Environmental Chemistry Letters

, Volume 2, Issue 2, pp 77–81 | Cite as

Bioavailability of hydrophobic organic contaminants and quality of organic carbon

  • Herbert L. Fredrickson
  • John Furey
  • Jeffrey W. Talley
  • Margaret Richmond
Original Paper

Abstract

U.S. laws require that contaminant bioaccumulation potential be evaluated before dredged material can be recycled. Simple fugacity models, e.g. organic contaminant aqueous partition coefficient (Koc)-derived theoretical bioaccumulation potential, are commonly used to estimate the partitioning of hydrophobic organic contaminants between sediment organic matter and organism lipid. Koc-derived models, with or without the addition of a soot carbon term, did not accurately or consistently predict total polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) and polychlorobiphenyls partitioning of eight sediments from ongoing dredging operations onto C18-coated filter paper. These models also failed to predict the partitioning of individual PAHs from these eight sediments. These data underscore the trade-offs between the ease of using simple models and the uncertainty of predicted partitioning values.

Keywords

Hydrophobic organic contaminants Fugacity Organic contaminant aqueous partition coefficient Total organic carbon Sediments Black carbon 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This work was funded by the Dredged Materials Program administered by the U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center, at Waterways Experiment Station in Vicksburg, Mississippi.

References

  1. Accardi-Dey A, Gschwend PM (2003) Reinterpreting literature sorption data considering both absorption into and adsorption onto black carbon. Environ Sci Technol 37:99–106CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Clarke J, McFarland VA (2000) Uncertainty analysis for equilibrium partitioning-based estimators of polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbon accumulation potential in sediment. Environ Toxicol Chem 19:360–376Google Scholar
  3. Karickhoff SW (1981) Semi-empirical estimation of sorption of hydrophobic pollutants on natural sediments and soils. Chemosphere 10:833–846CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Könemann H, van Leeuwen K (1980) Toxicokinetics in fish: accumultion and elimination of six chlorobenzenes by guppies. Chemosphere 9:3–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Kraaij R, Ciarelli S, Tolls J, Kater BJ, Belfroid A (2001) Bioavailability of lab-contaminated and native polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons to the amphipod Corophium volutator relates to chemical desorption. Environ Toxicol Chem 20:1716-1724PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Kraaij RH, Tolls J, Sijm D, Cornelissen G, Heikens A, Belfroid A (2002) Effects of contact time on the sequestration and bioavailability of different classes of hydrophobic organic chemical to benthic oligochaetes (Tubificidae). Environ Toxicol Chem 21:752-759PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Lovett-Doust J, Lovett-Doust L, Biernacki M, Mal TK, Lazar R (2002) Organic contaminant content of plant species in the Detroit River. Can J Fish Sci 54:2417–2427CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Mackay D, Paterson S (1981) Calculating fugacity. Environ Sci Technol 15:1006–1014Google Scholar
  9. Naes K, Hylland K, Oug E, Förlin L, Ericson G (1999) Accumulation and effects of aluminum smelter-generated polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons on soft-bottom invertebrates and fish. Environ Toxicol Chem 18:2205–2216Google Scholar
  10. National Research Council (2003) Bioavailability of contaminants in soils and sediments; Processes tools, and applications. National Academies Press, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
  11. Ringelberg DB, Talley JW, Perkins EJ, Tucker SG, Luthy RG, Bouwer EJ, Fredrickson HL (2001) Succession of phenotypic, genotypic, and metabolic community characteristics during in vitro bioslurry treatment of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon-contaminated sediments. Appl Environ Microbiol 67:1542–1550CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • Herbert L. Fredrickson
    • 1
  • John Furey
    • 1
  • Jeffrey W. Talley
    • 2
  • Margaret Richmond
    • 1
  1. 1.Environmental LaboratoryU.S. Army R&D CenterVicksburgU.S.A.
  2. 2.Deptartment of Civil Engineering and Geological SciencesUniversity of Notre DameNotre DameU.S.A

Personalised recommendations