Species Sensitivity Weighted Distribution (SSWD) for
ecological risk assessment of engineered nanomaterials: The
n-TiO2 case study
Elena Semenzin†, Elisa Lanzellotto†, Danail Hristozov†, Andrea Critto†, Alex Zabeo†, Elisa
Giubilato†, Antonio Marcomini†
†Dept.
Environmental Sciences, Informatics and Statistics, Ca’ Foscari University of Venice, Venice, Italy
Supplemental Data
1
BACKGROUND on SSD and SSWD
The Species Sensitivity Distribution curves (SSDs) “represent the variation in sensitivity of
species to a contaminant by a statistical or empirical distribution function of responses for a
sample of species” [1]. The SSD approach was originally proposed in the late 1970s in the United
States and mid-1980s in Europe to calculate the environmental quality criterion (EQC), for aquatic
and terrestrial environments but in the last decades it has been applied also in ecological RA in
order to determine the predicted no-effect concentration (PNEC) of a chemical compound [1]. In
particular this approach enables calculation of a hazardous concentration that is assumed to affect
the 5% of species (HC5) [1, 2]. The SSD is a statistical distribution estimated from a sample of
ecotoxicological data and visualized as a cumulative distribution function, in which the input data
are represented as single dots. The curve follows the distribution of sensitivity data obtained by
the ecotoxicological testing, plotting the effect concentrations derived from chronic/acute
ecotoxicological tests [1].
The conventional SSD approach is based on three theoretical assumptions:

The interaction between the species do not influence the sensitivity distribution, in
other words, the interspecific relationships are not taken into account (species are
considered as independent entities) [3];

All species are weighted equally, the loss of any species is of equal importance to
the system. The keyspecies are distributed randomly in the curve and they have the same
likelihood to fall in the extreme left tail (most sensitive) of other species [3]. Since each
species must have the same weight, the geometric mean (exponential of the arithmetic
mean on the log of the data) is applied to all data regarding the same species and
measuring the same endpoint. Then, the minimum among the obtained values is
2
considered in order to have a single conservative value per species to be used in the SSD
[2];

Structure is a target of concern. The SSD approach focuses on community structure
and makes no direct connection to underlying ecosystem process [3].
There are several statistical methods to derive SSD curves and calculate HC5, which differ
in the choice of the most appropriate statistical distribution to represent the database (e.g. the
empirical distribution, log-normal or log-logistic distribution) and the method used to estimate the
confidence limits of the distribution (i.e. bootstrap, Bayesian techniques, or asymptotic theory)
[2].
The conventional SSD approach raised a number of questions regarding effect of
intraspecies variation, proportion of data between the different taxonomic groups and adopted
statistical methods [3, 2]. In order to answer these questions in 2004 Duboudin and colleagues [2]
proposed an improvement of the conventional SSD approach through the introduction of two
weighting criteria and the use of a statistical weighting method for the construction of the SSD.
The first weighting criterion allows to account for intraspecies variation which can derive
by differences in e.g. experimental conditions, criterion chosen, species’ stages of development.
To do that, the authors propose to use all the available ecotoxicological data in the SSD by
weighting each data point according to the number of available data for each species (e.g. if for a
species 5 ecotoxicological data are available, each of them is weighted 1/5), in order to give each
species the same weight within the SSD. In this way no species is given more importance that any
other and the calculation of the geometric mean at endpoint level, followed by the selection of
the minimum value per species, is avoided [2].
The second weighting criterion allows to account for the ecosystem structure by
considering the abundance of different taxonomic groups. For this criterion, the authors refer to a
3
study by Forbes and Calow [3] in which a simple three-level food chain was assumed for the
aquatic ecosystem, taking a value of 2.5 for the factor change in species number between the
trophic levels. This way 64% of the species results to occupy the first level (primary producers),
26% occupies the second level (invertebrates) and 10% occupies the third level (fish) [3]. Duboudin
et al. [2] maintain these proportions applying them to the taxonomic groups algae, invertebrates
and vertebrates, respectively.
The first and the second weighting criteria are then multiplied in order to derive an overall
weighting coefficient to be used into a weighted statistical method (i.e. weighted bootstrap) for
the calculation of an HC5. The bootstrap procedure is a resampling with replacement where the
dataset selected are the same size as the initial dataset (n out of n) and one thousand samples are
generated [4]. In the approach proposed by Duboudin et al. [2] this method is used both to
estimate the confidence interval associated with the HC5 and to construct a dataset in which the
proportions of data among species and among taxonomic groups correspond to those desired. In
the statistical method of weighted bootstrap the probability of drawing each data point
corresponds to the weighting coefficient previously defined. Moreover, to estimate the HC5 (with
the 50% of confidence interval, the best estimate value) of each dataset the authors propose two
options: the parametric approach and the nonparametric approach. In the parametric approach
they make the assumption that the distribution of each sample follows the theoretical distribution
(normal distribution for log10 value), than the parameter of the distribution and the corresponding
fifth percentile are calculated (normal approach). In the nonparametric approach the HC5 is
defined as the fifth percentile of the empirical distribution of each sample (values being in log10)
and a linear interpolation is used if the fifth percentile does not correspond to a value of the
sample (empirical approach) [2].
4
In their work, Duboudin and colleagues [2] found that both intraspecies variation and
abundance of different taxonomic groups have a higher effect on the obtained HC5 than the
statistical method used to build the distribution [2]. Moreover, they suggested that the HC5 values
obtained with this approach should be discussed by experts with the aim of defining a predicted
no-effect concentration (PNEC) and stated that SSWD method may be an asset for risk assessment
[2].
5
Table S1: Data for n-TiO2 ecotoxicity for the three environmental compartments: freshwater (S1.1, S1.2, S1.3), saltwater (S1.4) and terrestrial (S1.5), from peer
review literature collected until February 2015. From 36 articles 213 single ecotoxicological values were extracted: 175 values in 29 papers for freshwater, 19
values in 3 papers for saltwater, 19 values in 7 papers for terrestrial environment. The endpoint collected included No Observed Effect Concentration (NOEC),
Lowest Observed Effect Concentration (LOEC), Effect Concentration of x% of species (ECx), Lethal Dose of x% of species (LDx), Lethal Concentration of x% of
species (LCx), Inhibition Concentration of 25% species (IC25), Germination Index (GI), Microbial Toxic Concentration (MTC), Minimum Inhibitory Concentration
(MIC), Threshold Effects Concentration (TEC), and Highest Observed No-Effect Concentration (HONEC) as defined by [41]. We processed the data in order to
obtain the input data required to build the SSD and the n-SSWD curves by using two assessment factors: one used to account the difference between acute and
chronic toxicity (AFtime) and another (AFno-effect) to extrapolate from various n-TiO2 effect’s endpoint (e.g. ECx) the No Observed Effect Concentration (NOEC). For
freshwater compartment we divided the ecotoxicological data in three tables: Table S1.1, Table S1.2 and Table S1.3 for primary producers, primary consumers,
secondary consumers, respectively.
