Columnaris disease in fish: a review with emphasis on bacterium-host interactions

Original PDF:

http://www.veterinaryresearch.org/content/pdf/1297-9716-44-27.pdf

A few snippets:
"An in vivo immersion challenge of F. columnare in chan- nel catfish and goldfish (Carassius auratus L.) revealed decreasing mortality as salinity goes up, with signifi- cantly lower and no mortalities when salinity reaches values of 1.0‰ and between 3 and 9‰, respectively [79]. If the fish can be adapted to salt levels of at least 1.0‰, this method could be used as a possible prevent- ive measure in columnaris disease."

"Besides optimizing and adjusting management prac- tices, chemical agents can also be adopted as a prevent- ive approach. Davis concluded that the development or intensification of columnaris disease could be prevented by treating the fish for 20 min in a copper sulfate (CuSO4) bath at 37 mg/L (1:30 000) or by adding copper sulfate to pond water at 0.5 mg/L [4]. Dipping the fish one at a time in a 1:2000 copper-sulfate for one to two minutes was also proven to be effective in the preven- tion of the disease. Rogers suggested the addition of po- tassium permanganate (KMnO4) to the water at 2 mg/L[119]. Darwish et al. also confirmed the prophylactic value of KMnO4 at doses around 2 mg/L [120]. Prophylactic treatment of channel catfish with 15 mg/L chloramine-T reduced fish mortality from a F. columnare infection from 84–100% to 6–14% [121]. Thomas-Jinu and Goodwin demonstrated the efficacy of prophylactic- ally given oxytetracycline against mortality in channel cat- fish and also reported zero mortality for the combination of sulphadimethoxine and ormetoprim in feed prior to bacterial challenge with four highly virulent strains of F. columnare [111]."

 

 

Ciliate ectoparasites (Ciliophora: Trichodinidae/Chilodonellidae) on gills of Carassius auratus from the Yangtze River, China, with the description of Trichodina luzhoues sp. n.

Abstract

Three species of the genus Trichodina Ehrenberg, 1838 and one species of the genusChilodonella Strand, 1926 were collected from gills of Carassius auratus. They areTrichodina luzhoues sp. n., Trichodina mutabilis Kazubski and Migala, 1968, Trichodina reticulata Hirschman and Partsch, 1955, and Chilodonella hexasticha Kiernik, 1909. T. luzhoues sp. n. is a medium-sized trichodinid, and its denticles are very distinctive: the blade is narrow rhombus shaped, the section connecting the blade and central part is long and very thin; the section connecting the central part and ray is short and very thick. Ch. hexasticha is a new record in China.

Parasitol Res (2012) 111:433–439 DOI 10.1007/s00436-012-2859-0

Ciliate ectoparasites (Ciliophora: Trichodinidae/ Chilodonellidae) on gills of Carassius auratus from the Yangtze River, China, with the description of Trichodina luzhoues sp. n.

Yinheng Hu

Received: 14 July 2011 / Accepted: 7 February 2012 / Published online: 29 February 2012 # Springer-Verlag 2012

ORIGINAL PAPER

Abstract Three species of the genus Trichodina Ehrenberg, 1838 and one species of the genus Chilodonella Strand, 1926 were collected from gills of Carassius auratus. They are Trichodina luzhoues sp. n., Trichodina mutabilis Kazubski and Migala, 1968, Trichodina reticulata Hirschman and Partsch, 1955, and Chilodonella hexasticha Kiernik, 1909. T. luzhoues sp. n. is a medium-sized trichodinid, and its denticles are very distinctive: the blade is narrow rhombus shaped, the section connecting the blade and central part is long and very thin; the section connecting the central part and ray is short and very thick. Ch. hexasticha is a new record in China.

Introduction

About ten trichodinds have been found from Carassius auratus so far, such as Trichodina oviformis Chen, 1955, Trichodina nobilis Chen, 1963, Trichodina carassii Li, 1990, Trichodina paranigra Tong, Zhao and Chen, 2004, Trichodina pachyhamata Tang and Zhao, 2005, Trichodina subtilihamata Tang, Zhao and Tao, 2007, Trichodina bev- icirra Tong and Zhao, 2010, and so on. Two Chilodonellids, Chilodonella cyprini (Hofer 1906; André 1912; Bespalyj 1950; Krascheninnikow 1952; 1953; Chen 1955; Smirnova et al. 1964; Grabda 1971) and C. hexasticha (André 1912), have been reported from C. auratus.

The present paper deals with three ciliates belonging to the genus Trichodina Ehrenberg, 1838 and one ciliate of the genus Chilodonella Strand, 1926 collected from gills of C.

Y. Hu (*) Luzhou Vocational & Technical College, Luzhou 646005 Sichuan, People’s Republic of China e-mail: huyhen@163.com

auratus. They are Trichodina luzhoues sp. n., Trichodina mutabilis Kazubski and Migala, 1968, Trichodina reticulata Hirschman and Partsch, 1955 and Chilodonella hexasticha Kiernik, 1909.

Materials and methods

The host C. auratus (L.) that was more than 1 year old was obtained in 2009 from the Yangtze River at Luzhou, Sichuan, China (28°51′N, 105°23′E), which is the longest river in China.

