Advertisement

Ecotoxicology

, Volume 25, Issue 5, pp 871–879 | Cite as

The toxicity of the three antifouling biocides DCOIT, TPBP and medetomidine to the marine pelagic copepod Acartia tonsa

  • Ida Wendt
  • Thomas Backhaus
  • Hans Blanck
  • Åsa ArrheniusEmail author
Article

Abstract

Copepods, the largest group of pelagic grazers, are at risk from exposure to antifouling biocides. This study investigated the toxicity of the antifouling biocides 4,5-dichloro-2-octyl-1,2-thiazol-3(2H)-one (DCOIT), triphenylborane pyridine (TPBP) and 4-[1-(2,3-dimethylphenyl)ethyl]-1H-imidazole (medetomidine) to the copepod Acartia tonsa, using mortality and egg production as endpoints. The toxicity ranking for mortality was as follows: DCOIT (LC50 57 nmol l−1) = TPBP (LC50 56 nmol l−1) > medetomidine (LC50 241 nmol l−1). Egg production was more sensitive than mortality to TPBP (EC50 3.2 nmol l−1), while DCOIT and medetomidine inhibited egg production at roughly the same concentrations (72 and 186 nmol l−1 respectively). Furthermore, TPBP seems to affect egg hatching directly which was not the case for DCOIT and medetomidine. DCOIT and medetomidine might pose an environmental risk as they have been reported to occur in different exposure scenarios or analytical surveys at concentrations only 2–3 times lower than the respective EC10. Reported environmental concentrations of TPBP are few but clearly lower than the EC10 values reported here, suggesting current risk of TPBP to copepods to be moderate.

Keywords

Antifoulant Endpoint sensitivity Lethality Egg production and hatching Sublethal effects Zooplankton 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The study was funded by the Swedish Foundation for Strategic Environmental Research, MISTRA, through the research program Marine Paint, and also by the Royal Society of Arts and Sciences in Gothenburg. We thank Rohm and Haas Company (presently Dow Chemicals) and I-tech for providing biocides for testing. The companies were not involved in the actual work, the interpretation of the results or the writing of this paper. We gratefully acknowledge Erik Norin for his work on the lethality tests and the staff at Sven Lovén Centre for Marine Sciences Kristineberg for their assistance and provision of excellent working conditions.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of Interest

Authors are co-owners of Marine Biofouling Research in Göteborg (MBRiG).

Ethical approval

All applicable international, national, and/or institutional guidelines for the care and use of animals were followed.

References

  1. Alcaraz M (1997) Copepods under turbulence: grazing, behavior and metabolic rates. Sci Mar 61:177–195Google Scholar
  2. Arai T, Harino H, Ohji M, Langston W (2009) Ecotoxicology of antifouling biocides. Springer, TokyoCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Arning J, Dringen J, Schmidt M, Thiessen A, Stolte S, Matzke M, Bottin-Weber U, Ceasar-Geertz B, Jastorff B, Ranke J (2008) Structure-activity relationships for the impact of selected isothiazol-3-one biocides on glutathione metabolism and glutathione reductase of the human liver cell line Hep G2. Toxicology 246:203–212CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Arning J, Matzke M, Stolte S, Nehen F, Bottin-Weber U, Boschen A, Abdulkarim S, Jastorff B, Ranke J (2009) Analyzing cytotoxic effects of selected isothiazol-3-one biocides using the toxic ratio concept and structure-activity relationship considerations. Chem Res Toxicol 22:1954–1961CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bellas J, Thor P (2007) Effects of selected PAHs on reproduction and survival of the calanoid copepod Acartia tonsa. Ecotoxicology 16:465–474CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Blanck H, Eriksson KM, Gronvall F, Dahl B, Guijarro KM, Birgersson G, Kylin H (2009) A retrospective analysis of contamination and periphyton PICT patterns for the antifoulant irgarol 1051, around a small marina on the Swedish west coast. Mar Pollut Bull 58:230–237CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Borga K, Fisk AT, Hoekstra PF, Muir DCG (2004) Biological and chemical factors of importance in the bioaccumulation and trophic transfer of persistent organochlorine contaminants in arctic marine food webs. Environ Toxicol Chem 23:2367–2385CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Callow ME, Willingham L, Shade WD, Hurt SS, Jacobson AH, Reinert K (1996) Degradation of antifouling biocides. Biofouling 1–3:239–249CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cervetto G, Pagano M, Gaudy R (1995) Feeding behaviour and migrations in a natural population of the copepod Acartia tonsa. Hydrobiologia 300–301:237–248CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Chapman JS, Diehl MA (1995) Methylchloroisothiazolone-induced growth inhibition and lethality in Escherichia coli. J Appl Bacteriol 78:134–141CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Climate Norwegian, Agency Pollution (2010) Competent authority report 4,5-dichloro-2-octyl-2H-isothiazol-3-one (DCOIT) PT21. Climate and Pollution Agency, NorwayGoogle Scholar
  12. Dahlström M, Martensson LGE, Jonsson PR, Arnebrant T, Elwing H (2000) Surface active adrenoceptor compounds prevent the settlement of cyprid larvae of Balanus improvisus. Biofouling 16:191–203CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. DuPont (2003) Robust summary and test plan for Triphenylboron category. E.I. Du Pont de Nemours & Company Inc., WilmingtonGoogle Scholar
  14. ECHA (2014) CHL Report: proposal for harmonised classification and labelling based on regulation (EC) No 1272/2008 (CLP Regulation), Annex VI, Part 2 Substance Name: MedetomidineGoogle Scholar
  15. ECHA Biocidal Products Committee (BPC) (2015) Opinion on the application or approval of the active substance: medetomidine Product type: 21 ECHA/BPC/38/2015Google Scholar
  16. European Union (2015) Commission implementing regulation (EU) No. 437/2014 approving 4,5-dichloro-2-octyl-2h-isothiazol-3-one as an existing active substance for use in biocidal products for product-type 21. Off J Eur Union L 128:64–67Google Scholar
  17. Hansen PJ (1989) The red tide dinoflagellate Alexandrium tamarense: effects on behavior and growth of a tintinnid ciliate. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 53:105–116CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Heinle D (1966) Production of a calanoid copepod, Acartia tonsa, in the Patuxent River estuary. Chesap Sci 7:59–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hilvarsson A, Ohlauson C, Blanck H, Granmo A (2009) Bioaccumulation of the new antifoulant medetomidine in marine organisms. Mar Environ Res 68:19–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hjorth M, Haller R, Dahllof I (2006) The use of C-14 tracer technique to assess the functional response of zooplankton community grazing to toxic impact. Mar Environ Res 61:339–351CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. ISO (1999) Water quality: determination of acute lethal toxicity to marine copepods (Copepoda, Crustacea). International Organization for Standardization, GenèveGoogle Scholar
  22. Jacobson AH, Willingham GL (2000) Sea-nine antifoulant: an environmentally acceptable alternative to organotin antifoulants. Sci Total Environ 258:103–110CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Lind U, Rosenblad MA, Frank LH, Falkbring S, Brive L, Laurila JM, Ohjanoksa K, Vuorenpaa A, Kukkunen JP, Unnarsson L, Heinin M, Ndblad L, Omberg A (2010) Octopamine receptors from the barnacle balanus improvisus are activated by the alpha(2)-adrenoceptor agonist medetomidine. Mol Pharmacol 78:237–248CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Macdonald E, Scheinin H, Scheinin M (1988) Behavioral and neurochemical effects of medetomidine, a novel veterinary sedative. Eur J Pharmacol 158:119–127CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Magnusson K, Tiselius P (2010) The importance of uptake from food for the bioaccumulation of PCB and PBDE in the marine planktonic copepod Acartia clausi. Aquat Toxicol 98:374–380CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Martinez K, Ferrer I, Hernando MD, Fernandez-Alba AR, Marce RM, Borrull F, Barcelo D (2001) Occurrence of antifouling biocides in the Spanish Mediterranean marine environment. Environ Technol 22:543–552CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Medina M, Barata C (2004) Static-renewal culture of Acartia tonsa (Copepoda: Calanoida) for ecotoxicological testing. Aquaculture 229:203–213CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Mochida K, Onduka T, Amano H, Ito M, Ito K, Tanaka H, Fujii K (2012) Use of species sensitivity distributions to predict no-effect concentrations of an antifouling biocide, pyridine triphenylborane, for marine organisms. Mar Pollut Bull 64:2807–2814CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Morley JO, Oliver AJ, Charlton MH (1998) Theoretical studies on the biocidal activity of 5-chloro-3-isothiazolone. J Mol Struct (Theochem) 429:103–110CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Morley JO, Kapur AJO, Charlton MH (2007) Kinetic studies on the reactions of 3-isothiazolones with 2-methyl-2-propanethiol. Int J Chem Kinet 39:254–260CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Mullin MM, Sloan PR, Eppley RW (1966) Relationship between carbon content cell volume and area in phytoplankton. Limnol Oceanogr 11:307–311CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Nisbet RM, Muller EB, Kooijman SALM (2000) From molecules to ecosystems through dynamic energy budget models. J Anim Ecol 69:913–926CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Ohlauson C, Eriksson KM, Blanck H (2012) Short-term effects of medetomidine on photosynthesis and protein synthesis in periphyton, epipsammon and plankton communities in relation to predicted environmental concentrations. Biofouling 28:491–499CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Okamura H, Kitano S, Toyota S, Harino H, Thomas KV (2009) Ecotoxicity of the degradation products of triphenylborane pyridine (TPBP) antifouling agent. Chemosphere 74:1275–1278CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Oliveira IB, Beiras R, Thomas KV, Suter MJ, Barosso CM (2014) Acute toxicity of tralopyril, capsaicin and triphenylborane pyridine to marine invertebrates. Ecotoxicology 23:1336–1344CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Parrish KK, Wilson DF (1978) Fecundity studies on Acartia tonsa (Copepoda: Calanoida) in standardized culture. Mar Biol 46:65–81CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Savola JM, Ruskoaho H, Puurunen J, Salonen JS, Karki NT (1986) Evidence for medetomidine as a selective and potent agonist at alpha-2-adrenoceptors. J Auton Pharmacol 6:275–284CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Shade WD, Hurt SS, Jacobson AH, Reinert KH (1993) Ecological risk assessment of a novel marine antifoulant. In: Gorsuch JW, Dwyer FJ, Ingersoll CG, La PW (eds) Environmental toxicology and risk assessment. American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, PA, pp 381–408CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Sverdrup L, Fürst CS, Weideborg M, Vik EA, Stenersen J (2002) Relative sensitivity of one freshwater and two marine acute toxicity tests as determined by testing 30 offshore E & P chemicals. Chemosphere 46:311–318CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Thomas KV, Brooks S (2010) The environmental fate and effects of antifouling paint biocides. Biofouling 26:73–88CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Thomas KV, Langford K (2009) The analysis of antifouling paint biocides in water, sediment and biota. In: Arai T, Harino H, Ohji M, Langston W (eds) Ecotoxicology of antifouling biocides. Springer, TokyoGoogle Scholar
  42. Thomas KV, McHugh M, Hilton M, Waldock M (2003) Increased persistence of antifouling paint biocides when associated with paint particles 10. Environ Pollut 123:153–161CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Tinikul Y, Soonthornsumrith B, Phoungpetchara I, Meeratana P, Poljaren J, Duansuwan P, Soonklang N, Mercier AJ, Sobhon P (2009) Effects of serotonin, dopamina, octopamine, and spiperone on ovarian maturation and embryonic development in the giant freshwater prawn, Macrobrachium rosenbergii (De Man, 1879). Crustaceana 82:1007–1022CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Wendt I, Arrhenius Å, Backhaus T, Hilvarsson A, Holm K, Langford K, Tunovic T, Blanck H (2013) Effects of five antifouling biocides on settlement and growth of zoospores from the marine macroalga Ulva lactuca L. Bull Environ Contam Toxicol 91:426–432CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Willemsen PR, Overbeke K, Suurmond A (1998) Repetitive testing of TBTO, sea-nine 211 and farnesol using Balanus amphitrite (Darwin) cypris larvae: variability in larval sensitivity. Biofouling 12:133–147Google Scholar
  46. Willingham GL, Jacobson AH (1993) Efficacy and environmental fate of a new isothizolone antifoulant. In: Paint Research Association International Centre for Coatings Technology. The third Asia-Pacific conference of the paint research association. International Centre for Coatings Technology, pp 14.1–14.13Google Scholar
  47. Yamada H (2007) Behaviour, occurrence, and aquatic toxicity of new antifouling biocides and preliminary assessment of risk to aquatic ecosystems. Bull Fish Res Agency 21:31–45Google Scholar
  48. Zhou X, Okamura H, Nagata S (2007) Abiotic degradation of triphenylborane pyridine (TPBP) antifouling agent in water. Chemosphere 67:1904–1910CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ida Wendt
    • 1
  • Thomas Backhaus
    • 2
  • Hans Blanck
    • 2
  • Åsa Arrhenius
    • 2
    Email author
  1. 1.Swedish Institute for the Marine EnvironmentGothenburgSweden
  2. 2.Department of Biological and Environmental SciencesUniversity of GothenburgGothenburgSweden

Personalised recommendations