Journal of Soils and Sediments

, Volume 11, Issue 3, pp 504–517

Development of sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems

  • Eric de Deckere
  • Ward De Cooman
  • Vicky Leloup
  • Patrick Meire
  • Claudia Schmitt
  • Peter C. von der Ohe
SEDIMENTS, SEC 1 • SEDIMENT QUALITY AND IMPACT ASSESSMENT • RESEARCH ARTICLE

Abstract

Purpose

The development of Sediment Quality Guidelines (SQGs) is one of the remaining challenges for a better protection of aquatic biodiversity and in particular sediment dwelling organisms. So far, sediment quality assessment in Flanders was based on a comparison of chemical concentrations to the geometric mean of the concentrations at 12 reference sites. The study described in this paper addressed the need for more science-based guidelines. The developed guidelines are already incorporated into Flemish legislation.

Materials and methods

Based on a large sediment monitoring database, containing physico-chemical properties, concentrations of chemicals, macrobenthic community assemblages and ecotoxicological data, Sediment Effect Concentrations (SECs) were calculated as basis for the SQGs. The derived SECs were based on ecological effects, namely Lowest and Severe Effect Levels (LEL/SEL), as well as ecotoxicological endpoints, namely Threshold and Probable Effect Levels (TEL/PEL). The average values of the ecological and ecotoxicological SECs were used to distinguish five sediment quality classes.

Results and discussion

The ecological values were in general less stringent than the ecotoxicological values. However, the Lowest Effect Levels (95% of the benthic taxa can be present under this level) and Threshold Effect Levels (no toxic effect is expected under this level) did not differ significantly. Probable Effect Levels (concentrations above this level will certainly result in toxic effects) were generally lower than the Severe Effect Levels (above this level only 5% or less of the taxa are present). The SECs calculated in this study enabled us to correctly identify 87.9% of the sediments as toxic. The development of SQGs based on a combination of the LEL/SEL and TEL/PEL methods enabled us to underpin these SQGs based on field observations and will improve the assessment of sediment quality based on chemical parameters. Although sediments typically contain complex mixtures of contaminants, only a limited number of these contaminants will be measured. Additional application of bioassays for the overall sediment quality assessment is therefore recommended.

Conclusions

This study describes the development of SQGs in Flanders, which are based on ecological and ecotoxicological data derived from a TRIAD monitoring network. The combination of the LEL and PEL resulted in SQGs that were recently incorporated in Flemish legislation and for which the respective pore water concentrations were in the same order of magnitude as the Annual Average Environmental Quality Standards values for Water Framework Directive priority pollutants.

Keywords

EQS Macrobenthos Priority substances SEC Sediment quality guidelines SQG TRIAD 

References

  1. Apitz S, Barbanti A, Bocci M, Carlin A, Montobbio L, Bernstein A (2007) The sediments of the Venice Lagoon (Italy) evaluated in a risk assessment and management approach: part I—application of international sediment quality guidelines (SQGs). Integr Environ Assess Manag 3:393–414Google Scholar
  2. ASTM (2007) Standard test method for measuring the toxicity of sediment-associated contaminants with freshwater invertebrates. Method E1706-05. Annual Book of ASTM Standards, Vol. 11.06. American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, PAGoogle Scholar
  3. Babut MP, Garric J, Camusso M, den Besten PJ (2003) Use of sediment quality guidelines in ecological risk assessment of dredged materials: preliminary reflections. Aquat Ecosyst Health Manag 6:359–367CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Babut MP, Ahlf W, Batley GE et al (2005) International overview of sediment quality guidelines and their uses. In: Wenning RJ, Batley GE, Ingersoll CG, Moore DW (2005) Use of sediment quality guidelines and related tools for the assessment of contaminated sediments. Pensacola, Florida: Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry (SETAC), pp 345–378Google Scholar
  5. Chapman PM, Fairbrother A, Brown D (1998) A critical evaluation of safety (uncertainty) factors for ecological risk assessment. Environ Toxicol Chem 17:99–108CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Chapman PM, Birge WJ, Burgess RM et al (2005) Role of sediment quality guidelines and other tools in different aquatic habitats. In: Wenning RJ, Batley GE, Ingersoll CG, Moore DW (2005) Use of sediment quality guidelines and related tools for the assessment of contaminated sediments. Pensacola, Florida: Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry (SETAC), pp 267–310Google Scholar
  7. Chapman PM, McDonald BG, Kickham PE, McKinnon S (2006) Global geographic differences in marine metals toxicity. Mar Pollut Bull 52:1081–1084CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Commission E. Directive 2008/105/EC of the European Parliament and of the council of 16 December 2008 on environmental quality standards in the field of water policy, amending and subsequently repealing Council Directives 82/176/EEC, 83/513/EEC, 84/156/EEC, 84/491/EEC, 86/280/EEC and amending Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, 2008, pp 84–97Google Scholar
  9. Connell D, Lam P, Richardson B, Wu R (1999) Introduction to ecotoxicology. Blackwell, Hong Kong, p 184Google Scholar
  10. Contaminated sediment standing team (2003) Consensus-based sediment quality guidelines—recommendations for use and application interim guidance. Contaminated sediment standing team—Department of Natural Resources Wisconsin, 35 ppGoogle Scholar
  11. Crane M, Babut M (2007) Environmental quality standards for water framework directive priority substances: challenges and opportunities. Integr Environ Assess Manag 3:290–296CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Crommentuijn T, Sijm D, de Bruijn J, van Leeuwen K, van de Plassche E (2000) Maximum permissible and negligible concentrations for some organic substances and pesticides. J Environ Manage 58:297–312CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. De Deckere E, De Cooman W, Florus M, Devroede-Vanderlinden MP (eds) (2000) A manual for the assessment of sediments in Flanders with the Triad approach. Ministry of the Flemish Community, BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  14. de Deckere E, Beyen W, Van Pelt D, Veraart B, Florus M, Meire P (2002) Biological assessment of sediments: a comparison. In: Pelleti M., Porta A, Hinchee RE (eds) Characterization of contaminated sediments. Proceedings of the First International Conference on Remediation of Contaminated Sediments, 10-12 October 2001, Venice. Battelle, Geneve, pp 33–44Google Scholar
  15. De Pauw N, Heylen S (2001) Biotic index for sediment quality assessment of watercourses in Flanders, Belgium. Aq Ecol 35:121–131CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. De Pauw N, Vanhooren G (1983) Method for biological quality assessment of watercourses in Belgium. Hydrobiologia 100:153–168CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Den Besten PJ, de Deckere E, Babut MP, Power B, del Valls A, Zago C, Oen AMP, Heise S (2003) Biological effects-based sediment quality in ecological risk assessment for European waters. J Soils Sediments 3:144–162CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Di Toro DM, Zarba CS, Hansen DJ, Berry WJ, Swartz RC, Cowan CE, Pavlou SP, Allen HE, Thomas NA, Paquin PR (1991) Technical basis for establishing sediment quality criteria for nonionic organic chemicals using equilibrium paritioning. Environ Toxicol Chem 10:1541–1583CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Engler RM, Long ER, Swartz RC et al (2005) Chronology of the development of sediment quality assessment methods in North America. In: Wenning RJ, Batley GE, Ingersoll CG, Moore DW (2005) Use of sediment quality guidelines and related tools for the assessment of contaminated sediments. Pensacola, Florida: Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry (SETAC), pp 311–344Google Scholar
  20. Environment Canada (2003) The sediment–toxicity (SED–TOX) index. Sediment assessment series. Montréal-QuébecGoogle Scholar
  21. European Commission (2003) Technical guidance document on risk assessment – part IIGoogle Scholar
  22. Fairey R, Long ER, Roberts CA, Anderson BS, Phillips BM, Hunt JW, Puckett HR, Wilson CJ (2001) An Evaluation of methods for calculating mean sediment quality guideline quotients as indicators of contamination and acute toxicity to amphipods by chemical mixtures. Environ Toxicol Chem 20:2276–2286CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Gevrey M, Comte L, de Zwart D, de Deckere E, Lek S (2010) Modeling the chemical and toxic water status of the Scheldt basin (Belgium), using aquatic invertebrate assemblages and an advanced modeling method. Environ Pollut 158:3209–3218CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Health Council of the Netherlands (2002) Recommended exposure limits for polychlorinated biphenyls in soils and sediments, for the protection of ecosystems. The assessment of a derivation method devised by the National Institute of Public Health and the Environment (RIVM). The Hague: Health Council of the Netherlands; publication no. 2002/17Google Scholar
