Skip to main content
Log in

Sensitivity of Different Growth Inhibition Tests–Just a Question of Mathematical Calculation? Theory and Practice for Algae and Duckweed

  • Published:
Ecotoxicology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Hazard assessment often needs to compare inhibition values of different test species and different test durations. But the three different methods to calculate inhibition in growth inhibition tests (final biomass, growth rate, area under the growth curve) may lead to very different and sometimes contradicting numerical sensitivities of the test species. This paper will depict why there are these different results and what consequences this has for the evaluation of results. Comprehensive discussion of different aspects will show that using growth rate may eliminate most of the problems occurring for comparisons between test species, different test times and different laboratories. The use of growth rate and the adaptation of toxicity levels maximises reproducibility, comparability and biological sensitivity of biotests.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Fairchild, J.F., Ruessler, D.S., Haverland, P.S. and Carlson, A.R. (1997). Comparative sensitivity of Selenastrum capricornutum and Lemna minor to sixteen herbicides. Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 32 , 353–7.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fletcher, J.S. (1990). Use of algae versus vascular aquatic plants to test for chemical toxicity. In W. Wang and J.W. Gorsuch, W.R. Lower (eds). Plants for Toxicity Assessment . ASTM STP 1091. pp. 33–9. Philadelphia PA: American Society for Testing and Materials.

    Google Scholar 

  • ISO (2000a). ISO/WD 20079, Working Draft, Duckweed growth inhibition test, December 2000.

  • ISO, (2000b). Personal communication, Pluta, Umweltbundesamt, Germany.

  • Nusch, E.A. (1982). Evaluation of growth curves in bioassays. ISO/TC 147/SC 5/WG5 N62. Nederlands Normalisatieinstituut, Delft, The Netherlands.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nyholm, N. (1985). Response variable in algal growth inhibition tests-biomass or growth rate? Wat. Res. 19 , 273–9.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nyholm, N. (1990). Expression of results from growth inhibition toxicity tests with algae. Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 19 , 512–22.

    Google Scholar 

  • OECD (2000). Revised final draft 221, Duckweed growth inhibition test, October 2000.

  • Ratte, H.T., Hammers-Wirtz, M. and Cleuvers, M. (1998). Influence of the growth pattern on the EC50 of cell number, biomass integral and growth rate in the algae growth inhibition test. Umweltbundesamt Projekt Report No. 300030 10, Berlin, Germany.

  • Sloof, W.J., Canton, H. and Hermens, J.L.M. (1983). Comparison of the susceptibility of 22 freshwater species to 15 chemical compounds. I. (Sub)acute toxicity tests. Aquat. Toxicol. 4 , 113–28.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Matthias Eberius.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Eberius, M., Mennicken, G., Reuter, I. et al. Sensitivity of Different Growth Inhibition Tests–Just a Question of Mathematical Calculation? Theory and Practice for Algae and Duckweed. Ecotoxicology 11, 293–297 (2002). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1020536702081

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1020536702081

Navigation