FLORIDA COASTAL SEDIMENT CONTAMINANTS
ATLAS

TECHNICAL VOLUME

OucUMEMiSDROSITORY

APR 1 f 2001
Fill State Uwsreiy Ubbary
Talahassee, Floride

Florida Department of Environmental Protection
3900 Commonwealth Boulevard
Mall Station 46
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000

1994

INTRODUCTION

This technical volume supplements the Florida Coastal Sediment Contaminants Atlas by
providing additional Information on chemical data and Interpretive methods presented in
the Atlas.

The majority of information In the Atlas Is based on nearly ten years of work by the Florida
Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP), through the Coastal Contaminants
Survey. This work was undertaken to remedy a critical gap In the state's ability to Identify
and Interpret contaminants In coastal areas. The coastal contaminants survey Includes
chemical Information on approximately 700 sites located throughout the state, In a variety
of pristine to Impacted coastal areas. The survey sampling dates and areas are listed In
Section One.

Section Two of this volume explains sample collection procedures, chemical analysis, and
Interpretation of sediment trace metal and organic contaminant data. Laboratory and
field measurements In the FDEP database are summarized In Section Three. Sections Four
and Five discuss metals and organic contaminants and their possible sources.

Further Information regarding specific analytical methods and the statistical rationale
behind the metal-to-aluminum normalization method can be found In the following FDEP
documents: Deepwater Ports Maintenance Dredging and Disposal Manual (1984), and
A Guide to the Interpretation of Metal Concentrations In Estuarine Sediments (1988).

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION .................... ....... ........ ........ I

TABLE OF CONTENTS .................. ................... ... III

SECTION 1.

1.0
1.1

SECTION 2.

2.0

2.2

2.3

FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION COASTAL
SEDIMENT SAMPUNG PROJECTS
Introduction. ....................... .............. 1
Selected Sediment Chemistry Research Projects ............... 2

FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION SAMPLE
COLLECTION, LABORATORY ANALYSIS, AND DATA INTERPRETATION
Introduction ................... ................. 4
2.1 FDEP Sample Collection Methods ................. .... 4
2.1.1 Background . .. . . . . . . .. . . . . .. . .4
2.1.2 Rationale for sampling design ........................ 4
2.1.3 Field M ethods ....................... ........ 5
2.1.3.1 Current Procedures. ......................... 6
Laboratory Analysis of Sediment Samples ................... 6
2.2.1 Metals analyses ................ ............. 6
2.2.2 Organlcs analyses .................... .......... 7
Sediment Trace Metal Data Interpretation ......................... 7

2.4 Interpretation of Sediment Toxic Organic Contaminant Data ....... 10

SECTION 3.
3.0
3.1
3.2

SECTION 4.

SECTION 5.

SEDIMENT AND WATER COLUMN MEASUREMENTS IN THE FDEP DATABASE
Introduction .......... ................ .......... 11
Metals and Nutrients ................... ............. 11
Organic Compounds .................... ............. 12
3.2.1 Chlorinated Pesticides ..................... ..... 12
3.2.2 Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons ................... 12
3.2.3 Polychlorlnated Blphenyl Compounds ............... . 12
3.2.4 Phenolic Compounds ........... .... ...... ...... 12
3.2.5 Aliphatic Petroleum Hydrocarbons ................. .. 12

SOURCES AND USES OF METALS AND SEMI-METALS EXAMINED IN THE ATLAS
. . ............. .... .......... 14

SOURCES AND USES OF TOXIC ORGANIC COMPOUND CLASSES EXAMINED
IN THE ATLAS .................................... 16

REFERENCES ................... ................... .... 18

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1 .... ............. .................. ........... 9

Graphical example of the covarlance between aluminum and lead
concentrations In the Florida "clean" coastal sediment database.

Fig u re 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Graphical example of the covarlance between aluminum and lead with the 95%
prediction limits included. An example of the metal enrichment factor
calculation Is shown.

LIST OF TABLES

Table l.................................................. 11

Umits of detection for metals and nutrients analyzed by different laboratories.

Ta b le 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 13

Organic Compounds In major categories.

SECTION 1. FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION COASTAL SEDIMENT
SAMPLING PROJECTS.

1.0 Introduction

The Atlas Includes data from many surveys conducted to address a variety of objectives.
The following list depicts major projects, areas, and years) that sediment samples were
collected.

Prolect/Area Year

Deep Water Ports Prolect

1983-1984

Port of Jacksonville/St. Johns River
Port Canaveral
Port Ft. Pierce
Port of Palm Beach
Port of Miami/Miami River/Blscayne Bay
Port Manatee
Port of St. Petersburg
Port of Tampa
Port St. Joe
Port of Panama City
Port of Pensacola

Statewide Survey of Clean Reference
Sites to Establish Metals Enrichment
Interpretive Tool

Estuarlne Surveys

Blscayne Bay
Hlllsborough Bay
Pensacola Bay
Lower St. Johns River
Charlotte Harbor
Lake Worth
Perdldo River and Perdldo Bay
West Central Florida

1986-1991

1985,1989
1985,1989
1985
1988
1989
1989
1988-1991
1991

1.1 Selected Sediment Chemistry Research Projects

Besides Florida Department of Environmental Protection efforts reported In this atlas, other
researchers have considered sediments as an Important constituent to assess marine
environments. Studies completed or in progress, and principle Investigators, are listed.

