OECD/OCDE 305
Adopted:
2 October 2012
© OECD, (2012)
You are free to use this material for personal, non-commercial purposes without seeking prior consent
from the OECD, provided the source is duly mentioned. Any commercial use of this material is subject
to written permission from the OECD.
OECD GUIDELINES FOR TESTING OF CHEMICALS
Bioaccumulation in Fish: Aqueous and Dietary Exposure
INTRODUCTION
1. The major goal of this revision of Test Guideline 305 is two-fold. Firstly, it is intended to
incorporate a dietary bioaccumulation (1
2. In the years since adoption of the consolidated Test Guideline (TG) in 1996 (1), numerous
substances have been tested, and considerable experience has been gained both by laboratories and by
regulatory authorities. This has led to the conviction that the complexity of the test can be reduced if
specific criteria are met (cf. paragraph 88), and that a tiered approach is possible. Experience has also
shown that biological factors such as growth and fish lipid content can have a strong impact on the
results and may need to be taken into account. In addition, it has been recognised that testing very
poorly water soluble substances may not be technically feasible. In addition, for substances with very
low water solubility in the aquatic environment, exposure via water may be of limited importance in
comparison to the dietary route. This has led to the development of a test method in which fish are
exposed via their diet (cf. paragraph 7-14 and 97 onwards). Validation (ring test) of the dietary
exposure test was conducted in 2010 (51).
)
test suitable for determining the bioaccumulation potential of
substances with very low water solubility. Secondly, it is intended to create a Test Guideline that,
when appropriate, utilises fewer fish for animal welfare reasons, and that is more cost-effective.
The main changes include:
• The testing of only one test concentration can be considered sufficient, when it is likely that
the bioconcentration factor (BCF) is independent of the test concentration.
• A minimised aqueous exposure test design in which a reduced number of sample points is
possible, if specific criteria are met.
• Fish lipid content should be measured so that BCF can be expressed on a 5% lipid content
basis.
• Greater emphasis on kinetic BCF estimation (when possible) next to estimating the BCF at
steady state.
• For certain groups of substances, a dietary exposure test will be proposed, where this is
considered more suitable than an aqueous exposure test.
• Fish weight should be measured so that BCFk can be corrected for growth dilution.
3. Before carrying out any of the bioaccumulation tests, the following information about the
test substance should be known:
(1) See Annex 1 for definitions and units
305 OECD/OCDE
2
© OECD, (2012)
(a) Sensitivity of the analytical technique for measuring tissue and aqueous or food
concentrations of both the test substance and possible metabolites (cf. paragraph 65).
(b) Solubility in water [TG 105; (2)]; this should be determined in accordance with a
method that is appropriate for the (estimated) range of the solubility to obtain a
reliable value. For hydrophobic substances, this will generally be the column elution
method.
(c) n-Octanol-water partition coefficient, KOW
(2
(d) Substance stability in water (hydrolysis [TG 111 (7)];
)
[TGs 107 (4), 117 (5), 123 (6)]; or other
suitable information on partitioning behaviour (e.g. sorption to lipids, KOC); this
should be determined in accordance with a method that is appropriate for the
(estimated) range of the KOW to obtain a reliable value. For hydrophobic substances,
this will generally be the slow-stirring method [TG 123 (6)];
(e) Substance stability in food (specifically when a dietary exposure test approach is
chosen);
(f) Information on phototransformation relevant for the irradiation conditions in the test
(8);
(g) Surface tension (i.e. for substances where the log KOW cannot be determined)
[TG 115 (9)];
(h) Vapour pressure [TG 104 (10)];
(i) Any information on biotic or abiotic degradation in water, such as (but not restricted
to) ready biodegradability [TGs 301 A to F (11), 310 (12)], where appropriate;
(j) Information on metabolites: structure, log KOW, formation and degradability, where
appropriate;
(k) Acid dissociation constant (pKa) for substances that might ionise. If necessary, the
pH of the test water should be adjusted to ensure that the substance is in the
unionised form in the test if compatible with fish species.
4. Independent of the chosen exposure method or sampling scheme, this TG describes a
procedure for characterising the bioaccumulation potential of substances in fish. Although flowthrough
test regimes are much to be preferred, semi-static regimes are permissible, provided that the
validity criteria (cf. paragraphs 24 and 113) are satisfied. In the dietary exposure route, the flowthrough
system is not necessary to maintain aqueous concentrations of the tested substance, but will
help maintain adequate dissolved oxygen concentrations and help ensure clean water and remove
influences of e.g. excretion products.
5. Independent of the chosen test method, sufficient details are given in this TG for performing
the test while allowing adequate freedom for adapting the experimental design to the conditions in
particular laboratories and for varying characteristics of test substances. The aqueous exposure test is
most appropriately applied to stable organic chemicals with log KOW values between 1.5 and 6.0 (13)
(2) Sometimes denoted by POW; determined by a shake-flask method in TG 107 (3), an HPLC method in TG 117 (4)
and a slow-stirring method in TG 123 (5). The generator-column technique is occasionally used for the
determination of log KOW. A limited number of studies are available that makes use of this technique, primarily
for chlorinated biphenyls and dibenzodioxins (e.g. Li and Doucette, 1993) (3). For substances that might ionise,
log KOW should refer to the unionised form.
OECD/OCDE 305
3
© OECD, (2012)
but may still be applied to strongly hydrophobic substances (having log KOW > 6.0), if a stable and
fully dissolved concentration of the test substance in water can be demonstrated. If a stable
concentration of the test substance in water cannot be demonstrated, an aqueous study would not be
appropriate thus the dietary approach for testing the substance in fish would be required (although
interpretation and use of the results of the dietary test may depend on the regulatory framework). Preestimates
of the bioconcentration factor (BCF, sometimes denoted as KB) for organic chemicals with
log KOW values up to about 9.0 can be obtained using the equation of Bintein et al. (14). The preestimate
of the bioconcentration factor for such strongly hydrophobic substances may be higher than
the steady-state bioconcentration factor (BCFSS) value expected to be obtained from laboratory
experiments, especially when a simple linear model is used for the pre-estimate. Parameters which
characterise the bioaccumulation potential include the uptake rate constant (k1), loss rate constants
including the depuration rate constant (k2), the steady-state bioconcentration factor (BCFSS), the
kinetic bioconcentration factor (BCFK) and the dietary biomagnification factor (BMF)(3
6. Radiolabelled test substances can facilitate the analysis of water, food and fish samples, and
may be used to determine whether identification and quantification of metabolites will be necessary. If
total radioactive residues are measured alone (e.g. by combustion or tissue solubilisation), the BCF or
BMF is based on the total of the parent substance, any retained metabolites and also assimilated
carbon. BCF or BMF values based on total radioactive residues may not, therefore, be directly
comparable to a BCF or BMF derived by specific chemical analysis of the parent substance only.
Separation procedures, such as TLC, HPLC or GC (
)
.
4)
may be employed before analysis in
radiolabelled studies in order to determine BCF or BMF based on the parent substance. When
separation techniques are applied, identification and quantification of parent substance and relevant
metabolites should be performed (5
7. The decision on whether to conduct an aqueous or dietary exposure test, and in what set-up,
should be based on the factors in paragraph 3 considered together with the relevant regulatory
framework. For example, for substances, which have a high log KOW but still show appreciable water
solubility with respect to the sensitivity of available analytical techniques, an aqueous exposure test
should be considered in the first instance. However it is possible that information on water solubility is
not definitive for these hydrophobic types of chemicals, so the possibility of preparing stable,
measurable dissolved aqueous concentrations (stable emulsions are not allowed) applicable for an
aqueous exposure study should be investigated before a decision is made on which test method to use
(16). It is not possible to give exact prescriptive guidance on the method to be used based on water
solubility and octanol-water partition coefficient “cut off” criteria, as other factors (analytical
techniques, degradation, adsorption, etc.) can have a marked influence on method applicability for the
reasons given above. However, a log KOW above 5 and a water solubility below ~0.01 – 0.1 mg/L mark
the range of substances where testing via aqueous exposure may become increasingly difficult.
)
(cf. paragraph 65) if BCF or BMF is to be based upon the
concentration of the parent substance in fish and not upon total radiolabelled residues. It is also
possible to combine a fish metabolism or in vivo distribution study with a bioaccumulation study by
analysis and identification of the residues in tissues. The possibility of metabolism can be predicted by
suitable tools (e.g. OECD QSAR toolbox (15) and proprietary QSAR programs).
8. Other factors that may influence test choice should be considered, including the substance’s
potential for adsorption to test vessels and apparatus, its stability in aqueous solution versus its
stability in fish food (17) (18), etc.
(3) See Annex 1 for definitions and units
(4) TLC: thin layer chromatography; HPLC: high pressure liquid chromatography; GC: gas chromatography
(5) In some regulatory frameworks analysis of metabolites may be obligatory when certain conditions are met
(cf. paragraph 65).
305 OECD/OCDE
4
© OECD, (2012)
9. Information on such practical aspects may be available from other completed aqueous
studies. Further information on the evaluation of aspects relating to the performance of
bioaccumulation studies are available in the literature (e.g. (19)).
10. For substances where the solubility or the maintenance of the aqueous concentration as well
as the analysis of these concentrations do not pose any constraints to the realization of an aqueous
exposure method, this method is preferred to determine the bioconcentration potential of the
substance. In any case, it should be verified that the aqueous exposure concentration(s) to be applied
are within the aqueous solubility in the test media. Different methods for maintaining stable
concentrations of the dissolved test substance can be used, such as the use of stock solutions or passive
dosing systems (e.g. column elution method), as long as it can be demonstrated that stable
concentrations can be maintained and the test media are not altered from that recommended in
paragraph 27.
11. For strongly hydrophobic substances (log KOW > 5 and a solubility below ~ 0.01-0.1 mg/L),
testing via aqueous exposure may become increasingly difficult. Reasons for constraints may be that
the aqueous concentration cannot be maintained at a level that is considered to be sufficiently constant
(e.g. due to sorption to the glass of exposure containers or rapid uptake by the fish) or that the aqueous
concentrations to be applied are so low that they are in the same range as or below the analytical limit
of quantification (6
12. For surfactants it should be considered whether the aqueous bioconcentration test is feasible,
given the substance properties, otherwise the dietary study is probably more appropriate. Surfactants
are surface acting agents, which lower the interfacial tension between two liquids. Their amphiphilic
nature (i.e. they contain both a hydrophilic and a hydrophobic part) causes them to accumulate at
interfaces such as the water-air interface, the water-food interface, and glass walls, which hampers the
determination of their aqueous concentration.
)
. For these highly hydrophobic substances the dietary test is recommended,
provided that the test is consistent with the relevant regulatory framework and risk assessment needs.
13. The dietary test can circumvent some of the exposure aspects for complex mixtures with
components of differing water solubility limits, in that comparable exposure to all components of the
mixture is more likely than in the aqueous method (cf. (20)).
14. It should be noted that the dietary approach yields a dietary biomagnification factor (BMF)
rather than a bioconcentration factor (BCF)(7
15. A minimised aqueous exposure test set-up with fewer sampling points to reduce the number
of animals and/or resources (cf. paragraph 83 onwards) should only be applied to those substances
where there is reason to expect that uptake and depuration will follow approximately first order
kinetics (i.e. in general non-ionized organic substances, cf. paragraph 88).
)
. Approaches are available to estimate a kinetic
bioconcentration factor (BCFK) from data generated in the dietary study (as discussed in Annex 8, but
these approaches should be used with caution. In general, these approaches assume first order kinetics,
and are only applicable to certain groups of compounds. It is unlikely that such approaches can be
applied for surfactants (see paragraph 12).
(6) In general, measured concentrations in water during the uptake phase should be at least an order of magnitude
above the limit of quantification so that more than one half-life of body burden can be measured in the depuration
phase of the study.
(7) See Annex 1 for definitions and units
OECD/OCDE 305
5
© OECD, (2012)
305-I: Aqueous E xposure Bioconcentration Fish T est
PRINCIPLE OF THE TEST
16. The test consists of two phases: the exposure (uptake) and post-exposure (depuration)
phases. During the uptake phase, a group of fish of one species is exposed to the test substance at one
or more chosen concentrations, depending on the properties of the test substance (cf. paragraph 49).
They are then transferred to a medium free of the test substance for the depuration phase. A depuration
phase is always necessary unless uptake of the substance during the uptake phase has been
insignificant. The concentration of the test substance in/on the fish (or specified tissue thereof) is
followed through both phases of the test. In addition to the exposed group, a control group of fish is
held under identical conditions except for the absence of the test substance, to relate possible adverse
effects observed in the bioconcentration test to a matching control group and to obtain background
concentrations of test substance8
17. In the aqueous exposure test, the uptake phase is usually run for 28 days. The duration can be
lengthened if necessary (cf. paragraph 18), or shortened if it is demonstrated that steady-state has been
reached earlier (see Annex 1, definitions and units). A prediction of the length of the uptake phase and
the time to steady-state can be made from equations in Annex 5. The depuration period is then begun
when the fish are no longer exposed to the test substance, by transferring the fish to the same medium
but without the test substance in a clean vessel. Where possible the bioconcentration factor is
calculated preferably both as the ratio of concentration in the fish (Cf) and in the water (Cw) at steadystate
(BCFSS; see Annex 1, definition) and as a kinetic bioconcentration factor (BCFK; see Annex 1,
definitions and units), which is estimated as the ratio of the rate constants of uptake (k1) and
depuration (k2) assuming first order kinetics (
.
9
18. If a steady-state is not achieved within 28 days, either the BCF is calculated using the kinetic
approach (cf. paragraph 38) or the uptake phase can be extended. Should this lead to an impractically
long uptake phase to reach steady-state (cf. paragraphs 37 and 38, Annex 5), the kinetic approach is
preferred. Alternatively, for highly hydrophobic substances the conduction of a dietary study should
be considered (
)
.
10
19. The uptake rate constant, the depuration (loss) rate constant (or constants, where more
complex models are involved), the bioconcentration factor (steady-state and/or kinetic), and where
possible, the confidence limits of each of these parameters are calculated from the model that best
describes the measured concentrations of test substance in fish and water (cf. Annex 5).
)
, provided that the dietary test is consistent with the relevant regulatory framework.
20. The increase in fish mass during the test will result in a decrease of test substance
concentration in growing fish (so-called growth dilution), and thus the kinetic BCF will be
underestimated if not corrected for growth (cf. paragraphs 72 and 73).
(8) For most test substances, there should ideally be no detections in the control water. Background concentrations
should only be relevant to naturally occurring materials (e.g., some metals) and substances that are ubiquitous in
the environment.
(9) If first order kinetics is obviously not obeyed, more complex models should be employed (see references in
Annex 5 and advice from a biostatistician sought.
(10) Uptake may be limited by low exposure concentrations because of low water solubility in the bioconcentration
test, whereas far higher exposure concentrations can be achieved with the dietary test.
305 OECD/OCDE
6
© OECD, (2012)
21. The BCF is based on the total concentration in the fish (i.e. per total wet weight of the fish).
However, for special purposes, specified tissues or organs (e.g. muscle, liver), may be used if the fish
are sufficiently large or the fish may be divided into edible (fillet) and non-edible (viscera) fractions.
Since, for many organic substances, there is a clear relationship between the potential for
bioconcentration and hydrophobicity, there is also a corresponding relationship between the lipid
content of the test fish and the observed bioconcentration of such substances. Thus, to reduce this
source of variability in test results for those substances with high lipophilicity (i.e. with log KOW > 3),
bioconcentration should be expressed as normalised to a fish with a 5% lipid content (based on whole
body wet weight) in addition to that derived directly from the study. This is necessary to provide a
basis from which results for different substances and/or test species can be compared against one
another. The figure of 5% lipid content has been widely used as this represents the average lipid
content of fish commonly used in this TG (21).
I NFOR MAT ION ON T HE T E ST SUBST ANCE
22. In addition to the properties of the test substance given in the Introduction (paragraph 3),
other information required is the toxicity to the fish species to be used in the test, preferably the
asymptotic LC50 (i.e. time-independent) and/or toxicity estimated from long-term fish tests
(e.g. OECD TGs 210 (22), 212 (23), 215(24)).
23. An appropriate analytical method, of known accuracy, precision, and sensitivity, for the
quantification of the substance in the test solutions and in biological material should be available,
together with details of sample preparation and storage. The analytical quantification limit of the test
substance in both water and fish tissues should also be known. When a radiolabelled test substance is
used, it should be of the highest purity (e.g. preferably > 98%) and the percentage of radioactivity
associated with impurities should be known.
V AL I DI T Y OF T HE T E ST
24. For a test to be valid the following conditions apply:
• The water temperature variation is less than ± 2°C, because large deviations can affect
biological parameters relevant for uptake and depuration as well as cause stress to animals;
• The concentration of dissolved oxygen does not fall below 60% saturation;
• The concentration of the test substance in the chambers is maintained within ± 20% of the
mean of the measured values during the uptake phase;
• The concentration of the test substance is below its limit of solubility in water, taking into
account the effect that the test water may have on effective solubility (11
• The mortality or other adverse effects/disease in both control and treated fish is less than
10% at the end of the test; where the test is extended over several weeks or months, death or
other adverse effects in both sets of fish should be less than 5% per month and not exceed
30% in all. Significant differences in average growth between the test and the control groups
of sampled fish could be an indication of a toxic effect of the test chemical.
)
;
(11) For multi-constituent substances such as UVCBs, the water solubility of each relevant component should be
considered to determine the appropriate exposure concentrations.
OECD/OCDE 305
7
© OECD, (2012)
R E FE R E NCE SUBST ANCE S
25. The use of reference substances of known bioconcentration potential and low metabolism
would be useful in checking the experimental procedure, when required (e.g. when a laboratory has no
previous experience with the test or experimental conditions have been changed).
DE SCR I PT ION OF T HE ME T HOD
Apparatus
26. Care should be taken to avoid the use of materials – for all parts of the equipment – that can
dissolve, sorb or leach and have an adverse effect on the fish. Standard rectangular or cylindrical
tanks, made of chemically inert material and of a suitable capacity in compliance with loading rate
(cf. paragraph 43), can be used. The use of soft plastic tubing should be minimised. Teflon®
, stainless
steel and/or glass tubing should be used. Experience has shown that for test substances with high
adsorption coefficient, such as the synthetic pyrethroids, silanized glass may be required. In such
situations the equipment should be discarded after use. It is preferable to expose test systems to
concentrations of the test substance to be used in the study for as long as is required to demonstrate the
maintenance of stable exposure concentrations prior to the introduction of test organisms.
Water
27. Natural water is generally used in the test and should be obtained from uncontaminated and
uniform quality source. Yet, reconstituted water (i.e. demineralized water with specific nutrients added
in known amounts) may be more suitable to guarantee uniform quality over time. The dilution water,
which is the water that is mixed with the test substance before entering the test vessel
(cf. paragraph 30), should be of a quality that will allow the survival of the chosen fish species for the
duration of the acclimation and test periods without them showing any abnormal appearance or
behaviour. Ideally, it should be demonstrated that the test species can survive, grow and reproduce in
the dilution water (e.g. in laboratory culture or a life-cycle toxicity test). The dilution water should be
characterised at least by pH, hardness, total solids, total organic carbon (TOC (12
28. The dilution water should be of constant quality during the period of a test. The pH value
should be within the range 6.0 to 8.5 at test start, but during a given test it should be within a range of
± 0.5 pH units. In order to ensure that the dilution water will not unduly influence the test result (for
example, by complexation of the test substance) or adversely affect the performance of the stock of
fish, samples should be taken at intervals for analysis, at least at the beginning and end of the test.
Determination of heavy metals (e.g. Cu, Pb, Zn, Hg, Cd, and Ni), major anions and cations (e.g. Ca,
Mg, Na, K, Cl, and SO4), pesticides (e.g. total organophosphorous and total organochlorine
pesticides), total organic carbon and suspended solids should be conducted, for example, every three
months where dilution water is known to be relatively constant in quality. If dilution water quality has
been demonstrated to be constant over at least one year, determinations can be less frequent and
intervals extended (e.g. every six months).
)
) and, preferably also
ammonium, nitrite and alkalinity and, for marine species, salinity. The parameters which are important
for optimal fish well-being are not fully known, but Annex 2 gives recommended maximum
concentrations of a number of parameters for fresh and marine test waters.
29. The natural particle content as well as the total organic carbon of the dilution water should
be as low as possible to avoid adsorption of the test substance to organic matter, which may reduce its
bioavailability and therewith result in an underestimation of the BCF. The maximum acceptable value
is 5 mg/L for particulate matter (dry matter, not passing a 0.45 µm filter) and 2 mg/L for total organic
carbon (cf. Annex 2). If necessary, the dilution water should be filtered before use. The contribution to
(12) TOC includes organic carbon from particles and dissolved organic carbon, i.e. TOC = POC + DOC.
305 OECD/OCDE
8
© OECD, (2012)
the organic carbon content in test water from the test fish (excreta) and from the food residues should
be kept as low as possible (cf. paragraph 46).
Test Solutions
30. Prepare a stock solution of the test substance at a suitable concentration. The stock solution
should preferably be prepared by simply mixing or agitating the test substance in the dilution water.
An alternative that may be appropriate in some cases is the use of a solid phase desorption dosing
system. The use of solvents and dispersants (solubilising agents) is not generally recommended
(cf. (25)); however the use of these materials may be acceptable in order to produce a suitably
concentrated stock solution, but every effort should be made to minimise the use of such materials and
their critical micelle concentration should not be exceeded (if relevant). Solvents which may be used
are acetone, ethanol, methanol, dimethyl formamide and triethylene glycol; dispersants that have been
used are Tween 80, methylcellulose 0.01% and HCO-40. The solvent concentration in the final test
medium should be the same in all treatments (i.e. regardless of test substance concentration) and
should not exceed the corresponding toxicity thresholds determined for the solvent under the test
conditions. The maximum level is a concentration of 100 mg/L (or 0.1 mL/L). It is unlikely that a
solvent concentration of 100 mg/L will significantly alter the maximum dissolved concentration of the
test substance which can be achieved in the medium (25). The solvent’s contribution (together with the
test substance) to the overall content of organic carbon in the test water should be known. Throughout
the test, the concentration of total organic carbon in the test vessels should not exceed the
concentration of organic carbon originating from the test substance, and solvent or solubilising agent
(13
31. For flow-through tests, a system which continuously dispenses and dilutes a stock solution of
the test substance (e.g. metering pump, proportional diluter, saturator system) or a solid phase
desorption dosing system is required to deliver the test concentrations to the test chambers. Preferably
allow at least five volume replacements through each test chamber per day. The flow-through mode is
to be preferred, but where this is not possible (e.g. when the test organisms are adversely affected) a
semi-static technique may be used provided that the validity criteria are satisfied (cf. paragraph 24).
The flow rates of stock solutions and dilution water should be checked both 48 hours before and then
at least daily during the test. Include in this check the determination of the flow-rate through each test
chamber and ensure that it does not vary by more than 20% either within or between chambers.
