Bioindicators assessment

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. 

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. 

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

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

Parks, J.W., C. Curry, D. Romani, and D.D. Russell. 1991. Young northern pike, yellow perch and crayfish as bioindicators in a mercury contaminated watercourse. Environ. Monitor. Assess. 16 39-73. 

Petty, J.D. Jones, S.B. Huckins, J.N. Cranor, W.L. Parris, J.T. McTague, T.B. Boyle, TP. 2000, An approach for assessment of water quality using semipermeable membrane devices (SPMDs) and bioindicator tests. Chemosphere 41 311—321. 

This thesis focuses on the applicability of in vitro, in vivo bioassays and bioindicators as tools for evaluating the effects of complex chemical mixtures in the process of deciding whether dredged harbour sediments can be disposed of at sea without serious adverse effects on marine ecosystem and human health. It considers the North Sea delta area in order to determine a comprehensive approach for the application of both in vitro and in vivo bioassays for hazard assessment, advanced risk assessment, and location-specific ecological impact assessment for dredged harbour sediments. To aid in the selection of appropriate, robust and reliable in vitro and in vivo bioassay and bioindication methods for these specific purposes, the uneertainty, predictability and specificity of the bioassays have been explored and the applieability in eombination with other analyses is discussed. The focus of the chosen examples is on bioassays and bioindicators for the relatively well studied dioxin-like contaminants and TBT. 

Currently Local sediments impact assessment Bioaccumulation and biomagnifications Population decline of local organisms In vivo bioassays wifii local sediment In vitro bioassays wifii local sediment (extract) Bioindicators Biomarkers Bioavailability of compounds ... 

Box C) Contribution of bioassays and bioindicators to local impact assessment... 

To validate the predicted risk, the actual impact of dumped harbour sediments on local ecosystems can be determined using a dedicated set of in vitro and in vivo bioassays as well as bioindicators selected based on the information obtained from the hazard and risk assessment and on the characteristics of the local ecosystem. 

Nickel TT assessment with 12 species of freshwater ciliates to determine which could become, based on observed sensitivity, a good bioindicator of waters polluted by heavy metals. P (Madoni, 2000)... 

Bioassays used in analytical practice can be classified according to the type of bioindicators used in a given toxicity test. The organisms most frequently used are bacteria, plants, and animals detailed information on their application in bioassays to assess environmental pollution is given in a review study.20 In this chapter, we present tables for the use of selected bioindicators in toxicity tests. 

Nowadays, Microtox is the most popular bioassay available that uses bioluminescent bacteria as its active element. Analysts find it a useful tool for assessing pollution in different compartments of the environment, possessing as it does both the advantages of bioindicator techniques and the precision of classic instrumental analysis. Here are some examples of its application ... 

This takes into account the number of tests performed on various bioindicators (the greater the number of tests performed, the more reliable the assessment of a given sample) and the variability in the toxicity estimated using various bioindicators (plants and animals). 

Jamil K. 2001. Bioindicators and biomarkers of environmental pollution and risk assessment. Plymouth (UK) Science Publishers, 204 p. 

McCarty LS, Power M, Munkittrick KR. 2002. Bioindicators versus biomarkers in ecological risk assessment. Human Ecol Risk Assess 8 159-164. 

Use has also been made of the metal content of crop plants in the assessment of contaminated soils. Kabata-Pendias et al. (1993) suggest that legumes are promising as bioindicators of metal pollution since they have in general a relatively higher tolerance to and uptake of metal than monocotyledons. Kovacs et al. (1993) have... 

M. E. Conti and G. Cecchetti, Biological Monitoring Lichens as Bioindicators of Air Pollution Assessment A review, Environ. Pollut. 114(3), 471-92 (2001). 

---