1 / 48

Summary: Context… Monitoring Goals… Methods … Results and Comparisons

Lake Chelan Fish Tissue Monitoring: 2010 Results for Lake Chelan Water Quality Committee January 5, 2012 Keith Seiders, Toxics Studies Unit Environmental Assessment Program. Summary: Context… Monitoring Goals… Methods … Results and Comparisons

patsy
Download Presentation

Summary: Context… Monitoring Goals… Methods … Results and Comparisons

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Lake Chelan Fish Tissue Monitoring: 2010 Results for Lake Chelan Water Quality Committee January 5, 2012Keith Seiders, Toxics Studies UnitEnvironmental Assessment Program

  2. Summary: Context… Monitoring Goals… Methods… Results and Comparisons 2010 vs 2003 - Fish Size, DDT Skin-on vs Skin-off preparation method Other Contaminants Conclusions

  3. Washington State Toxics Monitoring Program GoalsExploratory monitoring: since 2001. Characterize toxic contaminants at sites that lack data.Long Term monitoring: begin in 2009.Track contaminant levels over time at selected sites.Cooperative/complementary efforts; address new concerns.

  4. Goals of WSTMP 2010 sample effort • Focus on Long Term Monitoring component • Lake Chelan, Wenatchee River, Banks Lake • Compare results: Historical vs 2010 • Compare prep method: skin-on vs skin-off • Improve characterization of toxics in tissue • Support DOH data needs for review of FCA • Involve others: local gov’t, citizens, guides

  5. Lake Chelan: 2010 effort • Mimic 2003 effort to collect/analyze lake trout • Time and location: 5/17/03 and 6/3/10 in Wapato Basin • Collection: H/L (derby in 2003, local guides in 2010) • Fish size: match weight range used in 2003 composites • Preparation: skin-on fillets both years (2010 add skin-off) • Lab Analyses DDT: EPA 8081 at MEL in 2003 and 2010 • Lab Used: MEL; EPA-2003; ECY-2010

  6. Results • DDT levels: 2010 and 2003 • Compare skin-on vs skin-off preparation • Levels of other contaminants • Fish Consumption Advice

  7. Boxplots of the 2003 and 2010 results for t-DDT

  8. Summary of Two-Sample t-Tests for t-DDT in Samples from 2003 and 2010.

  9. Total DDT levels in lake trout from 2010 remain high. • DDT levels are higher than those in 2003.

  10. Summary of Paired-Sample t-Test for Skin-On and Skin-Off Samples.

  11. Different fish preparation methods (skin-on vs skin-off) showed little or no difference in tissue DDT levels.

  12. Conclusions • Total DDT levels in lake trout from 2010 remain high. Levels are higher than they were in 2003. • Different fish preparation methods (skin-on vs skin-off) showed little or no difference in tissue DDT levels. • Lake trout also have high levels of PBDE flame retardants, dioxins/furans, and elevated levels of PCBs. • Lake trout in Lake Chelan tend to be good biomagnifiers of environmental pollutants because they are: large, long-lived, fatty, and are at top of food web.

  13. Contacts and Websites • Ecology - Fish Tissue Monitoring: Keith Seiders, 360-407-6689, Keith.Seiders@ecy.wa.gov. • Health – Fish Consumption Advice: Dave McBride, 360-236-3176, Dave.Mcbride@doh.wa.gov • Ecology Web site Toxic Hazards: http://www.ecy.wa.gov/toxhaz.html • Health Web site - Environmental Health: http://www.doh.wa.gov/ehp/oehas/fish/

  14. Lab Method Differences between 2003 and 2010 • Lipids: different sample prep (extraction solvents). Results not comparable. • Dioxins/furans: similar yet different methods. Results comparable for this study. • Mercury: different sample prep (rigor of digestion). Comparability of results good for most purposes when conversion factor used for estimations.

More Related