DOCSLIB.ORG

Framework for Metals Risk Assessment

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Framework for Metals Risk Assessment EPA 120/R-07/001 | March 2007 www.epa.gov/osa Framework for Metals Risk Assessment Office of the Science Advisor Risk Assessment Forum EPA 120/R-07/001 March, 2007 Framework for Metals Risk Assessment Office of the Science Advisor Risk Assessment Forum U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Washington, DC 20460 DISCLAIMER This document has been reviewed in accordance with U.S. Environmental Protection Agency policy. Mention of trade names or commercial products does not constitute endorsement or recommendation for use. ii CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES....................................................................................................................... vii LIST OF FIGURES ..................................................................................................................... vii LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS ...................................................................viii PREFACE...................................................................................................................................xiii AUTHORS.................................................................................................................................. xvi EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ....................................................................................................... xvii 1. INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................1-1 1.1. PURPOSE AND AUDIENCE ................................................................................1-1 1.2. METALS FRAMEWORK SCOPE.........................................................................1-3 1.3. METALS ASSESSMENT CONTEXT...................................................................1-3 1.3.1. National Ranking and Categorization.........................................................1-4 1.3.2. National-Level Assessments.......................................................................1-6 1.3.3. Site-Specific Assessments ..........................................................................1-8 1.4. KEY PRINCIPLES TO CONSIDER IN METALS RISK ASSESSMENT ...........1-9 1.4.1. Metals are Naturally Occurring Constituents in the Environment and Vary in Concentrations Across Geographic Regions ................................1-9 1.4.2. All Environmental Media have Naturally Occurring Mixtures of Metals and Metals are Often Introduced into the Environment as Mixtures...................................................................................................1-10 1.4.3. Some Metals are Essential for Maintaining Proper Health of Humans, Animals, Plants, and Microorganisms .....................................................1-10 1.4.4. The Environmental Chemistry of Metals Strongly Influences Their Fate and Effects on Human and Ecological Receptors............................1-10 1.4.5. The Toxicokinetics and Toxicodynamics of Metals Depend on the Metal, the Form of the Metal or Metal Compound, and the Organism’s Ability to Regulate and/or Store the Metal ..........................1-11 2. FRAMEWORK FOR METALS RISK ASSESSMENT .......................................................2-1 2.1. HUMAN HEALTH AND ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENT: PLANNING AND PROBLEM FORMULATION ................................................2-1 2.2. METALS CONCEPTUAL MODEL ......................................................................2-4 2.3. ASSESSMENT PHASE........................................................................................2-10 2.3.1. Bioavailability...........................................................................................2-10 2.3.2. Exposure Characterization........................................................................2-11 2.3.3. Characterization of Effects/Hazard Analysis............................................2-14 2.4. RISK CHARACTERIZATION ............................................................................2-16 3. ENVIRONMENTAL CHEMISTRY, TRANSPORT AND FATE.......................................3-1 3.1. INTRODUCTION AND TERMINOLOGY...........................................................3-1 3.1.1. Hard and Soft Acids and Bases: The Stability of Complexes ...................3-2 3.1.2. Transformations..........................................................................................3-3 3.1.2.1. Biotic Methylation Transformations............................................3-5 3.1.2.2. Abiotic Transformations ..............................................................3-6 3.1.3. Aquatic Chemistry ......................................................................................3-7 3.1.3.1. Processes .....................................................................................3-7 3.1.3.2. Speciation and Complexes...........................................................3-7 iii 3.1.3.3. Importance of pH and Redox Conditions ....................................3-9 3.1.4. Ground Water and Metals Mobility............................................................3-9 3.1.4.1. Application of Partition Coefficients to Metal Mobility in Ground Water............................................................................3-11 3.1.5. Sediment Chemistry..................................................................................3-13 3.1.5.1. Metal Chemistry in Sediments ...................................................3-14 3.1.5.2. Estimating Metal Distribution in Sediments..............................3-16 3.1.6. Soil Chemistry ..........................................................................................3-17 3.1.6.1. Key Parameters Affecting Metal Bioavailability in Soils ..........3-18 3.1.6.2. Adsorption Behavior of the Metals of Concern .........................3-19 3.1.6.3. Aging of Metals in Soil ..............................................................3-19 3.1.6.4. Dissolution and Transformation of Metals................................3-20 3.1.6.5. Soil Metal Transfer to Plants.....................................................3-20 3.1.7. Atmospheric Behavior/Chemistry ............................................................3-21 3.2. METAL FATE AND TRANSPORT ....................................................................3-23 3.2.1. Aquatic and Terrestrial Transport Pathways for Metals...........................3-24 3.2.1.1. Aquatic Transport Models .........................................................3-26 3.2.2. Terrestrial Fate and Transport...................................................................3-29 3.3. ATMOSPHERIC FATE AND TRANSPORT......................................................3-29 4. HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT FOR METALS.................................................4-1 4.1. METALS PRINCIPLES..........................................................................................4-2 4.2. HUMAN EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT..................................................................4-3 4.2.1. Background Levels .....................................................................................4-3 4.2.2. Bioavailability.............................................................................................4-4 4.2.3. Susceptible Populations ..............................................................................4-5 4.2.3.1. Life Stage .....................................................................................4-6 4.2.3.2. Demographics..............................................................................4-6 4.2.3.3. Pregnancy and Lactation.............................................................4-6 4.2.3.4. Concurrent Damage or Disease ..................................................4-6 4.2.3.5. Nutritional State...........................................................................4-7 4.2.3.6. Genetic Polymorphisms and Variability......................................4-7 4.2.4. Environmental Release, Transport, and Fate..............................................4-8 4.2.5. Route-Specific Differences in Effects ........................................................4-8 4.2.5.1. Inhalation Exposure.....................................................................4-8 4.2.5.2. Dietary Exposure .......................................................................4-10 4.2.5.3. Incidental Soil Exposure............................................................4-11 4.2.5.4. Drinking Water Exposure ..........................................................4-11 4.2.5.5. Dermal Exposure .......................................................................4-12 4.2.6. Integrated Exposure ..................................................................................4-12 4.2.6.1. Modeling ....................................................................................4-12 4.2.7. Biomarkers................................................................................................4-13 4.3. HAZARD CHARACTERIZATION.....................................................................4-14 4.3.1. Mixtures and Interactions .........................................................................4-14 4.3.2. Essentiality................................................................................................4-16 4.3.3. Forms of Metals........................................................................................4-18 4.3.4. Toxicokinetics/Toxicodynamics...............................................................4-18 4.3.4.1. Absorption..................................................................................4-20
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Trophic Transfer of Mercury in a Subtropical Coral Reef Food Web
    Trophic Transfer of Mercury in a Subtropical Coral Reef Food Web _______________________________________________________________________ A Thesis Presented to The Faculty of the College of Arts and Sciences Florida Gulf Coast University In Partial Fulfillment Of the Requirement for the Degree of Master of Science ________________________________________________________________________ By Christopher Tyler Lienhardt 2015 APPROVAL SHEET This thesis is submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science ____________________________ Christopher Tyler Lienhardt Approved: July 2015 ____________________________ Darren G. Rumbold, Ph.D. Committee Chair / Advisor ____________________________ Michael L. Parsons, Ph.D. ____________________________ Ai Ning Loh, Ph. D. The final copy of this thesis has been examined by the signatories, and we find that both the content and the form meet acceptable presentation standards of scholarly work in the above mentioned discipline. i Acknowledgments This research would not have been possible without the support and encouragement of numerous friends and family. First and foremost I would like to thank my major advisor, Dr. Darren Rumbold, for giving me the opportunity to play a part in some of the great research he is conducting, and add another piece to the puzzle that is mercury biomagnification research. The knowledge, wisdom and skills imparted unto me over the past three years, I cannot thank him enough for. I would also like to thank Dr. Michael Parsons for giving me a shot to be a part of the field team and assist in the conducting of our research. I also owe him thanks for his guidance and the nature of his graduate courses, which helped prepare me to take on such a task.
