A meta‐analysis comparing the toxicity of sediments in the laboratory and in situ

Abstract

Sediment toxicity tests in the laboratory are an important part of ecological risk assessments, yet how they relate to sediment toxicity in situ has rarely been explored. Using meta-analysis, we examined differences in the toxicity of sediment tested in the laboratory and in situ. Data from four published studies were subjected to rigorous statistical analyses. Overall, the toxicity of sediments in laboratory tests was substantially less than their toxicity in situ. Differences between laboratory and in situ toxicity, expressed using the log odds ratio effect size, varied significantly among published studies. Effect size increased significantly with increasing sediment toxicity, showing that the more toxic the sediment, the greater the disparity between laboratory and field toxicities. Our findings may not apply to all laboratory/field comparisons; however, we consider that the overlying water in field situations is a significant contributor to this relationship through additional contamination and toxicity. Our findings also have important implications for the use of laboratory tests to assess improvements in sediment quality and remediation, because changes in laboratory toxicity may not reflect the true improvements to sediment quality in situ.

A rapid amphipod reproduction test for sediment quality assessment: In situ bioassays do not replicate laboratory bioassays

“…As a consequence of their sensitivity, amphipods have also become important test species in various bioassays for the assessment of sediment quality ( [2][3][4]; http:// www.clw.csiro.au/cecr/documents/handbook_sediment_quality_ assessment.pdf). In general, these established bioassays are laboratory-based protocols, and although numerous authors have used amphipods for in situ studies, very few have compared the sensitivity of in situ versus laboratory-based protocols [5].…”

Do laboratory exposures represent field exposures? Effects of sediments contaminated by wood industry on yolk-sac fry of rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss)

“…It has been suggested that especially the contaminated overlying water plays a role in the more pronounced toxicity seen in in situ exposures vs. laboratory exposures (Phillips et al 396 2004, Hose et al 2006. In our study, no signs of toxicity were seen in the fry housed in 397 the water cages without contact to the sediment, but there may still be factors in the water 398 that potentiate the toxicity of the sediment at the contaminated sites.…”

“…Differences in the outcomes between laboratory and in situ sediment exposures have also been described previously among invertebrates (Conrad et al 1999, Pereira et al 2000, Kater et al 2001, Ringwood and Keppler 2002, Anderson et al 2004, Mann et al 2010) and fishes (Costa et al 2011a, Costa et al 2011b, Costa et al 2012. In most cases, the sediments have been less toxic in the laboratory than in the field (Conrad et al 1999, Pereira et al 2000, Kater et al 2001, Ringwood and Keppler 2002, Anderson et al 2004, Hose et al 2006, Mann et al 2010. Therefore, sediment toxicity tests conducted in the laboratory must be interpreted with caution.…”

Selection of methods for assessing sediment toxicity in California bays and estuaries

“…These thresholds were based on statistical parameters unrelated to ecological responses, and the categories of Low, Moderate, and High Toxicity describe response relative to the test control, not benthic infauna in the field. Toxicity tests and benthic community assessment measure different aspects of sediment quality and there is no a priori expectation that toxicity test results will correspond to effects on biota in the field, although such a relationship may be incorrectly assumed (Chapman and Wang 2001; Hose et al 2006). Investigations of the relationship between acute toxicity to marine amphipods and benthic community effects demonstrate that such toxicity tests are ecologically relevant, as responses characteristic of the Moderate and High Toxicity categories correspond with adverse effects on benthic infauna, but the relationship is highly variable (Anderson et al 2001; Bay, Allen et al 2003; Long et al 2001; McGee et al 1999).…”