Chemical Aspects of Nanoparticle Ecotoxicology

Nanoecotoxicology strives to understand the processes and mechanisms by which engineered nanoparticles (ENP) may exert toxic effects on aquatic organisms. Detailed knowledge of the chemical reactions of nanoparticles in the media and of their interactions with organisms is required to understand these effects. The processes of agglomeration of nanoparticles, of dissolution and release of toxic metal ions, and of production of reactive oxygen species (ROS) are considered in this article. Important questions concern the role of uptake of nanoparticles in various organisms, in contrast to uptake of ions released from nanoparticles and to nanoparticle attachment to organism surfaces. These interactions are illustrated for effects of silver nanoparticles (AgNP), cerium oxide (CeO2 NP) and titanium dioxide (TiO2 NP), on aquatic organisms, including algae, biofilms, fish cells and fish embryos.

Interaction of silver nanoparticles with algae and fish cells: a side by side comparison

Renata Behra, Xiaomei Li, Kristin Schirmer, Laura Sigg, Yang Yue

Background: Silver nanoparticles (AgNP) are widely applied and can, upon use, be released into the aquatic environment. This raises concerns about potential impacts of AgNP on aquatic organisms. We here present a side by side comparison of the interaction of AgNP with two contrasting cell types: algal cells, using the algae Euglena gracilis as model, and fish cells, a cell line originating from rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) gill (RTgill-W1). The comparison is based on the AgNP behavior in exposure media, toxicity, uptake and interaction with proteins. Results: (1) The composition of exposure media affected AgNP behavior and toxicity to algae and fish cells. (2) The toxicity of AgNP to algae was mediated by dissolved silver while nanoparticle specific effects in addition to dissolved silver contributed to the toxicity of AgNP to fish cells. (3) AgNP did not enter into algal cells; they only adsorbed onto the cell surface. In contrast, AgNP were taken up by fish cells via endocytic pathways. (4) AgNP can bind to both extracellular and intracellular proteins and inhibit enzyme activity. Conclusion: Our results showed that fish cells take up AgNP in contrast to algal cells, where AgNP sorbed onto the cell surface, which indicates that the cell wall of algae is a barrier to particle uptake. This particle behaviour results in different responses to AgNP exposure in algae and fish cells. Yet, proteins from both cell types can be affected by AgNP exposure: for algae, extracellular proteins secreted from cells for, e. g., nutrient acquisition. For fish cells, intracellular and/or membrane-bound proteins, such as the Na+/K+-ATPase, are susceptible to AgNP binding and functional impairment.

Biomed Central Ltd2017

Endocrine disruption in soil invertebrates

Sophie Campiche

In the past years, it has been observed that some compounds present in our environment can disturb the reproduction and development of animals like fishes, birds, or reptiles by interfering with their endocrine system. Indeed, these endocrine disrupting compounds (EDC) can mimic or antagonize the effects of hormones, alter the pattern of synthesis and metabolism of hormones or modify hormone receptor levels. These substances represent a risk for wildlife, and possibly for humans. Up to now, endocrine disruption was mainly evaluated for vertebrates and aquatic organisms and for oestrogeniclike substances. However, soil invertebrates, which play an important role in soil functioning, have rarely been considered. Moreover, as their endocrine system differs substantially from those of vertebrates (estrogens do not seem to regulate endocrine functions in invertebrates), other substances than can mimic invertebrate hormones should be taken into account. In this sense, insect growth regulators (IGR), which are third generation insecticides specially developed to interfere with insect endocrine system, are interesting compounds. These substances are supposed to have a high specificity for insect pest and a low toxicity for non-target organisms. In the first part of this study, the sublethal effects of six IGR (methoprene, fenoxycarb, precocene II, tebufenozide, hexaflumuron and teflubenzuron) were evaluated on the non-target soil arthropod Folsomia candida. The collembola F. candida represents an integral and beneficial part of the soil ecosystem. It is an euedaphic (subsurface) species which plays an important role in soil respiration and decomposition processes and is therefore vulnerable to the effects of soil contamination. This ecologically relevant organism is one of the most appropriate invertebrate test species for the assessment of environmental quality. It is recommended as test organism by the international standard ISO 11267. The 28-days reproduction tests conducted according to this protocol show that F. candida is affected by the chosen IGR. The most toxic compounds were the two chitin synthesis inhibitors, teflubenzuron and hexaflumuron, with an EC50 of 0.05 mg/kg (dw) for teflubenzuron and an EC50 of 0.6 mg/kg for hexaflumuron. These concentrations are probably environmentally relevant (toxicity/exposure ratios

EPFL2006

Bioassay battery interlaboratory investigation of emerging contaminants in spiked water extracts - Towards the implementation of bioanalytical monitoring tools in water quality assessment and monitoring

Bioassays are particularly useful tools to link the chemical and ecological assessments in water quality monitoring. Different methods cover a broad range of toxicity mechanisms in diverse organisms, and account for risks posed by non-target compounds and mixtures. Many tests are already applied in chemical and waste assessments, and stakeholders from the science-police interface have recommended their integration in regulatory water quality monitoring. Still, there is a need to address bioassay suitability to evaluate water samples containing emerging pollutants, which are a current priority in water quality monitoring. The presented interlaboratory study (ILS) verified whether a battery of miniaturized bioassays, conducted in 11 different laboratories following their own protocols, would produce comparable results when applied to evaluate blinded samples consisting of a pristine water extract spiked with four emerging pollutants as single chemicals or mixtures, i.e. triclosan, acridine, 17 alpha-ethinylestradiol (EE2) and 3-nitrobenzanthrone (3-NBA). Assays evaluated effects on aquatic organisms from three different trophic levels (algae, daphnids, zebrafish embryos) and mechanism-specific effects using in vitro estrogenicity (ER-Luc, YES) and mutagenicity (Ames fluctuation) assays. The test battery presented complementary sensitivity and specificity to evaluate the different blinded water extract spikes. Aquatic organisms differed in terms of sensitivity to triclosan (algae > daphnids > fish) and acridine (fish > daphnids > algae) spikes, confirming the complementary role of the three taxa for water quality assessment. Estrogenicity and mutagenicity assays identified with high precision the respective mechanism-specific effects of spikes even when non-specific toxicity occurred in mixture. For estrogenicity, although differences were observed between assays and models, EE2 spike relative induction EC50 values were comparable to the literature, and E2/EE2 equivalency factors reliably reflected the sample content. In the Ames, strong revertant induction occurred following 3-NBA spike incubation with the TA98 strain, which was of lower magnitude after metabolic transformation and when compared to TA100. Differences in experimental protocols, model organisms, and data analysis can be sources of variation, indicating that respective harmonized standard procedures should be followed when implementing bioassays in water monitoring. Together with other ongoing activities for the validation of a basic bioassay battery, the present study is an important step towards the implementation of bioanalytical monitoring tools in water quality assessment and monitoring. (C) 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Elsevier2016

Endocrine disruption in soil invertebrates

Sophie Campiche

EPFL2006

Elsevier2016