Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Sediment Toxicity in Mid-Continent Great Rivers (USA)

  • Published:
Archives of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

As part of the Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program for Great River Ecosystems (EMAP-GRE), sediment samples were collected from 447 randomly selected littoral sites along the main channels of the Ohio, Missouri, and Upper Mississippi Rivers between 2004 and 2006. Toxicity of these sediment samples was measured using a 7-day Hyalella azteca survival and growth test. Sixty-five sites (14.5%) exhibited lethal toxicity, and 130 sites (29.1%) exhibited decreased growth. In the EMAP-GRE probabilistic sampling design, each sampled site had a weight associated with it that determined the length (and proportion) of the river represented by that sample point in the population. Weighted whole-river estimates indicated that of the 4721 river km sampled, sediment from 15.9 ± 3.0% of the river (752 ± 50 km) were lethally toxic, 27.4 ± 3.5% (1289 ± 57 km) were toxic by way of growth inhibition, and 40.0 ± 3.7% (1887 ± 68 km) exhibited either lethal or growth toxicity. Selected toxic samples were analyzed for 21 pesticides, 20 polychlorinated biphenyl congeners, and 6 polybrominated diphenyl ether congeners. For all of the samples tested, the concentration levels of these analytes were mostly lower than known toxicity thresholds, and neither unionized ammonia concentration nor osmotic stress (as measured by conductivity) could account for the toxicity found in sediments. The spatial pattern of sediment toxicity cannot be readily explained by urbanization or agricultural land use at the subcatchment scale. We speculate that the distribution of toxic sediment is more likely due to a combination of localized sources, including polluted tributaries, and the redistribution of contaminated sediments from upriver. The sediment toxicity results from this study will be used, in combination with other sediment, biologic, and habitat metrics and indicators collected in the EMAP-GRE study, to help interpret and assess the condition of the Ohio, Upper Mississippi, and Missouri Rivers.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Agresti A (1996) An introduction to categorical data analysis. Wiley, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Angradi TR, Bolgrien DW, Jicha TM, Pearson MS, Hill BH, Taylor DL (2009a) A bioassessment approach for mid-continent Great Rivers: The Upper Mississippi, Missouri and Ohio (USA). Environ Monit Assess 152:425–442

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Angradi TR, Pearson MS, Jicha TM, Taylor DL, Bolgrien DW, Moffett MF (2009b) Using stressor gradients to determine reference expectations for Great River fish assemblages. Ecol Indic 9:748–764

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Angradi TR, Bolgrien DW, Jicha TM, Moffett MF (2010) Macroinvertebrate assemblage response to urbanization in three mid-continent USA great rivers. Fund Appl Limnol Arch Hydrobiol 176:183–196

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blocksom KA, Walters DM, Jicha TM, Lazorchak JM, Angradi TR, Bolgrien DW (2010) Persistent organic pollutants in fish tissue in the mid-continental great rivers of the United States. Sci Total Environ 408:1180–1189

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Brunson EL, Canfield TJ, Dwyer FJ, Ingersoll CG, Kemble NE (1998) Assessing the bioaccumulation of contaminants from sediments of the Upper Mississippi River using field-collected oligochaetes and laboratory-exposed Lumbriculus variegates. Arch Environ Contam Toxicol 35:191–201

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Burton GA Jr (2002) Sediment quality criteria in use around the world. Limnology 3:65–75

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Canfield TC, Brunson EL, Dwyer FJ, Ingersoll CG, Kemble NE (1998) Assessing sediments from Upper Mississippi River navigational pools using a benthic invertebrate community evaluation and the sediment quality triad approach. Arch Environ Contam Toxicol 35:202–212

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Greenstein D, Bay S, Anderson B, Chandler T, Farrar JD, Keppler C et al (2008) Comparison of methods for evaluating acute and chronic toxicity in marine sediments. Environ Toxicol Chem 27:933–944

