Michigan State University
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
SUMMARY OF ECOLOGICAL STUDIES WITHIN THE TITTABAWASSEE RIVER FLOODPLAIN Presentation to the Community Advisory Committee Professor Matthew Zwiernik 20 June 2011 Studies in Support of Ecological Risk Rita Seston Timothy B. Fredricks Sarah J. Coefield Dustin L. Tazelaar Jeremy N. Moore David W. Hamman Mike M. Fales Megan Barker Michael N. Nadeau Melissa S. Shotwell Steph Plautz William Folland Patrick W. Bradley Steve Bursian Ph.D John P. Giesy, Ph.D. and many more… Research Contributors Cooperating landowners (~60) Chippewa Nature Center Shiawassee National Wildlife Refuge Mike Bishop (Alma College) U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service (East Lansing) Sean Kennedy, Environment Canada The Dow Chemical Company Technical Support Group (analytical laboratory) Overview of Presentation Mink TCDF feeding study Mammalian Mink TCDF and lab studies 4PeCDF toxicokinetics Mink TCDD, TCDF and 4PeCDF reproduction study MSU ecological AhR ligand binding field studies domain sequencing Avian species sensitivity lab Injected egg studies hatchability Injected egg exposure biomarker Exposure biomarker response in field collected birds Field Studies: Furan Exposure and Effects Initiated Spring 2004 Completed Fall 2008 (> 20,000 hours in the field) Designed to provide decision makers with the most accurate information possible pertaining to the exposure and possible impacts of dioxin-like contaminants on resident wildlife of the Tittabawassee river basin An expansion of the MDEQ screening level ERA Multi-year Multi-species Site-specific Multi-lines of evidence Tittabawassee River Ecological Studies Song birds Fish eating birds Raptors Migratory waterfowl Mink Field Based Furan Exposure and Effects Studies Dietary exposure assessment Tissue based exposure assessment Individual and population health measurements Field studies Dietary exposure assessment Tissue based exposure assessment Individual and population health measurements Field studies Dietary exposure assessment Tissue based exposure assessment Individual and population health measurements MSU ecological studies Aquatic & terrestrial exposure pathways evaluated 2004 – 2008 Tittabawassee River (and reference areas) 2006 expanded to Saginaw River Mink Dietary exposure Stomach content analysis (presented) Scat analysis Mink Dietary exposure • Fish • Tittabawassee River • Alexander, 1977 • Crayfish • site specific • 10% • Muskrat • 9% • 2% • Small Mammals • 3% • Amphibians • 4% • 4% • Vegetation • 8% • 8% • 52% • 19% • 73% • 8% Mink dietary exposure • Mink Dietary Items 100 80 Reference Area T-River 60 40 TEQ (ppt) 20 0 Muskrat Sediment Crayfish egetation Forage fish V Amphibian Small mammal Example of concentrations of Dioxin-like contaminants in food web items 100 90 Crayfish tissue Error bars represent one 80 (composite samples) standard deviation 70 60 50 40 30 20 N=3 2 4 5 3 10 0 Sanford Chippewa Nature Smiths Crossing Tittabawassee Freeland Festival Imerman Park Shiawassee Veterans Dow Light House 250 SAN CenterCNC SC TownshipTTP Park ParkFFP IP WildlifeSNWR Refuge MemorialVMP Park DLH Sum Mamm TEQ CRAYFISH Terrestrial beetle CRAYFISH 200 tissue 150 (composite samples) mammalian TEQ / kg / kg TEQ mammalian ng 100 50 Mean N=4 5 3 2 4 0 Sum Mamm TEQ Sum Mamm TEQ Sum Mamm TEQ Sum Mamm TEQ Sum Mamm TEQ Sum Mamm TEQ Sum Mamm TEQ Sum Mamm TEQ Sum Mamm TEQ INSECTA - INSECTA - INSECTA - INSECTA - INSECTA - INSECTA - INSECTA - INSECTA - INSECTA - COLEOPTERAReferenceCOLEOPTERA COLEOPTERA COLEOPTERATittabawasseeCOLEOPTERA COLEOPTERA COLEOPTERA COLEOPTERASaginawCOLEOPTERA Sanford Chippewa Nature Smiths Crossing Tittabawassee Freeland Festival Imerman Park Shiawassee Veterans Dow Light House ReferenceCenter TittabawasseeTownship Park Park Wildlife Refuge SaginawMemorial Park Upstream TERRESTRIAL INVERTEBRATE Downstream Dioxin Equivalents in Wild Mink Liver • 450 (ng/kg) • 400 • 350 • 300 • 250 WHO-mammalian • 200 • 150 • 100 50 0 Reference areas Tittabawassee River Mink liver TEQ Mink liver • Mink Exposure assessment • Liver and Dietary HQs (TEQ) 8.0 Dietary Based HQs 7.0 Liver Based HQs 6.0 5.0 HQ 4.0 3.0 2.0 1.0 0.0 Mink Individual and Population health Track surveys Visual observations Trapping success Mink scat Mink Individual and Population health • Habitat Suitability and Abundance Chippewa Tittabawassee Pine River River River Habitat Suitability 100%=Excellent 70% 59% 51% 0% = Poor # Mink / km 1.46 0.44 0.96 Study areas have appropriate habitat and support mink year round Mink Collection Locations SEX - FEMALE MALE Department of Animal Science Mink Individual and Population health Body weight Mink Necropsy Body length Sex Age Liver weight Brain weight Baculum length Placental scaring Nutritional status Histology • Liver • Brain • Kidney • Jaw Mink Individual and Population Health Difference between Individual Health Measurement Reference and Tittabawassee River animals Body Weight No Body Length No Age No Organ weights No Nutritional Status No Tissue histology No Population Health Abundance No Age Structure No Male to Female ratio No Placental Scaring No Results summary: Mink field studies Exposure Identified dibenzofurans are entering the food web Two furans make up > 80 of the dietary exposure Exposures are great enough to be of concern Data pertaining to the toxicity of site-specific contaminants is limited Individual and population health No difference between sites Mink appear healthy (size, age, nutritional status) No adverse measures for any endpoints Mink abundance is not different between sites Male to Female ratio not different between sites Abundance and demographics are indicative of stable lightly harvested population Questions Resulting from Mink Field Studies Site-specific Individual and population health parameters suggest a healthy, lightly harvested mink population, however, the predicted daily dietary exposure and measured tissue concentrations were greater than those observed in some laboratory studies were adverse effects were seen. Mink: PCB-based TRVs • Zwiernik et al. 2008. ET&C, 27(10) Mink laboratory exposures: TCDF feeding study Objective Compare the effect levels for reproductive success and Jaw lesions for mink exposed to 2378-TCDF or PCB126 2378-TCDF is a major component of Tittabawassee River exposure profile Mink laboratory exposures: TCDF feeding study Results No reproductive effect for TCDF TEQ concentrations 10x greater than PCB126 TEQ concentrations that produced complete reproductive failure Zwiernik et al. 2009, IEAM Beckett et al. 2008, Arch Env Contam & Tox 2378-TCDF appears to be significantly less potent than previously thought Mink laboratory exposures: kinetic study Objectives Quantify accumulation and kinetics of 2378-TCDF and 23478-PCDF individually and as a mixture (zwiernik et al. 2008) Assess EROD/MROD assays as metrics of exposure (Moore et al. 2009) Assess mRNA as a metric of exposure (Zhang et al. 2009) Examine relationship of mink scat to body burden (Zwiernik et al. 2008) Mink laboratory exposures: kinetic study Results 2378-TCDF does not bioaccumulate (8hr half-life) Zwiernik et al. 2008, Tox Sci Laboratory Bioaccumulation Factors were in agreement with field measures Confirmation of predicted dietary exposure based on liver data Mink laboratory exposures: relative potency study Objectives Determine if TCDD, PeCDF and TCDF affect reproductive performance of female mink and the survival and growth of their offspring Determine the relative potency of TCDF and 4PeCDF compared to TCDD based on various endpoints Mink laboratory exposures: Relative Potency Endpoints measured Adult survival Kit birth weight Kit survival Litter birth weight Histopathology Kit body weight Brain, liver, heart, kidneys, heart, spleen, 3 week, 6 week, 12 adrenal glands, thyroid week, and 27 week gland, thymus, lymph Adult organ weight nodes, mandible Kit organ weight Number of females whelping Adult body weight Number of kits per litter Number of kits per female Mink laboratory exposures: Relative Potency Results Mink exposed to TCDD, PeCDF, and TCDF at concentrations 4 times greater than high end field exposure were unaffected in terms of reproductive success and survivability of offspring Overall Conclusions of Mink laboratory Studies TCDF was much less potent than thought TCDF was quickly degraded in mink Laboratory BAFs matched the field diet to tissue ratio PeCDF, and TCDF did not effect the reproduction or the kit survivability at concentrations 4 times greater than the maximum possible field exposure All lines of evidence are in agreement Kingfisher Kingfisher Department of Animal Science Kingfisher Department of Animal Science Great blue heron Challenges •Kingfisher Burrow Sites Dietary exposure assessment •2005 Burrows •2006 Burrows •2007 Burrows •Interim Action Sites Results Summary: Belted Kingfisher Kingfisher furan exposure is significantly greater downstream of Midland Kingfisher dioxin-like exposure is 70% furans Kingfisher population health measurements are not different between study and reference sites Great Horned Owl Dietary exposure assessment Prey remains (2005-08) Small mammals and passerines (2003-08) Tissue-based exposure assessment Addled eggs (2005-08) Nestling and adult plasma (2005-08) Individual and population health (2005-08) Clutch size Hatching success Fledging success Banding and telemetry Great horned owl Department of Animal Science Great horned owl Department of Animal Science Results Summary: Great Horned Owl Great