F­
12
Notes:

Unless
otherwise
noted,
a
value
of
10%
humic
acid
and
a
value
of
0.0003
mg/
L
sulfide
were
assumed
for
all
tests
(
HydroQual
2001).

1.
Temperature
value
used
here
is
either
the
mean
or
the
midpoint
of
the
range
measured
for
this
specific
test
or
for
a
group
of
tests
reported
in
this
study.

2.
pH
value
used
here
is
either
the
mean
or
the
midpoint
of
the
range
measured
for
this
specific
test
or
for
a
group
of
tests
reported
in
this
study.

3.
The
dissolved
copper
LC50/
EC50
used
here
was
calculated
as
96%
of
the
reported
total
LC50/
EC50
value
(
based
on
Stephan
1995).

4.
A
default
reconstituted
water
DOC
value
of
0.5
mg/
L
was
used
for
this
test
(
see
U.
S.
EPA
2003).

5.
Alkalinity
and
hardness
values
used
are
midpoints
of
nominal
range
for
very
hard
reconstituted
water
(
U.
S.
EPA
1993;
ASTM
2000).
Cations
and
anions
were
calculated
stoichiometrically
according
to
nominal
concentrations
of
salts
added
(
ASTM
2000;
U.
S.
EPA
1993),
and
adjusted
according
to
the
expected
hardness
(
see
U.
S.
EPA
2003).

6.
Hardness
value
used
here
is
either
the
mean
or
the
midpoint
of
the
range
measured
for
this
specific
test
or
for
a
group
of
tests
reported
in
this
study.

7.
Alkalinity
value
used
here
is
either
the
mean
or
the
midpoint
of
the
range
measured
for
this
specific
test
or
for
a
group
of
tests
reported
in
this
study.

8.
Concentration
of
K
is
mean
of
values
reported
for
Lake
Superior
water
in
Biesinger
and
Christensen
(
1972)
and
Erickson
et
al.
(
1996
a,
b).
Ca,
Mg,
Na,
Cl,
and
SO
4
were
derived
in
the
same
way,

but
were
adjusted
according
to
the
measured
hardness
of
the
test
water.
DOC
value
is
a
mean
of
Lake
Superior
measurements
taken
by
Greg
Lien
at
U.
S.
EPA
Duluth.
See
U.
S.
EPA
2003
for
details.

9.
DOC
value
is
measured
TOC
of
the
same
well
water
reported
by
McCrady
and
Chapman
(
1979).

10.
Using
available
data
for
the
Western
Fish
Toxicology
Station
(
G.
Chapman
unpublished
data,
Samuelson
1976),
regression
analyses
were
conducted
to
quantify
relationships
between
hardness
and
various
ions
(
see
U.
S.
EPA
2003).
The
resulting
regression
equations
were
used
to
estimate
concentrations
of
Ca,
Mg,
Na,
Cl,
and
S04.
The
mean
K
value
was
used
because
the
relationship
between
K
and
hardness
was
non­
significant.

11.
Alkalinity
and
pH
values
used
are
midpoints
of
nominal
range
for
soft
reconstituted
water
(
ASTM
2000;
U.
S.
EPA
1993).
Cations
and
anions
were
calculated
stoichiometrically
according
to
nominal
concentrations
of
salts
added
(
ASTM
2000;
U.
S.
EPA
1993),
and
adjusted
according
to
the
measured
hardness
(
see
U.
S.
EPA
2003
for
details.)
Hardness,
alkalinity,
and
pH
values
used
are
midpoints
of
nominal
range
for
moderately
hard
reconstituted
water
(
ASTM
2000;
U.
S.
EPA
1993).
Cations
and
anions
were
calculated
stoichiometrically
according
to
nominal
concentrations
of
salts
added
(
see
U.
S.
EPA
2003
for
details.)
Although
test
organisms
were
fed
during
this
test,
test
results
were
used
because
Hyalella
azteca
are
cannibalistic
and
only
a
small
amount
of
food
(
500
ul)
was
added
to
the
test
chambers
(
300
mls)
such
that
the
percentage
addition
is
not
so
great
as
to
significantly
affect
copper
complexation.

12.
The
dissolved
copper
LC50
used
here
was
calculated
as
92%
of
the
reported
total
LC50
value
(
based
on
percent
dissolved
reported
by
authors).

13.
DOC
value
is
based
on
measured
TOC
in
the
Lake
Superior
dilution
water
used
and
an
estimate
of
the
dissolved
fraction
(
see
U.
S.
EPA
2003).

14.
Test
was
conducted
in
City
of
Blacksburg,
VA
tap
water.
Ionic
concentrations
and
DOC
were
not
measured.
Ionic
concentrations
were
estimated
based
on
measurements
made
by
the
City
of
Blacksburg
as
well
as
USGS
NASQAN
data
for
the
New
River
(
see
U.
S.
EPA
2003).
These
concentrations
were
adjusted
according
to
the
measured
hardness
of
the
test
water.
The
DOC
value
used
here
was
based
on
measurements
of
TOC
made
by
the
City
of
Blacksburg
(
see
U.
S.
EPA
2003).

15.
Ionic
concentrations
were
estimated
based
on
New
River
data
included
in
the
USGS
NASQAN
database,
and
were
adjusted
according
to
the
measured
hardness
of
the
test
water
(
see
U.
S.
EPA
2003).
The
DOC
value
used
here
was
based
on
a
single
measurement
made
on
a
New
River
water
sample
collected
by
Don
Cherry
in
2000.

16.
Ionic
concentrations
were
estimated
based
on
measurements
made
on
a
single
Clinch
River
water
sample
collected
by
Don
Cherry
in
2000,
and
were
adjusted
according
to
the
measured
hardness
of
the
test
water
(
see
U.
S.
EPA
2003).
The
DOC
value
used
here
was
based
on
a
measurement
made
on
the
same
water
sample.

17.
Alkalinity
was
estimated
based
on
pH
adjustment
according
to
nomograph
in
Faust
and
Aly
(
1981)
­
see
U.
S.
EPA
2003.

18.
This
test
was
conducted
in
a
standard
reconstituted
water
(
ASTM
2000;
U.
S.
EPA
1993).
Ionic
concentrations
were
calculated
stoichiometrically
according
to
nominal
concentrations
of
salts
added
(
ASTM
2000;
U.
S.
EPA
1993),
and
adjusted
according
to
the
measured
hardness
of
the
test
water
(
see
U.
S.
EPA
2003
for
details.)

19.
DOC
was
measured
in
the
dilution
water,
but
was
not
detected
(
detection
limit
=
1
mg/
L).
DOC
value
used
was
0.5
mg/
L,
which
is
one­
half
the
detection
limit
and
is
consistent
with
the
recommended
default
DOC
value
for
reconstituted
waters
(
see
U.
S.
EPA
2003)
pH
was
not
reported;
value
used
here
is
midpoint
of
nominal
range
for
moderately
hard
reconstituted
waters.
The
dissolved
copper
LC50
was
calculated
from
the
total
copper
LC50
using
a
1.26
total
to
dissolved
ratio
reported
by
the
author.

20.
Hardness,
alkalinity,
and
pH
values
used
are
midpoints
of
nominal
range
for
hard
reconstituted
water
(
ASTM
2000;
U.
S.
EPA
1993).
Cations
and
anions
were
calculated
stoichiometrically
according
to
nominal
concentrations
of
salts
added
(
see
U.
S.
EPA
2003
for
details).

21.
Test
temperature
was
not
reported;
temperature
used
here
is
the
temperature
recommended
by
OECD
(
1981)
because
these
methods
were
cited
by
the
study's
author.

22.
Ionic
composition
calculated
from
Table
1
titled:
Microcosm
Medium
(
T82MV)
and
sediment
composition,
in
ASTM
(
2000)
publication
E1366,
vol.
11.05.
T85MVK
is
recommended
for
culturing
Daphnia
magna
and
varies
from
T82MV
by
including
0.1
times
the
concentration
of
nitrate
and
phosphate.

23.
TOC
was
measured
in
the
dilution
water,
but
was
not
detected
(
detection
limit
=
0.25
mg/
L).
DOC
value
used
was
0.125
mg/
L,
which
is
one­
half
the
TOC
detection
limit
(
see
U.
S.
EPA
2003).

