Acute Toxicity of Fire Control Chemicals toDaphnia magna(Straus) andSelenastrum capricornutum(Printz)

McDonald, Susan F.; Hamilton, Steven J.; Buhl, Kevin J.; Heisinger, J. F.

doi:10.1006/eesa.1996.0007

Cited by 35 publications

(14 citation statements)

References 1 publication

(1 reference statement)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Concentrations of nitrate and nitrite in solutions that bracketed the 96-h LC50s of GTS-R, LCG-R, and D75-F and that we measured by potentiometric methods (Յ0.1 mg/L NO 3 -N and Յ0.01 mg/L NO 2 -N) are considerably lower than those reported in earlier studies with the same chemicals [15][16][17] that analyzed for nitrate and nitrite using spectrophotometric methods of Hach [26]. The nitrate and nitrite concentrations they reported at the acutely toxic concentrations of these fire retardants to Daphnia magna and postembryonic life stages of fathead minnow (Pimephales promelas) and rainbow trout are at least 1 to 72 and 13 to 8,400 times higher, respectively, than those obtained in our study.…”

Section: Nitrate and Nitritecontrasting

confidence: 68%

Acute toxicity of fire‐retardant and foam‐suppressant chemicals to early life stages of chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha)

Buhl

Hamilton

1998

Enviro Toxic and Chemistry

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract-Laboratory studies were conducted to determine the acute toxicity of three fire retardants (Fire-Trol GTS-R, Fire-Trol LCG-R, and Phos-Chek D75-F), and two fire-suppressant foams (Phos-Chek WD-881 and Ansul Silv-Ex) to early life stages of chinook salmon, Oncorhynchus tshawytscha, in hard and soft water. Regardless of water type, swim-up fry and juveniles (60 and 90 d posthatch) exhibited similar sensitivities to each chemical and these life stages were more sensitive than eyed eggs. Foam suppressants were more toxic to each life stage than the fire retardants in both water types. The descending rank order of toxicity for these chemicals tested with swim-up fry and juveniles (range of 96-h median lethal concentrations [LC50s]) was Phos-Chek WD-881 (7-13 mg/L) Ͼ Ansul Silv-Ex (11-22 mg/L) Ͼ Phos-Chek D75-F (218-305 mg/L) Ͼ Fire-Trol GTS-R (218-412 mg/L) Ͼ Fire-Trol LCG-R (685-1,195 mg/L). Water type had a minor effect on the toxicity of these chemicals. Comparison of acute toxicity values with recommended application concentrations indicates that accidental inputs of these chemicals into stream environments would require substantial dilution (237-to 1,429-fold) to reach concentrations equivalent to their 96-h LC50s.

show abstract

Section: Nitrate and Nitritecontrasting

confidence: 68%

Acute toxicity of fire‐retardant and foam‐suppressant chemicals to early life stages of chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha)

Buhl

Hamilton

1998

Enviro Toxic and Chemistry

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Some of these fire-fighting concoctions are toxic or hazardous to aquatic organisms (Gaikowski et al, 1996a(Gaikowski et al, , 1996bMcDonald et al, 1996McDonald et al, , 1997Hamilton, 1998, 2000). Although fire fighters attempt to avoid riparian areas during chemical releases, accidental contamination of streams, lakes, and ponds has occurred, especially from aerial applications (e.g., Minshall and Brock, 1991).…”

Section: Chemical Applicationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Although fire fighters attempt to avoid riparian areas during chemical releases, accidental contamination of streams, lakes, and ponds has occurred, especially from aerial applications (e.g., Minshall and Brock, 1991). When dropped directly into water, fire retardant chemicals often form ammonium compounds that are slightly to moderately toxic to algae and invertebrates (McDonald et al, 1996(McDonald et al, , 1997, and moderately to highly toxic to fish (Gaikowski et al, 1996a(Gaikowski et al, , 1996bHamilton, 1998, 2000). In 2001, an accidental retardant drop in a Washington stream resulted in a large fish kill.…”

Section: Chemical Applicationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Fire and amphibians in North America

