Journal of Soils and Sediments

, Volume 2, Issue 4, pp 174–178 | Cite as

Invertebrates in risk assessment development of a test battery and of short term biotests for ecological risk assessment of soil

Commentaries

4 Conclusion

In general, all biotests used in the ring test are applicable for risk assessment of field soil and contaminated or remediated soil material. Of these, the most sensitive tests were selected as a integral part of the test battery [4]. This selection did not consider either the duration of the tests, which is crucial for the acceptance of tests by the remediation industry, and the effects of pollutants on biomarkers, which indicate the departure of an organism from its normal biochemical or physiological status. Therefore, the proposed test battery has to be supplemented with biotests of short duration. The best choice for a short test using the endpoint reproduction is the biotest withCaenorhabditis elegans which characterises the habitat function of soil. The appropriate screening test for the retention function is the ETr (electron transfer) inhibition test with submitochondrial particles, which provides reliable results in less than 15 min. For screening the habitat function, avoidance tests with soil invertebrates like annelids or enchytraeids are optimal, as both annelids are exposed to the bioavailable pollutants in the soil pore water. The effect of environmental chemicals at the individual level and below can be analysed with the Celegans ToxChip, which gives information of the status of biomarkers on the molecular and biochemical level. Preliminary SOPs for these biotests are formulated. They have still to be evaluated by international ring tests.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. [1]
    Achazi R, van Gestel CAM (2003): Uptake and accumulation of PAHs by terrestrial invertebrates. In: Douben PET (ed): PAHs — An ecotoxicological perspective. J. Wiley & Sons, Chichester, UK, 175–190Google Scholar
  2. [2]
    Heiden St, Erb R, Dott W, Eisenträger A (2000): Toxikologische Beurteilung von Böden. Spektrum Akademischer Verlag, Heidelberg, Berlin, Germany, 249 ppGoogle Scholar
  3. [3]
    Michels J, Track, Th, Gehrke U, Sell D (2002): Leitfaden — Biologische Verfahren zur Bodensanierung: Kap 4.2 Biologische Testverfahren, Umweltbundesamt Berlin, Germany, 493 ppGoogle Scholar
  4. [4]
    Dott W, Achazi R, Eisenträger A, Hund-Rinke K, Kördel W, Neumann-Hensel H, Pfeifer F, Römbke J, Wiesner J, Wilke B-M (2001): Biologische Testverfahren für Boden und Bodenmaterial. Dechema e.V., Frankfurt a.M., Germany, 61 ppGoogle Scholar
  5. [5]
    Hund-Rinke K, Kördel W, Heiden St, Erb R (2002): Ökotoxikologische Testbatterien. Erich Schmidt Verlag, Berlin, Germany, 241 ppGoogle Scholar
  6. [6]
    Hund-Rinke K, Kordel W, Hennecke D, Eisenträger A, Heiden St (2002) Bioassays for the Ecotoxicological and Genotoxicological Assessment of Contaminated Soils (Results of a Round Robin Test). Part I. Assessment of a possible groundwater contamination: Ecotoxicological and genotoxicological tests with aqueous soil extracts. JSS —J Soils & Sediments 2, 43–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. [7]
    Hund-Rinke K, Kördel W, Hennecke D, Achazi R, Warnecke D, Wilke B-M, Winkel B, Heiden St (2002): Bioassays for the Ecotoxicological and Genotoxicological Assessment of Contaminated Soils (Results of a Round Robin Test). Part II. Assessment of the habitat function of soils: Tests with soil microflora and fauna. JSS —J Soils & Sediments 2, 83–90CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. [8]
    Niemann R, Debus R (1996): Nematodentest zur Abschätzung der chronischen Toxizität von Bodenkontaminationen. UWSF-Z Umweltchem Ökotox 8, 255–260Google Scholar
  9. [9]
    Krautwurst R (2000): Untersuchungen zur Entwicklung eines schnellen ökotoxikologischen Reproduktionstests mit dem Nematoden Caenorhabditis elegans. Thesis, Free University of Berlin, 67 ppGoogle Scholar
  10. [10]
    Hund-Rinke K, Achazi R, Römbke J, Warnecke D (2002): Avoidance test withEisenia fetida as indicator for the habitat function of soils: Result of a laboratory comparison test. JSS — J Soils & Sediments (OnlineFirst, DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1065/iss2002.1 1.062).Google Scholar
  11. [11]
    Achazi R, Römbke J, Riepert F (2000): Collembolen als Testorganismen. In: Heiden St., Erb R, Dott W, Eisenträger A (eds): Toxikologische Beurteilung von Böden. Spektrum Akademischer Verlag. Heidelberg, Berlin, Germany, 83–103Google Scholar
  12. [12]
    Schäfer RK (2001):Evaluation of the ecotoxicological threat of ammunition derived compounds to the habitat function of soil. Thesis, Free University of Berlin, 153 ppGoogle Scholar
  13. [13]
    Heupel K (2002): Avoidance response of different Collembolan Species to Betanal. Europ J Soil Biol 38, 273–276CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. [14]
    Römbke J, Riepert F, Achazi R (2000): Enchytraeen als Testorganismen. In: Heiden St, Erb R, Dott W, Eisenträger A (eds): Toxikologische Beurteilung von Böden. Spektrum Akademischer Verlag. Heidelberg, Berlin, Germany, 105–129Google Scholar
  15. [15]
    Read HW, Harkin JM, Gustavson KE (1997): Environmental applications with submitochondrial particles. In: Wells PG, Lee K, Blaise C (eds): Microscale testing in aquatic toxicology — Advances, techniques and practice. CRC Press, Boca Raton, Florida, USA, 31–52Google Scholar
  16. [16]
    Seib K (2002): Erlaubt der Kurzzeittest mit submitochondrialen Partikeln die ökotoxikologische Beurteilung von Bodenproben? Ein Vergleich mit den Ergebnissen standardisierter Testmethoden. Thesis, Free University of Berlin, 73 ppGoogle Scholar
  17. [17]
    Menzel R, Bogeart T, Achazi R (2001): A systematic gene expression screen ofCaenorhabditis elegans Cytochrome P450 genes reveals CYP35 as strongly xenobiotic inducible. Arch Biochem Biophys 395, 158–168CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. [18]
    Menzel R, Reichert K, Achazi R (2002): Nutzung der induzierbaren genexpression des Nematoden Caenorhabditis elegans als Biomonitor. UWSF- Z Umweltchem Ökotox 14, 18–23Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Ecomed Publishers 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Free University of Berlin, Institute of BiologyEcotoxicology and BiochemistryBerlinGermany

Personalised recommendations