INSPEC25441 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

species richness and stem density than did mid-summer applications. Taken together, the two studies suggest that effects of the chemicals may vary with moisture availability. Acute toxicity of three fire-retazdant and two fire-suppressant foam formulations to the early life stages of rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss). Gaikowski, M. P., Hamilton, S. J., Buhl, K. J., McDonald, S. F., and Summers, C. Environ-toxicol-chem. 15: 8 pp.1365-1374. (Aug 1996). NAL Call #: QH545.A1E58 Descriptors: fire-retardants; formulations; toxicity; rainbow-trout; developmental- stages; adverse-effects; mortality; susceptibility; water-quality; water; abnormal- behavior; ammonia; nitrate-nitrogen; nitrites; concentration; toxicology; testing; aquatic-environment; hard-water; soft-water Abstract: Laboratory studies were conducted with five early life stages of rainbow trout, Oncorhynchus mykiss, to determine the acute toxicities of five fire-fighting chemical formulations in standazdized soft and hard water. Eyed egg, embryo larvae, swim-up fry, and 60- and 90-d posthatch juveniles were exposed to three fire retardants (Fire-Trol LCG-R, Fire-Trol GTS-R, and Phos-Chek D75-F) and two fire-suppressant foams (Phos-Chek WD-881 and Sily-Ex). Swim-up fry were generally the most sensitive life stage, whereas the eyed-egg was the least sensitive. Toxicity offire-fighting formulations was greater in hard water than in soft water for all life stages tested with Fire-Trol CTS-R and Sily-Ex and for 90- d-old juveniles tested with Fire-Trol LCG-R. The fire-suppressant foams were more toxic than the fire retazdants. The 96-h median lethal concentrations (LCSOs) were ranked from the most toxic to the least toxic formulation as follows (ranges aze the lowest and highest 96-h LC50 calculated for each formulation): Phos-Chek WD-881 (I1-44 mg/L). Sily-Ex (11-78 mg/L), Phos-Chek D75-F (218->3,600 mg/L), Fire-Trol GTS-R (207->6,000 mg/L), and Fire-Trol LCG-R (872->10,000 mg/L). Toxicity values suggest that accidental entry offire-fighting chemicals into aquatic environments could adversely affect fish populations. My conclusion is that all of the analytical data is valid and the results show that there was no mass contamination of the Dry Fork or Minnesota Creeks. The amount of SILV-EX (and its potentially hazazdous compound Butyl Carbitol) spilled was not enough to cause any hazazds to health or environment. The flow of the creeks was enough to dilute the SILV-EX to undetectable levels even if they were sampled immediately after the spill. The foam, while possibly unsightly and a "nuisance", was not a health or environmental problem, either. Please let me know if you have any questions or need any additional information. cc: Sandy Brown Tom Kaldenbach