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Homer C, Huang C, Yang L, Wylie B, Coan M (2004) Development of a 2001 national land cover database for the United States. Photogramm Eng Remote Sensing 70:824–840

    Google Scholar 

  • Hunt JW, Anderson BA, Phillips BM, Tjeerdema RS, Taberski KM, Wilson CJ (2001) A large-scale categorization of sites in San Francisco Bay, USA, based on the sediment quality triad, toxicity identification evaluations, and gradient studies. Environ Toxicol Chem 20:1252–1265

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Johannessen SC, Macdonald RW, Wright CA, Burd B, Shaw DP, van Roodselaar A (2008) Joined by geochemistry, divided by history: PCBs and PBDEs in Strait of Georgia sediments. Mar Environ Res 66(Suppl 1):S112–S120

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Kuhn A, Munns WA Jr, Serbst J, Edwards P, Cantwell MG, Gleason T et al (2002) Evaluating the ecological significance of laboratory response data to predict population-level effects for the estuarine amphipod Ampelisca abdita. Environ Toxicol Chem 21:865–874

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Long ER, Hong CB, Severn CG (2001) Relationships between acute sediment toxicity in laboratory tests and abundance and diversity of benthic infauna in marine sediments: a review. Environ Toxicol Chem 20:46–60

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • MacDonald DD, Ingersoll CG, Berger TA (2000) Development and evaluation of consensus based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Arch Environ Toxicol 39:20–31

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • McDonald M, Blair R, Bolgrien D, Brown B, Dlugosz J, Hale S (2004) The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program. In: Wiersma GB et al (eds) Environmental monitoring. CRC, New York, pp 649–668

    Google Scholar 

  • Mount DR, Gulley DD, Hockett JR, Garrison TD, Evans JM (1997) Statistical models to predict the toxicity of major ions to Ceriodaphnia dubia, Daphnia magna and Pimephales promelas (fathead minnows). Environ Toxicol Chem 16:2009–2019

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Myers RH (1990) Classical and modern regression with applications, 2nd edn. Duxbury, Belmont

    Google Scholar 

  • Preston B (2002) Spatial patterns in benthic biodiversity of Chesapeake Bay, USA (1984–1999): association with water quality and sediment toxicity. Environ Toxicol Chem 20:151–162

    Google Scholar 

  • Schweiger EW, Bolgrien DW, Angradi TR, Kelly JR (2004) Environmental monitoring and assessment of a Great River ecosystem: The Upper Missouri River pilot. Environ Monit Assess 103:5–20

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith ME, Lazorchak JM, Herrin LE, Brewer-Swartz S, Thoeny WT (1997) A reformulated reconstituted water for testing the freshwater amphipod, Hyalella azteca. Environ Toxicol Chem 16:1229–1233

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Stevens DL Jr (1997) Variable density grid-based sampling designs for continuous spatial populations. Environometrics 8:167–195

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stoddard JL, Peck DV, Olsen AR, Larsen DP, Van Sickle J, Hawkins CP et al (2005) Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program (EMAP): western streams and rivers statistical summary. EPA/620/R-05/006. USEPA, Office of Research and Development, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • Stronkhorst J, Schipper C, Brils J, Dubbeldam M, Postma J, Van De Hoevenzz N (2003) Using marine bioassays to classify the toxicity of Dutch Harbor sediments. Environ Toxicol Chem 22:1535–1547

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Tabak HH, Lazorchak JM, Li L, Khodadoust AP, Antia RB, Suidan MT (2003) Studies on bioremediation of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons contaminated sediments: bioavailability, biodegradability and toxicity issues. Environ Toxicol Chem 22:473–482

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Tucker KA, Burton GA (1999) Assessment of nonpoint-source runoff in a stream using in situ and laboratory approaches. Environ Toxicol Chem 18:2797–2803

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • United States Environmental Protection Agency (1994) Environmental monitoring, assessment program, surface waters, region 3 regional environmental monitoring and assessment program: 1994 laboratory methods manual for streams. EPA/620/R-94/003. USEPA, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • United States Environmental Protection Agency (1995) Determination of chlorinated pesticides, herbicides, and organohalides by liquid-solid extraction and electron capture gas chromatography, 508.1. USEPA, Office of Research and Development, National Exposure Research Laboratory, Cincinnati

    Google Scholar 

  • United States Environmental Protection Agency (2000) Prediction of sediment toxicity using consensus-based freshwater sediment quality guidelines. EPA 905-R-00–007. USEPA, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • United States Environmental Protection Agency (2002a) Methods for measuring the toxicity and bioaccumulation of sediment-associated contaminants with freshwater invertebrates, 2nd edn. EPA-600-R-99-064. USEPA, Office of Water, Washington, DC

  • United States Environmental Protection Agency (2002b). Methods for measuring the acute toxicity of effluents and receiving waters to freshwater and marine organisms, 4th edn. EPA-821-R-02-012. USEPA, Office of Water, Washington, DC

  • United States Environmental Protection Agency (2004) EPA collaborates with state and federal partners to study the state of the great rivers. Fact sheet. USEPA, Office of Research and Development, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • United States Environmental Protection Agency (2006) Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program: Great River ecosystems field operations manual. EPA/620/R-06/002. USEPA, Office of Research and Development, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • United States Environmental Protection Agency (2008) Method 3660B, Sulfur cleanup, Rev. 2 (December 1996). In: Test methods for evaluating solid waste, physical/chemical methods, 3rd edn. Final update IV. SW-846. USEPA, Washington, DC. http://www.epa.gov/epawaste/hazard/testmethods/sw846/pdfs/3660b.pdf

  • Winger PV, Lasier PJ (1998) Toxicity of sediment collected upriver and downriver of major cities along the Lower Mississippi River. Arch Environ Contam Toxicol 35:213–217

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The research reported in this document was funded by the USEPA. This manuscript has been subjected to review by the National Exposure Research Laboratory and approved for publication. Approval does not signify that the contents reflect the views of the Agency, nor does mention of trade names or commercial products constitute endorsement or recommendation for use. We thank Amy Parks, Gerilyn Ahlers, and Sarah Watson for the chemical analyses of the sediment samples found to be toxic. Review comments provided by Mari Nord and John Dorkin, USEPA, Region 5, and Frank McCormick, United States Forest Service, were most helpful, as was the technical review provided by Justicia Rhodus, Dynamac Corporation.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. The McConnell Group, National Exposure Research Laboratory, Office of Research and Development, United States Environmental Protection Agency, 26 W. Martin Luther King Drive, Cincinnati, OH, 45268, USA

    Herman J. Haring, Mark E. Smith, Melissa C. Wratschko & Brandon Armstrong

  2. National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory, Office of Research and Development, United States Environmental Protection Agency, 200 SW 35th St., Corvallis, OR, 97333, USA

    Karen A. Blocksom

  3. National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory, Office of Research and Development, United States Environmental Protection Agency, 6201 Congdon Boulevard, Duluth, MN, 55804, USA

    Theodore Angradi & David Bolgrien

  4. National Exposure Research Laboratory, Office of Research and Development, United States Environmental Protection Agency, 26 W. Martin Luther King Drive, Cincinnati, OH, 45268, USA

    James M. Lazorchak

Authors
  1. Herman J. Haring
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Karen A. Blocksom
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Mark E. Smith
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Theodore Angradi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Melissa C. Wratschko
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Brandon Armstrong
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. David Bolgrien
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. James M. Lazorchak
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to James M. Lazorchak.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Haring, H.J., Blocksom, K.A., Smith, M.E. et al. Sediment Toxicity in Mid-Continent Great Rivers (USA). Arch Environ Contam Toxicol 60, 57–67 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00244-010-9592-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00244-010-9592-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation