ENVIRONMENTAL COMPANY OF SAO PAULO STATE – CETESB

REGIONAL CENTRE OF STOCKHOLM CONVENTION ON POPs FORLATIN AMERICA AND THE CARIBBEAN REGION

V INTERNATIONAL TRAINING PROGRAM ON ENVIRONMENTAL SOUND MANAGEMENT ON CHEMICALS AND WASTES, ESPECIALLY ON PERSISTENT

ORGANIC POLLUTANTS (POPs) AND MERCURY (Hg)

Biological Monitoring of SedimentsEcotoxicological Tests and Aquatic CommunityMarta Condé Lamparelli

2016

Sao Paulo – SP – Brazil

Biological Monitoring of SedimentsEcotoxicological Tests and Aquatic Community

Marta Condé Lamparellimlamparelli@sp.gov.br

Sao Paulo – SP – Brazil

Why is the monitoring of the aquatic ecosystems important?

- Evaluate the tendency of the quality of the water;- Recognize critical places (Hot Spots);- Determine the causes/sources;- Establish priorities of control action or recovery;- Obtain information to subsidize environmental planning

and to accompany impact of human activities (e.g.: licensing/permits);

- To inform the population.

How to Monitor Water Quality for Aquatic Communities?

Indirectly:- Through parameters reflecting water and sediment quality and that are directly linked to protection of the aquatic communities;

Directly:- Through the communities, assessing their degree of preservation, diversity and operation.

AQUATIC ECOSYSTEMS

Sediment Quality

- Higher concentrations of pollutants;- Presence of diversified community = benthic communities;- Presence of persistent pollutants (PCBs, Organochlorine

Pesticides, Hg)

Evaluation of Sediment Quality

Sediments, mainly in urban/industrial areas and harbor areas arecontaminated. But not all the contaminated sediment is harmful tohuman health or to the biota.

The question is to determine the degree of sediment contamination.

Criteria and standards help to define the risks, to identify options and priorities for management.

To assess risks is necessary to check the availability of pollutants in the environment and whether the concentrations found in sediments are sufficient for effect

These are complex physical, chemical and biological questions.

CHEMICAL IMPACTS

Environmental evaluation regarding contaminants

Integrated evaluation of results

Communities Toxicity test

Chemical Analysis

Sediment is considered the most important compartment to the study of the impact of POPs on aquatic environment, since it is where the POPs present longer residence times. Compounds found with higher frequency on the accessed literature were DDT, HCH, PCB and heptachlor. The POPs scenario in the sediments in Brazil is illustrated on Figure 4

EXPOSURE TO POLLUTANTS

• Pollutants – natural or xenobiotic

• Different standards of buildup of xenobiotics:• The balance between the rate of assimilation and the metabolization rate and the elimination of chemic compounds

• E.g.: PAHs - accumulate on invertebrates- are metabolized on vertebrates

• other pollutants, such as DDT, are not metabolized or eliminated – thereforethey accumulate in the food chain - biomagnification

A. Contaminated Sediment and Aquatic Organisms 1. Benthic Community2. Bioaccumulation:

- Ictiofauna- Crustaceans- Other aquatic organisms.

3. Toxicity – Ecotoxicity Tests4. Sediment Quality – Case Study (Rio Grande)

B. Dredged Material - Classification - Disposal

- Case Study (Santos Harbour)

A.1. Benthic Community (= Benthos)

DEFINITION:• biota inhabiting the substrate found in aquatic environments

APPLICATION:

• evaluation of the ecological quality of aquatic environments;complying with the legal use of these environments in preservingaquatic life and adapting to the goals of conservation managementand sustainable development.

Mollusca

Gastropoda Bivalvia

Oligochaeta

Annelida

Hirudinea

Insecta - Diptera

Benthic Community

POLLUTANTS: ROUTES OF EXPOSURE

Pollutants:

- in the bottom water (interface)

- in the interstitial water

Exposure surface gills and body

- adsorbed in the sediment

Exposure by sediment ingestion

Bioaccumulation/Metabolization

Biological effect

BENTHOS AS A BIOLOGICAL INDICATOR

• Integrates effects of different pollutants;

• Reflects the environmental conditions over a period of time;

• Wide range of tolerances to varying degrees and types of pollution;

• Abundant in all kinds of aquatic environment;

• Low motility = best represents local conditions;

• Intimate relationship with substrate, reflecting the quality of this compartment;

• Easily collected, with relatively inexpensive material;

• Quick identification.

