Advertisement

pp 1-27 | Cite as

Environmental Risks of Synthetic Pyrethroids Used by the Salmon Industry in Chile

  • Felipe TuccaEmail author
  • Ricardo BarraEmail author
Chapter
Part of the The Handbook of Environmental Chemistry book series

Abstract

Synthetic pyrethroids such as cypermethrin and deltamethrin have been widely used in Chile to treat sea lice on salmon since 2007. The environmental risks of aquaculture practices are evaluated through the use of several tools such as fugacity-based models for predicting environmental dynamics and the fate of pyrethroids after their release into the marine environment and the determination of pyrethroid occurrence in environmental samples (i.e., water and sediment). For seawater, passive sampling devices (PSDs) are proposed as a good alternative for field monitoring. Finally, by means of ecotoxicological bioassays, the effects of pyrethroids on native biota were assessed. The results show that the application of pyrethroids may trigger some unintended risks to nontarget organisms, particularly copepods, since modeled and observed concentrations in water (dissolved phase) are in the range of fractions of ng L−1, but higher cypermethrin and deltamethrin concentrations in sediment in the range of 1,323 and 1,020 ng g−1, respectively, have been observed. These measured concentrations were in the range of concentrations toxic to native invertebrate species in Chile. We conclude that a stricter process should be followed when pyrethroids, particularly cypermethrin, are recommended for use in combating sea lice in the Chilean salmon farming industry. Risk assessment procedures and the establishment of stricter regulations on matters such as the maximum allowable concentrations around the cages when these pesticides are applied and recommended.

Keywords

Aquaculture Patagonia Pyrethroids Sea lice Toxicity 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors are grateful for the financial support of FIPA Project No. 2014-42 and the Undersecretariat for Fisheries and Aquaculture (SUBPESCA, Ministry of Economy). The authors also wish to acknowledge CONICYT/FONDECYT projects 1180063 and 3180159, the MUSELS Millennium Nucleus (NC 120086), and CRHIAM, CONICYT/FONDAP project 15130015.

References

  1. 1.
    Quiñones RA, Fuentes M, Montes RM, Soto D, León-Muñoz J (2019) Environmental issues in Chilean salmon farming: a review. Rev Aquac 11(2):375–402.  https://doi.org/10.1111/raq.12337CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Boxshall GA, Bravo S (2000) On the identity of the common Caligus (Copepoda: Siphonostomatoida: Caligidae) from salmonid netpen system in southern Chile. Contrib Zool 69(1):137–146.  https://doi.org/10.1163/18759866-0690102015CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bravo S, Sevatdal S, Horsberg TE (2008) Sensitivity assessment of Caligus rogercresseyi to emamectin benzoate in Chile. Aquaculture 282:7–12.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquaculture.2008.06.011CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bravo S, Silva MT, Gustavo M (2012) Efficacy of emamectin benzoate in the control of Caligus rogercresseyi on farmed Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar L.) in Chile from 2006 to 2007. Aquaculture 364–365:61–66.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquaculture.2012.07.036CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Aaen SM, Helgesen KO, Bakke MJ, Kaur K, Horsberg TE (2015) Drug resistance in sea lice: a threat to salmonid aquaculture. Trends Parasitol 31(2):72–81.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pt.2014.12.006CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Roth M (2000) The availability and use of chemotherapeutic sea lice control products. Contrib Zoolo 69(1–2):109–118.  https://doi.org/10.1163/18759866-0690102012CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Haya K, Burridge LE, Davies IM, Ervik A (2005) A review and assessment of environmental risk of chemicals used for the treatment of sea lice infestations of cultured salmon. In: Hargrave BT (ed) Environmental effects of marine finfish aquaculture. Handbook of environment chemistry, vol 5. Springer, Berlin, pp 305–340.  https://doi.org/10.1007/b136016CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Burridge L, Weis JS, Cabello F, Pizarro J, Bostick K (2010) Chemical use in salmon aquaculture: a review of current practices and possible environmental effects. Aquaculture 306:7–23.