Evaluation of the toxicity of marine sediments and dredge spoils with the Microtox bioassay (original) (raw)
Related papers
Comparison of Bulk Sediment and Sediment Elutriate Toxicity Testing Methods
Archives of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology, 2010
Numerous methods exist for assessing the potential toxicity of sediments in aquatic systems. In this study, the results from 10-day bulk sediment toxicity test methods using Hyalella azteca and Chironomus tentans were compared to results from 96-h Pimephales promelas and Ceriodaphnia dubia renewed acute toxicity tests conducted using elutriate samples prepared from the same sediments. The goal of the study was to determine if the results from the elutriate tests were comparable to those obtained from the bulk sediment tests. Of the 25 samples analyzed, 16 were found to be toxic to at least one of the species tested, in either elutriate or bulk sediment tests. The C. tentans 10-day bulk sediment test was the most sensitive, with 12 sediment samples exhibiting toxicity to this species, whereas the H. azteca bulk sediment test and C. dubia 96-h elutriate test were the least sensitive, exhibiting toxicity in only 7 of the 25 sediments tested. The P. promelas elutriate
Marine environmental research, 2016
This study was carried out in the framework of the ICON project (Integrated Assessment of Contaminant Impacts on the North Sea) (Hylland et al., 2015) and aimed (1) to evaluate the toxicity of marine sediments using a battery of rapid toxicity bioassays, and; (2) to explore the applicability and data interpretation of in vitro toxicity profiling of sediment extracts obtained from ex situ passive sampling. Sediment samples were collected at 12 selected (estuarine, coastal, offshore) sites in the North Sea, Icelandic waters (as reference sites), south-western Baltic Sea and western Mediterranean during autumn 2008. Organic extracts using a mild non-destructive clean-up procedure were prepared from total sediment and silicone passive samplers and tested with five in vitro bioassays: DR-Luc bioassay, ER-Luc bioassay, AR-EcoScreen bioassay, transthyretin (TTR) binding assay, and Vibrio fischeri bioluminescence bioassay. In vitro toxicity profiling of total sediment and silicone passive s...
Effects of two diluents in the Microtox® toxicity bioassay with marine sediments
Chemosphere, 2004
This paper compares the use of two different diluents, EPA synthetic seawater (salinity 31&) and NaCl standard diluent (salinity 35&), in the Microtox â toxicity bioassay performed on elutriate and solid phase derived from marine sediments. The study was performed comparing three series of data obtained by the use of the two diluents.
Using marine bioassays to classify the toxicity of dutch harbor sediments
Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 2003
A procedure was developed to assess contaminated marine sediments from Dutch harbors for possible adverse biological effects using three laboratory bioassays: A 10-d survival test with the amphipod Corophium volutator, a 14-d survival test with the heart urchin Echinocardium cordatum (adults), and the bioluminescence inhibition test with the bacterium Vibrio fischeri (Microtox solid phase test [SP]). Microtox results were mathematically corrected for the modifying influence of fine sediment particles. After a validation procedure on test performance and modifying factors, respectively, 81%, 99%, and 90% of the amphipod, heart urchin, and Microtox results were approved. Lower and upper threshold limits for biological effects were set at respectively 24 and 30% mortality for C. volutator, 27 and 35% mortality for E. cordatum, and 24 and 48 toxic units for the Microtox SP based on significant differences with control sediment and the performance of reference sediments. The bioassays clearly distinguished harbor sediments that give rise to acute effects and those that do not. Threshold limits for the amphipods, heart urchins, and bacteria were exceeded in, respectively, 9 to 17%, 33 to 40%, and 23 to 50% of the sediment samples. Highest effects were observed in sediments from the northerly harbors; there was significantly less response in sediments from the Delta Region and the port of Rotterdam (The Netherlands). The procedure outlined in this paper can be used for routine screening of contaminated dredged material that is proposed for open water disposal.
