Literature DB >> 22278676

An interlaboratory comparison of sediment elutriate preparation and toxicity test methods.

Herman J Haring1, Mark E Smith, James M Lazorchak, Philip A Crocker, Abel Euresti, Karen Blocksom, Melissa C Wratschko, Michael C Schaub.   

Abstract

Elutriate bioassays are among numerous methods that exist for assessing the potential toxicity of sediments in aquatic systems. In this study, interlaboratory results were compared from 96-h Ceriodaphnia dubia and Pimephales promelas static-renewal acute toxicity tests conducted independently by two laboratories using elutriate samples prepared from the same sediment. The goal of the study was to determine if the results from the elutriate tests were comparable between two U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) laboratories when different elutriate preparation procedures were employed by each lab. Complete agreement in site characterization was attained in 22 of the 25 samples for both bioassays amongst each lab. Of the 25 samples analyzed, 10 were found to be toxic to at least one of the species tested by either laboratory. The C. dubia elutriate tests conducted by the National Exposure Research Laboratory (NERL) indicated that 7 of the 25 sediment samples were toxic, while 8 sediment samples were characterized as such in testing conducted by USEPA Region 6 (Region 6). The P. promelas elutriate tests conducted by NERL determined 8 samples as toxic, while Region 6 tests displayed toxicity in 5 of the samples. McNemar's test of symmetry for C. dubia (S = 0.33, p = 0.5637) and P. promelas (S = 3.0, p = 0.0833) tests indicated no significant differences in designating a site toxic between NERL and Region 6 laboratories. Likewise, Cohen's kappa test revealed significant agreement between NERL and Region 6 C. dubia (K = 0.7148, p < 0.01) and P. promelas (K = 0.6939, p < 0.01) elutriate tests. The authors conclude that differences in interlaboratory elutriate preparation procedures have no bearing on the ability of either the C. dubia or P. promelas bioassay testing methods to detect toxicity while yielding similar results.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22278676     DOI: 10.1007/s10661-011-2503-y

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Environ Monit Assess        ISSN: 0167-6369            Impact factor:   2.513


  6 in total

1.  Pore water testing and analysis: the good, the bad, and the ugly.

Authors:  Peter M Chapman; Feiyue Wang; Joseph D Germano; Graeme Batley
Journal:  Mar Pollut Bull       Date:  2002-05       Impact factor: 5.553

Review 2.  Assessing and managing contaminated sediments: part I, developing an effective investigation and risk evaluation strategy.

Authors:  Sabine E Apitz; John W Davis; Ken Finkelstein; David W Hohreiter; Robert Hoke; Richard H Jensen; Joe Jersak; Victoria J Kirtay; E Erin Mack; Victor S Magar; David Moore; Danny Reible; Ralph G Stahl
Journal:  Integr Environ Assess Manag       Date:  2005-01       Impact factor: 2.992

3.  Evidence from whole-sediment, porewater, and elutriate testing in toxicity assessment of contaminated sediments.

Authors:  W Liss; W Ahlf
Journal:  Ecotoxicol Environ Saf       Date:  1997-03       Impact factor: 6.291

4.  Comparison of porewater and elutriate bivalve larval development toxicity testing in a sediment quality triad framework.

Authors:  Blair G McDonald
Journal:  Ecotoxicol Environ Saf       Date:  2005-11       Impact factor: 6.291

5.  Toxicological and chemical assessment of ordinance compounds in marine sediments and porewaters.

Authors:  M Nipper; R S Carr; J M Biedenbach; R L Hooten; K Miller
Journal:  Mar Pollut Bull       Date:  2002-08       Impact factor: 5.553

6.  Comparison of bulk sediment and sediment elutriate toxicity testing methods.

Authors:  Herman J Haring; Mark E Smith; James M Lazorchak; Philip A Crocker; Abel Euresti; Melissa C Wratschko; Michael C Schaub
Journal:  Arch Environ Contam Toxicol       Date:  2009-12-29       Impact factor: 2.804

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.