Impact assessment of modified clay on embryo–larval stages of turbot Scophthalmus maximus L.

  • Yue Zhang
  • Xiuxian SongEmail author
  • Zhiming Yu
  • Peipei Zhang
  • Xihua Cao
  • Yongquan Yuan


Using modified clay is one of the most promising methods for the mitigation of harmful algal blooms (HABs). However, the environmental impact of modified clay has become a subject of global concern. In this study, turbot ( Scophthalmus maximus L.) embryos were used as a model to assess the effect of modified clay on this sensitive stage of fish development. Results show that the 24 and 48h LC50 (median lethal concentrations) of the modified clay were 1.70 and 1.65 g/L, and the safe concentration was 0.47 g/L, which is much higher than the concentration used to treat HAB. The modified clay did not affect significantly the hatchability of turbot embryos but when the concentration exceeded 0.50 g/L, the deformity rate of newly hatched larvae increased significantly. The total length, specific growth rate (SGR) and yolk sac absorption rate of larvae reached their peaks at 0.50 g/L and then gradually decreased as the concentration of modified clay increased. Therefore, a moderate amount of modified clay does not harm the survival and hatching of turbot embryos, or the growth and development of newly hatched larvae.


modified clay turbot embryo larvae survival growth 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.



We would like to thank Dr. YOU Feng for her valuable advice during the experiment.


  1. American Society for Testing and Materials. 1992. Standard guide for conducting the frog embryo teratogenesis assay–Xenopus (FETAX). In: American Society for Testing and Materials ed. Annual Book of ASTM Standards. Philadelphia: American Society for Testing and Materials. p.1 199–1 209.Google Scholar
  2. Anderson D M, Glibert P M, Burkholder J M. 2002. Harmful algal blooms and eutrophication: nutrient sources, composition, and consequences. Estuaries, 25(4): 704–726.Google Scholar
  3. Anderson D M. 1997. Turning back the harmful red tide. Nature, 388(6642): 513–514.Google Scholar
  4. Archambault M C, Bricelj V M, Grant J, Anderson D M. 2004. Effects of suspended and sedimented clays on juvenile hard clams, Mercenaria mercenaria, within the context of harmful algal bloom mitigation. Marine Biology, 144(3): 553–565.Google Scholar
  5. Attramadal K J K, Tøndel B, Salvesen I, Øie G, Vadstein O, Olsen Y. 2012. Ceramic clay reduces the load of organic matter and bacteria in marine fish larval culture tanks. Aquacultural Engineering, 49: 23–34.Google Scholar
  6. Barcarolli I F, Martinez C B R. 2004. Effects of aluminum in acidic water on hematological and physiological parameters of the neotropical fish Leporinus macrocephalus (Anostomidae). Bulletin of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology, 72(3): 639–646.Google Scholar
  7. Bruno D W, Dear G, Seaton D D. 1989. Mortality associated with phytoplankton blooms among farmed Atlantic salmon, Salmo salar L., in Scotland. Aquaculture, 78 (3–4): 217–222.Google Scholar
  8. Cao L, Huang W, Shan X X, Xiao Z Z, Wang Q Y, Dou S Z. 2009. Cadmium toxicity to embryonic–larval development and survival in red sea bream Pagrus major. Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety, 72(7): 1 966–1 974.Google Scholar
  9. Chai S L, Robinson J, Chong Mei F C. 2014. A review on application of flocculants in wastewater treatment. Process Safety and Environmental Protection, 92(6): 489–508.Google Scholar
  10. Dambal V Y, Selvan K P, Lite C, Barathi S, Santosh W. 2017. Developmental toxicity and induction of vitellogenin in embryo–larval stages of zebrafish (Danio rerio) exposed to methyl Paraben. Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety, 141: 113–118.Google Scholar
  11. Delegrange A, Vincent D, Duret M, Amara R. 2015. The use of mussels for mitigating the noxious effect of phytoplankton spring blooms on farmed fish. Aquacultural Engineering, 66: 52–61.Google Scholar
  12. Finney D J. 1971. Probit Analysis. 3 rd edn. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. p.197–199.Google Scholar
  13. Fraysse B, Mons R, Garric J. 2006. Development of a zebrafish 4–day toxicity of embryo–larval bioassay to assess chemicals. Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety, 63(2): 253–267.Google Scholar
  14. Gao Y H, Yu Z M, Song X X, Cao X X. 2007. Impact of modified clays on the infant oyster (Crassostrea gigas). Marine Science Bulletin, 26: 53–60. (in Chinese with English abstract)Google Scholar
  15. Gibbs M, Özkundakci D. 2011. Effects of a modified zeolite on P and N processes and fluxes across the lake sedimentwater interface using core incubations. Hydrobiologia, 661(1): 21–35.Google Scholar
  16. Greig S M, Sear D A, Smallman D, Carling P A. 2005. Impact of clay particles on the cutaneous exchange of oxygen across the chorion of Atlantic salmon eggs. Journal of Fish Biology, 66(6): 1 681–1 691.Google Scholar
  17. Hamm J T, Hinton D E. 2000. The role of development and duration of exposure to the embryotoxicity of diazinon. Aquatic Toxicology, 48(4): 403–418.Google Scholar
  18. Harvard University. 2007.A summary of error propagation. Physical Sciences 2. Scholar
  19. Hugh A. Poston. 1991. Effects of dietary aluminum on growth and composition of young Atlantic salmon. North American Journal of Aquaculture, 53(1): 7–10.Google Scholar
  20. James R, Sampath K. 1999. Effect of zeolite on the reduction of cadmium toxicity in water and a freshwater fish, Oreochromis mossambicus. Bulletin of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology, 62(2): 222–229.Google Scholar
  21. Jezierska B, Ługowska K, Witeska M. 2009. The effects of heavy metals on embryonic development of fish (a review). Fish Physiology and Biochemistry, 35(4): 625–640.Google Scholar
  22. Jia Y D, Meng Z, Liu X F, Lei J L. 2014. Biochemical composition and quality of turbot (Scophthalmus maximus) eggs throughout the reproductive season. Fish Physiology and Biochemistry, 40(4): 1 093–1 104.Google Scholar
  23. Jin D, Thunberg E, Hoagland P. 2008. Economic impact of the 2005 red tide event on commercial shellfish fisheries in New England. Ocean & Coastal Management, 51(5): 420–429.Google Scholar
  24. Kent M L, Whyte J N C, Latrace C. 1995. Gill lesions and mortality in seawater pen–reared Atlantic salmon Salmo salar associated with a dense bloom of Skeletonema costatum and Thalassiosira species. Diseases of Aquatic Organisms, 22(1): 77–81.Google Scholar
  25. Kim W S, Oh M J, Jung S J, Kim Y J, Kitamura S I. 2005. Characterization of an iridovirus detected from cultured turbot Scophthalmus maximus in Korea. Diseases of Aquatic Organisms, 64(2): 175–180.Google Scholar
  26. Landsberg J H. 2002. The effects of harmful algal blooms on aquatic organisms. Reviews in Fisheries Science, 10(2): 113–390.Google Scholar
  27. Larkin S L, Adams C M. 2007. Harmful algal blooms and coastal business: economic consequences in Florida. Society & Natural Resource, 20(9): 849–859.Google Scholar
  28. Larraza I, Peinado C, Abrusci C, Catalina F, Corrales T. 2011. Hyperbranched polymers as clay surface modifiers for UV–cured nanocomposites with antimicrobial activity. Journal of Photochemistry and Photobiology A: Chemistry, 224(1): 46–54.Google Scholar
  29. Lee C K, Kim W S, Park Y T, Jo Q T. 2013a. Effect of yellow clay on the oxygen consumption rate of Korean rockfish, Sebastes schlegelii. Journal of the Korean Society of Marine Environment & Safety, 19(3): 241–247.Google Scholar
  30. Lee Y C, Jin E S, Jung S W, Kim Y M, Chang K S, Yang J W, Kim S W, Kim Y O, Shin H J. 2013b. Utilizing the algicidal activity of aminoclay as a practical treatment for toxic red tides. Science Reports, 3: 1292.Google Scholar
  31. Lee Y J, Choi J K, Kim E K, Youn S H, Yang E J. 2008. Field experiments on mitigation of harmful algal blooms using a Sophorolipid—Yellow clay mixture and effects on marine plankton. Harmful Algae, 7(2): 154–162.Google Scholar
  32. Lewis M A, Dantin D D, Walker C C, Kurtz J C, Greene R M. 2003. Toxicity of clay flocculation of the toxic dinoflagellate, Karenia brevis, to estuarine invertebrates and fish. Harmful Algae, 2(4): 235–246.Google Scholar
  33. Lind U T, Chrzanowski T H, Dávalos–Lind L. 1997. Clay turbidity and the relative production of bacterioplankton and phytoplankton. Hydrobiologia, 353 (1–3): 1–18.Google Scholar
  34. Liu Y, Cao X H, Yu Z M, Song X X, Qiu L X. 2016. Flocculation of harmful algal cells using modified clay: effects of the properties of the clay suspension. Journal of Applied Phycology, 28(3): 1 623–1 633.Google Scholar
  35. Lugowska K. 2007. The effect of cadmium and cadmium/copper mixture during the embryonic development on deformation common carp larvae. Electronic Journal of Ichthyology, 2: 46–60.Google Scholar
  36. Malakul P, Srinivasan K R, Wang H Y. 1998. Metal adsorption and desorption characteristics of surfactant–modified clay complexes. Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research, 37(11): 4 296–4 301.Google Scholar
  37. Marty G D, Núñez J, Lauren D J, Hinton D E. 1990. Agedependent changes in toxicity of N–nitroso compounds to Japanese medaka (Oryzias latipes) embryos. Aquatic Toxicology, 17(1): 45–62.Google Scholar
  38. Monette M Y, Björnsson B T, McCormick S D. 2008. Effects of short–term acid and aluminum exposure on the parrsmolt transformation in Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar): disruption of seawater tolerance and endocrine status. General and Comparative Endocrinology, 158(1): 122–130.Google Scholar
  39. Orizar I S, Rivera P P L, Azanza R V. 2013. Harmful algal bloom (HAB) mitigation using ball clay: effect on nontarget organisms. Journal of Environmental Science and Management, 5(2): 36–43.Google Scholar
  40. Pan G, Chen J, Anderson D M. 2011. Modified local sands for the mitigation of harmful algal blooms. Harmful Algae, 10(4): 381–387.Google Scholar
  41. Park T G, Lim W A, Park Y T, Lee C K, Jeong H J. 2013. Economic impact, management and mitigation of red tides in Korea. Harmful Algae, 30 (S1): S131–S143.Google Scholar
  42. Parkyn S M, Hickey C W, Clearwater S J. 2011. Measuring sub–lethal effects on freshwater crayfish (Paranephrops planifrons) behaviour and physiology: laboratory and in situ exposure to modified zeolite. Hydrobiologia, 661(1): 37–53.Google Scholar
  43. Paulsen H, Poulsen N E, Iglesias J, Olmedo M, Korsgaard B, Lavens P, Burkhardt–Holm P. 1998. Indicators of nutritional status of turbot Scophthalmus maximus (L., 1758) larvae. Boletin–Instituto Espanol de Oceanografia, 14(1): 5–18.Google Scholar
  44. Priede I G, Tytler P. 1977. Heart rate as a measure of metabolic rate in teleost fishes; Salmo gairdneri, Salmo trutta and Gadus morhua. Journal of Fish Biology, 10(3): 231–242.Google Scholar
  45. Rybicka E H, Calmano W, Breeger A. 1995. Heavy metals sorption/desorption on competing clay minerals; an experimental study. Applied Clay Science, 9(5): 369–381.Google Scholar
  46. Sengco M R, Anderson D M. 2004. Controlling harmful algal blooms through clay flocculation. The Journal of Eukaryotic Microbiology, 51(2): 169–172.Google Scholar
  47. Sfakianakis D G, Renieri E, Kentouri M, Tsatsakis A M. 2015. Effect of heavy metals on fish larvae deformities: a review. Environmental Research, 137: 246–255.Google Scholar
  48. Song X X, Yu Z M, Gao Y H. 2003. Removal of different species of red tide organisms with an effective claycomplex system. Chinese Journal of Applied Ecology, 14(7): 1 165–1 168. (in Chinese)Google Scholar
  49. Stuart K, Rotman F, Drawbridge M. 2016. Methods of microbial control in marine fish larval rearing: clay–based turbidity and passive larval transfer. Aquaculture Research, 47(8): 2 470–2 480.Google Scholar
  50. Sun X X, Zhang B. 2000. Toxicity study of antired tide agents to Penaeus chinensis. Marine Environmental Science, 19(4): 5–8. (in Chinese with English abstract)Google Scholar
  51. Thangaraja M, Al–Aisry A, Al–Kharusi L. 2007. Harmful algal blooms and their impacts in the middle and outer ROPME sea area. International Journal of Oceans & Oceanography, 2(1): 85–98.Google Scholar
  52. Urban E R Jr, Kirchman D L. 1992. Effect of kaolinite clay on the feeding activity of the eastern oyster Crassostrea virginica (Gmelin). Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology, 160(1): 47–60.Google Scholar
  53. Wang D S, Sun W, Xu Y, Tang H X, Gregory J. 2004. Speciation stability of inorganic polymer flocculant–PACl. Colloids and Surfaces A: Physicochemical and Engineering Aspects, 243 (1–3): 1–10.Google Scholar
  54. Wang X Q. 2012. Effects of dimethylhydantoin and carbohydrate on growth and immunity of Litopenaeus vannamei. Advanced Materials Research, 356–360: 146–151.Google Scholar
  55. Wang Z B, Zhang H G, Pan G. 2016. Ecotoxicological assessment of flocculant modified soil for lake restoration using an integrated biotic toxicity index. Water Research, 97: 133–141.Google Scholar
  56. Wang Z F, Yu Z M, Song X X, Cao X H, Liu K. 2014b. Impact of modified clay on the growth of the infant Apostichopus japonicas selenka in habs controling. Oceanologia et Limnologia Sinica, 45(2): 233–238. (in Chinese with English abstract)Google Scholar
  57. Wang Z F, Yu Z M, Song X X, Cao X H. 2014a. Effects of modified clay on the infant of Patinopecten yessoensis for HABs control. Marine Environmental Science, 33(6): 817–821. (in Chinese with English abstract)Google Scholar
  58. Yıldırım Ö, Türker A, Şenel B. 2009. Effects of natural zeolite (clinoptilolite) levels in fish diet on water quality, growth performance and nutrient utilization of tilapia (Tilapia zillii) Fry. Fresenius Environmental Bulletin, 18(9): 1 567–1 571.Google Scholar
  59. Yu Z M, Song X X, Cao X H, Liu Y. 2017. Mitigation of harmful algal blooms using modified clays: theory, mechanisms, and applications. Harmful Algae, 69: 48–64.Google Scholar
  60. Yu Z M, Zou J Z, Ma X N. 1994. A new method to improve the capability of clays for removing red tide organisms. Oceanologia et Limnologia Sinica, 25(2): 226–232. (in Chinese with English abstract)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Chinese Society for Oceanology and Limnology, Science Press and Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Yue Zhang
    • 1
    • 2
    • 4
  • Xiuxian Song
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
    • 4
    Email author
  • Zhiming Yu
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
    • 4
  • Peipei Zhang
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
    • 4
  • Xihua Cao
    • 1
    • 2
    • 4
  • Yongquan Yuan
    • 1
    • 2
    • 4
  1. 1.CAS Key Laboratory of Marine Ecology and Environmental Sciences, Institute of OceanologyChinese Academy of SciencesQingdaoChina
  2. 2.Laboratory of Marine Ecology and Environmental ScienceQingdao National Laboratory for Marine Science and TechnologyQingdaoChina
  3. 3.University of Chinese Academy of SciencesBeijingChina
  4. 4.Center for Ocean Mega–ScienceChinese Academy of SciencesQingdaoChina

Personalised recommendations