Gill scrapings were made from the hosts. Smears with ciliates were air dried and then the slides with ciliates were impregnated with Klein's dry silver impregnation technique (Klein 1958). The nuclear apparatus was shown using methyl green-pyronin staining (Foissner 1991). All photomicro- graphs and illustration drawings were made with the help of a camera (Motic DM–BA300–B) at ×100 magnification with oil immersion lens and software Motic Images Advanced 3.2 and CorelDraw X3. The statistics were obtained with Micro- soft Excel 2003.

All measurements are presented in micrometers (μm). In each case, minimum and maximum values are given, followed in parentheses by the arithmetic mean and standard deviation. In the case of the number of radial pins/denticle and denticles of the trichodinid and number of kineties of the chilodonellid, the mode is given rather than the arithme- tic mean with the number of specimens examined given in parentheses. The body diameter of trichodinid is measured as the adhesive disc plus the border membrane. The meas- urements of trichodinid follow the uniform specific charac- teristics proposed by Lom (1958) while the method proposed by Van As and Basson (1989) was followed for denticle description, as shown in Fig. 1.

434

Parasitol Res (2012) 111:433–439

Fig. 1 Diagram to illustrate denticle structure and construction of X- and Y-axes as fixed references for description of denticles (after Van As and Basson 1989). AB, apex of blade; AM, anterior margin of blade; AR, apophysis of ray (0 thorn); B, blade; BA, apophysis of blade; CA, central of adhesive disc; CB, section connecting blade and central part; CC, section connecting central part and ray; CCP, central conical part; CP, central part; DC, deepest point of curve; DS, distal surface of blade; PM, posterior margin of blade; PP, posterior projection; PR, point of ray; R, ray; SA, section of central part above X-axis; SB, section of central part below X-axis; TP, tangent point

The position of the micronucleus of trichodinid is given relative to the arch-shaped macronucleus, according to the format described by Lom (1958), which was based on the system originally proposed by Dogiel (1940). In this system, the micronucleus is situated in one of three positions relative to the terminations of the arms of the macronucleus: (1) externally, near the right termination (+y); (2) externally, between the two terminations (−y); and (3) internally, near the right termination (−y1).

Trichodina luzhoues sp. n.

Taxonomic summary

Species: T. luzhoues sp. n. Family: Trichodinidae Claus, 1874 Type Host: Carassius auratus (L.) Fish Family: Cyprinidae Type Locality: Luzhou, Sichuan, China (28°51′N, 105°23′E) Location: Gills of Carassius auratus (L.) Date of Sampling: 7/2009 Etymology: The specific epithet “luzhoues” is coined

from the name of “Luzhou,Sichuan, China”. Reference Material: Holotype, slide LZY109/2009, and

paratype slides LZY112/2009, LZY113/2009 are deposited in the Biological Laboratory of Luzhou Vocational & Tech- nical College.

Descriptions

The following is a description of a medium-sized, freshwater trichodinid: body diameter, 36.6–61.0 (50.3 ± 7.6); adhesive disc, 28.1–48.7 (40.5 ± 6.6) (see Figs. 2–5, 6; Table 1); dentic- ulate ring, 18.1–31.2 (25.2 ± 4.7); border membrane, 4.1–6.2 (4.9 ± 0.6); denticle number, 21–29 (25); radial pins per

Figs. 2–5 Photomicrographs of T. luzhoues sp. n. from C. auratus, after dry silver impregnation (2, 3, 4) and green-pyronin staining (5). 2–3, adhesive discs; 4, adoral ciliary spiral; 5, nuclear, MA macronucleus; MI micronucleus (scale bars020 μm)

Results and discussions

Parasitol Res (2012) 111:433–439

435

denticle, 5–6 (5); denticle span, 9.7–17.1 (13.3 ± 2.6); denticle length, 4.1–7.7 (6.0 ± 1.2); the central zone of adhesive disc clear; the blade is narrow rhombus shaped; and blade length, 3.0–7.8 (5.3 ± 1.3). Distal surface of blade is short, tangent point rounded. The anterior margin of blade is approximately parallel to curves of posterior margin of blade, forming almost L shape; apex of blade touches Y + 1-axis, some crosses Y + 1-axis, apoph- ysis of blade barely seen; section connecting the blade and central part is long and very thin. The central part is well developed with rounded point fitting tightly into preceding denticle, extending about half towards the Y − 1-axis. Section of central part above X-axis is less than the section of central part below X-axis in shape. The central part width is 1.2–4.5 (2.3± 0.7). The section connecting central part and ray is very thick. The ray is directed towards the center of adhesive disc. The point of the ray is sharp or rounded. Ray length is 3.7–8.3 (5.7±1.3). Adoral ciliary spiral makes a turn of 407–420°. Macronucleus is horseshoe shaped, elongated, and with characteristic dilations at both ends; external diameter is 31.3–35.1 (33.2±1.8). Micronu- cleus is spherical; diameter is c.3.3, situated in −y1 position.

