Hazard identification of contaminated sites—ranking potential toxicity of organic sediment extracts in crustacean and fish

  • Jenny Karlsson
  • Henrik Sundberg
  • Gun Åkerman
  • Kerstin Grunder
  • Britta Eklund
  • Magnus Breitholtz
SEDIMENTS, SEC 2 • SEDIMENT RISK MANAGEMENT • RESEARCH ARTICLE

Abstract

Background, aim, and scope

It is well known that contaminated sediments represent a potential long-term source of pollutants to the aquatic environment. To protect human and ecosystem health, it is becoming common to remediate contaminated sites. However, the great cost associated with, e.g., dredging in combination with the large numbers of contaminated sites makes it crucial to pinpoint those sites that are in greatest need of remediation. In most European countries, this prioritization process has almost exclusively been based on chemical analyses of known substances; only seldom toxicity data has been considered. The main objective of the current study was therefore to develop a tool for hazard identification of sediment by ranking potential toxicity of organic sediment extracts in a crustacean and a fish. A secondary objective was to investigate the difference in potential toxicity between compounds with different polarities.

Materials and methods

Early life stages of the crustacean Nitocra spinipes and the fish Oncorhynchus mykiss, which represent organisms from different trophic levels (primary and secondary consumer) and with different routes of exposure (i.e., ingestion through food, diffusive uptake, and maternal transfer), were exposed to hexane and acetone fractions (semi-polar compounds) of sediment from five locations, ranging from heavily to low contaminated. Preliminary tests showed that the extracts were non-bioavailable to the crustacean when exposed via water, and the extracts were therefore loaded on silica gel. Rainbow trout embryos were exposed using nano-injection technique.

Results and discussion

Clear concentration–response relationships of both mortality and larval development were observed in all tests with N. spinipes. Also for rainbow trout, the observed effects (e.g., abnormality, hemorrhage, asymmetric yolk sac) followed a dose-related pattern. Interestingly, our results indicate that some of the locations contained toxic semi-polar compounds, which are normally not considered in risk assessment of sediment since they are focused on compounds isolated in the hexane fraction.

Conclusions

The ranking of the five sediments followed the expected pattern of potential toxicity in both organisms, i.e., sediments with known pollution history caused major effects while reference sediments caused minor effects in the two test systems. Silica gel turned out to be an excellent carrier for exposure of N. spinipes to very hydrophobic and otherwise non-bioavailable sediment extracts.

Recommendations and perspectives

Since both test systems demonstrated that a substantial part of the potential toxicity was caused by semi-polar compounds in the acetone fractions, this study enlightens our poor understanding of which compounds are causing adverse effects in environmental samples. Therefore, by investigating potential toxicity (i.e., hazard identification) as a first screening step in prioritizing processes, these implications could be avoided. For proper sediment risk assessment, we however recommend whole sediment toxicity tests to be used for selected sites at following tiers.

Keywords

Crustacea Fish PAH PCB PCDD/Fs Sediment extract Sediment toxicity Semi-polar Sublethal 

References

  1. Abraham S, Gopalan UK (1975) Growth of an estuarine harpacticoid copepod Nitocra spinipes BOECK cultured in the laboratory. Bull Dept Mar Sci Univ Cochin 2:309–318Google Scholar
  2. Ahlf W, Hollert 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 Soils Sediments 2:37–42Google Scholar
  3. Åkerman G, Balk L (1995) A reliable and improved methodology to expose fish in the early embryonic stage. Mar Environ Res 39:155–158CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Allen YT, Thain JE, Haworth S, Barry J (2007) Development and application of long-term sublethal whole sediment tests with Arenicola marina and Corophium volutator using Ivermectin as the test compound. Environ Pollut 146:92–99CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Alsberg T, Stenberg U, Westerholm R, Strandell M, Rannung U, Sundvall A, Romert L, Bernson V, Pettersson B, Toftgård R, Franzén B, Jansson M, Gustafsson JÅ, Egebäck KE, Tejle G (1985) Chemical and biological characterization of organic material from gasoline exhaust particles. Environ Sci Tech 19:43–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Ankley GT (1991) Predicting the toxicity of bulk sediments to aquatic organisms with aqueous test fractions: pore water vs. elutriate. Environ Toxicol Chem 10:1359–1366CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Barata C, Medina M, Telfer T, Baird DJ (2002) Determining demographic effects of cypermethrin in the marine copepod Acartia tonsa: stage-specific short tests versus life-table tests. Environ Contamin Toxicol 43:373–378CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Baudo R, Beltrami M, Rossi D (1999) In situ tests to assess the potential toxicity of aquatic sediments. Aquat Ecosyst Health Manage 2:361–365CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bengtsson B-E (1978) Use of a harpactacoid copepod in toxicity tests. Mar Pollut Bull 9:238–241CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bihari N, Fafandel M, Hamer B, Kralj-Bilen B (2006) PAH content, toxicity and genotoxicity of coastal marine sediments from the Rovinj area, Northern Adriatic, Croatia. Sci Tot Environ 366:602–611CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Breitholtz M, Bengtsson B-E (2001) Oestrogens have no hormonal effect on the development and reproduction of the harpactacoid copepod Nitocra spinipes. Mar Pollut Bull 42:879–886CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Breitholtz M, Wollenberger L (2003) Effects of PBDEs on development, reproduction and population growth rate of the harpactacoid copepod Nitocra spinipes. Aquat Toxicol 64:85–96CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Breitholtz M, Wollenberger L, Dinan L (2003) Effects of four synthetic musks on the life cycle of the harpactacoid copepod Nitocra spinipes. Aquat Toxicol 63:103–118CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Breitholtz M, Ricklund N, Bengtsson B-E, Persson J (2007) Silica gel as a particulate carrier of poorly water-soluble substances in aquatic toxicity testing. Aquat Toxicol 82:251–264CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Carr RS, Nipper M (eds) (2001) Summary of a SETAC technical workshop porewater toxicity testing: biological, chemical and ecological considerations with a review of methods and applications and recommendations for future areas of research. Summary of a SETAC Technical Workshop: Porewater Toxicity Testing: Biological, Chemical, and Ecological Considerations with a Review of Methods and Applications, and Recommendations for Future Areas of Research; 18–22 March 2000, Pensacola, FL. Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry.Google Scholar
  16. Casado-Martínez MC, Bueceta JL, Belzunce MJ, DelValls TA (2006) Using sediment quality guidelines for dredged material management in commercial ports from Spain. Environ Int 32:388–396CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Chapman PM (1986) Sediment quality criteria from the sediment quality triad: an example. Environ Toxicol Chem 5:957–964CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Chapman PM, Hollert H (2006) Should the sediment quality triad become a tetrad, a pentad, or possibly even a hexad? J Soils Sediments 6:4–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Chapman PM, Wang F, Germano JD, Bartley G (2002) Pore water testing and analysis: the good, the bad and the ugly. Mar Pollut Bull 44:359–366CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Dahl U, Gorokhova E, Breitholtz M (2006) Application of growth-related sublethal endpoints in ecotoxicological assessments using a harpacticoid copepod. Aquat Toxicol 77:433–438CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Davoren M, Ní Shúilleabháin S, O, Halloran J, Hartl MGJ, Sheehan D, O, Brien NM, Van Pelt FNAM, Mothersill C (2005) A test battery approach for the ecotoxicological evaluation of estuarine sediments. Ecotoxicology 14:741–755CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. DelValls TA, Andres A, Belzunce MJ, Buceta JL, Casado-Martínez R, Castro R, Riba I, Viguri JR, Blasco J (2004) Chemical and ecotoxicological guidelines for managing disposal of dredged material. Trends Anal Chem 23:10–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Eriksson Wiklund A-K, Sundelin B, Broman D (2005) Toxicity evaluation by using intact sediments and sediment extracts. Mar Pollut Bull 50:660–667CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Feiler U, Ahlf W, Hoess S, Hollert H, Neumann-Hensel H, Meller M, Weber J, Heininger P (2005) The SeKT joint research project: definition of reference conditions, control sediments and toxicity thresholds for limnic sediment contact tests. Environ Sci Pollut Res 12:257–258CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Fent K (2004) Ecotoxicological effects at contaminated sites. Toxicology 205:223–240CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Gagné F, Blaise C, Bermingham N (1996) Lethal and sublethal effects of marine sediment extracts on rainbow trout hepatocytes. Toxicol Lett 87:85–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hansson SO, Rudén C (2007) Towards a theory of tiered testing. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol 48:35–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Hansson T, Åkerman G, Tjärnlund U, Grunder K, Zebühr Y, Sundberg H, Balk L (2005) Chapter 15—results of the biotoxicity measurement. In: Bondel P, Caiti A (eds), Buried waste in the seabed—acoustic imaging and bio-toxicity. Springer-Praxis, pp 1–7Google Scholar
  29. Hansson T, Schiedek D, Lehtonen KK, Vuorinen PJ, Liewenborg B, Noaksson E, Tjaernlund U, Hanson M, Balk L (2006) Biochemical biomarkers in adult female perch (Perca fluviatilis) in a chronically polluted gradient in the Stockholm recipient (Sweden). Mar Pollut Bull 53:451–468CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Hollert H, Keiter S, König N, Rudolf M, Ulrich M, Braunbeck T (2003) A new sediment contact assay to assess particle-bound pollutants using zebrafish (Danio rerio) embryos. J Soils Seiments 3:197–207CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Ingersoll C, Besser J, Dwyer J (1997) Development and application of methods for assessing the bioavailability of contaminants associated with sediments: I. Toxicity and the sediment quality triad. Proceedings of the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) sediment workshop, February 4–7, 1997Google Scholar
  32. Ingersoll CG, Brunson EL, Dwyer FJ, Hardesty DK, Kemble NE (1998) Use of sublethal endpoints in sediment toxicity tests with the amphipod Hyalella azteca. Environ Toxicol Chem 17:1508–1523CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Ingersoll CG, McDonald DD, Wang N, Crane JL, Field LJ, Haverland PS, Kemble NE, Lindskoog RA, Severn C, Smorong DE (2001) Predictions of sediment toxicity using consensus-based freshwater sediment quality guidelines. Arch Environ Contam Toxicol 41:8–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Ishaq R, Åkerman G, Näf C, Balk L, Bandh C, Broman D (1999) Organic pollutant characterization and toxicity testing of settling particulate matter by nanoinjection in sea trout (Salmo trutta) eggs. Environ Toxicol Chem 18:533–543CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Kammann U, Biselli S, Hühnerfuss H, Reineke N, Theobald N, Vobach M, Wosniok W (2004) Genotoxic and teratogenic potential of marine sediment extracts investigated with comet assay and zebrafish test. Environ Pollut 132:279–287CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Kammann U, Biselli S, Reineke N, Wosniok W, Danischewski D, Hühnerfuss H, Kinder A, Sierts-Herrmann A, Theobald N, Vahl H-H, Vobach M, Westendorf J, Steinhart H (2005) Bioassay-directed fractionation of organic extracts of marine surface sediments from the North and Baltic Sea. J Soils Sediments 5:225–232CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Keiter S, Ratall A, Kosmehl T, Wurm K, Erdinger L, Braunbeck T, Hollert H (2006) Ecotoxicological assessment of sediment, suspended matter and water samples in the upper Danube River. Environ Sci Pollut Res 13:308–319CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Kiparissis Y, Akhtar P, Hodson PV, Brown RS (2003) Partion-controlled delivery of toxicants: a novel in vivo approach for embryo toxicity testing. Environ Sci Technol 37:2262–2266CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Kosmehl T, Krebs F, Manz W, Braunbeck T, Hollert H (2007) Differentiation between bioavailable and total hazard potential of sediment-induced DNA fragmentation as measured by the comet assay with zebrafish embryos. J Soils Sediments 7:377–387CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Lamparski LL, Nestrick TJ (1980) Determination of tetra, hexa, hepta, and octachlorodibenzo-para-dioxin isomers in particulate samples at parts per trillion levels. Anal Chem 52:2045–2054CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Lang K (1948) Monographie der Harpacticiden. II. Stockholm, Sweden, p 1682Google Scholar
  42. Lau SSS, Chu LM (1999) Contaminant release from sediment in a coastal wetland. Water Res. 33:909–918CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Long ER, Chapman PM (1985) A sediment quality triad: measures of sediment contamination, toxicity and infaunal community composition in Puget Sound. Mar Pollut Bull 16:405–415CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Lotufo GR (1997) Toxicity of sediment-associated PAHs to an estuarine copepod: effects on survival, feeding, reproduction and behavior. Mar Environ Res 44:149–166CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Lotufo GR (1998) Bioaccumulation of sediment-associated fluoranthene in benthic copepods: uptake, elimination and biotransformation. Aquat Toxicol 44:1–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. McCauley DJ, DeGraeve GM, Linton TK (2000) Sediment quality guidelines and assessment: overview and research needs. Environ Sci Policy 3:S133–S144CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Medina M, Barata C, Telfer T, Baird DJ (2002) Age- and sex-related variation in sensitivity to the pyrethroid cypermethrin in the marine copepod Acartia tonsa Dana. Environ Contam Toxicol 42:17–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Nendza M (2002) Inventory of marine biotest methods for the evaluation of dredged material and sediments. Chemosphere 48:865–883CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Niimi AJ (1983) Biological and toxicological effects of environmental contaminants in fish and their eggs. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 40:306–312CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Nœs K (1999) Overvåking av miljøgifter i sedimentene i Grenlandsfjordene 1997. Overvakningsrapport nr. 765/99. TA-nr. 1645/99:1–146Google Scholar
  51. Oehme M, Manø S, Bjerke B (1989) Formation of polychlorinated dibenzofurans and dibenzo-p-dioxins by production processes for magnesium and refined nickel. Chemosphere 18:1379–1389CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Olajire AA, Altenburger R, Küster E, Brack W (2005) Chemical and ecotoxicological assessment of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon—contaminated sediments of Niger Delta, Southern Nigeria. Sci Tot Environ 340:123–136CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Persson NJ, Bucheli TD, Gustafsson Ö, Broman D, Naes K, Ishaq R, Zebühr Y (2005) Testing common sediment-porewater distribution models for their ability to predict dissolved concentrations of POPs in Grenlandsfjords, Norway. Chemosphere 59:1475–1485CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. SedNet (2004) Contaminated sediments in European river basins. Final Draft, www.SedNet.org
  55. Seiler T-B, Shulze T, Hollert H (2008) The risk of altering soil and sediment samples upon extract preparation for analytical and bioanalytical investigations—a review. Anal Bioanal Chem 390:1975–1985CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. SEPA (2006) Riskbedömning av förorenade sediment-ekotoxikologiska metoder som underlag för beslut. Rapport 5596. ISBN 91-620-5596-8.pdf (in English, Swedish and Norwegian)Google Scholar
  57. Solomon KR, Sibley P (2002) New concepts in ecological risk assessment: where do we go from here. Mar Pollut Bull 44:279–285CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Stenberg UR, Alsberg T (1981) Vacuum sublimation and solvent extraction of polycyclic aromatic compounds adsorbed on carbonaceous materials. Anal Chem 53:2067–2072CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Sternbeck J, Brorström-Lundén E, Remberger M, Kaj L, Palm A, Junedahl E, Cato I (2003) WFD priority substances in sediments from Stockholm and the Svealand coastal region. IVL report B1538, pp 1–82Google Scholar
