Advertisement

Biological Effects of Elevated Major Ions in Surface Water Contaminated by a Produced Water from Oil Production

  • Ning WangEmail author
  • James L. Kunz
  • Danielle Cleveland
  • Jeffery A. Steevens
  • Isabelle M. Cozzarelli
Article

Abstract

Produced water (PW) from oil and gas extraction processes has been shown to contain elevated concentrations of major ions. The objective of this study was to determine the potential effects of elevated major ions in PW-contaminated surface water on a fish (fathead minnow, Pimephales promelas) and a unionid mussel (fatmucket, Lampsilis siliquoidea) in short-term (7-day) exposures. The test organisms were exposed in 3 reconstituted waters formulated with 1, 2, and 4 times the major ions measured at a PW-contaminated stream site 1 month after a PW spill from an oil production wastewater pipeline in the Williston Basin, North Dakota. A reconstituted water mimicking the ionic composition of an upstream site from the spill was used as a reference water. Significant reductions in survival and growth of the fish were observed in the 4× treatment compared with the reference. The mussels were more sensitive than the fish, with significant reductions in survival in the 2× and 4× treatments, and significant reductions in length in the 1× and 2× treatments. Overall, these results indicate that elevated concentrations of major ions in PW-contaminated surface waters could adversely affect the fish and mussels tested and potentially other aquatic organisms.

Notes

Acknowledgements

This research was supported by the United States Geological Survey (USGS) Ecosystems Mission Area, the Contaminant Biology Program of the USGS Environmental Health Mission Area (EHMA), and the Toxic Substances Hydrology Program of the EHMA. We thank the staff in the Toxicology and Environmental Chemistry Branches of the CERC for technical assistance, and M.C. Barnhart of Missouri State University, Springfield, MO for providing juvenile mussels for testing.

Supplementary material

244_2019_610_MOESM1_ESM.docx (33 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 32 kb)

References

  1. Akob DM, Mumford AC, Orem WH, Engle MA, Klinges JG, Kent DB (2016) Wastewater disposal from unconventional oil and gas development degrades stream quality at a West Virginia injection facility. Environ Sci Technol 50:5517–5525CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. ASTM International (2018) Standard guide for conducting laboratory toxicity tests with freshwater mussels (ASTM E2455-06 (2013)). Annual Book of ASTM Standards Volume 11.06, West Conshohocken, PAGoogle Scholar
  3. Barron MG, Carls MG, Heintz R, Rice SD (2004) Evaluation of fish early life-stage toxicity models of chronic embryonic exposures to complex polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon mixtures. Toxicol Sci 78:60–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Brunson EL, Canfield TJ, Dwyer FJ, Kemble NE, Ingersoll CG (1998) Assessing bioaccumulation of contaminants from sediments from the upper Mississippi River using field-collected oligochaetes and laboratory-exposed Lumbriculus variegatus. Arch Environ Contam Toxicol 35:191–201CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Burgos WD, Castillo-Meza L, Tasker TL, Geeza TJ, Drohan PJ, Liu X, Landis JD, Blotevogel J, McLaughlin M, Borch T, Warner NR (2017) Watershed-scale impacts from surface water disposal of oil and gas wastewater in Western Pennsylvania. Environ Sci Technol 51:8851–8860CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Camarillo MK, Domen JK, Stringfellow WT (2016) Physical-chemical evaluation of hydraulic fracturing chemicals in the context of produced water treatment. J Environ Manage 183:164–174CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Campa MF, Techtmann SM, Gibson CM, Zhu X, Patterson M, Amaral AGM, Ulrich N, Campagna SR, Grant CJ, Lamendella R, Hazen TC (2018) Impacts of glutaraldehyde on microbial community structure and degradation potential in streams impacted by hydraulic fracturing. Environ Sci Technol 52:5989–5999CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Camus L, Brooks S, Geraudie P, Hjorth M, Nahrgang J, Olsen GH, Smit MGD (2015) Comparison of produced water toxicity to Arctic and temperate species. Ecotox Environ Safety 113:248–258CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cozzarelli IM, Skalak KJ, Kent DB, Engle MA, Benthem A, Mumford AC, Haase K, Farag A, Harper D, Nagel SC, Iwanowicz LR, Orem WH, Akob DM, Jaeschke JB, Galloway J, Kohler M, Stoliker DL, Jolly GD (2017) Environmental signatures and effects of an oil and gas wastewater spill in the Williston Basin, North Dakota. Sci Total Environ 579:1781–1793CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Eaton AD, Clesceri LS, Rice EW, Greenberg AE (2005) Standard methods for the examination of water and wastewater, vol 21. American Public Health Association, Water Environment Federation, American Water Works Association, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
  11. Elliott EG, Ettinger AS, Leaderer BP, Bracken MB, Deziel NC (2017) A systematic evaluation of chemicals in hydraulic-fracturing fluids and wastewater for reproductive and developmental toxicity. J Expo Sci Environ Epidemiol 27:90–99CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Elphick JR, Bergh KD, Bailey HC (2011) Chronic toxicity of chloride to freshwater species: effects of hardness and implications for water quality guidelines. Environ Toxicol Chem 30:239–246CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Engle MA, Cozzarelli IM, Smith BD (2014) USGS investigations of water produced during hydrocarbon reservoir development: U.S. geological survey fact sheet 2014–3104. https://dx.doi.org/10.3133/fs20143104. ISSN 2327–6932 (online)
  14. Farag AM, Harper DD (2014) The chronic toxicity of sodium bicarbonate, a major component of coal bed natural gas produced waters. Environ Toxicol Chem 33:532–540CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Gillis PL (2011) Assessing the toxicity of sodium chloride to the glochidia of freshwater mussels: implications for salinization of surface waters. Environ Pollut 159:1702–1708CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Grant CJ, Weimer AB, Marks NK, Perow ES, Oster JM, Brubaker KM (2015) Marcellus and mercury: assessing potential impacts of unconventional natural gas extraction on aquatic ecosystems in northwestern Pennsylvania. J Environ Sci Health A Tox Hazard Subst Environ Eng 50:482–500CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hagström EL, Lyles C, Pattanayek M, DeShields B, Berkman MP (2016) Produced water—emerging challenges, risks, and opportunities. Environ Claims J 28:122–139CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Horner JE, Castle JW, Rodgers JH Jr (2011) A risk assessment approach to identifying constituents in oilfield produced water for treatment prior to beneficial use. Ecotox Environ Saf 74:989–999CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Jain P, Sharma M, Dureja P, Sarma PM, Lal B (2017) Bioelectrochemical approaches for removal of sulfate, hydrocarbon and salinity from produced water. Chemosphere 166:96–108CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Jiménez S, Micó M, Arnaldos M, Medina F, Contreras S (2018) State of the art of produced water treatment. Chemosphere 192:186–208CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kassotis CD, Iwanowicz LR, Akob DM, Cozzarelli IM, Mumford AC, Orem WH (2016) Endocrine disrupting activities of surface water associated with a West Virginia oil and gas industry wastewater disposal site. Sci Total Environ 557–558:901–910CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kassotis CD, Nagel SC, Stapleton HM (2018) Unconventional oil and gas chemicals and wastewater-impacted water samples promote adipogenesis via PPARγ-dependent and independent mechanisms in 3T3-L1 cells. Sci Total Environ 640–641:1601–1610CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Krause P (1995) Spatial and temporal variability in receiving water toxicity near an oil effluent discharge site. Arch Environ Contam Toxicol 29:523–529CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Lauer NE, Harkness JS, Vengosh A (2016) Brine spills associated with unconventional oil development in North Dakota. Environ Sci Technol 50:5389–5397CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Maloney KO, Baruch-Mordo S, Patterson LA, Nicot JP, Entrekin SA, Fargione JE, Kiesecker JM, Konschnik KE, Ryan JN, Trainor AM, Saiers JE, Wiseman HJ (2017) Unconventional oil and gas spills: materials, volumes, and risks to surface waters in four states of the U.S. Sci Total Environ 581–582:369–377CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Olmstead SM, Muehlenbachs LA, Shih JS, Chu Z, Krupnick AJ (2013) Shale gas development impacts on surface water quality in Pennsylvania. Proc Natl Acad Sci 26:4962–4967CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Papoulias DM, Velasco AL (2013) Histopathological analysis of fish from Acorn Fork Creek, Kentucky, exposed to hydraulic fracturing fluid releases. Southeast Nat 12:92–111CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Sauer T, Costa HJ, Brown JS, Ward TJ (1997) Toxicity identification evaluations of produced-water effluents. Environ Toxicol Chem 16:2020–2028CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Soucek DJ, Linton TK, Tarr CD, Dickinson A, Wickramanayake N, Delos CG, Cruz LA (2011) Influence of water hardness and sulfate on the acute toxicity of chloride to sensitive freshwater invertebrates. Environ Toxicol Chem 30:930–938CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Stromgren T, Sorstrom SE, Schou L, Kaarstad I, Aunaas T, Brakstad OG (1995) Acute toxic effects of produced water in relation to chemical composition and dispersion. Mar Environ Res 40:147–169CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. US Environmental Protection Agency (2002) Short-term methods for estimating the chronic toxicity of effluents and receiving water to freshwater organisms, 5th edn. EPA/821/R-02/013, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  32. US Environmental Protection Agency (2007) Method 9056A: determination of inorganic anions by ion chromatography, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  33. US Environmental Protection Agency (2013) Aquatic life ambient water quality criteria for ammonia-freshwater. EPA/822-R-13-001. Office of Water, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  34. US Environmental Protection Agency (2014) Method 6020B: inductively coupled plasma-mass spectrometry, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  35. Vandecasteele I, Marí Rivero I, Sala S, Baranzelli C, Barranco R, Batelaan O, Lavalle C (2015) Impact of shale gas development on water resources: a case study in Northern Poland. Environ Manage 55:1285–1299CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Vengosh A, Jackson RB, Warner N, Darrah TH, Kondash A (2014) A critical review of the risks to water resources from unconventional shale gas development and hydraulic fracturing in the United States. Environ Sci Technol 48:8334–8348CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Wang N, Ingersoll CG, Greer IE, Hardesty DK, Ivey CD, Kunz JL, Brumbaugh WG, Dwyer FJ, Roberts AD, Augspurger T, Kane CM, Neves RJ, Barnhart MC (2007) Chronic toxicity of copper and ammonia to juvenile freshwater mussels (Unionidae). Environ Toxicol Chem 26:2048–2056CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Wang N, Ivey CD, Ingersoll CG, Brumbaugh WG, Alvarez D, Hammer EJ, Bauer CR, Augspurger T, Raimondo S, Barnhart MC (2017) Acute sensitivity of a broad range of freshwater mussels to chemicals with different modes of toxic action. Environ Toxicol Chem 37:3041–3049CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Wang N, Kunz JL, Dorman RA, Ingersoll CG, Steevens J, Hammer EJ, Bauer CR (2018a) Evaluating chronic toxicity of sodium chloride and potassium chloride to a unionid mussel (Lampsilis siliquoidea) in water exposures using standard and refined toxicity testing methods. Environ Toxicol Chem 37:3050–3062CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Wang N, Ivey CD, Dorman RA, Ingersoll CG, Steevens J, Hammer EJ, Bauer CR, Mount DR (2018b) Acute toxicity of sodium chloride and potassium chloride to a unionid mussel (Lampsilis siliquoidea) in water exposures. Environ Toxicol Chem 37:3041–3049CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Yost EE, Stanek J, DeWoskin RS, Burgoon LD (2016) Overview of chronic oral toxicity values for chemicals present in hydraulic fracturing fluids, flowback, and produced waters. Environ Sci Technol 50:4788–4797CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© This is a U.S. Government work and not under copyright protection in the US; foreign copyright protection may apply 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Columbia Environmental Research CenterUnited States Geological SurveyColumbiaUSA
  2. 2.National Research ProgramUnited States Geological SurveyRestonUSA

Personalised recommendations