Advertisement

Environmental Science and Pollution Research

, Volume 24, Issue 11, pp 10510–10518 | Cite as

Using early life stages of marine animals to screen the toxicity of priority hazardous and noxious substances

  • Isabel Cunha
  • Tiago Torres
  • Helena Oliveira
  • Rosário Martins
  • Thomas McGowan
  • David Sheahan
  • Miguel Machado Santos
Research Article

Abstract

This study provides toxicity values for early life stages (ELS) of two phylogenetically distinct marine animal taxa, the sea urchin (Paracentrotus lividus), a deuterostome invertebrate, and the turbot (Scophthalmus maximus), a vertebrate (teleost), when challenged by six hazardous and noxious substances (HNS): aniline, butyl acrylate, m-cresol, cyclohexylbenzene, hexane and trichloroethylene. The aim of the study was to provide preliminary information on toxic effects of representative and relevant priority HNS to assess the risk posed by spills to marine habitats and therefore improve preparedness and the response at the operational level. Selection criteria to include each compound in the study were (1) inclusion in the HASREP (2005) list; (2) presence on the priority list established by Neuparth et al. (2011); (3) paucity of toxicological data (TOXnet and ECOTOX) for marine organisms; (4) behaviour in the water according to the categories defined by the European Behaviour classification system (GESAMP 2002), by selecting compounds with different behaviours in water; and (5) physicochemical and toxicological properties, where available, in order to anticipate the most toxic compounds. Aniline and m-cresol were the most toxic compounds with no observed apical effect concentration (NOAEC) values for sea urchin ranging between 0.01 and 0.1 mg/L, followed by butyl acrylate and cyclohexylbenzene with NOAECs ranging between 0.1 and 1.0 mg/L and trichloroethylene with NOAEC values that were in the range between 1 and 10 mg/L, reflecting their behaviour in water, mostly vapour pressure, but also solubility and log Kow. Hexane was toxic only for turbot embryos, due to its neurotoxic effects, and not for sea urchin larvae, at concentrations in the range between 1 and 10 mg/L. The concentrations tested were of the same order of magnitude for both species, and it was observed that sea urchin embryos (length of the longest arm) are more sensitive than turbot eggs larvae (hatching and cumulative mortality rates) to the HNS tested (except hexane). For this specific compound, concentrations up to 70 mg/L were tested in sea urchin larvae and no effects were observed on the length of the larvae. Both tests were found to be complementary depending on behaviour in water and toxicity target of the compounds analysed.

Keywords

Marine spill Hazardous and noxious substances (HNS) Paracentrotus lividus Scophthalmus maximus Early life stage (ELS) bioassays Standard European Behaviour Classification (SEBC) 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The present work was developed within the framework of the ARCOPOLplus project—Improving maritime safety and Atlantic Regions’ coastal pollution response through technology transfer, training & innovation (contract nr. 2011-1/150)— funded by the Atlantic Area Transnational Programme (Priority 2: Marine Environment and Renewable Energy) with support of the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) and ARCOPOL Platform. We also acknowledge the Portuguese Foundation for Science and Technology (FCT) through the strategic project “UID/Multi/04423/2013”.

Supplementary material

11356_2017_8663_MOESM1_ESM.docx (25 kb)
ESM 1 (DOCX 24 kb)
11356_2017_8663_MOESM2_ESM.xlsx (16 kb)
ESM 2 (XLSX 15 kb)

References

  1. Abernethy S, Bobra AM, Shiu WY, Wells PG, Mackay D (1986) Acute lethal toxicity of hydrocarbons and chlorinated hydrocarbons to two planktonic crustaceans: the key role of organism-water partitioning. Aquat Toxicol 8:163–174CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Barry MJ, Logan DC, van Dam RA, Holdway DA (1995) Effect of age and weight-specific respiration rate on toxicity of esfenvalerate pulse—exposure to the Australian crimson-spotted rainbowfish (Melanotaenia fluviatilis). Aquat Toxicol 32:115–126CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bellas J, Beiras R, Mariño JC, Fernández N (2005) Toxicity of organic compounds to marine invertebrates’ embryos and larvae: a comparison between sea urchin embryogenesis bioassay and alternative test species. Ecotoxicology 14:337–353CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Boglione C, Gagliardi G, Scardi M, Cataudella S (2001) Skeletal descriptors and quality assessment in larvae and post-larvae of wild-caught and hatchery-reared gilthead sea bream (Sparus aurata L. 1758). Aquaculture 192:1–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bonn Agreement (2015) Bonn agreement counter pollution manual. Available at: http://www.bonnagreement.org/site/assets/files/3946/bonn_agreement_counter_pollution_manual-1.pdf. Accessed Dec 2015
  6. Borthwick PW (1977) Summarized results of toxicity tests with sheepshead minnows (Cyprinodon varlesatus) and grass shrimp (Palaemonetes pugio). US Environmental Protection Agency. Environmental Research Laboratory, Gulf Breeze, FloridaGoogle Scholar
  7. Bringmann G, Kuhn R (1977) Results of the damaging effect of water pollutants on Daphnia magna. Zeitschrift fur Wasser – und Abwasserforschung 10:161–166Google Scholar
  8. Brooks JM, Fryxell GA, Reid DF, Sackett WM (1977) Gulf underwater flare experiment (GUFEX): effects of hydrocarbons on phytoplankton. In: Giam CS (ed) Proceedings of pollution effects on marine organisms. D.C. Heath Co., Lexington, MA, pp 45–75Google Scholar
  9. CEFAS (2009) UK risk assessment for hazardous and noxious substances – RP 593Google Scholar
  10. Cunha I, Moreira S, Santos MM (2015) Review on hazardous and noxious substances (HNS) involved in marine spill incidents—an online database. J Hazard Mater 285:509–516CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cunha I, Oliveira H, Neuparth T, Torres T, Santos MM (2016) Fate, behaviour and weathering of priority HNS in the marine environment: an online tool. Mar Pollut Bull 111:330–338CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. de los Santos CB, Neuparth T, Torres T, Martins I, Cunha I, Sheahan D, McGowan T, Santos MM (2015) Ecological modelling and toxicity data coupled to assess population recovery of marine amphipod Gammarus locusta: application to disturbance by chronic exposure to aniline. Aquat Toxicol 163:60–70Google Scholar
  13. Falk-Petersen IB, Kjorsvik E, Lonning S, Naley AM, Sydnes LK (1985) Toxic effects of Hydroxylated aromatic hydrocarbons on marine embryos. Sarsia 70:11–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Fernández N, Beiras R (2001) Combined toxicity of dissolved mercury with copper, lead and cadmium on embryogenesis and early larval growth of the Paracentrotus lividus Sea-urchin. Ecotoxicology 10:263–271CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Ferrando MD, Andreu-Moliner E (1992) Acute toxicity of toluene, hexane, xylene, and benzene to the rotifers Brachionus calyciflorus and Brachionus plicatilis. Bull Environ Contam Toxicol 49:266–271CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Foekema EM, Deerenberg CM, Murk AJ (2008) Prolonged ELS test with the marine flatfish sole (Solea solea) shows delayed toxic effects of previous exposure to PCB 126. Aquat Toxicol 90:197–203CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Foster GD, Tullis RE (1995) Quantitative structure-toxicity relationships with osmotically stressed Artemia salina Nauplii. Environmental Pollution A 38:273–281CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. GESAMP (2002) The revised GESAMP hazard evaluation procedure for chemical substances carried by ships. GESAMP reports and studies no. 64Google Scholar
  19. GESAMP (2014) (IMO/FAO/UNESCO-IOC/WMO/WHO/IAEA/UN/UNEP Joint group of experts on the scientific aspects of marine environmental protection). Revised GESAMP hazard evaluation procedure for chemical substances carried by ships, 2nd edition. Rep. Stud. GESAMP No. 64, 126 ppGoogle Scholar
  20. GESAMP (2016) Composite list. ANNEX 5 – Updated GESAMP composite list. Available at: https://edocs.imo.org/Final Documents/English/PPR 1-CIRC.3 (E).docx
  21. Hallare A, Nagel K, Köhler HR, Triebskorn R (2006) Comparative embryotoxicity and proteotoxicity of three carrier solvents to zebrafish (Danio rerio) embryos. Ecotoxicol Environ Saf 63:378–388CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. HASREP (2005) Response to harmful substances spilt at sea. Prepared by The Alliance of Maritime Regional Influences in Europe (AMRIE). Centre de Documentation, de Recherche et d’Expérimentations sur les Pollutions Accidentelles des eaux, (CEDRE) and TNO Built Environment and Geosciences, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
  23. His E, Beiras R, Seaman MNL. 1999. The assessment of marine pollution—bioassays, with bivalve embryos and larvae. In: Southward AI, Tyler PA, Young CM (eds) Advances in marine biology 37Google Scholar
  24. Humphrey C, Klumpp DW (2003) Toxicity of chloropyrifos to early life history stages of eastern rainbowfish Melanotaenia splendida splendida (Peters 1866) in tropical Australia. Environ Toxicol 18:418–427CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. IMO—International Maritime Organisation (2000) Protocol on preparedness, response and co-operation to pollution incidents by hazardous and noxious substances (OPRC-HNS protocol)Google Scholar
  26. Kühn R, Pattard M, Pernak KD, Winter A (1989) Results of the harmful effects of water pollutants to Daphnia magna, in the 21 day reproduction test. Water Res 23:501–510CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Mamaca E, Bechmann RK, Torgrimsen S, Endre Aas E, Bjørnstad A, Baussant T, Le Floch S (2005) The neutral red lysosomal retention assay and Comet assay on haemolymph cells from mussels (Mytilus edulis) and fish (Symphodus melops) exposed to styrene. Aquat Toxicol 75:191–201CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Mhadhbi L, Boumaiza M, Beiras R (2010) A standard ecotoxicological bioassay using early life stages of the marine fish Psetta maxima. Aquat Living Resour 23:209–216CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Mhadhbi L, Fumega J, Boumaiza M, Beiras R (2012a) Acute toxicity of polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs) for turbot (Psetta maxima) early life stages (ELS). Environ Sci Pollut Res 19:708–717CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Mhadhbi L, Toumi H, Boumaiza M, Aloui N (2012b) Toxicity of three selected pesticides (Alachlor, Atrazine and Diuron) to the marine fish (turbot Psetta maxima). Afr J Biotechnol 11:11321–11328Google Scholar
  31. Nacci DE, Jackim E, Walsh R (1986) Comparative evaluation of three marine toxicity tests: sea urchin embryo growth test, sea urchin sperm cell toxicity test and microtox. Environ Toxicol Chem 5:521–529CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Neuparth T, Moreira S, Santos MM, Reis-Henriques MA (2011) Hazardous and noxious substances (HNS) in the marine environment: prioritizing HNS that pose major risk in a European context. Mar Pollut Bull 62:21–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Oberemm A (2000) The use of refined zebra fish bioassay for the assessment of aquatic toxicity. Lab Anim 29:32–40Google Scholar
  34. Pais A, Saba S, Rubattu R, Meloni G, Montisci S (2011) Proximate composition of edible sea urchin Paracentrotus lividus roe commercialized in Sardinia. Biol Mar Mediterr 18:390–391Google Scholar
  35. Passino-Reader DR, Hickey JP, Ogilvie LM (1997) Toxicity to Daphnia pulex and QSAR predictions for polycyclic hydrocarbons representative for great lakes contaminants. Bulletin Environmental Contamination and Toxicology 59:834–840CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Paulet G, Vidal M (1975) Toxicity of some acrylic and methacrylic esters of acrylamide and polyacrylamides. Archives des Maladies Professionnelles de Medecine du Travail et de Securite Sociale 36:58–60Google Scholar
  37. Pearsons CR, McConnell G (1975) Chlorinated C1 and C2 hydrocarbons in the marine environment. Proc R Soc Lond Ser B 189:305–332CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Purnell K. 2009. Are HNS spills more dangerous than oil spills? Conference Proceedings, Interspill, Marseille, 12–14 May 2009Google Scholar
  39. Ribeiro S, Torres T, Martins R, Santos MM (2015) Toxicity screening of diclofenac, propranolol, sertraline and simvastatin using Danio rerio and Paracentrotus lividus embryo bioassays. Ecotox Environ Saf 114:67–74Google Scholar
  40. Ringwood AH (1991) Short-term accumulation of cadmium by embryos larvae, larvae, and adults of Hawaiian bivalve Isognomon californicum. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 149:55–66CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Russom CL (1993) Acute and early life stage toxicity data. June 21 Memo from US EPA, Duluth, MN to R. Spehar US EPA, Duluth, MN, p. 41Google Scholar
  42. Saco-Álvarez L, Durán I, Lorenzo JI, Beiras R (2010) Methodological basis for the optimization of a marine sea-urchin embryo test (SET) for the ecological assessment of coastal water quality. Ecotoxicol Environ Saf 73:491–499CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Salamanca MJ, Fernandez N, Cesar A, Anton R, Lopez P, Delvalls A (2009) Improved sea-urchin embryo bioassay for in situ evaluation of dredged material. Ecotoxicology 18:1051–1057Google Scholar
  44. Silversand C, Norberg B, Haux C (1996) Fatty-acid composition of ovulated eggs from wild and cultured turbot (Scophthalmus maximus) in relation to yolk and oil globule lipids. Mar Biol 125:269–278CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Snell TW, Moffat BD, Janssen C, Persoone G (1991) Acute toxicity tests using rotifers. III. Effects of temperature, strain, and exposure time on the sensitivity of Brachionus plicatilis. Environ Toxicol Water Qual 6:63–75CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Solé M, Lima D, Reis-Henriques MA, Santos MM (2008) Stress biomarkers in juvenile Senegal sole, Solea senegalensis, exposed to the water-accommodated fraction of the “Prestige” fuel oil. Bull Environ Contam Toxicol 80:19–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Tong XH, Xu SH, Liu QH, Li J, Xiao ZZ, Ma DY (2013) Stages of embryonic development and changes in enzyme activities in embryogenesis of turbot (Scophthalmus maximus L.) Aquac Int 21:129–142CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. US EPA (2005) Toxicological review of n-hexane in support of summary information on the integrated risk information system (IRIS). National Center for Environmental Assessment, Washington, DC EPA/635/R-03/012Google Scholar
  49. Zar JH (1999) Biostatistical analysis, fourth edn. Prentice Hall, New Jersey 663 pGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Interdisciplinary Centre of Marine and Environmental Research (CIMAR/CIIMAR)University of PortoPortoPortugal
  2. 2.Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science (CEFAS)Lowestoft LaboratoryLowestoftUK
  3. 3.Health and Environmental Research Center (CISA), Superior School of Health Technology of PortoPolytechnic Institute of PortoPortoPortugal
  4. 4.Department of Biology, Faculty of SciencesUniversity of PortoPortoPortugal

Personalised recommendations