Journal of Soils and Sediments

, Volume 20, Issue 1, pp 204–219 | Cite as

Demonstration and validation of enhanced monitored natural recovery at a pesticide-contaminated sediment site

  • Kyle Fetters
  • Gunther Rosen
  • Victoria Kirtay
  • Bart Chadwick
  • Jason Conder
  • Victoria Paris Sacks
  • Melissa Grover
  • Victor MagarEmail author
Sediments, Sec 5 • Sediment Management • Research Article



Monitored natural recovery (MNR) combined with a thin-layer cap (TLC), often referred to as enhanced monitored natural recovery (EMNR), has the potential to accelerate and improve the effectiveness of MNR as a remedial strategy while minimizing widespread disturbance to the existing habitat. This study evaluated the effectiveness of a nominal 15-cm thin-layer sand cap as an EMNR remedial strategy to address sediments that were moderately contaminated with the chlorinated pesticide dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane and its derivatives, collectively DDX.

Materials and methods

Physical, chemical, and biological measurements were conducted pre-remedy placement and 2, 14, and 25 months post-placement. Measurements were used to evaluate (1) TLC stability; (2) bottom-up mixing of the TLC; (3) advection through the TLC; (4) characteristics of newly deposited sediment atop the EMNR layer compared to pre-remedy surface sediment conditions; (5) changes in contaminant bioavailability; and (6) physical impacts to the benthic community.

Results and discussion

Significant reductions were observed from measurements conducted pre- and post-placement in surface sediment (84–97%), porewater (33–75%), and tissue concentrations (Lumbriculus variegatus deployed in situ) (72–82%). A 63 to 72% decrease in DDX depositional mass flux also was observed. Multiple lines of evidence indicated that the TLC material remained stable. Deposition of suspended material with low concentrations of DDX influenced low concentrations in the surface sediments. No adverse effects were observed on the benthic invertebrate community after TLC placement, and ecological metrics indicated increases in benthic community health, even in the short time period (2 months) following TLC placement.


This demonstration showed that EMNR can be effective at reducing biological exposure in surface sediments while minimizing short-term disturbances to benthic communities at sites where MNR is a remedy option, but natural deposition rates are inadequate to achieve cleanup goals within a reasonable timeframe.


Bioaccumulation Bioavailability DDX Enhanced monitored natural recovery Sediment remediation Thin-layer cap 



Funding for this research was provided by the US Department of Defense Environmental Security Technology Certification Program (ESTCP; Project ER-201368, leveraged with Project ER-201130). The authors would like to thank Quantico site and project managers including Donna Heric and Maria Hoidal (Marine Corps Base Quantico), Fred Evans and Lyndsay Kelsey (Naval Facilities Engineering Command Washington), and Heather Thurston (Battelle). Numerous others made significant technical contributions to the success of this work, including Marienne Colvin, Joel Guerrero, Chuck Katz, Bradley Davidson, Ernie Arias, Lewis Hsu (Space and Naval Warfare Systems Center Pacific); Mark Greenberg, Alan Humphrey, Scott Grosssman, Stephen Blaze (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency); Jonathan Mcburney (Leidos); Jennifer Arblaster (Geosyntec Consultants); Jacob Munson, Renee Dolecal (San Diego State University Research Foundation); Chris Stransky, Kelly Tait (Amec); Adrienne Cibor (Nautilus Environmental); Michelle Knowlen, Jay Word, Brian Hester (Ecoanalysts); George Christian (Normandeau Associates); Robert Diaz (Diaz and Daughters); Joe Germano (Germano and Associates); John Radford (Zebra-Tech, Ltd.); Allyson Holman, Jenifer Milam, Patricia Tuminello, Guilherme Lotufo (Engineering Research and Development Center, Army Corps of Engineers); Magdalena Rakowska, Courtney Thomas, Danny Reible (Texas Tech University); Dean Atwood, Phil Earhart (Quantico Marina); and Todd Weidner (Battelle).

