Skip to main content

Part of the book series: NATO Science Series ((NAIV,volume 19))

Abstract

This paper addresses in the first place the need to apply toxicity tests with batteries of species from different trophic levels for an (ecologically meaningful) determination of the toxic hazard of contaminated soils. Furthermore, “direct contact” tests must be performed as well as assays on pore waters, leachates or percolates.

Most toxicity tests available to date are dependent on the continuous maintenance of live stocks and their application is restricted to a limited number of highly specialized laboratories. Repeated toxicity testing in bioremediation programs is very expensive and there is an urgent need for cost-effective alternatives. Microbiotests with micro-algae, protozoans and various invertebrate test species have been developed over the last few years, which depart from dormant or immobilized stages of the test biota and are hence independent of the burden of continuous stock cultur-ing/maintenance. The sensitivity of these new assays (named Toxkits) has been compared to that of “conventional” aquatic and direct-contact tests in a variety of studies on pure chemicals as well as on natural samples, and found to be equivalent, if not better. Recently a direct contact microbiotest, the Ostracodtoxkit, was developed for sediments, which now also seems to be applicable to contaminated soils, besides numerous applications in aquatic toxicology, the low-cost and user-friendly Toxkit microbiotests now also appear to be an attractive tool for routine toxicity monitoring and/or follow-up of detoxication in bioremediation programs of contaminated soils.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 169.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 219.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 219.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Bierkens, J., Klein, G., Corbisier, P., Van den Heuvel, R., Verschaeve L., Weltens, R., and Schoeters, G. (1998). Assessment of soil quality using a multitiered test battery of bioassays. In: Contaminated Soil 98. Thomas Telford, London, 1109–1110.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Bispo, A., Jourdain, M.J., and Jauzein, M. (1998). A procedure to assess contaminated soil ecotoxicity. In: Contaminated Soil 98. Thomas Telford, London, 355–364.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Persoone, G., and Van de Vel, A. (1987). Cost-analysis of 5 current aquatic ecotoxicological tests. Report EUR 1134 EN. Commission of the European Communities.

    Google Scholar 

  4. OECD (1984a). Terrestrial plants, growth test. OECD Guidelines for the Testing of Chemicals. N° 208. Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, Paris.

    Google Scholar 

  5. OECD (1984b). Earthworm acute toxicity test. OECD Guidelines for the Testing of Chemicals N° 207. Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, Paris.

    Google Scholar 

  6. ISO (1995). Soil Quality — Effects of pollutants on earthworms (Eisenia fetida). Part 2. Determination of effects on reproduction. Draft International Standard. International Organization for Standardization ISO/DIS 11268-2.2.

    Google Scholar 

  7. ISO (1994). Soil Quality — Effects of soil pollutants on Collembola (Folsomia Candida): Method for the determination of effects on reproduction. Draft International Standard. International Organization for Standardization ISO/DIS 11267.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Römbke, J., Moses, T., and Pessina, G. (1998). Protocol of the final assessment workshop of the International Ringtest: The Enchytraeid Reproduction Test (ERT). March 30/31, Ispra, Italy.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Blaise, C. (1991). Microbiotests in aquatic ecotoxicology: characteristics, utility and prospects. Environmental Toxicology and Water Quality: an international Journal. 6, 145–155.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Wells, P.G., Lee, K., and Blaise, C. (Eds). (1998). Microscale Testing in Aquatic Toxicology. Advances, Techniques and Practice. CRC Publishers. 679pages.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Bulich, A.A. (1979). Use of luminescent bacteria for determining toxicity in aquatic environments. In: Aquatic Toxicology: Second Conference. L.L. Marking and R.A. Kimerle (Eds). ASTM STP 667. American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia PA., 98–106.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Persoone, G. (1991). Cyst-based toxicity tests. I. A promising new tool for rapid and cost-effective toxicity screening of chemicals and effluents. Zeitschr. für Angew. Zoologie 78, 235–241.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Persoone, G. (1998a). Development and first validation of a ”stock-culture free” algal microbiotest: the Algaltoxkit. In: Microscale Testing in Aquatic Toxicology. Advances, Techniques and Practice, Wells, P.G., Lee, K., and Blaise, C. (Eds), C.R.C. Publishers. Chapter 20, 311–320.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Persoone, G. (1998b). Development and first validation of Toxkit microbiotests with invertebrates, in particular crustaceans. In: Microscale Testing in Aquatic Toxicology. Advances, Techniques and Practice, Wells, P.G., Lee K., and Blaise, C. (Eds), C.R.C. Publishers. Chapter 30, 437–449.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Fochtman, P. (2000) Acute toxicity of nine pesticides as determined with conventional assays and alternative microbiotests. In: New Microbiotests for Routine Toxicity Screening and Biomonitoring, Persoone, G., Janssen, C., and De Coen, W. (Eds). Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers, 233–241.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Latif, M., and Zach, A. (2000). Toxicity studies of treated residual wastes in Austria using different types of conventional assays and cost-effective microbiotests. In: New Microbiotests for Routine Toxicity Screening and Biomonitoring, Persoone, G., Janssen, C., and De Coen, W. (Eds). Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers, 367–383.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Ulm, L., Vrzina, J., Schiesl, V., Puntaric, D., and Smit, Z. (2000). Sensitivity comparison of the conventional acute Daphnia magna immobilization test with the Daphtoxkit F™ microbiotest for household products. In: New Microbiotests for Routine Toxicity Screening and Biomonitoring, Persoone, G., Janssen, C., and De Coen, W. (Eds). Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers, 247–252.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Vandenbroele, M.C., Heijerick, D.G., Vangheluwe, M.L., and Janssen, C.R. (2000). Comparison of the conventional algal assay and the Algaltoxkit F™ microbiotest for toxicity evaluation of sediment pore waters. In: New Microbiotests for Routine Toxicity Screening and Biomonitoring, Persoone, G., Janssen, C., and De Coen W. (Eds). Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers, 261–268.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Van der Wielen, C. and Halleux, I. (2000). Shifting from the conventional ISO 8692 algal growth inhibition test to the Algaltoxkit F™ microbiotest? In: New Microbiotests for Routine Toxicity Screening and Biomonitoring, Persoone, G., Janssen, C., and De Coen, W. (Eds). Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers, 269–272.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Persoone, G., Janssen, C., and De Coen, W. (Eds). 2000. New Microbiotests for Routine Toxicity Screening and Biomonitoring Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers, 565 pages.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Burton G.A., Ingersoll C.G., Burnett L.C., Henry M., Hinmann M.L., Klaine S.J., Landrum P.F., Ross P., Tuchman M. (1998).A comparison of sediment toxicity test methods at three Great Lake areas of concern. J Great Lakes Res. 22(3) 495–511.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. ASTM (1998). Standard test methods for measuring the toxicity of sediment-associated contaminants with fresh water invertebrates. E 1706-95b. American Society for Testing and Materials, 1141–1223.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Vangheluwe, M.L., Janssen, C.R., and Van Sprang, P.A. (2000). Selection of bioassays for sediment toxicity screening. In: New Microbiotests for Routine Toxicity Screening and Biomonitoring, Persoone, G., Janssen, C and De Coen, W. (Eds). Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers, 449–458.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Chial B. and Persoone G. (2002a). Cyst-based toxicity tests XIII. Development of a short chronic sediment toxicity test with the ostracod crustacean Heterocypris incongruens. Selection of test parameters. Environmental Toxicology (in press).

    Google Scholar 

  25. Chial B. and Persoone G. (2002b). Cyst-based toxicity tests XIV. Development of a short chronic sediment toxicity test with the ostracod crustacean Heterocypris incongruens. Methodology and precision. Environmental Toxicology (in press).

    Google Scholar 

  26. Ostracodtoxkit F™. (2001). Chronic «direct contact» Toxicity Test for Freshwater Sediments. Standard Operational Procedure. Creasel, Deinze, Belgium. 18 pages.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Chial B. and Persoone G. (2002c). Cyst-based toxicity tests XIV. Application of the ostracod solid phase microbiotest for toxicity monitoring of river sediments in Flanders (Belgium). Environmental Toxicology (in press).

    Google Scholar 

  28. Chial B. and Persoone G. (2002d). Cyst-based toxicity tests XVI. Sensitivity comparison of the solid phase Heterocypris incongruens microbiotest with the HyaleJla azteca and Chironomus riparius contact assays on freshwater sediments from Peninsula Harbour (Ontario, Canada). Chemosphere (in press).

    Google Scholar 

  29. Blaise C., Gagné F., Chèvre N., Harwood M., Lee K., Lappalainen J., Persoone G., Doe K., Chial B. (2002). Toxicity assessment of oil-contaminated freshwater sediments. J.Bioremediation (in press).

    Google Scholar 

  30. Lock, K. and Janssen, C.R. (2001). Ecotoxicity of zinc in spiked artifical soils versus contaminated field soils. Environ.Sci.Technol. 35, 4295–4300.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Chial and Persoone. (2002e). Cyst-based toxicity tests XV — Application of the ostracod solid phase microbiotest for toxicity monitoring of contaminated soils. Ecotoxicology (in press).

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2003 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Persoone, G., Chial, B. (2003). Low-Cost Microbiotests for Toxicity Monitoring during Bioremediation of Contaminated Soils. In: Šašek, V., Glaser, J.A., Baveye, P. (eds) The Utilization of Bioremediation to Reduce Soil Contamination: Problems and Solutions. NATO Science Series, vol 19. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-010-0131-1_12

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-010-0131-1_12

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht

  • Print ISBN: 978-1-4020-1142-9

  • Online ISBN: 978-94-010-0131-1

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics