Risk assessments of contaminated sediments from the perspective of weight of evidence strategies – a Swedish case study

References

• Algar CK, Barry M, Bell KS, Boudreau BP, Bridges TS, Burton GA, Chadwick DB, et al. 2014. Processes, assessment and remediation of contaminated sediments. New York (NY): Springer-Verlag New York.
   Google Scholar
• Anderson J, Grapentine L, Santiago R, Zarull M, Boyd D, DeBarros C, Fletcher T, Inch P, Richman L, Abernethy S, Welsh P. 2008. Chapman PM, editor. Canada-Ontario decision-making framework for assessment of great lakes contaminated sediment. Downsview (On): Environment Canada. ISBN 978-0-662-46148-7
   Google Scholar
• Apitz S. 2005. Management, policy and science - do we need a journal of soils and sediments? J Soils Sediments. 5(3):129–133. doi:10.1065/jss2005.08.001.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Apitz S. 2008. Is risk-based, sustainable sediment management consistent with European policy? J Soils Sediments. 8(6):461–466. doi:10.1007/s11368-008-0039-8.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Apitz S. 2011. 4.11 - Integrated risk assessments for the management of contaminated sediments in estuaries and coastal systems. Treatise Estuarine Coastal Sci. 4:311–388. doi.org/ doi:10.1016/B978-0-12-374711-2.00413-7
   Google Scholar
• Barnthouse L. 2008. The strengths of the ecological risk assessment process: linking science to decision making. Integr Environ Assess Manag. 4(3):299–305. doi:10.1897/IEAM_2007-065.1
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Bettinger N,Jerry C,Finkelstein K,Gentile J,Henning MH,Maughn J,Menzie C,Mitchell D,Petron S,Potocki B,Svirsky S,Tyler P.1995. Draft Report a Weight-of-Evidence Approach for Evaluating Ecological Risks. Boston (US): Massachusetts Weight-of-Evidence Workgroup.
   Google Scholar
• Breedveld G, Ruus A, Bakke T, Kibsgaard A, Arp HP. 2015. Risikovurdering av forurenset sediment Veileder [Guidelines for risk assessment of contaminated sediments]. Oslo (NO): Miljødirektoratet.
   Google Scholar
• Bridges TS, Apitz SE, Evison L, Keckler K, Logan M, Nadeau S, Wenning RJ. 2006. Risk-based decision making to manage contaminated sediments. Integr Environ Assess Manag. 2(1):51–58. doi:10.1002/ieam.5630020110.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brils J. 2020. Including sediment in European River basin management plans: twenty years of work by SedNet. J Soils Sediments. 9. doi:. doi.org/10.1007/s11368-020-02782-1.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bruce P, Ohlsson Y. 2020. Environmental goals addressed in assessments of contaminated sediments. Integr Environ Assess Manag. 16(1):128–139. doi:10.1002/ieam.4223 https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/ieam.4223.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bryman A. 2008. Social research methods. 3rd ed. New York, (US): OUP Oxford.
   Google Scholar
• CCME (Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment). 2002. Canadian sediment quality guidelines for the protection of aquatic life. Can Environ Qual Guidel CCME. https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Canadian-Sediment-Quality-Guidelines-for-the-of-AND-Clx-Cly/0f395731f2833aa352dbfbfb129573b333d46b74.
   Google Scholar
• Chapman P M,Smith M. 2012. Assessing, managing and monitoring contaminated aquatic sediments. Mar Pollut Bull. 64(10):2000–2004. doi:10.1016/j.marpolbul.2012.07.023. 22863351
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carson R. 1962. Silent spring. Boston (US): Mariner Books. ISBN 0618249060.
   Google Scholar
• Chapman PM, Hollert H. 2006. Should the sediment quality triad become a tetrad, a pentad, or possibly even a hexad? J Soils Sediments. 6(1):4–8. doi:10.1065/jss2006.01.152.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chapman PM, McDonald BG, Lawrence GS. 2010. Weight-of-evidence issues and frameworks for sediment quality (and other) assessments. Hum Ecol Risk Assess. 8(7):1489–1515.
   Google Scholar
• Chapman PM. 1990. The sediment quality triad approach to determining pollution-induced degradation. Sci Total Environ. 97-98:815–825.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Clements WH, Hickey CW, Kidd KA. 2012. How do aquatic communities respond to contaminants? It depends on the ecological context. Environ Toxicol Chem. 31(9):1932–1940. doi:10.1002/ETC.1937
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Contaminated Sites Working Group. 2020. Ecological Risk Assessment Guidance Document. Winnipeg (CA). Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment.
   Google Scholar
• den Besten PJ, de Deckere E, Babut MP, Power B, DelValls TA, Zago C, Oen AMP, Heise S. 2003. Biological effects-based sediment quality in ecological risk assessment for European Waters. J Soils Sediments. 3(3):144–162. doi:10.1065/jss2003.08.084.
   Google Scholar
• Ellis JI, Schneider DC. 1997. Evaluation of a gradient sampling design for environmental impact assessment. Environ Monit Assess. 48(2):157–172. doi:10.1023/A:1005752603707
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Elmgren R. 2001. Understanding human impact on the baltic ecosystem: changing views in recent decades. AMBIO A J Hum Environ. 30(4):222–231. doi:10.1579/0044-7447-30.4.222.
   Google Scholar
• EU (Council of the European Union). 2001. Council Regulation (EC) No 2375/2001 of 29 November 2001 amending Commission Regulation (EC) No 466/2001 setting maximum levels for certain contaminants in foodstuffs. No 2375/20. https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/ddf4cd8d-3fe5-47dd-bf80-4b21c4b30af2/language-en.
   Google Scholar
• Grapentine L,Anderson J,Boyd D,Burton G A,Debarros C,Johnson G,Marvin C,Milani D,Painter S,Pascoe T, et al. 2002. A Decision Making Framework for Sediment Assessment Developed for the Great Lakes. Human and Ecological Risk Assessment: An International Journal. 8(7):1641–1655. doi:10.1080/20028091057538.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hardy A, Benford D, Halldorsson T, Jeger MJ, Knutsen HK, More S, Naegeli H, Noteborn H, Ockleford C, Ricci A, et al. 2017. Guidance on the use of the weight of evidence approach in scientific assessments. Efsa J. 15(8):e04971. doi:10.2903/j.efsa.2017.4971
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Helsinki Commission Baltic Marine Environment Protection Commission (HELCOM). 2004. 30 years of protecting the Baltic Sea. Hassink U, editor. Helsinki, Finland: Helsinki Commission Baltic Marine Environment Protection Commission (HELCOM).
   Google Scholar
• Hermens J, Canton H, Steyger N, Wegman R. 1984. Joint effects of a mixture of 14 chemicals on mortality and inhibition of reproduction of Daphnia magna. Aquat Toxicol. 5(4):315–322. doi:10.1016/0166-445X(84)90012-2. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0166445X84900122.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jensen S, Johnels AG, Olsson M, Otterlind G. 1969. DDT and PCB in marine animals from Swedish waters. Nature. 224(5216):247–250. doi:10.1038/224247a0 http://www.nature.com/articles/224247a0.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jonsson P, Eckhell J, Larsson P. 2000. PCB and DDT in laminated sediments from offshore and archipelago areas of the NW Baltic Sea. Ambio. 29(4):268–276. doi:10.1639/0044-7447(2000)029[0268:padils]2.0.co;2.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Julien H. 2008. The SAGE encyclopedia of qualitative research methods. Thousand Oaks (Ca): Sage Publications.
   Google Scholar
• Kapustka L. 2008. Limitations of the current practices used to perform ecological risk assessment. Integr Environ Assess Manag. 4 (3):290–298. doi:10.1897/IEAM_2007-084.1
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Krippendorff K. 2004. Content analysis: an introduction to its methodology. Thousand Oaks (CA): Sage Publications.
   Google Scholar
• Laetz CA, Hecht SA, Incardona JP, Collier TK, Scholz NL. 2015. Ecotoxicological Risk of Mixtures. In: Amiard-Triquet C, Amiard J-C, Mouneyrac CBT-AE, editors. Aquatic Ecotoxicology: Advancing Tools for Dealing with Emerging Risks. Academic Press. p. 441–462.
   Google Scholar
• Ländell M, Vestin J, Ohlsson Y, Göransson G. 2014. Förorenade områden - Inventering av effektivitetshinder och kunskapsbehov [Contaminated areas - Survey of obstacles and knowledge gaps]. Linköping (SE): Swedish Geotechnical Institute. https://www.swedgeo.se/sv/kunskapscentrum/publikationsserier/publikationer—ny/fororenade-omraden—inventering-av-effektivitetshinder-och-kunskapsbehov-2013/.
   Google Scholar
• Landis WG, Sofield RM, Yu M-H. 2011. Introduction to environmental toxicology: molecular substructures to ecological landscapes. 4th ed. CRC Press, Boca Raton.
   Google Scholar
• Landis WG, Wiegers JA. 1997. Design considerations and a suggested approach for regional and comparative ecological risk assessment. Human Ecol Risk Assess. 3 (3):287–297. 10.1080/10807039709383685.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Landis WG. 2003. The frontiers in ecological risk assessment at expanding spatial and temporal scales. Human Ecol Risk Assess: An Int J. 9 (6):1415–1424. 10.1080/10807030390250912.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Leeuwen C. v, Vermeire TG. 2007. Risk assessment of chemicals - an Introduction. 2nd ed. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Leppänen MT, Kukkonen JVK. 2006. Evaluating the role of desorption in bioavailability of sediment-associated contaminants using oligochaetes, semipermeable membrane devices and Tenax extraction. Environ Pollut. 140(1):150–163. doi:10.1016/j.envpol.2005.06.010
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Linkov I, Loney D, Cormier S, Satterstrom FK, Bridges T. 2009. Weight-of-evidence evaluation in environmental assessment: Review of qualitative and quantitative approaches. Sci Total Environ. 407(19):5199–5205. doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2009.05.004
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lotufo GR, Burton GA, Rosen G, Fleeger JW. 2014. Assessing biological effects. In: Processes, assessment and remediation of contaminated sediments assessment and remediation of contaminated sediments. New York, USA: Springer Science & Business Media. p. 131–176. doi:10.1007/978-1-4614-6726-7
   Google Scholar
• Lövin I, Sjögren E. 2019. Commission for improved knowledge for management of contaminated sediements. Uppdrag om förbättrad kunskap för hantering av förorenade sediment (in Swedish). Decree M2019/01427/Ke.
   Google Scholar
• Mustajärvi L, Nybom I, Eriksson-Wiklund A-K, Eek E, Cornelissen G, Sobek A. 2019. How important is bioturbation for sediment-to-water flux of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in the baltic sea? Environ Toxicol Chem. 38(8):1803–1810. doi:10.1002/etc.4459.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Neuendorf KA. 2002. The content analysis guidebook. Thousand Oaks (Ca): Sage Publications.
   Google Scholar
• O’Connor TP. 2004. The sediment quality guideline, ERL, is not a chemical concentration at the threshold of sediment toxicity. Mar Pollut Bull. 49(5–6):383–385. doi:10.1016/j.marpolbul.2004.06.024.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Preston BL. 2002. Hazard prioritization in ecological risk assessment through spatial analysis of toxicant gradients. Environ Pollut. 117(3):431–445. doi:10.1016/s0269-7491(01)00189-0
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• QSR. 2018. NVivo qualitative data analysis software. Version 10. 2012. Pro 12. Melbourne (AU): QSR International Pty Ltd.
   Google Scholar
• Schmidt AL, Coll M, Romanuk T, Lotze HK. 2011. Ecosystem structure and services in eelgrass Zostera marina and rockweed Ascophyllum nodosum habitats. Mar Ecol Prog Ser. 437:51–68. doi:10.3354/meps09276.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Scrimshaw MD, Delvalls TA, Chapman PM. 2007. Sediment quality guidelines and weight of evidence assessments. Amsterdam (NL): Elsevier Masson SAS.
   Google Scholar
• Selck H, Adamsen PB, Backhaus T, Banta GT, Bruce PKH, Burton GA, Butts MB, Boegh E, Clague JJ, Dinh KV, et al. 2017. Assessing and managing multiple risks in a changing world-The Roskilde recommendations. Environ Toxicol Chem. 36(1):7–16. doi:10.1002/etc.3513
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Severin M, Josefsson S, Nilsson P, Ohlsson Y, Stjärne A, Wernersson A-S. 2018. Förorenade sediment-behov och färdplan för en renare vattenmiljö. Uppsala (SE). http://resource.sgu.se/produkter/sgurapp/s1821-rapport.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Simpson S, Batley G. 2016. Sediment quality assessment a practical guide. Second Edition. Clayton South: Csiro Publishing. p. 359.
