DOCSLIB.ORG

Éthylène Glycol

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Éthylène Glycol Loi canadienne sur la protection de l’environnement (1999) LISTE DES SUBSTANCES D’INTÉRÊT PRIORITAIRE ÉTAT DE LA SCIENCE ÉTHYLÈNE GLYCOL Environnement Canada Santé Canada Décembre 2000 TABLE DES MATIÈRES SYNOPSIS.......................................................................................................................................1 1.0 INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................3 2.0 SOMMAIRE DES DONNÉES ESSENTIELLES..................................................................6 2.1 IDENTITÉ ET PROPRIÉTÉS PHYSIQUES ET CHIMIQUES...................................................................6 2.2 CARACTÉRISATION DE LA PÉNÉTRATION...................................................................................6 2.2.1 Production, importation et utilisations...........................................................................6 2.2.2 Sources et rejets..............................................................................................................7 2.2.2.1 Sources naturelles ......................................................................................................7 2.2.2.2 Sources anthropiques.................................................................................................8 2.2.2.2.1 Sources industrielles ponctuelles ..........................................................................8 2.2.2.2.2 Autres sources..................................................................................................10 2.3 CARACTÉRISATION DE L'EXPOSITION ......................................................................................11 2.3.1 Devenir dans l'environnement.......................................................................................11 2.3.1.1 Atmosphère.............................................................................................................11 2.3.1.2 Eau..........................................................................................................................12 2.3.1.3 Sol et sédiment.........................................................................................................13 2.3.1.4 Distribution dans l'environnement ..............................................................................14 2.3.2 Concentrations dans l'environnement...........................................................................15 2.3.2.1 Air ambiant ..............................................................................................................15 2.3.2.2 Air intérieur..............................................................................................................15 2.3.2.3 Eau potable..............................................................................................................15 2.3.2.4 Eaux de surface et eaux souterraines.........................................................................16 2.3.2.5 Sédiment, sol et biote...............................................................................................19 2.3.2.6 Aliments...................................................................................................................20 2.3.2.7 Produits de consommation........................................................................................21 2.4 CARACTÉRISATION DES EFFETS...............................................................................................22 2.4.1 Écotoxicologie...............................................................................................................22 2.4.1.1 Effets directs............................................................................................................22 2.4.1.1.1 Micro-organismes.............................................................................................22 2.4.1.1.2 Plantes..............................................................................................................22 2.4.1.1.3 Invertébrés........................................................................................................23 2.4.1.1.4 Poissons ...........................................................................................................24 2.4.1.1.5 Amphibiens.......................................................................................................26 2.4.1.1.6 Mammifères et oiseaux......................................................................................26 2.4.1.2 Effets indirects.........................................................................................................27 2.4.2 Effets atmosphériques abiotiques .................................................................................29 2.4.3 Animaux de laboratoire et in vitro.................................................................................30 2.4.3.1 Toxicité aiguë...........................................................................................................31 iii 2.4.3.2 Irritation et sensibilisation..........................................................................................31 2.4.3.3 Toxicité à court terme et subchronique (dose répétée)...............................................32 2.4.3.4 Toxicité chronique et cancérogénicité........................................................................35 2.4.3.5 Génotoxicité.............................................................................................................38 2.4.3.6 Toxicité pour la reproduction et le développement.....................................................38 2.4.3.7 Effets neurologiques et effets sur le système immunitaire.............................................42 2.4.3.8 Toxicocinétique et mode d'action..............................................................................43 2.4.4 Humains ........................................................................................................................46 3.0 CHARACTÉRISATION DES RISQUES .............................................................................48 3.1 L’ENVIRONNEMENT ...............................................................................................................48 3.1.1 Considérations générales..............................................................................................48 3.1.2 Caractérisation des risques pour l'environnement........................................................50 3.1.2.1 Biote aquatique — effets directs...............................................................................50 3.1.2.1.1 Algues ..............................................................................................................50 3.1.2.1.2 Amphibiens.......................................................................................................52 3.1.2.1.3 Conclusion........................................................................................................54 3.1.2.2 Biote aquatique — effets indirects.............................................................................54 3.1.2.3 L'incertitude et les recommandations.........................................................................59 3.1.2.3.1 Effets directs.....................................................................................................59 3.1.2.3.2 Effets indirects...................................................................................................60 3.2 ENVIRONNEMENT ESSENTIEL POUR LA VIE HUMAINE................................................................62 3.3 SANTÉ HUMAINE....................................................................................................................62 3.3.1 Exposition estimée de la population .............................................................................62 3.3.2 Caractérisation du danger............................................................................................63 3.3.2.1 Cancérogénicité .......................................................................................................63 3.3.2.2 Effets non néoplasiques ............................................................................................63 3.3.3 Analyse exposition–réponse..........................................................................................65 3.3.3.1 Exposition par voie orale ..........................................................................................66 3.3.3.2 Inhalation.................................................................................................................71 3.3.3.3 Exposition cutanée ...................................................................................................72 3.3.4 L’incertitude et les recommendations...........................................................................72 4.0 RÉFÉRENCES .......................................................................................................................76 ANNEXE A: STRATÉGIES DE RECHERCHE UTILISÉES POUR RELEVER LES DONNÉES PERTINENTES......................................................................................................106 ANNEXE B: JUSTIFICATION DES FACTEURS DE DILUTION NON SPÉCIFIQUES...108 ANNEXE C: GESTION DE L'ÉTHYLÈNE GLYCOL DANS LES AÉROPORTS CANADIENS..............................................................................................................................111 iv LISTE DES TABLEAUX Tableau 1. Propriétés chimiques et physiques de l'éthylène glycol.....................................................114
Load more

Recommended publications
  • And an Abiotic Factor (Low Oxygen) As an Influence on Benthic Invertebrate Communities
    Oecologia (1993) 95:210-219 Oecologia Springer-Verlag 1993 Interaction of a biotic factor (predator presence) and an abiotic factor (low oxygen) as an influence on benthic invertebrate communities Cynthia S. Kolar*, Frank J. Rahel Department of Zoology and Physiology, University of Wyoming, Laramie, WY 82071, USA Received: 23 October 1992 / Accepted: 7 April 1993 Abstract. We examined the response of benthic in- and beetle larvae). Because invertebrates differ in their vertebrates to hypoxia and predation risk in bioassay and ability to withstand hypoxia, episodes of winter hypoxia behavioral experiments. In the bioassay, four in- could have long-lasting effects on benthic invertebrate vertebrate species differed widely in their tolerance of communities either by direct mortality or selective preda- hypoxia. The mayfly, Callibaetis montanus, and the beetle tion on less tolerant taxa. larva, Hydaticus rnodestus, exhibited a low tolerance of hypoxia, the amphipod, Gammarus lacustris, was inter- Key words: Hypoxia - Benthos - Invertebrates Preda- mediate in its response and the caddisfly, Hesperophylax tor-intimidation - Behavior occidentalis, showed high tolerance of hypoxia. In the behavioral experiments, we observed the response of these benthic invertebrates, which differ in locomotor abilities, to vertical oxygen and temperature gradients Episodic disturbance and predation often interact to similar to those in an ice-covered pond. With adequate influence community structure. Typically, this involves oxygen, invertebrates typically remained on the bottom loss or reductions in predators due to severe abiotic substrate. As benthic oxygen declined in the absence of conditions and a subsequent restructuring of the com- fish, all taxa moved above the benthic refuge to areas munity as species previously held in check by predators with higher oxygen concentrations.
    [Show full text]
  • Check List 4(2): 92–97, 2008
    Check List 4(2): 92–97, 2008. ISSN: 1809-127X NOTES ON GEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION Insecta, Ephemeroptera, Baetidae: Range extensions and new state records from Kansas, U.S.A. W. Patrick McCafferty 1 Luke M. Jacobus 2 1 Department of Entomology, Purdue University. West Lafayette, Indiana 47907 USA. E-mail: [email protected] 2 Department of Biology, Indiana University. Bloomington, Indiana 47405 USA. The mayfly (Ephemeroptera) fauna of the U.S.A. other central lowland prairie states as well state of Kansas is relatively poorly documented (McCafferty et al. 2001; 2003; Guenther and (McCafferty 2001). With respect to small minnow McCafferty 2005). Some additionally common mayflies (family Baetidae), only 16 species have species will be evident from the new data we been documented with published records from present herein. Kansas. Those involve Acentrella turbida (McDunnough, 1924); Acerpenna pygmaea Our examination of additional unidentified (Hagen, 1861); Apobaetis Etowah (Traver, 1935); material of Kansas Baetidae housed in the Snow A. lakota McCafferty, 2000; Baetis flavistriga Museum, University of Kansas, Lawrence, McDunnough, 1921; B. intercalaris McDunnough, Kansas, and collected mainly by the State 1921; Callibaetis fluctuans (Walsh, 1862); C. Biological Survey of Kansas, has led to the pictus Eaton, 1871; Centroptilum album discovery of 19 additional species of Baetidae in McDunnough, 1926; C. bifurcatum McDunnough, Kansas, resulting in a new total of 35 species of 1924; Fallceon quilleri (Dodds, 1923); Baetidae now known from the state. The records Paracloeodes minutus (Daggy, 1945); P. given alphabetically below also represent the first dardanum (McDunnough, 1923); P. ephippiatum Kansas records of the genera Camelobaetidius, (Traver, 1935); P.
    [Show full text]
  • Development of an Aquatic Toxicity Index for Macroinvertebrates
    DEVELOPMENT OF AN AQUATIC TOXICITY INDEX FOR MACROINVERTEBRATES By Lucky Nhlanhla Mnisi (Student Number: 972672) Supervisor: Dr Gavin Snow A thesis submitted in fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the Faculty of Science. School of Animal, Plant and Environmental Sciences of the University of the Witwatersrand DECLARATION I declare that this thesis is my own, unaided work. It is being submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in School of Animal Plant and Environmental Sciences, Faculty of Science of the University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa. It has not been submitted before for any degree or examination in any other university. Signed:……………… ……………………………. Date:……18 May 2018…………………………………………. i ABSTRACT Rapid biomonitoring protocols employing riverine macroinvertebrates in South Africa utilise the South African Scoring System version 5 (SASS5). The SASS5 was developed as part of the then River Health Programme (RHP) [now River Eco-status Monitoring Programme (REMP)]. The SASS5 index is a cost-effective procedure (utilising limited sampling equipment) that enables speedy evaluation of a riverine ecosystem’s health using macroinvertebrates as biological indicators of water quality and ecosystem health. As a result, the SASS5 (including earlier versions) has been widely accepted by water quality practitioners and is increasingly incorporated into Ecological Reserve determinations. However, the SASS is widely criticised for being a ‘red flag’ indicator of water quality and ecosystem health because it has the ability to show only whether a river is polluted (including the extent of pollution) or not, but cannot differentiate between pollutant types (whether chemical or physical). To trace the pollutants responsible for changes in water quality, practitioners are therefore required to conduct chemical-based water quality assessments.
    [Show full text]
  • Microsoft Outlook
    Joey Steil From: Leslie Jordan <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, September 25, 2018 1:13 PM To: Angela Ruberto Subject: Potential Environmental Beneficial Users of Surface Water in Your GSA Attachments: Paso Basin - County of San Luis Obispo Groundwater Sustainabilit_detail.xls; Field_Descriptions.xlsx; Freshwater_Species_Data_Sources.xls; FW_Paper_PLOSONE.pdf; FW_Paper_PLOSONE_S1.pdf; FW_Paper_PLOSONE_S2.pdf; FW_Paper_PLOSONE_S3.pdf; FW_Paper_PLOSONE_S4.pdf CALIFORNIA WATER | GROUNDWATER To: GSAs We write to provide a starting point for addressing environmental beneficial users of surface water, as required under the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA). SGMA seeks to achieve sustainability, which is defined as the absence of several undesirable results, including “depletions of interconnected surface water that have significant and unreasonable adverse impacts on beneficial users of surface water” (Water Code §10721). The Nature Conservancy (TNC) is a science-based, nonprofit organization with a mission to conserve the lands and waters on which all life depends. Like humans, plants and animals often rely on groundwater for survival, which is why TNC helped develop, and is now helping to implement, SGMA. Earlier this year, we launched the Groundwater Resource Hub, which is an online resource intended to help make it easier and cheaper to address environmental requirements under SGMA. As a first step in addressing when depletions might have an adverse impact, The Nature Conservancy recommends identifying the beneficial users of surface water, which include environmental users. This is a critical step, as it is impossible to define “significant and unreasonable adverse impacts” without knowing what is being impacted. To make this easy, we are providing this letter and the accompanying documents as the best available science on the freshwater species within the boundary of your groundwater sustainability agency (GSA).
    [Show full text]
  • Butterflies of North America
    Insects of Western North America 7. Survey of Selected Arthropod Taxa of Fort Sill, Comanche County, Oklahoma. 4. Hexapoda: Selected Coleoptera and Diptera with cumulative list of Arthropoda and additional taxa Contributions of the C.P. Gillette Museum of Arthropod Diversity Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO 80523-1177 2 Insects of Western North America. 7. Survey of Selected Arthropod Taxa of Fort Sill, Comanche County, Oklahoma. 4. Hexapoda: Selected Coleoptera and Diptera with cumulative list of Arthropoda and additional taxa by Boris C. Kondratieff, Luke Myers, and Whitney S. Cranshaw C.P. Gillette Museum of Arthropod Diversity Department of Bioagricultural Sciences and Pest Management Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado 80523 August 22, 2011 Contributions of the C.P. Gillette Museum of Arthropod Diversity. Department of Bioagricultural Sciences and Pest Management Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO 80523-1177 3 Cover Photo Credits: Whitney S. Cranshaw. Females of the blow fly Cochliomyia macellaria (Fab.) laying eggs on an animal carcass on Fort Sill, Oklahoma. ISBN 1084-8819 This publication and others in the series may be ordered from the C.P. Gillette Museum of Arthropod Diversity, Department of Bioagricultural Sciences and Pest Management, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado, 80523-1177. Copyrighted 2011 4 Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .............................................................................................................7 SUMMARY AND MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS
    [Show full text]
  • Predator to Prey to Poop: Bats As Microbial Hosts and Insectivorous Hunters
    Predator to Prey to Poop: Bats as Microbial Hosts and Insectivorous Hunters A Thesis SUBMITTED TO THE FACULTY OF THE UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA BY Miranda Galey IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF SCIENCE Dr. Ron Moen, Dr. Jessica R. Sieber September 2020 Copyright © Miranda Galey 2020 Abstract Bat fecal samples are a rich source of ecological data for bat biologists, entomologists, and microbiologists. Feces collected from individual bats can be used to profile the gut microbiome using microbial DNA and to understand bat foraging strategies using arthropod DNA. We used eDNA collected from bat fecal samples to better understand bats as predators in the context of their unique gut physiology. We used high through- put sequencing of the COI gene and 16S rRNA gene to determine the diet composition and gut microbiome composition of three bat species in Minnesota: Eptesicus fuscus, Myotis lucifugus and M. septentrionalis. In our analysis of insect prey, we found that E. fuscus consistently foraged for a higher diversity of beetle species compared to other insects. We found that the proportional frequency of tympanate samples from M. septentrionalis and M. lucifugus was similar, while M. septentrionalis consistently preyed more often upon non-flying species. We used the same set of COI sequences to determine presence of pest species, rare species, and insects not previously observed in Minnesota. We were able to combine precise arthropod identification and the for- aging areas of individually sampled bats to observe possible range expansion of some insects. The taxonomic composition of the bat gut microbiome in all three species was found to be consistent with the composition of a mammalian small intestine.
    [Show full text]
  • Appendix 5: Fauna Known to Occur on Fort Drum
    Appendix 5: Fauna Known to Occur on Fort Drum LIST OF FAUNA KNOWN TO OCCUR ON FORT DRUM as of January 2017. Federally listed species are noted with FT (Federal Threatened) and FE (Federal Endangered); state listed species are noted with SSC (Species of Special Concern), ST (State Threatened, and SE (State Endangered); introduced species are noted with I (Introduced). INSECT SPECIES Except where otherwise noted all insect and invertebrate taxonomy based on (1) Arnett, R.H. 2000. American Insects: A Handbook of the Insects of North America North of Mexico, 2nd edition, CRC Press, 1024 pp; (2) Marshall, S.A. 2013. Insects: Their Natural History and Diversity, Firefly Books, Buffalo, NY, 732 pp.; (3) Bugguide.net, 2003-2017, http://www.bugguide.net/node/view/15740, Iowa State University. ORDER EPHEMEROPTERA--Mayflies Taxonomy based on (1) Peckarsky, B.L., P.R. Fraissinet, M.A. Penton, and D.J. Conklin Jr. 1990. Freshwater Macroinvertebrates of Northeastern North America. Cornell University Press. 456 pp; (2) Merritt, R.W., K.W. Cummins, and M.B. Berg 2008. An Introduction to the Aquatic Insects of North America, 4th Edition. Kendall Hunt Publishing. 1158 pp. FAMILY LEPTOPHLEBIIDAE—Pronggillled Mayflies FAMILY BAETIDAE—Small Minnow Mayflies Habrophleboides sp. Acentrella sp. Habrophlebia sp. Acerpenna sp. Leptophlebia sp. Baetis sp. Paraleptophlebia sp. Callibaetis sp. Centroptilum sp. FAMILY CAENIDAE—Small Squaregilled Mayflies Diphetor sp. Brachycercus sp. Heterocloeon sp. Caenis sp. Paracloeodes sp. Plauditus sp. FAMILY EPHEMERELLIDAE—Spiny Crawler Procloeon sp. Mayflies Pseudocentroptiloides sp. Caurinella sp. Pseudocloeon sp. Drunela sp. Ephemerella sp. FAMILY METRETOPODIDAE—Cleftfooted Minnow Eurylophella sp. Mayflies Serratella sp.
    [Show full text]
  • Butterflies of North America
    Insects of Western North America 4. Survey of Selected Arthropod Taxa of Fort Sill, Comanche County, Oklahoma. Part 3 Chapter 1 Survey of Spiders (Arachnida, Araneae) of Fort Sill, Comanche Co., Oklahoma Chapter 2 Survey of Selected Arthropod Taxa of Fort Sill, Comanche County, Oklahoma. III. Arachnida: Ixodidae, Scorpiones, Hexapoda: Ephemeroptera, Hemiptera, Homoptera, Coleoptera, Neuroptera, Trichoptera, Lepidoptera, and Diptera Contributions of the C.P. Gillette Museum of Arthropod Diversity Colorado State University 1 Cover Photo Credits: The Black and Yellow Argiope, Argiope aurantia Lucas, (Photo by P.E. Cushing), a robber fly Efferia texana (Banks) (Photo by C. Riley Nelson). ISBN 1084-8819 Information about the availability of this publication and others in the series may be obtained from Managing Editor, C.P. Gillette Museum of Arthropod Ddiversity, Department of Bbioagricultural Sciences and Pest Management, Colorado State University, Ft. Collins, CO 80523-1177 2 Insects of Western North America 4. Survey of Selected Arthropod Taxa of Fort Sill, Comanche County, Oklahoma. III Edited by Paul A. Opler Chapter 1 Survey of Spiders (Arachnida, Araneae) of Fort Sill, Comanche Co., Oklahoma by Paula E. Cushing and Maren Francis Department of Zoology, Denver Museum of Nature and Science Denver, Colorado 80205 Chapter 2 Survey of Selected Arthropod Taxa of Fort Sill, Comanche County, Oklahoma. III. Arachnida: Ixodidae, Scorpiones, Hexapoda: Ephemeroptera, Hemiptera, Homoptera, Coleoptera, Neuroptera, Trichoptera, Lepidoptera, and Diptera by Boris C. Kondratieff, Jason P. Schmidt, Paul A. Opler, and Matthew C. Garhart C.P. Gillette Museum of Arthropod Diversity Department of Bioagricultural Sciences and Pest Management Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado 80523 January 2005 Contributions of the C.P.
    [Show full text]
  • (Ephemeroptera) and Caddisflies (Trichoptera) of Big Bend Ranch State Park and Big Bend National Park Author(S): David E
    Preliminary survey of the mayflies (Ephemeroptera) and caddisflies (Trichoptera) of Big Bend Ranch State Park and Big Bend National Park Author(s): David E. Baumgardner and David E. Bowles Source: Journal of Insect Science, 5(28):1-13. Published By: Entomological Society of America DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1673/1536-2442(2005)5[1:PSOTME]2.0.CO;2 URL: http://www.bioone.org/doi/full/10.1673/1536-2442%282005%295%5B1%3APSOTME %5D2.0.CO%3B2 BioOne (www.bioone.org) is a nonprofit, online aggregation of core research in the biological, ecological, and environmental sciences. BioOne provides a sustainable online platform for over 170 journals and books published by nonprofit societies, associations, museums, institutions, and presses. Your use of this PDF, the BioOne Web site, and all posted and associated content indicates your acceptance of BioOne’s Terms of Use, available at www.bioone.org/page/terms_of_use. Usage of BioOne content is strictly limited to personal, educational, and non-commercial use. Commercial inquiries or rights and permissions requests should be directed to the individual publisher as copyright holder. BioOne sees sustainable scholarly publishing as an inherently collaborative enterprise connecting authors, nonprofit publishers, academic institutions, research libraries, and research funders in the common goal of maximizing access to critical research. Journal of Insect Science | www.insectscience.org ISSN: 1536-2442 Preliminary survey of the mayflies (Ephemeroptera) and caddisflies (Trichoptera) of Big Bend Ranch State
    [Show full text]
  • Patterns of Freshwater Species Richness, Endemism, and Vulnerability in California
    RESEARCH ARTICLE Patterns of Freshwater Species Richness, Endemism, and Vulnerability in California Jeanette K. Howard1☯*, Kirk R. Klausmeyer1☯, Kurt A. Fesenmyer2☯, Joseph Furnish3, Thomas Gardali4, Ted Grantham5, Jacob V. E. Katz5, Sarah Kupferberg6, Patrick McIntyre7, Peter B. Moyle5, Peter R. Ode8, Ryan Peek5, Rebecca M. Quiñones5, Andrew C. Rehn7, Nick Santos5, Steve Schoenig7, Larry Serpa1, Jackson D. Shedd1, Joe Slusark7, Joshua H. Viers9, Amber Wright10, Scott A. Morrison1 1 The Nature Conservancy, San Francisco, California, United States of America, 2 Trout Unlimited, Boise, Idaho, United States of America, 3 USDA Forest Service, Vallejo, California, United States of America, 4 Point Blue Conservation Science, Petaluma, California, United States of America, 5 Center for Watershed Sciences and Department of Wildlife Fish and Conservation Biology, University of California Davis, Davis, California, United States of America, 6 Integrative Biology, University of California, Berkeley, Berkeley, California, United States of America, 7 Biogeographic Data Branch, California Department of Fish and Wildlife, Sacramento, California, United States of America, 8 Aquatic Bioassessment Laboratory, California Department of Fish and Wildlife, Rancho Cordova, California, United States of America, 9 School of Engineering, University of California Merced, Merced, California, United States of America, 10 Department of Biology, University of Hawaii at Manoa, Honolulu, Hawaii, United States of America ☯ OPEN ACCESS These authors contributed equally to this work. * [email protected] Citation: Howard JK, Klausmeyer KR, Fesenmyer KA, Furnish J, Gardali T, Grantham T, et al. (2015) Patterns of Freshwater Species Richness, Abstract Endemism, and Vulnerability in California. PLoS ONE 10(7): e0130710. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0130710 The ranges and abundances of species that depend on freshwater habitats are declining Editor: Brian Gratwicke, Smithsonian's National worldwide.
    [Show full text]
  • Studies on the Tolerance of Aquatic Insects to Low Oxygen Concentrations Arden R
    Great Basin Naturalist Volume 34 | Number 1 Article 3 3-31-1974 Studies on the tolerance of aquatic insects to low oxygen concentrations Arden R. Gaufin University of Utah and Montana Biological Station Robert Clubb University of Utah Robert Newell University of Montana, Biological Station, Bigfork Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/gbn Recommended Citation Gaufin, Arden R.; Clubb, Robert; and Newell, Robert (1974) "Studies on the tolerance of aquatic insects to low oxygen concentrations," Great Basin Naturalist: Vol. 34 : No. 1 , Article 3. Available at: https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/gbn/vol34/iss1/3 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Western North American Naturalist Publications at BYU ScholarsArchive. It has been accepted for inclusion in Great Basin Naturalist by an authorized editor of BYU ScholarsArchive. For more information, please contact [email protected], [email protected]. STUDIES ON THE TOLERANCE OF AQUATIC INSECTS TO LOW OXYGEN CONCENTRATIONS' Arden R. Gaufin-, Robert Clubb^, and Robert NewelH Abstract. — Acute, short-term (96-hour) tests were conducted to determine the relative sensitivity of low oxygen concentrations to 20 species of aquatic insects. In addition, the longer-term effects of low oxygen levels on the survival, molting, growth, and emergence of 21 species were studied. This paper en- compasses work conducted at the University of Montana Biological Station from 1968 to 1970 and at the University of Utah from 1966 to 1972. An evaluation of the average minimum dissolved-oxygen requirements of the different groups of aquatic insects tested indicates that the mayflies are the most sensitive, that the stoneflies are next, and that the caddis flies, freshwater shrimp, true flies, and damselflies follow, in that order.
    [Show full text]
  • Colorado River Benthic Foodbase Studies in Glen and Grand Canyons: Year 1 Final Report
    COLORADO RIVER BENTHIC FOODBASE STUDIES IN GLEN AND GRAND CANYONS: YEAR 1 FINAL REPORT Lawrence E. Stevens, Project Lead, and Courtney McDaniel, Joseph H. Holway, and Craig Ellsworth Biology Department Museum of Northern Arizona 3101 N. Ft. Valley Rd. Flagstaff, AZ 86001 [email protected] 23 April 2018 1 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 2 Museum of Northern Arizona COLORADO RIVER BENTHIC FOODBASE STUDIES IN GLEN AND GRAND CANYONS: YEAR 1 FINAL REPORT SUBMITTED BY: Lawrence E. Stevens, PhD and Curator Biology Department Museum of Northern Arizona 3101 N. Ft. Valley Rd. Flagstaff, AZ 86001 [email protected] and Courtney McDaniel, Joseph H. Holway (MNA), and Craig Ellsworth (WAPA, SLC) SUBMITTED TO: Kirk E. LaGory, PhD and Department Head Water and Aquatic Resources Environmental Science Division Argonne National Laboratory 9700 S. Cass Ave., Building 240 Argonne, Illinois 60439 23 APRIL 2018 3 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 4 TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES……………………………………………………………………….....6 LIST OF FIGURES………………………………………………………………………....6 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY……………………………………………………………..……7 INTRODUCTION…………………………………………………………………….……13 PROBLEM STATEMENT……………………………………………………….…….13 OBJECTIVE 1 – Potential EPT…………………………………………….……13 Objective 2 – BHA studies…………………………………………….……15 METHODS……………………………………………………………………………..…16 OBJECTIVE 1 – Potential EPT……………………………………………....…16 Objective 2 – BHA studies……………………………………….……….…17 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION……………………………………………….……………26 OBJECTIVE 1 – Potential EPT…………………………………….……….……26 Objective 2 – BHA studies…………………………………………….…….27
    [Show full text]