Field evaluation of predictions of environmental effects from a multispecies-microcosm toxicity test

  • B. R. Niederlehner
  • Kurt W. Pontasch
  • James R. Pratt
  • John CairnsJr.
Article
Received:
Revised:

Abstract

The predictive validity of a multispecies-microcosm toxicity test was evaluated. Predictions of biological response to a complex effluent were made from dose-response curves in laboratory tests and compared to observed effects in the receiving system. No effects on protozoan or macroinvertebrate communities were observed at the field site with effluent concentrations less than the chronic value of 1.7% effluent determined in laboratory tests. In addition, the microcosm test accurately predicted the magnitude of decreases in species richness in protozoan and macroinvertebrate communities in the receiving system at the first downstream site. Predictions of environmental effects for stations farther downstream were generally less accurate and too high, perhaps due to lack of persistence in the toxicity of the effluent. Stimulation of total biomass and algal growth were observed in both laboratory and field tests, but laboratory tests greatly overestimated the magnitude of enrichment responses in the receiving system.

Keywords

Biomass Waste Water Species Richness Laboratory Test Water Pollution 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. American Public Health Association, American Water Works Association, Water Pollution Control Federation (1985) Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater, 16th edn. Washington DCGoogle Scholar
  2. Boyle TA (Ed) (1985) Validation and Predictability of Laboratory Methods for Assessing the Fate and Effects of Contaminants in Aquatic Ecosystems, STP 865, American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia PAGoogle Scholar
  3. Bradford MM (1976) A rapid and sensitive method for the quantitation of microgram quantities of protein utilizing the principle of protein-dye binding. Anal Biochem 72:248–254Google Scholar
  4. Cairns J Jr (Ed) (1986) Multispecies Toxicity Testing. Pergamon Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  5. Cairns J Jr, Smith EP (in Press) Developing a statistical support system for environmental hazard assessment. HydrobiologiaGoogle Scholar
  6. Cairns J Jr, Pratt JR, Niederlehner BR (1985) A provisional multispecies toxicity test using indigenous organisms. J Test Eval 13:316–319Google Scholar
  7. Carlson AR, Nelson RH, Hammermeister D (1986) Development and validation of site-specific water quality criteria for copper. Environ Toxicol Chem 5:997–1012Google Scholar
  8. Finney DJ (1971) Probit Analysis, 3rd edn. Cambridge University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  9. Geckler JR, Horning WB, Neiheisel TM, Pickering QH, Robinson EL (1976) Validity of laboratory tests for predicting copper toxicity in streams. EPA 600-76-116. National Technical Information Service, Springfield VAGoogle Scholar
  10. Hansen SR, Garton RR (1982) Ability of standard toxicity tests to predict the effects of the insecticide diflubenzuron on laboratory stream communities. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 39:1273–1288Google Scholar
  11. Hendrickson JA Jr (1978) Statistical analysis of the presence-absence component of species composition data. In: Dickson KL, Cairns J Jr, Livingston RJ (eds) Biological Data in Water Pollution Assessment: Quantitative and Statistical Analyses, STP 652. American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia PA, pp 113–124Google Scholar
  12. Kahl A (1930–1935) Wimpetiere oder Ciliata (Infusoria), Urtiere oder Protozoa. In: Dahl F (ed) Die Terwelt Deutschland. Teil 18, 20, 21, and 25, Fisher, JenaGoogle Scholar
  13. Kudo RR (1966) Protozoology, 5th edn. Thomas, Springfield, ILGoogle Scholar
  14. Lee JJ, Hutner SH, Bovee EC (eds) (1985) An Illustrated Guide to the Protozoa. Society of Protozoologists, Lawrence, KSGoogle Scholar
  15. Lorenzen CJ (1966) A method for the continuous measurement ofin vivo chlorophyll concentration. Deep Sea Res 13:223–227Google Scholar
  16. Mount DI, Thomas NA, Norberg TJ, Barbour MT, Roush TH, Brandes WF (1984) Effluent and Ambient Toxicity Testing and Instream Community Response on the Ottawa River, Lima, Ohio. EPA-600-84-080. National Technical Information Service, Springfield VAGoogle Scholar
  17. National Research Council (1981) Testing for Effects of Chemicals on Ecosystems. National Academy Press, Washington DCGoogle Scholar
  18. Niederlehner BR, Pratt JR, Buikema AL Jr, Cairns J Jr (1985) Laboratory tests evaluating the effects of cadmium on freshwater protozoan communities. Environ Toxicol Chem 4:155–165Google Scholar
  19. Page FC (1976) An Illustrated Key to Freshwater and Soil Amoebae. Freshwater Biological Association, Scientific Publication 34, Cumbria, UKGoogle Scholar
  20. Pascher A (1913–1927) Flagellates. In: Die Susswasserflora Deutschlands, Osterreichs, und der Schweiz. G. Lischer, JenaGoogle Scholar
  21. Pratt JR, Niederlehner BR, Bowers NJ, Cairns J Jr (1987) Prediction of permissible concentrations of copper from microcosm toxicity tests. Toxicol Assess 2:417–436Google Scholar
  22. Rausch P (1981) The estimation of microalgae protein content and its meaning to the evaluation of algal biomass, V: Comparison of methods for extracting protein. Hydrobiologia 78:237–251Google Scholar
  23. Sanders WM III (1985) Field validation. In: Rand GM, Petrocelli SR (eds) Fundamentals of Aquatic Toxicology, Hemisphere Publishing Corp, NY, pp 601–618Google Scholar
  24. Sokal RR, Rohlf FJ (1981) Biometry, 2nd edn. WH Freeman, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  25. Tolle DA, Arthur MF, Chesson J, Van Vorris P (1985) Comparison of pots versus microcosms for predicting acroecosystem effects due to waste amendment. Environ Toxicol Chem 4:501–509Google Scholar
  26. United States Environmental Protection Agency (1985a) Methods for Measuring the Acute Toxicity of Effluents to Freshwater and Marine Organisms. EPA-600/4-85-013. Environmental Monitoring and Support Laboratory, Cincinnati OHGoogle Scholar
  27. — (1985b) Methods for Estimating the Chronic Toxicity of Effluents and Receiving Waters to Freshwater Organisms. EPA-600/4-85-014. Environmental Monitoring and Support Laboratory, Cincinnati OHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag New York Inc 1990

Authors and Affiliations

  • B. R. Niederlehner
    • 1
    • 2
  • Kurt W. Pontasch
    • 1
    • 2
  • James R. Pratt
    • 1
    • 2
  • John CairnsJr.
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.University Center for Environmental and Hazardous Materials StudiesUSA
  2. 2.Department of BiologyVirginia Polytechnic Institute and State UniversityBlacksburgUSA

Personalised recommendations