5 Concluding Remarks
While the principles of risk assessment have long been a part of international
environmental regulations, chemical risk assessment in Chile is still in its early
stages of development. Southern Chile is an area with an actively developing salmon
farming industry, and the country is the world’s second largest producer, after
Norway. One of the challenges posed by the rapid growth of the salmon farming
industry is the presence of diseases and parasites that affect salmon production such
as the copepod Caligus rogercresseyi, commonly known as “sea lice.” To combat
sea lice, a series of pesticide chemicals such as cypermethrin and deltamethrin
pyrethroids are used, which are applied through bath treatments. The use of
chemicals in salmon farming is subject to a risk assessment procedure based on
VICH regulations. This procedure must include the determination of a risk quotient
(RQ) between predicted environmental concentrations and no-observed effect concentrations (NOECs) for local marine species. Thus, a comprehensive approach
adapted to Chilean conditions for an adequate risk assessment of such chemicals is
required.
Acknowledgments The authors are grateful for the financial support of FIPA Project No. 2014-42
and the Undersecretariat for Fisheries and Aquaculture (SUBPESCA, Ministry of Economy).
The authors also wish to acknowledge CONICYT/FONDECYT projects 1180063 and 3180159,
the MUSELS Millennium Nucleus (NC 120086), and CRHIAM, CONICYT/FONDAP project
15130015.
References
1. Quiñones RA, Fuentes M, Montes RM, Soto D, León-Muñoz J (2019) Environmental issues in
Chilean salmon farming: a review. Rev Aquac 11(2):375–402. https://doi.org/10.1111/raq.
12337
2. Boxshall GA, Bravo S (2000) On the identity of the common Caligus (Copepoda:
Siphonostomatoida: Caligidae) from salmonid netpen system in southern Chile. Contrib Zool
69(1):137–146. https://doi.org/10.1163/18759866-0690102015
3. Bravo S, Sevatdal S, Horsberg TE (2008) Sensitivity assessment of Caligus rogercresseyi to
emamectin benzoate in Chile. Aquaculture 282:7–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquaculture.
2008.06.011
4. Bravo S, Silva MT, Gustavo M (2012) Efficacy of emamectin benzoate in the control of
Caligus rogercresseyi on farmed Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar L.) in Chile from 2006 to
2007. Aquaculture 364–365:61–66. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquaculture.2012.07.036
5. Aaen SM, Helgesen KO, Bakke MJ, Kaur K, Horsberg TE (2015) Drug resistance in sea lice: a
threat to salmonid aquaculture. Trends Parasitol 31(2):72–81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pt.2014.
12.006
6. Roth M (2000) The availability and use of chemotherapeutic sea lice control products. Contrib
Zoolo 69(1–2):109–118. https://doi.org/10.1163/18759866-0690102012
7. Haya K, Burridge LE, Davies IM, Ervik A (2005) A review and assessment of environmental
risk of chemicals used for the treatment of sea lice infestations of cultured salmon. In: Hargrave
BT (ed) Environmental effects of marine finfish aquaculture. Handbook of environment chemistry, vol 5. Springer, Berlin, pp 305–340. https://doi.org/10.1007/b136016
198
F. Tucca and R. Barra
While the principles of risk assessment have long been a part of international
environmental regulations, chemical risk assessment in Chile is still in its early
stages of development. Southern Chile is an area with an actively developing salmon
farming industry, and the country is the world’s second largest producer, after
Norway. One of the challenges posed by the rapid growth of the salmon farming
industry is the presence of diseases and parasites that affect salmon production such
as the copepod Caligus rogercresseyi, commonly known as “sea lice.” To combat
sea lice, a series of pesticide chemicals such as cypermethrin and deltamethrin
pyrethroids are used, which are applied through bath treatments. The use of
chemicals in salmon farming is subject to a risk assessment procedure based on
VICH regulations. This procedure must include the determination of a risk quotient
(RQ) between predicted environmental concentrations and no-observed effect concentrations (NOECs) for local marine species. Thus, a comprehensive approach
adapted to Chilean conditions for an adequate risk assessment of such chemicals is
required.
Acknowledgments The authors are grateful for the financial support of FIPA Project No. 2014-42
and the Undersecretariat for Fisheries and Aquaculture (SUBPESCA, Ministry of Economy).
The authors also wish to acknowledge CONICYT/FONDECYT projects 1180063 and 3180159,
the MUSELS Millennium Nucleus (NC 120086), and CRHIAM, CONICYT/FONDAP project
15130015.
References
1. Quiñones RA, Fuentes M, Montes RM, Soto D, León-Muñoz J (2019) Environmental issues in
Chilean salmon farming: a review. Rev Aquac 11(2):375–402. https://doi.org/10.1111/raq.
12337
2. Boxshall GA, Bravo S (2000) On the identity of the common Caligus (Copepoda:
Siphonostomatoida: Caligidae) from salmonid netpen system in southern Chile. Contrib Zool
69(1):137–146. https://doi.org/10.1163/18759866-0690102015
3. Bravo S, Sevatdal S, Horsberg TE (2008) Sensitivity assessment of Caligus rogercresseyi to
emamectin benzoate in Chile. Aquaculture 282:7–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquaculture.
2008.06.011
4. Bravo S, Silva MT, Gustavo M (2012) Efficacy of emamectin benzoate in the control of
Caligus rogercresseyi on farmed Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar L.) in Chile from 2006 to
2007. Aquaculture 364–365:61–66. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquaculture.2012.07.036
5. Aaen SM, Helgesen KO, Bakke MJ, Kaur K, Horsberg TE (2015) Drug resistance in sea lice: a
threat to salmonid aquaculture. Trends Parasitol 31(2):72–81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pt.2014.
12.006
6. Roth M (2000) The availability and use of chemotherapeutic sea lice control products. Contrib
Zoolo 69(1–2):109–118. https://doi.org/10.1163/18759866-0690102012
7. Haya K, Burridge LE, Davies IM, Ervik A (2005) A review and assessment of environmental
risk of chemicals used for the treatment of sea lice infestations of cultured salmon. In: Hargrave
BT (ed) Environmental effects of marine finfish aquaculture. Handbook of environment chemistry, vol 5. Springer, Berlin, pp 305–340. https://doi.org/10.1007/b136016
198
F. Tucca and R. Barra