Article | Open

Shorter lifetime of a soil invertebrate species when exposed to copper oxide nanoparticles in a full lifespan exposure test

  • Scientific Reports 7, Article number: 1355 (2017)
  • doi:10.1038/s41598-017-01507-8
  • Download Citation
Received:
Accepted:
Published online:

Abstract

Toxicity tests that last the all life duration of the organisms are not common, instead, long-term tests usually include one reproductive cycle. In the present study we optimized and propose a lifespan (all life) term test using Enchytraeus crypticus (Oligochaeta). The effect of copper oxide nanoparticles (CuO-NPs) was assessed in this lifespan test and compared to copper salt (CuCl2), using the same effect concentrations on reproduction (EC50). Monitored endpoints included survival and reproduction over-time (202 days). Results from survival showed that CuO-NPs caused shorter life of the adults compared to CuCl2 (control LT50: 218 days > CuCl2 LT50: 175 days > CuO-NPs LT50: 145 days). The effect was even more amplified in terms of reproduction (control ET50: 158 days > CuCl2 ET50: 138 days > CuO-NPs ET50: 92 days). Results suggest that CuO-NPs may cause a higher Cu effect via a trojan horse mechanism. The use of lifespan tests brings a novel concept in soil ecotoxicity, the longevity. This is a particularly important aspect when the subject is nanomaterials toxicity, where longer term exposure time is expected to reveal unpredicted effects via the current short/long-term tests. The present study confirms this higher effect for CuO-NPs.

Introduction

Organisms’ longevity is a complex process that can be influenced by various environmental events1. Long-term studies such as lifespan tests are very important because many effects cannot be predicted based on short term tests, at least not yet given the shortage level of information2. Chemicals’ toxicity is commonly assessed during a certain period of organisms’ lifespan, see e.g. OECD guidelines3. In terms of risk assessment, lifespan tests represent a continuous exposure to toxicants during the whole life, which is similar to what can occur in the natural environment, thus providing a highly relevant scenario4, 5. There are very few studies with a lifespan range and the species used include Mus musculus, Drosophila melanogaster, Saccharomyces cerevisiae and Caenorhabditis elegans6, but does not include any soil dwelling invertebrate. Most of those studies were performed to discover genetic, environmental and pharmacologic modulators of aging for the lifespan extension purpose, providing new insights for human therapy7, 8. Studies that assess the effects of contaminants in lifespan are still limited, the few examples use C. elegans to investigate lifespan effects of metals, detergents9, 10 and nanomaterials (NMs), e.g. silica-nanoparticles (−NPs)11. Longer term studies have been showing that time of exposure can highly influence the extent of effects, e.g. in Mytilus californianus mussels, exposure to fluoxetine for 47 and 107 days showed effects not observed in the typical 30 days test: biomass decrease12. In addition, age is another factor not included in standard testing, for instance as reported for Enchytraeus crypticus older worms (3 months old) were more sensitive and have less capacity to recover to okadaic acid exposure than younger worms (25 days old)13.

Effects of NMs have been investigated for ca. 2 decades, and there has been increasing alert regarding the need for longer term exposure tests due to the potential long term stability and effects of NMs. So far, results on acute toxicity on e.g. aquatic organisms produced the classification, of Ag-NPs as ‘extremely toxic’ and CuO-NPs as ‘very toxic’14. However, most of the data generated so far is on short-term/acute effects, which does not necessarily inform on longer term effects. For instance, Diez-Ortiz et al.15 found that 52 weeks aged Ag-NPs in LUFA 2.2 soil were more toxic to Eisenia fetida than Ag-NPs freshly spiked soil (1 week aged) (reproduction EC50 of 34 and 1420 mg Ag/kg, respectively). Also, Waalewijn-Kool et al.16 reported that the release of Zn ions to soil, from ZnO-NPs, continued over one year, which caused a decrease in toxicity to Folsomia candida at that time. In fact, the need of more long-term toxicity studies to obtain a better understanding of NMs effects is fully recognized and pointed out as a current gap and future priority in the knowledge on nanotoxicology2, 17, 18.

Copper oxide nanoparticles (CuO-NPs) are used in a wide range of industrial and commercial applications19,20,21,22,23. The increased production of CuO-NPs escalates the likelihood of their introduction into the environment. Currently, most of the information regarding the ecotoxicity of CuO-NPs is based on “short-term”/acute effects, mostly in the aquatic compartment (e.g. refs 24,25,26,27,28,29) and fewer in the soil compartment, e.g. on plants30,31,32 and on soil dwelling invertebrates33,34,35,36,37,38. Therefore, NMs potential long-term toxicity, combined with a likely long residing time, should not be ignored and it is important to investigate the toxicity of these materials39, 40.

In the present study we propose a lifespan test i.e., all life duration for the soil living oligochaete E. crypticus, until it dies of age. E. crypticus is a model standard species where many endpoints can be assessed: survival and reproduction3, 41, bioaccumulation42, embryo development43, or via a full life cycle with hatching, growth, maturity44 (see further explanation in the discussion).

