Advertisement

Identifying contaminants of potential concern in remote headwater streams of Tennessee’s Appalachian Mountains

  • Connor I. Olson
  • Gale B. Beaubien
  • A. David McKinney
  • Ryan R. OtterEmail author
Article
  • 73 Downloads

Abstract

The susceptibility of Tennessee’s Appalachian Mountains to anthropogenic stressors has remained largely uninvestigated likely due to a lack of known point source contamination. However, a growing body of scientific evidence suggests that depositional inputs can lead to concerning levels of contamination, even in remote areas. To investigate potential concerns, water quality parameters, contaminants in water (nitrogen, TSS, and metals), and contaminants in eastern brook trout (mercury, polychlorinated biphenyls [PCBs], organochlorine [OC] pesticides, dioxins, furans, and phthalates) were measured in four Appalachian Mountain streams from 2015 to 2017. Concentrations were compared to literature and/or model-derived (e.g., biotic ligand model) threshold values to determine whether levels exceeded those acceptable for stream health. Dioxins and furans were detectable in fish tissue at all sites with an average 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodinbenzodioxin toxicity equivalence (TEQ) of 0.0015 ng/kg. Concentrations of PCBs, phthalates, and organochlorine pesticides were never above analytical quantitation limits, although several OC pesticides (e.g., alpha-chlordane) were detectable in fish. Aluminum concentrations in water were found at levels shown previously to cause mortality in brook trout during acidic rain events. The average whole-body methylmercury concentrations in fish among sites were 0.037 ± 0.003 μg/kg and were on average 75 ± 2% of total mercury.

Keywords

Water quality Biotic ligand model Metals Organic contaminants 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This work was conducted as part of The Tennessee’s Ecologically At-Risk Streams (TEARS) project, a multiagency effort designed to establish current contaminant levels and the susceptibility of headwater streams in Tennessee’s Appalachian Mountains. We would like to specifically thank Amber Hills, Jaylen Sims Andrew Todd, Will Collier, Jim Habera, Rob Lindbom, Matt Landis, Matt Kulp, Jim Herrig, Susan Lanier, Luz Maderal, and Bob Read for aiding with site establishment, sampling, and analytical logistics. We thank Richard Martin for providing geological surveys. A special thanks to Adam Ryan and Bob Santore of Windward Environmental for providing and running the BLMs used in this study and Eric VanGenderen for guidance on sampling design. All funding for this study was provided by the Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency.

Data accessibility

Please contact the corresponding author, Ryan R. Otter, at Ryan.Otter@mtsu.edu for any data not provided as supplemental data.

Supplementary material

10661_2019_7305_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (68 kb)
ESM 1 (PDF 68 kb)
10661_2019_7305_MOESM2_ESM.pdf (65 kb)
ESM 2 (PDF 64 kb)
10661_2019_7305_MOESM3_ESM.pdf (66 kb)
ESM 3 (PDF 66 kb)
10661_2019_7305_MOESM4_ESM.pdf (64 kb)
ESM 4 (PDF 63 kb)
10661_2019_7305_MOESM5_ESM.pdf (78 kb)
ESM 5 (PDF 77 kb)
10661_2019_7305_MOESM6_ESM.pdf (74 kb)
ESM 6 (PDF 73.5 kb)
10661_2019_7305_MOESM7_ESM.pdf (69 kb)
ESM 7 (PDF 68 kb)

References

  1. Addison, R. F., & Smith, T. G. (1974). Organochlorine residue levels in Arctic ringed seals: variation with age and sex. Oikos, 25(3), 335–337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Baldigo, B. P., & Murdoch, P. S. (1997). Effect of stream acidification and inorganic aluminum on mortality of brook trout (Salvelinus fontinalis) in the Catskill Mountain, New York. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 54, 603–615.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Brigham, M. E., Wentz, D. A., Aiken, G. R., & D. P. Krabbenhoft (2009). Mercury cycling in stream ecosystems. 1. Water column chemistry and transport. Environmental Science and Technology 43(8), 2720–2725.Google Scholar
  4. Campbell, P. G. C. (1995). Interactions between trace metals and aquatic organisms: a critique of the free-ion activity model. Metal Speciation and Bioavailability in Aquatic Systems. IUPAC, 1995.Google Scholar
  5. Chasar, L. C., Scudder, B. C., Stewart, A. R., Bell, A. H., & G.R. Aiken (2009). Mercury cycling in stream ecosystems. 3. Trophic dynamics and methylmercury. Environmental Science and Technology, 43(8), 2733–2739.Google Scholar
  6. DeForest, D. K., & Van Genderen, E. J. (2012). Application of US EPA guidelines in a bioavailability-based assessment of ambient water quality criteria for zinc in freshwater. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 31(6), 1264–1272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. DeForest, D. K., Santore, R., Ryan, A., Church, B., Chowdhury, M., & Brix, K. (2017). Development of biotic ligand model-based freshwater aquatic life criteria for lead following US Environmental Protection Agency guidelines. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 36(11), 2965–2973.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Dewailly, E., Nantel, A., Weber, J. P., & Meyer, F. (1989). High levels of PCBs in breast Milk of Inuit women from Arctic Quebec. Bulletin of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology, 43, 641–646.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Di Toro, D. M., Allen, H. E., Bergman, H. L., Meyer, J. S., Paquin, P. R., & Santore, R. C. (2001). Biotic ligand model of the acute toxicity of metals. 1. Technical basis. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 20(10), 2382–2396.Google Scholar
  10. Driscoll, C. T., Han, Y. J., Chen, C. Y., Evers, D. C., Lambert, K. F., Holsen, T. M., Kamman, N. C., & Munson, R. K. (2007). Mercury concentrations in forest and freshwater ecosystems in the Northeast United States. BioScience, 57(1), 17–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Erickson RJ, Benoit DA, Mattson VR, Nelson Jr. HP, and EN Leonard (1996). The effects of water chemistry on the toxicity of copper to fathead minnows. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 15(2): 181–193.Google Scholar
  12. Gensemer, R. W., Gondek, J. C., Rodriquez, P. H., Arbildua, J. J., Stubblefield, W. A., Cardwell, A. S., Santore, R. C., Ryan, A. C., Adams, W. J., & Nordheim, E. (2018). Evaluating the effects of pH, hardness, and dissolved organic carbon on the toxicity of aluminum to freshwater aquatic organisms under circumneutral conditions. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 37(1), 49–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Greenfield, B. K., Hrabik, T. R., Harvey, C. J., & Carpenter, S. R. (2001). Predicting mercury levels in yellow perch: use of water chemistry, trophic ecology, and spatial traits. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 58, 1419–1429.Google Scholar
  14. Hsu-Kim, H., Eckley, C. S., Achá, D., Feng, X., Gilmour, C. C., Jonsson, S., & Mitchell, C. P. (2018). Challenges and opportunities for managing aquatic mercury pollution in altered landscapes. Ambio, 47(2), 141–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Huckabee, J. W., Feldman, C., & Talmi, Y. (1974). Mercury concentrations in fish from the Great Smoky Mountains National Park. Analytica Chimica Acta, 70, 41–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Landrigan PJ, Fuller R, Acosta NJR, Adeyi O, Arnold R, Basu N, Balde AB, Bertollini R, Bose-O’Reily S, Boufford JI, Breysse PN, Chiles T, Mahidol C, Coll-Seck AM, Cropper ML, Fobil J, Fuster V, Greenstone M, Haines A, Hanrahan D, Hunter D, Khare M, Krupnik A, Lanphear B, Lohani B, Martin K, Mathiaen KV, McTeer MA, Murray CJL, Ndahimanajara JD, Perera F, Potocnik J, Preker AS, Jairam R, Rockstrom J, Salinas C, Samson LD, Sandila K, Sly PD, Smith KR, Steiner A, Stewart RB, Suk WA, van Schayk OCP, Yadama GN, Yumkella K, and M Zhong (2017). The lancet commission on pollution and health. The Lancet 391:462–512.Google Scholar
  17. Lovett, G. M., & Kinsman, J. D. (1990). Atmospheric pollutant deposition to high-elevation ecosystems. Atmospheric Environment, 24(11), 2767–2786.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Marvin-DiPasquale, M., Lutz, M. A., Brigham, M. E., Krabbenhoft, D. P., Aiken, G. R., Orem, W. H., & B. D. Hall (2009). Mercury cycling in stream ecosystems. 2. Benthic methylmercury production and bed sediment-pore water partitioning. Environmental Science and Technology 43(8), 2726–2732.Google Scholar
  19. Muir, D. C. G., Norstrom, R. J., & Simon, M. (1988). Organochlorine contaminants in artic marine food chains: accumulation of specific polychlorinated biphenyls and chlordane-related compounds. Environmental Science and Technology, 22, 1071–1079.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Neff, K. J., Scwartz, J. S., Henry, T. B., Robinson, R. B., Moore, S. E., & Kulp, M. A. (2009). Physiological stress in native southern brook trout during episodic stream acidification in the Great Smoky Mountains National Park. Archives of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology, 57(2), 366–376.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Oehme, M., Biseth, A., Schlabach, M., & Wiig, O. (1995). Concentrations of polychlorinated Dibenzo-p-dioxins and non-ortho substituted biphenyls in polar bear Milk from Svalbard (Norway). Environmental Pollution, 90(3), 401–407.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Omernik, JM (1987) Ecoregions of the conterminous United States. Map (scale 1:7,500,000). Annals of the Association of American Geographers 77(1):118– 125.Google Scholar
  23. Omernik, J. M. (1995). Ecoregions: a spatial framework for environmental management. In W. S. Davis & T. P. Simon (Eds.), Biological assessment and criteria: Tools for water resource planning and decision making (pp. 49–62). Boca Raton, FL: Lewis Publishers.Google Scholar
  24. Pagenkopf, G. K. (1983). Gill surface interaction model for trace-metal toxicity to fishes: role of complexation, pH, and water hardness. Environmental Science and Technology, 17(6), 342–347.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Risch, M. R., DeWild, J. F., Krabbenhoft, D. P., Kolka, R. K., & Zhang, L. (2012). Litterfall mercury dry deposition in the eastern USA. Environmental Pollution, 161, 284–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Risch, M. R., DeWild, J. F., Gay, D. A., Zhang, L., Boyer, E. W., & Krabbenhoft, D. P. (2017). Atmospheric mercury deposition to forests in the eastern USA. Environmental Pollution, 228, 8–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Standard Method 2320B. (2012). Standard methods for the examination of water and wastewater (22nd ed.). Washington, D.C: American Public Health Association.Google Scholar
  28. Standard Method 2340B. (2012). Standard methods for the examination of water and wastewater (22nd ed.). Washington, D.C: American Public Health Association.Google Scholar
  29. Standard Method 2540D. (2012). Standard methods for the examination of water and wastewater (22nd ed.). Washington, D.C: American Public Health Association.Google Scholar
  30. Standard Method 5310C. (2012). Standard methods for the examination of water and wastewater (22nd ed.). Washington, D.C: American Public Health Association.Google Scholar
  31. Tennessee Water Quality Control Board (TWQCB) (2007) Rules of the Tennessee’s Department of Environment and Conservation Division of Water Pollution and Control, Chapter 4–3, General Water Quality Criteria. Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation, Nashville, Tennessee.Google Scholar
  32. USEPA. (1985). Guidelines for deriving numerical National Water Quality Critiera for the protection of aquatic organisms and their uses. Office of Research and Development. Environmental research laboratories. In PB85–227049.Google Scholar
  33. USEPA. (2001a). A survey of fish contamination in small wadeable streams in the mid-Atlantic region. In EPA/600/R-01/107.Google Scholar
  34. USEPA (2001b). Guidance for implementing the January 2001 methylmercury water quality criterion. EPA 823-R-10-001. Office of Science and Technology.Google Scholar
  35. USEPA (2007). Aquatic Life Ambient Freshwater Quality Criteria—Copper. EPA 882-R-07-001. Office of Water.Google Scholar
  36. USEPA (2009). That national study of chemical residues in lake fish tissue. EPA-823-R-09-006. Office of Water. Office of Science and technology.Google Scholar
  37. USEPA (2016). Draft Technical Support Document: Recommended Estimates for Missing Water Quality Parameters for Application in EPA’s Biotic Ligand Model. EPA 820-R-15-106. Office of Water.Google Scholar
  38. USEPA (2017). Draft aquatic life ambient water quality criteria for aluminum. EPA-822-P-17-001. Office of Water.Google Scholar
  39. USGS (2005) mineral resources data system: U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia.Google Scholar
  40. Walters, D. M., Rosi-Marshall, E., Kennedy, T. A., Cross, W. F., & Baxter, C. V. (2015). Mercury and selenium accumulation in the Colorado River food web, grand canyon, USA. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 34(10), 2385–2394.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Weiss-Penzias, P. S., Gay, D. A., Brigham, M. E., Parsons, M. T., Gustin, M. S., & A ter Schure, A. (2016). Trends in mercury wet deposition and mercury air concentrations across the US and Canada. Science of the Total Environment, 568, 546–556.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of BiologyMiddle Tennessee State UniversityMurfreesboroUSA
  2. 2.Molecular BiosciencesMiddle Tennessee State UniversityMurfreesboroUSA
  3. 3.Tennessee Wildlife Resources AgencyNashvilleUSA

Personalised recommendations