1 / 46

DOMESTIC PETS AS BIOSAMPLERS OF MINING-RELATED CONTAMINANTS

DOMESTIC PETS AS BIOSAMPLERS OF MINING-RELATED CONTAMINANTS. Stacie Barry. Presentation Overview. Introduction Background Results and Discussion General Statistics Risk Analysis Identification of Pets of Concern and Elements of Concern Probability Distribution Analysis Spatial Analysis

boris
Download Presentation

DOMESTIC PETS AS BIOSAMPLERS OF MINING-RELATED CONTAMINANTS

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. DOMESTIC PETS AS BIOSAMPLERS OF MINING-RELATED CONTAMINANTS Stacie Barry

  2. Presentation Overview • Introduction • Background • Results and Discussion • General Statistics • Risk Analysis • Identification of Pets of Concern and Elements of Concern • Probability Distribution Analysis • Spatial Analysis • Remediation Investigation • Summary • Questions

  3. Introduction • Overall goal • Improve the understanding of chronic exposure to mining-related contaminants in the environment • Overall objectives • Sample additional dogs in Butte and Anaconda • Analyze the data and investigate probability and spatial distributions; • Apply the biomonitoring method to document efficacy of localized remediation efforts.

  4. Practical Questions • Are levels of toxic elements in Butte dogs higher than reference levels? • Are the levels of toxic elements in dogs living inside the Butte Priority Soils Operable Unit (BPSOU) higher than elsewhere in the community? • Are there areas, or hotspots, where exposures are highest? • If yards or homes are remediated, what is the effect on the biosamplers?

  5. Background • Mining Activity • 1870s – Start of mining activity • 1890s- 113 million concentrated pounds copper per year • Heap roasting employed in the initial stages of smelting. • Mines, mills, smelters, and concentrators created metal-bearing tailings and waste piles • 1900 – Washoe Smelter • 1880-1980 – Over 500 mines • 1955-1982 – Berkeley Pit

  6. Environmental Impact • Silver Bow Creek Superfund Site • Designation in 1983 and 1987 • Operable units: • Butte Priority Soils Operable Unit (BPSOU) • West Side Soils • Active Mining Area • Streamside Tailings • Rocker Timber Framing and Treating • Warm Springs Ponds • Contaminants of concern: • Arsenic, cadmium, copper, iron, lead, manganese, mercury, sulfate, and zinc. • BPSOU database • Concentrations of arsenic, cadmium, copper, lead, and zinc • Approximately 2,700 soil samples collected in the Butte area.

  7. Sentinel Species • Animal testing is often the basis for toxicity information in humans. • Sentinel species: • Animals tested to assess the extent of contamination in the environment and provide information regarding human health effects as a result of exposure to the same environment. • Use of dogs • Exposure to the same soil, sediments, water, air, and house dust as their human counterparts.

  8. Hair Sampling and Risk Analysis • Hair samples with subsequent analysis using Inductively Coupled Plasma – Mass Spectrometry (ICP-MS) • Simple • Non-invasive • Indicate chronic environmental exposure • Madden risk analysis method of hazard quotients and hazard indices for: • Pets of Concern • Elements of Concern • Based on Reference Concentrations

  9. Reference Concentration and Range • Element concentration: • Reported in units of milligram percent (milligrams of the element per 100 grams of hair), one milligram percent (mg %) = ten parts per million (ppm). • Reference concentrations and ranges: • Represent the level of the element seen in healthy dogs, based on a major study of all common breeds. • Toxic elements, such as arsenic, are examined with respect to a specific reference concentration, while nutritional elements, such as calcium, are compared to a reference range. This range, comprised of a lower reference limit and an upper reference limit, represents the zone of element concentrations seen in a healthy dog. • The RfC for arsenic, for example, is 0.02 mg % • Acceptable RfC range for calcium is 41-129 mg %.

  10. Hazard Index • To determine if the metals concentration is a hazard to the health of the animal, the method used in Risk Assessment to determine a Hazard Quotient (HQ)was used: • Ci represents the concentration of pollutant i. • RfCi represents the reference concentration for pollutant i. • Concentrations below the RfC threshold should result in no adverse health effects, so the target HQ is less than 1.0 for a single pollutant. • The Hazard Index is equal to the sum of the Hazard Quotients: • Where where N is the total number of pollutants. • This approach assumes that health effects are additive from exposure to multiple pollutants at once.

  11. Hazard Index (cont’) To arrive at indices that were not dependent on the same number of elements in the lab report nor the same number of pets in the study, Madden normalized hazard values by the number of elements and pets as follows: and where the target value was 1.0 for both HIj and HIi. Pets with HIj values greater than or equal to 1.0 were defined as pets of concern (POCs), and elements with HIi values greater than or equal to 1.0 were defined as elements of concern (EOCs).

  12. Methods • 200 samples in Butte and Anaconda • Variety of ages, breeds, and socio-economic areas. • Sampling Procedure: • 150 mg of hair between shoulder and neck • Questionnaire • Specimens sent to Trace Elements Laboratory • GIS mapping • Rfc concentrations statistics • HQ and HI for pets and elements • Kolmogorov-Smirnov test (KS test) for pets inside and outside BPSOU • Remediation investigation • Four dogs at houses undergoing remediation followed for five months • One control dog at a house not undergoing remediation followed for same time period.

  13. Table 4- 1. Summary of Information for Pets in the 2005 Hair Sampling Campaign Results and Discussion • Reference Concentration Statistics: • Wide variation in concentration range for many elements • Great variation in % samples over Rfc • Arsenic over Rfc in 72.6% of samples • Mercury, tungsten, and platinum are not observed over Rfc.

  14. Percent of samples where the concentration exceeded the reference level. Ratio of the maximum concentration to the reference concentration.

  15. Group N Range (mg %) AVERAGE & MEDIAN (MG %) Standard Deviation (MG %) ≥ RfC (%) Pets residing in Butte 180 0.006-0.272 0.043 & 0.030 0.042 71.7 Pets residing in Anaconda and Opportunity 15 0.017-0.217 0.077 & 0.048 0.062 93.3 Pets residing in Deer Lodge and Whitehall 2 0.012-0.015 0.0135 & 0.0135 0.002 0.0 Male pets 116 0.006-0.272 0.044 & 0.032 0.045 72.1 Female pets 81 0.007-0.270 0.046 & 0.034 0.044 72.8 Pets residing within the BPSOU 94 0.006 – 0.272 0.049 & 0.032 0.051 78.7 Pets residing outside of the BPSOU 84 0.008 – 0.210 0.038 & 0.030 0.035 64.3 Arsenic Statistics

  16. Pet of Concern = Pet with a Hazard Index greater than 1 Thirty-six Pets of Concern 30 reside in Butte 26 reside inside the BPSOU Identification of Pets of Concern

  17. Hazard Index Charts

  18. Identification of Elements of Concern • Eight elements are identified as elements of concern (EOCs), based on element hazard indices (HIi) of 1.0 or greater: • Aluminum = 1.15 • Arsenic = 2.24 • Boron =2.16 • Lead =1.38 • Lithium =1.04 • Manganese =2.24 • Molybdenum =1.03 • Selenium =1.29

  19. Probability Distribution Analysis • The Kolmolgorov – Smirnov (KS) Test • Goodness of Fit Test • Determines if two datasets belong to the same population • Non-parametric • Does not assume a specific distribution of data • Null hypothesis is that there is “no difference” between the probability distributions of the datasets • Two statistics are considered: • D-value, representing the maximum difference between the cumulative distributions; • p-value, used to reject or accept the null hypothesis. • Null hypothesis is rejected if the p-value is small, approaching 0.000, and accepted if the p-value is large, approaching 1.000

  20. D value p value

  21. KS Test Results • Highest D statistics and the lowest p-values, indicating a difference inside and outside the BPSOU : • Manganese and lead • Lowest D statistics and highest p-values, indicating no difference inside and outside the BPSOU : • Copper, zinc, and phosphorous • Of the eight elements of concern • Manganese and lead greatest difference between inside and outside the BPSOU • Selenium and molybdenum show the least difference.

  22. Spatial Distribution Analysis • Geographical Information System (GIS) program • Developed from State of Montana, DNRC, Montana Bureau of Mines and Geology, Butte Silver Bow GIS Department and Butte Archives sources. • Maps of residence locations for pets with HQ values greater than 1.0 for the eight EOCs: • Arsenic • Aluminum • Boron • Lead • Lithium • Manganese • Molybdenum • Selenium

  23. Aluminum

  24. Boron

  25. Lead

  26. Lithium

  27. Manganese

  28. Molybdenum

  29. Selenium

  30. Remediation Investigation • Five dogs for five months • 1 control dog, Luna • 4 dogs at houses undergoing remediation • Attic Dust Remediation : Trip • Yard Remediation: • Sweetie • Max • Teddy • Investigated elements identified by KS test as significantly different inside and outside the BPSOU: • Aluminum • Arsenic • Lead • Lithium • Manganese

  31. Summary • Thirty-six pets (POCs) • 30 resided in Butte • 26 lived inside the BPSOU • Eight elements were identified as elements of concern (EOCs): aluminum, arsenic, boron, lead, lithium, manganese, molybdenum, and selenium. • Arsenic was above the Rfc concentration in 72.6 % of samples • Inside BPSOU: 78.7% • Butte Outside BPSOU 64.3% • Anaconda: 93.3% • KS Test showed differences in:aluminum, arsenic, lead, lithium, and manganese inside and outside BPSOU • Remediation study • Control dog remained constant • Dog with attic dust remediation showed large reduction • Dogs with yard remediation had variations in reductions and increases

  32. Recommendations • Expansion of the biosampling project • Follow areas, houses, and particular pets over time • Follow more remediation houses for several years to account for seasonal variations • Environmental sampling at houses with POCs and arsenic over Rfc • Epidemiological study of houses with POCs and arsenic over Rfc • Large scale epidemiological study of Butte and Anaconda • Cancer • Neurological • Respiratory • Cardiovascular • Developmental • Secondary causes of death • Correlation to environmental history and reclamation efforts.

  33. Thank You • Dr. Holly Peterson • Mine Waste Technology Program • Tina (and Lucy) Donovan • Mark Peterson • EPA • Diana Bless • MSE-TA • Jay Cornish • Michelle Lee • Helen Joyce • Environmental Engineering Department • Jeanne Larson • Dr. Kumar Ganesan • Melody Madden • Trisha Robertson • Peretti Veterinary Clinic • Anaconda Veterinary Clinic • Butte Spay and Neuter Task Force • Butte GIS Department • Friends and Family

  34. Questions?

More Related