1、Designation: E 1706 05Standard Test Method forMeasuring the Toxicity of Sediment-AssociatedContaminants with Freshwater Invertebrates1This standard is issued under the fixed designation E 1706; the number immediately following the designation indicates the year oforiginal adoption or, in the case of
2、 revision, the year of last revision. A number in parentheses indicates the year of last reapproval. Asuperscript epsilon (e) indicates an editorial change since the last revision or reapproval.1. Scope*1.1 This test method covers procedures for testing freshwa-ter organisms in the laboratory to eva
3、luate the toxicity ofcontaminants associated with whole sediments. Sediments maybe collected from the field or spiked with compounds in thelaboratory.1.1.1 Test methods are described for two toxicity testorganisms, the amphipod Hyalella azteca ( H. azteca) (see13.1.2) and the midge Chironomus dilutu
4、s (formerly known asC. tentans; Shobanov et al. 1999.(1) (see 14.1.2). The toxicitytests are conducted for 10 days in 300-mLchambers containing100 mL of sediment and 175 mL of overlying water. Overlyingwater is renewed daily and test organisms are fed during thetoxicity tests. Endpoints for the 10-d
5、ay toxicity tests aresurvival and growth. These test methods describe proceduresfor testing freshwater sediments; however, estuarine sediments(up to 15 ppt salinity) can also be tested with H. azteca. Inaddition to the 10-day toxicity test method outlined in 13.1.2and 14.1.2, general procedures are
6、also described for conduct-ing 10-day sediment toxicity tests with H. azteca (see 13.1.2)and C. dilutus (see 14.1.2).NOTE 1Morphological comparison of populations of Chironomus(Camptochironomus) tentans (Fabricius) from Europe, Asia, and NorthAmerica have confirmed cytogenetic evidence that two dist
7、inct speciesinhabit the Palearctic and Nearctic under this name. The Palearctic speciesis the true C. tentans and the Nearctic populations constitute a new speciesdescribed under the name Chironomus (Camptochironomus) dilutus(Shobanov et al. 1999 (1).”1.1.2 Guidance for conducting sediment toxicity
8、tests isoutlined in Annex A1 for Chironomus riparius, in Annex A2for Daphnia magna and Ceriodaphnia dubia, in Annex A3 forHexagenia spp., inAnnexA4 for Tubifex tubifex, and inAnnexA5 for the Diporeia spp. Guidance is also provided in AnnexA6 for conducting long-term sediment toxicity tests with H.az
9、teca by measuring effects on survival, growth, and reproduc-tion. Guidance is also provided in Annex A7 for conductinglong-term sediment toxicity tests with C. dilutus by measuringeffects on survival, growth, emergence, and reproduction. 1.6outlines the data that will be needed before test methods a
10、redeveloped from the guidance outlined in Annex A1 to AnnexA7 for these test organisms. General procedures described inSections 17 for sediment testing with H. azteca and C. dilutusare also applicable for sediment testing with the test organismsdescribed in Annex A1 to Annex A7.1.2 Procedures outlin
11、ed in this test method are based pri-marily on procedures described in the United States Environ-mental Protection Agency (USEPA) (2-9 )2, Test MethodE 1367, and Guides E 1391, E 1525 and E 1688.1.3 Additional research and methods development are nowin progress to: (1) evaluate additional test organ
12、isms, (2)further evaluate the use of formulated sediment, (3) refinesediment dilution procedures, (4) refine sediment toxicityidentification evaluation (TIE) procedures (10), (5) refinesediment spiking procedures, (6) develop in situ toxicity teststo assess sediment toxicity and bioaccumulation unde
13、r fieldconditions, (7) evaluate relative sensitivities of endpointsmeasured in tests, (8) develop methods for new species, (9)evaluate relationships between toxicity and bioaccumulation,and (10) produce additional data on confirmation of responsesin laboratory tests with natural populations of benth
14、ic organ-isms. Some issues that may be considered in interpretation oftest results are the subject of continuing research including theinfluence of feeding on bioavailability, nutritional requirementsof the test organisms, and additional performance criteria fororganism health. See Section 6 for add
15、itional detail. Thisinformation will be described in future editions of this stan-dard.1.4 The USEPA(2) and Guide E 1688 also describes 28-daybioaccumulation methods for the oligochaete Lumbriculusvariegatus.1.5 Results of tests, even those with the same species, usingprocedures different from those
16、 described in the test methodmay not be comparable and using these different proceduresmay alter bioavailability. Comparison of results obtained usingmodified versions of these procedures might provide usefulinformation concerning new concepts and procedures forconducting sediment tests with aquatic
17、 organisms. If tests are1This test method is under the jurisdiction of ASTM Committee E47 onBiological Effects and Environmental Fate and are the direct responsibility ofSubcommittee E47.03 on Sediment Assessment and Toxicology.Current edition approved Mar. 1, 2005. Published March 2005. Originallya
18、pproved in 1995. Last previous edition approved in 2004 as E 1706 04.2The boldface numbers in parentheses refer to the list of references at the end ofthis standard.1*A Summary of Changes section appears at the end of this standard.Copyright ASTM International, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, PO Box C700, We
19、st Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959, United States.conducted with procedures different from those described inthis test method, additional tests are required to determinecomparability of results. General procedures described in thistest method might be useful for conducting tests with otheraquatic organi
20、sms; however, modifications may be necessary.1.6 Selection of Toxicity Testing Organisms:1.6.1 The choice of a test organism has a major influence onthe relevance, success, and interpretation of a test. Further-more, no one organism is best suited for all sediments. Thefollowing criteria were consid
21、ered when selecting test organ-isms to be described in this standard (Table 1 and GuideE 1525). A test organism should: (1) have a toxicological database demonstrating relative sensitivity and discrimination to arange of chemicals of concern in sediment, (2) have a databasefor interlaboratory compar
22、isons of procedures (for example,round-robin studies), (3) be in contact with sediment e.g.,water column vs benthic organisms, (4) be readily availablethrough culture or from field collection, (5) be easily main-tained in the laboratory, (6) be easily identified, (7) beecologically or economically i
23、mportant, (8) have a broadgeographical distribution, be indigenous (either present orhistorical) to the site being evaluated, or have a niche similar toorganisms of concern, (for example, similar feeding guild orbehavior to the indigenous organisms), (9) be tolerant of abroad range of sediment physi
24、co-chemical characteristics (forexample, grain size), and (10) be compatible with selectedexposure methods and endpoints. The method should also be(11) peer reviewed and (12) confirmed with responses withnatural populations of benthic organisms (see 1.6.8).1.6.2 Of the criteria outlined in Table 1,
25、a data basedemonstrating relative sensitivity to contaminants, contact withsediment, ease of culture in the laboratory, interlaboratorycomparisons, tolerance of varying sediment physico-chemicalcharacteristics, and confirmation with responses of naturalbenthos populations were the primary criteria u
26、sed for select-ing H. azteca and C. dilutus to be described as test methods inthe current version of this standard (see Sections 13 and 14).Procedures for conducting sediment tests with organisms inaccordance with Annex A1 to Annex A7 do not currently meetall the required selection criteria listed i
27、n Table 1. A similardata base must be developed before these or other testorganisms can be included as standard test methods instead ofas guidance in future versions of these this method.1.6.3 An important consideration in the selection of specificspecies for test method development is the existence
28、 ofinformation concerning relative sensitivity of the organismsboth to single chemicals and complex mixtures. A number ofstudies have evaluated the sensitivity of H. azteca, C. dilutus,and L. variegatus, relative to one another, as well as othercommonly tested freshwater species. For example,Ankley
29、et al(11) found H. azteca to be as, or slightly more, sensitive thanCeriodaphnia dubia to a variety of sediment elutriate andpore-water samples. In that study, L. variegatus were lesssensitive to the samples than either the amphipod or thecladoceran. West et al (12) found the rank sensitivity of the
30、three species to the lethal effects of copper in sediments fromthe Keweenaw Waterway, MI was (from greatest to least): H.azteca C. dilutus L. variegatus. In short-term (48 to 96 h)exposures, L. variegatus generally was less sensitive than H.azteca, C. dubia, or Pimephales promelas to cadmium, nickel
31、,zinc, copper, and lead (13). Of the latter three species, no onespecies was consistently the most sensitive to the five metals.1.6.3.1 In a study of contaminated Great Lakes sediment, H.azteca, C. dilutus, and C. riparius were among the mostsensitive and discriminatory of 24 organisms tested (14-17
32、).Kemble et al (18) found the rank sensitivity of four species tometal-contaminated sediments from the Clark Fork River, MTto be (from greatest to least): H. azteca C. riparius Oncorhynchus mykiss (rainbow trout) Daphnia magna.Relative sensitivity of the three endpoints evaluated in the H.azteca tes
33、t with Clark Fork River sediments was (from greatestto least): length sexual maturation survival.1.6.3.2 In 10-day water-only and whole-sediment tests,Hyalella azteca and C. dilutus were more sensitive than D.magna to fluoranthene-spiked sediment (19).1.6.3.3 Ten-day, water-only tests also have been
34、 conductedwith a number of chemicals using H. azteca, C. dilutus, and L.variegatus (19) and Table 2). These tests all were flow-through exposures using a soft natural water (Lake Superior)with measured chemical concentrations that, other than theabsence of sediment, were conducted under conditions (
35、forexample, temperature, photoperiod, feeding) similar to thosebeing described for the standard 10-day sediment test in 13.1.2.In general, H. azteca was more sensitive to copper, zinc,cadmium, nickel, and lead than either C. dilutus or L. varie-gatus. Chironomus dilutus and H. azteca exhibited a sim
36、ilarsensitivity to several of the pesticides tested. Lumbriculusvariegatus was not tested with several of the pesticides;however, in other studies with whole sediments contaminatedby dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT) and associated me-tabolites, and in short-term (96-h) experiments with organo-p
37、hosphate insecticides (diazinon, chlorpyrifos), L. variegatushas proved to be far less sensitive than either H. azteca or C.dilutus. These results highlight two important points germaneto these test methods. First, neither of the two test speciesselected for estimating sediment toxicity ( H. azteca,
38、 C.dilutus) was consistently most sensitive to all chemicals,indicating the importance of using multiple test organismswhen performing sediment assessments. Second, L. variegatusappears to be relatively insensitive to most of the test chemi-cals, which perhaps is a positive attribute for an organism
39、 usedfor bioaccumulation testing (9).1.6.3.4 Using the data from Table 2, sensitivity of H. azteca,C. dilutus, and L. variegatus can be evaluated relative to otherfreshwater species. For this analysis, acute and chronic toxicitydata from water quality criteria (WQC) documents for copper,zinc, cadmiu
40、m, nickel, lead, DDT, dieldrin, and chlorpyrifos,and toxicity information from the AQUIRE data base (20) for1,1,dichloro-2,2-bis(p-chlorophenyl)ethane (DDD) and dichlo-rodiphenyldichloroethylene (DDE), were compared to assayresults for the three species (19). The sensitivity of H. azteca tometals an
41、d pesticides, and C. dilutus to pesticides was compa-rable to chronic toxicity data generated for other test species.This was not completely unexpected given that the 10-dayexposures used for these two species are likely more similar tochronic partial life-cycle tests than the 48 to 96-h exposuresE1
42、706052traditionally defined as acute in the WQC documents. Interest-ingly, in some instances (for example, dieldrin and chlorpyri-fos), LC50 data generated for H. azteca or C. dilutus werecomparable to or lower than any reported for other freshwaterspecies in the WQC documents. This observation like
43、ly is afunction not only of the test species, but of the test conditions;many of the tests on which early WQC were based were static,rather than flow-through, and report unmeasured contaminantconcentrations.1.6.3.5 Measurable concentrations of ammonia are commonin the pore water of many sediments an
44、d have been found to bea common cause of toxicity in pore water (21 22, 23). Acutetoxicity of ammonia to H. azteca, C. dilutus, and L. variegatushas been evaluated in several studies. As has been found formany other aquatic organisms, the toxicity of ammonia to C.dilutus and L. variegatus has been s
45、hown to be dependent onpH. Four-day LC50 values for L. variegatus in water-column(no sediment) exposures ranged from 390 to 6.6 mg/L totalammonia as pH was increased from 6.3 to 8.6 Schubauer-Berigan et al.(24). For C. dilutus, 4-day LC50 values rangedfrom 370 to 82 mg/L total ammonia over a similar
46、 pH range(Schubauer-Berigan et al.) (24).Ankley et al. (25) reported thatthe toxicity of ammonia to H. azteca (also in water-onlyexposures) showed differing degrees of pH-dependence indifferent test waters. In soft reconstituted water, toxicity wasnot pH dependent, with 4-day LC50 values of about 20
47、 mg/Lat pH ranging from 6.5 to 8.5. In contrast, ammonia toxicity inhard reconstituted water exhibited substantial pH dependencewith LC50 values decreasing from 200 to 35 mg/L totalammonia over the same pH range. Borgmann and Borgmann (26) later showed that the variation in ammonia toxicity acrossth
48、ese waters could be attributed to differences in sodium andpotassium content, which appear to influence the toxicity ofammonia to H. azteca.1.6.3.5.1 Although these studies provide benchmark con-centrations that may be of concern in sediment pore waters,additional studies by Whiteman et al. (27) ind
49、icated that therelationship between water-only LC50 values and those mea-sured in sediment exposures differs among organisms. Insediment exposures, the 10-day LC50 for L. variegatus and C.dilutus occurred when sediment pore water reached about150 % of the LC50 determined from water-only exposures.However, experiments with H. azteca showed that the 10-dayLC50 was not reached until pore water concentrations werenearly 103 the water-only LC50, at which time the ammoniaconcentration in the overlying water was equal to the water-only LC50. The authors attribute this discrepancy to avoida
