Advertisement

Chironomus sancticaroli (Diptera, Chironomidae) as a Sensitive Tropical Test Species in Laboratory Bioassays Evaluating Metals (Copper and Cadmium) and Field Testing

  • Carolina Buso Dornfeld
  • Suzelei RodgherEmail author
  • Rogério Galante Negri
  • Evaldo Luiz Gaeta Espíndola
  • Michiel A. Daam
Article

Abstract

Despite that chironomids are the most widely used benthic insect test species worldwide, little research has been conducted so far with tropical chironomid representatives. This study was designed to evaluate the indigenous midge Chironomus sancticaroli as a candidate test species for use in tropical toxicity assessments. To this end, laboratory water-only toxicity tests were conducted evaluating copper and cadmium. Obtained lethal concentration values were overall comparable or lower than those reported for other chironomids, including those most commonly used in temperate regions (C. riparius and C. dilutus). In addition, C. sancticaroli was deployed in situ in the Monjolinho River (São Paulo State, Brazil), and toxicity of sediment from this river was evaluated in the laboratory. Several field water and sediment quality parameters also were measured to enable correlating these with the effects observed in these toxicity tests. Field sediment toxicity to C. sancticaroli appeared to be related with sediment endosulfan concentrations, whereas effects noted in the in situ test were likely due to low pH values measured in river water. Chironomus sancticaroli appears to be a suitable candidate for inclusion as a test species in tropical toxicity evaluations in both the laboratory and the field.

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors are grateful to the Brazilian research support agency CAPES (Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento Pessoal de Nivel Superior) for the doctoral scholarship given to the second author and to the São Paulo State Research Support Foundation (FAPESP: Process 10494-6/2002) for financial support. This work also was supported by the Brazilian government through the Special Visiting Researcher program (MEC/MCTI/CAPES/CNPq/FAPs reference 402392/2013-2) and the Portuguese government (FCT) through a postdoc grant for the last author (SFRH/BPD/109199/2015) and the research unit UID/AMB/04085/2013 (CENSE).

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Abdo SAS, Salmah MRCS, Hassan AA, Azizah MNS (2011) Evaluation of mentum deformities of Chironomus spp. (Chironomidae: Diptera) larvae using modified toxic score index (MTSI) to assess the environmental stress in Juru River Basin, Penang, Malaysia. Environ Monit Assess 177:233–244CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. ABNT (2016) Análise granulométrica de solos. NBR7181. Associação Brasileira de Normas Técnicas, Rio de JaneiroGoogle Scholar
  3. AGROFIT (2018) Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock and Supply in Brazil. http://agrofit.agricultura.gov.br/agrofit_cons/principal_agrofit_cons. Accessed 2 Mar 2018
  4. APHA/AWWA/WCPF (1995) Standard methods for examination of water and wastewater, 20th edn. American Public Health Association; American Water Work Association; Water Control Federation, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  5. Bentivegna CS, Alfano JE, Bugel SM, Czechowicz K (2004) Influence of sediment characteristics on heavy metal toxicity in an Urban Marsh. Urban Habitats 2:91–111Google Scholar
  6. Burton GA Jr, Denton DL, Ho K, Ireland DS (2003) Sediment toxicity testing: issues and methods. In: Hoffman DJ, Rattner GA, Burton GA Jr, Cairns J Jr (eds) Handbook of ecotoxicology. Lewis Publishers, New York, pp 111–150Google Scholar
  7. Campagna AF, Fracácio R, Rodrigues BK, Eler MN, Verani NF, Espíndola ELG (2008) Analyses of the sediment toxicity of Monjolinho River, São Carlos, São Paulo State, Brazil, using survey, growth and gil morphology of two fish species. Braz Arch Biol Technol 51:193–201CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Campanha MB, Awan AT, de Sousa DNR, Grosseli GM, Mozeto AA, Fadini PS (2015) A 3-year study on occurrence of emerging contaminants in an urban stream of São Paulo State of Southeast Brazil. Environ Sci Pollut Res 22:7936–7947CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cardwell AS, Adams WJ, Gensemer RW, Nordheim E, Santore RC, Ryan AC, Stubble WA (2018) Chronic toxicity of aluminum, at a pH of 6, to freshwater organisms: empirical data for the development of international regulatory standards/criteria. Environ Toxicol Chem 37:36–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Daam MA, Rico A (2016) Freshwater shrimps as sensitive test species for the risk assessment of pesticides in the tropics. Environ Sci Pollut Res.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-016-7451-1 Google Scholar
  11. Daam MA, Van den Brink PJ (2010) Implications of differences between temperate and tropical freshwater ecosystems for the ecological risk assessment of pesticides. Ecotoxicology 19:24–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Di Veroli F, Santoro M, Pallottini R, Selvaggi F, Scardazza D, Cappelletti E, Goretti J (2014) Deformities of chironomid larvae and heavy metal pollution: from laboratory to field studies. Chemosphere 112:9–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Domingues I, Satapornvanit K, Yakupitiyage A, Soares AMVM (2008) In situ assay with the midge Kiefferulus calligaster for contamination evaluation in aquatic agro-systems in central Thailand. Chemosphere 71:1877–1887CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. EFSA (2013) Guidance on tiered risk assessment for plant protection products for aquatic organisms in the edge-of-field surface waters. EFSA J 11:3290Google Scholar
  15. EFSA (2015) Scientific opinion on the effect assessment for pesticides on sediment organisms in edge-of-field surface water. EFSA J 13:41–76Google Scholar
  16. Fargasová A (2001) Winter third-to fourth-instar larvae of Chironomus plumosus as bioassay tools for assessment of acute toxicity of metals and their binary combinations. Ecotoxicol Environ Saf 48:1–5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Fonseca AL, Rocha O (2004) Laboratory cultures of the native species Chironomus xanthus Rempel, 1939 (Diptera-Chironomidae). Acta Limnol Bras 16:153–161Google Scholar
  18. Fracácio R, Rodriguês BK, Campagna AF, Verani NF, Dornfeld CB, Espíndola ELG (2009) In situ and laboratory evaluation of toxicity with Danio rerio Buchanan (1822) and Poecilia reticulata Peters (1859). Acta Limnol Bras 21:111–122Google Scholar
  19. GFA (2004) Endosulfan. Draft Dossier prepared in support of a proposal of endosulfan to be considered as a candidate for inclusion in the UN-ECE LRTAP protocol on persistent organic pollutants. Germany Federal Agency, GermanyGoogle Scholar
  20. Gillis PL, Wood CM (2008) Investigating a potential mechanism of Cd resistance in Chironomus riparius larvae using kinetic analysis of calcium and cadmium uptake. Aquat Toxicol 89:180–187CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Gulley DD, Boelter AM, Bergman HL (1994) Toxtat 3.4 computer programGoogle Scholar
