DRAFT FINAL REPORT, COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS OF …Procedure (SOP) for Egg Harvest with the...

i August 2004

DRAFT FINAL REPORT COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS OF WOOD DUCK (Aix sponsa) EGGS

HOUSATONIC RIVER, PITTSFIELD, LENOX, AND LEE, MASSACHUSETTS

Submitted to:

Weston Solutions, Inc. 1 Wall Street

Manchester, NH 03101-1501

Submitted by:

Woodlot Alternatives, Inc. 30 Park Drive

Topsham, ME 04086 ____________________________________ John P. Lortie, Principal Scientist

ii August 2004

Table of Contents 1.0 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................. 3 2.0 METHODS ............................................................................................................................ 4

2.1 Habitat Identification and Landowner Contacts ........................................................ 4 2.2 Locating and Approaching Nests ............................................................................... 4 2.3 Data Location and Management ................................................................................ 4 2.4 Egg Collection and Analysis ...................................................................................... 4 2.5 Contingencies ............................................................................................................. 5 2.6 Data Analysis ............................................................................................................. 5 2.7 Data Quality and Project Management ...................................................................... 5 2.8 Documentation and Chain-of-Custody Procedures ................................................... 6

3.0 RESULTS .............................................................................................................................. 7 3.1 Nests and Eggs ........................................................................................................... 7 3.2 Egg Size and Shape .................................................................................................... 8 3.3 Egg Chemical Composition ....................................................................................... 8

4.0 DISCUSSION ........................................................................................................................... 9 5.0 LITERATURE CITED ............................................................................................................. 9

List of Appendices Appendix 1 Georeferenced Aerial Photos of the Study Area Appendix 2 Massachusetts Division of Fisheries and Wildlife (MADFW) and the US Fish and

Wildlife Service (USFWS) Collecting Permits Appendix 3 Egg Processing Standard Operating Procedures Appendix 4 Chain-of-Custody Form Appendix 5 Photographs of Nest and Eggs Appendix 6 Egg Chemical Analysis

3 July 2004

1.0 INTRODUCTION AND JUSTIFICATION Five wood duck eggs were collected from nest boxes along the Housatonic River floodplain near Pittsfield, Massachusetts on May 10, 2004, prepared for chemical analysis and subsequently analyzed for PCBs, dioxins, furans, and other Appendix IX contaminants. From the same study area in August and September of 1998, twenty wood ducks and 5 mallards were found to contain elevated levels of PCBs in their breast and liver tissues. Some of these individuals were first-year birds raised near the collection site and observed feeding on plants, epiphyton, and small invertebrates, indicating that they accumulated PCBs from the local environment. The purpose of present study was to further explore the potential for local exposure to contaminants by examining the levels of PCBs in egg tissue from a representative waterfowl breeding in the same area as the 1998 study. The wood duck is an opportunistic feeder (Bellrose and Holm 1994) and as such is considered representative of the 9 species of waterfowl that potentially occur in the Primary Study Area (PSA). Three of these species, Canada geese, wood duck, and mallard, breed in the PSA and broods of each species have been observed during each year of study. The Massachusetts Division of Fisheries & Wildlife has captured, banded, and released 677, mostly young-of-year, mallards and wood ducks in Woods Pond and upstream backwaters in the PSA for 12 consecutive years beginning in 1992. Prior to egg laying, the proportion of aquatic insects relative to plant matter in the wood duck diet increases as a means to build up energy reserves needed for egg formation and laying (Drobney 1980; Drobney and Fredrickson 1979) and thereby increasing the opportunity of absorbing contaminants from prey items. Other studies have documented that birds can absorb PCBs from prey items and feed (Drouillard and Norstrom 2001a, Custer et al. 1997 and 1999, Froese et al. 1998, Larson et al. 1996, and Secord et al. 1999). Females can pass PCBs to their eggs, although the degree of such maternal transfers varies among species. In general, altricial and semiprecocial species have lower egg to maternal tissue ratios (0.3 to 0.7) than precocial species (0.6 to as high as 5.0) that invest larger quantities of lipids and energy in egg production (Drouillard and Norstrom 2001b). This suggests that the amount of energy that goes into egg production, clutch size, and frequency of egg laying may be important variables in the ratio of egg to maternal tissue concentrations. In both adults and eggs, PCBs can reach concentrations that may cause toxic effects (Fernie et al. 2001, Hoffman et al. 1998, Stratus Consulting, Inc. 1999). These toxic effects can include mortality, malformations, decreased body weight, and/or reproductive impairment. The nature and severity of the effect depends on the species, dosage, PCB congener(s), and the birds’ physiology (Barron et al. 1995, Eisler 2000, Eisler and Belisle 1996, Fernie et al. 2001, Environment Canada 1998, and Hoffman et al. 1996a, 1996b, 1998). Certain PCB congeners, known as coplanar PCBs, are believed to have an equivalent mode of action as 2,3,7,8 tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin, which has been shown to cause mortality, deformity, and delayed development of embryos and hatchlings in birds (NCEA 2003). The threshold range of toxicity based on toxic equivalence factors for wood ducks has been estimated at 20-50 ng/kg toxic equivalence (TEQ) (White and Seginak 1994).

4 July 2004

Based on the concentrations of PCBs measured in wood duck liver and breast tissue in 1998, there is potential for these levels to be exceeded in eggs. Hence, the purpose of the present study was to measure concentrations of PCBs, dioxins and furans in wood duck eggs; to calculate TEQ; and to compare the TEQ for those reported by White and Seginak (1994). 2.0 METHODS This section describes the methods used to identify wood duck nesting habitat, the location of wood duck nests and eggs, acquisition of landowner permission for access to the collection sites, and the physical collection and preparation of wood duck eggs for subsequent chemical analysis. 2.1 Habitat Identification and Landowner Contacts Eggs were collected on May 10, 2004 from wood duck nest boxes found throughout the river, backwaters, and floodplain habitat in the Rest of River study area. The nest boxes checked have been used in the recent past and were expected to contain nesting waterfowl. Those nest boxes on accessible public lands with suitable habitat were given priority for collection locations. Permission to collect eggs from these nest boxes was obtained from Massachusetts Division of Fisheries and Wildlife. 2.2 Locating and Approaching Nests Occupied nest boxes were identified by slowly approaching the boxes and observing whether wood ducks or other waterfowl flushed from boxes. If no adult birds were observed in the box, the side or top panel was opened to ascertain if eggs were present. Sight identification of adult waterfowl was aided by the use of A Field Guide to the Birds of Eastern and Central North America (Peterson and Peterson 1980) and by the use of Field Guide to the Birds of North America (National Geographic Society 1983). Sound identification was aided by the use of the Cornell Lab of Ornithology A Field Guide to Bird Songs (1990) and Guide to Birds of North America, Version 3 (2001). Identification of nests and eggs was aided by the use of A Guide to the Nests, Eggs, and Nestlings of North American Birds (Baicich and Harrison 1997). 2.3 Data Location and Management The location of nests was plotted on georeferenced aerial photos of the study area (Appendix 1). Each nest was uniquely numbered and designated by species, habitat community, and, where applicable, vegetation in which the nest was located. These data were combined with the egg collection data as discussed below. GPS data were also recorded in the field for each located nest. 2.4 Egg Collection and Analysis Before egg collection, permits from the Massachusetts Division of Fisheries and Wildlife (MADFW) and the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) were obtained (Appendix 2). A single egg was collected from five nests by a scientist wearing nitrile gloves to reduce exposure to any parasites and diseases that may be present in the nest or on the egg. When eggs were removed, the total clutch size before egg removal was recorded. Each egg was photographed, and the film roll and photo log number was recorded in a field notebook and logged with the georeferenced area and identification information. The collected egg was marked with the

