The ICES biological effects monitoring in pelagic ecosystems (BECPELAG) workshop is a multi-national, multi-disciplinary workshop aimed at establishing suitable techniques for monitoring the effects of contaminants on pelagic ecosystems. One of the many activities that have been performed concurrently is the extraction of water samples using semi-permeable membrane devices (SPMDs) and large volume solid phase extraction (SPE) followed by in vitro testing and targeted chemical analysis of the concentrated extracts. The following in vitro assays were used: DR-CALUX, yeast oestrogen and androgen screen (YES & YAS), blue mussel (Mytilus edulis) embryo, Tisbe battagliai, and Skeletonema costatum. Data from the study are presented along with recommendations on procedures for the use of in vitro in the monitoring of the pelagic environment

Hurst, M. R.

Klungsøyr, Jarle

Meier, Sonnich

Reynolds, W.

Thain, John E.

Thomas, Kevin V.

English

Brage IMR

NOT TO BE CITED WITHOUT PRIOR REFERENCE TO THE AUTHORS   International Council for the  Exploration of the Sea  Biological Effects of Contaminants in Marine Pelagic Ecosystems CM 2002/X:07  IN VITRO ECOTOXICOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT OF PELAGIC ECOSYSTEMS  K.V.Thomas1, M.R.Hurst1, W. Reynolds1, J.Klungsøyr2, S.Meier2 and J.E.Thain1  1Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science, Burnham-on-Crouch, Essex, CM0 8HA, U.K.  tel:+44 1621 787200, fax: +44 1621 784989, e-mail: k.v.thomas@cefas.co.uk  2 Institute of Marine Research, P.O. Box 1870 Nordnes, N-5817 Bergen, NO.   ABSTRACT  The ICES biological effects monitoring in pelagic ecosystems (BECPELAG) workshop is a multi-national, multi-disciplinary workshop aimed at establishing suitable techniques for monitoring the effects of contaminants on pelagic ecosystems. One of the many activities that have been performed concurrently is the extraction of water samples using semi-permeable membrane devices (SPMDs) and large volume solid phase extraction (SPE) followed by in vitro testing and targeted chemical analysis of the concentrated extracts. The following in vitro assays were used: DR-CALUX, yeast oestrogen and androgen screen (YES & YAS), blue mussel (Mytilus edulis) embryo, Tisbe battagliai, and Skeletonema costatum. Data from the study are presented along with recommendations on procedures for the use of in vitro in the monitoring of the pelagic environment.  Keywords: In vitro bioassays, solid phase extraction, contaminant concentration, semi-permeable membrane devices, produced water.   INTRODUCTION  High quality data on the health of marine pelagic ecosystems are required for the successful environmental management of any activity that has the potential to have an adverse effect. The ICES biological effects monitoring in pelagic ecosystems (BECPELAG) workshop is a multi-national, multi-discipline workshop aimed at establishing suitable techniques for monitoring the effects of contaminants on pelagic ecosystems. The main objective of the workshop is to assess the ability of selected methods to detect biological effects of xenobiotics in pelagic systems. In addition, the results from the workshop will be used as a basis to suggest methods for future monitoring of biological effects in pelagic systems.  One of the many activities that have been performed concurrently is the extraction of water samples using semi-permeable membrane devices (SPMDs) and large volume solid phase extraction (SPE) followed by in vitro testing and targeted chemical analysis of the concentrated extracts. The following in vitro bioassays were used: DR-CALUX (aryl hydrocarbon receptor), yeast oestrogen and androgen screen (YES & YAS), blue mussel   1(Mytilus edulis) embryo, Tisbe battagliai, and Skeletonema costatum. All these assays are suitable for the testing of concentrated extracts since they require low sample volumes (< 20 ml), need minimal space and equipment for testing, are sensitive and have easily determined end-points.  In this paper we describe the sampling of produced and surface water samples from the North Sea, their extraction and subsequent testing using the in vitro bioassays described above.    METHODS Sample locations During the workshop eight sample locations were used along two transects; one in the German Bight and one in the Statfjord area within the Norwegian sector of the North Sea (Table 1).  Water Sampling Water samples (50 L) were collected in an alloy churn sampler designed to take discrete water samples at a selected depth (1 m for GB and 10 m for the Statfjord area).  Samples were collected from both areas during June 2001. SPMDs were placed at the same locations for 6 weeks during the same period.  Solid phase extraction (SPE) The general approach used for the extraction of water samples has been previously described (Thomas et al., 1999a; Thomas et al., 1999b). Typically, a 100 L water sample was forced, using compressed air, through a Teflon column packed with glass wool (previously rinsed with acetone and dried) and a octylsilane (C18; 5 g; IST, Hengoed, UK) and polystyrene-based polymer Isolute ENV+ solid phase extraction cartridges (1 g; IST, Hengoed, UK) connected in series. The SPE columns were then dried under vacuum, extracted using methanol (10 ml) and then dichloromethane (DCM; 10 ml), combined, reduced in volume to 5 ml in methanol and stored at -20ºC.  Semi Permeable Membrane Devices (SPMDs) SPMDs were deployed and extracted as described by Huckins et al. (1995). Extracts in DCM were stored at -20ºC prior to testing.  Bioassays  A suite of small scale bioassays was employed using published methods: Tisbe battagliai (mortality; Thomas et al.,1999a), blue mussel (Mytilus edulis) embryo (larval formation; ASTM, 1993), Skeletonema costatum (growth inhibition; ISO, 1994), DR-CALUX (rat aryl hydrocarbon receptor, AhR; Murk et al., 1996), yeast oestrogen and androgen screen (YES & YAS, human oestrogen and androgen receptor, Routledge & Sumpter, 1996; Sohoni and Sumpter, 1998).   Chemical analyses SPMD and SPE extracts were analysed for alkylphenols (APs) and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) by the Norwegian Institute for Marine Research (Bergen, NO).   RESULTS    2Results from the bioassay testing of the SPE and SPMD extracts are presented in Table 2 and 3 respectively.   SPE extracts of surface waters None of the surface water SPE extracts, even when concentrated x 103, were lethally toxic to the marine copepod T. battagliai. Only one SPE extract inhibited the growth of the diatom S. costatum (SF03), whilst blue mussel larval deformities were observed in extracts obtained from GB02, GB04, SF02, SF04 and UK01. These samples had to be concentrated between 268 and 793 times before abnormalities were observed in 50% of the organisms tested. With the exception of the sample collected at GB02 the presence of in vitro oestrogen receptor (ER) agonists were detected in all of the extracts tested (0.007-0.3 ng E2 L-1). No response from in vitro androgen receptor (AR) agonists was determined in any of the extracts tested (< 0.01 ng DHT L-1). With the exception of the sample collected at GB04 in vitro AhR agonists were determined in all of the surface water samples collected.  SPE extracts of produced water A positive response was obtained in all the bioassays used to test produced water extracts apart for the YAS assay (in vitro AR agonists) which the response was below the limit of detection of the method (Table 2).  SPMD extracts Only aryl hydrocarbon receptor (AhR) agonist activity was determined in the SPMD extracts tested (Table 3).  Chemical analysis A summary of the targeted chemical analysis of PAHs and APs, as performed by IMR, NO, is presented in Table 4.   DISCUSSION The concentration of contaminants in offshore environments is generally below the detection limits of standard bioassays. The extraction and concentration of organic contaminants allows the contaminant burden of a sample to be tested, and both spatial and temporal trends to be established. In this study, none of the surface water samples tested were toxic to T. battagliai and only a few inhibited S. costatum growth even when concentrated x 103. However, previous CEFAS studies in coastal and offshore areas have demonstrated that the T. battagliai survival and S. costatum growth inhibition tests are suitable for use in this context with temporal and spatial data obtained around the UK over the period 1999-2002 (CEFAS, Unpublished data). Testing the toxicity of the extracts to blue mussel embryos resulted in a response in all but one of the samples tested. This suggests that the combination of sample extraction and testing using bivalve embryos may be a promising tool for marine pelagic monitoring. Testing surface water extracts with the YES and YAS assays was successful in determining the in vitro ER, AR and AhR activities of offshore surface waters. Unsurprisingly, low levels of ER activity were measured, whilst the levels of AR activity were below that of the method. The in vitro AhR activity of the total SPE extracts were determined after 24h using the DR-CALUX assay and show measurable activities in all of the samples measured except the sample collected at GB04. Data from the YES and DR-CALUX assays will therefore allow an assessment of likely trends to be made when applied on a much broader scale.    3Toxicity assessment of the produced water from two oil production platforms in the Northern North Sea allowed the toxic contribution from these effluents to be determined. Extraction and concentration of the produced water collected was necessary before effects could be measured using the assays deployed. The mussel embryo bioassay was the most sensitive of the acute bioassays used with samples collected from SFC demonstrating levels of toxicity of between 0.25 and 1 TU representing toxicity at concentrations observed in the original produced water. The most sensitive in vitro receptor based assay was for ER activity, followed by AhR activity, whilst the AR activity was below the detection limit of the method.  Since produced water contains a complex mixture of chemicals, it is not clear as to which chemicals are likely to be causing the effects measured. The most likely compounds to be responsible for ER and AhR activities are APs & PAHs respectively (Table 4). However, further confirmatory studies are necessary, such as the application of toxicity identification evaluation (TIE) procedures, since there is always the possibility of other unknown compounds contributing to the overall activity.  A limitation of the sampling design adopted for the SPE extraction as part of this study is that the samples only represent a 'snapshot' at the time of the sampling event. The SPMDs deployed for a six-week period at the same locations offer a time-integrated sample that can be tested using the same assays. From the bioassay data it appears that the SPMDs accumulated only AhR agonists during this period (Table 3). For all the benefits that integrated sampling SPMDs offer, further work is required to ensure that they accumulate the target compounds of choice (e.g. a system suitable for the accumulation of ER agonists) and that performance reference compounds (PRCs) are used in order to calculate the average concentration of accumulated contaminants in the environment that they are deployed. An in situ integrated approach to SPE may also yield benefits in this area.     CONCLUSIONS • The combination of sample extraction and concentration using SPE/SPMDs with in vitro testing is a technique that is suitable for determining the ecotoxicological effects of marine pelagic ecosystems and point source discharges. • In vitro ER and AhR agonist activity can be detected using these techniques in offshore surface waters. • The produced waters sampled contain compounds that are toxic to blue mussel embryos. • The produced waters sampled contain ER and AhR agonists. • It is recommended that integrated SPE is combined with SPMDs in future applications of this approach.   