DISADVANTAGES

• Few regional identification keys

• Quantitative analysis with large number of replicas

• Nonspecific answers

VARIATION FACTORS

• Geographical distribution• Interactions (predation, competition)• Aquatic vegetation (refuge, habitat, food)• Riparian forest

• Dissolved Oxygen• Organic Material• Grain-size • Humidity (Compactness)• Temperature • Luminosity• Flow rate• Level fluctuations• Habitat degradation • Pollutants

BIOTIC

ABIOTIC

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

rio T

ietê

,B

iritib

a M

irim

rio A

tibai

nha,

a ju

sant

e do

trutá

rio

rib. C

rista

is,

ETA

Caj

amar

rioC

orum

bata

í

rio S

oroc

aba,

Pin

ga-p

inga

rio S

oroc

aba,

Vitó

ria R

égia

Good Regular Bad Bad Bad BadEcological Classification

Species/Groups Distribution

Different Locations

NORMAL

DEFORMITIES ON MENTUM OF CHIRONOMID LARVAE

ABORMAL (INCIDENCE OVER 3%)

More

gap

PROTOCOLO PARA O BIOMONITORAMENTO COM AS COMUNIDADES BENTÔNICAS DE RIOS E

RESERVATÓRIOS DO ESTADO DE SÃO PAULO

PROTOCOLO PARA O BIOMONITORAMENTO COM AS COMUNIDADES BENTÔNICAS DE RIOS E

RESERVATÓRIOS DO ESTADO DE SÃO PAULO

CETESB – Companhia Ambiental do Estado de São Paulo

Governo do Estado de São Paulo Secretaria do Meio AmbienteGoverno do Estado de São Paulo Secretaria do Meio Ambiente

2012

C418p CETESB (São Paulo)Protocolo para o biomonitoramento com as comunidades bentônicas de rios e reservatórios do estado de

São Paulo [recurso eletrônico] / CETESB ; Mônica Luisa Kuhlmann ... [et al.]. – – São Paulo : CETESB, 2012.1 CD (113 p.) : il. color.

Disponível também em: ISBN 978-85-61405-36-6

1.Bentos 2. Comunidade bentônica – análise 3. Indicadores biológicos– métodos 4. Integridade ecológica 5. Macroinvertebrados aquáticos 6. Qualidade ambiental –

biomonitoramento 7. Reservatórios - São Paulo (Est.) 8. Rios - São Paulo (Est.) I. Kuhlmann, Mônica Luisa II. Johnscher-Fornasaro, Guiomar III. Ogura, Lucy Lina IV. Imbimbo, Hélio Rubens Victorino V. Título.

CDD (21. ed. Esp.) 363.739 463 169308161591.764 0286 8161

CDU (2. ed. Port.) 592/596:502.175 (282.2:815.6)

Catalogação na fonte: Margot Terada – CRB 8. 4422Avaliable for Download:http://aguasinteriores.cetesb.sp.gov.br/wp-content/uploads/sites/32/2013/11/protocolo-biomonitoramento-2012.pdf

PROTOCOL FOR BIOMONITORING OF SÃO PAULO STATE RIVERS AND RESERVOIRS WITH BENTHIC COMMUNITIES

A.2. BIOACCUMULATIONICTIOFAUNA / AQUATIC ORGANISMS

• POPs:– Aldrin and Dieldrin - Hexachlorobenzene– Endrin - Mirex– Hexachlorobenzene - Dioxins and Furans– Chlordane - Toxaphene– DDT - PCBs– Heptachlor

How POPs enter and accumulate in fish and other aquatic organisms?• Rarely found in water: association with lipids and suspended particulates.• Lipids - air-water interface (plankton) - Lipid Control• Particles - Sediment depositionand cycling of POPs• Interactions in the Food Chain - Biomagnification

BIOACCUMULATION

http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/soe/archive/reports/et07/chapters/ET2007_Contaminants_Chapter.pdf

http://www.who.int/ipcs/publications/en/ch_3a.pdf

Food chain in Reservoirsin S.Paulo State

A.3. ECOTOXICITY TESTSMethods used to assess adverse effects of chemicals on living organisms under standardized conditions and reproducible, allowing comparison between distinct organisms, substances and laboratories.