Supplementary material

11368_2019_2386_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (3.6 mb)
ESM 1 (PDF 3675 kb)


  1. ASTM D422–63 (2007) Standard test method for particle-size analysis of soils (withdrawn 2016). ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, USA Accessed 2019
  2. ASTM E1391–03 (2014) Standard guide for collection, storage, characterization, and manipulation of sediments for toxicological testing and for selection of samplers used to collect benthic invertebrates. ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, USA Google Scholar
  3. Battelle, Otten M, Neptune and Company (2007) Final Quantico Embayment (Site 99), southern wetlands (Site 96), and Potomac River Southern Area 1 feasibility study, USAGoogle Scholar
  4. Blake A, Chadwick D, White P, Jones C (2007) User’s guide for assessing sediment transport at navy facilities, SPAWAR Systems Center San Diego, Technical Report 1960. Accessed 8 Feb 2019
  5. Bouchard RW (2004) Guide to aquatic invertebrates of the Upper Midwest. University of Minnesota, USAGoogle Scholar
  6. Burkhard L (2009) Estimation of biota sediment accumulation factor (BSAF) from paired observations of chemical concentrations in biota and sediment. EPA/600/R-06/047 (final report). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Ecological Risk Assessment Support Center, Cincinnati, OH, USAGoogle Scholar
  7. Burton GA, Rosen G, Chadwick DB, Stransky C, Bailey H, Greenberg MS, Radford J (2013) Improved in situ approach for assessing sediment ecological risk, remediation effectiveness, and stormwater impacts. Seventh International Conference on Remediation of Contaminated Sediments, Dallas, Texas, USA (February 4–7, 2013). ISBN 978–0–9819730-6-7, ©2013 Battelle Memorial Institute, Columbus, OH, USA Accessed 2019
  8. Chadwick DB, Arias E (2014) Demonstration of an in-situ friction-sound probe for mapping particle size at contaminated sediment sites. Space and Naval Warfare Center Pacific Technical Report #2040, for the Department of Defense's Environmental Security Technology Certification Program, 78 pp Accessed 8 February 2019
  9. Chadwick DB, Colvin M, Davidson B, Rosen G, Burton A, Moore D (2017) Remedy and recontamination assessment array. Strategic Environmental Research and Development Program (SERDP) Project 2537. Final technical report. 578 pp. March 2017. Accessed 8 February 2019
  10. Clarke KR (1993) Non-parametric multivariate analyses of changes in community structure. Aust J Ecol 18:117–143CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hiltunen JK, Klem DJ (1980) A guide to the Naididae (Annelida: Clitellata: Oligochaeta) of North America. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA-600/4-80-031, Washington, DC, USAGoogle Scholar
  12. Honeycutt ME, McFarland VA, McCant DD (1995) Comparison of three lipid extraction methods for fish. Bull Environ Contam Toxicol 55:469–472CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Jersak J, Göransson G, Ohlsson Y, Larsson L, Flyhammar P, Lindh P (2016) In-situ capping of contaminated sediments. Method overview. SGI Publication 30-1E, Swedish Geotechnical Institute, SGI, Linköping. Accessed 8 February 2019
  14. Kirtay V, Rosen G, Colvin M, Guerrero J, Katz C, Chadwick DB, Fetters K, Magar V, Arblaster J, Grover M, Conder J, Greenberg M, Humphrey A, Weidner T (2017) Final technical report: demonstration and validation of enhanced monitored natural recovery at department of defense sediment sites. ESTCP Project: ER-201368. US Department of Defense Environmental Security Technology Certification ProgramGoogle Scholar
  15. Kirtay V, Conder J, Rosen G, Magar V, Grover M, Arblaster J, Fetters K, Chadwick B (2018) Performance of an in situ activated carbon treatment to reduce PCB availability in an active harbor. Environ Sci Technol 37:1767–1777Google Scholar
  16. Kozerski HP (1994) Possibilities and limitations of sediment traps to measure sedimentation and resuspension. Hydrobiologia 284(1):93–100CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Lampert DJ, Sarchet WV, Reible DD (2011) Assessing the effectiveness of thin-layer sand caps for contaminated sediment management through passive sampling. Environ Sci Technol 45(19):8437–8443CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Llansó RJ, Dauer DM (2002) Methods for calculating the Chesapeake Bay benthic index of biotic integrity. Accessed 8 February 2019
