contrasting the geochemistry of suspended particulate ... , ' contrasting tke geochemistry of...

Download Contrasting the geochemistry of suspended particulate ... , ' contrasting tke geochemistry of suspended

Post on 15-Feb-2020

0 views

Category:

Documents

0 download

Embed Size (px)

TRANSCRIPT

  • 5

    0

    ?

    I .- . a . Z $ *

    , ' CONTRASTING T k E GEOCHEMISTRY O F SUSPENDED PARTICULATE MATTER AND DEPOSITED SEDIMENTS O F THE .

    FMSER_6aIVER ESTLJARY: IMPBICATIONS FOR METAL EXPOSURE AND UPTAKE IN ESTUARINE DEPOSIT AND FILTER FEEDERS

    4 9 w

    0 6. f I

    - 6 \

    -

    .I. R: Pierre Stecko 1F

    B.Sc. University of British Columbia 1992

    G'

    THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF SCIENCE

    in the Department

    Biological Sciences

    c 1 .I. R. Pierre Stecko 1997 . .

    SIMON FRASER UNIVERSITY Q

    February, 1997 !

    All rights resewed. This work may not be reproduced in whole or in part. by photocopy or other means, witllout permission of the author.

  • National Library Biblfotheque nabonale of Canada du Canada

    Acquisitions and Acquisitions et 2, *

    Bibliographic Servces seivices bibliographiques r,

    395 Wellmgton Street 395: rue Wellmgton Gnawa ON K I A ON4 Onawa ON K 1 A ON4 - * . Canada . Canada

    Your !tie Vofre reference

    P o w = 1 I *

    Our hie Norre re'erenie ~

    The author has g w e d a non- , ehclusive licence allowing the National Library of Canada to reproduce, koan, distribute or sell copies of h s thesis iq microform, paper or .electromc- formats.

    t'auteur a accord6 une licence non exclusive permcttant a la Bibliotheque nationale du Canada, de ~eproduire, prcter, l s t nbue r ou vendre des copies de cette these sous la f o m e de microfiche/filrn, de reproduction sur papier ou'sur format klectronique.

    The author retalqs ownershp of the L'auteur conserve l a propriete du copyr~ght in this thesis. Neither the droit d'auteur qui protege cette these. thesis nor substantial extracts from it Ni la these ni des extrats substzntiels may be printed or otherwise , de celle-ci ne doivent Ctre imprimes reproduced without the author's ou autrement reproduits sans son permission autorisation.

  • APPROVAL . .

    NAME: J R. Pierre Stecko - 4 s

    DEGREE. Master of Science 49 -

    , .TITLE OF TMESIS: Contrasting the geochemistry of sdspended particulate matter and 4 + deposited sediments of the Fraser River Estuary: I&plications for

    9

    metal exposure and uptake in estuarine deposit and filter feeders

    EXAMJNING COMMITTEE: *

    J - Chair: Dr. Russell A Nicholson

    . >

    Senior ~ u ~ e r c i s o r Assistant Professor of Biological sciences

    ,

    r

    ' d r . &Rolf W. Mathewes Professor of Biological Sciences

    F /D/ ~ e d J. Hall l b f & x 6 r of Civil Engineering Westwater Research Centre

    University of British Columbia

    r / ,, - - Dr. Alan G. Lewis

    Yrotessor of Oceanography and Zoolog University of British Columbia

    External Examiner

    /

    ' d r . Leah I. BeKdell-young

    Date Approved: f l

  • Suspenw particulate matterY(sph4) and deposited sedim

    - of the Fraser River Estuary wtre investigated for one year. Both sediment types and environments

    - were physically and geochemically characterized. The concentrations of Cd, Cu, Fe, Mn, Pb, and Zn \

    i in four selective extracts were determined in both SPM and DS. The geochemical nature of the two

    sediments as they influence the potential bioavailability of sediment-associated metals was considered ..

    and the bioavailability of Cd (as IDgCd) from each sediment was assessed.

    Si;M and DS differ in their geochemical properties. SPM consists of smaller particles and has

    sigxuficantly higher organic, iron oxide, and manganese oxide content than does DS. Concentrations

    of organic matter and iron oxide in SPM were greatest from November through March which

    corresponds to the period of low flow in the Fraser River,, Concentrations of manganese oxide in

    SPM were highly variable These observations manife themselves in Cd, Cu, Pb, and Zn 4 a concentrations much higher in SPM than DS Significant differences were appa;ent in the easily

    reducible, reducible and organic metal fractions, the fractions of most biological relevance.

    Conversely, concentrations of residual metals weie similar in the two sediments. The proportion of

    reactive Cu and Zn (but not Pb) was sipficantly greater in SPM than in DS. The proportion of both

    easily reducible and organic copper and the proportion of easily reducible zinc were greater in SPM

    than in DS.

    The relationship between metal conc;ntrations and the physico-chemical and geochemical features

    of the sediment were stronger for SPM than f@.IS This was particularly true of the easily reducible 4

    and organic phases and less true of the residual phase. Iron oxides, mahganese oxides, and organic %

    matter were the dominant correlates with SPM metals while pH, organic matter, and manganese

    oxides were the dominant correlates with DS metals. I

    At environmentally realistic exposure levels, assimilation efficiency of radiolabened Cd from spiked

    SPM and DS w~ compared in the filter feeding clam Protothaca starninea. Identical '*Cd spiking

    resulted in similar partitioning in SPM and DS. Asdirnilation efficiency (lWCd retained by the

    ?

  • - iv , , & %, -q ' .

    organis& relative &I the i en tracer 241&) was 32.80% f 2.64 from SPM and 25.16 * 3 . 3 3 from -

    DS (mean k SE; n=3 exposure systems). Further, in P. sfaminea and Macoma balthica, 79-9 1 % of

    ccuhed by the particulate phase versus 9-21% from the water, with the proportion . of parti&late uptake being directly related'to the extent of isotope d&rption from spiked sediments.

  • 3 #

    ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

    * . b I

    This thesis and my interest in science and the enyironrnent stems fiom both my upbringing and my

    education. I thank my p,arents George and Andree Stecko for always encouraging and believing in a &

    me. Dad, &om my earliest memory.&ays ~nstilling in me and encouraging a sense of wonder. Your

    love of nature ha i &fined an important part of me. I thank my wife Kim Benham-Stecko for all her

    supportaand for inspiring me through her own accomplishments. I ilso thank many meritors at the

    university and in the workplace who took the time to enthusiastically pass along their knowledge and

    insight:

    Many thanks are due to my Senior Superisor Dr. Leah Bendell-Young for a keen interest in this

    project and a willingness to help any time. Thank-you also for your encouragement and patience

    ("that's non-triviaP') and for your ability to see the forest when I was:out on a branch. Thank you to

    my supervisory committee members, Dr. RolfMathewes and Dr. Ken Hall for your help and insight

    Thanks to my lab-mates Zainal Arifin and Christine Thomas with whom many ideas were formed and

    methods worked out. And thanks to those who helped me in the lab and the field and took an interest P

    in this work: Gonum Reddy, Christine Thomas, Laura Baqaktarovic, Zainal Arifin, Dale Benham,

    Henry Verschoof, Rupinder Bzgri, and Joanne Stecko.

    9

    I would +so like to thank Dr. Louis Peter.on and the Department of Chemistry at SFU for use of

    the Atomic Absorption Spectrophotometer; Dr. Lalit Srivastava of the Department of Biological

    Sciences for use of the centrihge; Sharon Hope and Kate Scheel of the SFU Hot Lab for much help

    and advice; and Dr. Margaret Schmidt and the SFU Department of Geography for use of a muffle

    furnace, particle sizing equipment, and a boat. Provision of Fraser'kver discharge data by the Water

    Survey of Canada is much appreciated. e

  • TABLE OF CONTENTS

    Approval Page . . . . . . . . . . f- -

    . . . . . I " "

    ... % Abstract . . . . . . . . . . . . . ? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1 1

    Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .# . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . v . .

    , Table of Contents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vi

    ;' List of Tables:. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

    List of Figures . . - z , . . . . . . . . . . : . . . . . . . . . .

    xii

    . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CHAPTER I : INTRODUCTION 5 . : 1 1 .'0 c Metals in the. Aquatic Environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

    8

    2.0 Water, Sediments, and Metals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

    3 0 Bplogical sigt%cance of Metals in AqGatic Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

    4.0 Assessing Metal Geochemistry and Availability . . . . . . . . .

    . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.1 Chemical Extractions

    4.2 Biological Exposure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

    5.0 Metals in the Estuarine Environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

    . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.1 The Fraser River Estuary 10

    5.2