Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

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

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Environmental Effects of Marine Finfish Aquaculture

Part of the book series: Handbook of Environmental Chemistry ((HEC5,volume 5M))

Abstract

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  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. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (1999) The State of the Worls Fisheries and Aquaculture. FAO, Rome

    Google Scholar 

  3. Commission of the European Communities (2002) A Strategy for the Sustainable Development of European Aquaculture. COM (2002) 511

    Google Scholar 

  4. Roth M, Richards RH, Sommerville C (1993) J Fish Dis 16:1

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. MacKinnon BM (1997) World Aquacult 28:5

    Google Scholar 

  6. Wootten R, Smith JW, Needham EA (1982) Proc R Soc Edinbur 81B:185

    Google Scholar 

  7. Pike AW (1989) Parasitol Today 5:291

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Hogans WE (1995) Can Tech Rept of Fish Aquat Sci 2067:1

    Google Scholar 

  9. O'Halloran J, Hogans WE (1996) Can Vet J 37:610

    Google Scholar 

  10. Treasurer JW, Grant A (1997) Aquaculture 148:265

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Read PA, Fernandes TF, Miller KL (2001) J Appl Ichthyol 17:145

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Rae GH (2000) Caligus 6:2

    Google Scholar 

  13. Eithun I (2004) Caligus 6:4

    Google Scholar 

  14. Rae GH (1979) Fish Farmer 2:22

    Google Scholar 

  15. Boxaspen K, Naess T (2000) Contrib Zool 69:51

    Google Scholar 

  16. Horsberg TE, Hoy T, Nafstad I (1989) Acta Vet Scand 30:385

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Tully O, Mcfadden Y (2000) Aquacult Res 31:849

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Sievers G, Palacios P, Inostroza R, Doelz H (1995) Aquaculture 134:9

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Committee for Veterinary Medicinal Products (1999) Azamethiphos Summary Report (2), EMEA/MRL 527:98

    Google Scholar 

  20. Zitko V (2001) Bull Environ Contam Toxicol 66:283

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Roth M, Richards RH, Dobson DP, Rae GH (1996) Aquaculture 140:217

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Levot GW, Hughes PB (1989) J Aust Ent Soc 28:87

    Google Scholar 

  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. Burridge LE, Haya K (1998) Gulf of Maine News Spring 1998:1

    Google Scholar 

  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. Burridge LE, Haya K, Zitko V, Waddy SL (1999) Ecotoxicol Environ Safety 43:165

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Burridge LE, Haya K, Waddy SL (2004) Ecotoxicol Environ Safety (in press)

    Google Scholar 

  28. Burridge LE, Haya K, Waddy SL, Wade J (2000) Aquaculture 182:27

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  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. Waddy SL, Burridge LE, Haya K, Hamilton MN, Mercer SM (2002) Aquacult Assoc Can Spec Publ 5:60

    Google Scholar 

  31. Abgrall P, Rangeley RW, Burridge LE, Lawton P (2000) Aquaculture 181:1

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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. 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. Barthel WF (1961) Adv Pest Control Res 4:33

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  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. Boxaspen K, Holm JC (1992) Aquaculture and the Environment, Spec Publ, Eur Aquacult Soc 16:393

    Google Scholar 

  37. Boxaspen K, Holm JC (2001) Aquac Res 32:701

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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. 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. Sevatadal S, Horsberg TE (2003) Aquaculture 218:21

    Google Scholar 

  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. Haya K (1989) Environ Toxicol Chem 8:381

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  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. Leahey JP (1985) Metabolism and environmental degradation. In: Leahey JP (ed) The pyrethroid insecticides. Taylor and Francis, London, p. 263

    Google Scholar 

  45. Burridge LE, Haya K (1997) Etoxicol Environ Saf 38:150

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  46. Clark JR, Giidman LR, Borthwick PW, Parick JM, Cripe GM, Moody PM, Moore JC, Lore EM (1989) Environ Toxicol Chem 8:393

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  47. Pahl BC, Opitz HM (1999) Aquac Res 30:655

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Thybaud E (1990) J Water Sci 3:195