)
, if used, by more than 10 mg/L (± 20%). Organic matter content can have a significant effect on the
amount of freely dissolved test substance during flow-through fish tests, especially for highly
lipophilic substances. Solid-phase microextraction (cf. paragraph 60) can provide important
information on the ratio between bound and freely dissolved compounds, of which the latter is
assumed to represent the bioavailable fraction. The test substance concentration should be below the
solubility limit of the test substance in the test media in spite of the use of a solvent or solubilising
agent. Care should be taken when using readily biodegradable solvents as these can cause problems
with bacterial growth in flow-through tests. If it is not possible to prepare a stock solution without the
use of a solubilising agent, consideration should be given to the appropriateness of an aqueous
exposure study as opposed to a dietary exposure study.
Selection of species
32. Important criteria in the selection of species are that they are readily available, can be
obtained in convenient sizes and can be satisfactorily maintained in the laboratory. Other criteria for
selecting fish species include recreational, commercial, ecological importance as well as comparable
sensitivity, past successful use etc. Recommended test species are given in Annex 3. Other species
may be used but the test procedure may have to be adapted to provide suitable test conditions. The
(13) Although not generally recommended, if a solvent or solubilising agent is used the organic carbon originating
from this agent should be added to the organic carbon from the test substance to evaluate the concentration of
organic carbon in the test vessels.
OECD/OCDE 305
9
© OECD, (2012)
rationale for the selection of the species and the experimental method should be reported in this case.
In general, the use of smaller fish species will shorten the time to steady-state, but more fish (samples)
may be needed to adequately analyse lipid content and test substance concentrations in the fish. In
addition it is possible that differences in respiration rate and metabolism between young and older fish
may hamper comparisons of results between different tests and test species. It should be noted that fish
species tested during a (juvenile) life-stage with rapid growth can complicate data interpretation.
Holding of fish (relevant for aqueous and dietary exposure)
33. The stock population of fish should be acclimated for at least two weeks in water (cf.
paragraph 28) at the test temperature and feed throughout on a sufficient diet (cf. paragraph 45). Both
water and diet should be of the same type as those to be used during the test.
34. Following a 48-hour settling-in period, mortalities are recorded and the following criteria
applied:
• Mortalities exceeding 10% of the population in seven days: reject the entire batch;
• Mortalities of between 5 and 10% of the population in seven days: acclimate for seven
additional days – if more than 5% mortality during the second seven days reject the entire
batch;
• Mortalities below 5% of the population in seven days: accept the batch.
35. Fish used in tests should be free from observable diseases and abnormalities. Any diseased
fish should be discarded. Fish should not receive treatment for disease in the two weeks preceding the
test, or during the test.
PE R FOR MANCE OF T HE T E ST
Preliminary test
36. It may be useful to conduct a preliminary experiment in order to optimise the test conditions
of the definitive test, e.g. selection of test substance concentration(s), duration of the uptake and
depuration phases, or to determine whether a full test need be conducted. The design of the
preliminary test should be such as to obtain the information required. It can be considered if a
minimised test may be sufficient to derive a BCF, or if a full study is needed (cf. paragraphs 83-95 on
the minimised test).
Conditions of Exposure
Duration of uptake phase
37. A prediction of the duration of the uptake phase can be obtained from practical experience
(e.g. from a previous study or an accumulation study on a structurally related chemical) or from
certain empirical relationships utilising knowledge of either the aqueous solubility or the octanol/water
partition coefficient of the test substance (provided that uptake follows first order kinetics,
cf. Annex 5).
38. The uptake phase should be run for 28 days unless it can be demonstrated that steady-state
has been reached earlier (see Annex 1, definitions and units). A steady-state is reached in the plot of
test substance in fish (Cf) against time when the curve becomes parallel to the time axis and three
successive analyses of Cf made on samples taken at intervals of at least two days are within ± 20% of
each other, and there is no significant increase of Cf in time between the first a last successive analysis.
305 OECD/OCDE
10
© OECD, (2012)
When pooled samples are analysed, at least four successive analyses are required. For test substances
which are taken up slowly the intervals would more appropriately be seven days. If steady-state has
not been reached by 28 days, either the BCF is calculated using only the kinetic approach, which is not
reliant on steady-state being reached, or the uptake phase can be extended, taking further
measurements, until steady-state is reached or for 60 days, whichever is shorter. Also, the test
substance concentration in the fish at the end of the uptake phase needs to be sufficiently high to
ensure a reliable estimation of k2 from the depuration phase. If no significant uptake is shown after
28 days, the test can be stopped.
Duration of the depuration phase
39. For substances following first order kinetics, a period of half the duration of the uptake phase
is usually sufficient for an appropriate (e.g. 95%) reduction in the body burden of the substance to
occur (cf. Annex 5 for explanation of the estimation). If the time required to reach 95% loss is
impractically long, exceeding for example twice the normal duration of the uptake phase (i.e. more
than 56 days) a shorter period may be used (e.g. until the concentration of test substance is less than
10% of steady-state concentration). However, longer depuration periods may be necessary for
substances having more complex patterns of uptake and depuration than are represented by a onecompartment
fish model that yields first order kinetics. If such complex patterns are observed and/or
anticipated, it is advised to seek advice from a biostatistician and/or pharmacokineticist to ensure a
proper test set-up. As the depuration period is extended, numbers of fish to sample may become
limiting and growth differences between fish can influence the results. The period will also be
governed by the period over which the concentration of the test substance in the fish remains above
the analytical limit of quantification.
Numbers of test fish
40. Select the numbers of fish per test concentration such that a minimum of four fish are
available at each sampling point. Fish should only be pooled if analysis of single fish is not feasible. If
higher precision in curve fitting (and derived parameters) is intended or if metabolism studies are
required (e.g. to distinguish between metabolites and parent substance when using radiolabelled test
substances), more fish per sampling point will be necessary. The lipid content should be determined
on the same biological material as is used to determine the concentration of the test substance. Should
this not be feasible, additional fish may be needed (cf. paragraphs 56 and 57).
41. If adult (i.e. sexually mature) fish are used, they should not be in a spawning state or recently
spent (i.e. already spawned) either before or during the test. It should also be reported whether male or
female, or both are used in the experiment. If both sexes are used, differences in growth and lipid
content between sexes should be documented to be non-significant before the start of the exposure, in
particular if it is anticipated that pooling of male and female fish will be necessary to ensure detectable
substance concentrations and/or lipid content.
42. In any one test, select fish of similar weight such that the smallest are no smaller than twothirds
of the weight of the largest. All should be of the same year-class and come from the same
source. Since weight and age of a fish may have a significant effect on BCF values (12) these details
should be recorded accurately. It is recommended that a sub-sample of the stock of fish is weighed
shortly before the start of the test in order to estimate the mean weight (cf. paragraph 61).
Loading
43. High water-to-fish ratios should be used in order to minimise the reduction in the
concentration of the test compound in water caused by the addition of the fish at the start of the test
and also to avoid decreases in dissolved oxygen concentration. It is important that the loading rate is
appropriate for the test species used. In any case, a fish-to-water loading rate of 0.1-1.0 g of fish (wet
OECD/OCDE 305
11
© OECD, (2012)
weight) per litre of water per day is normally recommended. Higher fish-to-water loading rates can be
used if it is shown that the required concentration of test substance can be maintained within ± 20%
limits, and that the concentration of dissolved oxygen does not fall below 60% saturation
(cf. paragraph 24).
44. In choosing appropriate loading regimes, take into account the normal habitat of the fish
species. For example, bottom-living fish may demand a larger bottom area of the aquarium for the
same volume of water compared to pelagic fish species.
Feeding
45. During the acclimation and test periods, feed an appropriate diet of known lipid and total
protein content to the fish in an amount sufficient to keep them in a healthy condition and to maintain
body weight (some growth is allowed). Feed daily throughout the acclimation and test periods at a set
level depending on the species used, experimental conditions and calorific value of the food (for
example for rainbow trout between approximately 1 to 2% of body weight per day). The feeding rate
should be selected such that fast growth and large increase of lipid content are avoided. To maintain
the same feeding rate, the amount of feed should be re-calculated as appropriate, for example once per
week. For this calculation, the weight of the fish in each test chamber can be estimated from the
weight of the fish sampled most recently in that chamber. Do not weigh the fish remaining in the
chamber.
46. Uneaten food and faeces should be siphoned daily from the test chambers shortly after
feeding (30 minutes to one hour). The chambers should be kept as clean as possible throughout the test
to keep the concentration of organic matter as low as possible (cf. paragraph 29), since the presence of
organic carbon may limit the bioavailability of the test substance (12).
47. Since many feeds are derived from fishmeal, it should be ensured that the feed will not
influence the test results or induce adverse effects, e.g. by containing (traces of) pesticides, heavy
metals and/or the test substance itself.
Light and temperature
48. A 12 to 16 hour photoperiod is recommended and the temperature (± 2°C) should be
appropriate for the test species (cf. Annex 3). The type and characteristics of illumination should be
known. Caution should be given to the possible phototransformation of the test substance under the
irradiation conditions of the study. Appropriate illumination should be used avoiding exposure of fish
to unnatural photoproducts. In some cases it may be appropriate to use a filter to screen out UV
irradiation below 290 nm.
Test concentrations
49. The test was originally designed for non-polar organic substances. For this type of substance,
the exposure of fish to a single concentration is expected to be sufficient, as no concentration effects
are expected, although two concentrations may be required for the relevant regulatory framework. If
substances outside this domain are tested, or other indications of possible concentration dependence
are known, the test should be run with two or more concentrations. If only one concentration is tested,
justification for the use of one concentration should be given (cf. paragraph 79). Also, the tested
concentration should be as low as is practical or technically possible (i.e. not close to the solubility
limit).
50. In some cases it can be anticipated that the bioconcentration of a substance is dependent on
the water concentration (e.g. for metals, where the uptake in fish may be at least partly regulated). In
such a case it is necessary that at least two, but preferably more, concentrations are tested
305 OECD/OCDE
12
© OECD, (2012)
(cf. paragraph 49) which are environmentally relevant. Also for substances where the concentrations
tested have to be near the solubility limit for practical reasons, testing at least two concentrations is
recommended, because this can give insight into the reliability of the exposure concentrations. The
choice of the test concentrations should incorporate the environmentally realistic concentration as well
as the concentration that is relevant to the purpose of the specific assessment.
51. The concentration(s) of the test substance should be selected to be below its chronic effect
level or 1% of its acute asymptotic LC50, within an environmentally relevant range and at least an
order of magnitude above its limit of quantification in water by the analytical method used. The
highest permissible test concentration can also be determined by dividing the acute 96 h LC50 by an
appropriate acute/ chronic ratio (e.g. appropriate ratios for some chemicals are about three, but a few
are above 100). If a second concentration is used, it should differ from the one above by a factor of
ten. If this is not possible because of the toxicity criterion (that limits the upper test concentration) and
the analytical limit (that limits the lower test concentration), a lower factor than ten can be used and
use of radiolabelled test substance (of the highest purity, e.g. preferably > 98%) should be considered.
Care should be taken that no concentration used is above the solubility limit of the test substance in the
test media.
Controls
52. One dilution water control or if relevant (cf. paragraphs 30 and 31), one control containing
the solvent should be run in addition to the test series.
Frequency of Water Quality Measurements
53. During the test, dissolved oxygen, TOC, pH and temperature should be measured in all test
and control vessels. Total hardness and salinity (if relevant) should be measured in the control(s) and
one vessel. If two or more concentrations are tested, measure these parameters at the higher
(or highest) concentration. As a minimum, dissolved oxygen and salinity (if relevant) should be
measured three times – at the beginning, around the middle and end of the uptake period – and once a
week in the depuration period. TOC should be measured at the beginning of the test (24 h and 48 h
prior to test initiation of uptake phase) before addition of the fish and at least once a week during both
uptake and depuration phases. Temperature should be measured and recorded daily, pH at the
beginning and end of each period and hardness once each test. Temperature should preferably be
monitored continuously in at least one vessel.
Sampling and Analysis of Fish and Water
Fish and water sampling schedule
54. Water should be sampled from the test chambers for the determination of test substance
concentration before addition of the fish and during both uptake and depuration phases. The water
should be sampled the before feeding, at the same time as the fish sampling. More frequent sampling
may be useful to ensure stable concentrations after introduction of the fish. During the uptake phase,
the concentrations of test substance should be determined in order to check compliance with the
validity criteria (paragraph 24). If water sample analyses at the beginning of the depuration phase
show that the test substance is not detected, this can be used as a justification not to measure test and
control water for the test substance for the remainder of the depuration phase.
55. Fish should be sampled on at least five occasions during the uptake phase and on at least
four occasions during the depuration phase for test substance. Since on some occasions it will be
difficult to calculate a reasonably precise estimate of the BCF value based on this number of samples
(especially when other than simple first order uptake and depuration kinetics are indicated), it may be
advisable to take samples at a higher frequency in both periods (cf. Annex 4).
OECD/OCDE 305
13
© OECD, (2012)
56. The lipid content should be determined on the same biological material as is used to
determine the concentration of the test substance at least at the start and end of the uptake phase and at
the end of the depuration phase. Should this not be feasible, at least three independent fish should be
sampled to determine lipid content at each of the same three time-points. The number of fish per tank
at the start of the experiment should be adjusted accordingly14
. Alternatively, if no significant amounts
of the test substance are detected in control fish (i.e. fish from the stock population), the control fish
from the test can be analysed for lipid content only and test substance analysis in the test group(s) (and
the related uptake rate constant, depuration rate constant and BCF values) can be corrected for changes
according to control group lipid content during the test (15
57. Dead or diseased fish should not be analysed for test substance or lipid concentration.
)
.
58. An example of an acceptable sampling schedule is given in Annex 4. Other schedules can
readily be calculated using other assumed values of KOW to calculate the exposure time for 95% uptake
(refer to Annex 5 for calculations).
59. Sampling should be continued during the uptake phase until a steady-state has been
established (see Annex 1, definitions and units) or the uptake phase is otherwise terminated (after 28
or 60 days, cf. paragraphs 37 and 38). Before beginning the depuration phase, the fish should be
transferred to clean vessels.
Sampling and sample preparation
60. Water samples should be obtained for analysis e.g. by siphoning through inert tubing from a
central point in the test chamber. Neither filtration nor centrifuging appears always to separate the
non-bioavailable fraction of the test substance from that which is bioavailable. If a separation
technique is applied, a justification for, or validation of, the separation technique should always be
provided in the test report given the bioavailability difficulties (25). Especially for highly hydrophobic
chemicals (i.e. those chemicals with a log KOW > 5) (12) (26), where adsorption to the filter matrix or
centrifugation containers could occur, samples should not be subjected to those treatments. Instead,
measures should be taken to keep the tanks as clean as possible (cf. paragraph 46) and the content of
total organic carbon should be monitored during both the uptake and depuration phases (cf.
paragraph 53). To avoid possible issues with reduced bioavailability, sampling by solid phase
microextraction techniques may be used for poorly soluble and highly hydrophobic substances.
61. The sampled fish should be euthanized instantly, using the most appropriate and humane
method (for whole fish measurements, no further processes than rinsing with water (cf. paragraph 28)
and blot drying the fish should be done). Weigh and measure total length (16
62. It is preferable to analyse fish and water immediately after sampling in order to prevent
degradation or other losses and to calculate approximate uptake and depuration rate constants as the
test proceeds. Immediate analysis also avoids delay in determining when a plateau (steady-state) has
been reached.
)
. In each individual fish,
the measured weight and length should be linked to the analysed chemical concentration (and lipid
content, if applicable), for example using a unique identifier code for each sampled fish.
(14) If the lipid content is not analysed in the same fish as the test substance, fish should at least be of the similar
weight, and (if relevant) the same sex.
(15) This alternative is only valid if the fish in all test groups are held in similar group sizes, fish are removed
according to the same pattern and fed in the same way. This ensures that fish growth in all test groups is similar,
if the tested concentration is below the toxic range. If the growth is similar, also the lipid content is expected to be
similar. A different growth in the control would indicate a substance effect and invalidate the study.
(16) In addition to weight, total length should be recorded because comparison of the extent of length increase during
the test is a good indicator of whether an adverse effect has occurred.
305 OECD/OCDE
14
© OECD, (2012)
63. Failing immediate analysis, the samples should be stored by an appropriate method. Before
the beginning of the study, information should be obtained on the proper method of storage for the
particular test substance – for example, deep-freezing, holding at 4°C, extraction, etc. The duration of
storage should be selected to ensure that the chemical has not degraded while in storage.
Quality of analytical method
64. Since the whole procedure is governed essentially by the accuracy, precision and sensitivity
of the analytical method used for the test substance, check experimentally that the accuracy, precision
and reproducibility of the chemical analysis, as well as recovery of the test substance from both water
and fish are satisfactory for the particular method. This should be part of preliminary tests. Also, check
that the test substance is not detectable in the dilution water used. If necessary, correct the values of
test substance concentration in water and fish obtained from the test for the recoveries and background
values of controls. The fish and water samples should be handled throughout in such a manner as to
minimise contamination and loss (e.g. resulting from adsorption by the sampling device).
Analysis of fish samples
65. If radiolabelled materials are used in the test, it is possible to analyse for total radiolabel
(i.e. parent and metabolites) or the samples may be cleaned up so that the parent substance can be
analysed separately. If the BCF is to be based on the parent substance, the major metabolites should be
characterised, as a minimum at the end of the uptake phase (cf. paragraph 6). Major metabolites are
those representing ≥ 10% of total residues in fish tissues, those representing≥ 5% at two consecutive
sampling points, those showing increasing levels throughout the uptake phase, and those of known
toxicological concern. If the BCF for the whole fish in terms of total radiolabelled residues is ≥ 500, it
may be advisable – and for certain categories of chemicals such as pesticides strongly recommended –
identifying and quantifying major metabolites. Quantification of such metabolites may be required by
some regulatory authorities. If degradates representing ≥ 10% of total radiolabelled residues in the fish
tissue are identified and quantified, then it is also recommended to identify and quantify degradates in
the test water. Should this not be feasible, this should be explained in the report.
66. The concentration of the test substance should usually be determined for each weighed
individual fish. If this is not possible, pooling of the samples on each sampling occasion may be done
but pooling does restrict the statistical procedures which can be applied to the data, so an adequate
number of fish to accommodate the desired pooling, statistical procedure and power should be
included in the test. References (27) and (28) may be used as an introduction to relevant pooling
procedures.
67. BCF should be expressed as normalised to a fish with a 5% lipid content (based on wet
weight) in addition to that derived directly from the study (cf. paragraph 21), unless it can be argued
that the test substance does not accumulate primarily in lipids. The lipid content of the fish should be
determined on each sampling occasion if possible, preferably on the same extract as that produced for
analysis for the test substance, since the lipids often have to be removed from the extract before it can
be analysed chromatographically. However, analysis of test substances often requires specific
extraction procedures which might be in contradiction to the guidelines for lipid determination. In this
case (until suitable non-destructive instrumental methods are available), it is recommended to employ
a different strategy to determine the fish lipid content (cf. paragraph 56). Suitable methods should be
used for determination of lipid content (20). The chloroform/methanol extraction technique (29) may
be recommended as standard method (30), but the Smedes-method (31) is recommended as an
alternative technique. This latter method is characterised by a comparable efficiency of extraction,
high accuracy, the use of less toxic organic solvents and ease of performance. Other methods for
which accuracy compares favourably to the recommended methods could be used if properly justified.
It is important to give details of the method used.
OECD/OCDE 305
15
© OECD, (2012)
Fish growth measurement
68. At the start of the test, five to ten fish from the stock population need to be weighed
individually and their total length measured. These can be the same fish used for lipid analysis
(cf. paragraph 56). The weight and length of fish used for each sampling event from both test and
control groups should be measured before chemical or lipid analysis is conducted. The measurements
of these sampled fish can be used to estimate the weight and length of fish remaining in the test and
control tanks (cf. paragraph 45).
DAT A AND R E POR T I NG
Treatment of results
69. The uptake curve of the test substance should be obtained by plotting its concentration in/on
fish (or specified tissues) in the uptake phase against time on arithmetic scales. If the curve has
reached a plateau, that is, become approximately asymptotic to the time axis, the steady-state BCF
(BCFSS) should be calculated from:
f
w
at steady-state (mean)
at steady-state (mean)
C
C
The development of Cf may be influenced by fish growth (cf. paragraphs 72 and 73). The mean
exposure concentration (Cw) is influenced by variation over time. It can be expected that a timeweighted
average concentration is more relevant and precise for bioaccumulation studies, even if
variation is within the appropriate validity range (cf. paragraph 24). A time weighted average (TWA)
water concentration can be calculated according to Annex 5, section 1.
70. The kinetic bioconcentration factor (BCFK) should be determined as the ratio k1/k2, the two
first order kinetic rate constants. Rate constants k1 and k2 and BCFK can be derived by simultaneously
fitting both the uptake and the depuration phase. Alternatively, k1 and k2 can be determined
sequentially (see Annex 5 for a description and comparison of these methods). The depuration rate
constant (k2) may need correction for growth dilution (cf. paragraphs 72 and 73). If the uptake and/or
depuration curve is obviously not first order, then more complex models should be employed (see
references in Annex 5 and advice from a biostatistician and/or pharmacokineticist sought.
Fish weight/length data
71. Individual fish wet weights and total lengths for all sampling intervals are tabulated
separately for test and control groups during the uptake (including stock population for start of uptake)
and depuration phases. In each individual fish the measured weight and length should be linked to the
analysed chemical concentration, for example using a unique identifier code for each sampled fish.
Weight is the preferred measure of growth for the purposes of correcting kinetic BCF values for
growth dilution (see paragraph 73 and Annex 5 for the method used to correct data for growth
dilution).
Growth-Dilution Correction and Lipid Normalisation
72. Fish growth during the depuration phase can lower measured chemical concentrations in the
fish with the effect that the overall depuration rate constant (k2) is greater than would arise from
removal processes (e.g. respiration, metabolism, egestion) alone. Kinetic bioconcentration factors
should be corrected for growth dilution. A BCFSS will also be influenced by growth, but no agreed
procedure is available to correct a BCFSS for growth. In cases of significant growth, the BCFK,
corrected for growth (BCFKg), should also be derived as it may be a more relevant measure of the
bioconcentration factor. Lipid contents of test fish (which are strongly associated with the
305 OECD/OCDE
16
© OECD, (2012)
bioaccumulation of hydrophobic chemicals) can vary enough in practice such that normalisation to a
set fish lipid content (5% w/w) is necessary to present both kinetic and steady-state bioconcentration
factors in a meaningful way, unless it can be argued that the test substance does not primarily
accumulate in lipid (e.g. some perfluorinated substances may bind to proteins). Equations and
examples for these calculations can be found in Annex 5.
73. To correct a kinetic BCF for growth dilution, the depuration rate constant should be
corrected for growth. This growth-corrected depuration rate constant (k2g) is calculated by subtracting
the growth rate constant (kg, as obtained from the measured weight data) from the overall depuration
rate constant (k2). The growth-corrected kinetic bioconcentration factor is then calculated by dividing
the uptake rate constant (k1) by the growth-corrected depuration rate constant (k2g) (cf. Annex 5). In
some cases this approach is compromised. For example, for very slowly depurating substances tested
in fast growing fish, the derived k2g may be very small and so the error in the two rate constants used
to derive it becomes critical, and in some cases kg estimates can be larger than k2. An alternative
approach that circumvents the need for growth dilution correction involves using mass of test chemical
per fish (whole fish basis) depuration data rather than the usual mass of test chemical per unit mass of
fish (concentration) data. This can be easily achieved as tests according to this TG should link
recorded tissue concentrations to individual fish weights. The simple procedure for doing this is
outlined in Annex 5. Note that k2 should still be reported even if this alternative approach is used.
74. Kinetic and steady-state bioconcentration factors should also be reported relative to a default
fish lipid content of 5% (w/w), unless it can be argued that the test substance does not primarily
accumulate in lipid. Fish concentration data, or the BCF, are normalised according to the ratio between
5% and the actual (individual) mean lipid content (in % wet weight) (cf. Annex 5).
75. If chemical and lipid analyses have been conducted on the same fish, then individual fish
lipid normalised data should be used to calculate a lipid-normalised BCF. Alternatively, if the growth
in control and exposed fish is similar, the lipid content of control fish alone may be used for lipidcorrection
(cf. paragraph 56). A method for calculating a lipid-normalised BCF is described in
Annex 5.
Interpretation of results
76. The results should be interpreted with caution where measured concentrations of test
solutions occur at levels near the detection limit of the analytical method.
77. Average growth in both test and control groups should in principle not be significantly
different to exclude toxic effects. The growth rate constants or the growth curves of the two groups
should be compared by an appropriate procedure (17
78. Clearly defined uptake and depuration curves are an indication of good quality
bioconcentration data. For the rate constants, the result of a χ² goodness-of-fit-test should show a good
fit (i.e. small measurement error percentage (32)) for the bioaccumulation model, so that the rate
constants can be considered reliable (cf. Annex 5). If more than one test concentration is used, the
variation in uptake/depuration constants between the test concentrations should be less than 20 %(
)
).
18
(17) A t-test on growth rate constants can be performed, to test whether growth differs between control and test
groups, or an F-test in case of analysis of variance. If needed, an F-test or likelihood ratio test can be used to
assist in the choice of the appropriate growth model (OECD monograph 54, (32).
)
.
If not, concentration dependence could be indicated. Observed significant differences in uptake/
depuration rate constants between the applied test concentrations should be recorded and possible
(18) These percentages assume that the analytical methods are reliable and the half life is < 14 days. If the analytical
methods are less reliable or the half life is (greatly) increased these numbers will become larger.
OECD/OCDE 305
17
© OECD, (2012)
explanations given. Generally the 95% confidence limit of BCFs from well-designed studies approach
± 20% of the derived BCF.
79. If two or more concentrations are tested, the results of both or all concentrations are used to
examine whether the results are consistent and to show whether there is concentration dependence.
If only one concentration is tested to reduce the use of animals and/or resources, justification of the
use of one concentration should be given.
80. The resulting BCFSS is doubtful if the BCFK is significantly larger than the BCFSS, as this can
be an indication that steady-state has not been reached or growth dilution and loss processes have not
been taken into account. In cases where the BCFSS is very much higher than the BCFK, the derivation
of the uptake and depuration rate constants should be checked for errors and re-evaluated. A different
fitting procedure might improve the estimate of BCFK (cf. Annex 5).
Test Report
81. Apart from the test substance information indicated in paragraph 3, the test report includes
the following information:
Test substance:
• Physical nature and, where relevant, physicochemical properties;
- Chemical identification data, such as IUPAC or CAS name, CAS number, SMILES
or InChI code, structural formula, purity, chemical identity of impurities as
appropriate and practically feasible, etc. (including the organic carbon content, if
appropriate).
- For multi-constituent substances and UVCB (chemical substances of Unknown or
Variable composition, Complex reaction products and Biological materials)
description, as far as possible, of the chemical identity of the individual
constituents and, for each, of its percentage of the total mass of the substance. How
the analytical method used in the test reflects a measure of the concentration of the
substance should be summarised; all analytical procedures should be described
including the accuracy of the method, method detection limit, and limit of
quantification.
- If radiolabelled, the precise position of the labelled atom(s) and the percentage of
radioactivity associated with impurities.
- Information on the test substance toxicity to fish (ideally the test species). The
toxicity should be reported as an acute 96-h LC50 and a NOAEC & LOAEC from a
chronic study (i.e., an early life stage test or a full life cycle test, if available).
- Storage conditions of the test chemical or test substance and stability of the test
chemical or test substance under storage conditions if stored prior to use.
Test species:
• Scientific name, strain, source, any pre-treatment, acclimation, age, sex (if relevant), sizerange
(weight and length), etc.
305 OECD/OCDE
18
© OECD, (2012)
Test conditions:
• Test procedure used (e.g. flow-through or semi-static); regular study or minimised design
(including rationale and justification).
• Type and characteristics of illumination used and photoperiod(s).
• Test design (e.g. number and size of test chambers, water volume replacement rate, loading
rate, number of replicates, number of fish per replicate, number of test concentrations, length
of uptake and depuration phases, sampling frequency for fish and water samples).
• Method of preparation of stock solutions and frequency of renewal (the solvent, its
concentration and its contribution to the organic carbon content of test water should be
given, when used) or description of alternative dosing system.
• The nominal test concentrations, the means of the measured values and their standard
deviations in the test vessels and the method and frequency by which these were attained.
• Source of the dilution water, description of any pre-treatment, results of any demonstration
of the ability of test fish to live in the water, and water characteristics: pH, hardness,
temperature, dissolved oxygen concentration, residual chlorine levels (if measured), total
organic carbon, suspended solids, salinity of the test medium (if appropriate) and any other
measurements made.
• Water quality within test vessels, pH, hardness, TOC, temperature and dissolved oxygen
concentration; methods used and frequency of measurements.
• Detailed information on feeding, e.g. type of food(s), source, composition (at least lipid and
protein content if possible), selected feeding rate, amount given and frequency;
• Information on the treatment of fish and water samples, including details of preparation,
storage, extraction and analytical procedures (and precision) for the test substance and lipid
content.
• Methods used for treatment randomization and assignment of fish to test vessels.
• Date of introduction of test organisms to test solutions and test duration.
• Description of range-finding tests and results, if available.
Results:
• Results from any preliminary study performed.
• Mortality of the control fish and the fish in each exposure chamber and any observed
abnormal behaviour.
• Information on any adverse effects observed.
• Complete description of all chemical analysis procedures employed including limits of
detection and quantification, variability and recovery.
• The lipid content of the fish, including the method used, and if derived, lipid normalisation
factor (Ln, factor to express results relative to fish lipid content of 5%).
OECD/OCDE 305
19
© OECD, (2012)
• Tabulated fish weight (and length) data, linked to individual fish chemical concentrations
(and lipid content, if applicable), both for control and exposure groups (for example using
unique identifiers for each sampled fish) and calculations for derived growth rate constant(s).
• Tabulated test substance concentration data in fish (Cf, linked to individual fish) and water
(Cw) (with mean values for test group and control, standard deviation and range, if
appropriate) for all sampling times (Cf expressed in mg/kg wet weight of whole body or
specified tissues thereof, e.g. lipid, and Cw in mg/L). Cw values for the control series
(background should also be reported).
• Curves (including all measured data), showing the following (if applicable, concentrations
may be expressed in relation to the whole body and the lipid content normalised to 5% of the
animal or specified tissues thereof):
- growth, i.e. fish weight vs. time or natural logarithm transformed weight vs. time
(including the derived growth rate constant, kg);
- the uptake and depuration of the test chemical in the fish (on one graph);.
- the time to steady-state (if achieved);
- natural logarithm transformed concentration vs. uptake time (including the derived
uptake rate constant k1);
- natural logarithm transformed concentration (ln concentration) vs. depuration time
(including the derived depuration rate constant k2); and
- both uptake and depuration phase curves, showing both the data and the fitted
model.
• If a visual inspection of a plot shows obvious outliers, a statistically valid outlier test may be
applied to remove spurious data points as well as documented justification for their
omission.
• The steady-state bioconcentration factor, (BCFSS), if steady-state is (almost) achieved.
• Kinetic bioconcentration factor (BCFK) and derived uptake and depuration rate constants k1
and k2, together with the variances in k2 (slope and intercept) if sequential fitting is used.
• Confidence limits, standard deviation (as available) and methods of computation/data
analysis for each parameter for each concentration of test substance used.
- Any information concerning radiolabelled test chemical metabolites and their
accumulation.
- Growth rate constant(s) (including 95% confidence interval(s)) and calculated
growth-corrected depuration rate constant (k2g), half-life and BCF (BCFKg) values.
- Anything unusual about the test, any deviation from these procedures, and any
other relevant information.
- A summary table of relevant measured and calculated data, as hereafter:
305 OECD/OCDE
20
© OECD, (2012)
Substance Uptake and Depuration Rate Constants and Bioconcentration Factors (BCF)
kg (growth rate constant; day-1
): Insert Value (95% CI)(1)
k1 (overall uptake rate constant; L kg-1
day-1
): Insert Value (95% CI)(1)
k2 (overall depuration rate constant; day-1
): Insert Value (95% CI)(1)
k2g (growth-corrected depuration rate constant; day-1
): Insert Value (95% CI)(1)
Cf (chemical concentration in the fish at steady-state; mg kg-1
): Insert Value ± SD(2)
Cw (chemical concentration in the water; mg L-1
): Insert Value ± SD(2)
Ln (lipid normalisation factor): Insert Value(3)
BCFSS (steady-state BCF; L kg-1
) Insert Value ± SD(2)
BCFSSL (lipid normalised steady-state BCF; L kg-1
): Insert Value(3)
± SD(2)
BCFK (kinetic BCF; L kg-1
) Insert Value (95% CI)(1)
BCFKg (growth-corrected kinetic BCF; L kg-1
) Insert Value (95% CI)(1)
t1/2g (growth-corrected half-life; day): Insert Value (95% CI)(1)
BCFKL (lipid-normalised kinetic BCF; L kg-1
): Insert Value
BCFKLG (lipid-normalised growth corrected kinetic BCF; L kg-1
): Insert Value
(1) CI: confidence interval (where possible to estimate)
(2) SD: Standard deviation (where possible to estimate)
82. Results reported as "not detected/quantified at the limit of detection/quantification" by pretest
method development and experimental design should be avoided, since such results cannot be
used for rate constant calculations.
OECD/OCDE 305
21
© OECD, (2012)
305-II: Minimised Aqueous E xposure Fish T est
I NT R ODUCT I ON
83. The growing experience that has been gained in conducting and interpreting the full test,
both by laboratories and regulatory bodies, shows that – with some exceptions – first order kinetics
apply for estimating uptake and depuration rate constants. Thus, uptake and depuration rate constants
can be estimated with a minimum of sampling points, and the kinetic BCF derived.
84. The initial purpose of examining alternative designs for BCF studies was to develop a small
test to be used in an intermediate testing step to refute or confirm BCF estimates based on KOW and
QSARs and so eliminate the need for a full study for many chemicals, and to minimize cost and
animal use via reduction in sampling and in the number of analytical sequences performed. While
following the main design of the previous OECD TG to allow integration of test results with existing
BCF data, and to ease performance of testing and data interpretation, the aim was to provide BCF
estimates of adequate accuracy and precision for risk assessment decisions. Many of the same
considerations apply as in the full test, e.g. validity criteria (cf. paragraph 24) and stopping a test if
insignificant uptake is seen at the end of the uptake phase (cf. paragraphs 16 and 38).
85. Substances that would be eligible for the minimised test design should belong to the general
domain that this Test Guideline (TG) was developed for, i.e. non-polar organic substances
(cf. paragraph 49). If there is any indication that the substance to be tested might show a different
behaviour (e.g. a clear deviation from first-order kinetics), a full test should be conducted for
regulatory purposes.
86. Typically, the minimised test is not run over a shorter period than the standard BCF test, but
comprises less fish sampling (see Annex 6 for the rationale). However, the depuration period may be
shortened for rapidly depurating chemicals to avoid concentrations in the fish falling below the limit
of detection/quantification before the end of the test. A minimised exposure fish test with a single
concentration can be used to determine the need for a full test, and if the resulting data used to
calculate rate constants and BCF are robust (cf. paragraph 93), the full test may be waived if the
resulting BCF is far from regulatory values of concern.
87. In some cases it may be advantageous to perform the minimised test design with more than
one test concentration as a preliminary test to determine whether BCF estimates for a chemical are
concentration dependent. If the BCF estimates from the minimised test show concentration
dependence, the performance of the full test will be necessary. If, based on such a minimised test, BCF
estimates are not concentration dependent but the results are not considered definitive, then any
subsequent full test could be performed at a single concentration, thereby reducing animal use in
comparison to a two (or more) concentration full test.
88. Substances potentially eligible for the minimised test should:
• Be likely to exhibit approximate first order uptake and depuration kinetics, e.g. derived from
read-across with similar substances;
• Have a log KOW < 6 unless rapid metabolism is expected(19
(19) The minimized test may in fact be used to demonstrate rapid metabolism when it is known that rapid metabolism
is likely.
)
;
305 OECD/OCDE
22
© OECD, (2012)
• Be sufficiently water-soluble with respect to the analytical technique (cf. paragraph 24);
• Be clearly quantifiable (i.e. concentrations should be at least one order of magnitude above
the limit of quantification), both in fish and water, radioactive labelling is recommended
(cf. paragraph 23); and
• Have a depuration period greater than its predicted half-life (cf. Annex 5 for calculations), or
the duration of depuration should be adjusted accordingly (cf. paragraph 91). An exception to
this rule is allowed if rapid metabolism of the chemical is expected.
SAMPL I NG SCHE DUL E FOR ST UDI E S FOL L OW I NG T HE MI NI MI SE D DE SI GN
Fish sampling
89. Fish sampling is reduced to four sampling points:
• At the middle and end of the uptake phase (the latter being the beginning of depuration as
well), e.g. after 14 and 28 days (33).
• At the middle of the depuration phase and at termination of the study (where substance
concentration is < 10% of the maximum concentration, or at least clearly past one half-life of
the substance), e.g. after 7 and 14 days of depuration (33). If rapid depuration is expected or
observed, it may be necessary to shorten the depuration period to avoid concentrations in the
fish falling below the limit of quantification.
• Lipid measurement as in full study.
• Growth correction as in full study.
The BCF is calculated as a kinetic BCF.
Water sampling
90. For the minimised design, water is sampled as in full study (cf. paragraph 54) or at least
five times equally divided over the uptake phase, and weekly in the depuration phase.
Design modifications
91. Taking into account the test substance properties, valid QSAR predictions and the specific
purpose of the study, some modifications in the design of the study can be considered:
• If greater precision is needed, more fish (6 or 8 instead of 4) could be used for the sample at
the end of the uptake phase.
• Inclusion of an ‘extra’ group of fish to be used if depuration at 14 days (or the predicted end
of the depuration phase) has not been sufficient for adequate depuration (i.e. > 50%). If the
predicted duration of the depuration phase is shorter or longer than 14 days, the sampling
schedule should be adapted (i.e. one group of fish at the predicted end of the depuration
phase, and one group after half that time).
• Use of two test concentrations to explore possible concentration dependence. If the results of
the minimised test, conducted with two test concentrations, show that the BCF is not
concentration dependent (i.e. differ less than 20%), one test concentration may be considered
sufficient in a full test, if it is conducted.
OECD/OCDE 305
23
© OECD, (2012)
• It seems likely that models of bioaccumulation processes such as those proposed by Arnot et
al. (35) can be used to assist in planning the length of uptake and depuration phases (see also
Annex 5).
Calculations
92. The rationale for this approach is that the bioconcentration factor in a full test can either be
determined as a steady-state bioconcentration factor (BCFSS) by calculating the ratio of the
concentration of the test substance in the fish’s tissue to the concentration of the test substance in the
water, or by calculating the kinetic bioconcentration factor (BCFK) as the ratio of the uptake rate
constant k1 to the depuration rate constant k2. The BCFK is valid even if a steady-state concentration of
a chemical is not achieved during uptake, provided that uptake and depuration act approximately
according to first order kinetic processes. As an absolute minimum two data points are required to
estimate uptake and depuration rate constants, one at the end of the uptake phase (i.e. at the beginning
of the depuration phase) and one at the end (or after a significant part) of the depuration phase. The
intermediate sampling point is recommended as a check on the uptake and depuration kinetics(20
Interpretation of the results
)
. For
calculations, see Annexes 5 and 6.
93. To assess the validity and informative value of the test, verify that the depuration period
exceeds one half-life. Also, the BCFKm (kinetic BCF derived from a minimised test) should be
compared to the minimised BCFSS value (which is the BCFSS calculated at the end of the uptake phase,
assuming that steady-state has been reached. This can only be assumed, as the number of sampling
points is not sufficient for proving this). If the BCFKm < minimised BCFSS, the minimised BCFSS
should be the preferred value. If BCFKm is less than 70 % of the minimised BCFSS, the results are not
valid, and a full test should be conducted.
94. If the minimised test gives a BCFKm in the region of any value of regulatory concern, a full
test should be conducted. If the result is far from any regulatory value of concern (well above or
below), a full test may not be necessary, or a single concentration full test may be conducted if
required by the relevant regulatory framework.
95. If a full test is found to be necessary after a minimised test at one concentration, this can be
conducted at a second concentration. If the results are consistent, a further full test at a different
concentration can be waived, as the bioconcentration of the substance is not expected to be
concentration dependent. If the minimised test has been conducted at two concentrations, and the
results show no concentration dependence, the full test may be conducted with only one concentration
(cf. paragraph 87).
Test report
96. The test report for the minimised test should include all the information demanded for the
full test (cf. paragraph 81), except that which is not possible to elaborate (i.e. a curve showing the time
to steady-state and the steady-state bioconcentration factor; for the latter the minimised BCFss should
be given instead). Additionally, it should also include the reasoning for using the minimised test and
the resulting BCFKm.
(20) When only two data points are measured, estimates of the confidence limits for BCFKm can be made using
bootstrap methods. When intermediate data points are also available confidence limits for BCFKm can be calculated as in
the full test.
305 OECD/OCDE
24
© OECD, (2012)
305-II I: Dietary E xposure Bioaccumulation Fish T est
I NT R ODUCT I ON
97. The method described in this section should be used for substances where the aqueous
exposure methodology is not practicable (for example because stable, measurable water concentrations
cannot be maintained, or adequate body burdens cannot be achieved within 60 days of exposure; see
previous sections on the aqueous exposure method). It should be realised though that the endpoint
from this test will be a dietary biomagnification factor (BMF) rather than a bioconcentration factor
(BCF)(21
98. In May 2001 a new method for the bioaccumulation testing of poorly water soluble organic
chemicals was presented at the SETAC Europe conference held in Madrid (36). This work built on
various reported bioaccumulation studies in the literature using a dosing method involving spiked feed
(e.g. (37)). Early in 2004 a draft protocol (38), designed to measure the bioaccumulation potential of
poorly water soluble organic chemicals for which the standard water exposure bioconcentration
method was not practicable, together with a supporting background document (39), was submitted to
an EU PBT working group. Further justification given for the method was that potential environmental
exposure to such poorly soluble substances (i.e. log KOW >5) may be largely via the diet (cf. (40) (41)
(42) (43) (44)). For this reason, dietary exposure tests are referred to in some published chemicals
regulations (
)
.
22
99. This section of the present Test Guideline (TG) is based on this protocol (38) and is a new
method that did not appear in the previous version of OECD TG 305 (adopted 14.06.96). This
alternative test allows the dietary exposure pathway to be directly investigated under controlled
laboratory conditions.
)
. It should be realized however, that in the method described in this Guideline exposure
via the aqueous phase is carefully avoided and thus a BMF value from this test method cannot directly
be compared to a BMF value from a field study (in which both water and dietary exposure may be
combined).
100. Potential investigators should refer to paragraphs 1 to 14 of this TG for information on when
the dietary exposure test may be preferred over the aqueous exposure test. Information on the various
substance considerations is laid out, and should be considered before a test is conducted.
101. The use of radiolabelled test substances can be considered with similar considerations as for
the aqueous exposure method (cf. paragraphs 6 and 65).
102. The dietary method can be used to test more than one substance in a single test, so long as
certain criteria are fulfilled; these are explored further in paragraph 112. For simplicity the
methodology here describes a test using only one test substance.
103. The dietary test is similar to the aqueous exposure method in many respects with the obvious
exception of the exposure route. Hence many aspects of the method described here overlap with the
aqueous exposure method described in the previous section. Cross-reference to relevant paragraphs in
the previous section has been made as far as possible, but in the interests of readability and
understanding a certain amount of duplication is unavoidable.
(21) See Annex 1 for definitions and units
(22) For example Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and Council, REACH Technical
Guidance: “Guidance on Information Requirements and Chemical Safety Assessment”, chapter R.7c, R.7.10.3.1,
pp 13; R.7.10.4.1, pp 31-32; and figure R7.10-2, pp 50.
OECD/OCDE 305
25
© OECD, (2012)
PR I NCIPL E OF T HE T E ST
104. Flow-through or semi-static conditions can be employed (cf. paragraph 4); flow-through
conditions are recommended to limit potential exposure of test substance via water as a result of any
desorption from spiked food or faeces. The test consists of two phases: uptake (test substance-spiked
feed) and depuration (clean, untreated feed) (cf. paragraph 16). In the uptake phase, a “test” group of
fish are fed a set diet of a commercial fish food of known composition, spiked with the test substance,
on a daily basis. Fish ideally should consume all of the offered food (c.f. paragraph 141). Fish are then
fed the pure, untreated commercial fish food during the depuration phase. As for the aqueous exposure
method, more than one test group with different spiked test substance concentrations can be used if
necessary, but for the majority of highly hydrophobic organic test substances one test group is
sufficient (cf. paragraphs 49 and 107). If semi-static conditions are used fish should be transferred to a
new medium and/or a new test chamber at the end of the uptake phase (in case the medium and/or
apparatus used in the uptake phase has been contaminated with the test substance through leaching).
The concentrations of the test substance in the fish are measured in both phases of the test. In addition
to the group of fish fed the spiked diet (the test group), a control group of fish is held under identical
conditions and fed identically except that the commercial fish food diet is not spiked with test
substance. This control group allows background levels of test substance to be quantified in unexposed
fish and serves as a comparison for any treatment-related adverse effects noted in the test group(s) 23
105. An uptake phase that lasts 7-14 days is generally sufficient, based on experience from the
method developers (38) (39). This range should minimise the cost of undertaking the test whilst still
ensuring sufficient exposure for most substances. However, in some cases the uptake phase may be
extended (cf. paragraph 127). During the uptake phase the chemical concentration in the fish may not
reach steady-state so data treatment and results from this method are usually based on a kinetic
analysis of tissue residues. (Note: Equations for estimating time to steady-state can be applied here as
for the aqueous exposure test – see Annex 5). The depuration phase begins when the fish are first fed
unspiked diet and typically lasts for up to 28 days or until the test substance can no longer be
quantified in whole fish, whichever is the sooner. The depuration phase can be shortened or
lengthened beyond 28 days, depending on the change with time in measured chemical concentrations
and fish size.
.
It also allows comparison of growth rate constants between groups as a check that similar quantities of
offered diet have been consumed (potential differences in palatability between diets should also be
considered in explaining different growth rate constants; cf. paragraph 138). It is important that during
both the uptake and depuration phases, diets of nutritional equivalency are fed to the test and control
groups.
106. This method allows the determination of the substance-specific half-life (t1/2, from the
depuration rate constant, k2), the assimilation efficiency (absorption across the gut; α), the kinetic
dietary biomagnification factor (BMFK), the growth-corrected kinetic dietary biomagnification factor
(BMFKg), and the lipid-corrected(24
23 For most test substances, there should ideally be no detections in the control water. Background concentrations
should only be relevant to naturally occurring materials (e.g., some metals) and substances that are ubiquitous in
the environment.
)
kinetic dietary biomagnification factor (BMFKL) (and/or the
growth- and lipid-corrected kinetic dietary biomagnification factor, BMFKgL) for the test substance in
fish. As for the aqueous exposure method, increase in fish mass during the test will result in dilution of
test substance in growing fish and thus the (kinetic) BMF will be underestimated if not corrected for
growth (cf. paragraphs 162 and 163). In addition, if it is estimated that steady-state was reached in the
uptake phase an indicative steady-state BMF can be calculated. Approaches are available that make it
(24) As the BMF is defined as the ratio of the concentration of a substance in an organism to that in the organism’s
food at steady-state, lipid is taken into account by correcting for the contents of lipid in the organism and in the
food, hence it is described more accurately as a “correction”. This approach differs from “normalisation” to a set
organism lipid content as is done in the aqueous exposure bioconcentration test.
305 OECD/OCDE
26
© OECD, (2012)
feasible to estimate a kinetic bioconcentration factor (BCFK) from data generated in the dietary study
(e.g. (44) (45) (46) (47) (48). Pros and cons of such approaches are discussed in Annex 8.
107. The test was designed primarily for poorly soluble non-polar organic substances that follow
approximately first order uptake and depuration kinetics in fish. In case a substance is tested that does
not follow approximately first order uptake and depuration kinetics, then more complex models should
be employed (see references in Annex 5) and advice from a biostatistician and/or pharmacokineticist
sought.
108. The BMF is normally determined using test substance analysis of whole fish (wet weight
basis). If relevant for the objectives of the study, specific tissues (e.g. muscle, liver) can be sampled if
the fish is divided into edible and non-edible parts (cf. paragraph 21). Furthermore, removal and
separate analysis of the gastrointestinal tract may be employed to determine the contribution to whole
fish concentrations for sample points at the end of the uptake phase and near the beginning of the
depuration phase, or as part of a mass balance approach.
109. Lipid content of sampled whole fish should be measured so that concentrations can be lipidcorrected,
taking account of lipid content of both the diet and the fish (cf. paragraphs 56 and 57, and
Annex 7).
110. Fish weight of sampled individuals should be measured and recorded, and be linked to the
analysed chemical concentration for that individual (e.g. reported using a unique identifier code for
each fish sampled), for the purpose of calculating growth that may occur during the test. Fish total
length should also be measured where possible (25
I NFOR MAT ION ON T HE T E ST SUBST ANCE
)
. Weight data are also necessary for estimating BCF
using depuration data from the dietary test.
111. Information on the test substance as described in paragraphs 3 and 22 should be available.
An analytical method for test substance concentrations in water is not usually necessary; methods with
suitable sensitivity for measuring concentrations in fish food and fish tissue are required.
112. The method can be used to test more than one substance in a single test. However, test
substances should be compatible with one another such that they do not interact or change their
chemical identity upon spiking into fish food. The aim is that measured results for each substance
tested together should not differ greatly from the results that would be given if individual tests had
been run on each test substance. Preliminary analytical work should establish that each substance can
be recovered from a multiply-spiked food and fish tissue sample with i) high recoveries (e.g. > 85% of
nominal) and ii) the necessary sensitivity for testing. The total dose of substances tested together
should be below the combined concentration that might cause toxic effects (cf. paragraph 51).
Furthermore, possible adverse effects in fish and the potential for interactive effects (e.g. metabolic
effects) associated with testing multiple substances simultaneously should be taken into consideration
in the experimental design. Simultaneous testing of ionisable substances should be avoided. In terms
of exposure, the method is also suitable for complex mixtures (cf. paragraph 13, although the same
limitations in analysis as for any other method will apply).
V AL I DI T Y OF T HE T E ST
113. For a test to be valid the following conditions apply (cf. paragraph 24):
• Water temperature variation is less than ± 2 ºC in treatment or control groups
(25) Total length should also be recorded during the test as it is a good indicator of whether an adverse effect has
occurred.
OECD/OCDE 305
27
© OECD, (2012)
• Concentration of dissolved oxygen does not fall below 60% of the air saturation value
• The concentration of the test substance in fish food before and at the end of the uptake phase
is within a range of ± 20% (based on at least three samples at both time points)
• A high degree of homogeneity of substance in food should be demonstrated in preliminary
analytical work on the spiked diet; at least three sample concentrations for the substance
taken at test start should not vary more than ± 15% from the mean
• Concentrations of test substance are not detected, or are present only at typical trace levels,
in un-spiked food or control fish tissues relative to treated samples
• Mortality or other adverse effects/disease in both control and test group fish should be ≤10%
at the end of the test; if the test is extended for any reason, adverse effects in both groups are
≤ 5% per month, and≤ 30% cumulatively. Significant differences in average growth
between the test and the control groups of sampled fish could be an indication of a toxic
effect of the test chemical.
R E FE R E NCE SUBST ANCE S
114. If a laboratory has not performed the assay before or substantial changes (e.g. change of fish
strain or supplier, different fish species, significant change of fish size, fish food or spiking method,
etc.) have been made, it is advisable that a technical proficiency study is conducted, using a reference
substance. The reference substance is primarily used to establish whether the food spiking technique is
adequate to ensure maximum homogeneity and bioavailability of test substances. One example that
has been used in the case of non-polar hydrophobic substances is hexachlorobenzene (HCB), but other
substances with existing reliable data on uptake and biomagnification should be considered due to the
hazardous property of HCB26
DE SCR I PT ION OF T HE ME T HOD
. If used, basic information on the reference substance should be
presented in the test report, including name, purity, CAS number, structure, toxicity data (if available)
as for test substances (cf. paragraphs 3 and 22).
Apparatus
115. Materials and apparatus should be used as described in the aqueous exposure method
(cf. paragraph 26). A flow-through or static renewal test system that provides a sufficient volume of
dilution water to the test tanks should be used. The flow rates should be recorded.
Water
116. Test water should be used as described in the aqueous exposure method (cf. paragraphs 27-
29). The test medium should be characterised as described and its quality should remain constant
during the test. The natural particle content and total organic carbon should be as low as possible
(≤ 5 mg/L particulate matter;≤ 2 mg/L total organic carbon) before test start. TOC need only be
measured before the test as part of the test water characterisation (cf. paragraph 53).
Diet
117. A commercially available fish food (floating and/or slow sinking pelletized diet) that is
characterised in terms of at least protein and fat content is recommended. The food should have a
uniform pellet size to increase the efficiency of the feed exposure, i.e. the fish will eat more of the
(26 ) HCB is listed in Annexes A and C to the Stockholm Convention
305 OECD/OCDE
28
© OECD, (2012)
food instead of eating the larger pieces and missing the smaller ones. The pellets should be
appropriately sized for the size of the fish at the start of the test (e.g. pellet diameters roughly 0.6-
0.85 mm for fish between 3 and 7 cm total length, and 0.85-1.2 mm for fish between 6 and 12 cm total
length may be used). Pellet size may be adjusted depending on fish growth at the start of the
depuration phase. An example of a suitable food composition, as commercially supplied, is given in
Annex 7. Test diets with total lipid content between 15 and 20% (w/w) have commonly been used in
the development of this method. Fish food with such a high lipid concentration may not be available in
some regions. In such cases studies could be run with a lower lipid concentration in the food, and if
necessary the feeding rate adjusted appropriately to maintain fish health (based on preliminary
testing). The total lipid content of the test group and control group diets needs to be measured and
recorded before the start of the test and at the end of the uptake phase. Details provided by the
commercial feed supplier of analysis for nutrients, moisture, fibre and ash, and if possible minerals
and pesticide residues (e.g. "standard" priority pollutants), should be presented in the study report.
118. When spiking the food with test substance, all possible efforts should be made to ensure
homogeneity throughout the test food. The concentration of test substance in the food for the test
group should be selected taking into account the sensitivity of the analytical technique, the test
substance’s toxicity (NOEC if known) and relevant physicochemical data. If used, the reference
substance should preferably be incorporated at a concentration around 10% of that of the test
substance (or in any case as low as is practicable), subject to analysis sensitivity (e.g. for
hexachlorobenzene a concentration in the food of 1-100 µg/g has been found to be acceptable; cf. (47)
for more information on assimilation efficiencies of HCB).
119. The test substance can be spiked to the fish food in several ways depending on its physical
characteristics and solubility (see Annex 7 for more details on spiking methods):
• If the substance is soluble and stable in triglycerides, the chemical should be dissolved in a
small amount of fish oil or edible vegetable oil before mixing with fish food. In this instance,
care should be taken to avoid producing a ration that is too high in lipid, taking into account
the natural lipid content of the spiked feed, by adding the minimum known quantity of oil
required to achieve distribution and homogeneity of the test substance in the food, or;
• The food should be spiked using a suitable organic solvent, so long as homogeneity and
bioavailability are not compromised (it is possible that (micro)crystals of the test substance
may form in the food as a consequence of solvent evaporation and there is no easy way to
prove this has not occurred; cf. (49)), or;
• Non-viscous liquids should be added directly to fish food but they should be well mixed to
promote homogeneity and facilitate good assimilation. The technique for mixing should
ensure homogeneity of the spiked feed.
In few cases, e.g. less hydrophobic test substances more likely to desorb from the food, it may be
necessary to coat prepared food pellets with a small quantity of corn/fish oil (see paragraph 142). In
such cases, control food should be treated similarly and the final prepared feed used for lipid
measurement.
120. If used, the results of the reference substance should be comparable with literature study data
carried out under similar conditions with a comparable feeding rate (cf. paragraph 45) and reference
substance-specific parameters should meet the relevant criteria in paragraph 113 (3rd
, 4th
and
5th
points).
121. If an oil or carrier solvent is used as a vehicle for the test chemical, an equivalent amount of
the same vehicle (excluding test substance) should be mixed with the control diet in order to maintain
OECD/OCDE 305
29
© OECD, (2012)
equivalency with the spiked diet. It is important that during both the uptake and depuration phases
diets of nutritional equivalency are fed to the test and control groups.
122. The spiked diet should be stored under conditions that maintain stability of the test chemical
within the feed mix (e.g. refrigeration) and these conditions reported.
Selection of fish species
123. Fish species as specified for the aqueous exposure may be used (cf. paragraph 32 and
Annex 3). Rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss), carp (Cyprinus carpio) and fathead minnow
(Pimephales promelas) have been commonly used in dietary bioaccumulation studies with organic
chemicals before the publication of this TG. The test species should have a feeding behaviour that
results in rapid consumption of the administered food ration to ensure that any factor influencing the
concentration of the test substance in food (e.g. leaching into the water and the possibility of aqueous
exposure) is kept to a minimum. Fish within the recommended size/weight range (cf. Annex 3) should
be used. Fish should not be so small as to hamper ease of analyses on an individual basis. Species
tested during a life-stage with rapid growth can complicate data interpretation, and high growth rates
can influence the calculation of assimilation efficiency(27
Holding of fish
)
.
124. Acclimatisation, mortality and disease acceptance criteria are the same as for the aqueous
exposure method prior to test conductance (cf. paragraphs 33-35).
PE R FOR MANCE OF T HE T E ST
Pre-study work and range-finding test
125. Pre-study analytical work is necessary to demonstrate recovery of the substance from spiked
food/spiked fish tissue. A range-finding test to select a suitable chemical concentration in the food is
not always necessary. For the purposes of showing that no adverse effects are observed and evaluating
the palatability of spiked diet, sensitivity of analytical method for fish tissue and food, and selection of
suitable feeding rate and sampling intervals during depuration phase etc., preliminary feeding
experiments may be undertaken but are not obligatory. A preliminary study may be valuable to
estimate numbers of fish needed for sampling during the depuration phase. This can result in
significant reduction in the number of fish used, especially for test substances that are particularly
susceptible to metabolism.
Conditions of exposure
Uptake Phase duration
126. An uptake phase of 7-14 days is usually sufficient, during which one group of fish are fed
the control diet and another group of fish the test diet daily at a fixed ration dependent on the species
tested and the experimental conditions, e.g. between 1-2 % of body weight (wet weight) in the case of
rainbow trout. The feeding rate should be selected such that fast growth and large increase of lipid
content are avoided. If needed the uptake phase may be extended based on practical experience from
previous studies or knowledge of the test substance’s (or analogue’s) uptake/depuration in fish. The
start of the test is defined as the time of first feeding with spiked food. An experimental day runs from
the time of feeding to shortly before the time of next feeding (e.g. one hour). Thus the first
experimental day of uptake runs from the time of first feeding with spiked food and ends shortly
(27) For rapid growth during the uptake phase the true feeding rate will decrease below that set at the beginning of
exposure.
305 OECD/OCDE
30
© OECD, (2012)
before the second feeding with spiked food. In practice the uptake phase ends shortly before (e.g. one
hour) the first feeding with unspiked test substance as the fish will continue to digest spiked food and
absorb the test substance in the intervening 24 hours. It is important to ensure that a sufficiently high
(non-toxic) body burden of the test substance is achieved with respect to the analytical method, so that
at least an order of magnitude decline can be measured during the depuration phase. In special cases
an extended uptake phase (up to 28 days) may be used with additional sampling to gain an insight into
uptake kinetics. During uptake the concentration in the fish may not reach steady-state. Equations for
estimating time to steady-state, as an indication of the likely duration needed to achieve appreciable
fish concentrations, can be applied here as for the aqueous exposure test (cf. Annex 5).
127. In some cases it may be known that uptake of chemical in the fish over 7-14 days will be
insufficient for the food concentration used to reach a high enough fish concentration to analyse at
least an order of magnitude decline during depuration, either due to poor analytical sensitivity or to
low assimilation efficiency. In such cases it may be advantageous to extend the initial feeding phase to
longer than 14 days, or, especially for highly metabolisable substances, a higher dietary concentration
should be considered. However, care should be taken to keep the body burden during uptake below the
(estimated) chronic no effect concentration (NOEC) in fish tissue (cf. paragraph 138).
Duration of the depuration phase
128. Depuration typically lasts for up to 28 days, beginning once the test group fish are fed pure,
untreated diet after the uptake phase. Depuration begins with the first feeding of “unspiked” food
rather than straight after the last “spiked” food feeding as the fish will continue to digest the food and
absorb the test substance in the intervening 24 hours, as noted in paragraph 126. Hence the first
sample in the depuration phase is taken shortly before the second feeding with unspiked diet. This
depuration period is designed to capture substances with a potential half-life of up to 14 days, which is
consistent with that of bioaccumulative substances(28
129. If a substance is depurated very slowly such that an exact half-life may not be determined in
the depuration phase, the information may still be sufficient for assessment purposes to indicate a high
level of bioaccumulation. Conversely, if a substance is depurated so fast that a reliable time zero
concentration (concentration at the end of uptake/start of depuration, C0,d) and k2 cannot be derived, a
conservative estimate of k2 can be made (cf. Annex 7).
)
, so 28 days comprises two half-lives of such
substances. In cases of very highly bioaccumulating substances it may be advantageous to extend the
depuration phase (if indicated by preliminary testing).
130. If analyses of fish at earlier intervals (e.g. 7 or 14 days) show that the chemical has depurated
below quantification levels before the full 28-day period, then subsequent sampling may be
discontinued and the test terminated.
131. In few cases no measurable uptake of the test substance may have occurred at the end of the
uptake period (or with the second depuration sample). If it can be demonstrated that: i) the validity
criteria in paragraph 113 are fulfilled; and ii) lack of uptake is not due to some other shortcoming of
the test (e.g. uptake duration not long enough, deficiency in food spiking technique leading to poor
bioavailability, lack of sensitivity of the analytical method, fish not consuming food, etc.); it may be
possible to terminate the study without the need to re-run it with a longer uptake duration.
If preliminary work has indicated that this may be the case, analysis of faeces, if possible, for
undigested test substance may be advisable as part of a "mass balance" approach.
(28) In an aqueous exposure study, a 14-day half-life would correspond to a BCF of ca. 10,000 L/kg using fish of 1 g
with a corresponding uptake rate of about 500 L/kg/d (according to the equation of Sijm et al (46)).
OECD/OCDE 305
31
© OECD, (2012)
Numbers of test fish
132. Similar to the aqueous exposure test, fish of similar weight and length should be selected,
with the smallest fish being no less than two-thirds of the weight of the largest (cf. paragraphs 40-42).
133. The total number of fish for the study should be selected based on the sampling schedule (a
minimum of one sample at the end of the uptake phase and four to six samples during the depuration
phase, but depending on the phases’ durations), taking into account the sensitivity of the analytical
technique, the concentration likely to be achieved at the end of the uptake phase (based on prior
knowledge) and the depuration duration (if prior knowledge allows estimation). Five to ten fish should
be sampled at each event, with growth parameters (weight and total length) being measured before
chemical or lipid analysis.
134. Owing to the inherent variability in the size, growth rate, and physiology among fish and the
likely variation in the quantity of administered diet that each fish consumes, at least five fish should be
sampled at each interval from the test group and five from the control group in order to adequately
establish the average concentration and its variability. The variability among the fish used is likely to
contribute more to the overall uncontrolled variability in the test than the variability inherent in the
analytical methodologies employed, and thus justifies the use of up to ten fish per sample point in
some cases. However, if background test substance concentrations in control fish are not measurable at
the start of depuration, chemical analysis of two-three control fish at the final sampling interval only
may be sufficient so long as the remaining control fish at all sample points are still sampled for weight
and total length (so that the same number are sampled from test and control groups for growth). Fish
should be stored, weighed individually (even if it proves necessary for the sample results to be
combined subsequently) and total length measured.
135. For a standard test with, for example, a 28-day depuration duration including five depuration
samples, this means a total of 59-120 fish from test and 50-110 from control groups, assuming that the
substance’s analytical technique allows lipid content analysis to be carried out on the same fish.
If lipid analysis cannot be conducted on the same fish as chemical analysis, and using control fish only
for lipid analysis is also not feasible (cf. paragraph 56), an additional 15 fish would be required (three
from the stock population at test start, three each from control and test groups at the start of depuration
and three each from control and test groups at the end of the experiment). An example sampling
schedule with fish numbers can be found in Annex 4.
Loading
136. Similarly high water-to-fish ratios should be used as for the aqueous exposure method
(cf. paragraphs 43 and 44). Although fish-to-water loading rates do not have an effect on exposure
concentrations in this test, a loading rate of 0.1-1.0 g of fish (wet weight) per litre of water per day is
recommended to maintain adequate dissolved oxygen concentrations and minimise test organism
stress.
Test diet and Feeding
137. During the acclimatisation period, fish should be fed an appropriate diet as described above
(paragraph 117). If the test is being conducted under flow-through conditions, the flow should be
suspended while the fish are fed.
138. During the test, the diet for the test group should adhere to that described above
(paragraphs 116-121). In addition to consideration of substance-specific factors, analytical sensitivity,
expected concentration in the diet under environmental conditions and chronic toxicity levels/body
burden, selection of the target spiking concentration should take into account palatability of the food
(so that fish do not avoid eating). Nominal spiking concentration of the test substance should be
305 OECD/OCDE
32
© OECD, (2012)
documented in the report. Based on experience, spiking concentrations in the range of 1-1000 µg/g
provide a practical working range for test substances that do not exhibit a specific toxic mechanism.
For chemicals acting via a non-specific mechanism, tissue residue levels should not exceed 5 µmol/g
lipid since residues above this level are likely to pose chronic effects (19) (48) (50)(29
139. The appropriate amount of the test substance can be spiked to the fish food in one of three
ways, as described in paragraph 119 and Annex 7. The methods and procedures for spiking the feed
should be documented in the report. Untreated food is fed to the control fish, containing an equivalent
quantity of unspiked oil vehicle if this has been used in the spiked feed for the uptake phase, or having
been treated with “pure” solvent if a solvent vehicle was used for test group diet preparation. The
treated and untreated diets should be measured analytically at least in triplicate for test substance
concentration before the start and at the end of the uptake phase. After exposure to the treated feed
(uptake phase), fish (both groups) are fed untreated food (depuration phase).
)
. For other
substances care should be taken that no adverse effects occur from the accumulated exposure
(cf. paragraph 127). This is especially true if more than one substance is being tested simultaneously
(cf. paragraph 112).
140. Fish are fed at a fixed ration (dependent on species; e.g. approximately 1-2 % of wet body
weight per day in the case of rainbow trout). The feeding rate should be selected such that fast growth
and large increase of lipid content are avoided. The exact feeding rate set during the experiment
should be recorded. Initial feeding should be based on the scheduled weight measurements of the stock
population just prior to the start of the test. The amount of feed should be adjusted based on the wet
weights of sampled fish at each sampling event to account for growth during the experiment. Weights
and lengths of fish in the test and control tanks can be estimated from the weights and total lengths of
fish used at each sampling event; do not weigh or measure the fish remaining in the test and control
tanks. It is important to maintain the same set feeding rate throughout the experiment.
141. Feeding should be observed to ensure that the fish are visibly consuming all of the food
presented in order to guarantee that the appropriate ingestion rates are used in the calculations.
Preliminary feeding experiments or previous experience should be considered when selecting a
feeding rate that will ensure that all food from once-daily feeding is consumed. In the event that food
is consistently being left uneaten, it may be advisable to spread the dose over an extra feeding period
in each experimental day (e.g. replace once-daily feeding with feeding half the amount twice daily). If
this is necessary, the second feeding should occur at a set time and be timed so that the maximum
period of time possible passes before fish sampling (e.g. time for second feeding is set within the first
half of an experimental day).
142. Although fish generally rapidly consume the food, it is important to ensure that the chemical
remains adsorbed to the food. Efforts should be made to avoid the test substance becoming dispersed
in water from the food, thereby exposing the fish to aqueous concentrations of the test substance in
addition to the dietary route. This can be achieved by removing any uneaten food (and faeces) from
the test and control tanks within one hour of feeding, but preferably within 30 minutes. In addition, a
system where the water is continuously cleaned over an active carbon filter to absorb any 'dissolved'
contaminant may be used. Flow-through systems may help to flush away food particles and dissolved
substances rapidly(30
(29) Since the actual internal concentrations can only be determined after the test has been performed, an estimate of
the expected internal concentration is needed (e.g. based on the expected BMF and the concentration in the food;
cf. Equation A5.8 in Annex 5).
)
. In some cases, a slightly modified spiked food preparation technique can help to
alleviate this problem (see paragraph 119).
(30) The presence of the test substance in the test medium as a result of excretion by the fish or leaching from food
may not be totally avoidable. Therefore one option is to measure the substance concentration in water at the end
of the uptake period, especially if a semi-static set up is used, to help to establish whether any aqueous exposure
has occurred.
OECD/OCDE 305
33
© OECD, (2012)
Light and Temperature
143. As for the aqueous exposure method (cf. paragraph 48), a 12 to 16 hour photoperiod is
recommended and temperature (± 2 ºC) appropriate for the test species used (cf. Annex 3). Type and
characteristics of illumination should be known and documented.
Controls
144. One control group should be used, with fish fed the same ration as the test group but without
the test substance present in the feed. If an oil or solvent vehicle has been used to spike the feed in the
test group, the control group food should be treated in exactly the same way but with the absence of
test substance so that the diets of the test group and control group are equivalent (cf. paragraphs 121
and 139).
Frequency of Water Quality Measurements
145. The conditions described in the aqueous exposure method apply here also, except that TOC
need only be measured before the test as part of the test water characterisation (cf. paragraph 53).
Sampling and Analysis of Fish and Diet
Analysis of Diet Samples
146. Samples of the test and control diets should be analysed at least in triplicate for the test
substance and for lipid content at least before the beginning and at the end of the uptake phase. The
methods of analysis and procedures for ensuring homogeneity of the diet should be included in the
report.
147. Samples should be analysed for the test substance by the established and validated method.
Pre-study work should be conducted to establish the limit of quantification, percent recovery,
interferences and analytical variability in the intended sample matrix. If a radiolabelled material is
being tested, similar considerations as those for the aqueous exposure method should be considered
with feed analysis replacing water analysis (cf. paragraph 65).
Analysis of Fish
148. At each fish sampling event, 5-10 individuals will be sampled from exposure and control
treatments (in some instances numbers of control fish can be reduced; cf. paragraph 134).
149. Sampling events should occur at the same time on each experimental day (relative to feeding
time), and should be timed so that the likelihood of food remaining in the gut during the uptake phase
and the early part of the depuration phase is minimised to prevent spurious contributions to total test
substance concentrations (i.e. sampled fish should be removed at the end of an experimental day,
keeping in mind that an experimental day starts at the time of feeding and ends at the time of the next
feeding, approximately 24 hours later. Depuration begins with the first feeding of unspiked food;
cf. paragraph 128). The first depuration phase sample (taken shortly before the second feeding with
unspiked food) is important as extrapolation back one day from this measurement is used to estimate
the time zero concentration (C0,d, the concentration in the fish at the end of uptake/start of depuration).
Optionally, the gastrointestinal tract of the fish can be removed and analysed separately at the end of
uptake and at days 1 and 3 of depuration.
150. At each sampling event fish should be removed from both test vessels and treated in the
same way as described in the aqueous method (cf. paragraphs 61-63).
305 OECD/OCDE
34
© OECD, (2012)
151. Concentrations of test substance in whole fish (wet weight) are measured at least at the end
of the uptake phase and during the depuration phase in both control and test groups. During the
depuration phase, four to six sampling points are recommended (e.g. 1, 3, 7, 14 and 28 days).
Optionally, an additional sampling point may be included after 1-3 days’ uptake to estimate
assimilation efficiency from the linear phase of uptake for the fish while still near the beginning of the
exposure period. Two main deviations from the schedule exist: i) if an extended uptake phase is
employed for the purposes of investigating uptake kinetics, there will be additional sampling points
during the uptake phase and so additional fish will need to be included (cf. paragraph 126); ii) if the
study has been terminated at the end of the uptake phase owning to no measurable uptake
(cf. paragraph 131). Individual fish that are sampled should be weighed (and their total length
measured) to allow growth rate constants to be determined. Concentrations of the substance in specific
fish tissue (edible and non-edible portions) can also be measured at the end of uptake and selected
depuration times. If a radiolabelled material is being tested, similar considerations as those for the
aqueous exposure method should be considered with feed analysis replacing water analysis
(cf. paragraph 65).
152. For the periodic use of a reference substance (cf. paragraph 25), it is preferable that
concentrations are measured in the test group at the end of uptake and at all depuration times specified
for the test substance (whole fish); concentrations need only be analysed in the control group at end of
uptake (whole fish). In certain circumstances (for example if analysis techniques for test substance and
reference substance are incompatible, such that additional fish would be needed to follow the sampling
schedule) another approach may be used as follows to minimise the number of additional fish
required. Concentrations of the reference substance are measured during depuration only on days 1, 3
and two further sampling points, selected such that reliable estimations of time zero concentration
(C0,d) and k2 can be made for the reference substance.
153. If possible the lipid content of the individual fish should be determined on each sampling
occasion, or at least at the start and end of the uptake phase and at the end of the depuration phase.
(cf. paragraphs 56 and 67). Depending on the analytical method (refer to paragraph 67 and to
Annex 4), it may be possible to use the same fish for both lipid content and test substance
concentration determination. This is preferred on the grounds of minimising fish numbers. However,
should this not be possible, the same approach as described in the aqueous exposure method can be
used (see paragraph 56 for these alternative lipid measurement options). The method used to quantify
the lipid content should be documented in the report.
Quality of the analytical method
154. Experimental checks should be conducted to ensure the specificity, accuracy, precision and
reproducibility of the substance-specific analytical technique, as well as recoveries of the test
substance from both food and fish.
Fish growth measurement
155. At the start of the test a sample of fish from the stock population need to be weighed (and
their total length measured). These fish should be sampled shortly before the first spiked feeding
(e.g. one hour), and assigned to experimental day 0. The number of fish for this sample should be at
least the same as that for the samples during the test. Some of these can be the same fish used for lipid
analysis before the start of the uptake phase (cf. paragraph 153). At each sampling interval fish are
first weighed and their length measured. In each individual fish the measured weight (and length)
should be linked to the analysed chemical concentration (and lipid content, if applicable), for example
using a unique identifier code for each sampled fish. The measurements of these sampled fish can be
used to estimate the weight (and length) of fish remaining in the test and control tanks.
OECD/OCDE 305
35
© OECD, (2012)
Experimental Evaluation
156. Observations of mortality should be performed and recorded daily. Additional observations
for adverse effects should be performed, for example for abnormal behaviour or pigmentation, and
recorded. Fish are considered dead if there is no respiratory movement and no reaction to a slight
mechanical stimulus can be detected. Any dead or clearly moribund fish should be removed.
DAT A AND R E POR T I NG
Treatment of results
157. Test results are used to derive the depuration rate constant (k2) as a function of the total wet
weight of the fish. Growth rate constant, kg, based on mean increase in fish weight is calculated and
used to produce the growth-corrected depuration rate constant, k2g, if appropriate. In addition, the
assimilation efficiency (α; absorption from the gut), the kinetic biomagnification factor (BMFK) (if
necessary growth corrected, BMFKg), its lipid-corrected value (BMFKL or BMFKgL, if corrected for
growth dilution) and feeding rate should be reported. Also, if an estimate of the time to steady-state in
the uptake phase can be made (e.g., 95% of steady-state or t95 = 3.0/k2), an estimate of the steady-state
BMF (BMFSS) can be included (cf. paragraphs 105 and 106, and Annex 5) if the t95 value indicates that
steady-state conditions may have been reached. The same lipid correction should be applied to this
BMFSS as to the kinetically-derived BMF (BMFK) to give a lipid-corrected value, BMFSSL (note that
no agreed procedure is available to correct a steady-state BMF for growth dilution). Formulae and
example calculations are presented in Annex 7. Approaches are available that make it feasible to
estimate a kinetic bioconcentration factor (BCFK) from data generated in the dietary study. This is
discussed in Annex 8.
Fish weight/length data
158. Individual fish wet weights and lengths for all time periods are tabulated separately for test
and control groups for all sampling days during the uptake phase (stock population for start of uptake;
control group and test group for end of uptake and, if conducted, the early phase (e.g. day 1-3 of
uptake) and depuration phase (e.g. days 1, 2, 4, 7, 14, 28, for control and test group). Weight is the
preferred measure of growth for growth dilution correction purposes. See below (paragraphs 162 and
163) and Annex 5 for the method(s) used to correct data for growth dilution.
Test substance concentration in fish data
159. Individual fish test substance residue measurements (or pooled fish samples if individual fish
measurements are not possible), expressed in terms of wet weight concentration (w/w), are tabulated
for test and control fish for individual sample times. If lipid analysis has been conducted on each
sampled fish then individual lipid-corrected concentrations, in terms of lipid concentration (w/w lipid),
can be derived and tabulated.
• Test substance residue measurements in individual fish (or pooled fish samples if individual
fish measurements are not possible, cf. paragraph 66) for the depuration period are converted
to their natural logarithms and plotted versus time (day). If a visual inspection of the plot
shows obvious outliers, a statistically valid outlier test may be applied to remove spurious
data points as well as documented justification for their omission.
• A linear least squares correlation is calculated for the ln(concentration) vs. depuration (day)
data. The slope and intercept of the line are reported as the overall depuration rate constant
(k2) and natural logarithm of the derived time zero concentration (C0,d) (cf. Annex 5 and
Annex 7 for further details). Should this not be possible because concentrations fall below
305 OECD/OCDE
36
© OECD, (2012)
the limit of quantification for the second depuration sample, a conservative estimate of k2 can
be made (cf. Annex 7).
• The variances in the slope and intercept of the line are calculated using standard statistical
procedures and the 90% (or 95%) confidence intervals around these results evaluated and
presented.
• The mean measured fish concentration for the final day of uptake (measured time zero
concentration, C0,m) is also calculated and compared with the derived value C0,d. In case the
derived value is lower than the measured value, the difference may suggest the presence of
undigested spiked food in the gut. If the derived value is very much higher than the measured
value, this may be an indication that the value derived from the depuration data linear
regression is erroneous and should be re-evaluated (see Annex 7).
Depuration rate and biomagnification factor
160. To calculate the biomagnification factor from the data, first the assimilation efficiency
(absorption of test substance across the gut, α) should be obtained. To do this, equation A7.1 in
Annex 7 should be used, requiring the derived concentration in fish at time zero of the depuration
phase (C0,d), (overall) depuration rate constant (k2), concentration in the food (Cfood), food ingestion
rate constant (I) and duration of the uptake period (t) to be known. The slope and intercept of the linear
relationship between ln(concentration) and depuration time are reported as the overall depuration rate
constant (k2 = slope) and time zero concentration (C0,d = eintercept
), as above. The derived values should
be checked for biological plausibility (e.g. assimilation efficiency as a fraction is not greater than 1).
(I) is calculated by dividing the mass of food by the mass of fish fed each day (if fed at 2% of body
weight, (I) will be 0.02). However, the feeding rate used in the calculation may need to be adjusted for
fish growth (this can be done using the known growth rate constant to estimate the fish weight at each
time-point during the uptake phase; cf. Annex 7). In cases where k2 and C0,d cannot be derived
because, for example, concentrations fell below the limit of detection for the second depuration
sample, a conservative estimate of k2 and an “upper bound” BMFk can be made (cf. Annex 7).
161. Once the assimilation efficiency (α) is obtained, the biomagnification factor can be
calculated by multiplying α by the ingestion rate constant (I) and dividing by the (overall) depuration
rate constant (k2). The growth-corrected biomagnification factor is calculated in the same way but
using the growth-corrected depuration rate constant (k2g; cf. paragraphs 162 and 163. An alternative
estimate of the assimilation efficiency can be derived if tissue analysis was performed on fish sampled
in the early, linear phase of the uptake phase; cf. paragraph 151 and Annex 7. This value represents an
independent estimate of assimilation efficiency for an essentially unexposed organism (i.e. the fish are
near the beginning of the uptake phase). The assimilation efficiency estimated from depuration data is
usually used to derive the BMF.
Lipid Correction and Growth-Dilution Correction
162. Fish growth during the depuration phase can lower measured chemical concentrations in the
fish with the effect that the overall depuration rate constant, k2, is greater than would arise from
removal processes (e.g. metabolism, egestion) alone (cf. paragraph 72). Lipid contents of test fish
(which are strongly associated with the bioaccumulation of hydrophobic chemicals) and lipid contents
of food can vary enough in practice such that their correction is necessary to present biomagnification
factors in a meaningful way. The biomagnification factor should be corrected for growth dilution (as is
the kinetic BCF in the aqueous exposure method) and corrected for the lipid content of the food
relative to that of the fish (the lipid-correction factor). Equations and examples for these calculations
can be found in Annex 5 and Annex 7, respectively.
OECD/OCDE 305
37
© OECD, (2012)
163. To correct for growth dilution, the growth-corrected depuration rate constant (k2g) should be
calculated (see Annex 5 for equations). This growth-corrected depuration rate constant (k2g) is then
used to calculate the growth-corrected biomagnification factor, as in paragraph 73. In some cases this
approach is not possible. An alternative approach that circumvents the need for growth dilution
correction involves using mass of test chemical per fish (whole fish basis) depuration data rather than
the usual mass of test chemical per unit mass of fish (concentration) data. This can be easily achieved
as tests according to this guideline should link recorded tissue concentrations to individual fish
weights. The simple procedure for doing this is outlined in Annex 5. Note that k2 should still be
estimated and reported even if this alternative approach is used.
164. To correct for the lipid content of the food and fish when lipid analysis has not be conducted
on all sampled fish, the mean lipid fractions (w/w) in the fish and in the food are derived(31
165. If chemical and lipid analyses were conducted on the same fish at each sampling point, then
the lipid-corrected tissue data for individual fish may be used to calculate a lipid-corrected BMF
directly (cf. (37)). The plot of lipid-corrected concentration data gives C0,d on a lipid basis and k2.
Mathematical analysis can then proceed using the same equations in Annex 7, but assimilation
efficiency (α) is calculated using the lipid-normalised food ingestion rate constant (Ilipid) and the
dietary concentration on a lipid basis (Cfood-lipid). Lipid corrected parameters are similarly then used to
calculate BMF (note that growth rate constant correction should also be applied to the lipid fraction
rather than the fish wet weight to calculated the lipid-corrected, growth corrected BMFKgL).
)
. The lipid
correction factor (Lc) is then calculated by dividing the fish mean lipid fraction by the mean food lipid
fraction. The biomagnification factor, growth corrected or not as applicable, is divided by the lipid
correction factor to calculate the lipid-corrected biomagnification factor.
Interpretation of results
166. Average growth in both test and control groups should in principle not be significantly
different to exclude toxic effects. The growth rate constants or the growth curves of the two groups
should be compared by an appropriate procedure (32
Test report
)
).
167. After termination of the study, a final report is prepared containing the information on Test
Substance, Test Species and Test Conditions as listed in paragraph 81 (as for the aqueous exposure
method). In addition, the following information is required:
Test Substance:
• Any information on stability of the test substance in prepared food;
Test Conditions:
• Substance nominal concentration in food, spiking technique, amount of (lipid) vehicle used
in food spiking process (if used), test substance concentration measurements in spiked diet
for each analysis (at least in triplicate before study start and at end of uptake) and mean
values;
(31) This approach is specific to the dietary study, distinct from the procedure followed in the aqueous exposure,
hence the word “correction” has been used rather than “normalisation” to prevent confusion – see also footnote
(24).
(32) A t-test on growth rate constants can be performed , to test whether growth differs between control and test
groups, or an F-test in case of analysis of variance. If needed, an F-test or likelihood ratio test can be used to
assist in the choice of the appropriate growth model (OECD monograph 54, (32).
305 OECD/OCDE
38
© OECD, (2012)
• If used, type and quality of carrier oil or solvent (grade, supplier, etc) used for food spiking;
• Food type employed (proximate analysis (33
• Time at which fish were collected and euthanized for chemical analysis for each sample
point (e.g. one hour before the following day’s feeding);
)
, grade or quality, supplier, etc.), feeding rate
during uptake phase, amount of food administered and frequency (including any adjustments
based on sampled fish weight);
Results:
• Results from any preliminary study work;
• Information on any adverse effects observed;
• Complete description of all chemical analysis procedures employed including limits of
detection and quantification, variability and recovery;
• Measured lipid concentrations in food (spiked and control diet), individual, mean values and
standard deviations;
• Tabulated fish weight (and length) data linked to individual fish, both for control and
exposure groups (for example using unique identifiers for each fish) and calculations,
derived growth rate constant(s) and 95% confidence interval(s);
• Tabulated test substance concentration data in fish, mean measured concentration at end of
uptake (C0,m), and derived (overall) depuration rate constant (k2) and concentration in fish at
start of depuration phase (C0,d) together with the variances in these values (slope and
intercept);
• Tabulated fish lipid contents data (listed against specific chemical concentrations if
applicable), mean values for test group and control at test start, end of uptake and end of
depuration;
• Curves (including all measured data), showing the following (if applicable, concentrations
may be expressed in relation to the whole body of the animal or specified tissues thereof):
- growth (i.e. fish weight (and length) vs. time) or natural logarithm transformed
weight vs. time;
- the depuration of the test chemical in the fish; and
- natural logarithm transformed concentration (ln concentration) vs. depuration time
(including the derived depuration rate constant k2, and natural logarithm derived
concentration in fish at start of depuration phase, C0,d).
• If a visual inspection of a plot shows obvious outliers, a statistically valid outlier test may be
applied to remove spurious data points as well as documented justification for their
omission.
• Calculated growth-corrected depuration rate constant and growth-corrected half-life.
(33) A foodstuff analysis technique for protein, lipid, crude fibre and ash content; this information is usually available
from the feed supplier.
OECD/OCDE 305
39
© OECD, (2012)
• Calculated assimilation efficiency (α).
• “Raw” dietary BMF, lipid and growth-dilution corrected kinetic BMF (“raw” and lipidcorrected
based on whole fish wet weight), tissue-specific BMF if applicable.
• Any information concerning radiolabelled test chemical metabolites and their accumulation.
• Anything unusual about the test, any deviation from these procedures, and any other relevant
information.
• A summary table of relevant measured and calculated data, as hereafter:
Substance Depuration Rate constants and Biomagnification Factors (BMFK)
kg (growth rate constant; day-1
):
Insert Value (95% CI)
(1)
k2 (overall depuration rate constant, day-1
): Insert Value (95% CI)
k2g (growth-corrected depuration rate constant; day-1
):
Insert Value (95% CI)
(1)
C0,m (measured time zero concentration, the concentration in fish at end of
uptake) (µg/g):
Insert Value ± SD(2)
C0,d (derived time zero concentration of depuration phase; µg/g): Insert Value ± SD(2)
I (set feed ingestion rate; g food/g fish/day): Insert Value
Ig (effective feeding rate, adjusted for growth; g food/g fish/day)(2)
: Insert Value ± SD(2)
Cfood (chemical concentration in the food; µg/g): Insert Value ± SD(2)
α (substance assimilation efficiency): Insert Value ± SD(2)
BMFK (kinetic dietary BMF):
Insert Value (95% CI)
(1)
BMFKg (growth-corrected kinetic dietary BMF):
Insert Value (95% CI)
(1)
t1/2g (growth-corrected half-life in days): Insert Value ± SD(2)
Lc (lipid correction factor): Insert Value
BMFKgL (lipid-corrected growth-corrected kinetic BMF): Insert Value
BMFSS-L (indicative lipid-corrected steady-state BMF)(2)
: Insert Value ± SD(2)
(1) CI: confidence interval (where possible to estimate)
(2) SD: Standard deviation (where possible to estimate)
305 OECD/OCDE
40
© OECD, (2012)
LITERATURE
(1) OECD (1996), Test No. 305: Bioconcentration: Flow-through Fish Test, OECD Guidelines
for the Testing of Chemicals, Section 3, OECD Publishing. doi: 10.1787/9789264070462-en.
(2) OECD (1995), Test No. 105: Water Solubility, OECD Guidelines for the Testing of
Chemicals, Section 1, OECD Publishing. doi: 10.1787/9789264069589-en.
(3) Li A, Doucette W.J. (1993), The effect of cosolutes on the aqueous solubilities and
octanol/water partition coefficients of selected polychlorinated biphenyl congeners. Environ
Toxicol Chem 12: 2031-2035
(4) OECD (1995), Test No. 107: Partition Coefficient (n-octanol/water): Shake Flask Method,
OECD Guidelines for the Testing of Chemicals, Section 1, OECD Publishing. doi:
10.1787/9789264069626-en.
(5) OECD (2004), Test No. 117: Partition Coefficient (n-octanol/water), HPLC Method, OECD
Guidelines for the Testing of Chemicals, Section 1, OECD Publishing. doi:
10.1787/9789264069824-en.
(6) OECD (2006), Test No. 123: Partition Coefficient (1-Octanol/Water): Slow-Stirring Method,
OECD Guidelines for the Testing of Chemicals, Section 1, OECD Publishing. doi:
10.1787/9789264015845-en.
(7) OECD (2004), Test No. 111: Hydrolysis as a Function of pH, OECD Guidelines for the
Testing of Chemicals, Section 1, OECD Publishing. doi: 10.1787/9789264069701-en.
(8) OECD (1997), OECD Environmental Health and Safety Publications Series on Testing and
Assessment Number 7: Guidance Document on Direct Phototransformation of Chemicals in
Water OCDE/GD(97)21. Organisation for Econonomic Co-operation and Development
(OECD), Paris, France.
(9) OECD (1995), Test No. 115: Surface Tension of Aqueous Solutions, OECD Guidelines for
the Testing of Chemicals, Section 1, OECD Publishing. doi: 10.1787/9789264069787-en.
(10) OECD (2006), Test No. 104: Vapour Pressure, OECD Guidelines for the Testing of
Chemicals, Section 1, OECD Publishing. doi: 10.1787/9789264069565-en.
(11) OECD (1992), Test No. 301: Ready Biodegradability, OECD Guidelines for the Testing of
Chemicals, Section 3, OECD Publishing. doi: 10.1787/9789264070349-en.
(12) OECD (2006), Test No. 310: Ready Biodegradability - CO2 in sealed vessels (Headspace
Test), OECD Guidelines for the Testing of Chemicals, Section 3, OECD Publishing. doi:
10.1787/9789264016316-en.
(13) Connell D.W. (1988), Bioaccumulation behaviour of persistent chemicals with aquatic
organisms. Rev. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 102: 117-156.
(14) Bintein S., Devillers J. and Karcher W. (1993), Nonlinear dependence of fish
bioconcentration on n-octanol/water partition coefficient. SAR QSAR Environ. Res. 1: 29-
39.
(15) OECD (2011), QSAR Toolbox 2.1. February 2011. Available from:
http://www.oecd.org/document/54/0,3746,en_2649_34379_42923638_1_1_1_1,00.html.
(16) Brown R.S., Akhtar P., Åkerman J., Hampel L., Kozin I.S., Villerius L.A. and Klamer H.J.C.
(2001), Partition controlled delivery of hydrophobic substances in toxicity tests using
poly(dimethylsiloxane) (PDMS) films. Environ. Sci. Technol. 35: 4097-4102.
(17) Fernandez J.D., Denny J.S. and Tietge J.E. (1998), A simple apparatus for administering
2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin to commercially available pelletized fish food. Environ.
Toxicol. Chem. 17: 2058-2062.
(18) Nichols J.W., Fitzsimmons P.N., Whiteman F.W. and Dawson T.D. (2004), A
physiologically based toxicokinetic model for dietary uptake of hydrophobic organic
compounds by fish: I. Feeding studies with 2,2′, 5,5′ -tetrachlorobiphenyl. Toxicol. Sci. 77:
206-218.
(19) Parkerton T.F., Arnot J.A., Weisbrod A.V., Russom C., Hoke R.A., Woodburn K., Traas T.,
Bonnell M., Burkhard L.P. and Lampi M.A. (2008), Guidance for evaluating in vivo fish
bioaccumulation data. Integr. Environ. Assess. Manag. 4: 139-155.
OECD/OCDE 305
41
© OECD, (2012)
(20) Verbruggen E.M.J., Beek M., Pijnenburg J. and Traas T.P. (2008). Ecotoxicological
environmental risk limits for total petroleum hydrocarbons on the basis of internal lipid
concentrations. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 27: 2436-2448.
(21) Schlechtriem C., Fliedner A. and Schäfers C. (2012), Determination of lipid content in fish
samples from bioaccumulation studies: Contributions to the revision of OECD Test
Guideline 305. Environmental Sciences Europe 2012, 24:13. published: 3 April 2012.
(22) OECD (1992), Test No. 210: Fish, Early-Life Stage Toxicity Test, OECD Guidelines for the
Testing of Chemicals, Section 2, OECD Publishing. doi: 10.1787/9789264070103-en.
(23) OECD (1998), Test No. 212: Fish, Short-term Toxicity Test on Embryo and Sac-Fry Stages,
OECD Guidelines for the Testing of Chemicals, Section 2, OECD Publishing. doi:
10.1787/9789264070141-en.
(24) OECD (2000),Test No. 215: Fish, Juvenile Growth Test, OECD Guidelines for the Testing
of Chemicals, Section 2, OECD Publishing. doi: 10.1787/9789264070202-en.
(25) OECD (2000), OECD Environmental Health and Safety Publications Series on Testing and
Assessment No. 23: Guidance Document on Aquatic Toxicity Testing of Difficult
Substances and Mixtures ENV/JM/MONO(2000)6. Organisation for Econonomic Cooperation
and Development (OECD), Paris, France.
(26) US-EPA (1994), Great Lake water quality initiative technical support document for the
procedure to determine bioaccumulation factors 822-R-94-002. US EPA, Office of Water,
Office of Science and Technology, Washington, DC, USA.
(27) US-FDA (1999), Pesticide analytical manual (PAM). Vol.1. US Food and Drug
Administration, Rockville, MD, USA.
(28) US-EPA (1974), Section 5, A (1) Analysis of Human or Animal Adipose Tissue, in Analysis
of Pesticide Residues in Human and Environmental Samples, Thompson, J.F., Editor. USEPA,
Research Triangle Park, NC, USA
(29) Bligh E.G. and Dyer W.J. (1959), A rapid method of total lipid extraction and purification.
Can. J. Biochem. Physiol. 37: 911-917.
(30) Gardner W.S., Frez W.A., Cichocki E.A. and Parrish C.C. (1985), Micromethod for lipids in
aquatic invertebrates. Limnol. Oceanogr. 30: 1099-1105.
(31) Smedes F. (1999), Determination of total lipid using non-chlorinated solvents. Analyst. 124:
1711-1718.
(32) OECD (2006), OECD Environmental Health and Safety Publications Series on Testing and
Assessment No. 54: Current approaches in the statistical analysis of ecotoxicity data: a
guidance to application. ENV/JM/MONO(2006)18. Organisation for Econonomic Cooperation
and Development (OECD), Paris, France.
(33) Springer T.A., Guiney P.D., Krueger H.O. and Jaber M.J. (2008), Assessment of an
approach to estimating aquatic bioconcentration factors using reduced sampling. Environ.
Toxicol. Chem. 27: 2271-2280.
(34) Springer T.A. (2009), Statistical Research Related to Update of OECD Guideline 305.
Wildlife International, Ltd, Easton, MD, USA.
(35) Arnot J.A., Meylan W., Tunkel J., Howard P.H., Mackay D., Bonnell M. and Boethling R.S.
(2009), A quantitative structure-activity relationship for predicting metabolic
biotransformation rates for organic chemicals in fish. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 28: 1168-
1177.
(36) Parkerton T., Letinski D., Febbo E., Davi R., Dzambia C., Connelly M., Christensen K. and
Peterson D. (2001), A practical testing approach for assessing bioaccumulation potential of
poorly water soluble organic chemicals (presentation). in SETAC Europe 12th Annual
Meeting: Madrid, Spain.
(37) Fisk A.T., Cymbalisty C.D., Bergman Ã. and Muir D.C.G. (1996), Dietary accumulation of
C12- and C16-chlorinated alkanes by juvenile rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss). Environ.
Toxicol. Chem. 15: 1775-1782.
(38) Anonymous (2004), Fish, dietary bioaccumulation study - Basic protocol, document
submitted to the TC-NES WG on PBT.
305 OECD/OCDE
42
© OECD, (2012)
(39) Anonymous (2004), Background document to the fish dietary study protocol, document
submitted to the TC-NES WG on PBT.
(40) Bruggeman W.A., Opperhuizen A., Wijbenga A. and Hutzinger O. (1984), Bioaccumulation
of super-lipophilic chemicals in fish, Toxicol. Environ. Chem. 7: 173-189.
(41) Muir D.C.G., Marshall W.K. and Webster G.R.B. (1985), Bioconcentration of PCDDs by
fish: effects of molecular structure and water chemistry. Chemosphere. 14: 829-833.
(42) Thomann R.V. (1989), Bioaccumulation model of organic chemical distribution in aquatic
food chains. Environ. Sci. Technol. 23: 699-707.
(43) Nichols J.W., Fitzsimmons P.N. and Whiteman F.W. (2004), A physiologically based
toxicokinetic model for dietary uptake of hydrophobic organic compounds by fish: II.
Stimulation of chronic exposure scenarios. Toxicol. Sci. 77: 219-229.
(44) Gobas F.A.P.C., de Wolf W., Burkhard L.P., Verbruggen E. and Plotzke K. (2009),
Revisiting bioaccumulation criteria for POPs and PBT assessments. Integr. Environ. Assess.
Manag. 5: 624-637.
(45) Sijm D.T.H.M. and van der Linde A. (1995), Size-dependent bioconcentration kinetics of
hydrophobic organic chemicals in fish based on diffusive mass transfer and allometric
relationships. Environ. Sci. Technol. 29: 2769-2777.
(46) Sijm D.T.H.M., Verberne M.E., de Jonge W.J., Pärt P. and Opperhuizen A. (1995),
Allometry in the uptake of hydrophobic chemicals determined in vivo and in isolated
perfused gills. Toxicol. Appl. Pharmacol. 131: 130-135.
(47) Fisk A.T., Norstrom R.J., Cymbalisty C.D. and Muir D.G.G. (1998), Dietary accumulation
and depuration of hydrophobic organochlorines: Bioaccumulation parameters and their
relationship with the octanol/water partition coefficient. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 17: 951-
961.
(48) McGrath J.A., Parkerton T.F. and Di Toro D.M. (2004), Application of the narcosis target
lipid model to algal toxicity and deriving predicted-no-effect concentrations. Environ.
Toxicol. Chem. 23: 2503-2517.
(49) Poppendieck D.G. (2002), Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbon Desorption Mechanisms from
Manufactured Gas Plant Site Samples. Dissertation. Department of Civil, Architectural and
Environmental Engineering, University of Texas, Austin, TX, USA.
(50) McCarty L.S. and Mackay D. (1993), Enhancing ecotoxicological modelling and
assessment: body residues and modes of toxic action. Environ. Sci. Technol. 27: 1718-1728.
(51) OECD (2012), OECD Environmental Health and Safety Publications Series on Testing and
Assessment No. 175: Part I - Validation Report of a ring test for the OECD TG 305 dietary
exposure bioaccumulation fish test. Part II - Additional Report including comparative
analysis of trout and carp results ENV/JM/MONO(2012)20. Organisation for Economic Cooperation
and Development (OECD), Paris, France.
OECD/OCDE 305
43
© OECD, (2012)
ANNEX 1
DEFINITIONS AND UNITS
The assimilation efficiency (α) is a measure of the relative amount of substance absorbed from
the gut into the organism (α is unitless, but it is often expressed as a percentage rather than a fraction).
Bioaccumulation is generally referred to as a process in which the chemical concentration in an
organism achieves a level that exceeds that in the respiratory medium (e.g., water for a fish or air for a
mammal), the diet, or both (1).
Bioconcentration is the increase in concentration of the test substance in or on an organism (or
specified tissues thereof) relative to the concentration of test substance in the surrounding medium.
The bioconcentration factor (BCF or KB) at any time during the uptake phase of this accumulation
test is the concentration of test substance in/on the fish or specified tissues thereof (Cf as mg/kg)
divided by the concentration of the chemical in the surrounding medium (Cw as mg/L). BCF is
expressed in L·kg-1
. Please note that corrections for growth and/or a standard lipid content are not
accounted for.
Biomagnification is the increase in concentration of the test substance in or on an organism (or
specified tissues thereof) relative to the concentration of test substance in the food.
The biomagnification factor (BMF) is the concentration of a substance in a predator relative to
the concentration in the predator’s prey (or food) at steady-state. In the method described in this
Guideline, exposure via the aqueous phase is carefully avoided and thus a BMF value from this test
method cannot directly be compared to a BMF value from a field study (in which both water and
dietary exposure may be combined).
The dietary biomagnification factor (dietary BMF) is the term used in this guideline to describe
the result of dietary exposure test, in which exposure via the aqueous phase is carefully avoided and
thus the dietary BMF from this test method cannot directly be compared to a BMF value from a field
study (in which both water and dietary exposure may be combined).
The depuration or post-exposure (loss) phase is the time, following the transfer of the test fish
from a medium containing test substance to a medium free of that substance, during which the
depuration (or the net loss) of the substance from the test fish (or specified tissue thereof) is studied.
The depuration (loss) rate constant (k2) is the numerical value defining the rate of reduction in the
concentration of the test substance in the test fish (or specified tissues thereof) following the transfer
of the test fish from a medium containing the test substance to a medium free of that substance (k2 is
expressed in day-1
).
305 OECD/OCDE
44
© OECD, (2012)
Dissolved organic carbon (DOC) is a measure of the concentration of carbon originating from
dissolved organic sources in the test media.
The exposure or uptake phase is the time during which the fish are exposed to the test chemical.
The food ingestion rate (I) is the average amount of food eaten by each fish each day, relative to
the estimated average fish whole body weight (expressed in terms of g food/g fish/day).
The kinetic bioconcentration factor (BCFK) is the ratio of the uptake rate constant, k1, to the
depuration rate constant, k2 (i.e. k1/k2 – see corresponding definitions in this annex). In principle the
value should be comparable to the BCFSS (see definition above), but deviations may occur if steadystate
was uncertain or if corrections for growth have been applied to the kinetic BCF.
The lipid normalised kinetic bioconcentration factor (BCFKL) is normalised to a fish with a 5%
lipid content.
The lipid normalised, growth corrected kinetic bioconcentration factor (BCFKgL) is normalised to
a fish with a 5% lipid content and corrected for growth during the study period as described in
Annex 5.
The lipid normalised steady-state bioconcentration factor (BCFSSL) is normalised to a fish with
5% lipid content.
The octanol-water partition coefficient (KOW) is the ratio of a chemical’s solubility in n-octanol
and water at equilibrium (OECD Guidelines 107 (2), 117 (3), 123 (4)); also expressed as POW. The
logarithm of KOW is used as an indication of a chemical’s potential for bioconcentration by aquatic
organisms.
Particulate organic carbon (POC) is a measure of the concentration of carbon originating from
suspended organic sources in the test media.
Solid-phase microextraction (SPME) is a solvent-free analytical technique developed for dilute
systems. In this method, a polymercoated fibre is exposed to the gas or liquid phase containing the
analyte of interest. Generally, a minimum analysis time is imposed so that equilibrium conditions are
established between the solid and fluid phases, with respect to the measured species. Subsequently the
concentration of the analyte of interest can be determined directly from the fibre or after extracting it
from the fibre into a solvent, depending on the determination technique.
A steady-state is reached in the plot of test substance in fish (Cf) against time when the curve
becomes parallel to the time axis and three successive analyses of Cf made on samples taken at
intervals of at least two days are within ± 20% of each other, and there is no significant increase of Cf
in time between the first and last successive analysis. When pooled samples are analysed at least four
successive analyses are required. For test substances which are taken up slowly the intervals would
more appropriately be seven days.
The steady-state bioconcentration factor (BCFSS) does not change significantly over a prolonged
period of time, the concentration of the test substance in the surrounding medium being constant
during this period of time (cf. Definition of steady-state).
Total organic carbon (TOC) is a measure of the concentration of carbon originating from all
organic sources in the test media, including particulate and dissolved sources.
OECD/OCDE 305
45
© OECD, (2012)
The uptake rate constant (k1) is the numerical value defining the rate of increase in the
concentration of test substance in/on test fish (or specified tissues thereof) when the fish are exposed
to that chemical (k1 is expressed in L kg-1
day-1
).
Chemical substances of Unknown or Variable composition, Complex reaction products and
Biological materials are known as UVCB
Litterature
(1) Gobas F.A.P.C., de Wolf W., Burkhard L.P., Verbruggen E. and Plotzke K. (2009),
Revisiting bioaccumulation criteria for POPs and PBT assessments. Integr. Environ. Assess.
Manag. 5: 624-637.
(2) OECD (1995), Test No. 107: Partition Coefficient (n-octanol/water): Shake Flask Method,
OECD Guidelines for the Testing of Chemicals, Section 1, OECD Publishing. doi:
10.1787/9789264069626-en.
(3) OECD (2004),Test No. 117: Partition Coefficient (n-octanol/water), HPLC Method, OECD
Guidelines for the Testing of Chemicals, Section 1, OECD Publishing. doi:
10.1787/9789264069824-en.
(4) OECD (2006), Test No. 123: Partition Coefficient (1-Octanol/Water): Slow-Stirring Method,
OECD Guidelines for the Testing of Chemicals, Section 1, OECD Publishing. doi:
10.1787/9789264015845-en.
305 OECD/OCDE
46
© OECD, (2012)
ANNEX 2
SOME CHEMICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF AN ACCEPTABLE DILUTION WATER
Substance Limit concentration
Particulate matter 5 mg/L
Total organic carbon 2 mg/L
Un-ionised ammonia 1 µg/L
Residual chlorine 10 µg/L
Total organophosphorous pesticides 50 ng/L
Total organochlorine pesticides plus polychlorinated biphenyls 50 ng/L
Total organic chlorine 25 ng/L
Aluminium 1 µg/L
Arsenic 1 µg/L
Chromium 1 µg/L
Cobalt 1 µg/L
Copper 1 µg/L
Iron 1 µg/L
Lead 1 µg/L
Nickel 1 µg/L
Zinc 1 µg/L
Cadmium 100 ng/L
Mercury 100 ng/L
Silver 100 ng/L
OECD/OCDE 305
47
© OECD, (2012)
ANNEX 3
FISH SPECIES RECOMMENDED FOR TESTING
Recommended species Recommended range of
test temperature (°C)
Recommended total
length of test animal
(cm)(2)
Danio rerio(1)
(Teleostei, Cyprinidae)
(Hamilton-Buchanan) Zebra-fish
20 – 25 3.0 ± 0.5
Pimephales promelas
(Teleostei, Cyprinidae)
(Rafinesque) Fathead minnow
20 – 25 5.0 ± 2.0
Cyprinus carpio
(Teleostei, Cyprinidae)
(Linnaeus) Common carp
20 – 25 8.0 ± 4.0(3)
Oryzias latipes
(Teleostei, Poecilliidae)
(Temminck and Schlegel) Ricefish
20 – 25 4.0 ± 1.0
Poecilia reticulata
(Teleostei, Poeciliidae)
(Peters) Guppy
20 – 25 3.0 ± 1.0
Lepomis macrochirus
(Teleostei Centrarchidae)
(Rafinesque) Bluegill
20 – 25 5.0 ± 2.0
Oncorhynchus mykiss
(Teleostei Salmonidae)
(Walbaum) Rainbow trout
13 – 17 8.0 ± 4.0
Gasterosteus aculeatus
(Teleostei, (Gasterosteidae)
(Linnaeus) Three-spined stickleback
18 – 20 3.0 ± 1.0
(1) Meyer et al. (1)
(2) It should be noted that in the test itself weight is preferred as the measure for size and growth rate constant derivations. It
is however recognised that length is a more practical measure if fish have to be selected by sight at the beginning of an
experiment (i.e. from the stock population).
(3) This length range is indicated in the Testing Methods for New Chemical Substances etc. based on the Japan’s Chemical
Substances Control Law (CSCL).
305 OECD/OCDE
48
© OECD, (2012)
Various estuarine and marine species have less widely been used, for example:
Spot (Leiostomus xanthurus)
Sheepshead minnow (Cyprinodon variegatus)
Silverside (Menidia beryllina)
Shiner perch (Cymatogaster aggregata)
English sole (Parophrys vetulus)
Staghorn sculpin (Leptocottus armatus)
Three-spined stickleback (Gasterosteus aculeatus)
Sea bass (Dicentracus labrax)
Bleak (Alburnus alburnus)
The freshwater fish listed in the table above are easy to rear and/or are widely available
throughout the year, whereas the availability of marine and estuarine species is partially confined to
the respective countries. They are capable of being bred and cultivated either in fish farms or in the
laboratory, under disease- and parasite-controlled conditions, so that the test animal will be healthy
and of known parentage. These fish are available in many parts of the world.
Litterature
(1) Meyer A., Biermann C.H. and Orti G. (1993), The phylogenetic position of the zebrafish
(Danio rerio), a model system in developmental biology: An invitation to the comparative
method Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B. 252: 231-236.
OECD/OCDE 305
49
© OECD, (2012)
ANNEX 4
SAMPLING SCHEDULES FOR AQUEOUS AND DIETARY EXPOSURE TESTS
1. Theoretical example of a sampling schedule for a full aqueous exposure
bioconcentration test of a substance with log KOW = 4.
Fish Sampling Sample time schedule No. of water
samples(1)
No. of fish per
sample(1)
Minimal required
frequency (days)(2)
Additional
sampling (days)(2)
Uptake phase
1 -1
0
2(3)
(2)
4(4)
(3(6)
)
2 0.3
0.4
2
(2)
4
(4)
3 0.6
0.9
2
(2)
4
(4)
4 1.2
1.7
2
(2)
4
(4)
5 2.4
3.3
2
(2)
4
(4)
6 4.7 2 4 – 8(5)
(3(6)
)
Depuration phase
Transfer fish to water
free of test substance
7 5.0
5.3
2 4
(4)
8 5.9
7.0
2 4
(4)
9 9.3
11.2
2 4
(4)
10 14.0
17.5
2 4 – 8(5)
(4+3(6)
)
TOTAL 40 – 72
(48 – 80)(5)
305 OECD/OCDE
50
© OECD, (2012)
(1) Values in brackets are numbers of samples (water, fish) to be taken if additional sampling is carried out.
(2) Pre-test estimate of k2 for log KOW of 4.0 is 0.652 days-1
. The total duration of the experiment is set to 3 × tSS = 3 × 4.6
days, i.e. 14 days. For the estimation of tSS refer to Annex 5.
(3) Sample water after a minimum of 3 “chamber-volumes” has been delivered.
(4) These fish are sampled from the stock population.
(5) If greater precision or metabolism studies are necessary that require more fish, these should be sampled particularly at the
end of the uptake and depuration phases (cf. paragraph 40).
(6) At least 3 additional fish may be required for lipid content analysis if it is not possible to use the same fish sampled for
substance concentrations at the start of the test, the end of the uptake phase and the end of the depuration phase. Note it
should be possible in many cases to use the 3 control fish alone (cf. paragraph 56).
2. Theoretical example of sampling schedule for dietary bioaccumulation test of substance
following 10 day uptake and 42 day depuration phases.
Sampling event Sample time schedule No. food samples No. fish per sample
Day of phase Additional fish
samples?
Test Group Control Group
Uptake phase
1 0 Possible(1)(2)
3 – test group
3 – control group(1)
0 5 – 10
(8 – 13)(2)
1A(3)
1-3 5 – 10 5 – 10
2 10 Yes(4)
3 – test group
3 – control group(1)
10 – 15(4)
(13 – 18)(5)
5 – 10
(8 – 13)(5)
Depuration
phase
3 1 Yes(4)
10 – 15(4)
5 – 10
4 2 5 – 10 5 – 10
5 4 5 – 10 5 – 10
6 7 Yes(4)
10 – 15(4)
5 – 10
7 14 5 – 10 5 – 10
8 28 5 – 10 5 – 10
9 42 Yes(4)
10 – 15(4)
(13 – 18)(5)
5 – 10
(8 – 13)(5)
TOTAL 59 – 120
(63 – 126)(4,5)
50 – 110
(56 – 116)(4,5)
(1) 3 samples of feed from both control and test groups analysed for test substance concentrations and for lipid content.
(2) Fish are sampled from the stock population as near to the start of the study as possible; at least 3 fish from the stock
population at test start should be sampled for lipid content.
(3) (Optional) sampling early in the uptake phase provides data to calculate dietary assimilation of test substance that can be
compared with the assimilation efficiency calculated from the depuration phase data.
(4) 5 extra fish may be sampled for tissue-specific analysis.
(5) At least 3 additional fish may be required for lipid content analysis if it is not possible to use the same fish sampled for
substance concentrations at the start of the test, the end of the uptake phase and the end of the depuration phase. Note it
should be possible in many cases to use the 3 control fish alone (cf. paragraphs 56 and 153).
OECD/OCDE 305
51
© OECD, (2012)
Note on phase and sampling timings: The uptake phase begins with the first feeding of spiked
diet. An experimental day runs from one feeding until shortly before the next, 24 hours later. The first
sampling event (1 in the table) should be taken shortly before the first feeding (e.g. one hour).
Sampling during a study should ideally be carried out shortly before the following day’s feeding (i.e.
about 23 hours after the sample day’s feeding). The uptake phase ends shortly before the first feeding
with unspiked diet, when the depuration phase begins (test group fish are likely to be still digesting
spiked feed in the intervening 24 hours after the last spiked diet feeding). This means that the end of
uptake sample should be taken shortly before the first feeding with unspiked diet and the first
depuration phase sample should be taken about 23 hours after the first feeding with unspiked feed.
305 OECD/OCDE
52
© OECD, (2012)
ANNEX 5
GENERAL CALCULATIONS
1. 1. Introduction
2. Prediction of the duration of the uptake phase
3. Prediction of the duration of the depuration phase
4. Sequential method: determination of depuration (loss) rate constant k2
5. Sequential method: determination of uptake rate constant k1 (aqueous exposure
method only)
6. Simultaneous method for calculation of uptake and depuration (loss) rate constants
(aqueous exposure method only)
7. Growth dilution correction for kinetic BCF and BMF
8. Lipid normalisation to 5% lipid content (aqueous exposure method only)
1. Introduction
The general fish aquatic bioaccumulation model can be described in terms of uptake and loss
processes, ignoring uptake with food. The differential equation (dCf/dt) describing the rate of change
in fish concentration (mg·kg-1
·day-1
) is given by (1):
( )f
1 w 2 g m fe
dC
k C k k k k C
dt
= × − + + + × [Equation A5.1]
Where k1= First order rate constant for uptake into fish (L·kg-1
·day-1
).
k2 = First order rate constant for depuration from fish (day-1
).
kg = First order rate constant for fish growth (‘growth dilution’) (day-1
)
km = First order rate constant for metabolic transformation (day-1
)
ke = First order rate constant for faecal egestion (day-1
)
Cw = Concentration in water (mg·L-1
).
Cf = Concentration in fish (mg·kg-1
wet weight).
OECD/OCDE 305
53
© OECD, (2012)
For bioaccumulating substances, it can be expected that a time-weighted average (TWA) is the
most relevant exposure concentration in water (Cw) within the allowed range of fluctuation (cf.
paragraph 24). It is recommended to calculate a TWA water concentration, according to the procedure
in Annex 6 of OECD TG 211 (2). It should be noted that the ln-transformation of the water
concentration is suitable when exponential decay between renewal periods is expected, e.g. in a semistatic
test design. In a flow through system, ln-transformation of exposure concentrations may not be
needed. If TWA water concentrations are derived, they should be reported and used in subsequent
calculations.
In a standard fish BCF test uptake and depuration can be described in terms of two first order
kinetic processes.
1 wRate of uptake k C= × [Equation A5.2]
( )2 fOverall loss rate g m ek k k k C= + + + × [Equation A5.3]
At steady-state, assuming growth and metabolism are negligible (i.e. the values for kg and km
cannot be distinguished from zero), the rate of uptake equals the rate of depuration, and so combining
Equation A5.2 and Equation A5.3 gives the following relationship:
f-SS 1
w-SS 2
BCF
C k
C k
= = [Equation A5.4]
Where Cf-SS = Concentration in fish at steady-state (mg kg-1
wet weight).
Cw-SS = Concentration in water at steady-state (mg L-1
).
The ratio of k1/k2 is known as the kinetic BCF (BCFK) and should be equal to the steady-state
BCF (BCFSS) obtained from the ratio of the steady-state concentration in fish to that in water, but
deviations may occur if steady-state was uncertain or if corrections for growth have been applied to
the kinetic BCF. However, as k1 and k2 are constants, steady-state does not need to be reached to
derive a BCFK.
Based on these first order equations, this Annex 5 includes the general calculations necessary for
both aqueous and dietary exposure bioaccumulation methods. However, sections 5, 6 and 8 are only
relevant for the aqueous exposure method but are included here as they are “general” techniques. The
sequential (sections 4 and 5) and simultaneous (section 6) methods allow the calculation of uptake and
depuration constants which are used to derive kinetic BCFs. The sequential method for determining k2
(section 4) is important for the dietary method as it is needed to calculate both assimilation efficiency
and BMF. Annex 7 details the calculations that are specific to the dietary method.
2. Prediction of the duration of the uptake phase
Before performing the test, an estimate of k2 and hence some percentage of the time needed to
reach steady-state may be obtained from empirical relationships between k2 and the n-octanol/water
partition coefficient (KOW) or k1 and BCF. It should be realised, however, that the equations in this
section only apply when uptake and depuration follow first-order kinetics. If this is clearly not the case
it is advised to seek advice from a biostatistician and/or pharmacokineticist, if predictions of the
uptake phase are desirable.
305 OECD/OCDE
54
© OECD, (2012)
An estimate of k2 (day-1
) may be obtained by several methods. For example, the following
empirical relationships could be used in the first instance (34
2 OWlog 1.47 0.414logk K= −
)
:
(r2
=0.95) [(3); Equation A5.5]
or
1
2
BCF
k
k = [Equation A5.6]
Where 0.32
1 520k W −
= × (for substances with a log KOW > 3) (r2
=0.85) [(4); Equation A5.7]
And
( )( )7
OW OW0.910 log 1.975 log 6.8 10 1 0.786
BCF 10
K K−
⋅ − ⋅ ⋅ + −
= (r2
=0.90) [(5); Equation A5.8]
W = mean treated fish weight (grams wet weight) at the end of uptake/start of depuration(35
For other related relationships see (6). It may be advantageous to employ more complicated
models in the estimation of k2 if, for example, it is likely that significant metabolism may occur (7)
(8). However as the complexity of the model increases, greater care should be taken with the
interpretation of the predictions. For example the presence of nitro groups might indicate fast
metabolism, but this is not always the case. Therefore the user should weigh up the predictive method
results against chemical structure and any other relevant information (for example preliminary studies)
in the scheduling of a study.
)
The time to reach a certain percentage of steady-state may be obtained, by applying the
k2-estimate, from the general kinetic equation describing uptake and depuration (first-order kinetics),
assuming growth and metabolism is negligible. If substantial growth occurs during the study, the
estimations described below will not be reliable. In such cases, it is better to use the growth corrected
k2g as described later (see Section 7 of this Annex):
f
1 w 2 f
dC
k C k C
dt
= − [Equation A5.9]
or, if Cw is constant:
( )21
f w
2
1 k tk
C C e
k
−
= ⋅ − [Equation A5.10]
When steady-state is approached (t → ∞), Equation A5.10 may be reduced (cf. (9) (10)) to:
1
f w
2
k
C C
k
= ⋅ [Equation A5.11]
or
(34) As with every empirical relationship, it should be verified that the test substance falls within the
applicability domain of the relationship
(35) The weight of fish at the end of the uptake phase can be estimated from previous study data or
knowledge of the test species’ likely increase in size from a typical test starting weight over a typical
uptake duration (e.g. 28 days).
OECD/OCDE 305
55
© OECD, (2012)
f 1
w 2
BCF
C k
C k
= = [Equation A5.12]
Then BCF × Cw is an approximation to the concentration in the fish at steady-state (Cf-SS). [Note:
the same approach can be used when estimating a steady-state BMF with the dietary test. In this case,
BCF is replaced with BMF and Cw with Cfood, concentration in the food, in the equations above]
Equation A5.10 may be transcribed to:
( )2
f f-SS 1 k t
C C e−
= − [Equation A5.13]
or
2f
f-SS
1 k tC
e
C
−
= − [Equation A5.14]
Applying Equation A5.14, the time to reach a certain percentage of steady-state may be predicted
when k2 is pre-estimated using Equation A5.5 or Equation A5.6.
As a guideline, the statistically optimal duration of the uptake phase for the production of
statistically acceptable data (BCFK) is that period which is required for the curve of the logarithm of
the concentration of the test substance in fish plotted against linear time to reach at least 50% of
steady-state (i.e. 0.69/k2), but not more than 95% of steady-state (i.e. 3.0/k2) (11). In case accumulation
reaches beyond 95% of steady-state, calculation of a BCFSS becomes feasible.
The time to reach 80 percent of steady-state is (using Equation A5.14):
2
0.80 1 k t
e−
= − [Equation A5.15]
or
80
2 2
ln(0.20) 1.6
t
k k
−
= = [Equation A5.16]
Similarly the time to reach 95 percent of steady-state is:
95
2 2
ln(0.05) 3.0
t
k k
−
= = [Equation A5.17]
For example, the duration of the uptake phase (i.e. time to reach a certain percentage of steadystate,
e.g. t80 or t95) for a test substance with log KOW = 4 would be (using Equation A5.5, Equation
A5.16 and Equation A5.17):
2log 1.47 0.414 4k = − ⋅
k2 = 0.652 day-1
80
1.6
2.45 days (59 hours)
0.652
t= =
or 95
3.0
4.60 days (110 hours)
0.652
t= =
305 OECD/OCDE
56
© OECD, (2012)
Alternatively, the expression:
3
eSS OW6.54 10 55.31 (hours)t K−
= ⋅ ⋅ + [Equation A5.18]
may be used to calculate the time for effective steady-state (teSS) to be reached (12). For a test
substance with log KOW = 4 this results in:
3 4
eSS 6.54 10 10 55.31 121 hourst −
= ⋅ ⋅ + =
3. Prediction of the duration of the depuration phase
A prediction of the time needed to reduce the body burden to a certain percentage of the initial
concentration may also be obtained from the general equation describing uptake and depuration
(assuming first order kinetics, cf. Equation A5.9 (1) (13).
For the depuration phase, Cw (or Cfood for the dietary test) is assumed to be zero. The equation
may then be reduced to:
f
2 f
dC
k C
dt
= [Equation A5.19]
or
2
f f,0
k t
C C e−
= ⋅ [Equation A5.20]
where Cf,0 is the concentration at the start of the depuration period.
50 percent depuration will then be reached at the time (t50):
2 50f
f,0
1
2
k tC
e
C
−
= =
or
50
2 2
ln(0.50) 0.693
t
k k
−
= =
Similarly 95 percent depuration will be reached at:
95
2 2
ln(0.05) 3.0
t
k k
−
= =
If 80% uptake is used for the first period (1.6/k2) and 95% loss in the depuration phase (3.0/k2),
then depuration phase is approximately twice the duration of the uptake phase.
Note that the estimations are based on the assumption that uptake and depuration patterns will
follow first order kinetics. If first-order kinetics is obviously not obeyed, these estimations are not
valid.
OECD/OCDE 305
57
© OECD, (2012)
4. Sequential method: determination of depuration (loss) rate constant k2
Most bioconcentration data have been assumed to be 'reasonably' well described by a simple twocompartment/two-parameter
model, as indicated by the rectilinear curve which approximates to the
points for concentrations in fish (on an ln scale), during the depuration phase.
Note that deviations from a straight line may indicate a more complex depuration pattern than
first order kinetics. The graphical method may be applied for resolving types of depuration deviating
from first order kinetics.
To calculate k2 for multiple time (sampling) points, perform a linear regression of
ln(concentration) versus time. The slope of the regression line is an estimate of the depuration rate
constant k2
(36
36
)
. From the intercept the average concentration in the fish at the start of the depuration
phase (C0,d; which equals the average concentration in the fish at the end of the uptake phase) can
easily be calculated (including error margins) ( )
:
intercept
0,dC e= [Equation A5.21]
To calculate k2 when only two time (sampling) points are available (as in the minimised design),
substitute the two average concentrations into the following equation
( ) ( )f1 f2
2
2 1
ln lnC C
k
t t
−
=
−
[Equation A5.22]
Where ln(Cf1) and ln(Cf2) are the natural logarithms of the concentrations at times t1 and t2,
respectively, and t2 and t1 are the times when the two samples were collected relative to the start of
depuration(37
(36) In most programs that allow a linear regression, also standard errors and confidence interval (CI) of
the estimates are given, e.g. in Microsoft Excel using the Data Analysis tool pack.
)
.
(37) In contrast with the linear regression method, using this formula will not yield a standard error for k2.
Cf1
Cf2
t1 t2
time
ln(concentration)
Cf1
Cf2
t1 t2
time
ln(concentration)
305 OECD/OCDE
58
© OECD, (2012)
5. Sequential method: determination of uptake rate constant k1 (aqueous exposure
method only)
To find a value for k1 given a set of sequential time concentration data for the uptake phase, use a
computer program to fit the following model:
( )21
f w
2
( ) ( ) 1 k tk
C t C t e
k
−
= ⋅ ⋅ − [Equation A5.23]
Where k2 is given by the previous calculation, Cf(t) and Cw(t) are the concentrations in fish and water,
respectively, at time t.
To calculate k1 when only two time (sampling) points are available (as in the minimised design),
use the following formula:
( )2
f 2
1
w 1 k t
C k
k
C e−
⋅
=
−
[Equation A5.24]
Where k2 is given by the previous calculation, Cf is the concentration in fish at the start of the
depuration phase, and Cw is the average concentration in the water during the uptake phase (38
Visual inspection of the k1 and k2 slopes when plotted against the measured sample point data can
be used to assess goodness of fit. If it turns out that the sequential method has given a poor estimate
for k1 then the simultaneous approach to calculate k1 and k2 should be applied (see next section 6).
Again, the resulting slopes should be compared against the plotted measured data for visual inspection
of goodness of fit. If the goodness of fit is still poor this may be an indication that first order kinetics
do not apply and other more complex models should be employed.
)
.
6. Simultaneous method for calculation of uptake and depuration (loss) rate constants
(aqueous exposure method only)
Computer programs can be used to find values for k1 and k2 given a set of sequential time
concentration data and the model:
( )21
f w
2
1 k tk
C C e
k
−
= ⋅ ⋅ − 0 < t < tc [Equation A5.25]
( )
( )2 21
f w
2
ck t t k tk
C C e e
k
− − −
= ⋅ ⋅ − t > tc [Equation A5.26]
where tc = time at the end of the uptake phase.
This approach directly provides standard errors for the estimates of k1 and k2. When k1/k2 is
substituted by BCF (cf. Equation A5.4) in Equation A5.25 and Equation A5.26, the standard error and
95% CI of the BCF can be estimated as well. This is especially useful when comparing different
estimates due to data transformation. The dependent variable (fish concentration) can be fitted with or
without ln transformation, and the resulting BCF uncertainty can be evaluated.
As a strong correlation exists between the two parameters k1 and k2 if estimated simultaneously, it
may be advisable first to calculate k2 from the depuration data only (see above); k2 in most cases can
(38) In contrast with a linear fitting procedure, this method will usually not yield a standard error or
confidence interval for the estimated k1.
OECD/OCDE 305
59
© OECD, (2012)
be estimated from the depuration curve with relatively high precision. k1 can be subsequently
calculated from the uptake data using non-linear regression(39
Visual inspection of the resulting slopes when plotted against the measured sample point data can
be used to assess goodness of fit. If it turns out that this method has given a poor estimate for k1 then
the simultaneous approach to calculate k1 and k2 can be applied. Again, the fitted model should be
compared against the plotted measured data for visual inspection of goodness of fit and the resulting
parameter estimates for k1, k2 and resulting BCF and their standard errors and/or confidence intervals
should be compared between different types of fit.
)
. It is advised to use the same data
transformation when fitting sequentially.
If the goodness of fit is poor this may be an indication that first order kinetics does not apply and
other more complex models should be employed. One of the most common complications is fish
growth during the test.
7. Growth dilution correction for kinetic BCF and BMF
This section describes a standard method for correction due to fish growth during the test (so
called ‘growth dilution’) which is only valid when first order kinetics applies. In case there are
indications that first order kinetics do not apply, it is advised to seek advice from a biostatistician for a
proper correction of growth dilution or to use the mass based approach described below.
In some cases this method for correcting growth dilution is subject to a lack of precision or
sometimes does not work (for example for very slowly depurating substances tested in fast growing
fish the derived depuration rate constant corrected for growth dilution, k2g, may be very small and so
the error in the two rate constants used to derive it become critical, and in some cases kg estimates may
be larger than k2). In such cases an alternative approach (i.e. mass approach), which also works when
first order growth kinetics have not been obeyed, can be used which avoids the need for the correction.
This approach is outlined at the end of this section.
Growth rate constant subtraction method for growth correction
For the standard method all individual weight and length data are converted to natural logarithms
and ln(weight) or ln(1/weight) is plotted vs. time (day), separately for treatment and control groups.
The same process is carried out for the data from the uptake and depuration phases separately.
Generally for growth dilution correction it is more appropriate to use the weight data from the whole
study to derive the growth rate constant (kg), but statistically significant differences between the
growth rate constants derived for the uptake phase and depuration phase may indicate that the
depuration phase rate constant should be used. Overall growth rates from aqueous studies for test and
control groups can be used to check for any treatment related effects.
A linear least squares correlation is calculated for the ln(fish weight) vs. day (and for ln(1/weight)
vs. day) for each group (test(s) and control groups, individual data, not daily mean values) for the
whole study, uptake and depuration phases using standard statistical procedures. The variances in the
slopes of the lines are calculated and used to evaluate the statistical significance (p = 0.05) of the
difference in the slopes (growth rate constants) using the student t-test (or ANOVA if more than one
concentration is tested). Weight data are generally preferred for growth correction purposes. Length
data, treated in the same way, may be useful to compare control and test groups for treatment related
effects. If there is no statistically significant difference in the weight data analysis, the test and control
(39) It should be realised that the uncertainty in the k2 estimate is not used properly in the bioaccumulation
model when this is essentially regarded as constant when fitting k1 in the sequential fit method. The
resulting BCF uncertainty will therefore be different between the simultaneous and sequential fitting
methods.
305 OECD/OCDE
60
© OECD, (2012)
data may be pooled and an overall fish growth rate constant for the study (kg) calculated as the overall
slope of the linear correlation. If statistically significant differences are observed, growth rate
constants for each fish group, and/or study phase, are reported separately. The rate constant from each
treated group should then be used for growth dilution correction purposes of that group. If statistical
differences between the uptake and depuration phase rate constants were noted, depuration phase
derived rate constants should be used.
The calculated growth rate constant (kg expressed as day-1
) can be subtracted from the overall
depuration rate constant (k2) to give the depuration rate constant, k2g.
2g 2 gk k k= − [Equation A5.27]
The uptake rate constant is divided by the growth-corrected depuration rate constant to give the
growth-corrected kinetic BCF, denoted BCFKg (or BMFKg).
1
Kg
2
BCF
g
k
k
= [Equation
A5.28]
The growth rate constant derived for a dietary study is used in Equation A7.5 to calculate the growth
corrected BMFKg (cf. Annex 7).
Mass based method for growth correction
An alternative to the above "growth rate constant subtraction method" that avoids the need to
correct for growth can be used as follows. The principle is to use depuration data on a mass basis per
whole fish rather than on a concentration basis.
• Convert depuration phase tissue concentrations (mass of test chemical/unit mass of fish) into
mass of test chemical/fish: match concentrations and individual fish weights in tabular form
(e.g. using a computer spreadsheet) and multiply each concentration by the total fish weight
for that measurement to give a set of mass test chemical/fish for all depuration phase
samples.
• Plot the resulting natural logarithm of chemical mass data against time for the experiment
(depuration phase) as would be done normally.
• For the aqueous exposure method, derive the uptake rate constant routinely (see sections 4
and 6) note that the "normal" k2 value should be used in the curve fitting equations for k1)
and derive the depuration rate constant from the above data. Because the resulting value for
the depuration rate constant is independent of growth as it has been derived on a mass basis
per whole fish, it should be denoted as k2g and not k2.
8. Lipid normalisation to 5% lipid content (aqueous exposure method only)
BCF results (kinetic and steady-state) from aqueous exposure tests should also be reported
relative to a default fish lipid content of 5% wet weight, unless it can be argued that the test substance
does not primarily accumulate in lipid (e.g. some perfluorinated substances may bind to proteins). Fish
concentration data, or the BCF, need to be converted to a 5% lipid content wet weight basis. If the
same fish were used for measuring chemical concentrations and lipid contents at all sampling points,
this requires each individual measured concentration in the fish to be corrected for that fish’s lipid
content.
OECD/OCDE 305
61
© OECD, (2012)
f,L f
0.05
C C
L
= ⋅ [Equation A5.29]
where Cf,L = lipid-normalised concentration in fish (mg kg-1
wet weight)
L = lipid fraction (based on wet weight)
Cf = concentration of test substance in fish (mg kg-1
wet weight)
If lipid analysis was not conducted on all sampled fish, a mean lipid value is used to normalise
the BCF. For the steady-state BCF, the mean value recorded at the end of the uptake phase in the
treatment group should be used. For the normalisation of a kinetic BCF there may be some cases
where a different approach is warranted, for example if the lipid content changed markedly during the
uptake or depuration phase. However a feeding rate that minimises dramatic changes in lipid content
should be used anyway routinely.
KL K
n
0.05
BCF BCF
L
= ⋅ [Equation A5.30]
where BCFKL = lipid-normalised kinetic BCF (L kg-1
)
Ln = mean lipid fraction (based on wet weight)
BCFK = kinetic BCF (L kg-1
)
Literature
(1) Arnot J.A. and Gobas F.A.P.C. (2004), A food web bioaccumulation model for organic
chemicals in aquatic ecosystems, Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 23: 2343–2355.
(2) OECD (2008), Test No. 211: Daphnia magna Reproduction Test, OECD Guidelines for the
Testing of Chemicals, Section 2, OECD Publishing. doi: 10.1787/9789264070127-en.
(3) Spacie A. and Hamelink J.L. (1982), Alternative models for describing the bioconcentration
of organics in fish. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 1: 309-320.
(4) Sijm D.T.H.M., Verberne M.E., de Jonge W.J., Pärt P. and Opperhuizen A. (1995),
Allometry in the uptake of hydrophobic chemicals determined in vivo and in isolated
perfused gills. Toxicol. Appl. Pharmacol. 131: 130-135.
(5) Bintein S., Devillers J. and Karcher W. (1993), Nonlinear dependence of fish
bioconcentration on n-octanol/water partition coefficient. SAR QSAR Environ. Res. 1: 29-
39.
(6) Kristensen P. (1991), Bioconcentration in fish: comparison of BCF’s derived from OECD
and ASTM testing methods; influence of particulate matter to the bioavailability of
chemicals. Danish Water Quality Institute, Hørsholm, Denmark.
(7) Arnot J.A., Meylan W., Tunkel J., Howard P.H., Mackay D., Bonnell M. and Boethling R.S.
(2009), A quantitative structure-activity relationship for predicting metabolic
biotransformation rates for organic chemicals in fish. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 28: 1168-
1177.
(8) OECD (2011), QSAR Toolbox 2.1. February 2011. Available from:
http://www.oecd.org/document/54/0,3746,en_2649_34379_42923638_1_1_1_1,00.html.
(9) Branson D.R., Blau G.E., Alexander H.C. and Neely W.B. (1975). Bioconcentration of
2,2',4,4' tetrachlorobiphenyl in rainbow trout as measured by an accelerated test. T. Am.
Fish. Soc. 104: 785-792.
(10) Ernst W. (1985), Accumulation in aquatic organisms, in Appraisal of tests to predict the
environmental behaviour of chemicals, Sheeman, P., et al., Editors. John Wiley & Sons Ltd,
New York, NY, USA: 243-255.
305 OECD/OCDE
62
© OECD, (2012)
(11) Reilly P.M., Bajramovic R., Blau G.E., Branson D.R. and Sauerhoff M.W. (1977),
Guidelines for the optimal design of experiments to estimate parameters in first order kinetic
models. Can. J. Chem. Eng. 55: 614-622.
(12) Hawker D.W. and Connell D.W. (1988), Influence of partition coefficient of lipophilic
compounds on bioconcentration kinetics with fish. Wat. Res. 22: 701-707.
(13) Konemann H. and van Leeuwen K. (1980), Toxicokinetics in fish: Accumulation and
elimination of six chlorobenzenes by guppies. Chemosphere. 9: 3-19.
OECD/OCDE 305
63
© OECD, (2012)
ANNEX 6
EQUATION SECTION FOR AQUEOUS EXPOSURE TEST: MINIMISED TEST DESIGN
The rationale for this approach is that the bioconcentration factor in a full test can either be
determined as a steady-state bioconcentration factor (BCFSS) by calculating the ratio of the
concentration of the test substance in the fish’s tissue to the concentration of the test substance in the
water, or by calculating the kinetic bioconcentration factor (BCFK) as the ratio of the uptake rate
constant k1 to the depuration rate constant k2. The BCFK is valid even if a steady-state concentration of
a chemical is not achieved during uptake, provided that uptake and depuration act approximately
according to first order kinetic processes.
If a measurement of the concentration of the chemical in tissues (Cf1) is made at the time that
exposure ends (t1) and the concentration in tissue (Cf2) is measured again after a period of time has
elapsed (t2), the depuration rate constant (k2) can be estimated using Equation A5.22 from Annex 5.
The uptake rate constant, k1, can then be determined algebraically using Equation A5.23 from
Annex 5 (where Cf equals Cf1 and t equals t1) (1). The kinetic bioconcentration factor for the
minimised design (designated as BCFKm to distinguish it from kinetic bioconcentration factors
determined using other methods) is thus:
1
Km
2
BCF
k
k
= [Equation A6.1]
Concentrations or results should be corrected for growth dilution and normalised to a fish lipid content
of 5%, as is described in Annex 5.
The minimised BCFSS is the BCF calculated at the end of the uptake phase, assuming that steadystate
has been reached. This can only be assumed, as the number of sampling points is not sufficient
for proving this.
minimised BCFss =
𝐶 𝑓−𝑚𝑖𝑛𝑆𝑆
𝐶 𝑤−𝑚𝑖𝑛𝑆𝑆
[Equation A6.2]
Where Cf-minSS = Concentration in fish at assumed steady-state at end of uptake (mg kg-1
wet
weight).
Cw-minSS= Concentration in water at assumed steady-state at end of uptake (mg L-1
).
Literature
(1) Springer T.A., Guiney P.D., Krueger H.O. and Jaber M.J. (2008), Assessment of an
approach to estimating aquatic bioconcentration factors using reduced sampling. Environ. Toxicol.
Chem. 27: 2271-2280.
305 OECD/OCDE
64
© OECD, (2012)
ANNEX 7
EQUATION SECTION FOR DIETARY EXPOSURE TEST
1. Example of constituent quantities of a suitable commercial fish food
2. Food spiking technique examples
3. Calculation of assimilation efficiency and biomagnification factor
4. Lipid correction
5. Evaluation of differences between measured time zero concentration (C0,m) and
derived time zero concentration (C0,d)
6. Guidance for very fast depurating test substances
1. Example of constituent quantities of a suitable commercial fish food
Major constituent fish meal
Crude Protein ≤ 55.0%
Crude fat ≤ 15.0%(1)
Crude Fibre ≥ 2.0%
Moisture ≥ 12%
Ash ≥ 8%
(1) In some regions it may only be possible to obtain fish food with a lipid concentration that falls far short of
this upper limit. In such cases studies should be run with the lower lipid concentration in the food as supplied,
and the feeding rate adjusted appropriately to maintain fish health. Diet lipids should not be artificially
increased by the addition of excess oil.
2. Food spiking technique examples
General Points
• Control diets should be prepared in exactly the same way as the spiked diet, but with an
absence of test substance.
• To check the concentration of the treated diet, triplicate samples of the dosed food should be
extracted with a suitable extraction method and the test substance concentration or
radioactivity in the extracts measured. High analytical recoveries (>85%) with low variation
between samples (three sample concentrations for the substance taken at test start should not
vary more than ± 15% from the mean) should be demonstrated.
OECD/OCDE 305
65
© OECD, (2012)
• During the dietary test, three diet samples for analysis should be collected on day 0 and at
the end of the uptake phase for the determination of the test substance content in the diet.
Fish food preparation with a liquid test material (neat)
A target, nominal test concentration in the treated fish food is set, for example 500 µg test
substance/g food. The appropriate quantity (by molar mass or specific radioactivity) of neat test
substance is added to a known mass of fish food in a glass jar or rotary evaporator bulb. The mass of
fish food should be sufficient for the duration of the uptake phase (taking into account the need for
increasing quantities at each feed owing to fish growth). The fish feed/test substance should be mixed
overnight by slow tumbling (e.g. using a roto-rack mixer or by rotation if a rotary evaporator bulb is
used). The spiked diet should be stored under conditions that maintain stability of the test chemical
within the feed mix (e.g. refrigeration) until use.
Fish food preparation with a corn or fish oil vehicle
Solid test substances should be ground in a mortar to a fine powder. Liquid test substances can be
added directly to the corn or fish oil. The test substance is dissolved in a known quantity of corn or
fish oil (e.g. 5-15 mL). The dosed oil is quantitatively transferred into a rotary evaporation bulb of
suitable size. The flask used to prepare the dosed oil should be flushed with two small aliquots of oil
and these added to the bulb to make sure all dissolved test substance is transferred. To ensure complete
dissolution/dispersion in the oil (or if more than one test substance is being used in the study), a microstirrer
is added, the flask stoppered and the mixture stirred rapidly overnight. An appropriate quantity
of fish diet (usually in pellet form) for the test is added to the bulb, and the bulb’s contents are mixed
homogeneously by continuously turning the glass bulb for at least 30 minutes, but preferably
overnight. Thereafter, the spiked food is stored appropriately (e.g. refrigerated) to ensure test
substance stability in the food until use.
Fish food preparation with an organic solvent
An appropriate quantity of test substance (by molar mass or specific radioactivity) sufficient to
achieve the target dose is dissolved in a suitable organic solvent (e.g. cyclohexane or acetone; 10-
40 mL, but a greater volume if necessary depending on the quantity of food to spike). Either an
aliquot, or all (added portionwise), of this solution is mixed with the appropriate mass of fish food
sufficient for the test to achieve the required nominal dose level. The food/test substance can be mixed
in a stainless steel mixing bowl and the freshly-dosed fish food left in the bowl in a laboratory hood
for two days (stirred occasionally) to allow the excess solvent to evaporate, or mixed in a rotary
evaporator bulb with continuous rotation. The excess solvent can be "blown" off under a stream of air
or nitrogen if necessary. Care should be taken to ensure that the test substance does not crystallise as
the solvent is removed. The spiked diet should be stored under conditions (e.g. refrigeration) that
maintain stability of the test chemical within the feed mix until use.
3. Calculation of assimilation efficiency and biomagnification factor
To calculate the assimilation efficiency, the overall depuration rate constant should first be
estimated according to section 4 of Annex 5 (using the "sequential method", i.e. standard linear
regression) using mean sample concentrations from the depuration phase. The feeding rate constant, I,
and uptake duration, t, are known parameters of the study. Cfood, the mean measured concentration of
the test substance in the food is a measured variable in the study. C0,d, the test substance concentration
in the fish at the end of the uptake phase, is usually derived from the intercept of a plot of
ln(concentration) vs. depuration day.
The chemical assimilation efficiency (α, absorption of test substance across the gut) is calculated
as:
305 OECD/OCDE
66
© OECD, (2012)
2
0,d 2
food
1
1 k t
C k
I C e
α −
⋅
= ⋅
⋅ −
[Equation A7.1]
where: C0,d = derived concentration in fish at time zero of the depuration phase (mg kg-1
);
k2 = overall (not growth-corrected) depuration rate constant (day-1
), calculated according
to equations in Annex 5, Section 3;
I = food ingestion rate constant (g food g-1
fish day-1
);
Cfood = concentration in food (mg kg-1
food);
t = duration of the feeding period (day)
However, the feeding rate, I, used in the calculation may need to be adjusted for fish growth to
give an accurate assimilation efficiency, α. In a test where fish grow significantly during the uptake
phase (in which no correction of feed quantities is made to maintain the set feeding rate), the effective
feeding rate as the uptake phase progresses will be lower than that set, resulting in a higher 'real'
assimilation efficiency. (Note this is not important for the overall calculation of BMF as the I terms
effectively cancel out between Equation A7.1 and Equation A7.4). The mean feeding rate corrected
for growth dilution, Ig, can be derived in several ways, but a straightforward and rigorous one is to use
the known growth rate constant (kg) to estimate the test fish weights at timepoints during the uptake
phase, i.e.:
g
f f,0( )
k t
W t W e
⋅
= × [Equation A7.2]
in which Wf(t) = mean fish weight at uptake day t
Wf,0 = mean fish weight at the start of the experiment
In this way (at least) the mean fish weight on the last day of exposure (Wf,end-of-uptake) can be
estimated. As the feeding rate was set based on Wf,0, the effective feeding rate for each day of uptake
can be calculated using these two weight values. The growth-corrected feeding rate, Ig (g food g-1
fish
day-1
), to use instead of I in cases of rapid growth during the uptake phase, can then be calculated as
f,0
g
f,end-of-uptake
I W
I
W
×
= [Equation A7.3]
Once the assimilation efficiency has been obtained, the BMF can be calculated by multiplying it
with the feeding rate constant I (or Ig, if used to calculate α) and dividing the product by the overall
depuration rate constant k2:
2
BMF
I
k
α×
= [Equation A7.4]
The growth-corrected biomagnification factor should also be calculated in the same way, using
the growth corrected depuration rate constant (as derived according to section 7 in Annex 5). Again,
if Ig has been used to calculate α, it should also be used here instead of I:
2g
BMF
I
k
α×
= [Equation A7.5]
where: α = assimilation efficiency (absorption of test substance across the gut);
OECD/OCDE 305
67
© OECD, (2012)
k2 = overall (not growth-corrected) depuration rate constant (day-1
), calculated according
to equations in Annex 5, Section 3;
k2g = growth-corrected depuration rate constant (day-1
);
I = food ingestion rate constant (g food g-1
fish day-1
);
The growth-corrected half-life (t1/2) is calculated as follows.
1/2
2g
0.693
t
k
= [Equation A7.6]
The chemical assimilation efficiency from the diet can also be estimated if tissue residues are
determined during the linear phase of the uptake phase (between days 1 and 3). In this case the
chemical assimilation efficiency (α) can be determined as follows
fish
food
( )C t
I C t
α =
× ×
[Equation A7.7]
Where Cfish(t) = the concentration of test substance in the fish at time t (mg kg-1
wet
weight).
4. Lipid correction
If lipid content was measured on the same fish as chemical analysis for all sampling intervals,
then individual concentrations should be corrected on a lipid basis and the ln(concentration, lipid
corrected) plotted against depuration (day) to give C0,d and k2. Assimilation efficiency (Equation A7.1)
can then be calculated on a lipid basis, using Cfood on a lipid basis (i.e. Cfood is multiplied by the mean
lipid fraction of the food). Subsequent calculation using Equation A7.4 and Equation A7.5 will give
the lipid-corrected (and growth-dilution corrected) BMF directly.
Otherwise, the mean lipid fraction (w/w) in the fish and in the food are derived for both treatment
and control groups (for food and control group fish this is usually from data measured at exposure start
and end; for treatment group fish this is usually from data measured at end of exposure only). In some
studies, fish lipid content may increase markedly; in such cases it is more appropriate to use a mean
test fish lipid concentration calculated from the measured values at the end of exposure and end of
depuration. In general, data from the treatment group only should be used to derive both of the lipid
fractions.
The lipid-correction factor (Lc) is calculated as:
fish
food
c
L
L
L
= [Equation A7.8]
where Lfish and Lfood are the mean lipid fractions in fish and food, respectively.
The lipid-correction factor is used to calculate the lipid-corrected biomagnification factor
(BMFL):
L
BMF
BMF
cL
= [Equation A7.9]
305 OECD/OCDE
68
© OECD, (2012)
5. Evaluation of differences between measured time zero concentration (C0,m) and derived
time zero concentration (C0,d)
The measured time zero concentration (C0,m) and derived time zero concentration (C0,d) should be
compared. If they are very similar, then this supports the first order model used to derive the
depuration parameters.
In some studies there may be a marked difference between the derived time zero value, C0,d, and
the mean measured time zero concentration. C0,m (see last bullet point of paragraph 159 of this
Guideline). If C0,d is very much lower than C0,m (C0,d << C0,m), the difference may suggest the presence
of undigested spiked food in the gut. This may be tested experimentally by conducting separate
analysis on the excised gut if additional (whole fish) samples were taken and stored at the end of the
uptake phase. Otherwise, if a statistically valid outlier test applied to the depuration phase linear
regression indicates that the first sample point of depuration is erroneously elevated, carrying out the
linear regression to derive k2 but omitting the first depuration concentration point may be appropriate.
In such cases, if the uncertainty in the linear regression is greatly decreased, and it is clear that
approximately first order depuration kinetics were obeyed, it may be appropriate to use the resulting
C0,d and k2 values in the assimilation efficiency calculation. This should be fully justified in the report.
It is also possible that non-first order kinetics were operating in the depuration phase. If this is likely
(i.e. the natural logarithm transformed data appear to follow a curve compared with the straight-line
linear regression plot), then the calculations of k2 and C0,d are unlikely to be valid and the advice of a
biostatician should be sought.
If C0,d is very much higher than the measured value (C0,d >> C0,m) this may indicate: that the
substance was depurated very fast (i.e. sampling points approached the limit of quantification of the
analytical method very early in the depuration phase, cf. Section 6 below); that there was a deviation
from first order depuration kinetics; that the linear regression to derive k2 and C0,d is flawed; or that a
problem with the measured concentrations in the study occurred at some sampling time points. In such
cases the linear regression plot should be scrutinised for evidence of samples at or near the limit of
quantification, for outliers and for obvious curvature (suggestive of non-first order kinetics), and
highlighted in the report. Any subsequent re-evaluation of the linear regression to improve estimated
values should be described and justified. If marked deviation from first order kinetics is observed, then
the calculations of k2 and C0,d are unlikely to be valid and the advice of a biostatician should be sought.
6. Guidance for very fast depurating test substances
As discussed in paragraph 129 of the Guideline, some substances may depurate so fast that a
reliable time zero concentration, C0,d, and k2 cannot be derived because in samples very early in the
depuration phase (i.e. from the second depuration sample onwards) the substance is effectively no
longer measured (concentrations reported at the limit of quantification). This situation was observed in
the ring test carried out in support of this test method with benzo[a]pyrene, and has been documented
in the validation report for the method. In such cases linear regression cannot be carried out reliably,
and is likely to give an unrealistically high estimate of C0,d, resulting in an apparent assimilation
efficiency much greater than 1. It is possible to calculate a conservative estimate of k2 and an "upper
bound" BMF in these instances.
Using those data points of the depuration phase where a concentration was measured, up to and
including the first “non-detect” concentration (concentration set at limit of quantification), a linear
regression (using natural logarithm transformed concentration data against time) will give an estimate
of k2. For these sorts of cases this is likely only to involve two data points (e.g. sample days 1 and 2 of
depuration) and then k2 can be estimated using Equation A5.22 in Annex 5. This k2 estimate can be
used to estimate an assimilation efficiency according to equation A7.1, substituting the C0,d value in
the equation with the measured time zero concentration (C0,m) in cases where C0,d is clearly estimated
to be much higher than could have been achievable in the test. If C0,m was not measureable, then the
OECD/OCDE 305
69
© OECD, (2012)
limit of detection in fish tissue should be used. If, in some cases, this gives a value of α > 1, then the
assimilation efficiency is assumed to 1 as a “worst case”.
The maximum BMFK can then be estimated using Equation A7.4, and should be quoted as a
"much less than" (<<) value. For example, for a study carried out with a feeding rate of 3% and a
depuration half-life less than 3 days, and a “worst case” α of 1, the BMFK is likely to be below about
0.13. Given the purpose of this estimation and the fact that values will be conservative in nature, it is
not necessary to correct them for growth dilution or fish and food lipid content.
305 OECD/OCDE
70
© OECD, (2012)
ANNEX 8
APPROACHES TO ESTIMATE TENTATIVE BCFS FROM DATA COLLECTED IN THE
DIETARY EXPOSURE STUDY
The dietary method is included in this guideline for the bioaccumulation testing of substances that
cannot in practice be tested using the aqueous exposure method. The aqueous exposure method gives a
bioconcentration factor, whereas the dietary method leads directly to information on feeding
biomagnification potential. In many chemical safety regimes information on aquatic bioconcentration
is required (for example in risk assessment and the Globally Harmonization System of Classification).
Hence there is a need to use the data generated in a dietary study to estimate a bioconcentration factor
that is comparable to tests conducted according to the OECD 305 aqueous exposure method(40
The dietary study measures depuration to give a depuration rate constant, k2. If an uptake rate
constant can be estimated with the available data for the situation where the fish had been exposed to
the test substance via the water, then a kinetic BCF could be estimated.
)
. This
section explores approaches that may be followed to do this, while recognising the shortcomings that
are inherent in the estimations.
The estimation of an uptake rate constant for water exposure of a test substance is reliant on
many assumptions, all of which will contribute to the estimate’s uncertainty. Furthermore, this
approach to estimating a BCF assumes that the overall rate of depuration (including contributory
factors like distribution in the body and individual depuration processes) is independent of the
exposure technique used to produce a test substance body burden.
The main assumptions inherent in the estimation approach can be summarised as follows.
• Depuration following dietary uptake is the same as depuration following aqueous exposure
for a given substance
• Uptake from water would follow first order kinetics
• Depending on the method used to estimate uptake:
- uptake can be correlated with fish weight alone
- uptake can be correlated with the substance’s octanol-water partition coefficient
alone
- uptake can be correlated with a combination of fish weight and the substance’s
octanol-water partition coefficient
(40) In the wild the route leading to greatest exposure in aqueous environments is likely to be through
ingestion for very hydrophobic substances and so an estimated BCF is not strictly representative of
such a substance’s bioaccumulation potential.
OECD/OCDE 305
71
© OECD, (2012)
- factors that can affect uptake in an aqueous exposure study in practice such as
substance bioavailability, adsorption to apparatus, molecular size etc. have little
effect
and, crucially:
• The database ("training set") used to develop the uptake estimation method is representative
of the substance under consideration
Several publications in the open literature have derived equations relating uptake from water in
fish via the gills to a substance’s octanol-water partition coefficient, fish weight (1) (2) (3) (4), volume
and/or lipid content, membrane permeation/diffusion (5) (6), fish ventilation volume (7) and by a
fugacity/mass balance approach (8) (9) (10). A detailed appraisal of such methods in this context is
given in Crookes & Brooke (11). A publication by Barber (12) focussed on modelling
bioaccumulation through dietary uptake is also useful in this context as it includes contributions from
gill uptake rate models. A section of the background document to the 2004 dietary protocol (13) was
also devoted to this aspect.
Most of these models seem to have been derived using limited databases. For models where
details of the database used to build the model are available, it appears that the types of substances
used are often of a similar structure or class (in terms of functionality, e.g. organochlorines). This adds
to the uncertainty in using a model to predict an uptake rate constant for a different type of substance,
in addition to test-specific considerations like species, temperature, etc.
A review of available techniques (11) highlighted that no one method is “more correct” than the
others. Therefore a clear justification should be given for the model used. Where several methods are
available for which the use can be justified, it may be prudent to present several estimates of k1 (and so
BCF) or a range of k1 values (and BCF) according to several uptake estimation methods. However,
given the differences in model types and datasets used to develop them, taking a mean value from
estimates derived in different ways would not be appropriate.
Some researchers have postulated that BCF estimates of this sort require a bioavailability
correction to account for a chemical’s adsorption to dissolved organic carbon (DOC) under aqueous
exposure conditions, to bring the estimate in line with results from aqueous exposure studies (e.g. (13)
(14)). However this correction may not be appropriate given the low levels of DOC required in an
aqueous exposure study for a 'worst case' estimate (i.e. ratio of bioavailable substance to substance as
measured in solution). For highly hydrophobic substances uptake at the gill may become limited by
the rate of passive diffusion near the gill surface; in this case it is possible that the correction may be
accounting for this effect rather than what it was designed for.
It is advised to focus on methods that require inputs for which data will be readily available for
substances tested according to the dietary study described here (i.e. log KOW, fish weight). Other
methods that require more complex inputs may be applied, but may need additional measurements in
the test or detailed knowledge on the test substance or fish species that may not be widely available. In
addition, choice of model may be influenced by the level of validation and applicability domain
(see (11)for a review and comparison of different methods).
It should be borne in mind that the resulting k1 estimate, and estimated BCF, are uncertain and
may need to be treated in a weight-of-evidence approach along with the derived BMF and substance
parameters (e.g. molecular size) for an overall picture of a substance’s bioaccumulation potential.
Interpretation and use of these parameters may depend on the regulatory framework.
305 OECD/OCDE
72
© OECD, (2012)
Literature
(1) Sijm D.T.H.M., Pärt P. and Opperhuizen A. (1993), The influence of temperature on the
uptake rate constants of hydrophobic compounds determined by the isolated perfused gills of
rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss). Aquat. Toxicol. 25: 1-14.
(2) Sijm D.T.H.M., Verberne M.E., Part P. and Opperhuizen A. (1994), Experimentally
determined blood and water flow limitations for uptake of hydrophobic compounds using
perfused gills of rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss): Allometric applications. Aquat.
Toxicol. 30: 325-341.
(3) Sijm D.T.H.M., Verberne M.E., de Jonge W.J., Pärt P. and Opperhuizen A. (1995),
Allometry in the uptake of hydrophobic chemicals determined in vivo and in isolated
perfused gills. Toxicol. Appl. Pharmacol. 131: 130-135.
(4) Barber M.C. (2003), A review and comparison of models for predicting dynamic chemical
bioconcentration in fish. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 22: 1963-1992.
(5) Opperhuizen A. (1986), Bioconcentration of hydrophobic chemicals in fish, in Aquatic
Toxicology and Environmental Fate, STP 921, Poston, T.M. and Purdy, R., Editors.
American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, PA, USA: 304-315.
(6) Arnot J.A. and Gobas F.A.P.C. (2004), A food web bioaccumulation model for organic
chemicals in aquatic ecosystems. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 23: 2343-2355.
(7) Thomann R.V. (1989), Bioaccumulation model of organic chemical distribution in aquatic
food chains. Environ. Sci. Technol. 23: 699-707.
(8) Hendriks A.J., van der Linde A., Cornelissen G. and Sijm D.T.H.M. (2001). The power of
size. 1. Rate constants and equilibrium ratios for accumulation of organic substances related
to octanol-water partition ratio and species weight. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 20: 1399-1420.
(9) Campfens J. and Mackay D. (1997), Fugacity-based model of PCB bioaccumulation in
complex aquatic food webs. Environ. Sci. Technol. 31: 577-583.
(10) Arnot J.A. and Gobas F.A.P.C. (2003), A generic QSAR for assessing the bioaccumulation
potential of organic chemicals in aquatic food webs. QSAR Comb. Sci. 22: 337-345.
(11) Crookes M. and Brooke D. (2010), Estimation of fish bioconcentration factor (BCF) from
depuration data. Draft Report. Environmental Agency, Bristol, UK.
(12) Barber M.C. (2008), Dietary uptake models used for modeling the bioaccumulation of
organic contaminants in fish. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 27: 755-777
(13) Anonymous (2004), Background document to the fish dietary study protocol, document
submitted to the TC-NES WG on PBT.
(14) Gobas F. and Morrison H. (2000), Bioconcentration and biomagnification in the aquatic
environment, in Handbook of property estimation methods for chemicals, Boethling, R.S.
and Mackay, D., Editors. Lewis Publishers, Boca Racton, FL, USA: 189-231.