Advertisement

Journal of Soils and Sediments

, Volume 2, Issue 4, pp 194–202 | Cite as

Comparisons of terrestrial and aquatic bioassays for oil-contaminated soil toxicity

  • Kati VaajasaariEmail author
  • Anneli Joutti
  • Eija Schultz
  • Salla Selonen
  • Henrik Westerholm
Research Article

Abstract

Background

Petroleum products are widely used in various sections of industry and they are one of the most abundant sources of environmental contamination. These products are classified by their physico-chemical properties such as boiling point, density and viscosity. Oil contamination in the environment is primarily evaluated by measuring the chemical concentrations of petroleum products in the solid or water phase. The results of chemical analyses do not correspond directly with the harmful environmental effects of petroleum products on the soil flora and fauna, because the interactions between oil compounds and the production of their methabolites in soil are not measured in chemical assessments. These kinds of effects of complex chemical mixtures in soil can be estimated by bioassays. Therefore, ecotoxicological tests are important for estimating soil quality in the risk assessment of oil-contaminated soil sites.

Objectives

The objective of this study was to examine the oil-contaminated soil site of a closed petrol station with both chemical and ecotoxicological methods. The goals of this study were to compare the sensitivity of the terrestrial and aquatic bioassays and to compare the toxicity responses of aquatic bioassays determined from three different extraction procedures. In addition, our aim was to characterise a cost-effective battery of bioassays that could be applied to a comparison of oil-contaminated soils. It was in our interest to investigate oil-contaminated soil with oil concentrations of 2500–12000 mg/kg and to find out the possible differences between terrestrial and aquatic toxicity tests.

Methods

Six soil samples from a closed petrol station were examined for toxicity with terrestrial and aquatic tests. Terrestrial tests includedEnchytraeus albidus survival and reproduction assays and seed germination assays using wheat, cress, lettuce, and red clover seeds and growth inhibition assays of onions. The toxicities of the water-extractable fractions of the soil samples obtained from three different extractions were tested with aquatic bioassays based on plants (onion and duckweed growth inhibition tests), microbes (luminescent bacteria test), and enzyme inhibition (reverse electron transport test, RET). Chemical analyses of the solid samples were carried out simultaneously. Results. Oil concentrations ranged from 2500 to 12000 mg/kg, BTEX varied from 300 to 2800 mg/kg, and fuel additives: MTBE and TAME from 0.0 1 to 260 mg/kg. Only the sample contain-ing 12000 mg/kg oil had a significant toxic impact on all test organisms. Soil samples with oil concentrations 2500–6200 mg/ kg had no or only slight adverse effects on the test organisms with one exception, theE. albidus reproduction test. TheE. albidus survival and reproduction tests were the most sensitive bioassays of the terrestrial tests, and the luminescent bacteria test of the aquatic tests.

