Biological effects-based sediment quality in ecological risk assessment for European waters

  • Pieter J. den Besten
  • Eric de Deckere
  • Marc P. Babut
  • Beth Power
  • T. Angel DelValls
  • Christina Zago
  • Amy M. P. Oen
  • Susanne Heise
Discussion Article

Abstract

An overview is given of decision making frameworks for Ecological Risk Assessment (ERA) used for sediment in a number of European countries. These frameworks fall into two categories:
  1. Biological Effects-Based Assessment of in situ risks (referred to as in situ BEBA);

     
  2. Biological Effects-Based Assessment of the ex situ quality of dredged sediments (referred to as ex situ BEBA).

     
The first approach is usually part of an evaluation of whether remediation is needed in order to control or reduce the ecological risks of sediment pollution in a given location. The purpose of the second approach is to evaluate the risks of possible (unconfined) disposal options for dredged sediment (including sediment that is dredged for navigational reasons). Important aspects are:
  1. Objectives for sediment management;

     
  2. The level of integration of BEBA in legal frameworks;

     
  3. The use of chemical (numeric) SQG’s in BEBA and their integration with biological information;

     
  4. The criteria used to infer effects and to classify sediment quality.

     

Between EU countries the basis for deriving SQG’s as well as the level of implementation of SQGs varies considerably. For use of SQGs in river basins, clearly there is a need for harmonisation of SQGs. Also, there is a large variation between EU countries with regard to the role BEBA plays in decision making frameworks. With respect to the implementation of the EU Water Framework Directive, possibilities arise for harmonization of BEBA on a river basin level, especially for ex situ BEBA.

References

  1. Ahlf W, Gratzer H (1999): Erarbeitung von Kriterien zur Ableitung von Qualitatszielen für Sedimente und Schwebstoffe — Entwicklung methodischer Ansätze. UBA Texte 41/99, 1–171Google Scholar
  2. Ahlf W, Förstner U (2001): Managing Contaminated Sediments. I. improving Chemical and Biological Criteria. JSS — J Soils & Sediments 1(1) 1–7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Ahlf W, Braunbeck T, Heise S, Hollert H (2002a): Sediment and Soil Quality Criteria. In: Burden FR, McKelvie I, Förstner U, Guenther A: Environmental Monitoring Handbook. McGraw-Hill, New York, 17.1–17.18Google Scholar
  4. Ahlf W, Hollert H, Neumann-Hensel H, Ricking M (2002b): A guidance for the assessment and evalutation of sediment quality: A German approach based on ecotoxicological and chemical measurements. JSS — J Soils & Sediments 2(1) 37–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Apitz SE, White S (2003): A Conceptual Framework for River-Basin-Scale Sediment Management. JSS — J Soils & Sediments 3 (3) 132–138CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. ATV-DVWK (Ed.), (2000): Die Elbe und ihre Nebenflüsse — Belastung, Trends, Bewertung, Perspektiven. Hennef, GfA Gesellschaft zur Förderung der Abwassertechnik e.V., 168 pp.Google Scholar
  7. Babut MP, Perrodin Y (2001): Evaluation écotoxicologique de sédiments contaminés ou de matériaux de dragage. (I) Présentation et justification de la démarche. Rapport d’Etudes. Voies Navigables de France (VNF)-Centre d’Etudes Techniques Maritimes et Fluviales (CETMEF), 47 pp. (http://www.lyon.cemagref.fr/bea/tox/dragage.html)Google Scholar
  8. Babut MP, Perrodin Y, Bray M, Clement B, Delolme C, Devaux A, Durrieu C, Garric J, Voilat B, Becart D, Charrier C (2002): Evaluation des risques écologiques causés par des matériaux de dragage: proposition d’une approche adaptée aux dépôts de gravière en eau. Revue des Sciences de l’Eau 15, 615–639Google Scholar
  9. Babut MP, Ahlf W, Batley GE, Camusso M, De Deckere E, Den Besten PJ (2003): International Overview of Sediment Quality Guidelines and Their Uses. In: Wenning RJ, Ingersoll CG, Batley GE (Eds.), Use of Sediment Quality Guidelines and Related Tools for the Assessment of Contaminated Sediments — SETAC, in pressGoogle Scholar
  10. Bates AD, Hooper AG ( 1997): Inland dredging — Guidance on good practice. CIRIA Publication Code: R169,184 pp. ISBN: 0 86017 477 8Google Scholar
  11. Bundesanstalt für Gewässerkunde (BfG) (1999): Handlungsanweisung für den Umgang mit Baggergut im Küstenbereich (HABAK-WSV). BfG-Nr. 1100Google Scholar
  12. Bundesanstalt für Gewässerkunde (2000): Handlungsanweisung für den Umgang mit Baggergut im Binnenland (HABAB-WSV). BfG-Nr. 1070Google Scholar
  13. Burgess RM, Ahrens MJ, Hickey CW, Den Besten PJ, Ten Hulscher TEM, Van Hattum B, Meador JP, Douben PET (2003): An overview of the partitioning and bioavailability of PAHs in sediments and soils. In: Douben PET (Ed.), PAHs: An ecological perspective. Wiley, West Sussex, 2003, pp. 99–126Google Scholar
  14. Burton GA, Batley GE, Chapman PM, Forbes VE, Smith EP, Reynoldson T, Schlekat CE, Den Besten PJ, Bailer J, Green AS, Dwyer RL (2002): A Weight-of-Evidence Framework for Assessing Ecosystem Impairment: Improving Certainty in the Decision-Making Process. Human and Ecological risk assessment 8, 1675–1696CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Callebaut K, Vanhaecke P (1999): Inventarisatie en evaluatie van de beschikbare gegevens omtrent emissie, immissie en gebruik van pesticiden voor de identificatie van de probleemstoffen in Vlaanderen en als basis voor de prioritering van de reductiemaatregelen. Eindrapport i.o.v. Ministerie van de Vlaamse Gemeenschap, Dpt. Leefmilieu en Infrastructuur, Administratie Milieu-, Natuur-, Land-en Waterbeheer, Afdeling WaterGoogle Scholar
  16. Calmano W (Ed.), (2001): Investigation and assessment of sediments: Ecotoxicological and chemical test methods (in German). Heidelberg, Springer-VerlagGoogle Scholar
  17. Chapman PM (1996): Presentation and interpretation of Sediment Quality Triad data. Ecotoxicology 5, 327–339CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Chapman PM (2000): The Sediment Quality Triad: then, now and tomorrow. Int J Environ Pollution 13, 351–356CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Cornelissen G, Rigterink H, Ten Hulscher TEM, Vrind BA, Van Noort PCM (2001): A simple Tenax extraction method to determine the availability of sediment-sorbed organic compounds. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 20, 706–711CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. CUWVO (1990): Recommendations for the monitoring of compounds of the M-list of the national policy document on water management ‘Water in the Netherlands: A time for action’. Commision for the Implementation of the Act on Pollution of Surface Waters (CUWVO), The Hague, Netherlands (in Dutch)Google Scholar
