Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> <br />Cadmium. - Hem [3] notes that the concentrations <br />of cadmium in water is small, with most studies [7,9], <br />reporting concentrations generally below 0.010 mg/I, <br />which is the upper limit of cadmium recommended by <br />the U.S.PHS5. The results of this study are consistent <br />with these reported results. Inspection of the data <br />tables indicates that most samples yielded cadmium <br />values below the detectable limit of about 0.001 mg/1. <br />The highest value obtained in the dissolved fraction was <br />a spurious 0.049 mg/I obtained at site B-3 metre in <br />August 1975. The highest monthly average was 0.011 <br />:t 0.001 mg/I obtained in May 1975. This is above the <br />maximum permissible limit for drinking water [14]. <br />These values were not, however, characteristic of the <br />reservoir at any other time. The average for the sus- <br />pended cadmium was below detectable limits. Kopp <br />and Kroner [9] reported no instances of detection of <br />cadmium in the suspended fraction and detected cad- <br />mium in only 3 percent of the dissolved samples. These <br />detectable instances provided a mean of 0.0095 mg/1. <br /> <br />Cadmium was detected in nearly all the sediments, <br />averaging 4.2 :t 1.4 mg/I in the pre-impoundment flood <br />plain and 4.4 :t 1.1 mg/I in the reservoir. Again, how- <br />ever, site F yielded sediments with a slightly higher <br />cadmium content of 6.1 mg/I, which points to possible <br />cadmium loading in the sediments in that area. <br /> <br />Mercury, - Mercury like lead, cadmium, and arsenic <br />was included in this study because of its potential del- <br />eterious effect on publ ic health. Hem [3] noted that <br />very few natural waters contain detectable concentra- <br />tions of mercury. That statement was made before the <br />development and widespread use of the flameless AA <br />method for the analysis of mercury. In this study mer- <br />cury levels as low as 0.01 /1g/1 were detected in labora- <br />tory analyses. The highest concentration measured was <br />0.54/1g/1 in August 1974, at the inlet of the reservoir. <br />Approximately half the samples analyzed for dissolved <br />mercury showed detectable levels. Most of those show- <br />ing detectable levels were below 1 /1g/1. The mean for <br />all samples collected in the pool was 0.02 :t 0,01 /1g/1 <br />and 0.02 :!; 0.3 /1g/l, respectively, for the two sampling <br />years. The reservoir inlet averaged higher during the <br />first year at 0.01 :t 0.02 /1g/1 and lower in the second <br />year at less than detectable limits. The high average <br />month was December 1975, at 0,07 :!; 0.11 /1g/1 and <br />low average was less than detectable limits which oc- <br />curred during several months. No discernible trends <br /> <br />5 "Drinking Water Standards," Title 42-Public Health; <br />Chapter 1-Public Health Service, Dept. of Health, Edu- <br />cation and Welfare; Part 72, Interstate Quarantine, Fed- <br />eral Register 2152, March 6, 1962. <br /> <br />were noted. Durum, et al. 10] detected mercury in <br />only 7 percent of their sa pies (detectable limit, 0.1 <br />/1g/I). The highest value 0 tained was 4.3 /1g/1. All <br />three Arkansas River samplin sites yield concentrations <br />< 0.1 /1g/1. <br /> <br />Silver. - Solubility relations ips indicate that silver con- <br />centrations in natural water hould be between 0.0001 <br />and 10 mg/l [3]. Data on ublic water supplies show <br />a median concentration of .0002 mg/l and in rivers <br />about 0.0001 mg/1. The dat from this study appear to <br />be in this range, varying fr m nondetectable concen- <br />trations < 0.001 mg/I (actu Iy about 0.0002 mg/l) for <br />most samples up to a maxim m concentration of 0.009 <br />mg/I at site E-surface in Jun 1974. There were many <br />more samples that had dete table levels of silver than <br />appear in the computer ge erated tables because the <br />program was designed to pint 0.0 for any value that <br />was fed in as < 0.001, The ilver data could be statis- <br />tically refined. <br /> <br />Arsenic. - Kopp and Kro er [9] detected levels of <br />arsenic in 5.5 percent of th samples collected in lakes <br />and rivers nationwide over 5-year period at a 0.01 <br />mg/I detection level. Duru ,et al. [10] reported that <br />79 percent of 727 samples ollected nationwide con- <br />tained less than 0.010 mg/. At the Arkansas River <br />Pueblo waterworks site, ar enic was not detectable, <br />Only 2 percent of the sampls had more than the 0.050 <br />mg/l U.S.PHS maximum per issible limit. In this study, <br />samples were not as frequen Iy analyzed for arsenic as <br />for the other parameter; ho ever, the results indicate <br />that in most cases the disso ved arsenic concentration <br />was less than the detectable limit of 0.003 mg/1. In the <br />first year of the sampling, arsenic averaged 0.001 :t <br />0.001 mg/I and less than dete table limits in the second. <br />The highest single value obta ned was 0.021 mg/I at the <br />C bottom site in October 19 4. <br /> <br />Sediment Chemistry <br /> <br />Additional statistical analy s of the data in table 4 <br />and more sediment samples nd analyses in the future <br />will be required before final conclusions can be drawn <br />regarding which parameters nd how much of each are <br />being unloaded in Pueblo R servoir as basin sediments. <br />The data generated to date show definite increases in <br />iron, manganese, and zinc i the reservoir sediments of <br />the variable inlet sites (E, F and G) compared to pre- <br />impoundment flood-plain se iments. In addition, mag- <br />nesium, copper, cadmium, a d lead concentrations ap- <br />pear to be increasing. <br /> <br />Recent inlet sediments (site E, F, and G, table 4) of <br />Pueblo Reservoir contained copper, iron, manganese, <br /> <br />30 <br />