Next Article in Journal
Investigating River Water/Groundwater Interaction along a Rivulet Section by 222Rn Mass Balancing
Previous Article in Journal
Occurrence and Distribution of UV Filters in Beach Sediments of the Southern Baltic Sea Coast
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Water
Volume 12
Issue 11
10.3390/w12113026
water-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Geochemical Composition of the Lomé Lagoon Sediments, Togo: Seasonal and Spatial Variations of Major, Trace and Rare Earth Element Concentrations

by
Tchaa Esso-Essinam Badassan
1,2,*,
Akouvi Massan Duanyawo Avumadi
1,2,
Kamilou Ouro-Sama
2,
Kissao Gnandi
2,
Séverine Jean-Dupuy
1 and
Jean-Luc Probst
1,*
1
Laboratory of Functional Ecology and Environment, University of Toulouse, CNRS, UPS, Toulouse INP, Campus ENSAT, Avenue de l’Agrobiopole, 31326 Castanet Tolosan, France
2
Laboratory Gestion Traitement et Valorisation des Déchets (GTVD), Faculty of Science, University of Lomé, Lomé B.P 1515, Togo
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Water 2020, 12(11), 3026; https://doi.org/10.3390/w12113026
Submission received: 26 August 2020 / Revised: 15 October 2020 / Accepted: 16 October 2020 / Published: 28 October 2020
(This article belongs to the Section Water Quality and Contamination)
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
The concentrations of major, trace (TE), and rare earth (REE) elements and their seasonal and spatial distribution were studied on the fine fraction (<63 µm) of the sediments of the Lomé lagoons (West Lake, East Lake, and Lake Bè). The sediments were collected on a total of nine sampling sites (three per Lake) during two campaigns (dry season and rainy season). The quality of the sediments was assessed on the basis of the enrichment factor (EF) and the labile or non-residual fraction (NRF) in relation to the values recommended for the quality of the sediments (Sediment Quality Guidelines, SQG). The distribution of rare earth elements shows enrichments in light rare earths superior to those of heavy rare earth elements during any season. Positive Ce anomalies are less noticeable and less variable between seasons than Eu anomalies. La/Yb ratios are positively correlated with the percentage of Al and Fe oxides and with the percentage of fine fractions. The main bearing phases of rare earth elements are, therefore, Al and Fe oxides and the finest fractions of the sediments. The concentrations of trace elements vary little, according to the seasons, but show strong variations from one element to another. The degrees of enrichment obtained are moderate for Bi, Cr, Ga, Mo, Pb, Sn, and Zn (1.5 < EF < 5) to significant for As, Cd, and Sb (5 < EF < 20) for all sites of Lake Bè. For the sites of West Lake, the degrees of enrichment obtained are moderate for As, Cd, Cu, Mo, and Pb (1.5 < EF < 5) to a significance for As, Bi, Cd, Pb, Sb, Sn, and Zn (5 < EF < 20). Only the East Lake sites show high degrees of enrichment for elements such as Sb and Sn (20 < EF < 40). Trace elements (TE) such as As, Cd, Cu, and Ni have total concentrations within the range of variation of the SQG concentrations (particularly Probable Effect Level (PEL) and Effect Range Median (ERM)), whereas Cr, Pb, and Zn total concentrations are higher. The ranking of priority sites with respect to the sediment contamination is determined according to ERM and PEL quotients in relation to the probability of toxicity for benthic organisms. For almost all the sites, the priority is lowest to medium-low with regard to As, Cd, and Cu and medium-high (Cr and Ni) to highest (Pb and Zn), particularly for the East and West Lakes. Moreover, the NRF can represent significant percentages of the total TE concentrations: 5% to 15% for As, Bi, Ni, V, Mo, and Sc, 15% to 25% for Co, Cu, and Sr, 25% to 40% for Pb and Zn and, lastly, 47% to 55% for Cd.

1. Introduction

Natural processes, such as rock weathering and soil erosion and anthropogenic perturbations including urban, industrial, agricultural activities, discharge of untreated wastewater, and leachate from landfills are the main sources of sediment contamination by trace elements [1,2,3,4]. Whatever their origins, trace elements, in addition to major and rare earth elements, are transported by runoff in dissolved or particulate forms and finish their transfer pathway by deposition on the bottom sediments in aquatic ecosystems [5,6]. The sediments then serve as a sink for potentially toxic elements [7,8] and store them through complex processes of physical and chemical adsorption [9,10]. Under these conditions, they can limit bioavailability or allow the remobilization and re-suspension of trace elements in the water column [4,10,11]. Once released into the water column, they represent a threat to aquatic ecosystems and a health risk to millions of people due to their toxicity as well as persistence and ability to accumulate in living organisms [12,13,14,15,16,17]. Thus, the characterization of sediment composition in terms of major elements, traces, and rare earth elements is useful and provides basic information on the contamination degree and ecotoxicological risk [18,19] for better management of aquatic ecosystems. Coastal lagoons are among the most used ecosystems [20] and, therefore, the most fragile, vulnerable, and threatened [21,22,23]. The Lomé lagoons in Togo are subject to high anthropogenic pressure, which is often at the origin of various organic and inorganic pollutant discharges, which contributes to the contamination of the lagoon ecosystem. Multidisciplinary studies in the past have made it possible to carry out a geochemical characterization of sediments [24,25,26] without being interested in the temporal variations of major, trace, and rare earth element concentrations in the sediments of the Lomé lagoon. Taking into account seasonal variations in the study of the quality of aquatic ecosystems is essential and has been the subject of several studies [5,27,28,29,30,31]. The particularity of this study is based on the integration of temporal and spatial variabilities in the distribution of major, trace, and rare earth elements in the sediments of the Lomé lagoon. This study also has the advantage of having a database not only updated, but robust on the state of pollution of the Lomé lagoon. The main objectives are:
  • to characterize the micro-granulometry of the sediments to assess the particle size distribution,
  • to evaluate the spatio-temporal variability of major, trace, and rare earth element concentrations,
  • to determine the Ce and Eu anomalies and La/Yb ratios to evaluate the Rare Earth Element (REE) fractionation and its controlling factors,
  • to assess the sediment quality using enrichment factors calculated using different normalizing elements (Al, Cs, Fe, Ti) and a local reference material,
  • to assess the potential ecotoxicological risks for aquatic ecosystems by comparing TE concentrations with Sediment Quality Guidelines (SQG) and by determining the percentage of a non-residual fraction or labile fraction of TE.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Study Site

The Lomé lagoon system is located in the extreme southwest of Togo, bordering the Gulf of Guinea (Figure 1 and Table 1). It is bordered in the West by the Ghana border. Administratively, it is located in the maritime region and precisely in the town of Lomé. From east to west, the lagoon system of the city of Lomé consists of three natural lakes: Lake Bè, with a total area of 29 ha, Lake East (31 ha), and Lake West (20 ha). Lake East and Lake West are connected to each other by an equilibrium channel that extends over 1.2 km [25,32]. The three lakes are connected to the sea by small channels constructed to drain the lakes into the ocean during the high-water levels, but during the low waters, there are some ocean water intrusions into the lakes. Then the lakes are not fresh water but brackish waters with total dissolved solids varying between 2.1 and 2.8 g·L−1 according the season.
The study site enjoys a sub-equatorial climate characterized by four alternating seasons of unequal length. There are two dry seasons (November to March and August) and two rainy seasons (April to the end of July and September to mid-November) [33].
The ferralitic soils in the study area are characterized by the predominance of dissolution, hydrolysis, and oxidation processes. These processes completely transform the parent rock and give rise to a clay, which is a kaolinite with a high proportion of iron and aluminum hydroxides.

2.2. Sampling and Processing

To achieve our objectives, the sediment samples were taken in two separate campaigns. The first campaign in the rainy season (July 2016) and a second campaign in the dry season (March 2017). In the field, the samples were collected using a small plastic grab sampler in the first centimeters of the sediment layer in accessible places and present a certain amount of fine deposits covered by the aqueous phase. The sediment samples were placed directly in plastic bags, labeled, and transported rapidly to the Waste Management and Recovery Laboratory (GTVD) of the University of Lomé for treatment. Then, the sediments were dried in a Memmert electric oven type UL80 at 40 °C for four days in the Geology Laboratory of the University of Lomé. Once dried, the sediments were packed in plastic bags, labeled and transported in France to the Laboratory of Functional Ecology and Environment where the samples were finely crushed using a mortar, and an agate pestle in order to disaggregate the sediments. Between each sample, the pestle and mortar are cleaned and washed with milliQ water to avoid any contamination. Then, the sediments were sieved through nylon sieves of variable mesh (2 mm, 200 µm, and 63 µm) in order to separate the different particle size fractions of the sediments (clays and silts < 63 µm, 63 µm < fine sands < 200 µm, 200 µm < coarse sands < 2 mm and gravels > 2 mm). To perform the particle size analysis of each fraction, the Horiba LA 950 laser microgranulometer (HORIBA Company, Kyoto, Japan) from the Laboratory of Functional Ecology and Environment was used. Before reading, each fine portion of a sample is mixed with a solution of sodium hexa-meta-phosphate to improve the dispersion of particles in the solution.
The rest of the chemical analyzes (major, trace, and rare earth elements) were carried out only on fractions smaller than 63 µm. This overcomes the particle size influence in data processing. This standardization also finds its advantage because the finest fractions of sediments have large specific surfaces, and, therefore, a greater adsorption capacity than coarse sediments [34,35,36].

2.3. Analytical Methods

The determination of the total concentrations of major, trace, and rare earth elements in the sediments of the Lomé lagoon was carried out by the National Service of Rocks and Minerals Analysis (SARM: http://helium.crpg.cnrs-nancy.fr/SARM/) in Nancy, using the ICP-OES iCap 6500 and the ICP-MS iCapQ (Thermo Fisher Scientific, Waltham, USA). The sediment digestion technique used (alkaline fusion) consists of the fusion of at least 200 mg of the sample with lithium metaborate (LiBO2) before analysis by the ICP. Furthermore, to validate the results of the chemical analyzes, international reference materials (WQB-1, SRM 1646–2) were used by following the same mineralization protocol as the sediment samples. Uncertainty becomes important over a concentration range located between the detection limit and the lowest concentration for which a percentage of error is indicated. In the case of this study, the uncertainty on all the measures is <20%. This made it possible to validate both the protocol and the results obtained during this study.
In order to determine non-residual fractions (NRF, labile phases) adsorbed onto the sediment, a simple extraction with EDTA (Ethylene Diamine Tetraacetic Acid) was used. The procedure consists of leaching 1 g of the fraction <63 μm of sediment with 10 mL of an EDTA solution of 0.05 mol per L−1 at room temperature with stirring for one hour. The mixture obtained was filtered using 0.22 µm pore-size membrane filters. The filtrate is then analysed by the ICP-MS Agilent 7500ce (Agilent Technologies 7500ce, Les Ulis, France) on the analytical platform of the Midi-Pyrenees Observatory (OMP) in Toulouse.
This method has proven effective for evaluating non-residual fractions in several studies [37,38,39,40,41,42] because of its chelating power and its ability to extract trace elements from non-residual fractions. To validate this time, the chemical analyses of the EDTA extraction, which is an international reference material (SRL6), was analysed under the same conditions as our solution samples. The yield obtained between the measured and certified values of the reference material is very accurate. The recovery values range from 63% to 119% for samples collected in the dry season and from 62% to 103% in the rainy season. Errors on measures calculated for 20 elements were low (<4.10−1).

2.4. Data Processing

2.4.1. Enrichment Factor

Since the 1970s, the enrichment factor (EF) has been commonly used to highlight possible contamination in certain environments. Its calculation is used to evaluate the degree of anthropogenic pollution by trace elements [43]. Since then, this concept has been used by several authors [10,26,42,44,45,46,47,48], whether on soil or sediment to determine the anthropogenic contribution in terms of trace element pollution. However, concerns exist regarding the choice of the reference element (normalizer) and the choice of the reference material (uncontaminated) because, according to References [49,50], these two choices determine the reliability and representativeness of the enrichment calculated in the regional context. The enrichment factor (EF) is calculated according to the formula of Chester and Stoner [43].
EF = ([X]/[R])sample/([X]/[R])reference material
X = concentration of the trace element studied
R = concentration of the normalizing element
Thus, the PAAS (Post Archean Australian Shale, [51]) and the UCC (Upper Continental Crust, [52]) are the reference materials frequently used and recognized as such by the scientific community [26,40,41,42,50,53,54] and easily accessible in the published literature. However, the use of these reference materials can lead to overestimations or underestimations of EF [45,50,55]. These materials do not represent the composition of the local bedrock and are often better suited for large river basins such as that of the Amazon and the Congo [56], the Patagonian rivers, the Sebou river in Morocco, or the Garonne river in France [53]. These reference materials will have to be handled with caution [47,57]. To minimize these risks of errors, some authors use data from the local source of rock or uncontaminated fluvial sediments where they exist [40,44,46,58,59] because they reflect the geochemical background of the environment. Some others compare the data from the local source rock and that from the earth’s crust for calculating EF [41,45,50]. The use of local material as a reference makes it possible to set the limit of the natural geochemical background at 1.5 [50,54] rather than 2, which is often used when the reference material used is not local [42,45,60]. It defines the degree of enrichment as follows, according to the EF value: EF < 2 no enrichment, 2 < EF < 5 moderate, 5 < EF < 20 significant, 20 < EF < 40 very high and EF > 40 extreme.
The reference materials used in this study are local references determined by Reference [59]. They correspond to two stream bottom sediments sampled in the Haho catchment, located close to our study area in the coastal sedimentary basin of Togo. One is collected in the upper part of the Haho basin (station H3 on the upper Haho river, see Reference [59]) and the other in a small creek, the Medje, draining a pristine small forested catchment located in the upper part of the Haho river basin (see Reference [59]).
The second important parameter in the EF calculation is the choice of the reference element (or normalizer). Its choice is not universal and depends on the lithological and physico-chemical characteristics of the study area [55]. A through literature, several elements such as Al [26,41,44,47,61,62], Cs [50,54], Fe [4,48,63], Li [64], Sc [45,58], and the organic matter [65] were used as references to calculate EF. Remaining in the same concept, other authors have also made comparative analyses using at least two reference elements [8,42,46], leading to various results depending on the benchmark used.
As reference elements for this study, aluminum (Al), cesium (Cs), iron (Fe), and titanium (Ti), were selected. The choice of Al was motivated by the fact that it is a natural and conservative element and a major constituent of clay minerals. It is frequently used during coastal and estuarine studies, even if it can introduce spurious correlations between variables, as discussed by Reference [62]. In a comparative study, Reference [66] revealed that Cs, structurally combined with clay minerals, could be used for estuarine and coastal sediments. It is also a good indicator for fine sediment fractions (<20 µm), which are phases strongly associated with TE. Fe was retained for its lithospheric origin [67] and for the fact that its distribution in clay fractions is not linked to other TE [68]. Finally, Ti was chosen for its natural origin and because it is supposed to be conservative during the aging process [69].

2.4.2. Sediment Quality Assessment Based on Sediment Quality Guidelines (SQG)

In order to facilitate the assessment of sediment quality, different sediment quality guidelines (SQGs) have been developed, based on the chemistry of the sediment and the corresponding adverse biological effects [70,71,72,73,74]. Many studies are based on these recommendations to assess the quality of sediments, whether freshwater, estuarine, or marine sediments, in order to propose suitable measures for the ecological management of aquatic environments [3,6,75,76,77,78,79,80,81,82]. Within the framework of our study, seven trace elements (As, Cd, Cr, Cu, Ni, Pb, and Zn) for which the SQG data exist in the literature were compared with their total concentrations in the Lomé lagoon sediments(See Supplementary Materials).

2.4.3. Calculation of Ce and Eu Anomalies and (La/Yb)N Ratio in Rare Earth Elements (REE)

For the study of rare earth elements (REE), normalization was carried out with the PAAS [51], which is often used to study REE in sediments of rivers or lagoons [26,40,42,50,53,83]. Ce and Eu anomalies, respectively, Ce* and Eu* are calculated as follows.
R = concentration of the normalizing element
Ce* = CeN/(2LaN + NdN) + 2/3
Eu* = EuN/(SmN × GdN)1/2
with N = normalized.
When the value of Ce* or Eu* is >1 or <1, the anomaly is said to be positive or negative, respectively.
To evaluate the fractionation between the light rare earth elements (LREE) and the heavy rare earth elements (HREE), one classically calculates the ratio (La/Yb)N. When the value of the ratio is >1 or <1, there is, respectively, an enrichment in LREE compared to HREE or a depletion of LREE compared to HREE.

2.5. Statistical Analyses and Data Treatment

Data entry was possible using Excel software and data processing was carried out using STATISTICA 6.1 software (StatSoft Europe, Hamburg, Germany). The latter made it possible to establish the degrees of correlation between the variables and to compare the average values obtained during the dry and the wet seasons, using the Student’s t-test. The geographic map is produced using QGIS software version 2.18 (Free and Open Source Geographic Information Suystem, QGIS Development Team, https://qgis.org/).

3. Results and Discussion

3.1. Granulometry and Micro-Granulometry of the Lomé Lagoon Sediments

The distribution of the different fractions shows that the sediments of the Lomé lagoon evolve from a coarse pole (sand) to a fine pole (clay and silt) represented, respectively, by the sites S7 of East Lake and S6 of Lake Bè (Figure 2a). These sediments are mainly composed of fine fractions (<63 µm), which represent 45% to 95% of the total sediment, respectively. The sediments of Lake Bè (S4–S6) are the finest, while those of East Lake (S7–S9) are the coarsest. The sediments of West Lake (S10–S12) are between the two.
As seen in Figure 2b, the finest fractions (<63 µm) are dominated by the fine silts (2–20 µm), which vary little from 52% (S4) to 66% (S5). The distribution patterns of the fine fractions evolve from clays (<2 µm), which represent 6% (S9) to 36% (S4), to coarse silts (20–63 µm), which are between 7% (S6) and 36% (S9). Among the finest sediments, the stations of Lake Bè (S4–S6) present the highest percentages (22% to 36%) of clay fractions.
Finally, the sediments of the Lomé lagoon are mostly composed of fine fractions, particularly fine silts.This reflects a mild hydrological regime of the water discharged into the Lomé lagoon. However, these results differ from those found by Reference [26] for which the coarse sand fraction is the most abundant (55.3% to 60.1%). This difference can only be explained by the grain size analysis technique used in this study (laser microgranulometry), which is more efficient than the classical sieving used by Reference [26], which overestimates the coarse fractions.

3.2. Major Element Composition of the Lomé Lagoon Sediments

The ternary diagrams for major element percentages (see Table S1 in the Supplementary Materials (SM) for basic data) show that the chemical composition of Lomé lagoon sediments (fine fractions <63 µm) varies little whatever the Lake, the station, or the season.
As in most of the river and lake sediments in the world, the silica (more than 50%) and the iron and aluminum oxides (10%–45%) are the major constituents of the Lomé lagoon sediments. The sum of major cations (CaO + MgO + Na2O + K2O) represents only 5% to 25%. This sediment composition is characteristic of the minerals constituting the lateritic soils of the study area (quartz, kaolinite, gibsite, goethite, hematite, etc.). The seasonal variations are not significant except for SiO2 contents, which are, on average, significantly higher (p value < 3%) during the dry season (54% to 67%, Figure 3a) than during the wet season (48% to 61%) (Figure 3b), particularly for the sites S7–S9 of East Lake.

3.3. Rare Earth Element (REE) Content and Seasonal Variability

The average REE concentrations in the Lomé lagoon fine sediments (fractions <63 µm) are reported in Table 2 for both seasons and in Table S2 in Supplementary Materials for all the sites. The REE concentrations in the local reference material Sed_R are one to two times higher than those of the REE in the sediments of the Lomé lagoon unlike those of the PAAS. The REE concentrations in the Lomé lagoon sediments are, on average, higher during the dry season than during the wet one, particularly for light rare earth elements (LREE from La to Sm) for which the differences between both seasons are significant (p values < 5%). The LREE concentrations are also, on average, higher than those of the heavy rare earth elements (HREE from Eu to Lu), particularly during the dry season.
However, if we consider the different sites (S4 to S12), one can observe some differences in the global distributions of LREE versus HREE and of a dry season versus wet season. Then, in order to highlight these differences, it is better to normalize the REE concentrations in each site sediment (Figure 4) with the PAAS [51].
Then PAAS normalization (Figure 4) of the Lomé lagoon sediments shows that all the sites present the same distribution patterns for each season but some differences can be noted between the dry and the wet seasons.
For the REE in the Lomé lagoon sediments, which are more concentrated during the dry period than during the humid one, the PAAS normalized distributions show the same patterns. Moreover, the REE concentrations in the Lomé lagoon sediments are higher than those in the PAAS, except for the sediments of the East Lake (S7–S9), which are less concentrated than the PAAS. S7–S9 sediments are enriched in silt fractions and in silica and cations when compared to the other sediments (see Figure 2 and Figure 3, respectively). As already shown by different authors [84,85,86], REE have a greater affinity for clay fractions than for silts and sands. Coarse-grained sediments have little potential to immobilize REEs, while clay minerals are rich sources of REEs because of their ability to adsorb REEs on their surfaces and to incorporate them into their crystal structures. It is also important to notice that the REE fractionation between LREE (enrichment) and HREE (depletion) with regard to the PAAS is much more important during the dry period than during the humid one, except for two sediments of the East Lake (S7 and S8). These two sediments are enriched in HREE during the wet period likely because of their particle size (coarser) and of their chemical composition (enriched in silica and cations) as mentioned above. Two classical positive anomalies appear for most of the sediments including one for Ce and the other for Eu.
The Ce anomalies (Ce*) are less noticeable (no significant difference at 1% level) and less variable between seasons than Eu anomalies (Eu*), which are significantly different (p values < 1%). These two positive anomalies are linked to a change in oxidation state. In fact, unlike the other REEs, Ce and Eu in certain redox conditions have the capacity to change their state (from Ce3+ to Ce4+ and from Eu3+ to Eu2+), resulting in a modification of their geochemical behavior with consequent positive or negative anomalies [87,88]. The positive Ce anomaly would be due to the abundance of iron and manganese oxides, which are privileged sites for the adsorption of Ce in the sediments of the Lomé lagoon as underlined by Reference [89]. However, instead of a positive correlation, the results showed an earlier decrease in the Ce anomaly when the percent of Fe increases (Y = −235.48X + 248.28, R2 = 0.7837). Reference [40] made the same observation in the sediments of the Ibrahim river. Then, the total Fe content is likely more due to Fe in clay minerals rather than in Fe-oxides. The anomaly in Eu would likely be linked to phases of substitution of elements like Ca, Sr, Na, and Zr, which are abundant in the sediments of the lagoon. These results are similar to those found in the Piracicaba basin in Brazil [90] and in the sediments of the Milo river at Kankan [42], which drain a silicate substratum with lateritic red soils.
The values of the normalized ratio (La/Yb) (Table 3) show that there is a fractionation between the REEs with an enrichment of the LREE compared to the HREE. This enrichment is more marked in the dry season than in the rainy season (significant difference at a 1% level), as previously shown from the concentration distributions. In the dry season, the absence of rain and water inflow facilitate the deposition of the finest particles at the bottom of the lagoon and, thus, promote the adsorption of REEs, in particular LREEs with a lower ionic radius than HREEs, which are difficult to resuspend during the rainy season. Then, the REE fractionation between LREE and HREE is partly controlled by the particle size and the Fe+Al concentrations in the clay mineralogical fractions. This is supported by the very good relationships between the La/Yb normalized ratios and the particle size (Figure 5, left) on one hand and the percentage of aluminum and iron oxides (Al2O3 + Fe2O3) on the other hand (Figure 5, right). Consequently, there is no significant correlation between (La/Yb)N and the percentages of silica (SiO2) or the percentage of cations (CaO + MgO + Na2O + K2O). It is also important to underline that there are significant negative relationships between Zr concentrations and (La/Yb)N for the dry (R2 = 0.796) and for the wet (R2 = 0.867) seasons because coarse fractions are enriched in zircons.

3.4. Trace Element (TE) Composition of the Lomé Lagoon Sediments

3.4.1. Seasonal Variability

Tables S3 and S4 as well as Figure 6 reveal that the TE concentrations in the fine fractions (<63 µm) vary little, according to the seasons. Nevertheless, Cd, Cu, Hf, Pb, Sb, Sn, U, Zn, and Zr have higher concentrations during the wet season, but only Cd, Hf, Sn, U, and Zr present significant differences (p-values < 5%) between the two seasons. On the contrary, Bi, Ga, Ge, Ni, Rb, and Sc present significant enrichment (p values < 5%) during the dry season. Nevertheless, the two seasons present the same distribution pattern. However, the concentrations are greatly variable from one element to another, going 10−1 for trace elements like Bi to 103 µg·g−1 for minor elements like Zn and Zr. In the rainy season, concentrations range from values close to 3.8 × 10−1 µg·g−1 for Cd to 2.4 × 103 µg·g−1 for Zr and, in the dry season, values range from 10−1 µg·g−1 for Cd to 9.50 × 102 µg·g−1 for Zn. The most abundant TE are Zn > Zr > Sr > Ba > Cr > V > Pb > Cu in the dry season and Zr > Zn > Sr > Ba > Pb > Cu > Cr > V in the rainy season with orders of magnitude between 102 to 103 µg·g−1 regardless of the season. The TE concentrations measured in our sediment samples are higher than the concentrations found in the past in the lagoon sediments by Reference [26] for elements like Ni, Co, Cu, Mo, Cr, and Pb and by References [24,25] for Cd, Cu, Pb, and Zn.
As seen in Figure 6, TE concentrations in the Lomé lagoon sediments present the same distribution patterns than those of the PAAS, UCC, and the local materials Sed_R and H3, except for some elements like As, Cu, Mo, Pb, Sb, Sn, and Zn, which are more abundant in the Lomé lagoon sediments.

3.4.2. Enrichment Factors (EF)

Choice of Reference Material

The distribution patterns of the annual average concentrations of TE in the Lomé Lagoon sediments are normalized in Figure 7 by the different reference materials used in this study (PAAS, UCC, Sed_R, and H3). Some TE give, more or less, the same positive (As, Bi, Cd, Cu, Mo, Pb, Sb, Sn, Ta, U, Zn) or negative (Ba, Be, Cs, Ge, Nb, Th) significant anomalies whatever the reference material used. On the contrary, for some other elements like Co, Cr, Cu, Ga, Hf, Ni, Rb, Sr, V, Y, and Zr, the values calculated using the different reference materials are different. Among these TE, Zr is mainly of natural origin. As already shown by References [42,59], Zr is enriched in the sediments of this African region mainly because of the erosion of lateritic soils, which cover most of the river basins. The lateritization of the soil profile by weathering processes leads to the accumulation of weathering-resistant minerals enriched in Zr like zircon [91]. Then, when normalizing with PAAS or UCC, the Zr anomaly appears to be positive whereas, when using the local reference materials, particularly the sediments of the Medje creek (Sed_R), there is no anomaly.
Consequently, in the context of this study, for calculating the EF, the reference material Sed_R will be used to take the natural regional background into account.

Choice of the Normalizing Element

As already mentioned in Section 2.4.1, four TE (Al, Cs, Fe, and Ti) have been retained for normalization because these TE have very little contamination and they are mainly present in the residual fractions, as shown in Section 3.4.3. A single EDTA extraction, which allows us to remove all the labile fractions, reveals that Al, Cs, Fe, and Ti are mainly associated with the residual fractions that represent 97% to 99% of their total concentrations.
A comparison of the EFs calculated using the four normalizing elements (Al, Cs, Fe, and Ti) is presented in Figure 8. For each TE, the EF values are variable according to the choice of the normalizer as already pointed out by several authors [41,42,45,50,54], but all the normalizers exhibit the same significantly enriched TE (As, Cd, Mo, Pb, Sb, Sn, and Zn) and the ranges of values are consistent. The normalizations with Al, Cs, and Ti exhibit close EF values when compared with Fe. Moreover, Fe presents the worst correlations with the different TE (see Table 4). Then, in the context of this study, we can retain the EF values calculated with Al, Cs, and Ti as normalizers because the values are very close and they present the best correlations with the other TEs.

Enrichment Factors of Trace Elements

As seen in Figure 8, the most enriched TE are, on average, As, Cd, Mo, Pb, Sb, Sn, and Zn, which present significant enrichment (5 < EF < 20) and, to a lesser extent, Bi, Cr, Cu, and Sr, which are moderately enriched (1.5 < EF < 5).
Figure 9 presents only EFs of the most enriched sites at each Lake (S4 for Lake Bè, S8 for East Lake, and S11 for West Lake). The enrichment factors calculated overall show an enrichment of TE in the wet season to be greater than the enrichment in the dry season, except for some stations and some TEs (Cd, Sb, and Zn in S4, Cd, Cu, Pb, Sn, and Zn in S8). The TEs, which present a significant enrichment (As, Cd, Mo, Pb, Sb, Sn, and Zn), are always the same regardless of the lake and the station. Moreover, the level of enrichment is much higher (significant to very high) for S8 than for the other stations, particularly during the dry season.
In the wet season, the S10 site in West Lake records 28% of the enriched TE (EF > 1.5) against 83% of the TE enriched for the S8 site in the East Lake. The sites S6 at Lake Bè and S7 at East Lake record, respectively, the minimum (21%) and the maximum (41%) of the enriched TE during the dry season.
Whatever the season, the degrees of enrichment are moderate to significant for all the sites of Lake Bè and West Lake.
For the sites of Lake Bè (S4–S6) in the dry season, the TE such as As, Mo, Pb, Sn, and Zn show moderate degrees of enrichment while Cd and Sb are significantly enriched. In the wet season, Bi, Cd, Cr, Ga, Mo, Pb, Sn, V, and Zn are moderately enriched while As and Sb are significantly enriched.
For the West Lake sites (S10–S12) in the dry season, TE show moderate (As, Cd, Mo, and Pb) to significant (Sb, Sn, and Zn) enrichment degrees. In the wet season, only Cu and Mo are moderately enriched while As, Bi, Cd, Pb, Sb, Sn, and Zn are significantly enriched.
For the East Lake sites (S7–S9) during the dry season, Hf and Sr are moderately enriched while As, Cd, Cu, Mo, Pb, and Zn are significantly enriched. Sb and Sn show very high enrichments. During the wet season, only Cu is moderately enriched. As, Bi, Cd, Mo, Pb, Sn, Sr, and Zn are significantly enriched and Sb exhibits a very high enrichment.
The EFs of the other TE (Ba, Rb, and Y for the three lakes, plus Co, Cs, Ge, Hf, Nb, Ta, Th, U, W, and Zr for Lake Bè and West Lake, plus Be, Ga, Ni, Sc, Sr, and V for West Lake) are below the regional geochemical background level. The elements with significant EF values are generally recognized for their anthropogenic origin. In the context of this study, these elements are essentially linked to urban pollution. As pointed out by References [24,25,26], this urban pollution consists of (i)- all the wastewaters from various domestic and collective uses (households, health centers, schools, markets, etc.), which are discharged into the lagoon without any treatment, but also of (ii)- the traffic of cars and motorcycles (brake wear and past leaded gasoline) [92,93], and of (iii)- the atmospheric fallout from the combustion (fuel, petrol, incineration of household waste) and the deposit of fine particles in the lagoon. Agricultural pollution is lower and would be due to the use of chemical fertilizers, particularly for Cd, as already shown by Reference [50] and unauthorized phytosanitary products. Furthermore, EF calculated revealed that Ba, Cr, and Zr whose total concentrations range between 102 to 103 µg·g−1 (see Tables S3 and S4 in Supplementary Materials) and are not enriched and lower than the limit of the regional natural geochemical background (EF < 1.5). Then these elements can be considered as of a natural origin and linked to the geological substratum and to the lateritic soils formed through the chemical weathering processes. The geochemical variability of Ba is mainly caused by biogenic and textural factors rather than by anthropogenic activities [47].
The low EF values for Cr come from its lithological character, which can be influenced by anthropogenic contributions as underlined [45,54]. It is the same for Zr whose lithogenic origin has been demonstrated by References [40,42] and which is a component of zircon heavy residual minerals that accumulate in lateritic soils [5,91].

3.4.3. Distribution of TE between the Residual and Non-Residual (labile) Phases

The total extraction of the TEs and the calculation of the EFs made it possible to measure the total concentration of TEs and to determine their natural or anthropogenic origin without giving information on their bioavailability or lability in the Lomé lagoon sediments. Numerous studies [5,41,42,46,50,94,95] have shown the importance to undertake single or selective extractions because only the TEs in the labile phases represent a threat to living organisms and to aquatic ecosystems. The percentages of non-residual fractions (NRF) extracted using EDTA are reported in Table 5 for each element and for both seasons. The results show that the labile fractions represents less than 15% of the total concentrations except Co, Cu, Y (both seasons), and Sr (dry season) for which the NRF range between 15% to 25%, Pb, Zn (both seasons), and Sr (wet season) for which the NRF range between 25% to 40% and Cd (both seasons) between 47% to 55% regardless of the season (see Figure 10 left for Cd in the different sites). In addition to these elements, As, Bi, Ni, V, Mo, and Sc (both seasons) have NRF percentages between 5% to 15%. The anthropogenic contributions of all these TE will mainly tend to adsorb onto the sediments in the non-residual phases. Consequently, they can be released into the water column if there is any change in the physicochemical characteristics of the lagoon waters (pH, redox potential, salinity, dissolved organic carbon, and inorganic ligands). References [96,97,98] showed that TEs such as Pb, Cu, Zn, and Cd can be rapidly bio-available in the aquatic environment if the pH drops down to pH 4, 5, 5.5, and 6, respectively. TEs such as Ba, Cr, and Zr (see Figure 10 right for Zr in the different sites) whose natural origins have been demonstrated in the previous paragraph have percentages of labile fractions less than 1%. This confirms their natural origin in the Lomé lagoon sediments despite their high total concentration in the sediments (see Tables S3 and S4 in Supplementary Materials). Reference [40] has shown, in the sediments of the Ibrahim river in Lebanon, a good positive relationship between EF and labile fractions for elements of anthropogenic origin such as Cu, Co, Ni, Zn, and Pb and negative for Zr, which is of a natural origin. In the Milo River, sediments at Kankan (Guinea) [42] have also noticed good relationships between EF values and the percentages of labile fractions, which are positive for Co, Mn, Zn, and Sb and negative for Zr and Hf, which are of a natural origin. In the Lomé lagoon sediments, these relationships were also verified with negative correlation between the EF and percentage of NRF for Th (Y = −6.56X + 3.99, R2 = 0.55), and Nb, which are of a natural origin and positive correlation for Co (Y = 12.52 ln(X) + 14.49, R2 = 0.57), which is of anthropogenic origin.

3.4.4. Comparison with the Sediment Quality Guidelines (SQGs)

The total TE concentrations in the Lomé lagoon sediments compared to the SQGs [70,71,72,73,74], (Table S3) show that TE such as As, Cd, Cu, and Ni have total concentrations within the range of variation of the SQG concentrations, whereas Cr, Pb, and Zn total concentrations are higher than the SQG values.
According to Reference [99], PEL and ERM values can be used to estimate the probability of toxicity for sediment-dwelling organisms, using the PEL and ERM quotients, QPEL and QERM, respectively. QPEL and QERM are the ratio between the ET concentration measured in the sediment and the corresponding PEL or ERM concentration. Then Reference [99] propose to use QPEL and QERM values for ranking or prioritizing the sites with respect to sediment contamination and to the probability of toxicity for benthic organisms [100] (Table S5).
QPEL and QERM values have been calculated for all the sites and for the two seasons when ERM and PEL concentrations were available (see Table S6 in Supplementary Materials). Then, with regard to As, Cd, and Cu concentrations, all the sites (except S8 for Cd and Cu) can be ranked as lowest or medium-low priorities according to the site, the season, or the TE. On the contrary, for the other TE, the different sites can be considered as medium-high (Cr and Ni) to highest (Pb and Zn) priorities, according to site/season/TE. The highest priorities concern mainly East Lake sites (particularly S7 for Zn, S8 and S9 for Pb and Zn) and West Lake sites (particularly Zn for all the sites). On the contrary, all the sites of Lake Bè (S4–S6) are not concerned by the highest priorities. Lake Bè can be ranked as medium-high priority with regard to Cr, Ni, Pb, and Zn, and medium-low to low priority for As, Cd, and Cu.
However, these guide values were calculated based on the total concentration of TEs. However, several studies today have shown that the total concentration of a trace element cannot characterize the toxicological and environmental risks of sediments because only bioavailable fractions can be toxic [50,101,102,103,104,105]. In the previous paragraph, the non-residual (labile) fractions, which have been extracted with EDTA and which represent the bioavailable fractions, are <1% of the total concentrations for Cr between 5% and 15% for As and Ni, 15–25% for Cu, 25–40% for Pb and Zn, and 40–60% for Cd. Then, if we consider mainly the NRF concentrations for each TE, all the sites we have studied in the Lomé lagoon will have concentrations below the SQGs. In particular, this is the case for Cr, As, Cu, and Ni, which have the lowest NRF percentages, with, consequently, less potential biological effects on the aquatic organisms. Such results have already been observed in the same kind of river basin covered by lateritic soil by Reference [42] in the Milo river sediments (Guinea) and by Reference [59] in the Zio and Haho river sediments (Togo).

4. Conclusions

The purpose of this study was to assess the spatio-temporal variations and distributions of major, trace, and rare earth element concentrations in the sediments of the Lomé lagoons located in an urban environment. The seasonal variability of major REE and trace element concentrations is not very marked. However, the study revealed a slight enrichment in silica during the dry season, particularly for the sediments of East Lake (sites S7–S9), which have more abundant sandy particles, and a larger fractionation between light REE and heavy REE (La/Yb > 1). The main phases of REE transport on sediments are mainly linked to aluminum and iron oxides and to the particle size distribution, especially to the finest fractions of the sediments. Ba, Cr, Cu, Pb, Sr, V, Zn, and Zr are the most abundant TE, but only Cu, Pb, and Zn have enrichment factors (EF) greater than the limit of the natural regional geochemical background. The comparison of EFs calculated with different normalizing elements (Al, Cs, Fe, and Ti) and the correlations established between the normalizing elements and the other TE showed that Al, Cs, and Ti give very close EF values and are the most suitable normalizers for the Lomé lagoon sediments. Thus, As, Bi, Cd, Cu, Mo, Pb, Sb, Sn, and Zn are the most enriched TEs, representing 31% of the studied TEs. This percentage varies according to the Lake/Site and to the season. It is going from 28% (S10 site in West Lake) to 83% (S8 site in the East Lake) in the wet season and from 21% (S6 site at Lake Bè) to 41% (S7 and S9 sites of the East Lake) during the dry season. The East Lake is the most impacted by the urban activities of Lomé agglomeration. Ba, Be, Cr, Nb, Rb, Th, and Zr whose natural origins have been demonstrated by calculating the enrichment factor present percentages of non-residual fractions (NRF) less than 1% for both seasons. On the contrary, Cd, Pb, and Zn, which present significant enrichments, have NRF percentages in between 20% to 55% and are likely to be released into the water column in order to present a risk to the health of aquatic species.
A comparative analysis of TEs in relation to sediment quality guidelines allows us to conclude that TE such as As, Cd, Cu, and Ni have total concentrations within the range of variation of the SQG concentrations (particularly PEL and ERM), whereas Cr, Pb, and Zn total concentrations are higher than the SQG values. Moreover, PEL and ERM quotients allow us to determine the priority ranking for each site, showing that the priorities for almost all the sites are lowest to medium-low with regard to As, Cd, and Cu and medium-high (with regard to Cr and Ni) to highest (with regard to Pb and Zn), particularly for the East and West Lakes. The next step is to assess the impact of these TE on the fishes (ongoing study) and to carry out a characterization of the sediments of the Lomé lagoon in polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH). This will make it possible to have the first PAH data and to propose solutions to strengthen the management of this lagoon ecosystem.

Supplementary Materials

The following are available online at https://www.mdpi.com/2073-4441/12/11/3026/s1, Table S1: Major element contents in the fine fractions (<63 µm) of the Lomé lagoon sediments during the wet and the dry seasons. S4–S6: Lake Bè sites, S7–S9: East Lake sites, S10–S12: West Lake sites. LOI: Loss-On-Ignition, which corresponds to the organic matter and the carbonates. Table S2: Rare earth element concentrations in the fine fractions (<63 µm) of the Lomé lagoon sediments during the wet and the dry seasons. S4–S6: Lake Bè sites. S7–S9: East Lake sites. S10–S12: West Lake sites. Table S3: Average trace element concentrations in the Lomé lagoon sediments (fraction < 63 µm) and TE concentrations of PAAS, UCC, two local materials (Sed_R and H3), and some Sediment Quality Guidelines (SQGs). See TE concentrations for each site in Table S4. Sediment Quality Guidelines for sediments (SQGs): TEL-Threshold Effect Level [73], ERL-Effects Range Low [70], LEL-Lowest Effect Level [72], MEL-Minimum Effect Level [71], PEL- Probable Effect Level [73], ERM-Effect Range Median [70], SEL-Severe Effect Level [72], TET-Toxic Effect Threshold [71], CB PEC-Consensus-Based for Probable Effect Concentrations [74]. Table S4: Trace element concentrations in the fine fractions (<63 µm) of the Lomé lagoon sediments during the wet and the dry seasons. S4–S6: Lake Bè sites. S7–S9: East Lake sites. S10–S12: West Lake sites. Table S5: Ranking of priority sites with respect to sediment contamination according to ERM and PEL quotients (QERM and QPEL) and to the probability (%) of toxicity for benthic organisms (after [99]). See QERM and QPEL values calculated for Lomé lagoon sediments in Table S6. Table S6: PEL and ERM quotients, respectively, QPEL and QERM calculated for all the sites (S4–S6 for Lake Bè, S7–S9 for East Lake and S10–S12 for West Lake) for the two seasons (WS, wet season and DS, dry season). Bold figures: highest priorities. Bold italics: medium-high priorities. Normal figures: medium-low priorities. Italics: low priorities (see Table S5 for the corresponding QPEL and QERM limit values and for the toxicity probabilities).