ID
Reference
FW_PP_1
FW_PP_2
FW_PP_3
FW_PP_4
FW_PP_5
FW_PP_6
FW_PP_7
FW_PP_8
FW_PP_9
FW_PP_10
FW_PP_11
FW_PP_12
FW_PP_13
Wang et al. [5]
Ji et al. [6]
Ji et al. [6]
Ji et al. [6]
Sadiq et al. [7]
Sadiq et al. [7]
Hund-Rinke et al. [8]
Aruoja et al. [9]
Aruoja et al. [9]
Aruoja et al. [9]
Blaise et al. [10]
Hall et al. [11]
Hartmann et al. [12]
FW_PP_14
Hartmann et al. [12]
FW_PP_15
Hartmann et al. [12]
FW_PP_16
Hartmann et al. [12]
FW_PP_17
Hartmann et al. [12]
FW_PP_18
Hartmann et al. [12]
TiO2 crystal phase
NA
anatase
anatase
anatase
anatase
anatase
mainly anatase
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
67.2% anatase;
32.8% amorphous
67.2% anatase;
32.8% amorphous
67.2% anatase;
32.8% amorphous
72.6% anatase;
18.4% rutile; 9%
amorphous
72.6% anatase;
18.4% rutile; 9%
amorphous
72.6% anatase;
18.4% rutile; 9%
amorphous
TiO2 size
(nm)
21
5-10
5-10
5-10
<25
<25
25
25-70
25-70
25-70
<100
10
<10
Table S1.1 - Freshwater – Primary producers
Toxicological
Taxonomic
Test organism
endpoint
group
EC50
Algae
Chlamydomonas reinhardtii
NOEC
Algae
Chlorella sp.
EC30
Algae
Chlorella sp.
EC50
Algae
Chlorella sp.
EC50
Algae
Chlorella sp.
NOEC
Algae
Chlorella sp.
EC50
Algae
Desmodesmus subspicatus
EC50
Algae
Pseudokirchneriella subcapitata
EC20
Algae
Pseudokirchneriella subcapitata
NOEC
Algae
Pseudokirchneriella subcapitata
IC25
Algae
Pseudokirchneriella subcapitata
IC25
Algae
Pseudokirchneriella subcapitata
EC10
Algae
Pseudokirchneriella subcapitata
Concentration
10
16
30
120
16.12
0.89
44
5.83
1.81
0.984
100
1.5
3.3
Exposure
time (h)
72
144
144
144
72
72
72
72
72
72
72
96
72
AF
time
10
1
1
10
10
1
10
10
1
1
1
1
1
AF noeffect
10
1
1
10
10
1
10
10
2
1
1
1
2
Calculated
NOEC (mg/L)
0.1
16
30
1.2
0.1612
0.89
0.44
0.0583
0.905
0.984
100
1.5
1.65
(mg/L)
<10
EC20
Algae
Pseudokirchneriella subcapitata
14.5
72
1
2
7.25
<10
EC50
Algae
Pseudokirchneriella subcapitata
241
72
10
10
2.41
~30
EC10
Algae
Pseudokirchneriella subcapitata
15.5
72
1
2
7.75
~30
EC20
Algae
Pseudokirchneriella subcapitata
26.2
72
1
2
13.1
~30
EC50
Algae
Pseudokirchneriella subcapitata
71.1
72
10
10
0.711
6
ID
Reference
FW_PP_19
FW_PP_20
FW_PP_21
FW_PP_22
Hartmann et al. [12]
Hartmann et al. [12]
Hartmann et al. [12]
Metzler et al. [13]
FW_PP_23
Metzler et al. [13]
FW_PP_24
Metzler et al. [13]
FW_PP_25
Metzler et al. [13]
FW_PP_26
Metzler et al. [13]
FW_PP_27
FW_PP_28
FW_PP_29
FW_PP_30
FW_PP_31
Sadiq et al. [7]
Sadiq et al. [7]
Velzeboer et al. [14]
Warheit et al. [15]
Warheit et al. [15]
FW_PP_32
FW_PP_33
Warheit et al. [15]
Warheit et al. [15]
FW_PP_34
FW_PP_35
FW_PP_36
FW_PP_37
FW_PP_38
FW_PP_39
FW_PP_40
Li et al. [16]
Li et al. [16]
Cherchi et al. [17]
Cherchi et al. [17]
Cherchi et al. [17]
Cherchi et al. [17]
Cherchi et al. [17]
TiO2 crystal phase
anatase
anatase
anatase
80-90% anatase;
10-20% rutile
80-90% anatase;
10-20% rutile
80-90% anatase;
10-20% rutile
80-90% anatase;
10-20% rutile
80-90% anatase;
10-20% rutile
anatase
anatase
NA
rutile
79% rutile; 21%
anatase
rutile
79% rutile; 21%
anatase
anatase
anatase
anatase
anatase
anatase
anatase
anatase
TiO2 size
(nm)
~300
~300
~300
35,1
Table S1.1 - Freshwater – Primary producers
Toxicological
Taxonomic
Test organism
endpoint
group
EC10
Algae
Pseudokirchneriella subcapitata
EC20
Algae
Pseudokirchneriella subcapitata
EC50
Algae
Pseudokirchneriella subcapitata
EC50
Algae
Pseudokirchneriella subcapitata
Concentration
18
36.9
145
50.1
Exposure
time (h)
72
72
72
96
AF
time
1
1
10
10
AF noeffect
2
2
10
10
Calculated
NOEC (mg/L)
9
18.45
1.45
0.501
(mg/L)
35,1
EC50
Algae
Pseudokirchneriella subcapitata
316.2
96
10
10
3.162
35,1
EC50
Algae
Pseudokirchneriella subcapitata
159
96
10
10
1.59
35,1
EC50
Algae
Pseudokirchneriella subcapitata
31.6
96
10
10
0.316
35,1
EC50
Algae
Pseudokirchneriella subcapitata
31.6
96
10
10
0.316
<25
<25
50-150
~380
~140±44
EC50
NOEC
EC50
LC50
LC50
Algae
Algae
Algae
Algae
Algae
Scenedesmus sp.
Scenedesmus sp.
Pseudokirchneriella subcapitata
Pseudokirchneriella subcapitata
Pseudokirchneriella subcapitata
21.2
1.2
100
16
21
72
72
4.5
72
72
10
1
10
10
10
10
1
10
10
10
0.212
1.2
1
0.16
0.21
~380
~140±44
LC50
LC50
Algae
Algae
Pseudokirchneriella subcapitata
Pseudokirchneriella subcapitata
61
87
72
72
10
10
10
10
0.61
0.87
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
EC50
EC50
EC50
EC50
EC50
EC50
EC50
Algae
Algae
Bacteria
Bacteria
Bacteria
Bacteria
Bacteria
Karenia brevis
Skeletonema costatum
Anabaena variabilis
Anabaena variabilis
Anabaena variabilis
Anabaena variabilis
Anabaena variabilis
10.69
7.37
13.98
0.62
0.15
1.16
0.4
72
72
24
96
144
24
96
10
10
1
1
1
1
1
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
0.1069
0.0737
1.398
0.062
0.015
0.116
0.04
TiO2
size
(nm)
30-40
<100
<100
5-10
25-70
25-70
25-70
50-150
Toxicological
endpoint
Taxonomic
group
Test organism
Concentration
(mg/L)
Exposure
time (h)
AF
time
AF noeffect
Calculated
NOEC (mg/L)
LD50
MTC50%
IC25
EC50
EC50
NOEC
MIC
EC50
Bacteria
Bacteria
Bacteria
Bacteria
Bacteria
Bacteria
Bacteria
Bacteria
Escherichia coli
11 microbial species
Vibrio fischeri
Vibrio fischeri
Vibrio fischeri
Vibrio fischeri
Vibrio fischeri
Vibrio fischeri
1104.8
100
100
1.12
20000
20000
20000
100
2
18
0.25
0.25
0.5
0.5
72
0.25
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
1
10
10
1
2
10
11.048
1
10
0.0112
200
2000
1000
1
Table S1.2 - Freshwater – primary consumers
ID
FW_PC_1
FW_PC_2
FW_PC_3
FW_PC_4
FW_PC_5
FW_PC_6
FW_PC_7
FW_PC_8
Reference
Hu et al. [18]
Blaise et al. [10]
Blaise et al. [10]
García et al. [19]
Heinlaan et al. [20]
Heinlaan et al. [20]
Heinlaan et al. [20]
Velzeboer et al. [14]
TiO2 crystal phase
anatase
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
7
Table S1.2 - Freshwater – primary consumers
ID
Reference
FW_PC_9
Griffitt et al. [21]
FW_PC_10
FW_PC_11
FW_PC_12
FW_PC_13
FW_PC_14
Hall et al. [11]
Hall et al. [11]
Li et al. [22]
Li et al. [22]
Li et al. [23]
FW_PC_15
FW_PC_16
FW_PC_17
FW_PC_18
FW_PC_19
FW_PC_20
FW_PC_21
FW_PC_24
Wang et al. [24]
Velzeboer et al. [14]
Dabrunz et al. [25]
Dabrunz et al. [25]
García et al. [19]
Heinlaan et al. [20]
Lovern and Kapler
[26]
Lovern and Kapler
[26]
Lovern and Kapler
[26]
Ma et al. [27]
FW_PC_25
Ma et al. [27]
FW_PC_26
FW_PC_27
Warheit et al. [15]
Warheit et al. [15]
FW_PC_28
Wiench et al. [28]
FW_PC_29
Wiench et al. [28]
FW_PC_30
Wiench et al. [28]
FW_PC_31
Wiench et al. [28]
FW_PC_32
Wiench et al. [28]
FW_PC_33
Wiench et al. [28]
FW_PC_34
Wiench et al. [28]
FW_PC_35
Wiench et al. [28]
FW_PC_22
FW_PC_23
TiO2 crystal phase
TiO2
size
(nm)
20.5±6.9
Toxicological
endpoint
Taxonomic
group
Test organism
(mg/L)
Exposure
time (h)
AF
time
AF noeffect
Calculated
NOEC (mg/L)
LC50
Invertebrates
Ceriodaphnia dubia
10
48
10
10
0.1
10
10
21
21
34
LC50
IC25
LC50
LC50
EC50
Invertebrates
Invertebrates
Invertebrates
Invertebrates
Invertebrates
Ceriodaphnia dubia
Ceriodaphnia dubia
Daphnia magna
Oryzias latipes
Ceriodaphnia dubia
7.6
8.5
60
8.5
42
48
168
48
48
48
10
1
10
10
10
10
1
10
10
10
0.076
8.5
0.6
0.085
0.42
5-10
50-150
6
6
5-10
25-70
30
HONEC
LC50
EC50
EC50
LC50
LC50
LC50
Invertebrates
Invertebrates
Invertebrates
Invertebrates
Invertebrates
Invertebrates
Invertebrates
Ceriodaphnia dubia
Chydorus sphaericus
Daphnia magna
Daphnia magna
Daphnia magna
Daphnia magna
Daphnia magna
400
100
3.8
0.24
0.016
20000
5.5
24
48
72
96
48
48
48
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
4
1
0.038
0.0024
0.00016
200
0.055
NA
30
LOEC
Invertebrates
Daphnia magna
2
48
10
1
0.2
NA
30
NOEC
Invertebrates
Daphnia magna
1
48
10
1
0.1
86% anatase;
14% rutile
86% anatase;
14% rutile
rutile
79% rutile; 21%
anatase
70 % anatase;
30 % rutile
70 % anatase;
30 % rutile
70 % anatase;
30 % rutile
70 % anatase;
30 % rutile
70 % anatase;
30 % rutile
70 % anatase;
30 % rutile
70 % anatase;
30 % rutile
70 % anatase;
25.1±8.2
HONEC
Invertebrates
Daphnia magna
100
48
10
10
1
25.1±8.2
LC50
Invertebrates
Daphnia magna
29.8
48
10
10
0.298
~380
~140±44
LC50
LC50
Invertebrates
Invertebrates
Daphnia magna
Daphnia magna
100
100
48
48
10
10
10
10
1
1
20-30
EC50
Invertebrates
Daphnia magna
100
48
10
10
1
20-30
EC50
Invertebrates
Daphnia magna
100
48
10
10
1
20-30
EC50
Invertebrates
Daphnia magna
100
48
10
10
1
20-30
EC50
Invertebrates
Daphnia magna
100
48
10
10
1
20-30
EC50
Invertebrates
Daphnia magna
100
48
10
10
1
20-30
EC50
Invertebrates
Daphnia magna
100
48
10
10
1
20-30
EC10
Invertebrates
Daphnia magna
100
48
10
2
5
20-30
EC10
Invertebrates
Daphnia magna
100
48
10
2
5
20% rutile 80%
anatase
NA
NA
NA
NA
70% anatase;
30% rutile
99% anatase
NA
anatase
anatase
NA
NA
NA
8
Concentration
Table S1.2 - Freshwater – primary consumers
ID
Reference
FW_PC_36
Wiench et al. [28]
FW_PC_37
Wiench et al. [28]
FW_PC_38
Wiench et al. [28]
FW_PC_39
Wiench et al. [28]
FW_PC_40
Wiench et al. [28]
FW_PC_41
Wiench et al. [28]
FW_PC_42
Wiench et al. [28]
FW_PC_43
Wiench et al. [28]
FW_PC_44
Wiench et al. [28]
FW_PC_45
Wiench et al. [28]
FW_PC_46
Wiench et al. [28]
FW_PC_47
Wiench et al. [28]
FW_PC_48
Wiench et al. [28]
FW_PC_49
Wiench et al. [28]
FW_PC_50
Wiench et al. [28]
FW_PC_51
Wiench et al. [28]
FW_PC_52
Wiench et al. [28]
FW_PC_53
Wiench et al. [28]
FW_PC_54
Wiench et al. [28]
FW_PC_55
Wiench et al. [28]
FW_PC_56
Wiench et al. [28]
TiO2 crystal phase
30 % rutile
70 % anatase;
30 % rutile
70 % anatase;
30 % rutile
70 % anatase;
30 % rutile
70 % anatase;
30 % rutile
70 % anatase;
30 % rutile
70 % anatase;
30 % rutile
70 % anatase;
30 % rutile
70 % anatase;
30 % rutile
70 % anatase;
30 % rutile
70 % anatase;
30 % rutile
70 % anatase;
30 % rutile
70 % anatase;
30 % rutile
70 % anatase;
30 % rutile
70 % anatase;
30 % rutile
70 % anatase;
30 % rutile
70 % anatase;
30 % rutile
70 % anatase;
30 % rutile
70 % anatase;
30 % rutile
70 % anatase;
30 % rutile
70 % anatase;
30 % rutile
70 % anatase;
30 % rutile
TiO2
size
(nm)
Toxicological
endpoint
Taxonomic
group
Test organism
20-30
EC10
Invertebrates
20-30
EC10
20-30
(mg/L)
Exposure
time (h)
AF
time
AF noeffect
Calculated
NOEC (mg/L)
Daphnia magna
100
48
10
2
5
Invertebrates
Daphnia magna
91.2
48
10
2
4.56
EC10
Invertebrates
Daphnia magna
100
48
10
2
5
20-30
EC50
Invertebrates
Daphnia magna
100
48
10
10
1
20-30
EC10
Invertebrates
Daphnia magna
3.7
48
10
2
0.185
20-30
EC50
Invertebrates
Daphnia magna
100
48
10
10
1
20-30
EC10
Invertebrates
Daphnia magna
100
48
10
2
5
20-30
EC50
Invertebrates
Daphnia magna
100
48
10
10
1
20-30
EC10
Invertebrates
Daphnia magna
100
48
10
2
5
20-30
EC50
Invertebrates
Daphnia magna
100
48
10
10
1
20-30
EC10
Invertebrates
Daphnia magna
100
48
10
2
5
20-30
EC50
Invertebrates
Daphnia magna
100
48
10
10
1
20-30
EC10
Invertebrates
Daphnia magna
100
48
10
2
5
20-30
EC50
Invertebrates
Daphnia magna
100
48
10
10
1
20-30
EC10
Invertebrates
Daphnia magna
100
48
10
2
5
20-30
EC50
Invertebrates
Daphnia magna
100
48
10
10
1
20-30
EC10
Invertebrates
Daphnia magna
100
48
10
2
5
20-30
EC50
Invertebrates
Daphnia magna
100
48
10
10
1
20-30
EC10
Invertebrates
Daphnia magna
100
48
10
2
5
20-30
EC50
Invertebrates
Daphnia magna
100
48
10
10
1
20-30
EC10
Invertebrates
Daphnia magna
100
48
10
2
5
9
Concentration
Table S1.2 - Freshwater – primary consumers
ID
Reference
FW_PC_57
Wiench et al. [28]
FW_PC_58
Wiench et al. [28]
FW_PC_59
Wiench et al. [28]
FW_PC_60
Wiench et al. [28]
FW_PC_61
Wiench et al. [28]
FW_PC_62
Wiench et al. [28]
FW_PC_63
Wiench et al. [28]
FW_PC_64
Wiench et al. [28]
FW_PC_65
Wiench et al. [28]
FW_PC_66
Wiench et al. [28]
FW_PC_67
Wiench et al. [28]
FW_PC_68
Wiench et al. [28]
FW_PC_69
Wiench et al. [28]
FW_PC_70
Wiench et al. [28]
FW_PC_71
Wiench et al. [28]
FW_PC_72
Wiench et al. [28]
FW_PC_73
Wiench et al. [28]
FW_PC_74
Wiench et al. [28]
FW_PC_75
Wiench et al. [28]
FW_PC_76
Wiench et al. [28]
FW_PC_77
Wiench et al. [28]
FW_PC_78
Wiench et al. [28]
TiO2 crystal phase
70 % anatase;
30 % rutile
70 % anatase;
30 % rutile
70 % anatase;
30 % rutile
70 % anatase;
30 % rutile
70 % anatase;
30 % rutile
70 % anatase;
30 % rutile
70 % anatase;
30 % rutile
70 % anatase;
30 % rutile
70 % anatase;
30 % rutile
70 % anatase;
30 % rutile
70 % anatase;
30 % rutile
70 % anatase;
30 % rutile
70 % anatase;
30 % rutile
70 % anatase;
30 % rutile
70 % anatase;
30 % rutile
70 % anatase;
30 % rutile
70 % anatase;
30 % rutile
70 % anatase;
30 % rutile
70 % anatase;
30 % rutile
70 % anatase;
30 % rutile
70 % anatase;
30 % rutile
70 % anatase;
TiO2
size
(nm)
20-30
Toxicological
endpoint
Taxonomic
group
Test organism
EC50
Invertebrates
20-30
EC10
20-30
(mg/L)
Exposure
time (h)
AF
time
AF noeffect
Calculated
NOEC (mg/L)
Daphnia magna
100
48
10
10
1
Invertebrates
Daphnia magna
100
48
10
2
5
EC50
Invertebrates
Daphnia magna
100
48
10
10
1
20-30
EC10
Invertebrates
Daphnia magna
100
48
10
2
5
20-30
EC50
Invertebrates
Daphnia magna
100
48
10
10
1
20-30
EC10
Invertebrates
Daphnia magna
100
48
10
2
5
20-30
EC50
Invertebrates
Daphnia magna
100
48
10
10
1
20-30
EC10
Invertebrates
Daphnia magna
100
48
10
2
5
20-30
EC50
Invertebrates
Daphnia magna
100
48
10
10
1
20-30
EC10
Invertebrates
Daphnia magna
100
48
10
2
5
20-30
EC50
Invertebrates
Daphnia magna
100
48
10
10
1
20-30
EC10
Invertebrates
Daphnia magna
100
48
10
2
5
20-30
EC50
Invertebrates
Daphnia magna
100
48
10
10
1
20-30
EC10
Invertebrates
Daphnia magna
100
48
10
2
5
20-30
EC50
Invertebrates
Daphnia magna
100
48
10
10
1
20-30
EC10
Invertebrates
Daphnia magna
76.4
48
10
2
3.82
20-30
NOEC
Invertebrates
Daphnia magna
3
480
1
1
3
20-30
LOEC
Invertebrates
Daphnia magna
10
480
1
1
10
20-30
EC50
Invertebrates
Daphnia magna
26.6
480
1
10
2.66
20-30
EC10
Invertebrates
Daphnia magna
5.02
480
1
2
2.51
20-30
NOEC
Invertebrates
Daphnia magna
30
480
1
1
30
20-30
LOEC
Invertebrates
Daphnia magna
100
480
1
1
100
10
Concentration
Table S1.2 - Freshwater – primary consumers
ID
Reference
FW_PC_79
Wiench et al. [28]
FW_PC_80
Wiench et al. [28]
FW_PC_81
Zhu et al. [29]
FW_PC_82
Zhu et al. [29]
FW_PC_83
Zhu et al. [29]
FW_PC_84
Zhu et al. [29]
FW_PC_85
Zhu et al. [29]
FW_PC_86
Zhu et al. [29]
FW_PC_87
Zhu et al. [29]
FW_PC_88
Zhu et al. [29]
FW_PC_89
Griffitt et al. [21]
