Advertisement

The use of Daphnia magna neonates hatched from ephippia for toxicity testing

  • M. M. Moreira Dos Santos
  • G. Persoone

Abstract

The continuous increase in the number of new chemicals as well as the discharges of solid and liquid wastes potentially hazardous for the environment has in the past years triggered the need for simple and inexpensive bioassays for routine testing. Although Daphnia magna is a key test species in aquatic toxicology, toxicity testing with this species implies continuous culturing of live stocks of test organisms, in good health and in sufficient numbers. Besides the technological and financial burden, which this represents,“conventional”tests also often suffer from a poor precision of the test results. The use of resting stages of bioassay species, from which the test organisms can be hatched on demand, is an attractive alternative to the problems posed by the year-round culturing of live stocks. In this study, the suitability of D. magna neonates hatched from ephippia, for acute tests, was evaluated in comparison to neonates taken from live laboratory stock cultures. The analysis was based on test sensitivity as well as on test precision. Twenty four hour and 48-h EC50’s for one inorganic and 3 organic chemicals for both ex-ephippial and live stock neonates were determined according to the OECD Guidelines for Daphnia acute testing. For all the chemicals tested, neonates hatched from ephippia never differed in sensitivity by more than a factor 2 from those taken from live stock cultures. The precision of the EC50’s obtained with ex-ephippial neonates was found to be highly comparable to that of the values obtained with live stock neonates. Despite the low number of chemicals tested, the results of this study again confirm that an ephippium-based toxicity test is a valuable alternative to the conventional Daphnia acute test.

