Advertisement

Ecotoxicology

, Volume 2, Issue 4, pp 271–300 | Cite as

Multivariate analysis of the impacts of the turbine fuel JP-4 in a microcosm toxicity test with implications for the evaluation of ecosystem dynamics and risk assessment

  • Wayne G. Landis
  • Robin A. Matthews
  • April J. Markiewicz
  • Geoffrey B. Matthews
Paper

Abstract

Turbine fuels are often the only aviation fuel available in most of the world. Turbine fuels consist of numerous constituents with varying water solubilities, volatilities and toxicities. This study investigates the toxicity of the water soluble fraction (WSF) of JP-4 using the Standard Aquatic Microcosm (SAM). Multivariate analysis of the complex data, including the relatively new method of nonmetric clustering, was used and compared to more traditional analyses. Particular emphasis is placed on ecosystem dynamics in multivariate space.

The WSF is prepared by vigorously mixing the fuel and the SAM microcosm media in a separatory funnel. The water phase, which contains the water-soluble fraction of JP-4 is then collected. The SAM experiment was conducted using concentrations of 0.0, 1.5 and 15% WSF. The WSF is added on day 7 of the experiments by removing 450 ml from each microcosm including the controls, then adding the appropriate amount of toxicant solution and finally bringing the final volume to 3 L with microcosm media. Analysis of the WSF was performed by purge and trap gas chromatography. The organic constituents of the WSF were not recoverable from the water column within several days of the addition of the toxicant. However, the impact of the WSF on the microcosm was apparent. In the highest initial concentration treatment group an algal bloom ensued, generated by the apparent toxicity of the WSF of JP-4 to the daphnids. As the daphnid populations recovered the algal populations decreased to control values. Multivariate methods clearly demonstrated this initial impact along with an additional oscillation seperating the four treatment groups in the latter segment of the experiment. Apparent recovery may be an artifact of the projections used to describe the multivariate data. The variables that were most important in distinguishing the four groups shifted during the course of the 63 day experiment. Even this simple microcosm exhibited a variety of dynamics, with implications for biomonitoring schemes and ecological risk assessments.

