considering the selection <strong>of</strong> test organisms, the investigator is advised thatthere is currently a ban on placing any commercially viable shellfish speciesinto any prohibited water body for in situ bioaccumulation studies(http://www.state.nj.us/dep/wms/bmw/waterclass.htm).Physicochemical Data NeedsBioaccumulation studies can be laboratory-based (e.g., ASTM, 2010; USEPA,2000a), or performed in situ (e.g., Burton et al., 2004; ASTM, 2007a).Bioaccumulation in sediment and soil is controlled by many physicochemicalfactors including TOC, pH, redox potential, salinity, temperature, grain size,sulfides, the types <strong>of</strong> contaminants and their concentrations, and the lipidcontent <strong>of</strong> receptor organisms. Additional variables, including contaminantsoil sorption coefficients, water solubility, hydrolysis, photolysis, nutrientconcentrations (Ca, Fe, Mg, P, K, Na, sulfate, ash content, cation exchangecapacity, and Kjeldahl nitrogen), further control bioaccumulation in soil. Testorganism selection should take these physiochemical factors into accountwhen selecting a study organism to avoid stressing the study organisms.Salinity is an important example <strong>of</strong> a study design consideration. Salinity cancause osmotic stress on test organisms and can impact the bioavailability <strong>of</strong>sediment contaminants. If marine sediment is laboratory-tested at lowsalinity, some contaminants may become more bioavailable than they wouldbe under higher salinity conditions. This would potentially yield artificiallyhigh BAFs and produce results that are not representative <strong>of</strong> site conditions.Some coastal, estuarine, and tidal sites can pose significant salinitychallenges, with upstream samples in freshwater or low salinity conditionsand downstream samples in higher salinity or marine conditions. It isdesirable to perform a single bioaccumulation study using the same testorganism for all samples. However, it is usually not feasible to acclimate asingle batch <strong>of</strong> test organisms to a wide range <strong>of</strong> salinities, and changing thesalinity <strong>of</strong> the samples to suit the test organism could potentially alter thebioavailability <strong>of</strong> COPECs and yield results that are not representative <strong>of</strong> siteconditions. Several species could be used, but different species mayaccumulate COPECs in widely varying rates and the results may not becomparable. Issues with acclimating a single species or using more than onespecies should be considered during study design.In the aquatic environment, adjustments may be considered to account forbioavailability in surface water calculations such as water hardness and pH,particularly with soluble metals.Other examples <strong>of</strong> nonchemical stressors in soil bioaccumulation studies aresoil nutrients and moisture. When testing plants, it is important to know thenutrient content <strong>of</strong> the soil to differentiate between effects caused by chemicaltoxicity and effects caused by lack <strong>of</strong> nutrients. Most soil-dwelling organismsthrive in a relatively narrow range <strong>of</strong> soil moisture percentage. Too muchmoisture will potentially drown invertebrates or plants, while too littlemoisture will desiccate them.<strong>Ecological</strong> <strong>Evaluation</strong> <strong>Technical</strong> <strong>Guidance</strong> Document 43Version 1.2 8/29/12
Sample SelectionAfter completing the toxicity test phase <strong>of</strong> the bioaccumulation study,investigators should determine whether the tissue samples should besubmitted for COPEC analysis. When choosing test tissue samples to submitfor analysis, it is important to select only tissue from those soil or sedimentsamples that showed no significant reduction in organism survival, ascompared to the laboratory control or reference sample. If survival issignificantly reduced, bioaccumulation is not the primary concern. If asignificant percentage <strong>of</strong> the organisms exposed to a soil or sediment sampledid not survive the test period, it is highly likely that the tissue COPEC burdenaccumulated by the surviving organisms would not be representative andcould be misleading. It is also important to include only those test organismsthat survived the entire test period for tissue analysis. All dead organismsshould be recorded and discarded. Inclusion <strong>of</strong> dead organisms in tissueanalysis would not be representative and could bias the study.Tissue Mass RequirementsDepending on the list <strong>of</strong> COPECs, the analytical tissue mass requirement maybe quite high (50 to 70 grams per sample for a full suite <strong>of</strong> organic andinorganic analytes).Marine/estuarine bioaccumulation studies with oligochaete worms (e.g.,Nereis virens or Neanthes arenacoedentata) or bivalves (e.g., clams, musselsor oysters) can easily be designed to yield sufficient tissue mass because thetest organisms are relatively large. This allows analysis <strong>of</strong> tissue samplesfrom individual test replicates, allowing robust statistical comparison <strong>of</strong> eachsediment sample. However, freshwater bioaccumulation studies are typicallyperformed with much smaller polychaete worms (e.g., Lumbriculusvariegatus) or bivalves (e.g., fingernail clams, Corbicula fluminea).Individual L. variegatus weigh approximately 0.015 grams, requiringthousands <strong>of</strong> worms to make up a 50-gram tissue mass requirement. Becauseit is not feasible to set up multiple replicate samples with thousands <strong>of</strong> worms,it is best to limit use <strong>of</strong> L. variegatus to sediment samples with COPEC listswith a small analytical tissue mass requirement.Some bioaccumulation studies with soil organisms (e.g., earthworms orplants) can easily be designed to yield sufficient tissue mass because the testorganisms can be relatively large. Testing can be initiated with worm speciesthat are large enough to yield sufficient tissue at test termination. Plantbioaccumulation studies can be performed using species that will growsufficiently by test termination to yield the desired tissue mass. This allowsanalysis <strong>of</strong> tissue samples from individual test replicates, allowing robuststatistical comparison <strong>of</strong> each soil sample. The portion <strong>of</strong> plant to be assayedneeds to be determined on a case by case basis. For example, if data are to beused for dietary exposure modeling, Arrow arum fruit is a preferred food <strong>of</strong>wood ducks, and all portions <strong>of</strong> aquatic plants (e.g., roots, basal portions,stems, leaves) and basal portions <strong>of</strong> Phragmites can be consumed by<strong>Ecological</strong> <strong>Evaluation</strong> <strong>Technical</strong> <strong>Guidance</strong> Document 44Version 1.2 8/29/12
- Page 1 and 2: Ecological EvaluationTechnical Guid
- Page 3 and 4: 6.2.1.3 Biological Sampling of Fish
- Page 5 and 6: Acronyms and AbbreviationsADDAETAFA
- Page 7 and 8: Executive SummaryThis document prov
- Page 9 and 10: environmentally sensitive areas pur
- Page 11 and 12: Figure 3-1: Flow diagram to describ
- Page 13 and 14: assessment may also include evaluat
- Page 15 and 16: “Hazard quotient” or “HQ” m
- Page 17 and 18: “Site investigation” means the
- Page 19 and 20: parameters as specified in ERAGS (i
- Page 21 and 22: document otherwise). The investigat
- Page 23 and 24: 5.3.2.1 Potential Contaminant Migra
- Page 25 and 26: 71 0Sampling pointsSampling transec
- Page 27 and 28: 5.3.4 Background ConsiderationsIt i
- Page 29 and 30: III. GroundwaterAnalytical data fro
- Page 31 and 32: 5.5 Ecological Evaluation ReportThe
- Page 33 and 34: Step 1 - Preliminary Screening Leve
- Page 35 and 36: specific measurements of receptor h
- Page 37 and 38: Figure 6-2: Ecological Conceptual S
- Page 39 and 40: ingested, air inhaled, or material
- Page 41 and 42: Fugacity, which is described as the
- Page 43: environment. As noted in ERAGS, the
- Page 47 and 48: While there are many laboratories t
- Page 49 and 50: ioavailability, and by doing so, of
- Page 51 and 52: For the purposes of surface water,
- Page 53 and 54: higher trophic level receptors. Lip
- Page 55 and 56: Details regarding surface water tox
- Page 57 and 58: e present at intervals greater than
- Page 59 and 60: elatively sedentary organisms that
- Page 61 and 62: COPECs. The following references ar
- Page 63 and 64: tests (USEPA, 2002e). After collect
- Page 65 and 66: multiple reference area soils repre
- Page 67 and 68: In ERAs, tissue residue analyses ar
- Page 69 and 70: Objectives of the ERA: including a
- Page 71 and 72: evaluation might necessitate the co
- Page 73 and 74: N.J.A.C. 7:26E-4.8(c)1. The ERA may
- Page 75 and 76: sediment (i.e., that fraction that
- Page 77 and 78: Twelve dioxin-like PCB congeners ha
- Page 79 and 80: indicates burial of potential dioxi
- Page 81 and 82: of evidence for evaluating risk unt
- Page 83 and 84: 7.2.1 Apparent Effects Threshold Ap
- Page 85 and 86: when site conditions are most simil
- Page 87 and 88: destroying 10 acres of the mature f
- Page 89 and 90: ASTM (American Society for Testing
- Page 91 and 92: Establishing Sediment Quality Crite
- Page 93 and 94: N.J.A.C. (New Jersey Administrative
- Page 95 and 96:
USEPA. 1989c. Risk Assessment Guida
- Page 97 and 98:
http://www.epa.gov/owow/oceans/regu
- Page 99 and 100:
USEPA 2006a. Data Quality Assessmen
- Page 101 and 102:
Appendix A - Habitat Survey FormsEc
- Page 103 and 104:
Ecological Evaluation Technical Gui
- Page 105 and 106:
Appendix B - Sampling Procedures fo
- Page 107 and 108:
Appendix C - Surface Water Toxicity
- Page 109 and 110:
Short-term chronic studies, endpoin
- Page 111 and 112:
Appendix D - Sediment Toxicity Test
- Page 113 and 114:
Toxicity Test DesignSediment toxici
- Page 115 and 116:
Appendix E - Sediment Pore Water an
- Page 117 and 118:
The seven-day daphnid survival and
- Page 119 and 120:
esults are then evaluated using USE
- Page 121 and 122:
Surber or Square-foot BottomThis sa
- Page 123 and 124:
Appendix H - Soil Toxicity TestingS
- Page 125 and 126:
another sample may still have a sub
- Page 127 and 128:
conservative approach from an ecolo
- Page 129:
Data PresentationTabular presentati