The Lab-to-Field (LTF) Rating Scheme: A New Method of Investigating the Relationships between Laboratory Sublethal Toxicity Tests and Field Measurements in Environmental Effects Monitoring Studies

Borgmann, Anne I.; Moody, Mary J.; Scroggins, Richard P.

doi:10.1080/10807030490484219

Cited by 5 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 13 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In the Ontario region, the relationships between the benthic invertebrate L. N. Taylor et al community survey results and effluent sublethal toxicity data for 22 metal mines were examined using a lab-to-field rating system (Plant et al 2008). This qualitative rating system is a modified version of the lab-to-field rating scheme developed by Borgmann et al (2004). The region used the results of the comparative approach as a confirmation tool on the field elements of the EEM studies.…”

Section: Using Relationships Between Laboratory Results and Field Stumentioning

confidence: 99%

Sublethal Toxicity Testing of Canadian Metal Mining Effluents: National Trends and Site-Specific Uses

Taylor

Vliet

Scroggins

2010

Human and Ecological Risk Assessment: An International Journal

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

As part of the Canadian Environmental Effects Monitoring program under the National Metal Mining Effluent Regulation, there is a requirement to conduct sublethal toxicity tests twice per year for the first three years. These first three years (2003 to 2005) were considered a period of initial monitoring and resulted in test endpoints for each of the required standardized methods on a fish, an aquatic plant, an invertebrate, and an algal species. On a national level (based on 1648 valid results), the test from most to least sensitive was: the inhibition of reproduction with Ceriodaphnia dubia, the growth inhibition (frond number) with Lemna minor , the inhibition of cell yield with Pseudokirchneriella subcapitata, the growth inhibition (dry weight) with Lemna minor , the growth inhibition of fathead minnows, and the effect on embryo viability with rainbow trout. This sensitivity ranking changed when tests were further evaluated on a geographical region and mine-type basis (e.g., base metal, precious metal, uranium, iron ore). Site-specific examples show how sublethal toxicity data are being used to track changes in effluent quality, choosing a final discharge point, monitoring multiple discharges to the same watercourse, and to identify study design weaknesses by comparing laboratory results to field survey conclusions.

show abstract

Section: Using Relationships Between Laboratory Results and Field Stumentioning

confidence: 99%

Sublethal Toxicity Testing of Canadian Metal Mining Effluents: National Trends and Site-Specific Uses

Taylor

Vliet

Scroggins

2010

Human and Ecological Risk Assessment: An International Journal

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Using both of these approaches, Moody (2002) found better relationships between Ceriodaphnia and Selenastrum sublethal toxicity test results and the measured field effects than for the fathead minnow toxicity test. Similarly, Borgmann et al (2004) used the LTF to rate toxicity and field survey results for 16 mills in Ontario. Using a regression analysis of LTF scores, they reported a significant relationship between the Cerio-daphnia reproduction tests and benthic invertebrate field survey measurements.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Preliminary Analysis of Pulp and Paper Environmental Effects Monitoring Data to Assess Possible Relationships between the Sublethal Toxicity of Effluent and Effects on Biota in the Field

Walker

Lowell

Sherry

2005

Water Quality Research Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Data from the sublethal toxicity testing of effluents may or may not be predictive of field effects. Although qualitative studies have attempted to support a predictive relationship at select sites, few quantitative studies have been undertaken to establish whether general predictive relationships exist for diverse recipient environments. Since Canada's Environmental Effects Monitoring (EEM) Program encompasses a strong field component as well as a suite of sublethal toxicity tests, the Cycle 2 data set of the Pulp and Paper EEM Program presented an opportunity to elucidate whether relationships exist between various sublethal toxicity endpoints used in EEM and field effects that were determined in surveys of benthic invertebrate communities and fish populations. Sublethal toxicity data and key endpoints from the fish (gonad weight, liver weight and condition) and invertebrate surveys (taxon richness and abundance) were quantitatively analyzed using simple bivariate correlation analysis. Our preliminary analysis of the data did not reveal any meaningful general relationships between the field biomonitoring and sublethal toxicity data collected under the Pulp and Paper EEM Program. Although the sublethal toxicity tests are useful to assess changes in effluent quality, their ability to predict the field effects for the key endpoints that are currently measured for fish and benthos in the Pulp and Paper EEM Program remains unsubstantiated.

show abstract

“…qualitative evaluation, the second tier is regional risk assessment using a semiquantitative evaluation, and the third tier is a site-specific quantitative risk assessment that incorporates multiple stressors and effects on specific ecological and societal endpoints. A rating scheme for evaluating the lab-to-field relationship between laboratory toxicity tests and field measurements was developed by Borgmann et al (2004) using Environmental Effects Monitoring studies for pulp and paper mills in Ontario. It was noted that there was insufficient data to determine if the rating scheme could be used as a predictive tool and that further studies should incorporate more sensitive species or life stage of fish.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Ecological and Human Health Risk Assessment

Biksey¹,

Schultz²,

Bernhardt³

2005

Water Environment Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

INTRODUCTIONThis literature review of the risk assessment process addresses both ecological and human receptors. The review covers the risk assessment literature including methodology, analysis, interpretation, uncertainty, and regulatory guidance. Companion reviews in this volume that address the effect of pollutants and their fate and transport processes in the aquatic environment overlap the discipline of risk assessment and, therefore, the reader is urged to review these sections as they will not be covered in this review. The focus of the review is on the risk assessment process as it is applied to human health and ecosystems, site remediation, and natural resources. The objective is to provide an overview of the scope of the literature published in 2004. GENERALThe general section includes literature that addressed both ecological and human health risk assessment topics. Integrated Risk AssessmentBetter risk management decision making by specifying learning for current and future decisions is explored by McDaniels and Gregory (2004) through a 2836 policy-analytic decision process involving stakeholders, a value of learning that extends beyond value of information, and viewing learning as an objective that includes potential benefits from the viewpoint of stakeholders, the institutions involved, and the decision process itself. A case study is presented concerning water use for fisheries and hydroelectric development power in British Columbia, Canada that illustrates the development of learning as an objective in an applied risk-management context. Salatas et al. (2004) studied the metals at U. S. Department of Defense (DOD) sites that were most likely to drive risk-based remedial decisions using U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) and DOD databases for sites where metals were present in soil. The study determined the primary metals of concern with respect to human health and ecological risks and noted that although human health risks most frequently drive remedial alternative selection, ecological screening thresholds were exceeded more often than human health criteria.The applicability of comparative risk assessment to risk management of dredged materials was explored by Cura et al. (2004) as a means for evaluating potential human health and ecological risks and to propose management alternatives to address those risks. It was noted that the comparative risk assessment process is relatively young in comparison to more established methodology and that it is a subjective process that includes elements of value and professional judgment. It was recommended that a probabilistic approach should be incorporated into the framework. Periera et al. (2004) developed a plan to integrate human and ecological risk assessment to evaluate high 2837 concentrations of metals in the vicinity of the S. Domingos mine in Southeast Alentejo, Portugal. The authors proposed a tiered approach based on the U. S. EPA ecological risk assessment framework and identified tasks needed to obtain chemical, toxicological, and ...

show abstract

The Lab-to-Field (LTF) Rating Scheme: A New Method of Investigating the Relationships between Laboratory Sublethal Toxicity Tests and Field Measurements in Environmental Effects Monitoring Studies

Cited by 5 publications

References 13 publications

Sublethal Toxicity Testing of Canadian Metal Mining Effluents: National Trends and Site-Specific Uses

Sublethal Toxicity Testing of Canadian Metal Mining Effluents: National Trends and Site-Specific Uses

Preliminary Analysis of Pulp and Paper Environmental Effects Monitoring Data to Assess Possible Relationships between the Sublethal Toxicity of Effluent and Effects on Biota in the Field

Ecological and Human Health Risk Assessment

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About