An in situ toxicity identification and evaluation water analysis system: Laboratory validation
dc.contributor.author | Steigmeyer, August J. | |
dc.contributor.author | Zhang, Jiamin | |
dc.contributor.author | Daley, Jennifer M. | |
dc.contributor.author | Zhang, Xiaowei | |
dc.contributor.author | Burton, G. Allen | |
dc.date.accessioned | 2017-06-16T20:10:39Z | |
dc.date.available | 2018-08-07T15:51:22Z | en |
dc.date.issued | 2017-06 | |
dc.identifier.citation | Steigmeyer, August J.; Zhang, Jiamin; Daley, Jennifer M.; Zhang, Xiaowei; Burton, G. Allen (2017). "An in situ toxicity identification and evaluation water analysis system: Laboratory validation." Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 36(6): 1636-1643. | |
dc.identifier.issn | 0730-7268 | |
dc.identifier.issn | 1552-8618 | |
dc.identifier.uri | https://hdl.handle.net/2027.42/137342 | |
dc.description.abstract | It is difficult to assess the toxicity of a single stressor and establish a strong stressor–causality link when multiple stressors coexist. Toxicity identification evaluation (TIE) methodology uses a series of chemical and physical manipulations to fractionate compounds within a matrix and systematically identify potential toxicants. The current US Environmental Protection Agency application of TIE can provide valuable information but often lacks ecological realism and is subject to laboratory‐related artifacts. An in situ TIE device (iTIED) was designed to assess the sources of toxicity in aquatic ecosystems. For this laboratory validation, each unit was equipped with a sorbent resin chamber, an organism exposure chamber, a water collection container, and a peristaltic pump. Chemical analyses of water processed by each iTIED unit were compared with both lethal and sublethal molecular responses of the organisms. The compound removal effectiveness of different sorbent resins was also compared. In addition to successfully fractionating diverse chemical mixtures, the iTIED demonstrated a potential for early detection of molecular biomarkers, which could identify chronic toxicity that may go unnoticed in traditional TIE assays. Utilizing this novel in situ system will reduce the uncertainty associated with laboratory‐based simulations and aid management efforts in targeting compounds that pose the greatest threat. Environ Toxicol Chem 2017;36:1636–1643. © 2016 SETAC | |
dc.publisher | Wiley Periodicals, Inc. | |
dc.subject.other | Toxicity identification evaluation (TIE) | |
dc.subject.other | Endocrine‐disrupting compounds | |
dc.subject.other | Mixture toxicology | |
dc.subject.other | Risk assessment | |
dc.subject.other | Aquatic toxicology | |
dc.title | An in situ toxicity identification and evaluation water analysis system: Laboratory validation | |
dc.type | Article | en_US |
dc.rights.robots | IndexNoFollow | |
dc.subject.hlbsecondlevel | Biological Chemistry | |
dc.subject.hlbsecondlevel | Natural Resources and Environment | |
dc.subject.hlbtoplevel | Science | |
dc.description.peerreviewed | Peer Reviewed | |
dc.description.bitstreamurl | https://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/137342/1/etc3696.pdf | |
dc.description.bitstreamurl | https://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/137342/2/etc3696_am.pdf | |
dc.identifier.doi | 10.1002/etc.3696 | |
dc.identifier.source | Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry | |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Zhang X, Hecker M, Jones PD, Newsted J, Au D, Kong R, Wu RS, Giesy JP. 2008. Responses of the medaka HPG axis PCR array and reproduction to prochloraz and ketoconazole. Environ Sci Technol 42: 6762 – 6769. | |
dc.identifier.citedreference | US Environmental Protection Agency. 2007. Sediment toxicity identification evaluation (TIE): Phases I, II, and III guidance document. EPA/600/R‐07/080. Office of Research and Development, Washington, DC. | |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Ho KT, Gielazyn ML, Pelletier MC, Burgess RM, Cantwell MC, Perron MM, Serbst JR, Johnson RL. 2009. Do toxicity identification and evaluation laboratory‐based methods reflect causes of field impairment ? Environ Sci Technol 43: 6857 – 6863. | |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Phillips BM, Anderson BS, Hunt JW, Huntley SA, Tjeerdema RS, Kapellas N, Worcester K. 2006. Solid‐phase sediment toxicity identification evaluation in an agricultural stream. Environ Toxicol Chem 25: 1671 – 1676. | |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Rotteveel SGP, Den Besten PJ. 2002. Differentiating metal from ammonia toxicity in toxicity identification evaluations. Bull Environ Contam Toxicol 69: 576 – 585. | |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Burton GA Jr. 1999. Realistic assessments of ecotoxicity using traditional and novel approaches. Aquat Ecosyst Health Manage 2: 1 – 8. | |
dc.identifier.citedreference | de Melo ED, Mounteer AH, de Souza Leão LH, Bahia RC, Campos IM. 2013. Toxicity identification evaluation of cosmetics industry wastewater. J Hazard Mater 15: 329 – 334. | |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Farag AM, Harper DD, Skaar D. 2014. In situ laboratory toxicity of coalbed natural gas produced waters with elevated sodium bicarbonate. Environ Toxicol Chem 33: 2086 – 2093. | |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Careghini A, Mastorgio AF, Saponaro S, Sezenna E. 2015. Bisphenol A, nonylphenols, benzophenones, and benzotriazoles in soils, groundwater, surface water, sediments, and food: A review. Environ Sci Pollut Res 22: 5711 – 5741. | |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Anderson BS, Hunt JW, Phillips BM, Nicely PA, Tjeerdema RS, Martin M. 2004. A comparison of in situ and laboratory toxicity tests with the estuarine amphipod Eohaustorius estuarius. Arch Environ Contam Toxicol 46: 52 – 60. | |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Bunch AR, Bernot MJ. 2011. Distribution of nonprescription pharmaceuticals in central Indiana streams and effects on sediment microbial activity. Ecotoxicology 20: 97 – 109. | |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Hose GC, Murray BR, Park ML, Kelaher BP, Figueira WF. 2006. A meta‐analysis comparing the toxicity of sediments in the laboratory and in situ. Environ Toxicol Chem 25: 1148 – 1152. | |
dc.identifier.citedreference | US Environmental Protection Agency. 1991. Methods for aquatic toxicity identification evaluations: Phase I toxicity characterization procedures, 2nd ed. EPA/600/6‐91/003. Office of Research and Development, Washington, DC. | |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Collard HRJ, Ji K., Lee S, Liu X, Kang S, Kho Y, Ahn B, Ryu J, Lee J, Choi K. 2013. Toxicity and endocrine disruption in zebrafish ( Danio rerio ) and two freshwater invertebrates ( Daphnia magna and Moina macrocopa ) after chronic exposure to mefenamic acid. Ecotoxicol Environ Safe 94: 80 – 86. | |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Antczak P, Jo HJ, Woo S, Scanlan L, Poynton H, Loguinov A, Chan S, Falciani F, Vulpe C. 2013. Molecular toxicity identification evaluation (mTIE) approach predicts chemical exposure in Daphnia magna. Environ Sci Technol 47: 11747 – 11756. | |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Kim J, Kim Y, Lee S, Kwak K, Chung WJ, Choi K. 2011. Determination of mRNA expression of DMRT93B, vitellogenin, and cuticle 12 in Daphnia magna and their biomarker potential for endocrine disruption. Ecotoxicology 20: 1741 – 1748. | |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Burton GA Jr, Nordstrom JF. 2004. An in situ toxicity identification evaluation method, Part I: Laboratory validation. Environ Toxicol Chem 12: 2844 – 2850. | |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Phillips BM, Anderson BS, Hunt JW, Nicely PA, Kosaka RA, Tjeerdema RS, de Vlaming V, Richard N. 2004. In situ water and sediment toxicity in an agricultural watershed. Environ Toxicol Chem 23: 435 – 442. | |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Ha MH, Choi J. 2009. Effects of environmental contaminants on hemoglobin gene expression in Daphnia magna: A potential biomarker for freshwater quality monitoring. Arch Environ Contam Toxicol 57: 330 – 337. | |
dc.owningcollname | Interdisciplinary and Peer-Reviewed |
Files in this item
Remediation of Harmful Language
The University of Michigan Library aims to describe library materials in a way that respects the people and communities who create, use, and are represented in our collections. Report harmful or offensive language in catalog records, finding aids, or elsewhere in our collections anonymously through our metadata feedback form. More information at Remediation of Harmful Language.
Accessibility
If you are unable to use this file in its current format, please select the Contact Us link and we can modify it to make it more accessible to you.