Integration of bioaccumulation in an environmental risk assessment

Feijtel, Tom C. J.; Kloepper-Sams, Pamela J.; Haan, Klaas den; Egmond, Roger van; Comber, Mike; Heusel, R.; Wierich, P.; Berge, Wil ten; Gard, A.; Wolf, Watze de; Niessen, H.

doi:10.1016/s0045-6535(97)00047-7

Cited by 51 publications

(35 citation statements)

References 15 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Many environmental pollutants move through food chains and accumulate at sizeable levels in the tissues of animals and man [1,2]. A high environmental persistence and high lipophilicity chemicals should be thoroughly investigated for their potential toxicity through bioconcentration and bioaccumulation, both measured for long periods of exposure.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In order determining the environmental fate of released chemicals from different pollutant sources, to determine their bioconcentration in aquatic species is essential. Bio-concentration factor (BCF) of a chemical compound is defined as the ratio between the concentration of that chemical in an organism (Corg) and the concentration of the chemical compounds in the aqueous environment (Cm) [2,[19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26]. The calculation of BCFs can be based on the wet weight (BCFw) or on the lipid content (BCFl), of the aquatic organism or its tissue.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Aquatic organisms can accumulate chemical compounds both directly from the environment (via skin or respiratory surface) and indirectly (by collecting and concentrating a chemical compound from food). This process is called bioaccumulation, and is measured with the bioaccumulation factor (BAF) which is defined as the ratio of the concentration of a chemical accumulated inside an organism (Corg) to the concentration in the surrounding environment (Cm) [1,2,4,16]. The bioaccumulation level depends on the nature of the chemical compound, species, duration of exposure, concentration in water and its accumulation level in food [27].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Studies of Water Arsenic and Boron Pollutants and Algae Phytoremediation in Three Springs, Iran

Noori¹,

Rezvan²,

Ahmad³

et al. 2012

IJE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Today drinking water quality, water pollutant and cleaning water are important topics in applied hydrology.Algae play an important role in controlling metal concentration in lakes and oceans. Their ability to absorption metals and taking up toxic elements from the environment has been recognized for many years. The study is examination of the possible extent of Arsenic and Boron algae phytoremediation in three springs from Sang-E-Noghreh area, Iran, by calculating bio-concentration and bio-accumulation factors in them. Water samples from the sites were separately collected for microscopy, ICP/MS analyzing and graphitic oven. Algae were identified and counted using available equipment and references. Data analyzed and bio-concentration (BCF) and bio-accumulation factors (BAF) were calculated for Boron and Arsenic. Results showed four algal divisions (Chlorophyta, Cyanophyta, Euglenophyta and Heterokontophyta) in all of sample sites waters with the exception of Gargab that lacked Euglenophyta. Boron and Arsenic BAF were higher than 10 in all three sites. It is believed that algal flora of three springs have absorbed and accumulated these elements from their environment into their bodies. Then these algae can be hyper-phytoremediator and their presence in water reduced water Arsenic and Boron pollutant.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Studies of Water Arsenic and Boron Pollutants and Algae Phytoremediation in Three Springs, Iran

Noori¹,

Rezvan²,

Ahmad³

et al. 2012

IJE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, the assessment of the potential for bioaccumulation and/or biomagnification of contaminants has been identified as crucial to this process [1,2] and is now an important and routine part of environmental assessments [3,4]. Several approaches are available for determining the bioaccumulation of contaminants in biota, which includes field monitoring, laboratory tests, and the use of models.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Validation of Ontario's new laboratory‐based bioaccumulation methods with in situ field data

Geest

Poirier

Sibley

et al. 2011

Enviro Toxic and Chemistry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract-To validate the standardization of a laboratory protocol for measuring bioaccumulation, laboratory-derived tissue residues and biota-sediment accumulation factors (BSAFs) were compared with historical field data from nine sites in Ontario, Canada. As a result of temporal discontinuity between the field and the laboratory studies, a priori considerations, such as changes in site conditions or concentrations of contaminants in sediment, were necessary to assess whether to compare absolute or relative measures of bioaccumulation. For the majority of sites, BSAFs for field-collected and laboratory-exposed fish were within a factor of 2. Biotasediment accumulation factors for laboratory-exposed oligochaetes were typically greater than those for mussels caged in the field, by a factor of 2 to 9. Overall, the laboratory methods for all species generally overestimated the relative bioavailability of contaminants compared with field conditions by a factor of 1.1 to 9.2. Other than the great disparity observed for polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins and dibenzofurans (PCDD/Fs) between field and laboratory studies, on average the laboratory-derived BSAFs with Pimephales promelas and Lumbriculus variegatus overestimated those from field-collected fish and field-exposed mussels by factors of 1.6 and 3.6, respectively. The laboratory method reflects a potentially worst-case exposure scenario and provides an appropriately conservative estimate of bioaccumulation. Laboratory-based estimates can be comparable to bioaccumulation data from the field but may be confounded by species-specific differences in routes of exposure and bioaccumulation of certain compounds or other environmental and biological factors that should be considered in these comparisons. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 2011;30:950-958. # 2011 SETAC

show abstract

“…In addition to the physicochemical characterization of sediment, toxicity testing, and benthic surveys, an assessment of the biomagnification potential of contaminants has been identified as crucial to the risk assessment process [7,8] and has now been incorporated into decision-making frameworks for contaminated sediment [9,10]. Bioaccumulation of contaminants from sediment can be measured directly through the collection of organisms from the field, transplant studies, and laboratory tests, or it can be predicted using models.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Measuring bioaccumulation of contaminants from field‐collected sediment in freshwater organisms: A critical review of laboratory methods

Geest

Poirier

Sibley

et al. 2010

Enviro Toxic and Chemistry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract-To be effective, decision-making frameworks require data from robust and reliable test methods. Using standard methods allows for more effective comparison between studies and application of data, and it reduces unnecessary duplication of efforts. Laboratory methods to assess the toxicity of sediment have been standardized and extensively used; however, procedures for measuring the bioaccumulation of contaminants from sediment into aquatic organisms need further standardization. Bioaccumulation methods using freshwater invertebrates and fish exposed to field-contaminated sediment were reviewed to identify important similarities and differences in method protocols, test conditions that need to be controlled, and data gaps. Although guidance documents are available, great variation still exists in exposure techniques used in tests, which may potentially affect the estimation of bioaccumulation. The techniques most consistent across studies include the use of Lumbriculus variegatus as a test species, test temperatures between 20 and 258C, and a 28-d exposure with no addition of food, followed by purging of organisms. Issues that were inconsistent between studies or remained unspecified, which should be addressed, include the bioaccumulation potential of other test species, loading density of organisms, and sediment-to-water ratio. In addition to proper evaluation of the various exposure techniques and conditions, a need exists for more consistent inclusion of quality control procedures during testing. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 2010;29:239129: -240129: . # 2010

show abstract

Integration of bioaccumulation in an environmental risk assessment

Cited by 51 publications

References 15 publications

Studies of Water Arsenic and Boron Pollutants and Algae Phytoremediation in Three Springs, Iran

Studies of Water Arsenic and Boron Pollutants and Algae Phytoremediation in Three Springs, Iran

Validation of Ontario's new laboratory‐based bioaccumulation methods with in situ field data

Measuring bioaccumulation of contaminants from field‐collected sediment in freshwater organisms: A critical review of laboratory methods

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About