LAUSR

Phytoplankton blooms in the northern San Francisco Bay Estuary have historically supported much of the larval fish production in the estuary. In the past, blooms were limited largely by reduced light intensities and net outflows through the system, as well as dense populations of introduced clams that continuously filter the water column. Conversely, the estuary is exposed to a wide variety of contaminants that may also impact phytoplankton growth. Interestingly, previous investigations have suggested that relatively low concentrations of ammonium may inhibit development of bloom conditions by interfering with nitrate assimilation. Given the complex dynamics of the system, with multiple factors that could potentially affect algal growth, additional data to validate this hypothesis are important to identify appropriate management options. Consequently, toxicity identification evaluation (TIE) procedures were applied to ambient water samples and monitored for 72–96 h under controlled conditions to evaluate their effects on algal growth and utilization of dissolved inorganic nitrogen. The TIE treatments specifically targeted ammonium, as well as the potential contributions of metals and nonpolar organic contaminants. Notably, all samples exhibited positive growth over the exposure period with no evidence of toxicity, and TIE treatments did not further improve growth. A subsequent 72‐h study evaluated the effect of ammonium up to 12 µM at a fixed concentration of nitrate was monitored at 24‐h intervals and showed no inhibition of the development of bloom conditions. Collectively, there was no evidence that ammonium interfered with growth, even at concentrations well above the range of postulated effect levels. Of additional interest, the lack of increased growth in TIE treatments targeting chelatable metals and nonpolar organics suggested that these contaminant classes were not present at inhibitory concentrations. These results demonstrate the importance of validation of cause in multistressor environments, and further clarify the roles of different factors that may limit development of bloom conditions in the estuary. Environ Toxicol Chem 2023;42:178–190. © 2022 SETAC