Sediment Toxicity Data

  • Wolfgang Ahlf
  • Susanne Heise
Part of the Environmental Science and Engineering book series (ESE)


The overall goal of a well-designed and well-implemented sampling and analysis program is to measure accurately what is really the status of the area studied. Environmental decisions are made on the assumption that analytical results are, within known limits of accuracy and precision, representative of site conditions. Many sources of error exist that could affect the analytical results. These sources of error may include sample collection methods, sample handling, preservation, and transport; personnel training; analytical methods; data reporting; and record keeping. Therefore, a quality assurance program has to be designed for each sediment quality evaluation to minimize these sources of error and to control all phases of the monitoring process.


Extracellular Polymeric Substance Suspend Particulate Matter Flood Event Sediment Quality Sediment Quality Guideline 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Ahlf W, Heise S (2005) Sediment toxicity assessment: Rationale for effect classes. JSS–J Soils and Sediments 5(1): 16–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ahlf W, Gratzer H (1999) Erarbeitung von Kriterien zur Ableitung von Qualitätszielen für Sedimente und Schwebstoffe–Entwicklung methodischer Ansätze. UBA Texte 41/99:1–171Google Scholar
  3. Anonymous (1987) GEMS/Water operational guide. World Health Organization (WHO). GenevaGoogle Scholar
  4. Anonymous (2004) Evaluation of Current Gaps and Recommendations for further Actions in the Field of Environmental Analysis and Monitoring. METROPOLIS (Metrology in Support of EU Policies). Position Paper, March 2004, 8 p. Verneuil-en-Halatte/ FranceGoogle Scholar
  5. Apitz S, White S (2003) A conceptual framework for river-basin-scale sediment management. JSS–J Soils and Sediments 3(3): 125–220Google Scholar
  6. ASTM (1995) Standard Guide for Developing Conceptual Site Models for Contaminated Sites. E 1689–1695Google Scholar
  7. ASTM (2003) Standard guide for designing biological tests for sediments. E 1367–1403. American Society for Testing and Materials. West Conshohocken, PA, USA, 2003Google Scholar
  8. Babut M, Oen A, Hollert H, Apitz SE, Heise S, White S (2007) Prioritization at River Basin Scale, Risk Assessment at Local Scale: suggested approaches. In: Heise S (ed) Sediment Risk Management and Communication, Chapter 4. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp 107–151Google Scholar
  9. Benton MJ, Malott ML, Knight SS, Cooper CM, Benson WH (1995) Influence of sediment composition on apparent toxicity in a solid-phase test using bioluminescent bacteria. Environ Toxicol Chem 14:411–414CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Burton GA, Norberg-King TJ, Ingersoll CG, Ankley GT, Winger PV, Kubitz J, Lazorchak JM, Smith ME, Greer IE, Dwyer FJ, Call DJ, Day KE, Kennedy P, Stinson M (1996) Interlaboratory study of precision: Hyalella azteca and Chironomus tentans freshwater sediment toxicity assays. Environ Toxicol Chem 15:1335–1343CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Carr RS, Nipper M (eds) (2001) Summary of a SETAC Technical Workshop “Porewater Toxicity Testing: Biological, Chemical, and Ecological Considerations with a Review of Methods and Applications, and Recommendations for Future Areas of Research, SETAC, Pensacola, FLGoogle Scholar
  12. Crane M, Babut M (2006) Enironmental Quality Standards for Water Framework Directive Priority Substances: Challenges and Opportunities. International Environmental Assessment and Managment in pressGoogle Scholar
  13. DiToro 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. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 9:1487–1502CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Dickson KL, Giesy JP, Parrish R, Wolfe L (1994) Summary and conclusions. In: Hamelink JL, Landrum PF, Bergman HL, Benson WH (eds) Bioavailability–Physical, Chemical and Biological Interactions. pp 221–230. SETAC Publication, Lewis Publ. Boca RatonGoogle Scholar
  15. Ecology (2003) Sediment Sampling and Analysis Plan Appendix. Washington State Department of Ecology, Olympia, WA. Publication no. 03-09-043Google Scholar
  16. Environment Canada (1995) Guidance document on measurement of toxicity test precision using control sediment spiked with a reference toxicant. Environment Canada Environmental Protection Series Report EPS l/Rm/30, Ottawa, ON, Canada, 1995Google Scholar
  17. Förstner U (1989) Contaminated Sediments, Lecture Notes in Earth Sciences. Springer-Verlag, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  18. Förstner U (2004) Traceability of sediment analysis. Trends Anal Chem 23(3):217–236CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Förstner U, Heise S, Schwartz R, Westrich B, Ahlf W (2004) Historical Contaminated Sediments and Soils at the River Basin Scale: Examples from the Elbe River Catchment Area. JSS–J Soils and Sediments 4(4):247–260Google Scholar
  20. Frühling W(2003) Funktionale und strukturelle Untersuchungsparameter für mikrobielle Bodenbiozönosen und ihr ökotoxikologischer Nutzen. Dissertation at Umweltschutztechnik, Technische Universität Hamburg-Harburg Hamburg 167 ppGoogle Scholar
  21. Greene MW, Bulich AA, Underwood SR (1992) Measurement of soil and sediment toxicity to bioluminescent bacteria when in direct contact for a fixed time period. Proceedings, 65th Annual Conference and Exposition of the Water Environment Federation, New Orleans, LA, USA, September 20–24, pp 53–63Google Scholar
  22. Heise S, Ahlf W (2005) A new microbial contact assay for marine sediments. JSS–J Soils and Sediments 5(1):9–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Heise S, Claus E, Heininger P, Krämer T, Krüger F, Schwartz R, Förstner U (2005) Studie zur Schadstoffbelastung der Sedimente im Elbeeinzugsgebiet. Commissioned by the Hamburg Port Authority, Hamburg, 181 ppGoogle Scholar
  24. Heise S, Förstner U, Westrich B, Jancke T, Karnahl J, Salomons W (2004) Inventory of Historical Contaminated Sediment in Rhine Basin and its Tributaries. On behalf of the Port of Rotterdam Rep. Nr.: October 2004,225 ppGoogle Scholar
  25. Heise S, Maaß V, Gratzer H, Ahlf W (2000) Ecotoxicological Sediment Classification–Capabilities and Potentials–Presented for Elbe River Sediments. BfG-Mitteilungen Nr. 22–Sediment Assessment in European River Basins: 96–104Google Scholar
  26. Hollert H, Heise S, Pudenz S, Brüggemann R, Ahlf W, Braunbeck T (2002) Application of a Sediment Quality Triad and different statistical approaches (Hasse Diagrams and Fuzzy Logic) for the comparative evaluation of small streams. Ecotoxicology 11:311–321CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Ingersoll CG, Ankley GT, Baudo R, Burton GA, Lick W, Luoma SN, MacDonald DD, Reynoldson TB, Solomon KR, Swartz RC, Warren-Hicks WJ (1997) Workgroup summary report on uncertainty evaluation of measurement endpoints used in sediment ecological risk assessment. In: Ingersoll CG, Dillon T, Biddinger GR (eds) 297. SETAC Pr.: Pensacola FLGoogle Scholar
  28. Mearns AJ, Swartz RC, Cummins JM, Dinnel PA, Plesha P, Chapman PM (1986) Inter-laboratory comparison of a sediment toxicity test using the marine amphipod, Rheposynius abronius. Mar Environ Res 18:13–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Meybeck M, Kimstach V, Helmer R (1992) Strategies for water quality assessment. In: Chapman D (ed) Water Quality Assessments. A Guide to the Use of Biota, Sediments and Water in Environmental Monitoring. Chapter 2, pp 19–50. Chapman & Hall, LondonGoogle Scholar
  30. Mudroch A, Azcue JM (1995) Manual of Aquatic Sediment Sampling. Lewis Publ. Boca RatonGoogle Scholar
  31. Quevauviller P (ed) (2002) Methodologies for Soil and Sediment Fractionation Studies. 180 p. The Royal Society of Chemistry, Cambridge UKGoogle Scholar
  32. Quevauviller P (2004) Traceability of environmental chemical measurements. Trends Anal Chem 23(3):171–177CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Ringwood AH, DeLorenzo ME, Ross PE, Holland AF (1997) Interpretation of Microtox® solid-phase toxicity tests: The effects of sediment composition. Environ Toxicol Chem 16:1135–1140CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Rönnpagel K, Jansen E, Ahlf W (1998) Asking for the Indicator Function of Bioassays Evaluating Soil Contamination: Are Bioassay Results Reasonable Surrogates of Effects on Soil Microflora? Chemosphere 6:1291–1304CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Simpson StL, Bateley GE, Chariton AA, Stauber JL, King CK, Chapman JC, Hyne RV, Gale SA, Roach AC, Maher WA (2005) Handbook for Sediment Quality Assessment, CSIRO, Bangar, NSW, pp 126Google Scholar
  36. Suter GA (1993) Ecological Risk Assessment. Boca Raton Florida: LewisGoogle Scholar
  37. Tessier A, Campbell PGC (1987) Partitioning of trace metals in sediments: Relationship with bioavailability. In: Thomas R, Evans A, Hamilton A, Munawar M, Reynoldson T, Sadar H (eds) Ecological Effects of in situ Sediment Contaminants. Hydrobiologia 149:43–52Google Scholar
  38. Wenning RJ, Batley GE, Ingersoll CG, Moore DW (2004) Use of Sediment Quality Guidelines and Related Tools for the Assessment of Contaminated Sediments. Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry (SETAC). ISBN 1-880611-71-6 (2004)Google Scholar


  1. Ahlf W, Braunbeck T, Heise S, Hollert H (2002) Sediment and soil quality criteria. In: Burden PR, McKelvie I, Förstner U, Günther H (eds), Environmental Monitoring Handbook. McGraw-Hill, New York 17.1–17.18Google Scholar
  2. Ahlf W (2005) Trends in sediment research–dedicated to Prof. Dr. Ulrich Förstner on his 65th birthday. J Soils and Sediments 5:1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Ahlf W, Heise S (2005) Sediment toxicity assessment–rationale for effect classes. J Soils and Sediments 5:16–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Altenburger R, Boedeker W, Faust M, Grimme LH (1996) Regulations for combined effects of pollutants: Consequences from risk assessment in aquatic toxicology. Food Chem Toxicol 34: 1155–1157CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Altenburger R, Walter H, Grote M (2004) What contributes to the combined effect of a complex mixture? Environ Sci Technol 38:6353–6362CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Baborowski M, Lobe I, Krüger F, v Tümpling W, Rupp H, Büttner O, Morgenstern P, Guhr H (2006) Transport and fate of dissolved and suspended matter in the Middle Elbe region during floods. SEDYMO Intern Symp, Hamburg, March 26–29, 2006. Abstract L 13, p 25, HamburgGoogle Scholar
  7. Burton GA, Chapman PM, Smith EP (2002) Weight of evidence approaches for assessing ecosystem impairment. Human and Ecological Risk Assessment 8:1657–1673CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Chapman PM (1990) The Sediment Quality Triad approach to determining pollution induced degradation. Sci Tot Environ 97:815–825CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Chapman PM, Hollert H (2006) Should the sediment quality triad become a tetrad, a pentad, or possibly even a hexad? J Soils and Sediments 6:4–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Chapman PM, Power E, Burton G (1992) Interactive assessment in aquatic ecosystems. In: Burton GA (ed) Sediment toxicity assessement. pp 313–340. Lewis Publ, Boca Raton, FlGoogle Scholar
  11. Ehlers LJ, Luthy RG (2003) Contaminant bioavailability in soil and sediment. Environ Sci Technol 37:295A–302AGoogle Scholar
  12. Förstner U (2004) Sediment dynamics and pollutant mobility in rivers: An interdisciplinary approach. Lakes and Reservoirs: Research and Management 9:25–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Giesy JP, Hoke RA (1990) Freshwater sediment quality criteria: Toxicity bioassessment. In: Baudo R, Giesy JP, Muntau H (eds) Sediments: chemistry and toxicity of in-place pollutants. CRC Press, BocaRaton, pp 265–348Google Scholar
  14. Hatzinger PB, Alexander M (1995) Effect of aging of chemicals in soil on their biodegradability and extractability. Environ Sci Technol 29:537–545CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Heise S, Ahlf W (2002) The Need for new concepts in risk management of sediments historical developments, future perspectives and new approaches. J Soils and Sediments 2:4–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Heise S, Förstner U, Westrich B, Salomons W, Karnahl J, Jancke T, Schönberger H (2004) Inventory of historical contaminated sediments in Rhine Basin and its tributaries. On behalf of the Port of Rotterdam, October 2004, Hamburg, 225 pGoogle Scholar
  17. Heise S, Claus E, Heininger P, Krämer T, Krüger F, Schwartz R, Förstner U (2005) Studie zur Schadstoffbelastung der Sedimente im Eibeinzugsgebiet: Ursachen und Trends. Hamburg Port Authority. December 2005, Hamburg, 169 pGoogle Scholar
  18. Leipe T, Kersten M, Heise S, Pohl C, Witt G, Liehr G, Zettler M, Tauber F (2005) Ecotoxicity assessment of natural attenuation effects at a historical dumping site in the western Baltic Sea. Mari Poll Bull 50:446–459CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Reid BJ, Stokes JD, Jones KC, Semple KT (2004) Influence of hydroxypropyl-beta-cyclodextrin on the extraction and biodegradation of phenanthrene in soil. Environ Toxicol Chem 23:550–556CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Rönnpagel K, Janssen E, Ahlf W (1998) Asking for the indicator function of bioassays evaluating soil contamination: Are bioassay results reasonable surrogates of effects on soil microflora? Chemosphere 36:1291–1304CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Scheifler R, Schwartz C, Echevarria G, De Vaufleury A, Badot PM, Morel JL (2003) “Nonavailable” soil cadmium is bioavailable to snails: Evidence from isotopic dilution experiments. Environmental Science and Technology 37:81–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Traunspurger W, Haitzer M, Hoss S, Beier S, Ahlf W, Steinberg C (1997) Ecotoxicological assessment of aquatic sediments with Caenorhabditis elegans (nematoda)–A method for testing liquid medium and whole-sediment samples. Environ Toxicol Chem 16:245–250CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Wenning RJ, Ingersoll CG (2002) Summary of the SETAC Pellston Workshop on Use of Sediment Quality Guidelines and Related Tools for the Assessment of Contaminated Sediments. Pensacola FL, USA 17–22 August 2002, 48 ppGoogle Scholar


  1. Ahlf W, Calmano W, Erhard J, Forstner U (1989) Comparison of 5 Bioassay Techniques for Assessing Sediment-Bound Contaminants. Hydrobiologia 188:285–289Google Scholar
  2. Ahlf W, Braunbeck T, Heise S, Hollert H (2002a) Sediment and Soil Quality Criteria. In: Burton F, McKelvie I, Förstner U, Guenther A (eds) Environmental Monitoring Handbook. McGraw-Hill, New York, pp 17–18Google Scholar
  3. Ahlf W, Hollert H, Neumann-Hensel H, Ricking M (2002b) A Guidance for the Assessment and Evaluation of Sediment Quality: A German Approach Based on Ecotoxicological and Chemical Measurements. Journal of Soils and Sediments 2:37–42Google Scholar
  4. Ankley G, et al. (1998) Overview of a workshop on screening methods for detecting potential (anti-) estrogenic/androgenic chemicals in wildlife. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 17:68–87CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Babut M, Oen A, Hollert H, Apitz S, Heise S (2007) From priority setting to risk ranking: suggested approaches, Chapter 8. In: Heise S (ed) Sediment–Risk management and communication, Elsevier, in pressGoogle Scholar
  6. Black KS, Tolhurst TJ, Paterson DM, Hagerthey SE (2002) Working with natural cohesive sediments, Journal of Hydraulic Engineering-Asce 128:2–8Google Scholar
  7. Blaha L, Hilscherova K, Mazurova E, Hecker M, Jones PD, Newsted JL, Bradley PW, Gracia T, Duris Z, Horka I, Holoubek I, Giesy JP (2006) Alteration of steroidogenesis in H295R cells by organic sediment contaminants and relationships to other endocrine disrupting effects. Environment International 32:749–757CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Brack W, Altenburger R, Dorusch F, Hubert A, Moder M, Morgenstern P, Moschutz S, Mothes S, Schirmer K, Wennrich R, Wenzel KD, Schuurmann G (2002) Hochwasser 2002: Chemische und toxische Belastung überschwemmter Gemeinden im Raum Bitterfeld Umweltwissenschaften and Schadstoffforschung–Z. Umweltchem. Ökotox 14:213–220Google Scholar
  9. Brack W (2003) Effect-directed analysis: a promising tool for the identification of organic toxicants in complex mixtures? Analytical Bioanalytical Chemistry 377:397–407CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Brack W, Bakker J, de Deckere E, Deerenberg C, van Gils J, Hein M, Jurajda P, Kooijman B, Lamoree M, Lek S, López de Alda MJ, Marcomini A, Munoz I, Rattei S, Segner H, Thomas K, von der Ohe PC, Westrich B, de Zwart D, Schmitt-Jansen M (2005) MODELKEY. Models for assessing and forecasting the impact of environmental key pollutants on freshwater and marine ecosystems and biodiversity Environmental Science and Pollution Research 12:252–256Google Scholar
  11. Brack W, Schirmer K, Erdinger L, Hollert H (2005b) Effect-directed analysis of mutagens and ethoxyresorufin-O-deethylase inducers in aquatic sediments. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 24:2445–2458CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Burton GA (1991) Assessing the toxicity of freshwater sediments. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 10:1585–1627CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Burton Jr. GA, Baudo R, Beltrami M, Rowland C (2001) Assessing sediment contamination using six toxicity assays. Journal of Limnology 60:263–267Google Scholar
  14. Calmano W, Hong J, Forstner U (1993) Binding and Mobilization of Heavy-Metals in Contaminated Sediments Affected by Ph and Redox Potential. Water Science and Technology 28:223–235Google Scholar
  15. Cappuyns V, Swennen R, Devivier A (2006) Dredged river sediments: Potential chemical time bombs? A case study. Water, Air, and Soil Pollution 171:49–66CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Chapman PM (1989) Current Approaches to Developing Sediment Quality Criteria. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 8:589–599CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Chapman PM, Power EA, Burton Jr. GA (1992) Integrative Assessments in Aquatic Ecosystems. In: Burton GA (ed) Sediment Toxicity Assessment. Boca Raton, USA, pp 313–340Google Scholar
  18. Chapman PM, Hollert H (2006) Should the sediment quality triad become a tetrad, a pentad, or possibly even a hexad? Journal of Soils and Sediments 6:4–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Chen GS, White PA (2004) The mutagenic hazards of aquatic sediments: a review. Mutation Research-Reviews in Mutation Research 567:151–225Google Scholar
  20. Davoren M, Ni-Shuilleabhain S, Hartl MGJ, Sheehan D, O’Brien NM, O’Halloran J, Van Pelt F, Mothersill C (2005) Assessing the potential of fish cell lines as tools for the cytotoxicity testing of estuarine sediment aqueous elutriates. Toxicology in Vitro 19:421–431CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. De Brouwer J, Bjelic S, de Deckere E, Stal L (2000) Interplay between biology and sedimentology in a mudflat (Biezelingse Ham, Westerschelde, The Netherlands). Continental Shelf Research 20:1159–1177CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Den Besten PJ, de Deckere E, Babut MP, Power B, Angel DelValls T, Zago C, Oen AMP, Heise S (2003) Biological effects-based sediment quality in ecological risk assessment for European waters. Journal of Soils and Sediments 3:144–162Google Scholar
  23. Droppo, I (2004) Structural controls on floc strength and transport. Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering 31:569–578CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Einsporn S, Broeg K, Koehler A (2005) The Elbe flood 2002-toxic effects of transported contaminants in flatfish and mussels of the Wadden Sea. Marine Pollution Bulletin 50:423–429CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Förstner U, Müller G (1974) Schwermetalle in Flüssen und Seen. Spinger-Verlag, Heidelberg, 225 ppGoogle Scholar
  26. Förstner U, Westrich B (2005) BMBF coordinated research project SEDYMO (2002-2006): Sediment dynamics and pollutant mobility in river basins. Journal of Soils and Sediments 5:134–138CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Förstner U, Heise S, Schwartz R, Westrich B, Ahlf W (2004) Historical Contaminated Sediments and Soils at the River Basin Scale. Journal of Soils and Sediments 4:247–260Google Scholar
  28. Gerbersdorf SU, Jancke T, Westrich B (2005) Physico-chemical and biological sediment properties determining erosion resistance of contaminated riverine sediments–Temporal and vertical pattern at the Lauffen reservoir/river Neckar, Germany. Limnologica 35:132–144Google Scholar
  29. Gerbersdorf SU, Jancke T, Westrich B (2006) Biostabilisation by polymeric substances in riverine sediments. Environmental Microbiology, under reviewGoogle Scholar
  30. Gerbersdorf SU, Jancke T, Westrich B (2007) Sediment properties for assessing the erosion risk of contaminated riverine sites. Journal of Soils and Sediments, under reviewGoogle Scholar
  31. Giesy JP, Hoke RA (1989) Fresh-Water Sediment Toxicity Bioassessment–Rationale for Species Selection and Test Design. Journal of Great Lakes Research 15:539–569CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Giger W, Reinhard M, Schaffner C (1974) Petroleum-derived and indigenous hydrocarbons in recent sediments of Lake Zug. Environmental Science Technology 8:454–455CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Gonzáles-Vila FJ, Polvillo O, Boski T, Moura D (2003) Biomarker patterns in a time-resolved Holocene/ terminal Pleistocene sedimentary sequence from the Guadiana River estuarine area (SW Portugal/ Spain border), Organic Geochemitry, 1601–1613Google Scholar
  34. Grote M, Altenburger R, Brack W, Moschütz S, Mothes S, Michael C, Narten GB, Paschke A, Schirmer K, Walter H, Wennrich R, Wenzel KD, Schuurmann G (2005) Ecotoxicological profiling of transect river Elbe sediments. Acta Hydrochimica et Hydrobiologica 33:555–569CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Haag I, Kern U, Westrich B (2001) Erosion investigation and sediment quality measurements for a comprehensive risk assessment of contaminated aquatic sediments. Science of the Total Environment 266:249–257CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Haag I, Hollert H, Kern U, Braunbeck T, Westrich B (2002) Flood Event Sediment Budget for a Lock-Regulated River Reach and Toxicity of Suspended Particles. Proceedings 3rd International Conference on Water Resources and Environment Research (ICWRER), Dresden, 33–37Google Scholar
  37. Hallare A, Kosmehl T, Schulze T, Hollert H, Koehler H-R, Triebskorn R (2005) Assessing The Severity of Sediment Contamination in Laguna Lake, Philippines Using A Sediment Contact Assay with Zebrafish (Danio rerio) Embryos. Science of the Total Environment 347:254–271CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Hilscherova K, Machala M, Kannan K, Blankenship AL, Giesy JP (2000) Cell bioassays for detection of aryl hydrocarbon (AhR) and estrogen receptor (ER) mediated activity in environmental samples. Environmental Science and Pollution Research 7:159–171Google Scholar
  39. Hilscherova K, Kannan K, Kang YS, Holoubek I, Machala M, Masunaga S, Nakanishi J, Giesy JP (2001) Characterization of dioxin-like activity of sediments from a Czech river basin. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 20:2768–2777CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Hilscherova K, Kannan K, Holoubek I, Giesy JP (2002) Characterization of estrogenic activity of riverine sediments from the Czech Republic. Archives Environmental Contamamination Toxicology 43:175–185CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Hilscherova K, Kannan K, Nakata H, Hanari N, Yamashita N, Bradley PW, McCabe JM, Taylor AB, Giesy JP (2003) Polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxin and dibenzofuran concentration profiles in sediments and flood-plain soils of the Tittabawassee River, Michigan. Environmental Science Technology 37:468–474CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Hollert H, Dürr M, Erdinger L, Braunbeck T (2000a) Cytotoxicity of settling particulate matter (SPM) and sediments of the Neckar River (Germany) during a winter flood. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 19:528–534CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Hollert H, Dürr M, Haag I, Winn N, Holtey-Weber R, Kern U, Färber H, Westrich B, Erdinger L, Braunbeck T (2000b) A combined hydraulic and in vitro bioassay approach to assess the risk of erosion and ecotoxicological implications of contaminated sediments in a lock-regulated river system. In: BfG (ed) Sediment assessement in European River Basins, Reihe: Mitteilungen der Bundesanstalt für Gewässerkunde, Koblenz, Berlin, pp 156–160Google Scholar
  44. Hollert H, Dürr M, Olsman H, Halldin K, Bavel Bv, Brack W, Tysklind M, Engwall M, Braunbeck T (2002a) Biological and chemical determination of dioxin-like compounds in sediments by means of a sediment triad approach in the catchment area of the Neckar River. Ecotoxicology 11:323–336CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Hollert H, Heise S, Pudenz S, Brüggemann R, Ahlf W, Braunbeck T (2002b) Application of a sediment quality triad and different statistical approaches (Hasse diagrams and fuzzy logic) for the comparative evaluation of small streams. Ecotoxicology 11:311–321CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Hollert H, Haag I, Dürr M, Wetterauer B, Holtey-Weber R, Kern U, Westrich B, Färber H, Erdinger L, Braunbeck T (2003a) Untersuchungen zum ökotoxikologischen Schädigungspotenzial und Erosionsrisiko von kontaminierten Sedimenten in staugeregelten Flüssen. Umweltwissenschaften und Schadstoffforschung, Z Umweltchem Ökotox 15:5–12Google Scholar
  47. Hollert H, Keiter S, König N, Rudolf M, Ulrich M, Braunbeck T (2003b) A New Sediment Contact Assay to Assess Particle-bound Pollutants Using Zebrafish (Danio rerio) Embryos. Journal of Soils and Sediments 3:197–207Google Scholar
  48. Hollert H, Dürr M, Holtey-Weber R, Islinger M, Brack W, Färber H, Erdinger L, Braunbeck T (2005) Endocrine disruption of water and sediment extracts in a non-radioactive dot blot/RNAse protection-assay using isolated hepatocytes of rainbow trout–How explain deficiencies between bioanalytical effectiveness and chemically determined concentrations? Environmental Science and Pollution Research 12:347–360CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Holoubek I, Machala M, Štaffová K, Helešic J, Ansorgová A, Schramm KW, Kettrup A, Giesy JP, Kannan K, Mitera J (1998) PCDD/Fs in sediments from Morava River catchment area. Organochlorine compounds 39:261–266Google Scholar
  50. Janošek J, Hilscherová K, Bláha L, Holoubek I (2006) Environmental xenobiotics and nuclear receptors-Interactions, effects and in vitro assessment. Toxicology in Vitro 20:18–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Japenga J, Salomons W (1993) Dyke-protected floodplains: a possible chemical time bomb? Land Degradation and Rehabilitation 4:373–380CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Kammann U, Danischewski D, Vobach M, Biselli S, Theobald N, Reineke N, Hühnerfuss H, Wosniok W, Kinder A, Sierts-Herrmann A, Steinhart H, Vahl HH, Westendorf J (2005a) Bioassay-directed fractionation of organic extracts of marine surface sediments from the north and Baltic Sea part II: Results of the biotest battery and development of a biotest index. Journal of Soils and Sediments 5:225–232CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Kammann U, Lang T, Vobach M, Wosniok W (2005b) Ethoxyresorufin-O-deethylase (EROD) activity in dab (Limanda limanda) as biomarker for marine monitoring. Environmental Science and Pollution Research 12:140–145CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Kern U, Westrich B (1997) Sediment budget analysis for river reservoirs. Water, Air, and Soil Pollution 99:105–112Google Scholar
  55. Knauert S, Dürr M, Haag I, Braunbeck T, Hollert H (2004) Dioxin-ähnliche Wirksamkeit in der permanenten Fischzelllinie RTL-Wl-Tiefenprofile von Sedimentbohrkernen am Neckar. ALTEX 21:162Google Scholar
  56. Koethe F (2003) Existing sediment management guidelines: An overview. What will happen with the sediment/dredged material? Journal of Soils and Sediments, pp 139–143Google Scholar
  57. Kosmehl T, Krebs F, Manz W, Erdinger L, Braunbeck T, Hollert H (2004) Comparative genotoxicity testing of Rhine River sediment extracts using the permanent cell lines RTG-2 and RTL-W1 in the comet assay and Ames assay. Journal of Soils and Sediments 4:84–94Google Scholar
  58. Kosmehl T, Hallare AV, Reifferscheid G, Manz W, Erdinger L, Braunbeck T, Hollert H (2006) Development of a new contact assay for testing whole sediment genotoxicity in zebra fish larvae. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 25:2097–2106CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Maier M, Kühlers D, Brauch HJ, Fleig M, Maier D, Jirka GH, Mohrlok U, Bethge E, Bernhart HH, Lehmann B, Hillebrand G, Wölz J, Hollert H (2006) Flood retention and drinking water supply–Preventing conflicts of interest. Journal of Soils and Sediments 6:113–114CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Martínek K, Blecha M, Daněk V, Francù J, Hladíková J (2006) Record of palaeoenvironmental changes in a Lower Permian organic-rich lacustrine succession: Integrated sedimentological and geochemical study of the Rudník member, Krkonoše Piedmont Basin, Czech Republic. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology 230:85–128CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Meyers PA (2003) Applications of organic geochemistry to paleolimnological reconstructions: a summary of examples from the Laurentian Great Lakes. Organic Geochemistry 34:261–289CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Oetken M, Stachel B, Pfenninger M, Oehlmann J (2005) Impact of a flood disaster on sediment toxicity in a major river system–the Elbe flood 2002 as a case study. Environmental Pollution 134:87–95CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Paterson D, Tolhurst T, Kelly J, Honeywill C, de Deckere E, Huet V, Shayler S, Black K, de Brouwer J, Davidson I (2000) Variations in sediment properties, Skeffling mudflat, Humber Estuary, UK. Continental Shelf Research 20:1373–1396CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Perkins RG, Sun H, Watson J, Player MA, Gust G, Paterson DM (2004) In-line laser holography and video analysis of eroded floc from engineered and estuarine sediments. Environmental Science Technology 38:4640–4648CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Peters KE, Walters CC, Moldowan JM (2005) The biomarker guide; I, Biomarkers and isotopes in the environment and human history. II, Biomarkers and isotopes in petroleum systems and Earth history. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 155 ppGoogle Scholar
  66. Power EA, Chapman PM (1992) Assessing sediment quality. In: Burton GA (ed) Sediment toxicity assessment. Lewis-Publishers, Boca Raton, pp 1–18Google Scholar
  67. Salomons W, Brils J (2004) Contaminated Sediments in European River Basins–European Sediment Research Network SedNet booklet. online:
  68. Schwartz R, Gerth J, Neumann-Hensel H, Bley S, Forstner U (2006) Assessment of highly polluted fluvisol in the Spittelwasser floodplain–Based on national guideline values and MNA-Criteria. Journal of Soils and Sediments 6:145–155CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. SedNet (2004) Sediment, a valuable resource that needs Europe’s attention; SedNet recommendations for sediment research priorities related to the soil research clusters, Sediment_a_valuable_resource.pdf
  70. Segner H (1998) Fish cell lines as a tool in aquatic toxicology. In: Braunbeck T, Hinton DE, Streit B (eds) Fish ecotoxicology–Experientia Supplement, vol.86. Birkhäuser, Basel/Switzerland, pp 1–38Google Scholar
  71. Seiler TB, Rastall AC, Leist E, Erdinger L, Braunbeck T, Hollert H (2006) Membrane dialysis extraction (MDE): A novel approach for extracting toxicologically relevant hydrophobic organic compounds from soils and sediments for assessment in biotests. Journal of Soils and Sediments 6:20–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Simpson SL, Apte SC, Batley GE (1998) Effect of short term resuspension events on trace metal speciation in polluted anoxic sediments. Environmental Science and Technology 32:620–625CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Stoffers P, Summerhayes C, Forstner U, Patchineelam S (1977) Copper and Other Heavy Metal Contamination in Sediments from New Bedford Harbor, Massachusetts: A Preliminary Note. Environmental Science Technology 11:819–821CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Stout SA, Uhler AD, McCarthy KJ, Emsbo-Mattingly S (2002) Chemical fingerprinting of hydrocarbons. In: Murphy BL, Morrison D (eds) Introduction to environmental forensics. Academic Press, San Diego, pp 139–260Google Scholar
  75. Stout SA, Uhler AD, Emsbo-Mattingly SD (2004) Comparative evaluation of background anthropogenic hydrocarbons in surficial sediments from nine urban waterways. Environmental Science Technology 38:2987–2994CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Sumpter JP, Johnson AC (2005) Lessons from endocrine disruption and their application to other issues concerning trace organics in the aquatic environment. Environmental Science and Technology 39:4321–4332CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Ulrich M, Schulze T, Leist E, Glaß B, Maier M, Maier D, Braunbeck T, Hollert H (2002) Ökotoxikologische Untersuchung von Sedimenten und Schwebstoffen: Abschätzung des Gefährdungspotenzials für Trinkwasser und Korrelation verschiedener Expositionspfade (acetonischer Extrakt, natives Sediment) im Bakterienkontakttest und Fischeitest Umweltwissenschaften und Schadstoffforschung. Z Umweltchem Ökotox 14:132–137Google Scholar
  78. USEPA (2002) A Guidance Manual to Support the Assessment of Contaminated Sediments in Freshwater Ecosystems, Volume I–An Ecosystem-Based Framework for Assessing and Managing Contaminated Sediments., 149 p
  79. Van Beelen P (2003) A review on the application of microbial toxicity tests for deriving sediment quality guidelines. Chemosphere 53:795–808CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Wenning R, Ingersoll C (2002) Summary of the SETAC Pellston Workshop on Use of Sediment Quality Guidelines and Related Tools for the Assessment of Contaminated Sediments; 17-22 August 2002; Fairmont, Montana, USA. Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry (SETAC). Pensacola FL, USA. online: Google Scholar
  81. Wenning R, Batley G, Ingersoll C, Moore D (2005) Use of Sediment Quality Guidelines and Related Tools for the Assessment of Contaminated Sediments. SETAC, Pensacola, PLGoogle Scholar
  82. Wölz J, Olsman H, Hagberg J, Brack W, Möhlenkamp C, vanBavel B, Engwall M, Claus E, Manz W, Braunbeck T, Hollert H (2007) Effect-directed Analysis to identify AH-Receptor agonists in suspended particulate matter during flood events. to be submitted to Environmental Toxicology and ChemistryGoogle Scholar
  83. Ziegler CK (2002) Evaluating sediment stability at sites with historic contamination. Environmental Management 29:409–427CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Wolfgang Ahlf
    • 1
  • Susanne Heise
    • 1
  1. 1.Institut für Umwelttechnik und EnergiewirtschaftTechnische Universität Hamburg-HarburgHamburgGermany

Personalised recommendations