The SeKT Joint Research Project: Definition of reference conditions, control sediments and toxicity thresholds for limnic sediment contact tests (2 pp)

Feiler, Ute; Ahlf, Wolfgang; Höss, Sebastian; Hollert, Henner; Neumann-Hensel, Helga; Meller, Michael; Weber, Jürgen; Heininger, Peter

doi:10.1065/espr2005.08.003

Cited by 38 publications

(21 citation statements)

References 7 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The tests with elutriates respond only to the water-extractable contaminants (Pollumaa et al 2004). Sediment contact tests are more relevant since they consider the actual bioavailability and take into account all possible pathways of contaminant uptake by the test organism; thus, they can provide a more realistic picture of exposure (Feiler et al 2005). The importance of including sediment-dwelling organisms in the bioassay battery for ecotoxicological assessment of sediments has been stressed in previous studies (reviewed in Keddy et al 1995).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 98%

“…However, the standardized aquatic bioassays with sediment elutriates might not sufficiently address the bioavailability of contaminants. To address this issue, there is a need for direct contact tests with sediment-dwelling organisms (Feiler et al 2005;Keddy et al 1995). At present, various whole sediment toxicity tests have been proposed, but only a few standardized bioassays exist.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Biochemical parameters in Tubifex tubifex as an integral part of complex sediment toxicity assessment

et al. 2008

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background, aim, and scope Restoration of lakes and reservoirs with extensive cyanobacterial water bloom often requires evaluation of the sediment quality. Next to the chemical analysis of known pollutants, sediment bioassays should be employed to assess toxicity of the present contaminants and to make predictions of associated risk. Brno reservoir in the Czech Republic is a typical example of water bodies with long-term problems concerning cyanobacterial water blooms. Comprehensive assessment of reservoir sediment quality was conducted since successful reservoir restoration might require sediment removal. An important part of this survey focused on an examination of the utility of Tubifex tubifex and its sublethal biochemical markers for the assessment of direct sediment toxicity. Materials and methods This complex study included chemical analysis of contaminants (heavy metals, organic pollutants), ecotoxicity testing of sediment elutriates (tests with Daphnia magna, Pseudomonas putida, Sinapis alba, Scenedesmus subspicatus), and other parameters. We have tested in more detail the applicability of T. tubifex as a test organism for direct evaluation of contact sediment toxicity. Survival tests after 14 days of exposure were complemented by an assessment of parameters serving as biomarkers for sublethal effects [such as total glutathione content (GSH), activities of the enzymes glutathione transferase (GST), glutathione peroxidase (GPx), and glutathione reductase (GR)]. The data matrix was subjected to multivariate analysis to interpret relationships between different parameters and possible differences among locations. Results The multivariate statistical techniques helped to clearly identify the more contaminated upstream sites and separate them from the less contaminated and reference samples. The data document closer relationships of the detected sediment contamination with results of direct sediment exposure in the T. tubifex test regarding mortality but namely regarding the sublethal endpoints rather than the results obtained with other test organisms exposed to sediment elutriates. Aside from the reduction in T. tubifex survival, the sediments with organic pollution caused an increase in glutathione content and increased activities of glutathione S-transferase and glutathione peroxidase in the exposed T. tubifex worms. Discussion Results of our study confirm the suitability of T. tubifex for toxicity testing of raw waters and sediments. This longer-lasting direct contact test has proven more sensitive and appropriate to reflect a lower level of pollution than do the elutriate tests. Sensitive biochemical changes in T. tubifex, including an elevation in GSH levels and GST activities, reflect a general stimulation of detoxification metabolisms in the presence of xenobiotics. The results also suggest an important role of glutathione and related enzymes in detoxification processes and possible involvement of oxidative stress in toxicity mechanisms in benthic sedimentdwelling worms such as T. tubifex. Conclusion...

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 98%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Biochemical parameters in Tubifex tubifex as an integral part of complex sediment toxicity assessment

et al. 2008

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Suitable toxicity thresholds had been defined for all test systems and calculated on the basis of the minimal detectable difference and the maximal tolerable inhibition as described by Höss et al [22] during the joint research project SeKT [24,25]. In the following, inhibitory effects that exceeded the respective toxicity thresholds were defined as toxic effects.…”

Section: Sediment Contact Testsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The aim of the joint research project SeKT (funded by the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research), was to validate a battery of SCTs for assessing the toxicity of native freshwater sediments, including tests using plants (Myriophyllum aquaticum), nematodes (Caenorhabditis elegans), oligochaetes (Lumbriculus variegatus), bacteria (Arthrobacter globiformis), yeast (Saccharomyces cervisiae), and fish embryos (Danio rerio) as test organisms [24,25]. The present study represents the second part of the SeKT project and applies the recommended battery of SCTs to classify the toxicity of polluted freshwater sediments from rivers and lakes, using the toxicity thresholds that were elaborated in the first part of the project [22].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Sediment contact tests as a tool for the assessment of sediment quality in German waters