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, T.E.-E.B. and J.-L.P. Methodology, T.E.-E.B. and J.-L.P. Validation, T.E.-E.B. and J.-L.P. Formal analysis, T.E.-E.B. Investigation, T.E.-E.B. and J.-L.P. Resources, T.E.-E.B., A.M.D.A., and K.O.-S. Data curation, T.E.-E.B. Writing-review and editing, T.E.-E.B. and J.-L.P. Visualization, T.E.-E.B. Supervision, J.-L.P., K.G., and S.J.-D. Project administration, J.-L.P. and K.G. Funding acquisition, J.-L.P. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by the Cooperation and Cultural Action Service (SCAC) of the French Embassy in Togo for the doctoral fellowship of T.E.-E.B. in France and by the Laboratory of Functional Ecology and Environment on its contracts and its own CNRS resources.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank the technicians and engineers of the Laboratory of Functional Ecology and Environment at Toulouse (Marie-José Tavella, Virginie Payre-Suc, Frédéric Julien, and David Baqué) for their welcome, advice, and technical assistance to the laboratory during the preparation and analysis of the samples. Thanks also to the SARM (CNRS analytical platform) in Nancy for the ICP-OES and ICP-MS analyses, and to A. Lanzanova & Camille Duquenoy (GET, France) for their technical support with the ICP-MS analyses (ICP-MS Platform, Midi-Pyrénées Observatory, Toulouse). We would like to thank colleagues from the GTVD laboratory (Ouro-Sama Kamilou, Solitoke D. Hodabalo, Sama Daouda) in Lomé for their help in the preparation/preliminary storage of the samples. Our thanks to the Cooperation and Cultural Action Service (SCAC) of the French Embassy in Togo who supported this study through the Campus France grant, which enabled Tchaa Esso-Essinam Badassan to carry out a three-month stay/year during three years in the Laboratory of Functional Ecology and Environment (Toulouse, France). This work has been achieved within the framework of an international jointly-awarded PhD program agreement between the University of Lomé (Togo) and Toulouse INP (France). The authors would like also to thank two anonymous reviewers for their very helpful and valuable comments, which allowed us to greatly improve the first version of the manuscript.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Marthe, Y.K.; Lanciné, G.D.; Bamory, K.; Aristide, D.G.; Ardjouma, D. Seasonal and Spatial Variations in Water Physicochemical Quality of Coastal Potou Lagoon (Côte d’Ivoire, Western Africa). J. Water Resour. Prot. 2015, 7, 748. [Google Scholar]
  2. Iqbal, J.; Saleem, M.; Munir, H.S. Spatial distribution, environmental assessment and source identification of metals content in surface sediments of freshwater reservoir, Pakistan. Geochemistry 2016, 76, 171–177. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Lin, Y.; Liu, Q.; Meng, F.; Lin, Y.; Du, Y. Integrated toxicity evaluation of metals in sediments of Jiaozhou Bay (China): Based on biomarkers responses in clam Ruditapes philippinarum exposed to sediment extracts. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2018, 131, 180–190. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Gopal, V.; Nithya, B.; Magesh, N.S.; Jayaprakash, M. Seasonal variations and environmental risk assessment of trace elements in the sediments of Uppanar River estuary, southern India. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2018, 129, 347–356. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Prabakaran, K.; Nagarajan, R.; Eswaramoorthi, S.; Anandkumar, A.; Merlin, F. Environmental significance and geochemical speciation of trace elements in Lower Baram River sediments. Chemosphere 2019, 219, 933–953. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. Zhang, H.; Walker, T.R.; Davis, E.; Ma, G. Spatiotemporal characterization of metals in small craft harbour sediments in Nova Scotia, Canada. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2019, 140, 493–502. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  7. Shi, Z.; Wang, X.; Ni, S. Metal contamination in sediment of one of the upper reaches of the Yangtze River: Mianyuan River in Longmenshan Region, Southwest of China. Soil Sediment Contam. 2015, 24, 368–385. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Wang, X.; Shi, Z.; Shi, Y.; Ni, S.; Wang, R.; Xu, W.; Xu, J. Distribution of potentially toxic elements in sediment of the Anning River near the REE and V-Ti magnetite mines in the Panxi Rift, SW China. J. Geochem. Explor. 2018, 184, 110–118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Jonathan, M.P.; Sarkar, S.K.; Roy, P.D.; Alam, M.A.; Chatterjee, M.; Bhattacharya, B.D.; Bhattacharya, A.; Satpathy, K.K. Acid leachable trace metals in sediment cores from Sunderban mangrove wetland, India: An approach towards regular monitoring. Ecotoxicology 2010, 19, 405–418. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Krishnakumar, S.; Ramasamy, S.; Chandrasekar, N.; Simon Peter, T.; Gopal, V.; Godson, P.S.; Magesh, N.S. Trace element concentrations in reef associated sediments of Koswari Island, Gulf of Mannar biosphere reserve, southeast coast of India. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2017, 117, 515–522. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Al-Rousan, S.; Al-Taani, A.A.; Rashdan, M. Effects of pollution on the geochemical properties of marine sediments across the fringing reef of Aqaba, Red Sea. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2016, 110, 546–554. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. Myung, C.J. Heavy metal contamination of soils and waters in and around the Imcheon Au-Ag mine, Korea. Appl. Geochem. 2001, 1661, 369–1375. [Google Scholar]
  13. Khan, S.D.; Mahmood, K.; Sultan, M.J.; Khan, A.S.; Xiong, Y.Q.; Sagintayev, Z. Trace element geochemistry of groundwater from Quetta Valley, Western Pakistan. Environ. Earth Sci. 2010, 60, 573–582. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Xiao, J.; Jin, Z.; Wang, J. Geochemistry of trace elements and water quality assessment of natural water within the Tarim River Bassin in the extreme arid region, NW China. J. Geochem. Explor. 2014, 136, 118–126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Bonanno, G.; Di Martino, V. Trace element compartmentation in the seagrass Posidonia oceanica and biomonitoring applications. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2017, 116, 196–203. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Mwesigye, A.R.; Tumwebaze, S.B. Water contamination with heavy metals and trace elements from Kilembe copper mine and tailing sites in Western Uganda; implications for domestic water quality. Chemosphere 2017, 169, 281–287. [Google Scholar]
  17. Ternengo, S.; Marengo, M.; El Idrissi, O.; Yepka, J.; Pasqualini, V.; Gobert, S. Spatial variations in trace element concentrations of the sea urchin, Paracentrotus lividus, a first reference study in the Mediterranean Sea. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2018, 129, 293–298. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  18. Yuan, G.; Liu, C.; Chen, I.; Yang, Z. Inputting history of heavy metals into the inland Lake recorded in sediment profiles: Poyang lake in China. J. Hazard. Mater. 2011, 185, 336–345. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Cheng, H.-X.; Li, M.; Zhao, C.; Yang, K.; Li, K.; Peng, M.; Yang, Z.; Liu, F.; Liu, Y.; Bai, R.; et al. Concentrations of toxic metals and ecological risk assessment for sediments of major freshwater lakes in China. J. Geochem. Exp. 2015, 157, 15–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Barbie, E.B.; Hacker, S.D.; Kennedy, C.; Koch, E.W.; Stier, A.C.; Silliman, B.R. The value of estuarine and coastal ecosystem services. Ecol. Monogr. 2011, 81, 169–193. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Danovaro, R. Pollution threats in the Mediterranean Sea: An overview. Chem. Ecol. 2003, 19, 15–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Robb, C.K. Assessing the impact of human activities on British Columbia’s estuaries. PLoS ONE 2014, 9, e99578. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  23. Coynel, A.; Gorse, L.; Curti, C.; Schafer, J.; Grosbois, C.; Morelli, G.; Ducassou, E.; Blanc, G.; Maillet, G.M.; Mojtahid, M. Spatial distribution of trace elements in the surface sediments of a major European estuary (Loire Estuary, France): Source identification and evaluation of anthropogenic contribution. J. Sea Res. 2016, 118, 77–91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Bawa, L.M.; Djaneye-Boundjou, G.; Boyode, B.P.; Assih, B.T. Water quality evaluation from Lomé’s lagoon: Effects on heavy metals contamination on fishes. J. Appl. Sci. Environ. Manag. 2007, 11, 33–36. [Google Scholar]
  25. Gnandi, K.; Han, S.; Rezaie-Boroon, M.H.; Porrachia, M.; Deheyn, D. Increased Bioavailability of Mercury in the Lagoons of Lomé, Togo: The Possible Role of Dredging. AMBIO 2011, 40, 26–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  26. Ayah, M. Contribution des Apports Anthropiques dans la Pollution d’un Hydrosystème Lagunaire Subtropical: Hydrogéochimie du Système Lagunaire de Lomé. Ph.D. Thesis, Université de Lomé, Lomé, Togo, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  27. Mimikou, M.A.; Baltas, E.; Varanou, E.; Pantazis, K. Regional impacts of climate change on water resources quantity and quality indicators. J. Hydrol. 2000, 234, 95–109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Eckhardta, K.; Ulbrichb, U. Potential impacts of climate change on groundwater recharge and stream flow in a central European low mountain range. J. Hydrol. 2003, 284, 244–252. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Kumar, V.; Jain, S.K. Trends in seasonal and annual rainfall and rainy days in Kashmir valley in the last century. Quatern. Int. 2010, 212, 64–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Giuseppe, S.; Sibel, E.; Flavia, F.; Lukuba, N.S.; Giulia, L. Effects of seasonal change and seawater intrusion on water quality for drinking and irrigation purposes, in coastal aquifers of Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. J. Afr. Earth Sci. 2015, 105, 64–84. [Google Scholar]
  31. Bharathi, M.D.; Patra, S.; Sundaramoorthy, S.; Madeswaran, P.; Sundaramanickam, A. Elucidation of seasonal variations of physicochemical and biological parameters with statistical analysis methods in Puducherry coastal waters. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2017, 122, 432–440. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Ayah, M.; Malgorzata, G.; Lallébila, T.; Bawa, L.M.; Bril, H.; Djaneye-Boundjou, G. Qualité et pollution des eaux d’un hydrosytème littoral tropical: Cas du système lagunaire de Lomé, Togo. Eur. Sci. J. 2015, 11, 95–119. [Google Scholar]
  33. Adjoussi, P. Changement Climatique Global: Évaluation de L’évolution des Paramètres Climatiques au Togo. Master’s Thesis, University of Lomé, Lomé, Togo, 2000. [Google Scholar]
  34. Salomons, W.; Förstner, U. Trace metal analysis on polluted sediments. I: Assessment of Sources and Intensities. Environ. Technol. Lett. 1980, 1, 494–505. [Google Scholar]
  35. Horowitz, A.J.; Elrick, K.A. The relation of stream sediment surface area, grain size and composition to trace element chemistry. Appl. Geochem. 1987, 2, 437–451. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Probst, J.L.; Messaïtfa, A.; Krempp, G.; Behra, P. Fluvial transports of mercury pollution in the Ill river basin (Northeastern France): Partitioning into aqueous phases, suspended matter and bottom sediments. In Mercury Contaminated Site; Ebinghaus, R., Ed.; Environmental Science; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 1999; pp. 501–520. [Google Scholar]
  37. Mahvi, A.H.; Mesdaghinia, A.R.; Naghipoor, D. Comparison of heavy metal extraction efficiency in contamined soil by various concentration of EDTA. Pak. J. Biol. Sci. 2005, 8, 1081–1085. [Google Scholar]
  38. Baize, D.; Saby, N.; Walter, C. Le cuivre extrait à l’EDTA dans les sols de France Probabilités de carences et de toxicités selon la BDAT. Etude Gest. Sols 2006, 13, 259–268. [Google Scholar]
  39. Leleyter, L.; Rousseau, C.; Biree, L.; Baraud, F. Comparison of EDTA, HCl and sequential extraction procedures, for selected metals (Cu, Mn, Pb, Zn), in soils, riverine and marine sediments. J. Geochem. Explor. 2012, 116, 51–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Assaker, A. Hydrologie et Biogéochimie du Bassin Versant du Fleuve Ibrahim: Un Observatoire du Fonctionnement de la Zone Critique au Liban. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Toulouse, Toulouse INP, Toulouse, France, 2016; 256p. [Google Scholar]
