Sediment/Water Interactions pp 415-418 | Cite as
Bioassay responses to sediment elutriates and multivariate data analysis for hazard assessment of sediment-bound chemicals
Abstract
A sediment study, involving both chemical and biological analyses, was carried out in the Hamburg harbour area. A total of 71 stations were sampled during 1988 and the sediments extracted using a 1:4 sediment:water ratio either with or without an addition of a water-soluble detergent to solubilize organic compounds. The resulting extracts were applied in algal and bacterial assays to measure toxicity. A principal components analysis showed that no single bioassay explained all the variation in toxicity among the locations studied. Hierarchical cluster analysis was used to rank sediments into four groups based on their toxicity. The relationship of toxic responses to the chemistry of the sediments was determined using varimax factor analysis. One factor was loaded with algal responses and mercury contents of sediments, another with bacterial responses and Lindane contents of sediments.
Key words
acute bioassays sediment contaminantsPreview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
- Ahlf, W. & U. Förstner, 1989. Studie zum Einsatz von Biotests zur Bewertung von kontaminierten Sedimenten aus dem Hamburger Hafen. Beh. f. Strom iphenate und Hafenbau, 20 pp.Google Scholar
- Ahlf, W., W. Calmano, J. Erhard & U. Förstner, 1989. Comparison of five bioassay techniques for assessing sediment-bound contaminants. Hydrobiologia 188/189: 285–289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Babich, H. & G. Stotsky, 1985. Heavy metal toxicity in microbemediated ecological processes: A review and potential application to regulatory policies. Envir. Res. 36: 11–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Devillers, J., A. Elmouaffek, D. Zakaya & M. Chastrette, 1988. Comparison of ecotoxicological data by means of an approach combining cluster and correspondence factor analyses. Chemosphere 17: 633–646.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Dutka, B. J., K. Jones, K. K. Kwan, H. Bailey & R. Mclnnis, 1988. Use of microbial and toxicant screening tests for priority site selection of degraded areas in water bodies. Wat. Res. 22: 503–510.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Giesy, J. P. & R. A. Hoke, 1989. Freshwater sediment toxicity bioassessment: Rationale for species selection and test design. J. Great Lakes Res. 15: 539–569.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Giesy, J. P., R. L. Graney, J. L. Newsted, A. Benda, R. G. Kreis Jr. & F. J. Horvath, 1988. Comparison of three sediment bioassay methods using Detroit River sediments. Envir. Toxicol. Chem. 7: 483–498.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Keely, J. W. & R. M. Engler, 1974. Discussion of regulatory criteria for ocean disposal of dredged materials; Elutriate test rationale and implementation guidelines. U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, DMRP, Vicksburg, Miss. Technical Report D-74–14. 39 pp.Google Scholar
- Miller, W. E., J. C. Greene & T. Shiroyama, 1978. The Selenastrum capricornutum Printz. alagl assay bottle test: Experimental design, application, and data interpretation protocol. EPA 600/9-78-018, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Corvallis OR.Google Scholar
- Rosiu, C. J., J. P. Giesy & R. G. Kreis, Jr., 1989. Toxicity of vertical sediments in the Trenton Channel, Detroit river, Michigan, to Chironomus tentans (Insecta: Chironomidae). J. Great Lakes Res. 15: 570–580.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Spies, R. B., 1989. Sediment bioassays, chemical contaminants and benthic ecology: new insights or just muddy water? Mar. Envir. Res. 27: 73–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Wiegand-Rosinus, M., U. Barth, U. Obst & K. Haberer, 1989. Sensitivity of two commercial biotests against selected pollutants. Vom Wasser 73: 449–456.Google Scholar
- Williams, L. G., P. M. Chapman & T. C. Ginn, 1986. A comparative evaluation of marine sediment toxicity using bacterial luminescence, oyster embryo and amphipod sediment bioassays. Mar. Envir. Res. 19: 225–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Xu, H., B. J. Dutka & K. K. Kwan, 1987. Genotoxicity studies on sediments using a modified SOS Chromotest. Toxic. Assess. 3: 303–314.Google Scholar