5 July 2004

sample collection nest identification number using a graphite pencil, wrapped in aluminum foil labeled with the nest and egg number and securely placed in an egg container, which was placed into a secure cooler for transportation to the Weston Solutions, Inc. field laboratory in Pittsfield, MA for processing. The five eggs were processed the day of collection, May 10, 2004. Once in the lab, eggs were measured, processed, and stored according to the Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) for Egg Harvest with the appropriate Chain-of-Custody form. Egg contents were sent to Texas A&M University Geotechnical and Environmental Research Group for chemical analysis. 2.5 Contingencies During the surveys, every effort was made to minimize disturbance to wood duck adults, eggs and young. These efforts included minimizing the number of surveys and nest visits during early incubation (Grier and Fyfe 1987) as well as making nest visits as short duration as possible. Additionally, nest visits were not conducted during cool or wet weather conditions or during the middle of hot, sunny days. 2.6 Data Analysis Data endpoints for the egg collection study included egg mass and volume, egg length and breadth, egg shell thickness, weight of the contents (fresh weights were back-calculated using methods described in Appendix 3), fertility (i.e., fertilized or not), embryo position, embryo deformities, and contamination level. 2.7 Data Quality and Project Management This wood duck egg exposure study was conducted in accordance with the Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) for the Housatonic River (Weston Solutions, formerly Roy F. Weston, Inc. 1999) which ensured that the following procedures were followed:

• Wood duck nest identification and egg collection: Accurate species identification was required to locate wood ducks in the study area. Egg collection and processing required following set procedures to insure proper handling and to minimize impacts to nesting individuals.

• Egg contamination levels: The laboratory chosen for tissue analysis met the requirements of the Housatonic River QAPP (Roy F. Weston, Inc. 1999).

• A project management structure that defined clear lines of responsibility and ensured communication between field crews and the Field Survey Lead was established.

• All field notebooks and data forms were completed daily and reviewed weekly by the Field Survey Lead or Principal Scientist.

• Pre-formatted data sheets that served as a checklist for sampling procedures were used whenever possible.

The study team was organized based on tasks and levels of responsibility to ensure good communication between all personnel. The Project Scientist was responsible for the project design and implementation and provided guidance and technical expertise to the Field Survey Lead. The Field Survey Lead reported to the Principal Scientist, who worked with the Project Coordinators and Quality Assurance Coordinator to ensure that the study was consistent with the overall QAP objectives.

6 July 2004

Data developed during the course of the study met standards of precision, accuracy, completeness, representativeness, comparability, and sensitivity. The data collected were consistent with sound scientific methodology appropriate to the data quality objectives (DQO). Precision was defined as the level of agreement of repeated independent measurements of the same characteristic. This DQO does not apply to the field collection effort but is applicable to the laboratory pre-processing including the preparation of eggs for shipment to Texas A&M University. Accuracy was defined as the agreement of a measurement with its true value. The DQO for the field effort was to verify that every egg collected is confirmed to be a wood duck egg. Confirmation was achieved by identifying the adult using the nest box, identifying feathers in the nest box, and by comparing these identifications to existing data on wood duck egg size, shape, and color. Accuracy for analytical data collected as part of egg analysis is defined in QAPP (Roy F. Weston, Inc. 1999). Completeness was defined as the percentage of the planned samples that were actually collected and processed. Representativeness was defined as the degree to which the data accurately reflect the characteristics present at the sampling location at the time of sampling. Wood ducks nesting in the primary study area (PSA) will have eggs that reflect contaminant concentrations obtained from the study area. Comparability was defined as the measure of confidence with which results from this study may be compared to another similar data set. Because of the nature of the study, there cannot be a duplication of effort in the same area at the same time. Comparability was attained through use of standardized, peer-reviewed bird survey techniques commonly used in bird surveys in different parts of North America. The comparability of DQOs is of more importance for the analytical portion of the study and was addressed via standard methodology and established standards of practice. Sensitivity was defined as the ability of a measurement technique or instrument to operate at a level sufficient to measure the parameter of interest. Sensitivity did not apply to the field portion of this study. 2.8 Documentation and Chain-of-Custody Procedures All study activities were documented in waterproof field notebooks and on pre-formatted data forms, which were placed into 3-ring binders. Each field crew had a single field data recorder responsible for recording information in field notebooks and on data forms. Assigning this responsibility to a single person helped to ensure that documentation was complete and consistent throughout the sampling event. The field data recorder was also responsible for the care, custody, and disposition of the field notebook. Field notebook entries were made in waterproof ink, and corrections were made with a single line through the error accompanied by the correction date and corrector’s initials. Each completed data sheet was reviewed, corrected (if necessary), and initialed by the field data recorder and the appropriate field crew leader. Following completion of the study, field notebook originals were stored at the Woodlot Alternatives, Inc. (Woodlot) office in Topsham, Maine. Chain-of-custody (COC) procedures were used throughout the study. A COC form is shown in Appendix 4. These forms were used to maintain records of sample collection, sample transfer between personnel, sample shipment, and sample receipt by the analytical lab. Each sample collected was listed on the COC forms. A separate form was used for each cooler that was shipped to Texas A&M. The original COC accompanied the samples. Field personnel maintained a copy of the COC. Signatures of the persons shipping and receiving the samples and the date and time of transfer were documented on the COC forms. An air-bill was used to document the transfer of each sample from the field team to the shipper, and from the shipper to

