The purpose of the present study was to evaluate the recovery of duckweed (Lemna gibba L. G3) after being removed from multiple duration exposures to the herbicide atrazine. Consequently, L. gibba were exposed under various scenarios to atrazine at nominal concentrations ranging from 5 to 160 µg/L and durations of 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, and 14 d under static-renewal test conditions. Exposures were followed by a recovery phase in untreated media for either 7 or 14 d. The 3-, 5-, 7-, 9-, and 14-d median effective concentration (EC50) values were >137, >137, 124, >77, and >75 µg/L, respectively, based on mean growth rate. No clear effect trends were apparent between exposure duration and the magnitude of effective concentrations (EC50s or EC10s). No phytocidal effects of chlorosis or necrosis were identified for any treatment scenario. Nearly all L. gibba plants transferred from treatment groups of different exposure scenarios to media without atrazine during the recovery phase had growth rates that demonstrated immediate recovery, indicating effects were phytostatic in nature and reversible. Only the 1- and 5-d exposure scenarios had growth rates indicating marginally prolonged recovery at the higher concentrations (160 µg/L; additionally, at 40 µg/L for the 5-d exposure). Time to recovery, therefore, was found to be largely independent of exposure duration except at the highest concentrations assessed. Based on growth rate by interval, all treatments demonstrated recovery by the final assessment interval (days 5-7), indicating complete recovery in all exposure scenarios by 7 d, consistent with the mode of action of atrazine.

No abstract

As a part of a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) biomonitoring program a series of toxicity tests was conducted with process water from a chemical plant using Ceriodaphniu dubia and Pimephales promelas. There were marked differences among the two tested species. The acute (LC50) values from 96-h static toxicity tests with Pimephulespromelas were always lower (higher toxicity) than the values obtained from the invertebrate tests. The concentration of ammonia in the effluent, particularly its un-ionized form (250 mg NH,-N/L, which represents 0.7 mg NH,-N/L), was above the threshold concentration for most freshwater species and therefore was the primary suspect of the toxicity present in the effluent.Prior to initiation of the toxicity identification evaluation (TIE) program, chemical analyses that included measurements of inorganic and organic parameters were conducted with the effluent. During the TIE fractionation, a portion of the sample was purged with nitrogen to remove volatile organics, and a second portion of the sample was pressure-filtered through a 0.45-1.lm filter. Because toxicity equal to the whole sample was found in these fractions, a portion of the inorganic fraction was subfractionated into zeolite, clinoptilolite, activated carbon, pH-adjustment, aeration, and cation fractions. The results of these tests confirmed that ammonia played a role in the sample's toxicity. However, when ammonia was removed from the effluent sample, toxicity was still present. Next organic chemicals were fractionated as suspected sources of toxicity. At first, organics were removed from the effluent by passing the filtered sample over an XAD-resin column. Because a portion of the reconstituted organic fraction was toxic, the organic fraction was subfractionated further by extracting with dichloromethane at pH > 11, pH < 2, and pH 7.1. The dichloromethane extracts were toxic, whereas the aqueous portions were not toxic. The neutral extract, which was more toxic than the basic and acidic extract, was further fractionated by using HPLC. Seventeen HPLC fractions were isolated and tested for toxicity to determine which constituent(s) were responsible for the observed whole effluent toxicity.

As a part of a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) biomonitoring program a series of toxicity tests was conducted with process water from a chemical plant using Ceriodaphnia dubia and Pimephales promelas. There were marked differences among the two tested species. The acute (LC50) values from 96‐h static toxicity tests with Pimephales promelas were always lower (higher toxicity) than the values obtained from the invertebrate tests. The concentration of ammonia in the effluent, particularly its un‐ionized form (250 mg NH4‐N/L, which represents 0.7 mg NH3‐N/L), was above the threshold concentration for most freshwater species and therefore was the primary suspect of the toxicity present in the effluent. Prior to initiation of the toxicity identification evaluation (TIE) program, chemical analyses that included measurements of inorganic and organic parameters were conducted with the effluent. During the TIE fractionation, a portion of the sample was purged with nitrogen to remove volatile organics, and a second portion of the sample was pressure‐filtered through a 0.45‐μm filter. Because toxicity equal to the whole sample was found in these fractions, a portion of the inorganic fraction was subfractionated into zeolite, clinoptilolite, activated carbon, pH‐adjustment, aeration, and cation fractions. The results of these tests confirmed that ammonia played a role in the sample's toxicity. However, when ammonia was removed from the effluent sample, toxicity was still present. Next organic chemicals were fractionated as suspected sources of toxicity. At first, organics were removed from the effluent by passing the filtered sample over an XAD‐resin column. Because a portion of the reconstituted organic fraction was toxic, the organic fraction was subfractionated further by extracting with dichloromethane at pH > 11, pH < 2, and pH 7.1. The dichloromethane extracts were toxic, whereas the aqueous portions were not toxic. The neutral extract, which was more toxic than the basic and acidic extract, was further fractionated by using HPLC. Seventeen HPLC fractions were isolated and tested for toxicity to determine which constituent(s) were responsible for the observed whole effluent toxicity.