A comparison of acute and chronic toxicity methods for marine sediments
Marine Environmental Research, 2009
Sediment toxicity tests are valuable tools for assessing the potential effects of 22 contaminated sediments in dredged material evaluations because they inherently address 23 complexity (e.g., unknown contaminants, mixtures, bioavailability). Although there is a need to 24 understand the chronic and sublethal impacts of contaminants, it is common to conduct only 25 short-term lethality tests in evaluations of marine sediments. Chronic toxicity methods for 26 marine sediments have been developed but the efficacy of these methods is less documented. In 27 this evaluation of marine sediments collected from the New York / New Jersey (NY/NJ) Harbor, 28 three 10-day acute toxicity test methods (Ampelisca abdita, Leptocheirus plumulosus, 29
Dredged Material Analysis Tools; Performance of Acute and Chronic Sediment Toxicity Methods
2008
conducted to provide insight into the potential advantages and disadvantages of using chronic sediment toxicity tests with relevant benthic macroinvertebrates as part of dredged material evaluations, as described in the Inland and Ocean Testing Manuals (USEPA/USACE 1991, 1998). Nine sediments collected from the New York Harbor (NYH) were used to assess test methods in a preliminary evaluation at one test facility and an interlaboratory evaluation at three test facilities. The two acute test methods (10-day Ampelisca abdita and Americamysis bahia) currently used in evaluations of NYH material were compared to available chronic protocols to gauge relative performance of the toxicity tests. Acute tests are typically short-term (e.g., 10-day) lethality assessments conducted over a small portion of the test organism's life cycle, while chronic tests are longer-term and assess sublethal measurement endpoints (e.g., growth and reproduction) in addition to lethality. The available chronic test methods used in this study were the 28-day test using the estuarine amphipod, Leptocheirus plumulosus, and 20-day and 28-day tests using the marine polychaete Neanthes arenaceodentata. Use of chronic tests is recommended or required by dredged material evaluation guidance and regulations, respectively. The sublethal endpoints measured in chronic tests may be more sensitive measures of toxicity and more predictive of longer-term population effects. Of the tests compared, the currently used acute (10-day) Ampelisca abdita test and the available chronic (28-day) L. plumulosus test were the most responsive (i.e., sensitive) to the tested NYH sediments. Response is defined as the amount an endpoint (e.g., survival) was reduced for test organisms in site sediments relative to that same endpoint in the control sediment. Of these two test methods, neither clearly demonstrated better capability to identify contaminated sediments (i.e., "hits"). The A. abdita test was more consistent in performance and exhibited greater statistical power but demonstrated lesser response to the sediments and lower correlation with sediment chemistry. The sublethal endpoints used in the L. plumulosus test were more responsive to the sediments and more closely related to sediment contamination but had lower statistical power than lethality endpoints. An acute (10-day) test using L. plumulosus was also conducted in one laboratory and similar responsiveness was found relative to the acute A. abdita test. The remaining toxicity tests, including the currently applied acute A. bahia test and the 28-day N. arenaceodentata test were not responsive to the tested sediments in this evaluation and thus did not suggest toxicity in any of the tested sediments. Specific conclusions and recommendations on the application of these test methods are offered at the end of this document. DISCLAIMER: The contents of this report are not to be used for advertising, publication, or promotional purposes. Citation of trade names does not constitute an official endorsement or approval of the use of such commercial products. All product names and trademarks cited are the property of their respective owners. The findings of this report are not to be construed as an official Department of the Army position unless so designated by other authorized documents.