Remarks

About ten trichodinds have been found from C. auratus so far, but T. luzhoues sp. n. is obviously different from them (see Figs. 6–8 and Table 1). T. luzhoues sp. n. only resembles Trichodina cooperi Poynton and Lom, 1989 obtained from skin, fins of Gadus morhua L. found in Nova, Scotia, Cana- dia, and Trichodina galyae Lom and Laird, 1969 obtained from the gills of Cyelopterus lumpus found in Canada.

T. luzhoues sp. n. is different from T. galyae by the shape of denticle and some other measurements. (1) The new species is smaller than T. galyae, for example, body diam- eter (36.6–61.0 vs. 70–85), adhesive disc (28.1–48.7 vs. 48–65), and denticulate ring (18.1–31.2 vs. 30–42). (2) In the case of the new species, the posterior tip of the central part extends almost halfway to Y−1-axis, but in the case of T. galyae, it almost touches Y−1-axis. (3) The ray is thicker in the new species than in T. galyae. (4) Morphometic data of the new species also varies when they are compared with those of T. galyae, e.g., radial pins per denticle (5–6 vs. 10–12), denticle length (4.1–7.7 vs. 10.5; see Table 1).

Figs. 6–8 Diagrammatic drawings of the denticles of trichodinid cil- iophorans.6, T. luzhoues sp. n.; 7, T. galyae; 8, T. cooperi

T. luzhoues sp. n. is clearly distinguished from T. cooperi too. (1) The new species is smaller than T. cooperi, i.e., body diameter (36.6–61.0 vs. 95–122), adhesive disc (28.1–48.7 vs. 82–107), and denticulate ring (18.1–31.2 vs. 49–67). (2) The shapes of blade are different in the two trichodinids. The section connecting the blade and the central part is very thin in the new species but thick in T. cooperi. (3) The ray parallels Y-axis and directs towards the center of adhesive disc in the new species, but it slants backward and is slightly forward curved in T. cooperi. (4) Morphometic data of the new species also varies when they are compared with those of T. cooperi, for instance, border membrane (4.1–6.2 vs. 6.4–8.9), radial pins per denticle (5–6 vs. 7–9) denticle span (9.7–17.1 vs. 23.6–32.5), denticle length (4.1–7.7 vs. 20.4–24.5), blade length (3.0–7.8 vs. 7.5–10.0), central part width (1.2–4.5 vs. 3.2–6.3), ray length (3.7–8.3 vs. 10.2–19.1), and adoral ciliary spiral (407–420 vs. 370–390; see Table 1).

T. mutabilis Kazubski and Migala, 1968

Descriptions

The following is a description of a large-sized freshwa- ter trichodinid (see Figs. 9–10 and Fig. 13): body di- ameter, 77.5–97.0 (84.4±5.8); adhesive disc, 61.3–77.0 (67±4.3); central area is not clear; denticulate ring, 38.1–49.1 (42.3 ± 3.0); border membrane, 5.8–9.9 (8.3±1.1); denticle number, 25–27 (27); and radial pins per denticle, 6–7 (6). Blade is prismatic, long, and narrow. Tan- gent point is sharp. Distal surface of blade is straight and lower than tangent point. Anterior margin of blade is forming arch curve, parallel to posterior margin of blade, apex of blade touching Y+1-axis, and apophysis of blade is barely seen. Central part is narrow with rounded point fitting tightly into preceding denticle, almost extending half way to Y−1-axis. Shapes of the central part above and below X-axis are dissim- ilar. Width of central part is 1.0–1.5 (1.3±0.2). Ray is slim, straight, and slanted forward, forming an angle of about 30° with Y+1-axis. Adoral ciliary is spiral, 410–430°.

Remarks

T. mutabilis was originally described by Kazubski and Migala from Poland in 1968. Since then, T. mutabilis has been reported from various places in Eastern Europe, For- mer USSR, South Africa, Israel, and India (Lom 1970; Migala 1971; Kashkovsky 1974; Jusupov and Urazbaev 1980; Basson and Van As 1994; Mitra and Bandyopadhyay 2005; Dove and Donoghue 2005).The denticles of my ma- terial resemble those reported by Kazubski and Migala (1968) in winter.

436

Parasitol Res (2012) 111:433–439

Figs. 9–12 Photomicrographs of the silver nitrate impregnated of Trichodina spp. 9–10, T. mutabilis Kazubski and Migala, 1968; 11–12, T. reticulata Hirschman and Partsch, 1955 (scale bars020 μm)

T. reticulata Hirschman and Partsch, 1955

Descriptions

The following is a description of a middle-sized freshwater trichodinid, cap shaped (see Figs. 11–12 and Fig. 14): body

diameter, 47.7–52.3 (49.9 ± 1.8); adhesive disc, 36.9–40.8 (38.7±1.5); denticulate ring, 24.0–27.6 (25.7±1.1); border membrane, 10.8–11.6(11.2 ± 0.3); denticle number, 22–25 (24); radial pins, per denticle 9–11 (10); denticle length, 10.8–13.5 (12.2 ± 0.9); denticle span, 5.1–7.1(6.1 ± 0.6); cen- tral area with granules consists of 13–16 (14) cell-like

Table 1 Morphometric comparison of T. luzhoues sp. n. and T. galyae, T. cooperi (measurements in micrometers)

Trichodinid species

Host Locality Site References No. of specimens measured Body diameter

Adhesive disc Denticulate ring Border membrane Denticle number Radial pins/denticle Denticle span Denticle length Blade length Central part width Ray length

Adoral ciliary spiral

Trichodina luzhoues sp. n.

