Advertisement

Water, Air, & Soil Pollution

, Volume 212, Issue 1–4, pp 77–88 | Cite as

Occurrence of Pesticides in Water, Sediments, and Fish Tissues in a Lake Surrounded by Agricultural Lands: Concerning Risks to Humans and Ecological Receptors

  • Nelson Abrantes
  • Ruth Pereira
  • Fernando Gonçalves
Article

Abstract

Lake Vela (Littoral Centre of Portugal) is considered a natural habitat with community interest and consequently was included in the Natura 2000 Network. However, this freshwater ecosystem has been potentially exposed to diffuse pollution generated by agricultural and livestock activities, which seriously compromise its ecological balance. As part of the Ecological Risk Assessment (ERA) proposed for Lake Vela, this study aimed to evaluate the occurrence of pesticides in different compartments: surface water, groundwater, sediments, and fish tissues. Moreover, to assess potential concerning effects on ecosystem and human health, the measured concentrations of pesticides were compared with regulatory and toxicological benchmarks. The results confirmed the presence of high concentrations of pesticides, including organochloride pesticides banned decades ago, in surface water, groundwater, and sediment. The measured concentrations of pesticides, compared with toxicological benchmarks, indicated that harmful effects are likely for aquatic species due to the presence of alachlor, aldrin, and dieldrin. Additionally, the concentrations of pesticides detected in groundwater were also above the recommended safety levels for drinking water, which constitutes a concern for the local population’s health. Results also showed an accumulation of alachlor in predator and benthic fish species which could represent a risk to human consumers and particularly to the regular fish predators (e.g., otters and birds). This study, as the first exposure characterization performed on the Lake Vela system, constitutes valuable and useful information for the ERA process. Although this preliminary assessment of risks should be continued and confirmed through a weight-of-evidence approach, it had already unraveled how concerning are the problems in this ecosystem and the urgency of implementing restoration measures to guaranty its sustainability. Furthermore, this study reinforces the importance of evaluating similar freshwater ecosystems that are also highly threatened by diffuse pollution.

Keywords

Diffuse pollution Pesticides Ecological risk assessment Aquatic ecosystems Human health 

Notes

Acknowledgments

Nelson Abrantes was recipient of a grant from the Portuguese Science and Technology Foundation (FCT, Portugal; SFRH/BD/10388/2002). Authors would like to thank the farmers from Bom Sucesso for their helpful information about agricultural practices.

References

  1. Abrantes, N., Antunes, S. C., Pereira, M. J., & Goncalves, F. (2006a). Seasonal succession of cladocerans and phytoplankton and their interactions in a shallow eutrophic lake (Lake Vela, Portugal). Acta Oecologica-International Journal of Ecology, 29, 54–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Abrantes, N., Pereira, R., & Goncalves, F. (2006b). First step for an ecological risk assessment to evaluate the impact of diffuse pollution in Lake Vela (Portugal). Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 117, 411–431.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Abrantes, N., Pereira, R., Soares, A., & Goncalves, F. (2008). Evaluation of the ecotoxicological impact of the pesticide Lasso (R) on non-target freshwater species, through leaching from nearby agricultural fields, using Terrestrial Model Ecosystems. Water, Air, and Soil Pollution, 192, 211–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Abrantes, N., Pereira, R., de Figueiredo, D. R., Marques, C. R., Pereira, M. J., & Goncalves, F. (2009). A whole sample toxicity assessment to evaluate the sub-lethal toxicity of water and sediment elutriates from a lake exposed to diffuse pollution. Environmental Toxicology, 24, 259–270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Arbuckle, K. E., & Downing, J. A. (2001). The influence of watershed land use on lake N: P in a predominantly agricultural landscape. Limnology and Oceanography, 46, 970–975.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Buhl, K. J., & Faerber, N. L. (1989). Acute toxicity of selected herbicides and surfactants to larvae of the midge Chironomus-Riparius. Archives of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology, 18, 530–536.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Burton, G. A., Chapman, P. M., & Smith, E. P. (2002). Weight-of-evidence approaches for assessing ecosystem impairment. Human and Ecological Risk Assessment, 8, 1657–1673.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Carpenter, S. R., Caraco, N. F., Correll, D. L., Howarth, R. W., Sharpley, A. N., & Smith, V. H. (1998). Nonpoint pollution of surface waters with phosphorus and nitrogen. Ecological Applications, 8, 559–568.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Castro, B. B., & Goncalves, F. (2007). Seasonal dynamics of the crustacean zooplankton of a shallow eutrophic lake from the Mediterranean region. Fundam. Appl. Limnol., 169, 189–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. CCME (2001). Canadian Sediment Quality Guidelines for the Protection of Aquatic Life. Environment Canada. National Guidelines and Standards Office. Hull, QC: Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment.Google Scholar
  11. Chapman, P. M. (2000). Why are we still emphasizing chemical screening-level numbers? Marine Pollution Bulletin, 40, 465–466.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. CM (2000). Resolução do Conselho de Ministros nº 76/2000 of 5th July. Conselho de Ministros. Diário da República I Série B, 153, 2933–2944.Google Scholar
  13. de Figueiredo, D. R., Reboleira, A., Antunes, S. C., Abrantes, N., Azeiteiro, U., Goncalves, F., et al. (2006). The effect of environmental parameters and cyanobacterial blooms on phytoplankton dynamics of a Portuguese temperate lake. Hydrobiologia, 568, 145–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. EC (2000a). IUCLID Dataset-Alachlor. European Chemical Bureau. Ispra: European Commission, Joint Research Centre.Google Scholar
  15. EC (2000b). IUCLID Dataset - Glyphosate. European Chemical Bureau. Ispra: European Commission, Joint Research Centre.Google Scholar
  16. EC (2003). Technical Guidance Document on Risk Assessment in support of Commission Directive 93/67/EEC on Risk Assessment for new notified substances, Commission Regulation (EC) No 1488/94 on Risk Assessment for existing substances. Directive 98/8/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the placing of biocidal products on the market. Part II. Ispra: European Commission, Joint Research Centre.Google Scholar
  17. Galbraith, L. M., & Burns, C. W. (2007). Linking land-use, water body type and water quality in southern New Zealand. Landscape Ecology, 22, 231–241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Goncalves, C., & Alpendurada, M. F. (2005). Assessment of pesticide contamination in soil samples from an intensive horticulture area, using ultrasonic extraction and gas chromatography-mass spectrometry. Talanta, 65, 1179–1189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. HC (2007). Guidelines for Canadian drinking water quality. Ottawa, ON, http://www.healthcanada.gc.ca/waterquality: Health Canada.
  20. HC (2009). Guidelines for Canadian drinking water quality. Ottawa, ON: Health Canada, http://www.healthcanada.gc.ca/waterquality. Accessed 01 July 2009
  21. Howarth, R. W., & Romakrishma, K. (2005). Nutrient management. In K. Chopra, P. RK Leemans, & H. Simons (Eds.), Ecosystems and human well-being: Policy responses, findings of the responses working group of the millennium ecosystem assessment (pp. 295–311). Washington: Island.Google Scholar
  22. Howarth, R. W., Sharpley, A., & Walker, D. (2002). Sources of nutrient pollution to coastal waters in the United States: Implications for achieving coastal water quality goals. Estuaries, 25, 656–676.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kegley, S. E., Hill, B. R., S., O. & A. H., C. (2008). PAN Pesticide Database. San Francisco, CA: Pesticide Action Network. http://www.pesticideinfo.org. Accessed 01 July 2009.
  24. Larson, S. J., Capel, P. D., & Majewski, M. S. (1997). Pesticides in surface waters: Distributions, trends, and governing factors. Chelsea: Ann Arbor Press.Google Scholar
  25. Lopez-Flores, R., Quintana, X. D., Salvado, V., Hidalgo, M., Sala, L., & Moreno-Amich, R. (2003). Comparison of nutrient and contaminant fluxes in two areas with different hydrological regimes (Emporda Wetlands, NE Spain). Water Research, 37, 3034–3046.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. MA (1998). Decreto Lei no. 236/98 de 1 de Agosto. Ministério do Ambiente. Diário da República I Série A, 176, 3676–3722Google Scholar
  27. MAPA (1988). Law by decree no. 347/88 of 30th September. Ministério da Agricultura, Pescas e Alimentação. Diário da República I Série A, 227, 3992–3993.Google Scholar
  28. Neal, C., Jarvie, H. P., Whitton, B. A., & Gemmell, J. (2000). The water quality of the River Wear, North-East England. Science of the Total Environment, 251, 153–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. OECD (2008). Environmental performance of agriculture in OECD countries since 1990. Paris: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. http://www.oecd.org/tad/env/indicators. Accessed 01 July 2009.
  30. Pereira, R. (1997). Plano de Ordenamento e Gestão das Lagoas das Braças e da Vela (Centro-Litoral). Coimbra: University of Coimbra.Google Scholar
  31. Peris, E., Requena, S., de la Guardia, M., Pastor, A., & Carrasco, J. M. (2005). Organochlorinated pesticides in sediments from the Lake Albufera of Valencia (Spain). Chemosphere, 60, 1542–1549.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Ritter, W., & Shirmohammadi, A. (2000). Preface. In W. Ritter & A. Shirmohammadi (Eds.), Agricultural nonpoint source pollution: watershed management and hydrology. Boca Raton: Lewis.Google Scholar
  33. Suter, G. W. (1996). Toxicological benchmarks for screening contaminants of potential concern for effects on freshwater biota. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 15, 1232–1241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Syversen, N., & Bechmann, M. (2004). Vegetative buffer zones as pesticide filters for simulated surface runoff. Ecological Engineering, 22, 175–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. USEPA (1996). Organochlorine Pesticides by Gas Chromatography, EPA Method 8081a. Cincinnati: US Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development.Google Scholar
  36. USEPA (1999). Determination of Glyphosate in Drinking Water by Direct-Aqueous Injection HPLC, Post-Column Derivatization, and Fluorescence Detection. Method 547. Cincinnati, Ohio: US. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development.Google Scholar
  37. USEPA (2000). Guidance for assessing chemical contaminant data for use in fish advisories. Volume 1 - Fish Sampling and Analysis, Third Ed., Office of Science and Technology. EPA 823-B-00-007. Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water.Google Scholar
  38. USEPA (2001). Methods for Collection, Storage and Manipulation of Sediments for Chemical and Toxicological Analyses: Technical Manual, EPA-823-B-01-002. Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water.Google Scholar
  39. USEPA (2002). Short-term methods for estimating the chronic toxicity of effluents and receiving waters to freshwater organisms. 4th ed., EPA-821-R-02-013. Washington, DC.: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water.Google Scholar
  40. USEPA (2004). Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS). Washington DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.Google Scholar
  41. USEPA (2006). National recommended water quality criteria. Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water.Google Scholar
  42. USEPA (2007). Drinking water contaminants - list of contaminants & their Maximum Contaminant Level (MCLs). Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water. http://www.epa.gov/safewater/contaminants/index.html#mcls. Accessed 01 July 2009.
  43. USEPA (2009a). Drinking water contaminants—list of contaminants & their Maximum Contaminant Level (MCLs). Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water. http://www.epa.gov/safewater/contaminants/index.html#mcls. Accessed 01 July 2009.
  44. USEPA (2009b). Technical Factsheet on: Alachlor. Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water. http://www.epa.gov/safewater/pdfs/factsheets/soc/tech/alachlor.pdf. Accessed 01 July 2009.
  45. USEPA (2009c). Technical factsheet on: Glyphosate. Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water. http://www.epa.gov/safewater/pdfs/factsheets/soc/tech/glyphosa.pdf. Accessed 01 July 2009.
  46. Vieira, M. (2006). Vendas de Produtos Fitofarmacêuticos em Portugal em 2005. Technical report, PPA(DSPF)-03/06. Ministério da Agricultura, do Desenvolvimento Rural e das Pescas - Direcção Geral de Protecção de Culturas—Direcção de Serviços de Produtos Fitofarmacêuticos, Oeiras.Google Scholar
  47. Villa, S., Vighi, M., Casini, S., & Focardi, S. (2003). Pesticide risk assessment in a lagoon ecosystem. Part II: Effect assessment and risk characterization. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 22, 936–942.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. WSDE (2004). Technical Background Information for Draft PBT List. Olympia: Washington State Department of Ecology.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Nelson Abrantes
    • 1
  • Ruth Pereira
    • 1
  • Fernando Gonçalves
    • 1
  1. 1.CESAM, Departamento de BiologiaUniversidade de AveiroAveiroPortugal

Personalised recommendations