Skip to main content

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 BMFTLs (fish–fish) from literature

From: 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

Sample PBDE (sum WFD relevant congeners) [µg kg−1 ww] PFOS [µg kg−1 ww]
BMFTL: 4.54a TMF: 2.25b BMFTL: 0.82c TMF: 2.60d
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
  1. In Italics: Factors between minimum and maximum concentrations for the respective sample set
  2. aArithmetic mean fish–fish BMFTL based on lipid-normalized data of Pérez-Fuentetaja et al. [43], recalculated according to [11]
  3. bGeometric mean TMF for BDE 47 [20, 42, 43]
  4. cArithmetic mean fish–fish BMFTL based on wet weight data of Houde et al. [40], recalculated according to [11]
  5. dGeometric mean TMF for stream ecosystems [33, 58]