Advertisement

Development and testing of a prototype tool for integrated assessment of chemical status in marine environments

  • Jesper H. Andersen
  • Ciarán Murray
  • Martin M. Larsen
  • Norman Green
  • Tore Høgåsen
  • Elin Dahlgren
  • Galina Garnaga-Budrė
  • Kim Gustavson
  • Michael Haarich
  • Emilie M.F. Kallenbach
  • Jaakko Mannio
  • Jakob Strand
  • Samuli Korpinen
Article

Abstract

We report the development and application of a prototype tool for integrated assessment of chemical status in aquatic environments based on substance- and matrix-specific environmental assessment criteria (thresholds). The Chemical Status Assessment Tool (CHASE) integrates data on hazardous substances in water, sediments and biota as well as bio-effect indicators and is based on a substance- or bio-effect-specific calculation of a ‘contamination ratio’ being the ratio between an observed concentration and a threshold value. Values <1.0 indicate areas potentially ‘unaffected’, while values >1.0 indicate areas potentially ‘affected’. These ratios are combined within matrices, i.e. for water, sediment and biota and for biological effects. The overall assessment used a ‘one out, all out principle’ with regard to each matrix. The CHASE tool was tested in the Baltic Sea and the North Sea in 376 assessment units. In the former, the chemical status was >1.0 in practically all areas indicating that all areas assessed were potentially affected. The North Sea included areas classified as unaffected or affected. The CHASE tool can in combination with temporal trend assessments of individual substances be advantageous for use in remedial action plans and, in particular, for the science-based evaluation of the status and for determining which specific substances are responsible for a status as potentially affected.

Keywords

Chemical status Contaminants Hazardous substances Monitoring Assessment Integration Water framework directive Marine strategy framework directive 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This work is funded via the HELCOM HOLAS project (EU HOLAS 21.0401/2008/513749/SUB/D2 and Swedish EPA), the HARMONY project (Danish Nature Agency, Swedish EPA, Norwegian NEA and German EPA), EMODnet Chemistry and the DEVOTES project (grant agreement no. 308392 under the 7th Framework Programme, ‘The Ocean of Tomorrow’ Theme). Special thanks are given to Katja Broeg, Britta Sundelin, Thomas Lang and Doris Schiedek for support with biological effect indicators. Also, special thanks are given to Anna Olszewska, Petriina Köngäs, Petra Ringeltaube, Rolf Schneider, Henry Vallius and Matti Verta for support with national data. Thanks are also due to Morten Bjergstrøm, Ulrich Claussen, Jacob Hagberg, Marianne Kroglund, Maria Laamanen, Flemming Møhlenberg and Johnny Reker.

Supplementary material

10661_2016_5121_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (4.1 mb)
ESM 1 (PDF 4181 kb)

References

  1. Andersen, J. H., Murray, C., Kaartokallio, H., Axe, P., & Molvær, J. (2010). A simple method for confidence rating of eutrophication status assessments. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 60, 919–924.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Andersen, J. H., Axe, P., Backer, H., Carstensen, J., Claussen, U., Fleming-Lehtinen, V., Järvinen, M., Kaartokallio, H., Knuuttila, S., Korpinen, S., Laamanen, M., Lysiak-Pastuszak, E., Martin, G., Møhlenberg, F., Murray, C., Nausch, G., Norkko, A., & Villnäs, A. (2011). Getting the measure of eutrophication in the Baltic Sea: towards improved assessment principles and methods. Biogeochemistry, 106, 137–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Andersen, J. H., Stock, A., (eds.), Heinänen, S., Mannerla, M., & Vinther, M. (2013). Human uses, pressures and impacts in the eastern North Sea. Aarhus University, DCE—Danish Centre for Environment and Energy. Technical Report from DCE—Danish Centre for Environment and Energy No. 18. 134 pp. http://www2.dmu.dk/Pub/TR18.pdf
  4. Andersen, J. H., Dahl, K., Göke, C., Hartvig, M., Murray, C., Rindorf, A., Skov, H., Vinther, M., Korpinen, S. (2014). Integrated assessment of marine biodiversity status using a prototype indicator-based assessment tool. Frontiers in Marine Science. http://journal.frontiersin.org/Journal/10.3389/fmars.2014.00055/abstract
  5. Anon. (2000). Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000 establishing a framework for community action in the field of water policy.Google Scholar
  6. Anon. (2008). Directive 2008/56/EC of the European Parliament and the Council of 17 June 2008 establishing a framework for community action in the field of marine environmental policy (Marine Strategy Framework Directive). Official Journal of the European Union, L 164/19, 25.06.2008.Google Scholar
  7. Anon. (2013). Directive 2013/39/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 August 2013 amending Directives 2000/60/EC and 2008/105/EC as regards priority substances in the field of water policy. Official Journal of the European Union, L 226/1, 24.8.2013.Google Scholar
  8. Anon. (2014). Technical report on aquatic effect-based monitoring tools. Technical Report - 2014 – 077, Environment. European Commission, 159 pp.Google Scholar
  9. Borja, A., Prins, T., Simboura, N., Andersen, J. H., Berg, T., Marques, J. C., Neto, J. M., Papadopoulou, N., Reker, J., Teixeira, H., & Uusitalo, L. (2014). Tales from a thousand and one ways to integrate marine ecosystem components when assessing the environmental status. Frontiers in Marine Science, 1, 22. doi: 10.3389/fmars.2014.00022.
  10. Broeg, K., & Lehtonen, K. K. (2006). Indices for the assessment of environmental pollution of the Baltic Sea coasts: integrated assessment of a multi-biomarker approach. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 53, 508–522.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Celander, M. (2011). Cocktail effects on biomarker responses in fish. Aquatic Toxicology, 105(3–4), 72–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. EEA. (2011). Hazardous substances in Europe’s fresh and marine waters. An overview. EEA Technical report No. 8/2011. European Environment Agency. 61 pp.Google Scholar
  13. HELCOM. (2007). Baltic Sea action plan. Helsinki Commission, 101 pp.Google Scholar
  14. HELCOM. (2010a). Hazardous substances in the Baltic Sea—an integrated thematic assessment of hazardous substances in the Baltic Sea. Baltic Sea Environment Proceedings, 120B, 1–116.Google Scholar
  15. HELCOM. (2010b). Ecosystem health of the Baltic Sea 2003-2007: HELCOM initial holistic assessment. Baltic Sea Environment Proceedings, 122, 1–63.Google Scholar
  16. HELCOM. (2014). Manual for marine monitoring in the COMBINE programme of HELCOM. Available at: http://www.helcom.fi/action-areas/monitoring-and-assessment/manuals-and-guidelines/.
  17. Höher, N., Köhler, A., Strand, J., & Broeg, K. (2012). Effects of various pollutant mixtures on immune responses of the blue mussel (Mytilus edulis) collected at a salinity gradient in Danish coastal waters. Marine Environmental Research, 75, 35–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hutchinson, T. H., Lyons, B. P., Thain, J. E., & Law, R. J. (2013). Evaluating legacy contaminants and emerging chemicals in marine environments using adverse outcome pathways and biological effects-directed analysis. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 74(2), 517–525.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Korpinen, S., Meski, L., Andersen, J. H., & Laamanen, M. (2012). Human pressures and their potential impact on the Baltic Sea ecosystem. Ecological Indicators, 15, 105–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Law, R., Hanke, G., Angelidis, M., Batty, J., Bignert, A., Dachs, J., Davies, I., Denga, Y., Duffek, A., et al. (2010). Marine Strategy Framework Directive Task Group 8 report: contaminants and pollution effects. JRC Scientific and Technical Reports, 58087.Google Scholar
  21. Lehtonen, K. K., Sundelin, B., Lang, T., & Strand, J. (2014). Development of tools for integrated monitoring and assessment of hazardous substances and their biological effects in the Baltic Sea. Ambio, 43, 69–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Long, E. R., & Morgan, L. G. (1990). The Potential for biological effects of sediment-sorbed contaminants tested in the national status and trends program. NOAA Technical Memorandum NOS OMA 52, Seattle, WA. 175 pp incl. appendices.Google Scholar
  23. OSPAR. (2009). Assessment of trends and concentrations of selected hazardous substances in sediments and biota. CEMP Assessment Report 2008/2009. Monitoring and Assessment Series 390. 80 pp.Google Scholar
  24. OSPAR. (2010). Quality status report 2010. OSPAR Commission. Available at: www.ospar.org.
  25. Reynolds, S., Hill, A. (2002). ‘Cocktail’ effects—stirred not shaken….yet. Pesticide Outlook, October 2002, 209-213.Google Scholar
  26. Tomlinson, D. L., Wilson, J. G., Harris, C. R., & Jefrey, D. W. (1980). Problems in the assessment of heavy-metal levels in estuaries and the formation of a pollution index. Helgoländer Meeresuntersuchungen, 33, 566–575.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jesper H. Andersen
    • 1
    • 2
  • Ciarán Murray
    • 3
  • Martin M. Larsen
    • 3
  • Norman Green
    • 4
  • Tore Høgåsen
    • 4
  • Elin Dahlgren
    • 5
  • Galina Garnaga-Budrė
    • 6
    • 7
  • Kim Gustavson
    • 3
  • Michael Haarich
    • 8
  • Emilie M.F. Kallenbach
    • 1
  • Jaakko Mannio
    • 9
  • Jakob Strand
    • 3
  • Samuli Korpinen
    • 2
  1. 1.NIVA Denmark Water ResearchCopenhagen SDenmark
  2. 2.Marine Research Centre, SYKEHelsinkiFinland
  3. 3.Department of BioscienceAarhus UniversityRoskildeDenmark
  4. 4.Norwegian Institute for Water Research (NIVA)OsloNorway
  5. 5.Swedish Environmental Protection AgencyStockholmSweden
  6. 6.Marine Research DepartmentEnvironmental Protection AgencyKlaipėdaLithuania
  7. 7.Department of Biology and EcologyKlaipėda UniversityKlaipėdaLithuania
  8. 8.Thünen Institute of Fisheries EcologyHamburgGermany
  9. 9.Centre for Sustainable Consumption and Production, SYKEHelsinkiFinland

Personalised recommendations