Whole effluent toxicity testing—usefulness, level of protection, and risk assessment

Abstract

AbstractThe general status of whole effluent toxicity (WET) tests is assessed relative to their generally accepted purpose of identifying, characterizing, and eliminating toxic effects of effluents on aquatic resources. Although WET tests are useful, they are not perfect tools (no perfect tools exist). Imperfections include the innate variability of these tests, due both to biotic and anthropogenic factors; the reality of species differences both between the laboratory and the field and within the field; and differences between the laboratory and the receiving environment. Whole effluent toxicity tests may be overprotective (because of their conservative nature, the absence of environmental and ecological processes that could ameliorate exposure, and sensitivity to noncontaminant effects), underprotective (because the most sensitive species cannot be tested, multiple stresses tend to be present in the receiving environment, and failure to account for food chain effects or all possible endpoints), or offer an uncertain level of protection (intermittent doses and mixtures in the environment, adaptations, and hormesis). The implication of hormesis and inverted U‐shaped dose responses for WET testing are reviewed in particular detail. Comparisons to field conditions indicate that WET tests are not reliable predictors of effects or lack of effects in the receiving environment. Whole effluent toxicity tests are only the first stage in a risk assessment and as such identify hazard, not risk. Identification of risk requires discarding the concept of independent applicability. The appropriate use of WET tests is identified in the context of their advantages and disadvantages.