SEARCH

SEARCH BY CITATION

Keywords:

  • Sediment quality guidelines;
  • Ecological risk assessment;
  • Toxicity prediction;
  • Confounding factors;
  • St. Lawrence River

Abstract

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. INTRODUCTION
  4. MATERIALS AND METHODS
  5. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
  6. CONCLUSIONS: IMPLICATIONS FOR ERA GUIDELINE DEVELOPMENT FOR DREDGED SEDIMENT IN THE ST. LAWRENCE RIVER
  7. Acknowledgements
  8. REFERENCES

Multitiered frameworks that are designed for risk assessment of contaminated sediment rely on sediment quality guidelines (SQGs) at the first tier or screening level. In the case of contamination by multiple pollutants, results can be aggregated under indices such as the mean quotient. A decision is then reached (e.g., to dispose of dredged materials in open water) without further investigation, provided that the SQGs or the specific values of indices or quotients derived from the SQGs are not exceeded. In this way, SQGs and quotients play a critical role in environmental protection. As part of the development of a tiered framework to assess the environmental risk of materials dredged from the St. Lawrence River, we evaluated various quotients based on SQGs available for this river with a data set that matches chemistry and toxicity test endpoints. The overall efficiency of all tested quotients was rather low, and we then examined factors such as sediment grain size, nutrients, metal-binding phases (e.g., Al, Fe), and dissolved organic carbon to explain misclassified samples. This examination led to the design of a modified tier 1 framework in which SQGs are used in combination with decision rules based on certain explanatory factors. Integr Environ Assess Manag 2010;6:225–239. © 2009 SETAC


INTRODUCTION

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. INTRODUCTION
  4. MATERIALS AND METHODS
  5. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
  6. CONCLUSIONS: IMPLICATIONS FOR ERA GUIDELINE DEVELOPMENT FOR DREDGED SEDIMENT IN THE ST. LAWRENCE RIVER
  7. Acknowledgements
  8. REFERENCES

The St. Lawrence River, one of the world's largest waterways, is an essential transport route for northeastern North America. Its contribution to the economy of the region is expected to increase as seaway-based transport is deemed more sustainable than many other types of transportation. Periodic dredging is required at various sites along the waterway, mainly for the maintenance of the St. Lawrence Seaway system and harbor installations. The assessment and management of risks to the environment posed by such dredging projects are required as part of a sustainable navigation strategy (D'Arcy and Bibeault 2004).

Most industrialized countries regulate and manage contaminated sediments and dredged materials in their waterways. Consequently, various ecological risk assessment (ERA) approaches have been developed, and sediment quality guidelines (SQGs) were included in many cases (Babut et al. 2005, 2006; Alvarez-Guerra et al. 2007; Apitz et al. 2007). In Canada, Environment Canada regulates ocean and estuarine dredging operations and open-water disposal through Environment Canada's Disposal at Sea Program (DAS) under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999 (CEPA 1999). The DAS Program administers a permit system for sediment management at sea based on a multitier process revised in 1999 (CEPA 1999; Agius and Porebski 2008). Environment Canada and the Ontario Ministry of the Environment recently developed a risk-assessment framework to evaluate contaminated sites (Environment Canada and Ontario Ministry of the Environment 2007). This new framework was developed primarily for the Laurentian Great Lakes and is intended mainly to provide guidance in making remediation decisions (Chapman and Anderson 2005; Environment Canada and Ontario Ministry of the Environment 2007).

In parallel, a process aimed at developing an ecological risk assessment guideline for the management of contaminated sediments was launched in 2004 in the province of Quebec by Quebec's Ministère du Développement durable, de l'Environnement et des Parcs (MDDEP), and Environment Canada as part of the sustainable navigation strategy requirements of the St. Lawrence Plan. This guideline is currently being developed specifically to evaluate dredging operations and open-water disposal in the freshwater section of the St. Lawrence River. Most disposal sites in this portion of the river are considered to be moderately dispersive; thus, dredged material released at a dumping site generates a deposit on the bottom. Subsequently, the deposit may be subject to erosion during higher flow-velocity periods or may be covered by the deposition of upstream materials during periods of lower flow. Eroded particles are deposited downstream, particularly in shallow sections. Dredged materials may contain a range of contaminants that could potentially affect aquatic organisms in the water column and in bottom sediment at deposit sites as well as at spawning areas downstream. Therefore, benthic invertebrates and pelagic organisms were deemed relevant biological targets for disposal sites, and fishes and benthic organisms for fish spawning areas.

Sediment quality guidelines have been determined for the majority of contaminants present in St. Lawrence River sediments based on the approach of the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment, using a percentile distribution of concentrations where toxicological effects were observed on aquatic organisms (CCME 1995). Five threshold values were derived to protect sediment-associated life: the rare effect level (REL), the threshold effect level (TEL), the occasional effect level (OEL), the probable effect level (PEL), and the frequent effect level (FEL). The PEL and TEL values were obtained by CCME guidelines (CCME 1995), whereas the remaining effect levels were determined specifically for sediment risk assessment in Quebec (Environment Canada and MDDEP 2007). These SQGs define all of the intervention levels needed for sediment management in Quebec under a diversity of contexts: prevention of sediment contamination, management of dredged sediments, and remediation of contaminated aquatic sites (Environment Canada and MDDEP 2007).

Two of the SQG effect levels are used to manage dredged sediments in the St. Lawrence River: the occasional effect level (OEL) and the frequent effect level (FEL; Table 1). Together, these effect levels categorize sediment into 3 classes of contamination that require different management decisions. Class 1 sediments, with contaminant concentrations below the OEL, can be disposed of in open water or be used for other purposes, because the probability of detecting adverse biological effects is deemed low. Class 2 sediments, with contaminant concentrations between the OEL and the FEL, have a higher probability of adverse biological effects, so open-water disposal can be considered a valid option only if proper toxicity tests demonstrate that the sediments will not adversely affect the receiving environment. Finally, class 3 sediments, with concentrations above the FEL, are prohibited for open-water disposal, because the probability of detecting adverse biological effects is very high. Class 3 sediments must be treated or safely contained (Environment Canada and MDDEP 2007). Sediment may be categorized according to the highest observed classification among all contaminants covered by the SQGs or by means quotients to characterize the risk of multiple contaminants at the screening level (Long and MacDonald 1998; Ingersoll et al. 2000; MacDonald et al. 2000; Fairey et al. 2001; Marvin et al. 2004).

Table 1. Ranges of metal and organic chemical concentrations in sediment from sampling areas on the St. Lawrence River, particularly in its 3 fluvial lakes (Saint-François, Saint-Louis, Saint-Pierre) and in the Montréal Harbor area
 SQGsLake Saint-FrançoisLake Saint-LouisLake Saint-PierreMontréal Harbor
OELFEL
  1. Sediment quality guideline thresholds (occasional effect level [OEL] and frequent effect level [FEL]), which were developed for sediment dredging management in the province of Quebec, Canada, are also provided (Environment Canada and MDDEP 2007). Concentrations are presented in mg/kg. <DL indicates that minimum concentration was below the detection limit.

As7.6232.1–8.31.9–111.2–3.90.57–40
Cd1.712<DL–1.7<DL–2<DL–1<DL–3
Cr5712010–4112–9216–6315–380
Cu6370013–5710–5816–6215–3600
Hg0.250.870.05–0.60.09–9.9<DL–0.290.04–0.9
Ni4712–4111–7515–5110.8–310
Pb5215010–386–386–507.1–190
Zn17077049–33031–31262–21061–550
       
PCBtot0.0790.78<DL–2.248<DL–0.0772<DL–0.3920.0024–0.527
PAH high      
 Benzo[a]anthracene0.120.760.1–0.27<DL–4.3<DL–0.5<DL–2.8
 Benzo[a]pyrene0.153.20.09–0.31<DL–5.1<DL–0.7<DL–2.9
 Chrysene0.241.60.01–0.25<DL–16<DL–0.750.06–4.6
 Fluoranthene0.454.90.17–0.44<DL–9<DL–0.670.1–5.5
 Pyrene0.231.50.13–0.35<DL–6.7<DL–0.640.1–5.7
PAH low      
 Acenaphtene0.0210.94<DL<DL–0.58<DL–0.04<DL–1
 Acenaphtylene0.0300.34<DL<DL–0.02<DL–0.04<DL–0.35
 Anthracene0.111.1<DL–0.04<DL–1.2<DL–0.13<DL–5.9
 Fluorene0.0611.2<DL<DL–0.59<DL–0.04<DL–2.6
 Naphthalene0.121.2<DL<DL–0.44<DL–0.08<DL–0.35
 Phenanthrene0.131.10.04–0.1<DL–4.2<DL–0.30.07–9.7

This paper evolved from the development of screening-level ERA guidelines for open-water disposal of dredged sediment in the freshwater section of the St. Lawrence River. The ERA guidelines are still in development and will be used if a promoter decides, in the context of a dredging project (port creation, maintenance of a navigation channel, etc.), to dispose of the dredged sediment in open water. In that case, the risk assessment process aims to answer the following question: “Will dredged sediment disposed in open waters have adverse effects on the receiving aquatic environment?”

The specific objectives of this study were to assess the ability of Quebec SQGs to predict sediment toxicity, to examine relationships between contaminants present in sediments and toxicity tests results, and to use these findings to improve the proposed assessment guideline for open-water disposal of dredged sediment. To achieve these objectives, the following 3 questions were addressed:

  • How do different aggregation methods compare?

  • What factors can explain discrepancies in sediment classification based on SQGs and toxicity tests?

  • What practical approaches can be adopted to deal with so-called confounding factors (nutrients, organic matter, etc.)?

MATERIALS AND METHODS

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. INTRODUCTION
  4. MATERIALS AND METHODS
  5. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
  6. CONCLUSIONS: IMPLICATIONS FOR ERA GUIDELINE DEVELOPMENT FOR DREDGED SEDIMENT IN THE ST. LAWRENCE RIVER
  7. Acknowledgements
  8. REFERENCES

Study area and sediment sampling

This study focused on the fluvial section of the St. Lawrence River, Canada, a waterway that flows east from the Laurentian Great Lakes for over 240 km before reaching the Lake Saint-Pierre outlet (Figure 1). Sampling areas were located mainly in sedimentation zones (fluvial lakes, harbor zones, and river plumes) as identified by fine-particle deposition, potential dredged areas, and past or present point sources of anthropogenic contamination. During the fall of 2004 and 2005, sediments were sampled at 59 stations in 3 fluvial lakes (Lake Saint-François, Lake Saint-Louis, and Lake Saint-Pierre) and in the Montréal Harbor area (Figure 1). Ten stations were located at Lake Saint-François, 21 stations at Lake Saint-Louis, and 15 at Lake Saint-Pierre. Finally, 11 stations were sampled in the Montréal Harbor zone and two others downstream from the Island of Montréal (Figure 1). Among and within sampling areas, a wide variation in sediment grain size, organic matter content, and concentrations of nutrients, organic chemicals, metals, and metalloids was observed, with higher chemical concentrations observed in the Montréal Harbor area (Table 1; Desrosiers et al. 2008).

thumbnail image

Figure 1. Study area of the 59 stations in the St. Lawrence River (Canada) located in the 3 fluvial lakes (Saint-François, Saint-Louis and Saint-Pierre) and Montréal Harbor area.

Download figure to PowerPoint

Surface sediments were taken with a Shipek grab sampler (400 cm2). For each station, 20 to 25 L of sediments were collected and placed in clear polyethylene bags. Samples were placed in a bucket with ice for 24 to 30 h until their arrival at the laboratory, where they were stored in a cold chamber (4 °C). The sediments were then sieved through 2-mm mesh, manually homogenized, and subsampled for individual analyses within 24 to 48 h after sampling. Sediment porewater was extracted by 2 centrifugations, the first with whole sediment (3000 g, 20 min) and the second with retrieved porewater (10 000 g, 30 min) to remove suspended particles. Subsamples of interstitial water were kept for toxicity tests and measurements of dissolved organic carbon (DOC).

Chemical and biological data set

In this study, we used a data set for the St. Lawrence River, comprising 59 sediment samples generated specifically for this project and measurements of inorganic and organic contaminant concentrations, biological toxicity on benthic and pelagic organisms, and ancillary environmental characteristics (i.e., sediment grain size, nutrient concentrations, etc.). All of the chemical and biological methods used here were based on Quality Assurance and Quality Control (QA/QC) standardized protocols. We briefly summarize standard chemical methods (Tables 2 and 3) and provide a short description of toxicity tests, data treatment, and statistical methodologies.

Table 2. Summary of analytical methods for inorganic chemicals, nutrients, organic matter, and sediment grain size
VariablesMatrixMethodsDeviceDetection limitReference
AlSedimentArgon plasma emission spectrometer after total recoverable extraction (HCl 2.4 N/HNO3 8 N; 3/1)Optima 3000DV; Perkin Elmer12.0 mg/kgCEAEQ 2003a
As   0.27 mg/kg 
Ca   17.0 mg/kg 
Cd   0.22 mg/kg 
Cr   3.0 mg/kg 
Cu   2.1 mg/kg 
Fe   18.0 mg/kg 
Mn   1.1 mg/kg 
Ni   0.6 mg/kg 
Pb   1.2 mg/kg 
Zn   2.5 mg/kg 
HgSedimentThermal decomposition with atomic absorptionDMA-80; Milestone0.035 mg/kgCEAEQ 2007
Total sulfurSedimentInfrared detectionLECO SC-44450 mg/kgCEAEQ 2006a
Total organic carbon (TOC)SedimentTitration 0.05%CEAEQ 2006a
Total Kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN)SedimentColorimetric methodTechnicon model II100 mg/kgCEAEQ 2006b
Total phosphorus (TP)SedimentColorimetric methodTechnicon model II200 mg/kgCEAEQ 2006b
Sediment grain sizeSedimentHydrometric sedimentationHydrometer: type 152H0.1%Pelletier et al. 2008
Dissolved organic carbon (DOC)PorewaterInfrared detectionShimadzu model TOC-5000A0.20 mg/LCEAEQ 2003b
Table 3. Summary of analytical methods for organic chemicals
VariablesMatrixMethodsDeviceDetection limitReference
PCBsSedimentCongener method performed by gas chromatography/mass spectrometry extracted with acetone/hexane (60:40) and dichloromethaneGC/MS; Agilent, GC 6890N, MS 5973N2–6 µg/kgCEAEQ 2003c
  Purification with silica and freshly activated copper   
PAHsSedimentPerformed by gas chromatography/mass spectrometry extracted with acetone/hexane (60:40) and dichloromethaneGC/MS; Agilent, GC 6890N, MS 5973N0.02–0.10 mg/kgCEAEQ 2003d
  Purification on silica   
Pesticides organochlorineSedimentPerformed by gas chromatography/mass spectrometry extraction with acetone/hexaneGC/MS; Thermo Quest, GC trace GC et MS trace MS1–18 µg/kgCEAEQ 2003a
  Purification on Florisil   
Pesticides organophosphateSedimentPerformed by gas chromatography/mass spectrometry extraction with ethyl acetateGC/MS; Agilent, GC 6890N, MS 5973N5–260 µg/kgCEAEQ 2003b
Pesticides aryloxyacidSedimentPerformed by gas chromatography/mass spectrometryGC/MS; Agilent, GC 6890N, MS 5973N1–7 µg/kgCEAEQ 2006b
  extraction with NaHCO3 and on C-18 column   
  Purification on silica gel   
Pesticides toxapheneSedimentPerformed by gas chromatography/electron capture detector (GC/DCE)GC/ECD; Hewlett Packard, GC 5890 série II, ECD3.5 mg/kgCEAEQ 2003f
Petroleum hydrocarbons (C10–C50)SedimentGas chromatography flame ionization detector (GC-FID)GC/FID; Hewlett Packard, GC 5890 series II, FID30 mg/kgCEAEQ 2002
  Extraction with hexane   

Toxicity tests

Toxicity tests were performed on whole sediments with two benthic organisms (a chironomid, Chironomus riparius, and an amphipod, Hyallela azteca) and on porewater with two pelagic organisms (a rotifer, Brachionus calyciflorus, and the alga, Pseudokirchneriella subcapitata). H. azteca and C. riparius survival and B. calyciflorus reproduction were considered the most sensitive endpoints in this study for assessing the risks posed by contaminated sediments in the St. Lawrence River, and the growth rates of C. riparius, H. azteca, and P. subcapitata were inefficient for toxicity assessment (Desrosiers et al., in preparation; data not shown).

H. azteca and C. riparius were cultured in the CEAEQ laboratory according to standard methods (Environment Canada 1997; AFNOR 2003, 2004). Cultures were kept under static conditions with soft aeration, and 50% (v/v) of the water was changed weekly. Both organisms were fed with a suspension of TetraMin fish food (Tetrawerke) 3 times per week. All test organisms were acclimated to test conditions prior to testing.

Whole-sediment toxicity tests were conducted according to standard procedures (Environment Canada 1997; AFNOR 2003, 2004). From 3 to 14 d following the sediment sampling, toxicity tests were conducted at 23°C ± 1°C, with continuous gentle aeration and a 16-h light:8-h dark photoperiod (1,000 lux). Five replicate test chambers (600-mL beakers containing 100 mL sediment, 400 mL water, and 10 test organisms) were used for each sample (field sediments and control). For the C. riparius toxicity test, control sediment consisted of siliceous sand (106–250 µm diameter; Multi-Sable Ltée) previously conditioned in order to initiate microorganism colonization, one of the sources of food for invertebrates (Verrhiest et al. 2002). For the H. azteca toxicity test, control sediment consisted of 5% siliceous sand (500–1,000 µm diameter; Givesco), 20% Loire sand (250–500 µm diameter; Amilab), 63.25% thin siliceous sand (106–250 µm diameter; Multi-Sable Ltée), 10.0% kaolin clay (Silumine Art Techni-Céram), 0.1% calcium carbonate (Anachemia), 1.5% α-cellulose (Sigma-Aldrich), and 0.15% TetraMin fish food (Tetrawerke). Water used in the test was dechlorinated tap water (pH 8.0, conductivity 239 µs/cm, hardness 72 mg CaCO3/L). Chironomids were fed with 1.5 mL of a suspension of TetraMin (4 g/L) daily (AFNOR 2004). H. azteca were fed with 0.75 mL YCT (yeast, cereal leaves, trout chow; 2.2 g/L) daily (Environment Canada 1997). At the end of the 7-d exposure for chironomids and 14-day exposure for amphipods, the surviving organisms were retrieved from the sediment.

B. calyciflorus test organisms were 2-h-old females hatched from cysts obtained from Microbiotests, according to AFNOR procedures (AFNOR 2000). Toxicity tests were conducted according to AFNOR procedures and Snell and Moffat (1992). Note that, to minimize carryover of nutrients and EDTA, the P. subcapitata algal cultures used to feed the rotifers were centrifuged twice (2000 g, 15 min; IEC 3000) and resuspended in NaHCO3 (15 g/L). After 48 h, the total number of surviving female B. calyciflorus per well was counted under a microscope (×9–12; Leica Wild M8, Leica Microsystems). To simplify the discussion and allow for a better comparison with the whole-sediment toxicity test (undiluted), we prefer to present the results obtained with essentially undiluted porewater. Consequently, only the results of organisms exposed to a higher concentration (90%) are presented in this paper.

Sediments classification and chemical aggregation methods

Our main objective was to evaluate the predictive ability of SQGs for use in the management of dredged sediments, particularly when contamination by multiple pollutants was observed. In the context of developing an ERA framework for sediment management, it was essential to cross-validate sediment chemical screening and toxicity test results, to determine the percentage of misclassified samples, and to examine environmental characteristics that may explain observed toxicity without chemical evidence.

Sediment from each station was categorized as class 1 (contaminant concentration < OEL), class 2 (OEL < concentration < FEL), or class 3 (concentration > FEL) according to the highest observed classification among all contaminants covered by the SQGs (Table 1; Environment Canada and MDDEP 2007). Aggregated quotients were also considered as an alternative to characterize the risk of multiple contaminants at the screening level, similar to approaches presented in earlier studies (Long and MacDonald 1998; Ingersoll et al. 2000; MacDonald et al. 2000; Fairey et al. 2001; Marvin et al. 2004). We were interested in the application of an aggregation method that compares contaminant concentrations to their SQGs and is useful as a management tool for toxicity prediction. Consequently, we evaluated different kinds of quotients, 5 of which are presented here. Specifically, we used 8 metals (As, Cd, Cr, Cu, Hg, Ni, Pb, Zn), total polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), and 11 polycyclic aromatic hydrcarbons (PAHs) for quotient calculations (Table 1). SQGs exist for 13 PAHs (Table 1), but dibenzo[a,h]anthracene and 2-methylnaphtane were not detected in our sediments. When chemical concentrations were under the detection limit (DL), half of the detection limit was used. However, pesticides were not included in this paper, because they were always under the detection limits (Table 3). The predictive ability of this classification was assessed assuming that class 2 sediment represents a threshold where biological toxicity may be observed and more studies are needed for decision making. Consequently, the OEL threshold was used for quotient calculations.

We first used a mean quotient (Qmean1) including all of the contaminants covered by the SQGs:

  • equation image(1)

where Ci corresponds to the concentrations measured for each contaminant (As, Cd, Cr, Cu, Hg, Ni, Pb, Zn, total PCBs, PAH1, PAH2 . . . PAH11) and where SQGsi corresponds to the OEL sediment quality guideline determined for each contaminant.

The second mean quotient (Qmean2) was similar, but in this case the mean of the 11 PAHs ratios was used.

  • equation image(2)

The third quotient (Qmean3) was based on a previous investigation of the St. Lawrence River in which certain contaminants were found to have a greater influence on biological toxicity or were bioaccumulated (Desrosiers et al. 2008). In that study, we observed that H. azteca mortality was correlated mainly with Cd, Pb, and Zn, although we observed few effects on the growth. Additional unpublished evidence indicated that inhibition of B. calyciflorus reproduction was correlated with Cd, Pb, Zn, total PCBs, and 11 PAH congeners (Desrosiers et al., in preparation; data not shown). In this context, Cd, Cu, Pb, and Zn remain important chemicals to consider, and each of them represented a weight of 1 in the equation. Conversely, As, Cr, Hg, and Ni, which were related less strongly or not at all to toxicity in our study area, were grouped as 1 factor. Finally, only the 6 low-molecular-weight PAHs (recognized as more toxic than high-molecular-weight PAHs) were considered and grouped as 1 factor.

  • equation image(3)

The fourth quotient (Qadd) was based on concentration additivity. In this quotient, all concentrations measured for each contaminant (As, Cd, Cr, Cu, Hg, Ni, Pb, Zn, total PCBs, PAH1, PAH2 . . . PAH11) were divided by their own SQG. The summation of each ratio was done as follows.

  • equation image(4)

The last aggregation method tested in this paper, the SQI, was developed for the Laurentian Great Lakes (Grapentine et al. 2002; Marvin et al. 2004), and calculations were performed in SQI 0.1: Sediment Quality Index Calculator (an MS EXCEL workbook that contains macros; Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment 2006). The SQI can be considered a Qmean that includes 3 elements: scope (i.e., the percentage of a variable over the guidelines), amplitude (i.e., the magnitude by which failed variables exceeded SQGs), and frequency area (i.e., the proportion of individual measurements over the guidelines within a group of sites; Grapentine et al. 2002; Marvin et al. 2004). We considered all stations independently; as a consequence, only the scope and the magnitude were used. The maximum value obtained with SQI was 100, and the sediment could be considered nontoxic with values over 80 (Marvin et al. 2004).

Predictive efficiencies and statistical analyses

The predictive efficiencies of the different quotient methods were evaluated with the approach already developed by Shine and collaborators (Shine et al. 2003; Vidal and Bay 2005), where Sensitivity = B/(A + B), Specificity = C/(C + D), Toxicity predictive value = B/(B + D), No toxicity predictive values = C/(A + C), Overall efficiency = (B + C)/(A + B + C + D), type I error (false positives) = (D/[D + B]) × 100, and type II error (false negatives) = (A/[A + C]) × 100.

In these equations, A represents the number of samples with significant biological toxicity and a Qmean <1 (or SQI between 80 and 100), whereas B represents the number of significantly toxic samples with a Qmean >1 (Figure 2; or SQI <80). C and D represent samples with no significant toxicity and below and over the threshold, respectively (Qmean = 1, SQI = 80; Figure 2). For a toxicity test result to be considered significantly toxic, the mortality of H. azteca and C. riparius had to be ≥20% above a mortality level that was considered natural variability in the controls. Toxicity tests with B. calyciflorus had a threshold of ≥40% inhibition of reproduction. These toxicity test thresholds were significantly different from controls (t test; p < 0.05). Type I error or false positives refer to sediment classified as toxic using SQGs when in fact they are not. On the other hand, type II error or false negatives refer to sediment classified as nontoxic when in fact they are toxic (Adams et al. 2005; Wenning et al. 2005a).

thumbnail image

Figure 2. Schematic of the toxicity threshold and Qmean categories used to evaluate predictive efficiencies of 4 types of aggregation methods (adapted from Shine et al. 2003; Vidal and Bay 2005).

Download figure to PowerPoint

Univariate regression tree or partition analysis was performed in the JMP IN 5.1 statistical package (SAS Institute). We used this method to determine the hierarchy of factors that could explain the toxicity observed in class 1 samples. A great advantage of this method, which produces partition trees, is that it gives significant variables with their hierarchical importance and includes the relevant thresholds. It is useful to develop management tools, and it can categorize explanatory factors as continuous or categorical.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. INTRODUCTION
  4. MATERIALS AND METHODS
  5. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
  6. CONCLUSIONS: IMPLICATIONS FOR ERA GUIDELINE DEVELOPMENT FOR DREDGED SEDIMENT IN THE ST. LAWRENCE RIVER
  7. Acknowledgements
  8. REFERENCES

Toxicity prediction based on chemicals measurements

Sediment samples were assigned to a quality class (1, 2, or 3) according to the contaminant with the highest concentrations relative to OEL and FEL thresholds. This classification was performed using SQGs developed for Quebec sediments and the St. Lawrence River (Environment Canada and MDDEP 2007). Using this method, 10 stations were assigned to class 1; of these 10 stations, 4 were located in Lake Saint-Pierre, 4 in Lake Saint-Louis, 1 downstream from the Island of Montréal, and 1 in Lake Saint-François (Table 4). A further 29 stations were assigned to class 2; 11 were located in Lake Saint-Pierre, 8 in Lake Saint-Louis, 6 in Lake Saint-François, and 3 in the Montréal Harbor area (Table 4). Finally, 20 stations were assigned to class 3; 9 of them were located in the Montréal Harbor area, 8 in Lake Saint-Louis, and 3 in Lake Saint-François (Table 4).

Table 4. Separation of sampling stations into 3 sediment classes according to sediment quality guidelines developed for the St. Lawrence River
ClassStationsAreaH. aztecaC. ripariusB. calyciflorus
  1. Stations are identified that had significant biological toxicity results measured by tests with whole sediment (H. azteca and C. riparius mortality) and with sediment porewater (B. calyciflorus reproduction inhibition). Dashes identify stations where a toxicity test was not conducted. LSF = Lake Saint-François, LSL = Lake Saint-Louis, PM = Montréal Harbor area, LSP = Lake Saint-Pierre

151LSF× ×
 16LSL××
 17LSL××
 22LSL××
 23LSL××
 9PM ×
 13LSP ×
 15LSP× 
 33LSP   
 34LSP  ×
      
252LSF× ×
 53LSF  ×
 56LSF×× 
 57LSF×× 
 58LSF ×
 59LSF ×
 18LSL××
 19LSL× 
 20LSL× 
 21LSL× 
 24LSL 
 26LSL× 
 41LSL  
 43LSL   
 46LSL  
 2PM××
 5PM××
 8PM 
 11LSP× ×
 12LSP××
 14LSP ×
 30LSP×× 
 31LSP   
 32LSP   
 35LSP×  
 36LSP   
 37LSP  
 38LSP × 
 39LSP × 
      
350LSF  ×
 54LSF××
 55LSF×× 
 25LSL 
 40LSL×  
 42LSL×× 
 44LSL × 
 45LSL   
 47LSL   
 48LSL   
 49LSL × 
 1PM× 
 3PM××
 4PM××
 6PM××
 7PM××
 10PM 
 27PM×× 
 28PM×××
 29PM×××

For sediments in class 1, the probability of detecting adverse biological effects should be low, insofar as the sediments are considered safe for disposal in open water (Environment Canada and MDDEP 2007). Nevertheless, we observed significant sediment toxicity at 9 of the 10 stations, depending on toxicity test endpoints. H. azteca and C. riparius mortality was observed at 8 stations, and either both species were affected (4 stations) or only 1 of them (4 stations). B. calyciflorus reproduction was significantly inhibited at 2 stations, and 1 of those was also significantly toxic for H. azteca mortality (Table 4).

In class 2, the probability of detecting adverse biological effects is considered to be higher and is supposed to increase with chemical concentrations in sediment (Environment Canada and MDDEP 2007). In this case, open-water disposal can be considered a valid option only if toxicity tests do not demonstrate adverse effects. In our data set, significant toxicity was observed at 20 of the 29 stations assigned to class 2. Both H. azteca and C. riparius mortality was significant at 7 stations, H. azteca-only mortality occurred at 7 stations, and C. riparius-only mortality occurred at 3 stations. In total,H. azteca and C. riparius mortality represented 48% and 34% of toxicity incidence, respectively. The reproduction of B. calyciflorus was affected at 28% of the stations, and 2 of those were also toxic for H. azteca (Table 4).

Finally, in class 3, the probability of detecting adverse biological effects is expected to be high, and open-water disposal is prohibited (Environment Canada and MDDEP 2007). Toxicity was observed at 15 of the 20 stations assigned to this class. Sediments were demonstrated to be significantly toxic at 9 stations for both mortality tests (H. azteca and C. riparius) and at 5 stations for only 1 of the 2 toxicity tests. The inhibition of B. calyciflorus reproduction was significant at 4 stations; 3 of those stations were also toxic to H. azteca, 2 were also toxic to C. riparius, and only 1 was toxic to B. calyciflorus alone (Table 4).

SQGs, quotients, and indices

Quotients and indices provide a potential alternative for classifying sediments when multiple contaminants and the interactions among them are considered. Ingersoll and collaborators (2005) observed an increase in the incidence of toxicity to H. azteca and C. riparius as a positive function of mean quotient (Qmean). However, the ability of SQGs to predict the occurrence of toxicity had a wide range (Vidal and Bay 2005).

In our study, the 3 Qmeans that were assessed had similar efficiencies for predicting toxicity (Table 5). The first mean quotient (Qmean1) had type II (false negative) errors of 54%, 48%, and 26% for H. azteca mortality, C. riparius mortality, and B. calyciflorus reproductive inhibition, respectively (Table 5). These proportions of type II errors suggest a better performance of B. calyciflorus. In fact, B. calyciflorus's ability to predict toxicity was much lower (0.3; Table 5) than that of C. riparius and H. azteca, with a mortality endpoint of 0.6 (Table 5). This difference is due to the higher proportion of type I (false positive) errors at 71% for B. calyciflorus compared with 40% for mortality tests. The high proportion of type I errors with B. calyciflorus might also be explained by its higher toxicity threshold (40%) compared with mortality tests, which would have reduced the sensitivity of B. calyciflorus to toxicity.

Table 5. Efficiency of 4 types of aggregation methods (based on the OEL threshold) used to predict toxicity of multiple contaminants in St. Lawrence River sediments
 ABCDnSensitivitySpecificityToxicity predictionNo-toxicity predictionOverall efficiencyType II errorType I error
  1. Definitions of variables used to evaluate the predictive abilities of the methods are presented in Materials and Methods.

Qmean1
 H. azteca mortality191316191570.410.640.590.460.5154.340.9
 C. riparius mortality1512168510.440.670.600.520.5548.440.0
 B. calyciflorus reproduction541410340.440.580.290.740.5526.371.4
Qmean2
 H. azteca mortality1913187570.410.720.650.490.5451.435.0
 C. riparius mortality1611177510.410.710.610.520.5548.538.9
 B. calyciflorus reproduction55168340.500.670.380.760.6223.861.5
Qmean3
 H. azteca mortality1814187570.440.720.670.500.5650.033.3
 C. riparius mortality1512186510.440.750.670.550.5945.533.3
 B. calyciflorus reproduction46177340.600.710.460.810.6819.053.8
SQI
 H. azteca mortality16161312570.500.520.570.450.5155.242.9
 C. riparius mortality1314159510.520.630.610.540.5746.439.1
 B. calyciflorus reproduction461113340.600.460.320.730.5026.768.4

The Qmean2 and Qmean3 provided results similar to those for Qmean1 (Table 5). Nevertheless, we observed for these mean quotients a slight decrease in type II errors (0–7%) and an increase in the overall efficiency (0–13%; Table 5). With Qmean3, the proportion of misclassified stations was lower, but the proportion of type II errors remained about 50% and 45% for H. azteca and C. riparius mortality, respectively (Table 5). Toxicity test was predicted at a frequency equal to or higher than 60% with these 3 quotient methods (Table 5).

The results obtained with the Qadd (Figure 3) and SQI methods were similar to mean quotient results, even though SQI accounts for scope and magnitude (Table 5). Furthermore, as with the Qmeans, the lack of a relationship between Qadd or SQI and toxicity incidence (Figure 4) prevented the determination of quality classes specific to our study area, as recommended for SQI (Grapentine, Painter, et al. 2002; Marvin et al. 2004).

thumbnail image

Figure 3. Relationships between the percentage of H. azteca (A) and C. riparius (B) mortality and the inhibition of B. calyciflorus reproduction (C) with the additive quotient (Qadd). Circles, triangles, squares, and lozenges correspond to the Montréal Harbor, Lake Saint-Pierre, Lake Saint-Louis, and Lake Saint-François, respectively.

Download figure to PowerPoint

thumbnail image

Figure 4. Relationships between the percentage of H. azteca (A) and C. riparius (B) mortality and the inhibition of B. calyciflorus reproduction (C) with the sediment quality index (SQI; 0 = poor quality class, 100 = excellent; Marvin et al. 2004). Circles, triangles, squares, and lozenges correspond to the Montréal Harbor, Lake Saint-Pierre, Lake Saint-Louis, and Lake Saint-François, respectively.

Download figure to PowerPoint

When we compared a classification of sediment based on individual chemicals or on mean quotients, we observed very similar results, and the same samples were misclassified. All stations classified as class 1 had a Qmean1 lower than 0.5. Those of class 2 had a Qmean1 between 0.5 and 1.0 except for 1 stations, 1 of which displayed only one chemical in class 2, the other of which had concentrations very close to class 3 for several chemicals. Quotients for stations in class 3 were above 1.5. Many of the samples assigned to class 1 (no impact) were toxic, whereas some nontoxic samples were found in class 2 and class 3. During this study, we focused our attention on type II errors (false negatives). The reduction of this type of error is obviously important in terms of environmental protection, insofar as hazardous materials would be erroneously disposed of in open water. Conversely, type I errors (false positives) do not entail any environmental risk: class 3 sediments, which display high concentrations of contaminants, would require an abandonment of the open-water disposal option.

In summary, 2 main observations were made in the comparison between screening of sediment toxicity by SQGs and organism toxicity tests. First, FEL thresholds predicted well the potential toxicity of highly contaminated sediments (class 3). The type I error observed for class 3 sediment was explained mainly by high concentrations of a single contaminant, Hg, a metal that presents an important risk of bioaccumulation in aquatic organisms rather than direct toxicity to invertebrates. Although some sediment samples assigned to class 3 were not toxic to invertebrates, the related management decision remains correct. Second, we observed that a great proportion of class 2 and 3 sediments were toxic to aquatic invertebrates. The type II errors in class 1 represent a real management problem, and the causes of these misclassifications must be identified. Two main hypotheses were proposed: 1) unmeasured contaminants were present that contributed to sediment toxicity, and 2) environmental factors (e.g., sediment grain size, nutrients, metal-binding phases) had a direct influence on toxicity test organisms by increasing their sensitivity or playing a role in contaminant bioavailability. These 2 hypotheses are evaluated in the next sections.

Unmeasured contaminants

A limitation of toxicity screening with SQGs is that a chemical is accounted for only if an SQG is available (Ingersoll et al. 2005; Long et al. 2006). The predictive efficiency of this approach is therefore dependent on the appropriateness of the list of substances monitored. Note that the method we used to determine efficiency was somewhat different from that used in previous studies (Field et al. 1999) in which predictive efficiency of SQGs and quotients was assessed after screening the data sets to eliminate samples presenting unexplained toxicity. Because our purpose was to assess the guidelines' suitability, such a screening approach seemed inappropriate. Accordingly, the first hypothesis to explain type II errors in this study was the presence of nonmeasured contaminants. By definition, eliminating this source of errors would entail complementary sampling and analyses, which were not possible in the context of the current study. Therefore, in this section we review possible explanations for misclassified samples observed in class 1.

Agricultural activity and pesticides can exert a significant pressure on ecosystems (Hela et al. 2005), and recently a risk-based approach was developed in Canada by Environment Canada for ranking pesticides and their potential risk to aquatic life (Whiteside et al. 2008). Pesticides may cause toxicity to invertebrates (Anderson et al. 2005) and modify community structure or species traits (Anderson et al. 2005; Liess and Von Der Ohe 2005; Liess et al. 2008). In this study, we analyzed 92 pesticides (organochlorine, organophosphate, aryloxyacid, toxaphene; Table 3) in sediment at stations 1 to 26. These substances were below quantification limits in 99% of the measurements. Consequently, these analyses were not performed on samples 27 to 59. Most of the class 1 false-negative samples belonged to the stations of the first cluster (i.e., stations 1–26), so pesticides are not the most probable cause of this unexplained toxicity. However, pesticides were not measured in sediment from a misclassified station (51) in Lake St. François (Table 4), which is located near the mouths of the Salmon and St. Regis Rivers (Figure 1). Near this station, some pesticides have been identified in the water column and sediments in 1989 (Fortin et al. 1994) and in 1992–1993 (Rondeau 1996). Three other class 1 stations with significant toxicity were located in Lake Saint-Pierre (13, 15, and 34). These stations were affected by the Maskinongé River and the Bayonne River, which drain watersheds affected by municipalities and extensive agriculture or intensive farming in their downstream sections (Robitaille 1997, 2005; Giroux 2007; Pelletier et al. 2008). No pesticides were identified in sediments from sites 13 and 15. However, agricultural activities, such as livestock farming, can release into the aquatic environment nutrients, veterinary drugs (including biocides), and other substances that were not analyzed. Furthermore, we observed a significant increase in B. calyciflorus reproduction (110%) at station 34. Different hypotheses could explain this result, such as the presence of pharmaceutical compounds (e.g., antibiotics or antihypertensive drugs) that can affect B. calyciflorus reproduction (Ferrari et al. 2004) or the presence of human or livestock hormonal substances. Alternatively, the stimulatory effect could be a laboratory artefact, because rotifer reproduction can be enhanced by environmental factors such as food availability during the toxicity test (Snell and Boyer 1988; Pavon-Meza et al. 2005).

Municipal wastewater represents another source of contaminants in the St. Lawrence River. Sewage could be a source of pharmaceuticals (Kolpin et al. 2004; Gros et al. 2007), some of them being rather persistent (Bendz et al. 2005). Their toxicity is currently not very well known in most cases (Fent et al. 2006; Gros et al. 2007). However, some data on toxicity effects of some pharmaceuticals and personal care products on C. tentans and H. azteca are available, and mean lethal concentration varied between 0.4 and 47.3 mg/L (Dussault et al. 2008). Concentrations of similar products are lower (<0.5 mg/L) in the surface water of the St. Lawrence River and in Montréal wastewater (Garcia-Ac et al. 2009). Their accumulation in sediment is still unknown for this ecosystem.

Another misclassified station (9) was located downstream of the Montréal area (Figure 1, Table 4). This station is influenced by highly turbid waters originating from the Des Mille Îles River, the Des Prairies River, and the Assomption River. The Des Mille Îles and Des Prairies Rivers collect urban discharges, and the Assomption River watershed is dominated by intensive agricultural activities. Therefore, we can hypothesize that an array of contaminants from these activities was present in sediments but that these were not measured (Rondeau 1996).

Four misclassified stations in class 1 were in Lake Saint-Louis (Table 4), three of which were located along the north shore (16, 17 and 22) and the last (23) located on the south shore (Figure 1). These stations are in a mixing zone for waters from the Ottawa and the St. Lawrence Rivers, which are generally considered to be only weakly contaminated. However, in this area, high concentrations of organotin contaminants, such as tributyltin (TBT), were observed by Pelletier (2008). Because organotins have been historically considered as a problem in marine environments (Cardwell et al. 1999), their impacts on freshwater ecosystems should not be overlooked. Organotins are persistent in sediments, and benthic invertebrates may be directly exposed to them as they ingest and burrow into sediments (Bartlett et al. 2004). These authors found the TBT chronic toxicity test on H. azteca survival seemed to be the most sensitive endpoint.

Station 22 may be affected by groundwater originating from the City of Montréal area, which is potentially contaminated from industrial activities or by surface water from small contaminated creeks on the north shore of Montréal Island (Deschamps et al. 2005). On the south shore, station 23 may be influenced by the Saint-Louis River plume; however, the chemical concentrations in sediment were lower than those observed at stations (45–49) located directly in the plume, and the level of toxicity at station 23 was rather weak, with 20% and 23% mortality for C. riparius and H. azteca, respectively. The difference from a “nontoxic” sample (response under 20%) was thus small.

In summary, reducing the uncertainty associated with nonmeasured contaminants would entail additional sampling and analyses, which were not possible in the context of the current study. Pesticides or their metabolites cannot be ruled out, although they are not the most probable factor. Industrial chemicals might explain type II errors at a few stations. Most concerns are related to contaminants carried by municipal wastewater or agricultural activities: pharmaceuticals, personal care products, or biocides. Organotins could also explain type II errors at some stations.

Importance of confounding factors and approaches for dealing with them

Another possible origin of type II errors may be related to physical and chemical characteristics of sediments (Word, Albrecht, et al. 2005; Word, Gardiner, et al. 2005), which may introduce uncertainty into the application of SQGs (Chapman et al. 2005). The responses of organisms used in laboratory toxicity tests may be influenced by characteristics such as grain size, nutrients, organic matter, or other contaminant-binding phases (Word, Albrecht, et al. 2005). Compared with class 2 and class 3 stations, misclassified class 1 stations were associated with lower concentrations of Al, Fe, Mn, sulfur, total organic carbon (TOC), and clay, all of which bind contaminants. The reduced concentrations of these phases could contribute to increased contaminant bioavailability. Regression tree analyses were performed with all possible explanatory variables in the data set. This multiple regression method identified which variables best explained toxicity. The main advantage of the regression tree method is that it classifies predictive variables according to their weight in the statistical model and establishes effect thresholds. We focused the analyses on type II errors in class 1. The numbers of B. calyciflorus reproduction test results for this class were too low (Table 4), so regression trees were performed only for H. azteca and C. riparius data.

Hyallela azteca mortality data were significantly partitioned only by total sulfur (TS) concentration. When TS concentrations were above 1400 mg/kg (r2 = 0.64; Figure 5A), all samples induced toxicity to H. azteca, whereas only 1 was toxic below this threshold. Sulphates and sulphides strongly bind metals and can reduce metal availability (Word, Gardiner, et al. 2005). However, sulphides are also recognized as highly toxic to invertebrates (Knezovich et al. 1996; Wang and Chapman 1999).

thumbnail image

Figure 5. Regression partition model explaining toxicity test responses of H. azteca (A) and C. riparius (B) for sediment assigned to class 1 only. The numbers of samples with toxicity test/total number of samples are presented in parentheses. Numbers indicate the sampling stations.

Download figure to PowerPoint

For C. riparius mortality, the regression partition model offered a weak explanation of the overall variance (r2 = 0.41; Figure 6B). Nonetheless, a greater proportion of mortality (4/5) occurred when the porewater dissolved organic carbon (DOC) concentration was lower than 6.5 mg/L. Organic matter is known to influence the bioavailability of chemicals (Bervoets et al. 1997; Watzin et al. 1997; Di Toro et al. 2005).

thumbnail image

Figure 6. Tier 1 decision tree for ERA of dredging sediments.

Download figure to PowerPoint

It is also possible to transfer the model developed for H. azteca to C. riparius with sulfur as the first partitioning factor. Four of 5 samples were toxic to C. riparius if TS was >1400 mg/kg, and only 2 of 5 were toxic when TS was <1400 mg/kg. Without further verification, the COD-based model developed for C. riparius is difficult to transpose to H. azteca: the same numbers of samples (3/5) are toxic on both sides of the COD threshold (6.5 mg/L).

The assignment of stations to class 1, 2, or 3 sediment was not significantly modified when a TS threshold of 1400 mg/kg was added to any of the quotient approaches. In class 1 sediment, quotients remained low (e.g., Qmean1<0.5). Likewise, when the class assignment was based on single chemicals and TS, the class being determined by the most penalizing one or TS, false negatives remained low at 10% and 20% for H. azteca and C. riparius, respectively. Five stations (16, 17, 22, 23, and 51) were reclassified into class 2, where, according to the proposed framework, a toxicity assessment would be performed. Three other stations (9, 13, and 15) were still erroneously assigned to class 1, but, as explained above, this seems likely to be due to unmeasured contaminants.

CONCLUSIONS: IMPLICATIONS FOR ERA GUIDELINE DEVELOPMENT FOR DREDGED SEDIMENT IN THE ST. LAWRENCE RIVER

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. INTRODUCTION
  4. MATERIALS AND METHODS
  5. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
  6. CONCLUSIONS: IMPLICATIONS FOR ERA GUIDELINE DEVELOPMENT FOR DREDGED SEDIMENT IN THE ST. LAWRENCE RIVER
  7. Acknowledgements
  8. REFERENCES

Whatever the approach used, whether a classification was based on the chemical with the highest concentration relative to its effect levels or on mean quotients, we observed very similar results in terms of predictive ability, with a high proportion of type II errors in class 1 sediments or in sediments with quotients <1. From the perspective of sustainable management of dredged materials in the St. Lawrence River, the class 1 sediments that were toxic are the greatest concern. Inhibitory effects associated with compounds usually not addressed in priority substances lists, such as sulfur, were shown to correlate with a significant proportion of toxicity.

The apparently poor efficiency of St. Lawrence SQGs for predicting toxicity in class 1 materials could be an argument for modifying the assessment process design at tier 1 and for introducing toxicity tests at the first screening stage. We have demonstrated, based on regression tree analysis, that high sulfur concentrations were significantly associated with unexpected toxicity in this class; a total sulfur threshold allows the sorting of probably hazardous samples from samples that are uncontaminated in terms of priority compounds. Consequently, we argue that SQGs should be kept as the principal element for the first tier in the risk assessment process, but the initial screening should include a total sulfur measurement. If sulfur exceeds 1400 mg/kg, the sample would probably be toxic, and then the assessment would continue to tier 2, in which toxicity tests would be performed (Figure 6). If sediments were still assigned to class 1 after sulfur verification, they could be disposed of in open water or used for other purposes (Environment Canada and MDDEP 2007).

For class 2 sediments, with contaminant concentrations between OEL and FEL thresholds, a simple classification based on the most penalizing chemical concentration efficiently predicted toxicity in 69% of the stations (Table 4). Consequently, the probability of detecting adverse biological effects is relatively high in this sediment class. In this case, open-water disposal can be considered a valid option only if toxicity tests demonstrate that sediments will not adversely affect the receiving environment (Environment Canada and MDDEP 2007). Class 2 sediments pass to tier 2, in which a battery of toxicity tests is applied, as is recommended in the SQGs management framework (Figure 6).

Our study shows that class 3 sediments, those with contaminant concentrations exceeding FEL thresholds, are either toxic or contain a high concentration of Hg, a chemical that presents an important risk of bioaccumulation in aquatic organisms but is not readily toxic to benthic invertebrates. These observations are consistent with the very high probability of observing adverse biological effects expected for class 3 sediment, and, consequently, within the management framework proposed for the St. Lawrence River (Environment Canada and MDDEP 2007), open-water disposal of class 3 dredged material is prohibited (Figure 6). In this case, sediments must be treated or safely contained. The risk of either of those two options will be evaluated based on a specific ERA guideline for contaminated soil and management under terrestrial conditions (CEAEQ 1998; Beaulieu 1999).

Screening using SQGs and statistical analyses may not be accurate indicators of which chemicals in the sediments are the cause of toxicity. Additional analyses, such as toxicity identification evaluations and laboratory toxicity tests of clean sediments spiked with known chemicals, may be needed to determine causality accurately (Wenning et al. 2005b; Long et al. 2006). Furthermore, the effect of mixture is not completely considered in the quotient approach, a situation that is exacerbated by the lack of knowledge about interactions between chemicals or influences of geochemical properties (Batley et al. 2005).

Future steps involve the development of several tools to validate the conclusions of the present study. First, a comparison of the toxicity test results with the benthic communities living in these sediments will be performed. Second, it is necessary to characterize the presence of emergent contaminants in sediment, to determine their toxicity, and to evaluate the need to establish new SQGs for these substances. Finally, the main conclusions of this study should be validated by a case study assessment of future dredging activities in the St. Lawrence River.

Acknowledgements

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. INTRODUCTION
  4. MATERIALS AND METHODS
  5. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
  6. CONCLUSIONS: IMPLICATIONS FOR ERA GUIDELINE DEVELOPMENT FOR DREDGED SEDIMENT IN THE ST. LAWRENCE RIVER
  7. Acknowledgements
  8. REFERENCES

This study is a part of a larger collaborative program funded by the third and fourth phases of the St. Lawrence Plan for Sustainable Development with the active participation of Environment Canada (Environmental Protection Operations Division and Science and Technology Branch), the Ministère du Développement durable, de l'Environnement et des Parcs du Québec (Centre d'expertise en analyse environnementale du Québec; Direction des évaluations environnementales; Direction du suivi de l'état de l'environnement), and Cemagref from Lyon (France). The project was also associated with the Sustainable Navigation Strategy for the St. Lawrence River, which includes aspects such as sustainable dredging management, contaminated sites restoration, and sediment quality guidelines revision for contaminated sediment. We acknowledge the Commission Permanente de Cooperation Franco-Québecoise for travel funding during this collaborative project. We address special thanks to the project steering committee members: C. Gagnon from Environment Canada; L. Boudreau, P. Michon, I. Guay, and G. Triffaut-Bouchet from the Ministère du Développement durable, de l'Environnement et des Parcs du Québec; and S. Masson from Parc Aquarium du Québec. We also acknowledge all fieldwork participants, particularly M. Arseneault, P. Turcotte, A. Lajeunesse, and G. Brault, who helped over the 2 sampling years. We also thank Heather Ferguson and John Chételat for English editing.

REFERENCES

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. INTRODUCTION
  4. MATERIALS AND METHODS
  5. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
  6. CONCLUSIONS: IMPLICATIONS FOR ERA GUIDELINE DEVELOPMENT FOR DREDGED SEDIMENT IN THE ST. LAWRENCE RIVER
  7. Acknowledgements
  8. REFERENCES
  • Adams WJ, Green AS, Ahlf W, Brown SS, Burton GA, Chadwick B, Crane M, Gouguet R, Ho KT, Hogstrand C, Reynoldson TB, Ringwood AH, Savitz JD, Sibley PK. 2005. Using sediment assessment tools and a weight-of-evidence approach. In: WenningRJ, BatleyGE, IngersollCG, MooreDW, editors. Use of sediment quality guidelines and related tools for the assessment of contaminated sediment. Pensacola (FL): Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry (SETAC). p 163225.
  • AFNOR. 2000. Qualité de l'eauDétermination de la —toxicité chronique vis-à-vis de Brachionus calyciflorus en 48 h. NF T 90–377. Technical Report, Paris (FR).
  • AFNOR. 2003. Qualité de l'eau—Détermination de la toxicité des sédiments d'eau douce vis-à-vis de Hyalella azteca. XP T 90-338-1, Paris (FR).
  • AFNOR. 2004. Qualité de l'eau—Détermination de la toxicité des sédiments d'eau douce vis-à-vis de Chironomus riparius. XP T 90-339-1. Technical Report, Paris (FR).
  • Agius SJ, Porebski L. 2008. Towards the assessment and management of contaminated dredged materials. Integr Environ Assess Manag 4: 255266.
  • Alvarez-Guerra M, Viguri JR, Casado-Martinez 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 Manag 3: 529538.
  • Anderson BS, Phillips BM, Hunt J, Worcester K, Adams MS, Kapellas N, Tjeerdema RS. 2005. Evidence of pesticide impacts in the Santa Maria River watershed, California, USA. Environ Sci Technol 25: 11601170.
  • Apitz SE, Barbanti A, Bocci M, Carlin A, Montobbio L, Bernstein AG. 2007. The sediments of the Venice Lagoon (Italy) evaluated in a screening risk assessment approach: Part I—Application of international sediment quality guidelines. Integr Environ Assess Manag 3: 394414.
  • Babut MP, Ahlf W, Batley GE, Camusso M, De Deckere E, Den Besten PJ. 2005. International overview of sediment quality guidelines and their uses. In: WenningRJ, BatleyGE, IngersollCG, MooreDW, editors. Use of sediment quality guidelines and related tools for the assessment of contaminated sediments. Pensacola (FL): Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry (SETAC). p 345382.
  • Babut MP, Delmas H, Bray M, Durrieu C, Perrodin Y, Garric J. 2006. Characterizing the risks to aquatic ecosystems: A tentative approach in the context of freshwater dredged material disposal. Integr Environ Assess Manag 2: 330343.
  • Bartlett AJ, Borgmann U, Dixon DG, Batchelor SP, Maguire RJ. 2004. Tributyltin uptake and depuration in Hyalella azteca: Implications for experimental design. Environ Toxicol Chem 23: 426434.
  • Batley GE, Stahl RG, Babut MP, Bott TL, Clark JR, Field LJ, Ho KT, Mount DR, Swartz RC, Tessier A. 2005. Scientific underpinnings of sediment quality guidelines In: WenningRJ, BatleyGE, IngersollCG, MooreDW, editors. Use of sediment quality guidelines and related tools for assessment of contaminated sediments. Pensacola (FL): Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry (SETAC). p 39120.
  • Beaulieu M. 1999. Politique de protection des sols et de réhabilitation des terrains contaminés. Direction des politiques du secteur industriel, Service des lieux contaminés du Ministère de l'environnement.
  • Bendz D, Paxéus NA, Ginn TR, Loge FJ. 2005. Occurrence and fate of pharmaceutically active compounds in the environment a case study: Höje River in Sweden. J Hazardous Materials 122: 195204.
  • Bervoets L, Blust R, de Wit M, Verheyen R. 1997. Relationships between river sediment characteristics and trace metal concentrations in tubificid worms and chironomid larvae. Environ Pollut 95: 345356.
  • Cardwell RD, Brancato MS, Toll J, DeForest D, Tear L. 1999. Aquatic ecological risks posed by tributyltin in united states surface waters: pre-1989 to 1996 data. Environ Toxicol Chem 18: 567577.
  • CCME. 1995. Protocole pour l'élaboration de recommandations pour la qualité des sédiments en vue de la protection de la vie aquatique. Préparé par Environnement Canada, Division des recommandations, Secrétariat technique du CCME, Groupe de travail sur les recommandations pour la qualité des eaux. Ottawa.
  • CEAEQ. 1998. Procédure d'évaluation du risque écotoxicologique pour la réhabilitation des terrains contaminés. Ministère de l'Environnement et de la Faune, gouvernement du Québec.
  • CEAEQ. 2002. Dosage des hydrocarbures pétroliers C10 à C50 dans les sols et les sédiments. MA 416-C10-C50 1.1, Ministère de l'Environnement du Québec.
  • CEAEQ. 2003a. Détermination des métaux et du phosphore dans les sédiment: méthode par spectrophotométrie au plasma d'argon après minéralisation acide. MA 205-Met/P1.0, Ministère de l'Environnement du Québec.
  • CEAEQ. 2003b. Détermination du carbone inorganique dissous, du carbone organique dissous et du carbone organique total: Méthode par détection infrarouge. MA 300-C 1.0, Ministère de l'Environnement du Québec.
  • CEAEQ. 2003c. Détermination des biphényles polychlorés; méthode par congénères. MA 400-BPC 1.0, Ministère de l'Environnement du Québec.
  • CEAEQ. 2003d. Détermination des hydrocarbures aromatiques polycycliques; Dosage par chromatographie en phase gazeuse couplée à un spectromètre de masse. MA 400-HAP 1.1, Ministère de l'Environnement du Québec.
  • CEAEQ. 2003e. Détermination de pesticides de type organochloré dans les sols et des sédiments: Extraction avec acétone et hexane: Dosage par chromatographie en phase gazeuse couplée à un spectromètre de masse. MA 416 P, Ocl 1.0, Ministère de l'Environnement du Québec.
  • CEAEQ. 2003f. Détermination de pesticides de type organophosphoré, triazine, carbamate urée substituée, phtalimide et pyréthrinoïde: extraction avec de l'acétate d'éthyle; dosage par chromatographie en phase gazeuse couplée à un spectromètre de masse. MA 416-PEST 1.0, Ministère de l'Environnement du Québec.
  • CEAEQ. 2003g. Détermination du toxaphène dans les sols par chromatographie en phase gazeuse. MA 405-Toxaphène 1.0, Ministère de l'Environnement du Québec.
  • CEAEQ. 2006a. Détermination du carbone et du soufre: méthode par combustion et dosage par spectrophotometrie infrarouge. MA 310-CS 1.0, Ministère du Développement durable, de l'Environnement et des Parcs du Québec.
  • CEAEQ. 2006b. Détermination de l'azote total kjeldahl et du phosphore total: digestion acide—Méthode colorimétrique automatisée. MA 300-NTPT 1.1, Ministère du Développement durable, de l'Environnement et des Parcs du Québec.
  • CEAEQ. 2006c. Détermination de pesticides de type aryloxyacide dans les sols et les sédiments: extraction aqueuse en milieu basique, passage sur C-18 suivi d'une estérification: dosage par chromatographie en phase gazeuse couplé à un spectromètre de masse. MA 416-P, Chlp 1.1, Ministère du Développement durable, de l'Environnement et des Parcs du Québec.
  • CEAEQ. 2007. Détermination du mercure dans les tissus biologiques et les sédiments par décomposition thermique: dosage par photométrie UV. MA 207-Hg 2.0, Ministère du Développement durable, de l'Environnement et des Parcs du Québec.
  • CEPA. 1999. Statutes of Canada, Chapter 33, Schedule 6. Federal Government of Canada, Ottawa (ON). www.ec.gc.ca/CEPARegistry/the_act/Schedules_6.cfm. Accessed 2 April 2007.
  • Chapman PM, Anderson J. 2005. A decision-making framework for sediment contamination. Integr Environ Assess Manag 1: 163173.
  • Chapman PM, Birge WJ, Burgess RM, Clements WH, Douglas WS, Harras MC, Hogstrand C, Reible DD, Ringwood AH. 2005. Uncertainties in assessments of complex sediment systems. In: WenningRJ, BatleyGE, IngersollCG, MooreDW, editors. Use of sediment quality guidelines and related tools for the assessment of contaminated sediments. Pensacola (FL): Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry (SETAC).
  • D'Arcy P, Bibeault J-F. 2004. Sustainable navigation strategy for the St. Lawrence. Navigation Consensus Building Committee of St. Lawrence Vision 2000,published by the Ministère des Transports du Québec and, Fisheries and Oceans Canada.
  • Deschamps G, Mallet R, Lafleur JP, Tremblay C. 2005. Qualité des cours d'eau de Montréal. Rapport annuel 2005. Ville de Montréal, Service des infrastructures, transport et Environnement, Direction de l'environnement, Planification et suivi environnemental, RSMA.
  • Desrosiers M, Gagnon C, Masson S, Martel L, Babut MP. 2008. Relationships among extractable and reactive metals and metalloid in the St. Lawrence River sediment: Bioaccumulation by chironomids and implication for ecological risk assessment. Sci Total Environ 389: 101114.
  • Di Toro DM, Berry WJ, Burgess RM, Mount DR, O'Connor TP, Swartz RC. 2005. Predictive ability of sediment quality guidelines derived using equilibrium partitioning In: WenningRJ, BatleyGE, IngersollCG, MooreDW, editors. Use of sediment quality guidelines and related tools for the assessment of contaminated sediments. Pensacola (FL): Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry (SETAC). p 557588.
  • Dussault ÈB, Balakrishnan VK, Keith ES, Solomon KR, Sibley PK. 2008. Toxicity of human pharmaceuticals and personal care products to benthic invertebrates. Environ Toxicol Chem 27: 425432.
  • Environment Canada. 1997. Biological test method: Test for survival and growth in sediment using the freshwater amphipod Hyalella azteca, EPS 1/RM/33. Canada E, Technical Report, Ottawa (ON).
  • Environment Canada, MDDEP. 2007. Criteria for the assessment of sediment quality in quebec and application frameworks: Prevention, dredging and remediation.
  • Environment Canada, Ontario Ministry of the Environment. 2007. Canada-Ontario decision-making framework: For assessment of Great Lakes contaminated sediment. Environment Canada, Ontario Ministry of the Environment, En164-14/2007E.
  • Fairey R, Long ER, Roberts CA, Anderson BS, Phillips BM, Hunt JW, Puckett HR, Wilson CJ. 2001. An evaluation of methods for calculating mean sediment quality guideline quotients as indicators of contaminatination and acute toxicity to amphipods by chemical mixtures. Environ Toxicol Chem 20: 22762286.
  • Fent K, Weston AA, Caminada D. 2006. Ecotoxicology of human pharmaceuticals. Aquat Toxicol 76: 122159.
  • Ferrari B, Mons R, Vollat B, Fraysse B, Paxéus N, Lo Guidice R, Pollio A, Garric J. 2004. Environmental risk assessment of six human pharmaceuticals: Are the current environmental risk assessment procedures sufficient for the protection of the aquatic environment? Environ Toxicol Chem 23: 13441354.
  • Field LJ, MacDonald DD, Norton SB, Severn CG, Ingersoll CG. 1999. Evaluating sediment chemistry and toxicity data using logistic regression modeling. Environ Toxicol Chem 18: 13111322.
  • Fortin G, Leclair D, Sylvestre A. 1994. Synthèse des connaissances sur les aspects physiques et chimiques de l'eau et des sédiments du lac Saint-François. Rapport technique, ZI P 1-2 Environnement Canada.
  • Garcia-Ac A, Segura PA, Gagnon C, Sauvé S. 2009. Determination of bezafibrate, methotrexate, cyclophosphamide, orlistat and enalapril in waste and surface waters using on-line solid-phase extraction liquid chromatography coupled to polarity-switching electrospray tandem mass spectrometry. J Environ Monitoring 11: 830838.
  • Giroux I. 2007. Les pesticides dans quelques tributaires de la rive nord du Saint-Laurent: Rivières L'Assomption, Bayonne, Maskinongé et du Loup, Ministère du Développement durable dlEedP, Direction du suivi de l'état de l'environnement. 28p + 22 annexes.
  • Grapentine L, Marvin C, Painter S. 2002. Initial development and evaluation of a sediment quality index for the great lakes region. Hum Ecol Risk Assess 8: 15491567.
  • Gros M, Petrovic M, Barcelo D. 2007. Wastewater treatment plants as a pathway for aquatic contamination by pharmaceuticals in the Ebro River basin (Northeast Spain). Environ Toxicol Chem 26: 15531562.
  • Hela DG, Lambropoulou DA, Konstantinou IK, Albanis TA. 2005. Environmental monitoring and ecological risk assessment for pesticide contamination and effects in lake Pamvotis, northwestern Greece. Environ Toxicol Chem 24: 15481556.
  • Ingersoll CG, Bay SM, Crane JL, Field LJ, Gries TH, Hyland JL, Long ER, MacDonald DD, O'Connor TP. 2005. Ability of SQGs to estimate effects of sediment-associated contaminants in laboratory toxicity tests or in benthic community assessments. In: WenningRJ, BatleyGE, IngersollCG, MooreDW, editors. Use of sediment quality guidelines and related tools for the assessment of contaminated sediments. Pensacola (FL): Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry (SETAC). p 497556.
  • Ingersoll CG, Ivey CD, Brunson EL, Hardesty DK, Kemble NE. 2000. Evaluation of toxicity: Whole-sediment versus overlying-water exposures with amphipod. Hyalella azteca Environ Toxicol Chem 19: 29062910.
  • Knezovich JP, Steichen DJ, Jelinski JA, Anderson SL. 1996. Sulfide tolerance of four marine species used to evaluate sediment and pore-water toxicity. Bull Environ Contam Toxicol 57: 450457.
  • Kolpin DW, Skopec M, Meyer MT, Furlong ET, Zaugg SD. 2004. Urban contribution of pharmaceuticals and other organic wastewater contaminants to streams during differing flow conditions. Sci Total Environ 328: 119130.
  • Liess M, Schäfer RB, Schriever CA. 2008. The footprint of pesticide stress in communities—Species traits reveal community effects of toxicants. Sci Total Environ 406: 484490.
  • Liess M, Von Der Ohe PC. 2005. Analyzing effects of pesticides on invertebrate communities in streams. Environ Toxicol Chem 24: 954965.
  • Long ER, Ingersoll CG, MacDonald DD. 2006. Calculation and uses of mean sediment quality guidelines quotient: a critical review. Environ Sci Technol 40: 17261736.
  • Long ER, MacDonald DD. 1998. Recommended uses of empirically derived sediment quality guidelines for marine and estuarine ecosystems. Hum Ecol Risk Assess 4: 10191039.
  • MacDonald DD, Ingersoll CG, Berger TA. 2000. Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Arch Environ Contam Toxicol 39: 2031.
  • Marvin C, Grapentine L, Painter S. 2004. Application of a sediment quality index to the lower Laurentian Great Lakes. Environ Monit Assess 91: 116.
  • Pavon-Meza EL, Sarma SSS, Nandini S. 2005. Combined effects of algal (Chlorella vulgaris) food level and temperature on the demography of Brachionus havanaensis (Rotifera): a life table study. Hydrobiologia 546: 353360.
  • Pelletier M. 2008. Toxic contamination in sediments—Lake Saint-Louis: Where two rivers meet. Fact sheet in the “Monitoring the State of the St. Lawrence” series 6.
  • Pelletier M, Rondeau B, Gagnon C, Messier F. 2008. Polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs) in the St. Lawrence: New Contaminants to be monitored. Poster in Brominated Flame Retardants Conference, 2008 (BFR2008), Victoria, Canada, June 3-4, 2008.
  • Robitaille P. 1997. Qualité des eaux des bassins des rivières Maskinongé et du Loup, 1979 à 1996. Ministère du l'Environnement et de la Faune, Direction des écosystèmes aquatiques, QE-170.
  • Robitaille P. 2005. État de l'écosystème aquatique du bassin versant de la rivière Maskinongé (région de Lanaudière et de la Mauricie: Faits saillants 2001-2003. Québec, ministère du Développement durable, de l'Environnement et des Parcs, Direction du suivi de l'état de l'environnement, Envirodoq ENV/2005/0110, collection QE/157. 7.
  • Rondeau B. 1996. Pesticides dans les tributaires du fleuve Saint-Laurent 1989- 1991. Rapport ST-62, Environnement Canada.
  • Shine JP, Trapp CJ, Coull BA. 2003. Use of receiver operating characteristic curves to evaluate sediment quality guidelines for metals. Environ Toxicol Chem 22: 16421648.
  • Snell TW, Boyer EM. 1988. Thresholds for mictic female production in the rotifer Brachionus plicatilis (Muller). J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 124: 7385.
  • Snell TW, Moffat BD. 1992. A 2-d life cycle test with the rotifer Brachionus calyciflorus. Environ Toxicol Chem 11: 12491257.
  • Verrhiest G, Cortes S, Clément B, Montuelle B. 2002. Chemical and microbial changes during conditioning of formulated and natural sediments. Chemosphere 46: 961974.
  • Vidal DE, Bay SM. 2005. Comparative sediment quality guideline performance for predicting sediment toxicity in southern California, USA. Environ Toxicol Chem 24: 31733182.
  • Wang F, Chapman PM. 1999. Biological implications of sulfide in sediment—a review focusing on sediment toxicity. Environ Toxicol Chem 18: 25262532.
  • Watzin MC, McIntosh AW, Brown EA, Lacey R, Lester DC, Newbrough KL, Williams AR. 1997. Assessing sediment quality in heterogenous environments: A case study of a small urban harbor in Lake Champlain, Vermont, USA. Environ Toxicol Chem 16: 21252135.
  • Wenning RJ, Batley GE, Ingersoll CG, Moore DW. 2005a. Introduction to the worshop: A Pellston workshop on sediment quality guidelines. In: WenningRJ, BatleyGE, IngersollCG, MooreDW, editors. Use of sediment quality guidelines and related tools for the assessment of contaminated sediment. Pensacola (FL): Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry (SETAC). p 110.
  • Wenning RJ, Batley GE, Ingersoll CG, Moore DW. 2005b. Use of sediment quality guidelines and related tools for assessment of contaminated sediments. Pensacola (FL): Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry (SETAC). 783 p.
  • Whiteside M, Mineau P, Morrison C, Knopper LD. 2008. Comparison of a score-based approach with risk-based ranking of in-use agricultural pesticides in Canada to aquatic receptors. Integr Environ Assess Manag 4: 215236.
  • Word JQ, Albrecht BB, Anghera ML, Baudo R, Bay SM, Di Toro DM, Hyland JL, Ingersoll CG, Landrum PJ, Long ER, Meador JP, Moore DW, O'Connor TP, Shine JP. 2005. Predictive ability of sediment quality guidelines. In: WenningRJ, BatleyGE, IngersollCG, MooreCG, editors. Use of sediment quality guidelines and related tools for the assessment of contaminated sediments. Pensacola (FL): Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry (SETAC). p 121162.
  • Word JQ, Gardiner WW, Moore DW. 2005. Influence of confounding factors on SQGs and their application to estuarine and marine sediment evaluations. In: WenningRJ, BatleyGE, IngersollCG, MooreDW, editors. Use of sediment quality guidelines and related tools for the assessment of contaminated sediments. Pensacola (FL): Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry (SETAC). p 633686.