Advertisement

Journal of Soils and Sediments

, Volume 15, Issue 9, pp 2012–2021 | Cite as

Do laboratory exposures represent field exposures? Effects of sediments contaminated by wood industry on yolk-sac fry of rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss)

  • Eeva-Riikka Vehniäinen
  • Silja Siiskonen
  • Marja Raatikainen
  • Aimo O. J. Oikari
Sediments, Sec 4 • Sediment-Ecology Interactions • Research Article

Abstract

Purpose

Risk assessment of contaminated sediments is routinely based on laboratory exposures. The purpose of this work was to study if sediments contaminated by the chemical wood industry cause developmental defects in fish fry and how well a laboratory exposure correlates with a field exposure.

Materials and methods

Newly hatched yolk-sac fry of rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) were exposed in the laboratory and in situ. In the laboratory, the fish were placed in contact with either clean or contaminated sediment in aquaria. In the field, half of the fish were placed in contact with the lake sediment and the other half were similarly caged 2 m above it, to discern the effects of the sediment from that of the effluent. When approximately three fourths of the yolk was consumed, the fry were examined for blue sac disease (BSD) symptoms, their length and yolk volume were determined, and cyp1a and cyp1c2 transcript abundances were measured with quantitative PCR.

Results and discussion

The sediments did not cause mortality, developmental defects, or upregulation of cyp1a or cyp1c2 in the laboratory. No severe BSD was detected in the field exposure, but mortality was higher in embryos caged on the sediment than in those kept 2 m above the bottom and in those exposed in the laboratory. Unlike the laboratory exposure, the field exposure to contaminated sediments reduced the growth of the fry.

Conclusions

Laboratory exposures may underestimate the risk that contaminated sediments pose to developing fish. This should be taken into account in risk assessment.

Keywords

Developmental toxicity Early-life stage Ecological risk assessment Laboratory-field comparison Pulp and paper mills Sediment toxicity 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank Laura Pitkäjärvi, Carlo Ruberto, and Minna Tolonen for the technical assistance; Antti Rusanen for preparing the figure of the study site; and Aarno Karels and the diving club Saimaan Norpat for their help in the field. The work was funded by the Academy of Finland (project 127400 to E-R Vehniäinen) and Maa- ja vesitekniikan tuki and Olvi Foundation (grants to S. Siiskonen).

Supplementary material

11368_2015_1159_MOESM1_ESM.docx (15 kb)
Electronic Supplementary Material 1 (DOCX 14 kb)
11368_2015_1159_MOESM2_ESM.docx (15 kb)
Electronic Supplementary Material 2 (DOCX 14 kb)
11368_2015_1159_MOESM3_ESM.docx (15 kb)
Electronic Supplementary Material 3 (DOCX 15 kb)

References

  1. Anderson B, Hunt J, Phillips B, Nicely P, Tjeerdema R, Martin M (2004) A comparison of in situ and laboratory toxicity tests with the estuarine amphipod Eohaustorius estuarius. Arch Environ Contam Toxicol 46:52–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Anonymous (2012) Environmental performance 2011. UPM Kaukas, Lappeenranta, FinlandGoogle Scholar
  3. Billiard S, Querbach K, Hodson P (1999) Toxicity of retene to early life stages of two freshwater fish species. Environ Toxicol Chem 18:2070–2077CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Burton GA, Johnston EL (2010) Assessing contaminated sediments in the context of multiple stressors. Environ Toxicol Chem 29:2625–2643CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Ciuhandu C, Stevens E, Wright P (2005) The effect of oxygen on the growth of Oncorhynchus mykiss embryos with and without a chorion. J Fish Biol 67:1544–1551CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Conrad A, Fleming R, Crane M (1999) Laboratory and field response of Chironomus riparius to a pyrethroid insecticide. Water Res 33:1603–1610CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Costa PM, Caeiro S, Lobo J, Martins M, Ferreira AM, Caetano M, Vale C, DelValls TA, Costa MH (2011a) Estuarine ecological risk based on hepatic histopathological indices from laboratory and in situ tested fish. Mar Pollut Bull 62:55–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Costa PM, Miguel C, Caeiro S, Lobo J, Martins M, Ferreira AM, Caetano M, Vale C, DelValls TA, Costa MH (2011b) Transcriptomic analyses in a benthic fish exposed to contaminated estuarine sediments through laboratory and in situ bioassays. Ecotoxicology 20:1749–1764CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Costa PM, Chicano-Galvez E, Caeiro S, Lobo J, Martins M, Ferreira AM, Caetano M, Vale C, Alhama-Carmona J, Lopez-Barea J, Angel DelValls T, Costa MH (2012) Hepatic proteome changes in Solea senegalensis exposed to contaminated estuarine sediments: a laboratory and in situ survey. Ecotoxicol 21:1194–1207CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Elonen G, Spehar R, Holcombe G, Johnson R, Fernandez J, Erickson R, Tietge J, Cook P (1998) Comparative toxicity of 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin to seven freshwater fish species during early life-stage development. Environ Toxicol Chem 17:472–483CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Fragoso NM, Hodson PV, Zambon S (2006) Evaluation of an exposure assay to measure uptake of sediment PAH by fish. Environ Monit Assess 116:481–511CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hakkari L (1992) Effects of pulp and paper mill effluents on fish populations in Finland. Finn Fish Res 13:93–106Google Scholar
  13. Hakkari L, Bagge P (1992) Reproductive success of Coregonus species in areas loaded by effluents from paper-mills. Hydrobiologia 243:405–412CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hose GC, Murray BR, Park ML, Kelaher BP, Figueira WF (2006) A meta-analysis comparing the toxicity of sediments in the laboratory and in situ. Environ Toxicol Chem 25:1148–1152CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Kamler E (2002) Ontogeny of yolk-feeding fish: an ecological perspective. Rev Fish Biol Fish 12:79–103CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Kamler E (2008) Resource allocation in yolk-feeding fish. Rev Fish Biol Fish 18:143–200CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Karels A, Tiitinen V (2012) Etelä-Saimaan ja Vuoksen kalataloudellinen tarkkailu vuonna 2011 (Fisheries surveillance in the Southern Lake Saimaa and Vuoksi area in the year 2011). Etelä-Karjalan kalatalouskeskus ry, Lappeenranta, FinlandGoogle Scholar
  18. Karels A, Markkula E, Oikari A (2001) Reproductive, biochemical, physiological, and population responses in perch (Perca fluviatilis L.) and roach (Rutilus rutilus L.) downstream of two elemental chlorine-free pulp and paper mills. Environ Toxicol Chem 20:1517–1527CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kater B, Postma J, Dubbeldam M, Prins J (2001) Comparison of laboratory and in situ sediment bioassays using Corophium volutator. Environ Toxicol Chem 20:1291–1295CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Leppanen H, Oikari A (1999) The occurrence and bioavailability of retene and resin acids in sediments of a lake receiving BKME (bleached kraft mill effluent). Water Sci Technol 40:131–138CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Leppanen H, Kukkonen J, Oikari A (2000) Concentration of retene and resin acids in sedimenting particles collected from a bleached kraft mill effluent receiving lake. Water Res 34:1604–1610CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Mann RM, Hyne RV, Simandjuntak DL, Simpson SL (2010) A rapid amphipod reproduction test for sediment quality assessment: in situ bioassays do not replicate laboratory bioassays. Environ Toxicol Chem 29:2566–2574CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Merilainen P, Lahdelma I, Oikari L, Hyotylainen T, Oikari A (2006) Dissolution of resin acids, retene and wood sterols from contaminated lake sediments. Chemosphere 65:840–846CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Oikari A (2006) Caging techniques for field exposures of fish to chemical contaminants. Aquat Toxicol 78:370–381CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Oikari A, Fragoso N, Leppanen H, Chan T, Hodson PV (2002) Bioavailability to juvenile rainbow trout (Oncorynchus mykiss) of retene and other mixed-function oxygenase-active compounds from sediments. Environ Toxicol Chem 21:121–128CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Oikari A, Lahti M, Merilainen P, Afanasyev S, Krasnov A (2010) Do historical sediments of pulp and paper industry contribute to the exposure of fish caged in receiving waters? J Environ Monit 12:1045–1054CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Pandelides Z, Guchardi J, Holdway D (2014) Dehydroabietic acid (DHAA) alters metabolic enzyme activity and the effects of 17β-estradiol in rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss). Ecotoxicol Environ Saf 101:168–176CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Pereira A, Soares A, Goncalves F, Ribeiro R (2000) Water-column, sediment, and in situ chronic bioassays with cladocerans. Ecotoxicol Environ Saf 47:27–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Phillips BM, Anderson BS, Hunt JW, Nicely PA, Kosaka RA, Tjeerdema RS, de Vlaming V, Richard N (2004) In situ water and sediment toxicity in an agricultural watershed. Environ Toxicol Chem 23:435–442CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Ramanen H, Lassila H, Lensu A, Lahti M, Oikari A (2010) Dissolution and spatial distribution of resin acids and retene in sediments contaminated by pulp and paper industry. J Soils Sediments 10:349–358CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Ratia H, Ramanen H, Lensu A, Oikari A (2013) Betulinol and wood sterols in sediments contaminated by pulp and paper mill effluents: dissolution and spatial distribution. Environ Sci Pollut Res 20:4562–4573CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Ratia HM, Vehniainen E, Rusanen AT, Oikari AOJ (2014) Recovery of historically contaminated watercourse polluted by the chemical wood industry: EROD activity in fish as biomarker. Soil Sediment Contam 23:211–225CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Ringwood A, Keppler C (2002) Comparative in situ and laboratory sediment bioassays with juvenile Mercenaria mercenaria. Environ Toxicol Chem 21:1651–1657CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Rissanen E, Krumschnabel G, Nikinmaa M (2003) Dehydroabietic acid, a major component of wood industry effluents, interferes with cellular energetics in rainbow trout hepatocytes. Aquat Toxicol 62:45–53CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Scott JA, Hodson PV (2008) Evidence for multiple mechanisms of toxicity in larval rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) co-treated with retene and alpha-naphthoflavone. Aquat Toxicol 88:200–206CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Scott JA, Ross M, Lemire BC, Hodson PV (2009) Embryotoxicity of retene in co-treatment with 2-aminoanthracene, a cytochrome P450 1A inhibitor, in rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss). Environ Toxicol Chem 28:1304–1310CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Shang E, Wu R (2004) Aquatic hypoxia is a teratogen and affects fish embryonic development. Environ Sci Technol 38:4763–4767CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Tavendale M, McFarlane P, Mackie K, Wilkins A, Langdon A (1997) The fate of resin acids. 2. The fate of resin acids and resin acid derived neutral compounds in anaerobic sediments. Chemosphere 35:2153–2166CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Villalobos S, Papoulias D, Meadows J, Blankenship A, Pastva S, Kannan K, Hinton D, Tillitt D, Giesy J (2000) Toxic responses of medaka, d-rR strain, to polychlorinated naphthalene mixtures after embryonic exposure by in ovo nanoinjection: a partial life-cycle assessment. Environ Toxicol Chem 19:432–440Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Eeva-Riikka Vehniäinen
    • 1
  • Silja Siiskonen
    • 1
  • Marja Raatikainen
    • 1
    • 2
  • Aimo O. J. Oikari
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Biological and Environmental Science40014 University of JyväskyläJyväskyläFinland
  2. 2.Finnish Food Safety Authority EviraHelsinkiFinland

Personalised recommendations