Predicting bioaccessibility of contaminants of emerging concern in marine sediments using chemical methods
- 125 Downloads
A comparison was made between three chemical methods to predict bioaccessibility of triclosan (TCS), bisphenol A (BPA), and 17α-ethynylestradiol (EE2) in marine sediments, involving an exchangeable (E) value, butanol extractions, and hydroxypropyl-β-cyclodextrin (β-HPCD) extractions.
Materials and methods
A 60-day batch experiment was undertaken where the aqueous phase was analyzed by GC-MS/MS. The bioaccessibility study based on the E value model involved monitoring stable isotopes exchanging with the bioaccessible phase, while this exchangeability was also estimated with sediment extractions with butanol and β-HPCD, respectively.
Results and discussion
Based on the E value method, TCS was readily exchangeable for up to 7 days, while after this period become virtually non-exchangeable (not detected in aqueous phase). This trend was also evident for butanol and β-HPCD extractions, suggesting TCS was strongly complexed with the matrix. For BPA and EE2, the fraction considered exchangeable was higher after 14 days and the extraction efficiency was slightly higher for the butanol treatment.
Chemical methods to predict bioaccessibility in marine sediments have demonstrated differences between selected contaminants, but agreement between methods. Triclosan shows the highest affinity with tested sediments, some exchangeability in the first days of interaction of E value experiment as well as observed for extraction methods. However, the highest capacity to be extracted from already-sorbed phase was observed for BPA, showed in both extraction methods, and confirming its mobility and bioaccessibility in sediments over the time.
KeywordsEmerging contaminant Isotopic exchangeability Sediment Sorption bioaccessible
The authors thank Jun Du and Sheridan Martin (CSIRO Land and Water) for contaminant analysis and sample preparation and Sam Gaylard (SA Environment Protection Authority) for making sediment samples available.
Dr. Dayana Moscardi dos Santos thanks the FAPESP (grant no. 12/17898-7 and 13/09437-2, São Paulo Research Foundation) for the financial support.
- Bayen S, Zhang H, Desai MM, Ooi SK, Kelly BC (2013) Occurrence and distribution of pharmaceutically active and endocrine disrupting compounds in Singapore’s marine environment: influence of hydrodynamics and physical-chemical properties. Environ Pollut 182:1–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2013.06.028 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Boehler S, Strecker R, Heinrich P, Prochazka E, Northcott GL, Ataria JM, Leusch FDL, Braunbeck T, Tremblay LA (2017) Assessment of urban stream sediment pollutants entering estuaries using chemical analysis and multiple bioassays to characterize biological activities. Sci Total Environ 593–594:498–507CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Cantwell MG, Wilson BA, Zhu J, Wallace GT, King JW, Olsen CR, Burgess RM, Smith JP (2010) Temporal trends of triclosan contamination in dated sediment cores from four urbanized estuaries: evidence of preservation and accumulation. Chemosphere 78(4):347–352. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2009.11.021 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Campillo N, Aguinaga N, Viñas P, López-Garcia I, Hernández-Córdoba M (2004) Speciation of organotin compounds in waters and marine sediments using purge-and-trap capillary gas chromatography with atomic emission detection. Anal Chim Acta 525(2):273–280. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aca.2004.07.054 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Corrotea Y, Richter P, Brown S, Sepúlveda B, Ascar L, Ahumada I (2016) Determination of the bioavailable fraction of triclosan in biosolid-treated soils using predictive method and wheat plant bioassays. J Soils Sediments 16(5):1538–1546. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11368-015-1348-3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Cunha BB, Botero WG, Oliveira LC, Carlos VM, Pompeo MLM, Fraceto LF, Rosa AH (2012) Kinetics and adsorption isotherms of bisphenol A, estrone, 17β-estradiol, and 17α-ethynylestradiol in tropical sediment samples. Water Air Soil Pollut 223(1):329–336. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11270-011-0861-2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Dhillon GS, Kaur S, Pulicharla R, Brar SK, Clédon M, Verma M, Surampalli RY (2015) Triclosan: Current Status, Occurrence, Environmental Risks and Bioaccumulation Potential. Int J Environ Res Public Health 12:5657–5684Google Scholar
- Fernandes M, Shareef A, Kookana R, Gaylard S, Hoare S, Kildea T (2011) The distribution of triclosan and methyl-triclosan in marine sediment of Barker Inlet, South Australia. J Environ Monit 13:801–806Google Scholar
- Lu X, Reible DD, Fleeger JW, Chai Y (2003) Bioavailability of desorption-resistant phenanthrene to the oligochaete Ilyodrilus templetoni. Environ Toxicol Chem 22(1):153–160Google Scholar
- Martínez-Hernández V, Mefle R, Herrera S, Arranz E, Bustamante I (2014) Sorption desorption of non-hydrophobic and ionisable pharmaceutical and personal care products from reclaimed water onto/from a natural sediment. Sci Total Environ 472:273–281. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2013.11.036 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Morrison G, Chapman G (1990) Supplemental methods and status reports for short-term saltwater toxicity tests; ERL Contrib. No. 1199; Environmental Research Laboratory, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, p 127Google Scholar
- NRC (2003) Bioavailability of contaminants in soils and sediments: process, tools and applications. National Academy Press, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
- OECD (2000) OECD Guideline 106 for testing of chemicals: adsorption-desorption using a bath equilibrium model. http://www.oecd-library.org/environment/test-no-106. Accessed 13 Mar 2013
- Ortega-Calvo JJ, Harmsen J, Parsons JR, Semple KT, Aitken MD, Charmaine A, Eadsforth C, Galay-Burgos M, Naidu R, Oliver R, Peijnenburg WJGM, Romblke J, Streck G, Versonnen B (2015) From bioavailability science to regulation of organic chemicals. Environ Sci Technol 49(17):10255–10264. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.5b02412 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Sanchez-Brunete C, Miguel E, Albero B, Tadeo JL (2010) Determination of triclosan and methyltriclosan in environmental solid samples by matrix solid-phase dispersion and gas chromatography-mass spectrometry. J Sep Sci 33(17-18):2768–2775. https://doi.org/10.1002/jssc.201000284 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Scharzenbach RP, Gscwend PM, Imboden DM (2003) Environmental organic chemistry, 2nd edn. Wiley Interscience, HobokenGoogle Scholar
- Swindell AL, Reid BJ (2007) Evaluating the burden of hydrophobic organic contaminants in soils and sediments: an appraisal of methodologies. Chapter 7. In: Plattenberg RH (ed) Environmental Pollution, new research. Nova Science Publishers, New York, pp 225–261Google Scholar