Advertisement

Application of Aggregation-Induced Emission Fluorogens for Detection and Quantification of Toxic Chemicals in Small Aquatic Organisms

  • Jianguang Qin
  • Youhong Tang
Chapter

Abstract

The ocean is regarded as a giant dumping area for many types of toxic chemicals and the ocean ecosystem is currently under enormous stress from a variety of pollution sources. There is an urgent need to monitor biological responses and quantitatively evaluate the change of environmental health. Microalgae are vitally important to the food web in the aquatic ecosystem and can be an important indicator to monitor water pollution due to their sensitivity to chemical changes in the environment. Zooplankton is an important trophic link between primary producers and predators in an aquatic system as they are widely distributed in water and mainly consume microalgae and are subsequently are fed by fish, shrimp, and crab. Algae and zooplankton can be used to assess bioaccumulation and biomagnification of the building-up process of a chemical in living organisms along the food chain. Aggregation-induced emission (AIE) is a photophysical phenomenon where light emission of a fluorogen is activated by aggregate formation to nanoparticles, which can be used as a sensing method in biological applications for toxic chemicals. This chapter updates the recent research advance on the use of AIE as a biosensor to quantitatively detect and evaluate bioaccumulation and biorelease of mercury in algae and zooplankton in an attempt to explain the mechanism and interactions between heavy metal ions and small organisms in the aquatic ecosystem.

Keywords

Aggregation-induced emission Fluorescence Algae Rotifer Zooplankton Mercury 

Notes

Acknowledgement

We wish to thank the following people for contributing to this project in lab investigation, idea, and method discussion and providing research materials, including Yusheng Jiang, Wen Luo, Tao He, Maha Alrashdi, Weixin Ou, Jihong Zhang, Yinlan Ruan, Yuncong Chen, and Ben Zhong Tang. We also thank to the following organizations for providing financial support and research facilities including China Scholarship Council, Shaoxing University, Dalian Ocean University, Southwest University, University of Adelaide, the Hong Kong University of Science and Technology, AIEgen Biotechnology Co. Ltd., and Flinders University.

