4.7 Review

Development of methods for evaluating toxicity to freshwater ecosystems

期刊

ECOTOXICOLOGY AND ENVIRONMENTAL SAFETY
卷 45, 期 2, 页码 148-176

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1006/eesa.1999.1847

关键词

toxicity; freshwater; ecosystems; risk; mesocosm; community; streams; pond; lindane; dichloroaniline; atrazine; copper

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This article presents a summary of a collaborative research program involving five European research groups, that was partly funded by the European Commission under its Environmental Research Program. The objective of the program was to develop aquatic toxicity tests that could be used to obtain data for inclusion at Level 2 of the Risk Evaluation Scheme for the Notification of Substances as required by the 7th Amendment to EC Directive 79/831/EEC. Currently only a very limited number of test methods have been described that can be used for this purpose and these are based on an even smaller number of test species. Tests based upon algae (Chlamydomonas reinhardi, Scenedesmus subspicatus, and Euglena gracilis), protozoa (Tetrahymena pyriformis), rotifera (pyriformis calyciflorus), crustacea (Gammarus pulex), and diptera (Chironomus riparius) were developed. The tests encompassed a range of end points and were evaluated against four reference chemicals: lindane, 3,4-dichloroaniline (DCA), atrazine, and copper. The capacity of the tests to identify concentrations that are chronically toxic in the field was addressed by comparing the effects threshold concentrations determined in the laboratory tests with those determined for similar and/or related species and end points in stream and pond mesocosm studies. The lowest no-observed-effect concentrations (NOEC), ECx, or LCx values obtained for lindane, atrazine, and copper were comparable with the lowest values obtained in the mesocosms. The lowest chronic NOEC determined for DCA using the laboratory tests was approximately 200 times higher than the lowest NOEC in the mesocosms. (C) 2000 Academic Press.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据