Advertisement

Ecotoxicity of Uranium in Freshwaters: Influence of the Physico-Chemical Status of the Rivers

  • Karine Beaugelin-Seiller
  • Laureline Février
  • Rodolphe Gilbin
  • Jacqueline Garnier-Laplace
Part of the Springer Geology book series (SPRINGERGEOL)

Abstract

As uranium speciation, and then its bioavailability, is highly variable in the range of the physico-chemistry of freshwaters, determining environmental protection criteria for generic ecosystems, i.e. without considering these processes, may lead to very low values. Based on the most recent knowledge on the variation of uranium bioavailability vs. its speciation, “conditional” protection criteria have been determined for 50 main physico-chemical domains, still including some identified conservatism, due to complexation properties of uranium.

Keywords

Geochemical Background Species Sensitivity Distribution Uranium Speciation Freshwater Ecotoxicity Ecotoxicity Data 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Beaugelin-Seiller K (2004) Catalogue des données “Hydrosystèmes” acquises pour l’outil CASTEAUR. report SECRE/04-04, 34 p. IRSN, Fontenay-aux-Roses, FranceGoogle Scholar
  2. Beaugelin-Seiller K, Garnier-Laplace J, Gilbin R (2009) Vers la proposition d’une norme de qualité environnementale pour l’uranium en eau douce. Report DEI/SECRE/2009-015, 44 p. IRSN, Fontenay-aux-Roses, FranceGoogle Scholar
  3. Bywater JF, Banaczkowski R, Bailey M (1991) Sensitivity to uranium of six species of tropical freshwater fishes and four species of cladocerans from Northern Australia. Environ Toxicol Chem 10: 1449–1458CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Charles AL, Markich SJ, Stauber JL, De Filippis LF (2002) The effect of water hardness on the toxicity of uranium to a tropical freshwater algae Chlorella sp. Aquat Toxicol 60: 61–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Crançon P, Van der Lee J (2003). Speciation and mobility of uranium(VI) in humic-containing soils. Radiochim Acta 91: 673–679CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Denison F (2004) Uranium (VI) speciation: modelling, uncertainty and relevance to bioavailability models. Application to uranium uptake by the gills of a freshwater bivalve. PhD thesis, Environmental Biosciences, Chemistry and Health, 347 p. Aix-Marseille I universityGoogle Scholar
  7. EC (2000) Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the council of 23 October 2000 establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy. Official Journal of the European Communities L 327 online access via http://eur-lex.europa.eu/Google Scholar
  8. EC (2003) Technical guidance document in support of Commission Directive 93/67/EEC on risk assessment for new notified substances and Commission Regulation (EC) No 1488/94 on risk assessment for existing substances, Directive 98/8/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the placing of biocidal products on the market. Part II. Luxembourg, Office for Official Publication of the European CommunitiesGoogle Scholar
  9. Forbes VE, Calow P (2002) Extrapolation in ecological risk assessment: balancing pragmatism and precaution in chemical controls legislation. Biosciences 52: 249–257CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Fortin C, Denison FH, Garnier-Laplace J (2007) Metal – phytoplankton interactions: modelling the effect of competing ions (H+, Ca2+ and Mg2+) on uranium uptake. Environ Toxicol Chem 26: 242–248CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Franklin NM, Stauber JL, Markich SJ, Lim RP (2000) pH-dependent toxicity of copper and uranium to a tropical freshwater alga (Chlorella sp.). Aquat Toxicol 48: 275–289CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Jackson BP, Ranville JF, Bertsch PM, Sowder AG (2005). Characterization of colloidal and humic-bound Ni and U in the “dissolved” fraction of contaminated sediment extracts. Environ Sci Technol 39: 2478–2485CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Le Goff F, Bonnomet V (2004) Devenir et comportement des métaux dans l’eau: biodisponibilité et modèles BLM. Rapport technique, Direction des Risques Chroniques, Unité “ Évaluation des Risques Écotoxicologiques ”, mars 2004, 85 p. INERIS, Verneuil en Halatte, FranceGoogle Scholar
  14. Markich SJ, Camilleri C (1997) Investigation of metal toxicity to tropical biota: Recommendations for revision of the Australian water quality guidelines. Supervising Scientist Report 127, Supervising Scientist, Canberra, AustraliaGoogle Scholar
  15. Markich SJ, Brown PL, Jeffree RA, Lim RP (2000) Valve movement responses of Velesunio angasi (Bivalvia: Hyriidae) to manganese and uranium: An exception to the free ion activity model. Aquat Toxicol 51: 155–175CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. MEDAD (2007) Circulaire du 7 mai 2007 définissant les “normes de qualité environnementale provisoires (NQEp)” des 41 substances impliquées dans l’évaluation de l’état chimique des masses d’eau ainsi que des substances pertinentes du programme national de réduction des substances dangereuses dans l’eauGoogle Scholar
  17. Morel FMM, Hering JG (1993) Principles and Applications of Aquatic Chemistry. John Wiley & Sons, New York, NY, USAGoogle Scholar
  18. OECD (2004) Essai n° 202: Daphnia sp., essai d’immobilisation immédiate Lignes directrices pour les essais de produits chimiques/Section 2: Effets sur les systèmes biologiques. 12 p. (available on line at the following address http://www.oecdbookshop.org/oecd/display.asp?lang=fr&sf1=DI&st1=5LMQCR2K7S0W)Google Scholar
  19. Postuma L, Suter II GW, Traas TP (2002) Species Sensitivity Distributions in Ecotoxicology. Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton London New York Washington DCGoogle Scholar
  20. Pickett JB, Specht WL, Keyes JL (1993) Acute and chronic toxicity of uranium compounds to Ceriodaphnia dubia. Westinghouse Savannah River Co, report WSRC-RP-92-995, prepared for the US Departement of Energy (US-DoE), contract DE-AC09-89SR 18035Google Scholar
  21. Pradines C, Wiktor V, Camilleri V, Gilbin R (2005) Development of biochemical methods to estimate the subcellular impact of uranium exposure on Chlamydomonas reinhardtii. Radioprotection 40: S163–S168CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Ranville JF, Hendry MJ, Reszat TN, Xie Q, Honeyman BD (2007) Quantifying uranium complexation by groundwater dissolved organic carbon using asymmetrical flow field-flow fractionation. J Cont Hydrol 91: 233–246CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Salminen R (2005) Geochemical Atlas of Europe. Part 1: Background Information, Methodology and Maps. Espoo: Geological Survey of FinlandGoogle Scholar
  24. Van der Lee J, de Windt L (2002) CHESS Tutorial and Cookbook/Version 3.0, users manual LHM/RD/02/13, Ecole des mines de Paris, Fontainebleau, FranceGoogle Scholar
  25. Zeman F, Gilbin R, Alonzo F, Lecomte-Pradines C, Garnier-Laplace J, Aliaume C (2008) Effects of waterborne uranium on survival, growth, reproduction and physiological processes of the freshwater cladoceran Daphnia magna. Aquat Tox 86: 370–378CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Karine Beaugelin-Seiller
    • 1
  • Laureline Février
    • 1
  • Rodolphe Gilbin
    • 1
  • Jacqueline Garnier-Laplace
    • 1
  1. 1.Institut de Radioprotection et de Sûreté Nucléaire, DEI, SECRECadaracheFrance

Personalised recommendations