7 July 2004

the freezer archive and the analytical lab. All sections of the COC form were completed with information pertaining to the sample collection and all samples included in the sample catalog were clearly listed. The time, date, location, identifier (i.e., sample identification number), type of sample, and number and size of containers were listed on the form. The completed COC form was placed in a clear plastic shipping window and securely attached to the inside of the cooler. Each cooler was sturdy and well sealed with filament tape and possessed an unbroken signed custody seal. All materials, samples, and coolers were uniquely identified with an attached label and kept in locked locations at all times until shipped. Labels were recorded using a waterproof marker and included the sample identification number, species, type of sample, time and date of collection, project name, sample location, and sampler’s initials. When egg samples were first removed from the nest they were marked with a pencil with the sample type code, egg sample number, and nest number on the outside of the egg. Eggs were wrapped in aluminum foil, which was labeled with the nest number using a permanent marker. Eggs were transported to the processing facility in sturdy egg containers to protect them from breakage. Once in the processing facility, the labels on the foil and on the egg were double checked against the data forms and field survey notebooks to verify the identification code. This study employed standard methodology for collecting bird eggs and the work plan for the study was reviewed for adequacy of sampling design and methods. The original field notebooks will be maintained by Woodlot and archived for a minimum of four years or longer if requested. Final reports can be reviewed against the sampling records to ensure that the data presented in the reports represent complete and accurate information. The Field Survey Lead performing oversight of breeding bird egg collection checked and made sure that Project Scientists and Technicians were correctly identifying the proper species and completing data forms correctly. Furthermore, data collected at each nest was validated by photographs of each nest and eggs (Appendix 5). 3.0 RESULTS 3.1 Nests and Eggs All 5 eggs were collected on May 10, 2004 between the hours of 13:50 and 16:15 from separate, WMDA numbered nest boxes (Table 1) along the Housatonic River floodplain between the Woods Pond dam and New Lenox Road (Appendix 1). The eggs were collected from nests with clutches that ranged from 7 to 15 wood duck eggs (mean = 11.2) (Appendix 5). One of the five nest boxes (#159) contained cold eggs and appeared to be abandoned whereas, the remaining 4 nests were active and contained either cool to warm eggs and flushed or contained one or more adults. One nest (WMDA #152) contained 2 hooded merganser eggs along with 10 wood duck eggs and the nest in WMDA #59 containing 15 eggs appeared to be a “dump nest” containing the eggs of 2 wood ducks. All the eggs appeared viable. Four of the five eggs contained fresh embryos of less than 4-5 days old and egg number WD04 from WMDA nest #152 contained an embryo that appeared to be in good condition and of approximately 2.5 - 3 weeks old. No embryo deformities were observed in the egg samples.

8 July 2004

Nest Box/Egg Location

UTM Zone 18N, NAD83 Meters Woodlot Egg ID UTM18N_X UTM18N_X

WD-01 645010.19406900000 645010.19406900000 WD-02 644775.22895500000 644775.22895500000 WD-03* 644654.37173000000 644654.37173000000 WD-04 644496.87234300000 644496.87234300000 WD-05 644733.15152300000 644733.15152300000

Table 1. GPS coordinates for eggs used in this study (*a dead female wood duck with USFWS band number: 1066-88928 was recovered in the vicinity of nest WD-03). 3.2 Egg Size and Shape Egg size and shape data are summarized in Table 2.

Woodlot Egg ID

Egg Length (mm)

Egg Width (mm)

Whole Egg

Weight (g)

Egg Volume

(cm3)

Egg Shell Thickness

(mm)*

Egg Shell Weight

(g)* WD-01 48.80 38.31 38.07 23.5 0.3356 3.3 WD-02 50.69 39.07 42.38 38.0 0.3175 4.03 WD-03 50.35 39.37 43.77 41.0 0.3376 4.33 WD-04 52.81 38.39 36.23 32.5 0.2969 3.36 WD-05 50.84 39.20 41.94 28.0 0.2914 3.67

mean 50.70 38.87 40.48 32.6 0.3158 3.74 Table 2. Egg size and shape data (*measurements made after 10 days of air drying). 3.3 Egg Chemical Composition Appendix 6 contains the full result of the egg chemical analysis for PCBs, dioxins, furans, and other Appendix IX contaminants carried out by Texas A&M University Geotechnical and Environmental Research Group. Table 3 summarizes tPCB and lipid levels.

Woodlot Egg ID tPCB ug/kg

Percent Lipids (Gas

Chrometography) WD-01 24310.0 11.9 WD-02 32924.6 17.5 WD-03 59789.1 12.0 WD-04 79954.3 8.1 WD-05 50348.4 11.8

mean 49465.28 12.26 Table 3. Total PCB (ug/kg) and percent lipids.

9 July 2004

4.0 DISCUSSION The length and width (breadth) of the five wood duck eggs analyzed in this study were similar to a series of 80 wood duck eggs collected and analyzed in the early 1990s in central Arkansas (White and Seginak 1994). However, egg volume was approximately 17% lower in the 5 eggs collected in the PSA when compared to the White and Seginak series due most likely to the fact that White and Seginak calculated egg volume from egg dimensions using methods presented in Hoyt (1979), whereas in the present study egg volume was estimated by the water displacement method (Appendix 2). The number of wood ducks produced annually in the PSA has not been estimated quantitatively. From 1992 – 2003 Massachusetts Division of Fisheries & Wildlife (MADFW) has captured, banded, and released a total of 528 wood ducks from the PSA, representing an annual average of 44 wood ducks. MADFW also captured, banded and released 149 mallards over the same time period. The ages of these birds were not available at the writing of this report. It is not known how many of these birds were reared in the PSA, as MADFW banding efforts coincided with the beginning of fall migration. 5.0 LITERATURE CITED Baicich, P.J. and C.J.O. Harrison. 1997. A Guide to the Nests, Eggs, and Nestlings of North

American Birds. Second edition. Academic Press, New York. 347 pp. Barron, M.G., H. Galbraith, and D. Beltman. 1995. Comparative Reproductive and

Developmental Toxicity of PCBs in Birds. Comp. Biochem. Physiol. 112C(1):1-14. Bellrose, F. C. and D. J. Holm. 1994. Ecology and Management of the Wood Duck. Stackpole

Books, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, USA. Cornell Lab of Ornithology. 1990. A Field Guide to Bird Songs. Houghton Mifflin Company,

NY. Cornell Lab of Ornithology. 2001. The Cornell Lab of Ornithology’s Guide to Birds of North

America, Version 3. http://www.thayerbirding.com Custer, T.W., C.M. Custer, R.K. Hines, S. Gutreuter, K.L. Stromborg, P.D. Allen, and M.J.

Melancon. 1999. Organochlorine Contaminants and Reproductive Success of Double-Crested Cormorants from Green Bay Wisconsin, USA. Environ. Toxicol. & Chem., 18:1209-17.

Drobney RD 1980. Reproductive bioenergetics of wood duck. Auk 97: 480-490. Drobney RD, Fredrickson LH 1979. Food selection by wood ducks in relation to breeding status.

J Wild Manag 43: 109-120.

10 July 2004

Drouillard, K.G. and R. Norstrom. 2001a. Dietary Absorption Efficiencies and Toxicokinetics of Polychlorinated Biphenyls in Ring Doves Following Exposure to Arochlor Mixtures. Environ. Toxicol. & Chem. 19(11):2707-2714.

Drouillard, K.G. and R. Norstrom. 2001b. Quantifying Maternal and Dietary Sources of

2,2’,4,4’,5,5’-hexachlorobiphenyl Deposited in Eggs of the Ring Dove (Streptopelia risoria). Environ. Toxicol. & Chem. 20:561-567.