Keywords

jet fuel microcosm multivariate statistics nonmetric clustering risk assessment 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. ASTM D3710 (1988) Standard Test Method for Boiling Range Distribution of Gasoline and Gasoline Fractions by Gas Chromatography. 1988 Annual Book of ASTM Standards, Vol. 5.03, pp. 78–88. Philadelphia: American Society for Testing and Materials.Google Scholar
  2. ASTM D2887 (1988) Standard Test Method for Boiling Range Distribution of Petroleum Fractions by Gas Chromatography. 1988 Annual Book of ASTM Standards, Vol. 5.02, pp. 506–13. Philadelphia: American Society for Testing and Materials.Google Scholar
  3. ASTM E 1218 (1991) Conducting Static 96-h Toxicity Tests with Microalgae. 1991 Annual Book of ASTM Standards, Vol. 11.04, pp. 845–56. Philadelphia: American Society for Testing and Materials.Google Scholar
  4. ASTM E 1366-91 (1991) Standard Practice for the standardized aquatic microcosm: fresh water, 1991 Annual Book of ASTM Standards, Vol 11.04. pp. 1017–51. Philadelphia: American Society for Testing and Materials.Google Scholar
  5. Conquest, L.L. and Taub, F.B. (1989) Repeatability and reproducibility of the Standard Aquatic Microcosm: Statistical properties. In Cowgill, U.M. and Williams, L.R. eds. Aquatic Toxicology and Hazard Assessment, 12th Volume, ASTM STP 1027, pp. 159–77. Philadelphia, PA: American Society for Testing and Materials.Google Scholar
  6. Crow, M.E. and Taub, F.B. (1979) Designing a microcosm bioassay to detect ecosystem level effects. Intern. J. Environmental Studies 13, 141–7.Google Scholar
  7. Dickson, K.L., Waller, W.T., Kennedy, J.H. and Ammann, L.P. (1992) Assessing the relationship between ambient toxicity and instream biological response. Env. Tox. Chem. 11, 1307–22.Google Scholar
  8. Fisher, L. (1992) Memorandum: Decisions on the Ecological, Fate and Effects Task Force. Office of Pesticides and Toxic Substances, US Environmental Protection Agency.Google Scholar
  9. Good, I.J. (1982) An index of separateness of clusters and a permutation test for its significance. J. Statist. Comp. Simul. 15, 81–4.Google Scholar
  10. Haley, M.V., Johnson, D.W. and Landis, W.G. (1988) The aquatic toxicity of brass dust. In Adams, W., Chapman, G. and Landis, W.G., eds. Aquatic Toxicology and Environmental Fate; 10th Volume ASTM STP-971, pp. 468–79. Philadelphia: American Society for Testing and Materials.Google Scholar
  11. Hassell, M.P.H., Comins, N. and May, R.M. (1991) Spatial structure and chaos in insect population dynamics. Nature 353, 255–8.Google Scholar
  12. Johnson, A.R. (1988a) Evaluating ecosystem response to toxicant stress: a state space approach. In Adams, W.J., Chapman, G.A. and Landis, W.G., eds, Aquatic Toxicology and Hazard Assessment: 10th Volume, ASTM STP 971, pp. 275–85. Philadelphia: American Society for Testing and Materials.Google Scholar
  13. Johnson, A.R. (1988b) Diagnostic variables as predictors of ecological risk. Environmental Management 12, 515–23.Google Scholar
  14. Katz, T.K., Frost, T.M. and Magnuson, J.J. (1987) Inferences from spatial and temporal variability in ecosystems: Long-term zooplankton data from lakes. Amer. Nat. 129, 830–46.Google Scholar
  15. Kersting, K. (1984) Development and use of an aquatic micro-ecosystem as a test system for toxic substances. Properties of an aquatic micro-ecosystem IV. Int. Revue ges. Hydrobiol. 69, 567–607.Google Scholar
  16. Kersting, K. (1985) Properties of an aquatic micro-ecosystem V. Ten years of observations of the prototype. Verh. Internat. Verein. Limnol. 22, 3040–5.Google Scholar
  17. Kersting, K. (1988) Normalized ecosystem strain in micro-ecosystems using different sets of state variables. Verh. Internat. Verein. Limnol. 23, 1641–6.Google Scholar
  18. Kersting, K. and vanWungaarden, R. (1992) Effects of Chlorpyifos on a microecosystem. Env. Tox, Chem. 11, 365–72.Google Scholar
  19. Kindig, A.C., Loveday, L.C. and Taub, F.B. (1983) Differental sensitivity of new versus mature synthetic microcosms to streptomycin sulfate treatment. In Bishop, W.E., Cardwell, R.D. and Heidolph, B.B. eds. Aquatic Toxicology and Hazard Assessment. 6th Volume, ASTM STP-802, pp. 192–203. Philadelphia: American Society for Testing and Materials.Google Scholar
  20. Landis, W.G., Savage, R.E.Jr. and Hoskin, F.C.G. (1985) An organofluorophosphatehydrolyzing activity in Tetrahymena thermophila. J. Protozool. 32, pp. 517–9.Google Scholar
  21. Landis, W.G., Haley, D.M., Haley, M.V., Johnson, D.W., Durst, H.D. and Savage, R.E.Jr. (1987) Discovery of multiple organofluorophosphate hydrolyzing activities in the protozoan Tetrahymena thermophila. J. of Appl. Toxicol. 7, 35–41.Google Scholar
  22. Landis, W.G., Chester, N.A., Haley, M.V., Johnson, D.W., Muse, W.T.Jr., and Tauber, R.M. (1989) The utility of the standard aquatic microcosm as a standard method for ecotoxicological evaluation. In Suter, G. and Adams, M., eds. Aquatic Toxicology and Environmental Fate, 11th Volume ASTM STP-1007, pp. 353–67. Philadelphia: American Society for Testing and Materials.Google Scholar
  23. Landis, W.G. (1991) Distribution and nature of the aquatic organophosphorus acid anhydrases: enzymes for organophosphate detoxification. Rev. in Aquat. Sci. 5, 267–85.Google Scholar
  24. Landis, W.G., Haley, M.V. and Chester, N.A. (1993a) The use of the standardized aquatic microcosm in the evaluation of degradative bacteria in reducing impacts to aquatic ecosystems. In Landis, W.G., Hughes, J. and Lewis, M., eds. Environmental Toxicology and Risk Assessment, 1st Volume, ASTM STP-1179, Philadelphia: American Society for Testing and Materials. (in press).Google Scholar
  25. Landis, W.G., Matthews. R.A., Markiewicz, A.J., Shough, N.J. and Matthews, G.B. (1993b) Multivariate analysis of the impacts of turbine fuel using a standard aquatic microscosm toxicity test. J. Env. Sci. (In press).Google Scholar
  26. Matthews, G.B., Matthews, R.A. and Landis, W.G. (1990) Applications of nonmetric clustering (NMC) to pattern analysis in aquatic toxicology. Proceedings of the 11th Annual Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry Meeting, Arlington, V.A., 1990.Google Scholar
  27. Matthews, G.B. and Hearne, J. (1991) Clustering without a metric. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, 13, 175–84.Google Scholar
  28. Matthews, G.B. and Matthews, R.A. (1991) A model for describing community change. In Pesticides in Natural Systems: How Can Their Effects Be Monitored? Proceeding of the Conference, Corvallis, O.R.: Environmental Research Laboratory/ORD, EPA 9109/9-91/011.Google Scholar
  29. Matthews, G.B., Matthews, R.A. and Hachmoller, B. (1991a) Mathematical analysis of temporal and spatial trends in the benthic macroinvertebrate communities of a small stream. Can. J. Fish. Aq. Sci. 48, 2184–90.Google Scholar
  30. Matthews, R.A., Matthews, G.B. and Ehinger, W.J. (1991b) Classification and ordination of limnological data: a comparison of analytical tools. Ecological Modeling 53, 167–87.Google Scholar
  31. May, R.M. and Oster, G.F. (1978) Bifurcations and dynamical complexity in simple ecological models. Amer. Nat. 110, 573–99.Google Scholar
  32. Noreen, E.W. (1989) Computer Intensive Methods for Testing Hypotheses. New York, N.Y., Wiley-Interscience.Google Scholar
  33. Press, W.H., Flannery, B.P., Teukolsky, A.A. and Vetterline, W.T. (1990) Numerical Recipes in C, the Art of Scientific Computing. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  34. Smith, E.P., Pontasch, K.W. and Cairns, J.Jr., (1990) Community similarity and the analysis of multispecies environmental data: a unified statistical approach. Water Res. 24, 507–14.Google Scholar
  35. Sugiura, K. (1992) A multispecies laboratory microcosm for screening ecotoxicological impacts of chemicals. Env. Tox. Chem. 11, 1217–26.Google Scholar
  36. Suter, G. (1993) A critique of ecosystem health: Concepts and indices. Environ Tox. Chem. (In press).Google Scholar
  37. Taub, F.B. (1969) Gnotobiotic models of freshwater communities. Verh Internat. Verein. Limnol. 17, 485–96.Google Scholar
  38. Taub, F.B. (1976) Demonstration of pollution effects in aquatic microcosms. Intern. J. Environmental Studies 10, 23–3.Google Scholar
  39. Taub, F.B. (1988) Standardized aquatic microcosm—development and testing. In A. Boudou and F. Ribeyre, ed., Aquatic Ecotoxicology II.Google Scholar
  40. Taub, F.B. (1989) Standardized aquatic microcosms. Environm. Sci. Technol. 23, 1064–6.Google Scholar
  41. Taub, F.B. and Crow, M.E. (1978) Loss of a critical species in a model (laboratory) ecosystem. Verh. Internat. Verein. Limnol. 20, 1270–6.Google Scholar
  42. Taub, F.B., Crow, M.E. and Hartmann, H.J. (1980) Responses of aquatic microcosms to acute mortality. In Giesy, J.P. Jr., Microcosms in Ecological Research, Washington, D.C.: Technical Information Center, US Department of Energy. pp. 513–35.Google Scholar
  43. Taub, F.B., Kindig, A.C. and Conquest, L.L. (1987) Interlaboratory testing of a standardized aquatic microcosm. In Adams, W.J., pp. 385–405. Chapman, G.A. and Landis, W.G., eds. Aquatic Toxicology and Hazard Assessment; 10th Volume, ASTM STP-971, Philadelphia, P.A.: American Society for Testing and Materials.Google Scholar
  44. Taub, F.B., Kindig, A.C., Conquest, L.L. and Meador, J.P. (1988) Results of the interlaboratory testing of the Standardized Aquatic Microcosm protocol. In Suter, G. and Lewis, M., eds. Aquatic Toxicology and Hazard Assessment; 11th Volume, ASTM pp. 368–394. Philadelphia, PA: American Society for Testing and Materials.Google Scholar
  45. Taub, F.B., Rose, K.A., Swartzman, G.L. and Taub, J.H. (submitted) Translating population toxicity to community effects. Env. Tox. Chem. Google Scholar
  46. Westendorf, R.G. (1986) Performance aspects of volatile organics analysis by purge and trap capillary column gas chromatography with flame ionization detectors. Tekmar Technical Papers. Cincinnati, Ohio: Tekmar Company.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Chapman & Hall 1993

Authors and Affiliations

  • Wayne G. Landis
    • 1
  • Robin A. Matthews
    • 1
  • April J. Markiewicz
    • 1
  • Geoffrey B. Matthews
    • 2
  1. 1.Institute of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, Huxley College of Environmental StudiesWestern Washington UniversityBellinghamUSA
  2. 2.Computer Science DepartmentWestern Washington UniversityBellinghamUSA

Personalised recommendations