Environmental Monitoring and Assessment

, Volume 76, Issue 3, pp 311–352

A Ten Year Summary of Concurrent Ambient Water Column and Sediment Toxicity Tests in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed: 1990–1999

  • Lenwood W. HallJr.
  • Ronald D. Anderson
  • Raymond W. Alden III
Article
  • 68 Downloads

Abstract

The goal of this study was to identify the relative toxicity ofambient areas in the Chesapeake Bay watershed by using a suiteof concurrent water column and sediment toxicity tests at seventy-five ambient stations in 20 Chesapeake Bay rivers from1990 through 1999. Spatial and temporal variability was examinedat selected locations throughout the 10 yr study. Inorganicand organic contaminants were evaluated in ambient water andsediment concurrently with water column and sediment tests toassess possible causes of toxicity although absolute causalitycan not be established. Multivariate statistical analysis wasused to develop a multiple endpoint toxicity index (TOX-INDEX) at each station for both water column and sediment toxicity data. Water column tests from the 10 yr testing period showed that49% of the time, some degree of toxicity was reported. The mosttoxic sites based on water column results were located inurbanized areas such as the Anacostia River, Elizabeth River andthe Middle River. Water quality criteria for copper, lead,mercury, nickel and zinc were exceeded at one or more of thesesites. Water column toxicity was also reported in localizedareas of the South and Chester Rivers. Both spatial and temporalvariability was reported from the suite of water column toxicitytests. Some degree of sediment toxicity was reported from 62% of the tests conducted during the ten year period. The ElizabethRiver and Baltimore Harbor stations were reported as the most toxic areas based on sediment results.Sediment toxicity guidelines were exceeded for one or more of thefollowing metals at these two locations: arsenic, cadmium,chromium, copper, lead, nickel and zinc. At the Elizabeth Riverstations nine of sixteen semi-volatile organics and two of sevenpesticides measured exceeded the ER-M values in 1990. Ambientsediment toxicity tests in the Elizabeth River in 1996 showedreduced toxicity. Various semi-volatile organics exceeded the ER-M values at a number of Baltimore Harbor sites; pyrene anddibenzo(a,h)anthracene were particularly high at one of thestations (Northwest Harbor). Localized sediment toxicity was alsoreported in the Chester, James, Magothy, Rappahannock, andPotomac Rivers but the link with contaminants was not determined.Both spatial and temporal variability was less for sedimenttoxicity data when compared with water column toxicity data. Acomparison of water column and sediment toxicity data for thevarious stations over the 10 yr study showed that approximatelyhalf the time agreement occurred (either both suite of testsshowed toxicity or neither suite of tests showed toxicity).

ambient water column and sediment toxicity tests contaminants Chesapeake Bay watershed 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Alden, R. W.: 1992, ‘Uncertainty and sediment quality assessments: Confidence limits for the triad', Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 11, 645–651.Google Scholar
  2. Alden, R. W., Gordon, A. S., Stillwell, E. F., Everton, R. K. and Helmstetter, M. F.: 1988, An Evaluation of the Distribution of Toxicants/Mutagens in the Elizabeth River, Virginia in Relation to Land Use Activities, Final Report, Virginia Water Control Board, Richmond, VA.Google Scholar
  3. CEC (Chesapeake Executive Council): 1988, Chesapeake Bay Living Resource Monitoring Plan, Chesapeake Bay Agreement Commitment Report, Chesapeake Bay Liaison Office, Annapolis, MD.Google Scholar
  4. CEC (Chesapeake Executive Council): 1989, Chesapeake Bay Basinwide Reduction Strategy, Chesapeake Bay Agreement Commitment Report, Chesapeake Bay Liaison Office, Annapolis, MD.Google Scholar
  5. Chapman, P. M.: 1986, ‘Sediment quality criteria from the sediment quality Triad-an example', Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 5, 957–964.Google Scholar
  6. Chapman, P. M.: 1990, ‘The sediment quality triad approach to determining pollution-induced degradation', Sci. Tot. Environ. 97-8, 815–625.Google Scholar
  7. Chapman, P. M., Dexter, R. N. and Long, E. R.: 1987, ‘Synoptic measures of sediment contamination, toxicity and infaunal community composition (the Sediment quality Triad) in San Francisco Bay', Mar. Ecol. Progr. Ser. 37, 75–96.Google Scholar
  8. DiToro, D. M., Mahony, J. D., Hansen, D. J., Scott, K. J., Hicks, M. B., Mayo, S. M. and Redmond, M. S.: 1990, ‘Toxicity of cadmium in sediments: The role of acid volatile sulfides', Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 9, 1487–1502.Google Scholar
  9. Eskin, R. A., Rowland, K. H. and Alegre, D. Y.: 1996, Contaminants in Chesapeake Bay Sediments: 1984-1991, EPA CRP-TRS-145-96, Environmental Protection Agency, Annapolis, MD.Google Scholar
  10. Fisher, D. J., Burton, D. T., Hall, L. W. Jr., Paulson, R. L. and Hersh, C. M.: 1988, Standard Operating Procedures for Short-Term Chronic Effluent Toxicity Tests with Freshwater and Saltwater Organisms, Johns Hopkins University, Applied Physics Laboratory, Aquatic Ecology Section, Shady Side, MD.Google Scholar
  11. Hall, L. W. Jr. and Alden, R. W. III.: 1997, ‘A review of concurrent ambient water column and sediment toxicity testing in the Chesapeake Bay watershed: 1990-1994', Environ. Tox. Chem. 16, 1606–1617.Google Scholar
  12. Hall, L. W. Jr. and Giddings, J. M.: 2000, ‘The need for multiple lines of evidence for predicting site-specific ecological effects', Hum. Ecol. Risk Assess. 6, 679–710.Google Scholar
  13. Hall, L.W. Jr., Anderson, R. D., Alden, R. W. and Adolphson, P.: 1998a, Ambient Toxicity Testing in Chesapeake Bay - Year 5 Report, Environmental Protection Agency, Chesapeake Bay Program Office, Annapolis, MD.Google Scholar
  14. Hall, L.W. Jr., Anderson, R. D., Alden, R.W., Messing, A., Turner, T., Goshorn, D. and McGinty, M. 1998b, Ambient Toxicity Testing in Chesapeake Bay - Year 6 Report, EPA 903-3-98-017 CBPTRS-210-98, Environmental Protection Agency, Chesapeake Bay Program Office, Annapolis, MD.Google Scholar
  15. Hall, L. W. Jr., Anderson, R. D., Killen, W. D., Scott, M. C., Kilian, J. V., Alden, R. W. and Adolphson, P.: 1996, Ambient Toxicity Testing in Chesapeake Bay-Year 4 Report, Environmental Protection Agency, Chesapeake Bay Program Office, Annapolis, MD.Google Scholar
  16. Hall, L. W. Jr., Anderson, R. D., Messing, A., Turner, T., Alden, R. W., Goshorn, D. and McGinty, M.: 2000a, Ambient Toxicity Testing in Chesapeake Bay - Year 7 Report, EPA 903-R-00-006, Environmental Protection Agency, Chesapeake Bay Program Office, Annapolis, MD.Google Scholar
  17. Hall, L. W. Jr., Anderson, R. D., Messing, A., Winfield, J., Jenkins, A. K., Weber, I. J., Alden, R. W., Goshorn, D. and McGinty, M.: 2000b, Ambient Toxicity Testing in Chesapeake Bay - Year 8 Report, EPA 903-R-00-012, Environmental Protection Agency, Chesapeake Bay Program Office, Annapolis, MD.Google Scholar
  18. Hall, L. W. Jr., Anderson, R. D., Messing, A., Winfield, J., Jenkins, A. J., Weber, I. J., Alden, R. W., Goshorn, D. and McGinty, M.: 2000c, Ambient Toxicity Testing Chesapeake Bay: Year 9 Draft Report, Environmental Protection Agency, Chesapeake Bay Program Office, Annapolis, MD.Google Scholar
  19. Hall, L.W. Jr. and Ziegenfuss, M. C.: 1993, Standard Operating Procedures for Conducting Embryo-Larval Toxicity Tests with the Coot Clam, Mulinia lateralis: Effluent, Ambient Water, Single-Multiple Chemical or Porewater Toxicity Tests, Report, University of Maryland, Wye Research and Education Center, Queenstown, MD.Google Scholar
  20. Hall, L. W. Jr., Ziegenfuss, M. C., Anderson, R. D. and Killen, W. D.: 1995, ‘Use of estuarine water column tests for detecting toxic conditions in ambient areas of the Chesapeake Bay watershed', Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 14, 267–278.Google Scholar
  21. Hall, L. W. Jr., Ziegenfuss, M. C., Anderson, R. D., Killen, W. D., Alden, R. W. and Adolphson, P.: 1994, A Pilot Study for Ambient Toxicity Testing in Chesapeake Bay - Year 3 Report, EPA CBPTRS-116-94, Environmental Protection Agency, Chesapeake Bay Program Office, Annapolis, MD.Google Scholar
  22. Hall, L. W. Jr., Ziegenfuss, M. C., Fischer, S. A., Alden, R. W., Deaver, E., Gooch, J. and Debert-Hastings, N.: 1991, A Pilot Study for Ambient Toxicity Testing in Chesapeake Bay, Volume 1 - Year 1 Report, CBP-TRS-64-91, Environmental Protection Agency, Chesapeake Bay Program Office, Annapolis, MD.Google Scholar
  23. Hall, L. W. Jr., Ziegenfuss, M. C., Fischer, S. A., Anderson, R. D., Killen, W. D., Alden, R. W., Deaver, E., Gooch, J. and Shaw, N.: 1992, A Pilot Study for Ambient Toxicity Testing in Chesapeake Bay - Year 2 Report, CBP-TRS-82-92, Environmental Protection Agency, Chesapeake Bay Program Office, Annapolis, MD.Google Scholar
  24. Karr, J. R. 1991: ‘Defining and assessing ecological integrity: beyond water quality', Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 12, 1521–1531.Google Scholar
  25. Karr, J. R.: 1993, ‘Biological integrity: A long-neglected aspect of water resource management', Ecol. Appl. 1, 66–84.Google Scholar
  26. Lippson, A. J. and Lippson, R. L.: 1984, Life in the Chesapeake Bay, Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, MD, 229 pp.Google Scholar
  27. Long, E. R. and Chapman, P. M.: 1985, ‘A sediment quality Triad: Measures of sediment contamination, toxicity and infaunal community composition in Puget Sound', Mar. Pollut. Bull. 16, 105–115.Google Scholar
  28. Long, E. R., McDonald, D. D., Smith, S. L. and Cable, R. D.: 1995, ‘Incidence of adverse biological effects within ranges of chemical concentrations in marine and estuarine sediments', Environ. Manage. 19, 81–97.Google Scholar
  29. MacKenzie, C. L. Jr.: 1996, ‘Management of Natural Populations', in: V. S. Kennedy, R. I. E. Newell and A. F. Eble (eds.), The Eastern Oyster, Crassostrea viginica, Maryland Sea Grant, College Park, MD, pp. 707–721.Google Scholar
  30. Majumdar, S. K., Hall, L. W. Jr. and Austin, H. M.: 1987, Contaminant Problems and Management of Living Chesapeake Bay Resources, Pennsylvania Academy of Sciences, Easton, PA.Google Scholar
  31. Morrison, G. and Petrocelli, E.: 1990a, Short-Term Methods for Estimating the Chronic Toxicity of Effluents and Receiving Waters to Marine and Estuarine Organisms: Supplement: Test Method for the Coot Clam, Mulinia lateralis, Embry/Larval Test, Draft Report, United States Environmental Protection Agency, Narragansett, R.I.Google Scholar
  32. Morrison, G. and Petrocelli, E.:1990b, Mulinia Lateralis - Microscale Marine Toxicity Test, Report, Environmental Protection Agency, Narragansett, R.I.Google Scholar
  33. Pinkney, A. E., Harshbarger, J. C., May, E. B. and Melancon, M. J.: 2000, Tumor Prevalence and Biomarkers of Exposure and Response in Brown Bullheads (Ameiurus Nebulosus) from the Tidal Potomac River Watershed, CBFO-699-04, United States Fish and Wildlife Service, Chesapeake Bay Field Office, Annapolis, MD.Google Scholar
  34. USEPA: 1979, Methods for Chemical Analysis of Water and Wastes, EPA 600-4-79-020, Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  35. USEPA: 1984, Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste: Physical/Chemical Methods, SW-846 Third Edition, Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, OH.Google Scholar
  36. USEPA: 1999, A Characterization Report - A Tool for Directing Management and Monitoring Actions in Chesapeake Bay's Tidal Rivers, EPA 903-R-99-010, Environmental Protection Agency, Chesapeake Bay Program Office, Annapolis, MD.Google Scholar
  37. Wade, T. L., Velinisky, D. J., Reinharz, E. and Schekat, C. E.: 1994, ‘Tidal river sediments in Washington DC Area II. Distribution and sources of organic compounds', Estuaries 17, 321–333.Google Scholar
  38. Ziegenfuss, M. C. and Hall, L. W. Jr.: 1994, Standard Operating Procedures for Conducting Acute and Chronic Aquatic Toxicity Tests with Eurytemora affinis, a Calanoid Copepod1, Report, Environmental Protection Agency, Chesapeake Bay Program Office, Annapolis, MD.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  • Lenwood W. HallJr.
    • 1
  • Ronald D. Anderson
    • 1
  • Raymond W. Alden III
    • 2
  1. 1.Agricultural Experiment Station, Wye Research and Education CenterUniversity of Maryland SystemQueenstownU.S.A.
  2. 2.College of SciencesUniversity of Nevada Las VegasLas VegasU.S.A

Personalised recommendations