HAZARD RANKING OF CONTAMINATED SEDIMENTS BASED ON CHEMICAL-ANALYSIS, LABORATORY TOXICITY TESTS, AND BENTHIC COMMUNITY COMPOSITION - PRIORITIZING SITES FOR REMEDIAL ACTION
Ml. Wildhaber et Cj. Schmitt, HAZARD RANKING OF CONTAMINATED SEDIMENTS BASED ON CHEMICAL-ANALYSIS, LABORATORY TOXICITY TESTS, AND BENTHIC COMMUNITY COMPOSITION - PRIORITIZING SITES FOR REMEDIAL ACTION, Journal of Great Lakes research, 22(3), 1996, pp. 639-652
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) organized a resear
ch program to assess the extent of and possible methods for managing c
ontaminated sediments. As part of this program, we developed a method
by which multiple forms of information on sediment contamination (i.e.
, chemistry, laboratory toxicity, and benthic community composition) c
ould be combined to rank the relative hazard to aquatic life of a seri
es of sediment samples. The process that was developed incorporates ch
emistry and bioavailability into the ranking as toxic units in pore wa
ter based on U.S. EPA Ambient Water Quality Criteria (AWQC). Laborator
y toxicity is incorporated into the ranking process as mean response r
elative to control response. Benthic community information is incorpor
ated into the ranking process through the use of relative tolerance to
pollution among benthic invertebrate tara, from which the mean tolera
nce to pollution of the benthic community is calculated. The three res
ulting ranks are then averaged to produce a relative ranking of risk t
o aquatic life among sediment samples. Our results demonstrate that, a
s long as a moderate list of laboratory toxicity test results are incl
uded in the ranking process (i.e., tests from a fish, a zooplankter, a
benthic invertebrate, a phytoplankter, and a microbe), the resultant
rankings among samples does not significantly change with inclusion of
more laboratory toxicity test results. Without any benthic community
structure information, with only laboratory toxicity test results from
Microfox,(R) and with only a short list of chemicals, relative rankin
g among sites changes drastically. Our results demonstrate the general
utility of the ranking process as one way of assessing the relative h
azard among many sites when resource limitations necessitate prioritiz
ation of sites for remediation.