ASTM E1850-04(2019)

This international standard was developed in accordance with internationally recognized principles on standardization established in the Decision on Principles for the
Development of International Standards, Guides and Recommendations issued by the World Trade Organization Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) Committee.
Designation: E1850 − 04 (Reapproved 2019)
Standard Guide for
Selection of Resident Species as Test Organisms for
Aquatic and Sediment Toxicity Tests
This standard is issued under the fixed designation E1850; the number immediately following the designation indicates the year of
original adoption or, in the case of revision, the year of last revision. A number in parentheses indicates the year of last reapproval. A
superscript epsilon (´) indicates an editorial change since the last revision or reapproval.
1. Scope situations. Terrestrial, arboreal, or atmospheric species are not
considered in this guide.
1.1 This guide along with Guide E1192 and guidance from
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (1,2) covers the
1.5 This guide is arranged as follows:
use of resident species in toxicity testing, particularly if
Section
site-specific information is desired. For example, in those
Scope 1
systemswhereparticularspeciesareconsideredtobeeconomi-
Referenced Documents 2
callyoraestheticallyimportant,itmightbemoreappropriateto
Terminology 3
utilize resident species for testing (3). For this reason, the
Summary of Guide 4
Significance and Use 5
USEPA allows development of site-specific chemical
Species Selection Process 6
standards, using resident species, in order to reflect local
Collection of Information 6.1
conditions (1). This guide is designed to guide the selection of
Obtaining Resident Species for Toxicity Testing 6.2
Criteria for Selection 6.3
resident species for use as test organisms in aquatic and
Test Performance Characterization 6.4
sediment toxicity tests. It presupposes that the user is familiar
Interferences 7
withthetaxonomyofaquaticandbenthicspeciesandhassome
Safety Precautions 8
Documentation 9
field experience.
Keywords 10
1.2 Because toxicological information is often limited for Appendixes
Potential Test Species Appendix X1
many aquatic species, it is assumed that the majority of testing
Algae X1.1
applications will be acute tests. Therefore, much of the
Aquatic Floating Macrophytes X1.2
guidance presented in this guide pertaining to the species Protozoa X1.3
Rotifera X1.4
selectionprocessisapplicablewhenacutetoxicitytestingisthe
Attached and Benthic Fauna X1.5
desired goal. However, the principles discussed in this guide
Fish X1.6
Amphibia X1.7
pertain to chronic toxicity test applications as well, although it
Examples of Resident Species Table X1.1
shouldbeclearlyunderstoodthatsuchtestingrequiressubstan-
Taxonomic Keys—Partial Listing Appendix X2
tially greater effort, time, and resources than acute testing.
Flow Chart of Factors to Consider For Selecting A Appendix X3
Resident Species
1.3 The procedures for selecting resident species in toxicity
1.6 This standard does not purport to address all of the
testing are necessarily general at this time because information
safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the
is often lacking for specific taxa or groups of taxa. This guide
responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appro-
attempts to give specific information when appropriate.
priate safety, health, and environmental practices and deter-
1.4 This guide is not intended to be inclusive. References
minetheapplicabilityofregulatorylimitationspriortouse.All
listed provide a starting point from which to approach the
safety precautions and health-related practices are the respon-
literature. This guide deals solely with aquatic toxicity test
sibility of the user. Specific safety practices are suggested in
Section 8.
ThisguideisunderthejurisdictionofASTMCommitteeE50onEnvironmental
1.7 This international standard was developed in accor-
Assessment, Risk Management and CorrectiveAction and is the direct responsibil-
dance with internationally recognized principles on standard-
ity of Subcommittee E50.47 on Biological Effects and Environmental Fate.
Current edition approved Feb. 1, 2019. Published February 2019. Originally
ization established in the Decision on Principles for the
approvedin1997.Lastpreviouseditionapprovedin2012asE1850–04(2012).DOI:
Development of International Standards, Guides and Recom-
10.1520/E1850-04R19.
