Environmental Processes

, Volume 6, Issue 1, pp 107–117 | Cite as

Acute Toxicity of Chlorpyrifos to Hyalella curvispina: Comparison of Species Sensitivity and Assessment of Environmental Risk

  • Marina SolisEmail author
  • Ariel Paracampo
  • Carlos Bonetto
  • Hernán Mugni
Original Article


The objective of the work reported here was to determine the acute toxicity of chlorpyrifos—the most commonly used pesticide in Argentina—to the amphipod Hyalella curvispina, with that species being widely distributed in South America. The 50% lethal concentration (LC 50) of chlorpyrifos to H. curvispina was determined and compared to that of other crustacean species by means of the species-sensitivity distribution (SSD). The ecological risk was assessed as the Hazard Quotient (HQ). The mean 48-h LC50 recorded in this study was 0.38 ± 0.04 μg/L. Hyalella curvispina was considerably sensitive compared to other crustacean species reported in the literature. The HQ values calculated from the LC50s estimated here and the chlorpyrifos concentrations reported in previous studies in the Argentine Pampas ranged within 0.6–46. The chlorpyrifos concentrations in those stream waters were often above the H. curvispina 48-h LC50, indicating that acute toxicity of chlorpyrifos to H. curvispina is predicted to be occurring in these streams. The present results suggest that H. curvispina represents a suitable sentinel species for water-quality assessment and that H. curvispina along with similarly sensitive macroinvertebrate species in intensively cultivated areas in South America are likely to be affected by the application of chlorpyrifos to the neighboring crops.


Acute toxicity Chlorpyrifos Hyalella curvispina Species-sensitivity distribution Ecological risk 



The National Scientific and Technical Research Council (CONICET) grant number PIP 2011 # 0180 provided financial support for this work. We are grateful to the editor and anonymous reviewers for valuable comments and suggestions. Dr. Donald F. Haggerty, a retired academic career investigator and native English speaker, edited the final version of the manusript.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical Approval

Our institute is grounded in an agreement between the National Scientific and Technical Research Council and the National University of Argentina at La Plata. No permission to carry out experimental research on invertebrates is required, nor is permission from the Ministry of Agriculture for sampling invertebrates in the field is needed. A national law—irrelevant, however, to this study—does exist regulating experiments with vertebrates performed by companies that require approval for the commercial sale of agrochemicals or pharmaceutical products. The experiments reported here were conducted according to the guidelines stipulated by the National Service for Agrofood Health and Quality (Servicio Nacional de Sanidad y Calidad Agroalimentaria; SENASA). This investigation contains no studies involving humans.


  1. Anderson BS, Phillips BM, Hunt JW, Connor V, Richard N, Tjeerdema RS (2006) Identifying primary stressors impacting macroinvertebrates in the Salinas River (California, USA): relative effects of pesticides and suspended particles. Environ Pollut 141:402–408Google Scholar
  2. Anderson BS, Phillips BM, Voorhees JP, Deng X, Geraci J, Worcester K, Tjeerdemay RS (2017) Changing patterns in water toxicity associated with current use pesticides in three California agriculture regions. Integr Environ Assess Manag 14(2):270–281Google Scholar
  3. APHA (1998) Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater, 20th edn. American Public Health Association, American Water Works Association and Water Environmental Federation, Washington DC, 1193 ppGoogle Scholar
  4. Athor J (ed) (2009) Parque Costero del Sur – Naturaleza, conservación y patrimonio cultural. First edition. Fundación de Historia Natural “Félix de Azara”. Buenos Aires 528 ppGoogle Scholar
  5. Bartlett AJ, Struger J, Grapentine LC, Palace VP (2016) Examining impacts of current-use pesticides in southern Ontario using in situ exposures of the amphipod Hyalella azteca. Environ Toxicol Chem 35(5):1224–1238Google Scholar
  6. Braun HE, Frank R (1980) Organochlorine and organophosphorus insecticides: their use in eleven agricultural watersheds and their loss to stream waters in southern Ontario, Canada, 1975—1977. Sci Total Environ 15:169–192Google Scholar
  7. CASAFE (2013) Cámara de Sanidad Agropecuaria y Fertilizantes, Buenos Aires, Argentina. Available: Accessed 2018
  8. Castillo LE, Martinez E, Ruepert C, Savage C, Gilek M, Pinnock M, Solis E (2006) Water quality and macroinvertebrate community response following pesticide applications in a banana plantation, Limon, Costa Rica. Sci Total Environ 367:418–432Google Scholar
  9. Echeverría-Sáenz S, Mena F, Arias-Andrés M, Vargas S, Ruepert C, Van den Brink PJ, Castillo LE, Gunnarsson JS (2016) In situ toxicity and ecological risk assessment of agro-pesticide runoff in the Madre de Dios River in Costa Rica. Environ Sci Pollut Res 25(14):13270–13282Google Scholar
  10. García ME, Rodrígues Capítulo A, Ferrari L (2010) Age-related differential sensitivity to cadmiumin Hyalella curvispina (Amphipoda) and implications in ecotoxicity studies. Ecotoxicol Environ Saf 73:771–778Google Scholar
  11. Giesy JP, Dobson S, Solomon KR (2000) Ecotoxicological risk assessment for roundup herbicide. Rev Environ Contam Toxicol 167:35–120Google Scholar
  12. Gonzalez E, Watling L (2002) Redescription of Hyalella azteca from its type locality, Vera Cruz, México (Amphipoda: hyalellidae). J Crustac Biol 22(1):173–183Google Scholar
  13. Hanken JAO, Stark JD (1998) Multiple routes of pesticide exposure and the risk of pesticides to biological controls: a study of neem and the sevenspotted lady beetle (Coleoptera: Coccinellidae). J Econ Entomol 91(1):1–6Google Scholar
  14. Hasenbein S, Lawler SP, Geist J, Connon RE (2016) A long-term assessment of pesticide mixture effects. Environ Toxicol Chem 35(1):218–232Google Scholar
  15. Hua J, Relyea R (2014) Chemical cocktails in aquatic systems: pesticide effects on the response and recovery of 20 animal taxa. Environ Pollut 189:18–26Google Scholar
  16. Hunt JW, Anderson BS, Phillips BM, Nicely PN, Tjeerdema RS, Puckett HM, Stephenson M, Worcester K, de Vlaming V (2003) Ambient toxicity due to chlorpyrifos and diazinon in a central Californian coastal watershed. Environ Monit Assess 82:83–112Google Scholar
  17. Hunt L, Bonetto C, Resh VH, Forsin Buss D, Fanelli S, Marrochi N, Lydy MJ (2016) Insecticide concentrations in stream sediments of soy production regions of South America. Sci Total Environ 547:114–124Google Scholar
  18. Hunt L, Marrochi N, Bonetto C, Liess M, Buss DF, Vieira da Silva C, Chiu M-C, Resh VH (2017) Do riparian buffers protect stream invertebrate communities in south American Atlantic forest agricultural areas. Environ Manag (NY) 60(6):1155–1170Google Scholar
  19. Jergentz S, Mugni H, Bonetto C, Schulz R (2004) Runoff-related endosulfan contamination and aquatic macroinvertebrate response in rural basins near Buenos Aires, Argentina. Arch Environ Contam Toxicol 46:345–352Google Scholar
  20. Jergentz S, Mugni H, Bonetto C, Schulz R (2005) Assessment of insecticide contamination in runoff and stream water of small agricultural streams in the main soybean area of Argentina. Chemosphere 61(6):817–826Google Scholar
  21. Liess M, Von der Ohe P (2005) Analyzing effects of pesticides on invertebrate communities in streams. Environ Toxicol Chem 24:954–965Google Scholar
  22. Lyytikainen M, Kukkonen JVK, Lydy MJ (2003) Analysis of pesticides in water and sediment under different storage conditions using gas chromatography. Arch Environ Contam Toxicol 44:437–444. Google Scholar
  23. Mac Loughlin TM, Peluso L, Marino D (2017) Pesticide impact study in the peri-urban horticultural area of Gran La Plata, Argentina. Sci Total Environ 598:572–580Google Scholar
  24. Marino D, Ronco A (2005) Cypermethrin and chlorpyrifos concentration levels in surface water bodies of the Pampa Ondulada, Argentina. Bull Environ Contam Toxicol 75(4):820–826Google Scholar
  25. Moltoni L (2012) Evolución del Mercado de Herbicidas en Argentina. Instituto de Ingeniería Rural. Ministerio de Agricultura y Pesca. Presidencia de la Nación. Economía y Desarrollo Rural, v.1, n.2, p.1-6, 2012. Accessed April 2018
  26. Mugni H, Ronco A, Bonetto C (2011) Insecticide toxicity to Hyalella curvispina in runoff and stream water within a soybean farm (Buenos Aires, Argentina). Ecotoxicol Environ Saf 74:350–354Google Scholar
  27. Mugni H, Paracampo A, Marrochi N, Bonetto C (2013) Acute toxicity of cypermethrin to the non target organism Hyalella curvispina. Environ Toxicol Pharmacol 35:88–92Google Scholar
  28. Mugni H, Paracampo A, Demetrio P, Scalise A, Solís M, Fanelli S, Bonetto C (2015) Acute toxicity of endosulfan to the non-target organisms Hyalella curvispina and Cnesterodon decemmaculatus. Bull Environ Contam Toxicol 95:363–367. Google Scholar
  29. Muschal M (1998) Central and north west regions water quality program. Report on pesticides monitoring. CNR98.038. Dep. of Land and Water Conserv, Sydney, NSW, AustraliaGoogle Scholar
  30. Neumann M, Dudgeon D (2002) The impact of agricultural runoff on stream benthos in Hong Kong, China. Water Res 36(12):3103–3109. Google Scholar
  31. Newman MC, Unger MA (2003) Fundamentals of Ecotoxicology, 2nd edn. Lewis Publishers, CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, 458 ppGoogle Scholar
  32. Peluso ML, Bulus Rossini G, Salibián A, Ronco A (2013a) Physicochemical and ecotoxicological based assessment of bottom sediments from the Luján River basin, Buenos Aires Argentina. Environ Monit Assess 185:5993–6002. Google Scholar
  33. Peluso L, Abelando M, Apartín CD, Almada P, Ronco AE (2013b) Integrated ecotoxicological assessment of bottom sediments from the Paraná basin, Argentina. Ecotoxicol Environ Saf 98(2013):179–186Google Scholar
  34. Rico A, Van den Brink PJ (2015) Evaluating aquatic invertebrate vulnerability to insecticides based on intrinsic sensitivity, biological traits, and toxic mode of action. Environ Toxicol Chem 34(8):1907–1917Google Scholar
  35. Schäfer RB, Caquet T, Siimes K, Mueller R, Lagadic L, Liess M (2007) Effects of pesticides on community structure and ecosystem functions in agricultural streams of three biogeographical regions in Europe. Sci Total Environ 382:272–285Google Scholar
  36. Schäfer RB, von der Ohe CP, Rasmussen J, Kefford BJ, Beketov MA, Schulz R, Liess M (2012) Thresholds for the effects of pesticides on invertebrate communities and leaf breakdown in stream ecosystems. Environ Sci Technol 46:5134–5142Google Scholar
  37. Schulz R (2001) Rainfall-induced sediment and pesticide input from orchards into the Lourens River, Western Cape, South Africa: importance of a single event. Water Res 35:1869–1876Google Scholar
  38. Solis M, Mugni H, Hunt L, Marrochi N, Fanelli S, Bonetto C (2016) Land use effect on invertebrate assemblages in Pampasic streams (Buenos Aires, Argentina). Environ Monit Assess 188:539. Google Scholar
  39. Solis M, Mugni H, Fanelli S, Bonetto C (2017) Effect of agrochemicals on macroinvertebrate assemblages in Pampasic streams, Buenos Aires, Argentina. Environ Earth Sci 76.
  40. Solis M, Bonetto C, Marrochi N, Paracampo A, Mugni H (2018) Aquatic macroinvertebrate assemblages are affected by insecticide applications on the argentine pampas. Ecotoxicol Environ Saf 148:11–16Google Scholar
  41. Song MY, Leprieur F, Thomas A, Lek-Ang S, Chon TS, Lek S (2009) Impact of agricultural land use on aquatic insect assemblages in the Garonne river catchment (SW France). Aquat Ecol 43(4):999–1009. Google Scholar
  42. Stehle S, Schulz R (2015) Agricultural insecticides threaten surface waters at the global scale. Proc Natl Acad Sci 112(18):5750–5755Google Scholar
  43. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (1999) National Recommended Water Quality Criteria – correction. Office of Water, EPA 822-Z-99-001, Washington DC, 26 ppGoogle Scholar
  44. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2000) Methods for measuring the toxicity and bioaccumulation of sediment-associated contaminants with freshwater invertebrates, 2nd edn. Office of Research and Development, Office of Water, EPA 600/R-99/064, Washington, DC, 213 ppGoogle Scholar
  45. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2015a) Solid-phase extraction method 3535a; Accessed Dec 2018
  46. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2015b) Species Sensitivity Distribution (SSD) Generator software Accessed April 2018
  47. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2015c) ECOTOX AQUIRE data base: Accessed April 2017
  48. Wan MT, Szeto S, Price P (1995) Distribution of endosulfan residues in the drainage waterways of the lower Fraser Valley of British Columbia. J Environ Sci Health B 30:401–433Google Scholar
  49. Wogram J, Liess M (2001) Rank ordering of macroinvertebrate species sensitivity to toxic compounds by comparison with that of Daphnia magna. Bull Environ Contam Toxicol 67(3):360–367. Google Scholar
  50. Xing Z, Chow L, Rees H, Meng F, Li S, Ernst B, Benoy G, Zha T, Hewitt LM (2013) Influences of sampling methodologies on pesticide-residue detection in stream water. Arch Environ Contam Toxicol 64:208–218. Google Scholar
  51. You J, Weston DP, Lydy MJ (2004) A sonication extraction method for the analysis of pyrethroid, organophosphate, and organochlorine pesticides from sediment by gas chromatography with electron-capture detection. Arch Environ Contam Toxicol 47:141–147. Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Marina Solis
    • 1
    Email author
  • Ariel Paracampo
    • 1
  • Carlos Bonetto
    • 1
  • Hernán Mugni
    • 1
  1. 1.Instituto de Limnología Dr. Raúl. A. RingueletILPLA (CONICET) – UNLPBuenos AiresArgentina

Personalised recommendations