Carassius auratus

Luzhou, China Gills Present study 20

36.6–61.0 (50.3±7.6) 28.1–48.7 (40.5±6.6) 18.1–31.2 (25.2±4.7) 4.1–6.2 (4.9±0.6) 21–34 (25)

5–6 (5) 9.7–17.1 (13.3±2.6) 4.1–7.7 (6.0±1.2) 3.0–7.8 (5.3±1.3) 1.2–4.5 (2.3±0.7) 3.7–8.3 (5.7±1.3) 407–420°

T. galyae

Cyelopterus lumpus

Canadian Gills Lom and Laird 1969 – 81 (70–85) 54 (48–65) 35 (30–42) 5.5–6 27 (25–28) 10–12 – 10.5 7 3 7–8 –

T. cooperi

Gadus morhua

Nova, Scotia, Canadia Skin, fins Poynton and Lom 1989 –

110 (95–122) 95 (82–107) 59 (49–67) 7.4 (6.4–8.9) 27 (24–29) 7–9

28.5 (23.6–32.5) 21.5 (20.4–24.5) 8.6 (7.5–10.0) 4.8 (3.2–6.3) 15.4 (10.2–19.1) 380° (370–390°)

Parasitol Res (2012) 111:433–439

437

Figs. 13–14 Diagrammatic drawings of the denticles of trichodinid ciliophorans 13, T. mutabilis; 14, T. reticulata

structures, giving a reticulated appearance. Tangent point is distinctly round and head of blade is almost bulbous at this point. Anterior margin of blade is parallel to curves of posterior margin of blade; apex of blade extends beyond Y +1-axis; posterior margin of blade is with deep curve, form- ing almost C-shape; apophysis of blade is unobvious; sec- tion connecting blade and central part is thin and short. Blade length is 3.4–6.2(5.1 ± 0.8). The central part is well developed, short and stout, of same thickness throughout, extending slightly only beyond Y-axis, and fitting tightly into preceding denticle with blunt rounded point. The

section of central part above and below X-axis is similar in shape, central part width is 1.7–2.5(2.1±0.3). The section connecting central part and ray is very short, the apophysis of ray is sharp, the ray is thick, the point of ray is blunt rounded, and ray length is 4.4–5.5(5±0.4). Adoral ciliary is spiral, 400–410°.

Remarks

T. reticulata was originally described by Hirschmann 1955. T. reticulata has been reported from Former USSR, Eastern Euope, South Africa, Asia, and the USA (Lom 1960; Chen 1963; Lom and Hoffman 1964; Lom et al. 1976; Grigoryan and Stein 1981; Kazubski 1982, 1988; Basson et al. 1983; Albaladejo and Arthur 1989; Basson and Van As 1993). This species is clearly recognizable based on the distinct shape of the denticles, and granules as cell-like structures in the central area. T. reticulata described in this paper repre- sents one of the lowest ranges of body dimensions reported so far. It was reported by Chen in China in 1963, but photomicrographs of the trichodinid were not provided.

Chilodonella hexasticha Kiernik, 1909

Descriptions

The chilodonellid body is flattened at the ventral (oral) side, the dorsal side is rounded in shape (see Figs. 15–18). Body

Figs. 15–18 Photomicrographs of the silver nitrate impregnated of C. hexasticha (scale bars020 μm)

438

Parasitol Res (2012) 111:433–439

length is 60.5–91.6 (75.5±2.4)μm, width is 53.9–77.8 (62.2± 1.7)μm. The ciliature of the ventral body side is composed of a short preoral kinety and two systems of kineties. The left and right system of kineties is conspicuously separated by a gla- brous area. In the anterior part of this zone is the oral opening. Kineties is loosely arranged and the distances between them is not equal. The right system consists of 7–9 (8) kineties and 1–3 (2) postoral kineties. The two outermost rows begin more anteriorly surrounding at front of the kineties of the left system. The left system consists of 7–8(7) kineties. In the system are short rows at the inner side in the posterior as well as outer side in the anterior part of the body. Others exist between the two kineties.

Macronucleus is large and oval (see Fig. 16), length is 10.2–12.8(11.5±1.2)μm, width is 7.5–8.9 (8.2±1.3)μm. Micronucleus is not visible.

Remarks

Chilodonella cyprini and Ch. hexasticha were described in the first decade of twentieth century. Ch. hexasticha has been reported from Former USSR, Germany, Poland, Czechoslovakia, and the USA (Kiernik 1909; Prost 1952; Kazubski and Migala 1974; Lom et al. 1976; Wierzbicka 1997). However, descriptions of Ch. cyprini and Ch. hexasticha were not precise due to imperfect methods of study used at that time, so the distinctness of both species was questioned, before Kazubski and Migala (1974) described Ch. cyprini and Ch. hexasticha in detail and expounded the differences between them. There are differences between Ch. cyprini and Ch. hex- asticha by Kazubski and Migala: (1) These species differ mainly by the number of kineties, which is larger in Ch. cyprini and smaller in Ch. hexasticha. (2) The differences concern the arrangement of kineties. In Ch. cyprini, the kineties are close one to the other, lying in nearly equal distances, while in Ch. hexasticha the kineties are loosely arranged and the distances between them are not equal. Especially the inner kineties of the right system are outstanding, lying in much greater distances then the other kineties of both systems. (3) There are also some differences in the number of the postoral kineties (5–6 in Ch. cyprini and only 1–3 in Ch. hexasticha). (4) Ch. cyprini most frequently occurs on young fishes, on their gills and skin, while Ch. hexasticha occurs usually on gills of older fishes.

