4.5 Article

Field validation of sediment zinc toxicity

Journal

ENVIRONMENTAL TOXICOLOGY AND CHEMISTRY
Volume 24, Issue 3, Pages 541-553

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1897/04-031R.1

Keywords

acid volatile sulfides; risk assessment; colonization; in situ

Ask authors/readers for more resources

A field study was conducted to validate concentrations of zinc in freshwater sediments that are tolerated by benthic macroinvertebrate communities and to determine whether a relationship exists with the acid volatile sulfide (AVS)-simultaneously extracted metal (SEM) model. In both the lake and riverine systems, one sediment type was high in AVS and one low in AVS, which resulted in zinc-spiked sediments that ranged from low to high SEM to AVS ratios. The colonization trays were sampled seasonally, ranging from 6 to 37 weeks of exposure, and were evaluated using several appropriate benthic indices. Results of the field evaluations at the four test sites confirmed the validity of the AVS-SEM model, predicting benthic macroinvertebrate effects correctly 92% of the time. In sediments where the SEM to AVS ratio or the AVS and organic (OC)-normalized fractions exceeded 8 and 583 mumol/g of OC, toxicity was observed from the zinc-spiked sediments. Conversely, when the SEM to AVS ratio or OC-normalized AVS fractions were less than 2 or 100 mumol/g of OC, no toxicity was observed. In the range of 148 to 154 mumol/g of OC, toxicity varied in two treatments. Total zinc concentrations in sediments showed no relationship to benthic effects. The most impaired benthic community occurred in the high-gradient stream sediments, which had low OC and AVS concentrations and SEM to AVS ratios of 33 and 44 in the spiked sediments. Five to six benthic metrics were depressed at SEM to AVS ratios of 8.32 and 9.73. The no-observed-effect level appeared to be near a SEM to AVS ratio of 2, with slight to no effects between ratios of 2.34 and 2.94. No sites with ratios of less than 2 showed any adverse effects.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available