| Literature DB >> 30467649 |
Agnieszka Klimkowicz-Pawlas1, Barbara Maliszewska-Kordybach2, Bożena Smreczak2.
Abstract
The aim of the study was ecological risk assessment (ERA) of the agricultural soils located in the vicinity of the highly industrialized area and exposed to different emission sources of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs). In this study, we demonstrated the combination of generic and site-specific ERA approach for screening assessment and delineation of the area of a high ecological risk. Generic approach was based on a hazard quotient and indicated that 62% of the research area needs further assessment. For site-specific evaluation, the Triad approach was utilized. Information from three lines of evidence (LoE): chemical, ecotoxicological and ecological, was integrated into one environmental risk (EnvRI) index. The chemical risk was derived from toxic pressure coefficients based on the total PAHs concentration. The ecotoxicological LoE included an acute toxicity testing: the luminescent bacteria Aliivibrio fischeri activity in both liquid- and solid-phase samples and the ability of crustacean Thamnocephalus platyurus to food uptake. The ecological LoE comprised microbial parameters related to soil respiration and enzymatic activity. Integrated EnvRI index ranged from 0.44 to 0.94 and was mainly influenced by high values of chemical LoE risk, while the ecotoxicological and ecological LoE indicated no or low risk. Due to the relatively high uncertainty associated with the contradictory information given by LoEs, there is the need to confirm potential risk in a tier 2 analysis.Entities:
Keywords: Agricultural soil; Contaminated area; Ecological risk assessment; Lines of evidence; Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons; Triad approach
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2018 PMID: 30467649 PMCID: PMC6702193 DOI: 10.1007/s10653-018-0220-y
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Environ Geochem Health ISSN: 0269-4042 Impact factor: 4.609
Fig. 1Location of sampling points and identification of potential pollutant sources (I—Debiensko coke plant, II—Debiensko hard coal mine and post-mining landfill, III—asphalt production plant, IV—Rybnik coke plant, V—Radlin coke plant, VI—Polho flotation waste recovery plant, VII—Zower coal recovery plant)
Statistical evaluation of soil properties and meteorological data from Czerwionka area (n = 24)
| Variable | Median | Mean | SD | Min | Max | LQ | UQ | CoV |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sand (%) | 72.4 | 72.1 | 9.8 | 55.1 | 92.5 | 67.0 | 76.8 | 13 |
| Silt (%) | 25.5 | 25.7 | 8.9 | 7.3 | 40.8 | 21.6 | 30.4 | 35 |
| Clay (%) | 2.1 | 2.0 | 0.9 | 0.2 | 4.2 | 1.6 | 2.7 | 44 |
| Corg (g kg−1) | 14.4 | 11.9 | 8.9 | 5.2 | 40.9 | 9.8 | 13.6 | 62 |
| TC (g kg−1) | 19.2 | 14.1 | 13.4 | 6.3 | 58.4 | 11.8 | 20.4 | 70 |
| pHKCl | 5.1 | 5.3 | 0.9 | 3.7 | 6.8 | 4.5 | 5.6 | 17 |
| Nt (g kg−1) | 0.6 | 0.6 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 1.6 | 0.5 | 0.7 | 43 |
| C:N | 21.3 | 21.3 | 4.5 | 13.0 | 33.5 | 17.7 | 23.5 | 21 |
| CEC (cmol + kg−1) | 7.5 | 6.4 | 3.3 | 3.6 | 16.3 | 5.6 | 7.7 | 44 |
| Temp (°C) | 8.9 | 8.9 | 0.0 | 8.8 | 9.0 | 8.8 | 8.9 | 0.54 |
| prec (mm) | 716.7 | 719.3 | 10.9 | 705.2 | 740.8 | 710.0 | 729.5 | 1.52 |
| etp (mm) | 614.8 | 614.8 | 0.5 | 614.0 | 615.9 | 614.4 | 615.1 | 0.09 |
| elev (m) | 264.5 | 264.5 | 13.9 | 239.0 | 284.0 | 255.5 | 277.0 | 5.24 |
| windsp (m s−1) | 3.8 | 3.8 | 0.0 | 3.7 | 3.9 | 3.7 | 3.8 | 1.29 |
Temp average year temperature, prec average year precipitation; etp average potential year evapotranspiration, elev height above sea level, windsp average wind speed, sand content of fraction 2.0–0.05 mm, silt content of fraction 0.05–0.002 mm, clay content of fraction < 0.002 mm, TC total carbon content, C total organic carbon content, N total nitrogen content, C:N organic carbon-to-total nitrogen ratio, CEC cation exchange capacity, SD standard deviation, Min minimum value, Max maximum value, LQ lower quartile, UQ upper quartile, CoV variation coefficient (%)
The concentration (µg kg−1) of individual PAHs (n = 24)
| PAH | Mean | Median | SD | Min | Max | LQ | UQ | CoV |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Napha | 61 | 55 | 54 | 13 | 292 | 32 | 69 | 89 |
| Acyn | 9 | 5 | 9 | <MQL | 42 | 4 | 10 | 104 |
| Acen | 17 | 14 | 10 | 5 | 49 | 10 | 20 | 62 |
| Flu | 18 | 14 | 17 | 4 | 85 | 9 | 19 | 94 |
| Phen | 233 | 147 | 228 | 41 | 984 | 96 | 271 | 98 |
| Antha | 31 | 17 | 30 | <MQL | 111 | 10 | 49 | 97 |
| Fln | 338 | 227 | 309 | 52 | 1156 | 132 | 431 | 91 |
| PYR | 251 | 163 | 234 | 34 | 884 | 93 | 329 | 93 |
| BaAa | 109 | 77 | 96 | 16 | 369 | 42 | 135 | 88 |
| CHa | 153 | 117 | 125 | 35 | 513 | 63 | 180 | 82 |
| BbFa | 145 | 109 | 110 | 44 | 443 | 64 | 169 | 76 |
| BkFa | 91 | 65 | 78 | 21 | 289 | 41 | 107 | 85 |
| BaPa | 126 | 85 | 116 | 22 | 441 | 51 | 150 | 92 |
| IndPyra | 97 | 68 | 84 | 27 | 320 | 39 | 112 | 86 |
| DahAa | 19 | 17 | 13 | 6 | 59 | 10 | 22 | 69 |
| BPera | 90 | 62 | 82 | 5 | 309 | 32 | 108 | 91 |
| Σ16PAH | 1787 | 1271 | 1515 | 376 | 5695 | 753 | 2143 | 85 |
| Σ7PAH | 741 | 552 | 618 | 181 | 2427 | 318 | 870 | 83 |
| HMW | 1419 | 1005 | 1237 | 293 | 4648 | 586 | 1706 | 87 |
SD standard deviation, Min minimum value, Max maximum value, LQ lower quartile, UQ upper quartile, CoV variation coefficient (%), < MQL values below the method quantification limit
aPAH compounds included in Polish regulations (Dz.U.2016.1395), 16 PAH content of 16 PAHs according to US EPA list (1995), 7PAH—content of 7 carcinogenic PAHs (BaA + Chr + BbF + BkF + BaP + IndP + DahA) according to the US EPA (1993), HMW high molecular weight PAHs (from Pyr to BPer)
Fig. 2Delineation of the area of potential ecological risk; hazard quotient (HQ) values for the most abundant PAHs compound BbF; asterisks indicated sites HI values exceeded the Th value for 10 PAHs
Statistical evaluation of ecological and ecotoxicological parameters (n = 24)
| Mean | Median | SD | Min | Max | LQ | UQ | CoV | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ecol-LoE | ||||||||
| DHA | 33.9 | 32.8 | 15.6 | 13.1 | 86.9 | 22.4 | 38.2 | 46 |
