ISSN 1067-4136, Russian Journal of Ecology, 2008, Vol. 39, No. 3, pp. 183–187. © Pleiades Publishing, Ltd., 2008.
Original Russian Text © Zh.V. Markina, N.A. Aizdaicher, 2008, published in Ekologiya, 2008, No. 3, pp. 196–200.
Peter the Great Bay, the Sea of Japan, is a unique
region of the Far Eastern seas with respect to the abun-
dance and diversity of its animal and plant populations.
In the past decades, economic development on its coast
has resulted in deterioration of ecological conditions in
some water areas (Ogorodninkova et al., 1997; Naumov
and Naidenko, 1997; Khristoforova et al., 2002). In this
situation, it is necessary to perform continuous moni-
toring of water quality in Peter the Great Bay by phys-
icochemical methods of water analysis and by biotest-
ing. The latter provides integrated information on water
quality: the state of water. Cases are known where
water with contents of pollutants below the safety limit
(MAC) proves toxic for the test object due to their syn-
ergistic effect or the presence of some unknown com-
ponents (Flerov, 1983).
Microalgae are widely used in ecotoxicological tests
due to their prominent role in ecosystems (Walsh and
Garnes, 1983; Lewis, 1995; Zhmur, 1997). They are
more sensitive to pollution than multicellular organ-
isms, as their relative cell surface area is larger and pro-
vides for more rapid accumulation of toxicants (Patin,
et al., 2003). According to the review by Lewis (1995),
unicellular algae compared to animals prove to be more
sensitive to pollutants in 50% of cases. Long-term com-
prehensive studies in Peter the Great Bay conﬁrmed the
efﬁciency of estimating water quality by the state of
phytoplankton (Cherkashin and Veideman, 2005).
The purpose of this study was to use the microalga
for testing the quality of water from
several areas of Peter the Great Bay differing in the
level of pollution: Vostok Bay exposed to strong anthro-
pogenic impact in summer (Khristoforova et al., 2002);
the southwestern part of Peter the Great Bay near the
mouth of the Tumannaya River, which brings a wide
spectrum of pollutants (Tkalin, 2001; Khristoforova
et al., 2001b); and Amur Bay, which harbors the large city
and seaport of Vladivostok and is one of the most polluted
areas in Peter the Great Bay (Vashchenko, 2000).
MATERIAL AND METHODS
Samples of seawater were taken in Vostok Bay, the
southwestern part of Peter the Great Bay, and Amur
Bay in the summer of 2003 (Fig. 1). The names of sam-
pling stations and water salinity values are shown in the
table. Salinity was measured with a GM-65M elec-
The unicellular alga
rophyta) was used as a test object because it is wide-
spread, easily cultivated, and sensitive to pollution
(Masyuk, 1973; Stom et al., 1984; Balayan and Stom,
1988; Rudik et al., 1995). The microalga was grown in
250-ml Ehrlenmeyer ﬂasks containing 100 ml Gold-
berg’s liquid nutrient medium (Kabanova, 1961) pre-
pared with ﬁltered and pasteurized seawater samples.
The medium was inoculated with
the initial culture at the exponential growth phase.
The cultures were illuminated with ﬂuorescent lamps
(light intensity 70
, 12 : 12 light : dark pho-
toperiod) and stirred one or two times a day. The culture
period was 14 days.
The quality of water was estimated from the dynam-
ics of cell density in the suspension, which was deter-
mined by taking direct cell counts in a standard
hemocytometer chamber. Aliquots of the suspension
Biotesting of Water from Peter the Great Bay,
Sea of Japan, Using the Microalga
Zh. V. Markina and N. A. Aizdaicher
Zhirmunskii Institute of Marine Biology, Far East Division, Russian Academy of Sciences,
ul. Palchevskogo 17, Vladivostok, 690041 Russia
Received November 24, 2006
—Water samples from zones with different levels of anthropogenic pollution in Peter the Great Bay,
the Sea of Japan, were subjected to biotesting on the microalga
. A distinct inhibitory effect
on microalgal cultures was revealed in tests of water from Amur Bay. Water samples from stations in the
Tumannaya River mouth and off Frugelm Island (in the southwestern part of Peter the Great Bay) and from
Gaidamak Bight (Vostok Bay) had little effect on
, Peter the Great Bay, pollution.