| | The Coastal Resource Coordinator’s BIOASSESSMENT MANUAL |
| | 3,25 | | MB |
| | 205 | | stron |
| | 4436 | | ID | E.V.S. Consultants, Inc. |
| | 2003 | | rok |
| | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
| | LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURESvi |
| | PREFACEix |
| | CHAPTER 1 BIOASSESSMENT: AN OVERVIEW1-1 |
| | CHAPTER 2 THE ROLE OF BIOASSESSMENT IN THE REMEDIAL PROCESS |
| | INTRODUCTION2-1 |
| | PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT2-1 |
| | REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION2-2 |
| | FEASIBILITY STUDY: BIOASSESSMENT AS A TOOL TO ESTABLISH SITE CLEANUP TARGET |
| | LEVELS2-4 |
| | REMEDIAL DESIGN/REMEDIAL ACTION: BIOASSESSMENT AS A TOOL TO EVALUATE THE |
| | SUCCESS OF REMEDIAL ACTIONS.2-6 |
| | REFERENCES2-7 |
| | CHAPTER 3 TOXICITY TESTS |
| | INTRODUCTION3-1 |
| | Objectives of Toxicity Testing3-1 |
| | Advantages of Toxicity Testing.3-2 |
| | Disadvantages of Toxicity Testing3-3 |
| | TEST SELECTION3-4 |
| | Testing Water, Soil, or Sediment3-5 |
| | Selecting a Test Organism 3-7 |
| | Acute or Chronic Testing3-9 |
| | Endpoints3-9 |
| | Sediment Test Conditions: Static or Flow-Through.3-10 |
| | Cost Effectiveness3-10 |
| | SAMPLING DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS.3-11 |
| | INTERPRETATION OF RESULTS3-12 |
| | Comparison with Control Samples.3-12 |
| | EC50s and LC50s.3-13 |
| | Other Factors Influencing Toxicity Tests3-13 |
| | Determining the Cause of Toxicity3-14 |
| | SUMMARY3-16 |
| | REFERENCES3-16 |
| | CHAPTER 4 BIOACCUMULATION |
| | INTRODUCTION .4-1 |
| | Advantages of Bioaccumulation Studies4-2 |
| | Disadvantages of Bioaccumulation Studies.4-2 |
| | TEST ORGANISMS.4-4 |
| | Type of Organism4-4 |
| | Test Organism Selection4-7 |
| | SUMMARY4-9 |
| | REFERENCES4-9 |
| | CHAPTER 5 BIOMARKERS |
| | INTRODUCTION5-1 |
| | Objectives and Purpose.5-4 |
| | Advantages of Biomarkers.5-4 |
| | Disadvantages of Biomarkers.5-5 |
| | SELECTING A TEST.5-6 |
| | TYPES OF BIOMARKERS.5-7 |
| | Enzyme and Protein Systems.5-7 |
| | Detoxification Enzymes5-7 |
| | Binding Proteins.5-9 |
| | Contaminant Metabolites in Bile.5-11 |
| | Genetic Disorders.5-11 |
| | Immune System Responses5-12 |
| | Histopathology.5-13 |
| | Pathology.5-14 |
| | Growth.5-16 |
| | Reproduction5-16 |
| | DATA INTERPRETATION.5-18 |
| | SUMMARY.5-18 |
| | REFERENCES5-19 |
| | CHAPTER 6 BENTHIC COMMUNITY STUDIES |
| | INTRODUCTION6-1 |
| | STUDY OBJECTIVES.6-2 |
| | SAMPLING METHODS.6-3 |
| | Quantitative vs non-quantitative sampling.6-3 |
| | Sampling Devices.6-5 |
| | DATA ANALYSIS.6-10 |
| | Ecological Analysis6-11 |
| | Statistical approaches6-13 |
| | EPA’S RAPID BIOASSESSMENT PROTOCOLS.6-13 |
| | SUMMARY.6-15 |
| | Study Objective6-15 |
