Contaminated Sediment Risk Assessment

From Enviro Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Contaminated sediments in rivers and streams, lakes, coastal harbors, and estuaries have the potential to pose ecological and human health risks. The goals of risk assessment applied to contaminated sediments are to characterize the nature and magnitude of the current and potential threats to human health, wildlife and ecosystem functioning posed by contamination; identify the key factors contributing to the potential health and ecological risks; evaluate how implementation of one or more remedy actions will mitigate the risks in the short and long term; and evaluate the risks and impacts from sediment management, both during and after any dredging or other remedy construction activities.

Related Article(s):


Contributor(s): Richard Wenning and Dr. Sabine Apitz

Key Resource(s):

  • Contaminated Sediment Remediation Guidance for Hazardous Waste Sites[1]
  • Principles for Environmental Risk Assessment of the Sediment Compartment[2]
  • Assessing and managing contaminated sediments:
Part I, Developing an Effective Investigation and Risk Evaluation Strategy[3]
Part II, Evaluating Risk and Monitoring Sediment Remedy Effectiveness[4]

Introduction

Improving the management of contaminated sediments is of growing concern globally. Sediment processes in both marine and freshwater environments are important to the function of aquatic ecosystems[5], and many organisms rely on certain sediment quality and quantity characteristics for their life cycle[6]. Human health can also be affected by sediment conditions, either via direct contact, as a result of sediment impacts on water quality, or because of the strong influence sediments can have on the quality of fish and shellfish consumed by people[7].

Science-based methods for assessing sediment quality and use of risk-based decision-making in sediment management are important for identifying conditions suspected to adversely affect ecological and human services provided by sediments, and predicting the likely consequences of different sediment management actions[8][9].A common approach to achieving the explicit management goals inherent in different sediment assessment frameworks in North America and elsewhere is the use of the ecological risk assessment (ERA)[10]. An ERA “evaluates the likelihood and magnitude of adverse effects from exposure to a chemical for organisms, such as animals, plants, or microbes, in the environment”[11]. An ERA provides information relevant to sediment management decision-making [12]. It should be based on sound science and performed in a technically defensible manner that is cost-effective and aimed at protecting human health and the environment[13].

Sediment risk assessment is a specific application of ERA. It may include aspects of a human health risk assessment, as well, to examine the direct and indirect consequences of sediment conditions on human health. It is increasingly used by governmental agencies to support sediment management in freshwater, estuarine, and marine environments. Strategies for sediment management encompass a wide variety of actions, from removal, capping or treatment of contaminated sediment to the monitoring of natural processes, including sedimentation, binding, and bio- and photo-degradation that serve to reduce the potential threat to aquatic life over time. It is not uncommon to revisit a sediment risk assessment periodically to check how changed environmental conditions reflected in sediment and biotic sampling work has either reduced or exacerbated the threats identified in the initial assessment.

At present, several countries lack common recommendations specific to conducting risk assessment of contaminated sediments[14]. In the European Union, sediment has played a secondary role in the Water Framework Directive (WFD), with most quality standards being focused on water with the option for the development of national standards for sediment and biota for bioaccumulative compounds. The Common Implementation Strategy (CIS) in 2010 provided guidance on the monitoring of contaminants in sediments and biota, but not on risk-based decision-making[15]. Additional changes to the strategy were initiated in 2021 to incorporate guidance for management of contaminated sediment [16]. Sediment risk assessment guidance from Norway, Canada, the Netherlands, and the US are most often referenced when assessing the risks from contaminated sediments[14][17][18]. Some European countries, such as Norway, have focused their risk assessment guidance on the assessment of sediment conditions relative to general chemical thresholds, while in North America, risk assessment guidance focuses on site- or region-specific conditions[19].

There is general consensus from a regulatory perspective, globally, on the importance of sediment risk assessment. Technical guidance documents prepared by Canada[20][21] , the European Union[2], and the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA)[1] advise a flexible, tiered approach for sediment risk assessment. Sediment quality guidelines in many countries reflect the scientific importance of including certain sediment-specific measurement and biotic assessment endpoints, as well as certain physical sediment processes and chemical transformation processes potentially affecting biotic responses to contaminant exposure in the sediment[22]. New risk assessment methods continue to emerge in the scientific literature[23][24][25]. These new methods, however, are likely to be considered supplemental to the more generalized framework shared globally.

Fundamentals of Sediment Risk Assessment

Figure 1. Schematic of the sediment risk assessment process

Whereas there is strong evidence of anthropogenic impacts on the benthic community at many sediment sites, the degree of toxicity (or even its presence or absence) cannot be predicted with absolute certainty using contaminant concentrations alone[9]. A sediment ERA should include lines of evidence (LOEs) derived from several different investigations[22]. One common approach to develop several of these LOEs in a decision framework is the triad approach. Triad-based assessment frameworks require evidence based on sediment chemistry, toxicity, and benthic community structure (possibly including evidence of bioaccumulation) to designate sediment as toxic and requiring management or control[26]. In some decision frameworks, particularly those used to establish and rank risks in national or regional programs, all components of the triad are carried out simultaneously, with the various LOEs combined to support weight of evidence (WOE) decision making. In other frameworks, LOEs are tiered to minimize costs by collecting only the data required to make a decision and leaving some potential consequences and uncertainties unresolved.

Figure 1 provides an overview of a sediment risk assessment process. The first step, and a fundamental requirement, in sediment risk assessment involves scoping and planning prior to undertaking work. This is important for optimizing the available assessment resource and conducting an assessment at the appropriate level of detail that is transparent and free, to the extent possible, of any bias or preconceived beliefs concerning the outcome[27].

Screening-Level Risk Assessment (SLRA)

Technical guidance in many countries strongly encourages sediment risk assessment to begin with a Screening-Level Risk Assessment (SLRA)[1][2][20]. The SLRA is a simplified risk assessment conducted using limited data and often assuming certain, generally conservative and generic, sediment characteristics, sediment contaminant levels, and exposure parameters in the absence of sufficient readily available information[28][29][30][31].

The analysis is often semi-quantitative, and typically includes comparisons of various chemical and physical sediment conditions to threshold limits established in national or international regulations or by generally accepted scientific interpretations. US technical guidance encourages the comparison of contaminant measurements in water, sediment, or soil to National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) sediment screening quick reference tables, or SQuiRT cards, which list quality guidelines from a range of sources, based on differing narrative intent[32].

The screening level approach is intended to minimize the chances of concluding that there is no risk when, in fact, risk may exist. Thus, the results of an SLRA may indicate contaminants or sediments in certain locations in the original study area initially thought to be of concern are acceptable (i.e., contaminant levels are below threshold levels), or that contaminant levels are high enough to indicate immediate action without further assessment (e.g., contaminant levels are well above probable-effects guidelines). In other cases, or at other locations, SLRA may indicate the need for further examination. Further study may apply site-specific, rather than generic and conservative assumptions, to reduce uncertainty.

Detailed Risk Assessment

Detailed sediment risk assessment is conducted when SLRA results indicate one or more sediment contaminants exceed background conditions or regulatory threshold limits. For some contaminants, such as the dioxins and other persistent, bioaccumulative, and toxic substances (PBTs), technical guidance may mandate further examination, regardless of whether threshold levels are exceeded[33][34]. Detailed sediment risk assessment typically follows a three-step framework similar to that described for ecological risk assessment - problem formulation, analysis, and risk characterization[35].

US sediment management guidance describes a detailed risk assessment process similar to that followed for US ecological risk assessment[1]. The first step is problem formulation. It involves defining chemical and physical conditions, delineating the spatial footprint of the sediment area to be examined, and identifying the human uses and ecological features of the sediment. Historical data are included in this initial step to better understand the results of biota, sediment, and water sampling as well as laboratory toxicity testing results. The SLRA is often included as a part of problem formulation.

The second step is analysis, which includes both an exposure assessment and an effects assessment. The exposure assessment includes the identification of pathways by which human and aquatic organisms might directly or indirectly contact contaminants in the sediment. The exposure route (i.e., ingestion, dermal, or inhalation of particulates or gaseous emissions) and both the frequency and duration of contact (i.e., hourly, daily, or seasonally) are determined for each contaminant exposure pathway and human and ecological receptor. The environmental fate of the contaminant, factors affecting uptake, and the overall exposure dose are included in the calculation of the level of contaminant exposure. The effects assessment identifies the possible short-term (acute) and long-term (chronic) biological responses associated with different levels of exposure for each contaminant and human and ecological receptor.

The third step is risk-characterization. It involves calculating the risks for each human and ecological receptor posed by each sediment contaminant, as well as the cumulative risk associated with the combined exposure to all contaminants exerting similar biological effects. An uncertainty analysis is often included in this step of the risk assessment to convey where knowledge or data are lacking regarding the presence of the contaminant in the sediment, the biological response associated with exposure to the contaminant, or the behavior of the receptor with respect to contact with the sediment. A sensitivity analysis also may be conducted to convey the range of exposures (lowest, typical, and worst-case) and risks associated with changes in key assumptions and parameter values used in the exposure calculations and effects assessment.

Key Considerations

Stakeholder Engagement

Stakeholder involvement is widely acknowledged as an important element of dredged material management[36], sediment remediation[37], and other environmental and sediment related activities[38][39].

Sediment management, particularly at the watershed or river basin scale, involves a wide variety of different environmental, governmental, and societal issues[40]. Incorporating these different views, interests, and perspectives into a form that builds consensus for whatever actions and goals are in mind (e.g., commercial ports and shipping, navigation, flood protection, or habitat restoration) necessitates a formal stakeholder engagement process[41].

Results from a three-year (2008-2010) Sediment and Society research project funded by the Norwegian Research Council point to three important challenges that must be resolved for successful stakeholder engagement: (1) including people who have important management information and local knowledge, but not much influence in the decision-making process; (2) securing resources to ensure participation and (3) engaging and motivating stakeholders to participate early in the sediment remediation planning process[37].

Conceptual Site Model

The preparation of a conceptual site model (CSM) is a fundamental component of problem formulation and the first step in sediment risk assessment. The CSM is a narrative and/or illustrative representation of the physical, chemical and biological processes that control the transport, migration and actual or potential impacts of sediment contamination to human and/or ecological receptors[42][43]. The CSM should include a “food web” because the aquatic food web is an important exposure pathway by which contaminants in the sediment reach humans and pelagic aquatic life[44].

The CSM provides an early opportunity for critical examination of the interactions between sediment and the water column and the influence of groundwater inputs, surface runoff, and hydrodynamics. For example, there are situations where impacts in the aquatic food web can be driven by ongoing inputs to the water column from upstream sources, but mistakenly connected to polluted sediments. Other considerations included in a CSM can be socio-economic and include linkages to the ecosystem services provided by sediments[45][46], or the social, economic and environmental impacts of sediment management alternatives. In such cases where the sediment risk assessment is intended to address the longer-term societal benefits of different management actions (including no action), the CSM could be viewed as part of a sustainable development strategy, or SustCSM[47][48]. At a minimum, however, the purpose of the CSM is to illustrate the scope of the risk assessment and guide the quantification of exposure and risk.

Environmental Fate

An important consideration in exposure analysis is the determination of the bioavailable fraction of the contaminant in the sediment. There are two considerations. First, the adverse condition may be buried deep enough in sediments to be below the biologically available zone; typically, conditions in sediment below a depth of 5 cm will not contact burrowing benthic organisms[49]. If there is no prospect for the adverse condition to come closer to the surface, then the risk assessment could conclude the risk of exposure is insignificant. The second consideration relates to chemistry and the factors involved in the binding to sediment particles or the chemical form of the substance in the sediment[50]. However, these assumptions should be examined in the context of climate change, and the likelihood of more frequent and extreme events, putting burial at risk, higher temperatures and changing biogeochemical conditions, which may alter environmental fate of contaminants, compared to historical studies.

The above contaminant bioavailability considerations are important factors influencing assumptions in the risk assessment about contaminant exposure[51][52]. There have been recent advances in the use of sorbent amendments applied to contaminated sediments that alter sediment geochemistry, increase contaminant binding, and reduce contaminant exposure risks to people and the environment[53]. Passive sampling techniques have emerged to quantify chemical binding to sediment and determine the freely dissolved concentration that is bioavailable.

Assessment and Measurement Endpoints

Assessment and measurement endpoints used in sediment risk assessment are comparable to those described in USEPA ecological risk assessment guidance[1][54][55][56][57]. A sediment risk assessment, and ecological risk assessments more broadly, must have clearly defined endpoints that are socially and biologically relevant, accessible to prediction and measurement, and susceptible to the hazard being assessed[54].

Assessment endpoints for humans include both carcinogenic and noncarcinogenic effects. Due to their assumed higher levels of exposure, human receptors in sediment risk assessment typically include recreational, commercial, and subsistence fishermen, i.e., people who might be at increased risk from eating fish or contacting the sediment or water on a regular basis such as indigenous peoples, immigrants from fishing cultures, and subsistence fishers who rely upon fish as a major source of protein. Special considerations are given to women of child-bearing age, pregnant women and young children. Assessment endpoints for ecological receptors focus on benthic organisms, resident fish, piscivorous and other predatory birds and marine mammals. Endpoints typically include mortality, reproductive success and population susceptibility to disease or similar adverse chronic conditions.

Measurement endpoints are related quantitatively to each assessment endpoint. Whenever practical, multiple measurement endpoints are chosen to provide additional lines of evidence for each assessment endpoint. For example, for humans, it might be possible to measure contaminant levels in both food items and human blood or tissue. For predatory fish, birds and mammals, it might be possible to measure contaminants in both prey and predator tissues. Measurement endpoints can be selected to assess non-chemical stressors as well, such as habitat alteration and water turbidity. Typically, measurement endpoints are compared to measurements at a reference site to ascertain the degree of departure from local natural or background conditions.

Sediment Toxicity Testing

Sediment bioassays are an integral part of effects characterization when assessing the risks posed by contaminated sediments and developing sediment quality guidelines[58][59]. The selection of appropriate sediment bioassays is dependent on the questions being addressed, the physical and chemical characteristics of the sediment matrix, the nature of the contaminant(s) of concern, and preferences of the supervising regulatory authority for the test method and test organisms[60]. Bioassay procedures have been standardized in several countries, and it is not unusual for different test methods to be required in different countries for the same sediment management purpose[61]. Guidance documents in Australia, Canada, Europe and the US cover the wide range of sediment bioassay procedures most often used in risk assessment[62][63][64][65][66].

In general, sediment toxicity tests focus on either (acute) lethality in whole organisms (typically benthic infaunal species such as amphipods and polychaetes) following short-term or acute exposures (<14 days) or (chronic) sublethal responses (e.g., reduced growth or reproduction or both) following longer-term exposures[59]. It is not unusual in sediment risk assessment to rely on more than one sediment bioassay. Both acute and chronic tests involving either solid-phase or pore-water sediment fractions can be useful to discern the contributions of different contaminants in whole sediment by examining the response of different endpoints in different test organisms[63][64]. The application of more specialized techniques such as toxicity identification evaluations (TIEs) have also proved useful to help identify contaminants or contaminant classes most likely responsible for toxicity and to exclude potentially confounding factors such as ammonia[67][68].

Uncertainty

As part of the overall analysis of risk from exposure to certain sediment conditions, it is generally understood there is a moderate degree of uncertainty associated with sampling and the environmental fate of contaminants; an order of magnitude of uncertainty associated with ecological exposure and dose-response; and greater than an order of magnitude of uncertainty associated with the quantification of potential human health effects[69]. The sources of uncertainty and significance to sediment risk assessment can vary widely, thereby affecting confidence in the decisions made based on risk assessment[70][71].

Consequently, technical guidance in several countries encourages including a quantitative uncertainty analysis in sediment risk assessment[1][2][3][4]. The aim of uncertainty analysis is to express either quantitatively or qualitatively the limitations inherent in predicting exposures and effects and, ultimately, the level of overall risk posed by sediment conditions[72]. Sediment risk assessment increasingly relies on a weight-of-evidence process to improve the certainty of conclusions about whether or not impairment exists due to sediment contamination, and, if so, which stressors and biological species (or ecological responses) are of greatest concern[73]. Recent advancements, including the use of Bayesian networks and geographic information systems, also help capture the range of variability in both measured and predicted exposures and responses[74][75][76]. The level of sophistication applied to the uncertainty analysis is a subjective consideration and often decided by regulatory pressures, public perceptions, and the likely cost (not only economic, but also social and environmental) of mitigating or removing the contamination.

Role in Sediment Management

Whether or not remediation of contaminated sediments is warranted depends on the magnitude of direct or indirect health risks to humans, ecological threats to aquatic biota, and the extent of risk reduction that can be achieved by removal or containment of the contamination[77]. As all sediment management also introduces risk pathways, such as sediment re-suspension leading to contaminant release, possible impacts due to land, water and energy usage, and risk to workers, remedial decision-making should also consider the risks posed by the remedial process. There are two types of remediation risks inherent in sediment remediation - engineering and biological. Sediment remedy implementation risks are predominantly short-term engineering issues associated with applying the remedy such that worker and community health and safety are protected and, equipment failures, and accident are minimized[78]. Sediment residual risks are predominantly longer-term concerns associated with the consequences of residual chronic exposures and effects to humans, aquatic biota, and wildlife after the remedy has been implemented[78].