24.
Ionic
concentrations
used
here
are
those
reported
in
the
publication,
which
are
estimated
values
based
on
known
chemistry
of
well
water
and
amounts
of
chemicals
added.

25.
Concentration
of
K
is
mean
of
values
reported
for
Lake
Superior
water
in
Biesinger
and
Christensen
(
1972)
and
Erickson
et
al.
(
1996).
Ca,
Mg,
Na,
Cl,
and
SO
4
were
derived
in
the
same
way,
but
were
adjusted
according
to
the
measured
hardness
of
the
test
water.
See
U.
S.
EPA
2003
for
details.

26.
Ionic
concentrations
were
estimated
based
on
measured
values
reported
for
the
source
water
in
STORET,
and
adjusted
according
to
the
measured
hardness
of
the
test
water
(
see
U.
S.
EPA
2003).

27.
Using
available
data
for
the
St.
Louis
River
from
the
USGS
NASQAN
database,
regression
analyses
were
conducted
to
quantify
relationships
between
hardness
and
various
ions
(
see
U.
S.
EPA
2003).
The
resulting
regression
equations
were
used
to
estimate
ionic
concentrations
of
Ca,
Mg,
Na,
Cl,
and
S04.
F­
13
28.
Concentrations
of
Na,
K,
Cl,
and
S04
are
means
of
values
reported
for
Lake
Superior
water
in
Biesinger
and
Christensen
(
1972)
and
Erickson
et
al.
(
1996)
(
see
U.
S.
EPA
2003).
Ca,
Mg,
and
SO
4
were
derived
in
the
same
way,
but
were
adjusted
according
to
the
amounts
of
CaSO
4
or
MgSO
4
added
to
the
test
water.

29.
Concentrations
of
Na,
K,
Cl,
and
S04
are
means
of
values
reported
for
Lake
Superior
water
in
Erickson
et
al.
(
1996).
Ca
and
Mg
values
were
derived
in
the
same
way,
but
were
adjusted
according
to
the
measured
hardness
of
the
test
water.
DOC
value
is
a
mean
of
Lake
Superior
measurements
taken
by
Greg
Lien
at
U.
S.
EPA
Duluth.
See
U.
S.
EPA
2003
for
details.

30.
With
the
exception
of
sulfide
and
dissolved
copper,
all
parameters
listed
here
were
measured
either
in
the
exposure
chamber
water
(
pH,
temperature,
total
copper)
or
in
the
dilution
water
prior
to
testing
(
ions,
alkalinity,
DOC)
and
were
reported
by
Welsh
(
1996).

31.
Dilution
water
was
not
a
standard
reconstituted
water
mix;
concentrations
of
salts
added
were
reported
in
this
study.
Measurements
of
hardness
and
alkalinity
were
not
reported
in
this
study;

values
used
here
were
estimated
based
on
nominal
concentrations
of
salts
added.
DOC
value
used
here
is
based
on
subsequent
DOC
measurement
made
on
the
same
laboratory's
dilution
water
(
data
provided
by
Uwe
Borgmann).

32.
Sufficient
Cerophyl
was
added
for
C.
tentans
to
construct
burrows
during
the
exposure.
The
authors
reported
that
the
cerophyl
was
required
as
substrate
and
food
by
the
test
animals
for
growth
and
survival.

33.
A
default
DOC
value
of
1.6
mg/
L,
applicable
to
tap
and
well
waters,
was
used
for
this
test
(
see
U.
S.
EPA
2003).

34.
Ionic
concentrations
for
this
water
(
Green­
Duwamish
River)
were
estimated
based
on
measured
values
reported
in
Santos
and
Stoner
(
1973),
and
adjusted
according
to
the
measured
hardness
of
the
test
water
(
see
U.
S.
EPA
2003).

35.
With
the
exception
of
sulfide
and
dissolved
copper,
all
parameters
listed
here
were
measured
either
in
the
exposure
chamber
water
(
pH,
hardness,
alkalinity,
temperature,
total
copper)
or
in
the
dilution
water
prior
to
testing
(
ions,
alkalinity,
TOC)
and
were
reported
by
Chapman
(
1975
and/
or
1978).
TOC
was
assumed
to
be
100%
dissolved.

36.
DOC
value
is
a
measure
of
TOC
in
the
Western
Fish
Toxicology
Station
well
water,
as
reported
in
Chapman
1978.

37.
Dilution
water
used
in
this
test
was
taken
from
the
Chehalis
River.
DOC
was
estimated
based
on
data
supplied
by
the
USGS
NASQAN
database.
Ionic
concentrations
were
provided
by
the
author
(
see
U.
S.
EPA
2003).

38.
With
the
exception
of
sulfide
and
total
copper
LC50s,
all
parameters
listed
here
were
measured
either
in
the
exposure
chamber
water
or
in
the
dilution
water
and
were
reported
by
Hagler
Bailly
(
1996).
Total
copper
was
measured,
but
LC50s
were
not
reported.
We
estimated
total
copper
LC50s
based
on
reported
dissolved
LC50s
and
percentages
of
total
copper
in
dissolved
form.

39.
Tests
reported
by
Fogels
and
Sprague
(
1977)
and
Howarth
and
Sprague
(
1978)
were
conducted
in
very
hard
well
water
or
a
mix
of
this
well
water
and
de­
ionized
water.
Measurements
of
organic
carbon,
most
ionic
concentrations,
and
occasionally
alkalinity
were
not
made
or
not
reported.
Methods
used
for
estimating
these
parameters
are
described
in
U.
S.
EPA
2003.
The
authors
reported
LC50s
as
dissolved
copper
concentrations,
and
no
attempt
was
made
here
to
estimate
total
copper
LC50s.

40.
Tests
were
conducted
in
dechlorinated
City
of
Montreal
tap
water.
Ionic
concentrations
given
here
are
based
on
those
reported
for
the
dilution
water
(
Anderson
and
Spear
1980
a,
b)
and
adjusted
slightly
based
on
measured
test
water
hardness.

41.
Tests
were
conducted
in
water
collected
from
Pinto
Creek,
Arizona.
Author
reported
concentrations
of
Ca,
Mg,
Na,
and
SO
4.
Default
values
were
used
for
K,
Cl,
and
DOC
(
Cl
default
was
scaled
according
to
measured
hardness).
LC50s
were
reported
as
dissolved
copper;
we
have
not
attempted
to
estimate
total
copper
values.

42.
This
test
was
conducted
in
dechlorinated
tap
water
at
the
Chesapeake
Biological
Laboratory
in
Solomons,
MD.
Measurements
of
ions,
alkalinity,
and
DOC
were
not
reported,
so
default
values
were
used
here.
Default
values
for
alkalinity
and
ions
are
from
HydroQual
2001,
and
all
except
alkalinity
and
K
were
adjusted
according
to
the
measured
hardness
of
the
test
water.

43.
This
test
was
conducted
in
a
mix
of
Lake
Superior
water
and
laboratory
reconstituted
water.
DOC
value
given
here
is
an
estimate
based
on
the
percent
dilution
of
Lake
Superior
water
and
DOC
measurements
made
on
Lake
Superior
water
by
Greg
Lien
at
U.
S.
EPA
Duluth
(
see
U.
S.
EPA
2003).

44.
This
test
was
conducted
in
a
laboratory
reconstituted
water.
DOC
value
is
based
on
measurements
taken
by
Greg
Lien
on
reconstituted
water
used
at
U.
S.
EPA
Duluth
(
see
U.
S.
EPA
2003).

45.
This
test
was
conducted
in
Lake
Superior
water
with
added
humic
acid
(
additional
salts
may
have
been
added).
DOC
value
here
is
estimated
based
on
Lake
Superior
DOC
(
see
note
60)
and
nominal
additions
of
humic
acid.
The
percent
humic
acid
was
also
adjusted
accordingly.

46.
Measurements
of
alkalinity
and
ions
were
not
reported
for
this
test;
alkalinity
for
similar
test
water
reported
in
Birge
et
al.
1981
was
used
here.
Ions
were
estimated
based
on
concentrations
reported
in
Birge
et
al.
1981
and
adjusted
according
to
measured
test
hardness.
One
of
the
acute
tests
with
fathead
minnows
from
this
study
was
excluded
because
the
minnows,
which
were
held
for
10
days
at
220
mg/
L
water
hardness,
were
subsequently
tested
at
a
hardness
100
mg/
L
without
acclimation.

47.
With
the
exception
of
dissolved
copper,
sulfide,
and
hardness,
all
parameters
listed
here
were
measured
either
in
the
exposure
chamber
water
(
pH,
temperature,
total
copper)
or
in
the
dilution
water
prior
to
testing
(
ions,
alkalinity,
DOC)
(
Welsh
et
al.
1993).
Some
of
these
data
were
not
reported
by
Welsh
et
al.
(
1993),
but
were
provided
to
EPA
by
the
primary
author.
Hardness
was
calculated
based
on
measured
concentrations
of
Ca
and
Mg
(
see
U.
S.
EPA
2003).

48.
This
test
was
conducted
in
dechlorinated
City
of
Denton,
TX
tap
water,
and
although
not
reported
by
Bennet
et
al.
(
1995),
alkalinity,
pH,
and
temperature
were
measured
in
the
test
chambers.
Data
were
supplied
to
EPA
by
the
authors
(
see
U.
S.
EPA
2003);
means
of
all
daily
measurements
of
test
chambers
were
used
here.
Ionic
concentrations
were
not
available
for
this
test;
default
values
(
HydroQual
2001)
adjusted
for
measured
test
hardness
were
used.

49.
This
test
was
conducted
in
carbon
filtered,
millipore
Ann
Arbor
tap
water,
and
the
DOC
was
assumed
to
be
0.5
mg/
L
(
default
for
reconstituted
waters).
Concentrations
of
Ca
and
Mg
were
calculated
based
on
reported
total
hardness
and
Ca
hardness.
Default
values
adjusted
according
to
measured
hardness
were
used
for
other
ions
(
K
was
not
adjusted;
see
U.
S.
EPA
2003).

50.
This
test
was
conducted
in
natural
lake
water
(
Lake
Cultus,
BC).
The
mean
"
soluble
organic
carbon"
(
DOC)
value
reported
by
the
author
for
this
lake
was
used
here.
Authors
reported
sulfate
concentrations
in
the
dilution
water,
but
did
not
report
any
other
anion
or
cation
concentrations.
These
concentrations
were
estimated
using
default
values
from
(
HydroQual
2001),
adjusting
all
except
K
according
to
the
measured
hardness
of
the
test
water.

51.
A
default
DOC
value
of
0.3
mg/
L
for
ultra­
pure
water
was
used
for
this
test
(
see
U.
S.
EPA
2003).

52.
This
test
was
conducted
in
tap
water
from
an
unspecified
source.
Authors
did
not
report
a
DOC
concentration
for
this
water,
but
stated
that
it
was
"
free
from...
organic
matter."
On
this
basis,
a
default
value
of
0.5
mg
DOC/
L
was
used.
Ionic
concentrations
were
estimated
using
default
values
from
(
HydroQual
2001),
adjusting
all
except
K
according
to
the
measured
hardness
of
the
test
F­
14
water.

53.
Alkalinity
value
used
is
the
midpoint
of
nominal
range
for
soft
reconstituted
water
(
ASTM
2000;
U.
S.
EPA
1993).
Cations
and
anions
were
calculated
stoichiometrically
according
to
nominal
concentrations
of
salts
added
(
ASTM
2000;
U.
S.
EPA
1993),
and
adjusted
according
to
the
measured
hardness
(
see
U.
S.
EPA
2003
for
details.)

54.
This
test
was
conducted
in
a
non­
standard
reconstituted
water
(
Kristen
Long's
recipe).
Ionic
concentrations
were
calculated
stoichiometrically
according
to
nominal
concentrations
of
salts
added
and
adjusted
according
to
the
measured
hardness.

55.
With
the
exception
of
sulfide,
all
parameters
listed
were
measured
in
the
exposure
chamber.

56.
This
test
was
conducted
in
a
non­
standard
reconstituted
water
(
Kristen
Long's
recipe).
Ionic
concentrations
were
calculated
stoichiometrically
according
to
nominal
concentrations
of
salts
added
and
adjusted
according
to
the
measured
hardness.
