No abstract

The ability to assess the toxic potential of soil contamination within boreal regions is currently limited to test species representative of arable lands. This study evaluated the use of six boreal plant species (Pinus banksiana, Picea glauca, Picea mariana, Populus tremuloides, Calamagrostis Canadensis, and Solidago canadensis) and four invertebrate species (Dendrodrilus rubidus, Folsomia nivalis, Proisotoma minuta, and Oppia nitens) and compared their performance to a suite of standard agronomic soil test species using site soils impacted by petroleum hydrocarbon (PHC) and salt contamination. To maintain horizon-specific differences, individual soil horizons were collected from impacted sites and relayered within the test vessels. Use of the boreal species was directly applicable to the assessment of the contaminated forest soils and, in the case of the hydrocarbon-impacted soil, demonstrated greater overall sensitivity (25th percentile of estimated species sensitivity distribution [ESSD25] = 5.6% contamination: 10,600 mg/kg fraction 3 [F3; equivalent hydrocarbon range of >C16 to C34] Of/Oh horizon, and 270 mg/kg F3 Ahg horizon) relative to the standard test species (ESSD25 = 23% contamination: 44,000 mg/kg F3 Of/Oh horizon, and 1,100 mg/kg F3 Ahg horizon). For salinity, there was no difference between boreal and standard species with a combined ESSD25 = 2.3%, equating to 0.24 and 0.25 dS/m for the Ah and Ck horizons. The unequal distribution of soil invertebrates within the layered test vessels can confound test results and the interpretation of the toxic potential of a site. The use of test species relevant to boreal eco-zones strengthens the applicability of the data in support of realistic ecological risk assessments applicable to the boreal regions.

No abstract

The Lab-to-Field (LTF) rating scheme is a straightforward method of relating the results of effluent toxicity tests to the field survey measurements and has proven to be a useful tool for interpretation of Environmental Effects Monitoring studies for pulp and paper mills in the province of Ontario. The LTF method uses the same five-level scale (level 1 for no or low response to level 5 for severe response) for rating the toxicity and field survey results. Regression analysis of LTF scores has revealed that the relationship between the Ceriodaphnia reproduction test and benthic invertebrate field survey measurements was significant (p < 0.001, r = 0.79). However, there were not sufficient data to determine if this can be used as a predictive tool. Nonetheless, Ceriodaphnia-to-benthic survey, Selenastrum-to-benthic survey and fathead-to-fish survey relationships were qualitatively rated strong or moderately strong in 94%, 75%, and 60% of the 16 studies, respectively. The LTF rating scheme would benefit from the use of a more sensitive species or life stage of fish to strengthen the sublethal test-to-fish survey relationship. Further validation of the lab-to-field relationship could be accomplished through the synoptic collection of effluent samples for sublethal tests and field measurements.

No abstract