  22. Hamilton MA, Russo RC, Thurston RV (1977) Trimmed Spearman-Karber method for estimating median lethal concentrations in toxicity bioassays. Environ Sci Technol 11:714–719CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Khosrovyan A, DelValls TA, Ribas I (2014) Effects of simulated CO2 escape from sediments on the development of midge Chironomus riparius. Aquat Toxicol 156:230–239CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kozlova T, Wood CM, McGeer JC (2009) The effect of water chemistry on the acute toxicity of nickel to the cladoceran Daphnia pulex and the development of a biotic ligand model. Aquat Toxicol 91:221–228CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Lanças FM (1997) Extração em fase sólida. University of São Paulo, São CarlosGoogle Scholar
  26. Leonard EM, Wood CM (2013) Acute toxicity, critical body residues, Michaelis–Menten analysis of bioaccumulation, and ionoregulatory disturbance in response to waterborne nickel in four invertebrates: Chironomus riparius, Lymnaea stagnalis, Lumbriculus variegatus and Daphnia pulex. Comp Biochem Physiol C: Toxicol Pharmacol 158:10–21Google Scholar
  27. Ma Y, Qin Y, Zheng BH, Zhang L, Zhao YM (2011) Seasonal variation of enrichment, accumulation and sources of heavy metals in suspended particulate matter and surface sediments in the Daliao river and Daliao river estuary, Northeast China. Environ Earth Sci 73:5107–5117CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Majumdar TN, Gupta A (2012) Acute and chronic toxicity of copper on aquatic insect Chironomus ramosus from Assam, India. J Environ Biol 33:139–142Google Scholar
  29. Martínez-Jerónimo F, Cruz-Cisneros JL, García-Hernández L (2008) A comparison of the response of Simocephalus mixtus (Cladocera) and Daphnia magna to contaminated freshwater sediments. Ecotoxicol Environ Saf 71:26–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Milani D, Reynoldson TB, Borgmann U, Kolasa J (2003) The relative sensitivity of four benthic invertebrates to metals in spiked-sediment exposures and application to contaminated field sediment. Environ Toxicol Chem 22:845–854CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Moiseenko TI, Gashkina NA (2018) Biogeochemistry of cadmium: anthropogenic dispersion, bioaccumulation, and ecotoxicity. Geochem Int 5:798–811CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Moreira RA, Daam MA, Vieira BH, Sanches ALM, Reghini MV, Mansano AS, Freitas EC, Espindola ELG, Rocha O (2017) Toxicity of abamectin and difenoconazole mixtures to a Neotropical cladoceran after simulated run-off and spray drift exposure. Aquat Toxicol 185:58–66CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Moreira-Santos M, Fonseca AL, Moreira SM, Osten JRV, Da Silva EM, Soares AMVM, Guilhermino LRR (2005) Short-term sublethal (sediment and aquatic roots of floating macrophytes) assays with a tropical chironomid based on postexposure feeding and biomarkers. Environ Toxicol Chem 24:2234–2242CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Novelli A, Vieira BH, Cordeiro D, Cappelini LTD, Vieira EM, Espindola ELG (2012) Lethal effects of abamectin on the aquatic organisms Daphnia similis, Chironomus xanthus and Danio rerio. Chemosphere 86:36–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. OECD (2011) Chironomus sp., acute immobilisation test. OECD guideline for the testing of chemicals, No. 235. Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, Paris, FranceGoogle Scholar
  36. Peck MR, Klessa DA, Baird DJ (2002) A tropical sediment toxicity test using the dipteran Chironomus crassiforceps to test metal bioavailability with sediment pH change in tropical acid-sulfate sediments. Environ Toxicol Chem 21:720–728Google Scholar
  37. Pinder LCV (1986) Biology of freshwater Chironomidae. Ann Rev Entomol 31:1–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Printes LB, Fernandes MN, Espíndola ELG (2011) Laboratory measurements of biomarkers and individual performances in Chironomus xanthus to evaluate pesticide contamination of sediments in a river of southeastern Brazil. Ecotoxicol Environ Saf 74:424–430CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Rempel JG (1939) Neue Chironomiden aus Nordostbrasilien. Zool Anz 127:209–216Google Scholar
  40. Riani E, Sudarso Y, Cordova M (2014) Heavy metals effect on unviable larvae of Dicrotendipes simpsoni (Diptera: Chironomidae), a case study from Saguling Dam, Indonesia. AACL Bioflux 7:76–84Google Scholar
  41. Richardson JS, Hall KJ, Kiffney PM, Smith JA, Keen P (1998) Ecological impacts of contaminants in an urban watershed. DOE FRAP 1998-25. Environment Canada, VancouverGoogle Scholar
  42. Roberta B, Benedetta P, Silvia Q (2014) An ecotoxicological approach to assess the environmental quality of freshwater basins: a possible implementation of the EU water framework directive? Environments 1:92–106CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Rodgher S, Espíndola ELG, Lombardi AT (2010) Suitability of Daphnia similis as an alternative organism in ecotoxicological tests: implications for metal toxicity. Ecotoxicology 19:1027–1033CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Roig N, Sierra J, Nadal M, Nieto E, Hampel M, Gallego EP, Schuhmacher M, Blasco J (2015) Assessment of sediment ecotoxicological status as a complementary tool for the evaluation of surface water quality: the Ebro river basin case study. Sci Total Environ 503–504:269–278CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Santore RC, Ryan AC, Kroglund F, Rodriguez PH, Stubblefield WA, Cardwell A, Nordheim E (2018) Development and application of a biotic ligand model for predicting the chronic toxicity of dissolved and precipitated aluminium to aquatic organisms. Environ Toxicol Chem 37:70–79CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Shuhaimi-Othman M, Yakub N, Umirah NS, Abas A (2011) Toxicity of eight metals to Malaysian freshwater midge larvae Chironomus javanus (Diptera Chironomidae). Toxicol Ind Health 27:879–886CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Silvério PF, Fonseca AL, Botta-Paschoal CMR, Mozeto AA (2005) Release, bioavailability and toxicity of metals in lacustrine sediments: a case study of reservoirs and lakes in Southeast Brazil. Aquat Ecosyst Health Manag 8:313–322CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Sotero-Santos RB, Rocha O, Povinelli J (2007) Toxicity of ferric chloride sludge to aquatic organisms. Chemosphere 68:628–636CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Tachet H, Richoux P, Bournaud M, Usseglio-Polatera P (2010) Invertébrés d’eau douce: systématique, biologie, écologie. CNRS, ParisGoogle Scholar
  50. Tonietto AE, Lombardi AT, Viera AAH, Parrish CC, Choueri RB (2014) Cylindrospermopsis raciborskii (Cyanobacteria) exudates; Chemical characterization and complexation capacity for Cu, Zn, Cd and Pb. Water Res 49:381–390CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Trindade M (1980) Nutrientes em sedimento da represa do Lobo (Brotas/Itirapina, SP). Dissertation, Federal University of São CarlosGoogle Scholar
  52. Trivinho-Strixino S, Correia LCS, Sonoda K (2000) Phytophilous chironomidae (Diptera) and other macroinvertebrates in the oxbow Infernão Lake (Jataí Ecological Station, Luiz Antônio, SP, Brazil). Rev Bras Biol 60:527–535CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. US-EPA (1996) Test methods for evaluating solid waste, physical/chemical methods. EPSW-8463. United States Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  54. US-EPA (2000) Methods for measuring the toxicity and bioaccumulation of sediment-associated contaminants with freshwater invertebrates, 2nd edn. United States Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, USAGoogle Scholar
  55. Vasconcelos AM, Daam MA, Santos LRAS, Sanches ALM, Araújo CVM, Espíndola ELG (2016) Acute and chronic sensitivity, avoidance behavior and sensitive life stages of bullfrog tadpoles exposed to the biopesticide abamectin. Ecotoxicology 25:500–509CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Vogt C, Heß M, Nowak C, Diogo JB, Oehlmann J, Oetken M (2010) Effects of cadmium on life-cycle parameters in a multi-generation study with Chironomus riparius following a pre-exposure of populations to two different tributyltin concentrations for several generations. Ecotoxicology 19:1174–1182CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Watts MM, Pascoe DA (2000) Comparative study of Chironomus riparius Meigen and Chironomus tentans Fabricius (Diptera: Chironomidae) in aquatic toxicity tests. Arch Environ Contam Toxicol 39:299–306CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Weltje L, Rufli H, Heimbach F, Wheeler J, Vervliet-Scheebaum M, Hamer M (2010) The chironomid acute toxicity test: development of a new test system. Integr Environ Assess Manag 6:301–307Google Scholar
  59. Wetzel RG (2001) Limnology lake and river ecosystems, 3rd edn. Elsevier, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  60. Yang YY, Toor GS, Williams CF (2015) Pharmaceuticals and organochlorine pesticides in sediments of an urban river in Florida, USA. J Soils Sediments 15:993–1004CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Carolina Buso Dornfeld
    • 1
  • Suzelei Rodgher
    • 2
    Email author
  • Rogério Galante Negri
    • 2
  • Evaldo Luiz Gaeta Espíndola
    • 3
  • Michiel A. Daam
    • 4
  1. 1.Department of Biology and Animal ScienceSão Paulo State University (UNESP)Ilha SolteiraBrazil
  2. 2.Institute of Science and TechnologySão Paulo State University (UNESP)São José dos CamposBrazil
  3. 3.NEEA/CRHEA/SHS, São Carlos Engineering SchoolUniversity of São PauloSão CarlosBrazil
  4. 4.CENSE, Department of Environmental Sciences and Engineering, Faculty of Sciences and TechnologyNew University of LisbonCaparicaPortugal

Personalised recommendations