Acute Toxicity of Chlorpyrifos to Hyalella curvispina: Comparison of Species Sensitivity and Assessment of Environmental Risk
- 11 Downloads
The objective of the work reported here was to determine the acute toxicity of chlorpyrifos—the most commonly used pesticide in Argentina—to the amphipod Hyalella curvispina, with that species being widely distributed in South America. The 50% lethal concentration (LC 50) of chlorpyrifos to H. curvispina was determined and compared to that of other crustacean species by means of the species-sensitivity distribution (SSD). The ecological risk was assessed as the Hazard Quotient (HQ). The mean 48-h LC50 recorded in this study was 0.38 ± 0.04 μg/L. Hyalella curvispina was considerably sensitive compared to other crustacean species reported in the literature. The HQ values calculated from the LC50s estimated here and the chlorpyrifos concentrations reported in previous studies in the Argentine Pampas ranged within 0.6–46. The chlorpyrifos concentrations in those stream waters were often above the H. curvispina 48-h LC50, indicating that acute toxicity of chlorpyrifos to H. curvispina is predicted to be occurring in these streams. The present results suggest that H. curvispina represents a suitable sentinel species for water-quality assessment and that H. curvispina along with similarly sensitive macroinvertebrate species in intensively cultivated areas in South America are likely to be affected by the application of chlorpyrifos to the neighboring crops.
KeywordsAcute toxicity Chlorpyrifos Hyalella curvispina Species-sensitivity distribution Ecological risk
The National Scientific and Technical Research Council (CONICET) grant number PIP 2011 # 0180 provided financial support for this work. We are grateful to the editor and anonymous reviewers for valuable comments and suggestions. Dr. Donald F. Haggerty, a retired academic career investigator and native English speaker, edited the final version of the manusript.
Compliance with Ethical Standards
Conflict of Interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Our institute is grounded in an agreement between the National Scientific and Technical Research Council and the National University of Argentina at La Plata. No permission to carry out experimental research on invertebrates is required, nor is permission from the Ministry of Agriculture for sampling invertebrates in the field is needed. A national law—irrelevant, however, to this study—does exist regulating experiments with vertebrates performed by companies that require approval for the commercial sale of agrochemicals or pharmaceutical products. The experiments reported here were conducted according to the guidelines stipulated by the National Service for Agrofood Health and Quality (Servicio Nacional de Sanidad y Calidad Agroalimentaria; SENASA). This investigation contains no studies involving humans.
- APHA (1998) Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater, 20th edn. American Public Health Association, American Water Works Association and Water Environmental Federation, Washington DC, 1193 ppGoogle Scholar
- Athor J (ed) (2009) Parque Costero del Sur – Naturaleza, conservación y patrimonio cultural. First edition. Fundación de Historia Natural “Félix de Azara”. Buenos Aires 528 ppGoogle Scholar
- CASAFE (2013) Cámara de Sanidad Agropecuaria y Fertilizantes, Buenos Aires, Argentina. Available: http://www.casafe.org/biblioteca/estadisticas/. Accessed 2018
- Giesy JP, Dobson S, Solomon KR (2000) Ecotoxicological risk assessment for roundup herbicide. Rev Environ Contam Toxicol 167:35–120Google Scholar
- Moltoni L (2012) Evolución del Mercado de Herbicidas en Argentina. Instituto de Ingeniería Rural. Ministerio de Agricultura y Pesca. Presidencia de la Nación. Economía y Desarrollo Rural, v.1, n.2, p.1-6, 2012. http://inta.gob.ar/documentos/economia-y-desarrollo-agroindustrial-boletin-1-2-.-evolucion-del-mercado-en-argentina. Accessed April 2018
- Muschal M (1998) Central and north west regions water quality program. Report on pesticides monitoring. CNR98.038. Dep. of Land and Water Conserv, Sydney, NSW, AustraliaGoogle Scholar
- Newman MC, Unger MA (2003) Fundamentals of Ecotoxicology, 2nd edn. Lewis Publishers, CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, 458 ppGoogle Scholar
- Solis M, Mugni H, Fanelli S, Bonetto C (2017) Effect of agrochemicals on macroinvertebrate assemblages in Pampasic streams, Buenos Aires, Argentina. Environ Earth Sci 76. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12665-017-6476-1
- U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (1999) National Recommended Water Quality Criteria – correction. Office of Water, EPA 822-Z-99-001, Washington DC, 26 ppGoogle Scholar
- U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2000) Methods for measuring the toxicity and bioaccumulation of sediment-associated contaminants with freshwater invertebrates, 2nd edn. Office of Research and Development, Office of Water, EPA 600/R-99/064, Washington, DC, 213 ppGoogle Scholar
- U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2015a) Solid-phase extraction method 3535a; https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-12/documents/3535a.pdf. Accessed Dec 2018
- U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2015b) Species Sensitivity Distribution (SSD) Generator software http://www.epa.gov/caddis/da_software_ssdmacro.html. Accessed April 2018
- U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2015c) ECOTOX AQUIRE data base: http://cfpub.epa.gov/ecotox/. Accessed April 2017
- You J, Weston DP, Lydy MJ (2004) A sonication extraction method for the analysis of pyrethroid, organophosphate, and organochlorine pesticides from sediment by gas chromatography with electron-capture detection. Arch Environ Contam Toxicol 47:141–147. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00244-003-3165-8 Google Scholar