, Volume 25, Issue 6, pp 1136–1149 | Cite as

Relating fish health and reproductive metrics to contaminant bioaccumulation at the Tennessee Valley Authority Kingston coal ash spill site

  • Brenda M. Pracheil
  • S. Marshall Adams
  • Mark S. Bevelhimer
  • Allison M. Fortner
  • Mark S. GreeleyJr.
  • Cheryl A. Murphy
  • Teresa J. Mathews
  • Mark J. Peterson


A 4.1 million m3 coal ash release into the Emory and Clinch rivers in December 2008 at the Tennessee Valley Authority’s Kingston Fossil Plant in east Tennessee, USA, prompted a long-term, large-scale biological monitoring effort to determine if there are chronic effects of this spill on resident biota. Because of the magnitude of the ash spill and the potential for exposure to coal ash-associated contaminants [e.g., selenium (Se), arsenic (As), and mercury (Hg)] which are bioaccumulative and may present human and ecological risks, an integrative, bioindicator approach was used. Three species of fish were monitored—bluegill (Lepomis macrochirus), redear sunfish (L. microlophus), and largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides)—at ash-affected and reference sites annually for 5 years following the spill. On the same individual fish, contaminant burdens were measured in various tissues, blood chemistry parameters as metrics of fish health, and various condition and reproduction indices. A multivariate statistical approach was then used to evaluate relationships between contaminant bioaccumulation and fish metrics to assess the chronic, sub-lethal effects of exposure to the complex mixture of coal ash-associated contaminants at and around the ash spill site. This study suggests that while fish tissue concentrations of some ash-associated contaminants are elevated at the spill site, there was no consistent evidence of compromised fish health linked with the spill. Further, although relationships between elevated fillet burdens of ash-associated contaminants and some fish metrics were found, these relationships were not indicative of exposure to coal ash or spill sites. The present study adds to the weight of evidence from prior studies suggesting that fish populations have not incurred significant biological effects from spilled ash at this site: findings that are relevant to the current national discussions on the safe disposal of coal ash waste.


Coal-ash Fish Fish health Bioaccumulation Contaminant Arsenic Mercury Selenium 



This research was sponsored by the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) and performed at Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL). ORNL is managed by UT-Battelle, for the US Department of Energy under Contract DE-AC05-00OR22725. Accordingly, the United States Government retains and the publisher, by accepting the article for publication, acknowledges that the United States Government retains a non-exclusive, paid-up, irrevocable, world-wide license to publish or reproduce the published form of this manuscript, or allow others to do so, for United States Government purposes. Special thanks to C. Brandt, J. Smith, K. McCracken, C. Dunn, R. Vitale, K. Abbot, E. Rodgers, B. Rogers, M. Cagley, T. Baker, and N. Carriker.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

This study was funded by the Tennessee Valley Authority. All authors declare that they have no conflict of interest

Animal consent

All applicable international, national, and institutional guidelines for the care and use of animals were followed.

Supplementary material

10646_2016_1668_MOESM1_ESM.docx (1.6 mb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 1670 kb)
10646_2016_1668_MOESM2_ESM.xlsx (134 kb)
Supplementary material 2 (XLSX 133 kb)


