Advertisement

Integrated Assessment of the Quality of Harbor Sediments: Case Study Based on a Comparative Analysis of Sediments Quality of Two Industrial Ports: Bourgas (BG) and Bari (IT)

  • Matilda MaliEmail author
  • Maria Michela Dell’Anna
  • Piero Mastrorilli
  • Leonardo Damiani
  • Nicola Ungaro
  • Jordan Marinski
  • Magdalena Korsachka
Chapter

Abstract

In order to evaluate the pollution status of the sediments of two industrial and commercial harbors, an integrated approach was applied. A closer look of chemical and bio-toxicological data selected in 23 different stations located in the different internal basins of Bari port (IT) and Bourgas port (BG) is provided; integration of data by multivariate analysis was conducted, and a comparison procedure is presented as useful tool to elucidate the potential risk of sediments and helpful step towards a harmonized assessment criteria.

Keywords

Harbor sediment Quality assessment Toxicity PCA 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This study was supported by ARPA Puglia, the Port Authority of Bari, and the Port Authority of Bourgas and was funded by ECOPORT 8 and TEN ECOPORT projects within SEE Programme (SEE/A/0189/2.2/X).

References

  1. Alvarez-Guerra M, Viguri JR, Casado-Martınez MC, DelValls TA (2007) Sediment quality assessment and dredged material management in Spain, part I, application of sediment quality guidelines in the Bay of Santander. Integr Environ Assess Manage 3:529–553CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alvarez-Guerraa M, Ballabio D, Amigoc JM, Broc R, Viguri JR (2009) Development of models for predicting toxicity from sediment chemistry by partial least squares-discriminant analysis and counter-propagation artificial neural networks. Environ Pollut 158(2):607–614CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Chapman PM (2006) The interconnected roles of chemistry and biology (ecotoxicology and ecology) in evaluation of marine environmental quality. SIBM 14(1):11–18Google Scholar
  4. Choueri RB, Cesar A, Torres RJ, Abessa DMS, Morais RD, Pereira CDS, Nascimento MRL, Mozeto AA, Riba I, DelValls TA (2009) Integrated sediment quality assessment in Paranaguá Estuarine System. Ecotoxicol Environ Saf 72(7):1824–1831CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Dencheva K (2010) State of macrophytobenthic communities and ecological status of the Varna Bay, Varna lakes and Bourgas Bay. Phytologia Balkanica 16(1):43–50Google Scholar
  6. Hamburg Port Authority (2011) Assessment criteria for dredged material with special focus on the North Sea Region. Prepared by Henric Roper Axel Netzband with support from DGE/dredging in Europe http://sednet.org/download/Dredged_Material_Criteria_North_Sea0611_pdf
  7. Hoellert H, Neumann Hense H, Ricking M (2002) A guidance for the assessment and evaluation of sediment quality. a german approach based on ecotoxicologicaland chemical measurements. J Soils Sediment 2:1–6Google Scholar
  8. Kamburska LT, Valcheva E (2003) On the peculiarities of the zooplankton spatial distribution in Burgas Bay—May, 1996. Proceedings of the Institute of Oceanology, Varna, vol 4, pp 124–132Google Scholar
  9. Kaurichev IS (1980) Turin’s method of soil organic matter analysis, Manual of pedological practice. Kolos, Moscow, pp 212–214 (in Russian)Google Scholar
  10. Loring DH, Rantala RTT (1991) Manual for the geochemical analysis of marine sediments and suspended particular matter. Earth-Sci Rev 32(4):235–283CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. MacDonald DD, Carr RS, Calder FD, Long ER, Ingersoll CG (1996) Development and evaluation of sediment quality guidelines for Florida coastal waters. Ecotoxicol 5:253–278Google Scholar
  12. MacDonald DD, Carr RS, Calder FD, Long ER, Ingersoll CG (1996) Development and evaluation of sediment quality guidelines for Florida coastal waters. Ecotoxicol 5:253–278Google Scholar
  13. MacDonald DD, Ingersoll CG, Berger TA (2000) Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Arch Environ Contam Toxicol 39(5):20–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Moncheva S, Skretas O, Pagou K, Krastev A (2001) Phytoplancton blooms in Black Sea and Mediterranean coastal ecosystems subjected to anthropogenic eutrophication: similarities and differences. Estuar Coast Shelf Sci 53:281–295Google Scholar
  15. Moncheva S, Doncheva V, Shtereva G, Kamburska L, Malej A, Gorinstein S (2002) Application of eutrophication indices for assessment of the Bulgarian Black Sea coastal ecosystem ecological quality.Water Sci Technol 46(8):19–28Google Scholar
  16. PIANC (Permanent International Association of Navigation Congresses) (1997) Dredged material management guide special report of the permanent environmental commission. Supplement to Bulletin no. 96Google Scholar
  17. Rojdestvenski A (1986) Hydrochemistry of the Bulgarian sector of the Black Sea. Publishing House of the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences, Sofia (in Bulgarian)Google Scholar
  18. (USEPA) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (1994) Methods for assessing the toxicity of sediment-associated contaminants with estuarine and marine amphipods. EPA 600/R-94/025. USEPA, Washington DCGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Matilda Mali
    • 1
    Email author
  • Maria Michela Dell’Anna
    • 1
  • Piero Mastrorilli
    • 1
  • Leonardo Damiani
    • 1
  • Nicola Ungaro
    • 2
  • Jordan Marinski
    • 3
  • Magdalena Korsachka
    • 3
  1. 1.DICATECh—Polytechnic University of BariBariItaly
  2. 2.Apulia Regional Environmental Agency (ARPA)BariItaly
  3. 3.National Institute of Meteorology and HydrologyBulgarian Academy of SciencesSofiaBulgaria

Personalised recommendations