Hazard identification of contaminated sites—ranking potential toxicity of organic sediment extracts in crustacean and fish
- 218 Downloads
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.
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.
KeywordsCrustacea Fish PAH PCB PCDD/Fs Sediment extract Sediment toxicity Semi-polar Sublethal
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- Lang K (1948) Monographie der Harpacticiden. II. Stockholm, Sweden, p 1682Google Scholar
- Nœs K (1999) Overvåking av miljøgifter i sedimentene i Grenlandsfjordene 1997. Overvakningsrapport nr. 765/99. TA-nr. 1645/99:1–146Google Scholar
- SedNet (2004) Contaminated sediments in European river basins. Final Draft, www.SedNet.org
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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