Advertisement

Journal of Soils and Sediments

, Volume 8, Issue 3, pp 154–164 | Cite as

Biochemical parameters in Tubifex tubifex as an integral part of complex sediment toxicity assessment

  • Marie Smutná
  • Klára Hilscherová
  • Veronika Pašková
  • Blahoslav Maršálek
SEDIMENTS, SEC 1 • SEDIMENT QUALITY AND IMPACT ASSESS • RESEARCH ARTICLE

Abstract

Background, aim, and scope

Restoration of lakes and reservoirs with extensive cyanobacterial water bloom often requires evaluation of the sediment quality. Next to the chemical analysis of known pollutants, sediment bioassays should be employed to assess toxicity of the present contaminants and to make predictions of associated risk. Brno reservoir in the Czech Republic is a typical example of water bodies with long-term problems concerning cyanobacterial water blooms. Comprehensive assessment of reservoir sediment quality was conducted since successful reservoir restoration might require sediment removal. An important part of this survey focused on an examination of the utility of Tubifex tubifex and its sublethal biochemical markers for the assessment of direct sediment toxicity.

Materials and methods

This complex study included chemical analysis of contaminants (heavy metals, organic pollutants), ecotoxicity testing of sediment elutriates (tests with Daphnia magna, Pseudomonas putida, Sinapis alba, Scenedesmus subspicatus), and other parameters. We have tested in more detail the applicability of T. tubifex as a test organism for direct evaluation of contact sediment toxicity. Survival tests after 14 days of exposure were complemented by an assessment of parameters serving as biomarkers for sublethal effects [such as total glutathione content (GSH), activities of the enzymes glutathione transferase (GST), glutathione peroxidase (GPx), and glutathione reductase (GR)]. The data matrix was subjected to multivariate analysis to interpret relationships between different parameters and possible differences among locations.

Results

The multivariate statistical techniques helped to clearly identify the more contaminated upstream sites and separate them from the less contaminated and reference samples. The data document closer relationships of the detected sediment contamination with results of direct sediment exposure in the T. tubifex test regarding mortality but namely regarding the sublethal endpoints rather than the results obtained with other test organisms exposed to sediment elutriates. Aside from the reduction in T. tubifex survival, the sediments with organic pollution caused an increase in glutathione content and increased activities of glutathione S-transferase and glutathione peroxidase in the exposed T. tubifex worms.

Discussion

Results of our study confirm the suitability of T. tubifex for toxicity testing of raw waters and sediments. This longer-lasting direct contact test has proven more sensitive and appropriate to reflect a lower level of pollution than do the elutriate tests. Sensitive biochemical changes in T. tubifex, including an elevation in GSH levels and GST activities, reflect a general stimulation of detoxification metabolisms in the presence of xenobiotics. The results also suggest an important role of glutathione and related enzymes in detoxification processes and possible involvement of oxidative stress in toxicity mechanisms in benthic sediment-dwelling worms such as T. tubifex.

Conclusions

The complex assessment has identified the more contaminated samples with locally increased concentration of organic pollutants and significant ecotoxicity. The direct sediment contact test with T. tubifex and especially the biochemical parameters corresponded better to the lower level of pollution than the other tests with sediment elutriates. Despite its greater time and cost demands, the direct sediment contact test can provide a more realistic picture of exposure.

Recommendations and perspectives

Sediment bioassays should always be included as an integral part of the sediment quality assessment. The direct contact tests also take into account the more hydrophobic pollutants that are not easily available for the water elution but can still be accessible to the organisms. The T. tubifex test is a suitable option for contact sediment toxicity tests also because these animals show measurable sublethal biochemical changes that can be associated with this exposure.

Keywords

Bioassays Biomarkers Brno reservoir Contact test Contamination assessment Glutathione Oxidative stress Sediment toxicity Tubifex 

Notes

Acknowledgement

Research was supported by project ‘AVOZ60050516’ granted to the Institute of Botany and EC project ECODIS (FP6 No. 518043-1).

References

  1. Ahlf W, Heise S (2005) Sediment toxicity assessment—rationale for effect classes. J Soils Sediments 5(1):16–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Anderson ME, Underwood M, Bridges RJ, Meister A (1986) Glutathione (GSH) transport and metabolism in the choroid-plexus. Federation Proceedings 45:1733–1733Google Scholar
  3. ASTM E 1706 (2005) Standard test method for measuring the toxicity of sediment-associated contaminants with freshwater invertebrates. ASTM International, Pennsylvania, USAGoogle Scholar
  4. Boelsterli UA (2003) Mechanistic toxicology. Tylor and Francis, LondonGoogle Scholar
  5. Brinkhurst RO (1980) Taxonomy, pollution and the sludge worm. Mar Pollut Bulletin 11:248–251CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Carlberg I, Mannervik B (1986) Reduction of 2,4,6-trinitrobenzenesulfonate by glutathione-reductase and the effect of NADP+ on the electron-transfer. J Biol Chem 261:1629–1635Google Scholar
  7. Chapman PM (2001) Utility and relevance of aquatic oligochaetes in ecological risk assessment. Hydrobiologia 463:149–169CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Chapman PM, Brinkhurst RO (1984) Lethal and sublethal tolerances of aquatic oligochaetes with reference to their use as a biotic index of pollution. Hydrobiologia 115:139–144CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Chapman PM, Brinkhurst RO (1987) Hair today, gone tomorrow—induced chaetal changes in tubificid oligochaetes. Hydrobiologia 155:45–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Chapman PM, Farrell MA, Brinkhurst RO (1982) Relative tolerances of selected aquatic oligochaetes to individual pollutants and environmental-factors. Aquat Toxicol 2:47–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Ciutat A, Gerino M, Mesmer-Dudons N, Anschutz P, Boudou A (2005) Cadmium bioaccumulation in tubificidae from the overlying water source and effects on bioturbation. Ecotox Environ Saf 60:237–246CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dawson RM (1998) The toxicology of microcystins. Toxicon 36:953–962CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. DIN 38406-E22 (1988) Deutsches Institut für Normung. Determination of 33 elements by inductively coupled plasma emission spectrometry (ICP-OES). German standard methods for the estimation of water, wastewater and sludges; cations (Group E). Beuth, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  14. Egeler P, Rombke J, Meller M, Knacker T, Nagel R (1999) Bioaccumulation test with tubificid sludgeworms in artificial media-development of a standardisable method. Hydrobiologia 406:271–280CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Ellman GL (1959) Tissue sulfhydryl group. Biochem Biophys 82:70–77CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. EN 12879 (2001) Characterization of sludges—determination of the loss on ignition of dry mass. Dansk Standard, CharlottenlundGoogle Scholar
  17. EN 12457-4 (2002) Characterisation of waste—leaching—compliance test for leaching of granular waste materials and sludges. European Committee for Standardization, BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  18. Feiler U, Ahlf W, Hoess S, Hollert H, Neumann-Hensel H, Meller M, Weber J, Heininger P (2005) The SeKT joint research project: definition of reference conditions, control sediments and toxicity thresholds for limnic sediment contact tests. Environ Sci Pollut Res 12(5):257–258CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Flohé L, Gunzler WA (1984) Assays of glutathion peroxidase. Method Enzymol 105:114–120Google Scholar
  20. Girling AE, Pascoe D, Janssen CR, Peither A, Wenzel A, Schafer H, Neumeier B, Mitchell GC, Taylor EJ, Maund SJ (2000) Development of methods for evaluating toxicity to freshwater ecosystems. Ecotox Environ Saf 45:148–176CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Habig WH, Pabst MJ, Jakoby WB (1974) Gluthatione-S-transferase—the first enzymatic step in mercapturic acid formation. J Biol Chem 249:7130–7139Google Scholar
  22. Holoubek I, Klanova J, Jarkovsky J, Kubik V, Helesic J (2007) Trends in background levels of persistent organic pollutants at Kosetice observatory, Czech Republic, part II—aquatic and terrestrial environments 1996–2005. J Environ Monit 9:564–571CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. ISO 8692 (1989) Water quality—freshwater algal growth inhibition test with unicellular green algae. ISO, Geneva, SwitzerlandGoogle Scholar
  24. ISO TR 11046 (1994) Soil quality—determination of mineral oil content. Method A by infrared spectrometry. ISO, Geneva, SwitzerlandGoogle Scholar
  25. ISO 10712 (1995) Water quality—Pseudomonas putida growth inhibition test (Pseudomonas cell multiplication inhibition test). ISO, Geneva, SwitzerlandGoogle Scholar
  26. ISO 6341 (1996) Water quality—determination of the inhibition of the mobility of Daphnia magna Straus (Cladocera, Crustacea)—acute toxicity test. ISO, Geneva, SwitzerlandGoogle Scholar
  27. Keddy CJ, Greene JC, Bonnell MA (1995) Review of whole-organism bioassays—soil, fresh-water sediment, and fresh-water assessment in Canada. Ecotox Environ Saf 30:221–251CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Klaunig JE, Xu Y, Isenberg JS, Bachowski S, Kolaja KL, Jiang A, Stevenson DE, Walborg EF (1998) The role of oxidative stress in chemical carcinogenesis. Environ Health Perspect 106:289–295CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Lowry OH, Rosebrough AL, Farr AL, Randall RJ (1951) Protein measurements with folin-phenol reagents. J Biol Chem 193:256–275Google Scholar
  30. McMurtry MJ (1984) Avoidance of sublethal doses of copper and zinc by tubificid oligochaetes. J Great Lakes Res 10:267–272CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Milbrink G (1987) Biological characterization of sediments by standardized tubificid bioassays. Hydrobiologia 155:267–275CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Misra RB, Babu GS, Ray RS, Hans RK (2002) Tubifex: a sensitive model for UV-B-induced phototoxicity. Ecotox Environ Saf 52:288–295CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Monserrat JM, Martinez PE, Geracitano LA, Amado LL, Martins CMG, Pinho GLL, Chaves IS, Ferreira-Cravo M, Ventura-Lima J, Bianchini A (2007) Pollution biomarkers in estuarine animals—critical review and new perspectives. Comp Biochem Phys C 146:221–234Google Scholar
  34. Mosleh YY, Paris-Palacios S, Couderchet M, Biagianti-Risbourg S, Vernet G (2005) Metallothionein induction, antioxidative responses, glycogen and growth changes in Tubifex tubifex (oligochaete) exposed to the fungicide, fenhexamid. Environ Pollut 135:73–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Mosleh YY, Paris-Palacios S, Biagianti-Risbourg S (2006) Metallothioneins induction and antioxidative response in aquatic worms Tubifex tubifex (Oligochaeta, Tubificidae) exposed to copper. Chemosphere 64:121–128CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. OECD 208 (1984) Guideline for testing of chemicals: Terrestrial plants, growth test. Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  37. Pollumaa L, Kahru A, Manusadzianas L (2004) Biotest- and chemistry-based hazard assessment of soils, sediments and solid wastes. J Soils Sediments 4:267–275CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Redeker ES, Blust R (2004) Accumulation and toxicity of cadmium in the aquatic oligochaete Tubifex tubifex—a kinetic modeling approach. Environ Sci Technol 38:537–543CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Reynoldson TB (1987) Interactions between sediment contaminants and benthic organisms. Hydrobiologia 149:53–66CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Reynoldson TB (1990) Distribution patterns of oligochaetes in the English Lake District. Arch Hydrobiologie 118:303–339Google Scholar
  41. Reynoldson TB, Thompson SP, Bamsey JL (1991) A sediment bioassay using the tubificid oligochaete worm Tubifex tubifex. Environ Toxicol Chem 10:1061–1072CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Rindeghagen M, Butte W (1995) Kinetics of accumulation and elimination of isomeric hexachlorocyclohexanes by tubificids. SAR QSAR Environ Res 4:131–138CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Tarczynska M, Nalecz-Jawecki G, Romanowska-Duda Z, Sawicki J, Beattie K, Codd G, Zalewski M (2001) Tests for the toxicity assessment of cyanobacterial bloom samples. Environ Toxicol 16:383–390CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Vasseur P, Leguille C (2004) Defense systems of benthic invertebrates in response to environmental stressors. Environ Toxicol 19:433–436CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Marie Smutná
    • 1
  • Klára Hilscherová
    • 1
  • Veronika Pašková
    • 1
  • Blahoslav Maršálek
    • 2
  1. 1.RECETOX (Research Centre for Environmental Chemistry and Ecotoxicology)Masaryk UniversityBrnoCzech Republic
  2. 2.Centre for Cyanobacteria and Their Toxins, Institute of BotanyCzech Academy of ScienceBrnoCzech Republic

Personalised recommendations