Do we really need in-situ bioassays?

In-situ bioassays are needed to validate the results from laboratory testing and to understand biological interactions. Standard laboratory protocols provide reproducible test results, and the precision of those tests can be mathematically defined. Significant correlations between toxic substances and levels of response (bioaccumulation and bioeffects) have also been demonstrated with natural field populations and suggest that the laboratory results can accurately predict field responses. An equal number of studies have shown a lack of correlation between laboratory bioassay results and responses of natural field populations. The best way to validate laboratory results is with manipulative field testing; i.e., in-situ bioassays with caged organisms. Bioaccumulation in transplanted bivalves has probably been the most frequently used form of an in-situ bioassay. The authors have refined those methods to include synoptic measurements of bioaccumulation and growth. Growth provides an easily-measured bioeffects endpoint and a means of calibrating bioaccumulation. Emphasis has been on minimizing the size range of test animals, repetitive measurements of individuals and standardization of test protocols for a variety of applications. They are now attempting to standardize criteria for accepting and interpreting data in the same way that laboratory bioassays have been standardized. Others have developed methods for in-situ bioassays usingmore » eggs, larvae, unicellular organisms, crustaceans, benthic invertebrates, bivalves, and fish. In the final analysis, the in-situ approach could be considered as an exposure system where any clinical measurements are possible. The most powerful approach would be to use the same species in laboratory and field experiments with the same endpoints.« less