Marine Pollution Bulletin 161 (2020) 111712

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Marine Pollution Bulletin

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/marpolbul

Baseline

Distribution and ecological- and health-risk assessment of heavy metals in T

the seawater of the southeast coast of India
S. Barath Kumara, R.K. Padhib, , A.K. Mohantyb, K.K. Satpathyc
⁎

a
National Center for Coastal Research, Chennai 600100, India
b
Indira Gandhi Centre for Atomic Research,Tamil Nadu 603102, India
c
Central University Rajastan, Rajastan, 305817, India

ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

Keywords: The objective of the present study was to conduct an ecological and health risk assessment of heavy metals in the
Heavy metals seawater of the southeast coast of India. The distribution profile of heavy metals in the surface seawater was Fe
Ecological risk (79.60 ± 21.57 μg/L) > Zn (9.31 ± 1.33 μg/L) > Cu (5.19 ± 2.00 μg/L) > Ni (2.45 ± 0.76 μg/
Seawater pollution index L) > Mn (1.20 ± 1.00 μg/L) > U (0.44 ± 0.23 μg/L) > Pb (0.36 ± 0.06 μg/L) > Cr (0.31 ± 0.57 μg/
Health risk assessment
L) > Cd (0.11 ± 0.05 μg/L) > Co (0.07 ± 0.20 μg/L). Cu level for most of the samples exceeded the USEPA
Dermal exposure
criteria for acute CMC (criterion maximum concentration) and chronic CCC (criterion continuous concentra­
Uranium
tion). Other studied metals, Cd, Cr, Pb, and Ni, remained below the acute CMC and chronic CCC guidelines. The
seawater pollution index (Iwp) of Cr, Ni, Zn, Cd, and Pb complied with the category–I seawater (< 1, unpolluted).
The ERI values (0.46–3.99) of the seawater of the studied coast mostly fell under the ecologically low risk
category with respect to heavy metals. Dermal Hazard index values were orders of magnitude lower than one,
indicating no potential health concern due to dermal exposure.

Billions of pounds of trash containing a significant amount of me­
tallic pollutants enter the sea each year due to human activities
(Rochman et al. (2016); Daoji and Daler (2004)). In past decades, un­
controlled growth in industrialization along the southeast coast of India
has led to rapid contamination of its coastal environment. In Particular,
incessant input of heavy metals through domestic and industrial waste
from point and non-point sources has significantly deteriorated the
marine ecosystem of the coast (Tholkappian et al. (2018); Ganugapenta
et al. (2018); Jayaraju et al. (2009)). The steady increase in toxic heavy
metal concentration in the seawater raises significant concern about the
ecological hazard to its habitat, and health risk to the dependent po­
pulation (Ananthan et al. (2006); Karthikeyan et al. (2007)). Assess­
ment of heavy metal contamination in the seawater is one of the vital
steps toward ensuring seawater quality to perpetuate the wellbeing of
marine habitats and sustenance of marine resources and to minimize
the possible health risk to humans.
Pollution of the marginal marine environment and related en­
vironmental problems along the southeast coast of India have been
recognized for more than four decades (Nammalwar et al. (1985)).
However, apart from the patchy reports of heavy metal contaminations
at some locations (Thomas and Mohaideen (2015); Padhi et al. (2013)),
no study reported the spatial distribution of heavy metal contamination
in seawater along the entire stretch of the ecologically diverse Tamil
Nadu coastline. Moreover, studies on coastal metal pollution of Tamil
Nadu coast have been primarily focused on sediment and biota (Kumar
et al. (2019); Rameshkumar et al. (2018); Senthil Kumaar et al. (2014);
Kumar et al. (2017); Sivakumar et al. (2016); Kasilingam et al. (2016);
Ravisankar et al. (2019)). The complexity of heavy metal analysis in
seawater due to their low dissolved concentrations and high salt in­
terference is probably the main hindrance for studies in seawater
compared to in sediment and biota. The main objective of the present
investigation was to assess the distribution of heavy metals in the
seawater at selected locations along the major part of the southeast
coast of India and to evaluate the corresponding ecological and health
risk by employing the USEPA risk assessment paradigm.
Eight ecologically distinct locations (S1–S8) were selected along the
southeast coast of India, covering a 300 km stretch (Fig. 1). Details of
the ecological significance and discrete features of the sampling loca­
tions are described in supplementary materials (S1). Seawater samples
from the surface (< 0.5 m) and bottom (at 10–12 m depth) were col­
lected using a niskin water sampler. pH, temperature, and dissolved
oxygen (DO) were measured in situ. Suspended particulate matter
(SPM) was calculated as the difference between the initial and final
weight of the filter paper after drying at 105 °C overnight. Dissolved

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: ranjib@igcar.gov.in (R.K. Padhi).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2020.111712
Received 22 June 2020; Received in revised form 11 September 2020; Accepted 21 September 2020
Available online 13 October 2020
0025-326X/ © 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
S.B. Kumar, et al.
INDIA
Arabian Bay of
Sea Bengal
Karnataka
Fig. 1. Geographical position and location of sampling sites along the south east coast of India.
heavy metals analysis in seawater was carried out following the salt
matrix elimination and heavy metal pre-concentration by chelex com­
plexation (Padhi et al. (2013)). Samples were analyzed for Cr, Mn, Fe,
Co, Ni, Cu, Zn, Pb, Cd, and U by high resolution inductively coupled
plasma mass spectrometry (ICP-MS). The full procedure of sample
preparation and analytical method for the metal analysis is given as
supplementary material (S2).
The observed values of physicochemical parameters were within the
expected range for the seawater of this coastline (Table S1). pH and
salinity were observed to be lowest for location S3 (pH: surface-7.40,
bottom-7.80; salinity: surface-31.36, bottom-31.46 PSU), which might
be due to the influence of freshwater discharge to the sea from the
nearby Mutthukadu backwaters. DO values (2.80 to 6.56 mg/L) were
always observed to be higher in surface seawater than bottom water.
DO was recorded between 2.8 (bottom) to 3.6 mg/L (surface) in the
seawater at S2, which was lower than the minimum of 4 mg/L O2
content required for the survival of aquatic organisms. In accordance
with the criteria for DO in the Seawater Quality Standard of China
(SEPA (1997)), the seawater along the coast was mostly between the
relatively clean (category-II) to the slightly polluted categories (cate­
gory-III). The seawater at S2 was observed to be hypoxic and corre­
sponds to category-IV (medium polluted) to category-V (heavily pol­
luted) seawater with respect to DO content (SEPA (1997)). S2 is located
between the Adayar River and Coovum River estuaries, which carry
untreated sewage from Chennai city to the sea (Jayaprakash et al.
(2012); Silambarasan et al. (2012)) and thus, DO gets depleted here due
to its utilization for the decomposition of the sewage bound organic
matter.
2
Marine Pollution Bulletin 161 (2020) 111712
Distribution of Cr, Mn, Fe, Co, Ni, Cu, Zn, Pb, Cd, and U in the
surface and bottom seawater is presented in Fig. 2. The level of dis­
solved metals in the surface and bottom seawater showed wide spatial
variations along the studied coastline. The order of the heavy metal
level in the surface water was Fe (79.60 ± 21.57 μg/L) > Zn
(9.31 ± 1.33 μg/L) > Cu (5.19 ± 2.00 μg/L) > Ni
(2.45 ± 0.76 μg/L) > Mn (1.20 ± 1.00 μg/L) > U
(0.44 ± 0.23 μg/L) > Pb (0.36 ± 0.06 μg/L) > Cr
(0.31 ± 0.57 μg/L) > Cd (0.11 ± 0.05 μg/L) > Co
(0.57 ± 0.20 μg/L), whereas in the bottom seawater, the trend was
Fe > Zn > Cu > Ni > Mn > Pb > U > Cr > Cd with their
average values being 109.45 ± 43.44, 12.87 ± 5.57, 6.35 ± 6.59,
2.73 ± 0.71, 1.78 ± 2.18, 0.55 ± 0.31, 0.35 ± 0.12, 2.01 ± 0.76,
0.11 ± 0.06 μg/L, respectively (Table S2a). Co concentration re­
mained below the detection limit (BDL) for all the bottom seawater
samples. In general, the concentrations of all the studied dissolved
metals in the bottom water were marginally higher than that in surface
water except U. Dissolved U primarily occurs as oxidized U(VI) which
forms soluble uranyl carbonate complexes in the oxygenated surface
seawater. The soluble U(VI) form reduces to the insoluble U(IV) form
under oxygen-depleted conditions, which results in the removal of
dissolved U from the water column (Rolison et al. (2017)). The lower U
concentration at the bottom compared to the surface seawater observed
in our study was consistent with the negative DO gradient across the
depth of the seawater.
Among the ten heavy metals investigated, Fe, Zn, Mn, Co, and Cu
are known to be essential metallic elements required at a certain level
for all aquatic life forms. A comparative account of heavy metal
S.B. Kumar, et al.
Fig. 2. Distribution of ten heavy metals in the surface and bottom seawater of eight selected locations along the south east coast of India.
concentration observed in the present study with earlier reported stu­
dies in different coasts across world is given as supplementary material
(Table S2b). In the present study, Fe values recorded were comparable
with the values observed for South Australian and Egyptian
Mediterranean coastlines (Chakraborty and Owens (2014); Khaled et al.
(2017)). Previous studies in the Bay of Bengal and other coastal areas
(Srichandan et al. (2016); Rejomon et al. (2008); Al-Taani et al. (2014))
have reported a very low dissolved Fe concentration. Conversely, Fe
content as high as 1698 μg/L and 2368 μg/L were reported from Ennore
Creek and Bay of Bengal coast, Bangladesh, respectively (Jayaprakash
et al. (2015); Hasan et al. (2016)). In our present investigation, stations
S1, S2, and S3 showed higher Fe values compared to other stations. This
indicated the profound influence of anthropogenic input from the
neighboring metropolitan city of Chennai on the metal contamination
in the adjoining coast. Co generally occurs at low concentrations in
