Epa Us

United Stat es Office of Wat er EPA-822-R-07-001
Environmental Protection 4304T February 2007

Agency
AQUATIC LIFE AMBIENT

FRESHWATER QUALITY
CRITERIA - COPPER
2007 Revision
AQUATIC LIFE AMBIENT FRESHWATER QUALITY CRITERIA - COPPER
2007 Revision
(CAS Registry Number 7440-50-8)
February 2007
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Office of Water
Office of Science and Technology
Washington, DC
NOTICES
This document has been reviewed in accordance with U.S. EPA policy and approved for
publication. Mention of trade names or commercial products does not constitute endorsement or
recommendation for use.
This document can be downloaded from EPA’s website at:

http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/criteria/aqlife.html
ii
iii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Document Update: 2007
Luis A. Cruz Jennifer Mitchell

(document coordinator and contributor) (contributor)
U.S. EPA U.S. EPA (formerly)
Health and Ecological Effects Criteria Health and Ecological Effects Criteria
Division Division
Washington, DC Washington, DC
Cindy Roberts Charles Delos

(contributor) (contributor)
U.S. EPA U.S. EPA
Office of Research and Development Health and Ecological Effects Criteria
Washington, DC Division
Washington, DC
Mary Reiley
(contributor) Joseph Meyer
U.S. EPA (contributor)
Health and Ecological Effects Criteria University of Wyoming
Division Laramie, Wyoming
Washington, DC
Rooni Mathew
Robert Santore (contributor)
(contributor) HydroQual, Inc.
HydroQual, Inc. Syracuse, New York
Syracuse, New York
Tyler K. Linton
Paul Paquin (contributor)
(contributor) Great Lakes Environmental Center
HydroQual, Inc. Columbus, Ohio
Syracuse, New York
Gary Chapman
(contributor)
Great Lakes Environmental Center
Columbus, Ohio
Statistical Support and Contributor:

Russell Erickson
Office of Research and Development
Environmental Research Laboratory
Duluth, Minnesota
iv
CONTENTS
Notices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ii
Foreword . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iii
Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iv
Contents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . v
Acronyms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vii
1.0 INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
2.0 APPROACHES FOR EVALUATING COPPER BIOAVAILABILITY . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

2.1 General Aspects of Copper Bioavailability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2.2 Existing Approaches . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.3 The BLM and Its Application to Criteria Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.4 BLM Uncertainties and Performance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.0 INCORPORATION OF BLM INTO CRITERIA DEVELOPMENT PROCEDURES 11

3.1 General Final Acute Value (FAV) Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
3.2 BLM Input Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
3.3 Data Acceptability and Screening Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
3.4 Conversion Factors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
3.5 Final Chronic Value (FCV) Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
4.0 DATA SUMMARY AND CRITERIA CALCULATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

4.1 Summary of Acute Toxicity to Freshwater Animals and Criteria Calculation . . . . 14
4.1.1 Comparison with Earlier Hardness-Adjusted Criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
4.2 Formulation of the CCC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
4.2.1 Evaluation of Chronic Toxicity Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
4.2.2 Calculation of Freshwater CCC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
5.0 PLANT DATA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
6.0 OTHER DATA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
7.0 NATIONAL CRITERIA STATEMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
8.0 IMPLEMENTATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
9.0 REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
v
FIGURES
Figure 1. Conceptual Diagram of Copper Speciation and Copper-Gill Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Figure 2. Effects of Increasing Ion Concentration on Acute Lethality To Fathead Minnows . . . . 9
Figure 3. Comparison of Predicted and Measured Acute Copper Toxicity to P. promelas . . . . . 10
Figure 4. Ranked Freshwater Genus Mean Acute Values (GMAVs) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Figure 5. Comparison of Hardness Based and BLM Based WQC (Alkalinity and pH Covary
with Hardness) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Figure 6. Relationship Between Freshwater Acute Copper Sensitivity (LC50 or EC50)
and Acute-Chronic Ratios . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
TABLES
Table 1. Acut e Toxicity of Co pper to Freshwater Animals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

Table 2a. Chronic Toxicity of Co pper to Freshwater Animals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
Table 2b. Chronic Toxicity of Co pper to Saltwater Animals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
Table 2c. Acute-Chronic Ratios . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
Table 3a. Ranked Freshwater Genus Mean Acute Values
with Species Mean Acute-Chronic Ratios . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
Table 3b. Freshwater Final Acute Value (FAV) and Criteria Calculations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
Table 4. Toxicity of Copper to Freshwater Plants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
APPENDICES
Appendix A. Ranges in Calibration and Application Data Sets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-1

Appendix B. Other Data on Effects of Copper on Freshwater Organisms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-1
Appendix C. Estimation of Water Chemistry Parameters for Acute Copper Toxicity Tests . . C-1
Appendix D. Saltwater Conversion Factors for Dissolved Values . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . D-1
Appendix E. BLM Input Data and Notes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . E-1
Appendix F. Regression Plots . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . F-1
Appendix G. Example WQC Values Using the BLM and the Hardness Equation . . . . . . . . . G-1
Appendix H. Unused Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . H-1
vi
ACRONYMS
ACR Acut e-Chronic Ratio

BL Biotic Ligand
BLM Biotic Ligand Model
CCC Criterion Continuous Concentration
CF Conversion Factors
CMC Criterion Maximum Concentration
CWA Clean Water Act
DIC Dissolved Inorganic Carbon
DOC Dissolved Organic Carbon
DOM Dissolved Organic Matter
EC Effect Concentration
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
FACR Final Acute-Chronic Ratio
FAV Final Acute Value
FCV Final Chronic Value
FIAM Free Ion Activity Model
GMAV Genus Mean Acute Value
GSIM Gill Surface Interaction Model
LC50 Lethal Concentration at 50 Percent Effect Level
LOAEC Lowest Observed Adverse Effect Concentration
NASQAN National Stream Quality Accounting Network
NOAEC No Observed Adverse Effect Concentration
pH Negative logarithm of the concentration (mol/L) of the H3O+[H+] ion; scale range
from 0 to 14
SMAV Species Mean Acute Values
STORET EPA STOrage and RETrieval Data System
WER Water-Effect Ratio
WET Whole Effluent Toxicity
WQC Water Quality Criteria
vii
1.0 INTRODUCTION
Copper is an abundant trace element found in the earth's crust and is a naturally occurring
element that is generally present in surface waters (Nriagu, 1979). Copper is a micronutrient for
both plants and animals at low concentrations and is recognized as essential to virtually all plants
and animals (Kapustka et al., 2004). However, it may become toxic to some forms of aquatic life at
elevated concentrations. Thus, copper concentrations in natural environments, and its biological
availability, are important. Naturally occurring concentrations of copper have been reported from
0.03 to 0.23 :g/L in surface seawaters and from 0.20 to 30 :g/L in freshwater systems (Bowen,
1985). Copper concentrations in locations receiving anthropogenic inputs can vary anywhere from
levels that approach natural background to 100 :g/L or more (e.g., Lopez and Lee, 1977; Nriagu,
1979; Hem, 1989) and have in some cases been reported in the 200,000 :g/L range in mining areas
(Davis and Ashenberg, 1989; Robins et al., 1997). Mining, leather and leather products, fabricated
metal products, and electric equipment are a few of the industries with copper-bearing discharges
that contribute to anthropogenic inputs of copper to surface waters (Patterson et al., 1998).
Over the past 20 years, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has published a
number of guidance documents containing aquatic life criteria recommendations for copper (e.g.,
U.S. EPA 1980, 1985, 1986, 1996). The present document contains EPA's latest criteria
recommendations for protection of aquatic life in ambient freshwat er from acute and chronic toxic
effects from copper. These criteria are based on the latest available scientific information,
supplementing EPA's previously published recommendations for copper. This criteria revision
incorporated new data on the toxicity of copper and used the biotic ligand model (BLM), a metal
bioavailability model, to update the freshwater criteria. With these scientific and technical revisions,
the criteria will provide improved guidance on the concentrations of copper that will be protective
of aquatic life. The BLM is not used in the saltwater criteria derivation because further development
is required before it will be suitable for use to evaluate saltwater data.
This document provides updated guidance to states and authorized tribes to establish water
quality standards under the Clean Water Act (CWA) to protect aquatic life from elevated copper
exposure. Under the CWA, states and authorized tribes are to establish water quality criteria to
protect designated uses. Although this document constitutes EPA's scientific recommendations
regarding ambient concentrations of copper, it does not substitute for the CWA or EPA's
regulat ions, nor is it a regulation itself. Thus, it cannot impose legally binding requirements on EPA,
states, tribes, or the regulat ed community, and might not apply to a particular situation based on the
circumstances. Stat e and tribal decision makers retain the discretion in adopting approaches, on a
case-by-case basis, that differ from this guidance when appropriate. EPA may change this guidance
in the future.
Although the BLM has been used in place of the formerly applied hardness-based approach,
the updated freshwater criteria derivations in this document are still based on the principles set forth
in the Guidelines for Deriving Numerical Water Quality Criteria for the Protection of Aquatic Life
and Their Uses (St ephan et al. 1985, hereafter referred to as the Guidelines). Section 2 of this
document provides an overview of copper bioavailability and the BLM. Additional information on
the generalized BLM framework, theoretical background, model calibration, and application for the
BLM can be found in the published literature. Section 3 of this document discusses general
1
procedures and requirements for applying the BLM to criteria. Section 4 provides the derivation of
criteria Final Acute Value (FAV) and Final Chronic Value (FCV) for freshwater organisms.
Section 5 discusses plant data and Section 6 discusses other data not included in the criteria
derivation. Sections 7 and 8 provide the final criteria statements and information on
implementation. Various supplementary information is provided in several appendices.
2.0 APPROACHES FOR EVALUATING COPPER BIOAVAILABILITY
2.1 General Aspects of Copper Bioavailability
The toxicity of a chemical to an aquatic organism requires the transfer of the chemical from
the external environment to biochemical receptors on or in the organism at which the toxic effects
are elicited. Often, this transfer is not simply proportional to t he total chemical concentration in the
environment, but varies according to attributes of the organism, chemical, and exposure
environment so that the chemical is more or less "bioavailable". Definitions of bioavailability vary
markedly (e.g., National Research Council, 2003) and are often specific to certain situations, but a
useful generic definition is the relative facility with which a chemical is transferred from the
environment to a specified location in an organism of interest.
Of particular importance to bioavailability is that many chemicals exist in a variety of forms

(chemical species). Such chemical speciation affects bioavailability because relative uptake rates
can differ among chemical species and the relative concentrations of chemical species can differ
among exposure conditions. At equilibrium in oxygenated waters, "free" copper exists as cupric ion
- Cu(II) weakly associated with water molecules (Cu.nH2O+2), but this species is usually a small
percentage of the total copper. Most dissolved copper is part of stronger complexes with various
ligands (complexing chemicals that interact with metals), including dissolved organic compounds,
hydroxides, carbonates, and other inorganic ligands. Substantial amount s of copper can also be
adsorbed t o or incorporated into suspended particles. More information on copper speciation in
freshwater can be found in Kramer et al. (1997), Bryan et al. (2002), and Smith et al. (2002).
Copper toxicity has been reported to vary markedly due to various physicochemical
characteristics of the exposure water (e.g., either laboratory or field), including temperature,
dissolved organic compounds, suspended particles, pH, and various inorganic cations and anions,
including those composing hardness and alkalinity (see reviews by Sprague, 1968; Hunt, 1987;
Campbell, 1995; Allen and Hansen, 1996; Paquin et al., 2002). Many of these physicochemical
factors affect copper speciation, and their effects on copper toxicity therefore could be due to
effects on copper bioavailability. That bioavailability is an important factor is evident from uptake
of copper by aquatic organisms being reduced by various organic compounds and inorganic ligands
known to complex copper (Muramoto, 1980; Buckley et al., 1984; Playle et al., 1993 a,b; MacRae
et al., 1999).
A "ligand" is a complexing chemical (ion, molecule, or molecular group) that interacts with a
metal like copper to form a larger complex. A “biotic ligand” is a complexing chemical that is a
component of an organism (e.g. chemical site on a fish gill). For certain ligands, some studies have
demonstrated that the concentration of free copper associated with a specified level of accumulation
or toxicity changes little as the ligand concentration is varied, despite major changes in the
2
proportion of copper bound to the ligand (see review by Campbell, 1995). This suggests that, even
at low concentrations, free copper is more important to bioavailability than the ligand-bound
copper. This is expected if accumulation and toxicity are dependent on the binding of copper to a
biochemical receptor "X" on the surface of the organism, forming a chemical species X-Cu
(receptor-bound metal) that is a first limiting step in accumulation and toxicity. By standard
chemical equilibrium expressions, the amount of such species and the consequent biological effects
would be a function of the activity of just free copper (Morel, 1983 a), a relationship commonly
referred to as the free ion activity model (FIAM). Ligand-bound copper (Cu-L) would contribute
to copper bioavailability if (a) a species X-Cu-L is formed that is important to copper
accumulation/toxicity, (b) the microenvironment near the organism surface is such that Cu-L
dissociates and increases t he free copper activity interacting with "X", or (c) copper uptake is via
mechanisms that do not entail binding to such a receptor and can accommodate different copper
species. Some studies have indicated dissolved complexes of copper do contribute to bioavailability
(reviews by Sprague, 1968; Hunt, 1987; Campbell, 1995; Allen and Hansen, 1996; Paquin et al.,
2002).
The effects o f physicochemical factors on copper toxicity are diverse and t he specific
chemistry of the exposure water will determine whether or not there are appreciable effects on
copper speciation and a resulting strong relationship of toxicity to free copper. Usually copper
toxicity is reduced by increased water hardness (reviews by Sprague, 1968; Hunt, 1987; Campbell,
1995; Allen and Hansen, 1996; Paquin et al., 2002), which is composed of cations (primarily
calcium and magnesium) that do not directly interact with copper in solution so as to reduce
bioavailability. In some cases, the apparent effect of hardness on toxicity might be partly due to
complexation of copper by higher concentrations of hydroxide and/or carbonate (increased pH and
alkalinity) commonly associated with higher hardness. However, significant effects on toxicity
often are still present when hardness is increased in association with anions which do not interact
strongly with copper (Inglis and Davis, 1972; Chakoumakos et al., 1979; Miller and Mackay, 1980;
Erickson et al., 1987). Hardness cations could have some limited effect on copper speciation by
competing with copper for the same dissolved ligands, but increased hardness would then increase
free copper and thus increase, not decrease, toxicity. Sodium has also been reported to affect
copper toxicity (Erickson et al., 1996 b) and pH effects can be partly due to effects of hydrogen ion
other than on copper speciation (Peterson et al., 1984).
The effects of hardness cations could be explained by the competing with copper for the
biochemical receptor "X", thus reducing copper uptake (Zitko, 1976; Zitko et al., 1976; Pagenkopf,
1983). Reduced metal bioavailability due to increased hardness cations has been experimentally
demonstrated (Playle et al., 1992; Meyer et al., 1999, 2002), although this does not specifically
establish cation competition as the mechanism. Pagenkopf (1983) provided a mathematical
description of a Gill Surface Interaction Model (GSIM) that addressed the effects on metal toxicity
of both metal speciation and cations via the interactions of gill surface biochemical receptors with
the free toxic metal, other metal species, hardness cations, and hydrogen ion.
The empirical evidence demonstrates that copper toxicity is affected by exposure conditions
and that much of these effects is plausibly attributed to effects of ligands and cations on copper
bioavailability. However, it should not be presumed that all of the observed effects of the
physicochemical factors on copper toxicity reflect effects on bioavailability, or that bioavailability
3
effects are just due to ligand complexation and cation competition. For example, acute copper
toxicity in aquatic organisms has been related to disruption of osmoregulation, specifically
sodium/potassium exchange (Lauren and MacDonald, 1986; Wood, 1992; Wood et al., 1997;
Paquin et al., 2002), which can be affected by calcium other than by competition with copper for
the same biochemical receptor. Similarly, reported effects of sodium and potassium on copper
toxicity (Erickson et al., 1996 b) might simply reflect favorable or unfavorable ion exchange
gradient s, rather than any effect on copper bioavailability. Nevertheless, the effect s of ligand
complexation and cation competition on copper bioavailability provide a reasonable conceptual
framework for improved descriptions of how copper toxicity differs across exposure conditions.
2.2 Existing Approaches
EPA aquatic life criteria for metals address the reported effects of hardness on metal toxicity
using empirical regressions of toxic concentrations versus hardness for available toxicity data across
a wide range of hardness (Stephan et al., 1985). Such regressions provided the relative amount by
which the criteria change with hardness, but have certain limitations. The regressions were not just
of hardness, but of any other factor that was correlated with hardness in the toxicity data set used
for the regressions, particularly pH and alkalinity. Although these regressions therefore address
more bioavailability issues than hardness alone, they best apply to waters in which the correlations
among hardness, pH, and alkalinity are similar to the data used in the regressions. The separate
effects of these factors are not addressed for exposure conditions in which these correlations are
different. In addition, some physicochemical factors affecting metal toxicity, such as organic
carbon, are not addressed at all.
Existing EPA metals criteria also address bioavailability by using dissolved metal as a better
approximation for metal bioavailability than total metal (U.S. EPA, 1993). Although this approach
accounts for the low bioavailability of metal on suspended particles, it does not address the major
effects of various dissolved species on bioavailability. This approach could conceivably be further
developed to include just part of the dissolved copper, but this not only requires resolving what
species to include, how to weight them, and how to assess their concentrations, but also would not
address the effects of cations and other factors that affect toxicity in addition to metal speciation.
Such a "bioavailable fraction" approach is not justified, because no fraction of metals species
provides a constant measure of toxicity.
To address more completely the modifying effects of water quality than the hardness
regressions achieve, EPA issued guidance in the early 1980s on the water-effect ratio (WER)
method (Carlson et al., 1984; U.S. EPA, 1983, 1992, 1994). The WER is "a biological method to
compare bioavailability and toxicity in receiving waters versus laboratory test waters" (U.S. EPA,
1992). A WER is calculated by dividing the acute LC50 of the metal, determined in water collected
from the receiving water of interest, by the LC50 of the metal determined in a standard laboratory
water, after adjusting both test waters to the same hardness. The standard laboratory water LC50 is
used as the denominator to reflect that this LC50 is measured in test water that has water quality
characteristics representative of the test wat ers used to develop the Water Quality Criteria (WQC)
toxicity database, at least as a good approximation. The national hardness-based acute criterion
concentration is then multiplied by this ratio (i.e., the WER) to establish a site-specific criterion that
reflects the effect of site water characteristics on toxicity. However, a WER accounts only for
4
interactions of water quality parameters and their effects on metal toxicity to the species tested and
in the water sample collected at a specific location and at a specific time. There is also significant
cost to generate a single WER.
Because of the limitations of these past approaches for addressing bioavailability in metals
criteria, there is a need for an approach that (1) explicitly and quantitatively accounts for the effect
of individual water quality parameters that modify metal toxicity and (2) can be applied more
cost-effectively and easily, and hence more frequently across spatial and temporal scales. An
assessment framework that incorporates the bioavailability mechanisms discussed in Section 2.1 was
therefore used to address more comprehensively the effects of physicochemical expo sure conditions
on copper t oxicity with lower costs than required by the WER approach.
2.3 The Biotic Ligand Model and Its Application to Criteria Development
The interactions of toxic metal species and other exposure water constituents with biological
surface receptors described by Zitko (1976), Morel (1983), and Pagenkopf (1983) provided t he
basic conceptual and mathematical structure for the bioavailability model to be used here (Figure 1).
Subsequent experimental work has supported various model tenets by demonstrating the effects of
complexing ligands and competing cations on accumulation of toxic metals at fish gills and the
relationship of toxic effects to accumulation, and has also provided estimates of various model
parameters (Playle et al., 1992, 1993a,b; Janes and Playle, 1995; MacRae et al., 1999, Meyer et al.,
1999, 2002; McGeer et al., 2002). Various efforts in metal speciation modeling also have provided
the ability to do better speciation calculations, especially regarding complexation of metals by
organic matter (e.g., Tipping, 1994). This experimental work has supported further metal toxicity
model development (Meyer, 1999; Brown and Markich, 2000; McGeer et al., 2002; Di Toro et al.,
2001; Santore et al., 2001; Paquin et al., 2002). This bioavailability modeling approach is now
commonly termed “Biotic Ligand Models” to broaden the scope beyond gill surfaces and to
acknowledge that the biochemical receptor "X" discussed in Section 2.1 is a metal-binding ligand
that is treated similarly to ligands in the exposure water, except that it is on the organism and is the
keystone for metal accumulation and toxicity.
5
Briefly, available evidence indicates that both free copper and copper monohydroxide bind to a
biotic ligand "Lb" on the organism's surface (Lb-Cu and Lb-CuOH) and that death occurs when a
certain amount of the tot al biotic ligand sites are occupied by copper. This ligand must be at the
organism surface because the model describes its interactions with the external exposure water.
However, this does not mean that this ligand is the site of toxic action; rather it is only necessary to
assume that copper accumulation at the site(s) of toxic action is proportional to binding at the biotic
ligand (i.e., the biotic ligand co ntrols bioavailability). Other cations also will bind to the biotic
ligand, affecting copper bioavailability because higher concentrations of copper are needed for
copper to reach toxic levels. The binding to the biotic ligand is considered to be at equilibrium,
with apparent (activity-corrected) equilibrium constants KLbCu, KLbCuOH, and KLbCj, respectively, for
free copper, copper hydroxide, and the "jth" competing cation. Chemical speciation in the exposure
water is also considered to be at equilibrium, and chemical speciation calculations are conducted to
compute the free copper, copper hydroxide, and competing cation activities to which the biotic
ligand is exposed. Because binding to the actual biotic ligand cannot be measured, it is expected
that accumulation relationships for some measurable variable (e.g., the total metal in gill tissue)
provide a reasonable surrogate for the actual biotic ligand. Because criteria deal with
concentrations eliciting a certain level of effects on groups of organisms (e.g., LC50s), model
calculations are for an organism with characteristics appropriate for such group-wide statistics.
How the BLM is applied to criteria can be best discussed by starting with the following
general expression for the BLM:
Equation 1
where EC is the total dissolved copper concentration eliciting an effect, EC0 is a baseline EC in the
absence of any complexing ligands and competing cations, fC should be a factor (<1) for how much
competing cations increase EC, and fL should be a factor (<1) for how much complexing ligands
increase EC. For the BLM used here:
Equation 2
Equation 3
Equation 4
where fLbT is the fraction of the biotic ligand sites t hat must be occupied by copper to elicit the
toxicity of interest (e.g., a lethal accumulation divided by the accumulation capacity), m is the
6
number of competing cations included in the model, [Cj] is the concentration of the jth competing
cation, "Cu+2 is the ratio of free copper concentration to total dissolved copper concentration, "CuOH
is the ratio for the copper hydroxide complex, and the ratio KLbCuOH/KLbCu specifies the
bioavailability of CuOH relative t o free copper. Thus, in the absence of complexing ligands and
competing cations, the toxic concentration is only a function of the binding strength of free copper
and the copper occupied fraction of biotic ligand sites needed to elicit toxicity. The increase in the
effect concentration due to competing cations is simply a sum of the products of t heir
concentrations and binding constants. The increase in the effect concentration due to complexing
ligands is the inverse of the sum of the products of the relative bioavailabilities and concentration
fractions of the species that bind to the biotic ligand (free copper and copper hydroxide).
If toxicity to all the biological species in the criteria (at least the most sensitive ones) were
determined based on measured accumulation properties and the relationship of toxicity to
accumulation, the above model equations would be directly applied in criteria calculations.
However, this is not the case. Although gill accumulation properties and lethal accumulations have
been measured for certain species and conditions, and this has been useful in validating BLM
assumptions and formulations, the data that must be applied to the criteria consists of water effect
concentration (ECs) for biological species for which this accumulation information is generally not
available. The BLM therefore is needed, not to make absolute calculations regarding t oxic
concentrations, but to extrapolate toxic concentrations from one exposure condition to another:
Equation 5
where the A and B subscripts refer to different exposure conditions. The general procedure that
was followed for criteria development here was to use the above equation to normalize all available
toxicity data to a reference exposure condition, calculate criteria values at the reference condition,
and again use the above equation to compute criteria at other conditions.
This means that the BLM assumptions and parameters that just pertain to EC0 are not
important to its application to criteria, which actually simplifies model validation and
parameterization needs. In particular, there is no need to estimate fLbT, or the lethal accumulations
and accumulation capacities that define t his fraction. Furthermore, the absolute values of K LbCu and
KLbCuOH do not need to be known, only their relative value (and if copper binding to the biot ic ligand
was dependent only on free copper, the value of K LbCu would not be needed at all). Absolute values
are only needed for the binding constants for the competing cations, as well as the various constants
needed in speciation calculations to estimate "Cu+2 and "CuOH. For BLM application to criteria, the
important concern is whether fC and fL are suitably formulated and parameterized, and not with
issues that relate to lethal accumulations and accumulation capacities.
2.4 BLM Uncertainties and Performance
The BLM employed here uses equilibrium reactions of copper and other cations with a single,
simple type of surface ligand as the focus for all the effects of physicochemical expo sure conditions
on toxicity, and thus is a simple, approximate representation for the complex set of chemical
7
reactions and transfers involved with environmental copper concentrations eliciting toxicity. As
already noted, cation effects might involve mechanisms other than competition for a surface ligand.
The microenvironment at the gill might change copper speciation. Multiple mechanisms that do not
react the same to external conditions might be involved in copper bioavailability and toxicity.
Accumulation parameters based on bulk gill measurements will likely not be the same as those for
the biot ic ligand. Nonequilibrium processes might be important, especially regarding the
relationship of copper-binding on a surface ligand t o to xic action.
However, any model is a simplification of reality and the existence of uncertainties does not
preclude a model from being useful and justified. Despite its simplicity, the BLM used here
provides a reasonable mechanistic framework for the well-established effects of copper speciation,
explicitly addressing the relative bioavailability of different copper species. It also includes a
plausible mechanism that allows the effect s of cations to be addressed and uses a comprehensive
model for calculating the required concentrations of various chemical species. Even if the
mechanistic descriptions are incomplete, this model allows the major empirical effects of
complexing ligands and co mpeting cations to be described in a more comprehensive and reasonable
fashion than other approaches.
Because this model is used in criteria to predict relative effects of physicochemical exposure
factors, its utility for criteria can be judged based on how well it predicts the relative effects of these
factors in copper toxicity studies. Examples of BLM performance for various exposure factors and
studies are provided in the technical support document for this criteria. Figure 2 shows one
example from a study on the effects of various exposure conditions on the acute lethality of copper
to fathead minnows. This set of exposures consisted of synthetic exposure solutions of various
tot al ion concentrations with fixed ratios of the major cations and anions, at a fixed pH (8.0) and
low dissolved organic matter (< 0.5 mg/L). Observed dissolved LC50s (solid circles with
uncertainty bars) varied by 24-fold for only a 9-fold change in total ions. These large effects reflect
the combined influences of increased alkalinity (copper carbonate complex formation), hardness,
and sodium. Considering the wide range of the observed LC50s and that the model was not fitted
to these data, BLM-predicted LC50s (open symbols) were rather accurate, ranging from 55 to 87%
(average 75%) of the observed value. More importantly for criteria, the predicted relative change
across the range of total ion concentration was 20-fold, very close to that observed.
8
Model performance can also be judged across a variety of factors as in Figure 3, which shows
predicted versus observed LC50s for a large number of exposures in the cited study, which varied
hardness, alkalinity, sodium, and pH together and separately over a wide range. Observed LC50s
varied by about 60-fold, but predicted values deviated from observed values by only 0.12 log units
(a factor of 1.3) on average, and at worst only slightly more than a factor of 2. Again, more
information on model performance is provided in the Technical Support Document and the figures
here just provide some examples demonstrating the utility of this model for use in criteria.
9
+2
-2
The use of the BLM to predict the bioavailability and toxicity of copper to aquatic organisms
under site-specific conditions is a significant change from the previous Criterion Maximum
Concentration (CMC) derivation methodology. Previous aquatic life criteria documents for copper
(e.g., U.S. EPA, 1980, 1985, 1996) expressed the CMC as a function of water hardness. Now, EPA
chooses to utilize the BLM to update its freshwater acute criterion because the BLM accounts for
all important inorganic and organic ligand interactions of copper while also considering competitive
interactions that influence binding o f copper at the site of toxicity, or the "biotic ligand." The BLM's
ability to incorporate metal speciation reactions and organism interactions allows prediction of
metal effect levels to a variety of organisms over a wide range of water quality conditions.
Accordingly, the BLM is an attractive tool for deriving water quality criteria. Application of the
BLM has the potential to substantially reduce the need for site-specific modifications, such as Water
Effect Ratio, to account for site-specific chemistry influences on metal toxicity.
The updated BLM-based WQC will in some cases be more stringent and in other cases less
stringent than the hardness based WQC. As there is not a single WQC value to use for comparison
purposes, it will only be possible to provide illustrative examples of each situation. It is the
judgement of the EPA that the BLM-based WQC for Cu will provide an improved framework for
evaluating a level of protection (LOP) that is consistent with the LOP that was intended by the
1985 Guidelines (i.e., a 1-in-3 year exceedance frequency that will be protective of 95% of the
genera).
While the BLM is currently considered appropriate for use to derive an updated freshwater
CMC for the acute WQC, further development is required before it will be suitable for use to
10
evaluate a saltwater CMC or a Criterion Continuous Concentration (CCC) or chronic value
(freshwater or saltwater WQC).
3.0 INCORPORATION OF THE BLM INTO CRITERIA DERIVATIONS

PROCEDURES
3.1 General Final Acute Value (FAV) Procedures
Application of the acute copper BLM to the derivation of the copper FAV is analogous to
procedures already described in the Guidelines for metals criteria using empirical hardness
regressions. For these hardness-dependent metals criteria, LC50s at various hardness are
normalized to a reference hardness using the regression slopes. The normalized LC50s for each
biological species are averaged to derive Species Mean Acute Values (SMAVs) at the reference
hardness. The SMAVs within each genus are then averaged to derive Genus Mean Acute Values
(GMAVs) at the reference hardness. The Guidelines’ procedures for estimating the fifth percentile
of the GMAVs are then used to derive the FAV at the reference hardness. FAVs for other hardness
can then be derived using the hardness regression slope, and these FAVs are used to calculate the
Criterion Maximum Concentration (CMC) by dividing the FAV by 2.0 and the Final Chronic Values
(FCV) by dividing the FAV by the Final Acute-Chronic Ratio (FACR). Following the Guidelines,
the Criterion Continuous Concentration (CCC) is set to the FCV unless other data justifies a lower
value.
Extending this procedure to apply the BLM simply involves normalizing the LC50s to a
reference exposure condition that includes all the physicochemical exposure factors important to t he
BLM, not just hardness. For this normalization, the BLM provides the factors fC and fL discussed
in Section 2.3, these factors serving the same purpose as the hardness regression slope described
above. Each LC50 to be used in criteria derivation would be normalized to the reference exposure
conditions by the equation:
Equation 6
where the subscript A refers to the exposure conditions for the observed LC50 and the subscript R
refers to the reference exposure conditions to which the LC50 is being normalized. These
normalized LC50s are then used to derive the SMAVs, GMAVs, and FAV at the reference
exposure condition as described above for the hardness-corrected criteria. The BLM is then used
to derive FAVs at ot her exposures by the equation:
Equation 7
11
where the subscript B refers to the exposure conditions for which an FAV is desired. These
BLM-derived FAVs are then used to derive CMCs and CCCs following standard Guidelines
procedures.
For the criteria in this document, the reference exposure conditions to which LC50s are
normalized and at which the reference FAV is calculated are as follows (see also footnote f in Table
1). The water chemistry used in the normalization was based on the EPA formulation for
moderately-hard reconstituted water, but any other water chemistry could have been used. In this
formulation the parameters included: temperature = 20oC, pH = 7.5, DOC = 0.5 mg/L, Ca = 14.0
mg/L, Mg = 12.1 mg/L, Na = 26.3 mg/L, K = 2.1 mg/L, SO4 =81.4 mg/L, Cl = 1.90 mg/L,
Alkalinity = 65.0 mg/L and S = 0.0003 mg/L.
3.2 BLM Input Parameters
For applying an LC50 to criteria derivations and for determining an FAV at exposure
conditions of interest, the necessary water quality input parameters for BLM calculations are
temperature, pH, dissolved organic carbon, major geochemical cations (calcium, magnesium,
sodium, and potassium), dissolved inorganic carbon (DIC, the sum of dissolved carbon dioxide,
carbonic acid, bicarbonate, and carbonate), and other major geochemical anions (chloride, sulfate).
DIC measurements are typically not made in the environment, and an alternative input parameter is
alkalinity, which can be used with pH and temperature to estimate DIC. There is some evidence
that other metals such as iron and aluminum can have an effect on copper toxicity to aquatic
organisms, which might be due to interactions of these metals with the biotic ligand, effects of these
metals on organic carbon complexation of copper, or adsorption of copper to iron and aluminum
colloids which are present in filtrates used to measure dissolved copper. These metals are not
currently included in routine BLM inputs, but users are encouraged to measure dissolved iron and
aluminum as part of monitoring efforts to support possible future criteria applications.
A number of fixed parameters are also used in the BLM but are not required user inputs in
criteria derivations. These include the variety of equilibrium constants used in copper speciation
calculations, and also the binding constants for co pper and various cations to the biot ic ligand. The
values for these constants were obtained from work by Playle and coworkers (Playle et al., 1992,
1993a,b) and also by inference from the relationship of toxicity to various water quality
characteristics. More information about these parameters can be obtained from the technical
support document.
3.3 Data Screening Procedures
To use a toxicity test in the derivation of BLM-based criteria, information must be available
for the various water quality parameters described in Section 3.2. This is in contrast to past metals
criteria, for which the only necessary water quality parameter was hardness. Many of these
parameters are not routinely measured in toxicity tests and, if measured, are not necessarily
reported in the primary literature for the test, especially for older toxicity tests. However, this
information might be available from supplemental sources or be estimated based on other
information. Therefore, in addition to reviewing the primary sources for relevant information,
12
additional efforts were made to obtain or estimate the necessary water quality parameters for as
many of the available LC50s as possible.
A detailed description of these efforts is provided in Appendix C, Estimation of Water

Chemistry Parameters for Acute Copper Toxicity Tests, and are summarized as follows. Reports of
acute copper toxicity tests identified in literature searches were reviewed to identify LC50s for
possible inclusion in t he criteria derivation. In addition to test acceptability standards specified in
the Guidelines, the current effort also required that the LC50s be based on measured copper
concentrations. LC50s based on nominal concentrations have been used in previous criteria, but
there are enough measured LC50s for copper that this was considered to be no longer warranted,
especially considering the more advanced bioavailability assessments represented by the BLM. For
the identified LC50s, the primary reports were reviewed to record all reported information on
dilution and test water chemistry. Any additional references specified by the authors were also
obtained and reviewed. If test waters were synthetically prepared based on specified formulas,
these were used to estimate parameters as appropriate. When critical water chemistry parameters
were not available, authors were contacted regarding unpublished information or to measure
missing water chemistry parameters in dilution source waters. If primary or corresponding authors
could not be contacted, an attempt was made to contact secondary authors or personnel from the
laboratories where the studies were conducted. Where actual water chemistry data were
unavailable, data from other studies with the same water source were used as surrogate values if
appro priate. Absent this, the U.S. Geological Survey's National Stream Quality Accounting
Network (NASQAN) and the EPA STOrage and RETrieval (STORET) were used to obtain data
for ambient surface waters which were the source of water for a test. In some instances other
available sources were contacted to obtained water chemistry data (e.g., city drinking water
treatment personnel). The acquired data were scrutinized for representativeness and usefulness for
estimating surrogate values to complete the water quality information for the dilution and/or test
water that was used in the original studies. When the above sources could not be used,
geochemical ion inputs were based on reported hardness measurements and regressions
relationships constructed for the relationship of various ions to hardness from NASQAN data.
As with any modeling effort, the reliability of model output depends on the reliability of model
inputs. Although the input data have been closely scrutinized, the reliability of the BLM-normalized
LC50s are subject to the uncertainties of the estimation procedures described above. Therefore, a
ranking system was devised to rank the quality of the chemical characterization of the test water.
Studies with a rank of 1 contain all of the necessary parameters for BLM input based on
measurements from either the test chambers or the water source. In general, studies in which the
BLM input parameters were reported for test chamber samples take precedence over studies in
which the paramet ers were reported only for the source wat er. A characterization ranking of 2
denotes those studies where not all parameters were measured, but reliable estimates of the
requisite concentrations could be made. Similarly, a rank of 3 denotes st udies in which all
parameters except DOC were measured, but reliable estimates of DOC could be made. For the
majority of the tests, a chemical characterization o f 4+ was assigned because hardness, alkalinity,
and pH were measured, and the ionic composition could be reliably estimated or calculated. A 4-
was assigned to those studies conducted using standard reconstituted wat er in which hardness,
alkalinity, or pH was either measured or referenced, and the recipe for the water is known (ASTM,
2000; U.S. EPA, 1993). The chemical characterization rank of 5 was ascribed to studies in which
13
one of the key parameters (DOC, Ca, pH, alkalinity) was not measured, and when it could not be
reliably estimated. If two or more key parameters (DOC, Ca, pH, alkalinity) were not measured and
could not be reliably estimated, a study was given a chemical characterization rank of 6. Studies
receiving a quality rating of greater than 4+ (i.e., higher than 4) were not used in the criteria
development procedures because the estimates for some of the key input parameters were not
thought to be reliable, all other studies were used.
3.4 Conversion Factors
The LC50s used in deriving previous EPA metals criteria were based on total metal
concentration (measured or nominal) and the criteria were consequent ly for total metals
concentration. EPA afterwards made the decision that metals criteria should be based on dissolved
metal because it was thought t o better represent the bioavailable fraction of the metal (U.S. EPA,
1993). It was thus necessary to convert the criteria to a dissolved concentration basis. However, at
that time, most toxicity tests reported only total concentration, so that a procedure was necessary to
estimate the likely fractions of metals that were dissolved in typical toxicity tests. Studies were
therefore conducted to determine these fractions under a variety of test conditions that mimicked
the conditions in the tests used to derive the metals criteria (University of Wisconsin-Superior,
1995). These tests demonstrated high fractions of dissolved copper and resulted in a conversion
factor (CF) of 0.96 for converting both the CMC and CCC for copper from a total to dissolved
basis (Stephan, 1995). The BLM-derived criteria developed here also uses disso lved copper as the
basis for criteria, assuming a negligible bioavailability for particulate copper. The conversion factor
of 0.96 was also used to convert total to dissolved copper for any toxicity test for which dissolved
copper measurements were not available.
3.5 Final Chronic Value (FCV) Procedures
Because the minimum eight family data requirements for chronic toxicity data were not met in
order to calculate the FCV by the fifth percentile method used for the FAV and because insufficient
information was available to develop a chronic BLM, EPA derived the CCC utilizing the Acute to
Chronic Ratio (ACR) approach from the Guidelines (Stephan et al., 1985). To calculate the FCV at
a specific wat er chemistry, the FAV at that chemistry is divided by the FACR. This entails the
assumption that the acute BLM reasonably approximates the bioavailability relationships for chronic
toxicity. Limited dat a available regarding effects of water chemistry on sublethal effects and
chronic lethality do show substantial effects of organic matter, alkalinity, pH, and sodium (Winner,
1985; Erickson et al., 1996 a,b) similar to those in the acute BLM used here. For hardness,
apparent effects are limited and uncertain, but the use of the acute BLM does not introduce major
uncertainties in this regard because the effects of hardness by itself in the acute BLM are also
limited.
4.0 DATA SUMMARY AND CRITERIA CALCULATION
4.1 Summary of Acute Toxicity to Freshwater Animals and Criteria Calculation
The screening procedure outlined in Sec. 3.3 (high quality data = 1, low quality data > 4, e.g.
4+) identified approximately 600 acute freshwater toxicity tests with aquatic organisms and copper
14
potentially acceptable for deriving criteria. Of these tests, approximately 100 were eliminated from
the criteria derivation process because they did not report measured copper concentrations. Nearly
150 additional tests were eliminated from the calculation of the FAV because they received a quality
rating of greater than 4 in the quality rating scheme described in section 3.3 described above.
Data from approximately 350 tests were used to derive normalized LC50 values, including 15
species of invertebrates, 22 species of fish, and 1 amphibian species (Table 1), representing 27
different genera. Species Mean Acute Values (SMAVs) at the reference chemistry were calculated
from the normalized LC50s and Genus Mean Acute Values (GMAVs) at the normalization
chemistry were calculated from the SMAVs.
SMAVs ranged from 2.37 µg/L for the most sensitive species, Daphnia pulicaria, to 107,860
µg/L for the least sensitive species, Notemigonus crysoleucas. Cladocerans were among the most
sensitive species, with D. pulicaria, D. magna, Ceriodaphnia dubia, and Scapholeberis sp. being
four out of the six most sensitive species. Invertebrates in general were more sensitive than fish,
representing the 10 lowest SMAVs.
The 27 GMAVs calculated from the above-mentioned SMAVs ranged from 4.05 µg/L for
Daphnia to 107,860 µg/L for Notemigonus (Table 3a). Nine of the 10 most sensitive genera were
invertebrates. The salmonid genus Oncorhynchus was the most sensitive fish genus, with a GMAV
of 31.39 µg/L and an overall GMAV ranking of 10.
The ranked GMAVs are presented in Figure 4. Pursuant to procedures used to calculate the
FAV, a FAV of 4.67 :g/L was derived from the four GMAVs with cumulative probabilities closest
to the 5th percentile toxicity value for all the tested genera (Table 3b). The presumption is that this
Figure 4. Ranked Freshwater Genus Mean Acute Values (GMAVs)
15
acute toxicity value represents the LC50 for an organism that is sensitive at the 5th percentile of the
GMAV distribution. The CMC is the FAV divided by two. Therefore, the freshwater dissolved
copper CMC for the reference chemistry presented is 2.337 µg/L.
Site-water chemistry parameters are needed to evaluate a criterion. This is analogous to the
situation that previously existed for the hardness-based WQC, where a hardness concentration was
necessary in order to derive a criterion. Examples of CMC calculations at various water chemistry
conditions are presented in Figure 5 and Appendix G.
4.1.1 Comparison With Earlier Hardness-Adjusted Criteria
EPA’s earlier freshwater copper criteria recommendations were hardness-dependent values.

One would expect a BLM-based criterion calculation procedure to yield the more appropriate
criterion—appropriate in the sense that it accounts for the important water chemistry factors that
affect toxicity, including DOC complexation, where the hardness correction does not. Application
of the BLM in field situations where DOC is expected to be present at higher concentrations than
those observed in laboratory studies would likely improve the performance of the BLM compared
with the hardness adjustment. The reason is that the BLM would reasonably account for the
typically observed increase in effect levels under such conditions, while the hardness-based
approach would not (Figure 5).
As a comparison between the hardness typical of the previous copper criterion and this revised
criterion using the BLM, both procedures were used to calculate criterion values for waters with a
range in hardness as specified by the standard EPA recipes (U.S. EPA, 1993). The EPA
formulations specify the concentration of various salts and reagents to be used in the synthesis of
16
laboratory test waters with specific hardness values (e.g., very soft, soft, moderately hard, hard, or
very hard). As the water hardness increases in these recipes, pH and alkalinity also increase. This
has implications for the BLM because the bioavailability of copper would be expected to decrease
with increasing pH and alkalinity due to the increasing degree of complexation of copper with
hydroxides and carbonates and decreasing proton competition with the metal at both DOM and
biotic ligand binding sites. The BLM criterion for these waters agrees very well with that calculated
by the hardness equation used in previous copper criterion documents (Figure 5). However,
alkalinity and pH change as hardness changes in the EPA recipes. The BLM prediction is taking all
of these changes in water quality into account.
It is possible to use the BLM to look only at the change in predicted WQC with changes in
hardness (e.g., alkalinity and pH remaining constant). The hardness equation is based on waters
where changes in hardness are accompanied by changes in pH and alkalinity. However, there are
many possible natural wat ers where changes in hardness are no t accompanied by changes in pH and
alkalinity (such as water draining a region rich in gypsum). In these cases, the hardness equation
based criterion will still assume a response that is characterist ic of wat ers where hardness, alkalinity,
and pH co-vary, and will likely be underprotective relative to the level of protection intended by the
Guidelines, in high hardness waters. Conversely, in waters where the covariation between hardness,
pH, and alkalinity is greater than is typical for data in Table 1, the hardness equation based criteria
may be overprotective. Appendix G shows representative water quality criteria values using both
the BLM and the hardness equation approaches for waters with a range in pH, hardness, and DOC
concentrations. The hardness approach does not consider pH and DOC while the BLM approach
takes those water quality parameters into consideration.
4.2 Formulation of the CCC
4.2.1 Evaluation of Chronic Toxicity Data
In aquatic to xicity tests, chronic values are usually defined as the geometric mean of the
highest concentration of a toxic subst ance at which no adverse effect is observed (highest no
observed adverse effect concentration, or NOAEC) and the lowest concentration of the toxic
substance that causes an adverse effect (lowest observed adverse effect concentration, or LOAEC).
The significance of the observed effects is determined by statistical tests comparing responses of
organisms exposed to low-level and control concentrations of the toxic substance against responses
of organisms exposed to elevated concentrations. Analysis of variance is the most common test
employed for such comparisons. This approach, however, has the disadvantage of resulting in
marked differences between the magnitudes of the effects corresponding to the individual chronic
values, because of variation in the power of the statistical tests used, the concentrations tested, and
the size and variability of the samples used (Stephan and Rogers, 1985).
An alternative approach to calculating chronic values focuses on the use of point estimates
such as from regression analysis to define the dose-response relationship. With a regression
equation or probit analysis, which defines the level of adverse effects as a function of increasing
concentrations of the toxic substance, it is possible to determine the concentration that causes a
specific small effect, such as a 5 to 30 percent reduction in response. To make chronic values reflect
a uniform level of effect, regression and probit analyses were used, where possible, both to
demonstrate that a significant concentration-effect relationship was present and to estimate chronic
17
values with a consistent level of effect. The most precise estimates of effect concentrations can
generally be made for 50 percent reduction (EC50); however, such a major reduction is not
necessarily consistent with criteria providing adequate protection. In contrast, a concentration that
causes a low level of reduction, such as an EC5 or EC10, might not be statist ically significantly
different from the control treatment. As a compromise, the EC20 is used here to represent a low
level of effect that is generally significantly different from the control treatment across the useful
chronic datasets that are available for copper. The EC20 was also viewed as providing a level of
protection similar to the geomet ric mean of the NOEC and LOEC. Since the EC20 is not directly
dependent on the tested dilution series, similar EC20s should be expected irrespective of the tested
concentrations, provided that the range of tested concentrations is appropriate.
Regression or probit analysis was utilized to evaluate a chronic dataset only in cases where the
necessary data were available and the dataset met the following conditions: (1) it contained a
control treatment (or low exposure data point) to anchor the curve at the low end, (2) it contained
at least three concentrations, and (3) two of the dat a points had effect variable values below the
control and abo ve zero (i.e., “partial effects”). Control co ncentrations of copper were estimat ed in
cases where no measurements were reported. These analyses were performed using the Toxicity
Relationship Analysis Program software (version 1.0; U.S. EPA, Mid-Continental Ecology
Division, Duluth, MN, USA). Additional detail regarding the aforementioned statistical procedures
is available in the cited program.
When the data from an acceptable chronic test met the conditions for the logistic regression or
probit analysis, the EC20 was the preferred chronic value. When data did not meet the conditions
the chronic value was usually set to the geometric mean of the NOAEC and the LOAEC. However,
when no treatment concentration was an NOAEC, the chronic value is reported as less t han the
lowest tested concentration.
For life-cycle, partial life-cycle, and early life stage tests, the toxicological variable used in
chronic value analyses was survival, reproduction, growth, emergence, or intrinsic growth rate. If
copper apparently reduced both survival and growth (weight or length), the product of variables
(biomass) was analyzed, rather than analyzing the variables separately. The most sensitive of the
toxicological variables was generally selected as the chronic value for the particular study.
A species-by-species discussion of each acceptable chronic test on copper evaluated for this
document is presented in Appendix F. Figures that present the data and regression/probability
distribution line for each of the acceptable chronic test which contained sufficient acceptable data
are also provided in Appendix F.
4.2.2 Calculation of Freshwater CCC
Acceptable freshwater chronic toxicity data from early life stage tests, part ial life-cycle tests,
and full life-cycle tests were available for 29 tests including data for 6 invertebrate species and 10
fish species (Table 2a). The 17 chronic values for invertebrate species range from 2.83 (D. pulex) to
34.6 µg/L (C. dubia); and the 12 chronic values for the fish species range from <5 (brook trout) to
60.4 µg/L (northern pike). Of the 29 chronic tests, comparable acute values are available for 18 of
the tests (Table 2c). The relationship between acute toxicity values and ACRs is presented in Figure
6. The supporting acute and chronic test values for the ACRs and the species mean ACRs are
18
presented in Table 2c. For the 11 tests in Table 2a with chronic values both from a regression
EC20 and the geometric mean of the NOAEC and LOAEC, the EC20 averaged 81% of the
geometric mean, demonstrating the similar level of protection for the two approaches.
Overall, individual ACRs varied from <1 (0.55) for C. dubia (Oris et al., 1991) to 191.6 for
the snail, Campeloma decisum (Arthur and Leonard, 1970). Species mean acute-chronic ratios
ranged from 1.48 in saltwater for the sheepshead minnow (Hughes et al., 1989) to 171.2 in
freshwater for the snail, C. decisum. Pursuant to the Guidelines (Stephan et al., 1985),
consideration was given to calculating the FACR based on all ACRs within a factor of 10, but
because there appeared t o be a relationship between acute sensitivity and ACRs (Figure 6), the
FACR was derived from data for species whose SMAVs were close to the FAV. The FACR of
3.22 was calculated as the geometric mean of the ACRs for sensitive freshwater species, C. dubia,
D. magna, D. pulex, O. tshawytscha, and O. mykiss along with the one saltwater ACR for C.
variegatus (Table 2b). Based on the normalization water chemistry conditions used for illustrative
purposes in the document, the freshwater site specific FAV value is 4.67 µg/L, which divided by the
FACR of 3.22 results in a freshwater FCV of 1.45 µg/L dissolved Cu.
19
5.0 PLANT DATA
Copper has been widely used as an algicide and herbicide for nuisance aquatic plants
(McKnight et al., 1983). Although copper is known as an inhibitor of photosynthesis and plant
growth, toxicity data on individual species suitable for deriving aquatic life criteria (Table 4) are not
numerous.
The relationship of copper toxicity to the complexing capacity of the water or the culture
medium is now widely recognized (Gächter et al., 1973; Petersen, 1982), and several studies have
used algae to “assay” the copper complexing capacity of both fresh and salt waters (Allen et al.,
1983; Lumsden and Florence, 1983; Rueter, 1983). It has also been shown that algae are capable of
excreting complexing substances in response to copper stress (McKnight and Morel, 1979; Swallow
et al., 1978; van den Berg et al., 1979). Foster (1982) and Stokes and Hutchinson (1976) have
identified resistant strains and/or species of algae from copper (or other metal) impacted
environments. A portion of this resistance probably results from induction of the chelate-excretion
mechanism. Chelate excretion by algae may also serve as a protective mechanism for other aquatic
organisms in eutrophic waters; that is, where algae are capable of maintaining free copper activities
below harmful concentrations.
Copper concentrations from 1 to 8,000 µg/L have been shown to inhibit growth of various
freshwater plant species. Very few of these tests, though, were accompanied by analysis of actual
copper exposure concentrations. No table exceptions are freshwater tests with green alga including
Chlamydomonas reinhardtii (Schafer et al., 1993; Winner and Owen, 1991b), which is the only
flow-through, measured test with an aquatic plant, Chlorella vulgaris and Selenastrum
capricornutum (Blaylock et al., 1985). There is also a measured test with duckweed, Lemna minor
(Taraldsen and Norberg-King, 1990).
A direct comparison between the freshwater plant data and the BLM derived criteria is
difficult to make without a better understanding of the composition of the algal media used for
different studies (e.g., DOC, hardness, and pH) because these factors influence the applicable
criteria comparison. BLM derived criteria for certain water conditions, such as low to mid-range
pH, hardness up to 100 mg/L as CaCO 3, and low DOC are in the range of, if not lower than, the
lowest reported toxic endpoints for freshwater algal species and would therefore appear protective
of plant species. In other water quality conditions BLM-derived criteria may be significantly higher
(see Figure 5).
Two publications provide data for the red algae Champia parvula that indicate that
reproduction of this species is especially sensitive to copper. The methods manual (U.S. EPA 1988)
for whole effluent toxicity (WET) testing contains the results of six experiments showing nominal
reproduction LOECs from 48-hr exposures to 1.0 to 2.5 µg/L copper (mean 2.0 µg/L); these tests
used a mixture of 50 percent sterile seawater and 50 percent GP2 medium copper. The second
study by Morrison et al. (1989) evaluated interlaboratory variation of the 48-hr WET test
procedure; this six-test study gave growth EC50 values from 0.8 to 1.9 µg/L (mean 1.0 µg/L).
Thus, there are actually 12 tests that provide evidence of significant reproductive impairment in C.
parvula at nominal copper concentrations between 0.8 and 2.5 µg/L. For these studies though, the
dilution water source was not identified.
20
One difficulty in assessing these data is the uncertainty of the copper concentration in the test
solutions, primarily with respect to any background copper that might be found in the dilution
water, especially with solutions compounded from sea salts or reagents. Thus, with a CCC of 1.9
µg/L dissolved copper, the significance of a 1 or 2 µg/L background copper level to a 1 to 3 µg/L
nominal effect level can be considerable.
The reproduction of other macroalgae appears to be generally sensitive to copper, but not to
the extent of Champia. Many of these other macroalgae appear to have greater ecological
significance than Champia, several forming significant intertidal and subtidal habitats for other
saltwater organisms, as well as being a major food source for grazers. Reproductive and growth
effects on the other species of macroalgae sometimes appear to occur at copper concentrations
between 5 and 10 µg/L (Appendix B, Other Data). Thus, most major macrophyte groups seem to
be adequately protected by the CMC and CCC, but appear similar in sensitivity to some of the more
sensitive groups of saltwater animals.
6.0 OTHER DATA
Many of the data identified for this effort are listed in Appendix B, Other Data, for various
reasons, including expo sure durations other than 96 hours with the same species reported in Table
1, and some exposures lasting up to 30 days. Acute values for test durations less than 96 hours are
available for several species not shown in Table 1. Still, these species have approximately the same
sensitivities to copper as species in the same families listed in Table 1. Reported LC50s at 200 hours
for chinook salmon and rainbow trout (Chapman, 1978) differ only slightly from 96-hour LC50s
reported for these same species in the same water.
A number of other acute tests in Appendix B were conducted in dilution waters that were not
considered appropriate for criteria development. Brungs et al. (1976) and Geckler et al. (1976)
conducted tests with many species in stream water that contained a large amount of effluent from a
sewage treatment plant. Wallen et al. (1957) tested mosquitofish in a t urbid pond water. Until
chemical measurements that correlate well with the toxicity of copper in a wide variety of waters
are ident ified and widely used, results of t ests in unusual dilution wat ers, such as those in Appendix
B, will not be very useful for deriving water quality criteria.
Appendix B also includes tests based on physiological effects, such as changes in appetite,
blood parameters, stamina, etc. These were included in Appendix B because t hey could not be
directly interpreted for derivation of criteria. For the reasons stated in this section above, data in
Appendix B was not used for criteria derivation.
A direct comparison of a particular test result to a BLM-derived criterion is not always

straightforward, particularly if complete chemical characterization of the test water is not available.
Such is the case for a number of studies included in Appendix B. While there are some test results
with effect concentrations below the example criteria concentrations presented in this document,
these same effect concentrations could be above criteria derived for other normalization chemistries,
raising the question as to what is the appropriate comparison to make. For example, Appendix B
includes an EC50 for D. Pulex of 3.6 µg/L (Koivisto et al., 1992) at an approximate hardness of 25
mg/L (33 mg/L as CaCO3). Yet, example criteria at a hardness of 25 mg/L (as CaCO3) (including
those in Figure 6) range from 0.23 µg/L (DOC = 0.1 mg/L) to 4.09 µg/L (DOC = 2.3 mg/L) based
21
on the DOC concentration selected for the synthetic water recipe. The chemical composition for the
Koivisto et al. (1992) study would dictate what the appropriate BLM criteria comparison should be.
Based on the expectation that many of the test results presented in Appendix B were
conducted in laboratory dilution water with low levels of DOC, the appropriate comparison would
be to the criteria derived from low DOC waters. Comparing many of the values in Appendix B to
the example criteria presented in this document, it appears that a large proportion of Appendix B
values are above these concentration levels. This is a broad generalization though and as stated
previously, all important water chemistry variables that affect toxicity of co pper to aquatic
organisms should be considered before making these types of comparisons.
Studies not considered suitable for criteria development were placed in Appendix G, Unused
Data.
7.0 NATIONAL CRITERIA STATEMENT
The available toxicity data, when evaluated using the procedures described in the “Guidelines
for Deriving Numerical National Water Quality Criteria for the Pro tection of Aquatic Organisms
and Their Uses” indicate that freshwater aquatic life should be protected if the 24-hour average and
four-day average concentrations do not respectively exceed the acute and chronic criteria
concentrations calculated by the Biotic Ligand Model.
A return interval of 3 years between exceedances of the criterion continues to be EPA's

general recommendation. However, the resilience of ecosystems and their ability to recover differ
great ly. Therefore, scientific derivation of alternative frequencies for exceeding criteria may be
appropriate.
8.0 IMPLEMENTATION
The use of water quality criteria in designing waste treatment facilities and appropriate effluent
limits involves the use of an appropriate wasteload allocation model. Although dynamic models are
preferred for application of these criteria, limited data or other factors may make their use
impractical, in which case one should rely on a steady-state model. EPA recommends the interim
use of 1B3 or 1Q10 for criterion maximum concentration stream design flow and 4B3 or 7Q10 for
the criterion continuous concentration design flow in steady-state models. These matters are
discussed in more detail in the Technical Support Document for Water Quality-Based Toxics
Control (U.S. EPA, 1991).
With regard to BLM-derived freshwater criteria, to develop a site-specific criterion for a

stream reach, one is faced with determining what single criterion is appropriate even though a BLM
criterion calculated for the event corresponding to the input water chemistry conditions will be
time-variable. This is not a new problem unique to the BLM—hardness-dependent metals criteria
are also time-variable values. Although the variability of hardness over time can be characterized,
EPA has not provided guidance on how to calculate site-specific criteria considering this variability.
Multiple input parameters for the BLM could complicate the calculation of site-specific criteria
because of their combined effects on variability. Another problem arise from potential scarcity of
data from small stream reaches with small dischargers. The EPA is currently exploring two
22
approaches to fill data gaps in such situations. One potential approach is the selection of values
based on geography, the second approach is based on correlations between measured parameters
and missing parameter measurements. A companion document in the form of Supplementary
Training Materials, addressing issues related to data requirements, implementation,
permitting, and monitoring will be released via EPA's website following the publication of
this criteria document.
23
Table 1. Acute Toxicity of Copper to Freshwater Animals
Reported LC50 or Reported LC50 BLM Normalized

