Using single‐species toxicity tests, community‐level responses, and toxicity identification evaluations to investigate effluent impacts

Whole effluent toxicity (WET) tests are increasingly used to monitor compliance of consented discharges, but few studies have related toxicity measured using WET tests to receiving water impacts. Here we adopt a four-stage procedure to investigate the toxicity and biological impact of a point source discharge and to identify the major toxicants. In stage 1, standard WET tests were employed to determine the toxicity of the effluent. This was then followed by an assessment of receiving water toxicity using in situ deployment of indigenous (Gammarus pulex) and standard (Daphnia magna) test species. The third stage involved the use of biological survey techniques to assess the impact of the discharge on the structure and functioning of the benthic macroinvertebrate community. In stage 4, toxicity identification evaluations (TIE) were used to identify toxic components in the effluent. Receiving-water toxicity and ecological impact detected downstream of the discharge were consistent with the results of WET tests performed on the effluent. Downstream of the discharge, there was a reduction in D. magna survival, in G. pulex survival and feeding rate, in detritus processing, and in biotic indices based on macroinvertebrate community structure. The TIE studies suggested that chlorine was the principal toxicant in the effluent.

[1]  J. R. Wharfe,et al.  The toxicity-based consent and the wider application of direct toxicity assessment to protect aquatic life , 1995 .

[2]  L. Maltby,et al.  The lethal and sublethal responses of gammarus pulex to stress: Sensitivity and sources of variation in an in situ bioassay , 1991 .

[3]  R. Verheyen,et al.  Evaluation of effluent toxicity and ambient toxicity in a polluted lowland river. , 1996, Environmental Pollution.

[4]  D. Baird,et al.  A comparative study of genotype sensitivity to acute toxic stress using clones of Daphnia magna straus. , 1991, Ecotoxicology and environmental safety.

[5]  M. T. Furse,et al.  The performance of a new biological water quality score system based on macroinvertebrates over a wide range of unpolluted running-water sites , 1983 .

[6]  L. Maltby Studying stress: the importance of organism‐level responses , 1999 .

[7]  W. J. Walley,et al.  A computer-based reappraisal of the Biological Monitoring Working Party scores using data from the 1990 river quality survey of England and Wales , 1996 .

[8]  G. G. Hess,et al.  In situ toxicity evaluations of turbidity and photoinduction of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons , 1996 .

[9]  W. Birge,et al.  A comparative ecological and toxicological investigation of a secondary wastewater treatment plant effluent and its receiving stream , 1989 .

[10]  D. Westwood,et al.  Standing Committee of Analysts , 1994 .

[11]  K. W. Eagleson,et al.  Comparison of measured instream biological responses with responses predicted using the ceriodaphnia dubia chronic toxicity test , 1990 .

[12]  H. Hawkes,et al.  Origin and development of the biological monitoring working party score system , 1998 .

[13]  L. Ammann,et al.  Assessing the relationship between ambient toxicity and instream biological response , 1992 .

[14]  Lorraine Maltby,et al.  The characterization and toxicity of sediment contaminated with road runoff , 1995 .

[15]  D. M. Rosenberg,et al.  Freshwater biomonitoring and benthic macroinvertebrates. , 1994 .

[16]  L. Burkhard,et al.  Identifying toxicants: NETAC's toxicity-based approach , 1989 .

[17]  G. A. Burton,et al.  In situ and laboratory sediment toxicity testing with ceriodaphnia dubia , 1991 .