The assessment of bioaccumulation

Franke, Christian; Studinger, Gabriele; Berger, Georgia; Böhling, Stella; Bruckmann, Ursula; Cohors-Fresenborg, Dieter; Jöhncke, Ulrich

doi:10.1016/0045-6535(94)90281-x

Cited by 148 publications

(62 citation statements)

References 7 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Greater than 95% of the average concentration at steady-state was depurated after 2 days. To assess the risk of bioaccumulation, Franke et al (1994) proposed that the classification of bioaccumulation into 4 categories that considers not only the BCF, but also the complexity of bioaccumulation processes including elimination half-life time (CT50), organ specific bioaccumulation, and bound residues 18) .…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Bioconcentration of Pirimiphos-methyl in Killifish (Oryzias latipes)

Seo¹,

Chang²,

Hamer³

et al. 2009

Korean Journal of Environmental Agriculture

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Killifish (Oryzias latipes) were exposed to an organophosphate pesticide, pirimiphos-methyl, in a flow-through system to determine the bioconcentration factor (BCF) following GLP (Good Laboratory Practice). This study was conducted at two different concentrations (1 and 10 μg/L) of 14 C-labeled pirimiphos-methyl for 28 days uptake and 14 days depuration according to the OECD 305 test guideline. The BCF ss for total radioactive residues in whole fish were 1,251 and 1,277 for low and high concentrations, respectively. The BCF k based on the uptake and depuration rate constants were 1,200 for both low and high concentrations. During the depuration phase, the accumulated test substance was rapidly depurated from fish. Greater than 95% of the residue at steady-state was depurated after 2 days. Although the measured BCF values were high, pirimiphos-methyl could be evaluated as a low risk from bioaccumulation by aquatic organisms due to the short depuration period and low amount of bound residue (1.5%). We suggest that in evaluating bioaccumulation, not only the BCF should be considered, but also depuration time and bound residue in aquatic organisms give an indication of the potential environmental risks.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Bioconcentration of Pirimiphos-methyl in Killifish (Oryzias latipes)

Seo¹,

Chang²,

Hamer³

et al. 2009

Korean Journal of Environmental Agriculture

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, the assessment of the potential for bioaccumulation and/or biomagnification of contaminants has been identified as crucial to this process [1,2] and is now an important and routine part of environmental assessments [3,4]. Several approaches are available for determining the bioaccumulation of contaminants in biota, which includes field monitoring, laboratory tests, and the use of models.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Validation of Ontario's new laboratory‐based bioaccumulation methods with in situ field data

Geest

Poirier

Sibley

et al. 2011

Enviro Toxic and Chemistry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract-To validate the standardization of a laboratory protocol for measuring bioaccumulation, laboratory-derived tissue residues and biota-sediment accumulation factors (BSAFs) were compared with historical field data from nine sites in Ontario, Canada. As a result of temporal discontinuity between the field and the laboratory studies, a priori considerations, such as changes in site conditions or concentrations of contaminants in sediment, were necessary to assess whether to compare absolute or relative measures of bioaccumulation. For the majority of sites, BSAFs for field-collected and laboratory-exposed fish were within a factor of 2. Biotasediment accumulation factors for laboratory-exposed oligochaetes were typically greater than those for mussels caged in the field, by a factor of 2 to 9. Overall, the laboratory methods for all species generally overestimated the relative bioavailability of contaminants compared with field conditions by a factor of 1.1 to 9.2. Other than the great disparity observed for polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins and dibenzofurans (PCDD/Fs) between field and laboratory studies, on average the laboratory-derived BSAFs with Pimephales promelas and Lumbriculus variegatus overestimated those from field-collected fish and field-exposed mussels by factors of 1.6 and 3.6, respectively. The laboratory method reflects a potentially worst-case exposure scenario and provides an appropriately conservative estimate of bioaccumulation. Laboratory-based estimates can be comparable to bioaccumulation data from the field but may be confounded by species-specific differences in routes of exposure and bioaccumulation of certain compounds or other environmental and biological factors that should be considered in these comparisons. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 2011;30:950-958. # 2011 SETAC

show abstract

“…In addition to the physicochemical characterization of sediment, toxicity testing, and benthic surveys, an assessment of the biomagnification potential of contaminants has been identified as crucial to the risk assessment process [7,8] and has now been incorporated into decision-making frameworks for contaminated sediment [9,10]. Bioaccumulation of contaminants from sediment can be measured directly through the collection of organisms from the field, transplant studies, and laboratory tests, or it can be predicted using models.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Measuring bioaccumulation of contaminants from field‐collected sediment in freshwater organisms: A critical review of laboratory methods

Geest

Poirier

Sibley

et al. 2010

Enviro Toxic and Chemistry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract-To be effective, decision-making frameworks require data from robust and reliable test methods. Using standard methods allows for more effective comparison between studies and application of data, and it reduces unnecessary duplication of efforts. Laboratory methods to assess the toxicity of sediment have been standardized and extensively used; however, procedures for measuring the bioaccumulation of contaminants from sediment into aquatic organisms need further standardization. Bioaccumulation methods using freshwater invertebrates and fish exposed to field-contaminated sediment were reviewed to identify important similarities and differences in method protocols, test conditions that need to be controlled, and data gaps. Although guidance documents are available, great variation still exists in exposure techniques used in tests, which may potentially affect the estimation of bioaccumulation. The techniques most consistent across studies include the use of Lumbriculus variegatus as a test species, test temperatures between 20 and 258C, and a 28-d exposure with no addition of food, followed by purging of organisms. Issues that were inconsistent between studies or remained unspecified, which should be addressed, include the bioaccumulation potential of other test species, loading density of organisms, and sediment-to-water ratio. In addition to proper evaluation of the various exposure techniques and conditions, a need exists for more consistent inclusion of quality control procedures during testing. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 2010;29:239129: -240129: . # 2010

show abstract

The assessment of bioaccumulation

Cited by 148 publications

References 7 publications

Bioconcentration of Pirimiphos-methyl in Killifish (Oryzias latipes)

Bioconcentration of Pirimiphos-methyl in Killifish (Oryzias latipes)

Validation of Ontario's new laboratory‐based bioaccumulation methods with in situ field data

Measuring bioaccumulation of contaminants from field‐collected sediment in freshwater organisms: A critical review of laboratory methods

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About