, Volume 6, Issue 2, pp 101–125 | Cite as

Equilibrium partitioning as the basis for an integrated laboratory and field assessment of the impacts of DDT, DDE and DDD in sediments

  • Robert A. Hoke
  • Gerald T. Ankley
  • Patricia A. Kosian
  • Anne M. Cotter
  • Frances M. Vandermeiden
  • Mary Balcer
  • Gary L. Phipps
  • Corlis West
  • Julie S. Cox


Many of the most biologically productive portions of streams are backwater areas which support large populations of benthic macroinvertebrates. The sediments in these locations and their associated macroinvertebrate communities are frequently subjected to chemical inputs and physical perturbations. Historically, assessment of the effects of contaminants in sediments have emphasized chemical analyses and either laboratory toxicity tests or in-stream monitoring of benthic macroinvertebrate community structure. However, combining the chemical and biological approaches provides a more powerful assessment technique. Such an integrated approach, combining laboratory water-only and sediment toxicity tests with Hyalella azteca and Chironomus tentans, field surveys of benthic macroinvertebrate community structure and evaluation of chemical data using equilibrium partitioning theory was used to assess the effects of DDT, DDE and DDD (collectively termed DDTR) in the sediments of the Huntsville Spring Branch-- Indian Creek (HSB--IC) stream system in the southeastern USA. Benthic macroinvertebrate populations in the HSB--IC system still appear to be adversely affected by DDTR residues within the sediments even though DDT discharges to the stream were stopped over 20 years ago and a major remediation project was completed in the late 1980s. This conclusion is based on a weight of evidence approach which incorporates (1) the observed sediment toxicity to C. tentans and H. azteca in laboratory tests, (2) the identification of DDTR as the likely cause of effects observed during laboratory toxicity tests, (3) the absence of appropriate sensitive species from groups such as the Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, Trichoptera and Amphipoda, (4) the presence of reduced numbers of both total individuals and species of chironomids and oligochaetes relative to nearby streams not contaminated by DDTR and (5) the observed distribution of benthic macroinvertebrates in relation to organic carbon-normalized concentrations of DDTR and equilibrium partitioning-based predicted sediment toxic units of DDTR

