Appendix 2: Robust Study Summaries
| Item | Yes | No | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Reference: Black et al. (1983) | |||
| Test substance: CAS # and name (specify, but do not assess this item): Quinoline CAS No. 91-22-5 | |||
| *Chemical composition of the substance (including purity, by-products) | X | ||
| Is the chemical purity acceptable? NA | |||
| Persistence/stability of test substance in aquatic solution | X | ||
| Method | |||
| Reference: Birge et al. (1979) | X | ||
| *OECD, EU, national, or other standard method? American Society for Testing and Materials | X | ||
| Justification of the method/protocol if not a standard method was used: NA | |||
| *GLP (Good Laboratory Practice) NA since study performed prior to 1990 | |||
| Test organisms (specify common and Latin names): Rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) | |||
| Latin or both Latin and common names reported? | X | ||
| Was the test organism relevant to the Canadian environment? | X | ||
| Life cycle age / stage of test organism: Embryo-larval stage | X | ||
| Sex: NA | |||
| Length and weight of test organisms: NA | |||
| Number of test organisms per replicate: 100–150 eggs per exposure chamber | X | ||
| Food type / feeding periods (acclimation/during test): NA | |||
| Test design / conditions | |||
| Test type – acute or chronic (specify, but do not assess this item): Chronic | |||
| Experiment type (laboratory or field) specified? Lab | X | ||
| System type (static, semi-static, flow-through)? Continuous flow-through | X | ||
| Negative or positive controls (specify)? Negative | X | ||
| Number of replicates (including controls) and concentrations: Duplicate + 5 treatments | X | ||
| Exposure pathways (food, water, both): Water | X | ||
| Exposure duration: 21 days | X | ||
| *Measured concentrations reported? (spectrophotometry) | X | ||
| If not, is the chemical volatile or not stable in water? NA | |||
| Were concentrations measured periodically, if it was long-term (chronic) experiment? | X | ||
| Were the exposure media conditions relevant to the particular chemical (i.e. pH, DOC/TOC, water hardness, and temperature for the metal toxicity) reported? | X | ||
| Was pH within 5.5–8 range? (do not assess this item) | X | ||
| Was temperature within 5–27°C range? (do not assess this item) | X | ||
| Were pH, temperature, and other parameters typical for the test organism? | X | ||
| Photoperiod and light intensity | X | ||
| Stock and test solution preparation | X | ||
| Were solubilizer/emulsifier used, if the chemical was unstable or poorly soluble? NA | |||
| If yes, were concentrations of solubilizer/emulsifier reported? NA | |||
| AND, if yes, was toxicity of solubilizer/emulsifier reported? NA | |||
| Biological monitoring intervals | X | ||
| Statistical methods used | X | ||
| Results | |||
| Toxicity values (LC50, EC50, or IC50 - specify, do not assess this item): % hatchability, % survival hatching, % survival 4 days post-hatching | |||
| Was the endpoint directly caused by the chemical’s toxicity (i.e., not by untypical test conditions, organisms’ health, etc.)? | X | ||
| Other endpoints reported - BCF/BAF, LOEC/NOEC (specify, do not assess this item): LC50 (post-hatching) | |||
| *Was toxicity value below the chemical’s water solubility? | X | ||
| Other adverse effects (carcinogenicity, mutagenicity, etc. Do not assess this item) | X | ||
| Score: major items - …3/4; overall score: 21/24 = 87.5% | |||
| EC Reliability code: 1 | |||
| Reliability category (high, satisfactory, low): High | |||
| Comments: Study used to derive the Interim Canadian Water Quality Guideline of quinoline (3.4 µg/L) | |||
| Item | Yes | No | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Reference: Bleeker et al. (1998) | |||
| Test Substance: CAS # and name (specify, but do not assess this item): Quinoline CAS No. 91-22-5 | |||
| *Chemical composition of the substance ( including purity, by-products) | X | ||
| Is the chemical purity acceptable? | X | ||
| Persistence/stability of test substance in aquatic solution | X | ||
| Method | |||
| References | X | ||
| *OECD, EU, national, or other standard method? | X | ||
| Justification of the method/protocol if not a standard method was used | X | ||
| *GLP (Good Laboratory Practice): Study published in 1998 | X | ||
| Test organisms (specify common and Latin names): Midge Chironomus riparius | |||
