Advertisement

Environmental Science and Pollution Research

, Volume 26, Issue 10, pp 9610–9618 | Cite as

Trophic transfer of CuO nanoparticles from brine shrimp (Artemia salina) nauplii to convict cichlid (Amatitlania nigrofasciata) larvae: uptake, accumulation and elimination

  • Tayebeh Nemati
  • Mehrdad SarkheilEmail author
  • Seyed Ali Johari
Research Article

Abstract

We investigated the trophic transfer potential of CuO-NPs from Artemia salina to Amatitlania nigrofasciata. The Cu uptake was investigated by exposure of the instar II nauplii to 0, 1, 10, and 100 mg/L CuO-NPs for 4 h. Dietborne exposure of fish larvae to CuO-NPs was done for 21 days through feeding with pre-exposed nauplii. Thereafter, all survived fish were fed for 21 more days with non-contaminated nauplii. The results showed that NPs could be taken up by nauplii in a concentration-dependent manner. The highest uptake of Cu by nauplii was found to be 50.5 ± 1.4 mg/g dry weight at 100 mg/L. The copper accumulation in fish larvae increased significantly with increasing Cu content in pre-exposed nauplii to different concentrations of CuO-NPs (p < 0.05). At the end of the depuration phase, although the Cu elimination was significantly higher in fish that were fed with more contaminated nauplii, but the survival rate, average final weight, and length of those larvae was still significantly less than the control group (p < 0.05). The accumulated Cu after the depuration phase in cichlid larvae was 25.4 ± 0.5, 29 ± 8.0, 33.9 ± 9.7, and 42.3 ± 4.0 μg/g dry weight at 0, 1, 10, and 100 mg/L of CuO-NPs-treated Artemia. The current findings indicated the ability of manufactured CuO-NPs to be transferred from one trophic level to the next as assessed in the simple food chain consisting of pre-exposed A. salina and A. nigrofasciata.

Keywords

Artemia Bioaccumulation Copper oxide nanoparticles Dietary exposure Food chain Amatitlania nigrofasciata 

Notes

Funding information

This research was undertaken with the support of the University of Kurdistan (UOK, Iran) under the research grant no. GRC96-06503-1.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interests

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Adam N, Leroux F, Knapen D, Bals S, Blust R (2015) The uptake and elimination of ZnO and CuO nanoparticles in Daphnia magna under chronic exposure scenarios. Water Res 68:249–261CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Al-bairuty GA, Shaw BJ, Handy RD, Henry TB (2013) Histopathological effects of waterborne copper nanoparticles and copper sulphate on the organs of rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss). Aquat Toxicol 126:104–115CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Ates M, Daniels J, Arslan Z, Farah IO (2013) Comparative evaluation of impact of Zn and ZnO nanoparticles on brine shrimp (Artemia salina ) larvae: effects of particle size and solubility on toxicity. Environ Sci Process Impacts 15(1):225–233CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Ates M, Arslan Z, Demir V, Daniels J, Farah IO (2014) Accumulation and toxicity of CuO and ZnO nanoparticles through waterborne and dietary exposure of goldfish (Carassius auratus ). Environ Toxicol 30(1):119–128CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bhuvaneshwari M, Sagar B, Doshi S, Chandrasekaran N (2016) Comparative study on toxicity of ZnO and TiO2 nanoparticles on Artemia salina: effect of pre-UV-A and visible light irradiation. Environ Sci Pollut Res Int 24(6):5633–5646CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Black JG, Reichelt-Brushett AJ, Clark MW (2015) The effect of copper and temperature on juveniles of the eurybathic brittle star Amphipholis squamata - exploring responses related to motility and the water vascular system. Chemosphere 124:32–39CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Chio C, Chen W, Chou W, Hsieh N, Ling M, Liao C (2012) Assessing the potential risks to zebrafish posed by environmentally relevant copper and silver nanoparticles. Sci Total Environ 420(15):111–118CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Chupani L, Zusková E, Niksirat H, Panáček A, Lünsmann V, Haange SB, Bergen MV, Jehmlich N (2017) Effects of chronic dietary exposure of zinc oxide nanoparticles on the serum protein profile of juvenile common carp (Cyprinus carpio L.). Sci Total Environ 579:1504–1511CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Chupani L, Niksirat H, Lünsmann V, Haange SB, Bergen MV, Jehmlich N, Zuskova E (2018a) Insight into the modulation of intestinal proteome of juvenile common carp (Cyprinus carpio L.) after dietary exposure to ZnO nanoparticles. Sci Total Environ 613–614:62–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Chupani L, Niksirat H, Velíšek J, Stará A, Hradilov S, Kolařík J, Panáček A, Zusková E (2018b) Chronic dietary toxicity of zinc oxide nanoparticles in common carp (Cyprinus carpio L.): tissue accumulation and physiological responses. Ecotoxicol Environ Saf 147:110–116CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Conway JR, Hanna SK, Lenihan H, Keller AA, Conway JR, Hanna SK, Keller AA (2014) Effects and implications of trophic transfer and accumulation of CeO2 nanoparticles in a marine mussel. Environ Sci Technol 48(3):1517–1524CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dalai S, Iswarya V, Bhuvaneshwari M, Pakrashi S, Chandrasekaran N, Mukherjee A (2014) Different modes of TiO2 uptake by Ceriodaphnia dubia: relevance to toxicity and bioaccumulation. Aquat Toxicol 152:139–146CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Gottschalk F, Sonderer T, Scholz RW, Nowack B (2009) Modeled environmental concentrations of engineered nanomaterials (TiO2, ZnO, Ag, CNT, fullerenes) for different regions. Environ Sci Technol 43(24):9216–9222CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hund-rinke K, Simon M (2006) Ecotoxic effect of photocatalytic active nanoparticles (TiO2) on algae and daphnids. Environ Sci Pollut Res Int 13(4):225–232CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. ISO TS 20787, International Organization for Standardization (2017) Nanotechnologies - aquatic toxicity assessment of manufactured nanomaterials in saltwater lakes using Artemia sp. nauplii. Also is accessible at: https://www.iso.org/standard/69087.html. Accessed 20 Jan 2019
  16. Johari SA, Rasmussen K, Gulumian M, Ghazi-Khansari M, Tetarazako N, Kashiwada S, Asghari S, Park JW, Yu IJ (2018) Introducing a new standardized nanomaterial environmental toxicity screening testing procedure, ISO/TS 20787: aquatic toxicity assessment of manufactured nanomaterials in saltwater Lakes using Artemia sp. nauplii. Toxicol Mech Meth.  https://doi.org/10.1080/15376516.2018.1512695
  17. Katwal R, Kaur H, Sharma G, Naushad M, Pathania D (2015) Electrochemical synthesized copper oxide nanoparticles for enhanced photocatalytic and antimicrobial activity. J Ind Eng Chem 31:173–184CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Lakani FB, Meshkini S, Yazdani Sadati MA, Falahatkar B (2016) Bioaccumulation of copper nanoparticle in gill, liver, intestine and muscle of Siberian sturgeon (Acipenser baerii) juvenile. CJES 14(2):105–115Google Scholar
  19. Madhav MR, David SM, Kumar RSS, Swathy JS, Bhuvaneshwari M, Mukherjee A, Chandrasekaran N (2017) Toxicity and accumulation of copper oxide (CuO) nanoparticles in different life stages of Artemia salina. Environ Toxicol Pharmacol 52:227–238CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Mansouri B, Maleki A, Johari SA, Shahmoradi B, Mohammadi E, Shahsavari S, Davari B (2016) Copper bioaccumulation and depuration in common carp (Cyprinus carpio) following co-exposure to TiO2 and CuO nanoparticles. Arch Environ Contam Toxicol 71:541–552CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Mathews T, Fisher NS (2008) Trophic transfer of seven trace metals in a four-step marine food chain. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 367:23–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Mattsson K, Ekvall MT, Hansson L, Linse S, Malmendal A, Cedervall T (2014) Altered behavior, physiology and metabolism in fish exposed to polystyrene nanoparticles. Environ Sci Technol 49(1):553–561CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Melegari SP, Perreault F, Costa RH, Popovic R, Matias WG (2013) Evaluation of toxicity and oxidative stress induced by copper oxide nanoparticles in the green alga Chlamydomonas reinhardtii. Aquat Toxicol 142-143:431–440CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Moore MN (2006) Do nanoparticles present ecotoxicological risks for the health of the aquatic environment? Environ Int 32(8):967–976CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Navarro E, Baun A, Behra R, Hartmann NB, Filser J, Antonietta AM, Peter Q (2008) Environmental behavior and ecotoxicity of engineered nanoparticles to algae, plants, and fungi. Ecotoxicology 17(5):372–386CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Phiwdang K, Suphankij S, Mekprasart W (2013) Synthesis of CuO nanoparticles by precipitation method using different precursors. Energy Procedia 34:740–745CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Rahmani R, Mansouri B, Johari SA, Azadi N, Davari B, Asghari S, Dekani L (2016) Trophic transfer potential of silver nanoparticles from Artemia salina to Danio rerio. AACL Bioflux 9(1):100–104Google Scholar
  28. Rainbow PS, Poirier L, Smith BD, Brix KV, uoma SN (2006) Trophic transfer of trace metals: subcellular compartmentalization in a polychaete and assimilation by a decapod crustacean. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 308:91–100CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Rastogi A, Zivcak M, Sytar O, Kalaji HM, He X (2017) Impact of metal and metal oxide nanoparticles on plant: a critical review. Front Chem 5:78.  https://doi.org/10.3389/fchem.2017.00078 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Sarkheil M, Johari SA, An HJ, Asghari S, Park HS, Sohn EK, Yu IJ (2018) Acute toxicity, uptake, and elimination of zinc oxide nanoparticles (ZnO NPs) using saltwater microcrustacean, Artemia franciscana. Environ Toxicol Pharmacol 57:181–188CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Skjolding LM, Winther-nielsen M, Baun A (2014) Trophic transfer of differently functionalized zinc oxide nanoparticles from crustaceans (Daphnia magna) to zebrafish (Danio rerio). Aquat Toxicol 157:101–108CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Song L, Vijver MG, Peijnenburg WJGM, Galloway T, Tyler CR (2015) A comparative analysis on the in vivo toxicity of copper nanoparticles in three species of freshwater fish. Chemosphere 139:181–189CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Tangaa SR, Selck H, Winther-nielsen M, Khan FR (2016) Trophic transfer of metal-based nanoparticles in aquatic environments: a review and recommendations for future research focus. Environ Sci Nano 3(1):966–981CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Vance ME, Kuiken T, Vejerano EP, McGinnis SP, Hochella MF Jr, Rejeski D, Hull MS (2015) Nanotechnology in the real world: redeveloping the nanomaterial consumer products inventory. Beilstein J Nanotechnol 6:1769–1780CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Wang Z, Yin L, Zhao J, Xing B (2016) Trophic transfer and accumulation of TiO2 nanoparticles from clamworm (Perinereis aibuhitensis) to juvenile turbot (Scophthalmus maximus) along a marine benthic food chain. Water Res 95:250–259CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Wu AF, Bortvedt A, Harper BJ, Lauren E, Harper SL (2017) Uptake and toxicity of CuO nanoparticles to Daphnia magna varies between indirect dietary and direct waterborne exposures. Aquat Toxicol 190:78–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Tayebeh Nemati
    • 1
  • Mehrdad Sarkheil
    • 2
    Email author
  • Seyed Ali Johari
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Fisheries, Faculty of Natural ResourcesUniversity of KurdistanSanandajIran
  2. 2.Department of Fisheries, Faculty of Natural Resources and EnvironmentFerdowsi University of MashhadMashhadIran

Personalised recommendations