Keywords

Toxicity Test Aquatic Toxicology Reference Toxicant Live Stock Acute Toxicity Bioassay 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Baird DJ., Barber I., Bradley M., Calow P. and Soares A.M.V.M. 1989. The Daphnia bioassay: a critique. Hydrobiologia 188/189:403–406.Google Scholar
  2. Baudo R. 1987. de Bernardi R, eds, Daphnia, Mem. lst. lta. Idrobiol. 45:461–4Google Scholar
  3. Benijts-Claus C. and Persoone G. 1975. La toxicité de trois herbicides sur l’écosystème aquatique. La Tribune du Ceredeau 28:340–346.Google Scholar
  4. Berglind R. and Dave G. 1984. Acute toxicity of chromate, DDT, PCP, TPBS, and zinc to Daphnia magna cultured in hard and soft water. Bull.Environ.Contam.Toxicol. 33:63–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Blaise C. 1991. Microbiotests in aquatic ecotoxicology: characteristics, utility, and prospects. Environ.Toxicol.Water Qual 6:145–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Brooks J.L. 1957. ThesSystematics of North American Daphnia. Memoires of the Connecticut Academy of Arts and Sciences, Yale University Press 13:1–180.Google Scholar
  7. Buikema A.L. Jr, Geiger J.G. and Lee D.R. 1980. Daphnia toxicity tests. In Buikema AL, Cairns J Jr, eds, Aquatic Invertebrate Bioassays, ASTM STP 715. ASTM, Philadelphia, USA, pp 48–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Burton G.A. Jr, Stemmer B.L., Winks K.L., Ross P.E. and Burnett L.C. 1989. A multitrophic level evaluation of sediment toxicity in Waukegan and Indiana harbours. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 8:1057–1066.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cairns J. Jr. 1983. Are single-species toxicity tests alone adequate for estimating environmental hazard. Hydrobiologia 100:47–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Canton J.H. and Adema D.M.M. 1978. Reproducibility of short-term and reproduction toxicity experiments with Daphnia magna and comparison of the sensitivity of Daphnia magna with Daphnia pulex and Daphnia cucullata in short-term experiments. Hydrobiologia 59:135–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Centeno M.D.F., Brendonck L. and Persoone G. 1993a. Cyst-based toxicity tests. III. Development and standardization of an acute toxicity test with the freshwater anostracan crustacean Streptocephalus proboscideus. In Soares A.M.V.M. and Calow P., eds, Progress in Standardization of Aquatic Toxicity Tests. Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, FL, USA, pp 37–55.Google Scholar
  12. Centeno M.D.F., Brendonck L. and Persoone G. 1993b. Influence of production, processing and storage conditions of resting eggs of Streptocephalus proboscideus (Crustacea: Branchiopoda: Anostraca) on the sensitivity of larvae to selected reference toxicants. Bull.Environ. Contam. Toxicol 51:927–934.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Centeno M.D.F., Persoone G. and Goyvaerts M.P. 1995. Cyst-based toxicity tests. IX. The potential of Thamnocephalus platyurus as test species in comparison with Streptocephalus proboscideus (Crustacea: Branchiopoda: Anostraca). Environ.Toxicol.Water Qual 10:275–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Cotou E. 1993. The controlled production of dormant eggs of Daphnia pulex (Leydig) as biological starting material for toxicity testing. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Ghent, Belgium. 284 pages.Google Scholar
  15. Cowgill U.M. 1987. Critical analysis of factors affecting the sensitivity of Zooplankton and the reproducibility of toxicity test results. Wat.Res. 12:1453–1462.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Daphtoxkit F™ magna 1996. Crustacean toxicity screening test for freshwater. Standard Operational Procedure. Creasel, Deinze, Belgium. 16 pages.Google Scholar
  17. De Meester L and De Jager H. 1993. Hatching of Daphnia sexual eggs. II. The effect of age and a second stimulus. Freshwater Biol. 30:227–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Dutka B.J., Jones K., Kwan K.K., Bailey H. and Mclnnis R. 1988. Use of microbial and toxicant screening tests for priority site selection of degraded areas in water bodies. Water Res. 22:503–510.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. EC (European Community) 1979. Council Directive 79/83 I/EEC Amending for the Sixth Time Directive 67/548/EEC on the Classification, Packaging and Labelling of Dangerous Substances. OJ L259/10. Commission of the European Community, Brussels, Belgium.Google Scholar
  20. Elnabarawy M.T., Welter A.N. and Robideau R.R. 1986. Relative sensitivity of three Daphnia species to selected organic and inorganic chemicals. Environ. Toxicol.Chem. 5:393–398.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Environment Canada 1990. Guidance Document on Control of Toxicity Test Precision Using Reference Toxicants. Report EPS l/RM/12, Environmental Protection, Conservation and Protection, Environment Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada. 85 pages.Google Scholar
  22. Ferrando M.D., Andreu-Moliner E. and Fernandez-Casalderrey A. 1992. Relative sensitivity of Daphnia magna andBrachionus calyciflorus to five pesticides. J.Environ. Sci.Heal. B27:511–522.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Frear D.E.H. and Boyd J.E. 1967. Use of Daphnia magna for the microbioassay of pesticides. I. Development of standardized techniques for rearing Daphnia and preparation of dosage-mortality curves for pesticides. J.Econ.Entomol. 60:1228–1236.Google Scholar
  24. Gersich F.M., Blanchard F. A., Applegath S.L. and Park C.N. 1986. The precision of daphnid (Daphnia magna Straus, 1820) static acute toxicity tests. Arch.Environ.Contam. Toxicol. 15:741–749.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hamilton M.A., Russo R.C. and Thurston R.V. 1977. Trimmed Spearman-Karber method for estimating median lethal concentrations in toxicity bioassays. Environ. Sci.Technol. 11:714–719 [correction, (1978) 12:417].CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. ISO 1996. Water Quality—Determination of the mobility of Daphnia magna Straus (Cladocera, Crustacea)—Acute Toxicity Test. International Standardisation Organisation ISO 6341. 9 pages.Google Scholar
  27. Janssen C. 1998. Alternative assays for routine toxicity assessments: a review. In Schüürmann G. and Markert B., eds, Ecotoxicology: ecological fundamentals, chemical exposure, and biological effects. John Wiley&Sons, New York, USA, pp 813–839.Google Scholar
  28. Janssen C.R. and Persoone G. 1993. Rapid toxicity screening tests for aquatic biota. 1. Methodology and experiments with Daphnia magna. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 12:711–717.Google Scholar
  29. Jop K.M., Rodgers J.H. Jr, Dorn P.B. and Dickson K.L. 1986. Use of hexavalent chromium as a reference toxicant in aquatic toxicity tests. In Posten T.M. and Purdy R, eds, Aquatic toxicology and environmental fate: ninth volume. ASTM STP 921. ASTM, Philadelphia, USA, pp 390403.Google Scholar
  30. Keddy C.J., Greene J.G. and Bonnell M.A. 1995. Review of whole-organism bioassays: soil, freshwater sediment, and freshwater assessment in Canada. Ecotoxicol.Environ.Safe. 30:221–251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Kszos L.A. and Stewart A.J. 1991. Effort-allocation analysis of the seven-day fathead minnow (Pimephales promelas) and Ceriodaphnia dubia toxicity tests. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 10:67–72.Google Scholar
  32. Latif M., Persoone G., Janssen C., De Coen W. and Svardal K. 1995. Toxicity evaluations of wastewaters in Austria with conventional and cost-effective bioassays. Ecotoxicol.Environ.Safe. 32:139–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Lee D.R. 1980. Reference toxicants in quality control of aquatic bioassays. In Buikema A.L. Jr. and Cairns J. Jr., eds, Aquatic invertebrate bioassay. ASTM STP 715. ASTM, Philadelphia, USA, pp 188–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Lewis P.A. and Horning II W.B. 1991. Differences in acute toxicity test results of three reference toxicants on Daphnia at two temperatures. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 10:1351–1357.Google Scholar
  35. Lewis P.A. and Weber C.I. 1985. A study of the reliability of Daphnia acute toxicity tests. In Cardwell R.D, Purdy R. and Bahner R.C., eds, Aquatic toxicology and hazard assessment: seventh symposium. ASTM STP 854. ASTM, Philadelphia, USA, pp 73–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Lilius H., Hastbacka T. and Isomaa B. 1995. A comparison of the toxicity of 30 reference chemicals to Daphnia magna and Daphnia pulex. Environ.Toxicol.Chem. 14:2085–2088.Google Scholar
  37. Maciorowski H.D. and Clarke RMc.V. 1980. Advantages and disadvantages of using invertebrates in toxicity testing. In Buikema A.L. Jr. and Cairns J. Jr., eds, Aquatic invertebrate bioassays. ASTM STP 715. ASTM, Philadelphia, USA, pp 36–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Maltby L. and Calow P. 1989. The application of bioassays in the resolution of environmental problems; past, present and future. Hydrobiologia 188/189:65–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Moreira dos Santos M.M. 1998. The controlled production and hatching of ephippia of Daphnia magna (Crustacea: Cladocera) for toxicity testing. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Ghent, Belgium, 372 pages.Google Scholar
  40. Moreira dos Santos M.M. and Persoone G. 1998. Hatching of Daphnia magna resting eggs: the effect of storage duration and storage temperature. Arch.Hydrobiol.Spec.IssuesAdv.Limnol. 52:253–262.Google Scholar
  41. Mount D.I. and Norberg T.J. 1984. A seven-day life-cycle cladoceran toxicity test. Environ.Toxicol.Chem. 3:425–434.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Naylor C., Cox E.J., Bradley M.C. and Calow P. 1992. Effect of differing maternal food ratio on susceptibility of Daphnia magna Straus neonates to toxic substance. Aquat. Toxicol. 24:75–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. OECD 1984. Guidelines for the testing of chemicals: Daphnia sp., acute immobilisation test and reproduction test. Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development OECD, Paris, France. Protocol No 202, pp 1–16.Google Scholar
  44. Persoone G. 1991. Cyst-based toxicity tests. I. A promising new tool for rapid and cost-effective toxicity screening of chemicals and effluents. ZAngew.Zool. 78:235–241.Google Scholar
  45. Persoone G 1992. Cyst-based toxicity tests. VI. Toxkits and Fluotox tests as cost effective tools for routine toxicity screening. In Steinhauser K.G. and Hansen P.D., eds, Biologische Testverfahren. Gustav Fisher Verlag, Stuttgart, Germany, pp 563–576.Google Scholar
  46. Persoone P. 1998. Development and validation of Toxkit microbiotests with invertebrates, in particular crustaceans. In Wells P.G., Lee K. and Blaise C., eds, Microscale Testing in Aquatic Toxicolog: Advances, Techniques and Practice. Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, Florida, USA, pp 437–449.Google Scholar
  47. Persoone G. and Van de Vel A. 1987. Cost-analysis of 5 current aquatic ecotoxicological tests. Report EUR 1134EN. Environment and quality of life. Commission of the European Communities, DGXI-Environment, Consumer Protection and Nuclear Safety. 119 pages.Google Scholar
  48. Persoone G. and Janssen C.R. 1994. Field validation of predictions based on laboratory toxicity tests. In Hill I.R., Heimbach F., Leeuwangh P. and Mathiessen P., eds, Freshwater field tests for hazard assessment of chemicals. Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, Florida, USA, pp 379–397.Google Scholar
  49. Persoone G., Brendonck L, Cotou E., Janssen C., Van de Vel A. and Van Steertegem M. 1990. The use of dormant eggs (ephippia) of Daphnia for toxicity tests as a cost-effective alternative to continuous culturing of live stock. Final Report. CEC Contract No. B6614-89–44. LABRAP, University of Ghent, Belgium, 164 pages.Google Scholar
  50. Persoone G., Goyvaerts M.P., Janssen C.R., De Coen W. and Vangheluwe M. 1993. Cost-effective acute hazard monitoring of polluted waters and waste dumps with the aid of Toxkits. Final Report. CEC Contract ACE 89/BE 2/D3. LABRAP, University of Ghent, Belgium. 600 pages.Google Scholar
  51. Sanders H.O. and Cope O.B. 1966. Toxicities of several pesticides to two species of cladocerans. Trans.Am.Fish.Soc. 95:165–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Snell T.W. and Persoone G. 1989a. Acute toxicity bioassays using rotifers. I. A test for brackish and marine environments with Brachionus plicatilis. Aquat.Toxicol. 14:65–80.Google Scholar
  53. Snell T.W. and Persoone G. 1989b. Acute toxicity bioassays using rotifers. II. A freshwater test with Brachionus rubens. Aquat.Toxicol. 14:81–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Sokal R.R. and Rohlf FJ. 1981. Biometry. The principles and practice of statistics in biological research (2nd edition). W.H. Freeman and Co., New York,USA. 859 pages.Google Scholar
  55. Toussaint M.W., Shedd T.R. and van der Schalie W.H. 1995. A comparison of standard acute toxicity tests with rapid-screening toxicity tests. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 14:907–915.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Van Steertegem M. and Persoone G. 1993. Cyst-based toxicity tests. V. Development and critical evaluation of standardized toxicity tests with the brine shrimp Artemia (Anostraca, Crustacea). In Soares A.M.V.M. and Calow P., eds, Progress in standardization of aquatic toxicity tests. Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, FL, USA pp 81–97.155-162Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2000

Authors and Affiliations

  • M. M. Moreira Dos Santos
    • 1
  • G. Persoone
    • 1
  1. 1.Laboratory for Biological Research in Aquatic PollutionUniversity of GhentBelgium

Personalised recommendations