APPENDIX I Toxicity Identification Evaluation Reports for Chollas ...
APPENDIX I Toxicity Identification Evaluation Reports for Chollas ...
APPENDIX I Toxicity Identification Evaluation Reports for Chollas ...
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
<strong>APPENDIX</strong> I<br />
<strong>Toxicity</strong> <strong>Identification</strong> <strong>Evaluation</strong><br />
<strong>Reports</strong> <strong>for</strong> <strong>Chollas</strong> Creek and<br />
Sweetwater River
<strong>Toxicity</strong> <strong>Identification</strong> <strong>Evaluation</strong> (TIE) of<br />
County of San Diego and Copermittees<br />
<strong>Chollas</strong> Creek Stormwater Sample<br />
Prepared For:<br />
County of San Diego and Copermittees<br />
August 2006
<strong>Toxicity</strong> <strong>Identification</strong> <strong>Evaluation</strong> (TIE) of<br />
County of San Diego and Copermittees<br />
<strong>Chollas</strong> Creek Stormwater Sample<br />
Prepared For:<br />
County of San Diego and Copermittees<br />
Prepared By:<br />
Weston Solutions, Inc.<br />
2433 Impala Drive<br />
Carlsbad, Cali<strong>for</strong>nia 92010<br />
August 2006
<strong>Toxicity</strong> <strong>Identification</strong> <strong>Evaluation</strong> of <strong>Chollas</strong> Creek<br />
Stormwater using Hyalella azteca<br />
Table of Contents<br />
August 2006<br />
TABLE OF CONTENTS<br />
1. Executive Summary ..........................................................................................................1<br />
2. INTRODUCTION...............................................................................................................4<br />
2.1 Background and History ............................................................................4<br />
2.2 <strong>Toxicity</strong> <strong>Identification</strong> <strong>Evaluation</strong> (TIE) Testing..........................................5<br />
2.3 Initial <strong>Toxicity</strong> Testing Summary For <strong>Chollas</strong> Creek Stormwater...............7<br />
3. MATERIALS AND METHODS ..........................................................................................8<br />
3.1 Test Procedures ........................................................................................8<br />
3.1.1 <strong>Toxicity</strong> Test Using Hyalella azteca........................................................... 8<br />
3.2 Test Solution Preparation ..........................................................................8<br />
3.3 Water Quality.............................................................................................8<br />
3.4 Sample Receipt .........................................................................................8<br />
3.5 Phase I TIE Methods .................................................................................9<br />
3.5.1 Protocol Modifications................................................................................ 9<br />
3.5.2 Baseline Tests ........................................................................................... 9<br />
3.5.3 Ethylenediaminetetraacetic Acid (EDTA) Tests......................................... 9<br />
3.5.4 Sodium Thiosulfate (STS) Tests.............................................................. 10<br />
3.5.5 Aeration Tests.......................................................................................... 10<br />
3.5.6 Filtration Tests ......................................................................................... 11<br />
3.5.7 C 18 Solid Phase Extraction and Methanol Add-Back Tests ..................... 11<br />
3.5.8 Graduated pH Tests ................................................................................ 12<br />
3.5.9 Piperonyl Butoxide (PBO) Tests.............................................................. 12<br />
3.5.10 Carboxyl Esterase Tests.......................................................................... 12<br />
3.6 Statistical Analysis...................................................................................13<br />
4. Results ............................................................................................................................14<br />
4.1 TIE Tests on <strong>Chollas</strong> Creek Stormwater Using Hyalella azteca..............14<br />
4.1.1 Results of TIE Per<strong>for</strong>med on the October 18, 2005 Sample ................... 14<br />
4.1.2 Summary of TIE Per<strong>for</strong>med on the October 18, 2005 Stormwater<br />
Sample .................................................................................................... 16<br />
4.1.3 Results of Special Testing Per<strong>for</strong>med on November 11, 2005<br />
Sample .................................................................................................... 17<br />
4.1.4 Summary of Specialized Testing Per<strong>for</strong>med on November 11, 2005<br />
Sample .................................................................................................... 18<br />
4.1.5 Results of Phase I TIE Per<strong>for</strong>med on January 2, 2006 Sample .............. 18<br />
4.1.6 Summary of TIE per<strong>for</strong>med on January 2, 2006 Sample ........................ 20<br />
4.1.7 Results of Phase I TIE Per<strong>for</strong>med on February 19, 2006 Sample........... 22<br />
4.1.8 Summary of TIE per<strong>for</strong>med on February 19, 2006 Sample..................... 24<br />
4.2 Chemical Analyses of <strong>Chollas</strong> Creek Stormwater ...................................24<br />
5. DISCUSSION..................................................................................................................28<br />
6. REFERENCES................................................................................................................31<br />
Weston Solutions, Inc.<br />
i
<strong>Toxicity</strong> <strong>Identification</strong> <strong>Evaluation</strong> of <strong>Chollas</strong> Creek<br />
Stormwater using Hyalella azteca<br />
Table of Contents<br />
August 2006<br />
LIST OF TABLES<br />
Table 1. Triad Definitions <strong>for</strong> San Diego Storm Water Monitoring Program. ................................4<br />
Table 2. <strong>Toxicity</strong> <strong>Identification</strong> <strong>Evaluation</strong> (TIE) Manipulations.....................................................6<br />
Table 3. Percent Survival of Hyalella azteca in TIE Tests per<strong>for</strong>med on the <strong>Chollas</strong> Creek<br />
Stormwater Sample Collected on October 18, 2005. ..........................................................14<br />
Table 4. Percent Survival of Hyalella azteca in Special Tests per<strong>for</strong>med on the <strong>Chollas</strong> Creek<br />
Stormwater Sample Collected on November 11, 2005........................................................17<br />
Table 5. Percent Survival of Hyalella azteca in TIE Tests per<strong>for</strong>med on the <strong>Chollas</strong> Creek<br />
Stormwater Sample Collected on January 2, 2006 .............................................................19<br />
Table 6. Percent Survival of Hyalella azteca in TIE Tests per<strong>for</strong>med on the <strong>Chollas</strong> Creek<br />
Stormwater Sample Collected on February 19, 2006..........................................................22<br />
Table 7. Chemical Analyses of <strong>Chollas</strong> Creek Stormwater Samples Collected During the 2005-<br />
2006 Monitoring Season......................................................................................................26<br />
Weston Solutions, Inc.<br />
ii
<strong>Toxicity</strong> <strong>Identification</strong> <strong>Evaluation</strong> of <strong>Chollas</strong> Creek<br />
Stormwater using Hyalella azteca<br />
Acronyms and Abbreviations<br />
August 2006<br />
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS<br />
BSA<br />
COC<br />
CDPR<br />
DO<br />
ECp<br />
EDTA<br />
EI<br />
GC-MS<br />
HCl<br />
KCl<br />
K ow<br />
LC<br />
LC 50<br />
MDL<br />
MEC<br />
MeOH<br />
MLS<br />
NaOH<br />
NICI<br />
NOEC<br />
NPDES<br />
PBO<br />
pH<br />
RL<br />
STS<br />
SPE<br />
TIE<br />
TRE<br />
TSS<br />
TUc<br />
USEPA<br />
Weston<br />
Bovine serum albumin<br />
Constituent of concern<br />
Cali<strong>for</strong>nia Department of Pesticide Regulation<br />
Dissolved oxygen<br />
Estimated concentration causing an effect on p% of the population<br />
Ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid<br />
Electron Ionization<br />
Gas chromatography – mass spectrometry<br />
Hydrochloric acid<br />
Potassium Chloride<br />
Octanol – Water Partition Coefficient<br />
Lethal concentration<br />
Median Lethal Concentration<br />
Method detection limit<br />
MEC Analytical, Inc.<br />
Methanol<br />
Mass loading stations<br />
Sodium hydroxide<br />
Negative Ion Chemical Ionization<br />
No Observable Effect Concentration<br />
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System<br />
Piperonyl butoxide<br />
Hydrogen ion concentration<br />
Reporting limit<br />
Sodium Thiosulfate<br />
Solid Phase Extraction<br />
<strong>Toxicity</strong> <strong>Identification</strong> <strong>Evaluation</strong><br />
<strong>Toxicity</strong> Reduction <strong>Evaluation</strong><br />
Total Suspended Solids<br />
Toxic Unit Chronic = 100/NOEC<br />
United States Environmental Protection Agency<br />
Weston Solutions, Inc.<br />
Weston Solutions, Inc.<br />
iii
<strong>Toxicity</strong> <strong>Identification</strong> <strong>Evaluation</strong> of <strong>Chollas</strong> Creek<br />
Stormwater using Hyalella azteca<br />
Units of Measure<br />
August 2006<br />
UNITS OF MEASURE<br />
°C degree(s) Celsius<br />
> greater than<br />
< less than<br />
µg/L microgram(s) per liter<br />
µm micron(s)<br />
g<br />
gram<br />
L<br />
liter<br />
M<br />
moles<br />
mg/L milligram(s) per liter<br />
mL<br />
milliliter(s)<br />
mm millimeter(s)<br />
ng/L nanogram(s) per liter<br />
ppt<br />
parts per thousand<br />
% percent<br />
Weston Solutions, Inc. 1
<strong>Toxicity</strong> <strong>Identification</strong> <strong>Evaluation</strong> of <strong>Chollas</strong> Creek<br />
Stormwater Using Hyalella azteca<br />
Executive Summary<br />
August 2006<br />
1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY<br />
As part of the San Diego municipal stormwater monitoring permit (National Pollutant Discharge<br />
Elimination System [NPDES] Order 2001-01) <strong>for</strong> the San Diego, Cali<strong>for</strong>nia region, stormwater<br />
runoff from <strong>Chollas</strong> Creek is evaluated during the wet weather season <strong>for</strong> chemical constituents,<br />
toxicity to test organisms, and health of the benthic community. A decision matrix based on<br />
these three lines of evidence is then used to determine whether <strong>Toxicity</strong> <strong>Identification</strong><br />
<strong>Evaluation</strong>s (TIEs) will be initiated on <strong>Chollas</strong> Creek samples to identify the causative agents of<br />
toxicity in stormwater samples collected during major storm events. The decision to initiate a<br />
TIE is based on the detection of high frequency contaminants of concern, persistent toxicity, and<br />
evidence of an impaired benthic community. In the 2004-2005 stormwater monitoring period <strong>for</strong><br />
the San Diego County Municipal Stormwater Copermittees, high frequency constituents of<br />
concern (COCs), including turbidity, diazinon, total and dissolved copper, and total zinc were<br />
measured in <strong>Chollas</strong> Creek stormwater samples. In addition, persistent toxicity was found<br />
because more than 50% of the toxicity tests conducted to date with Hyalella azteca had a no<br />
observable effect concentration (NOEC) of less than 100%. The benthic community was rated<br />
as poor and was determined to be impacted. Based on these findings, it was determined that<br />
TIEs would be per<strong>for</strong>med on <strong>Chollas</strong> Creek stormwater samples collected during the 2005-2006<br />
monitoring period if toxicity was observed in standard toxicity tests.<br />
During the 2005-2006 monitoring period, samples were collected from three major storm events<br />
and one minor storm event, and stormwater from the major storm events was analyzed <strong>for</strong><br />
toxicity in tests using Ceriodaphnia dubia, Hyalella azteca, and Selenastrum capricornutum. No<br />
toxicity was found in tests using either C. dubia or S. capricornutum. <strong>Toxicity</strong> tests with the<br />
amphipod H. azteca showed significant toxicity during initial tests per<strong>for</strong>med on samples<br />
collected October 18, 2005, January 2, 2006, and February 19, 2006. As a result, separate TIEs<br />
were conducted on stormwater samples from each of these three sampling events in an attempt<br />
to establish the potential cause or causes of toxicity. There was a minor storm event on<br />
November 11, 2005; however, at this time there was insufficient sample volume <strong>for</strong> the<br />
necessary physical, chemical, and biological analyses. However, this sample was used <strong>for</strong><br />
additional specialized testing to confirm some of our findings from the October 18, 2005 storm<br />
event, and to compare toxicity of the stormwater sample tested in glass versus plastic<br />
containers.<br />
Stormwater toxicity tests and TIEs using the freshwater amphipod Hyalella azteca were<br />
per<strong>for</strong>med according to a modified version of the USEPA protocol <strong>for</strong> testing sedimentassociated<br />
contaminants with freshwater invertebrates (EPA/600/R-99/064). TIEs were<br />
conducted according to guidelines <strong>for</strong> characterizing chronically toxic effluents (USEPA, 1991,<br />
1992, 1993a, and 1993b). Phase I TIEs included the following battery of tests to help establish<br />
potential causative agents of toxicity in stormwater samples:<br />
• Baseline tests were per<strong>for</strong>med to benchmark toxicity of the unmanipulated stormwater<br />
samples run concurrently with the TIE tests <strong>for</strong> comparative purposes.<br />
• Filtration tests were per<strong>for</strong>med to establish whether the chemicals causing toxicity were<br />
particulate bound or freely dissolved.<br />
• Aeration tests were per<strong>for</strong>med to determine whether volatile chemicals and/or<br />
surfactants were potential causative agents of toxicity.<br />
• Graduated pH tests were per<strong>for</strong>med to determine if the causative agents showed pHdependent<br />
changes in toxicity such as ammonia and aluminum.<br />
• Ethylenediaminetetraacetic Acid (EDTA) tests were per<strong>for</strong>med to determine whether<br />
metals were a potential contributor to the toxicity of the sample.<br />
Weston Solutions, Inc. 1
<strong>Toxicity</strong> <strong>Identification</strong> <strong>Evaluation</strong> of <strong>Chollas</strong> Creek<br />
Stormwater Using Hyalella azteca<br />
Executive Summary<br />
August 2006<br />
• Sodium Thiosulfate (STS) tests were per<strong>for</strong>med to determine whether oxidative<br />
chemicals were contributing to toxicity of the sample.<br />
• Solid Phase Extraction (SPE) Tests (followed by methanol elution) were per<strong>for</strong>med to<br />
evaluate whether non-polar organics could be contributing to toxicity of the sample.<br />
• Piperonyl butoxide (PBO) tests were per<strong>for</strong>med to determine whether organophosphate<br />
pesticides or pyrethroids could be potential contributors to toxicity.<br />
• Carboxyl esterase tests were per<strong>for</strong>med to help determine potential contribution of<br />
pyrethroids to toxicity.<br />
Results of TIE tests conducted on stormwater samples collected from <strong>Chollas</strong> Creek during the<br />
2005-2006 monitoring season provided strong evidence that pyrethroids were the causative<br />
agents of toxicity. TIE tests including the PBO and the carboxyl esterase tests, indicated that<br />
pyrethroids were a likely causative agent. PBO treatments led to increased toxicity in the<br />
stormwater samples, indicative of pyrethroids because PBO is known to potentiate pyrethroid<br />
toxicity by interfering with key metabolic pathways (e.g., the P-450 mixed function oxygenase<br />
system) important in the inactivation of pyrethroid compounds. Conversely, carboxyl esterase,<br />
a known antagonist of pyrethroid toxicity, reduced toxicity in the stormwater samples, also<br />
indicating pyrethroids as the causative agents. The carboxyl esterase enzyme has a strong<br />
affinity <strong>for</strong> pyrethroids and readily metabolizes pyrethroids to less toxic <strong>for</strong>ms. Results of<br />
filtration tests and a special study per<strong>for</strong>med on the November stormwater sample also provided<br />
evidence of pyrethroids. In the filtration test, toxicity was completed reduced in filtered<br />
stormwater samples, suggesting that the causative agents were bound to particulates.<br />
Pyrethroids are insoluble in water and have high adsorption coefficients, indicating their<br />
tendency to adsorb to particulates. As part of a special study conducted on the November<br />
stormwater sample, significantly higher toxicity was demonstrated in glass test chambers<br />
relative to plastic test chambers. Pyrethroids readily adsorb to plastic, leading to a timedependent<br />
reduction in toxicity <strong>for</strong> samples held in plastic containers. Finally, all other TIE<br />
manipulations indicated that the causative agents of toxicity did not share similar<br />
physicochemical properties to those of metals, oxidative chemicals, pH-sensitive chemicals, or<br />
volatile chemicals/surfactants, as demonstrated by the lack of toxicity reduction in the EDTA,<br />
STS, graduated pH, and aeration tests, respectively.<br />
Chemical analyses of <strong>Chollas</strong> Creek stormwater samples indicated that pyrethroids were<br />
present. Pyrethroids including bifenthrin and permethrin were measured in <strong>Chollas</strong> Creek<br />
stormwater samples at levels that exceeded aqueous bifenthrin and permethrin 96 hr median<br />
lethal concentrations (LC 50 s) <strong>for</strong> H. azteca. These results indicate that bifenthrin and permethrin<br />
were likely contributors to the toxicity observed in the <strong>Chollas</strong> Creek stormwater samples. A<br />
number of other pyrethroids were detected in stormwater samples including cyfluthrin,<br />
cypermethrin, and cyhalothrin. While the aqueous LC 50 s <strong>for</strong> H. azteca exposed to these<br />
pyrethroids are currently unknown, concentrations of these pyrethroids were comparable to<br />
those of bifenthrin and permethrin, suggesting that cyfluthrin, cypermethrin, and cyhalothrin<br />
pyrethroids also may have contributed to the toxicity observed in the <strong>Chollas</strong> Creek samples. In<br />
addition, PBO, a chemical used as a synergist in pyrethroid pesticide <strong>for</strong>mulations, was<br />
detected along with pyrethroids in <strong>Chollas</strong> Creek stormwater samples. Other chemicals<br />
including metals were detected in the <strong>Chollas</strong> Creek stormwater samples; however, the<br />
detected concentrations were significantly below known effect levels <strong>for</strong> the test species and<br />
there<strong>for</strong>e were unlikely to have contributed to the observed toxicity.<br />
Results of the TIE manipulations taken in concert with results of chemical analyses indicate that<br />
pyrethroids are the likely primary cause of toxicity in <strong>Chollas</strong> Creek stormwater samples. It is<br />
interesting to note that this finding is consistent with recent changes in residential insecticide<br />
Weston Solutions, Inc. 2
<strong>Toxicity</strong> <strong>Identification</strong> <strong>Evaluation</strong> of <strong>Chollas</strong> Creek<br />
Stormwater Using Hyalella azteca<br />
Executive Summary<br />
August 2006<br />
<strong>for</strong>mulations where pyrethroids (e.g., bifenthrin) have replaced traditional organophosphate<br />
pesticides (e.g., diazinon and chlorpyrifos).<br />
Weston Solutions, Inc. 3
<strong>Toxicity</strong> <strong>Identification</strong> <strong>Evaluation</strong> of <strong>Chollas</strong> Creek<br />
Stormwater using Hyalella azteca<br />
Introduction<br />
August 2006<br />