  21. Den Besten PJ, Schmidt CA, Ohm M, Ruys MM, Van Berghem JW, Van de Guchte C (1995): Sediment quality assessment in the delta of the rivers Rhine and Meuse based on field observations, bioassays and food chain implications. Journal of Aquatic Ecosystem Health 4, 257–270CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. De Deckere EMGT, De Cooman W, Florus M, Devroede-Vanderlinden M-P (2000): Handboek voor de karakterisatie van de bodems van de Vlaamse waterlopen, volgens de Triade, 2de versie (Guidance document for characterisation of Flemish waters according to the Triad, 2nd version — in Dutch). Ministerie van de Vlaamse Gemeenschap, AMINAL/ afdeling Water, BrusselGoogle Scholar
  23. DelValls TA, Forja JM, Gómez-Parra A (1998): An integrative assessment of sediment quality in littoral ecosystems from the Gulf of Cádiz. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 17 (6) 1073–1084CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. DelValls TA, Chapman PM (1998): Site-specific sediment quality values for the Gulf of Cádiz (Spain) and San Francisco Bay (U.S.A), using the sediment quality triad and multivariate analysis. Ciencias Mannas 24, 313–336Google Scholar
  25. DelValls TA, Forja, JM, Gómez-Parra A (2002): Seasonality of contamination, toxicity, and quality values in sediments from littoral ecosystems in the Gulf of Cádiz (SW Spain). Chemosphere 7, 1033–1043CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. De March BGE (1987): Mixture toxicity indices in acute lethal toxicity tests, Archives of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology 16, 33–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. De Pauw N, Heylen S (2001): Biotic index for sediment quality assessment of watercourses in Flanders, Belgium. Aquatic Ecology 35, 121–133CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. DiToro DM, Zarba CS, Hansen DJ, Berry WJ, Swartz RC, Cowan CE, Pavlou SP, Allen HE, Thomas NA, Paquin PR (1991): Technical basis for establishing sediment quality criteria for nonionic organic chemicals using equilibrium partitioning. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 10, 1541–1583CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. D.Lgs. 11 May 1999, n. 152 (1999): ‘Disposizioni sulla tutela delle acque dall’inquinamento e recepimento della direttiva 91/271/CEE concernente il trattamento delle acque reflue urbane e della direttiva 91/676/CEE relativa alla protezione delle acque dall’inquinamento provocato dai nitrati provenienti da fonti agricole’, published in G.U. 29 May 1999, n. 124Google Scholar
  30. Environment Agency (of England and Wales) (1997): EC Dangerous Substances Directive (76/464/EEC), Monitoring Requirements 1997. 11 pp. 6th December 1996Google Scholar
  31. Environment Agency (of England and Wales) (2000): Proposed environmental quality guidelines for dioxins and furans in water and sediments. Prepared for the Environment Agency by WRc plc, Grimwood MJ, Mascarenhas R, Sutton A. R&D Technical Report P48Google Scholar
  32. Environment Agency (2002a): Review and Recommendations of Methodolgoies for the Derivation of Sediment Quality Guidelines. R&D Technical Report P2-092/TR. Prepared by CEFAS for the Environment Agency of England and Wales. August 2002Google Scholar
  33. Environment Agency (2002b): Scoping Study — Sediments in England and Wales: Nature and Extent of the Issues. Prepared by Beth Power for the Environment Agency of England and Wales. February 2002Google Scholar
  34. Federal Environment Agency (Germany, Ed.), (2001): Environmental Policy — Water Resources Management in Germany. Part II -Quality of Inland Surface Waters, Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature, Conservation and Nuclear Safety, Division WAI 1BGoogle Scholar
  35. Garric J, Bonnet C, Bray M, Migeon B, Mons R, Vollat B (1998): Bioessais sur sédiments: Méthodologie et application à la mesure de la toxicité de sédiments naturels. 97.9004. Agence de l’Eau Rhône Mediterranée Corse, 53 pp.Google Scholar
  36. Garric J, Flammarion P, Bonnard R, Roger MC (2002): Etude de l’impact de la contamination toxique du sédiment sur les biocénoses benthiques: Mise en relation micropolluants — Liste faunistique (IBGN). Agence de l’Eau Rhône-Méditérannée-Corse, 24 pp.Google Scholar
  37. Grothe DR, Dickson KL, Reed-Judkins DK (Eds.), (1996): Whole effluent toxicity testing: an evaluation of methods and prediction of receiving systems impacts. SETAC Pellston workshop on whole efflu- ent toxicity; September 16th-25th 1995; Pellston, MI. Pensacola FL: SETAC Press, 340 p.Google Scholar
