Journal of Soils and Sediments

, Volume 7, Issue 6, pp 368–376

Evaluation of the potential toxicity (acute and chronic) of sediments from abandoned uranium mine ponds

  • Sara C. Antunes
  • Ruth Pereira
  • Fernando Gonçalves
Research Article Controversies and Solutions in Environmental Sciences (Editor: Henner Hollert)

Abstract

Background, Aim and Scope

The superficial aquatic system of the Cunha Baixa uranium mine area is comprised by the flooded mine pit (M), which receives the acidic mine effluent resultant from in situ leaching of pore ore, a pond where this effluent is neutralised (T), and a potential reference pond (Ref). As part of the first tiers of an ecological risk assessment that is being performed in this area, the aim of this work was to evaluate the potential sediment toxicity of these ponds.

Methodology

To perform this work, elutriates were produced from sediments collected at the three ponds in two distinct seasons (Spring and Winter). Acute and chronic toxicity of elutriates was evaluated by standard assay protocols, using Daphnia spp. as test species (D. magna-standard species and D. longispina-native species).

Results

In opposition to what could be previewed based on total metal concentrations, results showed acute toxicity only in M site (low pH, high metal levels) in spring for both species with EC50=94.7% and 96.3% (D. longispina and D. magna respectively). A stimulatory effect (in growth and fecundity) was observed in the chronic assays, for almost all of the tested concentrations of the three elutriates tested-except for the highest concentrations of the M elutriate. Some differences were observed in the responses of Daphnia, both between test species and seasons. Differences between the two sampling periods were also found for pH.

Discussion

Although some toxicity was observed in M, overall no toxicity was found for sediments of the aquatic system, corroborating previous results from our team (including whole-sediment tests). Differences in pH may explain the observed toxicity, acting both as a stressor and mobilizing contaminants. Stimulatory phenomena, typical when dealing with natural samples, worked as confounding factors. Several explanations should be considered for these stimulatory effects, however the role of radionuclides (not measured in this work) cannot be ignored.

Conclusions

Supported by the results gathered in this study and in previous evaluations already performed, it is possible to state that in the present situation sediments plays a secondary role in the toxicity of the Cunha Baixa uranium mine, probably working more as a barrier than as a source of contaminants to the water column. However, future reclamation works in this area should carefully consider the remobilisation of sediments, especially from pond M.

Recommendations and Perspectives

Radiochemical contamination is expected to be higher in field situations where radiation emitter isotopes are present in all the sediment compartment and overlying water, emitting radiations in all the directions. Thus whole-sediment and elutriate laboratory bioassays are not representative of long-term field exposures to radiation. Based on this supposition, these laboratory responses should be validated by field surveys of the benthic and planktonic freshwater communities of these ponds and freshwater receiving resources, at the higher tiers of the local ecological risk assessment.