   Google Scholar
• Sobek A, Bejgarn S, Christina R, Magnus B. 2016. The dilemma in prioritizing chemicals for environmental analysis: known versus unknown hazards. Environ Sci: Processes Impacts. 18(8):1042–1049. doi:10.1039/C6EM00163G.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sobek A, Wiberg K, Sundqvist KL, Haglund P, Jonsson P, Cornelissen G. 2014. Coastal sediments in the Gulf of Bothnia as a source of dissolved PCDD/Fs and PCBs to water and fish. Sci Total Environ. 487:463–470. doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2014.04.041.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Suter GW, Efroymson RA, Sample BE, Jones DS. 2000. Problem formulation. In: Ecological risk assessment for contaminated sites. Boca Raton (US): CRC Press LCC. p. 19–66.
   Google Scholar
• Swedish Environmental Protection Agency (SEEPA) 2009. Riktvärden för förorenad mark - Modellbeskrivning och vägledning [Benchmarks for contaminated soils - Model description and guideline]. ISBN: 9789162059767
   Google Scholar
• Swedish Environmental Protection Agency (SEEPA). 2007. TT - Bilaga A 2007:4 Bedömningsgrunder för sjöar och vattendrag [Appendix A 2007:4 Assessment criteria for lakes and moving waters]. Naturvårdsverket https://www.naturvardsverket.se/Documents/publikationer/620-0148-3.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Swedish Government Offices. 2018. Agenda 2030 - handlingsplan [Agenda 2030 - Action plan]: 82. https://www.regeringen.se/49e20a/contentassets/60a67ba0ec8a4f27b04cc4098fa6f9fa/handlingsplan-agenda-2030.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Troell M, Pihl L, Rönnbäck P. 2005. Regime shifts and ecosystem services in Swedish coastal soft bottom habitats: when resilience is undesirable. Ecol Soc. 10(1): 30. Retrieved from: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol10/iss1/art30/
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 1998. Guidelines for ecological risk assessment EPA/630/R-95/002F. Washington, DC: US Environmental protection agency. https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2014-11/documents/eco_risk_assessment1998.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2005. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). Contaminated Sediment Remediation Guidance for Hazardous Waste Sites. EPA-540-R-05-012. http://www.epa.gov/superfund/resources/sediment/guidance.htm.
   Google Scholar
• Van Elswijk M, Hin J, Den Besten P, Van der Heijdt L, Van der Hout M, Schmidt C. 2001. Guidance document for site-specific effect-based sediment quality assessment. AKWA report 01.005/RIZA rapport 2001.052. Lelystad, NL: Institute for Inland Water Management and Waste Water Treatment (RIZA).
   Google Scholar
• Verta M, Salo S, Korhonen M, Assmuth T, Kiviranta H, Koistinen J, Ruokojärvi P, Isosaari P, Bergqvist P-A, Tysklind M, et al. 2007. Dioxin concentrations in sediments of the Baltic Sea-a survey of existing data. Chemosphere. 67(9):1762–1775. DOI.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2006.05.125. doi:10.1016/j.chemosphere.2006.05.125
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• VROM (Ministerie van Volkshuisvesting Ruimtelijke Ordening en Milieubeheer). 2000. Dutch target and intervention values (The New Dutch List): soil quality standards, Netherlands Ministry of Housing, Spatial Planning and Environment, Department of Soil Protection. 2000:1–51.
   Google Scholar
• Washington State Department of Ecology (WSDE). 2013. Sediment management standards, Chapter 173-204 WAC. Olympia, Washington, USA: Washington State Department of Ecology. p. 152.
   Google Scholar
• Weeks J M,Comber S D W. 2005. Ecological risk assessment of contaminated soil. Mineral Mag. 69(5):601–613. doi:10.1180/0026461056950274.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wenning RJ, Batley GE, Ingersoll CG, Moore DW. 2002. Use of sediment quality guidelines and related tools for assessment of contaminated sediments. In: Wenning RJ, Batley GE, Ingersoll CG, Moore DW, editors. Use of sediment quality guidelines and related tools for assessment of contaminated sediments. Pellston, Fairmont, Montana, USA: The society of environmental toxicology and chemistry (SETAC). p. 731.
   Google Scholar
• Wiberg K, Assefa AT, Sundqvist KL, Cousins IT, Johansson J, Mclachlan MS, Sobek A, Cornelissen G, Miller A, Hedman, et al. 2013. Managing the dioxin problem in the Baltic region with focus on sources to air and fish. Stockholm: Swedish Environmental Protection Agency. https://www.naturvardsverket.se/Documents/publikationer6400/978-91-620-8652-7.pdf?pid=8230.
   Google Scholar