Application of bioassays in toxicological hazard, risk and impact assessments of dredged sediments
Marine Pollution Bulletin, 2010
In vitro In vivo Bioassay Hazard and risk assessment Dredged sediment Dioxins TBT Licensing system a b s t r a c t Given the potential environmental consequences of dumped dredged harbour sediments it is vital to establish the potential risks from exposure before disposal at sea. Currently, European legislation for disposal of contaminated sediments at sea is based on chemical analysis of a limited number of well-known contaminants for which maximum acceptable concentrations, action levels (ALs), have been set. The present paper addresses the issue of the applicability of in vitro and in vivo bioassays for hazard, risk and local impact assessment of dredged polluted sediments to be disposed of at sea. It discusses how and to what extent selected bioassays can fill in the gaps left open by chemical analysis and the way in which the bioassays may contribute to the present licensing system for disposal. Three different purposes for application were distinguished: the most basic application (A) is a rapid determination of the hazard (potential toxicity) of dredged sediments which is then compared to ALs in a licensing system. As with chemical analysis on whole sediment extracts, the bioavailability of the chemicals is not taken into account. As in vitro assays with sediment extracts are not sensitive to matrix effects, a selection of specific in vitro bioassays can be suitable fast and standardized additions for the licensing system. When the outcome of (A) does not convincingly demonstrate whether the sediment is clean enough or too polluted, further bioanalysis can help the decision making process (B). More aspects of the mostly unknown complex chemical mixtures are taken into account, including the bioavailability and chronic toxicity focusing on ecologically relevant endpoints. The ecotoxicological pressure imposed by the dredged sediments can be quantified as the potentially affected fraction (PAF) based on chemical or biological analysis of levels of contaminants in sediment or biota. To validate the predicted risk, the actual impact of dumped harbour sediments on local ecosystems (C) can be determined using a dedicated set of in vitro and in vivo bioassays as well as bio-indicators selected based on the information obtained from (A) and (B) and on the characteristics of the local ecosystem. Conversely, the local sediment impact assessment (C) can direct fine-tuning of the selection of chemical and bioassay analyses and for setting safe levels in the licensing system. It is concluded that in vitro and in vivo bioassays and biological indicators are useful tools in the process of hazard, ecotoxicological risk and impact assessment of dredged harbour sediments, provided they are consciously chosen and quality criteria for assay performance are defined.
Assessing sediment contamination using six toxicity assays
Journal of Limnology, 2001
An evaluation of sediment toxicity at Lake Orta, Italy was conducted to compare a toxicity test battery of 6 assays and to evaluate the extent of sediment contamination at various sediment depths. Lake Orta received excessive loadings of copper and ammonia during the 1900's until a large remediation effort was conducted in 1989-90 using lime addition. Since that time, the lake has shown signs of a steady recovery of biological communities. The study results showed acute toxicity still exists in sediments at a depth of 5 cm and greater. Assays that detected the highest levels of toxicity were two whole sediment exposures (7 d) using Hyalella azteca and Ceriodaphnia dubia. The Microtox R assay using pore water was the third most sensitive assay. The Thamnotox, Rototox, Microtox solid phase, and Seed Germination-Root Elongation (pore and solid phase) assays showed occasional to no toxicity. Based on similarity of responses and assay sensitivity, the two most useful assays were the C. dubia (or H. azteca) and Microtox pore water. These assays were effective at describing sediment toxicity in a weight-of-evidence approach.
Ecotoxicological testing of sediments and dredged material: an overlooked opportunity?
Journal of Soils and Sediments
Purpose Basing decisions for the management of contaminated sediments on ecotoxicological data is still often met with skepticism by European stakeholders. These concerns are discussed as they pertain to bioassays to show how ecotoxicological data may provide added value for the sustainable management of sediment in aquatic systems. Materials and methods Five “concerns” are selected that are often raised by stakeholders. The ecotoxicological practice is discussed in light of the knowledge gained in recent decades and compared with chemical sediment analysis and chemical data. Results and discussion Common assumptions such as a higher uncertainty of biotest results for sediments compared to chemical analyses are not supported by interlaboratory comparisons. Some confusion also arises, because the meaning of biotest data is often misunderstood, questioning their significance in light of a limited number of organisms and altered test conditions in the lab. Because biotest results descr...