DDT DDE DDD equilibrium partitioning sediment 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Adams, W.J., Kimerle, R.J. and Mosher, R.G. (1985) Aquatic safety assessment of chemicals sorbed to sediments. In R.D. Cardwell, R. Purdy and R.C. Bahner (eds) Aquatic toxicology and hazard assessment. pp. 429–53. Philadelphia, PA: American Society of Testing and Materials.Google Scholar
  2. Ankley, G.T. and Schubauer-Berigan, M.K. (1995) Background and overview of current sediment toxicity identification evaluation procedures. J. Aquatic Ecosystem Health 4, 133–49.Google Scholar
  3. Barber, W.E. and Keven, N.R. (1974) Seasonal variation in sieving efficiency in a lotic habitat. Freshwater Biol. 4, 293–300.Google Scholar
  4. Barton, D.R. (1988) Distribution of some common benthic invertebrates in nearshore Lake Erie, with emphasis on depth and type of substratum. J. Great Lakes Res. 14, 34–43.Google Scholar
  5. Bishop, J. (1987) The In-place Pollutants Program: Background and Theoretical Concepts, Vol. II. Toronto, Canada: Ontario Ministry of Environment.Google Scholar
  6. Chapman, P.M. (1995) Extrapolating laboratory toxicity results to the field. Eviron. Toxicol. Chem. 14, 927–30.Google Scholar
  7. Courtemanch, D.L. and Davies, S.P. (1987) A coefficient of community loss to assess detrimental change in aquatic communities. Water Res. 21, 217–22.Google Scholar
  8. de Bruijn, J., Brusser, F., Seinen, W. and Hermens J. (1989) Determination of octanol/water partition coefficients for hydrophobic organic chemicals with the “slow-stirring” method. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 8, 499–512.Google Scholar
  9. Dickson, K.L. Waller, W.T., Kennedy, J.H. and Ammann, L.P. (1992) Assessing the relationship between ambient toxicity and instream biological response. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 11, 1307–22.Google Scholar
  10. Di Toro, D.M. (1985) A particle interaction model of reversible organic chemical sorption. Chemosphere 14, 1503–38.Google Scholar
  11. Di Toro, D.M., Zarba, C.S., Hansen, D.J., Berry, W.J., Swartz, R.C., Cowan, C.E., Pavlou, S.P., Allen, H.E., Thomas, N.A. and Paquin, P.R. (1991) Technical basis for establishing sediment quality criteria for nonionic organic chemicals using equilibrium partitioning. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 10, 1541–83.Google Scholar
  12. Eagleson, K.W., Lenat, D.L., Ausley, L.W. and Winborne, F.B. (1990) Comparison of measured instream biological responses with responses using the Ceriodaphnia dubia chronic toxicity test. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 9, 1019–28.Google Scholar
  13. Eckblad, J.W. Peterson, N.L., Ostlie, K. and Temte, A. (1977) The morphometry, benthos and sedimentation rates of a floodplain lake in pool 9 of the upper Mississippi River. Am. Midl. Nat. 97, 433–43.Google Scholar
  14. Finney, D.J. (1971) Probit Analysis. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Gentile, J.H. and Schimmel, S.C. (1984) Strategies for utilizing laboratory toxicological information in regulatory decisions. In H.H. White (ed.) Concepts in marine pollution measurements, pp. 57–80. College Park, MD: Maryland Sea Grant College, University of Maryland.Google Scholar
  16. Giesy, J.P. and Hoke, R.A. (1989) Freshwater sediment toxicity bioassessment: rationale for species selection and test design. J. Great Lakes Res. 15, 539–69.Google Scholar
  17. Grzybkowska, M. (1989) Production estimates of the dominant taxa of Chironomidae (Diptera) in the modified, River Widawka and the natural, River Grabia, Central Poland. Hydrobiologia 179, 245–59.Google Scholar
  18. Hamilton, M.A., Russo, R.C. and Thurston, R.V. (1977) Trimmed Spearman-Karber method for estimating median lethal concentrations in toxicity bioassays. Environ. Sci. Technol. 11, 714–19.Google Scholar
  19. Harris, S.C. (1987) Aquatic Invertebrates in the Warrior Coal Basin of Alabama. Tuscaloosa, AL: Geological Survey of Alabama, Biological Resources Division.Google Scholar
  20. Hilsenhoff, W.L. (1987) An improved biotic index of organic stream Pollution. Great Lakes Entomol. 20, 31–9.Google Scholar
