n... . .... ., h Awrnwfihwfihwfiu-Vflww‘. ” fiwfi. 1.3% iii. _§Huum, ...»..Emnfifimmfl V . {31.1% ,1. , V , 1mm? «1. u... 3.2.1.“. 11. V 9010s..) 1.15191. , , . .....V. V. b. . 2.1V , 354%.}, A 3...... V.. 1 V. .V .. V. . H , -%¢ 10... V V ~ V. 1 9 Via... a .,.... V, . .V. «m... V... , %u%usvmhfiVmwmdv¢u. ,Vhdzuhthm; .. .4 m. VCVVVmQ, “3. £31.14. . VV. . V....V.VVV.VQVVVV& V .V.. ‘7.- ,_. .1. .3. V. H . 1 ,1 2. ,. Liahfirfl ...... «Q... h. ! I I? emu.“ 1c \hw’lisi‘; 2p“. 5 V V n .3...th tfim. 3.1.3... 18...”... {M1 . ,V ... . ...bV, .- ... V ...... ., 2...... V. .VV 1... y - . , . . hf 9.9.1. .3... ,Rhmamfimmw V LhwmuuwvaN ...! mm. , a . Jfiflflrkva N. V z 1. km .1119 w )hfiLvfitfifl. “”175 7 ..3. h“. it V LN). V 1 “V1: )*g$¢\t‘r¥!r «nfifig dam? m. V .c. $.15 VerszLvanumm. ,wx . mg? fat... ..V. .. It, ......Vfinfifi... ... I ... VI 1 V a! 1 $10. 1.13.11 V. . 5 _ V . , V v . .. 7V3. , )1 V , 13" V‘v if \‘ifxrav 15.1.. .3- _ 3 a x .Rmunlbhu..r ..V «F 3 V V . . ..x V. 1.1.11.1! 3.. ... 1 ...V 7 2:... $1. 1 .1. I... r1111 ..1 . ,1. . ”not... I. 1...} {In .....¢..mm.Vun.Vr.~mmVV.. .wmumwi u. x tfix$%w1.fiq ,JWHBKVJRthQ . . .. $114.... mam“ - :31... -.. H ...? 3.1V 0...... kg...» ,. H .w. .mfikumxfinflh. V :17 :.Hm.l.m;t.5‘ . .1 u. gram k 5.)}: H17 .1 5 4...»: ...é V V V Lawn... u n f I. , .1 11%} 11 . 1!.» ,1. . V ,. . z. ...: 1.1.x V 11‘): . V. i. $1{\5.V§$KT‘I\1 V1319 “91:03.51 3 1 1 V 1 .1 74.71111: 3 .5131}? . 438315 3. I... 1.): 1 L V .w... 1 V . .. K113i, ....)(‘kv’xa'xz ...rfiazakféfiia. 11.2131: JV‘ 9. HEN“... :1 V 3. V £104.. .... . LI».\..H I... I. V!(1.1V.V... {1.3V .g. V V { ...!) .1. L...: £31.: gammyxmhfi. V maihnéfixguflfiwxa (El). 7 . .1. V. {fig 1 LT: _ i .. 2.31.51. 1 ...... ...-1.5133. . .1... it, . .1. V. 1 ...vV.\1r11I.1\hHw (firsts. 11”? .513”? S ’2‘)... , \ V .. l . , .. 1.. (1.. 1 {in a .1 . _ .51». .1 V, a: ...?fiwnzafi. 13%..Vuviunnbhw V. ....tfim... .....Hfinxlv 1 ,2 V a): V. 11!}:H1) 1....vaKfi1HVf11xti71)i1l11r11s1 V \ V I 131vv~ 1. 513111? 111\211}x.§}.11, 141k“ 1.. 1 u. ....111) «1.1.1.113. .1)... \st 3 V 116‘", 1.1.1.1.... 1 1.wv.:1iwsV1;1iiv.pk..Ixxidh&. 13.}. 39.1%.... I.¢.1}.3¢‘v(n\»v..$5t§)v I’dn)‘ 5115......(‘i :3. V .... 551?. 1 1 ...1.u.1V.. L11 V. 1:311:11. v.1. .ingirah} 1‘ . 4‘ 1 11.11.71» ,, .. . 11.1.. ‘11 x31 1». 1 NVZNVAMQV 1&1H.110.QF.1V1 3.2.un. 1‘31... Lair!) 1.1.1». V... )1? a .3an 1:...le , 173‘) . hm... Fina... V - 11019.1? 5. 1.. ..1 V . VV $79.13 .34. . . . , ,..V V, Jivgwnuavrll ,1 . a . 1.?» V “In? . \1!£...$ . xii}? .71 , 1. , 3:1,- V711...“ 1 V . i: ... w Phi. ,, z 2:1 for 1.136% V a. V V 1.11.. ..VV 13% V v} a“ fi& , , fix..&flfl¥.«5flb..wbv$fl V. .....V. . V . V. . V V If.fiz..3wfiisr8fl. . uflmfl 1.. RH}. ... E1 inns... 42:“. ab??134343k131$§fik1111 3. 1 13.1.9.1 11“". V 1.711? . . V1. $157,131 IL... 331 V ”’33:. .V 1%... 3.531.. ,1 V11o~$t¢¥tt1,fix..11r4!$bhqv¢ 1%.. , V .1 .. . \7 .1 §)fi.1..11111 71.3.11 a. fin M». 1 $1413.11”... 3153311.“...1171 1.13111}. 1§1§1¢ VV. ........ ..V I .13.. View... ....fifiufimgwrfimx V Hag... .1. V .. .V ....V. , . .. 1% V V .Vsuxiflrhnufi .1 4 .1. V 1 11%).)! 11.0 1|!)ch 111x 1 . , . Vii? 13.11.1921); 3?»! .. V. .fllgitfvsrilfl) .1113.» .Willi I! . 919111 , & V:Il%¥;.13\)}l 2.1.1.1-.. l..,4,...m1...n«m 1.9...- 315...... Rig. 11...... ., 5...... (its... . 1 ...3ULV181 33.3.11» 11:2afiftvi 11.1. )7..quan1.¥1?1111 1:13;)... . V §_§hnt§ltv.:.u >311. . u). 1.5... 13.0. l..).,..11......¥... vfln?»§1r'laa§il.{é V s. Vii» {50.11. 11.. c.1311}... J; . 1! g V . <- 3}. 1‘... V. V 1111.. $1. 2.1.... (11({311’1 1... 3'1. 11.111.31.11? §V§)I\V\§ V. .1. gt; “V1.11 $11.6N01L1bl1flllbx‘: W3?!“ (”V21N}VT\F§ 11.0.7). A V1 Fffifuil’git. ¥ 3 In , , V 1.. V .5 2.11.1? 7,111.11! $1.707». 111‘. {gigv‘ 1.5! . 51.3.3161}! hawk. éviaiumbiéfiyuvI—yfvxrgmuzlixfi‘hrvt. Jig¥ilxxfcuu E1.1¢..\i1¥{(§11$23f V. :i1V‘OIIrI2’ri I. malifwnllvnh T 3.1V V .1731... 1 a}... 111111 1.1.4.511, TE..1£.111.:13. ,V...V.i.r.t§ 115.411.751.111}? 1.5.11.2? )4. It; 51.... 1.31%... 1 ... 1 1;». {[1131 11.3% {3.111111 if!152?..9511117111tlnlt6é513r311f{13.911.1L111111t15fl1h3 I is; .7 ..vgx131. .. $1373» 51).) VVMKIV, riill‘VVVx‘, 1-1s731gtu..§§rv {11315.11 ga¥t71¥¥tflaf («.151\l...$)1¥1¥ 17.11»... “gt! . {Ma’s IT)! flfiwhfiflvttfluia“ 1.11.. fifiiafi1¥1fiii~€7§ifl Lf‘r. 11%;; \{tv11cf ‘k‘ivlsafiwlhi ¥XVJ$V§11H;I{ V g ”W cits-r, I . . . .11.- V1SS1 131 V £516.11! 59(‘Lf1'f? g It? V V I'pgvl {a}: rnvvdrfilv 3(va . ...1 VriaflvvtravmmlmfiL§$Ym “H.111: 11.1.11}. ,J.”Os§¥3¥1.flhb¥$1€i§fij .91 a)» v ffiYI . 51 V 7!, !\ .. V» . 51.13! $1. .0 1.51 . 19‘ \- 1 filial-9.92 {1121! . ...... 1.3.2.430. V. £1......1(.§ 1.31.3.1 .25.)... ...aniilnvhgn... win... .511". x 1......“ 3.11.32, 12.7.3. I... V . . ’ll‘l Lumps. f. .V... . {It} ital!“ l>1u1§§.?vh.7.umni.s 1!... V.\H.5h&fln§p1$}r‘ffl.ojv.t 1Y9 \ . A V?» . . : .. 2. 1 V V V 11 J13... 1.11 Lilli. 7.1! if. 1'“!ng 53111312.- . . . 1 1 1.11 \1 r \IYII 111$)rtxslrivr {A . 1!! V , ,V V 1 V: ...VVVVVVufifizVuVVVViszzV i V 2.. mémwu. i. 8.1-»...va ..ififmzquvi? V..._V.V,..,.VVVVV-_VVm.V_VV.nVVVT 211...... $11.: .3». . _ . 3.1.1.1.: 1'13}: :f5laahl‘92. 9%.“... 1 30‘ xxx... 151-. : . 1! , C11 V 7.1?) 1.1.1.1.», v.1.) 1 111.1!!! . . .V . . . a....=l.z,:1fi!l..h51..e1.4;...113L11r19119hq b.1110. bmguiéimmfi 1$$51$1¢§111111hfifihfiuj flfihhstrvifi‘fyfl..?i.i.fl{5{$11.Tu?1¢I:Vtz44a.wfifl\l}$1v‘. :91}. ..1.,... . V. $1!:11.....7~1a..2!13$§. $1. ”115, 1 ,n i it 15.. ,‘xrxtlis .. 21!. 151111L1uvél. $15121$1V1v1§71 \VV11v‘u.vr\~1!~9nnuNlK.itf1l-(l.izu ......335i9311safi 8...... I!MuWH..l. H1113, V5.12... git?!“ .....flhfivlrc. Hubrnxfiug.1!.1M}.,$!¢13¢V41£111.13?1.1.93 . . ag‘iaziliqiixxlnti .11n. nan/161.... 111 2.1.1.1 1 .. . 3 10.11 11 J... 111.91.... $130.1“). 1111111Kl1v);.1»781 7a.! iévfii:i§la.lfz‘ii‘ve§i .7... 31¢! r1! fl... 1 11.11:. 0.3L). 1" “Inglis 7 .11 u... \ A. 51.313173111 1341\\3t..1\)1\11$4l.1 Ye . V ..2¥I=:.l:111§i.llart5 . Butt-«(:31 1111... E 1 .1, ‘11 V . rl .11” 11%|?Vsiitfrt zifi1hihix}ullu!.vv7ptf11121151;..3311911191 V x ..lbl!:1‘l.rnlIQ-::.’.L vn)ltl~§af . )1?!1\V$|. ilk. 1M§11r .19 1.33.1 719.1111, 1%. >$V.§1ld,fl istcbilIVJstgkit 1,.1Vll:xs.3;!t1. 11:... l- 1 131)..» .313... 1. 3‘ )1... flllxsluixx 11,1...” $ .... .... 1.. n: I\>1?.71¢e.1....79 2 V. V. . 5.2.5.... A; Lug-V1.2... 11 311311121. I I.“ 5.1). V . . . . sf)‘. .1! ....12. 1' 111937 siizhhnrulzhvvvfiL {EV .. V I.§fix.¥-fi 1.3.51.1.111.» .3656. a. A»... 113.1%, bu. 1.17.21: (.11, 7...V.1onu.zfi+hu..n..l>v117 . V. . L.ix§...:r..}§..i::§§a 1 111 .V. , “(Rxbthkr1131v11vxucdwflahul bu.» 3111311511. y...).12.2.hflfl\.§.\.133fli 1...... {151.11-} 1.1.3... .leV (5.09 334.81.. 3 1 . , II... . .... it!) I 31.1.1115... , \(1)I’D.’.§JI1.1) til! 1! i} if! V AIVL53412111~115 .lahlq gflH‘éw-a’: 7 31..)11.‘)1 1 1 1 1.1.1.2. 12.9135: ,ph};..5311..§1112rfikV¥1§31huuc1ufivsi ?§1§1¥f1\¥1 a: . ....Vvvr... tn..!)tl1.f3}1!7’.35L1I5 fgrfllmnlpftfiiv! 1.11m". $31.51116» x “juvvtllnflr izfllfvvi». i§1§,1‘§?¥11§73§ 1: 31:.‘53’7’1‘31353IL 9111.1 it" Illwlfl LthL‘t x”. V Y itlithwl 1'11 01.15215 iii}... 10 .1 771.1 $71141 111%.};2 Thfl‘i V1.55 «1’7”...CIO1331:PV:.5:VSVIE n .. 1.1913 (1)?“ h.€i 11112.1 . an». 1.“... V . V 1.111.171: .1110. 1.31%..“ szazign. +1.16%“)... 4V$zuflfiu>§nH:HHH..3§€M..3]U£§!.J.an . . V V 11.1%...»H111ur §1M171h {4&1 .Ivluiqfi. 1.5.11.1..111: . 1.51.. 8h? If:\11T1\\11n-rn1.11.n§£{.”1151;111:911131111ZV .... 5:19....1531721. ‘11:. .. Ole.» ....JN.‘ V 31%.?) 2. 1). .121}... 3‘ 11511.11 115111121). 3112.31.13. 1715155,.2111138 V. 3151.12,.t9).€i¥5ai§lfl.hfibai‘l§a . .11 , 1.711313%.3. 11.111121.” V1.1, 171.111.3111..)411131 15111512... 1111H1¢T\1\.irx.1¥1315.(1.1lf1¢é1 A. A: $31; 4 . v. V V .\ . V \ 5 ‘7' 2i ‘v‘ . i }' l; I,” 1.0 :liaiaaaunh..flwfnnuv.c?vl51.llucvolf§ 19...). 11.1 , yr. 3.111 V V . . . 1V7...F$2.11.}V1R42$Wfl?h:1n.1%fv.r§.f13.1.1 . . .91).... 2.2.. V. . 1.35. V ....lintt. :3. ITIIVV 151.90.}... 1 . 1!...nrflnfluafuiaizzla: . V . 111.111..) 111111 V11n€.1l.f1t.‘vd.b\$ V .V , 12.1151 111.727.11.11) 111%!111111)...‘ ... i v 1111!??? 1.1 \5 , fill‘11171111 , . .. v 1. 11‘. 19‘1113J31L‘flll V112. V . V 1 - 251!~l.;..l.t1{1.1’.)1h}1 1 7. .V. V llvatlisllll Iaulllvlila..)1¢ £§rftzxffitnisslhq IU}§Q71V3..YHVHII f‘f“! u. V5511111111111153';§7¥.3;14$)1;st 11.329.113.11 {\{inily . V. 1.611151%... 1.1!111119141311314‘1-1311 71.111 .K‘Sf. V1131; 1.1011131)»: 2' V . I1 . 1 ...-1‘1 V V v 1 t9 \ . \z 1.! V ..lvasllilaadrwlnvl \ Vgiw..fia?2.i§1.fln.?. :gvflliirlcsj? ..., .§..Lz.w§§}xiln. . . ....HHVVV.11511hnh-.-.§)§.lxuuat.‘ls%11v>1 115;... +1£§37 .1191... i. . v ... .1... VIII: V 11:11 V 1.1%}gi . V 1| $3.}.le It; 13.?!57.‘ .{glfgiri‘i} 1\$i!}..llvl!r.v;i V 1 agx’lnfif‘lizvzvxfdglvg¥t 31:} . 1311-1511.... 1.1.1131on V V )1i‘3;if¥‘l.w‘r.' . 51.1.1 111.13. 111.112! 1.1.1.1! V \‘f §t§11311511|3v31flu~§1 )1! . 1.11.1 $111511 I‘ll. V 359.11.19.11)»; )I1 v¢$133111|1111f§ 3;: f. , . it??? 6 up , 1.111.211!va V V gilt)... , $11.1; 1'2. iii; , 11 ... an? V 1L1“... V V V V . V. s. A \ . t . . “\fIIJs}? 11:! 2553))...- iivsg, .xr.\i;111. . {unlkvzrtlln Vt: . .2 . . . incur? I1). .96 ihf‘ lite-.11).... V . i V. 1151:1113; V V I‘"vt‘\ i: \‘t 30‘ i ‘1' 11...... . .vvlnibftlfhwyizc.3§§ avg“)? Y1! {11101111171119}? ...-3741*).sz V if V I... V 51-115!!! .1151)... ‘ . ‘5‘? l . (2 11.10% .V. 190191.. 51%}: .‘ Eli‘iVKg-‘i gggté‘ufttfij 13. {f‘ggiigil zllfAfgligg’ 1’” 711. .V . . . . {((.I!K(.~(L . .AV. 4 V. . Sikh... 51.921. 1.7.5353? ......l;1l\5~\ {Li}. . .\ .... {t1V:v‘~.~E‘t\<§I\V¢.7’§ .‘AH\LLV~£(; . . >57: (\tVzhkxf \ 1 )2.) ...{3312t3511‘zxk 1t .sVlh‘ .611 V. V V VV 5-.V£:V\\n|r-sl4l\\Vl(.\H§J. ~ V | . . LIPRARY Mici"?gan State University This is to certify that the thesis entitled An Ecological Evaluation of the Fate of Radioisotopes from the Fermi II Nuclear Power Plant in Western Lake Erie: Trace Elements in Water, Seston, Zooplankton and Fish, and Background Gamma Levels in Fish near the Western Shore f Lake Erie presentedoby Dale L. Brege has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Master of Science degeein Fisheries and Wildlife Niles R. Kevern Major professor Date April 22, 1977 0-7 639 AN ECOLOGICAL EVALUATION OF THE FATE OF RADIOISOTOPES FROM THE FERMI II NUCLEAR POWER PLANT IN WESTERN LAKE ERIE: TRACE ELEMENTS IN WATER, SESTON, ZOOPLANKTON, AND FISH, AND BACKGROUND GAMMA LEVELS IN FISH NEAR THE WESTERN SHORE OF LAKE ERIE by Dale A. Brege A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science The Department of Fisheries and Wildlife Michigan State University East Lansing, Michigan October 1977 cumm_m met? an .nomumox .Hm'eaa ,flTAM Hl- 2723.131! 