Open access peer-reviewed chapter

A Well-Established Method for the Rapid Assessment of Toxicity Using Artemia spp. Model

Written By

Yin Lu and Jie Yu

Submitted: January 27th, 2019 Reviewed: March 8th, 2019 Published: April 1st, 2019

DOI: 10.5772/intechopen.85730

Chapter metrics overview

1,060 Chapter Downloads

View Full Metrics

Abstract

Rapidly, relevantly, and efficiently toxicity assessment is the basis of continuous investigation and control of environmental contaminants. Artemia sp. is usually used as a biological model in cost-efficient bioassays under laboratory conditions to determine toxicity based on its advantageous properties of rapid hatching, easy accessibility, and sensitivity to toxic substances. The three sensitive endpoints of acute mortality, acute cyst hatchability, as well as behavioral response (such as swimming speed) are commonly used as evaluation criteria. The establishment of international standards for toxicity assessment of Artemia spp. is necessary. Further research is needed to obtain valuable insights from a biological perspective and for bio-conservation purposes.

Keywords

  • Artemia
  • toxicity assessment
  • mortality
  • hatchability
  • swimming speed

1. Introduction

Toxicology is the science of researching on the negative effects that chemical or physical agents may exert on living organisms under particular exposure conditions. It is a science that attempts to evaluate all the hazards, such as molecular toxicity, cytotoxicity, organ toxicity, etc., that are associated with a substance, as well as to quantitatively determine the exposure conditions under which these hazards or toxicities are induced [1, 2]. Additionally, toxicology is the science that studies the occurrence, character, frequency, mechanism, and risk elements associated with the adverse effects of toxic substances [2].

Many biological models can be applied for toxicity evaluation. Cell culture system is often used in vitro because it is economical and time-saving. But it is very difficult to infer the health of the whole organism, including humans, only from the results of in vitro cell tests. On the contrary, in vivo studies may provide improved prediction of biological reactions in intact systems (whole animal) but are generally expensive, time-consuming, and often elaborate, requiring extensive facilities and infrastructure [3]. Zebrafish (Danio rerio), as a classical model vertebrate organism, offers many practical advantages that can overcome these limitations to be highly suitable for application in toxicologically relevant research. Zebrafish can be employed as an outstanding in vivo model system to evaluate biological reactions and is a powerful platform to analyze in detail the mechanisms by which substances induce specific biological responses. Further, conditions in high-order vertebrates can be inferred from the results obtained using zebrafish because there is a remarkable similarity in cellular structure, signaling processes, anatomy, and physiology, particularly in the early stages of development [4, 5, 6, 7, 8]. Current estimates show that more than 90% of the human open reading frames are homologous to those in the genes of this fish [9]. Thus, investigations using this model system can reveal subtle interactions that are likely to be conserved across species.

Advertisement

2. Toxicity assessment with Artemiaspp. and its advantages

The predominant EU Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH) legislation with the aim of sound management of the eco-environment and protection of human societies promoted the decrease in the use of vertebrates and encouraged the use of invertebrates and plants, as well as organ, tissue, and cell cultures, as alternative study materials for toxicity and ecotoxicity testing [10]. Among various invertebrates screened and assessed to investigate their sensitivity to several physical and chemical substances, brine shrimps, Artemiaspp., which are extremely sensitive to toxicity, stand out as one of the most frequently used species for toxicity testing [11] and are recognized and listed by the US Environmental Protection Agency [12] as the model organism for toxicity testing and emission monitoring.

Artemiasp. is a crustacean adapted to harsh conditions such as those in hypersaline lakes [13], living mainly on phytoplankton [14, 15]. It is closely related to other zooplankton such as copepods and daphnia (Figure 1) [16]. Normally, it is routinely employed as a test organism for ecotoxicological studies. The molecular, cellular, and physiological states of Artemiaspp. change dramatically when they are under contamination stress [17]. At present, a variety of toxicity tests with Artemiaspp. have been carried out covering both short-term acute and long-term chronic methods (Table 1), with the former being the more frequently used. Acute toxicity tests, which are highlighted in this paper, mainly assess the effect exposure to relatively high concentrations (at a mg/L level) for no more than 4 days (96 h). Toxicity under normal conditions is expressed as the lethal concentration causing the death of half of the tested animals (LC50) and is also manifested in impeded hatching and swimming behavior. Chronic toxicity tests mainly have to do with the long-term exposure to relatively low concentrations (at a μg/L level) ranging from a few weeks up to the entire life cycle of Artemiaspp. [18].

Figure 1.

An adult ofArtemiaspp.: male (left) and female (right).

Test typeMethodParameter index
Short-termBiomarkerAChE
HSP
Fluotox
LP, TBARS, and TRed
GRed, GPx, and GST
ALDH and ATPases
HatchingDry biomass
Morphological disorder
Size
Teratogenicity
SwimmingSpeed
Path length
ImmobilizationMortality
Long-termGrowthBody size
Weight
Morphological disorder
ReproductionMating
Reproductive rate
Offspring
ImmobilizationMortality

Table 1.