  60. Street GT, Lotufo GR, Montagna PA, Fleeger JW (1998) Reduced genetic diversity in a meiobenthic copepod exposed to a xenobiotic. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 222:93–111CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Strmac M, Oberemm A, Braunbeck T (2002) Effects of sediment eluates and extracts from differently polluted small rivers on zebrafish embryos and larvae. J Fish Biol 61:24–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Stuer-Lauridsen F, Geertz-Hansen O, Jürgensen C, Birkved M (2001) Vurderingsstrategier i forbindelse med håndtering af forurenede sedimenter. Miljøstyrelsen, Miljø -og Energiministeriet. Miljøprojekt Nr. 631 2001 (in Danish)Google Scholar
  63. Sundberg H, Ishaq R, Åkerman G, Tjärnlund U, Zebühr Y, Linderoth M, Broman D, Balk L (2005a) A bio-effect directed fractionation study for toxicological and chemical characterization of organic compounds in bottom sediment. Toxicol Sci 84:63–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Sundberg H, Tjärnlund U, Åkerman G, Blomberg M, Ishaq R, Grunder K, Hammar T, Broman D, Balk L (2005b) The distribution and relative toxic potential of organic chemicals in PCB contaminated bay. Mar Pollut Bull 50:195–207CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Sundberg H, Ishaq R, Tjärnlund U, Åkerman G, Grunder K, Bandh C, Broman D, Balk L (2006) Contribution of commonly analyzed polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) to potential toxicity in early life stages of rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss). Can J Fish Aquat Sci 63:1320–1333CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Sundberg H, Hanson H, Liewenborg B, Zebühr Y, Broman D, Balk L (2007) Dredging associated effects: maternally transferred pollutants and DNA adducts in feral fish. Environ Sci Technol 41:2972–2977CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Tanguay RL, Andreasen EA, Walker MK, Peterson RE (2003) Dioxin toxicity and aryl hydrocarbon receptor signaling in fish. In: Schecter A, Gasiewicz TA (eds) Dioxins and Health. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., Hoboken, NJ, USA, pp 603–628CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Ulfsdotter Turesson E, Stiernström S, Minten J, Adolfsson-Erici M, Bengtsson B-E, Breitholtz M (2007) Development and reproduction of the fresh-water harpactcoid copepod Attheyella crassa for assessing sediment-associated toxicity. Aquat Toxicol 83:180–189CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. van Leeuwen CJ, Hermens JLM (1995) Risk assessment of chemicals: an introduction. Kluwer Academic Publisher, Netherlands, pp 218–220 ISBN 0-7923-3740-9Google Scholar
  70. Viganó L, Arillo A, Buffagni A, Camusso M, Ciannarella R, Crosa G, Falugi C, Galassi S, Guzzella L, Lopez A, Mingazzini M, Pagnotta R, Patrolecco L, Tartari G, Vasecchi S (2003) Quality assessment of bed sediments of the Po River (Italy). Water Res 37:501–518CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Walker MK, Peterson RE (1991) Potencies of polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxin, dibenzofuran, and biphenyl congeners, relative to 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin, for producing early life stage mortality in rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss). Aquat Toxicol 21:219–238CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Wenning RJ, Batley GE, Ingersoll CG, Moore DW (eds) (2005) Use of sediment quality guidelines and related tools for the assessment of contaminated sediments. SETAC press, ISBN 1-880611-71-6Google Scholar
  73. Wulff F (1972) Experimental studies on physiological and behavioural response mechanisms of Nitocra spinipes (Crustacea: Harpacticoidea) from brackish-water rockpools. Mar Biol 13:325–329CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Zebühr Y, Näf C, Bandh C, Broman D, Ishaq R, Pettersen H (1993) An automated HPLC separation method with 2 coupled columns for the analysis of PCDD/Fs, PCBs and PACs. Chemosphere 27:1211–1219CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Zou E, Fingerman M (1997) Effects of estrogenic xenobiotics on molting of the water flea, Dapnia magna. Ecotoxicol Environ Saf 38:281–285CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Zou E, Fingerman M (1999) Effects of exposure to diethyl phthalate, 4-(tert)-octylphenol, and 2,4,5-trichlorobiphenyl on activity of chitobiase in the epidermis and hepatopancreas of the fiddler crab, Uca pugilator. Comp Biochem Physiol C 122:115–120Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jenny Karlsson
    • 1
  • Henrik Sundberg
    • 1
  • Gun Åkerman
    • 1
  • Kerstin Grunder
    • 1
  • Britta Eklund
    • 1
  • Magnus Breitholtz
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Applied Environmental Science (ITM)Stockholm UniversityStockholmSweden

Personalised recommendations