Contrasting time trends of organic contaminants in Antarctic pelagic and benthic food webs.
ABSTRACT We demonstrate that pelagic Antarctic seabirds show significant decreases in concentrations of some persistent organic pollutants. Trends in Adélie penguins and Southern fulmars fit in a general pattern revealed by a broad literature review. Downward trends are also visible in pelagic fish, contrasting sharply with steady or increasing concentrations in Antarctic benthic organisms. Transfer of contaminants between Antarctic pelagic and benthic food webs is associated with seasonal sea-ice dynamics which may influence the balance between the final receptors of contaminants under different climatic conditions. This complicates the predictability of future trends of emerging compounds in the Antarctic ecosystem, such as of the brominated compounds that we detected in Antarctic petrels. The discrepancy in trends between pelagic and benthic organisms shows that Antarctic biota are still final receptors of globally released organic contaminants and it remains questionable whether the total environmental burden of contaminants in the Antarctic ecosystem is declining.
SourceAvailable from: Marc P Eléaume[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: The concentrations of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB), hexachlorobenzene (HCB), pentachlorobenzene (PeCB) and polybrominated diphenylethers (PBDE) were described in benthic and pelagic species collected off Adélie Land, Antarctica. Strong differences were observed among species, with reduced PeCB and HCB levels in benthic species, and elevated PCB levels in the Antarctic yellowbelly rockcod, the Antarctic sea urchin and the snow petrel. Lower-chlorinated congeners were predominant in krill; penta-PCBs in benthic organisms; hexa- and hepta-PCBs in seabirds and cryopelagic fish. This segregation may result from sedimentation process, specific accumulation and excretion, and/or biotransformation processes. The presence of PBDEs in Antarctic coastal organisms may originate from atmospheric transport and partly from a contamination by local sources. Although POP levels in Antarctic marine organisms were substantially lower than in Arctic and temperate organisms, very little is known about their toxic effects on these cold-adapted species, with high degree of endemism.Marine Pollution Bulletin 11/2013; 77(1-2). DOI:10.1016/j.marpolbul.2013.10.027 · 2.79 Impact Factor
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: In the present work, persistent organic pollutants (POPs), such as polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT) and metabolites, polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs), and hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH) were analyzed in three Antarctic notothenioids fish species: Trematomus newnesi (TRN), Notothenia coriiceps (NOC) and Notothenia rossii (NOR). The contribution of each POP-family to the total load was as follows: ΣPCB (40%)>ΣDDT (27%)>ΣPBDEs (23%)>ΣHCH (10%). Among the 23 PCB congeners analyzed, penta-CBs homologues were the prevalent group, followed by hexa-CBs and hepta-CBs. DDT and its metabolites presented the following trend: p,p'-DDT>p,p'-DDE~p,p'-DDD. PBDE profile was dominated by BDE-47 and BDE-99 congeners, followed by BDE-100>BDE-28>BDE-154, BDE-153. Among HCHs, the γ-HCH isomer was detected in all samples, constituting 69% total HCH load, while α-HCH and β-HCH contributions were 15% and 16%, respectively. The levels of POPs reported here suggest that NOR and NOC are more susceptible to accumulate the analyzed contaminants than TRN, a species not previously analyzed for POPs. Distribution of POPs among different tissues of the three species (muscle, liver, gonads, and gills) was also investigated. Considering lipid weight, the general pattern of POPs distribution in tissues indicated that while gonads showed higher levels of PCBs, DDTs and HCH, the most significant PBDE concentrations were recorded in gills. Also, a comparative analysis of POPs concentration in fish samples from Antarctic area was included.Science of The Total Environment 08/2014; 499C:89-98. DOI:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2014.08.033 · 3.16 Impact Factor
Science 05/2013; 340(6132):556-8. DOI:10.1126/science.1235197 · 31.48 Impact Factor