In situ methods of measurement--an important line of evidence in the environmental risk framework.

A tiered framework provides a structured approach to assess and manage risk and underpins much of the legislation concerning chemicals and environmental management. Management decisions regarding appropriate controls can have high cost implications to the regulated community. The risk framework provides an evidence-based approach to reduce uncertainty in decision making. Traditional assessment is heavily dependent on laboratory-generated toxicity test data and estimations of exposure and effect. Despite many well documented demonstrations of in situ methodologies, they are rarely used by regulators to help improve assessment or to validate risk. Emerging legislation puts greater emphasis on environmental outcomes and represents a significant shift from the reliance on chemical measures alone toward biological responses that improve assessment and demonstrate ecological benefit. Diagnostic methods, that could include in situ-based measures, will help assess and manage environments failing to achieve good status and it is likely that a weight of evidence approach will be needed to help inform management decisions. The potential application of such measures in the risk framework is reviewed in the context of current and emerging legislation concerning chemicals. Effect measures on the basis of in situ methods provide an alternative line of evidence and can help reduce uncertainty in decision making. Criteria are presented to help select appropriate methods in a multiple-line, weight of evidence approach.

Interlaboratory evaluation of Hyalella azteca and Chironomus tentans short-term and long-term sediment toxicity tests.

Methods for assessing the long-term toxicity of sediments to Hyalella azteca and Chironomus tentans can significantly enhance the capacity to assess sublethal effects of contaminated sediments through multiple endpoints. Sublethal tests allow us to begin to understand the relationship between short-term and long-term effects for toxic sediments. We present an interlaboratory evaluation with long-term and 10-d tests using control and contaminated sediments in which we assess whether proposed and existing performance criteria (test acceptability criteria [TAC]) could be achieved. Laboratories became familiar with newly developed, long-term protocols by testing two control sediments in phase 1. In phase 2, the 10-d and long-term tests were examined with several sediments. Laboratories met the TACs, but results varied depending on the test organism, test duration, and endpoints. For the long-term tests in phase 1, 66 to 100% of the laboratories consistently met the TACs for survival, growth, or reproduction using H. azrteca, and 70 to 100% of the laboratories met the TACs for survival and growth, emergence, reproduction, and hatchability using C. tentans. In phase 2, fewer laboratories participated in long-term tests: 71 to 88% of the laboratories met the TAC for H. azteca, whereas 50 to 67% met the TAC for C. tentans. In the 10-d tests with H. azteca and C. tentans, 82 and 88% of the laboratories met the TAC for survival, respectively, and 80% met the TAC for C. tentans growth. For the 10-d and long-term tests, laboratories predicted similar toxicity. Overall, the interlaboratory evaluation showed good precision of the methods, appropriate endpoints were incorporated into the test protocols, and tests effectively predicted the toxicity of sediments.