Lake Superior Environmental Chemical

ContaminationBy

Kory Groetsch

Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife Commission

Melanie Neilson

Environment Canada

Mike Whittle

Department of Fisheries and Oceans

Pat McCann

Minnesota Department of HealthPhoto by Nancy Larson, WDNR

Acknowledgements

• R. Day, Michigan Department of Environmental Quality• D. V. Weseloh, Environment Canada• S. Buehler, Indiana University• J. M. Luross, University of Guelph• J. Jeremiason, MN Pollution Control Agency• D. Swackhamer, University of Minnesota• D.J. Anderson, US. EPA, GLNPO • D. DeVault, US Fish and Wildlife Service• A. Li, Environment Canada• L. Chan, Environment Canada

Chemical Goals For the Great Lakes & Lake Superior • Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement

– Article 2: Restore & maintain chemical, physical, and biological integrity.

– Annex 2: Restore unrestricted fish & wildlife consumption.

• Strategic Plan (GLFC)– Wholesome food and healthy aquatic ecosystems.

• Lake Superior Fish Community Objective (LSC)– Reduce contaminants so that all fish are safe to eat.

• Great Lakes Strategy 2002 (US EPA)– Vision Statement: All Great Lakes fish are safe to eat.– Promote safe consumption of Great Lakes fish and wildlife.

PBT Chemicals to be Discussed

• Sport Fish Consumption Advisory Chemicals

– Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs)

– Toxaphene

– Methyl mercury

– Dioxins

– Chlordane

• Monitored Chemicals– Dieldrin– DDT– Hexachlorocyclohexane

(Lindane)– Hexachlorobenzene

(HCB)– Polybrominated diphenyl

ethers (PBDE)– Polybrominated

biphenyls (PBB)

Characteristics that Impact Chemical Accumulation in Lake Superior’s Ecosystem

• Great Lakes: 1st in Area, Volume & Depth

• World Wide: 2nd by Volume, 4th by Area

• Long Water Retention Time

• Cold Water Temperature

• Food Web Structure

ATMOSPHERE

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

ng/m

2/da

y

1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998

Atmospheric: Wet Deposition

DATA SOURCE: IADN Buehler et al. 2002

a-HCH g-HCH Dieldrin p,p’-DDD p,p’-DDE HCB I-PCBp,p’-DDT

HCH Trends in Usage and Wet Deposition

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95

Wo

rld

Wid

e U

sag

e (K

t)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Lak

e S

uper

ior

Pre

cipi

tati

on

Con

cent

rati

ons

(ng/

L)

DATA SOURCE: A. Li 1999, C.H. Chan, Environment Canada

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

Con

cent

rati

on (

kg/y

ear)

PCBs

InputsOutputs

Atmospheric Inputs/Output of PCBs

DATA SOURCE: Evaluation of Persistence and Long Range Transport of Organic Chemicals in the Environment. Chapter 7. edited Klecka at al., Jeremiason et al. ES&T (28) 1994.

WATER

Water Concentrations

0.001

0.01

0.1

1

10

a-HCH g-HCH Dieldrin PCBs HCB DDE

198619871996199719921993

DATA SOURCES: Environment Canada, M. Neilson; Anderson et al. 1999, J. Great Lakes Res. (25); Jeremiason et al. 1998, EST (32)

Not Detected

(ng/

L)

CONCENTRATIONS IN

HERRING GULL EGGS AND

WHOLE LAKE TROUT

PCBs in Herring Gull eggs – Lake Superior, 1974-2000.

1

10

100

1974

1976

1978

1980

1982

1984

1986

1988

1990

1992

1994

1996

1998

2000

Agawa Rks.

1

10

100

Observed Predicted

Granite I.

log

ug/

g, w

et w

eigh

t

DATA SOURCES: Environment Canada, D.V. Weseloh

Mercury in Herring Gull eggs - Lake Superior, 1973-2000.

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

Granite I.

Agawa Rks.

ug/

g, w

et w

eigh

t

Year

DATA SOURCES: Environment Canada, D.V. Weseloh

0

20

40

60

80

100

% o

f o

rig

ina

l

PCB DDE Dieldrin HCB 2,3,7,8-dioxin

85% 89% 90% 94% 50%

62.8 16.7 0.52 0.24 16.0

9.66 1.86 0.05 0.01 7.97

Percent Decline:

DATA SOURCES: Environment Canada, D.V. Weseloh

Herring Gull Eggs - Lake Superior, 1974-2000.

1974/842000

PCBs in 4 yr old Whole Lake Trout

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 00

Year

(ug

/g)

(+/-

S.E

.)

DATA SOURCE: Dept of Fisheries & Oceans, M. Whittle

Total Mercury in 4 yr old Whole Lake Trout

0

0.1

0.2

81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99

Year

(ug

/g) (

+/- S

.E.)

DATA SOURCE: Dept of Fisheries & Oceans, M. Whittle

Toxaphene Trends in Whole Lake Trout

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

1980 1983 1986 1990 1995 1998

Parlar Std

DATA SOURCE: Whittle et al., Chemosphere (40) 2000.

Tot

al T

oxap

hene

(mg/

kg w

wt.)

Herring SculpinR. Smelt

1.02 ppm 0.55 ppm0.29 ppm

Food Web Structure Impact on Toxaphene

Dominant food 1986 to 1998

Dominant 1978 to 1986

DATA SOURCE: Adapted from M. Whittle et al. , Chemosphere (40) 2000.

Lean Lake Trout

Concentrations have not Declined

Comparisons Between the Great Lakes

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

Rel

ativ

e A

bund

ance

Toxaph. PCBs DDT PBDEs PBBs

Lake SuperiorLake HuronLake ErieLake Ontario

Lean Lake Trout: Relative to Lake Ontario

DATA SOURCE: Luross et al. 2002, Chemosphere 46

Whole Lean Lake Trout

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

PCBs DDT Chlordane Toxaphene

Superior

Huron

Michigan

Ontario

DATA SOURSE: US EPA D. DeVault et al. 1996; via Bob Day, MI DEQ

Con

cent

ratio

n (p

pm)

PBDE & PBB – 6 yr Whole Lake Trout

0

20

40

60

80

100

Con

cent

rati

on (

ng/g

)

PBDEs0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

PBBs

Superior HuronErie Ontario

DATA SOURCE: Luross et al. 2002, Chemosphere 46

• Presence of chemicals does NOT = negative health effects– Significant exposure is required– Human exposure data are very limited.

• Exposure Pathways. – Air & Water: NOT a direct concern for PBTs – Food: Major exposure pathway, particularly fish consumption.

• Fish advisories will likely not decline in the foreseeable future.– Small declines in fish concentrations will not = changes in fish

advice.– New information on toxicity could result in more restrictive

advisories. – Emerging contaminants may become part of fish consumption

advisories.

Human Health

Final Comments• Regulatory actions have been very effective • Lake Superior has unique characteristics that make it susceptible to

retaining chemicals, sets it apart from other Great Lakes. • Future Needs

– Better coordination between fisheries and environment scientists.– Coordinated monitoring (expanded to emerging chemicals)

• Toxicity studies to evaluate these exposures of wildlife to emerging chemicals as well as mixtures of chemicals

– Human exposure data • Toxicity studies to evaluate these exposures of humans to emerging

chemicals as well as mixtures of chemicals

– Raise public awareness about fish that are LOW in contaminants

Sources of Emerging Chemicals

• Stain Resistant + Fire retardant– Perfluorooctane Sulfonate (PFOS)

• Plasticizers– Alkylphenol Ethoxylates (APEs)

• Pharmaceuticals and Personal Care Products (PPCPs)