| SIR | 9.0 | 8.0 | 5.8 | 2.6 | 26.3 | 5.1 | 10.2 | 65 |
| Ecotox-LoE | ||||||||
| SPT-Microtox | 91.2 | 91.0 | 6.9 | 77.6 | 99.8 | 85.7 | 98.0 | 7.5 |
| Microtox screening | 16.5 | 16.3 | 9.9 | 0.0 | 34.5 | 9.6 | 23.3 | 60 |
| Rapidtoxkit | 34.0 | 38.2 | 18.3 | 0.0 | 56.7 | 31.5 | 46.8 | 54 |
DHA dehydrogenases activity (µg TPF g−1d.m.), SIR substrate induced respiration (µg CO2 g−1d.m. h−1), SPT-and Microtox Screening (% of bioluminescence inhibition), Rapidtoxkit (% of particle uptake inhibition), SD standard deviation, Min minimum value, Max maximum value, LQ lower quartile, UQ upper quartile, CoV variation coefficient (%)
Risk values according to the chemical (Chem-LoE), ecotoxicological (Ecotox-LoE) and ecological (Ecol-LoE) lines of evidence
| Sampling point | Chem-LoE | Ecotox-LoE | Ecol-LoE | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| TP | Microtox screening | Rapidtoxkit | SPT-Microtox | SIR | DHA | |
| 4 | 0.86 | 0.00 | 0.00 | n.d. | 0.10 | 0.38 |
| 5 | 0.86 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.54 | 0.23 |
| 6 | 0.90 | 0.20 | 0.00 | 0.96 | 0.31 | 0.10 |
| 8 | 1.00 | 0.24 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.33 | 0.12 |
| 10a | 0.76 | 0.27 | n.d. | n.d. | 0.00 | 0.00 |
| 10b | 0.84 | 0.07 | n.d. | n.d. | 0.12 | 0.49 |
| 12 | 0.89 | 0.19 | n.d. | n.d. | 0.61 | 0.39 |
| 16 | 1.00 | 0.07 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 |
| 17 | 0.93 | 0.01 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.01 |
| 18 | 0.98 | 0.07 | 0.00 | 0.82 | 0.71 | 0.10 |
| 19 | 0.95 | 0.27 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 |
| 20 | 1.00 | 0.07 | 0.00 | 0.51 | 0.07 | 0.09 |
| 21 | 0.99 | 0.18 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 |
| 21a | 1.00 | 0.04 | 0.00 | 0.74 | 0.36 | 0.00 |
| 22a | 0.88 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.44 |
For each sampling point values are scaled from 0 to 1 and are given in the relation to the reference soil (risk for reference soil is set to 0), TP toxic pressure coefficient, SIR substrate induced respiration, DHA dehydrogenases activity, n.d. not determined
Chemical, ecotoxicological and ecological risk indexes and the integrated environmental risk (EnvRI)
| Risk index | Sampling point | ||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 4 | 5 | 6 | 8 | 10a | 10b | 12 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 21a | 22a | |
| ChemRI | 0.86 | 0.86 | 0.90 | 1.00 | 0.76 | 0.84 | 0.89 | 1.00 | 0.93 | 0.98 | 0.95 | 1.00 | 0.99 | 1.00 | 0.88 |
| EcotoxRI | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.68 | 0.09 | 0.27 | 0.07 | 0.19 | 0.02 | 0.00 | 0.45 | 0.10 | 0.23 | 0.07 | 0.37 | 0.00 |
| EcolRI | 0.25 | 0.40 | 0.21 | 0.23 | 0.00 | 0.33 | 0.51 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.49 | 0.00 | 0.08 | 0.00 | 0.07 | 0.12 |
| EnvRI | 0.53 | 0.56 | 0.70 | 0.90 | 0.44 | 0.53 | 0.65 | 0.94 | 0.58 | 0.83 | 0.64 | 0.90 | 0.78 | 0.94 | 0.56 |
| SD | 0.44 | 0.43 | 0.35 | 0.49 | 0.38 | 0.39 | 0.35 | 0.57 | 0.53 | 0.30 | 0.52 | 0.49 | 0.55 | 0.42 | 0.45 |
SD standard deviation