Contaminants of Concernin Puget Sound’s

Food Webpresentation to the Pacific Northwest Pollution Prevention Resource Center

24 October, 2012James E. West,

Puget Sound Ecosystem Monitoring Program Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife

Today I will…• Describe PSEMP contaminant

monitoring in Puget Sound• Provide three examples of chemical

contaminants in the food web• Compare metrics of contaminant

exposure or effects with “deleterious effects thresholds”

• An extensive network of regional scientists who monitor key indicators of ecosystem health.

• Formed in 1988 to assess status and trends of Puget Sound health.

• State funds, coordinated by the Puget Sound Partnership

• Science linked to Management to support PS Recovery

PSEMP In a Nutshell

PSEMP monitors toxics in sentinel species…..

Coho, chinook

herring

3 spp ofrockfish

English sole

PSAMP Toxics in Biota Component

• Plankton• Pacific cod• Lingcod• Sixgill shark• Herring eggs• Dungeness crab• ….and Mussels

James E. West, Puget Sound Assessment and Monitoring Program, April 18th, 2008

……while striving for broad coverage in the Food Web

Why monitor toxics in biota?• What/where is the harm from exposure

to toxics?• Which chemicals are of most concern?• How are conditions changing over

time?• Unexpected conditions

How do we measure exposure to these pollutants?

Some accumulate in organisms• measure in tissues = “tissue residues”

Some are metabolized• measure metabolites, e.g., bile or blood

With some, it’s easy to see characteristic “toxicopathic” effects

Three types of pollutants we’ll mention today

• Persistent Bioaccumulative Toxics (PBTs)– e.g., PCBs, PBDEs,

• Ongoing/current (PAHs)– Petroleum products– Products of combustion

• Endocrine Disruptors– Esp. xenoestrogens– typically from pharmaceuticals and personal

care products

Simplified pathwayfor PCBs enteringand biomagnifying in the pelagic food web

Source: Seattle Post-Intelligencer“The Zone”thezone@seattlepi.com

0

50

100

150

200

South PS

0

50

100

150

200

Central PS

0

50

100

150

200

Northern PS

Puget Sound is a Regional Hot Spot

of PCBs in thePelagic Food web(Pacific herring)

0

50

100

150

200

San Francisco

0

50

100

150

200

WA Coast

0

50

100

150

200

Vancouver Is.

0

50

100

150

200

BC Central

0

50

100

150

200

Q. Charlottes

Ocean herring data courtesy Sandie O’Neill, NOAA Fisheries

PCBs in the pelagic food web (cont’d)

PCB levels in Puget Sound salmon may impair the health of killer whales

Hickie et al. 2007

2006 WADOH Report: recommends restricting intake of Puget Sound

Chinook salmon to only 1 meal/week

Puget Sound Chinook 3 to 5x more contaminated than

Pacific Coastal: 22% of PS Chinook exceed an effects

threshold(O’Neill and West 2009)

Concentration (ug/kg)

0 20 40 60 80

OregonColumbia R.

WA CoastPuget Sound

British ColumbiaSE Alaska

Kenai

Port Orchard/Madison Stock

1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012

Tota

l PC

Bs

(ng/

g lip

id)

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

Fish HealthThreshold

(Meador 2002)

Fish Health Target?PCBs in Pacific herring (Clupea pallasi)

from Central Puget Sound

1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010

PCB

s ng

/g w

et w

t.

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350 Port Orchard

Cal. EPA Advisory

Tissue Levels

≥3 servings/week

<3 servings/week

“no consumption”

Human Health Targets? PCBs in Pacific herring (Clupea pallasi)

from Central Puget Sound

20012002

20032004

20062007

20082010Su

m P

BD

Es (n

g/g

wet

wt.)

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

Brominated flame retardants in Pacific herring (Clupea pallasi)

from Central Puget Sound(Human Health Target)

Cal. EPA AdvisoryTissue level

≥3 servings/week

<3 servings/week

Exposure to PAHs causes

characteristic liver disease in English

sole

PAHs in bottom-dwelling species

English sole (Parophrys vetulus)can metabolize PAHs

1990 1995 2000 2005 2010

Pre

vale

nce

(%) o

f fis

h w

ith

any

of fo

ur ty

pes

of li

ver d

isea

se

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

Liver Disease (solid line)

PAH-related liver disease in English sole from Elliott Bay

1990 1995 2000 2005 2010

Pre

vale

nce

(%) o

f fis

h w

ith

any

of fo

ur ty

pes

of li

ver d

isea

se

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

PA

H e

xpos

ure

(ng

BaP

met

abol

ite/m

l bile

± 9

5% C

.I.)

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

Liver Disease (solid line)PAH Exposure (dashed line)

Adding measure of PAH-metabolites

Target <5% prevalence of liver disease

1990 1995 2000 2005 2010

Pre

vale

nce

(%) o

f fis

h w

ith

any

of fo

ur ty

pes

of li

ver d

isea

se

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

Endocrine disrupting chemicals ……a global environmental issue

Chemicals capable of acting as hormone mimics or blocking hormone action

Can alter the hormonal balance in animals and humans

Effects include developmental, behavioral and reproductive abnormalities

Slide courtesy Lyndal Johnson, NOAA Fisheries

spent or regressed

vitellogenic

spawning

Reproductive condition, female English Sole from 22 Puget Sound locations, April/May

Elliott Bay

Washington

Department of

Fish and Wildlife

Slide adapted from data used in: L.L. Johnson et al. 2008. Xenoestrogen exposure and effects in English sole (Parophrys vetulus) from Puget Sound,WA. Aquatic Toxicology 88: 29-38.

0

25

50

75

100Port

Susan

0

25

50

75

100 PortGardner

0

25

50

75

100Elliott Bay

0

25

50

75

100TheaFoss

Waterway

0

25

50

75

100Sinclair

Inlet

Percentage of male English sole

blood samples with detected vitellogenin

Hood Canal(0%)

Nisqually Reach(0%)

Source: James E. West, Washington Dept. of Fish and Wildlife, Puget Sound Assessment and Monitoring Program, james.west@dfw.wa.gov

Summary• Use organisms to help guide recovery

goals

• Insist on meaningful deleterious effects thresholds to use as recovery targets

• Monitor appropriate exposure or effects metrics to evaluate success

Acknowledgements

WDFWJennifer LanksburyLaurie NiewolnyStefanie OrlainetaJim BeamSteve QuinnellKurt Stick

NOAA FisheriesSandie O’NeillLyndal JohnsonGina YlitaloMark MyersNat ScholzJohn Incardona