Table 3 TMFs of WFD PS selected for TL 4 normalization of fish monitoring data from rivers Moselle and Havel
| Substance | TMF | Rationale for selection |
TMF data selected from Table 2 (R2 and p, if given in the source) | Analyzed food web | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ∑6 PBDE |
2.25 Lipid-based | Geometric mean TMF for BDE 47 (“worst case” TMF) |
4.2 (R2 = 0.65 p = 0.02) |
Lentic, pelagic: fish only1 TL range: ≈ 3.5–4.9 | [43] |
|
6.34 ± 1.19 – |
Lentic, pelagic: plankton, invertebrates, fish2 TL range: 1.7–4.6 | [20] | |||
|
2.11 (R2 = 0.2321; p = 0.0127) |
Lentic, pelagic: fish only3 TL range: ≈ 2.8–4.9 | [42] | |||
|
0.46 (R2 = 0.2234; p = 0.0024) |
Lentic, pelagic: fish only4 TL range ≈ 3.0–4.6 | [42] | |||
| HCB |
2.24 Lipid-based | Geometric mean TMF (based on fish fillet) |
2.4 (R2 = 0.31; p < 0.01) |
Lentic, pelagic: plankton, fish5 TL: 1.0–3.9 | [49] |
|
2.1 ± 1.8 – |
Lentic, pelagic: plankton, fish6 TL range: ≈ 1.0–6.2, depending on lake | [50] | |||
| PCDD/F + dl-PCB |
2.96 Lipid-based | TMF for PCB 126 as highest contributing dl-PCB |
2.96 – |
Lentic, benthopelagic: plankton, invertebrates, fish7 δ15N-range: 8.1–17.6 | [51] |
| HBCDD |
2.23 Lipid-based | TMF for sum HBCDD |
2.23 (R2 = 0.3202; p = 0.0026) |
Lentic, pelagic: fish only3 TL range: ≈ 2.8–4.9 | [42] |
| PFOS |
2.60 ww-based | Geometric mean TMF for stream ecosystems |
1.5 – |
Lotic, benthopelagic: biofilm–macrophytes–invertebrates–fish8 TL range: 1.0–3.5 | [33] |
|
2.4–4.1 (geometric mean 2.90) |
Lotic, benthopelagic: invertebrates–fish9 TL range: 1.4–5.4 depending on site | [58] | |||
| Hg |
4.73 ww-based | Geometric mean TMF for stream ecosystems (based on fish fillet) | 3.9–5.4 |
Lotic, benthopelagic: biofilm –invertebrates–fish (one species)10 TL range: ≈ 1–5 | [41] recalculated to wet weight by [14] |