seawater, and the mechanism that governs its distribution in seawater is
not well elucidated (Saito and Moffett (2002)). In the present study, Co
concentration remained below the detecting limit expect in the surface
water at location S1. However, previous studies carried out near loca­
tion S1 have reported much higher values of dissolved Co (Jayaprakash
et al. (2015)). Bottom water of S1 and S2 showed the highest con­
centrations (3.38 and 6.14 μg/L) of Mn with an average of
1.47 ± 1.63 μg L-1. Similarly, Cu concentration (average: 5.73 μg/L)
was also observed to be highest for the bottom water of S2 (20.89 μg/L).
As specified in the USEPA aquatic life criteria table, criterion maximum
concentration (CMC) for acute toxicity and criterion continuous con­
centration (CCC) for chronic toxicity of Cu are 4.8 and 3.1 μg/L, re­
spectively (USEPA (n.d.)) (Table S3). Cu concentration in most of the
samples exceeded the acute CMC and chronic CCC. However, con­
centrations observed in our study were relatively low compared to
other coasts (Table S2b). The Zn level in the studied coastline, with an
average value of 10.97 ± 4.19 μg/L, was much lower than the acute
CMC of 90 μg/L and chronic CCC of 81 μg/L and thus is not expected to
pose toxicity risk to the aquatic organisms. Other studied metals, Cd,
Cr, Pb, and Ni, for which the USEPA aquatic life criteria exist, remained
below the acute CMC and chronic CCC values ((Table S3). Among all
the metals studied, Ni in particular showed a reasonably strong corre­
lation with the suspended particulate matter (R2=0.55, Fig. S1), in­
dicating the importance of the biogeochemical cycle involving parti­
culate in maintaining Ni levels in the coastal water. Ni forms stable
complexes with inorganics and organic ligands, leading to its accumu­
lation in the suspended matter, which might be one of the leading
reasons for its strong correlation with SPM (Moore and Ramamoorthy
(2012)). The distribution profile of Ni was strikingly similar to that of
Cd (R2 = 0. 77, Fig. S1). This suggested their association with common
3
Marine Pollution Bulletin 161 (2020) 111712
input sources such as NieCd battery manufacturing. Cr (1.16–2.01 μg L-
1) remained undetected in most of the samples even though Cr content
in the sediment of these locations was reported to be relatively high
(Kumar et al. (2017)). At the reduced level of O2 observed at the bottom
seawater, it is likely that the transformation of particle reactive in­
soluble Cr(III) to soluble Cr(VI) would be a minor process to contribute
to dissolved Cr. Thus, higher Cr content in sediment might not be an
indicator for its elevated level in seawater. Low concentrations of Pb
(0.29–1.26 μg/L) and Cd (0.04–0.2 μg/L) were detected and remained
well below the USEPA acute CMC and chronic CCC for aquatic life.
Compared with the seawater quality Standard of China (SEPA (1997)),
seawater quality of the studied coast can be regarded as clean to rela­
tively clean water (category-I-II) with respect to Cr, Zn, Cd, Cu, and Pb,
(Table S4). It was identified that, compared to other stations, S2 seems
to be more polluted with heavy metals. S2 station is located near the
Chennai harbor, and in between the Adyar and Cooum Rivers. Waste­
water from the Chennai metropolitan area along with toxic chemicals
released in the harbor, which contain a high amount of heavy metals,
might be the primary reason for its elevated level at S2 compared to
other stations.
Pearson correlation and principal component analysis (PCA) were
conducted to investigate the association of physicochemical parameters
with heavy metals. The Pearson correlation analysis (Table 1) showed
strong negative correlations of Zn and Pb with DO (R = −0.552,
−0.574; p < 0.05), which indicated the likelihood of the transfor­
mation of Zn and Pb to soluble form in the aerobic environment and
their reductive scavenging in anaerobic conditions. Moreover, strong
associations such as Co–pH (R = −0.523; p < 0.05) and Cr, Mn, Zn,
Cu, and Pb with temperature (R = −0.537, −0.583, −0.585, −0.516,
−0.625, respectively; p < 0.05), suggested strong influence of pH and
temperature on the distribution of dissolved heavy metals in seawater.
All heavy metals showed positive correlations among themselves except
U and Co (Table 1), and U was the only metal which exhibited a strong
negative correlation with Fe, Ni, and Cd (−0.525 (p < 0.05), −0.656
(p < 0.01), and −0.490 (p < 0.1), respectively). As seawater is the
largest reservoir of U, its negative correlation with other metals further
corroborated the fact that all other metals in the studied coast were
enriched through anthropogenic input. In PCA analysis, five principal
components were extracted with eigenvalues > 1, which contributed
about 87.10% of the total variance (Fig. S2). The bi-plot of the first two
principal components (PCs) indicated that all the metals showed posi­
tive loadings in PC1, except U and Co. U was negatively loaded,
whereas the loading of Co was not significant (Fig. 3). Loading pattern
of heavy metals indicated the common process or source of origin of all
these metals along this coast. This further corroborated the earlier
S.B. Kumar, et al. Marine Pollution Bulletin 161 (2020) 111712

Table 1
Pearson's correlation matrix for dissolved heavy metal and the physicochemical parameters in seawater.
DO pH Salinity Temp SPM Fe Cr Mn Co Ni Zn Cu Cd Pb U

DO 1
pH −0.203 1
Salinity −0.380 0.671⁎⁎⁎ 1
Temp 0.660⁎⁎⁎ 0.013 −0.173 1
SPM 0.134 −0.003 −0.009 0.114 1
Fe −0.396 −0.168 −0.223 −0.323 0.301 1
Cr −0.180 0.174 0.229 −0.537⁎⁎ 0.104 0.351 1
Mn −0.412 −0.231 −0.076 −0.583⁎⁎ −0.270 0.610⁎⁎ 0.491⁎ 1
Co −0.030 −0.523⁎⁎ 0.027 −0.010 −0.261 0.110 −0.129 0.144 1
Ni −0.005 0.025 0.064 −0.198 0.711⁎⁎⁎ 0.604⁎⁎ 0.433 0.143 0.058 1
Zn −0.552⁎⁎ 0.216 0.151 −0.585⁎⁎ 0.168 0.742⁎⁎⁎ 0.680⁎⁎⁎ 0.696⁎⁎⁎ −0.154 0.570⁎⁎ 1
Cu −0.411 −0.037 −0.038 −0.516⁎⁎ 0.079 0.779⁎⁎⁎ 0.775⁎⁎⁎ 0.781⁎⁎⁎ −0.044 0.463⁎ 0.858⁎⁎⁎ 1
Cd 0.076 0.099 −0.146 −0.367 0.062 0.390 0.769⁎⁎⁎ 0.297 −0.090 0.545⁎⁎ 0.574⁎⁎ 0.613⁎⁎ 1
Pb −0.574⁎⁎ 0.175 0.156 −0.625⁎⁎ −0.030 0.592⁎⁎ 0.728⁎⁎⁎ 0.766⁎⁎⁎ −0.179 0.297 0.923⁎⁎⁎ 0.824⁎⁎⁎ 0.488⁎ 1
U −0.232 0.122 0.252 0.137 −0.313 −0.525⁎⁎ −0.303 −0.421 −0.100 −0.656⁎⁎⁎ −0.416 −0.425 −0.490⁎ −0.259 1

⁎
Correlation is significant at the 0.1 level.
⁎⁎
Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level.
⁎⁎⁎
Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level.

obtained CF values might overestimate the metal toxicity threat per­

Fig. 3. Bi-plot of the first two components which explained 57.96% of variance
of parameters including heavy metals in the seawater of the studied coast.
assumption of the anthropogenic enrichment of heavy metals in this
coast. Co did not show significant loading, mainly because of the BDL
values at most of the locations. The 2nd PC showed cross-loading of U
and Ni, with the former being negatively loaded and the latter being
positively loaded. The 1st and 2nd PCs contributed almost approxi­
mately 58% of the variance. The other 3 PCs with sparse loadings to­
gether contributed to only about 29% of the total variance, and they did
not indicate any particular pattern or process.
Ecological and health risk assessment indices are effective tools to
better convey the health of the ecosystem and potential human health
risk concern compared to raw data. The contamination factor (CF) of
metal is generally measured as the ratio of concentrations between the
environment (Cw) and preindustrial or background concentration (Cb)
and is frequently used as the pollution indicator. Unlike sediment, for
which metal concentrations in the continental crust are generally taken
as baseline values, there is no background reference value available for
seawater. Metal concentrations reported by Bruland (1983) in his
comprehensive work was assumed to be representative of preindustrial
metals level in seawater and taken as Cb in the present study. The re­
sulting values of the CF were Fe (1425) > Pb (172) > Mn (44) > Zn
(24) > Cu (20) > Cr (6) > Ni (5) > Cd (1.3) for surface water and
Fe (1963) > Pb (261) > M (65) > Zn (33) > Cu (25) > Cr
(10) > Ni (6) > Cd (1.3) for the bottom seawater. When the esti­
mated CF was compared with the corresponding typical metal con­
tamination grade criteria (Hakanson (1980)), it appeared that the
ceptions. Seawater metal pollution index (Iwp) calculated in accordance
with the Eqs. (1) and (2) below (Fu et al. (2014)), taking the criteria
parameter from Seawater Quality Standard of China (SEPA (1997)) into
account, seemed to more appropriately represent the seawater metal
pollution status.
n
i
Iwp = 1/ n Iwp
i (1)
i
Iwp = (j 1) + (C i C ij 1)/(C ij C ij 1) (2)
i th i
where, Iwp is the pollution index of i metal of concentration C , j is the
pollution grade (j = 1 to 5) for Ci; Cji and Cj−1i are reference metal
concentrations for jth and j − 1th pollution grade (Table S4). The cal­
culated Iwp for combined metals Cr, Ni, Cu, Zn, Cd, and Pb (n = 6;
criteria values not available for Fe, Mn, Co, and U) ranged from 0.28
(S8) to 0.52 (S6) and 0.27 (S5) to 0.91 (S2) for surface and bottom
seawater, respectively, and complied with category-I (unpolluted)
seawater (Table S5). Seawater pollution index for individual metals
(Iwpi) indicated that the locations S2, S5, and S8 were slightly polluted
(category–II) with respect to Cu. The Iwpi values of Cr (0.02–0.04), Ni
(0.28–0.76), Zn (0.36–1.16), Cd (0.04–0.2) and Pb (0.29–1.065) of all
the seawater samples mostly complied with the category eI (< 1, un­
polluted) seawater (Fig. 4). Though Iwp is an excellent indicator of
seawater metal pollution, it is not explicit about the potential risk to
aquatic organisms. In order to evaluate the aquatic ecological risk and
identify the metal of potential concern (MOPC, HQ > 1), the modified
quotient method was proposed according to the equations below (Eqs.
(3) and (4)).
HQ i = C i/ PNEC i (3)
n n
ERI = (HQi × T i )/ Ti
i i (4)
where, ERI is the overall ecological risk index for the seawater due to all
metals combined, and HQi is the hazard quotient corresponding to ith
metal. The predicted no-effect concentration (PNECi for Cr, Ni, Cd, Pb,
Cu, and Zn) were calculated by dividing a safety factor of 5 to the
USEPA chronic CCC values (Table S3). To provide a margin of safety, no
effect concentration is usually arrived at by dividing a safety factor to
the threshold concentration of certain chemicals for ecological risk
calculation, and a factor of 5 is generally adopted for heavy metals
toxicity (Li et al. (2019); Aldenberg and Slob (1993)). CCC values are
not available for Fe, Mn, and Co, and they are thus excluded from the
ERI calculation. Ti is the toxic response factor of ith metal (which was

4
S.B. Kumar, et al.
Fig. 4. Seawater pollution index for the studied coast calculated for six metals
separately (Iwpi) and overall index Iwp (for combined metal).
taken as 1 for Zn, 2 for Cr, 5 for Cu, Ni, and Pb, and 30 for Cd (Li et al.
(2012); Xu et al. (2008); Kang et al. (2020)) (Table S3)). The estimated
HQi of Cr, Zn, Cd, and Pb was less than one for both surface and bottom
seawater of all the locations. Additionally, HQi values varied from 0.98
to 2.3 for Ni and 2.5 to 33.7 for Cu and it clearly showed that Cu and Ni
are the metals of potential concern along the studied coast. Among all
the sampling locations, the seawater at S2 showed the highest HQi for
both Cu (33.7) and Ni (2.3). However, HQi calculation accounts for only
the ecological sensitivity criteria and concentration of metal and thus,
appropriate for a preliminary assessment of aquatic toxicity. In order to
determine the overall risk posed by the simultaneous presence of
multiple heavy metals and to account for their difference in the degree
of toxicity, the normalized toxicity response factor was introduced (Eq.
(4)) into the calculation of overall ecological risk index (ERI). ERI less
than 1, 1–5, 5–10, 10–15, and greater than fifteen can be classified as
no risk, low risk, moderate risk, considerable risk, and high-risk classes,
Fig. 5. Ecological risk index of the surface and bottom seawater of the eight
selected locations along the studied coast (Cr, Ni, Zn, Cu, Cd, and Pb were
considered for evaluation, USEPA reference values not available for Fe, Mn, Co
and U) (see Table S6).
5
Marine Pollution Bulletin 161 (2020) 111712
respectively (for details, see Table S6 and its footnote). Estimated ERI
values exceeded one for the bottom seawater of S2 (3.99), S8 (1.34), and
S3 (1.06). The trend of ERI for the surface seawater at different loca­
tions was S3 (1.63) > S6 (1.58) > S4 (1.23) > S2 (1.14) > S1
(1.10) > S7 (0.92) > S5 (0.76) > S8 (0.56) (Fig. 5). The ERI values
indicated that the seawater along the studied coast fell under the eco­
logically low risk category with respect to heavy metals.
Human Health risk assessment (HRA) typically considers three ex­
posure pathways, such as inhalation, ingestion, and dermal absorption.
For seawater metal contamination, health risk to those involved in
water contact activities such as fishermen, surfers, divers and swim­
mers; dermal exposure is the dominant risk component compared to
ingestion or inhalation (Kim et al. (2004)). Unintentional ingestion of
seawater during recreational activities is only about 30–50 mL (per
event of 0.6 h/day) (WHO (2003)) and hence its contribution to HRA
can be neglected unless the seawater is heavily polluted. Dermal hazard
index (HIderm) as the sum of hazard quotients (HQdermi) represents the
cumulative non-carcinogenic risk calculated in accordance with Eqs.
(5), (6), and (7) (USEPA (1991, 2002)).
n
i
HIderm = HQderm
i (5)
i
HQderm = CDIderm/ Rfdderm (6)
C i × SA × AF × ABSd × ET × EF × ED × CF
CDIderm =
BW × AT (7)
where, CDIderm is the chronic daily intake; C is the concentration of ith
i
metal in the water samples (mg/L), SA is exposed skin area (5700 cm2),
AF is adherence factor (0.07 mg/cm2), ABSd is dermal absorption
fraction (0.03), ET is the exposure time (0.6 h/day), EF is exposure
frequency (365 days/year), ED is exposure duration (70 years for
adults), BW is body weight (70 kg for adults), AT is the average time
(ED × 365 days) and CF is the conversion factor (10−6 Kg/mg). The
Rfdderm (mg/day) for the heavy metal used in Eq. (6) is provided in
Table S7. The average CDIderm values were in the range of 10−11 to
10−9 mg/day with the highest value observed for Fe (9.6 × 10−9) and
lowest value observed for Cd (1.09 × 10−11). The calculated average
HQi values of metals were in the order: Cr > Cd > Ni > Fe > Pb >
Mn > Cu > Co > Zn. Among all the studied locations, S2 exhibited
the maximum and S7 had the minimum dermal hazard index. However,
HQderm were orders of magnitude lower than 1 (ranged between
7.4 × 10−6 - 2.2 × 10−7), which indicated that the seawater along the
studied coast does not pose any adverse health concern via dermal
exposure with regard to heavy metal.
In summary, the present study determined the distributional char­
acteristics of ten heavy metals in the surface and bottom seawater of the
southeast coast of India. Among all the studied locations, bottom sea­
water at S2 exhibited the highest ecological concern. Risk assessment
indices such as Iwp, ERI, and CDIderm evaluated in the present study
indicated that the coastal water poses no potential ecological or health
threat with regard to heavy metals. However, more studies on the
spatiotemporal heterogenity is necessary to conclusively establish the
ecological risk contour of the coast. Cu concentration exceeded the
acute CMC and chronic CCC for most of the samples and was identified
as the metal of potential concern.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
All authors certify that they have participated sufficiently in the
work to take public responsibility for the content, including participa­
tion in the concept, design, analysis, writing, or revision of the manu­
script. Furthermore, each author certifies that this manuscript is not
published and not under consideration other than Marine Pollution
Bulletin.
S.B. Kumar, et al.
Authorship contributions: As below
1. S. Barath Kumar: Drafting the manuscript, acquisition of data,
design of the study, field sampling
2. R K. Padhi: Conception and design of study, drafting the manuscript
Analysis and interpretation, revising the manuscript critically for
technical content.
3. A K Mohanty: Acquisition of data, Analysis and interpretation
4. K K Satpathy: Analysis and interpretation, revising the manuscript
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influ­
ence the work reported in this paper.
Acknowledgement
We are grateful to the Director, IGCAR and Director, SQRMG,
Kalpakkam, Tamil Nadu, India for the motivation and support for this
work. The authors would also like to thank the anonymous reviewers
and editor for their significant inputs to improve this manuscript.
Appendix A. Supplementary data
Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2020.111712.
References
Aldenberg, T., Slob, W., 1993. Confidence limits for hazardous concentrations based on
logistically distributed noec toxicity data. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 25, 48–63.
Al-Taani, A.A., Batayneh, A., Nazzal, Y., Ghrefat, H., Elawadi, E., Zaman, H., 2014. Status
of trace metals in surface seawater of the gulf of Aqaba, Saudi Arabia. Mar. Pollut.
Bull. 86, 582–590.
Ananthan, G., Sampathkumar, P., Palpandi, C., Kannan, L., 2006. Distribution of heavy
metals in vellar estuary, southeast coast of India. Journal of Ecotoxicology &
Environmental Monitoring 16, 185–191.
Bruland, K.W., 1983. Trace elements in seawater. In: Riley, J.P., Chester, R. (Eds.),
Chemical Oceanography. vol. volume 8. Academic Press, pp. 157–220 chapter 45.
Chakraborty, S., Owens, G., 2014. Metal distributions in seawater, sediment and marine
benthic macroalgae from the south australian coastline. Int. J. Environ. Sci. Technol.
11, 1259–1270.
Daoji, L., Daler, D., 2004. Ocean pollution from land-based sources: East China Sea,
China. AMBIO 33, 107–113.
Fu, J., Wang, H., Billah, S.M.R., Yu, H., Zhang, X., 2014. Heavy metals in seawater, se­
diments, and biota from the coastal area of Yancheng city, China. Environ. Toxicol.
Chem. 33, 1697–1704.
Ganugapenta, S., Nadimikeri, J., Chinnapolla, S.R.R.B., Ballari, L., Madiga, R., Nirmala,
K., Tella, L.P., 2018. Assessment of heavy metal pollution from the sediment of tu­
pilipalem coast, southeast coast of India. International Journal of Sediment Research
33, 294–302.
Hakanson, L., 1980. An ecological risk index for aquatic pollution control. a sedimento­
logical approach. Water Res. 14, 975–1001.
Hasan, M., Khan, M., Khan, M., Aktar, S., Rahman, M., Hossain, F., Hasan, A., 2016.
Heavy metals distribution and contamination in surface water of the bay of bengal
coast. Cogent Environmental Science 2, 1140001.
Jayaprakash, M., Nagarajan, R., Velmurugan, P., Sathiyamoorthy, J., Krishnamurthy, R.,
Urban, B., 2012. Assessment of trace metal contamination in a historical freshwater
canal (buckingham canal), Chennai, India. Environ. Monit. Assess. 184, 7407–7424.
Jayaprakash, M., Kumar, R.S., Giridharan, L., Sujitha, S., Sarkar, S., Jonathan, M., 2015.
Bioaccumulation of metals in fish species from water and sediments in macrotidal
ennore creek, Chennai, se coast of India: a metropolitan city effect. Ecotoxicol.
Environ. Saf. 120, 243–255.
Jayaraju, N., Sundara Raja Reddy, B., Reddy, K., 2009. Heavy metal pollution in reef
corals of tuticorin coast, southeast coast of India. Soil Sediment Contam. 18,
445–454.
Kang, Z., Wang, S., Qin, J., Wu, R., Li, H., 2020. Pollution characteristics and ecological
risk assessment of heavy metals in paddy fields of Fujian province, China. Sci. Rep.
10, 1–10.
Karthikeyan, R., Vijayalakshmi, S., Balasubramanian, T., 2007. Monthly variations of
heavy metals and metal resistant bacteria from the uppanar estuary (southeast coast
Marine Pollution Bulletin 161 (2020) 111712
of India). Research Journal of Microbiol 2, 50–57.
Kasilingam, K., Gandhi, M.S., Krishnakumar, S., Magesh, N., 2016. Trace element con­
centration in surface sediments of palk strait, southeast coast of Tamil Nadu, India.
Mar. Pollut. Bull. 111, 500–508.
Khaled, A., Abdel-Halim, A., El-Sherif, Z., Mohamed, L.A., et al., 2017. Health risk as­
sessment of some heavy metals in water and sediment at marsa-matrouh, medi­
terranean sea, Egypt. J. Environ. Prot. 8, 74.
Kim, E., Little, J.C., Chiu, N., 2004. Estimating exposure to chemical contaminants in
drinking water. Environmental Science & Technology 38, 1799–1806.
Kumar, S.B., Padhi, R., Mohanty, A., Satpathy, K., 2017. Elemental distribution and trace
metal contamination in the surface sediment of south east coast of India. Mar. Pollut.
Bull. 114, 1164–1170.
Kumar, S.B., Padhi, R., Satpathy, K., 2019. Trace metal distribution in crab organs and
human health risk assessment on consumption of crabs collected from coastal water
of south east coast of India. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 141, 273–282.
Li, X., Liu, L., Wang, Y., Luo, G., Chen, X., Yang, X., Gao, B., He, X., 2012. Integrated
assessment of heavy metal contamination in sediments from a coastal industrial
basin, ne China. PLoS One 7, e39690.
Li, X., Chi, W., Tian, H., Zhang, Y., Zhu, Z., 2019. Probabilistic ecological risk assessment
of heavy metals in western Laizhou bay, Shandong province, China. PLoS One 14,
e0213011.
Moore, J.W., Ramamoorthy, S., 2012. Heavy Metals in Natural Waters: Applied
Monitoring and Impact Assessment. Springer Science & Business Media.
Nammalwar, P., Dalela, R., Mane, U.e., 1985. Heavy metals pollution in Adyar estuary,
madras, India. The Academy of Environmental Biology,India 1985.
Padhi, R., Biswas, S., Mohanty, A., Prabhu, R., Satpathy, K., Nayak, L., 2013. Temporal
distribution of dissolved trace metal in the coastal waters of southwestern bay of
bengal, India. Water Environment Research 85, 696–705.
Rameshkumar, S., Prabhakaran, P., Radhakrishnan, K., Rajaram, R., 2018. Accumulation
of heavy metals in some marine fisheries resources collected from gulf of Mannar
marine biosphere reserve, southeast coast of India. In: Proceedings of the Zoological
Society. Springer, pp. 294–298.
Ravisankar, R., Tholkappian, M., Chandrasekaran, A., Eswaran, P., El-Taher, A., 2019.
Effects of physicochemical properties on heavy metal, magnetic susceptibility and
natural radionuclides with statistical approach in the Chennai coastal sediment of
east coast of tamilnadu, India. Appl Water Sci 9, 151.
Rejomon, G., Balachandran, K., Nair, M., Joseph, T., 2008. Trace metal concentrations in
marine zooplankton from the western bay of bengal. Appl. Ecol. Environ. Res. 6,
107–116.
Rochman, C.M., Browne, M.A., Underwood, A.J., Van Franeker, J.A., Thompson, R.C.,
Amaral-Zettler, L.A., 2016. The ecological impacts of marine debris: unraveling the
demonstrated evidence from what is perceived. Ecology 97, 302–312.
Rolison, J.M., Stirling, C.H., Middag, R., Rijkenberg, M.J., 2017. Uranium stable isotope
fractionation in the black sea: modern calibration of the 238u/235u paleo-redox
proxy. Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta 203, 69–88.
Saito, M.A., Moffett, J.W., 2002. Temporal and spatial variability of cobalt in the Atlantic
Ocean. Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta 66, 1943–1953.
Senthil Kumaar, P., Ramesh, V., Sarojini, S., 2014. Concentrations of heavy metals in
edible crabs from tamilnadu coast, South India. World Journal of Pharmaceutical
Research 4, 1776–1785.
SEPA, 1997. Sea Water Quality Standard (Gb 3097–1997). Administration of Quality
Supervision, Inspection and Quarantine of people’s Republic of China. State
Environmental Protection Agency of China, Environmental Sciences Press, China.
Silambarasan, K., Senthilkumaar, P., Velmurugan, K., 2012. Studies on the distribution of
heavy metal concentrations in river Adyar, Chennai, Tamil Nadu. European Journal
of Experimental Biology 2, 2192–2198.
Sivakumar, S., Chandrasekaran, A., Balaji, G., Ravisankar, R., 2016. Assessment of heavy
metal enrichment and the degree of contamination in coastal sediment from south
east coast of tamilnadu, India. Journal of Heavy Metal Toxicity and Disease 1, 1–8.
Srichandan, S., Panigrahy, R., Baliarsingh, S., Pati, P., Sahu, B.K., Sahu, K., et al., 2016.
Distribution of trace metals in surface seawater and zooplankton of the bay of bengal,
off rushikulya estuary, east coast of India. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 111, 468–475.
Tholkappian, M., Ravisankar, R., Chandrasekaran, A., Jebakumar, J.P.P.,
Kanagasabapathy, K., Prasad, M., Satapathy, K., 2018. Assessing heavy metal toxicity
in sediments of Chennai coast of Tamil Nadu using energy dispersive x-ray fluores­
cence spectroscopy (edxrf) with statistical approach. Toxicol. Rep. 5, 173–182.
Thomas, S., Mohaideen, J.A., 2015. Determination of some heavy metals in fish, water
and sediments from bay of bengal. International Journal of Chemical Science 13,
53–62.
USEPA, 1991. Human health evaluation manual, supplemental guidance: standard default
exposure factors. OSWER Directives 9285 6-03.
USEPA, 2002. Supplemental Guidance for Developing Soil Screening Levels for Superfund
Sites. Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, Washington, DC 9355–4.
USEPA, n.d. National recommended water quality criteria - aquatic life criteria table.
https://www.epa.gov/wqc/national-recommended-water-quality-criteria-aquatic-
life-criteria-table.
WHO, 2003. Guidelines for Safe Recreational Water Environments: Coastal and Fresh
Waters. vol. volume 1 World Health Organization.
Xu, Z.Q., Ni, S.J., Tuo, X., Zhang, C.J., 2008. Calculation of heavy metals toxicity coef­
ficient in the evaluation of potential ecological risk index. Environmental Science and
Technololgy 31, 112–115.