Advertisement

The Application of Computer Image Analysis in Water Toxicity Tests

  • Piotr LewickiEmail author
  • Robert Mazur
  • Dawid Bedla
Chapter

Abstract

Laboratory bioassay belongs to very important tools in environmental monitoring; biological assessment of water quality plays a fundamental role in whole system of water monitoring. The WFD requires the use of bioassay in assessing the threat of aquatic ecosystems from certain pollutants runoff into the aquatic environment. Classical methods of acute and chronic toxicity biotests are based on classical visual evaluation and observation of the negative effects of the selected toxicants impact. The usage of image analysis tool such as computer in water biomonitoring increases their sensitivity both in qualitative and quantitative assessment of negative effects from the selected toxicants. They make new bioassay very useful for the optimisation bioprocesses involved in the protection and control of aquatic ecosystems.

Keywords

Computer image analysis Bioassay Water pollutants Biomonitoring Environmental biotechnology 

References

  1. Agathokleous E, Mouzaki-Paxinou AC, Saitanis CJ, Paoletti E, Manning WJ (2016) The first toxicological study of the antiozonant and research tool ethylene diurea (EDU) using a Lemna minor L. bioassay: hints to its mode of action. Environ Pollut 213:996–1006. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2015.12.051 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Arkhipchuk VV, Blaise C, Malinovskaya MV (2006) Use of hydra for chronic toxicity assessment of waters intended for human consumption. Environ Pollut 142:200–211. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2005.10.012 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Bandow C, Weltje L (2012) Development of an embryo toxicity test with the pond snail Lymnaea stagnalis using the model substance tributyltin and common solvents. Sci Total Environ 435:90–95. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2012.07.005 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Beasley A, Belanger SE, Brill JL, Otter RR (2015) Evaluation and comparison of the relationship between NOEC and EC10 or EC20 values in chronic Daphnia toxicity testing. Environ Toxicol Chem 34:2378–2384. https://doi.org/10.1002/etc.3086 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Bernot RJ, Brueseke MA, Evans-White MA, Lamberti GA (2005) Acute and chronic toxicity of imidazolium-based ionic liquids on Daphnia magna. Environ Toxicol Chem 24:87–92. https://doi.org/10.1897/03-635.1 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Brown KA, Mays T, Romoser A, Marroquin-Cardona A, Mitchell NJ, Elmore SE, Phillips TD (2014) Modified hydra bioassay to evaluate the toxicity of multiple mycotoxins and predict the detoxification efficacy of a clay-based sorbent. J Appl Toxicol 34:40–48. https://doi.org/10.1002/jat.2824 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Coeurdassier M, De Vaufleury A, Badot PM (2003) Bioconcentration of cadmium and toxic effects on life-history traits of pond snails (Lymnaea palustris and Lymnaea stagnalis) in laboratory bioassays. Arch Environ Cont Tox 45:0102–0109CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Dobrowolski JW (1976) Embryological aspects of environmental toxicology environmental quality and safety, vol 5. Academic, New York, pp 8–81Google Scholar
  9. Dominik J, Benninghoff C, Dobrowolski IJ, Gueguen C, Pardos M, Thomas L, Wagner A (2000) Water quality assessment with combined chemical and biological methods in the Vistula River and waste waters in the region of Kraków (Poland). In: Fifth international symposium and exhibition on environmental contamination in Central and Eastern Europe, 12–14 September. Prague, Symposium ProgrammeGoogle Scholar
  10. Ducrot V, Askem C, Azam D, Brettschneider D, Brown R, Charles S, Holbech H (2014) Development and validation of an OECD reproductive toxicity test guideline with the pond snail Lymnaea stagnalis (Mollusca, Gastropoda). Regul Toxicol Pharmacol 70:605–614. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.yrtph.2014.09.004 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Environment Canada (EC) (2000) Biological test method: reference method for determining acute lethality of effluents to Daphnia magna. Environmental Technology Centre, Ottawa, Report EPS/RM/14 Second EditionGoogle Scholar