| | Sampling Methods.6-15 |
| | Sampling Devices.6-15 |
| | Data Analysis6-16 |
| | REFERENCES6-16 |
| | CHAPTER 7 STUDY DESIGN AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS |
| | INTRODUCTION7-1 |
| | STUDY DESIGN.7-2 |
| | Question Formulation.7-2 |
| | Reconnaissance Survey.7-5 |
| | Station selection7-6 |
| | Random versus nonrandom designs7-8 |
| | Sample Replication7-9 |
| | STATISTICAL ANALYSIS.7-11 |
| | Hypothesis Formulation and Testing.7-12 |
| | Randomization.7-16 |
| | Correlation and Regression Analysis7-17 |
| | SUMMARY7-17 |
| | REFERENCES.7-19 iii July 2003 |
| | CHAPTER 8 SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDED BIOASSAY PROTOCOLS |
| | INTRODUCTION.8-1 |
| | SOIL.8-1 |
| | Lettuce Seed (Latuca sativa) Germination Bioassay (Thomas and Cline, 1985).8-1 |
| | Earthworm (Eisenia foetida) Lethality Bioassay (Porcella 1983).8-10 |
| | WATER COLUMN8-10 |
| | Selenastrum capricornutum Algal Lethality Bioassay (Porcella, 1983) 8-10 |
| | Water flea Daphnia magna EC50 Bioassay (Porcella, 1983) 8-11 |
| | Ceriodaphnia dubia Survival and Reproduction Bioassay (EPA, 1985) 8-11 |
| | Fathead Minnow Pimephales promelas Larval Survival and Growth Bioassay (EPA, 1985) 8-12 |
| | SEDIMENTS8-13 |
| | Daphnia magna Lethality and Partial Life Cycle Bioassay (Nebeker et al., 1984).8-13 |
| | ASTM Designation: E 1367 - 92. 1996. Standard Guide for Conducting 10-Day Static Sediment |
| | Toxicity Tests with Marine and Estuarine Amphipods. [Rhepoxynius abronius, Eohaustorius |
| | estuarius, Ampelisca abdita, Grandidierella japonica].8-13 |
| | ASTM Designation: E 1706 - 95b (Replaces 1383-90). 1996. Standard Guide for Conducting |
| | Sediment Toxicity Tests with Freshwater Invertebrates. [Hyalella azteca, Chironomus tentans, |
| | Chironomus riparius]8-17 |
| | ASTM Designation: E 1611 - 94. 1996. Standard guide for conducting sediment toxicity tests with |
| | marine and estuarine polychaetous annelids. (Neanthes arenaceodentata, Neanthes virens ).8-20 |
| | Protocols From Recommended Guidelines For Conducting Laboratory Bioassays On Puget Sound |
| | Sediments (Puget Sound Estuary Program, 1991)8-21 |
| | TEST SELECTION.8-31 |
| | REFERENCES8-37 |
| | CHAPTER 9 AQUATIC PHYSICO-CHEMICAL PARAMETERS |
| | DEFINITION.9-1 |
| | TEMPERATURE.9-1 |
| | SALINITY.9-2 |
| | SEDIMENT GRAIN SIZE.9-4 |
| | TOTAL SOLIDS/MOISTURE CONTENT9-5 |
| | TOTAL VOLATILE SOLIDS AND TOTAL ORGANIC CARBON.9-6 |
| | OIL AND GREASE.9-9 |
| | TOTAL SULFIDE.9-10 |
| | ACID VOLATILE SULFIDES.9-11 |
| | pH .9-12 |
| | EH (ELECTRODE POTENTIAL)9-13 |
| | SUMMARY9-14 |
| | ADDITIONAL READING.9-15 |
| | REFERENCES.9-15 |
| | APPENDIX A GLOSSARY.A-1 |
| | APPENDIX B PROTOCOLSB-1 |
| | APPENDIX C TOXICITY TEST SENSITIVITY COMPARISON TABLEC-1 |