Acknowledgements: This work was performed, in part, as part of the ICES BECPELAG workshop [www.niva.no/pelagic/web]. The CEFAS component of this study was funded by contributions from the UK Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA).   REFERENCES American Society of Testing and Materials (ASTM) (1993) Conducting static acute toxicity tests starting with embryos of four species of saltwater bivalve molluscs. Annual book of ASTM standards. Designation E724-89.     4Huckins, J.N., Petty, J.D., Lebo, J.A., Orazio, C.E, Prest, H.F., Tillet, D.E., Ellis, G.S., Johnson, B.T. and Manuweera, G.K. (1995) Semipermeable membrane devices (SPMDs) for the concentration and assessment of bioavailable organic contaminants in aquatic environments. In G.K. Ostrander, ed., Techniques in Aquatic Toxicology. Lewis Publishers/CRC Press.  International Standards Organisation (ISO) (1994) Water quality- Marine algal growth inhibition test with Skeletonema costatum and Phaeodactylum tricornutum. ISO 10253.2.  Murk, A.J., Legler, J., Denison, M.S., Giesy, J.P., van de Guchte, C. and Brouwer, A. (1996) Chemical-activated luciferase gene expression (CALUX): a novel in vitro bioassay for Ah receptor active compounds in sediments and pore water. Fundamental Applications in Toxicology 33(1): 149-160.  Routledge, E.J. and Sumpter, J.P. (1996) Oestrogenic activity of surfactants and some of their degradation products assessed using a recombinant yeast screen. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 15: 241-248.  Sohoni, P. and Sumpter, J. P. (1998) Several environmental oestrogens are also anti-androgens.  Journal of Endocrinolgy 158: 327-339.  Thomas, K.V., Thain , J.E. and Waldock, M.J. (1999a) Identification of toxic substances in UK estuaries. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 18, 401-411.  Thomas, K.V., Benstead, R., Thain , J.E. and Waldock, M.J. (1999b) Toxicity characterisation of organic contaminants in UK estuaries and coastal waters. Marine Pollution Bulletin 38, 925-932.    5Table 1.  Positions of stations used for ICES BECPELAG workshop  Station Position (Lat Long) GB01  54.083 °N, 7.833 °E GB02  54.178 °N, 3 7.43°E GB03  5.00 °N, 6.325 °E GB04  55.38 °N, 4.50 °E SF01  61,12,3 °N, 01,50,6 °E SF02  61,11,8 °N, 01,52,1 °E SF03  61,10,0 °N, 01,59,5 °E SF04  60,07,0 °N, 03,03,0 °E   6Table 2. Summary of the bioassay tests conducted on solid phase extraction (SPE) extracts as part of the BECPELAG workshop Station Tisbe battagliai Skeletonema costatum Mytilus edulis In vitro ER agonist potency2 In vitro AR agonist potency3 In vitro AhR agonist potency4 LC50  TU1 EC50 TU1 EC50 TU1 ng E2 L-1 ng DHT L-1 TCDD TEQ (pg L-1) GB01 >1000 < 0.001 >1000 < 0.001 >1000 <0.001 0.007 <0.01 12 (1) GB02 >1000 < 0.001 >1000 < 0.001 408 0.002 <0.0007 <0.01 9 (0.3) GB04 >1000 < 0.001 >1000 < 0.001 730 0.001 0.01 <0.01 < 1 SF02 >1000 < 0.001 >1000 < 0.001 793 0.001 - <0.01 30 (1) SF03 >1000 < 0.001 288 0.003 - - 0.07 <0.01 170 (6) SF04 >1000 < 0.001 >1000 < 0.001 325 0.003 0.3 <0.01 13 (1) SFC PW1 67 0.015 31 0.032 4 0.25 23 <0.01 630 (19) SFC PW2 75 0.013 13 0.077 2 0.5 24 <0.01 34 (1) SFC PW3 54 0.019 - - 1 1 28 <0.01 88 (1) UK 01 >1000 < 0.001 >1000 < 0.001 - - 0.04 <0.01 135 (4) UK PW 1 945 0.001 >1000 < 0.001 - - 5 <0.1 65 (3) UK PW 2 518 0.002 >1000 < 0.001 268 0.004 3 <0.1 38 (0.5)   1 1 TU (Toxic Unit) = 1/EC50 concentration factor. 2 Determined using the yeast oestrogen screen (YES) and expressed as the equivalent concentration of 17β-oestradiol to give the same response. 3 Determined using the yeast androgen screen (YAS) and expressed as the equivalent concentration of 5α-dihydrotestosterone to give the same response. 4 Determined using the DR-CALUX assay and expressed as 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) TEQ.  Table 3. Bioassay test results conducted on the SPMD extracts as part of the BECPELAG workshop Station In vitro ER agonist potency  (ng E2 Kg lipid-1)1 In vitro AR agonist potency  (ng DHT Kg lipid-1)2 In vitro AhR agonist potency  (pg TCDD TEQ mg lipid-1)3 GB01   <149 <394 2GB02                    <168 <447 1GB03 <89 <236 1GB04 <172 <458 <0.4SF01 <70 <188 4SF04 <41 <108 0.5  71 Determined using the yeast oestrogen screen (YES) and expressed as the equivalent concentration of 17β-oestradiol to give the same response. 2  Determined using the yeast androgen screen (YAS) and expressed as the equivalent concentration of 5α-dihydrotestosterone to give the same response. 4 Determined using the DR-CALUX assay and expressed as 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) TEQ.  Table 4a. Alkylphenol concentrations present in the SPE samples collected as part of the BECPELAG workshop. Station Total sum of alkylphenols (µg L-1)  C           1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 C7 C8 C9 Total (C1-9) GB01 1.2 2.8 1.9 0.9 0.7 0.2 0.0 0.3 0.4 8.4SF02                                                                  0.7 0.8 0.7 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 3.0SF03 0.7 0.9 0.5 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.3 0.1 0.0 2.8SF04 1.2 2.1 2.1 0.9 0.8 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.3 8.2SFC01 37.4 67.0 26.9 18.6 13.0 3.7 0.2 6.0 9.3 182.2SFC02 68.6 1103.4 73.7 64.7 88.2 21.5 0.8 15.4 32.7 1468.9SFC03 2.1 2.4 1.1 0.6 0.5 0.1 0.0 0.2 0.4 7.3  Table 4b. Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon concentrations in the SPE samples collected as part of the BECPELAG workshop  Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (µg L-1)  Naphthalene & Alkyl Na   C  Phenanthrene & Alkyl Phe  C  Dibenzothiophene & Alkyl Dthio  C  Flu Pyr Sample  C C C                 N C1 2 3 1 C2 3 1 C2 3 GB01 0.08 0.12 0.19 0.18 0.08 0.10 0.05 0.02 0.04 0.03 0.13 0.01 0.01 0.02GB02                                                                                                         0.12 0.14 0.12 0.10 0.04 0.06 0.06 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.05 0.01 0.01 0.01SF02 0.16 0.26 0.85 0.75 0.42 1.66 2.26 1.33 0.07 0.27 0.17 0.32 0.28 1.05SF03 0.10 0.08 0.10 0.01 0.05 0.07 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00SF04 0.15 0.31 1.01 0.37 0.45 1.60 1.98 1.12 0.08 0.25 0.23 0.29 0.30 1.00SFC01 0.22 0.25 0.23 0.16 0.05 0.08 0.05 0.02 0.03 0.02 0.04 0.01 0.01 0.02SFC02 252 81.5 59.4 20.5 5.27 12.6 10.5 3.02 2.19 4.29 1.60 0.17 0.40 0.73SFC03 790 834 356 99.0 13.4 11.5 9.09 2.20 5.90 5.37 6.74 4.25 0.48 0.75Na- napthalene, Phe- phenanthrene, Dthio- dibenzothiophene, Flu- fluoranthene, Pyr- pyrene.      8Table 4b (cont.)  Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (µg L-1) Sample                   Ay Ace Flu Anth  BaA Chr BbjkF BeP BaP Per IdP DbA BghiGB01 - - 0.04 0.01 - - - - - - - - -GB02                                                              - - 0.01 - - - - - - - - - -SF02 0.01 0.01 0.12 0.01 0.02 0.18 0.06 0.20 0.11 0.01 0.22 0.02SF03 - - - - - - - - - - - - -SF04 0.01 0.01 0.15 0.01  0.01 0.18 0.06 0.20 0.12 0.01 0.34 0.01SFC01 - - 0.03 - - - - - - - - - -SFC02 0.85 0.19 3.07 0.04 0.01 0.13 0.01 0.01 - - 0.01 - 0.01SFC03 1.81 0.69 8.15 0.08 0.01 0.13 - 0.01 - - - - -Ay- acenaphthylene, Ace- acenaphthene, Flu- fluorene, Anth- anthracene, BaA- benzo[a]anthracene, Chr- chrysene/triphenylene, BbjkF- benzo[bjk]fluoranthene, BeP- benzo[e]pyrene, BaP- benzo[a]pyrene, Per- perylene, IdP- indeno[1,2,3-cd]pyrene, DbA- dibenz[a,h]anthracene, Bghi- benzo[ghi]perylene.   9

In vitro ecotoxicological assessment of pelagic ecosystems

https://imr.brage.unit.no/imr-xmlui/bitstream/11250/100531/1/X0702.PDF

In vitro ecotoxicological assessment of pelagic ecosystems

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Brage IMR