Advertisement

The Sensitivity ofCeriodaphnia dubia andDaphnia magna to seven chemicals utilizing the three-brood test

  • U. M. Cowgill
  • D. P. Milazzo
Article

Abstract

This paper reports the sensitivity ofCeriodaphnia dubia andDaphnia magna to ethanol, acetone, phenol, 4-chlorophenol, trichloromethane, diethanolamine and chlorobenzene, utilizing the three-brood test. The endpoints examined include survival at 48 h and at the end of the three-blood test, total progeny, number of broods, mean brood size, and dry weight. The final calculated result was the LC50/EC50 or that concentration of the test solution that reduced the variable in question to 50% of that of the controls. Total progeny, number of broods and mean brood size provided results of the same order of magnitude for each compound for a specific organism. Dry weight proved to be a poor endpoint. The response ofC. dubia to six compounds failed to provide a determinable EC50 due to a lack of significance of the regression equation. In the case ofD. magna, only five of the seven compounds provided a determinable result for dry weight. Compared to the results based on total progeny, number of broods and mean brood size, dry weight results in the absolute sense forD. magna were less sensitive for ethanol, phenol, 4-chlorophenol, more sensitive for trichloromethane, and about the same for diethanolamine as were the results for total progeny. For both cladocerans, progeny was the most sensitive endpoint for ethanol. For the other six compounds, survival at the end of the three-brood test provided LC50/EC50 results of the same order of magnitude as progeny, number of broods and mean brood size. Finally, it was of interest to discover the differences, if any, between these two cladocerans and place their response in relation to those other organisms that have been so tested. The three brood test results forD. magna prove this organism to be most sensitive to four out of the seven compounds.

Keywords

Waste Water Phenol Trichloromethane Endpoint Water Pollution 
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.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Berner DB (1986) Taxonomy ofCeriodaphnia (Crustacea: Cladocera) in U.S. Environmental Protection Agency culture. EPA 600/4-86/032, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, OHGoogle Scholar
  2. Brooke LT, Call DJ, Geiger DL, Northcott CE (editors) (1984) Acute toxicity of organic chemicals to fathead minnow (Pimephales promelas). Vol. 1:35–38, 51–56Google Scholar
  3. Brooks HL and Gates DE (1972) Insecticides: A handbook for use with insect control recommendations. C-376 Kansas State University, Manhattan, KSGoogle Scholar
  4. Cowgill UM, Keating KI, Takahashi IT (1985) Fecundity and longevity ofCeriodaphnia dubia/affinis in relation to diet at two different temperatures. J Crus Biol5:420–429Google Scholar
  5. Cowgill UM, Milazzo DP (1989) New approach to the seven-dayCeriodaphnia dubia test with additional comments pertaining to the same test forDaphnia magna. Bull Environ Contam Toxicol 42:749–753PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Cowgill UM, Milazzo DP, Landenberger BD (1989) Toxicity of nine benchmark chemicals toSkeletonema costatum, a marine diatom. Environ Toxicol Chem 8:451–455Google Scholar
  7. Cowgill UM, Milazzo DP, Meagher CK (1988) New diet forCeriodaphnia dubia. Bull Environ Contam Toxicol 43:304–309Google Scholar
  8. Cowgill UM, Takahashi IT, Applegath SL (1985) A comparison of the effect of four benchmark chemicals onDaphnia magna andCeriodaphnia dubia-affinis tested at two different different temperatures. Environ Toxicol Chem 4:415–422Google Scholar
  9. Gersich FM, Blanchard FA, Applegath SL, Park CN (1986) The precision of daphnid (Daphnia magna Straus 1820) static acute toxicity tests. Arch Environ Contam Toxicol 15:741–749PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Gliwicz ZM (1990) Food thresholds and body size in cladocerans. Nature 343:638–640Google Scholar
  11. Mayes MA, Alexander HC, Dill DC (1983) A study to assess the influence of age on the response of fathead minnow in static acute toxicity tests. Bull Environ Contam Toxicol 31:139–147PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Mount DI, Norberg TJ (1984) A seven-day life-cycle cladoceran toxicity test. Environ Toxicol Chem 3:425–434Google Scholar
  13. Provasoli L (1968) Media and prospects for the cultivation of marine algae. In Watanabe A and Hattorc A (eds) Cultures and collections of algae. Proceeding of a United States-Japan Conference held at Hakone 1966, pp 63–75Google Scholar
  14. Provasoli L, Pintner IF (1953) Ecological implications of in vitro nutritional requirements of algal flagellates. Ann NY Acad Sci 56:839–851PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. SAS (1987) SAS/STAT Guide for personal computers, version 6th ed. SAS Institute Inc. Gary NC, pp 1–1028Google Scholar
  16. Stephan CE (1977) Methods for calculating an LC50. In Mayer FL and Hamelink JL (eds) Aquatic toxicology and hazard assessment. ASTM STP 634:65–84Google Scholar
  17. Takahashi IT, Cowgill UM, Murphy PG (1987) Comparison of ethanol toxicity toDaphnia magna andCeriodaphnia dubia tested at two different temperatures: static acute toxicity test results. Bull Environ Contam Toxicol 11:681–692Google Scholar
  18. Weber CI et al (1989) Short-term methods for estimating the chronic toxicity of effluents and receiving waters to freshwater organisms. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency EPA/600/4-89/001 (2nd Ed) Cincinnati, OHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag New York Inc. 1991

Authors and Affiliations

  • U. M. Cowgill
    • 1
  • D. P. Milazzo
    • 1
  1. 1.Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry Research LaboratoryThe Dow Chemical CompanyMidlandUSA

Personalised recommendations