Mass Balance Models for Persistent, Toxic Bioaccumulative Chemicals (PBTs) in the Great Lakes: Application to Lake Ontario Joseph V. DePinto LimnoTech Ann Arbor, MI Russell G. Kreis, Jr. U.S. EPA Grosse Ile, MI Great Lakes Research Session 233 rd ACS National Meeting Chicago, IL March 28, 2007
38
Embed
Mass Balance Models for Persistent, Toxic Bioaccumulative Chemicals (PBTs) in the Great Lakes: Application to Lake Ontario Joseph V. DePinto LimnoTech.
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
Mass Balance Models for Persistent, Toxic
Bioaccumulative Chemicals (PBTs) in the Great Lakes:
Application to Lake Ontario Joseph V. DePinto
LimnoTechAnn Arbor, MI
Russell G. Kreis, Jr.U.S. EPA
Grosse Ile, MI
Great Lakes Research Session 233rd ACS National MeetingChicago, ILMarch 28, 2007
Outline
Overview of PBTs in Great Lakes– Legacy chemicals– Chemicals of
emerging concern Chemical Mass
Balance Models PBT management in
Lake Ontario (LaMP)– Development,
Calibration/Confirmation of LOTOX2
– Application of LOTOX2
1980s Brought Focus on “Toxic Substances” in the Great Lakes
What is a “Toxic” Substance? PBT
Is Persistent in the environment– Half-life > 8 weeks in any medium (IJC definition)
Tends to be Bioaccumulative– Characteristic of hydrophobic substances– Often not well-metabolized within organism
Elicits a Toxic response in exposed biota
Critical PBTs in Great Lakes Basin – Legacy Contaminants
(IJC Virtual Elimination Task Force, 1991)
Typical Great Lakes Legacy Toxic Substance
Historically very high emissions and loadings, followed by significant decrease in loadings through ‘70s and ‘80s
Very Hydrophobic – Strongly associated with particulate matter
Semi-volatile – subject to long-range atmospheric transport
Very Bioaccumulative – Human exposure largely through fish consumption
Typical Historic Pattern of PCB Loadings
Hydrophobic Chemicals Accumulate in Lake Sediments
Typical Great Lakes Toxic Substance
Historically very high emissions and loadings, followed by significant decrease in loadings through ‘80s and ‘90s
Very Hydrophobic – Strongly associated with particulate matter
Semi-volatile – Atmospheric inputs were a significant source of PCBs to Great Lakes in late 1980s
– subject to long-range atmospheric transport
Percent Contribution of Atmospheric Deposition of Dioxin to Lake Ontario
Typical Great Lakes Toxic Substance
Historically very high emissions and loadings, followed by significant decrease in loadings through ‘80s and ‘90s
Very Hydrophobic – Strongly associated with particulate matter
Semi-volatile – subject to long-range atmospheric transport
Very Bioaccumulative – Human exposure largely through fish consumption
Food Web Bioaccumulation
Biomagnification in Lake Ontario Food Web (IJC, 1987)
BAF for PCBs in Lake Ontario lake trout
6 x 106 L/Kg (ww)
Fish Concentrations Responded to Chemical Bans and Load Reductions
Chemicals of Emerging Concern in the Great Lakes
Tend to have similar properties as Legacy Contaminants but with recent and/or ongoing environmental release
Examples:– Polybrominated diphenylethers (PBDEs) – class of
chemicals used as flame retardants, plastics in consumer electronics, wire insulation
– Perfluoro octane compounds (PFOS/PFOA) – class of chemicals with wide use as surfactants and cleaners, 3M ScotchguardTM, insecticides
– Pharmaceuticals and Personal Care Products (PPCP) – tremendous number of human and veterinary drugs
Links to more information:– http://www.epa.gov/oppt/ – http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/
Transport In Transport OutTransformations/Reactions
Rate of Change of [X] within System Boundary (dCX/dt) =
(Loading) (Transport) (Transformations)
Control Volume
Value of Models for PBT Management
Models can help evaluate and measure the success of load reduction programs– Provide a reference by forecasting the ramifications of
no further action– Explain/normalize the small scale, stochastic variability
in monitoring data so that longer term, system-wide trends can be seen
– Explain time trends of long-term monitoring Models can aid assessments for which there is no
actual environmental experience– Estimate impact of new chemicals– Forecast impact of unusual limnological factors (e.g.,
ANS invasions, major storm events, climate change)– More localized system responses to watershed load
reductions Models can help guide monitoring programs to be
more efficient and effective
Lake Ontario Lakewide Management Plan (LaMP)
GLWQA mandated Lakewide Management Plan (LaMP) in all Great Lakes
– Lake Ontario LaMP led by Four Party Secretariat– EPA-Reg 2, NYS DEC, Environment Canada, Ontario MOE
Lake Ontario LaMP identified lakewide beneficial use impairments:
– Restrictions on fish consumption– Degradation of wildlife populations– Bird or animal deformities or reproductive problems– Loss of fish and wildlife habitat
Confirmation of Average Surface Sediment Concentrations by Segment (1998)
Model Calibration/Confirmation - Lake Trout PCB
Model Confirmation 1998-2001
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000
Year
La
ke
Tro
ut
tPC
B C
on
ce
ntr
ati
on
, m
g/k
g w
wt
Huestis et al., 1996 and Whittle 2003 Data (with Std Dev)EPA data (with Std Dev)LOTOX2 ModelDe Vault et al., 1996Whittle 2003 Data (w/ Std Error)Model Confirmation (Whittle 2003 Data w/ Std Error)Model Confirmation (EPA Data)
Model Confirmation - Lake Trout PCB
LOTOX2
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010
Year
La
ke
Tro
ut
tPC
B C
on
ce
ntr
ati
on
, m
g/k
g w
wt
Huestis et al., 1996 and Whittle 2003 Data (with Std Dev)EPA data (with Std Dev)LOTOX2 ModelDe Vault et al., 1996Whittle 2003 Data (w/ Std Error)Model Confirmation (Whittle 2003 Data w/ Std Error)OME 2002Env. Canada
Calibration Period
Confirmation Period
ForcastingPeriod
Management Application of LOTOX2: Source Category
and System Response Time
Sediment Feedback Delays Lake Trout Response(all scenarios start at 2000 and run for 50 years)
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2.0
1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050
Year
Lak
e Tr
ou
t P
CB
Co
nc.
