Pore water testing and analysis: the good,the bad,and the ugly

The increasingly common practice of collecting and assessing sediment pore water as a primary measure of sediment quality is reviewed. Good features of this practice include: pore water is a key exposure route for some organisms associated with sediments; pore water testing eliminates particle size effects; pore water analyses and tests can provide useful information regarding contamination and pollution. Bad features include: pore water is not the only exposure route; pore water tests lack chemical or biological realism: their "sensitivity" relative to other tests may be meaningless due to manipulation and laboratory artifacts; many sediment and surface dwelling organisms are not directly influenced by pore water. Bad features can become ugly if: other exposure pathways are not considered (for toxicity or bioaccumulation); manipulation techniques are not appropriate; pore water tests are inappropriately linked to population-level effects. Pore water testing and analyses can be effective tools provided their limitations are well understood by researchers and managers.     

Issues in sediment toxicity and ecological risk assessment

This paper is based on a facilitated Workshop and Roundtable Discussion of key issues in sediment toxicology and ecological risk assessment (ERA) as applied to sediments that was held at the Conference on Dredged Material Management: Options and Environmental Considerations. The issues addressed included how toxicity is defined and perceived, how it is measured, and how it should be used within the context of ERA to support management decisions. The following conclusions were reached regarding scientific considerations of these issues. Toxicity is a measure of hazard and not a risk per se. Thus, toxicity testing is a means but not the end to understand risks of sediments. Toxicity testing cannot presently be replaced by chemical analyses to define hazard. Toxicity test organisms need to be appropriate to the problem being addressed, and the results put into context relative to both reference and baseline comparisons to understand hazard. Use of toxicity tests in sediment ERAs requires appropriate endpoints and risk hypotheses, considering ecological not just statistical significance, and recognizing that hazard does not equate to risk. Toxicity should be linked to population and community response to support decision-making, assessing possible genotypic adaptations that can influence risk estimates, and addressing uncertainty. Additionally, several key scientific issues were identified to improve future sediment ERAs, including the need to improve basic understanding of ecological mechanisms and processes, recognition of variability in the assessment process, and an improved focus and ability to assess risks to populations and communities.     

Relative risk assessment of cruise ships biosolids disposal alternatives

A relative risk assessment of biosolids disposal alternatives for cruise ships is presented in this paper. The area of study encompasses islands and marine waters of the Caribbean Sea. The objective was to evaluate relative human health and ecological risks of (a) dewatering/incineration, (b) landing the solids for disposal, considering that in some countries land-disposed solids might be discharged in the near-shore environment untreated, and (c) deep ocean disposal. Input to the Bayesian assessment consisted of professional judgment based on available literature and modeling information, data on constituent concentrations in cruise ship biosolids, and simulations of constituent concentrations in Caribbean waters assuming ocean disposal. Results indicate that human health and ecological risks associated with land disposal and shallow ocean disposal are higher than those of the deep ocean disposal and incineration. For incineration, predicted ecological impacts were lower relative to deep ocean disposal before considering potential impacts of carbon emissions.     

Ecological evaluation of an experimental beneficial use scheme for dredged sediment disposal in shallow tidal waters

An experiment was performed to test an alternative dredging strategy for the Westerschelde estuary. Clean sand dredged from the navigation channel was disposed seawards of an eroding intertidal flat in order to modify morphology and hydrodynamics, improving the multi-channel system with ecologically productive shallow water habitat. Five years of intensive monitoring revealed that part of the disposed sediment moved slowly towards the flat, increasing the very shallow subtidal and intertidal area, as planned. The sand in the impact zone became gradually finer after disposal, possibly due to reduced current velocities. Nevertheless, no changes in macrobenthic biomass, density, species richness and composition were detected in the subtidal zone, also demonstrating rapid macrobenthic recovery. In the intertidal zone, no ecological effects could be revealed superimposed on trends associated with long-term sediment fining. Thus, despite morphological success and absence of detected negative ecological impacts of the experiment, new beneficial habitat was not created.     

Plume and lithologic profiling with surface resistivity and seismic tomography

Improved surface-based geophysical technologies that are commercially available provide a new level of detail that can be used to guide ground water remediation. Surface-based multielectrode resistivity methods and tomographic seismic refraction techniques were used to image to a depth of approximately 30 m below the surface at the Natural and Accelerated Bioremediation Research Field Research Center. The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) established the research center on the DOE Oak Ridge Reservation in Oak Ridge, Tennessee, to conduct in situ field-scale studies on bioremediation of metals and radionuclides. Bioremediation studies are being conducted on the saprolite, shale bedrock, and ground water at the site that have been contaminated with nitrate, uranium, technetium, tetrachloroethylene, and other contaminants (U.S. DOE 1997). Geophysical methods were effective in imaging the high-ionic strength plume and in defining the transition zone between saprolite and bedrock zones that appears to have a significant influence on contaminant transport. The geophysical data were used to help select the location and depth of investigation for field research plots. Drilling, borehole geophysics, and ground water sampling were used to verify the surface geophysical studies.