Suspended solids in freshwater systems: characterisation model describing potential impacts on aquatic biota
- 339 Downloads
High concentration of suspended solids (SS)—fine fraction of eroded soil particles—reaching lotic environments and remaining in suspension by turbulence can be a significant stressor affecting the biodiversity of these aquatic systems. However, a method to assess the potential effects caused by SS on freshwater species in the life cycle impact assessment (LCIA) phase still remains a gap. This study develops a method to derive endpoint characterisation factors, based on a fate and effect model, addressing the direct potential effects of SS in the potential loss of aquatic invertebrate or algae and macrophyte species.
Characterisation factors for the assessment of the direct effects of SS in the potential disappearance of macroinvertebrates, algae and macrophytes in 22 different European river sections were derived by combining both fate and effect factors. Fate factors reflect the environmental residence time of SS in river sections per unit of water volume in this same section. Effect factors were calculated from an empirical relationship between the potentially disappeared fraction (PDF) of aquatic species and the concentration of SS. These factors were determined based on a concentration-response function, on gross soil erosion data and detrimental concentrations of SS for different taxa in river sections.
Results and discussion
The product of fate with effect factors constitutes the characterisation factors for both macroinvertebrates, algae and macrophytes. The estimated EFs are higher for macroinvertebrates in almost all river sections under study, showing that the potential effects caused by SS throughout the water column are higher for macroinvertebrates than for algae and macrophytes. For macroinvertebrates, characterisation factors range between 2.8 × 10− 7 and 3.1 × 10− 3 PDF m3 day mg−1, whereas for algae and macrophytes, they range between 1.6 × 10− 7 and 4.7 × 10− 4 PDF m3 day mg−1.
The developed method and the derived characterisation factors enable a consistent assessment and comparison of the potential detrimental effects of SS on aquatic invertebrate and macrophyte communities at different locations. Long-term, on-site monitoring of SS levels in the water column should be performed to understand the magnitude of the effects of SS on aquatic biota and to determine the taxa that are more sensitive to the SS stressor. This monitoring will improve the robustness of the proposed LCA method, the reliability of the characterisation factors, as well as the development of characterisation factors for a wider range of rivers.
KeywordsAlgae and macrophyte communities Erosion Fate and effect modelling Life cycle impact assessment Macroinvertebrates Water footprint Water quality
Thanks are due to FCT (Science and Technology Foundation—Portugal) and POHP/FSE funding programme for the scholarships granted to Paula Quinteiro (SFRH/BD/78690/2011) and João Pestana (SFRH/BPD/45342/2008).
- Becvar M (2006) Sediment load and suspended sediment concentration prediction. Soil Water Res 1:23–31Google Scholar
- Fekete BM, Vorosmarty CJ, Grabs W (2002) Global composite runoff fields on observed river discharge and simulated water balances. University of New Hampshire and Global Runoff Data Centre. German Federal Institute of Hydrology, KoblenzGoogle Scholar
- Gobin A, Govers G (eds) (2003) Pan-European soil erosion risk assessment project. Third annual report to the European Commission. EC contract no. QLK5 CT-1999-01323. European Commission, BrusselsGoogle Scholar
- Goedkoop M, Heijungs R, Huijbregts M, Schryver AD, Struijs J, van Zelm R (2012) ReCiPe 2008. A life cycle impact assessment method which comprises harmonised category indicators at the midpoint and the endpoint level. Ministerie van Volkshuisvesting, Ruimtelijke Ordening en Milieubeheer, NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
- Harrod TR, Theurer FD (2002) Sediment. In: Haygarth PM, Jarvis SC (eds) Agriculture, hydrology and water quality. CAB International, Wallingford, p 502Google Scholar
- Huijbregts MAJ, Thissen U, Guinée JB, Jager T, Kalf D, van de Meent D, Ragas AMJ, Sleeswijk AW, Reijnders L (2000) Priority assessment of toxic substances in life cycle assessment. Part I: calculation of toxicity potentials for 181 substances with the nested multi-media fate, exposure and effects model USES-LCA. Chemosphere 41(1):541–573CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Humbert S, Schryver AD, Bengoa X, Margni M, Jolliet O (2012) IMPACT 2002+: user guide. Draft for version Quantis 2.21. Lausanne, SwitzerlandGoogle Scholar
- Jones A, Panagos P, Barcelo S, Bouraoui F, Bosco C, Dewitte O, Gardi C, Erhard M, Hervás J, Hiederer R, Jeffery S, Lukewillw L, Marmo L, Montanarella L, Olazábal C, Petersen J-E, Penizek V, Strassburger T, Tóth G, Van Den Eechaut M, Van Liedekerke N, Verheijen F, Viestova E, Yigini Y (2012a) The state of soil in Europe. JRC reference reports. European Commission, Office for official publications of the European Communities, LuxemburgGoogle Scholar
- Jones A, Bosco C, Yigini P, Montanarella L (2012b) Soil erosion by water: 2011 update of IRENE agri-environmental indicator 21. JRC Scientific Report 68729Google Scholar
- Motulsky H, Christopoulos A (2003) Fitting models to biological data using linear and nonlinear regression. A practical guide to curve fitting. GraphPad Software Inc., San DiegoGoogle Scholar
- Nimmo DR, Hamaker TL, Mathews E, Young WT (1982) The long-term effects of suspended particulates on survival and reproduction of the mysid shrimp, Mysidopsis bahia, in the laboratory. In: Mayer GF (ed) Ecological stress and the New York Bight. Estuarine Research Federation, Columbia, pp 413–422Google Scholar
- Parkhill KL, Gulliver JS (2002) Effect of inorganic sediment on whole-stream productivity. Hydrobiologia 170:91–101Google Scholar
- Posthuma L, Traas TP, Suter GW II (2002) General introduction to species sensitivity distributions. In: Posthuma L, Suter GW II, Traas TP (eds) Species sensitivity distributions in ecotoxicology. Lewis, Boca Raton, pp 421–433Google Scholar
- Reis A, Parker A, Alencoão A (2010) Sediment quality assessment in mountainous river basins: a case study in northern Portugal. 1st Seminar on river basins—the hydrographic regions of the north and the future perspectives of management. Porto, PortugalGoogle Scholar
- Renard KG, Foster GR, Weesies GA, Mc Cool DK, Yoder DC (1997) Predicting soil erosion by water: a guide to conservation planning with the Revised Universal Soil Loss Equation (RUSLE). Agricultural Handbook no. 703, United States Department of AgricultureGoogle Scholar
- SAGE (2010) Global river discharge database. Center for sustainability and the global environment. http://www.sage.wisc.edu/riverdata/index.php?qual=32. Accessed Sep 2013
- Struijs J, Beusen A, van Jaarsveld H, Huijbregts MAJ (2013) Eutrophication. In: Goedkoop M, Heijungs R, Huijbregts M, Schryver A, Struijs J, van Zelm R (eds) ReCiPe 2008. A life cycle impact assessment method which comprises harmonised category indicators at the midpoint and the endpoint level, pp 58–66Google Scholar
- Tomanová S (2007) Functional aspect of macroinvertebrate communities in tropical and temperate running waters. Dissertation, Masaryk UniversityGoogle Scholar
- UNEP/WHO (1996) Sediment measurements. In: Bartram J, Balance R (eds) Water quality monitoring—a practical guide to the design and implementation of freshwater quality studies and monitoring programmes. United Nations Environment Programme and the World Health Organization, London. http://www.who.int/en/. Accessed Mar 2014
- White S (2008) Sediment dynamics and their influence on the design of monitoring programmes. In: Quevauviller P, Borchers U, Thompson C, Simonart T (eds) The Water Framework Directive—ecological and chemical status monitoring. Wiley, Chichester, pp 243–253Google Scholar
- Wischmeier WH, Smith DD (1978) Predicting soil erosion losses: a guide to conservation planning. USDA Agricultural Handbook, no. 537, 58 ppGoogle Scholar
- WWF (2011) The status of wild Atlantic salmon: a river by river assessment. World Wide Fund for NatureGoogle Scholar
- Zajdlik BA (2006) Potential statistical models for describing species sensitivity distributions. Prepared for the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment, CCME project no. 382Google Scholar
- Zwart D (2002) Observed regularities in species sensitivity distribution for aquatic species. In: Posthuma L, Sutter GW II, Traas TP (eds) Species sensitivity distributions in ecotoxicology. Lewis, Boca Raton, pp 315–344Google Scholar