The chilodonellid in this paper is obvious Ch. hexasticha, but its body size is larger than that of individuals in other populations of Ch. hexasticha. It is a new record in China.

Acknowledgements This work was supported by the Natural Science Foundation of Luzhou (project no. 06112 and project no. 2010-S-21). I

would like to thank Dr. Chengwen Li for his excellent technical assistance in the laboratory.

References

Albaladejo JD, Arthur JR (1989) Some trichodinids (Protozoa: Ciliophora: Pertrichida) from freshwater fishes imported into the Philippines. Asian Fish Sci 3:1–25

André E (1912) Les chilodontes parasites des chprinides. Rev Suisse Zool 20:207–212

Basson L, Van As JG (1993) First records of trichodinids (Ciliophora: Peritrichida), Trichodina acuta Lom, 1961 and T. reticulata Hirschmann et Partsch,1955 in South Africa. Acta Parasitol 32:101–105

Basson L, Van As JG (1994) Trichodinid ectoparasites (Ciliophora: Peritrichida) of wild and cultured freshwater fishes in Taiwan, with notes on their origin. Syst Parasitol 28(3):197–222

Basson L, Van As JG, Paperna I (1983) Trichodinid parasites of cichlids and cyprinid fishes of South Africa and Israel. Syst Parasitol 5:245– 257

Bespalyj IG (1950) Pro minlivist' diagnostičnih oznak chilodonella cyprinid Moroff, 1902. Tr Inst Zool A N Ukr SSR 4:108–111

Chen QL (1955) The protozoan parasites from four species of Chinese pond fishes: Ctenoptaryngodon idellus, Mylopharyngodon aethiops, Aristichthys nobilis and Hypophthalmichthys molitrix. Acta Hydrobiol Sin 2:123–164 (in Chinese with English summary)

Chen QL (1963) Studies on cootoparasitic trichodinids from fresh water fish, tadpole and crustacean in China. Acta Hydrobiol Sin 4(3):99–111 (in Chinese with English summary)

Dogiel VA (1940) On the classification of the genus Trichodina. Trud Leningrad Obsc Estestvoispytatelei 68:8–31 (In Russian)

Dove ADM, Donoghue PJO (2005) Trichodinids (Ciliophora: Trichodinidae) from native and exotic Australian freshwater fishes. Acta Protozool 44:51–60

Foissner W (1991) Basic light and scanning electron microscopic methods for taxonomic studies of ciliated protozoa. Eur J Protistol 27:313–330

Grabda J (ed) (1971) Pasoźyty kragloustych i ryb. In: Grabda E, Jaczewski T, Kazubski SL (eds) Katalog Fauny Pasoźytniczej Polski. II. PWN, Warszawa-Wroclaw, p 304

Grigoryan DA, Stein GA (1981) Parasitic ciliates (Peritricha:Urceolar- iidae) infecting fishes of the water boodles of the Armenian SSR. (IN Russian, English summary). Parazitology 15:305–312

Hirschmann H (1955) Ein einzelliger fiscbparasit von überrascbender scbönbeit. Umschac 17:525–527

Hofer B (1906) Handbuch der fischkrankheiten. Shweizerbartsche Verlagsbuchhandlung, Stuttgart

Jusupov OJ, Urazbaev AN (1980) Parasitic ciliates (Peritricha: Urceolariidae) of fishes of the Aral Sea (In Russian, English summary). Parazitology 14:504–510

Kazubski SC, Migala K (1974) Studies on the distinctness of Chilodo- nella cypnni (Moroff) and Ch. hexasticha (Kiernik) (Chlamydodon- tidae, Gymnostomatida), ciliate parasites of fishes. Acta Protozool 13(3):9–40

Kashkovsky VV (1974) Urceolarhds (Ciliata, Petitricha) from fishes of ural. Parazitology 8(4):370–378 (in Russian)

Kazubski SL (1982) Morphological variability of Trichodina reticulate Hirschmann et Partsch, 1955 (Cillata, Peritrichida), a parasite of Carassius csrassius (L) from small pond in Kortowo (Olsztyn). Acta Protozool 21(1):1–6

Kazubski SL (1988) Morphological variation in a ciliate, Trichodina reticulate Hirschmann et Psrtsch, 1955(Peritrichida), in Tadpoles from small ponds. Acta Parasitol 27:259–269

Parasitol Res (2012) 111:433–439

439

Kazubski SL, Migala K (1968) Urceolariidae from breeding carp Cyprinus carpio L. in Zabieniec and remarks on the seasonal variability of trichodinids. Acta Protozool 6:137–160

Kiernik E (1909) Chilodon hexastichus sp. nov. ein auf süsswasserfi- schen parasitierendes infusorium, nebst bemearkungen über vakuolenhautbildung und zellteilung. Bull Acad Sci, Cracovie Cl Mot Nat 75–119

Klein BM (1958) The “dry” silver method and its proper use. J Protozool 5:99–103

Krascheninnikow S (1952) The variability of chilodonella cyprinid Moroff. Ann Ukr Acad Art Sci, USA, New York 2:293–304 Krascheninnikow S (1953) The silver-line system of chilodonella

cyprinid (Moroff). J Morph 92:79–114 Lom J (1958) A contribution to the systematics and morphology of

endoparasitic trichodinids from amphibians of uniform specific

characteristics. J Protozool 5:251–263 Lom J (1960) Trichodina reticulata Hirschmann and Partsch, 1955

from crucian carp and T. domerguei f. latispina Dogiel, 1940

from Diaptomus. Věst čs spol zool 24:246–257 Lom J (1970) Observations on trichodinid ciliates from freshwarer

fishes. Arch Protistenk 112:153–177 Lom J, Hoffman GL (1964) Geographic distribution of some species of

trichodinids (Ciliata: Peritricha) parasitic on fishes. J Parasitol

50:30–35 Lom J, Laird M (1969) Parasitic protozoa from marine and euryhaline

fish of Newfoundland and New Brunswick I. Peritrichous ciliates. Can J Zool 47:1367–1380

Lom J, Golemansky V, Grupcheva G (1976) Protozoan parasites of carp (Cyprinus carpio L.): a comparative study of their occur- rence in Bulgaria and Checkoslovakia, with the description of Trichodina perforata sp. n. Folia Parasit 23:289–300

Migala K (1971) Studies on natural populations of parasitic protozoa on Cyprinus carpio L. in pond culture. Carps in the first year of life. Acta Protozool 8:209–216

Mitra AK, Bandyopadhyay PK (2005) First records of Trichodina japonica Imai, Miyazaki et Nomura 1991 and Trichodina muta- bilis Kazubski et Migala 1968 (Ciliophora, Trichodinidae) from Indian fishes. Protistology 4(2):121–127

Poynton SL, Lom J (1989) Some ectoparasitic trichodinids from Atlantic cod, Gadus morhua L., with a description of Trichodina cooperi n. sp. Can J Zool 67:1793–1800

Prost M (1952) Badania nad pierwotniakami pasoźytnymi skrzeli ryb. II. Chilodonella cyprinid Moroff i Chlodonella hexasticha Kier- nik. Ann UMCS, sect C 8, 1–13

Smirnova TS, Strelkov JA, Timofeev VA, Schulman SS (1964) Nosovye polosti kostistyh ryb kak mesto obibanija parazitoy. Zool Žurn 43:1649–1658

Van As JG, Basson L (1989) A further contribution to the taxonomy of Trichodinidae (Ciliophora: Peritrichia) and a review of the taxo- nomic status of some fish ectoparasitic trichodinids. Syst Parasitol 14:157–179

Wierzbicka J (1997) Ciliates (Ciliophora) paraditic on the gills of the blue bream, Abramis ballerus (L.) from Dabie lake (Poland). Acta Ichthyologica et Piscator 27(2):135–144

http://europepmc.org/abstract/MED/22374308

Use of Potassium Permanganate to Control External Infections ofOrnamental Fish EDIS FA37

Please use at your own risk.  Know what you're doing before you use KMNO4!  Read this entire document.

Dose Calculator:
http://www.koiphen.com/forums/koicalcs.php?do=calcpp

Stock solution:

1 gallon + 285 grams PP = 2 ppm at 1 ml/10 gallon

1 drop/gallon = 1 ppm
2 drop/gallon = 2 ppm
20 drops = 1 ml
1 ml/10 gallons = 2 ppm (4 hour minimum bath)
5 ml/10 gallons = 10 ppm (30 minute closely watched bath)
10 drops/Gallon = 10 ppm (30 minute closely watched bath)
0.5 ml/gallon = 10 ppm (30 minute closely watched bath)
Neutralize with same volume treated with Hydrogen peroxide 3% USP

Potassium permanganate can also be used as a short-term bath at concentrations of 10 ppm (mg/L) for 30 minutes.

LABEL:

Stock solution Potassium Permanganate KMNO4:
STRONG OXIDIZER NEUTRALIZE WITH H. PEROXIDE
1 gallon + 285 grams PP = 2 ppm at 1 ml/10 gallon
DOSE:
1 drop/gallon = 1 ppm
1 ml/10 gallons = 2 ppm (4 hour minimum bath)
10 drops/Gallon = 10 ppm (30 minute closely watched bath)
0.5 ml/gallon = 10 ppm (30 minute closely watched bath)

FA37

Use of Potassium Permanganate to Control External Infections of Ornamental Fish 1

Ruth Francis-Floyd and RuthEllen Klinger2

1. This document is FA37, one of a series of the Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences Department, Florida Cooperative Extension Service, Institute of Food and

Agricultural Sciences, University of Florida. Original publication date June, 1997. Reviewed July, 2002. Visit the EDIS Web Site at http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu.

