Assessment of toxicity and genotoxicity of hydrophobic organic compounds in wastewater

Pardos, Michel; Blaise, C.

doi:10.1002/(sici)1522-7278(199905)14:2<241::aid-tox5>3.0.co;2-r

Cited by 9 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 62 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The source of these problematic chemicals is often industrial wastewater streams, which tend to be highly variable in composition, concentration, and flow (Geenens and Thoeye, 1998;Pardos and Blaise, 1999). The potential for wastewater treatment to deteriorate is exacerbated when the unpredictable nature of the flow is coupled with an event such as a discharge from an industrial start-up, a cleanout, or an accidental spill (O'Brien and Teather, 1995).…”

Section: Introduction Wwtp Vulnerabilitysupporting

confidence: 89%

Determination of Toxic Inhibition Potential From Industrial Dischargers to a Potw Using a Respirometric Assay

Dauphinais¹,

Love²

2003

proc water environ fed

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Upset events due to the inflow of toxic chemicals are a critical issue for wastewater treatment facilities. Understanding the source-effect relationship between toxic chemicals and treatment plants can lead to appropriate strategies for preventing future events and/or establishing corrective action plans for operator decision-making. Respirometry is among the tools that are used to identify toxic sources that can have an impact on process performance. Although it does not identify the chemical(s) in a wastewater that lead to process upset, respirometry can serve as a viable first step to identify wastewater streams that have the potential to disturb biomass metabolism in a wastewater bioreactor. A respirometric assay protocol was developed for this study to allow a regional wastewater treatment facility (RWTF) under the influence of several industries to screen industrial wastewaters for inhibitory properties based on two classifying criteria. All five industrial wastewaters tested revealed inhibitory properties, but one plant was routinely uninhibitory. Large day-to-day variations were found, illustrating the need for a large database of results for comparison over time.Additionally, a small volume contributor that was thought by the utility to be an unlikely source of problems contributed significantly to the wastewater oxygen demand and frequently demonstrated inhibitory properties. The modified respirometric procedure provided the RWTF with a protocol upon which it may be possible to identify industrial sources that cause process upset. A complimentary sample storage procedure and data analysis protocol were also suggested as part of the analytical procedure.

show abstract

Section: Introduction Wwtp Vulnerabilitysupporting

confidence: 89%

Determination of Toxic Inhibition Potential From Industrial Dischargers to a Potw Using a Respirometric Assay

Dauphinais¹,

Love²

2003

proc water environ fed

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…These uncertainties can be overcome when the test organisms are in direct contact with the soil or sediment sample. In this case, both the presence and the bioavailability of toxic compounds are taken into account (14,16). Earthworms, plants and bacterial tests are mainly used for the direct-contact toxicity testing of soil samples (17).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Toxicological Investigation of Soils with the Solid-phase Flash Assay: Comparison with Other Ecotoxicological Tests

et al. 2000

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A new direct-contact toxicity test, the solid-phase flash assay, which utilises photobacteria in direct contact with soil particles during the exposure, was evaluated on four soil samples. Samples HTNT1 and HTNT2 originated from former military sites in Germany, and were highly contaminated with nitroaromatics (approximately 20g/kg), lead and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons. Samples LMKW1 and LMKW2, from bioremediation stacks in Germany, were mainly contaminated with mineral oils. The solid-phase flash assay was applied to soil-water slurries, and the results were compared with the toxicity data for soil-water extracts obtained by using various conventional ecotoxicological tests, in which photobacteria, crustaceans, protozoa and algae were used as test organisms. The LMKW1 and LMKW2 samples were not toxic (EC20 > 12.5%) according to all the tests applied, except for the Photobacterium phosphoreum conventional luminescence-inhibition test for LMKW1 (15-minute EC20 = 5.4%). The HTNT1 and HTNT2 samples were toxic according to all the tests applied, with the majority of EC20 values being lower than 1%. The solid-phase flash assay (1 minute of extraction and 30 seconds of exposure time) gave comparable results to the conventional tests. Therefore, this flash assay could be applied as a fast screening test in parallel with conventional toxicity tests that use soil 24-hour extracts. The flash assay results will be ready by the start of the conventional assays, and could serve as range-finders for these slower and more expensive tests.

show abstract

Algal Microplate Toxicity Test

Blaise

Vasseur²

Small-Scale Freshwater Toxicity Investigations

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Assessment of toxicity and genotoxicity of hydrophobic organic compounds in wastewater

Cited by 9 publications

References 62 publications

Determination of Toxic Inhibition Potential From Industrial Dischargers to a Potw Using a Respirometric Assay

Determination of Toxic Inhibition Potential From Industrial Dischargers to a Potw Using a Respirometric Assay

Toxicological Investigation of Soils with the Solid-phase Flash Assay: Comparison with Other Ecotoxicological Tests

Algal Microplate Toxicity Test

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About