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  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. Muir DCG, Rawn GP, Grift NP (1985) J Agric Food Chem 33:603

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  51. Clark JR, Patrick JM, Moore JC, Lores EM (1987) Environ Toxicol Chem 16:401

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  52. Mian LS, Mulla MS (1992) J Agric Entomol 9:73

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  53. Moore A, Waring CP (2001) Aquat Toxicol 52:1

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  54. McLeese DW, Mecalfe CD, Zitko V (1980) Bull Environ Contam Toxicol 25:950

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  55. Burridge LE, Haya K, Page FH, Waddy SL, Zitko V, Wade J (2000) Aquaculture 182:37

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  56. Gowland BTG, Moffat CF, Stagg RM, Houlihan DF, Davies IM (2002) Mar Envion Res 54:169

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  57. Mitchell AJ, Collins C (1997) Aquac Mag 23:74

    Google Scholar 

  58. Rach JJ, Gaikowski MP, Ramsay RT (2000) J Aquat Anim Health 12:267

    Google Scholar 

  59. Jones MW, Sommerville C, Wootten R (1992) J Fish Dis 15:197

    Google Scholar 

  60. Cotran RS, Kumar V, Robbins SL (1989) Patholological Basis of Disease, 4th edn. Saunders, Toronto

    Google Scholar 

  61. Bruno DW, Raynard RS (1994) Aquac Int 2:10

    Google Scholar 

  62. Treasurer J, Wadsworth S, Grant A (2000) Aquac Res 31:855

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. Johnson SC, Constible JM, Richard J (1993) Dis Aquat Org 17:197

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  64. Hodneland K, Nylund A, Nisen F, Midttun B (1993) Bull Eur Assoc Fish Pathol 123:203

    Google Scholar 

  65. Kiemer MCB, Black KD (1997) Aquaculture 153:181

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  66. Rach JJ, Schreier TM, Howe GE, Redman SD (1997) Prog Fish-Cult 59:41

    Google Scholar 

  67. Carvajal V, Speare DJ, Horney BS (2000) J Aquat Anim Health 12:146

    Article  Google Scholar 

  68. Davies I, Rodger G (2000) Aquac Res 31:869

    Article  Google Scholar 

  69. Burridge LE (2003) Can Tech Rept Fish Aquat Sci 2450:1

    Google Scholar 

  70. Campbell WC (1989) Ivermectin and abamectin. Springer, New York

    Google Scholar 

  71. Roy WJ, Sutherland IH, Rodger HDM, Varma KJ (2000) Aquaculture 184:19

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  72. Grant AN (2002) Pest Manag Sci 58:521

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  73. Johnson SC, Margolis L (1993) Dis Aquat Org 17:101

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  74. Palmer R, Rodger H, Drinnan E, Smith PR (1987) Bull Eur Assoc Fish Pathol 7:47

    Google Scholar 

  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. Stone J, Sutherland IH, Somemrville CS, Richards RH, Varma KJ (1999) J Fish Dis 22:261

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  77. Ramstad A, Colquhoun DJNR, Sutherland IH, Simmons R (2002) Dis Aquat Org 50:29

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  78. Stone J, Sutherland IH, Sommerville C, Richards RH, Varma KJ (2000) Aquaculture 186:205

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  79. Stone J, Sutherland IH, Sommerville C, Richards RH, Varma KJ (2000) Dis Aquat Org 41:141

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  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. Grant A, Briggs AD (1998) Mar Pollut Bull 36:566

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  82. Davies IM, Gillibrand PA, McHenery JG, Rae GH (1998) Aquaculture 163:29

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  83. Halley BA, Nessel RJ, Lu AYH (1989) In: Campbell WC (ed) Ivermectin and abamectin. Springer, New York, p 162

    Google Scholar 

  84. Roth M, Rae G, McGill AS, Young KW (1993) J Agric Food Chem 41:2434

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  85. Scottish Environmental Protection Agency (1999) Emamectin benzoate, an environmental assessment. http://www.sepa.org.uk/policies/index.htm