Laboratory/Source of Data

Project Area, Authors, and Date of publication

Mote Marine Laboratory
Sarasota, FL.

Florida Institute of Technology,
Department of Oceanography
Melbourne, FL

Center for Nearshore Marine Science
University of South Florida
Tampa, FL

Institute for Coastal and Estuarine
Research, University of West Florida
Pensacola, FL

National Atmospheric and
Oceanic Administration (NOAA)

South Florida Water Management
District, West Palm Beach, FL

Department of Environmental
and Engineering Sciences
University of Florida
Gainesvllle, FL

St. Johns River Estuary, Pierce etal., 1988;
Northern Sarasota Bay, Dixon, 1988; Port
Manatee Project, Hofmann and Dixon,
1989; Sarasota Bay Project, Lowrey, In
press.

Indian River Lagoon, Trefry et al., 1983;
Trefry and Stauble, 1987; Gu et aL. 1987;
Hillsborough River, Trefry et al., 1989;
Manatee Pocket In the St. Lucle estuary,
Trefry et al. 1990 & 1992.

Tampa Bay, Doyle et al. 1989; Brooks and
Doyle, 1989 & 1992.

Sediment core study from Bayou Chico,
Pensacola Bay. Stone and Morgan 1991.

National Status and Trends Report, Long
and Morgan 1990; Toxicants and the
potential for their biological effects In
Tampa Bay, Long et ol. 1991; in
preparation; Metal contaminant
assessment In the southeast United States,
Hanson and Evans, 1991.

Pesticides In sediments and surface water
In the South Florida Water Management
District, Pfeuffer 1985; 1991.

Toxic pollutants in sediments and surface
water at selected sites In Florida, Delflno et
al, 1991.

Laortov/orc o Dt

-- -- 0 f

United States Fish and Wildlife Service

Collier County
Pollution Control Department

Florida Department of Environmental
Protection, Tallahassee, FL

Sediment studies In St. Andrew and St.
Joseph Bay Systems, Brim et al (In
preparation); Perdldo Bay sediment study,
1993; Contaminants In the Crystal River
estuary, Facemire 1991.

Estuarlne and freshwater sediment studies,
Grabe, 1991a & 1991b; Blshof, 1991.

Sediment trace metals documents,
Schropp and Windom, 1988; Schropp et
al., 1990; Windom et al. 1989; Perdldo Bay
study, Schropp et al. 1991; Laboratory
Inter-comparison study, Schropp, 1992;
Metal contamination assessment, Seal et
al. 1993.

SECTION 2. FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION SAMPLE
COLLECTION, LABORATORY ANALYSIS, AND DATA INTERPRETATION.

2.0 Introduction

This section explains sample collection, chemical analysis, and Interpretation of sediment
trace metal and organic contaminant data. More Information, Including the statistical
rationale behind the metal-to-aluminum normalization method, can be found In the FDEP
1988 document A Guide to the Interpretation of Metal Concentrations In Estuarine
Sediments (Schropp and Wlndom 1988).

2.1 FDEP Sample Collection Methods

2.1.1 Background

Most contaminants discharged Into coastal waters via municipal and Industrial discharges
and runoff rapidly attaches to particulate matter and become Incorporated In bottom
sediments. Although this pathway has been known for many years, only recently has the
threat of contaminated sediments to marine resources and human health received
widespread public attention.

Good quality sediments are critical to ecosystem health for several reasons. Sediments
are reservoirs for contaminants, and the accumulation of pollutants occurs even though
the overlying water column often contains only traces of contaminants. Sediments
Integrate metals and organic compounds over time from discharges, and can act as
long-term sources of contaminants and nutrients Into the system after the original pollutant
discharges have ceased. Ultimately, sediment contamination can affect the health of
bottom-dwelling organisms by direct contact and Ingestion, and through their effects on
benthic animals, contaminants can be transferred elsewhere In the food web.

2.1.2 Rationale for sampling design

Sediment sampling sites were selected in coastal systems to test for contamination from a
variety of sources. Most sites were located near point or nonpoint discharges, which were
considered potentially Impacted areas. This bias in the sampling design was deliberate to
enable FDEP to gain an Initial understanding of the severity and extent of contamination.
This approach does not provide a statistically valid estimate of the aerial extent of
contamination. Additionally, a number of sampling sites (clean reference sites) were
selected In areas removed from potential pollution sources to develop an approach for
distinguishing natural from anthropogenlcally enriched sediments.

Prior to field sampling, station locations were Identified after study of local drainage
features, land uses, water depth, potential depositlonal areas, navigation charts and,
typically, meetings with local government staff. Station selection fell Into two categories:
areas where a clean reference site might be best located, or areas where contamination

was suspected. Selected stations were plotted on navigation charts, and latitude and
longitude calculated for each station.

