You are here:
Contaminants of Emerging Concern in the Great Lakes
Citation:
Villeneuve, Dan, S. Corsi, C. Custer, W. Johnson, S. Hummel, H. Schoenfuss, E. Perkins, AND S. Zack. Contaminants of Emerging Concern in the Great Lakes. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, EPA/600/R-22/057, 2022. https://doi.org/10.23645/epacomptox.21044455
Impact/Purpose:
Under the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative, Action Plan I (2010-2014), Focus area 1 (Toxic Substances and Areas of Concern), goal 5 was to – protect the health and integrity of wildlife populations and habitat from adverse chemical and biological effects associated with the presence of toxic substances in the Great Lakes Basin. One of the major aims under goal 5 was to better understand the prevalence of contaminants of emerging concern (CECs) in the Great Lakes Basin, and the threats they may pose to wildlife. The research employed a combination of chemical and biological effects monitoring employing in vitro assays, caged organisms exposed in situ, and resident wildlife collections. This report summarizes key findings and major conclusions from a five year interagency research effort and provides details on where the public can access the underlying technical publications and datasets.
Description:
Under Action Plan II (2015-2019) of the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative (GLRI), Federal and Academicpartners continued an investigation that began under Action Plan I (2010-2014) into the presence anddistribution of contaminants of emerging concern (CECs) in the Great Lakes, and their potential impactson fish and wildlife. The term CECs is applied to a broad range of chemicals that are currently present inthe environment due to their historical or ongoing use. Data are currently lacking to determine whether fish,wildlife, or humans are being exposed to CECs or if negative health or environmental effects are expectedif exposure to CECs occurs. Pharmaceuticals, personal care products, flame retardants, some current-usepesticides, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, and poly- and perfluorinated chemicals are often identified asCECs, but currently there is no definitive or comprehensive list. This progress report seeks to provide an update on the results of the activities undertaken in the 2016 fieldseason (and other completed work to-date), which built on the results of the Phase I work conducted underGLRI Action Plan I. Specifically, Phase I was focused on the development of methods and gathering of CECdata to guide the design and help achieve the objectives of Phase II. The activities presented in this reportcontributed towards fulfilling the GLRI Action Plan II Objective 1.2.2: Identify emerging contaminants andassess impacts on Great Lakes fish and wildlife. Three specific goals were further developed from Objective1.2.2: 1. Characterize and evaluate the extent to which CECs might threaten fish and wildlife populationsrelative to other chemical stressors present in the Great Lakes. 2. Pilot and develop state-of-the-art surveillance techniques for biological effects from CECs in theGreat Lakes basin. 3. Develop information and tools for resource managers to better manage and address potential CECthreats to fish and wildlife populations. A three-pronged approach was used to implement these goals which included: 1. Implementing a surveillance program to determine which CECs occurred with the greatestfrequency and abundance across the Great Lakes basin to identify seasonal and spatial patterns ofoccurrence. 2. Conducting Integrated Assessment Case Studies (IACS) focusing on a particular waterbody and/or suite of CECs and conducting an analysis of the effects of CECs on organisms. The 2016 IACSfocused on pesticides in the Maumee River, Ohio. 3. Evaluating the toxicity of priority contaminant mixtures (determined by the work conducted inPhase I) on fish and native mussels in a laboratory setting.
