OpenLB
Open Library of Bioscience
Advanced Search
Water
Jan 06, 2023;15 (2): 1-26.

Using Single-Species and Whole Community Stream Mesocosm Exposures for Identifying Major Ion Effects in Doses Mimicking Resource Extraction Wastewaters.

Christopher T Nietch, Nathan J Smucker, Leslie Gains-Germain, Christopher P Peck, Stefania Guglielmi, Susanna DeCelles, James Lazorchak, Brent Johnson, Paul Weaver
Author Information
  1. Christopher T Nietch: USEPA Office of Research and Development, Center for Environmental Measurement and Modeling, 26W Martin Luther King Drive, Cincinnati, OH 45268, USA. ORCID
  2. Nathan J Smucker: USEPA Office of Research and Development, Center for Environmental Measurement and Modeling, 26W Martin Luther King Drive, Cincinnati, OH 45268, USA. ORCID
  3. Leslie Gains-Germain: Neptune and Company, Inc., Lakewood, CO 80215, USA. ORCID
  4. Christopher P Peck: Neptune and Company, Inc., Lakewood, CO 80215, USA.
  5. Stefania Guglielmi: Pegasus Technical Services, Inc., 46 East Hollister Street, Cincinnati, OH 45219, USA.
  6. Susanna DeCelles: Pegasus Technical Services, Inc., 46 East Hollister Street, Cincinnati, OH 45219, USA.
  7. James Lazorchak: USEPA Office of Research and Development, Center for Environmental Measurement and Modeling, 26W Martin Luther King Drive, Cincinnati, OH 45268, USA. ORCID
  8. Brent Johnson: USEPA Office of Research and Development, Center for Environmental Measurement and Modeling, 26W Martin Luther King Drive, Cincinnati, OH 45268, USA.
  9. Paul Weaver: USEPA Office of Research and Development, Center for Environmental Measurement and Modeling, 26W Martin Luther King Drive, Cincinnati, OH 45268, USA.
PMID: 38269364 DOI: 10.3390/w15020249

Abstract

Wastewaters and leachates from various inland resource extraction activities contain high ionic concentrations and differ in ionic composition, which complicates the understanding and effective management of their relative risks to stream ecosystems. To this end, we conducted a stream mesocosm dose-response experiment using two dosing recipes prepared from industrial salts. One recipe was designed to generally reflect the major ion composition of deep well brines (DWB) produced from gas wells (primarily Na, Ca, and Cl) and the other, the major ion composition of mountaintop mining (MTM) leachates from coal extraction operations (using salts dissociating to Ca, Mg, Na, SO and HCO)-both sources being extensive in the Central Appalachians of the USA. The recipes were dosed at environmentally relevant nominal concentrations of total dissolved solids (TDS) spanning 100 to 2000 mg/L for 43 d under continuous flow-through conditions. The colonizing native algal periphyton and benthic invertebrates comprising the mesocosm ecology were assessed with response sensitivity distributions (RSDs) and hazard concentrations (HCs) at the taxa, community (as assemblages), and system (as primary and secondary production) levels. Single-species toxicity tests were run with the same recipes. Dosing the MTM recipe resulted in a significant loss of secondary production and invertebrate taxa assemblages that diverged from the control at all concentrations tested. Comparatively, intermediate doses of the DWB recipe had little consequence or increased secondary production (for emergence only) and had assemblages less different from the control. Only the highest dose of the DWB recipe had a negative impact on certain ecologies. The MTM recipe appeared more toxic, but overall, for both types of resource extraction wastewaters, the mesocosm responses suggested significant changes in stream ecology would not be expected for specific conductivity below 300 µS/cm, a published aquatic life benchmark suggested for the region.

Keywords

Marcellus shale algal periphyton ionic strength mesocosms mountain top mining periphyton salinity specific conductivity stream invertebrates total dissolved solids water quality

References

Integr Environ Assess Manag. 2019 Jan;15(1):77-92 [PMID: 30024091]
PLoS One. 2012;7(5):e35224 [PMID: 22567097]
Oecologia. 2001 Oct;129(2):271-280 [PMID: 28547606]
Environ Manage. 2014 Oct;54(4):919-33 [PMID: 24990807]
Environ Toxicol Chem. 2013 Feb;32(2):288-95 [PMID: 23161512]
Sci Total Environ. 2017 Feb 15;580:1205-1213 [PMID: 28034542]
Environ Toxicol Chem. 2022 Sep;41(9):2095-2106 [PMID: 35665535]
Sci Total Environ. 2018 Aug 15;633:1637-1646 [PMID: 29428331]
Environ Toxicol Chem. 2013 Dec;32(12):2826-35 [PMID: 24243594]
Environ Toxicol Chem. 2017 Jun;36(6):1525-1537 [PMID: 27800634]
Environ Toxicol Chem. 2013 Jan;32(1):207-21 [PMID: 23071077]
Environ Toxicol Chem. 2013 Feb;32(2):277-87 [PMID: 23147750]
PLoS One. 2015 Sep 23;10(9):e0137416 [PMID: 26397727]
Ecol Appl. 2017 Apr;27(3):833-844 [PMID: 27992971]
Environ Toxicol Chem. 2020 Oct;39(10):1973-1987 [PMID: 32662894]
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2013 Mar 26;110(13):4962-7 [PMID: 23479604]
Annu Rev Entomol. 1996;41:115-39 [PMID: 15012327]
Environ Toxicol Chem. 2018 Mar;37(3):871-883 [PMID: 29091302]
Sci Total Environ. 2018 Aug 15;633:1629-1636 [PMID: 29477563]
Aquat Toxicol. 2019 Jun;211:92-104 [PMID: 30954848]
Sci Total Environ. 2014 Apr 1;476-477:634-42 [PMID: 24503334]
Environ Toxicol Chem. 2022 Nov;41(11):2782-2796 [PMID: 35975448]
Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2018 Dec 3;374(1764): [PMID: 30509920]
Environ Toxicol Chem. 2022 Sep;41(9):2078-2094 [PMID: 35622012]
Environ Toxicol Chem. 2016 Dec;35(12):3039-3057 [PMID: 27167636]
Environ Pollut. 2012 Jul;166:144-51 [PMID: 22504538]
Environ Toxicol Chem. 2017 Mar;36(3):576-600 [PMID: 27808448]
Biol Lett. 2016 Mar;12(3):20151072 [PMID: 26932680]
Environ Toxicol Chem. 2016 Jan;35(1):115-27 [PMID: 26139383]
PLoS One. 2015 Dec 30;10(12):e0146021 [PMID: 26717316]
Environ Toxicol Chem. 2011 Apr;30(4):930-8 [PMID: 21191883]
Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2018 Dec 3;374(1764): [PMID: 30509915]
Sci Total Environ. 2012 Feb 15;417-418:1-12 [PMID: 22264919]
Environ Toxicol Chem. 2014 Aug;33(8):1679-89 [PMID: 25044053]

Grants

  1. EPA999999/Intramural EPA
Journal Article

Word Cloud

Similar Articles

Cited By