Journal of Soils and Sediments

, Volume 18, Issue 4, pp 1720–1728 | Cite as

Predicting bioaccessibility of contaminants of emerging concern in marine sediments using chemical methods

  • Dayana M. dos Santos
  • Mike Williams
  • Rai Kookana
  • Mary Rosa R. de Marchi
Sediments, Sec 1 • Sediment Quality and Impact Assessment • Research Article
  • 73 Downloads

Abstract

Purpose

A comparison was made between three chemical methods to predict bioaccessibility of triclosan (TCS), bisphenol A (BPA), and 17α-ethynylestradiol (EE2) in marine sediments, involving an exchangeable (E) value, butanol extractions, and hydroxypropyl-β-cyclodextrin (β-HPCD) extractions.

Materials and methods

A 60-day batch experiment was undertaken where the aqueous phase was analyzed by GC-MS/MS. The bioaccessibility study based on the E value model involved monitoring stable isotopes exchanging with the bioaccessible phase, while this exchangeability was also estimated with sediment extractions with butanol and β-HPCD, respectively.

Results and discussion

Based on the E value method, TCS was readily exchangeable for up to 7 days, while after this period become virtually non-exchangeable (not detected in aqueous phase). This trend was also evident for butanol and β-HPCD extractions, suggesting TCS was strongly complexed with the matrix. For BPA and EE2, the fraction considered exchangeable was higher after 14 days and the extraction efficiency was slightly higher for the butanol treatment.

Conclusions

Chemical methods to predict bioaccessibility in marine sediments have demonstrated differences between selected contaminants, but agreement between methods. Triclosan shows the highest affinity with tested sediments, some exchangeability in the first days of interaction of E value experiment as well as observed for extraction methods. However, the highest capacity to be extracted from already-sorbed phase was observed for BPA, showed in both extraction methods, and confirming its mobility and bioaccessibility in sediments over the time.

Keywords

Emerging contaminant Isotopic exchangeability Sediment Sorption bioaccessible 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors thank Jun Du and Sheridan Martin (CSIRO Land and Water) for contaminant analysis and sample preparation and Sam Gaylard (SA Environment Protection Authority) for making sediment samples available.

Supplementary material

11368_2017_1905_MOESM1_ESM.docx (149 kb)
ESM 1 (DOCX 148 kb)