FW_PC_90
FW_PC_91
Hall et al. [11]
Bundschuh et al. [30]
FW_PC_92
Ma et al. [27]
FW_PC_93
Ma et al. [27]
FW_PC_94
FW_PC_95
FW_PC_96
FW_PC_97
FW_PC_98
FW_PC_99
FW_PC_100
FW_PC_101
Blaise et al. [10]
Heinlaan et al. [20]
Heinlaan et al. [20]
Clemente et al. [31]
Clemente et al. [31]
Clemente et al. [31]
Clemente et al. [31]
Clemente et al. [31]
FW_PC_102
Clemente et al. [31]
FW_PC_103
Clemente et al. [31]
TiO2 crystal phase
30 % rutile
70 % anatase;
30 % rutile
70 % anatase;
30 % rutile
20% rutile;
80% anatase
20% rutile;
80% anatase
20% rutile;
80% anatase
20% rutile;
80% anatase
20% rutile;
80% anatase
20% rutile;
80% anatase
20% rutile;
80% anatase
20% rutile;
80% anatase
20% rutile;
80% anatase
NA
80% anatase;
20% rutile
86% anatase;
14% rutile
86% anatase;
14% rutile
NA
NA
NA
anatase
anatase
anatase
anatase
80% anatase, 20%
rutile
80% anatase, 20%
rutile
80% anatase, 20%
rutile
TiO2
size
(nm)
Toxicological
endpoint
Taxonomic
group
Test organism
20-30
EC50
Invertebrates
20-30
EC10
21
(mg/L)
Exposure
time (h)
AF
time
AF noeffect
Calculated
NOEC (mg/L)
Daphnia magna
66.1
480
1
10
6.61
Invertebrates
Daphnia magna
31.5
480
1
2
15.75
NOEC
Invertebrates
Daphnia magna
50
48
10
1
5
21
EC50
Invertebrates
Daphnia magna
100
48
10
10
1
21
LC50
Invertebrates
Daphnia magna
100
48
10
10
1
21
NOEC
Invertebrates
Daphnia magna
0.1
72
10
1
0.01
21
EC50
Invertebrates
Daphnia magna
1.62
72
10
10
0.0162
21
LC50
Invertebrates
Daphnia magna
2.02
72
10
10
0.0202
21
EC50
Invertebrates
Daphnia magna
0.46
21
10
10
0.0046
21
LC50
Invertebrates
Daphnia magna
2.62
21
10
10
0.0262
20.5±6.9
LC50
Invertebrates
Daphnia pulex
10
48
10
10
0.1
10
97,16
LC50
EC50
Invertebrates
Invertebrates
Daphnia pulex
Gammarus fossarum
9.2
0.2
48
168
10
10
10
10
0.092
0.002
25.1±8.2
LC50
Invertebrates
Oryzias latipes
155
96
10
10
1.55
25.1±8.2
LC50
Invertebrates
Oryzias latipes
2.19
96
10
10
0.0219
<100
25-70
25-70
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
LC50
LC50
NOEC
HONEC
HONEC
HONEC
EC50
HONEC
Invertebrates
Invertebrates
Invertebrates
Invertebrates
Invertebrates
Invertebrates
Invertebrates
Invertebrates
Thamnocephalus platyurus
Thamnocephalus platyurus
Thamnocephalus platyurus
Daphnia similis
Daphnia similis
Daphnia similis
Daphnia similis
Daphnia similis
100
20000
20000
1000
1000
1000
750.55
1000
24
24
24
24
24
48
48
24
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
1
10
10
10
10
10
1
200
2000
10
10
10
7.5055
10
<25
HONEC
Invertebrates
Daphnia similis
1000
24
10
10
10
<25
HONEC
Invertebrates
Daphnia similis
1000
48
10
10
10
11
Concentration
Table S1.2 - Freshwater – primary consumers
ID
Reference
TiO2 crystal phase
FW_PC_104
Clemente et al. [31]
80% anatase, 20%
rutile
ID
Reference
FW_SC_1
FW_SC_2
Blaise et al. [10]
Griffitt et al. [21]
FW_SC_3
Griffitt et al. [21]
FW_SC_4
FW_SC_5
FW_SC_6
FW_SC_7
Xiong et al. [32]
Blaise et al. [10]
Warheit et al. [15]
Warheit et al. [15]
FW_SC_8
FW_SC_9
FW_SC_10
FW_SC_11
FW_SC_12
FW_SC_13
FW_SC_14
FW_SC_15
FW_SC_16
FW_SC_17
FW_SC_18
FW_SC_19
FW_SC_20
FW_SC_21
FW_SC_22
FW_SC_23
FW_SC_24
FW_SC_25
FW_SC_26
FW_SC_27
FW_SC_28
FW_SC_29
FW_SC_30
FW_SC_31
Hall et al. [11]
Hall et al. [11]
Zhang et al. [33]
Zhang et al. [33]
Zhang et al. [33]
Zhang et al. [33]
Zhang et al. [33]
Zhang et al. [33]
Zhang et al. [33]
Zhang et al. [33]
Zhang et al. [33]
Zhang et al. [33]
Zhang et al. [33]
Zhang et al. [33]
Zhang et al. [33]
Zhang et al. [33]
Zhang et al. [33]
Zhang et al. [33]
Zhang et al. [33]
Zhang et al. [33]
Zhang et al. [33]
Zhang et al. [33]
Zhang et al. [33]
Zhang et al. [33]
TiO2 crystal
phase
NA
20% rutile;
80% anatase
20% rutile;
80% anatase
anatase
NA
rutile
79% rutile;
21% anatase
NA
NA
anatase
anatase
anatase
anatase
anatase
anatase
anatase
anatase
anatase
anatase
anatase
anatase
anatase
anatase
anatase
anatase
anatase
anatase
anatase
anatase
anatase
anatase
TiO2
size
(nm)
<25
TiO2 size
(nm)
<100
20,5±6,7
Toxicological
endpoint
Taxonomic
group
Test organism
EC50
Invertebrates
Daphnia similis
Table S1.3 - Freshwater – secondary consumers
Toxicological
Taxonomic
Test organism
endpoint
group
EC50
Invertebrates
Hydra attenuata
LC50
Vertebrates
Danio rerio
Concentration
(mg/L)
Exposure
time (h)
AF
time
AF noeffect
Calculated
NOEC (mg/L)
60.16
48
10
10
0.6016
Concentration
(mg/L)
55
10
Exposure
time ( h)
96
48
AF
time
10
10
AF noeffect
10
10
Calculated
NOEC (mg/L)
0.55
0.1
20,5±6,7
LC50
Vertebrates
Danio rerio
10
48
10
10
0.1
20-70
<100
~380
~140±44
LC50
TEC
LC50
LC50
Vertebrates
Vertebrates
Vertebrates
Vertebrates
Danio rerio
Onchorynchus mykiss
Onchorynchus mykiss
Onchorynchus mykiss
124.5
5.5
100
100
96
48
96
96
10
10
10
10
10
1
10
10
1.245
0.55
1
1
10
10
5
5
5
5
5
10
10
10
10
32
32
32
32
32
5
5
5
5
5
10
10
10
LC50
IC25
NOEC
LC50
NOEC
NOEC
NOEC
NOEC
NOEC
NOEC
NOEC
NOEC
LC50
NOEC
NOEC
NOEC
NOEC
LC50
NOEC
NOEC
NOEC
NOEC
LC50
NOEC
Vertebrates
Vertebrates
Vertebrates
Vertebrates
Vertebrates
Vertebrates
Vertebrates
Vertebrates
Vertebrates
Vertebrates
Vertebrates
Vertebrates
Vertebrates
Vertebrates
Vertebrates
Vertebrates
Vertebrates
Vertebrates
Vertebrates
Vertebrates
Vertebrates
Vertebrates
Vertebrates
Vertebrates
Pimephales promelas
Pimephales promelas
Xenopus laevis
Xenopus laevis
Xenopus laevis
Xenopus laevis
Xenopus laevis
Xenopus laevis
Xenopus laevis
Xenopus laevis
Xenopus laevis
Xenopus laevis
Xenopus laevis
Xenopus laevis
Xenopus laevis
Xenopus laevis
Xenopus laevis
Xenopus laevis
Xenopus laevis
Xenopus laevis
Xenopus laevis
Xenopus laevis
Xenopus laevis
Xenopus laevis
500
452
90.2
210.2
30.9
30.9
77.7
281.8
30.9
9.5
77.7
77.7
295.1
77.7
0.01
77.7
9.5
57.9
9.5
77.7
281.8
30.9
69.6
30.9
96
168
336
336
336
336
336
336
336
336
336
336
336
336
336
336
336
336
336
336
336
336
336
336
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
1
1
10
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
10
1
1
1
1
10
1
1
1
1
10
1
5
45.2
9.02
2.102
3.09
3.09
7.77
28.18
3.09
0.95
7.77
7.77
2.951
7.77
0.001
7.77
0.95
0.579
0.95
7.77
28.18
3.09
0.696
3.09
12
ID
Reference
FW_SC_32
FW_SC_33
FW_SC_34
FW_SC_35
FW_SC_36
FW_SC_37
FW_SC_38
Zhang et al. [33]
Zhang et al. [33]
Zhang et al. [33]
Zhang et al. [33]
Zhang et al. [33]
Zhang et al. [33]
Zhang et al. [33]
TiO2 crystal
phase
anatase
anatase
anatase
anatase
anatase
anatase
anatase
TiO2 size
(nm)
10
10
32
32
32
32
32
Table S1.3 - Freshwater – secondary consumers
Toxicological
Taxonomic
Test organism
endpoint
group
NOEC
Vertebrates
Xenopus laevis
NOEC
Vertebrates
Xenopus laevis
NOEC
Vertebrates
Xenopus laevis
LC50
Vertebrates
Xenopus laevis
NOEC
Vertebrates
Xenopus laevis
NOEC
Vertebrates
Xenopus laevis
NOEC
Vertebrates
Xenopus laevis
Concentration
(mg/L)
9.5
281.8
77.7
267.6
77.7
30.9
77.7
Exposure
time ( h)
336
336
336
336
336
336
336
AF
time
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
AF noeffect
1
1
1
10
1
1
1
Calculated
NOEC (mg/L)
0.95
28.18
7.77
2.676
7.77
3.09
7.77
Exposure
time (h)
96
AF time
10
AF noeffect
1
Calculated
NOEC (mg/L)
0.3
Table 1.4 - Saltwater
ID
Reference
TiO2 size
(nm)
15-30
Toxic ological
endpoint
NOEC
15-30
HONEC
15-30
NOEC
15-30
NOEC
15-30
HONEC
15-30
HONEC
15-30
NOEC
15-30
HONEC
Zhu et al. [35]
TiO2 crystal
phase
81% anatase;
19% rutile
81% anatase;
19% rutile
81% anatase;
19% rutile
81% anatase;
19% rutile
81% anatase;
19% rutile
81% anatase;
19% rutile
81% anatase;
19% rutile
81% anatase;
19% rutile
anatase
SW_1
Miller et al. [34]
SW_2
Miller et al. [34]
SW_3
Miller et al. [34]
SW_4
Miller et al. [34]
SW_5
Miller et al. [34]
SW_6
Miller et al. [34]
SW_7
Miller et al. [34]
SW_8
Miller et al. [34]
SW_9
≤10
EC50
SW_10
Zhu et al. [35]
anatase
≤10
EC50
SW_11
Zhu et al. [35]
anatase
≤10
NOEC
SW_12
Clemente et al.
[31]
Clemente et al.
[31]
Clemente et al.
[31]
Clemente et al.
[31]
anatase
25
EC50
anatase
25
EC50
anatase
25
EC50
anatase
25
EC50
SW_13
SW_14
SW_15
Trophic
level
Primary
producers
Primary
producers
Primary
producers
Primary
producers
Primary
producers
Primary
producers
Primary
producers
Primary
producers
Primary
consumers
Primary
consumers
Primary
consumers
Primary
consumers
Primary
consumers
Primary
consumers
Primary
consumers
Taxonomic
group
Algae
Dunaliella tertiolecta
Concentration
(mg/L)
3
Algae
Dunaliella tertiolecta
7
96
10
10
0.07
Algae
Isochrysis galbana
1
96
10
1
0.1
Algae
Isochrysis galbana
7
96
10
1
0.7
Algae
Skeletonema costatum
7
96
10
10
0.07
Algae
Skeletonema costatum
7
96
10
10
0.07
Algae
Thalassiosira pseudonana
3
96
10
1
0.3
Algae
Thalassiosira pseudonana
7
96
10
10
0.07
Invertebrates
56.9

10
10
0.569
345.8
8
10
10
3.458
2
13
10
1
0.2
Invertebrates
Haliotis diversicolor
supertexta
Haliotis diversicolor
supertexta
Haliotis diversicolor
supertexta
Artemia salina
949.07
24
10
10
9.4907
Invertebrates
Artemia salina
14.4
24
10
10
0.144
Invertebrates
Artemia salina
480.67
48
10
10
4.8067
Invertebrates
Artemia salina
4.05
48
10
10
0.0405
Invertebrates
Invertebrates
13
Test organism
Table 1.4 - Saltwater
ID
Reference
SW_16
Clemente et al.
[31]
Clemente et al.
[31]
Clemente et al.
[31]
Clemente et al.
[31]
SW_17
SW_18
SW_19
TiO2 crystal
phase
80% anatase;
20% rutile
80% anatase;
20% rutile
80% anatase;
20% rutile
80% anatase;
20% rutile
TiO2 size
(nm)
25
Toxic ological
endpoint
EC50
25
EC50
25
EC50
25
EC50
Trophic
level
Primary
consumers
Primary
consumers
Primary
consumers
Primary
consumers
Taxonomic
group
Invertebrates
Exposure
time (h)
24
AF time
Artemia salina
Concentration
(mg/L)
945.75
Invertebrates
Artemia salina
16.68
Invertebrates
Artemia salina
Invertebrates
Artemia salina
14
Test organism
10
AF noeffect
10
Calculated
NOEC (mg/L)
9.4575
24
10
10
0.1668
284.81
48
10
10
2.8481
4.03
48
10
10
0.0403
ID
Reference
TR_1
Garcìa et al.
[19]
TR_2
Velzeboer et al.
[14]
Kasemets et al.
[36]
Kasemets et al.
[36]
Wang et al. [37]
TR_3
TR_4
TR_5
TR_6
TR_7
TR_8
TR_9
TR_10
TR_11
TR_12
TR_13
TR_14
TR_15
TR_16
TR_17
TR_18
TR_19
Heckmann et
al. [38]
Drobne et al.
[39]
Drobne et al.
[39]
Drobne et al.
[39]
Drobne et al.
[39]
Drobne et al.
[39]
Drobne et al.
[39]
Drobne et al.
[39]
Drobne et al.
[39]
Drobne et al.
[39]
Drobne et al.
[39]
Drobne et al.
[39]
Drobne et al.
[39]
Jemec et al.
[40]
TiO2 crystal
phase
NA
TiO2 size
(nm)
5-10
Toxicological
endpoint
GI
Trophic
level
Primary
producers
NA
50-150
EC50
NA
25-70
EC50
NA
25-70
EC50
anatase
~50
LC50
73% anatase;
27% rutile
anatase
24,1
EC50
<25
HONEC
anatase
10
HONEC
anatase
10-12
HONEC
anatase
<25
HONEC
anatase
10
HONEC
anatase
10-12
HONEC
anatase
<25
HONEC
anatase
10
HONEC
anatase
10-12
HONEC
anatase
<25
HONEC
anatase
10
HONEC
anatase
10-12
HONEC
anatase
15
HONEC
Primary
consumers
Primary
consumers
Primary
consumers
Secondary
consumers
Secondary
consumers
Secondary
consumers
Secondary
consumers
Secondary
consumers
Secondary
consumers
Secondary
consumers
Secondary
consumers
Secondary
consumers
Secondary
consumers
Secondary
consumers
Secondary
consumers
Secondary
consumers
Secondary
consumers
Secondary
consumers
Table S1.5 - Terrestrial
Taxonomic
Test organism
group
Plant
Lactuca sativa, Cucumis
sativus, Solanum
lycopersicum, Spinacia
oleracea
Bacteria
mix of soil bacteria
Concentration
(mg/kg)
1.12
Exposure
time ( h)
120
AF
time
10
AF noeffect
10
Calculated
NOEC (mg/kg)
0.0112
100
168
1
10
10
Fungi
Saccharomyces cerevisiae
20000
8
10
10
200
Fungi
Saccharomyces cerevisiae
20000
24
10
10
200
Invertebrates
Caenorhabditis elegans
79.9
24
10
10
0.799
Invertebrates
Eisenia fetida
1000
672
1
10
100
Invertebrates
Porcellio scaber
1000
336
1
10
100
Invertebrates
Porcellio scaber
1000
336
1
10
100
Invertebrates
Porcellio scaber
1000
336
1
10
100
Invertebrates
Porcellio scaber
1000
336
1
10
100
Invertebrates
Porcellio scaber
1000
336
1
10
100
Invertebrates
Porcellio scaber
1000
336
1
10
100
Invertebrates
Porcellio scaber
1000
336
1
10
100
Invertebrates
Porcellio scaber
1000
336
1
10
100
Invertebrates
Porcellio scaber
1000
336
1
10
100
Invertebrates
Porcellio scaber
1000
336
1
10
100
Invertebrates
Porcellio scaber
1000
336
1
10
100
Invertebrates
Porcellio scaber
1000
336
1
10
100
Invertebrates
Porcellio scaber
3000
72
10
10
30
15
Table S2: Saltwater’s (Table 2.1) and the terrestrial’s (Table 2.2) log-normal and log-empirical HC5 and
HC50 values for log-normal/log-empirical n-SSWDs and SSDs
Table S2.1
SSD
SALTWATER
Log-normal
Log-empirical
Table S2.2
TERRESTRIAL
Log-normal
Log-empirical
a HCx=Hazard
b n.r.=not
c
a
HCx (mg/L)
Best-Estimate
(C.I.c 50%)
5%
n-SSWD
50%
5%
n.r.b
0.13
0.02
0.37
n.r.
0.05
0.23
0.06
SSD
a
HCx (mg/Kg)
Best-Estimate
(C.I.c 50%)
5%
0.21
n-SSWD
50%
99.30
Concentration for x% of species
reliable
C.I. 50%=confident interval of 50%
16
50%
b
5%
n.r.b
0.01
50%
n.r.b
0.14
SSD - Log Empirical
100%
90%
Cumulative weighted probability
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
0.0001 0.001
0.01
0.1
1
10
100
1000 10000
Concentration
CONS. 1
CONS. 2
Best-Estimate
Centile 5%
Centile 95%
R² = 0,7031
KSpvalue = 0,000
n-SSWD - Log Normalwm.lg = -0,27
100%
90%
90%
80%
80%
Cumulative weighted probability
100%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
n-SSWD - Log Empirical
C
wsd.lg = 1,88
Cumulative weighted probability
B
PROD.
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
10%
0%
0.0001 0.001
0.01
0.1
1
10
100
0%
0.0001 0.001
1000 10000
0.01
Concentration
PROD.
Best-Estimate
CONS. 1
Centile 5%
0.1
1
10
100
1000 10000
Concentration
CONS. 2
PROD.
CONS. 1
CONS. 2
Centile 95%
Best-Estimate
Centile 5%
Centile 95%
Figure S1.1: Log-empirical (A) SSD curve and log-normal (B) and log-empirical (C) n-SSWD curve for the
terrestrial compartment. Wm.lg=mean value; wsd.lg=standard deviation value, R2=multiple R-square
coefficient; KSpvalue=Komogorov-Smirnov test value; CONS. 1= primary consumers, CONS. 2= secondary
consumers.
17
REFERENCES
[1] Posthuma L, Suter II GW, Traas TP. 2002. Species sensitivity distributions in ecotoxicology. Lewis
publishers, Boca Raton, Florida, USA.
[2] Duboudin C, Ciffroy P, Magaud H. 2004. Effects of data manipulation and statistical methods on
species sensitivity distributions. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 23(2):489-499.
[3] Forbes VE, Calow P. 2002. Species sensitivity distributions revisited: A critical appraisal. Human
and Ecological Risk Assessment 8(3):473-492.
[4] Efron B, Tibshirani RJ. 1993. An introduction to the bootstrap. Chapman & Hall, New York, NY.
USA.
[5] Wang J, Zhang X, Chen Y, Sommerfeld M, Hu Q. 2008. Toxicity assessment of manufactured
nanomaterials using the unicellular green Chlamydomonas reinhardtii. Chemosphere 73:1121–
1128.
[6] Ji J, Longa Z, Lin D. 2010. Toxicity of oxide nanoparticles to the green algae Chlorella sp.
Chemical Engineering Journal 170:525–530.
[7] Sadiq IM, Dalai S, Chandrasekaran N, Mukherjee A. 2011. Ecotoxicity study of titania (TiO2) NPs
on two microalgae species: Scenedesmus sp. and Chlorella sp. Ecotoxicological Environmental
Safety 74:1180–1187.
[8] Hund-Rinke K, Simon M. 2006. Ecotoxic Effect of Photocatalytic Active Nanoparticles (TiO2) on
Algae and Daphnids. Environmental Science and Pollution Research 13:225 – 232.
[9] Aruoja V, Dubourguier HC, Kasemetsa K, Kahrua A. 2009. Toxicity of nanoparticles of CuO, ZnO
and TiO2 to microalgae Pseudokirchneriella subcapitata. Science of the Total Environment
407:1461–1468.
[10] Blaise C, Gagné F, JF Férard, Eullaffroy P. 2008. Ecotoxicity of selected nano-materials to
aquatic organisms. Environmental Toxicology 23:591–598.
18
[11] Hall S, Bradley T, Moore JT, Kuykindall T, Minella L. 2009. Acute and chronic toxicity of nanoscale TiO2 particles to freshwater fish, cladocerans, and green algae, and effects of organic and
inorganic substrate on TiO2 toxicity. Nanotoxicology 3:91-97.
[12] Hartmann NB, Von der Kammer F, Baaloushac M, Ottofuelling S, Bauna A. 2009. Algal testing
of titanium dioxide nanoparticles—Testing considerations, inhibitory effects and modification of
cadmium bioavailability. Toxicology 269:190–197.
[13] Metzler D, Li M, Erdem A, Huang CP. 2011. Responses of algae to photocatalytic nano-TiO2
particles with an emphasis on the effect of particle size. Chemical Engineering Journal 170:538–
546.
[14] Velzeboer I, Jan Hendriks A, Ragas MJ, Van de Meent D. 2008. Nanomaterials in the
Environment, aquatic ecotoxicity tests of some nanomaterials. Environmental Toxicology and
Chemistry 27(9):1942–1947.
[15] Warheit DB, Hoke RA, Finlay C, Donner EM, Reed K, Sayes CM. 2007. Development of a base
set of toxicity tests using ultrafine TiO2 particles as a component of nanoparticle risk management.
Elsevier Ireland Ltd.
[16] Li F, Liang Z, Zheng X, Zhao W, Wu M, Wang Z. 2015. Toxicity of nano-TiO2 on algae and the
site of reactive oxigen species production. Aquatic Toxicology 158:1-13.
[17] Cherchi C, Gu AZ. 2010. Nanomaterials on Nitrogen Fixation Rate and Intracellular Nitrogen
Storage in Anabaena variabilis. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 44:8302–8307.
[18] Hu X, Cook S, Wang P, Hwang H. 2009. In vitro evaluation of cytotoxicity of engineered metal
oxide nanoparticles. Science of the Total Environment 407:3070–3072.
[19] Garcìa A, Espinosa R, Delgado L, Casals E, González E, Puntes V, Barata C, Font X, Sánchez A.
2010. Acute toxicity of cerium oxide, titanium oxide and iron oxide nanoparticles using
standardized tests. Desalination 269:136–141.
19
[20] Heinlaan M, Ivask A, Blinova I, Dubourguier HC, Kahru A. 2008. Toxicity of nanosized and bulk
ZnO, CuO and TiO2 to bacteria Vibrio fischeri and crustaceans Daphnia magna and
Thamnocephalus platyurus. Chemosphere 71:1308–1316.
[21] Griffitt RJ, Luo J, Bonzongo JC, Barber DS. 2008. Effects of particle composition and species on
toxicity of metallic nanomaterials in aquatic organisms. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry
27(9):1972–1978.
[22] Li S, Pan X, Wallis LK, Fan Z, Chen Z, Diamond SA. 2015. Comparison of TiO2 nanoparticle and
graphene–TiO2 nanoparticle composite phototoxicity to Daphnia magna and Oryzias latipes.
Chemosphere 112:62-69.
[23] Li M, Czymmek KJ, Huang CP. 2011. Responses of Ceriodaphnia dubia to TiO2 and Al2O3
nanoparticles: A dynamic nano-toxicity assessment of energy budget distribution. Journal of
Hazardous Materials 187:502–508.
[24] Wang D, Hua J, Irons DR, Wang J. 2011. Synergistic toxic effect of nano-TiO2 and As(V) on
Ceriodaphnia dubia. Science of the Total Environment 409:1351–1356.
[25] Dabrunz A, Duester L, Prasse C, Seitz F, Rosenfeldt R, Schilde C, Schaumann GE, Schulz R.
2011. Biological Surface Coating and Molting Inhibition as Mechanisms of TiO2 Nanoparticle
Toxicity in Daphnia magna. PLoS ONE 6(5): e20112.
[26] Lovern SB, Klaper R. 2006. Daphnia magna mortality when exposed to titanium dioxide and
fullerene (C60) nanoparticles. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 25(4):1132–1137.
[27] Ma H, Brennan A, Diamond SA. 2012. Phototoxicity Of TiO2 Nanoparticles Under Solar
Radiation To Two Aquatic Species: Daphnia Magna And Japanese Medaka. Environmental
Toxicology and Chemistry 31(7):1621–1629.
20
[28] Wiench k, Wohlleben W Hisgen V, Radke K, Salinas E, Zok S, Landsiedel R. 2009. Acute and
chronic effects of nano- and non-nano-scale TiO2 and ZnO particles on mobility and reproduction
of the freshwater invertebrate Daphnia magna. Chemosphere 76:1356–1365.
[29] Zhu X, Chang Y, Chen Y. 2009. Toxicity and bioaccumulation of TiO 2 nanoparticle aggregates in
Daphnia magna. Chemosphere 78:209–215.
[30] Bundschuh M, Zubrod JP, Englert D, Seitz F, Rosenfeldt RR, Schulz R. 2011. Effects of nanoTiO2 in combination with ambient UV-irradiation on a leaf shredding amphipod. Chemosphere
85:1563–1567.
[31] Clemente Z, Castro VL, Jonsson CM, Fraceto LF. 2014. Minimal levels of ultraviolet light
enhance the toxicity of TiO2 nanoparticles to two representative organisms of aquatic systems.
Journal of Nanoparticles Research 16:2559.
[32] Xiong D, Fang T, Yu L, Sima X, Zhu W. 2011. Effects of nano-scale TiO2, ZnO and their bulk
counterparts on zebrafish: Acute toxicity, oxidative stress and oxidative damage. Science of the
Total Environment 409:1444-1452.
[33] Zhang J, Wages YM, Cox YSB, Maul YJD, Li YY, Barnes ZM, Hope-Weeks ZL, Cobb GP. 2012.
Effect of titanium dioxide nanomaterials and ultraviolet light coexposure on african clawed frogs
(xenopus laevis). Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 31(1): 176-183.
[34] Miller RJ, Bennett S, Keller AA, Pease S, Lenihan HS. 2012. TiO2 nanoparticles are phototoxic
to marine phytoplankton. PLoS ONE 7(1): e30321.
[35] Zhu X, Zhou J, Cai Z. 2011. TiO2 Nanoparticles in the Marine Environment: Impact on the
Toxicity of Tributyltin to Abalone (Haliotis diversicolor supertexta) Embryos. Environmental Science
and Technology 45:3753–3758.
[36] Kasemets K, Ivask A, Dubourguier HC, Kahru A. 2009. Toxicity of nanoparticles of ZnO, CuO
and TiO2 to yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Toxicology In Vitro 23: 1116–1122.
21
[37] Wang H, Wick RL, Xing B. 2009. Toxicity of nanoparticulate and bulk ZnO, Al2O3 and TiO2 to
the nematode Caenorhabditis elegans. Environmental Pollution 157: 171–1177.
[38] Heckmann LH, Hovgaard MB, Sutherland DS, Autrup H, Besenbacher F, Scott-Fordsmand JJ.
2010. Limit-test toxicity screening of selected inorganic nanoparticles to the earthworm Eisenia
fetida. Ecotoxicology 20:226–233.
[39] Drobne D, Jemec A, Pipan Tkalec Z. 2009. In vivo screening to determine hazards of
nanoparticles: Nanosized TiO2. Environmental Pollution 157:1157–1164.
[40] Jemec A, Drobne D, Remškar M, Sepčić K, Tišler T. 2008. Effects of ingested nano-sized
titanium dioxide on terrestrial isopods (Porcellio scaber). Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry
27(9):1904–1914.
[41] Gottschalk F, Kost E, Nowack B. 2013. Engineered nanomaterials in water and soils: a risk
quantification based on probabilistic exposure and effect modeling. Environmental Toxicology and
Chemistry 32(6):1278-1287.
22