Summary of Artemiashort- and long-term toxicity tests [19].

PS: AChE = acetylcholinesterase; HSP = heat stress proteins; LP = lipid peroxidation; TBARS = thiobarbituric acid reactive substances; TRed = thioredoxin reductase; GPx = glutathione peroxidase; GST = glutathione S-transferase; GRed = glutathione reductase; ALDH = aldehyde dehydrogenase; and ATPases = adenyltriphosphatase

Considering the environmental aspect, Artemiaspp. nauplii were employed to assess the toxicity of various hazardous metal substances such as As, Cr, Sn, etc. [19, 20, 21, 22]; organic compounds including pharmaceuticals, agrichemicals, etc. [23, 24, 25, 26]; and environmental media such as wastewater [27], seawater [28], and marine discharges [29].

The principal advantages of using Artemiaspp. in toxicity testing are as follows: (1) rapidity in hatching, (2) cost-efficiency, and (3) commercial availability of nauplii hatched from durable cysts, which dispenses with the need for self-culturing [30, 31]. Moreover, other significant factors that have been taken into consideration include good cognition of its biological and ecological features, small size allowing for easy laboratory operation, as well as its well-developed adaptability to diversified testing conditions [30, 32]. It is noteworthy that the complex adaptive response evolved by Artemiato live through and thrive in critical conditions not only explains why it is a favorable candidate for toxicity testing but to some extent also offers insights with regard to biological and environmental perspectives, which in turn might contribute to toxicity testing itself and eventually the well-being of human populations. With that being said, the response mechanism developed by Artemiato deal with harsh conditions [13] is worth mentioning (see Figures 2 and 3). The harsh living condition is exemplified in hypersaline lakes (salty lakes) where Artemiais often the only macroplanktonic inhabitant [13]. The survival and reproduction of the brine shrimp Artemia(individuals, populations, and species) subject to critical life conditions imposed by salty lakes, as schemed in Figures 2 and 3, may be summarized as follows: (1) Females are able to cope with the forthcoming environmental conditions by switching the type of offspring to produce either cysts under stressful conditions or free-swimming nauplii under stable conditions, and (2) cysts are the most environmental stress-resistant among all animal life history forms, while motile stages are the best osmoregulators in the animal kingdom [33]. Cysts are gene banks that store a genetic memory of historical population conditions. They play a role aiding in the dispersal of Artemiaand serve as reservoirs of genetic variability [34] and the source of evolutionary change and resilience.

Figure 2.

The life cycle and different stages ofArtemiaas a salty survivor.

Figure 3.

The reproduction ofArtemiabrine shrimp (individuals, populations, and species) subject to critical life conditions imposed by salty lakes.

Advertisement

3. Application status of the toxicity assessment with Artemiaspp.

Ecotoxicological studies employing Artemiaspp. as testing species have been extensively performed, and among the endpoints that were mainly investigated, acute mortality, acute cyst hatchability, as well as behavioral response, as a result of their relatively high sensitivity, are commonly used.

3.1 Acute mortality test

Acute mortality is one of the most commonly used endpoints for toxicity testing, though there is no standardized protocol based on OECD and ISO regulations. Since the establishment of the ArtemiaReference Center (ARC-test) and the issuance of the first short-term acute mortality (24 h static test) protocol with Artemialarvae [35, 36, 37, 38], extensive toxicity assessment research using this bioassay has been carried out via calculating the median effectiveness concentration on mortality (24 h LC50). Besides observation of lethal endpoints for Artemiaexposed to reference toxicants including CuSO4, K2Cr2O7, and SDS [39, 40], many are related with toxicity monitoring of environmental pollutants such as heavy metals, pesticides, oil drilling fluids, organic compounds of ecotoxicological concern, and others [41, 42, 43, 44]. Indeed, in the wake of various environmental issues challenging humans and living surroundings, the importance of toxicity assessment using Artemiahas been gradually recognized and more frequently employed. The following are two examples in recent years.

The “Brine Shrimp Lethality” study is one of the biological assays to determine the safe exposure limit of naturally occurring agents extracted from plants before being used as pesticides for crops and for other botanical protections [16]. Crop protection is one of the important food safety-related issues and is thus vital to human populations worldwide. As crop protection nowadays rely heavily on synthetic pesticides [45], the massive use of these pesticides for the purpose of killing pests and preventing diseases in plants has inevitably led to several side effects such as pest resistance resulting in the use of increased application rates [46], harm to nontarget organisms, and environmental contaminations with the potential influence on the food chain [47] that might cause pesticide poisoning of humans directly. Botanically derived natural products therefore have attracted attention among phytochemists. “Brine Shrimp Lethality,” a rapid general bioassay, offers a unique advantage in the standardization and quality control of those bioactive compounds that are usually undetectable using traditional physical analytical methods. The objective of carrying out the biological assay focuses on establishing a cause-effect relationship (Figure 4) between exposure to a hazardous substance and an appeared effect expressed by dose-response curve to determine a safe exposure limit [48]. The threshold level as well as the toxicity features obtained from the dose-response curves can help determine the safe levels of chemicals in botanical extracts and chemical exposure [49]. The threshold information (ThD0.0) measured in mg/kg/day and based on the assumption that human beings are as sensitive as the tested animals; in this case the brine shrimp Artemiasp. is of paramount importance in generalizing animal data to humans and interpolating what might be considered a safe human dose for a given chemical.

Figure 4.

Dose-response curve.

Another example in relation to the Artemiaacute toxicity test [50, 51] is for the purpose of prevention and reduction of red tides. The red tide induced by algae is quite disastrous and may pose a threat to inshore fishery. The poisonous Chattonella marinathat produces reactive oxygen species (ROS) [52] and hemolytic toxins [53] is one kind of red tide-related algae and has caused massive fish death and a considerable amount of economic loss in many places around the world. The “Brine Shrimp Lethality” study in this regard can help reveal the toxic characteristics of Chattonella marina, offer some valuable red tide prevention evidences, and further benefit the offshore fishery industry.

3.2 Acute cyst hatching test

Analogous to the acute mortality test, acute cyst hatching testing, which observes the retarded emergence of nauplii from cysts [54] or the morphological disorders and size of hatched nauplii [55] when exposed to toxic agents, is another frequently used assay for toxicity assessment. The hatching toxicity test lasting between 24 and 96 h in static conditions was investigated to assess the effect of environmentally deleterious agents such as heavy metals [54, 56, 57], organic compounds [58, 59], antibiotic drugs [60], and others. As temperature profoundly influences the hatching percentage of cysts [61] and significantly affects the chemicals’ effect [62], it is a variable of great interest to be considered while carrying out the hatching test, and the use of a full temperature range might help increase the ecotoxicological data in an extensive manner.

3.3 Acute behavioral test (swimming speed)

Regarding the acute behavioral test, motion behavior changes in response to pollutant exposure have been investigated for a range of aquatic organisms [63, 64, 65, 66, 67]. In particular, swimming speed as a sublethal behavioral endpoint can be detected by employing a video camera tracking system developed by Faimali et al. [63], also known as the Swimming Speed Alteration (SSA) recording system, which has already been used on the brine shrimp, Artemia[68]. Moreover, the research results of Garaventa et al. [68] and Manfra et al. [69] showed that swimming speed was more sensitive than mortality and had a sensitivity similar to and sometimes higher than that of the hatching rate endpoint. Therefore, it is a well-defined behavioral response and an adaptable endpoint that can be used for ecotoxicity testing. For instance, Manfra et al. [69] recorded the swimming speed alteration of Artemiaexposed to diethylene glycol (DEG), an organic substance ecotoxicological concern, and observed a decline in the swimming speed under the toxicant concentration of 40–160 g/L after 24 h exposure and 10–160 g/L after 48 h exposure. Another example is related with marine pollution such as oil spilling, oil mining, and oily water discharge that can greatly threaten human health as contaminants can be accumulated in the human body through the food chain. In this regard, Artemiaspp., as one of the toxicity-monitoring species, is of great importance in the evaluation of the health of the marine ecosystem. Pan [70] investigated the swimming speed and motion angle alteration of Artemiaexposed to diesel oil. For comparison purposes, when experiments were carried out under normal conditions, namely, seawater, the swimming speed of Artemiaincreased by 51%, from 2.47 mm/s at the start time to 3.72 mm/s after 12 h exposure on average, and in a similar trend, the motion angle of Artemiaincreased from 25 to 37°. In contrast, when subject to diesel oil, the swimming speed of Artemiadecreased by 40%, from 2.37 mm/s at the start time to 1.42 mm/s after 12 h exposure on average, and in a similar trend, the motion angle of Artemiadecreased from 30 to 21°.

Advertisement

4. Prospects for development of toxicity assessment with Artemiaspp.

To rapidly figure out the deleterious effects brought about by environmental toxicants, acute toxicity assessment with Artemiaspp. is of paramount importance as it shows a decent ability in pre-screening of toxic substances [10] and, thus, will be further developed in the future.

Despite the widespread application of this bioassay, there is currently no internationally standardized method. Hence, intercalibration exercises as well as international standardization activities are rather necessary [71]. Among the three frequently used endpoints involving acute mortality, acute cyst hatchability, as well as behavioral response, acute mortality was intercalibrated based on the available standards [40, 69, 72], while acute hatchability was intercalibrated at the Italian level [69]. To make Artemiaspp. an international standard model in ecotoxicity testing calls for joint efforts engaging all relevant stakeholders including the government, NGOs, researchers, industry, consumer associations, and others.