The procedures for a lifespan test using E. crypticus were optimized using control conditions (un-spiked soil) by monitoring the survival and reproduction of the organism over the entire time of its lifespan. Further, the developed assay was used to study the longevity effects of CuO-NPs in comparison to CuCl2, using similar 50% effect concentrations on reproduction (EC50 = 1400 and 180 mg Cu/kg for CuO-NPs and CuCl2, respectively)45.

Results

Lifespan assay: optimization in control conditions

Results on survival at D1 and D20 are shown on Fig. 1A and the ETx values are summarized in Table 1.

Figure 1
Figure 1

Lifespan test of Enchytraeus crypticus at two different organisms’ densities (1 organism (D1) and 20 organisms (D20)) in LUFA 2.2 soil, over-time. (A) Adults survival; all values are expressed as cumulative number (N = 10). (B) Reproductive output; all values are expressed as average ± standard error (N = 10). The lines represent the model fit to data.

Table 1: Summary of the Effect Time (ETx) for survival (LTx) and reproduction for Enchytraeus crypticus in control conditions in LUFA 2.2 soil at two different organisms’ densities (1 organism (D1) and 20 organisms (D20)).

The lifespan at D1 is lower than at D20 (D1 LT50: 145 days, D20 LT50: 162 days). Results in terms of reproduction can be observed in Fig. 1B: the number of juveniles produced per adult at D1 is higher than at D20, during the first 101 days, but D1 has a reproduction EC50 earlier than D20 (e.g. D1 ET50: 154 days, D20 ET50: 242 days, Table 1).

Lifespan assay: exposure to CuO-NPs and CuCl2

The effects of CuO-NPs and CuCl2 on E. crypticus lifespan (survival) can be depicted in Fig. 2A and the ETx calculated are summarized in Table 2.

Figure 2
Figure 2

Lifespan test of Enchytraeus crypticus when exposed to EC50 CuO-NPs and CuCl2 (mg Cu/kg DW soil) in LUFA 2.2 soil, over-time. (A) Adults survival; all values are expressed as cumulative number (N = 20), (B) Reproductive output; all values are expressed as average ± standard error (N = 20). Asterisks indicate significant differences between control and treatments at each sampling day (p < 0.05 Tukey Test or Dunn’s method). The lines represent the model fit to data.

Table 2: Summary of the Effect Time (ETx) for survival (LTx) and reproduction for Enchytraeus crypticus when exposed to Cu (1400 and 180 mg Cu/kg DW soil for CuO-NPs and CuCl2, respectively) in LUFA 2.2 soil.

CuO-NPs exposure caused a more severe lifespan decrease than CuCl2: control LT50: 218 days > CuCl2 LT50: 175 days > CuO-NPs LT50: 145 days. Results in terms of reproduction (Fig. 2B) show that CuO-NPs exposure caused higher effects on reproduction in E. crypticus, with a 50% reduction in reproduction occurring earlier than for CuCl2 (e.g. control ET50: 158 days > CuCl2 ET50: 138 days > CuO-NPs ET50: 92 days, Table 2). Comparing the survival and reproduction curves (Fig. 2) it seems that the variation around the model for survival is reflected in the variation around the model for reproduction.

In situ characterisation

The total Cu measured in the soil was ca. 100% of the added total concentration for both CuO-NPs and CuCl2. The total Cu in soil solution was less than 1% of the total for CuO-NPs and less than 3% for CuCl2. The free active Cu was less than 0.001% for both Cu forms exposure. For controls, the total Cu in soil solution was 0.07% and the active Cu was 0.004%.

Discussion

This is the first study where the entire lifespan of an enchytraeid was monitored in soil. Previous knowledge on enchytraeids’ lifespan (in agar media) showed: 120 days for Enchytraeus albidus46, 127 days for Enchytraeus doerjesi47 and 224 days for Enchytraeus coronatus48. Westheide and Graefe47 also reported an 85 days lifespan for E. crypticus which is considerably less than the 244 and 370 days we observed for D1 and D20, respectively. Possibly, the differences in terms of test media, soil (in our study) and agar media47 influence the longevity, as the food source was the same (oats). Hence, this indicates that E. crypticus can live longer in soil compared to agar.

The experimental test design as proposed here can be used as draft for a lifespan test in soil for E. crypticus. Results showed that the selected sampling points to assess the survival and reproductive output over-time were adequate. Although it is a very long duration of the test, the associated material costs are relatively low, except in terms of time consumption and human resource, but the level of information is very high. The majority of the studies that assess endpoints like survival, reproduction, bioaccumulation or growth are based on shorter exposure periods, covering up to 6 weeks of duration3, 42 and cannot predict the effects on longevity.

Analysis of organisms’ survival over time showed that at D1 enchytraeids died earlier compared to D20. The reproductive output (number of juveniles per adult) was higher for the D1 than for the D20, which is in agreement with results from a detailed density study using the same species49. This has also been observed in other studies: lower reproductive output at higher densities compared to lower densities, for instance in Lumbricus terrestris the cocoon production was 1.5, 0.6, 0.1, 0.06, 0.04 and 0.0 at D1, D2, D3, D4, D6 and D8, respectively50.

Regarding reproduction, the observed decrease in reproductive output over time is possibly age related. Changes in fertility in relation to age (reproductive senescence) have been reported in many organisms51. For example, in Caenorhabditis elegans the fast decline in the reproduction begins at young to middle age due to sperm depletion52 whereas in Drosophila melanogaster is due to apoptosis of ageing egg chambers53. In E. crypticus the reproductive output showed a variation along the lifespan of the organisms and decreased with aging. This further reiterates the importance of using organisms with synchronized age in ecotoxicological testing as recommended for this species and implemented in the full life cycle test44.

Results showed that for the same reproduction EC50 CuO-NPs were more toxic than CuCl2, i.e. exposure to CuO-NPs caused shorter longevity and lower reproduction. Please note that results reflect a comparison between reproduction EC50s (not the same or a range of soil concentrations) which will provide the most stable measure for the distance between the concentration curves. To test more concentrations would be very interesting to study as well, and would illustrate whether the steepness of the concentration-response curves are the same. However, the importance in the present study was the distance between the curves, hence to optimise time and resources we have selected this reduced design. Regarding the longevity (survival), maybe the mechanism is similar to what is reported in Mytilus galloprovincialis54, 55, i.e. CuCl2 was easily eliminated whereas CuO-NPs had slower elimination rate resulting in an increased accumulation with time of exposure. In short, even though Cu concentrations in the digestive gland of mussels were higher for CuCl2 than for CuO-NPs in the first week of exposure, Cu accumulation decreased for CuCl2 at the end of experiment (15 days) whereas it increased for CuO-NPs exposure. In the present work, the soil was spiked every 15 days, which means a continuous renewal or new pulse of Cu source. The following may be considered: (a) only dissolution and transformation of the NPs over 15 days is monitored and can have an effect in the test and (b) if NPs within the organism are refilled by this approach and we have NP-specific effects only in the early time of exposure because the NPs degrade quickly, then the refilling could be amplifying the NP effect compared to one long term exposure without renewal. Hence, the observed differences in terms of longevity (59–143 days period) could possibly be related with different accumulation/elimination rates between NPs and salt and less likely due to the decrease of Cu bioavailability by sorption to soil over time.

From day 157 onwards, effect levels became similar between CuO-NPs and CuCl2, which could mean that, after prolonged exposure, Cu elimination (from CuCl2) was less efficient (also linked to the age of the organisms, note that from day 143 there is a reduction in reproduction, also in control) and the effects caused by CuCl2 meet those caused by CuO-NPs. Alternatively or additionally, the reason could also be the general deteriorating health of the adults.

The mechanism of Cu uptake from CuO-NPs is not fully understood. Some authors explain the higher cytotoxicity of CuO-NPs (in comparison to CuCl2 on a mass basis) via a trojan horse mechanism, i.e. NPs can release a boom of metal ions inside the cells, possibly due to lower pH which causes a higher dissolution56, 57. Shi et al.30 reported higher toxicity of CuO-NPs (in comparison to CuCl2) to Landoltia punctate due to the high uptake of ions released from the NPs, but question the intra-cellular form of Cu and if the CuO-NPs themselves are taken up into the cells. Pradhan et al.27 suggest the intake of CuO-NPs in Allogamus ligonifer, and also state that the Cu ions released from the CuO-NPs may contribute to the toxicity of CuO-NPs. A study by Navratilova et al.58 showed that it was possible to detect larger CuO-NPs by Single Particle ICP-MS, but due to the interaction with soil components it was very difficult (or impossible) to separate Cu+ bound to small natural particles from CuO-NPs present in the sample. The CuO-NPs used in the present study were below the theoretical detection limit, so it was not possible to detect them. However, in their study Navratilova et al.58 indicated that CuO-NPs persisted in the nano form (even though in the form of agglomerates) and do not completely solubilize in the presence of soil components, i.e. organic matter. Hence, in the current work, the exposure was based on measurement of total and active Cu in the soil and soil solution. Nevertheless, it was not possible to directly explain the difference in toxicity based on the measured concentrations in soil solution, i.e. total and active ions. Although, it was observed that the ratio between the total Cu concentration in soil solution of the CuO-NPs and of the CuCl2 was similar to the ratio between the LT50s for reproductive output of the two Cu-forms. For survival the same was true for the measured active ions i.e. a similar ratio. This however may be more a coincidence than a confirmation of a causative phenomenon, but deserve further consideration when broadly available and validated techniques for discrimination between ionic and particle based forms in solid media exist59. Additionally, a full dose response design to compare CuCl2 and CuO-NPs in a life span test would have advantages and possibly reveal further on the differences in toxicity mechanisms i.e. if the dose-response curves shows different steepness. Using a full dose-response design would enable us to follow the ECx at each time point, and see whether this has intermediate changes. The same refers to the chemicals life cycle, where a testing with materials aging along the test duration (compared to continuous pulse) would allow broader interpretation and discussion, adding relevancy.

Conclusions

A lifespan test was developed for the first time in soil organisms and includes longevity as an additional endpoint for ecotoxicology. The proposed lifespan term test will be extremely useful to assess the prolonged effects of toxicants, e.g. very relevant for nanomaterials. Results showed precisely that longevity was more affected for CuO-NPs compared to CuCl2 exposure (when tested at a similar reproduction effect concentration, EC50), which would not be predictable based on the current standard test. We understand that the test length may be an issue but highly recommend the performance of longevity test for selected cases and design, in particular for the testing of nanomaterials.

Materials and Methods

Test organisms

The test organism belongs to the species Enchytraeus crypticus, Westheide and Graefe, 1992. Cultures were kept in agar plates fed ad libitum with grinded and autoclaved oats and maintained in laboratory under controlled conditions, e.g. photoperiod of 16:8 hours (light: dark) and temperature of 20 ± 1 °C. Juveniles of synchronized age (11 days) were used. For details on culture synchronization see Bicho et al.44.

Test soil

The standard natural soil LUFA 2.2 (Speyer, Germany) was used. Main properties of the soil can be summarised as follows: pH (0.1 M CaCl2) of 5.5, 43.3% of maximum water-holding capacity (WHCmax), 1.61% organic carbon and a particle size distribution of 7.9% clay, 16.3% silt and 75.8% sand.

Test procedures

Development of the lifespan assay: control conditions

The development/optimization of the lifespan assay was done in un-spiked soil, moistened to 50% of the WHCmax. Juveniles of synchronized age (11 days) were randomly selected and placed in each well (of the 6-well plates) at two densities: 1 (D1) and 20 (D20) organisms per replicate, ten replicates were used. After 25 days (11 plus 14 days to allow growth and reaching maturity) adults’ survival was recorded and the surviving adults (25 days old) were transferred to new test plates, in the same conditions, i.e. D1 or D20, respectively. To ensure that juveniles were not transferred together with the adults, prior the transference to the new test plates, the organisms were cleaned in a petri-dish with distilled water and checked under a stereo microscope (Zeiss Stemi 2000-C). Every 15 days, the survival of the adults was recorded and the surviving adults were transferred to new test plates as described above. After each transfer, the previous test plates were left during 11 more days to ensure that the cocoons laid have time to hatch; after that, the soil in the well plates was transferred to glass vials and fixated with 96% ethanol and Bengal rose (1% in ethanol) and the juveniles were counted using a stereo microscope (Zeiss Stemi 2000-C).

Food (grinded and autoclaved oats) was added weekly (2 and 10 mg for D1 and D20 exposed organisms, respectively). Water was added every 3 days. The test was maintained at a photoperiod of 16:8 hours light:dark and at 20 ± 1 °C. The test ran until all the adults were dead (370 days).

Lifespan assay: exposure to CuO-NPs and CuCl2

For the test with CuO-NPs and CuCl2, organisms (juveniles of synchronized age) were exposed at density D1 following the procedures described above. Density D1 was chosen due to the increased power of traceability of results to one individual (compared to an average, etc.); besides, there is lower variability in terms of reproductive output compared to D20. Twenty (20) replicates per test condition were used, 2 mg of food was added weekly and water adjusted every 3 days. The test was maintained at a photoperiod of 16:8 hours light:dark and at 20 ± 1 °C. The test ran for 202 days (plus 11 more days to allow the cocoons to hatch); the test duration was selected based on the results from the optimization of the lifespan assay in control conditions (≈LT80).

The schedule, test design and sampling days, as optimized, are presented in Fig. 3.

Figure 3
Figure 3

Schematic representation of the proposed Lifespan test for Enchytraeus crypticus, including the pre-exposure period (synch and hatching), the sampling days and endpoints evaluated (survival and reproduction) over the test duration.

Test chemicals and spiking

Copper-salt (CuCl2•2H2O) and Copper Oxide Nanoparticles (FP7 SUN pristine materials) were used (Table 3). The CuCl2 was obtained from Sigma-Aldrich (CAS number 10125-13-0) with a purity of 99%. The tested concentrations were selected based on the EC50 for reproduction effect (CuCl2 = 180 mg Cu/kg and CuO-NPs = 1400 mg Cu/kg soil dry weight) as known from previous Enchytraeid Reproduction Test (ERT) results45. CuCl2 was added to pre moistened soil (20% w/w) as aqueous solution. For CuO-NPs, the NPs were added as dry powder to the soil as recommend by OECD for the testing of insoluble substances60. In short, CuO-NPs were thoroughly mixed manually with the dry soil to obtain the corresponding concentration. After that, deionized water was added to reach 50% of the soil WHC. All soils were homogeneously mixed and allowed to equilibrate for 1 day before test start. Soil was spiked and renewed every 15 days during sampling.

Table 3: Characteristics of the tested CuO-NPs (Source: FP7-SUN project).

Controls correspond to un-spiked LUFA 2.2 soil moistened until 50% of WHC. Test vessels consisted of 6-well plates (35 mm ø), each well containing 5 g of moistened soil (50% of WHC). Treatments and replicates were distributed randomly in the test plates.

In situ characterisation

The amount of Cu was measured in the test soil and in soil solution (for method details see Gomes et al.61) in a concurrent experiment over 28 days. In the soil the total Cu was measured (by Graphite Furnace Atomic Absorption Spectroscopy: AAS-GF). In soil solution, both the total Cu and free active form were measured by AAS-GF and by ion-selective electrode, respectively. The CuO present as nanomaterials was not determined in the soil, due to the technical difficulties e.g. that the particle size is below the theoretical detection limit of 15 nm (see Navratilova et al.58).

Data analysis

To assess significant differences between treatments at each sampling day One-Way ANOVA (using Tukey Test or Dunn’s method for multiple comparisons) was used (SigmaPlot 11.0).

Lethal Time (LTx) as time to reduce survival in x% and Effect Time (ETx) as time to reduce reproduction in x% calculations were performed for survival and reproduction, respectively, using the logistic equation or threshold sigmoid 2 or 3 parameters regression models (TRAP 1.30 software).

Additional Information

Publisher's note: Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

References

  1. 1.

    Vanhooren, V. & Libert, C. The mouse as a model organism in aging research: Usefulness, pitfalls and possibilities. Ageing Research Reviews 12, 8–21, doi:10.1016/j.arr.2012.03.010 (2013).

  2. 2.

    Amorim, M. J. B., Roca, C. P. & Scott-Fordsmand, J. J. Effect assessment of engineered nanoparticles in solid media – Current insight and the way forward. Environ. Pollut. 218, 1370–1375, doi:10.1016/j.envpol.2015.08.048 (2016).

  3. 3.

    OECD. Guidelines for the testing of chemicals No. 220. Enchytraeid Reproduction Test. Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. Paris, France (2004).

  4. 4.

    Coutellec, M. A. & Barata, C. Special issue on long-term ecotoxicological effects: an introduction. Ecotoxicology 22, 763–766, doi:10.1007/s10646-013-1092-7 (2013).

  5. 5.

    van Gestel, C. A. M. Soil ecotoxicology: state of the art and future directions. Zookeys 176, 275–296, doi:10.3897/zookeys.176.2275 (2012).

  6. 6.

    Buffenstein, R., Edrey, Y. H. & Larsen, P. L. In Sourcebook of Models for Biomedical Research 499–506, doi:10.1007/978-1-59745-285-4_52 (Humana Press, 2008).

  7. 7.

    Hamilton, K. L. & Miller, B. F. What is the evidence for stress resistance and slowed aging? Exp. Gerontol. 82, 67–72, doi:10.1016/j.exger.2016.06.001 (2016).

  8. 8.

    Lucanic, M., Lithgow, G. J. & Alavez, S. Pharmacological lifespan extension of invertebrates. Ageing Res. Rev. 12, 445–458, doi:10.1016/j.arr.2012.06.006 (2013).

  9. 9.

    Harada, H., Kurauchi, M., Hayashi, R. & Eki, T. Shortened lifespan of nematode Caenorhabditis elegans after prolonged exposure to heavy metals and detergents. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 66, 378–383, doi:10.1016/j.ecoenv.2006.02.017 (2007).

  10. 10.

    Wang, D., Liu, P., Yang, Y. & Shen, L. Formation of a combined Formation of a combined Ca/Cd toxicity on lifespan of nematode Caenorhabditis elegans, Ca/Cd toxicity on lifespan of nematode Caenorhabditis elegans. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 73, 1221–1230, doi:10.1016/j.ecoenv.2010.05.002 (2010).

  11. 11.

    Pluskota, A., Horzowski, E., Bossinger, O. & von Mikecz, A. Caenorhabditis elegans Nanoparticle-Bio-Interactions Become Transparent: Silica-Nanoparticles Induce Reproductive Senescence. PLoS One 4, e6622, doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0006622 (2009).

  12. 12.

    Peters, J. R. & Granek, E. F. Long-term exposure to fluoxetine reduces growth and reproductive potential in the dominant rocky intertidal mussel, Mytilus californianus. Sci. Total Environ. 545–546, 621–628, doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2015.12.118 (2016).

  13. 13.

    Franchini, A. & Ottaviani, E. Age-related toxic effects and recovery from okadaic acid treatment in Enchytraeus crypticus (Annelida: Oligochaeta). Toxicon 52, 115–121, doi:10.1016/j.toxicon.2008.04.176 (2008).

  14. 14.

    Kahru, A. & Dubourguier, H. C. From ecotoxicology to nanoecotoxicology. Toxicology 269, 105–119, doi:10.1016/j.tox.2009.08.016 (2010).

  15. 15.

    Diez-Ortiz, M. et al. Short-term soil bioassays may not reveal the full toxicity potential for nanomaterials; bioavailability and toxicity of silver ions (AgNO3) and silver nanoparticles to earthworm Eisenia fetida in long-term aged soils. Environ. Pollut. 203, 191–198, doi:10.1016/j.envpol.2015.03.033 (2015).

  16. 16.

    Waalewijn-Kool, P. L., Diez Ortiz, M., van Straalen, N. M. & van Gestel, C. A. Sorption, dissolution and pH determine the long-term equilibration and toxicity of coated and uncoated ZnO nanoparticles in soil. Environ. Pollut. 178, 59–64, doi:10.1016/j.envpol.2013.03.003 (2013).

  17. 17.

    Baun, A., Hartmann, N. B., Grieger, K. & Kusk, K. O. Ecotoxicity of engineered nanoparticles to aquatic invertebrates: a brief review and recommendations for future toxicity testing. Ecotoxicology 17, 387–395, doi:10.1007/s10646-008-0208-y (2008).

  18. 18.

    Kumar, A. et al. Engineered Nanomaterials: Knowledge Gaps in Fate, Exposure, Toxicity, and Future Directions. J. Nanomater. 2014, 16–16, doi:10.1155/2014/130198p (2014).

  19. 19.

    Delgado, K., Quijada, R., Palma, R. & Palza, H. Polypropylene with embedded copper metal or copper oxide nanoparticles as a novel plastic antimicrobial agent. Lett. Appl. Microbiol. 53, 50–54, doi:10.1111/lam.2011.53.issue-1 (2011).

  20. 20.

    Zhang, D.-W., Yi, T.-H. & Chen, C.-H. Cu nanoparticles derived from CuO electrodes in lithium cells. Nanotechnology 16, 2338–2341, doi:10.1088/0957-4484/16/10/057 (2005).

  21. 21.

    Jin, S. & Ye, K. Nanoparticle-mediated drug delivery and gene therapy. in. Biotechnology Progress 23, 32–41, doi:10.1021/bp060348j (2007).

  22. 22.

    Dastjerdi, R. & Montazer, M. A review on the application of inorganic nano-structured materials in the modification of textiles: Focus on anti-microbial properties. Colloids Surfaces B Biointerfaces 79, 5–18, doi:10.1016/j.colsurfb.2010.03.029 (2010).

  23. 23.

    Hernández Battez, A. et al. Friction reduction properties of a CuO nanolubricant used as lubricant for a NiCrBSi coating. Wear 268, 325–328, doi:10.1016/j.wear.2009.08.018 (2010).

  24. 24.

    Mortimer, M., Kasemets, K. & Kahru, A. Toxicity of ZnO and CuO nanoparticles to ciliated protozoa Tetrahymena thermophila. Toxicology 269, 182–189, doi:10.1016/j.tox.2009.07.007 (2010).

  25. 25.

    Nations, S. et al. Acute effects of Fe2O3, TiO2, ZnO and CuO nanomaterials on Xenopus laevis. Chemosphere 83, 1053–1061, doi:10.1016/j.chemosphere.2011.01.061 (2011).

  26. 26.

    Zhao, J. et al. Distribution of CuO nanoparticles in juvenile carp (Cyprinus carpio) and their potential toxicity. J. Hazard. Mater. 197, 304–310, doi:10.1016/j.jhazmat.2011.09.094 (2011).

  27. 27.

    Pradhan, A., Seena, S., Pascoal, C. & Cássio, F. Copper oxide nanoparticles can induce toxicity to the freshwater shredder Allogamus ligonifer. Chemosphere 89, 1142–1150, doi:10.1016/j.chemosphere.2012.06.001 (2012).

  28. 28.

    Rossetto, A. L., de, O. F., Melegari, S. P., Ouriques, L. C. & Matias, W. G. Comparative evaluation of acute and chronic toxicities of CuO nanoparticles and bulk using Daphnia magna and Vibrio fischeri. Sci. Total Environ. 490, 807–814, doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2014.05.056 (2014).

  29. 29.

    Adam, N., Vakurov, A., Knapen, D. & Blust, R. The chronic toxicity of CuO nanoparticles and copper salt to Daphnia magna. J. Hazard. Mater. 283, 416–422, doi:10.1016/j.jhazmat.2014.09.037 (2015).

  30. 30.

    Shi, J., Abid, A. D., Kennedy, I. M., Hristova, K. R. & Silk, W. K. To duckweeds (Landoltia punctata), nanoparticulate copper oxide is more inhibitory than the soluble copper in the bulk solution. Environ. Pollut. 159, 1277–1282, doi:10.1016/j.envpol.2011.01.028 (2011).

  31. 31.

    Da Costa, M. V. J. & Sharma, P. K. Effect of copper oxide nanoparticles on growth, morphology, photosynthesis, and antioxidant response in Oryza sativa. Photosynthetica 54, 110–119, doi:10.1007/s11099-015-0167-5 (2016).

  32. 32.

    Peng, C. et al. Translocation and biotransformation of CuO nanoparticles in rice (Oryza sativa L.) plants. Environ. Pollut. 197, 99–107, doi:10.1016/j.envpol.2014.12.008 (2015).

  33. 33.

    Unrine, J. M., Tsyusko, O. V., Hunyadi, S. E., Judy, J. D. & Bertsch, P. M. Effects of Particle Size on Chemical Speciation and Bioavailability of Copper to Earthworms (Eisenia fetida) Exposed to Copper Nanoparticles. J. Environ. Qual. 39, 1942–1953, doi:10.2134/jeq2009.0387 (2010).

  34. 34.

    Heckmann, L.-H. et al. Limit-test toxicity screening of selected inorganic nanoparticles to the earthworm Eisenia fetida. Ecotoxicology 20, 226–233, doi:10.1007/s10646-010-0574-0 (2011).

  35. 35.

    Amorim, M. J. B., Gomes, S. I. L., Soares, A. M. V. M. & Scott-Fordsmand, J. J. Energy Basal Levels and Allocation among Lipids, Proteins, and Carbohydrates in Enchytraeus albidus: Changes Related to Exposure to Cu Salt and Cu Nanoparticles. Water, Air, Soil Pollut. 223, 477–482, doi:10.1007/s11270-011-0867-9 (2012).

  36. 36.

    Amorim, M. J. B. & Scott-Fordsmand, J. J. Toxicity of Copper nanoparticles and CuCl2 salt to Enchytraeus albidus worms: survival, reproduction and avoidance responses. Environ. Pollut. 164, 164–168, doi:10.1016/j.envpol.2012.01.015 (2012).

  37. 37.

    Gomes, S. I. L. et al. Effect of Cu-nanoparticles versus one Cu-salt: analysis of stress and neuromuscular biomarkers response in Enchytraeus albidus (Oligochaeta). Nanotoxicology 6, 134–143, doi:10.3109/17435390.2011.562327 (2012).

  38. 38.

    Gomes, S. I. L., Scott-Fordsmand, J. J. & Amorim, M. J. B. Cellular Energy Allocation to Assess the Impact of Nanomaterials on Soil Invertebrates (Enchytraeids): The Effect of Cu and Ag. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 12, 6858–78, doi:10.3390/ijerph120606858 (2015).

  39. 39.

    Blinova, I., Ivask, A., Heinlaan, M., Mortimer, M. & Kahru, A. Ecotoxicity of nanoparticles of CuO and ZnO in natural water. Environ. Pollut. 158, 41–47, doi:10.1016/j.envpol.2009.08.017 (2010).

  40. 40.

    Stone, V. et al. Nanomaterials for environmental studies: Classification, reference material issues, and strategies for physico-chemical characterisation. Sci. Total Environ. 408, 1745–1754, doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2009.10.035 (2010).

  41. 41.

    ISO. Soil Quality - Effects of pollutants on Enchytraeidae (Enchytraeus sp.). Determination of effects on reproduction and survival. Guideline No 16387. International Organization for Standardization. Geneva, Switzerland (2005).

  42. 42.

    OECD. Guidelines for the testing of chemicals No. 317. Bioaccumulation in Terrestrial Oligochaetes.Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. Paris, France. at http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/environment/test-no-317-bioaccumulation-in-terrestrial-oligochaetes_9789264090934-en (2010).

  43. 43.

    Gonçalves, M. F. M. et al. Development of an embryotoxicity test for Enchytraeus crypticus – The effect of Cd. Chemosphere 139, 386–392, doi:10.1016/j.chemosphere.2015.07.021 (2015).

  44. 44.

    Bicho, R. C., Santos, F. C. F., Gonçalves, M. F. M., Soares, A. M. V. M. & Amorim, M. J. B. Enchytraeid Reproduction TestPLUS: hatching, growth and full life cycle test—an optional multi-endpoint test with Enchytraeus crypticus. Ecotoxicology 24, 1053–1063, doi:10.1007/s10646-015-1445-5 (2015).

  45. 45.

    Bicho, R. C., Santos, F. C. F., Scott-Fordsmand, J. J. & Amorim, M. J. B. Effects of copper oxide nanomaterials (CuONMs) are life stage dependent – full life cycle in Enchytraeus crypticus. Environ. Pollut. 224, 117–124, doi:10.1016/j.envpol.2017.01.067 (2017).

  46. 46.

    Ivleva, I. V. Growth and reproduction of the potworm (Enchytraeus albidus). Zool. Zh. 32, 394–404 (1953).

  47. 47.

    Westheide, W. & Graefe, U. Two new terrestrial Enchytraeus species (Oligochaeta, Annelida). J. Nat. Hist. 26, 479–488, doi:10.1080/00222939200770311 (1992).

  48. 48.

    Rodriguez, P., Arrate, J. A. & Martinez-Madrid, M. Life history of the oligochaete Enchytraeus coronatus (Annelida, Enchytraeidae) in agar culture. Invertebr. Biol. 121, 350–356, doi:10.1111/ivb.2002.121.issue-4 (2005).

  49. 49.

    Gonçalves, M. F. M., Gomes, S. I. L., Soares, A. M. V. M., Scott-Fordsmand, J. J. & Amorim, M. J. B. Enchytraeus crypticus fitness: effect of density on a two-generation study. Ecotoxicology 1–6, doi:10.1007/s10646-017-1785-4 (2017).

  50. 50.

    Butt, K. R., Frederickson, J. & Morris, R. M. Effect of earthworm density on the growth and reproduction of Lumbricus terrestris L. (Oligochaeta: Lumbricidae) in culture. Pedobiologia (Jena). 38, 254–261 (1994).

  51. 51.

    Jones, O. R. et al. Diversity of ageing across the tree of life. Nature 505, 169–173, doi:10.1038/nature12789 (2013).

  52. 52.

    Hughes, S. E., Evason, K., Xiong, C. & Kornfeld, K. Genetic and Pharmacological Factors That Influence Reproductive Aging in Nematodes. PLoS Genet. 3, e25, doi:10.1371/journal.pgen.0030025 (2007).

  53. 53.

    Zhao, R., Xuan, Y., Li, X. & Xi, R. Age-related changes of germline stem cell activity, niche signaling activity and egg production in Drosophila. Aging Cell 7, 344–354, doi:10.1111/j.1474-9726.2008.00379.x (2008).

  54. 54.

    Gomes, T. et al. Effects of Copper Nanoparticles Exposure in the Mussel Mytilus galloprovincialis. Environ. Sci. Technol. 45, 9356–9362, doi:10.1021/es200955s (2011).

  55. 55.

    Gomes, T. et al. Accumulation and toxicity of copper oxide nanoparticles in the digestive gland of Mytilus galloprovincialis. Aquat. Toxicol. 118–119, 72–79, doi:10.1016/j.aquatox.2012.03.017 (2012).

  56. 56.

    Karlsson, H. L., Cronholm, P., Gustafsson, J. & Möller, L. Copper Oxide Nanoparticles Are Highly Toxic: A Comparison between Metal Oxide Nanoparticles and Carbon Nanotubes. Chem. Res. Toxicol. 21, 1726–1732, doi:10.1021/tx800064j (2008).

  57. 57.

    Studer, A. M. et al. Nanoparticle cytotoxicity depends on intracellular solubility: Comparison of stabilized copper metal and degradable copper oxide nanoparticles. Toxicol. Lett. 197, 169–174, doi:10.1016/j.toxlet.2010.05.012 (2010).

  58. 58.

    Navratilova, J. et al. Detection of Engineered Copper Nanoparticles in Soil Using Single Particle ICP-MS. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 12, 15756–15768, doi:10.3390/ijerph121215020 (2015).

  59. 59.

    Scott-Fordsmand, J. J., Peijnenburg, W., Amorim, M. J. B., Landsiedel, R. & Oorts, K. The way forward for risk assessment of nanomaterials in solid media. Environ. Pollut. 218, 1363–1364, doi:10.1016/j.envpol.2015.11.048 (2016).

  60. 60.

    OECD. OECD Environment, Health and Safety Publications Series on the Safety of Manufactured Nanomaterials No. 25. Guidance for the Testing of Manufactured Nanomaterials: OECD Sponsorship Programme: First Revision. Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. Paris, France (2010).

  61. 61.

    Gomes, S. I. L. et al. Cu-nanoparticles ecotoxicity – Explored and explained? Chemosphere 139, 240–245, doi:10.1016/j.chemosphere.2015.06.045 (2015).

Download references

Acknowledgements

Thanks are due, for the financial support to the European Commission within FP7-SUN: SUstainable Nanotechnologies (G.A. No. 604305), to CESAM (UID/AMB/50017), to FCT/MEC through national funds, the co-funding by the FEDER, within the PT2020 Partnership Agreement and Compete 2020, and a post-doc grant to Susana Gomes (SFRH/BPD/95775/2013).

Author information

Affiliations

  1. Department of Biology & CESAM, University of Aveiro, 3810-193, Aveiro, Portugal

    • Micael F. M. Gonçalves
    • , Susana I. L. Gomes
    •  & Mónica J. B. Amorim
  2. Department of Bioscience, Aarhus University, Vejlsovej 25, PO Box 314, DK-8600, Silkeborg, Denmark

    • Janeck J. Scott-Fordsmand

Authors

  1. Search for Micael F. M. Gonçalves in:

  2. Search for Susana I. L. Gomes in:

  3. Search for Janeck J. Scott-Fordsmand in:

  4. Search for Mónica J. B. Amorim in:

Contributions

M.F.M.G., S.I.L.G., J.S.F. and M.J.B.A. designed the experiments. M.F.M.G. and S.I.L.G. did the laboratory work. M.F.M.G. and S.I.L.G. wrote the draft manuscript and all authors read and revised the manuscript. The principal concept and supervision was provided by M.J.B.A. and J.S.F.

Competing Interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Susana I. L. Gomes.

Comments

By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines. If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate.

Creative Commons BY

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.