Comparing the sensitivity of aquatic organisms relative to Daphnia sp. toward essential oils and crude extracts: A meta-analysis

Afonso, Sandra; Ferreira, Verónica; Moreira-Santos, Matilde

doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2023.168467

Cited by 1 publication

(1 citation statement)

References 68 publications

(123 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Non-target aquatic organisms used in ecotoxicity screening to evaluate the adverse effects of herbal products on aquatic ecosystems typically include crustaceans Daphnia magna (Anomopoda) and Artemia salina (Anostraca) and fish Danio rerio (Cypriniformes) [21,29,30], with the ranking of organism sensitivity depending not only on the tested product but also on the test organism functional group, species, and strain [31,32]. In effect, the available data are not clear on the sensitivity of aquatic organisms to EOs, although generally, Daphnia species are known to be highly sensitive indicators of aquatic system health [33] and have been reported to be sensitive to plant products [21,34], whereas Artemia species are commonly considered the least sensitive organism among aquatic invertebrates [30]. Danio rerio embryotoxicity testing seems to hold potential for toxicity screening of a wide range of herbal products [29].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Lethal Toxicity of Thymus mastichina and Helichrysum italicum Essential Oils to Non-Target Aquatic Organisms: Tools to Screen Environmental Effects?

Afonso,

Nogueira,

Cavaleiro

et al. 2023

Water

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Essential oils (EOs) from Thymus mastichina (EO-thyme) and Helichrysum italicum (EO-curry) have wide commercial applications, but little is known about their ecotoxicity to aquatic life. We evaluated the lethal toxicity of both EOs toward standard freshwater (Daphnia. magna and Thamnocephalus platyurus) and saltwater (Artemia sp.) species. Dimethylsulfoxide was used as a solvent after establishing a maximum safe but effective concentration of 1% (v/v). EO-curry was significantly more toxic than EO-thyme (24–48 h LC50 values of 15.93–55.80 and of 84.78–153.0 mg L−1, respectively) for all species; sensitivity ratios ranged from threefold for D. magna (48 h) and Artemia sp. (24 h) to fivefold for T. platyurus (24 h). Artemia sp. was the least sensitive, and T. platyurus was the most sensitive species, although significantly more so than D. magna only to EO-curry. The second major compound in EO-thyme, β-pinene (5%), is more toxic to aquatic life than major compound 1,8-cineole (62%), although 1,8-cineole facilitates penetration of other EO constituents into crustaceans’ epidermis. Among the main compounds of EO-curry, only α-pinene (13%) is known to be toxic to aquatic organisms. However, minor compounds present in both EOs, like p-cymene (0.3–1.1%), also cause synergistic effects by enhancing the penetration of other EO constituents. Before any of these standard tests can be recommended for the ecotoxicity characterization and environmental management of EOs, their sensitivity to a wider range of EOs, at least from closely related families, needs to be assessed.

show abstract