BIOLOGICAL TESTS: procedure in which the answers of aquatic organisms are used to evaluate the presence of one or more toxic substances.Different endpoints can be measured such as: mortality, reproduction, motility, weight.

Laboratory tests under controlled conditions:

- tº, pH, medium, duration, concentration. - homogeneous population of test organisms with defined sensitivity.

* water or sediment sample/ acute or chronic tests

Acute Effect

Mortality ?

SEDIMENT SAMPLE CLEAN SEDIMENT (control)

ECOTOXICOLOGICAL ASSAYSSIMPLIFYIED

GOAL: EVALUATE BIOAVAILABILITY ANDINTERACTION OF CONTAMINANTS

SEDIMENT SAMPLE CLEAN SEDIMENT (control)

Results: significance of

measured Toxic Effect

(mortality) in relation to control

Sublethal Effect−Different availability of contaminants.

−Different compartments - water, sediment or food.

The concentration present in the environment and inanimals alone does not mean effects on organisms andcommunities at risk.

Biomarkers: alterations resulting form xenobiotics exposure in cellular level ofbiochemical components, process, structures or functions, measurable in a biological system or sample.

“Evaluation of sublethal effects of chemical contaminants in aquatic

organisms.”

Lytechinus variegatus – (sea-urchin) Stages of embryo-larval development

Ecotoxicological tests Evaluation of sediments by CETESB

Criteria for the diagnosis of sediment quality, based on the results of the ecotoxicological tests with Lytechinus variegatus and Leptocheirus

plumulosusDiagnostic Leptocheirus plumulosus Lytechinus variegatus

Excellent Non toxic (a) Non toxic (a)

Good - 71 a 80% of normal larvae

Regular - 51 a 70% of normal larvae

Bad Mortality

• Microtox – Interstitial water Test with bioluminescent bacteria: inhibition light It is used as a chemical "screening".

•Ames

Genotoxicity Assay

Other toxicological tests

A.4. Evaluation of the Sediment Quality

o Chemical Analysis

o Quality criteria based on effects:– Toxicity– Bioaccumulation

Chemical Qualityo Effect criteria on aquatic biota – based on ecotoxicological tests and chemical analysis combined.

o Canada• TEL (Threshold Effect Level) – inferior level

•

• PEL (Probable Effect Level) – superior level•

• FEL (Frequent Effect Level) – maximum level

o USA• ERL (Effects Range Low) - corresponds roughly to a 10% likelihood of toxicity• ERM (Effects Range Median) - possible-effects range.

CANADA: Distribution of Toxic Effects of a contaminant for different Aquatic Organisms

Con

cen

trat

ion

of

con

tam

inan

t

95º percentile

TEL (rare toxic effects)Level 1

Level 2

x y g a h k s w b e t j n p z c l r q f0

500100015002000250030003500

Aquatic Organisms

5º percentile

PEL (probable toxic effect)

NOAA = National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association (USA)

Proposal of 5 (five) criteria to disposal decision arrangement:

REL – PreventionOEL – Need of ecotoxicological assayFEL – Remediation &

“no open water disposal”

CANADA

INTEGRATION OF RESULTS

SEDIMENT QUALITY

Chemical Analysis

Toxicity

Benthic Community

Criteria of Sediment QualityContemplates the classification for different lines of evidence, in each sampling site:

SED

IMEN

T M

ON

ITO

RIN

G

12

3

4

76

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

1920

2122

CLASSIFICAÇÃODAS UGRHIS

Agropecuária

Conservação

Em industrialização

IndustrialAldrin DDT DDE DDD Heptacloro HCB Lindano

1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 02 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 12,53 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 04 1 0 0 100 0 0 0 05 36 0 5,6 33,3 2,8 2,8 2,8 06 73 1,4 2,7 43,8 24,7 0 17,8 8,27 12 0 0 16,7 8,3 0 83,3 08 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 09 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 010 14 0 0 50 0 0 0 14,311 16 0 0 6,3 0 0 0 012 3 0 0 33,3 0 0 0 013 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 014 3 0 0 33,3 0 0 0 015 5 0 0 40 40 0 0 016 3 0 0 66,7 0 0 0 017 5 0 0 20 0 0 0 018 4 0 0 75 0 0 0 019 8 0 0 87,5 12,5 0 0 12,520 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 021 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 022 5 0 20 60 40 0 0 0

Total 217 0,5 2,3 34,6 11,5 0,5 11,1 4,6

conc máxima (µg/kg) 4,2 10,2 56,0 12,4 85,6 37,2 10,9

Frequencia de amostras com detecção de pesticidas (2003 a 2013)n amostrasUGRHI

CETESB’s Monitoring ofSão Paulo State 2003 to 2013

Frequency (%) of detection of pesticides in

different regions.

River Sampling stations:Points 1 and 2 – Near of two cities and potential source of Hg.

Reservoir Sampling stations:Point 3 – middle of reservoir.Point 4 – In front of catchment of water supply.

A.5 Case Study: Rio Grande ReservoirHigh concentration of Hg in sediment – Industrial Source.

Mercury Analysis in the Water Quality Monitoring Network - CETESB

•Hg water standard = 0,002 mg/L

Mercury Analysis in the SedimentMonitoring Network - CETESB

PEL = 0.486 mg/kg

Rio Grande Reservoir

Industry

Organic Hg includes all organomercury compounds present in the sample, including methylmercury

Total and Organic Hg in sediment samples of Rio Grande Reservoir

PointsParameter

(concentration units)Campaigns

Feb. 2009 July. 2009 Jan. 2010

River 1Total Hg (mg kg-1) 68.3 ± 0.9 25.9 ± 1.0 43.4 ± 1.5

Organic Hg (µg kg-1) 39.3 ± 3.8 35.2 ± 2.9 40.1 ± 3.5Organic Hg percent 0.058 0.14 0.092

River 2Total Hg (mg kg-1) 61.5 ± 0.9 68.1 ± 0.9 57.6 ± 0.8

Organic Hg (µg kg-1) 46.3 ± 3.2 38.0 ± 3.9 47.2 ± 3.9Organic Hg percent 0.075 0.056 0.082

Reservoir 1Total Hg (mg kg-1) 4.5 ± 0.2 2.2 ± 0.1 3.7 ± 0.2

Organic Hg (µg kg-1) 16.7 ± 2.0 18.0 ± 2.1 19.4 ± 2.9Organic Hg percent 0.37 0.82 0.52

Reservoir 2Total Hg (mg kg-1) 1.02 ± 0.09 1.8 ± 0.1 1.5 ± 0.1

Organic Hg (µg kg-1) 14.2 ± 2.1 < 10.0 13.8 ± 2.3Organic Hg percent 1.39 0.92

RISK ASSESSMENTRisk assessment of fish consumption

Fish species

Rhamdia quelen

Hoplias malabaricus

Hg(µg/kg)

1820

930

General(70 kg)

2.4

4.7

1 – 4 yrs(14,4 kg)

0.3

0.5

5 – 11 yrs(26,4 kg)

0.4

0.9

Sensitive(70kg)

1.2

2.3

Adult population Children

Number of fish meals (meal/month)

Fish species

Rhamdia quelen

Hoplias malabaricus

Hg(µg/kg)

1820

930

General(70 kg)

3.41

1.75

1 – 4 yrs(14,4 kg)

5.51

2.84

5 – 11 yrs(26,4 kg)

4.20

2.14

Sensitive(70kg)

6.82

3.50

Adult population Children

Hazard Quotient

Note: PTWI = 3.2 µg/kg bw/week (general population) PTWI = 1.6 µg/kg bw/week (sensitive population and children)

• Tiger Fish or Trahira

• South American Catfish

Hg Contamination: Corrective Measures

• Change in Industrial System.

• Effluent sent to a treatment plant.

• Dredging of sediment hotspots.

• Fish advisory leaflet :

“Do not consume fish from Rio Grande/SP”

A. Contaminated Sediment and Aquatic Organisms 1. Benthic Community2. Bioaccumulation:

- Ictiofauna- Crustaceans- Other aquatic organisms.

3. Toxicity – Ecotoxicity Tests4. Sediment Quality – Case Study (Rio Grande)

B. Dredged Material - Classification - Disposal

- Case Study (Santos Harbour)

Freshwater and Marine Sediment DredgingTOPICS:• present the sediment quality criteria and its application

on management of dredged material;• present alternative dredged material disposal areas;• discuss sediment quality in contaminated areas;• discuss the viability of the application of

remediation/recovery techniques;• to present international and national experience in port

areas.

To determine appropriate guidelines, it must be identified clearly:

• What/who must be protected for these values.• Possible effects,• Possible exposure routes,• Information/data on the particular location should be

collected• Disposal alternatives

Criteria to classify the sediment according to its degree of contamination.

– Physical

– Chemical

– Ecotoxicological

– Biological

• Grain-size• Sedimentation Rate• Circulation

Chemical (contaminants)

• Heavy Metals and Arsenic

• Halogenated solvents• Chlorinated aromatic

hydrocarbons• Organochlorine

pesticides• Polychlorinated

Biphenyls - PCBs• Phenolic compounds

• Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons - PAHs

• Dioxins and furans• Other pollutants

• Toxic effects– acute – chronic

• Bioaccumulation

• Benthic Community

Ecotoxicological/Biological

Sediment/Dredged Material

Bioaccumulation

Toxicity

Food Chain Transfer

Sediment Evaluation

Benthos

Bioaccumulation

Human Activity

Navigation- Capital Dredging: construction of coastal engineering projects, like harbours, marinas and pipelines

- Maintenance Dredging: in order to keep navigation channels clear

Remediation Dredging

DredgingRemoval and disposition of Sediments

Remediation

Progressive evaluation with evaluation of risks and goals, case by case, based on quality and effects’ criteria.

To define the objectives and the Monitoring Program:

• Diagnose the impact on the ecosystem

• Decide to initiate the remediation

• Remediation goals

• Evaluation of the remediation

Dredging for Navigation

- Appropriate Methodology for Dredging- Destination of dredged material, according to its

degree of contamination:– simple ocean disposal – land disposal (landfill)– submerged caves– confined disposal facilities (aquatic – CDF)– beneficial use: sand/building materials - separation

All approaches require monitoring

BRAZILIAN REGULATION

- Dredged material characterization and monitoringof disposal areas

Ministery of the Environment(MMA – Ministério do Meio Ambiente/Brazil):

First regulated by : - RESOLUCÃO CONAMA 344, 25 DE MARÇO DE 2004

Revised in 2012:- RESOLUCÃO CONAMA 454, 01 DE NOVEMBRO DE 2012

Nível I < valoresorientadores

Não é necessárioestudo complementar

Nível II > valoresorientadores

Estudo complementar

Entre Nível I e II Metais exceto Hg,Cd, Pb e PAH´s

Não é necessárioestudo complementar

Entre Nível I e II Hg, Cd, Pb e PAH´s Testes de toxicidadedentre outrosestabelecidos peloorgão ambiental

Valores orientadores baseados nas publicações: Environment Canada, 2002,Florida Department of Environment Protection, 1994, Long & Morgan, 1995

Dredged Material Evaluation in São Paulo State

SEDIMENT SAMPLE

What is the effect on biota of a Complex Mixture?

metalsPAHs arsenic

pesticides

phtalatessilverphenol

toluene

TBT

aluminium

Regulated (Citeria/Guidelines)

Non-Regulated

Dredged Material Evaluation in São Paulo StateÁgua doce Água marinha

Testes de 10 dias com Hyalella azteca Teste crônico de curta duração com Lytechinusvariegatus

Teste de 9 dias com Chironomus xanthus Teste com Leptocheirus plumolosus

Objective – Aquatic Life Protection

Freshwater Marine water

Standardization:Associação Brasileira de Normas Técnicas

Organisms Meio Título ReferênciaPublicação e

Revisão

Sea UrchinLytechinus variegatus e Echinometra lucunter.

