Environmental Monitoring and Assessment

, Volume 120, Issue 1–3, pp 559–574 | Cite as

Use of the p,p'-DDD: p,p'-DDE Concentration Ratio to Trace Contaminant Migration from a Hazardous Waste Site

Article

Abstract

For approximately 50 years, beginning in the 1920s, hazardous wastes were disposed in an 11-hectare area of the Marine Corps Base (MCB) Quantico, Virginia, USA known as the Old Landfill. Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) and DDT compounds were the primary contaminants of concern. These contaminants migrated into the sediments of a 78-hectare area of the Potomac River, the Quantico Embayment. Fish tissue contamination resulted in the MCB posting signs along the embayment shoreline warning fishermen to avoid consumption. In this paper, we interpret total PCB (t-PCBs) and total DDT (t-DDT, sum of six DDT, DDD, and DDE isomers) data from monitoring studies. We use the ratio of p,p'-DDD to p,p'-DDE concentrations as a tracer to distinguish site-related from regional contamination. The median DDD/DDE ratio in Quantico Embayment sediments (3.5) was significantly higher than the median ratio (0.71) in sediments from nearby Powells Creek, used as a reference area. In general, t-PCBs and t-DDT concentrations were significantly higher in killifish (Fundulus diaphanus) and carp (Cyprinus carpio) from the Quantico Embayment compared with Powells Creek. For both species, Quantico Embayment fish had mean or median DDD/DDE ratios greater than one. Median ratios were significantly higher in Quantico Embayment (4.6) than Powells Creek (0.28) whole body carp. In contrast, t-PCBs and t-DDT in channel catfish (Ictalurus punctatus) fillets were similar in Quantico Embayment and Powells Creek collections, with median ratios of 0.34 and 0.26, respectively. Differences between species may be attributable to movement (carp and killifish being more localized) and feeding patterns (carp ingesting sediment while feeding). We recommend that environmental scientists use this ratio when investigating sites with DDT contamination.

Keywords

bioavailability DDD DDE DDT environmental fate hazardous waste sites PCBs 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR).: 2002, ‘Toxicological Profile for DDT/DDD/DDE Update’, ATSDR, Atlanta, GA.Google Scholar
  2. Aislabie, J. M., Richards, N. K. and Boul, H. L.: 1997, ‘Microbial degradation of DDT and its residues – a review’, New Zealand J. Agric. Res. 40, 269–282.Google Scholar
  3. Battelle and Neptune and Company: 2004, ‘Final Quantico Watershed Study Post Interim Remedial Action (Post IRA) Study Report’, Battelle, Duxbury, MA.Google Scholar
  4. Boyer, M. R.: 1995a, ‘Carp’, in: L. E. Dove and R. M. Nyman (eds), Living Resources of the Delaware Estuary, The Delaware Estuary Program, pp. 151–156.Google Scholar
  5. Boyer, M. R.: 1995b, ‘Catfish’, in: L.E. Dove and R.M. Nyman (eds), Living Resources of the Delaware Estuary, The Delaware Estuary Program, pp. 157–166.Google Scholar
  6. Cromartie, E., Reichel, W. L., Locke, L. N., Belisle, A. A., Kaiser, T. E., Lamont, T. G., Mulhern, B. M. and Swineford, D. M.: 1975, ‘Residues of organochlorine pesticides and polychlorinated biphenyls and autopsy data for bald eagles, 1971–72’, Pestic. Monit. J. 9, 11–14.Google Scholar
  7. Kelly, A. G. and Campbell, L. A.: 1994, ‘Organochlorine contaminants in the liver of cod (Gadus morhua) and muscle of herring (Clupea harengus) from Scottish waters’, Marine Pollut. Bull. 28, 103–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Leah, R. T., Johnson, M. S., Connor, L. and Levene, C. F.: 1997, DDT group compounds in fish and shellfish from the Mersey Estuary and Liverpool Bay’, Environ. Toxicol. Water Qual. 12, 223–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. OHM Remediation Services Corp.: 1998, Final report. Interim remedial action, site 4 – Old Landfill, MCCDC – Quantico’, OHM, Pittsburgh.Google Scholar
  10. Panek, F. M.: 1987, ‘Biology and ecology of carp’, in: E. L. Cooper (ed), Carp in North America, American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, MD, pp. 1–16.Google Scholar
  11. Pinkney, A. E., Burton, W. H., Scott, L. C. and Frithsen, J. B.: 1993, ‘An Assessment of Potential Residual Effects of the January 1992 Oil Spill in the Anacostia River’, Versar, Inc., Columbia, MD.Google Scholar
  12. Pinkney, A. E., Foley, R. E., Murphy, D. R., McGowan, P. C. and Derosier, A. L.: 1995a, ‘Contaminant Monitoring of Biota and Sediments in the Potomac River near the Old Landfill, Marine Corps Base – Quantico’, CBFO-C95-01, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Annapolis, MD.Google Scholar
  13. Pinkney, A. E., Sutherland, D. W., Foley, R. E. and Harshbarger, J. C.: 1995b, ‘Investigation of Sediment Contamination and Fish Pathology at Featherstone National Wildlife Refuge, Virginia’, CBFO-C95-02, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Annapolis, MD.Google Scholar
  14. Pinkney, A. E., Foley, R. E., Murphy, D. R. and McGowan, P. C.: 1997, ‘Bioaccumulation of Organochlorine Contaminants in the Potomac River near the Old Landfill, Marine Corps Combat Development Command, Quantico, Virginia’, CBFO-C96-04, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Annapolis, MD.Google Scholar
  15. Pinkney, A. E., Murphy, D. R., McGowan, P. C., McGee, B. L., Johnson, K. N. and Domico, L.: 1999, Ecological Risk Assessment: Quantico Embayment, Marine Corps Combat Development Command-Quantico, Quantico, Virginia’, CBFO-C99-03, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Annapolis, MD.Google Scholar
  16. Pinkney, A. E., McGee, B. L., Murphy, D. R., McGowan, P. C., Johnson, K. N. and Ray, D.: 2000, ‘Use of Caged Wedge Clams (Rangia cuneata) and Semi-permeable Membrane Devices (SPMDs) to Monitor Contaminants in the Potomac River near the Marine Corps Combat Development Command-Quantico, Quantico, Virginia’, CBFO-C00-01, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Annapolis, MD.Google Scholar
  17. Pinkney, A. E., Murphy, D. R., McGowan, P. C., McGee, B. L., Johnson, K. N. and Sparling, D. W.: 2001a, ‘Ecological Risk Assessment–Wetlands Adjacent to the Old Landfill, Marine Corps Combat Development Command Quantico, Virginia’, CBFO-C01-01a, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Annapolis, MD.Google Scholar
  18. Pinkney, A. E., Dobony, C. A. and Doelling Brown, P.: 2001b, ‘Analysis of Contaminant Concentrations in Fish Tissue Collected from the Waters of the District of Columbia’, CBFO-C01-01b, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Chesapeake Bay Field Office, Annapolis, MD.Google Scholar
  19. Pinkney, A. E., Doelling Brown, P., McGee, B. L., Johnson, K. N. and Fisher, D. J.: 2003, ‘Contaminant Monitoring in the Kingman Lake Restored Wetland, Washington, DC’, CBFO-C03-07, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Chesapeake Bay Field Office, Annapolis, MD.Google Scholar
  20. Radian Corp: 1992, ‘Draft Remedial Investigation/Risk Assessment Report. Old Landfill. Marine Corps Combat Development Command, Quantico, VA’, Radian Corp., Herndon, VA.Google Scholar
  21. Schmitt, C. J., Zajicek, J. L. and Peterman, P. H.: 1990, ‘National Contaminant Biomonitoring Program: residues of organochlorine chemicals in U.S. freshwater fish’, Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 19, 748–781.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Sokal, R. R. and Rohlf, F. J.: 1981, Biometry, Second Edition, W.H. Freeman and Co., New York.Google Scholar
  23. TetraTech NUS, Inc.: 2000, ‘Remedial Investigation for Site 4 – Old Landfill Marine Corps Combat Development Command, Quantico, Virginia’, Tetra TechNUS, Inc., Pittsburgh, PA.Google Scholar
  24. TetraTech NUS, Inc.: 2005, ‘Engineering Evaluation/Cost Analysis for Site 32 (B-10) – Pesticide Control Building, Marine Corps Base Quatico, Virginia’, Tetra TechNUS, Inc., Pittsburgh, PA.Google Scholar
  25. Velinsky, D. J. and Ashley, J. T. F.: 2001, ‘Sediment Transport: Additional Chemical Analysis Study, Phase II’, Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, PA.Google Scholar
  26. Velinsky, D. J. and Cummins, J. D.: 1994, ‘Distribution of Chemical Contaminants in Wild Fish Species in Washington, DC’, Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin, Rockville, MD.Google Scholar
  27. Velinsky, D. J. and Cummins, J. D.: 1996, ‘Distribution of Chemicals in 1993–1995 Wild Fish Species in the District of Columbia’, Government of the District of Columbia, Department of Consumer and Regulatory Affairs, Environmental Regulation Administration, Water Resources Management Division, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  28. Velinsky, D. J., Haywood, C., Wade, T. L. and Reinharz, E.: 1992, ‘Sediment Contamination Studies of the Potomac and Anacostia Rivers Around the District of Columbia’, ICPRB Report No. 92-2, Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin, Rockville, MD.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science + Business Media, Inc. 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.U.S. Fish and Wildlife ServiceChesapeake Bay Field OfficeAnnapolisUSA

Personalised recommendations