Bioindicators

With regard to genetic and non-genetic adaptation of organisms and communities to environmental stress, differentiation must be made between the terms tolerance, resistance, and sensitivity  

Comparison of Instrumental Measurement Bioindicators/biomonitors and Harmonization/Quality Control 

The strong similarity in terms between instrumental chemical analysis (qualitative and quantitative measurements) and the field of bioindicators (as a qualitative approach to pollution control) and biomonitors (as a quantitative approach) makes it worthwhile to compare the two techniques. 

The discussion follows the lines of Markert etal. (2003a). 

---

Several candidate wildlife indicators are suggested and discussed in this chapter. In addition, we recognize that valuable sources of data on residue-effect relationships are available to assist in the selection of habitat-specific indicators (Jarvinen and Ankley 1999 USCOE and USEPA 2005). Although this chapter emphasizes animals, similar considerations and literature exist for plants and microorganisms as bioindicators and biomarkers (National Research Council 1989 USEPA 1997 Gawel et al. 2001 Citterio et al. 2002 Yuska et al. 2003). 

Wildlife indicators of mercury exposure and trends are important elements of a comprehensive approach to assess mercury in the environment and the monitoring of trends that may assist regulators and the regulated community in long-term evalnation of the need and usefulness of mercury somce controls. It is important to understand, however, that bioindicator data alone are insufficient to answer snch critical qnestions as identification of mercniy sonrces, or the relative importance of local, regional, and global inputs of mercury somces to atmospheric deposition and errvirorrmerrtal loading in specific areas. 

Both the development and application of bioindicators present a number of methodological considerations. One key requirement is to relate dose/effects studies in the laboratory, and residne levels/efifects studies in the field. For many years, these stndies were condncted by different groups of scientists, and the cotmections were not made (Eisler 1987). Ideally, we should use bioindicators where there are clear links between exposnre levels, tissue levels, and effects (Burger and Gochfeld 2003). The most nseful bioindicators of those we suggest are those where the cotmections have been clearly made. 

Table 5.1 summarizes the species listed above and ranks them as potential bioindicators of mercury contamination according to the characteristics discussed, from 1 (lowest) to 3 (highest), based on the assessments above and the best professional judgement of the authors of this chapter. 

Based on the scoring in Table 5.1 (summing scores for each species), candidate bioindicator species can be ranked within a taxonomic group according to suitability for a mercury monitoring program for North America ... 

Subcategories of bioindicators at suboiganismal levels are generally referred to as biomarkers. Biomarkers may reflect either exposure, effect, or susceptibility of these, biomarkers of effect are both more valuable and more difficult to find. An ideal biomarker of mercury effect would be ... 

Burger J. 1993. Metals in avian feathers bioindicators of environmental pollution. Rev Environ Toxicol 5 203-311. 

Burger J, Gochfeld M. 2000c. On developing bioindicators for human and ecological health. Environ Monit Assess 66 23 6. 

Frederick PC, Spalding MG, Dusek R. 2002. Wading birds as bioindicators of mercury contamination in Florida, USA annual and geographic variation. Environ Toxicol Chem 21 163-167. 

Gawel JE, Trick CG, Morel FM. 2001. Phytochelatins are bioindicators of atmospheric metal exposure via direct foliar uptake in trees near Sudbury, Ontario, Canada. Environ Sci Technol 35 2108-2113. 

Gochfeld M. 1997. Spatial patterns in a bioindicator heavy metal and selenium concentrations in eggs of herring gulls (Larus argentatus) in the New York Bight. Arch Environ Contam Toxicol 33 63-70. 

Lord CG, Gaines KF, Boring CS, Biisbin ILJ, Gochfeld M, Burger J. 2002. Raccoon (Procyon lotor) as a bioindicator of mercury contamination at the U.S. Department of Energy s Savannah River Site. Archiv Environ Contam Toxicol 43 356-363. 

Oxynos K, Schmitzer J, Kettrup A. 1993. Herring gull eggs as bioindicators for chlorinated hydrocarbons contribution to the German Federal Environmental Specimen Bank. Sci Total Environ 140 387-398. 

Yuska DE, Skelly JM, Ferdinand JA, Stevenson RE, Savage JE, Mulik JD, Etines A. 2003. Use of bioindicators and passive sampling devices to evaluate ambient ozone concentrations in north central Pennsylvania. Environ Pollut 125 71-80. 

Zillioux EJ, Newman JR. 2003. Bioindicators — essential tools for realistic assessment and remediation cost control. Soil, Sediment and Water 9 11. 

Chassard-Bouchaud C. 1996. Analytical microscopy and environment. Current developments using bioindicators of pollution by stable and radioactive elements. Cell Mol Biol 42(3) 361-383. 

Exposure. Few studies were found regarding the measurement of diisopropyl methylphosphonate or its metabolites as indicators of exposure. IMPA in urine or plasma has been suggested as a biomarker of acute exposure. It would be useful to more fully explore urinary excretion of IMPA to determine dose relationships and its utility as a bioindicator of diisopropyl methylphosphonate exposure. 

Fig. 8. Variation with location of the mean levels of "Tc in samples of Fucus serrantus bioindicators along the French coast of the English Channel. The discharge outlet at the La Hague reprocessing plant is shown by an arrow. (Reprinted with permission from Ref. 43. Copyright (1987) Elsevier Science Ltd)...

CAROTENOID COLORATION AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONTAMINATION GREAT TITS AS BIOINDICATORS... 

Hertz J., Bioindicators for Monitoring Heavy Metals in the Environment 221-233, in Optical sensing, ASCOS 2000, Workshop on Optical chemical Sensors Biosensors, 2000. 

---