  12. Fulton BA, Meyer JS (2014) Development of a regression model to predict copper toxicity to Daphnia magna and site-specific copper criteria across multiple surface-water drainages in an arid landscape. Environ Toxicol Chem 33:1865–1873. https://doi.org/10.1002/etc.2631 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Gopalapillai Y, Vigneault B, Hale BA (2014) Root length of aquatic plant, Lemna minor l., as an optimal toxicity endpoint for biomonitoring of mining effluents. Integr Environ Assess Manag 10:493–497. https://doi.org/10.1002/ieam.1558 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Gophen M (2016) Bioassay indication of Nemagon toxicity on Daphnia magna (Straus 1820). Int J Bioassays 5:4739–4741CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Grosell M, Gerdes RM, Brix KV (2006) Chronic toxicity of lead to three freshwater invertebrates—Brachionus calyciflorus, Chironomus tentans and Lymnaea stagnalis. Environ Toxicol Chem 25:97–104. https://doi.org/10.1897/04-654R.1 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. ISO 20079 (2005) Water quality – determination of the toxic effect of water constituents and waste water on duckweed (Lemna minor) – duckweed growth inhibition testGoogle Scholar
  17. ISO 6341 (2012) Water quality – determination of the inhibition of the mobility of Daphnia magna Straus (Cladocera, Crustacea) – acute toxicity testGoogle Scholar
  18. ISO norm 20079 (2007) Dissemination of the toxic effect of water constituents and wastewater on duckweed (Lemna minor) – Duckweed growth inhibition test. Accessed on November 5thGoogle Scholar
  19. Janczak D, Lewicki P, Mazur R, Boniecki P, Dach J, Przybył J, Pawlak M, Pilarski K, Czekała W (2013) The selected examples of the application of computer image analysis in the assessment of environmental quality. In: Proceedings of SPIE 8878, fifth international conference on digital image processing (ICDIP). https://doi.org/10.1117/12.2031069
  20. Jonczyk E, Gilron G (2005) Chapter 10: Acute and chronic toxicity testing with Daphnia sp. In: Blaise C, Férard JF (eds) Small-scale freshwater toxicity investigations, pp 337–394Google Scholar
  21. Jura Cz (2005) Invertebrates: fundamentals of functional morphology, taxonomy and phylogeny (Bezkręgowce: podstawy morfologii funkcjonalnej, systematyki i filogenezy). PWNGoogle Scholar
  22. Kawa R (2008) The new method for the assessment of the water toxicity using a computer image analysis. PhD thesis, PK – KrakowGoogle Scholar
  23. Kirsanov D, Legin E, Zagrebin A, Ignatieva N, Rybakin V, Legin A (2014) Mimicking Daphnia magna bioassay performance by an electronic tongue for urban water quality control. Anal Chim Acta 824:64–70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aca.2014.03.021 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Lalah JO, Severin GF, Schramm KW, Lenoir D, Behechti A, Guenther K (2007) Effects of a branched p-nonylphenol isomer (4(3′,6′-dimethyl-3′-heptyl)-phenol) on embryogenesis in Lymnaea stagnalis L. Arch Environ Contam Toxicol 52:104–112. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00244-004-0228-4 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Lewicki P (2006) Computer image analysis in selected bioassays for the assessment of water quality. PhD thesis, AGH – Dep. GGiIŚ. KrakowGoogle Scholar
  26. Mazur R, Lewicki P (2008) Application of the computer image analyses in the embryotests as a new method of water biomonitoring. Pol J Environ Stud 17:409–412. OlsztynGoogle Scholar
  27. Mazur R, Kawa R, Lewicki P (2006) The monitoring of selected pollutants of waters with the application of the selected eco-toxicological criteria. Pol J Environ Stud 16:334–338. OlsztynGoogle Scholar
  28. Mazur R, Lewicki P, Kasztalski K (2010) The application of the computer image analysis methods in environmental biomonitoring. Tech Trans 2–M/2010:167–174. E. PK, KrakowGoogle Scholar
  29. Mazur R, Wagner A, Zhou M (2013) The application of the Lymnaea stagnalis embryo-test in the toxicity bioindication of surfactants in fresh waters. Ecol Indic 30:190–195. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2013.02.002 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Moody M, Miller J (2005) Chapter 7: Lemma minor growth inhibition test. In: Blaise C, Férard JF (eds) Small-scale freshwater toxicity investigations. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 277–290Google Scholar