Organism Age, Species Mean Acute
Speciesa Methodb Chemicalc EC50 or EC50 BLM Data Label LC50 or EC50 Reference
Size, or Lifestage d e f Value (µg/L)g
(total µg/L) (Diss. µg/L) (µg/L)
Worm, adult (mixed age) S,M,T N 130 --- LUVA01S 37.81 48.41 Schubauer-Berigan et al. 1993
Lumbriculus variegat adult (mixed age) S,M,T N 270 --- LUVA02S 55.39 Schubauer-Berigan et al. 1993
adult (mixed age) S,M,T N 500 --- LUVA03S 54.18 Schubauer-Berigan et al. 1993
Snail, 1.1-2.7 cm F,M,T S 2000 --- CADE01F 4319 3573 Arthur and Leonard 1970
Campeloma 1.1-2.7 cm F,M,T S 1400 --- CADE02F 2956 Arthur and Leonard 1970
Snail, adult F,M,T C 15 --- JUPL01F 12.31 12.31 Nebeker et al. 1986b
Juga plicifera
Snail, adult F,M,T C 8 --- LIVI01F 6.67 6.67 Nebeker et al. 1986b
Lithoglyphus virens
Snail, 0.4-0.7 cm F,M,T S 41 --- PHIN01F 21.81 20.41 Arthur and Leonard 1970
Physa integra 0.4-0.7 cm F,M,T S 37 --- PHIN02F 19.09 Arthur and Leonard 1970
Freshwater mussel, juvenile S,M,T S 27 --- ACPE01S 10.36 11.33 Keller unpublished
Actinonaias juvenile S,M,T S <29 --- ACPE02S 12.39 Keller unpublished
Freshwater mussel, 1-2 d juv S,M,T S 86 --- UTIM01S 177.9 52.51 Keller and Zam 1991
Utterbackia imbecillis 1-2 d juv S,M,T S 199 --- UTIM02S 172.3 Keller and Zam 1991
juvenile S,M,T N 76 --- UTIM03S 40.96 Keller unpublished
juvenile S,M,T S 79 --- UTIM06S 39.04 Keller unpublished
Cladoceran, <4 h S,M,T C 19 --- CEDU01S 10.28 5.93 Carlson et al. 1986
Ceriodaphnia dubia <4 h S,M,T C 17 --- CEDU02S 9.19 Carlson et al. 1986
<12 h S,M,D --- - 25 CEDU03S 7.98 Belanger et al. 1989
<12 h S,M,D --- - 28 CEDU21S 4.10 Belanger and Cherry 1990
24

<12 h S,M,D --- - 84 CEDU22S 10.74 Belanger and Cherry 1990

<12 h S,M,T S 13.4 --- CEDU23S 6.19 Oris et al. 1991
<24 h R,M,T,D S 6.98 5.54 CEDU24R 5.03 Diamond et al. 1997b
Cladoceran, 1d S,M,T C 9.1 --- DAMA01S 3.42 6.00 Nebeker et al. 1986a
Daphnia magna 1d S,M,T C 11.7 --- DAMA02S 4.43 Nebeker et al. 1986a
<2 h S,M,T C 6.6 --- DAMA03S 2.50 Nebeker et al. 1986a
1d S,M,T C 11.7 --- DAMA05S 13.46 Nebeker et al. 1986a
1d S,M,T C 9.1 --- DAMA07S 4.40 Nebeker et al. 1986a
<24 h S,M,T S 41.2 --- DAMA09S 21.55 Baird et al. 1991
<24 h S,M,I S 7.1 --- DAMA15S 2.67 Meador 1991
<24 h S,M,I S 46 --- DAMA21S 8.93 Meador 1991
<24 h S,M,T C 26 --- DAMA25S 10.34 Chapman et al. Manuscript
<24 h S,M,T,D S 4.8 --- DAMA29S 1.22 Long's MS Thesis
Cladoceran, --- S,M,T S 11.4 --- DAPC01S 1.63 2.73 Lind et al. Manuscript (1978)
Daphnia pulicaria --- S,M,T S 9.06 --- DAPC02S 1.04 Lind et al. Manuscript (1978)
--- S,M,T S 7.24 --- DAPC03S 0.88 Lind et al. Manuscript (1978)
25

--- S,M,T S 199 --- DAPC09S 3.01 Lind et al. Manuscript (1978)
Cladoceran, adult S,M,T C 18 --- SCSP01S 9.73 9.73 Carlson et al. 1986
Scapholeberis sp.
Amphipod, 1-3 d F,M,T S 22 --- GAPS01F 10.39 9.60 Arthur and Leonard 1970
Gammarus 1-3 d F,M,T S 19 --- GAPS02F 8.86 Arthur and Leonard 1970
Amphipod, 7-14 d S,M,T N 17 --- HYAZ01S 12.19 12.07 Schubauer-Berigan et al. 1993
Hyalella azteca 7-14 d S,M,T N 24 --- HYAZ02S 9.96 Schubauer-Berigan et al. 1993
7-14 d S,M,T N 87 --- HYAZ03S 15.77 Schubauer-Berigan et al. 1993
<7 d S,M,T S 24.3 --- HYAZ04S 8.26 Welsh 1996
<7 d S,M,T S 10 --- HYAZ07S 18.80 Welsh 1996
Stonefly, --- S,M,T S 8300 --- ACLY01S 20636 20636 Warnick and Bell 1969
Acroneuria lycorias
Midge, 4th instar S,M,T S 739 --- CHDE01S 1987 1987 Kosalwat and Knight 1987
Chironomus
Shovelnose fry, 6.01 cm, 0.719 g S,M,T S 160 --- SCPL01S 69.63 69.63 Dwyer et al. 1999
sturgeon,
Scaphirhynchus
Apache trout, larval, 0.38 g S,M,T S 70 --- ONAP01S 32.54 32.54 Dwyer et al. 1995
Oncorhynchus
Lahontan cutthroat larval, 0.34 g S,M,T S 80 --- ONCL01S 34.26 32.97 Dwyer et al. 1995
Oncorhynchus larval, 0.57 g S,M,T S 60 --- ONCL02S 24.73 Dwyer et al. 1995
clarki henshawi
26

Cutthroat trout, 7.4 cm, 4.2 g F,M,T,D C 398.91 367 ONCL03F 67.30 Chakoumakos et al. 1979
Oncorhynchus clarki 6.9 cm, 3.2 g F,M,T,D C 197.87 186 ONCL04F 44.91 Chakoumakos et al. 1979
8.8 cm, 9.7 g F,M,T,D C 41.35 36.8 ONCL05F 21.87 Chakoumakos et al. 1979
8.1 cm, 4.4 g F,M,T,D C 282.93 232 ONCL06F 51.94 Chakoumakos et al. 1979
Pink salmon, alevin (newly hatched) F,M,T S 143 --- ONGO01F 41.65 40.13 Servizi and Martens 1978
Oncorhynchus gorbu alevin F,M,T S 87 --- ONGO02F 19.70 Servizi and Martens 1978
fry F,M,T S 199 --- ONGO03F 78.76 Servizi and Martens 1978
Coho salmon, 6g R,M,T,I --- 164 --- ONKI01R 106.09 22.93 Buckley 1983
Oncorhynchus kisutc parr F,M,T C 33 --- ONKI02F 20.94 Chapman 1975
adult, 2.7 kg F,M,T C 46 --- ONKI03F 32.66 Chapman and Stevens 1978
fry F,M,T,D,I --- 61 49 ONKI04F 12.67 Mudge et al. 1993
smolt F,M,T,D,I --- 63 51 ONKI05F 13.19 Mudge et al. 1993
fry F,M,T,D,I --- 86 58 ONKI06F 11.95 Mudge et al. 1993
parr F,M,T,D,I --- 103 78 ONKI07F 22.98 Mudge et al. 1993
Rainbow trout, larval, 0.67 g S,M,T S 110 --- ONMY01S 41.64 22.19 Dwyer et al. 1995
Oncorhynchus mykis larval, 0.48 g S,M,T S 50 --- ONMY02S 25.26 Dwyer et al. 1995
larval, 0.50 g S,M,T S 60 --- ONMY03S 29.46 Dwyer et al. 1995
swim-up, 0.25 g R,M,T,D C 46.7 40 ONMY04R 10.90 Cacela et al. 1996
swim-up, 0.25 g R,M,T,D C 24.2 19 ONMY05R 9.04 Cacela et al. 1996
swim-up, 0.20-0.24 g R,M,T,D C 0 3.4 ONMY06R 5.02 Welsh et al. 2000
swim-up, 0.20-0.24 g R,M,T,D C 0 32 ONMY09R 23.84 Welsh et al. 2000
alevin F,M,T C 28 --- ONMY10F 20.30 Chapman 1975, 1978
swim-up, 0.17 g F,M,T C 17 --- ONMY11F 12.54 Chapman 1975, 1978
parr, 8.6 cm, 6.96 g F,M,T C 18 --- ONMY12F 9.87 Chapman 1975, 1978
smolt, 18.8 cm, 68.19 g F,M,T C 29 --- ONMY13F 22.48 Chapman 1975, 1978
1g F,M,T,D C - 169 ONMY14F 23.41 Chakoumakos et al. 1979
4.9 cm F,M,T,D C - 85.3 ONMY15F 10.20 Chakoumakos et al. 1979
6.0 cm, 2.1 g F,M,T,D C - 83.3 ONMY16F 9.93 Chakoumakos et al. 1979
6.1 cm, 2.5 g F,M,T,D C - 103 ONMY17F 12.71 Chakoumakos et al. 1979
2.6 g F,M,T,D C - 274 ONMY18F 44.54 Chakoumakos et al. 1979
4.3 g F,M,T,D C - 128 ONMY19F 16.51 Chakoumakos et al. 1979
27

6.7 cm, 2.65 g F,M,T C 2.8 --- ONMY25F 7.00 Cusimano et al. 1986
parr F,M,T,D,I --- 90 68 ONMY26F 19.73 Mudge et al. 1993
swim-up, 0.29 g F,M,T,D C 19.6 18 ONMY27F 8.10 Cacela et al. 1996
swim-up, 0.23 g F,M,T,D C 5.9 5.7 ONMY29F 24.80 Cacela et al. 1996
0.64 g, 4.1 cm F,M,T,D C 101 --- ONMY33F 39.73 Hansen et al. 2000
0.43 g, 3.7 cm F,M,T,D C 35.9 --- ONMY36F 50.83 Hansen et al. 2000
0.29 g, 3.4 cm F,M,T,D C 54.4 --- ONMY37F 47.69 Hansen et al. 2000
Sockeye salmon, alevin (newly hatched) F,M,T S 190 --- ONNE01F 71.73 54.82 Servizi and Martens 1978
Oncorhynchus nerka alevin F,M,T S 200 --- ONNE02F 79.52 Servizi and Martens 1978
alevin F,M,T S 100 --- ONNE03F 23.74 Servizi and Martens 1978
fry F,M,T S 150 --- ONNE06F 45.37 Servizi and Martens 1978
smolt, 5.5 g F,M,T S 210 --- ONNE07F 87.77 Servizi and Martens 1978
smolt, 4,8 g F,M,T S 240 --- ONNE10F 114.4 Servizi and Martens 1978
Chinook salmon, alevin, 0.05 g F,M,T C 26 --- ONTS01F 14.48 25.02 Chapman 1975, 1978
Oncorhynchus tshaw swim-up, 0.23 g F,M,T C 19 --- ONTS02F 10.44 Chapman 1975, 1978
parr, 9.6 cm, 11.58 g F,M,T C 38 --- ONTS03F 28.30 Chapman 1975, 1978
smolt, 14.4 cm, 32.46 g F,M,T C 26 --- ONTS04F 20.09 Chapman 1975, 1978
3 mo, 1.35 g F,M,T,I C 10.2 --- ONTS05F 19.41 Chapman and McCrady 1977
swim-up, 0.36-0.45 g F,M,T,D C 0 7.4 ONTS09F 36.49 Welsh et al. 2000
28

Bull trout, 0.130 g, 2.6 cm F,M,T,D C 228 --- SACO01F 69.70 68.31 Hansen et al. 2000
Salvelinus confluentu 0.555 g, 4.0 cm F,M,T,D C 207 --- SACO02F 63.62 Hansen et al. 2000
0.774 g, 4.5 cm F,M,T,D C 66.6 --- SACO03F 74.18 Hansen et al. 2000
1.520 g, 5.6 cm F,M,T,D C 50 --- SACO04F 63.60 Hansen et al. 2000
1.160 g, 5.2 cm F,M,T,D C 89 --- SACO05F 71.11 Hansen et al. 2000
Chiselmouth, 4.6 cm, 1.25 g F,M,T C 143 --- ACAL01F 216.3 216.3 Andros and Garton 1980
Acrocheilus
Bonytail chub, larval, 0.29 g S,M,T S 200 --- GIEL01S 63.22 63.22 Dwyer et al. 1995
Gila elegans
Golden shiner, --- F,M,T C 84600 --- NOCR01F 107860 107860 Hartwell et al. 1989
Notemigonus
crysoleucas
Fathead minnow, adult, 40 mm S,M,T S 310 --- PIPR01S 266.3 69.63 Birge et al. 1983
Pimephales promela adult, 40 mm S,M,T S 120 --- PIPR02S 105.61 Birge et al. 1983
adult, 40 mm S,M,T S 390 --- PIPR03S 207.3 Birge et al. 1983; Benson & Birge
--- S,M,T C 55 --- PIPR04S 38.08 Carlson et al. 1986
--- S,M,T C 85 --- PIPR05S 70.71 Carlson et al. 1986
<24 h S,M,T N 15 --- PIPR06S 11.23 Schubauer-Berigan et al. 1993
<24 h S,M,T N 44 --- PIPR07S 18.03 Schubauer-Berigan et al. 1993
<24 h S,M,T N >200 --- PIPR08S 24.38 Schubauer-Berigan et al. 1993
<24 h, 0.68 mg S,M,T S 4.82 --- PIPR09S 8.87 Welsh et al. 1993
<24 h, 0.68 mg S,M,T S 182 --- PIPR18S 13.91 Welsh et al. 1993
larval, 0.32 g S,M,T S 290 --- PIPR19S 73.92 Dwyer et al. 1995
3.2-5.5 cm, 0.42-3.23 g S,M,T S 450 --- PIPR23S 152.9 Richards and Beitinger 1995
<24 h S,M,T,D S 62.23 53.96 PIPR27S 25.70 Erickson et al. 1996a,b
29


<24 h S,M,T,D S 127 111.76 PIPR71S 100.16 Erickson et al. 1996a,b
30


31


--- F,M,T S 114.00 --- PIPR120F 17.99 Lind et al. Manuscript (1978)
30 d, 0.15 g F,M,T,D N 96.00 88.32 PIPR129F 39.58 Spehar and Fiandt 1986
<24 h F,M,T,D S 31.75 27.94 PIPR130F 8.69 Erickson et al. 1996a,b
Northern squawfish, larval, 0.32 g S,M,T S 380 --- PTLU01S 88.44 132.2 Dwyer et al. 1995
Ptychocheilus orego larval, 0.34 g S,M,T S 480 --- PTLU02S 197.6 Dwyer et al. 1995
32

Northern squawfish, 5.0 cm, 1.33 g F,M,T C 23 --- PTOR01F 17.02 14.61 Andros and Garton 1980
Ptychocheilus orego 7.2 cm, 3.69 g F,M,T C 18 --- PTOR02F 12.54 Andros and Garton 1980
Razorback sucker, larval, 0.31 g S,M,T S 220 --- XYTE01S 63.78 78.66 Dwyer et al. 1995
Xyrauchen texanus larval, 0.32 g S,M,T S 340 --- XYTE02S 97.0 Dwyer et al. 1995
Gila topminnow, 2.72 cm, 0.219 g S,M,T S 160 --- POAC01S 56.15 56.15 Dwyer et al. 1999
Poeciliposis
id t li
Bluegill, 3.58 cm, 0.63 g R,M,D C - 2200 LEMA01R 2202 2231 Blaylock et al. 1985
Lepomis macrochiru 12 cm, 35 g F,M,T S 1100 --- LEMA02F 2305 Benoit 1975
2.8-6.8 cm F,M,T C 1000 --- LEMA03F 4200 Cairns et al. 1981
3.58 cm, 0.63 g F,M,D C - 1300 LEMA04F 1163 Blaylock et al. 1985
Fantail darter, 3.7 cm S,M,T S 330 --- ETFL01S 117.7 124.3 Lydy and Wissing 1988
Etheostoma flabellar 3.7 cm S,M,T S 341 --- ETFL02S 121.1 Lydy and Wissing 1988
3.7 cm S,M,T S 373 --- ETFL03S 122.8 Lydy and Wissing 1988
3.7 cm S,M,T S 392 --- ETFL04S 136.6 Lydy and Wissing 1988
Greenthroat darter, 2.26 cm, 0.133 g S,M,T S 260 --- ETLE01S 82.80 82.80 Dwyer et al. 1999
Etheostoma
Johnny darter, 3.9 cm S,M,T S 493 --- ETNI01S 167.3 178.3 Lydy and Wissing 1988
Etheostoma nigrum 3.9 cm S,M,T S 483 --- ETNI02S 164.2 Lydy and Wissing 1988
3.9 cm S,M,T S 602 --- ETNI03S 200.1 Lydy and Wissing 1988
3.9 cm S,M,T S 548 --- ETNI04S 183.9 Lydy and Wissing 1988
Fountain darter, 2.02 cm, 0.062 g S,M,T S 60 --- ETRU01S 22.74 22.74 Dwyer et al. 1999
Etheostoma rubrum
Boreal toad, tadpole, 0.012 g S,M,T S 120 --- BUBO01S 47.49 47.49 Dwyer et al. 1999
Bufo boreas
a
Species appear in order taxonomically, with invertebrates listed first, fish, and an amphibian listed last. Species within each genus are ordered alphabetically. Within each species, tests are ordered by
test method (static, renewal, flow-through) and date.
b
S = static, R = renewal, F = flow-through, U = unmeasured, M = measured, T = exposure concentrations were measured as total copper, D = exposure concentrations were measured as
dissolved copper.
c
S = copper sulfate, N = copper nitrate, C = copper chloride.
d
Values in this column are total copper LC50 or EC50 values as reported by the author.
e
Values in this column are dissolved copper LC50 or EC50 values either reported by the author or if the author did not report a dissolved value then a conversion factor (CF) was applied
to the total copper LC50 to estimate dissolved copper values.
g Underlined LC50s or EC50s not used to derive SMAV because considered extreme value.
* Table updated as of March 2, 2007
33
Table 2a. Chronic Toxicity of Copper to Freshwater Animals
Chronic Values
Hardness Species Mean Genus Mean

Chronic Chronic
Species Testa Chemical Endpoint (mg/L as EC20 b Chronic Value Chronic Value Reference
Limits (µg/L) Valueb ACR
CaCO3) (µg/L) (Total µg/L) (Total µg/L)
(µg/L)
Rotifer, LC,T Copper sulfate Intrinsic growth 85 2.5-5.0 3.54 - 3.54 3.54 Janssen et al. 1994
Brachionus calyciflorus rate
Snail, LC,T Copper sulfate Survival 35-55 8-14.8 10.88 8.73 9.77 9.77 191.6 Arthur and Leonard 1970
Campeloma decisum (Test 1)
Snail, LC,T Copper sulfate Survival 35-55 8-14.8 10.88 10.94 153.0 Arthur and Leonard 1970
Cladoceran, LC,D - Reproduction 179 6.3-9.9 7.90c - 19.3 19.3 3.599 Belanger et al. 1989
Ceriodaphnia dubia (New River) (8.23)
Cladoceran, LC,D - Reproduction 94.1 <19.3-19.3 <19.3 19.36 c 3.271 Belanger et al. 1989
Ceriodaphnia dubia (Cinch River) (20.17)
Cladoceran, LC,T Copper sulfate Survival and 57 - 24.50 - 0.547 Oris et al. 1991
Ceriodaphnia dubia reproduction
Cladoceran, LC,T Copper sulfate Survival and 57 - 34.60 - Oris et al. 1991
Ceriodaphnia dubia reproduction
Cladoceran, LC,T,D Copper chloride Reproduction 12-32 19.59 9.17 2.069 Carlson et al. 1986
Ceriodaphnia dubia
Cladoceran, LC,T Copper chloride Reproduction 85 10-30 17.32 - 14.1 8.96 Blaylock et al. 1985
Daphnia magna
Cladoceran, LC,T Copper chloride Carapace length 225 12.6-36.8 21.50 - van Leeuwen et al. 1988
Daphnia magna
Cladoceran, LC,T Copper chloride Reproduction 51 11.4-16.3 13.63 12.58 2.067 Chapman et al. Manuscript
Daphnia magna
Cladoceran, LC,T Copper chloride Reproduction 104 20-43 29.33 19.89 1.697 Chapman et al. Manuscript
Daphnia magna
Cladoceran, LC,T Copper chloride Reproduction 211 7.2-12.6 9.53 6.06 11.39 Chapman et al. Manuscript
Daphnia magna
Cladoceran, LC,T Copper sulfate Survival 57.5 (No HA) 4.0-6.0 4.90 2.83 5.68 9.104 Winner 1985
Daphnia pulex
Cladoceran, LC,T Copper sulfate Survival 115 (No HA) 5.0-10.0 7.07 3.904 Winner 1985
Daphnia pulex
Cladoceran, LC,T Copper sulfate Survival 230 (0.15 HA) 10-15 12.25 9.16 3.143 Winner 1985
Daphnia pulex
34
Table 2a. Chronic Toxicity of Copper to Freshwater Animals
Chronic Values
Hardness Species Mean Genus Mean

a Chronic Chronic
Species Test Chemical Endpoint (mg/L as EC20 b Chronic Value Chronic Value Reference
Limits (µg/L) Valueb ACR
CaCO3) (µg/L) (Total µg/L) (Total µg/L)
(µg/L)
Caddisfly, LC,T Copper chloride Emergence (adult 26 8.3-13 10.39 7.67 7.67 7.67 Nebeker et al. 1984b
Clistoronia magnifica 1st gen)
Rainbow trout, ELS,T Copper chloride Biomass 120 27.77 23.8 11.9 2.881 Seim et al. 1984
Oncorhynchus mykiss continuous
Rainbow trout, ELS,T Copper sulfate Biomass 160-180 12-22 16.25 20.32 Besser et al. 2001
Oncorhynchus mykiss
Chinook salmon, ELS,T Copper chloride Biomass 20-45 <7.4 <7.4 5.92 5.92 5.594 Chapman 1975, 1982
Oncorhynchus tshawytscha
Brown trout, ELS,T Copper sulfate Biomass 45.4 20.8-43.8 29.91 - 29.9 29.9 McKim et al. 1978
Salmo trutta
Brook trout, PLC,T Copper sulfate Biomass 35.0 <5 -5 <5 - 12.5 19.7 Sauter et al. 1976
Salvelinus fontinalis
Brook trout, ELS,T Copper sulfate Biomass 45.4 22.3-43.5 31.15 - McKim et al. 1978
Lake trout, ELS, T Copper sulfate Biomass 45.4 22.0-43.5 30.94 - 30.9 McKim et al. 1978
Salvelinus namaycush
Northern pike, ELS, T Copper sulfate Biomass 45.4 34.9-104.4 60.36 - 60.4 60.4 McKim et al. 1978
Esox lucius
Bluntnose minnow LC,T Copper sulfate Egg production 172-230 <18-18 18.00 - 18.0 13.0 12.88 Horning and Neiheisel 1979
Pimephales notatus
Fathead minnow, ELS,T,D - Biomass 45 9.38 9.38 11.40 Lind et al. manuscript
Pimephales promelas
White sucker, ELS, T Copper sulfate Biomass 45.4 12.9-33.8 20.88 - 20.9 20.9 McKim et al. 1978
Catostomus commersoni
Bluegill (larval), ELS,T,D Copper sulfate Survival 44-50 21-40 28.98 27.15 27.2 27.2 40.52 Benoit 1975
Lepomis macrochirus
a
LC = life-cycle; PLC = partial life-cyle; ELS = early life state; T = total copper; D = dissolved copper.
b
Results are based on copper, not the chemical.
c
Chronic values based on dissolved copper concentration.
35
Table 2b. Chronic Toxicity of Copper to Saltwater Animals
Salinity Chronic Value Chronic Value Dissolved

Species Test Chemical Limits (µg/L) ACR Reference
(g/kg) (µg/L) (µg/L)
Sheepshead minnow,
ELS Copper chloride 30 172-362 249 206.7 1.48 Hughes et al. 1989
Cyprinodon variegatus
36
Table 2c. Acute-Chronic Ratios
Overall
Hardness (mg/L Acute Value Chronic
Species Ratio Reference Ratio for
as CaCO3) (µg/L) Value (µg/L)
Species
Snail, 35-55 1673

a
8.73 191.61 Arthur and Leonard 1970
Campeloma decisum 35-55 1673a 10.94 152.95 Arthur and Leonard 1970 171.19
Cladoceran, 179 28.42b 7.90 3.60 Belanger et al. 1989
Ceriodaphnia dubia 94.1 63.33b 19.36 3.27 Belanger et al. 1989
57 13.4 24.5 0.55 Oris et al. 1991
-- 17.974c 9.17 1.96 Carlson et al. 1986 2.85
g
>
Cladoceran, 51 26 12.58 2.07 Chapman et al. Manuscript
Daphnia magna 104 33.76d 19.89 1.70 Chapman et al. Manuscript
211 69 6.06 11.39 Chapman et al. Manuscript 3.42 >
Cladoceran, 57.5 25.737 2.83 9.10 Winner 1985
Daphnia pulex 115 27.6 7.07 3.90 Winner 1985
230 28.79 9.16 3.14 Winner 1985 4.82 >
Rainbow trout,
Oncorhynchus mykiss 120 80 27.77 2.88 Seim et al. 1984 2.88 >
Chinook salmon,
Oncorhynchus tshawytscha 20-45 33.1 5.92 5.59 Chapman 1975, 1982 5.59 >
Bluntnose minnow,
Pimephales notatus 172-230 231.9e 18 12.88 Horning and Neiheisel 1979 12.88
Fathead minnow,
Pimephales promelas 45 106.875f 9.38 11.40 Lind et al. 1978 11.40
Bluegill,
Lepomis macrochirus 21-40 1100 27.15 40.52 Benoit 1975 40.49
Sheepshead minnow,
Cyprinodon variegatus - 368 249 1.48 Hughes et al. 1989 1.48 >
a
Geometric mean of two values from Arthur and Leonard (1970) in Table 1.
b
Geometric mean of five values from Belanger et al. (1989) in Table 1. ACR is based on dissolved metal measurements.
c
Geometric mean of two values from Carlson et al. (1986) in Table 1.
d
Geometric mean of two values from Chapman manuscript in Table 1.
e
Geometric mean of two values of three values from Horning and Neiheisel (1979) in Appendix C.
f
Geometric mean of three values from Lind et al. (1978) in Table 1.
g
ACR from Oris et al. (1991) not used in calculating overall ratio for species because it is <1.
FACR
Freshwater final acute-chronic ratio = 3.22
Saltwater final acute-chronic ratio = 3.22
37
Table 3a. Ranked Freshwater Genus Mean Acute Values with Species Mean
Acute-Chronic Ratios
Rank GMAV Species SMAV (µg/L) ACR
27 107,860 Golden shiner, Notemigonus crysoleucas 107,860
26 20,636 Stonefly, Acroneuria lycorias 20,636
25 3,573 Snail, Campeloma decisum 3,573 171.19
24 2,231 Bluegill sunfish, Lepomis macrochirus 2,231 40.49
23 1,987 Midge, Chironomus decorus 1,987
22 216.3 Chiselmouth, Acrocheilus alutaceus 216.3
21 80.38 Fantail darter, Etheostoma flabellare 124.3
Greenthroat darter, Etheostoma lepidum 82.80
Johnny darter, Etheostoma nigrum 178.3
Fountain darter, Etheostoma rubrum 22.74
20 78.66 Razorback sucker, Xyrauchen texanus 78.66
19 69.63 Fathead minnow, Pimephales promelas 69.63 11.40
18 69.63 Shovelnose sturgeon, Scaphirhynchus platorynchus 69.63
17 68.31 Bull trout, Salvelinus confluentus 68.31
16 63.22 Bonytail chub, Gila elegans 63.22
15 56.15 Gila topminnow, Poeciliposis occidentalis 56.15
14 52.51 Freshwater mussel, Utterbackia imbecillis 52.51
13 48.41 Worm, Lumbriculus variegatus 48.41
12 47.49 Boreal toad, Bufo boreas 47.49
11 43.94 Colorado squawfish, Ptychocheilus lucius 132.2
Northern squawfish, Ptychocheilus oregonensis 14.61
10 31.39 Apache trout, Oncorhynchus apache 32.54
Cutthroat trout, Oncorhynchus clarki 32.97
Pink salmon, Oncorhynchus gorbuscha 40.13
Coho salmon, Oncorhynchus kisutch 22.93
Rainbow trout, Oncorhynchus mykiss 22.19 2.88
Sockeye salmon, Oncorhynchus nerka 54.82
Chinook salmon, Oncorhynchus tshawytscha 25.02 5.59
9 20.41 Snail, Physa integra 20.41
8 12.31 Snail, Juga plicifera 12.31
7 12.07 Amphipod, Hyalella azteca 12.07
6 11.33 Freshwater mussel, Actinonaias pectorosa 11.33
5 9.73 Cladoceran, Scapholeberis sp. 9.73
4 9.60 Amphipod, Gammarus pseudolimnaeus 9.60
3 6.67 Snail, Lithoglyphus virens 6.67
2 5.93 Cladoceran, Ceriodaphnia dubia 5.93 2.85
1 4.05 Cladoceran, Daphnia magna 6.00 3.42
Cladoceran, Daphnia pulicaria 2.73

38
Table 3b. Freshwater Final Acute Value (FAV) and Criteria Calculations
Calculated Freshwater FAV based on 4 lowest values: Total Number of GMAVs in Data Set = 27
2
Rank GMAV lnGMAV (lnGMAV) P = R/(n+1) SQRT(P)
4 9.600 2.261 5.114 0.143 0.378
3 6.670 1.897 3.599 0.107 0.327
2 5.930 1.780 3.170 0.071 0.267
1 4.050 1.398 1.954 0.036 0.189
Sum: 7.33671 13.83657 0.35714 1.16153
S= 4.374
L= 0.5641
A= 1.542
Calculated FAV = 4.674452
Calculated CMC = 2.337
Dissolved Copper Criterion Maximum Concentration (CMC) = 2.337 µg/L (for example normalization chemistry see Table 1, footnote f)
Criteria Lethal Accumulation (LA50) based on example normalization chemistry = 0.03395 nmol/g wet wt
Criterion Continuous Concentration (CCC) = 4.67445/3.22 = 1.4516932 µg/L (for example normalization chemistry see Table 1, footnote f)
S = Scale parameter or slope

L = Location parameter or intercept
P = Cumulative probability
A = lnFAV
39
Table 4. Toxicity of Copper to Freshwater Plants
Hardness (mg/L Resultb

Species Methoda Chemical
as CaCO3)
Duration Effect Reference
(Total µg/L)
Blue-green alga, Copper EC75

S,U 65.2 96 hr 200 Young and Lisk 1972
Anabaena flos-aqua sulfate (cell density)
Bllue-green alga, EC85
S,U Copper sulfate 65.2 - 100 Young and Lisk 1972
Anabaena variabilis (wet weight)
Blue-green alga,
- - - - Lag in growth 64 Laube et al. 1980
Anabaena strain 7120
Blue-green alga,
S,U Copper nitrate 54.7 10 days Growth reduction 100 Les and Walker 1984
Chroococcus paris
Blue-green alga, Bringmann 1975; Bringmann and Kuhn
S,U Copper sulfate 54.9 8 days Incipient inhibition 30
Microcystis aeruginosa 1976, 1978a,b
Alga,
- - - - Growth reduction 640 Laube et al. 1980
Ankistrodesmus braunii
Green alga,
S,U Copper sulfate 68 10 days Growth inhibition 8,000 Cairns et al. 1978
Chlamydomonas sp.
Green alga, NOEC
S,M,T - 90 - 133 72 hr 12.2-49.1 Winner and Owen 1991a
Chlamydomonas reinhardtii (deflagellation)
Green alga, NOEC
S,M,T - 90 - 133 72 hr 12.2-43.0 Winner and Owen 1991a
Chlamydomonas reinhardtii (cell density)
Green alga, EC50
F,M,T - 24 10 days 31.5 Schafer et al. 1993
Chlamydomonas reinhardtii (cell density)
Green alga, Steeman-Nielsen and Wium-Andersen
S,U - - 96 hr ca. 12 hr lag in growth 1
Chlorella pyrenoidosa 1970
Green alga, Steeman-Nielsen and Kamp-Nielsen
S,U - 54.7 - Growth inhibition 100
Chlorella pyrenoidosa 1970
Green alga, EC50
S,U Copper sulfate 365 14 days 78-100 Bednarz and Warkowska-Dratnal 1985
Chlorella pyrenoidosa (dry weight)
Green alga, EC50
S,U Copper sulfate 36.5 14 days 78-100 Bednarz and Warkowska-Dratnal 1985
Chlorella pyrenoidosa (dry weight)
Green alga, EC50 Bednarz and Warkowska-Dratnal
S,U Copper sulfate 3.65 14 days 78-100
Chlorella pyrenoidosa (dry weight) 1983/1984
Green alga, Copper
S,U - 96 hr 96-h EC50 550 Rachlin et al. 1982
Chlorella saccharophila chloride
Green alga,
S,U Copper sulfate 2,000 96 hr Growth inhibition 200 Young and Lisk 1972
Chlorella vulgaris
Green alga, Copper EC20
S,U 33 days 42 Rosko and Rachlin 1977
Chlorella vulgaris chloride (growth)
Green alga, EC50 or EC50
F,U Copper sulfate - 96 hr 62 Ferard et al. 1983
Chlorella vulgaris (cell numbers)
Green alga,
S,M,D Copper sulfate - 96 hr IC50 270 Ferard et al. 1983
Chlorella vulgaris
S,M,T - 96 hr 200 Blaylock et al. 1985
Chlorella vulgaris chloride (cell density)
Green alga,
S,U Copper sulfate 17.1 7 days 15% reduction in cell density 100 Bilgrami and Kumar 1997
Chlorella vulgaris
40

as CaCO3)
(Total µg/L)
Green alga,
S,U Copper sulfate 68 10 days Growth reduction 8,000 Cairns et al. 1978
Scenedesmus quadricauda
Green alga, LOEC Bringmann and Kuhn 1977a, 1978a,b,
S,U Copper sulfate 181 7 days 1,100
Scenedesmus quadricauda (growth) 1979, 1980a
S,U 14.9 14 days 85 Christensen et al. 1979
Selenastrum capricornutum chloride (cell volume)
Green alga, Copper LOEC
S,U 14.9 7 days 50 Bartlett et al. 1974
Selenastrum capricornutum chloride (growth)
S,M,T 24.2 96 hr 400 Blaylock et al. 1985
Selenastrum capricornutum chloride (cell count)
Green alga, EC50
S,U Copper sulfate 9.3 96 hr 48.4 Blaise et al. 1986
Selenastrum capricornutum (cell count)
Green alga, EC50
Green alga, EC50
S,U 15 2-3 wk 53.7 Turbak et al. 1986
Selenastrum capricornutum chloride (biomass)
Green alga,
S,U Copper sulfate 14.9 5 days Growth reduction 58 Nyholm 1990
Selenastrum capricornutum
Green alga, EC50
S,U Copper sulfate 9.3 96 hr 69.9 St. Laurent et al. 1992
Green alga, EC50
S,U Copper sulfate 9.3 96 hr 65.7 St. Laurent et al. 1992
Green alga, EC50
S,U Copper sulfate 24.2 96 hr 54.4 Radetski et al. 1995
Green alga, EC50
R,U Copper sulfate 24.2 96 hr 48.2 Radetski et al. 1995
Green alga, EC50
S,U Copper sulfate 16 96 hr 38 Chen et al. 1997
Selenastrum capricornutum (cell density)
Algae, Significant reduction in blue-green
S,U Copper sulfate - - 5 Elder and Horne 1978
mixed culture algae and nitrogen fixation
Diatom,
S,U Copper sulfate 68 10 days Growth inhibition 8,000 Cairns et al. 1978
Cyclotella meneghiniana
Diatom, Copper
S,U - 96 hr EC50 10,429 Rachlin et al. 1983
Navicula incerta chloride
Diatom, Academy of Natural Sciences 1960;
- - - 5 day EC50 795-815
Nitzschia linearis Patrick et al. 1968
Diatom, Steeman-Nielsen and Wium-Andersen
- - - - Complete growth inhibition 5
Nitzschia palea 1970
Duckweed,
F - - 7 day EC50 119 Walbridge 1977
Lemna minor
Duckweed,
S,U Copper sulfate - 28 days Significant plant damage 130 Brown and Rattigan 1979
Lemna minor
41

