The Lab-to-Field (LTF) rating scheme: A new method of investigating the relationships between laboratory sublethal toxicity tests and field measurements in environmental effects monitoring studies

Human and Ecological Risk Assessment

Volumn 10, Issue 4, 2004, Pages 683-707

  Borgmann, Anne I ^a   Moody, Mary J ^b   Scroggins, Richard P ^a  

^a ENVIRONMENT CANADA   (Canada)

^b SASKATCHEWAN RESEARCH COUNCIL   (Canada)

Author keywords

EEM; Effluent; Environmental Effects Monitoring; Pulp mills; Sublethal; TMDL; Toxicity

Indexed keywords

CERIODAPHNIA; INVERTEBRATA; SELENASTRUM;

EID: 4544376188     PISSN: 10807039     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/10807030490484219     Document Type: Article

References (35)

1. Beak. 1998. 1997 Field Program Final Report, Heath Steele Mine Site, New Brunswick. Report prepared for Aquatics Effects Technology Evaluation (AETE) Program, Canada Centre for Mineral and Energy Technology (CANMET), Natural Resources Canada. AETE Project 4.1.3. Beak International Incorporated, Brampton, Ontario and Dorval, Quebec, Canada. Available at http://www.ec.gc.ca/eem/ English/default. cfm
2. Beak. 2000a. Second Cycle EEM Final Interpretative Report prepared for Bowater Thunder Bay. Beak International Incorporated, Brampton, ON, Canada. Available at http://www. on.ec.gc.ca/eem/intro-e.html
3. Beak. 2000b. Second Cycle EEM Final Interpretative Report prepared for Domtar Inc., Eddy Specialty Papers Division. Beak International Incorporated, Brampton, ON, Canada. Available at http://www.on.ec.gc.ca/eem/intro-e.html
4. Beak. 2000c. Second Cycle EEM Final Interpretative Report prepared for Sonoco Ltd., Trent Valley Mill. Beak International Incorporated, Brampton, ON, Canada. Available at http://www.on.ec.gc.ca/eem/intro-e.html
5. Beak. 2000d. Second Cycle EEM Final Interpretative Report prepared for Marathon Pulp Inc. Beak International Incorporated, Brampton, ON, Canada. Available at http://www.on.ec.gc.ca/eem/intro-e.html
6. Birge WJ, Black JA, Short TM, et al. 1989. A comparative ecological and toxicological investigation of a secondary wastewater treatment plant effluent and its receiving stream. Environ Toxicol Chem 8:437-50
7. Borgmann AB, Humphrey S, and Michajluk S. 1999. Environmental Effects Monitoring at 22 Pulp and Paper Mills in Ontario: Cycle 2 Interim Report - Summary of Summer 1997 and Winter 1998 EEM Effluent Toxicity Results. Environmental Protection Branch - Ontario Region, Environment Canada, Downsview, ON, Canada. Available at http://www.on.ec.gc. ca/eem/intro-e.html
8. Borgmann AB, Tuininga K, Ali N, et al. 2002. Environmental Effects Monitoring at Twenty-Three Pulp and Paper Mills in Ontario - Synthesis of Cycle 2 Study Results and Recommendations for Cycle 3. Environmental Protection Branch - Ontario Region, Environment Canada, Downsview, ON, Canada. 67 pp. Available at http://www.on.ec.gc.ca/eem/intro-e.html
9. De Vlaming V and Norberg-King TJ. 1999. A Review of Single Species Toxicity Tests: Are the Tests Reliable Predictors of Aquatic Ecosystem Community Responses? US Environmental Protection Agency, Duluth, MN, USA
10. DFO (Department of Fisheries and Oceans). 1992. Pulp and paper effluent regulations. Extract Canada Gazette, Part II, May 20
11. EC (Environment Canada). 1997a. Aquatic Environmental Effects Monitoring Annex 1 to EEM/1997/1. Environment Canada and Fisheries and Oceans, Ottawa, ON, Canada. Available at http://www.ec.gc.ca/eem/English/default.cfm
12. EC (Environment Canada). 1997b. Aquatic Environmental Effects - Monitoring Requirements. Environment Canada, Ottawa, ON, Canada. EEM/1997/1. Available at http://www. ec.gc.ca/eem/English/default.cfm
13. EC (Environment Canada). 1998. Pulp and Paper - Technical Guidance for Aquatic Environmental Effects Monitoring. Environment Canada, Ottawa, ON, Canada. EEM/1998/1/295. Available at http://www.ec.gc.ca/eem/English/default.cfm
14. EC (Environment Canada). 1999. Guidance Document on Application and Interpretation of Single-Species Tests in Environmental Toxicology. EPS 1/RM/34. Environment Canada, Ottawa, ON, Canada. Available at http://www.ec.gc.ca/eem/ English/default. cfm
15. EC (Environment Canada). 2000. Data Interpretation Guidance for Environmental Effects Monitoring. Environment Canada, Ottawa, ON, Canada Available at http://www.ec.gc.ca/eem/English/default.cfm
