1
|
Ankley GT, Corsi SR, Custer CM, Ekman DR, Hummel SL, Kimbrough KL, Schoenfuss HL, Villeneuve DL. Assessing Contaminants of Emerging Concern in the Great Lakes Ecosystem: A Decade of Method Development and Practical Application. ENVIRONMENTAL TOXICOLOGY AND CHEMISTRY 2023; 42:2506-2518. [PMID: 37642300 DOI: 10.1002/etc.5740] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/06/2023] [Revised: 07/24/2023] [Accepted: 08/27/2023] [Indexed: 08/31/2023]
Abstract
Assessing the ecological risk of contaminants in the field typically involves consideration of a complex mixture of compounds which may or may not be detected via instrumental analyses. Further, there are insufficient data to predict the potential biological effects of many detected compounds, leading to their being characterized as contaminants of emerging concern (CECs). Over the past several years, advances in chemistry, toxicology, and bioinformatics have resulted in a variety of concepts and tools that can enhance the pragmatic assessment of the ecological risk of CECs. The present Focus article describes a 10+- year multiagency effort supported through the U.S. Great Lakes Restoration Initiative to assess the occurrence and implications of CECs in the North American Great Lakes. State-of-the-science methods and models were used to evaluate more than 700 sites in about approximately 200 tributaries across lakes Ontario, Erie, Huron, Michigan, and Superior, sometimes on multiple occasions. Studies featured measurement of up to 500 different target analytes in different environmental matrices, coupled with evaluation of biological effects in resident species, animals from in situ and laboratory exposures, and in vitro systems. Experimental taxa included birds, fish, and a variety of invertebrates, and measured endpoints ranged from molecular to apical responses. Data were integrated and evaluated using a diversity of curated knowledgebases and models with the goal of producing actionable insights for risk assessors and managers charged with evaluating and mitigating the effects of CECs in the Great Lakes. This overview is based on research and data captured in approximately about 90 peer-reviewed journal articles and reports, including approximately about 30 appearing in a virtual issue comprised of highlighted papers published in Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry or Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management. Environ Toxicol Chem 2023;42:2506-2518. © 2023 SETAC. This article has been contributed to by U.S. Government employees and their work is in the public domain in the USA.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Gerald T Ankley
- Great Lakes Toxicology and Ecology Division, US Environmental Protection Agency, Duluth, Minnesota
| | - Steven R Corsi
- Upper Midwest Water Science Center, US Geological Survey, Madison, Wisconsin
| | - Christine M Custer
- Upper Midwest Environmental Sciences Center, US Geological Survey, La Crosse, Wisconsin
| | - Drew R Ekman
- Ecosystem Processes Division, US Environmental Protection Agency, Athens, Georgia
| | - Stephanie L Hummel
- Great Lakes Regional Office, US Fish and Wildlife Service, Bloomington, Minnesota
| | - Kimani L Kimbrough
- National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Silver Spring, Maryland, USA
| | - Heiko L Schoenfuss
- Aquatic Toxicology Laboratory, St. Cloud State University, St. Cloud, Minnesota, USA
| | - Daniel L Villeneuve
- Great Lakes Toxicology and Ecology Division, US Environmental Protection Agency, Duluth, Minnesota
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Maloney E, Villeneuve D, Jensen K, Blackwell B, Kahl M, Poole S, Vitense K, Feifarek D, Patlewicz G, Dean K, Tilton C, Randolph E, Cavallin J, LaLone C, Blatz D, Schaupp C, Ankley G. Evaluation of Complex Mixture Toxicity in the Milwaukee Estuary (WI, USA) Using Whole-Mixture and Component-Based Evaluation Methods. ENVIRONMENTAL TOXICOLOGY AND CHEMISTRY 2023; 42:1229-1256. [PMID: 36715369 PMCID: PMC10775314 DOI: 10.1002/etc.5571] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/23/2022] [Revised: 09/13/2022] [Accepted: 01/22/2023] [Indexed: 05/27/2023]
Abstract
Anthropogenic activities introduce complex mixtures into aquatic environments, necessitating mixture toxicity evaluation during risk assessment. There are many alternative approaches that can be used to complement traditional techniques for mixture assessment. Our study aimed to demonstrate how these approaches could be employed for mixture evaluation in a target watershed. Evaluations were carried out over 2 years (2017-2018) across 8-11 study sites in the Milwaukee Estuary (WI, USA). Whole mixtures were evaluated on a site-specific basis by deploying caged fathead minnows (Pimephales promelas) alongside composite samplers for 96 h and characterizing chemical composition, in vitro bioactivity of collected water samples, and in vivo effects in whole organisms. Chemicals were grouped based on structure/mode of action, bioactivity, and pharmacological activity. Priority chemicals and mixtures were identified based on their relative contributions to estimated mixture pressure (based on cumulative toxic units) and via predictive assessments (random forest regression). Whole mixture assessments identified target sites for further evaluation including two sites targeted for industrial/urban chemical mixture effects assessment; three target sites for pharmaceutical mixture effects assessment; three target sites for further mixture characterization; and three low-priority sites. Analyses identified 14 mixtures and 16 chemicals that significantly contributed to cumulative effects, representing high or medium priority targets for further ecotoxicological evaluation, monitoring, or regulatory assessment. Overall, our study represents an important complement to single-chemical prioritizations, providing a comprehensive evaluation of the cumulative effects of mixtures detected in a target watershed. Furthermore, it demonstrates how different tools and techniques can be used to identify diverse facets of mixture risk and highlights strategies that can be considered in future complex mixture assessments. Environ Toxicol Chem 2023;42:1229-1256. © 2023 SETAC.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - D.L. Villeneuve
- Great Lakes Toxicology and Ecology Division, US EPA,
Duluth, MN, USA
| | - K.M. Jensen
- Great Lakes Toxicology and Ecology Division, US EPA,
Duluth, MN, USA
| | - B.R. Blackwell
- Great Lakes Toxicology and Ecology Division, US EPA,
Duluth, MN, USA
| | - M.D. Kahl
- Great Lakes Toxicology and Ecology Division, US EPA,
Duluth, MN, USA
| | - S.T. Poole
- Great Lakes Toxicology and Ecology Division, US EPA,
Duluth, MN, USA
| | - K. Vitense
- Scientific Computing and Data Curation Division, US EPA,
Duluth, MN, USA
| | - D.J. Feifarek
- Great Lakes Toxicology and Ecology Division, US EPA,
Duluth, MN, USA
| | - G. Patlewicz
- Centre for Computational Toxicology and Exposure, US EPA,
Research Triangle Park, NC, USA
| | - K. Dean
- Great Lakes Toxicology and Ecology Division, US EPA,
Duluth, MN, USA
| | - C. Tilton
- Great Lakes Toxicology and Ecology Division, US EPA,
Duluth, MN, USA
| | - E.C. Randolph
- Great Lakes Toxicology and Ecology Division, US EPA,
Duluth, MN, USA
| | - J.E. Cavallin
- Great Lakes Toxicology and Ecology Division, US EPA,
Duluth, MN, USA
| | - C.A. LaLone
- Great Lakes Toxicology and Ecology Division, US EPA,
Duluth, MN, USA
| | - D. Blatz
- Great Lakes Toxicology and Ecology Division, US EPA,
Duluth, MN, USA
| | - C. Schaupp
- Great Lakes Toxicology and Ecology Division, US EPA,
Duluth, MN, USA
| | - G.T. Ankley
- Great Lakes Toxicology and Ecology Division, US EPA,
Duluth, MN, USA
| |
Collapse
|