4 Conclusion
In general, all biotests used in the ring test are applicable for risk assessment of field soil and contaminated or remediated soil material. Of these, the most sensitive tests were selected as a integral part of the test battery [4]. This selection did not consider either the duration of the tests, which is crucial for the acceptance of tests by the remediation industry, and the effects of pollutants on biomarkers, which indicate the departure of an organism from its normal biochemical or physiological status. Therefore, the proposed test battery has to be supplemented with biotests of short duration. The best choice for a short test using the endpoint reproduction is the biotest withCaenorhabditis elegans which characterises the habitat function of soil. The appropriate screening test for the retention function is the ETr (electron transfer) inhibition test with submitochondrial particles, which provides reliable results in less than 15 min. For screening the habitat function, avoidance tests with soil invertebrates like annelids or enchytraeids are optimal, as both annelids are exposed to the bioavailable pollutants in the soil pore water. The effect of environmental chemicals at the individual level and below can be analysed with the Celegans ToxChip, which gives information of the status of biomarkers on the molecular and biochemical level. Preliminary SOPs for these biotests are formulated. They have still to be evaluated by international ring tests.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Achazi R, van Gestel CAM (2003): Uptake and accumulation of PAHs by terrestrial invertebrates. In: Douben PET (ed): PAHs — An ecotoxicological perspective. J. Wiley & Sons, Chichester, UK, 175–190
Heiden St, Erb R, Dott W, Eisenträger A (2000): Toxikologische Beurteilung von Böden. Spektrum Akademischer Verlag, Heidelberg, Berlin, Germany, 249 pp
Michels J, Track, Th, Gehrke U, Sell D (2002): Leitfaden — Biologische Verfahren zur Bodensanierung: Kap 4.2 Biologische Testverfahren, Umweltbundesamt Berlin, Germany, 493 pp
Dott W, Achazi R, Eisenträger A, Hund-Rinke K, Kördel W, Neumann-Hensel H, Pfeifer F, Römbke J, Wiesner J, Wilke B-M (2001): Biologische Testverfahren für Boden und Bodenmaterial. Dechema e.V., Frankfurt a.M., Germany, 61 pp
Hund-Rinke K, Kördel W, Heiden St, Erb R (2002): Ökotoxikologische Testbatterien. Erich Schmidt Verlag, Berlin, Germany, 241 pp
Hund-Rinke K, Kordel W, Hennecke D, Eisenträger A, Heiden St (2002) Bioassays for the Ecotoxicological and Genotoxicological Assessment of Contaminated Soils (Results of a Round Robin Test). Part I. Assessment of a possible groundwater contamination: Ecotoxicological and genotoxicological tests with aqueous soil extracts. JSS —J Soils & Sediments 2, 43–50
Hund-Rinke K, Kördel W, Hennecke D, Achazi R, Warnecke D, Wilke B-M, Winkel B, Heiden St (2002): Bioassays for the Ecotoxicological and Genotoxicological Assessment of Contaminated Soils (Results of a Round Robin Test). Part II. Assessment of the habitat function of soils: Tests with soil microflora and fauna. JSS —J Soils & Sediments 2, 83–90
Niemann R, Debus R (1996): Nematodentest zur Abschätzung der chronischen Toxizität von Bodenkontaminationen. UWSF-Z Umweltchem Ökotox 8, 255–260
Krautwurst R (2000): Untersuchungen zur Entwicklung eines schnellen ökotoxikologischen Reproduktionstests mit dem Nematoden Caenorhabditis elegans. Thesis, Free University of Berlin, 67 pp
Hund-Rinke K, Achazi R, Römbke J, Warnecke D (2002): Avoidance test withEisenia fetida as indicator for the habitat function of soils: Result of a laboratory comparison test. JSS — J Soils & Sediments (OnlineFirst, DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1065/iss2002.1 1.062).
Achazi R, Römbke J, Riepert F (2000): Collembolen als Testorganismen. In: Heiden St., Erb R, Dott W, Eisenträger A (eds): Toxikologische Beurteilung von Böden. Spektrum Akademischer Verlag. Heidelberg, Berlin, Germany, 83–103
Schäfer RK (2001):Evaluation of the ecotoxicological threat of ammunition derived compounds to the habitat function of soil. Thesis, Free University of Berlin, 153 pp
Heupel K (2002): Avoidance response of different Collembolan Species to Betanal. Europ J Soil Biol 38, 273–276
Römbke J, Riepert F, Achazi R (2000): Enchytraeen als Testorganismen. In: Heiden St, Erb R, Dott W, Eisenträger A (eds): Toxikologische Beurteilung von Böden. Spektrum Akademischer Verlag. Heidelberg, Berlin, Germany, 105–129
Read HW, Harkin JM, Gustavson KE (1997): Environmental applications with submitochondrial particles. In: Wells PG, Lee K, Blaise C (eds): Microscale testing in aquatic toxicology — Advances, techniques and practice. CRC Press, Boca Raton, Florida, USA, 31–52
Seib K (2002): Erlaubt der Kurzzeittest mit submitochondrialen Partikeln die ökotoxikologische Beurteilung von Bodenproben? Ein Vergleich mit den Ergebnissen standardisierter Testmethoden. Thesis, Free University of Berlin, 73 pp
Menzel R, Bogeart T, Achazi R (2001): A systematic gene expression screen ofCaenorhabditis elegans Cytochrome P450 genes reveals CYP35 as strongly xenobiotic inducible. Arch Biochem Biophys 395, 158–168
Menzel R, Reichert K, Achazi R (2002): Nutzung der induzierbaren genexpression des Nematoden Caenorhabditis elegans als Biomonitor. UWSF- Z Umweltchem Ökotox 14, 18–23
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
K.Achazi, R. Invertebrates in risk assessment development of a test battery and of short term biotests for ecological risk assessment of soil. J Soils & Sediments 2, 174–178 (2002). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02991037
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02991037