| Literature DB >> 30969442 |
Kevin J Rader1, Richard F Carbonaro1,2, Eric D van Hullebusch3, Stijn Baken4, Katrien Delbeke4.
Abstract
The fate and effects of copper in the environment are governed by a complex set of environmental processes that include binding to inorganic and organic ligands in water, soil, and sediments. In natural waters, these interactions can limit copper bioavailability and result in copper transport from the water column to the sediment. In the present study, data on the fate of copper added to lakes, microcosms, and mesocosms were compiled and analyzed to determine copper removal rates from the water column. Studies on copper behavior in sediment were also reviewed to assess the potential for remobilization. A previously developed, screening-level fate and transport model (tableau input coupled kinetic equilibrium transport-unit world model [TICKET-UWM]) was parameterized and applied to quantify copper removal rates and remobilization in a standardized lake setting. Field and modeling results were reconciled within a framework that links copper removal rates to lake depths and solids fluxes. The results of these analyses provide converging evidence that, on a large scale, copper is removed relatively quickly from natural waters. For the majority of studies examined, more than 70% of the added copper was removed from the water column within 16 d of dosing. This information may be useful in the context of environmental hazard and risk assessment of copper. Environ Toxicol Chem 2019;38:1386-1399.Entities:
Keywords: Copper; Environmental fate; Fate modeling; Hazard assessment; Metal speciation; Metals
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2019 PMID: 30969442 PMCID: PMC6852694 DOI: 10.1002/etc.4440
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Environ Toxicol Chem ISSN: 0730-7268 Impact factor: 3.742
Figure 1Time series of total (closed circles) and dissolved (less than 0.45 µm, open circles) copper concentrations in the water column of (a) Lake Courtille and (b) Saint Germain les Belles Reservoir. Note: the y‐ and x‐axes scale differ between the 2 panels. The solid line is a first‐order loss (i.e., C = C 0 exp[–kt]) fit through the dissolved copper data.
Figure 2Time series of measured total (closed circles) and dissolved (less than 0.45 µm, open circles) copper in microcosms at various nominal copper concentrations. Plotted data are the arithmetic average of measurements from duplicate microcosms. The solid line is a first‐order loss (i.e., C = C 0 exp[–kt]) fit through the dissolved copper data.
Figure 3Time series of dissolved copper data from the MELIMEX enclosure study (Gächter 1979). Data points are measured data from Gächter and Geiger (1979). The lines are model results reproduced from Di Toro et al. (2001b) with and without a first‐order loss process included.
Summary of estimated 50% and 70% removal times
| System | Sample fraction | 50% Removal time (d) | 70% Removal time (d) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Cazenovia Lake | Total | ||
| July 1977 addition | 9.6 | 70% removal not observed in 23 d | |
| August 1977 addition | 2.0 | 14.1 | |
| September 1977 addition | 50% removal not observed in 22 d | 70% removal not observed in 22 d | |
| Lake Mathews | Total | 15.6 (9.2–52.3) | 27.2 (16.0–90.8) |
| Lake Courtille | Dissolved | 9.0 (6.5–14.7) | 15.6 (11.2–25.6) |
| St. Germain les Belles Reservoir | Dissolved | 4.1 (2.2–28.3) | 7.1 (3.8–49.1) |
| Catfish pond | Dissolved | 0.11 | 0.88 |
| Total | 0.48 (0.38–0.66) | 0.84 (0.66–1.1) | |
| IME microcosms | Dissolved | ||
| 5 µg/L | 2.3 (1.2–15.5) | 4.0 (2.2–26.9) | |
| 10 µg/L | 1.8 (1.1–6.1) | 3.1 (1.8–10.6) | |
| 20 µg/L | 3.6 (1.3–na) | 6.3 (2.3–na) | |
| 40 µg/L | 3.3 (2.0–8.8) | 5.7 (3.5–15.3) | |
| 80 µg/L | 3.7 (1.6–na) | 6.3 (2.7–na) | |
| 160 µg/L | 1.4 (0.90–3.0) | 2.4 (1.6–5.2) | |
| Novosibirskoye Reservoir mesocosms | Dissolved | ||
| Dark, 1st addition | 7.5 (7.1–7.8) | 13.0 (12.4–13.6) | |
| Dark, 2nd addition | 7.3 (6.8–7.8) | 12.7 (11.9–13.6) | |
| Light, 1st addition | 5.0 (4.6–5.3) | 8.6 (8.0–9.3) | |
| Light, 2nd addition | 4.5 (4.0–5.2) | 7.8 (6.9–8.9) | |
| Dark, 1st addition | Total | 8.7 (8.6–8.9) | 15.1 (14.9–15.4) |
| Dark, 2nd addition | 8.3 (8.0–8.8) | 14.5 (13.8–15.2) | |
| Light, 1st addition | 5.8 (5.6–5.9) | 10.0 (9.8–10.2) | |
| Light, 2nd addition | 6.2 (6.0–6.5) | 10.8 (10.4–11.3) | |
| MELIMEX mesocosms | Dissolved | 76.2 | 130 |
| TICKET‐UWM (empirical | Dissolved | 2.7 | 4.7 |
| TICKET‐UWM (calculated | Dissolved | 1.6 | 2.7 |
Sources: Lake Courtille and St. Germain les Belles Reservoir: van Hullebusch et al. (2002, 2003a, 2003b); IME Mmcrocosms: Schäfers (2001); Novosibirskoye Reservoir: Smolyakov et al. (2010a, 2010b); Lake Matthews: Haughey et al. (2000); catfish ponds: Liu et al. (2006); Cazenovia Lake: Effler et al. (1980); MELIMEX: Di Toro et al. (2001b); Gächter (1979); TICKET‐UWM: present study.
