Advertisement

Environmental Monitoring and Assessment

, Volume 169, Issue 1–4, pp 417–428 | Cite as

Ecotoxicity assessment of aged petroleum sludge using a suite of effects-based end points in earthworm Eisenia fetida

  • Shi-Jie Wang
  • Zeng-Guang Yan
  • Guan-Lin Guo
  • Gui-Lan Lu
  • Qun-Hui Wang
  • Fa-Sheng Li
Article

Abstract

Laboratory investigations were conducted to test the toxicity of aged petroleum sludge collected from Shengli Oil Field, the second largest oilfield in China, to earthworm Eisenia fetida. Various end points were measured in the earthworms, including mortality, growth, cocoon output, juvenile production, and avoidance behavioral response, to determine their comparative sensitivity for assessing harmful effects of petroleum-hydrocarbon-contaminated soil. The results showed that all these assays responded in a concentration-dependent manner, and two chronic end points, juvenile production and cocoon output, as well as avoidance behavioral response appeared to be sensitive end points for detecting toxicity of petroleum-hydrocarbon-contaminated soil. Comparatively, juvenile production exhibited similar sensitivity to avoidance behavior response, both of which were more sensitive than cocoon output, while mortality and adult growth were proposed as the least sensitive parameters. It was suggested that large amounts of petroleum sludge deposited in Shengli Oil Field may pose a potential threat to the local ecosystem, and the utility of multiple effects-based end points in earthworm E. fetida is useful to facilitate ecological risk assessments in hydrocarbon-contaminated sites.

Keywords

Petroleum sludge Ecotoxicity assessment Eisenia fetida  Multiple end points 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Al-Mutairi, N., Bufarsan, A., & Al-Rukaibi, F. (2008). Ecorisk evaluation and treatability potential of soils contaminated with petroleum hydrocarbon-based fuels. Chemosphere, 74, 142–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Booth, L. H., Heppelthwaite, V. J., & O’Halloran, K. (2005). Effects-based assays in the earthworm Aporrectodea caliginosa: Their utilization for evaluation of contaminated sites before and after remediation. Journal of Soils & Sediments, 5, 87–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Crane, M., & Byrns, G. (2002). Review of ecotoxicological and biological test methods for the assessment of contaminated land. Bristol: United Kingdom Environmental Agency.Google Scholar
  4. Dawson, J. J. C., Godsiffe, E. J., Thompson, I. P., Ralebitso-Senior, T. K., Killham, K. S., & Paton, G. I. (2007). Application of biological indicators to assess recovery of hydrocarbon impacted soils. Soil Biology & Biochemistry, 39, 164–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Dorn, P. B., & Salanitro, J. P. (2000). Temporal ecological assessment of oil contaminated soils before and after bioremediation. Chemosphere, 40, 419–426.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Dorn, P. B., Vipond, T. E., Salanitro, J. P., & Wisniewski, H. L. (1998). Assessment of the acute toxicity of crude oils in soils using earthworms, Microtox, and plants. Chemosphere, 37, 845–860.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Efroymson, R. A., Sample, B. E., & Peterson, M. J. (2004). Ecotoxicity test data for total petroleum hydrocarbons in soil: Plants and soil-dwelling invertebrates. Human and Ecological Risk Assessment, 10, 207–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Environment Canada (2004). Biological test method: Tests for toxicity of contaminated soil to earthworms (Eisenia andrei, Eisenia fetida, or Lumbricus terrestris). EPS 1/RM/43. Method Development and Applications Section, Environment Technology Center, Environment Canada.Google Scholar
  9. Environment Canada (2005). Guidance document on statistical methods for environmental toxicity tests. EPS 1/RM/46. Method development and applications section, Environmental Technology Center, Environment Canada.Google Scholar
  10. Huang, X. D., El-Alawi, Y., Penrose, D. M., Glick, B. R., & Greenberg, B. M. (2004). Responses of three grass species to creosote during phytoremediation. Environmental Pollution, 130, 453–463.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hubálek, T., Vosáhlova, S., Matějů, V., Kováěová, N., & Novotný, C. (2007). Ecotoxicity monitoring of hydrocarbon-contaminated soil during bioremediation: A case study. Archives of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology, 52, 1–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. ISO (1998). Soil quality—effects of pollutant on earthworms (Eisenia fetida). Part 2: Determination of effects on reproduction. Geneva: International Organization for Standardization. ISO 11268-2:1998.Google Scholar
  13. ISO (2005). Soil quality—avoidance test for testing the quality of soils and effects of chemicals on behaviour. Part 1: Tests with earthworms (Eisenia fetida and Eisenia andrei). Geneva: International Organization for Standardization. ISO/DIS 17512-1.Google Scholar
  14. Jensen, J., & Mesman, M. (Eds.) (2006). Ecological risk assessment of contaminated land. Decision support for site-specific investigations. RIVM, Bilthoven.Google Scholar
  15. Kuang, S. P., Sun, D. Y., Sun, Y. H., & Zhao, H. (2008). Pollution characteristics of PAHs in oily sludge and around soils of Zhongyuan Oil Field. Journal of Agro-Environmental Science, 27, 855–861. (In Chinese)Google Scholar
  16. Lansdell, S., & McConnell, S. (2003). Ecological considerations in setting soil criteria for total petroleum hydrocarbons (<C15) and naphthalene. In A. Langley, M. Gilbey, & B. Kennedy (Eds). Proceedings of the fifth national workshop on the assessment of site contamination. Adelaide: NEPC Service Corporation.Google Scholar
  17. Leng, Y. H., Guo, S. H., Nie, Y. B., Sun, T. H., Zhou, Q., & Sun, P. (2006). Effects of petroleum exploitation on ecological environment of reed fields in Liaohe River Delta. Journal of Agro-Environmental Science, 25, 161–164. (In Chinese)Google Scholar
  18. Liu, W. X., Luo, Y. M., Teng, Y., Li, Z. G., & Wu, L. H. (2007). A survey of petroleum contamination in several Chinese oilfield soils. Soils, 39, 247–251. (In Chinese)Google Scholar
  19. Lv, Z., Zeng, F. G., Xue, N. D., Guo, G. L., Lu, G. L., Liu, L., et al. (2008). Contamination and vertical distribution characteristics of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons at an oil sludge storage site. Research of Environmental Sciences, 21, 85–89. (In Chinese)Google Scholar
  20. Molina-Barahona, L., Vega-Loyo, L., Guerrero, M., Ramirez, S., Romero, I., Vega-Jarquin, C., et al. (2005). Ecotoxicological evaluation of diesel-contaminated soil before and after a bioremediation process. Environmental Toxicology, 20, 100–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Neuhauser, E. F., Norton, R. A., Loehr, R. C., & Sillman, D. Y. (1989). Earthworm and soil microarthropod responses to oily waste application. Soil Biology & Biochemistry, 21, 275–281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Phillips, T. M., Liu, D., Seech, A. G., Lee, H., & Trevors, J. T. (2000). Monitoring bioremediation in creosote-contaminated soils using chemical analysis and toxicity tests. Journal of Industrial Microbiology & Biotechnology, 24, 132–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Pirhonen, R., & huhta, V. (1984). Petroleum fractions in soil: Effects on populations of Nematoda, Enchytraeidae and Microarthropoda. Soil Biology & Biochemistry, 16, 347–350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Plaza, G., Nalecz-Jawecki, G., Ulfig, K., & Brigmon, R. L. (2005). The application of bioassays as indicators of petroleum-contaminated soil remediation. Chemosphere, 59, 289–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Salanitro, J. P. (2001). Bioremediation of petroleum hydrocarbons in soil. Advances in Agronomy, 72, 53–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Salanitro, J. P., Dorn, P. B., Huesemann, M. H., Moore, K. O., Rhodes, I. A., Rice Jackson, L. M., et al. (1997). Crude oil hydrocarbon bioremediation and soil ecotoxicity assessment. Environmental Science & Technology, 31, 1769–1776.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Saterbak, A., Toy, R. J., McMain, B. J., Williams, M. P., & Dorn, P. B. (2000). Ecotoxicological and analytical assessment of effects of bioremediation on hydrocarbon-contaminating soils. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 19, 2643–2652.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Saterbak, A., Toy, R. J., Wong, D. C. L., McMain, B. J., Williams, M. P., Dorn, P. B., et al. (1999). Ecotoxicological and analytical assessment of hydrocarbon-contaminated soils and application to ecological risk assessment. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 18, 1591–1607.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Schaefer, M. (2003). Behavioural endpoints in earthworm ecotoxicology: Evaluation of different test systems in soil toxicity assessment. Journal of Soils & Sediments, 3, 79–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Shakir-Hanna, S. H., & Weaver, R. W. (2002). Earthworm survival in oil contaminated soil. Plant and Soil, 240, 127–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Shin, K. H., & Kim, K. W. (2001). Ecotoxicity monitoring of hydrocarbon-contaminated soil using earthworm (Eisenia fetida). Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 70, 93–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. USEPA (1997). Ecological risk assessment guidance for superfund: Process for designing and conducting ecological risk assessments (interim final). Washington DC: United State Environmental Protection Agency. EPA/540/R-97/006.Google Scholar
  33. Van Gestel, C. A. M., Vander Waarde, J. J., Derksen, J. G. M., Vander Hoek, E. E., Veul, M. F. X. W., Bouwens, S., et al. (2001). The use of acute and chronic bioassays to determine the ecological risk and bioremediation efficiency of oil-polluted soils. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 20, 1438–1449.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Vaajasaari, K., Joutti, A., Schultz, E., Selonen, S., & Westerholm, H. (2002). Comparisons of terrestrial and aquatic bioassays for oil-contaminated soil toxicity. Journal of Soils & Sediments, 4, 194–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Victorian EPA (1990). Acceptance criteria in the clean-up notice for the Bayside site. Australia: The Environment Protection Authority (EPA) of Victoria.Google Scholar
  36. WADoE (2003). Assessment levels for soil, sediment and water. Draft for public comment. Version 3, Contaminated Sites Management Series. Department of Environment, Western Australia.Google Scholar
  37. Wong, D. C. L., Chai, E. Y., Chu, K. K., & Dorn, P. B. (1999). Prediction of ecotoxicity of hydrocarbon-contaminated soils using physiochemical parameters. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 18, 2611–2621.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Wu, L. H., Wang, Z. Q., & Wu, H. (1999). Approach on the status quo of oily sand and its treatment process in Shengli Oil Field. Shanghai Environmental Sciences, 18, 96–97. (In Chinese)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Shi-Jie Wang
    • 1
    • 2
  • Zeng-Guang Yan
    • 2
  • Guan-Lin Guo
    • 2
  • Gui-Lan Lu
    • 2
  • Qun-Hui Wang
    • 1
  • Fa-Sheng Li
    • 2
  1. 1.Civil and Environmental Engineering SchoolUniversity of Science and Technology BeijingBeijingPeople’s Republic of China
  2. 2.Department of Soil Pollution ControlChinese Research Academy of Environmental SciencesBeijingPeople’s Republic of China

Personalised recommendations