Potrebujeme váš súhlas na využitie jednotlivých dát, aby sa vám okrem iného mohli ukazovať informácie týkajúce sa vašich záujmov. Súhlas udelíte kliknutím na tlačidlo „OK“.
Standard Test Method for Measuring the Toxicity of Sediment-Associated Contaminants with Freshwater Invertebrates
NORMA vydaná dňa 1.4.2019
Označenie normy: ASTM E1706-19
Poznámka: NEPLATNÁ
Dátum vydania normy: 1.4.2019
Kód tovaru: NS-945781
Počet strán: 119
Približná hmotnosť: 388 g (0.86 libier)
Krajina: Americká technická norma
Kategória: Technické normy ASTM
Keywords:
bioavailability, Ceriodaphnia dubia, Chironomus riparius, Chironomus dilutus, contamination, Daphnia magna, Diporeia spp., Hexagenia spp., Hyalella azteca, invertebrates, sediment, toxicity, Tubifex tubifex, cladoceran, midge, amphipod, mayfly, oligochaete,, ICS Number Code 07.100.20 (Microbiology of water)
Significance and Use | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
5.1 General: 5.1.1 Sediment provides habitat for many aquatic organisms and is a major repository for many of the more persistent chemicals that are introduced into surface waters. In the aquatic environment, most anthropogenic chemicals and waste materials including toxic organic and inorganic chemicals eventually accumulate in sediment. Mounting evidences exists of environmental degradation in areas where USEPA Water Quality Criteria (WQC; 5.1.2 The objective of a sediment test is to determine whether chemicals in sediment are harmful to or are bioaccumulated by benthic organisms. The tests can be used to measure interactive toxic effects of complex chemical mixtures in sediment. Furthermore, knowledge of specific pathways of interactions among sediments and test organisms is not necessary to conduct the tests 5.1.3 A variety of methods have been developed for assessing the toxicity of chemicals in sediments using amphipods, midges, polychaetes, oligochaetes, mayflies, or cladocerans (Section 13 and 14; Annex A1 to Annex A5; 5.1.3.1 The decision to conduct short-term or long-term toxicity tests depends on the goal of the assessment. In some instances, sufficient information may be gained by measuring sublethal endpoints in 10-day tests. In other instances, the 10-day tests could be used to screen samples for toxicity before long-term tests are conducted. While the long-term tests are needed to determine direct effects on reproduction, measurement of growth in these toxicity tests may serve as an indirect estimate of reproductive effects of contaminants associated with sediments (A6.4.5 and A7.4.6.2). Additional studies are ongoing to more thoroughly evaluate the relative sensitivity between lethal and sublethal endpoints measured in 10-day tests (Sections 13 and 14) and between sublethal endpoints measured in the long-term tests. Results of these studies and additional applications of the methods described in Annex A6 and Annex A7 will provide data that can be used to assist in determining where application of long-term tests will be most appropriate. 5.1.3.2 Use of sublethal endpoints for assessment of contaminant risk is not unique to toxicity testing with sediments. Numerous regulatory programs require the use of sublethal endpoints in the decision-making process (Pittinger and Adams 5.1.4 Results of toxicity tests on sediments spiked at different concentrations of chemicals can be used to establish cause and effect relationships between chemicals and biological responses. Results of toxicity tests with test materials spiked into sediments at different concentrations may be reported in terms of an LC50 (median lethal concentration), an EC50 (median effect concentration), an IC50 (inhibition concentration), or as a NOEC (no observed effect concentration) or LOEC (lowest observed effect concentration). However, spiked sediment may not be representative of chemicals associated with sediment in the field. Mixing time 5.1.5 Evaluating effect concentrations for chemicals in sediment requires knowledge of factors controlling their bioavailability. Similar concentrations of a chemical in units of mass of chemical per mass of sediment dry weight often exhibit a range in toxicity in different sediments (39, 40). Effect concentrations of chemicals in sediment have been correlated to interstitial water concentrations, and effect concentrations in interstitial water are often similar to effect concentrations in water-only exposures. The bioavailability of nonionic organic compounds in sediment is often inversely correlated with the organic carbon concentration. Whatever the route of exposure, these correlations of effect concentrations to interstitial water concentrations indicate that predicted or measured concentrations in interstitial water can be used to quantify the exposure concentration to an organism. Therefore, information on partitioning of chemicals between solid and liquid phases of sediment is useful for establishing effect concentrations 5.1.6 Field surveys can be designed to provide either a qualitative reconnaissance of the distribution of sediment contamination or a quantitative statistical comparison of contamination among sites. 5.1.7 Surveys of sediment toxicity are usually part of more comprehensive analyses of biological, chemical, geological, and hydrographic data. Statistical correlations may be improved and sampling costs may be reduced if subsamples are taken simultaneously for sediment tests, chemical analyses, and benthic community structure. 5.1.8 Table 3 lists several approaches the USEPA has considered for the assessment of sediment quality 5.2 Regulatory Applications of Sediment Tests: 5.2.1 The USEPA has authority under a variety of statutes to manage contaminated sediments (Table 4). USEPA's Contaminated Sediment Management Strategy (CWA Clean Water Act FIFRA Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act MPRSA Marine Protection, Resources and Sanctuary Act NEPA National Environmental Policy Act TSCA Toxic Substances Control Act RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act 5.2.2 The Clean Water Act (CWA) is the single most important law dealing with environmental quality of surface waters in the United States. The objective of the CWA is to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the nation's waters (CWA, Section 101). Federal and state monitoring programs traditionally have focused on evaluating water column problems caused by point source dischargers. Findings in the National Sediment Quality Survey, volume I of the first biennial report to Congress on sediment quality in the U.S., indicate that this focus needs to be expanded to include sediment quality impacts (Section 1.1.2 and 5.2.3 The Office of Water (OW), the Office of Prevention, Pesticides, and Toxic Substances (OPPTS), the Office of Solid Waste (OSW), and the Office of Emergency and Remedial Response (OERR) are all committed to the principle of consistent tiered testing described in the Contaminated Sediment Management Strategy (USEPA, 5.2.4 Tiered testing refers to a structured, hierarchial procedure for determining data needs relative to decision-making that consists of a series of tiers, or levels, of investigative intensity. Typically, increasing tiers in a tiered testing framework involve increased information and decreased uncertainty (USEPA, 5.3 Performance-based criteria: 5.3.1 The USEPA's Environmental Monitoring Management Council (EMMC) recommended the use of performance-based methods in developing standards (95). Performance-based methods were defined by EMMC as a monitoring approach which permits the use of appropriate methods that meet preestablished demonstrated performance standards (see 11.2). 5.3.2 The USEPA Office of Water, Office of Science and Technology, and Office of Research and Development held a workshop to provide an opportunity for experts in the field of sediment toxicology and staff from USEPA's Regional and Headquarters Program offices to discuss the development of standard freshwater and marine sediment testing procedures (77, 96). Workgroup participants arrived at a consensus on several culturing and testing methods. In developing guidance for culturing test organisms to be included in the USEPA's methods manual for sediment tests, it was agreed that no one method should be required to culture organisms. However, the consensus at the workshop was that success of a test depends on the health of the cultures. Therefore, having healthy test organisms of known quality and age for testing was determined to be the key consideration relative to culturing methods. A performance-based criteria approach was selected in USEPA (2) as the preferred method through which individual laboratories could use unique culturing methods rather than requiring use of one culturing method. 5.3.3 This standard recommends the use of performance-based criteria to allow each laboratory to optimize culture methods and minimize effects of test organism health on the reliability and comparability of test results. See 13.1.2 and 14.1.2 and Annex A1 to Annex A7 for a listing of performance criteria for culturing and testing. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1. Scope | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1.1 This test method covers procedures for testing freshwater organisms in the laboratory to evaluate the toxicity of contaminants associated with whole sediments. Sediments may be collected from the field or spiked with compounds in the laboratory. 1.1.1 Test methods are described for two toxicity test organisms, the amphipod Hyalella azteca (H. azteca) (see 13.1.2) and the midge Note 1: Morphological comparison of populations of 1.1.2 Guidance for conducting sediment toxicity tests is outlined in Annex A1 for 1.2 Procedures outlined in this test method are based primarily on procedures described in the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) (2-9)2, Test Method E1367, and Guides E1391, E1525 and E1688. 1.3 Additional research and methods development are now in progress to: (1) evaluate additional test organisms, 1.4 The USEPA (2) and Guide E1688 also describes 28-day bioaccumulation methods for the oligochaete Lumbriculus variegatus. 1.5 Results of tests, even those with the same species, using procedures different from those described in the test method may not be comparable and using these different procedures may alter bioavailability. Comparison of results obtained using modified versions of these procedures might provide useful information concerning new concepts and procedures for conducting sediment tests with aquatic organisms. If tests are conducted with procedures different from those described in this test method, additional tests are required to determine comparability of results. General procedures described in this test method might be useful for conducting tests with other aquatic organisms; however, modifications may be necessary. 1.6 Selection of Toxicity Testing Organisms: 1.6.1 The choice of a test organism has a
major influence on the relevance, success, and interpretation of a
test. Furthermore, no one organism is best suited for all
sediments. The following criteria were considered when selecting
test organisms to be described in this standard (Table 1 and Guide E1525). A test organism should:
S = survival, G = Growth, B =
Bioaccumulation, A = avoidance 1.6.2 Of the criteria outlined in Table 1, a data base demonstrating relative sensitivity to contaminants, contact with sediment, ease of culture in the laboratory, interlaboratory comparisons, tolerance of varying sediment physico-chemical characteristics, and confirmation with responses of natural benthos populations were the primary criteria used for selecting 1.6.3 An important consideration in the selection of specific species for test method development is the existence of information concerning relative sensitivity of the organisms both to single chemicals and complex mixtures. A number of studies have evaluated the sensitivity of H. azteca, C. dilutus, and L. variegatus, relative to one another, as well as other commonly tested freshwater species. For example, Ankley et al 1.6.3.1 In a study of contaminated Great Lakes sediment, 1.6.3.2 In 10-day water-only and whole-sediment tests, Hyalella azteca and C. dilutus were more sensitive than D. magna to fluoranthene-spiked sediment (19). 1.6.3.3 Ten-day, water-only tests also have been conducted with a number of chemicals using H. azteca, C. dilutus, and L. variegatus (1 50 % mortality at highest concentration tested. 2 70 % mortality at lowest concentration tested. 3 NT, not tested. 1.6.3.4 Using the data from Table 2, sensitivity of H. azteca, C. dilutus, and L. variegatus can be evaluated relative to other freshwater species. For this analysis, acute and chronic toxicity data from water quality criteria (WQC) documents for copper, zinc, cadmium, nickel, lead, DDT, dieldrin, and chlorpyrifos, and toxicity information from the AQUIRE data base (20) for 1,1,dichloro-2,2-bis(p-chlorophenyl)ethane (DDD) and dichlorodiphenyldichloroethylene (DDE), were compared to assay results for the three species 1.6.3.5 Measurable concentrations of ammonia are common in the pore water of many sediments and have been found to be a common cause of toxicity in pore water (1) Although these studies provide benchmark concentrations that may be of concern in sediment pore waters, additional studies by Whiteman et al. 1.6.4 Relative species sensitivity frequently varies among chemicals; consequently, a battery of tests including organisms representing different trophic levels may be needed to assess sediment quality 1.6.4.1 Sensitivity of a species to chemicals is also dependent on the duration of the exposure and the endpoints evaluated. Annex A6 and Annex A7 describe results of studies which demonstrate the utility of measuring sublethal endpoints in sediment toxicity tests with the amphipod 1.6.5 The sensitivity of an organism to chemicals should be balanced with the concept of discrimination 1.6.6 Sensitivity of an organism is related to route of exposure and biochemical sensitivity to chemicals. Sediment-dwelling organisms can receive a dose from three primary sources: interstitial water, sediment particles, and overlying water. Food type, feeding rate, assimilation efficiency, and clearance rate will control the dose of chemicals from sediment (Guide E1688). Benthic invertebrates often selectively consume different particle sizes 1.6.7 Despite the potential complexities in estimating the dose that an animal receives from sediment, the toxicity and bioaccumulation of many chemicals in sediment such as chlordecone, fluoranthene, organochlorines, and metals have been correlated with either the concentration of these chemicals in interstitial water or in the case of nonionic organic chemicals, concentrations of an organic-carbon basis (39, 40). The relative importance of whole sediment and interstitial water routes of exposure depends on the test organism and the specific contaminant (35, 38). Because benthic communities contain a diversity of organisms, many combinations of exposure routes may be important. Therefore, behavior and feeding habits of a test organism can influence its ability to accumulate contaminants from sediment and should be considered when selecting test organisms for sediment testing. 1.6.8 The response of H. azteca and C. dilutus in laboratory toxicity studies has been compared to the response of natural populations of benthic organisms to potentially contaminated sediments. 1.6.8.1 Chironomids were not found in sediment samples that decreased the growth of C. dilutus by 30 % or more in 10-day laboratory toxicity tests 1.6.8.2 Canfield et al. (45,46,47) evaluated the composition of benthic invertebrate communities in sediments for the following areas: (1) three Great Lakes Areas of Concern (AOC; Buffalo River, NY: Indiana Harbor, IN: Saginaw River, MI), (2) the upper Mississippi River, and (3) the Clark Fork River located in Montana. Results of these benthic community assessments were compared to sediment chemistry and toxicity (28-day sediment exposures with 1.6.8.3 Results from laboratory sediment toxicity tests were compared to colonization of artificial substrates exposed in situ to Great Lakes sediment 1.6.8.4 Sediment toxicity with amphipods in 10-day toxicity tests, field contamination, and field abundance of benthic amphipods were examined along a sediment contamination gradient of DDT 1.7 Limitations—While some safety considerations are included in this standard, it is beyond the scope of this standard to encompass all safety requirements necessary to conduct sediment tests. 1.8 This standard is arranged as follows:
1.9 This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety, health, and environmental practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use. 1.10 This international standard was developed in accordance with internationally recognized principles on standardization established in the Decision on Principles for the Development of International Standards, Guides and Recommendations issued by the World Trade Organization Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) Committee. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
2. Referenced Documents | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Posledná aktualizácia: 2024-05-02 (Počet položiek: 2 896 910)
© Copyright 2024 NORMSERVIS s.r.o.