  1. Adams SM, Greeley MS (2000) Ecotoxicological indicators of water quality: using multi-response indicators to assess the health of aquatic ecosystems. Water Air Soil Pollut 123(1–4):103–115CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ankley GT, Bennett RS, Erickson RJ, Hoff DJ, Hornung MW, Johnson RD, Serrrano JA (2010) Adverse outcome pathways: a conceptual framework to support ecotoxicology research and risk assessment. Environ Toxicol Chem 29(3):730–741CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bartov G, Deonarine A, Johnson TM, Ruhl L, Vengosh A, Hsu-Kim H (2012) Environmental impacts of the Tennessee Valley Authority Kingston coal ash spill. 1. Source apportionment using mercury stable isotopes. Environ Sci Technol 47(4):2092–2099CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Barwick M, Maher W (2003) Biotransference and biomagnification of selenium copper, cadmium, zinc, arsenic and lead in a temperate seagrass ecosystem from Lake Macquarie Estuary, NSW, Australia. Mar Environ Res 56(4):471–502CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Beck ML, Hopkins WA, Hallagan JJ, Jackson BP, Hawley DM (2014) Exposure to residual concentrations of elements from a remediated coal fly ash spill does not adversely influence stress and immune responses of nestling tree swallows. Conserva Physiol. doi: 10.1093/conphys/cou018 Google Scholar
  6. Bevelhimer MS, Adams SM, Fortner AM, Greeley MS, Brandt CC (2014) Using ordination and clustering techniques to assess multi-metric fish health response following a coal ash spill. Environ Toxicol Chem 33(8):1903–1913CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bryan AL Jr., Hopkins WA, Parikh JH, Jackson BP, Unrine JM (2012) Coal fly ash basins as an attractive nuisance to birds: parental provisioning exposes nestlings to harmful trace elements. Environ Pollut 161:170–177CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Deonarine A, Bartov G, Johnson TM, Ruhl L, Vengosh A, Hsu-Kim H (2013) Environmental impacts of the Tennessee Valley Authority Kingston coal ash spill. 2. Effect of coal ash on methylmercury in historically contaminated river sediments. Environ Sci Technol 47(4):2100–2108CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Etnier DA, Starnes WC (1994) Fishes of Tennessee. University of Tennessee Press, Knoxville, p 696Google Scholar
  10. Gillespie RB, Baumann PC (1986) Effects of high tissue concentrations of selenium on reproduction by bluegills. Trans Am Fish Soc 115(2):208–213CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Greeley MS Jr., Adams M, McCracken K (2012) Evaluating the effects of the Kingston fly ash release on fish reproduction: spring 2009–2010 Studies (No. ORNL/TM-2012/142). Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL), Oak RidgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Greeley MS Jr., Elmore LR, McCracken MK, Sherrard RM (2014) Effects of sediment containing coal ash from the kingston ash release on embryo-larval development in the Fathead minnow, Pimephales promelas (Rafinesque, 1820). Bull Environ Contam Toxicol 92(2):154–159CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hammerschmidt CR, Sandheinrich MB (2005) Maternal diet during oogenesis is the major source of methylmercury in fish embryos. Environ Sci Technol 39(10):3580–3584CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Jacobasch C, Völker C, Giebner S, Völker J, Alsenz H, Potouridis T, Heidenreich H, Kayser G, Oehlmann J, Oetken M (2014) Long-term effects of nanoscaled titanium dioxide on the cladoceran Daphnia magna over six generations. Environ Pollut 186:180–186CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. King KA, Custer TW, Weaver DA (1994) Reproductive success of barn swallows nesting near a selenium-contaminated lake in east Texas. USA Environ Pollut 84(1):53–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Lemly AD (1993) Teratogenic effects of selenium in natural populations of fresh water fish. Ecotoxicol Environ Saf 26(2):181–204CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Lemly AD (2002) Symptoms and implications of selenium toxicity in fish: the Belews Lake case example. Aquat Toxicol 57:39–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Lemly AD (2014) Teratogenic effects and monetary cost of selenium poisoning of fish in Lake Sutton, North Carolina. Ecotoxicol Environ Saf 104:160–167CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Lemly AD, Skorupa JP (2013) Wildlife and the coal waste policy debate: proposed rules for coal waste disposal ignore lessons from 45 years of wildlife poisoning. Environ Sci Technol 46(16):8595–8600CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Lohner TW, Reash RJ, Willet VE, Fletcher J (2001) Assessment of tolerant sunfish populations (Lepomis sp.) inhabiting selenium-laden coal ash effluents: 3. Serum chemistry and fish health indicators. Ecotoxicol Environ Saf 50(3):225–232CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Mathews TJ, Fortner AM, Jett RT, Morris J, Gable J, Peterson MJ, Carriker N (2014) Selenium bioaccumulation in fish exposed to coal ash at the Tennessee Valley Authority Kingston spill site. Environ Toxicol Chem 33(10):2273–2279CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Otter RR, Hayden M, Mathews T, Fortner A, Bailey FC (2013) The use of tetragnathid spiders as bioindicators of metal exposure at a coal ASH spill site. Environ Toxicol Chem 32(9):2065–2068CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Peterson MJ, Southworth GR, Crumby WD (1996) Monitoring mercury in fish in a stream system receiving multiple industrial inputs. Environ Monit Assess 40(1):91–105CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Pracheil BM, Hogan JD, Lyons J, McIntyre PB (2014) Using hard-part microchemistry to advance conservation and management of North American freshwater fishes. Fisheries 39(10):451–465CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Rose KA (2000) Why are quantitative relationships between environmental quality and fish populations so elusive? Ecol Appl 10(2):367–385CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Ruhl L, Vengosh A, Dwyer GS, Hsu-Kim H, Deonarine A, Bergin M, Kravchenko J (2009) Survey of the potential environmental and health impacts in the immediate aftermath of the coal ash spill in Kingston, Tennessee. Environ Sci Technol 43(16):6326–6333CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Ruhl L, Vengosh A, Dwyer GS, Hsu-Kim H, Deonarine A (2010) Environmental impacts of the coal ash spill in Kingston, Tennessee: an 18-month survey. Environ Sci Technol 44(24):9272–9278CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Sackett DK, Aday DD, Rice JA, Cope WG, Buchwalter D (2010) Does proximity to coal-fired power plants influence fish tissue mercury? Ecotoxicology 19(8):1601–1611CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Southworth GR, Peterson MJ, Ryon MG (2000) Long-term increased bioaccumulation of mercury in largemouth bass follows reduction of waterborne selenium. Chemosphere 41(7):1101–1105CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Souza MJ, Ramsay EC, Donnell RL (2013) Metal accumulation and health effects in raccoons (Procyon lotor) associated with coal fly ash exposure. Arch Environ Contam Toxicol 64(4):529–536CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Stewart R, Grosell M, Buchwalter D, Fisher N, Luoma S, Mathews T, Orr P, Wang W (2010) Bioaccumulation and trophic transfer of selenium. SETAC Pellston workshop. CRC Press, pp 93–139Google Scholar
  32. Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) (2009) Continuing investigation of the nature and extent of ash in the Emory, Clinch and Tennessee River bottoms. Tennessee Valley Authority, KnoxvilleGoogle Scholar
  33. Tsui MT, Wang WX (2005) Influences of maternal exposure on the tolerance and physiological performance of Daphnia magna under mercury stress. Environ Toxicol Chem 24(5):1228–1234CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) (2012) Hazard Ranking System (HRS) Documentation Record for Clinch River Corporation, Atlanta. Accessed 1 Mar 2014
  35. Völker C, Oetken M, Oehlmann J (2013) The biological effects and possible modes of action of nanosilver. In: Whitacre DM (ed) Reviews of environmental contamination and toxicology, vol 223. Springer, New York, pp 81–106Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York (outside the USA) 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Brenda M. Pracheil
    • 1
  • S. Marshall Adams
    • 1
  • Mark S. Bevelhimer
    • 1
  • Allison M. Fortner
    • 1
  • Mark S. GreeleyJr.
    • 1
  • Cheryl A. Murphy
    • 2
  • Teresa J. Mathews
    • 1
  • Mark J. Peterson
    • 1
  1. 1.Environmental Sciences DivisionOak Ridge National LaboratoryOak RidgeUSA
  2. 2.Department of Fisheries and Wildlife, Lyman Briggs CollegeMichigan State UniversityEast LansingUSA

Personalised recommendations