References

  1. 1.
    Lavoie RA, Jardine TD, Chumchal MM, Kidd KA (2013) Biomagnification of mercury in aquatic food webs: a worldwide meta-analysis. Environ Sci Tech 47:13385–13394CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Gutierrez MF, Gagneten AM, Paggi JC (2012) Exposure to sublethal chromium and endosulfan alter the diel vertical migration (DVM) in freshwater zooplankton crustaceans. Ecotoxicology 21:37–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Gobas F, de Wolf W, Burkhard L, Verbruggen E, Plotzke K (2009) Revisiting bioaccumulation criteria for POPs and PBT assessments. Integr Environ Assess Manag 5:624–637CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Kelly BC, Ikonomou MG, Blair JD, Morin AE, Gobas FAPC (2007) Food web-specific biomagnification of persistent organic pollutants. Science 317:236–239CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Cox GW (1997) Conservation Biology: concepts and applications. Wm. C. Brown Publisher, the University of Wisconsin (Madson). ISBN 0697218147, 362 pp.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Borga K, Gabrielsen GW, Skaare JU (2001) Biomagnification of organochlorines along a Barents Sea food chain. Environ Pollut 113:187–198CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bosch AC, O’Neill B, Sigge GO, Kerwath SE, Hoffman LC (2016) Heavy metals in marine fish meat and consumer health: a review. J Sci Food Agr 96:32–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Zukowska J, Biziuk M (2008) Methodological evaluation of method for dietary heavy metal intake. J Food Sci 73:R21–R29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Gray JS (2002) Biomagnification in marine systems: the perspective of an ecologist. Mar Pollut Bull 45:46–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    McClain WC, Chumchal MM, Drenner RW, Newland LW (2006) Mercury concentrations in fish from Lake Meredith, Texas: Implications for the issuance of fish consumption advisories. Environ Monit Assess 123:249–258CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Muir D, Sverko E (2006) Analytical methods for PCBs and organochlorine pesticides in environmental monitoring and surveillance: a critical appraisal. Anal Bioanal Chem 386:769–789CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Guo F, Gai WP, Hong Y, Tang BZ, Qin J, Tang Y (2015) Aggregation-induced emission fluorogens as biomarkers to assess the viability of microalgae in aquatic ecosystems. Chem Commun 51:17257–17260CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Mei J, Leung NLC, Kwok RTK, Lam JWY, Tang BZ (2015) Aggregation-induced emission: together we shine, united we soar! Chem Rev 115:11718–11940CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Calmet D (1989) Ocean disposal of radioactive waste. Status report. IAEA Bull 31:47–50Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Van Gestel CAM, Van Brummelen TC (1996) Incorporation of the biomarker concept in ecotoxicology calls for a redefinition of terms. Ecotoxicology 5:217–225CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Ma J, Zheng R, Xu L, Wang S (2002) Differential sensitivity of two green algae, Scenedesmus obliqnus and Chlorella pyrenoidosa, to 12 pesticides. Ecotoxicol Environ Saf 52:57–61CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Veldhuis MJW, Kraay GW, Timmermans KR (2001) Cell death in phytoplankton: Correlation between changes in membrane permeability, photosynthetic activity, pigmentation and growth. Eur J Phycol 36:167–177CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Baudoux AC, Veldhuis MJW, Noordeloos AAM, Van Noort G, Brussaard CPD (2008) Estimates of virus- vs. grazing induced mortality of picophytoplankton in the North Sea during summer. Aquat Microb Ecol 52:69–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Villac MC, Kaczmarska I (2011) Estimating propagule pressure and viability of diatoms detected in ballast tank sediments of ships arriving at Canadian ports. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 425:47–61CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Steinberg MK, Lemieux EJ, Drake LA (2011) Determining the viability of marine protists using a combination of vital, fluorescent stains. Mar Biol 158:1431–1437CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Zetsche EM, Meysman FJR (2012) Dead or alive? Viability assessment of micro- and mesoplankton. J Plankton Res 34:493–509CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Rioboo C, O’Connor JE, Prado R, Herrero C, Cid A (2009) Cell proliferation alterations in Chlorella cells under stress conditions. Aquat Toxicol 94:229–237CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Natunen K, Seppälä J, Schwenk D, Rischer H, Spilling K, Tamminen T (2015) Nile Red staining of phytoplankton neutral lipids: species-specific fluorescence kinetics in various solvents. J Appl Phycol 27:1161–1168CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Pavlić Ž, Vidaković-Cifrek Ž, Puntarić D (2005) Toxicity of surfactants to green microalgae Pseudokirchneriella subcapitata and Scenedesmus subspicatus and to marine diatoms Phaeodactylum tricornutum and Skeletonema costatum. Chemosphere 61:1061–1068CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Luo J, Xie Z, Xie Z, Lam JWY, Cheng L, Chen H, Qiu C, Kwok HS, Zhan X, Liu Y, Zhu D, Tang BZ, Tang BZ, Tang BZ (2001) Aggregation-induced emission of 1-methyl-1,2,3,4,5-pentaphenylsilole. Chem Commun 18:1740–1741CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Ding D, Li K, Liu B, Tang BZ (2013) Bioprobes based on AIE fluorogens. Acc Chem Res 46:2441–2453CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Huang J, Sun N, Yang J, Tang R, Li Q, Ma D, Li Z (2014) Blue aggregation-induced emission luminogens: High external quantum efficiencies up to 3.99% in LED device, and restriction of the conjugation length through rational molecular design. Adv Funct Mater 24:7645–7654CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Jiang Y, Chen Y, Alrashdi M, Luo W, Tang BZ, Zhang J, Qin J, Tang Y (2016) Monitoring and quantification of the complex bioaccumulation process of mercury ion in algae by a novel aggregation-induced emission fluorogen. RSC Adv 6:100318–100325CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Nolan EM, Lippard SJ (2008) Tools and tactics for the optical detection of mercuric ion. Chem Rev 108:3443–3480CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Liu J, Lu Y (2007) Rational design of “Turn-On” allosteric DNAzyme catalytic beacons for aqueous mercury Ions with ultrahigh sensitivity and selectivity. Angew Chem Int Ed 46:7587–7590CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Di Natale F, Lancia A, Molino A, Di Natale M, Karatza D, Musmarra D (2006) Capture of mercury ions by natural and industrial materials. J Hazard Mater 132:220–225CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Atchison WD, Hare MF (1994) Mechanisms of methylmercury-induced neurotoxicity. FASEB J 8:622–629CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Chen Y, Zhang W, Cai Y, Kwok RTK, Hu Y, Lam JWY, Gu X, He Z, Zhao Z, Zheng X, Chen B, Gui C, Tang BZ (2017) AIEgens for dark through-bond energy transfer: design, synthesis, theoretical study and application in ratiometric Hg2+ sensing. Chem Sci 8:2047–2055CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Kwok RTK, Leung CWT, Lam JWY, Tang BZ (2015) Biosensing by luminogens with aggregation-induced emission characteristics. Chem Soc Rev 44:4228–4238CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Mei J, Hong Y, Lam JWY, Qin A, Tang Y, Tang BZ (2014) Aggregation-induced emission: the whole is more brilliant than the parts. Adv Mater 26:5429–5479CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Russell AG, Watanabe YI, Charette JM, Gray MW (2005) Unusual features of fibrillarin cDNA and gene structure in Euglena gracilis: evolutionary conservation of core proteins and structural predictions for methylation-guide box C/D snoRNPs throughout the domain Eucarya. Nucleic Acids Res 33:2781–2791CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Devars S, Hernández R, Moreno-Sánchez R (1998) Enhanced heavy metal tolerance in two strains of photosynthetic Euglena gracilis by preexposure to mercury or cadmium. Arch Environ Contam Toxicol 34:128–135CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Karniski LP (1992) Hg2+ and Cu+ are ionophores, mediating Cl-/OH- exchange in liposomes and rabbit renal brush border membranes. J Biol Chem 267:19218–19225Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Devars S, Avilés C, Cervantes C, Moreno-Sánchez R (2000) Mercury uptake and removal by Euglena gracilis. Arch Microbiol 174:175–180CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Daewel U, Hjøllo SS, Huret M, Ji R, Maar M, Niiranen S, Travers-Trolet M, Peck MA, Van De Wolfshaar KE (2014) Predation control of zooplankton dynamics: a review of observations and models. ICES J Mar Sci 71:254–271CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Jiang Y, He T, Chen Y, Ruan Y, Tang BZ, Qin J, Tang YH (2017) Quantitative evaluation and in vivo visualization of mercury ion bioaccumulation in rotifers by novel aggregation-induced emission fluorogen nanoparticles. Environ Sci Nano 4:2186–2192CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Sarma SSS, Larios Jurado PS, Nandini S (2001) Effect of three food types on the population growth of Brachionus calyciflorus and Brachionus patulus (Rotifera: Brachionidae). Rev Biol Trop 49:77–84Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Gutknecht J (1981) Inorganic mercury (Hg2+) transport through lipid bilayer membranes. J Membr Biol 61:61–66CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Yu J, Cui S (1997) Ultrastructure of the rotifer Brachionus plicatilis. Hydrobiologia 358:95–103CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Boening D (2000) Ecological effects, transport and fate of mercury: a general review. Chemosphere 40:1335–1351CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Ullrich S, Tanton T, Abdrashitova S (2001) Mercury in the aquatic environment: a review of factors affecting methylation. Crit Rev Environ Sci Technol 31:241–293CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Cauchie HM, Hoffmann L, Jaspar-Versali MF, Salvia M, Thome JP (1995) Daphnia magna Straus living in an aerated sewage lagoon as a source of chitin: ecological aspects. Belg J Zool 125:67–78Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Barriada JL, Herrero R, Prada-Rodríguez D, Sastre de Vicente ME (2008) Interaction of mercury with chitin: a physicochemical study of metal binding by a natural biopolymer. React Funct Polym 68:1609–1618CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Kasper D, Palermo EFA, Dias ACMI, Ferreira GL, Leitão RP, Branco CWC, Malm O (2009) Mercury distribution in different tissues and trophic levels of fish from a tropical reservoir, Brazil. Neotrop Ichthyol 7:751–758CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Korbas M, MacDonald TC, Pickering IJ, George GN, Krone PH (2012) Chemical form matters: differential accumulation of mercury following inorganic and organic mercury exposures in zebrafish larvae. ACS Chem Biol 7:411–420CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.College of Science and Engineering, Flinders UniversityAdelaideAustralia
  2. 2.Institute for NanoScale Science and TechnologyCollege of Science and Engineering, Flinders UniversityAdelaideAustralia

Personalised recommendations