Cor A. Schipper

Organic contaminants and trace metals in flounder liver and sediment from the Amsterdam and Rotterdam harbours and off the Dutch coast

Organic contaminants [polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), organochlorine pesticides (OCPs), polybrominated diphenylethers (PBDEs), nonylphenols], organotin compounds and trace metals (cadmium, chromium, mercury and zinc) were determined in flounder (Platichthys flesus) liver and sediment from the Amsterdam harbour (North Sea Canal) and Rotterdam harbour (Euromonding) and off the Dutch coast between the Amsterdam and Rotterdam harbour mouths in order to assess the level of contamination in these harbours and to study contamination gradients.

Intra- and interlaboratory calibration of the DR CALUX® bioassay for the analysis of dioxins and dioxin-like chemicals in sediments

In the Fourth National Policy Document on Water Management in The Netherlands, it is defined that in 2003, in addition to the assessment of chemical substances, special guidelines for the assessment of dredged material should be recorded. The assessment of dredged material is based on integrated chemical and biological effect measurements. Among others, the DR CALUX (dioxin responsive-chemically activated luciferase expression) bioassay has tentatively been recommended for inclusion in the dredged material assessment. To ensure the reliability of this bioassay, an intra- and interlaboratory validation study, or ring test, was performed, organized by the Dutch National Institute for Coastal and Marine Management (RIKZ) in cooperation with BioDetection Systems BV (BDS). The intralaboratory repeatability and reproducibility and the limit of detection (LOD) and quantification (LOQ) of the DR CALUX bioassay were determined by analyzing sediment extracts and dimethyl sulfoxide (DMSO) blanks. The highest observed repeatability was found to be 24.1%, whereas the highest observed reproducibility was calculated to be 19.9%. Based on the obtained results, the LOD and LOQ to be applied for the bioassay are 0.3 and 1.0 pM, respectively. The interlaboratory calibration study was divided into three phases, starting with analyzing pure chemicals. During the second phase, sediment extracts were analyzed, whereas in the third phase, whole sediments had to be extracted, cleaned, and analyzed. The average interlaboratory repeatability increased from 14.6% for the analysis of pure compound to 26.1% for the analysis of whole matrix. A similar increase in reproducibility with increasing complexity of handlings was observed with the interlaboratory reproducibility of 6.5% for pure compound and 27.9% for whole matrix. The results of this study are intended as a starting point for implementing the integrated chemical-biological assessment strategy and for systematic monitoring of dredged materials and related materials in the coming years.

Expert opinion on toxicity profiling—report from a NORMAN expert group meeting

This article describes the outcome and follow-up discussions of an expert group meeting (Amsterdam, October 9, 2009) on the applicability of toxicity profiling for diagnostic environmental risk assessment. A toxicity profile was defined as a toxicological fingerprint of a sample, ranging from a pure compound to a complex mixture, obtained by testing the sample or its extract for its activity toward a battery of biological endpoints. The expert group concluded that toxicity profiling is an effective first tier tool for screening the integrated hazard of complex environmental mixtures with known and unknown toxicologically active constituents. In addition, toxicity profiles can be used for prioritization of sampling locations, for identification of hot spots, and--in combination with effect-directed analysis (EDA) or toxicity identification and evaluation (TIE) approaches--for establishing cause-effect relationships by identifying emerging pollutants responsible for the observed toxic potency. Small volume in vitro bioassays are especially applicable for these purposes, as they are relatively cheap and fast with costs comparable to chemical analyses, and the results are toxicologically more relevant and more suitable for realistic risk assessment. For regulatory acceptance in the European Union, toxicity profiling terminology should keep as close as possible to the European Water Framework Directive (WFD) terminology, and validation, standardization, statistical analyses, and other quality aspects of toxicity profiling should be further elaborated.

Toxicity profiling: An integrated effect‐based tool for site‐specific sediment quality assessment

A toxicity profile is a toxicological fingerprint of an environmental sample, obtained by testing its extract in a battery of bioassays. Each represents a different mode of action. The present work explores the applicability of in vitro toxicity profiles as an effect-based tool for sediment quality assessment. For this purpose, a previously published dataset was used, in which sediment extracts from 15 different locations in the Rhine-Meuse estuary were tested in 5 different bioassays. Three useful approaches could be distinguished for applying toxicity profiles in sediment quality assessment. In the first approach, toxicity profiles are translated into hazard profiles, indicating the relative distance to the desired or acceptable sediment quality status for each toxic mode of action. Hazard profiles can be considered as location-specific characteristics; sampling locations with similar hazard profiles can be classified into clusters. This approach seems directly applicable but requires a very careful selection of a reference toxicity profile that is either measured at a reference location or is designated as a desirable or acceptable toxicity profile for that particular location. In the second approach, toxicity profiles are translated into ecological risk profiles indicating for each toxic mode of action the ratio between the actual measured bioassay response and the bioassay response level that is considered safe for environmental health. This approach has a high ecological relevance but is only feasible for a few modes of action for which toxicity data are available at the ecological level of population or higher that allow derivation of ecologically safe bioassay responses for sediment extracts. In the third approach, toxicity profiles and their derived hazard profiles are used to select samples with unusually or unexpectedly high bioassay responses for further in-depth effect-directed analysis (EDA). EDA is a powerful strategy to identify emerging compounds that contribute significantly to the toxic load on the environment. EDA is an expensive and laborious strategy, however, making it currently suitable only for investigative monitoring on a limited scale and not for routine monitoring. Future perspectives in toxicity profiling include expansion of the battery of bioassays with test methods that cover other toxic endpoints or multiple endpoints, are high throughput, and improve the ecological relevance.

A weight-of-evidence approach to assessing the ecological impact of organotin pollution in Dutch marine and brackish waters; combining risk prognosis and field monitoring using common periwinkles (Littorina littorea)

In the present study an integrated ecological risk assessment based on multiple lines of evidence (LOEs) was evaluated in order to better assess the risk from TBT in Dutch harbours and open coastal waters. On the basis of spatial distributions of measured tributyltin (TBT) concentrations in sediments and suspended matter, predictions of the intersex index (ISI) in Littorina littorea and the ecological risk expressed as the Potentially Affected Fraction (PAF) of species were made. The results were compared to actual ISI measurements and presence of L. littorea in the field. The PAF calculated on the basis of TBT levels for open coastal waters ranged from 4.2% to 15.3%; for harbours it ranged from 3.5% to 26.9%. Significant intersex levels were observed only in waters where the risk was calculated above 10% PAF. This study suggests that the absence of L. littorea from some harbours with high ecological risk values can be explained by high TBT concentrations. A call is made for the use of integrated approaches like weight-of-evidence (WOE) to help practitioners improve ecological risk assessment.

Toxicity profiling: an effect-based tool for site-specific sediment quality assessment.

A toxicity profile is a toxicological fingerprint of an environmental sample, obtained by testing its extract in a battery of bioassays. Each represents a different mode of action. The present work explores the applicability of in vitro toxicity profiles as an effect-based tool for sediment quality assessment. For this purpose, a previously published dataset was used, in which sediment extracts from 15 different locations in the Rhine-Meuse estuary were tested in 5 different bioassays. Three useful approaches could be distinguished for applying toxicity profiles in sediment quality assessment. In the first approach, toxicity profiles are translated into hazard profiles, indicating the relative distance to the desired or acceptable sediment quality status for each toxic mode of action. Hazard profiles can be considered as location-specific characteristics; sampling locations with similar hazard profiles can be classified into clusters. This approach seems directly applicable but requires a very careful selection of a reference toxicity profile that is either measured at a reference location or is designated as a desirable or acceptable toxicity profile for that particular location. In the second approach, toxicity profiles are translated into ecological risk profiles indicating for each toxic mode of action the ratio between the actual measured bioassay response and the bioassay response level that is considered safe for environmental health. This approach has a high ecological relevance but is only feasible for a few modes of action for which toxicity data are available at the ecological level of population or higher that allow derivation of ecologically safe bioassay responses for sediment extracts. In the third approach, toxicity profiles and their derived hazard profiles are used to select samples with unusually or unexpectedly high bioassay responses for further in-depth effect-directed analysis (EDA). EDA is a powerful strategy to identify emerging compounds that contribute significantly to the toxic load on the environment. EDA is an expensive and laborious strategy, however, making it currently suitable only for investigative monitoring on a limited scale and not for routine monitoring. Future perspectives in toxicity profiling include expansion of the battery of bioassays with test methods that cover other toxic endpoints or multiple endpoints, are high throughput, and improve the ecological relevance.

Toxicity Profiling: an Effect-based Integrative Tool for Site-Specific Water Quality Assessment

A toxicity profile is a toxicological fingerprint of an environmental sample, obtained by testing its extract in a battery of bioassays. Each represents a different mode of action. The present work explores the applicability of in vitro toxicity profiles as an effect-based tool for sediment quality assessment. For this purpose, a previously published dataset was used, in which sediment extracts from 15 different locations in the Rhine-Meuse estuary were tested in 5 different bioassays. Three useful approaches could be distinguished for applying toxicity profiles in sediment quality assessment. In the first approach, toxicity profiles are translated into hazard profiles, indicating the relative distance to the desired or acceptable sediment quality status for each toxic mode of action. Hazard profiles can be considered as location-specific characteristics; sampling locations with similar hazard profiles can be classified into clusters. This approach seems directly applicable but requires a very careful selection of a reference toxicity profile that is either measured at a reference location or is designated as a desirable or acceptable toxicity profile for that particular location. In the second approach, toxicity profiles are translated into ecological risk profiles indicating for each toxic mode of action the ratio between the actual measured bioassay response and the bioassay response level that is considered safe for environmental health. This approach has a high ecological relevance but is only feasible for a few modes of action for which toxicity data are available at the ecological level of population or higher that allow derivation of ecologically safe bioassay responses for sediment extracts. In the third approach, toxicity profiles and their derived hazard profiles are used to select samples with unusually or unexpectedly high bioassay responses for further in-depth effect-directed analysis (EDA). EDA is a powerful strategy to identify emerging compounds that contribute significantly to the toxic load on the environment. EDA is an expensive and laborious strategy, however, making it currently suitable only for investigative monitoring on a limited scale and not for routine monitoring. Future perspectives in toxicity profiling include expansion of the battery of bioassays with test methods that cover other toxic endpoints or multiple endpoints, are high throughput, and improve the ecological relevance.