Environmental Science and Pollution Research

, Volume 25, Issue 29, pp 29379–29386 | Cite as

The content of dioxins and furans in soils, bottom sediments of water bodies, and tissues of small mammals near the landfill site with municipal solid wastes (Moscow, Russia)

  • Vladimir S. Roumak
  • Elena S. Levenkova
  • Nataliya V. UmnovaEmail author
  • Vladimir S. Popov
  • Kseniya A. Turbabina
  • Andrey A. Shelepchikov
Research Article


For the first time, the levels of polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins and dibenzofurans (PCDD/Fs) were characterized in the tissues of wild small mammals living in contaminated sites near a municipal solid waste landfill (Moscow, Russia). The Ural field mice Sylvaemus uralensis, the bank voles Clethrionomys glareolus, and the common shrews Sorex araneus were trapped at 1- and 5-km distances from the landfield “Salariyevo.” High-resolution chromatography-mass spectrometry was used to measure the levels of 17 PCDD/Fs congeners in the animal organisms and natural objects (soils, bottom sediments). The values of the total toxic equivalencies (WHO-TEQ05) for animals were many times higher than those for soils and bottom sediments. The octo-substituted congeners dominated in the samples from the habitat, whereas the highly toxic 2,3,7,8-substituted ones — in the mammalian tissues. The levels of WHO-TEQ05 were comparable in the soil samples collected at 1- and 5-km distances from the dump body. The levels of WHO-TEQ05 in tissues of mammals caught 1 km from the dump were much higher than those of the distant territory inhabitants. The maximum WHO-TEQ05 levels were found in the shrews, and this has been considered in terms of nutrition characteristics. The data obtained will be used to assess the risks of chronic exposure to low doses of PCDD/Fs contaminating the environment near landfills.


Environment Landfill PCDD/Fs Bioaccumulation Bank vole Ural field mouse Common shrew 



The authors received financial support from the authorities of the Severtsov Institute of Ecology and Evolution (Russian Academy of Sciences) and Moscow State University for the State Programs. Part of our earlier researches was also supported by the Grant of Russian Humanitarian Scientific Fund (Scientific Project N14-06-00726).

Compliance with ethical standards

Euthanasia of animals was carried out in accordance with the requirements of Art. 6 and Annex IV of the Directive 2010/63/EU. Analysis was done according to PND F 14.1:2:4.280-15/PND F16.1:2.2:3.83-15 methodical rules using US EPA Method 1613.


  1. Bashenina NV (ed) (1981) European bank vole. Science, Moscow 351 p. (in Russian)Google Scholar
  2. Bezel VS (2002) Fundamentals of environmental toxicology. In: General toxicology. Moscow, Medicine, pp 545–579 (in Russian)Google Scholar
  3. Bocquené G, Abarnou A (2013) Organochlorinated pesticides, PCBs, dioxins, and PBDEs in grey mullets (Liza ramada) and allis shads (Alosa alosa) from the Vilaine estuary (France). Environ Sci Pollut Res 20:667–675. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Brambilla G, De Filippis SP, Iamiceli AL, Iacovella N, Abate V, Aronica V, Di Marco V, di Domenico A (2011) Bioaccumulation of dioxin-like substances and selected brominated flame retardant congeners in the fat and livers of black pigs farmed within the Nebrodi Regional Park of Sicily. J Food Prot 74(2):261–269. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cheleptchikov AА, Kluyev NА, Soyfer VS, Feshin DB, Brodsky ES (2002) Optimized manual sample preparation method for dioxin analysis. Organohalogen Compd 55:81–84Google Scholar
  6. Eichbaum K, Brinkmann M, Nuesser L, Buchinger S, Reifferscheid G, Codling G, Jones P, Giesy JP, Hecker M, Hollert H (2016) Bioanalytical and instrumental screening of the uptake of sediment-borne, dioxin-like compounds in roach (Rutilus rutilus). Environ Sci Pollut Res 23(12):12060–12074. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Fries GF (1995) A review of the significance of animal food products as potential pathways of human exposures to dioxins. J Anim Sci 73(6):1639–1650CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Galvao P, Henkelmann B, Longo R, Torres JPM, Malm O, Schramm K-W (2015) The brown mussel Perna perna (L., 1758) as a sentinel species for chlorinated pesticide and dioxin-like compounds. Environ Sci Pollut Res 22(17):13522–13533. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Ghosh P, Thakur IS, Kaushik A (2017) Bioassays for toxicological risk assessment of landfill leachate: a review. Ecotoxicol Environ Saf 141:259–270CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Green H, Lane V (1972) Aerosols—dust, fumes and fogs, 2nd edn. Chemistry, Moscow 428 p. (in Russian)Google Scholar
  11. Gromov IM, Erbaeva MA (1995) The mammals of Russia and adjacent territories. Lagomorphs and rodents/Guides to the fauna of Russia. Issue.167. St. Petersburg: Zoological Institute, RAS. 522 p. (in Russian)Google Scholar
  12. Holma-Suutari A, Ruokojärvi P, Komarov AA, Makarov DA, Ovcharenko VV, Panin AN, Kiviranta H, Laaksonen S, Nieminen M, Viluksela M, Hallikainen A (2016) Biomonitoring of selected persistent organic pollutants (PCDD/Fs, PCBs and PBDEs) in Finnish and Russian terrestrial and aquatic animal species. Environ Sci Eur 28(1):5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. IARC (International Agency for Research on Cancer) (2015) Agents classified by the IARC. Monographs, V. 1–111.
  14. Ivanter EV, Kurkhinen YP, Moiseeva EA (2014) Common shrew (Sorex araneus L.) in the anthropogenic transformation of the taiga forests of eastern Fennoscandia. Sci J Proc Petrozavodsk State Univ 2(8):7–12 (in Russian)Google Scholar
  15. Iyer R, Aggarwal J, Iken B (2016) A review of the Texas, USA San Jacinto Superfund site and the deposition of polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins and dibenzofurans in the San Jacinto River and Houston Ship Channel. Environ Sci Pollut Res 23(23):23321–23338. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Kamardin NN, Lyubimtsev VA, Makeeva VM, Kholodkevich SV, Smurov AV, Rumak VS, Turbabina KA (2016) The bioindication of chronic pollution of soil and vegetation using terrestrial molluscs Bradybaena fruticum Mull. In: Biodiagnostics and environmental quality assessment: approaches, methods, criteria and reference standards in ecotoxicology. Mater. Int. Symposium and School, Moscow State University. Moscow: GEOS. pp. 99–100. (in Russian)Google Scholar
  17. Kluyev N, Cheleptchikov A, Brodsky E, Soyfer V, Zhilnikov V (2002) Reductive dechlorination of polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins by zerovalent iron in subcritical water. Chemosphere 46(9–10):1293–1296CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kudryavtseva AD, Shelepchikov AA, Brodsky ES, Feshin DB, Rumak VS (2015) Dioxin contamination of bird eggs from different Vietnam provinces. Mosc Univ Biol Sci Bull 70(2):86–90CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Murtomaa M, Tervaniemi OM, Parviainen J, Ruokojärvi P, Tuukkanen J, Viluksela M (2007) Dioxin exposure in contaminated sawmill area: the use of molar teeth and bone of bank vole (Clethrionomys glareolus) and field vole (Microtus agrestis) as biomarkers. Chemosphere 68(5):951–957CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Roumak VS, Umnova NV, Levenkova ES, Turbabina KA, Pivovarov EA, Shelepchikov AA, Pavlov SD (2017) Dioxins in the environment and the body of animals near landfill: to the methodology of public health risk evaluation. Human Ecol (Arkhangelsk) N10:9–15 (in Russian)Google Scholar
  21. Salmelin J, Karjalainen AK, Hämäläinen H, Leppänen MT, Kiviranta H, Kukkonen JVK, Vuori KM (2016) Biological responses of midge (Chironomus riparius) and lamprey (Lampetra fluviatilis) larvae in ecotoxicity assessment of PCDD/F-, PCB- and Hg-contaminated river sediments. Environ Sci Pollut Res 23:18379–18393. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Shchipanov NA (1987) Universal live trap for small mammals. Zool J 66(5):759–761 (in Russian)Google Scholar
  23. Shelepchikov AA, Brodsky ES, Balashova SP (2006) Levels of PCDDs/PCDFs and dioxin-like PCBs in Moscow soils. Organohalogen Compd 68:1103–1106Google Scholar
  24. Sinkkonen S, Paasivirta J (2000) Degradation half-life times of PCDDs, PCDFs and PCBs for environmental fate modeling. Chemosphere 40(9–11):943–949CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Sofronov GA, Rumak VS, Lazarenko DY (2010) Ecotoxicokinetics and ecotoxicodynamics of toxic chemical substances in conditions of tropics. Med Acad J 10(4):183–190 (in Russian)Google Scholar
  26. Sofronov GA, Roumak VS, Umnova NV, Belov DA, Turbabina KA (2016) Chronical exposure to low concentrations of dioxins and possible risks for human health: some aspects of toxic effects revealing. Med Acad J 16(3):7–18 (in Russian)Google Scholar
  27. Sycheva LP, Umnova NV, Kovalenko MA, Zhurkov VS, Shelepchikov AA, Roumak VS (2016) Dioxins and cytogenetic status of villagers after 40 years of Agent Orange application in Vietnam. Chemosphere 144:1415–1420CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Talmage SS, Walton BT (1991) Small mammals as monitors of environmental contaminants. Rev Environ Contam Toxicol 119:47–145CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Torres JPM, Leite C, Krauss T, Weber R (2013) Landfill mining from a deposit of the chlorine/organochlorine industry as source of dioxin contamination of animal feed and assessment of the responsible processes. Environ Sci Pollut Res 20(4):2098–1965. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Van den Berg M, Birnbaum LS, Denison M, De Vito M, Farland W, Feeley M, Fiedler H, Hakansson H, Hanberg A, Haws L, Rose M, Safe S, Schrenk D, Tohyama C, Tritscher A, Tuomisto J, Tysklind M, Walker N, Peterson RE (2006) The 2005 World Health Organization reevaluation of human and mammalian toxic equivalency factors for dioxins and dioxin-like compounds. Toxicol Sci 93(2):223–241CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Warenik-Bany M, Strucinski P, Piskorska-Pliszczynska J (2016) Dioxins and PCBs in game animals: interspecies comparison and related consumer exposure. Environ Int 89-90:21–29. CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.A.N. Severtsov Institute of Ecology and Evolution RASMoscowRussia
  2. 2.Faculty of BiologyMoscow State UniversityMoscowRussia
  3. 3.Faculty of Fundamental MedicineMoscow State UniversityMoscowRussia

Personalised recommendations