The toxicity of the three antifouling biocides DCOIT, TPBP and medetomidine to the marine pelagic copepod Acartia tonsa
- 482 Downloads
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.
KeywordsAntifoulant Endpoint sensitivity Lethality Egg production and hatching Sublethal effects Zooplankton
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).
All applicable international, national, and/or institutional guidelines for the care and use of animals were followed.
- Alcaraz M (1997) Copepods under turbulence: grazing, behavior and metabolic rates. Sci Mar 61:177–195Google Scholar
- 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
- 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
- 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
- DuPont (2003) Robust summary and test plan for Triphenylboron category. E.I. Du Pont de Nemours & Company Inc., WilmingtonGoogle Scholar
- 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
- 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
- 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
- ISO (1999) Water quality: determination of acute lethal toxicity to marine copepods (Copepoda, Crustacea). International Organization for Standardization, GenèveGoogle Scholar
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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