Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme (AMAP)
AMAP Assessment 2002:
Persistent Organic Pollutants in the Arctic
Assessment 2002: The Influence of Global Change on Contaminant Pathways to, within, and from the Arctic AMAP
ISBN 82-7971-020-5
Barrow Kasegaluk Lagoon
Dunai Inuvik
Kittigazuit LORAN
Holman
Iqaluit
Resolution Island
Pangnirtung
Saglek Bay Sanikiluaq
St. George
Bogoslof Island
Pribilof Islands
Wrangel Island CHUKOTKA
Reykjavik
Jan Mayen
Bjørnøya Spitsbergen
Svalbard Novaya Zemlya Severnaya
Zemlya New Siberian
Islands
Franz Josef Baffin Land
Island
Amderma Salekhard Norilsk Khatanga Lavrentiya
Kanchalan
Dudinka Yenisey
Pechora Lena
Ob Great
Slave Lake
Murmansk Hammerfest
Vestertana Fjord Honningsvåg
Harstad Tromsø
Guba Pechenga
Pallas
Guba Zapadnaya Litsa Ny-Ålesund
Barentsberg
Lapland Arkhangelsk
Stockholm Helsinki
Oslo Tórshavn
St. Petersburg Moscow
Chernobyl Kola
Peninsula Taymir Peninsula
Nuuk Victoria Island
Admiralty Bay
Longyearbyen/
Adventfjorden Grønfjorden
Billefjorden Lomonosovfonna Kongsfjorden
Lomfjorden Erik Eriksen Strait Ellesmere Island
Davis Strait Foxe Basin
Norwegian Sea Greenland
Sea Labrador
Sea
Fram Strait
Denmark Strait
Chukchi Sea Bering
Strait
East Siberian
Sea Gulf of
Alaska Prince William Sound
Kara Sea
Pechora Sea Laptev
Sea Amundsen Gulf
Hudson Strait
North Sea
Skagerrak
White Sea
Baffin Bay Hudson Bay
Barents Sea Beaufort Sea
Bering Sea Okhotsk Sea
A r c t i c O c e a n
A t l a n t i c O c e a n C A N A D A
N U N A V U T N O R T H W E S T T E R R I T O R I E S
( N W T ) Y U K O N
L A B R A D O R Q U E B E C
U S A A l a s k a
G R E E N L A N D
D E N M A R K I C E L A N D
F A R O E I S L A N D S
F I N L A N D
S W E D E N N O R W A Y
R U S S I A
A
leut
Mackenzie River
Yukon River
Churchill
Fairbanks Anchorage
CanadianArcticArchipelago
Canada Basin
Makarov Basin
Amundsen Basin
Nansen Basin Lomonosov Ridge
Nansen-Gakkel Ridge Ca
na di a
n Ba
si n
Severnaya Dvina S
I B
E R
I A
U R
A L S W
EST
E R
N A
R C
T I
C E
A S
T
E
R
N
A
R
CTI
C
Alert Ikaluktutiak
Ikpiarjuk Ausuittuq
Agassiz Ice Cap Tagish
Alpha- MendeleevRidge
E urasian
Bas in Ath
ab asca
River
nd ou etsacnaLSr Pea
ceR ive
r
Slave R.
Cumberland Sound
Prince Leopold Island
Thule Air Base
Stórhöfdi
0 – 500
– 2000 50 100 200 300 500 1000 1500 2000 3000 4000 m
AMAP Assessment 2002:
Persistent Organic Pollutants in the Arctic
Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme (AMAP), Oslo, 2004
ISBN 82-7971-019-1
© Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme, 2004 Published by
Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme (AMAP), P.O. Box 8100 Dep, N-0032 Oslo, Norway (www.amap.no) Citation
AMAP, 2004. AMAP Assessment 2002: Persistent Organic Pollutants in the Arctic.
Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme (AMAP), Oslo, Norway. xvi +310 pp.
Ordering
AMAP Secretariat, P.O. Box 8100 Dep, N-0032 Oslo, Norway
This report is also published as an electronic document, available from the AMAP website at www.amap.no
–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
Production
Overall volume editors / scientific, technical, and linguistic editing Simon J. Wilson, Glen Packman
Lay-out and technical production management
Olsen & Olsen, Helstedsvej 10, DK-3480 Fredensborg, Denmark Design and production of computer graphics
Kai Olsen, Olsen & Olsen Cover photo
BBC Worldwide Ltd.
Printing and binding
Nørhaven Book, Agerlandsvej 5, DK-8800 Viborg, Denmark
–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
AMAP Working Group:
Helgi Jensson (Chair, Iceland), Yuri Tsaturov (Vice-chair, Russia), David Stone (Canada), Ole Jensen (Denmark), Outi Mähönen (Finland), Gun- nar Futsæter (Norway), Cynthia de Wit (Sweden), John Calder (USA), Jan-Idar Solbakken (Permanent Participants of the indigenous peoples organisations).
AMAP Secretariat:
Lars-Otto Reiersen, Vitaly Kimstach, Simon Wilson, Inger Utne.
Indigenous peoples organizations, AMAP observing countries, and international organizations:
Aleut International Association (AIA), Arctic Athabaskan Council (AAC), Gwitch’in Council International (GCI), Inuit Circumpolar Conference (ICC), Russian Association of Indigenous Peoples of the North (RAIPON), Saami Council.
France, Germany, Netherlands, Poland, United Kingdom.
Advisory Committee on Protection of the Sea (ACOPS), Association of World Reindeer Herders (AWRH), Circumpolar Conservation Union (CCU), European Environment Agency (EEA), International Arctic Science Committee (IASC), International Arctic Social Sciences Association (IASSA), International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES), International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies (IFFCRCS), International Union for Circumpolar Health (IUCH), International Union for the Conserva- tion of Nature (IUCN), International Union of Radioecology (IUR), Nordic Council of Ministers (NCM), Nordic Council of Parliamentarians (NCP), North Atlantic Marine Mammal Commission (NAMMCO), Northern Forum (NF), OECD Nuclear Energy Agency (OECD/NEA), Oslo and Paris Commissions (OSPARCOM), Standing Committee of Arctic Parliamentarians (SCAP), United Nations Economic Commission for Eu- rope (UN ECE), United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), World Health Organization (WHO), World Meteorological Organization (WMO), World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF).
AMAP data centers:
International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES), Norwegian Institute for Air Research (NILU), Norwegian Radiation Protection Au- thority (NRPA), University of Alaska – Fairbanks (UAF).
AMAP Assessment 2002: Persistent Organic Pollutants in the Arctic
–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
Preface . . . vii
Acknowledgements. . . viii
Executive Summary to the AMAPArctic Pollution 2002 Ministerial Report. . . . xi
Chapter 1 ·Introduction . . . 1
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– 1.1.Physical and chemical characteristics of POPs . . . 2
1.1.1. Industrial products and by-products . . . 2
PCBs . . . . 2
Hexachlorobenzene (HCB) and other chlorinated benzenes . . . . 2
Polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins and dibenzofurans (PCDD/Fs). . . 2
Polychlorinated naphthalenes (PCNs) . . . . 2
PAHs. . . . 3
Octachlorostyrene (OCS). . . . 3
1.1.2. Chlorinated pesticides . . . . 3
1.1.2.1. Persistent pesticides . . . . 3
DDT, chlordane, heptachlor, dieldrin, aldrin, endrin, mirex . . . 3
Toxaphene. . . . 3
1.1.2.2. Less persistent chlorinated pesticides . . . . . 3
Hexachlorocyclohexanes (HCH). . . . 3
Endosulfan. . . . 3
1.1.3. Other pesticides. . . . 3
1.1.3.1. Organotins including tributyltin (TBT) . . . 3
1.1.4. ‘New’ chemicals with POPs characteristics . . . . 4
Short-chain chlorinated paraffins (SCCPs)/ C10- C13polychlorinated alkanes. . . 4
Medium-chain chlorinated paraffins (MCCPs). . . 4
Tetra- and pentabrominated diphenyl ethers (TeBDE, PeBDE) . . . 4
Decabrominated diphenyl ether (DeBDE). . . 4
Other brominated flame retardants. . . 4
Perfluoroalkylsulfonates and perfluoroalkanoic acids (PFAs). . . 4
Chapter 2 ·Sources and Pathways of Persistent Organic Pollutants. . . . 5
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– 2.1.Pathways. . . . 5
2.1.1. Atmospheric transport and deposition of POPs. . . . 6
2.1.1.1. Meteorological conditions . . . . 6
2.1.1.2. Light conditions . . . . 6
2.1.1.3. Precipitation inputs of POPs . . . . 6
2.1.1.4. Sea–air gas exchange . . . . 7
2.1.2. Ocean transport . . . . 7
2.1.3. Riverine inputs and sea-ice transport. . . . 7
2.1.4. Biotic transport . . . . 7
2.2. Modeling transport and distribution of POPs in the Arctic . . . 8
2.2.1. Global fractionation . . . . 8
2.2.2. Global transport modeling . . . . 9
2.2.2.1. Global scale box models . . . . 9
2.2.2.2. Three-dimensional global atmospheric transport models . . . . 9
2.3. Global and circumpolar sources of POPs including emission inventories. . . . 9
2.3.1. Historical and current uses . . . . 9
PCBs . . . 11
Technical HCH and lindane. . . 12
DDT . . . 13
Polychlorobornanes and polychlorinated camphenes (toxaphene). . . 14
Diene-organochlorine insecticides . . . 14
Chlordane. . . 14
Aldrin, dieldrin, endrin, and heptachlor. . . 14
Endosulfan. . . 14
Butyltins. . . 14
HCB and pentachlorobenzene (PnCBz). . . 15
OCS. . . 15
PCDD/Fs. . . 15
PAHs. . . 15
PCNs. . . 16
SCCPs . . . 16
MCCPs. . . 16
TeBDE and PeBDE. . . 16
OcBDE and DeBDE. . . 16
Other brominated flame retardants. . . 16
Perfluoroalkyl sulfonates. . . 17
Perfluoroalkanoic acids. . . 17
2.3.2. Local/regional sources within the Arctic . . . 17
Svalbard. . . 17
Coastal Norway and western Russia. . . 17
Jan Mayen. . . 18
Greenland. . . 18
Canada. . . 18
Alaska . . . 20
Chapter 3 ·Toxicology. . . . 21
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– 3.1.Toxicokinetics . . . 21
3.1.1. Distribution . . . 21
3.1.2. Metabolism and elimination . . . 21
3.2.Types of effects. . . 23
3.2.1. Reproduction and development . . . 23
3.2.2. Cytochrome P450 system and other xenobiotic metabolizing enzyme systems 24 3.2.3. Immunological effects . . . 25
3.2.4. Thyroid and retinol effects . . . 25
3.2.5. Mutagenic and carcinogenic effects . . . 26
3.2.6. Effects of mixtures . . . 26
3.3.Effects of specific POPs. . . 26
3.3.1. Halogenated industrial chemicals and by-products . 28 3.3.1.1. Update on PCDDs, PCDFs, and PCBs, including PCB metabolites . . . 28
Reproductive and developmental effects. 28 Cytochrome P450-dependent monooxygenases. . . 29
Immunosuppression. . . 29
Thyroid and retinol effects . . . 30
Cancer . . . 31
3.3.1.2. SCCPs/C10-C13polychlorinated n-alkanes . . 31
Reproductive and developmental effects. 31 Neurological effects. . . 32
Cytochrome P450-dependent monooxygenases . . . 32
Immunosuppression. . . 32
Thyroid effects . . . 32
Cancer. . . 32
3.3.1.3. PCNs . . . 32
Reproductive and developmental effects. 32 Cytochrome P450-dependent monooxygenases . . . 33
3.3.1.4. OCS . . . 33
Reproductive and developmental effects. 33 Cytochrome P450-dependent monooxygenases . . . 33
Thyroid and retinol effects . . . 33
3.3.1.5. Update on PBDEs . . . 33
Contents
–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
3.3.1.5. Update on PBDEs . . . 33
Reproductive and developmental effects. 33 Cytochrome P450-dependent monooxygenases . . . 34
Immunosuppression . . . 34
Thyroid and retinol effects . . . 34
Cancer. . . 35
3.3.1.6. PFOS and PFOA . . . 35
Reproductive and developmental effects. 35 Cancer. . . 35
3.3.2. Persistent organic pesticides . . . 35
3.3.2.1. Update on toxaphene . . . 35
Reproductive and developmental effects. 35 Cytochrome P450-dependent monooxygenases . . . 36
Immunosuppression . . . 36
Thyroid and retinol effects . . . 36
Cancer. . . 36
3.3.3. Other pesticides. . . 36
3.3.3.1. TBT and its metabolites (DBT, MBT). . . 36
Reproductive and developmental effects. 37 Cytochrome P450-dependent monooxygenases . . . 37
Immunosuppression . . . 38
Cancer. . . 38
Chapter 4 ·Regional and Circumpolar Levels and Trends in Abiotic and Biotic Media 39 ––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– 4.1.Atmospheric environment. . . 39
4.1.1. Air. . . 39
4.1.1.1. Introduction. . . 39
4.1.2. Air concentrations – spatial trends . . . 40
4.1.2.1. OC pesticides . . . 40
4.1.2.2. PCBs . . . 41
4.1.2.3. PCDD/Fs . . . 41
4.1.2.4. PAHs . . . 42
4.1.2.5. ‘New chemicals in the Arctic atmosphere . 43 4.1.2.5.1. Current-use pesticides and chlorinated by-products . . . 43
4.1.2.5.2. PCNs and coplanar PCBs . . . 43
4.1.2.5.3. PBDEs . . . 44
4.1.2.5.4. SCCPs . . . 45
4.1.3. Air and fog water measurements at Bjørnøya . . . 45
4.1.4. Passive sampler measurements . . . 46
4.1.5. Precipitation . . . 46
4.1.5.1. Background . . . 46
4.1.5.2. Wet deposition. . . 47
4.1.5.3. Fluxes of POPs in surface snow . . . 48
PAHs. . . 49
4.1.5.4. ‘New’ chemicals in snow and ice . . . 49
4.1.5.5. Snow and rain deposition at Bjørnøya . 49 4.1.6. Summary and conclusions – air and precipitation . . 50
4.2.Terrestrial environment. . . 52
4.2.1. Soils and plants . . . 52
4.2.1.1. PCBs and OC pesticides in vegetation . . . . 52
4.2.1.2. PCDD/Fs in tree bark . . . 54
4.2.1.3. OC pesticides and PCBs in soils . . . 54
Arctic soils in a global survey. . . 54
Russian and Alaskan soils. . . 54
4.2.1.4. PCDD/Fs in Arctic soils . . . 55
4.2.1.5. Simulation of the global fate of PCBs in soils 55 4.2.2. Terrestrial herbivores . . . 56
Russian terrestrial herbivores. . . 56
Greenland terrestrial herbivores. . . 57
Faroe Islands herbivores. . . 57
Finland reindeer. . . 58
4.2.3. Birds of prey . . . 58
4.2.3.1. North American peregrine falcon. . . 58
4.2.3.2. European Arctic birds of prey . . . 58
4.2.3.3. ‘New’ chemicals in European Arctic birds of prey . . . 58
4.2.4. Other carnivores . . . 59
Wolves. . . 59
Wolverines. . . 59
Common shrew. . . 59
4.2.5. Summary and conclusions – terrestrial environment 59 4.3.Freshwater environment. . . 60
4.3.1. Concentrations and loadings in surface waters . . . . 60
4.3.1.1. Verification of older Russian river water data . . . 60
Background. . . 60
Sampling program . . . 61
OC pesticide levels and spatial trends. . . 61
Other chlorinated pesticides in Russian Arctic rivers . . . 62
Loadings of OC pesticides in the northern Russian seas. . . 62
4.3.1.2. Recent studies of OCs in Russian lake and river water. . . 63
4.3.1.3. OCs in Canadian Arctic lake waters . . . 63
4.3.2. Levels and fluxes of OCs in lake and river sediments . . . 64
4.3.2.1. Russian river and lake sediments . . . 64
4.3.2.2. Lake sediments in northern Norway and Sweden . . . 65
4.3.2.3. Sediments from lakes on Bjørnøya . . . 65
4.3.2.4. North American Arctic lake sediments. . . . 65
Alaska. . . 66
Canadian Arctic lakes. . . 66
Geographic trends in deposition of PCBs and DDT in lake sediments. . 67
4.3.2.5. PCDD/F fluxes to lake sediments . . . 68
4.3.2.6. ‘New’ chemicals in Arctic sediments . . . 68
4.3.2.7. PAHs in Arctic lake sediments . . . 68
4.3.3. Freshwater fish and invertebrates . . . 69
4.3.3.1. Invertebrates . . . 70
4.3.3.2. Freshwater fish . . . 70
Russian Arctic fish. . . 70
Great Slave Lake study. . . 71
Lake trout. . . 71
Burbot. . . 72
Landlocked Arctic char. . . 73
Faroe Islands brown trout . . . 74
Yukon River study. . . 74
Finnish Arctic fish. . . 74
Alaskan slimy scuplin. . . 74
4.3.4. ‘New’ chemicals in freshwater fish . . . 74
4.3.5. Bjørnøya lake study. . . 74
4.3.6. Summary and conclusions – freshwater environment 77 4.4. Marine environment . . . 78
4.4.1. Seawater . . . 78
4.4.1.1. Overview . . . 78
4.4.1.2. HCHs . . . 79
4.4.1.3. PCBs . . . 80
4.4.1.4. Toxaphene . . . 82
4.4.1.5. Other ‘legacy’ OC pesticides . . . 82
4.4.1.6. Current-use chemicals . . . 83
4.4.1.7. Modeling latitudinal trends of -HCH in ocean waters . . . 83
4.4.2. Marine sediments . . . 84
Svalbard. . . 85
Northern Norway/Kola Peninsula and the White Sea. . . 85
Kara and Laptev Seas. . . 87
Canadian Arctic. . . 87
4.4.3. Marine phytoplankton and invertebrates . . . 87
Phytoplankton. . . 88
Zooplankton . . . 88
Spatial trends in calanoid copepods. . . 88
Levels in other zooplankton species. . . 89
Factors influencing OC levels in zooplankton . . . 89
Benthic marine invertebrates . . . 90
4.4.3.1. TBT . . . 91
4.4.4. Marine and anadromous fish . . . 91
Sea-run Arctic char. . . 92
Arctic (polar) cod. . . 92
Atlantic cod. . . 92
Faroe Islands fish. . . 92
Greenland marine fish . . . 93
Greenland shark and Greenland halibut . . . 93
Jan Mayen fish. . . 94
Toxaphene in fish from European waters. . . 94
4.4.4.1. ‘New’ chemicals in marine and anadromous fish . . . 94
PBDEs in marine fish. . . 94
4.4.5. Seabirds. . . 94
Species comparison . . . 94
Influence of sex and tissue. . . 96
Spatial trends. . . 96
Canadian seabird eggs . . . 97
Faroe Islands black guillemots. . . 97
Grey heron and shag from Norway. . . 97
Alaskan bald eagle eggs. . . 97
PCDD/Fs, mono- and non-ortho PCBs, and toxaphene in seabirds. . . 98
4.4.5.1. ‘New’ chemicals in seabirds . . . 98
Canadian seabirds. . . 98
Bjørnøya seabirds. . . 99
Greenland seabirds. . . 99
Northern Norway. . . 99
Chiral pesticides . . . 99
4.4.6. Marine mammals . . . 100
4.4.6.1. Pinnipeds . . . 100
Ringed seals. . . 100
Harp seals. . . 102
Harbour and grey seals . . . 103
Bearded seals. . . 104
Steller sea lions. . . 104
Northern fur seals . . . 105
Walrus. . . 105
Butyltins in pinnipeds . . . 106
4.4.6.2. Cetaceans . . . 106
4.4.6.2.1. Mysticetes . . . 106
Minke whales . . . 106
Grey whales (Eschrichtius robustus). . . . 107
Bowhead whales. . . 107
4.4.6.2.2. Odontocetes . . . 108
Belugas. . . 108
Long-finned pilot whales (Globicephala melas). . . 109
Killer whales (Orcinus orca). . . 109
Harbour porpoises . . . 110
Narwhal (Monodon monoceros). . . 110
Organotins in cetaceans . . . 110
4.4.6.3. ‘New’ chemicals in pinnipeds and cetaceans 111 PBDEs . . . 111
Other ‘new’ chemicals. . . 112
Chiral contaminants. . . 112
4.4.6.4. Persistent OCs in other pinniped and cetacean tissues. . . 113
4.4.6.5. Effects of age and sex on OC levels in pinnipeds and cetaceans . . . 114
Faroe Islands study. . . 115
4.4.7. Polar bear . . . 115
Alaska polar bears. . . 115
Greenland polar bears . . . 116
Iceland polar bears. . . 116
OCs in Norwegian and Russian polar bear plasma116 OCs in Canadian polar bear plasma . . . 117
Influence of age and sex on OC levels in polar bears . . . 117
Influence of reproduction on OC levels in polar bears . . . 117
Tissue distributions of OCs in female polar bears 119 Effect of seasonal fasting on whole-body toxicokinetics in Hudson Bay polar bears. . . 119
4.4.7.1.‘New’ chemicals in polar bears . . . 119
Perfluorinated compounds . . . 120
PBDEs . . . 120
Chiral compounds . . . 120
Metabolites of OCs in polar bears . . . 120
4.4.8. Arctic fox and sea otter . . . 121
Arctic fox (Alopex lagopus). . . 121
Sea otter (Enhydra lutris). . . 123
4.4.9. Food web studies. . . 123
Barents Sea food web study. . . 123
Northern Norway food web study. . . 123
Northwater Polynya food web study. . . 123
Biomagnification. . . 124
4.4.9.1. Trophic transfer of ‘new’ and chiral chemicals in marine food webs . . . 126
4.4.9.2. Trophic transfer of metabolites in polar bear food web . . . 126
4.4.10. Summary and conclusions – marine environment . 127 Chapter 5 ·Temporal variation in POP levels. . . 130
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– 5.1.Air and precipitation. . . 130
5.1.1. Temporal trends in air . . . 130
5.1.1.1. OC pesticides . . . 130
DDT. . . 130
HCB. . . 132
HCH. . . 132
Cyclodiene pesticides including chlordanes134 Other OC compounds . . . 135
Other time series for HCH, toxaphene, and chlordane . . . 135
5.1.1.2. PCBs . . . 137
5.1.1.3. PAHs . . . 137
5.1.2. Temporal trends in wet deposition . . . 138
5.1.3. Temporal trends in snow cores . . . 138
5.1.3.1. OC pesticides . . . 138
5.1.3.2. PAHs . . . 139
5.1.4. Conclusions on temporal trends in air and precipitation . . . 140
5.2.Terrestrial environment. . . 141
5.3.Freshwater environment. . . 141
5.3.1. Water and sediments . . . 141
Russian river water and sediment. . . 141
Dated sediment cores from Canadian Arctic lakes142 Sediment cores from lakes on Bjørnøya. . . 145
5.3.2. Temporal trends in fish in northern Scandinavia . . . 146
5.3.3. Temporal trends in freshwater fish in the North American Arctic . . . 147
Fort Good Hope burbot. . . 147
Lake Laberge lake trout and burbot. . . 148
Great Slave Lake burbot and lake trout. . . 148
5.3.4. Temporal trends in fish in the Russian Arctic . . . 148
5.4.Marine environment . . . 148
5.4.1. Temporal trends of TBT effects in invertebrates . . . 148
5.4.2. Temporal trends in marine fish . . . 149
5.4.3. Temporal trends in seabirds. . . 150
5.4.4. Temporal trends in pinnipeds and cetaceans . . . 152
5.4.4.1. Pinnipeds . . . 152
Ringed seals . . . 152
5.4.4.2. Cetaceans. . . 154
Beluga. . . 154
Pilot whales. . . 156
Narwhal. . . 156
5.4.5. Temporal trends in polar bear . . . 156
5.4.5.1. Canadian Arctic polar bears . . . 156
5.4.5.2. East Greenland polar bears . . . 158
5.4.5.3. Svalbard polar bears . . . 158
5.4.6. Temporal trends of ‘new’ POPs in marine mammals 159 5.4.6.1. PBDEs . . . 159
5.4.6.2. PCDEs . . . 159
5.4.7. Modeling temporal trends of PCBs and DDT in pinnipeds . . . 160
5.5.Summary and conclusions – temporal trends. . . 160
Chapter 6 ·Biological effects. . . 163
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– Thresholds for effects in birds, mammals, and fish. . . 165
Birds. . . 165
Mammals . . . 167
Fish. . . 169
Dietary intake thresholds for birds and mammals . . . 170
Birds. . . 170
Mammals . . . 170
6.1.Terrestrial environment. . . 172
6.1.1. Terrestrial herbivores . . . 172
6.1.1.1. Arctic hare/mountain hare . . . 172
6.1.1.2. Caribou and reindeer . . . 172
Levels and intake assessment . . . 172
6.1.1.3. Muskox . . . 172
6.1.1.4. Lamb . . . 172
6.1.2. Terrestrial birds . . . 172
6.1.2.1. Ptarmigan/willow grouse . . . 172
6.1.3. Waterfowl . . . 172
Levels and intake assessment. . . 172
6.1.4. Birds of prey . . . 173
6.1.4.1. Peregrine falcon . . . 173
Reproductive effects . . . 173
Levels and intake assessment. . . 173
6.1.4.2. Merlin . . . 173
Levels and intake assessment. . . 173
6.1.4.3. White-tailed sea eagle . . . 173
Levels and intake assessment. . . 174
6.1.4.4. Bald eagle . . . 174
Reproductive effects . . . 174
Levels and intake assessment. . . 174
6.1.4.5. Golden eagle . . . 174
Levels and intake assessment. . . 174
6.1.4.6. Gyrfalcon . . . 174
Levels and intake assessment. . . 174
6.1.5. Carnivores. . . 174
6.1.5.1. Mink . . . 174
6.1.5.2. Otter . . . 174
6.1.5.3. Wolverine . . . 174
6.1.5.4. Wolf . . . 174
Levels and intake assessment. . . 174
6.2.Freshwater environment. . . 175
6.2.1. Fish . . . 175
Cytochrome P450 activities . . . 175
Levels and intake assessment . . . 175
6.3.Marine environment . . . 175
6.3.1. Invertebrates . . . 175
Reproduction. . . 175
6.3.2. Fish . . . 176
Levels and intake assessment. . . 176
6.3.3. Seabirds. . . 176
6.3.3.1. Eiders . . . 176
Levels and intake assessment. . . 176
6.3.3.2. Grey heron, shag . . . 177
Reproductive effects . . . 177
Retinol effects . . . 177
Levels and intake assessment. . . 177
6.3.3.3. Alcids. . . 177
Cytochrome P450 activities/retinol effects 177 Levels and intake assessment. . . 177
6.3.3.4. Gulls . . . 178
Reproductive effects . . . 178
Cytochrome P450 activities. . . 178
Immunosuppression . . . 178
Thyroid and retinol effects . . . 178
Levels and intake assessment. . . 179
6.3.3.5. Black-legged kittiwakes . . . 179
Levels and intake assessment. . . 179
6.3.3.6. Fulmar . . . 179
Levels and intake assessment. . . 179
6.3.3.7. Great skua . . . 180
Levels and intake assessment. . . 180
6.3.4. Pinnipeds . . . 180
6.3.4.1. Seals and sea lions . . . 180
Reproductive effects . . . 180
Cytochrome P450 effects . . . 180
Thyroid and retinol effects. . . 180
Immune system effects. . . 180
Levels and intake assessment. . . 181
6.3.4.2. Walrus . . . 183
Levels and intake assessment. . . 183
6.3.5. Cetaceans . . . 183
6.3.5.1. Mysticetes . . . 183
6.3.5.1.1. Minke whales . . . 183
Levels and intake assessment. . 183
6.3.5.1.2. Gray whales. . . 184
Levels and intake assessment. . 184
6.3.5.1.3. Bowhead whales . . . 184
Levels and intake assessment. . 184
6.3.5.2. Odontocetes. . . 184
6.3.5.2.1. Beluga . . . 184
Levels and intake assessment. . 184
6.3.5.2.2. Killer whales . . . 184
Levels and intake assessment. . 184
6.3.5.2.3. Long-finned pilot whales . . . 184
Levels and intake assessment. . 184
6.3.5.2.4. Narwhal. . . 185
Levels and intake assessment. . 185
6.3.5.2.5. Harbour porpoise . . . 185
Levels and intake assessment. . 185
6.3.6. Polar bear . . . 185
Reproductive and developmental effects. . . 186
Cytochrome P450 activities. . . 187
Thyroid and retinol effects. . . 187
Immune effects. . . 188
Levels and intake assessment. . . 189
6.3.7. Arctic fox . . . 190
Levels and intake assessment. . . 190
6.3.8. Sea otter . . . 190
Levels and intake assessment. . . 190
6.4.Summary and conclusions – biological effects . . . 190
6.4.1. Observed effects . . . 190
6.4.1.1. Field studies . . . 190
Reproduction . . . 190
Cytochrome P450 activity. . . 191
Thyroid and retinol effects. . . 191
Immune effects. . . 191
6.4.1.2. Laboratory studies using Arctic species. . . . 191
Cytochrome P450 activity. . . 191
Immune effects. . . 192
Mutagenic effects. . . 192
6.4.2. Assessment of current levels in biota . . . 192
6.4.3. Conclusions. . . 193
Chapter 7 ·Conclusions and Recommendations . . . . 194
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– 7.1.Levels and effects. . . 194
7.1.1. Air and precipitation . . . 194
7.1.2. Sea- and freshwater . . . 194
7.1.3. Sediments . . . 195
7.1.4. Soils and vegetation. . . 195
7.1.5. Biota . . . 196
7.1.6. ‘New’ chemicals. . . 197
7.1.7. Biological effects . . . 197
7.2.Spatial trends . . . 199
7.3.Temporal trends. . . 200
7.4.Sources . . . 201
7.5. General monitoring and assessment. . . 201
Annex· Tables. . . 203
References. . . 273
Abbreviations and definitions of some terms. . . 306
This assessment report details the results of the 2002 AMAP assessment of Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs) in the Arctic. It builds upon the previous AMAP POPs assessment that was presented in ‘AMAP Assessment Re- port: Arctic Pollution Issues’ that was published in 1998.
The Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme (AMAP) is a group working under the Arctic Council.
The Arctic Council Ministers have requested AMAP to:
•
produce integrated assessment reports on the status and trends of the conditions of the Arctic ecosystems;•
identify possible causes for the changing conditions;•
detect emerging problems, their possible causes, and the potential risk to Arctic ecosystems including in- digenous peoples and other Arctic residents; and to•
recommend actions required to reduce risks to Arctic ecosystems.The Ministers have placed special priority on the poten- tial impacts of contaminants on the health of Arctic resi- dents, including the combined effects of mixtures of con- taminants acting together with other potential stressors.
This report is one of five detailed assessment reports that provide the accessible scientific basis and validation for the statements and recommendations made in the second AMAP State of the Arctic Environment report,
‘Arctic Pollution 2002’ that was delivered to Arctic Coun- cil Ministers at their meeting in Inari, Finland in Octo- ber 2002. It includes extensive background data and ref- erences to the scientific literature, and details the sources for figures reproduced in the ‘Arctic Pollution 2002’ re- port. Whereas the ‘Arctic Pollution 2002’ report con- tains recommendations that specifically focus on actions aimed at improving the Arctic environment, the conclu- sions and recommendations presented in this report also cover issues of a more scientific nature, such as propos- als for filling gaps in knowledge, and recommendations relevant to future monitoring and research work, etc.
To allow readers of this report to see how AMAP in- terprets and develops its scientifically-based assessment product in terms of more action-orientated conclusions and recommendations, the ‘Executive Summary of the Arctic Pollution 2002 Ministerial Report’, which also covers other priority issues (Heavy Metals, Radioactiv- ity, Human Health, and Climate Change Effects on Con- taminant Pathways), is reproduced in this report on pages xi to xv.
The AMAP assessment is not a formal environmental risk assessment. Rather, it constitutes a compilation of current knowledge about the Arctic region, an evalua- tion of this information in relation to agreed criteria of environmental quality, and a statement of the prevailing conditions in the area. The assessment presented in this report was prepared in a systematic and uniform man- ner to provide a comparable knowledge base that builds on earlier work and can be extended through continuing work in the future.
The AMAP scientific assessments are prepared under the direction of the AMAP Assessment Steering Group.
The product is the responsibility of the scientific experts involved in the preparation of the assessment. Lead countries for the AMAP Persistent Organic Pollutants Assessment under AMAP phase II were Canada and Sweden. The assessment is based on work conducted by a large number of scientists and experts from the Arctic countries (Canada, Denmark/Greenland/Faroe Islands, Finland, Iceland, Norway, Russia, Sweden, and the United States), together with contributions from indige- nous peoples organizations, from other organizations, and from experts in other countries.
AMAP would like to express its appreciation to all of these experts, who have contributed their time, effort, and data; and especially to the lead experts who coordinated the production of this report, and to referees who pro- vided valuable comments and helped ensure the quality of the report. A list of the main contributors is included in the acknowledgements on page viii of this report. The list is not comprehensive. Specifically, it does not include the many national institutes, laboratories and organizations, and their staff, which have been involved in the various countries. Apologies, and no lesser thanks are given to any individuals unintentionally omitted from the list.
Special thanks are due to the lead authors responsible for the preparation of the various chapters of this report.
The support of the Arctic countries is vital to the suc- cess of AMAP. AMAP work is essentially based on ongo- ing activities within the Arctic countries, and the coun- tries also provide the necessary support for most of the experts involved in the preparation of the assessments. In particular, AMAP would like to express its appreciation to Canada and Sweden for undertaking a lead role in supporting the Persistent Organic Pollutants assessment.
Special thanks are also offered to the Nordic Council of Ministers for their financial support to the work of AMAP, and to sponsors of the project on ‘Persistent Toxic Substances (PTS) and Food Security of Indigenous Peoples of the Russian North’ and other bilateral and multilateral projects that have delivered data for use in this assessment.
The AMAP Working Group that was established to oversee this work and the AMAP persistent organic pol- lutants assessment group are pleased to present its as- sessment.
Helgi Jensson
AMAP Working Group Chair Derek C.G. Muir
AMAP Persistent Organic Pollutants Assessment co-lead (Canada)
Cynthia A. de Wit
AMAP Persistent Organic Pollutants Assessment co-lead (Sweden)
Lars-Otto Reiersen AMAP Executive Secretary
Oslo, January 2004
** AMAP, 1998. AMAP Assessment Report: Arctic Pollution Issues. Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme (AMAP), Oslo, Norway.
xii + 859 pp.
** AMAP, 2002. Arctic Pollution 2002: Persistent Organic Pollutants, Heavy Metals, Radioactivity, Human Health, Changing Pathways. Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme (AMAP), Oslo, Norway. xii +112 pp.
Preface
–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
The AMAP Working Group would like to thank the following persons for their work in preparing the AMAP 2002 Persistent Organic Pollutants Assessment.
Assessment Leads:
Derek C.G. Muir, National Water Research Institute, Environment Canada, Burlington, Canada
Cynthia A. de Wit, Institute of Applied Environmental Research (ITM), Stockholm University, Stockholm, Sweden Editors/Lead Authors:
Cynthia A. de Wit
Aaron T. Fisk, Warnell School of Forest Resources, University of Georgia, Athens, Georgia, USA Karen E. Hobbs, National Water Research Institute, Environment Canada, Burlington, Canada Derek C.G. Muir
Contributing Authors:
Geir W. Gabrielsen, Norwegian Polar Institute, Tromsø, Norway
Roland Kallenborn, Norwegian Institute for Air Research, Kjeller, Norway
Margaret M. Krahn, Northwest Fisheries Science Centre, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration/National Marine Fisheries Service, Seattle, WA, USA
Ross J. Norstrom, Canadian Wildlife Service, Hull, Canada
Janneche U. Skaare, National Veterinary Institute/Norwegian School of Veterinary Science, Oslo, Norway Contributors:
Paul Becker, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration/National Institute of Standards and Technology, Charleston, SC, USA Kimberlee Beckmen, Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Fairbanks, AK, USA
John Berge, Norwegian Institute for Water Research, Oslo, Norway
Terry Bidleman, Meteorological Service of Canada, Environment Canada, Toronto, Canada Anders Bignert, Swedish Natural History Museum, Stockholm, Sweden
Pierrette Blanchard, Meteorological Service of Canada, Environment Canada, Toronto, Canada
Jennie Bolton, Northwest Fisheries Science Centre, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration/National Marine Fisheries Service, Seattle, WA, USA
Katrine Borgå, Norwegian Polar Institute, Tromsø, Norway
Birgit Braune, Canadian Wildlife Service, Environment Canada, Ottawa, ON, Canada Knut Breivik, Norwegian Institute for Air Research, Kjeller, Norway
Eva Bromström-Lundén, Swedish Environmental Research Institute (IVL), Gothenburg, Sweden Guttorm Christensen, Akvaplan-niva, Tromsø, Norway
David Cleverly, US Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C., USA Salve Dahle, Akvaplan-niva, Tromsø, Norway
Maria Dam, Food and Environmental Agency, Torshavn, Faroe Islands
Marlene Evans, National Water Research Institute, Environment Canada, Saskatoon, Canada Thomas Evans, US Fish and Wildlife Service, Anchorage, AK, USA
Anita Evenset, Akvaplan-niva, Tromsø, Norway Jesse Ford, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR, USA
Örjan Gustafsson, Institute of Applied Environmental Research (ITM), Stockholm University, Stockholm, Sweden Mark Hermanson, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA
Dorte Herzke, Norwegian Institute for Air Research, Tromsø, Norway
Paul Helm, Freshwater Institute, Department of Fisheries and Oceans, Winnipeg, Canada Brendan Hickie, Trent University, Peterborough, Canada
Paul Hoekstra, Department of Environmental Biology, University of Guelph, Guelph,, Canada Hayley Hung, Meteorological Service of Canada, Environment Canada, Toronto, Canada
Michael Ikonomu, Institute of Ocean Sciences, Department of Fisheries and Oceans, Sidney, BC, Canada Björn Munro Jenssen, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim, Norway
Poul Johansen, National Environmental Research Institute, Roskilde, Denmark
Acknowledgements
–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
Kevin Jones, Lancaster University, Lancaster, UK
Even Jørgensen, Norwegian Institute for Nature Research, Tromsø, Norway Lars Kleivane, National Veterinary Institute, Oslo, Norway
Markku Korhonen, Finnish Environment Institute, Helsinki, Finland
John Kucklick, National Institute of Standards and Technology, Charleston, NC, USA
Henrik Kylin, Department of Environmental Assessment, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Uppsala, Sweden Sirkka Leppänen, Finnish Meteorological Institute, Finland
Robert Letcher, Great Lakes Institute of Environmental Research, University of Windsor, Windsor, Canada Yi Fan Li, Meteorological Service of Canada, Environment Canada, Toronto, Canada
Elisabeth Lie, National Veterinary Institute/Norwegian School of Veterinary Science, Oslo, Norway Rob Macdonald, Institute of Ocean Sciences, Department of Fisheries and Oceans, Sidney, BC, Canada Jaakko Mannio, Finnish Environment Institute, Helsinki, Finland
Katie Matthews, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA Sandra Meijer, Lancaster University, Lancaster, UK
Sergei Melnikov, Regional Centre ‘Monitoring of the Arctic’, St. Petersburg, Russia Keith Mueller, US Fish and Wildlife Service, USA
Madeleine Nyman, Finnish Game and Fisheries Research Institute, Helsinki, Finland Todd O’Hara, University of Alaska Fairbanks, Fairbanks, AK, USA
Kristina Olsson, Department of Analytical and Marine Chemistry, Chalmers Institute of Technology, Gothenburg, Sweden Susan Polischuk Blum, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, SK, Canada
Frank Riget, National Environmental Research Institute, Roskilde, Denmark Pat Roach, Indian and Northern Affairs, Whitehorse, Canada
Neil Rose, Environmental Change Research Centre, University College, London, UK Courtney Sandau, National Center for Environmental Health, Atlanta, GA, USA Vladimir Savinov, Akvaplan-niva, Tromsø, Norway
Tatiana Savinova, Akvaplan-niva, Tromsø, Norway
Jeff Short, Alaska Fisheries Science Centre, National Marine Fisheries Service, Juneau, AK, USA Detleff Schultz-Bull, Institute of Marine Research, University of Kiel, Kiel, Germany
Anna Sobek, Institute of Applied Environmental Research (ITM), Stockholm University, Stockholm, Sweden Trond Skotvold, Akvaplan-niva, Tromsø, Norway
Eric Steig, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA
Gary Stern, Freshwater Institute, Department of Fisheries and Oceans, Winnipeg, Canada William Strachan, National Water Research Institute, Environment Canada, Burlington, Canada Jorundur Svavarsson, Institute of Biology, University of Iceland, Reykjavik, Iceland
Sheryl Tittlemier, Food Research Division, Health Canada, Ottawa, Canada Bert van Bavel, Department of Natural Sciences, Örebro University, Örebro, Sweden Sergei Vlasov, Regional Centre ‘Monitoring of the Arctic’, St. Petersburg, Russia Frank Wania, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada
Carla Willetto, Ilasgavik College, Barrow, AK, USA Hans Wolkers, Norwegian Polar Institute, Tromsø, Norway
Xiaowa Wong, National Water Research Institute, Environment Canada, Burlington, Canada Reviewers:
Peter Ross, Institute of Ocean Sciences, Department of Fisheries and Oceans, Sidney, BC, Canada Jeff Vos, National Institute of Public Health and Environment (RIVM), Bilthoven, the Netherlands
Barry Hargrave, Bedford Institute of Oceanography, Department of Fisheries and Oceans, Dartmouth, NS, Canada Crispin Halsall, Lancaster University, Lancaster, UK
Special acknowledgements:
The authors would like to gratefully acknowledge the community councils and hunters and trappers organizations in many circumpolar re- gions (Alaska, Canada, Greenland, Scandinavia, Russia). Their cooperation and active participation in the collection of biological samples made much of this work possible.
The Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme (AMAP) was established in 1991 to monitor identified pollution risks and their impacts on Arctic ecosystems. In 1997 the first AMAP report, Arctic Pollution Issues: A State of the Arctic Environment Report* was published.
The assessment showed that the Arctic is closely con- nected to the rest of the world, receiving contaminants from sources far outside the Arctic region. The report was welcomed by the Arctic Council Ministers, who agreed to increase their efforts to limit and reduce emis- sions of contaminants into the environment and to pro- mote international cooperation in order to address the serious pollution risks reported by AMAP.
The AMAP information greatly assisted the negota- tion of the protocols on persistent organic pollutants (POPs) and heavy metals to the United Nations Eco- nomic Commission for Europe’s Convention on Long- range Transboundary Air Pollution (LRTAP Conven- tion). They also played an important role in establishing the need for a global agreement on POPs, which was concluded in 2001 as the Stockholm Convention. Persis- tence, long-range transport, and bioaccumulation are screening criteria under both the POPs protocol and the Stockholm Convention, to be applied to proposals to add substances to the agreements. Information from AMAP will be useful in this context in showing whether persistent substances are accumulating in the Arctic and are therefore candidates for control, and also in assess- ing the effectiveness of the agreements.
The Arctic Council also decided to take cooperative actions to reduce pollution of the Arctic. As a direct fol- low up of the AMAP reports, the Arctic Council Action Plan to Eliminate Pollution of the Arctic (ACAP) was created to address sources identified through AMAP.
ACAP was approved in 2000 and several projects have begun. The AMAP information was also used in estab- lishing priorities for the Arctic Regional Programme of Action to Prevent Pollution from Landbased Sources (RPA), developed by the working group on Protection of the Arctic Marine Environment (PAME), and adopted by the Arctic Council in 1998.
After the first assessment, AMAP was asked to con- tinue its activities and provide an updated assessment on persistent organic pollutants (POPs), heavy metals, ra- dioactivity, human health, and pathways in 2002. Five scientific reports and a plain-language report have been prepared. This Executive Summary provides the main conclusions and recommendations of the 2002 AMAP assessments.
International Agreements and Actions
As described above, the LRTAP Convention protocols and the Stockholm Convention are essential instruments for reducing contamination in the Arctic. However, they can- not have any effect until they are ratified and implemented.
It is therefore recommended that:
• The UN ECE LRTAP Protocols on Heavy Metals and POPs be ratified and implemented.
• The Stockholm Convention on POPs be ratified and implemented.
Specific recommendations for monitoring activities in support of these agreements are included in subsequent sections.
Persistent Organic Pollutants
The POPs assessment addresses several chemicals of concern, including both substances that have been stud- ied for some time and chemicals that have only recently been found in the environment.
The 1997 AMAP assessment concluded that levels of POPs in the Arctic environment are generally lower than in more temperate regions. However, several biological and physical processes concentrate POPs in some species and at some locations, producing some high levels in the Arctic.
The present AMAP assessment has found that the conclusions and recommendations of the first assess- ment remain valid. In addition:
It has clearly been established that:
Certain Arctic species, particularly those at the upper end of the marine food chain as well as birds of prey, carry high levels of POPs. Marine mammals, such as polar bear, Arctic fox, long-finned pilot whale, killer whale, harbor porpoise, minke whale, narwhal, beluga, harp seal and northern fur seal, some marine birds in- cluding great skua, great black-backed gull and glau- cous gull, and birds of prey such as peregrine falcon, tend to carry the highest body burdens.
Most of the total quantity of POPs found in the Arc- tic environment is derived from distant sources. The POPs are transported to the Arctic by regional and global physical processes, and are then subjected to bio- logical mechanisms that lead to the high levels found in certain species. Several potential source regions have now been identified within and outside of the Arctic.
A better understanding of local re-distribution mecha- nisms has also emphasized the important potential role of local processes and sources in determining observed geographical variability.
There is evidence that:
Adverse effects have been observed in some of the most highly exposed or sensitive species in some areas of the Arctic. Several studies have now been completed on a number of Arctic species, reporting the types of effects that have been associated in non-Arctic species with chronic exposure to POPs, of which there are several ex- amples. Reduced immunological response in polar bears and northern fur seals has led to increased susceptibility
Executive Summary to the Arctic Pollution 2002 Ministerial Report
–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
*AMAP, 1997. Arctic Pollution Issues: A State of the Arctic Environment Report. Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme (AMAP), Oslo, Norway, xii +188 pp. and
AMAP, 1998. AMAP Assessment Report: Arctic Pollution Issues. Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme (AMAP), Oslo, Norway, xii+859 pp.