Trace Metal Concentration Factors in Aquatic Ecosystems

  • Theo. J. Kneip
  • Gerald J. Lauer
Part of the Progress in Analytical Chemistry book series (PAC)


The concept of concentration factors in aquatic systems is of ultimate importance in assessing the impact of any contaminant on such an ecosystem. While the general concept of bioconcentration is widely used, it is readily apparent that the qualifying assumptions and detailed theory underlying the concept often are not considered, leading to widespread misuse and misunderstanding of the phenomenon.

The basis is presented for the understanding of bioconcentration and concentration factors, and the (major) qualifying assumptions are discussed.

A series of examples are presented which demonstrate the variations in the bioconcentration of trace metals. These examples include elements known or thought to be essential as well as those known to be adventitious. The differences in the behavior of the metals demonstrate the problems inherent in general statements regarding concentration factors, and the reasons that many misuses have occurred.


Trophic Level Aquatic Ecosystem Concentration Factor Methyl Mercury Biological Cycle 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Department of Health, Education and Welfare, Special Report to the Secretary’s Pesticide Advisory Committee, “Hazards of Mercury,” Environmental Research, 4(1), (March, 1971).Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Friberg, L., M. Piscator and G. Nordberg. “Cadmium in the Environment,” 153, C. R. C. Press, Ohio, (1971).Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    National Academy of Sciences. Lead—Airborne Lead in Perspective, National Academy of Sciences, Washington, D. C., (1972).Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Wolman, M. Gordon. “The Nation’s Rivers,” Science, 174: 905–918, (November, 1971).Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Edwards, Clive A.: Persistent Pesticides in the Environment. C. R. C. Press, Cleveland, Ohio, (1970).Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Polikarpov, G. G. Radioecology of Aquatic Organisms, Reinhold Book Division, New York, (1966).Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Butler, Philip A. “Pesticide Residues in Estuarine Mollusks,” presented at the National Symposium on Estuarine Pollution, Stanford University, August, 1967 (sponsored by the American Society of Civil Engineers).Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Grzenda, Alfred R., Doris Fort Paris and William J. Taylor. “The Uptake, Metabolism and Elimination of Chlorinated Residues by Goldfish (Carassium auratus) Fed A 14C-DDT Contaminated Diet,” Transactions of the American Fisheries Society, (April, 1970).Google Scholar
  9. Youngs, W. D., W. H. Gutenmann and D. J. Lisk. “Residues of DDT in Lake Trout as a Function of Age,” Environmental Science and Technology, 6(1):451–452, (May, 1972).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Terriere, L. C., U. Kügemagi, A. R. Gerlach and R. L. Borovica. “The Persistence of Toxaphene in Lake Water and its Uptake by Aquatic Plants and Animals,” J. Agr. Food Chem., 14(1):66–69, (1966).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Woodwell, G. M., C. F. Wurster, Jr. and P. A. Isaacson. “DDT Residues in an East Coast Estuary: A Case of Biological Concentration of a Persistent Insecticide,” Science, 156:821–824 (1967).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Godsil, P. J. and W. C. Johnson. “Residues in Fish, Wildlife, and Estuaries,” Pesticides Monitoring Journal, 1(4):21–26, (1968).Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kneip, T. J., unpublished data (1969).Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hannerz, L. “Experimental Investigations on the Accumulation of Mercury Compounds in Water Organisms,” Rep. Inst. Freshwater Res., 48:120, (1968).Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Johnels, A. G., M. Olsson and T. Westermark. “Esox Lucius and Some Other Organisms as Indicators of Mercury Contamination in Swedish Lakes and Rivers,” Bull. Office Int. Epiz., 69(1439), (1968).Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Lentsch, J. W., T. J. Kheip, M. E. Wrenn, G. P. Howells and M. Eisenbud. “Stable Manganese and Manganese-54 Distributions in the Physical and Biological Components of the Hudson River Estuary,” Proc. Thitfd National Symposium on Radioecology, Oak Ridge (in press, 1972).Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Wilber, C. G. The Biological Aspects of Water Pollution, Charles C. Thomas, Springfield, Illinois, 216, (1969).Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Prytherch, H. F. “The Role of Copper in the Setting, Metamorphosis and Distribution of the American Oyster,” Ostrea virginica. Ecological Monographs, 4(1):47–107, (1934).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Wrenn, M. E., J. W. Lentsch, M. Eisenbud, G. J. Lauer and G. P. Howells. “Radiocesium Distribution in Water, Sediment, and Biota in the Hudson River Estuary from 1964 through 1970,” Proc. Third National Symposium on Radioecology, Oak Ridge (in press, 1972).Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Ljunggren, K., B. Sjostrand, A. G. Johnels, M. Olsson, G. Otterlind and T. Westermark. “Activation Analysis of Mercury and Other Environmental Pollutants in Water and Aquatic Ecosystems,” Nuclear Techniques in Environmental Pollution, Proceedings of a Symposium, Salzburg, 26–30 October, 1970, International Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna, (1971).Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Noshkin, V. E. “Ecological Aspects of Plutonium Dissemination in Aquatic Environments; What Has Pu Data to Tell us About other Transuranics,” Presented at the 11th Hanford Biology Symposium, The Biological Implications of the Transuranium Elements,” Richland, Washington, 26–29 September, 1971 (In press).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Press, New York 1973

Authors and Affiliations

  • Theo. J. Kneip
    • 1
  • Gerald J. Lauer
    • 1
  1. 1.New York University Medical CenterNew YorkUSA

Personalised recommendations