A Systematic Analysis of Metal and Metalloid Concentrations in Eight Zebrafish Recirculating Water Systems Xavier Langa,1 Patrick Neuhaus,2 David Lains,3 Theodora J. Stewart,4 Nadine Borel,5 Ana C. Certal,6,i Joana F. Monteiro,6 Peter Aleström,7 Eduardo Diaz,8 Indre Piragyte,1 Lars Bräutigam,9 Rodolfo Vázquez, Ruslan Hlushchuk,10 Lorenz Gfeller,2 Adrien Mestrot,2 Moritz Bigalke,2,* Zoltan M. Varga,3,* and Nadia Mercader1,*,ii Abstract Metals and metalloids are integral to biological processes and play key roles in physiology and metabolism. Nonetheless, overexposure to some metals or lack of others can lead to serious health consequences. In this study, eight zebrafish facilities collaborated to generate a multielement analysis of their centralized recirculating water systems. We report a first set of average concentrations for 46 elements detected in zebrafish facilities. Our results help to establish an initial baseline for trouble-shooting purposes, and in general for safe ranges of metal concentrations in recirculating water systems, supporting reproducible scientific research outcomes with zebrafish. Keywords: aquatic models, animal welfare, environment, metal requirement, metal toxicity, fish nutrition, reproducibility, standards, water quality, zebrafish husbandry Introduction The earth’s crust is composed of *92 elements,1 16 of which are essential for living organisms, 9 of which are metals or metalloids: boron (B), calcium (Ca), copper (Cu), iron (Fe), magnesium (Mg), manganese (Mn), potassium (K), sodium (Na), and zinc (Zn).2 With respect to nutrition, availability and required concentrations for physiological and biological processes are used to distinguish and define these elements as macronutrients (Ca, Mg, Cl, K, and Na) or micronutrients (cobalt [Co], Cu, Fe, iodine [I], Mn, molyb- denum [Mo], selenium [Se], and Zn).3,4 The remaining ele- ments have either no known biological function or are classified as nonessential because of their well-known tox- icity or lack of evidence for roles in biological functions.2,5 Metal uptake in fish is more diversified than in other species, and various elements are absorbed and passed into the bloodstream through gills (waterborne),4,6,7 intestines (foodborne),4,7 and skin (passive diffusion).4,8,9 Further- more, specific cell-membrane transport mechanisms trans- fer these elements into cells to make them available as essential components for biological processes or simply to accumulate them in specific organs such as liver, gills, or kidney.10–12 Portions of these metals are excreted into the water, mainly through the gills and via the liver (bile) and kidney (urine).4 1Division Developmental Biology and Regeneration, Institute of Anatomy and 2Laboratory/Soil Science, Institute of Geography, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland. 3Zebrafish International Resource Center, University of Oregon, Oregon, USA. 4London Metallomics Facility, King’s College London and Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom. 5European Zebrafish Resource Center, Karlsruhe Institute of Technology, Eggenstein-Leopoldshafen, Germany. 6Fish Platform, Champalimaud Center for the Unknown, Lisboa, Portugal. 7Department of Basic Science and Aquatic Medicine, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine and Biosciences, Norwegian University of Life Sciences (NMBU), Oslo, Norway. 8Centro Nacional de Investigaciones Cardiovasculares CNIC, Madrid, Spain. 9Comparative Medicine, Zebrafish Core Facility, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden. 10Division microCT, Institute of Anatomy, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland. *Equal contribution. iORCID ID (https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5091-0083). iiORCID ID (https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0905-6399). ª Xavier Langa et al., 2021; Published by Mary Ann Liebert, Inc. This Open Access article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Noncommercial License [CC-BY-NC] (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) which permits any noncommercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author(s) and the source are cited. ZEBRAFISH Volume 18, Number 4, 2021 Mary Ann Liebert, Inc. DOI: 10.1089/zeb.2020.1970 252 https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5091-0083 https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0905-6399 http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ Biological problems arise when the concentrations of micro- and macronutrients are insufficient or exceed their required minimal or maximal physiological range. Elemental deficiencies usually lead to the slowing or the breakdown of physiological processes, causing various disease symptoms.13,14 Conversely, high concentrations can also lead to severe symptoms and dis- orders in reproduction, growth and development,13,15–17 metab- olism,10,18,19 and behavior.20–22 The toxicity of particular metals is typically defined by their concentration of free ions in water, which is highly dependent on environmental parameters such as water hardness, conductivity, temperature,23–26 and pH.27,28 Environmental agencies such as the Environmental Pro- tection Agency (EPA, USA) and the Australia, New Zealand Environment, and Conservation Council (ANZECC) devel- oped guidelines for freshwater and saltwater levels for vari- ous metals (Table 1). However, innumerable organic and inorganic pollutants still lack reported toxicity thresholds for different aquatic organisms. In addition, many countries have not established their own water criteria guidelines for aquatic life29 and rely on EPA or ANZECC standards. Zebrafish (Danio rerio), a well-established model organ- ism in biomedical sciences, is an example for which there is a significant lack of information about acceptable concentra- tions and ranges of metals for animal well-being, health, husbandry, and breeding performance.13,15,30–34 Centralized recirculating water systems (CRWS) are widely used for zebrafish husbandry and colony maintenance, because they offer control of water chemistry parameters and concentra- tions of elements in the water. CRWS typically have three key components: the water source, the recirculating water filtration system (RWFS), and the aquatic housing system. There are typically three main sources of water: groundwater, surface water, and municipal water. These sources can differ seasonally in their quality by carrying varying levels of risks for water contamination. However, the proximity to the source, the availability of sufficient water, and economics of the institution also play key roles.35–37 A majority of zebrafish facilities rely on municipal water because they are located in urban areas. However, municipal water may also carry different types of pollutants, depending on the economic and geographic area. Thus, there exists intra- and interfacility variability for the quality of source water that needs to be controlled.35–37 To this end, facilities eliminate pollutants in the municipal water by reverse osmosis water filtration systems (ROWS), which can significantly reduce, but not completely eliminate, the relative amount of total dissolved solids and pollutants. Fresh- water conditions are reconstituted