The more contaminated phytoplankton a zooplankton eats, the more pollutants it will have in its body. In other words, the POPs can be passed from producer to consumer to consumer, to consumer, and so on… Biomagnification can continue all the way up the food web or chain. One large apex predator that is heavily impacted by the bioaccumulation and biomagnification of POPs is the orca. PCBs are known to cause problems with reproduction, and studies are currently being conducted to see if and how POPs are impacting orcas in other ways.
Governments are slowly starting to realize the importance of countering the negative impacts of these pollutants. The production of DDT was banned in the United States in , and more chemicals are being banned each year.
In , the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants came into effect and internationally bans the production of PCBs and other harmful chemicals.
These bans have proven to be mostly effective, and the environmental levels of many of these toxins have already started to noticeably decrease. All rights reserved. Ecotoxicology of Organic Contaminants. Boca Raton, Fla: Lewis, pp. Google Scholar. Connell, D. Bioaccumulation of Xenobiotic Compounds. Neely, W. The analogous uptake equations in fZD format are as follows, where D T is the sum of the loss D values.
BMF W becomes less relevant because dietary uptake is unimportant. The lipid normalized uptake metric BMF L approaches Q f and is the ratio of the fish and diet fugacities. The two Q values are thus not equal and depend on the relative lipid contents of the fish L F and diet L D.
Q f directly expresses the increase in fugacity corresponding to biomagnification, while Q C expresses the corresponding increase in concentration. Substitution of the various rate constants and D values in Table 2 into eqn 3 and 7 demonstrates the exact equivalence of the two formats for a chemical of moderate hydrophobicity.
The steady-state eqn 3 and 7 are most readily interpreted, and are of most interest for both scientific and regulatory purposes. It is relatively straightforward to apply the basic equations to multiple organisms in food webs with defined dietary preferences and to organisms that respire in sediments and the water column.
The principal challenge is to obtain accurate values for the various equilibrium and rate parameters and dietary preferences. For hydrophobic substances, the egestion loss rate constant and D value are particularly important, since as discussed later egestion along with biotransformation play a critical role in determining the extent of biomagnification.
The most rigorous approach is to define the input diet and output feces compositions and rates and as relative quantities of materials such as lipids and non-lipids including protein, carbohydrate, inert fibrous material, and water and assign partition ratios relative to water for each material.
An example is the Arnot and Gobas 1 model that treats three materials, lipids, non-lipid organic matter NLOM and water in both diet and feces. Larisch et al. The capacity of the feces to absorb and transport the chemical is inevitably lower than that of the ingested diet by a factor typically ranging from 3 to This factor is primarily determined by the quantities of lipid transported in food and feces, thus a simple and very approximate approach is to suggest, as in Table 2 , a multiple Q in the range 3 to 10 by which the egestion rate constant k E or D value D E is less than that for the food.
Inspection of the steady-state equation shows that for a persistent hydrophobic chemical in a fish that is not growing, the BMF will approach Q. It is noteworthy that Q C in the CKk format is generally not equal to Q f in the fZD format, thus the BMF expressed as a whole body or wet weight concentration ratio is generally unequal to the fugacity ratio.
In principle, it is possible and potentially attractive to define a Q for each material and calculate a lumped Q C or Q f to deduce the egestion rate.
This BCF is effectively a thermodynamic partition ratio, however, it may be affected by weight gain growth or loss. We accept the simplistic nature of this approach in that it applies only to a subset of chemicals.
Other chemicals partition to other phases by electrostatic interactions, protein binding, and covalent bonding. The corresponding lipid normalized concentrations are a factor of 10 greater. The calculated BMF W is 2. The fugacity of the chemical in water is 0. At steady state the body burden is 1.
The half-lives for uptake and loss are both The total input and loss rates are 0. It is notable that the assumed ratio of dietary uptake to egestion rate parameters Q C for the CKk format is 6 while Q f for the fZD format is 3. Q C and Q f represent limiting maximum BMFs on a concentration and fugacity or lipid normalized basis respectively as is apparent from eqn 4 and 7.
These Q values are critical determinants of BMFs for very hydrophobic chemicals. As K OW increases, dietary uptake becomes the dominant input process and respiration becomes negligible. The fish is then unaffected by the concentration in water except that this water concentration controls concentrations at lower trophic levels. Inspection of these results suggests that the CKk format is easier to understand and apply.
Concentration ratios can, however, become very large and difficult to interpret and relative concentrations between fish and diet items can be misleading since both wet weight and lipid normalized concentrations can be used. This format proves to be most preferred for conditions under kinetic control as applies to hydrophobic chemicals. The fZD format may be initially more difficult to apply, but it can provide additional insights into the bio-uptake process by revealing the relative equilibrium status between water, sediment and various aquatic species.
Bio-uptake metrics expressed as fugacity ratios generally lie in the range 1 to 10 and are more easily interpreted. This format is most relevant when conditions are largely controlled by equilibrium processes as applies to less hydrophobic chemicals. Since BMF L factors and fugacity ratios are equivalent, either can be used to characterize trophic magnification in food webs, however this implies that all partitioning is into lipids and in this simple case that lipids are equivalent to octanol. Connolly and Pederson 29 first demonstrated this fugacity increase in monitoring data.
This was followed by Gobas and colleagues 30,31 who demonstrated experimentally that lipid digestion causes a fugacity increase in the digestive system and this elevated fugacity is transmitted into the body, causing biomagnification.
It also addresses the fundamental cause of biomagnification reflecting a reduction in Z value in ingested food during lipid digestion and corresponding increase in fugacity. Ultimately, since both formats yield identical results either or both can be used. We first model the simple bioaccumulation of a series of hypothetical, non-biotransforming chemicals with log K OW values of 4, 5, 6, and 8 in three smelt of different lipid contents exposed to contaminant in the same diet and the same respired water.
These predator smelt occupy a functional trophic level TL of 2. These rather extreme lipid contents are selected to facilitate interpretation of results. An arbitrary fugacity Z -value Z W of 0. Also calculated are the percentages of uptake by diet and respiration and the percentages that each loss rate constant contributes to the total loss rate constant, thus identifying the dominant rate constant s and the half-times for uptake and clearance.
In these simulations zero biotransformation is assumed i. The columns on the left log K OW of 4. The fish fugacities are directly proportional to values of BAF L.
This proportionality applies only if lipid is the only sorbing phase. The ratio of fish to diet fugacity equals BMF L and varies from 1. The percentage chemical input from the diet is minimal Wet-weight biomagnification factors BMF W vary similarly from 0. The total rate constant for loss ranges from 2. The fat fish is slower to approach steady state because of its greater capacity for chemical.
In this case it is clearly preferable to interpret the bioaccumulation phenomena on an equilibrium basis using C FL or fugacity, as is normal practice recommended by Borga et al. Bioconcentration and bioaccumulation happen within an organism, but biomagnification occurs across levels of the food chain. An example: phytoplankton and other microscopic organisms take up methylmercury and then retain it in their tissues.
Here, mercury bioaccumulation is occurring: mercury concentrations are higher in the organisms than it is in the surrounding environment. Because of this, animals that are higher in the food chain have higher levels of mercury than they would have due to regular exposure. With increasing trophic level, mercury levels are amplified.
0コメント