4.0 Article

Toxicity of methanol to fish, crustacean, oligochaete worm, and aquatic ecosystem

Journal

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF TOXICOLOGY
Volume 23, Issue 1, Pages 55-63

Publisher

SAGE PUBLICATIONS INC
DOI: 10.1080/10915810490265469

Keywords

ecosystem; fish; growth; methanol; toxicity; water

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Static renewal bioassays were conducted in the laboratory and in outdoor artificial enclosures to evaluate toxic effects of methanol to one teleost fish and two aquatic invertebrates and to limnological variables of aquatic ecosystem. Ninety-six-hour acute toxicity tests revealed cladoceran crustacea Moina micrura as the most sensitive to methanol (LC50, 4.82 g/L), followed by freshwater teleost Oreochromis mossambicus (LC50, 15.32 g/L) and oligochaete worm Branchiura sowerbyi (LC50, 54.89 g/L). The fish, when exposed to lethal concentrations of methanol, showed difficulties in respiration and swimming. The oligochaete body wrinkled and fragmented under lethal exposure of methanol. Effects of five sublethal concentrations of methanol (0, 23.75, 47.49, 736.10, and 1527.60 mg/L) on the feeding rate of the fish and on its growth and reproduction were evaluated by separate bioassays. Ninety-six-hour bioassays in the laboratory showed significant reduction in the appetite of fish when exposed to 736.10 mg/L or higher concentrations of methanol. Chronic toxicity bioassays (90 days) in outdoor enclosures showed a reduction in growth, maturity index and fecundity of fish at 47.49 mg/L or higher concentrations of methanol. Primary productivity, phytoplankton population, and alkalinity of water were also reduced at these concentrations. Chronic exposure to 1527.60 mg/L methanol resulted in damages of the epithelium of primary and secondary gill lamellae of the fish. The results revealed 23.75 mg/L as the no-observed-effect concentration (NOEC) of methanol to freshwater aquatic ecosystem.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.0
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available