(m
g/k
g w
wt)
Base Forecast (No Action Scenario)
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2.0
1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050
Year
Lak
e Tr
ou
t P
CB
Co
nc.
(m
g/k
g w
wt)
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2.0
Base Forecast (No Action Scenario)
Scenario_2 (Natural Attenuation)
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2.0
1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050
Year
Lak
e Tr
ou
t P
CB
Co
nc.
(m
g/k
g w
wt)
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2.0
Base Forecast (No Action Scenario)
Scenario_2 (Natural Attenuation)
Scenario_8 (Eliminate all loads)
Influence of Sediment Feedback
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
1.6
1995 2005 2015 2025 2035 2045
Year
lake
tro
ut
PC
B c
on
c (m
g/k
g w
w)
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
1.6
LOTOX2 baserunforecast
baserun with NOsediment feedback
Base Forecast
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2.0
1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050
Year
Lak
e Tr
ou
t P
CB
Co
nc.
(m
g/k
g w
wt)
Base Forecast
Baseline and Categorical Scenarios(all scenarios start at 2000 and run for 50 years)
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2.0
1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050
Year
Lak
e Tr
ou
t P
CB
Co
nc.
(m
g/k
g w
wt)
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2.0
Base Forecast
Scenario 7a (Zero all Point Sources)
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2.0
1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050
Year
Lak
e Tr
ou
t P
CB
Co
nc.
(m
g/k
g w
wt)
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2.0
Base Forecast
Scenario 7a (Zero all Point Sources)
Scenario 7b (Scenario 7a + Zero all tributaries)
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2.0
1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050
Year
Lak
e Tr
ou
t P
CB
Co
nc.
(m
g/k
g w
wt)
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2.0
Base Forecast
Scenario 7a (Zero all Point Sources)
Scenario 7b (Scenario 7a + Zero all tributaries)
Scenario 7c (Scenario 7b + Zero Niagara River)
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2.0
1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050
Year
Lak
e Tr
ou
t P
CB
Co
nc.
(m
g/k
g w
wt)
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2.0
Base Forecast
Scenario 7a (Zero all Point Sources)
Scenario 7b (Scenario 7a + Zero all tributaries)
Scenario 7c (Scenario 7b + Zero Niagara River)
Scenario 7d (Scenario 7c + Zero all atmospheric loads)
LOTOX2 Findings for Management of PCBs in Lake Ontario Significant load reductions from mid-60s through
80s have had major impact on open water and lake trout rapidly declining trends through that period
Lake is not yet at steady-state with current loads. Time to approximate steady-state with 2000 loads is ~30 years– Slower declines through ‘90s are result of sediment
feedback– Ongoing load reductions take 5-10 years to
distinguish from no post-2000 load reductions Point Sources of PCBs are relatively small fraction
of current total loading– Major non-point sources are upstream lake and
atmospheric gas phase absorption– At present model cannot address problems in
localized areas (tributaries, bays, nearshore areas (AOCs)), where PS reductions will have greatest value
Acknowledgements
USEPA – Region 2 for providing most of the funding for this modeling program and for providing guidance and coordination with data collection activities
Lake Ontario LaMP Workgroup members and other Four Party participants for continued support and input, including data collection and sharing
Other collaborative investigators during model development process, especially:
– Dr. Joseph Atkinson, University at Buffalo– Dr. Thomas Young, Clarkson University– Dr. William Booty, NWRI – Canada
USEPA – GLNPO for providing funding for the POM-LOTOX2 linkage project and for providing guidance based on experiences with mass balance modeling programs for other Great Lakes systems