Swimming speed as the most popular behavioral endpoint promises to be of great potential. This is because results can be obtained via easy video camera analysis at ease and also because the swimming speed is of great ecological significance as the behavior alteration means an integral whole body response that can connect the physiological and ecological features of an organism with its environment [73]. Nevertheless, to better employ this endpoint, the interaction of Artemiaspp. with contaminants, particularly the mechanisms of response to toxic effect, needs to be illuminated.

One is to believe that owing to the advantages of using Artemiaspp. as the biological model described in the previous section of this paper, besides toxic testing application itself, application into other environmentally related fields such as applied biology might also be put into practice. For example, from a bio-conservation point of view, the unique biological characteristics of brine shrimp Artemiamake it a model organism to evaluate management policies for the protection of aquatic resources [74]. Artemiais such a versatile creature that it is a paradigmatic model having not only scientific research values but also the ability to satisfy human needs, owing to its unique life traits including a well-developed adaptability to high salinity conditions as well as easy handling under laboratory conditions, which have been successfully applied to marine fish farming that uses Artemianauplii as food for fish larvae. However, the booming marine fish farming activity worldwide is likely to give rise to some risks in terms of the high genetic divergence between different Artemiaspecies. Exploitation of new Artemiacyst harvesting sites and introduction of an exotic species linked to traits relevant to aquaculture can drive other local genotypes to extinction. Risk assessment and evaluation of management decisions in exploited resources, for instance, the availability of genetic information as well as molecular tools for follow-up gene pool monitoring, therefore, become quite necessary in order to maintain biodiversity. Gene banks established from cysts collected from various sites guarantee population persistence while proceeding with management affairs. Taking into account the simple constitution of hypersaline habitats, the evaluation of population/species persistence with Artemiacan be modeled in laboratories and further extrapolated to other species, offering some of the aspects regarding rational aquatic resource utilization and, more importantly, biodiversity preservation.

Advertisement

5. Conclusions

After more than five decades of use in ecotoxicology, Artemiaspp. have demonstrated its suitability for use in pre-screening of toxic agents [10]; thus, it seems that Artemiasp. endpoints may be used as a toxicity testing method to meet market demand, even though there are no internationally standardized toxicity testing protocols at present according to the ISO and OECD.

Biomarkers and teratogenicity are the less popular endpoints used in short-term toxicity tests because of their limited sensitivity. However, behavioral endpoints, especially swimming inhibition, seem to have a wider application potential in the future with the development of computer technology. Both continuous and intermittent observations of single or groups of living organisms can be studied by image and video analysis. Hatching rate and acute mortality are the most commonly used endpoints in the standardization process at a different level. Usually, hatching rate (48 h static test) was intercalibrated at the Italian level [69], while acute mortality (24 h static test) was intercalibrated based on the available standard [40] at the Italian [69] as well as the European level [72]. Both provided data on CuSO4 as a reference toxicant. Among the long-term toxicity tests, the 14-d static renewal mortality test was intercalibrated at the Italian level [69] with SDS according to the UNICHIM protocol (2012).

Further concentrated efforts are necessary to make Artemiasp. an official internationally recognized standard biological model in ecotoxicology evaluation. It involves (I) a national member (who then contacts the ISO) upon a request by an industry sector or group for a standard; (II) scope, main definitions, and contents of standards which are scientifically assessed by experts in relevant fields; and (III) multi-stakeholder discussion and reviewing process including experts from related industries, consumer associations, academic institutions, nongovernmental organizations, and governments.

Advertisement

Acknowledgments

The authors of this study express their gratitude to the National Natural Science Foundation of China (No. 31600257), Public Projects of Zhejiang Province (No. 2016C32022), Academic Climbing Project for Young and Middle-Aged Leads in Universities of Zhejiang Province (pd2013339), and Project of Zhejiang Provincial Department of Education (Y201738582) for their financial supports of this study.

References

  1. 1. Gosselin RE, Smith RP, Hodge HC. Clinical Toxicology of Commercial Products. 5th ed. Baltimore, MD: Williams & Wilkins Company; 1984. 217 p. DOI: 10.1016/S0022-3476(57)80185-1
  2. 2. Williams PL, James RC, Roberts SM. Principles of Toxicology: Environmental and Industrial Applications. 2nd ed. London: John Wiley & Sons; 2003. 325 p. DOI: 10.1016/S0160-4120(00)00083-0
  3. 3. Akimenko MA, Johnson SL, Westerfield M, Ekker M. Differential induction of four msx homeobox genes during fin development and regeneration in zebrafish. Development. 1995;121(2):347-357. DOI: US8114972 B2
  4. 4. Aparicio S, Chapman J, Stupka E, Putnam N, Chia JM, Dehal P, et al. Whole-genome shotgun assembly and analysis of the genome ofFugu rubripes. Science. 2002;297(5585):1301-1310. DOI: 10.1126/science.1072104
  5. 5. Blechinger SR, Warren JT, Kuwada JY, Krone PH. Developmental toxicology of cadmium in living embryos of a stable transgenic zebrafish line. Environmental Health Perspectives. 2002;110(10):1041-1046. DOI: 10.1289/ehp.021101041
  6. 6. Busquet F, Nagel R, von Landenberg F, Mueller SO, Huebler N, Broschard TH. Development of a new screening assay to identify proteratogenic substances using zebrafish danio rerio embryo combined with an exogenous mammalian metabolic activation system (mDarT). Toxicological Sciences. 2008;104(1):177-188. DOI: 10.1093/toxsci/kfn065
  7. 7. Harper SL, Dahl JL, Maddux BLS. Proactively designing nanomaterials to enhance performance and minimize hazard. International Journal of Nanotechnology. 2008;5(1):124-142. DOI: 10.1504/ijnt.2008.016552
  8. 8. Henken DB, Rasooly RS, Freeman N, et al. Recent papers on zebrafish and other aquarium fish models. Zebrafish. 2003;1:305-311. DOI: 10.1089/zeb.2005.2.55
  9. 9. Kimmel CB, Ballard WW, Kimmel SR, Ullmann B, Schilling TF. Stages of embryonic development of the zebrafish. Developmental Dynamics. 1995;203(3):253-310. DOI: 10.1002/aja.1002030302
  10. 10. Dvorak P, Benova K, Vitek J. Alternative Biotest onArtemia franciscana. In: Begum G, editor. Ecotoxicology. Rijeka, Croatia: InTech; 2012. pp. 51-74. DOI: 10.5772/29114
  11. 11. Van Steertegem M, Persoone G. Cyst-based toxicity tests: V. Development and critical evaluation of standardized toxicity tests with the brine shrimp (Anostraca, Crustacea). In: Soares AMVM, Calow P, editors. Progress in Standardization of Aquatic Toxicity Tests. New York: Lewis Publishers; 1993. pp. 81-97. DOI: 10.1016/j.toxicon.2012.12.024
  12. 12. United states environmental protection agency (US EPA). Proceedings of seminar on methodology or monitoring the marine environment. USE PA EPA600/4-74-004; 1983
  13. 13. Gajardo GM, Beardmore JA. The brine shrimpArtemia: Adapted to critical life conditions. Frontiers in Physiology. 2012;3:1-8. DOI: 10.3389/fphys.2012.00185
  14. 14. Persoone G, Sorgeloos P. General aspects of the ecology and biogeography of Artemia. In: Persoone G, Sorgeloos P, Roels PO, Jaspers E, editors. The Brine ShrimpsArtemia, 3. Ecology, Culturing, Use in Aquaculture. Belgium: Universa Press; 1980. pp. 3-24
  15. 15. Triantaphyllidis GV, Abatzopoulos TJ, Sorgeloos P. Review of the biogeography of the genusArtemia(Crustacea, Anostraca). Journal of Biogeography. 1998;25:213-226. DOI: 10.1046/j.1365-2699.1998.252190.x
  16. 16. Zubairi SI, Othman ZS, Sarmidi MR, Aziz RA. Environmental friendly bio-pesticide rotenone extracted fromDerrissp.: A review on the extraction method, toxicity and field effectiveness. Jurnal Teknologi Sciences & Engineering. 2016;78:47-69. DOI: 10.11113/jt.v78.5942
  17. 17. Marigo ́mez I, Soto M, Orbea A, Cancio I, Cajaraville MP. Biomonitoring of environmental pollution along the Basque coast, using molecular, cellular and tissue-level biomarkers: An integrative approach. In: Borja A, Collins M, editors. Oceanography and Marine Environment of the Basque Country. Amsterdam: Elsevier; 2004. pp. 335-364. DOI: 10.1016/S0422-9894(04)80052-7
  18. 18. Pane L, Agrone C, Giacco E, Somà A, Mariottini GL. Utilization of marine crustaceans as study models: A new approach in marine ecotoxicology for European (REACH) regulation 91. In: Ghousia B, editor. Ecotoxicology. Rijeka, Croatia: InTech; 2012. p. 146. DOI: 10.5772/29114
  19. 19. Libralato G, Prato E, Migliore L, Cicero AM, Manfra L. A review of toxicity testing protocols and endpoints withArtemiaspp. Ecological Indicators. 2016;69:35-49. DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolind.2016.04.017
