scholarly journals Species Sensitivity Distributions of Benthic Macroinvertebrates in Fludioxonil-Spiked Sediment Toxicity Tests

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jian Sun ◽  
PengFei Xiao ◽  
XH Yin ◽  
Kun Zhang ◽  
Guonian Zhu ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
The Netherlands ◽  
Benthic Macroinvertebrates ◽  
Sediment Toxicity ◽  
Dry Weight ◽  
Single Species ◽  
Toxicity Tests ◽  
Toxicity Data ◽  
Species Sensitivity ◽  
Benthic Species ◽  
Spiked Sediment

Abstract In China, the fungicide fludioxonil, that accumulates and persists in sediments, has a widespread agricultural use to control various fungal diseases. Its residues may cause toxic effects to benthic aquatic fauna, thereby impacting ecosystem service functions of aquatic ecosystems. To assess the potential environmental effects of fludioxonil in the sediment compartment of edge-of-field surface waters, sediment-spiked single-species toxicity tests with benthic macroinvertebrates were performed. In all experiments artificial sediment was used with an organic carbon content of 2.43% on dry weight basis. The single-species tests were conducted with 8 benthic macroinvertebrates covering different taxonomic groups typical for the Yangtze River Delta, China. The 28d-EC10 and 28-LC10 values thus obtained were used to construct species sensitivity distributions (SSDs). In addition, our data were supplemented with similar fludioxonil-spiked sediment toxicity data for benthic invertebrates from the Netherlands. Based on SSDs constructed with 28d-EC10 values of 8 benthic species from our experiments in China, hazardous concentrations to 5% of the species tested (HC5’s) of respectively 0.57 mg fludioxonil/kg dry weight sediment and 5.4 µg fludioxonil/L pore water were obtained. Supplementing our data from China with 8 similar toxicity data for other benthic species from the Netherlands, these HC5 values became respectively 1.2 mg fludioxonil/kg dry weight sediment and 11 µg fludioxonil/L pore water.

Effects of sediment-spiked lufenuron on benthic macroinvertebrates in outdoor microcosms and single-species toxicity tests

2016 ◽  
Vol 177 ◽  
pp. 464-475 ◽  
Author(s):  
T.C.M. Brock ◽  
D.A. Bas ◽  
J.D.M. Belgers ◽  
L. Bibbe ◽  
M-C. Boerwinkel ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Benthic Macroinvertebrates ◽  
Single Species ◽  
Toxicity Tests

scholarly journals Comparative Aquatic Toxicity of Gold Nanoparticles and Ionic Gold Using a Species Sensitivity Distribution Approach

2015 ◽  
Vol 2015 ◽  
pp. 1-16 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tarryn L. Botha ◽  
Tanyn E. James ◽  
Victor Wepener
Keyword(s):  
Gold Nanoparticles ◽  
Aquatic Toxicity ◽  
Single Species ◽  
Species Sensitivity Distribution ◽  
Toxicity Tests ◽  
Species Sensitivity ◽  
Sensitivity Distribution ◽  
Hazardous Concentration ◽  
Toxic Potential ◽  
Ionic Gold

Gold nanoparticles (nAu) are used in drug delivery systems allowing for targeted cellular distribution. The effects of increased use and release of nanoparticles into the environment are not well known. A species sensitivity distribution (SSD) allows for the ecotoxicological hazard assessment of a chemical based on single species toxicity tests. Aquatic toxicity needs to be related to particle characterization in order to understand the effects. The behaviour of nAu in the medium changed as the concentration increased. The toxic potential of ionic gold and nAu was expressed as a hazardous concentration where 5% of species will be harmed (HC5). The HC5 for nAu was much higher (42.78 mg/L) compared to the ionic gold (2.44 mg/L). The differences between the hazard potentials of nAu and ionic gold were attributed to the nAu not releasing any Au ions into solution during the exposures and following an aggregation theory response. Exposures to ionic gold on the other hand followed a clear dose dependent response based on the concentration of the ionic metal. Although SSDs present an indication of the relative hazard potential of nanoparticles, the true worth can only be achieved once other nanoparticle characteristics and their behavior in the environment are also considered.

scholarly journals How to account for the uncertainty from standard toxicity tests in species sensitivity distributions: an example in non-target plants

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sandrine Charles ◽  
Dan Wu ◽  
Virginie Ducrot
Keyword(s):  
Seedling Emergence ◽  
Dry Weight ◽  
Credible Interval ◽  
Toxicity Tests ◽  
Point Estimate ◽  
Growth Stages ◽  
Species Sensitivity ◽  
Posterior Probability Distribution ◽  
Shoot Dry Weight ◽  
Point Estimates

AbstractThis research aims to account for the uncertainty on 50% effective rates (ER50) in species sensitivity distribution (SSD) analyses and to study how including this uncertainty may influence the 5% Hazard Rate (HR5) estimation. We explored various endpoints (survival, emergence, shoot dry weight) for non-target plants from seven standard greenhouse studies that used different experimental approaches (vegetative vigour vs. seedling emergence) and applied seven herbicides at different growth stages. Firstly for each endpoint of each study, a three-parameter log-logistic model was fitted to experimental toxicity test data for each species under a Bayesian framework to get a posterior probability distribution for ER50. Then in order to account for the uncertainty on the ER50, we explored two censoring criteria to censor ER50 taking the ER50 distribution and the range of tested rates into account. Based on dose-response fitting results and censoring criteria, we considered input ER50 values SSD analyses in three ways (only point estimates chosen as ER50 medians, interval-censored ER50 based on their 95% credible interval and censored ER50 according to one of the two criteria), by fitting a log-normal distribution under a frequentist framework to get the three corresponding HR5 estimates. We observed that SSD fitted reasonably well when there were at least six distinct ER50 values. By comparing the three SSD curves and the three HR5 estimates, we found that propagating the uncertainty from ER50 and including censored data into the SSD analysis often leads to smaller point estimates of HR5, which is more conservative in a risk assessment context. In addition, we recommend not to focus solely on the point estimate of the HR5, but also to look at the precision of this estimate as depicted by the 95% confidence interval.

scholarly journals The protection of biological diversity by using the variation in sensitivity of species for toxic substances

2003 ◽  
Vol 22 (4) ◽  
pp. 94-104
Author(s):  
A. J. Reinecke ◽  
S. A. Reinecke
Keyword(s):  
Biological Diversity ◽  
Quality Criteria ◽  
Toxicity Tests ◽  
Toxic Substances ◽  
Toxicity Data ◽  
Species Sensitivity ◽  
Sensitive Species ◽  
General Application ◽  
Local Species ◽  
Direct Extrapolation

Efforts to develop generally applicable criteria or standards for environmental quality for the purpose of protecting South Africa’s rich biodiversity are normally hampered by the fact that species can differ considerably in their sensitivity to toxic substances. Direct extrapolation from one species to another is therefore not possible. By actually using this variation in sensitivity of species, the assessment of risk posed by contaminants may be placed on a more rigorous scientific footing. This concept holds that if quality criteria are accepted which would protect the most sensitive species, all other species are automatically protected. This article focuses on the use of sensitivity distributions of species as method and critically reviews the nature and applications of extrapolation models which are based on these distributions. Their possible use and arguments for and against such use are discussed. The conclusion is drawn that species sensitivity distributions have useful applications but data on the sensitivities of local species are scarce. Although already useful, this methodology can find more general application in South Africa if more research is undertaken to obtain reliable toxicity data for different species. In order to do that standardized toxicity tests for local species will have to be developed.

scholarly journals How to account for the uncertainty from standard toxicity tests in species sensitivity distributions: An example in non-target plants

PLoS ONE ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 16 (1) ◽  
pp. e0245071
Author(s):  
Sandrine Charles ◽  
Dan Wu ◽  
Virginie Ducrot
Keyword(s):  
Probability Distribution ◽  
Seedling Emergence ◽  
Dry Weight ◽  
Credible Interval ◽  
Toxicity Tests ◽  
Point Estimate ◽  
Growth Stages ◽  
Species Sensitivity ◽  
Posterior Probability Distribution ◽  
Point Estimates

This research proposes new perspectives accounting for the uncertainty on 50% effective rates (ER50) as interval input for species sensitivity distribution (SSD) analyses and evaluating how to include this uncertainty may influence the 5% Hazard Rate (HR5) estimation. We explored various endpoints (survival, emergence, shoot-dry-weight) for non-target plants from seven standard greenhouse studies that used different experimental approaches (vegetative vigour vs. seedling emergence) and applied seven herbicides at different growth stages. Firstly, for each endpoint of each study, a three-parameter log-logistic model was fitted to experimental toxicity test data for each species under a Bayesian framework to get a posterior probability distribution for ER50. Then, in order to account for the uncertainty on the ER50, we explored two censoring criteria to automatically censor ER50 taking the ER50 probability distribution and the range of tested rates into account. Secondly, based on dose-response fitting results and censoring criteria, we considered input ER50 values for SSD analyses in three ways (only point estimates chosen as ER50 medians, interval-censored ER50 based on their 95% credible interval and censored ER50 according to one of the two criteria), by fitting a log-normal distribution under a frequentist framework to get the three corresponding HR5 estimates. We observed that SSD fitted reasonably well when there were at least six distinct intervals for the ER50 values. By comparing the three SSD curves and the three HR5 estimates, we shed new light on the fact that both propagating the uncertainty from the ER50 estimates and including censored data into SSD analyses often leads to smaller point estimates of HR5, which is more conservative in a risk assessment context. In addition, we recommend not to focus solely on the point estimate of the HR5, but also to look at the precision of this estimate as depicted by its 95% confidence interval.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document