  19. Lauritsen DD (1986) Filter-feeding in Corbicula fluminea and its effect on seston removal. J N Am Benthol Soc 5(3):165–172CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Magar VS, Wenning RJ (2006) The role of monitored natural recovery in sediment remediation. Integr Environ Assess Manag 2(1):66–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Magar VS, Chadwick DB, Bridges TS, Fuchsman PC, Conder JM, Dekker TJ, Steevens JA, Gustavson KE, Mills MA (2009) Technical guide: monitored natural recovery at contaminated sediment sites. Published by the Environmental Security testing and Certification Program (ESTCP). ESTCP-ER-0622 Virginia, USA. At Accessed 8 February 2019
  22. Merritt KA, Conder J, Kirtay V, Chadwick DB, Magar V (2010) Review of thin-layer placement applications to enhance natural recovery of contaminated sediment. Integr Environ Assess Manag 6(4):749–760CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. McLeod PB, Luoma SN, Luthy RG (2008) Biodynamic modeling of PCB uptake by Macoma balthica and Corbicula fluminea from sediment amended with activated carbon. Environ Sci Technol 42:484–490CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Pennak R (1989) Fresh-water invertebrates of the United States: Protozoa to Mollusca, 3rd edn. Wiley, Chichester, UKGoogle Scholar
  25. Phipps GL, Ankley GT, Benoit DA, Mattson VR (1993) Use of the aquatic oligochaete Lumbriculus variegatus for assessing the toxicity and bioaccumulation of sediment-associated contaminants. Environ Toxicol Chem 12:269–279CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. R Core Team (2018) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria URL Accessed 2019
  27. Rosen G, Chadwick DB, Burton GA, Taulbee WK, Greenberg MS, Lotufo GR, Reible DD (2012) A sediment ecotoxicity assessment platform for in situ measures of chemistry, bioaccumulation and toxicity. Part 2: integrated application to a shallow estuary. Environ Pollut 162:457–465CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Rosen G, Chadwick DB, Colvin M, Stransky C, Burton A, Radford J, Bailey H, Cibor A, Grover M, Greenberg M (2017) Demonstration and commercialization of the sediment ecosystem assessment protocol. Space and Naval Warfare Center Pacific technical report #3052, for the Department of Defense’s Environmental Security Technology Certification Program, 278 ppGoogle Scholar
  29. Stimpson K, Klemm DJ, Hiltunen J (1982) A guide to the freshwater Tubificidae (Annelida: Clitellata: Oligochaeta) of North America. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA/600/3-82/033, Washington, DC, USAGoogle Scholar
  30. Thorp J, Covich A (2010) Ecology and classification of North American freshwater invertebrates. 3rd ed. Academic Press., Copyright
  31. USEPA (2005) Contaminated sediment remediation guidance for hazardous waste sites. OSWER 9355.0-85. EPA-540-R-05-012. Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, Washington, DC, USAGoogle Scholar
  32. USEPA (2013) Use of amendments for in situ remediation at superfund sediment sites. OSWER 9200.2-128FS. Office of Superfund Remediation and Technology Innovation, Washington, DC, USAGoogle Scholar
  33. USEPA (2015) Determination of the biologically relevant sampling depth for terrestrial and aquatic ecological risk assessments. EPA/600/R-15/176. National Center for Environmental Assessment, Ecological Risk Assessment Support Center, Cincinnati, OH, USAGoogle Scholar
  34. Yang Z, Maruya KA, Greenstein D, Tsukada D, Zeng EY (2008) Experimental verification of a model describing solid phase microextraction (SPME) of freely dissolved organic pollutants in sediment porewater. Chemosphere 72:1435–1440CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. You J, Pehkonen S, Landrum PF, Lydy MJ (2007) Desorption of hydrophobic compounds from laboratory-spiked sediments measured by Tenax absorbent and matrix solid-phase microextraction. Environ Sci Technol 41:5672–5678CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Ramboll US CorporationChicagoUSA
  2. 2.Space and Naval Warfare Systems Center PacificSan DiegoUSA
  3. 3.Coastal Monitoring Associates4741 Orchard Ave., San DiegoUSA
  4. 4.Geosyntec ConsultantsHuntington BeachUSA

Personalised recommendations