Presentation on theme: "Tyler Mehler1, Jing You2, Jon Maul3 and Michael Lydy1"— Presentation transcript:
1 Tyler Mehler1, Jing You2, Jon Maul3 and Michael Lydy1 Identification of the Causes of Sediment-Associated Toxicity in the Illinois River Complex Using a Sediment-TIE ApproachTyler Mehler1, Jing You2, Jon Maul3 and Michael Lydy11Fisheries and Illinois Aquaculture and Department of Zoology, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale, Illinois, USA2State Key Laboratory of Organic Geochemistry, Guangzhou Institute of Geochemistry, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Guangzhou, China3The Institute of Environmental and Human Health, Department of Toxicology, Box 41163, Texas Tech University, Lubbock, Texas, USAISTC seminar: 9/9/09
2 Amended for non-polar organics What is a TIE?As defined by the EPA (2007):The Toxicity Identification Evaluation approach “is to use physical/chemical manipulations of a sample to isolate or change the potency of different groups of toxicants potentially present in a sample”.Contaminated w/ non-polar organicsXXXXXXXXXAmended for non-polar organicsAmended for ammoniaUnamendedAmended for metalsAmended
3 Matrix Choice Sediment grain Pore water Issues with pore water TIEs: usgs.govIssues with pore water TIEs:BioavailabilityIngestionWater quality parametersEnvironmental Realistic?
4 Conducting a Toxicity Identification Evaluation (TIE) STEP 1SITE SAMPLINGSTEP 2SCREENING TOXICITY TESTSTEP 3PHASE I: CHARACTERIZATIONAmmonia (Zeolite)Cationic Metals (Resin-Tech SIR 300)XNonpolar Organics (PCC)UnamendedAmendedSTEP 4PHASE II: IDENTIFICATIONAmmonia (Ammonia Probe)Cationic metals (NAD & FAAS)Nonpolar Organics (ASE & GC/HPLC)concentration of contaminantLC50 of that contaminantToxic Unit (TU) =U.S. EPA 2007 Whole sediment TIE guidelines
5 Objectives Identify toxic sites throughout the Illinois River Complex Identify the contaminant classes (ammonia, metals, non-polar organics) that attribute to the toxicity of those sites using a whole-sediment TIE testEvaluate the temporal and spatial trends in correlation to the toxicity of those sitesExamine the difference between TIE methodologies and the test organisms usedCompare past and present TIE research on the IRCThe objective of this study is quite similar and also attempts to address a few new components. READ.
7 Sampling Methods 24 sites chosen with consultation of ISTC 17Sampling Methods24 sites chosen with consultation of ISTC2.5 kg was collected from each siteWater samples from each site were also retrieved and water quality measurements for each site takenHardness emulatedTotal pore water ammonia was analyzed upon arrival at SIUCSediments and water samples were analyzed at SIUC Fisheries and Illinois Aquaculture CenterSamples were taken in summer 07’, fall 07’, winter 07-08’, spring 08’ and again in summer 08’
10 Screening Toxicity Tests 10-d bioassays (U.S. EPA) in flow-thru system with three water changes per day (100 ml per change)10 H. azteca (14 to 21-d old) per 300 ml beaker, 6 replicates per siteControl: Touch of Nature (TON) hydrated soil – Carbondale, ILAmendment Reference: Lower Peoria Lake (LPL)Statistical Analysis: Dunnett’s Multiple Comparison Test
11 Summer 07’ Results: Screening Toxicity Tests HalsteadTouch of NatureMoore’s TowheadSpring Lake Wildlife AreaPekinWesleyUpper Lower Peoria LakeLPL DredgeGooseLaconMuddHennepin Down RiverHennenpin Power PlantDuPueMarseillesDuPageCS305SS308Stony CreekSS315SS317SRCALRRSites that were significantly different from controls (p<0.05) and were chosen for seasonal analysis.
13 Phase I: Characterization 20% (12 g)Zeolite20% (12 g)Unamended (sand)4 -d static test10 H. azteca6 reps per treatment25% (15 g)10-d flow-thru testRT SIR 300 HP15% (9 g)PCC25% (15 g)Unamended (sand)
14 Summer 2007 Results: Phase I Unamended (sand)Organics (PCC)TONLPLSS308HalsteadCS305Stny CrkSRCALRRSS315DuPageTOXIC SITESThe addition of zeolite (ammonia) and Resin-Tech SIR 300 (metals) showed no significant differences in comparison to the unamended sediment.
17 The reasons we analyzed total ammonia: It’s commonly performed in standard TIE methodsAllows comparisons in pore water ammonia concentrations between past and present studies (Sparks and Ross 1992 – Concentrations measured as total ammonia)Allows comparisons in pore water ammonia concentrations among sites (since water quality characteristics differed among sites)Difficult to account for drifting pHs or changing temperature throughout studies
18 Summer 2007 Phase II: Identification LPLSS308HalsteadCS305StonyCreekSRCALRRSS315åMetals (µg/g dry)6.3937.726.527.650.423.817.9Pore water totalammonia (mg N/L)6.4836.626.213.719.421.7541åPesticides (µg/g OC)BRL0.4470.2080.4184.108.40.2065åPCBs (µg/g OC)4.4511.515.7220.127.116.11.6åPAHs (µg/g OC)586.8193413281198102112674112Toxic UnitsLPLSS308HalsteadCS305StonyCreekSRCALRRSS315∑Metals (µg/g dry)<0.1Pore water total ammonia (mg N/L)0.4PCBs (µg/g oc)Pesticides(µg/g oc)PAHs (µg/g oc)0.72.81.91.18.104.22.168BRL – 1 µg/kgLow TU = Low ToxicityHigh TU= High Toxicity
19 Summer 2007 ConclusionsPhase I findings strongly suggests that non-polar organics are the problem, with Phase II findings further suggesting that PAHs were at high concentrations to cause the noted toxicity.What about the other seasons?
20 Is PCC always effective? SUMMER 07’SUMMER 08’Affect on PCC binding capability?Organics higher affinity for UCM?Causes toxicity itself?% Unresolved Complex Matrix (UCM)Unamended (sand)46% of sites (in all seasons) were characterized with PCCOrganics (PCC)Is PCC always effective?
21 Phase II: Spatial and temporal variation Total Pore Water AmmoniaSummer 2007Fall 2007WinterSpring 2008Summer 2008mg N/LCalumet Sag ChannelChicago Sanitary and Shipping CanalTotal Cationic MetalsConcentration of Contaminantµg/g dry wtTotal PAHs6.0mg/g OC3.0SS315SS308CS305SRCALRRStony CreekLPLHalstead
23 Total Ammonia >400 mg N/L Spatial Trends: AmmoniaMunicipal Waste PlantSS315Total Ammonia >400 mg N/LCourtesy of
24 Sparks and Ross (1992)Gradient of increased toxicity associated with the total ammonia concentrationAmmonia the primary source of toxicity in the Illinois River ComplexPatches of toxicity occurring due to PAHs
25 VS VS A Comparison Study: Determine differences between pore water TIE testing and whole-sediment TIE testingDetermine differences between test organisms (H. azteca and C. dubia)While still comparing past and present researchTwo sites being evaluated:SS315 – highest ammonia concentrationsSS308 – highest PAH concentrationsVSVS
26 Phase I: Pore Water Characterization Diluted by 50%Unamended2-d static test1-d static testZeolite5 H. azteca10 C. dubia8 reps per treatmentSPE C18
27 Phase I: Whole Sediment Characterization Zeolite4-d static testUnamendedPCC10-d flow-thru test10 H. azteca10 C. dubia8 reps per treatmentZeoliteUnamended2-d static testPCC
28 Comparing Methodologies: Ammonia Whole Sediment TIEPore Water TIEPHASE I:2.560.27Predicted TUs for H. aztecaPHASE II:SS315 AmmoniaConcentrations (mg N/L)359 mg N/L37.9 mg N/L
29 Comparing Methodologies: Non-polar Organics PHASE I:Whole-Sediment TIEPore Water TIEThe affects of:UCMBlack carboningestion, adsorptionDOCGlassware binding0.521.81TUs for H. aztecaPHASE II:SS308 ∑PAH Concentrations:1953 µg/L4405 µg/g oc
30 Comparing Species Sensitivity/Susceptibility H. azteca 140 mg N/L (4-d)aLC50 Total Ammonia:C. dubia mg N/L (2-d)bH. azteca 30.6 µg/L (10-d)cLC50 Fluoranthene (PAH):C. dubia µg/L (10-d)ca – Ankley et al. 1995b – extrapolated from Bailey et al. 2001c – Suedel and Rodgers, Jr. 1996Species Sensitivity ≠ Species SusceptibilityBody Size /Age (Life Stage)Physiology/Feeding BehaviorNiche
31 ConclusionsToxic sites were identified on the IRC for future risk assessment & mitigationRm 277 (DuPage) Calumet Sag Channel, Chicago Sanitary and Shipping Canal
32 ConclusionsPAHs and the associated oils and grease were identified as the sources of the noted toxicity, however ammonia was elevated at SS315
33 ConclusionsLittle temporal variation was noted in toxicity and in concentrationsHowever, spatial trends were found in toxicity especially concerning ammonia
34 Conclusions Which TIE approach is better and where are TIEs headed? Is the IRC a healthy system ?
35 Acknowledgements Sampling Crew: Ed Workman, Mandy Rothert, Liz Tripp, Heather FoslundA special thanks goes to SETAC (Student Exchange Program) and Teresa Norberg-King and the rest of the EPA Duluth Lab.Fisheries and Aquaculture Center and Dept. of Zoology staff and studentsFunding:
36 For more information:Mehler WT, Maul JD, You J, and MJ Lydy Identifying the causes of sediment-associated contamination in the Illinois River using a whole-sediment Toxicity Identification Evaluation (TIE). Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry. In Press. Mehler WT, You J, Maul JD, and MJ Lydy Comparative analysis of whole sediment and pore water Toxicity Identification Evaluation (TIE) techniques for ammonia and non-polar organic contaminants. Chemosphere. In Review.
42 Sparks and Ross (1992)Gradient of increased toxicity associated with the total ammonia concentrationAmmonia was the primary source of toxicity in the Illinois River ComplexPatches of toxicity occurring due to PAHsThe beginning of a general recovery of the Illinois River ComplexOne study by Sparks and ross attempted to address the sources of toxicity in the IRC and the risk that this contamination may pose using a pore water tie. I will discuss what a tie is shortly, but these were the major findings of there study approx. 20 years ago. READ.
44 Sparks and Ross 1992Gradient of increased toxicity associated with the total ammonia concentrationAmmonia the primary source of toxicity in the Illinois River ComplexPatches of toxicity occurring due to PAHsThe beginning of a general recovery of the Illinois River Complex?
46 Conclusions:Differences in past and present TIE studies is attributed to the differences in methodologies and perhaps on a lesser note test organism choice.Which test organism is better?Realistic Test Organism?Using Historic Test Organism?Which TIE is better and where are TIEs headed?