. Florida Cooperative Extension Service / Institute of Food and Agricultural

Sciences / University of Florida / Larry R. Arrington, Interim Dean

Introduction

Many disease problems of ornamental fish begin

as external infections. If uncontrolled, the infections

may become systemic, resulting in death of the fish.

Correct use of potassium permanganate can

effectively control many bacterial, parasitic and

fungal agents before systemic infections become

established, often eliminating the need for antibiotic

therapy. The fish owner saves money because use of

expensive antibiotics is decreased, thereby decreasing

the incidence of resistant bacterial strains. In the

ornamental trade, correct use of potassium

permanganate at the onset of an infection can also

speed the movement of fish as they do not need to be

held for lengthy (often 10–14 day) antibiotic

treatments.

What is Potassium Permanganate?

Potassium permanganate (KMnO4) is an

oxidizing agent that has been used for many years in

aquaculture. It is also used in water conditioning

systems and in the plumbing industry. As an

oxidizer, it is able to chemically "burn up" organic

material. This includes undesirable organic matter

such as bacteria, parasites, and fungus, as well as

desirable material such as gill tissue and mucus.

Because the chemical cannot distinguish between

desirable and undesirable organic matter, it is up to

the individual to use the chemical in a manner that

results in maximum benefit and minimum harm to

treated fish.

Color Change Associated with Potassium Permanganate Use

When potassium permanganate is active (in its

unoxidized form), treated water turns a

pinkish-purple color. As the chemical is

"deactivated" (by oxidizing organic material), the

water color changes to yellow or muddy brown. This

color change is an important tool when monitoring

chemical treatment (discussed below); however, this

may make potassium permanganate undesirable for

use in display tanks, exhibits, or ornamental ponds.

As with many chemicals used in water, potassium

permanganate is harmful to plants and invertebrates.

Use of Potassium Permanganate

For most fish, potassium permanganate can be

administered at a concentration of 2 mg/L as a

long-term bath (four-hour minimum) in fresh water

or salt water systems. Potassium permanganate is

also reasonably safe to use in recirculating systems

and has minimal impact on biofilters when used at

2 mg/L. Treated water should retain the purple

coloration for at least four hours.

There is extensive information on the use of

potassium permangante in freshwater systems, but

much less is known about its effect in marine

systems. Fish culturists should run a small bioassay

before treating marine fish.

Some fish, including certain Lake Malawi

cichlids, are sensitive to potassium permanganate and

lower concentrations (1 mg/L) may be safer. A small

experiment run by the authors on a cichlid production

facility in southeast Florida demonstrated that 2 mg/L

KMnO4 for four hours was safe for common cichlids.

The fish owner can determine species sensitivity by

observing the behavior of the fish during treatment.

This is especially important when treating a species

for the first time. If fish react adversely, immediate

action (such as diluting the chemical with fresh

water) should be taken.

Because potassium permanganate is deactivated

by organic matter, it may be necessary to increase the

amount added to ponds or other systems where

organic material has been allowed to accumulate. A

safe way of accomplishing this is to add potassium

permanganate to the system in 2 mg/L increments. If

water color changes from purple to brown in less than

four hours from the start of the first treatment, an

additional 2 mg/L should be added. If a total

application of 6 mg/L potassium permanganate does

not result in maintenance of the purple color for at

least four hours, the system should be cleaned. Most

of the organisms that are treated with potassium

permanganate thrive in an organically rich

environment; therefore, improved sanitation can have

a tremendous impact on treatment efficacy.

Potassium permanganate can also be used as a

short-term bath at concentrations of 10 mg/L for 30

minutes. At this concentration, careful observation of

fish is mandatory to avoid mortality. This is a

convenient treatment when fish are being removed

from ponds and brought into buildings for sorting and

shipping. Following a potassium permanganate

treatment with a low concentration (2–10 ppt) of

salt (sodium chloride) as a semipermanent treatment

for several days or weeks (depending on species

treated), can be beneficial. This combination is

particularly effective in minimizing Columnaris

infections (see UF/IFAS Fact Sheet FA-11,

Columnaris Disease) after handling fish.

Potassium permanganate can be used as a surface

disinfectant at concentrations of 10 mg/L (30–60

minutes contact time) to 500 mg/L (30 seconds

contact time) in a fish room or hatchery, however,

quaternary ammonium compounds are better suited to

this purpose. Potassium permanganate will kill

bacterial, fungal and many parasitic agents, but it is

not viricidal.

Frequency of Treatment

As mentioned above, potassium permanganate is

an indiscriminate oxidizer, and as such, can burn gill

tissue and mucus of treated fish if too much chemical

is applied. A good rule of thumb to prevent excessive

damage to fish is to avoid treating them with

potassium permanganate more than once a week. If a

chemical treatment is needed for a condition that

requires more frequent application, such as treatment

for an outbreak of "Ich" (Ichthyophthirius multifiliis,

see UF/IFAS Extension Circular 920), potassium

permanganate is not a good choice.

Treatment Failure

Poor efficacy following use of potassium

permanganate is usually caused by one of three

factors: (1) incorrect or incomplete diagnosis; (2)

incorrect calculation or measurement of amount of

chemical needed; and (3) excessive organic material

in the system resulting in rapid degradation of the

chemical. Any time treatment failure occurs, sick

fish should be submitted to a diagnostic laboratory for

an accurate diagnosis. Volume of the water treated,

accuracy of calculations to determine treatment rate,

and accurate measurement (by weight) of chemical

used are essential for delivery of an appropriate

chemical dose. As mentioned above, an excessive

Use of Potassium Permanganate to Control External Infections of Ornamental Fish 3

amount of organic matter in the system will result in

rapid deactivation of potassium permanganate, and

therefore contact time with active chemical will be

inadequate for effective treatment. This is often a

problem in heavily stocked ponds.

Determining the Amount of Potassium Permanganate to Use

To calculate the amount of chemical required, a

simple formula can be used:

Amount of Chemical = Volume x

Conversion Factor x Treatment Rate

If the pond or tank volume is measured in

gallons, the conversion factor is 0.0038 and the

answer will be given in grams (see Table 1 for other

conversion factors).

For a treatment rate of 2 mg/L, this formula

would be:

Grams of Chemical = Gallons Treated x

0.0038 x 2 mg/L

Therefore, to treat a 250-gallon vat, the grams of

potassium permanganate needed are:

Grams needed = (250 gal) x (0.0038) x (2

mg/L) = 1.9 grams

An inexpensive gram scale can be obtained by

purchasing a dietary scale at your local grocery store

or pharmacy. One level teaspoon of potassium

permanganate weighs about 7.0 grams.

Table 1. Common Conversion Factors for Use in Calculation

of Amount of Chemical to Use in a Unit Volume of Water for a

Concentration of 1 ppm (1 mg/L).

Units Conversion Factor

grams/gallon 0.0038

pounds/acre-foot 2.72

grams/cubic foot 0.0283

pounds/cubic foot 0.000062

Use of a Stock Solution

An alternative method of measuring potassium

permanganate is to mix a stock solution. A stock

solution is a concentrated solution of chemical from

which small amounts can be taken to treat tanks as

needed. This is useful when either multiple tanks or

multiple treatments are needed. An easy way to

make up a stock solution for potassium permanganate

is to purchase a one-gallon bottle of distilled water,

weigh 285 grams of potassium permanganate, add it

to the solution, and mix thoroughly. This stock

solution will deliver a dose of 1 mg/L when delivered

at a rate of one drop per gallon. Therefore, to achieve

the desired concentration of 2 mg/L, the stock

solution can be delivered at a rate of two drops per

gallon. The stock solution should be stored in a cool,

dark area and be replaced annually.

When treating larger systems, it is useful to

remember that 20 drops are equal to 1 milliliter (ml),

or one cubic centimeter (cc) if measuring the liquid

with a syringe. Therefore, 1 ml of stock solution will

treat ten gallons of water with a concentration of 2

mg/L.

Safety Precautions When Handling

Potassium Permanganate

Potassium permanganate is fairly safe to handle,

however, all chemicals should be treated with respect.

Potassium permanganate will easily stain clothing

and skin. Brown discoloration of skin is not painful,

but it may be unsightly and takes several days to

disappear. Brown stains to clothing can be

permanent. Protective eye wear, gloves and clothing

are recommended when handling potassium

permanganate.

Fish farmers and aquarists do occasionally mix

chemicals. It is important that formalin and

potassium permanganate are NEVER mixed as the

combination can be explosive.

Summary

Potassium permanganate is an oxidizer which

can be used to "disinfect" the external surfaces of

fish. It effectively removes most external parasites,

as well as fungal and bacterial agents. Most fish can

Use of Potassium Permanganate to Control External Infections of Ornamental Fish 4

be treated by prolonged immersion in a 2 mg/L

potassium permanganate solution (water must retain

a purple color for at least four hours), although some

species may be sensitive to it and may not tolerate a

full strength (2 mg/L) bath. Because of its harsh

oxidizing properties, potassium permanganate should

not be applied to fish more frequently than once per

week or mortality may result. It is safe to use in

marine and recirculating systems at 2 mg/L.

Potassium permanganate can stain skin and clothing

so care is suggested when handling it. The chemical

should NEVER be mixed directly with formalin as

an explosion or fire could result.

Aquabead 6 cubic foot installation part 3

1/4 hp Wave pump with integrated leaf trap.

Fitting the system back together.  It was a year ago that I went and got this filter.  Thankfully I took a video of the system before I cut it up.

Reusing pipe can be cost effective but at times very frustrating.

Plumbing the midnight oil.

How does it go?

Aquabead 6 cubic foot installation part 2

The equipment pad.  The system was originally on two of these and I'm fitting in onto one.

The multiport valve.

Loctite silicone lubricant for the o-rings.

Multiport valve O-ring.

Mounted.

Aquabead 6 cubic foot installation part 1

Removed the top to check the strainers and beads.

6 cubic feet of beads.  Each cubic foot is rated for 50 pounds of fish.

A scoop of beads.

About to wrestle it into place between the tank and the shed.

A look at the sludge valve.