COMPARISON OF MARINE SEDIMENT TOXICITY TEST PROTOCOLS FOR THE AMPHIPOD RHEPOXYNIUS-ABRONIUS AND THE POLYCHAETE WORM NEREIS (NEANTHES) ARENACEODENTATA

Citation
Bs. Anderson et al., COMPARISON OF MARINE SEDIMENT TOXICITY TEST PROTOCOLS FOR THE AMPHIPOD RHEPOXYNIUS-ABRONIUS AND THE POLYCHAETE WORM NEREIS (NEANTHES) ARENACEODENTATA, Environmental toxicology and chemistry, 17(5), 1998, pp. 859-866
Citations number
34
Categorie Soggetti
Environmental Sciences",Toxicology
ISSN journal
07307268
Volume
17
Issue
5
Year of publication
1998
Pages
859 - 866
Database
ISI
SICI code
0730-7268(1998)17:5<859:COMSTT>2.0.ZU;2-M
Abstract
The 10-d amphipod survival toxicity test protocol using Rhepoxynius ab ronius was compared to the 20-d polychaete worm growth and survival pr otocol using Nereis (Neanthes) arenaceodentata. Of the 341 sediment sa mples collected in California and tested over a 2-year period, 78% sig nificantly inhibited R. abronius survival, whereas 2 and 26% significa ntly inhibited N. arenaceodentata survival and biomass, respectively. Statistical power associated with each protocol endpoint was determine d,by calculating the minimum significant difference (MSD) for each tes t protocol for this data set. The 90th percentile MSDs for R. abronius survival and N. arenaceodentata survival and biomass were 16, 36, and 56%, respectively. Survival of R. abronius was significantly negative ly correlated with a number of toxicants including metals, pesticides, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, and polychlorinated biphenyls. No s ignificant correlations were determined between N. arenaceodentata sur vival or biomass and contaminants measured. Amphipod survival was also negatively correlated with sediment total organic carbon and grain si ze, but when samples with a high percent fine grain size (>90% fines) were eliminated from consideration, the overall conclusions of the stu dy were not altered. The 10-d amphipod survival protocol using R. abro nius was a more sensitive indicator of toxicity, but the results indic ate that this was due to greater statistical power rather than greater sensitivity of the test organisms or endpoints.