development and application of sediment toxicity tests for ... - CiteSeerX

DEVELOPMENT AND APPLICATION OF SEDIMENT TOXICITY TESTS FOR REGULATORY PURPOSES

stages of synthesis or decomposition, and water (11,12). Sediments normally consist of an inorganic matrix coated with organic matter (13), giving rise to a wide variety of physical, chemical, and biological characteristics. Control sediments can be formulated from particulate matter of known origin and characteristics for use in toxicity testing (12,14,15). The ecotoxicological significance lies in the tendency of many pollutants, especially the less polar organic contaminants and trace elements, to show a strong affinity to suspended particulate matter (16,17). They are sequestered from the water column and incorporated into the sediment. Redox conditions influence the chemical speciation, sorption behavior, and partition coefficients of incorporated compounds and trace elements. Undisturbed sediments tend to accumulate many chemical compounds, and so act as sinks. The retention capacity of sediments for many pollutants is dependent on salinity, pH, Eh , and/or mechanical disturbance. Changes in these conditions can result in release of the contaminants, and therefore sediments may act not only as sinks but also as secondary sources, directing often highly concentrated pulses of pollutants at benthic organisms (i.e., organisms intimately associated with sediments). Fine-grained, organically rich sediments play a major role in the biogeochemical fate of chemicals, both of natural and anthropogenic origin, and, along with water quality, have increasingly become the focus of attention in assessing the state of the aquatic environment. In situ sediment toxicity assessments are rarely performed because of logistics, the difficulties of identifying reference and control sites, and controlling or correcting for confounding environmental variables. Thus field-collected sediment samples are used in laboratory-based toxicity test models. Sediments vary on both a spatial and temporal scale and are structured systems of oxic and anoxic zones (18). These two zones display very different chemical conditions (19,20). Accordingly, during the collection of sediment samples, one must ensure that these zones are not mixed, as this may result in differences in redox status, which will affect the bioavailability of contaminants. The oxic layer of the sediment is preferably sampled and used for toxicity testing especially because this layer interfaces with the water column in situ (21,22). Sediments are not homogeneous but are composed of the following phases: whole sediment, sediment–water interface, pore water, and elutriates. Examination of any single sediment phase may be insufficient to give an accurate ecotoxicological assessment (23,24). Recent investigations using field-collected sediment samples have demonstrated that the whole sediment phase can be used in toxicity assessment under controlled laboratory conditions (see Tables 1–4).

M.G.J HARTL F.N.A.M. VAN PELT J. O’HALLORAN Environmental Research Institute University College Cork, Ireland

INTRODUCTION Traditional approaches to sediment toxicity assessment have employed chemical analysis to identify and quantify pollutants present. This approach, however, will only provide information on chemical classes that are analyzed and, when used alone, is of little value in ecotoxicological assessment, because toxicity cannot be determined on the basis of chemistry alone (1). Toxicity is ultimately defined as a measurable biological response to a particular substance or mixture of substances (2,3). Toxicity testing provides a more direct means of assessing the potential adverse effects of contaminants. In a complementary way, ecotoxicological assessment should provide a measure of the combined effects of the compounds in a complex sample, thereby taking into account any additive, antagonistic, or synergistic effects and include a degree of biological relevance. An ecotoxicological sediment assessment necessitates a tiered approach using different endpoints and several test species representing different trophic levels, because the effect of pollutants may differ between species. Thus, a battery of bioassays rather than single species assays should be employed. Battery style approaches in the evaluation of sediment toxicity (both freshwater and marine) have been described (2,4–8). For example, the SED-TOX Index recommends the integration of multitrophic and multiexposure route tests (different sediment phases) in toxicity assessment of sediments (8). The ecotoxicological triad explores a similar concept (9). In this article, we define sediments, consider their ecotoxicological significance, and summarize some of the key sediment toxicity test systems in use and/or development. WHAT ARE AQUATIC SEDIMENTS? Sediments represent an open, dynamic, and heterogeneous biogeochemical system (10) that is formed by an accumulation of particulate matter derived from continental runoff, coastal erosion, or atmospheric deposition, which precipitates to the bottom of a water body. Typically, sediments are an accumulation of particulate mineral matter, inorganic matter of biogenic origin, organic matter in various