  38. Hamelink JL, Landrum P F, Bergman H L, Benson W H (1994): Bioavailability: Physical, Chemical and Biological Interactions. CRC Press, Inc., Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, FL., p. 239Google Scholar
  39. Harris, B, Tinsley D, Power B (2002): Navigating a course through dirty mud in England and Wales. In: Porta A, Hinchee RE, Pellei M (Eds.), Management of Contaminated Sediments, Proceedings of International Conference on Remediation of Contaminated Sediments. S1-2, p. 27–34 RHagner C, Peters C (2001): Current and Future Policies and Regulatory Framework — The European and International Policy Framework. In: Gandrass J, Salomons W(Eds.), Dredged Material in the Port of Rotterdam — Interface between Rhine Catchment Area and North Sea, Geesthacht, GermanyGoogle Scholar
  40. Heise S, Ahlf W (2002): The need for new concepts in risk management of sediments. JSS — j Soils & Sediments 2(1) 4–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Henschel Th, Maaß NV, Ahlf W, Krebs F, Calmano W (2001): Gefähr-dungsabschätzung von Gewässer-Sedimenten — Handlungsempfeh- lungen und Bewertungsvorschläge. Teil III. Document für den Fach- ausschuss Gewassersedimente. Untersuchung und Bewertung von Sedimenten — Ökotoxikologische und chemische Testmethoden. Springer Verlag, Berlin, S. 493–496Google Scholar
  42. Hermens J, Canton H, Steyger N, Wegman R (1984): Joint effects of a mixture of 14 chemicals on mortality and inhibition of reproduction of Daphnia magna. Aquatic Toxicology 5, 315–322CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Hollert H, Heise S, Pudenz S, Brüggemann R, Ahlf W, Braunbeck T. (2002): Application of a sediment quality triad and different statistical approaches (Hasse Diagramm and Fuzzy Logic) for the comparative evaluation of small streams. Ecotoxicology 11 (5) 311–322CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Hylland K (1996): Bioaccumulation of environmental pollutants from marine sediment — Establishment of a test-system (in Norwegian). NIVA report 3537Google Scholar
  45. Imbert T, Py C, Duchene M (1998): Enlèvement des sédiments — Guide méthodologique — Faut-il curer? Pour une aide à la prise de décision. Pôle de compétence sur les sites & sols pollués Nord/Pas de Calais — Agence de l’Eau Artois-Picardie, Douai 161 pp.Google Scholar
  46. Ingersoll CG, Dillon T, Biddinger GR (Eds.), (1997): Ecological Risk Assessment of contaminated sediments — Proceedings of the Pellston workshop on Sediment Ecological Risk Assessment, 1995. SETAC Special publications series, 389 pp.Google Scholar
  47. Källqvist T. (1993): Toxicity tests for characterisation and classification of polluted sediments (in Norwegian). SFT report 93:15. Norwegian Pollution Control Authority, Oslo. 26 pp.Google Scholar
  48. Kraaij RH (2001): Sequestration and bio-availability of hydrophobic chemicals in sediment. Thesis Institute for Risk Assessment Sciences Utrecht University, Utrecht, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
  49. Long E, Chapman PM (1985): A sediment quality triad: Measures of sediment contamination, toxicity, and infaunal community composition in Puget Sound. Marine Pollution Bulletin 16 (10) 405–415CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. MacDonald DD, Ingersoll CG, Berger TA (2000): Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Archives of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology 39, 20–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Marine Pollution Monitoring Management Group (1998): National Monitoring Programme: Survey of the Quality of UK Coastal WatersGoogle Scholar
  52. MD (1997): Regulation. The control of dredging and dumping in the sea and watercourses (in Norwegian). Fastsatt av Miljøvern-departementet 4. desember 1997Google Scholar
  53. Millier G (1979): Schwermetalle in den Sedimenten des Rheins: Ver-änderungen seit 1971. Umschau 79, 778–783Google Scholar
  54. Neumann-Hensel H, Ricking M, Hollert H, Ahlf W (2000): Empfehlung zur Bewertung von Sedimentbelastungen. Bodenschutz 4, 111–117Google Scholar
  55. NRA (1995): Risk assessment of contaminated sediment. Prepared by WRc pic. R&D Note. Prepared by Fleming R et al.Google Scholar
  56. Ministry of the Environment, Venice Water Authority, President of Veneto Region, Major of Venice, Major of Chioggia, President of Venice Province (1993): Protocol 8/4/93 for the Classification of dredged material, Venice, ItalyGoogle Scholar
  57. Riba I, DelValls TA, Forja J M, Gómez-Parra A. (2002): Influence of the Aznalcóllar mining spill on the vertical distribution of heavy metals in sediments from the Guadalquivir estuary (SW Spain). Marine Pollution Bulletin 44, 39–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Riba I (2003): Evaluación de la calidad ambiental de sedimentos de estuarios afectados por actividades mineras mediante métodos integrados. Tesis Doctoral. Universidad de Cadiz, 384 pp.Google Scholar
  59. Saaty TL (1980): The analytic hierarchy process. Mc Graw-Hill, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  60. Skei J, Olsgard F, Ruus A, Oug E, Rygg B (2002): Risk assessments related to contaminated sediments: With focus on Kristian- sandsfjorden (in Norwegian). SFT report TA-1864/2002. Norwegian Pollution Control Authority, Oslo. 106 pp.Google Scholar
  61. SNIFFER — Scotland and Northern Ireland Forum for Environmental Research (1995): Freshwater sediment assessment — Scoping study. Prepared by WRc pic, Report No. SR 3931/1 for SNIFFER. Prepared by Fleming R, Johnson I, Delaney P, Reynolds PGoogle Scholar
  62. SFT (1997a): Classification of environmental quality in fjords and coastal waters (in Norwegian). SFT report 97:03. Norwegian Pollution Control Authority, OsloGoogle Scholar
  63. SFT (1997b): Classification of environmental quality in freshwater (in Norwegian). SFT report 97:04. Norwegian Pollution Control Authority, OsloGoogle Scholar
  64. Stronkhorst J (2003): An Effect-based assessment framework to regulate the disposal of contaminated harbour sediments in Dutch coastal waters. PhD Thesis, Free University, Amsterdam; also submitted to Marine Pollution BulletinGoogle Scholar
  65. Tonkes M, De Graaf PJF, Graansma J (1999): Assessment of complex industrial effluents in the Netherlands using a whole effluent toxicity (or WET) approach. Wat Sci Tech 39 (10–11) 55–61CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Van de Guchte C, Beek M, Tuinstra J, Rossenberg M (2000): Quality guidelines for the management of water systems. Commission for integral water management, The Hague (in Dutch)Google Scholar
  67. Van der Gaag MA, Stortelder PBM, Van der Kooij LA, Bruggeman WA (1991): Setting environmental quality criteria for water and sediment in The Netherlands: a pragmatic ecotoxicological approach. Europ Water Poll Control 1:13–20Google Scholar
  68. Van der Kooij LA, Van de Meent D, Van Leeuwen CJ, Bruggeman WA (1991): Deriving quality criteria for water and sediment from the results of aquatic toxicity tests and product standards: application of the equilibrium partitioning method. Water Res 25, 697–705CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Van der Zandt PTJ, Van Leeuwen DJ (1992): A proposal for priority setting of existing chemical substances. Studie i.o.v. EC, Dir-Gen voor Milieu, kernenergie en civiele beschermingGoogle Scholar
  70. Van Elswijk M, Hin JA, Den Besten PJ, Van der Heijdt LM, Van der Hout M, Schmidt CA (2001): Guidance document for site-specific effect-based sediment quality assessment. AKWA report 01.005 / RIZA rapport 2001.052, Institute for Inland Water Management and Waste Water Treatment (RIZA), Lelystad, The Netherlands (in Dutch)Google Scholar
  71. Van Wezel AP (1999): Overview of international programmes on the assessment of existing chemicals. Institute for studies on Human Health and the Environment (RIVM) report 601503 015Google Scholar
  72. Von Danwitz B (1992): Zur Abschätzung der Schadwirkung von Stoffkombinationen autf aquatische organismen (On the estimation of mixture toxicity for aquatic organisms, in German), Thesis, University of Bremen, Bremen, GermanyGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Ecomed Publishers 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • Pieter J. den Besten
    • 1
  • Eric de Deckere
    • 2
  • Marc P. Babut
    • 3
  • Beth Power
    • 4
  • T. Angel DelValls
    • 5
  • Christina Zago
    • 6
  • Amy M. P. Oen
    • 7
  • Susanne Heise
    • 8
  1. 1.Institute for Inland Water Management and Waste Water Treatment (RIZA)Ministry of Transport, Public Works and Water Management (RIZA)AA LelystadThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Research group Ecosystem ManagementUniversity of Antwerp, Universiteitsplein 1WilrijkBelgium
  3. 3.Cemagref, Freshwater Ecosystems Biology Research UnitEcotoxicology LaboratoryLyon Cedex 9France
  4. 4.Azimuth GroupVancouverCanada
  5. 5.Dpto. de Química Física, Facultad de Ciencias del Mary AmbientalesUniversidad de CádizCádizSpain
  6. 6.CORILAConsortium for Coordination of Research Activities concerning the Venice Lagoon SystemVeniceItaly
  7. 7.Norwegian Geotechnical InstituteUllevaal StadionNorway
  8. 8.Beratungszentrum für Integriertes Sedimentmanagement (BIS) an der TU Hamburg HarburgHamburgGermany

Personalised recommendations