| Latin or both Latin and common names reported? | X | ||
| Was the test organism relevant to the Canadian environment? | X | ||
| Life cycle age / stage of test organism: Newly hatched first instar larva | X | ||
| Sex: NA | |||
| Length and weight of test organisms: NA | |||
| Number of test organisms per replicate: 50 | X | ||
| Food type / feeding periods (acclimation/during test): grounded Trouvit and Tetraphyl | X | ||
| Test design / conditions | |||
| Test type - acute or chronic (specify, but do not assess this item): Acute | |||
| Experiment type (laboratory or field) specified? Lab | X | ||
| System type (static, semi-static, flow-through)? Static | X | ||
| Negative or positive controls (specify)? Negative | X | ||
| Number of replicates (including controls) and concentrations: 2 and 5 concentrations | X | ||
| Exposure pathways (food, water, both): Both | X | ||
| Exposure duration: 96 h | X | ||
| *Measured concentrations reported? | X | ||
| If not, is the chemical volatile or not stable in water? NA | |||
| Were concentrations measured periodically, if it was long-term (chronic) experiment? | |||
| Were the exposure media conditions relevant to the particular chemical (i.e. pH, DOC/TOC, water hardness, and temperature for the metal toxicity) reported? | |||
| Was pH within 5.5-8 range? (do not assess this item): Not specified | |||
| Was temperature within 5-27°C range? (do not assess this item) | X | ||
| Were pH, temperature, and other parameters typical for the test organism? | |||
| Photoperiod and light intensity | X | ||
| Stock and test solution preparation | X | ||
| Were solubilizer/emulsifier used, if the chemical was unstable or poorly soluble? NA | |||
| If yes, were concentrations of solubilizer/emulsifier reported? | |||
| AND, if yes, was toxicity of solubilizer/emulsifier reported? | |||
| Biological monitoring intervals | X | ||
| Statistical methods used | X | ||
| Results | |||
| Toxicity values (LC50, EC50, or IC50 - specify, do not assess this item): 96 h LC50 | |||
| Was the endpoint directly caused by the chemical’s toxicity (i.e., not by untypical test conditions, organisms’ health, etc.)? Apparently, no sediment was added even if the organisms live in close contact with the sediment. The authors judged acceptable that survival in the controls always exceeded 80%. Chironomus larvae obtain an important part of their contaminant burden from the overlying water column (e.g., Warren et al. 1998) | X | ||
| Other endpoints reported - BCF/BAF, LOEC/NOEC (specify, do not assess this item): Growth | |||
| *Was toxicity value below the chemical’s water solubility? | X | ||
| Other adverse effects (carcinogenicity, mutagenicity, etc. Do not assess this item) | |||
| Score: major items - 3/5; overall score: 20/25 = 80% | |||
| EC Reliability code: 1 to 2 | |||
| Reliability category (high, satisfactory, low): Satisfactory to high confidence | |||
| Comments: | |||
| Item | Yes | No |
|---|---|---|
| Reference: Johansen et al. (1997b) | ||
| Test Substance: CAS # and name (specify, but do not assess this item): Quinoline CAS No. 91-22-5 | ||
| *Chemical composition of the substance ( including purity, by-products) … somewhat … could be more detailed | ½ | |
| Is the chemical purity acceptable? 98% | X | |
| Persistence/stability of test substance in aquatic solution | X | |
| Method | ||
| Reference: Arvin et al. (1994) | X | |
| *OECD, EU, national, or other standard method? | X | |
| Justification of the method/protocol if not a standard method was used: Not in this paper, but in Arvin et al. (1994), MINNTOX is a method for screening, as other existing methods are not suitable for that purpose (i.e., demanding experimental protocol) | ½ | |
| *GLP (Good Laboratory Practice) | X | |
| Test organisms (specify common and Latin names) | ||
| Latin or both Latin and common names reported? Nitrifying bacteria probably; authors reported that “The microorganisms used as inoculum originated from activated sludge obtained at a wastewater treatment plant” | X | |
| Was the test organism relevant to the Canadian environment? I assume | X | |
| Life cycle age / stage of test organism: “an active nitrifying sludge from a waste water treatment plant” | X | |
| Sex: NA | ||
| Length and weight of test organisms: NA | ||
| Number of test organisms per replicate | X | |
| Food type / feeding periods (acclimation/during test): NA | ||
| Test design / conditions | ||
| Test type - acute or chronic (specify, but do not assess this item): Chronic | ||
| Experiment type (laboratory or field) specified? Lab | X | |
| System type (static, semi-static, flow-through)? Static | X | |
| Negative or positive controls (specify)? Positive (allylthiourea) | X | |
| Number of replicates (including controls) and concentrations: 3 replicates/6 concentrations | X | |
| Exposure pathways (food, water, both): NA | ||
| Exposure duration: 2 h | X | |
| *Measured concentrations reported? | X | |
| If not, is the chemical volatile or not stable in water? NA | ||
| Were concentrations measured periodically, if it was long-term (chronic) experiment? NA | ||
| Were the exposure media conditions relevant to the particular chemical (i.e. pH, DOC/TOC, water hardness, and temperature for the metal toxicity) reported? | X | |
| Was pH within 5.5-8 range? (do not assess this item) | ||
| Was temperature within 5-27°C range? (do not assess this item) | X | |
| Were pH, temperature, and other parameters typical for the test organism? ?? | ||
| Photoperiod and light intensity: NA | ||
| Stock and test solution preparation | X | |
| Were solubilizer/emulsifier used, if the chemical was unstable or poorly soluble? NA | ||
| If yes, were concentrations of solubilizer/emulsifier reported? NA | ||
| AND, if yes, was toxicity of solubilizer/emulsifier reported? NA | ||
| Biological monitoring intervals | X | |
| Statistical methods used | X | |
| Results | ||
| Toxicity values (LC50, EC50, or IC50 - specify, do not assess this item): EC50 / concentration that inhibited nitrification by 50% | ||
| Was the endpoint directly caused by the chemical’s toxicity (i.e., not by untypical test conditions, organisms’ health, etc.)? | X | |
| Other endpoints reported - BCF/BAF, LOEC/NOEC (specify, do not assess this item): Degradation pathways of quinoline | ||
| *Was toxicity value below the chemical’s water solubility? | X | |
| Other adverse effects (carcinogenicity, mutagenicity, etc. Do not assess this item) | ||
| Score: major items -2.5/5 overall score: 16/23= 70% | ||
| EC Reliability code: 2 to 3 | ||
| Reliability category (high, satisfactory, low): Low to satisfactory | ||
| Comments: | ||
| Item | Yes | No |
|---|---|---|
| Reference: Milleman et al. (1984) | ||
| Test Substance: CAS # and name (specify, but do not assess this item): Quinoline CAS No.: 91-22-5 | ||
| *Chemical composition of the substance ( including purity, by-products) | X | |
| Is the chemical purity acceptable? NA | ||
| Persistence/stability of test substance in aquatic solution | X | |
| Method | ||
| Reference: Mattson et al. 1976 | X | |
| *OECD, EU, national, or other standard method? US EPA | X | |
| Justification of the method/protocol if not a standard method was used NA | ||
| *GLP (Good Laboratory Practice) NA since study performed prior to 1990 | ||
| Test organisms (specify common and Latin names): Fathead minnow Pimephales promelas (+ algae, snails, cladocerans, amphipods, midges, largemouth bass and rainbow trout) | ||
| Latin or both Latin and common names reported? | X | |
| Was the test organism relevant to the Canadian environment? | X | |
| Life cycle age / stage of test organism: 1-2 months old | X | |
| Sex | X | |
| Length and weight of test organisms: 0.27 g and 28 mm total length | X | |
| Number of test organisms per replicate: 5 fish | X | |
| Food type / feeding periods (acclimation/during test): 48 h acclimation / fish not fed in test | X | |
| Test design / conditions | ||
| Test type - acute or chronic (specify, but do not assess this item): Acute 96 h test | ||
| Experiment type (laboratory or field) specified? Laboratory | X | |
| System type (static, semi-static, flow-through)? Static | X | |
| Negative or positive controls (specify)? Negative controls | X | |
| Number of replicates (including controls) and concentrations: 2 replicates/3-4 test concentrations | X | |
| Exposure pathways (food, water, both): Water only | X | |
| Exposure duration: 96 h | X | |
| *Measured concentrations reported? Measured by UV absorbance; LC50s reported | X | |
| If not, is the chemical volatile or not stable in water? NA | ||
| Were concentration measured periodically, if it was long-term (chronic) experiment? | X | |
| Were the exposure media conditions relevant to the particular chemical (i.e. pH, DOC/TOC, water hardness, and temperature for the metal toxicity) reported? | X | |
| Was pH within 5.5-8 range? (do not assess this item) | X | |