by adding commercially available synthetic sea salts, or laboratory-formulated salts and buffering agents such as sodium bicarbonate or calcium car- bonate. While ROWS provide source water with reproducible quality, their main disadvantages are the high cost of mainte- nance and the amount of discharge water they generate. Table 1. Aquatic Water Criteria for Freshwater Species from the Environmental Protection Agency (USA) and the Australia and New Zealand Environment and Conservation Council Elements EPA Australia/New Zealand Freshwater CMC (mg L-1) Freshwater CCC (mg L-1) Concentration/level of protection (80%–99% species) (mg L-1) Aluminum (pH >6.5) — — 27–150 Arsenic 340 150 1–360 (AsIII); 0.8–140 (AsV) Barium — — — Beryllium — — — Boron — — 90–1300 Cadmium 1.80 0.72 0.06–0.8 Cesium — — — Chromium 570 (CrIII); 16 (CrVI) 74 (CrIII); 11 (CrVI) 0.01–40 (CrVI) Cobalt — — — Copper — — 1–2.5 Gallium — — — Iron — 1000 — Lead 82 3.20 1–9.4 Manganese — — 1200–3600 Mercury 1.4 0.77 0.06–5.4 Molybdenum — — — Nickel 470 52 8–17 Rubidium — — — Selenium — — 5–34 Silver 3.2 — Strontium — — — Thallium — — — Thorium — — — Vanadium — — — Zinc 120 120 2.4–31 Maximal water concentrations for metals and metalloids according to the aquatic water criteria for freshwater species of EPA and ANZECC agencies. Hyphen: lack of information. The trigger values from EPA and ANZECC come from multiple-species toxicity tests and are not specific to zebrafish. Sources: Refs.76,77 ANZECC, Australia and New Zealand Environment and Conservation Council; CCC, Criterion Continuous Concentration; CMC, Criterion Maximum Concentration; EPA, Environmental Protection Agency. METAL CONCENTRATIONS IN ZEBRAFISH HOUSING SYSTEMS 253 RWFS are composed of a mechanical filter that removes coarse detritus and debris from food residue and feces that are generated in aquaria. A biological filter (containing sand, ceramic, or plastic beads as filter material) harbors nitrifying bacteria that oxidize ammonia and convert it into less toxic nitrites and nitrates. An aeration system or a trickle column provides gas exchange and establishes atmospheric levels of oxygen in water. Depending on the filter materials used in the mechanical and biological filters, fine sediment filters (FSFs) (containing zeolite or similar minerals) can be used to trap flocculants that would otherwise reduce the efficacy of UV water sterilizer units by shielding microorganisms from UV exposure. UV sterilizers are typically last in line before water flows back to the aquatic housing systems. These differ by manufacturers but are typically made of glass or polycar- bonate. Pumps are required to move water between the filter components and the fish tanks. Various probes are placed in the water to monitor flow or quality, and water-heating systems are needed to establish species-specific water tem- peratures. Water recirculates constantly and a portion of it, typically 10%–20% every day, is exchanged with fresh, re- constituted source water.36–40 With this study, we aim to determine the ranges of metal and metalloid concentrations for zebrafish in seven institu- tions: (1) the Champalimaud Center for the Unknown (CCU, Lisbon, Portugal), (2) the Centro Nacional de Investigaciones Cardiovasculares (CNIC, Madrid, Spain), (3) the European Zebrafish Resource Center (EZRC, KIT, Eggenstein- Leopoldshafen, Germany), (4) two CRWS in the Institute of Anatomy (IA) at the University of Bern (IA.1 and IA.2, Bern, Switzerland), (5) the Karolinska Institutet (KI, Stockholm, Sweden), (6) the Norwegian University of Life Sciences (NULS, Oslo, Norway), and (7) the Zebrafish International Resource Center (ZIRC, Eugene, USA). We analyzed 45 el- ements using inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry (ICP-MS) and Ca using atomic absorbance spectrometry (AAS). Our evaluation of trace metals in different systems is unprecedented for zebrafish facilities and sheds light on some sources of elements in the water. Our findings help to establish a baseline and ranges for zebrafish water composition, provide strategies to troubleshoot problems with water quality, and consequently support reproducible animal welfare and hus- bandry conditions for zebrafish and other aquatic models. Materials and Methods Elemental analysis Mercury analysis. Triplicates of fish water samples from the IA.1 and IA.2 were collected for mercury (Hg) analysis in 10 mL glass tubes. As diluents, concentrated acids were added for a final concentration of 1% nitric acid (HNO3, 70%; #438073; Sigma) and 0.5% hydrochloric acid (HCl, 37%; #320331-500ML; Sigma). The samples were treated with HNO3 and HCl as a diluent to keep the elements in FIG. 1. Schematic of a centralized, recirculating water system. Shown is a scheme of the CRWS, at the IA from Zebcare (IA.1 according to the nomenclature used in this article). Blue arrows represent direction of water flow from the municipal water source (1), through a prefilter unit and ROWS, to the reservoir or water tank (2). Yellow arrows indicate the recirculating, filtered system water between RWFS (3) and fish housing system (4). The red arrow indicates daily water removal to drain (15% of the total facility water volume). CRWS, centralized recirculating water systems; IA, Institute of Anatomy; ROWS, reverse osmosis water filtration systems; RWFS, recirculating water filtration system. Color images are available online. 254 LANGA ET AL. T a b l e 2 . W a t e r Q u a l i t y P a r a m e t e r s , A d d e d C o m p o u n d s , a n d T e c h n i c a l S p e c i fi c a t i o n s f r o m E i g h t F i s h F a c i l i t i e s C en tr a li ze d re ci rc u la ti n g w a te r sy st em s In st it u ti o n C C U C N IC E Z R C IA .1 IA .2 K I N U L S Z IR C W at er q u al it y T em p er at u re 2 8 – 2 8 .5 2 8 – 2 8 .5 2 7 – 2 7 .5 2 8 – 2 8 .5 2 8 – 2 8 .5 2 8 – 2 8 .5 2 8 – 2 8 .5 2 8 – 2 8 .5 C o n d u ct iv it y (l S /c m ) 1 2 0 0 – 1 2 5 0 4 5 0 – 5 0 0 2 2 0 6 0 0 – 7 0 0 5 0 0 – 6 0 0 7 5 0 – 8 0 0 4 0 0 – 5 0 0 4 5 0 – 5 5 0 p H 7 .4 – 7 .6 7 .4 – 7 .6 7 – 7 .2 7 .4 – 7 .6 7 .4 – 7 .6 6 .8 – 7 .2 7 .5 – 7 .7 7 .5 – 7 .6 E x te rn al co m p o u n d s ad d ed in th e C R W S M ai n d ie t S p ar o s Z eb ra fe ed 4 0 0 – 6 0 0 l m G em m a M ic ro n 5 0 0 C av ia r an d T et ra M in fl ak es G em m a M ic ro n 5 0 0 G em m a M ic ro n 3 0 0 S p ar o s Z eb ra fe ed 4 0 0 – 6 0 0 l m S D S 4 0 0 M as te r m ix L iv e fo o d A an d R A A A A R A A an d R S y n th et ic se a sa lt S al b as ic p lu s S er a m ar in — R ee f cr y st al s, aq u at ic sy st em s In st an t o ce an , aq u at ic sy st em s T et ra m ar in e In st an t o ce an , aq u at ic sy st em s In st an t o ce an , aq u at ic sy st em s O th er s S B S B — S B S B S B S B A r an d Z eo T ec h n ic al sp ec ifi ca ti o n s B ra n d C R W S T ec n ip la st A q u an ee ri n g A q u as ch w ar tz Z eb ca re T ec n ip la st T ec n ip la st A q u at ic h ab it at s A q u an ee ri n g Y ea r o f co n st ru ct io n 2 0 1 1 2 0 1 0 2 0 0 3 2 0 1 5 2 0 1 0 2 0 1 8 2 0 0 8 1 9 9 9 P er ce n ta g e o f w at er ch an g e p er d ay 1 0 – 1 5 1 0 – 1 5 1 0 – 1 5 1 5 – 2 0 1 0 – 1 5 1 0 – 1 5 1 0 – 1 5 1 0 – 1 5 W at er so u rc e M W M W G W (1 /3 ) +M W (2 /3 ) M W M W M W M W M W W at er tr ea tm en t; b ra n d ; m o d el R O W S ; M er ck M il li p o re ; R iO S 2 0 0 R O W S ; C u n o ; H P -W M -9 0 0 — R O W S ; M er ck M il li p o re ; R iO S 1 6 R O W S ; M er ck M il li p o re ; R iO S 1 6 R O W S ; E 2 G E O sm o n ic s R O W S ; E 2 G E O sm o n ic s R O W S ; C u n o ; H P -W M -9 0 0 T y p e o f fi lt ra ti o n o f w at er S o li d s re m o v al , ch em ic al an d b io lo g ic al S o li d s re m o v al , ch em ic al an d b io lo g ic al S o li d s re m o v al an d b io lo g ic al M ec h an ic al an d b io lo g ic al S o li d s re m o v al , ch em ic al an d b io lo g ic al S o li d s re m o v al , ch em ic al an d b io lo g ic al S o li d s re m o v al an d b io lo g ic al S o li d s re m o v al , ch em ic al an d b io lo g ic al In st it u ti o n s: C C U , C h am p al im au d C en te r fo r th e U n k n o w n (L is b o n , P o rt u g al ); C N IC , C en tr o N ac io n al d e In v es ti g ac io n es C ar d io v as cu la re s (M ad ri d , S p ai n ); E Z R C , E u ro p ea n Z eb ra fi sh R es o u rc e C en te r (E g g en st ei n -L eo p o ld sh af en , G er m an y ); IA .1 an d IA .2 , In st it u te o f A n at o m y (B er n , S w it ze rl an d ); K I, K ar o li n sk a In st it u te t (S to ck h o lm , S w ed en ); N U L S , N o rw eg ia n U n iv er si ty o f L if e S ci en ce s (O sl o , N o rw ay ); Z IR C , Z eb ra fi sh In te rn at io n al R es o u rc e C en te r (E u g en e, U S A ). M a in d ie t: M as te r m ix (Z ei g le r, O .S .I an d G o ld en P ea rl ). L iv e fo o d : A , ar te m ia ; R , ro ti fe r. O th er s: A r, ar ag o n it e; S B , so d iu m b ic ar b o n at e; Z eo , ze o li te . W a te r so u rc e a n d w a te r tr ea tm en t: G W , g ro u n d w at er ; M W , m u n ic ip al w at er ; R O W S , re v er se o sm o ti c w at er fi lt ra ti o n sy st em . W a te r fi lt ra ti o n : so li d s re m o v al (fi lt er p ad s, fi n e se d im en t fi lt er , d ru m fi lt er , o r ca rt ri d g e fi lt er s) ; ch em ic al (a ct iv at ed ca rb o n ); b io lo g ic al (b ea d m o v in g fi lt er o r p ro p el le r w as h b ea d fi lt er ). C R W S , ce n tr al iz ed re ci rc u la ti n g w at er sy st em . 255 suspension until they were analyzed in the ICP-MS. Then, Hg samples were filtered with 450 nm filters (#721-1345; Ther- mo Fisher). The instrument was calibrated with known Hg concentrations (0.05–2 lg L-1; #28941-100ML-F; Sigma). Hg analysis was performed with a 7700x ICP-MS (Agilent Technologies, Santa Clara, USA). The ICP-MS was rinsed with three different chemical mixtures between each sample to prevent any carryover of Hg between samples.41 Ca analysis. Triplicates of fish water samples from three participating facilities (CNIC, IA.1, and ZIRC) were col- lected for Ca analysis in 50 mL Falcon tubes, concentrated HNO3 (70%; #438073; Sigma) was added for a final con- centration of 1% HNO3 as diluent, and 50 lL of 2 g/L cesium chloride solution (#51869-250 mL; Sigma) was added as ionization buffer in all samples and standards. The instrument was calibrated with a standard solution of known Ca con- centrations (0–10 mg L-1; #1.19778.0500; Merck). Ca anal- ysis was performed with a ZEEnit 700 P AAS (Analytic Jena AG, Jena, Germany). After every tenth sample, two of the standards (2.5 and 8 mg L-1) were measured again to assess instrument stability and avoid drift. Multielement analysis. Triplicates of municipal water, purified water, and fish water samples from all the partici- pating facilities (CCU, CNIC, EZRC, IA.1, IA.2, KI, NULS, and ZIRC) were collected for multielement analysis of alu- minum (Al), arsenic (As), barium (Ba), beryllium (Be), B, cadmium (Cd), cerium (Ce), cesium (Cs), chromium (Cr), Co, Cu, dysprosium (Dy), erbium (Er), europium (Eu), ga- dolinium (Gd), gallium (Ga), holmium (Ho), Fe, lanthanum (La), lead (Pb), lutetium (Lu), Mg, Mn, Mo, neodymium (Nd), nickel (Ni), K, praseodymium (Pr), rubidium (Rb), samarium (Sm), Se, silicon (Si), silver (Ag), Na, strontium (Sr), thallium (Tl), thorium (Th), thulium (Tm), titanium (Ti), uranium (U), ytterbium (Yb), vanadium (V), and Zn. K, Mg, Mo, Na, Si, and Ti were in 50 mL Falcon tubes. Concentrated nitric acid (HNO3, 70%; #438073; Sigma) was added for a final concentration of 1% HNO3. The samples were treated with HNO3 as a diluent to keep the elements in suspension until they were analyzed in the ICP-MS. The instrument was calibrated with a multielement standard solution (500, 100, 10, 1, 0.1, and 0 lg L-1; # IV-ICPMS-71A; Agilent). Multielement analysis was performed with 7700x ICP-MS (Agilent Technologies). After every 10th sample, two of the standards (1 and 100 lg L-1) were measured again to as- sess instrument stability and avoid drift. 103Rh and 115In were used as internal standards during the measurements. Metal concentrations in each sample were determined according to appropriate standard curves obtained from the calibration of the corresponding metal standards.42–44 The method is adapted from the EPA Method 3052. Sample collection Water samples were taken from different strategic access points of the water systems in this study. The water system for the fish facility at the IA.1 is shown as an example in Figure 1. These points of access included the following: municipal or source water (Fig. 1 (1), pre-ROWS), purified source water (Fig. 1 (2), post-ROWS), water from the bacteriological filter and/or mechanical filters (Fig. 1 (3)), and fish water (Fig. 1 (4)). All water samples from ZIRC, CCU, NULS, CNIC, KI, and EZRC were delivered to the IA after nitric acid treatment and stored at 4�C until analysis. Water samples to determine the impact of ROWS filter membrane changes. Triplicates of municipal water and ROWS water samples were collected and analyzed before and 24 h after the change of 2-year-old membranes (#CDRC60202; Merck) at the IA.1. The specific model an- alyzed was the RiOs Essential 16 water purification system (#ZR0E0160WW; Merck). Water samples for a temporal quality assessment. Over a 3-month period, fish water samples were collected weekly from fish tanks at the CNIC facility. Water samples from biological filters. Triplicate samples from the various biological filters were collected at the fol- lowing fish facilities: 1. Propeller wash bead filter (PWBF) samples: ZIRC 2. FSF samples: ZIRC. 3. Bead moving filter (BMF) samples: CCU, IA.1, KI, and NULS. Table 3. Biological Parameters from Fish Facilities Included in This Study Biological parameters Institutions CCU CNIC EZRC IA.1 IA.2 KI ZIRC Total fish populations 21,500 12,000 350,000 12,000 4000 15,000 52,500 Total no. of single crosses 30 21 19 20 20 14 135 Breeding success (%) 73 70 70 85 75 90 77% – 15% Total no. of eggs 3212 2786 671 1050 850 770 — Fertilization rate (%) 94 86 88 90 90 80 76% – 19% Hatching rate: 48–72 hpf (%) 100 100 100 100 100 100 96% – 2% Survival rate at the time of entering the CRWS (%) 88 71 — 75 70 90 92.8% – 7% Stocking densities (fish/per liter) 10 5 5 5–6 5–6 5 4–7 The table shows different parameters to evaluate husbandry success at zebrafish facilities included in this study. Institutions: CCU; CNIC; EZRC; IA.1 and IA.2; KI; and ZIRC. Breeding success: number of pairwise crosses that produced eggs divided by the number of all crosses set up. Fertilization rate: number of fertilized eggs divided by the number of viable eggs laid. Fertilization is determined by cell divisions, and typically 0–4 h after fertilization. Hatching rate 48–72 hpf: number of hatched embryos (around 72 hpf) divided by the number of fertilized eggs. Survival rate after 30 dpf: number of larvae that survived the nursery period versus the number of fertilized embryos that were entered into the nursery. Stocking density: number of fish per liter. 256 LANGA ET AL. T a b l e 4 . M u l t i e l e m e n t D a t a A n a l y s i s f r o m E i g h t C e n t r a l i z e d R e c i r c u l a t i n g W a t e r S y s t e m s In st it u ti o n s C C U C N IC E Z R C IA .1 IA .2 K I N U L S Z IR C E le m en ts M ea n R S D M ea n R S D M ea n R S D M ea n R S D M ea n R S D M ea n R S D M ea n R S D M ea n R S D M ac ro n u tr ie n ts (m g L -1 ) C al ci u m — — 1 6 2 .7 5 — — 6 .1 1 0 .4 5 — — — — — — 1 6 .3 2 .0 2 M ag n es iu m 2 0 .4 0 .9 5 6 .5 1 7 .9 8 — — 1 0 .9 1 .7 2 — — 7 .9 4 4 .1 2 5 .3 4 3 .9 2 1 1 3 .0 7 P o ta ss iu m 7 .5 7 0 .2 8 4 .8 7 7 .3 4 — — 7 .0 7 2 6 .2 2 — — 3 .5 0 6 .7 9 2 .8 5 5 .2 2 4 .3 2 .2 2 S o d iu m 2 1 0 0 .2 5 8 3 .6 6 .3 0 — — 1 4 4 4 .6 6 — — 1 1 0 4 .2 1 5 6 .3 4 .5 0 8 3 .2 2 .5 9 E ss en ti al el em en ts (l g L -1 ) C h ro m iu m 0 .1 8 3 1 .0 4 0 .3 4 0 .0 3 1 2 .3 6 0 .1 5 4 .1 1 0 .2 6 3 6 .2 6 0 .0 6 3 7 .6 9 0 .0 5 9 .9 6 0 .0 4 1 5 .3 3 C o b al t 0 .0 9 — 0 .0 2 — N D — 0 .3 7 4 .8 3 0 .1 5 4 4 .1 8 0 .0 1 — 0 .7 0 2 .5 6 N D — C o p p er 0 .5 9 5 7 .6 0 N D — N D — 3 .1 6 2 .5 9 0 .2 4 4 0 .8 6 1 .5 4 1 2 7 .5 0 .1 4 5 9 .9 5 N D — Ir o n 4 .2 3 4 3 .5 3 4 .2 1 4 3 .4 2 1 .7 7 4 9 .3 2 1 .9 4 7 .1 1 1 .4 9 5 0 .4 3 1 .1 5 1 0 2 .3 0 .6 8 2 2 .4 8 0 .9 5 2 6 .2 4 M an g an es e 0 .5 2 8 7 .1 5 0 .1 7 9 1 .4 1 0 .1 3 2 5 .8 7 0 .1 1 1 1 .2 4 0 .1 9 5 0 .7 9 N D — 0 .1 1 4 .2 4 0 .0 5 1 8 .8 0 M o ly b d en u m 0 .7 0 2 .7 6 0 .2 5 1 4 .5 4 — — 0 .3 4 2 .9 5 — — — — — — 0 .2 8 1 2 .1 9 S el en iu m N D — 0 .3 9 1 8 .3 4 — — N D — N D — N D — N D — 0 .5 2 Z in c 1 4 .5 3 6 .2 0 4 .3 1 5 5 .1 2 1 3 .3 6 5 .8 6 1 4 .4 2 9 .1 8 7 .1 1 2 6 .0 6 N D — 4 .5 1 6 .4 3 N D — N o n es se n ti al el em en ts (l g L -1 ) A lu m in u m (p H >6 .5 ) 3 4 .1 6 .3 0 3 .6 7 3 9 .5 6 2 5 .2 1 .5 2 1 3 .3 2 .9 3 3 .5 1 6 4 .3 4 N D — N D — 3 6 .9 1 .5 5 A rs en ic 0 .9 9 6 .0 3 1 .7 7 2 4 .6 3 0 .3 8 1 .8 3 0 .8 2 0 .1 2 0 .5 0 3 3 .0 8 0 .2 3 1 8 .0 3 0 .3 5 0 .6 7 0 .1 1 2 1 .2 1 B ar iu m 7 .7 9 1 .5 0 3 .7 8 1 1 .1 4 4 5 .1 0 .2 2 1 3 .5 0 .4 1 3 .3 7 8 .4 6 0 .2 2 9 .5 0 4 2 .9 0 .5 8 2 .6 7 0 .8 7 B er y ll iu m N D — 0 .0 1 — 0 .0 1 — 0 .0 1 — 0 .2 4 2 8 6 .4 3 0 .0 1 — 0 .0 1 — 0 .0 4 — B o ro n 7 9 .1 3 .1 2 7 .3 8 8 .4 3 5 .4 9 7 .4 0 5 5 .4 4 .2 3 3 5 .0 9 4 3 .4 8 1 2 .6 8 .1 6 1 4 .9 3 .8 8 3 5 .6 3 .9 8 C ad m iu m 0 .0 1 — 0 .0 1 — N D — 0 .0 1 — 0 .2 1 4 3 .1 8 N D — 0 .0 1 — N D — C es iu m 0 .1 5 1 .6 0 0 .0 2 — 0 .0 1 — 0 .0 1 3 .4 3 0 .1 2 3 5 .4 7 0 .0 1 — 0 .0 1 — 0 .0 5 1 .4 7 G al li u m 0 .4 1 2 .5 6 0 .0 1 — 0 .0 1 — 0 — 0 .1 3 7 7 .7 5 0 — 0 .0 1 — 0 .0 3 4 .3 3 L ea d 0 .0 1 — N D — N D — 0 .0 2 6 .7 1 0 .1 9 3 4 .9 1 N D — 0 .0 1 — N D — M er cu ry — — — — — — 0 .0 2 2 .7 2 0 .0 2 5 .4 4 — — — — — — N ic k el 0 .2 5 5 7 0 .1 6 1 2 3 .5 0 .2 6 1 3 .0 7 0 .2 1 1 .7 4 0 .3 8 4 1 .2 6 N D — 0 .3 6 0 .6 4 N D — R u b id iu m 1 .8 0 1 .1 4 1 .9 4 1 5 .8 4 0 .6 9 2 .3 0 1 .0 8 0 .4 1 0 .9 2 2 5 .9 8 0 .2 7 9 .9 4 0 .3 7 1 .1 8 1 .8 2 0 .6 8 S il ic o n 1 7 5 2 0 .2 8 9 3 5 8 6 .1 6 — — — — 4 4 0 4 .0 5 3 6 0 1 3 .2 2 5 4 6 0 .2 4 2 9 6 7 5 3 .2 S il v er 0 .0 4 — N D — 0 .1 8 1 0 2 .9 0 N D — 0 .1 0 8 2 .3 0 N D — N D — 0 .0 3 5 2 .1 9 S tr o n ti u m 2 0 6 0 .1 9 3 8 .2 1 0 .5 4 1 3 2 0 .2 4 3 7 .9 1 .5 8 7 0 .2 6 1 8 4 3 .9 3 .3 5 1 9 2 .2 4 1 5 4 0 .3 5 T h al li u m 0 .0 1 8 .6 5 N D — N D — N D — 0 .0 7 6 7 .6 6 N D — N D — N D — T h o ri u m 0 .0 7 — 0 .1 0 1 1 6 .8 7 0 .0 2 5 .6 1 0 .0 3 1 3 .9 2 0 .1 4 4 6 .6 9 0 .0 5 — 0 .0 3 — N D — T it an iu m 0 .4 4 1 .2 2 0 .3 7 2 5 .2 9 — — — — 0 .2 8 2 .7 6 0 .3 6 1 5 .6 8 0 .4 2 1 2 .8 0 0 .3 3 2 3 .6 4 U ra n iu m 0 .0 3 — 0 .0 1 — 0 .4 4 0 .5 6 0 .0 5 0 .7 0 0 .1 3 4 1 .3 4 0 .0 1 — 0 — N D — V an ad iu m 1 .4 0 0 .9 8 0 .8 0 2 4 .7 1 0 .1 1 6 .7 8 0 .4 1 3 .2 8 0 .3 1 3 0 .1 6 0 .1 9 1 1 .0 4 0 .1 3 1 .6 6 0 .3 7 1 .8 4 M ea n an d R S D o f m et al s an d m et al lo id co n ce n tr at io n s fr o m ei g h t C R W S : C C U ; C N IC ; E Z R C ; IA .1 an d IA .2 ; K I; N U L S ; an d Z IR C . N D , n o t d et ec te d ; R S D , re la ti v e st an d ar d d ev ia ti o n . 257 List of water systems and technical specifications. Main water quality parameters, compounds added, and some tech- nical specifications of the different water systems that con- tributed to this study are listed in Table 2. Fish facilities. The participating facilities were established at least 1 year before our study. The following three criteria characterized the facilities that participated in sampling and water testing. (1) Health: During the duration of our study, spe- cifically at times of sample collections, no disease outbreaks were reported in any of the facilities. The majority of the facilities carry out regular health status monitoring including microbial status. (2) Animal Environment: All facilities were operated under environmental conditions that fell into the range of re- cently published guidelines for zebrafish husbandry by Aleström et al.,45 for FELASA (the European equivalent of AALAS). These conditions included temperature, pH, and conductivity and are listed in Table 2. (3) Facility Performance: In Table 3, we list the biological parameters that can be considered normal for most facilities for the purposes of this study; these include breeding success, fertilization rates, hatching rates, postnursery survival rates, as well as total population and stocking densities. Data management and statistics GraphPad Prism version 7.04 was used for statistical anal- ysis and charting of results (GraphPad Software, Inc., San Diego, CA). Statistical significance was determined using the Holm–Sidak method for multiple t-tests and Sidak’s multiple comparisons test for two-way analysis of variance, with alpha = 0.05. Raw data have been deposited at Mendeley (10.17632/htdhxbpgpg.3). Ethical statement Animals were housed in accordance with bioethical reg- ulations for the use of laboratory animals from the corre- sponding countries: CCU, Portuguese General Directorate of Veterinary (DGAV); CNIC, the Community of Madrid ‘‘Di- rección General de Medio Ambiente,’’ Spain; ERZC, the Government of Baden-Württemberg, Regierungspräsidium Karlsruhe, Germany; IA.1 and IA.2, Amt für Veterinärwesen, Canton of Bern, Switzerland; KI, the international and local ethical guidelines; NULS, the Norwegian Food Inspection Authority (NFIA); ZIRC, the University of Oregon Institu- tional Animal Care and Use Committee. Results Metal and metalloid concentrations in eight recirculating water systems To determine metal and metalloid concentrations in CRWS, we analyzed fish water from eight facilities distributed over seven countries (Germany, Norway, Portugal, Spain, Swe- den, Switzerland, and the United States). The highest con- centrations were detected for the macronutrients Ca, K, Na, and Mg (Table 4). Some nonessential elements, such as Al, B, Ba, Si, and Sr, were