AquáticoMarinho

Ecotoxicologia aquática- Toxicidade crônica de curta duração - Método de

ensaio com ouriço-do-mar (Echinodermata: Echinoidea)

ABNT NBR 15350Abril/2006

(1ª R /2011 atualizada

2012)

Sample Preparation Todos Preparo de Amostra para ensaio de ToxicidadeABNT NBR 15469 Março/2007

HyalellaHyalela spp e Hyalella azteca.

SedimentoDulcícola

Ecotoxicologia aquática – Toxicidade em sedimento-Método de ensaio com

ABNT NBR 15470 Março/2007

Amphipods* Sedimento Marinho

Qualidade de água – Determinação da Toxicidade aguda de sedimento marinho

ou estuarino com anfípodosABNT NBR 15638 Dezembro/2008

* Leptocheirus, Tiburonella, Grandidierella

•ABNT/CEE-106 - COMISSÃO DE ESTUDO ESPECIAL DE ANÁLISES ECOTOXICOLÓGICAS

Quality Criteria Adopted:Vary according to the deposition site.

There are alternatives to dispose highly contaminated material.

Alternatives:

CONFINED DISPOSAL FACILITIES

Dutchland

• Dredged Material – once removed must be realocated– If contaminated is considered a residue.

• Ocean Disposal for non contaminated material• Confinement of Sediment • Use of Ecotoxicological criteria • River Rhein - Source Control

Port of Rotterdam

SLUFTER(1987)

Total Capacity 100 million m3

- 2 million m3/year (10%)

20 million m3/year

GermanyFederal guidelines for dredged material on rivers and estuaries/sea

- Standardized values for fine-grain fraction- Criteria for relocation of dredged material on rivers.

- Monitoring of particulate material. Background surveyElba River & Reno River

- Encouragement of reuse of dredged material – beneficial use

- Treatment of contaminated material

Germany – Hamburg HarbourMetha Plant : Treatament of Contaminated Sediments

Capacity for treatment: 1 million m3/year

Method:- separation: fine grain-size (silt & clay)- treatment of effluents- reuse of sand- contaminated material – landfill

Technical Report: "Estuarine System of Santos and São Vicente", August 2001

CETESB project /PROCOP supportPOPs:o The persistent organics pollutants Aldrin, Chlordane, DDT, Dieldrin, Endrin,

Heptachlor, Mirex and Toxaphene were not detected in water, sediment or organisms – DDT was detected in previous studies (70’s and 80’s).

POLYCHLORINATED BIPHENYLS (PCBs) - (Ascarel)o Diffuse contribution - bioaccumulation of PCBs in some organisms collected in

the estuary of Santos, especially oysters, mussels and crabs.

HEXACHLOROBENENEo Reduction of pollution levels in water, sediment and biota, over the last years

in the Cubatão River and Santos Estuary. Organisms of 70% in 1989, to 2,5 on fishes and 6% in crabs, on 1999.

DIOXINS AND FURANSo The Santos estuary presented the highest total toxic equivalent values,

although they are lower than those found in other industrialized regions of the world. Presence of 2,3,7,8 TCDD characterizes the region. Crabs, mussels and oysters indicate the need for a more detailed study.

OTHER POLLUTANTSo Santos Estuary: Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs), (e.g.

benzo(a)pyrene) sediments, and other substances such as heavy metals (cadmium, lead, copper, chromium, mercury, nickel, and zinc) and phenolic compounds in high levels of concentration.

o All Estuarine System: improved on the levels of heavy metals. Organisms do not occur with consumption restriction for Cd, Pb and Hg, however in sediment some are still problematic.

o Contamination by BHC in the Baixada Santista region has shown signs of decrease in recent years, however in the estuary of San Vicente are also found high levels in the sediments.

BAIXADA SANTISTA• Santos Port Dredging

- aprox. 2 million m3/year

• Canal de Piaçaguera/Bacia de Evolução Dredging- dredging suspended from 1996 - 2007- aprox. 5 million m3

Port of Santos

1. Sediments Quality Survey2. Monitoring of the disposal area

– sediment quality– circulation

3. Alternative Disposal of Contaminated Material

Channel Piaçaguera/Evolution Basin

1. Source control2. Sediments Quality Survey3. Alternative Disposal of Contaminated Material

BIOTA

ECOTOXICOLOGICAL

PHYSICAL & CHEMICAL

+

+

FINAL DIAGNOSTIC

Monitoring of Ocean Disposal Area by CODESP

Benthic community data:

Indicators

- Taxa Distribution/ sampling stations

- Number of Crustaceans / area unit / sampling station

CASE STUDY

Dredged Material Disposal Areas

former

altered

Monitoring Stations

in operation

SEDIMENT QUALITY MONITORING SAMPLING STATIONS

SEDIMENT MONITORING STATIONS

+ PLUME OF SEDIMENT

RESULTS OF THE MONITORING PROGRAM IN THE DISPOSAL AREA 2005-2006

Chemical characterization of sediments

- Generally contaminants below Level 1 of CONAMA Resolution 344/04;- Changes in the ratios C/N indicating continental origin.- Area of influence of the material dredged between points 3 and 8.

Mutagenicity-Not detected.

Ecotoxicity - Transient toxic effects associated with the volume of dredged material.- Sediment tests:

Leptocheirus plumulosus and Tiburonella viscana

DISPOSED VOLUMES & TOXICITY

0

50.000

100.000

150.000

200.000

250.000

300.000

350.000

400.000

450.000

mar/05 mai/05 maio/jun-05 jul/05 nov/dez-05 jan/06 fev/06 abr/06

Monitoring Period

Dis

pose

d Vo

lum

e (m

³) 15

day

s

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Aver

age

Mor

talit

y co

nsid

erin

g al

l sam

plin

g st

atio

ns(%

)

Dredged material Toxic effect

•Excluindo os dados de março/05, maio/05, julho/06 e maio/07:

•y = 1E-04x + 12,05 N=22R² = 0,735

• P

MONITORING RESULTS 2005-2007

Bioaccumulation (Fish and shellfish)- Metals do not exhibit higher values for human consumption.- Organic compounds – low concentrations.-No deformities or tumors in organisms.

Benthic Community- Less diversity in the area of influence of the dredged material between points 3 and 8.

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

nemertiniAnelidasipunculanematodabivalvegastropodeenteropneustaofiuroidetanaidaceaostracodadecapodacopepodacumaceaanfípoda

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

nemertiniAnelidasipunculanematodabivalvegastropodeenteropneustaofiuroidetanaidaceaostracodadecapodacopepodacumaceaanfípoda

June/06

October/06

Benthic CommunityMarine disposal area

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

tanaidacea

ostracoda

decapoda

copepoda

cumacea

anfípodaJune/06

October/06

Density of Crustaceans in marine disposal area

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

tanaidacea

ostracoda

decapoda

copepoda

cumacea

anfípoda

Contaminated Dredged Material was confined in a Confined Disposal Facility (CDF) – Dique do Furadinho

Brasil

Confinament in Geotubes• Rio de Janeiro Port (Ilha da Pombeba e canal do Fundão)• Embraport

• Impacts : Effluent production (percolating water) Soil monitoring required

ALVAREZ-GUERRA, M., VIGURI, J.R., CASADO-MARTÍNEZ M.C., DELVALLS T.A Sediment quality assessment and dredged material management in Spain: Part II, analysis of action levels for dredged material management and application to the Bay of Cádiz. Integr. Environ. Assess. Manag. 2007 3(4):539-51.

BERTOLETTI, E. & LAMPARELLI, M.C. Monitoramento das operações de dragagem no porto de Santos. In: Boldrini, E.B.; Soares, C.R.; Paula, E.V. (org.). Dragagens portuárias no Brasil: Licenciamento e monitoramento ambiental. SEMA/PR; ADEMADAN; UNIBEM. p 72-76. 2007.

BRASIL. CONAMA. Resolução nº 454, de 01 de novembro de 2012. Estabelece as diretrizes gerais e os procedimentos referenciais para o gerenciamento do material a ser dragado em águas sob jurisdição nacional.Diário Oficial da União: República Federativa do Brasil, Poder Executivo, Brasília, DF, 08 nov. 2011, No.216. Seção 1, páginas 66 a .68. Disponível em: http://www.in.gov.br/imprensa/visualiza/index.jsp?jornal=1&pagina=66&data=08/11/2012 Acesso em: dez. 2012.

CETESB, Sistema estuarino de Santos e São Vicente. CETESB, São Paulo – Relatório Técnico, 178p. 2001.

CCME (Canadian Council of Ministers of th Environment). Canadian sediment quality guidelines for the protection of aquatic life: Introduction. In: Canadian environmental quality guidelines. CCME. Winnipeg. p. i., 1999.

DEP (1994). Approach to the Assessment of Sediment Quality in Florida Coastal Waters. Vol. I. Development and Evaluation of Sediment Quality Assessment Guidelines. Prepared for Florida Department of Enviromental Protection - FDEP, Office of Water Policy, Tallahasee, FL, by MacDonald Enviromental Sciences Ltd., Ladysmith, British Columbia. 1994.

ENVIRONMENTAL CANADA. Canadian Sediment Quality Guidelines for the Protection of Aquatic Life. - Canadian Environmental Quality Guidelines - Summary Tables. , atualizado em 2002.

JAAGUMAGI, R. & PERSAUD, D. Sediment Assessment and Remediation - Ontario’s Approach. In: POSW - Satellite Seminar “Remediation of Contaminated Sediments” Fifth International FZK/TNO, Conference on Contaminated Soil, p. 21-32. 1995

LONG, E. R., HONG, C.B. & SEVERN, C.G. Relationship between acute sediment toxicity in laboratory tests and abundance and diversity of benthic infauna in marine sediments: A review. Environ.Toxicol.Chem. 20 (1): 46-60. 2001.

BIBLIOGRAPHY (1/2)

BIBLIOGRAPHY (2/2)

LONG, E.R., MACDONALD, D.D., SMITH, S.L. & CALDER F.D. (1995). Incidence of adverse biological effects within ranges of chemical concentrations in marine and estuarine sediments. Environmental Management 19 (1): 81-97.

ONELIO CARBALLO HONDAL, GUSTAVO ARENCIBIA CARBALLO, JOEL CONCEPCIÓN, MERCEDES ISLA MOLLEDA. Los Bioensayos de Toxicidad en Sedimentos Marinos. Centro de Investigaciones Pesqueras. 5Ta Ave. Y 248, Barlovento, C.Habana. Cuba. http://www.sertox.com.ar/img/item_full/32004.pdf.

PRÓSPERI, V.A. Comparação de métodos ecotoxicológicos na avaliação de sedimentos marinhos e estuarinos. Tese de doutorado, Escola de Engenharia São Carlos/USP, 119p. 2002.

QUINÁGLIA, G. Caracterização dos níveis basais de metais dos sedimentos do Sistema Estuarino da Baixada Santista. Tese de Doutorado, Instituto de Química da Universidade de São Paulo (IQUSP). 2006.

SÁ, F. & MACHADO, E.C. Metais pesados e arsênio em sedimentos do canal de acesso aos portos do Estado do Paraná (PR). In: Boldrini, E.B.; Soares, C.R.; Paula, E.V. (org.). Dragagens portuárias no Brasil: Licenciamento e monitoramento ambiental. SEMA/PR; ADEMADAN; UNIBEM. p 253-263. 2007.

SMITH, S.L. et al. The development and implementation of canadian sediment quality guidelines. MUNAWAR , M. & DAVE, G (eds). Development and progress in sediment quality assessment: Rationale, Challenges, Techniques & Strategies. SPB Academics Pub. Amsterdam. p. 233-249. 1996a.

TRAVASSOS, M.P.; TORRONTEGUY, M. & CARDOSO JR., H.G. Experiência do Estado do Espírito Santo (ES) na caracterização do material dragado. In: Boldrini, E.B.; Soares, C.R.; Paula, E.V. (org.). Dragagens portuárias no Brasil: Licenciamento e monitoramento ambiental. SEMA/PR; ADEMADAN; UNIBEM. p 99-107. 2007. USEPA 1998.

U.S. Environment Protection Agency. EPA’s contaminated sediment management strategy. EPA-823-R-98-001. 1998. 105p.