J Soils Sediments (2011) 11:504517

DOI 10.1007/s11368-010-0328-x

SEDIMENTS, SEC 1 SEDIMENT QUALITY AND IMPACT ASSESSMENT RESEARCH ARTICLE

Development of sediment quality guidelines

for freshwater ecosystems
Eric de Deckere & Ward De Cooman & Vicky Leloup &
Patrick Meire & Claudia Schmitt & Peter C. von der Ohe

Received: 8 September 2010 / Accepted: 8 December 2010 / Published online: 20 January 2011
# Springer-Verlag 2011

Abstract concentrations of chemicals, macrobenthic community

Purpose The development of Sediment Quality Guidelines assemblages and ecotoxicological data, Sediment Effect
(SQGs) is one of the remaining challenges for a better Concentrations (SECs) were calculated as basis for the
protection of aquatic biodiversity and in particular sediment SQGs. The derived SECs were based on ecological effects,
dwelling organisms. So far, sediment quality assessment in namely Lowest and Severe Effect Levels (LEL/SEL), as
Flanders was based on a comparison of chemical concen- well as ecotoxicological endpoints, namely Threshold and
trations to the geometric mean of the concentrations at 12 Probable Effect Levels (TEL/PEL). The average values of
reference sites. The study described in this paper addressed the ecological and ecotoxicological SECs were used to
the need for more science-based guidelines. The developed distinguish five sediment quality classes.
guidelines are already incorporated into Flemish legislation. Results and discussion The ecological values were in
Materials and methods Based on a large sediment moni- general less stringent than the ecotoxicological values.
toring database, containing physico-chemical properties, However, the Lowest Effect Levels (95% of the benthic
taxa can be present under this level) and Threshold Effect
Responsible editor: Marc Babut Levels (no toxic effect is expected under this level) did not
E. de Deckere (*) differ significantly. Probable Effect Levels (concentrations
Institute of Environment & Sustainable Development, above this level will certainly result in toxic effects) were
University of Antwerp,
generally lower than the Severe Effect Levels (above this
Universiteitsplein 1,
2610 Wilrijk, Belgium level only 5% or less of the taxa are present). The SECs
e-mail: eric.dedeckere@ua.ac.be calculated in this study enabled us to correctly identify
87.9% of the sediments as toxic. The development of SQGs
W. De Cooman
based on a combination of the LEL/SEL and TEL/PEL
Flemish Environment Agency,
A. Van De Maelestraat 96, methods enabled us to underpin these SQGs based on field
9320 Erembodegem, Belgium observations and will improve the assessment of sediment
e-mail: w.decooman@vmm.be quality based on chemical parameters. Although sediments
V. Leloup : P. Meire : C. Schmitt
typically contain complex mixtures of contaminants, only a
Ecosystem Management Research Group, University of Antwerp, limited number of these contaminants will be measured.
Universiteitsplein 1, Additional application of bioassays for the overall sediment
2610 Wilrijk, Belgium quality assessment is therefore recommended.
P. Meire Conclusions This study describes the development of
e-mail: patrick.meire@ua.ac.be SQGs in Flanders, which are based on ecological and
C. Schmitt ecotoxicological data derived from a TRIAD monitoring
e-mail: claudia.schmitt@ua.ac.be network. The combination of the LEL and PEL resulted in
P. C. von der Ohe SQGs that were recently incorporated in Flemish legislation
UFZ, Department of Effect-Directed Analysis, and for which the respective pore water concentrations were in
Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research, UFZ, the same order of magnitude as the Annual Average
Permoserstr. 15,
04318 Leipzig, Germany Environmental Quality Standards values for Water Framework
e-mail: peter.vonderohe@ufz.de Directive priority pollutants.
J Soils Sediments (2011) 11:504517
Keywords EQS . Macrobenthos . Priority substances .
SEC . Sediment quality guidelines . SQG . TRIAD
1 Introduction
In the past, sediment quality was often negatively influ-
enced by contaminated surface waters. Nowadays, surface
water quality has improved due to enhanced sewage
treatment, source control and other measures and it is
expected that sediments will now act as a source of
contamination for macroinvertebrates and organisms of
higher trophic levels (Salomons and Brils 2004; Teuchies
et al. 2011). Consequently, achieving a good ecological
status of surface waters, as required by the European
Water Framework Directive (WFD, 2000/60/EC), may
strongly depend on the management of sediments. An
improved understanding of the relative impact of polluted
sediment is necessary to identify and to manage areas
where chemical pollution severely affects the ecological
status (Fairey et al. 2001) and appropriate guidelines should
be developed (den Besten et al. 2003; Chapman et al. 2005;
Crane and Babut 2007).
The development of guidelines can be done based on
Sediment Effect Concentrations (SECs). SECs are concen-
tration levels which, using certain methods and assump-
tions, can be related to observed ecological and/or
ecotoxicological effects (Shine et al. 2003). SECs based
on ecotoxicological information are often based on single
species toxicity tests measuring the effect of a specific
toxicant by spiking artificial sediments not taking into
account other natural stressors (e.g. low oxygen levels,
competition). Unfortunately, standardised test organisms for
toxicity tests are mainly organisms living in the water phase
and the direct exposure route of contaminants from the
sediment to the organisms is thereby neglected. In this case,
equilibrium partitioning models are applied to derive sediment
quality guidelines (SQGs) for sediments (Chapman et al.
1998; Crommentuijn et al. 2000; European Commission
2003). Besides this, the bioavailability of contaminants in
spiked sediments can differ significantly from natural sedi-
ments, both due to the spiking procedure and ageing effects,
as well as due to sediment characteristics. Moreover, toxicity
tests are usually applied to test organisms that can be easily
cultured and are not applied to rare or very sensitive species.
SECs can also be based on the co-occurrence of biota
under certain conditions in the field. Field data give a more
realistic view, but are much more difficult to interpret
because these datachemical, physical and biologicalare
a result of natural fluctuations and multiple stressors.
Collecting field data is more time consuming and the data
have a greater uncertainty (Connell et al. 1999). Ideally, the
derivation of SECs should be based on a combination of
505
both ecological (in situ communities) and ecotoxicological
data (Swartz 1999; Environment Canada 2003; Ingersoll et
al. 2000; MacDonald et al. 2000; Engler et al. 2005; Vidal
and Bay 2005), but integrated monitoring datasets are
scarce. Therefore, most studies concerning SQGs have used
only either toxicity or field data.
Since the first SQGs were introduced in the 1970s
(Engler et al. 2005), a number of tools have been developed
for the assessment of sediment quality. Historically,
sediment assessment was carried out by comparing the
concentrations of contaminants with a reference value.
However, chemical concentrations in sediments alone do
not allow predicting the expected effects on the organisms,
as the bioavailability of the contaminants could differ
widely among different sediments. Derivation of effects-
based SQGs was not possible until toxicity tests for
sediments were developed and applied. In the late 1980s,
the screening level-concentration approach was applied to
