Comparison of methods for evaluating acute and chronic toxicity in marine sediments
Sublethal test methods are being used with increasing frequency to measure sediment toxicity, but little is known about the relative sensitivity of these tests compared to the more commonly used acute tests. The present study was conducted to compare the sensitivity of several acute and sublethal me...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | Environmental toxicology and chemistry 2008-04, Vol.27 (4), p.933-944 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , , , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | 944 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 4 |
| container_start_page | 933 |
| container_title | Environmental toxicology and chemistry |
| container_volume | 27 |
| creator | Greenstein, Darrin Bay, Steven Anderson, Brian Chandler, G. Thomas Farrar, J. Daniel Keppler, Charles Phillips, Bryn Ringwood, Amy Young, Diana |
| description | Sublethal test methods are being used with increasing frequency to measure sediment toxicity, but little is known about the relative sensitivity of these tests compared to the more commonly used acute tests. The present study was conducted to compare the sensitivity of several acute and sublethal methods and to investigate their correlations with sediment chemistry and benthic community condition. Six sublethal methods (amphipod: Leptocheirus plumulosus survival, growth, and reproduction; polychaete: Neanthes arenaceodentata survival and growth; benthic copepod: Amphiascus tenuiremis life cycle; seed clam: Mercenaria mercenaria growth; oyster: Crassostrea virginica lysosome destabilization; and sediment–water interface testing with mussel embryos, Mytilus galloprovincialis) and two acute methods (amphipod survival with Eohaustorius estuarius and L. plumulosus) were used to test split sediment samples from stations in California. The test with Amphiascus proved to be the most sensitive sublethal test and the most sensitive overall, identifying 90% of the stations as toxic. The Leptocheirus 10‐d test was the most sensitive of the acute tests, identifying 60% of the stations as toxic. In general, the sublethal tests were not more sensitive to sediments than the acute tests, with the sublethal tests finding an average of 35% of the stations to be toxic while the acute found 44%. Of the sublethal tests, only the Amphiascus endpoints and Neanthes growth significantly (p ≤ 0.05) correlated with sediment chemical concentrations. Poor correspondence occurred between the toxicity endpoints and the indicators of benthic community condition. Differences in test characteristics such as mode of exposure, species‐specific contaminant sensitivity, changes in contaminant bioavailability, and influence of noncontaminant stressors on the benthos may have been responsible for variation in response among the tests and low correspondence with benthic community condition. The influence of these factors cannot be easily predicted, underscoring the need to use multiple toxicity methods, in combination with other lines of evidence, to provide an accurate and confident assessment of sediment toxicity. |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1897/07-285.1 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_32298943</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>20197593</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4830-36ffa7dcaab4619e762c3aaf88597b959d2f6e0d2f3f848e129c7b80230148343</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqFkUuLFDEUhYMoTtsK_gIJLsRNjTdJ5bXUwnnAMCKjuAzpVOJkrKr0JFU6_e_N0I2CILO5d_Odcx8HoZcEjonS8h3Ihip-TB6hFeGcNkoQ9RitQDJoJBXqCD0r5QaACK31U3REFGNMKFihqy6NW5tjSRNOAY9-vk59wSFl7H_aYbFznL5j65bZYzv12F3nNEWH53QXXZx3OE54rPrJ4-L7OPppLs_Rk2CH4l8c-hp9Pfn4pTtrLj6dnnfvLxrXqroYEyFY2TtrN60g2ktBHbM2KMW13GiuexqEh1pZUK3yhGonNwooA1INWrZGb_a-25xuF19mM8bi_DDYyaelGEapVrplD4IUiJZcPwzWuRyAigq-_ge8SUue6rWGEmBSt7Wu0ds95HIqJftgtjnWZ-0MAXOfmwFpam6GVPTVwW_ZjL7_Cx6CqgDbA7_i4Hf_NTKV4YICldDSe1WzV8Uy-7s_Kpt_GCGZ5Obb5amRJ_Lzh-6qM5fsN7hUrxs</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>210379410</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Comparison of methods for evaluating acute and chronic toxicity in marine sediments</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete</source><creator>Greenstein, Darrin ; Bay, Steven ; Anderson, Brian ; Chandler, G. Thomas ; Farrar, J. Daniel ; Keppler, Charles ; Phillips, Bryn ; Ringwood, Amy ; Young, Diana</creator><creatorcontrib>Greenstein, Darrin ; Bay, Steven ; Anderson, Brian ; Chandler, G. Thomas ; Farrar, J. Daniel ; Keppler, Charles ; Phillips, Bryn ; Ringwood, Amy ; Young, Diana</creatorcontrib><description>Sublethal test methods are being used with increasing frequency to measure sediment toxicity, but little is known about the relative sensitivity of these tests compared to the more commonly used acute tests. The present study was conducted to compare the sensitivity of several acute and sublethal methods and to investigate their correlations with sediment chemistry and benthic community condition. Six sublethal methods (amphipod: Leptocheirus plumulosus survival, growth, and reproduction; polychaete: Neanthes arenaceodentata survival and growth; benthic copepod: Amphiascus tenuiremis life cycle; seed clam: Mercenaria mercenaria growth; oyster: Crassostrea virginica lysosome destabilization; and sediment–water interface testing with mussel embryos, Mytilus galloprovincialis) and two acute methods (amphipod survival with Eohaustorius estuarius and L. plumulosus) were used to test split sediment samples from stations in California. The test with Amphiascus proved to be the most sensitive sublethal test and the most sensitive overall, identifying 90% of the stations as toxic. The Leptocheirus 10‐d test was the most sensitive of the acute tests, identifying 60% of the stations as toxic. In general, the sublethal tests were not more sensitive to sediments than the acute tests, with the sublethal tests finding an average of 35% of the stations to be toxic while the acute found 44%. Of the sublethal tests, only the Amphiascus endpoints and Neanthes growth significantly (p ≤ 0.05) correlated with sediment chemical concentrations. Poor correspondence occurred between the toxicity endpoints and the indicators of benthic community condition. Differences in test characteristics such as mode of exposure, species‐specific contaminant sensitivity, changes in contaminant bioavailability, and influence of noncontaminant stressors on the benthos may have been responsible for variation in response among the tests and low correspondence with benthic community condition. The influence of these factors cannot be easily predicted, underscoring the need to use multiple toxicity methods, in combination with other lines of evidence, to provide an accurate and confident assessment of sediment toxicity.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0730-7268</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1552-8618</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1897/07-285.1</identifier><identifier>PMID: 18333680</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Hoboken: Wiley Periodicals, Inc</publisher><subject>Acute toxicity ; Agreements ; Amphiascus ; Amphiascus tenuiremis ; Amphipoda ; Animals ; Benthos ; Bioavailability ; Bivalvia ; Chemistry ; Chronic toxicity ; Contaminants ; Contamination ; Copepoda ; Crassostrea virginica ; Embryos ; Environmental monitoring ; Eohaustorius estuarius ; Geologic Sediments - analysis ; Grain size ; Laboratories ; Leptocheirus ; Leptocheirus plumulosus ; Management decisions ; Marine ; Marine pollution ; Marine sediments ; Mercenaria mercenaria ; Multiple species ; Mytilus galloprovincialis ; Neanthes ; Neanthes arenaceodentata ; Nonfiction ; Ostreidae ; Oysters ; Pollution studies ; Polychaeta ; Sample size ; Sediment chemistry ; Sediment samplers ; Sediment toxicity ; Sediment-water interface ; Shellfish ; Sublethal toxicity ; Toxicity Tests - methods ; Water Pollutants, Chemical - toxicity</subject><ispartof>Environmental toxicology and chemistry, 2008-04, Vol.27 (4), p.933-944</ispartof><rights>Copyright © 2008 SETAC</rights><rights>Copyright Alliance Communications Group, A Division of Allen Press, Inc. Apr 2008</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4830-36ffa7dcaab4619e762c3aaf88597b959d2f6e0d2f3f848e129c7b80230148343</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4830-36ffa7dcaab4619e762c3aaf88597b959d2f6e0d2f3f848e129c7b80230148343</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1897%2F07-285.1$$EPDF$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1897%2F07-285.1$$EHTML$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,1411,27901,27902,45550,45551</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18333680$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Greenstein, Darrin</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bay, Steven</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Anderson, Brian</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Chandler, G. Thomas</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Farrar, J. Daniel</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Keppler, Charles</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Phillips, Bryn</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ringwood, Amy</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Young, Diana</creatorcontrib><title>Comparison of methods for evaluating acute and chronic toxicity in marine sediments</title><title>Environmental toxicology and chemistry</title><addtitle>Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry</addtitle><description>Sublethal test methods are being used with increasing frequency to measure sediment toxicity, but little is known about the relative sensitivity of these tests compared to the more commonly used acute tests. The present study was conducted to compare the sensitivity of several acute and sublethal methods and to investigate their correlations with sediment chemistry and benthic community condition. Six sublethal methods (amphipod: Leptocheirus plumulosus survival, growth, and reproduction; polychaete: Neanthes arenaceodentata survival and growth; benthic copepod: Amphiascus tenuiremis life cycle; seed clam: Mercenaria mercenaria growth; oyster: Crassostrea virginica lysosome destabilization; and sediment–water interface testing with mussel embryos, Mytilus galloprovincialis) and two acute methods (amphipod survival with Eohaustorius estuarius and L. plumulosus) were used to test split sediment samples from stations in California. The test with Amphiascus proved to be the most sensitive sublethal test and the most sensitive overall, identifying 90% of the stations as toxic. The Leptocheirus 10‐d test was the most sensitive of the acute tests, identifying 60% of the stations as toxic. In general, the sublethal tests were not more sensitive to sediments than the acute tests, with the sublethal tests finding an average of 35% of the stations to be toxic while the acute found 44%. Of the sublethal tests, only the Amphiascus endpoints and Neanthes growth significantly (p ≤ 0.05) correlated with sediment chemical concentrations. Poor correspondence occurred between the toxicity endpoints and the indicators of benthic community condition. Differences in test characteristics such as mode of exposure, species‐specific contaminant sensitivity, changes in contaminant bioavailability, and influence of noncontaminant stressors on the benthos may have been responsible for variation in response among the tests and low correspondence with benthic community condition. The influence of these factors cannot be easily predicted, underscoring the need to use multiple toxicity methods, in combination with other lines of evidence, to provide an accurate and confident assessment of sediment toxicity.</description><subject>Acute toxicity</subject><subject>Agreements</subject><subject>Amphiascus</subject><subject>Amphiascus tenuiremis</subject><subject>Amphipoda</subject><subject>Animals</subject><subject>Benthos</subject><subject>Bioavailability</subject><subject>Bivalvia</subject><subject>Chemistry</subject><subject>Chronic toxicity</subject><subject>Contaminants</subject><subject>Contamination</subject><subject>Copepoda</subject><subject>Crassostrea virginica</subject><subject>Embryos</subject><subject>Environmental monitoring</subject><subject>Eohaustorius estuarius</subject><subject>Geologic Sediments - analysis</subject><subject>Grain size</subject><subject>Laboratories</subject><subject>Leptocheirus</subject><subject>Leptocheirus plumulosus</subject><subject>Management decisions</subject><subject>Marine</subject><subject>Marine pollution</subject><subject>Marine sediments</subject><subject>Mercenaria mercenaria</subject><subject>Multiple species</subject><subject>Mytilus galloprovincialis</subject><subject>Neanthes</subject><subject>Neanthes arenaceodentata</subject><subject>Nonfiction</subject><subject>Ostreidae</subject><subject>Oysters</subject><subject>Pollution studies</subject><subject>Polychaeta</subject><subject>Sample size</subject><subject>Sediment chemistry</subject><subject>Sediment samplers</subject><subject>Sediment toxicity</subject><subject>Sediment-water interface</subject><subject>Shellfish</subject><subject>Sublethal toxicity</subject><subject>Toxicity Tests - methods</subject><subject>Water Pollutants, Chemical - toxicity</subject><issn>0730-7268</issn><issn>1552-8618</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2008</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><sourceid>8G5</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>GUQSH</sourceid><sourceid>M2O</sourceid><recordid>eNqFkUuLFDEUhYMoTtsK_gIJLsRNjTdJ5bXUwnnAMCKjuAzpVOJkrKr0JFU6_e_N0I2CILO5d_Odcx8HoZcEjonS8h3Ihip-TB6hFeGcNkoQ9RitQDJoJBXqCD0r5QaACK31U3REFGNMKFihqy6NW5tjSRNOAY9-vk59wSFl7H_aYbFznL5j65bZYzv12F3nNEWH53QXXZx3OE54rPrJ4-L7OPppLs_Rk2CH4l8c-hp9Pfn4pTtrLj6dnnfvLxrXqroYEyFY2TtrN60g2ktBHbM2KMW13GiuexqEh1pZUK3yhGonNwooA1INWrZGb_a-25xuF19mM8bi_DDYyaelGEapVrplD4IUiJZcPwzWuRyAigq-_ge8SUue6rWGEmBSt7Wu0ds95HIqJftgtjnWZ-0MAXOfmwFpam6GVPTVwW_ZjL7_Cx6CqgDbA7_i4Hf_NTKV4YICldDSe1WzV8Uy-7s_Kpt_GCGZ5Obb5amRJ_Lzh-6qM5fsN7hUrxs</recordid><startdate>200804</startdate><enddate>200804</enddate><creator>Greenstein, Darrin</creator><creator>Bay, Steven</creator><creator>Anderson, Brian</creator><creator>Chandler, G. Thomas</creator><creator>Farrar, J. Daniel</creator><creator>Keppler, Charles</creator><creator>Phillips, Bryn</creator><creator>Ringwood, Amy</creator><creator>Young, Diana</creator><general>Wiley Periodicals, Inc</general><general>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</general><scope>BSCLL</scope><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7QO</scope><scope>7SN</scope><scope>7SS</scope><scope>7ST</scope><scope>7T7</scope><scope>7TK</scope><scope>7U7</scope><scope>7X2</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>88I</scope><scope>8C1</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>8FE</scope><scope>8FG</scope><scope>8FH</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>8G5</scope><scope>ABJCF</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AEUYN</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ATCPS</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BGLVJ</scope><scope>BHPHI</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>D1I</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>GUQSH</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>KB.</scope><scope>L6V</scope><scope>M0K</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>M2O</scope><scope>M2P</scope><scope>M7S</scope><scope>MBDVC</scope><scope>P64</scope><scope>PATMY</scope><scope>PDBOC</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PTHSS</scope><scope>PYCSY</scope><scope>Q9U</scope><scope>RC3</scope><scope>SOI</scope><scope>7QH</scope><scope>7TV</scope><scope>7UA</scope><scope>F1W</scope><scope>H96</scope><scope>H97</scope><scope>L.G</scope><scope>KR7</scope></search><sort><creationdate>200804</creationdate><title>Comparison of methods for evaluating acute and chronic toxicity in marine sediments</title><author>Greenstein, Darrin ; Bay, Steven ; Anderson, Brian ; Chandler, G. Thomas ; Farrar, J. Daniel ; Keppler, Charles ; Phillips, Bryn ; Ringwood, Amy ; Young, Diana</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c4830-36ffa7dcaab4619e762c3aaf88597b959d2f6e0d2f3f848e129c7b80230148343</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2008</creationdate><topic>Acute toxicity</topic><topic>Agreements</topic><topic>Amphiascus</topic><topic>Amphiascus tenuiremis</topic><topic>Amphipoda</topic><topic>Animals</topic><topic>Benthos</topic><topic>Bioavailability</topic><topic>Bivalvia</topic><topic>Chemistry</topic><topic>Chronic toxicity</topic><topic>Contaminants</topic><topic>Contamination</topic><topic>Copepoda</topic><topic>Crassostrea virginica</topic><topic>Embryos</topic><topic>Environmental monitoring</topic><topic>Eohaustorius estuarius</topic><topic>Geologic Sediments - analysis</topic><topic>Grain size</topic><topic>Laboratories</topic><topic>Leptocheirus</topic><topic>Leptocheirus plumulosus</topic><topic>Management decisions</topic><topic>Marine</topic><topic>Marine pollution</topic><topic>Marine sediments</topic><topic>Mercenaria mercenaria</topic><topic>Multiple species</topic><topic>Mytilus galloprovincialis</topic><topic>Neanthes</topic><topic>Neanthes arenaceodentata</topic><topic>Nonfiction</topic><topic>Ostreidae</topic><topic>Oysters</topic><topic>Pollution studies</topic><topic>Polychaeta</topic><topic>Sample size</topic><topic>Sediment chemistry</topic><topic>Sediment samplers</topic><topic>Sediment toxicity</topic><topic>Sediment-water interface</topic><topic>Shellfish</topic><topic>Sublethal toxicity</topic><topic>Toxicity Tests - methods</topic><topic>Water Pollutants, Chemical - toxicity</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Greenstein, Darrin</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bay, Steven</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Anderson, Brian</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Chandler, G. Thomas</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Farrar, J. Daniel</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Keppler, Charles</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Phillips, Bryn</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ringwood, Amy</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Young, Diana</creatorcontrib><collection>Istex</collection><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Biotechnology Research Abstracts</collection><collection>Ecology Abstracts</collection><collection>Entomology Abstracts (Full archive)</collection><collection>Environment Abstracts</collection><collection>Industrial and Applied Microbiology Abstracts (Microbiology A)</collection><collection>Neurosciences Abstracts</collection><collection>Toxicology Abstracts</collection><collection>Agricultural Science Collection</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Science Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Public Health Database</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>ProQuest SciTech Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Technology Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Research Library (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Materials Science & Engineering Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Sustainability</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>Agricultural & Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Technology Collection</collection><collection>Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Materials Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>Research Library Prep</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Materials Science Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Engineering Collection</collection><collection>Agricultural Science Database</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>Research Library</collection><collection>Science Database</collection><collection>Engineering Database</collection><collection>Research Library (Corporate)</collection><collection>Biotechnology and BioEngineering Abstracts</collection><collection>Environmental Science Database</collection><collection>Materials Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>Engineering Collection</collection><collection>Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><collection>Genetics Abstracts</collection><collection>Environment Abstracts</collection><collection>Aqualine</collection><collection>Pollution Abstracts</collection><collection>Water Resources Abstracts</collection><collection>ASFA: Aquatic Sciences and Fisheries Abstracts</collection><collection>Aquatic Science & Fisheries Abstracts (ASFA) 2: Ocean Technology, Policy & Non-Living Resources</collection><collection>Aquatic Science & Fisheries Abstracts (ASFA) 3: Aquatic Pollution & Environmental Quality</collection><collection>Aquatic Science & Fisheries Abstracts (ASFA) Professional</collection><collection>Civil Engineering Abstracts</collection><jtitle>Environmental toxicology and chemistry</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Greenstein, Darrin</au><au>Bay, Steven</au><au>Anderson, Brian</au><au>Chandler, G. Thomas</au><au>Farrar, J. Daniel</au><au>Keppler, Charles</au><au>Phillips, Bryn</au><au>Ringwood, Amy</au><au>Young, Diana</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Comparison of methods for evaluating acute and chronic toxicity in marine sediments</atitle><jtitle>Environmental toxicology and chemistry</jtitle><addtitle>Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry</addtitle><date>2008-04</date><risdate>2008</risdate><volume>27</volume><issue>4</issue><spage>933</spage><epage>944</epage><pages>933-944</pages><issn>0730-7268</issn><eissn>1552-8618</eissn><abstract>Sublethal test methods are being used with increasing frequency to measure sediment toxicity, but little is known about the relative sensitivity of these tests compared to the more commonly used acute tests. The present study was conducted to compare the sensitivity of several acute and sublethal methods and to investigate their correlations with sediment chemistry and benthic community condition. Six sublethal methods (amphipod: Leptocheirus plumulosus survival, growth, and reproduction; polychaete: Neanthes arenaceodentata survival and growth; benthic copepod: Amphiascus tenuiremis life cycle; seed clam: Mercenaria mercenaria growth; oyster: Crassostrea virginica lysosome destabilization; and sediment–water interface testing with mussel embryos, Mytilus galloprovincialis) and two acute methods (amphipod survival with Eohaustorius estuarius and L. plumulosus) were used to test split sediment samples from stations in California. The test with Amphiascus proved to be the most sensitive sublethal test and the most sensitive overall, identifying 90% of the stations as toxic. The Leptocheirus 10‐d test was the most sensitive of the acute tests, identifying 60% of the stations as toxic. In general, the sublethal tests were not more sensitive to sediments than the acute tests, with the sublethal tests finding an average of 35% of the stations to be toxic while the acute found 44%. Of the sublethal tests, only the Amphiascus endpoints and Neanthes growth significantly (p ≤ 0.05) correlated with sediment chemical concentrations. Poor correspondence occurred between the toxicity endpoints and the indicators of benthic community condition. Differences in test characteristics such as mode of exposure, species‐specific contaminant sensitivity, changes in contaminant bioavailability, and influence of noncontaminant stressors on the benthos may have been responsible for variation in response among the tests and low correspondence with benthic community condition. The influence of these factors cannot be easily predicted, underscoring the need to use multiple toxicity methods, in combination with other lines of evidence, to provide an accurate and confident assessment of sediment toxicity.</abstract><cop>Hoboken</cop><pub>Wiley Periodicals, Inc</pub><pmid>18333680</pmid><doi>10.1897/07-285.1</doi><tpages>12</tpages></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 0730-7268 |
| ispartof | Environmental toxicology and chemistry, 2008-04, Vol.27 (4), p.933-944 |
| issn | 0730-7268 1552-8618 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_32298943 |
| source | MEDLINE; Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete |
| subjects | Acute toxicity Agreements Amphiascus Amphiascus tenuiremis Amphipoda Animals Benthos Bioavailability Bivalvia Chemistry Chronic toxicity Contaminants Contamination Copepoda Crassostrea virginica Embryos Environmental monitoring Eohaustorius estuarius Geologic Sediments - analysis Grain size Laboratories Leptocheirus Leptocheirus plumulosus Management decisions Marine Marine pollution Marine sediments Mercenaria mercenaria Multiple species Mytilus galloprovincialis Neanthes Neanthes arenaceodentata Nonfiction Ostreidae Oysters Pollution studies Polychaeta Sample size Sediment chemistry Sediment samplers Sediment toxicity Sediment-water interface Shellfish Sublethal toxicity Toxicity Tests - methods Water Pollutants, Chemical - toxicity |
| title | Comparison of methods for evaluating acute and chronic toxicity in marine sediments |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-07T02%3A57%3A24IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Comparison%20of%20methods%20for%20evaluating%20acute%20and%20chronic%20toxicity%20in%20marine%20sediments&rft.jtitle=Environmental%20toxicology%20and%20chemistry&rft.au=Greenstein,%20Darrin&rft.date=2008-04&rft.volume=27&rft.issue=4&rft.spage=933&rft.epage=944&rft.pages=933-944&rft.issn=0730-7268&rft.eissn=1552-8618&rft_id=info:doi/10.1897/07-285.1&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E20197593%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=210379410&rft_id=info:pmid/18333680&rfr_iscdi=true |