CICEET Progress Report for 8/15/00 to 1/31/01

Project Title:

Developing and Applying A New In Situ Technology for the Investigation of Episodic Contaminant Transport Events within Estuaries

Project Coordinator (Lead Principal Investigator):

John W. King, University of Rhode Island,

Additional Principal Investigators:

Alfred K. Hanson, SubChem Systems, Inc.
Christopher R. Kincaid, University of Rhode Island,
Elizabeth Lacey, University of Rhode Island,
James G. Quinn, University of Rhode Island,

I. Work Accomplishments

A. Tasks for the Period.

    1. Additional seasonal sampling of sediment and sediment trap material from the stations located throughout Narragansett Bay.
    2. Laboratory analysis of sediment and sediment trap material. Analyses included grain size, trace metal concentrations, SEM-AVS (of sediment samples), organic contaminant concentrations (of sediment from selected sediment trap stations).
    3. Assembly and field-testing of the XZ-ProfilerTM (Figure 1) undulating tow body in Narragansett Bay.
    4. Continued testing and evaluation of the analytical capabilities of the SubChemPak AnalyzerTM with the new ChemStarTM detector (Figure 1),
       


    5. Presentation of initial results from the study.

B. Work Plan to Accomplish Tasks.

    1. Fieldwork in March/April 2000, June 2000, and September 2000 to collect sediment samples and retrieve/deploy sediment traps.
    2. After sample collection, bottom sediment is sub sampled for grain size and trace metal analysis. Separate aliquots of bottom sediment are collected in the field for SEM-AVS analysis. The sediment trap material is weighed to determine the flux of material into the location and then the material is sub sampled for grain size, trace metal and organic contaminant analyses.
    3. Fieldwork in August 2000 that involved test deployments of the SubChemPak Analyzer and XZ-Profiler in Narragansett Bay.
    4. A MATLAB based, data processing and visualization program with a graphical user interface has been developed for the XZ-Profiler and associated sensor systems. Version 1.0 of the software imports data sets from the different instruments and sensors and automatically produces graphical products and merged data text files. Since it can be run from a laptop PC, data processing may be done on ship, providing a more comprehensive view of the results in near real time, and allowing for immediate cruise plan refinement.
    5. Presentations at Meetings.
      1. Hanson, A.K. September 2000. "A new in situ chemical analyzer for mapping coastal nutrient distributions in real time". Oral presentation at the OCEANS 2000 MTS/IEEE Conference, Providence RI.
      2. Laliberte (Lacey), E.L. and J.W. King, Historic and recent seasonal changes in anthropogenic trace metal contaminants in Narragansett Bay, Rhode Island sediments. Poster presented at the New England Estuarine Research Society (NERRS) Fall Meeting, November 2-4, 2000, Block Island, Rhode Island.
    6. Publications
      1. Hanson, A.K. 2000. A new in situ chemical analyzer for mapping coastal nutrient distributions in real time. OCEANS 2000 MTS/IEEE Conference Proceedings. 3:1975-1982.
      2. Laliberte, E.L. and J.W. King 2000. Historic and recent seasonal changes in anthropogenic trace metal contaminants in Narragansett Bay, Rhode Island sediments. NEERS Fall 2000 Meeting Program and Abstracts, pp. 22-23.

C. Concerns or Difficulties.

    1. Sediment traps missing from several stations possibly due to weather (buoys frozen in the ice and then moved as the ice melted) or vandalism. Sandy sediment located at Station 1 (station location moved further inside Greenwich Bay). Very shelly sediment located at Station 7 (station location moved to the other side of the channel).
    2. There have been some delays in the development of the new instrument technologies, principally due to shifted delivery schedules for new optical components for the submersible chemical analyzers.

D. Anticipated Success in Meeting Project Objectives in Scheduled Project Period.

    1. We are about two-thirds into the project and have made good progress towards attaining our project objectives and attaining our milestones.
    2. We have documented the general pattern of trace metal contamination in the NERRS area.
    3. We have demonstrated that plumes of resuspended contaminants from the Providence River and Upper Narragansett Bay contribute to trace metal and organic contamination in sediments in the NERRS area.
    4. We have also developed and performed field trials with the SubChemPak Analyzer and XZ-Profiler. This new oceanographic equipment is now commercially available from SubChem Systems, Inc.
    5. The vast majority of the sample analyses have been finished; the remaining analyses (determination of lead and nickel concentrations in the Round 4 sediment) should be finished within the next few weeks.
    6. We have presented some of our initial results at professional meetings.

E. Initial Results.

The following data and results are from the seasonal sampling events and the test deployments of the SubChemPak Analyzer and XZ-Profiler in Narragansett Bay.

 

 

Round 1 samples were collected in November and December of 1999; Round 2 samples were collected in March and April 2000; Round 3 samples were collected in June 2000 and Round 4 samples were collected in September 2000. The SubChem Systems instrumentation tests in Narragansett Bay were conducted on August 24 and 31, 2000.

Figure 3a shows the total trace metal concentrations for the sediment at each of the station locations for all four rounds; Figure 3b shows the total trace metal concentrations for the sediment from the sediment traps. Analyses for lead and zinc for Round 4 are currently in progress and not shown on these figures.

 

Figure 4 shows the results collected during a vertical deployment of the SubChemPak Analyzer in Narragansett Bay. The instrument was configured for simultaneous measurements of dissolved nitrate and nitrite.

 

 

Figure 5 shows the results obtained during a test deployment of the XZ-Profiler undulating tow body. The instrument payload was a SeaBird Electronics Model SBE 25 CTD with oxygen sensor.

 

Table 1 provides the latitude and longitude for all of the sampling events. Note that the locations of Stations 1 and 7 were changed for Round 4.

Round 1:          
           
Station   Latitude Longitude Depth Date
Station 1   41 39.645' N 71 23.895' W 2.2 m 11/19/1999
Station 2   41 40.986' N 71 20.481' W 6.8 m 11/19/1999
Station 3   41 41.653' N 71 18.151' W 5.5 m 11/19/1999
Station 4   41 38.498' N 71 20.430' W 3.2 m 11/19/1999
Station 5   41 40.258' N 71 13.824' W 7.3 m 11/19/1999
Station 6   41 46.201' N 71 22.227' W 3.9 m 12/20/1999
           
Station 7 sed grab 41 43.250' N 71 20.616' W 16 feet 12/20/1999
Station 8 sed trap 41 38.539' N 71 22.836' W 26 feet 12/20/1999
  sed grab 41 38.544' N 71 22.824' W   12/20/1999
           
Round 2:          
           
Station   Latitude Longitude Depth Date
Station 1 sed grab 41 39.6344' N 71 23.9030' W 2.3 m 3/31/2000
Station 1 sed trap 41 39.6227' N 71 23.9128' W   3/31/2000
Station 2 sed grab 41 41.011' N 71 20.456' W 7.2 m 4/28/2000
Station 2 sed trap 41 41.016' N 71 20.457' W   4/28/2000
Station 3 sed grab 41 41.6054' N 71 18.0941' W 5.5 m 3/31/2000
Station 3 sed trap 41 41.5494' N 71 18.0374' W   3/31/2000
Station 4 sed grab 41 38.504' N 71 20.424' W 3.9 m 4/28/2000
Station 4 sed trap 41 38.502' N 71 20.434' W 4.0 m 4/28/2000
Station 5 sed grab 41 40.2143' N 71 13.8342' W 7.7 m 3/31/2000
Station 5 sed trap 41 40.1730' N 71 13.8404' W   3/31/2000
Station 6 sed grab 41 46.1458' N 71 22.2672' W 3.7 m 3/31/2000
Station 6 sed trap 41 46.1030' N 71 22.2963' W   3/31/2000
Station 7 sed grab 41 43.2629' N 71 20.5440' W 5.5 m 3/31/2000
Station 7 sed trap 41 43.2118' N 70 20.5053' W   3/31/2000
Station 8 sed grab 41 38.4481' N 71 23.0433' W 6.2 m 3/31/2000
Station 8 sed trap 41 38.3052' N 71 23.1367' W   3/31/2000
Station 9 sed grab 41 37.856' N 71 17.747' W 17 m 4/28/2000
Station 10 sed grab 41 34.697' N 71 19.184' W 13.1 m 4/28/2000
Station 10 sed trap 41 34.701' N 71 19.187' W 13 m 4/28/2000
Station 11 sed grab 41 36.157' N 71 20.995' W 10 m 4/28/2000
Station 11 sed trap 41 36.157' N 71 21.000' W 10 m 4/28/2000
           
Round 3:          
           
Station   Latitude Longitude Depth Date
Station 1 sed trap/grab 41 39.643' N 71 23.891' W ~ 2.5 m 6/14/2000
Station 2 sed trap 41 41.049' N 71 20.592' W NA 6/12/2000
Station 2 sed grab 41 41.044' N 71 20.603' W NA 6/12/2000
Station 3 sed trap/grab 41 41.547' N 71 18.044' W NA 6/12/2000
Station 4 sed trap/grab 41 38.503' N 71 20.431' W NA 6/14/2000
Station 5 sed trap/grab 41 40.161' N 71 13.850' W NA 6/14/2000
Station 6 sed trap 41 46.087' N 71 22.300' W NA 6/12/2000
Station 6 sed grab 41 46.039' N 71 22.300' W NA 6/12/2000
Station 7 sed trap 41 43.215' N 71 20.521' W NA 6/12/2000
Station 7 sed grab 41 43.211' N 71 20.516' W NA 6/12/2000
Station 8 sed trap 41 38.289' N 71 23.135' W NA 6/12/2000
Station 8 sed grab 41 38.271' N 71 23.133' W NA 6/12/2000
Station 9 sed trap/grab 41 37.828' N 71 17.703' W ~ 14 m 6/14/2000
Station 10 sed trap/grab 41 34.730' N 71 19.120' W NA 6/12/2000
Station 11 sed trap/grab 41 36.135' N 71 21.019' W NA 6/12/2000
           
Round 4:          
           
Station   Latitude Longitude Depth Date
Station 1 sed grab 41 40.559' N 71 25.459' W 17.2 ft 9/14/2000
Station 2 sed grab 41 41.033' N 71 20.628' W 27.5 ft 9/14/2000
Station 3 sed trap/grab 41 41.568' N 71 18.084' W 21 ft 9/12/2000
Station 4 sed trap 41 38.560' N 71 20.397' W   9/12/2000
Station 4 sed grab/trap 41 38.504' N 71 20.438' W 11 ft 9/12/2000
Station 5 sed grab 41 40.188' N 71 13.825' W 26.5 ft 9/14/2000
Station 6 sed grab 41 46.116' N 71 22.273' W 14 ft 9/12/2000
Station 7 sed grab 41 43.548' N 71 21.823' W 25.2 ft 9/14/2000
Station 8 sed grab 41 38.402' N 71 23.016' W 24.5 ft 9/14/2000
Station 9 sed trap/grab 41 37.845' N 71 17.729' W 54 ft 9/12/2000
Station 10 sed trap/grab 41 34.749' N 71 19.183' W 43 ft 9/12/2000
Station 11 sed grab 41 36.137' N 71 21.012' W 29 ft 9/14/2000

 

Table 2 contains information about the sedimentation rate into the sediment traps.

Sediment Trap Round Collected Sed. Rate: g/cm2*yr Sed. rate g/cm2/day
2 2 1.78 0.00488
2 3 1.71 0.00468
3 3 2.27 0.00623
3 4 4.01 0.01099
4 2 0.24 0.00066
4 3 0.72 0.00196
4 * 4 * 0.22 0.00060
5 2 2.92 0.00800
5 3 19.42 0.05320
6 3 0.95 0.00260
7 3 1.65 0.00453
8 3 6.73 0.01844
9 3 23.01 0.06304
9 4 10.97 0.03007
10 3 39.66 0.10865
10 4 8.99 0.02463
11 3 8.14 0.02231
       
* Sediment trap 4 from round 4 was found upside down.

 

Table 3 provides grain size information for the surface (0-2 cm) sediment
at the sample locations and the sediment from the sediment traps.

Sample Name station 1 station 2 station 3 station 4 station 5 station 6 station 7 station 8 station 9 station 10 station 11
% SAND rd. 1 99.40 12.14 10.89 37.23 6.99 17.41 73.61 93.31 - - -
% SAND rd. 2 99.20 26.21 25.09 47.24 10.12 30.84 88.83 23.48 27.22 83.48 21.47
% SAND rd. 3 98.85 16.57 22.90 27.17 12.12 53.19 77.73 18.55 51.11 81.23 22.35
% SAND rd. 4 17.5 9.5 16.9 31.7 11.5 43.5 7.0 4.1 24.5 69.1 21.1
                       
Sample Name sed trap 1 sed trap 2 sed trap 3 sed trap 4 sed trap 5 sed trap 6 sed trap 7 sed trap 8 sed trap 9 sed trap 10 sed trap 11
% SAND rd. 2 - 42.80 - 24.68 13.41 - - - - - -
% SAND rd. 3 - 5.15 6.28 10.06 2.67 17.39 8.60 7.21 11.04 6.77 2.53
% SAND rd. 4 - - 3.0 6.7 - - - - 17.3 6.3 -
                       
Sample Name station 1 station 2 station 3 station 4 station 5 station 6 station 7 station 8 station 9 station 10 station 11
% SILT rd. 1 0.59 86.90 88.14 61.45 92.84 82.35 25.07 6.57 - - -
% SILT rd. 2 0.80 70.97 71.86 52.17 88.56 69.16 10.28 73.73 71.19 15.60 77.28
% SILT rd. 3 1.12 77.01 76.08 70.40 85.57 45.15 21.15 78.31 48.08 18.76 77.65
% SILT rd 4 80.1 89.0 78.4 66.4 86.4 50.8 89.4 90.7 73.1 30.1 77.0
                       
Sample Name sed trap 1 sed trap 2 sed trap 3 sed trap 4 sed trap 5 sed trap 6 sed trap 7 sed trap 8 sed trap 9 sed trap 10 sed trap 11
% SILT rd. 2 - 56.35 - 73.53 85.46 - - - - - -
% SILT rd. 3 - 91.35 88.47 89.94 94.52 81.22 85.78 89.62 87.34 93.23 93.04
% SILT rd 4 - - 88.2 84.7 - - - - 80.9 81.7 -
                       
Sample Name station 1 station 2 station 3 station 4 station 5 station 6 station 7 station 8 station 9 station 10 station 11
%CLAY rd. 1 0.01 0.96 0.97 1.32 0.17 0.25 1.32 0.12 - - -
%CLAY rd. 2 0.00 2.82 3.05 0.59 1.32 0.00 0.89 2.79 1.59 0.92 1.26
%CLAY rd. 3 0.03 6.42 1.02 2.43 2.30 1.66 1.13 3.14 0.81 0.02 0.00
% CLAY rd. 4 2.4 1.5 4.7 1.9 2.0 5.6 3.6 5.2 2.4 0.8 1.8
                       
Sample Name sed trap 1 sed trap 2 sed trap 3 sed trap 4 sed trap 5 sed trap 6 sed trap 7 sed trap 8 sed trap 9 sed trap 10 sed trap 11
%CLAY rd. 2 - 0.85 - 1.79 1.13 - - - - - -
%CLAY rd. 3 - 3.50 5.25 0.00 2.80 1.39 5.62 3.17 1.62 0.00 4.44
% CLAY rd. 4 - - 8.7 8.6 - - - - 1.8 12.0 -
                       
Notes:                      
1) rd. = round                      
2) "station" indicates grain size analysis for the top two centimeters of bottom sediment from that station.  
3) sed trap indicates the grain size analysis of the sediment from the sediment trap at that station.  
4) - indicates no sediment.                

 

Table 4 has the SEM and AVS results.

Sample ID AVS rd. 1 SEM-AVS rd. 1 AVS rd. 2 SEM-AVS rd. 2 AVS rd. 3 SEM-AVS rd. 3 AVS rd. 4 SEM-AVS rd. 4
station 1 2.1 -1.91 0.18 0.10 1.32 -1.17 8.79 -7.02
station 2 6.85 -6.16 7.89 -5.00 1.85 1.80 18.41 -17.10
station 3 88.07 -84.87 47.07 -44.38 101.08 -98.36 103.04 -98.67
station 4 87.71 -84.47 42.16 -39.44 100.72 -98.28 135.24 -134.63
station 5 16.35 -13.32 3.85 -2.15 1.52 0.22 2.36 -1.51
station 6 83.68 -79.15 57.4 -55.05 11.01 -6.61 7.41 -4.16
station 7 12.3 -11.93 1.89 -0.56 6.31 -4.73 36.25 -34.64
station 8 0.9 0.11 18.5 -16.50 98.58 -90.25 121.12 -119.93
station 9     6.29 -4.75 3.71 -2.66 10.51 -9.75
station 10     0.28 0.41 0.04 1.06 0.63 -0.39
station 11     2.17 -0.75 1.34 0.86 10.87 -9.91
                 
Notes:                
1) AVS indicates acid volatile sulfide concentrations in umol/g dry      
2) SEM-AVS indicates the difference between the sum of the SEM concentrations and the AVS concentration.
3) negative SEM-AVS concentrations indicates that the trace metals are bound by the sulfide;
positive SEM-AVS values indicates that the trace metals are potentially bioavailable.    

 

Table 5 provides organic contaminant concentrations from selected sediment trap sediments.

ORGANIC CONTAMINANTS IN TRAP SAMPLES
 
  M/APR JUNE SEPT M/APR JUNE SEPT M/APR JUNE SEPT M/APR JUNE SEPT M/APR JUNE SEPT M/APR JUNE SEPT
 
·PCBs
·DDTs
·Chlordanes
·PAHs
·BZTs
TPHs
2000 Stations
ng/g (dry)
ng/g (dry)
ng/g (dry)
ng/g (dry)
ng/g (dry)
ug/g (dry)
                                     
6 - 428 - - 26.5 - - 18.4 - - 7,940 - - 20.7 - - 1,240 -
7 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
3 - 188 160 - 15.6 18.0 - 7.1 4.0 - 5,600 3,320 - 57.1 0.6 - 495 417
2 162 158 - 12.2 9.0 - 6.6 4.2 - 3,130 3,300 - 4.4 88.4 - 402 524 -
4 232 224 173 16.7 33.2 13.8 7.3 4.2 3.0 2,490 2,520 2,730 nd 23.9 0.1 225 393 654
9 - 80 68 - 3.2 5.4 - 1.6 nd - 3,130 2,430 - 11.8 0.4 - 222 184
5 92 99 - 8.6 4.0 - 1.3 2.9 - 2,390 2,980 - nd 1.6 - 141 330 -
10 - 89 76 - 3.6 7.9 - 1.6 nd - 2,410 2,090 - 1.2 nd - 209 148
                                     
1989 Stations M/APR M/APR M/APR M/APR M/APR M/APR
 
Fox Point 1,940 205 79.1 31,500 nd 8,130
Pawtuxet Cove 565 98.4 58.8 27,400 14.9 2,620
Conimicut Point 273 39.8 8.2 5,050 nd 1,430

 

II. Tasks and Activities for the Next Report Period.

A. Tasks for the Next Report Period.

      1. One additional round of fieldwork for bottom sediment and sediment trap material. Analysis of sediment (including grain size, trace metal concentrations, SEM-AVS concentrations and organic contaminant concentrations).
      2. Technology demonstrations in Narragansett Bay with the XZ-Profiler, SubChemPak Analyzer and ADCP sensor systems.
      3. Development of a web site to post findings.
      4. Summary/synthesis of data into a final report.

B. Work Plan to Accomplish Tasks.

  1. It is anticipated that fieldwork for bottom sediment and sediment trap material will be done in March 2001. After the sediment is collected, it will be prepared and analyzed (March-May 2001).
  2. The new instrumentation technology testing and demonstrations will also resume in the spring.
  3. A web site will be developed (beginning February 2001) with findings from this study and a link to the CICEET web page.
  4. A final report will be prepared and submitted in September 2001.

C. Concerns or Difficulties.

      1. No significant problems are anticipated.

III. Expenditures.

The expenditures have included boat time, analytical costs, personnel costs.