Environmental Science and Pollution Research

, Volume 21, Issue 1, pp 17–27 | Cite as

Sediment quality guidelines: challenges and opportunities for improving sediment management

  • Kevin W. H. Kwok
  • Graeme E. Batley
  • Richard J. Wenning
  • Lingyan Zhu
  • Marnix Vangheluwe
  • Shirley Lee
Environmental Quality Benchmarks for Protecting Aquatic Ecosystems


During the International Conference on Deriving Environmental Quality Standards for the Protection of Aquatic Ecosystems held in Hong Kong in December 2011, an expert group, comprising scientists, government officials, and consultants from four continents, was formed to discuss the important scientific and regulatory challenges with developing sediment quality guidelines (SQGs). We identified the problems associated with SQG development and made a series of recommendations to ensure that the methods being applied were scientifically defensible and internationally applicable. This document summarizes the key findings from the expert group. To enable evaluation of current SQG derivation and application systems, a feedback mechanism is required to communicate confounding factors and effects in differing environments, while field validation is necessary to gauge the effectiveness of SQG values in sediment quality assessments. International collaboration is instrumental to knowledge exchange and method advancement, as well as promotion of ‘best practices’. Since the paucity of sediment toxicity data poses the largest obstacle to improving current SQGs and deriving new SQGs, a standardized international database should be established as an information resource for sediment toxicity testing and monitoring data. We also identify several areas of scientific research that are needed to improve sediment quality assessment, including determining the importance of dietary exposure in sediment toxicity, mixture toxicity studies, toxicity screening of emerging chemicals, how climate change influence sediments and its biota, and possible use of new toxicity study approaches such as high throughput omic-based toxicity screenings.


Environmental quality standards Sediment quality guidelines Aquatic ecosystem health Ecotoxicity 


  1. Ahlf W, Holler H, Neumann-Hensel H, Ricking M (2002) A guidance for the assessment and evaluation of sediment quality: a German approach based on ecotoxicological and chemical measurements. J Soil Sed 2:37–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. ANZECC/ARMCANZ (2000) Australian and New Zealand guidelines for fresh and marine water quality. Australian and New Zealand Environment and Conservation Council/Agricultural and Resource Management Council of Australia and New Zealand, CanberraGoogle Scholar
  3. Babut MP, Ahlf W, Batley GE, Camusso M, den Besten PJ, de Deckere E (2005) International overview of sediment quality guidelines and their uses. In: Wenning RJ, Batley GE, Ingersoll CG, Moore DW (eds) Use of sediment quality guidelines and related tools for the assessment of contaminated sediments. SETAC, Pensacola, pp 267–310Google Scholar
  4. Bakke T, Kallqvist T, Ruus A, Breedveld GD, Hylland K (2010) Development of sediment quality criteria in Norway. J Soil Sed 10:172–178CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Barrick R, Becker S, Pastorok R, Brown L, Beller H (1988) Sediment quality values refinement: 1988 update and evaluation of Puget Sound AET. PTI Environmental Services for Environmental Protection Agency, Bellevue, WAGoogle Scholar
  6. Batley GE, Simpson SL (2009) Advancing Australia’s sediment quality guidelines. Australas J Ecotox 14:11–20Google Scholar
  7. Batley GE, Burton GA, Chapman PM, Forbes VE (2002) Uncertainties in sediment quality weight of evidence assessments. Human Ecol Risk Assess 8:1517–1547CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Batley GE, Stahl RG, Babut MP, Bott TL, Clark JR, Field LJ, Ho K, Mount DR, Swartz RC, Tessier A (2005) The scientific underpinnings of sediment quality guidelines. In: Wenning R, Batley G, Ingersoll C, Moore D (eds) Use of sediment quality guidelines and related tools for the assessment of contaminated sediments. SETAC Press, PensacolaGoogle Scholar
  9. Bay SM, Weisberg SB (2012) Framework for interpreting sediment quality triad data. Integr Environ Assess Manage 8:589–596CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bay SM, Ritter KJ, Vidal-Dorsch DE, Field LJ (2012) Comparison of national and regional sediment quality guidelines for classifying sediment toxicity in California. Integr Environ Assess Manage 8:597–609CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bjorgesæster A, Gray JS (2008) Setting sediment quality guidelines: a simple yet effective method. Mar Pollut Bull 57:221–235CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Borja A, Galparsoro I, Solaun O, Muxika I, Tello EM, Uriarte A, Valencia V (2006) The European Water Framework Directive and the DPSIR, a methodological approach to assess the risk of failing to achieve good ecological status. Estuar Coast Shelf Sci 66:84–96CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Brils J (2008) Sediment monitoring and the European Water Framework Directive. Ann Ist Super Sanita 44:218–223Google Scholar
  14. Burgess RM, Berry WJ, Mount DR, Di Toro DM (2013) Mechanistic sediment quality guidelines based on contaminant bioavailability: equilibrium partitioning sediment benchmarks. Environ Toxicol Chem 32:102–114CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Burton AG Jr (2002) Sediment quality criteria in use around the world. Limnology 3:65–75CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Chariton A, Court L, Colloff M, Hartley D, Hardy C (2010) Ecological assessment of estuarine sediments by pyrosequencing eukaryotic ribosomal DNA. Front Ecol Environ 8:233–238CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Crane M (2003) Proposed development of sediment quality guidelines under the European Water Framework Directive: a critique. Toxicol Lett 142:195–206CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Daam MA, Van den Brink PJ (2010) Implications of differences between temperate and tropical freshwater ecosystems for the ecological risk assessment of pesticides. Ecotoxicology 19:24–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. De Deckere E, De Cooman W, Leloup V, Meire P, Schmitt C, Vonder Ohe PC (2011) Development of sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. J Soil Sed 11:504–517CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Den Besten P, De Deckere E, Babut MP, Power B, Delvalls TA, Zago C, Oen AMP, Heise S (2003) Biological effects-based sediment quality in ecological risk assessment for European waters. J Soil Sed 3:144–162CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Department of Environmental Affairs (DEA) (2012) Review and Update of South Africa’s National Action List for the Screening of Dredged Material Proposed for Marine Disposal. Republic of South Africa. http://www.info.gov.za/view/DownloadFileAction?id=156146. Accessed 13 Jan 2013
  22. Di Toro DM, McGrath JA, Hansen DJ, Berry WJ, Paquin PR, Rooni M, Wu KW, Santore RC (2005) Predicting sediment metal toxicity using a sediment biotic ligand model: methodology and initial application. Environ Toxicol Chem 24:2410–2427CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. ECHA (2006) REACH Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006Google Scholar
  24. Engler RM, Long ER, Swartz RC, Di Toro DM, Ingersoll CG, Burgess RM, Gries TH, Berry WJ, Burton GA, O’Connor TP, Chapman PM, Field LJ, Porebski LM (2005) Chronology of the development of sediment quality assessment methods in North America. In: Wenning R, Batley G, Ingersoll C, Moore D (eds) Use of sediment quality guidelines and related tools for the assessment of contaminated sediments. SETAC Press, PensacolaGoogle Scholar
  25. Environment Agency (2002) Sediments in England and Wales: nature and extent of the issues. Environment Agency, BristolGoogle Scholar
