Use of Artificial Streams for Toxicological Research

Abstract

A review of the literature pertaining to the use of artificial streams as research tools in both toxicant and nontoxicant studies was conducted. This document summarizes that review and provides an assessment of the value of artificial streams in toxicological research. Descriptions are presented of the major types of artificial streams including considerations for the physical design of those streams based on their intended use. Research representative of nontoxicant behavioral, productivity, and trophic relationship studies is summarized to provide a background for the more in-depth discourse on toxicant research. Toxicant research is reviewed in relation to environmental factors such as physical type of artificial stream, light, water, and substrate and experimental conditions including biota tested, method of biota introduction, measured parameters, and toxicant. Comparisons and assessment are presented concerning the use of the appropriate artificial system for addressing various types of toxicant research emphasizing simple vs. complex systems.

An adaptable mesocosm platform for performing integrated assessments of nanomaterial risk in complex environmental systems

“…This experimental strategy has already been used to study the behavior or impacts of ENMs78910. A broad diversity of mesocosms design exists in term of dimension, location (indoor, outdoor) and ecosystem simulation type (estuarine, aquatic freshwater, and terrestrial)11121314. A common factor of all these studies is that mesocosms are considered as a small portion of the natural environment that is brought under controlled conditions.…”

Utility of laboratory streams for ecosystem toxicity studies

“…There has been a tendency to view model streams and other laboratory microcosms as "ecosystem bioassay tools," which thus can be used much as are individual organism bioassays for setting water quality standards and monitoring (Levin and others 1984, Shriner and Gregory 1984, Herricks and Schaeffer 1985. Laboratory stream experiments cannot be easily standardized as have been individual organism bioassays, and thus cannot be considered to be a useful testing tool.…”

“…Laboratory ecosystems poorly model peculiarities of particular natural ecosystems Davis 1971, Shriner andGregory 1984), but may justifiably be employed to demonstrate or to illustrate generalizations of interest. As concrete expressions of theory or of vague conceptual models, laboratory models may also be helpful in the development or refinement of generalizations or hypothesis.…”

“…Recently, there has been increased interest in the use of laboratory microcosms of various designs to evaluate the behavior and effects of toxic substances in ecosystems (Draggen 1976, Witt and Gillett 1979, Clark and others 1980, Coats 1980, Giesy 1980, Sanders 1982, Shriner and Gregory 1984, Lynch and others 1985, Ribeyre 1985, Warren and others 1987. Although much microcosm and laboratory stream work has been done, several general problems remain.…”

“…Although much microcosm and laboratory stream work has been done, several general problems remain. Shriner and Gregory (1984) believe it is necessary to know how processes in artificial microcosms differ from those in natural situations. Levin and others (1984) state that the criteria important in assessing the applicability of microcosms to natural systems are accuracy, replicability, reproducibility, KEY WORDS: Laboratory streams; Toxic substances; Classification; Theory; Ecosystems *Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.…”