detected at higher concentrations than the essential elements, Fe and Zn. The elements As, Cr, Co, Cu, Mn, Mo, Ni, Pb, Rb, Ti, and V were detected in a range between 0.1 and 2 lg L-1; whereas traces of Be, Cd, Cs, Ga, Hg, Pb, Se, Th, Tl, and U were found below 0.1 lg L-1 in most fish facilities (Table 4). Some metal traces—Dy, Er, Eu, Gd, Ho, La, Lu, Nd, Pr, Sm, Tm, and Yb—were detected at very low concentrations or remained undetectable (Table 5). Our results indicate that the concentration of several non- essential elements (Al, B, Ba, Si, and Sr) was one or several orders of magnitude higher than that of essential elements such as Fe and Zn. Furthermore, we observed below technical threshold of detection, absence, or considerably low con- centrations of several essential elements such as Cr, Co, Cu, Mn, Mo, and Se (Table 4). Reverse osmotic water systems do not remove all elements with equal efficiency from municipal water Municipal water from seven cities and their corresponding reverse osmosis purified water samples were analyzed for 38 elements to determine the capacity of ionic rejection in Table 5. Trace Metals in Eight Centralized Recirculating Water Systems Nonessential elements (mg L-1) Institutions CCU CNIC EZRC IA.1 IA.2 KI NULS ZIRC Elements Mean Mean Mean Mean Mean Mean Mean Mean Cerium 0.006 0.002 ND ND ND ND ND ND Dysprosium ND 0.001 ND ND ND ND ND ND Erbium 0.001 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND Europium 0.002 0.001 0.01 0.002 0.002 ND 0.007 ND Gadolinium 0.002 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND Holmium ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND Lanthanum 0.004 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND Lutetium ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND Neodymium 0.003 0.002 ND ND ND ND ND ND Praseodymium ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND Promethium ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND Samarium ND ND ND ND 0.001 ND ND ND Thulium ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND Ytterbium 0.002 ND ND ND 0.002 ND ND ND Mean values of nonessential trace metal concentrations from eight CRWS. Institutions: CCU; CNIC; EZRC; IA.1 and IA.2; KI; NULS; ZIRC. 258 LANGA ET AL. six fish facilities (CCU, CNIC, IA, KI, NULS, and ZIRC). Seven elements were detected in significantly higher con- centrations than the other elements we analyzed: Al, B (ex- cept at NULS), Ba, Cu, Fe, Sr, and Zn (except at KI and NULS) (Fig. 2). The rest of the elements were detected at low concentrations (< 0.1 lg L-1) or not traced at all. To test whether effective ion rejection is associated with the efficiency of reverse osmosis filtration or related to the regular maintenance of the exchange of membranes, we analyzed mu- nicipal and purified water samples before and after the change of membranes in one facility. After replacement, we detected ef- ficient ionic rejection only for the removal of B (Fig. 3). For other elements, the membrane change did not appear to make any significant improvement for product water quality. Our results indicate a considerable presence of Al, B, and Fe after the filtration of municipal water through ROWS and that the replacement of 2-year-old membranes reduced mainly B. Thus, ionic rejection across ROWS is a differential process. Metal concentrations fluctuate over a period of 3 months Fish water samples were collected over a 3-month period to evaluate the fluctuation of metals in the CNIC fish facility. While for most elements concentrations remained stable; Al, As, Fe, V, and Zn showed fluctuations higher than 25% (Fig. 4). In contrast, the concentrations of V and As remained consistently low and hardly fluctuated at all. FIG. 2. Metal concentra- tions before and after reverse osmosis purification of water in six different fish facilities. Municipal water (n = 3) and reverse osmosis purified wa- ter (n = 3) samples were col- lected at CCU, CNIC, IA.1, KI, NULS, and ZIRC. Data are presented as mean – SD; *p < 0.05; and ***p < 0.001 according to multiple t-tests. CCU, Champalimaud Center for the Unknown; CNIC, Centro Nacional de Investi- gaciones Cardiovasculares; KI, Karolinska Institutet; NULS, Norwegian Univer- sity of Life Sciences; ND, not detected; ZIRC, Zebra- fish International Resource Center. METAL CONCENTRATIONS IN ZEBRAFISH HOUSING SYSTEMS 259 The comparison between purified water and fish water concentrations (Fig. 2 and Table 4) with levels of fluctuation over the 3-month tracking period (Fig. 4) suggests that most of the variability of these elements reflects addition of fac- tors that varied during a 3-month tracking. For example, we detected Zn at 11.28 lg L-1 in the municipal water and 0.38 lg L-1 after ROWS filtration at CNIC (Fig. 2). On av- erage, we detected a Zn concentration with a minimal value of 1.54 and a maximum value of 8.24 lg L-1 in the fish water samples over the 3-month period. This suggests that the ad- dition of external factors to the water system, such as diet or synthetic salts, which contain Zn and Fe but presumably no or little As or V, contributes to the variability of some metal and metalloid concentrations in fish water. Fine sediment and biological filters can accumulate metals To test the performance of biological filters and FSF with the capacity to accumulate metals and metalloids, we com- pared fish water with the sump water from a PWBF (ZIRC), an FSF (ZIRC) and a BMF (CCU, IA.1, KI, and NULS) (Fig. 5). Water from the PWBF showed a significant accu- mulation of Al, Ba, Cu, Fe, Mn, Sr, and Zn concentrations when compared with fish water (Fig. 5A). Similarly, FSF water also showed a significant increase of Cu, Fe, Mn, and Sr concentrations when compared with fish water (Fig. 5A). In contrast, we did not detect any significant difference in metal concentrations between pre- and post-BMF water samples, except for Al and Mn at the KI facility (Fig. 5B). Our results indicate a significant accumulation of Al, Ba, Cu, Fe, Mn, Sr, and Zn in PWBF and FSF in the ZIRC water system; while BMF does not show significant accumulation of any element in four fish facilities (CCU, IA.1, KI, and NULS). Discussion Controlled environmental conditions for laboratory ani- mals provide a basis for successful animal husbandry and welfare and reproducible results. For zebrafish, husbandry studies included the roles of anesthesia and euthanasia,46 dis- eases and pathogens,47,48 behavior,20–23,49,50 housing,39,45,49–51 nutrition,52,53 and reproduction.54–56 In this study, we explored concentrations of metals and metalloids in different CRWS that are used in biomedical zebrafish research facilities. In this regard, our study could serve as a reference for troubleshooting when there are in- dications of diseases related to deficiency or excess of some elements. Analysis of macro- and micronutrients and nonessential elements We detected the macronutrients Ca, K, Mg, and Na at high concentrations, but barely detected the micronutrients Cr, Co, Cu, Fe, Mn, Se, and Zn. The Cu, Mn, and Zn metal content in early embryos has been suggested to be set by the maternal contribution and only increases once zebrafish develop to the stage where they can acquire nutrients through the diet or the environment.57 The concentrations of Cu, Mn, and Zn reported in the study of Thomason et al. indicated that rela- tively low concentrations are required for fish younger than 30 dpf, suggesting that the concentrations of the CRWS shown in this study might be sufficient for normal biological processes in larval and juvenile zebrafish. In several CRWS, we also detected elements that are described in the literature as nonessential (Al, B, Si, and Sr) and even toxic at excessive levels in concentrations higher than 1 lg L-1. Al, for example, has been reported to increase the acetylcholinesterase activity in the zebrafish brain at 50 lg L-1 AlCl3 at pH 5.821 and to induce behavioral changes at 6700–26,700 lg L-1 AlCl3.58 In addition, neu- rotoxic effects have been reported in astroglia at 13,300 lg L-1 AlCl3.59 Sr, as a further example, stimulates the process of bone mineralization at 520 lg L-1 SrCl2, and the addition of strontium citrate as a nutritional supplement can increase bone mineral density.53 However, at concentra- tions exceeding 52,300 lg L-1, SrCl2 can also lead to the FIG. 3. Percentage of ionic rejection before and after the change of reverse osmosis membranes. Municipal water (n = 3) and reverse osmosis purified water (n = 3) samples were collected at IA.1 before and 24 h after the change of 2-year-old membranes. The ROWS is maintained at regular intervals. Data are presented as mean – SD; **p < 0.01 ac- cording to multiple t-tests. AMC, after membrane change; BMC, before membrane change. FIG. 4. Fluctuation of metal concentrations over a period of 3 months. Fish water samples (n = 14) were collected at CNIC. Graph shows the fluctuation of Al, As, Fe, V, and Zn levels (lg L-1) over a period of 3 months in the zebrafish housing system. Color images are available online. 260 LANGA ET AL. inhibition of the mineralization process during embryonic osteogenesis.60 For the two other elements, B61 and Si, little is known, for example, about the tolerance levels, or acute and chronic toxicity in zebrafish. Thus, depending on the con- centrations, nonessential elements can have beneficial or detrimental effects on zebrafish health. Despite RO, RWFSs form dynamic animal environments Evidence for differences of chemical composition of fish water can be gained from two facilities at the same institution (IA.1 and IA.2; see Table 4) that share the same ROWS source of water, but the overall infrastructure, synthetic sea salts, and diets differ between the two facilities. These data can be valuable and taken into account when conducting comparative studies between institutions that work in the same field of research. Few studies have shown whether or not fluctuating envi- ronmental conditions such as temperature, conductivity, pH, hardness, and oxygen, parameters that play a role for the speciation of metal ions, influence metal and metalloid toxi- cities.2,4,27,62 Therefore, additional information obtained by careful control of environmental parameters for each of these elements is needed to better understand under which condi- tions environmental changes and metal concentrations might cause chronic, acute, subpathological, or apparent disorders of behavior, metabolism, reproduction, health, and development in zebrafish.16,19–22,26,27,31,33,58,59,63–66 FIG. 5. Metal concentra- tions are elevated in PWBF and FSF samples relative to system water, but not in BMF samples. (A) Water samples from fish tanks (n = 3), PWBF (n = 3), and FSF (n = 3) were collected at ZIRC. (B) Water samples from fish tanks (n = 3) and BMF (n = 3) were collected at CCU, IA.1, KI, and NULS. Data are presented as mean – SD (n = 3); *p < 0.05; and ***p < 0.001 according to multiple t-tests (A) and two- way ANOVA (B). ANOVA, analysis of variance; BMF, bead moving filter; FSF, fine sediment filter; PWBF, pro- peller wash bead filter. METAL CONCENTRATIONS IN ZEBRAFISH HOUSING SYSTEMS 261 Seven of the analyzed CRWS use municipal water as their water source that is purified by ROWS and reconstituted with synthetic sea salts and buffers to reach freshwater condi- tions. The efficiency of ROWS to filter water appears to be similar between facilities based on the relative concentrations of dissolved elements present in their municipal water. However, our observations suggest that some elements are removed more efficiently (Ba and Sr) than others (mainly Al, B, and Fe) by ROWS filter membranes. The causes of the observed differences in ionic rejection between elements may be due to excessive convective transport, poor size ex- clusion, or ineffective charge repulsion.67 The concentration of particular elements after ROWS filtration can be used as an indication that membranes need to be replaced periodically. Previous studies already reported about the efficiency of ROWS for removing heavy metals,68,69 but there is lack of and occasionally confounding information regarding the most adequate timing to replace ROWS filtration membranes. Therefore, we suggest more long-term studies to better un- derstand optimal, facility-specific frequencies for filter and membrane changes and the impact of seasonal fluctuations on CRWS. Such measurements will contribute to more stable water composition, and thus, a reduction of costs for water system consumables, environmental sustainability, and the increased knowledge about the chemical composition of CRWS water. Despite ROWS and reconstituted freshwater conditions, we observed fluctuations of Al, Fe, and Zn con- centrations in one of the water systems over a 3-month pe- riod. This suggests that even with relatively tight control of source water quality, fish diets, fluctuation of the number of fish on the system, and buffering agents may introduce sig- nificant variations in system water quality.70–72 Possible role of filtration components for system water composition and stability Biological filters represent crucial infrastructural compo- nents of RWFS for the oxidation of ammonia into nitrite and subsequently to less toxic nitrate.38,39 Moreover, bacte- ria, algae, and fungi have the capacity to chelate metals.73,74 However, so far there are no reports indicating which ele- ments are accumulated by microorganisms in fish facilities. In addition, biofilm appears to be more effective in trapping metals in PWBF in comparison with BMF. We suggest that the more abrasive backwashing in BMF knocks off and re- moves microorganism-containing biofilm that is beneficial for the elimination of metals from immediate contact with fish. Moreover, it has not been reported yet, whether or not filter systems may also function as metal traps in RWFS. Specific studies are required to better understand which mi- croorganisms might be involved in this process, which spe- cific metals they accumulate, and how they impact the overall water quality in CRWS.75 Several factors might affect metal accumulation in filter components: the population growth phase of the bacterial population, the type of materials used in the filters (beads, minerals, pads, etc.), the total biomass of the fish population relative to the total water volume of the system, and the level of its pollutant equilibrium. In conclusion, our study sheds light on 46 elements that can be expected in CRWS. This information might be helpful for the research community as a troubleshooting aid to solve po- tential husbandry problems related to changes in water quality. Acknowledgments We thank the Mercader lab, Valentin Djonov, Helmut Segner, Heike Schmidt-Posthaus, Almut Köhler, Uwe Strähle, Audrius Gegeckas, Aleström lab. We are also grateful to Nuria Basdedios, Andy Oates, Helmut Signer, Stephan Fisher, Daniele Soroldoni, Luis Cesar Fernandez, Donatello Serio, and Juan Ramos. We thank the members of the animal facil- ities of ZIRC, EZRC, Universität Bern, CNIC, Norwegian University of Life Sciences, Karolinska Institute, and Cham- palimaud Foundation. Disclosure Statement No competing financial interests exist. Funding Information This work was partially funded by the European Research Council ERC Consolidator grant 819717, Congento Lisboa- 01-0145-FEDER-022170, cofinanced by FCT (Portugal) and Lisboa2020, under the Portugal2020 agreement (European Regional Development Fund). D.L. and Z.M.V. of the ZIRC gratefully acknowledge support by the NIH/ORIP (P40 OD011021). References 1. Enghag P: Encyclopedia of the Elements: Technical Data- History-Processing-Applications. John Wiley & Sons, Fed- eral Republic of Germany, 2008. 2. Boyd CE: Water Quality: An Introduction Springer Nature Switzerland AG, Cham, Switzerland, 2019. 3. Roberts RJ: Fish Pathology. John Wiley & Sons, Chiche- ster, United Kingdom, 2012. 4. Wood Chris M, Farrell Anthony P, Brauner Colin J: Fish Physiology: Homeostasis and Toxicology of Essential Metals, Vol. 31. Academic Press, London, 2011. 5. Maret W. The metals in the biological periodic system of the elements: concepts and conjectures. Int J Mol Sci 2016; 17:66. 6. Niyogi S, Nadella SR, Wood CM. Interactive effects of waterborne metals in binary mixtures on short-term gill- metal binding and ion uptake in rainbow trout (Oncor- hynchus mykiss). Aquat Toxicol 2015;165:109–119. 7. Bury NR, Walker PA, Glover CN. Nutritive metal uptake in teleost fish. J Exp Biol 2003;206:11–23. 8. Horng JL, Yu LL, Liu ST, Chen PY, Lin LY. Potassium regulation in medaka (Oryzias latipes) larvae acclimated to fresh water: passive uptake and active secretion by the skin cells. Sci Rep 2017;7:16215. 9. McCormick SD, Hasegawa S, Hirano T. Calcium uptake in the skin of a freshwater teleost. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 1992;89:3635–3638. 10. Lin CH, Hwang PP. The control of calcium metabolism in Zebrafish (Danio rerio). Int J Mol Sci 2016;17. 11. Martinez-Finley EJ, Chakraborty S, Fretham SJ, Aschner M. Cellular transport and homeostasis of essential and nonessential metals. Metallomics 2012;4:593–605. 12. Olsson P-E, Kling P, Hogstrand C. Mechanisms of heavy metal accumulation and toxicity in fish. In: Metal Meta- bolism in Aquatic Environments. Depledge MH and San- ders B (eds), pp. 321–350. Chapman & Hall, London, United Kingdom, 1998. 262 LANGA ET AL. 13. Beaver LM, Nkrumah-Elie YM, Truong L, et al. Adverse effects of parental zinc deficiency on metal homeostasis and embryonic development in a zebrafish model. J Nutr Biochem 2017;43:78–87. 14. Bo L, Liu Z, Zhong Y, et al. Iron deficiency anemia’s effect on bone formation in zebrafish mutant. Biochem Biophys Res Commun 2016;475:271–276. 15. Salvaggio A, Marino F, Albano M, et al. Toxic effects of zinc chloride on the bone development in Danio rerio (Hamilton, 1822). Front Physiol 2016;7:153. 16. Sfakianakis DG, Renieri E, Kentouri M, Tsatsakis AM. Effect of heavy metals on fish larvae deformities: a review. Environ Res 2015;137:246–255. 17. Xu J, Zhang R, Zhang T, et al. Copper impairs zebrafish swimbladder development by down-regulating Wnt sig- naling. Aquat Toxicol 2017;192:155–164. 18. Altenhofen S, Nabinger DD, Pereira TCB, Leite CE, Bogo MR, Bonan CD. Manganese(II) chloride alters nucleotide and nucleoside catabolism in zebrafish (Danio rerio) adult brain. Mol Neurobiol 2018;55:3866–3874. 19. Augustine S, Gagnaire B, Adam-Guillermin C, Kooijman S. Effects of uranium on the metabolism of zebrafish, Danio rerio. Aquat Toxicol 2012;118–119:9–26. 20. Zimmermann Prado Rodrigues G, Staudt LBM, et al. Histopathological, genotoxic, and behavioral damages in- duced by manganese (II) in adult zebrafish. Chemosphere 2020;244:125550. 21. Senger MR, Seibt KJ, Ghisleni GC, Dias RD, Bogo MR, Bonan CD. Aluminum exposure alters behavioral parame- ters and increases acetylcholinesterase activity in zebrafish (Danio rerio) brain. Cell Biol Toxicol 2011;27:199–205. 22. Pilehvar A, Town RM, Blust R. The interactive effect of copper(II) and conspecific alarm substances on behavioural responses of zebrafish (Danio rerio). Behav Brain Res 2020;381:112452. 23. Toni M, Angiulli E, Miccoli G, et al. Environmental tem- perature variation affects brain protein expression and cognitive abilities in adult zebrafish (Danio rerio): a pro- teomic and behavioural study. J Proteomics 2019;204: 103396. 24. Christou M, Iliopoulou M, Witten PE, Koumoundouros G. Segmentation pattern of zebrafish caudal fin is affected by developmental temperature and defined by multiple fusions between segments. J Exp Zool B Mol Dev Evol 2018;330: 330–340. 25. Cortemeglia C, Beitinger TL. Temperature tolerances of wild-type and red transgenic zebra danios. Trans Am Fish Soc 2005;134:1431–1437. 26. Delomas TA, Dabrowski K. Larval rearing of zebrafish at suboptimal temperatures. J Therm Biol 2018;74:170–173. 27. Dave G. The influence of pH on the toxicity of aluminum, cadmium, and iron to eggs and larvae of the zebrafish, Brachydanio rerio. Ecotoxicol Environ Saf 1985;10:253– 267. 28. Komjarova I, Blust R. Effects of Na, Ca, and pH on the simultaneous uptake of Cd, Cu, Ni, Pb, and Zn in the zebrafish Danio rerio: a stable isotope experiment. Environ Sci Technol 2009;43:7958–7963. 29. Nugegoda D, Kibria G. Water quality guidelines for the protection of aquatic ecosystems. Encycl Aquat Ecotoxicol 2013;10:978–994. 30. Acosta DDS, Danielle NM, Altenhofen S, et al. Copper at low levels impairs memory of adult zebrafish (Danio rerio) and affects swimming performance of larvae. Comp Bio- chem Physiol C Toxicol Pharmacol 2016;185–186:122– 130. 31. Cui J, Zhang Z, Bai W, et al. Effects of rare earth elements La and Yb on the morphological and functional develop- ment of zebrafish embryos. J Environ Sci (China) 2012;24: 209–213. 32. Dahan D, Jude BA, Lamendella R, Keesing F, Perron GG. Exposure to arsenic alters the microbiome of larval zebra- fish. Front Microbiol 2018;9:1323. 33. Kwon B, Ha N, Jung J, et al. Effects of barium chloride exposure on hormones and genes of the hypothalamic- pituitary-gonad axis, and reproduction of zebrafish (Danio rerio). Bull Environ Contam Toxicol 2016;96:341–346. 34. Xiao B, Cui LQ, Ding C, Wang H. Effects of lithium and 2,4-dichlorophenol on zebrafish: circadian rhythm disorder and molecular effects. Zebrafish 2017;14:209–215. 35. Hammer HS: Water quality for zebrafish culture. In: The Zebrafish in Biomedical Research. Cartner SC, Eisen JS, Farmer SC, Guillemin KJ, Kent ML and Sanders GE (eds), pp. 321–335. Academic Press, London, United Kingdom, 2020. 36. Timmons M, Guerdat T, Vinci B. Recirculating Aqua- culture. Ithaca Publishing Company LLC, New York, 2018. 37. Trevarrow B. Zebrafish facilities for small and large labo- ratories. Methods Cell Biol 2004;77:565–591. 38. Varga Z. Aquaculture, husbandry, and shipping at the Zebrafish International Resource Center. Methods Cell Biol 2016;135:509–534. 39. Lawrence C, Mason T. Zebrafish housing systems: a review of basic operating principles and considerations for design and functionality. ILAR J 2012;53:179–191. 40. Courtland S. Recirculating systems for zebrafish. Lab Anim (NY) 2002;31:53–56. 41. Gygax S, Gfeller L, Wilcke W, Mestrot A. Emerging in- vestigator series: mercury mobility and methylmercury formation in a contaminated agricultural flood plain: in- fluence of flooding and manure addition. Environ Sci Pro- cess Impacts 2019;21:2008–2019. 42. Fernández-Turiel JL, Llorens JF, López-Vera F, Gómez- Artola C, Morell I, Gimeno D. Strategy for water analysis using ICP-MS. Fresenius J Anal Chem 2000;368:601–606. 43. Khosravi R, Zarei M, Bigalke M. Characterizing major controls on spatial and seasonal variations in chemical composition of surface and pore brine of Maharlu Lake, Southern Iran. Aquat Geochem 2018;24:27–54. 44. Khosravi R, Zarei M, Sracek O, Bigalke M. Geochemical and hydrological controls of arsenic concentrations across the sediment–water interface at Maharlu Lake, Southern Iran. Appl Geochem 2019;102:88–101. 45. Aleström P, D’Angelo L, Midtlyng PJ, et al. Zebrafish: housing and husbandry recommendations. Lab Anim 2020; 54:213–224. 46. Matthews M, Varga ZM. Anesthesia and euthanasia in zebrafish. ILAR J 2012;53:192–204. 47. Kent ML, Feist SW, Harper C, et al. Recommendations for control of pathogens and infectious diseases in fish research facilities. Comp Biochem Physiol C Toxicol Pharmacol 2009;149:240–248. 48. Sanders JL, Watral V, Kent ML. Microsporidiosis in zeb- rafish research facilities. ILAR J 2012;53:106–113. 49. Collymore C, Tolwani RJ, Rasmussen S. The behavioral effects of single housing and environmental enrichment on adult zebrafish (Danio rerio). J Am Assoc Lab Anim Sci 2015;54:280–285. METAL CONCENTRATIONS IN ZEBRAFISH HOUSING SYSTEMS 263 50. Parker MO, Millington ME, Combe FJ, Brennan CH. Housing conditions differentially affect physiological and behavioural stress responses of zebrafish, as well as the response to anxiolytics. PLoS One 2012;7:e34992. 51. Kurtzman MS, Craig MP, Grizzle BK, Hove JR. Sexually segregated housing results in improved early larval survival in zebrafish. Lab Anim (NY) 2010;39:183–189. 52. Watts SA, Powell M, D’Abramo LR. Fundamental ap- proaches to the study of zebrafish nutrition. ILAR J 2012; 53:144–160. 53. Siccardi AJ, 3rd, Padgett-Vasquez S, Garris HW, Nagy TR, D’Abramo LR, Watts SA. Dietary strontium increases bone mineral density in intact zebrafish (Danio rerio): a potential model system for bone research. Zebrafish 2010;7:267–273. 54. Fowler LA, Williams MB, Dennis-Cornelius LN, et al. Influence of commercial and laboratory diets on growth, body composition, and reproduction in the zebrafish Danio rerio. Zebrafish 2019;16:508–521. 55. Markovich ML, Rizzuto NV, Brown PB. Diet affects spawning in zebrafish. Zebrafish 2007;4:69–74. 56. Meinelt T, Schulz C, Wirth M. The fatty acid composition of diet influences the quality of fish eggs. J Appe Ichtyol 1999;15:13–19. 57. Thomason RT, Pettiglio MA, Herrera C, Kao C, Gitlin JD, Bartnikas TB. Characterization of trace metal content in the developing zebrafish embryo. PLoS One 2017;12: e0179318. 58. Capriello T, Grimaldi MC, Cofone R, D’Aniello S, Ferrandino I. Effects of aluminium and cadmium on hatching and swimming ability in developing zebrafish. Chemosphere 2019;222:243–249. 59. Monaco A, Grimaldi MC, Ferrandino I. Aluminium chloride-induced toxicity in zebrafish larvae. J Fish Dis 2017;40:629–635. 60. Pasqualetti S, Banfi G, Mariotti M. The effects of strontium on skeletal development in zebrafish embryo. J Trace Elem Med Biol 2013;27:375–379. 61. Soucek DJ, Dickinson A, Koch BT. Acute and chronic toxicity of boron to a variety of freshwater organisms. Environ Toxicol Chem 2011;30:1906–1914. 62. Boyle D, Clark NJ, Handy RD. Toxicities of copper oxide nanomaterial and copper sulphate in early life stage zeb- rafish: effects of pH and intermittent pulse exposure. Eco- toxicol Environ Saf 2020;190:109985. 63. Jezierska B, Ługowska K, Witeska M. The effects of heavy metals on embryonic development of fish (a review). Fish Physiol Biochem 2009;35:625–640. 64. Johnson A, Carew E, Sloman KA. The effects of copper on the morphological and functional development of zebrafish embryos. Aquat Toxicol 2007;84:431–438. 65. Tye MT, Montgomery JE, Hobbs MR, Vanpelt KT, Masino MA. An adult zebrafish diet contaminated with chromium reduces the viability of progeny. Zebrafish 2018;15:179–187. 66. Zheng JL, Yuan SS, Wu CW, Lv ZM, Zhu AY. Circadian time-dependent antioxidant and inflammatory responses to acute cadmium exposure in the brain of zebrafish. Aquat Toxicol 2017;182:113–119. 67. Cui Y, Ge Q, Liu X-Y, Chung T-S. Novel forward osmosis process to effectively remove heavy metal ions. J Membr Sci 2014;467:188–194. 68. Qdais HA, Moussa H. Removal of heavy metals from wastewater by membrane processes: a comparative study. Desalination 2004;164:105–110. 69. Thaçi BS, Gashi ST. Reverse osmosis removal of heavy metals from wastewater effluents using biowaste materials pretreatment. Pol J Environ Stud 2019;28:337–341. 70. Sloth JJ, Julshamn K, Lundebye AK. Total arsenic and inorganic arsenic content in Norwegian fish feed products. Aquacult Nutr 2005;11:61–66. 71. Sele V, Sloth JJ, Holmelid B, Valdersnes S, Skov K, Amlund H. Arsenic-containing fatty acids and hydrocar- bons in marine oils—determination using reversed-phase HPLC-ICP-MS and HPLC-qTOF-MS. Talanta 2014;121: 89–96. 72. Wang W-X. Dietary toxicity of metals in aquatic animals: recent studies and perspectives. Chin Sci Bull 2013;58: 203–213. 73. Gadd GM. Heavy metal accumulation by bacteria and other microorganisms. Experientia 1990;46:834–840. 74. Donati ER. Heavy Metals in the Environment: Micro- organisms and Bioremediation. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, 2018. 75. Ayangbenro AS, Babalola OO. A new strategy for heavy metal polluted environments: a review of microbial bio- sorbents. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2017;14:94. 76. https://www.waterquality.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/ anzecc-armcanz-2000-guidelines-vol1.pdf (accessed November 6, 2020). 77. https://www.epa.gov/wqc/national-recommended-water-qual ity-criteria-aquatic-life-criteria-table#table (accessed November 6, 2020). Address correspondence to: Nadia Mercader, PhD Division Developmental Biology and Regeneration Institute of Anatomy University of Bern Baltzerstrasse 2 Bern 3012 Switzerland E-mail: nadia.mercader@ana.unibe.ch Xavier Langa, BSc (Hons) Division Developmental Biology and Regeneration Institute of Anatomy University of Bern Baltzerstrasse 2 Bern 3012 Switzerland E-mail: javier.langa@ana.unibe.ch 264 LANGA ET AL. https://www.waterquality.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/anzecc-armcanz-2000-guidelines-vol1.pdf https://www.waterquality.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/anzecc-armcanz-2000-guidelines-vol1.pdf https://www.epa.gov/wqc/national-recommended-water-quality-criteria-aquatic-life-criteria-table#table https://www.epa.gov/wqc/national-recommended-water-quality-criteria-aquatic-life-criteria-table#table