Soil ecotoxicological screening (tier 1) for a diffuse-contaminated drainage area surrounding a lacustrine ecosystem in the Centre of Portugal
- 184 Downloads
This study presents a different approach for the application of the Dutch Risk Assessment Framework for contaminated sites, to areas undergoing diffuse pollution from agriculture activities. This approach aims to reduce the costs of tier 1, by using the ecotoxicological line of evidence (EcotoxLoE) to select the soils for chemical analysis of potential contaminants and subsequently for an integrated evaluation of risks by combining both the chemical (ChemLoE) and the EcotoxLoE.
Materials and methods
A battery of cost-effective and time-effective standard bioassays was applied, considering soil habitat function (whole soil approach—Microtox® test and avoidance assays with Folsomia candida) and soil retention function (elutriate approach—growth inhibition test with Raphidocelis subcapitata) for evaluating a vast array of samples collected in the study area. After a preliminary calculation of risks based on ecotoxicological data, samples displaying a moderate risk were screened for chemical analysis of the most used pesticides in the area, as well as for total metal concentrations after extraction following standard methods. For these samples, risks based on the ChemLoE and integrated risks were calculated.
Results and discussion
The ChemLoE confirmed the evaluation made by the EcotoxLoE and reduced the level of risk (<0.5) for the samples formerly presenting a moderate risk.
Given the sensitivity of the ecotoxicological assays to the mixture of contaminants potentially found in soils, the approach proved to be a good strategy for the application of the ERA framework, in particular of tier 1, on a routine basis, to areas under diffuse pollution. Since in these areas a more intense sampling is required, it can contribute to reducing the costs of the ChemLoE that can make the application of the ERA framework prohibitive.
KeywordsChemical evaluation Diffuse pollution Ecotoxicological evaluation Integrated risk values Soil toxicity screening
This work was supported by Portuguese Foundation for Science and Technology (Fundação para a Ciência e Tecnologia (FCT)) through individual research grant references SFRH/BD/48597/2008, under QREN-POPH funds, co-financed by the European Social Fund and Portuguese National Funds from MEC. Nelson Abrantes is the recipient of a researcher contract (IF/01198/2014) from FCT. CESAM is supported by FCT/MEC through national funds, and the co-funding by the FEDER, within the PT2020 Partnership Agreement and Compete 2020 (UID/AMB/50017). MARE is supported by FCT (project PEst-UID/MAR/04292/2013). Finally, CIIMAR is supported by the Strategic Funding UID/Multi/04423/2013 001 through national funds provided by FCT/MEC-Foundation for Science and Technology and European Regional Development Fund (FEDER), in the framework of the program PT2020.
- AZUR Environmental (1998) Microtox® Omni Manual. CarlsbadGoogle Scholar
- Barros P (1994) Implicações ecotoxicológicas de cianobactérias em cladóceros. M.Sc. thesis, Faculdade de Ciência e Tecnologia da Universidade de Coimbra, Coimbra, Portugal, p 84Google Scholar
- Doherty FG (2001) A review of the Microtox® toxicity test system for assessing the toxicity of sediments and soils. Water Qual Res J Canada 36:475–518Google Scholar
- Fernandes MJ (1999) Modelação e simulação nas lagoas de Quiaios. Ph.D. thesis, Universidade do Algarve, Faro, Portugal, p 236Google Scholar
- Hund-Rinke K, Kordel W, Hennecke D et al (2002) Bioassays for the ecotoxicological and genotoxicological assessment of contaminated soils (results from a round Robin test). Part I. Assessment of a possible groundwater contamination: ecotoxicological and genotoxicological tests with aqueous soil extract. J Soils Sediments 2:43–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- ISO (2005) 11269, International organization for standardization, soil quality: determination of the effects of pollutants on soil flora-part 2: effects of chemicals on the emergence and growth of higher plants, Geneva, SwitzerlandGoogle Scholar
- ISO (2008) 17512-1, International organization for standardization, soil quality—avoidance test for determining the quality of soils and effects of chemicals on behaviour-part 1: test with earthworms (Eisenia fetida and Eisenia andrei), Geneva, SwitzerlandGoogle Scholar
- ISO (2011) 17512-2, International organization for standardization, soil quality—avoidance test for testing the quality of soils and effects of chemicals on behavior–part 2: test with Collembola (Folsomia candida), Geneva, SwitzerlandGoogle Scholar
- Jensen J, Mesman M (2006) Ecological risk assessment of contaminated land—decision support for site specific investigations. RIVM report 711701047, p 136Google Scholar
- MEA (Millenium Ecosystem Assessment) (2005) Ecosystems and human well-being: synthesis. Island Press. World Resources Institute, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
- Micheli E, Nachtergaele FO, Jones RJA, Montanarella L (2002) Soil classification 2001. European Soil Bureau Research Report No. 7, EUR 20398 EN. Office for official publications of the European Communities, LuxembourgGoogle Scholar
- OECD (1984) Earthworm acute toxicity tests. OECD Guideline 207. Paris, FranceGoogle Scholar
- OECD (2006) 201, Freshwater alga and cyanobacteria, growth inhibition test. Guidel test chem, pp 1–26Google Scholar
- Pereira R (1997) Plano de ordenamento e gestão das lagoas das Braças e da Vela (Centro-Litoral). M.Sc. thesis, Faculdade de Ciências e Tecnologia da Universidade de Coimbra, Coimbra, Potugal, p 142Google Scholar
- SPAC (2000) Soil and plant analysis, council, handbook of reference methods. CRC, Boca RatonGoogle Scholar
- Stein JR (1973) Handbook of phycological methods—culture methods and growth measurements. Cambridge University Press, LondonGoogle Scholar
- USEPA (1996) Organochlorine pesticides by gas chromatography, EPA method 8081a. United States Environmental Protection Agency, Washington DCGoogle Scholar
- USEPA (1998a) USACE: great lakes dredged material testing and evaluation manual—appendix G. United States Environmental Protection Agency, Washington DC, p 242Google Scholar
- USEPA (1998b) Microwave assisted acid digestion of sediment, sludges, soils and oils. EPA method 3051A. United States Environmental Protection Agency, Washington DCGoogle Scholar
- USEPA (1999) Determination of glyphosate in drinking water by direct-aqueous injection HPLC, post-column derivatization, and fluorescence detection. Method 547. United States Environmental Protection Agency, Washington DCGoogle Scholar
- USEPA (2004) Framework for inorganic metals risk assessment. EPA/630/P-04/068B. United States Environmental Protection Agency, Washington DCGoogle Scholar