lake superior environmental chemical contamination by kory groetsch great lakes indian fish and...
TRANSCRIPT
Lake Superior Environmental Chemical
ContaminationBy
Kory Groetsch
Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife Commission
Melanie Neilson
Environment Canada
Mike Whittle
Department of Fisheries and Oceans
Pat McCann
Minnesota Department of HealthPhoto by Nancy Larson, WDNR
Acknowledgements
• R. Day, Michigan Department of Environmental Quality• D. V. Weseloh, Environment Canada• S. Buehler, Indiana University• J. M. Luross, University of Guelph• J. Jeremiason, MN Pollution Control Agency• D. Swackhamer, University of Minnesota• D.J. Anderson, US. EPA, GLNPO • D. DeVault, US Fish and Wildlife Service• A. Li, Environment Canada• L. Chan, Environment Canada
Chemical Goals For the Great Lakes & Lake Superior • Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement
– Article 2: Restore & maintain chemical, physical, and biological integrity.
– Annex 2: Restore unrestricted fish & wildlife consumption.
• Strategic Plan (GLFC)– Wholesome food and healthy aquatic ecosystems.
• Lake Superior Fish Community Objective (LSC)– Reduce contaminants so that all fish are safe to eat.
• Great Lakes Strategy 2002 (US EPA)– Vision Statement: All Great Lakes fish are safe to eat.– Promote safe consumption of Great Lakes fish and wildlife.
PBT Chemicals to be Discussed
• Sport Fish Consumption Advisory Chemicals
– Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs)
– Toxaphene
– Methyl mercury
– Dioxins
– Chlordane
• Monitored Chemicals– Dieldrin– DDT– Hexachlorocyclohexane
(Lindane)– Hexachlorobenzene
(HCB)– Polybrominated diphenyl
ethers (PBDE)– Polybrominated
biphenyls (PBB)
Characteristics that Impact Chemical Accumulation in Lake Superior’s Ecosystem
• Great Lakes: 1st in Area, Volume & Depth
• World Wide: 2nd by Volume, 4th by Area
• Long Water Retention Time
• Cold Water Temperature
• Food Web Structure
ATMOSPHERE
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
ng/m
2/da
y
1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998
Atmospheric: Wet Deposition
DATA SOURCE: IADN Buehler et al. 2002
a-HCH g-HCH Dieldrin p,p’-DDD p,p’-DDE HCB I-PCBp,p’-DDT
HCH Trends in Usage and Wet Deposition
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95
Wo
rld
Wid
e U
sag
e (K
t)
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
Lak
e S
uper
ior
Pre
cipi
tati
on
Con
cent
rati
ons
(ng/
L)
DATA SOURCE: A. Li 1999, C.H. Chan, Environment Canada
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
Con
cent
rati
on (
kg/y
ear)
PCBs
InputsOutputs
Atmospheric Inputs/Output of PCBs
DATA SOURCE: Evaluation of Persistence and Long Range Transport of Organic Chemicals in the Environment. Chapter 7. edited Klecka at al., Jeremiason et al. ES&T (28) 1994.
WATER
Water Concentrations
0.001
0.01
0.1
1
10
a-HCH g-HCH Dieldrin PCBs HCB DDE
198619871996199719921993
DATA SOURCES: Environment Canada, M. Neilson; Anderson et al. 1999, J. Great Lakes Res. (25); Jeremiason et al. 1998, EST (32)
Not Detected
(ng/
L)
CONCENTRATIONS IN
HERRING GULL EGGS AND
WHOLE LAKE TROUT
PCBs in Herring Gull eggs – Lake Superior, 1974-2000.
1
10
100
1974
1976
1978
1980
1982
1984
1986
1988
1990
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
Agawa Rks.
1
10
100
Observed Predicted
Granite I.
log
ug/
g, w
et w
eigh
t
DATA SOURCES: Environment Canada, D.V. Weseloh
Mercury in Herring Gull eggs - Lake Superior, 1973-2000.
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
Granite I.
Agawa Rks.
ug/
g, w
et w
eigh
t
Year
DATA SOURCES: Environment Canada, D.V. Weseloh
0
20
40
60
80
100
% o
f o
rig
ina
l
PCB DDE Dieldrin HCB 2,3,7,8-dioxin
85% 89% 90% 94% 50%
62.8 16.7 0.52 0.24 16.0
9.66 1.86 0.05 0.01 7.97
Percent Decline:
DATA SOURCES: Environment Canada, D.V. Weseloh
Herring Gull Eggs - Lake Superior, 1974-2000.
1974/842000
PCBs in 4 yr old Whole Lake Trout
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 00
Year
(ug
/g)
(+/-
S.E
.)
DATA SOURCE: Dept of Fisheries & Oceans, M. Whittle
Total Mercury in 4 yr old Whole Lake Trout
0
0.1
0.2
81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99
Year
(ug
/g) (
+/- S
.E.)
DATA SOURCE: Dept of Fisheries & Oceans, M. Whittle
Toxaphene Trends in Whole Lake Trout
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
1980 1983 1986 1990 1995 1998
Parlar Std
DATA SOURCE: Whittle et al., Chemosphere (40) 2000.
Tot
al T
oxap
hene
(mg/
kg w
wt.)
Herring SculpinR. Smelt
1.02 ppm 0.55 ppm0.29 ppm
Food Web Structure Impact on Toxaphene
Dominant food 1986 to 1998
Dominant 1978 to 1986
DATA SOURCE: Adapted from M. Whittle et al. , Chemosphere (40) 2000.
Lean Lake Trout
Concentrations have not Declined
Comparisons Between the Great Lakes
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
Rel
ativ
e A
bund
ance
Toxaph. PCBs DDT PBDEs PBBs
Lake SuperiorLake HuronLake ErieLake Ontario
Lean Lake Trout: Relative to Lake Ontario
DATA SOURCE: Luross et al. 2002, Chemosphere 46
Whole Lean Lake Trout
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
PCBs DDT Chlordane Toxaphene
Superior
Huron
Michigan
Ontario
DATA SOURSE: US EPA D. DeVault et al. 1996; via Bob Day, MI DEQ
Con
cent
ratio
n (p
pm)
PBDE & PBB – 6 yr Whole Lake Trout
0
20
40
60
80
100
Con
cent
rati
on (
ng/g
)
PBDEs0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
PBBs
Superior HuronErie Ontario
DATA SOURCE: Luross et al. 2002, Chemosphere 46
• Presence of chemicals does NOT = negative health effects– Significant exposure is required– Human exposure data are very limited.
• Exposure Pathways. – Air & Water: NOT a direct concern for PBTs – Food: Major exposure pathway, particularly fish consumption.
• Fish advisories will likely not decline in the foreseeable future.– Small declines in fish concentrations will not = changes in fish
advice.– New information on toxicity could result in more restrictive
advisories. – Emerging contaminants may become part of fish consumption
advisories.
Human Health
Final Comments• Regulatory actions have been very effective • Lake Superior has unique characteristics that make it susceptible to
retaining chemicals, sets it apart from other Great Lakes. • Future Needs
– Better coordination between fisheries and environment scientists.– Coordinated monitoring (expanded to emerging chemicals)
• Toxicity studies to evaluate these exposures of wildlife to emerging chemicals as well as mixtures of chemicals
– Human exposure data • Toxicity studies to evaluate these exposures of humans to emerging
chemicals as well as mixtures of chemicals
– Raise public awareness about fish that are LOW in contaminants
Sources of Emerging Chemicals
• Stain Resistant + Fire retardant– Perfluorooctane Sulfonate (PFOS)
• Plasticizers– Alkylphenol Ethoxylates (APEs)
• Pharmaceuticals and Personal Care Products (PPCPs)