Ecotoxicology

, Volume 15, Issue 5, pp 411–424 | Cite as

Impact of triphenyltin acetate in microcosms simulating floodplain lakes. II. Comparison of species sensitivity distributions between laboratory and semi-field

  • I. Roessink
  • J. D. M. Belgers
  • S. J. H. Crum
  • P. J. van den Brink
  • T. C. M. Brock
Original paper

Abstract

The study objectives were to shed light on the types of freshwater organism that are sensitive to triphenyltin acetate (TPT) and to compare the laboratory and microcosm sensitivities of the invertebrate community. The responses of a wide array of freshwater taxa (including invertebrates, phytoplankton and macrophytes) from acute laboratory Single Species Tests (SST) were compared with the concentration–response relationships of aquatic populations in two types of freshwater microcosms. Representatives of several taxonomic groups of invertebrates, and several phytoplankton and vascular plant species proved to be sensitive to TPT, illustrating its diverse modes of toxic action. Statistically calculated ecological risk thresholds (HC5 values) based on 96 h laboratory EC50 values for invertebrates were 1.3 μg/l, while these values on the basis of microcosm-Species Sensitivity Distributions (SSD) for invertebrates in sampling weeks 2–8 after TPT treatment ranged from 0.2 to 0.6 μg/l based on nominal peak concentrations. Responses observed in the microcosms did not differ between system types and sampling dates, indicating that ecological threshold levels are not affected by different community structures including taxa sensitive to TPT. The laboratory-derived invertebrate SSD curve was less sensitive than the curves from the microcosms. Possible explanations for the more sensitive field response are delayed effects and/or additional chronic exposure via the food chain in the microcosms.

Keywords

Species Sensitivity Distibution Laboratory vs. Semi-field Triphenyltin acetate 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This study was subsidized by the Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research (NWO) as part of the Stimulation Program System-oriented Ecotoxicological Research (SSEO) (project no. 014.23.012). In addition, the research was supported by the UK Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) and the Dutch Ministry of Agriculture, Nature and Food Safety, as part of a research program focusing on the scientific underpinning of risk assessment procedures for fungicides in the aquatic environment. The authors are indebted to L. Buijse, A. Matser, and L.J.T. van der Pas for practical assistance.

References

  1. Aldenberg T, Jaworska JS (2000) Uncertainty of hazardous concentrations and fraction affected for normal species sensitivity distributions. Ecotoxicol Environ Saf 46:1–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Aldenberg T, Jaworska JS, Traas TP (2002) Normal Species Sensitivity Distributions and probabilistic ecological risk assessment. In: Posthuma L, Suter II, GW, Traas TP (eds) Species sensitivity distributions in ecotoxicology. Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, pp 49–102Google Scholar
  3. Baer KN, Goulden CE (1998) Evaluation of a high-hardness COMBO medium and frozen algae for Daphnia magna. Ecotoxicol Environ Saf 39:201–206CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Chandra S, Polya GM, James BD, Magee RJ (1989) Inhibition of oxidative phosphorylation by organotin thiocarbamates. Chem Biol Interact 71:21–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cima F, Dominici D, Mammi S, Ballarin L (2002) Butyltins and calmodulin: which interaction? Appl Organomet Chem 16:182–186CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cuppen JGM, Van den Brink PJ, Camps E, Uil KF, Brock TCM (2000) Impact of the fungicide carbendazim in freshwater microcosms. I. Water quality, breakdown of particulate organic matter and responses of macroinvertebrates. Aquat Toxicol 48:233–250CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. De Zwart D (2002) Observed regularities in species sensitivity distributions for aquatic species. In: Posthuma L, Suter II, GW, Traas TP (eds) Species sensitivity distributions in ecotoxicology. Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, pp 133–154Google Scholar
  8. Eng G, Whalen D, Kirksey A, Otieno M, Khoot LE, James BD (1996) Fungicidal activity of some organotin compounds against Ceratocystis ulmi. Appl Organomet Chem 10:501–503CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Fairchild JF, Ruessler DS, Carlson R (1998) Comparative sensitivity of five species of macrophytes and six species of algae to atrazine, metribuzin, alachlor, and metolachlor. Environ Toxicol Chem 17:1830–1834CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Fargasová A (1998) Comparison of effects of tributyl-, triphenyl-, and tribenzyltin compounds on freshwater benthos and alga Scenedesmus quadricauda. Bull Environ Contam Toxicol 60:9–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Farrel AP, Stockner E, Kennedy CJ (1998) A study of the lethal and sublethal toxicity of polyphase P-100, an antisapatain fungicide containing 3-Iodo-2-Propynyl Butyl Carbamate (IPBC), on fish and aquatic invertebrates. Arch Environ Contam Toxicol 35:472–478CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Girard J-P, Ferrua C, Pesando D (1997) Effects of tributyltin on Ca2+ homeostasis and mechanisms controlling cell cycling in sea urchin eggs. Aquat Toxicol 38:225–239CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hommen U, Veith D, Ratte HT (1994) A computer program to evaluate plankton data from freshwater field tests. In: Hill IR, Heimbach F, Leeuwangh P, Matthiesen P (eds) Freshwater field tests for hazard assessment of chemicals. Lewis, Boca Raton, FL, pp 503–513Google Scholar
  14. Hose GC, Van den Brink PJ (2004) Confirming the species-sensitivity distribution concept for endosulfan using laboratory, mesocosm, and field data. Arch Environ Contam Toxicol 47:511–520CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hutchinson TH, Solbé J, Kloepper-Sams PJ (1998) Analysis of the Ecetoc Aquatic Toxicity (EAT) database III – Comparative toxicity of chemical substances to different life stages of aquatic organisms. Chemosphere 36:129–142CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Jak RG, Ceulemans M, Scholten MCT, Van Straalen NM (1998) Effects of tributyltin on a coastal north sea plankton community in enclosures. Environ Toxicol Chem 17:1840–1847CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Juneau P, El Berdey A, Popovic R (2002) PAM fluorometry in the determination of the sensitivity of Chlorella vulgaris, Selenastrum capricornutum, and Chlamydomonas reinhardtii to copper. Arch Environ Contam Toxicol 42:155–164CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Koelmans AA, Hubert E, Koopman HW, Portielje R, Crum SJH (2000) Modeling the vertical distribution of carbendazim in sediments. Environ Toxicol Chem 19:793–800CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Laughlin RB, Linden O (1985) Fate and effects of organotin compounds. Ambio 14:88–94Google Scholar
  20. Looser PW, Fent K, Berg M, Goudsmit G-H, Schwarzenbach RP (2000) Uptake and elimination of triorganotin compounds by larval midge Chironomus riparius in the absence and presence of aldrich humic acid. Environ Sci Technol 34:5165–5171CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Lürling M, Verschoor AM (2003) F0-spectra of chlorophyll fluorescence for the determination of zooplankton grazing. Hydrobiologia 491:145–157CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Maltby L, Blake NN, Brock TCM, Van den Brink PJ (2005) Insecticide species sensitivity distributions: the importance of test species selections and relevance to aquatic ecosystems. Environ Toxicol Chem 24:379–388CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Mooney HM, Patching JW (1995) Triphenyltin inhibits photosynthesis and respiration in marine microalgae. J Ind Microbiol 14:265–270CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Nguyen TT, Ogwuru N, Eng G (2000) Tolerance of Aedes aegypti larvae to triorganotins. Appl Organomet Chem 14:345–348CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Payne RW (2002) GenStat® Release 6.1. Reference manualGoogle Scholar
