A Review and Assessment of Environmental Risk of Chemicals Used for the Treatment of Sea Lice Infestations of Cultured Salmon

Part of the Handbook of Environmental Chemistry book series (HEC, volume 5M)


Chemicals (sea lice therapeutants) currently authorized in North America and Europe for the treatment of sea lice infestations in cultured salmon may be classified into two major groups. The classification is based on their routes of administration, and includes bath techniques (organophosphates, pyrethroids and hydrogen peroxide) and additives in feed (avermectins, chitin synthesis inhibitors). The ecological risk posed by the use of the chemicals is reviewed and assessed in this chapter. While the biological effects of sea lice therapeutants on aquatic animals that may live near salmon culture sites have been studied under laboratory conditions, field studies on the efficacy, fate and distribution, and biological effects are limited. In general, the in-feed treatments are more convenient to administer and posed less ecological risk than the bath treatments. As an example, the approach adopted by the UK was used to assess the environmental safety of the sea lice therapeutants. It was concluded that there are considerable differences between the environmental characteristics of fish farm sites and their ability to accept discharges of sea lice treatments without giving rise to unacceptable environmental impacts. Such site-specific risks can be managed through the application of appropriate environmental quality standards for the chemicals concerned, and site-specific assessment of the maximum acceptable rate of use of the treatments.

Aquaculture therapeutants Antiparasidics Ecotoxicolgy Efficacy Risk assessment 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (2004) FAO Year Book, Fishery Statistics, Aquaculture Production, 2002. http://www.fao.org/fi/statist/FISOFT/FISHPLUS.asp#Features
  2. 2.
    Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (1999) The State of the Worls Fisheries and Aquaculture. FAO, Rome Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Commission of the European Communities (2002) A Strategy for the Sustainable Development of European Aquaculture. COM (2002) 511 Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Roth M, Richards RH, Sommerville C (1993) J Fish Dis 16:1 Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    MacKinnon BM (1997) World Aquacult 28:5 Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Wootten R, Smith JW, Needham EA (1982) Proc R Soc Edinbur 81B:185 Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Pike AW (1989) Parasitol Today 5:291 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hogans WE (1995) Can Tech Rept of Fish Aquat Sci 2067:1 Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    O'Halloran J, Hogans WE (1996) Can Vet J 37:610 Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Treasurer JW, Grant A (1997) Aquaculture 148:265 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Read PA, Fernandes TF, Miller KL (2001) J Appl Ichthyol 17:145 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Rae GH (2000) Caligus 6:2 Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Eithun I (2004) Caligus 6:4 Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Rae GH (1979) Fish Farmer 2:22 Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Boxaspen K, Naess T (2000) Contrib Zool 69:51 Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Horsberg TE, Hoy T, Nafstad I (1989) Acta Vet Scand 30:385 Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Tully O, Mcfadden Y (2000) Aquacult Res 31:849 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Sievers G, Palacios P, Inostroza R, Doelz H (1995) Aquaculture 134:9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Committee for Veterinary Medicinal Products (1999) Azamethiphos Summary Report (2), EMEA/MRL 527:98 Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Zitko V (2001) Bull Environ Contam Toxicol 66:283 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Roth M, Richards RH, Dobson DP, Rae GH (1996) Aquaculture 140:217 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Levot GW, Hughes PB (1989) J Aust Ent Soc 28:87 Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Scottish Environmental Protection Agency (1997) Cage fish farms: sea lice treatment chemicals risk assessment of azamethiphos, http://www.sepa.org.uk/guidance/fishfarmmanual/pdf/policy17.pdf Policy No 17
  24. 24.
    Burridge LE, Haya K (1998) Gulf of Maine News Spring 1998:1 Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Chang BD, McClelland G (1997) Sea lice research and monitoring, Department of Fisheries and Oceans Science High Priority Project. Rept 9019 Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Burridge LE, Haya K, Zitko V, Waddy SL (1999) Ecotoxicol Environ Safety 43:165 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Burridge LE, Haya K, Waddy SL (2004) Ecotoxicol Environ Safety (in press) Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Burridge LE, Haya K, Waddy SL, Wade J (2000) Aquaculture 182:27 Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Burridge LE, Haya K, Waddy SL (2000) In: Penney KC, Coady KA, Murdoch MH, Parker WR, Niimi AJ (eds). Can Tech Rept of Fish Aquat Sci 2331:58 Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Waddy SL, Burridge LE, Haya K, Hamilton MN, Mercer SM (2002) Aquacult Assoc Can Spec Publ 5:60 Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Abgrall P, Rangeley RW, Burridge LE, Lawton P (2000) Aquaculture 181:1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Chang BD, McClelland G (1996) Alternative treatments for sea lice in farmed salmon, Department of Fisheries and Oceans Science High Priority Project Rept 9015 Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Davis JH (1985) The pyrethroids: An historical introduction. In: Leahey JP (ed) The pyrethroid insecticides. Taylor and Francis Ltd, London, p. 1 Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Barthel WF (1961) Adv Pest Control Res 4:33 Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Miller TA, Adams ME (1982) Mode of action of pyrethroids. In: Coats JR (ed) Insecticide Mode of Action. Academic Press, New York, p 3 Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Boxaspen K, Holm JC (1992) Aquaculture and the Environment, Spec Publ, Eur Aquacult Soc 16:393 Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Boxaspen K, Holm JC (2001) Aquac Res 32:701 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Roth M, Richards RH, Somemrville CS (1993) Preliminary studies on the efficacy of two pyrethroid compounds, resmethrin and lambda cyhalothrin, for the treatment of sea lice (Lepeophtheius salmonis) infestations of farmed Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar). In: Boxshall GA, DeFaye D (eds) Pathogens of Wild and Farmed Fish: sea lice. Ellis Horwood Ltd, London, p. 273 Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Scottish Environmental Protection Agency (1998) SEPA policy on the use of cypermethrin in marine fish farming risk assessment, EQS and recommendations. http://www.sepa.org.uk/aquaculture/policies/index.htm Policy No. 30
  40. 40.
    Sevatadal S, Horsberg TE (2003) Aquaculture 218:21 Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Kahn NY (1983) An assessment of the hazard of synthetic pyrethroids to fish and fish habitat. In: Miyamoto J, Kearney PC (eds) Pesticide Chemistry: Human Welfare and the Environment. Proceedings of the Fith International Congress of Pesticide Chemistry, Kyoto, Japan, 1982. Permagon Press, Oxford, p 437 Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Haya K (1989) Environ Toxicol Chem 8:381 Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Hill I (1985) Effects on non-target organisms in terrestrial and aquatic environments. In: Leahey JP (ed) The Pyrethroid Insecticides. Taylor and Francis, London, p 151 Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Leahey JP (1985) Metabolism and environmental degradation. In: Leahey JP (ed) The pyrethroid insecticides. Taylor and Francis, London, p. 263 Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Burridge LE, Haya K (1997) Etoxicol Environ Saf 38:150 Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Clark JR, Giidman LR, Borthwick PW, Parick JM, Cripe GM, Moody PM, Moore JC, Lore EM (1989) Environ Toxicol Chem 8:393 Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Pahl BC, Opitz HM (1999) Aquac Res 30:655 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Thybaud E (1990) J Water Sci 3:195 Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Associate Committee on Scientific Criteria for Environmental Quality (1986) Pyrethroids: Their effects on aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems. NRCC Publ. No 24376. National Research Council, Ottawa Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Muir DCG, Rawn GP, Grift NP (1985) J Agric Food Chem 33:603 Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Clark JR, Patrick JM, Moore JC, Lores EM (1987) Environ Toxicol Chem 16:401 Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Mian LS, Mulla MS (1992) J Agric Entomol 9:73 Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Moore A, Waring CP (2001) Aquat Toxicol 52:1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    McLeese DW, Mecalfe CD, Zitko V (1980) Bull Environ Contam Toxicol 25:950 Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    Burridge LE, Haya K, Page FH, Waddy SL, Zitko V, Wade J (2000) Aquaculture 182:37 Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    Gowland BTG, Moffat CF, Stagg RM, Houlihan DF, Davies IM (2002) Mar Envion Res 54:169 Google Scholar
  57. 57.
    Mitchell AJ, Collins C (1997) Aquac Mag 23:74 Google Scholar
  58. 58.
    Rach JJ, Gaikowski MP, Ramsay RT (2000) J Aquat Anim Health 12:267 Google Scholar
  59. 59.
    Jones MW, Sommerville C, Wootten R (1992) J Fish Dis 15:197 Google Scholar
  60. 60.
    Cotran RS, Kumar V, Robbins SL (1989) Patholological Basis of Disease, 4th edn. Saunders, Toronto Google Scholar
  61. 61.
    Bruno DW, Raynard RS (1994) Aquac Int 2:10 Google Scholar
  62. 62.
    Treasurer J, Wadsworth S, Grant A (2000) Aquac Res 31:855 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Johnson SC, Constible JM, Richard J (1993) Dis Aquat Org 17:197 Google Scholar
  64. 64.
    Hodneland K, Nylund A, Nisen F, Midttun B (1993) Bull Eur Assoc Fish Pathol 123:203 Google Scholar
  65. 65.
    Kiemer MCB, Black KD (1997) Aquaculture 153:181 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Rach JJ, Schreier TM, Howe GE, Redman SD (1997) Prog Fish-Cult 59:41 Google Scholar
  67. 67.
    Carvajal V, Speare DJ, Horney BS (2000) J Aquat Anim Health 12:146 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    Davies I, Rodger G (2000) Aquac Res 31:869 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    Burridge LE (2003) Can Tech Rept Fish Aquat Sci 2450:1 Google Scholar
  70. 70.
    Campbell WC (1989) Ivermectin and abamectin. Springer, New York Google Scholar
  71. 71.
    Roy WJ, Sutherland IH, Rodger HDM, Varma KJ (2000) Aquaculture 184:19 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. 72.
    Grant AN (2002) Pest Manag Sci 58:521 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. 73.
    Johnson SC, Margolis L (1993) Dis Aquat Org 17:101 Google Scholar
  74. 74.
    Palmer R, Rodger H, Drinnan E, Smith PR (1987) Bull Eur Assoc Fish Pathol 7:47 Google Scholar
  75. 75.
    Smith PR, Moloney M, McEllogott A, Clarke S, Palmer R, O'Kelly J, O'Brien F (1993) In: Boxshall GA, DeFaye D (eds) Pathogens of wild and farmed fish: sea lice. Ellis Horwood, Chichester, p 296 Google Scholar
  76. 76.
    Stone J, Sutherland IH, Somemrville CS, Richards RH, Varma KJ (1999) J Fish Dis 22:261 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. 77.
    Ramstad A, Colquhoun DJNR, Sutherland IH, Simmons R (2002) Dis Aquat Org 50:29 Google Scholar
  78. 78.
    Stone J, Sutherland IH, Sommerville C, Richards RH, Varma KJ (2000) Aquaculture 186:205 Google Scholar
  79. 79.
    Stone J, Sutherland IH, Sommerville C, Richards RH, Varma KJ (2000) Dis Aquat Org 41:141 Google Scholar
  80. 80.
    Hoy T, Horsberg TE, Nafstad I (1992) In: Michel CM, Alderman DJ (eds) Chemotherapy in Aquaculture: from theory to reality. Off Intern Epiz, Paris, p 461 Google Scholar
  81. 81.
    Grant A, Briggs AD (1998) Mar Pollut Bull 36:566 Google Scholar
  82. 82.
    Davies IM, Gillibrand PA, McHenery JG, Rae GH (1998) Aquaculture 163:29 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. 83.
    Halley BA, Nessel RJ, Lu AYH (1989) In: Campbell WC (ed) Ivermectin and abamectin. Springer, New York, p 162 Google Scholar
  84. 84.
    Roth M, Rae G, McGill AS, Young KW (1993) J Agric Food Chem 41:2434 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. 85.
    Scottish Environmental Protection Agency (1999) Emamectin benzoate, an environmental assessment. http://www.sepa.org.uk/policies/index.htm
  86. 86.
    Kilmartin J, Cazabon D, Smith P (1997) Bull Eur Assoc Fish Pathol 17:1958 Google Scholar
  87. 87.
    Burridge LE, Haya K (1993) Aquaculture 117:9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. 88.
    Thain JE, Davies IM, Rae GH, Allen YT (1997) Aquaculture 159:47 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. 89.
    Burridge LE, Hamilton MN, Waddy SL, Haya K, Mercer SM, Greenhalgh R, Tauber R, Radecki SV, Crouch LS, Wislocki PG, Endris RG (2004) Aquac Res (in press) Google Scholar
  90. 90.
    Linssen MR, van Aggelen GC, Endris R (2002) Can Tech Rept Fish Aquat Sci 2438:68 Google Scholar
  91. 91.
    Waddy SL, Burridge LE, Hamilton MN, Mercer SM, Aiken DE, Haya K (2002) Can J Fish Aquat Sci 59:1096 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. 92.
    Willis KJ, Ling N (2003) Aquaculture 221:289 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. 93.
    Savitz JD, Wright DA, Smucker RA (1994) Mar Envion Res 37:297 Google Scholar
  94. 94.
    Walker AN, Horst MN (1992) J Crustac Biol 12:354 Google Scholar
  95. 95.
    Horst MN, Walker AN (1995) J Crustac Biol 15:401 Google Scholar
  96. 96.
    Branson EJ, Ronsberg SS, Ritchie G (2000) Aquac Res 31:861 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. 97.
    Ritchie G, Ronsberg SS, Hoff KA, Branson EJ (2002) Dis Aquat Org 51:101 Google Scholar
  98. 98.
    Scottish Environmental Protection Agency (1999) Calicide (teflubenzuron)- Authorization for use as an infeed sea lice treatment in marine salmon farms.Risk assessment, EQS and recommendations, Policy No 29 http://www.sepa.org.uk/aquaculture/policies/index.htm
  99. 99.
    Fischer SA, Hall LW (1992) Crit Rev Toxicol 22:45 Google Scholar
  100. 100.
    Selvik A, Hansen PK, Ervik A, Samuelsen OB (2002) Sci Total Environ 285:237 Google Scholar
  101. 101.
    Finkelstein ZI, Baskunov BP, Rietjens JiMC, Boersman MG, Vervoort J, Golovleva LA (2001) J Environ Sci Health B36:559 Google Scholar
  102. 102.
    Shaefer CH, Dupras EF, Stewart RJ, Davidson LW, Colwel AE (1979) Bull Environ Contam Toxicol 21:249 Google Scholar
  103. 103.
    Eisler R (1992) US Fish and Wildlife Service, Contaminant Hazard Reviews 25:1 Google Scholar
  104. 104.
    Tanner DK, Moffett MF (1995) Environ Toxicol Chem 14:1345 Google Scholar
  105. 105.
    Wright DA, Savitz JD, Dawson R, Magee J, Smucker RA (1996) Ecotoxicol 5:47 Google Scholar
  106. 106.
    Roberts MH, Newman MC, Hale RC (2001) In: Newman MC, Roberts MH, Hale RC (eds) Coastal and Estuarine Risk Assessment. Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, p 1 Google Scholar
  107. 107.
    Alderman DJ, Smith P, Davies IM, Haya K (2004) ICES Co-operative Research Report (in press) Google Scholar
  108. 108.
    Campbell A (1986) Can J Fish Aquat Sci 43:2197 Google Scholar
  109. 109.
    Charmantier G, Charmantier-Daures M, Aiken DE (1991) J Crustac Biol 11:481 Google Scholar
  110. 110.
    UK Veterinary Medicines Directorate (2004) Ecotoxicity testing of medicines intended for use in fish farming. VDM Guidance Note, Animal Medicines European Licencing Information and Advice. Number 11 Google Scholar
  111. 111.
    Henderson A, Davies I (2001) Fisheries Res Serv Rep 01/2001 Google Scholar
  112. 112.
    Ernst W, Jackman P, Doe K, Page F, Julien G, Mackay K, Sutherland T (2001) Mar Pollut Bull 42:433 Google Scholar
  113. 113.
    Scottish Environmental Protection Agency (2004) The occurence of the active ingredients of sea lice treaments in sediments adjacent to marine fish farms. Results of monitoring surveys carried out by SEPA in 2001 and 2002 http://www.sepa.org.uk/policies/index.htm
  114. 114.
    Black KD, Fleming S, Nickell TD, Pereira PMF (1997) ICES J Mar Sci 54:276 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  115. 115.
    Costelloe M, Costelloe J, O'Connor B, Smith P (1998) Bull Eur Assoc Fish Pathol 18:22 Google Scholar

Authors and Affiliations

  • K. Haya
    • 1
  • L. E. Burridge
    • 1
  • I. M. Davies
    • 2
  • A. Ervik
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Fisheries and OceansSt. Andrews Biological StationSt. AndrewsUK
  2. 2.Fisheries Research Services Marine LaboratoryAberdeenUK
  3. 3.Institute of Marine ResearchBergenNorway

Personalised recommendations