www.elsevier.com/locate/marpolbul

Marine Pollution Bulletin 54 (2007) 247–248

Editorial

Temporal monitoring: Baseline’s logical conclusion

I recently attended a workshop on environmental mon-itoring and risk assessment of persistent organic contami-nants (POPs), with particular reference to the currentsituation in mainland China. It was an interesting coupleof days, highlighting the enormous problems that rap-idly-developing China faces in monitoring contaminantsin its many and varied environments. Amongst the prob-lems identified were those related to DDT which, to theHong Kong-based audience’s considerable surprise, was re-ported as being used in anti-fouling paints produced inChina. Maybe this explains some of my own local coastalwater monitoring data, in which local DDT:DDE ratiosare surprisingly biased towards the parent compound. . .but that is perhaps the subject of a later editorial.

The workshop focused largely on the challenges whichChina faces in developing a suitable nation-wide monitor-ing programme (which by necessity will need to cover aconsiderable range of environmental media); the targetingof compounds to be monitored; and the possible collabora-tions that will be required in the implementation andcontinuation of the programme. Established monitoringprogrammes were, of course, held up as models – notablyNOAA’s National Status and Trends programme in theUSA. Identification of the needs and directions of theChina-based programme also drew considerable discussion.

In this respect, all the usual queries in monitoring designcame to mind. For example, how do you go about creatingan inventory of potential compounds and sources in such aheterogeneous and often non-regulated environment, andhow does the process of target-site selection proceed fromsuch a process? What compounds should be selected astargets? (Dioxins, incidentally, were amongst the mostfrequently mentioned problem.) What procedures shouldbe implemented to consistently ensure adequate qualityassurance and quality control (qa/qc) amongst potentialmeasurements? How should samples be selected, and whatsample types (e.g. air, water, soil, sediment, biota) shouldbe collected? Should a library of samples be formed forfuture reference, and how could this be achieved? Howcan a nation-wide data-bank be established, from whichmanagement decisions can be deduced? How should

0025-326X/$ - see front matter � 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

doi:10.1016/j.marpolbul.2007.01.011

sustained monitoring be undertaken, and how should suchresults be interpreted and acted upon?

The latter has always been of considerable interest tome. It has long been my opinion that pollution monitoring,in its many forms, has relied on ‘‘one off’’ data sets, andthat long term (i.e. ‘‘temporal’’) monitoring has been sorelyneglected. Indeed, looking at past baseline papers, this is anidentifiable trend. An area in some part of the world isselected – for whatever good reasons – and samples takenand analysed with appropriate techniques and all therequired qa/qc. The results are presented in tables andgraphs. The data are analysed, and (usually) comparedwith other comparable areas, either within the same overallarea or country, or (perhaps most frequently) with datafrom another country, where samples may have been pro-cessed using different techniques and analytical methods,different substrates, or (perhaps most unfortunately) totallydifferent species. I’m not saying that this is totally unjusti-fiable. Where comparable data are not available, at least anattempt has been made to put results into perspective. But,once in a while, would not it be nice to compare apples withapples instead of persimmons?

After initial baselines, there often appears to be a datablack hole. The reasons are presumably many and varied.The postgraduate funding stopped when the thesis wassubmitted, and the programme died (cynics’ approach#1). The court case resolved the problem between theplaintiff and the defendant, and everyone is apparentlyhappy, as the environment is surely not going to collapseas a result of the obviously miniscule levels of contami-nants present (cynics’ approach #2). The Government’sinterest in short term data did not extend to the provisionof post-election, sustainable funding for future monitoring(cynics’ approach #3). The whole programme was of noobvious interest to anyone, failing to attract sufficientattention (read acceptance and/or impact factor) in theinternational literature, and the funding sources ignoredall future applications for research money (cynics’ ap-proach #4).

And, of course, we could go on and on. But, there areexcellent long-term data sets, and there have been excellent

248 Editorial / Marine Pollution Bulletin 54 (2007) 247–248

programmes which have received sustainable funding forprolonged periods. . . so why do not we see more of themreported in, for example, Marine Pollution Bulletin?

Enter baseline specials. I first introduced the idea in aneditorial in 2003, when we published data by Green andKnutzen (2003) of the Norwegian Institute for Water Re-search. That article detailed monitoring at sites outsidethe influence of point source contamination over a periodof some 10 years (1991–2000), and hence (in my words atthe time) represented a true ‘‘baseline data set’’. I havenot forgotten this approach, although the gap betweenthe first and subsequent articles has been some 4 years. Per-haps this reflects my original supposition: the number (andquality) of long-term data sets in the open literature is atbest few, and at worst, shallow.

This cannot be said for a further two baseline specialspublished in this issue of Marine Pollution Bulletin. Thefirst of these, by Boehm et al. (2007) (Assessment of hydro-

carbon exposure in the waters of Prince William Sound after

the Exxon Valdez oil spill: 1989–2005) assesses a 16 yeardata set for total polycyclic hydrocarbons, drawing uponthe vast monitoring efforts which followed the Exxon Val-dez spill. The paper definitively discusses the results, andespecially notes the relatively minor effects the spillagemay have had on important local species such as herringand pink salmon.

The second paper, by Fowler et al. (2007) (Temporal sur-

vey of petroleum hydrocarbons, organochlorinated com-

pounds and heavy metals in benthic marine organisms from

Dhofar, Southern Oman) reports two baseline surveys ofpetroleum hydrocarbons, chlorinated compounds andtrace metals undertaken in as close as possible circum-stances some 19 years apart (in 1983 and 2002). As withPrince William Sound, the area concerned (SouthernOman) is sensitive in that urban, industrial and agriculturalactivities were negligible up to the time of the initial survey– and indeed (and very importantly), two decades later fewchanges could be inferred.

We often relegate ‘‘little change’’ to ‘‘no further publica-tion necessary’’. This, in my opinion, is folly; especially sowhere sensitive environments of international significanceare involved. We need to know that the passage of years

(and the implied increase in environmental pressure) has in-deed caused few (or hopefully) no effects. (The opposite is,of course, equally and arguably more persuasively true.)The two baseline specials in this issue, with high qualitychemical measurements and detailed data analyses, areproof of responsible environmental monitoring, providingresults of use not only to environmental managers, but datathat may also inspire hope in environmental scientists in allparts of the world.

As I noted before when we published our first baselinespecial, it is a pleasure to see comprehensive data sets, withadequate and on-going qa/qc, well analysed, and appropri-ately utilised. These longer baseline papers are encouraged,providing they ‘‘fit the bill’’, as the current ones do (and po-tential authors, please note: the normal baseline short-noteformat is waived for such articles).

I hope that baseline continues to provide a relevant, top-ical and accurate source of marine pollution data to ourreaders, and as its aim states, that these data provide a re-source for the future. Of course, only well-planned tempo-ral monitoring will prove that point.

References

Boehm, P., Neff, J., Page, D., 2007. Assessment of hydrocarbon exposurein the waters of Prince William Sound after the Exxon Valdez oil spill:1989–2005. Marine Pollution Bulletin 54, 339–356.

Fowler, S., Villeneuve, J.-P., Wyse, E., Jupp, B., de Mora, S., 2007.Temporal survey of petroleum hydrocarbons, organochlorinatedcompounds and heavy metals in benthic marine organisms fromDhofar, Southern Oman. Marine Pollution Bulletin 54, 357–367.

Green, N., Knutzen, J., 2003. Organohalogens and metals in marine fishand mussels, and some relationships to biological variables at referencelocalities in Norway. Marine Pollution Bulletin 46, 362–374.

Bruce RichardsonDepartment of Biology and Chemistry,

City University of Hong Kong,

83 Tat Chee Avenue,

Kowloon, Hong Kong

Tel.: +852 2788 7042; fax: +852 2788 7406

E-mail address: bhbrucer@cityu.edu.hk