  26. ETWB (2002) Management of dredged/excavated sediment. Environment, Transport and Works Bureau (ETWB), Hong Kong, Environment, Transport and Works Bureau (ETWB) Technical Circular (Works) No. 34/2002, Ref. ETWB(W) 209/32/96Google Scholar
  27. EU WFD (2010) Technical guidance for deriving environmental quality standards. Draft version 5.0. Implementation Strategy for the Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC)Google Scholar
  28. Fairey R, Long ER, Roberts CA, Anderson BS, Phillips BM, Hunt JW, Puckett HR, Wilson CJ (2001) An evaluation of methods for calculating mean sediment quality guideline quotients as indicators of contamination and acute toxicity to amphipods by chemical mixtures. Environ Toxicol Chem 20:2276–2286Google Scholar
  29. Field LJ, MacDonald DD, Norton SB, Ingersoll CG, Severn CG, Smorong D, Lindskoog R (2002) Predicting amphipod toxicity from sediments using Logistic Regression Models. Environ Toxicol Chem 9:1993–2005Google Scholar
  30. Iovannaa R, Griffiths C (2006) Clean water, ecological benefits, and benefits transfer: a work in progress at the U.S. EPA. Ecol Econ 60:473–482CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Kwok KWH, Leung KMY, Chu VKH, Lam PKS, Morritt D, Maltby L, Brock TCM, Van den Brink PJ, Warne MSTJ, Crane M (2007) Comparison of tropical and temperate freshwater species sensitivities to chemicals: implications for deriving safe extrapolation factors. Integr Environ Assess Manage 3:49–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Kwok KWH, Bjorgesæster A, Leung KMY, Lui GCS, Gray JS, Shin PKS, Lam PKS (2008) Deriving site-specific sediment quality guidelines for Hong Kong marine environments using field-based species sensitivity distributions. Environ Toxicol Chem 27:226–234CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Leung KMY, Bjorgesæster A, Gray JS, Li WK, Lui GCS, Wang Y, Lam PKS (2005) Deriving sediment quality guidelines from field-based species sensitivity distributions. Environ Sci Technol 39:4148–5156CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Linkov I, Loney D, Cormier S, Satterstrom FK, Bridges T (2009) Weight-of-evidence evaluation in environmental assessment: review of qualitative and quantitative approaches. Sci Tot Environ 407:5199–5205CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Long ER, MacDonald DD, Smith SL, Calder FD (1995) Incidence of adverse biological effects within ranges of chemical concentrations in marine and estuarine sediments. Environm Manage 19:81–97CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Long ER, Field LJ, MacDonald DD (1998) Predicting toxicity in marine sediments with numerical sediment quality guidelines. Environ Toxicol Chem 17:714–727Google Scholar
  37. Long ER, MacDonald DD, Severn CG, Hong CB (2000) Classifying the probabilities of acute toxicity in marine sediments with empirically derived sediment quality guidelines. Environ Toxicol Chem 19:2598–2601Google Scholar
  38. Long ER, Ingersoll CG, MacDonald DD (2006) Calculation and uses of mean sediment quality guideline quotients: a critical review. Environ Sci Technol 40:1726–1736CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. MacDonald DD, Carr RS, Calder FD, Long ER, Ingersoll CG (1996) Development and evaluation of sediment quality guidelines for Florida coastal waters. Ecotoxicology 5:253–278Google Scholar
  40. MacDonald DD, Ingersoll CG, Berger TA (2000) Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Arch Environ Contam Toxicol 39:20–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Maltby L, Blake N, Brock TCM, Van den Brink PJ (2005) Insecticide species sensitivity distributions: importance of test species selection and relevance to aquatic ecosystems. Environ Toxicol Chem 24:379–388CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Martello LB, Sorensen MT, Fuchsman PC, Wenning RJ (2007) Chromium geochemistry and bioaccumulation in sediments from the Lower Hackensack River, New Jersey. Arch Environ Contam Toxicol 53:337–350CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Mekong River Commission for sustainable development. http://www.mrcmekong.org/about-the-mrc/vision-and-mission/. Assessed 21 Jan 2013
  44. Molvær J, Knutzen J, Magnusson J, Rygg B, Skei J, Sørensen J (1997) Klassifisering av miljøkvalitet i fjorder og kystfarvann (Classification of environmental quality in fjords and coastal areas). Norwegian Pollution Control Authority SFT TA-1467/1997 (in Norwegian)Google Scholar
  45. Nascimento IA (2007) Key issues on sediment quality assessment: a review of South America research with emphasis on Brazil. Aquat Ecosyst Health Manag 10:9–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. O’Connor TP, Daskalakis KD, Hyland JL, Paul JF, Summers JK (1998) Comparisons of measured sediment toxicity with predictions based on chemical guidelines. Environ Toxicol Chem17:468–471Google Scholar
  47. Rombke J, Waichman AV, Garcia MVB (2008) Risk assessment of pesticides for soils of the Central Amazon, Brazil: comparing outcomes with temperate and tropical data. Integr Environ Assess Manage 4:94–104CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Sanchez-Bayo F, Hynet RV (2011) Comparison of environmental risks of pesticides between tropical and nontropical regions. Integr Environ Assess Manage 7:577–586CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. SCHER (2010) Scientific Committee on Health and Environmental Risks. Adopted opinion (October 2010) on the chemicals and the water framework directive: technical guidance for deriving environmental quality standardsGoogle Scholar
  50. SFT (2007) Background document Part B for: Guidelines for classification of environmental quality in fjords and coastal areas: classification of metals and organic contaminants in water and sediment and guideline for risk assessment of contaminated sediment. Norwegian Pollution Control Authority, SFT TA-2231/2007 (translation from Norwegian)Google Scholar
  51. Simpson SL, Batley GE (2007) Predicting metal toxicity in sediments: a critique of current approaches. Integr Environ Assess Manag 3:18–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Simpson SL, Spadaro DA (2011) Performance and sensitivity of rapid sublethal sediment toxicity tests with the amphipod Melita plumulosa and copepod Nitocra spinipes. Environ Toxicol Chem 30:2326–2334CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Simpson SL, Batley GE, Chariton AA, Stauber JL, King CK, Chapman JC, Hyne RV, Gale SA, Roach AC, Maher WA (2005) Handbook for Sediment Quality Assessment. CSIRO, Bangor, NSW, 117 pp. http://www.csiro.au/files/files/p8m1.pdf. Accessed 11 Jan 2013
  54. Simpson SL, Batley GE, Chariton AA (2010) Revision of the ANZECC/ARMCANZ sediment quality guidelines. CSIRO Land and Water Report 8/07, 78 pagesGoogle Scholar
  55. Simpson SL, Batley GE, Hamilton IL, Spadaro DA (2011) Guidelines for copper in sediments with varying properties. Chemosphere 75:1487–1495CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Smith SL, MacDonald DD, Keenleyside KA, Ingersoll CG, Field LJ (1996) A preliminary evaluation of sediment quality assessment values for freshwater ecosystems. J Great Lakes Res 22:624–638CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Strom D, Simpson SL, Batley GE, Jolley DF (2011) The influence of sediment particle size and organic carbon on toxicity of copper to benthic invertebrates in oxic/suboxic surface sediments. Environ Toxicol Chem 30:1599–1610CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Suter GW, Cormier SM (2011) Why and how to combine evidence in environmental assessments: weighing evidence and building cases. Sci Total Environ 409:1406–1417CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Swartz RC (1999) Consensus sediment quality guidelines for polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon mixtures. Environ Toxicol Chem 18:780–787Google Scholar
  60. US Army Corps of Engineers (2004) Evaluating environmental effects of dredged material management alternatives—a technical framework. United States Army Corps of Engineers and United States Environmental Protection Agency. Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  61. USEPA (2003) Procedures for the derivation of equilibrium partitioning sediment benchmarks (ESBs) for the protection of benthic organisms: PAH mixtures. Report No. EPA-600-R-02-013. United States Environmental Protection Agency Office, Office of Research and Development. Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  62. USEPA (2005a) Contaminated sediment remediation guidance for hazardous waste sites. United States Environmental Protection Agency Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response Report No. EPA-540-R-05-012. http://www.epa.gov/superfund/health/conmedia/sediment/guidance.htm. Accessed 21 Oct 2012
  63. USEPA (2005b) Procedures for the derivation of equilibrium partitioning sediment benchmarks (ESBs) for the protection of benthic organisms: metal mixtures (cadmium, copper, lead, nickel, silver, and zinc). EPA-600-R-02-011. USEPA, Office of Research and Development, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  64. USEPA (2008) Procedures for the derivation of equilibrium partitioning sediment benchmarks (ESBs) for the protection of benthic organisms: compendium of tier 2 values for nonionic organics. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, Washington, DC. EPA/600/R-02/016. Available at http://www.epa.gov/nheerl/publications/. Accessed 13 Jan 2013
  65. USEPA/USACE (1973) Technical committee for criteria for dredged and fill material. Ecological evaluation of proposed discharge of dredged material into ocean waters: implementation manual for Section 103 of Public Law 92–532. US Environmental Protection Agency/US Army Corps of Engineers, VicksburgGoogle Scholar
  66. Vidal DE, Bay SM (2005) Comparative sediment guideline performance for predicting sediment toxicity in southern California, USA. Environ Toxicol Chem 24:3173–3182Google Scholar
  67. Wenning RJ, Batley GE, Ingersoll CG, Moore DW (eds) (2005) Use of sediment quality guidelines and related tools for the assessment of contaminated sediments. Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry (SETAC) Press, PensacolaGoogle Scholar
  68. Wenning RJ, Martello L, Conder J, Leigh K, and Brown SS (2011) Behavior of chemicals in sediment and water in tropical and temperate environments. Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry (SETAC) Focused Topic Meeting in Mexico. August 24–25Google Scholar
  69. WFD (2000) Water Framework Directive 200/60/EC. European CommissionGoogle Scholar
  70. WFD (2011) Common implementation strategy for the Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC). Guidance Document No. 27. Technical Guidance for Deriving Environmental Quality Standards, Technical Report-2011-055, European CommissionGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kevin W. H. Kwok
    • 1
  • Graeme E. Batley
    • 2
  • Richard J. Wenning
    • 3
  • Lingyan Zhu
    • 4
  • Marnix Vangheluwe
    • 5
  • Shirley Lee
    • 6
  1. 1.Nicholas School of the EnvironmentDuke UniversityDurhamUSA
  2. 2.Centre for Environmental Contaminants ResearchCSIRO Land and WaterLucas HeightsAustralia
  3. 3.ENVIRONSan Francisco (Emeryville)USA
  4. 4.College of Environmental Science and Engineering, Key Laboratory of Pollution Processes and Environmental Criteria, Ministry of EducationNankai UniversityTianjinPeople’s Republic of China
  5. 5.ARCHE ConsultingBrusselsBelgium
  6. 6.Hong Kong Institute of Environmental Impact AssessmentCauseway BayChina

Personalised recommendations