Feiler

Höss

Ahlf

et al. 2012

Enviro Toxic and Chemistry

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract-A sediment contact test (SCT) battery consisting of five ecotoxicological test systems was applied to 21 native freshwater sediments characterized by a broad variety of geochemical properties and anthropogenic contamination. Higher plants (Myriophyllum aquaticum), nematodes (Caenorhabditis elegans), oligochaetes (Lumbriculus variegatus), zebrafish embryos (Danio rerio), and bacteria (Arthrobacter globiformis), representing various trophic levels and exposure pathways, were used as test organisms. The test battery detected sediment toxicity caused by anthropogenic pollution, whereas the various tests provided site-specific, nonredundant information to the overall toxicity assessment. Based on the toxicity pattern derived from the test battery, the sediments were classified according to a newly proposed classification system for sediment toxicity assessment. The SCT-derived classification generally agreed well with the application of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines (SQGs), especially with regard to sediments with high toxic potential. For sediments with low to medium toxic potential, the SQGs often underestimated the toxicity that was detected by the SCTs, underpinning the need for toxicity tests in sediment quality assessment. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 2013;32:144-155. # 2012 SETAC

show abstract

“…Several standardized sediment tests are available, covering a variety of species and endpoints describing both lethal and sublethal effects (e.g., Ingersoll et al 1998;Ingersoll et al 2001;Nendza 2002;Feiler et al 2005;Allen et al 2007). Chronic tests assessing effects on, e.g., reproduction are on, the other hand, seldom applied for hazard identification at screening tiers since they are time-consuming (exposure 28-42 days or even longer) and consequently more costly (Ingersoll et al 1997;Nendza 2002;Allen et al 2007).…”

mentioning

confidence: 98%

Hazard identification of contaminated sites—ranking potential toxicity of organic sediment extracts in crustacean and fish

et al. 2008

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background, aim, and scope It is well known that contaminated sediments represent a potential long-term source of pollutants to the aquatic environment. To protect human and ecosystem health, it is becoming common to remediate contaminated sites. However, the great cost associated with, e.g., dredging in combination with the large numbers of contaminated sites makes it crucial to pinpoint those sites that are in greatest need of remediation. In most European countries, this prioritization process has almost exclusively been based on chemical analyses of known substances; only seldom toxicity data has been considered. The main objective of the current study was therefore to develop a tool for hazard identification of sediment by ranking potential toxicity of organic sediment extracts in a crustacean and a fish. A secondary objective was to investigate the difference in potential toxicity between compounds with different polarities. Materials and methods Early life stages of the crustacean Nitocra spinipes and the fish Oncorhynchus mykiss, which represent organisms from different trophic levels (primary and secondary consumer) and with different routes of exposure (i.e., ingestion through food, diffusive uptake, and maternal transfer), were exposed to hexane and acetone fractions (semi-polar compounds) of sediment from five locations, ranging from heavily to low contaminated. Preliminary tests showed that the extracts were non-bioavailable to the crustacean when exposed via water, and the extracts were therefore loaded on silica gel. Rainbow trout embryos were exposed using nano-injection technique.Results and discussion Clear concentration-response relationships of both mortality and larval development were observed in all tests with N. spinipes. Also for rainbow trout, the observed effects (e.g., abnormality, hemorrhage, asymmetric yolk sac) followed a dose-related pattern. Interestingly, our results indicate that some of the locations contained toxic semi-polar compounds, which are normally not considered in risk assessment of sediment since they are focused on compounds isolated in the hexane fraction. Conclusions The ranking of the five sediments followed the expected pattern of potential toxicity in both organisms, i.e., sediments with known pollution history caused major effects while reference sediments caused minor effects in the two test systems. Silica gel turned out to be an excellent carrier for exposure of N. spinipes to very hydrophobic and otherwise non-bioavailable sediment extracts. Recommendations and perspectivesSince both test systems demonstrated that a substantial part of the potential toxicity was caused by semi-polar compounds in the acetone fractions, this study enlightens our poor understanding of which compounds are causing adverse effects in environmental samples. Therefore, by investigating potential toxicity (i.e., hazard identification) as a first screening step in prioritizing processes, these implications could be avoided. For proper sediment risk assessment, we however recommend w...

show abstract

The SeKT Joint Research Project: Definition of reference conditions, control sediments and toxicity thresholds for limnic sediment contact tests (2 pp)

Cited by 38 publications

References 7 publications

Biochemical parameters in Tubifex tubifex as an integral part of complex sediment toxicity assessment

Biochemical parameters in Tubifex tubifex as an integral part of complex sediment toxicity assessment

Sediment contact tests as a tool for the assessment of sediment quality in German waters

Hazard identification of contaminated sites—ranking potential toxicity of organic sediment extracts in crustacean and fish

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About