Advertisement

Ecotoxicology

, Volume 27, Issue 7, pp 803–808 | Cite as

Marine environmental risk assessment and acute water quality criterion for pentachlorophenol in coastal waters

  • R. Beiras
  • T. Tato
Article

Abstract

Pentachlorophenol (PCP) is a organochlorine biocide that, unlike most other organochlorines, is still in use as timber preservative. Its water solubility, high toxicity, bioaccumulation potential, and the concentrations reported in estuarine waters (up to 0.1 µg L−1) indicate it may pose a risk in coastal environments. Aquatic environrmental regulations are commonly based on standard freshwater organisms that may not represent the sensitivity of marine species. The present study consists of a water quality criteira reevalutation of PCP in coastal waters based on toxicity tests conducted recording sensitive endpoints of marine species representative of coastal ecosystems, following QA/QC standard procedures. The toxicity thresholds (EC10) found were 4.69 µg L−1 for Paracentrotus lividus sea-urchin embryos, 6.47 µg L−1 for Mytilus galloprovincialis mussel larvae, and 78.4 µg L−1 for Isochrysis galbana cells. Therefore, there is only one order of magnitude between the predicted no-effect concentration (PNEC) for early life stages of bivalves and echinoderms and the maximum concentrations actually recorded in coastal water, which yields a remarkable risk quotient for PCP in these highly productive marine habitats. In addition, we have reviewed the ecotoxicological data on PCP toxicity on marine species representative of the main systematic groups, from algae to chordates, and derived a probabilistic acute saltwater quality criterion of 2.66 µg L−1, intended to protect 95% of the marine species. Lack of adequate protection for marine ecosystems in some current PCP national guidelines has been identified.

Keywords

Water quality criteria Species sensitivity distribution Early life stages Marine species Acute toxicity Pentachlorophenol 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This work was funded by MINECO (Spanish Government) through the Research Projects PCIN-2015-187-C03-03 and CTM2016-77945-C3-1-R. The authors acknowledge Nuria Trigo and all the staff of ECIMAT for their helpful technical support.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

All applicable international, national, and/or institutional guidelines for the care and use of animals were followed. This article does not contain any studies with human participants performed by any of the authors.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

References

  1. Adema DMM, Vink IGJ (1981) A comparative study of the toxicity of 1,1,2-trichloroethane, dieldrin, pentachlorophenol and 3,4 dichloroaniline for marine and fresh water organisms. Chemosphere 10:533–554.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0045-6535(81)90255-1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Aldenberg T, Slob W (1993) Confidence limits for hazardous concentrations based on logistically distributed NOEC toxicity data. Ecotoxicol Environ Saf 25:48–63.  https://doi.org/10.1006/eesa.1993.1006 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. ANZECC (2000) Australian and New Zealand guidelines for fresh and marine water quality, Canberra. https://www.environment.gov.au/water/quality/publications/australian-and-new-zealand-guidelines-fresh-marine-water-quality-volume-1. Accessed 4 Oct 2017
  4. Beiras R, Bellas J (2008) Inhibition of embryo development of the Mytilus galloprovincialis marine mussel by organic pollutants; assessment of risk for its extensive culture in the Galician Rias. Aquaculture 277:208–212.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquaculture.2008.03.002 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Beiras R, Durán I, Bellas J, Sánchez-Marín P (2012) Biological effects of contaminants: Paracentrotus lividus sea urchin embryo test with marine sediment elutriates. ICES Techniques in Marine Environmental Sciences No. 51, 13pp, International Council for the Exploration of the Sea, Copenhagen, DenmarkGoogle Scholar
  6. Borthwick PW, Schimmel SC (1978) Toxicity of pentachlorophenol and related compounds to early life stages of selected estuarine animals. In: Rao KR (ed) Pentachlorophenol: chemistry, pharmacology, and environmental toxicology. Springer, Boston, MA, pp 141–146CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. CCME (2007) A protocol for the derivation of water quality guidelines for the protection of aquatic life Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment 2007. http://ceqg-rcqe.ccme.ca/download/en/220. Accessed 13 Oct 2017
  8. Davis HC, Hidu H (1969) Effects of pesticides on embryonic development of clams and oysters and on survival and growth of the larvae. Fish Bull 67:393–404Google Scholar
  9. Durán I, Beiras R (2013) Ecotoxicologically based marine acute water quality criteria for metals intended for protection of coastal areas. Sci Total Environ 463:446–453.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2013.05.077 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Durán I, Beiras R (2017) Acute water quality criteria for polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, pesticides, plastic additives, and 4-Nonylphenol in seawater. Environ Pollut 224:384–391.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2017.02.018 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. EC (2011) Technical guidance for deriving environmental quality standards. Common Implementation Strategy for the Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC). Guidance document n 27. Technical Report-2011-055. European CommissionGoogle Scholar
  12. Euro-Chlor (1999) Euro chlor risk assessment for the marine environment. OSPARCOM Region—North Sea. Pentachlorophenol. 43pp, OSPARCOM Region North-Sea, Brussels, BelgiumGoogle Scholar
  13. Goodman G (2001) Pentachlorophenol. In: Krieger R (ed.) Handbook of pesticide toxicology, vol. 2. 2 edn. Academic Press, San Diego, pp 1481–1509CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. His E, Seaman MNL, Beiras R (1997) A simplification the bivalve embryogenesis and larval development bioassay method for water quality assessment. Water Res 31:351–355.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0043-1354(96)00244-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hunt JW, Anderson BS, Tudor SL, Stephenson MD, Puckett HM, Palmer FH, Reeve M (1996) Marine bioassay project eighth report: refinement and implementation of four effluent toxicity testing methods using indiginous marine species. California State Water Resources Control Board Report Number 96-4WQ, Sacramento, CA, 109ppGoogle Scholar
  16. ISO (2006) Water quality. Marine algal growth inhibition test with Skeletonema sp. and Phaeodactylum tricornutum ISO 10253:2006. International Organization for Standardization, GenevaGoogle Scholar
  17. Muir J, Eduljee G (1999) PCP in the freshwater and marine environment of the European Union. Sci Total Environ 236:41–56.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0048-9697(99)00281-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Murado MA, González MP, Vázquez JA (2002) Dose–response relationships: an overview, a generative model and its application to the verification of descriptive models. Enzym Microb Technol 31:439–455.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0141-0229(02)00109-6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Newman MC (2017) Fundamentals of ecotoxicology, 4th ed. CRC Press, Boca Raton, 654ppGoogle Scholar
  20. OECD (1995) Guidance document for aquatic effects assessment. OECD Environment Monographs No 92. Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development, ParisGoogle Scholar
  21. OECD (1998) OECD series on testing and assessment. Number 10: report of the OECD Workshop on Statistical Analysis of Aquatic Toxicity Data. Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development, ParisGoogle Scholar
  22. OECD (2006) Guidelines for the testing of chemicals No 201. Freshwater alga and cyanobacteria, growth inhibition test. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, ParísGoogle Scholar
  23. Onikura N, Nakamura A, Kishi K, Taniguchi K, Yagi M, Oikawa S (2007) Hatching inhibition test using the Japanese whiting Sillago japonica as an acute toxicity test for marine fish species. Aquac Sci 55:293–300.  https://doi.org/10.11233/aquaculturesci1953.55.293 Google Scholar
  24. Palau-Casellas A, Hutchinson TH (1998) Acute toxicity of chlorinated organic chemicals to the embryos and larvae of the marine worm Platynereis dumerilii (Polychaeta: Nereidae) Environ Toxicol Water Qual 13:149–155. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-2256(1998)13:2149::AID-TOX63.0.CO;2-7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Pérez S, Rial D, Beiras R (2015) Acute toxicity of selected organic pollutants to saltwater (mysid Siriella armata) and freshwater (cladoceran Daphnia magna) ecotoxicological models. Ecotoxicology 24:1229–1238.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10646-015-1489-6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Reiley MC, Stubblefield WA, Adams WJ, di Toro DM, Hodson PV, Erickson RJ, Keating FJ, Jr. (2003) Reevaluation of the state of the science for water-quality criteria development. Proceedings from the Pellston Workshop, Fairmont Hot Springs, Montana, USA, 25–30 June 1998. Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry (SETAC), PensacolaGoogle Scholar
  27. Saco-Álvarez L, Durán I, Ignacio Lorenzo J, Beiras R (2010) Methodological basis for the optimization of a marine sea-urchin embryo test (SET) for the ecological assessment of coastal water quality. Ecotoxicol Environ Saf 73:491–499.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoenv.2010.01.018 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Smith EP, Cairns J (1993) Extrapolation methods for setting ecological standards for water quality: statistical and ecological concerns. Ecotoxicology 2:203–219.  https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00116425 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Smith S, Furay VJ, Layiwola PJ, Menezes - Filho JA (1994) Evaluation of the toxicity and quantitative structure - activity Relationships (QSAR) of chlorophenols to the copepodid stage of a marine copepod (Tisbe battagliai) and two species of benthic flatfish, the flounder (Platichthys flesus) and sole (Solea solea). Chemosphere 28:825–836.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0045-6535(94)90234-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Tato T, Salgueiro-González N, León VM, González S, Beiras R (2017) Ecotoxicological evaluation of the risk posed by bisphenol A, triclosan, and 4-nonylphenol in coastal waters using early life stages of marine organisms (Isochrysis galbana, Mytilus galloprovincialis, Paracentrotus lividus, and Acartia clausi). Environ Pollut.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2017.09.031
  31. US-EPA (1985) Guidelines for deriving numerical national water quality criteria for the protection of aquatic organisms and their uses. PB85-227049. Office of Research and Development. Environmental Research Laboratories, United States Environmental Protection Agency, Duluth, MinnesotaGoogle Scholar
  32. US-EPA (2017) National recommended water quality criteria - aquatic life criteria Table. https://www.epa.gov/wqc/national-recommended-water-quality-criteria-aquatic-life-criteria-table, Accessed 11 Oct 2017
  33. van Dijk JJ, van der Meer C, Wijnans M (1977) The toxicity of sodium pentachlorophenolate for three species of decapod crustaceans and their larvae. Bull Environ Contam Toxicol 17:622–630.  https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01685988 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. van Straalen NM, Denneman CAJ (1989) Ecotoxicological evaluation of soil quality criteria. Ecotoxicol Environ Saf 18:241–251.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0147-6513(89)90018-3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Vighi M et al. (2003) Water quality objectives for mixtures of toxic chemicals: problems and perspectives. Ecotoxicol Environ Saf 54:139–150.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0147-6513(02)00047-7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Woelke CE (1972) Development of a receiving water quality bioassay criterion based on the 48-hour Pacific oyster (Crassostrea gigas) embryo. Washington Department of Fisheries Technical Report 9, 1–93Google Scholar

Copyright information

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

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.ECIMATUniversidade de VigoGaliciaSpain

Personalised recommendations