2. INTRODUCTION<br />
2.1 BACKGROUND AND HISTORY<br />
The San Diego municipal stormwater monitoring permit (National Pollutant Discharge<br />
Elimination System [NPDES] Order 2001-01) <strong>for</strong> the San Diego, Cali<strong>for</strong>nia region requires<br />
monitoring of stormwater runoff at ten mass loading stations (MLS) during the wet weather<br />
season within San Diego’s watersheds. The ten MLS evaluated in this program include: San<br />
Luis Rey River, Aqua Hedionda Creek, Escondido Creek, San Dieguito River, Penasquitos<br />
Creek, Tecolote Creek, San Diego River, <strong>Chollas</strong> Creek, Sweetwater River, and the Tijuana<br />
River. The determination of when to per<strong>for</strong>m a <strong>Toxicity</strong> <strong>Identification</strong> <strong>Evaluation</strong> (TIE) at a MLS<br />
is identified by following a triad decision matrix method found in the Watershed Data<br />
Assessment Framework (MEC Analytical, Inc. [MEC]-Weston Solutions, Inc. [Weston], 2004).<br />
The triad decision matrix assesses data collected from the program including water chemistry<br />
and toxicity results from the mass loading stations, and results from benthic community<br />
structure analysis from rapid stream bioassessment. Definitions that are utilized to determine<br />
when a TIE is to be per<strong>for</strong>med are listed below in Table 1.<br />
Table 1. Triad Definitions <strong>for</strong> San Diego Storm Water Monitoring Program.<br />
Triad Component<br />
Definition<br />
Persistent Exceedance of Water Quality<br />
Objectives<br />
Evidence of Persistent <strong>Toxicity</strong><br />
Indication of Benthic Alteration<br />
A constituent of concern with a high frequency<br />
of occurrence 1 based on wet and dry weather<br />
data exceedances compared to established<br />
list of benchmarks or trigger levels<br />
More than 50% of the toxicity tests <strong>for</strong> any<br />
given species have a NOEC of less than<br />
100%.<br />
IBI score indicates a substantially degraded<br />
community (very poor)<br />
Source: Watershed Data Assessment Framework (MEC-Weston, 2004)<br />
Samples from three storm events are analyzed <strong>for</strong> toxicity using Ceriodaphnia dubia (7-day<br />
Survival and Reproduction), Hyalella azteca (4-day Survival), and Selenastrum capricornutum<br />
(4-day Growth). When findings from these toxicity tests at the mass loading stations indicate<br />
the presence of persistent toxicity, a TIE may be conducted to determine the potential cause or<br />
causes of toxicity.<br />
As listed in Table 1 above, toxicity test results are reported as the no observable effects<br />
concentration (NOEC). The NOEC is the lowest concentration at which there is no statistical<br />
difference from the control. There<strong>for</strong>e, a concentration of less than 100% is considered to have<br />
some degree of toxic effect. Persistent toxicity is evident when more than 50% of the toxicity<br />
tests conducted to date <strong>for</strong> any given species at a specific site have a NOEC of less than 100%.<br />
The results of this determination are then combined with the high frequency constituents of<br />
1 A more detailed definition of high frequency occurrence of constituents may be found in Section 3 of the<br />
San Diego County Municipal Copermittees 2005-2006 Urban Runoff Monitoring Final Report<br />
Weston Solutions, Inc. 4
<strong>Toxicity</strong> <strong>Identification</strong> <strong>Evaluation</strong> of <strong>Chollas</strong> Creek<br />
Stormwater using Hyalella azteca<br />
Introduction<br />
August 2006<br />
concern (chemistry data) and benthic data in the Triad Decision Matrix to determine the actions<br />
to be taken.<br />
Results from chemistry, toxicity and relative benthic community health were assessed together<br />
using the triad approach to determine what short and/or long term actions are appropriate in a<br />
watershed. This approach examines persistence of toxicity using several indicators to provide<br />
an indication of an ecological concern. When persistence is found, this triggers the initiation of<br />
short term actions such as a TIE to identify the constituents of concern (COCs) in the watershed<br />
that may be responsible <strong>for</strong> stormwater toxicity and/or benthic community degradation).<br />
In the 2004-2005 stormwater monitoring period <strong>for</strong> the San Diego County Municipal Stormwater<br />
Copermittees, high frequency COCs including turbidity, diazinon, total and dissolved copper,<br />
and total zinc were measured in <strong>Chollas</strong> Creek stormwater samples. In addition, persistent<br />
toxicity was found because more than 50% of the toxicity tests conducted to date with this<br />
species had a NOEC of less than 100%. The benthic community was rated as poor and was<br />
determined to be impacted. Thus, it was determined that TIEs would be per<strong>for</strong>med at <strong>Chollas</strong><br />
Creek if toxicity was observed during the standard toxicity testing of stormwater samples during<br />
the 2005-2006 monitoring period.<br />
2.2 TOXICITY IDENTIFICATION EVALUATION (TIE) TESTING<br />
The United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) has issued TIE testing guidelines<br />
<strong>for</strong> characterizing chronically toxic effluents (USEPA, 1991, 1992, 1993a, and 1993b). These<br />
guidelines are often effective <strong>for</strong> effluents that have similar toxic constituents to those identified<br />
in the model effluents used to develop the TIE guidelines. A <strong>Toxicity</strong> Reduction <strong>Evaluation</strong><br />
(TRE) is an evaluation which involves the identification of toxicants, location of the source,<br />
and treatment of the causative agents to a less toxic <strong>for</strong>m; the ultimate goal of a TRE is to<br />
reduce toxicity associated with contaminated water (or sediment). Thus, TIEs are important<br />
tools used in a TRE to initially help with the identification of toxicants, such that the source of the<br />
toxicant can be determined.<br />
The TIE typically consists of three test phases. Phase I of a TIE involves procedures designed<br />
to provide in<strong>for</strong>mation <strong>for</strong> identifying the class of the toxic constituents within an effluent 2 sample<br />
based on their chemical characteristics (e.g., volatility, ionization state, degree of adsorption to<br />
particulates, polarity, oxidative state, pH sensitivity, and interaction with synergistic and<br />
antagonistic compounds). These classification characteristics are examined by comparing the<br />
results of tests conducted on raw effluent samples to effluent samples that have been physically<br />
or chemically manipulated. Phase I testing involves manipulating the sample at the effluent’s<br />
initial pH using the manipulations shown in Table 2 below.<br />
The goal of Phase II TIE testing is to identify the toxicants in the sample, and Phase III methods<br />
are used to confirm that the suspected toxicants are the true cause of toxicity in the effluent<br />
samples (USEPA, 1993a and 1993b). It should be noted that the boundaries between Phases I,<br />
II, and III are not distinct and there may be cases where it is appropriate <strong>for</strong> their respective<br />
procedures to overlap because confirmation in<strong>for</strong>mation can be obtained during Phases I and II.<br />
2 The USEPA protocol is designed <strong>for</strong> per<strong>for</strong>ming TIEs on effluent samples, however, modifications have<br />
been made <strong>for</strong> per<strong>for</strong>ming TIEs on stormwater samples.<br />
Weston Solutions, Inc. 5
<strong>Toxicity</strong> <strong>Identification</strong> <strong>Evaluation</strong> of <strong>Chollas</strong> Creek<br />
Stormwater using Hyalella azteca<br />
Introduction<br />
August 2006<br />
TIEs are initiated when standard toxicity testing demonstrates toxicity in an effluent or<br />
stormwater sample that has previously been toxic to test organisms. Standard toxicity test<br />
methods sometimes rely on sublethal endpoints, such as C. dubia reproduction as indicators of<br />
chronic toxicity, and require substantially more time and resources to evaluate than methods<br />
that rely exclusively on a mortality endpoint. In addition, the USEPA guidelines do not provide<br />
specific guideline <strong>for</strong> test procedures using each toxicity test species, given the large number of<br />
test organisms. There<strong>for</strong>e, the USEPA’s TIE documents are used as guidance <strong>for</strong> conducting<br />
TIEs because it may not be possible or cost-effective to strictly adhere to these protocols. In<br />
addition, the USEPA protocols were initially designed <strong>for</strong> TIEs on whole effluent samples, and<br />
not the more variable, temporally distinct, and less predictable stormwater samples. Specifically,<br />
in contrast to effluent samples, chemical constituents found in stormwater may vary extensively<br />
between storm events due to seasonal chemical applications associated with non-point source<br />
pollution (i.e., pesticide applications associated with seasonal crops), duration and extent of<br />
rainfall, and other water quality measures such as total suspended solids (TSS) and<br />
temperature. Thus, modifications <strong>for</strong> efficiently conducting TIEs on stormwater samples using<br />
specific test organisms, and <strong>for</strong> specific site conditions may sometimes include the following:<br />
changes in test volumes, test duration, replicate number, number of test concentrations, and<br />
reduction in frequency of test solution renewal.<br />
Phase I test procedures are designed to identify obvious alterations in effluent toxicity, which<br />
may be achieved using modified chronic test methods.<br />
Table 2. <strong>Toxicity</strong> <strong>Identification</strong> <strong>Evaluation</strong> (TIE) Manipulations<br />
Physical and Chemical Manipulations<br />
(Tests) on Stormwater Samples<br />
Filtration<br />
Aeration<br />
Graduated pH Adjustment<br />
Ethylenediaminetetraacetic Acid (EDTA)<br />
Addition<br />
Sodium Thiosulfate (STS) Addition<br />
Purpose of Test<br />
Detects filterable compounds (e.g., TSS related)<br />
Detects volatile, oxidizable, sublatable, or<br />
spargeable compounds<br />
Detects pH dependent chemicals (e.g., ammonia<br />
and sulfides)<br />
Detects cationic metals (e.g., cadmium)<br />
Detects oxidative compounds (e.g., chlorine)<br />
Solid Phase Extraction (SPE) over C 18<br />
Column, followed by Methanol Elution<br />
Piperonyl Butoxide (PBO) Addition<br />
Carboxyl esterase Addition<br />
Detects non-polar organics and some surfactants<br />
Detects organophosphate pesticides and<br />
pyrethroids<br />
Detects pyrethroids<br />
Weston Solutions, Inc. 6
<strong>Toxicity</strong> <strong>Identification</strong> <strong>Evaluation</strong> of <strong>Chollas</strong> Creek<br />
Stormwater using Hyalella azteca<br />
Introduction<br />
August 2006<br />
2.3 INITIAL TOXICITY TESTING SUMMARY FOR CHOLLAS CREEK STORMWATER<br />
<strong>Chollas</strong> Creek persistently exceeds water quality objectives <strong>for</strong> diazinon, chlorpyrifos, turbidity,<br />
total and dissolved copper, and total zinc. This site was previously identified as a candidate TIE<br />
site due to the persistent toxicity to H. azteca in this watershed; however, the cause of toxicity in<br />
recent years was unclear. In addition, the initial toxicity test from the October 18, 2005 storm<br />
event demonstrated that <strong>Chollas</strong> Creek stormwater caused significant toxicity. Survival in the<br />
6.25, 12.5, 25, 50, and 100 percent sample concentrations was 97.5, 87.5, 82.5, 42.5, and<br />
7.5%, respectively. The median lethal concentration (LC 50 ) at 96 hours was estimated to be<br />
44.1% of the stormwater sample, while the NOEC was 25%. Weston initiated Phase I TIE<br />
testing on October 26, 2005 with this sample utilizing the manipulations listed above.<br />
On November 11, 2005 an additional sample was collected from this site. Due to insufficient<br />
sample volume, this sample was not used to per<strong>for</strong>m the standard stormwater toxicity tests with<br />
H. azteca or other species. However, this sample was used <strong>for</strong> additional specialized testing to<br />
confirm some of our previous findings, and to compare toxicity of the stormwater sample tested<br />
in glass versus plastic containers.<br />
Initial toxicity tests from the January 2, 2006 storm event also demonstrated that stormwater<br />
from <strong>Chollas</strong> Creek caused significant toxicity. Survival in the 6.25, 12.5, 25, 50, and 100<br />
percent sample concentrations was 100, 82.5, 92.5, 90, and 25%, respectively. The LC 50 at 96<br />
hours was estimated to be 76.6% of the stormwater sample, while the NOEC was 50%. Weston<br />
initiated Phase I TIE testing on January 11, 2006 with this sample. Additional treatments were<br />
added (i.e. carboxyl esterase) to help confirm whether pyrethroids were the likely causative<br />
agent of toxicity in this stormwater sample.<br />
Similar to previous stormwater events, initial toxicity tests from the February 19, 2006 storm<br />
event also demonstrated that stormwater from <strong>Chollas</strong> Creek caused significant toxicity.<br />
Survival in the 6.25, 12.5, 25, 50, and 100 percent sample concentrations was 100, 97.5, 92.5,<br />
55, and 2.5%, respectively. The LC 50 at 96 hours was estimated to be 76.6% of the stormwater<br />
sample, while the NOEC was 50%. Weston initiated Phase I TIE testing on March 2, 2006 with<br />
this sample. Similar treatments to those used on the January 11, 2006 TIE were used on this<br />
stormwater sample.<br />
Weston Solutions, Inc. 7
<strong>Toxicity</strong> <strong>Identification</strong> <strong>Evaluation</strong> of <strong>Chollas</strong> Creek<br />
Stormwater using Hyalella azteca<br />
Materials and Methods<br />
August 2006<br />
3. MATERIALS AND METHODS<br />
3.1 TEST PROCEDURES<br />
Bioassay methods <strong>for</strong> the species H. azteca test are from the USEPA guidance manual,<br />
“Methods <strong>for</strong> Measuring the <strong>Toxicity</strong> and Bioaccumulation of Sediment-associated<br />
Contaminants with Freshwater Invertebrates” (USEPA, 2000).<br />
3.1.1 <strong>Toxicity</strong> Test Using Hyalella azteca<br />
Stormwater tests <strong>for</strong> acute toxicity using the freshwater amphipod H. azteca were per<strong>for</strong>med<br />
according to a modified version of the USEPA protocol <strong>for</strong> testing sediment-associated<br />
contaminants with freshwater invertebrates (EPA/600/R-99/064). This protocol provides test<br />
methods <strong>for</strong> measuring acute and chronic toxicity in Hyalella exposed to freshwater sediments,<br />
as well as a test method <strong>for</strong> conducting a water-only acute reference toxicant test. The<br />
reference toxicant test protocol was modified to conduct the toxicity testing on samples collected<br />
from the mass loading stations. The test solution was prepared and 250-mL aliquots were<br />
placed into four replicate test chambers. Clean sand was placed as a thin “monolayer” in the<br />
bottom of the test chamber. Temperature, pH, dissolved oxygen, and salinity were measured at<br />
test initiation prior to adding organisms. Ten organisms per replicate were added. Tests were<br />
run at 23 ± 1°C under a 16 hour light: 8 hour dark photoperiod. Water quality was per<strong>for</strong>med<br />
daily on a surrogate chamber. The animals were exposed <strong>for</strong> four days, and fed on day 0 and<br />
2. At the end of the test, the survivors were removed from the sand and counted. Prior to<br />
analysis of the data, test acceptability was determined by evaluating the response of the control<br />
organisms. The test was considered invalid if survival of control animals was less than 90%. A<br />
reference toxicant test was conducted using copper sulfate with concentrations of 62.5, 125,<br />
250, 500, and 1000 µg Cu 2+ /L to establish the sensitivity of test organisms used in the<br />
evaluation of the <strong>Chollas</strong> Creek stormwater.<br />
3.2 TEST SOLUTION PREPARATION<br />
Control and dilution water <strong>for</strong> the H. azteca tests was Evian mineral water that was diluted<br />
with deionized water to achieve a moderate hardness (80-100 mg/L as CaCO 3 ). This water<br />
source has been used successfully on numerous similar bioassay testing programs conducted<br />
by Weston and others. Extensive testing with a variety of species and biannual chemical<br />
analysis of this water type has shown that this water source provides <strong>for</strong> good survival in<br />
laboratory controls with little to no measurable levels of contaminants.<br />
3.3 WATER QUALITY<br />
Water quality was monitored daily as appropriate <strong>for</strong> each test, and data were recorded on data<br />
sheets. Dissolved oxygen and temperature was measured using Orion Model 840 oxygen<br />
meters and probes; pH was measured using Orion Model 230A pH meters and probes.<br />
Conductivity was measured with Orion Models 142 conductivity/salinity meters. Ammonia<br />
was analyzed using an Orion 720 digital ion analyzer with a three-point calibration curve (1,<br />
10, and 100 mg/L). Hardness and alkalinity were measured utilizing LaMotte titration kits.<br />
3.4 SAMPLE RECEIPT<br />
The stormwater samples were composited at the laboratory and stored at 4°C. A chain-ofcustody<br />
was completed <strong>for</strong> all samples received. Be<strong>for</strong>e samples were used in the tests, initial<br />
Weston Solutions, Inc. 8
<strong>Toxicity</strong> <strong>Identification</strong> <strong>Evaluation</strong> of <strong>Chollas</strong> Creek<br />
Stormwater using Hyalella azteca<br />
Materials and Methods<br />
August 2006<br />
water quality measurements were taken. These measurements included temperature, total<br />
chlorine, total ammonia, pH, dissolved oxygen, and salinity.<br />
3.5 PHASE I TIE METHODS<br />
3.5.1 Protocol Modifications<br />
Measures to conserve time and resources required to conduct TIE testing have been developed<br />
and approved by the USEPA (USEPA, 1992). This study incorporated modifications which<br />
allowed <strong>for</strong> the reduction in number of test concentrations, replicates, organisms per replicate,<br />
and volumes <strong>for</strong> all TIE tests conducted, relative to test conditions used in standard toxicity<br />
tests. The test concentrations used <strong>for</strong> the TIE tests per<strong>for</strong>med in October and November of<br />
2005 included 50, 75, and 100 percent sample concentrations. In January and February of<br />
2006, only the 100 percent sample concentration from <strong>Chollas</strong> Creek was tested due to<br />
limitations in sample volume. For the H. azteca toxicity test, three replicates with five organisms<br />
per replicate in a volume of 50 mL were used in TIEs per<strong>for</strong>med in October, November, and<br />
January. In the February TIE, the replicate number was increased to five replicates with five<br />
organisms per replicate in a volume of 50 mL, to decrease variability in the test results, and<br />
increase our power to detect differences among treatments. Treatment blanks were created <strong>for</strong><br />
each TIE test to determine the effects of the manipulation on laboratory dilution water. The<br />
results of these blanks were used to determine if any changes in toxicity of the control (dilution<br />
water) were impacted by the chemical or physical manipulation of the sample.<br />
3.5.2 Baseline Tests<br />
The baseline test assesses the toxicity of the unmanipulated sample run concurrently with the<br />
TIE tests. This test confirms the presence of toxicity in the stormwater sample, and benchmarks<br />
the toxicity <strong>for</strong> comparison to toxicity in TIE treatments.<br />
On Day 1 of the October 18, 2005 <strong>Chollas</strong> Creek toxicity test, the dissolved oxygen level of the<br />
water quality surrogate <strong>for</strong> the 100 percent sample concentration briefly dropped below the<br />
protocol limit of 4.0 mg/L. The test was aerated and dissolved oxygen levels returned within<br />
range. To avoid a contribution of toxicity in the Baseline tests due to low dissolved oxygen<br />
levels, an Aerated and a Non-aerated Baseline test were per<strong>for</strong>med. The Aerated Baseline test<br />
received head space aeration, at low air flow rates, <strong>for</strong> 5 minutes each day of high grade<br />
oxygen. It should be noted that this Aerated Baseline test differs from the aerated test below, in<br />
which the sample was aerated at high flow rates <strong>for</strong> an hour prior to test initiated.<br />
The Baseline tests conducted on the November 11, 2005 <strong>Chollas</strong> Creek sample were<br />
per<strong>for</strong>med in both plastic and glass test chambers. This comparison was done because it was<br />
hypothesized that pyrethroids could be the causative agent <strong>for</strong> the toxicity measured in samples<br />
from this site. Specifically, pyrethroids are known to adsorb to plastic, leading to a timedependent<br />
reduction in toxicity (Wheelock et al., 2005).<br />
3.5.3 Ethylenediaminetetraacetic Acid (EDTA) Tests<br />
EDTA tests were per<strong>for</strong>med to determine whether metals were the causative agent of toxicity in<br />
the <strong>Chollas</strong> Creek stormwater sample. Specifically, EDTA binds certain ionic metals, making<br />
them biologically unavailable to the test organisms. A reduction in the toxic response of a<br />
sample treated with EDTA may indicate the presence of divalent (metal) cation toxicity.<br />
Weston Solutions, Inc. 9
<strong>Toxicity</strong> <strong>Identification</strong> <strong>Evaluation</strong> of <strong>Chollas</strong> Creek<br />
Stormwater using Hyalella azteca<br />
Materials and Methods<br />
August 2006<br />
Two series of EDTA tests were conducted with concentrations of 3.0 and 8.0 mg/L on the<br />
October 18, 2005 stormwater sample. First, a stock solution of 2.5 g/L of EDTA was prepared.<br />
EDTA treatments were prepared by diluting the EDTA stock solution to final concentrations of<br />
both 3.0 and 8.0 mg/L in stormwater (50, 75, and 100 percent sample concentrations) and<br />
dilution water. The EDTA was allowed to react with the sample <strong>for</strong> a minimum of 2 hours prior<br />
to the addition of the test organisms. Prior to test initiation, the pH was adjusted to the initial pH<br />
of the stormwater sample using 0.12 and 2.0 N hydrochloric acid (HCl) and 0.5 M sodium<br />
hydroxide (NaOH).<br />
Lower concentrations of EDTA were used on the January 2, 2006 stormwater sample, because<br />
the higher concentration of EDTA (8.0 mg/L) demonstrated toxicity to H. azteca in the dilution<br />
water control in the October Phase I TIE. Thus, EDTA tests were conducted with concentrations<br />
of 0.8 and 3.0 mg/L and were prepared as described above. For the TIE using the February 19,<br />
2006 stormwater sample, only one concentration of EDTA (3.0 mg/L) was used in the TIE, due<br />
to high survival in the control (blank) using this EDTA concentration. Specifically, we wished to<br />
use the highest concentration of EDTA in the test that would not cause toxicity to the test<br />
organisms. EDTA treatment blanks <strong>for</strong> all TIEs were prepared identically to the stormwater<br />
samples described above, using dilution water instead of stormwater.<br />
3.5.4 Sodium Thiosulfate (STS) Tests<br />
STS tests were per<strong>for</strong>med to determine whether oxidative chemicals were the causative agent<br />
of toxicity in the <strong>Chollas</strong> Creek stormwater sample. Specifically, the addition of STS removes<br />
the effects of oxidative compounds including compounds such as chlorine, bromine, and ozone.<br />
This treatment also has success in removing some cationic metals.<br />
Two series of STS tests were conducted with concentrations of 10 and 25 mg/L. A stock<br />
solution of 2.5 g STS/L was prepared. STS treatments were then prepared by diluting the STS<br />
stock solution to final concentrations of 10 and 25 mg/L, separately, in stormwater (50, 75 and<br />
100 percent sample concentrations). In the TIE using the February 19, 2006 stormwater<br />
Sample, only one concentration of STS (10 mg/L) was used, due to high survival in the STS<br />
treatment control (blank) in the January TIE. STS treatment blanks <strong>for</strong> all TIEs were prepared<br />
identically to the stormwater samples described above, using dilution water instead of<br />
stormwater.<br />
3.5.5 Aeration Tests<br />
Aeration tests were per<strong>for</strong>med to determine whether volatile chemicals and surfactants were the<br />
causative agent of toxicity in the <strong>Chollas</strong> Creek stormwater sample. Aeration helps reduce<br />
concentrations of volatile chemicals and surfactants.<br />
The stormwater sample (300 - 750 ml) was aerated with filtered air at a medium to high rate<br />
(500 mL air/min) <strong>for</strong> a minimum of one hour at test temperature. After one hour the sample was<br />
collected by siphoning from the middle of the beaker to avoid surfactants on the side of the<br />
beaker. This aerated sample was then used to prepare 200 mL dilutions of 50, 75 and 100<br />
percent samples. Aeration treatment blanks <strong>for</strong> all TIEs were prepared identically to the<br />
stormwater samples described above, using dilution water instead of stormwater.<br />
Weston Solutions, Inc. 10
<strong>Toxicity</strong> <strong>Identification</strong> <strong>Evaluation</strong> of <strong>Chollas</strong> Creek<br />
Stormwater using Hyalella azteca<br />
Materials and Methods<br />
August 2006<br />
3.5.6 Filtration Tests<br />
Filtration tests were per<strong>for</strong>med to determine whether the chemicals causing toxicity were bound<br />
to particulate matter in the <strong>Chollas</strong> Creek stormwater sample. A reduction in toxicity following<br />
filtration indicates that chemicals are particulate bound.<br />
The October 18, 2005 stormwater sample manipulation was prepared by filtering stormwater (3<br />
L) through a preconditioned nominal 1 µm groundwater sampling capsule using a peristaltic<br />
pump. Half of the filtrate (1.5 L) was reserved <strong>for</strong> the C 18 SPE Test described below. The<br />
remaining filtrate (1.5 L) was then used to prepare 200 mL dilutions of 50, 75 and 100 percent<br />
samples. On November 11, 2005 the filtration test was repeated using a 1 µm glass fiber filter<br />
and a vacuum pump to compare to toxicity resulting after filtration through the groundwater<br />
sampling capsule. Specifically, it was uncertain whether the groundwater sampling capsule was<br />
removing just particulate matter (i.e., the capsule may have removed adsorptive chemicals as<br />
well). The January 2, 2006 stormwater sample manipulation was prepared by filtering 1.25 L of<br />
stormwater. Approximately 360 mL of the filtrate was reserved <strong>for</strong> the C 18 SPE Test described<br />
below. The remaining filtrate (~890 mL) was reserved <strong>for</strong> the C 18 SPE. Stormwater (1.35 L)<br />
from the February 19, 2006 event was filtered and approximately 300 mL was used in the<br />
filtration test, while approximately 1 L was reserved <strong>for</strong> SPE. The filtration treatment blanks <strong>for</strong><br />
all TIEs were prepared identically to the stormwater sample filtration described above, using<br />
dilution water instead of stormwater.<br />
3.5.7 C18 Solid Phase Extraction and Methanol Add-Back Tests<br />
SPE followed by methanol elution is a test per<strong>for</strong>med to evaluate whether non-polar organics<br />
were the causative agents of toxicity. Specifically, non-polar organics are initially retained on the<br />
C 18 column and may be eluted with methanol. In subsequent toxicity tests, toxicity associated<br />
with the methanol extract is toxicity is indicative of non-polar organics.<br />
The October 18, 2005 stormwater sample manipulation was prepared by passing 1.5 L of<br />
filtered stormwater sample through a pre-conditioned 5 g C 18 SPE column at a rate of 5 mL per<br />
minute using a peristaltic pump. The January 2, 2006 stormwater sample manipulation involved<br />
extracting 887.6 mL of filtered sample through a pre-conditioned 1 g C 18 SPE column at a rate<br />
of 5 mL per minute using a peristaltic pump. The February 19, 2006 stormwater sample<br />
manipulation involved extracting 1.12 L of filtered sample through a pre-conditioned 1 g SPE C 18<br />
column at a rate of 5 mL per minute using a peristaltic pump.<br />
The SPE C 18 treatment blanks <strong>for</strong> all TIEs were prepared identically to the stormwater sample<br />
extractions described above, using dilution water instead of stormwater.<br />
The SPE C 18 column was then eluted with 100% reagent grade methanol to extract any<br />
contaminants bound to the column. To elute the column <strong>for</strong> the October 18, 2005 stormwater<br />
event, a total of 4.5 mL of 100% methanol was passed through the 5 g column in three, 1.5 mL<br />
aliquots, and collected into a test tube. The methanol was then added to clean control water at<br />
concentrations equaling 1.0, 2.0, and 4.0 times the concentration of the potential contaminants<br />
in the original stormwater sample.<br />
To elute the stormwater samples collected from January 2 and February 19, 2006, a total of 10<br />
mL of 100% methanol was passed through the 1 g column in five, 2 mL aliquots, and collected<br />
into a test tube. For this treatment, the methanol elution sample was concentrated using<br />
nitrogen gas to reduce the sample volume such that toxicity associated with methanol, as<br />
Weston Solutions, Inc. 11
<strong>Toxicity</strong> <strong>Identification</strong> <strong>Evaluation</strong> of <strong>Chollas</strong> Creek<br />
Stormwater using Hyalella azteca<br />
Materials and Methods<br />
August 2006<br />
indicated by the October TIE, would be reduced. Specifically, the methanol elution sample was<br />
placed on a warming plate, and nitrogen gas was blown into the headspace of the vial until the<br />
volume was reduced to approximately 2-4 mL. The exact concentration was determined and the<br />
methanol elution was added to clean control water at a concentration of 2.0 times the<br />
concentration of the potential contaminants in the original stormwater sample.<br />
3.5.8 Graduated pH Tests<br />
Graduated pH tests are per<strong>for</strong>med to see if the causative agents are pH-sensitive chemicals<br />
such as ammonia and aluminum. If changes in pH increase or decrease toxicity, this indicates<br />
that pH sensitive chemicals are present.<br />
Aliquots of stormwater (200 - 750 mL) and dilution water (750 mL) were elevated to test<br />
temperature and then adjusted to a pH of 6.8. These were used to prepare 200 mL dilutions of<br />
50, 75 and 100 percent samples. The pH was adjusted to the target using 4 N HCl and 1.5 M<br />
NaOH. Treatment blanks <strong>for</strong> all TIEs were prepared identically to the stormwater samples<br />
described above, using dilution water instead of stormwater.<br />
3.5.9 Piperonyl Butoxide (PBO) Tests<br />
PBO tests are per<strong>for</strong>med to identify whether the causative agents are organophosphate<br />
pesticides or pyrethroids. Specifically, PBO blocks specific cytochrome P450 enzymes that are<br />
involved in metabolizing chemicals such as organophosphates to more toxic metabolites and<br />
chemicals such as pyrethroids to less toxic metabolites. Thus, if results from this test<br />
demonstrate increased toxicity in the stormwater sample, this is indicative of chemicals (e.g.<br />
pyrethroids) that are metabolized to less toxic <strong>for</strong>ms by cytochrome P450 enzymes. In contrast,<br />
if the results demonstrate decreased toxicity in the stormwater samples, this is indicative of<br />
chemicals (e.g. malathion, organophosphates) that are metabolized to more toxic <strong>for</strong>ms by<br />
cytochrome P450 enzymes.<br />
Two concentrations of PBO tests were used during each TIE. Concentrations of 0.025 and<br />
0.050 mg/L were used in October, November, and January, whereas concentrations of 0.0007<br />
mg/L and 0.025 mg/L were used in the February TIE. A stock solution of 2.5 mg PBO/L was<br />
prepared. PBO treatments were prepared by diluting the PBO stock solution to final<br />
concentrations of 0.0007, 0.025, and/or 0.050 mg/L, separately, in stormwater (50, 75 and 100<br />
percent sample concentrations) and dilution water. The initial phase of TIE testing on <strong>Chollas</strong><br />
Creek indicated that pyrethroids could be the cause of concern <strong>for</strong> toxicity. Because<br />
pyrethroids can adsorb to plastic (Wheelock et al., 2005), this test was repeated on November<br />
15, 2005 using a new sample in both glass and plastic test chambers.<br />
In January, a reference toxicant test was also conducted concurrently with Phase I TIE tests to<br />
confirm that the concentrations of PBO used in the TIE treatments were at sublethal levels.<br />
PBO reference toxicant test used concentrations of 0.01, 0.05, 0.1, 0.5, and 1 mg/L.<br />
3.5.10 Carboxyl Esterase Tests<br />
Carboxyl esterase treatments are per<strong>for</strong>med to remove toxicity in samples that may contain<br />
pyrethroids. Carboxyl esterase is an enzyme that degrades type I and type II pyrethroids. Thus,<br />
recent studies have been per<strong>for</strong>med in which carboxyl esterase has been used to reduce<br />
pyrethroid-associated toxicity to test organisms such as H. azteca (Wheelock et al., 2004). The<br />
carboxyl esterase test method used in the January and February TIEs was provided to Weston<br />
Weston Solutions, Inc. 12
<strong>Toxicity</strong> <strong>Identification</strong> <strong>Evaluation</strong> of <strong>Chollas</strong> Creek<br />
Stormwater using Hyalella azteca<br />
Materials and Methods<br />
August 2006<br />
Solutions by Bryn Phillips (personal communication, Granite Canyon Laboratory). In this<br />
method, the protein Bovine Serum Albumin (BSA) is used as a control <strong>for</strong> the<br />
esterase. Specifically, if toxicity is reduced in both the BSA treatment and the carboxyl esterase<br />
treatment, this indicates that both BSA and esterase are adsorbing the chemicals in the water<br />
samples. In contrast, if toxicity is only reduced in the carboxyl esterase treatment, this indicates<br />
that the chemicals in the water sample have been enzymatically altered by the carboxyl<br />
esterase, and that these chemicals may be pyrethroids due to the affinity of carboxyl esterase<br />
<strong>for</strong> these compounds.<br />
This sample treatment was only per<strong>for</strong>med on the January 2, 2006 and February 19, 2006<br />
stormwater samples. A stock solution of 2 mg carboxyl esterase/mL was prepared. The<br />
carboxyl esterase treatment was prepared by diluting the carboxyl esterase stock solution to<br />
achieve a final concentration of 0.52 μg/mL (or 1.25 Units/ml) in stormwater (100 percent<br />
sample concentration only). A stock solution of 2 mg BSA/mL was also prepared. The BSA<br />
treatment was prepared by diluting the BSA stock solution to achieve a final concentration of<br />
0.52 μg/mL in stormwater (100 percent sample concentration only).<br />
3.6 STATISTICAL ANALYSIS<br />
At the conclusion of all tests, test species data were evaluated statistically using ToxCalc to<br />
determine the ECp, or estimated concentration that causes any effect, either lethal (LC) or<br />
inhibitory (sublethal; IC), on p% of the test population, and NOEC values. ToxCalc is a<br />
comprehensive statistical application that follows standard guidelines <strong>for</strong> acute and chronic<br />
toxicity data analysis.<br />
Statistical effects can be measured by the ECp. The LC 50 or LC 25 is the point estimate of the<br />
concentration at which a lethal effect is observed in 50% or 25% of the test organisms. ECp<br />
values include 95% confidence limits where available. The NOEC is the highest tested<br />
concentration at which mortality and other sublethal measured effects are not significantly<br />
different from the those in the control treatment. All statistics were run against treatment blanks<br />
to mitigate <strong>for</strong> any artifactual effect that the treatment had upon the toxicity.<br />
The non-parametric Wilcoxon Signed Rank test (WSR) was used according to Gilbert (1987) to<br />
determine whether or not there were statistically significant differences between survival of H.<br />
azteca in TIE treatments and survival of H. azteca in the Baseline, or untreated stormwater<br />
sample. Briefly, this method involved the following steps: (1) subtracting the concentrations of<br />
contaminants (<strong>for</strong> specific contaminants/classes separately) in sediment within and adjacent to<br />
the leasehold from the reference level, (2) ranking these differences according to their absolute<br />
values, and (3) calculating the WSR statistic of the test according to standard procedures<br />
(Gilbert 1987). The null hypothesis was rejected when the WSR statistic was below the<br />
Wilcoxon critical value (from a pre-determined table in Zar 1991).<br />
Weston Solutions, Inc. 13
<strong>Toxicity</strong> <strong>Identification</strong> <strong>Evaluation</strong> of <strong>Chollas</strong> Creek<br />
Stormwater using Hyalella azteca<br />
Materials and Methods<br />
August 2006<br />
4. RESULTS<br />
4.1 TIE TESTS ON CHOLLAS CREEK STORMWATER USING HYALELLA AZTECA<br />
4.1.1 Results of TIE Per<strong>for</strong>med on the October 18, 2005 Sample<br />
Results <strong>for</strong> the TIE per<strong>for</strong>med on the October 18, 2005 sample are summarized in Table 3.<br />
Table 3. Percent Survival of Hyalella azteca in TIE Tests per<strong>for</strong>med on the <strong>Chollas</strong> Creek Stormwater Sample<br />
Collected on October 18, 2005.<br />
Test<br />
Control<br />
(Blank) –<br />
Dilution Water<br />
Stormwater Dilution<br />
50%<br />
Stormwater<br />
(1X 1 )<br />
75%<br />
Stormwater<br />
(2X 1 )<br />
100%<br />
Stormwater<br />
(4X 1 )<br />
NOEC LC 50<br />
Baseline 86.7 100 80 80 2 100 >100<br />
Non-aerated<br />
Baseline<br />
73.3 93.3 86.7 66.7 100 >100<br />
EDTA – 3 mg/L 60 66.7 66.7 40 100 >100<br />
STS - 10 mg/L 86.7 86.7 80 60 75 >100<br />
Aeration 53.3 93.3 80 33.3 100 97.37<br />
Filtration 46.7 100 100 100 100 >100<br />
Solid Phase<br />
Extraction (C 18 )<br />
93.3 100 100 100 100 >100<br />
Methanol Elution 33.3 86.7 33.3 0 2X 2.2X<br />
pH 6.8 100 93.3 93.3 86.7 100 >100<br />
PBO - 0.025 mg/L 86.7 13.3 26.7 0
<strong>Toxicity</strong> <strong>Identification</strong> <strong>Evaluation</strong> of <strong>Chollas</strong> Creek<br />
Stormwater using Hyalella azteca<br />
Results<br />
August 2006<br />
in the 100 percent sample concentration) 4 . Survival in the 3.0 mg/L EDTA treatment blank<br />
(dilution water) was 60%. A higher concentration of EDTA (8.0 mg/L) was also used; however,<br />
this EDTA concentration demonstrated toxicity in the dilution water (46.7% survival), indicating<br />
that higher concentrations of EDTA were toxic and thus not appropriate in TIEs with H. azteca.<br />
The 10 mg/L STS manipulation also did not reduce toxicity, but instead caused a slight increase<br />
in toxicity in the 100 percent sample concentration (60% survival) relative to toxicity in the<br />
unmanipulated Baseline test (80% survival in the 100 percent sample concentration). The<br />
NOEC was 75%. Survival in the 10 mg/L STS treatment blank was 86.7%. A higher<br />
concentration of STS (25 mg/L) was also used; however, this STS concentration demonstrated<br />
toxicity in the dilution water (53.3% survival), indicating that at high concentrations, STS may<br />
cause toxicity.<br />
The Aeration treatment also did not reduce toxicity in the 100 percent sample concentration<br />
(33.3% survival) relative to toxicity in the unmanipulated Baseline test (80% survival in the 100<br />
percent sample concentration). Survival in the Aeration treatment blank was 53.3%. These<br />
results indicate that volatile chemicals and/or surfactants were not the causative agent of toxicity<br />
in the stormwater sample.<br />
The Filtration manipulation using a 1 µm Groundwater Sampling Capsule filter slightly reduced<br />
toxicity in the 100 percent sample concentration (100% survival) from toxicity in the<br />
unmanipulated Baseline test (80% survival in the 100 percent sample concentration). Survival<br />
in the Filtration treatment blank was 46.7%. Similar results were found using a 1 µm Glass<br />
Fiber Filter with the same sample on November 8, 2005. <strong>Toxicity</strong> was reduced in the 100<br />
percent sample concentration (100% survival) relative to toxicity in the unmanipulated Baseline<br />
test (66.7% survival in the 100 percent sample concentration). Survival in the Filtration<br />
treatment blank was 86.7%. These results indicate that the causative agent may be associated<br />
with particulates in the stormwater sample.<br />
The SPE C 18 reduced toxicity in the 100 percent sample concentration (100% survival) relative<br />
to toxicity in the unmanipulated Baseline test (80% survival in the 100 percent sample<br />
concentration). Survival in the SPE C 18 treatment blank was 93.3%. Since this sample is prefiltered<br />
prior to the C 18 manipulation, the reduction in toxicity was most likely due to pre-filtration<br />
of the sample prior to C 18 elution.<br />
The methanol add-back manipulation resulted in 0% survival in the 4X methanol add-back<br />
concentration. Survival was 33.3% in the Methanol treatment blank indicating that the methanol<br />
concentration used in this manipulation likely contributed to the observed toxicity.<br />
The pH 6.8 manipulation did not result in a significant change in toxicity in the 100 percent<br />
sample concentration (86.7% survival) relative to toxicity in the unmanipulated Baseline test<br />
(80% survival in the 100 percent sample concentration). Survival in the pH 6.8 treatment blank<br />
was 100%. This indicates that the causative agent was likely not a pH sensitive chemical such<br />
as ammonia.<br />
4 It should be noted that toxicity in the initial toxicity test per<strong>for</strong>med upon sample collection demonstrated<br />
significantly lower survival in the 100 percent sample concentration (7.5% survival, with an LC 50 of 44.1%)<br />
relative to toxicity in the Baseline test (80% survival).<br />
Weston Solutions, Inc. 15
<strong>Toxicity</strong> <strong>Identification</strong> <strong>Evaluation</strong> of <strong>Chollas</strong> Creek<br />
Stormwater using Hyalella azteca<br />
Results<br />
August 2006<br />
The 0.025 mg/L PBO treatment increased toxicity in the 100 percent sample concentration (0%<br />
survival) relative to toxicity in the unmanipulated Baseline test (80% survival in the 100 percent<br />
sample concentration). The NOEC was less than 50%, and the LC 50 was 32.5%. Survival in<br />
the 0.025 mg/L PBO treatment blank was 86.7%. The 0.050 mg/L PBO treatment also<br />
increased toxicity in the 100 percent sample concentration (20% survival) relative to toxicity in<br />
the unmanipulated Baseline test (80% survival in the 100 percent sample concentration). The<br />
NOEC was less than 50%, and the LC 50 was 27.27%. Survival in the 0.050 mg/L PBO<br />
treatment blank was 80 percent. The increase of toxicity in these manipulations suggests that<br />
pyrethroids may be a causative agent in this stormwater sample. Specifically, it is well-known<br />
that sublethal concentrations of PBO potentiate the toxicity of pyrethroids (Budavari, 1989).<br />
A copper sulfate reference toxicant was tested at nominal concentrations of 62.5, 125, 250, 500<br />
and 1000 µg Cu 2+ /L. The calculated 96-hour LC 50 (189.41 µg Cu 2+ /L) was within two standard<br />
deviations of the laboratory mean (365.19 µg Cu 2+ /L) at the time of testing. This indicates that<br />
the sensitivity of H. azteca used in this evaluation fell within the normal range.<br />
Survival of H. azteca in three of the treatment blanks (Aeration, Filtration, and Methanol Elution<br />
tests) was lower than expected. While reference toxicant tests demonstrated adequate<br />
sensitivity of these test organisms, these tests use a higher volume of water (200 mL) than in<br />
the TIE tests (50 mL), which likely is preferred by these test organisms. It is also possible that<br />
test organisms used in the October TIE tests were more sensitive. More specifically, lower<br />
tolerance to test conditions and lower survival in three of the treatment blanks may be related to<br />
the source and age of the test organisms. Due to the last second nature of the October<br />
stormwater sampling event, there was not sufficient time as to allow <strong>for</strong> the ordering of test<br />
organisms from the standard source (i.e. Aquatic Indicators). Thus the organisms used in the<br />
October TIE were those cultured according to standard protocols at Weston. As a result, slight<br />
differences in age and source of organisms may explain the low tolerance to TIE test conditions,<br />
and slightly reduced survival in the three treatment blanks.<br />
4.1.2 Summary of TIE Per<strong>for</strong>med on the October 18, 2005 Stormwater Sample<br />
The results from the Phase I TIE per<strong>for</strong>med on the <strong>Chollas</strong> Creek stormwater sample collected<br />
in October indicated that pyrethroids may be the cause of the toxicity observed in the initial<br />
toxicity tests. First, in the Baseline test, toxicity of H. azteca exposed to diluted and undiluted<br />
stormwater (80 to 100% survival) was significantly lower than that in the initial toxicity test (7.5<br />
to 42.5% survival). This indicates that during the time elapsed between the initial and baseline<br />
toxicity tests, the causative agent in the stormwater sample had degraded, or had significantly<br />
adsorbed to the plastic container in which the sample was held. Pyrethroids are known to<br />
adsorb to plastic, thus leading to a time-dependent reduction in toxicity (Wheelock et al., 2005).<br />
Second, the lack of toxicity reduction in the EDTA, STS, graduated pH, and aeration treatments<br />
indicates that the causative agent was likely not a metal, an oxidative chemical, a pH-sensitive<br />
chemical, or a volatile chemical or surfactant, respectively. However, the reduction in toxicity of<br />
H. azteca following filtration of the stormwater sample indicates that the causative agent was<br />
highly bound to particulates in the sample. Pyrethroids have physicochemical properties that<br />
match the results of the present TIE; pyrethroids are insoluble in water but soluble in solvents<br />
(have high K ow s), have low vapor pressures (indicating low volatility), and have high adsorption<br />
coefficients, indicating their tendency to adsorb to particulates (Kidd and James, 1991). In<br />
addition, toxicity was significantly increased in the diluted and undiluted PBO-treated stormwater<br />
samples, as compared to toxicity in the baseline test (untreated diluted and undiluted<br />
stormwater). These results also indicate pyrethroids as the causative agents because pyrethroid<br />
toxicity is potentiated by PBO (Budavari, 1989).<br />
Weston Solutions, Inc. 16
<strong>Toxicity</strong> <strong>Identification</strong> <strong>Evaluation</strong> of <strong>Chollas</strong> Creek<br />
Stormwater using Hyalella azteca<br />
Results<br />
August 2006<br />
4.1.3 Results of Special Testing Per<strong>for</strong>med on November 11, 2005 Sample<br />
On November 11, 2005 a water sample was collected from <strong>Chollas</strong> Creek; however, there was<br />
not enough rain to consider this sampling event a storm event. Thus, there was not a large<br />
enough volume of stormwater to per<strong>for</strong>m the standard toxicity tests using Hyalella azteca,<br />
Selenastrum capricornutum, and Ceriodaphnia dubia and to per<strong>for</strong>m complete TIEs, as done in<br />
October. However, using the collected water, some TIE manipulations were per<strong>for</strong>med using H.<br />
azteca as the test organism. The results of these tests are presented in<br />
Table 4.<br />
Table 4. Percent Survival of Hyalella azteca in Special Tests per<strong>for</strong>med on the <strong>Chollas</strong> Creek Stormwater Sample<br />
Collected on November 11, 2005<br />
Test<br />
Control (Blank)<br />
– Dilution Water<br />
Stormwater Dilution<br />
50%<br />
75%<br />
Stormwater Stormwater<br />
100%<br />
Stormwater<br />
NOEC LC 50<br />
Baseline (Glass) 80 86.7 66.7 40 75 98.44<br />
Baseline (Plastic) 93.3 100 100 80 100 >100<br />
PBO - 0.025 mg/L<br />
(Glass)<br />
73.3 26.7 0 0
<strong>Toxicity</strong> <strong>Identification</strong> <strong>Evaluation</strong> of <strong>Chollas</strong> Creek<br />
Stormwater using Hyalella azteca<br />
Results<br />
August 2006<br />
The Plastic 0.025 mg/L PBO treatment led to increased toxicity in the 100 percent sample<br />
concentration (33.3% survival) relative to toxicity in the unmanipulated Plastic Baseline test<br />
(80% survival in the 100 percent sample concentration). The NOEC was 100%, and the LC 50<br />
was 70.8%. The Plastic 0.050 mg/L PBO treatment led to increased toxicity in the 100 percent<br />
sample concentration (0% survival), relative to toxicity in the unmanipulated Plastic Baseline<br />
test (80% survival in the 100 percent sample concentration). The NOEC was less than 50%,<br />
and the LC 50 was 36.1%. Survival in the Plastic 0.025 mg/L PBO treatment blank was 66.7%<br />
and survival in the Plastic 0.050 mg/L treatment blank was 86.7%.<br />
A copper sulfate reference toxicant was tested at nominal concentrations of 62.5, 125, 250, 500<br />
and 1000 µg Cu 2+ /L. The calculated 96-hour LC 50 (189.41 µg Cu 2+ /L) was within two standard<br />
deviations of the laboratory mean (365.19 µg Cu 2+ /L) at the time of testing. This indicates that<br />
the sensitivity of H. azteca used in this evaluation fell within the normal range.<br />
4.1.4 Summary of Specialized Testing Per<strong>for</strong>med on November 11, 2005 Sample<br />
Results from the specialized tests per<strong>for</strong>med on the <strong>Chollas</strong> Creek stormwater sample collected<br />
in November provided additional evidence that pyrethroids were a likely causative agent. In the<br />
baseline test, the higher toxicity in the glass test chambers relative to the plastic test chambers<br />
suggests that the causative agent had adsorbed to the plastic, thus leading to a reduced toxicity<br />
to organisms in the plastic test chambers. In addition, not only did PBO potentiate the toxicity,<br />
further indicating that the causative agent was pyrethroid-like chemicals, but there was also<br />
higher toxicity in the PBO treatments using glass containers relative to those treatments in<br />
which plastic was used. These results indicate that the causative agents have similar<br />
physicochemical properties to those of pyrethroids; the chemicals causing toxicity adsorbed to<br />
plastic, and their toxicity to H. azteca was potentiated by PBO.<br />
4.1.5 Results of Phase I TIE Per<strong>for</strong>med on January 2, 2006 Sample<br />
Results <strong>for</strong> the TIE per<strong>for</strong>med on the January 2, 2006 sample are summarized in Table 5.<br />
In the Baseline test, toxicity of H. azteca exposed to the 100 percent sample concentration<br />
(53.3% survival) was slightly lower than in the initial toxicity test (25% survival) started on<br />
January 2, 2006. The NOEC was 100%, and the LC 50 was greater than 100%. Survival in the<br />
dilution water control was 86.7%.<br />
The 0.8 mg/L EDTA manipulation did not reduce toxicity in the 100 percent sample<br />
concentration (40% survival) relative to toxicity in the unmanipulated Baseline test (53.3%<br />
survival in the 100 percent sample concentration). Survival in the 0.8 mg/L EDTA treatment<br />
blank was 93.3%. Higher concentrations of EDTA (3 mg/L) used as part of this manipulation,<br />
also did not reduce toxicity in the 100 percent sample concentration (26.7% survival). Survival<br />
in the 3 mg/L EDTA treatment blank was 86.7%. These results indicated that metals were likely<br />
not responsible <strong>for</strong> the observed toxicity.<br />
The 10 mg/L sodium thiosulfate (STS) manipulation did not reduce toxicity in the 100 percent<br />
sample concentration (46.7% survival) relative to toxicity in the unmanipulated Baseline test<br />
(53.3% survival in the 100 percent sample concentration). Survival in the 10 mg/L STS<br />
treatment blank was 86.7%. A higher concentration of STS (25 mg/L) was also used in this<br />
manipulation; however, this concentration of STS caused toxicity in the dilution water control<br />
(60% survival), indicating that higher concentrations of STS are not appropriate <strong>for</strong> TIEs with H.<br />
azteca.<br />
Weston Solutions, Inc. 18
<strong>Toxicity</strong> <strong>Identification</strong> <strong>Evaluation</strong> of <strong>Chollas</strong> Creek<br />
Stormwater using Hyalella azteca<br />
Results<br />
August 2006<br />
Table 5. Percent Survival of Hyalella azteca in TIE Tests per<strong>for</strong>med on the <strong>Chollas</strong> Creek Stormwater Sample<br />
Collected on January 2, 2006<br />
Test<br />
Control (Blank)<br />
– Dilution Water<br />
Stormwater Dilution<br />
50%<br />
Stormwater<br />
75%<br />
Stormwater<br />
100%<br />
Stormwater<br />
(2X 1 )<br />
Baseline 86.7 80 53.3 53.3<br />
Aeration 93.3 40<br />
pH 6.8 100 46.7<br />
Filtration 100 93.3<br />
Solid Phase Extraction<br />
(C 18 ) 80 100<br />
Methanol Elution 73.3 46.7<br />
STS - 10 mg/L 86.7 46.7<br />
EDTA - 3 mg/L 86.7 26.7<br />
PBO - 0.025 mg/L 86.7 0<br />
PBO - 0.05 mg/L 66.7 13.3<br />
Carboxyl esterase (0.52<br />
μg/mL) 80 86.7<br />
BSA (esterase control,<br />
0.52 μg/mL) 100 66.7<br />
1<br />
2X concentration is associated with Methanol Elution of C- 18 column only.<br />
The Aeration treatment did not reduce toxicity in the 100 percent sample concentration (40%<br />
survival) relative to toxicity in the unmanipulated Baseline test (53.3% survival in the 100<br />
percent sample concentration). Survival in the Aeration treatment blank was 93.3%.<br />
The Filtration manipulation reduced toxicity to organisms in the 100 percent sample<br />
concentration (93.3% survival) relative to toxicity in the unmanipulated Baseline test (53.3%<br />
survival in the 100 percent sample concentration). Survival in the Filtration treatment blank was<br />
100%. These results indicate that the causative agent is likely associated with particulates in<br />
the stormwater sample.<br />
In the SPE C 18 manipulation, no toxicity was observed in the 100 percent sample concentration<br />
(100% survival). Because this sample was filtered prior to the C 18 extraction, it is likely that the<br />
lack of toxicity observed was primarily due to removal of particulates by filtration. Nonetheless, a<br />
small fraction of toxicity may be explained by the C 18 extraction; there was slightly higher<br />
survival in the 100 percent sample concentration from the SPE C 18 manipulation (100% survival)<br />
relative to the 100 percent sample concentration from the filtration manipulation (93.3%<br />
survival). Survival in the SPE C 18 treatment blank was 80%.<br />
The methanol add-back manipulation resulted in 46.7% survival at the 2X methanol add-back<br />
concentration. Because this level of survival was similar to that found in the 100 percent sample<br />
concentration from the Baseline test (53.3% survival), this indicates that there was likely some<br />
elution of a toxic chemical off of the C 18 column. Survival in the Methanol treatment blank was<br />
73.3%. Results of the SPE C 18 manipulation together with methanol extraction indicate that the<br />
causative agent was likely not a non-polar organic compound.<br />
Weston Solutions, Inc. 19
<strong>Toxicity</strong> <strong>Identification</strong> <strong>Evaluation</strong> of <strong>Chollas</strong> Creek<br />
Stormwater using Hyalella azteca<br />
Results<br />
August 2006<br />
The pH 6.8 manipulation did not reduce toxicity in the 100 percent sample concentration (46.7%<br />
survival) relative to toxicity in the unmanipulated Baseline test (53.3% survival in the 100<br />
percent sample concentration). Survival in the pH 6.8 treatment blank was 100%. This<br />
indicates that the causative agent was not a pH sensitive chemical such as ammonia.<br />
The 0.025 mg/L PBO treatments led to increased toxicity in the 100 percent sample<br />
concentration (0% survival) relative to toxicity in the unmanipulated Baseline test (53.3%<br />
survival in the 100 percent sample concentration). Survival in the 0.025 mg/L treatment blank<br />
was 86.7%. The 0.050 mg/L PBO treatments also led to increased toxicity in the 100 percent<br />
sample concentration (13.3% survival) relative to toxicity in the unmanipulated Baseline test<br />
(53.3% survival in the 100 percent sample concentration). Survival in the PBO 0.050 mg/L<br />
treatment blank was 66.7%. The increase of toxicity in these manipulations suggests that<br />
pyrethroids may be a causative agent in this stormwater sample. Specifically, it is well-known<br />
that sublethal concentrations of PBO potentiate the toxicity of pyrethroids (Budavari, 1989).<br />
A reference toxicant test was conducted using PBO with concentrations of 0.01, 0.05, 0.1, 0.5,<br />
and 1 mg/L to verify that the concentrations of PBO used in the Phase I TIE were at sublethal<br />
levels. The calculated 96-hour LC 50 was 0.41 mg/L. The NOEC (0.1 mg PBO/L) was above both<br />
concentrations of PBO manipulations used to evaluate the stormwater sample. This indicates<br />
that PBO alone is most likely not a factor in any of the observed toxicity.<br />
The carboxyl esterase treatment reduced toxicity in the 100 percent sample concentration<br />
(86.7% survival), relative to toxicity in the unmanipulated Baseline test (53.3% survival in the<br />
100 percent sample concentration). Survival in the carboxyl esterase treatment blank was 80%.<br />
In contrast, the BSA treatment did not reduce toxicity in the 100 percent sample concentration<br />
(66.7% survival), relative to toxicity in the unmanipulated Baseline test (53.3% survival in the<br />
100 percent sample concentration). Survival in the BSA treatment blank was 100%. These<br />
data indicate that the chemical(s) responsible <strong>for</strong> the observed toxicity were not just adsorbing<br />
to binding sites on proteins (BSA or carboxyl esterase), but were enzymatically altered by the<br />
carboxyl esterase.<br />
A copper sulfate reference toxicant was tested at nominal concentrations of 62.5, 125, 250, 500<br />
and 1000 µg Cu 2+ /L. The calculated 96-hour LC 50 (195.62 µg Cu 2+ /L) was within two standard<br />
deviations of the laboratory mean (356.12 µg Cu 2+ /L) at the time of testing. This indicates that<br />
the sensitivity of H. azteca used in this evaluation fell within the normal range.<br />
4.1.6 Summary of TIE per<strong>for</strong>med on January 2, 2006 Sample<br />
Results from the TIE per<strong>for</strong>med on the <strong>Chollas</strong> Creek stormwater sample collected in January<br />
provided additional evidence that pyrethroids were likely responsible <strong>for</strong> the observed toxicity.<br />
In accordance with the October TIE, there was a lack of toxicity reduction in the EDTA, STS,<br />
graduated pH, and aeration treatments, which indicates that the causative agent was likely not a<br />
metal, an oxidative chemical, a pH-sensitive chemical, or a volatile chemical or surfactant,<br />
respectively. However, the reduction in toxicity of H. azteca following filtration of the stormwater<br />
sample indicates that the causative agent was highly bound to particulates in the sample.<br />
These results support the evidence provided by the October TIE which indicate that the<br />
causative agents have similar physicochemical properties to those of pyrethroids. Also similar<br />
to results of the TIEs per<strong>for</strong>med in October and November of 2005, PBO treatments led to<br />
increased toxicity in the undiluted stormwater sample. The repeated potentiation of toxicity using<br />
PBO in all recent TIEs provides strong evidence that pyrethroids are the causative agents,<br />
Weston Solutions, Inc. 20
<strong>Toxicity</strong> <strong>Identification</strong> <strong>Evaluation</strong> of <strong>Chollas</strong> Creek<br />
Stormwater using Hyalella azteca<br />
Results<br />
August 2006<br />
because pyrethroid toxicity is well-known to increase following the addition of PBO (Budavari,<br />
1989). The carboxyl esterase treatment caused a reduction in toxicity in the undiluted<br />
stormwater sample, whereas toxicity was not removed in the BSA treatment, used as a control<br />
<strong>for</strong> the carboxyl esterase. These results indicate that the chemical(s) causing toxicity in the<br />
stormwater sample was enzymatically degraded, and not just adsorbed to binding sites on these<br />
proteins (BSA and esterase). These data further support the idea that pyrethroids were the<br />
causative agent in the <strong>Chollas</strong> Creek stormwater sample because carboxyl esterase is an<br />
enzyme that metabolizes pyrethroids to less toxic <strong>for</strong>ms.<br />
Weston Solutions, Inc. 21
<strong>Toxicity</strong> <strong>Identification</strong> <strong>Evaluation</strong> of <strong>Chollas</strong> Creek<br />
Stormwater using Hyalella azteca<br />
Results<br />
August 2006<br />
4.1.7 Results of Phase I TIE Per<strong>for</strong>med on February 19, 2006 Sample<br />
Results <strong>for</strong> the TIE per<strong>for</strong>med on the February 19, 2006 sample are summarized in Table 6.<br />
Table 6. Percent Survival of Hyalella azteca in TIE Tests per<strong>for</strong>med on the <strong>Chollas</strong> Creek<br />
Stormwater Sample Collected on February 19, 2006<br />
Test<br />
Stormwater Dilution<br />
Control (Blank)<br />
– Dilution Water<br />
100%<br />
Stormwater<br />
(2X 1 )<br />
Baseline 100 28<br />
Aeration 84 36<br />
pH 6.8 100 16<br />
Filtration 100 100<br />
Solid Phase Extraction<br />
(C- 18 )<br />
92 100<br />
MeOH Eluate 84 52<br />
STS - 10 mg/L 100 12<br />
EDTA - 3 mg/L 96 40<br />
PBO - 0.025 mg/L 100 4<br />
PBO - 0.0007 mg/L 100 28<br />
Carboxyl esterase (0.52<br />
μg/mL)<br />
96 60<br />
BSA (esterase control,<br />
0.52 μg/mL)<br />
100 20<br />
Carboxyl esterase plus<br />
PBO (0.025 mg/L)<br />
96 40<br />
In the Baseline test, toxicity of H. azteca exposed to the 100 percent sample concentration<br />
(28.0% survival) was slightly lower than that in the initial toxicity test (2.5% survival) started on<br />
February 19, 2006. The NOEC was 25%, and the LC 50 was greater than 51.6%. Survival in the<br />
dilution water control was 95%.<br />
The 3.0 mg/L EDTA manipulation did not significantly reduce toxicity in the 100 percent sample<br />
concentration (40% survival) relative to toxicity in the unmanipulated Baseline test (28.0%<br />
survival in the 100 percent sample concentration). Survival in the 3 mg/L EDTA treatment blank<br />
was 96%.<br />
The 10 mg/L sodium thiosulfate (STS) manipulation did not reduce toxicity in the 100 percent<br />
sample concentration (12% survival) relative to toxicity in the unmanipulated Baseline test (28%<br />
survival in the 100 percent sample concentration). Survival in the 10 mg/L STS treatment blank<br />
was 100%.<br />
The Aeration manipulation did not reduce toxicity in the 100 percent sample concentration (36%<br />
survival) relative to toxicity in the unmanipulated Baseline test (28% survival in the 100 percent<br />
Weston Solutions, Inc. 22
<strong>Toxicity</strong> <strong>Identification</strong> <strong>Evaluation</strong> of <strong>Chollas</strong> Creek<br />
Stormwater using Hyalella azteca<br />
Results<br />
August 2006<br />
sample concentration). Survival in the Aeration treatment blank was 84%. These results<br />
indicate that the causative agent was not a volatile and/or a surfactant.<br />
The filtration manipulation significantly reduced toxicity to organisms in the 100 percent sample<br />
concentration (100% survival) relative to toxicity in the unmanipulated Baseline test (28%<br />
survival in the 100 percent sample concentration). Survival in the Filtration treatment blank was<br />
100%. These results indicate that the causative agent is likely associated with particulates in the<br />
stormwater sample.<br />
In the SPE C 18 manipulation, no toxicity was observed in the 100 percent sample concentration<br />
(100% survival). Because this sample was filtered prior to the C 18 extraction, and that toxicity<br />
was completed removed followed filtration (100% survival), it is likely that the lack of toxicity<br />
detected in this treatment was due to removal of particulates by filtration, and not by SPE.<br />
Survival in the SPE C 18 treatment blank was 92%.<br />
The methanol elution of the C 18 column resulted in 52% survival at the 2X methanol add-back<br />
concentration. This level of survival was higher than that found in the 100 percent sample<br />
concentration from the Baseline test (28% survival), indicating there was likely some elution of a<br />
toxic chemical off of the C 18 column. Survival in the Methanol test blank was 84%.<br />
The pH 6.8 manipulation did not reduce toxicity in the 100 percent sample concentration (16%<br />
survival) relative to toxicity in the unmanipulated Baseline test (28% survival in the 100 percent<br />
sample concentration). Survival in the pH 6.8 treatment blank was 100%. This indicates that the<br />
causative agent was not a pH sensitive chemical such as ammonia.<br />
The 0.025 mg/L PBO test led to increased toxicity in the 100 percent sample concentration (4%<br />
survival) relative to toxicity in the unmanipulated Baseline test (28% survival in the 100 percent<br />
sample concentration). Survival in the 0.025 mg/L PBO test blank was 100%. The 0.0007 mg/L<br />
PBO test, designed to mimic the levels of PBO detected in <strong>Chollas</strong> Creek stormwater, did not<br />
reduce toxicity in the 100 percent sample concentration (28% survival) relative to toxicity in the<br />
unmanipulated Baseline test (28% survival in the 100 percent sample concentration). Survival<br />
in the PBO 0.0007 mg/L treatment blank was 100%. The increase of toxicity in the 0.025 mg/L<br />
PBO manipulation suggests that pyrethroids may be a causative agent in this stormwater<br />
sample.<br />
The carboxyl esterase test reduced toxicity in the 100 percent sample concentration (60%<br />
survival), relative to toxicity in the unmanipulated Baseline test (28% survival in the 100 percent<br />
sample concentration). Survival in the carboxyl esterase treatment blank was 96%. In contrast,<br />
the BSA treatment did not reduce toxicity in the 100 percent sample concentration (20%<br />
survival) relative to toxicity in the unmanipulated Baseline test (28% survival in the 100 percent<br />
sample concentration). Survival in the BSA treatment blank was 100%. These data indicate<br />
that the chemical(s) responsible <strong>for</strong> the observed toxicity were not just adsorbing to binding sites<br />
on proteins (BSA or carboxyl esterase), but were enzymatically altered by the carboxyl<br />
esterase.<br />
The carboxyl esterase plus PBO (0.025 mg/L) test demonstrated no significant reduction in<br />
toxicity (40% survival) relative to toxicity in the unmanipulated Baseline test (28% survival in the<br />
100 percent sample concentration). In contrast, PBO (0.025 mg/L) alone increased toxicity (4%<br />
survival), and carboxyl esterase alone reduced toxicity (60% survival). These results indicate<br />
that the synergistic effects of PBO together with chemicals in the sample are cancelled out by<br />
Weston Solutions, Inc. 23
<strong>Toxicity</strong> <strong>Identification</strong> <strong>Evaluation</strong> of <strong>Chollas</strong> Creek<br />
Stormwater using Hyalella azteca<br />
Results<br />
August 2006<br />
the enzymatic degradation of the chemicals in the sample, and provide more evidence that the<br />
causative agents of toxicity are pyrethroids.<br />
A copper sulfate reference toxicant was tested at nominal concentrations of 62.5, 125, 250, 500<br />
and 1000 µg Cu 2+ /L. The calculated 96-hour LC 50 (159.20 µg Cu 2+ /L) was within two standard<br />
deviations of the laboratory mean (332.79 µg Cu 2+ /L) at the time of testing. This indicates that<br />
the sensitivity of H. azteca used in this evaluation fell within the normal range.<br />
4.1.8 Summary of TIE per<strong>for</strong>med on February 19, 2006 Sample<br />
Results from the TIE per<strong>for</strong>med on the <strong>Chollas</strong> Creek stormwater sample collected in February<br />
re-confirmed that pyrethroids were likely responsible <strong>for</strong> the observed toxicity. In accordance<br />
with the October and January TIEs, there was a lack of toxicity reduction in the EDTA, STS,<br />
graduated pH, and aeration treatments, which indicates that the causative agent was likely not a<br />
metal, an oxidative chemical, a pH-sensitive chemical, nor a volatile chemical or surfactant,<br />
respectively. However, the reduction in toxicity of H. azteca following filtration of the stormwater<br />
sample indicates that the causative agent was highly bound to particulates in the sample.<br />
These results support the evidence provided by the October and January TIEs which indicate<br />
that the causative agents have similar physicochemical properties to those of pyrethroids. Also<br />
similar to results of the tests per<strong>for</strong>med in October, November, and January, PBO treatments<br />
led to increased toxicity in the undiluted stormwater sample. The repeated potentiation of<br />
toxicity using PBO in all recent TIEs provides strong evidence that pyrethroids are the causative<br />
agents, because pyrethroid toxicity is well-known to increase following the addition of PBO<br />
(Budavari, 1989). The carboxyl esterase treatment caused a reduction in toxicity in the undiluted<br />
stormwater sample, whereas toxicity was not removed in the BSA treatment, used as a control<br />
<strong>for</strong> the carboxyl esterase. These results indicate that the chemical(s) causing toxicity in the<br />
stormwater sample was enzymatically degraded by carboxyl esterase, and not just adsorbed to<br />
binding sites on these proteins (BSA and esterase), and support the idea that pyrethroids were<br />
the causative agent in the <strong>Chollas</strong> Creek stormwater sample. Finally, results of the combined<br />
carboxyl esterase and PBO test demonstrate toxicity similar to the level of that in the<br />
unmanipulated Baseline test. Because In contrast, PBO alone increased toxicity while carboxyl<br />
esterase alone reduced toxicity, the lack of significant change in toxicity measured in the<br />
combined carboxyl esterase plus PBO test indicates that the synergistic effects of PBO together<br />
with chemicals in the sample are cancelled out by the enzymatic degradation of the chemicals in<br />
the sample, and re-confirm that the causative agents of toxicity are likely pyrethroids.<br />
4.2 CHEMICAL ANALYSES OF CHOLLAS CREEK STORMWATER<br />
Below is a summary of chemical analyses per<strong>for</strong>med on <strong>Chollas</strong> Creek stormwater samples<br />
during the 2005-2006 monitoring season (Table 7). Briefly, with the exception of malathion, all<br />
organophosphate pesticides were below the detection limit. Malathion was found at<br />
concentrations ranging from 89 to 345 ng/L across all storm events, all of which were below the<br />
water quality objective of 430 ng/L. All dissolved metals analyzed were found at concentrations<br />
in the <strong>Chollas</strong> Creek water sample that were below their water quality objectives, with the<br />
exception of dissolved copper, which only exceeded its water quality objective in the February<br />
stormwater sample. Concentrations of total cadmium, chromium, nickel, and silver were below<br />
their respective water quality objectives. Concentrations of total copper, lead, and zinc in the<br />
October, January, and February samples exceeded their water quality objectives. Initial<br />
analyses of pyrethroids and PBO a chemical used as a pyrethroid synergist in pesticide<br />
<strong>for</strong>mulations, were not detected in either the October, or the January stormwater samples.<br />
These samples were initially analyzed using the gas chromatography – mass spectrometry (GC-<br />
Weston Solutions, Inc. 24
<strong>Toxicity</strong> <strong>Identification</strong> <strong>Evaluation</strong> of <strong>Chollas</strong> Creek<br />
Stormwater using Hyalella azteca<br />
Results<br />
August 2006<br />
MS) in Electron Ionization (EI) mode. It was hypothesized that if the pyrethroids were present at<br />
concentrations below detection limits, the pyrethroid synergist PBO might still be measurable. A<br />
re-analysis of PBO on the GC-MS demonstrated that concentrations of 630 and 883 ng/L PBO<br />
were present in the October and January stormwater samples, respectively, from <strong>Chollas</strong><br />
Creek. Further examination and re-analysis of the October and January stormwater samples<br />
from <strong>Chollas</strong> Creek on the GC-MS in a different mode (i.e., Negative Chemical Ionization, NCI)<br />
also demonstrated that a number a pyrethroids including bifenthrin (14-110 ng/L), cyfluthrin (80-<br />
110 ng/L), cypermethrin (13-53 ng/L), cyhalothrin (48-89 ng/L), and permethrin (116 ng/L) were<br />
present in these samples. Because the re-analysis of these stormwater samples occurred on<br />
February 21, 2006, the concentrations of pyrethroids measured in <strong>Chollas</strong> Creek stormwater<br />
samples in October of 2005 and January of 2006 may be lower than the actual concentrations<br />
due to degradation during this holding time. Chemical analysis of the February stormwater<br />
sample also demonstrated significant concentrations of bifenthrin (112 ng/L), cyfluthrin (185<br />
ng/L), cyhalothrin (27 ng/L), and permethrin (484 ng/L).<br />
Weston Solutions, Inc. 25
<strong>Toxicity</strong> <strong>Identification</strong> <strong>Evaluation</strong> of <strong>Chollas</strong> Creek Stormwater Using Hyalella azteca<br />
Results<br />
August 2006<br />
Table 7. Chemical Analyses of <strong>Chollas</strong> Creek Stormwater Samples Collected During the 2005-2006 Monitoring Season<br />
10-18-<br />
05<br />
Sample<br />
10-18-05 Sample Reanalyzed<br />
on 02-21-<br />
06 Using NICI Mode<br />
on GC-MS<br />
1-2-06 Sample Reanalyzed<br />
on 2-21-06<br />
Using NICI Mode on<br />
GC-MS<br />
1-2-06<br />
2-19-06<br />
Chemical Class Chemical Measurement Fraction Units MDL RL<br />
Sample<br />
Sample<br />
General Chemistry Ammonia-N NA mg/L 0.01 0.05 0.64 0.55 0.48<br />
General Chemistry Dissolved Orthophosphate as P NA mg/L 0.0075 0.01 0.367<br />
General Chemistry Nitrate-N NA mg/L 0.01 0.05 2.75 0.82 1.02<br />
General Chemistry Nitrite-N NA mg/L 0.02 0.05 0.25 0.28 0.3<br />
General Chemistry Total Hardness as CaCO 3 NA mg/L 1 5 122 49.6 45.4<br />
General Chemistry Total Orthophosphate as P NA mg/L 0.01 0.01 0.41<br />
General Chemistry Total Phosphorus NA mg/L 0.016 0.05 0.505<br />
General Chemistry Total Suspended Solids NA mg/L 0.5 0.5 173 217 139<br />
Organophosphorus Pesticides Bolstar (Sulprofos) Total ng/L 10 20
<strong>Toxicity</strong> <strong>Identification</strong> <strong>Evaluation</strong> of <strong>Chollas</strong> Creek Stormwater Using Hyalella azteca<br />
Results<br />
August 2006<br />
Trace Metals Barium (Ba) Dissolved µg/L 0.1 0.5 19.6<br />
Trace Metals Barium (Ba) Total µg/L 0.1 0.5 110 92.6<br />
Trace Metals Beryllium (Be) Dissolved µg/L 0.1 0.5
<strong>Toxicity</strong> <strong>Identification</strong> <strong>Evaluation</strong> of <strong>Chollas</strong> Creek<br />
Stormwater using Hyalella azteca<br />
Discussion<br />
August 2006<br />
5. DISCUSSION<br />
TIE test results provide strong evidence that pyrethroids are the causative agent of toxicity in<br />
the <strong>Chollas</strong> Creek stormwater samples collected during the 2005-2006 monitoring season. In<br />
TIEs per<strong>for</strong>med on samples collected in October, November, January, and February, PBO<br />
treatments led to increased toxicity in the 100% stormwater sample. The repeated potentiation<br />
of toxicity using PBO in all TIEs per<strong>for</strong>med on the 2005-2006 <strong>Chollas</strong> Creek stormwater<br />
samples suggests that pyrethroids may be the causative agents, because PBO is known to<br />
potentiate pyrethroid toxicity (Budavari, 1989). In the TIEs per<strong>for</strong>med on January and February<br />
stormwater samples, a carboxyl esterase test was added to the TIE tests as an additional<br />
method <strong>for</strong> determining whether pyrethroids were the causative agents of toxicity. The carboxyl<br />
esterase enzyme caused a significant reduction in toxicity in the stormwater samples, indicating<br />
that the chemicals causing toxicity in the stormwater sample were enzymatically degraded by<br />
carboxyl esterase. Because carboxyl esterase enzymes have a strong affinity <strong>for</strong> pyrethroids<br />
and are known to metabolize pyrethroids to less toxic <strong>for</strong>ms (Wheelock et al., 2004), these<br />
results support the idea that pyrethroids were the causative agent of toxicity in the <strong>Chollas</strong><br />
Creek stormwater samples.<br />
Additional TIE tests also indicated that the causative agents of toxicity in stormwater had similar<br />
physicochemical properties to those of pyrethroids. Filtration of the stormwater sample<br />
completely reduced the toxicity to H. azteca in the 100% stormwater samples from October and<br />
February and almost completely reduced toxicity in the January stormwater samples, indicating<br />
that the causative agents of toxicity were highly bound to particulates in the stormwater sample.<br />
It is well known that pyrethroids are insoluble in water but soluble in solvents (have high K ow s),<br />
have low vapor pressures (indicating low volatility), and have high adsorption coefficients,<br />
indicating their tendency to adsorb to particulates (Kidd and James, 1991). In the October TIE,<br />
as well as in TIEs per<strong>for</strong>med on <strong>Chollas</strong> Creek stormwater samples in previous years, toxicity of<br />
H. azteca exposed to diluted and undiluted stormwater (80 to 100% survival) was significantly<br />
lower than that in the initial toxicity test (7.5 to 42.5% survival). This indicates that during the<br />
time elapsed between the initial and baseline toxicity tests, the causative agent in the<br />
stormwater sample had degraded, or had significantly adsorbed to the plastic container in which<br />
the sample was held. Moreover, in the specialized test per<strong>for</strong>med on the November <strong>Chollas</strong><br />
Creek stormwater sample, significantly higher toxicity was demonstrated in glass test chambers<br />
relative to plastic test chambers further demonstrating that the causative agent had adsorbed to<br />
the plastic, thus leading to a reduced toxicity to organisms in the plastic test chambers. In<br />
addition, not only did PBO potentiate the toxicity, but there was also higher toxicity in the PBO<br />
treatments using glass containers relative to those treatments in which plastic was used. These<br />
results are not unexpected because in a study by Wheelock et al. (2005), it was demonstrated<br />
that pyrethroids are chemicals that are well-known to adsorb to plastic, thus leading to a<br />
significant time-dependent reduction in toxicity to species including C. dubia and H. azteca.<br />
TIE tests also indicate that the causative agents of toxicity in the <strong>Chollas</strong> Creek stormwater<br />
samples did not share similar physicochemical properties to those of many other classes of<br />
chemicals. The lack of toxicity reduction in the EDTA, STS, graduated pH, and aeration tests in<br />
TIEs per<strong>for</strong>med on the October, January, and February stormwater samples indicates that the<br />
causative agent was likely not a metal, an oxidative chemical, a pH-sensitive chemical, or a<br />
volatile chemical or surfactant, respectively.<br />
In addition to TIE tests, chemical analyses of <strong>Chollas</strong> Creek stormwater samples indicate that<br />
pyrethroids are likely the primary causative agents of toxicity. Pyrethroids including bifenthrin<br />
and permethrin were measured in <strong>Chollas</strong> Creek stormwater samples at levels that exceeded<br />
Weston Solutions, Inc. 28
<strong>Toxicity</strong> <strong>Identification</strong> <strong>Evaluation</strong> of <strong>Chollas</strong> Creek<br />
Stormwater using Hyalella azteca<br />
Discussion<br />
August 2006<br />
aqueous bifenthrin and permethrin 96 hr LC 50 values <strong>for</strong> H. azteca of 9.3 ng/L and 21.1 – 47<br />
ng/L, respectively (Wheelock et al., 2005; Anderson et al., in press). A number of other<br />
pyrethroids were detected in stormwater samples including cyfluthrin, cypermethrin, and<br />
cyhalothrin. While the aqueous LC 50 values <strong>for</strong> H. azteca exposed to these pyrethroids are<br />
currently unknown, concentrations of these pyrethroids in <strong>Chollas</strong> Creek stormwater samples<br />
were comparable to those bifenthrin and permethrin, suggesting that cyfluthrin, cypermethrin,<br />
and cyhalothrin pyrethroids may have also contributed to the toxicity observed in the <strong>Chollas</strong><br />
Creek samples. In addition, the chemical PBO was detected along with pyrethroids in <strong>Chollas</strong><br />
Creek stormwater samples. PBO is chemical used as a synergist in pesticide <strong>for</strong>mulations along<br />
with pyrethroids to enhance toxicity to target pests (USEPA 2006). As a consequence, even<br />
pyrethroids measured at concentrations below their LC 50 s would demonstrate more severe<br />
toxicity to test organisms due to the synergistic effects of PBO.<br />
Other chemicals were detected in the <strong>Chollas</strong> Creek stormwater sample; however, there is little<br />
evidence that any of these chemicals were a major cause of toxicity. All organophosphate<br />
pesticides were below their detection limits, with the exception of malathion. Although malathion<br />
was detected in <strong>Chollas</strong> Creek stormwater samples, concentrations of this chemical were below<br />
its water quality objective, indicating that alone this chemical would likely not cause adverse<br />
effects to H. azteca. Moreover, concentrations of malathion measured in <strong>Chollas</strong> Creek water<br />
samples are below the (LC 50 ) <strong>for</strong> malathion that has been determined <strong>for</strong> a number of aquatic<br />
invertebrate species (Mayer and Ellersieck 1986). It is possible that metals may have<br />
contributed to the toxicity observed in the <strong>Chollas</strong> Creek stormwater sample because<br />
concentrations of total copper, lead, and zinc were above their respective water quality<br />
objectives stormwater samples; however, concentrations of dissolved zinc and lead were below<br />
their water quality objectives. Because dissolved <strong>for</strong>ms of metals take are more bioavailable to<br />
organisms, it is unlikely that zinc and lead were responsible <strong>for</strong> the observed toxicity in <strong>Chollas</strong><br />
Creek stormwater samples. In addition, copper concentrations were below the LC 50 <strong>for</strong> H.<br />
azteca in either soft water (LC 50 = 56 μg/L; Borgmann et al., 2005), or hard water (LC 50 = 330<br />
μg/L, Weston Bioassay Lab data), further indicating that copper was not associated with the<br />
observed toxicity in stormwater samples. Nonetheless, in some studies, lead and zinc LC 50 s <strong>for</strong><br />
H. azteca were above the total lead and zinc concentrations measured in stormwater samples,<br />
respectively (reviewed by Borgmann et al., 2005).<br />
Pesticide runoff into <strong>Chollas</strong> Creek is not surprising, because pesticides including diazinon have<br />
been frequently measured in <strong>Chollas</strong> Creek stormwater <strong>for</strong> a number of years (Weston 2005).<br />
However, diazinon concentrations in <strong>Chollas</strong> Creek that exceed the water quality objectives<br />
have diminished significantly over the last five years, in conjunction with reduced toxicity to the<br />
test species C. dubia. Nevertheless, the frequency of toxicity tests demonstrating persistent<br />
toxicity to H. azteca continues to be evident (i.e., more than 50% of the toxicity tests conducted<br />
to date have a NOEC of less than 100%), while no additional pesticides until now have been<br />
linked to this persistent toxicity.<br />
A re-examination of TIE results conducted on <strong>Chollas</strong> Creek stormwater, together with<br />
in<strong>for</strong>mation on pyrethroid use in Cali<strong>for</strong>nia further indicates the likelihood of pyrethroids as the<br />
causative agents of toxicity. In 1999, <strong>Chollas</strong> Creek stormwater caused significant mortality to<br />
C. dubia and TIEs provided evidence that organophosphates were the causative agents of<br />
toxicity (Schiff et al., 2000). During subsequent monitoring periods <strong>for</strong> the San Diego County<br />
Municipal Stormwater Copermittees (2000 to 2005), high frequency COCs included turbidity,<br />
diazinon, total and dissolved copper, and total zinc were measured in <strong>Chollas</strong> Creek stormwater<br />
samples. However, diazinon use and levels in stormwater diminished significantly during this<br />
time period, first dropping approximately 10 fold from 2001 to 2002, and then to below detection<br />
Weston Solutions, Inc. 29
<strong>Toxicity</strong> <strong>Identification</strong> <strong>Evaluation</strong> of <strong>Chollas</strong> Creek<br />
Stormwater using Hyalella azteca<br />
Discussion<br />
August 2006<br />
limits by 2005, likely due to the recent removal of pesticide <strong>for</strong>mulations in the U.S. containing<br />
chlorpyrifos and diazinon. In contrast, pyrethroid use in Cali<strong>for</strong>nia has increased over the same<br />
time period, and is used residentially in insecticides that previously had organophosphates such<br />
as diazinon and chlorpyrifos as the active ingredients (Cali<strong>for</strong>nia Department of Pesticide<br />
Regulation, 2004). While TIEs per<strong>for</strong>med in recent years on <strong>Chollas</strong> Creek stormwater samples<br />
were inconclusive, a re-analysis of TIE data from 2002-2005 demonstrated that may have been<br />
the causative agent of toxicity in these samples. Specifically, similar to the present study, PBO<br />
strongly enhanced the toxicity observed in the TIEs per<strong>for</strong>med on samples collected in 2002-<br />
2003, indicating that pyrethroids were a possible cause of toxicity. Moreover, similar to the TIE<br />
per<strong>for</strong>med on the October <strong>Chollas</strong> Creek stormwater sample in 2005, samples in TIEs<br />
per<strong>for</strong>med in 2002 to the spring of 2005 demonstrated decreased toxicity after a short holding<br />
time in the laboratory. These results are likely because the causative agent of toxicity was<br />
strongly adsorbing to the plastic cubitainers, in which the samples were held.<br />
Results of this study provide strong evidence that pyrethroids are the causative agent of toxicity<br />
in <strong>Chollas</strong> Creek stormwater samples. TIE tests indicated that the causative agent(s) of toxicity<br />
shared all of the physicochemical properties of pyrethroids, and lacked properties that<br />
characterize other classes of chemicals. Moreover, using the NICI mode on the GC-MS,<br />
analytical results demonstrated the presence of pyrethroids including bifenthrin and permethrin,<br />
measured at concentrations in <strong>Chollas</strong> Creek stormwater samples that exceed the LC50<br />
concentrations <strong>for</strong> H. azteca. Finally, increased use of pyrethroids, as demonstrated by the data<br />
presented by the Cali<strong>for</strong>nia Department of Pesticide Regulation, to replace the<br />
organophosphates previously used in residential insecticides also indicate the likelihood that<br />
pyrethroids are the causative agents in these stormwater samples.<br />
Weston Solutions, Inc. 30
<strong>Toxicity</strong> <strong>Identification</strong> <strong>Evaluation</strong> of <strong>Chollas</strong> Creek<br />
Stormwater Using Hyalella azteca<br />
References<br />
August 2006<br />
6. REFERENCES<br />
Anderson, B.S., Phillips, B.M., Hunt, J.W., Connor, V., Richard, N., and R.S. Tjeerdema. In<br />
press. Identifying primary stressors impacting macroinvertebrates in the Salinas River<br />
(Cali<strong>for</strong>nia, USA): relative effects of pesticides and suspended particles. Environmental<br />
Pollution.<br />
Borgmann, U., Couillard, Y., Doyle, P., and D.G. Dixon. 2005. <strong>Toxicity</strong> of sixty-three metals and<br />
metalloids to Hyalella azteca at two levels of water hardness. Environmental Toxicology and<br />
Chemistry, 24:641-652.<br />
Budavari, S., ed., 1989. The Merck Index. Merck & Co. Rahway, NJ, USA.<br />
Cali<strong>for</strong>nia Department of Pesticide Regulation, 2004. http://www.cdpr.ca.gov/. Sacramento,<br />
Cali<strong>for</strong>nia.<br />
Gilbert, R.O. 1987. Statistical Methods <strong>for</strong> Environmental Pollution. John Wiley and Sons, Inc.,<br />
New York.<br />
Kidd, H. and D.R. James, (Eds.). 1991. The Agrochemicals Handbook, Third Edition. Royal<br />
Society of Chemistry In<strong>for</strong>mation Services, Cambridge, UK, pp. 2-13.<br />
Mayer, F.L., and M.R. Ellersieck. 1986. Manual of Acute <strong>Toxicity</strong>: Interpretation and Data Base<br />
<strong>for</strong> 410 Chemicals and 66 Species of Freshwater Animals. United States Department of the<br />
Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Resource Publication 160.<br />
Schiff, K.C., Bay, S.M., and C. Stransky. 2000. Characterization of stormwater toxicants from an<br />
urban watershed to freshwater and marine organisms. Southern Cali<strong>for</strong>nia Coastal Water<br />
Research Project. 1999-2000 Annual Report.<br />
United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 1991. Methods <strong>for</strong> Aquatic <strong>Toxicity</strong><br />
<strong>Identification</strong> <strong>Evaluation</strong>s. Phase I <strong>Toxicity</strong> Characterization Procedures. EPA/600/6-91/003.<br />
EPA Office of Research and Development. Second Edition. February<br />
United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 1992. <strong>Toxicity</strong> <strong>Identification</strong><br />
<strong>Evaluation</strong>. Characterization of Chronically Toxic Effluents, Phase I. EPA/600/6-91/005F.<br />
EPA Office of Research and Development. May.<br />
United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 1993a. Methods <strong>for</strong> Aquatic <strong>Toxicity</strong><br />
<strong>Identification</strong> <strong>Evaluation</strong>s. Phase II <strong>Toxicity</strong> Characterization Procedures <strong>for</strong> Samples<br />
Exhibiting Acute and Chronic <strong>Toxicity</strong> EPA/600/R-92/080. EPA Office of Research and<br />
Development. September.<br />
United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 1993b. Methods <strong>for</strong> Aquatic <strong>Toxicity</strong><br />
<strong>Identification</strong> <strong>Evaluation</strong>s. Phase III <strong>Toxicity</strong> Characterization Procedures <strong>for</strong> Samples<br />
Exhibiting Acute and Chronic <strong>Toxicity</strong> EPA/600/R-92/081. EPA Office of Research and<br />
Development. September.<br />
United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2000. Methods <strong>for</strong> Measuring the<br />
<strong>Toxicity</strong> and Bioaccumulation of Sediment-associated Contaminants with Freshwater<br />
Invertebrates. EPA/600/R-99/064. EPA Office of Water. March.<br />
Weston Solutions, Inc. 31
<strong>Toxicity</strong> <strong>Identification</strong> <strong>Evaluation</strong> of <strong>Chollas</strong> Creek<br />
Stormwater Using Hyalella azteca<br />
References<br />
August 2006<br />
United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2002. Short-Term Methods <strong>for</strong><br />
Estimating the Chronic <strong>Toxicity</strong> of Effluents and Receiving Waters to Freshwater Organisms.<br />
EPA-821-R02-013. EPA Office of Water. Fourth Edition. October.<br />
United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2006 (updated). Available Online.<br />
http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/health/mosquitoes/pyrethroids4mosquitoes.htm.<br />
Weston Solutions, Inc. 2005. San Diego County Municipal Copermittees 2004-2005 Urban<br />
Runoff Monitoring. Final Report. December.<br />
Weston, D.P., Holmes, R.W., You, J. and M.J. Lydy. 2005. Aquatic toxicity due to residential<br />
use of pyrethroid insecticides. Environmental Science and Technology, 39:9778-9784.<br />
Wheelock, C.E., Miller, J.L., Miller, M.J., Phillips, B.M., Gee, S.J., Tjeerdema, R.S., and B.D.<br />
Hammock. 2005. Influence of container adsorption upon observed pyrethroid toxicity to<br />
Ceriodaphnia dubia and Hyalella azteca. Aquatic Toxicology, 74:47-52.<br />
Wheelock, C.E., Miller, J.L., Miller, M.J., Gee, S.J., Shan, G., and B. Hammock. 2004.<br />
Development of toxicity identification evaluation procedures <strong>for</strong> pyrethroid detection using<br />
esterase activity. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 23:2699–2708.<br />
Zar, J.H. 1999. Biostatistical Analysis. 4th Edition. Prentice Hall, New Jersey.<br />
Weston Solutions, Inc. 32
<strong>Toxicity</strong> <strong>Identification</strong> <strong>Evaluation</strong> (TIE) of<br />
County of San Diego and Copermittees<br />
Sweetwater River Stormwater Sample<br />
Prepared For:<br />
County of San Diego and Copermittees<br />
August 2006
<strong>Toxicity</strong> <strong>Identification</strong> <strong>Evaluation</strong> (TIE) of<br />
County of San Diego and Copermittees<br />
Sweetwater River Stormwater Sample<br />
Prepared For:<br />
County of San Diego and Copermittees<br />
Prepared By:<br />
Weston Solutions, Inc.<br />
2433 Impala Drive<br />
Carlsbad, Cali<strong>for</strong>nia 92010<br />
August 2006
<strong>Toxicity</strong> <strong>Identification</strong> <strong>Evaluation</strong> of Sweetwater<br />
River Stormwater Using Selenastrum<br />
capricornutum August 2006<br />
TABLE OF CONTENTS<br />
1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ..................................................................................................1<br />
2. INTRODUCTION...............................................................................................................3<br />
2.1 <strong>Toxicity</strong> <strong>Identification</strong> <strong>Evaluation</strong> (TIE) Testing..........................................4<br />
2.2 Initial <strong>Toxicity</strong> Testing Summary <strong>for</strong> Sweetwater Stormwater....................5<br />
3. MATERIALS AND METHODS ..........................................................................................5<br />
3.1 Test Procedures ........................................................................................5<br />
3.1.1 <strong>Toxicity</strong> Test Using Selenastrum capricornutum ....................................... 5<br />
3.2 Test Solution Preparation ..........................................................................6<br />
3.3 Water Quality.............................................................................................6<br />
3.4 Sample Receipt .........................................................................................6<br />
3.5 Phase I TIE Methods .................................................................................6<br />
3.5.1 Protocol Modifications................................................................................ 6<br />
3.5.2 Baseline Tests ........................................................................................... 6<br />
3.5.3 Ethylenediaminetetraacetic Acid (EDTA) Tests......................................... 6<br />
3.5.4 Filtration Tests ........................................................................................... 7<br />
3.5.5 C 18 Solid Phase Extraction and Methanol Add-Back Tests ....................... 7<br />
3.5.6 Piperonyl Butoxide (PBO)Tests................................................................. 7<br />
3.6 Statistical Analysis.....................................................................................7<br />
4. RESULTS..........................................................................................................................8<br />
4.1 Sweetwater River Selenastrum capricornutum..........................................8<br />
4.1.1 Results of TIE per<strong>for</strong>med on October 18, 2005 Sample............................ 8<br />
4.1.2 Summary of TIE Per<strong>for</strong>med on October 18, 2005 Sample ...................... 10<br />
4.1.3 Statistical Analysis: Differences in Growth Among Stormwater<br />
Dilutions................................................................................................... 10<br />
5. DISCUSSION..................................................................................................................11<br />
6. REFERENCES................................................................................................................13<br />
LIST OF TABLES<br />
Table 1. Triad definitions <strong>for</strong> San Diego Storm Water Monitoring Program.................................3<br />
Table 2: <strong>Toxicity</strong> <strong>Identification</strong> <strong>Evaluation</strong> Procedures .................................................................4<br />
Table 3: Summary of Growth in TIE tests on Sweetwater Stormwater Sample Collected on<br />
October 18, 2005.................................................................................................................10<br />
LIST OF FIGURES<br />
Figure 1. Growth of S. Capricornutum exposed to multiple dilutions of a Sweetwater River<br />
stormwater sample. Different letters indicate statistically significant differences among<br />
treatments where B>C>A>D................................................................................................10<br />
Weston Solutions, Inc.<br />
i
<strong>Toxicity</strong> <strong>Identification</strong> <strong>Evaluation</strong> of Sweetwater<br />
River Stormwater Using Selenastrum<br />
capricornutum August 2006<br />
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS<br />
°C Degrees Celsius<br />
EDTA<br />
Ethylenediaminetetraacetic Acid<br />
g<br />
Grams<br />
> Greater Than<br />
< Less Than<br />
L<br />
Liter<br />
LADPW<br />
Los Angeles Department of Public Works<br />
MeOH<br />
Methanol<br />
µL Microliter<br />
mg/L<br />
Milligram Per Liter<br />
mL<br />
Milliliter<br />
M<br />
Molar<br />
MLS<br />
Mass Loading Station<br />
NOEC<br />
No Observed Effect Concentration<br />
PBO<br />
Piperonyl butoxide<br />
ppt<br />
Parts Per Thousand<br />
% Percent<br />
KCl<br />
Potassium Chloride<br />
K ow<br />
Octanol – Water Partition Coefficient<br />
STS<br />
Sodium Thiosulfate<br />
SPE<br />
Solid Phase Extraction<br />
TSS<br />
Total Suspended Solids<br />
TDS<br />
Total Dissolved Solids<br />
TUc<br />
Toxic Unit Chronic = 100/NOEC<br />
USEPA<br />
United States Environmental Protection Agency<br />
Weston<br />
Weston Solutions, Inc.<br />
Weston Solutions, Inc.<br />
ii
<strong>Toxicity</strong> <strong>Identification</strong> <strong>Evaluation</strong> of Sweetwater<br />
River Stormwater Using Selenastrum<br />
capricornutum August 2006<br />
1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY<br />
As part of the San Diego municipal stormwater monitoring permit (NPDES Order 2001-01) <strong>for</strong><br />
the San Diego, Cali<strong>for</strong>nia region, stormwater runoff from Sweetwater River is evaluated every<br />
stormwater monitoring period <strong>for</strong> chemical constituents, toxicity to test organisms, and health of<br />
the benthic community. A decision matrix based on these three lines of evidence is then used to<br />
determine whether <strong>Toxicity</strong> <strong>Identification</strong> <strong>Evaluation</strong>s (TIEs) will be initiated at Sweetwater River<br />
to identify the causative agents of toxicity in stormwater samples collected during major storm<br />
events. This decision matrix includes detection of high frequency contaminants of concern,<br />
persistent toxicity, and evidence of an impaired benthic community. In the 2004-2005<br />
stormwater monitoring period <strong>for</strong> the San Diego County Municipal Stormwater Copermittees,<br />
total dissolved solids (TDS) exceeded water quality objectives measured in Sweetwater River<br />
stormwater samples (Weston 2005). While no other contaminants exceeded water quality<br />
objectives in the 2004-2005 monitoring period, the organophosphate pesticide diazinon<br />