| Was temperature within 5-27°C range? (do not assess this item) | X | |
| Were pH, temperature, and other parameters typical for the test organism? For the minnow test, dissolved oxygen levels changed markedly from 8.5 ppm at t = 0 to 4.3 ppm 48 h later, when test fish had already been affected by the chemicals. | X (½) | |
| Photoperiod and light intensity | X | |
| Stock and test solution preparation | X | |
| Were solubilizer/emulsifier used, if the chemical was unstable or poorly soluble? | X | |
| If yes, were concentrations of solubilizer/emulsifier reported? NA | ||
| AND, if yes, was toxicity of solubilizer/emulsifier reported? NA | ||
| Biological monitoring intervals: 0, 2, 16, 24, 48, 72, 96 h | X | |
| Statistical methods used | X | |
| Results | ||
| Toxicity values (LC50, EC50, or IC50 - specify, do not assess this item): LC50 | ||
| Was the endpoint directly caused by the chemical’s toxicity (i.e., not by untypical test conditions, organisms’ health, etc.)? Yes; low DO - Fatheads are recognized as very tolerant of muddy water, with low oxygen levels. They are very hardy. It can be concluded that mortality of test fish in presence of quinoline was directly caused by quinoline’s toxicity and not by changes in DO in course of exposure. | X | |
| Other endpoints reported - BCF/BAF, LOEC/NOEC (specify, do not assess this item): No | ||
| *Was toxicity value below the chemical’s water solubility? | X | |
| Other adverse effects (carcinogenicity, mutagenicity, etc. Do not assess this item) | X | |
| Score: major items - 3/4; overall score: 23.5/28 = 84% | ||
| EC Reliability code: 1 | ||
| Reliability category (high, satisfactory, low): High | ||
| Comments: | ||
| Item | Yes | No |
|---|---|---|
| Reference: MITI (1992) | ||
| Test Substance: CAS # and name (do not assess this item): 91-22-5 (Quinoline) | ||
| Substance purity reported? (Y/N and specify) | X | |
| Method | ||
| References (Y/N) | X | |
| OECD, EU, national, or other standard method? (Y/N) | X | |
| If not a standard method, justification of the method/protocol provided? (Y/N) Not applicable | ||
| Test design / conditions | ||
| Study type (e.g., hydrolysis, biodegradation, etc. - specify, but do not assess): Biodegradation | ||
| Conditions type (aerobic or anaerobic - specify, but do not assess): | ||
| Test medium (air, water, soil, or sediment - specify, but do not assess): | ||
| Information on stability of the substance in the media of concern available? (do not assess this item):Yes | ||
| Information on controls (Y/N and specify, positive or negative):Both | X | |
| Number of replicates (Y/N and specify) | X | |
| Temperature (Y/N and specify):25±1°C | X | |
| Test duration (Y/N and specify):14 or 28 days | X | |
| Analytical method / technique used (Y/N) | X | |
| For photodegradation only | ||
| Reactants of gas-phase reactions (specify, but do not assess this item) | ||
| Light source (Y/N and specify) | ||
| Light spectrum and/or relative intensity based on sunlight intensity (Y/N) | ||
| For hydrolysis only | ||
| Measured concentrations reported? (Y/N) | ||
| pH values reported? (Y/N and specify) | ||
| For biodegradation only | ||
| Ready or inherent biodegradation? (specify, but do not assess this item): Ready | ||
| Substance concentration (Y/N): 100 mg/L | X | |
| Inoculum source (Y/N): Sludge | X | |
| Inoculum concentration or number of microorganisms (Y/N) Sludge: 30 mg/L | X | |
| Results | ||
| Endpoints / values / units (do not assess this item): 0.2% by BOD | ||
| Information on breakdown products available? (do not assess this item) | ||
| Overall score: 73% | ||
| EC Reliability code: 2 | ||
| Reliability category (high, satisfactory, low):Satisfactory | ||
Abbreviations: OECD: Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development; EU: European Union; NA: both not available and not applicable; CAS: Chemical Abstract Service; DOC: Dissolved Organic Carbon; TOC: Total Organic Carbon; LC50: Lethal concentration for 50% of the test organisms; EC50: Effect concentration for 50% of the test organisms; IC50: Inhibitory concentration for 50% of the test organisms; BCF: Bioconcentration Factor; BAF: Bioaccumulation Factor; LOEC: Lowest Observed Effect Concentration; NOEC: No Observed Effect Concentration; US EPA: United States Environmental Protection Agency; UV: Ultra violet; Ppm: parts per million; BOD: Biological Oxygen Demand
Page details
- Date modified: