Intersex and other Indicators of Endocrine Disruption throughout the Northeast Luke R. Iwanowicz, Vicki S. Blazer, Kelly L. Smalling USGS, Leetown Science Center, National Fish Health Research Laboratory USGS, New Jersey Water Science Center April 26, 2017
21
Embed
Intersex and other Indicators of Endocrine Disruption ...hdcsetac.org/2017/Spring Meeting/Powerpoint_Present/Smalling.pdf · Intersex and other Indicators of Endocrine Disruption
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
Intersex and other Indicators of Endocrine Disruption throughout the
Northeast
Luke R. Iwanowicz, Vicki S. Blazer, Kelly L. Smalling
USGS, Leetown Science Center, National Fish Health Research Laboratory USGS, New Jersey Water Science Center
Human population density 0.39 0.10 0.42 0.08 Number of WWTP 0.22 0.24 0.34 0.13 WWTP Flow 0.32 0.15 0.63 0.02 Percent agriculture 0.63 0.02 0.50 0.05 Tot. Animal Feeding Operations 0.28 0.17 0.56 0.03 Poultry houses 0.27 0.18 0.50 0.05 Total animals 0.27 0.18 0.48 0.06 Animal density 0.49 0.05 0.58 0.03
Site Human Density WWTP WWTP
Flow % Ag AFO Animal
Numbers Intersex
Gauley River
0.06 0 0 0.5 0 464 11.3% 0.02 (0.07)
South Branch Petersburg
0.07 3 0.95 16.4 296 (296)
1,450,120 74.3% 0.97 (0.95)
South Branch Moorefield
0.07 4 1.43 15.2 497 (496)
7,384,685 54.5% 0.50 (0.50)
South Branch Springfield
0.08 5 1.93 15.2 565 (562)
8,719,093 82.2% 1.02 (0.76)
Shenandoah North Fork
0.28 50 1.59 32.7 1,174 (960)
11,757,596 90.0% 1.16 (0.78)
Shenandoah Mainstem
0.43 101 25.66 32.6 3,655 (2,539)
33,928,442 93.0% 1.64 (0.93)
Shenandoah South Fork
0.56 19 20.84 35.9 2,029 (1,176)
14,788,173 100.0% 1.83 (0.65)
Conococheague Creek (lower)
0.69 13 8.31 50.3 10 (1)
1,819,225 87.5% 1.03 (0.78)
Associations of Land-use with Intersex Spawning Study (Chesapeake Bay Drainage)
Blazer et al (2012) Reproductive endocrine disruption in smallmouth bass (Micropterus dolomieu) in the Potomac River basin: spatial and temporal comparisons of biological effects. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 184: 4309-4334
To understand the population level effects of endocrine disruption resulting from exposure to contaminants in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed
• Identify and quantify the sources, fate, transport, distribution, and exposure of EDCs to fish and wildlife.
• Evaluate the effects EDCs on fish and wildlife in the environment.
• Determine the mechanism(s) and thresholds for adverse effects on fish and wildlife species.
• Develop appropriate assessment tools and models for risk evaluation of EDCs on natural resources.
Northeast Region FWS NWRs
• Site selection –19 Refuges
Assabet River, Back Bay, Blackwater, Cherry Valley, Erie, Great Bay, Great Meadows, Great Swamp, John Heinz, Mason Neck, Missisquoi, Montezuma, Moosehorn, Ohio River Islands, Patuxent, Rappahannock, Sunkhaze, Umbagog, and Wallkill
Iwanowicz et al. 2015. Ecotox Environ Safety. 124: 50-59.
Target species
• Smallmouth bass (10 per sex)
• Largemouth bass (10 per sex)
Sample dates
• Sampling occurred during Late August thru late October
• No differences between up and downstream locations
• Previous work has identified intersex as low as 10-14%
OH/WV ME NJ VT ME PA/NJ NH/ME
Estrogenicity Results
• Estrogenicity measured at a number of locations
• Highest concentrations measured in WWTP effluent (over 5ng/L)
• PNOEL = 0.73ng/L
• 36% of 38 non-WWTP samples were estrogenic
• 79% of those were above the PNOEL
General Comments
• Evidence of estrogenic endocrine disruption in waters of FWS Northeast Region NWRs
• Apparent differences between SMB and LMB – SMB intersex 85% (Hinck et al 2009: 33%) (Blazer et al. 2014 > 90%) – LMB intersex 27% (Hinck et al 2009: 18%)
• The current study did not comprehensively evaluated water quality or site specific emerging contaminants
• Further research may be warranted to identify the sources and causes (chemical?) biological effects
The Full Cast (Co-authors NWR Study)
L.R. Iwanowicz, V.S. Blazer, A.E. Pinkney, C.P. Guy, A.M. Major, K. Munney, S. Mierzykowski, S. Lingenfelser, A. Secord, K. Patnode, T.J. Kubiak, C. Stern, C.M. Hahn, D.D. Iwanowicz, H.L. Walsh,
and A. Sperry
ED in New Jersey
• Sites selected based on previous monitoring data (WQ and/or bio) and land-use
• 101 sites sampled in fall
under base-flow – 16 reservoirs – 85 river sites – Estrogenicity only in
Funding provided by US Fish and Wildlife Service Division of Environmental Quality, USGS Priority Ecosystems, Contaminant Biology, Ecosystems and Cooperative Water Programs, NJ Department of Environmental Protection.