Effects of perfluorooctane sulfonate and perfluorooctanoic acid on the zooplanktonic community.

This comparative survey summarizes six individual studies on the ecological effects of two common perfluorinated surfactants, PFOS and PFOA, on zooplankton. We compare the test designs and quantify the relative sensitivity and statistical power (1-beta > or = 0.8). The survey compares 30-L indoor microcosm to 12,000-L outdoor microcosm experiments, with 225-mL single species laboratory tests as reference. By this we elucidate the extrapolation of ecological effects in space and complexity. Generally, zooplankton had lower tolerance toward PFOS than toward PFOA. With increasing concentrations the zooplankton community became simplified toward more robust rotifer species, which, as an indirect effect, increased their abundance due to a shift in competition and predation. The statistical power of the designs exhibits inverse proportionality between complexity and realism, indoor microcosm>outdoor microcosm. Surprisingly, the 30-L study had a lower LOEC value for Daphnia magna than the laboratory chronic test, indicating that D. magna and D. pulicaria were not the most sensitive species and that laboratory tests are not always conservative relative to microcosm experiments. Food scarcity due to phytotoxicity was not the reason for the difference.

Response of the zooplankton community and environmental fate of perfluorooctane sulfonic acid in aquatic microcosms.

Little is known regarding perfluorooctane sulfonic acid (PFOS) toxicity to freshwater organisms. This field evaluation aims to assess the toxicological risk associated with exposure to PFOS across levels of biological organization. The analysis of variance study was conducted in replicate (n = 3) 12,000 L outdoor microcosms. Multivariate techniques were used to assess the response of zooplankton community structure and dynamics, as well as a floating macrophyte, Lemna gibba. The zooplankton community was significantly affected (p < 0.05) by the treatment regime given by the Monte Carlo permutations for all sampling times. A community-level no-observable-effect concentration ([NOEC]community) of 3.0 mg/L was determined for the 35-day study, however, longer term studies are recommended. The most sensitive taxonomic groups, Cladocera and Copepoda, were virtually eliminated in 30 mg/L treatments after 7 d. The 42-d 50% inhibition concentration (IC50) for L. gibba frond number was 19.1 mg/L and the NOEC was 0.2 mg/L. Furthermore, we investigated the persistence of PFOS over 285 d in microcosms under natural conditions. Perfluorooctane sulfonic acid concentration showed no drastic reduction in any treatment microcosm over the entire study period, confirming that this compound undergoes little degradation in aquatic systems. Presently, there appears to be little hazard to these freshwater organisms at reported environmental concentrations.

Impact of perfluorooctanoic acid on the structure of the zooplankton community in indoor microcosms.

There is presently, a substantial amount of information being gathered concerning the environmental risk associated with the perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) compound. The aim of this paper was to determine a 35 day community no observable effect concentration (NOEC(community)) or lowest observable effect concentration (LOEC) for freshwater zooplankton exposed to PFOA during a study in 30 l indoor aquatic microcosms. Some significant (P < 0.01) temporal fluctuations in zooplankton abundance were observed, however, a NOEC(community) could not be calculated. LOEC for various species varied between 10 and 70 mg l(-1). According to LOEC values, the tentative order of descriptors sensitivity was as follows: Daphnia magna > richness > or = Cyclops canthocamptus staphylinus > Cyclops diaptomus>total zooplankton > or = Rotifera sp. The long term ecological significance of these temporal fluctuations could not be determined in this study, however, the overall study cessation analysis showed that the structure of the ecosystem was changed from a more diverse community dominated by larger species towards a less diverse community dominated by smaller more and robust species (P < 0.05). Additional chronic toxicity testing should also be addressed since these compounds are so persistent and recalcitrant.

Ecological impact and environmental fate of perfluorooctane sulfonate on the zooplankton community in indoor microcosms.

There is presently a substantial amount of information being gathered concerning the environmental risk associated with the perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS) compound. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) is requiring that more research be completed before making definitive decisions concerning the regulatory issues covered in the significant new use rule (18/10-2000) under the Toxic Substance Control Act. However, there are no risk assessment requirements under seminatural conditions in microcosms. The PFOS can enter, and has been found in, the aquatic environment through different pathways, including spills associated with use of fire-fighting foams containing PFOS, leaching from washing Scotchgard-treated clothes with the wastewater, leaching from various coatings, discharges as residual waste from fluorochemical production, or volatilization and transportation atmospherically. The biota is the sink of PFOS rather than the sediment or soil. The aim of this article is to determine a 35-d community no-observable-effect concentration (NOECcommunity) for freshwater zooplankton and the fate of PFOS during the course of study. The PFOS persisted in the water phase with only slight reductions over the study; only the decrease from 33.9 mg/L at day 1 to 29.8 mg/L at day 35 was significant. A 90 to 100% reduction (p < 0.01) of the total zooplankton population was found after one week of exposure to 30 mg PFOS/L and a similar reduction after two weeks at 10 mg PFOS/L. The Daphnia magna 21-d NOECsurvival of 12 mg/L has previously been found in a standard laboratory bioassay by 3M. The rank order of susceptibility for the test community was Copepoda > Cladocera > Rotifera, assuming all adverse direct effects.