exceeded water quality objectives in six out of the nine storm events prior to the 2004-2005 wet<br />
weather season. In addition, persistent toxicity was found because more than 50% of the toxicity<br />
tests conducted to date with this species had a NOEC of less than 100%. The benthic<br />
community was determined to be impacted. Based on these findings it was determined that<br />
TIEs would be per<strong>for</strong>med at Sweetwater River if toxicity was observed during the standard<br />
toxicity testing of stormwater samples during the 2005-2006 monitoring period.<br />
During the October 18, 2005 storm event, Sweetwater River water caused significant toxicity,<br />
measured as reduced growth, to S. capricornutum. The IC 50 at 96 hours was estimated to be<br />
95.7% of the stormwater sample concentration. The NOEC was 50% of the sample<br />
concentration. Weston initiated TIE testing on November 1, 2005 with this sample using the<br />
manipulations described below.<br />
All Selenastrum capricornutum baseline tests and TIE tests following sample manipulation<br />
followed general methods described in the U.S. EPA guidance manual, “Short-term Methods <strong>for</strong><br />
Estimating the Chronic <strong>Toxicity</strong> of Effluents and Receiving Waters to Freshwater Organisms”<br />
(USEPA, 2002). TIEs were conducted according to guidelines <strong>for</strong> characterizing toxic effluents<br />
(USEPA, 1991, 1992, 1993a, and 1993b). Phase I TIEs included the following battery of tests to<br />
help establish potential causative agents of toxicity in stormwater samples:<br />
• Baseline tests were per<strong>for</strong>med to benchmark toxicity of the unmanipulated stormwater<br />
samples run concurrently with the TIE tests <strong>for</strong> comparative purposes.<br />
• Ethylenediaminetetraacetic Acid (EDTA) tests were per<strong>for</strong>med to determine whether metals<br />
were a potential contributor to the toxicity of the sample.<br />
• Solid Phase Extraction (SPE) Tests (followed by methanol elution) were per<strong>for</strong>med to<br />
evaluate whether non-polar organics could be contributing to toxicity of the sample.<br />
• Piperonyl butoxide (PBO) tests were per<strong>for</strong>med to determine whether organophosphate<br />
pesticides or pyrethroids could be potential contributors to toxicity.<br />
Results of TIE tests conducted on stormwater samples collected from Sweetwater River during<br />
the 2005-2006 monitoring season provided some evidence that one or more ions comprising<br />
TDS were the causative agents of toxicity. The results of the 8 mg/L EDTA manipulation<br />
demonstrated that the 8.0 mg/L EDTA test significantly reduced toxicity in the 100% sample<br />
concentration (106.96 RFU Chlorophyll) relative to toxicity in the unmanipulated Baseline test<br />
(69.70 RFU Chlorophyll in the 100% sample concentration). This indicated that the causative<br />
agent of toxicity was a cation, such as a free metal ion (e.g., cadmium, mercury, lead) or a<br />
Weston Solutions, Inc. 1
<strong>Toxicity</strong> <strong>Identification</strong> <strong>Evaluation</strong> of Sweetwater<br />
River Stormwater Using Selenastrum<br />
capricornutum August 2006<br />
dissolved inorganic salt (e.g., sodium, calcium, magnesium), or a cationic organic compound<br />
such as a cationic surfactant, because EDTA is a chelating agent that is well known to bind<br />
inorganic and organic cationic chemicals (USEPA 1991). Chemical analyses of Sweetwater<br />
stormwater samples demonstrated that TDS measured in the Sweetwater sample was 2640<br />
mg/L, a concentration that exceeds the water quality objectives <strong>for</strong> this measure, or 1500 mg/L,<br />
in the lower Sweetwater River (RWQCB 1994). In contrast, no organophosphate pesticides<br />
were detected in stormwater samples and the only metals detected were arsenic, nickel, and<br />
zinc, all of which were found at low concentrations, or concentrations far below water quality<br />
objectives. In addition, the causative agents of toxicity in the Sweetwater River stormwater<br />
samples did not share similar physicochemical properties to those of many other classes of<br />
chemicals. The lack of toxicity reduction in the SPE and PBO tests indicate that the causative<br />
agent was likely not a non-polar organic, or a common-use pesticide, respectively.<br />
It is well known that elevated concentrations of ions comprising the TDS may be toxic to aquatic<br />
organisms. Thus, the results of this TIE provide some evidence that the causative agent of<br />
toxicity may have been due to elevated TDS levels in the Sweetwater River sample collected in<br />
October 18, 2005. No additional toxicity was found in Sweetwater River samples in subsequent<br />
standard S. capricornutum tests during the 2005-2006 monitoring period, indicating that the<br />
causative agent was not persistent during this monitoring period. Additional studies would be<br />
necessary to confirm whether elevated TDS in Sweetwater River water were the causative<br />
agent of toxicity to S. capricornutum.<br />
Weston Solutions, Inc. 2
<strong>Toxicity</strong> <strong>Identification</strong> <strong>Evaluation</strong> of Sweetwater<br />
River Stormwater Using Selenastrum<br />
capricornutum August 2006<br />
2. INTRODUCTION<br />
The municipal stormwater monitoring permit <strong>for</strong> the San Diego, Cali<strong>for</strong>nia region requires the<br />
monitoring at ten mass loading stations (MLS) during the wet weather season. The ten MLS<br />
evaluated in this program include: San Luis Rey River, Sweetwater River, Tijuana River,<br />
Tecolote Creek, Aqua Hedionda Creek, San Dieguito River, San Diego River, <strong>Chollas</strong> Creek,<br />
Penasquitos Creek, and Escondido Creek. Areas requiring TIEs are identified by integrating the<br />
triad of data collected in the program including toxicity and water chemistry from the mass<br />
loading stations and benthic community structure analysis from rapid stream bioassessment<br />
and ambient bay and lagoon surveys (Table 1).<br />
Table 1. Triad definitions <strong>for</strong> San Diego Storm Water Monitoring Program.<br />
Triad Component<br />
Definition<br />
Persistent Exceedance of Water Quality A constituent of concern with a high<br />
Objectives<br />
frequency of occurrence based on wet and<br />
dry weather data exceedances compared to<br />
established list of benchmarks or trigger<br />
levels<br />
Evidence of Persistent <strong>Toxicity</strong><br />
More than 50% of the toxicity tests <strong>for</strong> any<br />
given species have a NOEC of less than<br />
100%.<br />
Indication of Benthic Alteration<br />
IBI score indicates a substantially degraded<br />
community (very poor)<br />
Source: Watershed Data Assessment Framework (MEC-Weston, 2004)<br />
Samples from three storm events are analyzed <strong>for</strong> toxicity using Ceriodaphnia dubia, Hyalella<br />
azteca, and Selenastrum capricornutum. When findings from these toxicity tests at the mass<br />
loading stations indicate the presence of persistent toxicity, a TIE is to be conducted to<br />
determine the potential cause or causes of toxicity.<br />
As listed in Table 1 above, toxicity test results are reported as the no observable effects<br />
concentration (NOEC). The NOEC is the lowest concentration at which there is no statistical<br />
difference from the control. There<strong>for</strong>e, a concentration of less than 100% is considered to have<br />
some degree of toxic effect. Persistent toxicity is evident when more than 50% of the toxicity<br />
tests conducted to date <strong>for</strong> any given species at a specific site have a NOEC of less than 100%.<br />
The results of this determination are then combined with the high frequency constituents of<br />
concern (chemistry data) and benthic data in the Triad Decision Matrix to determine the actions<br />
to be taken.<br />
Results from chemistry, toxicity and relative benthic community health were assessed together<br />
using the triad approach to determine what short and/or long term actions are appropriate in a<br />
watershed. This approach examines persistence of toxicity using several indicators to provide<br />
an indication of an ecological concern. When persistence is found, this triggers the initiation of<br />
short term actions such as a TIE to identify the constituents of concern (COCs) in the watershed<br />
that may be responsible <strong>for</strong> stormwater toxicity and/or benthic community degradation).<br />
In the 2004-2005 stormwater monitoring period <strong>for</strong> the San Diego County Municipal Stormwater<br />
Copermittees, TDS exceeded water quality objectives measured in Sweetwater River<br />
stormwater samples (Weston 2005). While no other contaminants exceeded water quality<br />
objectives in the 2004-2005 monitoring period, diazinon exceeded water quality objectives in six<br />
Weston Solutions, Inc. 3
<strong>Toxicity</strong> <strong>Identification</strong> <strong>Evaluation</strong> of Sweetwater<br />
River Stormwater Using Selenastrum<br />
capricornutum August 2006<br />
out of the nine storm events prior to the 2004-2005 wet weather season. In addition, persistent<br />
toxicity was found because more than 50% of the toxicity tests conducted to date with this<br />
species had a NOEC of less than 100%. The benthic community was determined to be<br />
impacted. Based on these findings it was determined that TIEs would be per<strong>for</strong>med at<br />
Sweetwater River if toxicity was observed during the standard toxicity testing of stormwater<br />
samples during the 2005-2006 monitoring period.<br />
2.1 TOXICITY IDENTIFICATION EVALUATION (TIE) TESTING<br />
The United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) has issued toxicity identification<br />
evaluation (TIE) testing guidelines <strong>for</strong> characterizing chronically toxic effluents (USEPA 1991,<br />
1992, 1993a, and 1993b). These guidelines are often effective <strong>for</strong> effluents that have similar<br />
toxic constituents to those identified in the model effluents used to develop the TIE guidelines.<br />
A <strong>Toxicity</strong> Reduction <strong>Evaluation</strong> (TRE) is an evaluation which involves the identification of<br />
toxicants, location of the source, and treatment of the causative agents to a less toxic <strong>for</strong>m; the<br />
ultimate goal of a TRE is to reduce toxicity associated with contaminated water (or sediment).<br />
Thus, TIEs are important tools used in a TRE to initially help with the identification of toxicants.<br />
The TIE typically consists of three test phases. Phase I of a TIE involves procedures designed<br />
to provide in<strong>for</strong>mation <strong>for</strong> identifying the class of the toxic constituents within an effluent 1 sample<br />
based on their chemical characteristics (e.g., volatility, ionization state, degree of adsorption to<br />
particulates, polarity, oxidative state, or pH sensitivity). These classification characteristics are<br />
examined by comparing the results of tests conducted on unmanipulated effluent samples to<br />
effluent samples that have been physically or chemically manipulated. Phase I testing involves<br />
manipulating the sample at the effluent’s initial pH using some of the manipulations shown in<br />
Table 3 below.<br />
Table 2: <strong>Toxicity</strong> <strong>Identification</strong> <strong>Evaluation</strong> Procedures<br />
Sample Manipulation<br />
Purpose<br />
Ethylenediaminetetraacetic Acid (EDTA) Addition<br />
Detects certain cationic metals (e.g. cadmium)<br />
C 18 Column Extraction with Methanol Elution<br />
Detects non-polar organics and some surfactants<br />
Piperonyl Butoxide Treatment<br />
Detects organophosphate pesticides and pyrethroids<br />
The goal of Phase II TIE testing is to identify the toxicants in the sample, while Phase III<br />
methods are used to confirm that the suspected toxicants are the true cause of toxicity in the<br />
effluent samples (USEPA, 1993a and 1993b). It should be noted that the boundaries between<br />
Phases I, II, and III are not distinct and there may be cases where it is appropriate <strong>for</strong> their<br />
respective procedures to overlap because confirmation in<strong>for</strong>mation can be obtained during<br />
Phases I and II.<br />
1 The USEPA protocol is designed <strong>for</strong> per<strong>for</strong>ming TIEs on effluent samples. However, modifications have been made<br />
<strong>for</strong> testing stormwater samples.<br />
Weston Solutions, Inc. 4
<strong>Toxicity</strong> <strong>Identification</strong> <strong>Evaluation</strong> of Sweetwater<br />
River Stormwater Using Selenastrum<br />
capricornutum August 2006<br />
TIEs are initiated when standard toxicity testing demonstrates toxicity in an effluent sample that<br />
has previously been toxic to test organisms. Standard toxicity test methods sometimes rely on<br />
sublethal endpoints, such as C. dubia reproduction as indicators of chronic toxicity, and require<br />
substantially more time and resources to evaluate than methods that rely exclusively on a<br />
mortality endpoint. In addition, the USEPA guidelines do not provide specific guideline <strong>for</strong> test<br />
procedures using each toxicity test species, given the large number of test organisms.<br />
There<strong>for</strong>e, the USEPA’s TIE documents are used as guidance <strong>for</strong> conducting TIEs because it<br />
may not be possible or cost-effective to strictly adhere to these protocols. In addition, the<br />
USEPA protocols were initially designed <strong>for</strong> TIEs using whole effluent samples, and not the<br />
more variable and less predictable stormwater samples. Thus, modifications <strong>for</strong> efficiently<br />
conducting TIEs on stormwater samples using specific test organisms, and <strong>for</strong> specific site<br />
conditions may sometimes include the following: changes in test volumes, test duration,<br />
replicate number, number of test concentrations, and reduction in frequency of test solution<br />
renewal.<br />
Phase I test procedures are designed to identify obvious alterations in effluent toxicity, which<br />
may be achieved using modified chronic test methods.<br />
2.2 INITIAL TOXICITY TESTING SUMMARY FOR SWEETWATER STORMWATER<br />
Sweetwater River has been identified as a TIE site due to the evidence of benthic community<br />
impacts and the persistent toxicity to Selenastrum capricornutum. During the October 18, 2005<br />
storm event, stormwater from this site caused significant toxicity measured as reduced growth<br />
of S. capricornutum. The IC 50 at 96 hours was estimated to be 95.7% of the sample<br />
concentration. The NOEC was 50% of the sample concentration. Weston initiated TIE testing<br />
on November 1, 2005 with this sample utilizing the manipulations listed above.<br />
During the January 2, 2006 and February 19, 2006 storm events, stormwater from this site did<br />
not cause toxicity to S. capricornutum. The IC 50 at 96 hours was estimated to be greater than<br />
100% of the stormwater sample. The NOEC was 100%. Because there was no toxicity in these<br />
stormwater samples TIE testing was not per<strong>for</strong>med.<br />
3. MATERIALS AND METHODS<br />
3.1 TEST PROCEDURES<br />
All Selenastrum capricornutum baseline tests and TIE tests following sample manipulation<br />
followed general methods described in the U.S. EPA guidance manual, “Short-term Methods <strong>for</strong><br />
Estimating the Chronic <strong>Toxicity</strong> of Effluents and Receiving Waters to Freshwater Organisms”<br />
(USEPA, 2002).<br />
3.1.1 <strong>Toxicity</strong> Test Using Selenastrum capricornutum<br />
Stormwater tests <strong>for</strong> chronic toxicity using the freshwater algae S. capricornutum were run<br />
according to the USEPA protocol (EPA/821/R/02/013). Briefly, the sample and the control water<br />
were spiked with equal amounts of nutrients and subsequently filtered to 0.45 µm to remove any<br />
unicellular algae that might be present prior to test initiation. The concentration series was<br />
prepared, and 50-mL aliquots were placed into four replicate test chambers. Approximately<br />
10,000 cells per mL were added to the test chamber and placed in random order under highintensity<br />
24-hour light <strong>for</strong> four days. Temperature, conductivity, pH, hardness, and alkalinity<br />
was measured at test initiation. Temperature and pH was measured on days 1 to 4. The test<br />
chambers were shaken twice a day and randomized once a day. At the end of the test period,<br />
chambers were analyzed <strong>for</strong> chlorophyll. Test acceptability was determined by evaluating the<br />
Weston Solutions, Inc. 5
<strong>Toxicity</strong> <strong>Identification</strong> <strong>Evaluation</strong> of Sweetwater<br />
River Stormwater Using Selenastrum<br />
capricornutum August 2006<br />
response of the control organisms. The test was considered invalid if the criterion of a cell<br />
density of 200,000 cells per mL in the control was not met. Variability between the control<br />
replicates should not have exceeded 20%. A reference toxicant test was conducted using<br />
copper sulfate with concentrations of 7, 14, 28, 56, and 112 µg Cu 2+ /L to establish the sensitivity<br />
of test organisms used in the evaluation of the Sweetwater stormwater.<br />
3.2 TEST SOLUTION PREPARATION<br />
Control and dilution water <strong>for</strong> the S. capricornutum tests was synthetic moderately-hard water<br />
prepared with Epure to achieve a hardness of 80-100 mg/L as CaCO3. This water source<br />
has been used successfully on numerous similar bioassay testing programs conducted by<br />
Weston and others. Extensive testing with a variety of species and biannual chemical analysis<br />
of this water type has shown that this water source provides <strong>for</strong> good survival in laboratory<br />
controls with little to no measurable levels of contaminants.<br />
3.3 WATER QUALITY<br />
Water quality was monitored daily as appropriate <strong>for</strong> each test, and data were recorded on data<br />
sheets. Dissolved oxygen and temperature was measured using Orion Model 840 oxygen<br />
meters and probes; pH was measured using Orion Model 230A pH meters and probes.<br />
Conductivity was measured with Orion Models 142 conductivity/salinity meters. Ammonia<br />
was analyzed using an Orion 720 digital ion analyzer with a three-point calibration curve (1,<br />
10, and 100 mg/L). Hardness and alkalinity were measured utilizing LaMotte titration kits.<br />
3.4 SAMPLE RECEIPT<br />
The stormwater samples were composited at the laboratory and stored at 4°C. A chain-ofcustody<br />
was completed <strong>for</strong> all samples received. Be<strong>for</strong>e samples were used in the tests, initial<br />
water quality measurements were taken. These measurements included temperature, total<br />
chlorine, total ammonia, pH, dissolved oxygen, and salinity.<br />
3.5 PHASE I TIE METHODS<br />
3.5.1 Protocol Modifications<br />
Measures to conserve time and resources required to conduct TIE testing have been developed<br />
and approved by the USEPA (USEPA 1992). This study incorporated modifications allowed <strong>for</strong><br />
reduction in number of test concentrations, and replicates <strong>for</strong> all TIE tests conducted, relative to<br />
test conditions used in standard toxicity tests. The concentrations of stormwater samples used<br />
<strong>for</strong> the TIE test in this investigation included the 50, 75, and 100% dilutions of the stormwater<br />
samples. Three replicates were used in each stormwater sample treatment. Treatment blanks<br />
were created <strong>for</strong> each TIE test to determine the effects of the manipulation on laboratory dilution<br />
water. The results of these blanks were used to determine if any changes in toxicity of the<br />
control (dilution water) were impacted by the chemical or physical manipulation of the sample.<br />
3.5.2 Baseline Tests<br />
The baseline test assesses the toxicity of the unmanipulated sample run concurrently with the<br />
TIE tests. This test would confirm the presence of toxicity in the stormwater sample, and toxicity<br />
in TIE treatments are compared to toxicity in the baseline test.<br />
3.5.3 Ethylenediaminetetraacetic Acid (EDTA) Tests<br />
Two series of EDTA tests were conducted with concentrations of 3.0 and 8.0 milligrams per liter<br />
(mg/L). A stock solution of 2.5 grams (g) EDTA/L was prepared. EDTA treatments were<br />
prepared by diluting the EDTA stock solution to final concentrations of 3.0 and 8.0 mg/L in<br />
stormwater (50, 75, and 100% sample concentrations) and dilution water. The EDTA was<br />
Weston Solutions, Inc. 6
<strong>Toxicity</strong> <strong>Identification</strong> <strong>Evaluation</strong> of Sweetwater<br />
River Stormwater Using Selenastrum<br />
capricornutum August 2006<br />
allowed to react with the sample <strong>for</strong> a minimum of 2 hours prior to addition of the test<br />
organisms. EDTA binds certain ionic metals, making them biologically unavailable to the test<br />
organisms. A reduction in the toxic response of a sample treated with EDTA may indicate the<br />
presence of divalent (metal) cation toxicity.<br />
3.5.4 Filtration Tests<br />
This test was not per<strong>for</strong>med on the species S. capricornutum, as the sample was already<br />
filtered to 0.45 µm as a standard part of the test protocol. Filtration identifies chemicals<br />
associated with the particulate fraction.<br />
3.5.5 C 18 Solid Phase Extraction and Methanol Add-Back Tests<br />
The sample manipulation was prepared by passing 1 L of filtered sample through a preconditioned<br />
5 g C 18 Solid Phase Extraction (SPE) column at a rate of 5 mL per minute. The<br />
extracted sample was then used to prepare 300 mL dilutions of 50, 75 and 100% samples. This<br />
treatment mainly removes non-polar organic compounds from the sample, but in some cases<br />
may partially remove surfactants and metals.<br />
The C 18 SPE column was then eluted with 100% reagent grade methanol to recover any<br />
contaminants bound to the column. To elute the column, a total of 15 mL of 100% methanol<br />
was passed through the column in two, 7.5 mL aliquots, and collected into a test tube. The<br />
methanol was then added to clean control water at concentrations equaling 1.0, 2.0, 4.0, and<br />
8.0 times the concentration of the potential contaminants in the original effluent sample. The<br />
methanol elution tests are used to confirm the toxicity of the compounds retained on the C 18<br />
column.<br />
3.5.6 Piperonyl Butoxide (PBO)Tests<br />
Two series of PBO tests were conducted with concentrations of 0.025 and 0.050 mg/L. A stock<br />
solution of 2.5 mg PBO/L was prepared. PBO treatments were prepared by diluting the PBO<br />
stock solution to final concentrations of 0.025 and 0.050 mg/L in stormwater (50, 75 and 100%<br />
sample concentrations) and dilution water. PBO blocks specific cytochrome P450 isozymes<br />
that are involved in metabolizing chemicals such as organophosphates to more toxic<br />
metabolites and chemicals such as pyrethroids to less toxic metabolites. Thus, if results from<br />
this test demonstrate increased toxicity in the stormwater sample, this is indicative of chemicals<br />
(e.g. pyrethroids) that are metabolized to less toxic <strong>for</strong>ms by cytochrome P450 enzymes. In<br />
contrast, if the results demonstrate decreased toxicity in the stormwater samples, this is<br />
indicative of chemicals (e.g. malathion, organophosphates) that are metabolized to more toxic<br />
<strong>for</strong>ms by cytochrome P450 enzymes.<br />
3.6 STATISTICAL ANALYSIS<br />
At the conclusion of all tests, test species data were evaluated statistically using ToxCalc to<br />
determine ECp, NOEC, and TUc values. ToxCalc is a comprehensive statistical application<br />
that follows standard guidelines <strong>for</strong> acute and chronic toxicity data analysis.<br />
Statistical effects can be measured by the ECp, the estimated concentration that causes any<br />
effect, either lethal (LC) or sublethal (IC), on p% of the test population. The IC 50 or IC 25 is the<br />
point estimate of the concentration at which an inhibitory effect in a sublethal parameter (e.g.<br />
growth, reproduction) is observed in 50% or 25% of the organisms. ECp values include 95%<br />
confidence limits where available. The NOEC (No Observable Effect Concentration) is the<br />
highest tested concentration at which mortality and other sublethal measured effects are not<br />
significantly different from the same parameters in the control. TUc (Chronic <strong>Toxicity</strong> Units) are<br />
Weston Solutions, Inc. 7
<strong>Toxicity</strong> <strong>Identification</strong> <strong>Evaluation</strong> of Sweetwater<br />
River Stormwater Using Selenastrum<br />
capricornutum August 2006<br />
calculated as 100%/NOEC. All statistics were run against treatment blanks to mitigate <strong>for</strong> any<br />
artifactual effect that the treatment had upon the toxicity.<br />
In addition to standard toxicity-related statistics per<strong>for</strong>med by ToxCalc, results of the TIE were<br />
analyzed using a two-way, fixed factor ANOVA and Dunnett’s multiple comparisons to<br />
determine whether there were differences in growth among treatments and among stormwater<br />
sample concentrations(Zar 1999). In addition, a one-way, fixed factor ANOVA and Dunnett’s<br />
multiple comparisons were used to examine the differences in growth of S. capricornutum<br />
among the different dilutions of stormwater <strong>for</strong> all treatments combined.<br />
4. RESULTS<br />
4.1 SWEETWATER RIVER SELENASTRUM CAPRICORNUTUM<br />
4.1.1 Results of TIE per<strong>for</strong>med on October 18, 2005 Sample<br />
Results <strong>for</strong> the TIE per<strong>for</strong>med on the October 18, 2005 sample are summarized in Table 3.<br />
In the Baseline test, toxicity of Selenastrum capricornutum, measured as growth or relative<br />
fluorescence units (RFU) of chlorophyll, exposed to the 100% sample concentration (69.70 RFU<br />
Chlorophyll) was slightly lower than that in the initial toxicity test (38.88 RFU Chlorophyll) started<br />
on October 18, 2005. The NOEC was 75% of the sample concentration, and the IC 50 was<br />
greater than 100% of the sample concentration. Growth in the dilution water control was 113.87<br />
RFU Chlorophyll.<br />
The 3.0 mg/L EDTA manipulation did not significantly increase growth (i.e. reduce toxicity) in the<br />
100% sample concentration (85.47 RFU Chlorophyll) relative to growth in the unmanipulated<br />
Baseline test (69.70 RFU Chlorophyll in the 100% sample concentration). Growth in the 3.0<br />
mg/L EDTA treatment blank was 92.03 RFU Chlorophyll. Statistical analysis showed that<br />
growth in the 50, 75, and 100% sample concentrations of the 3.0 mg/L EDTA treatment were<br />
not significantly different from the 3.0 mg/L EDTA treatment blank. The 8.0 mg/L EDTA<br />
significantly reduced toxicity in the 100% sample concentration (106.96 RFU Chlorophyll)<br />
relative to toxicity in the unmanipulated Baseline test (69.70 RFU Chlorophyll in the 100%<br />
sample concentration). Growth in the 8.0 mg/L EDTA treatment blank was 83.91 RFU<br />
Chlorophyll. Statistical analysis showed that while there was no significant difference in growth<br />
in the 100% sample concentration of the 8.0 mg/L EDTA treatment relative to the treatment<br />
blank; however, growth was significantly elevated in the 50 and 75% sample concentrations as<br />
compared to the 8.0 mg/L EDTA treatment blank. Both treatments produced a NOEC of 100%<br />
sample concentration and a IC 50 of greater than 100% sample concentration.<br />
The C-18 SPE treatment did not affect growth in the 100% sample concentration (56.8 RFU<br />
Chlorophyll) relative to growth in the unmanipulated Baseline test (69.70 RFU Chlorophyll in the<br />
100% sample concentration). Growth in the C-18 SPE treatment blank was 117.4 RFU<br />
Chlorophyll. Statistical analysis showed that while there was no significant difference in growth<br />
in the 50 and 75% sample concentrations of the C18 extraction treatment, there was significant<br />
reduction in growth in the 100% sample concentration compared to the C18 extraction treatment<br />
blank.<br />
The methanol add-back manipulation increased toxicity in the 8X methanol add-back sample<br />
concentration (10.12 RFU Chlorophyll). Growth of the methanol treatment blank was 8.23 RFU<br />
Chlorophyll. The significantly impaired growth measured in each treatment indicates that the<br />
Weston Solutions, Inc. 8
<strong>Toxicity</strong> <strong>Identification</strong> <strong>Evaluation</strong> of Sweetwater<br />
River Stormwater Using Selenastrum<br />
capricornutum August 2006<br />
methanol used in this manipulation was likely responsible <strong>for</strong> the toxicity produced by this<br />
treatment.<br />
The 0.025 mg/L PBO treatment did not significantly affect growth in the 100% sample<br />
concentration (83.64 RFU Chlorophyll) relative to growth in the unmanipulated Baseline test<br />
(69.70 RFU Chlorophyll in the 100% sample concentration) at P=0.05. Growth in the 0.025 mg/L<br />
PBO treatment blank was 87.07 RFU Chlorophyll. Statistical analysis showed that while there<br />
was no significant increase in growth in the 75 or 100% sample concentration of the 0.025 mg/L<br />
PBO treatment, growth was significantly elevated in the 50% sample concentration compared to<br />
growth in the 0.025 mg/L PBO treatment blank. The 0.050 mg/L PBO treatment did not<br />
significantly affect growth in the 100% sample concentration (71.34 RFU Chlorophyll) relative to<br />
growth in the unmanipulated Baseline test (69.70 RFU Chlorophyll in the 100% sample<br />
concentration). Growth in the 0.050 mg/L PBO treatment was 93.16 RFU Chlorophyll.<br />
Statistical analysis showed that while there was no significant reduction in growth in the 75 or<br />
100% sample concentration of the 0.050 mg/L PBO treatment, there was significantly elevated<br />
growth in the 50% sample concentration compared to the 0.050 mg/L PBO treatment blank.<br />
The NOEC was 100% of the sample concentration and the IC 50 was greater than 100% <strong>for</strong> both<br />
treatments.<br />
A copper sulfate reference toxicant was tested at nominal concentrations of 7, 14, 28, 56 and<br />
112 µg Cu 2+ /L. The calculated 96-hour IC 50 (68.36 µg Cu 2+ /L) was within two standard<br />
deviations of the laboratory mean (59.93 µg Cu 2+ /L) at the time of testing. This indicates that<br />
the sensitivity of S. capricornutum used in this evaluation fell within the normal range.<br />
Weston Solutions, Inc. 9
<strong>Toxicity</strong> <strong>Identification</strong> <strong>Evaluation</strong> of Sweetwater<br />
River Stormwater Using Selenastrum<br />
capricornutum August 2006<br />
4.1.2 Summary of TIE Per<strong>for</strong>med on October 18, 2005 Sample<br />
Table 3: Summary of Growth in TIE tests on Sweetwater Stormwater Sample Collected on October 18, 2005<br />
Test<br />
Control (Blank)<br />
– Dilution Water<br />
Mean Growth – Chlorophyll (RFU)<br />
50% 75%<br />
Stormwater Stormwater<br />
100%<br />
Stormwater<br />
NOEC LC 50<br />
Baseline 113.87 131.75 112.54 69.70 75 >100<br />
C-18 117.4 122.37 86.09 56.8 50 97.32<br />
EDTA 3 92.03 116.02 112.92 85.47 100 >100<br />
EDTA 8 83.91 131.37 131.28 106.96 100 >100<br />
PBO 0.25 87.07 119.17 109.66 83.64 100 >100<br />
PBO 0.50 93.16 137.63 116.7 71.34 100 >100<br />
4.1.3 Statistical Analysis: Differences in Growth Among Stormwater Dilutions<br />
Data was evaluated using one-way, fixed factor ANOVA and Dunnett’s multiple comparisons to<br />
examine the differences in growth of S. capricornutum among the different dilutions of<br />
stormwater. It was determined that regardless of the TIE treatment, significant differences in<br />
growth of S. capricornutum were detected among the different dilutions of stormwater (i.e., 0,<br />
50, 75 or 100%) to which S. capricornutum were exposed (ANOVA, P=0.008). Specifically, as<br />
depicted in Figure 1, growth of S. capricornutum from highest to lowest in the different<br />
stormwater dilutions was as follows: 50%, 75%, 0% (control), and 100%.<br />
Growth of S. Capricornutum (RFU)<br />
160<br />
140<br />
120<br />
100<br />
80<br />
60<br />
40<br />
B<br />
C<br />
A<br />
D<br />
0 50 75 100<br />
Stormwater Dilution (%)<br />
Figure 1. Growth of S. capricornutum exposed to multiple dilutions of a Sweetwater River stormwater<br />
sample. Different letters indicate statistically significant differences among treatments where B>C>A>D.<br />
Weston Solutions, Inc. 10
<strong>Toxicity</strong> <strong>Identification</strong> <strong>Evaluation</strong> of Sweetwater<br />
River Stormwater Using Selenastrum<br />
capricornutum August 2006<br />
5. DISCUSSION<br />
Results of this TIE indicate that one or more cations that comprise the total dissolved solids<br />
(TDS) found in stormwater samples from Sweetwater River may be responsible <strong>for</strong> the reduced<br />
growth of S. capricornutum. First, the results of the 8 mg/L EDTA test allowed <strong>for</strong> the increased<br />
growth of S. capricornutum or demonstrated that toxicity was reduced through the addition of<br />
EDTA to the 100% stormwater sample. This indicates that the causative agent of toxicity was a<br />
cation, such as a free metal ion (e.g., cadmium, mercury, lead), a dissolved inorganic salt (e.g.,<br />
sodium, calcium, magnesium), or a cationic organic compound such as a cationic surfactant,<br />
because EDTA is a chelating agent that is well known to bind inorganic and organic cationic<br />
chemicals (USEPA 1991).<br />
In addition to TIE tests, chemical analyses of Sweetwater stormwater samples indicate that<br />
cations comprising the TDS may be the causative agent(s) of toxicity. Concentrations of TDS<br />
measured in the undiluted stormwater sample were 2640 mg/L (see results in complete<br />
stormwater report), a concentration that exceeds the water quality objectives <strong>for</strong> this measure,<br />
or 1500 mg/L, in the lower Sweetwater River (RWQCB 1994). In contrast, no organophosphate<br />
pesticides were detected in stormwater samples and the only metals detected were arsenic,<br />
nickel, and zinc, all of which were found at low concentrations, or concentrations far below water<br />
quality objectives.<br />
TIE test results also indicate that the causative agents of toxicity in the Sweetwater River<br />
stormwater samples did not share similar physicochemical properties to those of many other<br />
classes of chemicals. The lack of toxicity reduction in the SPE and PBO tests indicates that the<br />
causative agent was likely not a non-polar organic, or a common-use pesticide (e.g. pyrethroid<br />
or organophosphate), respectively.<br />
Statistical analyses of TIE results also provide some evidence that the causative agent could be<br />
a ion imbalance; growth was diminished in the undiluted 100% stormwater sample, relative to all<br />
treatments while growth was elevated in the 50% and 75% stormwater sample relative to the<br />
dilution water (0% stormwater) sample. This result indicates that the causative agent was toxic<br />
in the undiluted stormwater sample but significantly less toxic in the diluted stormwater samples.<br />
In contrast, in the dilution water control, the lack of ions may have led to diminished growth<br />
relative to the diluted stormwater samples. This result is not surprising because others have<br />
shown that elevated growth in TDS-enriched natural waters as compared to TDS-poor synthetic<br />
mediums (LeBlond and Duffy 2001).<br />
It is well known that elevated concentrations of ions comprising the TDS, or an imbalance of the<br />
ions comprising the TDS may be toxic to aquatic organisms; however, the concentration of TDS<br />
that causes toxicity is highly dependent on the species and types of ions comprising the TDS.<br />
While most species are tolerant of concentrations of TDS that exceed 1000 mg/L, some<br />
spawning or larval fishes are highly sensitive to TDS. Concentrations of 350 mg/L TDS reduced<br />
spawning of striped bass (Morone saxatilis) in the San Francisco Bay-Delta (Kaiser Engineers,<br />
1969). In contrast the LC 50 <strong>for</strong> TDS <strong>for</strong> fathead minnows (Pimphales promelas) has been shown<br />
to range from 2,000 mg/L to 15,000 mg/L in natural waters, depending in part on the types of<br />
ions comprising the TDS (Mount et al. 1997). To the best of our knowledge, little is known about<br />
the effects of TDS on S. capricornutum.<br />
Weston Solutions, Inc. 11
<strong>Toxicity</strong> <strong>Identification</strong> <strong>Evaluation</strong> of Sweetwater<br />
River Stormwater Using Selenastrum<br />
capricornutum August 2006<br />
In summary, the results of this TIE provide some evidence that the causative agent of toxicity<br />
may have been due to elevated TDS levels in the Sweetwater River sample collected in<br />
October, 2005. Because no additional toxicity was found in Sweetwater River samples in S.<br />
capricornutum tests conducting during storm events in January and February of 2006, it is likely<br />
that the causative agent was reduced in this sample during the second and third stormwater<br />
sampling events. Additional studies would be necessary to confirm whether an ion imbalance or<br />
TDS were the causative agent of toxicity to S. Capricornutum.<br />
Weston Solutions, Inc. 12
<strong>Toxicity</strong> <strong>Identification</strong> <strong>Evaluation</strong> of Sweetwater<br />
River Stormwater Using Selenastrum<br />
capricornutum August 2006<br />
6. REFERENCES<br />
Cali<strong>for</strong>nia Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). 1994. Water Quality Control Plan<br />
<strong>for</strong> the San Diego Basin. September.<br />
Kaiser Engineers. 1969. Final Report to the State of Cali<strong>for</strong>nia, San Francisco Bay-Delta Water<br />
Quality Control Program, State of Cali<strong>for</strong>nia, Sacramento, CA.<br />
LeBlond, J.B., and Duffy, L.K. 2001. <strong>Toxicity</strong> assessment of total dissolved solids in effluent of<br />
Alaskan mines using 22-h chronic Microtox® and Selenastrum capricornutum assays. The<br />
Science of the Total Environment, 271:49-59.<br />
Mount, D.R., Gulley, D.D., Hockett, J.R., Garrison, T.D., and Evans, J.M. 1997. Statistical<br />
models to predict the toxicity of major ions to Ceriodaphnia dubia, Daphnia magna and<br />
Pimephales promelas (fathead minnows). Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry,<br />
16:2009-2019.<br />
United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 1991. Methods <strong>for</strong> Aquatic <strong>Toxicity</strong><br />
<strong>Identification</strong> <strong>Evaluation</strong>s. Phase I <strong>Toxicity</strong> Characterization Procedures. EPA/600/6-91/003.<br />
EPA Office of Research and Development. Second Edition. February.<br />
_________. 1992. <strong>Toxicity</strong> <strong>Identification</strong> <strong>Evaluation</strong>. Characterization of Chronically Toxic<br />
Effluents, Phase I. EPA/600/6-91/005F. EPA Office of Research and Development. May.<br />
_________. 1993a. Methods <strong>for</strong> Aquatic <strong>Toxicity</strong> <strong>Identification</strong> <strong>Evaluation</strong>s. Phase II <strong>Toxicity</strong><br />
Characterization Procedures <strong>for</strong> Samples Exhibiting Acute and Chronic <strong>Toxicity</strong> EPA/600/R-<br />
92/080. EPA Office of Research and Development. September.<br />
_________. 1993b. Methods <strong>for</strong> Aquatic <strong>Toxicity</strong> <strong>Identification</strong> <strong>Evaluation</strong>s. Phase III <strong>Toxicity</strong><br />
Characterization Procedures <strong>for</strong> Samples Exhibiting Acute and Chronic <strong>Toxicity</strong> EPA/600/R-<br />
92/081. EPA Office of Research and Development. September.<br />
_________. 2002. Short-Term Methods <strong>for</strong> Estimating the Chronic <strong>Toxicity</strong> of Effluents and<br />
Receiving Waters to Freshwater Organisms. EPA-821-R02-013. EPA Office of Water.<br />
Fourth Edition. October.<br />
Weston Solutions, Inc. (Weston). 2005. San Diego County Municipal Copermittees 2004-2005<br />
Urban Runoff Monitoring. Final Report. For the County of San Diego, San Diego, Cali<strong>for</strong>nia.<br />
December.<br />
Zar, J.H. 1999. Biostatistical Analysis. 4 th Edition. Prentice Hall, New Jersey.<br />
Weston Solutions, Inc. 13