  31. Muscatine L, Lenhoff HM (1965) Symbiosis of hydra and algae. I. Effects of some environmental cations on growth of symbiotic and aposymbiotic hydra. Biol Bull 128(3):415–424CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Nowakowski K, Boniecki P, Raba B (2011) Image analysis and neural networks in the process of identifying of selected mechanical damage maize caryopses. J Res Appl Agric Eng 56:100–102. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICDIP.2009.78 Google Scholar
  33. OECD (2004) Test no. 202: Daphnia sp. acute immobilization test, OECD guidelines for the testing of chemicals, section 2. OECD Publishing, ParisGoogle Scholar
  34. OECD (2012) Test no. 211: Daphnia magna reproduction test, OECD guidelines for the testing of chemicals, section 2. OECD Publishing, ParisCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Pardos M, Benninghoff C, Guéguen C, Thomas R, Dobrowolski J, Dominik J (1999) Acute toxicity assessment of Polish (waste) water with a microplate-based Hydra attenuata assay: a comparison with the Microtox® test. Sci Environ Total Environ 243:141–148CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. PN-EN ISO 6341 (2002) Water quality – determination of the inhibition of the mobility of Daphnia magna Straus (Cladocera, Crustacea) – acute toxicity test (ISO 6341:1996). PKN, WarsawGoogle Scholar
  37. Pollino CA, Holdway DA (1999) Potential of two hydra species as standard toxicity test animals. Ecotox Environ Safe 43:309–316CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Rahaman MM, Chen D, Gillani Z, Klukas C, Chen M (2015) Advanced phenotyping and phenotype data analysis for the study of plant growth and development. Front Plant Sci 6:619. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2015.00619 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  39. Rahat M, Reich V (1983) Preparing axenic hydra. In: Hydra: research methods. Springer, New York, pp 79–83CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Roy K, Das RN, Popelier PL (2015) Predictive QSAR modelling of algal toxicity of ionic liquids and its interspecies correlation with Daphnia toxicity. Environ Sci Pollut Res 22:6634–6641. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-014-3845-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Sozzani R, Busch W, Spalding EP, Benfey PN (2014) Advanced imaging techniques for the study of plant growth and development. Trends Plant Sci 19(304–310):55–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tplants.2013.12.003 Google Scholar
  42. Toropov AA, Benfenati E (2006) QSAR models for Daphnia toxicity of pesticides based on combinations of topological parameters of molecular structures. Bioorg Med Chem 14:2779–2788. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bmc.2005.11.060 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. Trottier S, Blaise C, Kusui T, Johnson EM (1997) Acute toxicity assessment of aqueous samples using a microplate-based Hydra attenuata assay. Environ Toxic Water 12:265–271CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Tufi S, Wassenaar PN, Osorio V, De Boer J, Leonards PE, Lamoree MH (2016) Pesticide mixture toxicity in surface water extracts in snails (Lymnaea stagnalis) by an in vitro acetylcholinesterase inhibition assay and metabolomics. Environ Sci Technol 50:3937–3944. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.5b045777 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. U.S. EPA (United States Environmental Protection Agency) (2002) Short-term methods for estimating the chronic toxicity of effluents and receiving waters to freshwater organisms, 4th edn. Office of Water (4303T), Washington, DC. 20460, Document EPA-821-R-02-013Google Scholar
  46. Walker CH, Hopkin SP, Sibly RM, Peakall DB (2002) Principles of ecotoxicology, 2nd edn. PWN, WarsawGoogle Scholar
  47. Wilby OK (1988) The hydra regeneration assay. In: Proceedings of workshop organized by Association Francaise de Teratologie, pp 108–124Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of Tourism and Recreation, Department of Statistics and Computer ScienceUniversity of Physical EducationKrakówPoland
  2. 2.AGH University of Science and TechnologyKrakówPoland
  3. 3.University of Agriculture in KrakowKrakowPoland

Personalised recommendations