(C) 2012 Cornelis A.M. van Gestel. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License 3.0 (CC-BY), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
For reference, use of the paginated PDF or printed version of this article is recommended.
Developments in soil ecotoxicology started with observations on pesticide effects on soil invertebrates in the 1960s. To support the risk assessment of chemicals, in the 1980s and 1990s development of toxicity tests was the main issue, including single species tests and also more realistic test systems like model ecosystems and field tests focusing on structural and functional endpoints. In the mean time, awareness grew about issues like bioavailability and routes of exposure, while biochemical endpoints (biomarkers) were proposed as sensitive and potential early-warning tools. In recent years, interactions between different chemicals (mixture toxicity) and between chemical and other stressors attracted scientific interest. With the development of molecular biology, omics tools are gaining increasing interest, while the ecological relevance of exposure and effects is translating into concepts like (chemical) stress ecology, ecological vulnerability and trait-based approaches. This contribution addresses historical developments and focuses on current issues in soil ecotoxicology. It is concluded that soil ecotoxicological risk assessment would benefit from extending the available battery of toxicity tests by including e.g. isopods, by paying more attention to exposure, bioavailability and toxicokinetics, and by developing more insight into the ecology of soil organisms to support better understanding of exposure and long-term consequences of chemical exposure at the individual, population and community level. Ecotoxicogenomics tools may also be helpful in this, but will require considerable further research before they can be applied in the practice of soil ecotoxicological risk assessment.
Toxicity tests, bioavailability, ecological effects, biomarkers, soil organisms, isopods
Ecotoxicology studies the effects of chemicals on organisms in the environment, with the final aim to protect the structure and functioning of ecosystems. This aim generally is achieved by assessing effects on single species of selected test organisms and trying to extrapolate the obtained (no) effect concentrations to safe levels for populations and communities. In the ecotoxicological risk assessment of chemicals, such safe levels are then compared with predicted or measured exposure levels to assess the possible risk for exposed ecosystems.
This paper will give an overview of developments in soil ecotoxicology, focusing on soil invertebrates, starting with a historical overview. Based on that, the state-of-the-art of current soil ecotoxicology will be depicted. This is done by first describing the way soil ecotoxicological data are used in the risk assessment of new and existing chemicals or the assessment of the risks of soil contamination. Next, the development of soil toxicity tests is outlined, followed by considerations on the inclusion of bioavailability, and the use of multiple species, model ecosystem and field tests. Then tools of assessing the possible risk of contaminated soils are described. Finally, some thoughts are given on the future of soil ecotoxicology. As this paper was written on the basis of a presentation at an isopod meeting, special attention will be given to the use of isopods in soil ecotoxicological testing.
Historical perspective of soil ecotoxicologyWhen thinking of ecotoxicological effects, it is often referred to Rachel Carson, publishing her book ‘Silent Spring’ in 1962. This book was among the first describing the negative side-effects of the increasing use of synthetic pesticides that started from the second World war onwards. The book mainly focused on pesticide effects on birds, especially singing birds that apparently became silent due to the effects of chlorinated pesticides accumulating in the food chain. This book however, was not unique in ringing the alarm bell, although other bells did not sound that loud.
The first soil ecotoxicological papers date back to the 1960s, reporting observations on the negative effects of pesticides on soil invertebrates (e.g.,
During the last ten years, there has been a renewed attention for effects of mixtures of chemicals in soil (
In ecotoxicological risk assessment, two approaches can be distinguished. One approach aims at predicting possible effects of (new) chemicals in order to regulate their use or prevent their introduction onto the market. This predictive approach (prognosis) uses laboratory toxicity tests to obtain toxicity data that are used to derive safe levels of chemicals in the environment. The second approach is assessing the actual ecological risk or damage in case of pollution. This diagnostic approach (diagnosis) enables setting priorities for remediation and risk reduction, and may provide triggers for the management of contaminated land.
Prognosis starts from the paradigms also used in human toxicology. It assumes that the risk of a chemical for ecosystems can be estimated from its toxicity to a number of surrogate test or indicator species, exposed in standard laboratory toxicity tests. These tests aim at assessing toxicity, which is expressed in terms of dose-response relationships for effects on selected endpoints like survival, growth and reproduction. Toxicity is quantified by parameters like LC10 and LC50 (the concentrations killing 10% and 50% of the exposed test organisms, respectively), EC10 and EC50 (the concentrations causing 10% and 50% reduction, respectively in a measured endpoint, e.g. growth or number of juveniles produced), and NOEC and LOEC (no-observable and lowest-observable effect concentration, respectively). Since there is no ‘most sensitive species’ a battery of toxicity tests is needed to obtain proper insight into the potential hazard of a chemical for the ecosystem. In prognosis, the outcome of toxicity tests is used to establish thresholds or safe levels of chemicals in soil, which can be compared with measured or predicted exposure data (soil concentrations) to assess the (potential) risk.
A critical part of this procedure is the derivation of safe levels of chemicals on the basis of available toxicity data. When only short-term (acute) toxicity data are available (usually focusing on survival) or data for a limited number of species, somewhat arbitrary application factors are applied to derive safe levels that should protect ecosystems. For example, when only one or two LC50 values are available, a factor of 1000 is applied to the lowest LC50 value; this factor should be sufficient to extrapolate from acute to chronic effects (factor of 10), from one or few species to many species (factor of 10), and from laboratory to field (factor of 10). When sublethal toxicity data (usually NOEC or EC10 values for effects on e.g. reproduction) are available for 3 or more species, application of a factor of 10 to the lowest value is considered sufficiently protective. When many toxicity data are available (preferably ≥ 8) for species representative of different taxonomic groups (see below), a statistical method may be applied. Such a statistical method is used to construct a species-sensitivity distribution (SSD), which assumes a log-normal or log-logistic distribution of the sensitivities of species in an ecosystem. From such an SSD the 95% lower limit is selected as the safe level. At this level, at least 95% of the species in the ecosystem are supposed to be safe (
Diagnosis may use the same tools as applied for prognoses, but it more heavily relies on ecological methods and environmental chemistry. Basically, toxicity tests or bioassays are used as diagnosis tools to assess toxicity of soil samples from a contaminated site. Results of the bioassays, together with those of chemical measurements and ecological field observations, are used to assess the potential risk of soil contamination. The three tools together form the TRIAD approach (
Both prognosis and diagnosis use toxicity tests, and in both cases a battery of tests is recommended. Criteria to select tests for such a battery have been formulated e.g. by
1. Practicability, referring to the feasibility and cost-effectiveness of a test;
2. Acceptability, including aspects like standardization, reproducibility and statistical validity of a test method as well as its broad chemical responsiveness;
3. Ecological meaning, including sensitivity and ecological realism of the test method.
To obtain a balanced battery of tests, in addition the following criteria need to be taken into account (
1. Representativeness for the ecosystem to protect: this includes e.g. the representation of organisms having different life-histories, representing different functional groups, different taxonomic groups and different routes of exposure;
2. Representativeness of responses, to make sure responses measured really are relevant for the protection of populations and communities;
3. Uniformity, which refers to the possibility to apply all tests in a battery to the same test media.
By the end of the 1990s and early 2000 toxicity tests, using sub-lethal endpoints like reproduction, were standardized for enchytraeids, earthworms and Collembola by both the OECD and the International Standardization Organization (ISO). But also Environment Canada, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and ASTM International (formerly known as the American Society for Testing and Materials) have described similar methods. Recently, for the same organisms, avoidance behaviour tests have been described, while for earthworms and enchytraeids a bioaccumulation test is available. Table 1 provides an overview of the toxicity tests with soil invertebrates available at the moment.
A selection of available toxicity tests with soil invertebrates.
Test organism | Species | Duration (days) | Endpoint | Guideline | Reference |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Earthworms | Eisenia fetida/ Eisenia andrei | 14 | Survival | OECD 207, ISO 11268-1 |
|
28 (+28) | Reproduction | ISO 11268-2, OECD 222 |
|
||
2 | Avoidance | ISO 17512-1 |
|
||
Field test, different species | Up to 1 year | Species diversity; abundance | ISO 11268-3 |
|
|
Enchytraeids | Enchytraeus albidus, other Enchytraeus species | 21 (+21) | Survival, Reproduction | ISO 16387, OECD 220 |
|
2 | Avoidance | No standard guidelines |
|
||
Mollusca | Helix aspersa | 28 | Survival, Growth | ISO 15952 |
|
Mites | Hypoaspis aculeifer | 14 | Survival, Reproduction | OECD 226 |
|
Platynothrus peltifer | 14, 70 | Survival, Reproduction | No standard guideline |
|
|
Oppia nitens | 28 | Reproduction | No standard guideline |
|
|
2 | Avoidance | No standard guideline |
|
||
Isopods | Porcellio scaber | 28 | Survival, growth | No standard guideline |
|
Porcellionides pruinosis | 14 | Survival, reproduction | No standard guidelines |
|
|
2 | Avoidance | No standard guidelines |
|
||
Collembola | Folsomia candida, Folsomia fimetaria | 28 | Survival, Reproduction | ISO 11267, OECD 232 |
|
2 | Avoidance | ISO 17512-2 |
|
||
Insects | Oxythyrea funesta | 14 | Survival | ISO 20963 |
|
Carabid beetles | Pterostichus oblongopunctatus; Poecilus cupreus | Different durations | Adult or larval survival; adult behaviour, respiration | No standard guidelines |
|
The oldest standardized toxicity test guideline with soil invertebrates, OECD 207 (
Compared to survival, reproduction is a more relevant endpoint when translating effects to the population level. For that reason, an earthworm toxicity test focusing on reproduction has been developed (
A standardized test with snails has been developed by
Standardized toxicity tests with soil arthropods include the collembolan species Folsomia candida (
Tests with carabid beetles have been performed using adult Pterostichus oblongopunctatus or larvae of Poecilus cupreus, but these tests have not been standardized and use different life stages (larvae, adults), endpoints (survival, mobility, respiration) and test durations (from few weeks to several months) depending on the aims of the study (e.g.
Also the toxicity tests with the oribatid mites Oppia nitens and Platynothrus peltifer described in the literature (
For assessing chemical toxicity to isopods, also no standard test guidelines are available. Nevertheless, isopods are used as test organisms, using different test durations, different routes of exposure (food, soil) and different endpoints.
Recently, avoidance response was introduced as an easy, fast and sensitive endpoint. For some chemicals avoidance response may be as sensitive as reproduction, while for others it is at least as sensitive as survival. Great advantage of avoidance tests is that they are fast, with test durations of no more than 2 days. Standard test guidelines for avoidance tests have been developed for earthworms (
In addition to these tests with soil invertebrates, ISO and OECD have also developed a number of toxicity tests with plants, which are important in soil ecosystems as primary producers. Also, several tests are available focusing on the effects of microbial communities or processes performed by microorganisms, like nitrification.
Considering the fact that for a proper risk assessment a battery of tests is desirable, it is important to consider the currently available test methods. The current set of available tests (Table 1) shows an underrepresentation of arthropods in comparison with their abundance in the field when compared with other species like Oligochaetes. And of the available or suggested tests with arthropods, only the one with Collembola has been standardized. Development and international standardization of more toxicity tests with representative arthropod species therefore is highly needed (see criteria for the selection of test species outlined above). The ecological relevance of isopods, their typical routes of exposure (soil, food) and life history characteristics, the possibility to determine different endpoint, and the fact that they have already been used for testing for more than 30 years, make them highly suitable test organisms. Standardization of toxicity tests with isopods therefore is highly recommended.
BioavailabilityFor reasons of standardization and to facilitate comparison of results, all standardized tests use a standard soil type: the so-called OECD artificial soil, first introduced in the earthworm acute toxicity test developed by
The notion that soil type was important when determining the toxicity of chemicals went along with the increasing insight into the concept of bioavailability: only a fraction of the total amount of chemical in the soil is available for uptake by organisms and therefore of relevance for risk assessment. This was, for instance, demonstrated by
These findings also suggest that when considering bioavailability, not only chemical partitioning of chemicals in the exposure medium (soil, food) and pore-water concentrations have to be considered. The biology of bioavailability also needs attention. One aspect of this is the way organisms deal with chemicals. For metals, internal compartmentalization has been shown to be an important aspect (
Another way organisms may deal with potentially toxic chemicals is by biotransformation. The process of biotransformation aims at making chemicals more hydrophilic and in this way facilitating their excretion. Isopods and Collembola have been shown to be extremely efficient in biotransforming organic chemicals like Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs), which are excreted by these organisms with half lives of approximately 1 day (
An important biological aspect that may affect the exposure of soil invertebrates to chemicals is their behaviour. Soil by definition is a heterogeneous environment. As a consequence, also the distribution of chemicals in soil is heterogeneous. Chemicals reaching soil by areal deposition for instance accumulate in the topsoil layer, leading to a depth-related concentration gradient as was shown for PAHs in forest soils (
All standardized toxicity tests with soil invertebrates focus on assessing the effects of chemicals on single species of organisms. To enable assessment of toxic effects in a more realistic setting, micro- or model ecosystems have been developed, ranging from artificially composed set-ups with a number of selected different species introduced in a well homogenized soil (e.g.,
Since the introduction of the term Ecotoxicology, the question for “putting more eco into ecotoxicology” has been raised. Some authors even argued that ecotoxicology should not be seen as a sub-discipline of toxicology but rather as a case of stress ecology (
Since early 2000, with the notion of stress ecology, more complex issues have been receiving attention, with ecological vulnerability, trait-based analysis and effects on functional endpoints (so-called ecosystem services) being key items (e.g.,
Many of the tests initially developed for assessing the toxicity of single chemicals are also used for assessing the toxicity of field samples. In addition to the tests mentioned above, a bioassay using the nematode Caenorhabditis elegans has been developed by
Other diagnostic tools include effects at the biochemical level. Such biomarkers may act as a sensitive, early warning indicator of possible effects at higher levels of biological organization (
Final aim of (soil) ecotoxicology is the understanding of the long-term effects of chemicals on ecosystems. As such, focus on long-term sub-lethal effects is essential, but it also requires detailed understanding of the processes of exposure, uptake, internal processing (metabolism, sequestration) and intoxication in individual organisms as well as the translation of effects to higher levels of biological organization. From the overview presented in this paper, it may have become clear that soil ecotoxicology has shown a tremendous development in the past 40 years. From the initial realization that chemicals may affect soil organisms, through the development of standardized toxicity tests and the use of soil chemistry to develop the concept of bioavailability, soil ecotoxicology has grown to a mature field of science. The incorporation of biochemical and omics tools on one hand and the link with ecology on the other hand, does guarantee that soil ecotoxicology remains an important player in the field of stress ecology. In spite of the promising developments outlined above, the following aspects need further attention in the near future:
Toxicity testsAlthough several toxicity tests are available for soil organisms (Table 1), it is obvious that the current battery is not complete and also not well balanced. As mentioned above, it seems there is an under-representation of arthropods. Isopod toxicity testing seems most advanced, while these organisms also represent an ecologically important and relevant group of soil arthropods. In addition, they offer the possibility of exposure via soil and food, while effects may be determined at different levels including biochemical and genomics, individual (growth, behaviour) as well as ecological (feeding activity). It therefore is recommended to put more effort on standardizing isopod toxicity tests for sublethal endpoints. Finally, it has to be noted that the currently available toxicity tests may need adjustment to make them applicable for determining the toxicity of new and emerging chemicals, like nanoparticles.
BioavailabilityFor better enabling extrapolation from laboratory tests to the field and among soil types, it is essential to get better understanding of the routes of uptake of chemicals in organisms. This not only requires attention for the chemical aspects, but also needs a greater emphasis of the ‘biological’ aspects of bioavailability. This may also require paying closer attention to the way organisms are exposed in the field, and attention for the dynamics of exposure and bioavailability.
KineticsFor a better understanding of bioavailability but also of the toxicity of single chemicals and mixtures, it is essential to increase our understanding of toxicokinetics and toxicodynamics. Such understanding will also enhance the possibilities to extrapolate effects in time and to higher levels of biological organization, like the population level. Kinetics also is of great importance when considering the toxicity of new chemicals, like nanoparticles, that may show changing properties with time as a consequence of aggregation, agglomeration and dissolution processes. Finally, kinetics should not only address whole organisms but should also include the way organisms deal with chemicals internally (biotransformation, sequestration, internal distribution and translocation).
EcologyFor better understanding exposure in the field and predicting ecosystem effects, our knowledge on the ecology of soil invertebrates needs much better development. Such knowledge also is crucial for the description of the normal operating range of structural and functional endpoints and for the application of trait-based approaches to understand and predict effects of chemicals on soil invertebrate communities and ecosystem services provided by these communities.
EcotoxicogenomicsFor the application of genomics tools in the diagnosis of soil pollution it is essential to better understand the link between gene expression level responses and ecologically relevant endpoints. A better understanding of gene expression responses may also help unraveling the mechanisms of action of chemicals, single and in mixtures, and as such be helpful in predicting toxicity. In the long run, a better understanding of responses at the genomics level may even provide tools for cross-species extrapolation and the development of completely new models for mixture toxicity, especially when combined with toxicokinetics and toxicodynamics data. Genomics tools may also help unraveling the causes of long-term effects of chemicals, e.g. multi-generation effects as a consequence of accumulation of damage in earlier generations. But all these applications will require an enormous amount of information on the meaning of gene expression profiles in relation to background conditions, in relation to chemical exposure both outside and inside the body and related to ecologically relevant endpoints like growth and reproduction.