Skip to main content
. 2013 Jan;79(2):631–638. doi: 10.1128/AEM.02688-12

Table 3.

Comparison of different approaches to measure Irgarol 1051 toxicity using phytoplankton growth inhibition tests and different whole-cell biosensors

Test and/or sample type or indicator Organism name (phylum or division) EC50 (μg/liter) Time (h) Reference
Phytoplankton growth inhibition
    Marine water Tetraselmis sp. (Chlorophyta) 0.12 72 7
Synechococcus sp. (Cyanobacteria) 0.16 72 35
Emiliania huxleyi (Haptophyta) 0.25 72 35
Thalassiosira weisflogii (Bacillariophyta) 0.30 72 7
Emiliania huxleyi (Haptophyta) 0.41 72 7
Chaetoceros gracilis (Bacillariophyta) 0.49 96 37
Fibrocapsa japonica (Raphidophyta) 0.62 72 7
Dunaliella tertiolecta (Chlorophyta) 1.17 96 38
Ostreococcus tauri (Chlorophyta) 3.63 48 This study
    Freshwater Navicula accomoda (Bacillariophyta) 0.5 96 38
Chlamydomonas intermedia (Chlorophyta) 0.5 144 41
Nitszchia sp. (Bacillariophyta) 0.8 96 41
Chlorella vulgaris (Chlorophyta) 1.5 96 41
Staurastrum sebaldii (Zygnematophyceae) 2.5 144 41
Pseudokirchneriella subcapitata (Chlorophyta) 3.3 96 41
Scenedesmus acutus (Chlorophyta) 5.1 96 41
Selenastrum capricornutum (Chlorophyta) 10.8 72 3
Raphidocelis subcapitata (Chlorophyta) 11 72 35
Asterionella formasa (Bacillariophyta) >253 96 41
Whole-cell biosensor
    CDKA-Luc Ostreococcus tauria 0.76 48 This study
0.42 72 This study
    Microtox Vibrio fischeri 50,800 0.25 3
a

Luminescent biosensor.