2 mendations issued by the World Trade Organization Technical
The boldface numbers given in parentheses refer to a list of references at the
end of the text. Barriers to Trade (TBT) Committee.
Copyright © ASTM International, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, PO Box C700, West Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959. United States
E1850 − 04 (2019)
2. Referenced Documents E1563 Guide for Conducting Static Acute Toxicity Tests
3 with Echinoid Embryos
2.1 ASTM Standards:
E1611 Guide for Conducting Sediment Toxicity Tests with
D4229 Practice for Conducting Static Acute Toxicity Tests
4 Polychaetous Annelids
on Waste-Waters with Daphnia (Withdrawn 1988)
E1688 Guide for Determination of the Bioaccumulation of
D4401 Practice for Collecting Benthic Macroinvertebrates
Sediment-Associated Contaminants by Benthic Inverte-
With Petersen Grab Sampler (Withdrawn 2003)
brates
D4407 Practice for Collecting Benthic Macroinvertebrates
E1706 Test Method for Measuring theToxicity of Sediment-
With Orange Peel Grab Sampler (Withdrawn 2003)
Associated Contaminants with Freshwater Invertebrates
D4556 Guide for Selecting Stream-Net Sampling Devices
(Withdrawn 2019)
for Collecting Benthic Macroinvertebrates (Withdrawn
4 E1913 Guide for Conducting Static, Axenic, 14-Day Phyto-
2003)
toxicity Tests in Test Tubes with the Submersed Aquatic
D4557 Practice for Collecting Benthic Macroinvertebrates
Macrophyte, Myriophyllum sibiricum Komarov (With-
with Surber and Related Type Samplers (Withdrawn
drawn 2012)
2003)
E1924 Guide for Conducting Toxicity Tests with Biolumi-
D4558 Practice for Collecting Benthic Macroinvertebrates
4 nescent Dinoflagellates (Withdrawn 2013)
With Drift Nets (Withdrawn 2003)
E2122 Guide for Conducting In-situ Field Bioassays With
E724 Guide for Conducting Static Acute Toxicity Tests
Caged Bivalves
Starting with Embryos of Four Species of Saltwater
Bivalve Molluscs
3. Terminology
E729 Guide for Conducting Acute Toxicity Tests on Test
3.1 Definitions:The words “must,” “should,” “may,” “can,”
Materials with Fishes, Macroinvertebrates, and Amphib-
and “might” have very specific meanings in this guide. “Must”
ians
is used to express an absolute requirement. “Should” is used to
E1191 Guide for Conducting Life-Cycle Toxicity Tests with
state that the specified condition is recommended and ought to
Saltwater Mysids
be met if possible. Although a violation of one “should” is
E1192 Guide for ConductingAcute Toxicity Tests onAque-
rarelyaseriousmatter,violationofseveralwilloftenrenderthe
ous Ambient Samples and Effluents with Fishes,
results questionable. Terms such as “desirable,” or “might be
Macroinvertebrates, and Amphibians
desirable” are used in conjunction with less important factors.
E1193 Guide for Conducting Daphnia magna Life-Cycle
“May” is used to mean “is (are allowed to),” “can” is used to
Toxicity Tests
mean “is (are) able to,” and “might” is used to mean “could
E1210 Practice for Fluorescent Liquid Penetrant Testing
possibly.” Thus, the classic distinction between “may” and
Using the Hydrophilic Post-Emulsification Process
“can”ispreserved,and“might”isneverusedasasynonymfor
E1218 Guide for Conducting Static Toxicity Tests with
either “may” or “can.”
Microalgae
3.2 Definitions of Terms Specific to This Standard:
E1241 GuideforConductingEarlyLife-StageToxicityTests
3.2.1 impaired water body or site—a body of water or site
with Fishes
which exhibits decreased structural or functional biological
E1367 Test Method for Measuring theToxicity of Sediment-
integrity, or both, given the geomorphic habitat available. This
Associated Contaminants with Estuarine and Marine In-
is typically measured as a decrease in the number of species
vertebrates
present or decreased biological productivity compared to sites
E1383 Guide for Conducting Sediment Toxicity Tests with
similar in size and habitat and having few anthropogenic
Freshwater Invertebrates (Withdrawn 1995)
influences.
E1415 Guide for Conducting Static Toxicity Tests With
3.2.2 indigenous species—a species that is likely to occur at
Lemna gibba G3
a specified site for some portion of its life span as a native
E1440 Guide for Acute Toxicity Test with the Rotifer Bra-
species.
chionus
E1463 Guide for Conducting Static and Flow-Through
3.2.3 key species—a species that is of special concern for
AcuteToxicityTestsWith Mysids From theWest Coast of
ecological or economic reasons.
the United States
3.2.4 resident species—a species that is present at a speci-
E1498 Guide for Conducting Sexual Reproduction Tests
fied site for some portion of its life span.
with Seaweeds
3.2.5 surrogate species—a species that can be studied to
E1525 Guide for Designing BiologicalTests with Sediments
produce results to estimate toxicity responses of other species
E1562 Guide for Conducting Acute, Chronic, and Life-
that are not tested directly (4). Frequently, published standard
Cycle Aquatic Toxicity Tests with Polychaetous Annelids
testing procedures, established through nationally recognized
agencies or societies such as ASTM, OECD, Environment
For referenced ASTM standards, visit the ASTM website, www.astm.org, or Canada, and USEPA, have been developed for these species.
contact ASTM Customer Service at service@astm.org. For Annual Book of ASTM
Standards volume information, refer to the standard’s Document Summary page on 4. Summary of Guide
the ASTM website.
4.1 A list of resident species is compiled from published
The last approved version of this historical standard is referenced on
www.astm.org. literature on the natural history of the area, bioassessments of
E1850 − 04 (2019)
the receiving body of water, species lists compiled by indi- 5.4 This guide can be used as a general framework for
viduals or agencies, maps, and taxonomic keys. researchers who desire to develop or modify existing toxicity
test methods for previously untested species.
4.2 The list of species is reduced by first defining the
objectives of the study and the decisions to be made, followed 5.5 Researchers in countries other than the United States
by a stepwise procedure to determine which species to test. and Canada might obtain useful information from this guide
This procedure includes consideration of factors such as ease regardingpotentialtestspeciesortestmethodsforsitesoflocal
ofhandlingandtesting,availability,sensitivity,andavarietyof interest.
other concerns (see Section 6).
6. Species Selection Process
5. Significance and Use
6.1 Collection of Information—To select a resident species
5.1 The USEPA’s policy for whole-effluent monitoring
for toxicity tests, one must first determine what species are
stresses, an integrated approach to toxicity testing (1, 5) tests
likely to occur at the location of interest. This can be
and other measures of toxicity, should be systematically
determined by examining historical species data for the site
employed and should be related to certain aquatic-system
that predates contamination, or by examining recent or histori-
factors, such as the type of habitats available (benthic and
cal data for nearby reference sites of similar size and habitat
water column), flow regime, and physicochemical quality of
type. From these lists, select species that can be handled in the
the site water and sediment. The determination of toxicity is
laboratory and for which test data are known, or species with
generally accomplished with a few surrogate species for four
close relatives for which data are available to demonstrate
major reasons: a regulatory agency can compare test results
sensitivity to the contaminant of interest. Methods suggested
between sites and over time in order to help prioritize enforce-
include the following:
ment efforts, tests using these species are relatively inexpen-
6.1.1 Bioassessments—Quantitative sampling of
sive since the organisms can be cultured year-round under
macroinvertebrates, fish, algae, and macrophytes, see Guides
laboratory conditions, the reliability of test methods utilizing
D4229 and D4407 (13, 14, 15) located outside point and
surrogate species is better established than for other species,
non-point sources of pollutants can yield information on the
and surrogate species are better integrated into toxicity identi-
types of common species available as potential test organisms.
fication evaluations than other species. For regulatory
If a site containing potential pollutants is the object of study, a
purposes, under the National Pollution Discharge Elimination
bioassessment performed both within and outside of the
System (NPDES), USEPAconsiders it unnecessary to conduct
suspected impaired area might reveal species-specific popula-
wholeeffluenttoxicitytestswithresidentorindigenousspecies
tion trends which might be correlated to toxicity. Species that
(6). An alternate testing procedure protocol is provided by
exhibit decreases in abundance or biomass, or both, within or
USEPA for validating toxicity methods using species not
downstream of the suspect area might represent sensitive
already approved (6,7). In systems where surrogate species are
resident species that could be utilized in toxicity testing.
not found, erroneous predictions might be obtained of environ-
Factors such as time of sampling, similarity of habitat regimes,
mental impact or water and sediment quality impairment based
and the number of samples taken might influence the accuracy
on toxicity tests using surrogate species (8).
of this approach (see Guide D4556, Practice D4557, and
5.2 This guide is intended to assist researchers and manag-
Practice D4558). Studies of community structure (15) can be
ers in selecting appropriate resident species for site-specific
conducted to determine abundance and dominance of species.
toxicity assessments. This guide could be used to select a
Such studies can provide lists of potential test species, as well
resident species for use in predicting the potential toxic effects
as suggest suitable organism and laboratory maintenance
of a substance in certain types of aquatic environments.
procedures.
Another use might be for selecting a number of indigenous
6.1.1.1 Bioassessments can also have significant application
species from the aquatic community, that when tested, might
to the USEPA Recalculation Procedure (1, 14) that allows
indicate potential toxic effects of the test substance or material
deletion of nonresident species from the National Water
on the ecological integrity of that community. Selection of a
Quality criteria database. Bioassessments can be used to
suitable test species is very important because species might
determine the types of species and taxonomic families capable
respond quite differently to toxic compounds (9). Species
of naturally existing in the water body of interest (15, 16).
suggested as test organisms by regulatory agencies might not
Following the procedures outlined later in this guide, suitable
occur in the receiving waters of interest and their sensitivity to
test species can be identified, using bioassessments to replace
a toxic substance might not be representative of the sensitivity
missing data in the recalculated database for a given pollutant.
exhibited by resident species. Since aquatic ecosystem struc-
Resident species data could then fulfill the minimum USEPA
ture and function is often determined by a few key species (10,
data requirements for developing water quality criteria (1).
11, 12, 13), toxicological tests with these resident species
6.1.2 Historical Survey of Study Site—Records of past
might be very important.
biological surveys or published fish harvesting documents can
5.3 This guide can be used in the selection of representative be compared with recent surveys or bioassessments, or both.
test species for certain site-specific assessments, such as the Decreases in certain species over time might result from
Resident-Species Criteria Modification Procedure (1), the Re- environmental degradation due to the presence of toxic mate-
calculation Procedure (14), and ecological risk assessment rials or enhancement due to decreasing contaminant concen-
studies. trations or nutrient enrichment. Such species may be candidate
E1850 − 04 (2019)
resident species for site-specific toxicity testing. It would be 6.2.2 Methods for collection of resident organisms will
desirable not to use species that are believed to have been dependonthehabitatofthespeciesandpossiblyonthespecies
itself. Practices D4401, and D4557, and Test Method E1210
affected primarily by habitat changes (due to dams, extreme
storms, fires, or other natural disturbances) or biological are examples of references that describe suitable methods for
collecting freshwater and saltwater organisms. Many refer-
disturbances (introduction of exotic species or parasites). In
ences in this guide and in Appendix X2 have information on
general, it is desirable to utilize a species for which there exists
the habitat and appropriate collection methods for various
information concerning its ecology, sensitivity, and life history.
freshwater or saltwater species. In all cases, care should be
Many species have been used successfully in a variety of
taken to minimize handling stress on organisms collected from
experimental settings to assess water or sediment toxicity (see
the field. For this reason, non-destructive sampling methods
Guides E729, E1192, and E1525, and see Appendix X1).
might be preferred over other methods; that is, nets, seines,
Methodological information gathered from such studies might
hand-picking, cores, and bottle samplers might involve less
be useful in the selection of a suitable species for testing.
handlingoforganismsthanpumps,kicksampling,dredging,or
6.1.3 Ecoregion Species Lists—Lists of species, by geo-
electrofishing. Regardless of the method of collection, field-
graphical (in the case of saltwater) or watershed location (16,
collected organisms must be quarantined and acclimated to
17) and books on taxonomy, detailing distribution locations of
laboratory conditions prior to testing in order to ensure that
species, are numerous and generally available (see references
healthy organisms are used in testing (see Guide E729) (2).
in Appendix X2). Review of a list for the area of interest
6.2.3 Rare or endangered species, as well as most game
obtained through local and state fisheries and other natural
fishes, must not be collected or used in toxicity tests without
resource agencies can provide additional potential test species.
prior approval of appropriate federal or state agencies.
However, species lists may contain “ephemeral” or extremely
6.2.4 The necessary federal or state collection permits, or
rare species that might be inappropriate to test.These are often
both, must be acquired prior to collecting resident species.
species at the fringe of their distribution and are only present
when unusually favorable habitat conditions occur in a particu- 6.2.5 Field-collected organisms, or organisms obtained
lar year. There are also many instances where the taxonomy of from an outside supplier, need to be handled with care once
they arrive at the laboratory. It is desirable at first to match
species may have been questionable. Therefore, it might be
more useful to evaluate resident species that are relatively laboratory conditions to those under which the organisms had
been living previously (for example, similar temperature, pH,
frequent when selecting a test species. Archives containing
alkalinity, salinity, and so forth). Guide E729 and otherASTM
aerial photographs and infrared photographs are useful for
references previously cited in this guide should be consulted
determining wetland plant identifications.
for further guidance on organism acclimation and holding
6.1.4 Taxonomic Studies—References are available that dis-
procedures.
cuss relative species sensitivity to pollutants (see Appendix
6.2.6 Field-collected organisms should be representative of
X2). Some of the initial research on the ecology and response
theorganismsthatcouldoccuratthestudysitebasedonhabitat
to stress/pollution of certain resident species has already been
features available and historic species records for the region
conducted (18, 19, 20).
and should not have been previously exposed to hazardous
6.1.5 If any of the preceding information sources indicate
materials, contaminants, or pathogens. Therefore, field-
thatsurrogatespeciesorcloselyrelatedspeciesoccurinthesite
collected organisms should be obtained from “clean” areas,
of interest, then surrogate species tests should probably be
welloutsideoftheinfluenceofpoint-andnonpointsources.As
used. Further species selection processes discussed in this
one check on the appropriateness of a certain species popula-
guide might be unnecessary. This is because the surrogate
tion for toxicity testing, priority pollutant analyses of the site
species tests already satisfy all of the selection criteria dis-
water, sediment, or organism tissues should be used to deter-
cussed in this guide.
mine whether organisms have had prior exposure to source-
6.2 Obtaining Resident Species for Toxicity Testing:
related pollutants. Since many aquatic species can disperse
over relatively long distances during different life stages, it
6.2.1 The ability to perform toxicity tests with resident
might be difficult in certain situations to ensure that field-
specieswilldependontheavailabilityofasufficientnumberof
collected test organisms have not had prior exposure to some
organisms, similar in age or size, or both, and history, in order
toxicant. Furthermore, prior exposure to toxicants might be
to maximize test precision (see Guide E729). Some freshwater
related to a particular life stage of the organism which might or
and saltwater species can be cultured or purchased from a
might not be known. Therefore, in addition to obtaining
supplier (see Ref (21) in Guide E729), although these might be
organisms from relatively “clean” locations, field-collected
different genetic strains and therefore potentially different in
organisms should be maintained, or preferably cultured, under
sensitivity than species collected locally. Appendix X1 lists
known “clean” conditions prior to use in testing.
some examples of non-surrogate species that have been suc-
cessfully cultured or maintained in a laboratory, or both. In
6.2.7 In addition to the surrogate species commonly used,
some locations, certain species are sufficiently abundant to several non-surrogate species have been successfully cultured
allow collection of organisms with similar ages for toxicity
in the laboratory (for example, the freshwater parthenogenic
testing purposes (22, 23, 24). The organisms must be collected mayfly Cleon triangulifer (25), the rotifer Brachionus acuti-
from reference site conditions; that is, outside of potential or
cornis (see Guide E1440 and Ref (26)), the frogs Hyla crucifer
actual impact. (24) and Bufo spp. (27), and the marine polychaetes Neanthes
E1850 − 04 (2019)
arenaceodentata (see Guides E1562 and E1611) and Capitella 6.3.2.1 Survival of organisms several days after placement
capitata (28) (see Guide E1562), and in commercial aquacul- inthelaboratoryenvironmentshouldindicatethattheorganism
has adapted to the new environment.
ture facilities (for example, Mya arenaria, Crassostrea gigas,
Crassostrea virginica, certain freshwater molluscs and 6.3.2.2 Organisms must have no obvious physical abnor-
malities such as missing body parts or lesions.
crustacea, and several saltwater and freshwater fish species)
6.3.2.3 Organisms should exhibit normal behavior (for ex-
thereby minimizing the possibility of pre-exposure to toxicant.
ample feeding or locomotory, if appropriate).
However, it should be recognized that species cultured under
constant laboratory conditions, whether originally resident to a 6.3.2.4 Reference toxicant tests should be performed to
site or not, might not yield predictive test results if seasonally compare organism sensitivity (and indirectly their health) over
time either with previously reported results or laboratory data
influenced effects are important. Also, a species that has been
being developed for that species and life stage (see section
subjected to continuous laboratory culturing for multiple gen-
6.5.1).
erations may not exhibit the same sensitivity to a toxicant as a
6.3.3 Ease of Test Method Development—Acute or chronic
wild population.
toxicitytestproceduresmightexistforthespeciesofinterestor
6.2.8 Appropriate species may include protozoans, other
anecologicallysimilarspecies(seeASTMguidesreferencedin
microfauna, macrophytes, algae, macroinvertebrates, and ver-
this guide and Refs (2 and 29)). In some cases, benthic or
tebrates. Many candidate species are cited in USEPA manuals
sediment-dwelling species can be successfully used in water
(2, 29), USEPA criteria documents, and documents specific to
columntestingwiththeaidofchemicallyinertstructuresintest
certain taxonomic orders such as Amphipoda,
chambers to simulate the natural habitat of the species. For
Emphemeroptera, Isopoda, Odonata, Pelecypoda, and Plecop-
example, glass tubes have been used in aquatic tests for the
tera (14, 30). Representatives of these orders have been
burrowing mayfly Hexagenia (33), and PVC tubes have been
successfullyusedinavarietyoftoxicitytestsituations (23, 24).
used as habitat shelters for the benthic mayfly Stenonema (23).
Additionally, there are written procedures for using both
For sediment testing, care should be taken to provide an
microphytes and macrophytes in toxicity tests (see Guides
adequate natural or synthetic culture sediment having the
E1218 and E1415 and Ref (31)).
appropriate particle size and other physical and chemical
characteristics for the species of interest (see Guides E1383
6.3 Criteria for Selection:
and E1367).
6.3.1 Selection of species or life stages, or both, depends
6.3.4 Potential Sensitivity to Pollutants—Avariety of refer-
first on the purpose and scope of the study, and should be
ences are available that categorize species in terms of general
appropriate to the scientific inquiry. For example, early life
sensitivity to organic enrichment and other pollutants (14, 18,
stages of a species might be sensitive to a certain toxicant and
19, 20), and there are similar references available for groups
readily acclimate to the laboratory environment. These organ-
(orders, families) of species (for example, Ephemeroptera (9)).
isms may be used in acute toxicity test or sublethal test
It is desirable to utilize species for which data are available
designedtoassesstoxicityusingdevelopmentalendpoints,but
indicating their relative sensitivity to a given toxicant or class
may not provide information on reproductive behavior. Studies
or toxicant.
designed to examine biological effects due to certain chemicals
6.4 Test Performance Characterization—To document the
should use species that are representative of the assumed target
quality of the data produced from a given resident species
community (for example, algae for algicides, insects for
toxicity test (and surrogate tests as well), and to determine its
insecticides, and so forth). It might be desirable to use test
comparability with other species data for the same test
species that represent a particular trophic level (for example,
material, test method performance characteristics should be
primary producers, primary consumers, detritivores, and so
determined, preferably prior to definitive screening of the
forth) or feeding guilds (filter feeders, deposit feeders, algal
substance of interest. The degree to which a resident species
scrapers, or predators (32)). The taxonomic identity of test
test yields meaningful data will depend on how well the test
species used must be determined by appropriate keys (see
performance characteristics meet the data quality objectives of
Appendix X2) and verified by an appropriate expert.
the study.Test performance characterization should include the
6.3.1.1 In further selecting of appropriate resident test
following steps:
species,thefollowingselectioncriteriashouldbeconsideredin
6.4.1 Collect and test different batches of the same species
order of importance:
over time in order to obtain a measure of the variability
6.3.2 Ease of Organism Procurement and Laboratory Cul-
associated with testing the particular species. The relative
ture and Handling—Species should be screened for ease of
health and quality of test organisms can then be documented
handling, ease of collection, and resistance to shock and
through an assessment of their behavioral repertoire and
handling (see 6.2). Preference might be given to those species
toxicity tests with a known toxicant or, preferably, different
that can be successfully cultured in the laboratory and are
classes of toxicants (for example, heavy metals, chlorinated
amenable to laboratory testing. Organisms for use in testing
organic compounds, or PAHs) in which the toxicity effect is
should not have had prior exposure to contaminants or other
theoretically constant across tests. Repeated tests using stan-
sources of stress (see 6.2.6). Potential criteria to determine dard or reference materials could be used to: compare the
whether a given batch of field-collected organisms is suitable
resident species test end point with existing data for standard
for laboratory testing should include the following: surrogate test species (that is, data for the same toxicant can be
E1850 − 04 (2019)
compared to define relative sensitivity of the resident species the grain size of the test sediment) and food requirements
tested) and define resident species test precision through the might affect the organisms’ ability to acclimate, recover from
development of a reference toxicant control chart for the handling, or accept the laboratory environment conditions.
species and the test material being used (2). 7.1.5 Unknown reproductive states at the time of collection
might produce aberrant results due to interactions between
6.4.2 The appropriate exposure time required for testing
should be determined and documented. Different taxonomic breeding condition and metabolism or toxicity of contami-
nants.
groups (for example, rotifers versus molluscs) or different life
stages of the same species (for example, glochidia versus 7.1.6 The degree of contamination and the history of con-
tamination at the collection site might not be adequately
juvenile stage of bivalves) might require different exposure
durations in order to obtain meaningful test end points. As a known.
7.1.7 The degree to which the organisms have been exposed
general rule (consistent with Guides E729 and E1192),
guidance, aquatic acute toxicity tests should be at least 48 h in to contaminants in areas other than where the organisms were
collected is unknown.
length for zooplankton species and 96 h for other species.
Longer exposure periods might be necessary in sediment
exposures (see Test Method E1706 and Guides E1367 and
8. Safety Precautions
E1611) and for species that are capable of avoiding pollutant
8.1 Field-collection techniques might pose dangers to per-
exposure for short periods of time (juvenile and adult bivalves,
sonnel. Safety provisions, such as the buddy system, complete
for example).
pre-survey of the collection area, obtaining dam discharge
6.4.3 If a hypothesis test is used, the statistical power of a
schedul
...