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquaculture.2010.05.020CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Medina M, Barata C, Telfer T, Baird DJ (2002) Age- and sex-related variation in sensitivity to the pyrethroid cypermethrin in the marine copepod Acartia tonsa Dana. Arch Environ Contam Toxicol 42:17–22.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s002440010286CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Barata C, Baird DJ, Medina M, Albalat A, Soares AMVM (2002) Determining the ecotoxicological mode of action of toxic chemicals in meiobenthic marine organisms: stage-specific short tests with Tisbe battagliai. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 230:183–194Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Van Geest JL, Burridge LE, Kidd KA (2014) The toxicity of the anti-sea lice pesticide AlphaMax® to the polychaete worm Nereis virens. Aquaculture 430:98–106.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquaculture.2014.03.044CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Tucca F, Díaz-Jaramillo M, Cruz G, Silva J, Bay-Schmith E, Chiang G, Barra R (2014) Toxic effects of antiparasitic pesticides used by the salmon industry in the marine amphipod Monocorophium insidiosum. Arch Environ Contam Toxicol 67:139–148.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00244-014-0008-8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Urbina MA, Cumillaf JP, Paschke K, Gebauer P (2019) Effects of pharmaceuticals used to treat salmon lice on non-target species: evidence from a systematic review. Sci Total Environ 649:1124–1136.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.08.334CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) (2018) The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture 2018 – meeting the sustainable development goals. Rome. License: CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 IGO. http://www.fao.org/3/i9540en/i9540en.pdf. Accessed 10 Apr 2019
  15. 15.
    SUBPESCA (Subsecretaría de Pesca y Acuicultura) (2019) Informe sectorial de pesca y acuicultura (January 2019). Ministry of Economy, Chile (Spanish Report). http://www.subpesca.cl/portal/618/articles-103738_documento.pdf. Accessed 11 Apr 2019
  16. 16.
    Johnson SC, Treasurer JW, Bravo S, Nagasawa K, Kabata Z (2004) A review of the impact of parasitic copepods on marine aquaculture. Zool Stud 43(2):229–243Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Costello M (2009) The global economic cost of sea lice to the salmonid farming industry. J Fish Dis 32:115–118.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2761.2008.01011.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Torrissen O, Jones S, Asche F, Guttormsen A, Skilbrei OT, Nilsen F, Horsberg TE, Jackson D (2013) Salmon lice-impact on wild salmonids and salmon aquaculture. J Fish Dis 36:171–194.  https://doi.org/10.1111/jfd.12061CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Abolofia J, Asche F, Wilen JE (2017) The cost of lice: quantifying the impacts of parasitic sea lice on farmed salmon. Mar Resour Econ 32(3):329–349.  https://doi.org/10.1086/691981CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Costello MJ (2006) Ecology of sea lice parasitic on farmed and wild fish. Trends Parasitol 22:47–483.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pt.2006.08.006CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    González L, Carvajal J (2003) Life cycle of Caligus rogercresseyi, (Copepoda: Caligidae) parasite of Chilean reared salmonids. Aquaculture 220:101–117.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0044-8486(02)00512-4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Pino-Marambio J, Mordue AJ, Birkett M, Carvajal J, Asencio G, Mellado A, Quiroz A (2007) Behavioural studies of host, non-host and mate location by the Sea Louse, Caligus rogercresseyi Boxshall & Bravo, 2000 (Copepoda: Caligidae). Aquaculture 271:70–76.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquaculture.2007.05.025CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Hamilton-West C, Arriagada G, Yatabe T, Valdés P, Hervé-Claude LP, Urcelay S (2012) Epidemiological description of the sea lice (Caligus rogercresseyi) situation in southern Chile in August 2007. Prev Vet Med 104(3–4):341–345.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prevetmed.2011.12.002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Mackay D, Shiu WY, Ma KC, Lee SC (2006) Insecticides (Chapter 18). In: Physical-chemical properties and environmental fate for organic chemicals, vol I–IV. 2nd edn. Taylor & Francis, CRC Press, Boca Raton, p 832Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Bravo S, Sepulveda M, Silva MT, Costello MJ (2014) Efficacy of deltamethrin in the control of Caligus rogercresseyi (Boxshall and Bravo) using bath treatment. Aquaculture 432:175–180.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquaculture.2014.05.018CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Agusti C, Bravo S, Contreras G, Bakke MJ, Helgesen KO, Winkler C, Silva MT, Mendoza J, Horsberg TE (2016) Sensitivity assessment of Caligus rogercresseyi to anti-louse chemicals in relation to treatment efficacy in Chilean salmonid farms. Aquaculture 458:195–205.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquaculture.2016.03.006CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Arriagada G, Stryhn H, Campistó JL, Rees EE, Sanchez J, Ibarra R, Medina M, St-Hilaire S (2014) Evaluation of the performance of pyrethroids on different life stages of Caligus rogercresseyi in southern Chile. Aquaculture 426–427:231–237.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquaculture.2014.02.007CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Arriagada G, Stryhn H, Sanchez J, Vanderstichel R, Campistó JL, Rees EE, Ibarra R et al (2017) Evaluating the effect of synchronized sea lice treatments in Chile. Prev Vet Med 136:1–10.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prevetmed.2016.11.011CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Langford KH, Øxnevad S, Schøyen M, Thomas KV (2014) Do Antiparasitic medicines used in aquaculture pose a risk to the Norwegian aquatic environment? Environ Sci Technol 48:7774–7780.  https://doi.org/10.1021/es5005329CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Lillicrap A, Macken A, Thomas KV (2015) Recommendations for the inclusion of targeted testing to improve the regulatory environmental risk assessment of veterinary medicines used in aquaculture. Environ Int 85:1–4.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2015.07.019CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    SERNAPESCA (Servicio Nacional de Pesca y Acuicultura) (2017) Productos antiparasitarios para el control de caligidosis en salmonideos con registro del Servicio Agrícola y Ganadero (SAG) (August 2017). Ministry of Economy, Chile (Spanish Report) http://ww2.sernapesca.cl/index.php?option=com_remository&Itemid=246&func=fileinfo&id=7262. Accessed 20 Apr 2019
  32. 32.
    Soderlund DM, Clark JM, Sheets LP, Mullin LS, Piccirillo VJ, Sargent D, Stevens JT, Weiner ML (2002) Mechanisms of pyrethroid neurotoxicity: implications for cumulative risk assessment. Toxicology 171(1):3–59.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0300-483X(01)00569-8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Ensley SM (2018) Pyrethrins and pyrethroids. In: Veterinary toxicology: basic and clinical principles, 3rd edn. Elsevier BV, Amsterdam, pp 515–520.  https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-811410-0.00039-8Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Ernst W, Jackman P, Doe K, Page F, Julien G, Mackay K, Sutherland T (2001) Dispersion and toxicity to non-target aquatic organisms of pesticides used to treat sea lice on salmon in net pen enclosures. Mar Pollut Bull 42:432–443.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0025-326X(00)00177-6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Ernst W, Doe K, Cook A, Burridge L, Lalonde B, Jackman P, Aubé JG, Page F (2014) Dispersion and toxicity to non-target crustaceans of azamethiphos and deltamethrin after sea lice treatments on farmed salmon, Salmo salar. Aquaculture 424–425:104–112.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquaculture.2013.12.017CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Bacci E (1994) Ecotoxicology of organic contaminants, 1st edn. Lewis, Boca Raton, p 165Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Mackay D (1979) Finding fugacity feasible. Environ Sci Technol 13(10):1218–1223.  https://doi.org/10.1021/es60158a003CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Mackay D, Paterson S (1991) Evaluating the multimedia fate of organic chemicals: a level III fugacity model. Environ Sci Technol 25(3):427–436.  https://doi.org/10.1021/es00015a008CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Mackay D (2001) Multimedia environmental models: the fugacity approach. Lewis, Chelsea, p 273Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    MacLeod M, Scheringer M, Mckone ET, Hungerbühler K (2010) The state of multimedia mass–balance modeling in environmental science and decision-making. Environ Sci Technol 44(22):8360–8364.  https://doi.org/10.1021/es100968wCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Buser AM, MacLeod M, Scheringer M, Mackay D, Bonnell M, Russell MH, DePinto JV, Hungerbühler K (2012) Good modeling practice guidelines for applying multimedia models in chemical assessments. Integr Environ Assess Manag 8(4):703–708.  https://doi.org/10.1002/ieam.1299CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Su C, Zhang H, Cridge C, Liang R (2019) A review of multimedia transport and fate models for chemicals: principles, features and applicability. Sci Total Environ 668:881–892.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.02.456CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Barra R, Vighi M, Maffioli G, Di Guardo A, Ferrario P (2000) Coupling SoilFug model and GIS for predicting pesticides pollution of surface water at watershed level. Environ Sci Technol 34(20):4425–4433.  https://doi.org/10.1021/es000986cCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Mackay D, Arnot JA (2011) The application of fugacity and activity to simulating the environmental fate of organic contaminants. J Chem Eng Data 56(4):1348–1355.  https://doi.org/10.1021/je101158yCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Zhang Q-Q, Ying G-G, Pan C-G, Liu Y-S, Zhao J-L (2015) Comprehensive evaluation of antibiotics emission and fate in the river basins of China: source analysis, multimedia modeling, and linkage to bacterial resistance. Environ Sci Technol 49(11):6772–6782.  https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.5b00729CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Pérez OM, Telfer TC, Beveridge MCM, Ross LG (2002) Geographical Information Systems (GIS) as a simple tool to aid modelling of particulate waste distribution at marine fish cage sites. Estuar Coast Shelf Sci 54:761–768.  https://doi.org/10.1006/ecss.2001.0870CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Corner RA, Brooker AJ, Telfer TC, Ross LG (2006) A fully integrated GIS-based model of particulate waste distribution from marine fish-cage sites. Aquaculture 258:299–311.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquaculture.2006.03.036CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Cromey CJ, Nickell TD, Black KD (2002) DEPOMOD-modelling the deposition and biological effects of waste solids from marine cage farms. Aquaculture 214:211–239.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0044-8486(02)00368-XCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Cromey CJ, Black KD (2005) Modelling the impacts of finfish aquaculture. In: Hargrave BT (ed) Environmental effects of marine finfish aquaculture. Handbook of environmental chemistry, vol 5. Springer, Berlin, pp 129–155.  https://doi.org/10.1007/b136008CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Cromey CJ, Nickell TD, Treasurer J, Black KD, Inall M (2009) Modelling the impact of cod (Gadus morhua L.) farming in the marine environment–CODMOD. Aquaculture 289:42–53.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquaculture.2008.12.020CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Brigolin D, Pastres R, Nickell TD, Cromey CJ, Aguilera DR, Regnier P (2009) Modelling the impact of aquaculture on early diagenetic processes in sea loch sediments. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 388:63–80.  https://doi.org/10.3354/meps08072CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Keeley NB, Cromey CJ, Goodwin EO, Gibbs MT, Macleod CM (2013) Predictive depositional modelling (DEPOMOD) of the interactive effect of current flow and resuspension on ecological impacts beneath salmon farms. Aquac Environ Interact 3:275–291.  https://doi.org/10.3354/aei00068CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Symonds AM (2011) A comparison between far-field and near-field dispersion modelling of fish farm particulate wastes. Aquac Res 42:73–85.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2109.2010.02662.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Turrel WR, Gillibrand PA (1995) Simulating the fate of cypermethrin in the marine environment. Fisheries research service report 11/95 SOAEFD. https://www.sepa.org.uk/regulations/water/aquaculture/pre-june-2019-guidance/aquaculture-environment/modelling/. Accessed 5 May 2019
  55. 55.
    Ng CA, Ritscher A, Hungerbuehler K, von Goetz N (2018) Polybrominated diphenyl ether (PBDE) accumulation in farmed salmon evaluated using a dynamic sea–cage production model. Environ Sci Technol 52:6965–6973.  https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.8b00146CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Gentry B, Blankinship D, Wainwright E (2008) Oracle Crystal Ball user manual, 11.1.1 edn. Orcale Inc., DenverGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Booij K, Robinson CD, Burgess RM, Mayer P, Roberts CA, Ahrens L, Allan IJ, Brant J, Jones L, Kraus UR, Larsen MM, Lepom P, Petersen J, Pröfrock D, Roose P, Schafer S, Smedes F, Tixier C, Vorkamp K, Whitehouse P (2016) Passive sampling in regulatory chemical monitoring of nonpolar organic compounds in the aquatic environment. Environ Sci Technol 50(1):3–17.  https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.5b04050CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Vrana B, Smedes F, Prokeš R, Loos R, Mazzella N, Miege C, Budzinski H, Vermeirssen E, Ocelka T, Gravel A, Kaserzon S (2016) An interlaboratory study on passive sampling of emerging water pollutants. Trends Anal Chem 76:153–165.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trac.2015.10.013CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Huckins JN, Tubergen MW, Manuweera GK (1990) Semipermeable membrane devices containing model lipid: a new approach to monitoring the bioavailability of lipophilic contaminants and estimating their bioconcentration potential. Chemosphere 20(5):533–552.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0045-6535(90)90110-FCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Vrana B, Allan IJ, Greenwood R, Mills GA, Dominiak E, Svensson K, Knutsson J, Morrison G, Greenwood R (2005) Passive sampling techniques for monitoring pollutants in water. Trends Anal Chem 24(10):845–868.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trac.2005.06.006CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Sacks VP, Lohmann R (2011) Development and use of polyethylene passive samplers to detect triclosans and alkylphenols in an urban estuary. Environ Sci Technol 45(6):2270–2277.  https://doi.org/10.1021/es1040865CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Ahrens L, Daneshvar A, Lau AE, Kreuger J (2015) Characterization of five passive sampling devices for monitoring of pesticides in water. J Chromatogr A 1405:1–11.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chroma.2015.05.044CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Golding CJ, Gobas FAPC, Birch GF (2007) Characterization of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon bioavailability in estuarine sediments using thin-film extraction. Environ Toxicol Chem 26(5):829–836.  https://doi.org/10.1897/06-378R.1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Xu C, Wang J, Richards J, Xu T, Liu W, Gan J (2018) Development of film-based passive samplers for in situ monitoring of trace levels of pyrethroids in sediment. Environ Pollut 242:1684–1692.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2018.07.105CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Shoeib M, Harner T (2002) Characterization and comparison of three passive air samplers for persistent organic pollutants. Environ Sci Technol 36(19):4142–4151.  https://doi.org/10.1021/es020635tCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Harner T, Farrar NJ, Shoeib M, Jones KC, Gobas FAPC (2003) Characterization of polymer-coated glass as a passive air sampler for persistent organic pollutants. Environ Sci Technol 37(11):2486–2493.  https://doi.org/10.1021/es0209215CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    Pozo K, Oyola G, Estellano VH, Harner T, Rudolph A, Prybilova P, Kukucka P, Audi O, Klánová J, Metzdorff A, Focardi S (2017) Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs) in the atmosphere of three Chilean cities using passive air samplers. Sci Total Environ 586:107–114.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2016.11.054CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    Lai FY, Rauert C, Gobelius L, Ahrens L (2018) A critical review on passive sampling in air and water for per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFASs). Trends Anal Chem 121:115311.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trac.2018.11.009CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    Lohmann R, Muir D (2010) Global Aquatic Passive Sampling (AQUA–GAPS): using passive samplers to monitor POPs in the water of the world. Environ Sci Technol 44(3):860–864.  https://doi.org/10.1021/es902379gCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    Lohmann R, Muir DCG, Zeng EY, Bao L-J, Allan IJ, Arinaitwe K, Booij K, Helm PA, Kaserzon SL, Mueller JF, Shibata Y, Smedes F, Tsapakis M, Wong CS, You J (2017) Aquatic Global Passive Sampling (AQUA-GAPS) revisited: first steps toward a network of networks for monitoring organic contaminants in the aquatic environment. Environ Sci Technol 51(3):1060–1067.  https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.6b05159CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. 71.
    Jonker MTO, van der Heijden SA, Kotte M, Smedes F (2015) Quantifying the effects of temperature and salinity on partitioning of hydrophobic organic chemicals to silicone rubber passive samplers. Environ Sci Technol 49(11):6791–6799.  https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.5b00286CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. 72.
    St. George T, Vlahos P, Harner T, Helm P, Wilford B (2011) A rapidly equilibrating, thin film, passive water sampler for organic contaminants; characterization and field testing. Environ Pollut 159:481–486.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2010.10.030CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. 73.
    Tucca F, Moya H, Barra R (2014) Ethylene vinyl acetate polymer as a tool for passive sampling monitoring of hydrophobic chemicals in the salmon farm industry. Mar Pollut Bull 88(1–2):174–179.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2014.09.009CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. 74.
    Warren JK, Vlahos P, Smith R, Tobias C (2018) Investigation of a new passive sampler for the detection of munitions compounds in marine and freshwater systems. Environ Toxicol Chem 37(7):1990–1997.  https://doi.org/10.1002/etc.4143CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. 75.
    Raub KB, Vlahos P, Whitney M (2015) Comparison of marine sampling methods for organic contaminants: passive samplers, water extractions, and live oyster deployment. Mar Environ Res 109:148–158.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marenvres.2015.07.004CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. 76.
    Booij K, Tucca F (2015) Passive samplers of hydrophobic organic chemicals reach equilibrium faster in the laboratory than in the field. Mar Pollut Bull 98:365–367.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2015.07.007CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. 77.
    Tucca F, Moya H, Pozo K, Borghini F, Focardi S, Barra R (2017) Occurrence of antiparasitic pesticides in sediments near salmon farms in the northern Chilean Patagonia. Mar Pollut Bull 115:465–468.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2016.11.041CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. 78.
    Placencia JA, Saavedra F, Fernández J, Aguirre C (2017) Occurrence and distribution of deltamethrin and diflubenzuron in surface sediments from the Reloncaví fjord and the Chiloé inner–sea (~39.5°S–43°S), Chilean Patagonia. Bull Environ Contam Toxicol 100(3):384–388.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00128-017-2251-yCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. 79.
    Feo ML, Ginebreda A, Eljarrat E, Barceló D (2010) Presence of pyrethroids pesticides in water and sediments of Ebro River Delta. J Hydrol 393:156–162.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2010.08.012CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. 80.
    Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA) (2006) The occurrence of chemicals used in sea louse treatments in sediments adjacent to marine fish farms: results of screening surveys during 2005. Report: TR-060830JBT, 28 pGoogle Scholar
  81. 81.
    Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA) (2007) The occurrence of chemicals used in sea louse treatments in sediments adjacent to marine fish farms: results of screening surveys during 2006. Report: TR-070807_JBT, 21 pGoogle Scholar
  82. 82.
    Gebauer P, Paschke K, Vera C, Toro JE, Pardo M, Urbina M (2017) Lethal and sub-lethal effects of commonly used anti-sea lice formulations on non-target crab Metacarcinus edwardsii larvae. Chemosphere 185:1019–1029.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2017.07.108CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. 83.
    Gowland B, Webster L, Fryer R, Davies I, Moffat C, Stagg R (2002) Uptake and effects of the cypermethrin-containing sea lice treatment Excis® in the marine mussel, Mytilus edulis. Environ Pollut 120:805–811.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0269-7491(02)00176-8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. 84.
    Ait Ayad M, Ait Fdil M, Mouabad A (2011) Effects of cypermethrin (pyrethroid insecticide) on the valve activity behavior, byssal thread formation, and survival in air of the marine mussel Mytilus galloprovincialis. Arch Environ Contam Toxicol 60:462–470.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00244-010-9549-7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. 85.
    European Commission (EC) (2003) Technical guidance document on risk assessment part II. European Commission Joint Research Centre. European Chemicals Bureau, pp 7–131Google Scholar
  86. 86.
    Mayor DJ, Solan M, Martinez I, Murray L, McMillan H, Paton GJ, Killham K (2008) Acute toxicity of some treatments commonly used by the salmonid aquaculture industry to Corophium volutator and Hediste diversicolor: whole sediment bioassay tests. Aquaculture 285:102–108.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquaculture.2008.08.008CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Norwegian Institute for Water Research (NIVA) ChilePuerto VarasChile
  2. 2.Departamento de Ecología y Biodiversidad, Facultad Ciencias de la VidaUniversidad Andres BelloSantiagoChile
  3. 3.Department of Aquatic Systems, Faculty of Environmental Sciences and EULA-Chile CentreUniversity of ConcepcionConcepcionChile

Personalised recommendations