Advertisement

Comparative Responses to Metal Oxide Nanoparticles in Marine Phytoplankton

  • Alexandra Castro-Bugallo
  • África González-Fernández
  • Cástor Guisande
  • Aldo Barreiro
Article

Abstract

A series of experiments was undertaken on three different marine microalgae to compare the effect of two metal oxide nanoparticles (NPs) on different physiological responses to stress: zinc oxide (ZnO), a known toxic compound for microalgae, and the never before tested yttrium oxide (Y2O3). The effect of these potential pollutants was estimated for different physiological variables and temporal scales: Growth, carbon content, carbon-to-nitrogen (C:N) ratio, and chlorophyll fluorescence were evaluated in long-term assays, and reactive oxygen species (ROS) production was evaluated in a short-term assay. Population growth was the most susceptible variable to the acute toxic effects of both NPs as measured in terms of number of cells and of biomass. Although Phaeodactylum tricornutum and Alexandrium minutum were negatively affected by ZnO NPs, this effect was not detected in Tetraselmis suecica, in which cell growth was significantly decreased by Y2O3 NPs. Biomass per cell was negatively affected in the most toxic treatments in T. suecica but was positively affected in A. minutum. ZnO treatments induced a sharper decrease in chlorophyll fluorescence and higher ROS than did Y2O3 treatments. The pronounced differences observed in the responses between the species and the physiological variables tested highlight the importance of analyzing diverse groups of microalgae and various physiological levels to determine the potential effects of environmental pollutants.

Keywords

Microalgae Reactive Oxygen Species Production Y2O3 Phaeodactylum Tricornutum Reactive Oxygen Species Detection 
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.

Notes

Acknowledgments

We thank Tamara Lozano and Mercedes Peleteiro for advice on flow cytometry. The research leading to these results has received funding from the European Union Seventh Framework Programme (FP7-NMP-SMALL-2) and (FP7/REGPOT-2012-2013.1) under grant agreements HINAMOX-228825 and BIOCAPS-316265, respectively.

References

  1. Ahner BA, Morel FMM (1995) Phytochelatin production in marine algae. 2. Induction by various metals. Limnol Oceanogr 40:658–665CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ahner BA, Wei L, Oleson JR, Ogura N (2002) Glutathione and other low molecular weight thiols in marine phytoplankton under metal stress. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 232:93–103CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Aruoja V, Dubourguier HC, Kasemets K, Kahru A (2009) Toxicity of nanoparticles of CuO, ZnO and TiO2 to microalgae Pseudokirchneriella subcapitata. Sci Total Environ 407:1461–1468CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bour G, Reinholdt A, Stepanov A, Keutgen C, Kreibig U (2001) Optical and electrical properties of hydrogenated yttrium nanoparticles. Eur Phys J D 16:219–223CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Brand LE, Sunda WG, Guillard RRL (1986) Reduction of marine phytoplankton reproduction rates by copper and cadmium. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 96:225–250CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Croot PL, Moffett JW, Brand LE (2000) Production of extracellular Cu complexing ligands by eucaryotic phytoplankton in response to Cu stress. Limnol Oceanogr 45:619–627CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cross SE, Innes B, Roberts MS, Tsuzuki T, Robertson TA, McCormick P (2007) Human skin penetration of sunscreen nanoparticles: in-vitro assessment of a novel micronized zinc oxide formulation. Skin Pharmacol Physiol 20:148–154CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Díaz B, Sánchez-Espinel C, Arruebo M, Faro J, de Miguel E, Magadán S et al (2008) Assessing methods for blood cell cytotoxic responses to inorganic nanoparticles and nanoparticle aggregates. Small 4:2025–2034CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Dietz KJ, Krämer U, Baier M (1999) Free radicals and reactive oxygen species as mediators of heavy metal toxicity. In: Prasad MNV, Hagemeyer J (eds) Heavy metal stress in plants: from molecules to ecosystem. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 73–97CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Domingues N, Matos AR, da Silva JM, Cartaxana P (2012) Response of the diatom Phaeodactylum tricornutum to photooxidative stress resulting from high light exposure. PLoS ONE 7:e38162CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Ebenezer V, Nancharaiah YV, Venugopalan VP (2012) Chlorination-induced cellular damage and recovery in marine microalga, Chlorella salina. Chemosphere 89:1042–1047CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Franklin NM, Rogers NJ, Apte SC, Batley GE, Gadd GE, Casey PS (2007) Comparative toxicity of nanoparticulate ZnO, bulk ZnO, and ZnCl2 to a freshwater microalga (Pseudokirchneriella subcapitata): the importance of particle solubility. Environ Sci Technol 41:8484–8490CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Gélabert A, Pokrovsky OS, Viers J, Schott J, Boudou A, Feurtet-Mazel A (2006) Interaction between zinc and freshwater and marine diatom species: surface complexation and Zn isotope fractionation. Geochim Cosmochim Acta 70:839–857CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Guillard RRL, Hargraves PE (1993) Stichochrysis immobilis is a diatom, not a chrysophyte. Phycologia 32:234–236Google Scholar
  15. Hiltunen TJ, Barreiro A, Hairston NG Jr (2012) Mixotrophy and the toxicity of Ochromonas in a pelagic food web. Freshw Biol 57:2262–2271CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hotze EM, Phenrat T, Lowry GV (2010) Nanoparticle aggregation: challenges to understanding transport and reactivity in the environment. J Environ Qual 39:1909–1924CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hund-Rinke K, Simon M (2006) Ecotoxic effect of photocatalytic active nanoparticles (TiO2) on algae and daphnids. Environ Sci Pollut Res Int 13:225–232CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hutchinson TC, Stokes PM (1975) Heavy metal toxicity and algal bioassays. Water Qual Parameter 573:320–343CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kawakami SK, Gledhill M, Achterberg EP (2006) Production of phytochelatins and glutathione by marine phytoplankton in response to metal stress. J Phycol 42:975–998CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Klaine SJ, Alvarez PJJ, Batley GE, Fernandes TF, Handy RD, Lyon DY et al (2009) Nanomaterials in the environment: behavior, fate, bioavailability, and effects. Environ Toxicol Chem 27:1825–1851CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kottuparambil S, Shin W, Brown MT, Han T (2012) UV-B affects photosynthesis, ROS production and motility of the freshwater flagellate, Euglena agilis Carter. Aquat Toxicol 122:206–213CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Leonardos N, Geider RJ (2005) Elemental and biochemical composition of Rhinomonas reticulate (Cryptophyta) in relation to light and nitrate-to-phosphate supply ratios. J Phycol 41:567–576CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Liu S, Xu L, Zhang T, Ren G, Yang Z (2010) Oxidative stress and apoptosis induced by nanosized titanium dioxide in PC12 cells. Toxicology 267:172–177CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Liufu S, Xiao H, Li Y (2004) Investigation of PEG adsorption on the surface of zinc oxide nanoparticles. Powder Technol 145:20–24Google Scholar
  25. Lozano T, Rey M, Rojas E, Moya S, Fleddermann J, Estrela-Lopis I et al (2011) Cytotoxicity effects of metal oxide nanoparticles in human tumor cell lines. J Phys Conf Ser 304:012046CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Macfie SM, Tarmohamed Y, Welbourn PM (1994) Effects of cadmium, cobalt, copper, and nickel on growth of the green alga Chlamydomonas reinhardtii: the influences of the cell wall and pH. Arch Environ Contam Toxicol 27:454–458CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Maeda S, Mizoguchi M, Ohki A, Takeshita T (1990) Bioaccumulation of zinc and cadmium in freshwater alga, Chlorella vulgaris. Part I. Toxicity and accumulation. Chemosphere 21:953–963CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Miao AJ, Zhang XY, Luo Z, Chen CS, Chin WC, Santschi PH et al (2010a) Zinc oxide-engineered nanoparticles: dissolution and toxicity to marine phytoplankton. Environ Toxicol Chem 29:2814–2822CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Miao AJ, Luo Z, Chen CS, Chin WC, Santschi PH, Quigg A (2010b) Intracellular uptake: a possible mechanism for silver engineered nanoparticle toxicity to a freshwater alga Ochromonas danica. PLoS ONE 5:e15196CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Miller RJ, Lenihan HS, Muller EB, Tseng N, Hanna SK, Keller AA (2010) Impacts of metal oxide nanoparticles on marine phytoplankton. Environ Sci Technol 44:7329–7334CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Moore MN (2006) Do nanoparticles present ecotoxicological risks for the health of the aquatic environment? Environ Int 32:967–976CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Mu L, Sprando RL (2010) Application of nanotechnology in cosmetics. Pharmacol Res 27:1746–1749CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Navarro E, Baun A, Behra R, Hartmann NB, Filser J, Miao AJ et al (2008a) Environmental behavior and ecotoxicity of engineered nanoparticles to algae, plants, and fungi. Ecotoxicology 17:372–386CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Navarro E, Piccapietra F, Wagner B, Marconi F, Kaegi R, Odzak N et al (2008b) Toxicity of silver nanoparticles to Chlamydomonas reinhardtii. Environ Sci Technol 42:8959–8964CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Neal AL (2008) What can be inferred from bacterium-nanoparticle interactions about the potential consequences of environmental exposure to nanoparticles? Ecotoxicology 17:362–371CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Nel A, Xia T, Mädler L, Li N (2006) Toxic potential of materials at the nanolevel. Science 311:622–627CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Oberdörster G, Oberdörster E, Oberdörster J (2005) Nanotoxicology: an emerging discipline evolving from studies of ultrafine particles. Environ Health Perspect 113:823–839CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Özkoc HB, Taylan ZS (2010) Assessment of various parameters of metal biology in marine microalgae Phaeodactylum tricornutum and Dunaliella tertiolecta. Fresenius Environ Bull 19(12):2981–2986Google Scholar
  39. Pal S, Tak YK, Song JM (2007) Does the antibacterial activity of silver nanoparticles depend on the shape of the nanoparticle? A study of the gram-negative bacterium Escherichia coli. Appl Environ Microbiol 73:1712–1720CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Pérez-Rama M, Abalde Alonso J, Herrero López C, Torres Vaamonde E (2002) Cadmium removal by living cells of the marine microalga Tetraselmis suecica. Bioresource Technol 84:265–270Google Scholar
  41. Rijstenbil JW, Derksen JWM, Gerringa LJA, Poortvliet TCW, Sandee A, Berg M et al (1994) Oxidative stress induced by copper: defense and damage in the marine planktonic diatom Ditylum brightwellii grown in continuous cultures with high and low zinc levels. Mar Biol 119:583–590CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Rodriguez-Moya M, Li D, Alvarez PJJ (2007) Inactivation of virus in water by nanoparticles under UV irradiation. In: Annual Meeting, Salt Lake City, UtahGoogle Scholar
  43. Schubert D, Dargusch R, Raitano J, Chan SW (2006) Cerium and yttrium oxide nanoparticles are neuroprotective. Biochem Biophys Res Commun 342:86–91CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Srinivasan R, Yogamalar R, Bose AC (2010) Structural and optical studies of yttrium oxide nanoparticles synthesized by co-precipitation method. Mater Res Bull 45:1165–1170CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Sunda WG, Huntsman SA (1996) Antagonisms between cadmium and zinc toxicity and manganese limitation in a coastal diatom. Limnol Oceanogr 41:373–387CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Sunda W, Kieber DJ, Kiene RP, Huntsman S (2002) An antioxidant function for DMSP and DMS in marine algae. Nature 418:317–320CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Tripathi BN, Gaur JP (2006) Physiological behavior of Scenedesmus sp. during exposure to elevated levels of Cu and Zn and after withdrawal of metal stress. Protoplasma 229:1–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Volk T, Hoffert MI (1985) Ocean carbon pumps: Analysis of relative strengths and efficiencies in ocean-driven atmospheric CO2 changes. In: Sundquist ET, Broecker WS (eds) The carbon cycle and atmospheric CO2: natural variations archean to present. Geophysical Monograph Series, vol 32. American Geophysical Union, Washington, DC, pp 99–110Google Scholar
  49. Wang ZL (2004) Zinc oxide nanostructures: growth, properties and applications. J Phys Condens Matter 16:R829–R858CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Weckx JEJ, Clijsters HMM (1997) Zn phytotoxicity induces oxidative stress in primary leaves of Phaseolus vulgaris. Plant Physiol Biochem 35:405–410Google Scholar
  51. Wigginton NS, Haus KL, Hochella MF Jr (2007) Aquatic environmental nanoparticles. J Environ Monit 9:1306–1316CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Wong SWY, Leung PT, Djurišić AB, Leung KM (2010) Toxicities of nano zinc oxide to five marine organisms: influences of aggregate size and ion solubility. Anal Bioanal Chem 396:609–618CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Xia T, Kovochich M, Liong M, Maëdler L, Gilbert B, Shi H et al (2008) Comparison of the mechanism of toxicity of zinc oxide and cerium oxide nanoparticles based on dissolution and oxidative stress properties. ACS Nano 2:2121–2134CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Xia T, Li N, Nel AE (2009) Potential health impact of nanoparticles. Annu Rev Public Health 30:137–150CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Yang L, Watts DJ (2005) Particle surface characteristics may play an important role in phytotoxicity of alumina nanoparticles. Toxicol Lett 158:122–132CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Alexandra Castro-Bugallo
    • 1
  • África González-Fernández
    • 2
  • Cástor Guisande
    • 1
  • Aldo Barreiro
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Ecology and Animal BiologyUniversity of VigoVigoSpain
  2. 2.Biomedical Research Center, Biomedical Research InstituteUniversity of VigoVigoSpain
  3. 3.CIIMAR/CIMAR - Interdisciplinary Centre of Marine and Environmental ResearchUniversity of PortoPortoPortugal

Personalised recommendations