Assessing toxicity of copper nanoparticles across five cladoceran species

Abstract

As a result of ever increasing applications, nanoparticles will eventually end up in the environment. However, currently no common principle has been established to help understand the toxicity of nanoparticles (NPs) across species. Therefore, it is difficult to estimate the potential risks of nanoparticles to untested species in the environment. The authors exposed 4 different sizes of copper nanoparticles (CuNPs) and 1 submicron-sized copper particle to 5 cladoceran species (Daphnia magna, Daphnia pulex, Daphnia galeata, Ceriodaphnia dubia, and Chydorus sphaericus) to investigate whether morphological attributes of species can help to assess the acute toxicity of CuNPs across species. The results showed that rod-shaped CuNPs caused much lower toxicity to all species than spherical CuNPs. Both the particles and ions contributed to the total toxicity of the CuNP suspensions. Moreover, the toxicity caused by particles in 5 different copper suspensions increases with decreasing body length, surface area, and body volume of neonates of 5 cladoceran species. Especially the correlations between body volume of the 5 cladoceran species tested and the corresponding toxicity caused by 5 different CuNPs were statistically significant, and in all cases radj (2) was higher than 0.51 (p < 0.001). The highest correlation was found between body volume and the toxicity of the 78-nm CuNPs (radj (2) = 0.95, p < 0.001). To conclude, the correlations between attributes of cladoceran species and the toxicity of CuNPs reported in the present study evoke the possibility to assess and extrapolate the toxicity of nanoparticles across species with similar attributes.

Reproductive toxicity of primary and secondary microplastics to three cladocerans during chronic exposure

“…This variation in species sensitivity may be inversely correlated with their body size (D. magna: D. pulex: C. dubia e 4.5:3:1 approximately) and therefore body volume. This is in line with previous studies comparing chemical toxicity of species with different body sizes, reporting the inverse correlation of sensitivity with body volume to copper nanoparticles, zinc, and microplastics (Song et al, 2015;Vesela and Vijverberg, 2007;Jaikumar et al, 2018). The metabolic rates of smaller sized species are higher than that of larger species (Vesela and Vijverberg, 2007).…”

Water‐soluble bioactive natural compounds in Trapa japonica leaves: Temporal changes in chemical composition and effects on cladocerans

“…Small‐bodied cladocerans tend to be vulnerable to anthropogenic chemicals such as insecticides (fipronil) and copper nanoparticles (e.g., Hayasaka, Korenaga, Suzuki, Sánchez‐Bayo, & Goka, ; Song, Vijver, de Snoo, & Peijnenburg, ), which coincides with our findings for leaf extracts (Table ). The average body length of the neonate D. magna (0.90 mm) was approximately three times greater than that of S. kingi (0.28 mm).…”

Acute sensitivity of three Cladoceran species to different types of microplastics in combination with thermal stress

“…As energy demands and usage increase with body size (Goulden et al, 1982), the effect of starvation may be magnified for the larger species at elevated temperatures (where metabolic rates are enhanced). Furthermore, a similar study comparing the sensitivity of five Cladoceran species to copper nanoparticles (Song et al, 2015) also reported that D. magna and D. pulex were less sensitive than C. dubia during acute exposures at 20 C. Similarly, a study assessing the acute toxicity of silver nitrate reported that C. dubia was more sensitive than D. magna during 48-h assays in the absence of food (Naddy et al, 2011). These observations confirm that species sensitivities have variable trends and may differ for different compounds, underlining the need for multiple species comparisons during environmental risk assessment of toxicants.…”

“…However, no studies so far have directly compared the species sensitivity of freshwater zooplanktonic organisms to microplastics. This is of importance as studies with other contaminants, including nanomaterials, have shown marked differences in sensitivity across species (Naddy et al, 2011;V€ olker et al, 2013;Song et al, 2015). Although there is not a lot of evidence for acute effects due to microplastic exposure under standardized laboratory conditions (Rehse et al, 2016), the inclusion of additional stressors may influence toxic effects observed (Heugens et al, 2001).…”