Comparison of methods for conducting marine and estuarine sediment porewater toxicity tests—extraction, storage, and handling techniques

  • R. S. Carr
  • D. C. Chapman


A series of studies was conducted to compare different porewater extraction techniques and to evaluate the effects of sediment and porewater storage conditions on the toxicity of pore water, using assays with the sea urchin Arbacia punctulata. If care is taken in the selection of materials, several different porewater extraction techniques (pressurized squeezing, centrifugation, vacuum) yield samples with similar toxicity. Where the primary contaminants of concern are highly hydrophobic organic compounds, centrifugation is the method of choice for minimizing the loss of contaminants during the extraction procedure. No difference was found in the toxicity of pore water obtained with the Teflon® and polyvinyl chloride pressurized extraction devices. Different types of filters in the squeeze extraction devices apparently adsorbed soluble contaminants to varying degrees. The amount of fine suspended particulate material remaining in the pore water after the initial extraction varied among the methods. For most of the sediments tested, freezing and thawing did not affect the toxicity of porewater samples obtained by the pressurized squeeze extraction method. Pore water obtained by other methods (centrifugation, vacuum) and frozen without additional removal of suspended particulates by centrifugation may exhibit increased toxicity compared with the unfrozen sample.

The toxicity of pore water extracted from refrigerated (4°C) sediments exhibited substantial short-term (days, weeks) changes. Similarly, sediment pore water extracted over time from a simulated amphipod solid-phase toxicity test changed substantially in toxicity. For the sediments tested, the direction and magnitude of change in toxicity of pore water extracted from both refrigerated and solid-phase test sediments was unpredictable.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. American Society of Testing and Materials (ASTM) (1963) Standard method for particle size analysis of soils. ASTM document designation D 422–63 (Reapproved 1972). ASTM, Philadelphia, PAGoogle Scholar
  2. — (1992) Standard guide for conducting solid phase 10-day static sediment toxicity tests with marine and estuarine infaunal amphipods. ASTM E 1367–90. In: ASTM 11.04 Annual Book of Standards. ASTM, Philadelphia, PAGoogle Scholar
  3. Bender M, Martin W, Hess J, Sayles F, Ball L, Lambert C (1987) A whole-core squeezer for interfacial pore-water sampling. Limnol Oceanogr 32:1214–1225Google Scholar
  4. Bottomley EZ, Bayly IL (1984) A sediment porewater sampler used in root zone studies of the submerged macrophyte, Myriophyllum spicatum. Limnol Oceanogr 29:671–673Google Scholar
  5. Carr RS (1988) Development and evaluation of a sediment bioassessment technique using the polychaete Dinophilus gyrociliatus. Final report submitted to National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Washington, DC, 60 ppGoogle Scholar
  6. — (1993) Sediment quality assessment survey of the Galveston Bay system. Publication GBNEP-30. The Galveston Bay National Estuary Program, Webster, TX, 101 ppPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Carr RS, Chapman DC (1992) Comparison of solid-phase and porewater approaches for assessing the quality of marine and estuarine sediments. Chem Ecol 7:19–30Google Scholar
  8. --, -- Comparison of methods for conducting marine and estuarine sediment porewater toxicity tests—Species and end points comparisons. Arch Environ Contam Toxicol (in review)Google Scholar
  9. Carr RS, Curran MD, Mazurkiewicz M (1986) Evaluation of the archiannelid Dinophilus gyrociliatus for use in short-term life-cycle toxicity tests. Environ Toxicol Chem 5:703–712Google Scholar
  10. Carr RS, Williams JW, Fragata CTB (1989) Development and evaluation of a novel marine sediment pore water toxicity test with the polychaete Dinophilus gyrociliatus. Environ Toxicol Chem 8:533–543Google Scholar
  11. Di Toro, DM, Mahony JD, Hansen DJ, Scott KJ, Hicks MB, Mayr SM, Redmond MS. (1990). Toxicity of cadmium in sediments: The role of acid volatile sulfide. Environ Toxicol Chem 9:1487–1502Google Scholar
  12. Edmunds WM, Bath AH (1976) Centrifuge extraction and chemical analysis of interstitial waters. Environ Sci Technol 10:467–472Google Scholar
  13. Everett DH (1988) Basic principles of colloid science. Royal Society of Chemistry, London, UKGoogle Scholar
  14. Giesy JP, Graney RL, Newsted JL, Rosui CJ, Benda A, Kreis RG, Horvath FJ (1988) Comparison of three sediment bioassay methods using Detroit River sediments. Environ Toxicol Chem 7:483–498Google Scholar
  15. Hamilton MA, Russo RC, Thurston RV (1977) Trimmed Spearman-Karber method for estimating median lethal concentrations in toxicity bioassays. Environ Sci Technol 11:714–719; Correction 12:417 (1978)Google Scholar
  16. Hesslin RH (1976) An in situ sampler for close interval pore water studies. Limnol Oceanogr 21:912–914Google Scholar
  17. Jahnke RA (1988) A simple, reliable, and inexpensive pore-water sampler. Limnol Oceanogr 33:483–487Google Scholar
  18. Knezovich JP, Harrison FL (1987) A new method for determining the concentrations of volatile organic compounds in sediment interstitial water. Bull Environ Contam Toxicol 38:937–940Google Scholar
  19. Landrum PF, Nihart SR, Eadie BJ, Herche LR (1987) Reduction in bioavailability of organic contaminants to the amphipod Pontoporeia hoyi by dissolved organic matter of sediment interstitial waters. Environ Toxicol Chem 6:11–20Google Scholar
  20. Long ER, Buchman MR, Bay SM, Breteler RJ, Carr RS, Chapman PM, Hose JE, Lissner AL, Scott J, Wolfe DA (1990) A comparative evaluation of five toxicity tests with sediments from San Francisco Bay and Tomales Bay, California. Environ Toxicol Chem 9:1193–1214Google Scholar
  21. Malueg KW, Schuytema GS, Krawczyk DF (1986) Effects of sample storage on a copper-spiked freshwater sediment. Environ Toxicol Chem 5:245–253Google Scholar
  22. Mayer LM (1976) Chemical water sampling in lakes and sediments with dialysis bags. Limnol. Oceanogr 21:909–911Google Scholar
  23. National Biological Survey (NBS) (1993) Toxicity testing of sediments from Charleston Harbor, South Carolina and vicinity. Report submitted by the National Biological Survey to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Ocean Assessment Division, Seattle, WA, 7 ppGoogle Scholar
  24. --National Biological Survey (NBS) (1994a) Survey of sediment toxicity in Pensacola Bay and St. Andrew Bay, Florida. Report submitted by the National Biological Survey to the National Oceanic and Atmosphere Administration, Ocean Assessment Division, Seattle, WA, 12 ppGoogle Scholar
  25. --National Biological Survey (NBS) (1994b) Toxicity testing of sediments from Boston Harbor, Massachusetts. Final report submitted to National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Seattle, WA, 6 ppGoogle Scholar
  26. US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) (1992) Amphipod solid-phase and sea urchin porewater toxicity tests with Tampa Bay, Florida sediments. Final report submitted to National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Seattle, WA, 9 ppGoogle Scholar
  27. Oshida PS, Goochey TK, Mearns AJ (1981) Effects of municipal wastewater on fertilization, survival, and development of the sea urchin, Strongylocentrotus purpuratus. In: Vernberg FJ, Calabrese A, Thurberg FP, Vernberg WB (eds). Biological monitoring of marine pollutants. Academic Press, NY, pp 389–402Google Scholar
  28. Othoudt RA, Giesy JP, Grzyb KR, Verbrugge DA, Hoke RA, Drake JB, Anderson D (1991) Evaluation of the effects of storage time on the toxicity of sediments. Chemosphere 22:801–807Google Scholar
  29. Pagano G, Esposito A, Giordano GG (1982) Fertilization and larval development in sea urchins following exposure of gametes and embryos to cadmium. Arch Environ Contam Toxicol 11:47–55Google Scholar
  30. Reeburgh WS (1967) An improved interstitial water sampler. Limnol Oceanogr 12:163–165Google Scholar
  31. Rees TF (1991) Use of a single-bowl continuous-flow centrifuge for dewatering suspended sediments: effect on sediment physical and chemical characteristics. Hydrol Processes 5:201–214Google Scholar
  32. SAS Institute Inc (1989) SAS/STAT® user's guide, version 6, 4th ed. vol 2. SAS Institute Inc Cary, NC, 846 ppGoogle Scholar
  33. Schults DW, Ferraro SP, SMith LM, Roberts FA, Poindexter CK (1992) A comparison of methods for collecting interstitial water for trace organic compounds and metals analyses. Water Res 26:989–995Google Scholar
  34. Weber CI, Horning WB, II, Klemm DJ, Neiheisel TW, Lewis PA, Robinson EL, Menkedick J, Kessler F (1988) Short-term methods for estimating the chronic toxicity of effluents and receiving waters to marine and estuarine organisms. EPA-600/4–87/028. US Environmental Protection Agency, Environmental Monitoring and Support Laboratory, Office of Research and Development, Cincinnati, OHGoogle Scholar
  35. Winger PV, Lasier PJ (1991) A vacuum-operated pore-water extractor for estuarine and freshwater sediments. Arch Environ Contam Toxicol 21:321–324PubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Word JQ, Ward JA, Franklin LM, Cullinan VI, Kiesser SL (1987) Evaluation of the equilibrium partitioning theory for estimating the toxicity of the nonpolar organic compound DDT to the sediment dwelling amphipod Rhepoxynius abronius. Final report submitted by Battelle Washington Environmental Program Office to US Environmental Protection Agency, Criteria and Standards Division, Washington, DC, 60 ppGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag New York Inc. 1995

Authors and Affiliations

  • R. S. Carr
    • 1
  • D. C. Chapman
    • 1
  1. 1.National Biological SurveyTexas A&M University—Corpus ChristiCorpus ChristiUSA

Personalised recommendations