In Situ Bioassay Chamber for Assessment of Sediment Toxicity and Bioaccumulation Using Benthic Invertebrates

Sibley, Paul K.; Benoit, Duane A.; Balcer, Mary D.; Phipps, Gary L.; West, Corlis W.; Hoke, Robert A.; Ankley, Gerald T.

doi:10.1897/1551-5028(1999)018<2325:isbcfa>2.3.co;2

Cited by 54 publications

(57 citation statements)

References 13 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…On heavily contaminated sites, the in situ response of four freshwater zooplankton species was in good agreement with the laboratory response, whereas at intermediate-polluted stations, in situ toxicity was generally higher compared to that in laboratory tests [2]. The freshwater species Chironomus tentans and Lumbriculus variegatus showed no significant difference between in situ and laboratory response [12]. The freshwater species Chironomus tentans and Lumbriculus variegatus showed no significant difference between in situ and laboratory response [12].…”

Section: Introductionsupporting

confidence: 53%

“…These bioassays include those for phytoplankton [6], the freshwater amphipods Hyalella azteca [7,8] and Gammarus pulex [3,9], Daphnia magna [2], Ceriodaphnia dubia [10,11], the midge Chironomus tentans [8,12], the mayfly Caenis spec [7], the trichoptera Limnephilus lunatus [3], and the oligochaete Lumbriculus variegatus [12]. These bioassays include those for phytoplankton [6], the freshwater amphipods Hyalella azteca [7,8] and Gammarus pulex [3,9], Daphnia magna [2], Ceriodaphnia dubia [10,11], the midge Chironomus tentans [8,12], the mayfly Caenis spec [7], the trichoptera Limnephilus lunatus [3], and the oligochaete Lumbriculus variegatus [12].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Comparison of Laboratory and in Situ Sediment Bioassays Using Corophium Volutator

Kater¹,

Postma²,

Dubbeldam³

et al. 2001

Environ Toxicol Chem

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Bioassays with the marine amphipod Corophium volutator were performed simultaneously in situ and in the laboratory using sediments sampled from the in situ locations. In most cases, the in situ response was significantly higher compared to the laboratory response. This difference was not caused by direct influence of the use of the field chamber on Corophium sp., nor was the difference caused by the overlying water used. Experiments showed homogenization can affect the toxicity of a sediment, but not in such a way that it can completely explain the difference between the response in situ and in the laboratory. Possible explanatory factors are harbor activity, storms, and temperature. To reduce the influence of some of these factors, the best period of the year to perform in situ bioassays with C. volutator is May, June, or September.

show abstract

Section: Introductionsupporting

confidence: 53%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison of Laboratory and in Situ Sediment Bioassays Using Corophium Volutator

Kater¹,

Postma²,

Dubbeldam³

et al. 2001

Environ Toxicol Chem

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…2), allowing water flow inside the test-chambers. Ideally, the mesh-size used in in situ bioassay chambers should be small enough to prevent test-organisms from escaping, and large enough to allow a proper water flow/renewal and aeration (Sibley et al, 1999). A 1.0-mm mesh, as the one used in the present study, satisfied both these demands, although it did not retain autochthonous food sources (e.g., local zooplankton).…”

Section: In Situ Bioassay Chamber Design and General Protocolmentioning

confidence: 99%

An In Situ Bioassay Integrating Individual and Biochemical Responses Using Small Fish Species

et al. 2004

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The interest in the ecological relevance of risk assessments and, thus, in in situ bioassays has been increasing in the last years. The present study developed a time- and cost-effective in situ bioassay, aiming at obtaining, in a short period of time and with a minimum of resources, a set of ecologically relevant toxicological information in a site-specific approach. Poecilia reticulata and Gambusia holbrooki were chosen as test species. Post-exposure feeding inhibition and the biomarkers acetylcholinesterase, lactate dehydrogenase and glutathione S-transferases were the endpoints tested. The battery of biomarkers as a whole was sensitive to the in situ exposure in an acid mine drainage impacted effluent, although responses varied between test species. Post-exposure feeding inhibition was the most sensitive endpoint, and its association with biomarker responses was discussed. The linkage between individual responses, such as feeding, and biomarkers suggested that, at least in this case, biomarkers can be relevant at higher levels of biological organization. Altogether, the proposed short-term in situ bioassay seems to be a promising tool, since it represents a reasonable compromise between sensitivity, time/cost-effectiveness and ecological relevance.

show abstract

“…In-situ bioassays reduce the artifacts related to sample handling and, at the same time, allow much more realistic exposure, bypassing the uncertainties that arise when attempting to extrapolate the results of laboratory bioassays to the field. Sibley et al [28] summarized the advantages of in-situ sediment bioassays as follows: (1) no need for sediment manipulation, excluding the possibility of altering the contaminant bioavailability (moreover contaminants that volatilize are taken into account) through sampling, sieving or other processes that are normally associated with laboratory sediment bioassays; (2) the natural stratification of the sediments is preserved, providing more natural vertical contaminant gradients and hence a more realistic exposure regime;…”

Section: From Laboratory To Field Testsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…36,2012 (3) natural biotic and abiotic variables that influence toxicity are accounted for. Sibley et al [28] also proposed the use of a simple, inexpensive bioassay chamber for testing sediment toxicity (through measurement of survival and growth) and bioaccumulation under field conditions, using the midge Chironomus tentans and the oligochaete Lumbriculus variegatus.…”

Section: From Laboratory To Field Testsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Biomonitoring of lake sediments using benthic macroinvertebrates

Bettinetti

Ponti

Marziali

et al. 2012

TrAC Trends in Analytical Chemistry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC) is an innovative piece of legislation aimed at protecting the quality of all continental and coastal waters in Europe through an ecological evaluation of the ecosystems. Since it is widely acknowledged that the greater the ecological realism the greater the difficulty of its definition, we describe the different uses of benthic organisms as a tool for assessing the quality of sediment in lakes. We review the responses from single species to the community. We focus on studies in the laboratory and in the field, and we also critically consider the use of predictive models for these evaluations.Our discussion of the information collected underlines the importance of the relation between sensitivity of single species and contaminants. Moreover, the recent approach in developing mechanistic models to predict the response of natural communities seems to be particularly powerful for community ecology, and we strongly recommend more effort along these lines. ª

show abstract

In Situ Bioassay Chamber for Assessment of Sediment Toxicity and Bioaccumulation Using Benthic Invertebrates

Cited by 54 publications

References 13 publications

Comparison of Laboratory and in Situ Sediment Bioassays Using Corophium Volutator

Comparison of Laboratory and in Situ Sediment Bioassays Using Corophium Volutator

An In Situ Bioassay Integrating Individual and Biochemical Responses Using Small Fish Species

Biomonitoring of lake sediments using benthic macroinvertebrates

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About