Review of Approaches for Deriving Sediment Quality Guidelines
Received date: 2005-03-07
Revised date: 2005-08-02
Online published: 2006-01-15
A variety of approaches have been devised to formulate national and regional sediment quality guidelines (SQGs) by various national and provincial agencies during the past 20 years. Most of these approaches are developed in North America, based directly or indirectly on the biological effects of sediment-associated contaminants, and focus on the protection of benthic organisms. These approaches can be categorized as the theoretically based approaches that attempt to account for the dynamic equilibrium of the contaminant exiting between sediment solids and interstitial water through equilibrium partitioning (EqP), and approaches based on sediment toxicity test, in situ biological effects survey and biological effect frequency. Each approach has certain advantages and limitations. The major problems with current approaches are the difficulties to establish causal relation and identify the factors and their ability mediating the bioavailability of sediment-associated contaminants. This review indicates that no single approach is likely to support deriving sediment quality guidelines (SQGs) under all circumstances. Standard chemical and biological testing methods should be established to improve the reliability of relevant data, and the integration of different approaches is also important in deriving sediment quality guidelines (SQGs).
Chen Yunzeng,Yang Hao,Zhang Zhenke,Qin Mingzhou . Review of Approaches for Deriving Sediment Quality Guidelines[J]. Advances in Earth Science, 2006 , 21(1) : 53 -61 . DOI: 10.11867/j.issn.1001-8166.2006.01.0053
[1] Li Renwei. Contamination of sediments and environmental sedimentology [J]. Advances in Earth Science, 1998, 13(4): 388-402.[李任伟.沉积物污染和环境沉积学[J].地球科学进展,1998, 13(4): 388-402.]
[2] US EPA (United States Environmental Protection Agency). The Incidence and Severity of Sediment Contamination in Surface Waters of the United States: National Sediment Quality Survey[R].Washington DC: EPA-823-R-04-007, 2004.
[3] Chapman P M. Current approaches to developing sediment quality criteria[J]. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 1989, 8: 589-599.
[4] Burton G A Jr. Sediment quality criteria in use around the world [J]. The Japanese Society of Limnology, 2002, 3: 65-75.
[5] Chen Jingsheng, Wang Lixin, Hong Song, et al. The difference and cause analyses of the aquatic sediment quality guidelines for heavy metals [J]. Environmental Chemistry, 2001, 20(5): 417-424. [陈静生,王立新,洪松,等.各国水体沉积物重金属质量基准的差异及原因分析[J].环境化学, 2001, 20(5): 417-424.]
[6] MacDonald D D. Approach to the Assessment of Sediment Quality in Florida Coastal Waters: An Evaluation of Existing Approaches to Developing Numerical Sediment Quality Guidelines[R]. V0R 2E0, British Columbia, 1994.15-62.
[7] Liu Wenxin, Luan Zhaokun, Tang Hongxiao. Sediment quality criteria for heavy metal pollution in the lean riverⅡ. Equilibrium partitioning approach [J]. Acta Scientiae Cientiae Circumstantiae, 1999, 19(3): 230-235. [刘文新,栾兆坤,汤鸿霄.河流沉积物重金属污染质量控制基准的研究[J].环境科学学报, 1999, 19(3): 230-235.]
[8] Zhang Shuguang, Qi Shilian, Zhao Yuxian, et al. Criteria for assessing water quality of Yellow river [J]. The Yellow River, 1996,(7): 29-33.[张曙光,祁世莲, 赵玉仙,等.多泥沙河流水质评价标准研究[J].人民黄河, 1996,(7):29-33.]
[9] Smith S L, MacDonald D D, Keenleyside K A, et al. A preliminary evaluation of sediment quality assessment values for freshwater ecosystems [J]. Journal Great Lakes Research, 1996, 22: 624-638.
[10] Long E R. Ranges in chemical concentrations in sediments associated with adverse biological effects [J]. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 1992, 24: 38-45.
[11] Di Toro D M, Zarba C S, Hansen D J, et al. Technical basis for establishing sediment quality criteria for non-ionic organic chemicals using equilibrium partitioning [J]. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry,1991,10:1 541-1 583.
[12] US EPA. Evaluation of the Equilibrium Partitioning (EqP) Approach for Assessing Sediment Quality. Report of the Sediment Criteria Subcommittee of the Ecological Processes and Effects Committee [R].Washington DC:EPA-SAB-EPEC-990-006, 1990:4-24.
[13] US EPA. Briefing Report to the EPA Science Advisory Board on the Equilibrium Partitioning Approach to Generating Sediment Quality Criteria [R]. Washington DC:EPA-440-5-89-002,1989.
[14] NOAA. The Utility of AVS/EqP in Hazardous Waste Site Evaluations [R]. Washington:NOS ORCA 87, Seattle, 1995:11-40.
[15] US EPA. Office of Water of Science and Technology.Draft Implementation Framework for the Use of Equilibrium Partitioning Sediment Quality Guideline[R]. Washington DC, 2000:4-17.
[16] Wang F Y, Chen J, Forsling W. Modeling sorption of trace metals on natural sediments by surface complexation model [J]. Environmental Science and Technology, 1997, 31: 448-453.
[17] Huo Wenyi, Chen Jingsheng. Water-particulate distribution coefficient of heavy metal and application in sediment quality criteria in China river[J]. Environmental Science, 1997, 18 (4) :10-14. [霍文毅, 陈静生. 我国部分河流重金属水—固分配系数及在河流质量基准研究中的应用[J].环境科学,1997, 18 (4) :10-14.]
[18] Tessier A, Campbell P G, Auclair J C, et al. Relationships between the partitioning of trace metals in sediments and their accumulation in the tissues of the freshwater in a mining area [J]. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Science, 1984,41:1 463-1 472.
[19] Brannon J. Koc and Kdoc in Sediment Pore Water[R]. Seattle, Washington:NOAA Technical Memorandum NOS ORCA 87, 1995:32-36.
[20] Ankley G T, Call D J, Cox J S, et al. Organic carbon partitioning as a basis for predicting the toxicity of chlorpyrifos in sediments [J]. Environmental Toxicity and Chemistry, 1994, 13: 621-626.
[21] Burton G A Jr. Sediment Sampling and Analysis Plan-West Branch Grand Calumet River: 1993 Sediment Toxicity Test Data Summaries [R]. US EPA, 1993.
[22] Chapman P M, Wang F, Adams W J, et al. Appropriate applications of sediment quality values for metals and metalloids [J]. Environmental Science and Technology, 1999, 33(22): 3 937-3 941.
[23] Di Toro D M, Mahony J D, Hansen D J. Toxicity of cadmium in sediments: The role of acid volatile sulfide[J]. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 1990,9:1 487-1 502.
[24] Di Toro D M, Mahony D J, Hansen K J, et al. Acid volatile sulfide predicts the acute toxicity of cadmium and nickel in sediments[J]. Environmental Science and Technology, 1991, 26: 96-101.
[25] Carlson A R. The role of acid-volatile sulfide in determining cadmium bioavailability and toxicity in freshwater sediments[J]. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry,1991, 10: 1 309-1 316.
[26] Hansen D J, Berry W J, Mahony J D, et al. Predicting the toxicity of metal-contaminated field sediments using interstitial concentrations of metals and acid-volatile sulfide normalizations [J]. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 1996, 15: 2 080-2 094.
[27] Annkley G T. Evaluation of metal/acid volatile sulfide relationships in the predication of metal bioaccumulation by benthic macro invertebrates [J]. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 1996, 15: 2 138-2 146.
[28] Allen H E. Analysis of acid-volatile sulfide (AVS) and simultaneously extracted metals (SEM) for the estimation of potential toxicity in aquatic sediments [J]. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 1993,12:1 441-1 448.
[29] Hare L, Carignan R, Huerta-Diaz M A. A field study of metal toxicity and accumulation by benthic invertebrates: Implication for the acid-volatile sulfide (AVS) model [J]. Limnology and Oceanography, 1994,39:1 653-1 668.
[30] Long E R, MacDonald D D, Cubbage J C, et al. Predicting the toxicity of sediment-associated trace metals with simultaneously extracted trace metal: Acid volatile sulfide concentrations and dry weight-normalized concentrations: A critical comparison [J]. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 1998,17:972-974.
[31] Long E R, Morgan L G. The Potential for Biological Effects of Sediment-Sorbed Contaminants Tested in the National Status and Trends Program[M]. Seattle, Washington: NOAA Technical Memowandam, NOS OMA 52,1990.
[32] Long E R, MacDonald D D. National status and trends program approach[A]. In: Baker B, Kravitz M, eds. Sediment Classification Methods Compendium. Sediment Oversight Technical Committee[C]. Washington DC:US EPA, 1993.
[33] MacDonald D D, Charlish B L, Haines M L, et al. Development and Evaluation of an Approach to the Assessment of Sediment Quality in Florida Coastal Waters: Biological Effects Database for Sediments [R]. Tallahassee: FDEP (Florida Department of Environmental Protection), 1994:1-275.
[34] NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration).Sampling and Analytical Method of the National Status Trends Program [R].Maryland:Silver Spring,1993:2-59.
[35] CCME (Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment). Protocol for the Derivation of Canadian Sediment Quality Guidelines for the Protection of Aquatic Life[R]. Ottawa:CCME, EPC-98E,1995:17-24.
[36] Long E R, Chapman P M. A sediment quality triad: Measurements of sediment contamination, toxicity, and in faunal community composition in Puget Sound [J]. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 1985, 16: 405-415.
[37] Chapman P M. Sediment criteria from the sediment quality triad: An example [J]. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry,1986, 5: 957-964.
[38] Chapman P M, Paine M D, Arthur A D, et al. A triad study of sediment quality associated with a major, relatively untreated marine sewage discharge [J]. Marine Pollution Bulletin,1996, 32: 47-64.
[39] Hyland J L, Balthis W L, Hackney C T, et al. Sediment quality in North Carolina estuaries: An integrative assessment of sediment contamination, toxicity, and condition of benthic infauna [J]. Journal of Aquatic Ecosystem Stress & Recovery, 2000, 8: 107-124.
[40] Canfield T J, Dwyer F J, Fairchild J F, et al. Assessing contamination in Great Lakes sediments using benthic invertebrate communities and the sediment quality triad approach [J]. Journal Great Lakes Research,1996, 22: 565-583.
[41] Carr R S, Chapman D C, Howard C L, et al. Sediment quality triad assessment survey of the Galveston bay [J]. Ecotoxicology, 1996, 5: 341-364.
[42] Loring D H. Normalization of heavy-metal data from estuarine and coastal sediments [J]. Marine Science,1991, 48: 101-115.
[43] Chapman P M, Anderson B, Carr S, et al. General guidelines for using the sediment quality triad [J]. Marine Pollution Bulletin,1997, 34: 368-372.
[44] Barrick R C, Beller H R, Becker D S, et al. Use of the Apparent Effects Threshold(AET) Approach in Classifying Contaminated Sediments[A]. In: Contaminated Marine Sediments-Assessment and Remediation[C]. National Academy Press, Washington DC, 1989:421-437.
[45] Tetra Tech Inc. Development of sediment quality values for Puget Sound: Puget Sound Dredged Disposal Analysis Report [R]. 1986:43-75.
[46] US EPA. Evaluation of the Apparent Effects Threshold (AET) Approach for Assessing Sediment Quality: Report of the Sediment Criteria Subcommittee [R]. Washington DC:USEPA, SABEETFC- 89-027,1989:11-26.
[47] Malek J. Apparent Effects Threshold Approach. In: Sediment Classification Methods Compendium [R]. Washington DC: US EPA, 1992.
[48] Cubbage J, Batts D. Evaluation of Freshwater Sediment quality values including Apparent Effects Thresholds of Hyalella azteca and Microtox [C].Second SETAC World Congress (16th Annual Meeting). Pensacola Florida, SETAC Press, 1995.
[49] Becker D S, Barrick R C, Read L B. Evaluation of the AET Approach for Assessing Contamination of Marine Sediments in California[R]. State Water Resources Control Board Report, 90-3SWQ, Sacramento CA, 1990.
[50] Alden R W III, Rule J H. Uncertainty and sediment quality assessments; II. Effects of correlations between contaminants on the interpretation of apparent effects threshold data [J]. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 1992, 11: 654-661.
[51] Neff J M, Bean D J, Cornaby B W, et al. Sediment Quality Criteria Methodology Validation: Calculation of Screening Level Concentration from Field Data [R]. Battelle Washington Environmental Program Office for US EPA, 1986.
[52] Persaud D, Jaagumagi R, Hayton A. Provincial Sediment Quality guidelines[R]. Water Resources Branch. Ontario Ministry of the Environment, Toronto, Ontario, 1990.7-21.
[53] Jaagumagi R. Development of the Ontario Provincial Sediment Quality Guidelines for Arsenic, Cadmium, Chromium, Copper, Iron, Lead, Manganese, Mercury, Nickel, and Zinc[R]. Toronto, Ontario, 1990:3-7.
[54] Landrum P F. How should numerical sediment quality criteria be used?[J]. Human and Ecological Risk Assessment, 1995, 1: 13-17.
[55] Gaudet C L, Keenleyside K A, Kent R A, et al. How should numerical criteria be used? The Canadian approach [J]. Human and Ecological Risk Assessment, 1995,1(1): 19-28.
[56] Van Der Kooij L A, Van De Meent D, Van Leeuwen C J, et al. Deriving quality criteria for water and sediment from the results of aquatic toxicity tests and product standards: application of the equilibrium partitioning method [J]. Water Research, 1991, 25: 697-705.
[57] US EPA. Methods for Collection, Storage and Manipulation of Sediments for Chemical and Toxicological Analyses[R]. Washington DC: EPA-823-B-01-002, 2001.
[58] Ingersoll C G, Haverland P S, Brunson E L, et al. Calculation and evaluation of sediment effect concentrations for the amphipod Hyalella azteca and the midge Chironomus riparius[J]. Journal Great Lakes Research,1996, 22: 602-623.
[59] Swartz R C. Consensus sediment quality guidelines for PAH mixtures [J]. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 1999, 18: 780-787.
[60] MacDonald D D, Ingersoll C G, Berger T A. Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems[J]. Archives of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology, 2000, 39: 20-31.
[61] US EPA. Review of the Agency's Approach for Developing Sediment Criteria for Five Metals[R]. Washington DC: EPA-SAB-EPEC-90-020, 1995.
/
| 〈 |
|
〉 |
甘公网安备62010202000687