Numbers in parentheses denote the 95% confidence interval of 50 or 70% removal times. This interval was developed from the 95% confidence interval of the first‐order loss rate constant fit to the copper concentration data for each study. For the catfish pond dissolved copper data and Cazenovia Lake total copper data, application of a first‐order model was not supported. Removal time values were interpolated from plots of fraction remaining versus time. Removal times for MELIMEX were calculated from the first‐order loss rate constant of 0.0091 day‒1 determined by Di Toro et al. (2001b). No information was provided on the uncertainty associated with this rate constant.
Removal times were determined for each nominal copper dosing concentration in the IME microcosms.
Upper 95% confidence limit of the first‐order rate constant was positive, indicating an increase in copper. An increase in dissolved copper concentration between consecutive samples occurred in the 20‐ and 40‐µg/L test systems but for only 1 of the 2 duplicates.
Removal times were determined for each treatment (light, dark) and copper addition (first and second) separately in the Novosibirskoye Reservoir study.
IME = Fraunhofer Institute for Molecular Biology and Applied Ecology (Schmallenberg, Germany); MELIMEX = MEtal LIMnological Experiment; TICKET–UWM = tableau input coupled kinetic equilibrium transport–unit world model; na = not available.
Figure 4Results of European Union system for the evaluation of substances (EUSES) Model Lake water column analysis. Results from simulations using the Empirical K D method are labeled as such. All other results are from simulations using the calculated K D method. Vel. = velocity; DOC = dissolved organic carbon.
Figure 5Mass balance results for tableau input coupled kinetic equilibrium transport–unit world model (TICKET–UWM) sediment simulations with an (a) anoxic sediment and (b) oxic sediment. Mass values from the model have been normalized to an input mass of 100 kg. Simulations for both sediment types had an initial total water column copper concentration of 35 μg/L. The anoxic sediment simulation had an acid‐volatile sulfide = 9.1 μmol/g. The oxic sediment simulation had sediment hydrous ferric oxide (HFO) = 18 600 mg HFO/kg and sediment hydrous manganese oxide (HMO) = 154 mg HMO/kg.
Figure 6Time series of measured (circles) and modeled (lines) copper in Saint Germain les Belles Reservoir. Model results are from simulation with water column and sediment K D values (a) specified at the measured/empirical values (surface water: 104.56 L/kg; sediment: 104.39 L/kg) and (b) calculated at each time step using a Windermere humic aqueous model (WHAM) VII speciation calculation.
Figure 7Time required for removal of 70% of the added copper to natural lakes and enclosures, plotted against the ratio of lake depth (H) over the settling flux of suspended particulate matter (S). The dashed line is a theoretical line generated using Equation 4 and average m and K D values of 10.5 mg/L and 104.78 L/kg, respectively. For IME microcosms, the average of 70% removal times for the 6 nominal copper treatments was used. For the Novosibirskoye Reservoir (Novo. Res.), the average of the 4 dissolved copper 70% removal times is used. Calc = calculated; Emp = empirical; IME = Fraunhofer Institute for Molecular Biology and Applied Ecology (Schmallenberg, Germany); MELIMEX = MEtal LIMnological Experiment; UWM = unit world model.