Table 27. Organism absorb DDT from small concentrations in water and accumulate until a
balance between uptake and elimination is attained. As a concentration factor, one can determine
the relationship between the concentration in seawater and the concentration in the organism.
(Data from various authors, from Emst 1975a,b)
Organism tested
Lagodon. Micropogon
(brackish water fish)
Mya (clam)
Mercenaria (clam)
Nereis (polychaete)
Lanice (polychaete)
Penaeus (prawn)
Euphausia (plankton shrimp)
Cyclotella (diatom)
Skeletonema (diatom)
Amphidinium (peridinea)
Duration of
experiment
(in days)
14
5
5
5
5
5
31
3
3
3
13
0.1
Concentration of
Concentration factor
DDT in experimental (relative to wet weight)
water (p.g/l)
0.1-1.0
10,000-38,000
0.1
8,800
0.1
1,260
0.3
2,033
0.75
1,653
3.0
1,400
2.24
2,300
0.11
273
0.06
208
0.01
233
0.14
1,500
0.03
1,200
0.02
1,100
0.01
1,100
(relative to dry weight)
0.7
37,000
0.7
32,000
0.7
4,300
Approximately 60% of the DDT contained in their body is given off when the affec·
ted soles are kept in water that is free of DDT for two months. Accumulation and
elimination of DDT and other chlorinated hydrocarbons is, then, a complex interrelationship between harmful substances in water, in food, and in the organisms. This
explains, too, why animals living close together in the same region may have different
spectra of chlorinated hydrocarbon concentrations in their tissues: they all have different ways of feeding and they all come in different ways into contact with the
chlorinated hydrocarbons either in seawater, or adsorbed to suspended particles in
the seawater, or incorporated in their food (Fig. 66). In general predators, the higher
they are in the feeding hierarchy, show these higher concentrations of DDT and
PCB's.
But even with one organism, for example the mussel (Table 28), to date no one has
been able to establish with sufficient clarity the relationship between accumulation
under laboratory environments versus natural environments, which are much more
complicated.
127
balance between uptake and elimination is attained. As a concentration factor, one can determine
the relationship between the concentration in seawater and the concentration in the organism.
(Data from various authors, from Emst 1975a,b)
Organism tested
Lagodon. Micropogon
(brackish water fish)
Mya (clam)
Mercenaria (clam)
Nereis (polychaete)
Lanice (polychaete)
Penaeus (prawn)
Euphausia (plankton shrimp)
Cyclotella (diatom)
Skeletonema (diatom)
Amphidinium (peridinea)
Duration of
experiment
(in days)
14
5
5
5
5
5
31
3
3
3
13
0.1
Concentration of
Concentration factor
DDT in experimental (relative to wet weight)
water (p.g/l)
0.1-1.0
10,000-38,000
0.1
8,800
0.1
1,260
0.3
2,033
0.75
1,653
3.0
1,400
2.24
2,300
0.11
273
0.06
208
0.01
233
0.14
1,500
0.03
1,200
0.02
1,100
0.01
1,100
(relative to dry weight)
0.7
37,000
0.7
32,000
0.7
4,300
Approximately 60% of the DDT contained in their body is given off when the affec·
ted soles are kept in water that is free of DDT for two months. Accumulation and
elimination of DDT and other chlorinated hydrocarbons is, then, a complex interrelationship between harmful substances in water, in food, and in the organisms. This
explains, too, why animals living close together in the same region may have different
spectra of chlorinated hydrocarbon concentrations in their tissues: they all have different ways of feeding and they all come in different ways into contact with the
chlorinated hydrocarbons either in seawater, or adsorbed to suspended particles in
the seawater, or incorporated in their food (Fig. 66). In general predators, the higher
they are in the feeding hierarchy, show these higher concentrations of DDT and
PCB's.
But even with one organism, for example the mussel (Table 28), to date no one has
been able to establish with sufficient clarity the relationship between accumulation
under laboratory environments versus natural environments, which are much more
complicated.
127