4.7 Article

Acute toxicity tests with Daphnia magna, Americamysis bahia, Chironomus riparius and Gammarus pulex and implications of new EU requirements for the aquatic effect assessment of insecticides

期刊

ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE AND POLLUTION RESEARCH
卷 19, 期 8, 页码 3610-3618

出版社

SPRINGER HEIDELBERG
DOI: 10.1007/s11356-012-0930-0

关键词

Ecotoxicology; Aquatic invertebrates; Tier I; Micro-/mesocosms; Calibration

资金

  1. Dutch Ministry of Economic affairs, Agriculture and Innovation [BO-12.7-004-001]
  2. Alterra Vernieuwingsimpuls [5238598]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Threshold concentrations for treatment related effects of 31 insecticides, as derived from aquatic micro-/mesocosm tests, were used to calibrate the predictive value of the European Tier-1 acute effect assessment on basis of laboratory toxicity tests with Daphnia magna, Chironomus spp., Americamysis bahia and Gammarus pulex. The acute Tier-1 effect assessment on basis of Daphnia (EC50/100) overall was protective for organophosphates, carbamates and most pyrethroids but not for neonicotinoids and the majority of insect growth regulators (IGRs) in the database. By including the 28-day water-spiked Chironomus riparius test, the effect assessment improves but selecting the lowest value on basis of the 48-h Daphnia test (EC50/100) and the 28-day Chironomus test (NOEC/10) is not fully protective for 4 out of 23 insecticide cases. An assessment on basis of G. pulex (EC50/100) is sufficiently protective for 15 out of 19 insecticide cases. The Tier-1 procedure on basis of acute toxicity data (EC50/100) for the combination of Daphnia and A. bahia and/or Chironomus (new EU dossier requirements currently under discussion) overall is protective to pulsed insecticide exposures in micro-/mesocosms. For IGRs that affect moulting, the effect assessment on basis of the 48-h Chironomus test (EC50/100) may not always be protective enough to replace that of the water-spiked 28-day C. riparius test (NOEC/10) because of latency of effects.

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