Selection and application of trophic magnification factors for priority substances to normalize freshwater fish monitoring data under the European Water Framework Directive: a case study

Environmental Sciences Europe

Table 4 Comparison of TL 4 normalized PBDE and PFOS concentrations (µg kg⁻¹ wet weight) in fillet (F) of fish from the rivers Moselle (M) and Havel (H) using field-derived TMFs and BMF_TLs (fish–fish) from literature

Sample	PBDE (sum WFD relevant congeners) [µg kg⁻¹ ww]		PFOS [µg kg⁻¹ ww]
Sample	BMF_TL: 4.54^a	TMF: 2.25^b	BMF_TL: 0.82^c	TMF: 2.60^d
Moselle, fillet
Chub 1 M F	5.65	2.61	4.28	15.2
Chub 2 M F	5.58	2.77	3.99	12.6
Roach 1 M F	1.36	0.68	3.61	11.4
Roach 2 M F	2.54	1.35	3.53	10.0
Perch 1 M F	1.58	1.47	10.9	12.2
Perch 2 M F	1.76	1.53	14.6	18.4
Factor max/min	4.15	4.10	4.14	1.85
Havel, fillet
Roach 1 H F	0.72	0.44	1.36	3.05
Roach 2 H F	2.35	1.34	1.54	3.87
Bream 1 H F	2.01	0.93	3.83	13.6
Bream 2 H F	1.63	0.87	3.88	11.0
Perch 1 H F	0.22	0.19	12.9	16.2
Perch 2 H F	0.18	0.18	16.0	16.0
Factor max/min	13.4	7.62	11.8	5.33

In Italics: Factors between minimum and maximum concentrations for the respective sample set
^aArithmetic mean fish–fish BMF_TL based on lipid-normalized data of Pérez-Fuentetaja et al. [43], recalculated according to [11]
^bGeometric mean TMF for BDE 47 [20, 42, 43]
^cArithmetic mean fish–fish BMF_TL based on wet weight data of Houde et al. [40], recalculated according to [11]
^dGeometric mean TMF for stream ecosystems [33, 58]