  86. Kilmartin J, Cazabon D, Smith P (1997) Bull Eur Assoc Fish Pathol 17:1958

    Google Scholar 

  87. Burridge LE, Haya K (1993) Aquaculture 117:9

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  88. Thain JE, Davies IM, Rae GH, Allen YT (1997) Aquaculture 159:47

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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. Linssen MR, van Aggelen GC, Endris R (2002) Can Tech Rept Fish Aquat Sci 2438:68

    Google Scholar 

  91. Waddy SL, Burridge LE, Hamilton MN, Mercer SM, Aiken DE, Haya K (2002) Can J Fish Aquat Sci 59:1096

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  92. Willis KJ, Ling N (2003) Aquaculture 221:289

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  93. Savitz JD, Wright DA, Smucker RA (1994) Mar Envion Res 37:297

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  94. Walker AN, Horst MN (1992) J Crustac Biol 12:354

    Google Scholar 

  95. Horst MN, Walker AN (1995) J Crustac Biol 15:401

    Google Scholar 

  96. Branson EJ, Ronsberg SS, Ritchie G (2000) Aquac Res 31:861

    Article  Google Scholar 

  97. Ritchie G, Ronsberg SS, Hoff KA, Branson EJ (2002) Dis Aquat Org 51:101

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  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. Fischer SA, Hall LW (1992) Crit Rev Toxicol 22:45

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  100. Selvik A, Hansen PK, Ervik A, Samuelsen OB (2002) Sci Total Environ 285:237

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  101. Finkelstein ZI, Baskunov BP, Rietjens JiMC, Boersman MG, Vervoort J, Golovleva LA (2001) J Environ Sci Health B36:559

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  102. Shaefer CH, Dupras EF, Stewart RJ, Davidson LW, Colwel AE (1979) Bull Environ Contam Toxicol 21:249

    Google Scholar 

  103. Eisler R (1992) US Fish and Wildlife Service, Contaminant Hazard Reviews 25:1

    Google Scholar 

  104. Tanner DK, Moffett MF (1995) Environ Toxicol Chem 14:1345

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  105. Wright DA, Savitz JD, Dawson R, Magee J, Smucker RA (1996) Ecotoxicol 5:47

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  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. Alderman DJ, Smith P, Davies IM, Haya K (2004) ICES Co-operative Research Report (in press)

    Google Scholar 

  108. Campbell A (1986) Can J Fish Aquat Sci 43:2197

    Google Scholar 

  109. Charmantier G, Charmantier-Daures M, Aiken DE (1991) J Crustac Biol 11:481

    Google Scholar 

  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. Henderson A, Davies I (2001) Fisheries Res Serv Rep 01/2001

    Google Scholar 

  112. Ernst W, Jackman P, Doe K, Page F, Julien G, Mackay K, Sutherland T (2001) Mar Pollut Bull 42:433

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  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. Black KD, Fleming S, Nickell TD, Pereira PMF (1997) ICES J Mar Sci 54:276

    Article  Google Scholar 

  115. Costelloe M, Costelloe J, O'Connor B, Smith P (1998) Bull Eur Assoc Fish Pathol 18:22

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Fisheries and Oceans, St. Andrews Biological Station, 531 Brandy Cove Road, E5B 2L9, St. Andrews, NB, UK

    K. Haya & L. E. Burridge

  2. Fisheries Research Services Marine Laboratory, 375 Victoria Road, Torry, AB11 9DB, Aberdeen, UK

    I. M. Davies

  3. Institute of Marine Research, 5817, Bergen, Norway

    A. Ervik

Authors
  1. K. Haya
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. L. E. Burridge
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. I. M. Davies
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. A. Ervik
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to K. Haya .

Editor information

Barry T. Hargrave

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Haya, K., Burridge, L.E., Davies, I.M., Ervik, A. A Review and Assessment of Environmental Risk of Chemicals Used for the Treatment of Sea Lice Infestations of Cultured Salmon . In: Hargrave, B.T. (eds) Environmental Effects of Marine Finfish Aquaculture. Handbook of Environmental Chemistry, vol 5M. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/b136016

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation