Pathology & Oncology Research

, Volume 18, Issue 3, pp 579–584 | Cite as

Subacute Toxicity Assessment of Water Disinfection Byproducts on Zebrafish

  • Gergely Rácz
  • Zsolt Csenki
  • Róbert Kovács
  • Árpád Hegyi
  • Ferenc Baska
  • László Sujbert
  • Ivett Zsákovics
  • Renáta Kis
  • Ryan Gustafson
  • Béla Urbányi
  • Béla Szende
Research

Abstract

Disinfection of raw water is essential to the production of drinking water. However, by-products of disinfection may exert toxic effects. The potential toxic effects of two of these compounds, 4-ethylbenzaldehyde (EBA) and 2,4-difluoroaniline (DFA) were investigated using the zebrafish (Danio rerio) model. The two compounds, dissolved, were introduced in duplicate aquariums containing zebrafish in two different concentrations based on LC50 values. The aquarium water containing EBA or DFA was changed every 96 h throughout the 3 months of treatment. Behavior of the fish in each replicate was inspected twice daily. In course of treatment with both concentrations, fish exposed to DFA displayed behavior associated with visible anxiety, while EBA treated were lethargic and did not evade capture. Application of both concentrations of each component into the aquarium water resulted in dystrophic lesions in the liver, kidney and skin of the fish while preneoplastic lesions and tumors were not observed.

Keywords

4-ethylbenzaldehyde 2,4-difluoroaniline Zebrafish Water disinfection byproducts 

Abbreviations

EBA

4-ethylbenzaldehyde

DFA

2,4-difluoroaniline

DBP

Disinfection byproduct

ASV

Air saturation volume

Notes

Acknowledgements

This work was funded by the Center of Excellence in Environmental Industry at Szent István University (RET-12/2005), the Baross Program (BAROSS-HALDEC 09), by the Hungarian National Research Fund (OTKA NNF 78834), and by the National Office for Research and Technology of Hungary.

References

  1. 1.
    Nieuwenhuijsen MJ, Toledano MB, Elliott P (2000) Uptake of chlorination disinfection by-products; a review and a discussion of its implications for exposure assessment in epidemiological studies. J Expo Anal Environ Epidemiol 10:586–599PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Cognet L, Courtois Y, Mallevialle J (1986) Mutagenic activity of disinfection by-products. Environ Health Perspect 69:165–175PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Woodruff NW et al (2001) Human cell mutagenicity of chlorinated and unchlorinated water and the disinfection byproduct 3-chloro-4-(dichloromethyl)-5-hydroxy-2(5H)-furanone (MX). Mutat Res 495:157–168PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Morris RD et al (1992) Chlorination, chlorination by-products, and cancer: a meta-analysis. Am J Public Health 82:955–963PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bove GE Jr, Rogerson PA, Vena JE (2007) Case control study of the geographic variability of exposure to disinfectant byproducts and risk for rectal cancer. Int J Health Geogr 6:18PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Villanueva CM et al (2007) Bladder cancer and exposure to water disinfection by-products through ingestion, bathing, showering, and swimming in pools. Am J Epidemiol 165:148–156PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Sujbert L et al (2006) Genotoxic potential of by-products in drinking water in relation to water disinfection: survey of pre-ozonated and post-chlorinated drinking water by Ames-test. Toxicology 219:106–112PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Racz G et al (2004) Rapid communication: water disinfection by-products enhanced apoptotic activity in human lymphocytes. J Toxicol Environ Health A 67:1315–1319PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Krasner SW et al (2006) Occurrence of a new generation of disinfection byproducts. Environ Sci Technol 40:7175–7185PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Berghmans S et al (2005) Making waves in cancer research: new models in the zebrafish. Biotechniques 39:227–237PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Simon K, Lapis K (1984) Carcinogenesis studies on guppies. Natl Canc Inst Monogr 65:71–81Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Amatruda JF et al (2002) Zebrafish as a cancer model system. Canc Cell 1:229–231CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    OECD, OECD 203 (1992) OECD Guidelines for testing of chemicals, 1992. Effects on biotic systems. Method 203. Fish, Acute Toxicity Test. Adopted July 17, 1992Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Mulrane L et al (2008) Automated image analysis in histopathology: a valuable tool in medical diagnostics. Expert Rev Mol Diagn 8:707–725PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Krenacs T et al (2010) Digital microscopy for boosting database integration and analysis in TMA studies. Meth Mol Biol 664:163–175CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Blaser RE, Chadwick L, McGinnis GC (2010) Behavioral measures of anxiety in zebrafish (Danio rerio). Behav Brain Res 208:56–62PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Rook JJ (1974) Formation of haloforms during chlorination of natural waters. Wat Treat Exam 2:234–243Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    von Gunten U et al (2001) By-products formation during drinking water disinfection: a tool to assess disinfection efficiency? Water Res 35:2095–2099CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Cantor KP (1982) Epidemiological evidence of carcinogenicity of chlorinated organics in drinking water. Environ Health Perspect 46:187–195PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Plewa MJ et al (2002) Mammalian cell cytotoxicity and genotoxicity analysis of drinking water disinfection by-products. Environ Mol Mutagen 40:134–142PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Lele Z, Krone PH (1996) The zebrafish as a model system in developmental, toxicological and transgenic research. Biotechnol Adv 14:57–72PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Lammer E et al (2009) Development of a flow-through system for the fish embryo toxicity test (FET) with the zebrafish (Danio rerio). Toxicol In Vitro 23:1436–1442PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Peterson SM, Freeman JL (2009) Cancer cytogenetics in the zebrafish. Zebrafish 6:355–360PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Mione MC, Trede NS (2010) The zebrafish as a model for cancer. Dis Model Mech 3:517–523PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Sullivan C, Kim CH (2008) Zebrafish as a model for infectious disease and immune function. Fish Shellfish Immunol 25:341–350PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Khudoley VV (1984) Use of aquarium fish, Danio rerio and Poecilia reticulata, as test species for evaluation of nitrosamine carcinogenicity. Natl Canc Inst Monogr 65:65–70Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Arányi Lajos Foundation 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Gergely Rácz
    • 1
  • Zsolt Csenki
    • 2
  • Róbert Kovács
    • 2
  • Árpád Hegyi
    • 2
  • Ferenc Baska
    • 3
  • László Sujbert
    • 4
  • Ivett Zsákovics
    • 5
  • Renáta Kis
    • 5
  • Ryan Gustafson
    • 6
  • Béla Urbányi
    • 2
  • Béla Szende
    • 1
  1. 1.1st Department of Pathology and Experimental Cancer ResearchSemmelweis University BudapestBudapestHungary
  2. 2.Department of Fish Culture, Faculty of Agricultural and Environmental SciencesSzent István UniversityGödöllőHungary
  3. 3.Department of Pathology and Forensic Veterinary Medicine, Faculty of Veterinary MedicineSzent István UniversityBudapestHungary
  4. 4.Institute of HygieneSemmelweis University BudapestBudapestHungary
  5. 5.3D HISTECH KftBudapestHungary
  6. 6.Department of Environmental Sciences & Engineering, Gillings School of Global Public HealthUniversity of North Carolina at Chapel HillChapel HillUSA

Personalised recommendations