Ecotoxicity of River and Spring Sediment Along the Hanford Reach

Delistraty, Damon; Yokel, Jerry

doi:10.1007/s001289900825

Cited by 6 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 13 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Hormesis consists of a stimulatory response on a given endpoint of 30 to 60% above the controls, extending over a 10‐fold range below the NOEC [91], and comprises a general biological phenomenon that may represent overcompensation to an alteration in homeostasis [92–94]. Hormetic responses have been reported in hundreds of studies for a broad range of species (protozoa, bacteria, fungi, plants, invertebrates, vertebrates, humans), biological endpoints (including survival, growth, and reproduction), and both inorganic and organic chemicals [95,96], including WET test organisms [97,98]. The hormetic response curve (Fig.…”

Section: Level Of Protectionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Whole effluent toxicity testing—usefulness, level of protection, and risk assessment

Chapman¹

2000

Enviro Toxic and Chemistry

167

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The general status of whole effluent toxicity (WET) tests is assessed relative to their generally accepted purpose of identifying, characterizing, and eliminating toxic effects of effluents on aquatic resources. Although WET tests are useful, they are not perfect tools (no perfect tools exist). Imperfections include the innate variability of these tests, due both to biotic and anthropogenic factors; the reality of species differences both between the laboratory and the field and within the field; and differences between the laboratory and the receiving environment. Whole effluent toxicity tests may be overprotective (because of their conservative nature, the absence of environmental and ecological processes that could ameliorate exposure, and sensitivity to noncontaminant effects), underprotective (because the most sensitive species cannot be tested, multiple stresses tend to be present in the receiving environment, and failure to account for food chain effects or all possible endpoints), or offer an uncertain level of protection (intermittent doses and mixtures in the environment, adaptations, and hormesis). The implication of hormesis and inverted U‐shaped dose responses for WET testing are reviewed in particular detail. Comparisons to field conditions indicate that WET tests are not reliable predictors of effects or lack of effects in the receiving environment. Whole effluent toxicity tests are only the first stage in a risk assessment and as such identify hazard, not risk. Identification of risk requires discarding the concept of independent applicability. The appropriate use of WET tests is identified in the context of their advantages and disadvantages.

show abstract

Section: Level Of Protectionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Whole effluent toxicity testing—usefulness, level of protection, and risk assessment

Chapman¹

2000

Enviro Toxic and Chemistry

167

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Because some of the wastes were discharged directly into the Columbia River or leached into the river via the groundwater pathway, numerous studies have examined risk to ecological Ž receptors associated with the river e.g., Becker, 1990;Friant and Brandt, 1994;Geist et al, 1994;PNNL, . 1998;Delistraty and Yokel, 1998 . With respect to the groundwater pathway, characterizing the toxicity of groundwater at the point of discharge to the river can be accomplished effectively by assessing toxicity of riverbank spring water. Riverbank springs are defined as groundwater discharge zones located above the water level of the Columbia River Ž .…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Ecotoxicity of riverbank spring water along the Hanford Reach, Columbia River

Delistraty¹,

Yokel²

1999

Environ. Toxicol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The purpose of this study was to evaluate potential ecotoxicity of riverbank springs along the Columbia River on the Hanford site where nuclear materials were historically produced. Water samples from seven springs were collected during 1994–1995. Bioassays were conducted with Pimephales promelas (fathead minnows) for survival and growth and with Ceriodaphnia dubia (daphnids) for survival and reproduction. Synoptic chemical data were used to supplement interpretation of bioassay results. Significant decreases (p<0.05) in survival were observed for two springs in both P. promelas and C. dubia at separate locations during 1994. Significant reductions (p<0.05) in C. dubia reproduction were found for six springs in 1994 and one in 1995. A stimulatory effect (p<0.05) was also observed for this endpoint at another spring in 1995. Reproduction was the most sensitive endpoint evaluated in terms of both number of adverse effects identified and test water concentration, while growth was the least sensitive endpoint. One or more toxicological benchmarks were equaled or exceeded for all riverbank spring samples where toxicity was observed. For the contaminants evaluated, heavy metals (e.g., Cr, Cu, Ni, Zn) may have contributed to the observed toxicity. Despite limitations of employing synoptic chemical data to supplement sample characterization and extrapolating laboratory bioassay data to the field, results of this study demonstrated ecotoxicity associated with several riverbank springs, presumably reflecting contamination of groundwater on the Hanford site. ©1999 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Environ Toxicol 14: 473–480, 1999

show abstract

Arsenic, lead, and other trace elements in soils contaminated with pesticide residues at the Hanford site (USA)

Yokel¹,

Delistraty²

2003

Environmental Toxicology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The primary purpose of this study was to characterize arsenic (As) and lead (Pb) concentrations in former orchard soils contaminated with lead arsenate pesticides at the Hanford site in Washington state (USA). Surface samples (n = 31) were collected from former orchard soils (in cultivation during the pre-Hanford period) at five locations at the 100 Areas and at one location at the Old Hanford Townsite (OHT). Another set of samples (n = 17) was collected over a soil depth interval of 10-50 cm at the four locations with the highest As and Pb surface concentrations. All samples were analyzed for 22 trace elements (including As and Pb) with inductively coupled plasma-atomic emission spectrometry (ICP-AES). The mean, standard deviation, and range for As in the surface soils were 30, 61, and 2.9-270 mg/kg dry wt, respectively. The corresponding statistics for Pb were 220, 460, and 6.5-1900 mg/kg dry wt, respectively. As and Pb concentrations in the surface soils were positively and significantly correlated (r = 0.91, Bonferroni p < 0.05). Descriptive statistics and bivariate correlations were also computed for other trace elements. As and Pb mean concentrations in the surface soils each differed significantly (p < 0.05) among Hanford locations, with the highest concentrations at the 100-H and 100-F Areas. Although both As and Pb mean concentrations decreased with soil depth, regression and correlation coefficients only, for Pb significantly differed from zero (b = -0.0372, r = -0.805, Bonferroni p < 0.05). Compared with data in the literature As and Pb concentrations found in this study exceeded background levels but were typical of orchard soils. Furthermore, mean As and Pb soil concentrations were in the range of various toxicological benchmarks derived for protection of human and ecological receptors.

show abstract

Ecotoxicity of River and Spring Sediment Along the Hanford Reach

Cited by 6 publications

References 13 publications

Whole effluent toxicity testing—usefulness, level of protection, and risk assessment

Whole effluent toxicity testing—usefulness, level of protection, and risk assessment

Ecotoxicity of riverbank spring water along the Hanford Reach, Columbia River

Arsenic, lead, and other trace elements in soils contaminated with pesticide residues at the Hanford site (USA)

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About