19 resultados para 12930-015
Resumo:
Due to the impacts of natural processes and anthropogenic activities, different coastal wetlands are faced with variable patterns of heavy metal contamination. It is important to quantify the contributions of pollutant sources, in order to adopt appropriate protection measures for local ecosystems. The aim of this research was to compare the heavy metal contamination patterns of two contrasting coastal wetlands in eastern China. In addition, the contributions from various metal sources were identified and quantified, and influencing factors, such as the role of the plant Spartina alterniflora, were evaluated. Materials and methods Sediment samples were taken from two coastal wetlands (plain-type tidal flat at the Rudong (RD) wetland vs embayment-type tidal flat at Luoyuan Bay (LY)) to measure the content of Al, Fe, Co, Cr, Cu, Mn, Mo, Ni, Sr, Zn, Pb, Cd, and As. Inductively coupled plasma atomic emission spectrometry, flame atomic absorption spectrometry, and atomic fluorescence spectrometry methods were used for metal detection. Meanwhile, the enrichment factor and geoaccumulation index were applied to assess the pollution level. Principle component analysis and receptor modeling were used to quantify the sources of heavy metals. Results and discussion Marked differences in metal distribution patterns between the two systems were present. Metal contents in LY were higher than those in RD, except for Sr and Mo. The growth status of S. alterniflora influenced metal accumulations in RD, i.e., heavy metals were more easily adsorbed in the sediment in the following sequence: Cu > Cd > Zn > Cr > Al > Pb ≥ Ni ≥ Co > Fe > Sr ≥ Mn > As > Mo as a result of the presence and size of the vegetation. However, this phenomenon was not observed in LY. A higher potential ecological risk was associated with LY, compared with RD, except for Mo. Based on a receptor model output, sedimentary heavy metal contents at RD were jointly influenced by natural sedimentary processes and anthropogenic activities, whereas they were dominated by anthropogenic activities at LY. Conclusions A combination of geochemical analysis and modeling approaches was used to quantify the different types of natural and anthropogenic contributions to heavy metal contamination, which is useful for pollution assessments. The application of this approach reveals that natural and anthropogenic processes have different influences on the delivery and retention of metals at the two contrasting coastal wetlands. In addition, the presence and size of S. alterniflora can influence the level of metal contamination in sedimentary environments.
Resumo:
Sediment contaminants were monitored in Milford Haven Waterway (MHW) since 1978 (hydrocarbons) and 1982 (metals), with the aim of providing surveillance of environmental quality in one of the UK’s busiest oil and gas ports. This aim is particularly important during and after large-scale investment in liquefied natural gas (LNG) facilities. However, methods inevitably have changed over the years, compounding the difficulties of coordinating sampling and analytical programmes. After a review by the MHW Environmental Surveillance Group (MHWESG), sediment hydrocarbon chemistry was investigated in detail in 2010. Natural Resources Wales (NRW) contributed their MHW data for 2007 and 2012, collected to assess the condition of the Special Area of Conservation (SAC) designated under the European Union Habitats Directive. Datasets during 2007-2012 have thus been more comparable. The results showed conclusively that a MHW-wide peak in concentrations of sediment polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), metals and other contaminants occurred in late 2007. This was corroborated by independent annual monitoring at one centrally-located station with peaks in early 2008 and 2011. The spatial and temporal patterns of recovery from the 2007 peak, shown by MHW-wide surveys in 2010 and 2012, indicate several probable causes of contaminant trends, as follows: atmospheric deposition, catchment runoff, sediment resuspension from dredging, and construction of two LNG terminals and a power station. Adverse biological effects predictable in 2007 using international sediment quality guidelines, were independently tested by data from monitoring schemes of more than a decade duration in MHW (starfish, limpets), and in the wider SAC (grey seals). Although not proving cause and effect, many of these potential biological receptors showed a simultaneous negative response to the elevated 2007 contamination following intense dredging activity in 2006. Wetland bird counts were typically at a peak in the winter of 2005-2006 previous to peak dredging. In the following winter 2006-2007, shelduck in Pembroke River showed their lowest winter count, and spring 2007 was the largest ever drop in numbers of broods across MHW between successive breeding seasons. Wigeon counts in Pembroke River were again low in late 2012 after further dredging nearby. These results are strongly supported by PAH data reported previously from invertebrate bioaccumulation studies in MHW 2007-2010, themselves closely reflecting sediment
Resumo:
Maritime transport and shipping are impacted negatively by biofouling, which can result in increased fuel consumption. Thus, costs for fouling reduction can be considered an investment to reduce fuel consumption. Anti-fouling measures also reduce the rate of introduction of non-indigenous species (NIS). Further mitigation measures to reduce the transport of NIS within ballast water and sediments impose additional costs. The estimated operational cost of NIS mitigation measures may represent between 1.6% and 4% of the annual operational cost for a ship operating on European seas, with the higher proportional costs in small ships. However, fouling by NIS may affect fuel consumption more than fouling by native species due to differences in species’ life-history traits and their resistance to antifouling coatings and pollution. Therefore, it is possible that the cost of NIS mitigation measures could be smaller than the cost from higher fuel consumption arising from fouling by NIS.
Resumo:
Marine legislation is becoming more complex and marine ecosystem-based management is specified in national and regional legislative frameworks. Shelf-seas community and ecosystem models (hereafter termed ecosystem models) are central to the delivery of ecosystem-based management, but there is limited uptake and use of model products by decision makers in Europe and the UK in comparison with other countries. In this study, the challenges to the uptake and use of ecosystem models in support of marine environmental management are assessed using the UK capability as an example. The UK has a broad capability in marine ecosystem modelling, with at least 14 different models that support management, but few examples exist of ecosystem modelling that underpin policy or management decisions. To improve understanding of policy and management issues that can be addressed using ecosystem models, a workshop was convened that brought together advisors, assessors, biologists, social scientists, economists, modellers, statisticians, policy makers, and funders. Some policy requirements were identified that can be addressed without further model development including: attribution of environmental change to underlying drivers, integration of models and observations to develop more efficient monitoring programmes, assessment of indicator performance for different management goals, and the costs and benefit of legislation. Multi-model ensembles are being developed in cases where many models exist, but model structures are very diverse making a standardised approach of combining outputs a significant challenge, and there is a need for new methodologies for describing, analysing, and visualising uncertainties. A stronger link to social and economic systems is needed to increase the range of policy-related questions that can be addressed. It is also important to improve communication between policy and modelling communities so that there is a shared understanding of the strengths and limitations of ecosystem models.