1、Designation: E1706 05 (Reapproved 2010)Standard Test Method forMeasuring the Toxicity of Sediment-AssociatedContaminants with Freshwater Invertebrates1This standard is issued under the fixed designation E1706; the number immediately following the designation indicates the year oforiginal adoption or
2、, in the case of revision, the year of last revision. A number in parentheses indicates the year of last reapproval. Asuperscript epsilon () 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 la
3、boratory to evaluate 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 Ch
4、ironomus dilutus (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. Endpoin
5、ts for the 10-day 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
6、procedures are 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 evidenc
7、e that two distinct 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 sed
8、iment toxicity 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
9、tests with H.azteca 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
10、 test methods aredeveloped from the guidance outlined in Annex A1 to AnnexA7 for these test organisms. General procedures described inSections 167 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 P
11、rocedures outlined in this test method are based pri-marily on procedures described in the United States Environ-mental Protection Agency (USEPA) (2-9 )2, Test MethodE1367, and Guides E1391, E1525 and E1688.1.3 Additional research and methods development are nowin progress to: (1) evaluate additiona
12、l test organisms, (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 bioaccum
13、ulation under 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 populati
14、ons of benthic 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 Secti
15、on 6 for additional detail. Thisinformation will be described in future editions of this stan-dard.1.4 The USEPA (2) and Guide E1688 also describes 28-daybioaccumulation methods for the oligochaete Lumbriculusvariegatus.1.5 Results of tests, even those with the same species, usingprocedures differen
16、t from those 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 for1This test method is under
17、 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 Sept. 1, 2010. Published January 2011. Originallyapproved in 1995. Last previous edition approved
18、 in 2005 as E1706 051. DOI:10.1520/E1706-05R10.2The 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, West Conshohocken, PA 19
19、428-2959, United States.conducting sediment tests with aquatic organisms. If tests areconducted 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 c
20、onducting tests with otheraquatic organisms; 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 sedi
21、ments. Thefollowing criteria were considered when selecting test organ-isms to be described in this standard (Table 1 and GuideE1525). A test organism should: (1) have a toxicological database demonstrating relative sensitivity and discrimination to arange of chemicals of concern in sediment, (2) ha
22、ve a databasefor interlaboratory comparisons 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 identifie
23、d, (7) beecologically or economically important, (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 tol
24、erant of abroad range of sediment physico-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.
25、2 Of the criteria outlined in Table 1, 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
26、populations were the primary criteria used 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 t
27、he required selection criteria listed in 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 t
28、est method development is the existence 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
29、freshwater species. For example,Ankley 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
30、 (12) found the rank sensitivity of thethree 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
31、 Pimephales promelas to cadmium, nickel,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 discr
32、iminatory of 24 organisms tested (14-17).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
33、endpoints evaluated in the H.azteca test 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 T
34、en-day, water-only tests also have been 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 sedi
35、ment, were conducted under conditions (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. Chironomu
36、s dilutus and H. azteca exhibited a similarsensitivity 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 shor
37、t-term (96-h) experiments with organo-phosphate 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 es
38、timating sediment toxicity ( H. azteca, 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
39、is a positive attribute for an organism 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
40、(WQC) documents for copper,zinc, cadmium, 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). T
41、he sensitivity of H. azteca tometals and 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 toE1706 05 (2010)2chronic p
42、artial life-cycle tests than the 48 to 96-h exposurestraditionally 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 freshwaterspec
43、ies in the WQC documents. This observation likely 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 a
44、re commonin the pore water of many sediments and 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 am
45、monia to C.dilutus and L. variegatus has been shown 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 rangedf
46、rom 370 to 82 mg/L total ammonia over a similar 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 p
47、H dependent, with 4-day LC50 values of about 20 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
48、that the variation in ammonia toxicity acrossthese 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
49、,additional studies by Whiteman et al. (27) indicated 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