33m ”3|." :: ~Filip] '10 HHOHZ'MEZ‘TEHU Hi‘l. “Alli MEI? | I F.‘ "63! {FHA-fl C7 [out )ba ABSTRACT Water, seston, zooplankton, and fish samples were collected for the year I974 in the vicinity of the proposed Fermi ll nuclear power plant on the western shore of Lake Erie. Water, seston, zooplankton, and fish samples were studied for the stable elements C0, C5, Fe, K, Mn, Sr, and Zn; fish samples were also studied for background radio- activity. All data collected for this study were part of a preopera- tional study of the consequences of waste discharge from the proposed Fermi ll power plant. All trace elements in water samples showed trends of higher con- centrations during the spring months. This corresponded to a time per- iod when runoff from the Maumee and Raisin Rivers was more influential on the total water mass of the basin. Iron and zinc concentrations were highest in the spring months when wave-height observations and suspended solids were high while manganese, potassium, and strontium values were highest during the winter months when there was ice cover. Trace-element concentrations in the seston were generally highest during months of strong wave action. Iron and zinc showed direct cor- relations with wave-heights while manganese, strontium, and potassium showed no relationship with wave-height. The zooplankton data expressed as ug of element per liter of lake water samples showed a trend of increasing concentrations with warming water temperature because there were more zooplankton present during the summer months; however, when the zooplankton data (expressed -.no:t>lna.I-ioos .-nn:asa aerial»! iii-1'». EuifrJ 3'0 sat-tie «nuns». :. :2 n. .‘m’I-. -.‘.'-FI .a'." .03 finch-5i: - 5.1::- ¢.=ri:l‘ '-..I. r ihl.:"' -".' -' r-rf *- ' :‘i ' ' . r.I“'-1:_-.i...-' ‘. . - - ' '1' .- . : -I 'i n - on a wet-weight basis) are analyzed, manganese and potassium concen- trations remained fairly constant while iron and zinc showed trends of higher concentrations during the summer months. Seasonal variations in yellow perch and goldfish were not noted, nor was there any difference between fish of the same species taken from the Monroe plant as compared to the Fermi plant. Significant variations were noted between the two species of fish. Yellow perch had higher concentrations of cesium while the goldfish contained higher concentrations of iron, zinc, and strontium. Size-class variations were noted only for goldfish. Larger gold- fish had higher concentrations of iron and zinc than the smaller gold- fish. For the background levels of radioisotopes, only “OK and 137Cs were found. Concentrations of 137C5 appeared slightly higher for northern pike as compared to yellow perch and carp while AOK varied only slightly among the three species of fish analyzed. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to express sincere appreciation to my major professor, Dr. Niles R. Kevern, for his interest, supervision, and review of the manuscript. Special appreciation is also extended to Drs. Eugene Roelofs, Kenneth Reckhow, Frank D'ltri, and Richard Cole for serving as members of my committee. My thanks is also given to the many graduate students, family, and friends who helped me with my work and who made university life enjoyable. This study was supported by the Detroit Edison Company. Dedicated to DANNY A finer brother could never be Missed until eternity Peace be with you Always .nnialv-muua Jenn”! vi: 1-'. _..-.,,-.,- . -.'i .-:-: .--i.-.aa-":c'- TABLE OF CONTENTS Page INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . l METHODS AND MATERIALS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Site Description. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Field Collections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Laboratory Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . l0 Data Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . l8 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . l9 Water . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . l9 Seston. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 Zooplankton . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 Fish - Stable Analysis. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 Fish - Radioactive Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Sl CONCLUSIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52 LITERATURE CITED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56 APPENDIX A - DATA TABLES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59 Number I LIST OF TABLES Water chemistry data taken for station I for the year I974. Water chemistry data taken for station 2 for the year I974. Preparation of water samples for the analysis of trace-elements. Operating conditions for atomic absorption and flame emission analysis. Preparation of seston samples for the analysis of trace-elements. Preparation of zooplankton samples for trace- element analysis. Preparation of fish samples for the analysis of trace-elements. Preparation of fish samples for radioisotope analysis. Yearly grand averages for data taken from the Fermi |I survey area. Approximate amounts of each element found in various aquatic components of the Fermi II survey area based on Table 9. Mean concentrations of stable isotopes in fil- tered water samples. Cobalt and strontium data as analyzed by Hydro Research Laboratories, Division of CLOW, Pontiac, Michigan. Mean concentrations of stable isotopes in the seston. Mean concentrations of stable isotopes in 200- plankton expressed as mg of element per gram wet- weight of zooplankton. Page 53 54 6O 62 63 64 (list of Tables, cont.): Number A-S Mean concentrations of stable isotopes in 200— plankton expressed as ug of element per liter of lake water sampled. Zooplankton data. Mean concentrations of stable isotopes in yellow perch. Mean concentrations of stable isotopes in gold- fish. Yearly grand averages of stable element concen- trations for yellow perch and goldfish. Radioisotope concentrations of “OK and 137Cs in whole fish ash. Supplementary water chemistry data on phosphor- ous, nitrogen, and carbon. Multiple range analysis for filtered water sam- ples from station I. Multiple range analysis for filtered water sam- ples from station 2. Multiple range analysis for seston samples taken from station I. Multiple range analysis for seston samples taken from station 2. Multiple range analysis in zooplankton samples taken from station I. Multiple range analysis for zooplankton samples taken from station 2. Multiple range analysis for yellow perch (7-9”) taken from the Monroe station. Multiple range analysis for goldfish (l2—l5”) from the Monroe station. vi Page 65 66 67 69 7I 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 BI l . 1 - iP-Td'“? nl atrflfloei £--- H: ... arm-1:2» ‘-! i-A .:"-'r'1-'§ '." . I Number I LIST OF FIGURES A map of the western basin of Lake Erie showing the location of the survey area. A map of the survey area showing the location of the sampling stations. Temporal variation of iron from stations I and 2 of the survey area. Temporal variation of zinc from stations I and 2 of the survey area. Temporal variation of manganese from stations I and 2 of the survey area. .—n Temporal variation of strontium from stations and 2 of the survey area. ... Temporal variation of potassium from stations and 2 of the survey area. Temporal variation of iron in the seston from stations I and 2 of the survey area. Temporal variation of manganese in the seston from stations I and 2 of the survey area. Temporal variation of zinc in the seston from stations I and 2 of the survey area. Temporal variation of potassium in the seston from stations I and 2 of the survey area. Temporal variation of zinc in the zooplankton from stations I and 2 of the survey area. Temporal variation of iron in the zooplankton from stations I and 2 of the survey area. Temporal variation of manganese in the zooplank- ton from stations I and 2 of the survey area. Temporal variation of potassium in the zooplank- ton from stations I and 2 of the survey area. Page 20 Zl 22 23 24 28 29 3O 33 34 35 36 “I _ “'11”! 260 “I?“ .‘I'IOJIIUI an! #0 (m; I" I 3 .amr rev-ma mi: 1'0 ulnar-I . 4: 30 fit-Hanoi .Jl: t-t-il'w '- : ‘ -/';v-'_' (List of Figures, cont.): Number Page l6 Temporal variation of numbers of zooplankton from station I. 38 I7 Temporal variation of zooplankton numbers from station 2. 39 I8 Temporal variation of iron in yellow perch from the Monroe station. 40 I9 Temporal variation of manganese in yellow perch from the Monroe station. 4] 20 Temporal variation of zinc in yellow perch from the Monroe station. 42 2] Temporal variation of strontium in yellow perch from the Monroe station. 43 22 Temporal variation of cesium in yellow perch from the Monroe station. 44 23 Temporal variation of iron in goldfish from the Monroe station. 46 24 Temporal variation of manganese in goldfish from the Monroe station. 47 25 Temporal variation of zinc in goldfish from the Monroe station. 48 26 Temporal variation of cesium in goldfish from the Monroe station. 49 27 Temporal variation of strontium in goldfish from the Monroe station. 50 viii INTRODUCTION Within a time span of only a few years, the energy consumption of the United States has risen tremendously. Most of this energy has been in the form of fossil fuel, but there has also been an ever in- creasing reliance upon foreign nations for supplying the necessary crude oil for gasoline and other oil products. Not only has this dependence upon foreign oil been extremely costly both in dollars and in U.S. sovereignity, but the energy crisis of the past few years has clearly demonstrated that forms of energy additional to fossil fuels are needed to maintain an acceptable American standard of living. One form of energy that is currently under consideration is nuc- lear energy which offers an almost inexhaustible potential as a power supply. However, before this huge potential of nuclear energy can be utilized, the safety of its use must be considered. Through acciden- tal spills, activation of cooling waters, and controlled releases of dilute waste water, radioactive liquids could get into our aquatic systems. Thus, the biogeochemical pathways of radioactive elements should be carefully studied. One method developed for predicting the pathways of radioactive isotopes is that of the specific activity hypothesis (National Academy of Sciences, I960; Nelson, et al., I972). This hypothesis is based upon the assumption that radioactive isotopes follow the same path- ways as their counterpart stable isotopes. At equilibrium the radio— active isotope to total isotope ratio should be the same for all __ mm -.m‘w m1" a fine to man an: 3 “mm and! film-2h” 3:.- 32: '4 ..V'r?l:0lfl5.rlfl11'fl;Fi" ans" 31-3113? I‘E-f‘iuli wit: "Iu -n'.1rlntll- ,g: --_-.'-I "-".'ll' ‘11-'43 j-_.' .[_-: [LL13 I' ': - f il - "I components of that system, provided that availability of the isotope is equal to all components. In other words, based upon the specific activity hypothesis, once the distribution of the stable isotope has been determined, predictions can be made about the eventual fate of radioactive isotopes released into that environment. Several factors, however, could hinder the equilibration process, such as mass differences between the radioactive isotope and the stable isotope, fluctuating characteristics of the system receiving the dis- charge, physical decay of the radioisotope, and biological uptake and elimination rates. Any one of these factors or combinations of them could mean that a true equilibrium may never be reached. The Fermi II study is a preoperational study designed to deter- mine the stable element distribution and to use the specific activity hypothesis for predictions about the radioactive isotopes that may later be introduced into the western basin of Lake Erie. The elements being studied (iron, manganese, zinc, strontium, cesium, and cobalt) are those having the potential for creating hazardous conditions near a nuclear plant. Previous studies of stable and radioactive isotopes have been conducted on the Fermi ll area. Shaffer (I975) conducted research on water and sediments while Gottschalk (I975) worked with the trophic levels of fish. This study, conducted for the calendar year I974, is intended to provide seasonal data for the stable element distribution in water, seston, zooplankton, and two Species of fish primarily in the vicinity of the Fermi II power plant. A secondary objective of this study is to determine the background levels of radioisotopes in selected fishes. 'J'i’tra-erl: METHODS AND MATERIALS Site Description The Fermi II power plant, under construction at the time of this study, is located along the western shore of Lake Erie approximately twelve kilometers north of Monroe, Michigan. The whole western basin of Lake Erie, which comprises about 3OOO-km2, is shallow, with an aver- age depth of eight meters and a maximum depth of only l5 meters. The western basin of Lake Erie receives more than 90% of the total water discharged into the entire lake even though it makes up only about 5% of the total lake volume. The estimated minimum possible flushing time for the western basin is approximately two months (Beeton, l96l) while that for the entire lake is approximately three years (Beeton, I971). The main tributary rivers that flow into the western basin of Lake Erie include the Detroit River, the Maumee River, and the Raisin River. The Detroit River, which contributes over 90% of the annual incoming water, is laden with industrial and sewage wastewater from the metropolitan Detroit area. Detroit River water makes up a high of 95% of the water in the western basin in the fall and a low of 74% during the spring months. The Maumee River, which enters near Toledo, Ohio, and the Raisin River, which enters near Monroe, Michigan, both contrib- ute large quantities of clay, silt, and agricultural runoff to the basin. From I970 to l975, the Maumee River contributed l4 to I8% of the lake water in the spring, II% in the summer, and 5% in the fall, [-fifl r‘”: .-.- _.-. Y 93 Ix." .UI- - -:) trim-3': :_' I ' - ' ' ' - . - .. I :3". : It‘firi n'mfl: ' ' ' ' . I l .'.- ..11: - while the Raisin River contributed l2% in the spring and 5% in the fall (Ecker and Cole, I976). Along with enriched tributary flows and the shallowness of the basin, windy conditions keep the basin from frequent stratification. Temperature and dissolved oxygen conditions usually are quite consis- tent throughout the water column. In addition, lake bottom sediments often are resuspended and the lake is usually kept quite turbid (Britt et al., I973). Water currents in the western basin of Lake Erie are directly in- fluenced by tributary flows and wind conditions. The Detroit River, connecting Lake Erie with Lake St. Clair and the Upper Great Lakes, enters at the northern-most part of the basin. From there, the main water mass flows southward. Hartley et al. (I966) stated that the major currents in the basin moved south to southeast and were main- tained by the predominantly southwest summer winds. Evidently, these winds gradually interrupt the southward flow of the Detroit River and push the main water mass eastward through the Pelee Passage and into the central basin. A lesser current, indicated by the ILEWPB (I969), flows northward along the Michigan shoreline. Strong wind conditions frequently produce wind tides in the western basin. Sustained winds either from the east or the west push large amounts of water to the opposite side of the basin. Water levels often rise as much as two meters with the wave action causing consid- erable shoreline erosion and resuspension of bottom sediments. The area considered in this study focused on an area near the Fermi I power plant. This area is quite shallow, with a maximum depth of only four meters at an offshore distance of one kilometer. As a result, it receives considerable pounding from high waves and seiches. 77515) Ii-I'I'IU.“ s5“ . ' -- .:. -. .1.“ _ . _ ' -. __ -". Figures 1 and 2 show the location of the study area and the location of the sampling stations. Station I was located at the lakeward end of the Fermi l breakwall where it was about three meters deep. Water conditions at this station reflected those conditions characteristic of the surrounding lake. The physical and chemical data collected for station I for I974 have been summarized in Table l. Station 2, located at the mouth of Swan Creek, was l.5 meters deep. Water from the creek usually was turbid and nutrient-loaded because the drainage area of the creek was primarily agricultural. Station 2 was also an area where substantial mixing could occur between creek water and lake water if strong easterly winds were prevalent. Table 2 sum- marizes the physical and chemical data collected in I974 at the Swan Creek station. The screening rooms of both Fermi and the Monroe power plants served as the sites for fish collections. Fermi l was to be located adjacent to Fermi II while the Monroe plant is located approximately twelve kilometers southward in the city of Monroe, Michigan. Field Collections Temperature, dissolved oxygen, alkalinity, wave-heights, chlorides, and suspended, volatile, and total solids were taken each sampling period. Water temperatures were taken with a mercury hand-thermometer; dissolved oxygen measurements were made by azide-modified Winkler titra- tions; alkalinity was measured by H2804 titrations; and wave-height measurements were taken from a staff gauge. Chlorides, measured by the mercuric-nitrate method, and all solids data were determined in the laboratory. - ”Dist. ”I “i i Whittle '1"? '.-J:a=-II--* 5:1 -I i::ir---..': m I--:.i:'(:li. .Amucocczo mo co_umcm_axm uo__mump Low uxmu mmmv ccouuma “coccso Loom: Lassam _mu_a>u m vcm mocm >o>cam osu mo co_umuo_ as“ mc_umu_e:_ o_Lw exam mo c_mmn ccmummz on“ $0 awe < .5. 2 >mm mossmz ”x.ow5mmr (Aw-(JEN i JD fin. m um r Point ’ Aux Peaux ,I,’ ,/ ’/ / ,I / LAKE ERIE 6M / / / / // I , l km , / / r,’ / / Figure 2. A map of the survey area showing the location of the samp- ling stations. IA'IIIIIII ~ I O I I I I I l I I I u I I I l ‘n. . . . . . . . . . . . . u _l' _ . . -: I . . L .vo>Lomno mm: >u_c__mx_m corn 0: u>u_c__mx_m _mu0u oLm >u_c__mx_m Lo» mo:_m> __< < mmm mm mm :._: o.N_ mm :.o _ :m\w_\m_ mm_ mm mm m.m_ ¢.__ mm m.o m :m\ow\__ mow _: 0— m.m_ _.__ om _.o N_ :m\m_\o_ _ON Nm Nm :.m_ m.w mm :.o m_ :m\w_\m _o_ m: m_ m.o_ m.m mm N.o :N :m\om\w NON mm mm m.NN 0.x mm 0.0 :N :m\o_\m N_N Nu NN w.m_ w.w :m _.o m. JN\N_\w mam mm m: N.mN m.__ _o_ m.o N. :m\_m\m mMN Nm we m.m_ m.o_ mm m.o w :N\m_\s mwN mm mm :._N m.N_ No_ m.o : :m\mN\m om_ mo :_ m.o~ m.N_ oo. Lm>ou ou_ N :m\m_\m AL0u__\mEV Acou__\mEv Acou__\mEV Acou__\msv Acmu__\mev Amoumu Loam—\mev Amcouoev Auov mn__0m me__0m mn__0m moe_Lo_;u com>xo e>u_c__mx_< mco_um>comno .aeou memo _mBOH m__um_o> popcoamam po>_0mm_o _mHOH u;m_w;uo>m3 Loumz .qnm_ Lmo> ecu Lem _ co_umum LOm coxmu Mame >Lum_Eo;o Loumz ._ o_nmh .um>comno mm: >u_c__mx_m Lose 0: m>u_c__mx_m _mu0u oLm >umc__mx_m LOm mos_m> __< « N_N _m N: m.wN _.N_ No_ :.o _ :m\w_\N_ NON 00 mm :.m_ :.__ mm :.o n :m\0N\__ m_N :: MN w.o_ m.o_ Nm ..o __ :m\m_\o_ mw_ on Nm m.m_ m.o_ mm N.o m_ :m\m_\m _N_ _o mN m.N_ m.m mm :.o MN :N\ON\w Nw_ mm MN o.n_ m.m mm 0.0 :N :m\w_\N NJN om Nm N.m_ m.w mm m.o w_ sN\N_\o N_m w__ m: _.om w.m mN_ m.o ON :N\_N\m on mo_ mm :._N 0.0— N__ m.o m :m\o_\: mmN :m om N.:N N.N_ No_ m.o m :N\mN\m Acmu__\mev Atou__\mev Acmu__\msv Acou__\mev Atmu__\mev Amoumo Lop__\mev Amcmumev Aoov me__0m me__om me__0m moe_to_;o comsxo asu_c__mx_< mco_um>rmmno .a50u mama _mHOF m__um_o> coccoamam vm>_0mmua _muOk u;m_mcuo>m3 Loom: .qmm_ me> esp LOW N :o_umum Lo» :oxmu meme >Lum_Emco Loam: .N o_nmk l0 Quadruplicate samples of water, seston, zooplankton, and fish were collected near the middle of each month. Water samples were taken using a Van Dorn water sampler and were stored in one-liter polyethylene bot- tles. Trace-metal water samples were immediately filtered through a mic- ropore filter (0.45-u pore size) and then preserved with IO-ml of HNO3. Water samples used for nutrient analyses were preserved with lO-ml of HgCIZ while chloride samples were left unpreserved. Water samples used for seston analyses were collected using a Van Dorn water sampler and stored in polyethylene bottles containing lO-ml of HNO3. Zooplankton samples were collected by pumping lake water through a Wisconsin plankton net (75-u). A smaller mesh net was not suitable for use because the large amount of detritus in the lake water clogged the net too quickly. The zooplankton were separated from the rest of the seston by aspirating the swimming zooplankton from the settled debris. Zooplankton samples were stored in counting vials containing 70% ethanol. Microscope slides for counting were made using one drop of the zooplank- ton sample as described in the IBP Handbook, Number l2 (l97l). Monthly fish collections of yellow perch (Perga flavescens) and goldfish (Carassius auratus) were taken from the Monroe power plant by using drop nets in the screen room. When available, other pertinent fish species were also collected. Fish collections were similarly taken from the Fermi I power plant every three months. Laboratory Procedures Water samples were filtered through a micropore filter (0.45-u pore size) and a 30-ml subsample was taken for direct analysis for potassium. Analyses of the other elements, iron, manganese, zinc, cesium, cobalt, and strontium, required a concentration procedure in which a 400-gram ‘ HI “SFWJPQV'P .519... £119W .292_\'i_‘fl§ 19,111. '. Ta '--"."' animal! TIL-35.” haw szmz 1:3”? .tsvaseswcnu fisl 91-»: :-: In: :~'--i-. iir"-- -:i-.‘ 1"- .'..'."' Tri ' 'i I' I I u . subsample was freeze-dried and redissolved in 20-ml of lN-HNO3. Table 3 summarizes the procedure used for the preparation of water samples. Trace-metal analyses were conducted either by flame emission or atomic bsorption with the specific conditions for each element given in Table 4. Seston samples were concentrated by freeze-drying a 400-gram subsam- ple and then redissolving as much residue as possible with l-ml of con- centrated HNO3 and three successive rinses of 5-ml of distilled water. The samples were rinsed into counting vials, digested in a boiling water bath modified from Adrian (l97l), and analyzed for trace-elements by atomic absorption or flame emission. Table 5 outlines the procedure for the preparation of seston samples. Zooplankton samples were placed in the refrigerator overnight to allow the debris in the sample to settle to the bottom of the vial. Separation of the swimming zooplankton from the rest of the seston was accomplished by aspirating off the upper portion of the sample. The samples were rinsed into counting vials, digested in a boiling water bath described by Adrian (l97l), and analyzed by atomic absorption or flame emission. Table 6 outlines the procedure for the preparation of zooplankton samples. When possible, three fish per replicate were used for the fish sam- ples. Gut contents were removed, fish were thoroughly homogenized in a grinder and a blender, and then the mixture was digested in an HNO3 dis- tillation process. Table 7 outlines the procedure for the preparation of fish samples for analysis of trace-elements. Fish samples were also analyzed for radioisotopes. A ZOO-gram sub- sample of the frozen homogenized fish mixture was freeze-dried for 24- hours and ashed in a muffle furnace. The fish ash was transferred to a counting vial and placed in a Nuclear Chicago gamma well counter coupled I. may as. ...-m 'N bit-1 Ina-am: awn tal-m.” "03292 ~nnn Ii {M3I,d§1w'§idlaafifi'fié sub}: 1 flfu- :s'uniVIst'i'sw n-Hs Lau-r nit .1915w bslIIJFI'.Tr Ir-E "I - _ in "MI ; .-- . 1 . '.. ' :41_-:: «If .tl'I '-'.I '--.:;u i' I'.’ I I Table 3. Preparation of water samples for the analysis of trace-elements. I. As a precautionary rinsing step, pass IOO-ml of a l-liter water subsample through a 0.45—u micropore filter and discard the filtrate. 2. Filter the remainder of the sample and store the filtrate in a l-liter acid-washed polyethylene bottle. Add IO-ml of concentrated HNO3 as a preservative. 3. Take a 30-ml subsample and analyze directly for potassium. 4. Weigh a 400-gram subsample into a freeze-dryer bottle and freeze-dry the sample. 5. Add 20-ml of IN HN03 to the flask and swirl until all particles are in solution. 6. Take a 5-ml subsample from step 5, add 0.5-ml of l2.5% lanthanum chloride solution, and analyze for strontium. 7. Analyze the remaining portion of the acid solution from step 5 for iron, manganese, zinc, cesium, and cobalt. m-u mun-mm .t alibi -. m— -- _-— a.-. u—_-.--.—- 153$Vr1§31il~l r. "Ir Ira-f"! r-r-a- .I '::= .-. ‘u'i‘I -i.‘.r-"s-1- r H .I .91I13ll7 3H: hweneil Lnr-193Ill $1 a ’ '1'.O : . --1Li -I-r“' :fi .. ..- . u .,..g , LI “1p13,,u '.1 31h - . -"-r r-: l"'-' I .‘.-;- r ' '- Table 4. Operating conditions for atomic absorption and flame emission analysis. Resonance Sensitivity Absorption Element mg/liter or Emission Comments Co 2407 0.2 Absorption - Cs 852l 0.03 Emission Add K to suppress ionization. Fe 2483 O.l Absorption - Mn 2795 0.06 Absorption - Sr 4607 0.l5 Emission Add l% lanthanum chloride to prevent P04, Al, and Si interferences. Zn 2l39 0.03 Absorption - * Table based on Elwell and Gidley (I967), with the data supplied by Jarrell-Ash, Division of Fischer Scientific Company. Table 5. Preparation of seston samples for the analysis of trace elements. Shake seston sample preserved with HN03 vigorously until sample is thoroughly mixed. Weigh a 400-g subsample into a freeze-drying flask and freeze-dry the sample. Add l-ml of concentrated HNO3 and 5-ml of distilled water to the flask, swirl the acid mixture getting as much residue as possible into solution, and pour the acid mixture into a counting vial. Add an additional 5-ml of distilled water to the flask, swirl, and pour the solution into the vial. As an additional rinsing precaution, repeat step 4. Place uncapped vials into a boiling water bath and allow solution to evaporate to approximately 2 - 3 ml. Cap the vials and heat in water bath for 6 - 8 hours. Add distilled water to vials so that each vial contains I6-ml of liquid. Recap vials and heat in water bath 3 - 4 hours. Solution is now ready for analysis. Digestion method modified from Adrian (l97l). Table 6. Preparation of zooplankton samples for trace-element analysis. l. Place polystyrene vials containing the zooplankton sample in the refrigerator overnight. 2. Separate the zooplankton from the total seston by aspirating the swimming zooplankton from the settled debris. 3. Store the zooplankton in counting vials containing 70% ethanol. 4. Place the uncapped vials in a boiling water bath and allow the samples to evaporate to 2 - 3 ml. 5. Add l-ml of concentrated HNO to each vial, recap, and heat in the water bath for 6 - 8 houfs. 6. Add distilled water to the vials so that each vial contains l6- ml of liquid. 7. Recap vials and heat in the water bath for 3 - 4 hours. Solution is now ready for analysis. * Digestion method modified from Adrian (l97l). Table 7. Preparation of fish samples for the analysis of trace elements. Grind fish in a meat grinder and then homogenize the ground fish in a blender. Place lO-g of the homogenized fish mixture into a boiling flask. Add 50-ml of concentrated HNO3 and allow to stand for l-hour. Reflux the acid mixture for 4-hours or until nitrous oxide fumes are no longer visible. Distill excess liquid off until only 5-ml of acid are left. Add 80-ml of distilled water. Reflux for 4 - 6 hours. Dilute to lOO-ml with distilled water. Take a 9-ml subsample from step 8, add l-ml of 12.5% lanthanum chloride, and analyze for strontium. Analyze the remaining solution from step 8 for iron, manganese, cesium, cobalt, and zinc. Table 8. Preparation of fish samples for radioisotope analysis. I. Freeze-dry ZOO-g, wet-weight, of frozen homogenized fish for at least 24-hours. 2. Transfer sample to a crucible and place in a muffle furnace for 4-hours at 100°C. 3. Increase temperature 50°C every 4-hours. 4. Upon reaching a temperature of 450°C, keep samples in muffle fur- nace for 6 - 8 hours. 5. Allow fish ash to cool to roon temperature and record the ash weight. 6. Transfer fish ash to counting vial for radioisotope analysis. l8 to a 5l2-channel analyzer and counted for 480 minutes. The procedure for the preparation of fish samples for radioisotope analysis is given in Table 8. Data Analysis One-way analysis of variance tests were performed on the data to determine spatial, temporal, and size-class differences. Whenever means were found to be significantly different, a further statistical test, Tukey's multiple range comparison, was used (Glass and Stanley, I970). Data used for the analysis of temporal differences were pooled to correspond to the four seasons of the year. These data were then ana- lyzed for seasonal significance rather than monthly differences. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Emir Concentrations of metals found in filtered Lake Erie water samples ranged from less than 2.5 to 32.6 ug/liter for manganese, 5.6 to 29.9 ug/Iiter for zinc, lIO to 460 ug/liter for strontium, I7.0 to 672.5 ug/liter for iron, and I000 to 2300 ug/liter for potassium (Table A-l). These data are consistent with those of Shaffer (I975) who conducted similar studies on the western basin of Lake Erie. Cesium was not detectable under the methods employed by this study. Cobalt, although detectable, was not measurable; however, sam- ples analyzed by a private research laboratory indicated that cobalt was present at about l.5 ug/liter (Table A-2). The cobalt data compare favorably with Durum et al. (I970) who found 2 - 4 ug/liter of cobalt in water from the central basin of Lake Erie. Statistically significant differences between stations (p = .05) were noted during times when Swan Creek had high discharge rates. On the April sampling date Swan Creek had significantly higher values for the elements iron, zinc, manganese, and strontium (Figures 3, 4, 5, and 6, respectively). These differences generally were not noted in the summer or fall months when the creek discharge was lower and when winds and seiches caused considerable mixing of lake water with the Swan Creek water. Potassium (Figure 7) exhibited significantly higher levels for the months of May, November, and December at the Swan Creek station. Trace-elements in the Fermi area exhibited considerable temporal Fe in ug/Iiter 525 " .5. - I \\ I I 375 a I \ I 3..- 'I I 225- I l50" / 75' J J A S O N D TIME-l974 Temporal variation of iron from stations I and 2 of the survey area. Figure 3. Zn in ug/liter 2l 36- 32 - 28.. 21+- 20-1 __.-_JL—--—-Station I —-——o—-— Station 2 TIME-I974 Figure 4. Temporal variation of zinc from stations I and 2 of the survey area . Mn in ug/liter 22 ——o—— Station I —o——Station 2 nod 35 d 30 — 25- TIME-I974 Figure 5. Temporal variation of manganese from stations I and 2 of the survey area. Sr in ug/llter 250- \ \ /\ \/ \ 200 - . “\ \ P / Iso— \ /\ / \/ “’ I00 - 50 ‘ o I l I l l I l l I I I I J F M A M J J A S 0 N S T | M E - I 9 7 4 Figure 6. Temporal variation of strontium from stations I and 2 of the survey area. K in mg/Iiter 24 —-—o———Station l —-0———Station 2 Figure 7. Temporal variation of potassium from stations I and 2 of the survey area. TIME-l974 25 differences. All of the elements under consideration showed a defin— ite trend toward lower concentrations during the summer months. Flow input variations and complex regulatory reactions seemed to be respon- sible for the bulk of the observed variations. Seasonal variation of the incoming flows from the Detroit, Maumee, and Raisin Rivers was probably the more significant factor. The Detroit River contributed about 95% of the annual input into the basin, but the amount and relative proportion varied with the season. The percentage of the lake water contributed by the Detroit River ranged from 74% in the spring to 95% in the fall. The Maumee River contributed only 2.5% annually, but it contributed l4 to I8% of the total input in the spring, II% in the summer, and 5% in the fall. The Raisin River contributed only 0.5% annually, but it contributed almost l2% of the spring total and 5% of the fall total (Ecker and Cole, I976). Together, these three tributaries comprise 99% of the flow in the western basin of Lake Erie. The variation of trace-metal levels found in the water from the Fermi area seemed to be related to the variability of the tributary in- puts. High Ievels of iron, zinc, manganese, and strontium in the water during the spring season corresponded to periods of high spring runoff from the Maumee and Raisin Rivers. Both of these rivers receive indus- trial and municipal effluents in addition to draining large agricultural watersheds. High runoff periods from these two rivers could account for higher concentrations of trace—elements in the study area. Ecker and Cole (I976) calculated that the Maumee River was particularly in- fluential in the spring, but less influential during times of low water input. Complex chemical regulatory reactions could also explain a part of the seasonal variation noted. The highest concentrations of iron and Sinntil CWT .1odsc’ rflfi 3nd .nlaa' ,'-l_:II"-' .I'I' ' jgnuiiinoia s1nr ad: Fl:r1u1fi . - :1,vif uini»* but u . _ ,-. I r" ' I." ..1 ‘II' T ' .I' - 26 zinc were observed during the spring months when wave-height observa- tions and suspended solids were highest while manganese, potassium, and strontium values were highest during the winter months when there was ice cover and little suspended solids. Apparantly, zinc and iron are highly associated with the bottom sediments and more of these two ele- ments are put into solution when the bottom sediments are suspended and highly exposed to the water column due to the turbulent conditions. It also follows that strontium, potassium, and manganese are less concentrated in the sediments since in this study, they did not exhibit a similar tendency with suspended solids and high wave conditions. This supposition is partially supported by Brungs (I967) who showed that strontium has little association with suspended materials and Childs (I970) who stated that potassium, like other alkali metals, generally exists as a simple ion in solution. Contradictory evidence (Shaffer, I975), however, indicates that man- ganese and strontium are associated with the sediments. Shaffer found that the trace-elements cobalt, strontium, iron, manganese, and zinc show a direct relationship with the amount of clay and organic content found in finer sediments. Shaffer also found that strontium showed seasonal variations with higher summer concentrations in the sediments than in the fall. Jennne (I968) stated that iron and manganese form oxide coatings on the sediments and that other transition metals are greatly affected through sorption and coprecipitation with these oxide coatings. Manganese, however, redissolves from the sediments under less extreme redox conditions and higher dissolved oxygen concentrations than those necessary for the redissolving of iron. Manganese and iron are two transition elements that are often found dissolved in concentrations that are above their theoretical solubility hm: “Mensa: ms aimi‘me "fda‘ml ral'fi ' -' . :"h :v --i 'I‘ when .anni:IIl.-I-: Jusiu'l'u. _ - _‘I ' ‘- i . ' ';-.=.--- "-: "IE "' I: 'I=I L 27 factors controlled primarily by ph/Eh and water temperatures. Some of the attempts to explain this phenomenon include the formation of organic complexes (Childs, I97l), colloidal oxides (Friend, I963), and the association of trace metals with other suspended materials. Seston Mean monthly concentrations and standard deviations of each element were calculated for the seston (Table A-3). Concentrations of metals found in the seston ranged from 362 to I655 ug/liter for iron, 20 to 54 ug/liter for manganese, 2.7 to 26.0 ug/liter for zinc, and 900 to 2500 ug/liter for potassium (Figures 8, 9, IO, and II, respectively). Again cobalt was not measurable under the methods employed in the study; however, results from a private research laboratory indicate a level of approximately 4 ug/liter (Table A-2). Inconsistent, but significant variations between stations were noted most commonly during the fall and winter months. On the December samp- ling date when the wave-height observed at both stations was a rather high 0.4 meters, there were significant variations for iron, manganese, and potassium. However, since these variations were noted when the wave- height and suspended solids were basically equal between the two stations these differences could be attributed to the type and nature of the bot- tom sediments. Most of the temporal variation observed seemed to be directly rela- ted to the wave conditions. Generally, larger values for iron and zinc were recorded when higher wave conditions were prevalent. A correlation coefficient of 0.74 was calculated for the relationship of iron and the wave-height while the zinc correlation coefficient was 0.37. This indicates that iron had a direct relationship while zinc showed only a moderate correlation. In contrast, manganese and potassium values insures-i5 dam 'w "-w-i' 51‘": Fe in ug/liter 28 ——-o-—— Station l 1800 - -—-—-—o—————-Station 2 I600 ' 1400 _ l200 - lOOO ‘ 800 - 600 - 400 - 200 ‘ T l M E - l 9 7 4 Figure 8. Temporal variation of iron in the seston taken from stations I and 2 of the survey area. Mn in ug/liter 63 - 56— 49 — 42- 35 ‘ 28 ‘ l4- 29 __o_—Station l —————o———-Station 2 Figure 9. T I M E - l 9 7 4 Temporal variation of manganese in the seston taken from stations l and 2 of the survey area. Zn in ug/liter 30 ——o——Station l 27 - —-——o——-Station 2 24 _ TIME-1974 Figure l0. Temporal variation of zinc in the seston taken from stations I and 2 of the survey area. K in mg/liter 3l ——o—--—- Station l .7 ‘ ——o—Station 2 T | M E - l 9 7 4 Figure ll. Temporal variation of potassium in the seston taken from stations 1 and 2 of the survey area. 32 fluctuated freely and did not seem to exhibit much of a relationship with wave-height conditions. The strong association of iron with the sediments was not unexpect- ed. Jenne (I968) suggested that iron, along with manganese, formed oxide coatings on suspended particulate matter which settled during periods of low wave conditions. Lee (l970) stated that iron precipitates as an iron hydroxide flock under redox conditions normally found in natural waters. Lee further stated that iron will not redissolve except during periods of very low dissolved oxygen, but since the water in the Fermi area does not often stratify, large amounts of iron redissolving from the sediment would not seem likely. Zooplankton Mean monthly concentrations and standard deviations of each element were calculated for the zooplankton data (Tables A-4 and A-5). Concen- trations of metals found in the zooplankton ranged from l.2 to 7.3 mg/ gram for zinc, 3.8 to l8.l mg/gram for iron, less than 0.3 to l.0 mg/gram for manganese, and 22.9 to 86.4 mg/gram for potassium (Figures l2, l3, l4, and 15, respectively). Neither cobalt nor strontium were present in suf- ficient quantities to obtain reliable results. Zooplankton concentrations (expressed on a wet-weight basis) of manganese and potassium remained fairly constant throughout the sampling period while iron and zinc showed increasing trends during the spring and early summer months. This period of increasing concentrations in zooplankton corresponded to declining water concentrations in these two elements during the summer months. Apparantly, the warming water and in- creased photoperiod resulted in higher primary productivity and the zooplankton obtaining higher concentrations of these elements through Zn in mg/gram wet-weight 33 -——-—o—--—-Station l 9 ‘ —-o——Station 2 T l M E - l 9 7 4 Figure l2. Temporal variation of zinc in the zooplankton from stations 1 and 2 of the survey area. Fe in mg/gram wet-weight 34 __.o_—Station l ———o——Station 2 TlME-l974 Figure l3. Temporal variation of iron in the zooplankton from stations l and 2 of the survey area. Mn in mg/gram wet-weight 35 ——0— —Station l 1.35 - ——o——Station 2 l.20 - l.05- 0.90 _ 0.75 - 0.60 - 0.45 — 0.30 - 0.l5' I I I I I I I I I 1’ r* T N D TIME-l974 Figure l4. Temporal variation of manganese in the zooplankton from stations l and 2 of the survey area. K in mg/gram wet-weight 50 40 30 20 I . adult; in. ' } ' that acc.mn-IaI-:--.‘ T | M E - l 9 7 4 Figure l5. Temporal variation of potassium in the zooplankton taken from stations 1 and 2 of the survey area. rlniiaJ'bflhr c the mus-mu- : 50 - ./ U3 '2: /°/ ‘°\ .3 / \ “ o/ “3’ 1.0- \ E ‘3 l, 5? U) E .5 30- x 20 ‘ 10- 0 T | M E - l 9 7 4 Figure l5. Temporal variation of potassium in the zooplankton taken from stations 1 and 2 of the survey area. 37 the food chain. Brooks and Dodson (I965) stated that larger, adult zoo— plankton are more effieient predators with the result that they consume more food and concentrate more isotopes, and Bowen (l966) stated that zooplankton require zinc, along with iron, for metabolism with the con- sequence that accumulations of iron and zinc develop. When the zooplankton data (expressed as ug of element per liter of lake water sampled, Table A-5), there was definite trend of increasing concentrations for all elements during the warmer months with the high- est concentrations found in June. This might be expected simply because the zooplankton were more abundant during the summer months. Figures l6 and I7 show that the highest numbers of all classes of zooplankton combined were usually during the months of June, July, and September. Zooplankton numbers dropped during late fall to non-detectable levels in November and December. Fi_sh_ Mean monthly concentrations and standard deviations were calculated for both species of fish (Tables A-7 and A-8). Concentrations of metals found in yellow perch ranged from l8.5 to 34.0 ug/gram of iron, 2.87 to 3.50 ug/gram of manganese, 26.2 to 45.0 ug/gram of zinc, 3.8 to 7.0 ug/ gram of strontium, and 0.0055 to 0.0098 ug/gram of cesium (Figures l8, I9, 20, 2l, and 22, respectively). In yellow perch (Table A-7), no significant differences (p = .05) were found between the Monroe station and the Fermi station. Baker and Scholl (l97l) showed that yellow perch are widely distributed and move freely in Lake Erie. it is not surprising, therefore, that spatial dif- ferences in element concentrations were not present since the fish move- ments probably integrated the effects of conditions found throughout the Ilflu smile .ani: Minna-I nosina . «it 333: an ~u1i 3v troi"uluru:;n fad: usnuubll in 193i! 190 3nsnmis 1r 2: v '.-:-"..-n - -. ; -‘: r.fl" rI:v‘I‘I:\'.i I -.'_ -l Station l Number of zooplankton/liter of lake water sampled. l60 38 ROTIFERS l00 NAUPLII 60 COPEPODS 30 0 40 CLADOCERANS 20 0 I I I I I I I A M J J A S 0 Figure l6. Temporal variation of zooplankton from station l for l974. Station 2 Number of zooplankton/liter of lake water sampled. l00 ROTI FERS 50 0 20 NAUPLII lO 0 60 COPEPODS 30 0 A 40 CLADOCERANS 20 0 A l l l l I I I A M J J A S 0 Figure l7. Temporal variation of zooplankton from station 2 for l974. Fe in ug/gram 35 -‘ 20. V T | M E - l 9 7 4 Figure l8. Temporal variation of iron found in yellow perch taken from the Monroe station. Mn in ug/gram 2.9 - 2.8 - 2.7 ‘ T I M E - l 9 7 4 Figure l9. Temporal variation of manganese found in yellow perch taken from the Monroe station. Zn in ug/gram 42 -—--—<>—-———5 - 7 inches 55 ‘ ..._.—7 - 9 inches 50 - 45 - 40 q 30-1 \\ 25 d 20-1 l5 - 0 I I I I I I I I I I I r J F M A M J J A S 0 N D T | M E - l 9 7 4 Figure 20. Temporal variation of zinc found in yellow perch taken from the Monroe station. Sr in ug/gram T I M E - l 9 7 4 Figure 2l. Temporal variation of strontium found in yellow perch taken from the Monroe station. Cs in ug/gram fl. 0654“ BEJ‘Oilu-‘I. .l | v'li'. .f.-._ in qu't. '..¢ .M .OIzwm-a -' --'as§e$ .OlOS‘ .0090- I \b - \b .0075- / .0060- .0045 - .0030- .00l5- TIME-l97h Figure 22. Temporal variation of cesium in yellow perch taken from the Monroe station. 45 surrounding area. Neither were significant differences (p = .05) found among seasonal concentrations in yellow perch. Possibly, the lag time involved in concentrating the elements in the food chain, combined with concentration variations found between individuals of the same fish spe- cies, masked seasonal differences in uptake rate expected from different metabolic rates. Analysis of the yellow perch data for the two different size-classes also revealed no significant differences (p = .05). The yearly grand averages for the different size classes are given in Table A-9. Concentrations of metals found in goldfish ranged from 29.5 to 50.0 ug/gram of iron, l.80 to 2.60 ug/gram of manganese, 71.5 to 94.0 ug/gram of zinc, 0.0048 to 0.0087 ug/gram of cesium, and l0.8 to l4.8 ug/gram of strontium (Figures 23, 24, 25, 26, and 27, respectively). Examination of Figures 23 - 27 for goldfish shows that there were no significant differ- ences (p = .05) among the seasons of the year or between the Monroe and Fermi stations. However, between fish size-classes, significant differ- ences were noted for the element iron. The yearly average of iron for Monroe goldfish 8 - l0 inches long was 33.4 ug/gram while for the l2 - l5 inch goldfish, it was 5l.3 ug/gram. Although goldfish were at times opportunistic in their feeding habits, stomach samples generally class- ified them as bottom feeders. Since iron has already been shown to be highly associated with the sediments, the goldfish possibly continue to incorporate iron into their tissue through their feeding habits as they mature. Other evidence of size class differences comes from Kleinert and Degurse (l972). They stated that larger walleyes and northern pike have higher concentrations of mercury than smaller individuals of the same species. Fe in ug/gram 40- 35- 304 25 - 20 - \l \o—«K Figure 23. T | M E - l 9 7 4 Temporal variation of iron found in goldfish taken from the Monroe station. Mn in ug/gram 2.4- Figure 24. T I M E - l 9 7 4 Temporal variation of manganese found in goldfish taken from the Monroe station. Zn in ug/gram 48 _—o—-—8 - l0 inches 95' __.—12 — 15 inches 90' / \ 85- \\ /’ 80- 75- 70- 65- 60‘- 55 - 0 I I I I I r I I I T J F M A M J A S 0 N D T l M E - l 9 7 4 Figure 25. Temporal variation of zinc found in goldfish taken from the Monroe station. Cs in ug/gram .008 ‘ .007 - .006 ‘ .005 - .004 - 49 __—o——— 8 - l0 inches ————o————l2 - l5 inches T | M E - l 9 7 4 Figure 26. Temporal variation of cesium found in goldfish taken from the Monroe station. Sr in ug/gram 50 —-—-o—— 8 - l0 inches --—-o——--l2 - l5 inches //0\ 6H J F M A M J J A S O N D T l M E - l 9 7 4 Figure 27. Temporal variation of strontium found in goldfish taken from the Monroe station. 5I Comparisons of yellow perch data (Figures l8 - 22) and goldfish data (Figures 23 - 27) revealed significant differences (p = .05) between the larger size-classes. For iron, zinc, and strontium goldfish contained higher concentrations than the perch. Higher concentrations of these metals in bottom feeding fish is not surprising since iron and zinc are highly associated with the sediments, and strontium, during periods of high pH, precipitates much like calcium carbonate in marl formation. Mathis and Cummings (I97l), working on the Middle Illinois River, Eyman (I972), studying a hypereutrophic lake in Southern Michigan, and Gottschalk (I975), working on the western basin of Lake Erie, indicated similar trends of higher concentrations of iron, zinc, manganese, and Strontium with bottom feeding fish. Hesse and Evans (I972) reported that mercury is concentrated more by predatory fish species while chromium, zinc, manganese, copper, and nickel were higher in bottom feeding fish. Fish - Radioisotopes Radioisotope concentrations were determined for three species of fish (Table A—IO). Only the two radioisotopes hoK and 137Cs were detec- ted. AOK is a naturally occuring radioisotope accounting for over 90% of all natural radiation (Rice and Duke, I969), while the radioisotope I37Cs is a man-made fission product with a long half-life. 40K values, approximately 0.l pCi/gram, varied slightly among the three species of fish analyzed. I37Cs values ranged from 0.02 - 0.38 pCi/ gram and were slightly higher for northern pike than yellow perch or carp. These results compare favorably with those of Gottschalk (I975) who found 40K. Gottschalk that 23% of the total gamma activity in fish was due also found mean annual concentrations for I37Cs of 0.0I9, 0.02I, and 0.038 pCi/gram for planktivores, bottom feeders, and piscivores, respectively. 52 CONCLUSIONS Through accidental spills and the release of radioactive cooling water, effluent from the Fermi ll power plant may contain radioisotopes. The counterparts of these radioisotopes are the stable isotOpes which have been shown to be accumulated by the components of an aquatic eco- system. Accidental spills and allowable releases in the Fermi area, however, might not create long term problems. With a minimum possible flushing time of two months for the western basin, material deposited in the Fermi area might not remain concentrated there very long. Wind-generated turb- ulence likely would resuspend the sediments and carry them via southeast- erly currents to be dispersed in the deeper waters of the western basin or beyond the basin boundaries entirely. Some complications could develop in the offshore waters of Swan Creek. Although substantial mixing of lake water probably occurs rapidly with Swan Creek water, Hartley et al. (l966) shows that currents in the Fermi area are eddy currents and ILEWPB (I969) shows that suspended par- ticles are deposited just to the south of the Swan Creek mouth. Since transition metal isotopes are often associated with suspended particu- late matter, this could create an area of highly enriched radioactive sediments. A glance at Tables 9 and IQ for all of the biological components suggests that water and the seston/sediments play the most important roles in determining trace-element distribution. A comparison of the huge amounts of water and sediments in the Fermi area seems to make it Table 9. Yearly grand averages for data taken from the Fermi 53 I survey area. Water Seston Sediments2 Zooplankton Fish3 Element (ug/liter) (ug/Iiter) (ug/gram) (ug/Iiter) (ug/gram) Fe 134.3 1073.0 21423.0 0.449 33.4 Zn 14.1 12.9 144.0 0.038 57.7 Mn 10.3 34.0 401.0 0.018 2.76 4 4 Co 1.4“ 4.0“ 13.0 0.00013 0.30 4 4 Sr 222.0 244.0 49.5 0.12 8.9 Cs - - - - 7.3 K 1650.0 1600.0 - 0.59 - 1. Unless otherwise indicated, values have been derived from this study. 2. A11 sediment data derived from Shaffer (1975). 3. Based on all fish of all size categories taken for this study. 4. Data taken from CLOW, Table A-2 of the Appendix. 54 Table 10. Approximate amounts of each element found in the differ- ent aquatic components of the Fermi 11 survey area as based on the yearly grand averages of Table 9 on page 53. WaterI SestonI Sediments2 ZooplanktonI F15h3’h Element (Kg) (Kg) (Kg) (Kg) (Kg) Fe 402.9 3219.0 4174.0 1.35 2.51 Zn 42.3 38.7 28.0 0.11 4.32 Mn 30.9 102.0 78.1 0.05 0.21 Co 4.2 12.0 2.5 0.0004 0.02 Sr 666.0 731.9 9.6 0.36 0.67 Cs - - - - 0.55 K 4950.0 4800.0 - 1.78 — 1. Values based on a survey area l.5-km wide and a distance of I-km offshore with an average depth of 2-m. 2. Sediment calculations based on upper 10-cm of the sediments of the survey area. 3. Values based on all fish for the survey area. 4. Fish production estimates from Churchill (1976) and LeCren (l972). 55 quite apparent that the total amount of trace elements found in the zooplankton is almost insignificant. For example the water to 200— plankton and sediment to zooplankton ratios for the element iron are almost 300:1 and 3100:I, respectively. Also, zooplankton live for a relatively short time period, and unless eaten by fish, the death and decomposition of the zooplankton will release, either to the water or to the sediments, the small amounts of trace elements they did contain. Although the amount of trace-elements found in fish is also rela- tively small, it definitely should not be considered unimportant. Evi- dence is present in the literature stating that fish found in metal dis- charge areas do have higher concentrations of those elements (Hesse and Evans, 1972; Tong et al., 1972). Fish are a product directly consumed by man, and bioaccumulations in fish, especially radioisotopes of iron and zinc in bottom feeding fish, could present a real potential hazard. Also, it is known that fish are attracted to the warmer water of power plant discharges during the colder months; this could increase their exposure time and present further potential for accumulations of radio- isotopes. Until the limits of the specific activity hypothesis are known, short term predictions based on this hypothesis should be used conser- vatively. Wrongly predicting the fate of radioisotopes entering an aquatic system could have long term detrimental effects. Seelye (1974) suggested that whenever potentially hazardous conditions to man are being assessed that a safety multiplication factor be used in which the allowable wastes be further reduced by a factor of 10. The ramifi- cations of such a safety factor seem worthwhile. 56 LITERATURE CITED Adrian, W. J. 1971. A new wet digestion method for biological material utilizing pressure. Atomic Absorption Newsletters 10(4):96. American Public Health Association. 1971. Standard methods for the examination of water and wastewater. 13£h_ed. A.P.H.A., New York. 873 pp- Baker, C. T. and R. L. Scholl. 1971. Lake Erie fish populations trawl- ing survey. DingelI-Johnson Project F-35-R-9. 30 pp. Beeton, A. M. 1961. Environmental changes in Lake Erie. Trans. Amer. Fish. Soc. 90:153-159. Beeton, A. M. 1971. Chemical characteristics of the Laurentian Great Lakes, 13; Proceedings of the conference on changes in the chemi- stry of Lakes Erie and Ontario. Bull. Buffalo Soc. Nat. Sci. 25(2):l-21. Bowen, H. J. M. 1966. Trace elements in biochemistry. Academic Press, London. 241 pp. Brooks, J. L. and S. I. Dodson. I965. Predation, body size, and com- position of plankton. Science 150:28-35. Britt, N. W., J. T. Addis, and R. Engel. I973. Limnological Studies of the Island Area of Western Lake Erie. The Ohio Biological Bulletin, Vol. 4, No. 3. Ohio State University. 89 pp. Brungs, W. A., Jr. 1967. Distribution of cobalt 60, zinc 65, stron- tium 85, and cesium 137 in a freshwater pond. U. S. Dept. H.E.W., Public Health Service, National Center for Radiological Health, Rockville, Maryland. 52 pp. Childs, C. W. 1971. Chemical equilibrium models for lake water which contains nitrilotriacetate and for IInormalII lake water. Proceed- ings I4th_Conference on Great Lakes Research. International Associ- ation for Great Lakes Research, Ann Arbor, Michigan. pp. 198-210. Churchill, W. S. 1976. Population and biomass estimates of fishes in Lake Wingra. Wisconsin Dept. Nat. Res., Technical Bulletin No. 93. 8 pp. Durum, W. H., J. D. Hem, and S. G. Heidel. I970. Reconnaissance of selected minor elements in surface waters of the United States, U. S. Geol. Survey, Circ. No. 643, Washington, D. C. 57 Ecker, T. J. and R. A. Cole. 1976. Chloride and nitrogen concentra- tions along the west shore of Lake Erie. Tech. Rep. No. 32.8. Institute of Water Research, Michigan State University, E. Lansing, Mich. 132 pp. Elwell, W. T. and J. A. Gidley. I967. Atomic-absorption spectropho- tometry. Pergamon Press, London. 139 pp. Eyman, L. D. 1972. Cesium-I37 and stable cesium in a hypereutrophic lake. Ph.D. Thesis, Dept. of Fish. and Wild., Michigan State Univ- ersity, E. Lansing, Michigan. 55 pp. Friend, A. G. 1963. The aqueous behavior of Strontium-85, Cesium-137, Zinc-65, and Cobalt-60 as determined by lab-type studies, pp. 43- 60. In; B. A. Kornegay et al., (eds.). Transport of Radionuclides in Freshwater Systems. U. S. AEC Report No. T10 7664. Glass, G. V. and J. C. Stanley. 1970. Statistical Methods in Educa- tion and Psychology. Prentice-Hall Inc., Engelwood Cliffs, New Jersey. 596 pp. Gottschalk, F. W. 1975. Trace elements and background gamma levels in fish near the western shore of Lake Erie. M.S. Thesis, Dept. of Fish. and Wild., Michigan State University, E. Lansing, Michigan. 75 PP- Hartley, R. P., C. E. Herdendorf, and M. Keller. 1966. Synoptic sur- vey of water properties in the western basin of Lake Erie. Ohio Geol. Survey. Report No. 58. 19 pp. Hesse, J. L. and E. D. Evans. 1972. Heavy metals in surface waters, sediments, and fish in Michigan. Mich. Water Res. Comm., Dept. Nat. Res. 58 pp. IBP Handbook No. 12. 1971. A manual on methods for measuring primary production in aquatic environments. R. A. Vollenweider ed. Black- well Scientific Publications, Oxford and Edinburgh. 225 pp. ILEWPB (International Lake Erie Water Pollution Board). 1969. Pollu- tion of Lake Erie, Lake Ontario, and the international section of the St. Lawrence River, Vol. 2: Lake Erie. 316 pp. Jenne, E. A. 1968. Controls on Mn, Fe, Co, Ni, Cu, and Zn concentra- tions in soils and water: The significance role of hydrous Mn and Fe oxides, pp. 337-387. In; Gould, R. F. (ed.). Trace In- organics in Water. American Chemical Society, Advances in Chemi- stry Series No. 73. Kleinert, S. J. and P. E. Degurse. 1972. Mercury levels in Wisconsin fish and wildlife. Wisconsin Dept. Nat. Res., Technical Bulletin No. 52. 22 pp. LeCren, E. D. 1972. Fish production in freshwaters. Symp. Zool. Soc., London, Vol. 29:115-133. 58 Lee, G. F. 1970. Factors affecting the transfer of materials between water and sediments. University of Wisconsin Water Resources Cen- ter, Eutrophication Information Program, Literature Review No. I. 50 PP- Mathis, B. J. and T. F. Cummings. 1971. Distribution of selected metals in bottom sediments, water, clams, tubificid annelids, and fishes of the Middle Illinois River. University of Illinois, Water Research Center, WRC Research Report No. 41. National Academy of Sciences, National Research Council. 1960. The bio- logical effects of atomic radiation. Summary Report No. A/AC. Vol. 82:61-358. Nelson, D. J., S. V. Kaye and R. S. Booth. 1972. Radionuclides in river systems, pp. 367-387. In; R. T. Oglesby, C. A. Carlson, and J. A. McCann (eds.), River Ecology and Man. Academic Press, New York. Rice, T. R. and T. W. Duke. I969. Radiobiological Laboratory Bureau of Commercial Fisheries. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Washington, D. C. Seelye, J. G. 1974. Predictive capabilities of the specific activity hypothesis for Cs and Zn in freshwater systems. Ph.D. Thesis, Dept. of Fish. and Wild., Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan. 98 pp. Shaffer, P. W. 1975. Trace elements and background gamma levels in water and sediments near the western shore of Lake Erie. M.S. Thesis Dept. of Fish. and Wild., Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan. 125 PP. Tong, S. C., W. H. Gutenmann, D. J. Lisk, G. E. Burdick and E. H. Harris. 1972. Trace metals in New York State fish. N. Y. Fish and Game Journal 19(2):123-l31. «id QcIT ."-'“_‘I .Iinn-IT i:-':I::-r . :i ' .‘r..:"- ' - -".--.'--".' It.':nl1su .In‘v! fill-"I". ."':‘-'- I- . i. I". '.- . ' . -:i:'.'.' APPENDIX A DATA TABLES 60 Table A-1. Mean concentrations (X'f l S.D.) of stable isotopes in filtered water samples. All values are expressed as ug/liter. Date Station Fe Mn Zn K Sr 1/20/74 1 123.1 18.8 16.2 2100 300 12.0 0.7 1.6 100 50 2/15/74 1 179.6 18.8 19.1 2100 320 8.2 0.7 1.7 100 15 3/25/74 1 505.0 32.1 26.1 2000 270 31.9 2.2 1.4 100 17 2 420.0 27.9 23.1 2100 460 14.7 0.7 1.6 100 42 4/16/74 1 458.8 19.2 19.8 1800 210 6.3 0.5 1.7 100 38 2 672.5 32.6 29.9 2000 300 15.5 0.8 1.3 100 27 5/21/74 1 108.0 2.5 18.4 1800 240 16.2 0.2 5.1 100 28 2 49.2 2.5 17.9 2300 270 7.6 0.2 1.1 500 21 6/17/74 1 30.2 (2 5 12.9 1400 230 2.9 — 1.7 0 30 2 46.0 <2 5 15.0 1600 200 7.6 - 1.2 100 19 7/16/74 1 35.0 3.0 7.3 1500 190 2.9 0.5 0.6 100 26 2 26.2 3.2 8.3 1100 130 3.3 0.7 1.5 100 16 8/20/74 1 35.0 2.8 13.3 1200 130 2.9 0.5 1.2 100 16 2 26.8 <2.5 5.3 1100 110 6.7 - 1.0 100 16 9/17/74 1 32.8 <.2.5 5.6 1500 160 5.6 - 0.8 100 22 2 31.2 (2.5 6.6 1500 140 .8 - 2.0 100 18 Table A-1 (Cont.): 61 Date Station Fe Mn Zn K Sr 10/16/74 1 18.2 4.3 10.1 1600 140 1.5 0.3 0.8 100 14 2 17.0 2.5 11.0 1700 140 2.4 0.5 1.5 100 14 11/16/74 1 22.5 6.0 8.5 1000 140 4.4 0.7 1.5 100 12 2 25.2 7.0 8.0 1600 220 3.0 0.5 1.2 100 14 12/20/74 1 44.0 12.0 12.5 1400 180 2.4 0.5 1.6 0 I9 2 46.8 18.8 14.6 2100 380 2.4 0.7 3.1 100 46 62 Table A-2. Cobalt and strontium data as analyzed by Hydro Research Laboratories, Division of CLOW, Pontiac, Michigan. Parameter Date Location Element Amount Goldfish 4/26/74 Monroe Co 0.22 ug/gram (8 - 10 in.) Sr 7.0 ug/gram Yellow perch 1/20/74 Fermi Co 0.38 ug/gram (5 ‘ 7 in.) Sr 2.9 ug/gram Carp 1/20/74 Fermi Co 0.31 ug/gram (21 in.) Sr 4.8 ug/gram Zooplankton 9/16/74 Station 1 Co 0.00002 mg/liter Sr 0.00190 mg/liter Seston 8/20/74 Station 1 Co 0.004 mg/liter Sr 0.237 mg/liter Seston 5/21/74 Station 2 Co 0.004 mg/liter Sr 0.252 mg/liter Water 8/20/74 Station 1 Co 0.0012 mg/Iiter Sr 0.2435 mg/Iiter Water 12/20/74 Station 1 Co 0.0016 mg/liter Sr 0.2000 mg/liter 63 Table A-3. Mean concentrations (x'i l S.D.) of stable isotopes in the seston. All values are expressed in ug/liter. Wave Date Station Height Fe Mn Zn K 5/21/74 1 0.5 m 1072 35.0 9.0 2200 53 4.0 2.1 200 2 0.5 m 1141 36.0 9.0 1800 13 5.0 3.2 600 6/17/74 1 0.1 m 950 30.0 8.1 1600 40 1.0 2.7 100 2 0.3 m 1074 37.0 14.0 2500 70 5.0 3.2 300 7/16/74 1 0.0 m 705 35.0 11.7 1500 50 2.1 3.1 200 2 0.0 m 684 33.0 9.0 1400 70 2.1 3.4 300 8/20/74 1 0.2 m 1055 34.0 2.7 900 60 5.0 1.2 300 2 0.4 m 1093 42.0 10.7 1300 60 2.0 1.4 100 9/17/74 I 0.4 m 1447 54.0 19.4 1800 31 1.0 4.1 100 2 0.2 m 918 37.0 11.4 1600 30 1.0 3.6 200 10/16/74 I 0.1 m 362 20.0 3.9 1300 10 5.0 1.2 100 2 0.1 m‘ 583 27.0 13.0 1300 40 1.1 1.8 200 11/16/74 1 0.3 m 1447 30.0 26.0 1100 60 2.1 1.8 200 2 0.4 m 1655 47.0 23.0 1400 80 4.0 2.3 300 12/20/74 I 0.4 m 1596 21.0 20.5 1500 30 1.1 1.6 200 2 0.4 m 1400 25.0 14.4 2200 20 1.2 3.7 100 64 Mean concentrations (x'* 1 S.D.) of stable isotopes in zooplankton. Table A-4. All values expressed as mg of element per gram wet-weight of zooplankton. Fe Mn Zn Station Date 91h. 61h- 20 (0.3 1 3/25/74 10 51 60 52 1 4/16/74 “I488 2562 5 81 l4./03h. 3030 5171 0000 1 2 5/21/74 2581 7667 5 111 3795 7130 [41162 0000 1220 827.1 I 2 6/18/74 68.19 0372 _L) b1 8272 .1010 71172 0000 71403 . . . . 3160 1 2 7/16/74 38 56 914 511». 1B. 14 214214 2020 9101 00.10 2487 6.170 I 2 8/20/74 #096 . . . . b.0021 3 2 “11.1214 1010 30141 0000 3331“» 3030 I 2 9/17/74 65 Table A-5. Mean concentrations (x'i l S.D.) of stable isotopes in zooplankton. All values expressed as ug of element per liter of lake water sampled. Date Station Fe Mn Zn K 3/25/74 1 0.104 < 0.004 0.038 0.614 0.025 - 0.005 0.050 4/16/74 1 0.053 <0.004 0.030 0.024 0.010 - 0.014 0.004 5/21/74 I 0.218 0.010 0.064 0.998 0.038 0.003 0.011 0.103 2 0.126 0.013 0.064 0.008 0.018 0.003 0.008 0.244 6/18/74 1 5.915 0.087 0.238 1.872 0.716 0.004 0.053 0.211 2 1.745 0.033 0.095 1.135 0.233 0.004 0.013 0.172 7/16/74 I 0.136 0.027 0.064 1.838 0.050 0.003 0.006 0.138 2 0.217 0.027 0.060 1.712 0.010 0.007 0.006 0.104 8/20/74 1 0.416 0.032 0.082 1.850 0.060 0.003 0.016 0.240 2 1.080 0.038 0.080 2.050 0.142 0.005 0.020 0.388 9/17/74 I 0.064 0.065 0.027 0.662 0.006 0.001 0.010 0.155 2 0.062 0.062 0.022 0.441 0.008 0.008 0.007 0.030 —_———-__ -. . .._ 66 Table A-6. Zooplankton data expressed as No./Iiter. Date Station Cladocerans Copepods Nauplii Rotifers 3/25/74 1 0.0 5.9 1.5 4.4 4/16/74 1 0.0 1.6 1.6 3.2 5/21/74 I 0.0 3.1 6.3 94.3 2 0.0 9.4 3.1 84.9 6/18/74 1 33.3 48.5 6.1 18.2 2 3.0 15.2 12.1 6.1 7/16/74 I 28.3 38.6 92.7 151.9 2 18.0 20.6 10.3 18.0 8/20/74 1 15.9 38.3 28.7 41.4 2 9.6 12.8 9.6 19.1 9/17/74 1 8.6 1.0 17.3 29.8 2 26.9 1.0 14 4 7.7 10/15/74 I 1.8 1.0 1.0 3.7 2 1.8 1.0 0.0 4.6 67 Table A-7. Mean concentrations (i‘1 l S.D.) of stable isotopes in yellow perch. All values are expressed in ug/gram. Date Station Size (in.) Fe Mn Zn Cs Sr 1/20/74 Fermi 5 - 7 25.0 3 30 33 I .006 4.0 6.4 0 24 9 3 .001 1.0 Fermi 7 ' 9 21.5 3 15 29 7 .006 5.5 5.3 0 I7 3 3 .001 1.3 4/19/74 Fermi 5 - 7 27.2 3 25 34 0 .006 6.3 4.1 0 14 3 2 .001 1.3 Fermi 7 - 9 33.5 3 22 38 3 .006 6.3 5.0 0 28 5 I .001 1.0 4/26/74 Monroe 5 - 7 28.8 3.25 28.5 .006 5.3 7.1 0.17 2.1 .001 1.0 Monroe 7 - 9 32.3 3.50 42.8 .008 7.0 7.1 0.37 6.6 .001 1.4 5/21/74 Fermi 5 ' 7 25.8 3 32 32 0 .008 6.8 5.0 0 I7 2 O .002 2.2 Fermi 7 ~ 9 25.3 3 15 30 0 .009 6.0 3.3 0 40 2 0 .001 1.4 5/21/74 Monroe 5 - 7 21.8 3.32 30.0 .006 5.7 5.9 0.14 0.8 .001 1.1 Monroe 7 - 9 22.3 3.05 29.0 .008 5.3 5.9 0.57 2.5 .002 1.0 6/18/74 Monroe 5 - 7 30.2 3.35 45.0 .010 5.0 8.5 0.14 6.1 .001 0.8 Monroe 7 - 9 27.3 3.25 35.2 .008 4.8 5.5 0.20 6.4 .001 1.0 7/16/74 Monroe 5 ' 7 26.3 3.22 30.0 .009 6.3 6.5 0.26 3.6 .001 1.9 Monroe 7 - 9 26.3 3.20 26.2 .008 5.8 6.2 0.17 1.3 .001 1.7 9/16/74 Monroe 5 - 7 25.5 2.92 34.8 .009 3.8 6.4 0.43 11.8 .001 0.5 Monroe 7 - 9 26.3 3.10 32.0 .007 5.5 6.2 0.22 2.9 .001 1.3 10/15/74 Fermi 5 ' 7 25.8 3.22 31.5 .009 6.0 6.0 0.20 4.4 .001 1.4 Fermi 7 - 9 23.0 3.35 29.2 .009 4.8 6.8 0.35 1.0 .001 1.7 Table A-7 (Cont.). Date Station Size (in.) Fe Mn Zn Cs Sr 10/16/74 Monroe 5 - 7 34.0 3.22 31.5 .009 6.8 5.8 0.28 9.5 .001 1.0 Monroe 7 ' 9 26.5 3.20 32.8 .009 5.5 5.8 0.22 4.4 .001 1.3 11/16/74 Monroe 5 ' 7 24.0 3.35 30.0 .010 4.8 5.8 0.37 2.0 .000 0.5 Monroe 7 - 9 18.5 2.87 26.3 .010 4.5 3.4 0.50 1.3 .000 1.3 12/20/74 Monroe 5 ' 7 21.0 2.87 26.2 .009 5.3 7.1 0.33 2.8 .001 0.5 Monroe 7 - 9 23.0 3.02 29.8 .008 6.5 6.5 0.36 1.7 .001 1.7 69 Table A-8. Mean concentrations (i‘t I S.D.) of stable isotopes in goldfish. All values are expressed in ug/gram. Date Station Size (in.) Fe Mn Zn Cs Sr 1/20/74 Fermi 8 - 10 30.5 1.80 75.3 .006 12.3 12.3 0.33 15.8 .001 0.6 Fermi 12 - 15 37.5 2.17 80.8 .006 13.0 3.4 0.31 9.6 .001 2.9 3/15/74 Fermi 8 - 10 35.5 2.15 91.5 .006 11.3 5.1 0.24 3.0 .001 1.5 Fermi 12 - 15 53.0 2.10 84.0 .006 11.7 2.2 0.17 8.1 .001 1.3 4/19/74 Fermi 8 - 10 33.3 1.90 65.8 .007 11.7 6.5 0.17 7.9 .001 1.7 Fermi 12 - 15 53.0 2.32 81.4 .007 12.7 3.2 0.26 8.7 .001 1.5 4/26/74 Monroe 8 - 10 34.5 2.10 71.5 .006 13.5 6.0 0.39 3.3 .001 2.6 Monroe 12 - 15 54.1 2.37 83.0 .006 12.8 3.3 0.22 7.6 .001 2.4 5/21/74 Fermi 8 - 10 29.5 1.95 71.5 .008 11.3 2.4 0.24 3.2 .001 1.7 Fermi 12 - 15 40.0 2.50 80.3 .008 10.8 10.5 0.36 5.6 .001 1.7 6/18/74 Monroe 8 - 10 40.0 2.60 93.8 .009 11.3 3.1 0.56 13.8 .000 1.7 Monroe 12 - 15 55.0 2.37 94.0 .007 14.8 3.0 0.22 5.4 .001 3.4 7/15/74 Monroe 8 - 10 31.8 2.35 89.5 .005 11.7 5.6 0.24 5.5 .001 0.6 Monroe 12 - 15 52.5 2.45 89.0 .007 13.3 4.5 0.26 3.9 .001 2.1 9/16/74 Monroe 8 - 10 33.8 2.65 85.3 .008 12.0 6.1 0.60 8.7 .001 1.7 Monroe 12 - 15 51.8 2.32 88.5 .006 13.3 4.2 0.58 4.2 .001 3.1 10/15/74 Fermi 8 - 10 31.0 2.47 89.5 .007 11.3 3.8 0.41 5.1 .001 2.1 Fermi 12 - 15 47.8 2.72 90.3 .006 11.5 3.3 0.61 2.2 .001 2.1 8-10 11720774 Monroe 1 Monroe Monroe 12/20/74 71 Table A-9. Yearly grand averages of stable element concentrations for yellow perch and goldfish. All values are expressed in ug/gram. Yellow perch Station Size (in.) Fe Mn Zn Cs Sr Fermi 5 - 7 25.9 3.29 32.6 .007 5.8 5.4 0.19 4.7 .001 1.5 Fermi 7 - 9 25.8 3.22 31.8 .008 5.7 5.1 0.30 2.9 .001 1.4 Monroe 5 ' 7 26.4 3.19 32.0 .008 5.4 6.6 0.26 4.8 .001 0.9 Monroe 7 - 9 25 3 3.15 31.7 .008 5.6 7 0.32 3.4 .001 1.3 Goldfish Fermi 8 - 10 32.0 2.05 78.7 .007 11.6 6.0 0.28 7.0 .001 1.5 Fermi 12 - 15 46.3 2.36 83.4 .006 11.9 4.5 0.34 6.8 .001 1.9 Monroe 8 - 10 33.9 2.42 84.5 .007 12.1 4.7 0.41 7.4 .001 1.8 Monroe 12 - 15 51.3 2.37 86.9 .007 13.1 3. 0.29 5.4 .001 2.5 72 Table A-lO. Radioisotope concentrations of 20K and 137Cs in whole fish ash. All values are expressed in pCi/gram. Fish 137CS 40K Species Size (in.) Station Date Activity Activity Nor. pike 15 Monroe 5/21/74 .038 .10 Nor. pike 15 Monroe 5/21/74 .034 .11 Carp 18 Fermi 1/20/74 .020 10 Carp l7 Fermi 5/21/74 .027 10 Carp 21 Monroe 5/21/74 .024 .11 Yel. perch 7 Fermi 5/21/74 .030 11 Yel. perch 8 Monroe 11/11/74 .027 .ll Yel. perch 9 Fermi 1/20/74 .024 10 73 1 1 $_._ $:.o mm.o 2m.o mn.o :o.o o_.o N 1 1 mm._ mm.o 0$.o mN.o mm.o :o.o __.o _ :m\w_\N_ $N $ mm.o mm.o $N.o N_.o _N.o No.0 $0.0 N $N m wn.o mm.o N_.o wo.o _$.o mo.o $0.0 _ :m\0N\__ $N m 1 1 $o.o No.0 1 mo.o $0.0 N mN $ 1 1 qo.o No.0 1 mo.o $o.o _ :m\m_\o_ MN m mm.o om.o $0.0 __.o _m.o mo.o o_.o N MN m N_._ Nm.o $0.0 N_.o :o._ $0.0 m_.o _ :N\$_\m :N m Nm.o mm.o o_.o $0.0 Nw.o :o.o __.o N _N m _m.o N$.o w_.o $0.0 mm.o mo.o $0.0 _ :N\ON\w NN $ N_._ N$.o om.o :_.o _m.o :o.o N_.o N wN m m_._ mo._ $0.0 _o.o o_._ mo.o m_.o _ :N\$_\N Nm 5 :$. am.o mm.o No.0 _m.o $0.0 No.0 N mN $ mm._ mm.o :n.o o_.o :w.o mo.o mo.o _ :N\N_\$ mm m mm._ $w.o N:.o :o.o _m.o no.0 m_.o N mN m m_._ M$.o _:.o m_.o mm.o $o.o mp.o _ :m\_N\m Nm : om.N No._ $$._ NN.o :N._ :o.o m_.o N RN m $_.m Nw.o :_.N 0N.o No._ :o.o o_.o _ ¢N\$_\: 0m $ mm._ 0$.o mo._ m_.o $5.0 mo.o N_.o N mm m _o.N $N.o __._ :_.o om.o qo.o $_.o _ :N\mN\m $N m n:._ 0:.0 mm.o wN.o w$.o mo.o $0.0 _ :m\m_\N concmo concmo comoLu_c comoLu_c moz mzz comoLu_: mJOLOLQmOLQ m30co;amo;a cowumum oumo _mHOH o_cmmco _MHOH o_cmmco _Lmo_oax o_n:_0m _mHOH .u cou__\mE mm mo:_m> u “z Lou__\me mo mo:_m> 2 mm Loum_\mE mm co>_m ocm mo:_m> m . Nm_ cmo> osu Lo concmo new .comocu_: .mJOLOLQmOLQ co mum >cum_Eo u Loom: >cmucoeo aazm .__1< o_$mh : w . o . L _ 74 Table A-lZ. Multiple range analysis of mean stable isotope concentra- tions in filtered water samples taken from station l. Fe (ug/liter) Month l0 ll 6 9 7 8 l2 5 l 2 4 3 Mean l8.2 22.5 30.2 32.8 35.0 35.0 h4.0 l08.0 l23.l 179.6 458.8 505.0 Mn (ug/liter) Month 5 6 9 8 7 l0 ll l2 l 2 h 3 Mean 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.8 3.0 h.3 6.0 l2.0 l8.8 l8.8 l9.2 32.] Zn (ug/liter) Month 9 7 ll 10 12 6 8 l 5 2 h 3 Mean 5.6 7.3 8.5 lO.l l2.5 l2.9 l3.3 l6.2 l8.4 l9.l l9.8 26.l K (ug/liter) Month 1] 8 6 l2 7 9 l0 h 5 3 l 2 Mean llOO 1200 l400 lHOO lSOO 1500 l600 l800 l800 2000 2l00 2l00 Sr (ug/liter) Month 8 10 ll 9 12 7 4 6 5 3 l 2 Mean l30 lhO I40 I60 I80 I90 2l0 230 ZQO 270 300 320 75 Table A-l3. Multiple range analysis of mean stable isotope concentra- tions in filtered water samples taken from station 2. Fe (ug/liter) Month l0 ll 7 8 9 6 l2 5 3 4 Mean l7.0 25.2 26.2 26.8 3l.2 46.0 h6.8 49.2 #20.0 672.5 Mn (ug/liter) Month 5 6 8 9 l0 7 ll l2 3 4 Mean 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 3.2 7.0 l8.8 27.9 32.6 Zn (ug/liter) Month 8 9 ll 7 l0 l2 6 5 3 h Mean 5.3 6.6 8.0 8.3 ll.O 14.6 l5.0 l7.9 23.l 29.9 K (ug/liter) Month 7 8 9 6 ll l0 4 3 l2 5 Mean llOO llOO l500 l600 I600 I700 2000 2l00 2l00 2300 Sr (ug/liter) Month 8 7 9 l0 6 ll 5 h l2 4 Mean llO l30 lhO l40 200 220 270 300 380 460 76 Table A-Ih. Multiple range analysis of mean stable isotope concentra- tions in seston samples taken from station I of the study area. Fe (ug/Iiter) Month I0 7 6 8 5 9 II l2 Mean 362 705 950 I055 I072 lh47 I447 I596 Mn (ug/Iiter) Month I0 I2 6 II 8 5 7 9 Mean 20.0 2I.0 30.0 30.0 3h.0 35.0 35.0 54.0 Zn (ug/Iiter) Month 8 I0 6 5 7 9 I2 II Mean 2.7 3.9 8.] 9.0 ll.7 I9.h 20.5 26.0 K (ug/liter) Month 8 II I0 7 I2 6 9 5 Mean 900 II00 I300 I500 I500 I600 I800 2200 77 Table A-IS. Multiple range analysis of mean stable isotope concentra- tions in seston samples taken from station 2 of the study area. Fe (ug/Iiter) Month I0 7 9 6 8 5 I2 II Mean 583 680 9I8 1074 I093 Ilhl I400 I655 Mn (ug/Iiter) Month I2 I0 7 5 6 9 8 II Mean 25.0 27.0 33.0 36.0 37.0 37.0 42.0 47.0 Zn (ug/Iiter) Month 5 7 8 9 IO 6 12 ll Mean 9.0 9.0 l0.7 Il.h I3.0 10.0 I4.4 23.0 K (ug/Iiter) Month 8 I0 7 II 9 5 I2 6 Mean I300 I300 I400 I400 I600 l800 2200 2500 78 Table A-I6. Multiple range analysis of mean stable isotope concentra— tions in zooplankton samples taken from station I of the study area. Fe (mg/gram) Month 9 7 8 3 4 5 6 Mean 3.3 3.7 6.2 7.I I0.0 II.“ I8.I Mn (mg/gram) Month 3 h 9 6 5 7 8 Mean 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.9 0.5 0.7 0.9 Zn (mg/gram) Month 9 7 8 3 5 4 6 Mean I.h I.8 2.2 2.6 3.4 5.6 7.3 K (mg/gram) Month 9 3 h 8 7 5 6 Mean 34.4 “I. 95.I 99.3 50.6 52.9 57.2 79 Table A-I7. Multiple range analysis of mean stable isotope concentra- tions in zooplankton samples taken from station 2 of the survey area. Fe (mg/gram) Month 9 7 5 6 8 Mean 3.3 6.0 6.6 7.2 7.8 Mn (mg/gram) Month 9 6 5 7 8 Mean 0.4 0.6 0.7 0.7 l.0 Zn (mg/gram) Month 9 7 8 5 6 Mean I.2 l.7 2.2 3.3 3.9 K (mg/gram) Month 9 8 6 7 5 Mean 22.9 45.5 46.8 47.l 86.4 80 Table A-l8. Multiple range analysis of mean stable isotope concentra- tions in yellow perch, 7 - 9 inches long, From the Monroe station. F (ug/gram) (D Month II 5 I2 7 8 IO 6 4 Mean l8.5 22.3 23.0 26.3 26.3 26.5 27.3 32.3 Mn (ug/gram) Month II I2 5 9 7 I0 6 4 Mean 2.87 3.02 3.05 3.I0 3.20 3.20 3.25 3.50 Zn (ug/gram) Month 7 II 5 I2 9 I0 6 4 Mean 26.2 26.3 29.0 29.8 32.0 32.8 35.2 42.8 Cs (ug/gram) Month 9 12 4 7 5 6 I0 II Mean .0072 .0075 .0080 .0080 .0082 .0082 .0090 .0098 Sr (ug/gram) Month II 6 5 9 I0 7 I2 4 Mean 4.5 4.8 5.3 5.5 5.5 5.8 6.5 7.0 8] Table A-I9. Multiple range analysis of mean stable isotope concentra- tions in goldfish, I2 - I5 inches long, from the Monroe station. Fe (ug/gram) Month l2 ll 9 7 4 6 Mean 45.8 48.3 5l.8 52.5 54.l 55.0 Mn (ug/gram) Month l2 9 4 6 ll 7 Mean 2.30 2.32 2.37 2.37 2.40 2.45 Zn (ug/gram) Month I2 4 6 7 II 6 Mean 78.0 83.0 88.5 89.0 89.0 94.0 Cs (ug/gram) Month 9 4 I2 7 II 6 Mean .0062 .0063 .0065 .0068 .0070 .0074 Sr (ug/gram) Month ll 4 12 7 9 6 Mean lI.5 I2.8 I2.8 I3.3 I3.3 l4.8 "lllllllllllllllll“