Advertisement

Ecotoxicology

, Volume 27, Issue 4, pp 395–401 | Cite as

Boric acid as reference substance for ecotoxicity tests in tropical artificial soil

  • Júlia Carina Niemeyer
  • Letícia Scopel Camargo Carniel
  • Fernanda Benedet de Santo
  • Mayrine Silva
  • Osmar Klauberg-Filho
Technical Note

Abstract

Reference substances are recommended to evaluate the quality of laboratory test species and the reliability of ecotoxicity data. Boric acid (BA) has been recommended as reference substance in some standardized tests in OECD soil, but no data are available for Tropical Artificial Soil (TAS). For this purpose, avoidance tests with Eisenia andrei, lethality tests with E. andrei and Folsomia candida, and reproduction tests with E. andrei, Enchytraeus crypticus and F. candida were carried out in TAS (5% organic matter), following ISO guidelines, and compared between two laboratories. Collembolans were more sensitive than earthworms in lethality tests (LC50 = 342 and > 1000 mg kg−1, respectively). For both laboratories, the EC50 values were similar for reproduction of oligochaeta species (165 mg kg−1 for E. crypticus; 242 and 281 mg kg−1 for E. andrei), but significantly different for reproduction of F. candida (96 and 198 mg kg−1). Present results suggest that boric acid could replace the current pesticides recommended by ISO guidelines as reference substances on reproduction tests with soil invertebrates in TAS. Concerning avoidance tests, additional investigations should be performed with other substances that cause no neurotoxic effects on soil organisms.

Keywords

Soil invertebrates Soil ecotoxicology Reproduction tests Avoidance tests 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank the financial support of the Brazilian National Council for Scientific and Technological Development (CNPq) by the financial support (Project CNPq Universal 454842/2014-7) and Brazilian Coordination for the Improvement of Higher Education Personnel (CAPES) by doctoral fellowship. The authors would like to thank the anonymous reviewers for their constructive comments that greatly contributed to improving the final version of the paper.

Funding

This study was funded by Brazilian National Council for Scientific and Technological Development (CNPq), Project CNPq Universal 454842/2014-7 for Julia Niemeyer; and Brazilian Coordination for the Improvement of Higher Education Personnel (CAPES) by a doctoral fellowship for Letícia Scopel Camargo Carniel.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Amorim MJ, Natal-da-Luz T, Sousa JP, Loureiro S, Becker L, Römbke J, Soares AM (2012) Boric acid as reference substance: pros, cons and standardization Ecotoxicology 21:919–924.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10646-011-0832-9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Becker L, Scheffczyk A, Förster B, Oehlmann J, Princz J, Römbke J, Moser T (2011) Effects of boric acid on various microbes, plants, and soil invertebrates. J Soils Sediment 11:238–248.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11368-010-0282-7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bicho RC, Gomes SIL, Soares AMVM, Amorim MJB (2015) Nonavoidance behaviour in enchytraeids to boric acid is related to the GABAergic mechanism. Environ Sci Pollut Res 22:6898–6903.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-014-3921-5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Chelinho S, Domene X, Campana P, Andres P, Römbke J, Sousa JP (2014) Toxicity of phenmedipham and carbendazim to Enchytraeus crypticus and Eisenia andrei (Oligochaeta) in Mediterranean soils. J Soils Sediment 14:584–599.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11368-013-0818-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Crouau Y, Cazes L (2003) What causes variability in the Folsomia candida reproduction test? Appl Soil Ecol 22:175–180.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0929-1393(02)00128-2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. De Silva PMCS, van Gestel CAM (2009) Development of an alternative artificial soil for earthworm toxicity testing in tropical countries. Appl Soil Ecol 43:170–174CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Dell Inc. (2015) Dell statistica (data analysis software system), version 13. software.dell.comGoogle Scholar
  8. Diogo JB, Natal-da-Luz T, Sousa JP, Vogt C, Nowak C (2007) Tolerance of genetically characterized Folsomia candida strains to phenmedipham exposure. J Soils Sediment 7:388–392.  https://doi.org/10.1065/jss2007.09.252 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Environmental Canada (2007) Biological test method: test for measuring survival and reproduction of springtails exposed to contaminants in soil. Environmental Technology Center. Ottawa, Ontario, CanadaGoogle Scholar
  10. EPPO - European and Mediterranean Plant Protection Organization (2003) EPPO Standards: Environmental risk assessment scheme for plant protection products. Soil Org Funct Bull OEPP/EPPO Bull 33:195–209. Chapter 8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Garcia M (2004) Effects of pesticides on soil fauna: development of ecotoxicological test methods for tropical regions. Cuvillier Verlag, GottingenGoogle Scholar
  12. Gourmelon A, Ahtiainen J (2007) Developing test guidelines on invertebrate development and reproduction for the assessment of chemicals, including potential endocrine active substances- the OECD perspective. Ecotoxicology 16:161–167.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10646-006-0105-1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. ISO - International Organization For Standardization (2008) ISO 17512-1: Soil quality—avoidance test for determinig the quality of soils and effects on behaviour—Part 1: test with earthworms (Eisenia fetida and Eisenia andrei). ISO, GenevaGoogle Scholar
  14. ISO - International Organization For Standardization (2011) ISO 11267: Soil quality—Inhibition of reproduction of Collembola (Folsomia candida) by soil contaminants. ISO, GenevaGoogle Scholar
  15. ISO - International Organization For Standardization (2012a) ISO 11268-2: Soil quality—effects of pollutants on earthworms - Part 2: determination of effects on reproduction of Eisenia fetida/Eisenia andrei. ISO, GenevaGoogle Scholar
  16. ISO - International Organization For Standardization (2012b) ISO 11268-1: effects of pollutants on earthworms—Part 1: determination of acute toxicity to Eisenia fetida/Eisenia andrei. ISO, GenevaGoogle Scholar
  17. ISO - International Organization For Standardization (2014) ISO 16387: Soil quality—effects of contaminants on Enchytraeidae (Enchytraeus sp.)—Determination of effects on reproduction. ISO, GenevaGoogle Scholar
  18. Krogh PH (2009) Toxicity testing with the Collembolans Folsomia fimetaria and Folsomia candida and the results of a ringtest. Danish Ministry of the environment, environmental project No. 1256, DenmarkGoogle Scholar
  19. Natal da Luz T, Ribeiro R, Sousa JP (2004) Avoidance tests with collembola and earthworms as early screening tools for site specific assessment of polluted soils. Environ Toxicol Chem 24:2188–2193.  https://doi.org/10.1897/03-445 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. OECD - The Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development (1984) Test No. 208: terrestrial plant test: seedling emergence and seedling growth test. OECD Guidelines for Testing of Chemicals Section 2: Effects on biotic systems. OECD, ParisGoogle Scholar
  21. OECD - Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (2005) Guidance document on the validation and international acceptance of new or updated test methods for hazard assessment. OECD environment, health and safety publications, series on testing and assessment No. 34. ParisGoogle Scholar
  22. OECD - Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (2008) Predatory mite (Hypoaspis (Geolaelaps) aculeifer) Reproduction test in soil. OECD guideline for the testing of chemicals No. 226. ParisGoogle Scholar
  23. OECD - The Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development (2009) Test No. 232: Collembolan reproduction test in soil. OECD Guidelines for Testing of Chemicals Section 2. effects on biotic systems. OECD, ParisGoogle Scholar
  24. OECD - The Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development (2016) Test No. 226: Predatory mite (Hypoaspis (Geolaelaps) aculeifer) reproduction test in soil. OECD Guidelines for Testing of Chemicals. OECD, ParisGoogle Scholar
  25. Owojori OJ, Healey J, Princz J, Siciliano SD (2011) Can avoidance behavior of the mite Oppia nitens be used as a rapid toxicity test for soils contaminated with metals or organic chemicals? Environ Toxicol Chem 30:2594–2601.  https://doi.org/10.1002/etc.658 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Owojori OJ, Waszak K, Römbke J (2014) Avoidance and reproduction tests with the predatory mite Hypoaspis aculeifer: effects of diferente chemical substances. Environ Toxicol Chem 33:230–237.  https://doi.org/10.1002/etc.2421 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Princz J, Becker A, Scheffczyk A, Stephenson G, Scroggins R, Moser T, Römbke J (2017) Ecotoxicity of boric acid in standard laboratory tests with plants and soil organisms. Ecotoxicology 26:1–11.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10646-017-1789-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Römbke J, Ahtiainen J (2007) The search for the “ideal” soil toxicity test reference substance. Integr Environ Assess Manage 3:464–466.  https://doi.org/10.1002/ieam.5630030320 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Schneider CA, Rasband WS, Eliceiri KW (2012) NIH Image to ImageJ: 25 years of image analysis. Nat Methods 9:671–675.  https://doi.org/10.1038/nmeth.2089 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Stantec, Aquaterra Environmental (2004) Developmental studies in support of environment Canada’s biological test methods for measuring soil toxicity using earthworms. Report prepared for the Method Development and Applications Section, Environmental Technology Centre, Environment Canada, OttawaGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Júlia Carina Niemeyer
    • 1
    • 2
  • Letícia Scopel Camargo Carniel
    • 3
  • Fernanda Benedet de Santo
    • 1
  • Mayrine Silva
    • 2
  • Osmar Klauberg-Filho
    • 3
  1. 1.Programa de Pós Graduação em Ecossistemas Agrícolas e Naturais (PPGEAN)Federal University of Santa CatarinaCuritibanosBrazil
  2. 2.Federal University of Santa CatarinaCuritibanosBrazil
  3. 3.Santa Catarina State University (UDESC), College of Agriculture and Veterinary (CAV)LagesBrazil

Personalised recommendations