ALBERT

Notes: Abstract The purpose of this paper is to show how short-term laboratory tests, conducted according to US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) procedures, can be used effectively to assess water-quality conditions in streams or rivers that receive pollutants from industry or municipal or agricultural areas. Standardized, short-term tests with fish, aquatic invertebrates or algae are commonly used to estimate the acute or chronic toxicity of wastewaters; this is referred to as effuent testing. The methods used for testing effluents also can be used to assess water quality in receiving streams: in this application, the procedures are referred to as ambient testing. Despite similarity in methods, the major objective of effluent testing differs importantly from that of ambient testing. In effluent testing, the key objective is to determine how toxic an effluent is; in ambient testing, the main objective usually is that of determining if the water at a site is toxic. This difference is subtle but very important: it shapes the strategy for cost-effective ambient testing, and determines the framework for effective statistical analysis and interpretation of ambient toxicity test results. Specific case-study examples are provided demonstrating the kinds of information that can be extracted from ambient toxicity testing by use of different statistical methods, including analysis of variance, contingency-table analysis, and two types of multivariate procedures (principal components analysis and logistic regression). Examples also are given supporting the idea that an effective ambient testing programme should be long-term, and contain a diagnostic-testing component analogous to the toxicity identification procedures used to supplement effluent-testing programmes. Recommendations derived as ‘lessons learned’ from largescale ambient toxicity testing programmes for receiving streams at Department of Energy facilities include: (1) testing more frequently with one species (preferably Ceriodaphnia) generally is more effective, in terms of information gained per dollar spent, than testing less frequently with two or more species; (2) use five or more sites per test period, plus two or more reference sites, whenever possible; (3) use four to six test periods per year; and (4) use diagnostic testing to supplement the ambient-testing programme. Various laboratory and in situ methods for environmental assessment are now under development, but these methods probably will not gain acceptance for use in regulatory situations for many years. Rapid growth in need for ecological risk assessments outstrips the rate at which new test procedures are approved for regulatory purposes. Thus, laboratory tests for estimating possible environmental impacts of toxic or disruptive pollutants are likely to be used more frequently during the next decade.