  26. Petersen S, Gustavson K (2000) Direct toxic effects of TBT on natural enclosed phytoplankton at ambient TBT concentrations of coastal waters. Ecotoxicology 9:273–285CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Posthuma L, Suter II GW, Traas TP (2002) Species sensitivity distributions in ecotoxicology. Lewis Publishers, LondonGoogle Scholar
  28. Rehage JS, Lynn SG, Hammond JI, Palmer BD, Sih A (2002) Effects of larval exposure to triphenyltin on the survival, growth, and behavior of larval and juvenile Ambystoma barbouri salamanders. Environ Toxicol Chem 21:807–815CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Roessink I, Arts GHP, Belgers JDM, Bransen F, Maund SJ, Brock TCM (2005) Effects of lambda-cyhalothrin in two ditch microcosm systems of different trophic status. Environ Toxicol Chem 24: 1684–1698CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Roessink I, Crum SJH, Bransen F, Van Leeuwen E, Van Kerkum F, Koelmans AA, Brock TCM (2006) Impact of TriPhenylTin-Acetate (TPT) in microcosms simulating floodplain lakes. I. Influence of sediment quality. Ecotoxicology (accepted)Google Scholar
  31. Schroer AFW, Belgers D, Brock TCM, Matser A, Maund SJ, Blake NN, (2004) Acute toxicity of the pyrethroid insecticide lambda-cyhalothrin to invertebrates of lenthic freshwater systems. Arch Environ Contam Toxicol 46:324–335CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Schulte-Oehlmann U, Tillmann M, Markert B, Oehlmann J (2000) Effects of endocrine disruptors on Prosobranch snails (Mollusca: Gastropoda) in the laboratory. Part II: Triphenyltin as a xeno-androgen. Ecotoxicology 9:399–412CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Snel JFH, Vos JH, Gylstra R, Brock TCM (1998) Inhibition of photosystem II (PSII) electron transport as a convenient endpoint to assess stress of the herbicide linuron on freshwater plants. Aquat Ecol 32:113–123CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Stäb JA, Traas TP, Stroomberg G, Van Kesteren J, Leonards P, Van Hattum B, Brinkman UAT, Cofino WP (1996) Determination of organotin compounds in the foodweb of a shallow freshwater lake in The Netherlands. Arch Environ Contam Toxicol 31:319–328CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Stridh H, Orrenius S, Hampton MB (1999) Caspase involvement in the induction of apoptosis by the environmental toxicants tributyltin and triphenyltin. Toxicol Appl Pharmacol 156:141–146CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Tiano L, Fedeli D, Santoni G, Davies I, Falcioni G (2003) Effect of tributyltin on trout blood cells: changes in mitochondrial morphology and functionality. Biochim Biophys Acta 1640:105–112CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Tillmann M, Schulte-Oehlmann U, Duft M, Markert B, Oehlmann J, (2001) Effects of endocrine disruptors on prosobranch snails (Mollusca: Gastropoda) in the laboratory. Part III: Cyproterone acetate and vinclozolin as antiandrogens. Ecotoxicology 10:373–388CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Traas TP, Stäb JA, Kramer PRG, Cofino WP, Aldenberg T (1996) Modeling and risk assessment of tributyltin accumulation in the food web of a shallow freshwater lake. Environ Sci Technol 30:1227–1237CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Van den Brink PJ, Brock TCM, Posthuma L (2002) The value of the species sensitivity distribution concept for predicting field effects: (Non-) confirmation of the concept using semifield experiments. In: Posthuma L, Suter II, GW, Traas TP (eds) Species sensitivity distributions in ecotoxicology. Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, pp 155–193Google Scholar
  40. Van den Brink PJ, Hartgers EM, Fettweis U, Crum SJH, Van Donk E, Brock TCM (1997) Sensitivity of macrophyte-dominated freshwater microcosms to chronic levels of the herbicide Linuron. Ecotoxicol Environ Saf 38:13–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Van den Brink PJ, Hattink J, Bransen F, Van Donk E, Brock TCM (2000) Impact of the fungicide carbendazim in freshwater microcosms. II. Zooplankton, primary producers and final conclusions. Aquat Toxicol 48:251–264CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Van Ewijk PH, Hoekstra JA (1993) Calculation of the EC50 and its confidence interval when subtoxic stimulus is present. Ecotoxicol Environ Saf 25:25–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Van Straalen NM, Denneman CAJ (1989) Ecotoxicological evaluation of soil quality criteria. Ecotoxicol Environ Saf 18:241–251CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Van Vlaardingen P, Traas TP (2002) ETX-2000. A program to calculate risk limits and potentially affected fraction, based on normal species sensitivity distributionsGoogle Scholar
  45. Van Wijngaarden RPA, Crum SJH, Decraena K, Hattink J, Van Kammen A, (1998) Toxicity of Derosal (active ingredient Carbendazim) to aquatic vertebrates. Chemosphere 37:673–683CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Vighi M, Calamari D (1985) QSARs for organotin compounds on Daphnia magna. Chemosphere 14:1925–1932CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Williams DA (1972) The comparison of several dose levels with zero dose control. Biometrics 28:519–531CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • I. Roessink
    • 1
    • 2
  • J. D. M. Belgers
    • 1
  • S. J. H. Crum
    • 1
  • P. J. van den Brink
    • 1
    • 2
  • T. C. M. Brock
    • 1
  1. 1.Alterra, Wageningen URWageningenThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Department of Aquatic Ecology and Water Quality ManagementWageningen UniversityWageningenThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations