Geology topics

Thomas W. La Point

Publications and source records attributed to Thomas W. La Point.

3 recordsLinked to original sources

USGS1993

Bioaccumulation of organic and inorganic selenium in a laboratory food chain

Aquatic organisms accumulated selenium (Se) from inorganic and organic Se species via aqueous and food-chain exposure routes. We measured aqueous and food-chain Se bioaccumulation from selenate, selenite, and seleno-L-methionine in a laboratory food chain of algae ( Chlamydomonas reinhardtii ), daphnids ( Daphnia magna ), and fish (bluegill, Lepomis macrochirus ). Selenium concentrations were monitored radiometrically with 75 Se-labeled compounds. All three organisms concentrated Se more strongly from aqueous selenomethionine than from either inorganic Se species. Bioconcentration factors (BCFs) estimated from 1 μg Se/L Se-methionine exposures were approximately 16,000 for algae, 200,000 for daphnids, and 5,000 for bluegills. Algae and daphnids concentrated Se more strongly from selenite (BCFs = 220–3,600) than selenate (BCFs = 65–500) whereas bluegills concenrated Se about equally from both inorganic species (estimated BCFs = 13 to 106). Bioaccumulation of foodborne Se by daphnids and bluegills was similar in food chains dosed with different Se species. Daphnids and bluegills did not accumulate Se concentrations greater than those in their diet, except at very low dietary Se concentrations. Food-chain concentration factors (CFs) for daphnids decreased from near 1.0 to 0.5 with increases in algal Se concentrations, whereas CFs estimated from bluegill exposures averaged 0.5 over a range of foodborne Se concentrations. In exposures based on selenite, bluegills accumulated greater Se concentrations from food than from water. Aqueous and food-chain Se uptakes were approximately additive, and depuration rates were similar in aqueous, food-chain, and combined exposures. Our results suggest that bluegills in Secontaminated habitats accumulate inorganic Se species primarily via food-chain uptake, although organoselenium compounds such as Se-methionine may contribute significantly to Se bioaccumulation by bluegills via both aqueous and food-chain uptake.

Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry↗

USGS1993

Use of mesocosm data to predict effects in aquatic ecosystems: Limits to interpretation: Chapter 16

Aquatic mesocosm studies are being used to refute a presumption of risk derived from laboratory toxicity tests conducted under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). Mesocosm studies incorporate many biological, chemical and physical characteristics of natural ecosystems. Hence, they serve as realistic surrogates of natural ecosystems and allow tests of pesticide effect at the population, community, and ecosystem level. We discuss two factors, ecosystem trophic status and organism life history, which influence the results derived from aquatic mesocosm studies. Trophic status influences the fat and effects of chemicals which strongly sorb or biologically degrade, yet may not be as important in the fate and effects of more water soluble chemicals. Life history traits of organisms and the intensity, frequency, and duration of the pesticide disturbance also determine the mesocosm response pattern.

Book chapter↗

USGS1989

Use of experimental ecosystems in regulatory decision making

Tiered testing for the effects of chemicals on aquatic ecosystems has begun to include tests at the ecosystem level as a component in pesticide regristration. Because such tests are expensive, regulators and industry need to know what additional information they can gain from such tests relative to the costs of the simpler single-species toxicity bioassays. Requirements for ecosystem-level testing have developed because resource managers have not fully understood the implications of potential damage to resources without having evaluations of the predicted impacts under field conditions. We review approaches taken in the use of experimental ecosystems, discuss benefits and limitations of small- and large-scale ecosystem tests, and point to correlative approaches between laboratory and field toxicity testing. Laboratory experimental ecosystems (microcosms) have been successfully used to measure contaminant bioavailability, to determine routes of uptake in moderately complex aquatic systems, and to isolate factors modifying contaminant uptake into the biota. Such factors cannot be as readily studied in outdoor experimental ecosystems because direct cause-and-effect relations are often confounded and difficult to isolate. However, laboratory tests can be designed to quantify the relations among three variables: known concentrations of Stressors; specific sublethal behavioral, biochemical, and physiological effects displayed by organisms; and responses that have been observed in ecosystem-level analyses. For regulatory purposes, the specificity of test results determines how widely they can be applied. Ecotoxicological research should be directed at attempts to identify instances where single-species testing would be the appropriate level of analysis for identifying critical ecological endpoints and for clarifying relationships between ecosystem structure and function, and where it would be inadequate for a given level of analysis.

Environmental Management↗