Sediment contact test with Potamopyrgus antipodarum in effect-directed analyses-challenges and opportunities

Identifying Organic Toxicants in Sediment Using Effect-Directed Analysis: A Combination of Bioaccessibility-Based Extraction and High-Throughput Midge Toxicity Testing

Toxicity identification evaluation (TIE) and effect-directed analysis (EDA) were integrated to diagnose toxicity drivers in a complex system, such as sediment. In TIE manipulation, XAD resin was utilized as an amending agent for characterizing organic toxicants, which also facilitate a large-volume bioaccessibility-based extraction for EDA purposes. Both raw sediments in TIE and extract fractions in EDA were tested with Chironomus dilutus for toxicity using whole-sediment testing and a high-throughput microplate assay. This allowed for a direct link between whole-sediment TIE and EDA, which strongly strengthened the characterization and identification of toxicants. Sediments amended with XAD resin, as part of the TIE, significantly reduced midge mortality compared with unamended sediments, suggesting that organics were one class of main toxicants. On the basis of bioaccessible concentrations in sediment measured by XAD extraction, a group of previously unidentified contaminants, synthetic polycyclic musks (versalide, tonalide, and galaxolide), were found to explain 32-73% of the observed toxicity in test sediments. Meanwhile, three pyrethroids contributed to an additional 17-35% of toxicity. Surprisingly, the toxicity contribution of musks and pyrethroids reached 58-442 and 56-1625%, respectively, based on total sediment concentrations measured by exhaustive extraction. This suggested that total sediment concentrations significantly overestimated toxicity and that bioavailability should be considered in toxicity identification. Identifying nontarget toxicants sheds a light on application of the integrated TIE and EDA method in defining causality in a complex environment.

Diagnosis of complex mixture toxicity in sediments: Application of toxicity identification evaluation (TIE) and effect-directed analysis (EDA)

Determining causality of sediment toxicity is of great importance in aquatic risk assessment, but there are tremendous challenges due to joint toxicity of trace pollutants in complex sediment matrices. Two approaches, namely toxicity identification evaluation (TIE) and effect-directed analysis (EDA) have been developed. Conventional sediment TIEs take the advantage of environmental relevance by using whole organism bioassays; however, they suffer from lack of effective methods for specifically identifying major contributors as it typically only evaluates contaminant class rather than specific contaminants. Alternatively, EDA is a powerful tool in identifying causes of sediment toxicity with sophisticated fractionation and chemical analysis of targeted and non-targeted non-polar organic toxicants, but it is not always environmentally relevant due to the use of in-vitro bioassays and exhaustive solvent extraction. An integrated TIE and EDA method would provide an environmentally relevant and toxicant specific approach to effectively determine causality of sediment toxicity by combining the merits of the two methods. Bioavailability-based extraction and dosing techniques are recommended to be incorporated into the integrated method to improve the accuracy of toxicity diagnosis. Besides considering bioavailability in the integrated TIE and EDA approach, the premise of adverse outcome pathways should also be considered. Generally speaking, both TIE and EDA have focused on adverse effects at cellular and organism levels. The addition of trait-based approaches in screening multiple toxicological endpoints helps to extend effects on cellular and organism levels to population level, and provides a better understanding of potential impacts to the community and ecosystem. The outcome pathway underlies the critical role of determining causality in interpreting impacts of complex mixtures to benthic community and aquatic ecosystem.

Improving the accuracy of effect-directed analysis: the role of bioavailability

Aquatic ecosystems have been suffering from contamination by multiple stressors. Traditional chemical-based risk assessment usually fails to explain the toxicity contributions from contaminants that are not regularly monitored or that have an unknown identity. Diagnosing the causes of noted adverse outcomes in the environment is of great importance in ecological risk assessment and in this regard effect-directed analysis (EDA) has been designed to fulfill this purpose. The EDA approach is now increasingly used in aquatic risk assessment owing to its specialty in achieving effect-directed nontarget analysis; however, a lack of environmental relevance makes conventional EDA less favorable. In particular, ignoring the bioavailability in EDA may cause a biased and even erroneous identification of causative toxicants in a mixture. Taking bioavailability into consideration is therefore of great importance to improve the accuracy of EDA diagnosis. The present article reviews the current status and applications of EDA practices that incorporate bioavailability. The use of biological samples is the most obvious way to include bioavailability into EDA applications, but its development is limited due to the small sample size and lack of evidence for metabolizable compounds. Bioavailability/bioaccessibility-based extraction (bioaccessibility-directed and partitioning-based extraction) and passive-dosing techniques are recommended to be used to integrate bioavailability into EDA diagnosis in abiotic samples. Lastly, the future perspectives of expanding and standardizing the use of biological samples and bioavailability-based techniques in EDA are discussed.