2.1.3 Field Methods

In the field, stations were located using LORAN-C by latitude and longitude, compass
bearings and cross referenced to navigation charts. LORAN-C was compensated to
known local reference points on most the recent edition of navigation charts.

Upon arrival at the station, the boat was anchored and engines shut off. The location,
time, date, weather conditions, and compass bearings were recorded In a station log
notebook. Water column physical parameters were taken at the surface, mid-depth and
bottom using a calibrated YSI model 57 Dissolved oxygen meter, and YSI model 59
Salinity, Conductivity and Temperature meter. These measurements were recorded In the
station log notebook. Written descriptions of the sediment sample characteristics were
also recorded.

Sediments were collected from the boat, using a stainless 9X9" PONAR grab. The grab
was suspended from a hoist mounted on the port side of the boat. The grab was acid
washed and rinsed with delonized water before use, and thoroughly rinsed with ambient
water between grabs. A 10% HCI solution (prepared In the DEP Biology Lab) was used to
acid rinse all utensils, the sampling device, and spatulas used to transfer samples Into
sampling Jars.

Once the sampler was retrieved, It was swung aboard, and the sampler carefully emptied
Into a clean, acid washed and rinsed tub. The top two centimeters of sediment were
scooped from the top of the grab. Repeated grabs were made at the same site, while
the boat was at anchor, until enough material was collected for all analyses.

Samples were transferred to glass Jars supplied by the laboratory, or purchased (1-chem
#220 0250, or whirl-paksT) which have been precleaned by the manufacturer to meet
EPA specifications for organic and Inorganic materials. Sample containers were labeled
with pertinent Information, Including time, station number and date. When filled with the
sample, containers were Immediately placed on Ice. The time of collection, sample
number, replicate number and location were recorded on field log sheets, and on chain
of custody sheets for shipment to the lab.

Samples were sometimes collected by using sediment coring tubes. This option was
reserved for waters too shallow to allow entry by the boat, or when sensitive habitats (i.e.,
grass beds, corals) precluded use of a large bottom sampling device. Three acid washed
and rinsed clear cellulose-acetate-butyrate core tubes, 2' diameter x 12" long, with caps
were used for each replicate. Three replicates were collected for each station.

Core tubes were plunged Into the sediment, and the top capped. The core tube was
retrieved by carefully displacing the sediment around the core to place the bottom cap
on the core tube, and lifted from the sediment. These cores were taken by the diver to

the boat, where they were transferred into containers using an acid washed and rinsed
extruding tool. The top 3-5 centimeters of the cores were placed In the collecting jar or
whirlpak, and the remainder discarded. Each replicate sample was a composite of the
three cores. Logging and chain of custody procedures were the same as described
above.

2.1.3.1. Current Procedures

Since 1991, several changes have been made to the FDEP standard field protocol that
may be of Interest to those conducting field operations. Stations are now located using a
Global Positioning System (GPS) In addition to traditional methods. A 12'X12" Kynar
coated stainless steel "Young" grab Is used to collect sediment, and Is deployed In a similar
fashion as the PONAR. In addition to acid washing, full strength acetone is used to rinse all
gear prior to sampling and between all stations. This volatilizes any organic contaminants
that might be resident on the sampler. The top two centimeters of sediment are scooped
from the top of the sampler with an acetone rinsed sterile scoop. The sediment Is then
transferred to a stainless container, and homogenized using an acid washed, acetone
rinsed, long handled stainless scoop. All other procedures remain as stated above.

2.2 Laboratory Analysis of Sediment Samples

From 1982 to 1990, all samples were analyzed by Savannah Laboratories and
Environmental Services, Inc. In Savannah, Georgia. From 1990 to 1991, the Skldaway
Institute of Oceanography In Savannah, Georgia analyzed sediments. Analyses done by
both laboratories can be found In Section Three.

2.2.1 Metals analyses

All metals, except mercury, were analyzed by Savannah Laboratories and Environmental
Services, Inc (SLES) using graphite-furnace or flame atomic absorption spectrometry after
total digestion (dissolution) of the sediment with hydrofluoric (HF), nitric (HNO), and
perchloric (HCIO4) acids. Mercury was analyzed by the cold vapor atomic absorption
technique after a milder digestion.

From 1990 to 1991, the Skldaway Institute of Oceanography In Savannah, Georgia
analyzed metals by ICP (inductively-coupled plasma) mass spectrometry or by atomic
absorption spectrometry after performing the HF-HNO3-HCIO4 acid digestion sequence.
Mercury was analyzed by a method that combines the principle of Isotope dilution with
ICP mass spectrometry (Windom and Smith 1992). Strict laboratory procedures
concerning both accuracy and precision were followed by both the SLES facility and
Skldaway Institute of Oceanography. A National Institute of Standards and Technology
estuarlne sediment standard (NIST SRM 1646) was employed as a quality control check by
both SLES and Skldaway laboratories.

Total digestion of the sediment sample Is necessary to employ the normalization method
(discussed In section 2.3) to estimate metal contamination. Total digestion Is also strongly

encouraged to produce comparable data In trend monitoring of contaminants. Use of
hydrofluoric acid ensures dissolution of silicate minerals in the sediment, some of which
may contain trace metals. Liberation of trace metals bound to organic molecules
requires a strong oxidizing dissolution stage, which Is accomplished through use of high
quality nitric, perchlorlc and hydrochloric acid (FDEP, Deepwater Ports Maintenance
Dredging and Disposal Manual, 1994) or aqua regla, a mixture of HNO, and HCI acid
(NOAA method by Hanson and Evans 1991). Other acid digestion techniques, commonly
referred to as "weak" or "preferential" digestion, employ various dissolution times,
temperatures, and types of acidic solutions to dissolve sediments. The FDEP discourages
use of techniques other than total digestion for general environmental monitoring when
comparing data sets.

The FDEP conducted a laboratory Intercallbration exercise that Illustrated the variability of
sediment data from different analytical laboratories (Schropp 1992). Four laboratories
participated In the exercise, which assessed accuracy and precision of reported metals
data from coastal sediments and sediment reference materials (standards). The
laboratories represent facilities that typically report environmental data to state, regional,
and local agencies. Results of the exercise showed that sediment trace metal data from
different laboratories may not be comparable If different sample digestion techniques are
used. This conclusion of the FDEP study Is supported by the results of an International
Intercallbratlon exercise for trace metals analysis in marine sediments (Loring and Rantala
1988).

2.2.2. Organics analyses

Organic compounds were analyzed at Savannah Laboratories In Savannah, Georgia, by
gas chromatographic techniques. No organic compounds were analyzed at the
Skidaway Laboratories In 1990 or 1991. Standard EPA quality assurance procedures were
followed by Savannah Labs.

2.3 Sediment Trace Metal Data Interpretation

Metals occur naturally In sediments and must be distinguished from metals concentrations
contributed by human activities in order to Identify contamination. To distinguish
anthropogenlc enrichment from natural metals concentrations In sediments, a
mathematical method known as normalization was used in the Atlas. Normalization Is
simply defined as a method where constant natural chemical relationships are detected,
and used as a basis for comparison.

The normalization method has been used In other parts of the country with favorable
results (Goldberg etal. 1979; Trefry etal. 1985; Loring 1991). Hanson and Evans (1991)
published a trace metal enrichment aluminum normalization model based on a NOAA
coastal sediment database of sites in the Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico coastal areas.
Similar approaches using Iron as a normalizing element were developed by Trefry and
Presley (1976) to evaluate metal concentrations In sediments from the Gulf of Mexico and

by Zdanowicz (1991) to evaluate anthropogenic metal enrichment by offshore dumping
of contaminated dredged sediment and sewage sludge in the Atlantic Ocean.

The metal-to-aluminum normalization method developed In the 1988 FDEP publication. A
Guide to the Interpretation of Metal Concentrations In Estuarine Sediments, was based on
a "clean' sediment database. Over 100 sites were selected throughout the state for
Inclusion In the "clean' database, based upon their remoteness from known or suspected
anthropogenic metal sources. At these sites, sediment metal concentrations are
generally expected to express natural relationships with aluminum (Figure 1).

The aluminum concentration of the sediment was chosen as a normalizing factor because
1) aluminum has a high crustal abundance; 2) aluminum exhibits a highly refractory
chemical behavior (e.g., aluminum Is not easily separated from other metals during
weathering); and 3) the relatively small amounts of aluminum produced from
anthropogenic sources are overwhelmed by the abundance of naturally-occurring
aluminum In coastal sediments.

Eight metals (As, Cd, Cr, Cu, Hg, Pb, NI, and Zn) were tested to determine their relationship
to aluminum. Based on the relationships between seven of the eight metals (excluding
mercury) and aluminum In clean sites, the FDEP developed a set of graphical tools to
assess trace metal contamination In a sediment sample. For example, Figure 1 shows that
as aluminum concentrations In 'clean' sediments Increase, metals concentrations, In this
case lead, also Increase.

Least squares regression analysis, using aluminum concentration as the Independent
variable and the concentration of the other metal as the dependent variable, was
employed to fit regression lines to the data. Using results of the regression analysis, 95
percent prediction limits were calculated, which can be seen In Figure 1. The width of the
prediction limits varies depending on the magnitude of the correlation coefficients
between the metal In question and aluminum (Schropp and Windom 1988).

If a trace metal concentration falls above the upper 95 percent limit, the sample Is
designated as 'enriched" In that metal. The enrichment factor is the ratio of the measured
metal concentration to Its maximum expected concentration in natural sediments (Figure
2). At a given concentration of aluminum, the enrichment factor is determined using the
following equation:

Observed Metal Concentration (pg.g-')
Metal Enrichment Factor = (1)
Maximum Expected Natural (Jg-g-1)
Metal Concentration

1%
7n

Figure 1. Lead/aluminum relationship from statewide 'clean" sediments.

Figure 2. Interpretation of Lead data using lead/aluminum relationship.

Lead 40 u g
Enrichment Ratio = 20

Mercury does not significantly covary with aluminum concentrations in the "clean" data
set. To graphically express mercury data in the Atlas, the maximum concentration of
mercury observed In the clean data set (0.21 pg-g-" (21 ppb)) was selected to represent
the background value for natural mercury concentrations. The mercury enrichment
factor used in the Atlas was calculated by dividing the mercury concentration at a site by
the value 0.21/jg-g- (21 ppb).