16. EC (Environment Canada). 2001. Metal Mining Guidance Document for Aquatic Environmental Effects Monitoring. EEM/2001/1. Environment Canada Report. Available at http://www.ec.gc.ca/eem/English/default.cfm
17. Fox E, Kuo J, Tilling L, et al. 1994. SigmaStat Statistical Software: User's Manual. Jandel Scientific, San Rafael, CA, USA
18. Humphrey S and Ali N. 1997. Environmental Effects Monitoring at Twenty-Seven Pulp and Paper Mills in Ontario. Synthesis of Cycle 1 Study Results and Recommendations for Cycle 2. Environment Canada, Ottawa, ON, Canada. Available at http://www.on.ec.gc.ca/eem/ intro-e.html
19. Klemm DJ, Lewis PA, Fulk F, et al. 1990. Macroinvertebrate field and laboratory methods for evaluating the biological integrity of surface waters. US Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, OH, USA
20. Larsson Å, Andersson T, Förlin L, et al. 1988. Physiological disturbances in fish exposed to bleached kraft mill effluents. Wat Sci Tech 20:67-76
21. Lowell R. 2001. Personal communication. Environment Canada, National Water Research Institute, Saskatoon, SK, Canada
22. Miller J. 2001. Mill summary of all sublethal toxicity data from EEM Cycles 1 and 2. Prepared for the Method Development and Applications Section of the Environmental Technology Centre, Environment Canada. Miller Environmental Sciences Inc. Available at http://www.ec.gc.ca/eem/English/PulpPaper/Results/
23. Moody M. 2002. Assessment of Relationship Between Laboratory Sublethal Toxicity and Field Measurements Through the Review of Ontario Region Environmental Effects Monitoring (EEM) Studies. Environment Branch, Saskatchewan Research Council. SRC Publication No. 11415-1E01/172. Available at http://www.on.ec.gc.ca/eem/intro-e.html
24. Moore MV and Winner RW. 1989. Relative sensitivity of Ceriodaphnia dubia laboratory tests and pond communities of zooplankton and benthos to chronic copper stress. Aquatic Toxicol 15:311-30
25. Munkittrick KR. 2001. Personal communication. Department of Biology, University of New Brunswick, St. John, NB, Canada
26. Munkittrick KR, Portt CB, Van Der Kraak CJ, et al. 1991. Impact of bleached kraft mill effluent on population characteristics, liver MFO activity, and serum steroid levels of a Lake Superior white sucker (Catostomus commersoni) populations. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 48:1371-80
27. Munkittrick KR, Van Der Kraak GJ, McMaster ME, et al. 1994. Survey of receiving-water environmental impacts associated with discharges from pulp mills. 2. Gonad size, liver size, hepatic EROD activity and plasma sex steroid levels in white sucker. Environ Toxicol Chem 13:1089-101
28. Munkittrick KR, McGeachy SA, McMaster ME, et al. 2002. Overview of freshwater fish studies from the pulp and paper Environmental Effects Monitoring program. Water Qual Res J Canada 37:49-77
29. Parker R and Smith N. 1999. A Synopsis of the First Cycle of the Pulp and Paper Mill Environmental Effects Monitoring Program in the Atlantic Region. Surveillance Report EPS-5-AR-99-3/51. Environment Canada, Dartmouth, NS, Canada. Available at http://www.ec.gc.ca/ eem/English/default.cfm
30. Robinson RD, Carey JH, Solomon KR, et al. 1994. Survey of receiving-water environmental impacts associated with discharges from pulp mill. 1. Mill characteristics, receiving-water chemical profiles and lab toxicity tests. Environ Toxicol Chem 13:1075-88
31. Schaeffer JS, Diana JS, and Haas RC. 2000. Effects of long-term changes in the benthic community on yellow perch in Saginaw Bay, Lake Huron. J Great Lakes Res 26:340-51
32. Scroggins RP, Miller JA, Borgmann AI, et al. 2002. Sublethal toxicity findings by the pulp and paper industry for cycles 1 and 2 of the Environmental Effects Monitoring program. Water Qual Res J Canada 37:21-48
33. Slooff W, vanOers JA, and deAwart D. 1986. Margins of uncertainty in ecotoxicological hazard assessment. Environ Toxicol Chem 5:841-52
34. Soucek DJ, Cherry DS, Currie RJ, et al. 2000. Laboratory to field validation in an integrative assessment of an acid mine drainage-impacted watershed. Environ Toxicol Chem 19:1036-43
35. USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1999. Draft Guidance for Water Quality-Based Decisions: The TMDL Process (second edition). EPA 841-D-99-001. Office of Water, Washington DC, USA