Toxicity of Sodium Molybdate and Sodium Dichromate to Daphnia magna Straus Evaluated in Acute, Chronic, and Acetylcholinesterase Inhibition Tests

Abstract

As a result of a widespread application in numerous industrial processes, chromium is a contaminant of many environmental systems. Chromium and their compounds are toxic to both invertebrates and vertebrates and, for this reason, there has been a search for suitable and less toxic alternatives. Molybdenum compounds have been studied as alternative to chromium compounds for some industrial applications. The toxicity of chromium is well known but the effects of molybdenum and molybdenum mining on natural populations and communities of freshwater invertebrates have not often been studied. However, chromium, and molybdenum (and their compounds) are included in the same list (List II) of European Union dangerous substances. In this study, the acute and chronic effects of sodium molybdate and sodium dichromate to Daphnia magna Straus were evaluated. Furthermore, in vitro and in vivo effects of these two metals on acetylcholinesterase (AChE) activity of D. magna Straus were investigated. LC(50) values determined at 48 h were 0.29 and 2847.5 mg L(-1) for chromium (as sodium dichromate) and molybdenum (as sodium molybdate), respectively. No significant in vitro effects of both metals on AChE were found. However, both toxicants inhibited AChE in vivo at concentrations under the respective 48-h LC(50) values. Both sodium dichromate and sodium molybdate inhibited the reproduction and growth of D. magna, but the concentrations inducing significant effects were different for the two chemicals. Sodium molybdate had significant lower toxicity to D. magna Straus than sodium dichromate.

Suitability of Daphnia similis as an alternative organism in ecotoxicological tests: implications for metal toxicity

“…Table 2 summarizes some results of 48 h-LC 50 values for metals to daphnid species, however, the different physical and chemical parameters of culture media (hardness, and pH), make comparisons difficult. We obtained 48 h-LC 50 values for cadmium and chromium to D. similis lower than those that have been obtained for other daphnid species by Fargasová (1994), Barata et al (1998), Taylor et al (1998), Dorn et al (1987, Diamantino et al (2000), Muyssen and Janssen (2004) and Martínez-Jerónimo et al (2006). We used soft reconstituted water (44 mg l -1 CaCO 3 ) with a pH value of 7.2 as zooplankton culture media in the toxicity tests, while the cited authors have used hard (160-180 mg l -1 CaCO 3 ) or very hard (280-320 mg l -1 CaCO 3 ) reconstituted water with pH higher than 7.6 in their experiments.…”

“…As a result of their widespread application in numerous industrial processes, cadmium and chromium are contaminants of many aquatic environments. These metals are toxic to invertebrates and vertebrates animals (Diamantino et al 2000). Cadmium and chromium are toxic to many organisms including zooplankton even at micro grams per liter level (Chapman et al 2003).…”

Response of biochemical biomarkers in the aquatic crustacean Daphnia magna exposed to silver nanoparticles

“…Among the most commonly used biomarkers for D. magna, AChE is commonly used to diagnose the exposure of natural populations to pesticides. Recent studies indicate that AChE may also be affected by metals (Jemec et al 2008;Diamantino et al 2000). However, no published data on the effect of AgNPs exposure to AChE activity in D. magna exists.…”

“…Therefore, implementation of biochemical biomarkers is considered to be a promising tool for ecotoxicological applications as early warning indicators (Strużyński et al 2014;Jemec et al 2008). A number of biochemical biomarkers were studied in Daphnia magna after acute exposure to different pollutants (Jemec et al 2008; Barata et al 2005;Toumi et al 2015;Diamantino et al 2000). The information on biochemical responses in D. magna exposed to different ENPs are still scarce, despite the requirements for risk assessment of the potential impact of ENPs on the aquatic environment (OECD 2004;Dominguez et al 2015;Zou et al 2014;Mwaanga et al 2014;Strużyński et al 2014).…”

Biochemical biomarkers in environmental studies—lessons learnt from enzymes catalase, glutathione S-transferase and cholinesterase in two crustacean species

“…Printes and Callaghan 2003; (2)Guilhermino et al 1996; (3)Diamantino et al 2000; (4) Guilhermino et al 2000; (5) Jemec et al 2007a; (6) Day and Scott 1990; (7)Barata et al 2007; (8) Diamantino et al 2003; (9) Jemec et al 2007b; (10) Jemec et al 2008a; (11) Barata et al 2005; (12) Stanek et al 2006; (13) Jemec et al 2008b; (14) Drobne et al 2008; (15) De Knecht et al 2001; (16) Ribeiro et al 1999; (17) Engenheiro et al 2005; (18) Hartenstein 1982; (19) Stenersen et al 1987; (20) Mora et al 1999; (21) McLoughlin et al 2000; (22) Elumalai et al 2002; (23) Correia et al 2003; (24) Mourente and Díaz-Salvago 1999; (25)Almar et al 1987; (26) Livingstone 1998. In cases where the absolute values were not documented, the activities were determined from graphs and therefore represent an approximation.…”