Supplemental Data
PCB-Induced Changes of a Benthic Community and Expected Ecosystem Recovery
Following In-Situ Sorbent Amendment
Elisabeth M.-L. Janssen†, Janet K. Thompson‡ ,
Samuel N. Luoma‡, Richard G. Luthy*,†
†
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Stanford University, Stanford, California,
USA.
‡
U.S. Geological Survey, Menlo Park, California, USA.
The supplementary section contains 9 tables and 9 figures, details on Nematodes and filter
feeders, and a total of 23 pages.
1
Table S1. Sample locations of benthic community surveys in the Central San Francisco Bay
2
Table S2. Overview of groups for functions of feeding, reproduction and position
Feeding
Subsurface carnivores
Subsurface deposit
feeders
Surface deposit feeders
Surface carnivores
Filter and surface feeders
Filter feeder
Reproduction
Position
Egg layer releasing fully No barrier
developed juveniles or
species producing clones
by fission
Brooders releasing fully Tubed with tissue
developed juveniles
Species releasing pelagic Chitin armor
larvae
Chitin barrier, free
living
Shell barrier
Cuticle covering
3
Table S3. Species-specific functional groups of feeding, reproduction, and position
4
Table S3. Species-specific functional groups of feeding, reproduction, and position (continued)
5
Details on Nematodes
Nematodes were analyzed separately because of the variety of life history patterns for
these organisms. Because nematodes are usually considered meiofaua it is likely that they were
unevenly sampled with the method used here (retention in the screen is affected by sediment size
and debris in the sample). Nematodes can be surface/subsurface carnivores that lay their eggs on
the sediment surface and have a cuticle barrier, or parasitic and waiting for a host. Some species
are frequently observed in polluted environments, but the species composition changes in the
presence of contamination [1]. Their short life cycle of less than a month, small body size, and
rapid generation time allow pollutant-tolerant nematodes to maintain their population under
stressed environmental conditions. Nematodes can be resistant to chemical stress and have
evolved in habitats where they are physically unable to escape from pollution effects [2] and
where they take advantage of the suppressed immunity of other organisms [3, 4].
These
characteristics could explain the presence of high abundance of nematodes at Hunters Point.
References: Details on Nematodes
1. Somerfield, PJ, Gee JM, Warwick RM. 1994. Soft sediment meiofaunal community structure
in relation to a long-term heavy metal gradient in the Fal estuary system. Mar Eco-Prog Ser
105:79-88.
2. Tietjen JH, Lee JJ. 1984. The use of free-living nematodes as a bioassay for estuarine
sediments. Mar Environ Res 11: 233-251.
3. Koponen K, Myers MS, Ritola O, Huuskonen SE, Lindstrӧm-Seppӓ P. 2001. Histopathology
of feral fish from a PCB-contaminated freshwater lake. Ambio 30: (3)122-126.
4. Sagerup K, Hendriksen EO, KSkorping A, Skaares J U, A Gabrielsen, GW. 2000. Intensity
of parasitic nematodes increase with organochlorine levels in the glaucous gull. J Appl Ecol
37: 532-539.
6
Table S4. Sample locations of sediment chemistry information in the Central San Francisco Bay
7
Table S5. Physical properties and TOC content
8
Table S6. Sediment chemistry available from the San Francisco Estuarine Institute data base
9
Table S7. Additional stations for TOC and total PCB concentrations in sediment provided by the San
Francisco Estuarine Institute - not available from the online data base
10
Figure S1. Effects-range Medium quotients (ERMq) for predominant sediment contaminants and the sum
of ERMq (ƩERMq) and the mean ERMq considering only contaminants with ERMq >1 for Hunters Point
(n = 6) and the reference sites. (n = 30).
11
Table S8. Measured total PCB sediment and pore water concentrations and computed Kd values for
Hunters Point, California, USA ([1-4] [1]and additional unpublished data).
Cs [mg/kg]
7.0
6.5
3.0
2.0
1.1
1.7
1.0
0.8
1.5
1.8
2.2
1.8
1.2
1.4
1.0
1.5
1.3
1.0
1.1
0.8
1.1
0.8
2.0
Cw [mg/L]
3.70x10-5
5.20x10-5
3.75x10-5
3.70x10-5
8.00x10-6
9.70x10-6
8.70x10-6
2.23x10-5
2.45x10-5
2.35x10-5
2.16x10-5
3.13x10-5
1.11x10-5
8.90x10-6
9.00x10-6
1.45x10-5
1.31x10-5
1.03x10-5
1.37x10-5
6.50x10-6
7.10x10-6
1.68x10-5
5.00x10-5
Kd [-]
1.89x105
1.25x105
8.00x104
5.41x104
1.38x105
1.75x105
1.15x105
3.59x104
6.12x104
7.66x104
1.02x105
5.75x104
1.08 x105
1.57 x105
1.11 x105
1.03 x105
9.92 x104
9.71 x104
8.03 x104
1.23 x105
1.55 x105
4.76x104
4.00x104
d
d
a
b
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
c
a. McLeod PB, Luoma, SN, Luthy RG. 2008. Biodynamic modeling of PCB uptake by
Macoma balthica and Corbicula fluminea from sediment amended with activated carbon.
Environ Sci Technol 42: (2),484-490.
b. Janssen EML, Croteau MN, Luoma SN, Luthy RG. 2010. Measurement and modeling of
polychlorinated biphenyl bioaccumulation from sediment for the marine polychaete Neanthes
arenaceodentata and response to sorbent amendment. Environ Sci Technol 44: 2857-2863.
c. Tomaszewski JE, Luthy RG. 2008. Field deployment of polyethylene devices to measure PCB
concentrations in pore water of contaminated sediment. Environ Sci Technol 42: (16) 60866091.
d. unpublished data
12
Details on Filter Feeder
PCB bioaccumulation from suspended particulate organic matter (POM).
The PCB uptake from particulate organic matter, POM, is described by the product CPOM,
AEPOM, and IRPOM.
CPOM. The PCB concentration of the POM is assumed to be similar to the PCB concentration of
the surface sediment as measured previously for Hunters Point by Cho et al [1]. It is possible that
the PCB concentrations in POM can be lower than in the surface sediment when particulate
matter originates from less polluted areas. The present study employs conservative estimates,
where POM and surface sediment have similar PCB concentrations.
AEPOM. Estimated values for PCB assimilation efficiency, AE, from algae (representing
particulate organic matter) for M. edulis has been reported to range from 10 to 60% or 0.1 to 0.6
[2]. The assimilation efficiency of suspended bottom sediment is assumed to be lower than from
algae. Hence, the lower estimates for AEPOM of 0.1 are employed in the present study.
IRPOM. Previously, the ingestion rate of particulate organic carbon, POC, was measured for M.
edulis as 0.4 mg POC/g per hour or 0.01 g POC/g per day [2] at POC water concentrations
typical for the Central San Francisco Bay with (0.5 to 1.0 x 10-3g/L, [3]). The ingestion rate of
POC can be converted to ingestion rate of POM, IRPOM, assuming that POM has the general
composition of C5H7O2N. Then POC represents 53.09% of POM by molecular weight and
IRPOM equals about 0.02 g POM/g per day.
Under these considerations the PCB uptake from POC by this filter feeder can be estimated
using the respective PCB sediment concentrations. For example, the biodynamic model predicts
that the PCB uptake from POC at Hunters Point represents about 30% of the total uptake.
13
References: Details on filter feeders
1.
Cho YM, Ghosh U, Kennedy A J, Grossman A, Ray G, Tomaszewski J E, Smithenry
DW, Bridges T S, Luthy RG. 2009. Field application of activated carbon amendment for
in-situ stabilization of polychlorinated biphenyls in marine sediment. Environ Sci Technol
43: (10) 3815-3823.
2.
Bjӧrk M, Gilek M. 1999. Efficiency of poluchlorinated biphenyl assimilation from water
and algal good by the blue mussel (Mytilus edulis). Environ Tox Chem 18: (4) 765-771.
3.
San Francisco Estuary Institute. 2010. Regional Monitoring Program annual monitoring
results. San Francisco Estuary Institute, Oakland, CA, USA. http://legacy.sfei.org/
14
1000
Hunters Point
800
#/0.05m2
Average Abundance
1200
600
400
200
M
on
oc
N
em
or
op
at
hi
od
um
a
in
si
M
di
on
os
M
oc
um
on
or
oc
op
or
h
i
op
um
hi
sp
um
p.
ac
he
G
ra
ru
nd
si
cu
id
ie
m
re
lla
j
P
ap
ar
on
an
ic
th
a
ur
a
ja
po
ni
E
ca
xo
go
ne
A
lo
ct
ur
G
in
em
ei
ia
ria
m
a
-b
g
em
ur
ro
m
w
a
in
g
E
us
an
ar
en
si
om
el
la
e
zo
st
er
ac
ol
a
0
160
140
April 2007
120
100
#/0.05m2
80
60
40
20
ab
di
ta
he
te
ro
ce
S
ra
M
ab
tu
on
ac
m
oc
o
or
el
on
op
ga
hi
um
tu
s
N
a
ip
ch
po
er
le
u
si
uc
cu
on
m
hi
nn
um
E
en
uc
si
ho
s
ne
lim
ni
co
S
la
G
ph
ly
ci
ae
n
de
ro
sy
pi
lli
ct
s
a
ca
lif
or
D
ni
or
en
vi
si
lle
s
a
lo
n
M
g
on
ic
or
oc
ni
or
s
op
hi
um
sp
p.
0
160
140
August 2007
120
#/0.05m2
Average Normalized Abundance
C
or
op
hi
A
um
m
pe
lis
ca
Average Normalized Abundance
Corophidae
100
80
60
40
20
0
Am
ca
lis
pe
a
s
s
a
a
m
la
ca
si
ica
tu
at
od
ct
tu
ni
co
pi
at
en
ra
on
ric
ga
ni
po
e
p
b
m
e
n
m
a
c
m
p
j
d
o
u
li
im
ni
ro
Ne
el
la
cin
nn
te
o
ne
el
oe
lis
ly
hi
yl
ac
he
th
er
G
n
ho
s
b
o
d
c
o
i
o
a
m
c
p
rm
S
iu
Eu
nd
eu
Ty
ra
ph
Ha
ol
G
ro
pp
i
o
N
C
ta
di
ab
Figure S2. Rank abundance of top ten species at Hunters Point and reference sites. Note that Hunters
Point organism abundance is an order of magnitude higher than observed at the reference sites.
15
Figure S3. Non-metric multi-dimensional scaling (MDS) plot of the data using Bray Curtis Similarity for
total abundance in benthic samples at the reference sites (April 2007, August 2007), intertidal reference
sites (August 2007, August 2008) and at Hunters Point (August 2008).
16
Figure S4. Total abundances at Hunters Point and the reference sites for the functional groups of feeding,
reproduction, and position.
17
Figure S5. Relative abundances at Hunters Point and the reference sites for the functional groups of
feeding, reproduction, and position.
18
Figure S6. Factors scores for reference areas and Hunters Point of principal component
analysis including all chemicals.
19
Table S9. Squared cosines of the observations
Values in bold correspond for each observation to the
factor for which the squared cosine is the largest.
20
Figure S7. Relative contribution of each contaminant to total ƩERMq at Hunters Point () and
on average at the reference sites in the Central Bay ().
21
Figure S8. Sediment fraction of fines (left) and TOC (right) over the total PCB sediment concentration at
Hunters Point with [PCBs] = 1570 µg/g and in reference areas in the Central San Francisco Bay.
22
Figure S9. Factors scores for reference areas and Hunters Point of principal component
analysis with variables TOC and fines.
23