derive values that were protective for 90% of benthic species.
This approach is based on co-occurrence data of chemical
concentrations and benthic communities at a certain spot.
However these data were not obtained at exactly the same
time and/or place. In 1985, the Sediment Quality TRIAD
concept was developed (Long and Chapman 1985), being one
of the first tools that used the same sediment sample for both
chemical and biological analysis. This integrated assessment
approach can be used to derive SECs as a basis for SQGs.
According to Article 16 of the WFD (2000/60/EC),
environmental quality standards (EQS) should be worked
out for certain groups or classes of pollutants found in
water, sediment or biota. These standards should be
implemented in the legislation of the Member States. The
methodology to develop these guidelines is described in a
Technical Guidance Document for Deriving Environmental
Quality Standards under the Water Framework Directive.
However, in Flanders, the northern part of Belgium, new
SQGs have been already developed and were implemented
into legislation in July 2010. These guidelines replaced the
old guidelines which were based on the geometric mean of
12 reference sites (Babut et al. 2005). The guidelines are
described in the Flemish regulations, considering quality
standards for surface waters, groundwater and sediments, as
target values that should be reached or maintained, but they
are not considered as stringent remediation criteria.
The guidelines in Flanders are based on the evaluation of
a huge monitoring dataset. The sediment monitoring
programme is a fairly unique monitoring programme where
chemical, biological and ecotoxicological data are generat-
ed from the same volume of sediment. More than one
hundred chemical parameters are analysed, the benthic
community is inventoried, and both the pore water and the
sediment are tested with bioassays. The dataset is the result
of a study of six years (19931999), during which a
506
TRIAD assessment method (physico-chemical, ecotoxico-
logical and ecological evaluation) was developed (de
Deckere et al. 2000), and a regular monitoring programme,
which started in 2000 applying the previously developed
TRIAD method on a network of 600 sites. In this study,
these data have been used to calculate different types of
SECs. Lowest Effect Level (LEL) and Severe Effect Level
(SEL) values were calculated as ecological SECs (Persaud
et al. 1992). Threshold Effect Level (TEL) and Probable
Effect Level (PEL) values were calculated as ecotoxico-
logical SECs (MacDonald et al. 1992, 2003; Smith et al.
1996). These SECs were derived for single compounds for
individual heavy metals, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons
(PAHs) and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). For PAHs
and PCBs, the sum parameters were also derived, because
these are more often used in other countries (Swartz 1999;
Health Council of the Netherlands 2002). However, not all
PAHs and PCBs have the same toxicity, and for sediment
management it is interesting to have information on which
specific pollutants play an important role in affecting the
aquatic ecosystem. At the end, the proposed SQGs were
compared to the annual average environmental quality
standards (AA-EQS) for priority substances as worked out
for the WFD, using an equilibrium partitioning model.
2 Material and methods
2.1 Sampling procedure and database
At all sites, 40 L of sediment was collected using a Van
Veen grab sampler. With a few exceptions, all samples were
taken in spring (MarchJune). Subsequently, the physico-
chemical, biological and ecotoxicological characteristics of
the sediments were determined. For the chemical analyses,
the concentrations of 120 pollutants, including heavy
metals, PCBs, organochloropesticides (OCPs), PAHs and
mineral oil were measured. Associated with the chemical
analyses, grain size and organic matter content were
measured. The biological assessment is based on the
composition of the macrozoobenthic community. The
macroinvertebrates were determined to the lowest taxo-
nomic level required for the calculation of the Biotic
Sediment Index (De Pauw and Heylen 2001), which was
mostly genus or family level. In addition to the biological
and chemical evaluation, a sediment contact test (10 day
mortality test with Hyalella azteca, ASTM 2007) was
conducted. More details on sampling and analysing
methods can be found in de Deckere et al. (2000).
The database used in this study mainly consisted of data
on freshwater sites. A limited number of data were gathered
at brackish sites. All sites belong to the river basins of the
Scheldt, Meuse or Yser, and are situated in Flanders, the
J Soils Sediments (2011) 11:504517
northern part of Belgium. The sampling sites were mainly
located in low gradient streams and highly modified
systems. The data were collected between 1995 and 2005
as part of the sediment monitoring network of the Flemish
Environment Agency. For sites that were sampled more
than once, only the most recent results were included in the
analyses. This means that the data collected in 2000 and
2001 were not used for the derivation of the SECs as these
were sampled again in 2004 and 2005. It resulted in 1027
unique sites of which, according to the TRIAD evaluation
method of Flanders (de Deckere et al. 2000), 5% were
rather unpolluted, 20% were slightly polluted, 35% were
polluted and 40% heavily polluted.
2.2 Derivation of ecological and ecotoxicological SECs
The ecological SECs calculated in this study are the LEL
and the SEL (Neff et al. 1986). The first step in the LEL/
SEL calculation, see also Fig. 1, was to count the number of
sampling sites where each taxon (genus or family see
section 2.1) was found, but only taxa found at a minimum
of five sampling sites were used in the further calculations.
For those taxa, the 85th, 90th, and 95th percentile values of
all concentrations measured for a certain pollutant at the
sites where the taxa was present, were calculated. The
values increased slightly with increasing percentile.
However, the 90th percentile was proposed by Neff et al.
(1986) and also used by MacDonald et al. (1996, 2003) to
provide a more conservative estimate, supposing that
extreme high concentrations in the sediment may be an
aspect of specific sediment characteristics resulting in low
biological availability. Therefore it was decided to use the
LEL/SEL values based on the 90th percentile. The
concentrations of some of the toxicants, especially the
OCPs and PCBs, were often below the limit of detection
(LoD). The LoD for PCBs and OCPs changed from 1 to
0.05 g kg1 DW in 2000 as a result of new analytical
equipment. For the calculation of SECs it is necessary to
estimate a value for measurements below the LoD. In cases
where the percentage of LoD of a particular OCP or PCB
was lower than 30%, half of the value of the LoD was used.
When 3080% of the data was below the LoD, values were
obtained by using the Maximum Likelihood Estimation
method (Helsel 2004). If more than 80% of a certain
pollutant was reported below the LoD, no values could be
estimated. The 90th percentile value was calculated based
on each individual taxon for (1) each compound and (2) for
the sum of ten PCBs (PCB101, PCB118, PCB138,
PCB153, PCB170, PCB180, PCB28, PCB31, PCB49,
PCB52) and the six PAHs of Borneff (fluoranthene, benzo
(k)fluoranthene, benzo(a)pyrene, benzo(g,h,i)perylene,
indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene, benzo(b)fluoranthene). Subse-
quently, the 90th percentile values of all taxa were ranked
J Soils Sediments (2011) 11:504517 507

Fig. 1 Flow chart of the

calculation steps for the lowest database
and severe effect levels
chemical data biological data

estimate values for select taxon

concentrations < LoD

taxon occurs in at
select pollutant least 5 sites?

calculate 90 percentile of the concentrations of the

pollutant measured on the sites the taxon occured

repeat the calculation for all the taxa and the same
pollutant

rank all 90 percentiles in increasing order

calculate 5 percentile (Lowest Effect Level) and 95

percentile (Severe Effect Level) for the pollutant

separately for each pollutant and the 5th percentile (LEL)
and 95th percentile (SEL) values of this distribution were
calculated, respectively.
For the ecotoxicological SECs, the TEL and PEL were
calculated (MacDonald et al. 1992, 1996, 2003; Smith et al.
1996), based on the results of the solid phase test with H.
azteca (Vangheluwe et al. 2000). The first step of the TEL/
PEL calculation was to divide the toxicity data of a certain
compound into an effect and a no effect group, taking a
mortality of 20% compared to the reference sediments as
the limit between effect and no effect. Next, the
average concentration of the compound was calculated for
both the effect and no effect group. If the average value
of the no effect group was higher than the average value
of the effect group, TEL and PEL could not be calculated
because there was no causal relation between the toxicant
and the measured toxicity. If the average of the effect
group was higher than the average of the no effect group,
the data in the effect group with concentrations lower
than the average value of the no effect group was not
taken into account in the further calculations. The data of
the no effect group with concentrations higher than the
average of the effect group was also not taken into
account. Secondly, the 15th and median percentile values of
the concentrations of the compound in the effect group
were calculated. For the no effect group, the median and
85th percentile were calculated. Finally, TEL was calculat-
ed as the geometric mean of the 15th percentile of the
effect group and the median percentile of the no effect
group. PEL was calculated as the geometric mean of the
median percentile of the effect group and the 85th
percentile of the no effect group.
2.3 Consensus-based SECs
The calculated SECs are used for underpinning a new
classification of sediment quality in Flanders based on the
so called consensus values and for the incorporation of
SQGs into Flemish legislation. The consensus 1 values
were calculated as the average of LEL and TEL and can be
described as a long term objective or good ecological
sediment status. The consensus 2 values were calculated as
average of SEL and PEL and can be described as values
above which toxic and in situ effects are most likely to be
observed. If TEL and PEL could not be calculated, LEL
and SEL were suggested as consensus values.
2.4 Predictability and sensitivity of the consensus values
The predictability of the consensus values was investigated
using the monitoring data of 20002001 (299 sites), which
were not included in the calculations of LEL, TEL, SEL, and
PEL. The measured concentration of a compound in a sediment
sample was compared to the consensus value 2. If a compound
was present in a concentration higher than consensus value 2, a
toxic effect is predicted. As second step, the prediction is
compared to the H. azteca bioassay result of the same sample.
If the mortality to H. azteca was >20% higher than the
508
mortality in the reference sediment, the sample was consid-
ered toxic, and the prediction was considered as confirmed.
The predictive ability of the consensus values was finally
calculated as the ratio of the number of samples that were
correctly predicted to be toxic (ncpred) compared to the total
number of samples that were predicted to be toxic (npred;
MacDonald et al. 2000), according to Eq. 1:
Predictability ncpred =npred 1 between the ecological and ecotoxicological values was
On the contrary, sensitivity is the ability to identify toxic
samples based on the consensus values. It was calculated as
the ratio of the number of samples that were correctly
predicted to be toxic based on a specific compound or group
of compounds (ncpred) compared to the total number of
samples where the mortality of H. azteca was >20% (ntox =
282), according to Eq. 2:
Sensitivity ncpred =ntox 2
2.5 International guidelines
The consensus 1 values calculated in this study were
compared to the Target Values of the Netherlands (Babut et
al. 2003), the LEL and TEL values calculated for Florida
inland waters (MacDonald et al. 2003), the limit class A
values for the Italian Venice Lagoon (Apitz et al. 2007) and
the Class II values for the German part of the Elbe (Heise et
al. 2005). All these SQGs can be considered as no effect
SQGs, based upon contaminant levels below which toxic
effects are generally not observed. The consensus 2 values
were compared to the SEL and PEL values for Florida
(MacDonald et al. 2003), the limit class B values for the
Venice Lagoon (Apitz et al. 2007) and the Quality
Objective (QO) values for the Netherlands (Babut et al.
2003). These guidelines can be considered as probable
effect SQGs, based upon contaminant levels above which
toxic effects are generally observed.
Furthermore the consensus values 1, which were used to
make up the final Flemish SQGs, have been transformed
into concentrations for the water phase based on the
partition coefficients equation (3) introduced by Di Toro
et al. (1991):
Koc cs =cw  foc 3
where cw is the concentration in the water, cs is the
concentration in the sediment, foc is the fraction of organic
carbon in the sediment and Koc is the partition coefficient
between water and sediment based on organic carbon. As
consensus, the 5% value for organic carbon content was
used in this study as this parameter was not analysed. The
calculated values for the water phase have been compared
with the legally binding AA-EQS for priority substances
J Soils Sediments (2011) 11:504517
(EU Directive 2008/105/EC), as well as to the PNEC values
that have been derived for the updated prioritisation process
of priority substances (James et al. 2009).
2.6 Statistical analyses
All statistical analyses were done with the programme SAS
9.1. (SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC, USA). The difference
statistically tested using Wilcoxon signed rank test. Only
the individual compounds for which both the ecological
and ecotoxicological values could be calculated were
included in the statistical analysis and a difference was
made between the main groups of pollutants (heavy metals,
PAHs and PCBs). OCPs were not included because of the
high number of data below the detection limit and the low
number of OCP compounds included in this study.
3 Results
3.1 Description of the database
A summary of the value range of chemical concentrations
and grain size characteristics at the sampling sites can be
found in Table 1. The 10th percentile values of the
measured concentrations for heavy metals varied between
0.03 mg kg1 DW for mercury (Hg) and 47 mg kg1 DW
for zinc (Zn). The 50th and 90th percentile values were also
highest for Zn (137 mg kg1 DW and 609 mg kg1 DW).
Concerning PAHs, fluoranthene had the highest 50th
percentile value (0.22 mg kg1 DW) and pyrene had the
highest 90th percentile value (1.2 mg kg1 DW). For all
PCBs, the 10th percentile values were the detection limit of
0.05 g kg1 DW. Highest PCB concentrations were
measured for PCB 153 (50th and 90th percentile values
1.2 g kg1 DW and 13 g kg1 DW, respectively). At 98%
of the sample sites, measured concentrations of PCB 169
were situated below the detection limit. Therefore, no SECs
could be calculated for this compound.
The benthic community found on the 1027 sites
consisted of 127 different taxa. Twenty-one taxa were only
found at one site. The most commonly present group was
chironomidae non thummi plumosus, which was found at
820 sites. When excluding the taxa found at less than five
sites, 51 of the 127 taxa were omitted. So, in total, 76 taxa
were used for the calculations of LEL and SEL. On one
hand, there is a relative high number of sensitive species
according to the BBI index (De Pauw and Vanhooren 1983)
and the SPEAR index (Liess and Von der Ohe 2005; Von
der Ohe et al. 2007) among the excluded taxa (Fig. 2). On
the other hand, the excluded taxa found at two to four sites
were distributed over locations with one up to 28
J Soils Sediments (2011) 11:504517 509

Table 1 Physico-chemical properties of the sampling sites10th Table 1 (continued)

percentile, 50th percentile and 90th percentile of the measured
concentrations Parameter 10th 50th 90th
percentile percentile percentile
Parameter 10th 50th 90th
percentile percentile percentile 4,4-DDEb 0.05 0.35 6.4
Hexachlorobenzeneb 0.00 0.05 0.05
Fraction grain size x<2 m 2 7 21
Fraction grain size 3 18 53
a
Values in mg kg1 DW
2 m<x<63 m b
Values in g kg1 DW
Fraction grain size 63 m<x 28 75 94 c
Values in mg Cl kg1 DW
Fraction total organic carbon 4 16 47
Asa 2.3 6.5 21 contaminants above the calculated consensus 1 in a similar
Cda 0.2 0.63 3.6 way as the taxa found at five sites or more. Furthermore, 32
Cra 8 25 77 out of the 51 species belong to taxa that are observed only
Cua 3.8 17 82 in very rare cases in or on the sediments, such as
Hga 0.03 0.15 0.97 Plecoptera, Ephemeroptera and Odonata (De Pauw and
Nia 4.7 13 31 Heylen 2001).
Pba 10 27 129
Sea 0.48 1.4 5.4 3.2 Ecological and ecotoxicological SECs
Sna 0.15 1.5 10
Zna 47 137 609 Both the LEL and TEL values as well as the SEL and PEL
Acenaphthenea 0.0004 0.05 0.5 values were always in the same order of magnitude
Acenapthylenea 0.0004 0.0004 0.5 (Table 2). For arsenic (As), selenium (Se), PCB118 and
Anthracenea 0.002 0.02 0.2 hexachlorobenzene, the TEL and PEL values could not be
Benz(a)anthracenea 0.009 0.09 0.67 calculated because the average concentration of the effect
Benzo(a)pyrenea 0.01 0.1 0.64 group was lower than the average concentration of the no
Benzo(b)fluoranthenea 0.01 0.12 0.74
effect group. With regard to heavy metals, there are no
Benzo(e)pyrenea 0.01 0.14 1
clear patterns in the LEL and TEL values, sometimes LEL
Benzo(g,h,i)perylenea 0.01 0.09 0.52
was higher and sometimes TEL was higher (see Table 2).
There was no significant difference between LEL and TEL
Benzo(k)fluoranthenea 0.007 0.05 0.35
(p=0.38). SEL was always higher than PEL and both
Chrysenea 0.01 0.12 0.78
differed significantly (p<0.01). The values of Zn, especial-
Dibenz(a,h)anthracenea 0.002 0.02 0.1
ly for the SEL, were very high compared to the other heavy
Phenanthrenea 0.01 0.11 0.89
metals. When Zn was excluded, SEL and PEL of the heavy
Fluoranthenea 0.02 0.22 1.5
metals did not show significant differences (p=0.16).
Fluorenea 0.002 0.02 0.23
Similar to the situation for the metals, LEL and TEL did
Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrenea 0.01 0.08 0.54
not show significant differences for PAHs (p=0.54) while
Naphthalenea 0.0007 0.05 0.64
SEL and PEL differed significantly (p<0.001; see Table 2).
Perylenea 0.007 0.04 0.2
Again, SEL was always higher than PEL. For PCBs and
Pyrenea 0.01 0.16 1.2
OCPs, with the exception of PCB 180 and PCB 101, TEL
Extractable organohalogenesc 0.2 6 33
was always higher than LEL (see Table 2). For PCB 28,
Non polar hydrocarbonsa 39 147 783
PCB 31, PCB 49, PCB 52 and 4,4-DDD, the LEL values
PCB 101b 0.05 0.67 8.9
resulted in values below the detection limit. For PCBs and
PCB 118b 0.05 0.4 5.9 OCPs, LEL and TEL did not differ significantly (p=1).
PCB 138b 0.05 0.9 10 SEL was again always higher than PEL, and both differed
PCB 153b 0.05 1.2 13 significantly (p=0.01). For both PCBs and OCPs, the effect
PCB 169b 0.05 0.05 0.05 levels calculated based on the sum of the concentrations
PCB 170b 0.05 0.05 3.9 were lower than the summed values of the individual
PCB 180b 0.05 0.7 8.9 compounds included in the sum parameter.
PCB 28b 0.05 0.05 4
PCB 31b 0.05 0.05 3.4 3.3 Predictability and sensitivity
PCB 49b 0.05 0.05 4.4
PCB 52b 0.05 0.05 6.7 Based on chemical concentrations of all measured com-
4,4-DDDb 0.05 0.05 3.5 pounds found in the sediments during 20002001, 144 out
510
Fig. 2 Relative number of taxa
that are found at one to four
sites or at more than four sites.
The taxa are divided into
Relative number of taxa
tolerance classes (left) based on
the BBI (De Pauw and
Vanhooren 1983) with 1 being
the most sensitive class and 7
most tolerant class or on
sensitivity (right) based on the
SPEAR classification (von der
Ohe et al. 2007), with 1 being
sensitive species and 0 being
non-sensitive species
of 299 samples have one or more compounds of which the
concentration exceeds the consensus value 2, meaning that
toxic effects can be expected (Table 3). Based on the
concentrations of the metals, PAHs or PCBs 85, 49 or 78
sites were predicted to be toxic, respectively. In all cases,
around 97% of the samples that are expected to show toxic
effect, had a mortality of >20% in the bioassay with H.
azteca, indicating that they were toxic. However the
sensitivity (see Table 3) clearly shows that correctly
predicted toxicity based on metals, PAHs or PCBs can
only explain a fraction of the toxicity observed over all the
samples (29%, 17%, and 27%, respectively). However, if
all measured contaminants are considered together, at least
49% of the samples that show toxic effects in the bioassay
are correctly predicted to be toxic.
3.4 International guidelines
The freely soluble water concentrations calculated based on
the sediment consensus values 1 are for most compounds in
the same order of magnitude as the AA-EQS or the PNEC
values for surface waters (Table 4). Only the value for
hexachlorobenzene is more than 7,000 times lower, so more
stringent, if calculated based on the consensus values. For
the other compounds, eight have consensus values that are
more stringent than the AA-EQS (factors up to 11), while
one is less stringent (factor 0.9). If the values are compared
to the PNEC values, 15 values derived from the SQGs are
more stringent (factors up to 63) and four are less stringent
(factors down to 0.05).
When comparing the different no effect guidelines for
heavy metals, consensus values 1 are closest to the LEL
and TEL values of Florida (Table 5). The class II of the
Elbe, the limit class A for the Venice Lagoon and the Dutch
Target Values, although generally higher, are the same order
of magnitude. Regarding PAHs, only consensus value 1 and
J Soils Sediments (2011) 11:504517
Number of sites
LEL and TEL for Florida have values which are quite alike
for the individual compounds. The sum parameters for
PAHs differed a lot between the different SQGs. The SQGs
of the Netherlands and Venice Lagoon are a factor of 1,000
higher than the consensus value 1. Furthermore, the same
compounds are not always used in the sum procedure. With
consensus value 1, the sum parameter consists of the six
PAHs of Borneff. With some of the other SQGs, the sum
parameter consists of 1011 PAHs. Also the values for the
sum parameter of the PCBs differ between the SQGs of the
different regions.
Regarding the probable effect guidelines for heavy
metals, there is no clear pattern (see Table 5). For some
compounds, the LEL and PEL values are the highest, while
for some it is the consensus value 2 or QO values. Again, the
sum parameters for PAHs and PCBs of the Netherlands and
Venice Lagoon are very high compared to the other SQGs.
4 Discussion
A whole variety of approaches can be used to develop
SQGs, each having certain advantages and limitations
(Contaminated Sediment Standing Team 2003; MacDonald
et al. 2000). The method used for the derivation of SQGs is
also strongly dependent on the future use of the guideline.
Guidelines may be used in several ways: as indicators of
the existing quality of a site, as guidance for determining
whether a further site investigation or a remedial action is
needed, as guidance for determining when risk assessment
is necessary or to verify the success of remediation
measures (Contaminated Sediment Standing Team 2003;
Long and MacDonald 1998). One of the approaches to
derive SQGs is the use of co-occurrence data, but the weak
point is that the data are usually not collected at exactly the
same location and time. In addition to using chemical,
J Soils Sediments (2011) 11:504517 511

Table 2 LEL, TEL, consensus

1, SEL, PEL and consensus 2 Chemical LEL TEL Consensus 1 SEL PEL Consensus 2
values calculated with the total
dataset Asa 7.9 7.9 50 50
Cda 0.71 1.2 0.93 13 2.6 7.8
Cra 25 26 26 90 45 68
Cua 13 16 14 85 34 60
Hga 0.28 0.18 0.23 1.8 0.47 1.2
Nia 15 7.5 11 44 19 32
Pba 19 31 25 167 68 118
Sea 1.5 1.5 6.4 6.4
Sna 1,9 0.85 1.4 21 3.3 12
Zna 129 163 146 1300 305 800
Acenaphthenea 0.05 0.04 0.04 5 1.6 3.3
Acenapthylenea 0.01 0.04 0.03 8.8 1.6 5.2
Anthracenea 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.23 0.12 0.17
Benz(a)anthracenea 0.11 0.12 0.12 0.81 0.40 0.60
Benzo(a)pyrenea 0.16 0.12 0.14 0.81 0.40 0.60
Benzo(b)fluoranthenea 0.19 0.14 0.17 0.88 0.44 0.66
Benzo(e)pyrenea 0.25 0.17 0.21 1.4 0.48 0.93
Benzo(g,h,i)perylenea 0.12 0.1 0.11 0.6 0.3 0.45
Benzo(k)fluoranthenea 0.08 0.07 0.08 0.40 0.23 0.32
Chrysenea 0.14 0.16 0.15 1.2 0.48 0.83
Dibenz(a,h)anthracenea 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.16 0.07 0.12
Phenanthrenea 0.16 0.20 0.18 1.2 0.56 0.89
Fluoranthenea 0.21 0.30 0.25 1.6 0.88 1.2
Fluorenea 0.03 0.06 0.04 0.29 0.24 0.26
Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrenea 0.13 0.10 0.12 0.66 0.31 0.48
Naphthalenea 0.07 0.32 0.20 10 2.8 6.6
Perylenea 0.07 0.05 0.06 0.29 0.13 0.21
Pyrenea 0.25 0.23 0.24 1.2 0.69 0.94
6 PAHs Borneffa 0.95 0.86 0.91 5.14 2.58 3.86
PCB 101b 0.68 0.41 0.54 8.7 4.7 6.7
PCB 118b 0.43 0.43 6.9 6.9
PCB 138b 0.85 1.2 1 11 4.3 7.5
PCB 153b 1.2 1.8 1.5 13 6 9.7
PCB 170b 0.08 0.30 0.19 4.3 1.4 2.8
PCB 180b 0.81 0.07 0.44 9.4 1.6 5.5
PCB 28b 0.005 0.07 0.04 3.9 0.14 2.0
PCB 31b 0.005 0.06 0.03 3.4 0.25 1.9
PCB 49b 0.02 0.17 0.1 4.3 0.92 2.6
PCB 52b 0.01 0.18 0.1 7.0 2.2 4.6
Total PCB'sb 7.6 8.0 7.7 80 30 55
4,4-DDDb 0.01 0.12 0.06 5.1 1.3 3.2
4,4-DDEb 0.39 0.24 0.31 11 2.2 6.8
Hexachlorobenzeneb 0.0004 0.0004 0.72 0.72
a
Values in mg kg1 DW
Extractable organohalogenesc 7.9 0.002 5.0 50 4.8 27
b
Values in g kg1 DW
Non polar hydrocarbonsa 147 0.161 154 865 392 628
c
Values in mg Cl kg1 DW

ecological and ecotoxicological data collected from the The ecological tools used in this study are LEL and SEL.
same volume of sediment, combining both ecological and The approach used to calculate LEL and SEL does not
ecotoxicological SECs is a strength of the SQGs derived in require a priori assumptions concerning the causeeffect
this study. relationships between environmental factors such as con-
512
Table 3 The number of sites in the period 2000 and 2001 (n=299) of
which the chemical concentrations of certain groups of contaminants
or of all measured contaminants is above the consensus 2 value
(predicted toxic), the number of these locations that is showing toxic
effects based on the bioassay Hyalella azteca (correctly predicted
toxic) and predictability (correctly predicted toxic/predicted toxic) and
sensitivity (correctly predicted toxic/total number showing toxic
effects in the bioassay (n=282))
Chemical Predicted Correctly Predictability Sensitivity
toxic predicted toxic
Total metals 85 83 0.98 0.29
Total PAHs 49 48 0.98 0.17
Total PCBs 78 75 0.96 0.27
Total 144 139 0.97 0.49
taminants and the macroinvertebrate species (Persaud et al.
1992). It only considers the range of concentrations of a
contaminant at sites where a species is present. This is in
contrast to other methods such as multivariate analysis
where the focus is to look for relations between environ-
mental factors and the occurrence of species. LEL is the
concentration of a chemical in the sediment below which
95% or more of the considered macroinvertebrate species
should be able to survive. At concentrations above SEL,
only 5% or less of the considered species will be able to
survive. For the calculation of LEL and SEL, MacDonald et
al. (1992) proposed that biological data of a minimum of 20
taxa should be available. According to Persaud et al.
(1992), a minimum of ten taxa is sufficient, if the data
cover the full tolerance range of each taxonomic group.
Leung et al. (2005) also derived SQGs based on field data
and proposed that only taxa found at a minimum of 30 sites
should be included. The biological and chemical data
mentioned by Leung et al. (2005) were not collected
simultaneously with the biota. The composition of the
macrobenthic community will, just as other indicators like
abundance or richness, be influenced by multiple anthro-
pogenic and natural stressors. It can certainly not be
expected that all taxa are able to occur on all sites. An
alternative for soft sediments could be the use of the
nematode community as this is a good indicator also for
sediment quality (de Deckere et al. 2002; Heininger et al.
2007), but monitoring data of nematode communities are
presently too limited. When only taking into account
macroinvertebrate taxa found at least at 30 sites, 99 taxa
out of 127 should have been excluded from the calcu-
lations. However, the rare taxa that only occurred at five to
10 sites were already widely spread over Flanders and not
restricted to one specific subbasin. These taxa consisted of
sensitive as well as tolerant taxa of all macrobenthic groups.
It is important to note that the relative number of sensitive
taxa is higher when considering the 51 taxa that only
J Soils Sediments (2011) 11:504517
occurred on less than five sites, even if 60% of these taxa
do not usually live on or in the sediment (De Pauw and
Heylen 2001). These pelagic taxa might also be absent in
the samples due to the sampling methodology used.
Furthermore, the overall bad and moderate status of
Flemish water courses (Gevrey et al. 2010) might have
resulted in the overall absence of a number of sensitive
taxa. This means that the calculated LEL based on the 76
taxa, used in this study, might be an underestimation due to
the absence of a number of sensitive taxa.
The ecotoxicological SECs calculated in this study based
on the results of the test with H. azteca are TEL and PEL.
At concentrations above PEL, toxic effects are frequently
observed. At concentrations below TEL, no acute toxic
effects are anticipated linked to the compound for which the
TEL is calculated. According to Smith et al. (1996), both
the effect and no effect groups require at least 20 sites
for each individual chemical. The data in the effect group
of which the concentrations were lower than the average
value of the no effect group were not taken into account
in further calculations, as the trend was ambiguous. At the
no effect sites, toxic effects were measured although the
concentration of the chemical was significantly lower than
the average no effect value. Hence, these compounds
were most likely not responsible for the observed effects in
the measured concentration range. Since the data are based
on field samples instead of tests with spiked sediments, the
observed effects are the result of a whole mixture of
chemicals and thus the toxicity measured could be caused
by other compounds than the compound for which the
values are calculated. The no effect data with higher
concentrations than the average of the effect group was
also not included. High concentrations of pollutants were
found on those sites even though no toxicity was observed.
However, bioavailability is not taken into account as the
chemical data within the monitoring programme are total
concentrations.
The results of SEL and PEL showed, except for some
compounds, a general trend with SEL being always at least
two times the PEL value. PEL is based on the sensitivity of
one single organism, H. azteca, used in a standardised
toxicity test while the SEL value is based on the in situ
sensitivity of the considered species. The higher SEL values
indicate that the in situ community is less sensitive for
single compounds than the toxicity test with H. azteca.
Hence, sensitive species might have already become
extinct.
Selection of the most appropriate SQGs for specific
applications can be a difficult task for sediment assessors.
One of the advantages of the co-occurrence approach to set
guidelines is that this method can be used to develop
guidelines for any contaminant that is analysed (MacDonald
et al. 1992). However, the observed effects, both in the
J Soils Sediments (2011) 11:504517 513

Table 4 Consensus values 1 based on this study, Koc values for the prioritisation exercise for priority substances (James et al. 2009), and
organic compounds, based on the consensus values and the Koc values in the last column are the final Flemish sediment quality guidelines as
water concentrations, the AA-EQS for the European priority sub- published on July 9th 2010
stances (Commission 2008), PNEC water (g L1) from the updated

CAS Chemical Consensus 1 Koc Water SQG AA-EQS PNECwater Final Flemish SQG
(g kg1 DW) (g L1) (g L1) (g L1) (g kg1 DW)

7440-38-2 As 7,900 4.2 19,000

7440-43-9 Cd 930 0.08 0.08 1,000
7440-47-3 Cr 26,000 3.4 62,000
7440-50-8 Cu 14,000 1.4 20,000
7439-97-6 Hg 230 0.05 0.05 550
7440-02-0 Ni 11,000 20 3.8 16,000
7439-92-1 Pb 25,000 7.2 2.3 40,000
7782-49-2 Se 1,500 0.95
7440-31-5 Sn 1,400 1.5
7440-66-6 Zn 146,000 10.8 147,000
83-32-9 Acenaphthene 40 5,027 0.16 3.8 200
208-96-8 Acenapthylene 30 5,027 0.12 1.3 200
120-12-7 Anthracene 30 16,360 0.037 0.1 0.11 100
56-55-3 Benz(a)anthracene 120 176,900 0.014 0.012 150
50-32-8 Benzo(a)pyrene 140 587,400 0.005 0.05 0.022 150
205-99-2 Benzo(b)fluoranthene 170 599,400 0.006 0.03 0.027 200
192-97-2 Benzo(e)pyrene 210 599,400 0.007
191-24-2 Benzo(g,h,i)perylene 110 1,951,000 0.001 0.002 0.0082 130
207-08-9 Benzo(k)fluoranthene 80 587,400 0.003 0.03 0.017 200
218-01-9 Chrysene 150 180,500 0.017 0.07 210
53-70-3 Dibenz(a,h)anthracene 20 1,912,000 0.0002 0.0014 100
85-01-8 Phenanthrene 180 16,690 0.22 1.3 210
206-44-0 Fluoranthene 250 55,450 0.090 0.1 0.01 370
86-73-7 Fluorene 40 9160 0.087 2.5 100
193-39-5 Indeno(1,2,3-cd)Pyrene 120 1,951,000 0.0012 0.002 0.0027 140
91-20-3 Naphthalene 200 1,544 2.6 2.4 2.4 100
198-55-0 Perylene 60 599,400 0.002
129-00-0 Pyrene 240 54,340 0.088 0.0046 300
37680-73-2 PCB 101 0.54 127,900 0.00008 0.00003 0.4
31508-00-6 PCB 118 0.43 127,900 0.00007 0.00003 0.3
35065-28-2 PCB 138 1 213,600 0.00009 0.00002 0.7
35065-27-1 PCB 153 1.5 209,300 0.00014 0.00002 0.9
35065-30-6 PCB 170 0.19 356,800 0.00001
35065-29-3 PCB 180 0.44 349,700 0.00003 0.00002 0.6
7012-37-5 PCB 28 0.04 47,700 0.00002 0.00003 0.1
16606-02-3 PCB 31 0.03 47,700 0.00001 0.1
41464-40-8 PCB 49 0.1 78,100 0.00003 0.1
35693-99-3 PCB 52 0.1 78,100 0.00003 0.00003 0.1
72-54-8 4,4-DDD 0.06 117,500 0.00001 0.00064 0.3
72-55-9 4,4-DDE 0.31 117,500 0.00005 0.0006 0.5
118-74-1 Hexachlorobenzene 0.0004 6,195 0.000001 0.01 0.01
514 J Soils Sediments (2011) 11:504517

Table 5 International SQGs: LEL Florida and TEL Florida (MacDonald International SQGs: SEL Florida and PEL Florida (MacDonald et al.
et al. 2003), Target value for The Netherlands (Babut et al. 2003), Limit 2003), QO for the Netherlands (Babut et al. 2003) for PAHs, limit class
Class A for Venice Lagoon (Apitz et al. 2007), Elbe Class II (Heise et B for Venice Lagoon (Apitz et al. 2007), consensus value 2 for heavy
al. 2005), consensus value 1 for heavy metals PAHs and PCBs and metals, PAHs and PCBs

Chemical LEL TEL Target value Limit class A Class II Consensus 1 SEL PEL QO (the Limit class B Consensus 2
(Florida) (Florida) (The Netherlands) (Venice Lagoon) (Elbe) (Florida) (Florida) Netherlands) (Venice Lagoon)

No effect Probable effect

As 6 5.9 29 15 20 7.9 33 17 55 25 50
Cd 0.6 0.6 0.8 1 0.6 0.93 10 3.5 2 5 7.8
Cr 26 37 100 20 160 26 110 90 380 100 68
Cu 16 36 35 40 40 14 110 197 35 50 60
Hg 0.2 0.17 0.3 0.5 0.4 0.23 2 0.49 0.5 2 1.2
Ni 16 18 35 45 60 11 75 36 35 50 32
Pb 31 35 85 45 50 25 250 91.3 530 50 118
Zn 120 123 140 200 200 146 820 315 480 400 800
Anthracene 0.22 0.03 3.7 0.17
Benz(a)anthracene 0.32 0.032 0.12 14.8 0.385 0.60
Benzo(a)pyrene 0.37 0.032 0.14 14.4 0.782 0.60
Chrysene 0.34 0.057 0.15 4.6 0.862 0.83
Dibenz(a,h) 0.06 0.02
anthracene
Phenanthrene 0.56 0.042 0.18 9.5 0.515 0.89
Fluoranthene 0.75 0.111 0.25 10.2 2.355 1.2
Fluorene 0.19 0.04 1.6 0.26
Pyrene 0.49 0.053 0.24 8.5 0.875 0.94
Sum PAHs 4 1,000 1,000 0.91 100 1,000 10,000 3.86
Sum PCBs 0.07 0.0341 200 10 2 7.7 5.3 0.277 200 200 0.055

All values in mg kg1 DW, only the sum of PCBs in g kg1 DW

bioassay as well as for the in situ community, might be a
result of combined toxicity of different contaminants, which
means that the obtained results can differ from single
compound toxicity tests (Leung et al. 2005). A disadvantage
of this method is that adverse effects of pollution are only
manifested when a taxon is already missing on a site, while
taxa that are present can also suffer severely from sublethal
stress and indirect effects due to pollutants (Preston 2002).
On the other hand, the absence of a taxon is, in the SQG
theory, directly linked to toxicity while in reality other
factors like biological interactions and habitat characteristics
also influence the occurrence of macrobenthic species
(Leung et al. 2005). Species might disappear due to
increasing competition with another more tolerant species
(Preston 2002). These factors do not have to be considered in
ecotoxicological tests. The conditions under which the
toxicity information is derived in ecotoxicological tests differ
from those in the field. In ecotoxicological risk assessment,
this is partly overcome by the use of uncertainty factors.
Uncertainty factors, also called safety factors, are factors by
which the quality guideline is lowered to account for
uncertainties in terms of environmental conditions, like for
example higher temperature or salinity as well as low
dissolved oxygen levels (Connell et al. 1999), or to
extrapolate from acute to chronic effects and/or from single
to multiple species. The ideal situation is that sufficient data
are available so that safety factors can be relatively small
(Chapman et al. 1998).
4.1 Predictability and sensitivity
A critical component in the application of SQGs is their
ability to correctly predict the presence or absence of
toxicity in field collected sediments (Ingersoll et al. 2000).
The predictability of the SQGs when all 36 compounds are
considered is 97%, but also the guidelines for the groups of
metals, PAHs and PCBs proved to be highly predictive.
Hence, the sediments are usually polluted by a mixture of
pollutants. However, the toxic effect observed on 51% of
the samples could not be explained by compounds
exceeding the guidelines. It can be expected that there is a
great number of pollutants present in sediments, other than
the 36 included in our study which might explain the
observed toxicity. This could explain why the ability to
predict non-toxic samples is so poor. Only 5% of the 299
samples were predicted to be non-toxic of which none were
actually non-toxic. However, only 4% of the 1,027 sites of
the database used to calculate the SECs was actually
unpolluted according to the TRIAD evaluation. Thus, the
data used to calculate the SQGs are very much biased
J Soils Sediments (2011) 11:504517
towards polluted samples. Another disguising factor can be
the use of the H. azteca test to predict toxicity. Vangheluwe
et al. (2000) reported that the H. azteca sediment contact
test exhibited all or nothing responses. Besides this, the
test with H. azteca was more sensitive compared to the in
situ community, as shown by the higher SEL values
compared to the PEL values. On the other hand, again,
the acute contact test considers only direct toxic effects.
Several studies have shown indirect effects on the macro-
benthos, at levels as low as 1,000 times below the acute
LC50 for Daphnia magna (Liess and von der Ohe 2005;
Schfer et al. 2007; von der Ohe et al. 2009). However, the
test is very useful for classifying samples as very toxic or
rather non-toxic, but it was not successful to further
discriminate sediments in the grey zone between very toxic
and non-toxic. More toxicity tests should be used to
validate the obtained SQGs. However, for the moment,
the test with H. azteca is the only sediment contact tests
conducted in the Flemish monitoring programme.
4.2 International guidelines
Many countries have developed SQGs. Guidelines derived
in one region will not be relevant for all regions, because,
for example, biochemical reaction rates and biological
activity increase exponentially with temperature (Chapman
et al. 2006). Also the in situ communities can vary between
different regions. Regionally developed SQGs may be less
relevant in other regions with different contaminant
mixtures (Apitz et al. 2007). Further, the derivation
methods, purposes and applicability can vary between
different SQGs resulting in different SQGs as shown in
Table 4 and 5. The LEL, TEL, SEL, and PEL values
calculated in this study and for Florida inland waters are
empirically derived. In contrast, the Venice Limit Class A
and B values are consensus-based, as is the Elbe Class
II. The Dutch target and QO values are equilibrium
partitioning derived. Using the equilibrium partitioning
methodology to transfer the SQGs derived in this study
to concentrations in the water phase shows that this
results in concentrations in the same order of magnitude
as the AA-EQS for the priority pollutants (Commission
2008) and for the PNEC values derived for the update of
this list of priority pollutants (James et al. 2009). In most
cases, the SQGs are actually more stringent, which leads
to the question if the AA-EQS values are really protective
in all cases, considering the more field relevant approach
used for the SQGs in an already heavily polluted river
basin.
As mentioned before, next to the derivation method,
other factors can possibly also explain the differences
between the international SQGs. The Venice Lagoon is a
marine study area. This may be one of the main reasons
515
explaining the differences between the Limit Class A and B
and the other international guidelines, derived for freshwa-
ter ecosystems. Moreover, the species considered can also
differ between Europe and, for example, the Great Lakes of
the USA, which may not be representative for all freshwater
ecosystems (Washington Department of Ecology 2002). In
contrast to the lakes of the USA and Venice Lagoon, the
Dutch rivers are very similar to the Flemish lowland rivers.
The differences between the Dutch and Flemish values are
unlikely to be due to geomorphologic differences between
the aquatic ecosystems or composition of the macrobenthic
community.
The authors proposed the use of consensus value 1 as a
long term objective and consensus value 2 as a short term
objective. Ideally, all sites should reach chemical concen-
trations below consensus value 1 and the question can be
posed in what context it is a good short term objective if
you lose 95% of the benthic taxa. As mentioned before,
only 4% of the 1,027 sites in Flanders are not polluted at
all. If the first aim would be to obtain consensus value 1 for
all substances on all sites, 96% of all sites in Flanders need
to be remediated dramatically. From the management point
of view, this is not feasible in a short time and therefore the
first aim is to have all concentrations below consensus
value 2 as soon as possible. In this way, the consensus
value 2 could be used as a trigger for immediate
remediation action. Over a longer and more realistic time
period, it is proposed that all sites will have to achieve
consensus values 1.
5 Conclusions
This study showed that, using a large dataset containing
both ecological and ecotoxicological data for sediment
samples, SQGs that are based on multiple types of data can
be set, resulting in values that are in the same order of
magnitude as the AA-EQS for priority substances in water.
Using two different types of data and methods, the obtained
ecological and ecotoxicological values were mostly in the
same order of magnitude and the respective consensus
value 2 correctly predicted the toxicity in 97% of the
samples. On the other hand, observed toxicity could only be
explained by the measured compounds for 49% of the
samples. The consensus values 1 have been used as the
basis for the SQGs that were implemented in the Flemish
legislation on July 9th 2010, as target values that have to be
maintained or reached (see Table 4). However as the
number of assessed compounds will always be a limited
fraction of the total number of compounds present in the
environment, a multiple lines of evidence approach, such as
the TRIAD method, should be applied to assess the overall
sediment quality.
516
Acknowledgements This study was financially supported by the
Flemish Environmental Agency (Flanders Environment Report,
MIRA) and the European Commission (MODELKEY, Contract No
511237-GOCE). P. C. von der Ohe received financial support through
a Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft fellowship (PAK 406/1).
References
Apitz S, Barbanti A, Bocci M, Carlin A, Montobbio L, Bernstein A
(2007) The sediments of the Venice Lagoon (Italy) evaluated in a
risk assessment and management approach: part Iapplication of
international sediment quality guidelines (SQGs). Integr Environ
Assess Manag 3:393414
ASTM (2007) Standard test method for measuring the toxicity of
sediment-associated contaminants with freshwater invertebrates.
Method E1706-05. Annual Book of ASTM Standards, Vol.
11.06. American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia,
PA
Babut MP, Garric J, Camusso M, den Besten PJ (2003) Use of
sediment quality guidelines in ecological risk assessment of
dredged materials: preliminary reflections. Aquat Ecosyst Health
Manag 6:359367
Babut MP, Ahlf W, Batley GE et al (2005) International overview of
sediment quality guidelines and their uses. In: Wenning RJ,
Batley GE, Ingersoll CG, Moore DW (2005) Use of sediment
quality guidelines and related tools for the assessment of
contaminated sediments. Pensacola, Florida: Society of Environ-
mental Toxicology and Chemistry (SETAC), pp 345378
Chapman PM, Fairbrother A, Brown D (1998) A critical evaluation of
safety (uncertainty) factors for ecological risk assessment.
Environ Toxicol Chem 17:99108
Chapman PM, Birge WJ, Burgess RM et al (2005) Role of sediment
quality guidelines and other tools in different aquatic habitats. In:
Wenning RJ, Batley GE, Ingersoll CG, Moore DW (2005) Use of
sediment quality guidelines and related tools for the assessment
of contaminated sediments. Pensacola, Florida: Society of
Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry (SETAC), pp 267310
Chapman PM, McDonald BG, Kickham PE, McKinnon S (2006)
Global geographic differences in marine metals toxicity. Mar
Pollut Bull 52:10811084
Commission E. Directive 2008/105/EC of the European Parliament
and of the council of 16 December 2008 on environmental
quality standards in the field of water policy, amending and
subsequently repealing Council Directives 82/176/EEC, 83/513/
EEC, 84/156/EEC, 84/491/EEC, 86/280/EEC and amending
Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the
Council, 2008, pp 8497
Connell D, Lam P, Richardson B, Wu R (1999) Introduction to
ecotoxicology. Blackwell, Hong Kong, p 184
Contaminated sediment standing team (2003) Consensus-based
sediment quality guidelinesrecommendations for use and
application interim guidance. Contaminated sediment standing
teamDepartment of Natural Resources Wisconsin, 35 pp
Crane M, Babut M (2007) Environmental quality standards for water
framework directive priority substances: challenges and oppor-
tunities. Integr Environ Assess Manag 3:290296
Crommentuijn T, Sijm D, de Bruijn J, van Leeuwen K, van de
Plassche E (2000) Maximum permissible and negligible concen-
trations for some organic substances and pesticides. J Environ
Manage 58:297312
De Deckere E, De Cooman W, Florus M, Devroede-Vanderlinden MP
(eds) (2000) A manual for the assessment of sediments in
Flanders with the Triad approach. Ministry of the Flemish
Community, Brussels
J Soils Sediments (2011) 11:504517
de Deckere E, Beyen W, Van Pelt D, Veraart B, Florus M, Meire P
(2002) Biological assessment of sediments: a comparison. In:
Pelleti M., Porta A, Hinchee RE (eds) Characterization of
contaminated sediments. Proceedings of the First International
Conference on Remediation of Contaminated Sediments, 10-12
October 2001, Venice. Battelle, Geneve, pp 3344
De Pauw N, Heylen S (2001) Biotic index for sediment quality
assessment of watercourses in Flanders, Belgium. Aq Ecol
35:121131
De Pauw N, Vanhooren G (1983) Method for biological quality
assessment of watercourses in Belgium. Hydrobiologia 100:153
168
Den Besten PJ, de Deckere E, Babut MP, Power B, del Valls A, Zago
C, Oen AMP, Heise S (2003) Biological effects-based sediment
quality in ecological risk assessment for European waters. J Soils
Sediments 3:144162
Di Toro DM, Zarba CS, Hansen DJ, Berry WJ, Swartz RC, Cowan
CE, Pavlou SP, Allen HE, Thomas NA, Paquin PR (1991)
Technical basis for establishing sediment quality criteria for
nonionic organic chemicals using equilibrium paritioning.
Environ Toxicol Chem 10:15411583
Engler RM, Long ER, Swartz RC et al (2005) Chronology of the
development of sediment quality assessment methods in North
America. In: Wenning RJ, Batley GE, Ingersoll CG, Moore DW
(2005) Use of sediment quality guidelines and related tools for
the assessment of contaminated sediments. Pensacola, Florida:
Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry (SETAC),
pp 311344
Environment Canada (2003) The sedimenttoxicity (SEDTOX)
index. Sediment assessment series. Montral-Qubec
European Commission (2003) Technical guidance document on risk
assessment part II
Fairey R, Long ER, Roberts CA, Anderson BS, Phillips BM, Hunt
JW, Puckett HR, Wilson CJ (2001) An Evaluation of methods for
calculating mean sediment quality guideline quotients as indica-
tors of contamination and acute toxicity to amphipods by
chemical mixtures. Environ Toxicol Chem 20:22762286
Gevrey M, Comte L, de Zwart D, de Deckere E, Lek S (2010)
Modeling the chemical and toxic water status of the Scheldt basin
(Belgium), using aquatic invertebrate assemblages and an
advanced modeling method. Environ Pollut 158:32093218
Health Council of the Netherlands (2002) Recommended exposure
limits for polychlorinated biphenyls in soils and sediments, for
the protection of ecosystems. The assessment of a derivation
method devised by the National Institute of Public Health and the
Environment (RIVM). The Hague: Health Council of the
Netherlands; publication no. 2002/17
Heininger P, Hss S, Claus E, Pelzer J, Traunspurger W (2007)
Nematode communities in contaminated river sediments. Environ
Pollut 146:6476
Heise S, Calus E, Heininger P, Krmer T, Krger F, Schwartz R,
Frnster U (2005) Studie zur Schadestoffbelastung der Sedimente
im ElbeeinzugsgebietUrsachen und Trends. Studie Erstellt im
Auftrag der Hamburg Port Authority, Beratungszentrum fr
Integriertes Sedimentmanagement
Helsel DR (2004) Nondetects and data analysis: statistics for censored
environmental data. Statistics in practice. Wiley, Chichester, p 268
Ingersoll CG, MacDonald DD, Wang N, Crane JL, Field LJ,
Haverland PS, Kemble NE, Lindskoog RA, Severn C, Smorong
DE (2000) Predictions of sediment toxicity using consensus-
based freshwater sediment quality guidelines. Arch Environ
Contam Toxicol 41:821
James A, Bonnomet V, Morin A, Fribourg-Blanc B (2009) Imple-
mentation of requirements on priority substances within the
context of the water framework directive. Prioritization process:
monitoring-based ranking, pp 58
J Soils Sediments (2011) 11:504517
Leung KMY, Bjorgesaeter A, Gray JS, Li WK, Lui GCS, Wang Y,
Lam PKS (2005) Deriving sediment quality guidelines from
field-based species sensitivity distributions. Environ Sci Technol
39:51485156
Liess M, von der Ohe PC (2005) Analyzing effects of pesticides on
invertebrate communities in streams. Environ Toxicol Chem
24:954965
Long ER, Chapman PM (1985) A sediment quality triad: Measures of
sediment contamination, toxicity and infaunal community
composition in Puget Sound. Mar Pollut Bull 16:405415
Long ER, MacDonald DD (1998) Recommended uses of empirically
derived sediment quality guidelines for marine and estuarine
ecosystems. Hum Ecol Risk Assess 4:10191039
MacDonald DD, Smith SL, Wong MP, Mudroch P (1992) The
development of Canadian marine environmental quality guide-
lines, Environment Canada, Marine environmental quality series
No 1. Ottawa, Ontario
MacDonald DD, Carr RS, Calder FD, Long ER, Ingersoll CG (1996)
Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment
quality guidelines for Florida coastal waters. Ecotoxicology
5:253278
MacDonald DD, Ingersoll CG, Berger TA (2000) Development and
evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for
freshwater ecosystems. Arch Environ Contam Toxicol 39:20
31
MacDonald DD, Ingersoll CG, Smorong DE, Lindskoog RA, Sloane
G, Biernacki T (2003) Development and evaluation of numerical
sediment quality assessment guidelines for Florida inland waters.
Florida Department of Environmental Protection, Florida
Neff JM, Bean DJ, Cornaby BW, Vaga RM, Gulbransen TC, Scanlon
JA (1986) Sediment quality criteria methodology validation:
calculation of screening level concentrations from field data.
Battelle Washington Environmental Program Office for U.S.
EPA, 60 p
Persaud D, Jaagumagi R, Hayton A (1992) Guidelines for the
protection and management of aquatic sediment quality in
Ontario. Toronto (ON): Ontario Ministry of the Environment,
Water Resources Branch, 27 p
Preston BL (2002) Indirect effects in aquatic ecotoxicology:
implications for ecological risk assessment. Environ Manage
29:311323
517
Salomons W, Brils J (eds) (2004) Contaminated sediments in
European River Basins. SedNet final summary report, 80 pp
Schfer RB, Caquet T, Siimes K, Mueller R, Lagadic L, Liess M (2007)
Effects of pesticides on community structure and ecosystem
functions in agricultural streams of three biogeographical regions
in Europe. Sci Total Environ 382:272285
Shine JP, Trapp CJ, Coull BA (2003) Use of receiver operating
characteristic curves to evaluate sediment quality guidelines for
metals. Environ Toxicol Chem 22:16421648
Smith SL, MacDonald DD, Keenleyside KA, Gaudet CL (1996) The
Development and implementation of Canadian sediment quality
guidelines. In: Munawar M, Dave G (eds) Development and
progress in sediment quality assessment. rationale, challenges,
techniques and strategies. Ecovision world monograph series.
SPB Academic, Amsterdam, pp 233249
Swartz RC (1999) Consensus sediment quality guidelines for
polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon mixtures. Environ Toxicol
Chem 18:780787
Teuchies J, Bervoets L, Meynendonckx J, Meire P, de Deckere E
(2011) The effect of waste water treatment on river metal
concentrations: removal or enrichment. J Soils Sediments.
doi:10.1007/s11368-010-0321-4
Vangheluwe ML, Janssen CR and Van Sprang PA (2000) Selection of
bioassays for sediment toxicity screening. In: Persoone G,
Janssen C, De Coen W (eds) New microbiotests for routine
toxicity screening and biomonitoring. Kluwer/Plenum
Vidal DE, Bay SM (2005) Comparative sediment quality guideline
performance for predicting sediment toxicity in Southern
California, USA. Environ Toxicol Chem 24:31733182
Von der Ohe PC, Pr A, Schfer RB, Liess M, de Deckere E, Brack
W (2007) Water quality indices across Europea comparison of
the good ecological status of five river basins. J Environ Monit
9:970978
von der Ohe PC, de Deckere E, Muoz I, Wolfram G, Villagrasa M,
Ginebreda A, Pr A, Brack W (2009) Towards an integrated
and integrative European risk assessment. Integr Environ Assess
Manage 5:5061
Washington Department of Ecology (2002) Development of freshwa-
ter sediment quality values or use in Washington State. Phase I
Task 6: final report. Washington Department of Ecology
Sediment Management Unit, pp 67
Copyright of Journal of Soils & Sediments: Protection, Risk Assessment, & Remediation is the property of
Springer Science & Business Media B.V. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or
posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print,
download, or email articles for individual use.