Improvements and cost-effective measures to the automated intermittent water renewal system for toxicity testing with sediments.

The push to make bioassays more sensitive has meant an increased duration of testing to look at more chronic endpoints. To conduct these longer bioassays through the use of traditional bioassay methods can be difficult, as many traditional bioassays have employed manual water changes, which take considerable time and effort. To that end, static-renewal systems were designed to provide researchers a technique to ease the manual water change burden. One of the most well-known static-renewal designs, the static intermittent renewal system (STIR) was produced by the United States Environmental Protection Agency in 1993. This system is still being used in laboratories across the globe today. However, these initial designs have become rather dated as new technologies and methods have been developed that make these systems easier to build and operate. The following information details changes to the initial design and a proof of concept experiment with the benthic invertebrate, Chironomus tepperi, to validate the modifications to the original system.

[1]  T. Braunbeck,et al.  Is the fish embryo toxicity test (FET) with the zebrafish (Danio rerio) a potential alternative for the fish acute toxicity test? , 2009, Comparative biochemistry and physiology. Toxicology & pharmacology : CBP.

[2]  B. R. Hargreaves,et al.  A simple toxicity apparatus for continuous flow with small volumes: Demonstration with mysids and naphthalene , 1983, Bulletin of environmental contamination and toxicology.

[3]  C. W. West,et al.  Development and evaluation of test methods for benthic invertebrates and sediments: Effects of flow rate and feeding on water quality and exposure conditions , 1993 .

[4]  J. Oris,et al.  A system for conducting flow‐through toxicity tests with larval fish , 1995 .

[5]  D. Berry,et al.  New continuous-flow bioassay technique using small crustaceans , 1982, Bulletin of environmental contamination and toxicology.

[6]  S. Simpson,et al.  Sediment Quality Assessment: A Practical Guide , 2016 .

[7]  Peter M Chapman,et al.  Pore water testing and analysis: the good, the bad, and the ugly. , 2002, Marine pollution bulletin.

[8]  S. Dyer,et al.  A novel flow‐through method for toxicity assessments using Ceriodaphnia dubia , 1996 .

[9]  F. J. Dwyer,et al.  A water-renewal system that accurately delivers small volumes of water to exposure chambers , 1994 .

[10]  Christy Leppanen,et al.  An inexpensive and efficient modular water‐renewal system for bulk sediment toxicity testing , 1998 .

[11]  Duane A. Benoit,et al.  A continuous-flow mini-diluter system for toxicity testing , 1982 .

[12]  J. F. Carriger,et al.  An automated overlying water-renewal system for sediment toxicity studies. , 2003, Environmental pollution.

[13]  A. Hoffmann,et al.  Comparing the impacts of sediment-bound bifenthrin on aquatic macroinvertebrates in laboratory bioassays and field microcosms. , 2016, Ecotoxicology and environmental safety.

[14]  G. Brenniman,et al.  A continuous flow bioassay method to evaluate the effects of outboard motor exhausts and selected aromatic toxicants on fish , 1976 .

[15]  G. Ankley,et al.  A SEDIMENT TESTING INTERMITTENT RENEWAL SYSTEM FOR THE AUTOMATED RENEWAL OF OVERLYING WATER IN TOXICITY TESTS WITH CONTAMINATED SEDIMENTS , 1993 .

[16]  M. Lydy,et al.  Comparative analysis of whole sediment and porewater toxicity identification evaluation techniques for ammonia and non-polar organic contaminants. , 2010, Chemosphere.