    [Show full text]
  • Biomagnification of Methylmercury in a Marine Plankton Ecosystem
    EGU2020-1695, updated on 01 Oct 2021 https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-egu2020-1695 EGU General Assembly 2020 © Author(s) 2021. This work is distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License. Biomagnification of methylmercury in a marine plankton ecosystem Peipei Wu1, Emily Zakem2,3, Stephanie Dutkiewicz2, and Yanxu Zhang1 1School of Atmospheric Sciences, Nanjing University, Nanjing, Jiangsu, China ([email protected]) 2Department of Earth, Atmospheric, and Planetary Sciences, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, USA 3Department of Biological Sciences, University of Southern California, Los Angeles,USA Methylmercury is greatly bioconcentrated and biomagnified in marine plankton ecosystems, and these communities form the basis of marine food webs. Therefore, evaluating the potential exposure of methylmercury to higher trophic levels, including humans, requires a better understanding of its distribution in the ocean and the factors that control its biomagnification. In this study, a coupled physical/ecological model was used to simulate the trophic transfer of monomethylmercury (MMHg) in a marine plankton ecosystem. The model includes phytoplankton, a microbial community, herbivorous zooplankton (HZ), and carnivorous zooplankton (CZ). The model captured both shorter food chains in oligotrophic regions, with small HZ feeding on small phytoplankton, and longer chains in higher nutrient conditions, with larger HZ feeding on larger phytoplankton and larger CZ feeding on larger HZ. In the model, trophic dilution occurred in the food webs that involved small zooplankton, as the grazing fluxes of small zooplankton were insufficient to accumulate more MMHg in themselves than in their prey. The model suggested that biomagnification was more prominent in large zooplankton and that the microbial community played an important role in the trophic transfer of MMHg.
    [Show full text]
  • Calculation of Critical Loads for Cadmium, Lead and Mercury
    Calculation of critical loads for cadmium, lead and mercury Commissioned by the Dutch Ministries of Agriculture, Nature and Food Quality and of Housing, Spatial Planning and Environment 2 Alterra-report 1104 Calculation of critical loads for cadmium, lead and mercury Background document to a Mapping Manual on Critical Loads of cadmium, lead and mercury W. de Vries G. Schütze S. Lofts E. Tipping M. Meili P. F.A.M. Römkens J.E. Groenenberg Alterra-report 1104 Alterra, Wageningen, 2005 ABSTRACT Vries, W. de, G. Schütze, S. Lofts, E. Tipping, M. Meili, P.F.A.M. Römkens and J.E. Groenenberg, 2005. Calculation of critical loads for cadmium, lead and mercury. Background document to a Mapping Manual on Critical Loads of cadmium, lead and mercury. Wageningen, Alterra, Alterra-report 1104. 143 blz.; 1 fig; 13 tables.; 53 refs This report on heavy metals provides up-to-date methodologies to derive critical loads for the heavy metals cadmium (Cd), lead (Pb) and mercury (Hg) for both terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems. It presents background information to a Manual on Critical Loads for those metals. Focus is given to the methodologies and critical limits that have to be used to derive critical loads can be derived for Cd, Pb and Hg in view of : (i) ecotoxicological effects for either terrestrial or aquatic ecosystems.and (ii) human health effects for either terrestrial or aquatic ecosystems. For Hg, a separate approach is described to estimate critical levels in precipitation in view of human health effects due to the consumption of fish. The limitations and uncertainties of the approach are discussed including: (i) the uncertainties and particularities of the steady-state models used and (ii) the reliability of the approaches that are applied to derive critical limits for critical total dissolved metal concentrations in soil solution and surface water.
    [Show full text]
  • Ecology (Pyramids, Biomagnification, & Succession
    ENERGY PYRAMIDS & Freshmen Biology FOOD CHAINS/FOOD WEBS May 4 – May 8 Lecture ENERGY FLOW •Energy → powers life’s processes •Energy = ATP! •Flow of energy determines the system’s ability to sustain life FEEDING RELATIONSHIPS • Energy flows through an ecosystem in one direction • Sun → autotrophs (producers) → heterotrophs (consumers) FOOD CHAIN VS. FOOD WEB FOOD CHAINS • Energy stored by producers → passed through an ecosystem by a food chain • Food chain = series of steps in which organisms transfer energy by eating and being eaten FOOD WEBS •Feeding relationships are more complex than can be shown in a food chain •Food Web = network of complex interactions •Food webs link all the food chains in an ecosystem together ECOLOGICAL PYRAMIDS • Used to show the relationships in Ecosystems • There are different types: • Energy Pyramid • Biomass Pyramid • Pyramid of numbers ENERGY PYRAMID • Only part of the energy that is stored in one trophic level can be passed on to the next level • Much of the energy that is consumed is used for the basic functions of life (breathing, moving, reproducing) • Only 10% is used to produce more biomass (10 % moves on) • This is what can be obtained from the next trophic level • All of the other energy is lost 10% RULE • Only 10% of energy (from organisms) at one trophic level → the next level • EX: only 10% of energy/calories from grasses is available to cows • WHY? • Energy used for bodily processes (growth/development and repair) • Energy given off as heat • Energy used for daily functioning/movement • Only 10% of energy you take in should be going to your actual biomass/weight which another organism could eat BIOMASS PYRAMID • Total amount of living tissue within a given trophic level = biomass • Represents the amount of potential food available for each trophic level in an ecosystem PYRAMID OF NUMBERS •Based on the number of individuals at each trophic level.
    [Show full text]
  • Toxic Chemical Contaminants
    4 NaturalNatural RegionsRegions ofof thethe GulfGulf ofof MaineMaine TOXIC CHEMICAL CONTAMINANTS STATE OF THE GULF OF MAINE REPORT Gulf of Maine Census Marine Life May 2013 TOXIC CHEMICAL CONTAMINANTS STATE OF THE GULF OF MAINE REPORT TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. Issue in Brief ................................................................................................... 1 2. Driving Forces and Pressures .......................................................................4 2.1 Human .................................................................................................4 2.2 Natural .................................................................................................6 3. Status and Trends ..........................................................................................7 4. Impacts ........................................................................................................ 15 4.1 Biodiversity and Ecosystem Impacts ................................................ 15 4.2 Human Health ....................................................................................17 4.3 Economic Impacts ............................................................................. 18 5. Actions and Responses ............................................................................... 19 5.1 Legislation and Policy........................................................................ 19 5.2 Contaminant Monitoring ...................................................................20 6. Indicator Summary ......................................................................................23
    [Show full text]
  • Higher and More Variable Methylmercury Biomagnification
    Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety 92 (2013) 191–198 Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ecoenv Higher and more variable methylmercury biomagnification factors for floodplain than the contiguous river (South River, Virginia USA) Jincheng Wang a, Michael C. Newman a,n, Xiaoyu Xu a, Lian Liang b a Virginia Institute of Marine Science, College of William & Mary, P.O. Box 1346, Rt. 1208 Greate Road, Gloucester Point, VA 23062, USA b Cebam Analytical, Inc., 18804 North Creek Parkway, Suite 110, Bothell, WA 98011, USA article info abstract Article history: Extending previous trophic transfer studies of the mercury-contaminated South River watershed, Received 13 February 2012 predictive models were built for mercury biomagnification in floodplain food webs at two more Received in revised form locations (North Park and Grand Cavern). Four of five models built to date based on methylmercury and 25 April 2012 d15N met the a priori requirement for useful prediction (prediction r2E0.80). An additional factor Accepted 29 April 2012 included in models was organism thermoregulatory strategy (poikilothermy or homeothermy). The Available online 21 March 2013 methylmercury food web biomagnification factors (FWMFs, fold increase per trophic level) for the Keywords: North Park and Grand Cavern locations were 17.4 (95% CI of 9.5–31.6) and 6.2 (95% CI of 3.5–11.0) Mercury respectively. FWMF calculated in 2009 were 9.3 (95% CI of 5.4–16.2) for the Augusta Forestry Center Biomagnification and 25.1 (95% CI of 12.6–50.1) for Grottoes Town Park.
    [Show full text]
  • Development of Bioaccumulation Factors for Protection of Fish and Wildlife in the Great Lakes
    National Sediment Bioaccumulation Conference Development of Bioaccumulation Factors for Protection of Fish and Wildlife in the Great Lakes Philip M. Cook and Dr. Lawrence P. Burkhard U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, Duluth, Minnesota ioaccumulation factor (BAF) development for ap­ factors that must be considered when predicting bioaccu­ plication to the Great Lakes, and in particular for mulation from measured or predicted concentrations of the recent Great Lakes Water Quality Initiative chemicals in the water and sediments of the ecosystem. (GLWQI) effort of U.S. EPA and the respective Great Lakes The bioavailability considerations that remain, after in­ states, illustrates the importance of the linkage between corporating the influence of organism lipid, organic car­ sediments and the water column and its influence on bon in water and sediments, and trophic level into BAFfds B f exposure of all aquatic biota. This presentation included and BSAFs to reduce uncertainty for site-specific a discussion of the development and application of bioavailability conditions, are shown on the z-axis. Ba­ bioaccumulation factors for fish, both water-based BAFs sically, this residual bioavailability factor is the chemical and biota-sediment accumulation factors (BSAFs), with distribution between water and sediment which can vary emphasis on the role of sediments in bioaccumulation of between ecosystems or vary temporally and spatially persistent, hydrophobic non-polar organic chemicals by within an ecosystem. Chemical properties which influ­ both benthic and pelagic organisms. Choices of bioaccu­ ence bioaccumulation are shown on the x-axis. The mulation factors are important because they will strongly octanol-water partition coefficient (Kow) is the primary influence predictions of toxic effects in aquatic organ­ indicator of chemical hydrophobicity and bioaccumula­ isms, especially when chemical residue-based dose-re­ tion potential.
    [Show full text]
  • Lakes: Ann, Gilchrist, Grove, Leven, Reno, Villard, Smith)
    Status and Trend Monitoring Summary for Selected Pope and Douglas County, Minnesota Lakes 2000 (Lakes: Ann, Gilchrist, Grove, Leven, Reno, Villard, Smith) Minnesota Pollution Control Agency Environmental Outcomes Division Environmental Monitoring and Analysis Section Andrea Plevan and Steve Heiskary September 2001 Printed on recycled paper containing at least 10 percent fibers from paper recycled by consumers. This material may be made available in other formats, including Braille, large format and audiotape. MPCA Status and Trend Monitoring Summary for 2000 Pope County Lakes Part 1: Purpose of study and background information on MN lakes The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency’s (MPCA) core lake-monitoring programs include the Citizen Lake Monitoring Program (CLMP), the Lake Assessment Program (LAP), and the Clean Water Partnership (CWP) Program. In addition to these programs, the MPCA annually monitors numerous lakes to provide baseline water quality data, provide data for potential LAP and CWP lakes, characterize lake conditions in different regions of the state, examine year-to-year variability in ecoregion reference lakes, and provide additional trophic status data for lakes exhibiting trends in Secchi transparency. In the latter case, we attempt to determine if the trends in Secchi transparency are “real,” i.e., if supporting trophic status data substantiate whether a change in trophic status has occurred. The lake sampling efforts also provide a means to respond to citizen concerns about protecting or improving the lake in cases where no data exists to evaluate the quality of the lake. For efficient sampling, we tend to select geographic clusters of lakes (e.g., focus on a specific county) whenever possible.
    [Show full text]
  • Distribution, Occupancy, and Mercury Load in Texas Alligator Snapping
    Distribution, occupancy, and mercury bioaccumulation of alligator snapping turtles in Texas David Rosenbaum1, Christopher M. Schalk1, Daniel Saenz2 1Arthur Temple College of Forestry and Agriculture, Stephen F. Austin State University, Nacogdoches, TX; email: rosenbaudc@jac ks.sfasu.edu 2U.S. Forest Service, Southern Research Station, Nacogdoches, TX Introduction Methods Distribution Increasing anthropogenic habitat alteration and fragmentation in TX During spring and summer 2020-2021, we will Fig. 3: Distribution of M. are expected to further negatively impact freshwater systems. temminckii in TX. Points survey M. temminckii at sites in major river drainages indicate survey sites in of Texas that the species has been reported from the original survey that Animal species in these systems that have low dispersal capabilities, (Fig. 3). At each site,15 fish-baited traps will be set will be resampled from. are long-lived, and are dependent on the adult cohort for population Green-colored counties for 3 consecutive days, for a total of 45 trap nights indicate detection from stability, are vulnerable to anthropogenic factors including habitat per site (sensu Rudolph et al. 2002). 1999-2001, in the original alteration, accumulation of contaminants, and overexploitation. survey, while white Traps will be selectively placed in microhabitats • sizecounties indicate no The alligator snapping turtle (Macrochelys temminckii) exhibits these detection. Blue counties predicted to be favored by M. temminckii (see lower • ageare++ additional potential traits and is in decline throughout its range. Although not federally right quadrant of Fig. 2). survey sites for 2020- protected, it is legally protected as an S2 (imperiled) SGCN in Texas. 2021. Its last statewide distribution study occurred from 1999-2002.
    [Show full text]
  • Bioaccumulation
    BIOACCUMULATION Teacher’s Instructions: - recall food webs and food chains by asking students randomly if they can explain the concepts behind them - i.e. food chain is a path of how energy moves through organisms and a food web is many food chains hooked together - look at the food chain from Lake Winnipeg or create one that could exist in Lake Winnipeg - examples: emerald zooplankton walleye shiner emerald rainbow zooplankton walleye shiner smelt - discuss bioaccumulation by reading the Background information and use the food chain above as an example of showing how contaminants move and collect in a food chain - do the following activity Activity: - time: 30-45 minutes - materials: - each student needs: - 40 coloured tokens (such as marbles, centicubes, beads, etc.), 4 of which must be red or tagged red, the rest can be any color other than red; - 1 small paper cup; - you will need - 1 hula hoop for every 4 students; - 1 armband or headband for every 5 students (for predators) - 1 larger paper or plastic cup (about twice the size of the small cup) for every 5 students (for predators) 1 of 8 BIOACCUMULATION - procedure: - select (or have the students select) one predator and prey relationship from the food chain created above (the prey should consume something small such as minnows or zooplankton as token will represent the prey’s food) -divide the class into predators and prey (there should be about 4 times more prey than predators) - select a playing area to be a “lake”, the area should have a boundary (a gym floor works well and
    [Show full text]
  • The Influence of Ecological Processes on the Accumulation of Persistent Organochlorines in Aquatic Ecosystems
    master The influence of ecological processes on the accumulation of persistent organochlorines in aquatic ecosystems Olof Berglund DISTRIBUTION OF THIS DOCUMENT IS IKLOTED FORBGN SALES PROHIBITED eX - Department of Ecology Chemical Ecology and Ecotoxicology Lund University, Sweden Lund 1999 DISCLAIMER Portions of this document may be illegible in electronic image products. Images are produced from the best available original document. The influence of ecologicalprocesses on the accumulation of persistent organochlorinesin aquatic ecosystems Olof Berglund Akademisk avhandling, som for avlaggande av filosofie doktorsexamen vid matematisk-naturvetenskapliga fakulteten vid Lunds Universitet, kommer att offentligen forsvaras i Bla Hallen, Ekologihuset, Solvegatan 37, Lund, fredagen den 17 September 1999 kl. 10. Fakultetens opponent: Prof. Derek C. G. Muir, National Water Research Institute, Environment Canada, Burlington, Canada. Avhandlingen kommer att forsvaras pa engelska. Organization Document name LUND UNIVERSITY DOCTORAL DISSERTATION Department of Ecology Dateofi=" Sept 1,1999 Chemical Ecology and Ecotoxicology S-223 62 Lund CODEN: SE-LUNBDS/NBKE-99/1016+144pp Sweden Authors) Sponsoring organization Olof Berglund Title and subtitle The influence of ecological processes on the accumulation of persistent organochlorines in aquatic ecosystems Abstract Several ecological processes influences the fate, transport, and accumulation of persistent organochlorines (OCs) in aquatic ecosystems. In this thesis, I have focused on two processes, namely (i) the food chain bioaccumulation of OCs, and (ii) the trophic status of the aquatic system. To test the biomagnification theory, I investigated PCB concentrations in planktonic food chains in lakes. The concentra­ tions of PCB on a lipid basis did not increase with increasing trophic level. Hence, I could give no support to the theory of bio­ magnification.
    [Show full text]
  • Mercury Fate and Transport: Applying Scientific Research to Reduce the Risk from Mercury in Gulf of Mexico Seafood
    White Paper on Gulf of Mexico Mercury Fate and Transport: Applying Scientific Research to Reduce the Risk from Mercury in Gulf of Mexico Seafood February 2013 Gulf of Mexico Alliance Water Quality Team - Mercury Workgroup Gulf of Mexico Alliance, Water Quality Team GOMA Mercury Workgroup, White Paper Writing Team* David Evans National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Mark Cohen National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Chad Hammerschmidt Wright State University William Landing Florida State University Darren Rumbold Florida Gulf Coast University James Simons Texas A&M University, Corpus Christi Steve Wolfe Florida Institute of Oceanography/Gulf of Mexico Alliance *Note, document reviewed by Mercury Workgroup members and comments incorporated prior to release. Contents (hot linked, control-click on Contents entry to go to that location in document) Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 3 Section 1. Identification of at-risk groups................................................................................. 5 Research Needs and Approaches ............................................................................................... 6 Section 2. What Fish Species Have High Mercury Concentrations and Where Are They Found? .......................................................................................................................................... 8 Fish Harvests in the Gulf of Mexico .........................................................................................
    [Show full text]