Comparative Toxicity of Copper and Acridine to Fish, Daphnia and Algae

Abstract

A comparison was made of the sensitivity of fish, Daphnia and algae to the toxic effects of copper and acridine. A series of toxicity tests was conducted with these organisms, and the following biological endpoints determined: LCSOs for fish, LCSOs and effects on reproduction of Daphnia and 50% inhibition of the growth rate of algae. The 96-h LCSOs for bluegill (Lepomis macrochirus) and Daphnia magna exposed to copper were 2.2 and 0.13 mg/L, respectively. A chronic exposure to 0.03 mg/L of copper for 14 d significantly.decreased reproduction in Daphnia. Exposure to 0.4 and 0.2 mg/L copper inhibited the growth rate of Selenastrum capricornutum and Chlorella vulgaris, respectively, by 50%. The 96-h LCSOs for fathead minnows (Pimephales promelas) and D. magna exposed to acridine were 2.3 and 3.1 mg/L, respectively. A chronic exposure to 1.25 mg/L acridine for 14 d significantly inhibited reproduction in Daphnia, and an exposure to 0.9 mg/L inhibited the growth rate of S. capricornutum by 50%. Based on the biological endpoints determined in these tests, Daphnia were more sensitive to copper than were fish or algae. In contrast, the most sensitive biological endpoint in tests with acridine was the inhibition of algal growth. Comparison of these test results indicates that short-term toxicity tests used for screening toxicants for possible environmental effects should include both plant and animal species.

Comparison of five cladoceran species in short- and long-term copper exposure

“…At the high food level within the range (6.5-130 pg Cu l-') given in the literature (LeBlanc, 1982;Dave, 1984;Blaylock et al, 1985;Winner, 1985). However, comparison of the ECS, values is somewhat problematic as they change with water quality (Khangarot & Ray, 1989;Meador, 1991).…”

Screening of high phytotoxicity priority pollutants and their ecological risk assessment in China’s surface waters

“…This is probably because that the sensitivities of the aquatic plants to pollutants are assumed to be lower than those of aquatic animals (as mentioned above) or the toxicity test methods for plants and the illumination of the test results were not yet mature (Stephen et al, 1985;Creton et al, 2014). Therefore, the WQC developed based on toxicity data for mainly aquatic animals may not be effective to protect aquatic plants (Blaylock et al, 1985).…”

Toxicity of heavy metals to Asellus aquaticus (L.) (Crustacea, Isopoda)

“…Their sensitivity to heavy metals is well documented (Ahsanullah et al, 1981a, b;Bellavere & Gorbi, 1981;Moraitou-Apostolopoulou & Verriopoulos, 1982;Ahsanullah & Florence, 1984;Engel & Brouwer, 1984;Hopkin etal., 1985;Williams et al, 1985;Blaylock et al, 1985;Amiard et al, 1987;de Nicola Giudici etal., 1986a, 1986b1987a, 1987bde Nicola Giudici & Guarino, 1988;Guarino & de Nicola Giudici, 1987;Verriopoulos etal., 1987). The isopod Asellus aquaticus (L.) occupies the mesosaprobic-fB waters of the palaearctic and has been demonstrated to be sensitive to some heavy metals (Migliore et al, 1987;.…”