as CaCO3)
(Total µg/L)
Duckweed, EC50
S,U - 0 96 hr 1,100 Wang 1986
Lemna minor (frond number)
Duckweed, EC50
S,U Copper sulfate 78 96 hr 250 Eloranta et al. 1988
Lemna minor (chlorophyll a reduction)
Duckweed,
R,M,T Copper nitrate 39 96 hr Reduced chlorophyll production 24 Taraldsen and Norberg-King 1990
Lemna minor
Eurasian watermilfoil, EC50
S,U - 89 32 days 250 Stanley 1974
Myriophyllum spicatum (root weight)
a
S=Static; R=Renewal; F=Flow-through; M=Measured; U=Unmeasured; T=Total metal conc. measured; D=dissolved metal conc. measured.
b
Results are expressed as copper, not as the chemical.
42
9.0 REFERENCES
Allen, H.E. and D.J. Hansen. 1996. The importance of trace metal speciation to water quality
criteria. Water Environ. Res. 68:42-54.
Allen, H.E. et al. 1983. An algal assay method for determination of copper complexation capacities
of natural waters. Bull. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 30:448.
Arthur, J.W. and E.N. Leonard. 1970. Effects of copper on Gammarus pseudolimnaeus, Physa
integra, and Campeloma decisum in soft water. J. Fish. Res. Board Can. 27:1277-1283.
ASTM. 2000. Standard guide for conducting acute toxicity tests on test materials with fishes,
macroinvertebrates, and amphibians. E729-96. In: Annual book of ASTM standards. Section 11,
Volume 5. American Society for Testing and Materials, Pennsylvania, PA.
Blaylock, B.G., M.L. Frank and J.F. McCarthy. 1985. Comparative toxicity of copper and acridine
to fish, Daphnia and algae. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 4(1):63-71.
Bowen, H.J.M. 1985. In D. Hutzinger (ed.), The Handbook of Environmental Chemistry, Vol. 1,
Part D: The natural environment and biogeochemical cycles, Springer-Verlag, New York. p. 1-26.
Brown, P. L., and Markich, S. J. 2000. Evaluation of the free ion activity model of metal-organism
interaction: Extension of the conceptual model. Aquatic Toxicology 51:177-194.
Brungs, W.A., J.R. Geckler and M. Gast. 1976. Acute and chronic t oxicity of copper to the
fathead minnow in a surface water of variable quality. Water Res. 10:37-43.
Bryan, S. E., Tipping, E., and Hamilton-Taylor, J. 2002. Comparison of measured and modelled
copper binding by natural organic matter in freshwaters. Comparative Biochemistry and
Physiology 133C:37-49.
Buckley, J. A., Yoshida, G. A., and Wells, N. R. 1984. A cupric ion-copper bioaccumulation
relationship in coho salmon exposed to copper-containing treated sewage. Comparative
Biochemistry and Physiology 78C:105-110.
Campbell, P.G.C. 1995. “Interactions Between Trace Metals and Aquatic Organisms: A Critique
of the Free-ion Activity Model,” in Metal Speciation and Bioavailability in Aquatic Systems, A.
Tessier and D.R. Turner, eds., John Wiley and Sons, New York, pp. 45-102.
Carlson, A.R., W.A. Brungs, G.A. Chapman and D.J. Hansen. 1984. Guidelines for deriving
numerical aquatic site-specific water quality criteria by modifying national criteria. EPA-600/3-84-
099, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Environmental Research Laboratory, Duluth,
Minnesota, USA.
Chakoumakos, C., R.C. Russo and R.V. Thurston. 1979. The toxicity of copper to cutthroat trout
(Salmo clarki) under different conditions of alkalinity, pH, and hardness. Environ. Sci. Technol.
13:213-219.
Chapman, G.A. 1978. Toxicities of cadmium, copper, and zinc to four juvenile stages of chinook
salmon and steelhead. Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. 107:841-847.
Davis, A. and D. Ashenberg. 1989. The aqueous geochemistry of the Berkeley Pit, Butte,
Montana, U.S.A. Appl. Geochem. Vol (4):23-36.
43
Di Toro, D.M. et al. 2001. The persistence and availability of metals in aquatic environments.
International council on metals and the environment. Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
Erickson, R.J., D.A. Benoit and V.R. Mattson. 1996a. A prototype toxicity factors model for site-
specific copper water quality criteria. U.S. EPA, Duluth, Minnesota.
Erickson, R.J., D.A. Benoit, V.R. Mattson, H.P. Nelson, Jr. and E.N. Leonard. 1996b. The effects
of water chemistry on the toxicity of copper to fathead minnows. Environ. Toxicol. Chem.
15(2):181-193.
Erickson, R.J., D.A. Benoit and V.R. Mattson, 1987. “A Prototype Toxicity Factors Model
ForSite-Specific Copper Water Quality Criteria,” revised September 5, 1996, United States
Environmental Protection Agency, Environmental Research Laboratory-Duluth, Duluth, MN.
Foster, P.L. 1982. Metal resistances of chlorophyta from rivers polluted by heavy metals.
Freshwater Biol. 12:41.
Gächter, R., K. Lum-Shue-Chan and Y.K Chau. 1973. Complexing capacity of the nutrient
medium and its relation to inhibition of algal photosynthesis by copper. Schweiz. Z. Hydrol.
35:252.
Geckler, J.R., W.B. Horning, T.M. Neiheisel, Q.H. Pickering, E.L. Ro binson and C.E. St ephan.
1976. Validity of laboratory tests for predicting copper toxicity in streams. EPA-600/3-76-116.
National Technical Information Service, Springfield, VA.
Hem, J.D. 1989. Study and interpretation of the chemical characteristics of natural water, 3rd ed.
U.S. Geological Survey water-supply paper 2253. Government Printing Office.
Hughes, M.M., M.A. Heber, G.E. Morrison, S.C. Schimmel and W.J. Berry. 1989. An evaluation
of a short-term chronic effluent toxicity test using sheepshead minnow (Cyprinodon variegatus)
larvae. Environ. Pollut. 60(1):1-14.
Hunt, D. T. E. 1987. Trace Metal Speciation and Toxicity to Aquatic Organisms - A Review. TR
247, Water Research Centre, Marlow, Bucks, United Kingdom.
Inglis, A. and E.L. Davis. 1972. Effects of water hardness on the toxicity of several organic and
inorganic herbicides to fish. Technical Paper No. 67. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington,
D.C.
Janes, N., Playle, R.C. 1995. Modeling silver binding to gills of rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus
mykiss). Env. Toxicol. Chem. 14, 1847-1858.
Kapustka, L.A., W.H. Clements, L. Ziccardi, P.R. Paquin, M. Sprenger and D. Wall, August 19,
2004. "Issue Paper on the Ecological Effects of Metals," Submitted by ERG to U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Risk Assessment Forum, Washington, DC.
Koivisto, S., M. Ketola and M. Walls. 1992. Comparison of five cladoceran species in short- and
long-term copper exposure. Hydrobiol. 248(2):125-136.
Kramer, J. R., Allen, H. E., Davison, W., Godtfredsen, K. L., Meyer, J. S., Perdue, E. M.,
Tipping, E., van der Meent, D., and Westall, J. C. 1997. Chemical speciation and metal toxicity in
surface freshwat er. In Bergman, H. L., and Dorward-King, E. J. (eds.) Reassessment of Metals
Criteria for Aquatic Life Protection. Pensacola, FL: SETAC Press.
44
Lauren, D. J., and McDonald, D. G. 1986. Influence of water hardness, pH, and alkalinity on t he
mechanisms of copper toxicity in juvenile rainbow trout, Salmo gairdneri. Canadian Journal of
Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 43:1488-1496.
Lopez, J.M., Lee, G.F. 1977. Water, Air and Soils Pollut. Vol. (8): 373.
Lumsden, B.R. and T.M. Florence. 1983. A new algal assay procedure for the determination of the
toxicity of copper species in seawater. Environ. Toxicol. Lett. 4:271.
MacRae, R.K., D.E. Smith, N. Swoboda-Colberg, J.S. Meyer and H.L. Bergman. 1999. Copper
binding affinity of rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) and brook trout (Salvelinus fontinalis)
gills: Implications for assessing bioavailable metal. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 18:1180-1189.
McGeer JC, Szebedinszky C, McDonald DG, and Wood CM. 2002. The role of dissolved
organic carbon in moderating the bioavailability and toxicity of Cu to rainbow trout during chronic
waterbrone exposure. Comp. Biochem. Physiol. C: Toxicol and Pharmacol. 133C:147-161.
McKnight, D.M. and F.M.M. Morel. 1979. Release of weak and strong copper-complexing agents
by algae. Limnol. Oceanogr. 24:823.
McKnight, D.M. et al. 1983. CuSO4 treatment of nuisance algal blooms in drinking water
reservoirs. Environ. Manage. 7:311.
Meyer, J.S., C.J. Boese and S.A. Collyard. 2002. Whole-body accumulation of copper predicts
acute toxicity to an aquatic oligochaete (Lumbriculus variegatus) as pH and calcium are varied.
Comp. Biochem. Physiol. Part C 133:99-109.
Meyer, J.S., R.C. Santore, J.P. Bobbitt, L.D. DeBrey, C.J. Boese, P.R. Paquin, H.E. Allen, H.L.
Bergman and D.M. Di Toro. 1999. Binding of nickel and copper to fish gills predicts toxicity when
water hardness varies, but free-ion activity does not. Environ. Sci. Technol. 33:913-916.
Miller, T.G. and W.C. MacKay. 1980. The effects of hardness, alkalinity and pH of test water on
the toxicity of copper to rainbow trout (Salmo gairdneri). Water Res. 14:129-133.
Morel, F.M., 1983a. “Complexation: Trace Metals and Microorganisms,” in Chapter 6 of
Principles of Aquatic Chemistry, Wiley Interscience, New York, pp. 301-308.
Morel F.M.M. 1983b. Principles of Aquatic Chemistry. John Wiley and Sons, New York, NY.
Morrison, G., E. Torello, R. Comeleo, R. Walsh, A. Kuhn, R. Burgess, M. Tagliabue and W.
Greene. 1989. Intralaboratory precision of saltwater short-term chronic toxicity tests. J. Water
Pollut. Control Fed. 61(11-12):1707-1710.
Muramoto, S. 1980. Effect of complexants (EDTA, NTA and DTPA) on the exposure to high
concentrations of cadmium, copper, zinc and lead. Bull Environ Contam Toxicol. 25(6):941-946.
National Research Council. 2003. Bioavailability of Contaminants in Soils and Sediments:
Processes, Tools, and Applications. The Nat ional Academy of Sciences, Washington, DC, USA.
Nriagu, J.O. (Ed.) 1979. Copper in the Environment. Part I: Ecological Cycling; Part II: Health
Effects. Wiley and Sons, Inc. New York, NY.
Oris, J.T., R.W. Winner and M.V. Moore. 1991. A four-day survival and reproduction toxicity test
for Ceriodaphnia dubia. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 10(2):217-224.
45
Pagenkopf, G.K. 1983. Gill surface interaction model for trace-metal toxicity to fishes: Role of
complexation, pH, and water hardness. Environ. Sci. Technol. 17:342-347.
Paquin, P.R., J.W. Gorsuch, S. Apte, G.E. Batley, K.C. Bowles, P.G.C. Campbell, C.G. Delos,
D.M. Di Toro, R.L. Dwyer, F. Galvez, R.W. Gensemer, G.G. Goss, C. Hogstrand, C.R. Janssen,
J.C. McGeer, R.B. Naddy, R.C. Playle, R.C. Santore, U. Schneider, W.A. Stubblefield, C.M.
Wood and K.B. Wu. 2002. The bitoic ligand model: A historical overview. Comp. Biochem.
Physiol. Part C 133:3-35.
Patterson, J.W., R.A. Minear, E. Gasca and C. Petropoulou. 1998. Industrial discharges of metals
to water. In: H.E. Allen, A.W. Garrison and G.W. Luther III (Eds.). Metals in Surface Waters.
Ann Arbor Press, Chelsea, MI. pp. 37-66.
Petersen, R. 1982. Influence of copper and zinc on the growth of a freshwater algae, Scenedesmus
quadricauda: The significance of speciation. Environ. Sci. Technol. 16:443.
Peterson, H. G., Healey, F. P., and Wagemann, R. 1984. Metal toxicity to algae: A highly pH
dependent phenomenon. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Science 41:974-979.
Playle, R.C., D.G. Dixon and K. Burnison. 1993a. Copper and cadmium binding to fish gills:
Estimates of metal-gill stability constants and modeling of metal accumulation. Can. J. Fish. Aquat.
Sci. 50(12):2678-2687.
Playle, R.C., D.G. Dixon and K. Burnison. 1993b. Copper and cadmium binding to fish gills:
Modification by dissolved organic carbon and synthetic ligands. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci.
50(12):2667-2677.
Playle, R.C., R.W. Gensener and D.G. Dixon. 1992. Copper accumulation on gills of fathead
minnows: Influence of water hardness, complexation and pH of the gill micro-environment.
Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 11(3):381-391.
Reeve, W.R. et al. 1976. A controlled environmental pollution experiment (CEPEX) and its
usefulness in the study of larger marine zooplankton under toxic stress. In: Effects of pollutants on
aquatic organisms. Lockwood, P.M. (Ed.). Cambridge University Press, New York, NY. p. 145.
Robins, R.G., Berg, R.B., Dysinger, D.K., Duaime, T.E., Metesh, J.J., Diebold, F.E., Twidwell,
L.G., Mitman, G.G., Chatham , W.H., Huang, H.H., Young, C.A. 1997. Chemical, physical and
biological interactions at the Berkeley Pit, Butte, Montana. Tailings and Mine Waste 97. Bakeman,
Rot terdam.
Rueter, J.G. 1983. Alkaline phosphatase inhibition by copper: Implications to phosphorus nutrition
and use as a biochemical marker of toxicity. Limnol. Oceanogr. 28:743.
Santo re, R.C., D.M. Di Toro and P.R. Paquin, H.E. Allen, and J.S. Meyer. 2001. “A Biot ic Ligand
Model of the Acute Toxicity of Metals. II. Application to Acute Copper Toxicity in Freshwater
Fish and Daphnia,” Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry. 20(10):2397-2402.
Schafer, H., A. Wentzel, U. Fritsche, G. Roderer and W. Trauspurger. 1993. Long-term effects of
selected xenobiotica on freshwater green alga: Developmental of a flow-through test system. Sci.
Total Environ. Suppl.:735-740.
Smith, D. S., Bell, R. A., and Kramer, J. R. 2002. Metal speciation in natural waters with emphasis
on reduced sulfur groups as strong metal binding sites. Comparative Biochemistry and Physiology
133C:65-74.
46
Sprague, J.B. 1968. Avoidance reactions of rainbow trout to zinc sulphate solutions. Water
Res.2(5):367-372.
Steemann-Nielsen, E. and L. Kamp-Nielsen. 1970. Influence of deleterious concentrations of
copper on the growth of Chlorella pyrenoidosa. Physiol. Plant. 23:828-840.
Steemann-Nielsen, E. and S. Wium-Andersen. 1970. Copper ions as poison in sea and in
freshwater. Mar. Biol. 6:93.
Stephan, C.E. 1995. Derivation of conversation factors for the calculation of dissolved freshwater
aquatic life criteria for metals. Report. March 11, 1995. U.S. EPA, Duluth, MN.
Stephan, C.E., D.I. Mount, D.J. Hansen, J.H. Gentile, G.A. Chapman and W.A. Brungs. 1985.
Guidelines for deriving numerical national water quality criteria for the protection of aquatic
organisms and their uses. PB85-227049. National Technical Information Service, Springfield, VA.
Stephan, C.E., and J.W. Rogers. 1985. Advantages of Using Regression Analysis to Calculate
Results of Chronic Toxicity Tests. In: Aquatic Toxicology and Hazard Assessment: Eighth
Symposium. R.C. Bahner and D.J. Hansen, Eds. ASTM STP 891. American Society for Testing
and Materials, Philadelphia, PA. Pp. 328-338.
Stokes, P. and T.C. Hutchinson. 1976. Copper toxicity to phytoplankton, as affected by organic
ligands, other cations and inherent tolerance of algae to copper. In: Toxicity to biota of metal
forms in natural water. Andrew,
Swallow, K.C. et al. 1978. Potentiometric determination of copper complexation by phytoplankton
exudates. Limnol. Oceanogr. 23:538.
Taraldsen, J.E. and T.J. Norberg-King. 1990. New method for determining effluent toxicity using
duckweed (Lemna minor). Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 9(6):761-767.
Tipping, E., 1994. “WHAM--A Chemical Equilibrium Model and Computer Code for Waters,
Sediments, and Soils Incorporating a Discrete Site/Electrostatic Model of Ion-Binding by Humic
Substances,” Computers and Geosciences, 20(6): 973-1023.
U.S. EPA. 1980. Ambient water quality criteria for copper. EPA-440/4-80-036. National
Technical Information Service, Springfield, VA.
U.S. EPA. 1983a. Methods for chemical analysis of water and wastes. EPA-600/4-79-020.
National Technical Information Service, Springfield, VA.
U.S. EPA. 1983b. Water quality standards regulation. Federal Register 48:51400. November 8.
U.S. EPA. 1983c. Water quality standards handbook. Office of Water Regulations and Standards,
Washington, D.C.
U.S. EPA. 1985. “Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Copper - 1984,” Office of Water
Regulations and Standards, Criteria and Standards Division, Washington, DC.
U.S. EPA. 1986. Quality Criteria for Water 1986. EPA 440/5-86-001. Office of Water, Regulation
and Standards, Washington, DC.
U.S. EPA. 1988. Short-term methods for estimating the chronic toxicity of effluents and receiving
waters to marine and estuarine organisms. EPA/600/4-87-028. National Technical Information
Service, Springfield, VA.
47
U.S. EPA. 1991. Technical support document for water quality-based toxics control. EPA-505/2-
90-001. National Technical Information Service, Springfield, VA.
U.S. EPA. 1992. Interim guidance on interpretation and implementation of aquatic life criteria for
metals. Health and Ecological Criteria Division, Office of Science and Technology, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, District of Columbia, USA.
U.S. EPA. 1993. Methods for measuring the acute toxicity of effluents and receiving water to
freshwater and marine organisms. Fourth Edition. EPA/600/4-90/027F. National Technical
Informat ion Service, Springfield, VA.
U.S. EPA. 1994. Water quality standards handbook. 2nd Edition. EPA-823-B94-005b.National
U.S. EPA. 1996 1995 Updates: Water Quality Criteria Documents for the Pro tection of Aquatic
Life in Ambient Water. Office of Water. EPA-820-B-96-001.
University of Wisconsin-Superior. 1995. Results of freshwater simulation tests concerning
dissolved metal. Report. March 10, 1995. U.S. EPA, Duluth, MN.
van den Berg, C.M.G., P.T.S. Wong and Y.K. Chan. 1979. Measurement of complexing materials
excreted from algae and their ability to ameliorate copper toxicity. J. Fish. Res. Board Can.
36:901-905.
Wallen, I.E., W.C. Greer and R. Lasater. 1957. Toxicity to Gambusia affinis of certain pure
chemicals in turbid waters. Sewage Ind. Wastes 29:695-711.
Winner, R.W. 1985. Bioaccumulation and toxicity of copper as affected by interactions between
humic acid and water hardness. Water Res. 19(4):449-455.
Winner, R.W. and H.A. Owen. 1991b. Toxicity of copper to Chlamydomonas reinhardtii
(Chlorophyceae) and Ceriodaphnia dubia (Crustacea) in relation to changes in water chemistry of
a freshwater pond. Aquat. Toxicol. 21(3-4):157-169.
Wood, C. M. 1992. Flux measurements as indices of H+ and metal effects on freshwater fish.
Aquatic Toxicology 22:239-264.
Wood, C. M., Adams, W. J., Ankley, G. T., DiBona, D. R., Luoma, W. N., Playle, R. C.,
Stubblefield, W. A., Bergman, H. L., Erickson, R. J., Mattice, J. S., and Schlekat, C. E. 1997.
Environmental toxicology of metals. In Bergman, H. L., and Dorward-King, E. J. (eds.)
Reassessment of Metals Criteria for Aquatic Life Protection. Pensacola, FL: SETAC Press.
Zitko, V. 1976. Toxicity to biota of metal forms in natural water. In Andrew, R. A., Hodson, P.
V., and Konasewich, D. (eds.) Toxicity to Biota of Metal Forms in Natural Water. Proceedings of
Workshop, October 1975, Duluth, MN. Windsor, Ontario: International Joint Commission.
Zitko, V., and Carson, W. G. 1976. A mechanism of the effects of water hardness on the lethality
of heavy metals to fish. Chemosphere 5:299-303.
48
Appendices
Append ix A. Rang es in Calibr ation and Applic ation Data Se ts
40
___ Measured/Nominal/Calculated Data
___ Assumed/Untraceable Data
30
Temperature (oC)
20
10
N 46 0 33 0 3 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 24 0 13 0 10 0 4 0 0 1 0 4 6 0 0 17 20 0 3 0 0 7 4 0 30 0 1050 0 13 0 13 8 0 4 0 0 1 0 9 11 0 0 3 1 0 0 2 0 1
0
*Chapman, 1975, 1978

*Schubauer-Ber., 199
*Chakoumakos, 1979
Penn. Copper Group
*Svecevicious, 1996
*Hagler-Bailly, 1996
*Marr, Manuscript
*Borgmann, 1984
*Borgmann, 1983
*Lazorchak, 1993
*Cusimano, 1986
*Diamond, 1997b
Clark Fork River

*Chapman, 1980
Clark Fork River
Diamond, 1997a
*Howarth, 1978
*Collyard, 1994
Erickson, 1996
*Meador, 1991
*Winner, 1985
*Spehar, 1986
*Fogels, 1978
Dunbar, 1996
Dunbar, 1996
*Welsh, 1996
*Spear, 1977
*Baird, 1991
*Lind, 1978
*Oris, 1991
C. dubia --------------> D. D. magna -----------> D. pulex H. azteca F. minnow -> R. trout ----------------------------->
pulicaria
Median, Range and Quartiles of Temperature in BLM Calibration and Application Datasets
(All species, Median and Quartiles calculated directly from data i.e., no distributional assumptions)
A-1
100
90
80
70
60
HA (%)
50
40
30
20
10
N 0 46 0 33 0 3 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 24 0 13 0 10 0 4 0 1 0 4 0 6 0 17 0 20 0 3 0 7 0 4 0 30 0105 0 13 0 13 0 8 0 4 0 1 0 9 0 11 0 3 0 1 0 2 0 1
0
*Chapman, 1975, 1978

*Chakoumakos, 1979
Penn. Copper Group
*Svecevicious, 1996
*Marr, Manuscript
*Borgmann, 1984
*Borgmann, 1983
*Lazorchak, 1993
*Cusimano, 1986
*Diamond, 1997b
Clark Fork River

*Chapman, 1980
Clark Fork River
Diamond, 1997a
*Howarth, 1978
*Collyard, 1994
Erickson, 1996
*Meador, 1991
*Winner, 1985
*Spehar, 1986
*Fogels, 1978
Dunbar, 1996
Dunbar, 1996
*Welsh, 1996
*Spear, 1977
*Baird, 1991
*Lind, 1978
*Oris, 1991
pulicaria
Median, Range and Quartiles of HA in BLM Calibration and Application Datasets

A -2
10
8
pH
N 46 0 33 0 3 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 17 7 13 0 10 0 4 0 0 1 0 4 6 0 0 17 18 2 3 0 0 7 4 0 30 0 1050 13 0 0 13 8 0 4 0 0 1 0 9 11 0 0 3 1 0 0 2 0 1
4
*Chapman, 1975, 1978

*Chakoumakos, 1979
Penn. Copper Group
*Svecevicious, 1996
*Marr, Manuscript
*Borgmann, 1984
*Borgmann, 1983
*Lazorchak, 1993
*Cusimano, 1986
*Diamond, 1997b
Clark Fork River

*Chapman, 1980
Clark Fork River
Diamond, 1997a
*Howarth, 1978
*Collyard, 1994
Erickson, 1996
*Meador, 1991
*Winner, 1985
*Spehar, 1986
*Fogels, 1978
Dunbar, 1996
Dunbar, 1996
*Welsh, 1996
*Spear, 1977
*Baird, 1991
*Lind, 1978
*Oris, 1991
pulicaria
Median, Range and Quartiles of pH in BLM Calibration and Application Datasets

A-3
2
10
1
10
DOC (mg/L)
0
10
-1
10
N -2 2026 2013 0 3 0 1 0 1 0 1 17 7 0 13 10 0 4 0 0 1 0 4 6 0 0 17 20 0 0 3 0 7 4 0 1119 0105 0 13 0 13 8 0 4 0 0 1 0 9 11 0 0 3 1 0 0 2 0 1

10
*Chapman, 1975, 1978

*Chakoumakos, 1979
Penn. Copper Group
*Svecevicious, 1996
*Marr, Manuscript
*Borgmann, 1984
*Borgmann, 1983
*Lazorchak, 1993
*Cusimano, 1986
*Diamond, 1997b
Clark Fork River

*Chapman, 1980
Clark Fork River
Diamond, 1997a
*Howarth, 1978
*Collyard, 1994
Erickson, 1996
*Meador, 1991
*Winner, 1985
*Spehar, 1986
*Fogels, 1978
Dunbar, 1996
Dunbar, 1996
*Welsh, 1996
*Spear, 1977
*Baird, 1991
*Lind, 1978
*Oris, 1991
pulicaria
Median, Range and Quartiles of DOC in BLM Calibration and Application Datasets
A-4
3
10
2
10
Ca (mg/L as CaCO3)
1
10
0
10
N -1 46 0 33 0 3 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 17 7 13 0 10 0 4 0 0 1 0 4 6 0 0 17 20 0 3 0 0 7 4 0 30 0 1050 13 0 0 13 8 0 4 0 0 1 0 9 11 0 0 3 1 0 0 2 0 1
10
*Chapman, 1975, 1978

*Chakoumakos, 1979
Penn. Copper Group
*Svecevicious, 1996
*Marr, Manuscript
*Borgmann, 1984
*Borgmann, 1983
*Lazorchak, 1993
*Cusimano, 1986
*Diamond, 1997b
Clark Fork River

*Chapman, 1980
Clark Fork River
Diamond, 1997a
*Howarth, 1978
*Collyard, 1994
Erickson, 1996
*Meador, 1991
*Winner, 1985
*Spehar, 1986
*Fogels, 1978
Dunbar, 1996
Dunbar, 1996
*Welsh, 1996
*Spear, 1977
*Baird, 1991
*Lind, 1978
*Oris, 1991
pulicaria
Median, Range and Quartiles of Ca in BLM Calibration and Application Datasets

A-5
3
10 100

90
2
10 80
70
(%)CaCO3)
1
10 60
HA as
50
Mg (mg/L
0
10 40
30
-1
10 20
10
N -2 46 0 33 0 3 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 17 7 13 0 10 0 4 0 0 1 0 4 6 0 0 17 20 0 3 0 0 7 4 0 30 0 1050 13 0 0 13 8 0 4 0 0 1 0 9 11 0 0 3 1 0 0 2 0 1
10 0
*Chapman, 1975, 1978

*Chakoumakos, 1979
Penn. Copper Group
*Svecevicious, 1996
*Marr, Manuscript
*Borgmann, 1984
*Borgmann, 1983
*Lazorchak, 1993
*Cusimano, 1986
*Diamond, 1997b
Clark Fork River

*Chapman, 1980
Clark Fork River
Diamond, 1997a
*Howarth, 1978
*Collyard, 1994
Erickson, 1996
*Meador, 1991
*Winner, 1985
*Spehar, 1986
*Fogels, 1978
Dunbar, 1996
Dunbar, 1996
*Welsh, 1996
*Spear, 1977
*Baird, 1991
*Lind, 1978
*Oris, 1991
pulicaria
Median, Range and Quartiles of HA in BLM Calibration and Application Datasets

A-6
3
10
2
10
Na (mg/L as Na)
1
10
0
10
N -1 46 0 1320 3 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 17 7 13 0 10 0 4 0 0 1 0 4 6 0 0 17 20 0 3 0 0 7 4 0 30 0 1050 0 13 0 13 8 0 4 0 0 1 0 9 11 0 0 3 1 0 0 2 0 1
10
*Chapman, 1975, 1978

*Chakoumakos, 1979
Penn. Copper Group
*Svecevicious, 1996
*Marr, Manuscript
*Borgmann, 1984
*Borgmann, 1983
*Lazorchak, 1993
*Cusimano, 1986
*Diamond, 1997b
Clark Fork River

*Chapman, 1980
Clark Fork River
Diamond, 1997a
*Howarth, 1978
*Collyard, 1994
Erickson, 1996
*Meador, 1991
*Winner, 1985
*Spehar, 1986
*Fogels, 1978
Dunbar, 1996
Dunbar, 1996
*Welsh, 1996
*Spear, 1977
*Baird, 1991
*Lind, 1978
*Oris, 1991
pulicaria
Median, Range and Quartiles of Na in BLM Calibration and Application Datasets

A-7
3
10
2
10
1
K (mg/L as K)
10
0
10
-1
10
N -2 46 0 1320 3 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 17 7 13 0 10 0 4 0 0 1 0 4 6 0 0 17 20 0 3 0 0 7 4 0 30 0 1050 0 13 0 13 8 0 4 0 0 1 0 9 11 0 0 3 1 0 0 2 0 1
10
*Chapman, 1975, 1978

*Chakoumakos, 1979
Penn. Copper Group
*Svecevicious, 1996
*Marr, Manuscript
*Borgmann, 1984
*Borgmann, 1983
*Lazorchak, 1993
*Cusimano, 1986
*Diamond, 1997b
Clark Fork River

*Chapman, 1980
Clark Fork River
Diamond, 1997a
*Howarth, 1978
*Collyard, 1994
Erickson, 1996
*Meador, 1991
*Winner, 1985
*Spehar, 1986
*Fogels, 1978
Dunbar, 1996
Dunbar, 1996
*Welsh, 1996
*Spear, 1977
*Baird, 1991
*Lind, 1978
*Oris, 1991
pulicaria
Median, Range and Quartiles of K in BLM Calibration and Application Datasets

A-8
3
10
2
10
SO4 (mg/L as SO4)
1
10
0
10
-1
10
N -2 46 0 1320 3 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 17 7 13 0 10 0 4 0 0 1 0 4 6 0 0 17 8 12 3 0 0 7 4 0 30 0 1050 0 13 0 13 8 0 4 0 0 1 0 9 11 0 0 3 1 0 0 2 0 1
10
*Chapman, 1975, 1978

*Chakoumakos, 1979
Penn. Copper Group
*Svecevicious, 1996
*Marr, Manuscript
*Borgmann, 1984
*Borgmann, 1983
*Lazorchak, 1993
*Cusimano, 1986
*Diamond, 1997b
Clark Fork River

*Chapman, 1980
Clark Fork River
Diamond, 1997a
*Howarth, 1978
*Collyard, 1994
Erickson, 1996
*Meador, 1991
*Winner, 1985
*Spehar, 1986
*Fogels, 1978
Dunbar, 1996
Dunbar, 1996
*Welsh, 1996
*Spear, 1977
*Baird, 1991
*Lind, 1978
*Oris, 1991
pulicaria
Median, Range and Quartiles of SO4 in BLM Calibration and Application Datasets
A-9
3
10
2
10
Cl (mg/L as Cl)
1
10
0
10
N -1 3115 1320 3 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 17 7 13 0 10 0 4 0 0 1 0 4 6 0 0 17 20 0 3 0 0 7 4 0 1515 1050 0 13 0 13 8 0 4 0 0 1 0 9 11 0 0 3 1 0 0 2 0 1

10
*Chapman, 1975, 1978

*Chakoumakos, 1979
Penn. Copper Group
*Svecevicious, 1996
*Marr, Manuscript
*Borgmann, 1984
*Borgmann, 1983
*Lazorchak, 1993
*Cusimano, 1986
*Diamond, 1997b
Clark Fork River

*Chapman, 1980
Clark Fork River
Diamond, 1997a
*Howarth, 1978
*Collyard, 1994
Erickson, 1996
*Meador, 1991
*Winner, 1985
*Spehar, 1986
*Fogels, 1978
Dunbar, 1996
Dunbar, 1996
*Welsh, 1996
*Spear, 1977
*Baird, 1991
*Lind, 1978
*Oris, 1991
pulicaria
Median, Range and Quartiles of Cl in BLM Calibration and Application Datasets

A-10
3
10
Alkalinity (mg/L as CaCO3)
2
10
1
10
N 0
46 0 33 0 3 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 17 7 13 0 10 0 4 0 0 1 0 4 6 0 0 17 20 0 3 0 0 7 4 0 30 0 1050 13 0 0 13 8 0 4 0 0 1 0 9 11 0 0 3 1 0 0 2 0 1
10
*Chapman, 1975, 1978

*Chakoumakos, 1979
Penn. Copper Group
*Svecevicious, 1996
*Marr, Manuscript
*Borgmann, 1984
*Borgmann, 1983
*Lazorchak, 1993
*Cusimano, 1986
*Diamond, 1997b
Clark Fork River

*Chapman, 1980
Clark Fork River
Diamond, 1997a
*Howarth, 1978
*Collyard, 1994
Erickson, 1996
*Meador, 1991
*Winner, 1985
*Spehar, 1986
*Fogels, 1978
Dunbar, 1996
Dunbar, 1996
*Welsh, 1996
*Spear, 1977
*Baird, 1991
*Lind, 1978
*Oris, 1991
pulicaria
Median, Range and Quartiles of Alkalinity in BLM Calibration and Application Datasets
A-11
Appe ndix B. O ther Da ta on Eff ects of C opper on
Freshwater Organisms
Appendix B. Other Data on Effects of Copper on Freshwater Organisms
Hardness Total Dissolved
Species Methoda Chemical (mg/L as Duration Effect Concentration Concentration Reference
CaCO3) (µg/L)b (µg/L)
Bacteria, S,U Copper - 48 hr Threshold of inhibited glucose use; 80 - Bringmann and Kuhn 1959a
Escherichia coli sulfate measured by pH change in media
Bacteria, S,U Copper 81.1 16 hr EC3 30 - Bringmann and Kuhn 1976, 1977a,
Pseudomonas putida sulfate (cell numbers) 1979, 1980a
Protozoan, S,U Copper 81.9 72 hr EC5 110 - Bringmann 1978;
Entosiphon sulcatum sulfate (cell numbers) Bringmann and Kuhn 1979, 1980a,
Protozoan, S,U Copper 214 28 hr Threshold of decreased feeding rate 50 - Bringmann and Kuhn 1959b
Microrega heterostoma sulfate
Protozoan, S,U Copper - 48 hr Growth threshold 3,200 - Bringmann and Kuhn 1980b, 1981
Chilomonas paramecium sulfate
Protozoan, S,U Copper - 20 hr Growth threshold 140 - Bringmann and Kuhn 1980b, 1981
Uronema parduezi sulfate
Protozoa, - - - 7 days Reduced rate of colonization 167 - Cairns et al. 1980
mixed species
Protozoa, S,M,T Copper - 15 days Reduced rate of colonization 100 - Buikema et al. 1983
mixed species sulfate
Green alga, Dosed Copper 226-310 10 mo Decreased abundance from 21% down 120 - Weber and McFarland 1981
Cladophora glomerata stream sulfate to 0%
Green alga, - Copper 76 72 hr Deflagellation 6.7 - Garvey et al. 1991
Chlamydomonas reinhardtii sulfate
Chlamydomonas reinhardti sulfate
Green alga, S,U Copper - 28 hr Inhibited photosynthesis 6.3 - Gachter et al. 1973
Chlorella sp. nitrate
Green alga, S,U - 29.4 72 hr IC50 16 - Stauber and Florence 1989
Chlorella pyrenoidosa (cell division rate)
Green alga, S,U - 14.9 72 hr IC50 24 - Stauber and Florence 1989
Chlorella pyrenoidosa (cell division rate)
Green alga, S,U Copper 82 4 hr Disturbed 25 - Vavilin et al. 1995
Chlorella pyrenoidosa sulfate photosystem II
Green alga, S,U Copper 19.1 - Decrease in cell density 5,000 - Young and Lisk 1972
Eudorina californica sulfate
Green alga (flagellate cells), S,U Copper 2 24 hr Inhibited growth during 96 hr recovery 50 - Pearlmutter and Buchheim 1983
Haematococcus sp. sulfate period
Green alga, S,U Copper 214 96 hr Threshold of effect on cell numbers 150 - Bringmann and Kuhn 1959b
Scenedesmus quadricauda sulfate
Green alga, S,U Copper 60 72 hr EC3 1,100 - Bringmann and Kuhn 1980a
Scenedesmus quadricauda sulfate (cell numbers)
Green alga, S,U Copper 34.8 24 hr EC50 100 - Starodub et al. 1987
Scenedesmus quadricauda sulfate (photosynthesis)
B-1
Green alga, S,U Copper 34.8 24 hr NOEC 50 - Starodub et al. 1987

Scenedesmus quadricauda sulfate (growth)
Green alga, S,U Copper 34.8 24 hr NOEC 50 - Starodub et al. 1987
Green alga, S,U Copper 34.8 24 hr NOEC >200 - Starodub et al. 1987
Green alga, S,U Copper 14.9 7 days Growth reduction 50 - Bartlett et al.1974
Selenastrum capricornutum chloride
Green alga, S,U Copper 29.3 72 hr EC50 19 - Vasseur et al. 1988
Selenastrum capricornutum sulfate (cell count)
Green alga, S,U Copper 24.2 72 hr EC50 28.5 - Benhra et al. 1997
Green alga, F,U Copper 15 24 hr EC50 21 - Chen et al. 1997
Selenastrum capricornutum sulfate (cell density)
Diatom, Dosed Copper 226-310 10 mo Decreased abundance from 21% down 120 - Weber and McFarland 1981
Cocconeis placentula stream sulfate to <1%
Phytoplankton, S,U - - 124 hr Averaged 39% reduction in primary 10 - Cote 1983
mixed species production
Macrophyte, S,U Copper - 24 hr EC50 150 - Brown and Rattigan 1979
Elodea canadensis sulfate (photosynthesis)
Microcosm F,M,T,D Copper 200 32 wk LOEC 9.3 - Hedtke 1984
sulfate (primary production)
Microcosm F,M,T,D Copper 200 32 wk NOEC 4 - Hedtke 1984
sulfate (primary production)
Microcosm F,M,T Copper 76.7 96 hr Significant drop in no. of taxa and no. 15 - Clements et al. 1988
sulfate of individuals
Microcosm F,M,T Copper 58.5 10 days Significant drop in no. of individuals 2.5 - Clements et al. 1989
sulfate
Microcosm F,M,T Copper 151 10 days 58% drop in no. of individuals 13.5 - Clements et al. 1989
sulfate
Microcosm F,M,T Copper 68 10 days Significant drop in species richness 11.3 - Clements et al. 1990
sulfate and no. of individuals
Microcosm F,M,T Copper 80 10 days Significant drop in species richness 10.7 - Clements et al. 1990
sulfate and no. of individuals
Microcosm S,M,T Copper 102 5 wk 14-28% drop in phytoplankton species 20 - Winner and Owen 1991b
sulfate richness
Microcosm F,M,T - 160 28 days LOEC 19.9 - Pratt and Rosenberger 1993
(species richness)
B-2
Dosed stream F,M,D Copper 56 1 yr Shifts in periphyton species 5.208 - Leland and Carter 1984
sulfate abundance
Dosed stream F,M,D Copper 56 1 yr Reduced algal production 5.208 - Leland and Carter 1985
sulfate
Sponge, S,U Copper 200 10 days Reduced growth by 33% 6 - Francis and Harrison 1988
Ephydatia fluviatilis sulfate
Sponge, S,U Copper 200 10 days Reduced growth by 100% 19 - Francis and Harrison 1988
Ephydatia fluviatilis sulfate
Rotifer, S,U Copper 45 48 hr LC50 1,300 - Cairns et al. 1978
Philodina acuticornis sulfate (50 C)
Rotifer, S,U Copper 45 48 hr LC50 950 - Cairns et al. 1978
Rotifer, S, U Copper 39.8 24 hr EC50 200 - Couillard et al. 1989
Brachionus calyciflorus sulfate (mobility)
Rotifer (2 hr), S,U Copper - 2 hr LOEC 12.5 - Charoy et al. 1995
Brachionus calyciflorus sulfate (swimming activity)
Rotifer, S,U Copper 90 24 hr EC50 76 - Ferrando et al. 1992
Rotifer (2 hr), S,U Copper 90 5 hr EC50 34 - Ferrando et al. 1993a
Brachionus calyciflorus sulfate (filtration rate)
Rotifer (2 hr), S,U Copper 90 6 days LOEC 5 - Janssen et al. 1993
Brachionus calyciflorus sulfate (reproduction decreased 26%)
Rotifer (2 hr), S,U Copper 90 5 hr LOEC 12 - Janssen et al. 1993
Brachionus calyciflorus sulfate (reduced swimming speed)
Rotifer (2 hr), S,U Copper 170 35 min LOEC 100 - Juchelka and Snell 1994
Brachionus calyciflorus chloride (food ingestion rate)
Rotifer (2 hr), S,U Copper 63.2 24 hr EC50 9.4 - Porta and Ronco 1993
Rotifer (2 hr), S,U - 90 2 days LOEC 30 - Snell and Moffat 1992
Brachionus calyciflorus (reproduction decreased 100%)
Rotifer (<2 hr), S, U - 85 24 hr EC50 26 - Snell et al. 1991b
Brachionus calyciflorus (mobility)
B-3
Rotifer (<2 hr), S, U - 85 24 hr EC50 18 - Snell 1991;

Brachionus calyciflorus (mobility; 100 C) Snell et al. 1991b
Rotifer (<3 hr), S, U Copper 90 24 hr LC50 19 - Snell and Persoone 1989b
Brachionus rubens sulfate
Rotifer, S,U Copper - 24 hr LC50 101 - Borgman and Ralph 1984
Keratella cochlearis chloride
Worm, S,U Copper 45 48 hr LC50 2,600 - Cairns et al. 1978
Aeolosoma headleyi sulfate (50 C)
Worm (adult), S,U Copper 30 LC50 150 Bailey and Liu, 1980
Lumbriculus variegatus sulfate
Worm (7 mg), F,M,T Copper 45 10 days LC50 35 - West et al. 1993
Lumbriculus variegatis sulfate
Tubificid worm, S,U Copper 100 LC50 102 Wurtz and Bridges 1961
Limnodrilus hoffmeisteri sulfate
Tubificid worm, R, U Copper 245 LC50 158 Khangarot 1991
Tubifex tubifex sulfate
Snail (11-27 mm), F,M,T Copper 45 6 wk LOEC 14.8 - Arthur and Leonard 1970
Campeloma decisum sulfate (mortality)
Snail, S,U Copper 100 LC50 108 Wurtz and Bridges 1961
Gyraulus circumstriatus sulfate
Snail, S,U Copper 154 48 hr LC50 860 - Cairns et al. 1976
Goniobasis livescens sulfate
Snail, S,M,D Copper 154 96 hr LC50 - 390 Paulson et al. 1983
Goniobasis livescens sulfate
Snail, S,U Copper 45 48 hr LC50 3,000 - Cairns et al. 1978
Nitrocris sp. sulfate (50 C)
B-4

Lymnaea emarginata sulfate
Snail (adult), F,M,T Copper 23 30 days LC50 6 - Nebeker et al. 1986b
Juga plicifera chloride
Snail (adult), F,M,T Copper 23 30 days LC50 4 - Nebeker et al. 1986b
Lithoglyphus virens chloride
Snail, S,U Copper 100 LC50 69 Wurtz and Bridges 1961
Physa heterostropha sulfate
Freshwater mussel (released R,M Copper 140 24 hr 132 Jacobson et al. 1997
glochidia), sulfate
Actinonaias pectorosa
glochidia), sulfate
glochidia), sulfate
glochidia), sulfate
glochidia), sulfate
Freshwater mussel (1-2 d), S,M,T Copper 70 24 hr LC50 44 - Jacobson et al. 1993
Anodonta grandis sulfate
Freshwater mussel (1-2 d), S,M,T Copper 39 48 hr LC50 171 - Keller and Zam 1991
Anodonta imbecilis sulfate
Freshwater mussel (1-2 d), S,M,T Copper 90 48 hr LC50 388 - Keller and Zam 1991
Anodonta imbecilis sulfate
Freshwater mussel (released R,M,T Copper 170 24 hr 48 Jacobson et al. 1997
glochidia), Lampsilis sulfate
fasciola
fasciola
fasciola
B-5

fasciola
glochidia), sulfate
Medionidus conradicus
glochidia), sulfate
glochidia), sulfate
glochidia), sulfate
glochidia), sulfate
glochidia), sulfate
glochidia), sulfate
Freshwater mussel (released R,M,T Copper 170 24 hr >160 Jacobson et al. 1997
glochidia), sulfate
Pygranodon grandis
glochidia), sulfate
Pygranodon grandis
glochidia), sulfate
Pygranodon grandis
Freshwater mussel (1-2 d), S,M,T Copper 190 24 hr LC50 83 - Jacobson et al. 1993
Villosa iris sulfate
glochidia), sulfate
Villosa iris
glochidia), sulfate
Villosa iris
glochidia), sulfate
Villosa iris
B-6

glochidia), sulfate
Villosa iris
glochidia), sulfate
Villosa iris
glochidia), sulfate
Villosa iris
glochidia), sulfate
Villosa iris
glochidia), sulfate
Villosa iris
glochidia), sulfate
Villosa iris
glochidia), sulfate
Villosa iris
glochidia), sulfate
Villosa iris
glochidia), sulfate
Villosa iris
glochidia), sulfate
Villosa iris
glochidia), sulfate
Villosa iris
glochidia), sulfate
Villosa iris
glochidia), sulfate
Villosa iris
glochidia), sulfate
Villosa iris
Zebra mussel (1.6-2.0 cm), R,M,T Copper 268 9 wk EC50 43 - Kraak et al. 1992
Dreissena polymorpha chloride +F106(filtration rate)
B-7
Zebra mussel (1.6-2.0 cm), R,M,T Copper 268 10 wk NOEC 13 - Kraak et al. 1993
Dreissena polymorpha chloride (filtration rate)
Asiatic clam (1.0-2.1 cm), S,M,T Copper 64 96 hr (24hr LC50 40 - Rodgers et al. 1980
Coprbicula fluminea sulfate LC50 also
reported)
Asiatic clam (1.0-2.1 cm), F,M,T Copper 64 96 hr (24 hr LC50 490 - Rodgers et al. 1980
Coprbicula fluminea sulfate LC50 also
reported)
Asiatic clam (juvenile), F,M,D Copper 78 30 days 43.3% mortality 14.48 - Belanger et al. 1990
Corbicula fluminea sulfate
Asiatic clam (juvenile), F,M,D Copper 78 30 days Stopped shell growth 8.75 - Belanger et al. 1990
Asiatic clam (adult), F,M,D Copper 78 30 days 13.3% mortality 14.48 - Belanger et al. 1990
Asiatic clam (adult), F,M,D Copper 71 30 days 25% mortality 16.88 - Belanger et al. 1990
Asiatic clam (adult), F,M,D Copper 78 30 days Inhibited shell growth 8.75 - Belanger et al. 1990
Asiatic clam (adult), F,M,D Copper - 15-16 days LC50 - - Belanger et al. 1991
Asiatic clam (adult), F,M,D Copper - 19 days LC100 - - Belanger et al. 1991
Asiatic clam (veliger larva), S,M,T Copper - 24 hr 34% mortality 10 - Harrison et al. 1981, 1984
Corbicula manilensis chloride
Asiatic clam (juvenile), S,M,T Copper 17 24 hr LC50 100 - Harrison et al. 1984
Asiatic clam (veliger), S,M,T Copper 17 24 hr LC50 28 - Harrison et al. 1984
Asiatic clam (trochophore), S,M,T Copper 17 8 hr LC100 7.7 - Harrison et al. 1984
Asiatic clam (adult), F,M,T Copper 17 7 days LC50 3,638 - Harrison et al. 1981, 1984
Asiatic clam (adult), F,M,T Copper 17 42 days LC50 12 - Harrison et al. 1981, 1984
Asiatic clam (4.3 g adult), F,M,T Copper 17 30 days LC50 11 - Harrison et al. 1984
Cladoceran, S, U Copper 33.8 EC50 1.6 Koivisto et al. 1992
Bosmina longirostrus sulfate
Cladoceran (<24 hr), S,U Copper 145 72 hr LC50 86.5 - Winner and Farrell 1976
Daphnia ambigua sulfate
Cladoceran (<24 hr), S,U Copper 145 Life span Chronic limits (inst. rate of population 50 - Winner and Farrell 1976
Daphnia ambigua sulfate (ca. 5 wk) growth)
Cladoceran, S,U Copper 188 EC50 36.6 Bright 1995
Ceriodaphnia dubia sulfate
B-8

Cladoceran, S,U Copper 440 EC50 12 Bright 1995
Cladoceran, S,U Copper 90 1 hr NOEC 30 - Juchelka and Snell 1994
Ceriodaphnia dubia chloride (ingestion)
Cladoceran (<24 hr), S,M,D Copper 6-10 48 hr LC50 - 2.72 Suedel et al. 1996
Cladoceran (<12 hr), S,M,D - 113.6 48 hr LC50 - 52 Belanger and Cherry 1990
Ceriodaphnia dubia
Ceriodaphnia dubia
Ceriodaphnia dubia
Cladoceran (<48 h), S,M,T Copper 280 - 300 48 hr LC50 9.5 - Schubauer-Berigan et al. 1993
Ceriodaphnia dubia nitrate
Cladoceran (<48 h), S,M,T Copper 280 - 300 48 hr LC50 28 - Schubauer-Berigan et al. 1993
Cladoceran (<48 h), S,M,T Copper 280 - 300 48 hr LC50 200 - Schubauer-Berigan et al. 1993
Cladoceran (<24 hr), S,M,T,D Copper 100 48 hr LC50 66 60.72 Spehar and Fiandt 1986
Cladoceran, R,U Copper 111 10 days LC50 53 - Cowgill and Milazzo 1991a
Cladoceran, R,U Copper 111 10 days NOEC 96 - Cowgill and Milazzo 1991a
Ceriodaphnia dubia nitrate (reproduction)
Cladoceran, R,U Copper 90 - LOEC 44 - Zuiderveen and Birge 1997
Ceriodaphnia dubia sulfate (reproduction)
Cladoceran, R,U Copper 90 - LOEC 40 - Zuiderveen and Birge 1997
Ceriodaphnia dubia sulfate (reproduction)
Cladoceran, R,M,T - 20 - IC50 5 - Jop et al. 1995
Ceriodaphnia dubia (reproduction)
Cladoceran (<24 hrs), S, U Copper 240 EC50 23 Elnabarawy et al. 1986
Ceriodaphnia reticulata chloride
Cladoceran, S,U - 43-45 EC50 17 Mount and Norberg 1984
Ceriodubia reticulata
Cladoceran, - Copper - 72 hr EC50 61 - Braginskij and Shcherben 1978
Daphnia magna sulfate (mobility; 100 C)
B-9
cies Methoda Chemical (mg/L as Duration Effect Concentration Concentration Reference

Cladoceran, - Copper - 72 hr EC50 9.3 - Braginskij and Shcherben 1978
Cladoceran, S,U Copper - 16 hr EC 50 38 - Anderson 1944
Daphnia magna sulfate (mobility)
Cladoceran (<8 hr), S,U Copper - 64 hr Immobilization threshold 12.7 - Anderson 1948
Daphnia magna chloride
Cladoceran (1 mm), S,U Copper 100 24 hr EC 50 50 - Bellavere and Gorbi 1981
Daphnia magna nitrate (mobility)
Cladoceran (1 mm), S,U Copper 200 24 hr EC 50 70 - Bellavere and Gorbi 1981
Daphnia magna nitrate (mobility)
Cladoceran, S,U - 100 48 hr EC50 254 - Borgmann and Ralph 1983
Daphnia magna (mobility)
Cladoceran, S,U - 100 49 hr EC50 1,239 - Borgmann and Ralph 1983
Daphnia magna (mobility)
Cladoceran, S,U Copper 45 48 hr EC50 90 - Cairns et al. 1978
Cladoceran (4 days), S,U Copper - 24 hr EC50 59 - Ferrando and Andreu 1993
Daphnia magna sulfate (filtration rate)
Cladoceran (24-48 hr), S,U Copper 90 24 hr EC50 380 - Ferrando et al. 1992
Cladoceran, S,U Copper 50 EC50 7 Oikari et al. 1992
Daphnia magna sulfate
Cladoceran, S,U Copper - 48 hr EC50 45 - Oikari et al. 1992
Cladoceran (<24 hr), S,U Copper 145 Life span Chronic limits 70 - Winner and Farrell 1976
Daphnia magna sulfate (ca. 18 wk) (inst. rate of population growth)
Cladoceran (<24 hrs), S,M,D Copper 72-80 48 hr LC50 - 11.3 Suedel et al. 1996
Daphnia magna sulfate
Cladoceran (<24 hrs), S,M,I - 180 - LC50 55.3 - Borgmann and Charlton 1984
Daphnia magna
Cladoceran (<24 hr), S,M,I Copper 100 48 hr EC50 46.0 - Meador 1991
B-10
Cladoceran (<24 hr), S,M,T Copper 100 72 hr EC50 52.8 - Winner 1984b
Cladoceran (<24 hr), S,M,T Copper 100 72 hr EC50 56.3 - Winner 1984b
Cladoceran (<24 hr), S,M,T Copper 85 96 hr EC50 130 - Blaylock et al. 1985
Daphnia magna chloride (mobility)
Cladoceran (24 hr), R,U Copper - 48 hr EC50 18 - Kazlauskiene et al. 1994
Cladoceran (<24 hr), S,U Copper 145 72 hr EC50 72 - Winner and Farrell 1976
Daphnia parvula sulfate (mobility)
Daphnia parvula sulfate (mobility)
Daphnia parvula sulfate (ca. 10 wk) growth)
Cladoceran, S,U Copper 45 EC50 10 Cairns et al. 1978
Daphnia pulex sulfate
Cladoceran, S,U - 45 EC50 53 Mount and Norberg 1984
Daphnia pulex
Cladoceran (<24 hrs), S, U Copper 240 EC50 31 Elnabarawy et al. 1986
Daphnia pulex chloride
Cladoceran (<24 hrs), S, U Copper 33.8 EC50 3.6 Koivisto et al. 1992
Cladoceran (<24 hrs), S,U Copper 80-90 EC50 18 Roux et al. 1993
Daphnia pulex sulfate (mobility)
Daphnia pulex sulfate (ca. 7 wk) growth)
B-11
Cladoceran (<24 hr), S,U Copper 200 24 hr EC50 37.5 - Lilius et al. 1995
Cladoceran, S,M,T Copper 106 48 hr EC50 29 - Ingersoll and Winner 1982
Cladoceran, R,U Copper 85 21 days Reduced fecundity 3 - Roux et al. 1993
Cladoceran, R,M,T Copper 106 70 days Significantly shortened life span; 20 - Ingersoll and Winner 1982
Daphnia pulex sulfate reduced brood size
Cladoceran, S,M,T - 31 48 hr EC50 55.4 - Lind et al. manuscript
Daphnia pulicaria (mobility; TOC=14 mg/L)
Cladoceran, S,M,T - 100 51 hr EC50 199 - Lind et al. manuscript
Cladoceran, S,M,T Copper 106 48 hr LC50 240 - Lind et al. manuscript
Daphnia pulicaria sulfate
Cladoceran, S,M,T Copper 8 24 hr EC50 12 - Giesy et al. 1983
Simocephalus serrulatus nitrate (mobility; TOC=11 mg/L)
B-12
Cladoceran, S,M,T Copper 16 25 hr EC50 7.2 - Giesy et al. 1983

Simocephalus serrulatus nitrate (mobility; TOC=12.4 mg/L)
Cladoceran, S,M,T Copper 16 26 hr EC50 24.5 - Giesy et al. 1983
Simocephalus serrulatus nitrate (mobility; TOC=15.6 mg/L)
Cladoceran (<24 hr), S,U - 45 57 Mount and Norberg 1984
Simocephalus vetulus
Cladoceran (life cycle), R,U Copper - 13 days LOEC 18 - Koivisto and Ketola 1995
Bosmina longirostris sulfate (intrinsic rate of population increase)
Copepods (mixed sp), R,M,I Copper - 1 wk EC20 42 - Borgmann and Ralph 1984
Primarily Acanthocyclops chloride (growth)
vernalis and Diacyclops thomasi
Copepod (adults and copepodids S, U Copper 10 29 Lalande and Pinel-Alloul 1986

V), sulfate
Tropocyclops prasinus
mexicanus
Copepod (adults and copepodids S, U Copper 10 96 hr LC50 247 - Lalande and Pinel-Alloul 1986
V), Tropocyclops sulfate
prasinus
mexicanus
Amphipod (0.4 cm), R,U Copper 45-55 1290 Martin and Holdich 1986
Crangonyx pseudogracilis sulfate
Amphipod (4 mm), R,U Copper 50 48 hr LC50 2,440 - Martin and Holdich 1986
Crangonyx psuedogracilis sulfate
Amphipod, S,U Copper 206 48 hr LC50 210 - Judy 1979
Gammarus fasciatus sulfate
Amphipod, S,U Copper - 96 hr LC50 1,500 - Nebeker and Gaufin 1964
Gammarus lacustris sulfate
Amphipod (2-3 wk), S,M,T Copper 6-10 - LC50 65.6 - Suedel et al. 1996
Hyallela azteca sulfate
Amphipod (0-1 wk), R,M,T Copper 130 10 wk Significant mortality 25.4 - Borgmann et al. 1993
Hyallela azteca nitrate
Amphipod (7-14 days), F,M,T Copper 46 10 days LC50 31 - West et al. 1993
Hyallela azteca sulfate
Crayfish (intermoult adult, S,M,D - 10-12 96 hr LC50 - 830 Taylor et al. 1995
19.6 g),
Cambarus robustus
Crayfish (1.9-3.2 cm), S,M,T Copper - 96 hr LC50 600 - Boutet and Chaisemartin 1973
Orconectes limosus chloride
Crayfish (3.0-3.5 cm), F,U Copper 100-125 3,000 Hubschman 1967
Orconectes rusticus sulfate
Crayfish (embryo), F,U Copper 113 2 wk 52% mortality of newly 250 - Hubschman 1967
Orconectes rusticus sulfate hatched young
B-13
Crayfish (3.14 mg dry wt.), F,U Copper 113 2 wk 23% reduction in growth 15 - Hubschman 1967
Orconectes rusticus sulfate
Crayfish (30-40 mm), - 113 48 hr LC50 2,370 - Dobbs et al. 1994
Orconectes sp.
Crayfish, F,M,T Copper 17 1358 hr LC50 657 - Rice and Harrison 1983
Procambarus clarkii chloride
Mayfly (6th-8th instar), S,M,T - 110 48 hr LC50 453 - Dobbs et al. 1994
Stenonema sp.
Mayfly, - Copper - 72 hr LC50 193 - Braginskij and Shcherban 1978
Cloeon dipterium sulfate (100 C)
Mayfly, - - - 72 hr LC50 95.2 - Braginskij and Shcherban 1978
Cloeon dipterium (150 C)
Mayfly, - - - 72 hr LC50 53 - Braginskij and Shcherban 1978
Mayfly, - - - 72 hr LC50 4.8 - Braginskij and Shcherban 1978
Mayfly, F,M,T Copper 50 14 days LC50 180-200 - Nehring 1976
Ephemerella grandis sulfate
Mayfly, S,M Copper 44 48 hr LC50 320 - Warnick and Bell 1969
Ephemerella subvaria sulfate
Mayfly (6th-8th instar), S,M,T - 110 48 hr LC50 223 - Dobbs et al. 1994
Isonychia bicolor
Stonefly, F,M,T Copper 50 14 days LC50 12,000 - Nehring 1976
Pteronarcys californica sulfate
Caddisfly, S,M,T Copper 44 14 days LC50 32,000 - Warnick and Bell 1969
Hydropsyche betteni sulfate
Midge (2nd instar), S,M,T - 110 48 hr LC50 1,170 - Dobbs et al. 1994
Chironomus riparius
Midge (1st instar), S,U Copper 42.7 16.7 Gauss et al. 1985
Chironomus tentans sulfate
Midge (4th instar), S,U Copper 42.7 211 Gauss et al. 1985
Midge, S,U Copper 25 327 Khangarot and Ray 1989
Midge (2nd instar), S,M,T Copper 8 96 hr LC50 630 - Suedel et al. 1996
B-14
Midge (4th instar), F,M,T Copper 36 20 days LC50 77.5 - Nebeker et al. 1984b
Chironomus tentans chloride
Midge (embryo), S,M,T Copper 46.8 10 days LC50 16.3 - Anderson et al. 1980
Tanytarsus dissimilis chloride
Midge, F,M,T,D Copper 200 32 wk Emergence 30 - Hedtke 1984
Unidentified sulfate
Bryozoan (2-3 day ancestrula), S,U - 190-220 510 Pardue and Wood 1980
Lophopodella carteri
Pectinatella magnifica
Plumatella emarginata
American eel (5.5 cm glass eel S,U Copper 40-48 96 hr LC50 2,540 Hinton and Eversole 1978
stage), sulfate
Anguilla rostrata
American eel (9.7 cm black eel S,U Copper 40-48 96 hr LC50 3,200 Hinton and Eversole 1979
stage), sulfate
Anguilla rostrata
American eel, S,M,T Copper 53 96 hr LC50 6,400 - Rehwoldt et al. 1971
Anguilla rostrata nitrate
American eel, S,M,T Copper 55 96 hr LC50 6,000 - Rehwoldt et al. 1972
Anguilla rostrata nitrate
Arctic grayling (larva), S,U Copper 41.3 96 hr LC50 67.5 Buhl and Hamilton 1990
Thymallus arcticus sulfate
Arctic grayling (larva), S,U Copper 41.3 96 hr LC50 23.9 Buhl and Hamilton 1990
Arctic grayling (larva), S,U Copper 41.3 96 hr LC50 131 Buhl and Hamilton 1990
Arctic grayling (swim-up), S,U Copper 41.3 96 hr LC50 9.6 Buhl and Hamilton 1990
Arctic grayling (0.20 g juvenile), S,U Copper 41.3 96 hr LC50 2.7 Buhl and Hamilton 1990
Arctic grayling (0.85 g juvenile), S,U Copper 41.3 96 hr LC50 30 Buhl and Hamilton 1990
Coho salmon (larva), S,U Copper 41.3 96 hr LC50 21 Buhl and Hamilton 1990
Oncorhynchus kisutch sulfate
Coho salmon (larva), S,U Copper 41.3 96 hr LC50 19.3 Buhl and Hamilton 1990
Coho salmon (0.41 g juvenile), S,U Copper 41.3 96 hr LC50 15.1 Buhl and Hamilton 1990
B-15
Coho salmon (10 cm), S,U Copper - 72 hr LC50 280 - Holland et al. 1960
Coho salmon (9.7 cm), S,U Copper - 72 hr LC50 190 - Holland et al. 1960
Coho salmon (9.7 cm), S,U Copper - 72 hr LC50 480 - Holland et al. 1960
Coho salmon (juvenile), R,M,T,I - 33 96 hr LC50 164 - Buckley 1983
Oncorhynchus kisutch (TOC=7.3 mg/L)
Coho salmon (juvenile), R,M,T,I - 33 96 hr LC50 286 Buckley 1983
Oncorhynchus kisutch
Coho salmon (6.3 cm), F,U Copper - 30 days LC50 360 - Holland et al. 1960
Coho salmon (6.3 cm), F,U Copper - 72 hr LC50 370 - Holland et al. 1960
Coho salmon (smolts), F,M,T Copper 91 144 hr Decrease in survival upon transfer to 20 - Lorz and McPherson 1976
Oncorhynchus kisutch chloride 30 ppt seawater
Coho salmon (smolts >10 cm), F,M,T Copper 91 165 days Decrease in downstream migration 5 - Lorz and McPherson 1976
Oncorhynchus kisutch chloride after release
Coho salmon (7.8 cm), F,M,T Copper 276 14 wk 15% reduction in growth 70 - Buckley et al. 1982
Oncorhynchus kisutch acetate
Coho salmon (7.8 cm), - - 276 7 days LC50 220 - Buckley et al. 1982
Oncorhynchus kisutch
Coho salmon (3-8 g), F,M,T Copper 280 7 days LC50 275 - McCarter and Roch 1983
Coho salmon (3-8 g), F,M,T Copper 280 7 days LC50 (acclimated to copper for 2 wk) 383 - McCarter and Roch 1983
Coho salmon (parr), F,M,T,D,I - 24.4 61 days NOEC 22 - Mudge et al. 1993
Oncorhynchus kisutch (growth and survival)
Coho salmon, F,M,T,D,I - 31.1 60 days NOEC 18 - Mudge et al. 1993
Coho salmon (parr), F,M,T,D,I - 31 61 days NOEC 33 - Mudge et al. 1993
Rainbow trout (15-40g) F,M, Copper -- 120 hr LA50 (50% mortality) ~1.4 ug Cu/g gill - MacRae et al. 1999
Oncorhynchus mykiss chloride
Sockeye salmon (yeasrling), S,U Copper 12 1-24 hr Drastic increase in plasma 64 - Donaldson and Dye 1975
Oncorhynchus nerka sulfate corticosteroids
Sockeye salmon (fry, 0.132 g, R,M,T Copper 36-46 96 hr LC50 220 - Davis and Shand 1978
2.95 cm), chloride
Oncorhynchus nerka
B-16
2.95 cm), chloride
Oncorhynchus nerka
2.95 cm), chloride
Oncorhynchus nerka
2.95 cm), chloride
Oncorhynchus nerka
2.95 cm), chloride
Oncorhynchus nerka
Chinook salmon (18-21 weeks), S,U Copper 211 96 hr LC50 58 Hamilton and Buhl 1990
Oncorhynchus tshawytscha sulfate
Chinook salmon (5.2 cm), S,U Copper - 5 days LC50 178 - Holland et al. 1960
Oncorhynchus tshawytscha nitrate
Chinook salmon (eyed embryos), F,M,D Copper 44 26 days 93% mortality 41.67 - Hazel and Meith 1970
Chinook salmon (alevin), F,M,T Copper 23 200 hr LC50 20 - Chapman 1978

Oncorhynchus tshawytscha chloride
Chinook salmon (alevin), F,M,T Copper 23 200 hr LC10 15 - Chapman 1978
Chinook salmon (swimup), F,M,T Copper 23 200 hr LC50 19 - Chapman 1978
Chinook salmon (swimup), F,M,T Copper 23 200 hr LC10 14 - Chapman 1978
Chinook salmon (parr), F,M,T Copper 23 200 hr LC50 30 - Chapman 1978
Chinook salmon (parr), F,M,T Copper 23 200 hr LC10 17 - Chapman 1978
Chinook salmon (smolt), F,M,T Copper 23 200 hr LC50 26 - Chapman 1978
Chinook salmon (smolt), F,M,T Copper 23 200 hr LC10 18 - Chapman 1978
Chinook salmon (3.9-6.8 cm), F,M,T Copper 20-22 96 hr LC50 32 - Finlayson and Verrue 1982
Cutthroat trout (3-5 mo), F,M Copper 50 20 min avoidance of copper 7.708 - Woodward et al. 1997
Oncorhynchus clarki chloride
B-17
Rainbow trout, - - 320 48 hr LC50 500 - Brown 1968

Oncorhynchus mykiss
Rainbow trout (9-16 cm), In situ - 21-26 48 hr LC50 70 - Calamari and Marchetti 1975
Oncorhynchus mykiss
Rainbow trout (0.4 g), S,U Copper - 96 hr LC50 185 - Bills et al. 1981
Oncorhynchus mykiss sulfate
Rainbow trout (larva), S, U Copper 41.3 96 hr LC50 36 Buhl and Hamilton 1990
Rainbow trout (0.60 g juvenile), S, U Copper 41.3 96 hr LC50 13.8 Buhl and Hamilton 1990
Rainbow trout (13-15 cm), S,U Copper 250 72 hr LC50 580 - Brown et al. 1974
Rainbow trout (13-15 cm), S,U Copper 250 72 hr LC50 960 - Brown et al. 1974
Rainbow trout (3.2 cm), S,U Copper - 24 hr LC50 140 - Shaw and Brown 1974
Rainbow trout (3.2 cm), S,U Copper - 24 hr LC50 130 - Shaw and Brown 1974
Rainbow trout (4.0-10.6 cm), S,U Copper 45 24 hr LC50 950 - Cairns et al. 1978
Oncorhynchus mykiss sulfate (50 C)
Rainbow trout (0.52-1.55 g), S,U Copper - 96 hr LC50 23.9 - Marking et al. 1984
Oncorhynchus mykiss sulfate (Silver Cup diet)
Rainbow trout (0.41-2.03 g), S,U Copper - 96 hr LC50 11.3 - Marking et al. 1984
Oncorhynchus mykiss sulfate (purified H440)
Rainbow trout (0.0.40-1.68 g), S,U Copper - 96 hr LC50 15.9 - Marking et al. 1984
Oncorhynchus mykiss sulfate (SD-9 diet)
Oncorhynchus mykiss sulfate (liver diet)
Oncorhynchus mykiss sulfate (brine shrimp diet)
Rainbow trout (embryo), S,U Copper 30 56 hr LC50 100 - Rombough 1985
Rainbow trout (6.6 cm), R,U Copper 320 72 hr LC50 1,100 - Lloyd 1961
Rainbow trout (6.6 cm), R,U Copper 17.5 7 days LC50 44 - Lloyd 1961
Rainbow trout, R,U Copper 320 48 hr LC50 270 - Herbert and Vandyke 1964
Rainbow trout (yearling), R,U Copper 240 48 hr LC50 750 - Brown and Dalton 1970
B-18
Rainbow trout (13-15 cm), R,U Copper 250 8 days LC50 500 - Brown et al. 1974
Rainbow trout (embryo), R,U Copper 104 28 days LC50 90 - Birge 1978;
Oncorhynchus mykiss sulfate Birge et al. 1978
Rainbow trout (embryo), R,U Copper 101 28 days EC50 110 - Birge et al. 1980;
Oncorhynchus mykiss sulfate (death or deformity) Birge and Black 1979
Rainbow trout (embryo), R,U Copper 101 28 days EC10 16.5 - Birge et al. 1980
Oncorhynchus mykiss sulfate (death or deformity)
Rainbow trout (eyed embryos), R,U Copper - 96 hr LC50 1,150 - Kazlauskiene et al. 1994
Rainbow trout (larva), R,U Copper - 96 hr LC50 430 - Kazlauskiene et al. 1994
Rainbow trout (16-18 cm), R,U Copper - 96 hr LC50 930 - Kazlauskiene et al. 1994
Rainbow trout (embryo), R,M,T Copper 62.9 7-9 mo Lesions in olfactory rosettes 22 - Saucier et al. 1991b
Rainbow trout (embryo), R,M,T Copper 62.9 7-9 mo 31% mortality 22 - Saucier et al. 1991b
Rainbow trout (eyed embryos), R,M,T Copper 40-48 96 hr LC50 400 - Giles and Klaverkamp 1982
Rainbow trout (yearling), R,M,T Copper 36.5 21 days Elevated plasma cortisol returned 45 - Munoz et al. 1991
Oncorhynchus mykiss sulfate to normal
Rainbow trout (embryo), R,M,T Copper 44 96 hr 15-20% post-hatch mortality 80 - Giles and Klaverkamp 1982
Rainbow trout (embryo), R,M,T Copper 62.9 7-9 mo Inhibited olfactory discrimination 22 - Saucier et al. 1991a
Rainbow trout (5.1-7.6 cm), F,U Copper - 96 hr LC50 253 - Hale 1977
Oncorhynchus mykiss nitrate
Rainbow trout (11 cm), F,U - 100 96 hr LC50 250 - Goettl et al. 1972
Oncorhynchus mykiss
Rainbow trout (5 wk post F,U Copper 89.5 1 hr Avoidance 10 - Folmar 1976
swimup) sulfate
Oncorhynchus mykiss
Rainbow trout (18.5-26.5 cm), F,U Copper 90 2 hr 55% depressed olfactory response 50 - Hara et al. 1976
Rainbow trout (3.2 cm), F,M,I Copper - 8 days LC50 500 - Shaw and Brown 1974
Rainbow trout (12-16 cm), F,M,T Copper 300 14 days LC50 870 - Calamari and Marchetti 1973
Rainbow trout (adult), F,M,T Copper 42 - LC50 57 - Chapman 1975, Chapman and
Oncorhynchus mykiss chloride Stevens 1978
Rainbow trout (53.5 g), F,M,T Copper 365 96 hr LC50 465 - Lett et al. 1976
B-19
Rainbow trout (53.5 g), F,M,T Copper 365 15 days Transient decrease in food 100 - Lett et al. 1976
Oncorhynchus mykiss sulfate consumption
Rainbow trout (alevin), F,M,T Copper 24 200 hr LC50 20 - Chapman 1978
Rainbow trout (alevin), F,M,T Copper 24 200 hr LC10 19 - Chapman 1978
Rainbow trout (swimup), F,M,T Copper 24 200 hr LC50 17 - Chapman 1978
Rainbow trout (swimup), F,M,T Copper 24 200 hr LC10 9 - Chapman 1978
Rainbow trout (parr), F,M,T Copper 25 200 hr LC50 15 - Chapman 1978
Rainbow trout (parr), F,M,T Copper 25 200 hr LC10 8 - Chapman 1978
Rainbow trout (smolt), F,M,T Copper 25 200 hr LC50 21 - Chapman 1978
Rainbow trout (smolt), F,M,T Copper 25 200 hr LC10 7 - Chapman 1978
Rainbow trout, F,M,T Copper 112.4 80 min Avoidance threshold 74 - Black and Birge 1980
Rainbow trout (>8 g), F,M,T Copper 49 15-18 days LC50 48 - Miller and MacKay 1980
Rainbow trout (200-250 g), F,M,T Copper 320 4 mo Altered liver and blood enzymes and 30 - Arillo et al. 1984
Oncorhynchus mykiss sulfate mitochondrial function
Rainbow trout (7 cm), F,M,T Copper 28.4 20 min Avoidance 6.4 - Giattina et al. 1982
Rainbow trout (2.70 g), F,M,T Copper 9.2 96 hr LC50 4.2 - Cusimano et al. 1986
Rainbow trout (2.88 g), F,M,T Copper 9.2 96 hr LC50 66 - Cusimano et al. 1986
B-20
Rainbow trout (5 day embryo), F,M,T Copper 87.7 48 hr LC50 8,000 - Shazili and Pascoe 1986
Rainbow trout (10 day embryo), F,M,T Copper 87.7 48 hr LC50 2,000 - Shazili and Pascoe 1986
Rainbow trout (15 day embryo), F,M,T Copper 87.7 48 hr LC50 400 - Shazili and Pascoe 1986
Rainbow trout (2 day larva), F,M,T Copper 87.7 48 hr LC50 100 - Shazili and Pascoe 1986
Rainbow trout (7 day larva), F,M,T Copper 87.7 48 hr LC50 100 - Shazili and Pascoe 1986
Oncorhynchus mykiss nitrate
Rainbow trout (yearling), F,M,T Copper 63 15 days Olfactory receptor degeneration 20 - Julliard et al. 1993
Rainbow trout (swimup), F,M,T Copper 60.9 13-40 wk Inhibited olfactory discrimination 20 - Saucier and Astic 1995
Rainbow trout (swimup), F,M,T Copper 60.9 40 wk 43% mortality 40 - Saucier and Astic 1995
Rainbow trout (9.0-11.5 cm, F,M,T Copper 284 96 hr LC50 650 - Svecevicius and Vosyliene 1996
10.6 g), sulfate
Oncorhynchus mykiss
Rainbow trout (3.5 cm), F,M,T Copper 24.2 96 hr LC50 12.7 - Marr et al. Manuscript
Rainbow trout (10.0 g), F,M,D Copper 362 144 hr LC50 276 - Dixon and Hilton 1981
Oncorhynchus mykiss sulfate (extruded diet)
Oncorhynchus mykiss sulfate (steam pelleted diet)
B-21
Oncorhynchus mykiss sulfate (Low carbohydrate diet)
Oncorhynchus mykiss sulfate (high carbohydrate diet)
Rainbow trout (1.7-3.3 g), F,M,D Copper 374 21 days Incipient lethal level 329 - Dixon and Sprague 1981a
Rainbow trout (1.7-3.3 g), F,M,D Copper 374 21 days Incipient lethal level (acclimated to 30 266 - Dixon and Sprague 1981a
Oncorhynchus mykiss sulfate ug/L)
Rainbow trout (2.9 g), F,M,D Copper 30.5 ca. 2 hr Inhibited avoidance of serine 6.667 - Rehnberg and Schreck 1986
Rainbow trout (3.2 g), F,M,T,D Copper 30 96 hr LC50 - 19.9 Howarth and Sprague 1978
Rainbow trout (1.4 g), F,M,T,D Copper 101 96 hr LC50 - 176 Howarth and Sprague 1978
Rainbow trout (2.2 g), F,M,T,D Copper 370 96 hr LC50 - 232 Howarth and Sprague 1978
Rainbow trout (smolt), F,M,T,D Copper 363 >10 days LC50 97.92 - Fogels and Sprague 1977
Rainbow trout (parr), F,M,T,D,I - 31.0 62 days NOEC 90 - Mudge et al. 1993
Oncorhynchus mykiss (growth and survival)
Atlantic salmon (2-3 yr parr), S,M,T - 8-10 96 hr LC50 125 - Wilson 1972
Salmo salar
Atlantic salmon (6.4-11.7 cm), F,M,T Copper 20 7 days LC50 48 - Sprague 1964
Salmo salar sulfate
Atlantic salmon (7.2-10.9 cm), F,M,T - 14 7 days LC50 32 - Sprague and Ramsay 1965
Salmo salar
Brown trout (3-6 day larva), S,M,T Copper 4 30 days >90% mortality 80 - Reader et al. 1989
Salmo trutta chloride
B-22
Brown trout (larva), S,M,T Copper 4 30 days >90% mortality 20 - Sayer et al. 1989
Brown trout (larva), S,M,T Copper 22 30 days <10% mortality 80 - Sayer et al. 1989
Brown trout (larva), F,M,T Copper 25 60 days Inhibited growth 4.6 - Marr et al. 1996
Brook trout, - - - 24 hr Significant change in cough rate 9 - Drummond et al. 1973
Brook trout (1 g), S,M,T Copper 4 80 hr 75% mortality 25.4 - Sayer et al. 1991 b, c
Salvelinus fontinalis chloride
Brook trout (8 mo), R,M,T - 20 10 days IC50 187 - Jop et al. 1995
Salvelinus fontinalis (growth)
Brook trout (15-20 cm), F,M,T Copper 47 21 days Altered Blood Hct, RBC, Hb, Cl, 38.2 - McKim et al. 1970
Salvelinus fontinalis sulfate PGOT, Osmolarity, protein
Brook trout (13-20 cm), F,M,T Copper 47 337 days Altered blood PGOT 17.4 - McKim et al. 1970
Salvelinus fontinalis sulfate
Goldfish (3.8-6.3 cm), S,U Copper 20 96 hr LC50 36 Pickering and Henderson 1966
Carassius auratus sulfate
Goldfish (10.5 g), S,M,T Copper 34.2 - LC50 150 - Hossain et al. 1995
Carassius auratus sulfate
Goldfish (embryo), R,U Copper 195 7 days EC50 5,200 - Birge 1978;
Carrassius auratus sulfate (death or deformity) Birge and Black 1979
Goldfish, R,U Copper 45 24 hr LC50 2,700 - Cairns et al. 1978
Carassius auratus sulfate (50 C)
Common carp (1.8-2.1 cm), S,U Copper 144-188 96 hr LC50 117.5 Deshmukh and Marathe 1980
Cyprinus carpio sulfate
Common carp (5.0-6.0 cm), S,U Copper 144-188 96 hr LC50 530 Deshmukh and Marathe 1980
Common carp (embryo), S,U Copper 360 - EC50 4,775 - Kapur and Yadav 1982
Cyprinus carpio sulfate (hatch and deformity)
Common carp (embryo), S,U Copper 274 96 hr LC50 140 - Kaur and Dhawan 1994
Cyprinus carpio acetate
Common carp (larva), S,U Copper 274 96 hr LC50 4 - Kaur and Dhawan 1994
Common carp (fry), S,U Copper 274 96 hr LC50 63 - Kaur and Dhawan 1994
Common carp, S,M,T Copper 53 - LC50 110 - Rehwoldt et al. 1971
Cyprinus carpio nitrate
Common carp, S,M,T Copper 55 - LC50 800 - Rehwoldt et al. 1972
Cyprinus carpio nitrate
B-23
Common carp (4.7-6.2 cm), R,U Copper 19 96 hr LC50 63 Khangarot et al. 1983
Common carp (embryo and R,U Copper 50 108 hr 77% deformed 10 - Wani 1986
larva), sulfate
Cyprinus carpio
Common carp (3.5 cm), R,U Copper - 96 hr LC50 300 - Alam and Maughan 1992
Common carp (6.5 cm), R,U Copper - 96 hr LC50 1,000 - Alam and Maughan 1992
Common carp (embryo), R,M,T Copper 50 72 hr Prevented hatching 700 - Hildebrand and Cushman 1978
Common carp (1 mo), R,M,T Copper 84.8 1 wk Raised critical D.O. and altered 14.0 - De Boeck et al. 1995a
Cyprinus carpio nitrate ammonia excretion
Common carp (22.9 cm), F,M,T Copper 17 48 hr LC50 170 - Harrison and Rice 1981
Cyprinus carpio chloride
Common carp (embryo and F,M,T Copper 100 168 hr 55% mortality 19 - Stouthart et al. 1996
larva), chloride
Cyprinus carpio
Common carp (embryo and F,M,T Copper 100 168 hr 18% mortality; 50.8 - Stouthart et al. 1996
larva), chloride
Cyprinus carpio
Bonytail (larva), S, U Copper 199 96 hr LC50 364 Buhl and Hamilton 1996
Gila elegans sulfate
Bonytail (100-110 days), S, U Copper 199 96 hr LC50 231 Buhl and Hamilton 1996
Gila elegans sulfate
Golden shiner (11-13 cm), S,U Copper 221 94 hr Decreased serum osmolality 2,500 - Lewis and Lewis 1971
Notemigonus crysoleucas sulfate
Golden shiner, S,U Copper 45 24 hr LC50 330 - Cairns et al. 1978
Notemigonus crysoleucas sulfate (50 C)
Golden shiner, F,M,T Copper 72.2 15 min EC50 26 - Hartwell et al. 1989
Notemigonus crysoleucas chloride (avoidance)
Striped shiner, F,M,T,D Copper 318 96 hr LC50 3,400 - Geckler et al. 1976
Notropis chrysocephalus sulfate
Striped shiner (4.7 cm) F,M,T,D Copper 316 96 hr LC50 4,000 - Geckler et al. 1976
Striped shiner (5.0 cm) F,M,T,D Copper 274 96 hr LC50 5,000 - Geckler et al. 1976
B-24
Bluntnose minnow, S,U Copper 208 48 hr LC50 290 - Geckler et al. 1976
Pimephales notatus sulfate
Bluntnose minnow, S,U Copper 322 48 hr LC50 6,300 - Geckler et al. 1976
Bluntnose minnow, S,M,D Copper 320 48 hr LC50 6,300 - Geckler et al. 1976
B-25
Bluntnose minnow, S,M,D Copper 306 48 hr LC50 750 - Geckler et al. 1976
Bluntnose minnow (3.9 cm), F,M,T,D Copper 314 96 hr LC50 6,800 - Geckler et al. 1976
Bluntnose minnow (5.3 cm), F,M,T,D Copper 303 96 hr LC50 13,000 - Geckler et al. 1976
Fathead minnow (adult), S,U Copper 103-104 96 hr LC50 210
Pimephales promelas sulfate Birge et al. 1983
Fathead minnow (adult), S,U Copper 103-104 96 hr LC50 210 Birge et al. 1983;
Pimephales promelas sulfate Benson and Birge 1985
Fathead minnow (adult), S,U Copper 254-271 96 hr LC50 390 Birge et al. 1983;
Pimephales promelas sulfate Benson and Birge 1985
Fathead minnow, S,U Copper 200 96 hr LC50 430 Mount 1968
Pimephales promelas sulfate
Fathead minnow, S,U Copper 31 96 hr LC50 84 Mount and Stephan 1969
Fathead minnow (3.8-6.3 cm), S,U Copper 20 96 hr LC50 25 Pickering and Henderson 1966
B-26
Fathead minnow, S,U Copper 20 96 hr LC50 50 Tarzwell and Henderson 1960
Fathead minnow, S,U Copper 400 96 hr LC50 1,400 Tarzwell and Henderson 1960
Fathead minnow (3.2-4.2 cm), S,M Copper 44 96 hr LC50 117 - Curtis et al. 1979;
Pimephales promelas acetate Curtis and Ward 1981
Fathead minnow (2.0-6.9 cm), S,M,D Copper 294 96 hr LC50 16,000 - Brungs et al. 1976
Fathead minnow (2.0-6.9 cm), S,M,D Copper 280 96 hr LC50 3,300 - Brungs et al. 1976;
Pimephales promelas sulfate Geckler et al. 1976
B-27
Fathead minnow (2.0-6.9 cm), S,M,D Copper 260 96 hr LC50 22,200 - Geckler et al. 1976
Fathead minnow (2.0-6.9 cm), S,M,D Copper 206 96 hr LC50 920 - Geckler et al. 1976
Fathead minnow (<24 h), S,M,T Copper 290 96 hr LC50 >200 - Schubauer-Berigan et al. 1993
Pimephales promelas nitrate
Fathead minnow (<24 h), S,M,T Copper 16.8 96 hr LC50 36.0 - Welsh et al. 1993
Fathead minnow (<24 h; 0.68 S,M,T Copper 17 96 hr LC50 1.99 - Welsh et al. 1993
mg), sulfate
Pimephales promelas
B-28
Fathead minnow (<24 h; 0.68 S,M,T Copper 20.5 96 hr LC50 4.86 - Welsh et al. 1993
mg), sulfate
Pimephales promelas
mg), sulfate
Pimephales promelas
mg), sulfate
Pimephales promelas
Fathead minnow (<24 h; 0.68 S,M,T Copper 17 96 hr LC50 15.7 - Welsh et al. 1993
mg), sulfate
Pimephales promelas
Fathead minnow (60-90 days), S,M,T - 110 48 hr LC50 284 - Dobbs et al. 1994
Pimephales promelas
Fathead minnow (3 wk), S,M,T Copper 101 48 hr Short-term intolerance of hypoxia (2 186 - Bennett et al. 1995
Pimephales promelas sulfate mg D.O./L)
Fathead minnow (2-4 day), S,M,T Copper 6-10 - LC50 12.5 - Suedel et al. 1996
Fathead minnow (<24 hrs), S,M,T Copper 9.9 96 hr LC50 10.7 - Welsh et al. 1996
Fathead minnow (<24 hrs), S,M,T,D Copper 46 96 hr LC50 17.15 14.87 Erickson et al. 1996a,b
B-29
Fathead minnow, S,M,T,D Copper 100 96 hr LC50 (fish from metal-contaminated 360 - Birge et al. 1983
Pimephales promelas sulfate pond)
Fathead minnow, S,M,T,D Copper 250 96 hr LC50 (fish from metal-contaminated 410 - Birge et al. 1983
Pimephales promelas sulfate pond)
Fathead minnow (<24 hr), R,U - 45 7 days LC50 70 - Norberg and Mount 1985
Pimephales promelas
Fathead minnow (<24 hr), R,U - 45 7 days LOEC 26 - Norberg and Mount 1985
Pimephales promelas (growth)
Fathead minnow (<24 hr), R,U Copper 345 4 days RNA threshhold effect 130 - Parrott and Sprague 1993
Fathead minnow (embryo), R,U Copper 106 5 days LC50 480 - Fort et al. 1996
Fathead minnow (embryo), R,U Copper 106 5 days EC50 270 - Fort et al. 1996
Pimephales promelas sulfate (malformation)
Fathead minnow (embryo), R,U Copper 106 7 days LOEC 160 - Fort et al. 1996
Pimephales promelas sulfate (length)
Fathead minnow (embryo), R,U Copper 106 7 days LOEC 180 - Fort et al. 1996
Pimephales promelas sulfate (length)
Fathead minnow (larva), R,M,T Copper 180 7 days LOEC 25 - Pickering and Lazorchak 1995
Pimephales promelas sulfate (growth)
Fathead minnow (3-7 days), R,M,T Copper 74 48 hr LC50 225 - Diamond et al. 1997b
B-30
Fathead minnow (larva), R,M,T,D Copper 80 48 hr LC50 35.9 - Diamond et al. 1997a
Fathead minnow (3-7 days), R,M,T,D Copper 80 48 hr LC50 297.1 - Diamond et al. 1997b
Fathead minnow (3-7 days), R,M,T,D Copper 72 48 hr LC50 145.8 - Diamond et al. 1997b
Fathead minnow (32-38 mm), F,M,T Copper 244 9 mo LOEC 120 - Brungs et al. 1976
Pimephales promelas sulfate (93% lower fecundity)
Fathead minnow (larva), F,M,T Copper 202 - LC50 250 - Scudder et al. 1988
Fathead minnow (embryo), F,M,T Copper 202 34 days Reduced growth; 61 - Scudder et al. 1988
Pimephales promelas sulfate increased abnormality
Fathead minnow (embryo), F,M,T Copper 202 34 days LC50 123 - Scudder et al. 1988
Fathead minnow (24-96 hr), F,M,T Copper 10.7 21 days Incipient lethal level 6.2 - Welsh 1996
Fathead minnow (24-96 hr), F,M,T Copper 10.7 21 days Growth (length) reduced by 8% 5.3 - Welsh 1996
Fathead minnow (24-96 hr), F,M,T Copper 9.3 21 days Incipient lethal level 17.2 - Welsh 1996
Fathead minnow (24-96 hr), F,M,T Copper 9.3 21 days Growth (length) reduced by 17% 16.2 - Welsh 1996
Fathead minnow (<24 hrs), F,M,T Copper 46 96 hr LC50 305 - Erickson et al. 1996 a,b
Fathead minnow (<24 hrs), F,M,T Copper 46 96 hr LC50 298.6 - Erickson et al. 1996 a, b
Fathead minnow, F,M,T - 30 96 hr LC50 436 - Lind et al. manuscript
Pimephales promelas (TOC=12 mg/L)
Fathead minnow, F,M,T - 87 96 hr LC50 1,586 - Lind et al. manuscript
B-31

Fathead minnow, F,M,T Copper 117 96 hr LC50 2,050 - Lind et al. manuscript
Fathead minnow, F,M,T Copper 121 96 hr LC50 2,336 - Lind et al. manuscript
Fathead minnow (4.4 cm), F,M,T,D Copper 314 96 hr LC50 11,000 - Geckler et al. 1976
Fathead minnow (4.2 cm), F,M,T,D Copper 303 96 hr LC50 15,000 - Geckler et al. 1976
Fathead minnow (<24 hrs), F,M,T,D Copper 45 96 hr LC50 158.8 138.1 Erickson et al. 1996a,b
Colorado squawfish (larva), S,U Copper 199 96 hr LC50 363 Buhl and Hamilton 1996
Ptychocheilus lucius sulfate
Colorado squawfish (155-186 S,U Copper 199 96 hr LC50 663 Buhl and Hamilton 1996
days), sulfate
Ptychocheilus lucius
Colorado squawfish (32-40 days S,U Copper 144 96 hr LC50 293 Hamilton and Buhl 1997
posthatch), sulfate
Colorado squawfish (32-40 days S,U Copper 144 96 hr LC50 320 Hamilton and Buhl 1997
posthatch), sulfate
Creek chub, F,M,T Copper 316 96 hr LC50 11,500 - Geckler et al. 1976
Semotilus atromaculatus sulfate
Creek chub, F,M,T Copper 274 96 hr LC50 1,100 - Geckler et al. 1976
Semotilus atromaculatus sulfate
Razorback sucker (larva), S,U Copper 199 96 hr LC50 404 Buhl and Hamilton 1996
Xyrauchen texanus sulfate
Razorback sucker (102-116 S,U Copper 199 96 hr LC50 331 Buhl and Hamilton 1996
days), sulfate
Xyrauchen texanus
Razorback sucker (13-23 days S,U Copper 144 96 hr LC50 231 Hamilton and Buhl 1997
posthatch), sulfate
Xyrauchen texanus
B-32
Razorback sucker (13-23 days S,U Copper 144 96 hr LC50 314 Hamilton and Buhl 1997
posthatch), sulfate
Xyrauchen texanus
Brown bullhead, F,M,T Copper 303 96 hr LC50 12,000 - Geckler et al. 1976
Ictallurus nebulosus sulfate
Brown bullhead (5.2 cm), F,M,T Copper 314 96 hr LC50 5,200 - Geckler et al. 1976
Ictalurus nebulosus sulfate
Channel catfish (13-14 cm), S,U Copper 221 94 hr Decreased serum osmolality 2,500 - Lewis and Lewis 1971
Ictalurus punctatus sulfate
Channel catfish, S,U Copper 45 24 hr LC50 3,700 - Cairns et al. 1978
Ictalurus punctatus sulfate (50 C)
Channel catfish, S,U Copper 100 10 days EC50 6,620 - Birge and Black 1979
Ictalurus punctatus sulfate (death and deformity)
Channel catfish (fingerlings), S,U Copper 16 96 hr LC50 54 Straus and Tucker 1993
Channel catfish (400-600 g), F,M,T Copper - 10 wk Significant mortality 354 - Perkins et al. 1997
Channel catfish (4.1 gm), F,M,T,D Copper 319 14 days LC50 1,229 - Richey and Roseboom 1978
Channel catfish (5.7 gm), F,M,T,D Copper 315 14 days LC50 1,073 - Richey and Roseboom 1978
Banded killifish, S,M,T Copper 53 - 860 - Rehwoldt et al. 1971
Fundulus diaphanus nitrate
Banded killifish, S,M,T Copper 55 - 840 - Rehwoldt et al. 1972
Fundulus diaphanus nitrate
B-33
Flagfish (0.1-0.3 g), F,M,T,D Copper 363 10 days LC50 - 680 Fogels and Sprague 1977
Jordanella floridae sulfate
Flagfish (0.1-0.3 g), F,M,T,D Copper 363 96 hr LC50 - 1,270 Fogels and Sprague 1977
Jordanella floridae sulfate
Mosquitofish (3.8-5.1 cm S,U Copper 27-41 96 hr LC50 93 Joshi and Rege 1980
female), nitrate
Gambusia affinis
Mosquitofish (3.8-5.1 cm S,U Copper 27-41 96 hr LC50 200 Joshi and Rege 1980
female), sulfate
Gambusia affinis
Mosquitofish (2.5 cm male), S,U - 50 96 hr LC50 3,500 Kallanagoudar and Patil 1997
Gambusia affinis
Gambusia affinis
Gambusia affinis
Mosquitofish (3.5 cm female), S,U - 50 96 hr LC50 2,500 Kallanagoudar and Patil 1997
Gambusia affinis
Gambusia affinis
Gambusia affinis
Mosquitofish (0.8 cm fry), S,U - 50 96 hr LC50 900 Kallanagoudar and Patil 1997
Gambusia affinis
Mosquitofish (0.8 cm fry), S,U - 150 96 hr LC50 1,400 Kallanagoudar and Patil 1997
Gambusia affinis
Mosquitofish (0.8 cm fry), S,U - 300 96 hr LC50 2,000 Kallanagoudar and Patil 1997
Gambusia affinis
Mosquito fish, S,U Copper - 96 hr LC50 75,000 - Wallen et al. 1957
Gambusia affinis sulfate (high turbidity)
Mosquito fish, R,M Copper 45 48 hr LC50 180 - Chagnon and Guttman 1989
Gambusia affinis sulfate
Guppy (1.5 cm), S,U Copper 230 96 hr LC50 1,230 Khangarot 1981
Poecilia reticulata sulfate
Guppy (1.62 cm), S,U Copper 240 96 hr LC50 764 Khangarot et al. 1981b
Guppy (1.9-2.5 cm), S,U Copper 20 96 hr LC50 36 Pickering and Henderson 1966
Guppy (1.5 cm), R,U Copper 260 96 hr LC50 2,500 Khangarot et al. 1981a
Guppy (0.8-1.0 cm), R,U Copper 144-188 96 hr LC50 160 Deshmukh and Marathe 1980
Guppy (1.2-2.3 cm; female), R,U Copper 144-188 96 hr LC50 275 Deshmukh and Marathe 1980
B-34
Guppy (2.3-2.8 cm; male), R,U Copper 144-188 96 hr LC50 210 Deshmukh and Marathe 1980
Guppy (340 mg; female), R,U Copper 144-188 96 hr LC50 480 Deshmukh and Marathe 1980
Guppy (1.5 cm), R,U Copper 260 48 hr LC50 2,500 - Khangarot et al. 1981a
Guppy (1.5 cm), R, U Copper 181 96 hr LC50 986 - Khangarot and Ray 1987b
Guppy (1 mo), F,U Copper 76 24 hr LC50 1,370 - Minicucci 1971
Guppy (1 mo), F,U Copper 76 24 hr LC50 930 - Minicucci 1971
Guppy (1 mo), F,U Copper 76 24 hr LC50 1,130 - Minicucci 1971
White perch, S,M,T Copper 53 - LC50 6,200 - Rehwoldt et al. 1971
Morone americana nitrate
White perch, S,M,T Copper 55 - LC50 6,400 - Rehwoldt et al. 1972
Morone americana nitrate
Striped bass (larva), S,U Copper 34.6 96 hr LC50 50 Hughes 1973
Morone saxitilis chloride
Striped bass (larva), S,U Copper 34.6 96 hr LC50 100 Hughes 1973
Morone saxitilis sulfate
Striped bass (3.5-5.1 cm), S,U Copper 34.6 96 hr LC50 50 Hughes 1973
Morone saxitilis chloride
Striped bass (3.1-5.1 cm), S,U Copper 34.6 96 hr LC50 150 Hughes 1973
Striped bass (35-80 day), S,U Copper 285 96 hr LC50 270 Palawski et al. 1985
Striped bass (6 cm), S,U Copper 35 96 hr LC50 620 Wellborn 1969
Striped bass, S,M,T Copper 53 96 hr LC50 4,300 - Rehwoldt et al. 1971
Morone saxitilis nitrate
Striped bass, S,M,T Copper 55 96 hr LC50 2,700 - Rehwoldt et al. 1972
Morone saxitilis nitrate
Rock bass, F,M,T - 24 96 hr LC50 1,432 - Lind et al. manuscript
Ambloplites rupestris (high TOC)
Pumpkinseed (1.2 g), S,M,T Copper 53 - LC50 2,400 - Rehwoldt et al. 1971
Lepomis gibbosus nitrate
Pumpkinseed (1.2 g), S,M,T Copper 55 - LC50 2,700 - Rehwoldt et al. 1972
Pumpkinseed, S,M,T Copper 53 96 hr LC50 2,400 - Rehwoldt et al. 1971
Pumpkinseed, S,M,T Copper 55 96 hr LC50 2,700 - Rehwoldt et al. 1972
B-35
Bluegill, S,U Copper 43 96 hr LC50 770 Academy of Natural Sciences 1960

Lepomis macrochirus chloride
Bluegill, S,U Copper 43 96 hr LC50 1,250 Academy of Natural Sciences 1960
Lepomis macrochirus sulfate Cairns and Scheier 1968; Patrick et
Bluegill, S,U Copper 45 24 hr LC50 2,590 - Cairns et al. 1978
Lepomis macrochirus sulfate (50 C)
Bluegill (3-4 cm), S,U - 119 8 days 33% reduction in locomotor activity 40 - Ellgaard and Guillot 1988
Lepomis macrochirus
Bluegill (4.2 cm), S,U Copper 52 96 hr LC50 254 Inglis and Davis 1972
Lepomis macrochirus sulfate
Bluegill (5-15 g), S,U Copper 35 2-6 days 8% increase in oxygen consumption 300 - O'Hara 1971
Lepomis macrochirus sulfate rates
Bluegill (3.8-6.3 cm), S,U Copper 20 96 hr LC50 660 Pickering and Henderson 1966
Bluegill (3.8-6.3 cm), S,U Copper 360 96 hr LC50 10,200 Pickering and Henderson 1966
Bluegill, S,U Copper 20 96 hr LC50 200 Tarzwell and Henderson 1960
Bluegill, S,U Copper 400 96 hr LC50 10,000 Tarzwell and Henderson 1960
Bluegill (5-11 cm), S,U Copper 46 48 hr LC50 3,000 - Turnbull et al. 1954
Bluegill (5-11 cm), S,U Copper 101.2 48 hr LC50 7,000 - Turnbull et al. 1954
Bluegill (0.51g), S,M,T - 110 48 hr LC50 4,300 - Dobbs et al. 1994
Lepomis macrochirus
B-36
Bluegill (5-9 cm), S,M,T Copper 45-47 - LC50 710 - Trama 1954
Bluegill (5-9 cm), S,M,T Copper 45-47 - LC50 770 - Trama 1954
Bluegill (5-15 g), F,M Copper 35 - LC50 2400 - O'Hara 1971
Bluegill (3.5-6.0 cm), F,M,T Copper 112.4 80 min Avoidance threshold 8,480 - Black and Birge 1980
Bluegill (3.2-6.7 cm), F,M,T Copper 21.2-59.2 96 hr LC50 1,100 - Thompson et al. 1980
Bluegill (3.2-6.7 cm), F,M,T Copper 21.2-59.2 96 hr LC50 900 - Thompson et al. 1980
Bluegill (35.6-62.3 g), F,M,T Copper 273.3 24-96 hr Various behavioral changes 34 - Henry and Atchison 1986
Bluegill, F,M,T Copper 157 24-96 hr 27% reduction in food consumption 31 - Sandheinrich and Atchison 1989
Bluegill, F,M,T,D Copper 316 96 hr LC50 16,000 - Geckler et al. 1976
Lepomis macrochirus sulfate (high BOD)
Bluegill, F,M,T,D Copper 318 96 hr LC50 (high BOD) 17,000 - Geckler et al. 1976
Bluegill (0.14-0.93 g), F,M,T,D Copper 246 14 days LC50 - 2,500 Richey and Roseboom 1978
Bluegill (1.15-2.42 g), F,M,T,D Copper 237 14 days LC50 - 3,700 Richey and Roseboom 1978
Bluegill (48.3 g), F,M,T,D Copper 40 96 hr Biochemical changes 2,000 - Heath 1984
Largemouth bass (embryo), R,U Copper 100 8 days EC50 6,560 - Birge et al. 1978; Birge and Black
Micropterus salmoides sulfate (death and deformity) 1979
Largemouth bass, F,U - - 24 hr Affected opercular rhythm 48 - Morgan 1979
Micropterus salmoides
Rainbow darter, F,M,T,D Copper 318 96 hr LC50 4,500 - Geckler et al. 1976
Etheostoma caeruleum sulfate (high BOD)
Rainbow darter (4.6 cm), F,M,T,D Copper 314 96 hr LC50 (high BOD) 4,800 - Geckler et al. 1976
Etheostoma caeruleum sulfate
Rainbow darter (4.6 cm), F,M,T,D Copper 303 96 hr LC50 (high BOD) 5,300 - Geckler et al. 1976
Etheostoma caeruleum sulfate
Fantail, S,M,T Copper 170 96 hr Lowered critical thermal maximum 43 - Lydy and Wissing 1988
Etheostoma flabellare sulfate
B-37
Appendix C. Estimation of Water Chemistry Parameters for
Acute C opper T oxicity Tests
FINAL REPORT
ESTIMATION OF WATER CHEMISTRY PARAMETERS FOR

ACUTE COPPER TOXICITY TESTS
For:

Health and Ecological Criteria Division
Office of Science and Technology, Office of Water
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20460
Great Lakes Environmental Center Program Manager

G.M. DeGraeve
Great Lakes Environmental Center, Inc.
739 Hastings Street, Traverse City, Michigan 49686
Phone: (231) 941-2230
CONTENTS
Foreword . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C -3
1.0 Data Acquisition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-4
2.0 Technical Issues and Corresponding Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-4

2.1 Estimating Ion Concentrations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-4
2.2 pH Adjustment with HCl . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-7
2.3 Estimation of DOC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-7
2.4 DOC in Lake Superior Water . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-8
2.5 Applying Water Chemistry Data to Lake Superior Water . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-8
2.6 Predicting Ionic Composition of WFTS Well Water . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-9
2.7 Data for Measurement of Blacksburg/New River Water . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-11
2.8 Cu Concentrations and Alkalinity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-12
2.9 Calculation of DOC and Humic Acid . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-14
2.10 Alkalinity of Lake Superior Water . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-15
2.11 Availability of LC50s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-15
2.12 Cl and Na Concentrations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-15
2.13 Calculating DOC in Dilution Water . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-16
2.14 Ionic Composition of Chehalis River Water . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-16
2.15 Chemistry of Water in Howarth and Sprague (1978) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-17
2.16 Default Values of Analyte Concentrations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-18
2.17 Organic Carbon Content of Samples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-19
2.18 Additional Water Chemistry Data Needed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-19
2.19 Estimating Data for Waters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-19
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-32
Appendix C-1, Calculations for Ionic Composition of Standard Laboratory Reconstituted

Water . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-35
Appendix C-2, Dissolved, Particulate, and Estimated Total Organic Carbon for Streams and
Lakes by State . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-36
Appendix C-3, Mean TOC and DOC in Lake Superior Dilution Water . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-38
Appendix C-4, Measured Hardness and Major Ion and Cation Concentrations in WFTS
Well Water from April 1972 to April 1978 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-39
Appendix C-5, Analytical Results of New and Clinch Rivers and
Sinking Creek, VA, Water Samples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-41
Appendix C-6, Water Composition of St. Louis River, MN, from USGS NASQAN and Select
Relationships to Water Hardness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-42
Appendix C-7, Supplementary Data for Bennett et al. (1995) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C -48
Appendix C-8, Supplementary Data for Richards and Beitinger (1995) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C -51
Appendix C-9, Water Quality Data for the American River, CA for
July 1978 Through December 1980 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-52
Appendix C-10, STORET Data for Minnesota Lakes and Rivers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C -53
C-1
TABLES
Table 1. Standard Reconstituted Water Composition and Target Water Quality Characteristics . . . . . . . . . C-5
Table 2. Calculated Ion Concentrations Based on the Standard Salts Added . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C -6
Table 3. Adjusted Ion Concentrations for a Standard Reconstituted Water Mix Based on Reported
Hardness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C -6
Table 4. Recommended Spreadsheet Addition for Lake Superior Dilution Water . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-9
Table 5. Predicted Ion Concentrations in WFTS Well Water Based on Measured Hardness . . . . . . . . . . . C-10
Table 6. Comparison of Values for Untreated (Natural) and Treated (Dechlorinated City of
Blacksburg, VA) New River Water . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-13
Table 7. Estimated Alkalinity in Natural Surface Water Based on pH . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C -14
Table 8. Estimates of Dissolved Organic Carbon and Percent Humic Acid for the Winner (1985)
Toxicity Tests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C -14
Table 9. Example Calculations to Estimate Water Chemistry of Tests Conducted at 100 mg/L as
CaCo3 by Howarth and Sprague (1978) Using a Mixture of University of Guelph Well
Water and De-ionized Water . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-18
FIGURES
Figure 1. Relationship Between Ca and Hardness in WFTS Well Water . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C -24
Figure 2. Relationship Between Mg and Hardness in WFTS Well Water . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-25
Figure 3. Relationship Between Na and Hardness in WFTS Well Water . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-26
Figure 4. Relationship Between K and Hardness in WFTS Well Water . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C -27
Figure 5. Relationship Between Cl and Hardness in WFTS Well Water . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-28
Figure 6. Relationship Between SO4 and Hardness in WFTS Well Water . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-29
Figure 7. Slopes of the Regression Equations Derived for Na Concentration in St. Louis River, MN,
Water Versus Water Hardness from 1973 to 1993 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C -30
Figure 8. Intercepts of the Regression Equations Derived for Na Concentration in St. Louis River,
MN, Water Versus Water Hardness from 1973 to 1993 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-31
C-2
FOREWORD
This report was developed by the Great Lakes Environmental Center. Some minor revisions
were made by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). These revisions were primarily
editorial. Additional editorial and formatting revisions were made by the CDM Group, Inc.
The purpose of this report is to provide input water chemistry information for a Biotic Ligand
Model (BLM) analysis of the acute copper toxicity data in Table 1a of the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency’s (EPA) draft 2003 Update of Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Copper. EPA
will use these BLM data to derive adjusted aquatic life criteria for copper. Many of the reported Table
1a acute copper toxicity data lack sufficient information on the chemistry of the dilution water to
generate BLM-derived critical accumulation values. This compendium contains data from the
primary authors of these articles. It also contains recommendations for the use of these data,
additional supporting documentation and/or computations, and recommendations for estimating
missing parameters.
C-3
Estimation of Water Chemistry Parameters for Acute Copper Toxicity Tests
To prepare for the possibility of incorporating the Biotic Ligand Model (BLM) (Di Toro et al.
2001) into an updated copper aquatic life criteria document, the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) sought to generate a data table summarizing the acute toxicity of copper to
freshwater organisms that included the following parameters: alkalinity, dissolved organic carbon
(DOC), pH, and the major anions (Cl and SO4) and cations (Ca, Mg, Na, K) of the test water.
Published literature was reviewed and appropriate information tabulated, but measurements for many
of the aforementioned parameters were not reported. To resolve the overwhelming number of
missing test water chemistry values in the database, certain authors were contacted for additional
information and to obtain additional measurements in waters where critical information was either
not measured or not reported. EPA also attempted to determine appropriate methods for estimating
test water chemistry in the absence of reported values. The information received from the authors
and recommended procedures for estimating missing parameters are the subject of this report.
1.0 Data Acquisition
The authors of several studies were contacted for additional information on the chemistry of
the water or methods used in their studies. If the primary or corresponding authors could not be
contacted, an attempt was made to contact secondary authors or personnel from the laboratories
where the studies had been conducted. In a few instances, this initial effort failed to produce the
desired information, and censored databases (U.S. Geological Survey’s [USGS] National Stream
Quality Accounting Network [NASQAN] and EPA’s STOrage and RETrieval [STORET] data
warehouse) were consulted to obtain the missing data. As a last resort, other available sources of
water compositional data (e.g., city drinking water treatment officials) were contacted.
The acquired data were scrutinized for representativeness and usefulness in estimating surrogate
values to complete the water quality information in the original studies. Summary tables and figures
generated from these data are included in the following pages, which serve as the basis for the
addition of values in the spreadsheets. Information used for the tabular and graphical summaries of
these data is included in separate appendices.
2.0 Technical Issues and Corresponding Recommendations
2.1 Estimating Ion Concentrations
Develop a methodology for estimating Ca, Mg, Na, K, Cl, and SO4 concentrations in
laboratory-reconstituted waters.
Recommendation: The best approach for estimating ion concentrations in standard

laboratory-reconstituted water involves scaling default ion concentrations based on measured
hardness. The default ion concentrations can be computed from the concentrations of the salts
added. The use of calculated ion concentrations as input for the BLM applies only to reconstituted
water prepared following the standard recipes reported in guidance documents for conducting acute
bioassays with aquatic organisms (ASTM 2000; U.S. EPA 1993) (see Table 1). If similar salts are
added in different amounts, then the ion concentrations must be calculated using the recipe reported
C-4
in the article. Otherwise, specific ion ratios, and more importantly ion concentrations, cannot be
calculated.
Table 1. Standard Reconstituted Water Composition and Target Water Q uality

Characteristics
Reagent Added (mg/L) Final Water Quality
Water Type NaHCO 3 CaSO 4C2H 2O MgSO 4 KCl pH a Hardness a Alkalinity b
Very Soft 12.0 7.5 7.5 0.5 6.4-6.8 10-13 10-13
Soft 48.0 30.0 30.0 2.0 7.2-7.6 40-48 30-35
Mod. Hard 96.0 60.0 60.0 4.0 7.4-7.8 80-100 60-70
Hard 192.0 120.0 120.0 8.0 7.6-8.0 160-180 110-120
Very Hard 384.0 240.0 240.0 16.0 8.0-8.4 280-320 225-245

a Approximate equilibrium pH after 24-hour aeration
b Expressed as mg/L CaCO 3
When standard laboratory-reconstituted water is cited as the dilution water, and no additional
measurements are reported, the recommended approach for estimating ion concentrations is to use
the ion concentrations calculated from the amount of salts added for the type of reconstituted water
reported in the article. For example, if the range of hardness of the reconstituted water is reported as
80-100 mg/L CaCO3, then the specific ion concentrations calculated from the standard recipe for
moderately hard reconstituted water should be used for BLM input (see Table 2 and example
calculation in Appendix D-2). The use of ion concentrations calculated from the standard recipes
assumes that salts were stored in a manner to prevent hydration and that technician errors in
weighing of salts, measurements of dilution water, and measurement of solution volumes were
minimal.
Alternatively, if the authors state that moderately hard water was prepared following one of the
standard recipes, and they measured the hardness of the water, then the calculated ion concentrations
should be adjusted to account for any difference from the mean of the expected range. For example,
if the mean measured hardness in a test water prepared using the recipe for moderately hard
reconstituted water was 78 mg/L CaCO3, the Ca:Mg ratio would be 0.700 for all reconstituted water
types, and the respective Ca and Mg concentrations could be calculated using the following equations:
Ca = (0.4008 × measured hardness)÷[1+(1÷Ca:Mg ratio)] Equation 1
Mg = (0.2431 × measured hardness)÷(1+Ca:Mg ratio) Equation 2
The remaining ion concentrations are each multiplied by 0.92 (quotient of 78 and 85 mg/L CaCO3,
the latter of which is the expected hardness for moderately hard reconstituted water), as in Table 1.
C-5
Table 3 provides ion concentrations predicted for a standard reconstituted water mix using the
hardness adjustment in accordance with the example above.
Note that this same rationale for scaling the default major anions and cations in reconstituted
water also applies to a variety of natural surface and well waters. Analysis of St. Louis River, MN,
water and Western Fish Toxicology Station (WFTS) well water indicated that a strong linear
relationship also exists between water hardness and the major anion (Cl, SO4) and cation (Ca, Mg,
Na) concentrations in these water types (see Sections 2.6, 2.7, and 2.19). The strong relationships
are consistent with findings
Table 2. Calculated Ion Concentrations Based on the Standard Salts Added
Specific Ions a (mg/L)
Water Type Expected Hardness
(Nominal Hardness Range) Ca Mg Na K Cl SO 4 Ca:Mg b (mg/L CaCO 3)c
Very Soft 1.75 1.51 3.28 0.262 0.238 10.2 0.700 11

(10-13 mg/L CaCO 3)
Soft 6.99 6.06 13.1 1.05 0.951 40.7 0.700 42

(40-48 mg/L CaCO 3)
Moderately Hard 14.0 12.1 26.3 2.10 1.90 81.4 0.700 85

(80-100 mg/L CaCO 3)
Hard 27.9 24.2 52.5 4.20 3.80 163 0.700 170

(160-180 mg/L CaCO 3)
Very Hard 55.9 48.5 105 8.39 7.61 325 0.700 339
(280-320 mg/L CaCO 3)
a Ion concentrations were calculated from standard salt recipes (refer to Table 1 and example calculation for very soft
water in Appendix D-1).
b Ratio equals quotient of (Ca÷40.08) and (Mg÷24.31), where 40.08 and 24.31 are the molecular weights of Ca and
Mg, respectively, in units of mg/mmol.

c Hardness calculated according to the concentrations of Ca and Mg given here and the equation given in Appendix
D-1.
Table 3. Adjusted Ion Concentrations for a Standard Reconstituted Water Mix Based on
Reported Hardness
Specific Ions (mg/L)
Moderately Hard Reconstituted Hardness
Water (mg/L CaCO 3) Ca Mg Na K Cl SO 4
Nominal 85 a 14.0 12.1 26.3 2.10 1.90 81.4
Adjusted 78 12.9 11.2 24.2 2.10 1.75 74.9

aExpected hardness based on the amount of salts added (from Table 1). Calcium and magnesium are calculated
using Equations 1 and 2. Other adjusted values (italic and bold) are a result of the product of the ratio of measured
hardness (78 mg/L) to expected hardness (85 mg/L) and nominal ion concentrations, e.g., the adjusted sodium ion
concentration for a standard laboratory reconstituted water mix based on a reported total hardness of 78 mg/L CaCO 3
is: 78÷85=0.92; 0.92*26.3=24.2.
C-6
presented in an earlier comprehensive report by Erickson (1985). Note, however, that because there
is generally poor correlation between K and water hardness in the various ambient surface and ground
water types (see Section 2.6), the value calculated for K should not be scaled according to hardness.
2.2 pH Adjustment with HCl
Schubauer-Berigan et al. (1993) adjusted pH using HCl but reported only nominal hardness and
alkalinity. The tests were conducted at the EPA Office of Research and Development, Mid-
Continent Ecology Division, Duluth, MN, using a standard very hard reconstituted water mix. The
authors need to be contacted to obtain any additional water chemistry data they might have.
Recommendation: Alkalinity and hardness were not measured in the tests reported in
Schubauer-Berigan et al. (1993), and no additional water chemistry data are available from the study
(Phil Monson, U.S. EPA-Duluth, personal communication). The HCl required to adjust the pH was
assumed to be added in amounts too small to significantly affect any of the other water quality
parameters (Gerald Ankley, U.S. EPA-Duluth, personal communication). Based on these remarks, we
believe ion concentrations for this particular study should be estimated using methods outlined in
Section 2.1.
2.3 Estimation of DOC
How should DOC be estimated if only total organic carbon (TOC) was measured in the study?
Can DOC be estimated if no measurements of organic carbon were reported in the study?
Recommendation: As a general rule, TOC values can be used directly in place of DOC for
dechlorinated and de-ionized city tap water, well water, and oligotrophic lake water (e.g., Lake
Superior water). TOC values are not recommended in place of DOC for water from estuaries,
wetlands, or higher order streams unless data are included that indicate otherwise. Rather, the
proportion of organic carbon expected to be dissolved in surface waters should be estimated and used
to scale the measured TOC value. When possible, the DOC:TOC ratio for a surface water should be
obtained using the USGS NASQAN dataset. The NASQAN dataset can be reached through the USGS
Web site (water.usgs.gov/nasqan/data/finaldata.html). If a representative ratio for a particular body of
water cannot be determined, the ratio for the particular water type (lake or stream) should be
obtained from the final draft of the Ambient Water Quality Criteria Derivation Methodology Human
Health Technical Support Document (U.S. EPA 1998a, Table 2.4.11). A summary of these data, by
State, is provided in Appendix D-2. In this appendix, TOC is operationally defined as the sum of
DOC and particulate organic carbon (POC). The national mean fraction of organic carbon is 86
percent for streams and 88 percent for lakes. The DOC:TOC ratio can be applied to lakes or streams
within a State to obtain an estimate of DOC from values reported for TOC.
Example:
Reference Water Body TOC (mg/L) DOC:TOC Estimated DOC (mg/L)
Lind et al. manuscript St. Louis R, MN 32 0.87 28
C-7
For tests with reconstituted, city tap, or well water, default DOC values can be applied if the
author does not report a measured value. The recommended default TOC (DOC) value for laboratory
prepared reconstituted water is 0.5 mg carbon/L (note: some newer laboratory water systems can
achieve a TOC of less than 0.5 mg/L). For regular city tap and well water, a value of 1.6 mg carbon/L
can be assumed. The recommended default value for laboratory-prepared reconstituted water is based
on the arithmetic mean of recent measurements of DOC in reconstituted water prepared at two
Federal (U.S. EPA Cincinnati, OH, and USGS Yankton, SD) and two consulting (Commonwealth
Biomonitoring and GLEC) laboratories (range 0.1 to 1 mg/L). The recommended default value for
dechlorinated city tap and well water is based on the arithmetic mean of measurements of DOC in
source water from Lake Ontario (Environment Canada, Burlington, ON) and the New River, VA
(City of Blacksburg, VA), and well water from Oak Ridge National Laboratory (Oak Ridge, TN) and
EPA’s WFTS (Corvallis, OR). The DOC values in these waters ranged from 1.1 to 2.5 mg/L.
For tests conducted in surface waters, we do not recommend the use of a default DOC value
because of the large variability of DOC observed. Rather, a reliable database such as USGS NASQAN
(as described above) should be searched for DOC measurements. If a database such as NASQAN is
consulted, only those DOC measurements closest to the time of the study should be considered as
surrogate values. In general, these DOC concentrations should not differ by more than a factor of
1.25. If DOC measurements for the surface water cannot be obtained from a reliable source, then the
toxicity test should not be included in Table 1 for BLM normalization.
2.4 DOC in Lake Superior Water
Lake Superior water has been used in a number of acute and chronic toxicity studies included in
the Aquatic Life Criteria for Copper (U.S. EPA 1998b). Dissolved organic matter (DOM) in Lake
Superior is assumed to be anywhere from 1 to 3 mg/L (Russ Erickson, U.S. EPA-Duluth, personal
communication; McGeer et al. 2000). This value is expected to be at least 90 percent of TOC (or 2
mg/L) (see Spehar and Fiandt 1986). A default value based on recent measurements is needed for
DOC in Lake Superior water.
Recommendation: Recent measurements of TOC in Lake Superior dilution water are in

Appendix D-3 (Greg Lien, U.S. EPA-Duluth, personal communication). The geometric mean
concentration of TOC in Lake Superior dilution water from multiple measurements is 1.27 mg/L.
Given the recommendation in Section 2.3, the recommended DOC for Lake Superior dilution water is
1.1 mg/L (1.27 mg/L × 0.88).
2.5 Applying Water Chemistry Data to Lake Superior Water
The ionic composition included in the Table 1 spreadsheet for Lake Superior water is based on
concentrations converted from values reported in Erickson et al. (1996b): Ca at 0.68 meq/L = 13.6
mg/L; Mg at 0.24 meq/L = 2.9 mg/L; Na at 0.065 meq/L = 1.5 mg/L; K at 0.015 meq/L = 0.59 mg/L;
SO4 at 0.070 meq/L = 3.4 mg/L; Cl at 0.035 meq/L = 1.2 mg/L; and alkalinity at 0.85 meq/L = 43
mg/L. The concentrations for most of these parameters were also reported in Biesinger and
Christensen (1972) and approximate those listed above. Should the Erickson et al. (1996b) data be
applied to all Lake Superior studies, or is there a stronger rationale for applying the Biesinger and
Christensen (1972) data to the older studies?
C-8
Recommendation: We recommend applying the mean of the Erickson et al. (1996b) citation
and Biesinger and Christensen (1972) water chemistry data to all Lake Superior studies prior to 1987,
when the results were initially reported. After 1987, we recommend use of the Erickson et al.
(1996b) water chemistry data alone (Table 4). For each test, Ca and Mg concentrations should be
estimated using Equations 1 and 2, the Ca:Mg ratios given below, and the measured hardness of the
test water (Section 2.1). Ions other than K should be scaled according to the measured test hardness,
also discussed in Section 2.1.
Table 4. Recommended Spreadsheet Addition for Lake Superior Dilution Water

Hardness Alkalinity
Applied to: (mg/L CaCO 3) (mg/L CaCO 3) Ca Mg Ca:Mg Na K Cl SO 4
P re-1987 a 46 42 13.6 3.0 2.75 1.3 0.57 1.2 3.4
P ost-1987 b 46 43 13.6 2.9 2.84 1.5 0.59 1.2 3.4

a Mean of the Erickson et al. (1996b) and Biesinger and Christensen (1972) water chemistry data
b Erickson et al. (1996b) water chemistry data alone
2.6 Predicting Ionic Composition of WFTS Well Water
The following studies seem were conducted at EPA’s WFTS using well water: Andros and
Garton (1980), Chapman (1975, 1978), Chapman and Stevens (1978), Lorz and McPherson (1976),
Nebeker et al. (1984a, 1986a, b), and Seim et al. (1984). Among these studies, however, there is a
wide range of hardness values (20-100 mg/L), and the ionic composition of the water was not always
reported.
The large variation in WFTS well water hardness, and consequently, ionic composition, is due to
seasonal variability (Samuelson 1976). The TOC content of this water has been reported to be 1.1
mg/L (McCrady and Chapman 1979), of which 100 percent is expected to be dissolved. A general
strategy is needed to predict the ionic composition of WFTS well water based on measured water
hardness.
Recommendation: The well feeding the WFTS is susceptible to influx from ground water
during rain events in late fall and winter (November through March or April). During this period the
water
hardness can reach measured levels as high as 100 mg/L CaCO3. Over the remaining months
(particularly from July to November), hardness stabilizes at around 25 to 40 mg/L CaCO3, as do other
water quality parameters (Al Nebeker, U.S. EPA Corvallis, personal communication; Samuelson
1976). It is important to note that the high hardness reported for WFTS well water is sporadic, even
in the winter.
The recommended strategy for filling the existing gaps in data reported from studies using this
well water is to estimate the ion concentrations on the basis of their relationship to the total
hardness measured during a particular test. The acceptability of tests conducted using WFTS water
depends on the range of hardness values reported, i.e., if the hardness varies widely over the course of
a particular test, then perhaps the test should not be used. Regression analyses were performed using
measured hardness and ion data for the WFTS well water reported in Samuelson (1976), April 1972
C-9
to April 1974, and supplemented with additional data from Gary Chapman, personal communication
(only those data from May 1974 to April 1978; see Appendix D-4). These relationships and the
corresponding regression equations are presented in Figures 1 through 6 (found at the end of this
report). Major ion concentrations for WFTS well water were predicted using the regression equations
over a wide range of water hardness (10 to 80 mg/L CaCO3) to determine the accuracy of the
procedure (Table 5). The error between predicted and measured ion concentrations is generally within
10 percent for all ions except K, where a default value of 0.7 mg/L was chosen for all hardness levels
(actual range is 0.1 to 1.1 mg/L, with the majority of data falling between 0.5 and 0.9 mg/L). The
correlation coefficient (R2) for the relationship between K and water hardness in WFTS well water
was only 0.124. Note: BLM predictions of copper gill accumulation and toxicity are relatively
insensitive to the concentration of K, so errors in its estimation should not appreciably affect model
predictions. The following regression equations were used to generate the example data provided in
Table 5:
[Ca] = 0.3085 + (measured hardness * 0.2738)

[Mg] = 0.5429 + (measured hardness * 0.0573)
[Na] = 3.3029 + (measured hardness * 0.0713)
[Cl] = 2.7842 + (measured hardness * 0.1278)
[SO4] = -3.043 + (measured hardness * 0.2816)
Lorz and McPherson (1976) and the Seim et al. (1984) tests were not run in WFTS well water,
but in water from different wells along the Willamette River. Water chemistry appears to be less
variable for these wells (Harold Lorz and Wayne Seim, personal communication). The following
additional water chemistry information for the two well water types used in these studies was
provided by the respective authors in January 2001.
Many of the studies conducted by Chapman used reverse osmosis treatment to maintain a
blended water supply that was of essentially constant ion content throughout the tests. All the test
data from Chapman appear to be acceptable; the only test complicated by fluctuating hardness was
the 22-month chronic zinc test with sockeye salmon, and that test produced only a NOEC.
Table 5. Predicted Ion Concentrations in WFTS Well Water Based on Measured
Hardness
Total Hardness P redicted Ion Concentrations (mg/L)

(Mean Measured value) Default a
mg/L CaCO 3 Ca Mg Na Cl SO 4 K
15.00 4.42 1.40 4.10 4.70 1.18 0.70
20.00 5.78 1.69 4.46 5.34 2.59 0.70
25.00 7.15 1.98 4.82 5.98 4.00 0.70
30.00 8.52 2.26 5.17 6.62 5.41 0.70
35.00 9.89 2.55 5.53 7.26 6.81 0.70
40.00 11.26 2.83 5.88 7.90 8.22 0.70
45.00 12.63 3.12 6.24 8.54 9.63 0.70
50.00 14.00 3.41 6.60 9.17 11.04 0.70
55.00 15.37 3.69 6.95 9.81 12.45 0.70
60.00 16.74 3.98 7.31 10.45 13.85 0.70
65.00 18.11 4.27 7.67 11.09 15.26 0.70
C-10
70.00 19.47 4.55 8.02 11.73 16.67 0.70
75.00 20.84 4.84 8.38 12.37 18.08 0.70
80.00 22.21 5.13 8.74 13.01 19.49 0.70
a Value not corrected. Assume default value of 0.70 mg/L.
Recommended Spreadsheet Addition f or Oregon Well Water.

Hardness Alkalinity Specific Ions a (mg/L)
(mg/L (mg/L
Applied to: CaCO 3) CaCO 3) pH DOC Ca Mg Ca:Mg Na K Cl SO 4
Lorz and 95 66 6.8-7.9 1.6 B 19 12 1.0 7.6 1.0 7.0 12
McP herson
1976
Seim et al. 120 126 7.7 1.6 B 34 8.6 2.4 15 0.7 5.0 2.3
1984
a Specific ion values were obtained through personal communication with the primary authors; hardness, alkalinity,
and pH values are as reported in the article. The Ca:Mg ratios were calculated on the basis of data provided by
authors, then Ca and Mg values used were back-calculated on the basis of these ratios and the measured test
hardness (see Equations 1 and 2).
b Suggested default value for untreated well water (see Section 2.3).
2.7 Data for Measurement of Blacksburg/New River Water
A substantial amount of acute copper toxicity data to various freshwater organisms is reported
using dechlorinated City of Blacksburg, VA, tap water. These include studies by Belanger et al.
(1989), Cairns et al. (1981), Hartwell et al. (1989), and Thompson et al. (1980). Hardness,
alkalinity, and pH values are reported for City of Blacksburg water in all of these studies, but the
ionic compositional data are not. This information is required to obtain BLM-normalized LC50s for
these data.
Recommendation: According to Don Cherry (personal communication), tests conducted at

Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University used City of Blacksburg, VA, tap water, which is
drawn from the nearby New River. Don Cherry collected a sample of New River water for analysis
under Work Assignment 1-20. The results of the analysis are provided in Appendix D-5. The sample
was of untreated natural water prior to any treatment by the City of Blacksburg. Values for treated
New River water (city) were provided by Jerry Higgins, Water Superintendent, City of Blacksburg.
Table 6 summarizes the measured values for New River and City of Blacksburg dechlorinated tap
water.
Historically, hardness and alkalinity vary substantially in dechlorinated City of Blacksburg tap
water and in raw New River water (Table 6). Some of this difference may be attributed to seasonal
effects. For example, strong seasonal influence was observed in both well water (influenced by surface
water, i.e., WFTS well water; see Section 2.6) and a natural surface water (St. Louis River, MN; refer
ahead to Section 2.19). Previously, we plotted ion concentrations against hardness for each of these
two water types (Figures 1 through 6 and Appendix D-6). The relationships were good in almost all
cases (positive, R 2 = 0.5 to 0.9), and the resultant regression equations were used to scale ion
concentrations according to reported water hardness. Incomplete datasets, however, preclude the use
C-11
of the same approach for City of Blacksburg tap and raw New River water. Instead, we recommend
using the ion and hardness values from the City of Blacksburg water sample and USGS NASQAN ion
data, respectively (Table 6), to generate surrogate ion values for the respective waters that were not
reported in the previous studies (indicated by the shaded area in Table 6). The operation is simply to
multiply ion concentrations for the “ acquired data” by the ratio of hardness values in City of
Blacksburg and NASQAN water and the corresponding test waters as was done in Section 2.1. We used
the NASQAN ion data as the basis for scaling the raw New River water ion estimates because
NASQAN represents data collected over several representative years, including the years in the
timeframe in which the studies of interest were initiated and completed. The exception was with
DOC. We felt that the DOC value obtained from the sample of New River water collected in August
2000 would be more representative than the few values generated from NASQAN (all pre-1980).
2.8 Cu Concentrations and Alkalinity
The methods sections of both Belanger and Cherry (1990) and Belanger et al. (1989) state that
total and dissolved Cu were measured, but it is not clear whether the reported LC50s are based on
total or dissolved copper concentration. Also, in Belanger and Cherry (1990), pH was adjusted with
sodium hydroxide (NaOH) or nitric acid (HNO3), but only nominal pHs were reported. Alkalinity and
hardness after pH adjustment were not reported. Can alkalinity be adjusted for these tests?
Recommendation: The concentration Cu in algae is reported on a total metal basis in

Belanger et al. (1989) and Belanger and Cherry (1990). The Cu in water is reported on an acid-
soluble basis. The acid-soluble concentration of Cu in water was used to derive the LC50. For all
intents and purposes, acid-soluble Cu can be considered as dissolved Cu because the acidification of the
filtrate after filtration is probably sufficient to obtain most of the Cu associated with colloidal
material. Normally a digestion procedure is required to convert all Cu to the dissolved form. If the
sample had not been filtered, it would not have been acceptable because it could have been elevated
by dissolution of particulate copper.
The pH levels achieved in the batch culture pH tests in Belanger and Cherry (1990) were
reported as 6.15, 8.02, and 8.95. Given the proximity of these values to the desired target pH values
of 6, 8, and 9, respectively, it would appear that the researchers were able to closely approximate the
nominal pH levels, including those selected for the acute heavy metal tests (also pH 6, 8, and 9,
respectively). Assuming that the target pH values of 6, 8, and 9 were achieved in the acute tests,
adjustment with NaOH and HNO3 would have affected alkalinity, but probably not hardness or the
major anion and cation concentrations, except possibly Na. The contribution to Na by the addition
of NaOH was probably small, so no further adjustment would be necessary.
C-12
Table 6. Comparison of Values for Untreated (Natural) and Treated (Dechlorinated City of Blacksburg, VA) New River Water
Total Total
Water Hardness Alkalinity Ca:Mg DOC
Source Type pH (mg/L CaCO 3) (mg/L CaCO 3) Ca Mg Na K Cl SO 4 NO 3 ratio (mg/L)
Acquired Data
a
City of Blacksburg, VA City 8.5 44 39 - - 9.3 - 33 45 - - 1.5
b
Cherry 2000 (08/00) New R. 8.0 - 52 15 0.6 6.6 2.0 6.1 9.8 0.7 2
c
NASQAN New R. - 61 - 15 5.8 3.4 1.6 4.0 13 0.8 1.6 5.4
d
Values To Be Applied to Table 1 Toxicity Tests
Belanger et al. 1989 City 7.7 45 40 11 4.2 9.5 1.6 34 46 - 1.6 1.5
Hartwell et al. 1989 City 7.5 72 43 18 6.8 15 1.6 54 74 - 1.6 1.5
Cairns et al. 1981 City 7.0 26 27 6.4 2.4 5.5 1.6 19 26 - 1.6 1.5
Thompson et al. 1980 City 7.2 40 28 9.9 3.8 8.5 1.6 30 41 - 1.6 1.5
Belanger et al. 1989 New R. 8.2 94 70 23 8.8 5.2 1.6 6.2 20 - 1.6 2
Belanger and Cherry 1990 New R. 6, 8, 9 98 74 24 9.1 5.4 1.6 6.4 21 - 1.6 2
a Data provided by Gerard (Jerry) Higgins of Blacksburg-Christianburg VP I Water Authority, Blacksburg, VA. Values presented are from a grab sample
collected January 31, 2000. Organic carbon (originally measured and reported as TOC) is assumed to be 100 percent dissolved.
b Sample provided by Don Cherry, Virginia P olytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, VA, and analyzed by Environmental Health Laboratories,
South Bend, IN. Values presented are from a grab sample collected August 2000. The value for Mg of 0.6 mg/L appears to be a reporting error, and was not
used for subsequent calculations of total hardness or scaling of ion values.
c Data obtained from USGS NASQAN database. Values presented are means of 213 samples, except for DOC, which is a mean of seven samples, collected and
analyzed from January 1973 to August 1995.

d Shaded area indicates mean values estimated from previously (NASQAN) or recently measured (Cherry 2000 or City of Blacksburg; nonadjusted) ion values.
All values have been rounded to two significant figures. Shaded values were derived according to text above using the approach outlined in Section 2.1.
C-13
Using a nomograph found in Faust and Aly (1981), alkalinity at pH 6 should be approximately
33 percent of the alkalinity at pH 8, and alkalinity at pH 9 should be 5 percent higher than the
alkalinity at pH 8 (Table 7). Therefore, the values for alkalinity in Table 7 should be used for the
acute toxicity tests presented in Belanger and Cherry (1990) in this case. For other analyses,
different adjustment factors may be appropriate, based on other interpretations from the Faust and
Aly nomograph or other methods as well. Appropriate consideration should also be given to the test
system equilibration with the atmosphere.
Table 7. Estimated Alkalinity in Natural Surface Water Based on pH

Source Water Nominal pH Alkalinity (mg/L CaCO 3)
New River 6 24.5
8.1 74.2 a
9 77.9
Clinch River 6 47.6
8.3 144 a
9 152
Amy Bayou 6 40.2
8.3 122 a
9 128
a Indicates values reported in text.
2.9 Calculation of DOC and Humic Acid
What was the technical approach used to calculate DOC and percent humic acid (HA) for the
Winner (1985) toxicity tests?
Recommendation: At a nominal HA concentration of 0.0 mg/L in soft and medium hardness

test waters, the DOC is assumed to be that of the ultrapure laboratory water, which is estimated to be
0.3 mg/L (approximately one-half of the recommended default value for DOC in laboratory water;
see Section 2.3). At nominal HA concentrations of 0.15, 0.75, and 1.50 mg/L, the DOC is calculated
by dividing by a value of 2, based on the assumption in the BLM User’s Guide (Di Toro et al. 2000)
that the percent carbon in HA is 0.50 (see example below and Table 8). Because the water used to
obtain these HA concentrations was ultrapure laboratory water, 0.3 mg carbon/L was added; final
rounded values of 0.38, 0.68, and 1.1 are recommended.
Table 8. Estimates of Dissolved Organic Carbon and Percent Humic Acid for the Winner
(1985) Toxicity Tests
Humic Acid Added (mg/L)a Calculated DOC (mg/L) Calculated P ercent Humic Acid
0 0.3 10
0.15 0.38 28
0.75 0.68 60
1.5 1.1 74
C-14
a As indicated in Table 3 of Winner (1985).
2.10 Alkalinity of Lake Superior Water
For the Lind et al. (manuscript) tests conducted in Lake Superior water (adjusted with CaSO4 or
MgSO4), is there any way to estimate alkalinity values?
Recommendation: For tests conducted in Lake Superior water, assume an alkalinity of 42

mg/L CaCO3 (see Section 2.5).
2.11 Availability of LC50s
The LC50s reported by Collyard et al. (1994) are shown graphically in publication. The LC50s
provided in Table 1 are interpolated from the figure. Are the actual measured LC50s available from
the authors?
Recommendation: The actual LC50s generated and presented graphically in Collyard et al.
(1994) have been archived at U.S. EPA-Duluth, as reported by Gerald Ankley (personal
communication, 3 November 2000). These values are not readily available in any other form. The
data are acceptable as is on the basis of recommendations in the Guidelines (Stephan et al. 1985).
Precedence for the use of values gleaned from graphical data is provided in the 2001 Update of
Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Cadmium (U.S. EPA 2001).
2.12 Cl and Na Concentrations
Cl and Na ion concentrations of the tap water used for testing in Rice and Harrison (1983) were
derived from the addition of 20 mg/L sodium chloride (NaCl). What are the specific concentrations
of the individual ions from the addition of the salt? What concentrations do you suggest using for K
and SO4 in this water?
Recommendation: The Cl content of the tap dilution water used in Rice and Harrison (1983)
was reported as having been derived from the addition of 20 mg/L of NaCl. Assuming that the initial
Na and Cl concentrations in tap water were essentially zero, the concentrations of these ions can be
calculated in the following way:
The molecular weight of NaCl is 58.44 g/mol. The atomic weight of Na is 22.98 mg/L and the
atomic weight of Cl is 35.453 mg/L.
The concentration of Na is:
20 mg NaCl/L * 1 mmol NaCl/58.44 mg NaCl = 0.342 mmol NaCl/L.

0.342 mmol NaCl * 1 mmol Na/1 mmol NaCl * 22.98 mg Na/1 mmol Na
= 7.86 mg Na/L.
The concentration of Cl is:
20 mg NaCl/L × 1 mmol NaCl/58.44 mg NaCl = 0.342 mmol NaCl/L.
C-15
0.342 mmol NaCl × 1 mmol Na/1 mmol NaCl × 35.453 mg Cl/1 mmol Cl
= 12.12 mg Cl/L.
Given the potentially large dichotomy between the default ion concentrations and measured
hardness of the water used in this study, we recommend adjusting the default SO4 concentration
according to measured hardness as in Section 2.1. We do not, however, recommend adjusting the
current default value of 1.0 mg/L for K.
2.13 Calculating DOC in Dilution Water
The dilution water used in the acute copper toxicity tests with cutthroat trout in Chakoumakos
et al. (1979) was a different mix of spring water and de-ionized water for each test. Ca and Mg
concentrations were measured and reported for each of the test waters used, but measurements of the
other ions were reported only for the undiluted spring water. Based on a percentage dilution, ions
other than Ca and Mg were estimated in the following way: hardness was measured in the spring water
and in each of the test waters; the proportion of spring water was calculated for each test using these
measured hardness values; this proportion was then multiplied by the concentration of, for example,
Na in the spring water to get an estimated Na value for each test. TOC in the spring water was 3.3
mg/L. Should the same approach as that used to estimate the other ions be used to calculate DOC,
which was only measured in undiluted spring water?
Recommendation: The concentrations of the major cations and anions in the dilution water
used by Chakoumakos et al. (1979) were calculated based on the percent dilution of natural spring
water with de-ionized water. The same correction can be used to estimate DOC, with the following
assumptions. First, the TOC in spring water was 100 percent dissolved. Second, the DOC of de-
ionized water was 0.5 mg/L. If these assumptions are acceptable, the DOCs for H/H, M/H, L/H, H/M,
M/M, L/M, H/L, M/L, and L/L would be 3.3, 1.5, 0.75, 3.3, 1.7, 0.94, 2.8, 1.5, and 0.87 mg/L,
respectively.
2.14 Ionic Composition of Chehalis River Water
The ionic composition of Chehalis River, WA, water is needed to fill in existing data gaps used
for BLM analysis of acute toxicity reported in Mudge et al. (1993). The publication states, “ Water
quality data collected during this bioassay program is similar to historical data for Chehalis River
(WPPSS 1982) and other Pacific NW streams (Samuelson 1976).” Are data from Samuelson (1976)
acceptable for use in approximating these ion concentrations? Furthermore, are there any dissolved
or ionic LC50s available other than those reported in the publication?
Recommendation: The following additional water chemistry information for the Chehalis
River dilution water used in the studies reported by Mudge et al. (1993) was provided by the author on
20 November 2000. These measurements were made on Chehalis River water at the time of testing.
A corresponding value for DOC was obtained from the NASQAN dataset.
Recommended spreadsheet addition f or Chehalis River dilution water

DOC
Applied to: (mg/L) Ca Mg Ca:Mg Na K Cl SO 4
C-16
Mudge et al. 1993 3.2 a 7.1 2.4 1.8 5.1 0.65 4.5 (May) 4.0 (May)
4.2 (Jun) 3.5 (May-Jul)
3.1 (Sep) 2.3 (Sep)
a Value from the USGS NASQAN dataset, 1980-1982, when the tests were conducted.
2.15 Chemistry of Water in Howarth and Sprague (1978)
What is the ionic composition and organic carbon content of test waters used in Howarth and
Sprague (1978)? The waters used for testing were various mixes of University of Guelph (Guelph,
ON, Canada) well water and de-ionized well water. The de-ionized well water was reported as “ having
retained its original chloride content (22 mg/l),” but the values for the other major anion and cation
concentrations were not reported. Furthermore, the equation provided for calculating alkalinity from
pH and hardness (supposedly accounting for 96.7 percent of the variability) appears unreliable. For
example, using the equation and a total water hardness of 364 mg/L CaCO3 at pH 9, one obtains an
estimated alkalinity value of 341 mg/L CaCO3. In contrast, the measured alkalinity reported in the
text for this level of hardness and pH was 263 mg/L CaCO3.
Recommendation: The equation provided in the text of Howarth and Sprague (1978) for
calculating alkalinity appears unreliable. The calculated alkalinity does not approximate measured
alkalinity within a reasonable degree of accuracy. Values of hardness, pH, and alkalinity in Dixon and
Sprague (1981a), which used the same water source in their toxicity tests, give greater evidence of
this; i.e., using the measured value of hardness of 374 mg/L CaCO3 and a pH of 7.75, the alkalinity
calculated with the equation is 98 mg/L CaCO3. This compares rather poorly with the measured
alkalinity of 223 mg/L CaCO3. Instead, alkalinity can be estimated using the nomograph from Faust
and Aly (1981) as in Section 2.8.
It is possible to apply the procedure used with the Chakoumakos et al. (1979) data here, i.e.,
using the ratio of hardness in full-strength well water and de-ionized well water to calculate the
dilution of the other major ion concentrations. However, no values are given for Na or K in
University of Guelph well water. This study is also complicated by the reverse-osmosis unit used to
create the de-ionized well water. In particular, the statement concerning the retention of the original
Cl concentration in the de-ionized well water implies an ionic exchange that would also require a
cation (to maintain charge balance). The cation involved is unknown. As discussed in a phone
conversation with John Sprague on 17 November 2000, and later that day with Scott Howarth
(Environment Canada), NaCl may have leached through the RO unit. Assuming that Na and Cl
leached through the unit in equivalent proportions, a value of 14 mg/L for Na can be back-calculated
from the reported Cl concentration of 22 mg/L.
Default DOC concentrations of 1.6 and 0.5 mg/L were assumed for the well water and de-
ionized water used in the tests, respectively (see Section 2.3). The DOC concentrations were adjusted
for each particular test water hardness level based on the proportion of well water and de-ionized
water used to achieve the desired test hardness level. In the example provided in Table 9, the dilution
factor of 0.27, based on the ratio of the average hardness of well water (366 mg/L CaCO3) versus the
average hardness of well plus de-ionized well water (100 mg/L CaCO3), was applied to the starting
DOC concentrations to achieve an estimate of the DOC concentrations at 100 mg/L CaCO3). Table
C-17
9 shows the results of similar adjustments made for the major anions and cations based on the data
reported in Howarth and Sprague (1978).
2.16 Default Values for Analyte Concentrations
What value should be used when a specific analyte is not detected at its designated detection
limit?
Recommendation: The use of half the detection limit (DL) is most appropriate when the
concentration of an analyte is not detected. One-half the DL will closely approximate a replacement
value for censored data in a log-normally distributed population that includes several measured values
(Berthouex and Brown 1994; Dolan and El-Shaarawi 1991). This way some of the “ nondetect”
samples will actually be counted as detected.
Table 9. Example Calculations to Estimate Water Chemistry of Tests Conducted at 100

mg/L CaCO3 by Howarth and Sprague (1978) Using a Mixture of University of Guelph
Well Water and De-ionized Water
P arameter Example Calculations
(units in mg/L) De-ionized water Well Water for Mixture
Hardness 0 366 100

(i.e., 0.27 dilution factor)
Ca 0 77 (from Dixon & Sprague 21

1981)
Mg 0 43 (from Dixon & Sprague 12
1981)
Na 14 (assuming NaCl used for 14 (estimated from [Cl]) 14

the softening process)
K 0 2.4 (based on personal 0.66

communication from Dr. P atricia
Wright, Univ. of Guelph,
Guelph, ON)
Cl 22 (stated as not having 22 22

changed from the water
softening process)
SO 4 0 129 35
DOC 0.5 (default value for de- 1.6 (default value for well 0.8
ionized waters) waters)
Alkalinity (calculated using ratios as in Section 2.8):
at pH 6 0a 81.5 22
a
at pH 7 0 205 55
at pH 8 0a 250 N/A
at pH 9 0a 263 70
a Alkalinity in de-ionized well water is assumed to be 0.0 mg/L.
C-18
2.17 Organic Carbon Content of Samples
Can any information be obtained on the organic carbon content of the spring water / City of
Cincinnati, OH, tap water mixes used in Brungs et al. (1973), Geckler et al. (1976), Horning and
Neiheisel (1979), Mount (1968), Mount and Stephan (1969), and Pickering et al. (1977)?
Recommendation: The water used for all tests was a mixture of spring-fed pond water
(originating at the Newtown Fish Farm) and carbon-filtered, demineralized Cincinnati tap water. The
water was mixed to achieve the desired test hardness level and discharged to a large (several thousand
gallon) concrete reservoir that fed the test system. The detention time varied anywhere from 30 to
90 days, depending on the study, which was sufficient to allow the growth of phytoplankton and
zooplankton in moderate abundance. No additional information regarding the TOC (DOC)
concentration or treatment of this water is available at this time. The recommended organic carbon
content of spring/city water mix is currently a conservative 1.6 mg/L, but could be as high as 2.5
mg/L, the highest DOC concentration recorded for a natural surface or well water used for studies
included in this report (see Section 2.3). Considering the long retention time, and the fact that the
natural water was spring-fed pond water, the more conservative DOC value of 2.5 mg/L is
recommended for this water.
2.18 Additional Water Chemistry Data Needed
Additional water chemistry data are needed for Bennett et al. (1995) and Richards and Beitinger
(1995). In the case of Richards and Beitinger 1995, only the ranges of measured pH, alkalinity, and
hardness across all tests were given.
Recommendation: Detailed pH, alkalinity, and hardness values were provided by both
Bennett et al. (1995) and Richards and Beitinger (1995) (Appendixes D-7 and D-9, respectively).
The studies performed by Bennett et al. were conducted using dechlorinated City of Denton, TX, tap
water (from Lake Roy Roberts). The author was not able to provide any additional data regarding the
ionic composition of this water; however, based on supplementary data, mean values of pH,
alkalinity, and temperature were 8.07 and 89.7 mg/L CaCO3 and 21.4 C, respectively. Richards and
Beitinger’s studies were conducted using standard reconstituted (hard) water. To estimate the ionic
composition of this water, refer to recommendations provided in Section 2.1.
2.19 Estimating Data for Waters
Values for DOC, TSS, Ca, Mg, Na, K, SO4, and Cl are needed for the following natural waters:
Water Body Reference

American River, California – sand filtered Finlayson and Verrue 1982
Clinch River – 11:m filtered Belanger et al. 1989
Belanger and Cherry 1990
Amy Bayou Belanger and Cherry 1990
Blaine Creek, Kentucky – 1.6 :m filtered Dobbs et al. 1994
S. Kawishiwi Lind et al. manuscript
St. Louis River Lind et al. manuscript
Lake One Lind et al. manuscript
C-19
Colby Lake Lind et al. manuscript
Cloquet Lake Lind et al. manuscript
Greenwood Lake Lind et al. manuscript
Embarrass River Lind et al. manuscript
Green Duwamish River Buckley 1983
Chehalis River Mudge et al. 1993
Pinto Creek, AZ Lewis 1978
Naugatuck River Carlson et al. 1986
Recommendation: On the following pages are data (current and/or historical, presented as
arithmetic means) from selected natural waters that were retrieved from NASQAN, STORET, or a
secondary source (as indicated). As mentioned earlier (see Sections 2.6 and 2.7), given the reasonably
good correlation between most of the major anion and cations (except K) and water hardness in
natural surface and well waters, we recommend using the ion and hardness values retrieved from these
various sources to estimate the ion concentrations in the test water used in the previous studies. The
operation, again, is simply to multiply the ion concentrations listed below by the ratio of hardness
values presented below and the earlier test waters.
Note that additional data were not available for Blaine Creek, KY, or Pinto Creek, AZ, and
although additional data were obtained from the City of Sacramento, CA, regarding the American
River, the default DOC value (8.2 mg/L) for California streams may be artificially high on the basis
of reported values of DOC in the Sacramento River (1.2 mg C/L), of which the American River is a
tributary. Therefore, the data from Finlayson and Verrue (1982) have been relegated to “ other data.”
Likewise, Amy Bayou is a highly contaminated and dynamic system (Don Cherry, personal
communication), and BLM normalization is not recommended for these data. A large annual
variability in water quality also excludes the use of surrogate STORET data for the Embarrass River,
MN, for BLM analysis (Lind et al. manuscript).
American River, CA (Appendix C-9). Source: Ron Myers, City of Sacramento, CA, Water Quality Laboratory
Hardness Alkalinity Specific Ions (mg/L)

(mg/L (mg/L
Finlayson and 21 22 7.5 -a 5.6 1.8 2.0 3.0 - 2.6 3.8

Verrue 1982
a DOC and K data for the American River were not available.
Clinch River, VA (Appendix D-5): Source: Don Cherry, VA P oly. Inst. & State Univ., Blacksburg,VA

(mg/L (mg/L
Belanger et al. 150 150 8.3 2.3 42 11 2.3 12 2.4 9.2 19

1989, and
Belanger and
Cherry 1990
C-20
S. Kawishiwi River, MN (Appendix C-10). Source: STORET

(mg/L (mg/L
Lind et al. 24 18 6.6 -a 5.6 2.4 1.5 1.3 0.5 1.0 4.9
manuscript
a DOC data for this river were not available. TOC measurements reported by Lind et al. (manuscript) should be
adjusted based on a mean DOC:TOC ratio (0.8721) in Minnesota streams (see Section 2.3 and Appendix D-2).
Lake One, MN (Appendix C-10). Source: STORET

(mg/L (mg/L
Lind et al. 10 15 6.7 -a 2.8 0.7 1.8 0.1 0.3 0.2 4.2
manuscript
a DOC data for this lake were not available. TOC measurements reported by Lind et al. (manuscript) should be
adjusted based on a mean DOC:TOC ratio (0.9677) in Minnesota lakes (see Section 2.3 and Appendix D-2).
Colby Lake, MN (Appendix C-10). Source: STORET

(mg/L (mg/L
Lind et al. 56 33 7.1 -a 13.3 5.4 1.6 4.0 1.4 7.3 23

manuscript
Cloquet Lake, MN (Appendix C-10). Source: STORET

(mg/L (mg/L
Lind et al. 27 21 7.2 -a 6.9 2.3 1.4 1.9 b 1.4 c 1.2 5.6
manuscript
b Na data for this lake were not available. The Na value given here is based on data for Colby Lake, MN, and was
scaled on the basis of hardness (see Section 2.1): Na = 4.0 mg Na/L * (27 mg/L CaCO 3 / 56 mg/L CaCO 3).
c K data for this lake were not available. The K value given here is from data for Colby Lake, MN. This value was
not scaled on the basis of hardness (see discussion of K-hardness relationship in Sections 2.1 and 2.7).
C-21
Greenwood Lake (Appendix C-10), MN. Source: STORET

(mg/L (mg/L
Lind et al. 17 11 6.4 -a 4 1.8 2.4 0.2 b 0.3 c 1.7 7.6

manuscript
b Na data for this lake were not available. The Na value given here is based on data for Lake One, MN, and was
scaled based on hardness: Na = 0.1 mg Na/L * (17 mg/L CaCO 3 / 10 mg/L CaCO 3).
c K data for this lake were not available. The K value given here is from data for Lake One, MN. This value was
not scaled on the basis of hardness (see discussion of K-hardness relationship in Sections 2.1 and 2.7).
St. Louis River, MN (Appendix C-6). Source: NASQAN
Note: for the St. Louis River dataset (1973 to 1993), a question arose as to which data would be most representative
for estimating the ion concentrations in St. Louis River water for BLM analysis. In order to determine this, the
relationship between hardness and Na ion for all 20 years was plotted. Linear regression was used to fit the data.
Most data showed very high coefficient correlation (0.8-0.94). For each of these 20 regression lines, the slope and
intercept coefficients were plotted on separate graphs as functions of time (Figures 7 and 8). The following
conclusions were derived:
C A significant event occurred in 1976 and perhaps 1977 that affected the water balance of the St. Louis River. A
wastewater treatment plant was built, which substantially improved the water quality (Jesse Anderson, Minn.
P ollution Control Bd., personal communication).
C For the 1979-1993 period, hardness and ion concentrations did not change significantly as absolute values.
Therefore, general equations (which could be used to extrapolate water chemistry data till year 2000 and before
1979) can be obtained connecting hardness, alkalinity, pH, and the major ion concentrations.
C The exponential growth in the values between 1973 and 1979 shows that averaging values on seasonal and
annual basis is not appropriate. The constant values for the slopes and intercepts for 1979-1993 allow mean
monthly and annual interpretation of the data.
C The regression equations derived for 1977 alone are recommended to predict ion concentrations based on the
water hardness levels measured in the Lind et al. (manuscript). The equations derived for each ion are
provided in Appendix D-6 with the corresponding figures.
Green-Duwamish River, WA. Source: James Buckley

(mg/L (mg/L
Buckley 1983 33 29 7.2 3.2 a 8.9 2.8 2.0 7.5 1.2 7.0 6.3
a Value given as TOC. DOC data for this river were not available. TOC measurements reported by Buckley et al.
(1983) should be adjusted on the basis of a mean DOC:TOC ratio (0.7803) in Washington streams (see Section 2.3
and Appendix C-2).
D-22
Naugatuck River, WA. Source: STORET

(mg/L (mg/L
Carlson et al. 39 20 6.4 3.7 a 9.9 3.3 1.9 9.9 2.3 - 22

1986
a Value given as TOC. DOC data for this river were not available. TOC measurements reported by Carlson et al.
(1986) should be adjusted on the basis of a mean DOC:TOC ratio (0.8711) in Connecticut streams (see Section 2.3
and Appendix C-2).
C-23
Figure 1. Relationship between Ca and hardness in WFTS well water
Total Hardness (mg/L as CaCO3)
C-24
Figure 2. Relationship between Mg and hardness in WFTS well water.
C-25
Figure 3. Relationship between Na and hardness in WFTS well water.
C-26
Figure 4. Relationship between K and hardness in WFTS well water
C-27
Figure 5. Relationship between Cl and hardness in WFTS well water.
Cl (mg/L)
C-28
Figure 6. Relationship between SO4 and hardness in WFTS well water.
SO4 (mg/L)
C-29
Figure 7. Slopes of the regression equations derived for Na
concentration in St. Louis River, MN, water versus water
hardness from 1973 to 1993.
C-30
Figure 8. Intercepts of the regression equations derived for Na
concentration in St. Louis River, MN water versus water
hardness from 1973 to 1993.
C-31
References
Andros, J.D. and R.R. Garton. 1980. Acute lethality of copper, cadmium, and zinc to northern squawfish. Trans.
Am. Fish. Soc. 109:235.
ASTM. 2000. Standard guide for conducting acute toxicity tests on test materials with fishes, macroinvertebrates,
and amphibians. E729-96. In: Annual book of ASTM standards. Section 11, Volume 5. American Society for
Testing and Materials, P ennsylvania, P A.
Belanger, S.E. and D.S. Cherry. 1990. Interacting effects of pH acclimation, pH, and heavy metals of acute and
chronic toxicity to Ceriodaphnia dubia (Cladoceran). J. Crustacean Biol. 10(2):225-235.
Belanger, S.E., J.L. Farris and D.S. Cherry. 1989. Effects of diet, water hardness, and population source on acute
and chronic copper toxicity to Ceriodaphnia dubia. Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 18(4):601-611.
Bennett, W.A., A. Sosa and T.L. Beitinger. 1995. Oxygen tolerance of fathead minnows previously exposed to
copper. Bull. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 55(4):517-524.
Berthouex, P .M. and L.C. Brown. 1994. Statistics for environmental engineers. Lewis P ublishers/CRC P ress,
Boca Raton, FL.
Biesinger, K.E. and G.M. Christensen. 1972. Effects of various metals on survival, growth, reproduction, and
metabolism of Daphnia magna. Jour. Fish Res. Board Can. 29:1691.
Brungs, W.A., E.N. Leonard and J.M. McKim. 1973. Acute and long-term accumulation of copper by the brown
bullhead, Ictalurus nebulosus. J. Fish. Res. Board Can. 30(4):583-586.
Buckley, J.A. 1983. Complexation of copper in the effluent of a sewage treatment plant and an estimate of its
influence on toxicity to coho salmon. Water Res. 17(12):1929-1934.
Cairns, J., Jr., K.W. Thompson and A.C. Hendricks. 1981. Effects of fluctuating, sublethal applications of heavy
metal solutions upon the gill ventilation response of bluegills (Lepomis macrochirus). EP A-600/3-81-003. National
Carlson, A.R., H. Nelson and D. Hammermeister. 1986. Development and validation of site-specific water quality
criteria for copper. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 5(11):997-1012.
Chakoumakos, C., R.C. Russo and R.V. Thurston. 1979. The toxicity of copper to cutthroat trout (Salmo clarki)
under different conditions of alkalinity, pH, and hardness. Environ. Sci. Technol. 13:213-219.
Chapman, G.A. 1975. Toxicity of copper, cadmium and zinc to P acific Northwest salmonids. U.S. EP A, Corvallis,
OR.
Chapman, G.A. 1978. Toxicities of cadmium, copper, and zinc to four juvenile stages of chinook salmon and
steelhead. Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. 107:841-847.
Chapman, G.A. and D.G. Stevens. 1978. Acute lethal levels of cadmium, copper, and zinc to adult male coho
salmon and steelhead. Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. 107:837-840.
Collyard, S.A., G.T. Ankley, R.A. Hoke and T. Goldstein. 1994. Influence of age on the relative sensitivity of
Hyalella azteca to diazinon, alkylphenol ethoxylates, copper, cadmium and zinc. Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol.
26(1):110-113.
Di Toro, D.M., H.E. Allen, H.L. Bergman, J.S. Meyer, P .R. P aquin and R.C. Santore, 2001. A Biotic Ligand
Model of the Acute Toxicity of Metals. I. Technical Basis, Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry. 20:2383-
2396.
Di Toro, D.M., H. Allen, H. Bergman, J. Meyer, R.C. Santore and P .R. P aquin. 2000. The Biotic Ligand Model:
A computational approach for assessing the ecological effects of copper and other metals in aquatic systems.
International Copper Association, Ltd.
Dixon, D.G. and J.B. Sprague. 1981a. Acclimation to copper by rainbow trout (Salmo gairdneri): A modifying
factor in toxicity. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 38:880-888.
C-32
Dolan, D.M. and A.H. El-Shaarawi. 1991. Application of mass balance approach with censored data. J. Gr. Lakes
Res. 17:220-228.
Erickson, R.J. 1985. Analysis of major ionic content of selected U.S. waters and application to experimental design
for the evaluation of the effect of water chemistry on the toxicity of copper. Draft report. U.S. EP A, Duluth, MN.
Erickson, R.J., D.A. Benoit, V.R. Mattson, H.P . Nelson, Jr. and E.N. Leonard. 1996b. The effects of water
chemistry on the toxicity of copper to fathead minnows. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 15(2):181-193.
Faust, S.D. and O.M. Aly. 1981. Chemistry of natural waters. Ann Arbor Science P ublishers, Inc., Ann Arbor, MI.
Finlayson, B.J. and K.M. Verrue. 1982. Toxicities of copper, zinc, and cadmium mixtures to juvenile chinook
salmon. Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. 111:645-650.
Geckler, J.R., W.B. Horning, T.M. Neiheisel, Q.H. P ickering, E.L. Robinson and C.E. Stephan. 1976. Validity of
laboratory tests for predicting copper toxicity in streams. EP A-600/3-76-116. National Technical Information
Service, Springfield, VA.
Hartwell, S.I., J.H. Jin, D.S. Cherry and J. Cairns, Jr. 1989. Toxicity versus avoidance response of golden shiner,
Notemigonus crysoleucas, to five metals. J. Fish Biol. 35(3):447-456.
Horning, W.B. and T.W. Neiheisel. 1979. Chronic effect of copper on the bluntnose minnow, Pimephales notatus
(Rafinesque). Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 8:545-552.
Howarth, R.S. and J.B. Sprague. 1978. Copper lethality to rainbow trout in waters of various hardness and pH.
Water Res. 12:455-462.
Lind, D., Alto and Chatterton. Manuscript. Regional copper-nickel study: Aquatic toxicology study. P reliminary
draft report, Minnesota Environmental Quality Board, St. P aul, MN.
Lorz, H.W. and B.P . McP herson. 1976. Effects of copper or zinc in fresh water on the adaptation to sea water and
ATP ase activity, and the effects of copper on migratory disposition of coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch). J. Fish.
Res. Board Can. 33:2023.
McCrady, J.K. and G.A. Chapman. 1979. Determination of copper completing capacity of natural river water, well
water and artificially reconstituted water. Water Res. 13:143-150.
McGeer, J.C., R.C. P layle, C.M. Wood and F. Galvez. 2000. A physiologically based biotic ligand model for
predicting the acute toxicity of waterborne silver to rainbow trout in freshwaters. Environ. Sci. Technol. 34:4199-
4207.
Mount, D.I. 1968. Chronic toxicity of copper to fathead minnows (Pimephales promelas Rafinesque). Water Res.
2:215-223.
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.
Mudge, J.E., T.E. Northstrom, G.S. Jeane, W. Davis and J.L. Hickam. 1993. Effect of varying environmental
conditions on the toxicity of copper to salmon. In: Environmental toxicology and risk assessment. Gorsuch, J.W.,
F.J. Dwyer, C.G. Ingersoll and T.W. LaP oint (Eds.). ASTM STP 1216. American Society for Testing and
Materials, P hiladelphia, P A. pp. 19-33.
Nebeker, A.V., M.A. Cairns and C.M. Wise. 1984a. Relative sensitivity of Chironomus tentans life stages to
copper. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 3(1):151-158.
Nebeker, A.V., M.A. Cairns, S.T. Onjukka and R.H. Titus. 1986a. Effect of age on sensitivity of Daphnia magna
to cadmium, copper and cyanazine. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 5(6):527-30.
Nebeker, A.V., A. Stinchfield, C. Savonen and G.A. Chapman. 1986b. Effects of copper, nickel and zinc on three
species of Oregon freshwater snails. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 5(9):807-811.
P ickering, Q.H., W. Brungs and M. Gast. 1977. Effect of exposure time and copper concentration on reproduction of
the fathead minnow (Pimephales promelas). Water Res. 11:1079-1083.
C-33
Rice, D.W., Jr. and F.L. Harrison. 1983. The sensitivity of adult, embryonic, and larval crayfish Procambaris
clarkii to copper. UCRL-53048. National Technical Information Service, Springfield, VA.
Richards, V.L. and T.L. Beitinger. 1995. Reciprocal influences of temperature and copper on survival of fathead
minnows, Pimephales promelas. Bull. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 55(2):230-6.
Samuelson, D.F. 1976. Water quality: Western Fish Toxicology Station and Western Oregon rivers. EP A-600/3-
76-077. U.S. EP A, Duluth, MN.
Schubauer-Berigan, M.K., J.R. Dierkes, P .D. Monson and G.T. Ankley. 1993. pH-dependent toxicity of cadmium,
copper, nickel, lead and zinc to Ceriodaphnia dubia, Pimephales promelas, Hyalella azteca and Lumbriculus
variegatus. Environ. Toxciol. Chem. 12(7):1261-1266.
Seim, W.K., L.R. Curtis, S.W. Glenn 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(3):433-438.
Spehar, R.L. and J.T. Fiandt. 1986. Acute and chronic effects of water quality criteria-based metal mixtures on three
aquatic species. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 5(10):917-931.
Stephan, C.E., D.I. Mount, D.J. Hansen, J.H. Gentile, G.A. Chapman and W.A. Brungs. 1985. Guidelines for
deriving numerical national water quality criteria for the protection of aquatic organisms and their uses. P B85-
227049. National Technical Information Service, Springfield, VA.
Thompson, K.W., A.C. Hendricks and J. Cairns, Jr. 1980. Acute toxicity of zinc and copper singly and in
combination to the bluegill (Lepomis macrochirus). Bull. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 25:122.
U.S. EP A. 1993. Methods for measuring the acute toxicity of effluents and receiving water to freshwater and marine
organisms. Fourth Edition. EP A/600/4-90/027F. National Technical Information Service, Springfield, VA.
U.S. EP A. 1998a. Ambient water quality criteria derivation methodology human health technical support
document. EP A-822-B-98-005. Office of Water. Washington, DC.
U.S. EP A. 1998b. Ambient aquatic life water quality criteria for copper. Draft Report. Office of Water. Washington,
DC.
U.S. EP A. 2001. 2001 update of ambient water quality criteria for cadmium. EP A-822-R-01-001. Office of Water.
Washington, DC.
Winner, R.W. 1985. Bioaccumulation and toxicity of copper as affected by interactions between humic acid and
water hardness. Water Res. 19(4):449-455.
WP P SS (Washington P ublic P ower Supply System). 1982. Supply system nuclear project No. 3. Environmental
Report - Operating License Stage Docket No. 50-508. Richland, WA.
C-34
Appendix C-1. Calculations for Ionic Composition of Standard
Laboratory-Reconstituted Water
Molecu lar W eights Atom ic W eights
NaHCO 3 = 84.03 Na = 22.98

CaSO 4.2H 2 O = 172.12 Ca = 40.08
MgSO 4= 120.37 Mg = 24.31
KCl = 74.55 K = 39.10
SO 4 = 96.06 Cl = 35.45
Example Calculation
[Na] in very soft water:

12 mg NaHCO 3/L x 1 mmol NaHCO 3/84.03 mg NaHCO 3 = 0.143 mmol NaHCO 3/L.
0.143 mmol NaHCO 3/L x (1 mmol Na/1 mmol NaHCO 3) x 22.98 mg Na/1 mmol Na = 3.3 mg Na/L.
[Ca] in very soft water:

7.5 mg CaSO4.2H2O/L x 1 mmol CaSO 4.2H 2O/172.12 mg CaSO 4.2H 2O = 0.044 mmol CaSO 4.2H 2O/L.
0.044 mmol CaSO 4.2H 2O/L x (1 mmol Ca/1 mmol CaSO 4.2H 2O) x 40.08 mg Ca/1 mmol Ca = 1.8 mg Ca/L.
[Mg] in very soft water:

7.5 mg MgSO 4/L x 1 mmol MgSO 4/120.37 mg MgSO 4 = 0.062 mmol MgSO 4/L.
0.062 mmol MgSO 4/L x (1 mmol Mg/1 mmol MgSO 4) x 24.31 mg Mg/1 mmol Mg = 1.5 mg Mg/L.
[K] in very soft water:

0.5 m g KC l/L x 1 m mol K Cl/74 .55 m g KC l = 0.0 067 mmo l KC l/L.
0.0067 mmol KCl/L x (1 mmol K/1 mmolKCl) x 39.102 mg K/1 mmol K = 0.26 mg K/L.
[Cl] in very soft water:

0.5 m g KC l/L x 1 m mol K Cl/74 .55 m g KC l = 0.0 067 mmo l KC l/L.
0.0067 mmol KCl/L x (1 mmol Cl/1 mmolKCl) x 35.453 mg Cl/1 mmol K = 0.24 mg Cl/L.
[SO 4] in very soft water:

7.5 mg CaSO4.2H 2O/L x 1 mmol CaSO 4.2H 2 O/172.12 mg CaSO 4.2H 2O = 0.044 mmol CaSO 4.2H 2O/L.
0.044 mmol CaSO 4.2H 2O/L x (1 mmol SO 4/1 mmol CaSO 4.2H 2O) x 96.064 mg Ca/1 mmol Ca = 4.2 mg Ca/L.
[SO 4] in very soft water:

7.5 mg MgSO 4/L x 1 mmol MgSO 4/120.37 mg MgSO 4 = 0.062 mmol MgSO 4/L.
0.062 mmol MgSO 4/L x (1 mmol SO 4/1 mmol MgSO 4) x 96.064 mg Mg/1 mmol Mg = 6.0 mg Mg/L.
Total SO 4 = 10 .2 mg /L
Conversion Factors to calculate water hardness (as CaCO 3) from [Ca] and [Mg]:
[Ca] x 2.497
[Mg] x 4.116
C-35
Appendix C-2. Dissolved, Particulate, and Estimated Total Organic Carbon for Streams
and Lakes by State (as presented in EPA Document #822-B-98-005)
Streams Lakes
State POC DOC Est. TOC Est. DOC:TOC POC DOC Est. TOC Est. DOC:TOC
AK 0.54 4.6 5.14 89.49 0.53 6.4 6.93 92.35
AL 0.72 3.4 4.12 82.52 --- --- --- ---
AR 0.8 7.2 8 90.00 0.4 2.7 3.1 87.10
AZ 0.71 5.2 5.91 87.99 0.52 4.2 4.72 88.98
CA 1.13 8.2 9.33 87.89 0.32 2.3 2.62 87.79
CO 1.29 8.6 9.89 86.96 --- --- --- ---
CT 0.71 4.8 5.51 87.11 --- --- --- ---
DC --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
DE* 0.7 7.1 7.8 91.03 --- --- --- ---
FL^ 0.68 16.1 16.78 95.95 2.9 12.1 15 80.67
GA 0.67 4.3 4.97 86.52 --- --- --- ---
HI 0.59 4 4.59 87.15 --- --- --- ---
IA 1.79 11.6 13.39 86.63 --- --- --- ---
ID 0.6 3.2 3.8 84.21 --- --- --- ---
IL 1.77 6.8 8.57 79.35 0.12 4.7 4.82 97.51
IN 0.71 9.2 9.91 92.84 --- --- --- ---
KS 1.75 5.2 6.95 74.82 1.53 4.5 6.03 74.63
KY 0.75 3.1 3.85 80.52 --- --- --- ---
LA 1.52 6.9 8.42 81.95 0.65 5.6 6.25 89.60
MA 0.47 5.9 6.37 92.62 --- --- --- ---
MD 1.66 3.7 5.36 69.03 --- --- --- ---
ME 0.46 15.3 15.76 97.08 --- --- --- ---
MI 0.58 6.3 6.88 91.57 0.32 2.7 3.02 89.40
MN 1.79 12.2 13.99 87.21 0.16 4.8 4.96 96.77
MO 0.56 4.2 4.76 88.24 --- --- --- ---
MT 0.9 9.4 10.3 91.26 0.91 8.2 9.11 90.01
NC 1.14 11.5 12.64 90.98 --- --- --- ---
ND 1.14 14.5 15.64 92.71 0.8 14.9 15.7 94.90
NE 1.84 6.8 8.64 78.70 --- --- --- ---
NH 0.28 4.2 4.48 93.75 --- --- --- ---
NJ 0.69 5.5 6.19 88.85 1.04 5 6.04 82.78
NM 1.43 6.3 7.73 81.50 0.51 5.2 5.71 91.07
NV 0.82 4.2 5.02 83.67 --- --- --- ---
NY 1.4 4 5.4 74.07 0.46 2.4 2.86 83.92
OH 0.57 5 5.57 89.77 0.49 2.6 3.09 84.14
OK^ 1.27 7.7 8.97 85.84 1.72 15 16.72 89.71
OR *^ 1.14 2.1 3.24 64.81 0.64 4.4 5.04 87.30
PA 2.19 5.4 7.59 71.15 0.63 3.2 3.83 83.55
RI* 0.42 8.3 8.72 95.18 --- --- --- ---
SC 0.7 5.7 6.4 89.06 --- --- --- ---
SD 1.25 7.6 8.85 85.88 --- --- --- ---
TN 0.67 2.3 2.97 77.44 --- --- --- ---
TX 1.33 6.5 7.83 83.01 1.55 10.3 11.85 86.92
UT^ 1.38 8.9 10.28 86.58 0.5 2.4 2.9 82.76
VA 0.81 4.7 5.51 85.30 --- --- --- ---
VT 0.31 4.5 4.81 93.56 --- --- --- ---
WA 1.52 5.4 6.92 78.03 0.61 2.8 3.41 82.11
WI 1.03 9.2 10.23 89.93 0.16 4.1 4.26 96.24
WV 0.63 2.8 3.43 81.63 --- --- --- ---
WY 1.07 8.2 9.27 88.46 --- --- --- ---
C-36
Streams Lakes
State POC DOC Est. TOC Est. DOC:TOC POC DOC Est. TOC Est. DOC:TOC
Mean 85.71 Mean 87.84

Max 97.08 Max 97.51
Min 64.81 Min 74.63
* States where sample size was low for streams.
^ States where sample size was low for lakes.
C-37
Appendix C-3. Mean TOC and DOC in Lake Superior Dilution Water
(data from Greg Lien, U.S. EPA-Duluth, MN)
Rep licate Ambient (8/29/2000) pH 7.0 (8/30/2000) pH 6.2 (8/31/2000)
Filter Blank* -0.04 0.22 0.38
a 1.13 1.34 1.26

Pre-gill
experiment TOC b 1.37 1.30 1.36
Mean 1.25 1.32 1.31
a 1.20 1.24 1.18

Post-gill
experiment TOC b 1.27 1.46 1.10
Mean 1.24 1.35 1.14
a 1.96 1.51 1.34

Pre-gill
experiment DOC b 1.52 1.28 0.99
Mean 1.74 1.40 1.17
a 1.49 1.36 1.44

Post-gill
experiment DOC b 1.64 1.58 1.24
Mean 1.57 1.47 1.34

* Filter blank is ultra-pure Duluth-EPA laboratory water.
C-38
Appendix C-4. Measured Hardness and Major Ion and Cation Concentrations
in WFTS Well Water from April 1972 to April 1978. Concentrations Given as Mg/L
(data from Samuelson 1976 and Chapman, personal communication)
Month To tal Hardness Ca Mg Na K SO 4 Cl
Mar-72
Apr-72 7.9 2 5 1.1 <10.0 8
May-72 22 5.8 1.4 4.4 0.5 <5.0 7
Jun-72 24 5.8 1.6 4.4 0.5 3 7
Jul-72 23 6.7 1.6 4.6 0.5 <1.0 8.3
Aug-72 23 6.5 1.7 4.7 0.5 <10.0 6.3
Sep-72 22 6 1.6 4.5 0.6 <10.0 4
Oct-72 22 6.7 1.9 4.7 0.6 5 5.5
Nov-72 23 6.2 1.6 4.2 0.6 3.7 5.3
Dec-72 23 6.2 1.5 4.2 0.5 3 4
Jan-73 52 15.3 3.5 7.1 0.7 7.8 12.4
Feb-73 33 7.7 2.1 5 0.5 5 5
Mar-73 30 8 2.1 5.3 0.7 5 6
Apr-73 31 8.9 2.3 5.4 0.7 5.3 8.8
May-73 28 8.3 2.4 5.8 0.7 3 8
Jun-73 28 8.4 2.2 5.8 0.7 4.8 7.5
Jul-73 26 7.4 1.9 5.8 0.8 <5.0 6.8
Aug-73 25 6.5 1.7 5.7 0.7 3.1 5.8
Sep-73 25 6.7 1.7 5.4 0.7 3.1 5.3
Oct-73 27 7 1.8 5.4 0.7 2.9 5.4
Nov-73 28 7.9 2.1 4.8 0.7 10 6.8
Dec-73 62 20.3 4.2 9 0.8 13 14
Jan-74 67 21.3 4.8 7 0.8 17.3 11.3
Feb-74 58 14.3 3.4 6.9 0.9 14.7 6.7
Mar-74 53 20.8 3.8 7.2 0.7 13 7
Apr-74 51 18.2 3.7 6.8 0.6 15.5 8.5
May-74 23 7.5 2.1 4.6 0.6 5 4.8
Jun-74 22 6 1.9 4.8 0.5 3 4.5
Jul-74 23 5.4 1.7 5 0.6 3.3 6.3
Aug-74 23 4.8 1.6 5 0.7 3 6
Sep-74 23 5.8 1.5 5.1 0.7 2.9 4.8
Oct-74 23 11 2 7.1 0.8 3.1 5
Nov-74 23 12 2.6 4.5 0.5 3.8 5.3
Dec-74 24 6.4 2.5 5.2 0.7 3.8 5
Jan-75 41 7.7 2.9 6.7 0.6 8 8
Feb-75 61 11.6 4.2 8.6 0.8 16 11.8
Mar-75 54 9.1 3.1 6.4 0.6 8 8
Apr-75 4.4 1.6 4.4 0.5 3 5
May-75 7.2 2 5 0.5 6 7
Jun-75 4.4 1.6 4.6 0.6 5 6
Jul-75 5.2 1.6 7 0.7 5 7
Aug-75 5.2 1.4 7 0.6 5 5
Sep-75 4.5 1.5 4.5 0.7 5 4
Oct-75 7.1 1.9 4.3 0.5 20 5
Nov-75 18 5.3 1.5 4.2 0.5 5 4
Dec-75
Jan-76
Feb-76 9.8 5 5.4 0.4 9 9
Mar-76 4.1 0.1 3 6
Apr-76 5.3 0.1 6 9
C-39
Month To tal Hardness Ca Mg Na K SO 4 ClD
May-76 7.9 1.8 4.5 0.5 3 6
Jun-76 27 8.1 1.9 3.3 0.6 4 7
Jul-76 26
Aug-76 23 4.9 1.3 4.8 0.1 3 6
Sep-76 23 6.7 2.6 4.7 0.1
Oct-76 21 6.7 2.6 4.7 0.1
Nov-76 22 7.7 3 4.7 0.1 3
Dec-76 25.5 6.4 1.8 5 0.1 4 7
Jan-77 27.2 7.7 2.6 5.6 0.6 4 8
Feb-77 10.7 4.9 5.9 0.6 3 11
Mar-77 3 8
Apr-77 10.7 2.2 5.5 0.8 3 7
May-77 25 5 1.8 5 0.8 3 5
Jun-77 27 6.6 2 5.2 0.7 3 5
Jul-77 24 6.7 2 7.1 0.8 3 7
Aug-77 25 6.9 1.9 6.9 1 8
Sep-77 27 9.9 2.1 5.9 0.9 3 6
Oct-77 3
Nov-77 6.6 2.1 5.6 0.9 10 4.6
Dec-77 27 9.7 4.95 0.65 9 4.6
Jan-78 10.9 3.75 0.85 6 12
Feb-78 10.6 3.8 8.6 0.7 5 11
Mar-78 10.2 2.6 4.7 0.6 6 9
Apr-78 8.3 2.4 0.7 5 9.55
C-40
Da te pH Hardne ss Alka linity Ca Mg Na K Cl SO 4 NO 3 DOCD
19790329 7.6 80 63 19 8 8.4 2.3 7.8 13
19790430 7.6 37 29 8.7 3.7 2.2 1.3 2.8 8.9 20
19790611 7.2 47 34 11 4.8 3.1 0.8 2.8 9.4
19790723 7.6 73 55 17 7.3 3.9 0.9 3.7 8.9 30
19790827 7.2
19791015 8.1 74 54 16 8.2 5 1.1 3.9 13 0.01 12
19791126 7.8 61 52 14 6.3 3.8 0.9 3.6 11 0.37
19800121 7.6 60 53 14 6 3.8 0.9 3.2 9.9 0.15
19800219 7.4 63 51 15 6.2 3.9 0.8 2.9 9.2 0.19 17
19800331 8.4 68 64 16 6.9 4.2 1.1 3.5 9.2 0.3
19800602 8.3 84 72 19 8.8 6.4 1.2 5 15 0.01 21
19800630 8.3 93 68 21 9.9 7.9 1.4 6.7 24 0.02
19800804 8.1 130 110 28 14 10 1.9 11 24 0.01 13
19800902 7.8 110 82 24 11 7.2 1.7 7.6 18 0.01
19800929 7.6 73 54 16 8.1 5.7 1.4 5.8 14 0.12
19801103 7 82 58 18 8.9 5.6 1.3 6.9 18 0.19 23
19801208 67 50 15 7.2 4.6 1 4.1 11 0.19
19810105 7.6 70 55 16 7.2 4.2 1.1 4.1 13 0.23
19810209 7.5 68 58 16 6.9 4.9 1 3.5 8.1 0.27 14
19810309 7.7 61 57 14 6.2 5.2 1.8 5.1 8.6 0.36
19810504 7.3 42 40 9.6 4.3 3.7 1.2 3.6 9.6 0.18 21
19810706 7.4 51 39 12 5 3.5 1.2 3.2 7.5 0.14 10
19810908 7.9 73 64 16 8 4.2 0.8 4.2 8.3 0.11
19811020 7.6 51 37 12 5.2 4.3 1.2 4.2 8.9 0.31
19820113 62 52 14 6.5 4 0.9 3.7 9.3 0.24
19820309 7.4 66 58 15 7 5.3 1 3.8 11 0.36
19820420 7.2 32 25 7.5 3.3 2.1 1.3 2.3 6 0.19
19820621 7.9 61 55 14 6.4 4.3 1.1 4 10 0.1
19820809 7.4 66 54 15 6.9 3.9 0.6 3.5 9 0.25
19821004 8 73 63 15 8.7 4.9 1 4.7 13 0.11
19821207 7.3 55 43 12 6.1 4.2 0.8 3.3 16 0.24
19830131 6.9 62 50 14 6.5 4.1 0.8 3.5 15 0.36
19830328 7.5 68 56 15 7.3 4.5 1.2 4.1 15 0.35
19830523 8.2 68 53 15 7.5 4 1.3 0.8 23 0.12
19830718 7.6 67 53 15 7.2 3.7 1.3 3.7 22 0.15
19831031 7.7 64 48 14 7 3.9 1.2 3.5 24 0.12
19840109 7.4 57 50 13 6 3.6 0.9 3.4 13 0.23
19840306 7.1 66 57 15 7 4.4 0.9 5.2 8.7 0.31
19840424 7.2 51 39 11 5.6 3.1 1.4 3.2 14 0.12
19840619 9.5 52 39 12 5.3 2.9 0.8 3.6 10 0.13
19840822 6.4 70 58 15 7.9 4.7 1 3.8 17 0.1
19841009 7.6 73 16 7.9 4.6 1 3.7 15 0.1
19841120 7.1 64 14 7.1 3.9 0.9 3.7 14 0.24
19850211 7 69 15 7.7 4.6 1.1 4 11 0.27
19850325 7.3 61 13 7 5.6 2.5 6.6 16 0.31
19850506 7.4 55 12 6 3.6 1.7 4.2 14 0.15
19850730 7.6 62 14 6.6 3.2 0.9 4 9.8 0.1
19851021 7.5 58 12 6.8 3.7 1.1 0.2 12 0.13
C-41
Appendix C-6. Water Composition of St. Louis River, MN, from USGS NASQAN and
Select Relationships to Water Hardness
Da te pH Hardne ss Alka linity Ca Mg Na K Cl SO 4 NO 3 DOC

19730222 6.8 68 53 17 6.3 11 1.6 14 14 0.19
19730503 7.1 58 46 14 5.5 6.6 1.1 9.5 13 0.17
19730816 6.9 70 51 17 6.6 7.6 1.2 9 20 0.01
19731128 7 65 48 16 6.1 7.5 1.3 8.8 14
19740221 7 64 48 16 5.8 8.9 1.3 12 14
19740516 6.9 45 32 11 4.3 3.5 1.2 3.8 11
19740919 88 60 21 8.6 12 1.8 17 23
19741030 7.3 83 62 23 6.3 13 1.3 16 23
19741209 7.4 86 62 22 7.6 12 1.6 15 18
19750121 7.3 74 66 18 7 10 1.1 12 13
19750303 7.3 74 68 17 7.6 10 1.7 11 12
19750407 7.2 95 80 22 9.7 11 2 14 16
19750527 7.5 63 50 15 6.1 8.5 1.5 9.2 12
19750708 9.2 58 43 14 5.7 3.2 1 3.4 10
19750818 7.2 73 56 18 6.9 12 1.3 16 16
19750929 7.4 90 72 23 8 12 1.5 13 20
19751110 7.1 90 63 22 8.4 12 1.7 15 24
19751216 7.6 87 61 22 7.8 14 1.6 16 28
19760209 7.5 72 59 18 6.6 13 1.6 13 18
19760322 7.7 78 65 19 7.4 12 1.4 11 17
19760503 7.6 59 43 14 5.8 7.9 1.3 8.6 15
19760614 7.5 94 75 22 9.4 16 1.9 20 20
19760726 7.4 93 80 22 9.3 21 1.9 25 24
19760908 7.5 82 78 18 9.1 17 2.5 9.3 26
19761019 7.5 83 72 20 8.1 21 1.6 24 21
19761129 7.4 95 74 22 9.7 25 1.8 32 24
19770110 7.3 85 88 20 8.4 17 1.5 15 19
19770214 8.2 82 73 20 7.8 18 1.7 26 17
19770404 7.3 87 67 21 8.5 20 2.4 28 24
19770516 7.3 120 98 29 11 30 2.8 26 36
19770628 7.8 100 75 24 9.9 13 2 16 23
19770808 7.4 110 90 26 10 27 2.2 32 28
19770919 7.4 73 44 17 7.3 6.6 1.7 8.9 17
19771031 7.6 64 47 15 6.5 7.9 1.3 9.7 22 37
19771212 7.5 65 50 15 6.8 6.3 1.2 7.1 16
19780123 7.3 71 52 17 6.9 12 1.5 9.4 18
19780306 7.2 67 48 16 6.5 8.8 1.2 17 16 32
19780417 7.5 43 28 10 4.3 4.2 1.8 5.7 15
19780530 7.9 64 54 15 6.4 5.7 1.5 7.1 14 33
19780710 7.4 53 44 13 5.1 4.3 1.3 5.3 8.9
19780821 8.4 60 42 15 5.5 5.3 1.5 6.5 12 36
19781002 7.7 71 57 17 6.9 8.2 1.1 9.6 15 24
19781115 7.4 68 52 16 6.8 11 1.1 10 12
19781218 7.4 68 55 16 6.9 11 1 9.2 14
19790205 7.4 63 57 15 6.3 334.4 1 3.1 8 12
C-42
19790329 7.6 80 63 19 8 8.4 2.3 7.8 13
19790430 7.6 37 29 8.7 3.7 2.2 1.3 2.8 8.9 20
19790611 7.2 47 34 11 4.8 3.1 0.8 2.8 9.4
19790723 7.6 73 55 17 7.3 3.9 0.9 3.7 8.9 30
19790827 7.2
19791015 8.1 74 54 16 8.2 5 1.1 3.9 13 0.01 12
19791126 7.8 61 52 14 6.3 3.8 0.9 3.6 11 0.37
19800121 7.6 60 53 14 6 3.8 0.9 3.2 9.9 0.15
19800219 7.4 63 51 15 6.2 3.9 0.8 2.9 9.2 0.19 17
19800331 8.4 68 64 16 6.9 4.2 1.1 3.5 9.2 0.3
19800602 8.3 84 72 19 8.8 6.4 1.2 5 15 0.01 21
19800630 8.3 93 68 21 9.9 7.9 1.4 6.7 24 0.02
19800804 8.1 130 110 28 14 10 1.9 11 24 0.01 13
19800902 7.8 110 82 24 11 7.2 1.7 7.6 18 0.01
19800929 7.6 73 54 16 8.1 5.7 1.4 5.8 14 0.12
19801103 7 82 58 18 8.9 5.6 1.3 6.9 18 0.19 23
19801208 67 50 15 7.2 4.6 1 4.1 11 0.19
19810105 7.6 70 55 16 7.2 4.2 1.1 4.1 13 0.23
19810209 7.5 68 58 16 6.9 4.9 1 3.5 8.1 0.27 14
19810309 7.7 61 57 14 6.2 5.2 1.8 5.1 8.6 0.36
19810504 7.3 42 40 9.6 4.3 3.7 1.2 3.6 9.6 0.18 21
19810706 7.4 51 39 12 5 3.5 1.2 3.2 7.5 0.14 10
19810908 7.9 73 64 16 8 4.2 0.8 4.2 8.3 0.11
19811020 7.6 51 37 12 5.2 4.3 1.2 4.2 8.9 0.31
19820113 62 52 14 6.5 4 0.9 3.7 9.3 0.24
19820309 7.4 66 58 15 7 5.3 1 3.8 11 0.36
19820420 7.2 32 25 7.5 3.3 2.1 1.3 2.3 6 0.19
19820621 7.9 61 55 14 6.4 4.3 1.1 4 10 0.1
19820809 7.4 66 54 15 6.9 3.9 0.6 3.5 9 0.25
19821004 8 73 63 15 8.7 4.9 1 4.7 13 0.11
19821207 7.3 55 43 12 6.1 4.2 0.8 3.3 16 0.24
19830131 6.9 62 50 14 6.5 4.1 0.8 3.5 15 0.36
19830328 7.5 68 56 15 7.3 4.5 1.2 4.1 15 0.35
19830523 8.2 68 53 15 7.5 4 1.3 0.8 23 0.12
19830718 7.6 67 53 15 7.2 3.7 1.3 3.7 22 0.15
19831031 7.7 64 48 14 7 3.9 1.2 3.5 24 0.12
19840109 7.4 57 50 13 6 3.6 0.9 3.4 13 0.23
19840306 7.1 66 57 15 7 4.4 0.9 5.2 8.7 0.31
19840424 7.2 51 39 11 5.6 3.1 1.4 3.2 14 0.12
19840619 9.5 52 39 12 5.3 2.9 0.8 3.6 10 0.13
19840822 6.4 70 58 15 7.9 4.7 1 3.8 17 0.1
19841009 7.6 73 16 7.9 4.6 1 3.7 15 0.1
19841120 7.1 64 14 7.1 3.9 0.9 3.7 14 0.24
19850211 7 69 15 7.7 4.6 1.1 4 11 0.27
19850325 7.3 61 13 7 5.6 2.5 6.6 16 0.31
19850506 7.4 55 12 6 3.6 1.7 4.2 14 0.15
19850730 7.6 62 14 6.6 3.2 0.9 4 9.8 0.1
19851021 7.5 58 12 6.8 3.7 1.1 0.2 12 0.13
C-43
19851203 7.4 73 16 8 4 1 4.2 18 0.16
19860303 7.4 66 15 7 4 1 3.4 10 0.24
19860407 7.3 0.19
19860602 7.5 58 13 6.3 3.5 1 2.8 15 0.1
19860818 7.9 74 15 8.9 4.6 1.2 3.7 24 0.1
19861112 7.5 55 12 6 3.4 1.4 3.8 19 0.27
19861210 7.3 70 57 13 9 5 1 4.8 21 0.16
19870218 7 66 15 6.8 3.7 0.9 3.1 12 0.24
19870518 8 83 18 9.3 5.8 1.2 5 10 0.1
19870622 7.8 75 16 8.5 6.2 1.1 5.2 19 0.1
19870721 7.6 51 12 5.2 2.8 1.3 3.1 15 0.1
19871028 8 82 17 9.6 6.8 1.4 1.3 19 0.1
19871208 7.9 69 15 7.7 5.3 1.4 4.8 17 0.1
19880119 7.4 73 16 8 5.1 1 3.6 15 0.15
19880223 7.4 85 19 9.2 6.5 8.5 5.1 16 0.2
19880412 7.4 42 9.2 4.7 3 2.8 5 20 0.25
19880907 7.1 70 15 8 5.3 1.5 6.1 18 0.15
19881031 7.6 100 21 12 9 1.9 7.8 27 0.1
19881130 7.6 78 17 8.6 5.5 1.3 5.5 19 0.19
19890221 7.1 77 17 8.4 6.3 1.3 4.4 17 0.25
19890410 7.2 48 11 5 4.9 1.8 8.1 8 0.37
19890626 7.4 63 14 6.8 4.6 1.1 5 12 0.15
19890814 8.1 95 20 11 9.1 1.5 8.9 18 0.1
19891101 8.1 110 20 15 7.8 1.9 6.3 31 0.1
19891218 7.5 88 17 11 6.1 1.4 5 22 0.16
19900123 7.3 100 18 14 7.2 1.7 5.2 28 0.23
19900416 7.5 62 13 7.2 5.1 1.9 5.4 14 0.2
19900716 7.7 70 15 8 5.7 1.3 5.4 11 0.2
19900820 8.1 95 20 11 7.8 1.5 7.9 20 0.1
19901009 7.3 81 18 8.7 5.4 1.5 5.7 13 0.1
19910102 7.4 83 19 8.7 5.3 1.4 5 12 0.2
19910212 7.1 80 18 8.5 6.8 1.3 3.9 11 0.2
19910502 6.7 56 13 5.8 4 1 3.7 7.9 0.1
19910610 7.3 64 15 6.5 4 0.7 4.1 6.9 0.12
19910731 7.8 55 13 5.4 2.5 1 2.6 3.8 0.05
19910801 7.3
19911003 7.8 67 15 7.1 4.4 1 4.4 9.6 0.068
19911204 7.4 61 13 6.9 4.8 1 3.5 7 0.18
19920113 7.9 67 15 7.2 4.3 1.1 3.2 9.3 0.21
19920413 7.7 30 7.8 2.5 2.5 0.3 2.4 4.8 0.16
19920722 7.6 71 16 7.5 4.8 0.9 2.1 9.6 0.11
19921026 8.2 86 18 10 5.3 1.2 5.4 14
19921216 7.6 89 19 10 6 1.2 5.6 13 0.25
19930201 7.2 83 18 9.1 7.3 1.2 7.3 12 0.28
19930426 7.7 66 15 6.8 4.1 1.2 4.9 9.5 0.092
19930722 7.5 64 15 6.5 4 0.2 3.9 7.7 0.079
19931201 7.7 80 17 9 4.8 1 4 11 0.16
C-44
19940216 7.3
19940511 7.7 51 11 5.6 3.7 1.1 3.4 9.4 0.076
M IN 6.4 30 25 7.5 2.5 2.1 0.2 0.2 3.8 0.01 10

MAX 9.5 130 110 29 15 30 8.5 32 36 0.37 37
MEAN 7.52 71.11 56.94 16.16 7.46 7.09 1.37 7.39 15.04 0.17 22.19
C-45
C-46
C-47
Appendix C-7. Supplementary Data for Bennett et al. (1995)
Alkalinity Ha rdness
Dose Cond uctivity Oxygen Temp (as mg (as mg
Tank (µg Cu/L) (µmho/cm) pH (mg/L) ( oC) CaCO 3 /L) CaCO 3 /L)
0 hou rs 7/9/92
a 897 325 8.62 7.5 21 100 96
b 897 300 8.6 7.6 21 100 96
c 897 320 8.6 7.6 21 80 96
d 607 320 8.62 7.7 21 80 96
e 607 370 8.62 7.6 21 80 96
f 607 328 8.64 7.6 21 80 96
g 93 310 8.64 7.6 21 80 96
h 93 370 8.69 7.5 21 80 96
I 93 310 8.6 7.6 21 80 96
j 505 310 8.62 7.7 21 100 96
k 505 310 8.65 7.7 21 80 96
l 505 320 8.69 7.7 21 80 96
m 319 320 8.69 7.7 21 80 96
n 319 330 8.68 7.7 21 80 96
o 319 320 8.67 7.7 21 80 96
p 0 310 8.62 7.5 21 80 96
q 0 320 8.63 7.6 21 80 96
r 0 320 8.6 7.7 21 80 96
24 ho urs 7/10/92
a 897 300 7.78 8.5 21.5 60 104
b 897 305 7.64 8.4 22 80 100
c 897 305 7.68 8.5 22 90 100
d 607 300 7.7 8.4 21.5 90 100
e 607 305 7.65 8.4 21.5 80 100
f 607 305 7.75 8.4 21.5 80 100
g 93 300 7.77 9.1 22 80 100
h 93 295 7.76 9.2 21.5 80 108
I 93 295 7.76 9 21.5 85 100
j 505 300 7.73 8.8 22 90 84
k 505 300 7.71 8.8 21.5 80 100
l 505 300 7.73 8.7 21.5 80 100
m 319 300 7.74 9.1 21.5 80 100
n 319 300 7.52 8.5 22 80 100
o 319 310 7.79 8.7 22.5 80 100
p 0 305 7.79 9.1 22 80 100
q 0 305 7.7 9.1 22 80 104
r 0 300 7.71 9.1 22 80 104
48 ho urs 7/11/92
a 897 * * * * * *
b 897 * * * * * *
c 897 320 8.1 7.2 21.5 100 96
d 607 315 7.91 6.9 21.5 100 96
e 607 310 7.84 6.8 21.5 100 100
f 607 315 8 7 21.5 100 104
g 93 300 8.19 7.7 21.5 100 100
C-48
Tank (µg Cu/L) (µmho/cm) pH (mg/L) ( oC) CaCO 3 /L) CaCO 3 /L)D
h 93 300 8.13 7.7 21 100 100
I 93 300 8.16 7.6 21 100 104
j 505 310 8.1 7.5 21 80 100
k 505 310 8.12 7.4 21 100 100
l 505 310 8.13 7.4 21 80 100
m 319 310 8.12 7.4 21 100 100
n 319 310 7.8 6.4# 21.5 100 100
o 319 310 8.18 7.3 22 100 96
p 0 300 8.16 8 21.5 80 100
q 0 300 8.1 7.9 21.5 80 104
r 0 300 8.21 8 21.5 100 100
72 ho urs 7/12/92
a 897 * * * * * *
b 897 * * * * * *
c 897 * * * * * *
d 607 310 8.02 8.9 21.5 100 100
e 607 315 8.04 8.8 21.5 100 100
f 607 315 8.02 8.7 21.5 80 100
g 93 310 7.92 9.1 21.5 100 104
h 93 305 7.91 9.1 21 100 100
I 93 310 7.91 9 21 80 106
j 505 315 7.97 8.9 21.5 100 104
k 505 310 7.96 8.9 21 100 100
l 505 310 7.96 9 21 80 104
m 319 310 7.91 9 21 100 100
n 319 310 7.97 9 21 80 100
o 319 320 7.99 8.8 22 100 104
p 0 300 7.86 9.3 21.5 100 104
q 0 300 7.81 9.1 21.5 80 100
r 0 305 7.93 9.3 21.5 80 100
96 ho urs 7/13/92
a 897 * * * * * *
b 897 * * * * * *
c 897 * * * * * *
d 607 320 8.03 7.3 21.5 100 104
e 607 320 8.07 7.3 21.5 100 100
f 607 325 8.02 7.2 21.5 100 104
g 93 325 7.95 7.1 21.5 120 104
h 93 315 8.03 7.5 21 100 100
I 93 310 8.02 7.4 21 100 100
j 505 320 8.06 7.4 21.5 80 100
k 505 320 8.05 7.4 21 120 100
l 505 320 8.03 7.3 21 100 104
m 319 315 8.05 7.5 21 100 104
n 319 320 8.06 7.4 21 100 100
o 319 330 8.08 7.3 22 100 104
C-49
Tank (µg Cu/L) (µmho/cm) pH (mg/L) ( oC) CaCO 3 /L) CaCO 3 /L)D
p 0 330 7.78 8.1 21.5 80 96
q 0 325 7.75 7.9 21.5 80 104
r 0 330 7.86 8.1 21.5 80 100
* All fish dead, no water quality measured.
# Air stone had fallen out of tank.
D-50
Appendix C-8. Supplementary Data for Richards and Beitinger (1995)
Acclimation 5°C 12°C 22°C 32°C

Temp erature
Rep licate 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2
Sample size 30 36 30 36 36 30 33 29
pH 8.2-8 .3 7.8-8 .2 8.4-8 .5 8.2-8 .4 8.3-8 .4 8.1-8 .5 8.4-8 .5 8.4-8 .5
Hard ness 164-180 152-166 152-168 148-170 164-174 162-172 164-168 162-172
(mg/l CaCO 3)
Alkalinity 125-140 130-140 130-140 130-140 140-145 140-145 135-140 135-145

(mg/l CaCO 3)
W eights of 0.62- 0.42-2.64 0.56-2.38 0.30-1.93 0.66- 0.13- 0.26- 0.23-

minnows (g) 3.23 1.15 1.55 1.36 1.32
Lengths of 3.3-5 .5 3.2-5 .2 3.2-4 .9 2.8-5 .1 1.9-4 .3 2.4-4 .6 3.0-4 .8 3.3-4 .8

minnows (cm)
C-51
Appendix C-9. Data for the American River, CA, for July 1978 Through December 1980
(data from the City of Sacramento, CA, Water Quality Laboratory; personal
communication). Units Are mg/L.
Date pH Hard ness Alkalinity Ca Mg C a:M g Na Cl SO 4
Jul-78 7.6 20 22 5.2 1.7 3.06 3.2 2.6 4
Aug-78 7.6 20 22 4.9 1.9 2.58 3.4 2.8 5
Sep-78 7.5 20 22 5.2 1.7 3.06 3.5 2.6 4
Oct-78 7.3 20 22 5 1.8 2.78 3.6 3 4
Nov-78 7.2 20 4.9 1.9 2.58 3.9 5
Dec-78
Jan-79 7.4 23 24 5.1 2.1 2.43 3.2 2.9 4
Feb-79 7.5 24 25 6.5 1.9 3.42 3 3 5
Mar-79 7.6 26 27 7.4 1.8 4.11 3.3 2.7 6
Apr-79 7.7 27 27 7.5 2 3.75 3.6 2.7 7
May-79 7.6 25 26 5.7 2.6 2.19 3.4 2.4 6
Jun-79 7.7 22 24 5.7 1.9 3.00 3.1 2.5 4
Jul-79 7.6 21 22 5.3 1.9 2.79 3 2.7 4
Aug-79 7.5 21 22 5.6 1.7 3.29 3.2 2.4 5
Sep-79 7.3 20 21 5.7 1.4 4.07 3.5 2.5 3
Oct-79 7.2 19 20 5.5 1.3 4.23 3.1 2.8 3
Nov-79
Dec-79
Jan-80 7.5 23 23 6.1 1.9 3.21 2.4 2.6 4
Feb-80 7.4 23 23 6.1 1.9 3.21 2.7 2.3 2
Mar-80 7.5 24 26 5.8 2.3 2.52 2 2.3 2
Apr-80 7.7 25 25 6.4 2.2 2.91 1.9 2.5 3
May-80 7.5 22 21 6.1 1.6 3.81 2.4 2.4 3
Jun-80 7.3 19 21 5.1 1.5 3.40 2.3 2.4 2
Jul-80 7.4 18 20 4.6 1.6 2.88 2.6 2.1 3
Aug-80 7.5 18 21 5.2 1.2 4.33 3 2.7 2
Sep-80 7.3 18 20 4.9 1.4 3.50 2.9 2.4 4
Oct-80 7.3 18 20 5 1.3 3.85 3 2.7 2
Mean 7.5 21.4 22.8 5.6 1.8 3.2 3.0 2.6 3.8
max 7.7 27.0 27.0 7.5 2.6 4.3 3.9 3.0 7.0
min 7.2 18.0 20.0 4.6 1.2 2.2 1.9 2.1 2.0
C-52
Appendix C-10. STORET Data for Minnesota Lakes and Rivers
Date pH Hard ness Alkalinity Ca Mg C a:M g Na K Cl SO 4 NO 3 TOC DOC Sulfide
E mb arra ss R iver, M N
3/22/76 7 133 103 27 16 1.69 2.5 2 11 34
4/29/76 6.7 25.3 23 5.2 3 1.73 2.8 0.7 2.9 8.4 0.04 16 0.6
5/28/76 6.5 53 3.5 12
6/28/76 6.9 44 36 9.9 4.6 2.15 3.9 0.3 5 13 0.04 37
7/28/76 6.6 76 5.2 4.8 7.5
8/26/76 6.9 100 110 24 9.9 2.42 9 1 8.4 5.6 21 0.6
Mea ns 6.8 75.58 66.83 14.26 8.38 2.00 4.55 1.00 5.93 13.42 0.04 24.67 0.60
max. 7 133 110 27 16 2.42 9 2 11 34 0.04 37 0.6
min. 6.5 25.3 23 5.2 3 1.69 2.5 0.3 2.9 5.6 0.04 16 0.6
S. Kawish iwi R iv er, MN

10/16/75 6.4 21 14 4.9 2.1 2.33 1.3 0.4 0.5 4.4 0.01 12 0.2
11/6/75 6.9 24 19 5.5 2.5 2.20 1.2 0.4 0.6 4.1
12/11/75 39 23 10 3.4 2.94 1.4 0.4 1.5 0.2
1/9/76 6.6 29 24 6.2 3.2 1.94 1.6 0.8 2.3 7
2/4/76 6.3 24 20 5.2 2.7 1.93 1.7 0.6 0.9 6.3 0.16 16 0
3/9/76 6.9 23 23 5.7 2.2 2.59 1.5 0.5 0.9 4.9 1
4/23/76 6.6 14 8 3.4 1.3 2.62 0.9 0.4 0.7 4.8 0.2
5/25/76 6.8 16 11 4 1.5 2.67 0.9 0.4 0.7 4.8
6/25/76 6.6 16 1.1 3.3 1.8
7/23/76 6.7 19 1.2 4.4 0.5
Mea ns 6.6 23.75 17.70 5.61 2.36 2.40 1.31 0.49 1.04 4.89 0.09 14.00 0.56
max. 6.9 39 24 10 3.4 2.94 1.7 0.8 2.3 7 0.16 16 1.8
min. 6.3 14 8 3.4 1.3 1.93 0.9 0.4 0.5 3.3 0.01 12 0
C olb y L ak e, M N
LCY2
6/17/96 8.5 56 33 13 5.7 2.28 4.3 1.5 6.3 22 0.25 17
6/17/96 6.8 0.25 17
6/17/96 6.9 71 33 17 7 2.43 4.3 1.4 9.4 22 18
LCY1
6/17/96 6.8 54 33 12 5.8 2.07 3.9 1.4 6.6 26 0.3 16
6/17/96 6.8 16
6/17/96 6.5 41 34 11 3.2 3.44 3.6 1.3 6.8 22 0.33 17
6/17/96 7.4 83 39 21 7.3 2.88 7.8 52 0.18
Mea ns 7.1 55.50 33.25 13.25 5.43 2.55 4.03 1.40 7.28 23.00 0.28 16.83
max. 8.5 71 34 17 7 3.44 4.3 1.5 9.4 26 0.33 18
min. 6.5 41 33 11 3.2 2.07 3.6 1.3 6.3 22 0.25 16
C lo qu et L ak e, M N
7/13/76 6.4 17 11 4 1.8 2.22 1.7 7.6 0 38
L ak e One , MN
10/16/75 7.2 27 21 6.9 2.3 3.00 1.2 5.6 0.02 22
Gre en wo od Lake, M N
7/6/76 6.7 10 15 2.8 0.7 4.00 0.1 0.3 0.2 4.2 0 11
C-53
Appendix D. Saltwater Conversion Factors for Dissolved Values
Appendix D
Saltwater Conversion Factors for Dissolved Values
February 14, 2007

Office of Water
Office of Science and Technology
Washington, D.C.
D-1
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Larry Brooke and Tyler Linton

(primary authors)
Great Lakes Environmental Center
1295 King Avenue
Columbus, OH 43212
Jennifer Mitchell and Cindy Roberts

(authors and document coordinators)
Washington, DC
D-2
Saltwater Conversion Factors for Converting Nominal or Total Copper Concentrations to
Dissolved Copper Concentrations
The U.S. EPA changed its policy in 1993 of basing water quality criteria for metals from a total
metal criteria to a dissolved metal criteria. The policy states “the use of dissolved metal to set and
measure compliance with water quality standards is the recommended approach, because dissolved metal
more closely approximates the bioavailable fraction of metal in the water column than does total
recoverable metal” (Prothro 1993). All of the criteria for metals to this date were based upon total metal
and very few data were available with dissolved concentrations of the metals. A problem was created by
the new policy of how to derive dissolved metal concentrations for studies in which this form of the
metal was not measured. The U.S. EPA attempted to develop correction factors for each metal for which
criteria exist for both fresh- and saltwater (Lussier et al. 1995; Stephan 1995). In the case of saltwater, a
correction for copper was not derived.
Several saltwater studies are available that report nominal, total, and dissolved concentrations of
copper in laboratory water (Table 1) from site-specific water effect ratio (WER) studies. These studies
show relatively consistent ratios for the nominal-to-dissolved concentrations and for the total-to-
dissolved concentrations. Calculation of a mean ratio (conversion factor) to convert nominal and total
copper concentrations to dissolved copper permits the use of the results for critical studies without
dissolved copper measurements.
Three studies, each with multiple tests per study, were useful for deriving the conversion factors.
One study was conducted for the lower Hudson River in the New York/New Jersey Harbor (SAIC 1993).
The tests were conducted with harbor site water and with EPA Environmental Research Laboratory -
Narragansett water from Narragansett Bay, Massachusetts. Only the tests with laboratory water were
used for this exercise. Three series of 48-hour static tests were conducted with various animals. Salinity
ranged from 28 to 32 ppt during all the tests. Series 1 tests were not used to calculate ratios for dissolved-
to-total or dissolved-to-nominal copper concentrations, because in many instances, concentrations of
measured copper did not increase as nominal concentrations increased. Of the series 2 tests, only the coot
clam (Mulinia lateralis) tests were successful and used to calculate ratios. Three replicate tests without
ultraviolet (UV) light present and one test with UV light present were reported with total and dissolved
copper measurements made at 0 hr and 48 hr (end) of the tests. Dissolved-to-total and dissolved-to-
nominal ratios were calculated for the four tests each with two time intervals. The mean ratio for the
dissolved-to-total measurements is 0.943 and the mean ratio for the dissolved-to-nominal is 0.917. A
third series of static tests was conducted by SAIC and the mussel (Mytilus sp.) test was the only
successful test. Again the tests were conducted as three replicate tests without UV light and a fourth with
UV light. The mean test ratio for dissolved-to-total copper was 0.863 and the dissolved-to-nominal mean
test ratio was 0.906.
The summer flounder (Paralichthys dentatus) was exposed to copper in laboratory water for 96
hours in a static test (CH2MHill 1999a). The water was collected from Narragansett Bay and diluted with
laboratory reverse osmosis water to dilute the solution to 22 ppt salinity. Three tests were run with
copper concentrations measured at the start of the tests as total recoverable and dissolved copper. Five
exposure concentrations were used to conduct the tests. Only the two lowest concentrations were used to
derive ratios for dissolved-to-total and dissolved-to-nominal copper mean ratios. These concentrations
were at the approximate 500 µg/L or lower concentrations, and are in the range of most copper
concentrations routinely tested in the laboratory. The mean dissolved-to-total and dissolved-to-nominal
ratios were 0.947 and 0.836, respectively.
Three 48-hour static tests were conducted with the blue mussel (Mytilus edulis) in water from the
D-3
same source and treated in the same manner as the summer flounder tests (CH2MHill 1999b). Salinity
was diluted to 20 ppt. Exposures were made at eight concentrations of copper and total and dissolved
copper concentrations were measured only at the start of the tests. Mean ratios for the dissolved-to-total
and dissolved-to-nominal copper were calculated by combining the ratios calculated for each of the test
concentrations. The mean dissolved-to-total and dissolved-to-nominal ratios were 0.979 and 0.879,
respectively.
A study was conducted by the City of San Jose, CA to develop a WER for San Francisco Bay in
which copper was used as a toxicant and the concentrations used in the laboratory exposures were
measured as total and dissolved copper (Environ. Serv. Dept., City of San Jose 1998). Mussels and the
purple sea urchin (Strongylocentrotus purpuratus) were used as the test organisms. Tests were conducted
in filtered natural sea water from San Francisco Bay that was diluted to a salinity of 28 ppt. The mussel
test was of 48-hour duration and the purple sea urchin test was of 96-hour duration. Five concentrations
of copper were used in the toxicity tests with the concentrations measured at the start of each test.
(During each test, a single concentration of copper was measured at the termination of the test and this
value was not used in the calculations.) Twenty-two tests were conducted during a 13-month period with
the mussel and two tests were conducted with the purple sea urchin. The mean dissolved-to-total and
dissolved-to-nominal ratios for the mussel tests were 0.836 and 0.785, respectively. The mean dissolved-
to-total and dissolved-to-nominal ratios for the purple sea urchin were 0.883 and 0.702, respectively.
For some of the tests, control concentrations had measured concentrations of total and dissolved
copper. These values were not used to calculate ratios for dissolved-to-total and dissolved-to-nominal
copper concentrations. All mean ratios were calculated as the arithmetic mean and not as a geometric
mean of the available ratios. When the data are normally distributed, the arithmetic mean is the
appropriate measure of central tendency (Parkhurst 1998) and is a better estimator than the geometric
mean. All concentrations of copper used to calculate ratios should be time-weighted averages (Stephan
1995). In all instances of data used to calculate ratios, the concentrations were identical to time-weighted
values because either only one value was available or if two were available they were of equal weight.
Based on the information presented above the overall ratio for correcting total copper
concentrations to dissolved copper concentrations is 0.909 based upon the results of six sets of studies.
This is comparable to its equivalent factor in freshwater, which is 0.960 ± 0.037 (Stephan 1995). When it
is necessary to convert nominal copper concentrations to dissolved copper concentrations the conversion
factor is 0.838 based upon the same studies. The means of both conversion factors have standard
deviations of less than ten percent of the means (Table 1).
D-4
Table D-1. Summary of Saltwater Copper Ratios
Mean Dissolved-to- Mean Dissolved-to-

Species Total Ratio Nominal Ratio Reference
Coot clam,
Mulinia lateralis 0.943 0.917 SAIC 1993
Summer flounder,
Paralichthys dentatus 0.947 0.836 CH2MHill 1999a
Blue mussel,
Mytilus sp 0.863 0.906 SAIC 1993
Blue mussel,
Mytilus edulis 0.979 0.879 CH2MHill 1999b
Blue mussel, Environ. Serv. Dept.,
Mytilus sp 0.836 0.785 City of San Jose 1998
Purple sea urchin,
Strongylocentrotus 0.883 0.702 Environ. Serv. Dept.,
purpuratus City of San Jose 1998
Arithmetic Mean 0.909 0.838
Standard Deviation ±0.056 ±0.082
D-5
References
CH2 MH ill. 1999a. B ioassay report: Acute toxicity of copper to summer flounder (Paralichthys dentatus). Final
report prepared for U.S. Navy. November 1999. CH2M Hill, Norfolk, Virginia. 26 p.
CH 2M Hill. 19 99b . Bioassay report: Acute toxicity of copper to blue m ussel (My tilus edulis). Final report prepared
for U.S. Navy. November 1999. CH2MHill, Norfolk, Virginia. 41 p.
Environmental Services Department, City of San Jose. 1998. Development of a site-specific water quality criterion
for copper in south San Francisco Bay. Environmental Services Department, City of San Jose, San Jose/Santa Clara
W ater P ollution Control P lant, 42 45 Z anker Road, San Jo se, CA . 171 pp. M ay.
Lussier, S.M., W .S. Boothman, S. Poucher, D. Cham plin and A. Helmsteter. 1995. Derivation of conversion factors
for dissolved saltwater aquatic life criteria for metals. Draft report to the U.S. EPA, Office of Water. U.S. EPA,
Narragansett, RI. March 31, 1995.
Parkhurst, D .F. 19 98. A rithmetic versus geometric means for en vironmental concentration da ta. Env iron. Sci.
Technol./News. 32:92A-95A.
Prothro, M. 19 93. M emorandum concerning “Office of Water Policy and Technical Guidance on Interpretation and
Implementation of Aquatic Life Metals Criteria.” October 1.
SAIC. 1993. Toxicity testing to support the New York/New Jersey Harbor site-specific copper criteria study. Final
Report to U.S. EP A, Office of Wastewater Enforcement and Com pliance (Contract No. 68-C8-0066 . Wo rk
Assignment C-4-94). Science Applications International Corporation, Narragansett, RI.
Stephan, C .E. 19 95. D erivation of co nversa tion facto rs for the calculation of d issolved freshwater aquatic life criteria
for metals. Report. March 11, 1995. U.S. EPA, Duluth, MN.
D-6
Appendix E. BLM Input Data and Notes
Appendix E. BLM Table
Model Output Model Input

Hard-
BLM Critical ness Temp Dissolved DOC Humic Ca Mg Na K SO4 Cl Alkalinity S
Data Label Accumulation (mg/L) (ºC) pH LC50 (µg/L) (mg/L) Acid (%) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) Notes
LUVA01S 1.1869 290 25 6.57 124.8 0.5 10 47.8602 41.47 89.821 7.178 278.4 6.5081 235 0.0003 1,2,3,4,5
LUVA02S 2.1707 290 25 7.29 259.2 0.5 10 47.8602 41.47 89.821 7.178 278.4 6.5081 235 0.0003 1,2,3,4,5
LUVA03S 2.0991 290 25 8.25 480 0.5 10 47.8602 41.47 89.821 7.178 278.4 6.5081 235 0.0003 1,2,3,4,5
CADE01F 27.6903 44.9 15 7.7 1920 1.1 10 13.1965 2.911001 1.27 0.56 3.32 1.2 42.7 0.0003 1,2,3,6,7,8
CADE02F 26.6895 44.9 15 7.7 1344 1.1 10 13.1965 2.911001 1.27 0.56 3.32 1.2 42.7 0.0003 1,2,3,6,7,8
JUPL01F 0.1537 21 15 7.20 14.4 1.1 10 6.0583 1.7462 4.5302 0.7 2.8706 5.468 26 0.0003 1,3,6,7,9,10
LIVI01F 0.0570 21 15 7.2 7.68 1.1 10 6.0583 1.7462 4.5302 0.7 2.8706 5.468 26 0.0003 1,3,6,7,9,10
PHIN01F 0.4378 44.9 15 7.7 39.36 1.1 10 13.1965 2.911001 1.27 0.56 3.32 1.2 42.7 0.0003 1,2,3,6,7,8
PHIN02F 0.3410 44.9 15 7.7 35.52 1.1 10 13.1965 2.911001 1.27 0.56 3.32 1.2 42.7 0.0003 1,2,3,6,7,8
ACPE01S 0.1147 96 25 8.35 25.92 0.5 10 15.8434 13.728 29.734 2.3762 92.159 2.1544 102 0.0003 1,2,3,4,6,7,20
ACPE02S 0.1556 68 25 8.35 27.84 0.5 10 11.2224 9.724 21.061 1.6831 65.279 1.526 108 0.0003 1,2,3,4,6,7,20
UTIM01S 8.2925 39 23 7.4 82.56 0.5 10 6.43638 5.577 12.079 0.9653 37.439 0.8752 32.5 0.0003 1,2,3,4,6,11
UTIM02S 8.0633 90 23 7.6 191.04 0.5 10 13.9716 12.11764 26.253 2.098 81.372 1.9022 65 0.0003 1,2,3,4,12
UTIM03S 1.3555 92 25 8.1 72.96 0.5 10 29.0614 4.73839 30.798 1.6408 46.006 32.716 77 0.0003 1,2,3,4,6,7,53
UTIM04S 1.4793 86 25 8.2 81.6 0.5 10 27.1661 4.429364 28.79 1.5338 43.005 30.583 78 0.0003 1,2,3,4,6,7,53
UTIM05S 0.5289 90 25 8 39.36 0.5 10 28.4296 4.635381 30.129 1.6052 45.006 32.005 78 0.0003 1,2,3,4,6,7,53
UTIM06S 1.2514 90 24 8.2 75.84 0.5 10 14.8532 12.87 13.938 1.1138 43.199 1.0099 99 0.0003 1,2,3,4,5,6,7
UTIM07S 1.3009 90 25 7.9 69.12 0.5 10 28.4296 4.635381 30.129 1.6052 45.006 32.005 99 0.0003 1,2,3,4,6,7,53
UTIM08S 0.7111 86 25 7.9 36.48 0.5 10 14.193 12.298 13.318 1.0643 41.279 0.965 59 0.0003 1,2,3,4,5,6,7
CEDU01S 0.1132 52 24.5 7.5 18.24 1.1 10 15.2833 3.371316 1.5 0.57 3.8 1.4 55 0.0003 1,2,3,6,7,8
CEDU02S 0.0941 52 24.5 7.5 16.32 1.1 10 15.2833 3.371316 1.5 0.57 3.8 1.4 55 0.0003 1,2,3,6,7,8
CEDU03S 0.0751 45 25 7.72 25 1.5 10 11.0991 4.2075 9.5 1.6 46 34 39.7 0.0003 1,2,6,7,16
CEDU04S 0.0400 45 25 7.72 17 1.5 10 11.0991 4.2075 9.5 1.6 46 34 39.7 0.0003 1,2,6,7,16
CEDU05S 0.1046 45 25 7.72 30 1.5 10 11.0991 4.2075 9.5 1.6 46 34 39.7 0.0003 1,2,6,7,16
CEDU06S 0.0700 45 25 7.72 24 1.5 10 11.0991 4.2075 9.5 1.6 46 34 39.7 0.0003 1,2,6,7,16
CEDU07S 0.0920 45 25 7.72 28 1.5 10 11.0991 4.2075 9.5 1.6 46 34 39.7 0.0003 1,2,6,7,16
CEDU08S 0.1184 45 25 7.72 32 1.5 10 11.0991 4.2075 9.5 1.6 46 34 39.7 0.0003 1,2,6,7,16
CEDU09S 0.0651 45 25 7.72 23 1.5 10 11.0991 4.2075 9.5 1.6 46 34 39.7 0.0003 1,2,6,7,16
CEDU10S 0.0517 45 25 7.72 20 1.5 10 11.0991 4.2075 9.5 1.6 46 34 39.7 0.0003 1,2,6,7,16
CEDU11S 0.0476 45 25 7.72 19 1.5 10 11.0991 4.2075 9.5 1.6 46 34 39.7 0.0003 1,2,6,7,16
CEDU12S 0.0194 94.1 25 8.15 26 2 10 23.2094 8.79835 5.2449 1.6 20.054 6.1705 69.6 0.0003 1,2,6,7,17
CEDU13S 0.0144 94.1 25 8.15 21 2 10 23.2094 8.79835 5.2449 1.6 20.054 6.1705 69.6 0.0003 1,2,6,7,17
CEDU14S 0.0206 94.1 25 8.15 27 2 10 23.2094 8.79835 5.2449 1.6 20.054 6.1705 69.6 0.0003 1,2,6,7,17
E-1

Hard-
CEDU15S 0.0338 94.1 25 8.15 37 2 10 23.2094 8.79835 5.2449 1.6 20.054 6.1705 69.6 0.0003 1,2,6,7,17
CEDU16S 0.0294 94.1 25 8.15 34 2 10 23.2094 8.79835 5.2449 1.6 20.054 6.1705 69.6 0.0003 1,2,6,7,17
CEDU17S 0.0428 179 25 8.31 67 2.3 10 50.1069 13.12323 14.32 2.4 22.673 10.979 140.1 0.0003 1,2,6,7,18
CEDU18S 0.0164 179 25 8.31 38 2.3 10 50.1069 13.12323 14.32 2.4 22.673 10.979 140.1 0.0003 1,2,6,7,18
CEDU19S 0.0579 179 25 8.31 78 2.3 10 50.1069 13.12323 14.32 2.4 22.673 10.979 140.1 0.0003 1,2,6,7,18
CEDU20S 0.0627 179 25 8.31 81 2.3 10 50.1069 13.12323 14.32 2.4 22.673 10.979 140.1 0.0003 1,2,6,7,18
CEDU21S 0.0283 97.6 25 8 28 2 10 24.0727 9.1256 5.44 1.6 20.8 6.4 74.2 0.0003 1,2,6,7,17
CEDU22S 0.1218 182 25 8 84 2.3 10 50.9467 13.34317 14.56 2.4 23.053 11.163 144.3 0.0003 1,2,6,7,18
CEDU23S 0.0510 57.1 25 8.18 12.864 0.5 10 9.42352 8.1653 17.685 1.4133 54.815 1.2814 81 0.0003 1,2,3,4,6,7,20
CEDU24R 0.0377 80 20 7.6 5.5396825 0.5 10 13.2028 11.44 24.778 1.9801 76.799 1.7953 53 0.0003 1,2,6,7,20,21
DAMA01S 0.0221 39 20 7.8 8.736 1.1 10 10.9867 2.7776 5.8136 0.7 7.9394 7.7684 51 0.0003 1,2,3,6,7,9,10
DAMA02S 0.0315 39 20 7.8 11.232 1.1 10 10.9867 2.7776 5.8136 0.7 7.9394 7.7684 51 0.0003 1,2,3,6,7,9,10
DAMA03S 0.0147 38 20 7.79 6.336 1.1 10 10.7129 2.7203 5.7423 0.7 7.6578 7.6406 50 0.0003 1,2,3,6,7,9,10
DAMA04S 0.0253 38 20 7.79 9.504 1.1 10 10.7129 2.7203 5.7423 0.7 7.6578 7.6406 50 0.0003 1,2,3,6,7,9,10
DAMA05S 0.1799 39 20 6.9 11.232 1.1 10 10.9867 2.7776 5.8136 0.7 7.9394 7.7684 30 0.0003 1,2,3,6,7,9,10
DAMA06S 0.0786 39 20 6.9 6.432 1.1 10 10.9867 2.7776 5.8136 0.7 7.9394 7.7684 30 0.0003 1,2,3,6,7,9,10
DAMA07S 0.0312 26 20 7.6 8.736 1.1 10 7.4273 2.0327 4.8867 0.7 4.2786 6.107 24 0.0003 1,2,3,6,7,9,10
DAMA08S 0.0123 27 20 7.7 4.992 1.1 10 7.7011 2.09 4.958 0.7 4.5602 6.2348 24 0.0003 1,2,3,6,7,9,10
DAMA09S 0.4278 170 20 7.8 39.552 0.5 10 27.9433 24.23527 52.507 4.1961 162.74 3.8045 115 0.0003 3,4,22,23
DAMA10S 0.0443 170 20 7.8 10.08 0.5 10 27.9433 24.23527 52.507 4.1961 162.74 3.8045 115 0.0003 3,4,22,23
DAMA11S 0.1330 170 20 7.8 19.776 0.5 10 27.9433 24.23527 52.507 4.1961 162.74 3.8045 115 0.0003 3,4,22,23
DAMA12S 0.0990 170 20 7.8 16.608 0.5 10 27.9433 24.23527 52.507 4.1961 162.74 3.8045 115 0.0003 3,4,22,23
DAMA13S 0.9670 170 20 7.8 67.872 0.5 10 27.9433 24.23527 52.507 4.1961 162.74 3.8045 115 0.0003 3,4,22,23
DAMA14S 0.2716 170 20 7.8 30.048 0.5 10 27.9433 24.23527 52.507 4.1961 162.74 3.8045 115 0.0003 3,4,22,23
DAMA15S 0.0160 109.9 21 6.93 6.816 2.4 10 40.0 2.43 85.1 1.23 10 106 12.5 0.0003 1,2,3,6,7,24
DAMA16S 0.0298 109.9 21 6.93 15.744 3.4 10 40.0 2.43 85.1 1.23 10 106 12.5 0.0003 1,2,3,6,7,24
DAMA17S 0.0393 109.9 21 7.43 38.304 3.4 10 40.0 2.43 85.1 1.23 10 106 13.875 0.0003 1,2,3,6,7,19,24
DAMA18S 0.0219 109.9 21 7.43 17.952 2.4 10 40.0 2.43 85.1 1.23 10 106 13.875 0.0003 1,2,3,6,7,19,24
DAMA19S 0.0111 109.9 21 7.82 18.144 2.4 10 40.0 2.43 85.1 1.23 10 106 14.5 0.0003 1,2,3,6,7,19,24
DAMA20S 0.0189 109.9 21 7.82 38.112 3.4 10 40.0 2.43 85.1 1.23 10 106 14.5 0.0003 1,2,3,6,7,19,24
DAMA21S 0.0898 109.9 21 6.93 44.16 4.4 10 40.0 2.43 85.1 1.23 10 106 12.5 0.0003 1,2,3,6,7,24
DAMA22S 0.1076 109.9 21 6.93 69.024 6.1 10 40.0 2.43 85.1 1.23 10 106 12.5 0.0003 1,2,3,6,7,24
DAMA23S 0.0458 109.9 21 7.43 54.912 4.4 10 40.0 2.43 85.1 1.23 10 106 13.875 0.0003 1,2,3,6,7,19,24
DAMA24S 0.0288 109.9 21 7.82 65.088 4.4 10 40.0 2.43 85.1 1.23 10 106 14.5 0.0003 1,2,3,6,7,19,24
E-2

Hard-
DAMA25S 0.1143 52 18.2 7.8 24.96 1.1 10 14 3.5 12 2.9 23 11 45 0.0003 1,2,3,6,7,9,25
DAMA26S 0.0917 105 20.3 7.9 28.8 1.1 10 29 6.8 29 5.3 57 21 79 0.0003 1,2,3,6,7,9,25
DAMA27S 0.1053 106 19.7 8.1 36.48 1.1 10 29 6.8 29 5.3 57 21 82 0.0003 1,2,3,6,7,9,25
DAMA28S 0.1538 207 19.9 8.3 66.24 1.1 10 58 13 62 8.2 127 40 166 0.0003 1,2,3,6,7,9,25
DAMA29S 0.0062 7.1 24 8.55 4.608 0.5 10 1.15182 1.027387 3.5102 2.8052 6.8159 2.5434 56 0.0003 1,2,3,4,6,7,56
DAMA30S 0.2536 20.6 24 6.97 7.104 0.5 10 3.39973 2.9458 2.5478 2.1356 19.776 1.9363 60 0.0003 1,2,3,4,6,7,56
DAMA31S 0.0119 23 24 8.52 6.24 0.5 10 3.79581 3.289 2.8446 2.3845 22.08 2.1619 64 0.0003 1,2,3,4,6,7,56
DAPC01S 0.0087 48 18 8.03 10.944 2.288 10 14.1077 3.111984 1.36 0.57 3.55 1.25 42 0.0003 1,2,3,6,7,15,26
DAPC02S 0.0052 48 18 8.03 8.6976 2.816 10 14.1077 3.111984 1.36 0.57 3.55 1.25 42 0.0003 1,2,3,6,7,15,26
DAPC03S 0.0043 48 18 8.01 6.9504 2.728 10 14.1077 3.111984 1.36 0.57 3.55 1.25 44 0.0003 1,2,3,6,7,15,26
DAPC04S 0.0057 44 18 8.04 10.368 3.08 10 12.932 2.852652 1.24 0.57 3.25 1.15 42 0.0003 1,2,3,6,7,15,26
DAPC05S 0.0879 31 18 6.66 53.184 12.2094 10 7.37407 3.063455 1.6792 0.5 6.3292 1.2917 27 0.0003 1,2,3,6,7,27,28
DAPC06S 0.0490 29 18 6.97 53.088 11.3373 10 6.89832 2.865813 1.5708 0.5 5.9208 1.2083 27 0.0003 1,2,3,6,7,27,28
DAPC07S 0.0285 28 18 7.2 51.168 11.3373 10 6.66045 2.766992 1.5167 0.5 5.7167 1.1667 22 0.0003 1,2,3,6,7,27,28
DAPC08S 0.0268 88 18 7.01 93.312 24.4188 10 20.9464 8.5194 16.466 1.8787 22.629 18.986 20 0.0003 1,2,3,6,7,27,29
DAPC09S 0.0187 100 18 7.55 191.04 29.6514 10 23.9296 9.4686 21.207 2.1631 25.98 23.28 20 0.0003 1,2,3,6,7,27,29
DAPC10S 0.0701 82 18 6.99 204.48 27.9072 10 19.4548 8.0448 14.095 1.7365 20.953 16.84 18 0.0003 1,2,3,6,7,27,29
DAPC11S 0.0460 84 18 7.01 158.4 27.9072 10 19.952 8.203 14.885 1.7839 21.512 17.555 17 0.0003 1,2,3,6,7,27,29
DAPC12S 0.0100 16 18 7.39 34.08 11.6124 10 4.13844 1.379481 0.16 0.3 6.72 0.32 11 0.0003 1,2,3,6,7,27,28
DAPC13S 0.0137 151 18 7.76 75.648 12.5801 10 36.7872 14.39533 10.786 1.4 62.018 19.684 44 0.0003 1,2,3,6,7,27,28
DAPC14S 0.0053 96 18 8.1 108.48 27.0956 10 22.0888 9.939946 6.8571 1.4 19.911 4.2667 91 0.0003 1,2,3,6,7,27,28
DAPC15S 0.0137 26 18 7.24 73.344 24.1925 10 7.37925 1.844812 0.26 0.3 11.624 2.6 4 0.0003 1,2,3,6,7,27,28
DAPC16S 0.0564 84 18 7.08 81.312 12.5801 10 20.4644 8.008 6 1.4 34.5 10.95 13 0.0003 1,2,3,6,7,27,28
DAPC17S 0.0633 92 18 7.22 176.64 20.3217 10 22.4134 8.770667 6.5714 1.4 37.786 11.993 19 0.0003 1,2,3,6,7,27,28
DAPC18S 0.0056 47 18 8.03 8.928 2.728 10 13.8137 3.047151 1.33 0.57 3.47 1.23 42.5 0.0003 1,2,3,6,7,15,26
DAPC19S 0.0119 97 18 8.03 17.088 2.728 10 34 2.9 1.3 0.57 51.3 1.2 42.5 0.0003 1,2,3,6,7,15,30
DAPC20S 0.0160 147 18 8.03 22.752 2.728 10 54 2.9 1.3 0.57 99.3 1.2 42.5 0.0003 1,2,3,6,7,15,30
DAPC21S 0.0168 247 18 8.03 26.208 2.728 10 94 2.9 1.3 0.57 147.3 1.2 42.5 0.0003 1,2,3,6,7,15,30
DAPC22S 0.0171 97 18 8.03 24.192 2.728 10 13.6 15.2 1.3 0.57 51.3 1.2 42.5 0.0003 1,2,3,6,7,15,30
DAPC23S 0.0155 147 18 8.03 24.096 2.728 10 13.6 27.5 1.3 0.57 99.3 1.2 42.5 0.0003 1,2,3,6,7,15,30
DAPC24S 0.0133 247 18 8.03 24.096 2.728 10 13.6 51.9 1.3 0.57 147.3 1.2 42.5 0.0003 1,2,3,6,7,15,30
SCSP01S 0.1034 52 24.5 7.5 17.28 1.1 10 15.2833 3.371316 1.47 0.57 3.84 1.36 55 0.0003 1,2,3,6,7,8
GAPS01F 0.1153 44.9 15 7.7 21.12 1.1 10 13.1965 2.911001 1.27 0.57 3.32 1.17 42.7 0.0003 1,2,3,6,7,8
GAPS02F 0.0888 44.9 15 7.7 18.24 1.1 10 13.1965 2.911001 1.27 0.57 3.32 1.17 42.7 0.0003 1,2,3,6,7,8
E-3

Hard-
HYAZ01S 0.1511 290 25 6.23 16.32 0.5 10 47.8602 41.47 89.821 7.178 278.4 6.5081 235 0.0003 1,2,3,4,5,13
HYAZ02S 0.1074 290 25 7.51 23.04 0.5 10 47.8602 41.47 89.821 7.178 278.4 6.5081 235 0.0003 1,2,3,4,5,13
HYAZ03S 0.2392 290 25 8.38 83.52 0.5 10 47.8602 41.47 89.821 7.178 278.4 6.5081 235 0.0003 1,2,3,4,5,13
HYAZ04S 0.0794 20.5 21 7.15 23.328 2.8 10 5.1 1.9 5.3 0.8 9.3 10.0 6.7 0.0003 3,31
HYAZ05S 0.0768 20.5 21 7.15 22.848 2.8 10 5.1 1.9 5.3 0.8 9.3 10.0 6.7 0.0003 3,31
HYAZ06S 0.2314 20.6 21 7.14 7.872 0.5 10 5.3 1.8 5.5 0.8 7.0 9.7 11.0 0.0003 3,31
HYAZ07S 0.3312 20.6 21 7.14 9.6 0.5 10 5.3 1.8 5.5 0.8 7.0 9.7 11.0 0.0003 3,31
ACLY01S 29.5658 42 18.5 7.0 7968 1.1 10 12.3442 2.722986 1.3 0.57 3.4 1.2 47 0.0003 1,2,3,6,7,8
CHDE01S 25.2731 44 20 7.40 709.44 0.5 10 6.99 6.06 13.1 1.05 40.7 0.951 32.5 0.0003 1,2,3,4,32,33
SCPL01S 2.9865 167 22 7.6 153.6 0.5 10 27.5609 23.881 51.724 4.1335 160.32 3.7478 115 0.0003 1,2,3,4,6,7,20
ONAP01S 0.9139 169 12 8 67.2 0.5 10 27.891 24.167 52.344 4.183 162.24 3.7927 117 0.0003 1,2,3,4,6,7,20
ONCL01S 1.0007 169 12 8.1 76.8 0.5 10 27.891 24.167 52.344 4.183 162.24 3.7927 117 0.0003 1,2,3,4,6,7,20
ONCL02S 0.5538 169 12 8.25 57.6 0.5 10 27.891 24.167 52.344 4.183 162.24 3.7927 117 0.0003 1,2,3,4,6,7,20
ONCL03F 2.8512 205 13.7 7.73 367 3.3 10 49.8 19.6 4 0.64 10 0.44 178 0.0003 1,2,6,7,34
ONCL04F 1.5731 69.9 13.7 8.54 186 1.5 10 18.4 5.8 1.405 0.2248 3.5126 0.1546 174 0.0003 1,2,6,7,35
ONCL05F 0.4400 18 13.7 8.07 36.8 0.75 10 4.8 1.5 0.3618 0.0579 0.9045 0.0398 183 0.0003 1,2,6,7,35
ONCL06F 1.9714 204 13.7 7.61 232 3.3 10 64.7 10.3 4.1005 0.6561 10.251 0.4511 77.9 0.0003 1,2,6,7,35
ONCL07F 5.2514 83 13.7 7.4 162 1.7 10 20.4 7.8 1.6683 0.2669 4.1709 0.1835 70 0.0003 1,2,6,7,35
ONCL08F 1.2778 31.4 13.7 8.32 73.6 0.94 10 7.9 2.7 0.6312 0.101 1.5779 0.0694 78.3 0.0003 1,2,6,7,35
ONCL09F 0.3591 160 13.7 7.53 91 2.8 10 57.5 4.0 3.2161 0.5146 8.0402 0.3538 26.0 0.0003 1,2,6,7,35
ONCL10F 0.3318 74.3 13.7 7.57 44.4 1.5 10 24.7 3.1 1.4935 0.239 3.7337 0.1643 22.7 0.0003 1,2,6,7,35
ONCL11F 0.1192 26.4 13.7 7.64 15.7 0.87 10 6.0 2.8 0.5307 0.0849 1.3266 0.0584 20.1 0.0003 1,2,6,7,35
ONGO01F 1.3932 83.1 7.15 7.63 137.28 2.58 10 22.3428 6.313221 10.259 7.5024 25.1 9.994 62.5 0.0003 1,2,3,6,7,52
ONGO02F 0.3615 83.1 7.15 7.63 83.52 2.58 10 22.3428 6.313221 10.259 7.5024 25.1 9.994 62.5 0.0003 1,2,3,6,7,52
ONGO03F 3.5018 83.1 7.15 7.63 191.04 2.58 10 22.3428 6.313221 10.259 7.5024 25.1 9.994 62.5 0.0003 1,2,3,6,7,52
ONKI01R 4.9807 33 13.5 7.29 157.44 2.496 10 8.77741 2.698479 7.3188 1.15 6.1426 6.8124 29 0.0003 1,2,3,6,7,27,36
ONKI02F 0.4054 25 12 7.30 31.68 1.3 10 6.8 1.8 5.0 0.6 4.2 6 24 0.0003 3,37
ONKI03F 0.9203 20 9.4 7.29 44.16 1.3 10 5.7845 1.6889 4.4589 0.7 2.589 5.3402 22 0.0003 1,2,3,6,7,10,38
ONKI04F 0.1617 31.1 13.3 7.30 49 3.2 10 8.01999 2.695987 5.12 0.653 4 4.5 29.6 0.0003 1,2,6,7,39
ONKI05F 0.1736 31.1 13.3 7.30 51 3.2 10 8.01999 2.695987 5.12 0.653 4 4.5 29.6 0.0003 1,2,6,7,39
ONKI06F 0.1461 31.6 15.7 7.50 58 3.2 10 8.14893 2.739331 5.12 0.653 3.5 4.2 30.4 0.0003 1,2,6,7,39
ONKI07F 0.4829 31 15.3 7.20 78 3.2 10 7.99421 2.687318 5.12 0.653 2.3 3.1 29.7 0.0003 1,2,6,7,39
ONMY01S 1.3925 169 12 8.2 105.6 0.5 10 27.891 24.167 52.344 4.183 162.24 3.7927 117 0.0003 1,2,3,4,6,7,20
ONMY02S 0.5765 169 12 7.95 48 0.5 10 27.891 24.167 52.344 4.183 162.24 3.7927 117 0.0003 1,2,3,4,6,7,20
E-4

Hard-
ONMY03S 0.7648 169 12 7.95 57.6 0.5 10 27.891 24.167 52.344 4.183 162.24 3.7927 117 0.0003 1,2,3,4,6,7,20
ONMY04R 0.1249 44.1 11.5 7.7 40 2 10 9.07 4.1 4.75 1.02 3.3 1.56 49.7 0.0003 40
ONMY05R 0.0917 44.6 11.5 7.8 19 0.99 10 7.37 6.1 6.24 0.8 1.31 3.82 53.1 0.0003 40
ONMY06R 0.0376 38.7 12 7.62 3.4 0.33 10 2.37 8.65 13.7 0.15 0.36 20.3 40 0.0003 51
ONMY07R 0.1465 39.3 12 7.61 8.1 0.36 10 14.1 1.8 13.2 0.1 0.36 19.9 41.7 0.0003 51
ONMY08R 0.1881 89.5 12 8.21 17.2 0.345 10 15 11.85 10.05 1 0.36 6.73 97.5 0.0003 51
ONMY09R 0.5172 89.67 12 8.15 32 0.345 10 28.9 3.15 32.5 0.5 0.36 45.2 97.25 0.0003 51
ONMY10F 0.3824 23 12.2 7.1 26.88 1.4 10 6.1 1.8 4.4 0.4 5.8 6 22 0.0003 3,37
ONMY11F 0.1589 23 12.2 7.1 16.32 1.4 10 6.1 1.8 4.4 0.4 5.8 6 22 0.0003 3,37
ONMY12F 0.1059 23 12.2 7.4 17.28 1.3 10 6.8 1.8 5.0 0.6 4.2 6 22 0.0003 3,37
ONMY13F 0.4633 23 12.2 7.1 27.84 1.3 10 6.8 1.8 5.0 0.6 4.2 6 22 0.0003 3,37
ONMY14F 0.4998 194 12.8 7.84 169 3.3 10 55.1 13.7 4 0.64 10 0.44 174 0.0003 1,2,6,7,34
ONMY15F 0.1118 194 12.8 7.84 85.3 3.3 10 55.1 13.7 4 0.64 10 0.44 174 0.0003 1,2,6,7,34
ONMY16F 0.1069 194 12.8 7.84 83.3 3.3 10 55.1 13.7 4 0.64 10 0.44 174 0.0003 1,2,6,7,34
ONMY17F 0.1627 194 12.8 7.84 103 3.3 10 55.1 13.7 4 0.64 10 0.44 174 0.0003 1,2,6,7,34
ONMY18F 1.5525 194 12.8 7.84 274 3.3 10 55.1 13.7 4 0.64 10 0.44 174 0.0003 1,2,6,7,34
ONMY19F 0.2605 194 12.8 7.84 128 3.3 10 55.1 13.7 4 0.64 10 0.44 174 0.0003 1,2,6,7,34
ONMY20F 0.9538 194 12.8 7.84 221 3.3 10 55.1 13.7 4 0.64 10 0.44 174 0.0003 1,2,6,7,34
ONMY21F 0.4717 194 12.8 7.84 165 3.3 10 55.1 13.7 4 0.64 10 0.44 174 0.0003 1,2,6,7,34
ONMY22F 0.7244 194 12.8 7.84 197 3.3 10 55.1 13.7 4 0.64 10 0.44 174 0.0003 1,2,6,7,34
ONMY23F 4.6605 194 12.8 7.84 514 3.3 10 55.1 13.7 4 0.64 10 0.44 174 0.0003 1,2,6,7,34
ONMY24F 1.1894 194 12.8 7.84 243 3.3 10 55.1 13.7 4 0.64 10 0.44 174 0.0003 1,2,6,7,34
ONMY25F 0.0613 9.2 15.5 6.96 2.688 0.5 10 2.3 0.7 2 0.2 4.6 2.1 11 0.0003 3,41
ONMY26F 0.3626 31 15.3 7.2 68 3.2 10 7.99421 2.687318 5.12 0.653 2.3 3.1 29.7 0.0003 1,2,6,7,39
ONMY27F 0.0770 36.1 11.4 7.6 18 1.31 10 4.03 7.13 1.56 0.26 1.49 0.88 36.6 0.0003 40
ONMY28F 0.8944 36.2 11.5 6.1 12 1.36 10 3.93 7.27 1.57 0.28 1.47 0.87 8.5 0.0003 40
ONMY29F 0.5568 20.4 11.7 7.5 5.7 0.15 10 3.13 2.77 2.62 0.25 0.36 1.48 23 0.0003 40
ONMY30F 0.2504 45.2 11.7 7.7 35 1.23 10 9.7 4.43 5.33 0.97 3.41 1.47 50 0.0003 40
ONMY31F 1.1775 45.4 11.8 6.3 18 1.22 10 9.7 4.43 5.02 0.98 3.37 1.37 10.9 0.0003 40
ONMY32F 0.5318 41.9 12.3 7.9 17 0.33 10 6.6 5.97 5.89 0.63 1.11 3.37 48.3 0.0003 40
ONMY33F 1.2884 214 7.64 7.94 96.96 0.27 10 49.4 24.1 10.3 1.75 18.9 5.28 198 0.0003 1,2,3,6,7,54,55
ONMY34F 3.8957 220 7.74 7.92 295.68 0.36 10 51.2 25.5 8.36 2.1 24 4.64 197 0.0003 1,2,3,6,7,54,55
ONMY35F 4.4437 105 7.77 7.82 89.28 0.1 10 23.1 11.8 3.54 3.22 17.1 2.91 94.1 0.0003 1,2,3,6,7,54,55
ONMY36F 1.9096 98.2 8.49 7.89 34.464 0.045 10 22.3 11.2 3.58 0.9 11.5 2.85 87.9 0.0003 1,2,3,6,7,54,55
E-5

Hard-
ONMY37F 1.7297 104 16.3 7.83 52.224 0.28 10 22.4 11.4 3.76 2.72 12.4 3.01 97.6 0.0003 1,2,3,6,7,54,55
ONNE01F 3.1060 83.1 7.15 7.63 182.4 2.58 10 22.3428 6.313221 10.259 7.5024 25.1 9.994 62.5 0.0003 1,2,3,6,7,52
ONNE02F 3.5466 83.1 7.15 7.63 192 2.58 10 22.3428 6.313221 10.259 7.5024 25.1 9.994 62.5 0.0003 1,2,3,6,7,52
ONNE03F 0.5132 83.1 7.15 7.63 96 2.58 10 22.3428 6.313221 10.259 7.5024 25.1 9.994 62.5 0.0003 1,2,3,6,7,52
ONNE04F 0.6617 83.1 7.15 7.63 105.6 2.58 10 22.3428 6.313221 10.259 7.5024 25.1 9.994 62.5 0.0003 1,2,3,6,7,52
ONNE05F 1.0574 83.1 7.15 7.63 124.8 2.58 10 22.3428 6.313221 10.259 7.5024 25.1 9.994 62.5 0.0003 1,2,3,6,7,52
ONNE06F 1.6007 83.1 7.15 7.63 144 2.58 10 22.3428 6.313221 10.259 7.5024 25.1 9.994 62.5 0.0003 1,2,3,6,7,52
ONNE07F 4.0021 83.1 7.15 7.63 201.6 2.58 10 22.3428 6.313221 10.259 7.5024 25.1 9.994 62.5 0.0003 1,2,3,6,7,52
ONNE08F 2.2920 83.1 7.15 7.63 163.2 2.58 10 22.3428 6.313221 10.259 7.5024 25.1 9.994 62.5 0.0003 1,2,3,6,7,52
ONNE09F 3.1060 83.1 7.15 7.63 182.4 2.58 10 22.3428 6.313221 10.259 7.5024 25.1 9.994 62.5 0.0003 1,2,3,6,7,52
ONNE10F 5.4103 83.1 7.15 7.63 230.4 2.58 10 22.3428 6.313221 10.259 7.5024 25.1 9.994 62.5 0.0003 1,2,3,6,7,52
ONTS01F 0.2050 23 12.2 7.4 24.96 1.3 10 6.8 1.8 5.0 0.6 4.2 6 22 0.0003 3,37
ONTS02F 0.1161 23 12.2 7.4 18.24 1.3 10 6.8 1.8 5.0 0.6 4.2 6 22 0.0003 3,37
ONTS03F 0.7109 23 12.2 7.1 36.48 1.4 10 6.1 1.8 4.4 0.4 5.8 6 22 0.0003 3,37
ONTS04F 0.3750 23 12.2 7.1 24.96 1.3 10 6.8 1.8 5.0 0.6 4.2 6 22 0.0003 3,37
ONTS05F 0.3517 13 12 7.15 9.792 0.5 10 2.14546 1.859 4.0264 0.3218 12.48 0.2917 12 0.0003 1,2,3,4,6,7,20
ONTS06F 0.8340 46 12 7.55 23.136 0.5 10 7.59162 6.578 14.247 1.1386 44.159 1.0323 35 0.0003 1,2,3,4,6,7,20
ONTS07F 0.9241 182 12 8.12 79.2 0.5 10 30.0364 26.026 56.37 4.5048 174.72 4.0844 125 0.0003 1,2,3,4,6,7,20
ONTS08F 0.3954 359 12 8.49 123.264 0.5 10 59.2477 51.337 111.19 8.8858 344.64 8.0566 243 0.0003 1,2,3,4,6,7,20
ONTS09F 1.1161 36.6 12 7.71 7.4 0.055 10 6.36 4.73 4.84 0.22 0.94 2.79 40.8 0.0003 51
ONTS10F 0.8313 34.6 12 7.79 12.5 0.19 10 7.82 3.17 9.98 0.11 0.73 8.34 40.6 0.0003 51
ONTS11F 0.8622 38.3 12 7.71 14.3 0.24 10 6.33 5.1 5.27 0.6 0.99 2.96 43.6 0.0003 51
ONTS12F 1.7785 35.7 12 7.74 18.3 0.17 10 8.15 3.38 10 0.37 0.76 9.1 43.3 0.0003 51
SACO01F 2.9901 214 7.64 7.94 218.88 0.27 10 49.4 24.1 10.3 1.75 18.9 5.28 198 0.0003 1,2,3,6,7,54,55
SACO02F 2.6420 220 7.74 7.92 198.72 0.36 10 51.2 25.5 8.36 2.1 24 4.64 197 0.0003 1,2,3,6,7,54,55
SACO03F 3.2456 105 7.77 7.82 63.936 0.1 10 23.1 11.8 3.54 3.22 17.1 2.91 94.1 0.0003 1,2,3,6,7,54,55
SACO04F 2.6405 98.2 8.49 7.89 48 0.045 10 22.3 11.2 3.58 0.9 11.5 2.85 87.9 0.0003 1,2,3,6,7,54,55
SACO05F 3.0680 104 16.3 7.83 85.44 0.28 10 22.4 11.4 3.76 2.72 12.4 3.01 97.6 0.0003 1,2,3,6,7,54,55
ACAL01F 9.7513 54 10.5 7.3 137.28 1.1 10 15.0937 3.6371 6.8831 0.7 12.163 9.6854 43 0.0003 1,2,3,6,7,9,10
GIEL01S 2.6186 173 22 8.05 192 0.5 10 28.5511 24.739 53.583 4.282 166.08 3.8824 117 0.0003 1,2,3,6,7,20
NOCR01F 29.9790 72.2 25 7.50 81216 1.5 10 17.8079 6.7507 15.26 1.6 73.841 54.15 42.5 0.0003 2,3,6,7,16,42
PIPR01S 11.3981 103 22 7.4 297.6 0.5 10 28.4667 7.773195 27.778 2.6358 29.602 53.021 65 0.0003 1,2,3,4,6,48
PIPR02S 4.9570 103 22 7.4 115.2 0.5 10 28.4667 7.773195 27.778 2.6358 29.602 53.021 65 0.0003 1,2,3,4,6,48
PIPR03S 9.4256 263 22 7.4 374.4 0.5 10 72.6868 19.84806 36.487 3.4623 77.901 130.77 65 0.0003 1,2,3,4,6,48
E-6

Hard-
PIPR04S 1.2005 52 24.5 7.4 52.8 1.1 10 15.2833 3.371316 1.47 0.57 3.84 1.36 55 0.0003 1,2,3,6,7,8
PIPR05S 3.0479 52 24.5 7.4 81.6 1.1 10 15.2833 3.371316 1.47 0.57 3.84 1.36 55 0.0003 1,2,3,6,7,8
PIPR06S 0.1314 290 25 6.27 14.4 0.5 10 47.8602 41.47 89.821 7.178 278.4 6.5081 235 0.0003 1,2,3,4,5
PIPR07S 0.3064 290 25 7.14 42.24 0.5 10 47.8602 41.47 89.821 7.178 278.4 6.5081 235 0.0003 1,2,3,4,5
PIPR08S 0.5392 290 25 8.6 192 0.5 10 47.8602 41.47 89.821 7.178 278.4 6.5081 235 0.0003 1,2,3,4,5
PIPR09S 0.0890 19 22 7.06 4.6272 0.6 10 4.9 1.64 3.7 0.78 9.6 5.8 11.17 0.0003 3,49
PIPR10S 0.2665 19.5 22 7.25 7.872 0.4 10 5.2 1.64 5.36 0.79 2.45 8.6 12.7 0.0003 3,49
PIPR11S 0.5716 16.5 22 6.36 30.3072 3.3 10 4.1 1.54 2.82 0.76 9.4 4.7 8.46 0.0003 3,49
PIPR12S 0.2950 17 22 6.42 20.2176 3.1 10 4.2 1.56 2.74 0.74 7.4 4.6 3.4 0.0003 3,49
PIPR13S 0.4162 19 22 6.38 34.5312 4.3 10 5 1.62 7.04 0.72 10.2 12.2 7.83 0.0003 3,49
PIPR14S 0.2640 17 22 7.15 57.4368 3.4 10 4.2 1.54 2.9 1 7.4 4.7 8.74 0.0003 3,49
PIPR15S 0.0477 17 22 7.16 4.6368 0.8 10 4.5 1.46 2.68 0.78 10.9 3.8 9.3 0.0003 3,49
PIPR16S 0.1770 17.5 22 7.13 67.4688 5.1 10 4.6 1.48 2.62 0.77 10.5 3.5 8.95 0.0003 3,49
PIPR17S 0.0787 18.5 22 7.06 80.2464 10.5 10 5 1.54 2.64 0.8 10.7 3.5 8.29 0.0003 3,49
PIPR18S 0.1907 18.5 22 6.90 174.72 15.6 10 4.9 1.5 3.54 0.99 7 5.2 9.52 0.0003 3,49
PIPR19S 3.2305 173 22 8.25 278.4 0.5 10 28.5511 24.739 53.583 4.282 166.08 3.8824 117 0.0003 1,2,3,4,6,7,20
PIPR20S 7.4512 173 22 8.1 604.8 0.5 10 28.5511 24.739 53.583 4.282 166.08 3.8824 117 0.0003 1,2,3,4,6,7,20
PIPR21S 4.8297 173 22 8.15 384 0.5 10 28.5511 24.739 53.583 4.282 166.08 3.8824 117 0.0003 1,2,3,4,6,7,20
PIPR22S 7.6122 173 22 7.3 374.4 0.5 10 28.5511 24.739 53.583 4.282 166.08 3.8824 117 0.0003 1,2,3,4,6,7,20
PIPR23S 7.2327 166 5 8.05 432 0.5 10 27.3959 23.738 51.415 4.1088 159.36 3.7253 132.5 0.0003 1,2,3,4,6,7,20
PIPR24S 3.4469 159 12 8.35 285.12 0.5 10 26.2406 22.737 49.247 3.9355 152.64 3.5682 135 0.0003 1,2,3,4,6,7,20
PIPR25S 2.8678 168 22 8.3 298.56 0.5 10 27.7259 24.024 52.034 4.1583 161.28 3.7702 142.5 0.0003 1,2,3,4,6,7,20
PIPR26S 3.3686 167 32 8.45 492.48 0.5 10 27.5609 23.881 51.724 4.1335 160.32 3.7478 140 0.0003 1,2,3,4,6,7,20
PIPR27S 0.5950 45.54059 22 7.93 53.958366 1.1 10 13.4911 2.888065 1.6093 0.391 3.362 1.4181 42.037464 0.0003 43,44
PIPR28S 4.0104 45.54059 22 7.93 165.17867 1.1 10 13.4911 2.888065 91.27 0.391 3.362 143.23 42.037464 0.0003 43,44
PIPR29S 0.7241 44.53969 22 7.98 59.464322 1.1 10 13.1946 2.824591 1.6093 0.391 3.362 1.4181 42.037464 0.0003 43,44
PIPR30S 4.0805 44.53969 22 7.98 146.45842 1.1 10 13.1946 2.824591 45.98 0.391 3.362 72.324 44.039248 0.0003 43,44
PIPR31S 1.8188 44.53969 22 7.99 82.038741 1.1 10 13.1946 2.824591 1.6093 0.391 3.362 1.4181 42.53791 0.0003 43,44
PIPR32S 4.9213 45.54059 22 7.96 124.4346 1.1 10 13.4911 2.888065 1.6093 0.391 3.362 36.871 43.038356 0.0003 43,44
PIPR33S 3.9367 45.04014 22 7.79 103.759 1.1 10 13.3428 2.856328 1.6093 0.391 3.362 1.4181 46.041032 0.0003 43,44
PIPR34S 5.7875 45.04014 22 7.81 167.3225 1.1 10 13.3428 2.856328 47.589 0.391 99.42 1.4181 46.041032 0.0003 43,44
PIPR35S 3.2914 138.1231 22 7.785 120.015 1.1 10 12.892 25.75825 1.6093 0.391 3.362 72.324 43.038356 0.0003 43,44
PIPR36S 5.7959 151.1347 22 7.78 169.418 1.1 10 14.1065 28.18476 1.6093 0.391 99.42 1.4181 43.038356 0.0003 43,44
PIPR37S 3.4870 138.1231 22 8.02 268.224 1.1 10 12.892 25.75825 1.6093 0.391 3.362 1.4181 149.13291 0.0003 43,44
E-7

Hard-
PIPR38S 9.2068 139.124 22 7.775 242.443 1.1 10 51.1778 2.779812 1.6093 0.391 99.42 1.4181 43.038356 0.0003 43,44
PIPR39S 4.7038 47.04192 22 7.78 113.3475 1.1 10 13.4268 4.010325 1.6093 0.391 3.362 1.4181 43.038356 0.0003 43,44
PIPR40S 3.1754 37.033 22 7.785 77.8764 0.88 10 11.022 3.281175 2.9887 0.391 3.362 1.4181 43.038356 0.0003 43,45
PIPR41S 5.3335 60.05352 22 7.795 128.016 1.1 10 15.2304 5.954725 1.6093 0.391 17.771 1.4181 43.038356 0.0003 43,44
PIPR42S 6.4718 76.06779 22 7.8 151.13 1.1 10 18.8376 7.413025 1.6093 0.391 32.179 1.7727 42.037464 0.0003 43,44
PIPR43S 6.4642 103.0919 22 7.805 166.624 1.1 10 25.05 10.2081 2.0691 0.391 60.036 1.7727 43.038356 0.0003 43,44
PIPR44S 7.0015 103.0919 22 7.78 163.83 1.1 10 32.064 4.010325 1.8392 0.391 58.115 1.7727 40.03568 0.0003 43,44
PIPR45S 5.9820 107.0954 22 7.79 157.48 1.1 10 18.2364 15.43368 1.6093 0.391 61.957 1.7727 43.038356 0.0003 43,44
PIPR46S 7.4331 134.1195 22 7.8 199.7075 1.1 10 32.2644 13.00318 1.6093 0.391 88.854 1.7727 43.038356 0.0003 43,44
PIPR47S 6.0725 45.04014 22 7.815 128.524 1.1 10 14.028 2.18745 1.3794 0.391 3.362 1.0636 41.036572 0.0003 43,44
PIPR48S 7.2713 46.04103 22 7.82 150.876 1.1 10 14.028 2.18745 6.2072 1.5639 5.7635 7.0906 42.037464 0.0003 43,44
PIPR49S 5.4175 45.04014 22 7.82 131.064 1.1 10 14.028 2.18745 15.173 1.5639 10.566 15.245 41.036572 0.0003 43,44
PIPR50S 6.2395 45.04014 22 7.81 160.2105 1.1 10 14.2284 2.18745 35.174 1.5639 21.613 36.162 41.036572 0.0003 43,44
PIPR51S 6.2194 44.03925 22 7.82 182.88 1.1 10 15.03 2.18745 62.992 1.5639 40.825 70.906 40.03568 0.0003 43,44
PIPR52S 4.9667 45.04014 22 7.81 180.848 1.1 10 14.4288 2.18745 101.39 1.9549 59.076 107.78 41.036572 0.0003 43,44
PIPR53S 6.1183 46.04103 22 7.81 176.784 1.1 10 14.2284 2.18745 57.015 19.158 40.825 71.97 42.037464 0.0003 43,44
PIPR54S 5.7931 189.1686 22 7.82 188.9125 1.1 10 55.11 15.79825 1.6093 0.782 152.25 1.0636 42.037464 0.0003 43,44
PIPR55S 5.2814 46.04103 22 7.865 125.603 1.1 10 14.6292 3.15965 1.3794 0.391 3.362 1.0636 42.037464 0.0003 43,44
PIPR56S 3.8765 75.0669 22 7.87 117.348 1.1 10 24.4488 5.954725 1.3794 0.391 30.739 1.0636 41.036572 0.0003 43,44
PIPR57S 3.7460 46.04103 22 7.865 114.554 1.1 10 14.4288 3.15965 19.771 0.391 12.488 18.436 41.036572 0.0003 43,44
PIPR58S 3.8963 74.06601 22 7.85 126.492 1.1 10 24.4488 6.07625 18.392 0.391 38.903 18.436 42.037464 0.0003 43,44
PIPR59S 5.1820 133.1186 22 7.85 172.72 1.1 10 41.082 11.6664 18.392 0.391 98.94 18.436 42.037464 0.0003 43,44
PIPR60S 5.0050 76.06779 22 7.85 167.3225 1.1 10 24.048 6.07625 47.589 0.782 58.115 52.116 43.038356 0.0003 43,44
PIPR61S 6.3379 134.1195 22 7.84 226.695 1.1 10 40.8816 11.6664 49.198 0.782 118.63 51.052 43.038356 0.0003 43,44
PIPR62S 6.5522 52.04638 22 7.96 84.201 0.3 10 12.024 4.13185 1.6093 0.391 10.566 1.7727 42.037464 0.0003 43,46
PIPR63S 7.7846 51.04549 22 7.96 97.79 0.3 10 11.2224 3.8888 2.7588 0.782 10.566 3.5453 41.036572 0.0003 43,46
PIPR64S 5.4254 50.0446 22 7.945 70.0786 0.3 10 11.022 3.767275 5.9773 1.5639 12.007 8.1542 41.036572 0.0003 43,46
PIPR65S 5.7632 51.04549 22 7.965 81.5848 0.3 10 11.2224 3.8888 11.955 2.3459 15.369 15.245 42.037464 0.0003 43,46
PIPR66S 5.0152 51.04549 22 7.96 77.4319 0.3 10 11.2224 3.767275 23.22 3.1279 21.613 30.135 41.036572 0.0003 43,46
PIPR67S 5.9195 53.04728 22 7.97 110.871 0.3 10 11.2224 3.767275 46.899 4.6918 33.62 59.207 41.537018 0.0003 43,46
PIPR68S 5.4017 53.04728 22 7.96 151.892 0.3 10 11.6232 3.8888 117.94 7.0377 68.201 141.81 42.037464 0.0003 43,46
PIPR69S 4.1225 52.04638 22 7.94 175.26 0.3 10 11.4228 3.767275 236.79 10.948 128.24 279.72 43.038356 0.0003 43,46
PIPR70S 6.6575 47.04192 25 7.82 145.288 1.1 10 13.9359 2.983276 1.6093 0.391 3.362 1.4181 42.53791 0.0003 43,44
PIPR71S 4.6725 47.04192 20 7.82 111.76 1.1 10 13.9359 2.983276 1.6093 0.391 3.362 1.4181 43.038356 0.0003 43,44
E-8

Hard-
PIPR72S 2.3613 47.04192 15 7.82 79.1845 1.1 10 13.9359 2.983276 1.6093 0.391 3.362 1.4181 42.53791 0.0003 43,44
PIPR73S 1.1782 47.04192 10 7.82 60.0075 1.1 10 13.9359 2.983276 1.6093 0.391 3.362 1.4181 42.53791 0.0003 43,44
PIPR74S 7.6860 140.1249 22 8.03 370.078 0.3 10 29.058 12.03098 25.059 4.3008 60.036 25.881 98.087416 0.0003 43,46
PIPR75S 10.9585 88.0785 22 7.965 292.1 0.3 10 19.038 7.04845 14.943 2.7369 37.943 17.017 63.056196 0.0003 43,46
PIPR76S 7.9470 59.05263 22 7.89 101.473 0.3 10 12.024 4.61795 9.1959 0.782 23.054 9.9268 39.034788 0.0003 43,46
PIPR77S 6.9448 41.03657 22 7.825 62.5094 0.3 10 8.2164 3.038125 7.5866 2.7369 13.928 6.3815 29.025868 0.0003 43,46
PIPR78S 5.9976 27.02408 22 7.745 42.0624 0.3 10 5.6112 1.822875 4.598 2.3459 8.6452 4.2544 23.020516 0.0003 43,46
PIPR79S 9.0570 43.03836 22 7.885 172.466 1.1 10 10.4208 2.67355 1.6093 0.782 2.8817 1.4181 42.037464 0.0003 43,44
PIPR80S 0.7034 25.0223 22 7.565 12.4333 0.3 10 6.68596 2.02764 3.4485 1.1729 4.3226 4.9634 16.014272 0.0003 43,46
PIPR81S 7.0672 107.0954 22 8.105 271.272 0.3 10 28.6924 8.631893 14.254 1.9549 19.212 16.308 80.07136 0.0003 43,46
PIPR82S 4.9660 87.0776 22 7.055 71.12 0.3 10 23.3293 7.018455 13.564 1.9549 19.212 15.954 58.051736 0.0003 43,46
PIPR83S 5.1028 85.07582 22 7.33 79.629 0.3 10 22.793 6.857111 13.794 1.9549 19.212 15.954 58.051736 0.0003 43,46
PIPR84S 5.4229 88.0785 22 7.605 99.53625 0.3 10 23.5975 7.099127 13.564 1.9549 19.212 15.954 59.052628 0.0003 43,46
PIPR85S 6.5439 87.0776 22 7.745 132.715 0.3 10 23.3293 7.018455 14.484 1.9549 18.731 15.954 59.052628 0.0003 43,46
PIPR86S 5.4310 87.0776 22 8.07 137.16 0.3 10 23.3293 7.018455 12.644 1.9549 18.731 15.954 59.052628 0.0003 43,46
PIPR87S 5.4306 87.0776 22 8.375 182.245 0.3 10 23.3293 7.018455 13.334 1.9549 18.731 15.954 59.052628 0.0003 43,46
PIPR88S 5.7955 87.0776 22 8.73 268.9225 0.3 10 23.3293 7.018455 14.254 1.9549 18.731 14.89 59.052628 0.0003 43,46
PIPR89S 6.9862 87.0776 22 8.115 188.976 0.3 10 23.3293 7.018455 12.874 1.9549 18.731 15.954 59.052628 0.0003 43,46
PIPR90S 8.5781 251.2239 22 7.2 662.559 0.3 10 67.127 20.35751 57.475 4.6918 72.524 62.397 150.1338 0.0003 43,46
PIPR91S 9.0461 252.2248 22 7.575 904.875 0.3 10 67.3945 20.43861 57.475 4.6918 70.603 62.043 164.14629 0.0003 43,46
PIPR92S 8.7054 252.2248 22 7.915 995.68 0.3 10 67.3945 20.43861 57.475 4.6918 73.484 62.043 150.1338 0.0003 43,46
PIPR93S 6.4404 251.2239 22 8.275 891.54 0.3 10 67.127 20.35751 57.475 4.6918 73.484 62.043 143.12756 0.0003 43,46
PIPR94S 8.4348 200.1784 22 8.05 757.6185 0.3 10 53.5426 16.18781 37.243 3.5188 49.47 46.798 128.11418 0.0003 43,46
PIPR95S 8.0730 140.1249 22 7.95 404.8125 0.3 10 37.4414 11.35479 22.99 2.3459 28.817 25.172 99.088308 0.0003 43,46
PIPR96S 8.8271 90.08028 22 8.045 262.128 0.3 10 24.1338 7.260471 14.254 1.9549 18.731 15.599 65.05798 0.0003 43,46
PIPR97S 2.3840 19.01695 22 7.525 20.447 0.3 10 5.08133 1.541007 3.4485 0.782 0.9606 4.9634 19.016948 0.0003 43,46
PIPR98S 2.6680 34.03033 22 7.53 23.1648 0.3 10 9.0929 2.757591 3.4485 0.782 9.6058 4.6089 20.01784 0.0003 43,46
PIPR99S 4.5268 51.04549 22 7.54 34.9885 0.3 10 13.6394 4.136386 3.4485 0.782 16.81 4.6089 21.018732 0.0003 43,46
PIPR100S 3.5167 29.02587 22 7.585 27.94 0.3 10 7.75571 2.352063 3.4485 0.782 5.2832 4.6089 22.019624 0.0003 43,46
PIPR101S 3.1703 30.02676 22 7.605 26.67 0.3 10 8.02315 2.433168 1.3794 0.782 4.3226 2.4817 23.020516 0.0003 43,46
PIPR102S 1.9033 27.02408 22 7.55 20.32 0.3 10 7.22084 2.189852 10.345 1.1729 5.2832 13.118 20.01784 0.0003 43,46
PIPR103S 2.9068 27.02408 22 7.525 26.67 0.3 10 7.22084 2.189852 20.691 1.5639 10.566 26.59 20.01784 0.0003 43,46
PIPR104S 6.9464 90.08028 22 7.995 182.88 0.3 10 24.1338 7.260471 14.254 1.9549 19.212 15.954 63.056196 0.0003 43,46
PIPR105S 4.3303 60.05352 22 8.11 96.6724 0.3 10 16.0463 4.866337 11.955 1.5639 3.8423 17.372 58.051736 0.0003 43,46
E-9

Hard-
PIPR106S 6.1231 120.107 22 8.09 182.88 0.3 10 32.0926 9.732674 11.955 1.5639 33.62 17.372 59.052628 0.0003 43,46
PIPR107S 5.3380 180.1606 22 8.09 190.6905 0.3 10 48.1389 14.59901 11.955 1.5639 62.438 17.017 58.051736 0.0003 43,46
PIPR108S 4.7175 91.08117 22 8.125 127.0635 0.3 10 24.3369 7.380611 11.955 1.5639 19.212 15.954 59.052628 0.0003 43,46
PIPR109S 5.7327 90.08028 22 8.155 148.59 0.3 10 24.0695 7.299505 2.299 6.2557 15.85 6.027 60.05352 0.0003 43,46
PIPR110S 6.5363 93.08296 22 8.135 223.52 0.3 10 24.8718 7.542822 35.864 3.9098 27.377 49.989 62.055304 0.0003 43,46
PIPR111S 6.7795 92.08206 22 8.145 283.1465 0.3 10 24.6043 7.461717 71.728 7.4287 41.305 102.81 61.054412 0.0003 43,46
PIPR112S 5.0174 91.08117 22 8.19 150.241 0.3 10 24.402 7.341142 14.484 15.248 18.731 17.372 62.055304 0.0003 43,46
PIPR113S 6.2630 144.1284 22 8.38 644.525 0.3 10 38.5111 11.67921 34.485 3.1279 12.488 42.189 138.1231 0.0003 43,46
PIPR114S 5.5141 292.2605 22 8.27 697.5475 0.3 10 78.092 23.68284 34.485 3.1279 87.893 57.079 137.1222 0.0003 43,46
PIPR115S 5.1749 440.3925 22 8.225 752.475 0.3 10 117.673 35.68647 34.485 3.1279 175.31 41.125 133.11864 0.0003 43,46
PIPR116S 5.8459 217.1936 22 8.31 653.415 0.3 10 58.0341 17.59992 34.485 3.1279 46.588 43.253 133.11864 0.0003 43,46
PIPR117S 6.1591 218.1945 22 8.305 646.3665 0.3 10 58.3016 17.68102 6.8969 1.5639 38.903 9.5723 140.12488 0.0003 43,46
PIPR118S 5.9250 212.1891 22 8.345 939.8 0.3 10 56.6969 17.19439 103.45 7.8197 65.319 124.79 143.12756 0.0003 43,46
PIPR119S 8.2172 92.08206 22 8.125 253.365 0.3 10 24.6701 7.421814 14.254 1.9549 19.212 16.663 63.056196 0.0003 43,46
PIPR120F 0.3052 48 25 8.03 109.44 2.64 10 14.1077 3.111984 1.35 0.57 3.54 1.25 44 0.0003 1,2,3,6,7,15,26
PIPR121F 0.3617 45 25 8.04 116.16 2.64 10 13.2259 2.917485 1.27 0.57 3.33 1.17 44 0.0003 1,2,3,6,7,15,26
PIPR122F 0.1755 46 25 7.98 84.96 2.64 10 13.5198 2.982318 1.3 0.57 3.4 1.2 41 0.0003 1,2,3,6,7,15,26
PIPR123F 3.4889 30 25 6.82 418.56 10.4652 10 7.1362 2.964634 1.625 0.5 6.125 1.25 21 0.0003 1,2,3,6,7,27,28
PIPR124F 1.8656 37 25 7.28 495.36 11.3373 10 8.80131 3.656382 2.0042 0.5 7.5542 1.5417 21 0.0003 1,2,3,6,7,27,28
PIPR125F 2.8066 87 25 7.11 1522.56 31.3956 10 20.6978 8.4403 16.071 1.855 22.35 18.629 20 0.0003 1,2,3,6,7,27,29
PIPR126F 3.1774 73 25 6.94 1083.84 24.4188 10 17.2174 7.3329 10.539 1.5232 18.439 13.619 18 0.0003 1,2,3,6,7,27,29
PIPR127F 1.4538 84 25 7.07 528 14.5155 10 20.4644 8.008 6 1.4 34.5 10.95 12 0.0003 1,2,3,6,7,27,28
PIPR128F 1.0075 66 25 6.97 960.96 32.9018 10 16.0792 6.292 4.7143 1.4 27.107 8.6036 12 0.0003 1,2,3,6,7,27,28
PIPR129F 1.2809 43.9 25 7.4 88.32 2 10 12.9026 2.846168 1.24 0.57 3.24 1.14 42.4 0.0003 1,2,6,7,8,14,15
PIPR130F 0.0860 47.04192 22 8.1 27.94 1.1 10 13.9359 2.983276 1.6093 0.391 3.362 1.4181 42.53791 0.0003 43,44
PIPR131F 1.1899 243.2168 22 8.01 105.7275 1.1 10 92.7261 2.884195 47.129 0.391 3.362 143.23 43.038356 0.0003 43,44
PIPR132F 0.1230 255.7279 22 8.01 40.0558 1.1 10 14.1661 53.5752 1.6093 0.391 3.362 143.23 43.538802 0.0003 43,44
PIPR133F 0.4522 47.04192 22 8.1 64.262 1.1 10 13.9359 2.983276 47.589 0.391 3.362 72.324 43.538802 0.0003 43,44
PIPR134F 0.3833 45.04014 22 8.02 49.01565 1.1 10 13.3428 2.856328 1.6093 0.391 3.362 1.4181 43.038356 0.0003 43,44
PIPR135F 0.3216 45.04014 22 8.65 67.7164 1.1 10 13.3428 2.856328 1.6093 0.391 3.362 1.4181 47.041924 0.0003 43,44
PIPR136F 0.1834 45.54059 22 7.3 18.669 1.1 10 13.4911 2.888065 1.6093 0.391 3.362 1.4181 44.039248 0.0003 43,44
PIPR137F 0.1256 49.04371 22 6.63 6.1468 1.1 10 14.5289 3.110224 1.6093 0.391 3.362 1.4181 49.043708 0.0003 43,44
PIPR138F 0.2961 45.04014 22 7.16 20.447 1.1 10 13.3428 2.856328 1.6093 0.391 3.362 15.599 26.023192 0.0003 43,44
PIPR139F 2.8408 43.03836 22 7.93 93.36405 1.1 10 12.7498 2.72938 1.6093 0.391 3.362 1.4181 41.036572 0.0003 43,44
E-10

Hard-
PIPR140F 0.0373 45.54059 22 7.91 245.364 6.1 83.7705 13.4911 2.888065 1.6093 0.391 3.362 1.4181 44.039248 0.0003 43,47
PIPR141F 1.3667 45.04014 22 7.94 72.3392 1.1 10 13.3428 2.856328 1.6093 0.391 3.362 1.4181 43.038356 0.0003 43,44
PIPR142F 0.0310 45.04014 22 7.95 229.8065 6.1 83.7705 13.3428 2.856328 1.6093 0.391 3.362 1.4181 43.038356 0.0003 43,47
PIPR143F 0.1023 45.54059 22 7.94 195.453 3.6 72.5 13.4911 2.888065 1.6093 0.391 3.362 1.4181 44.039248 0.0003 43,47
PIPR144F 0.1038 45.04014 22 7.91 109.347 2.35 57.8723 13.3428 2.856328 1.6093 0.391 3.362 1.4181 42.037464 0.0003 43,47
PIPR145F 1.9076 44.03925 22 7.87 78.0034 1.1 10 13.0463 2.792854 1.6093 0.391 3.362 1.4181 42.037464 0.0003 43,44
PIPR146F 0.4905 44.03925 22 7.84 45.52315 1.1 10 13.0463 2.792854 1.6093 0.391 3.362 19.145 17.015164 0.0003 43,44
PIPR147F 1.3078 22.52007 22 6.01 4.3815 0.3 10 6.01736 1.824876 3.4485 0.391 3.362 4.2544 15.01338 0.0003 43,46
PIPR148F 1.5995 24.02141 22 7.02 12.4333 0.3 10 6.41852 1.946535 3.6784 0.391 3.362 4.9634 17.015164 0.0003 43,46
PIPR149F 2.4015 23.02052 22 8 26.8605 0.3 10 6.15108 1.865429 4.1382 0.782 3.362 4.9634 17.51561 0.0003 43,46
PIPR150F 2.3670 21.51918 22 9.01 51.3334 0.3 10 5.74992 1.743771 4.598 1.5639 3.362 4.9634 19.016948 0.0003 43,46
PTLU01S 4.0390 173 22 8.3 364.8 0.5 10 28.5511 24.739 53.583 4.282 166.08 3.8824 117 0.0003 1,2,3,4,6,7,20
PTLU02S 9.0637 173 22 7.25 460.8 0.5 10 28.5511 24.739 53.583 4.282 166.08 3.8824 117 0.0003 1,2,3,4,6,7,20
PTOR01F 0.2752 25 7.8 7.3 22.08 1.1 10 7.1535 1.9754 4.8154 0.7 3.997 5.9792 25 0.0003 1,2,3,6,7,9,10
PTOR02F 0.1587 54 11.5 7.3 17.28 1.1 10 15.0937 3.6371 6.8831 0.7 12.163 9.6854 43 0.0003 1,2,3,6,7,9,10
XYTE01S 2.6511 173 22 8.15 211.2 0.5 10 28.5511 24.739 53.583 4.282 166.08 3.8824 117 0.0003 1,2,3,4,6,7,20
XYTE02S 4.5011 173 22 8.05 326.4 0.5 10 28.5511 24.739 53.583 4.282 166.08 3.8824 117 0.0003 1,2,3,4,6,7,20
POAC01S 2.2126 167 22 8 153.6 0.5 10 27.5609 23.881 51.724 4.1335 160.32 3.7478 115 0.0003 1,2,3,4,6,7,20
LEMA01R 25.6628 85 20.2 7.3 2200 1.1 10 23.9 6.5 0.64 0.46 4.32 1.5 82 0.0003 50
LEMA02F 25.8381 45 20 7.5 1056 1.1 10 13.2259 2.917485 1.3 0.57 3.4 1.2 43 0.0003 1,2,3,6,7,8
LEMA03F 27.6113 25.9 19 7.03 960 1.5 10 6.38814 2.42165 5.4743 1.6 26.489 19.425 27.1 0.0003 1,2,3,6,7,16
LEMA04F 22.5658 85 21.85 7.45 1300 1.1 10 23.9 6.5 0.64 0.46 4.32 1.5 82 0.0003 50
ETFL01S 5.5744 170 20 7.8 316.8 0.5 10 27.9 24.2 52.5 4.2 163 3.80 115 0.0003 1,3,4,22
ETFL02S 5.7421 170 20 7.8 327.36 0.5 10 27.9 24.2 52.5 4.2 163 3.80 115 0.0003 1,3,4,22
ETFL03S 5.8278 170 20 7.9 358.08 0.5 10 27.9 24.2 52.5 4.2 163 3.80 115 0.0003 1,3,4,22
ETFL04S 6.4920 170 20 7.8 376.32 0.5 10 27.9 24.2 52.5 4.2 163 3.80 115 0.0003 1,3,4,22
ETLE01S 3.7314 167 22 8 249.6 0.5 10 27.5609 23.881 51.724 4.1335 160.32 3.7478 115 0.0003 1,2,3,4,6,7,20
ETNI01S 7.8536 170 20 7.8 473.28 0.5 10 27.9 24.2 52.5 4.2 163 3.80 115 0.0003 1,3,4,22
ETNI02S 7.7256 170 20 7.8 463.68 0.5 10 27.9 24.2 52.5 4.2 163 3.80 115 0.0003 1,3,4,22
ETNI03S 9.1617 170 20 7.8 577.92 0.5 10 27.9 24.2 52.5 4.2 163 3.80 115 0.0003 1,3,4,22
ETNI04S 8.5329 170 20 7.8 526.08 0.5 10 27.9 24.2 52.5 4.2 163 3.80 115 0.0003 1,3,4,22
ETRU01S 0.4735 167 22 8.2 57.6 0.5 10 27.5609 23.881 51.724 4.1335 160.32 3.7478 115 0.0003 1,2,3,4,6,7,20
BUBO01S 1.7185 167 22 7.9 115.2 0.5 10 27.5609 23.881 51.724 4.1335 160.32 3.7478 115 0.0003 1,2,3,4,6,7,20
Appendix updated as of March 2, 2007

E-11
Append ix F. Reg ression Plots
Appendix F. Analyses of Chronic Data
The following pages contain figures and other information related to the regression and probability distribution analyses that were performed to calculate
chronic EC20s. The initial parameter estimates are shown in the tables below. In the figures that follow, circles denote measured responses and solid lines
denote estimated regression lines.
Probability Distribution Analysis
Species Study Test Endpoint Final Estimates

Standard
Control Value EC50 EC20 EC10
Deviation
Snail, Arthur and Leonard 1970 LC Survival 0.925 14.50 0.192 8.73 7.01
Snail, Arthur and Leonard 1970 LC Survival 0.875 11.80 0.339 10.94 9.16
Cladoceran, Winner 1985 LC Survival 1.00 4.57 0.260 2.83 2.24
Daphnia pulex
Cladoceran, Winner 1985 LC Survival 0.900 11.3 0.111 9.16 8.28
Daphnia pulex
Caddisfly, Nebeker et al. 1984b LC Emergence (adult 0.750 20.0 0.300 7.67 5.63
Clistoronia magnifica 1st gen)
Bluegill (larval), Benoit 1975 ELS Survival 0.880 39.8 0.250 27.15 21.60
Lepomis macrochirus
Logistic Regression Analysis
Species Study Test Endpoint Final Estimates

Control Value EC50 Slope EC20 EC10
Cladoceran, Carlson et al. 1986 LC Reproduction 13.10 14.6 1.36 9.17 7.28
Ceriodaphnia dubia
Cladoceran, Chapman et al. Manuscript LC Reproduction 171.5 16.6 1.40 12.58 10.63
Daphnia magna
Daphnia magna
Daphnia magna
Rainbow trout, Seim et al. 1984 ELS Biomass 137.6 40.7 1.69 27.77 22.16
Oncorhynchus mykiss
Rainbow trout, Besser et al. 2001 ELS Biomass 1224 29.2 1.99 20.32 16.74
Oncorhynchus mykiss
Chinook salmon, Chapman 1975, 1982 ELS Biomass 0.901 9.55 1.27 5.92 4.47
Oncorhynchus tshawytscha
Fathead minnow, Lind et al. manuscript ELS Biomass 108.4 11.4 4.00 9.38 8.67
Pimephales promelas
F-1
Evaluation of the Chronic Data Available for Freshwater Species
Following is a species-by-species discussion of each chronic test on copper evaluated for this
document. Also presented are the results of regression analysis and probability distribution analysis of
each dataset that was from an acceptable chronic test and contained sufficient acceptable data. For each
such dataset, this appendix contains a figure that presents the data and regression/probability distribution
line.
Brachionus calyciflorus. The chronic toxicity of copper was ascertained in 4-day renewal tests
conducted at regular intervals throughout the life of the freshwater rotifer, B. calyciflorus (Janssen et al.
1994). The goal of this study was to develop and examine the use of this rotifer as a viable test organism.
The effect of copper on the age-specific survivorship and fertility of B. calyciflorus was determined, but
no individual replicate data were provided and only three copper concentrations were tested, which
precludes these data from further regression analysis. Chronic limits based on the intrinsic rate of natural
increase were 2.5 µg/L total copper (NOAEC) and 5.0 µg/L total copper (LOAEC). The chronic value
determined via traditional hypothesis testing is 3.54 µg/L total copper (Table 2a).
Campeloma decisum. Adult C. campeloma were exposed to five concentrations of total copper
and a control (Lake Superior water) under flow-through conditions in two 6-week studies conducted by
Arthur and Leonard (1970). Adult survival in the two separate chronic copper toxicity test trials was
markedly reduced in the two highest copper concentrations, 14.8 and 28.0 µg/L, respectively. The
authors reported that growth, as determined from cast exoskeleton, was not measurable for this test
species, although the authors did observe that the adult snails would not consume food at the two highest
copper concentrations. Control survival was 80 percent or greater. Chronic values of 10.88 µg/L total
copper were obtained for survival based on the geometric mean of the NOAEC and LOAEC of 8.0 and
14.8 µg/L, respectively, in both tests. The corresponding EC20s were 8.73 and 10.94 µg/L (Table 2a).
Ceriodaphnia dubia. The chronic toxicity of copper to C. dubia was determined in ambient river
water collected upstream of known point-source discharges of domestic and industrial wastes as part of a
water effect ratio study (Carlson et al. 1986). In this study, survival and young production of C. dubia
were assessed using a 7-day life-cycle test. Organisms were not affected at total copper concentrations
ranging from 3 to 12 µg/L (5 to 10 µg/L dissolved copper). There was a 62.7 percent reduction in
survival and 97 percent reduction in the mean number of young produced per female at 32 µg/L total
copper (27 µg/L dissolved copper). No daphnids survived to produce young at 91 µg/L total copper.
Control survival during the study was 80 percent, which included one male. The chronic value EC20
selected for C. dubia in this study, 9.17 µg/L derived from a nonlinear regression evaluation, was based
on mean number of young produced (reproduction).
The effects of water hardness on the chronic toxicity of copper to C. dubia were assessed by
Belanger et al. (1989) using 7-day life-cycle tests. C. dubia 2 to 8 hours old were exposed to copper in
ambient surface water from the New and Clinch Rivers, Virginia. Mean water hardness levels were 179
and 94 mg/L as CaCO3 , respectively. Test water was renewed on days 3 and 5. The corresponding
chronic values for reproduction based on the NOAEC and LOAEC approach were 7.9 and <19.3 µg/L
dissolved copper, respectively. The EC20 value for number of young (neonates) produced in Clinch
River water (water hardness of 94 mg/L as CaCO3 ) was 19.36 µg/L dissolved copper. The EC20 for
young produced in New River water was not calculated. The chronic values were converted to total
copper using the freshwater conversion factor for copper 0.96 (e.g., 7.897/0.96). The resulting total
chronic values for the New and Clinch rivers are 8.23 and 20.17 µg/L, respectively.
F-2
Copper was one of 12 toxicants examined by Oris et al. (1991) in their comparisons between a 4-
day survival and reproduction toxicity test utilizing C. dubia and a standard 7-day life-cycle test for the
species. The reported 7-day chronic values for survival and reproduction (mean total young per living
female) in two tests based on the traditional hypothesis testing techniques were 24.5 and 34.6 µg/L total
copper. Comparable point estimates for these 7-day tests could not be calculated using regression
analysis.
Daphnia magna. Blaylock et al. (1985) reported the average numbers of young produced for six
broods of D. magna in a 14-day chronic exposure to copper. A significant reduction was observed in the
mean number of young per female at a concentration of 30 µg/L total copper, the highest copper
concentration tested. At this concentration, young were not produced at brood intervals 5 and 6.
Reproduction was not affected at 10 µg/L total copper. The chronic value determined for this study
(17.32 µg/L total copper) was based on the geometric mean of the NOAEC, 10 µg/L, and LOAEC, 30
µg/L.
Van Leeuwen et al. (1988) conducted a standard 21-day life-cycle test with D. magna. The water
hardness was 225 mg/L as CaCO3 . Carapace length was significantly reduced at 36.8 µg/L total copper,
although survival was 100 percent at this concentration. Carapace length was not affected at 12.6 µg/L
total copper. No daphnids survived at 110 µg/L concentration. The highest concentration not
significantly different from the control for survival was 36.8 µg/L. The lowest concentration significantly
different from the control based on survival was 110 µg/L, resulting in a chronic value of 63.6 µg/L for
survival. The chronic value based on carapace length was 21.50 µg/L. The 21-day EC10 as reported by
the author was 5.9 µg/L total copper.
Chronic (21-day) renewal toxicity tests were conducted using D. magna to determine the
relationship between water hardness (nominal values of 50, 100, and 200 mg/L as CaCO3 , respectively)
and the toxicity of total copper (Chapman et al. unpublished manuscript). All test daphnids were <1 day
old at the start of the tests. The dilution water was well water from the Western Fish Toxicology Station
(WFTS), Corvallis, Oregon. Test endpoints were reproduction (total and live young produced per female)
and adult survival. The survival of control animals was 100 percent at nominal water hardness levels of
50 and 200 mg/L as CaCO3 , and 80 percent at a hardness of 100 mg/L as CaCO3 . The chronic values for
total young produced per female (fecundity) based on the geometric mean of the NOAEC and LOAEC
were 13.63, 29.33, and 9.53 µg/L at the nominal hardness levels of 50, 100, and 200 mg/L as CaCO3 ,
respectively. The corresponding EC20 values for reproduction calculated using nonlinear regression
analysis were 12.58, 19.89, and 6.06 µg/L total copper. The chronic toxicity of copper to D. magna was
somewhat ameliorated from an increase in water hardness from 50 to 100 mg/L as CaCO3 , but slightly
increased from 100 to 200 mg/L as CaCO3 .
Daphnia pulex. Winner (1985) evaluated the effects of water hardness and humic acid on the
chronic toxicity (42-day) of copper to D. pulex. Contrary to the expectation that sublethal endpoints are
more sensitive indicators of chronic toxicity, reproduction was not a sensitive indicator of copper stress
in this species. Water hardness also had little effect on the chronic toxicity of copper (similar to D.
magna trends), but humic acid significantly reduced chronic toxicity of copper when added to the varying
water types. The survival chronic values based on the NOAEC and LOAEC values for the three low to no
humic acid studies were 4.90, 7.07, and 12.25 µg/L total copper at hardnesses of 57.5, 115, and 230 (0.15
mg/L HA) µg/L as CaCO3 , respectively. The EC20 values calculated for the low and high hardness
studies using nonlinear regression techniques were 2.83 and 9.16 µg/L at hardness values of 57.5 and 230
(0.15 mg/L HA) µg/L as CaCO3 , respectively.
F-3
Clistoronia magnifica. The effects of copper on the lifecycle of the caddisfly, C. magnifica, were
examined in Nebeker et al. (1984b). The test included continuous exposure of first-generation aquatic
larvae and pupae through to a third generation of larvae. A significant reduction in adult emergence
occurred at 13.0 µg/L total copper from first-generation larvae. No observed adverse effect to adult
emergence occurred at 8.3 µg/L total copper. Percent larval survival was close to the control value of 80
percent. The chronic value based on hypothesis testing was 10.39 µg/L total copper. The corresponding
EC20 value for adult emergence was 7.67 µg/L total copper.
Oncorhynchus mykiss. The growth and survival of developing O. mykiss embryos continuously
and intermittently exposed to copper for up to 85 days post-fertilization was examined by Seim et al.
(1984). Results only from the continuous exposure study are considered here for deriving a chronic
value. A flow-through apparatus was used to deliver six concentrations and a control (untreated well
water; average of 3 µg/L copper) to a single incubation chamber. Continuous copper exposure of
steelhead embryos in the incubation chambers was begun 6 days post-fertilization. At 7 weeks post-
fertilization, when all control fish had hatched and reached swim-up stage, subsamples of approximately
100 alevins were transferred to aquaria and the same exposure pattern continued. Dissolved oxygen
remained near saturation throughout the study. Water hardness averaged 120 mg/L as CaCO3 . Survival of
steelhead embryos and alevins exposed continuously to total copper concentrations in the range of 3
(controls) to 30 µg/L was greater than 90 percent or greater. Survival was reduced at 57 µg/L and
completely inhibited at 121 µg/L. A similar effect on survival was observed for embryos and alevins
exposed to a mean of 51 (peak 263) and 109 (peak 465) µg/L of copper in the intermittent exposure,
respectively. The adverse effect of continuous copper exposure on growth (measured on a dry weight
basis) was observed at concentrations as low as 30 µg/L. (There was a 30 percent reduction in growth
during the intermittent exposure at 16 µg/L.) The chronic limits for survival of embryos and alevin
steelhead trout exposed continuously to copper were 16 and 31 µg/L, respectively (geometric mean =
22.27 µg/L). The EC20 for biomass for the continuous exposure was 27.77 µg/L.
Besser et al. (2001) conducted an ELS toxicity test with copper and the rainbow trout, O. mykiss,
starting with eyed embryos and continuing for 30 days after the fish reached the swim-up stage. The total
test period was 58 days. The test was conducted in ASTM moderately hard reconstituted water with a
hardness of approximately 160 to 180 mg/L as CaCO3 . Twenty-five eyed embryos were held in each of
four replicate egg cups at each concentration. Survival was monitored daily. At the end of the test,
surviving fish in each replicate chamber were weighed (dry weight). Dry weights were used to determine
growth and biomass of surviving fish. The no observed effect concentrations (NOECs) for survival and
biomass were both 12 µg/L and the lowest observed effect concentrations (LOECs) for survival and
biomass was also the same for both endpoints, 22 µg/L. The chronic values for biomass and survival
based on the geometric mean of the NOEC and LOEC were 16.25 µg/L. The corresponding EC20 for
biomass was 20.32 µg/L.
Oncorhynchus tshawytscha. The draft manuscript prepared by Chapman (1975/1982) provides

the results from a 4-month egg through fry partial chronic test conducted to determine the effects of
copper on survival and growth of O. tshawytscha. Continuous exposure occurred from several hours
post-fertilization through hatch, swim-up, and feeding fry stages. The test was terminated after 14 weeks
post-hatch. The dilution water was WFTS well water. Because of the influence of the nearby Willamette
River on the hardness of this well water, reverse osmosis water was mixed periodically with ambient well
water to attain a consistent hardness. The typical hardness of this well water was approximately 23 mg/L
as CaCO3 . Control survival exceeded 90 percent for the test. The measured total copper concentrations
during the test were 1.2 (control), 7.4, 9.4, 11.7, 15.5, and 20.2 µg/L, respectively. Copper adversely
affected survival at 11.7 µg/L copper and higher, and growth was reduced at all copper concentrations
tested compared with the growth of control fish. The chronic limits for copper in this study were
F-4
estimated to be less than 7.4 µg/L. The EC20 value estimated for biomass is 5.92 µg/L total copper based
on a logistic nonlinear regression model.
Salmo trutta. McKim et al. (1978) examined the survival and growth (expressed as standing
crop) of embryo-larval and early juvenile brown trout to copper. The most sensitive exposure was with
embryos exposed for 72 days. The NOAEC and LOAEC, as obtained from the figure, were 20.8 and 43.8
µg/L total copper, respectively. Data were not available to calculate point estimates at the 20 percent
effect level using regression analysis. The chronic value selected for this species was 29.91 µg/L total
copper (geometric mean of 20.8 and 43.8 µg/L total copper).
Salvelinus fontinalis. Sauter et al. (1976) examined the effects of copper on selected freshwater
fish species at different hardness levels (softwater at 37.5 mg/L as CaCO3 ; hardwater at 187 mg/L as
CaCO3 ) during a series of partial life-cycle (PLC) tests. The species tested were brook trout (Salvelinus
fontinalis), channel catfish (Ictalurus punctatus), and walleye (Stizostedion vitreum). Because of the poor
embryo and larval survival of control animals (in all cases less than 70 percent), results from tests with
channel catfish and walleye were not included in Table 2a. One of the replicate control chambers from
the PLC tests conducted with brook trout in hard water also exhibited poor hatchability (48 percent) and
survival (58 percent) between 31 and 60 days of exposure. Therefore, the data for brook trout in hard
water were not included in the subsequent EC20 (regression) analysis either.
The softwater test with brook trout was conducted using untreated well water with an average
water hardness of 35 mg/L as CaCO3 . This PLC exposure consisted of six copper concentrations and a
control. Hatchability was determined by examining randomly selected groups of 100 eggs from each
replicate exposure tank. Growth and survival of fry were determined by impartially reducing the total
sample size to 50 fry per tank and assessing their progress over 30 day intervals up to 60 days post-hatch.
The chronic limits based on the growth (wet weight and total length) of larval brook trout after 60 days of
exposure to copper in soft water were <5 and 5 µg/L. The resultant chronic value for soft water based on
hypothesis testing was <5 µg/L. The corresponding EC20 values based on total length, wet weight, and
biomass (the product of wet weight and survival) for brook trout in the soft-water exposures after 60 days
were not amenable to nonlinear regression analysis.
McKim et al. (1978) examined survival and growth (expressed as standing crop) of embryo-
larval and early juvenile brook trout exposed to copper. The embryo exposure was for 16 days, and the
larval-early-juveniles exposure lasted 60 days. The NOAEC and LOAEC were 22.3 and 43.5 µg/L total
copper, respectively. Data were not available to calculate point estimates at the 20 percent effect level
using regression analysis. The chronic value for this species was 31.15 µg/L total copper (geometric
mean of 22.3 and 43.5 µg/L total copper).
Salvelinus namaycush. McKim et al. (1978) examined the survival and growth (expressed as
standing crop) of embryo-larval and early juvenile lake trout exposed to copper. The embryo exposure
was for 27 days, and the larval-early-juveniles exposure lasted 66 days. The NOAEC and LOAEC were
22.0 and 43.5 µg/L total copper, respectively. Data were not available to calculate point estimates at the
20 percent effect level using regression analysis. The chronic value for this species was 30.94 µg/L total
copper (geometric mean of 22.0 and 43.5 µg/L total copper).
Esox lucius. McKim et al. (1978) examined the survival and growth (expressed as standing crop)
of embryo-larval and early juvenile northern pike exposed to copper. The embryo exposure was for 6
days, and the larval-early-juveniles exposure lasted 34 days. The NOAEC and LOAEC were 34.9 and
104.4 µg/L total copper, respectively. The authors attributed the higher tolerance of E. lucius to copper to
the very short embryonic exposure period compared with salmonids and white sucker, Catostomus
F-5
commersoni. Data were not available to calculate point estimates at the 20 percent effect level using
regression analysis. The chronic value for this species was 60.36 µg/L total copper (geometric mean of
34.9 and 104.4 µg/L total copper).
Pimephales notatus. An experimental design similar to that described by Mount and Stephan
(1967) and Mount (1968) was used to examine the chronic effect of copper on the bluntnose minnow, P.
notatus (Horning and Neiheisel 1979). Measured total copper concentrations were 4.3 (control), 18.0,
29.9, 44.1, 71.8, and 119.4 µg/L, respectively. The experimental dilution water was a mixture of spring
water and demineralized City of Cincinnati tap water. Dissolved oxygen was kept at 5.9 mg/L or greater
throughout the test. Total water hardness ranged from 172 to 230 mg/L as CaCO3 . The test was initiated
with 22 6-week-old fry. The fish were later separated according to sex and thinned to a sex ratio of 5
males and 10 females per duplicated test chamber. Growth (total length) was significantly reduced in
parental and first (F1 ) generation P. notatus after 60 days of exposure to the highest concentration of
copper tested (119.4 µg/L). Survival of parental P. notatus exposed to this same high test concentration
was also lower (87 percent) at the end of the test compared with the other concentrations (range of 93 to
100 percent). Copper at concentrations of 18 µg/L and greater significantly reduced the number of eggs
produced per female. The number of females available to reproduce was generally the same up to about
29.9 µg/L of copper. The chronic limits were based on an NOAEC and LOAEC of <18 and 18 µg/L for
number of eggs produced per female. An EC20 was not estimated by nonlinear regression; nevertheless,
in this case an EC20 is likely to be substantially below 18 :g/L.
Pimephales promelas. The results from a 30-day ELS toxicity test to determine the chronic
toxicity of copper to P. promelas using dilution water from Lake Superior (hardness ranging from 40 to
50 mg/L as CaCO3 ) was included in Table 2a from a manuscript prepared by Lind et al. in 1978. In this
experiment, five test concentrations and a control were supplied by a continuous-flow diluter. The
exposure began with embryos 1 day post-fertilization. Pooled results from fish dosed in replicate
exposure chambers were given for mean percentage embryo survival to hatch, mean percentage fish
survival after hatch, and mean fish wet weight after 30 days. The percentage of embryo survival to hatch
was not affected by total copper concentrations as high as 52.1 µg/L total copper. Survival after hatch,
however, was compromised at 26.2 µg/L, and mean wet weight of juvenile fathead minnows was
significantly reduced at 13.1 µg/L of copper. The estimated EC20 value for biomass was 9.376 µg/L total
copper.
Catastomus commersoni. McKim et al. (1978) examined the survival and growth (expressed as
standing crop) of embryo-larval and early juvenile white sucker exposed to copper. The embryo exposure
was for 13 days, and the larval-early-juvenile exposure lasted 27 days. The NOAEC and LOAEC were
12.9 and 33.8 µg/L total copper, respectively. The resulting chronic value based on hypothesis testing for
this species was 20.88 µg/L total copper (geometric mean of 12.9 and 33.8 µg/L total copper).
Lepomis macrochirus. Results from a 22-month copper life-cycle toxicity test with bluegill (L.
macrochirus) were reported by Benoit (1975). The study included a 90-day embryo-larval survival and
growth component. The tests were conducted at the U.S. EPA National Water Quality Laboratory in
Duluth, Minnesota, using Lake Superior water as the dilution water (average water hardness = 45 mg/L
as CaCO3 ). The test was initiated in December 1969 with 2-year-old juvenile L. macrochirus. In May
1971, the fish were sexed and randomly reduced to three males and seven females per tank. Spawning
commenced on 10 June 1971. The 90-day embryo-larval exposure was initiated when 12 lots of 50 newly
hatched larvae from one of the two control groups were randomly selected and transferred to duplicate
grow-out chambers at 1 of 6 total copper concentrations: 3 (control), 12, 21, 40, 77, and 162 µg/L,
respectively. In the 22-month juvenile through adult exposure, survival, growth, and reproduction were
unaffected at 77 µg/L of copper and below. No spawning occurred at 162 µg/L. Embryo hatchability and
F-6
survival of 4-day-old larvae at 77 µg/L did not differ significantly from those of controls. However, after
90 days of exposure, survival of larval L. macrochirus at 40 and 77 µg/L was significantly lower than for
controls, and no larvae survived at 162 µg/L. Growth remained unaffected at 77 µg/L. Based on the 90-
day survival of bluegill larvae, the chronic limits were estimated to be 21 and 40 µg/L (geometric mean =
28.98 µg/L). The corresponding EC20 for embryo-larval survival was 27.15 µg/L.
F-7
Campeloma decisum (Test 1), Life-cycle, Arthur and Leonard 1970
EC20 = 8.73 µg/L
Campeloma decisum (Test 2), Life-cycle, Arthur and Leonard 1970
EC20 = 10.94 µg/L
Ceriodaphnia dubia (Clinch River), Life-cycle, Belanger et al. 1989
EC20 = 19.36 µg/L
F-8
Lepomis macrochirus, Early Life-stage, Benoit 1975
EC20 = 27.15 µg/L
Oncorhynchus mykiss, Early Life-Stage, Besser et al. 2001
EC20 = 20.32 µg/L
Ceriodaphnia dubia, Life-cycle, Carlson et al. 1986
EC20 = 9.17 µg/L
F-9
Daphnia magna (Hardness 104), Life-cycle, Chapman et al. Manuscript
EC20 = 19.89 µg/L
EC20 = 6.06 µg/L
EC20 = 12.58 µg/L
F-10
Oncorhynchus tshawytscha, Early Life-Stage, Chapman 1975 & 1982
EC20 = 5.92 µg/L
Pimephales promelas, Early Life-stage, Lind et al. 1978
EC20 = 9.38 µg/L
Clistoronia magnifica, Life-cycle, Nebeker et al. 1984a
EC20 = 7.67 µg/L
F-11
Oncorhynchus mykiss, Early Life-stage, Seim et al. 1984
EC20 = 27.77 µg/L
Daphnia pulex (Hardness 230 HA 0.15), Life-cycle, Winner 1985
EC20 = 9.16 µg/L
Daphnia pulex (Hardness 57), Life-cycle, Winner 1985
EC20 = 2.83 µg/L
F-12
Appe ndix G. E xample Wate r Quality Criter ia Value s Using the BL M a nd the
Hard ness E quation
Appendix G: Representative water quality criteria values using the BLM and the
Hardness equation approaches for waters with a range in pH, Hardness, and DOC
concentrations. The BLM calculation assumed that alkalinity was correlated with pH, and
that other major ions were correlated with hardness based on observed correlations in
EPA synthetic water recipes.
Hardness
Equation Based BLM Based
Water Quality Instantaneous
Criterion for Water Quality
pH Hardness DOC Cu[1] Criterion for Cu
mg/L CaCO3 mg / L µg / L µg / L
6.5 40 2 5.9 1.6
4 5.9 3.3
8 5.9 6.8
16 5.9 14.3
80 2 11.3 1.9
4 11.3 3.8
8 11.3 7.7
16 11.3 16.0
159 2 21.7 2.3
4 21.7 4.5
8 21.7 9.2
16 21.7 18.9
317 2 41.5 2.8
4 41.5 5.6
8 41.5 11.4
16 41.5 23.1
7.0 40 2 5.9 3.9
4 5.9 8.0
8 5.9 16.4
16 5.9 34.3
80 2 11.3 4.4
4 11.3 8.8
8 11.3 18.0
16 11.3 37.0
159 2 21.7 5.1
4 21.7 10.3
8 21.7 20.7
16 21.7 42.4
317 2 41.5 6.2
4 41.5 12.4
8 41.5 24.9
16 41.5 50.6
G-1
Hardness
7.5 40 2 5.9 7.9
4 5.9 15.8
8 5.9 32.4
16 5.9 67.3
80 2 11.3 8.7
4 11.3 17.4
8 11.3 35.3
16 11.3 72.5
159 2 21.7 10.1
4 21.7 20.1
8 21.7 40.5
16 21.7 82.4
317 2 41.5 12.0
4 41.5 23.9
8 41.5 47.8
16 41.5 96.8
8.0 40 2 5.9 13.8
4 5.9 27.6
8 5.9 55.8
16 5.9 115.0
80 2 11.3 15.5
4 11.3 30.6
8 11.3 61.4
16 11.3 125.1
159 2 21.7 18.0
4 21.7 35.3
8 21.7 70.3
16 21.7 142.0
317 2 41.5 21.5
4 41.5 41.6
8 41.5 82.3
16 41.5 165.1
G-2
Hardness
8.5 40 2 5.9 22.5
4 5.9 43.3
8 5.9 85.6
16 5.9 172.9
80 2 11.3 26.0
4 11.3 49.1
8 11.3 96.0
16 11.3 191.6
159 2 21.7 31.4
4 21.7 58.0
8 21.7 111.7
16 21.7 220.6
317 2 41.5 39.1
4 41.5 70.3
8 41.5 132.8
16 41.5 259.6
Notes:
[1] : Hardness Equation: CMC = e (0.9422 [ln(H)] - 1.7)
where:
H = water hardness (mg/L CaCO3)
* Appendix updated as of March 2, 2007
G-3
Append ix H. Unuse d Data
APPENDIX H. UNUSED DATA
Based on the requirements set forth in the guidelines (Stephan et al. 1985), the following studies
are not acceptable for the following reasons and are classified as unused data.
Studies Were Conducted with Species That Are Not Resident in North America
Abalde et al. (1995) Kadioglu and Ozbay (1995) Raj and Hameed (1991)
Abel (1980) Karbe (1972) Rajkumar and Das (1991)
Ahsanullah and Ying (1995) Knauer et al. (1997) Reeve et al. (1977)
Ahsanullah et al. (1981) Kulkarni (1983) Ruiz et al. (1994, 1996)
Aoyama and Okamura (1984) Kumar et al. (1985) Saward et al. (1975)
Austen and McEvoy (1997) Lan and Chen (1991) Schafer et al. (1993)
Bougis (1965) Lee and Xu (1984) Smith et al. (1993)
Cid et al. (1995, 1996a,b) Luderitz and Nicklisch (1989) Solbe and Cooper (1976)
Collvin (1984) Majori and Petronio (1973) Steeman-Nielsen and Bruun-Laursen
Cosson and Martin (1981) Masuda and Boyd (1993) (1976)
Daly et al. (1990a,b, 1992) Mathew and Fernandez (1992) Stephenson (1983)
Denton and Burdon-Jones (1986) Maund et al. (1992) Takamura et al. (1989)
Drbal et al. (1985) Migliore and Giudici (1988) Taylor et al. (1991, 1994)
Giudici and Migliore (1988) Mishra and Srivastava (1980) Timmermans (1992)
Giudici et al. (1987, 1988) Negilski et al. (1981) Timmermans et al. (1992)
Gopal and Devi (1991) Nell and Chvojka (1992) Vardia et al. (1988)
Gustavson and Wangberg (1995) Neuhoff (1983) Verriopoulos and Moraitou-
Hameed and Raj (1989) Nias et al. (1993) Apostolopoulou (1982)
Heslinga (1976) Nonnotte et al. (1993) Visviki and Rachlin (1991)
Hori et al. (1996) Pant et al. (1980) Weeks and Rainbow (1991)
Huebner and Pynnonen (1992) Paulij et al. (1990) White and Rainbow (1982)
Ismail et al. (1990) Peterson et al. (1996) Wong and Chang (1991)
Jana and Bandyopadhyaya (1987) Pistocchi et al. (1997) Wong et al. (1993)
Jindal and Verma (1989) Pynnonen (1995)
Jones (1997)
Copper Was a Component of a Drilling Mud, Effluent, Mixture, Sediment, or Sludge
Buckler et al. (1987) Kraak et al. (1993 and 1994a,b) Roch et al. (1986)
Buckley (1994) Lowe (1988) Sayer et al. (1991b)
Clements et al. (1988) McNaught (1989) Weis and Weis (1993)
de March (1988) Munkittrick and Dixon (1987) Widdows and Johnson (1988)
Hollis et al. (1996) Pellegrini et al. (1993) Wong et al. (1982)
Horne and Dunson (1995) Roch and McCarter (1984a,b)
Hutchinson and Sprague (1987)
H-1
These Reviews Only Contain Data That Have Been Published Elsewhere
Ankley et al. (1993) Felts and Heath (1984) Peterson et al. (1996)
Borgmann and Ralph (1984) Gledhill et al. (1997) Phillips and Russo (1978)
Chapman et al. (1968) Handy (1996) Phipps et al. (1995)
Chen et al. (1997) Hickey et al. (1991) Spear and Pierce (1979b)
Christensen et al. (1983) Janssen et al. (1994) Starodub et al. (1987b)
Dierickx and Brendael-Rozen (1996) LeBlanc (1984) Taylor et al. (1996)
DiToro et al. (1991) Lilius et al. (1994) Thompson et al. (1972)
Eisler (1981) Meyer et al. (1987) Toussaint et al. (1995)
Eisler et al. (1979) Ozoh (1992c)
Enserink et al. (1991)
No Interpretable Concentration, Time, Response Data, or Examined Only a Single Concentration
Asztalos et al. (1990) Koltes (1985) Sayer (1991)

Beaumont et al. (1995a,b) Kosalwat and Knight (1987) Sayer et al. (1991a,b)
Beckman and Zaugg (1988) Kuwabara (1986) Schleuter et al. (1995, 1997)
Bjerselius et al. (1993) Lauren and McDonald (1985) Starcevic and Zielinski (1997)
Carballo et al. (1995) Leland (1983) Steele (1989)
Daoust et al. (1984) Lett et al. (1976) Taylor and Wilson (1994)
De Boeck et al. (1995b, 1997) Miller and McKay (1982) Viale and Calamari (1984)
Dick and Dixon (1985) Mis and Bigaj (1997) Visviki and Rachlin (1994b)
Felts and Heath (1984) Nalewajko et al. (1997) Waiwood (1980)
Ferreira (1978) Nemcsok et al. (1991) Webster and Gadd (1996)
Ferreira et al. (1979) Ozoh (1990) Wilson and Taylor (1993a,b)
Hansen et al. (1993, 1996) Ozoh and Jacobson (1979) Winberg et al. (1992)
Heath (1987, 1991) Parrott and Sprague (1993) Wundram et al. (1996)
Hughes and Nemcsok (1988) Pyatt and Dodd (1986) Wurts and Perschbacher (1994)
Julliard et al. (1996) Riches et al. (1996)
No Useable Data on Copper Toxicity or Bioconcentration
Cowgill et al. (1986) Lustigman et al. (1985) Wong et al. (1977)

de March (1979) MacFarlane et al. (1986) Wren and McCarroll (1990)
Lehman and Mills (1994) van Hoof et al. (1994) Zamuda et al. (1985)
Lustigman (1986) Weeks and Rainbow (1992)
Results Not Interpretable as Total or Dissolved Copper
Brand et al. (1986) Sanders and Martin (1994) Sunda et al. (1987)
MacFie et al. (1994) Sanders et al. (1995) Winberg et al. (1992)
Riedel (1983) Stearns and Sharp (1994)
Sanders and Jenkins (1984) Stoecker et al. (1986)
Some of these studies would be valuable if copper criteria were developed on the basis of cupric
ion activity.
H-2
Organisms Were Selected, Adapted or Acclimated for Increased Resistance to Copper
Fisher (1981) Munkittrick and Dixon (1989) Schmidt (1978a,b)

Fisher and Fabris (1982) Myint and Tyler (1982) Sheffrin et al. (1984)
Hall (1980) Neuhoff (1983) Steele (1983b)
Hall et al. (1989) Parker (1984) Takamura et al. (1989)
Harrison and Lam (1983) Phelps et al. (1983) Viarengo et al. (1981a,b)
Harrison et al. (1983) Ray et al. (1981) Wood (1983)
Lumoa et al. (1983) Sander (1982)
Lumsden and Florence (1983) Scarfe et al. (1982)
Either the Materials, Methods, Measurements or Results Were Insufficiently Described
Abbe (1982) Gibbs et al. (1981) Peterson et al. (1996)

Alam and Maughan (1995) Gordon et al. (1980) Pophan and D’Auria (1981)
Balasubrahmanyam et al. (1987) Gould et al. (1986) Reed-Judkins et al. (1997)
Baudouin and Scoppa (1974) Govindarajan et al. (1993) Rehwoldt et al. (1973)
Belanager et al. (1991) Hayes et al. (1996) Riches et al. (1996)
Benedeczky et al. (1991) Howard and Brown (1983) Sakaguchi et al. (1977)
Benedetti et al. (1989) Janssen et al. (1993) Sanders et al. (1995)
Benhra et al. (1997) Janssen and Persoone (1993) Sayer (1991)
Bouquegneau and Martoja (1982) Kean et al. (1985) Schultheis et al. (1997)
Burton and Stemmer (1990) Kentouri et al. (1993) See et al. (1974)
Burton et al. (1992) Kessler (1986) Shcherban (1977)
Cabejszek and Stasiak (1960) Khangarot et al. (1987) Smith et al. (1981)
Cain and Luoma (1990) Kobayashi (1996) Sorvari and Sillanpaa (1996)
Chapman (1975, 1982) Kulkarni (1983) Stearns and Sharp (1994)
Cochrane et al. (1991) Labat et al. (1977) Strong and Luoma (1981)
Devi et al. (1991) Lakatos et al. (1993) Sullivan and Ritacco (1988)
Dirilgen and Inel (1994) LeBlanc (1985) Taylor (1978)
Dodge and Theis (1979) Leland et al. (1988) Taylor et al. (1994)
Doucet and Maly (1990) Mackey (1983) Thompson (1997)
Dunbar et al. (1993) Magni (1994) Trucco et al. (1991)
Durkina and Evtushenko (1991) Martin et al. (1984) Verma et al. (1980)
Enesco et al. (1989) Martincic et al. (1984) Visviki and Rachlin (1994a)
Erickson et al. (1997) McIntosh and Kevern (1974) Watling (1983)
Evans (1980) McKnight (1980) Winner et al. (1990)
Ferrando and Andreu (1993) Moore and Winner (1989) Young and Harvey (1988, 1989)
Finlayson and Ashuckian (1979) Muramoto (1980, 1982) Zhokhov (1986)
Furmanska (1979) Nyholm and Damgaard (1990)
H-3
Questionable Effect Levels Due to Graphical Presentation of Results
Alliot and Frenet-Piron (1990) Gupta et al. (1985) Pekkala and Koopman (1987)
Andrew (1976) Hansen et al. (1996) Peterson et al. (1984)
Arsenault et al. (1993) Hoare and Davenport (1994) Romanenko and Yevtushenko (1985)
Balasubrahmanyam et al. (1987) Lauren and McDonald (1985) Sanders et al. (1994)
Bjerselius et al. (1993) Llanten and Greppin (1993) Smith and Heath (1979)
Bodar et al. (1989) Metaxas and Lewis (1991) Stokes and Hutchinson (1976)
Chen (1994) Michnowicz and Weeks (1984) Winner and Gauss (1986)
Cowgill and Milazzo (1991b) Miersch et al. (1997) Wong (1989)
Cvetkovic et al. (1991) Nasu et al. (1988) Young and Lisk (1972)
Dodoo et al. (1992) Pearlmutter and Lembi (1986)
Francisco et al. (1996)
Studies of Copper Complexation With No Useable Toxicology Data for Surface Waters
Borgmann (1981) Jennett et al. (1982) Swallow et al. (1978)

Filbin and Hough (1979) Maloney and Palmer (1956) van den Berg et al. (1979)
Frey et al. (1978) Nakajima et al. (1979) Wagemann and Barica (1979)
Gillespie and Vaccaro (1978) Stauber and Florence (1987)
Guy and Kean (1980) Sunda and Lewis (1978)
Questionable Treatment of Test Organisms or Inappropriate Test Conditions or Methodology
Arambasic et al. (1995) Hockett and Mount (1996) Ozoh and Jones (1990b)
Benhra et al. (1997) Huebert et al. (1993) Reed and Moffat (1983)
Billard and Roubaud (1985) Huilsom (1983) Rueter et al. (1981)
Bitton et al. (1995) Jezierska and Slominska (1997) Sayer et al. (1989)
Brand et al. (1986) Kapu and Schaeffer (1991) Schenck (1984)
Bringmann and Kuhn (1982) Kessler (1986) Shaner and Knight (1985)
Brkovic-Popovic and Popovic Khangarot and Ray (1987a) Sullivan et al. (1983)
(1977a,b) Khangarot et al. (1987) Tomasik et al. (1995)
Dirilgen and Inel (1994) Lee and Xu (1984) Watling (1981, 1982, 1983)
Folsom et al. (1986) Marek et al. (1991) Wikfors and Ukeles (1982)
Foster et al. (1994) McLeese (1974) Wilson (1972)
Gavis et al. (1981) Mis et al. (1995) Wong and Chang (1991)
Guanzon et al. (1994) Moore and Winner (1989) Wong (1992)
Hawkins and Griffith (1982) Nasu et al. (1988)
Ho and Zubkoff (1982)
High control mortalities occurred in all except one test reported by Sauter et al. (1976). Control
mortality exceeded 10% in one test by Mount and Norberg (1984). Pilgaard et al. (1994) studied
interactions of copper and hypoxia, but failed to run a hypoxic control. Beaumont et al. (1995a,b) studied
interactions of temperature, acid pH and copper, but never separated pH and copper effects. The 96-hour
values reported by Buikema et al. (1974a,b) were subject to error because of possible reproductive
interactions (Buikema et al. 1977).
H-4
Bioconcentration Studies Not Conducted Long Enough, Not Steady-State,
Not Flow-through, or Water Concentrations Not Adequately Characterized or Measured
Anderson and Spear (1980a) Martincic et al. (1992) Xiaorong et al. (1997)
Felton et al. (1994) McConnell and Harrel (1995) Yan et al. (1989)
Griffin et al. (1997) Miller et al. (1992) Young and Harvey (1988, 1989)
Harrison et al. (1988) Ozoh (1994) Zia and Alikhan (1989)
Krantzberg (1989) Wright and Zamuda (1987)
Anderson (1994), Anderson et al. (1994), Viarengo et al. (1993), and Zaroogian et al. (1992)
reported on in vitro exposure effects. Benedeczky et al. (1991) studied only effects of injected copper.
Ferrando et al. (1993b) studied population effects of copper and cladoceran predator on the rotifer prey,
but the data are difficult to interpret. A similar problem complicated use of the cladoceran competition
study of LeBlanc (1985).
H-5

Epa Us

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Epa Us

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Epa Us

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

United Stat es Office of Wat er EPA-822-R-07-001

Environmental Protection 4304T February 2007

AQUATIC LIFE AMBIENT

(CAS Registry Number 7440-50-8)

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

This document can be downloaded from EPA’s website at:

Document Update: 2007

Luis A. Cruz Jennifer Mitchell

Cindy Roberts Charles Delos

Statistical Support and Contributor:

2.0 APPROACHES FOR EVALUATING COPPER BIOAVAILABILITY . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

3.0 INCORPORATION OF BLM INTO CRITERIA DEVELOPMENT PROCEDURES 11

4.0 DATA SUMMARY AND CRITERIA CALCULATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

5.0 PLANT DATA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

6.0 OTHER DATA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

7.0 NATIONAL CRITERIA STATEMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

Figure 1. Conceptual Diagram of Copper Speciation and Copper-Gill Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Table 1. Acut e Toxicity of Co pper to Freshwater Animals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

Appendix A. Ranges in Calibration and Application Data Sets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-1

ACR Acut e-Chronic Ratio

2.0 APPROACHES FOR EVALUATING COPPER BIOAVAILABILITY

2.1 General Aspects of Copper Bioavailability

Of particular importance to bioavailability is that many chemicals exist in a variety of forms

2.2 Existing Approaches

2.4 BLM Uncertainties and Performance

3.0 INCORPORATION OF THE BLM INTO CRITERIA DERIVATIONS

3.1 General Final Acute Value (FAV) Procedures

3.2 BLM Input Parameters

3.3 Data Screening Procedures

A detailed description of these efforts is provided in Appendix C, Estimation of Water

3.4 Conversion Factors

3.5 Final Chronic Value (FCV) Procedures

4.0 DATA SUMMARY AND CRITERIA CALCULATION

4.1 Summary of Acute Toxicity to Freshwater Animals and Criteria Calculation

Figure 4. Ranked Freshwater Genus Mean Acute Values (GMAVs)

4.1.1 Comparison With Earlier Hardness-Adjusted Criteria

EPA’s earlier freshwater copper criteria recommendations were hardness-dependent values.

4.2 Formulation of the CCC

4.2.1 Evaluation of Chronic Toxicity Data

4.2.2 Calculation of Freshwater CCC

6.0 OTHER DATA

A direct comparison of a particular test result to a BLM-derived criterion is not always

7.0 NATIONAL CRITERIA STATEMENT

A return interval of 3 years between exceedances of the criterion continues to be EPA's

With regard to BLM-derived freshwater criteria, to develop a site-specific criterion for a

Reported LC50 or Reported LC50 BLM Normalized

Reported LC50 or Reported LC50 BLM Normalized

<12 h S,M,D --- - 84 CEDU22S 10.74 Belanger and Cherry 1990

Reported LC50 or Reported LC50 BLM Normalized

Reported LC50 or Reported LC50 BLM Normalized

Reported LC50 or Reported LC50 BLM Normalized

Reported LC50 or Reported LC50 BLM Normalized

Reported LC50 or Reported LC50 BLM Normalized

<24 h S,M,T,D S 94.62 82.04 PIPR31S 49.27 Erickson et al. 1996a,b

Reported LC50 or Reported LC50 BLM Normalized

<24 h S,M,T,D S 66.68 60.01 PIPR73S 37.67 Erickson et al. 1996a,b

Reported LC50 or Reported LC50 BLM Normalized

<24 h S,M,T,D S 1003.30 752.48 PIPR115S 109.8 Erickson et al. 1996a,b

Reported LC50 or Reported LC50 BLM Normalized