2.4 Interpretation of Sediment Toxic Organic Contaminant Data

Toxic organic contaminants In a sediment sample are typically reported In the ng-g-'
(ppb) range on a dry weight basis. As discussed In the Atlas, normalization of organic
contaminants to total organic carbon is used to account for the influence of organic
carbon on bloavailabllity, and therefore the potential for toxicity.

For plotting purposes in the Atlas, the concentrations of all compounds In a class of
organic contaminants were summed. Then the total sum of each class was normalized to
the total organic carbon (TOC) concentration of the sample. This calculation Is outlined In
the following equation.

7 Organic Compound (ng-g-') (1 pg-1000 ng-')
Organic Compound Class (nom*e = _' 106 (2)
Total Organic Carbon (pg-g-')

The concentration of the organic compound is converted Into micrograms per gram
(ppm), and multiplied by 106 to convert the number to a positive exponent for plotting
purposes. The normalized organic concentration Is Indicated using barcharts that have a
logarithmic scale.

SECTION 3. SEDIMENT AND WATER COLUMN MEASUREMENTS IN THE FDEP DATABASE.

3.0 Introduction

Two laboratories have been responsible for all analytical results contained In the FDEP
sediment quality database, as mentioned In section 2. Variables and limits of detection
are contained In Table 1.

3.1 Metals and Nutrients

The limit of detection of each variable Is provided In units of mg-kg-1 (ppm) on a drywelght
basis. The expression "NA" Indicates the sample was not analyzed for this variable.

Table 1. Limits of detection for metals and nutrients analyzed by different
laboratories.

Savannah Laboratories and
Environmental Services. Inc. Skidawav Institute of OceanograDhy.

Aluminum 10.0 10.0
Arsenic 1.0 0.8
Barium 10.0 0.02
Cadmium 0.05 0.02
Chromium 1.0 0.99
Copper 1.0 0.13
Iron 1.0 10.0
Lead 1.0 0.04
Uthium NA 0.58
Manganese NA 1.0
Mercury 1.0 0.007
Nickel 1.0 0.25
Silver 0.05 0.001
Titanium NA 5.0
Vanadium NA 0.005
Zinc 1.0 0.38
Total Carbonate 100 10.0
Total Organic Carbon 100 10.0
Total KJeldahl Nitrogen 1.0 10.0
Total Phosphorus 1.0 5.1

3.2 Organic Compounds

The following paragraphs list major groups of organic compounds referenced In the Atlas,
and detection limits. The following compounds were not necessarily analyzed for every
sample. Individual organic substances Included In the following classes of contaminants
are found In Table 2.

3.2.1 Chlorinated Pesticides

Chlorinated pesticides were measured as separate compounds at Savannah
Laboratories. In the Atlas, all pesticides were grouped Into one category for
plotting purposes. Detection limits for chlorinated pesticides ranged from 0.001 to
0.1 mg-kg-'.

3.2.2. Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs)

PAHs are complex organic compounds that form during Incomplete burning of
coal, oil and gas, garbage, or other organic substances. PAHs can occur naturally,
but the majority are produced by anthropogenic activity. PAH detection limits
were 0.1 mg-kg-'.

3.2.3 Polychlorinated Biphenyl Compounds

The compounds known as PCBs were measured as the total concentration of all
PCB congeners (compounds) by Savannah Laboratory. In the Atlas, all PCBs are
grouped Into one class for plotting purposes. PCB detection limits were 0.1 mg-kg'.

3.2.4 Phenolic Compounds

These compounds are also grouped Into one class In the Atlas. The detection ilmits
for phenolic compounds range from 0.2 to 0.5 mg-kg-'.

3.2.5 Allphatic Petroleum Hydrocarbons

Allphatic petroleum hydrocarbons (APH) are long-chain organic molecules that
enter the environment during petroleum releases (both crude oil and refined
product). In the FDEP database, these compounds are listed Individually from
Allphatic C-10 through C-30. These compounds are grouped Into one class In the
Atlas. The APH limit of detection was 0.5 mg-kg'.

Organic Compounds In major categories.

Chlorinated Pesticides

Aldrin
Mirex
pp-DDT
44'-DDD
4A'-DDE
4,4'-DDT
Endrin
Chlordane
Alpha-BHC(Toxaphene)
Beta-BHC
Delta-BHC
Gamma-BHC(Lindane)
Dieldrin
Endosulfan I
Endosulfan II
Endosulfan sulfate
Endrin Aldehyde
Heptachlor
Heptachlor epoxide
Kepone
Methoxychlor

Polvchlorinated Biphenvis

Aroclor-1016
Aroclor- 1221
Aroclor-1232
Aroclor- 1242
Aroclor- 1248
Aroclor-1254
Aroclor- 1260

Polvnuclear Aromatic
Hydrocarbons

Acenaphthene
Acenaphthylene
Anthracene
Crysene
+Benzo(a)anthracene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Benzo(ghi)perylene
Benzo(bk)fluoranthene
Fluorene
Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene
Naphthalene
Phenanthrene+Anthracene
Benzo(a)anthracene
Benzo(b)fluoranthrene
Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene
Phenanthrene
1-methylnaphthalene
Benzonitrile
Quinoline
Quinaldine
8-methylquinaline
7,8-Benzoquinoline
2,4-Dimethylquinoline
Acridine
Indeno(1,2,3)pyrene

Phenolic ComDounds

2-Chlorophenol
2,4-Dichlorophenol
2,4-Dimethyl phenol
4,6-Dinitro-o-cresol
2-Nitrophenol
4-Nitrophenol
P-Chloro-m-cresol
Penta-Chlorophenol
Phenol
2,4,6 Trichlorophenol
4-chloro-m-cresol
2,4 Dinitrophenol

Measured as a sum of all
PCB congeners

Table 2.

SECTION 4. SOURCES AND USES OF METALS AND SEMI-METALS EXAMINED IN THE ATLAS.

4.0 Introduction

Trace metals are found naturally In the environment due to weathering of minerals that
contain these elements. Many trace metals In extremely low quantities are beneficial to
the biological function of organisms, but some have no recognizable biological functions.
All trace metals cause deleterious biological effects when present In high concentrations.
Common anthropogenic trace metal sources are listed. All listed metals are released In
some degree by fossil fuel combustion and waste Incineration.

Metal Sources and Uses

Arsenic (As) The semi-metal As Is the active element in some pesticides and
herbicides. Arsenic Is released by combustion of fossil fuels (e.g.,
coal). The use of as a rodentlcide Is no longer practiced, but As Is
used as a herbicide.

Cadmium (Cd) Natural sources of Cd include weathering of phosphate-bearing
sedimentary rocks, which are common In parts of Florida. Cd
sources include electroplating Industries, pigment production, and
manufacture of plastic stabilizers and lead-zinc batteries.

Chromium (Cr) Cr Is used In the production of chrome metal plating, dyes, paint,
explosives, ceramics, and glass.

Copper (Cu) Sources of Cu include leaching of brass and copper pipe by
acidic water, aquatic weed and algae control, and marine paint,
where Cu Is leached Into the water column. Cu is also used as a
fungicide and pesticide In agriculture.

Lead (Pb) The largest anthropogenic source of Pb Is the production of lead-
zinc batteries. Other sources Include manufacture of alkyl-lead
additives, solder, paints, glassware, ammunition, radiation
shielding, and fossil fuel combustion. Much of the present Pb
burden In sediment is from past combustion of leaded gasoline.

Mercury (Hg)

The major sources of mercury In Florida Include: soil degasslng,
municipal solid waste combustion, medical waste Incineration,
paint application and the electric utility Industry. Other sources of
Hg Include dental preparations, anti-mildew agents In paint and
sheetrock mud, manufacture of electrical equipment, open
burning, transportation (fuel) and other fuel burning (FDER 1992).
Significant quantities of Hg may be bound to organic particles In
sediment and soils. Upon exposure of these materials to air (e.g.
by agricultural conversion of wetlands), Hg can become
bloavallable.

Nickel (NI) NI Is used primarily In the production of stainless steel. NI Is used as
a catalyst In Industrial processes, and In oil refining. Sources
Include electroplating Industries.

Zinc (Zn) Zn Is used In the production of brass, batteries, galvanized coatings
to protect Iron and steel, and marine paints. Submerged
"sacrificial' Zn plates are used on ships to reduce oxidation
(rusting) of metallic parts exposed to saltwater, leading to high Zn
levels In some marina sediments.

SECTION 5.

SOURCES AND USES OF TOXIC ORGANIC COMPOUND CLASSES EXAMINED IN
THE ATLAS

5.0 Introduction

Natural and anthropogenic sources of major organic compound classes are listed,
Except for a few allphatic hydrocarbons and polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons, these
compounds are manmade.

Organic Compound
Class

Sources and Uses

Chlorinated Pesticides Chlorinated pesticides are complex organic compounds to
which chlorine has been added. They are used to
(partially) control Insects. Some common pesticides
Include dieldrin, chlordane, lUndane, and mlrex. DDT and Its
breakdown products (DDD and DDE) have been detected
as recently as 1991 in Florida sediments, although use of
DDT has been halted In the U.S. However, U.S. chemical
companies still manufacture DDT for use In other countries.

Polynuclear Aromatic PAHs are complex organic compounds that form during
Hydrocarbons incomplete burning of coal, oil and gas, garbage, or other
organic substances. The term PAHs Is applied to
compounds that have two or more benzene rings. PAHs
can occur naturally, but the majority are produced by
anthropogenic activity. Oil and fuel spills are a source of
PAHs In estuarlne systems. Some PAHs are used In
production of pharmaceutical products, dyes, pesticides,
and plastics.

Polychlorinated The term PCBs is applied to organic molecules that contain
Blphenyls chlorine substituted Into a blphenyl ring. PCBs were used In
closed electric systems (transformers), and In other
applications, all of which were discontinued In 1971.
Introduction into the environment still occurs, for example
from waste incineration. These molecules are extremely
persistent stable compounds in the environment.

Phenolic Hydrocarbons Organic solvents used in the manufacture of resins, paint,
and plastics. Some are used as a disinfectant. Some
phenolic compounds occur naturally In wood, petroleum,
and tar, and are constituents of human and animal wastes.

Aliphotic Petroleum Organic molecules formed by chains (polymers) of carbon
Hydrocarbons atoms released In aquatic environments by petroleum spills
during loading/offloadlng, transport and production
activities. Most petroleum hydrocarbons are released Into
the environment during transport activity, and not by
offshore petroleum or natural gas exploration and/or
production.

Florida Coastal Sediment Contaminants Atlas Technical Volume References

BIshof, D.E., 1991. Umnologlcal monitoring and Investigations program: Sediment quality
monitoring semiannual report. Collier County Pollution Control Department.

Brim, M., 1993. Toxics characterization report for Perdldo Bay, Alabama and Florida.
United States Fish and Wildlife Service, publication no. PCFO-EC-93-04. Panama City, FL,

Brim, M., (In preparation). Sediment chemistry of St. Andrew Bay, United Sates Fish and
Wildlife Service. Panama City, FL.

Brooks, G.R. and Doyle, L.J., 1989. Recent geological history of mud-dominated sediments
In Hlllsborough Bay, Florida: Final report to City of Tampa.

Brooks, G.R. and Doyle, L.J., 1992. A characterization of Tampa Bay sediments, phase III:
distribution of sediments and sedimentary contaminants. Report submitted to the
Southwest Florida Water Management District by the Center for Nearshore Marine
Science of the University of South Florida.

Broward County Department of Resource Protection, 1993. New River Study: Final Report.

Delflno, J.J., Coates, J.A., Davis, W.M., Garcla, K.L., Jacobs, M.W., Marlncic, K.J., and
Signorella, L.L., 1991. Toxic pollutants in discharges, ambient waters, and bottom
sediments. Report to the Department of Environmental Regulation, 405 pp.

Dixon, L.K., 1988. Non-point water quality Impacts In northern west coast Inland
Navigation District waters. Final report submitted to Manatee County Public Works
Department. Technical Report No. 126, Mote Marine Laboratory, Sarasota, Florida.

Doyle, L.J., Brooks, G.R., Fanning, K.A., Van Vleet, E.S., Byrne, R.H., and Blake, N.J., 1989. A
characterization of Tampa Bay sediments. A report submitted to the Southwest Florida
Water Management District by the Center for Nearshore Marine Science of the University
of South Florida.

Facemlre, C.F., 1991. Copper and other contaminants in King's Bay and Crystal River
(Florlda) Sediments: Implications for Impact on the West Indian manatee. Report to the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

Florida Department of Environmental Regulation, 1984. Deepwater ports maintenance
dredging and disposal manual: a guide to planning, estuarine chemical data collection,
analysis, and Interpretation. Fourth Revision. Florida Department of Environmental
Regulation. 94 pp. and 1 appendix.

Florida Department of Environmental Regulation, 1992. Mercury emissions to the
atmosphere in Florida. Report prepared by KBN Engineering and Applied Sciences,
Galnesvllle, FL.

Goldberg, E.D., Griffln, J.J., Hodge, V., Kolde, M., and Windom, H., 1979. Pollution history of
the Savannah River estuary, Environmental Science and Technology, v. 13, p. 588-594.

Grabe, S., 1991 a, Sediment quality In estuarlne waters of Collier County: April and August
1991. Collier County Pollution Control Department.

Grabe, S., 1991b. Inland sediment quality annual report, 1991. Collier County Pollution
Control Department.

Gu, D., Irlcanin, N., and Trefry, J.H., 1987. The geochemistry of Interstitial water for a
sediment core from the Indian River Lagoon, Florida. Florida Scientist, v. 50,99-110.

Hanson, P.J. and Evans, D.W., 1991. Metal contaminant assessment for the Southeast
Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico Coasts: Results of the National Benthic Surveillance Project
over the first four years 1984-1987. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
(NOAA) Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFSC-284, 77 pp.

Haunert, D.E., 1988. Sediment characteristics and toxic substances In the St. Lucle Estuary,
Florida. Technical Publication 88-10, South Florida Water Management District.

Hofmann, S. and Dixon, L,K., 1989. Metals characterization of sediments at Port Manatee.
Final report submitted to Manatee Port Authority. Technical Report No. 135, Mote Marine
Laboratory, Sarasota, Florida.

Long, E.R. and Morgan, L.G., 1990. The potential for biological effects of sediment-sorbed
contaminants tested In the National Status and Trends Program. National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Technical Memorandum NOS OMA 52,223 pp.

Long, E.R., MacDonald, D. and Calrncross, C., 1991. Status and trends in toxicants and the
potential for their biological effects In Tampa Bay, Florida. National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Technical Memorandum NOS OMA 58,77 pp.

Long, E.R. et al., In preparation. Magnitude and extent of sediment toxicity In Tampa Bay,
Florida. National Status and Trends Program, Bloeffects Assessment Program.

Loring, D.H., 1991. Normalization of heavy-metal data from estuarine and coastal
sediments. ICES (International Council for the Exploration of the Sea) Journal of Marine
Science, v. 48, 101-115.

Lorlng, D.H. and Rantala, R.T.T., 1988. An Intercallbratlon exercise for trace metals In
marine sediments. Marine Chemistry, v. 24, 13-28.

Lowrey, S., Dixon, L.K., and Sherbloom. P., In press. Water quality trends and baywlde
monitoring results for Sarasota Bay. Final report submitted to Sarasota Bay National
Estuary Program. Technical Report No. 253, Mote Marine Laboratory, Sarasota, Florida.

Pierce, R.H., Dixon, L.K., Brown, L.C., and Rodrick, G., 1988. Characterization of baseline
conditions of the physical, chemical, and microbiological environments In the St. Johns
River Estuary. Final report submitted to the Florida Department of Environmental
Regulation, Technical Report No. 128, Mote Marine Laboratory, Sarasota, Florida.

Pfeuffer, R.J., 1985. Pesticide residue monitoring In sediment and surface water within the
South Florida Water Management District, volume 1. Technical Publication 91-01. South
Florida Water Management District.

Pfeuffer, R.J,, 1991. Pesticide residue monitoring In sediment and surface water within the
South Florida Water Management District, volume 2. Technical Publication 91-01. South
Florida Water Management District.

Seal, T.L., Colder, F.D., Sloane, G.M., Schropp, S.J., and Windom, H.L., 1992. Assessment of
trace metal contamination of estuarlne and marine sediments from Florida. Geological
Society of America Abstracts with Programs, Volume 25, p.68.

Schropp, S.J,, 1992. An laboratory Intercomparlson exercise for sediment metal analyses.
Florida Department of Environmental Regulation Open-file Report.

Schropp, S.J. and Windom, H.L., 1988. A guide to the Interpretation of metal
concentration In estuarine sediments. Coastal Zone Management Section, Florida
Department of Environmental Regulation, 44 pp.

Schropp, S. J., Calder, F.D., Sloane, G.M. and Windom, H.L., 1990. Interpretation of metal
concentration In estuarine sediments of Florida using aluminum as a reference element.
Estuaries, v. 13, 227-235.

Schropp, S.J., Colder, F.D., Sloane, G.M., Swanson. K.O., Carlton, J.C., Halcomb, G.L.,
Windom, H.L., Huan, F., Taylor, R.B., and Hull, T., 1991. A report on physical and chemical
processes affecting the management of Perdldo Bay: Results of the Perdldo Bay Interstate
Project. Florida Department of Environmental Regulation, Tallahassee, FL

Stone, G.W. and Morgan, J.P., 1991. Heavy metal Concentrations In subsurface sediments,
Bayou Chico, Pensacola, Florida. Report prepared for the Florida Department of
Environmental Regulation by the Institute for Coastal and Estuarlne Research, The
University of West Florida, Pensacola.

Trefry, J.H., Metz, S., and Troclne, R.P., 1985. The decline In lead transport by the Mississippi
River. Science, v. 230,439-441.

Trefry, J.H. and Presley, B.J., 1976. Heavy metals In sediments from the San Antonio Bay
and the northwest Gulf of Mexico. Environmental Geology, v. 1, p. 283-294.

Trefry, J.H. and Stauble, D.K., 1987. Origin, composition and fate of organic-rich sediments
In coastal estuaries. Report to The Florida Sea Grant College and the Florida Department
of Environmental Regulation.

Trefry, J.H., Trocine, R.P. and Metz, S., 1989. Quantifying sedimentation and pollution In the
Lower Hillsborough River. Report to the City of Tampa.

Trefry, J.H., Sadhoughl, M., Sullivan, M.D., Steward, JS., and Barber, S., 1983. Trace metals
In the Indian River Lagoon, Florida: The copper story. Florida Scientist, v. 46, 415-428.

Trefry, J.H., Chen, N., Troclne, R. and Metz, S., 1990. Manatee Pocket sediment analysis.
Report to the South Florida Water Management District. 43 pp. and two appendices.

Trefry, J.H., Chen, N., Trocine, R. and Metz, S., 1992. Impingement of organic-rich,
contaminated sediments on Manatee Pocket, Florida. Florida Scientist, v. 55.

Windom, H.L., Schropp, S.J., Calder, F.D., Ryan, J.D., Smith, R.G., Jr., Burney, L.C., Lewis,
F.G., and Rawlinson, C.H., 1989. Natural trace metal concentrations In estuarlne and
coastal marine sediments of the southeastern United States. Environmental Science and
Technology, v. 23,314-320.

Wlndom, H.L. and Smith, R.G., 1992. Analysis of mercury species In groundwater using
Inductively coupled plasma-mass spectrometry and gas chromatography. Report
submitted to the State of New Jersey, Department of Environmental Protection and
Energy.

Zdanowicz, V.S., 1991. Determining the fates of contaminated wastes dumped In the New
York Apex by use of metal enrichment factors. Environmental Science and Technology,
v. 25, 1760-1766.