Keywords

Leaching tests oil-contaminated soil phytotoxicity soil animals soil ecotoxicity soil eluates 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. American Public Health Association, American Water Works Association and Water Pollution Control Federation (1985): Standard methods for water and wastewater treatment, 16th ed., American Public Health Association, Washington DC, pp 1067–1072Google Scholar
  2. Bierkens J, Klein G, Corbisier P, Van Den Heuvel R, Schoeters G (1998): Comparative sensitivity of 20 bioassays for soil quality. Chemosphere 37, 2935–2947CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. CENATC 292. prEN12457 (1999): Characterization of waste — leaching — compliance test for leaching of granular waste materials. Determination of leaching of constituents from granular waste materials. European Committee for Standardisation. 23 ppGoogle Scholar
  4. CEN/TC 292. prEN13137 (1999): Characterization of waste — determination of total organic carbon (TOC) in waste, sludges and sediments. European Committee for Standardisation. N391, 23 ppGoogle Scholar
  5. Debus R, Hund K (1997): Development of analytical methods for the assessment of ecotoxicological relevant soil contamination. Chemosphere 35, 239–261CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Didden W, Römbke J (2001): Enchytraeids as indicator organisms for chemical stress in terrestrial ecosystems. Ecotoxicol Environ Saf 50, 25–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Donnelly KC, Brown KW, Anderson CS, Thomas JC, Scott BR (1991): Bacterial mutagenity and acute toxicity of solvent and aquous extracts of soil samples. Environ Toxicol Chem 10, 1123–1131CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Dorn PB, Vipold TE, Salanitro JP, Wisniewski HL (1998): Assessment of the acute toxicity of crude oils using earthworms, Microtox, and plants. Chemosphere 37, 845–860CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Dorn PB, and Salanitro JP (2000): Temporal ecological assessment of oil contaminated soils before and after bioremediation. Chemosphere 40, 419–426CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Fiskesjö G (1997): Allium test for screening chemicals. In: Plants for environmental studies, Wang W (ed). CRC Lewis Publishers, New York, pp 307–334Google Scholar
  11. Gong P, Wilke B-M, Strozzi E, Fleischmann S (2001): Evaluation and refinement of a continuous seed germination and early seedling growth test for the use in the ecotoxicological assessment of soils. Chemosphere 44, 491–500CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Huddleston RL, Meyers JD (1979): AIChE Symp Ser Water 75, 327–334Google Scholar
  13. ISO/WD 16387 (2000): Soil Quality — Effects of pollutants on Enchytraeidae(Enchytraeits sp.). Determination of effects on reproduction. International Organisation for Standardisation, Geneve, 15 ppGoogle Scholar
  14. ISO SFS-EN 11348 (1999): Water quality — Determination of the inhibitory effect of water samples on the light emission ofVibrio fischeri (Luminescent bacteria test). — Part 3. Method using freeze-dried bacteria. International Organisation for Standardisation, Geneve, 13 ppGoogle Scholar
  15. Joutti A, Schultz E, Tuukkanen E, Vaajasaari K (2000). Industrial waste leachates: toxicity detection with microbiotests and biochemical tests. In: Persoone G, Janssen C, De Coen W (Eds) New microbiotests for Routine Toxicity Screening and Biomonitoring. Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers, New York, pp 347–355Google Scholar
  16. Juvonen R, Martikainen E, Schultz E, Joutti A, Ahtiainen J (2000): A battery of toxicity tests as indicators of decontamination in composting oily wastes. Ecotoxicol Environ Saf 47, 156–166CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Keddy CJ, Greene JC, Bonell MA (1995): Review of whole — Organism bioassays: soil, freshwater sediment, and freshwater assessment in Canada. Ecotoxicol. Environ Saf 30, 221–251CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Knobeloch L, Blondin G, Harkin JM (1994): A rapid bioassay for toxicity assessment of chemicals: Reverse electron transport. Environ Toxicol Water Quality 9, 231–234CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Lambolez L, Vasseur P, Ferald JF Gisbert T (1994): The environmental risks of industrial waste disposal. Ecotoxicol Environ Saf 28, 317–328CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Linder G, Greene JC, Ratsch H, Nwosu J, Smith S, Wilborn D (1990): Seed germination and root elongation toxicity tests in hazardous waste site evaluation: Methods development and applications. In: Wang W, Gorsuch JW, Lower WR (Eds) Plants for Toxicity Assessment, Vol. 1 (ASTM STP 1115). American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia PA, pp 344–364Google Scholar
  21. Maxam G, Rila J-P, Dott W, and Eisentraeger A (2000): Use of bioassays for assessment of water extractable ecotoxic potential of soils. Ecotoxicol Environ Saf 45, 240–246CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. NEN 7349 (1995): Leaching characteristic of solid earthy and stony building and waste materials. Leaching test. Determination of the leaching of inorganic components from granular materials with the cascade test. Delft: Nederlands Normalisatie-Instituut, 11 pp OECD (1984): OECD Guidelines for the testing of chemicals, no 207. Earthworm, Acute Toxicity TestGoogle Scholar
  23. OECD (1999): OECD Guidelines for the testing of chemicals,Lemna growth inhibition test — Draft, December 1999 Peterson SA, Greene JG, Miller WM (1990): Toxicological assessment of hazardous waste samples extracted with deionised water or sodium acetate (TCLP) leaching media. In: Friedman D. (Eds.) Waste Testing and Quality Assurance, Vol. 2 (ASTM STP 1062). American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia PA, pp 107–129Google Scholar
  24. Pirhonen R, Huhta V (1984): Petroleum fractions in soil: Effects on populations of Nematoda Enchytraeidae and microarthropoda. Soil Biol Biochem 16, 347–350CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Read H, Harkin JM, Gustavson KE (1998): Environmental applications with submitochondrial particles. In: Microscale Testing in Aquatic Toxicology. Wells PG, Lee K, Blaise C (Eds), CRC Press LLC, Boca Raton, FL, pp 31–52Google Scholar
  26. Salanitro JP, Dorn PB, Huesemann MH, Moore KO, Rhodes LM, Jackson R, Vipond TE, Western MM, Wisniewski HL (1997): Crude oil hydrocarbon bioremediation and soil ecotoxicity assessment. Environ SciTechnol 31, 1769–1776CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Saterbak A, Toy RJ, Wong DCL, McMain BJ, Williams MP, Dorn PB, Brzuzy LP, Chai EY, Salanitro JP (1999): Ecotoxicological and analytical assessment of hydrocarbon-contaminated soils. Environ Sci Technol 18, 1591–1607Google Scholar
  28. Saterbak A, Toy RJ, McMain BJ, Williams MP, Dorn PB (2000): Ecotoxicological and analytical assessment of effects of bioremediation on hydrocarbon-containing soils. Environ Sci Technol 19, 2643–2652Google Scholar
  29. Stephenson GL, Koper N, Atkonson GF, Solomon KR, Scroggins RP (2000): Use of nonlinear regression techniques for describing concentration-response relationships of plant species exposed to contaminated site soils. Environ Toxicol Chem 19, 2968–2981CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Trapp S, Köhler A, Larsen L, Zambrano KC, Karlson U (2001): Phytotoxicity of fresh and weathered diesel and gasoline to willow and poplar trees. J Soils & Sediments 1(2) 71–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Vaajasaari K, Ahtiainen, J, Nakari T, Dahlbo H (2000): Hazard assessment of the industrial waste leachibility: chemical characterization and biotesting by routine effluent tests. In: Persoone G, Janssen C, De Coen W (Eds.) New Microbiotests for Routine Toxicity Screening and Biomonitoring. Kluwer Academic/ Plenum Publishers, New York, pp 413–423Google Scholar
  32. Wong DCL, Chai EY, Chu KK, Dorn, PB (1999): Prediction of ecotoxicity of hydrocarbon contaminated soils using physico-chemical parameters. Environ Toxicol Chem 18, 2611–2621CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Ecomed Publishers 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kati Vaajasaari
    • 1
    Email author
  • Anneli Joutti
    • 2
  • Eija Schultz
    • 2
  • Salla Selonen
    • 2
  • Henrik Westerholm
    • 3
  1. 1.Pirkanmaa Regional Environment CentreResearch UnitTampereFinland
  2. 2.SYKE (Finnish Environment InstituteHelsinkiFinland
  3. 3.Fortum Oil and GasPorvooFinland

Personalised recommendations