Human Health Benefits from Fish Consumption vs. Risks from Inhalation Exposures Associated with Contaminated Sediment Remediation: Dredging of the Hudson River

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Billions of dollars are spent on environmental dredging (ED) to remediate contaminated sediments, with one goal being reduced human health risks. However, ED may increase health risks in unanticipated ways, thus potentially reducing net benefits. OBJECTIVES: To assess the ways that ED may increase health risks in unanticipated ways, thus potentially reducing net benefits, we quantitatively assessed a subset of population health benefits and risks of ED, using the 2009-2015 remediation of the Hudson River Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) Superfund Site as a case study. Three remediation scenarios were evaluated: No Action (NA), Source Control (SC), and ED. METHODS: We quantified health benefits for each scenario from reduced PCB levels in Hudson River fish, and health risks from ED operations due to increased inhalation exposures to PCBs and fine particulate matter (PM 2:5), using disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) as a common metric. Occupational health risks were also considered in a separate sensitivity analysis. Estimates of population-level benefits and risks included Monte Carlo simulation-based uncertainty analysis. RESULTS: Under NA, fish consumption would result in an estimated health burden of 112 DALYs, and ED would lead to a reduction of 15 DALYs in excess of SC. ED operations were estimated to induce a total burden of 33 DALYs, dominated by PM 2:5 impacts from rail transport emissions (32 DALYs). Including uncertainty, the net health benefit of ED ranged from-138 to + 1,326 avoided DALYs (90% confidence), with a median of-11 avoided DALYs. CONCLUSIONS: For the considered impacts, ED in the Hudson River might not have led to an overall net positive human health impact. The benefits and risks of ED, however, have different degrees of uncertainty and involve different populations. Reducing long-distance transport of dredged sediment is a priority. This comparative approach could be used prospectively to better determine trade-offs involved in different remediation scenarios and to improve remediation design to maximize benefits while minimizing risks.

Passive Sampling-Based versus Conventional-Based Metrics for Evaluating Remediation Efficacy at Contaminated Sediment Sites: A Review

“…In general, the goal of remediation is to reduce the ecological and human health risks associated with contaminated sediment sites . While the ecological risk driver usually revolves around toxicity to benthic and water column organisms at the site, the human health end point is frequently associated with the concern of consumption of fish and shellfish that have bioaccumulated contaminants at the site. , Regardless of the specific remediation method or risk driver, post-remediation monitoring is often performed to evaluate remediation effectiveness. Common conventional metrics used for monitoring include (i) measuring contaminant concentrations in the water column, sediments and porewaters, (ii) quantifying sediment and water column toxicity or benthic habitat impacts, and (iii) determining contaminant fluxes between environmental media (e.g., sediment to water, water to air). − In addition, monitoring can include the use of biomonitoring organisms to provide a bioaccumulation end point to assess remedial effectiveness. , Biomonitoring can be challenging if organisms are not available for deployment or site conditions are stressful to the organisms.…”

High‐throughput metabolomics method based on liquid chromatography‐mass spectrometry: Insights into the underlying mechanisms of salinity–alkalinity exposure‐induced metabolites changes in Barbus capito

“…It is well known that aquatic fish confront some exposures changes of the surrounding environment [1–4]. Salinity and alkalinity are closely associated with the toxicant outcome of aquatic animals [5, 6].…”

Dredging Contaminated Sediments: Is it Worth the Risks?

“…Recognizing the need to better determine trade‐offs of dredging, we developed a framework for quantitative, comparative risk analysis to assess human health benefits and risks of remediation alternatives. We demonstrated this framework focusing on one of the largest remediation projects in United States history: the 2009 to 2015 remediation of the Hudson River Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) Superfund Site in New York (Kvasnicka et al 2019). In brief, we evaluated 3 remediation scenarios: no remediation, upstream source control, and dredging.…”

“…Given the findings from our specific case study (Kvasnicka et al 2019), we can provide the following general recommendations for other sites: 1) Similar comparative risk analyses should be conducted on other data‐rich Superfund sites. This would enable our findings to be further evaluated, potentially allowing for stronger frameworks for comparative risk analysis and decision‐making.…”