Is the 1:4 elutriation ratio reliable? Ecotoxicological comparison of four different sediment:water proportions

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoenv.2005.08.010Get rights and content

Abstract

Methodological research was carried out to evaluate the discriminatory capability of three toxicity bioassays toward different elutriation ratios (1:4, 1:20, 1:50, and 1:200 sediment:water ratios). Samples from six sampling stations of the Lagoon of Venice have been investigated. The toxicity bioassay results (sea urchin Paracentrotus lividus Lmk sperm cell and embryo toxicity bioassays and bivalve mollusk Crassostrea gigas Thunberg embryo toxicity bioassays) have shown that elutriates generated from the widely used 1:4 ratio were less toxic than those from intermediate ratios (1:20 and 1:50).

Introduction

Most contaminants originating from human activities and discharged into surface water are eventually deposited and concentrated in sediment. Due to its propensity to sequester both organic and inorganic contaminants, sediment can be defined as the main sink and source of pollutants. The sediments in estuaries and coastal areas thus constitute important reserves of contaminants and represents potential sources of pollution. In particular, marine disposal of dredged material, dumping of wastes, and shipping and fishing activities can play major roles in sediment particulate resuspension, a possible source of pollution (USEPA, 1977; Forstner and Wittmann, 1983). In sediment, in addition to independent actions of contaminants, the presence of complex mixtures could produce additive, synergic, and antagonistic interactions. Their concentrations in sediment may be several orders of magnitude higher than that in overlying water; however, bulk sediment concentrations are not highly correlated to bioavailability (Burton, 1992).

Elutriate is an environmental matrix that enables the replication of sediment mobilization phenomena (Shuba et al., 1978) and the prediction of the release of contaminants from the sediment to the water column (ASTM, 1990). It was first developed for evaluating the potential effects of disposing of dredged material in open water and is nowadays also applied to the quality evaluation of in situ sediment (Beiras et al., 2001; Lazorchak et al., 2003).

Briefly, the elutriation procedure consists of the vigorous shaking of a predetermined part of sediment with parts of water to release sorbed pollutants. This mixture is allowed to settle and the liquid phase is centrifuged (ASTM, 1991; Burton and MacPherson, 1995). Analyses of elutriate samples provide information on the water-soluble constituents potentially released from the sediment to the water column. The method has been proved suitable for detecting altered and toxic sediment, supplying information on water-bioavailable components (Williams et al., 1986).

Several methods of elutriate preparation have been proposed in the literature. The main differences consist of sediment:water ratios, sediment shaking techniques, times, and temperatures, and supernatant centrifuging techniques. The 1:4 sediment:water ratio, suggested by USEPA (1991), is the most commonly employed sediment:water proportion (USACE, 1978; Burton et al., 1989; Daniels et al., 1989; Munawar et al., 1989; Long et al., 1990; Ankley et al., 1991; USEPA, 1991; Vashchenko and Zhada, 1993; Andreatta et al., 1994; Hurkey et al., 1994; Bridges et al., 1996; Schuytema et al., 1996; Da Ros et al., 1997; Sibley et al., 1997). Nonetheless, a wide series of alternative ratios have flourished: the 1:2 ratio (Meador et al., 1990; Vashchenko and Zhada, 1993), 1:3 ratio (Matthiessen et al., 1998), 1:5 ratio (Lee et al., 1978; Da Ros et al., 1997), 1:8 ratio (McFadzen, 2000), 1:10 ratio (Daniels et al., 1989; Da Ros et al., 1997), 1:20 ratio (Lee et al., 1978; Daniels et al., 1989), 1:25 (Lee et al., 1978), 1:50 ratio (Long et al., 1990; Van den Hurk, 1994; Van den Hurk et al., 1997; Da Ros et al., 1997), 1:200 ratio (Da Ros et al., 1997), 2:1 ratio (Williams et al., 1986), and 2:5 ratio (Thain et al., 1996). Moreover, Daniels et al. (1989) reported that the choice of the dry or wet weight of sediment to achieve the sediment:water proportions is questionable.

Different sediment shaking devices are also employed: rotary shaker tables (Williams et al., 1986; Ankley et al., 1991; Matthiessen et al., 1998), rotary tumblers (Daniels et al., 1989; Munawar et al., 1989), air systems (USACE, 1978; Daniels et al., 1989; McFadzen, 2000), shakers (Burton et al., 1989; Daniels et al., 1989; Long et al., 1990; Van den Hurk, 1994; Matthiessen et al., 1998; His et al., 1999), magnetic stirrers (Bridges et al., 1996), and ultrasonic baths (Andreatta et al., 1994) have all been proposed. Shaking times varied from about 30 min to 24 h (Ankley et al., 1991; ASTM, 1991; Burton and MacPherson, 1995; Liß and Ahlf, 1997).

Despite all these methodological differences, only limited studies have been conducted to highlight the procedure best able to simulate natural sediment resuspension phenomena or to render pollutants more bioavailable (Daniels et al., 1989; Da Ros et al., 1997).

The aim of this work was to assess the discriminatory capability of three toxicity bioassays toward four different elutriation ratios (1:4, 1:20, 1:50, and 1:200) to evaluate which ratio can produce greater effects for water-column bioindicators. Moreover, this research aimed to determine whether the widely used 1:4 sediment:water ratio represents the best method for a quality control sediment diagnosis.

Static nonrenewal bioassays using sea urchin sperm cells, embryos, and larvae, and oyster embryos and larvae, widely used in biomonitoring programs (ASTM, 1998a, ASTM, 1998b), have been employed to evaluate elutriates toxicity. To evaluate the reliability of the results, the toxicity data are discussed in relation to possible confounding factors (ammonia and sulfide).

Section snippets

Sampling sites

The sediments were sampled in late summer (August–September 1998) at six sites in the Lagoon of Venice, northeast Italy, as part of the “Orizzonte 2023 Project.” The stations were located along a pollution gradient: two presumably unpolluted sites (CE(a) and CE(b)), two oil-refinery and industrial sites (BR and SA), and two estuarine sites (DE and OS) close to agricultural areas.

At Centrega Marsh (CE), in the northern Lagoon, CE(a) and CE(b) were chosen as two possible reference sites,

Quality assurance/quality control for toxicity tests

In the tests performed, controls showed 83±5% of fertilized eggs, 70±3% of normally developed plutei of P. lividus, and 83±4% of normally developed embryos of C. gigas, according to each methodology's limits. Experiments using copper as reference toxicant confirmed the good repeatability of all assays. The sperm cell test had a mean EC50±standard deviation (SD) of 49±3 μg/L (CV=6%, n=3). These data are well within the EC50 acceptability range (39–71 μg/L) (Volpi Ghirardini and Arizzi Novelli, 2001

Discussion

Toxicity results showed that contaminant bioavailability seemed to be sampling station based and highlighted that the commonly employed 1:4 sediment:water ratio (USEPA, 1991) has not always been useful in detecting sediment toxicity, generally demonstrating a lower discriminatory capability than the intermediate ratios (1:20 and 1:50) and, sometimes, than the 1:200 ratio. A particularly interesting result is that the two possible reference sites, CE(a) and CE(b), which present low

Conclusions

A preliminary understanding of the discriminatory capabilities of the four different elutriation ratios chosen for this study (1:4, 1:20, 1:50, and 1:200) has been reached. It has been highlighted that there is no best sediment:water proportion, but rather that the different ratios can contribute in specific manners to the sediment quality assessment procedure. In general, the samples generated from the widely used 1:4 ratio have shown to be less toxic than those from intermediate ratios, 1:20

Acknowledgments

The authors are very grateful to Michele Cornello and Giuseppe Pessa for sampling activities and to Eugenia Delaney for laboratory assistance. This work was partly funded by the Magistrato alle Acque di Venezia through the Consorzio Venezia Nuova within the Project “Orizzonte 2023” and by the Consorzio Ricerche Laguna (Co.Ri.La.) of Venice (Italy). Alison Garside revised the English text.

References (57)

  • G.T. Ankley et al.

    Predicting the toxicity of bulk sediments to aquatic organisms with aqueous test fractions: pore water vs elutriate

    Environ. Toxicol. Chem.

    (1991)
  • A. Arizzi Novelli et al.

    Toxicity of tributyltin and triphenyltin to early life stages of Paracentrotus lividus (Echinodermata: Echinoidea)

    Environ. Toxicol. Chem.

    (2002)
  • A. Arizzi Novelli et al.

    Ammonia as confounding factor in toxicity bioassays with the sea urchin Paracentrotus lividus (Lmk)

    Toxicol. Environ. Chem.

    (2004)
  • ASTM, American Society for Testing and Material, 1990. Standard guide for collection, storage, characterisation and...
  • ASTM, 1991. Standard Guide for Collection, Storage, Characterization, and Manipulation of Sediments for Toxicological...
  • ASTM, 1998a. Standard Guide for Conducting Static Acute Toxicity Tests with Echinoid Embryos...
  • ASTM, 1998b. Standard Guide for Conducting Static Acute Toxicity Tests Starting with Embryos of Four Species of...
  • T.S. Bridges et al.

    Chronic Toxicity of Great Lakes sediments to Daphnia magna: elutriate effects on survival, reproduction and population growth

    Ecotoxicology

    (1996)
  • G.A. Burton

    Sediment Toxicity Assessment

    (1992)
  • G.A. Burton et al.

    Sediment toxicity testing issues and methods

  • G.A. Burton et al.

    A multitrophic level evaluation of sediment toxicity in Waukegan and Indiana Harbors

    Environ. Toxicol. Chem.

    (1989)
  • Interventi per la messa in sicurezza delle barene del Passo Campalto

    In Quaderni Trimestrali Consorzio Venezia Nuova

    (1999)
  • L. Da Ros et al.

    Sedimenti lagunari: prove di tossicità su embrioni di riccio di mare, Paracentrotus lividus

    Biol. Marina Mediterranea

    (1997)
  • S.A. Daniels et al.

    An improved elutriation technique for the bioassessment of sediment contaminants

    Hydrobiologia

    (1989)
  • A. Di Domenico et al.

    Priority microcontaminants in sediment samples from the Venice lagoon: a selection of concentration data and predominant analytical features

    Organohalogen Compounds

    (1998)
  • D.J. Finney

    Probit Analysis

    (1971)
  • Forstner, U., Wittmann, G.T.W., 1983. Metal Pollution in the Aquatic Environment, second ed. Springer, Berlin, pp....
  • M.A. Hamilton et al.

    Trimmed Spearman–Karber method for estimating median lethal concentrations in toxicity bioassays

    Environ Sci. Technol.

    (1978)
  • Cited by (42)

    • Elutriate preparation affects embryo development test with Paracentrotus lividus: An in-depth study on the differences between two protocols and three different sediment/water mixing times

      2021, Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety
      Citation Excerpt :

      However, under the incentive of several research programmes related to dredging activities and management of dredged materials, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) has developed several elutriate preparation protocols using different water/sediment ratios to best simulate the environmental conditions that occur during handling activities such as sediment discharge into confined disposal facilities, offshore spillage, and dredging (Di Giano et al., 1995). To our knowledge, as of today, there is no universally recognised and accepted method in the preparation of elutriates and, in recent years, numerous articles have been produced on this issue (Novelli et al., 2006; Haring et al., 2010, 2012; Vicinie et al., 2011). Similarly, Italian Decree 173/2016 (MD 173/2016), which established the technical criteria for the authorisation and management of dredged material, does not provide any indication about the method of preparation of elutriate but only indicates the 1:4 (w/v) water/sediment ratio.

    • Comparison of in situ sediment remediation amendments: Risk perspectives from species sensitivity distribution

      2021, Environmental Pollution
      Citation Excerpt :

      It is composed of soluble and insoluble matter, which can be naturally transported from land to ocean, due to inland soil and coastal erosion and windblown dust (Brils, 2008). Pollution is the greater ecological issue due to various discharged toxic substances that can be accumulated in sediment acting as a source of contamination (Arizzi Novelli et al., 2006; Lofrano et al., 2016; Pougnet et al., 2014). Contaminated sediment can strongly impact on aquatic ecosystems, especially in presence of harbors and marinas, embayment, and off coastal areas where commercial and industrial port activities, human settlements and tourism are increasingly widespread (Nikolaou et al., 2009; Lofrano et al., 2016).

    View all citing articles on Scopus
    1

    Current address: CNR-Istituto di Scienze Marine, Riva Sette Martiri, 1364/a, I-30122 Venice, Italy.

    View full text