In addition to evaluating sediment conditions prior to remediation, sediment risk assessment can be useful to predict the extent to which engineering risks, contaminant exposure pathways, and different human and wildlife populations at risk might change with different remediation options[79]. Decision tools such as multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA), or sustainability assessment[80][81], for example, incorporate elements from sediment risk assessment to support remediation decision making[82]. Sediment risk assessment also plays an important role in the implementation of monitored natural recovery (MNR) as a remediation strategy[83]. Insofar as ecological recovery is affected by surface‐sediment‐contaminant concentrations, the primary recovery processes for MNR are natural sediment burial and transformation of the contaminant to less toxic forms by biological or chemical processes[84].

Since risk reduction is the long‐term goal of contaminated sediment management[85], predicting the rate at which contaminant exposures and risks are mitigated by sedimentation and degradation over time can be aided by including parameters in the risk assessment that calculate the rate of contaminant removal or decay in the sediment. Evaluating sediment management options in terms of risk reduction involves assessing risks for the plausible range of environmental conditions expected in the affected waterbody, which includes the current state of the site as well as the conditions that might occur during the remedy implementation and long after the work is complete and the ecosystem stabilizes[86][87].

Summary

Effective sediment risk assessment begins with an initial scoping and planning exercise. The work proceeds to a SLRA and, if warranted, detailed risk assessment using a process comparable to an ERA. The key elements of sediment risk assessment must include a well‐designed and site‐specific CSM; a transparent and well‐thought‐out biological and chemical data collection and analysis plan; carefully selected reference sites and decision criteria; and an explicit discussion of uncertainty. If the sediment risk assessment concludes that unacceptable risks exist, the plausible risk management strategies must be identified, evaluated, selected, implemented, and their success monitored relative to the outcomes predicted in the risk assessment.

Sediment risk assessments are designed to simulate and predict plausible interactions between contaminants or other stressors and both ecological and human receptors. The intent is to derive meaningful insights that provide conclusions that are both rational and protective, in that they err on the side of over-estimating the likely environmental risks. Although conservative assumptions should always be used early in the sediment risk assessment process, final decisions should be supported by refined, realistic estimates of risk provided by site‐specific data and sound analytical approaches. It is increasingly evident after nearly 50 years of application that sediment risk assessment is most useful when supported by a well‐designed, site‐specific, and tiered assessment process[88].

References

  1. ^ 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), 2005. Contaminated Sediment Remediation Guidance for Hazardous Waste Sites. Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, Washington, D.C. EPA-540-R-05-012. OSWER 9355.0-85. Report pdf
  2. ^ 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 Tarazona, J.V., Versonnen, B., Janssen, C., De Laender, F., Vangheluwe, M. and Knight, D., 2014. Principles for Environmental Risk Assessment of the Sediment Compartment: Proceedings of the Topical Scientific Workshop. 7-8 May 2013. European Chemicals Agency, Helsinki. Document ECHA-14-R-13-EN. Report pdf
  3. ^ 3.0 3.1 Apitz, S.E., Davis, J.W., Finkelstein, K., Hohreiter, D.W., Hoke, R., Jensen, R.H., Jersak, J., Kirtay, V.J., Mack, E.E., Magar, V.S. and Moore, D., 2005. Assessing and Managing Contaminated Sediments: Part I, Developing an Effective Investigation and Risk Evaluation Strategy. Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management, 1(1), pp. 2-8. DOI: 10.1897/IEAM_2004a-002.1 Article pdf
  4. ^ 4.0 4.1 Apitz, S.E., Davis, J.W., Finkelstein, K., Hohreiter, D.W., Hoke, R., Jensen, R.H., Jersak, J., Kirtay, V.J., Mack, E.E., Magar, V.S. and Moore, D., 2005b. Assessing and Managing Contaminated Sediments: Part II, Evaluating Risk and Monitoring Sediment Remedy Effectiveness. Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management, 1(1), pp.e1-e14. DOI: 10.1897/IEAM_2004a-002e.1
  5. ^ Apitz, S.E., 2012. Conceptualizing the role of sediment in sustaining ecosystem services: Sediment-Ecosystem Regional Assessment (SEcoRA), Science of the Total Environment, 415, pp. 9-30. DOI:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2011.05.060
  6. ^ Hauer, C., Leitner, P., Unfer, G., Pulg, U., Habersack, H. and Graf, W., 2018. The Role of Sediment and Sediment Dynamics in the Aquatic Environment. In: Schmutz S., Sendzimir J. (ed.s) Riverine Ecosystem Management. Aquatic Ecology Series, vol. 8, pp. 151-169. Springer. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-73250-3_8 Book pdf
  7. ^ Greenfield, B.K., Melwani, A.R. and Bay, S.M., 2015. A Tiered Assessment Framework to Evaluate Human Health Risk of Contaminated Sediment. Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management, 11(3), pp. 459-473. DOI: 10.1002/ieam.1610
  8. ^ Bridges, T.S., Apitz, S.E., Evison, L., Keckler, K., Logan, M., Nadeau, S. and Wenning, R.J., 2006. Risk‐Based Decision Making to Manage Contaminated Sediments. Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management, 2(1), pp. 51-58. DOI: 10.1002/ieam.5630020110 Article pdf
  9. ^ 9.0 9.1 Apitz, S.E., 2011. Integrated Risk Assessments for the Management of Contaminated Sediments in Estuaries and Coastal Systems. In: Wolanski, E. and McLusky, D.S. (eds.) Treatise on Estuarine and Coastal Science, Vol 4, pp. 311–338. Waltham: Academic Press. ISBN: 9780123747112
  10. ^ US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), 1997. The Incidence and Severity of Sediment Contamination in Surface Waters of the United States: Volume 1, National Sediment Quality Survey. EPA-823R-97-006. Washington, DC. Report pdf
  11. ^ Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry (SETAC), 2018. Technical Issue Paper: Environmental Risk Assessment of Chemicals. SETAC, Pensacola, FL. 5 pp. Article pdf
  12. ^ Stahl, R.G., Bachman, R., Barton, A., Clark, J., deFur, P., Ells, S., Pittinger, C., Slimak, M., Wentsel, R., 2001. Risk Management: Ecological Risk-Based Decision Making. SETAC Press, Pensacola, FL, 222 pp. ISBN: 978-1-880611-26-5
  13. ^ Chief of Naval Operations (CNO), 1999. Navy Policy for Conducting Ecological Risk Assessments, Letter 5090, Ser N453E/9U595355, dated 05 April 99. Department of the Navy, Washington, DC. Report pdf
  14. ^ 14.0 14.1 Bruce, P., Sobek, A., Ohlsson, Y. and Bradshaw, C., 2020. Risk assessments of contaminated sediments from the perspective of weight of evidence strategies – a Swedish case study. Human and Ecological Risk Assessment, 27(5), pp. 1366-1387. DOI: 10.1080/10807039.2020.1848414 
  15. ^ European Commission, 2010. Common Implementation Strategy For The Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC), Technical Report - 2010 – 041; Guidance document No. 25 On Chemical Monitoring Of Sediment And Biota Under The Water Framework Directive. 82pp. ISBN 978-92-79-16224-4. Report pdf
  16. ^ Brils, J., 2020. Including sediment in European River Basin Management Plans: Twenty years of work by SedNet. Journal of Soils and Sediments, 20(12), pp.4229-4237. DOI: 10.1007/s11368-020-02782-1 Article pdf
  17. ^ Birch, G.F., 2018. A review of chemical-based sediment quality assessment methodologies for the marine environment. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 133, pp.218-232. DOI: 10.1016/j.marpolbul.2018.05.039
  18. ^ Kwok, K.W., Batley, G.E., Wenning, R.J., Zhu, L., Vangheluwe, M. and Lee, S., 2014. Sediment quality guidelines: challenges and opportunities for improving sediment management. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 21(1), pp. 17-27. DOI: 10.1007/s11356-013-1778-7 Article pdf
  19. ^ Apitz, S.E., 2008. Is risk-based, sustainable sediment management consistent with European policy?. Journal of Soils and Sediments, 8(6), p.461-466. DOI: 10.1007/s11368-008-0039-8
  20. ^ 20.0 20.1 Fletcher, R., Welsh, P. and Fletcher, T., 2008. Guidelines for Identifying, Assessing, and Managing Contaminated Sediments in Ontario. Ontario Ministry of the Environment. PIBS6658e.
  21. ^ Health Canada, 2017. Supplemental Guidance on Human Health Risk Assessment of Contaminated Sediments: Direct Contact Pathway, Federal Contaminated Site Risk Assessment in Canada. ISBN: 978-0-660-07989-9. Cat.: H144-41/2017E-PDF. Pub. 160382. Report pdf
  22. ^ 22.0 22.1 Wenning, R.J. Batley, G.E., Ingersoll, C.G., and Moore, D.W., (eds), 2005. Use Of Sediment Quality Guidelines And Related Tools For The Assessment Of Contaminated Sediments. SETAC, Pensacola, FL. 815 pp. ISBN 1-880611-71-6.
  23. ^ Benson, N.U., Adedapo, A.E., Fred-Ahmadu, O.H., Williams, A.B., Udosen, E.D., Ayejuyo, O.O. and Olajire, A.A., 2018. A new method for assessment of sediment-associated contamination risks using multivariate statistical approach. MethodsX, 5, pp. 268-276. DOI: 10.1016/j.mex.2018.03.005 Article pdf
  24. ^ Saeedi, M. and Jamshidi-Zanjani, A., 2015. Development of a new aggregative index to assess potential effect of metals pollution in aquatic sediments. Ecological Indicators, 58, pp. 235-243. DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolind.2015.05.047
  25. ^ Väänänen, K., Leppänen, M.T., Chen, X. and Akkanen, J., 2018. Metal bioavailability in ecological risk assessment of freshwater ecosystems: from science to environmental management. Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety, 147, pp. 430-446. DOI: 10.1016/j.ecoenv.2017.08.064
  26. ^ Chapman, P.M., Paine, M.D., Arthur, A.D., Taylor, L.A., 1996. A triad study of sediment quality associated with a major, relatively untreated marine sewage discharge. Marine Pollution Bulletin 32(1), pp. 47–64. DOI: 10.1016/0025-326X(95)00108-Y
  27. ^ Hill, R.A., Chapman, P.M., Mann, G.S. and Lawrence, G.S., 2000. Level of Detail in Ecological Risk Assessments. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 40(6), pp. 471-477. DOI: 10.1016/S0025-326X(00)00036-9
  28. ^ Hope, B.K., 2006. An examination of ecological risk assessment and management practices. Environment International, 32(8), pp. 983-995. DOI: 10.1016/j.envint.2006.06.005
  29. ^ Weinstein, J.E., Crawford, K.D., Garner, T.R. and Flemming, A.J., 2010. Screening-level ecological and human health risk assessment of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in stormwater detention pond sediments of Coastal South Carolina, USA. Journal of Hazardous Materials, 178(1-3), pp. 906-916. DOI: 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2010.02.024
  30. ^ Rak, A., Maly, M.E., Tracey, G., 2008. A Guide to Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment, TG-090801. Tri-Services Ecological Risk Assessment Working Group (TSERAWG), U.S. Army Biological Technical Assistance Group (BTAG), Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD. 26 pp. Report pdf
  31. ^ US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), 2001. ECO Update. The Role of Screening-Level Risk Assessments and Refining Contaminants of Concern in Baseline Ecological Risk Assessments. EPA 540/F-01/014. Washington, D.C. Report pdf
  32. ^ Buchman, M.F., 2008. Screening Quick Reference Tables (SQuiRTs), NOAA OR&R Report 08-1. National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Coastal Protection and Restoration Protection Division. 34 pp. Report.pdf
  33. ^ Solomon, K., Matthies, M., and Vighi, M., 2013. Assessment of PBTs in the European Union: a critical assessment of the proposed evaluation scheme with reference to plant protection products. Environmental Sciences Europe, 25(1), pp. 1-17. DOI: 10.1186/2190-4715-25-10  Article pdf
  34. ^ Matthies, M., Solomon, K., Vighi, M., Gilman, A. and Tarazona, J.V., 2016. The origin and evolution of assessment criteria for persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic (PBT) chemicals and persistent organic pollutants (POPs). Environmental Science: Processes and Impacts, 18(9), pp. 1114-1128. DOI: 10.1039/C6EM00311G
  35. ^ Suter, G.W., 2008. Ecological Risk Assessment in the United States Environmental Protection Agency: A Historical Overview. Integrated Environmental Assessment And Management, 4(3), pp. 285-289. DOI: 10.1897/IEAM_2007-062.1 Article pdf
  36. ^ Collier, Z.A., Bates, M.E., Wood, M.D. and Linkov, I., 2014. Stakeholder engagement in dredged material management decisions. Science of the Total Environment, 496, pp. 248-256. DOI: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2014.07.044 Article pdf
  37. ^ 37.0 37.1 Oen, A.M.P., Sparrevik, M., Barton, D.N., Nagothu, U.S., Ellen, G.J., Breedveld, G.D., Skei, J. and Slob, A., 2010. Sediment and society: an approach for assessing management of contaminated sediments and stakeholder involvement in Norway. Journal of Soils and Sediments, 10(2), pp. 202-208. DOI: 10.1007/s11368-009-0182-x
  38. ^ Gerrits, L. and Edelenbos, J., 2004. Management of Sediments Through Stakeholder Involvement. Journal of Soils and Sediments, 4(4), pp. 239-246. DOI: 10.1007/BF02991120
  39. ^ Braun, A.B., da Silva Trentin, A.W., Visentin, C. and Thomé, A., 2019. Sustainable remediation through the risk management perspective and stakeholder involvement: A systematic and bibliometric view of the literature. Environmental Pollution, 255(1), p.113221. DOI: 10.1016/j.envpol.2019.113221
  40. ^ Liu, C., Walling, D.E. and He, Y., 2018. The International Sediment Initiative case studies of sediment problems in river basins and their management. International Journal of Sediment Research, 33(2), pp. 216-219. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijsrc.2017.05.005 Article pdf
  41. ^ Slob, A.F.L., Ellen, G.J. and Gerrits, L., 2008. Sediment management and stakeholder involvement. In: Sustainable Management of Sediment Resources, Vol. 4: Sediment Management at the River Basin Scale, Owens, P.N. (ed.), pp. 199-216. Elsevier. DOI: 10.1016/S1872-1990(08)80009-8
  42. ^ New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, 2019. Technical Guidance for Preparation and Submission of a Conceptual Site Model. Version 1.1. Site Remediation and Waste Management Program, Trenton, NJ. 46 pp. Report pdf.
  43. ^ US Environmental Protection Agency, 2011. Guidance for the Development of Conceptual Models for a Problem Formulation Developed for Registration Review. Environmental Fate and Effects Division, Office of Pesticide Programs, Washington, D.C.
  44. ^ Arnot, J.A. and Gobas, F.A., 2004. A Food Web Bioaccumulation Model for Organic Chemicals in Aquatic Ecosystems. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 23(10), pp. 2343-2355. DOI: 10.1897/03-438
  45. ^ Broszeit, S., Beaumont, N.J., Hooper, T.L., Somerfield, P.J. and Austen, M.C., 2019. Developing conceptual models that link multiple ecosystem services to ecological research to aid management and policy, the UK marine example. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 141, pp.236-243. DOI: 10.1016/j.marpolbul.2019.02.051 Article pdf
  46. ^ Wang, J., Lautz, L.S., Nolte, T.M., Posthuma, L., Koopman, K.R., Leuven, R.S. and Hendriks, A.J., 2021. Towards a systematic method for assessing the impact of chemical pollution on ecosystem services of water systems. Journal of Environmental Management, 281, p. 111873. DOI: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2020.111873  Article pdf.
  47. ^ McNally, A.D., Fitzpatrick, A.G., Harrison, D., Busey, A., and Apitz, S.E., 2020. Tiered approach to sustainability analysis in sediment remediation decision making. Remediation Journal, 31(1), pp. 29-44. DOI: 10.1002/rem.21661 Article pdf.
  48. ^ Holland, K.S., Lewis, R.E., Tipton, K., Karnis, S., Dona, C., Petrovskis, E., and Hook, C., 2011. Framework for Integrating Sustainability Into Remediation Projects. Remediation Journal, 21(3), pp. 7-38. DOI: 10.1002/rem.20288.
  49. ^ Anderson, R.H., Prues, A.G. and Kravitz, M.J., 2010. Determination of the biologically relevant sampling depth for terrestrial ecological risk assessments. Geoderma, 154(3-4), pp.336-339. DOI: 10.1016/j.geoderma.2009.11.004
  50. ^ Eggleton, J. and Thomas, K.V., 2004. A review of factors affecting the release and bioavailability of contaminants during sediment disturbance events. Environment International, 30(7), pp. 973-980. DOI: 10.1016/j.envint.2004.03.001
  51. ^ Peijnenburg, W.J., 2020. Implementation of bioavailability in prospective and retrospective risk assessment of chemicals in soils and sediments. In: The Handbook of Environmental Chemistry, vol 100, Bioavailability of Organic Chemicals in Soil and Sediment, Ortega-Calvo, J.J., Parsons, J.R. (ed.s), pp.391-422. Springer. DOI: 10.1007/698_2020_516
  52. ^ Ortega-Calvo, J.J., Harmsen, J., Parsons, J.R., Semple, K.T., Aitken, M.D., Ajao, C., Eadsforth, C., Galay-Burgos, M., Naidu, R., Oliver, R. and Peijnenburg, W.J., 2015. From Bioavailability Science to Regulation of Organic Chemicals. Environmental Science and Technology, 49, 10255−10264. DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.5b02412 Article pdf.
  53. ^ Ghosh, U., Luthy, R.G., Cornelissen, G., Werner, D. and Menzie, C.A., 2011. In-situ sorbent amendments: a new direction in contaminated sediment management. Environmental Science and Technology, 45, 4, 1163–1168. DOI: 10.1021/es102694h Article pdf
  54. ^ 54.0 54.1 US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), 1992. Framework for Ecological Risk Assessment, EPA/630/R-92/001. Risk Assessment Forum, Washington DC. Report pdf
  55. ^ US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), 1996. Eco Update: Ecological Significance and Selection of Candidate Assessment Endpoints. EPA/540/F-95/037. Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, Washington DC. Report pdf
  56. ^ US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), 1997. Ecological Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund: Process for Designing and Conducting Ecological Risk Assessments - Interim Final, EPA 540/R-97/006. Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, Washington DC. Report pdf
  57. ^ US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), 1998. Guidelines for Ecological Risk Assessment. EPA/630/R-95/002F. Risk Assessment Forum, Washington DC. Report pdf
  58. ^ US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), 2014. Toxicity Testing and Ecological Risk Assessment Guidance for Benthic Invertebrates. Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention, Washington DC. Report pdf
  59. ^ 59.0 59.1 Simpson, S., Campana, O., Ho, K., 2016. Chapter 7, Sediment Toxicity Testing. In: J. Blasco, P.M. Chapman, O. Campana, M. Hampel (ed.s), Marine Ecotoxicology: Current Knowledge and Future Issues. Academic Press Incorporated. pp. 199-237. DOI: 10.1016/B978-0-12-803371-5.00007-2
  60. ^ Amiard-Triquet, C., Amiard, J.C. and Mouneyrac, C. (ed.s), 2015. Aquatic Ecotoxicology: Advancing Tools For Dealing With Emerging Risks. Academic Press, NY. ISBN #9780128009499. DOI: 10.1016/B978-0-12-800949-9.12001-7
  61. ^ DelValls, T.A., Andres, A., Belzunce, M.J., Buceta, J.L., Casado-Martinez, M.C., Castro, R., Riba, I., Viguri, J.R. and Blasco, J., 2004. Chemical and ecotoxicological guidelines for managing disposal of dredged material. TrAC Trends in Analytical Chemistry, 23(10-11), pp. 819-828. DOI: 10.1016/j.trac.2004.07.014
  62. ^ Bat, L., 2005. A Review of Sediment Toxicity Bioassays Using the Amphipods and Polychaetes. Turkish Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 5(2), pp. 119-139. Article pdf
  63. ^ 63.0 63.1 Keddy, C.J., Greene, J.C. and Bonnell, M.A., 1995. Review of Whole-Organism Bioassays: Soil, Freshwater Sediment, and Freshwater Assessment in Canada. Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety, 30(3), pp. 221-251. DOI: 10.1006/eesa.1995.1027
  64. ^ 64.0 64.1 Giesy, J.P., Rosiu, C.J., Graney, R.L. and Henry, M.G., 1990. Benthic invertebrate bioassays with toxic sediment and pore water. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 9(2), pp. 233-248. DOI: 10.1002/etc.5620090214
  65. ^ Simpson, S. and Batley, G. (ed.s), 2016. Sediment Quality Assessment: A Practical Guide, Second Edition. 358 pp. CSIRO Publishing, Australia. ISBN # 9781486303847.
  66. ^ Moore, D.W., Farrar, D., Altman, S. and Bridges, T.S., 2019. Comparison of Acute and Chronic Toxicity Laboratory Bioassay Endpoints with Benthic Community Responses in Field‐Exposed Contaminated Sediments. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 38(8), pp. 1784-1802. DOI: 10.1002/etc.4454
  67. ^ Ho, K.T. and Burgess, R.M., 2013. What's causing toxicity in sediments? Results of 20 years of toxicity identification and evaluations. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 32(11), pp. 2424-2432. DOI: 10.1002/etc.2359
  68. ^ Bailey, H.C., Curran, C.A., Arth, P., Lo, B.P. and Gossett, R., 2016. Application of sediment toxicity identification evaluation techniques to a site with multiple contaminants. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 35(10), pp. 2456-2465. DOI: 10.1002/etc.3488
  69. ^ Di Guardo, A., Gouin, T., MacLeod, M. and Scheringer, M., 2018. Environmental fate and exposure models: advances and challenges in 21st century chemical risk assessment. Environmental Science: Processes and Impacts, 20(1), pp. 58-71. DOI: 10.1039/C7EM00568G Article pdf
  70. ^ Reckhow, K.H., 1994. Water quality simulation modeling and uncertainty analysis for risk assessment and decision making. Ecological Modelling, 72(1-2), pp.1-20. DOI: 10.1016/0304-3800(94)90143-0
  71. ^ Chapman, P.M., Ho, K.T., Munns Jr, W.R., Solomon, K. and Weinstein, M.P., 2002. Issues in sediment toxicity and ecological risk assessment. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 44(4), pp. 271-278. DOI: 10.1016/S0025-326X(01)00329-0
  72. ^ Batley, G.E., Burton, G.A., Chapman, P.M. and Forbes, V.E., 2002. Uncertainties in Sediment Quality Weight-of-Evidence (WOE) Assessments. Human and Ecological Risk Assessment, 8(7), pp. 1517-1547. DOI: 10.1080/20028091057466
  73. ^ Burton, G.A., Batley, G.E., Chapman, P.M., Forbes, V.E., Smith, E.P., Reynoldson, T., Schlekat, C.E., Besten, P.J.D., Bailer, A.J., Green, A.S. and Dwyer, R.L., 2002. A Weight-of-Evidence Framework for Assessing Sediment (or Other) Contamination: Improving Certainty in the Decision-Making Process. Human and Ecological Risk Assessment, 8(7), pp. 1675-1696. DOI: 10.1080/20028091056854
  74. ^ Holsman, K., Samhouri, J., Cook, G., Hazen, E., Olsen, E., Dillard, M., Kasperski, S., Gaichas, S., Kelble, C.R., Fogarty, M. and Andrews, K., 2017. An ecosystem‐based approach to marine risk assessment. Ecosystem Health and Sustainability, 3(1), p. e01256. DOI: 10.1002/ehs2.1256  Article pdf
  75. ^ Marcot, B.G. and Penman, T.D., 2019. Advances in Bayesian network modelling: Integration of modelling technologies. Environmental Modelling and Software, 111, pp. 386-393. DOI: 10.1016/j.envsoft.2018.09.016
  76. ^ Men, C., Liu, R., Wang, Q., Guo, L., Miao, Y. and Shen, Z., 2019. Uncertainty analysis in source apportionment of heavy metals in road dust based on positive matrix factorization model and geographic information system. Science of The Total Environment, 652, pp. 27-39. DOI: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.10.212
  77. ^ Kvasnicka, J., Burton Jr, G.A., Semrau, J. and Jolliet, O., 2020. Dredging Contaminated Sediments: Is it Worth the Risks? Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 39(3), pp. 515-516. DOI: 10.1002/etc.4679  Article pdf
  78. ^ 78.0 78.1 Wenning, R.J., Sorensen, M. and Magar, V.S., 2006. Importance of Implementation and Residual Risk Analyses in Sediment Remediation. Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management, 2(1), pp. 59-65. DOI: 10.1002/ieam.5630020111 Article pdf
  79. ^ National Research Council (NRC), 2001. A Risk‐Management Strategy For PCB Contaminated Sediments. Committee On Remediation Of PCB‐Contaminated Sediments, Board On Environmental Studies And Toxicology. National Academies Press, Washington DC. 452 pp. ISBN: 0-309-58873-1 DOI: 10.17226/10041 Article pdf
  80. ^ Apitz, S.E., Fitzpatrick, A., McNally, A., Harrison, D., Coughlin, C., and Edwards, D.A., 2018. Stakeholder Value-Linked Sustainability Assessment: Evaluating Remedial Alternatives for the Portland Harbor Superfund Site, Portland, Oregon, USA. Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management, 14(1), pp. 43-62. DOI: 10.1002/ieam.1998 Article pdf
  81. ^ Fitzpatrick, A., Apitz, S.E., Harrison, D., Ruffle, B., and Edwards, D.A., 2018. The Portland Harbor Superfund Site Sustainability Project: Introduction. Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management, 14(1), pp. 17-21. DOI: 10.1002/ieam.197  Article pdf
  82. ^ Linkov, I., Satterstrom, F.K., Kiker, G., Seager, T.P., Bridges, T., Gardner, K.H., Rogers, S.H., Belluck, D.A. and Meyer, A., 2006. Multicriteria Decision Analysis: A Comprehensive Decision Approach for Management of Contaminated Sediments. Risk Analysis, 26(1), pp. 61-78. DOI: 10.1111/j.1539-6924.2006.00713.x  Article pdf
  83. ^ Magar, V.S. and Wenning, R.J., 2006. The role of monitored natural recovery in sediment remediation. Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management, 2(1), pp. 66-74. DOI: 10.1002/ieam.5630020112  Article pdf
  84. ^ Magar, V.S., Chadwick, D.B., Bridges, T.S., Fuchsman, P.C., Conder, J.M., Dekker, T.J., Steevens, J.A., Gustavson, K.E. and Mills, M.A., 2009. Technical Guide: Monitored Natural Recovery at Contaminated Sediment Sites. Environmental Security Technology Certification Program (ESTCP) Project ER-0622. 277 pp. Report pdf
  85. ^ Apitz, S.E. and Power, E.A., 2002. From Risk Assessment to Sediment Management: An International Perspective. Journal of Soils and Sediments, 2(2), pp. 61-66. DOI: 10.1007/BF02987872   Article pdf
  86. ^ Linkov, I., Satterstrom, F.K., Kiker, G.A., Bridges, T.S., Benjamin, S.L. and Belluck, D.A., 2006. From Optimization to Adaptation: Shifting Paradigms in Environmental Management and Their Application to Remedial Decisions. Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management, 2(1), pp. 92-98. DOI: 10.1002/ieam.5630020116 Article pdf
  87. ^ Reible, D., Hayes, D., Lue-Hing, C., Patterson, J., Bhowmik, N., Johnson, M. and Teal, J., 2003. Comparison of the Long-Term Risks of Removal and In Situ Management of Contaminated Sediments in the Fox River. Soil and Sediment Contamination, 12(3), pp. 325-344. DOI: 10.1080/713610975
  88. ^ Bridges, T., Berry, W., Della Sala, S., Dorn, P., Ells, S., Gries, T., Ireland, S., Maher, E., Menzie, C., Porebski, L., and Stronkhorst, J., 2005. Chapter 6: A framework for assessing and managing risks from contaminated sediments. In: Use of sediment quality guidelines and related tools for the assessment of contaminated sediments. Wenning, Batley, Ingersoll, and Moore, editors. Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry (SETAC), pp. 227–266. ISBN: 1-880611-71-6

See Also