![[logo] US EPA](https://webarchive.library.unt.edu/eot2008/20081107171335im_/http://www.epa.gov/epafiles/images/logo_epaseal.gif){kind=logo}
1999 Progress Report: Sediment Contamination Assessment Methods: Validation of Standardized and Novel Approaches
EPA Grant Number: R826200Title: Sediment Contamination Assessment Methods: Validation of Standardized and Novel Approaches
Investigators: Burton Jr., G. Allen , Clements, William , Krane, Daniel , Landrum, Peter , Stubblefield, William , Tiernan, Thomas
Institution: Wright State University - Main Campus , Colorado State University , NOAA / GLERL
Current Institution: Wright State University - Main Campus , NOAA / GLERL
EPA Project Officer: Reese, David H.
Project Period: January 1, 1998 through December 31, 2000
Project Period Covered by this Report: January 1, 1998 through December 31, 1999
Project Amount: $449,448
RFA: Contaminated Sediments (1997)
Research Category: Hazardous Waste/Remediation
Description:
Objective:The objectives are to: (1) determine whether freshwater sediment criteria and standard U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) acute and chronic toxicity and bioaccumulation tests are appropriate indicators of ecological risk, and (2) develop an effective approach to evaluate sediment contamination that includes: (a) an in situ component for sampling and testing to reduce uncertainty in determinations of risk, and (b) appropriate models for predicting sediment quality criteria. Progress Summary:
This multi-phase study has evaluated the validity of various approaches for assessing sediment contamination, while identifying controlling factors, strengths, and limitations of each. Actual exposures are being defined and comparisons made between laboratory and in situ exposures. Physicochemical profiles are being compared with biological responses and will be compared with sediment quality guidelines (EPA and others). During the past 2 years, the focus has been on defining near-field and far-field spatial variation in chemistry, indigenous biota, tissue residues, and toxicity responses (laboratory and in situ). Biological responses/indicators range from DNA RAPD fingerprints and benthic community indices, tissue residues (indigenous and surrogates), and toxicity (survival and/or growth) of Hyalella azteca, Chironomus tentans, Lumbriculus variegatus, Ceriodaphnia dubia, Daphnia magna, Pimephales promelas, Hydra littoralis, Corbicula fluminea, Lophopodella carteri, and Hexagenia limbata. Results to date have shown acute toxicity existing at the three test sites (Clark Fork River, Montana, and the Little Scioto River and Dicks Creek in Ohio) resulting from metals, PAHs, and PCBs. Spatial variation has ranged from small to large at the test sites. Toxicity has been greater in sediment exposures than in overlying waters. In situ methods have worked very well and provided more accurate measures of contamination than traditional laboratory assays. Problems encountered to date include: extreme toxicity preventing chronic measures, contaminated reference sites (Ohio) producing less than optimal biological responses, underestimation of necessary chemical sample numbers and travel budget in original proposal, and lack of availability of all test organisms (above) for testing at all sites. These problems have not, to date, threatened our ability to meet the project objectives. Future Activities:
The following analyses have not been completed for the past project period: chemical analyses (organics in water, sediment, and tissues) from Dr. Tiernan (1998 and 1999), RAPD analyses from Dr. Krane (1998 and 1999), and benthic macroinvertebrate enumeration from Dr. Clements (1999). We anticipate all 1998 and 1999 analyses to be completed by December 30, 1999. During the winter of 2000, we will begin a thorough data analysis matching exposure concentrations with biological effects. This will allow us to optimize the design of the last field season (summer 2000) to better meet the project objectives. The 2000 field season will include multiple sample periods to catch low and high flow periods (early June?late August). Given the budget shortfall for chemical analyses, there will be modifications to the Year 3 sampling design, whose aim is to better characterize temporal variation at each of the three test sites. It is likely the project will have to utilize non-project funds to be adequately completed. Journal Articles:
No journal articles submitted with this report: View all 63 publications for this project
Supplemental Keywords:ecological risk assessment, exposure, indicators, ecosystem, measurement methods. , Ecosystem Protection/Environmental Exposure & Risk, Toxics, Water, Scientific Discipline, Waste, RFA, Ecosystem/Assessment/Indicators, Toxicology, Biology, HAPS, Ecology, Ecological Risk Assessment, Ecological Indicators, Biochemistry, Ecological Effects - Environmental Exposure & Risk, Ecosystem Protection, Contaminated Sediments, Ecology and Ecosystems, heavy metal contamination, risk assessment, spatial & temporal scaling, genetic diversity, predictive understanding, sediment contamination assessment, adverse human health affects, amphipod hyalella azteca, aquatic biota, bioaccumulation, ecology assessment models, validation, metal release, contaminated sediment, contaminant transport, ecological transferability, validation of models, ecological exposure, benthic biota, benthos-associated organisms, biota diversity, metals, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), sediment transport, PAH, PCB, assessment methods, chemical contaminants, ecological impacts, sediment, soil sediment, transport contaminants
Progress and Final Reports:
Original Abstract
Final Report