  25. Heininger P, Höss S, Claus E, Pelzer J, Traunspurger W (2007) Nematode communities in contaminated river sediments. Environ Pollut 146:64–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Heise S, Calus E, Heininger P, Krämer T, Krüger F, Schwartz R, Förnster U (2005) Studie zur Schadestoffbelastung der Sedimente im Elbeeinzugsgebiet—Ursachen und Trends. Studie Erstellt im Auftrag der Hamburg Port Authority, Beratungszentrum für Integriertes SedimentmanagementGoogle Scholar
  27. Helsel DR (2004) Nondetects and data analysis: statistics for censored environmental data. Statistics in practice. Wiley, Chichester, p 268Google Scholar
  28. Ingersoll CG, MacDonald DD, Wang N, Crane JL, Field LJ, Haverland PS, Kemble NE, Lindskoog RA, Severn C, Smorong DE (2000) Predictions of sediment toxicity using consensus-based freshwater sediment quality guidelines. Arch Environ Contam Toxicol 41:8–21Google Scholar
  29. James A, Bonnomet V, Morin A, Fribourg-Blanc B (2009) Implementation of requirements on priority substances within the context of the water framework directive. Prioritization process: monitoring-based ranking, pp 58Google Scholar
  30. Leung KMY, Bjorgesaeter A, Gray JS, Li WK, Lui GCS, Wang Y, Lam PKS (2005) Deriving sediment quality guidelines from field-based species sensitivity distributions. Environ Sci Technol 39:5148–5156CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Liess M, von der Ohe PC (2005) Analyzing effects of pesticides on invertebrate communities in streams. Environ Toxicol Chem 24:954–965CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Long ER, Chapman PM (1985) A sediment quality triad: Measures of sediment contamination, toxicity and infaunal community composition in Puget Sound. Mar Pollut Bull 16:405–415CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Long ER, MacDonald DD (1998) Recommended uses of empirically derived sediment quality guidelines for marine and estuarine ecosystems. Hum Ecol Risk Assess 4:1019–1039CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. MacDonald DD, Smith SL, Wong MP, Mudroch P (1992) The development of Canadian marine environmental quality guidelines, Environment Canada, Marine environmental quality series No 1. Ottawa, OntarioGoogle Scholar
  35. MacDonald DD, Carr RS, Calder FD, Long ER, Ingersoll CG (1996) Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for Florida coastal waters. Ecotoxicology 5:253–278CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. MacDonald DD, Ingersoll CG, Berger TA (2000) Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Arch Environ Contam Toxicol 39:20–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. MacDonald DD, Ingersoll CG, Smorong DE, Lindskoog RA, Sloane G, Biernacki T (2003) Development and evaluation of numerical sediment quality assessment guidelines for Florida inland waters. Florida Department of Environmental Protection, FloridaGoogle Scholar
  38. Neff JM, Bean DJ, Cornaby BW, Vaga RM, Gulbransen TC, Scanlon JA (1986) Sediment quality criteria methodology validation: calculation of screening level concentrations from field data. Battelle Washington Environmental Program Office for U.S. EPA, 60 pGoogle Scholar
  39. Persaud D, Jaagumagi R, Hayton A (1992) Guidelines for the protection and management of aquatic sediment quality in Ontario. Toronto (ON): Ontario Ministry of the Environment, Water Resources Branch, 27 pGoogle Scholar
  40. Preston BL (2002) Indirect effects in aquatic ecotoxicology: implications for ecological risk assessment. Environ Manage 29:311–323CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Salomons W, Brils J (eds) (2004) Contaminated sediments in European River Basins. SedNet final summary report, 80 ppGoogle Scholar
  42. Schäfer RB, Caquet T, Siimes K, Mueller R, Lagadic L, Liess M (2007) Effects of pesticides on community structure and ecosystem functions in agricultural streams of three biogeographical regions in Europe. Sci Total Environ 382:272–285CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Shine JP, Trapp CJ, Coull BA (2003) Use of receiver operating characteristic curves to evaluate sediment quality guidelines for metals. Environ Toxicol Chem 22:1642–1648CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Smith SL, MacDonald DD, Keenleyside KA, Gaudet CL (1996) The Development and implementation of Canadian sediment quality guidelines. In: Munawar M, Dave G (eds) Development and progress in sediment quality assessment. rationale, challenges, techniques and strategies. Ecovision world monograph series. SPB Academic, Amsterdam, pp 233–249Google Scholar
  45. Swartz RC (1999) Consensus sediment quality guidelines for polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon mixtures. Environ Toxicol Chem 18:780–787CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Teuchies J, Bervoets L, Meynendonckx J, Meire P, de Deckere E (2011) The effect of waste water treatment on river metal concentrations: removal or enrichment. J Soils Sediments. doi:10.1007/s11368-010-0321-4 Google Scholar
  47. Vangheluwe ML, Janssen CR and Van Sprang PA (2000) Selection of bioassays for sediment toxicity screening. In: Persoone G, Janssen C, De Coen W (eds) New microbiotests for routine toxicity screening and biomonitoring. Kluwer/PlenumGoogle Scholar
  48. Vidal DE, Bay SM (2005) Comparative sediment quality guideline performance for predicting sediment toxicity in Southern California, USA. Environ Toxicol Chem 24:3173–3182CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Von der Ohe PC, Prüß A, Schäfer RB, Liess M, de Deckere E, Brack W (2007) Water quality indices across Europe—a comparison of the good ecological status of five river basins. J Environ Monit 9:970–978CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. von der Ohe PC, de Deckere E, Muñoz I, Wolfram G, Villagrasa M, Ginebreda A, Prüß A, Brack W (2009) Towards an integrated and integrative European risk assessment. Integr Environ Assess Manage 5:50–61CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Washington Department of Ecology (2002) Development of freshwater sediment quality values or use in Washington State. Phase I Task 6: final report. Washington Department of Ecology Sediment Management Unit, pp 67Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Eric de Deckere
    • 1
  • Ward De Cooman
    • 2
  • Vicky Leloup
    • 3
  • Patrick Meire
    • 3
  • Claudia Schmitt
    • 3
  • Peter C. von der Ohe
    • 4
  1. 1.Institute of Environment & Sustainable DevelopmentUniversity of AntwerpWilrijkBelgium
  2. 2.Flemish Environment AgencyErembodegemBelgium
  3. 3.Ecosystem Management Research GroupUniversity of AntwerpWilrijkBelgium
  4. 4.UFZ, Department of Effect-Directed AnalysisHelmholtz Centre for Environmental Research, UFZLeipzigGermany

Personalised recommendations