Acta Biologica Hungarica

, Volume 57, Issue 2, pp 211–220 | Cite as

Sensitivity of Ecotoxicological Tests in Analysis of Superfund Sites

  • Nóra Kováts
  • L. Füle
  • I. Magyar
  • Tímea Szalay
  • I. KissEmail author


During the analysis of environmental risk posed by hazardous waste disposal sites, ecological impact on whole ecosystems should be assessed. It requires a complex testing scheme where surrogate species represent key elements of the ecosystem. However, different organisms are exposed to a differing degree, also, their sensitivity to the same contaminant may vary. A possible way to determine which test reflects most the actual toxic conditions, correlation can be calculated between the measured ecological parameter (such as growth inhibition, mortality, etc.) and a contaminant gradient. The basic aim of this study was to determine which ecotoxicological test shows the best correlation with the measured analytical parameters. The selected tests were Lemna minor (representing primary producers), Thamnocephalus platyurus (a primary consumer organism) and Vibrio fischeri (decomposer). When testing soil samples, the Thamnocephalus test showed excellent consistency with most contaminants but was oversensitive in the case of groundwater samples. The Vibrio fischeri bioluminescence inhibition test (ToxAlert) behaved in a different way, reflecting well the distribution of most contaminants in groundwater samples. Finally, Lemna test proved to be completely inadequate.


Hazardous waste disposal sites ecotoxicity ToxAlert Thamnotox 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    BS EN ISO 11348.3, Part 3 (1999) - Method Using Freeze-dried Bacteria. Anon. Infonorme London Information, Ascot, UK.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Blinova, I. (2001) Use of bioassays for toxicity assessment of polluted water. In: Proc. of Symposium 40th Anniversary of Institute of Environmental Engineering at Tallinn Technical University, Tallinn, pp. 149–154.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Blum, J. W., Speece, R. E. (1990) A Database of chemical toxicity to environmental bacteria and its use in interspecies comparisons. Environ. Sci. Technol. 24, 284–293.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Cairns, J. (1983) Are single species toxicity tests alone adequate for estimating environmental hazard? Hydrobiologia 100, 47–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Commission of the European Communities (2001) White Paper. Brussels.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Doherty, F. G. (2001) A review of the Microtox® toxicity test system for assessing the toxicity of sediments and soils. Water Quality Res. J. Canada 36, 475–518.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Galli, R., Munz, C. D., Scholtz, R. (1994) Evaluation and application of aquatic toxicity tests: use of the Microtox test for the prediction of toxicity based upon concentrations of contaminants in soil. Hydrobiologia 273, 179–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    OECD Lemna sp. Growth inhibition test. Draft Guideline 221, July 2002.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Persoone, G. (1996) Report for the Workshop on the Joint Flemish-Czech Programme on Toxkit Microbiotests. In: FITA projects: Transfer of New Technology from Flanders to Countries of Central and Eastern Europe. Ghent, Belgium.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Rodrigue, D. (1996) Final Report: Comparison of Results from Alternative Acute Toxicity Tests with Rainbow Trout for Selected Mine Effluents. Canada Centre for Mineral and Energy Technology, Aquatic Effects Program. Ottawa. Scholar
  11. 11.
    Sprague, J. B. (1995) Review of Methods for Sublethal Aquatic Toxicity Tests Relevant to the Canadian Metal-mining Industry, and Design of Field Validation Programs. Report, Aquatic Effects Technology Evaluation Program, Salt Spring Island. Scholar
  12. 12.
    Suter, G. W. (1996) Risk characterization for ecological risk assessment of contaminated sites. In: Ecological Risk Analysis: Guidance, Tools and Applications. Lockheed Martin Energy Systems, Inc., Tennessee.,ES/ER/TM-200.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Smrchek, J., Clements, R., Morcock, R., Rabert, W. (1993) Assessing ecological hazard under TSCA: methods and evaluation of data. In: Landis, W. G., Hughes, J. S., Landis, M. A. (eds) Environmental Toxicology and Risk Assessment. ASTM STP 1179. American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, pp. 22–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Symons, B. D., Sims, R. C. (1988) Assessing detoxification of a complex hazardous waste using the microtox bioassay. Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 17, 497–505.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    USEPA (1997) Ecological Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund: Process for Designing and Conducting Ecological Risk Assessments. EPA 540-R-97-006.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Worth, A., Balls, M. (2002) Alternative (non-animal) Methods for Chemical Testing: Current Status and Future Prospects. A report by ECVAM and the ECVAM Working Group on Chemicals. ECVAM, Institute for Health & Consumer Protection, EC JRC, Ispra.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest 2006

This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.

Authors and Affiliations

  • Nóra Kováts
    • 1
  • L. Füle
    • 1
  • I. Magyar
    • 1
  • Tímea Szalay
    • 2
  • I. Kiss
    • 2
    Email author
  1. 1.School of Environmental Engineering and Chemical TechnologyUniversity of VeszprémVeszprémHungary
  2. 2.Department of ZoologyUniversity of VeszprémVeszprémHungary

Personalised recommendations