Qualitatively and quantitatively, we have demonstrated that airborne polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB) concentrations in the air surrounding New Bedford Harbor (NBH) are caused by its water PCB emissions. We measured airborne PCBs at 18 homes and businesses near NBH in 2015, with values ranging from 0.4 to 38 ng m-3, with a very strong Aroclor 1242/1016 signal that is most pronounced closest to the harbor and reproducible over three sampling rounds. Using U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) water PCB data from 2015 and local meteorology, we predicted gas-phase fluxes of PCBs from 160 to 1200 μg m-2 day-1. Fluxes were used as emissions for AERMOD, a widely applied U.S. EPA atmospheric dispersion model, to predict airborne PCB concentrations. The AERMOD predictions were within a factor of 2 of the field measurements. PCB emission from NBH (110 kg year-1, average 2015) is the largest reported source of airborne PCBs from natural waters in North America, and the source of high ambient air PCB concentrations in locations close to NBH. It is likely that NBH has been an important source of airborne PCBs since it was contaminated with Aroclors more than 60 years ago.
Qualitatively and quantitatively, we have demonstrated that airborne polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB) concentrations in the air surrounding New Bedford Harbor (NBH) are caused by its waterPCB emissions. We measured airborne PCBs at 18 homes and businesses near NBH in 2015, with values ranging from 0.4 to 38 ng m-3, with a very strong Aroclor 1242/1016 signal that is most pronounced closest to the harbor and reproducible over three sampling rounds. Using U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) waterPCB data from 2015 and local meteorology, we predicted gas-phase fluxes of PCBs from 160 to 1200 μg m-2 day-1. Fluxes were used as emissions for AERMOD, a widely applied U.S. EPA atmospheric dispersion model, to predict airborne PCB concentrations. The AERMOD predictions were within a factor of 2 of the field measurements. PCB emission from NBH (110 kg year-1, average 2015) is the largest reported source of airborne PCBs from natural waters in North America, and the source of high ambient air PCB concentrations in locations close to NBH. It is likely that NBH has been an important source of airborne PCBs since it was contaminated with Aroclors more than 60 years ago.
Although New Bedford
Harbor (NBH), MA, is one of the largest polychlorinated
biphenyl (PCB) Superfund sites in the United States,[1] it has not been studied as an important source of airborne
PCBs. In 1983, NBH was placed on the National Priorities List of Superfund
cleanup sites because of the extremely high levels of PCBs in the
sediments. Aroclors 1242 and 1016 were discharged into the harbor
for more than 30 years (1940s–1970s).[2−4] PCB concentrations
of ≤1 μg g–1 in flounder and ≤10000
μg g–1 (dry weight) in sediments have been
reported.[2,3,5] These high
PCB levels motivated release of seafood consumption advisories starting
in 1979[5] and sediment dredging since 1994.[2]Concentrations of PCBs in air have been
measured and reported by
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) since 1999,[6,7] and although concentrations are elevated, the magnitude of the harbor
as an emission source is unclear and the potential risk by inhalation
caused by emissions is unknown. While remediation is driven by PCB
levels in the sediments, PCBs are mobilized from sediment to overlying
water and air,[8−10] contributing to human exposure via inhalation. It
is important to understand the specific contribution of NBH to local
levels of airborne PCBs as part of the risk-based decision making
regarding remediation.We recently developed a strategy for
predicting concentrations
of airborne PCBs as a function of emissions from contaminated water.[11] We measured PCBs in water, calculated the emissions
as gross volatilization flux, and predicted dispersion into the surrounding
region. In northwest Indiana, we found that PCBs released from the
Indiana Harbor and Ship Canal (IHSC) accounted for 15% of the observed
PCB concentrations in the adjoining neighborhoods. The community surrounding
the IHSC is one of the most industrially dense regions in the United
States and has a long history of environmental contamination. Using
this two-pronged strategy of calculated emissions and atmospheric
dispersion modeling, we concluded that there were many sources of
airborne PCBs in this region in addition to IHSC.[11]PCB concentrations in NBHwater are at least 10 times
higher than
in IHSC, and its area is 3 times larger than that of IHSC, which could
dramatically increase the contribution of airborne gas-phase PCBs
to the local atmosphere. Therefore, we hypothesized that PCB emissions
from NBH explain ambient air concentrations of PCBs in the surrounding
communities.To address our hypothesis, in response to and in
collaboration
with community and environmental organizations, we launched a field
effort in 2015 to evaluate the effect of emissions from NBH on airborne
PCBs. We calculated congener-specific PCB emissions from NBH as a
function of reported water concentrations, chemical properties, and
local meteorology. We used an atmospheric dispersion model to predict
gas-phase PCB concentrations in the region surrounding NBH. In addition,
we compared our predictions to measured values from our own samplers
and those measured by the U.S. EPA. Lastly, we examined the long-term
trends in PCB emissions and air concentrations for 2006–2015
using historical data reported by the U.S. EPA.
