Environmental risk of nickel in aquatic Arctic ecosystems.

The Arctic faces many environmental challenges, including the continued exploitation of its mineral resources such as nickel (Ni). The responsible development of Ni mining in the Arctic requires establishing a risk assessment framework that accounts for the specificities of this unique region. We set out to conduct preliminary assessments of Ni exposure and effects in aquatic Arctic ecosystems. Our analysis of Ni source and transport processes in the Arctic suggests that fresh, estuarine, coastal, and marine waters are potential Ni-receiving environments, with both pelagic and benthic communities being at risk of exposure. Environmental concentrations of Ni show that sites with elevated Ni concentrations are located near Ni mining operations in freshwater environments, but there is a lack of data for coastal and estuarine environments near such operations. Nickel bioavailability in Arctic freshwaters seems to be mainly driven by dissolved organic carbon (DOC) concentrations with bioavailability being the highest in the High Arctic, where DOC levels are the lowest. However, this assessment is based on bioavailability models developed from non-Arctic species. At present, the lack of chronic Ni toxicity data on Arctic species constitutes the greatest hurdle toward the development of Ni quality standards in this region. Although there are some indications that polar organisms may not be more sensitive to contaminants than non-Arctic species, biological adaptations necessary for life in polar environments may have led to differences in species sensitivities, and this must be addressed in risk assessment frameworks. Finally, Ni polar risk assessment is further complicated by climate change, which affects the Arctic at a faster rate than the rest of the world. Herein we discuss the source, fate, and toxicity of Ni in Arctic aquatic environments, and discuss how climate change effects (e.g., permafrost thawing, increased precipitation, and warming) will influence risk assessments of Ni in the Arctic.

Toxicity of Nanoparticulate Nickel to Aquatic Organisms: Review and Recommendations for Improvement of Toxicity Tests.

We reviewed the literature on toxicity of nanoparticulate nickel (nano-Ni) to aquatic organisms, from the perspective of relevance and reliability in a regulatory framework. Our main findings were 1) much of the published nano-Ni toxicity data is of low or medium quality in terms of reporting key physical-chemical properties, methodologies, and results, compared with published dissolved nickel studies; and 2) based on the available information, some common findings about nanoparticle (NP) toxicity are not supported for nano-Ni. First, we concluded that nanoparticulate elemental nickel and nickel oxide, which differ in chemical composition, generally did not differ in their toxicity. Second, there is no evidence that the toxicity of nano-Ni increases as the size of the NPs decreases. Third, for most organisms tested, nano-Ni was not more toxic on a mass-concentration basis than dissolved Ni. Fourth, there is conflicting evidence about whether the toxicity is directly caused by the NPs or by the dissolved fraction released from the NPs. However, no evidence suggests that any of the molecular, physiological, and structural mechanisms of nano-Ni toxicity differ from the general pattern for many metal-based nanomaterials, wherein oxidative stress underlies the observed effects. Physical-chemical factors in the design and conduct of nano-Ni toxicity tests are important, but often they are not adequately reported (e.g., characteristics of dry nano-Ni particles and of wetted particles in exposure waters; exposure-water chemistry). Environ Toxicol Chem 2020;39:1861-1883 © 2020 The Authors. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of SETAC.

A Mystery Tale: Nickel Is Fickle When Snails Fail-Investigating the Variability in Ni Toxicity to the Great Pond Snail.

Dissolved Ni concentrations inhibiting the growth of juvenile great pond snails (Lymnaea stagnalis) have been documented to vary from about 1 to 200 µg L-1 Ni. This variability makes L. stagnalis either a moderately sensitive or the most sensitive freshwater species to chronic Ni exposure tested to date. Given the role of sensitive species in environmental risk assessment frameworks, it is particularly important to understand this variability, i.e., to characterize the factors that modulate Ni toxicity and that may confound toxicity test outcomes when uncontrolled. In the present study, we tested if this variability was due to analytical (growth calculation: biomass versus growth rate), environmental (water quality), lab-specific practices, and/or snail population differences among earlier studies. Specifically, we reanalyzed previously published Ni toxicity data and conducted additional measurements of Ni aqueous speciation, short-term Ni uptake, and chronic Ni toxicity with test waters and snail cultures used in previous studies. Corrections for Ni bioavailability and growth calculations explained a large degree of variability in the published literature. However, a residual 16-fold difference remained puzzling between 2 studies: Niyogi et al. (2014) (low ECxs) and Crémazy et al. (2018) (high ECxs). Indeed, differences in metal bioavailability due to water chemistry, lab-specific practices, and snail population sensitivity could not explain the large variation in Ni toxicity in these 2 very similar studies. Other potentially important toxicity-modifying factors were not directly evaluated in the present work: test duration, diet, snail holding conditions, and snail age at onset of testing. The present analysis highlights the need for further studies to elucidate 1) the mechanisms of growth inhibition in Ni-exposed L. stagnalis and 2) the important abiotic and biotic factors affecting this biological response. Until these processes are understood, substantial uncertainties will remain about inclusion of this species in Ni environmental risk assessment. Integr Environ Assess Manag 2020;16:983-997. © 2020 SETAC.