An interlaboratory comparison of sediment elutriate preparation and toxicity test methods.

Elutriate bioassays are among numerous methods that exist for assessing the potential toxicity of sediments in aquatic systems. In this study, interlaboratory results were compared from 96-h Ceriodaphnia dubia and Pimephales promelas static-renewal acute toxicity tests conducted independently by two laboratories using elutriate samples prepared from the same sediment. The goal of the study was to determine if the results from the elutriate tests were comparable between two U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) laboratories when different elutriate preparation procedures were employed by each lab. Complete agreement in site characterization was attained in 22 of the 25 samples for both bioassays amongst each lab. Of the 25 samples analyzed, 10 were found to be toxic to at least one of the species tested by either laboratory. The C. dubia elutriate tests conducted by the National Exposure Research Laboratory (NERL) indicated that 7 of the 25 sediment samples were toxic, while 8 sediment samples were characterized as such in testing conducted by USEPA Region 6 (Region 6). The P. promelas elutriate tests conducted by NERL determined 8 samples as toxic, while Region 6 tests displayed toxicity in 5 of the samples. McNemar's test of symmetry for C. dubia (S = 0.33, p = 0.5637) and P. promelas (S = 3.0, p = 0.0833) tests indicated no significant differences in designating a site toxic between NERL and Region 6 laboratories. Likewise, Cohen's kappa test revealed significant agreement between NERL and Region 6 C. dubia (K = 0.7148, p < 0.01) and P. promelas (K = 0.6939, p < 0.01) elutriate tests. The authors conclude that differences in interlaboratory elutriate preparation procedures have no bearing on the ability of either the C. dubia or P. promelas bioassay testing methods to detect toxicity while yielding similar results.

Comparison of bulk sediment and sediment elutriate toxicity testing methods.

Numerous methods exist for assessing the potential toxicity of sediments in aquatic systems. In this study, the results from 10-day bulk sediment toxicity test methods using Hyalella azteca and Chironomus tentans were compared to results from 96-h Pimephales promelas and Ceriodaphnia dubia renewed acute toxicity tests conducted using elutriate samples prepared from the same sediments. The goal of the study was to determine if the results from the elutriate tests were comparable to those obtained from the bulk sediment tests. Of the 25 samples analyzed, 16 were found to be toxic to at least one of the species tested, in either elutriate or bulk sediment tests. The C. tentans 10-day bulk sediment test was the most sensitive, with 12 sediment samples exhibiting toxicity to this species, whereas the H. azteca bulk sediment test and C. dubia 96-h elutriate test were the least sensitive, exhibiting toxicity in only 7 of the 25 sediments tested. The P. promelas elutriate test found 8 of the 25 sediments to be toxic. Based on the total number of sites found to show toxicity, results from testing indicate 96-h elutriate tests show a level of sensitivity comparable to 10-day bulk sediment tests in assessing toxicity quantitatively. However, the methods did not always find toxicity at the same sites, suggesting that the ability of elutriate tests to predict toxicity (quantitatively) is not statistically correlated with bulk sediment methods. This would indicate that a suite of toxicity test methods would provide the most complete measure of site condition; however, in circumstances where bulk sediment testing is not feasible, elutriate tests can provide a practical and credible alternative for toxicity assessment.