  21. Hoke, R.A., Ankley, G.T., Cotter, A.M., Goldenstein, T., Kosian, P.A., Phipps, G.L. and VanderMeiden, F.M. (1994) Evaluation of equilibrium partitioning theory for predicting acute toxicity of field-collected sediments contaminated with DDT, DDE and DDD to the amphipod Hyalella azteca. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 13, 157–66.Google Scholar
  22. Holsinger, J.R. (1976) The Freshwater Amphipod Crustaceans (Gammaridae) of North America. Washington, DC: US Environmental Protection Agency.Google Scholar
  23. Johnson, W.W. and Finley, M.T. (1980) Handbook of Acute Toxicity of Chemicals to Fish and Aquatic Invertebrates. Washington, DC: Fish Service.Google Scholar
  24. Kimball, K.D. and Levine, S.A. (1985) Limitations of laboratory bioassays: the need for ecosystem-level testing. BioScience 35, 165–71.Google Scholar
  25. Lenat, D.R. (1993) A biotic index for the southeastern United States: derivation and list of tolerance values, with criteria for assessing water-quality ratings. J. N. Am. Benthol. Soc. 12, 279–90.Google Scholar
  26. Livingston, R.J. and Meeter, D.A. (1985) Correspondence of laboratory and field results: what are the criteria for verification? In J. Cairns Jr (ed.), Multispecies toxicity testing, pp. 76–88. NY: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
  27. Ludwig, J.A. and Reynolds, J.F. (1988) Statistical Ecology: A Primer on Methods and Computing. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.Google Scholar
  28. Marcus, M.D. and McDonald, L.L. (1992) Evaluating the statistical bases for relating receiving water impacts to effluent and ambient toxicities. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 11, 1389–1402.Google Scholar
  29. Mason, W.T., Jr, Lewis, P.A., and Hudson, P.L. (1975) The influence of sieve mesh size selectivity on benthic invertebrate indices of eutrophication. Verh. Int. Verein. Limnol. 19, 1550–61.Google Scholar
  30. Merritt, R.W. and Cummins, K.W. (1984) An Introduction to the Aquatic Insects of North America, 2nd edn. Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt Publishing Company.Google Scholar
  31. Minshall, G.W. (1984) Aquatic insect-substratum relationships. In V.H. Resh and D.M. Rosenberg (eds) The ecology of aquatic insects, pp. 358–400. NY: Praeger Publishers.Google Scholar
  32. Nalepa, T.F., Quigley, M.A. and Zielger, R.W. (1988) Sampling efficiency of the Ponar grab in two different benthic environments. J. Great Lakes Res. 14, 89–93.Google Scholar
  33. Nebeker, A.V., Schuytema, G.S., Griffis, W.L., Barbitta, J.A. and Carey, L.A. (1989) Effect of sediment organic carbon on survival of Hyalella aztecta exposed to DDT and endrin. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 8, 705–18.Google Scholar
  34. O'Shea, T.J., Fleming, W.J. and Chromartic, E. (1980) DDT contamination at Wheeler National Wildlife Refuge. Science 209, 509–10.Google Scholar
  35. Payne, B.S. and Miller, A.C. (1991) The structure of dominant invertebrate assemblages in a small southeastern stream. J. Freshwater Ecol. 6(3), 257–66.Google Scholar
  36. Pinder, L.C.V. (1986) Biology of freshwater Chironomidae. Ann. Rev. Entomol. 31, 1–23.Google Scholar
  37. Reich, A.R., Perkins, J.L. and Cutter, G. (1986) DDT contamination of a north Alabama aquatic ecosystem. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 5, 725–36.Google Scholar
  38. Sanders, H.O. (1969) Toxicity of Pesticides to the Crustacean Gammarus lacustris. Washington, DC: US Fish & Wildlife Service.Google Scholar
  39. Sanders, H.O. (1972) Toxicity of Some Insecticides to Four Species of Malacostracan Crustaceans. Washington, DC: US Fish & Wildlife Service.Google Scholar
  40. Schwenneker, B.W. and Hellenthal, R.A. (1984) Sampling considerations in using stream insects for monitoring water quality. Environ. Entomol. 13, 741–50.Google Scholar
  41. Smart, M.M., Rada, R.G., Nielsen, D.N. and Claflin, T.O. (1985) The effect of commercial and recreational traffic on the resuspension of sediment in navigation pool 9 of the upper Mississippi river. Hydrobiologia 126, 263–74.Google Scholar
  42. Snelgrove, P.V.R. and Butman C.A. (1994) Animal-sediment relationships revisited: cause versus effect. Ann. Rev. Ocean Mar. Biol. 32, 111–77.Google Scholar
  43. Sprague, J.B. and Ramsey, B.A. (1965) Lethal levels of mixed copper-zinc solutions for juvenile salmon. J. Fish. Res. Bd Can. 22, 425–32.Google Scholar
  44. Steinberg, S.M., Pignatello, J.J. and Sawlney, B.L. (1987) Persistence of 1,2-dibromoethane in soils: entrapment in intraparticle micropores. Environ. Sci. Technol. 21, 1201–8.Google Scholar
  45. Suter, G.W., II, Barnthouse, L.W., Breck, J.E., Gardner, R.H. and O'Neill, R.V. (1985) Extrapolating from the laboratory to the field: how uncertain are you? In R.D. Cardwell, R. Purdy and R.C. Bahner (eds) Aquatic toxicology and hazards assessment: seventh symposium, ASTM STP 854, pp. 400–13. Philadelphia, PA: American Society for Testing and Materials.Google Scholar
  46. Swartz, R.C., Schults, D.W., Dewitt, T.H., Ditsworth, G.R. and Lambersen, J.O. (1990) Toxicity of fluoranthene in sediment to marine amphipods: a test of the equilibrium partitioning approach to sediment quality criteria. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 9, 1071–80.Google Scholar
  47. Swartz, R.C., Cole, F.A., Lamberson, J.O., Ferraro, S.P., Schults, D.W., DeBen, W.A., Lee, H., II and Ozretich, R.J. (1994) Sediment toxicity, contamination, and amphipod abundance at a DDT and dieldrin-contaminated site in San Francisco Bay. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 13, 949–62.Google Scholar
  48. US Army Corps of Engineers (1986) Engineering and Environmental Study of DDT Contamination of Huntsville Spring Branch, Indian Creek, and Adjacent Lands and Waters. Wheeler Reservoir, Alabama, Vols 1–3. Mobile, AL: US ACOE.Google Scholar
  49. US Environmental Protection Agency (1973) Biological Field and Laboratory Methods for Measuring the Quality of Surface Waters and Effluents. Cincinnati, OH: US EPA, Office of Research and Development, National Environment Research Center.Google Scholar
  50. US Environmental Protection Agency (1980) Ambient Water Quality Criteria for DDT. Washington, DC: Office of Water, Regulations and Standards.Google Scholar
  51. US Environmental Protection Agency (1990) Macroinvertebrate Field and Laboratory Methods for Evaluating the Biological Integrity of Surface Waters. Cincinnati, OH: US EPA Environmental Monitoring Systems Laboratory.Google Scholar
  52. US Environmental Protection Agency (1993) Technical Basis for Deriving Sediment Quality Criteria for Nonionic Organic Contaminants for the Protection of Benthic Organisms by Using Equilibrium Partitioning. Washington, DC: US EPA, Office of Water, Office of Science and Technology, Health and Ecological Criteria Division.Google Scholar
  53. US Environmental Protection Agency (1994) EPA's Contaminated Sediment Management Strategy, Washington, DC: US EPA, Office of Water.Google Scholar
  54. Webber, E.C., Bayne, D.R. and Seesock, W.C. (1989a) Macroinvertebrate communities in Wheeler Reservoir (Alabama) tributaries after prolonged exposure to DDT contamination. Hydrobiologia 831, 141–55.Google Scholar
  55. Webber, E.C., Bayne, D.R. and Seesock, W.C. (1989b) DDT contamination of benthic macroinvertebrates and sediments from tributraries of Wheeler Resrvoir, Alabama. Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 18, 728–33.Google Scholar
  56. West, C.W., Phipps, G.L., Hoke, R.A., Goldenstein, T.A., VanderMeiden, F.M., Kosian, P.A. and Ankley, G.T. (1994) Sediment core versus grab samples: evaluation of contamination and toxicity at DDT-contaminated site. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Safety 28, 208–20.Google Scholar
  57. Wilkinson, L. (1990) SYSTAT: The System for Statistics, Evanston, IL: Systat, Inc.Google Scholar
  58. Woodward-Clyde Consultants, Inc. (1991) Review of Huntsville Spring Branch-Indian Creek Remedial Plan and Monitoring Program. Charleston, TN: Draft Report for Olin Chemicals.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Chapman and Hall 1997

Authors and Affiliations

  • Robert A. Hoke
    • 1
  • Gerald T. Ankley
    • 2
  • Patricia A. Kosian
    • 3
  • Anne M. Cotter
    • 3
  • Frances M. Vandermeiden
    • 3
  • Mary Balcer
    • 3
  • Gary L. Phipps
    • 2
  • Corlis West
    • 2
  • Julie S. Cox
    • 3
  1. 1.Environmental Research and Analysis DivisionScience Applications International CorporationHackensackUSA
  2. 2.Midcontinent Ecology DivisionUS Environmental Protection AgencyDuluthUSA
  3. 3.Lake Superior Research InstituteUniversity of Wisconsin-SuperiorSuperiorUSA

Personalised recommendations