Search PubMed⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

Peter M Chapman

Publications and source records attributed to Peter M Chapman.

At least 19 recordsLinked to original sources
PubMed2006

Determining when contamination is pollution - weight of evidence determinations for sediments and effluents.

Contamination is simply the presence of a substance where it should not be or at concentrations above background. Pollution is contamination that results in or can result in adverse biological effects to resident communities. All pollutants are contaminants, but not all contaminants are pollutants. Differentiating pollution from contamination cannot be done solely on the basis of chemical analyses because such analyses provide no information on bioavailability or on toxicity. Effects-based measures such as laboratory or field toxicity tests and measures of the status of resident, exposed communities provide key information, but cannot be used independently to determine pollution status. Laboratory studies can be predictive, but are rarely realistic. Measures of resident communities include innate natural variability and cannot easily distinguish between adaptation to contamination (a genetic process) and acclimation (a physiological process that may decrease energy reserves, possibly reducing such critical population-level parameters as reproduction). Finally, contaminant effects may not only be direct but also indirect; predicting such effects requires knowledge of the system under study as well as appropriate use of lines of evidence (LOE) such as toxicity tests directed to key species. Consequently, in sediments, effluents or other inputs/environmental compartments, determining when contamination is or may in future become pollution, requires a weight of evidence (WOE) assessment using different LOE appropriate to the situation under investigation. WOE investigations provide two different types of information: definitive conclusions regarding pollution; or, information as to what additional, investigative studies are necessary for definitive conclusions. Effectively, a WOE assessment comprises an initial screening-level ecological risk assessment (ERA), which may be followed by a detailed-level ERA if key uncertainties need to be resolved.

Geologic Sediments↗
PubMed2006

Global geographic differences in marine metals toxicity.

Biochemical reaction rates, metabolic rates, and other rates of biological activity increase exponentially with temperature. It has thus been hypothesized that toxicity to chemical contaminants may increase from polar to temperate to tropical species; however, until recently, polar data to test this hypothesis were not available. This study examined differences in the acute sensitivities of marine invertebrates to four metals (Cu, Cd, Zn, Pb) for polar, temperate and tropical species; data deficiencies for polar regions prohibited comparisons using chronic end-points or other chemicals. Differences between the three geographic regions were not predictable based on temperature (other factors such as differences in dissolved organic carbon concentrations also affect toxicity). There appears to be no universal, predictable pattern of increased toxicity from polar to tropical regions. Toxicity data from one geographic region will not be universally protective of other regions.

Adaptation, Physiological↗
PubMed2005

A decision-making framework for sediment contamination.

A decision-making framework for determining whether or not contaminated sediments are polluted is described. This framework is intended to be sufficiently prescriptive to standardize the decision-making process but without using "cook book" assessments. It emphasizes 4 guidance "rules": (1) sediment chemistry data are only to be used alone for remediation decisions when the costs of further investigation outweigh the costs of remediation and there is agreement among all stakeholders to act; (2) remediation decisions are based primarily on biology; (3) lines of evidence (LOE), such as laboratory toxicity tests and models that contradict the results of properly conducted field surveys, are assumed incorrect; and (4) if the impacts of a remedial alternative will cause more environmental harm than good, then it should not be implemented. Sediments with contaminant concentrations below sediment quality guidelines (SQGs) that predict toxicity toless than 5% of sediment-dwelling infauna and that contain no quantifiable concentrations of substances capable of biomagnifying are excluded from further consideration, as are sediments that do not meet these criteria but have contaminant concentrations equal to or below reference concentrations. Biomagnification potential is initially addressed by conservative (worst case) modeling based on benthos and sediments and, subsequently, by additional food chain data and more realistic assumptions. Toxicity (acute and chronic) and alterations to resident communities are addressed by, respectively, laboratory studies and field observations. The integrative decision point for sediments is a weight of evidence (WOE) matrix combining up to 4 main LOE: chemistry, toxicity, community alteration, and biomagnification potential. Of 16 possible WOE scenarios, 6 result in definite decisions, and 10 require additional assessment. Typically, this framework will be applied to surficial sediments. The possibility that deeper sediments may be uncovered as a result of natural or other processes must also be investigated and may require similar assessment.

Animals↗
PubMed2004

Testing sediment biological effects with the freshwater amphipod Hyalella azteca: the gap between laboratory and nature.

The freshwater amphipod, Hyalella azteca, is widely used in laboratory sediment toxicity and bioaccumulation tests. However, its responses in the laboratory are probably very different from those in the field. A review of the literature indicates that in its natural habitat this species complex is primarily epibenthic, derives little nutrition from the sediments, and responds primarily to contaminants in the overlying water column (including water and food), not sediment or porewater. In laboratory sediment toxicity tests H. azteca is deprived of natural food sources such as algal communities on or above the sediments, and is subjected to constant light without any cover except that afforded by burial into the sediments. Under these constraining laboratory conditions, H. azteca has been reported to respond to sediment or porewater contamination. In nature, contamination of overlying water from sediment is less likely than in the laboratory because of the large, generally non-static sink of natural surface water. H. azteca does not appear to be the most appropriate test species for direct assessments of the bioavailability and toxicity of sediment contaminants, though it is probably appropriate for testing the toxicity of surface waters. Toxic and non-toxic responses will be highly conservative, though the latter are probably the most persuasive given the exposure constraints. Thus H. azteca is probably a suitable surrogate species for determining sediments that are likely not toxic to field populations; however, it is not suitable for determining sediments that are likely toxic to field populations.

Amphipoda↗
PubMed2002

Ecological risk assessment (ERA) and hormesis.

Based on our current state of knowledge, the significance and importance of hormesis is likely to be greater for ecotoxicology, a component of ecological risk assessment (ERA), than for the overall process of ERA. Appropriately determining the role of hormesis in ERA will require extension of hormesis beyond chemical stressors to abiotic (e.g. habitat) and biotic stressors (e.g. species introductions, organism interactions). It will also require determining for all stressors whether at both individual and higher levels of organization, hormesis has positive, neutral or adverse effects. This determination must be made for model organisms, populations and communities. Adverse effects are the least likely, however, neutral effects cannot be ruled out. Presently, consideration of hormetic effects in ERA is most appropriate in a detailed level ecological risk assessment (DLERA), the most complex form of ERA. It is not appropriate in either problem formulation or a screening level ERA (SLERA). Further, for hormetic effects to be recognized and accepted fully into ERA may require a paradigm shift. Three on-going paradigm shifts to which hormesis could be linked are: recognition of the low utility of no-observed effects concentrations (NOECs); recognition of the need for special treatment of essential element dose/concentration-responses, which are similar to hormetic responses; and, the replacement of environmental toxicology with ecological toxicology (ecotoxicology).

Adaptation, Physiological↗
PubMed2002

Pore water testing and analysis: the good, the bad, and the ugly.

The increasingly common practice of collecting and assessing sediment pore water as a primary measure of sediment quality is reviewed. Good features of this practice include: pore water is a key exposure route for some organisms associated with sediments; pore water testing eliminates particle size effects; pore water analyses and tests can provide useful information regarding contamination and pollution. Bad features include: pore water is not the only exposure route; pore water tests lack chemical or biological realism: their "sensitivity" relative to other tests may be meaningless due to manipulation and laboratory artifacts; many sediment and surface dwelling organisms are not directly influenced by pore water. Bad features can become ugly if: other exposure pathways are not considered (for toxicity or bioaccumulation); manipulation techniques are not appropriate; pore water tests are inappropriately linked to population-level effects. Pore water testing and analyses can be effective tools provided their limitations are well understood by researchers and managers.

Animals↗
PubMed2002

Integrating toxicology and ecology: putting the "eco" into ecotoxicology.

Environmental toxicology has been and continues to be an important discipline (e.g., single-species testing for screening purposes). However, ecological toxicology (ecotoxicology--more realism in tests, test species and exposures) is required for predicting real world effects and for site-specific assessments. Ecotoxicology and ecology have shown similar developmental patterns over time; closer cooperation between ecologists and toxicologists would benefit both disciplines. Ecology can be incorporated into toxicology either extrinsically (separately, e.g., providing information on pre-selected test species) or intrinsically (e.g., as part of test species selection)--the latter is preferable. General guidelines for acute and chronic testing and criteria for species selection differ for ecotoxicology and environmental toxicology, and are outlined. An overall framework is proposed based on ecological risk assessment (ERA), for combining ecology and toxicology (environmental and ecological) for decision-making. Increased emphasis on ecotoxicology represents a shift from reductionist to holistic approaches.

Animals↗
PubMed2002

Toxicity of 1,4-dichlorobenzene in sediments to juvenile polychaete worms.

Investigation of sediment contamination associated with a marine sewage outfall in Victoria (BC, Canada) found elevated concentrations of 1,4-dichlorobenzene (1,4-DCB). Juvenile polychaete worm (Neanthes) growth was significantly reduced at or near the outfall, roughly corresponding to elevated 1,4-DCB concentrations. There are few data on 1,4-DCB toxicity to marine organisms and no published literature on its toxicity to benthic marine organisms. To determine whether reduced polychaete growth (measured as dry weight) was due to 1,4-DCB exposure, a laboratory investigation was conducted. Uncontaminated marine sediment was spiked with 1,4-DCB and juvenile Neanthes were exposed in 20-d sublethal toxicity tests. There were no adverse effects on survival at any test concentration; mean survival was 80-100%. Statistically significant decreases in average dry weight only occurred at the highest 1,4-DCB concentration (19,900 microg/kg, dry weight); this represented a 1,4-DCB concentration more than 10 times higher than previously measured at the outfall (1,710 microg/kg, dry weight). There were no adverse effects on survival or dry weight at the range of concentrations previously measured in sediments from the vicinity of the outfall.

Animals↗
PubMed2002

PAH phototoxicity--an ecologically irrelevant phenomenon?

Photoenhanced toxicity of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH) is well demonstrated in laboratory and in a few in situ studies. Effects have been observed for multiple taxa and toxicological endpoints, and the mechanism of toxic action has been described. However, this phenomenon is ameliorated by physical, chemical and biotic factors. The ecological relevance of PAH phototoxicity remains uncertain; it should not be used for environmental management decisions unless its ecological relevance is firmly established, and then only as part of a weight of evidence determination.

Ecology↗