References

  1. Bayen S, Zhang H, Desai MM, Ooi SK, Kelly BC (2013) Occurrence and distribution of pharmaceutically active and endocrine disrupting compounds in Singapore’s marine environment: influence of hydrodynamics and physical-chemical properties. Environ Pollut 182:1–8.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2013.06.028 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Boehler S, Strecker R, Heinrich P, Prochazka E, Northcott GL, Ataria JM, Leusch FDL, Braunbeck T, Tremblay LA (2017) Assessment of urban stream sediment pollutants entering estuaries using chemical analysis and multiple bioassays to characterize biological activities. Sci Total Environ 593–594:498–507CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Cantwell MG, Wilson BA, Zhu J, Wallace GT, King JW, Olsen CR, Burgess RM, Smith JP (2010) Temporal trends of triclosan contamination in dated sediment cores from four urbanized estuaries: evidence of preservation and accumulation. Chemosphere 78(4):347–352.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2009.11.021 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Campillo N, Aguinaga N, Viñas P, López-Garcia I, Hernández-Córdoba M (2004) Speciation of organotin compounds in waters and marine sediments using purge-and-trap capillary gas chromatography with atomic emission detection. Anal Chim Acta 525(2):273–280.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aca.2004.07.054 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Corrotea Y, Richter P, Brown S, Sepúlveda B, Ascar L, Ahumada I (2016) Determination of the bioavailable fraction of triclosan in biosolid-treated soils using predictive method and wheat plant bioassays. J Soils Sediments 16(5):1538–1546.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11368-015-1348-3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cui X, Mayer P, Gan J (2013) Methods to assess bioavailability of hydrophobic organic contaminants: principles, operations and limitations. Environ Pollut 172:223–234.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2012.09.013 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cunha BB, Botero WG, Oliveira LC, Carlos VM, Pompeo MLM, Fraceto LF, Rosa AH (2012) Kinetics and adsorption isotherms of bisphenol A, estrone, 17β-estradiol, and 17α-ethynylestradiol in tropical sediment samples. Water Air Soil Pollut 223(1):329–336.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11270-011-0861-2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cuypers C, Pancras T, Grotenhuis T, Rulkens W (2002) The estimation of PAH bioavailability in contaminated sediments using hydroxypropyl-β-cyclodextrin and Triton X-100 extraction techniques. Chemosphere 46(8):1235–1245.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0045-6535(01)00199-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Dafforn KA, Simpson SL, Kelaher BP, Clarck GF, Komyakova V, Wong CKC, Johnston E (2012) The challenge of choosing environmental indicators of anthropogenic impacts in estuaries. Environ Pollut 163:207–217.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2011.12.029 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Delgado-Moreno L, Gan J (2013) A stable isotope method for measuring bioavailability of organic contaminants. Environ Pollut 176:171–177.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2013.01.036 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dhillon GS, Kaur S, Pulicharla R, Brar SK, Clédon M, Verma M, Surampalli RY (2015) Triclosan: Current Status, Occurrence, Environmental Risks and Bioaccumulation Potential. Int J Environ Res Public Health 12:5657–5684Google Scholar
  12. Ding H, Hou J, Wang Q, Wu Y (2015) Sorption behavior and modelling of endocrine-disrupting chemicals on natural sediments: role of biofilm covered on surface. Environ Sci Pollut Res 22(2):1380–1388.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-014-3449-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Ebele AJ, Abdallah MAE, Harrad S (2017) Pharmaceuticals and personal care products (PPCPs) in the freshwater aquatic environment. Emerg Contam 3(1):1–16.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.emcon.2016.12.004 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Fent K (2006) Ecotoxicological problems associated with contaminated sites. Toxicol Lett 140-141:353–365CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Fernandes M, Shareef A, Kookana R, Gaylard S, Hoare S, Kildea T (2011) The distribution of triclosan and methyl-triclosan in marine sediment of Barker Inlet, South Australia. J Environ Monit 13:801–806Google Scholar
  16. Flint S, Marckle T, Thompson S, Wallace E (2012) Bisphenol exposure, effects, and policy: a wildlife perspective. J Environ Manag 104:19–34.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2012.03.021 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hamon RE, Bertrand I, McLaughlin MJ (2002) Use and abuse of isotopic exchange data in soil chemistry. Aust J Soil Res 40(8):1371–1381.  https://doi.org/10.1071/SR02046 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Harmsen J (2007) Measuring bioavailability: from a scientific approach to standard methods. J Environ Qual 36(5):1420–1428.  https://doi.org/10.2134/jeq2006.0492 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. He H, Gao Z, Zhu D, Guo J, Yang S, Li S, Zhang L, Sun C (2017) Assessing bioaccessibility and bioavailability of chlorinated organophosphorous flame retardants in sediments. Chemosphere 189:239–246.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2017.09.017 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Huang X, Wu C, Hu H, Yu Y, Liu J (2015) Sorption and degradation of triclosan in sediments and its effect on microbes. Ecotoxicol Environ Saf 116:76–83.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoenv.2015.03.002 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Karnjanapiboonwong A, Morse AN, Maul JD, Anderson TA (2010) Sorption of estrogens, triclosan and caffeine in a sandy loam and a silt loam soil. J Soils Sediments 10(7):1300–1307.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11368-010-0223-5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kono H, Onishi K, Nakamura T (2013) Characterization and bisphenol A adsorption capacity of β-cyclodextrin-carboxymerthylcellulose-based hydrogels. Carbohydr Polym 98(1):784–792.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.carbpol.2013.06.065 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Lee LS, Strock TJ, Sarmah AK, Rao PSC (2003) Sorption and dissipation of testosterone, estrogens, and their primary transformation products in soils and sediment. Environ Sci Technol 37(18):4098–4105.  https://doi.org/10.1021/es020998t CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Li H, Helm PA, Metcalfe CD (2010) Sampling in the great lakes for pharmaceuticals, personal care products, and endocrine disrupting substances using passive polar organic chemical interactive sampler. Environ Toxicol Chem 29(4):751–762.  https://doi.org/10.1002/etc.104 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Limousin G, Gaudet JP, Charlet L, Szenknect S, Barthes V, Krimissa M (2007) Sorption isotherms: a review on physical bases, modelling and measurement. Appl Geochem 22(2):249–275.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apgeochem.2006.09.010 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Lin H, YY H, Zhang XY, Guo YP, Chen GR (2011) Sorption of triclosan onto sediments and its distribution behavior in sediment-water-rhamnolipid systems. Environ Toxicol Chem 30(11):2416–2422.  https://doi.org/10.1002/etc.642 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Liste HH, Alexander M (2002) Butanol extraction to predict bioavailability of PAHs in soil. Chemosphere 46(7):1011–1017.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0045-6535(01)00165-5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Lu X, Reible DD, Fleeger JW, Chai Y (2003) Bioavailability of desorption-resistant phenanthrene to the oligochaete Ilyodrilus templetoni. Environ Toxicol Chem 22(1):153–160Google Scholar
  29. Martínez-Hernández V, Mefle R, Herrera S, Arranz E, Bustamante I (2014) Sorption desorption of non-hydrophobic and ionisable pharmaceutical and personal care products from reclaimed water onto/from a natural sediment. Sci Total Environ 472:273–281.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2013.11.036 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Morcilo Y, Borghi V, Porte C (1997) Survey of organotin compounds in the western Mediterranean using mollusks and fish as sentinel organisms. Arch Environ Contam Toxicol 32:198–203CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Morrison G, Chapman G (1990) Supplemental methods and status reports for short-term saltwater toxicity tests; ERL Contrib. No. 1199; Environmental Research Laboratory, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, p 127Google Scholar
  32. NRC (2003) Bioavailability of contaminants in soils and sediments: process, tools and applications. National Academy Press, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  33. OECD (2000) OECD Guideline 106 for testing of chemicals: adsorption-desorption using a bath equilibrium model. http://www.oecd-library.org/environment/test-no-106. Accessed 13 Mar 2013
  34. Ortega-Calvo JJ, Harmsen J, Parsons JR, Semple KT, Aitken MD, Charmaine A, Eadsforth C, Galay-Burgos M, Naidu R, Oliver R, Peijnenburg WJGM, Romblke J, Streck G, Versonnen B (2015) From bioavailability science to regulation of organic chemicals. Environ Sci Technol 49(17):10255–10264.  https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.5b02412 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Reid BJ, Stokes JD, Jones KJ, Semple KT (2000) Nonexhaustive cyclodextrin-based extraction technique for the evaluation of PAH bioavailability. Environ Sci Technol 34(15):3174–3179.  https://doi.org/10.1021/es990946c CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Robinson BJ, Hellou J (2009) Biodegradation of endocrine disrupting compounds in harbor seawater and sediments. Sci Total Environ 407(21):5713–5718.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2009.07.003 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Sanchez-Brunete C, Miguel E, Albero B, Tadeo JL (2010) Determination of triclosan and methyltriclosan in environmental solid samples by matrix solid-phase dispersion and gas chromatography-mass spectrometry. J Sep Sci 33(17-18):2768–2775.  https://doi.org/10.1002/jssc.201000284 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Scharzenbach RP, Gscwend PM, Imboden DM (2003) Environmental organic chemistry, 2nd edn. Wiley Interscience, HobokenGoogle Scholar
  39. Song Y, Wang F, Yang X, Lui C, Kengara FO, Jin X, Jiang X (2011) Chemical extraction to assess the bioavailability of chlorobenzenes in soil with different aging periods. J Soils Sediments 11(8):1345–1354.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11368-011-0414-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Sun K, Jin J, Gao B, Zhang Z, Wang Z, Pan Z, Xu D, Zhao Y (2012) Sorption of 17α-Ethynylestradiol, bisphenol A and pheanthrene to different size fractions of soil and sediment. Chemosphere 88(5):577–583.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2012.03.034 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Swindell AL, Reid BJ (2007) Evaluating the burden of hydrophobic organic contaminants in soils and sediments: an appraisal of methodologies. Chapter 7. In: Plattenberg RH (ed) Environmental Pollution, new research. Nova Science Publishers, New York, pp 225–261Google Scholar
  42. Tian C, Wang J, Song X (2009) Sediment-water interactions of bisphenol A under simulated marine conditions. Water Air Soil Pollut 199(1-4):301–310.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11270-008-9879-5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Williams M, Kookana R (2010) Isotopic exchangeability as a measure of the available fraction of the human pharmaceutical carbamazepine in river sediment. Sci Total Environ 408(17):3689–3695.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2010.04.012 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Wu P, Yang GP, Zhao XK (2003) Sorption behavior of 2,4-dichlorophenol on marine sediment. J Colloid Interface Sci 265(2):251–256.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0021-9797(03)00515-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Xu J, Wu L, Chang AC (2009) Degradation and adsorption of selected pharmaceuticals and personal care products (PPCPs) in agricultural soils. Chemosphere 77(10):1299–1305.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2009.09.063 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Ying G, Kookana R (2003) Degradation of five selected endocrine disrupting chemicals in seawater and marine sediment. Environ Sci Technol 37(7):1256–1260.  https://doi.org/10.1021/es0262232 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Yu Z, Xiao B, Huang W, Peng P (2004) Sorption of steroid estrogens to solids and sediments. Environ Toxicol Chem 23(3):531–539.  https://doi.org/10.1897/03-192 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of ChemistryUniv. Estadual Paulista - UNESPAraraquaraBrazil
  2. 2.Chemistry DepartmentState University of Londrina - UELLondrinaBrazil
  3. 3.CSIRO Land and WaterUrrbraeAustralia

Personalised recommendations