Keywords

Daphnia spp., test species ecological risk assessment elutriates remobilisation of sediments sediment toxicity uranium mine ponds 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Admiraal W, Tubbing GMJ, Breebaart L (1995): Effects of phytoplankton on metal partitioning in the lower river Rhine. Water Res 29, 3941–3946CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Allen Y, Calow P, Baird DJ (1995): A mechanistic model of contaminant induced feeding inhibition in Daphnia magna. Environ Toxicol Chem 149, 1625–1630CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Ankley GT, Schubauer-Berigan MK, Dierkes JR (1991): Predicting the toxicity of bulk sediments to aquatic organisms with aqueous test fractions: Pore water vs. elutriate. Environ Toxicol Chem 10, 1359–1366CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Antunes SC, Castro BB, Gonçalves F (2003): Chronic responses of different clones of Daphnia longispina (field and ephippia) to different food levels. Acta Oecol 24, S325–S332CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Antunes SC, de Figueiredo DR, Marques SM, Castro BB, Pereira R, Gonçalves F (2007a): Evaluation of water column and sediment toxicity from an abandoned uranium mine using a battery of bioassays. Sci Total Environ 374, 252–259CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Antunes SC, Pereira R, Gonçalves F (2007b): Acute and chronic toxicity of effluent water from an abandoned uranium mine. Arch Environ Con Tox 53, 207–213CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. APHA (1995): Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater. 19th EditionGoogle Scholar
  8. Araújo MF, Barbosa T, Madruga MJ, Faria I (2002): Dispersão de contaminantes e sua transferência no sistema solo-planta nas escombreiras da Mina de Urânio da Urgeiriça. Acta do congresso Internacional sobre Património Geológico e Mineiro. Museu do Instituto Geológico e Mineiro, Lisboa, Secção 3, pp 567–574Google Scholar
  9. ASTM (1980): Standard practice for conducting acute toxicity tets with fishes, macroinvertebrates and amphibians. Report E 729-80. American Society for Testing and Materilas, Philadelphia, USAGoogle Scholar
  10. ASTM (1997): Standard guide for Daphnia magna life-cycle toxixity tests. Report E1193-97. American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, USAGoogle Scholar
  11. Baird DJ, Barber I, Bradley M, Callow P, Soares AMVM (1989a): The Daphnia bioassay: A critique. Hydrobiologia 188/189, 403–406Google Scholar
  12. Baird DJ, Soares AMVM, Girling A, Barber I, Bradley MC, Calow P (1989b): The long-term maintenance of Daphnia magna Straus for use in ecotoxicity tests: problems and prospects. In: Lokke H, Tyle H, Bro-Rasmussen F (eds), Proceedings of the First European Conference on Ecotoxicology. Lyngby, Denmark, pp 144–148Google Scholar
  13. Bridges TS, Soares AMVM, Girling A, Bradley MC, Callow P (1996): Chronic toxicity of Great Lakes sediments to Daphnia magna: Elutriate effects on survival, reproduction and population growth. Ecotoxicology 5, 83–102CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Burton GAJr (2002): Sediment quality criteria in use around the world. Limnology 3, 65–75CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Calabrese EJ, McCarthy ME, Kenyon E (1987): The occurrence of chemically induced hormesis. Health Phys 52(5) 531–541CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Chapman PM (2000): Whole effluent toxicity testing-Usefulness, level of protection, and risk assessment. Environ Toxicol Chem 19, 3–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Chen B, Zhu Y-G, Zhang X, Jackbsen I (2005): The influence of mycorrhiza on uranium and phosphorus uptake by barley plants from a field-contaminated soil. Env Sci Pollut Res 12, 325–331CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Finney DJ (1971): Probit Analysis. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UKGoogle Scholar
  19. Geffard A, Geffard O, His E, Amiard JC (2002a): Relationships between metal bioaccumulation and metallothionein levels in larvae of Mytilus galloprovincialis exposed to contaminated estuarine sediment elutriate. Marine Ecology Progress Series 233, 131–142CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Geffard O, Budzinski H, His E, Seaman MNL, Garrigues P (2002b): Relationships between contaminant levels in marine sediments and their biological effects on embryos of oysters, Crassostrea gigas. Environ Toxicol Chem 21, 2310–2318CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Giesy JP, Rosiu CJ, Graney RL (1990): Benthic invertebrate bioassays with toxic sediment and pore water. Environ Toxicol Chem 9, 233–248CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hyötyläinen T, Oikari A (1999): Assessment of toxicity hazards of dredged lake sediment contaminated by creosote. Sci Total Environ 243/244, 97–105CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. ISO (1996): Water quality: Determination of the inhibition of the mobility of Daphnia magna Straus (Cladocera, Crustacea)-Acute toxicity test. ISO International Standard 6341. International Organization for Standardization, Geneva, SwitzerlandGoogle Scholar
  24. ISO (2000): Water quality: Determination of long term toxicity of substances to Daphnia magna Straus (Cladocera, Crustacea). ISSO International Standard 10706. International Organization for Standardization, Geneva, SwitzerlandGoogle Scholar
  25. Lampert W (1987): Feeding and nutrition in Daphnia. In: Daphnia-Memorie dell’istituto italiano di hidrobiologia dott. Marco de Marchi. Consiglio Nazionale delle ricerche, Istituto Italiano di Idrobiologia-Verbania Pallanza, USA, pp 143–192Google Scholar
  26. Lopes I, Gonçalves F, Soares AMVM, Ribeiro R (1999): Disciminating the Ecotoxicity Due to Metals and to Low pH in Acid Mine Drainage. Ecotox Environ Safe 44, 207–214CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Martines-Madrid M, Rodrigues P, Perez-Iglesias JI (1999): Sediment toxicity bioassays for assessment of contaminated sites in the Nervion River (Northern Spain). 1. Three-brood sediment chronic bioassay of Daphnia magna Straus. Ecotoxicology 8, 97–109CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Meyer JS, Ingersoll CG, McDonald LL, Boyce MS (1986): Estimating uncertainty in population growth rates: Jackknife vs. Bootstrap techniques. Ecology 67, 1156–1166CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Michels E, De Meester L (1998): The influence of food quality on the phototactic behaviour of Daphnia magna Straus. Hydrobiologia 379, 199–206CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Mucha AP, Leal MFC, Bordalo AA, Vasconcelos MTSD (2003): Comparison of the response of three microalgae species exposed to elutriates of estuarine sediments base don growth and chemical speciation. Environ Toxicol Chem 22, 576–585CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Nebeker AV, Cairns MA, Gakstatter JH, Malueg KW (1984): Biological methods for determining toxicity of contaminated freshwater sediments to invertebrates. Environ Toxicol Chem 3, 617–630CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Nero JMG, Dias JMM, Pereira AJSC, Godinho MM, Neves LJPF, Barbosa SVT (2003): Metodologia integrada para caracterização do cenário ambiental em minas de urânio desactivadas. Actas do III Seminário de Recursos Geológicos. Departamento de Geologia, Universidade de Trásos-Montes e Alto Douro (UTAD), Vila Real, Portugal, 91–100Google Scholar
  33. OECD (1998): Daphnia magna reproduction test. Test guideline 211. Organization for the Economic Cooperation and Development, Paris, FranceGoogle Scholar
  34. OECD (2000): Sediment-water chironomid toxicity test using spiked water-Draft document. OECD guidelines for the testing of chemicals-Proposal for a new guideline, pp 219Google Scholar
  35. Ojala A, Kankaala P, Kairesalo T, Solonen K (1995): Growth of Daphnia longispina L. in a polyhumic lake under various availabilities of algal, bacterial and detrital food. Hydrobiologia 315, 119–134Google Scholar
  36. Oliveira JMS, Machado MJC, Pedrosa MY, Ávila PF, Machado Leite MR (1999): Programa de investigação e controlo ambientais em áreas do País com minas abandonadas: compilação de resultados. Estudos, Notas e Trabalhos, Instituto Geológico e Mineiro 41, 3–25Google Scholar
  37. Oliveira JMS, Ávila PF (2001): Geoquímica na área envolvente da Mina da Cunha Baixa (Mangualde, no centro de Portugal). Estudos, Notas e Trabalhos, Tomo 43, Instituto Geológico e MineiroGoogle Scholar
  38. Pardos M, Benninghoff C, Thomas RL (1998): Photosynthetic and population growth response of the test alga Selenastrum capricornutum Printz to zinc, cadmium and suspended sediment elutriates. J Appl Phycol 10, 145–151CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Pardos M, Benninghoff C, Guéguen C, Thomas RL, Dobrowolski J, Dominik J (2000): Suspended matter water-elutriate toxicity from water and waste water in Cracow (Poland) evaluated with Microtox® and Selenastrum capricornutum assays. Lakes and Reservoirs. Research Management 5, 67–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Peplow D, Edmonds R (2005): The effects of mine waste contamination at multiple levels of biological organization. Ecol Eng 24, 101–119CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Pruvot C, Douay F, Hervé F, Waterlot C (2006): Heavy metals in soil, crops and grass as a source of human exposue in the former mining areas. J Soils Sediments 6, 215–220CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Rodrigues da Costa L, Machado ML (2000): A recuperação ambiental de áreas mineiras degradadas nas polóticas de integração da indústria e mbiente do Ministério da Economia. Boletim de Minas, pp 37Google Scholar
  43. Santos Oliveira JM, Ávila PF (1998): Estudo geoquímico na área da mina da Cunha Baixa (Mangualde, no centro de Portugal). Relatório do Instituto Geológico e MineiroGoogle Scholar
  44. Sheppard SC, Sheppard MI, Gallerand M-O, Sanipelli B (2005): Derivation of ecotoxicity thresholds for uranium. J Environ Radioactiv 79, 55–83CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Sibley PK, Legler J, Dixon DG, Barton DR (1997): Environmental health assessment of the benthic habitat adjacent to a pulp mill discharge. I. Acute and chronic toxicity of sediments to benthic macroinvertebrates. Arch Environ Con Tox 32, 274–284CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. USEPA and USACE (1998): Great Lakes Dredged Material Testing and Evaluation Manual-Appendix G, p 242Google Scholar
  47. USEPA (2001): Update of ambient water quality criteria for cadmium. Washington, DC, pp 166Google Scholar
  48. Vaufleury AG, Pihan F (2002): Methods for toxicity assessment of contaminated soil by oral or dermal uptake in land snails: Metal bioavailability and bioaccumulation. Environ Toxicol Chem 21, 820–827CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Wong CKC, Cheung RYH, Wong MH (1999): Toxicological assessment of coastal sediments in Hong Kong using a flagellate, Dunaliella tertiolecta. Environ Pollut 105, 175–183CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© ecomed publishers 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sara C. Antunes
    • 1
  • Ruth Pereira
    • 1
  • Fernando Gonçalves
    • 1
  1. 1.Departmento de Biologia/Centro de Estudos do Ambiente e do Mar (CESAM), Campus de SantiagoUniversidade de AveiroAveiroPortugal

Personalised recommendations