Toxicity tests survey

Toxicology and environmental health studies often lack a firm foundation of baseline data, and the NASGLP is a perfect starting point for a baseline data survey. During the field component of the survey, the crews collected two composite samples. One represented the top 5 cm of the soil directly below the litter layer (which will include a lot of the airborne components if they are present), and a second came from the 0-30-cm interval, independent of which soil horizon this may represent. Within this interval (the active layer), most of the interactions between biota and the non-living soil components take place, and thus is the important interval for this type if study. Environment Canada s Biological Methods Division selected one of the northern New Brunswick sites to collect a bulk sample in an attempt to create reference sites across Canada for standardized toxicity test methods. 

Reiter LW, MacPhail RC (1979) Motor activity a survey of methods with potential use in toxicity testing. Neurobehav Toxicol 1 53-66... 

Whether TT (toxicity testing with single species tests at the same biotic level) or TBAs are performed, some test organisms have been more frequently used than others (Tab. 5). Invertebrates have been the most commonly employed, as had been pointed out in an earlier literature survey conducted between 1979 and 1987 (Maltby... 

The potential effects based on results of sublethal toxicity tests are illustrated by zones superimposed on the industrial effluent plume and then compared to field survey components of a monitoring program. The field survey components of a monitoring program are rated on a similar scale as the sublethal toxicity tests for weight-of-evidence comparison. 

Step 2. Determine the lowest IC25 from a battery of sublethal toxicity tests. Step 2. Assign an LTF rating of 1 to 5 to the fish survey based on the percentage of potentially effluent-related effects relative to all the endpoints measured. 

Sublethal toxicity test Fish survey Benthic survey... 

Using the LTF scheme, the study of effluent discharge situations at 16 Ontario pulp and paper mills has illustrated predominantly moderate to strong qualitative relationships between toxicity tests and ecosystem indicators (fish populations and benthic invertebrate communities). Ceriodaphnia- to-benthos, Selenastrum-to-benthos and fathead-to-fish survey relationships were qualitatively rated strong or moderate in 94%, 75% and 60% of the sixteen studies, respectively. Regression analysis of LTF scores has revealed that the relationship between the Ceriodaphnia reproduction test and benthic invertebrate field survey measurements was significant (p < 0.001, r = 0.79). However, there were not sufficient data to determine if this can be used as a predictive tool (Borgmann et al., 2004). 

Toxicity tests, which are used to generate the SED-TOX index, cannot substitute for chemical measurements or for surveys of benthic communities. On the contrary, the strength of toxicity tests, and hence the SED-TOX index, are best realized in conjunction with chemical and biological field measurements. These three approaches form a natural triad in which each component enhances the power of the others (Sergy, 1987). 

Data from the reconnaissance survey indicated that bulk sediment concentrations of all COPCs were greater than apparent effect levels (AELs Environment Canada, 1995), indicating that contamination was widespread. A 20% reduction in toxicity test endpoint performance (relative to the negative control) was used to evaluate toxicity data. Such a reduction typically indicates real differences from the control. All samples demonstrated greater than a 20% reduction in bivalve normal development, however, similar reductions in amphipod survival were not observed, with the exception of one marginal hit for a single sample. As a result of the bivalve toxicity and elevated COPC concentrations observed in the reconnaissance survey, a full SQT was considered necessary for the site. 

LOE Line of evidence. A set of data and associated analysis that can be used, alone or in combination with other lines of evidence, to estimate risks. Each line of evidence is qualitatively different from any others used in the risk characterization. In ecotoxicological assessments, the most commonly used lines of evidence are based on 1) biological surveys, 2) toxicity tests of contaminated media, and 3) toxicity tests of individual chemicals. 

Biological surveys should be used together with whole-effluent and ambient toxicity testing, and chemical-specific analyses to assess attainment/nonattainment of designated aquatic life uses in state water-quality standards. ... 

Survey and Review of Typical Toxicity Test Methods... 

---