TEST SYSTEMS A comprehensive assessment of potential sediment toxicity requires the consideration of multiple exposure phases and

Water Encyclopedia, Edited by Jay Lehr, Jack Keeley, Janet Lehr, and Thomas B. Kingery III ISBN 0-471-44164-3  2005 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 1

2

DEVELOPMENT AND APPLICATION OF SEDIMENT TOXICITY TESTS FOR REGULATORY PURPOSES Table 1. Examples of Test Systems Used for Sediment Toxicity Assessment—Acute Toxicity Tests Test Phase

Endpoint Enzyme inhibition/ bioluminescence

Behavior Motility

Taxa

Chemicals Identifieda

Bacteria Microtox ToxiChromoPad LUMIStox BioTox MetPAD Toxi-Chromotest

PAHs, POPs, metals PAHs, POPs unspecified Pesticides Metals PAHs, POPs

FW diatom Invertebrates (Daphtoxkit )

Reburial a b

In vivo

+

In vitro

Sediment

Extractsb

+ + +

+ + +

p,e

+ +

+

e p,e,o e e

+

e

+ +

Pesticides Resin-acid

p,e,o +

Reference

6,34–38 38 39 3,40 41 6,38 42 3,40 43

Major chemical classes identified in the sediments. p: porewater extracts; e: elutriates; o: organic solvent extracts; PAHs: polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons; POPs: persistent organic pollutants.

Table 2. Examples of Test Systems Used for Sediment Toxicity Assessment—Subchronic Toxicity Tests Test Phase Endpoint

Taxa

a

Chemicals Identified

In vivo

PAHs, POPs, metals

+

PAHs, POPs, metals

+

In vitro

Sediment

Extractsb

+

e, p

Reference

Survival Invertebrates 32,44,45

Vertebrates e, o, p

32,46

Growth inhibition FW Algaltoxkit FW microalgae Marine microalgae

PAHs, PCBs

+

+ +

o

38 47 6

PAHs, PCBs

+ +

Organotins, metals

+

+

48–50

Metals

+

+

51,52

PAHs, PCBs

+

+

53

PAHs, OCPs, metals

+

Behavior Invertebrates Vertebrates Enzyme induction EROD

Invertebrates Vertebrates

a b

+

+

o

54–67

Major chemical classes identified in the sediments. p: porewater extracts; e: elutriates; o: organic solvent extracts; PAHs: polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons; POPs: persistent organic pollutants.

multiple test models representing different trophic levels and sediment related habitats. Primary criteria for test species selection for assessing sediment contamination and toxicity include the species’ ecological and/or economical importance and its relative sensitivity to sediment contamination, predictable and consistent response of control organisms, ease of culture and maintenance, short duration, replicable, relatively inexpensive, comparable, and ecologically relevant (6,25,26). In addition to species selection, the endpoints in sediment toxicity tests depend on the question being addressed in the environmental risk assessment (2) and may include acute and long-term toxicity, endocrine, reproductive, and genotoxic effects.

The majority of test systems in use for regulatory purposes are commercial test kits assessing acute general effects on microorganisms using sediment extracts (Table 1). Sediment pore water extracts (also known as interstitial water) are defined as the water occupying the space between sediment particles (27). Contaminants in pore water represent the water-soluble, bioavailable fraction and, as a result, may be a major route of exposure to infaunal species (28–30). The use of elutriate extracts, as opposed to pore water extracts, provides information on the leaching potential of sediment-associated contaminants and may therefore yield important data on the potential adverse effects to benthic organisms, following disturbance of the underlying sediment (6,31). Methods applicable to

DEVELOPMENT AND APPLICATION OF SEDIMENT TOXICITY TESTS FOR REGULATORY PURPOSES

3

Table 3. Examples of Test Systems Used for Sediment Toxicity Assessment—Genotoxicity Tests Test Phase Endpoint

Chemicals Identifieda

Taxa

In vivo

In vitro

Sediment

Extractsb

+ +

+

o p,e,o

Reference

Mutation Bacteria AMES test Mutatox

PAHs, POPs PAHs, POPs

68 69

Micronucleus Vertebrates PAHs, POPs

+

+

70

POPs PAHs, metals

+ +

+ +

71 33

PAHs, POPs

+

+

65,70–74

PAHs, PCBs

+

+

59,75

SSBs Invertebrates

Vertebrates DNA adducts Vertebrates a b

Major chemical classes identified in the sediments. p: porewater extracts; e: elutriates; o: organic solvent extracts; PAHs: polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons; POPs: persistent organic pollutants.

Table 4. Examples of Test Systems Used for Sediment Toxicity Assessment—Endocrine and Reproduction Tests Test Phase Endpoint

Taxa

Chemicals Identifieda

In vivo

In vitro

Sediment

Extractsb

Reference

Invertebrates Imposex Larval development Spermiotoxicity Emergence

Organotins PAHs, metals PAHS, POPs Unspecified

+ +

PAHS, POPs PAHS, POPs Unspecified

+

+

+ +

e,o,p p +

76 32,77 44,78 32

Vertebrates Estrogen-like activity Fertility Vitellogenin a b

+

o +

+ +

79 80 81,82

Major chemical classes identified in the sediments. p: porewater extracts; e: elutriates; o: organic solvent extracts; PAHs: polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons; POPs: persistent organic pollutants.

whole sediment, sediment suspension, sediment elutriate, pore-water extracts, and/or sediment extracts from the marine and freshwater environment have been previously reviewed (32). These test systems are well established, validated and reproducible, fast, cheap, and require little specialized training. In addition, in vitro models, using cells derived from a range of taxa, are currently being developed and validated (22). All these tests are suitable for screening purposes and initial hazard identification. However, they have limited ecological relevance because they are often restricted to nonspecific endpoints or a single trophic level. Therefore, the use and development of a multiple test system or test battery, using various endpoints for both general toxicity (see Tables 1 and 2) and specific toxicities (e.g., genotoxic and reproductive effects; see Tables 3 and 4) in sediment-associated organisms from several taxa representing different trophic levels, is desirable. These models may have a higher ecological relevance than the microbial test systems. In some cases, multiple endpoints for different toxic effects (acute, long term, and specific)

or single endpoints in multiple organ systems have been used in the same test species in order to observe potential toxicity on various levels of biological organization (33). Unfortunately, this type of approach is currently not accepted for regulatory purposes, because many of the bioassays involved are generally less well validated. Therefore, we recommend that sediment toxicity assessments should be further developed and evaluated using a tiered approached, consisting of screening using short-term general toxicity tests (Tier 1); hazard identification applying more specific (multiple) endpoints in multiorganism experiments, representing different trophic levels and habitats associated with sediments, as well as different modes of bioavailability by using both sediment extracts and whole sediments (Tier 2); and in situ ecosystem function, for example, lifetime reproductive success, and components of biodiversity (Tier 3). BIBLIOGRAPHY 1. Heida, H. and van der Oost, R. (1996). Water Sci. Technol. 34: 109–116.

4

DEVELOPMENT AND APPLICATION OF SEDIMENT TOXICITY TESTS FOR REGULATORY PURPOSES 2. Chapman, P.M. et al. (2002). Mar. Pollut. Bull. 44: 271– 278. 3. Fernandez-Alba, A.R., Guil, M.D.H., Lopez, G.D., Chisti, Y. (2002). Anal. Chim. Acta 451: 195–202.

and

4. Dutka, B.J., Tuominen, T., Churchland, L., and Kwan, K.K. (1989). Hydrobiologia 188: 301–315. 5. Giesy, J.P. and Hoke, R.A.J. (1989). Gt. Lakes Res. 15: 539–569. 6. Cheung, Y.H. et al. (1997). Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 32: 260–267. 7. Matthiessen, P. et al. (1998). Mar. Environ. Res. 45: 1–15. 8. Bombardier, M. and Bermingham, N. (1999). Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 18: 685–698. 9. Chapman, P.M. (2000). Int. J. Environ. Pollut. 13: 351. 10. Chapman, P., Bishay, F., Power, E., Hall, K., Harding, L., McLeay, D., Nassichuk, M., and Knapp, W. (Eds.). (1991). 17th Annual Aquatic Toxicology Workshop. In: Canadian Technological Report in Fisheries and Aquatic Science. Vol. 1. Vancouver, BC, pp 323–330. 11. Knezovich, J.P., Harrison, F.L., and Wilhelm, R.G. (1987). Water Air Soil Pollut. 32: 233. 12. ASTM. (1994). American Society for Testing and Materials: Terminology. ASTM, Provo, UT. 13. Rand, G.M., Wells, P.G., and McCarty, L.S. (1997). Fundamentals of Aquatic Toxicology—Effects, Environmenatl Fate and Risk Assessment, 2nd Edn. G.M. Rand (Ed.). Taylor and Francis, London, pp. 3–67. 14. Suedel, B.C. and Rodgers, J.H. (1994). Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 13: 1163. 15. Quevauviller, P. and Ariese, F. (2001). Trac-Trends. Anal. Chem. 20: 207–218. 16. IEEE. (1987). Organotin Symposium Oceans’86. Vol. 4. IEEE, Washington, DC, pp. 1370–1374. 17. Ragnarsdottir, K.V.J. (2000). Geol. Soc. 157: 859–876. 18. Fenchel, T. (1969). Ophelia 6: 1–182. 19. Machan, R. and Ott, J.A. (1972). Limnol. Oceanogr. 17: 622–626. 20. Aller, R.C. (1978). Am. J. Sci. 278: 1185–1234. 21. ASTM. (1990). Standard guide for collection, storage, characterization and manipulation of sediments for toxicity testing. ASTM, Provo, UT. 22. Ni Shuilleabhain, S., Davoren, M., Hartl, M.G.J., and O’Halloran, J. (2003). In vitro Methods in Aquatic Toxicology. C. Mothersill, B. Austin (Eds.). Springer Verlag, Berlin, pp. 327–374. 23. Burton, G.A. (1991). Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 10: 1585–1627. 24. Bettermann, A.D., Lazorchak, J.M., and Dorofi, J.C. (1996). Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 15: 319–324. 25. Traunspurger, W. and Drews, C. (1996). Hydrobiologia 328: 215–261. 26. Doherty, F.G. (2001). Water Qual. Res. J. Can. 36: 475–518. 27. Ingersoll, C.G. (1995). In: Fundamentals of Aquatic Toxicology; Effects, Environmental Fate, and Risk Assessment. G.M. Rand (Ed.). Taylor and Francis, New York. 28. Carr, R.S., Williams, J.W., and Fragata, C.T.B. (1989). Environ. Toxcol. Chem. 8: 533–543. 29. Carr, R.S. (1998). In: Microscale Testing in Aquatic Toxicology. Advances, Techniques and Practice. Wells, P.G., Lee, K., and Blaise, C. (Eds.). CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, pp. 523–538. 30. Nipper, M. et al. (2002). Mar. Pollut. Bull. 44: 789–806.

31. Wong, C.K.C., Cheung, R.Y.H., and Wong, M.H. (1999). Environ. Pollut. 105: 175–183. 32. Nendza, M. (2002). Chemosphere 48: 865–883. 33. Coughlan, B.M. et al. (2002). Mar. Pollut. Bull. 44: 1359–1365. 34. Kemble, N.E. et al. (2000). Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 39: 452–461. 35. Cook, N.H. and Wells, P.G. (1996). Water Qual. Res. J. Can. 31: 673–708. 36. Grant, A. and Briggs, A.D. (2002). Mar. Environ. Res. 53: 95–116. 37. Ankley, G.T., Hoke, R.A., Giesy, J.P., and Winger, P.V. (1989). Chemosphere 18: 2069–2075. 38. Cˆote, C. et al. (1998). Environ. Toxicol. Water Qual. 13: 93–110. 39. Guzzella, L. (1998). Chemosphere 37: 2895–2909. 40. Kahru, A., Pollumaa, L., Reiman, R., and Ratsep, A. (1999). ATLA-Altern. Lab. Anim. 27: 359–366. 41. Bitton, G., Campbell, M., and Koopman, B. (1992). Environ. Toxicol. Water Qual. 7: 323–328. 42. Cohn, S.A. and McGuire, J.R. (2000). Diatom Res. 15: 19–29. 43. Hickey, C.W. and Martin, M.L. (1995). Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 14: 1401–1409. 44. Ho, K.T. et al. (1997). Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 16: 551–558. 45. Williams, T.D. (1992). Mar. Ecol.-Prog. Ser. 91: 221–228. 46. U.S. EPA. (2001). Methods for Assessing the Chronic Toxicity of Marine and Estuarine Sediment-associated Contaminants with the Amphipod Leptocheirus plumulosus, 1st Edn. United States Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC. 47. Keddy, C.J., Greene, J.C., and Bonnell, M.A. (1995). Ecotox. Environ. Safety 30: 221–251. 48. Stronkhorst, J., van Hattum, B., and Bowmer, T. (1999). Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 18: 2343. 49. Phelps, H.J., Hardy, J.T., Pearson, W.H., and Apts, C.W. (1983). Mar. Pollut. Bull. 14: 452–455. 50. Byrne, P.A. and O’Halloran, J. (2000). Environ. Toxcol. 15: 456–468. 51. Byrne, P.A. and O’Halloran, J. (1999). Mar. Pollut. Bull. 39: 97–105. 52. Weis, J.S. et al. (2001). Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 58: 1442–1452. 53. Michel, X. et al. (2001). Polycycl. Aromat. Compd. 18: 307–324. 54. Gagne, F., Blaise, C., and Bermingham, N. (1996). Toxicol. Lett. 87: 85–92. 55. Gunther, A.J. et al. (1997). Mar. Environ. Res. 44: 41–49. 56. Escartin, E. and Porte, C. (1999). Mar. Pollut. Bull. 38: 1200–1206. 57. Myers, M.S. et al. (1998). Mar. Pollut. Bull. 37: 92–113. 58. Willett, K.L. et al. (1997). Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 16: 1472–1479. 59. Rice, C.A. et al. (2000). Mar. Environ. Res. 50: 527–533. 60. Johnson, L. et al. (1993). Mar. Environ. Res. 35: 165–170. 61. Besselink, H.T. et al. (1998). Aquat. Toxicol. 42: 271–285. 62. Beyer, J.U. et al. (1996). Aquat. Toxicol. 36: 75–98. 63. Mondon, J.A., Duda, S., and Nowak, B.F. (2001). Aquat. Toxicol. 54: 231–247. 64. Wong, C.K.C., Yeung, H.Y., Woo, P.S., and Wong, M.H. (2001). Aquat. Toxicol. 54: 69–80. 65. Digiulio, R.T. et al. (1989). Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 8: 1103–1123.

DEVELOPMENT AND APPLICATION OF SEDIMENT TOXICITY TESTS FOR REGULATORY PURPOSES 66. Gadagbui, B.K.M. and Goksoyr, A. (1996). Biomarkers 1: 252–261. 67. Zapata-Perez, O. et al. (2000). Mar. Environ. Res. 50: 385–391. 68. Bombardier, M., Bermingham, N., Legault, R., and Fouquet, A. (2001). Chemosphere 42: 931–944. 69. Johnson, B.T. and Long, E.R. (1998). Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 17: 1099–1106. 70. Bombail, V., Aw, D., Gordon, E., and Batty, J. (2001). Chemosphere 44: 383–392. 71. Everaarts, J.M. (1995). Mar. Pollut. Bull. 31: 431–438. 72. Theodorakis, C.W., Dsurney, S.J., and Shugart, L.R. (1994). Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 13: 1023–1031. 73. Pandrangi, R., Petras, M., Ralph, S., and Vrzoc, M. (1995). Environ. Mol. Mutagen. 26: 345–356. 74. Kilemade, M.F. et al. (2004). Environ. Mol. Mutagen. 44: 56–64.

5

75. Stein, J.E. et al. (1992). Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 11: 701–714. 76. Diez, S., Abalos, M., and Bayona, J.M. (2002). Water Res. 36: 905–918. 77. Del Valls, T.A., Forja, J.M., and Gomez-Parra, A. (1998). Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 17: 1073–1084. 78. Carr, R.S. et al. (1996). Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 15: 1218–1231. 79. Khim, J.S. et al. (2001). Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 40: 151–160. 80. Nagler, J.J. and Cyr, D.G. (1997). Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 16: 1733–1738. 81. Lye, C.M., Frid, C.L.J., and Gill, M.E. (1998). Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 170: 249–260. 82. McArdle, M.E., McElroy, A.E., and Elskus, A.A. (2004). Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 23: 953–959.