
Evaluation of WET Testing as an Indicator of Aquatic Health in Effluent-Dominated Streams
Description
Alles über E-Books | Antworten auf Fragen rund um E-Books, Kopierschutz und Dateiformate finden Sie in unserem Info- & Hilfebereich.
Test acceptance criteria were met for most WET tests, however, this study demonstrated the need to incorporate other MQOs in a full study (such as minimum and maximum percent significant differences and performance on blind samples) to ensure accurate interpretation of effluent toxicity. More false positives, lower test endpoint (i.e., higher toxicity), and more "failed" (non-compliant) tests were observed using No Observed Effect Concentrations (NOEC) as compared to IC25s (concentration causing >= 25% decrease in organism response compared to controls). Algae tests often yielded the most effluent toxicity in this study, however, this test was most susceptible to false positives and high inter-laboratory variability. WET test results exhibited few relationships with bioassessment results, even when incorporating actual effluent dilution. Neither frequency of WET non-compliance nor magnitude of WET were clearly related to differences in biological condition up and downstream of a discharge for the most part. Macroinvertebrate assessments were most able to discriminate small changes downstream of the effluent, followed by periphyton and then fish. The sampling methods used were robust but a full study should collect more field replicates up and downstream of each discharge to increase detection power. Macroinvertebrate and periphyton assessments together appeared to be sufficient to address project objectives. Fish assessments could be useful as well but would entail more effort and cost per site than expended in this project, to be useful.
More details
Other editions
Additional editions

Content
- Cover
- Copyright
- Table of Contents
- Acknowledgments
- Abstract and Benefits
- List of Tables
- List of Figures
- List of Acronyms
- Executive Summary
- Chapter 1.0: Introduction
- 1.1 Study Objectives
- 1.1.1 Measurement Quality Objectives (MQOs) - WET
- 1.1.2 Measurement Performance Criteria - Bioassessment
- 1.1.3 Data Quality Objectives (DQOs)
- Chapter 2.0: Methods
- 2.1 Facility Selection Criteria
- 2.1.1 Facility Descriptions
- 2.2 WET Testing
- 2.3 Bioassessments
- 2.3.1 Field Sampling
- 2.3.2 Macroinvertebrate Laboratory Sample Processing
- 2.4 Sampling and Testing Summary
- 2.5 Data Analysis
- 2.5.1 WET Testing
- 2.5.2 Bioassessment Analyses
- Chapter 3.0: WET Results
- 3.1 Compliance with WET Test Acceptance Criteria
- 3.1.1 Ceriodaphnia dubia
- 3.1.2 Fathead minnow
- 3.1.3 Selenastrum capricornutum
- 3.2 Reference Toxicant Test Results
- 3.3 Effluent Test Results
- 3.4 Evaluation of WET Test Precision
- 3.5 Evaluation of False Positives
- 3.6 Evaluation of False Negatives
- 3.7 Results of Split Sample Testing
- 3.7.1 Pimephales promelas
- 3.7.2 Ceriodaphnia dubia
- 3.7.3 Selenastrum capricornutum
- 3.7.4 Evaluation of Split Sample Results
- 3.8 Results of Duplicate Testing
- 3.8.1 Ceriodaphnia and P. Promelas
- 3.8.2 S. capricornutum
- 3.9 Prediction of Potential Effluent Effects Instream
- 3.10 Summary of WET Results
- 3.10.1 Process-Related Findings
- 3.10.2 Scientific Findings
- Chapter 4.0: Bioassessment Results
- 4.1 Periphyton
- 4.1.1 Periphyton Bioassessment Performance
- 4.1.2 Multivariate Analysis
- 4.1.3 Metric Analysis
- 4.2 Benthic Macroinvertebrates
- 4.2.1 Laboratory Performance
- 4.2.2 Field Sampling Performance (Benthic Macroinvertebrates)
- 4.2.3 Multivariate Analysis
- 4.2.4 Multi-Metric Analysis
- 4.2.5 Comparison of Macroinvertebrate Sampling Methods: Multivariate Analysis
- 4.2.6 Comparison of Macroinvertebrate Sampling Methods: Multimetric Analysis
- 4.3 Fish
- 4.3.1 Fish Bioassessment Performance
- 4.3.2 Multivariate Analysis
- 4.3.3 Index of Biotic Integrity Analysis
- Chapter 5.0: Relationships Between WET and Bioassessment Results
- Chapter 6.0: Conclusions and Recommendations
- References
System requirements
File format: PDF
Copy-Protection: Adobe-DRM (Digital Rights Management)
System requirements:
- Computer (Windows; MacOS X; Linux): Install the free reader Adobe Digital Editions prior to download (see eBook Help).
- Tablet/smartphone (Android; iOS): Install the free app Adobe Digital Editions or the app PocketBook before downloading (see eBook Help).
- E-reader: Bookeen, Kobo, Pocketbook, Sony, Tolino and many more (only limited: Kindle).
The file format PDF always displays a book page identically on any hardware. This makes PDF suitable for complex layouts such as those used in textbooks and reference books (images, tables, columns, footnotes). Unfortunately, on the small screens of e-readers or smartphones, PDFs are rather annoying, requiring too much scrolling.
This eBook uses Adobe-DRM, a „hard” copy protection. If the necessary requirements are not met, unfortunately you will not be able to open the eBook. You will therefore need to prepare your reading hardware before downloading.
Please note: We strongly recommend that you authorise using your personal Adobe ID after installation of any reading software.
For more information, see our eBook Help page.