Eisler, R. 2000. Handbook of Chemical Risk Assessment, Health Hazards to Humans, Plants,

and Animals, Volume 2 Organics. CRC Press LLC Printing, Boca Raton, FL. 1,500 pp. Eisler, R. and A.A. Belisle. 1996. Planer PCB Hazards to Fish, Wildlife, and Invertebrates: A

Synoptic Review. Natl. Biol. Serv. Biol. Rep. 31. Environment Canada. 1998. Canadian Tissue Residue Guidelines for Polychlorinated Biphenyls

for the Protection of Wildlife Consumers of Aquatic Biota. Draft Copy. Guidelines and Standards Div. Sci. Policy & Environ. Qual. Branch. Hull, Quebec.

Fernie, K.J., J.E. Smits, G.R. Bortolotti, and D.M. Bird. 2001. Reproduction Success of

American Kestrels Exposed to Dietary Polychlorinated Biphenyls. Environ. Toxicol. & Chem. 20(4): 776-781.

Froese, K.L., D.A. Verbrugge, G.T. Ankley, G.J. Niemi, C.P. Larsen, and J.P. Giesy. 1998.

Bioaccumulation of Polychlorinated Biphenyls from Sediments to Aquatic Insects and Tree Swallow Eggs and Nestlings in Saginaw Bay, Michigan, USA. Environ. Tox. & Chem. 17:484-92

Gilbertson, M., T.J. Kubiak, J.P. Ludwig, and G.A. Fox. 1991. Great Lakes Embryo Mortality,

Edema, and Deformities Syndrome (GLEMEDS) in Colonial Fish-Eating Birds: Similarity to Chick-Edema Disease. J. Toxicol. and Environ. Health 33: 455-520.

Grice, D., and J. P. Rogers. 1965. The wood duck in Massachusetts. Final Report Federal Aid in

Wildlife Restoration Project W-19-R, Mass. Div. Fish Game. 96 pp. Grier, J.W. and R.W. Fyfe. 1987. Preventing Research and Management Disturbance, Chapter

10 in: Raptor Management Techniques Manual, edited by B.A.G. Pendleton, B.A. Millsap, K.W. Cline, and D.M. Bird. National Wildlife Federation, Scientific and Technical Series No. 10. Washington, D.C. 420 pp.

Hoffman, D.J., M.J. Melancon, P.N. Klein, J.D. Eisemann, and J.W. Spann. 1998. Comparative

Developmental Toxicity of Planar Polychlorinated Biphenyl Congeners in Chickens, American Kestrels, and Common Terns. Environ. Toxicol. & Chem. 17(4): 747-757.

Hoffman, D.J., M.J. Melancon, P.N. Klein, C.P. Rice, J.D. Eisemann, R.K. Hines, J.W. Spann,

G. W. Pendleton. 1996a. Development Toxicity of PCB 126 (3,3,4,4,5-pentachlorobuphenyl) in Nestling American Kestrels (Falco sparverius). Fund. & App. Toxicol. 34:188-200.

11 July 2004

Hoyt, D. F. 1979. Practical methods of estimating volume and fresh weight of bird eggs. Auk 96: 73-77.

Larson, J.M., W.H. Karasov, L. Sileo, K.L. Stromborg, B.A. Hanbidge, J.P. Geisy, P.D. Jones,

D.E. Tillitt, D.A. Verbrugge. 1996. Reproductive Success, Developmental Abnormalities, and Environmental Contaminants in Double-crested Cormorants (Phalacrocorax auritus). Environ. Toxicol. & Chem. 15:553-559.

National Geographic Society. 1983. Field Guide to the Birds of North America. National

Geographic Society, Washington, D.C. 464 pp. Peterson, R.T. and V.M. Peterson. 1980. A Field Guide to the Birds of Eastern and Central

North America. Houghton Mifflin Company, New York. 384 pp. Powell, D.C, R.J. Aulerich, J.C. Meadows, D.E. Tillitt, M.E. Kelly, K.L. Stromborg, M. J.

Melancon, S.D. Fitzgerald, and S. J. Bursian. 1998. Effects of 3,3’,4,4’,5-pentachlorobiphenyl and 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin Injected into the Yolks of Double-Crested Cormorant (Phalacrocorax auritus) Eggs Prior to Incubation. Environ. Toxicol. & Chem. 17(10):2035-2040.

StatSoft. 1999. Statistica for Windows. StatSoft, Inc., Tulsa, OK. Stratus Consulting, Inc. 1999. Injuries to Avian Resources, lLwer Fox River/Green Bay,

Natural Resource Damage Assessment. Final Report submitted to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Department of the Interior, and U.S. Department of Justice.

White, D.H. and J.T. Seginak. 1994. Dioxins and furans linked to reproductive impairment in

wood ducks. J. Wildl. Manage. 58:100-106.

PRIVILEGED – DRAFT CONFIDENTIAL FOIA EXEMPT

PREDECISIONAL

July 2004

APPENDIX 1

Georeferenced Aerial Photos 1, 2, and 3 of the Study Area (Showing the locations of the 5 nest boxes where eggs were collected and on map 3 the

location of a dead female wood duck with USFWS band number: 1066-88928)


PREDECISIONAL

July 2004


PREDECISIONAL

July 2004

APPENDIX 2

Egg Processing Standard Operating Procedures


PREDECISIONAL

Appendix 1 July 2004

Standard Operating Procedures for Avian Egg Processing

Introduction Avian eggs are a common sample for contaminants analysis. An accurate analysis depends on transferring the egg contents from the shell to a clean sample jar without introducing other sources of contamination. This protocol, which has been developed and refined by many researchers over the decades, was written for those who have minimal experience. Materials and Equipment

FIELD: Permits Field notebook, writing instruments (pencils/pens/permanent markers) Padded egg collection boxes (hard-sided container, e.g., Tupperware or tackle box, with

foam padding) Square pieces of chemically-clean aluminum foil, sized to wrap around egg – 1 per egg Small ziploc bags Acculab V-600 balance, weighs to nearest 0.1 gm Labels

LAB: Data sheets Paper or other towels Green scrubby or sponge Acculab V-200 balance, weighs to nearest 0.01 gm Calipers One graduated cylinders: 250 ml (of sufficient diameter to insert wood duck eggs). Chemically-clean jars, 1 per sample Make sure they are cleaned for the contaminants you are sampling, e.g., I-Chem

pesticide/PCBs Series 200 or 300. Size: 4 oz.

Chemically-clean stainless steel scalpel blades (No. 21 or No. 22 with No. 4 handles work well)

Chemically-clean forceps Chemically-clean aluminum foil sheets (approximately 30 x 30 cm square), 1 per egg Sharps container for used blades or disposable scalpels Ball-tip micrometer


PREDECISIONAL


Procedures FIELD:

Collected eggs should be whole and without cracks. Collect fresh eggs if possible. Make a notation about the probable stage of the egg as a fresh egg will float in water (Custer et al. 1992), or could be collected from unfinished clutches. The best eggs for contaminants analysis are not cracked, since cracking increases variation in percent moisture, and may lead to interference with or contamination of the contents.

In the field, wrap eggs in rinsed aluminum foil (rinsed side next to the egg). Think of the foil as a second skin, which you are using to keep the eggshell together and the contents inside should the egg be cracked in transit. Label appropriately (e.g. date, species identification, egg sample number, nest number, and collector’s initials. Put label and wrapped egg in a hard container with sufficient padding.

Transport to lab in hard container with sufficient padding. Refrigerate eggs until opened, ideally no longer than 48 hrs. Egg processing was

completed on a daily basis as much as practical.

LAB: Fill out egg data form (Appendix 2); use one per egg. If debris is present, rinse egg in cool water while gently scrubbing with green scrubby or

sponge. Do not soak the egg. Dry and weigh whole egg. Take three measurements each of egg length and maximum egg width with calipers.

Compute average of three measurements for final width and length measurements. Measure total egg volume by water displacement. Use the graduated cylinder method

that is closest in diameter to the largest diameter of the egg. Determine the displacement volume of the wire holding apparatus.

Using a graduated cylinder: 1. Fill with distilled water. Note the starting volume. 2. Immerse egg using wire loops (Fig. 1A) until top of egg is just under water

surface. 3. Note the final volume; subtract starting volume and holding apparatus volume, to

determine the final egg volume. Using an egg immersion chamber:

Volume computation may be made using an egg immersion chamber. An immersion chamber that is specially designed for smaller eggs can be made using a small syringe, i.e. 10 cc, and using a pipette for the spout. A small paper clip is used to hold the egg for immersion into the chamber.


PREDECISIONAL


Figure 1. Egg immersion chamber used to determine whole egg volume

A. B. C.

A: Wire loops used to hold the egg. B: Apparatus set up to drain into beaker on balance. C: Demonstration photograph using ripe tomato as egg. The top bend of the spigot is high

enough so that an egg can be completely immersed below it.

LAB (continued):

Dry the egg. Transfer egg contents to chemically-clean jar using the following procedure:

1. Use nitrile gloves for this part of the procedure. Avoid letting contents run over your hands into the sample jar.

2. Create a catch basin out of the aluminum foil (rinsed side up) by turning edges up and securing the corners. This will catch egg contents in case they spill over the edge of the jar. Use a separate piece of foil for each sample. The foil also is a clean place to place your instruments when they are not in use.

3. Weigh the clean empty jar with lid on, and note this tare weight on data sheet. 4. Place jar in center of aluminum foil, and loosen the lid. 5. Score equator with serrated blade or scalpel blade. Use a new, chemically-clean

scalpel blade for each egg. This part takes practice. Cradle the egg in one hand (don’t squeeze too tightly!) and gently score while rotating the egg. Many light strokes are preferable to a fewer deeper strokes, increasing the evenness of the score and decreasing the possibility of eggshells not separating cleanly or of punching through the shell. Continue to work on your score until you see the membrane, which usually appears gray underneath the white of the eggshell. When you see the first bit of membrane, remove the lid from the jar so that it was ready as soon as you need it. Avoid getting shell dust, or anything else besides the egg contents, in the jar. Try to expose the membrane evenly around the entire egg. Often the score line can be used to help pick the eggshell apart using forceps.

6. Place the egg over the jar and cut through membranes with the scalpel. A new scalpel blade should be used at this point to reduce the potential for cross contamination and since the blade may become dull during the cutting process. The scalpel can also be


PREDECISIONAL


used to finish scoring down to the membranes. Pour contents into jar, or use the scalpel to gently scrape if that is necessary. Small stainless steel scoops are also available to help remove the contents. Use forceps to remove any shell fragments from the jar. Cover the jar. Photograph the egg contents in the jar with the label visible and the remaining eggshell.

7. Note where the membranes are, as this is important for thickness measurements. For fresh eggs, both membranes often stay with the shell, but as the embryo develops, the inner membrane tends to stick with the chick. If you cannot determine where the membranes are, it often becomes clearer after the eggshell and membranes have dried.

8. For very small eggs, there are two procedures suggested. The first option is to use a small chemically-clean needle or scalpel to pierce a small hole at both ends of the egg. Insert a chemically-clean syringe into the egg to withdraw the contents. Redeposit the contents into the jar and follow the guidelines for storage and measuring the shell thickness. The second option is to use a sharp, non-serrated scalpel and cut around the circumference at one end of the egg. Scoop out the contents with a tiny dry chemical scoop (stainless steel) that is small enough to fit into the egg.

9. Note that addled eggs can be full of decomposition by-products, producing gaseous explosions at any weak point in the shell, including where you start your score or where membranes are first exposed. Working with a refrigerated, cool egg reduces this potential, but be prepared for egg explosions.

10. The target for the minimum weight of egg tissue is 4 grams for analysis. It may be possible to analyze smaller samples ranging from 1 – 2 grams. Analysis of these samples may result in a lower detection limit due to the lack of mass. An effort must be made to maximize the amount of each sample that is usable. The weight of each sample should be made in the laboratory during egg processing using the following procedure: a. Place a small jar on a balance that reads to at least 1 milligram and

that has been appropriately calibrated. b. Tare the jar or record the jar weight if the balance cannot be tared. c. Open the egg, according to the procedures referenced above and

empty the contents into the jar. d. Record the weight, to the nearest milligram, of the egg contents if

the balance was tared. If the balance was not tared, then record the weight for the egg contents and the jar, then subtract the previously recorded weight of the jar. Record the weight of the egg contents in the field notebook and on the jar label.

e. If egg is developed, estimate age of embryo. Wet weight conversion was made based on the weight and volume of the egg. A photographic record of the contents of each egg was made. Documentation of embryo development is very limited (Powell et al. 1998; Bird et al. 1984), therefore, documenting this phase of the egg processing is important. Note amount of decay or anything else pertinent to your study, and examine for deformities, particularly bill deformities such as crossed bills or lack of jaws,


PREDECISIONAL


but also lack of skull bones, club feet, rotated ankles, or dwarfed appendages (Gilbertson et al. 1991).

f. Repeat these procedures for any other eggs that need to be added to the sample jar. Using these procedures, the weight of each egg's contents was measured, even for eggs whose contents are combined into a single jar.

Do not touch or move the jar between steps 2 and 4 above. It is preferable to add the egg contents to the jar while the jar is still on the balance, immediately after taring the jar.

Rinse the eggshell halves with cool water and allow to air dry for 10-30 days. Label each eggshell with the species identification code, egg number, and nest number. Store the shell pieces in a labeled plastic bag.

Compute conversion factor, as explained on the data sheet. Contaminant concentrations are multiplied by this conversion factor to get volume-adjusted residue data (Stickel et al. 1973).

Place label on jar. Place clear tape over the label to keep it from getting wet. Prepare Chain-of-Custody records and maintain egg samples under chain of custody. Freeze samples. Ship under Chain-of-Custody overnight on dry ice to the sample archive

or analytical laboratory. After eggshells have dried, measure at three points near the equator on each shell half

using ball-tip micrometer. If you are comparing to museum specimen thickness measurements, which usually include the membranes, you must either include membranes or make adjustments for the absent membranes. The data sheet (Appendix 2) has adjustments for bald eagles – you can use these as approximations or create your own adjustments by measuring shells with and without membranes for comparisons to the study species.

References Bird, D.M, J. Gautier, and V. Montpetit. 1984. Embryonic Growth of American Kestrels. Auk

101:392-396. Custer, T.W., G.W. Pendleton, and R.W. Roach. 1992. Determination of Hatching Date for

Eggs of Black-Crowned Night-Heron, Snowy Egrets, and Great Egrets. J. Field. Ornithol. 63:145-154.

Gilbertson, M., T. Kubiak, J. Ludwig, G. Fox. 1991. Great Lakes Embryo Mortality, Edema,

and Deformities Syndrome (GLEMEDS) in Colonial Fish-Eating Birds: Similarity to Chick-Edema Disease. J. Toxicol. Environ. Health 33:455-520.

Powell, D.C., R.J. Aulerich, R.J. Balander, K.L. Stromborg, and S.J. Bursian. 1998. A

Photographic Guide to the Development of Double-Crested Cormorant Embryos. Colonial Waterbirds 21(3): 348-355.

Stickel, L.F., S.N. Wiemeyer, L.J. Blus. 1973. Pesticide Residues in Eggs of Wild Birds:

Adjustment for Loss of Moisture and Lipid. Bull. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 9:193-196.


PREDECISIONAL


These egg-processing guidelines were developed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and modified for the project by Woodlot based on consultation with the author of these guidelines. For more information or to suggest additions or clarifications, please contact:

Angela Matz Environmental Contaminants Specialist U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 101-12th Ave., Box 19, Room 110 Fairbanks, AK Phone: (907) 456-0442 Fax: (907) 456-0208 [email protected]


PREDECISIONAL


Chemically-Clean Instruments for Collecting Contaminants Samples

To minimize cross-contamination when collecting biological samples for contaminants analysis, a primary requirement is use of chemically-clean instruments. These are made of appropriate materials (e.g., stainless steel or teflon) and rinsed with alcohol and solvents to remove contamination and organics. Once rinsed, the instruments should be treated as sterile instruments (e.g., not placed on unclean surfaces). Because every laboratory situation is different, this document tells you what to do, but not how to do it. The chemicals used for rinsing are hazardous, so you should follow proper safety and laboratory protocols when using them. This includes proper personal protective equipment (e.g., lab coats, gloves specific to the chemical, eye protection), proper laboratory equipment and procedures (e.g., use of hood, proper storage and disposal methods), and knowledge of chemical hazards such as flammability, reactivity, and toxicity (MSDS required). If this is all new to you, enlist the help of a chemist to help you make the proper decisions and reduce your risks of exposure and accident. For organics, rinse with a reagent grade isopropyl alcohol, air-dry, rinse with reagent-grade hexanes, and air-dry. Aluminum foil can be rinsed with acetone and hexane to remove organics. Air-dry and fold cleaned-side in if not using immediately. The cleaned foil can be used to store samples (e.g., very large samples or, as a substitute, an I-Chem jar), provide a clean work surface for dissections, or to wrap cleaned instruments for transport or storage. The conventional wisdom is to rinse the dull side, as the shiny side has oils on it. The oils will probably wash away with a solvent wash, but why bother if you can use the cleaner dull side to start with. Rinsing should be done using glass pipettes or wash bottles made of appropriate material for the rinsing agent. Glass funnels, wide enough to accommodate your instruments and foil sheets, are invaluable in directing the flow of used chemicals into disposal containers or waste jars. Use disposal containers that are the same as your source chemical containers (e.g., brown glass). Never rinse into or pour unused chemicals back into your source chemical bottle.


PREDECISIONAL

July 2004

APPENDIX 2

Data Sheets


PREDECISIONAL

Appendix 2 April 2004

Avian Egg Data Sheet Name: ____________________ Species: _______________________ Date Collected: ________ Date Processed: _______ Nest Number or location:______________________________________________________ Egg Number or description:____________________________________________________ Nest status at time of collection:________________________________________________ (laying, incubating, abandoned, with chicks - how many, post-fledging, etc.) Egg Length (three measurements, mm):_______ , _______ , ________ Average _______ Egg Width (three measurements, mm): _______ , _______ , ________ Average _______ Whole Egg Weight (g): _________ Egg Volume: Displaced H2O: volume (cm3): __________ OR weight1 (g): ____________ Contents weight:

Weight of jar (g): __________ Weight of jar + contents (g): __________ Weight of contents (g): __________

Conversion factor3 = contents weight OR contents weight

calc. max. egg vol displaced H2O vol. ______________ =

Contents condition (age of embryo, state of decay, etc.) and other comments: _________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________ Where are the membranes? Inner: _______________ Outer: _______________________ Eggshell thickness (mm) after > 10 days of air drying:________________ (correction for absent membranes, bald eagles: Inner = 0.03 mm, Outer = 0.13 mm) First eggshell half: _____ ______ _____ _____ Avg: ______ Corrected: _______ Second eggshell half:_____ ______ _____ _____ Avg: ______ Corrected: _______

Overall Avg: ______ Corrected: _______ Dry shell weight (mg) after > 10 days of air-drying: ___________________ Thickness index = weight [mg]/(length)(width)[mm]: _____________ Contaminants disposition (catalog number and date submitted, etc): _______________________________________________________________________ 1Assume 1 g H20 = 1 cm3 2 See Stickel et al. 1973. 3 If you have both, use the large


PREDECISIONAL

July 2004

APPENDIX 3

Chain-of-Custody Form


PREDECISIONAL


CHAIN-OF-CUSTODY FORM

CHAIN OF CUSTODY RECORD

Fed Ex # ___________________________

Package # __________________________

Project Name:

Project #:

Container Type (e.g., padded egg carrier, cooler, etc.):

Sampler(s): Printed Name and Signature

SP-NES-NUM Date

Collected Time

Collected Location

Jar size (N/A for whole

eggs) Remarks Special Instructions/Comments:

Signature Print Name Company/Title Date Time

Relinquished by: Received by:




PREDECISIONAL

28

Appendix 5 Photographs of Nest and Eggs

Egg WD01 from WMDA Nest Box #159




PREDECISIONAL

29




PREDECISIONAL

30

APPENDIX 6

Egg Chemical Composition Report


PREDECISIONAL

31


PREDECISIONAL

32

C-of-C ID RFW0003191 RFW0003191 RFW0003191 RFW0003191 RFW0003191 RFW0003191C-of-C Item 1 2 3 4 5 6