Pilliod

Bury²,

Hyde³

et al. 2003

Forest Ecology and Management

151

139

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Information on amphibian responses to fire and fuel reduction practices is critically needed due to potential declines of species and the prevalence of new, more intensive fire management practices in North American forests. The goals of this review are to summarize the known and potential effects of fire and fuels management on amphibians and their aquatic habitats, and to identify information gaps to help direct future scientific research. Amphibians as a group are taxonomically and ecologically diverse; in turn, responses to fire and associated habitat alteration are expected to vary widely among species and among geographic regions.Available data suggest that amphibian responses to fire are spatially and temporally variable and incompletely understood. Much of the limited research has addressed short-term (1-3 yr) effects of prescribed fire on terrestrial life stages of amphibians in the southeastern United States.Information on the long-term negative effects of fire on amphibians and the importance of fire for maintaining amphibian communities is sparse for the high number of taxa in North America.Given the size and severity of recent wildland fires and the national effort to reduce fuels on federal lands, future studies are particularly needed to examine the effects of these landscape disturbances on amphibians. We encourage studies to address population-level responses of amphibians to fire by examining how different life stages are affected by changes in aquatic, riparian, and upland habitats. Research designs need to be rigorous and credible, yet provide information that is relevant for fire managers and those responsible for assessing the potential effects of various fuels reduction alternatives on rare, sensitive, and endangered amphibian species.

show abstract

“…Although fertilization may produce higher concentrations of nitrate than the fire itself (Tiedemann 1973; Tiedemann et al 1978), the impact on water quality will necessarily depend on these numerous site‐specific factors. At some concentrations, nitrogen and phosphorus retardants (e.g., Fire‐Trol LCG‐R) may be moderately toxic to algae, with similarly great potential to affect the functioning of aquatic systems (McDonald et al 1996).…”

Section: Watermentioning

confidence: 99%

Impacts of Fire‐Suppression Activities on Natural Communities

Backer

Jensen

Mcpherson³

2004

Conservation Biology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The ecological impacts of wildland fire-suppression activities can be significant and may surpass the impacts of the fire itself. A recent paradigm shift from fire control to fire management has resulted in increased attention to minimizing the negative effects of suppression. While the philosophy behind minimumimpact suppression tactics has provided a good first step in this direction, increased attention to the ecological effects of suppression is needed, especially in the management of public lands. We reviewed the potential impacts of suppression on land, air, and water resources and the impacts of using fire to help control fire. Effects on land resources include erosion, which is exacerbated by the construction of fire lines, temporary roads, and helicopter pads, and some postfire rehabilitation activities. Although the fire itself is the most obvious source of air pollution, the vehicles used in suppression activities contribute to this problem and to noise pollution. Water resources, including aquatic flora and fauna, may be seriously affected by suppression activities that can increase erosion, sedimentation, turbidity, and chemical contamination. Finally, the use of backburns and burnout operations contributes to the risk of soil and water contamination, increases the total area burned, and promotes more intense fires or more homogeneous burned areas. Although no fire-management strategy should be applied uniformly, some general techniques such as use of natural clearings, natural barriers, and appropriately sized fire lines, "leave no-trace" camping, and careful application of fuels and retardants can be employed to minimize the impacts of suppression.Resumen: Los impactos ecológicos de actividades de supresión de incendios pueden ser significativos y pueden rebasar los impactos del fuego mismo. Un reciente cambio de paradigma de control de fuego a manejo de fuego ha resultado en mayor interés para minimizar los efectos negativos de la supresión. Mientras que la filosofía subyacente en las tácticas de supresión con mínimo impacto ha proporcionado un buen primer paso en esa dirección, se requiere mayor atención a los efectos negativos de la supresión, especialmente en la gestión de tierras públicas. Revisamos los impactos potenciales de la supresión sobre recursos terrestres, aéreos y acuáticos y los impactos de la utilización de fuego para ayudar a controlar fuego. Los impactos sobre recursos terrestres incluyen erosión, que se agrava por la construcción de guardarrayas, caminos temporales y plataformas para helicópteros, y algunas actividades de rehabilitación post-incendio. Aunque el fuego mismo es la fuente más obvia de contaminación del aire, los vehículos utilizados en actividades de supresión contribuyen a este problema y a la contaminación acústica. Los recursos acuáticos, incluyendo la flora y fauna, pueden ser afectados seriamente por actividades de supresión que pueden incrementar la erosión, sedimentación, turbidez y contaminación química. Finalmente, la utilización de retroquemas y operacio...

show abstract

Acute Toxicity of Fire Control Chemicals toDaphnia magna(Straus) andSelenastrum capricornutum(Printz)

Cited by 35 publications

References 1 publication

Acute toxicity of fire‐retardant and foam‐suppressant chemicals to early life stages of chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha)

Acute toxicity of fire‐retardant and foam‐suppressant chemicals to early life stages of chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha)

Fire and amphibians in North America

Impacts of Fire‐Suppression Activities on Natural Communities

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About