Acute Toxicity Value Extrapolation with Fish and Aquatic Invertebrates

  • Denny R. Buckler
  • Foster L. Mayer
  • Mark R. Ellersieck
  • Amha Asfaw
Article

Abstract

Assessment of risk posed by an environmental contaminant to an aquatic community requires estimation of both its magnitude of occurrence (exposure) and its ability to cause harm (effects). Our ability to estimate effects is often hindered by limited toxicological information. As a result, resource managers and environmental regulators are often faced with the need to extrapolate across taxonomic groups in order to protect the more sensitive members of the aquatic community. The goals of this effort were to 1) compile and organize an extensive body of acute toxicity data, 2) characterize the distribution of toxicant sensitivity across taxa and species, and 3) evaluate the utility of toxicity extrapolation methods based upon sensitivity relations among species and chemicals. Although the analysis encompassed a wide range of toxicants and species, pesticides and freshwater fish and invertebrates were emphasized as a reflection of available data. Although it is obviously desirable to have high-quality acute toxicity values for as many species as possible, the results of this effort allow for better use of available information for predicting the sensitivity of untested species to environmental contaminants. A software program entitled “Ecological Risk Analysis” (ERA) was developed that predicts toxicity values for sensitive members of the aquatic community using species sensitivity distributions. Of several methods evaluated, the ERA program used with minimum data sets comprising acute toxicity values for rainbow trout, bluegill, daphnia, and mysids provided the most satisfactory predictions with the least amount of data. However, if predictions must be made using data for a single species, the most satisfactory results were obtained with extrapolation factors developed for rainbow trout (0.412), bluegill (0.331), or scud (0.041). Although many specific exceptions occur, our results also support the conventional wisdom that invertebrates are generally more sensitive to contaminants than fish are.

References

  1. American Society for Testing and Materials (2002) Standard guide for conducting acute toxicity tests on test materials with fishes, macroinvertebrates, and amphibians. In: Annual book of ASTM standards, E 729-96, West Conshohocken, PennsylvaniaGoogle Scholar
  2. Buckler DR, Mayer FL, Ellersieck MR, Asfaw A (2003) Evaluation of minimum data requirements for acute toxicity value extrapolation with aquatic organisms. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency report no. EPA/600/R-03/104. Washington, DC, 165 ppGoogle Scholar
  3. Committee on Methods for Toxicity Tests with Aquatic Organisms (1975) Methods for acute toxicity tests with fish, marcroinvertebrates, and amphibians. Ecological research series no. EPA 660/3-75-009. United States Environmental Protection Agency, Corvallis, OregonGoogle Scholar
  4. Mayer FL (1987) Acute toxicity handbook of chemicals to estuarine organisms. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Report No. EPA/600/8-87/017, Gulf Breeze, Florida, 274 ppGoogle Scholar
  5. Mayer FL, Ellersieck MR (1986) Manual of acute toxicity: Interpretation and data base for 410 chemicals and 66 species of freshwater animals. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Resource Publ. 160, Washington, DC, 579 ppGoogle Scholar
  6. Mount D (1982) Aquatic surrogates. In: Surrogate species workshop report TR-507-36B. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, pp A6-2–A6-4Google Scholar
  7. Posthuma L, Suter GW II, Traas TP, eds (2002) Species sensitivity distributions in ecotoxicology. Lewis Publ., Boca Raton, Florida, 587 pGoogle Scholar
  8. Solomon KR, Baker DB, Richards RP, Dixon KR, Klaine SJ, La Point TW, Kendall RJ, Weisskopf CP, Giddings JM, Giesy JP, Hall LW Jr, Williams WM (1996) Ecological risk assessment of atrazine in North American surface waters. Environ Toxicol Chem 15:31–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Solomon K, Giesy J, Jones P (2000) Probabilistic risk assessment of agrochemicals in the environment. Crop Protection 19:649–655CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, Inc. 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Denny R. Buckler
    • 1
  • Foster L. Mayer
    • 2
  • Mark R. Ellersieck
    • 3
  • Amha Asfaw
    • 3
  1. 1.U.S. Geological SurveyColumbia Environmental Research CenterColumbiaUSA
  2. 2.National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory, Gulf Ecology DivisionU.S. Environmental Protection AgencySabine Island, Gulf BreezeUSA
  3. 3.Agricultural Experiment StationUniversity of MissouriColumbiaUSA

Personalised recommendations