Advertisement

Environmental Science and Pollution Research

, Volume 25, Issue 14, pp 13217–13225 | Cite as

Ecotoxicological impact of arsenic on earthworms and collembolans as affected by attributes of a highly weathered tropical soil

  • Paulo Roger Lopes AlvesEmail author
  • Evandro Barbosa da Silva
  • Elke Jurandy Bran Nogueira Cardoso
  • Luís Reynaldo Ferracciú Alleoni
Ecotoxicology in Tropical Regions

Abstract

High levels of heavy metals in soils may impose serious impacts on terrestrial organisms. In Brazil, the prevention values for evaluating the ecological risk of these elements are based only on soil chemical analyses and/or on data from ecotoxicological assays performed in soils of temperate regions. However, the attributes of the Brazilian highly-weathered tropical soils can influence the availability of heavy metals for soil fauna, resulting in different toxic values. To provide more accurate ecotoxicological risk values for arsenic (As) in tropical soils, we assessed the impacts of sodium arsenate (Na2HAsO4·7H2O) on the reproduction of earthworms (Eisenia andrei) and collembolans (Folsomia candida), as well as on As bioaccumulation and growth (weight loss) of E. andrei in a tropical artificial soil (TAS) and in an Oxisol. In TAS, As doses reduced the reproduction of the species and promoted weight loss of earthworms. On the other hand, the reproductions of the species as well as the earthworm growth were not altered by As in the Oxisol. The effective concentrations that reduce the reproduction of E. andrei and F. candida by 50 % (EC50) obtained in TAS (22.7 and 26.1 mg of As kg−1 of dry soil, respectively) were lower than those in the Oxisol (>135 mg kg−1, for both species). Although there was As bioaccumulation in earthworms in both soils, the internal concentrations in the earthworms were much higher in the oligochaetes exposed to arsenic in TAS. All these differences were attributed to the higher availability of As in the TAS, compared to the Oxisol, which increased the exposure of the species to the metal. The lower availability in the Oxisol was related to higher contents of type 1:1 silicate minerals and Fe and Al oxides and hydroxides, which strongly bind to As. These results highlight the importance of using tropical soils of humid regions to derive the Brazilian ecological risk prevention values for heavy metals, since the toxicity values are specific for these soils.

Keywords Earthworms Collembolans Prevention values Heavy metal Bioaccumulation Ecotoxicity 

Notes

Acknowledgments

P.R.L.A and E.B.S. thank the Department of Soil Science at College of Agriculture Luiz de Queiroz (ESALQ), University of São Paulo (USP), for the research opportunity. E.J.B.N.C. and L.R.F.A. thank the National Council for Technological and Scientific Development (CNPq) for research grants.

Compliance with ethical standards

Human and animal rights and informed consent

We declare that these experiments were conducted in accordance with EC Directive 86/609/EEC and national and institutional guidelines for the protection of human subjects and animal welfare.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Abdul KSM, Jayasinghe SS, Chandana EPS, Jayasumana C, De Silva PMCS (2015) Arsenic and human health effects: a review. Environ Toxicol Phar 40(3):828–846CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alamolhodaei NS, Shirani K, Karimi G (2015) Arsenic cardiotoxicity: an overview. Environ Toxicol Phar 40(3):1005–1014CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Alves PRL, Cardoso EJBN, Martines AM, Sousa JP, Pasini A (2013) Earthworm ecotoxicological assessments of pesticides used to treat seeds under tropical conditions. Chemosphere 90:2674–2682CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Alves PRL, Cardoso EJBN, Martines AM, Sousa JP, Pasini A (2014) Seed dressing pesticides on springtails in two ecotoxicological laboratory tests. Ecotoxicol Environ Saf 105:65–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Alves PRL, Natal-Da-Luz T, Sousa JP, Cardoso EJBN (2015) Ecotoxicological characterization of sugarcane vinasses when applied to tropical soils. Sci Total Environ 526:222–232CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Alves RH, Rietzler AC (2015) Efeitos tóxicos de arsênio em Eisenia andrei em exposição a solos do entorno de minerações de ouro. Rev Bras Cienc Solo 39(3):682–691CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Caner L, Radtke LM, Vignol-Lelarge ML, Inda AV, Bortoluzzi EC, Mexias AS (2014) Basalt and rhyo-dacite weathering and soil clay formation under subtropical climate in southern Brazil. Geoderma 235–236:100–112CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Checkai R, Van Genderen E, Sousa JP, Stephenson G, Smolders E (2014) Deriving Site-specific Clean-up Criteria to Protect Ecological Receptors (Plants and Soil Invertebrates) Exposed to Metal or Metalloid Soil Contaminants via the Direct Contact Exposure Pathway. Integr Environ Assess Manag 10(3):346–357CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Conama (2009) Resolução n° 420 de 28 dez 2009. Diário Oficial da União, 30 dez 2009. Seção 1:81–84, Brasília (in Portuguese)Google Scholar
  10. Crouau Y, Cazes L (2005) Unexpected reduction in reproduction of Collembola exposed to an arsenic-contaminated soil. Environ Toxicol Chem 24(7):1716–1720CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Crouau Y, Moïa C (2006) The relative sensitivity of growth and reproduction in the springtail, Folsomia candida, exposed to xenobiotics in the laboratory: an indicator of soil toxicity. Ecotoxicol Environ Saf 64(2):115–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Crouau Y, Tchiam ST (2006) Importance of the nature of the dilution soils for the evaluation of toxicity of a polluted soil by a collembolan reproduction assay. Appl Soil Ecol 34(2–3):280–283CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Dane JH, Topp GC (2002) Methods of soil analysis part 4: physical methods. SSSA, Madison (Book Series 5)Google Scholar
  14. De Silva PMCS, Pathiratne A, van Gestel CAM (2009) Influence of temperature and soil type on the toxicity of three pesticides to Eisenia andrei. Chemosphere 76(10):1410–1415CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Elliott HA, Liberati MR, Huang CP (1986) Competitive adsorption of heavy metals by soils. J Environ Qual 15:214–219CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Embrapa - Empresa Brasileira de Pesquisa Agropecuária (2011) O Novo Mapa de Solos do Brasil Legenda Atualizada: Documentos 130. Embrapa Solos, Rio de Janeiro (in Portuguese)Google Scholar
  17. Environment Canada (2007) Guidance Document on Statistical Methods for Environmental Toxicity Tests. Environmental Protection Series, EPS 1/RM/46, 2005 With 2007 Updates. Environment Canada, OttawaGoogle Scholar
  18. Fendorf S, La Force MJ, Li G (2004) Heavy metals in the environment. Temporal changes in soil partitioning and bioaccessibility of arsenic chromium and lead. J Environ Qual 33:2049–2055CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Fischer E, Koszorus L (1992) Sub lethal effects accumulation capacities and elimination rates of As Hg and Se in the manure worm Eisenia fetida (Oligochaeta Lumbricidae). Pedobiologia 36:172–178Google Scholar
  20. Fontes MPF, Alleoni LRF (2006) Electrochemical attributes and availability of nutrients, toxic elements, and heavy metal in tropical soils. Sci Agr 63:589–608CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Fontes MPF, Dos Santos GC (2010) Lability and sorption of heavy metals as related to chemical, physical, and mineralogical characteristics of highly weathered soils. J Soils Sediments 10(4):774–786CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Garcia MVB (2004) Effects of pesticides on soil fauna: development of ecotoxicological test methods for tropical regions. Thesis, University of BonnGoogle Scholar
  23. Garcia M, Römbke J, De Brito MT, Scheffczyk A (2008) Effects of three pesticides on the avoidance behavior of earthworms in laboratory tests performed under temperate and tropical conditions. Environ Pollut 153:450–456CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. García-Gómez C, Esteban E, Sánchez-Pardo B, Fernández MD (2014) Assessing the ecotoxicological effects of long-term contaminated mine soils on plants and earthworms: relevance of soil (total and available) and body concentrations. Ecotoxicology 23:1195–1209CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Ghorbanzadeh N, Jung W, Halajnia A, Lakzian A, Kabra A, Byong-Hun J (2015) Removal of arsenate and arsenite from aqueous solution by adsorption on clay minerals. Geosystem Eng 18(6):302–311CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hartley W, Edwards R, Lepp NW (2004) Arsenic and heavy metal mobility in iron oxide-amended contaminated soils as evaluated by short-and long-term leaching tests. Environ Pollut 131:495–504CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. ISO (1998) Soil quality: effects of pollutants on earthworms (Eisenia fetida)—part 2: determination of effects on reproduction (ISO 11268–2). ISO, GenevaGoogle Scholar
  28. ISO (1999) Soil quality: inhibition of reproduction of Collembola (Folsomia candida) by soil pollutants (ISO 11269). ISO, GenevaGoogle Scholar
  29. ISO (2012) Soil quality: effects of pollutants on earthworms—part 2: determination of effects on reproduction of Eisenia fetida/Eisenia andrei (11268–2). ISO, GenevaGoogle Scholar
  30. Joseph T, Dubey B, McBean EA (2015) Human health risk assessment from arsenic exposures in Bangladesh. Sci Total Environ 527–528:552–560CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Kabata-Pendias A, Pendias H (1985) Trace elements in soils and plants. CRC Press, Boca RatonGoogle Scholar
  32. Langdon CJ, Piearce TG, Meharg AA, Semple KT (2003) Interactions between earthworms and arsenic in the soil environment: a review. Environ Pollut 124:361–373CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Lee B-T, Kim K-W (2008) Arsenic accumulation and toxicity in the earthworm Eisenia fetida affected by chloride and phosphate. Environ Toxicol Chem 27:2488–2495CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Lee B-T, Lee S-W, Kim K-R, Kim K-W (2013) Bioaccumulation and the soil factors affecting the uptake of arsenic in earthworm, Eisenia fetida. Environ Sci Pollut Res 20:8326–8333CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Lock K, Janssen CR (2002) Toxicity of Arsenate to the Compostworm Eisenia fetida, the Potworm Enchytraeus albidus and the Springtail Folsomia candida. Bull Environ Contam Toxicol 68:760–765CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Mclaughlin MJ, Hamon RE, Mclaren RG, Speir TW, Rogers SLA (2000) Bioavailability-based rationale for controlling metal and metalloid contamination of agricultural land in Australia and New Zealand. Aust J Soil Res 38:1037–1086CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Natal-da-Luz T, Tidona S, van Gestel CAM, Morais PV, Sousa JP (2009) The use of Collembola avoidance tests to characterize sewage sludges as soil amendments. Chemosphere 77:1526–1533CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Nunes MET, Daam MA, Espíndola ELG (2016) Survival, morphology and reproduction of Eisenia andrei (Annelida, Oligochaeta) as affected by Vertimec® 18 EC (a.i. abamectin) in tests performed under tropical conditions. Appl Soil Ecol 100:18–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. OECD (1984) Guideline for Testing of Chemicals No. 207: Earthworm Acute Toxicity Test. OECD, ParisGoogle Scholar
  40. OECD (2009) Guidelines for the testing of Chemicals No. 232: collembolan reproduction test in soi. OECD, ParisGoogle Scholar
  41. Peijnenburg WJGM, Baerselman R, de Groot AC, Jager T, Posthuma L, van Veen RPM (1999) Relating environmental availability to bioavailability: soil-type-dependent metal accumulation in the Oligochaete Eisenia andrei. Ecotoxicol Environ Saf 44:294–310CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Pesaro M, Widmer F, Nicollier G, Zeyer J (2003) Effects of freeze–thaw stress during soil storage on microbial communities and methidathion degradation. Soil Biol Biochem 35:1049–1061CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Rieuwerts JS (2007) The mobility and bioavailability of trace metals in tropical soils: a review. Chem Spec Bioavailab 19:75–85CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Romero-Freire A, Martín-Peinado FJ, Díez Ortiz M, van Gestel CAM (2015) Influence of soil properties on the bioaccumulation and effects of arsenic in the earthworm Eisenia andrei. Environ Sci Pollut Res 22(19):15016–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Sauvé S, Hendershot W, Allen HE (2000) Solid-solution partitioning of metals in contaminated soils: dependence on pH, total metal burden, and organic matter. Environ Sci Technol 34(7):1125–113CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Segat JC, Alves PRL, Baretta D, Cardoso EJBN (2015) Ecotoxicological evaluation of swine manure disposal on tropical soils in Brazil. Ecotoxicol Environ Saf 122:91–97CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Simon M, Diez M, González V, García I, Martín F, de Haro S (2010) Use of liming in the remediation of soils polluted by sulphide oxidation: a leaching-column study. J Hazard Mater 180:241–246CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Six J, Feller C, Denef K, Ogle SM, Sa JCD, Albrecht A (2002) Soil organic matter, biota and aggregation in temperate and tropical soils—effects of no-tillage. Agronomie 22:755–775CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. USEPA (1998) Method 305. http://www3.epa.gov/epawaste/hazard/testmethods/sw846/pdfs/3051a.pdf. Accessed 12 November 2015
  50. van Coller-Myburgh C, van Rensburg L, Maboeta M (2015) Assessing the ecotoxicity of gold mine tailings utilizing earthworm and microbial assays. Water Air Soil Poll 226(7):226–218CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. van Raij B, Andrade JC, de Cantarella H, Quaggio JA (2001) Análise química para avaliação da fertilidade de solos tropicais. IAC, Campinas (in Portuguese)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Paulo Roger Lopes Alves
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • Evandro Barbosa da Silva
    • 2
  • Elke Jurandy Bran Nogueira Cardoso
    • 2
  • Luís Reynaldo Ferracciú Alleoni
    • 2
  1. 1.Federal University of Fronteira Sul (UFFS)ChapecóBrazil
  2. 2.Department of Soil Science, College of Agriculture Luiz de Queiroz (ESALQ)University of São Paulo (USP)PiracicabaBrazil

Personalised recommendations