  41. Benabdelkader, A.; Taleb, A.; Probst, J.L.; Belaidi, N.; Probst, A. Anthropogenic contribution and influencing factors on metal features in fluvial sediments from a semi-arid Mediterranean river basin (Tafna River, Algeria): A multi-indices approach. Sci. Total Environ. 2018, 626, 899–914. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  42. Sow, M.A.; Payre-Suc, V.; Julien, F.; Camara, M.; Baque, D.; Probst, A.; Sidibe, K.; Probst, J.L. Geochemical composition of fluvial sediments in the Milo River basin (Guinea): Is there any impact of artisanal mining and of a big African city, Kankan? J. Afr. Earth Sci. 2018, 145, 102–114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  43. Chester, R.; Stoner, J.H. Pb in particulates from the lower atmosphere of the eastern Atlantic. Nature 1973, 245, 27–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Rubio, B.; Nombela, M.A.; Vilas, F. Geochemistry of Major and Trace Elements in Sediments of the Ria de Vigo (NW Spain): An Assessment of Metal Pollution. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2000, 40, 968–980. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Hernandez, L.; Probst, A.; Probst, J.L.; Erwin, U. Heavy metal distribution in some French forest soils: Evidence for atmospheric contamination. Sci. Total Environ. 2003, 312, 195–219. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  46. El Azzi, D.; Viers, J.; Guiresse, M.; Probst, A.; Aubert, D.; Caparros, J.; Charles, F.; Guizien, K.; Probst, J.L. Origin and fate of copper in a small Mediterranean vineyard catchment: New insights from combined chemical extraction and δ65Cu isotopic composition. Sci. Total Environ. 2013, 463, 91–101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  47. Celis-Hernandez, O.; Rosales, L.; Cundy, A.B.; Carranza-Edwards, A.; Croudace, I.W.; Hernandez-Hernandez, H. Historical trace element accumulation in marine sediments from the Tamaulipas shelf, Gulf of Mexico: An assessment of natural vs anthropogenic inputs. Sci. Total Environ. 2018, 622, 325–326. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  48. Saravanan, P.; Pradhap, D.; Krishnakumar, S.; Silva, J.D.; Vidyasakar, A.; Sackaria, M.; Godson, P.S.; Arumugam, K.; Magesh, N.S. A baseline study on trace element based sediment pollution and potential ecological risk of reef sediments of Musal, Manoli and Manoli putti Islands, Gulf of Mannar, India. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2018, 133, 117–123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. N’guessan, Y.M. Dynamique des Éléments Traces Dans les Eaux de Surfaces des Bassins Versant Agricoles de Gascogne. Ph.D. Thesis, Université Paul Sabatier—Toulouse III, Toulouse, France, 2008. [Google Scholar]
  50. N’guessan, Y.M.; Probst, J.L.; Bur, T.; Probst, A. Trace elements in stream bed sediments from agricultural catchments (Gascogne region, S-W France): Where do they come from? Sci. Total Environ. 2009, 407, 2939–2952. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Taylor, S.R.; Mc Lennan, S.M. The Continental Crust: Its Composition and Evolution; Blackwell Scientific Publications: Oxford, UK, 1985; 321p. [Google Scholar]
  52. Wedepohl, K.H. The composition of the continental crust. Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta 1995, 59, 1217–1232. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Leleyter, L.; Probst, J.L.; Depretris, P.; Haida, S.; Mortatti, J.; Rouault, R.; Samuel, J. REE distribution pattern in river sediments: Partitioning into residual and labile. Comptes Rendus Académie Sci. Ser. IIA Earth Planet. Sci. 1999, 329, 45–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Roussiez, V.; Ludwig, W.; Probst, J.L.; Monaco, A. Background levels of heavy metals in surficial sediments of the Gulf of Lions (NW Mediterranean): An approach based on 133Cs normalization and lead isotope measurements. Environ. Pollut. 2005, 26, 1843–1857. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  55. Reimann, C.; De Caritat, P. Distinguishing between natural and anthropogenic sources for elements in the environment: Regional geochemical surveys versus enrichment factors. Sci Total Environ. 2005, 337, 91–107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  56. Gaillardet, J.; Dupré, B.; Allègre, C.J. A global geochemical mass budget applied to the Congo Basin Rivers: Erosion rates and continental crust composition. Geochem. Cosmochim. Acta 1995, 59, 3469–3485. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Celis-Hernandez, O.; Rosales-Hoz, L.; Carranza-Edwards, A. Heavy metal enrichment in surface sediments from the SW Gulf of Mexico. Environ. Monit. Assess. 2013, 185, 8891–8907. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Bur, T.; Probst, J.L.; N’guessan, Y.M.; Probst, A. Distribution and origin of lead in stream sediments from small agricultural catchments draining Miocene molassic deposits (SW France). Appl. Geochem. 2009, 24, 1324–1338. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  59. Avumadi, A.; Gnandi, K.; Probst, J.L. Trace element distribution and enrichment in the stream sediments of the Lake Togo watersheds (South of Togo). Adv. Ecol. Environ. Res. 2019, 4, 87–114. [Google Scholar]
  60. Sutherland, R.A. Bed sediment-associated trace metals in an urban stream, Oahu, Hawaii. Environ Geol. 2000, 39, 330–341. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Windom, H.L.; Schropp, S.J.; Calder, F.D.; Ryan, J.D.; Smith, R.G.; Burney, L.C. Natural trace metal concentrations in estuarine and coastal marine sediments of the southeastern United States. Environ. Sci. Technol. 1989, 23, 314–320. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Van der Weijden, C.H. Pitfalls of mormalization of marine geochemical data using a common divisor. Mar. Geol. 2002, 184, 167–187. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Sinex, S.A.; Wright, D.A. Distribution of trace metals in the sediments and biota of Chesapeake Bay. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 1988, 19, 425–431. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Loring, D.H. Lithium a new approach for the granulometric normalization of trace metal data. Mar. Chem. 1990, 29, 156–168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Hissler, C.; Probst, J.L. Impact of mercury atmospheric deposition on soils and streamsin a mountainous catchment (Vosges, France) polluted by chlor-alkali industrial activity: The important trapping role of the organic matter. Sci. Total Environ. 2006, 361, 163–178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  66. Ackermann, F. A procedure for correcting the grain size effect in heavy metal analyses of estuarine and coastal sediments. Environ. Technol. Lett. 1980, 1, 518–527. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Bloundi, M.K.; Duplay, J.; Quaranta, G. Heavy metal contamination of coastal lagoon sediments by anthropogenic activities: The case of Nador (East Morocco). Environ. Geol. 2009, 56, 833–843. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Deely, J.M.; Fergusson, J.E. Heavy metal and organic matter concentrations and distributions in dated sediments of a small estuary adjacent to a small urban area. Sci. Total Environ. 1994, 153, 97–111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Tam, N.F.Y.; Yao, M.W.Y. Normalization and heavy metal contamination in mangrove sediments. Sci. Total Environ. 1998, 216, 33–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Long, E.R.; Morgan, L.J. The potential for biological effects of sediment-sorbed contaminants tested in the National Status and Trends Program. In NOAA Technical Memorandum NOS OMA 52; National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration: Seattle, WA, USA, 1991. [Google Scholar]
  71. MENVIQ/EC. Critères Intérimaires pour L’évaluation de la Qualité des Sédiments du Saint-Laurent; Environnment Canada—Centre Saint-Laurent et Ministère de l’Environnement du Québec: Montréal, QC, Canada, 1992. [Google Scholar]
  72. Persaud, D.; Jaagumagi, R. Guidelines for the Protection and Management of Aquatic Sediment Quality in Ontario; Water Resources Branch; Ontario Ministry of the Environment: Toronto, ON, Canada, 1993; p. 27. ISBN 0-7778-9248-7. [Google Scholar]
  73. Smith, S.I.; MacDonnald, D.D.; Keenleyside, K.A.; Ingersoll, C.G.; Field, J. A preliminary evaluation of sediment quality assessment values for freshwater ecosystems. J. Great Lake. Res. 1996, 22, 624–638. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. MacDonnald, D.D.; Ingersoll, C.G.; Berger, T.A. Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 2000, 39, 20–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Binelli, A.; Sarkar, S.K.; Chatterjee, M.; Riva, C.; Parolin, M.; Bhattacharya, B.D.; Bhattacharya, A.K.; Satpathy, K.K. A comparison of sediment quality guidelines for toxicity assessment in the Sunderban wetlands (Bay of Bengal, India). Chemosphere 2008, 78, 1129–1137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  76. Li, L.; Wang, X.; Zhu, A.; Yang, G.; Liu, J. Assessing metal toxicity in sediments of Yellow River wetland and its surrounding coastal areas, China. Estuar. Coastal Shelf Sci. 2014, 151, 302–309. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Liao, J.; Chen, J.; Ru, X.; Chen, J.; Wu, H.; Wei, C. Heavy metals in river surface sediments affected with multiple pollution sources, South China: Distribution, enrichment and source apportionment. J. Geochem. Explor. 2017, 176, 9–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Zhang, Y.; Han, Y.; Yang, J.; Zhu, L.; Zhong, W. Toxicities and risk assessment of heavy metals in sediments of Taihu Lake, China, based on sediment quality guidelines. J. Environ. Sci. 2017, 62, 31–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Hartwell, S.I.; Apeti, A.D.; Pait, A.S.; Radenbaugh, T.; Britton, R. Benthic habitat contaminant status and sediment toxicity in Bristol Bay, Alaska. Reg. Stud. Mar. Sci. 2018, 24, 343–354. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Birch, G.F. A review of chemical-based sediment quality assessment methodologies for the marine environment. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2018, 133, 218–232. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  81. Merhaby, D.; Ouddane, B.; Net, S.; Halwani, J. Assessment of trace metals contamination in surficial sediments along Lebanese Coastal Zone. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2018, 133, 881–890. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Mehler, W.T.; Gagliardi, B.; Keough, M.J.; Pettigrove, V. Evaluating freshwater mining sediment toxicity in Tasmania: Achieving strong multiple lines of evidence. Sci. Total Environ. 2019, 651, 1243–1252. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  83. Kechiched, R.; Laouar, R.; Bruguier, O.; Salmi-Laouar, S.; Kocsis, K.; Bosch, D.; Foufou, A.; Ameur-Zaimeche, O.; Larit, H. Glauconite-bearing sedimentary phosphorites from the Tébessa region (eastern Algeria): Evidence of REE enrichment and geochemical constraints on their origin. J. Afr. Earth Sci. 2018, 145, 190–200. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Dubinin, A.V. Geochemistry of rare earth elements in the ocean. Lithol. Miner. Resour. 2004, 39, 289–307. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Trifuoggi, M.; Donadio, C.; Ferrara, L.; Stanislao, C.; Toscanesi, M.; Arienzo, M. Levels of pollution of rare earth elements in the surface sediments from the Gulf of Pozzuoli (Campania, Italy). Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2018, 136, 374–384. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  86. Wu, K.; Liu, S.; Kandasamy, S.; Jin, A.; Lou, Z.; Li, J.; Wu, B.; Wang, X.; Mohamed, C.A.; Shi, X. Grain-size effect on rare earth elements in Pahang River and Kelantan River, Peninsular Malaysia: Implications for sediment provenance in the southern South China Sea. Cont. Shelf Res. 2019, 189, 103977. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. McLennan S, M. Rare earth elements in sedimentary rocks: influence of provenance and sedimentary processes. Geochem. Mineral. Rare Earth Elem. Rev. Mineral. 1989, 21, 169–200. [Google Scholar]
  88. Kabata-Pendias, A.; Pendias, H. Trace Elements in Soil and Plants, 2nd ed.; CRC Press, Taylor & Francis Group, Inc.: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 1992; p. 365. [Google Scholar]
  89. Laveuf, C.; Cornu, S.; Juillot, F. Rare earth elements as tracers of pedogenetic processes. C. R. Geosci. 2008, 340, 523–532. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Leleyter, L. Spéciation Chimique des Éléments Majeurs, Traces et des Terres Rares dans les Matières en Suspension et dans les Sédiments de fond des Cours d’eau: Application aux Fleuves de Patagonie (Argentine) à la Piracicaba (Brésil) à l’Oued Sebou (Maroc) et à l’Ile (France). Ph.D. Thesis, Université Louis Pasteur, Strasbourg, France, 1998. [Google Scholar]
  91. Horbe, A.M.C.; Da Costa, M.L. Geochemical evolution of a lateritic Sn-Zr-Th-Nb-Y-REE-bearing ore body derived from apogranite: The case of Pitinga, Amazonas—Brazil. J. Geochem. Explor. 1999, 66, 339–351. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Grigoratos, T.; Martini, G. Brake wear particle emissions: A review. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2015, 22, 2491–2504. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  93. Peikertova, P.; Filip, P. Influence of the Automotive Brake Wear Debris on the Environment—A Review of Recent Research. SAE Int. J. Mat. Manuf. 2016, 9, 133–146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Leleyter, L.; Probst, J.L. A new sequential extraction procedure for the speciation of particulate trace elements in river sediments. Int. J. Environ. Anal. Chem. 1999, 73, 109–128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Gaiero, D.M.; Probst, J.-L.; Depetris, P.J.; Bidart, S.M.; Leleyter, L. Iron and other transition metals in Patagonian riverborne and windborne materials: Geochemical control and transport to the southern South Atlantic Ocean. Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta 2003, 67, 3603–3623. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Coquery, M.; Welbourm, P.M. The relationship between metal concentration and organic matter in sediments and metal concentration in aquatic macrophyte eriocaulon septangulare. Water Res. 1995, 29, 2094–2102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Adriano, D.C.; Wenzel, W.W.; Vangronsveld, J.; Bolan, N.S. Role of assisted natural remediation in environmental cleanup. Geoderma 2004, 122, 121–142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Singh, K.P.; Mohan, D.; Singh, V.K.; Malik, A. Studies on distribution and fractionation of heavy metals in Gomti river sediment—A tributaryon the Ganges, India. J. Hydrol. 2005, 312, 14–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Long, E.R.; MacDonald, D.D. Recommended Uses of Empirically Derived, Sediment Quality Guidelines for Marine and Estuarine Ecosystems. Human Ecol. Risk Assess. 1998, 4, 1019–1039. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Long, E.R.; Field, L.J.; MacDonald, D.D. Predicting toxicity in marine sediments with numerical sediment quality guidelines. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 1998, 17, 714–727. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Swartz, R.C.; Ditsworth, G.R.; Schults, D.W.; Lamberson, J.O. Sediment toxicity to a marine infaunal amphipod: Cadmium and its interaction with sewage sludge. Mar. Environ. Res. 1986, 18, 133–153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  102. Di Toro, D.M.; Mahony, J.D.; Hansen, D.J.; Scott, K.J.; Hicks, M.B.; Mayr, S.M.; Redmond, M.S. Toxicity of cadmium in sediments: The role of acid volatile sulfide. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 1990, 9, 1489–1504. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  103. Vink, J.P.M. Measurement of heavy metal speciation over redox gradients in natural water-sediment interfaces and implications for uptake by benthic organisms. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2002, 36, 5130–5138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  104. Yu, X.; Li, H.; Pan, K.; Yan, Y.; Wang, W.X. Mercury distribution, speciation and bioavailability in sediments from the Pearl River Estuary, Southern China. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2012, 64, 1699–1704. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  105. Campana, O.; Blasco, J.; Simpson, S.L. Demonstrating the appropriateness of developing sediment quality guidelines based on sediment geochemical properties. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2013, 47, 7483–7489. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
Water 12 03026 g001 550
Figure 1. Geographic location of the Lakes and sampling sites in the study area of Lomé urban agglomeration.
Figure 1. Geographic location of the Lakes and sampling sites in the study area of Lomé urban agglomeration.
Water 12 03026 g001
Water 12 03026 g002 550
Figure 2. Ternary textural diagrams of bottom sediments of the Lomé lagoon: (a) for the total fractions (<2 mm), (b) for the fine fractions (<63 µm). S4 to S12 are the different sampling stations (see locations in Figure 1).
Figure 2. Ternary textural diagrams of bottom sediments of the Lomé lagoon: (a) for the total fractions (<2 mm), (b) for the fine fractions (<63 µm). S4 to S12 are the different sampling stations (see locations in Figure 1).
Water 12 03026 g002
Water 12 03026 g003 550
Figure 3. Chemical composition of the fine fractions (<63 µm): ternary diagrams of the major element percentages (% of the sum SiO2 + Al2O3 + Fe2O3 + CaO + MgO + Na2O + K2O) in the bottom sediments collected in the dry season (a) and in the wet season (b). See Table S1 in Supplementary Materials for the basic data with Loss-on-ignition (LOI), MnO, TiO2, and P2O5.
Figure 3. Chemical composition of the fine fractions (<63 µm): ternary diagrams of the major element percentages (% of the sum SiO2 + Al2O3 + Fe2O3 + CaO + MgO + Na2O + K2O) in the bottom sediments collected in the dry season (a) and in the wet season (b). See Table S1 in Supplementary Materials for the basic data with Loss-on-ignition (LOI), MnO, TiO2, and P2O5.
Water 12 03026 g003
Water 12 03026 g004 550
Figure 4. Distribution patterns of REE concentrations normalized to the PAAS concentrations in the fine sediments (<63 µm) of the different Lomé lagoon sites (S4 to S12) during the dry (a) and the wet (b) seasons. See the concentrations for each site in Table S2 (Supplementary Materials).
Figure 4. Distribution patterns of REE concentrations normalized to the PAAS concentrations in the fine sediments (<63 µm) of the different Lomé lagoon sites (S4 to S12) during the dry (a) and the wet (b) seasons. See the concentrations for each site in Table S2 (Supplementary Materials).
Water 12 03026 g004
Water 12 03026 g005 550
Figure 5. Relationships between the average (La/Yb)N ratios and the abundance of the finest particles on one hand (left) and the average percentage of (Al2O3 + Fe2O3) on the other hand (right) for the Lomé lagoon fine sediments (<63 µm) during the dry and wet seasons.
Figure 5. Relationships between the average (La/Yb)N ratios and the abundance of the finest particles on one hand (left) and the average percentage of (Al2O3 + Fe2O3) on the other hand (right) for the Lomé lagoon fine sediments (<63 µm) during the dry and wet seasons.
Water 12 03026 g005
Water 12 03026 g006 550
Figure 6. Average seasonal patterns of trace element (TE) concentrations in the Lomé lagoon sediments (means of nine site samples) during the dry and the wet seasons when compared with the PAAS, UCC, and the local reference materials, Sed_R and H3. See Table S3 for the average TE concentrations and Table S4 for TE concentrations for each site and each season.
Figure 6. Average seasonal patterns of trace element (TE) concentrations in the Lomé lagoon sediments (means of nine site samples) during the dry and the wet seasons when compared with the PAAS, UCC, and the local reference materials, Sed_R and H3. See Table S3 for the average TE concentrations and Table S4 for TE concentrations for each site and each season.
Water 12 03026 g006
Water 12 03026 g007 550
Figure 7. Normalization of average annual TE concentrations in the Lomé lagoon sediments (Sed_L) using different reference materials (PAAS, UCC, Sed_R, and H3).
Figure 7. Normalization of average annual TE concentrations in the Lomé lagoon sediments (Sed_L) using different reference materials (PAAS, UCC, Sed_R, and H3).
Water 12 03026 g007
Water 12 03026 g008 550
Figure 8. Comparison of EF calculated for each TE using different normalizers (Al, Cs, Fe, and Ti). GNB, geochemical natural background limit.
Figure 8. Comparison of EF calculated for each TE using different normalizers (Al, Cs, Fe, and Ti). GNB, geochemical natural background limit.
Water 12 03026 g008
Water 12 03026 g009 550
Figure 9. Distribution of TE enrichment factors (EF) for three sites (S4, S8, and S11) representative of each Lake (respectively Lake Bè, East Lake, and West Lake). EF are calculated with Al as a normalizing element (as an example, but Cs and Ti give, more or less, the same patterns) and using Sed_R as local reference material. The dashed lines represent the geochemical natural background (GNB). EF values < 1.5 are within the range of the natural regional geochemical background.
Figure 9. Distribution of TE enrichment factors (EF) for three sites (S4, S8, and S11) representative of each Lake (respectively Lake Bè, East Lake, and West Lake). EF are calculated with Al as a normalizing element (as an example, but Cs and Ti give, more or less, the same patterns) and using Sed_R as local reference material. The dashed lines represent the geochemical natural background (GNB). EF values < 1.5 are within the range of the natural regional geochemical background.
Water 12 03026 g009
Water 12 03026 g010 550
Figure 10. Distributions (percentage on a logarithmic scale) of non-residual (labile) and residual fractions for one TE of anthropogenic origin, Cd (left) and one TE of natural origin, Zr (right) in the different sediments of the Lomé lagoon (S4 to S12) for the dry (DS) and the wet (WS) seasons.
Figure 10. Distributions (percentage on a logarithmic scale) of non-residual (labile) and residual fractions for one TE of anthropogenic origin, Cd (left) and one TE of natural origin, Zr (right) in the different sediments of the Lomé lagoon (S4 to S12) for the dry (DS) and the wet (WS) seasons.
Water 12 03026 g010
Table
Table 1. Lakes studied and geographic coordinates of the sampling sites.
Table 1. Lakes studied and geographic coordinates of the sampling sites.
LakesSampling
Sites		Geographical Coordinates (UTM)Altitude (m)
Lake BèS4X = 1.25543, Y = 6.152954
S5X = 1.25173, Y = 6.151874
S6X = 1.24868, Y = 6.150734
East LakeS7X = 1.24283, Y = 6.149252
S8X = 1.23909, Y = 6.148052
S9X = 1.23597, Y = 6.146922
West LakeS10X = 1.20060, Y = 6.134892
S11X = 1.20609, Y = 6.136682
S12X = 1.20963, Y = 6.131332
Table
Table 2. Rare earth elements (REE) average concentrations in the fine sediments (<63 µm) of the Lomé lagoon during the dry and the wet seasons, compared with the contents in PAAS and in the local reference material, Sed_R. See also the concentrations for each site in Table S2 (Supplementary Materials).
Table 2. Rare earth elements (REE) average concentrations in the fine sediments (<63 µm) of the Lomé lagoon during the dry and the wet seasons, compared with the contents in PAAS and in the local reference material, Sed_R. See also the concentrations for each site in Table S2 (Supplementary Materials).
REE (µg·g−1)Sediments of the Lomé Lagoon (n = 9)PAASSed_R
Dry Season (DS)Wet Season (WS)
MinMaxMeanMedMinMaxMeanMed
La29.861.846.947.221.649.035.135.338.263.7
Ce65.5127.8100.4103.648.6105.478.378.879.6131.3
Pr6.913.010.210.35.010.88.08.18.815.0
Nd26.845.137.238.019.039.329.829.633.956.1
Sm5.28.57.17.33.87.85.95.95.510.9
Eu1.11.91.51.50.71.61.21.21.12.2
Gd4.16.65.55.73.25.94.64.54.78.9
Tb0.61.00.80.80.50.90.70.70.81.3
Dy3.65.84.75.03.35.24.24.14.78.0
Ho0.71.20.91.00.71.10.90.91.01.7
Er2.03.12.42.42.13.02.42.52.84.5
Tm0.30.40.30.30.30.40.40.40.40.7
Yb1.93.12.42.22.33.22.62.52.84.6
Lu0.30.50.40.30.40.60.40.40.40.7
Table
Table 3. Average Ce and Eu anomalies (Ce* and Eu*, respectively) and La/Yb normalized ratios (La/Yb)N in the Lomé lagoon fine sediments (<63 µm) for dry and wet seasons. Eu* and (La/Yb)N average values are statiscally different between the two seasons (p-values < 1%).
Table 3. Average Ce and Eu anomalies (Ce* and Eu*, respectively) and La/Yb normalized ratios (La/Yb)N in the Lomé lagoon fine sediments (<63 µm) for dry and wet seasons. Eu* and (La/Yb)N average values are statiscally different between the two seasons (p-values < 1%).
PAAS NormalizationSeasonMinMaxMean
Eu*Dry season1.081.251.16
Wet season0.981.131.07
Ce*Dry season1.011.031.02
Wet season1.021.041.03
(La/Yb)NDry season1.102.121.48
Wet season0.531.441.00
Table
Table 4. Correlation matrix (r, Pearson correlation coefficient) between the different TE and the normalizing elements, Al, Fe, Cs, and Ti. The bold numbers have p-values at a 5% significance level.
Table 4. Correlation matrix (r, Pearson correlation coefficient) between the different TE and the normalizing elements, Al, Fe, Cs, and Ti. The bold numbers have p-values at a 5% significance level.
AsCdCoCrCuMoNiPbSbSnThUZn
AlWet season0.54−0.26−0.030.83−0.55−0.310.18−0.46−0.40−0.820.58−0.16−0.75
Dry season−0.040.170.090.600.13−0.670.66−0.110.050.130.76−0.710.27
FeWet season0.40−0.15−0.240.36−0.43−0.09−0.28−0.55−0.24−0.520.260.18−0.66
Dry season0.10−0.02−0.110.500.06−0.350.41−0.03−0.050.030.31−0.400.03
CsWet season−0.30−0.860.880.54−0.650.150.94−0.49−0.73−0.640.74−0.87−0.34
Dry season−0.330.530.590.310.41−0.680.760.160.330.480.96−0.520.64
TiWet season−0.51−0.590.850.26−0.210.150.83−0.07−0.31−0.270.68−0.760.14
Dry season−0.480.300.20−0.540.330.12−0.380.440.370.28−0.040.610.17
Table
Table 5. Distribution of the NRF percentages for the different TE measured in the Lomé lagoon sediments.
Table 5. Distribution of the NRF percentages for the different TE measured in the Lomé lagoon sediments.
NRF (%)<1%1–5%5–15%15–25%25–40%40–60%
Dry seasonAl, Ba, Be, Cr, Cs, Ga, Ge, Nb, Rb, Sn, Ta, Th, Zr, Ti, WSb, Cs, Hf, U, Fe,As, Bi, Ni, V, Mo, ScCo, Cu, Y, SrPb, ZnCd
Wet seasonAl, Be, Cr, Cs, Hf, Nb, Rb, Sn, Ta, Th, U, Zr, Ti, WSb, Cs, Ba, Ga, Fe, GeAs, Bi, Ni, V, Mo, ScCo, Cu, YPb, Zn, SrCd
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Badassan, T.E.-E.; Avumadi, A.M.D.; Ouro-Sama, K.; Gnandi, K.; Jean-Dupuy, S.; Probst, J.-L. Geochemical Composition of the Lomé Lagoon Sediments, Togo: Seasonal and Spatial Variations of Major, Trace and Rare Earth Element Concentrations. Water 2020, 12, 3026. https://doi.org/10.3390/w12113026

AMA Style

Badassan TE-E, Avumadi AMD, Ouro-Sama K, Gnandi K, Jean-Dupuy S, Probst J-L. Geochemical Composition of the Lomé Lagoon Sediments, Togo: Seasonal and Spatial Variations of Major, Trace and Rare Earth Element Concentrations. Water. 2020; 12(11):3026. https://doi.org/10.3390/w12113026

Chicago/Turabian Style

Badassan, Tchaa Esso-Essinam, Akouvi Massan Duanyawo Avumadi, Kamilou Ouro-Sama, Kissao Gnandi, Séverine Jean-Dupuy, and Jean-Luc Probst. 2020. "Geochemical Composition of the Lomé Lagoon Sediments, Togo: Seasonal and Spatial Variations of Major, Trace and Rare Earth Element Concentrations" Water 12, no. 11: 3026. https://doi.org/10.3390/w12113026

APA Style

Badassan, T. E. -E., Avumadi, A. M. D., Ouro-Sama, K., Gnandi, K., Jean-Dupuy, S., & Probst, J. -L. (2020). Geochemical Composition of the Lomé Lagoon Sediments, Togo: Seasonal and Spatial Variations of Major, Trace and Rare Earth Element Concentrations. Water, 12(11), 3026. https://doi.org/10.3390/w12113026

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop