Given the absence of viable environmental data within the catchment before the LACM Spill of 2009, two control methods were implemented (mining-free tributaries and floodplain depth), following other similar contaminant studies (Mackay et al., 2013, Parry, 2000 and Taylor and Hudson-Edwards, 2008). Background samples revealed that Cu levels in the channel and floodplain were higher relative to both the tributary and floodplain depth control. Furthermore, Cr in the channel and Cr and Pb in the floodplain were shown to be elevated with respect to equivalent floodplain depth Selleck ZD1839 (10–50 cm) sediment-metal

concentrations. This elevation was not supported by the tributary control, which is unusual given that this is evident in the Cu data and that Palbociclib chemical structure one would expect similarity between these two controls. The small sample size (n = 2) of the tributary control, which was a function of time and funding constraints, limits the comparative and statistical power resulting in the occurrence of a type 2 statistical error. This limitation is counteracted, however, by the use of the 19 proxy background samples taken at depth from the Saga and Inca creek floodplain systems ( Table 4), eliminating reliance on the tributary controls

as the single measure of background sediment-metal values. Comparing the results to ANZECC and ARMCANZ (2000), ISQG – low guidelines and CCME (2007) Soil Guidelines revealed minor elevations of As and Cr in the channel as well as As on the floodplain surface (0–2 cm). Copper values within channel samples and floodplain Dynein surface (0–2 cm) samples exceeded ANZECC and ARMCANZ (2000), ISQG – low Cu guideline, Canadian Guideline for Cu (CCME, 2007) and the ANZECC and ARMCANZ (2000) ISQG – high Cu guideline (Table 1 and Table 2). The application of total extractable metal concentration as a measure of contamination has been utilised in many Australian studies evaluating

the impact of mining on the environment (e.g. Gore et al., 2007, Lottermoser et al., 1999, Mudd and Patterson, 2010 and Taylor et al., 2010). It is also a recommended approach in Australian soil and sediment guidelines (e.g. ANZECC and ARMCANZ, 2000, NEPC, 1999a and NEPC, 1999b) and international guidelines (e.g. CCME, 2002, CCME, 2007 and NOAA, 1999). A growing number of studies, however, are focusing more on how metals are held within sediment, their extractability, bioaccessibility and metal speciation (Chopin and Alloway, 2007, Lui et al., 2003, Mackay et al., 2011, Noller et al., 2009, Sastre et al., 2004, Smith et al., 2009 and Taylor and Kesterton, 2002). Indeed, the ANZECC guidelines advocate trigger values for total extractable metals should be used first to assess a potential environmental problem followed by further investigation if values are found to exceed trigger values (ANZECC and ARMCANZ, 2000).