Materials and Methods
Airborne
PCB Concentration Measurements
Airborne PCBs
were measured using polyurethane foam passive air samplers (PUF-PAS)
as previously described.[12−15] The PUF-PAS collects both gas and particle phases,
but because PCBs are mostly in the gas phase (∼90%), the values
reported here are assumed to be the gas phase. Samplers were placed
at the same 18 locations for three consecutive periods, from July
to November of 2015 in New Bedford, Fairhaven, Dartmouth, and Acushnet,
MA (Figure S1), except for one location
where we sampled two rounds. The sampling locations were selected
by community members following discussions about study objectives
and the need for the spatial distribution of PCB monitors. All but
two selected locations are near residential homes.Prior to
placement, PUF disks were cleaned in a Soxhlet apparatus for 24 h
with hexane, followed by 24 h with acetone, and finally with a 1:1
(v/v) hexane/acetone solution for 24 h. PUFs were dried for 1 h in
a ventilated fume hood, wrapped in combusted aluminum foil within
Ziploc bags, and stored at −4 °C.[14,15] Hourly sampling rates (R) specific to each sampler
and PCB congener were modeled from local meteorology, ranging from
2 to 3 m3 day–1. These sampling rates
were used to calculate effective sampling volumes (Veff) for each sampler and PCB congener, ranging from 25
to 110 m3.[13] We used these volumes
to calculate the concentration of airborne PCB from the mass collected
in the passive samplers.
Analytical Methods and QA/QC
The
laboratory methods
have been described previously.[12−14,16] Additional details, including the QA/QC for the airborne PCB measurements,
airborne PCB emission calculations, air dispersion model AERMOD, and
meteorological data utilized in this investigation, are provided in
the Supporting Information. PCB concentrations
in water and from high-volume air sampling were reported elsewhere,
and details are also provided in the Supporting Information.
Results and Discussion
Airborne PCB Measurements
Concentrations of airborne
∑PCB ranged from 0.4 to 38 ng m–3, with a
geometric mean of 3.1 ± 3.8 ng m–3. The values
of >10 ng m–3 (n = 9) are the
highest
values reported for outdoor ∑PCBPUF-PAS samples by our laboratory
(Chicago, Cleveland, and East Chicago)[12−14] and also by others (Toronto,
ON).[17] Our values did not show a significant
difference from U.S. EPA large-volume air sampler (Hi-Vol) gas-phase
measurements[7] for the same months of 2015
(Mann–Whitney; p = 0.32) (Figure ).
Figure 1
U.S. EPA high-volume
(Hi-Vols) and PUF-PAS measurements for comparison
of the gas phase. Both sampling methods were placed from July to November
2015. No significant difference was found between the methods (Mann–Whitney; p = 0.32). The locations of our PUF-PAS and U.S. EPA Hi-Vol
samplers used in this comparison are given in Figure .
U.S. EPA high-volume
(Hi-Vols) and PUF-PAS measurements for comparison
of the gas phase. Both sampling methods were placed from July to November
2015. No significant difference was found between the methods (Mann–Whitney; p = 0.32). The locations of our PUF-PAS and U.S. EPA Hi-Vol
samplers used in this comparison are given in Figure .
Figure 3
AERMOD prediction map for mean ∑PCB concentrations (nanograms
per cubic meter) from July to November 2015. Circles represent our
PUF-PAS samplers, and squares represent High-Vol samples placed by
the U.S. EPA. Pink circles and squares represent the samplers used
for comparison of methods (Figure ). Both PUF-PAS and Hi-Vol samplers were active between
July and November 2015, although the PUF-PAS samplers were continuously
collecting while the Hi-Vol samplers were sampling in 24 h periods.
Map source data copyright 2016 Google.
A clear and large spatial variability was found, with the
highest
values located closest to the water (Figure ). Interestingly, little temporal variability
was observed. Indeed, no statistical difference was found among the
three sampling period average concentrations (Kruskal–Wallis; p = 0.83). Samples from the same location varied by a factor
of <3, whereas PUF-PAS samples in Chicago varied in average >6-fold
for the same location.[13] In addition, the
highest value showed the lowest variability (10%), suggesting a single
and constant PCB source.
Figure 2
Spatial and temporal distributions of airborne
∑PCB (nanograms
per cubic meter) in New Bedford Harbor. Sampling round 1 (green) from
July 9, 2015, to August 20, 2015, sampling round 2 (blue) from August
20, 2015, to October 1, 2015, and sampling round 3 (yellow) from October
1, 2015, to November 12, 2015. The inset shows the box-and-whisker
plot for the concentration distribution of the three sampling periods.
Map source: Office of Geographic Information (MassGIS), Commonwealth
of Massachusetts, MassIT.
Spatial and temporal distributions of airborne
∑PCB (nanograms
per cubic meter) in New Bedford Harbor. Sampling round 1 (green) from
July 9, 2015, to August 20, 2015, sampling round 2 (blue) from August
20, 2015, to October 1, 2015, and sampling round 3 (yellow) from October
1, 2015, to November 12, 2015. The inset shows the box-and-whisker
plot for the concentration distribution of the three sampling periods.
Map source: Office of Geographic Information (MassGIS), Commonwealth
of Massachusetts, MassIT.Very similar PCB congener profiles were found in all the
samples,
dominated by low and middle chlorinated congeners (<pentachlorobiphenyls).
The majority of the congeners found in the samples are present in
Aroclor mixtures (Figure S4). The samples
have strong Aroclor 1242 and 1016 profiles, consistent with numerous
reports of sediment contamination with these two commercial mixtures[2−4] and a consistent congener profile (sample average cos θ =
0.97).[11,18] Samples collected farther from NBH exhibit
a larger relative contribution of non-Aroclor PCB11 (Figure S5). PCB11 is a byproduct of the manufacture of contemporary
paint pigments.[19,20] The PCB11 fraction in the samples
exhibits one of the highest variabilities (standard error) of the
171 PCB congeners measured, suggesting that NBH is not the major source
of this congener. These results suggest a single and continuous source
of airborne PCBs, consistent with our hypothesis that the water of
NBH is a large source of PCBs to the local atmosphere.
PCB Emissions
∑PCB gross volatilization fluxes
ranged from 160 to 1200 μg m–2 day–1 for the 2015 samples. These fluxes result in ∑PCB emissions
from the upper and lower harbor areas ranging from 90 to 140 kg year–1, with an average of 110 kg year–1. The only previous PCB emission calculations for NBH were published
by Garton et al.[8] Using their data from
1983, we were able to predict a gross volatilization flux of 70 μg
m–2 day–1, which is on the same
order of magnitude as the lower-end estimates reported here (2015
water data). NBH fluxes are higher than those of other well-known
PCB-contaminated water systems in the United States. For example,
gross volatilization fluxes from Green Bay in 1989 ranged from 0.2
to 5.3 μg m–2 day–1.[21] New York Harbor in 1989 yielded ∼3 μg
m–2 day–1.[22] The values for the Hudson River Estuary in 1999–2001
ranged from 0.05 to 0.9 μg m–2 day–1.[23] The values for the Delaware River
in 2001–2003 ranged from 0.2 to 2.5 μg m–2 day–1.[24] IHSC in 2006
yielded 7 μg m–2 day–1.[9] Although it is very difficult to compare PCB
fluxes between different studies, all these fluxes are at least 2
orders of magnitude lower than the 2015 NBH values. NBH fluxes are
a result of the notably high concentrations of dissolved PCBs measured
in NBH, which in some cases were in the hundreds of nanograms per
liter (Table S1). Indeed, some values are
only a factor of 100 below the water solubility limit.We estimated
the historical trend in emissions using U.S. EPA measurements of dissolved
PCBs in water collected since 2006. We excluded from consideration
any water samples that were collected while there was active dredging,
as indicated in the U.S. EPA water quality reports. The resulting
∑PCB emissions ranged from 7 to 26000 μg m–2 day–1. Although some values are extremely high,
a clear decrease in emission over time was observed (Figure S6). This reduction is consistent with the observed
decline in air and sediment PCB concentrations over time.[5−7,25−34]
Modeled PCB Concentrations
AERMOD is an EPA model for
predicting the dispersion of airborne pollutants from a source, in
this case NBH. We applied AERMOD to compare the measured PCB concentrations
to those predicted as a function of our calculated emissions. The
AERMOD predictions exhibit a PCB spatial distribution consistent with
our field measurements and validate our hypothesis that NBH waters
are the source of PCB in the nearby surrounding air (Figure ).AERMOD prediction map for mean ∑PCB concentrations (nanograms
per cubic meter) from July to November 2015. Circles represent our
PUF-PAS samplers, and squares represent High-Vol samples placed by
the U.S. EPA. Pink circles and squares represent the samplers used
for comparison of methods (Figure ). Both PUF-PAS and Hi-Vol samplers were active between
July and November 2015, although the PUF-PAS samplers were continuously
collecting while the Hi-Vol samplers were sampling in 24 h periods.
Map source data copyright 2016 Google.AERMOD predicted ∑PCB within a factor of 2 of our
PUF-PAS
measurements 50% of the time (9 of 18 samples) (Figure ). Interestingly, all the locations where
the prediction exceeded the measurements by a factor of >3 were
located
close to the water and east of NBH. In general, the predictions exceeded
our field measurements by an average factor of 2.6, ranging from 0.5
to 11. The U.S. EPA has been monitoring airborne PCBs in NBH since
1999 using Hi-Vol samplers.[6,7] Their Hi-Vol measurements
for the same period of time were somewhat closer to the predicted
concentrations with an average factor of 2.1, ranging from 0.7 to
5, with only one location with an average factor of >4.0. Given
that
the range of PCB concentrations is large and a factor of ∼100,
we conclude that the modeling approach we used is appropriate and
accurately predicts the effect of NBH emissions on ambient PCBs in
the air of the surrounding communities.
Figure 4
AERMOD predictions vs
field measurements from July to November
2015. Circles represent mean PUF-PAS measurements (n = 3), and triangles represent geometric means of Hi-Vol measurements
from the U.S. EPA (n ≥ 5). Error bars represent
one standard deviation for the PUF-PAS samplers and one geometric
standard deviation for the Hi-Vol samplers. The black line represents
the 1:1 line, and the red lines represent the 1:2 and 2:1 lines (i.e.,
factor of 2).
AERMOD predictions vs
field measurements from July to November
2015. Circles represent mean PUF-PAS measurements (n = 3), and triangles represent geometric means of Hi-Vol measurements
from the U.S. EPA (n ≥ 5). Error bars represent
one standard deviation for the PUF-PAS samplers and one geometric
standard deviation for the Hi-Vol samplers. The black line represents
the 1:1 line, and the red lines represent the 1:2 and 2:1 lines (i.e.,
factor of 2).
Implications
The
results of this study support our
working hypothesis: PCB emissions from NBH explain nearby air concentrations.
Specifically, we cite three independent findings. First, we note the
large spatial variation in measured airborne PCBs, with much higher
concentrations close to the shoreline. These measurements were reproducible.
Second, we found that the profiles of PCB congeners in the air samples
are remarkably similar, and also similar to those of the commercial
mixtures Aroclor 1016 and Aroclor 1242. The similarities are strongest
for air samples collected close to the shoreline. Third, we found
that our predicted and measured air concentrations exhibit similar
ranges of values and similar spatial distributions, both decreasing
in magnitude with distance from the water. To the best of our knowledge,
this is the first study to show that a PCB-contaminated waterway is
responsible for the nearby measured PCBs.It is likely that
PCBs have been emitted from NBHwater for many years. Using the same
modeling approach, we predicted airborne PCB concentrations from U.S.
EPA water measurements since 2006. Our calculations illustrate a decrease
in PCB emissions as well as airborne PCB concentrations (Figure ). Our findings indicate
that NBH is one of the largest ongoing sources of airborne PCBs in
the United States and the cause of the highest concentrations in the
neighborhoods surrounding the harbor. It is likely that NBH has been
an important source of airborne PCBs in the New Bedford area since
it was contaminated with Aroclors.
Figure 5
AERMOD predicted airborne ∑PCB
concentrations at site 15
using U.S. EPA water concentrations from 2006 to 2015. Predictions
were calculated for each month, depending on the available U.S. EPA
water data. Asterisks indicate a significant difference between 2006
predicted concentrations and 2011 and 2014 (Mann–Whitney; p = 0.004).
AERMOD predicted airborne ∑PCB
concentrations at site 15
using U.S. EPA water concentrations from 2006 to 2015. Predictions
were calculated for each month, depending on the available U.S. EPA
water data. Asterisks indicate a significant difference between 2006
predicted concentrations and 2011 and 2014 (Mann–Whitney; p = 0.004).
Authors: L A Totten; P A Brunciak; C L Gigliotti; J Dachs; T R Glenn; E D Nelson; S J Eisenreich Journal: Environ Sci Technol Date: 2001-10-01 Impact factor: 9.028
Authors: Barbara J Bergen; William G Nelson; Joseph Mackay; David Dickerson; Saro Jayaraman Journal: Environ Monit Assess Date: 2005-12 Impact factor: 2.513
Authors: Anthony P DeCaprio; Glenn W Johnson; Alice M Tarbell; David O Carpenter; Jeffrey R Chiarenzelli; Gayle S Morse; Azara L Santiago-Rivera; Maria J Schymura Journal: Environ Res Date: 2005-07 Impact factor: 6.498
Authors: Amy A Rowe; Lisa A Totten; Minge Xie; Thomas J Fikslin; Stephen J Eisenreich Journal: Environ Sci Technol Date: 2007-02-15 Impact factor: 9.028
Authors: Matt D Ampleman; Andrés Martinez; Jeanne DeWall; Dorothea F K Rawn; Keri C Hornbuckle; Peter S Thorne Journal: Environ Sci Technol Date: 2015-01-20 Impact factor: 9.028
Authors: Timothy E Mattes; Jessica M Ewald; Yi Liang; Andres Martinez; Andrew Awad; Patrick Richards; Keri C Hornbuckle; Jerald L Schnoor Journal: Environ Sci Pollut Res Int Date: 2017-08-12 Impact factor: 4.223
Authors: Jessica M Ewald; Shelby V Humes; Andres Martinez; Jerald L Schnoor; Timothy E Mattes Journal: Environ Sci Pollut Res Int Date: 2019-06-17 Impact factor: 4.223
Authors: Nicholas J Herkert; Scott N Spak; Austen Smith; Jasmin K Schuster; Tom Harner; Andres Martinez; Keri C Hornbuckle Journal: Environ Sci Process Impacts Date: 2018-01-24 Impact factor: 4.238
Authors: Kiran Dhakal; Gopi S Gadupudi; Hans-Joachim Lehmler; Gabriele Ludewig; Michael W Duffel; Larry W Robertson Journal: Environ Sci Pollut Res Int Date: 2017-07-25 Impact factor: 4.223
Authors: Jing Zheng; Shaun M K McKinnie; Abrahim El Gamal; Wei Feng; Yao Dong; Vinayak Agarwal; William Fenical; Abdhesh Kumar; Zhengyu Cao; Bradley S Moore; Isaac N Pessah Journal: Environ Sci Technol Date: 2018-04-20 Impact factor: 9.028
Authors: Christian M Bako; Timothy E Mattes; Rachel F Marek; Keri C Hornbuckle; Jerald L Schnoor Journal: Environ Pollut Date: 2020-12-23 Impact factor: 8.071