier II Values FAVF 13.2
SAV 242,400
SACR 17.9
SCV 14,000

### Table A.1. (continued) Compound Genus/species Requirement Endpoint Concentration GMAV A-C Ratio Reference Carbon disfulfide a Poecilia reticulata 2,3 LC50 MOR 4,000 4,000 Van Leeuwen et al., 1985

Tier II Parameters Tier II Values FAVF 242
SAV 16.53
SACR 17.9
SCV 0.92 Although carbon disfulide is a volatile compound, static test was used because flow-through, measured tests are not available. a

### Table A.1. (continued) Compound Genus/species Requirement Endpoint Concentration GMAV A-C Ratio Reference Carbon tetrachloride a Pimephales promelas 2,3 LC50 41,400 Geiger et al., 1990 Pimephales promelas 2,3 LC50 43,300 Kimball, n.d. Pimephales promelas 2,3 LC50 42,900 42,530 Kimball, n.d.

Tier II Parameters Tier II Values FAVF 242
SAV 175.7
SACR 17.9
SCV 9.8
Because carbon tetrachloride is a volatile compound, only flow-through, measured tests were used. a

### Table A.1. (continued) Compound Genus/species Requirement Endpoint Concentration GMAV A-C ratio Reference Chlorobenzene Carassius auratus 2,3 LC50 51,620 51,620 Pickering and Henderson, 1966 Ceriodaphnia dubia 4 LC50 7,900 Cowgill et al., 1985 a Ceriodaphnia dubia 4 LC50 7,900 Cowgill et al., 1985 a Ceriodaphnia dubia 4 LC50 11,400 8,927 Cowgill et al., 1985 a Daphnia magna 4 LC50 86,000 LeBlanc, 1980 Daphnia magna 4 LC50 13,000 Cowgill et al., 1985 a Daphnia magna 4 LC50 10,700 Cowgill et al., 1985 a Daphnia magna 4 LC50 15,400 116,500 Cowgill et al., 1985 a Lepomis macrochirus 2,3 LC50 7,400 7,400 Bailey et al., 1985 Oncorhynchus mykiss 1 LC50 7,460 7,460 Hodson et al., 1984 Pimephales promelas 2,3 LC50 16,900 16,900 Geiger et al., 1990 Poecilia reticulata 2,3 LC50 45,530 45,530 Pickering and Henderson, 1966

Tier II Parameters Tier II Values FAVF 6.5
SAV 1,138
SACR 17.9
SCV 64
Author indicated both D. magnaand C. dubia/affinisare less sensitive to chlorobenzene at 24 C than at 20 C; thus, tests with 20 C were used to established a conservative a o o o estimate of the effect of chlorobenzene.

### Table A.1. (continued) Compound Genus/species Requirement Endpoint Concentration GMAV A-C Ratio Reference Chloroform a Ictalurus punctatus 2,3 LC50 75,000 75,000 Anderson and Lusty, 1980 Lepomis macrochirus 2,3 LC50 16,200 Anderson and Lusty, 1980 Lepomis macrochirus 2,3 LC50 22,300 Anderson and Lusty, 1980 Lepomis macrochirus 2,3 LC50 13,300 Anderson and Lusty, 1980 Lepomis macrochirus 2,3 LC50 18,300 Anderson and Lusty, 1980 Lepomis macrochirus 2,3 LC50 20,800 17,880 Anderson and Lusty, 1980 Micropterus salmoides 2,3 LC50 55,800 Anderson and Lusty, 1980 Micropterus salmoides 2,3 LC50 52,500 Anderson and Lusty, 1980 Micropterus salmoides 2,3 LC50 45,400 51,040 Anderson and Lusty, 1980 Oncorhynchus mykiss 1 LC50 18,200 Anderson and Lusty, 1980 Oncorhynchus mykiss 1 LC50 18,400 Anderson and Lusty, 1980 Oncorhynchus mykiss 1 LC50 22,100 Anderson and Lusty, 1980 Oncorhynchus mykiss 1 LC50 15,100 Anderson and Lusty, 1980 Oncorhynchus mykiss 1 LC50 17,100 18,040 Anderson and Lusty, 1980 Pimephales promelas 2,3 EC50 70,700 70,700 Geiger et al., 1990

Tier II Parameters Tier II Values FAVF 36.2
SAV 493.9
SACR 17.9
SCV 28 Because chloroform is a volatile compound, only flow-through, measured tests were used. a

### Table A.1. (continued) Compound Genus/species Requirement Endpoint Concentration GMAV A-C Ratio Reference p,p'DDD Asellus brevicaudus 5 LC50 10 Sanders, 1972 Asellus brevicaudus 5 LC50 16 12.65 Mayer and Ellersieck, 1986 Bufo woodhousei 3 LC50 140 140 Sanders, 1970 Cypridopsis vidua 5 EC50 45 45 Mayer and Ellersieck, 1986 Daphnia pulex 4 EC50 3.2 3.2 Mayer and Ellersieck, 1986 Gammarus fasciatus 5 LC50 0.6 Sanders, 1972 Gammarus fasciatus 5 LC50 0.86 Sanders, 1972 Gammarus lacustris 5 LC50 0.64 0.68 Sanders, 1969 Ictalurus punctatus 2,3 LC50 1,500 15,000 Mayer and Ellersieck, 1986 Ischnura verticalis 6 LC50 34 34 Mayer and Ellersieck, 1986 Micropterus salmoides 2,3 LC50 42 42 Mayer and Ellersieck, 1986 Oncorhynchus mykiss 1 LC50 70 72 Mayer and Ellersieck, 1986 Palaemonetes kadiakensis 5 LC50 0.68 Sanders, 1972 Palaemonetes kadiakensis 5 LC50 2.4 1.3 Mayer and Ellersieck, 1986 Pimephales promelas 2,3 LC50 4,400 4,400 Mayer and Ellersieck, 1986 Polycelis felina 7,8 LC50 740 740 Kouyoumjian and Uglow, 1974 Pseudacris triseriata 3 LC50 400 400 Sanders, 1970 Pteronarcys californica 6 LC50 380 380 Sanders and Cope, 1968 Simocephalus serrulatus 4 EC50 4.5 4.5 Mayer and Ellersieck, 1986 Stizostedion vitreum 2,3 LC50 14 14 Mayer and Ellersieck, 1986 Tier II Parameters Tier II Values FAVF 3.6
SAV 0.1889
SACR 17.9
SCV 0.011

### Table A.1. (continued)

### Table A.1. (continued) Compound Genus/species Requirement Endpoint Concentration GMAV A-C Ratio Reference Decane a Daphnia magna 4 LC50 18,000 18,000 LeBlanc, 1980

Tier II Parameters Tier II Values FAVF 20.5
SAV 878.0
SACR 17.9
SCV 49 Although decane is a volatile compound, static test was used because flow-through tests were not available. a

### Table A.1. (continued) Compound Genus/species Requirement Endpoint Concentration GMAV A-C ratio Reference Di-n-butyl phthalate Chironomus plumosus 6 EC50 760 760 Streufert et al., 1980 Daphnia magna 4 EC50 5200 5200 McCarthy and Whitmore, 1985 Daphnia magna CV 1004 5.179 McCarthy and Whitmore, 1985 Gammarus pseudolimnaeus 5 LC50 2100 2100 Johnson and Finley, 1980 Ictalurus punctatus 2,3 LC50 2900 2900 Johnson and Finley, 1980 Lepomis macrochirus 2,3 LC50 1200 Buccafusco et al., 1981 Lepomis macrochirus 2,3 LC50 700 916.5 Johnson and Finley, 1980 Oncorhynchus mykiss 1 LC50 1600 1600 Adams et al., 1995 Oncorhynchus mykiss CV 137.8 11.61 Rodes et al., 1995 a
Orconectes nais 5 LC50 10000 10000 Johnson and Finley, 1980 b Pimephales promelas 2,3 LC50 1100 Geiger et al., 1985 Pimephales promelas 2,3 LC50 850 Geiger et al., 1985 Pimephales promelas 2,3 LC50 2020 McCarthy and Whitmore, 1985 c,d Pimephales promelas 2,3 LC50 920 1148 Adams et al., 1995 Pimephales promelas CV 748.3 2.699 McCarthy and Whitmore, 1985

Tier II Parameters Tier II Values FAVF 4.0
SAV 190.0
SACR 5.455
SCV 35 Length of the test is 60 d post-hatch (99 d exposure); the National Guidelines recommend 90 d post-hatch for salmonids. a

### Table A.1. (continued) Authors note toxicity is hardness(44-272 ppm) and pH(6.5-9.0) independent; no further data are available. bDerived from range-finding test. c ACR derived from acute test of larval fathead minnows is the only test available as part of the same study as the chronic test. The National Guidelines d recommend using juvenile fish for deriving ACR. Because of an accident during the experiment, length of the test is 20 d post-hatch; the National Guidelines recommend 28-32 d post-hatch for fish other than salmonids. However, the authors note since a larger number e of fish died at 1.0 mg/L, "no evidence that additional exposure time would have produced any meaningful result".

### Table A.1. (continued) Compound Genus/species Requirement Endpoint Concentration GMAV A-C Ratio Reference Dibenzofuran Daphnia magna 4 LC50 1,700 1,700 LeBlanc, 1980 Pimephales promelas 2,3 EC50 780 Geiger et al., 1988 Pimephales promelas 2,3 EC50 980 874.3 Geiger et al., 1988

Tier II Parameters Tier II Values FAVF 13.2
SAV 66.23
SACR 17.9
SCV 3.7

### Table A.1. (continued) Compound Genus/species Requirement Endpoint Concentration GMAV A-C Ratio Reference 1,1-Dichloroethane a Poecilia reticulata 2,3 LC50 202,000 202,000 Köneman, 1981

Tier II Parameters Tier II Values FAVF 242
SAV 834.7
SACR 17.9
SCV 47 Although 1,1-dichloroethane is a volatile compound, static test was used because flow-through test is not available. a

### Table A.1. (continued) Compound Genus/species Requirement Endpoint Concentration GMAV A-C ratio Reference 1,2-Dichloroethane a Daphnia magna 4 EC50 160,000 160,000 Richter et al., 1983 Pimephales promelas 2,3 LC50 116,000 116,000 Walbridge et al., 1983 Pimephales promelas CV 41,360 2.804 Benoit et al, 1985

Tier II Parameters Tier II Values FAVF 13.2
SAV 8,788
SACR 9.649
SCV 910 Because 1,2-Dichloroethane is a volatile compound, only flow-through, measured tests were used (static, measured tests for Daphnids). a

### Table A.1. (continued) Compound Genus/species Requirement Endpoint Concentration GMAV A-C Ratio Reference 1,1-Dichlorolethene a Pimephales promelas 2,3 LC50 MOR 108,000 108,000 Dill et al., 1980

Tier II Parameters Tier II Values FAVF 242
SAV 446.3
SACR 17.9
SCV 25 Although 1,1-dichloroethene is a volatile compound, static test is used because flow-through, measured tests are not available. a

### Table A.1. (continued) Compound Genus/species Requirement Endpoint Concentration GMAV A-C Ratio Reference 1,2-Dichloroethene a Lepomis macrochirus 2,3 LC50 140,000 140,000 Buccafusco, 1981 Daphnia magna 4 LC50 220,000 220,000 LeBlanc, 1980

Tier II Parameters Tier II Values FAVF 13.2
SAV 10,610
SACR 17.9
SCV 590 Although 1,2-dichloroethene is a volatile compound, static tests were used because flow-through, measured tests are not available. a

### Table A.1. (continued) Compound Genus/species Requirement Endpoint Concentration GMAV A-C Ratio Reference 1,3-Dichloropropene a Pimephales promelas 2,3 EC50 239 239 Geiger et al., 1990

Tier II Parameters Tier II Values FAVF 242
SAV 0.9876
SACR 17.9
SCV 0.055 a Because 1,3-dichloropropene is a volatile compound, only flow-through measured test was used.

### Table A.1. (continued) Compound Genus/species Requirement Endpoint Concentration GMAV A-C Ratio Reference Diethyl phthalate Daphnia magna 4 EC50 86,000 86,000 Adams et al., 1995 Daphnia magna CV 38,410 2.239 Rhodes et al., 1995 Lepomis macrochirus 2,3 LC50 16,700 16,700 Adams et al., 1995 Pimephales promelas 2,3 LC50 31,800 Geiger et al., 1985 Pimephales promelas 2,3 LC50 17,000 23,250 Adams et al., 1995 Oncorhynchus mykiss 1 LC50 12,000 12,000 Adams et al., 1995

Tier II Parameters Tier II Values FAVF 6.5
SAV 1,846
SACR 8.952
SCV 210

### Table A.1. (continued) Compound Genus/species Requirement Endpoint Concentration GMAV A-C Ratio Reference Ethyl benzene a Pimephales promelas 2,3 EC50 8,450 8,450 Geiger et al., 1990 Poecilia reticulata 2,3 LC50 9,600 9,600 Galassi et al., 1988

Tier II Parameters Tier II Values FAVF 64.8
SAV 130.4
SACR 17.9
SCV 7.3 Because ethyl benzene is a volatile compound, only flow-through, measured tests were used. a

### Table A.1. (continued) Compound Genus/species Requirement Endpoint Concentration GMAV A-C Ratio Reference Hexane Pimephales promelas 2,3 EC50 2,500 2,500 Geiger et al., 1990

Tier II Parameters Tier II Values FAVF 242
SAV 10.33
SACR 17.9
SCV 0.58

### Table A.1. (continued) Compound Genus/species Requirement Endpoint Concentration GMAV A-C Ratio Reference 2-Hexanone Pimephales promelas 2,3 LC50 428,000 428,000 Geiger et al., 1986

Tier II Parameters Tier II Values FAVF 242
SAV 1,769
SACR 17.9
SCV 99

### Table A.1. (continued) Compound Genus/species Requirement Endpoint Concentration GMAV A-C Ratio Reference 1-Methylnaphthalene Pimephales promelas 2,3 EC50 9,000 9,000 Mattson et al., 1976

Tier II Parameters Tier II Values FAVF 242
SAV 37.19
SACR 17.9
SCV 2.1

### Table A.1. (continued) Compound Genus/species Requirement Endpoint Concentration GMAV A-C Ratio Reference 4-Methyl-2-pentanone Pimephales promelas 2,3 LC50 540,000 Brooke et al., 1984 Pimephales promelas 2,3 LC50 505,000 522,200 Veith et al., 1983a Pimephales promelas CV 77,360 6.750 Call et al., 1985

Tier II Parameters Tier II Values FAVF 242
SAV 2,158
SACR 12.93
SCV 170

### Table A.1. (continued) Compound Genus/species Requirement Endpoint Concentration GMAV A-C Ratio Reference 2-Methylphenol Carassius auratus 2,3 L C50 MOR 23,250 23,250 Pickering and Henderson, 1966 Lepomis macrochirus 2,3 L C50 MOR 20,780 20,780 Pickering and Henderson, 1966 Oncorhynchus mykiss 1 L C50 MOR 8,400 8,400 DeGraeve et al., 1980 Pimephales promelas 2,3 LC50 14,000 Geiger et al., 1990 Pimephales promelas 2,3 LC50 18,200 15,960 DeGraeve et al., 1980 Poecilia reticulata 2,3 LC50 18,850 18,850 Pickering and Henderson, 1966

Tier II Parameters Tier II Values FAVF 36.2
SAV 232.0
SACR 17.9
SCV 13

### Table A.1. (continued) Compound Genus/species Requirement Endpoint Concentration GMAV A-C Ratio Reference Methylene chloride Daphnia magna 4 L C50 MOR 220,000 220,000 LeBlanc, 1980 Lepomis macrochirus 2,3 L C50 MOR 220,000 220,000 Buccafusco et al., 1981 Pimephales promelas 2,3 EC50 330,000 330,000 Geiger, 1986 Pimephales promelas L C50 MOR 502,000 Dill et al., 1987 a Pimephales promelas CV 108,540 4.625 Dill et al., 1987

Tier II Parameters Tier II Values FAVF 8.6
SAV 25,580
SACR 11.40
SCV 2,200 The LC50 value is used to calculate the ACR because it is part of the same study as the chronic test; but it is not used to determine the GMAV of Pimephales sp. a because an EC50 is available.

### Table A.1. (continued) Compound Genus/species Requirement Endpoint Concentration GMAV A-C ratio Reference Napthalene Daphnia magna 4 EC50 2,194 Munoz and Tarazona, 1993 Daphnia pulex 4 EC50 4,663 3,199 Smith et al., 1988 Oncorhynchus mykiss 1 LC50 1,600 1,600 DeGraeve et al., 1982 Pimephales promelas 2,3 LC50 6,140 Geiger et al., 1985 Pimephales promelas 2,3 LC50 7,900 6,965 DeGraeve et al., 1982 Pimephales promelas CV 619 12.77 DeGraeve et al., 1982

Tier II Parameters Tier II Values FAVF 8.6
SAV 186.0
SACR 15.96
SCV 12

### Table A.1. (continued) Compound Genus/species Requirement Endpoint Concentration GMAV A-C Ratio Reference 4-Nitrophenol Daphnia magna 4 EC50 7,680 Keen and Baillod, 1985 Daphnia magna 4 EC50 4,700 6,008 Kuhn et al., 1989 Daphnia magna CV 7,071 2 Kuhn et al., 1989 a Gammarus pseudolimnaeus 5 LC50 6,550 6,550 Howe et al., 1994 Ictalurus punctatus 2,3 LC50 15,000 15,000 Holcombe et al., 1984 Lepomis macrochirus 2,3 LC50 8,300 8,300 Buccafusco et al., 1981 Oncorhynchus mykiss 1 LC50 7,900 7,900 Hodson et al., 1984 Oncorhynchus mykiss CV 989.1 7.987 Hodson et al., 1991 Pimephales promelas 2,3 LC50 59,000 Phipps et al., 1981 Pimephales promelas 2,3 LC50 62,000 Phipps et al., 1981 Pimephales promelas 2,3 LC50 41,000 Holcombe et al., 1984 Pimephales promelas 2,3 LC50 37,300 Geiger et al., 1985 Pimephales promelas 2,3 LC50 41,000 Geiger et al., 1985 Pimephales promelas 2,3 LC50 58,600 48,760 Geiger et al., 1985

Tier II Parameters Tier II Values FAVF 5.0
SAV 1,202
SACR 3.997
SCV 300 Since the experimental A-C Ratio was less than 2, the A-C Ratio of D. magnais set to 2 (Stephan et al, 1985). a

### Table A.1. (continued) Compound Genus/species Requirement Endpoint Concentration GMAV A-C Ratio Reference N-Nitrosodiphenylamine Daphnia magna 4 LC50 7,800 7,800 LeBlanc, 1980

Tier II Parameters Tier II Values FAVF 20.5
SAV 3,805
SACR 17.9
SCV 210

### Table A.1. (continued) Compound Genus/species Requirement Endpoint Concentration GMAV A-C Ratio Reference 2-Octanone a Pimephales promelas 2,3 EC50 36,000 36,000 Brooke, 1984

Tier II Parameters Tier II Values FAVF 242
SAV 148.8
SACR 17.9
SCV 8.3 Because 3-Octanone tests do not have standardard exposure, 2-Octanone tests, which have the standard exposure, were used. a

### Table A.1. (continued) Compound Genus/species Requirement Endpoint Concentration GMAV A-C Ratio Reference PCBs: total Pimephales promelas 9.443 Nebeker et al., 1974

Tier I Parameters Tier I Values

FAV 2.0 EPA, 1980x

Tier II Parameters Tier II Values

SACR 14.64
SCV 0.14

### Table A.1. (continued) Compound Genus/species Requirement Endpoint Concentration GMAV A-C Ratio Reference PCBs: Aroclor 1221 ® Oncorhynchus clarki 1 LC50 1,200 Mayer et al., 1977

Tier II Parameters Tier II Values FAVF 242
SAV 4.959
SACR 17.9
SCV 0.28

### Table A.1. (continued) Compound Genus/species Requirement Endpoint Concentration GMAV A-C Ratio Reference PCBs: Aroclor 1232 ® Oncorhynchus clarki 1 LC50 2,500 Johnson and Finley, 1980

Tier II Parameters Tier II Values FAVF 242
SAV 10.33
SACR 17.9
SCV 0.58

### Table A.1. (continued) Compound Genus/species Requirement Endpoint Concentration GMAV A-C Ratio Reference PCBs: Aroclor 1242 ® Gammarus pseudolimnaeus 5 LC50 72 Nebeker and Puglisi, 1974

Gammarus pseudolimnaeus 5 LC50 74 72.99 Nebeker and Puglisi, 1974 Ictalurus punctatus 2,3 LC50 >100 Johnson and Finley, 1980 Ischnura verticalis 7,8 LC50 400 400 Mayer et al., 1977 Oncorhynchus clarki 1 LC50 5,400 5,400 Mayer et al., 1977 Perca flavescens 2,3 LC50 >150 Johnson and Finley, 1980 Pimephales promelas 2,3 LC50 15 15 Nebeker et al., 1974 Pimephales promelas LC50 300 Nebeker et al., 1974 a Pimephales promelas CV 9.000 33.33 Nebeker et al., 1974

Tier II Parameters Tier II Values FAVF 12.9
SAV 1.163
SACR 22.02
SCV 0.053 a Because this value is more than ten times of another life stage, it is not used in the GMAV calculation. However, since the preferred life stage in deriving the A-C Ratio is juvenile, it is used in A-C Ratio derivation.

### Table A.1. (continued) Compound Genus/species Requirement Endpoint Concentration GMAV A-C Ratio Reference PCBs: Aroclor 1248 ® Gammarus pseudolimnaeus 5 LC50 MOR 29 29 Nebeker and Puglisi, 1974

Ictalurus punctatus 2,3 LC50 MOR >100 Johnson and Finley, 1980 Lepomis macrochirus 2,3 LC50 MOR 278 Stalling and Mayer, 1972 Lepomis macrochirus 2,3 LC50 690 438.0 Johnson and Finley, 1980 Oncorhynchus clarki 1 LC50 5,750 5,750 Johnson and Finley, 1980 Perca flavescens 2,3 LC50 >100 Johnson and Finley, 1980

Tier II Parameters Tier II Values FAVF 20.1
SAV 1.443
SACR 17.9
SCV 0.081

### Table A.1. (continued) Compound Genus/species Requirement Endpoint Concentration GMAV A-C Ratio Reference PCBs: Aroclor 1254 ® Coregonus hoyi 1 LC50 >10,000 Passino and Kramer, 1980

Gammarus fasciatus 5 LC50 2,400 2,400 Johnson and Finley, 1980 Ictalurus punctatus 2,3 LC50 >200 Johnson and Finley, 1980 Ischnura verticalis 6 LC50 200 200 Mayer et al., 1977 Lepomis macrochirus 2,3 LC50 2,740 2,740 Johnson and Finley, 1980 Oncorhynchus clarki 1 LC50 42,500 42,500 Johnson and Finley, 1980 Orconectes nais 5 LC50 100 100 Johnson and Finley, 1980 Perca flavescens 2,3 LC50 >150 Johnson and Finley, 1980 Pimephales promelas 2,3 LC50 7.7 7.7 Nebeker et al., 1974 Pimephales promelas CV 2.878 2.676 Nebeker et al., 1974

Tier II Parameters Tier II Values FAVF 12.9
SAV 0.5969
SACR 17.9
SCV 0.033

### Table A.1. (continued) Compound Genus/species Requirement Endpoint Concentration GMAV A-C Ratio Reference PCBs: Aroclor 1260 ® Ictalurus punctatus 2,3 LC50 >400 Johnson and Finley, 1980

Lepomis macrochirus 2,3 LC50 >400 Johnson and Finley, 1980 Oncorhynchus clarki 1 LC50 61,000 61,000 Mayer et al., 1977 Perca flavescens 2,3 LC50 >200 Johnson and Finley, 1980

Tier II Parameters Tier II Values FAVF 36.2
SAV 1,685
SACR 17.9
SCV 94

### Table A.1. (continued) Compound Genus/species Requirement Endpoint Concentration GMAV A-C ratio Reference 1-Pentanol a Pimephales promelas 2,3 LC50 472,000 472,000 Geiger et al., 1986

Tier II Parameters Tier II Values FAVF 242
SAV 1950
SACR 17.9
SCV 110 Because 1-pentanol is a volatile compound, only flow-through, measured test was used. a

### Table A.1. (continued) Compound Genus/species Requirement Endpoint Concentration GMAV A-C Ratio Reference 2-Propanol Chironomus riparius 7 LC50 12,500,000 12,500,000 Roghair et al., 1994 Pimephales promelas 2,3 LC50 10,400 Veith et al., 1983 Pimephales promelas 2,3 LC50 9,640 Veith et al., 1983 Pimephales promelas 2,3 LC50 6,550 8,692 Brooke et al., 1984

Tier II Parameters Tier II Values FAVF 64.8
SAV 134.1
SACR 17.9
SCV 7.5

### Table A.1. (continued) Compound Genus/species Requirement Endpoint Concentration GMAV A-C Ratio Reference 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane a Daphnia magna 4 EC50 23,000 23,000 Richter et al., 1983 Daphnia magna CV 9,829 2.34 Richter et al., 1983 Jordanella floridae 2,3 LC50 18,480 18,480 Smith et al., 1991 Jordanella floridae CV 8,467 2.183 Smith et al., 1991 Pimephales promelas 2,3 LC50 20,400 Walbridge et al., 1983 Pimephales promelas 2,3 LC50 20,300 20,350 Geiger et al., 1985 Pimephales promelas CV 2,366 8.601 Ahmad et al., 1984

Tier II Parameters Tier II Values FAVF 8.6
SAV 2,149
SACR 3.529
SCV 610 Because 1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane is a volatile compound, only flow-through, measured tests were used. a

### Table A.1. (continued) Compound Genus/species Requirement Endpoint Concentration GMAV A-C Ratio Reference Tetrachloroethene a Daphnia magna 4 EC50 8,500 8,500 Richter et al., 1983 Daphnia magna CV 750.0 11.33 Richter et al., 1983 Jordanella floridae 2,3 LC50 8,430 8,430 Smith et al., 1991 Jordanella floridae CV 3,107 2.714 Smith et al., 1991 Oncorhynchus mykiss 1 LC50 5,840 Shubat et al., 1982 Oncorhynchus mykiss 1 LC50 4,990 5,398 Shubat et al., 1982 Pimephales promelas 2,3 LC50 13,400 Walbridge et al., 1983 Pimephales promelas 2,3 LC50 20,300 16,490 Geiger et al., 1985 Pimephales promelas CV 836.7 19.71 Geiger et al., 1985

Tier II Parameters Tier II Values FAVF 6.5
SAV 830.5
SACR 8.463
SCV 98 Because tetrachloroethene is a volatile compound, only flow-through, measured tests were used. a

### Table A.1. (continued) Compound Genus/species Requirement Endpoint Concentration GMAV A-C Ratio Reference Toluene a Pimephales promelas 23 LC50 31,700 Geiger et al., 1990 Pimephales promelas 2,3 LC50 36,200 Geiger et al., 1986 Pimephales promelas 2,3 LC50 30,000 Devlin et al., 1982 Pimephales promelas 2,3 LC50 31,000 Devlin et al., 1982 Pimephales promelas 2,3 LC50 26,000 Devlin et al., 1982 Pimephales promelas 2,3 LC50 18,000 28,170 Devlin et al., 1982 Pimephales promelas CV 4,899 5.243 Devlin et al., 1982

Tier II Parameters Tier II Values FAVF 242
SAV 116.4
SACR 11.89
SCV 9.8 Because toluene is a volatile compound, only flow-through, measured tests were used. a

### Table A.1. (continued) Compound Genus/species Requirement Endpoint Concentration GMAV A-C Ratio Reference 1,1,1-Trichloroethane a Pimephales promelas 2,3 LC50 52,900 Geiger et al., 1986 Pimephales promelas 2,3 LC50 42,300 47,300 Geiger et al., 1986

Tier II Parameters Tier II Values FAVF 242
SAV 195.5
SACR 17.9
SCV 11 Because 1,1,1-trichloroethane is a volatile compound, only flow-through, measured tests were used. a

### Table A.1. (continued) Compound Genus/species Requirement Endpoint Concentration GMAV A-C Ratio Reference 1,1,2-Trichloroethane a Daphnia magna 4 EC50 81,000 81,000 Richter et al., 1983 Daphnia magna CV 18,385 4.406 Richter et al., 1983 Jordanella floridae 2,3 LC50 45,117 45,117 Smith et al., 1991 Jordanella floridae CV 46,609 2 Smith et al., 1991 b Pimephales promelas 2,3 LC50 81,600 81,600 Ahmad et al., 1984 Pimephales promelas CV 9,423 8.659 Ahmad et al., 1984

Tier II Parameters Tier II Values FAVF 8.6
SAV 5,246
SACR 4.241
SCV 1200 Because 1,1,2-trichloroethane is a volatile compound, only flow-through, measured tests were used. a Since the experimental A-C Ratio is less than 2, the A-C Ratio of J. floridaeis set to 2 (Stephan et al., 1985). b

### Table A.1. (continued) Compound Genus/species Requirement Endpoint Concentration GMAV A-C Ratio Reference Trichloroethene a Jordanella floridae 2,3 LC50 28,280 28,280 Smith et al., 1991 Jordanella floridae CV 11,057 2.558 Smith et al., 1991 Pimephales promelas 2,3 LC50 40,700 Alexander et al., 1978 Pimephales promelas 2,3 LC50 45,000 Walbridge et al., 1983 Pimephales promelas 2,3 LC50 44,100 43,230 Geiger et al., 1985

Tier II Parameters Tier II Values FAVF 64.8
SAV 436.4
SACR 9.358
SCV 47 Because trichloroethene is a volatile compound, only flow-through, measured tests were used. a

### Table A.1. (continued) Compound Genus/species Requirement Endpoint Concentration GMAV A-C Ratio Reference Vinyl acetate a Carassius auratus 2,3 LC50 42,330 42,330 Pickering and Henderson, 1966 Lepomis macrochirus 2,3 LC50 18,000 18,000 Pickering and Henderson, 1966 Pimephales promelas 2,3 LC50 14,000 Pickering and Henderson, 1966 Pimephales promelas 2,3 LC50 15,000 Pickering and Henderson, 1966 Pimephales promelas 2,3 LC50 14,000 Pickering and Henderson, 1966 Pimephales promelas 2,3 LC50 15,000 Pickering and Henderson, 1966 Pimephales promelas 2,3 LC50 15,000 Pickering and Henderson, 1966 Pimephales promelas 2,3 LC50 23,000 Pickering and Henderson, 1966 Pimephales promelas 2,3 LC50 26,000 Pickering and Henderson, 1966 Pimephales promelas 2,3 LC50 20,000 Pickering and Henderson, 1966 Pimephales promelas 2,3 LC50 24,000 Pickering and Henderson, 1966 b Pimephales promelas 2,3 LC50 19,730 18,090 Pickering and Henderson, 1966 b Poecilia reticulata 2,3 LC50 31,080 31,080 Pickering and Henderson, 1966

Tier II Parameters Tier II Values FAVF 64.8
SAV 277.8
SACR 17.9
SCV 16 Although vinyl acetate is a volatile compound, static tests were used because flow-through, measured tests are not available. a Auther notes hardness influences toxicity; vinyl acetate is more toxic in soft water than hard water. b

### Table A.1. (continued) Compound Genus/species Requirement Endpoint Concentration GMAV A-C ratio Reference Xylene a Lepomis macrochirus 2,3 LC50 15,700 15,700 Bailey et al., 1985 Pimephales promelas 2,3 EC50 15,300 Geiger et al., 1990 b,d Pimephales promelas 2,3 EC50 14,800 15,050 Geiger et al., 1990 c,d

Tier II Parameters Tier II Values

FAVF 64.8
SAV 232.3
SACR 17.9
SCV 13 Because xylene is a volatile compound, only flow-through, measured tests were used. a o-xylene (99+% purity) was used. b m-xylene (99% purity) was used. c Because analytical procedures used at waste sites do not discriminate isomers, toxicity tests on individual and mixture of isomers are considered equivalent. d

# Appendix B METHODS FOR DERIVATION OF TIER II VALUES

## B-3 METHODS FOR DERIVATION OF TIER II VALUES B.1 Method for data selection The procedure used t o select and aggregate test data was adopted from the guidelines for deriving NationalAmbient Water Quality Criteria (NAWQC) (Stephan et al. 1985). The selection criteria are summarized in the following text. B.1.1 Chemical Considerations Not all forms of inorganic chemicals require unique Tier II values. Metal salts with the sam e oxidation state at ambient conditions (e.g., BeCl and BeSO ) are expected to exhibit similar toxicity and 2 4 

## are given a comm on Tier II value. Nonionizable, covalently bonded compounds of metals or metals of differe nt oxidation states were considered different chemicals, for which separate Tier II values wer e derived. For volatile compounds, only results of flow-through tests with measured chemical concentrations were used, if available. However, if flow-through measured tests were not available, the genus mea n acute value (GMAV) was based on static and flow-through unmeasured tests. Pesticides were screened for commercial formul ations; wettable powder, emulsifiable concentrates, and formulated mixtures were eliminated. Only pesticides of technical grades or better were considered.
B.1.2 Dilution water considerations Test re sults were rejected if unusual dilution water was used (e.g., TOC > 5 ppm, lack o f app ropriatesalts, low dissolved oxygen), unless toxicity has been demonstrated to be independent o f these factors. Tests in which dissolved oxygen fell below 40% saturation for static or 60% saturation for flow-through were eliminated. B.1.3 Biological parameters Tests of certain organisms were excluded from the Tier II value derivation. Single-celled organisms andbrine shrimp (Artemia sp.) were not used. Fish were generally limited to species with wild North Americanpopulations. However, if none of the tests with North American fish were acceptable an d values for other organisms were not available, non-resident fish were used. Tests which did not refer to a sta ndard procedure or indicate use of a control group were excluded. Acute tests in which organisms were fed were eliminated, unless feeding was demonstrated to b e independent of toxicity. For theacute tests, only daphnids and midges ( Chironomussp.) have a specified starting age. Daphnids must be les s than 24 hours of age at the start of the test. Midges in second or third insta r larvae were preferred, but midge tests starting at fourth instar were accepted. Although the starting age forall othe r organisms has not been specified, juvenile stages were preferred whenever they wer e available(unless another life stage is more sensitive to the chemical). All organisms should receive a 96-hour exposure period, except daphnids and midges, where 48 hours is the standard exposure period. Theendpoint for daphnids and midges is the EC50 for immobilization. If this is not available, LC50

## B-4 is used. For fish, the preferred endpoint is the EC50 for loss of equilibrium, immobilization, and/o r mortality. If those are not available, LC50 is used. In ch ronic tests, the starting age, exposure duration, and endpoints may be different for daphnids and fish and for sal monids and non-salmonids. Daphnids must be less than 24 hours old at the start of the test, and the test should last at least 21 days . Endpoints are based on mortality and number of young per female. For a given fish species, preference is given to the following types of chronic tests in the order as fol lows: full life cycle, partial life cycle, and early life stage. The less desirable chronic test is no t included in the calculation if a more desirable type is available. B.1.4 Variation of Acute Values within the same genus If the acute values within a species or among species in a genus differ by a factor of 10 or more, thehigher values were excluded, and those that are within the factor of 10 range were used to attain a conservative estimate. If the acute concentrations of a given species differ by a factor of two or more among different life stages, the more sensitive life stage is used to protect the organisms in all life stages.
B.1.5 ACR Considerations If the acute chronic ra tios (ACRs) for a chemical differ by more than a factor of 10, the tests were carefully examined to determine whether outliers should be rejected. ACRs from saltwater specie s should be used along with the fresh water ACRs when less than three ACRs from freshwater species are available. If the lowest GMAV is from larvae of barnacles, bivalves, lobsters, crabs, shrimp, o r abalones, the sec ondary acute chronic ratio (SACR) is assumed to be 2. If an ACR is less than 2 , acclimation may have occurred. The ACR is then set to 2. Preference was given to acute and chronic tests done in the same study. If these are not available, anacute value with water characteristics similar to the chronic value was used. If values from similar water are not available, the GMAV of the species is used with the chronic value to derive an ACR. If multiple chronic values for a species are available but none are part of the same study as an acute test, the geometric mean of the chronic values was cal culated and used with the GMAV to derive an ACR for that species. B.1.6 Acceptable exposure types and life stage used to derive ACR For daphni ds, renewal is required for chronic tests; while for acute tests, static exposure i s acceptable. All chronic test concentrations should be measured. The life stage of daphnids has to be 24 hours or younger at the start of both acute and chronic tests. For fish, both acute and chronic tests requi re flow-through measured tests. For acute fish tests, the life stage of the organism should be juvenile. B.1.7 Other considerations Concentrations above the solubility of chemicals and “greater than” values were used only when at least one definitive concentration was available.