Field Sample ID H4-TB01WDAE-0-4Y10 H3-TB02WDAE-0-4Y10 H3-TB03WDAE-0-4Y10 H3-TB03WDAE-1-4Y10 H3-TB04WDAE-0-4Y10 H3-TB05WDAE-0-4Y10Date Collected 05/10/2004 05/10/2004 05/10/2004 05/10/2004 05/10/2004 05/10/2004

Depth 0.0-0.0 0.0-0.0 0.0-0.0 0.0-0.0 0.0-0.0 0.0-0.0Source EPA_COE EPA_COE EPA_COE EPA_COE EPA_COE EPA_COE

AnalytePCBSPCB, TOTAL (ug/kg) 24310 (0) 32924.6 (0) 59789.1 (0) 71314.4 (0) 79954.3 (0) 50348.4 (0)AROCLOR-1242 (ug/kg) 125 U (0) 175.4 U (0) 149.3 U (0) 147.1 U (0) 119 U (0) 102 U (0)AROCLOR-1248 (ug/kg) 125 U (0) 175.4 U (0) 149.3 U (0) 147.1 U (0) 119 U (0) 102 U (0)AROCLOR-1254 (ug/kg) 1215.5 (0) 1646.2 (0) 2989.5 (0) 3565.7 (0) 3997.7 (0) 2517.4 (0)AROCLOR-1260 (ug/kg) 23094.5 (0) 31278.4 (0) 56799.6 (0) 67748.7 (0) 75956.6 (0) 47830.9 (0)PCB CONGENERSPCB-77 (ug/kg) 13.261 (0) 10.416 (0) 18.399 (0) 17.675 (0) 9.259 (0) 9.63 (0)PCB-81 (ug/kg) 0.101 (0) 0.101 (0) 0.171 (0) 0.057 U (0) 0.033 U (0) 0.042 U (0)PCB-126 (ug/kg) 4.847 (0) 4.096 (0) 7.905 (0) 8.123 (0) 0.033 U (0) 4.963 (0)PCB-169 (ug/kg) 0.86 (0) 0.662 (0) 1.11 (0) 0.057 U (0) 0.063 (0) 0.042 U (0)PCB-105 (ug/kg) 145.406 (0) 141.952 (0) 302.406 (0) 289.052 (0) 220.724 (0) 205.21 (0)PCB-114 (ug/kg) 4.586 (0) 4.326 (0) 11.424 (0) 10.663 (0) 9.216 (0) 8.047 (0)PCB-118 (ug/kg) 685.954 (0) 832.573 (0) 1396.741 (0) 1160.334 (0) 1109.104 (0) 1199.731 (0)PCB-149/123 (ug/kg) 1326.601 (0) 1121.804 (0) 3809.255 (0) 4532.222 (0) 3683.72 (0) 3218.138 (0)PCB-156 (ug/kg) 172.599 (0) 187.56 (0) 406.101 (0) 371.203 (0) 159.102 (0) 271.794 (0)PCB-201/157/173 (ug/kg) 62.813 (0) 75.371 (0) 156.204 (0) 164.688 (0) 207.235 (0) 132.554 (0)PCB-167 (ug/kg) 146.692 (0) 157.672 (0) 363.58 (0) 334.995 (0) 679.484 (0) 214.917 (0)PCB-189 (ug/kg) 21.807 (0) 37.574 (0) 63.006 (0) 64.419 (0) 105.924 (0) 47.855 (0)PCB-1 (ug/kg) 0.125 U (0) 0.175 U (0) 0.149 U (0) 0.147 U (0) 0.119 U (0) 0.102 U (0)PCB-101/90 (ug/kg) 655.955 (0) 476.084 (0) 1199.002 (0) 1454.246 (0) 1467.246 (0) 1578.864 (0)PCB-107 (ug/kg) 315.222 (0) 397.075 (0) 687.466 (0) 840.721 (0) 637.724 (0) 530.477 (0)PCB-110 (ug/kg) 137.757 (0) 36.253 (0) 283.33 (0) 290.627 (0) 405.272 (0) 574.936 (0)PCB-119 (ug/kg) 93.7 (0) 69.645 (0) 186.723 (0) 190.819 (0) 182.413 (0) 183.117 (0)PCB-123 (ug/kg) 0.046 U (0) 0.038 U (0) 0.053 U (0) 0.057 U (0) 0.033 U (0) 0.042 U (0)PCB-128 (ug/kg) 204.669 (0) 324.293 (0) 446.368 (0) 580.623 (0) 526.804 (0) 361.977 (0)PCB-129 (ug/kg) 10.163 (0) 0.175 U (0) 23.495 (0) 24.08 (0) 25.783 (0) 37.164 (0)PCB-130 (ug/kg) 54.149 (0) 76.911 (0) 152.235 (0) 158.289 (0) 137.321 (0) 108.9 (0)PCB-135 (ug/kg) 324.829 (0) 217.463 (0) 484.619 (0) 590.271 (0) 781.215 (0) 675.299 (0)PCB-136 (ug/kg) 31.305 (0) 10.696 (0) 52.785 (0) 53.565 (0) 64.408 (0) 102.285 (0)PCB-138/160 (ug/kg) 2666.582 (0) 3881.915 (0) 6306.449 (0) 7721.191 (0) 7296.238 (0) 4728.402 (0)PCB-141/179 (ug/kg) 463.729 (0) 294.371 (0) 886.286 (0) 1133.638 (0) 1142.318 (0) 1060.644 (0)PCB-146 (ug/kg) 838.057 (0) 1325.699 (0) 2069.32 (0) 2524.373 (0) 2559.019 (0) 1469.118 (0)PCB-15 (ug/kg) 0.125 U (0) 0.175 U (0) 0.149 U (0) 0.147 U (0) 0.119 U (0) 0.102 U (0)PCB-151 (ug/kg) 550.009 (0) 520.319 (0) 1014.758 (0) 1239.591 (0) 1667.539 (0) 1254.861 (0)PCB-153/132 (ug/kg) 4301.926 (0) 6945.639 (0) 9414.438 (0) 11451.589 (0) 14379.191 (0) 7912.667 (0)PCB-157 (ug/kg) 36.319 (0) 41.23 (0) 82.657 (0) 92.719 (0) 287.402 (0) 51.746 (0)PCB-158 (ug/kg) 345.735 (0) 453.722 (0) 724.89 (0) 906.88 (0) 837.993 (0) 570.905 (0)PCB-16/32 (ug/kg) 10.75 (0) 1.88 (0) 7.434 (0) 7.5 (0) 3.481 (0) 5.613 (0)PCB-166 (ug/kg) 1.804 (0) 2.074 (0) 4.424 (0) 4.418 (0) 4.436 (0) 4.588 (0)PCB-170/190 (ug/kg) 867.457 (0) 1307.046 (0) 1732.221 (0) 2239.216 (0) 2940.036 (0) 1537.991 (0)PCB-171/202 (ug/kg) 299.513 (0) 326.835 (0) 711.654 (0) 867.663 (0) 1076.354 (0) 584.66 (0)PCB-172 (ug/kg) 172.89 (0) 259.858 (0) 499.774 (0) 610.534 (0) 784.058 (0) 371.202 (0)PCB-174 (ug/kg) 522.234 (0) 470.1 (0) 1218.345 (0) 1499.147 (0) 1509.699 (0) 1174.486 (0)PCB-175 (ug/kg) 49.232 (0) 62.155 (0) 118.557 (0) 122.251 (0) 138.535 (0) 89.858 (0)PCB-176/137 (ug/kg) 171.311 (0) 40.522 (0) 384.062 (0) 87.379 (0) 91.878 (0) 358.176 (0)PCB-177 (ug/kg) 544.116 (0) 741.298 (0) 1287.491 (0) 1580.734 (0) 1438.389 (0) 997.437 (0)PCB-178 (ug/kg) 225.991 (0) 319.616 (0) 673.136 (0) 824.047 (0) 877.531 (0) 513.248 (0)PCB-18/17 (ug/kg) 3.526 (0) 5.288 (0) 3.448 (0) 4.363 (0) 7.602 (0) 6.705 (0)PCB-180 (ug/kg) 2185.51 (0) 3786.45 (0) 5140.764 (0) 6376.447 (0) 10048.16 (0) 4164.473 (0)PCB-183 (ug/kg) 680.229 (0) 1062.303 (0) 1628.082 (0) 2008.484 (0) 2816.963 (0) 1293.172 (0)PCB-185 (ug/kg) 88.792 (0) 72.778 (0) 244.419 (0) 247.409 (0) 257.725 (0) 209.762 (0)PCB-187 (ug/kg) 1271.842 (0) 2156.646 (0) 6846.282 (0) 8359.355 (0) 6574.105 (0) 4034.538 (0)PCB-191 (ug/kg) 61.802 (0) 89.884 (0) 166.168 (0) 177.203 (0) 130.03 (0) 135.675 (0)PCB-193 (ug/kg) 162.686 (0) 273.116 (0) 481.628 (0) 596.422 (0) 675.673 (0) 342.246 (0)PCB-194 (ug/kg) 215.569 (0) 435.169 (0) 655.624 (0) 840.418 (0) 1516.162 (0) 541.177 (0)PCB-195/208 (ug/kg) 133.901 (0) 202.02 (0) 353.106 (0) 443.585 (0) 720.2 (0) 300.352 (0)PCB-197 (ug/kg) 21.228 (0) 27.627 (0) 56.119 (0) 60.076 (0) 93.133 (0) 42.324 (0)PCB-199 (ug/kg) 246.958 (0) 691.039 (0) 1361.945 (0) 1620.842 (0) 1979.935 (0) 873.238 (0)PCB-200 (ug/kg) 29.996 (0) 26.852 (0) 78.09 (0) 84.516 (0) 110.795 (0) 75.286 (0)PCB-203/196 (ug/kg) 414.305 (0) 668.604 (0) 1143.378 (0) 1424.796 (0) 2378.116 (0) 894.604 (0)PCB-205 (ug/kg) 15.34 (0) 27.843 (0) 58.713 (0) 50.705 (0) 87.516 (0) 36.442 (0)PCB-206 (ug/kg) 33.482 (0) 48.597 (0) 117.73 (0) 126.043 (0) 184.67 (0) 81.194 (0)PCB-207 (ug/kg) 7.097 (0) 9.455 (0) 25.137 (0) 26.703 (0) 42.325 (0) 16.08 (0)PCB-209 (ug/kg) 1.354 (0) 0.696 (0) 5.698 (0) 6.336 (0) 6.5 (0) 3.878 (0)PCB-22/51 (ug/kg) 0.125 U (0) 0.175 U (0) 0.149 U (0) 0.147 U (0) 0.119 U (0) 0.102 U (0)PCB-24/27 (ug/kg) 0.125 U (0) 0.175 U (0) 0.149 U (0) 0.147 U (0) 0.119 U (0) 0.574 (0)PCB-25 (ug/kg) 0.125 U (0) 1.712 (0) 2.901 (0) 2.883 (0) 3.756 (0) 6.552 (0)PCB-26 (ug/kg) 1.281 (0) 1.222 (0) 2.504 (0) 2.561 (0) 7.709 (0) 14.209 (0)PCB-28 (ug/kg) 57.57 (0) 83.837 (0) 96.553 (0) 99.843 (0) 91.265 (0) 91.245 (0)PCB-29 (ug/kg) 0.125 U (0) 0.175 U (0) 0.149 U (0) 0.231 (0) 0.213 (0) 0.794 (0)PCB-30 (ug/kg) 0.125 U (0) 0.175 U (0) 0.149 U (0) 0.147 U (0) 0.119 U (0) 0.102 U (0)PCB-31 (ug/kg) 4.614 (0) 19.843 (0) 4.763 (0) 3.874 (0) 13.402 (0) 16.666 (0)PCB-33/20 (ug/kg) 2.815 (0) 11.012 (0) 1.482 (0) 1.384 (0) 0.462 (0) 1.121 (0)PCB-39 (ug/kg) 0.125 U (0) 0.175 U (0) 0.149 U (0) 0.147 U (0) 0.119 U (0) 0.102 U (0)PCB-40 (ug/kg) 0.125 U (0) 0.175 U (0) 0.149 U (0) 0.147 U (0) 0.119 U (0) 0.102 U (0)PCB-41/64 (ug/kg) 0.125 U (0) 0.175 U (0) 0.149 U (0) 0.147 U (0) 0.119 U (0) 0.102 U (0)PCB-42/59/37 (ug/kg) 4.207 (0) 73.602 (0) 6.142 (0) 5.97 (0) 8.109 (0) 16.156 (0)PCB-44 (ug/kg) 7.639 (0) 4.641 (0) 11.047 (0) 10.815 (0) 15.072 (0) 26.971 (0)PCB-45 (ug/kg) 0.125 U (0) 0.175 U (0) 0.149 U (0) 0.147 U (0) 0.119 U (0) 0.102 U (0)PCB-46 (ug/kg) 0.125 U (0) 0.175 U (0) 0.149 U (0) 0.147 U (0) 0.119 U (0) 0.444 (0)PCB-47/75 (ug/kg) 968.49 I (0) 890.23 I (0) 1937.83 I (0) 1909.37 I (0) 1628.67 I (0) 1569.28 I (0)


PREDECISIONAL

33

DRAFT FINAL REPORT, COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS OF …Procedure (SOP) for Egg Harvest with the...

Documents

Transcript of DRAFT FINAL REPORT, COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS OF …Procedure (SOP) for Egg Harvest with the...