Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Experiment Videos

Comparison between two Microtox test procedures.

M Tarkpea1, M Hansson

  • 1National Swedish Environmental Protection Board, Laboratory for Aquatic Toxicology, Nyköping, Sweden.

Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety
|October 1, 1989
PubMed
Summary
This summary is machine-generated.

Related Concept Videos

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by
Same author

Exploring research participants' perceptions of cardiovascular risk information-Room for improvement and empowerment.

Patient education and counseling·2019
Same author

Optimization of soft X-ray phase-contrast tomography using a laser wakefield accelerator.

Optics express·2019
Same author

A platform for phenotypic discovery of therapeutic antibodies and targets applied on Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia.

NPJ precision oncology·2018
Same author

Greenland records of aerosol source and atmospheric lifetime changes from the Eemian to the Holocene.

Nature communications·2018
Same author

Unique case of cerebrotendinous xanthomatosis revisited: All the mutations responsible for this disease are present in the CYP27A1 gene.

Journal of internal medicine·2017
Same author

Highly efficient angularly resolving x-ray spectrometer optimized for absorption measurements with collimated sources.

The Review of scientific instruments·2017
Same journal

Corrigendum to "Bone marrow mesenchymal stem cells senescence induced by LCCP through activation of cGAS-STING-mediated inflammation" [Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 294 (2025) 118069].

Ecotoxicology and environmental safety·2026
Same journal

Turning the enemy into an ally: Phytoremediation potential of Solidago canadensis L. for Cd-contaminated soil as influenced by microplastics and biochar.

Ecotoxicology and environmental safety·2026
Same journal

Clay minerals alleviate lead contamination induced by soil speciation and oat translocation in neutral and saline soils.

Ecotoxicology and environmental safety·2026
Same journal

Sensitivity of the copepods temora longicornis and tisbe battagliai to produced water from offshore oil fields.

Ecotoxicology and environmental safety·2026
Same journal

"Neurotoxic mechanisms of microplastic compounds in Alzheimer's and Parkinson's diseases: A network toxicology and molecular docking study".

Ecotoxicology and environmental safety·2026
Same journal

Biotransformation mechanisms of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons by Raphidocelis subcapitata: The role of cytochrome P450.

Ecotoxicology and environmental safety·2026
See all related articles

The standard Microtox test and the 100% test method show significant differences in effluent toxicity screening. However, both bioassay methods are effective for prescreening aquatic toxicity.

Area of Science:

  • Environmental Science
  • Ecotoxicology
  • Analytical Chemistry

Background:

  • The Microtox bioassay is a standard method for assessing effluent toxicity.
  • Two Microtox test procedures exist: the standard test (up to 45% effluent concentration) and the 100% test (for effluents with EC50 > 45%).
  • Differences in bacterial treatment and EC50 calculation impact results and confidence intervals.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To compare the standard Microtox test and the 100% test method.
  • To analyze the relationship between 5-min EC50 values obtained from both methods.
  • To evaluate the suitability of each method for prescreening aquatic toxicity.

Main Methods:

  • Two-way ANOVA analysis was employed to compare results.
  • 14 effluent or process water samples and one municipal wastewater sample were tested.

Related Experiment Videos

  • Each sample was tested twice with a 3-month interval between tests.

    • Main Results:

    • A significant difference (F ratio = 15.46, p < 0.001) was found between the two test methods.
    • Despite statistical differences, EC50 values did not vary drastically between methods for any sample.
    • Confidence intervals were 10.4 times broader in the 100% test compared to the standard test.

    Conclusions:

    • Both the standard Microtox test and the 100% test method are viable for prescreening aquatic toxicity.
    • The 100% test method yields broader confidence intervals, indicating lower precision.
    • Methodological differences in bacterial treatment and EC50 calculation contribute to result variations.