## B-5 B.2 Calculation method Tier II values are derived if fewer than eight of the acute data requirements or three chronic data requirements presented in EPA (1993a) are met. The eight acute data requirements include: 1. The family Salmonidaein the class Osteichthyes 2. One other fami ly (preferably a commercially, or recreationally important, warmwater species) in the class Osteichthyes(e.g., bluegill, channel catfish, etc.) 3. A third family in the phylum Chordata(e.g., fish, amphibian, etc.) 4. A planktonic crustacean (e.g., a cladocceran, copepod, etc.) 5. A benthic crustacean (e.g., ostracod, isopod, amphipod, crayfish, etc.) 6. An insect (e.g., mayfly, dragonfly, damselfly, stonefly, caddisfly, mosquito, midge, etc.) 7. A family in a phylum other than A rthropodaor Chordata(e.g., Rotifera , Annelida , Mollusca , etc.) 8. A family in any order of insect or any phylum not already represented If all of the se data requirements are not met, then an FAV is calculated. The FAV is a Tier I criterion, and its derivation is documented in Stephan et al. (1985) and in Appendix A of EPA (1993a). TheFAV, however, is used in the derivation of the SCV if the chronic data requirements are not met. Tier II values, as mentioned previously, are calculated when the data requirements are not met. The first calculation of the Tier II criteria is the SAV. The SAV is derived by taking the lowest genus mean acute v alue (GMAV) for any of the genera present and dividing it by a Final Acute Value Facto r (FA VF). The FAVF is selected from Table B.1 where n is the number of the eight acute dat a requirements that are satisfied. FAVFs are selected from the tw o columns depending on whether an acute value (LC50 or EC50) for a daphnid is included in the data set. Oncethe SAV is calculated, the Secondary Acute-Chronic Ratio (SACR) is derived. If three o r more Acute-Chronic Ratios (AC Rs) are present, then the SACR is determined by finding the geometric meanof the ACRs. There must be at least three ACRs. If there are not three chronic values from the literature, then a default value of 17.9 (EPA 1991) is used until the total number of ACRs is three. If multiple ACRs are given for the same genus, then the geometric me an of those ACRs must be calculated. This genus mean ACR can then be used in the derivation of the SACR. Therefore, several members of the same genus can only present one valu e towards the mandatory three. If no ACRs are given, then the SACR is 17.9. Thefinal calculation for Tier II values is the derivation of an SCV. The SCV is calculated b y dividing the FAV or SAV by the SACR.

## B-6 Table B.1. Factors for estimation of the Tier II values (EPA 1993 and Stephan 1991) Number of GMAVs Factor for data sets that Factors for data sets that do a 

## include an acute value for a not include an acute value

daphnid for a daphnid

b b 

## 1 20.5 242 2 13.2 64.8 3 8.6 36.2 4 6.5 20.1 5 5.0 12.9 6 4.0 9.2 7 3.6 7.2

GMAV is Genus Mean Acute Value a

### Daphnids includes members of the genera Daphnia, Ceriodaphnia, and Simocephalus
. b

# Appendix C

TABLE SHOWING CONCENTRATIONS ESTIMATED TO CAUSE A 20% REDUCTION IN THE RECRUIT ABUNDANCE OF LARGEMOUTH BASS, WITH UPPER AND LOWER 95%

CONFIDENCE BOUNDS

### Table C.1. Concentrations estimated to cause a 20% reduction in the recruit abundance of largemouth bass, with upper and lower 95% confidence bounds. All units are ug/L

Chemical Test Species Test Lower Median Upper Source Type 95% CL 95%CL Ammonia Fathead minnow Chronic 3.98 100 1585 Mayes et al. 1986 Fathead minnow Chronic 3.98 32 200 Thurston et al. 1986 Antimony Fathead minnow Acute 5.01 79 501 EPA 1980b Arsenic III Fathead minnow Chronic 100 1995 31623 Call et al. 1983 Arsenic V Fathead minnow Acute 20 159 1000 EPA 1985a Rainbow trout Acute 10 100 501 EPA 1985a Mosquitofish Acute 32 398 2512 EPA 1985a Beryllium Fathead minnow Acute 0.35 7.08 40 EPA 1980f Bluegill Acute 2.00 32 126 EPA 1980f Flagfish Acute 2.00 32 126 EPA 1980f Guppy Acute 1.58 25 126 EPA 1980f Cadmium Fathead minnow Chronic 1 10 79 Pickering and Gast 197 2 Bluegill Chronic 1.99 13 50 Eaton 1974 Brook trout Chronic 0.13 1.26 6.31 Benoit et al. 1976 Brook trout Chronic 0.32 3.16 25 Sauter et al. 1976 Flagfish Chronic 0.63 3.98 50 Carlson et al. 1982 Flagfish Chronic 0.79 3.16 7.94 Spehar 1976 Chromium III Rainbow trout Chronic 13 126 1000 Stevens and Chapma

n 1984 Chromium VI Fathead minnow Chronic 25 158 1260 Pickering 1980 Rainbow trout Chronic 100 631 5010 Sauter et al. 1976 Cobalt Fathead minnow Acute 0.16 3.98 32 Lind et al. 1978 Copper Fathead minnow Chronic 0.40 3.98 40 Mount 1968 Fathead minnow Chronic 0.32 3.16 16 Mount and Stephan 196

9 Bluegill Chronic 1.995 13 50 Benoit 1975 Brook trout Chronic 1 3.98 16 McKim and Benoi

t 1971 Brook trout Chronic 1 5.01 40 Sauter et al. 1976 Coho salmon Chronic 3.16 32 316 Hazel and Meith 1970

### Table C.1. (continued)

Chemical Test Species Test Lower Median Upper Source Type 95% CL 95%CL Rainbow trout Chronic 3.98 32 200 Seim et al. 1984 Cyanide Fathead minnow Chronic 0.20 2.51 16 Smith et al. 1979 Atlantic Salmon Chronic 1.99 16 200 Leduc 1978 Bluegill Chronic 5.01 25 158 Smith et al. 1979 Brook trout Chronic 1.58 13 79 Smith et al. 1979 Lead Brook trout Chronic 13 50 316 Holcombe et al. 1976 Rainbow trout Chronic 13 100 631 Sauter et al. 1976 Manganese Fathead minnow Acute 11 112 794 Kimball n.d. Mercury, inorganic Fathead minnow Chronic 0.04 0.79 13 Call et al. 1983 Fathead minnow Chronic 0.01 0.13 3.16 Snarski and Ol son 1982 Mercury, methyl Rainbow trout Acute 0.004 0.16 1.26 EPA 1985e Brook trout Acute 0.02 0.50 3.98 EPA 1985e Nickel Fathead minnow Chronic 32 126 501 Pickering 1974 Rainbow trout Chronic 13 63 398 Nebeker et al. 1985 Rainbow trout Chronic 126 1260 15800 Nebeker et al. 1985 Silver Fathead minnow Chronic 0.01 0.1 1 Holcombe et al. 1983 Rainbow trout Chronic 0.1 1 7.94 Nebeker et al. 1983 Thallium Fathead minnow Acute 0.25 4.47 40 EPA 1980bb Bluegill Acute 73 1000 6310 EPA 1980bb Uranium Fathead minnow Acute 0.398 10 50 Cushman et al. 1977 Fathead minnow Acute 0.501 10 50 Cushman et al. 1977 Fathead minnow Acute 0.631 13 79 Cushman et al. 1977 Fathead minnow Acute 32 398 3980 Cushman et al. 1977 Vanadium Fathead minnow Acute 0.28 5.01 40 Kimball n.d. Brook trout Acute 5.01 63 398 Ernst an d Garside 1987 Flagfish Acute 10 100 501 Holdway and Sprague 1979 Zinc Fathead minnow Chronic 3.98 40 316 Benoit and Holcombe 1978

### Table C.1. (continued)

Chemical Test Species Test Lower Median Upper Source Type 95% CL 95%CL Fathead minnow Chronic 3.16 40 316 Brungs 1969 Coho salmon Chronic 16 126 794 Finlayson and Verrue 1980 Flagfish Chronic 6.31 32 126 Spehar 1976 Rainbow trout Chronic 40 501 5010 Sinley et al. 1974 Zirconium Fathead minnow Acute 3.16 50 316 Cushman et al. 1977 Fathead minnow Acute 3.16 50 398 Cushman et al. 1977 Fathead minnow Acute 32 398 3160 Cushman et al. 1977 Fathead minnow Acute 63 794 6310 Cushman et al. 1977 Bluegill Acute 10 126 501 Cushman et al. 1977 Bluegill Acute 200 2510 15800 Cushman et al. 1977 Organics AC 222,705 Fathead minnow Chronic 0.0006 0.01 0.063 Spehar et al. 1983 Acetone Fathead minnow Acute 1780 19900 25100 AQUIRE a Bluegill Acute 3160 50100 501000 AQUIRE a Rainbow trout Acute 1260 31600 316000 AQUIRE a Mosquitofish Acute 631 10000 100000 AQUIRE a AG thiosulfate complex Fathead minnow Chronic 1000 10000 79400 LeBlanc et al. 1984 Aldicarb Fathead minnow Chronic 3.16 50 631 Pickering and Giliam 1982 Atrazine Brook trout Chronic 100 1000 12600 Macek et al. 1976b Benzene Fathead minnow Acute 10 100 794 EPA 1980d Bluegill Acute 13 158 1000 EPA 1980d Rainbow trout Acute 3.16 40 316 EPA 1980d Mosquitofish Acute 200 3160 25100 EPA 1980d Guppy Acute 32 316 1580 EPA 1980d Benzidene Rainbow trout Acute 5.01 63 398 EPA 1980c Lake trout Acute 3.16 40 251 EPA 1980c Flagfish Acute 10 126 794 EPA 1980c Benzoic acid Mosquitofish Acute 126 1260 10000 AQUIRE a Benzyl alcohol Fathead minnow Acute 16 1780 12600 AQUIRE a Bluegill Acute 6.31 79 398 AQUIRE a Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate Rainbow trout Acute 100 1000 7940 AQUIRE a Largemouth bass Acute 25 316 1580 AQUIRE a

### Table C.1. (continued)

Chemical Test Species Test Lower Median Upper Source Type 95% CL 95%CL Channel catfish Acute 0.006 0.40 6.31 AQUIRE a 2-Butanone Fathead minnow Acute 501 10000 100000 AQUIRE a Mosquitofish Acute 1990 31600 398000 AQUIRE a Captan Fathead minnow Chronic 0.32 3.16 20 Hermanutz et al. 1973 Carbaryl Fathead minnow Chronic 3.16 32 1000 Carlson 1971 Carbon disulfide Mosquitofish Acute 100 1000 7940 AQUIRE a Carbon tetrachloride Fathead minnow Acute 11 126 1260 EPA 1980h Bluegill Acute 40 398 3160 EPA 1980h Chloramine Fathead minnow Chronic 0.32 3.16 13 Ar thur and Eaton 1971 Chlordane Bluegill Chronic 0.13 0.40 2.51 Cardwell et al. 1977 Brook trout Chronic 0.20 1.26 7.94 Cardwell et al. 1977 Chlorobenzene Fathead minnow Acute 11 112 794 EPA 1980j Bluegill Acute 10 126 1000 EPA 1980j Guppy Acute 32 316 2510 EPA 1980j Chloroform Bluegill Acute 79 794 5010 EPA 1980l Rainbow trout Acute 40 398 3160 EPA 1980l p,p'DDD Fathead minnow Acute 0.79 13 100 AQUIRE a Bluegill Acute 0.002 0.1 1 AQUIRE a Rainbow trout Acute 0.02 0.40 3.16 AQUIRE a Largemouth bass Acute 0.003 0.13 1 AQUIRE a Channel catfish Acute 0.025 1.26 16 AQUIRE a 2,4-D Butoxyethanol ester Coho salmon Chronic 10 100 1260 Finlayson and Verrue 1985 Diazinon Fathead minnow Chronic 0.32 3.16 25 Al lison and Hermanutz 1977 Flagfish Chronic 10 50 316 Al lison and Hermanutz 1977 Di-n-butyl phthalate Fathead minnow Chronic 13 251 3980 McCarthy and Whitmor

e 1985 2,6-Dichlorobenzamide Rainbow trout Chronic 1260 12600 50100 Van Leeuwen an d Maas 1985 1,3-Dichlorobenzene Fathead minnow Chronic 316 1585 15849 Ahmad et al. 1984

### Table C.1. (continued)

Chemical Test Species Test Lower Median Upper Source Type 95% CL 95%CL 1,4-Dichlorobenzene Fathead minnow Chronic 32 398 6310 Ahmad et al. 1984 1,1-Dichloroethane Guppy Acute 158 1580 12600 AQUIRE a 1,2-Dichloroethane Fathead minnow Acute 40 398 3160 EPA 1980k Bluegill Acute 316 3980 31600 EPA 1980k 1,1-Dichloroethene Fathead minnow Acute 40 398 3160 EPA 1980n Bluegill Acute 50 501 3980 EPA 1980n 2,4-Dichlorophenol Fathead minnow Chronic 32 200 1580 Holcombe et al. 1982 1,2-Dichloropropane Fathead minnow Chronic 398 3980 39800 Benoit et al. 1982 1,3-Dichloropropane Fathead minnow Chronic 501 5010 50100 Benoit et al. 1982 1,3-Dichloropropene Bluegill Acute 3.16 40 251 EPA 1980o Diethyl phthalate Bluegill Acute 79 1000 6310 AQUIRE a 2,4-Dimethylphenol Fathead minnow Chronic 100 1260 19900 Holcombe et al. 1982 Dimethyl phthalate Rainbow trout Chronic 0.004 0.04 0.40 Ward and Boeri 1991b 1,3-Dinitrobenzene Rainbow trout Chronic 100 1000 7940 Van Der Schalie 1983 Rainbow trout Chronic 63 794 6310 Van Der Schalie 1983 Dinoseb Fathead minnow Chronic 0.13 3.16 40 Call et al. 1983 Di-n-octyl phthalate Fathead minnow Chronic 200 1990 39800 McCarthy and Whitmor

e 1985 Diuron Fathead minnow Chronic 1 16 158 Call et al. 1983 Dursban Fathead minnow Chronic 0.002 0.032 0.20 Jarvinen et al. 1983 DNBP Rainbow trout Chronic 0.00004 0.0004 0.005 Ward and Boeri 1991a Endrin Fathead minnow Chronic 0.005 0.13 1.58 Carlson et al. 1982 Endosulfan Fathead minnow Chronic 0.002 0.016 0.13 Macek et al. 1976b Ethyl benzene Fathead minnow Acute 10 158 1000 EPA 1980p Bluegill Acute 50 501 3980 EPA 1980p Guppy Acute 79 794 5010 EPA 1980p Fenitrothion Fathead minnow Chronic 0.1 126 1990 Kleiner et al. 1984

### Table C.1. (continued)

Chemical Test Species Test Lower Median Upper Source Type 95% CL 95%CL Fluoranthene Bluegill Acute 2.00 32 126 EPA 1980q Fluridone Fathead minnow Chronic 32 398 10000 Hamelink et al. 1986 Fonofos Fathead minnow Chronic 3.16 20 158 Pickering and Giliam 1982 Guthion Fathead minnow Chronic 0.013 0.13 3.98 Adelman et al. 1976 Heptachlor Fathead minnow Chronic 0.01 0.1 0.63 Macek et al. 1976b Hexachlorobutadiene Fathead minnow Chronic 0.32 3.98 63 Benoit et al. 1982 Hexachlorocyclohexane (lindane) Bluegill Chronic 0.16 1 6.31 Macek et al. 1976a Hexachloroethane Fathead minnow Chronic 3.98 100 1580 Ahmad et al. 1984 2-Hexanone Fathead minnow Acute 100 1260 12600 AQUIRE a Kelthane Fathead minnow Chronic 0.32 7.94 100 Spehar et al. 1982 LAS 11.2 Fathead minnow Chronic 126 1580 25100 Holman et al. 1980 LAS 11.7 Fathead minnow Chronic 13 200 2510 Holman et al. 1980 LAS Mixture Fathead minnow Chronic 20 316 1580 Pic kering and Thatcher 1970 Malathion Flagfish Chronic 3.162 20 126 Hermanutz 1978 1-Methylnaphthalene Fathead minnow Acute 1.78 31.62 200 AQUIRE a 4-Methyl-2-pentanone Fathead minnow Acute 141 1580 15800 AQUIRE a 2-Methylphenol Fathead minnow Acute 3.98 40 398 AQUIRE a Bluegill Acute 13 126 1000 AQUIRE a Rainbow trout Acute 6.31 79 398 AQUIRE a Methylene chloride Fathead minnow Acute 63.10 1000 10000 AQUIRE a Bluegill Acute 158 1580 12600 AQUIRE a Naphthalene Fathead minnow Chronic 73 1000 12600 DeGraeve et al. 1982 4-Nitrophenol Fathead minnow Acute 13 159 1260 AQUIRE a Bluegill Acute 3.98 50 316 AQUIRE a Rainbow trout Acute 6.31 79 398 AQUIRE a

### Table C.1. (continued)

Chemical Test Species Test Lower Median Upper Source Type 95% CL 95%CL Channel catfish Acute 0.79 20 200 AQUIRE a N-nitrosodiphenylamine Bluegill Acute 3.16 40 251 AQUIRE a PCBs: Aroclor 1221 Cutthroat trout Acute 0.63 10 50 AQUIRE a PCBs: Aroclor 1232 Cutthroat trout Acute 1.26 16 126 AQUIRE a PCBs: Aroclor 1242 Fathead minnow Chronic 0.13 1.58 40 Nebeker et al. 1974 PCBs: Aroclor 1248 Flagfish Chronic 0.13 1.26 7.94 Nebeker et al. 1974 PCBs: Aroclor 1254 Fathead minnow Chronic 0.1 0.63 7.94 Nebeker et al. 1974 PCBs: Aroclor 1260 Cutthroat trout Acute 32 316 2510 AQUIRE a Pentachloroethane Fathead minnow Chronic 100 1260 19900 Ahmad et al. 1984 Pentachlorophenol Fathead minnow Chronic 1.58 32 501 Holcombe et al. 1982 Fathead minnow Chronic 0.32 1.99 20 Spehar et al. 1985 Fathead minnow Chronic 0.63 6.31 63 Spehar et al. 1985 Fathead minnow Chronic 1.26 13 126 Spehar et al. 1985 Fathead minnow Chronic 1.99 16 158 Spehar et al. 1985 Rainbow trout Chronic 1.58 10 50 Dominguez and Chapma

n 1984 1-Pentanol Bluegill Acute 398 5010 39800 AQUIRE a Rainbow trout Acute 200 2510 19900 AQUIRE a Permethrin Fathead minnow Chronic 0.02 0.40 5.01 Spehar et al. 1983 Phenol Fathead minnow Chronic 1000 12600 199000 Degraeve et al. 1980 Rainbow trout Chronic 126 1580 15800 Degraeve et al. 1980 Propanil Fathead minnow Chronic 0.01 0.1 0.63 Call et al. 1983 2-Propanol Fathead minnow Acute 200 3160 31600 AQUIRE a Pydrin Fathead minnow Chronic 0.006 0.13 1.58 Spehar et al. 1982 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane Fathead minnow Chronic 251 1580 50100 Ahmad et al. 1984 Tetrachloroethene Fathead minnow Acute 3.16 50 398 EPA 1980aa Bluegill Acute 10 100 501 EPA 1980aa Rainbow trout Acute 3.16 40 316 EPA 1980aa

### Table C.1. (continued)

Chemical Test Species Test Lower Median Upper Source Type 95% CL 95%CL Tetrachloroethylene Fathead minnow Chronic 40 1000 12600 Ahmad et al. 1984
Toluene Fathead minnow Acute 10 126 1000 EPA 1980cc Bluegill Acute 13 126 1000 EPA 1980cc Guppy Acute 50 501 3160 EPA 1980cc Toxaphene Brook trout Chronic 0.01 0.063 0.40 Mayer et al. 1975 1,1,1-Trichloroethane Fathead minnow Acute 18 200 1580 AQUIRE a Bluegill Acute 32 316 1580 AQUIRE a 1,1,2-Trichloroethane Fathead minnow Chronic 1000 15800 251000 Ahmad et al. 1984 Trichloroethene Fathead minnow Acute 13 158 1260 EPA 1980dd Flagfish Acute 20 251 1260 Smith et al. 1991 Bluegill Acute 32 316 1990 EPA 1980dd 2-Trifluoromethyl-4-phenol Brook trout Chronic 100 501 3160 Dwyer et al. 1978 Trifluralin Fathead minnow Chronic 0.063 0.63 7.94 Macek et al. 1976b 1,3,5-Trinitrobenzene Fathead minnow Chronic 3.16 50 631 Van der Schalie 1983 Rainbow trout Chronic 13 158 1580 Van der Schalie 1983 Rainbow trout Chronic 13 158 1580 Van der Schalie 1983 Vinyl acetate Fathead minnow Acute 3.16 40 398 AQUIRE a Bluegill Acute 10 126 794 AQUIRE a Guppy Acute 25 251 1580 AQUIRE a EPA (n.d.) a