  20. 20. Brix KV, Cardwell RD, Adams WJ. Chronic toxicity of arsenic to the great salt Lake brine shrimp,Artemia franciscana. Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety. 2003;54:169-175. DOI: 10.1016/S0147-6513(02)00054-4
  21. 21. Leis M, Manfra L, Taddia L, Chicca M, Trentini P, Savorelli F. A comparative toxicity study between an autochthonousArtemiaand a non-native invasive species. Ecotoxicology. 2014;23(6):1143-1145. DOI: 10.1007/s10646-014-1252-4
  22. 22. Hadjispyrou S, Kungolos A, Anagnostopoulos A. Toxicity, bioaccumulation, and interactive effects of organotin: Cadmium and chromium onArtemia franciscana. Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety. 2001;49:179-186. DOI: 10.1006/eesa.2001.2059
  23. 23. Xu X, Lu Y, Zhang D, Wang Y, Zhou X, Xu H, et al. Toxic assessment of triclosan and triclocarban onArtemia salina. Bulletin of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 2015;95:728-733. DOI: 10.1007/s00128-015-1641-2
  24. 24. Kuwabara K, Nakamura A, Kashimoto T. Effect of petroleum oil, pesticides, PCBs and other environmental contaminants on the hatchability ofArtemia salinadry eggs. Bulletin of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 1980;25:69-74. DOI: 10.1007/BF01985489
  25. 25. Varó I, Taylor AC, Ferrando MD, Amat F. Effect of endosulfan pesticide on the oxygen consumption rates of nauplii of different Spanish strains ofArtemia. Journal of Environmental Science and Health—Part B Pesticides, Food Contaminants, and Agricultural Wastes. 1997;32:363-375. DOI: 10.1080/03601239709373092
  26. 26. Varó I, Navarro JC, Amat F, Guilhermino L. Characterisation of cholinesterases and evaluation of the inhibitory potential of chlorpyrifos and dichlorvos toArtemia salinaandArtemia parthenogenetica. Chemosphere. 2002;48:563-569. DOI: 10.1016/S0045-6535(02)00075-9
  27. 27. Krishnakurmar PK, Dineshbabu AP, Sasikumar G, Bhat GS. Toxicity evaluation of treated refinery effluent using brine shrimp (Artemia salina) eggs and larval bioassay. Fishery Technology. 2007;44:85-92. URI:http://eprints.cmfri.org.in/id/eprint/5791
  28. 28. Manfra L, De Nicola E, Maggi C, Zambianchi E, Caramiello D, Toscano A, et al. Exposure of rotifers, crustaceans and sea urchins to produced formation waters and seawaters in the Mediterranean Sea. Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the UK. 2011;91(1):155-161. DOI: 10.1017/s0025315410001037
  29. 29. Manfra L, Maggi C, Bianchi J, Mannozzi M, Faraponova O, Mariani L, et al. Toxicity evaluation of produced formation waters after filtration treatment. Natural Science. 2010;2(1):33. DOI: 10.4236/ns.2010.21005
  30. 30. Nunes BS, Carvalho FD, Guilhermino LM, Van Stappen G. Use of the genusArtemiain ecotoxicity testing. Environmental Pollution. 2006;144:453-462. DOI: 10.1016/j.envpol.2005.12.037
  31. 31. Manfra L, Savorelli F, Pisapia M, Magaletti E, Cicero AM. Long-term lethal toxicity test with the crustaceanArtemia franciscana. JoVE. 2012;62:2182-2185. DOI: 10.3791/3790
  32. 32. Kokkali V, Katramados I, Newman JD. Monitoring the effect of metal ions on the mobility ofArtemia salinanauplii. Biosensors. 2011;1(2):36-45. DOI: 10.3390/bios1020036
  33. 33. Clegg JS, Trotman C. Physiological and Biochemical Aspects ofArtemiaEcology. Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers; 2002. 129 p. DOI: 10.1007/978-94-017-0791-6_3
  34. 34. Gajardo G, Beardmore JA. Ability to switch reproductive mode in Artemia is related to maternal heterozygosity. Marine Ecology Progress Series. 1989;56:191-195. DOI: 10.3354/meps055191
  35. 35. Gonzalo MG, John AB. The brine shrimpArtemia: Adapted to critical life conditions. Frontiers in Physiology: Front Physiol. 2012. 185 p. DOI: 10.3389/fphys.2012.00185
  36. 36. Vanhaecke P, Persoone G, Claus C, Sorgeloos P. Proposal for a short-term toxicity test withArtemianauplii. Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety. 1981;5(3):382-387. DOI: 10.1016/0147-6513(81)90012-9
  37. 37. Vanhaecke P, Persoone G. Report on an intercalibration exercise on a short-term standard toxicity test withArtemianauplii (ARC-test). In: Leclerc H, Dive D, editors. Les tests de toxicité aigue en milieu aquatique, Les colloques de l'INSERM. Paris: Ministère de la Santé: Institut National de la Santé et de la Recherche Médicale; 1981. pp. 359-376
  38. 38. Vanhaecke P, Persoone G. The ARC-test: A standardized short-term routine toxicity test withArtemianauplii. Methodology and evaluation. In: Persoone G, Jaspers E, Claus C, editors. Ecotoxicological Testing for the Marine Environment. Experience Papers: Tests with Specific Groups of Organisms; Tests with Specific Chemicals; Tests Using a Specific Technology; Tests Studying Specific Effects; Case Study. Ghent: State University of Ghent and Institute of Marine and Scientific Research; 1984. pp. 143-158
  39. 39. Guzzella L. Saggio di tossicità acuta conArtemiaspp. Biologia Ambientale. 1997;1:4-9. (in Italian)
  40. 40. APAT and IRSA-CNR. Metodi analitici per le acque (in Italian). 2003
  41. 41. Zhang QT, Hu GK. Studies on joint toxicity of five heavy metal ions toArtemia. Journal ofTianjin University of Science and Technology. 2010;25(2):26-29, 44
  42. 42. Wu ZF, Liu XG, Wang GX. Evaluating and modeling the toxicity of binary mixtures of heavy metals and organophosphate pesticides toArtemia salina.Asian Journal of Ecotoxicology. 2013;8(4):602-608
  43. 43. Liu LP, Chu CY, Zhang QQ , Xue YZ, Li GR, Zhang Y. The application ofArtemiain the toxicity test of drilling fluid. Journal of Ocean University of China (English Edition). 2010;40(9):96-100
  44. 44. Manfra L, Canepa S, Piazza V, Faimali M. Lethal and sublethal endpoints observed forArtemiaexposed to two reference toxicants and an ecotoxicological concern organic compound.Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety. 2016;123:60-64. DOI: 10.1016/j.ecoenv.2015.08.017
  45. 45. Coats JR. Risks from natural versus synthetic insecticides. Annual Review of Entomology. 1994;39(1):489-515. DOI: 10.1146/annurev.en.39.010194.002421
  46. 46. Stoll G. Natural Crop Protection in the Tropics–based on Local Farm Resources in the Tropics and Subtropics. Weikersheim: Josef Margraf; 1992. DOI: 10.12691/wjar-3-2-5
  47. 47. Copping LG. The Biopesticide Manual: World Compendium. British Crop Protection Council; 1998
  48. 48. Ottoboni MA. The Dose Makes the Poison; A Plain-Language Guide to Toxicology. Van Nostrand Reinhold; 1991
  49. 49. Levine RR. Pharmacology: Drug Actions and Reactions. Boston: Little, Brown and Co.; 1973. 279 p. DOI: 10.1177/106002808401800741
  50. 50. Saiful IZ, Zetty SO, Mohamad RS, Ramlan AA. Environmental friendly bio-pesticide rotenone extracted fromDerrissp.: A review on the extraction method, toxicity and field effectiveness. Jurnal teknologl (Sciences & Engineering). 2016;78(8):47-69. DOI: 10.11113/jt.v78.5942
  51. 51. Xu YH, Jiang T, Wang R, Shen PP, Wu N, Jiang TJ. Acute toxicity ofChattonella MarinaonArtemia Sinica. Journal of Jinan University (Natural Sciencei). 2012;33(5):510-515. DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1000-9965.2012.05.016
  52. 52. Oda T, Nakamura A, Midori S. Generation of reactive oxygen species by Raphidophycean phytoplankton. Bioscience, Biotechnology, and Biochemistry. 1997;61:1658-1662. DOI: 10.1271/bbb.61.1658
  53. 53. Kuroda A, Nakashima T, Yamaguichi K. Isolation and characterization of light-dependent hemolytic cytotoxin from harmful red tide phytoplanktonChattonella marina. Comparative Biochemistry and Physiologyl. PTC. 2005;141(3):297-305. DOI: 10.1016/j.cca.2005.07.009
  54. 54. Bagshaw JC, Rafiee P, Matthews CO, MacRae TH. Cadmium and zinc reversibly arrest development ofArtemialarvae. Bulletin of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 1986;37:289-296. DOI: 10.1007/BF01607763
  55. 55. Neumeyer CH, Gerlach JL, Ruggiero KM, Covi JA. A novel model of early development in the brine shrimp,Artemia franciscana, and its use in assessing the effects of environmental variables on development, emergence, and hatching. Journal of Morphology. 2014;276:342-360. DOI: 10.1002/jmor.20344
  56. 56. Brix KV, Gerdes RM, Adams WJ, Grosell M. Effect of copper, cadmium, and zinc on the hatching success of brine shrimp (Artemia franciscana). Archives of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 2016;51:580-583. DOI: 10.1007/s00244-005-0244-z
  57. 57. Sarabia R, Del Ramo J, Diaz-Mavans J, Torreblanca A. Development and reproductive effects of low cadmium concentration onArtemia parthenogenetica. Journal of Environmental Science and Health. Part A, Toxic/Hazardous Substances & Environmental Engineering. 2003;38:1065-1071. DOI: 10.1081/ESE-120019864
  58. 58. Alyürüc H, Çavas L. Toxicity of diuron and irgarol on the hatchability and early stage development ofArtemia salina. Turkish Journal of Biology. 2013;37:151-157. DOI: 10.3906/biy-1205-39
  59. 59. Rotini A, Manfra L, Canepa S, Tornambè A, Migliore L. CanArtemiahatching assay be a (sensitive) alternative tool to acute toxicity test? Bulletin of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 2015;95:745-751. DOI: 10.1007/s00128-015-1626-1
  60. 60. Migliore L, Civitareale C, Brambilla G, Dojmi di Delupis G. Toxicity of several important antibiotics toArtemia. Water Research. 1997;31:1801-1806. DOI: 10.1007/s00128-015-1626-1
  61. 61. Vanhaecke P, Sorgeloos P. International study onArtemia. XLVII. The effect of temperature on cyst hatching: Larval survival and biomass production for different geographical strains of brine shrimpArtemiaspp. Annales de la Société Royale Zoologique de Belgique. 1989;119:7-23. DOI: 10.1111/j.1440-1681.2008.05051.x
  62. 62. Koutsaftis A, Aoyama I. Toxicity of diuron and copper pyrithione on the brine shrimpArtemia franciscana: The effects of temperature and salinity. Journal of Environmental Science and Health, Part A: Toxic/Hazardous Substances & Environmental Engineering. 2008;43:1581-1585. DOI: 10.1080/10934520802329794
  63. 63. Faimali M, Garaventa F, Piazza V, Corrà C, Magillo F, Pittore M, et al. Swimming speed alteration of larvae ofBalanus amphitriteas behavioural end-point for laboratory toxicological bioassays. Marine Biology. 2006;149(1):87-96. DOI: 10.1007/s00227-005-0209-9
  64. 64. Rao JV, Kavitha P, Jakka NM, Sridhar V, Usman P. Toxicity of organophosphates on morphology and locomotor behavior in brine shrimp,Artemia salina. Archives of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 2007;53:227-232. DOI: 10.1007/s00244-006-0226-9
  65. 65. Kienle C, Gerhardt A. Behavior ofCorophium volutator(Crustacea, Amphipoda) exposed to the water-accommodated fraction of oil in water and sediment. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry. 2008;27:599-604. DOI: 10.1897/07-182
  66. 66. Xuereb B, Lefevre E, Garric J, Geffard O. Acetylcholinesterase activity inGammarus fossarum(Crustacea Amphipoda): Linking AChE inhibition and behavioural alteration. Aquatic Toxicology. 2009;94:114-122. DOI: 10.1016/j.aquatox.2009.06.010
  67. 67. Seuront L. Behavioral fractality in marine copepods: Endogenous rhythms vs. exogenous stressors. Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications. 2011;309:250-256. DOI: 10.1016/j.physa.2010.09.025
  68. 68. Garaventa F, Gambardella C, Di Fino A, Pittore M, Faimali M. Swimming speed alteration ofArtemiasp. andBrachionus plicatilisas a sub-lethal behavioural end-point for ecotoxicological surveys. Ecotoxicology. 2010;19:512-519. DOI: 10.1007/s10646-010-0461-8
  69. 69. Manfra L, Savorelli F, Di Lorenzo B, Libralato G, Comin S, Conti D, et al. Intercalibration of ecotoxicity testing protocols withArtemia franciscana. Ecological Indicators. 2015;57:41-47. DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolind.2015.04.021
  70. 70. Pan RF. Experimental observation techniques and quantitative analysis methods used in zooplankton behavioral ecology. China: Ocean University of China; 2014. (Doctoral thesis)
  71. 71. Libralato G. The case ofArtemiaspp. in nanoecotoxicology. Marine Environmental Research. 2014;101:38-43. DOI: 10.1016/j.marenvres.2014.08.002
  72. 72. Persoone G, Blaise C, Snell T, Janssen C, van Steertegem M. Cyst-based toxicity test: II-report on an international intercalibration exercise with three cost-effective toxkits. Zeitschrift für Angewandte Zoologie. 1993;1:17-34. DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(01)28882-5
  73. 73. Little EE, Brewer SK. Neurobehavioral toxicity in fìsh. In: Schlenk D, Benson WH, editors. Target Organ Toxicity in Marine and Freshwater Teleosts New Perspectives: Toxicology and the Environment 2. London and New York: Taylor and Francis; 2001. pp. 139-174
  74. 74. De Los Ríos P, Gajardo G. The brine shrimpArtemia(Crustacea; Anostraca): A model organism to evaluate management policies in aquatic resources. Revista Chilena de Historia Natural. 2004;77:3-4

Written By

Yin Lu and Jie Yu

Submitted: January 27th, 2019 Reviewed: March 8th, 2019 Published: April 1st, 2019