Environmental Science and Pollution Research

, Volume 23, Issue 11, pp 10514–10528 | Cite as

Evolution of the anthropogenic impact in the Augusta Harbor (Eastern Sicily, Italy) in the last decades: benthic foraminifera as indicators of environmental status

  • Elena Romano
  • Luisa Bergamin
  • Antonella Ausili
  • Maria Celia Magno
  • Massimo Gabellini
Recent sediments: environmental chemistry, ecotoxicology and engineering
First Online:
Received:
Accepted:

Abstract

The study of benthic foraminifera in sediment cores provides the opportunity to recognize environmental changes, including those due to the anthropogenic impact. The integration of these data with chemical-physical parameters provides a comprehensive quality assessment. This research was applied to a sediment core collected in the Augusta bay, where a very large commercial and military harbor and one of the largest petrochemical poles in Europe are present. Inside the petrochemical area also operated, from 1958 to 2003, a chlor-alkali plant with mercury cell technology which caused anthropic contamination of surrounding land and marine areas. The sediment core was collected in front of this plant and characterized for grain size and pollutants directly associated to chlor-alkali activity, such as mercury (Hg), barium (Ba), polychlorobiphenyls (PCBs), and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs). Composition of foraminiferal assemblages and faunal parameters such as specific diversity, faunal density, abundance of abnormal specimens, and foraminiferal size were investigated as potential indicators of environmental status. Statistical analysis indicated a main common origin for Hg, Ba, and PCBs and the influence of pollutants on species distribution and faunal diversity and density. Exceptionally high Hg concentrations (63–680 mg/kg d.w.) were recorded in the whole core, where the geochronological study attributed the most contaminated levels to the period of maximum activity of the chlor-alkali plant, while a decrease of contamination was recorded after the stop of the activity. Distinct foraminiferal assemblages identified different ecozones along the core, which suggested decreasing anthropogenic impact from the bottom to the top.

Keywords

Benthic foraminifera Environmental status Sediment core Augusta Harbor Chlor-alkali plant Mercury 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors are grateful to many people who gave their support for the sediment analysis: Giancarlo Pierfranceschi and Francesco Venti for grain size, Giulio Sesta and Anna Lauria for PAHs and PCBs, and Chiara Maggi and Maria Teresa Berducci for heavy metals.

Supplementary material

11356_2015_5783_MOESM1_ESM.xlsx (14 kb)
ESM 1 Results of quantitative analysis of benthic foraminifera. Relative abundance of commonly occurring species (i.e., >5 % in at least one sample) is reported. These data were used as a matrix for HCA (Fig. 4) and PCA (Fig. 8). In the following full species names are reported. A_park: Ammonia parkinsoniana; A_tepi: Ammonia tepida; A_mami: Asterigerinata mamilla; B_aena: Bolivina aenariensis; B_semi: Bolivina seminuda; B_marg: Bulimina marginata; C_invo: Cornuspira involvens; E_vitr: Epistominella vitrea; H_depr: Haynesina depressula; L_loba: Lobatula lobatula; M_subr: Miliolinella subrotunda; P_corr: Patellina corrugata; Q_lata: Quinqueloculina lata; Q_stel: Quinqueloculina stelligera; Ros_spp.; Rosalina spp.; S_cost: Sigmoilinita costata; S_vivi: Spirillina vivipara. (XLSX 14 kb)
11356_2015_5783_MOESM2_ESM.xlsx (10 kb)
ESM 2 Analytical results for grain size, Ba, Hg, PAHs and PCB used, after standardization by means of z-score method, as a matrix Principal Component Analysis (Fig. 7). (XLSX 10 kb)
11356_2015_5783_MOESM3_ESM.xlsx (14 kb)
ESM 3 Abiotic parameters (grain size, Ba, Hg, PAHs and PCBs), Faunal parameters (FN, FSI, a-index, H-index) and relative abundance of commonly occurring species. These data were used, standardized by means of z-score method, as a matrix for the CCA (Fig. 8). In the following full species names are reported. A_park: Ammonia parkinsoniana; A_tepi: Ammonia tepida; A_mami: Asterigerinata mamilla; B_aena: Bolivina aenariensis; B_semi: Bolivina seminuda; B_marg: Bulimina marginata; C_invo: Cornuspira involvens; E_vitr: Epistominella vitrea; H_depr: Haynesina depressula; L_loba: Lobatula lobatula; M_subr: Miliolinella subrotunda; P_corr: Patellina corrugata; Q_lata: Quinqueloculina lata; Q_stel: Quinqueloculina stelligera; Ros_spp.; Rosalina spp.; S_cost: Sigmoilinita costata; S_vivi: Spirillina vivipara. (XLSX 13 kb)

References

  1. Alve A (1995) Benthic foraminifera in sediment cores reflecting heavy metal pollution in Sørfjord, Western Norway. J Foraminifer Res 21(1):1–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alve A, Lepland A, Magnusson J, Backer-Owe K (2009) Monitoring strategies for re-establishment of ecological reference conditions: possibilities and limitations. Mar Pollut Bull 59:297–310CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Appleby P, Oldfield F (1992) Application of lead-210 to sedimentation studies. In: Ivanovich M, Harmon RS (eds) Uranium-series disequilibrium: applications to earth, marine, and environmental science. Oxford University Press, pp 731–738Google Scholar
  4. Ausili A, Gabellini M, Cammarata G, Fattorini D, Benedetti M, Pisanelli B, Gorbi S, Regoli F (2008) Ecotoxicological and human health risk in a petrochemical district of southern Italy. Mar Environ Res 66:215–217CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Barmawidjaja DM, van der Zwaan GJ, Jorissen FJ, Puskaric S (1995) 150 years of eutrophication in the northern Adriatic Sea: evidence from a benthic foraminiferal record. Mar Geol 122:367–384CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Barras C, Jorissen FJ, Labrune C, Andral B, Boissery P (2014) Live benthic foraminiferal faunas from the French Mediterranean coast: towards a new biotic index of environmental quality. Ecol Indic 36:719–743CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bergamin L, Romano E, Gabellini M, Ausili A, Carboni MG (2003) Chemical-physical and ecological characterisation in the environmental project of a polluted coastal area: the Bagnoli case study. Mediterranean Marine Science 4(2):5–20Google Scholar
  8. Bouchet VMP, Alve E, Rygg B, Telford RJ (2012) Benthic foraminifera provide a promising tool for ecological quality assessment of marine waters. Ecol Indic 23:66–75CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bresler V, Yanko V (1995) Chemical ecology: a new approach to the study of living benthic epiphytic foraminifera. J Foraminif Res 25(3):267–279CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Brinkmann T, Santonja GG, Schorcht F, Roudier S, Sancho LD (2014) Best Available Techniques (BAT) reference document for the production of chlor-alkali. Industrial Emissions Directive 2010/75/EU Integrated Pollution Prevention and control Report EUR 26844 EN. doi: 10.2791/13138.
  11. Burone L, Venturini N, Sprechmann P, Valente P, Muniz P (2006) Foraminiferal responses to polluted sediments in the Montevideo coastal zone, Uruguay. Mar Pollut Bull 52:61–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Capotondi L, Bergami C, Orsini G, Ravaioli M, Colantoni P, Galeotti S (2014) Benthic foraminifera for environmental monitoring: a case study in the central Adriatic continental shelf. Environ Sci Pollut Res 22:6034–6049CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Carboni MG, Succi MC, Bergamin L, Di Bella L, Frezza V, Landini B (2009) Benthic foraminifera from two coastal lakes of southern Latium (Italy). Preliminary evaluation of environmental quality. Mar Pollut Bull 59:268–280CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Carnahan EA, Hoare AM, Hallock P, Lidz BH, Reich CD (2009) Foraminiferal assemblages in Biscayne Bay, Florida, USA: responses to urban and agricultural influence in a subtropical estuary. Mar Pollut Bull 59:221–233CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Cearreta A, Irabien MJ, Leorri E, Yusta I, Croudace IW, Cundy AB (2000) Recent anthropogenic impacts on the Bilbao Estuary, Northern Spain: geochemical and microfaunal evidence. Estuar Coast Shelf Sci 50:571–592CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Cearreta A, Irabien MJ, Leorri E, Yusta I, Quintanilla A, Zabaleta A (2002) Environmental transformation of the Bilbao Estuary, N. Spain: microfaunal and geochemical proxies in the recent sedimentary record. Mar Pollut Bull 44:487–503CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Cearreta A, Alday M, Irabien MJ, Etxebarria N, Soto J (2008) Modern conditions and recent environmental development of the Muskiz estuary: historical disturbance by the largest oil refinery of Spain. J Iber Geol 34:191–213Google Scholar
  18. Celia Magno M, Bergamin L, Finoia MG, Pierfranceschi G, Venti F, Romano E (2012) Correlation between textural characteristics of marine sediments and benthic foraminifera in highly anthropogenically-altered coastal areas. Mar Geol 315–318:143–161CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Cimerman F, Langer M (1991) Mediterranean Foraminifera. Slovenska Akademija Znanosti in Umetnosti, Academia Scientiarum Artium Slovenica, Classis IV, Historia Naturalia 30, Ljubliana.Google Scholar
  20. Coccioni R, Frontalini F, Marsili A, Mana D (2009) Benthic foraminifera and trace element distribution: a case-study from the heavily polluted lagoon of Venice (Italy). Mar Pollut Bull 59:257–267CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Cosentino C, Pepe F, Scopelliti G, Calabrò M, Caruso A (2013) Benthic foraminiferal response to trace element pollution—the case study of the Gulf of Milazzo, NE Sicily (central Mediterranean Sea). Environ Monit Assess 185(10):8777–8802CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Covelli S, Emili A, Acquavita A, Dinelli E, Koron N, Faganeli J (2010) Benthic fluxes measurement of mercury and methylmercury in Pialassa Baiona (Ravenna, Italy). Int J Environ Qual (EQA) 3:33–40Google Scholar
  23. Croudace IW, Romano E, Ausili A, Bergamin L, Rothwell G (2015) X-ray core scanners as an environmental forensics tool: a case study of polluted harbour sediment (Augusta Bay, Sicily). In: Croudace, I.W., Rothwell, G. (Eds.). Micro-XRF studies of sediment cores, chapter 15, Springer Developments in Environmental Research (Series Editor - J.P. Smol). Springer, Berlin, in press.Google Scholar
  24. Cundy AB, Collins PEF, Turner SD, Croudace IWC, Horne D (1998) 100 years of environmental change in a coastal wetland. Augusta Bay, southeast Sicily: evidence from geochemical and palaeoecological studies. In: Black KS, Paterson DM, Cramp A (Eds.) Sedimentary process in the intertidal zone. Geological Society, London, Special Publications 139: 243-254.Google Scholar
  25. Debenay J-P, Fernandez J-M (2009) Benthic foraminifera records of complex anthropogenic environmental changes combined with geochemical data in a tropical bay of New Caledonia (SW Pacific). Mar Pollut Bull 59:311–322CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Dolven JK, Alve E, Rygg B, Magnusson J (2013) Defining past ecological status and in situ reference conditions using benthic foraminifera: a case study from the Oslofjord, Norway. Ecol Indic 29:219–233CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Elberling B, Knudsen KL, Kristensen PH, Asmund G (2003) Applying foraminiferal stratigraphy as a biomarker for heavy metal contamination and mining impact in a fiord in West Greenland. Mar Environ Res 55:235–256CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Farcomeni A, Greco L (2015) Robust methods for data reduction. CRC press, Boca Raton, FLCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Ferraro L, Sprovieri M, Alberico I, Lirer F, Prevedello L, Marsella E (2006) Benthic foraminifera and heavy metals distribution: a case study from the Naples Harbour (Tyrrhenian Sea, Southern Italy). Environ Pollut 142:274–287CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Ferraro L, Sammartino S, Feo ML, Rumolo P, Salvagio Manta D, Marsella E, Sprovieri M (2009) Utility of benthic foraminifera for biomonitoring of contamination in marine sediments: a case study from the Naples Harbour (Southern Italy). J Environ Monit 11:1226–1235CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Fisher RA, Corbet AS, Williams CB (1943) The relationship between the number of species and the number of individuals in a random sample of an animal population. J Anim Ecol 12:42–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Frontalini F, Buosi C, Da Pelo S, Coccioni R, Cherchi A, Bucci C (2009) Benthic foraminifera as bio-indicators of trace element pollution in the heavily contaminated Santa Gilla lagoon (Cagliari, Italy). Mar Pollut Bull 58:858–877CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Hallock P, Lidz BH, Cockey-Burhard EM, Donnelly KB (2003) Foraminiferal as bioindicators in coral-reef assessment and monitoring: the FORAM Index. Environ Monit Assess 81:221–238CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Hammer Ø, Harper DAT, Ryan PD (2001) PAST: paleontological statistic software package for education and data analysis. Palaeontol. Electron., 4(1), art. 4: 9pp., 178kb, http://palaeo-electronica.org/2001_1/past/issue1_01.htm.
  35. Hammer Ø, Harper DAT (2006) Paleontological data analysis. Blackwell Publishing, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  36. Hayward BW, Grenfell HR, Nicholson K, Parker R, Wilmhurst J, Mark Horrocks M, Swales A, Sabaa AT (2004) Foraminiferal record of human impact on intertidal estuarine environments in New Zealand’s largest city. Mar Micropaleontol 53:37–66CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Hayward BW, Cedhagen T, Kaminski M, Gross O (2015) World Foraminifera Database. Accessed at http://www.marinespecies.org/foraminifera on 2015-04-24.
  38. ICRAM (2008) Progetto preliminare di bonifica della rada di Augusta inclusa nel sito di bonifica di interesse nazionale di Priolo Fase I e Fase II. Report. BoI-Pr-SI-PR-Rada di Augusta-03.22, Technical Report.Google Scholar
  39. Jorissen FJ (1988) Benthic foraminifera from the Adriatic Sea: principles of phenotypic variations. Utrecht Micropalaeontol Bull 37:1–174Google Scholar
  40. Kannan K, Maruya KA, Tanabe S (1997) Distribution and characterization of polychlorinated biphenyl congeners in soil and sediments from a superfund site contaminated with Aroclor 1268. Environ Sci Technol 31:1483–1488CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Li YH, Schoonmaker JE (2005) Chemical composition and mineralogy of marine sediments. In: Mackenzie FT (Ed.) Sediments, diagenesis, and sedimentary rocks, vol. 7, First edition: Treatise on geochemistry, Holland HD, Turekian KK, Executive Directors, pp 1–35Google Scholar
  42. Lobegeier MK, Sen Gupta BK (2008) Foraminifer of hydrocarbon seeps, Gulf of Mexico. Journal of Foraminiferal Research 38(2):93–116CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Loeblich R, Tappan H (1987) Foraminiferal genera and their classification. Van Nostrand Reinhold, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  44. Martins V, Yamashita C, Sousa SHM, Martins P, Laut LLM, Figueira RCL, Mahiques MM, Ferreira da Silva E, Alveirinho Dias JM, Rocha F (2011) The response of benthic foraminifera to pollution and environmental stress in Ria de Aveiro (N Portugal). Journal of Iberian Geology 37(2):231–246Google Scholar
  45. Martins VA, Frontalini F, Tramonte KM, Figueira RCL, Miranda P, Sequeira C, Fernández-Fernández S, Dias JA, Yamashita C, Renó R, Laut LLM, da Silva FS, Rodrigues MA, Bernardes C, Nagai R, Sousa SHM, Mahiques M, Rubio B, Bernabeu A, Rey D, Rocha F (2013) Assessment of the health quality of Ria de Aveiro (Portugal): heavy metals and benthic foraminifera. Mar Pollut Bull 70:18–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Miller H, Croudace IW, Bull JM, Cotterill CJ, Taylor RN (2014) Modern pollution signals in sediments from Windermere, NW England, determined by micro-XRF and lead isotope analysis, In: Croudace IW, Rothwell RG (Eds), Micro-XRF studies of sediment cores. SpringerGoogle Scholar
  47. Morvan J, Le Cadre V, Jorissen F, Debenay JP (2004) Foraminifera as potential bio-indicators of the “Erika” oil spill in the Bay of Bourgneuf: field and experimental studies. Aquatic Living Resources 17:317–322CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Murray JW (2003) An illustrated guide to benthic foraminifera of the Hebridean shelf, west of Scotland, with notes on their mode of life. Palaeontologia Electronica 5(1) : 31pp. http://palaeo-electronica.org/paleo/2002_2/guide/issue2_02.htm
  49. Murray JW (2006) Ecology and applications of benthic foraminifera. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Parker WC, Arnold AJ (1999) Quantitative methods of data analysis in foraminifera ecology. In: Sen Gupta BK (ed) Modern foraminifera. Kluver Academic, Dordrecht, pp 71–89Google Scholar
  51. Piani R, Covelli S, Biester H (2005) Mercury contamination in Marano Lagoon (Northern Adriatic Sea, Italy): source identification by analyses of Hg phases. Appl Geochem 20:546–1559CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Raldúa D, Díez S, Bayona JM, Barceló D (2007) Mercury levels and liver pathology in feral fish living in the vicinity of a mercury cell chlor-alkali factory. Chemosphere 66:1217–1225CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Ritchie JC, McHenry JR (1990) Application of radioactive fallout cesium-137 for measuring soil erosion and sediment accumulation rates and patterns: a review. J Environ Qual 19:215–233Google Scholar
  54. Romano E, Bergamin L, Finoia MG, Carboni MG, Ausili A, Gabellini M (2008) Industrial pollution at Bagnoli (Naples, Italy): Benthic foraminifera as a tool in integrated programs of environmental characterization. Mar Pollut Bull 56:439–457CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Romano E, Bergamin L, Finoia MG, Celia Magno M, Ausili A, Gabellini M (2009) The effects of human impact on benthic foraminifera in the Augusta Harbour (Sicily, Italy). In: Dahl E, Moksness E, Støttrup J (eds), Proceedings of the International Symposium on Integrated Coastal Zone Management, Wiley-Blackwell, Chichester, p 97-115Google Scholar
  56. Romano E, Bergamin L, Celia Magno M, Ausili A (2013) Sediment characterization of the highly impacted Augusta Harbour (Sicily, Italy): modern benthic foraminifera in relation to grain-size and sediment geochemistry. Environ Sci: Processes Impacts 15:930–946Google Scholar
  57. Samir AM, El Din AB (2001) Benthic foraminiferal assemblages and morphological abnormalities as pollution proxies in two Egyptian bays. Mar Micropaleontol 41:193–227CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Samir AM, Abdou HF, Zazou SM, El-Menhawey WH (2003) Cluster analysis of recent benthic foraminifera from the northwestern Mediterranean coast of Egypt. Rev Micropaléontol 46:111–130CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Sciacca S, Fallico R (1978) Presenza e concentrazione di sostanze inquinanti di origine industriale nei fanghi della rada di Augusta (Siracusa). Inquinamento 6:33–36Google Scholar
  60. Scott DB, Tobin R, Williamson M, Medioli FS, Latimer JS, Boothman WA, Asioli A, Haury V (2005) Pollution monitoring in two North American estuaries: historical reconstructions using benthic foraminifera. J Foraminifer Res 35:65–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Sgarrella F, Moncharmont-Zei M (1993) Benthic foraminifera of the gulf of Naples (Italy): systematic and autoecology. Boll Soc Paleontol Ital 32(2):145–264Google Scholar
  62. Shannon CE (1948) A mathematical theory of communication. Bell Syst Technical Journal 27(3):379–423CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Spearman C (1904) The proof and measurement of association between two things. Am J Psychol 15:72–101CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Spezzaferri S, Basso D, Koral H (2000) Holocene palaeoceanographic evolution of the Iskenderun Bay, south-eastern Turkey, as a response to river mouth diversions and human impact. Mediterr Mar Sci 1:19–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Sprovieri M, Oliveri E, Di Leonardo R, Romano E, Ausili A, Gabellini M, Barra M, Tranchida G, Bellanca A, Neri R, Budillon F, Saggiomo R, Mazzola S, Saggiomo V (2011) The key role played by the Augusta basin (southern Italy) in the mercury contamination of the Mediterranean Sea. J Environ Monit 13:1753–1760CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Stouff V, Geslin E, Debenay JP, Lesourd M (1999) Origin of morphological abnormalities in Ammonia (Foraminifera): studies in laboratory and natural environments. J Foraminifer Res 29:152–170CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Ullrich SM, Ilyushchenko MA, Tanton TW, Uskov GA (2007) Mercury contamination in the vicinity of a derelict chlor-alkali plant part II: contamination of the aquatic and terrestrial food chain and potential risks to the local population. Sci Total Environ 381:290–306CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Vilela CG, Batista DF, Baptista Neto JA, Crapez M, McAllister JJ (2004) Benthic foraminifera distribution in high polluted sediments from Niterói Harbor (Guanabara Bay), Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. An Acad Bras Cienc 76(1):161–171CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Yanko V, Bresler V, Hallock P (1994a) Defense and transport system against xenobiotics in some benthic foraminifera. Isr J Zool 40:114Google Scholar
  70. Yanko V, Kronfeld J, Flexer A (1994b) Response of benthic foraminifera to various pollution sources: implications for pollution monitoring. J Foraminifer Res 24(1):1–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Elena Romano
    • 1
  • Luisa Bergamin
    • 1
  • Antonella Ausili
    • 1
  • Maria Celia Magno
    • 1
  • Massimo Gabellini
    • 1
  1. 1.ISPRA—Institute for Environmental Protection and ResearchRomeItaly

Personalised recommendations