Literature DB >> 17064737

Differences in SEM-AVS and ERM-ERL predictions of sediment impacts from metals in two US Virgin Islands marinas.

Lynne M Hinkey1, Baqar R Zaidi.   

Abstract

Two US Virgin Islands marinas were examined for potential metal impacts by comparing sediment chemistry data with two sediment quality guideline (SQG) values: the ratio of simultaneously extractable metals to acid volatile sulfides (SEM-AVS), and effects range-low and -mean (ERL-ERM) values. ERL-ERMs predicted the marina/boatyard complex (IBY: 2118 microg/g dry weight total metals, two exceeded ERMs) would have greater impacts than the marina with no boatyard (CBM: 231 microg/g dry weight total metals, no ERMs exceeded). The AVS-SEM method predicted IBY would have fewer effects due to high AVS-forming metal sulfide complexes, reducing trace metal bioavailability. These contradictory predictions demonstrate the importance of validating the results of either of these methods with other toxicity measures before making any management or regulatory decisions regarding boating and marina impacts. This is especially important in non-temperate areas where sediment quality guidelines have not been validated.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2006        PMID: 17064737     DOI: 10.1016/j.marpolbul.2006.09.009

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Mar Pollut Bull        ISSN: 0025-326X            Impact factor:   5.553


  8 in total

1.  Assessment of trace metals pollution in estuarine sediments using SEM-AVS and ERM-ERL predictions.

Authors:  Carlos Alexandre Borges Garcia; Elisangela de Andrade Passos; José do Patrocínio Hora Alves
Journal:  Environ Monit Assess       Date:  2010-12-29       Impact factor: 2.513

2.  Distribution characteristics and toxicity assessment of heavy metals in the sediments of Lake Chaohu, China.

Authors:  Hongbin Yin; Jiancai Deng; Shiguang Shao; Feng Gao; Junfeng Gao; Chengxin Fan
Journal:  Environ Monit Assess       Date:  2010-10-27       Impact factor: 2.513

3.  Use of Sediment Quality Guidelines and pollution indicators for the assessment of heavy metal and PAH contamination in Greek surficial sea and lake sediments.

Authors:  John Hahladakis; Eleftheria Smaragdaki; Georgia Vasilaki; Evangelos Gidarakos
Journal:  Environ Monit Assess       Date:  2012-07-22       Impact factor: 2.513

4.  Seasonal AVS-SEM relationship in sediments and potential bioavailability of metals in industrialized estuary, southeastern Brazil.

Authors:  Erico Casare Nizoli; Wanilson Luiz-Silva
Journal:  Environ Geochem Health       Date:  2011-10-02       Impact factor: 4.609

5.  Assessment of sediment quality based on acid-volatile sulfide and simultaneously extracted metals in heavily industrialized area of Asaluyeh, Persian Gulf: concentrations, spatial distributions, and sediment bioavailability/toxicity.

Authors:  Hossein Arfaeinia; Iraj Nabipour; Afshin Ostovar; Zahra Asadgol; Ehsan Abuee; Mozhgan Keshtkar; Sina Dobaradaran
Journal:  Environ Sci Pollut Res Int       Date:  2016-02-09       Impact factor: 4.223

6.  Source identification, environmental risk assessment and human health risks associated with toxic elements present in a coastal industrial environment, India.

Authors:  Shreemayee Satapathy; C R Panda
Journal:  Environ Geochem Health       Date:  2018-03-26       Impact factor: 4.609

7.  Environmental Quality Assessment of Bizerte Lagoon (Tunisia) Using Living Foraminifera Assemblages and a Multiproxy Approach.

Authors:  Maria Virgínia Alves Martins; Noureddine Zaaboub; Lotfi Aleya; Fabrizio Frontalini; Egberto Pereira; Paulo Miranda; Miguel Mane; Fernando Rocha; Lazaro Laut; Monia El Bour
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2015-09-15       Impact factor: 3.240

8.  Integrated assessment of heavy metal pollution in the surface sediments of the Laizhou Bay and the coastal waters of the Zhangzi Island, China: comparison among typical marine sediment quality indices.

Authors:  Wen Zhuang; Xuelu Gao
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2014-04-07       Impact factor: 3.240

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.