Acute and chronic toxicity of endosulfan to two Australian cladocerans and their applicability in deriving water quality criteria

  • R. I. M. Sunderam
  • G. B. Thompson
  • J. C. Chapman
  • D. M. H. Cheng


The acute and chronic toxicity of endosulfan was determined in two Australian cladocerans, Ceriodaphnia dubia and Moinodaphnia macleayi. For C. dubia, the 48-h nominal EC50 (immobilization) was 490 μg/L and the chronic NOEC for reproductive impairment was 10 μg/L. For M. macleayi, the 48-h nominal EC50 (immobilization) was 215 μg/L, and the chronic NOEC was 20 μg/L. A water quality guideline for endosulfan based on cladoceran chronic toxicity may be estimated at 2 μg/L by using an application factor of 0.1 and the LOEC value for C. dubia of 20 μg/L. A much lower guideline of 4 ng/L may be obtained if the acute/chronic ratio calculated for C. dubia is applied to the lowest LC50 value determined for an Australian fish, 0.2 μg/L in the bony bream, Nematolosa erebi. This suggests that the concentration of endosulfan for Australian waters should be less than the level of 10 ng/L given in the Australian Water Quality guidelines for (fresh and marine waters) aquatic ecosystems. Factors which may modify these conclusions under site-specific conditions are discussed.


Water Quality Immobilization Aquatic Ecosystem Endosulfan Marine Water 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Alabaster JS (1969) Survival of fish in 164 herbicides, insecticides, fungicides, wetting agents and miscellaneous substances. Int Pest Control 11:29–35Google Scholar
  2. American Public Health Association (1985) Standard methods for the examination of water and wastewater, 10th ed. APHA, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  3. ANZECC (Australian and New Zealand Environment & Conservation Council) (1992) Australian Water Quality Guidelines for Fresh and Marine Waters. Australian & New Zealand Environment & Conservation Council, (ANZECC), Canberra, AustraliaGoogle Scholar
  4. Baird DJ, Barber I, Calow P (1990) Clonal variation in general responses of Daphnia magna Straus to toxic stress: I Chronic life-history effects. Funct Ecol 4:399–407Google Scholar
  5. Biesinger KE, Christensen GM (1972) Effects of various metals on survival, growth, reproduction, and metabolism of Daphnia magna. J Fish Res Board Can 29:1691–1700Google Scholar
  6. Butler PA (1963) A review of fish and wildlife service. Investigations during 1961 and 1962. In: George JL (ed) Commercial fisheries investigations. Pesticide-wildlife series. Circ. No. 167. United States Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Gulf Breeze, FL, pp 11–25Google Scholar
  7. CCREM, Canadian Council of Resource and Environment Ministers (1991) Canadian water quality guidelines. A protocol for the derivation of water quality guidelines for the protection of aquatic life. Appendix IX. Council of Resource and Environment Ministers. Inland Water Directorate, Environment Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, CanadaGoogle Scholar
  8. Elnabarawy MT, Welter AN, Robideau RR (1986) Relative sensitivity of three daphnid species to selected organic and inorganic chemicals. Environ Toxicol Chem 5:393–398Google Scholar
  9. Finney DJ (1948) The Fisher-Yates test of significance in 2×2 contingency tables. Biometrika 35:145–156Google Scholar
  10. Hamilton MA, Russo RC, Thurston RV (1977) Trimmed-Spearman-Karber method for estimating median lethal concentrations in toxicity bioassay. Environ Sci Technol 11:714–719. Correction: 12 (1978):417Google Scholar
  11. Julli M, Chapman J, Thompson GT (1990) Use of Australian cladocerans to generate life-cycle toxicity data. Environ Monitor Assess 14:353–362Google Scholar
  12. Lemke AE (1980) Comprehensive report. Interlaboratory comparison of acute testing set. U.S. EPA, Environ. Res. Lab., Duluth, Minnesota. In: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (1980) Ambient water quality criteria for endosulfan. USEPA, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  13. McLeese DW, Metcalfe CD (1980) Toxicities of eight organochlorine compounds in sediment and seawater to Crangon septemspinosa. Bull Environ Contam Toxicol 25:921–928Google Scholar
  14. Macek KJ, Hutchinson C, Cope OB (1969) The effects of temperature on the susceptibility of bluegills and rainbow trout to selected pesticides. Bull Environ Contam Toxicol 4:174–183Google Scholar
  15. Macek KJ, Lindberg MA, Scott S, Bauston KS, Costa PA (1976) Toxicity of four pesticides to water fleas and fathead minnows: Acute and chronic toxicity of acrolein, heptachlor, endosulfan and trifluralin to the water flea (Daphnia magna) and the fathead minnow (Pimephales promelas). EPA-600/3–76–099. United States Environmental Protection Agency Duluth, MN, 57 ppGoogle Scholar
  16. Magdza CHD (1983) Toxicity of endosulfan to some aquatic organisms of Southern Africa. Zimbabwe J Agric Res 21:159–165Google Scholar
  17. Mann R (1989) Water quality in the Boobera Lagoon-Morella Watercourse Area. State Pollution Control Commission, Sydney, 12 ppGoogle Scholar
  18. Nebeker AV (1982) Evaluation of a Daphnia magna renewal life-cycle test method with silver and endosulfan. Water Res 16:739–744Google Scholar
  19. Nebeker AV, McCrady JK, Mshar R, McAuliffe CK (1983) Relative sensitivity of Daphnia magna, rainbow trout, Salmo gairdneri and fathead minnows, Pimephales promelas to endosulfan. Environ Toxicol Chem 2:69–72Google Scholar
  20. Nowak B, Julli M (1991) Residues of endosulfan in wild fish from cotton growing areas in New South Wales, Australia. Toxicol Environ Chem 33:151–167Google Scholar
  21. Peterson SM, Batley GE (1991) Fate and transport of endosulfan and diuron in aquatic ecosystems. AWRAC Project No. 88/20 Final Report. Centre for Advanced Analytical Chemistry, CSIRO Division of Coal and Energy Technology, Menai, NSW, Australia, 103 ppGoogle Scholar
  22. Schimmel SC, Patrick JM Jr, Wilson A J Jr (1977) Acute toxicity to and bioconcentration of endosulfan by estuarine animals. In: Mayer FL, Hamelink JL (eds) Aquatic toxicology and hazard evaluation. ASTM STP 634. Am Soc Test Mater, Philadelphia, pp 241–252Google Scholar
  23. Schoettger RA (1970) Investigations in fish control: toxicology of Thiodan in several fish and aquatic invertebrates. Rep U.S. Dept Int Fish Wildlife Serv 35, United States Department of Interior, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  24. Sunderam RIM (1990) Toxicology of endosulfan in Australian freshwater ecosystems. M Appl Sci thesis, University of Technology, Sydney, AustraliaGoogle Scholar
  25. Sunderam RIM, Cheng DMH, Thompson GB (1992) Toxicity of endosulfan to native and introduced fish in Australia. Environ Toxicol Chem 11:1469–1476Google Scholar
  26. Vijayakumari P, Reddy DC, Ramamurthi R (1987) Acute toxicity of endosulfan to crab: Effect on transport property of haemocyanin. Bull Environ Contam Toxicol 38:742–747Google Scholar
  27. USEPA, US Environmental Protection Agency (1986) Quality criteria for water 1986. EPA 440/5–86–001. Office of Water Regulations and Standards, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  28. — (1989) Short-term methods for estimating the chronic toxicity of effluents and surface waters to freshwater organisms. EPA/600/4–89/001. Environmental Monitoring Systems Laboratory, Cincinnati, OHGoogle Scholar
  29. Zar JH (1974) Biostatistical analysis. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 620 ppGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag New York Inc. 1994

Authors and Affiliations

  • R. I. M. Sunderam
    • 1
  • G. B. Thompson
    • 1
  • J. C. Chapman
    • 1
  • D. M. H. Cheng
    • 2
  1. 1.Ecotoxicology Section, NSWEnvironment Protection Authority, EPA/UTS Centre for Environmental Toxicology, UTSGore HillAustralia
  2. 2.Centre for Environmental Toxicology, Department of Applied BiologyUniversity of Technology SydneyGore HillAustralia

Personalised recommendations