Journal of Soils and Sediments

, Volume 14, Issue 1, pp 196–203 | Cite as

Toxicity survey of Canadian Arctic marine sediments

  • João Canário
  • Laurier Poissant
  • Martin Pilote
  • Christian Blaise
  • Philippe Constant
  • Jean-François Férard
  • François Gagné
SEDIMENTS, SEC 1 • SEDIMENT QUALITY AND IMPACT ASSESSMENT • RESEARCH ARTICLE

Abstract

Purpose

This paper reports a toxicity survey of Canadian Arctic marine sediments. During the Amundsen scientific cruise, eight sites distributed across the Canadian Arctic and sub-Arctic regions were selected to highlight sensitive areas affected by either atmospheric deposition, ocean current, river drainage, or anthropogenic activities. As part of the Canadian-led ArcticNet research program, this study aims to monitor and to better understand potential changes likely to impact the Arctic.

Materials and methods

Surface sediments were investigated with bioanalytical tests to assess sediment toxicity. Testing of sediment elutriates was undertaken with the ARTOXKIT M, Microtox liquid phase (MLPA), and ROTOXKIT M toxicity assays, while whole sediment testing was carried out with the Microtox solid phase assay (MSPA) toxicity test procedure. Sediment mercury (Hg) content was also determined in each sample since Hg transport and toxicity is specifically an important issue in the Arctic and is generally a key indicator of the pollution status in many aquatic ecosystems.

Results and discussion

Based on bioassay results and sediment granulometric criteria, these Arctic sediments must be considered nontoxic. However, based on MSPA half maximal inhibitory concentrations (IC50s) and/or MLPA threshold effect concentration (TEC) values, some degree of toxicity may be measureable particularly in the sediments located in southern and northeast Hudson Bay. The Hudson Bay watershed drains 30% of Canadian rivers and extends to northern USA. Despite the large Hg concern in the Arctic, the input of local or long-range Hg sources does not appear to be a contributing factor to sediment toxicity.

Conclusions

These initial results are valuable in that they set baseline quality levels for these sediments as of 2005. As such, future comparisons can be made to assess temporal and spatial trends. Human activity and climate change is expected to impact these regions in the future, resulting in further reduction of sea ice extent, access to new Arctic seaways, and drilling associated with the exploitation of natural resources.

Keywords

Canadian Arctic Hudson Bay Mercury Northwest Passage Sediments Toxicity 

References

  1. ACIA (2005) ACIA Scientific Report. Arctic Climate Impact Assessment. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, p 1042Google Scholar
  2. AMAP (2011) AMAP Assessment 2011: mercury in the Arctic. Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Program (AMAP), Norway, p 193Google Scholar
  3. American Public Health Association (1998) Standard methods for the examination of water and wastewater, 20th edn. American Public Health Association, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  4. Bargagli R (2000) Trace metals in Antarctica related to climate change and increasing human impact. Rev Environ Contam Toxicol 166:129–173Google Scholar
  5. Canário J, Poissant L, Nogueira M, Pilote M (2008) Particulate trace metal distribution and carbon along Great Whale River and Hudson Bay. Arctic Change Conference, Québec CityGoogle Scholar
  6. Chaulk A, Stern GA, Armstrong D, Barber DG, Wang F (2011) Mercury distribution and transport across the ocean–sea–ice–atmosphere interface in the Arctic Ocean. Environ Sci Technol 45:1866–1872CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Chi-Ying H, Meng-Hsiun T, David KR, Oscar CP (2004) Toxicity of the 13 priority pollutant metals to Vibrio fischeri in the Microtox chronic toxicity test. Sci Total Environ 320:37–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cole A, Steffen A, Aspmo K, Berg T, Pilote M, Poissant L, Tordon R (2012) Ten-year trends of atmospheric mercury in the Arctic and eastern Canada. A Atmos Chem Phys 13:1535–1545CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Costley CT, Mossop KF, Dean JR, Garden LM, Marshall J, Carroll J (2000) Determination of mercury in environmental and biological samples using pyrolysis atomic absorption spectrometry with gold amalgamation. Anal Chim Acta 405:179–183CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Doherty FG (2001) A review of the Microtox toxicity test system for assessing the toxicity of sediments and soils. Water Qual Res J Can 36:475–518Google Scholar
  11. Durant S, Karran P (2003) Vanillins—a novel family of DNA-PK inhibitors. Nucleic Acids Res 31:5501–5512CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Environment Canada (1992) Biological test method: toxicity test using luminescent bacteria (Photobacterium phosphoreum), Environmental protection series, report EPS 1/RM/24. Conservation and Protection, Environment Canada, Ottawa, p 61Google Scholar
  13. Environment Canada (2002) Biological Test Method: Solid-Phase Reference Method for Determining the Toxicity of Sediment Using Luminescent Bacteria (Vibrio fischeri), Environmental protection series, report EPS 1/RM/42. Conservation and Protection, Environment Canada, Ottawa, p 60Google Scholar
  14. Gleason JD, Blum JD, Moore TC, Polyak L, Jakobsson M (2011) Mercury stable isotopic variations in Arctic Ocean pelagic sediment. Goldschmidt Conference Abstracts, 922. http://goldschmidt.info/2011/abstracts/finalPDFs/922.pdf
  15. Gobeil C, McDonald RW, Smith JN (1999) Mercury profiles in sediments of the Arctic Ocean basins. Environ Sci Technol 33:4194–4198CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Graydon JA, Emmerton CA, Lesack LF, Kelly EN (2009) Mercury in the Mackenzie River delta and estuary: concentrations and fluxes during open-water conditions. Sci Total Environ 407:2980–2988CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hammock D, Huang CC, Mort G, Swinehart JH (2003) The effect of humic acid on the uptake of mercury(II), cadmium(II), and zinc(II) by Chinook Salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) eggs. Arch Environ Contam Toxicol 44:83–88CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hare A, Stern GA, Macdonald RW, Kuzyk ZZ, Wang F (2008) Contemporary and preindustrial mass budgets of mercury in the Hudson Bay Marine System: the role of sediment recycling. Sci Total Environ 406:190–204CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kirk JL, St. Louis VL (2009) Multiyear total and methyl mercury exports from two major sub-Arctic rivers draining into Hudson Bay, Canada. Environ Sci Technol 43:2254–2261CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kuzyk ZZA, Goñi MA, Stern GA, Macdonald RW (2008) Sources, pathways and sinks of particulate organic matter in Hudson Bay: evidence from lignin distributions. Mar Chem 112:215–229CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Leitch DR, Carrie J, Lean D, Macdonald RW, Stern GA, Wang F (2007) The delivery of mercury to the Beaufort Sea of the Arctic Ocean by the Mackenzie River. Sci Total Environ 373:178–195CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Macdonald RW, Barrie LA, Bidleman TF, Diamond ML, Gregor DJ, Semkin RG et al (2000) Contaminants in the Canadian Arctic: 5 years of progress in understanding sources, occurrence and pathways. Sci Total Environ 254:93–234CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Maggi C, Berducci MT, Bianchi J, Giani M, Campanella L (2009) Methylmercury determination in marine sediment and organisms by Direct Mercury Analyser. Anal Chim Acta 64:32–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Maslowski W, Kinney JC, Jakacki J (2007) Toward prediction of environmental arctic change. Comput Sci Eng 9:29–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Melamed R, Trigueiro FE, Villas Bôas RC (2000) The effect of humic acid on mercury solubility and complexation. Appl Organomet Chem 14:473–476CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Outridge PM, Macdonald RW, Wang F, Stern GA, Dastoor AP (2008) A mass balance inventory of mercury in the Arctic Ocean. Environ Chem 5:89–111CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Poissant L, Pilote M (2003) Time series analysis of atmospheric mercury in Kuujjuarapik/Whapmagoostui (Québec). J Phys IV(JP 107 (II)):1079–1082Google Scholar
  28. Poissant L, Zhang HH, Canário J, Constant P (2008) Critical review of mercury fates and contamination in the Arctic tundra ecosystem. Sci Total Environ 400:173–211CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Prowse TD, Furgal C, Bonsal BR, Peters DL (2009) Climate impacts on northern Canada: regional background. Ambio 38:248–256CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Ringwood AH, Delorenzo ME, Ross PE, Holland AF (1997) Interpretation of Microtox solid phase toxicity tests: the effects of sediment composition. Environ Toxicol Chem 16:1135–1140CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Statistics Canada (2006) 2006 census of population. www.statcan.gc.ca
  32. Tay KL, Doe KG, MacDonald AJ, Lee K (1998) The influence of particle size, ammonia, and sulphide on toxicity of dredged materials for ocean disposal. In: Wells PG, Lee K, Blaise C (eds) Microscale testing in aquatic toxicology—advances, techniques and practice. CRC, New York, pp 559–574Google Scholar
  33. Trefry JH, Dunton KH, Trocine RP, Schonberg SV, McTigue ND, Hersh ES, McDonald TJ (2013) Chemical and biological assessment of two offshore drilling sites in the Alaskan Arctic. Mar Environ Res 86:35–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. US EPA (United States Environmental Protection Agency) (1989) Short-term methods for estimating the chronic toxicity of effluents and receiving waters to freshwater organisms. EPA/600/4-89/001, Office of Research and Development, Cincinnati, Ohio, USA, 248 ppGoogle Scholar
  35. Vale C, Canário J, Caetano M, Lavrado J, Brito P (2008) Estimation of the anthropogenic fraction of elements in surface sediments of the Tagus Estuary (Portugal). Mari Pollut Bull 56:1364–1367CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Wells PG, Depledge M, Butler J, Manock J, Knap A (2001) Rapid toxicity assessment and biomonitoring of marine contaminants—exploiting the potential of rapid biomarker assays and microscale toxicity tests. Mar Pollut Bull 42:789–804Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • João Canário
    • 1
  • Laurier Poissant
    • 2
  • Martin Pilote
    • 2
  • Christian Blaise
    • 2
  • Philippe Constant
    • 3
  • Jean-François Férard
    • 4
  • François Gagné
    • 2
  1. 1.CQE, Instituto Superior TécnicoUniversity of LisbonLisbonPortugal
  2. 2.Fluvial Ecosystems Research, Aquatic Ecosystem Protection Research Division, Water Science and Technology DirectorateEnvironment CanadaMontréalCanada
  3. 3.Institut National de Recherche Scientifique (INRS)–Institut Armand-FrappierLavalCanada
  4. 4.Laboratoire des Interactions Ecotoxicologie, Biodiversité, Ecosystèmes (LIEBE)Université Paul Verlaine - METZ (UPVM), UMR CNRS 7146MetzFrance

Personalised recommendations